SAIS 010 Hayward - Targums and The Transmission of Scripture Into Judaism and Christianity - 2010 PDF

Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into
Judaism and Christianity
Studies in the Aramaic

Interpretation of Scripture
Managing Editor
Paul V.M. Flesher

University of Wyoming
Editorial Board
Bruce Chilton, Bard College

Willem Smelik, University College, London
Moshe Bernstein, Yeshiva University
Edward M. Cook, Catholic University of America
Luis Dez Merino, University of Barcelona
VOLUME 10
Targums and the Transmission

of Scripture into Judaism and
Christianity
By
C.T.R. Hayward
LEIDEN BOSTON
2010
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Hayward, C.T. Robert
Targums and the transmission of scripture into Judaism and Christianity / by
C.T.R. Hayward.
p. cm. (Studies in the Aramaic interpretation of Scripture, ISSN 1570-1336 ;
v. 10)
Includes index.
ISBN 978-90-04-17956-1 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Aramaic
Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. JudaismHistoryPost-exilic period, 586 B.C.210
A.D. 3. Church historyPrimitive and early church, ca. 30600. 4. Midrash.
5. Rabbinical literatureHistory and criticism. I. Title. II. Series.
BS709.4.H39 2010
221.426dc22
2009040256
ISSN 1570-1336
ISBN 978 90 04 17956 1
Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission
from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by
Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to
The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ............................................................................
Preface .................................................................................................
Abbreviations .....................................................................................
vii
ix
xiii
PART ONE
TARGUMIC PORTRAYALS OF BIBLICAL FIGURES

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in

the Pentateuchal Targumim ..................................................
Abraham as Proselytizer at Beer-sheba in the Targums

of the Pentateuch ....................................................................
17
Balaams Prophecies as Interpreted by Philo and the

Aramaic Targums of the Pentateuch ...................................
35
The Figure of Adam in Pseudo-Philos Biblical

Antiquities ................................................................................
53
The Sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish Polemic against

Christianity ...............................................................................
72
A Portrait of the Wicked Esau in the Targum of

Codex Neofiti 1 .......................................................................
88
PART TWO
DATING TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN

VII. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic .......
109
VIII. The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some

Comments ................................................................................
126
vi
contents
IX.
Jacobs Second Visit to Bethel in Targum

Pseudo-Jonathan ..................................................................
155
X.
Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ...
172
XI.
Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Targum

Pseudo-Jonathan: The Case of Eliezer and Nimrod ......
210
Red Heifer and Golden Calf: Dating Targum

Pseudo-Jonathan ..................................................................
234
The Priestly Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan .........
259
XII.
XIII.
PART THREE
SAINT JEROME AND JEWISH TRADITION

XIV.
Jewish Traditions in Jeromes Commentary on

Jeremiah and the Targum of Jeremiah .............................
281
XV.
Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim ......................
300
XVI.
Some Observations on St. Jeromes Hebrew Questions

on Genesis and the Rabbinic Tradition ............................
318
PART FOUR
TARGUM AND TEMPLE

XVII. Sirach and Wisdoms Dwelling Place ...............................
341
XVIII. Food, the Animals, and Human Dignity. Jewish

Perceptions in a Targumic Context ..................................
361
XIX.
Melchizedek as Priest of the Jerusalem Temple in

Talmud, Midrash, and Targum .........................................
377
Index of Modern Authors ................................................................

Index of Scriptural, Rabbinic, and Patristic References ..............
401
406
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author and publisher wish to acknowledge their indebtedness for
permission to reproduce copyright material as follows:
Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in the Pentateuchal
Targumim, in K.J. Cathcart and M. Maher (eds), Targumic and Cognate
Studies. Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara, JSOT Supp. Series
230 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 6780.
Abraham as Proselytizer at Beer-sheba in the Targums of the Pentateuch, JJS 49 (1998), pp. 2437.
Balaams Prophecies as Interpreted by Philo and the Aramaic Targums
of the Pentateuch, in P.J. Harland and C.T.R. Hayward (eds), New
Heavens and New Earth. Prophecy and the Millennium: Essays in
Honour of Anthony Gelston, Supp. to Vetus Testamentum 77 (Leiden:
Brill, 1999), pp. 1936.
The Figure of Adam in Pseudo-Philos Biblical Antiquities, JSJ 23
(1992), pp. 120.
The Sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish Polemic against Christianity, CBQ
52 (1990), pp. 292306.
A Portrait of the Wicked Esau in the Targum of Neofiti 1, in D.R.G.
Beattie and M. McNamara (eds), The Aramaic Bible. Targums in their
Historical Context, JSOT Supp. Series 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1994), pp. 291301.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS 34 (1989),
pp. 7793.
The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments, JJS 40
(1989), pp. 730.
viii
acknowledgements
Jacobs Second Visit to Bethel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, in P.R.

Davies and R.T. White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on
Jewish and Christian Literature and History, JSOT Supp. Series 100
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), pp. 175192.
Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, JJS 42 (1991),
pp. 215246.
Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: The
Case of Eliezer and Nimrod, JSS 37 (1992), pp. 3155.
Red Heifer and Golden Calf: Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, in
P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum Studies, vol. 1, Textual and Contextual
Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992),
pp. 932.
The Priestly Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, JSP 19 (1999), pp.
81101.
Jewish Traditions in Jeromes Commentary on Jeremiah and the Targum of Jeremiah, PIBA 9 (1985), pp. 100120.
Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim, JSS 32 (1987), pp. 105
123.
Some Observations on St. Jeromes Hebrew Questions on Genesis and
the Rabbinic Tradition, PIBA 13 (1990), pp. 5876.
Sirach and Wisdoms Dwelling Place, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Where
Shall Wisdom Be Found? (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), pp. 3146.
Reproduced by kind permission of T&T Clark, an imprint of
Continuum International Publishing.
PREFACE
This collection of essays consists of seventeen previously published
papers, to which two unpublished items, the first on food, animals,
and human dignity, the second on Melchizedek in some Rabbinic
texts, have been appended. The essays are grouped together under
four headings, which highlight their principal concerns. All the essays,
however, are to a greater or lesser extent concerned with the Aramaic
Targumim, and many of them deal also with the exegetical traditions
to be found in the Rabbinic midrashim. All the items in the collection
itself are presented here as contributing to an overarching theme, a
discussion of how the manifold, and sometimes mysterious meanings
of the Hebrew Bible were transmitted into the Judaism of post-biblical
times, and (to a lesser degree) into early Christianity.
The Aramaic versions of the Bible known as Targumim played
an important role in the Jewish and early Christian investigations of
the Bible. Both Jews and Christians were convinced that the Hebrew
Scriptures conveyed information to the reader or hearer not only en
clair, as it were, but also in less obvious ways which could be discovered and understood only by painstaking and detailed scrutiny of the
texts. The persons who, over the course of the centuries, were responsible for the development of the Aramaic Targumim offered to their
hearers and readers not only a translation of the Hebrew texts they
treated, but also exegesis. This exegesis they may, in some instances,
have generated themselves; in other instances it seems that they are
content to report and record interpretations which they have heard or
read elsewhere. Not infrequently, their exegesis has much in common
with biblical interpretations preserved for us in the classical midrashic
collections. Many of the essays reprinted here attempt to describe and
investigate further the exegetical traditions which the framers of the
Targumim had at their disposal, and to provide a context for them.
Undoubtedly the most informative and expansive of the Targumim
discussed in the essays is Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch,
and a section is devoted to discussion of its date. It is certainly not,
in its final form, the oldest representative of the Aramaic translations
of the Law of Moses; as is well known, it contains a few, scattered
indications that it is aware of Islam. Yet after many years of work
preface
on this Targum, this writer is still persuaded that the bulk of its text
was formulated in the late fourth century to early fifth century ce;
and for that reason the essays in this volume which discuss its date
are presented as they were originally published. These essays, insofar
as they are concerned with transmission of the meaning of Scripture
from Bible into that translation-cum-interpretation which is Targum,
are intended not simply as discussions of issues concerning dating, but
also as stepping-stones towards reconstructing the procedures adopted
by the Targumists, which seem to have remained remarkably constant
for quite long periods.
The section devoted to St. Jerome draws attention to a figure from
antiquity whose writings are often acknowledged as sources of firstrate importance for our knowledge of Judaism in the early Amoraic
period. Yet his work is, perhaps, still not investigated and appreciated
as much as it might be for the information he has to offer about the
Judaism of his days; and his reports of contemporary Jewish biblical interpretation have a value which can hardly be exaggerated. The
three essays included here are intended not least as a testimony to
this state of affairs, and as a demonstration of Jeromes learning which
extends far beyond a concern with textual criticism of the Hebrew
Bible, important though this is, into a serious engagement with interpretation of difficult and demanding texts.
The Temple at Jerusalem continued to occupy a central place in
Jewish thought, life, and prayer long after it had been destroyed, and
this place is reflected in the Targumim, which time and again invoke
its practices and the world-view which it presupposes. Many of the
essays in this volume acknowledge the influences of the Temples
role in Judaism as perceived by the Targumim, and a final section
is devoted to Temple and priesthood specifically. The recent work of
Beverly P. Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, 2
vols (Leiden: Brill, 2006), leaves the reader in no doubt just how much
that Targum is dependent upon interpretations of priestly law and lore
which set the Jerusalem Temple at the centre of their world-view. The
projected restoration of the Temple in the days of the Emperor Julian
(361363 ce) may, Mortensen suggests, have provided the incentive
for Targum Pseudo-Jonathans inclusion of so much extensive and
sustained exegetical material. In any event, the Temples place in the
transmission of Scripture should not be underestimated; and recurring Targumic references to its place in Jewish life recall its continuing
power to shape Jewish thought long after its destruction.
preface
xi
There remains the pleasant task of thanking those who have had a
hand in the production of this volume. First, I am indebted to Paul
Flesher for suggesting the collection of these essays, and for his practical help and encouragement throughout the preparation of the book.
This is also an appropriate place to mark his contribution over many
years to the study of the Targumim, not least in his determination to
ensure that study of the Aramaic versions is given its due recognition in the world of international scholarship. To my colleague Loren
Stuckenbruck I extend my thanks for his help with the volume: his
generosity, especially with his time, has been deeply appreciated. As
always, I must extend the warmest thanks to my former teacher and
colleague Anthony Gelston, who has been unstinting with his support,
help and with useful suggestions. Thanks also are due to my colleagues
Walter Moberly, Stuart Weeks, and Jeremy Corley, many of whose
insights are incorporated in these essays. Any errors are mine, not
theirs. Finally, I must thank the hard-pressed staff of the Library of
the University of Durham, especially those in the Palace Green section,
whose unfailing courtesy and help have lightened many a burden in
the process of preparing this book.
C.T.R. Hayward
Department of Theology and Religion
University of Durham
St. Georges Day 2009
ABBREVIATIONS
Ab.
ABD
APOT
Aboth
Anchor Bible Dictionary
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,
(ed.) R. H. Charles, 2 volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1913)
ARNa
Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, recension A
ARNB
Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, recension B
ALUOS
Annual of the Leeds University Oriental Society
Ant.
Jewish Antiquities
AZ
Abodah Zarah
b.
Babylonian Talmud, followed by the title of a tractate
BB
Baba Batra
Ber. Rab.
Bereshit Rabbah
BK
Baba Kamma
BM
Baba Metsia
Ber.
Berakhot
Bib.
Biblica
Bik.
Bikkurim
BJ
Bellum Judaicum
BZ
Biblische Zeitschrift
CA
Contra Apionem
CBQ
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CCSL
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
CD
Damascus Document
CRINT
Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
CSCO
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
DJD
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
Est. Bib.
Estudios Biblicos
Enc. Jud.
Encyclopedia Judaica
Erub.
Erubin
FT/Frg. Tg. Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch
FTP
Fragment Targum MS Paris 110
FTV
Fragment Targum MS Vat 440
Gitt.
Gittin
xiv
Hag.
Hor.
HTR
HUCA
IEJ
JAOS
JBL
JE
Jer.
JJS
JNES
JQR
JSJ
JSOT
JSP
JSS
JTS
Ker.
Ket.
LAB
LXX
m.
Makk.
Meg.
Mekh.
Men.
MGWJ
abbreviations
Hagigah
Horayot
Harvard Theological Review
Hebrew Union College Annual
Israel Exploration Journal
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of Biblical Literature
Jewish Encyclopaedia
Jerusalem Talmud, followed by the title of a tractate
Journal of Jewish Studies
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Jewish Quarterly Review
Journal for the Study of Judaism
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
Journal of Semitic Studies
Journal of Theological Studies
Keritot
Ketubot
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
Septuagint
Mishnah, followed by the title of a tractate
Makkot
Megillah
Mekhilta
Menahot
Monatsschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des
Judenthums
MQ
Moed Qatan
Ned.
Nedarim
Nidd.
Niddah
Ngl
Marginal and interlinear glosses of MS Targum Neofiti 1
OTP
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, (ed.) J. H. Charlesworth,
2 vols (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983, 1985)
PAAJR
Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish
Research
Pes.
Pesahim
Pesh.
Peshitta
PIBA
Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association
PJ/Ps.-Jon. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
abbreviations
PL
PR
PRE
PRK
Pss. Sol.
PT
Qid.
R./Rab.
RB
REJ
RHPR
RHR
RQ
Sanh.
SC
Shab.
Sheq.
Sot.
T /Tg.
Taan.
Tanh.
Tanh. B.
TJ
TN/Tg. Neof.
TO/Tg. Onq.
Tos.
TSAJ
Vg.
VL
VT
ZAW
Patrologia Latina
Pesiqta Rabbati
Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer
Pesiqta de Rab Kahana
Psalms of Solomon
Palestinian Targum
Qiddushin
Rabbah
Revue Biblique
Revue des tudes juives
Revue dHistoire et de Philosophie religieuses
Revue de lHistoire des Religions
Revue de Qumrn
Sanhedrin
Sources Chrtiennes
Shabbat
Sheqalim
Sotah
Targum
Taanit
Tanhuma Yashen
Tanhuma (ed.) S. Buber (Wilna, 1885)
Targum Jonathan of the Prophets
Targum Neofiti 1
Targum Onqelos
Tosefta, followed by the title of a tractate
Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum
Vulgate
Vetus Latina
Vetus Testamentum
Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
xv
PART ONE
TARGUMIC PORTRAYALS OF BIBLICAL FIGURES
CHAPTER ONE
SHEM, MELCHIZEDEK, AND CONCERN WITH

CHRISTIANITY IN THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMIM*
Although Melchizedek appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible (Gen.
14.1824; 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. 7.13).
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. 38788; Ambrose, De Sacramentis IV.10;
V.1; 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. 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
* This essay is presented with all good wishes to Martin McNamara on his sixtyfifth birthday, in grateful acknowledgment of his distinguished scholarship and outstanding service in the Aramaic targumim.
chapter one
makes him a Semite par excellence and ancestor of the Jews, a great
Torah scholar, and head of an academy. That these texts offer a Jewish
counterblast to Christian claims about Melchizedek seems prima facie
a probability, and the case for so understanding them claims the 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. Shem as Noahs 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
1
See especially M. Simon, Melchisdech dans la polmique entre juifs et Chrtiens
et dans la Lgende, RHPR 27 (1947), pp. 93113, esp. pp. 6062; J. Bowker, The
Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp.
196199; R. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Gense (SC, 245; Paris: Cerf, 1978),
pp. 163164 and literature there cited; M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis
(The Aramaic Bible, 1B; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 58. For the
identification of Shem with Melchizedek as providing the latter with Israelite identity,
see J.A. Fitzmyer, Now this Melchizedek . . . (Heb 7.1), in Essays on the Semitic
Background of the New Testament (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971), p. 230.
2
A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch (2 vols.;
Jerusalem: Makor, 1979) [in Hebrew], I, pp. 98, 117, shows how difficult it can be
to pinpoint objects of supposed targumic polemic. This essay tends to confirm his
observations.
3
See Hippolyus, Refut. Omn. Haer. 20 for the Melchizedekians who acknowledged
Melchizedek as the highest supernatural power; they appear also in Epiphanius, Adv.
Haer. II.1. haer. 55. Jerome, Ep. 73 ad Evagrium (Evangelum) Presbyterum 2 lists the
views of Christian writers, beginning with Origens belief that Melchizedek was an
angel. This last recalls 11Q Melch, where Melchizedek appears as a heavenly figure,
possibly identical with the archangel Michael: see G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in
English (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 3rd edn, 1987), p. 300, and M.J. Davidson, Angels at
Qumran (JSPSup, 11: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 255264.
shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity
Japtheth the elder (ah yepet haggdl), to him also children were
born. Japheth, ancestor of Gentiles, is thus Noahs first-born, with all
the rights and privileges of inheritance belonging to that position. The
Hebrew text is understood in this way by Symmachus, Gen. R. 37.9,
and Rashi, who follow a mode of translation represented already in
pre-Christian times by the lxx. As a reading of the Hebrew it was 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 haggdl, the elder (literally: the great),
which stands last in the Hebrew sentence, is regarded as qualifying
Shem, rather than Japheth. Jerome took the Hebrew in this sense in
his Vulgate of Gen. 10.21, as apparently did b. Sanh. 69b; but 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.
8.1521). Israels superiority to Gentiles is thus indicated: they inhabit
land where Gods 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
haggdl to Shem, understanding it as great rather than elder:
And to Shem also was born a son. He is the father of all the sons of the
Hebrews, the brother of Japheth: he was great in the fear of the Lord.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan here indicates Shems outstanding 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
Shems seniority. The concerns that motivated Jubilees appear to be
absent, and they feel no need to engage with any case which Christians
might have put forward in the name of Japheths privilege as the firstborn son of Noah.
chapter one
2. Noahs Blessing of Shem and Japheth
Along with their apparent lack of concern about Shems seniority, the
targumim seem to have no particular anxieties about Gen. 9.2627.
In these verses, Noah blesses his sons Shem and Japheth because they
covered his shame when he lay in a drunken stupor (9.2124). The
story is obscure; but it appears that Canaan, the son of Ham, had done
some disgraceful thing to Noah (9.24), for which Noah cursed him
(9.25). Then he blessed Shem and Japheth:
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and may Canaan be servant to
them. (9.26) May God enlarge Japheth; and may he dwell in the tents of
Shem, and may Canaan be servant to them. (9.27)
Once more, the Hebrew is ambiguous. In v. 27, the one who shall dwell
in the tents of Shem may be either God, or Japheth himself; the same
ambiguity persisted in the lxx, and was thus ripe for use by Christian
exegetes. As early as Justin Martyrs time (c. 100c.165) this verse was
taken to mean that the Gentiles, represented by Japheth, would take
over the position of Shem and dwell in his tents; the Gentile Church
would thus oust the Jews from their place as Gods people (Dial. with
Trypho 139.23). Other interpreters, notably Irenaeus (Adv. Haer.
3.5.3; Dem. 21), followed suit.
This Christian use of the verse, however, is not reflected in the 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.
Shems righteous deed is given as the reason for Canaans loss of status; but this is readily explicable as a reasonable deduction from the
Hebrew text itself. The idea that Canaan shall be Shems rather than
their servant is already expressed in Jub. 7.11. Shems concern with
righteousness will feature again in Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 14.19, where in
the figure of Melchizedek he will bless Abraham by God who created
the universe for the sake of the righteous.
The same targumim and marginal glosses in Targum Neofiti are
extant for Gen. 9.27. Targum Onqelos makes Noah pray:
May the Lord enlarge Japheth, and make His Shekhina dwell in the tents
of Shem; and may Canaan be servant to them.
Here the ambiguity is resolved: it is God who should dwell in Shems

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

displaying a positive attitude to these Gentiles. Only Canaan, cursed
by the Bible itself, is censured. Targum Neofitis marginal glosses are
fragmentary, but clearly represent a tradition found fully in Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan:
May God beautify the boundaries of Japheth; and may his sons become
converts, and dwell in the Study-house of Shem. And may Canaan be
servant to them.4
Here it is Japheth, not God, who shall dwell in the tents of Shem (cf.
b. Meg. 9b). Furthermore, his sons become converts to Judaism, to the
worship of the one true God, a tradition found exclusively in Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan and the margin of Targum Neofiti.5 Consonant with
this remarkable interpretation is Targum Pseudo-Jonathans 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 Japheths sons.
In none of these interpretations is anti-Christian sentiment at work.
Astonishingly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the glosses of Targum
Neofiti point in quite another direction. They predict a conversion
of Gentiles to Judaism, and provide a ready tool for opportunistic Christian propaganda, in so far as they indicate an adoption of
4
The glosses of Tg. Neof. read: . . . and when his sons become converts, may they
dwell in the Study-houses of Shem, and may Canaan be subjected [in slavery] . . .; and
. . . in the Study-houses of Shem the Great may they be . . . For the text and further
exegetical details, see B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1986), I, p. 120.
5
See Shinan, The Aggadah, II, p. 343; and Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
Genesis, p. 46.
chapter one
monotheism by Japheths descendants. At least one Christian exegete

who was familiar with Jewish tradition seems to have been aware of
the potential of this verse. Jeromes interpretation of Gen. 9.27 in his
Quaest. Heb. in Gen. sounds remarkably like a Christianized version
of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
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 Jeromes 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 implied in this interpretation, which is attested in the pre-Christian
6
According to Gen. R. 36.8, bar Qappara interpreted the verse to mean that Torah
would one day be spoken in the language of Japheth, that is, in Greek; and according
to m. Meg. 1.8 Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel allowed the scriptures to be written in
Greek, a matter discussed more fully in b. Meg. 9b; j. Meg. 1.9.10; b. Yom. 9b.
7
See B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible, 6; Wilmgton,
DE: Michael Glazier, 1988), p. 69.
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. And Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the

Tg., V 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 (mlksdyq), 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, mm, 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
Pseudo-Jonathans note that he went out to meet Abram. None of
these unique details in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems directed
1QapGen 22.13. For full discussion of this passage, see F.L. Horton, The
Melchizedek Tradition (SNTSMS, 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976),
pp. 6264.
9
This could be a mistake for Melchizedek, or an attempt to compromise between
the version of Tg. Ps.-J. mlk sdyq and the Hebrew mlky sdq: see the views of Fitzmyer
and le Daut respectively, summarized by A. Rodrguez Carmona, La figura de
Melquisedec en la literatura targmica, EstBb 37 (1978), p. 84.
10
Pace Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58. The most natural sense of
mm here and in Tg. Onq. of this verse is acting as priest: see Grossfeld, The Targum
Onqelos, p. 69 and literature there cited; and Rodrguez Carmona, La figura, p. 92.
For a temporal succession of priests in pre-Aaronic times, see Num. R. 4.8; j. Meg.
1.11; Ag. Ber. 42; and cf. b. Ned. 32b.
10
chapter one
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, J.J. 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
Noahs blessing of Shem as prophecy (Jub. 8.18), that God would dwell
in the dwelling of Shem (7.12; 8.18), that is, in Shems 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 Shems days, by Adam (Jub. 3.2627), Enoch (4.2526) who
knew the rules of sacrifice (21.710), and Noah (6.13). 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
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
11
See further Rodrguez Carmona, La figura, pp. 8485, 94; and Horton, Melchizedek, pp. 56, 8283.
12
See J.J. Petuchowski, The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek, HUCA 28 (1957),
pp. 127136. The whole article supports the point; but see especially pp. 128130.
13
Jub. 8.19, translated by R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902), pp.
7172. Charles notes (Jubilees, p. 71) that the three holy places on earth belong to
Shem.
14
See Charles, Jubilees, p. 81.
11
at pains to point out to his pagan readers that the official records of
the Jewish people were written and preserved by the priests (Apion
1.2936). Jubilees also records that Shem built a city and named it after
his wife Sdqtlebb (7.16), a word meaning righteousness of the
heart.15 The implication may be that Shem particularly among Noahs
sons followed his fathers repeated injunctions to observe 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 Philos
work represents a great advance on Jubilees. For Philo, Shem is the
type of a good and wise man, who is described in most noble terms
(Quaest. et Sol. in Gen. 2.7576). He thus devotes a large part of De
Sobrietate (5167) to Shem, whose name means good, and whom
Moses counts worthy of the prayer recorded in Gen. 9.2627. This
last speaks of the Lord and God of the universe as peculiarly, by special favour, the God of Shem: therefore Shem and the universe are of
equal value, and a man granted such privileges is Gods friend, like
Abraham.17
15
See Charles, Jubilees, p. 61.

In Hebrew Sir. 49.16 Shem, with Seth and Enoch, is said to have been visited
(i.e., by God), and is linked to Adam as the beauty (Hebrew tiperet) of the 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 tiperet of his people. See also
P.W. Skehan and A.A. di Leila, The Wisdom of ben Sira (AB, 39; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1987), p. 545.
17
Sobr. 5155. In associating Noahs blessing of Shem with Abraham as friend
of God, Philo comes close to the sentiments of a Qumran fragment (4Q252) which
juxtaposes the prayer may he dwell in the tents of Shem (Gen. 9.27) with the words
He gave a land to Abraham His friend. The Hebrew of the fragment reads: wbhly
m ykwn rs ntn lbrhm hbw; see T.H. Lim, Notes on 4Q252 fr. 1, cols. iii, JJS
44 (1993), p. 123. For comment on the text and interpretation of this fragment, see
16
12
chapter one
Philos 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. 5658). Philo
thus glorifies the ancestor of the Jewish people, the nation whose high
priest he depicts as representing the universe before God (Vit. Mos.
2.13335; 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 Gods dwellings were preeminently in Shems territory (Jub. 8.19).
Having given these allegorical interpretations of Noahs blessing
of Shem, Philo then (Sobr. 65) argues that the unadorned scriptural
narrative itself ( ) supports what he has said. For Shem, he
declares, is as it were a root ( ) underlying what is noble,
from which issues the tree wise Abraham, whose fruit is the selftaught 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 (

). This is clearly an allegorical interpretation of Jacobs famous struggle with the supernatural being described
in Gen. 32.2431 (cf. 35.912), after which his name was formally
H. Jacobson, 4Q252 fr. 1: Further Comments, JJS 44 (1993), p. 292, and M.J. Bernstein,
4Q252: From Re-written Bible to Biblical Commentary, JJS 45 (1994), pp. 1112, who
also comments on the targumim of Gen. 9.27.
13
changed to Israel. Significantly, it is precisely at the point when Jacobs

name becomes Israel that Jubilees places the ordination of Levi to the
everlasting priesthood (32.117), 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 () of the twelve tribes: the verb 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)
, 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
reality a temple and alone inviolable.18
The word rendered sequence of things is , 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. 6768).
Conclusions
The evidence examined here leaves no doubt that, by the early first
century at the latest, the figure of Shem had assumed an importance in
Jewish thought out of all proportion to the meagre information given
about him in the Bible. In particular, the priestly characteristics of the
man, obliquely conveyed by Jubilees, much more strongly in evidence
in Philos work De Sobrietate, are seen to be ripe for exploitation. Both
writings also make it clear that Shem was a wise and learned man.
Now according to the Hebrew Bible, Shem lived for 500 years after the
birth of Arphachshad (Gen. 11.10), which means that he was still alive
18
Sobr. 66. The Greek has:
[].
.
14
chapter one
thirty-five years after the death of Abraham.19 Such great age can only
mean that Shem was possessed of wisdom, and righteousness also, in
the highest degree.
Thus it is not difficult to see how the ground was prepared for the
eventual identification of Shem with Melchizedek, the righteous king
and priest who blesses righteous Abraham. One need only consider
the reverence accorded to Abraham in Second Temple and tannaitic
times to recognize that a person recorded in the Bible as having blessed
Abraham must himself have been of the highest eminence. Neither
Jubilees nor Philo, however, were able formally to equate Melchizedek
with Shem. The chronological system used by Jubilees put the birth
of Shem at 1209 anno mundi (Jub. 4.33); he lived for 600 years (Gen.
11.1011), and Abraham was not born until 1876 anno mundi (Jub.
11.15). Philo followed the lxx text of Genesis, which gives a period
of 1072 years from the flood to the birth of Abraham, during which
period Shem would have died.20
What these sources demonstrate, however, is the availability of
learned tradition about Shem which could be brought to bear on the
question of who is Melchizedek, once the chronology of patriarchal
times was investigated from the standpoint of the Hebrew text. Both
Jubilees and Philo offer a vivid picture of an aged, highly respected
sage with priestly characteristics, who might be consulted by his
juniors. The targumim of the Pentateuch entirely accord with such
a picture. Shems judgments are Gods judgments, which the wicked
Nimrod tried to persuade his generation to abandon (Frag. Tg. P and
V of Gen. 10.9). Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 22.19 says that Abraham took Isaac
to Shems study-house (cf. Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof., Frag. Tg. P and V
of Gen. 24.62, where Isaac leaves the study-house of Shem): this is
not surprising, since Jubilees itself insists that Isaac knew the Torah,
and he must presumably have acquired his knowledge from a teacher.
Similarly Rebecca, seeking Gods mercy when carrying the twins Jacob
and Esau, visited the study-house of Shem (Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof. and
19
For the numerical calculations of his age based on scripture, see Horton,
Melchizedek, pp. 115116.
20
A comparative chronological table according to the calculations of the Hebrew,
lxx, and Josephus listing patriarchs from the flood to the birth of Abraham is found in
H.St.J. Thackerays translation of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (Loeb Classical Library;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), IV, p. 73.
15
glosses, Frag. Tg. V and P of Gen. 25.22); and even Jacob himself had
studied there (Tg. Neof. of Gen. 25.27, first marginal gloss).
Nothing remaining in the story of Melchizedek as the targumim
present it requires anything but a Jewish origin. Thus at Gen. 14.19
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti respectively speak of
God Most High who for the sake of the righteous or who by His
Word created heaven and earth, thoroughly Jewish sentiments.21 Tg.
Onq. and Tg. Neof. of Gen. 14.20 fairly literally translate the final part
of Melchizedeks blessing, and follow the Hebrew in retaining at the
end of the verse the ambiguous words he paid tithes to him. Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan, however, leaves no room for doubt:
And blessed be God Most High, who has made your enemies like a
shield which takes the blow. And he gave to him one tenth of all that he
had brought back.
It was Abraham who had brought back the goods stolen by the four
invading kings (Gen. 14.16); so Targum Pseudo-Jonathan makes it
clear that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, the very interpretation
adopted by Jub. 13.2527; Josephus Ant. 1.181; Philo Cong. 93, 99;
and, of course, the epistle to the Hebrews.22
In the light of the material examined in this essay, it seems 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 antiChristian 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 been developed as a counter to the kind of
21
See Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58, n. 46.

See Heb. 7.4; cf. Gen. R. 43.8, and Rodrguez Carmona, La figura, pp. 9596.
23
In both of these writings Jerome notes that the identification depends on calculating the years of Shems life according to the Hebrew text of Genesis, which he
regards as authentic. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 2.6, haer. 35) attributes the identification
of Melchizedek with Shem to the Samaritans, and rejects it with chronological data
culled from lxx, which for him is authoritative.
22
16
chapter one
speculation represented by 11QMelch, 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.
CHAPTER TWO
ABRAHAM AS PROSELYTIZER AT BEERSHEBA

IN THE TARGUMS OF THE PENTATEUCH
In his recent monograph devoted to proselytizing in the Roman
Empire, Martin Goodman draws particular attention to the portrayal
of Abraham as proselytizer in Rabbinic and pre-Rabbinic texts. He
points out that in many of the former writings, the Patriarch appears
in well-known guise as one striving to bring Gentiles under the wings
of the Shekhina (Sifre Deut. 32); that is, to win converts to Judaism
through what might be described in general terms as missionary activity. Jewish writers of pre-Rabbinic times, however, paint a different
picture of Abraham. Philo and Josephus especially present him, not as
one seeking to convert Gentiles, but as himself a convert to the worship
of the One God.1 The evidence of these two ancient writers regarding
Abraham as a missionary tends to conflict with a commonly held
modern opinion, that Jews of the first century ce and earlier were
actively engaged in a mission to win converts to their religion, a view
which Goodman is concerned to call into question.2
1
Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History
of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1994), pp. 8990, 144145. See also his earlier study,
Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 175185, particularly pp. 179,
182183, in respect of Abraham. Another important pre-Rabbinic text, Pseudo-Philos
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, makes no mention of Abraham as a proselytizer. The
age of this work is disputed, but a date in the first century ce seems probable: for
discussion of scholarly opinion, see E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ, vol. III. 1, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman
(Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 328329. See also F.J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Re-Writing the
Bible (Oxford, 1993), pp. 262270, for a first-century dating. Howard Jacobson, A
Commentary on Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (2 vols.), vol. 1 (Leiden,
1996), pp. 199210, argues in favour of a date in the second century ce.
2
With Goodmans overall thesis on the history of Jewish missionary activity, cf.
S. McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple
Period (Minneapolis, 1991). For the view that Jews were actively engaged in mission
to convert Gentiles in the first century ce, see e.g. J. Jeremias, Jesus Promise to the
Nations (London, 1958), and D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians
(Edinburgh, 1986), both cited by Goodman (Mission, p. 8) as explicit advocates of the
thesis. The literature on proselytism is extensive: L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in
the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton,
1993), pp. 553554, provides a summary list of the most significant treatments.
18
chapter two
This paper will argue that Goodmans interpretation of the figure

of Abraham as proselytizer finds support in the history of exegesis of
Gen. 21:33. Not only do pre-Rabbinic interpretations of this scriptural
verse fail to present Abraham as a proselytizer, but the several Aramaic
Targums offer a nuanced understanding of Jewish religious proclamation to Gentiles which reflects to some degree the different types of
mission (informative, educational, apologetic and proselytizing) which
Goodman is so careful to distinguish.3 The verse itself might almost
be tailor-made to provide a litmus test for ancient interpretation of
Abrahams activities, since it represents him as invoking the Almighty
as the universal God; and the Palestinian Targums evidently made
use of it to promote the Patriarch as a model of the proselytizer winning converts to Judaism. Close analysis of the Targums shows that
they have their home within wider exegesis of Gen. 21:33, and may be
properly understood only when the history of that exegesis is uncovered. This task must now be addressed, beginning with observations
on the Hebrew text and LXX of this verse.
1. Hebrew and LXX of Gen. 21:33
Following a dispute over a well with Abimelech, king of Gerar (so
Gen. 20:2), Abraham took flocks and herds and made a covenant with
this king. He then took seven ewe lambs, giving them to Abimelech
as witness that he had dug the well. Abraham called the place Beersheba.4 He swore an oath and made a covenant with Abimelech there;
whereupon Abimelech returned to the land of the Philistines (Gen.
21:2232). Then we read (Gen. 21:33):

The RSV translation of this verse is not untypical of English renderings, yielding Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba,
and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.
Apparently straightforward, this version conceals several difficulties.
First, ( RSVs tamarisk tree) occurs only here in the Pentateuch,
See Goodman, Mission, pp. 45. For a critique of Goodmans definition of proselytizing mission, see Shaye Cohens review of the book, JJS 46 (1995), p. 299.
4
The place-name may be explained by paronomasia as well of the oath or well
of the seven.
abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba
19
and twice elsewhere in the Bible (1 Sam. 22:6; 31:13). Its meaning is
not transparent. Next, and called is only one possible translation of
, which may legitimately be read as a hiphil form, and he caused
(people) to call: the verbal root may also be better understood
here as to invoke. Finally, as well as signifying Eternal God,
might be rendered as God of the Universe, the God of the whole
world. Only here in the entire Bible is this title for God to be found.
The expression may thus reasonably be understood as having some
particular relevance to the story of Abrahams direct involvement with
a Gentile king. It would seem, then, that this verse confronted ancient
translators and students of the Bible with problems both lexical and
exegetical.
So much is evident from the oldest extant interpretation of the verse,
preserved in the Old Greek version commonly called Septuagint. The
translators took the verse to mean:
And Abraham planted a piece of land () at the Well of the Oath;
and there he called (or: invoked, Greek ) the name of the
Lord the Everlasting God ( ).
Hebrew here becomes an , a piece of tilled ground: in

Egypt, where the LXX translation was made, the represented
an area of agricultural land (Herodotus II.14; Philo, De Plant. 75, gives
it as 100 square cubits).5 Possibly LXX wished by this rendering to
eliminate suspicion that Abraham had planted some item associated
with pagan worship.6 Be that as it may, the effect of LXXs translation
is to make Abraham plant a substantial area of arable land rather than
a single shrub. Then he either designated the Lord as the Everlasting
God, or invoked the Lord (under the title of ) Everlasting God: the
Greek . . . is patient of both
senses.7 Furthermore, most naturally means Everlasting
God, not God of the universe, and the subtlety of the original Hebrew
is thus eliminated.8 There is no hint in this translation that Abraham
5
See M. Harl, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 1: La Gense (Paris, 1994), p. 191, noting
the same translation in 1 Reigns 22:6 and 31:13. The witnesses to Vetus Latina have
field (agrum) or transliterate LXX as aruram: see B. Fischer, Vetus Latina Genesis
(Freiburg, 1951), p. 230.
6
See J. Barr, Seeing the Wood for the Trees? An Enigmatic Ancient Translation,
JSS 13 (1968), pp. 1120.
7
See M. Harl, op. cit., p. 191.
8
Harl, op. cit., p. 190, translates the phrase as Dieu ternel.
20
chapter two
was making a universal claim for his religion, nor that he was seeking
to convert any non-Jew to Judaism. Nonetheless, in making Abraham
plant a piece of arable land, LXX lay the foundations for an interpretation which later exegetes would find fruitful.
2. The Book of Jubilees
It appears that Gen. 21:33 was a significant verse for the author of
Jubilees, who deduced from and built upon it actions undertaken by
Abraham not recorded in the Bible.9 Fully to appreciate the authors
enterprise, we must glance at his re-structuring of the story of
Abraham told in Gen. 2021, which he substantially re-wrote in Jub.
16:1017:14. Most striking is the complete suppression of the account
of Abrahams and Sarahs dealings with the non-Jew Abimelech, king
of Gerar, recorded in Gen. 20:117. All that survives of this is a note
that Abraham moved from Hebron, via Qadesh and Shur in the mountains of Gerar, to the Well of the Oath (Jub. 16:1011; cf. Gen. 20:1).
Thereafter, the author turns to Gen. 21:14 with its account of Isaacs
birth, naming and circumcision, which he more or less reproduces in
Jub. 16:1214. The Bible then (Gen. 21:57) gives the ages of Abraham
and Sarah and comments on the meaning of Isaacs name; ignoring
this, Jub. 16:1531 embarks on a lengthy, non-Biblical narrative.
This story tells how angels visited Abraham at the Well of the Oath,
and promised him not only descendants through Isaac, but the birth of
six further sons, all of whom would become nations. But from Isaacs
sons alone one would become a holy seed, not counted among the
nations because he would become the portion of the Most High, ruled
by God to become a people to the Lord, a special possession from all
nations, so that he might become a kingdom of priests and a holy
people (Jub. 16:18). This virtual quotation of Exod. 19:56, where God
9
Jubilees was composed around the mid-second century bce, most probably soon
after the death of Judah Maccabee; for discussion of this and other possible dates in
the second century, see Schrer, op. cit., vol. III. 1, pp. 311313. J.C. VanderKam,
article Jubilees, Book of , in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 3
(New York, 1992), p. 1030, gives a general date for the book as sometime between 170
and 140 bce. All quotations of Jubilees are taken from O.S. Wintermute, Jubilees: A
New Translation and Introduction, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J.H.
Charlesworth, vol. 2 (London, 1985), pp. 52142.
21
enters into covenant with Israel at Sinai and commands that His people be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, suggests that Abrahams
actions at Beer-sheba carry, for the author of Jubilees, a foundational
character: what occurs here is a necessary preliminary to, even foreshadowing of, the covenant at Sinai; and it will have abiding meaning
for the future of Israel.
There now follows an account of the first earthly celebration of
the Feast of Sukkoth through its seven days (Jub. 16:2031). First,
Abraham built an altar, provided booths for himself and his servants,
and offered sacrifice each day (Jub. 16:2023). He offered incense each
morning and evening,
and he observed this feast seven days, rejoicing with all his heart and
with all his soul, he and all of those who were in his house. And there
was no alien with him or any who were not circumcised. And he blessed
his Creator . . . for he knew and he perceived that from him there would
be a righteous planting for eternal generations and a holy seed from him
so that he might be like the one who made everything. (Jub. 16:2526)
The angels eternally blessed Abraham and his descendants because

they keep this festival in accordance with its time as prescribed in the
heavenly tablets, dwelling in tents and taking branches of leaves and
willow:
And Abraham took branches of palm trees and fruit of good trees and
each day of the days he used to go round the altar with branches. Seven
times per day, in the morning, he was praising and giving thanks to his
God for all things.
(Jub. 16:31)
This whole episode of Abrahams celebration of Sukkoth at Beer-sheba

was apparently derived by the author of Jubilees from Gen. 21:33, whose
position in the narrative he has brought forward so that it precedes
the story of Isaacs weaning, the feast in his honour, and the expulsion of Hagar (Gen. 21:821, followed essentially by Jub. 17:114). The
second meeting of Abraham with Abimelech (Gen. 21:2232) Jubilees
once again omits entirely. Gen. 21:33 is the only Biblical reference
to Abraham offering formal worship to God in the narrative of Gen.
20:122:1, after which we hear of the sacrifice of Isaac. Jub. 17:1518:3
locates Isaacs offering at Pesah, so it is reasonable to assume that Gen.
21:33, which immediately precedes Isaacs sacrifice, suggested to the
author of Jubilees that Abraham had worshipped God at the preceding
Festival, which for him will have meant Sukkoth.
22
chapter two
Indeed, Gen. 21:33 might positively invite allusion to Sukkoth. The

verse states that Abraham planted in Beer-sheba (the Well of the
Oath). The author of Jubilees most likely interpreted the word to mean
a plantation with fruits and trees: LXXs rendering of it as ,
already noted, was current in the authors day and might readily be
taken to mean that Abraham had planted sufficient to provide the
wood, branches and fruits required for Sukkoth. Aquila understood
the word as , thicket; Symmachus as , plantation;
Jerome as nemus, grove; the Palestinian Targums, to be treated later,
rendered it as pardes, meaning a garden with trees and fruits. If these
understandings of were traditional at the time of Jubilees (and
the evidence of LXX suggests that they could have been), then the
authors linking of Sukkoths trees and fruits to this verse is unexceptional. Further, Gen. 21:33 speaks of Abraham planting: Jub. 16:26
subtly alludes to this in saying that a righteous planting would issue
from him. This would produce descendants like the One who made
everything (Jub. 16:26), a likely reference to God as understood as God of the Universe, whom Abraham praised and gave
thanks to at the feast; this, too, reflects Gen. 21:33, where Abraham
calls on the Lords Name.10 Finally, of all the Biblical festivals, Sukkoth
is most explicitly universal in character. The prophet Zechariah hailed
a Sukkoth of the future, when the remnant of the nations who had
fought against Jerusalem should go up to worship the King, the Lord
of Hosts, and to celebrate that festival: punishment awaited those
Gentiles who would not keep the Feast (Zech. 14:1619; cf. 14:9). It is
not difficult to see how the divine title might suggest Sukkoth
as the appropriate time-setting for Gen. 21:33.
Given all this, we might expect Jubilees to make Abraham, worshipping at Beer-sheba on the very border of the land of Israel, call
upon the Gentiles to acknowledge the God of Israel as God of the
Universe. This does not happen. Not only are all Scriptural references
to Gentiles, in the shape of Abimelech and his foreign subjects, excised
from the narrative, but Jub. 16:25 offers the curt and unambiguous
notice that no alien or uncircumcised was associated with Abraham
and his household as he kept the festival. In these circumstances, there
is no question of Abraham preaching to Gentiles, still less converting
10
Cf. with Jub. 16:31 FTV of Gen. 21:33, according to which Abraham gave thanks
and prayed in the Name of the Word of the Lord, the God of the Universe.
23
them to Judaism. Their presence at this point is sharply denied; so

much so, indeed, that it is legitimate to ask whether Jubilees represents a direct attack on interpreters who saw in Gen. 21:33 an allusion
to Abraham educating Gentiles? Here certainty is impossible; but the
likelihood exists that Jubilees is not engaged in polemic at this point.
We have no evidence earlier than, or contemporary with, Jubilees to
suggest that Gen. 21:33 was understood to mean that Abraham had
preached to Gentiles. Furthermore, we shall see below that neither
Philo, Josephus, nor Pseudo-Philo, writing long after the publication
of Jubilees, so interpreted the verse. What does seem likely, however, is that the author of Jubilees discerned the possibility of reading the Hebrew text of Gen. 21:33 in a way described above; namely,
that Abraham had caused others to call on the Lord as God of the
Universe, and that those others (granted the Scriptural setting of the
verse) may have been Gentiles.11 He could rule out any such interpretation by making Abraham celebrate the first Sukkoth, a Jewish festival
not open to Gentile participation, but rather looking forward to the
Sinai covenant when Israel is definitively constituted as a nation separate from the Gentiles. This, too, grants a pretext for excising mention
of Abimelech from the story.12
3. Philo, Josephus and Pseudo-Philo
In De Plant. 7389 Philo discusses Gen. 21:33 at some length.13 He
quotes LXX with their translation of as , observing that
11
See above, p. 22. The removal of Gentiles from the scene by the author of Jubilees
is of particular interest, in that some aspects of the ceremonies of Sukkoth as he
describes them are superficially similar to ceremonies of festivals of Bacchus. Cf. Jub.
16:30; 2 Macc. 6:7; and see R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902), pp.
117118; and K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubilen, Judische Schriften aus hellenistischrmischer Zeit, Band II (Gtersloh, 1981), pp. 414415.
12
The guiding impulse controlling the author of Jubilees here seems to be his wellknown desire to link events in the lives of the Patriarchs to the great festivals. Gen.
21:33 provided him with a ready-made excuse for making Abraham celebrate a feast,
providing that Abimelech could be removed from the scene. In the event, he placed all
material relating to this Philistine in Jub. 24:833, which re-works the story of Isaacs
sufferings at Abimelechs hands recorded in Gen. 26:133, and culminates in Isaacs
uttering a comprehensive curse on that people.
13
Greek text in F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, Philo, vol. III, Loeb Classical
Library 247 (Cambridge Mass., 1968). Translations are mine. In De Mut. Nom. 190, he
gives the dimensions of . Feldman, Jew and Gentile, p. 318, cites De Virtutibus
217 as evidence of Abraham as missionary. Certainly the whole section 21119 praises
24
chapter two
no particulars of the plants are shown in the text, only the size of the
place. However, those whose custom it is to search after such things
regard the verse as an especially accurate description of property,
namely the tree, and the place, and the fruit of the tree. Thus it is
that the is the tree, no ordinary plant, but one rooted in the
thought of a man loved by God; the place is the Well of the Oath; and
the fruit of the tree is the change of the Lords Name into Everlasting
God (7374). Philo discusses each of these in turn. The numerical
symbolism of the is adduced: some, says Philo, regard it as
indicating that God is the beginning and end of all things, an opinion
fitted for constructing reverence towards God, which, when planted
in the soul, bears the fruit holiness (7577). Then the place, the Well
of Oath, he expounds with reference to Gen. 26:32 LXX, Isaacs servants digging but finding no water (7884). Finally, the fruit of the tree
refers to the designations of God as Lord and Everlasting God. Here
Philo rehearses what is for him a commonplace, that refers to
Gods rulership, to His beneficence, the latter title being used by
Moses in the creation story.14 As ruler He may act towards human
beings for good or ill; but as benefactor he desires only to do good
(8587). The soul should ensure that it be not in doubt whether the
ruler will act for good or ill, but rid itself of fear, and hope to benefit
from the good things which God wills to give (88):
Indeed, the expression Everlasting God is equivalent to The One who is
kind not once in a while and then not so, but always and continuously,
who shows kindness uninterruptedly, who without ceasing continues the
fruit of his gifts one after another; who revolves his favours in turn one
after another, binding them together with unifying powers; who lets no
opportunity of doing good pass by; who is the Lord, and so is also able
to do harm.
(89)
This last description of the beneficent God recalls Philos words elsewhere about the Creator who lovingly provides food and sustenance
for the whole human race with every passing season, a favour recalled
Abrahams nobility of character; but he does not appear as a proselytizer. On the
contrary, in 219 Philo describes him as a norm of nobility for all strangers (
) who leave behind the ascription of divinity to sticks
and stones, and who come under the oversight of truth in a new polity. Abraham is
here surely an exemplar, rather like (mutatis mutandis) the Abraham of Paul who
exemplifies justification by faith.
14
See further N.A. Dahl and Alan F. Segal, Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of
God, JSJ 9 (1978), pp. 128.
25
in various items of the Temple service (De Vit. Mos. II.104, 12425;
Spec. Leg. I.172).
This exegesis is enlightening in a number of ways. First, Philo
appears to base his comments on insights of interpreters either older
than or contemporary with himself.15 They understood that Abraham
had planted a tree (), a notion found also in Targum Onqelos.
Next, the measure of land, the place, symbolises God as beginning
and end, and leads Philo to set forth the right attitude of the human
soul towards that God who is both ruler and benefactor, so that the
soul may enjoy the unceasing gifts of the latter. His exposition of
Everlasting God reveals a Deity who is not only eternal, but possessed
of universal sovereignty over his created world.
At no point in this extended commentary, however, does Philo hint
that Abraham had called on the world at large to recognize this God;
nor does he suggest that Abrahams actions as he interprets them have
application to anything other than to the human soul in general. If
Philo had known that Gen. 21:33 could be understood as meaning
that Abraham had publicly proclaimed God as the universal God, and
had called on non-believers to acknowledge Him as such and to join
Abrahams family, there is every reason to suppose that he would have
recorded as much. For there is no doubt that he was favourably disposed towards Gentiles who turned to Judaism: most recently, Louis
Feldman has singled out no fewer than eighteen passages in Philos
writings testifying to his admiration of and high esteem for such converts.16 All the more striking, then, is the absence in Philos work of
any reference to Abraham as calling on Gentiles to convert, and the
complete lack of any hint in his exegesis of Gen. 21:33 that Abraham
proclaimed the universal God to non-Jews.
The evidence of Josephus and Pseudo-Philo may be dealt with
swiftly. The former records Abrahams dealings with Abimelech in
Ant. 1.20712, drawing into one continuous narrative the Biblical
material found in Gen. 20:118 and 21:2232. He concludes with the
oath which the Patriarch and king swore at Beer-sheba, the Well of
the Oath. His account of the birth and naming of Isaac follows, along
15
For these, see B.L. Mack, Philo Judaeus and Exegetical Traditions in Alexandria,
in Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt, 2. Principat, ed. H. Temporini and
W. Haase, Band 21 (Religion), pp. 227271; and P. Borgen, article Philo of Alexandria,
in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5 (New York, 1992), pp. 337339.
16
See Feldman, Jew and Gentile, pp. 295296.
26
chapter two
with the explanation of Isaacs name, notes of his parents ages, and
his circumcision (Ant. I.21314). Josephus says nothing at all which
remotely corresponds to Gen. 21:33. His omission of this verse is hard
to explain if, as Feldman suggests, Josephus elsewhere (Ant. I.16668)
seems to portray Abraham as a contemporary Jewish missionary.17
As for Pseudo-Philo, an allusion to Gen. 21:33 is probably intended
in some manuscripts of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum VII.4, which
speak of God settling Abraham in the land of Israel: there he will
establish His covenant with Abraham, bless his descendants, and be
called by him deus in aeternum, eternal God.18 Nothing is said of
Abraham speaking to Gentiles or urging their conversion to Judaism.
Quite another story emerges when we turn to the Aramaic Targums,
where Abraham appears as preacher and proselytizer.
4. The Aramaic Targums of Gen. 21:33
The interpretations offered by the Targums of Gen. 21:33 fall naturally
into three groups First we may note Targum Onqelos (TO), which
renders the Hebrew without expansions:
And he planted a tree ( )in Beer-sheba, and prayed there in the
Name of the Lord, the God Everlasting.19
The interpretation of Hebrew as tree was known already to Philo,

and possibly to exegetes older than he. The Syriac Peshitta put nsbt,
plant. Abrahams calling on God is reasonably represented as prayer.
TO knew that Abraham sought proselytes, and told of the souls which
Abrahams family had brought into subjection to the Torah in Haran
(Gen. 12:5); but of that there is no mention here.20
17
See Feldman, Jew and Gentile, p. 320. This understanding of Ant. I.16668 is disputed by Goodman, Mission, p. 89. The text presents Abraham as arbitrating between
Egyptians of differing opinions, and teaching them arithmetic and astronomy. He
appears as a venerable sage acting (by implication) as an apologist for his people
rather than as a missionary.
18
Such is the reading preferred by Jacobson, A Commentary, vol. 1, p. 383: God says
nominabor ei deus in aeternum, I shall be named of him (sc. Abraham) Everlasting
God. The editio princeps of the book, however, reads dominabor for nominabor, yielding: I shall be lord over him as Everlasting God.
19
Aramaic text in A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden, 1959). Translations are mine.
20
See further B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, The Aramaic Bible vol. 6
(Edinburgh, 1988), p. 85, noting that tree is interchangeable with according to
27
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (PJ) represents a second, and quite distinct, mode of translation.
And he planted a garden ( )at the well of the seven young
lambs, and prepared in it food and drink for those who passed by and
returned; and he used to proclaim ( )to them there: Give thanks
(or: acknowledge, )and believe in the Name of the Word of the
Lord, God Everlasting.21
Here Abraham plants a pardes-garden, which by definition contains

fruits and trees. As we observed earlier, the author of Jubilees in the
second century bce appears to have known a similar tradition, which
could without much difficulty be derived from LXX of the verse. Into
this garden he brings food and drink, a detail which may derive from
another tradition not explicit in the Targums, and which will need
further exploration. Unlike Jubilees, however, PJ closely attaches this
verse to Abrahams earlier dealings with the Gentile Abimelech, referring to the seven young lambs which witnessed the covenant between
them and gave Beer-sheba its name (Gen. 21:2831). PJ also takes seriously the character of Beer-sheba as border town, through which pass
non-Jews to and from the Land of Israel: it is an appropriate place for
preaching. In PJs opinion, this is just what Abraham does. Alone of
the Targums PJ uses the verb to describe Abrahams activity. It
means to announce, to make public proclamation, and in this verse
it introduces a call to confess, acknowledge, or praise (for may
mean all these things) and believe in the God of Israel.
PJ used this verb on other occasions of religious moment. Thus,
according to PJ of Deut. 27:14, the Levites are to make proclamation
( )of the solemn curses of the covenant, whereas the Hebrew Bible
makes them merely say them. The witnesses of a mans refusal of
levirate marriage are to make public proclamation about him (PJ Deut.
25:10) The same verb is used of heavenly announcements in PJ of
Deut. 24:3 and Exod. 26:8, the latter referring to Abrahams tree (sic)
at Beer-sheba.22 Even those who made the golden calf are said to have
bBeza 27a. TO probably originated in the land of Israel and assumed its final form
between the First and Second Revolts: see U. Glessmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum
Pentateuch (Tbingen, 1995), pp. 9294.
21
Aramaic text in E.G. Clarke, W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, 1984). Translations are mine.
22
This tree formed the middle plank of the Tabernacle. PJ reads: And when Israel
28
chapter two
proclaimed their opinion of its status before it (PJ Exod. 32:8). Thus
PJ surely regards Abrahams action at Beer-sheba as religiously significant; even so, the Targum says neither that the passers-by converted,
nor that Abraham expected or required them to do such a thing.
Three further observations should be made. First, PJs phraseology
sets it apart, not only from the other Targums, but from interpretations of Gen. 21:33 found in the Talmud and Midrashim, none of
which uses the root of Abrahams speech to the passers-by, nor
makes Abraham call on them to believe in the Name of God. PJs exegesis of the Hebrew text here is again unique among the Targums in
taking as qal, rendering it with a verb in the active voice such
that Abraham proclaims a message: the remaining Targums, in common with Talmudic and Midrashic texts, read the verb as a hiphil and
make Abraham cause to call others to God. Second, at the end of the
last century, Adolf Bchler demonstrated that PJ was aware of traditions found in Jubilees.23 This may lead to suspicion that PJs rendering
of Gen. 21:33 might be directed against Jubilees version of Abrahams
deeds at Beer-sheba, set out above (section 2). Finally, the verbal root
occurs in both Aramaic and Hebrew, and in pronunciation resembles the Greek used by authors of the New Testament as a
technical term for Christian preaching.24 In his epistle to the Romans
(10:915), the Apostle Paul stresses the necessity of faith and confession by word of mouth for salvation, saying that all who call upon the
Name of the Lord shall be saved. He asks how people shall call on one
in whom they have not believed? How can they believe in one of whom
they have never heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
crossed the sea, the angels cut the tree and cast it into the sea. It floated on the surface of the water, and the angel proclaimed ( )and said, This is the tree which
Abraham planted in Beer-sheba, and prayed there in the Name of the Word of the
Lord. See also Song Rab. I.1:12. For other Rabbinic references to this tradition, see
M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus translated with Notes, The Aramaic Bible 2
(Collegeville, 1994), p. 237.
23
See A. Bchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jeruschalmischen Tempels (Vienna, 1895), pp. 151159; J. Schwarz, Jubilees, Bethel, and the
Temple of Jacob, HUCA 56 (1985), pp. 6386; and C.T.R. Hayward, Jacobs Second
Visit to Bethel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, in P.R. Davies and R.T. White (eds.), A
Tribute to Geza Vermes, JSOT Supp. Ser. 100 (Sheffield, 1990), pp. 185187.
24
It was sometimes thought to be a loan-word from Greek , herald: see e.g.
G. Dalman, Grammatik des jdisch-palstinischen Aramisch (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1905),
p. 183. For general discussion, see G. Friedrich, articles , , ,
, in G. Kittel (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3
(Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 683718.
29
Indeed, earlier in the same epistle he had described Abraham as father

of all who believe without being circumcized (Rom. 4:11).
It is unlikely that Pauls writing in these verses depends on PJ of
Gen. 21:33, not least since his reference to calling on the Name of the
Lord in Rom. 10:13 is a direct quotation of Joel 3:5, and PJs exegesis
has eliminated calling on the Name of the Lord from the Genesis
verse. It should also be observedand this is a most telling point
that Paul never presented Abraham in the guise of a preacher or missionary publicly calling on others to confess and believe in God. For
him, rather, the key verse of Scripture was Gen. 15:6, which in Rom.
4:3 ff. and Gal. 3:6 he interpreted as meaning that Abrahams own
belief in God led to his own justification. That, for Paul, was the decisive point in Abrahams life.
The appearance in PJ Gen. 21:33 of terms so redolent of Pauls
language requires an explanation. Any attempt to provide one must
recognize the limitations of the evidence at our disposal, and adopt
an approach which is both cautious and self-critical. I therefore tentatively suggest that PJs exegesis, in part, represents the Targumists
attempt to reclaim Abraham for Judaism in the face of Christian use of
the Patriarch as an exemplar of that type of personal faith which Paul
regards as fundamental to the Christian status. For PJ, Abraham is one
who actively proclaimed that others should confess and believe in the
Name of the God of Israel, who is the universal God. It is also possible
that, at the same time, PJ took issue with passages from Jubilees discussed earlier, so as to neutralize an element in post-Biblical tradition
which might undercut his conviction that Judaism is worthy of public
proclamation, and the God of the Jews is worthy of universal confession and belief.25 In other words, PJs exegesis seems to be motivated
by apologetic and educational concerns: Abraham imparts information, and implicitly calls on his hearers to recognize the validity of
Judaism. Of conversion to Judaism, however, there is no direct mention. If this explanation has any force, it may suggest that PJs exegesis was formulated when Christian preaching was making substantial
inroads amongst pagans to the detriment of Judaism.
The third group of Targums has no hesitation in presenting Abraham
as a proselytizer. All the texts in this group offer the same essential
25
See above, pp. 2223.
30
chapter two
interpretation of Gen. 21:33, and Targum Neofiti (TN) is given here

as representative of them.26
And Abraham planted a pardes in Beer-sheba, and put in it food for
those who passed by. Now it happened, when they were eating and
drinking, they would seek to give him the price of what they had eaten
and drunk. And he would say to them: You are eating from (the goods
of ) the One who said, and the world came into being. And they would
not move from there until the time that he had proselytized them
() , and had taught them to give praise to the Lord of the
universe. And he worshipped and prayed in the Name of the Word of
the Lord, the God of the universe.
An important variant of this expansion is found in the Fragment

Targum in Paris Ms. 110 (FTP), which must be quoted in full.27
And Abraham planted a pardes in Beer-sheba and brought into it food
and drink for the uncircumcized ( ;)and it happened that when
they were eating and drinking, and seeking to give him the price of what
they had eaten and drunk, our father Abraham said to them: Pray before
your father of Heaven from whose (goods) you have eaten and from
whose you have drunk. And they did not move from there until the
time that he had made proselytes of them and taught them right conduct
() . And Abraham worshipped and prayed there in the
Name of the Word of the Lord, the God of the universe.
According to all these Targums, Abraham acts as a missionary,

exhorting others to convert to Judaism: FTP is particularly significant
in specifying that he preached to the uncircumcized. The expansions
of the Biblical text which they share with one another cannot, however, be correctly understood without reference to the Talmud and the
26
For the Aramaic of TN and its marginal glosses, see A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti
1, vol. 1: Gnesis (Madrid and Barcelona, 1968). Translations are mine. The latter
part of the marginal gloss in the Ms. of TN on this verse reads: Our father Abraham
answered and said to them: Pray before your Father who is in heaven; for from what
is His you have eaten, and from what is His you have drunk. They did not move from
there, since he was proselytizing them in the Name of the Word of the Lord, the God
of the universe.
27
Aramaic text of the Fragment Targums in M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of
the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, vol. 1 (Rome 1980). Translations are
mine. The fragment preserved in Ms. Vat. 440 (FTV) is similar to TN, but adds that
Abraham was not willing to receive payment from the passers-by, exhorted them to
pray before your Father who is in heaven, since from what is His you have eaten and
drunk, and (cf. FTP) taught them right conduct. FTV concludes: And Abraham
confessed (or: gave thanks) and prayed there in the Name of the Word of the Lord,
the God of the universe.
31
Midrashim. Unlike PJ, these Targums envisage Abrahams guests offering him payment for their food and drink, as if he were the landlord
of a road-side hostelry catering for the needs of travellers. In normal
circumstances, the landlord would require payment, which Abraham
is content to waive. According to bSot. 10a, there was a difference of
opinion among the Sages about the meaning of in Gen. 21:33.
Resh Laqish said: it teaches that he (Abraham) made a pardes, and
planted in it all kinds of special fruits. R. Jehudah and R. Nehemiah
disputed. The former said (it means) pardes, the latter an inn. As to the
one who said it means pardes, the meaning is clear, inasmuch as what is
written is and he planted. As to the one who said it means an inn
what does and he planted mean in this context? It must be understood
in the light of what is written (in Dan. 11:45) And he planted the tents
of his palace, etc..
The same dispute between R. Jehudah and R. Nehemiah is recorded in

Gen. Rab. 54:7, but some later Midrashim ignore the meaning pardes
altogether, and take to mean inn.28 Thus in Tanh uma 14,
R. Nehemiah interprets the word as a tree (in the manner of TO) and
re-arranges its letters to form the root , to ask:
for people would come to him (Abraham), and he would say to them,
What are you looking for? Ask, and I will give it to you. And he made
an inn at the cross-roads.
All this seems to be assumed in Tanh uma 12, where Abraham

feeds the passers-by, engages them in dialogue, and preaches them a
sermon: God is the true householder, who creates all creatures, rules
over the cosmos, and has power over life and death. They ask how
they may bless this God, and Abraham teaches them the appropriate
formal berakhoth, thus instructing them in Jewish behaviour. This is
followed by an exposition of Gen. 12:5, that Abraham at Haran had
taught people the fear of Heaven and the Torah.29 Although insisting
28
A third interpretation of as Sanhedrin, which need not concern us, is given
by R. Azariah in the name of R. Jehudah (Gen. Rab. 54:7) or in the name of R. Judan
(Midrash Ha-Gadol on Gen. 21:33) with reference to 1 Sam. 22:6. Once the meaning
inn was established, however, the Hebrew could be interpreted by notarikon as
, eat, drink, lodge the night, as in another explanation given by the Midrash
Ha-Gadol on the verse. Aboth de R. Nathan rec. A 7 concentrates almost entirely on
Abrahams hospitality.
29
Gen. 12:5 is a locus classicus in the Targums for Abrahams success in making converts: see TO, PJ, TN and FTV reflecting Sifre Deut. 32; Gen. Rab. 39:21;
Aboth de R. Nathan rec. A 12; B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos, p. 63; R. le Daut,
32
chapter two
that Abraham planted a pardes, these Targums for all practical purposes portray him as an inn-keeper, and thus obliquely betray their
knowledge of tradition whose oldest witnesses appear to be bSot. 10a
and Gen. Rab. 54:7.
Abrahams response to his satisfied guests according to these
Targums is similar to the words of Resh Laqish, who, it will be recalled,
insisted that Abraham had planted a pardes, not an inn. The sage also
states explicitly the exegetical grounds for interpreting Gen. 21:33 as
the Targums have done, grounds which, if we are correct, had possibly
been discerned and rejected centuries earlier by the author of Jubilees.
So again in bSot. 10a we read:
And he called there on the Name of the Lord, the God of the universe.
Resh Laqish said: Do not read and he called (), but and he
caused to call (), teaching that Abraham our father caused all the
passers-by to call with their mouths the Name of the Holy One, Blessed
be He. When they had eaten and drunk, they stood up to bless. He said
to them: Is it the case that you have eaten of what is mine? From what
belongs to the God of the universe you have eaten. Give thanks, utter
praise, and bless Him who said, and the world came into being.30
Although the affinities between this passage and the Targums are clear,
there is nevertheless one crucial difference between the Targums and
Resh Laqish at this point. The former evidently regard the conversion
of the guests to Judaism as payment (if one may use such a word) for
Abrahams hospitality: they would not move until he had proselytized
them, hinting that he made use of his hospitality to convince them
Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1: Gense (Paris, 1978), pp. 148149. On proselytism in

the Targums, see M. Delcor, La Porte chronologique de quelques interprtations du
Targoum Nophyti contenues dans le cycle dAbraham, JSJ 1 (1970), pp. 106108;
and M. Ohana, Proslytisme et Targum Palestinien: Donnes nouvelles pour la datation de Nofiti I, Biblica 55 (1974), pp. 317332. For the possible influence of Gen.
12:5 on TN of Gen. 21:33, see B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study (2 vols.),
vol. 1 (New York, 1986), p. 161. Gen. 12:5 is not interpreted of Abrahams proselytizing activity by LXX; Jubilees 12:1613:4; Philo, De Abr. 67; or, indeed, by Josephus,
Ant. I.15457, who states that the Chaldeans and other Mesopotamians rebelled
() against Abraham for his declaration of one sovereign creator God,
precipitating his departure from their midst.
30
Gen. Rab. 54:7 is less detailed: In the opinion of R. Nehemiah, who said that
means inn, Abraham would receive those passing by and returning. And after they
had eaten and drunk, he would say to them: Say a blessing! But they would reply,
What shall we say? And he said to them: Blessed be the God of the universe from
whose goods we have eaten. This refers to what Scripture says: And he called there on
the Name of the Lord, the God of the universe.
33
of the truth of Judaism. In this respect, the Targums go beyond the

precise wording of the Talmud or of other Rabbinic texts examined
here, with the possible exception of Tanh uma 12. This detail
also suggests that the Targums depend on, and to some extent amplify,
a notion first encountered in Talmudic and Midrashic statements. Yet
the Targums TN, FTP and FTV are careful to conclude their translations of Gen. 21:33 with what is evidently a version of the Hebrew
text as commonly understood in earlier days, namely that Abraham
himself had called upon the Lord, in the sense that he had worshipped
and prayed (so TN and FTP) or given thanks and prayed (so FTV)
in the Name of the Word of the Lord. The effect of this rendering
of twice, first as hiphil and now as qal, is to place Abrahams
proselytizing activity in the setting of formal worship and prayer. It
might be asked whether the Targumists in their capacity of synagogue
officers translating the Torah, had a special interest in the synagogue
service as offering encouragement for potential converts?
Conclusion
Both the vocabulary and the Biblical setting of Gen. 21:33 show how
easily that verse could be pressed into service to present Abraham as
a Jewish missionary stationed at a place where multitudes of travellers crossed over to the Holy Land, seeking converts to the Lord, the
God of the universe, who alone created everything and who provides
continually for the sustenance of all living things. There is no direct
evidence, however, from literature older than the first century ce, that
Gen. 21:33 was so understood. It may be possible to infer from the
treatment of the verse in Jub. 16:2031 that the author of that treatise was engaging in polemic with others who had so interpreted Gen
21:33; but such an inference is speculative, and receives no support
from the later writings of Philo. The latter is remarkable chiefly for
his silence on the subject of Abraham as missionary, a silence shared
with other writers; for neither Josephus nor Pseudo-Philo discuss
Gen 21:33.
With the exception of TO, all the Aramaic Targums of Gen. 21:33
make Abraham inform strangers about the God of Israel, who is
the God of the universe. PJ stands apart, however, from TN and the
marginal glosses of its manuscript, FTV and FTP. The former makes
Abraham a preacher, publicly proclaiming that people should confess
34
chapter two
and believe in the God of the Jews. The language of this Targum is
uncannily reminiscent of Pauls terminology of confession, belief, and
preaching in the Epistle to the Romans, and differs entirely from the
wording of the other Targums and the Talmudic and Midrashic texts
which comment on Gen. 21:33. PJ is best understood as a reminder
to Jewish audiences that Abraham was historically active as a preacher
of the universal God, rather than a passive, though timeless exemplar
of personal faith. There is an educative, even apologetic aspect to this
Targum: it says nothing of proselytism. Any approximate date proposed for PJs interpretation is bound to be speculative. That said, a
tentative suggestion that it originated in the second or third centuries
ce, when Christian preaching was making inroads into all sections of
society, does not violate such evidence as we have.
The remaining Targums, TN and glosses, FTV and FTP make of
Abraham a missionary seeking converts to Judaism. All depend for
their exegesis on traditions which appear for the first time in the
Talmud and the Midrashim. If the ascription of the reading of
as hiphil to Resh Laqish may be trusted, we may date the material to
the second half of the third century or later. These Targums, therefore, in their present form, are unlikely to be much older than the
fourth century ce. Points of detail in their exegesis indicate that their
compilers have not only reflected on, but amplified material held in
common with Talmud and Midrash. The final product of the interpretations in TN, FTV and FTP effectively associates Abrahams preaching at Beer-sheba with the formal observance of worship and prayer.
This suggests that fourth century synagogues which made use of the
Palestinian Targums (whichever and wherever they may have been)
were not indifferent to the matter of proselytes, and tends to confirm
Goodmans arguments that Jewish attempts to win converts at that
time were not uncommon.
CHAPTER THREE
BALAAMS PROPHECIES AS INTERPRETED BY PHILO AND

THE ARAMAIC TARGUMS OF THE PENTATEUCH
Discussing Philos eschatological views, Peder Borgen has argued that
a future universal dominion of the Hebrews, bound up with the kingly
role of Moses as promulgator of Gods cosmic law given to the Jews
at Sinai, is fundamental to the sages thinking. Philo believed that the
Jewish people would eventually realize their divinely promised destiny
through the agency of a man, a commander of the Hebrew army who
would appear as world emperor. Balaam, a Gentile seer imbued with
true prophecy, had foretold the advent of the man and the future eating up of Israels enemies: in short, Philo had discerned the ultimate
goal of Israels existence as the subjection of the human race to Gods
universal law, the law which He gave to Mosel.1 This essay attempts to
show that Borgens thesis finds support not only in Philos own writings,
but also in traditional Jewish exegesis of the Balaam oracles. It will note
how apt is Borgens description as imperial of the man destined to
arise from Israel; and it will suggest that the evidence allows for further
definition of the mans identity. It begins, however, with necessary preliminary observations about Philos treatment of the Balaam oracles.2
1
See P. Borgen, There shall come forth a Man: Reflections on Messianic Ideas in
Philo, in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity (Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 341361. For Philos eschatological views, see
H.A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and
Islam, 2 vols., (Cambridge Mass., 2nd ed. 1948), vol. 2, pp. 395426; Borgen (1992),
pp. 341342 and literature there cited; R.D. Hecht, Philo and Messiah, in J. Neusner,
W.S. Green, and E. Frerichs (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the
Christian Era (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 139148. Students disagree (inter alia) whether
messianism was central or tangential in Philos thought; whether he understated kingly
messianic elements out of political expediency; and whether his eschatological hopes
stress messiah less than transformation of individual souls by the Logos. Conclusions
of this essay suggest that messianism was important to Philo; that he predicted a royal
messianic figure, but somewhat obliquely; and that both a messiah and enlightenment
of the individual soul characterize the last days.
2
On the related text De Praem. pp. 9197, 163172, see Borgen (1992), pp. 342
343, 348351, 354360.
36
chapter three
1. Balaams Oracles in Philo: General Remarks
Three points must be emphasized. First, the Bible records four separate oracles of Balaam concerning Israel (Num. 23:710, 1824; 24:39,
1519): Philo reduced these to three (Vit. Mos. I. 278279, 283284,
289291). His love of arithmology may explain this change. For Philo,
the number three is an image of a solid body, since a solid can be
divided according to a three-fold division (Leg. All. I.3); it is full and
perfect, consisting of beginning, middle, and end (Qu. Gen. III.3); and
the triad is complete, having beginning, middle, and end, which are
equal (Qu. Gen. II.5). Thus Philo refers the oracles to Israels beginnings in the past (Vit. Mos. I. 279), on Israels , her present
status as divinely blessed (e.g., Vit. Mos. I. 284, 289), and her future
victorious destiny (Vit. Mos. I. 290291). Signifying completeness, the
number three used to formulate Balaams oracles invites the reader to
regard the seers words as a full expression of Israels significance.
Secondly, Philo and the Rabbis insist that Balaam was a villain.3
Despite this, Philo contends that his words about Israel were genuinely prophetic. Balaam spoke his first oracle as one possessed by the
prophetic spirit ( ) which had
ridded him of his soothsayers craft, since it was not right for magical
sophistry to dwell alongside most holy possession (Vit. Mos. I. 277);
the second oracle he prophesied in words not his own (Vit. Mos. I. 283,
286); and the third he spoke , inspired by God (Vit. Mos. I. 288).
Balaam contributed nothing to the oracles: he spoke as Gods instrument, expounding anothers words, without employing his own reason
(Vit. Mos. I. 277, 283). Even as a Gentile soothsayer, Balaam accurately
predicted the future (Vit. Mos. I. 264265). Inspired by God, therefore,
his prophecy was to be of exceptional quality.4 So much is evident
See G. Vermes, The Story of Balaam: The Scriptural Origin of Haggadah, in

G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, 2nd ed. 1973), pp. 127177;
J.R. Baskin, Pharaohs Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic
Tradition (Chico, 1983), pp. 9496; M.S. Moore, The Balaam Traditions: Their
Character and Development (Atlanta, 1990), pp. 6667, 103; J.T. Greene, Balaam and
His Interpreters (Atlanta, 1992), pp. 145147; and M. McNamara, Early Exegesis in
the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 24, Proc. of the Irish Bib. Ass. 16 (1993),
pp. 5779.
4
For Philos theory of prophecy, see Baskin (1983), pp. 9394; J.R. Levison,
Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus, JSJ 26 (1995), pp.
271323. J.R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (Leiden, 1997), pp. 2933,
4755, 229233 examines Philos Balaam story, comparing it with that of Josephus:
balaams prophecies
37
when Philos words are juxtaposed with LXXs account of Balaam:

never do the latter refer to him as or say that he spoke in
, saying only that the Spirit of God came upon him.5 Rather,
it is the Targums which most closely reflect Philos belief that Balaams
oracles about Israel were those of a remarkable prophet.
Where MT records that Balaam took up his parable, the Targums
specify that he took up the parable of his prophecy (Num. 23:7; 24:3,
15 in TN, PJ, FTV, FTP; Num. 23:18 TN, PJ). The spirit of God which
came upon him (MT of Num. 24:2) was, for TO and PJ, the spirit
of prophecy from before the Lord. Balaam calls himself
(Num. 24:3,15), the one with the penetrating eye.6 TN, FTP, and FTP
took this to mean that what had been concealed from all the prophets is revealed to him; PJ put for hidden mysteries []
which had been concealed from the prophets were revealed to him.7
These Targums elevate the revelation to Balaam above that granted to
other prophets, further stressing his status in their versions of Num.
24:4 with the note (TN, FTP, FTV) that mysteries of prophecy were
revealed to him: PJ of this verse calls these hidden mysteries. How
these Targums relate to Philos description of Balaam constitutes the
final general point.
LXX translated Balaams self-description the man with the penetrating eye (Num. 24:3,15) as , the man who
truly sees. This Philo retained as introduction to his third and final
Balaam oracle. LXX of Num. 24:4 and 16 describe Balaam as hearing
both writers, in his view, distance Gods direct power from Balaam, by making an
angelic spirit possess him. He argues that both have been influenced by (inter alia)
Hellenistic treatises on oracular inspiration, including Plutarchs essay De Defectu
Oraculorum. He says little, however, about the content of the oracles, and does not
discuss Philos emphasis on Balaams seeing rather than hearing them. See further
below.
5
So MT and LXX of Num. 24:2; cf. LXX Num. 23:6. See further Vermes (1973),
pp. 144145, and G. Dorival, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 4 Les Nombres (Paris, 1994),
pp. 434, 444445.
6
So rendered by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashis Commentary, Numbers (New York, 1946), pp. 118,
120.
7
These Targums expound the first Hebrew word twice, first as from root to
close implying something concealed, and then as from root to open as it occurs
in some Rabbinic texts: see also b. Sanh. 105a; Nid. 31a, and B. Grossfeld, The Targum
Onqelos to Leviticus and Numbers (Edinburgh, 1988), p. 136; H. Rouillard, La Pricope
de Balaam (Nombres 2224) La Prose et les Oracles (Paris, 1985), pp. 347350; Dorival
(1994), p. 138; A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch (Manchester, 1991), p. 133;
M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers (Edinburgh, 1995), p. 136.
38
chapter three
the utterances of God; 24:16 says that he knows the knowledge of the
Most High; and both verses state that he saw the vision of God in
sleep, his eyes being uncovered. Philo radically altered these words, to
make Balaam speak of himself as
, the one who saw in
sleep a clear presentation of God with the unsleeping eyes of the soul
(Vit. Mos. I. 289). He suppressed the references to Balaams hearing
God, and his knowledge of the Most High. His emphasis is wholly on
sight. Most tellingly, Balaams uncovered eyes of LXX become the
unsleeping eyes of the soul.
Something extraordinary has happened. By so speaking of Balaam,
Philo has invested him with the character of Israel, whose name at first
was Jacob. Philo insists that Israel means the one who sees God, as
distinct from Jacob, which means practiser and who receives instruction by hearing.8 The object of Israels sight is knowledge of the divine,
as the following passage from De Mig. Abr. 39 makes plain: it should be
carefully compared with Philos words about Balaam. Here Philo comments on Jacobs change of name to Israel, indicating vision through
the eyes of the soul which is superior to hearing:
For the coin of learning and teaching from which Jacob took his surname is engraved anew into Israel, the one who sees. Now through this
comes about the seeing of the divine light, which does not differ from
knowledge, which opens the eye of the soul and leads it to perceptions
more luminous and clear than those which come by hearing.9
Why should Balaam be presented as prophesying in persona Israel,

about the past, present and future of the Jewish people? Undoubtedly
his self-designation as the man who truly sees (LXX Num. 24:3,15;
cf. 23:9) gave Philo reason to link the prophet with Israel; but Jewish
tradition encouraged him to go further. For according to TN, PJ, FTV,
8
Of numerous examples, see especially Leg. All. II.34; III.172, 186; De Conf. 56, 72;
De Praem. 27; De. Ebr. 82; De Mig. 125, 200, 224. For etymologies of Hebrew names,
Philo possibly used Jewish tradition: see G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (Sheffield, 1985), pp. 1725. L.L. Grabbe, Etymology in
Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Atlanta, 1988), argues (pp.
102113) that Philo may have used an onomasticon: for discussion of Israel, see pp.
172173.
9
See also De Somn. I.129. For Philos interpretation of Jacobs encounter at the
Jabbok, when his name was changed to Israel, see A. Butterweck, Jakobs Ringkampf
am Jabbok: Gen. 32, 4ff. in der jdischen Tradition bis zum Frhmittelatler (Frankfurtam-Main, 1981), pp. 6271.
balaams prophecies
39
and a Tosefta Targum of Gen. 49:1, the dying Jacob-Israel had summoned his twelve sons to announce to them the hidden mysteries,
including the secret of Israels redemption; but these mysteries, when
revealed, were immediately concealed from him.10 The Targums, however, declare that Balaam knew hidden mysteries in his prophecy, the
very things hidden from Jacob-Israel. Thus the Targums, like Philo,
made of Balaam a latter-day mouthpiece of Jacob-Israel. This is not
surprising. The Targumists could not fail to notice strong similarities in
wording between Jacob-Israels blessings in Gen. 49 and Balaams oracles. Most striking among these are the lion imagery applied by Jacob to
the tribe of Judah in Gen. 49:9, reflected closely in Num. 23:24 and 24:9;
and mysterious reference to a , sceptre, in both Gen. 49:10 and
Num. 24:17. These, and other verbal similarities, allowed the Targumists
to interpret Balaams oracles with an eye to Jacobs blessings.11 That
Philo followed a similar procedure is indicated by a small but significant detail. In paraphrasing Balaams lion imagery he twice (Vit. Mos.
I. 284, 291) uses forms of the verb to refer to the rousing or
rising up of the lion alluded to in Num. 23:24; 24:9. LXX used this
same verb at Gen. 49:9, where Jacob asks who shall rouse ( )
the lions whelp which is Judah? Strikingly, LXX used a compound
form of this verb in their translation of Num. 24:19, speaking of the
famous star which Balaam predicted as destined to arise from Jacob:
the Hebrew states that this star shall exercise dominion (), but
LXX rendered the verb as he shall awake or rise up ().
It seems likely that LXX had already established a lexical connection
between the fourth Balaam oracle and Jacobs blessing of Judah, which
later interpreters might exploit.12
10
For the Tosefta Targum, see M.L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 1 (Cincinnati, 1986), pp. 162163, which speaks of
( cf. FTV). TN and PJ speak of the mysteries as , as in their version of Num. 24:3. On the Targums of Gen. 49:1 and the Balaam oracles, see also A.N.
Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tbingen,
1986), pp. 199203.
11
Note references to , prey, in Num. 23:24 and Gen. 49:9; the verb , bow
down in Num. 24:9 and Gen. 49:9, and the lioness with the lion in Num. 24:9 and
Gen. 49:9; and cf. B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study, vol. 1 (Lanham,
1986), pp. 281282; R. Syrn, The Blessings in the Targums (bo, 1986), pp. 54, 102,
196; and J.L.W. Schaper, The Unicorn in the Messianic Imagery of the Greek Bible,
JTS 45 (1994), pp. 130131.
12
In LXX of the Pentateuch, occurs at Gen. 41:4, 7; 49:9; Exod. 5:8; 23:5
(some Mss.); Num. 10:35 (some Mss.), and at Gen. 28:16; 41:21; Num.
40
chapter three
In fine, Philo portrayed Balaams oracles as prophecy of the highest

order, uttered in the person of Jacob-Israel. This prophecy he presented as three oracles, thereby signifying its completeness and perfection as it speaks of Israels past, present, and future. Although he
evidently knew the LXX version of the Balaam narrative, Philo makes
use of exegetical details found also in the Targums. These clarify his
purpose in re-writing Balaams oracles, and must now be addressed.
2. Philos Version of the Oracles and the Aramaic Targums
Examination of the substance of Balaams three oracles shows that Philo
is familiar with traditions of Jewish exegesis preserved in the Aramaic
Targums. Here we can discuss only a selection of those germane to the
task in hand. Thus in the first oracle Balaam declares of Israel:
Behold, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among
the nations. (Num. 23:9)
Philo recasts this as follows to speak of

. . . a people which shall dwell on its own, not numbered with other
nationsnot because they dwell at random, nor because of the segregation of their lands (from those of others), but because of the distinctive
character of their special customsnot being mixed with others so as to
change the customs of their forefathers. (Vit. Mos. I. 278)
This owes little to LXX, who remained close to the original Hebrew;
but it recalls FTP and FTV (cf. also TN):
Behold, these people encamp on their own, and do not mix themselves
with the laws (or: customs, Aramaic )of the nations.
More complex is what follows. Having made Balaam proclaim Israels

fidelity to ancestral custom, Philo uses his first of the three prophetic
utterances to describe Israels origins in Vit. Mos. I. 279:
Who has found accurately the first foundation of the beginning ()
of these people? Their bodies are formed of human seed, but their souls
are sprung from divine seed; therefore, they are near of kin to God.13
10:35; 24:19. For its rendering of Hebrew have dominion in this last verse, see Dorival
(1994), p. 140.
13
See Colsons note in Philo VI, p. 420, where he renders as sowing
rather than foundation: he gains support from Philos use of the word in De Op.
Mundi 132; Quis Rerum 115; Spec. Leg. III.36; Leg. ad Gaium 54.
balaams prophecies
41
Philo seems to be expounding LXX Num. 23:10, where Balaam asks

who has calculated accurately the seed of Jacob, and who shall number
the peoples of Israel? Yet on closer inspection LXX seem not to provide Philo with a springboard for such specific comments about Israels
beginning and character. The Hebrew of Num. 23:9 and its Targums
offered him much more. In the Hebrew of this verse, Balaam sees Israel
from the top of the rocks, , words which may equally be
rendered from the beginning of the rocks. The Targums understood
them thus, with reference to the spiritual character of Israels great
founding ancestors, making Balaam say:
For I see this people being led and walking in the merit of the righteous
fathers who are likened to mountains, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and
through the merit of the righteous mothers who are likened to the hills,
Sarah, Rebeccah, Rachel and Leah.14
Like Philos exegesis, this takes account both of Israels ancestry and
spiritual affinity. On the latter, Philo is forceful: Israels souls are of
divine origin, being near of kin to God, . The word
, is rare in Philos writings; and its use here relates the Israel
of Balaams prophecy both with their righteous ancestors, and with all
those whose reason leads them to practise virtue in accord with Gods
law.15 Thus in De Op. Mundi 144 Philo speaks of rational natures like
the stars in whose company dwells man, who is near of kin to God:
the stars are divine, unblemished souls in purest form (De Plant. 12;
De Gig. 78) and especially represent the Patriarchs (Quis Rerum
86ff.) to whom God promised that their seed should be like the stars
(Gen. 15:5). The Patriarchs and their righteous children are privileged,
like all who obey Gods law: they will live for ever as stars (De Dec. 49),
realizing the destiny intended by God for people who are near of kin
to Him (Spec. Leg. IV. 14). Neither the Hebrew nor LXX of Balaams
first oracle refer to stars, and the association of them with those near
14
TN of Num. 23:9; see also PJ, FTP, and FTV. On LXX of Num. 23:910, see
Dorival (1994), pp. 435436. For rocks as Patriarchs and hills as Matriarchs, see
TN, PJ, FTP of Gen. 49:26; Deut. 33:15; FTP of Exod. 17:12; Exod. Rab. 16:8; Numb.
Rab. 20:19; b. RH 11a; Tanh. Balak 12; Mekh. de R. Ishmael Amalek 1:116118; N.A.
van Uchelen, The Targumic Versions of Deuteronomy 33:15: Some Remarks on the
Origin of a Traditional Exegesis, JJS 31 (1980), pp. 199209; Syrn (1986), p. 59;
McNamara (1995), p. 131.
15
For Philos other uses of , see De Op. Mundi 144; Spec. Leg. IV. 14,
236; De Virt. 80. In what follows, Philo applies Balaams words about Israel to practisers of virtue: see further Borgen (1992), pp. 346351.
42
chapter three
of kin to God may seem removed from the words of Scripture; but the
Targums refer to the stars in Num. 23:10, which asks who has counted
the dust of Jacob? FTP and FTV translate the question:
Who can number the young men of the house of Jacob, of whom it was
said that they should be as numerous as the stars of heaven?16
Here the Targums introduce stars, significant elsewhere in Philos writings and directly related to his views on souls near of kin to God. In
brief, the Targums of Num. 23:910 catalogue Israels physical origins,
spiritual character, and her numbers like the stars. These elements lay
the foundation for Philos exegesis, not easily derived from LXX, but
entirely comprehensible in the light of the Targum.
Philos second Balaam oracle paraphrases Num. 23:19, the Hebrew
of which may be rendered as
God is not man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should
repent. Has he said, and shall he not perform it? Or has he spoken, and
shall he not establish it?
LXX altered Balaams opening words, saying that God is not like man
to waver, nor like a son of man to be threatened; but retained the following questions of the original.17 Philo (Vit. Mos. I. 283), however,
follows the opening Hebrew of the verse, before continuing with an
expanded interpretation:
He will utter absolutely nothing at all which shall not be steadfastly completed, since his word is his deed.
TN, FTP, FTV and TO eliminate the questions of the second half of the
verse, turning them into statements. TO of Num. 23:19 recalls Philos
paraphrase:
The word of God is not like the words of the sons of man. Sons of man
say, and tell lies. Also it is not like the deeds of the sons of flesh, who
16
The Hebrew of 23:10 begins: Who has counted the dust of Jacob, and the number of the fourth part of Israel? This recalls Gods promises to Abraham and Jacob
that their descendants should be like the dust of the earth: see Gen. 13:16 (where the
same verb count, , is used) and 28:14, neither of which, however, has any reference to stars. These are introduced by the Targums: cf. TN, Who can number the
young men of the house of Jacob, of whom it was said that they should be blessed
like the dust of the earth? Or who can number one of the four orders of the camps of
Israel, of whom it was said, they shall be as numerous as the stars?
17
See further Dorival (1994), pp. 438439.
balaams prophecies
43
decree that action be taken, but repent of it. He says and performs, and
all his word he establishes.
Again in the second oracle, Philo makes Balaam describe Israels present status by saying that God, who scattered the Egyptians and brought
them up from their land, conspicuously covers them with a shield (Vit.
Mos. I. 284). He is expounding Num. 23:21, where the Hebrew reports
that Israels God is with him, and the shout of a king is in his midst.
Nothing in the Hebrew or LXX of this verse prepares us for mention
of a shield; but TN (cf. FTP and FTV) explain that
The word of the Lord their God is with them; and the trumpet-blast of
the glorious splendour of their king is a shield over them.
Philos correspondence with Targumic exegesis shown here could be

illustrated further. He uses LXXs vocabulary, only to depart from its
sense to incorporate notions attested in the Targum. Josephus, too, in
recounting Balaams prophecy, shows knowledge of traditions found
in Targum, demonstrating their currency in his day and strengthening
the case for Philos knowledge of them: Geza Vermes has presented the
evidence for this, which need not be repeated.18 With due care, therefore, Targumic material may be used to illuminate Philos re-written
Balaam oracles.
3. Imperial Victory and the Triumphal Hymn
Borgen has perceived that Philo fastened upon Israels victory over
Egypt at the Exodus as a guarantee of future victories.19 This is corroborated by his retaining Balaams two almost identical utterances
of Num. 23:22; 24:8 at Vit. Mos. I. 284, 290 within his second and
third Balaam oracles respectively. Since he has condensed four biblical
oracles into three, this is of moment: he uses one verse in his second
oracle, speaking mostly of Israels present, and the other in the third oracle,
dealing with Israels future. A translation of the Hebrew of the verses
yields:
God brings them (Num. 24:8 has him) out from Egypt: he has as it were
the horns (or: strength) of a wild ox.
18
19
See Vermes (1973) passim.

See Borgen (1992), pp. 352354.
44
chapter three
Interpreters could not ignore two such verses, loosely phrased and
slightly differing from each other, separated only by a brief intervening
text. Both LXX and Targum shed light on what Philo made of them.
First, the majority of LXX witnesses to Num. 23:22 took the verse to
mean:
God is the One who brings them out from Egypt: He has as it were the
glory of an unicorn ( ).
Here the unicorns glory can belong only to God, and what Schaper
calls a spiritualizing translation has been adopted.20 This has no bearing on Philos second and third Balaam oracles, where he takes the
beast with one horn as a description of Israel: God brought Israel from
Egypt as one man (Vit. Mos. I. 284) and is led by God from Egypt as
a single army wing (Vit. Mos. I. 290).21 The ambiguous LXX of Num.
24:8, however, allows such an exposition: God brought him out of
Egypt and he (understood as meaning Israel) has an unicorns glory.22
The Targums of Num. 23:22; 24:8, however, took the horns or
strength of a wild ox as attributes of God, who had redeemed Israel
at the Exodus. FTP and FTV of both verses read:
God who redeemed and brought them out redeemed from Egypt,
strength and praise and exaltation belong to him.
PJ is similar, adding power to the list. TN and TO omit references to

redemption, TO listing only strength and exaltation as belonging to
God; otherwise, they agree with the Fragment Targums. The language
of the Targums of Num. 23:22; 24:8 recalls Targums of the hymn sung
after the Exodus. It is called the hymn of this praise (TN Exod. 15:1)
or the praise of this hymn (FTP, FTV, PJ, and glosses of TN Exod.
15:1). In it, God is styled the strength and mighty One of our praises
(PJ; cf. TN, TO, FTP Exod. 15:2). Israel must exalt God (PJ, FTP, FTV
Exod. 15:2). Gods power and strength are acclaimed (PJ, FTP, FTV
Exod. 15:3; TO, TN Exod. 15:7; TN, FTP Exod. 15:13; TN, PJ Exod.
15:18). God is the one feared in praises (PJ, FTP, FTV Exod. 15:11),
whose strength and power destroyed the Egyptians (TN, PJ, FTV
Exod. 15:16).
20
See Schaper (1994), pp. 120121, and Dorival (1994), p. 138.

See further Borgen (1992), p. 352.
22
See also LXX in Codex Alexandrinus of Num. 23:22; but the unicorn as such has
no place in Philos work.
21
balaams prophecies
45
The Targums took Balaams words about the wild ox to mean attributes of God revealed in the Exodus, later celebrated in the hymn
honouring his triumph. Philo understood this hymn as addressed to
God the giver of victory and the gloriously victorious (De Agr. 79)
and sung by all the men of Israel, not with blind intention, but seeing
keenly (De Agr. 81). Now the Targumic interpretation of the phrase
horns of a wild ox helps to explain the otherwise baffling mention of
a hymn at the end of Philos second Balaam oracle, paraphrasing LXX
Num. 23:24,
Behold, the people shall rise up like a lions cub, and like a lion it shall
exult: it shall not sleep until it eat prey and drink the blood of the
wounded.
Philo retains some LXX vocabulary, but gives the verse a different sense:
I see the people rising like a lions cub, and like a lion exulting: he shall
eat his fill of prey and take for drink the blood of the wounded; and
when he is satiated he will not turn to sleep, but unsleeping he will
sing the hymn of victory, . (Vit.
Mos. I. 284)
Nothing in the Bible suggests this climax of Philos second Balaam

oracle. The Targumic evidence is thus especially valuable, and is best
appreciated in light of Philos overall train of thought. First (Vit. Mos.
I. 282) he tells how Balak sent Balaam to get good auspicies ()
by means of birds and voices ( ). Balaam, however,
prophesied that God would be a shield for the Hebrews: he had scattered
the evils of the Egyptians and brought up Israel as one man. Therefore
Hebrews disregard omens of birds () and oracle-mongering,
trusting in the One Ruler of the world (Vit. Mos. I. 283284). Then
Balaam sees the people rising like a lion to sing the victory hymn.
All this smacks of the Roman triumph. The words
in particular suggest chants sung during the triumphal procession of a
victorious imperator.23 To qualify for a triumph, the victor must have
been a magistrate possessing his own auspicia, that is, the right to
consult the omens, especially those of birds: at least five thousand of
a foreign enemy must have been killed, with outright victory ensuing. The victor must have been acclaimed imperator, and have been
23
This very phrase is found in Plutarchs Life of Romulus 16 describing one of the
archetypical triumphs of a Roman leader.
46
chapter three
granted the right to retain his imperium within the boundaries of

Rome. Such was the custom in the last days of the Roman republic. As
an adult, however, Philo would have known the custom of the Empire
established by Augustus, when triumphs became the prerogative of the
emperor himself or members of his family.24 On one level, the message
is plain. Philo makes Balaam prophesy the triumph of the One God,
the emperor of the world, celebrated by his unique people (Vit. Mos.
I. 278279) in their triumphal hymn at the Exodus.25 This emperors
triumph requires no auspicia: Balaam, prophesying in persona Israel,
does without themlike the people he represents, who unsleeping,
wide awake () sing the triumphal ode in honour of God
the victor.
There is, however, another sense of the words about the triumphal
hymn, which use future tenses about it and hint at victories yet to
be won. Furthermore, the role of Moses as Israels (earthly) imperator
in the defeat of the Egyptians, although not explicitly acknowledged,
would be evident to any Jew reading Philos words. A resounding victory achieved without the taking of auspicies may be construed as a
victory over auspicia themselves, and over the polytheistic religion
which they represent. Philos words imply future victories (however
understood) for Jewish monotheism over pagan polytheism, as his
treatise De Vita Contemplativa shows.
There, Balaams prophecy of the triumphal hymn chanted by the
unsleeping is fulfilled among the Therapeutae.26 They truly represent
Israel the one who sees God, since they are constantly taught to use
sight and to aspire to the vision of the One who exists (Vit. Con. 1013).
24
Philos emphasis on the bird omens (again at Vit. Mos. I. 287) confirms that
he here speaks in terms of a triumph and its necessary auspicia: see details in H.S.
Versnel, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the
Roman Triumph (Leiden, 1970), pp. 174193, and (for the relationship of auspicia
to imperium) pp. 304355. For bird omens, see also Moore (1990), pp. 6667. Space
forbids discussion of religious aspects of the Roman triumph, which may illuminate
further what Philo makes Balaam say in this second oracle.
25
See above and PJ of Num. 23:24 where Israels likeness to a lioness is interpreted
to mean that she is unique, .
26
For this group, see Philos De Vita Contemplativa, relevant passages of which
are given in G. Vermes and M. Goodman (ed.), The Essenes according to the Classical
Sources (Sheffield, 1989), pp. 7599; and see E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 2, G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black (eds.)
(Edinburgh, 1979), pp. 591597.
balaams prophecies
47
They mind only the pursuit of virtue and contemplation of God, which
they celebrate each year in a great festival (most likely Pentecost). This
celebration culminates in hymns, dancing, and hymns of thanksgiving ( ) throughout the night in imitation of
the victory song which Moses and Miriam led after the Exodus (Vit.
Con. 8488). The participants celebrate without sleep until dawn;
then, more wide awake () than when the feast began,
they greet sunrise with a prayer for truth and sharp-sighted reasoning
(Vit. Con. 89). These people, says Philo, live for the contemplation of
nature, and in soul alone; they are citizens of heaven and of the world,
presented to the Father and maker of all by vitue (Vit. Con. 90).
This description marks the Therapeutae as supreme examples of
those who have fought and obtained spiritual victory over the passions.
Thus in De Sob. 13 Philo remarks that Moses hymn is sung by the
one who sees after defeating Egypt, the enemy of the soul; and in De
Ebr. 104121, speaking of the war waged in each human body between
virtue and the passions, he contrasts the person who has vision of the
One with the thoughtless man who fails to discern the cause of things
and ends up fashioning gods. Such polytheism produces atheism in
the souls of the senseless, whom Abraham rebuked in his hymn of
thanks (Gen. 14:22).27 Moses led the song at the Exodus and the song
of the well (Num. 21:1618): both he and Abraham are leaders of the
hymn of triumph and thanksgiving,
, celebrating the triumph of virtue in the soul. Simply expressed,
everyone who overcomes the passions, embraces virtue, and arrives at
the vision of God (and thus shares Israels character) may chant the
imperial triumph hymn, now and in the future. In this sense, there are
yet victories for Jews to win, the most important of which will bring all
mankind into submission to the universal cosmic Law, the Law given
to Moses. As Borgen has perceived, Philo believed that this last victory
would come about through the man of Balaams prophecy.28
27
For affinities between Philos depiction of Abraham and his description of
the Therapeutae, see R. Martin-Achard, Actualit dAbraham (Neuchtel, 1969),
pp. 132137.
28
Borgen (1992), pp. 353360. From what has been said here about the Therapeutae,
it should be evident that there is truth in Hechts comment (1987), p. 162 that for
Philo the first line of meaning for Messiah and Messianic Era was the inner experience in which the soul was transformed. The Logos turns man from the chaos of the
senses and pleasure toward the intelligible world. But that is not the whole story as
regards the Balaam oracles.
48
chapter three
4. The man who shall come forth and his Antecedents
The Hebrew text of Balaams third oracle (Num. 24:7) cryptically declares
of Israel that
Water shall flow from his buckets, and his seed shall be on many
waters; and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall
be exalted.
LXX decoded this metaphorical language to yield:

A man shall come forth from his seed and shall exercise lordship over
many nations; and his kingdom shall be exalted higher than Gog, and
his kingdom shall be increased.29
Philo represents this in his third oracle, dealing with Israels future,
working changes to LXX which are italicized in the translation below.
He makes Balaam say (Vit. Mos. I. 290):
At some time a man shall come forth from you and he shall get the mastery over many nations: and the kingdom of this man, advancing day by
day shall be exalted to the height.
Balaam, speaking in the person of Israel, predicts his coming from

you, Israels children here addressed. He will get mastery ()
rather than exercise lordship (), suggesting an extension of
his power through struggle, confirmed by the note that his kingdom
will advance daily. The imagery suggests a military commander like a
Roman general exercising imperium, inexorably overcoming opposition. The goal of his kingdom is the height, that is, heaven.
The exegesis shows affinities with both LXX and interpretation preserved in Targum. Philo compressed Balaams four biblical oracles into
three, encouraged no doubt by verbal similarities between the third
and fourth oracles. Noteworthy is Num. 24:17, the prophecy in the
fourth oracle that a star shall march forth from Jacob, and a sceptre
arise out of Israel, which LXX took to mean that a star should come
from Jacob, and a man rise up out of Israel, thus inviting a direct link
with LXX Num. 24:7s prediction of a man coming forth.30 This last
29
On this exegesis, see Dorival (1994), pp. 139, 446.

For a succinct account of messianic interpretation of this verse, see Dorival
(1994), pp. 451453; for its use in eschatological prayer at Qumran, see B. Nitzan,
Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (Leiden, 1994), pp. 216217. On the Balaam
30
balaams prophecies
49
verse could then be read in the light of 24:17, which Hebrew and LXX
amplify (in Num. 24:1819) by predicting the mans destruction of
Moabites, the sons of Seth, Edomites, and an unnamed city: here we
have a ready-made list of many nations which the man will subdue
one by one. Philo says nothing of the star predicted in Num. 24:17;
but stars featured in his interpretation of these oracles, as he intimates
that the whole Jewish people may be regarded as stars insofar as they
are near of kin to God.31 In this last oracle, he appears deliberately to
focus on the man as single leader and representative of the multitudinous stars who are near of kin to God.
Philo has links with traditions preserved in Targum. We give TO,
then TN, of Num. 24:7.
The king who shall be anointed from among his sons shall increase and
have dominion over many nations; and his king shall be stronger than
Agag, and his kingship shall be exalted.
Their king shall arise from among them, and their redeemer shall be from
among them. He shall gather for them their exiles from the provinces of
their enemies; and his sons shall have dominion over many peoples. He
shall be stronger than Saul [who] sp[ared] Agag, king of the Amalekites;
and the kingship of King Messiah shall be exalted.
In certain details, LXX and Targum share the same essential exegesis.
The water of the Hebrew text becomes a person, man who has a
kingdom in LXX and king in Targum; both versions take its flowing from the buckets to indicate the origin of this person from Israel;
and the many waters become many nations ruled by this individual.32
LXX, however, speak of Gog rather than Agag of the Hebrew text: this
is followed neither by Targums nor by Philo.33 Finally, the Targums
refer this verse and its companion Num. 24:17 to an anointed king or
Messiah. LXX are more reticent, speaking of the man and his kingdom. While at first glance Philo seems to reflect the reserve of LXX,
closer inspection suggests that he has in mind a figure arising from the
oracles and Qumran in general, see McNamara (1993), pp. 6162 and the literature
there cited.
31
See above pp. 4142.
32
See further Dorival (1994), p. 139, and R. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque III
Nombres (Paris, 1979), pp. 230233.
33
Mention of Gog may allow LXX to avoid reference to a Davidic monarch: so
Dorival (1994), pp. 139140; but see Schaper (1994), pp. 127131 for a different
view.
50
chapter three
tribe of Judah, as a summary of the rest of his third oracle (Vit. Mos.
I. 290291) will help to show. For mention of the man is followed by
the second exposition of the horns of the wild ox: God has acted as
Israels guide from Egypt, leading them as a single army-wing consuming its enemies and eating their fatness to the marrow and destroying
them with his archery (cf. Num. 24:8). The oracle ends with Philos
version of Num. 24:9, a prediction that the people, after the appearing
of the man,
shall rest lying down like a lion or a lions cub, entirely disdainful, fearing no-one, producing fear in others. Wretched is he who disturbs and
rouses him. Those who bless you are worthy of blessing, but those who
curse you are worthy of curses.
Philo has so restructured the oracle as to place the man and his
kingdom in the same network of ideas as the single army-wing led
by divine guidance under Moses from Egypt. As Borgen has shown,
this past activity of Gods provides the guarantee for what will happen
in the future.34 The final outcome is the lying down of Israel to rest
in the manner of a lion, elaborated on the basis of Num. 24:9, which
concludes the oracles. Philo has yet retained the two separate biblical
mentions of the lion (Num. 23:24 in Vit. Mos. I. 284; Num. 24:9 in
Vit. Mos. I. 291). Evidently, he regards them as significant as the two
Biblical verses with their unicorn imagery. They somehow encapsulate
Israels destiny as she is led by the man, whose kingdom advances and
is exalted to the height. LXX of Num. 24:9 alone cannot account for
Philos words. It reads:
He lay down, he rested like a lion and like a lions cub: who shall raise
him up? Those who bless you are blessed, and those who curse you are
cursed.
Philo made the first part of this utterance refer to the future, eliminated the question, and added remarks about the lions lack of fear
and his inculcation of terror in others. In certain respects, his exegesis
recalls TN of Num. 24:9, reading
They rest and encamp (Ngl adds: in the midst of war) like a lion and like
a lioness, and there is no nation or kingdom which shall stand bef(ore
them) . . .
34
Borgen (1992), pp. 353357.
balaams prophecies
51
The repetition of the lion imagery recalls Israels praise of Judah in

Gen. 49:8ff.; and given that Balaam prophesies in the person of Israel,
this emphasis on the lion and its cub compels us to return to the words
of Jacob-Israel in blessing his sons, and their interpretation amongst
Philos fellow Jews. Here is TNs version of Jacob-Israels blessing of
Judah in Gen. 49:9, so similar to TN of Num. 24:9.
I liken you, O Judah, to a lions cub. You rescued my son Joseph from
his killers. In the matter of Tamar, my son, you were innocent. You rest
and encamp in the midst of war like a lion and like a lioness; and there
is no kingdom or people that shall stand against you.35
TN and other Targums have undoubtedly associated Jacobs blessing

with Balaams prophecy. Philo has done much the same, linking the
man and the lion imagery to an army encamping; for as he remarks
before embarking on Balaams final oracle, the Hebrews were encamped
() in order, resembling a city rather than a camp
(Vit. Mos. I. 288). Philos language is allusive rather than direct; but its
sustained use of lion imagery, of terms associated with the imperial
triumph, and of themes shared with Targumic tradition, combine to
suggest that the man whom he expected as the Jews representative
and final leader would emerge from the tribe of Judah, a lion of a man
to represent a lion-like people.
5. Conclusion
The content of Balaams oracles as re-written by Philo supports several
elements of Peder Borgens interpretation of the sages eschatological
opinions. By making Balaam speak in persona Israel, and by representing him as uttering three oracles (thus signalling their comprehensive
character), Philo invests the prophecies with massive authority. This
authority he reinforces with frequent allusions to traditional Jewish
exegesis of these difficult utterances. Underlying his explanation of
them is his awareness of their affinities with Jacobs blessing of his royal
son Judah in Gen. 49:812, an awareness he shares with the Targums.
He makes Balaam predict that Israel, after battle, will sing a victory
hymn: this is without precedent in the Biblical text of the oracles, but
35
See also TO, and B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (Edinburgh, 1988),
pp. 162163.
52
chapter three
may be explained with the help of the Targums and their exposition of
Balaams words. Philo has in mind a hymn of the sort sung at a Roman
triumph, although the One to whom it is sung has no truck (unlike an
earthly Roman imperator) with ominous birds. Mention of the hymn,
nonetheless, emphasises the imperial character of Israels leader, be it
God throughout the ages, or the man who shall come in future to get
mastery over nations. This leader will eventually rule the world. And
given Philos strong affinities with the Targums throughout his exposition of Balaams words, and his awareness of the links between those
words and Gen. 49:812, it is likely that the man will belong to the
royal tribe of Judah.36
Philo acts primarily as a Biblical exegete in re-writing the Balaam oracles. He takes and moulds LXX to his needs by careful substitution of
a word or phrase to bring it into conformity with tradition. Space prevents full comparison of Philos exegetical work in these oracles with
the Targums; but enough has been said to show beyond reasonable
doubt that he knew of, and used, traditional material surviving today
in those texts.37 This evidence not only confirms Borgens emphasis on
Philo as a Biblical exegete, but also gives some support to Wolfsons view
that Philos notions of the messianic age agree in some measure with
contemporary ideas in the Land of Israel.38 In supporting conclusions
advanced by these two scholars, this study has (it is hoped) underlined
the importance of the content of Balaams prophecies as represented
by Philo. He evidently regarded them as having great authority. While
much has been written about Philos messianism in his writings as a
whole, his re-structuring of Balaams words and his motives for that
re-writing have been comparatively neglected. This essay represents a
modest attempt to address that neglect.
36
Pace S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (Oxford, 1979), pp. 109110

and Hecht (1987), pp. 139168, the latter seeing Philos messianism as at best a realized eschatology in which exegetical elements that might be nationalized and identified with specific mythical or historical figures in other systems of Jewish thought . . .
became allegorical designators for the Logos . . . (p. 162).
37
See Vermes, (1973).
38
See P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the
Second Temple Period, CRINT Section 2 (Assen, 1984), pp. 259264; article Philo of
Alexandria, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, D.N. Freedman (ed.), vol. 5 (New York,
1992), pp. 337339. Wolfson (1948), vol. 2, pp. 395426, advances some Targumic
evidence in support of his case. Hechts strictures on this (1987), pp. 143, 164, n. 12
should be reconsidered, given that Wolfson did not have access to Targum Neofiti.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE FIGURE OF ADAM IN PSEUDOPHILOS

BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES
The belief that there existed in post-Biblical Judaism a recognizable
Adam myth or Adam speculation which can be described with a fair
degree of precision and detail has come to enjoy a kind of prestige,
especially among certain New Testament scholars concerned with the
writings of St. Paul.1 A recent book by John Levison, entitled Portraits
of Adam in Early Judaism, has taken a forthright stand against many of
the methods and assumptions which have helped to create the notions
of an Adam myth; and, whatever reservations one might harbour
about points of detail in his thesis, there is little doubt that he has
offered the scholarly world a pointed and well-judged critique, from the
point of view of a student of Judaica, of many earlier studies of Adam.2
At the very least, he has demonstrated that individual texts must be
studied in their own right lest, by the indiscriminate juxtaposition
of materials originally separated widely from each other in time and
place, a superficial and misleading myth of Adam is manufactured.3
Although making passing reference to it,4 Levison somewhat
strangely leaves out of account the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
(hereafter LAB), which is a retelling of the Biblical narrative from
Genesis to I Samuel with many haggadic comments and additions. This
important text, falsely ascribed to Philo, is of Palestinian Jewish provenance, and was composed almost certainly in the first century ad.5
1
See, most recently, J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 18 (Word Biblical Commentary, vol.
38a; Word Books: Dallas, 1988), pp. 271300, who also provides an extensive bibliography, pp. 269270.
2
See J.R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch
(Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 1; Sheffield Academic
Press: Sheffield, 1988).
3
See Levison, op. cit., pp. 1423.
4
See Levison, op. cit., p. 30.
5
For description of LAB and discussions of its date, see G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1981),
pp. 265268, 275; Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. by M.E. Stone
(Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Section 2, The Literature of
the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud; Van Gorcum:
54
chapter four
It is a complex and highly wrought work of Biblical interpretation, in

which themes constantly intertwine, and concepts are inter-connected
by means of subtle verbal hints and resonances. This paper will attempt
to analyze and comment on those parts of LAB which speak of Adam.
It will be appreciated that they are of very considerable importance in
their own right, given the peculiar character of the text; and they take
on added significance in the light of Levisons book. As a secondary
concern, therefore, we shall seek to relate the results of our analysis to
Levisons work.
It is evident that the author of LAB, who is quite capable of altogether
omitting significant items of the Biblical record, attaches considerable
importance to Adam, introducing him on no less than four separate
occasions.6 In this respect, the Adam material in LAB compares with
the prominent treatment given to the Aqedah, which features three
times.7 Both Adam and the Aqedah are intruded into contexts quite
unrelated to their Biblical originals; and it would appear that these
new contexts determine in no small way the meaning and purpose of
the inserted material.
From the outset, we should notice that LAB says nothing about
Adams creation from dust; nothing about his being made in the
image of God; nothing about the existence of two creation narratives, each one of which may have a particular significance. In these
matters, LAB differs sharply and quite unmistakeably from some of
the texts which Levison has discussed; and this fact tends to confirm his view that individual post-Biblical writers are, in their use
of Adam material, guided more by their own pre-occupations than
by any putative pre-existing Adam myth.8 On the other hand, LAB
Assen, 1984), pp. 107110; D.J. Harrington, Pseudo-Philo, in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. by J.H. Charlesworth; Darton, Longman & Todd: London,
19831985), 2.297303; E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, vol. III.1 (Clark:
Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 325331 with excellent bibliography; and D.J. Harrington,
J. Cazeaux, C. Perrot, P.-M. Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquits Bibliques (2 vols.;
Sources Chrtiennes pp. 229230; Paris: Cerf, 1976), 2.1078. This last work will hereafter be referred to as Pseudo-Philon.
6
For the text of LAB, we have used the edition prepared by D.J. Harrington,
Pseudo-Philon 1. Items omitted from its re-written Bible include the sacrifices of
Cain and Abel: see further below, p. 60.
7
See LAB 18, 5; 32, 14; 40, 2.
8
See Levison, op. cit., pp. 145161. He examines Adam texts from ben Sira,
Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, Jubilees, Josephus, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Apocalypse of Moses,
and Vita Adae et Evae.
adam in pseudo-philos biblical antiquities
55
seems to furnish evidence suggesting a continuity of Jewish thinking

about Adam which, while not necessarily supporting the existence
of a clearly defined Adam myth, nonetheless indicates that specific
traditions about Adam may claim a greater degree of coherence and
historical continuity than might appear from Levisons thesis.9
1. LAB 13, 89
LAB first refers to Adam, apart from the mere mention of his name in
genealogies which open the book, in the course of a detailed description of things necessary for Israels cult.10 Chapter 13 tells how Moses,
at Gods command, made the Tent of Meeting, its vessels, the Ark of
the Covenant, the menorah, the Table for the Bread of the Presence,
and the two altars. He made next the priestly ephod, breastplate, and
precious stones: these gems will feature prominently in another relevant context. He constructed the laver, the basins, and all that had
been shown to him, along with the other priestly vestments, the girdle,
tunic, and mitre with its golden plate and crown. Finally, he prepared
the sacred oil for anointing the priests; and, when all was ready, the
cloud of Gods presence covered everything.11
Two specific laws follow: the first decrees which animals are fit for
sacrifice; the second summarizes Biblical ordinances about leprosy.12
Finally, the annual festivals are listed in order, beginning with
Unleavened Bread, which is described as a memorial, proceeding
through the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Trumpets (New Years Day),
and the Day of Atonement, up to the Feast of Tabernacles.13 God then
speaks to Moses:
And I shall remember the rains for the whole earth, and the manner of
the seasons shall be established; and I shall set the stars and command
the clouds, and the winds shall sound, and lightnings shall run to and
9
It is worth pointing out that Levisons study refers hardly at all to Rabbinic tradition, even when it might closely correspond to items which he is expounding.
10
For the name Adam, see LAB 1, 12. Otherwise, the First Man is also regularly
called Protoplastus, the First-Formed, a term used earlier by Wisdom of Solomon 7, 1;
10, 1. See Levison, op. cit., pp. 5560.
11
See LAB 13, 1. God had already shown to Moses the heavenly exemplars of all
these things: see LAB 11, 15, and the comments of Perrot, Bogaert, and Harrington
in Pseudo-Philon 2. 113114.
12
See LAB 13, 23.
13
See LAB 13, 47, and Pseudo-Philon 2. 116117.
56
chapter four
fro, and there shall be a whirling of thunder. And this shall be for an
everlasting sign, and the nights shall produce dew, just as I said after the
Flood which came upon the earth.14
While it is possible that these words comment mainly on the Feast of

Tabernacles, whose particular association with the provision of rain is
so well-known,15 it is much more probable that they speak of the whole
order of the Festivals and cult which has been described in such detail.
The ordering of the seasons, the operation of the stars, the appearance
of clouds, winds, lightning, thunder, and dew are explicitly viewed as
the fulfilment of Gods promise to Noah after the Flood; and they will
relate not solely to the Feast of Tabernacles but, as we shall see presently, to the whole of Israels Temple service.16 Indeed, with the inauguration of the Tent, its appurtenances, and its sacrifices offered by the
legitimate anointed priests, Gods covenant with Noah is made effective
and firm. Cosmic order and earthly fertility are assured. What follows
should come as no surprise: God commanded Moses
about the year of the life of Noah and said to him: These are the years
which I established after the weeks in which I visited the city of men, at
the time when I showed to them the place of creation and the serpent.17
Although partly obscure, the text speaks clearly enough of the 120
years which God ordained at the Flood and which, according to LAB 3,
2, constituted the limits of life for the men of that generation. God then
explains to Moses the significance of what He had showed to Noah:
14
See LAB 13, 7: Et memor ero in pluvia totius terre et constituetur modus temporum, et constituam astra et precipiam nubibus, et sonabunt venti, et percurrent
coruscationes, et erit turbo tonitruum. Et hoc erit in signum sempiternum, et rorem
dabunt noctes, sicut locutus sum post diluvium terre.
15
See Zech. 14, 1617, and M. Succ. 4, 910 which describes the famous waterlibation offered in the Temple at the Feast of Tabernacles: it was intended as a request
to God to send the rains and ensure the fertility of the coming year. See R. Patai, Man
and Temple (Ktav: New York, 1967), pp. 2453.
16
The promise to Noah given in Genesis 8, 22 refers to the ordering of the whole
year, not simply to autumnal rains: see Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of this verse. Dews
are associated with Passover and the month Nisan: see B.T. Taan. 4b; Pirqe de Rabbi
Eliezer 32; I Enoch 60, 20; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis 27, 1, 16.
17
See LAB 13, 8: de anno vite Noe et dixit ad eum: Hi sunt anni quos disposui post
ebdomadas in quibus visitavi civitatem hominum, in quo tempore ostendi eis locum
generationis et colubrum. The manuscripts read colorem, colour, which Harrington,
following M.R. James, has emended to colubrum, serpent: see Pseudo-Philon 2. 118,
where it is also noted that this vision of Adams is paralleled in 2 Baruch 4, 3.
57
And He said: This is the place about which I taught the first-formed
man when I said, If you do not transgress what I have commanded you,
all things will be under your control. But he transgressed My ways, and
was persuaded by his wife; for she was seduced by the serpent. And then
death was established for the generations of men. And the Lord still
went on to show him the ways of Paradise, and said to him: These are
the ways which men have lost, since they did not walk in them, because
they sinned against Me.18
For present purposes, it is not important to decide whether God, in

this quotation, showed the ways of Paradise to Moses, to Noah, or to
Adam: each of the three possibilities has points in its favour.19 What
is important is LABs sequence of thought at this point; for the text
continues:
And the Lord commanded him (Moses) about the salvation of the lives
of the people and said: If they walk in my ways, I shall not abandon
them, but always have mercy on them and bless their seed; and the earth
shall hasten to yield its fruit, and there shall be rains for their benefit,
and the earth will not be barren. For I know certainly that they shall
corrupt their ways and I shall abandon them, and they shall forget my
covenants which I established with their fathers; but I shall not forget
them for ever. And they shall know in the last days that their seed has
been forsaken because of their sins, since I am faithful in my ways.20
This long chapter links the three figures of Moses, Noah, and Adam,
and relates them to Israels cult. This cult, which Moses establishes
at Gods command and which uses physical objects which have been
divinely shown to him, is understood by LAB as giving substance to
18
See LAB 13, 89: Et dixit: Hic locus est quem docui protoplastum dicens: Si non
transgredieris que tibi mandavi, omnia sub te erunt. Ille autem transgressus est vias
meas, et suasus est de muliere sua; et hec seducta est de colubro. Et tunc constituta est
mors in generationes hominum. Et adiecit Dominus adhuc ostendere vias paradysi,
et dixi ei: Hec sunt vie quas perdiderunt homines, non ambulantes in eis, quoniam
peccaverunt in me.
19
See Pseudo-Philon 2. 118. Adams vison of Paradise is recorded in 2 Baruch 4, 3,
which bears close resemblance to this and other material from LAB cited in this essay:
see M.R. James, The Biblical Antiquites of Philo (Translations of Early Documents
Series 1; SPCK: London, 1917), pp. 4754; and Pseudo-Philon 2. 118.
20
See LAB 13, 10: Et precepit ei Dominus de salvatione animarum populi et dixit:
Si in viis meis ambulaverint, non relinquam eos sed miserebor eis semper et benedicam semen eorum, et festinabit terra dare fructum suum, et pluvia erit eis in lucrificationem et non sterilizabit. Sciens autem scio quoniam corrumpent vias suas et
relinquam eos, et obliviscentur testamenta que disposui patribus eorum, et ego tamen
non in sempiternum obliviscar eo. Ipsi enim scient in novissimis diebus quoniam pro
peccatis eorum derelictum est semen eorum, quia fidelis sum in viis meis.
58
chapter four
the covenant which God made with Noah, that the cosmos would
be stable and the fertility of the earth be assured. After the Flood, a
promise that the cosmos would not be reduced to chaos is essential
for Noah; and the promise that the earth will be fertile goes some way
towards mitigating the curse which Adam caused, that it should bring
forth thorns and thistles.21
Evidently LAB takes for granted the Biblical story of Adams place in
Paradise, his sin, his expulsion, and the decree of death for humanity. If
Adam had obeyed God, the ways of Paradise would still be accessible;
as it is, these are the ways which men have lost, like Adam, by not
walking in Gods ways. The final part of the text seems to suggest that
Gods ways are now available to men in the commands given to Moses,
particularly those relating to the cult; if men keep these ways, the earth
will be fruitful, the rains will be beneficial, and the earth will not be barren. It would therefore seem as if, in some measure, the cult provides
those ways of God which, should they be observed, might undo Adams
curse and lead men to the ways of Paradise which Adam lost, incurring
thereby for the earth a curse and a legacy of thorns and thistles.
The appearance of Adam in the context of the cult is not at all surprising when it is recalled that a whole range of writings spread in time
throughout the Second Temple period make the closest of associations between Paradise and the Temple. Of the sources which could
be cited,22 perhaps the best known, and certainly the most important
for us, is the Book of Jubilees: there we read of Noah that
he knew that the garden of Eden was the holy of holies and the dwelling of the Lord. And Mount Sinai (was) in the midst of the desert and
Mount Zion (was) in the midst of the navel of the earth. The three of
these were created as holy places, the one facing the other.23
21
See Genesis 3, 1719.

Thus the Qumran community could regard itself as the Temple (e.g. 1QS 8, 111)
which is a plantation (1QS 11, 79) described as a Garden of Eden (1QH 8, 420).
For ben Sira, Wisdom is resident in the Sanctuary, whence it flows forth like the four
rivers issuing from Paradise (24, 827). Such language is natural: Jerusalem with the
Temple is the navel of the earth (Ezekiel 5, 5; 38, 12) and is ipso facto regarded as the
site of Paradise: see J. Jeremias, Golgotha und der heilige Felsen, 2 (1926),
pp. 74128; A.J. Wensinck, The Idea of the Western Semites concerning the Navel of the
Earth (Verhandelingen der K. Akademie van Wetenschappen: Amsterdam, 1916); and
R. Patai, op. cit., pp. 8587. Both the Garden of Eden and the Temple were among the
seven things created before the world: see, e.g., B.T. Pesahim 54a; Nedarim 39b.
23
See Jubilees 8, 19. The translation is that of O.S. Wintermute in Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha 2. 73.
22
59
We should notice particularly how Eden is here juxtaposed not only

with the Temple Mount, but also with Sinai, where Moses received the
ordinances about the Sanctuary. Whether or not the author of LAB
knew Jubilees, as M.R. James long ago suggested,24 there is little reason
to doubt that he placed his first reference to Adam in the context of
the cult because of the widespread tradition that Temple and Paradise
belong together. Furthermore, Adam is tied to the cult by a similarly
widespread tradition that he was a priest and offered sacrifice: this
we find in Jubilees, the Apocalypse of Moses, the Aramaic Targum, the
Babylonian Talmud, and the Midrashim.25
If these traditions provide a ready answer to the question why LAB
first introduces Adam in the context of Temple service, at the same
time they confront us with a problem: despite the cultic context in
which Adam appears, there is no mention in LAB of his having been
a priest, no indication that he offered prayer and sacrifice, and a negative portrayal of one who lost the ways of Paradise. Since, however,
traditions about Adams priesthood were so common, we must consider the possibility that LAB, for some reason, is actually unwilling to
admit them; and such a possibility receives confirmation from what
this text tells us about Noahs flood.
Before we turn to LABs version of the Flood, however, it will be
helpful to note that this books treatment of Adam-traditions so far
discussed is not unlike its handling of traditions about the death of
Moses. Michael Wadsworth has shown how LAB knew several different stories about the circumstances surrounding the death of Moses,
and that its version of the event is one which owes a certain amount
to haggadah which it does not accept. Thus, for example, LAB rejects
the tradition that Moses was assumed into heaven, but is happy to use
language and ideas deriving from that tradition.26 The case of Adam
may be similar, in that LAB is willing to link him with the cult while
24
See M.R. James, op. cit., pp. 4546.

See Jubilees 3, 2627 and the comments of K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubilen
(Jdische Schriften aus hellenistich-rmischen Zeit, Band II, Lieferung 3; Mohn:
Gtersloh, 1981), p. 337; Apocalypse of Moses 29, 36; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of
Genesis 8, 20; B.T. Avodah Zarah 8a; Shabbath 28b; Bereshith Rabbah 34, 9; Pirqe de
R. Eliezer 31, 3. Pre-rabbinic sources have him offer incense; the Targum does not
specify the offering; Talmud and Midrash state that he offered an ox. Adams priesthood in Jubilees is described by Levison, op. cit., pp. 9395; but he does not note how
widespread the tradition of Adam as priest became.
26
See M. Wadsworth, The Death of Moses and the Riddle of the End of Time in
Pseudo-Philo, JJS 28 (1977), pp. 1219.
25
60
chapter four
not accepting notions of his priestly and sacrificial role expressed in

other writings.
Why this should be so may emerge when we consider the peculiar aspects of LABs presentation of the Flood. As we have seen, LAB
binds the Temple service with Gods covenant to Noah. Most important in this respect is the note in LAB 3, 4, that God, before the Flood,
had said to Noah:
I shall establish my covenant with you, to destroy all those who dwell
on the earth.27
This notion is not biblical, and is found nowhere else in Jewish tradition.28 But for LAB it serves an important purpose: the Flood destroys
everyone apart from Noah and his immediate family. LAB 3, 3 shows
how radically this idea is pursued: God blotted out mankind, which is
a biblical datum, and, in addition, all that germinates upon the earth,
this last an opinion voiced only by LAB.29 Thus it is stressed that the
old world prior to Noah is entirely at an end; and it is this very discontinuity with the past which marks one important element in Gods
covenant with Noah. God thereby assures Noah of a completely new
beginning after the Flood: nothing, apart from himself and his immediate family, survives of Adams progeny. And his first deed after the
Flood is the offering of sacrifice, which is accepted by God like a smell
of repose.30 This is the first time LAB refers to sacrifice, the offerings of
Cain and Abel having been passed over in silence. Noah and his offering stand at the beginning of a new world, whose stability is promised
by God; but this world will exist only for a limited time determined
by God, who will bring it to an end, raise the dead, and judge all mankind. Then death will come to an end, and hell shut its mouth:
And the earth shall not be without fertility, nor shall it be sterile for
those who dwell on it.31
27
Disponam testamentum meum ad te, ut disperdam omnes habitantes terram.

See Pseudo-Philon 2. 87, and J.P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and
the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Brill: Leiden, 1968), p. 75.
29
Deleam hominem et omnia que germinata sunt in terra. This presumably includes
plants and trees, which do not feature in Genesis 6, 7.
30
31
See LAB 3, 10: Et non erit sine fetu terra, nec sterilis habitantibus in se. There are
strong eschatological elements here, which are noted by Lewis, op. cit., pp. 7677, and
discussed in Pseudo-Philon 2. 8889.
28
61
Then there will be another heaven and another earth, an eternal dwelling place; and God concludes his covenant with Noah in the manner described in Genesis 9. The rainbow, according to LAB, will be a
memorial of that covenant between God, Noah, and the inhabitants of
the earth.
In all this, Noah seems to have taken on some of the significance
of Adam. He stands as the one father of whole human race after the
Flood, and is the pivotal individual upon whose covenant the present
limited, but stable, world order is firmly based. This covenant, with
its promise of regular seasons and fertility, finds its fullest expression
in the cult finally established by Moses. Adam, who in other Jewish
writings can be regarded as a priest, is by contrast presented in a very
negative light, albeit in the context of the cult. But LAB makes it absolutely clear that the cult, and its assurance of fertility, relate to Noah
and Moses, not to Adam. Thus after the Flood men cry to the Lord
for rain to break drought: the rain falls, the rainbow appears, and the
people see the memorial of the covenant and offer sacrifice.32 We have
already seen that the Festival of Unleavened Bread is called a memorial
in the list of Festivals which ends with Gods promise to remember
the whole earth with rain.33 The miraculous rod of Moses is also called
a covenant between God and His people, a memorial likened to the
rainbow which He set as a covenant for Noah.34
The link between Mosess rod and the rainbow is established when
God shows secrets to Moses before he dies: the promised land, the
place where clouds go up to water the earth, the origin of the waters of
the river; the land of Egypt, the place whence Israel gets its water. Once
again, the stress on water should be noted. God then shows him the
ways of Paradise; the measurements of the sanctuary; the number of
offerings; and the signs by which they start to observe the heavens.35
And He said: These are the things which have been prohibited to the
race of men, because they have sinned against themselves.36
32
See LAB 4, 5.
See above, p. 3.
34
See LAB 19, 11.
35
See LAB 19, 10. This passage refers to four sources of water; possibly the four
rivers of Paradise (Genesis 2, 1013) are in mind: see Pseudo-Philon 2. 132.
36
See LAB 19, 10: Et dixit: Hec sunt que prohibita sunt generi hominum quoniam
peccaverunt sibi.
33
62
chapter four
The items listed in the preceding paragraph will by now be familiar, and
serve only to underline the dire consequence of Adams transgression.
Adams first appearance in LAB is thus almost entirely negative, and
seems to involve a repudiation of those traditions which made of the
First Man a priest. For LAB, Adam is the one responsible for losses: he
loses the ways of Paradise, the earths fertility, and, ultimately we may
suppose, the very stability of the cosmos itself, since the logical end of
his transgression is the Flood. The cult, which has connections with
Paradise and serves to promote the earths fertility, cannot be linked
with Adam, who was responsible for the cursing of the earth. Rather,
LAB presents Noah and Moses as involved in the restoration of proper
relationships between God, the earth, and his creatures.37
2. LAB 26, 6
Adam appears again in the context of cult and priesthood, and this
time most strikingly so. The context is the lengthy story of the judge
Kenaz, who makes the individual tribes confess secret sins. The tribe
of Asher admits having found seven golden nymphs, covered with
precious stones, belonging to the Amorites. Their idolatrous character
is made clear; but they were unlike any other stones, and included
chrystal and prase from the land of Havilah. One was like a spotted
chrysoprase, and as if it revealed the very waters of the Great Deep.38
At night, these stones gave brilliant natural light; one, indeed was so
brilliant as to heal blindness. There is also mention of books associated
with these stones.39
As Kenaz wonders what to do with these things, God tells him that
an angel will put them in the depth of the sea, where the Deep will
swallow them. Then the angel will take twelve other precious stones
from the same place of origin as these seven; and these Kenaz is to
place on the ephod opposite the twelve stones put there by Moses on
37
It seems that Adam and his immediate progeny left the earth in a quite hopeless
condition, since LAB 16, 2 records another curse, not related in the Bible, which God
placed on the earth after Cain had murdered Abel. The prominence given to Noah
as a second First Man, and the Flood as a kind of New Creation, have some affinities with Philos treatment of these subjects in De Vita Mosis II. 5965: see Levison,
op. cit., pp. 7879.
38
See LAB 25, 11.
39
See LAB 25, 12.
63
the high priests breast-plate. Each stone will be engraved with the
appropriate name of an Israelite tribe.40
Before the seven precious stones and the books disappear, Kenaz
tests them with fire, iron, and water, but he cannot destroy them;
whereupon he exclaims:
Blessed be God who has done so many mighty deeds for the sons
of men, and who made the First-formed Adam, and showed him all
things; so that when he sinned in them, Adam might then renounce all
these things lest, showing them to the race of men, they might have the
dominion of them.41
Once more it would seem that LAB has knowledge of and is alluding to a number of well-known traditions which it does not make
explicit. From the passage quoted, we must presume that Adam had
been shown the seven miraculous stones in Paradise before his expulsion, in accordance with what is said in LAB 13, 89. Indeed, he was
apparently shown everything, but renounced his knowledge lest his
descendants acquire control over what he had been shown.
Implicit here is the tradition that precious stones come from Paradise,
where Adam saw them. Their unique character, and their origin in the
land of Havilah whence come chrystal and prase suggests as much;
and the twelve new stones which replace the original seven come from
the same place (LAB 26, 4). According to Genesis 2, 1012, the first
river to go out from the Garden of Eden is Pishon, which surrounds
the land of Havilah. It was Pishon, in traditional understanding, which
supplied the precious stones for the light-giving oracle on the high
priests vestments.42 From Pishon also came the precious stone which
40
See LAB 26, 24.

See LAB 26, 6: Benedictus Deus qui fecit tantas virtutes in filios hominum, et
fecit protoplastum Adam, et ostendit ei omnia ut, cum pecasset in ipsis, Adam tunc
hec universa abnegaret ne ostendens hec generi hominum dominarentur eis. Our
translation follows that of Cazeaux in Pseudo-Philon 1. 207. D.J. Harrington, in Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha 2. 337, renders the latter part of the text: . . . and showed
him everything so that when Adam sinned thereby, then he might refuse him all these
things (for if he showed them to the whole human race, they might have mastery
over them). Cf. with this M.R. James, op. cit., pp. 154155. The verb abnegare may
mean renounce or deny; so we may understand either a voluntary renunciation of
knowledge by Adam, or Gods denial of such knowledge to him.
42
See Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 35, 27; T.B. Yoma 75a; Shemoth Rabbah
33, 8; and later sources cited by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah 23 (Raphael Haim:
Jerusalem, 1966), pp. 2627. Individual letters engraved on the precious stones would
light up and spell out answers: this was the oracle Urim and Thummim, so called
because of the illuminated letters and the illuminating answer revealed: see Targum
41
64
chapter four
illuminated Noahs ark.43 LAB thus happens to be one of the earliest

witnesses to the tradition that Paradise with its river Pishon was the
source of precious stones giving light of a miraculous kind, especially
those oracle stones of the high priests ephod and breastplate.
Adams part in this, however, is again quite negative. He had been
shown all these things, but had sinned; and thus he had renounced
them, lest the human race get control of them. The fact that the
Amorites had possessed these miraculous stones does not alter this
fact: it was seven sinful men, including the notorious Nimrod, who
had devised them after the Flood: in so doing, they had sought to rebel
against God.44 It is only when Moses sets up the cult which includes
precious stones derived from Paradise (LAB 26, 13) that a legitimate
link with Paradise is once again established; but this, too, is temporary.
As we have already seen, the world in which the cult and priesthood
inaugurated by Moses operate will come to an end after a fixed period;
and, when God remembers the world, he will take the twelve stones
of the ephod, and the twelve stones given to Kenaz to replace the seven
Amorite stones, and other stones better than these,
from where eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the
heart of man.45
Then the righteous shall not lack the brilliance of the sun or of the
moon, and the light of those precious stones will be their light. Kenaz
is moved to praise God for His goodness, and to lament that mankind,
because of its sins, has been deprived of all these things. Man is weak,
and his life as nothing. After this dirge, he took the stones to put them
in the Ark, and their light was like that of the sun, illuminating the
whole earth.46
Once more, Adam is seen as responsible for a loss; and on this occasion it is the loss of the light-giving gems which come from Paradise
where he had seen them. The whole of this section of LAB is highly
Pseudo-Jonathan of Exodus 28, 30; B.T. Yoma 73b; J.T. Yoma 7, 3, end. The oracular property of the shining stones is described in detail by Josephus, Antiquities III.
215218; cf. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus I. 8890.
43
See Pseudo-Jonathan of Genesis 6, 16. Other sources refer to precious stones as
a source of light, but not to their place of origin: see, e.g., B.T. Sanhedrin 108b; Pirqe
de R. Eliezer 23, 1.
44
See LAB 25, 11 for their names.
45
See LAB 26, 13: ex eo quod oculus non vidit nec auris audivit, et in cor hominis
non ascendit. Note particularly the comments in Pseudo-Philon 2. 158.
46
See LAB 26, 1415.
65
suggestive on a number of counts. First, the text is aware that Adams

transgression led to a loss of light, radiance, brilliance, and illumination; such a view features in many other Jewish sources.47 Second,
that light has been restored, in part at any rate, in the cult, where the
high priests minister clad in the precious stones from Paradise which
enlighten by their oracles. Third, the light of the precious stones will
be augmented at the end of the present world order, and will be given
to the righteous who will shine in their radiance.
Finally, the heavy emphasis on light in this chapter of LAB demands
that we recognize the importance of the theme elsewhere in the text in
relation to the gift of the Torah. It should be stressed that not only is
the Torah that Light which illuminates Israel,48 but that Moses himself,
when he receives the Torah at Sinai, is suffused with invisible light,
and goes down to the place of the sun and the moon.49 At his death,
he is buried in the light of the whole world.50 It will hardly be necessary to point out that what God has predicted to Kenaz as the future
privileges of the righteous are here actually accorded to Moses.51 But
there is one thing more: apart from Moses, only one other individual
has contact with the invisible light: that is Kenaz himself, in a vision
before his death, who sees the creation of men from the place of the
invisible light;52 and from this we may deduce that Moses, suffused
with such light at the giving of the Torah, had been taken, as it were,
to the place where Man was first created.
It seems evident that, for the author of LAB, Moses is the one who
acquires for a time all the privileges initially granted to Adam. He
is certainly the antithesis of Adam, who, up until now in the text, is
regarded as having lost for the race of men those very things which
47
See particularly Apocalypse of Moses 20, 12; Bereshith Rabbah 12, 6; Tanhuma
ed. Buber, Bereshith 18; and Pirqe de R. Eliezer 12, 4. According to J.T. Shabbath 2, 5,
Adam was the light of the world, but his transgression deprived him of splendour.
48
See LAB 11, 1; 19, 6; 33, 3; 53, 8. On this matter, see M. Philonenko, Essnisme et
gnose chez le Pseudo-Philon. Le symbolisme de la lumire dans le Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum, in Studies in the History of Religions (ed. J. Neusner; Brill: Leiden, 1967),
pp. 401410.
49
See LAB 12, 1.
50
See LAB 19, 16.
51
Thus at the giving of the Torah the light of Mosess face was shining more brilliantly than the sun and moon (LAB 12, 1). This seems, if anything, to exceed the light
given to the righteous after God remembers the world, which light derives from the
precious stones, sun, and moon.
52
66
chapter four
Moses is shown at the institution of Israels worship, at the giving of

the Torah, and at his death. The last of these showings is, of course,
a personal privilege for Moses himself; but LAB is not unaware that
through the Temple service and the Law the people of Israel as a whole
begin to have access, albeit at several removes, to what Adam lost. Full
restoration of Adams privileges, however, will not be possible until
the end of this present world which effectively takes its beginning from
Noah. Then, with a new heaven and a new earth, the righteous will
rejoice in the light of the precious stones of Paradise.
3. LAB 32, 15
Adam figures next in LABs version of the Song of Deborah and Barak,
which gives a lengthy survey of Israels history. Certain events receive
special mention: thus we are told of the Tower of Babel; Gods choice of
Abraham; the Akedah; the story of Jacob and Esau; and the descent of
Jacob and his sons into Egypt. The giving of the Torah, whose central
significance for the Adam tradition we have just noted, again features
prominently: the Torah is described as
the foundation of understanding which He prepared from the birth of
the universe.53
At Sinai, amongst the many physical phenomena which accompany

the giving of the Torah, the abyss was revealed, and at the same time
Paradise gave off the scent of its fruit. This surely means that Paradise
was opened at that moment.54 There follows a description of Mosess
death, of which heaven, earth, sun, moon, and stars are witnesses.
Mention of these heavenly bodies triggers an account of Joshuas battle at Gibeon, where the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.
Deborah is urged to sing, and the earth to rejoice, the text according
to the majority of manuscripts reading as follows:
Rejoice, O earth, over them that dwell upon you, because the assembly of
the Lord which burns incense upon you is present. For not unjustly did
God take from you the rib of the First-formed Man, knowing that from
53
54
See LAB 32, 7: fundamentum intellectus quod preparavit ex nativitate seculi.

67
his rib Israel should be born. For your forming shall be for a witness of
what the Lord has done for his people.55
At least since the time of M.R. James, editors have tended to emend
this text so that the earth is to rejoice
because the knowledge of the Lord that builds a tower upon you is
present.56
What this might be supposed to mean is not entirely clear; and the
main reason adduced for adopting the emendation, that LAB elsewhere
represents Israel as the true tower built by God, seems, on examination, to be without foundation.57 Furthermore, the text as it appears in
the majority of its witnesses not only makes sense as it stands, but is
also consonant with other statements in LAB about Adam the Firstformed Man. What seems often to have been overlooked is the fact
that Adam is portrayed as a priest whose particular offering was one
of incense, after he had been expelled from Paradise: so much is clear
from Jubilees 3, 2627 and Apocalypse of Moses 29, 16. If we retain
the unemended text of LAB, therefore, Adam is introduced in a cultic
context, and again denied any priestly status. Israel, who spring from
his rib, offer the incense, not the Protoplast himself; and they do so
because the regulations for the incense offering have been revealed to
Moses along with the rest of the cult when he was given intimations
of Paradise.58 This is entirely what we might expect after our survey of
LABs treatment of Adam to date.
Deeper appreciation of what LAB is saying may be possible when we
set its notion of Israels formation from Adams rib alongside traditions
55
See LAB 32, 15: Gratulare terra super habitantes in te, quoniam adest concio
Domini que thurificat in te. Non enim iniuste accepit Deus de te costam protoplasti,
sciens quoniam de costa eius nasceretur Israel. Erit enim in testimonium plasmatio
tua, quid fecerit Dominus populo suo. This is the text as printed by G. Kisch, PseudoPhilos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Notre Dame: Indiana, 1949), p. 207. All witnesses read thurificat; and all except the editio princeps read concio.
56
So Harrington, Pseudo-Philo 1. 252: quoniam adest conscientia Domini que turrificat in te. See his translation in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2. 347, and M.R.
James, op. cit., p. 178: for in thee is the knowledge of the Lord which buildeth his
stronghold in thee.
57
See Pseudo-Philon 2. 175, where LAB 6, 16 and 32, 1 are brought as evidence of
this. But 6, 16 refers only to the building of a furnace into which Abraham and his
companions are to be thrown: the word tower nowhere appears. 32, 1 refers to this
event, and tells how God freed Abraham from the fired bricks used in building the
tower of Babel.
58
See above, p. 57, and LAB 11, 15; 13, 1.
68
chapter four
preserved in the Aramaic Targum. Announcing Adams expulsion from

Paradise, Targum Neofiti of Genesis 3, 22 makes God say:
Behold, the First Man (dm qdmyh) whom I have created is unique in
the world as I am Unique in highest heaven. From him are destined to
arise many nations; and from him shall arise one nation which shall know
how to distinguish between good and evil. If he had observed the commandments of the Law and had fulfilled its ordinances, then he would
have lived and endured like the Tree of Life, for ever; but now, because
he has not observed the commandments of the Law and has not fulfilled
the ordinances, behold, let us cast him forth from the Garden of Eden,
before he stretch out his hand and take of the fruits of the Tree of Life,
and eat it and live for ever.59
Furthermore, the Targumim are clear that Adam was created so that
he should keep the Law: he was placed in the Garden of Eden for that
very purpose.60 The Targumim do not, however, regard Adams failure
as the end of the story; rather, from him there will arise one nation,
distinguishing good and evil. This refers, of course, to Israel, whose
peculiar knowledge of good and evil is derived only from the gift of
the Law.
For the first time, it seems, LAB takes a more positive stance towards
Adam: he is the ultimate ancestor of Israel, the chosen people of God
to whom the Law has been given so that they, the assembly of the
Lord, may offer incense in Gods service. Here LAB appears to link
hands with Jubilees and those other writings noted by Levison which
regard Adam as the First Patriarch and forefather of Israel. LAB suggests that Adams real significance lies in this, not in his priestly status:
and accordingly the forming of Adam emerges as a witness of what
God has done for Israel.61
59
Our translation of the text edited by A. Diez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I Tomo 1
Gnesis (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas: Madrid-Barcelona, 1968).
See also M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their extant
Sources (2 vols.; Biblical Institute Press: Rome, 1980) 1.46, 127.
60
See Targums Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti, and Fragment Targum of Genesis 2, 15,
and R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Biblical Institute Press: Rome, 1963), p. 227.
61
See Levison, op. cit., pp. 9397 for Adam as Patriarch in Jubilees; pp. 4445 for a
discussion of ben Sira 49, 16, where Adam also appears as an Israelite Patriarch.
69
4. LAB 37, 3
LABs version of Jothams fable (Judges 9, 5 ff.) expands the biblical
material about the thorn-bush:
When the thorn was born, truth shone forth in the likeness of the
thorn. And when the First-formed Man was judged guilty of death,
the earth was condemned to bring forth thorns and thistles. And when
the truth enlightened Moses, it enlightened him by means of a thicket
of thorns.62
This striking and profound haggadah is built up from the biblical

statement that the earth was cursed, after Adams sin, to bring forth
thorns and thistles (Genesis 3, 18); and from the pre-Christian tradition that God revealed His Name to Moses in a burning thorn-bush.
The Septuagint translate the Hebrew snh of Exodus 3, 24 with batos,
which means a bramble-bush or wild raspberry; and Philo leaves his
readers in no doubt that this batos was composed of thorns.63 Later,
the Rabbis speak of this bush as qwzym, thorns, the word which the
Bible uses in Genesis 3, 18. Thus God spoke with Moses from among
the thorns (Exodus Rabbah 2, 7); the bush was completely of thorns
(Tanhuma Shemot 14); and the bush may symbolise idol-makers, who
are like thorns and thistles (Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 40).64
Adams sin led to a curse, that the earth bear thorns; but the product
of Adams sin becomes the very vehicle of the truth which enlightened
Moses. I am not aware of another exegesis of this kind in Jewish literature. It is astonishing, since truth in LABs understanding includes
not only the revelation of Gods Name, but is a special prerogative of
the priesthood:
May anyone speak before the priest, who keeps the commandments of
the Lord our God, especially since truth comes forth from his mouth and
gleaming light from his heart?65
62
See LAB 37, 3: Nascente spina, veritas in specie spine prelucebat. Et quando iudicatus est protoplastus mortis, spinas et tribulos adiudicata est proferre terra. Et cum
Moysen illuminabat veritas, per senticem illuminabat eum.
63
See Philo, De Vita Mosis I. 65, 68: batos n, akanthdes ti phuton kai asthenestaton.
64
Other sources assume this tradition as a matter of course: see Mekhilta de R.
Shimon b. Yohai, ed. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed (Hillel Press: Jerusalem, 1955),
pp. 12; Shemoth Rabbah 1, 9; Bemidbar Rabbah 14, 4; Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 1, 2.
65
See LAB 28, 3: Numquid aliquis loquitur prior sacerdote qui custodit mandata
Domini Dei nostri, presertim cum exeat de ore eius veritas et de corde eius lumen
refulgens?
70
chapter four
It is the priests, of course, who have charge of the Urim and Thummim
which give illuminated oracles through the precious stones set in the
high priests breast-plate. In LAB, Urim and Thummim are regularly
spoken of as Demonstration and Truth.66 It will not be necessary
to repeat what we have said about the cult, the giving of the Law,
illumination, and the precious stones themselves: all these things are
subtly related to this text about Adam and the thorns which, as a
result of his transgression, the earth brought forth.
There could be no more forceful way for LAB to indicate that the
abiding significance of Adam lies in his trangression, which had both
negative and positive results. Through it, men lost the ways of Paradise
and were condemned to death: the earth was cursed, and eventually
the Flood came and swept everything away. Yet the curse which Adam
initiated brought forth the thorn, and this very same useless and troublesome piece of vegetation provided the instrument for God to reveal
His Name and thus redeem Israel from Egypt. From this follows the
gift of the Law to Israel, Gods cultic assembly born from the rib of
the First-formed Man.
Concluding Remarks
In the same way that he introduces distinct, even unique features into
his presentation of Noah, the author of LAB has his own, very specific
view of Adam, which can be expressed with the help of exegesis almost
unparalleled in other Jewish writings. The most striking example of
this is the use made of the thorn-bush as mediator of truth. In this
and other respects, it appears from our survey that LAB uses material
about Adam to support and to deepen its own larger concerns and
particular interests: thus Adam is used to illustrate and to interpret
such fundamental matters as the cult, the giving of the Law, the end
of days, and the destination of the righteous. Regarded in this light,
LAB might be simply one more text which could be added to those
described by Levison, texts in which the presentation of Adam is
determined almost entirely by their own particular Tendenz.67
66
See LAB 22, 89; 25, 5; 46, 1; 47, 2; and cf. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus IV.69.
Tendenz is a word much favoured by Levison. It has been deliberately avoided
in this paper, since it is sometimes very difficult to define what the Tendenz of a particular post-biblical writer might be.
67
71
On the other hand, we have seen reason to believe that LAB is very
often aware of, sometimes even dependent upon, preexisting traditions about Adam. A very great deal of what is said about Adam is
placed in the context of the cult; and this can make complete sense
only in the light of a tradition, which we know to be older than LAB
and widely disseminated, in which Adam was seen as a priest who
offered sacrifice. We have seen that LAB appears to attack this tradition by partially suppressing it in the interests of its own peculiar large
concerns. But it leaves sufficient traces of that background-tradition
for us to see the authors process of thought, and the steps by which he
has arrived at his exegesis. In acting like this, LAB is exploiting already
existing traditions about Adam in much the same way as it exploits
legends circulating in its own day about Mosess death.
Again, the idea that Adam is an Israelite Patriarch is one shared
with other, earlier sources; but the presentation of this idea, and
the working out of its significance, is very much LABs own doing.
We should also recall the significant number of cases in which LAB
seems to take for granted the existence of traditional material, which
it offers to its reader without explanation, such as the association of
the Temple with Paradise, and the latter with the giving of the Law at
Sinai; the Paradisal origin of the stones in the high priests breastplate;
the notion that Adams transgression led to loss of light, which will be
restored for the righteous in the end of days; and the revelation of the
Divine Name from a thorn bush. In all these cases, LAB appears not
simply as a transmitter, but also as a moulder of traditional material.
With due respect to Levison, the evidence of LAB suggests that it
is legitimate to speak of a continuous Adam tradition, which extends
from the book of Jubilees (second century bc) to the Rabbinic period,
at any rate in respect of Adam as priest, sacrificer, and Patriarch of
Israel. It is true that the different literary sources express themselves in
different ways on these matters; so, for example, according to Jubilees
Adam offers incense, while in Rabbinic writings he sacrifices an ox.
But the basic traditions of Adams priesthood and Patriarchal status
are demonstrably old: LAB is witness to their existence in the first century ad, and forms a chronological bridge between the pre-Christian
and the Rabbinic writings. We may not, on the basis of the evidence
presented here, argue for the existence of a monolithic Adam myth;
we may reasonably suggest, however, that a coherent Adam tradition
of the kind outlined here was not only known, but also influential.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC AND JEWISH POLEMIC

AGAINST CHRISTIANITY
Students of the bible will be familiar with rabbinic Judaisms interpretation of Isaacs sacrifice by his father Abraham which is known
as the Aqedah, or Binding, of Isaac. In this interpretation, the famous
biblical story of Genesis 22 is considerably elaborated, so that Isaac
appears as a mature man, fully informed by his father that he is to
be the sacred victim, who willingly accepts his fate and joyfully succumbs to the sacrificial knife. Some sources speak of Isaacs blood as
having been shed, others of his having been reduced to ashes in the
manner of a whole burnt-offering; and, although the Bible tells of his
rescue from death, the whole Aqedah tradition regards his act as if it
had been a real sacrifice, utterly without blemish, and effective as none
other to procure Gods mercy, forgiveness, and help in times of need.
Abraham received his son alive from this perfect sacrifice, a specially
prepared ram being offered in his place; to some Jewish exegetes,1 this
suggested the notion that Isaac had died and had subsequently been
resurrected.2
Some ten years ago, Philip Davies and Bruce Chilton argued, with
characteristic force, that certain elements in the Aqedah had been
evolved as part of a continuing and authoritative rabbinic polemic
against the Christian doctrine of the atoning death and resurrection of
Jesus.3 They asserted that the rabbis, following the temples destruction
Best exemplified in Pirqe R.El. 31:3. For the text, I have used quotations in
M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah 3.2 (Jerusalem: Azriel, 1934), and the Spanish translation of M. Prez Fernndez, Los Captulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia: Institucin
S. Jernimo, 1984).
2
A full account of the Aqedah in writings of the rabbis, medieval Jewish commentators, and liturgical poets is given in S. Spiegel, The Last Trial (tr. J. Goldin; New
York: Random House, 1967). For studies of the Aqedah in the rabbinic and prerabbinic periods, see especially G. Vermes, Redemption and Genesis xxii, Scripture and
Tradition in Judaism (2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 193227; and R. Le Daut, La
Nuit Pascale (AnBib 22; Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1963), pp. 131212.
3
P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton, The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History, CBQ 40
(1978), pp. 514546. They have continued their discussions elsewhere: see P.R. Davies,
the sacrifice of isaac
73
in ad 70, countered Christian teachings with an increasing emphasis on

Isaacs all-sufficient sacrifice, at times probably depending on Christian
material to give substance to their claims. So, for example, they argued
that those rabbinic sources which place the Aqedah at Passover time
are concerned to counter Christian claims for the merits of Jesus paschal offering on the cross.4 The period of the Amoraim, the rabbis who
contributed to the formation of the two Talmuds (ca. ad 200500),
was crucial in these particular developments of the Aqedah.
But Davies and Chilton have not been without their critics. The
present writer expressed reservations about their use and evaluation of
material preserved in the Aramaic targums, while Alan Segal pointed
to many unsatisfactory aspects of their thesis as a whole.5 Likewise,
Roger Le Daut, in reviewing Chiltons most recent essay on the
subject, has again voiced criticisms similar to those which Segal and
I have articulated.6 Segal indeed allows for contact between Jewish and
Christian exegeses of Genesis 22 and suggests that, after ad 70, both
Jews and Christians drew on a common store of ancient interpretation
which they then molded and expanded in the light of their own needs
and circumstances.7
Davies and Chilton give specific examples of the way in which
the Christian Passion Narratives may have influenced the rabbinic
Aqedah. Thus Isaac carried the wood for sacrifice like a man carrying his cross; he cried out and wept; he was reduced to ashes, and
shed his blood.8 And it cannot be denied that both rabbis and Church
Fathers deduce from this story of Isaac certain common ideas. The
parallel between Isaac carrying the wood and a man carrying his cross
Passover and the Dating of the Aqedah, JJS 30 (1979), pp. 5967; and B.D. Chilton,
Isaac and the Second Night: A Consideration, Bib 61 (1980), pp. 7882.
4
See especially Davies and Chilton, The Aqedah, pp. 537540.
5
See C.T.R. Hayward, The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account
of the Sacrifice of Isaac, JJS 32 (1981), pp. 127150; and A.F. Segal, He who did
not spare his own son. . . .. Jesus, Paul, and the Akedah, From Jesus to Paul: Studies
in Honour of F.W. Beare (ed. P. Richardson and J.C. Hurd; Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier
University, 1984), pp. 169184, reprinted as The Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Judaism
and Christianity, The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (Brown Judaic Studies 127;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), pp. 109130.
6
See B.D. Chilton, Recent Discussion of the Aqedah, Targumic Approaches to the
Gospels. Essays in the Mutual Definition of Judaism and Christianity (Lanham/New
York/London: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 3949, and the review of this
book by R. Le Daut, JSJ 18 (1987), pp. 228231.
7
See Segal, The Sacrifice of Isaac, p. 129.
8
See Davies and Chilton, The Aqedah, p. 539.
74
chapter five
is oft-repeated;9 Isaac is portrayed as one dead and resurrected in both

Jewish and Christian texts;10 and both Jews and Christians speak of
Abraham as a priest.11 St. Ambrose of Milan (ca. 339397) in particular records details of exegesis which are very close indeed to Jewish
interpretations.12 But in all this there is one general problem, which
may be stated as follows. If Jewish exegetes borrowed material from
the Christian Passion Narratives to elaborate the Aqedah, would they
not, in so doing, have been in danger of allowing Christian theology
too much to define their own theological principles?
This problem confronts us forcibly when we consider the phrase the
blood of Isaac or the blood of the Aqedah of Isaac. It is well known
that the NT writers accord the blood of Jesus Christ a central place in
their theology. Poured out in his sacrificial death on the cross (Rom
3:25; John 19:34; Heb 9:14; 10:19) Christs blood procures redemption
from sin and death for all mankind (Eph 1:7; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:19;
1 John 1:7; Rev 1:5), justifies them before God (Rom 5:9), sanctifies
them, and acquires them as a holy people fit for the Lord (Heb 13:12;
Acts 20:28; Rev 5:9). It inaugurates a new covenant between God and
man (Matt 26:28 and parallels; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 10:29; 13:20) which
is expressed in the Eucharist, a repeated ritual which, from its earliest
beginnings, possessed strong sacrificial characteristics (1 Cor 10:1422;
cf. John 6:5356). The universal saving efficacy of Christs blood, shed
in one perfect and complete sacrifice on the cross, is a fundamental
theological datum which the Church Fathers and all later writers take
for granted.
9
See, e.g., Gen. Rab. 56:3; Pesiq. R. 40; and Melito of Sardis, Fragment 9; Origen,
In Genesim Homilia 8:6; Ambrose, De Abrahamo I.8:72; Ephraim Syrus, Hymns on
Virginity 8:16; and Jerome, Epistle 66:7.
10
See Pirqe R. El. 31:3; and Origen, In Genesim Homilia 8:1; Ambrose, De Abrahamo
I.3:20; Ephraim Syrus, Carmina Nisibena 72:3; and Augustine, Enarratio in Ps. 51.5.
11
See Num. Rab. 4:6; Pirqe R. El. 8:2; 31:3; and Cyprian, De Bono Poenitentiae 10;
John Chrysostom, De Lazaro Concio 5:5.
12
Thus he interprets the ass of Gen 22:5 as representing the Gentiles: In hoc enim
animante figuratur populus gentilium, ante oneri subjectus, nunc Christo subditus.
Isaac ergo Christi passuri est typus. Venit in asina, ut crediturus populus nationum
significaretur (De Abrah. I.8:71). With this, cf. the Gentiles Ishmael and Eliezer
Dammesek as asspeople, Pirqe R. El. 31:2. See also his interpretation (De Abrah.
I.8:75) of Gen 22:9, which tells of the binding of Isaac: Et colligatis manibus et pedibus Isaac filii sui, imposuit eum in aram super ligna. Nectit filio manibus suis vincula
pater; ne refugiendo filius, et vi ignis excitus peccatum incurreret. With this, cf. Frg.
Tg., Tg. Neof., and Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 22:10.
75
When we meet in rabbinic writings the phrase the blood (of the
Aqedah) of Isaac, should we discern there a Jewish counterblast to
Christian doctrine? Superficially, at least, there would seem to be no
more pointed and potent phrase to use as a weapon against one of the
most fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Indeed, both Davies and
Chilton regard the phrase as having grown out of Judaisms concern
to answer Christian teachings about atonement;13 and the failure of
the NT authors to make much explicit use of Isaac-Christ typology, so
favored by the Church Fathers, seems to lend some support to their
opinion. That opinion, however, needs more thorough scrutiny than it
has yet received; and such scrutiny leads the present writer to conclude
that the blood (of the Aqedah) of Isaac originated without reference
to Christianity at all.
At the outset it should be noted that the blood (of the Aqedah)
of Isaac occurs in rabbinic literature only very rarely.14 Probably the
oldest text to refer to it is the Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, which speaks of
it first in a comment on Exod 12:13, and again in expounding Exod
12:23. In the case of the former verse, R. Ishmael asks why, since
everything is revealed before God, Scripture should here present Him
as saying and when I see the blood (i.e., of the Passover lamb smeared
on the door-posts and lintels of Israels houses in Egypt), I will pass
over you? Since God is omniscient, why should he need to see blood
to distinguish Israelites from Egyptians? R. Ishmael replies to his own
question: as a reward for carrying out Gods commandment to daub
the houses with the lambs blood, God will be seen and protect his
people.15 This exposition is followed by another:
13
See Davies and Chilton, The Aqedah, p. 539, where they state that one way of
counteracting Christian claims was to recall the Aqedah at Passover time: for this tactic to be effective in the amoraic period, the dramatic impact of Isaacs sacrifice had
to exceed that of Jesus crucifixion, and this was achieved by adding to the Aqedah
details of the Passion Narratives, including the shedding of Isaacs blood.
14
See Mek. de Rabbi Ishmael (ed. J.Z. Lauterbach; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961), Pisha 7:7082; 11:8596; Mek. de Rabbi Simeon b.
Yohai (ed. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed; Jerusalem: Hillel, 1955), pp. 45; Tanhuma
, 23; , 3; Yal. Shimoni 1 (Wilna: Romm, 1909), pp. 5859; Abot R. Nat.,
quoted by Kasher, Torah Shelemah, p. 886. For texts which regard the rams blood as
if it were Isaacs blood, see below, n. 30.
15
See Mek. de R. Ishmael, Pisha, pp. 7077, especially lines, 7375: And why does
Scripture say And when I see the blood? Only to show that as a reward for the commandment which you are performing I will be revealed and protect you. Lauterbachs
text has been used; the translations are ours.
76
chapter five
And when I see the blood (Exod 12:13): I see the blood of the Aqedah
of Isaac, as it is said, And Abraham called the name of that place The
Lord will see (Gen 22:14); and further on it says: And as He was about
to destroy, the Lord saw and repented (1 Chr 21:15). What did He see?
He saw the blood of the Aqedah of Isaac, as it is said: God will see for
Himself the lamb, etc. (Gen 22:10).16
The second part of the exposition, here translated, is not introduced as

an alternative explanation, , but is an integral part of the commentary.17 R. Ishmael poses a real theological problem, and answers it
by saying that God gave a specific commandment which Israel carried
out: as a reward, therefore, rather than seeing the blood, God Himself
was seen, revealed to spare Israel. He understands the verb to see as if
it were a passive form, I will be seen, and thus solves the theological
difficulty. But there remains the fact that the verb in the Hebrew text is
active in form; thus the blood of Isaacs Aqedah is introduced without
preamble, and is then justified by Abrahams words in ages past that
the Lord will see, in the future. That is, Abraham has predicted a time
when God would see, in the context of the Aqedah recorded in Genesis
22. That time has arrived, and in seeing the blood of the Passover victim God acts to redeem Israel as he sees the blood of Isaacs Aqedah.
Lying behind this exegesis is the principle already made clear earlier
by R. Ishmael, that God passed over Israel as a reward for some deed
previously executed by Israel. In this case, Israel deserves protection at
the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn by virtue of Isaacs Aqedah, of
which Abraham had said that the Lord would see.
That it truly was the Aqedah which God would see, and not something else, requires proof. This is forthcoming in the scriptural text
next quoted, 1 Chr 21:15, which describes the Lord as about to
destroy, . Now the very root is used also to describe His
action at the first Passover in Egypt in Exod 12:13,23. Thus a verbal
16
Mek. de R. Ishmael, Pisha, pp. 7882.

Lauterbach, Mek. de R. Ishmael, 2.57 makes this clear. His apparatus lists only the
late collection Midrash Hakhamim (on which see his introduction, Mek. de R. Ishmael,
1. xxxii) as indicating a here. The manuscripts of Mekhilta at this point have
no such reading. For this reason, we assume that Davies and Chilton (The Aqedah,
p. 536) are referring, not to this passage, but to Pisha 11:92, where Lauterbachs text
indeed reads ; but attention to the apparatus will show that the witnesses
from which Lauterbach adopted this reading are not mss of Mekhilta, but the Midrash
Hakhamim and the Wilna Gaons Eyphat Tzedeq (see his introduction, Mek. 1. xxxiv).
There is, therefore, considerable doubt whether Mekhilta regarded even this second
passage as an alternative explanation of the text.
17
77
link is forged between three verses of Scripture, all of which can then
be interpreted in the light of one another. 1 Chr 21:15 refers to the
Lords sparing Israel from the plague at the threshing-floor of Ornan
the Jebusite where David built an altar, and this is the very site of the
future temple built, the Chronicler himself assures us (2 Chr 3:1) on
Mount Moriah, where Abraham had offered Isaac (Gen 22:1). Hence
the commentator, through these verses of Scripture, is able to link the
blood of the Passover and Mount Moriah, where Abraham offered
Isaac; and he can bring us back full circle to the Passover with mention of the lamb spoken of in Gen 22:8. It must, therefore, have been
this blood which God saw. Commenting later on Exod 12:23, And
the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians, and He will see the
blood, the Mekhilta offers virtually the same remarks as before.18
Lauterbach suggests that what God saw was Isaacs readiness to be
sacrificed, since he was not actually slaughtered; but he notes other
rabbinic sources which speak of Isaacs blood.19 It seems that the
Mekhilta may preserve the exegetical origins of the expression the
blood of Isaacs Aqedah, which set out to explain what it was that
Abraham prophesied God would see, through the process described
above. And since Isaacs sacrifice was in any case linked explicitly with
Passover in pre-Christian times,20 recourse to Gods seeing the blood
of the Passover victim/Isaac was exegetically in order. Leaving aside
for the moment any question of intended anti-Christian polemic in
these passages, or any queries as to their date of origin, it is undeniably the case that the Mekhilta attributes to Isaacs blood one, and only
one, effect: it preserves Israel from the killing of the firstborn at the
first Passover in Egypt. In this respect, it is not unlike other great acts
performed by the Patriarchs by virtue of which later Israel was deemed
worthy by God of reward and blessings. That is to say, it belongs in the
sphere of the merits of the Fathers.21
Gods rewarding the piety of the Fathers also provides the key to
correct understanding of the third text which speaks of Isaacs blood.
The Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai, in expounding Gods summons to
18
See Pisha 11:8596.

See Lauterbach, Mek. 1.57.
20
This is undoubtedly the case, despite all attempts of Davies and Chilton to avoid
the facts: see The Aqedah, pp. 533536, and Chilton, Recent Discussion, p. 43. For
an independent critique of Davies and Chilton on this point, see Segal, The Sacrifice
of Isaac, pp. 114115.
21
Cf. Segal, The Sacrifice of Isaac, p. 112.
19
78
chapter five
Moses to bring Israel out of Egypt, lays great stress on the forthcoming
exodus as the fulfillment of an oath which he had sworn in the past to
Israels ancestors. Exod 4:13 has Moses attempting to avoid this task,
asking God to use another agent; it is this attitude which God seeks to
discourage by recalling the urgency of His oath. As the commentary
is of some importance, it is quoted in full.
And God spoke to Moses. R. Jose said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said
to Moses, I am He who said, and the world was there, as it is said, God
the Lord has spoken, and called the earth (Ps 50:1); and it says, Out of
Zion, the perfection of beauty (Ps 50:2). I am He who said to Abraham
between the (sacrificial) pieces, You shall surely know, etc. (Gen 15:13).
And now, behold, the oath is insistent and has come before me, to bring
out the sons of Israel from Egypt, and I am seeking to bring them out;
but you say to me, Send by the hand of one whom you will send!
R. Joshua said, And God spoke to Moses. The Holy One, blessed be He,
said to Moses: I am faithful to pay the reward of Isaac son of Abraham,
from whom issued one quarter (of a measure) of blood on top of the
altar. And I said to him, By the greatness of your arm preserve the sons
appointed for death (Ps 79:11). And now, behold, the oath is insistent,
etc. (as in preceding paragraph).
R. Simeon b. Yohai said: And God spoke to Moses. The Holy One,
blessed be He, said to Moses, I am He who said to Jacob, And your seed
shall be like the dust of the earth. And now, behold, the oath, etc. (as
above).
R. Yehudah said, And God spoke to Moses. The Holy One . . . said to
Moses, I am judge in truth; I am full of mercy; I am faithful to render
reward; and Israel is enslaved in the power of the uncircumcised and
unclean; and I am seeking to bring them out from under their hand. But
you are saying, Send by the hand of one whom you will send!22
This complex exegesis rests on foundations laid by Exod 2:24, which

states that God heard Israels groans in the Egyptian oppression and
remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and on
Lev 26:42, where God promises to remember his covenants with
Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. As early as Sir 44:1923 we find these covenants associated with Gods oath; and interpreters commonly found
the scriptural sources for these covenants in Genesis 15 (Abraham),
22 (Isaac), and 28 (Jacob).23 The Mekhilta stresses that these oaths sworn
22
Mek. de R. Simeon b. Yohai, pp. 45.

On these covenants in rabbinic tradition, see C.T.R. Hayward, Divine Name and
Presence: The Memra (Totowa: Allenheld, Osmun, 1981), pp. 7384.
23
79
to the Fathers were the reason for the exodus; thus Isaacs Aqedah does
not stand alone as the sole cause of Gods urgent desire to effect Israels
release from bondage. His blood has no particular atoning power;
rather, as the text makes clear, Isaacs sacrifice is a meritorious deed
which deserves its proper reward.24
Yet one quarter, or a quarter of a measure of Isaacs blood is said
to have been shed, even though Isaac himself was spared from death;
Ps 79:11 is quoted to remind us of this fact.25 But this leads us to the
text which most clearly depicts the blood of Isaac, the fourth for our
consideration, as it is preserved in Tanhuma.
He (Abraham) took up the knife to slaughter him (Isaac), until there
came forth from him one quarter of his blood. And Satan came and
knocked Abrahams hand, so that the knife fell from his hand. And
when he put out his hand to take it up, a heavenly voice went forth
and said to him from heaven: Do not stretch out your hand against the
lad (Gen 22:12); and if it had not done so, he (Isaac) would have been
slaughtered already.26
The part played by Satan will merit further mention; but it would
seem that the last sentence of the passage quoted holds the clue to the
meaning of this text. Abraham was completely committed to carrying
out Gods command to slay his son; he even drew blood from him,
and would have killed him altogether but for Satans intervention and
the heavenly voice. Abrahams obedience to Gods decree is absolute.
Nothing is said of divine rewards for his obedience, nor of the future
saving effects of Isaacs blood. The theme of Abrahams obedience is, of
course, biblical and figured large in prerabbinic exegesis.27
Looking at this evidence, it is hard to conclude that the blood (of the
Aqedah) of Isaac has much to do with Jewish responses to Christianity
and its doctrine of atonement. The phrase occurs so rarely and fails to
engage with the claims which the NT makes for the universal efficacy
of Christs sacrificial blood.28 Further, none of these texts requires the
hypothesis that it originated or developed with Christianity in mind;
on the contrary, they make perfect sense within a purely Jewish religious
24
Note particularly the comment of R. Yehudah in the last paragraph of the quoted
text.
25
26
27
28
Thus there is no question of Isaacs death and resurrection.

Tanhuma , 23, translated from Hebrew in Kasher, Torah Shelemah, p. 896.
See Davies and Chilton, The Aqedah, p. 520.
See above, p. 74.
80
chapter five
and theological context. Besides this, there are three additional reasons
for denying any connection between this phrase and anti-Christian
polemic.
First, there is evidence that attempts were made to suppress the
tradition that Isaacs blood was shed, and the very success of these
attempts may account for its scarcity in the literature as a whole.
Rather than developing and bringing to the fore the notion of Isaacs
blood as a means of atonement, midrashic texts of central importance
do the very opposite, and firmly and expressly rule out of court any
theological use of it. Thus we read:
And He said: Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, etc. And
where was the knife? Tears of the angels of the service had dropped
upon it and melted it. He (Abraham) said to Him: I shall strangle him
(Isaac). He said to him, Do not stretch out your hand against the lad. He
(Abraham) said to Him: Let us bring forth from him a drop of blood.
He said to him: Do not do anything to him; do not make a blemish in
him (Gen. Rab. 56:7).
As in the case of Tanhuma quoted above, Abraham is determined, if

possible, to slay his son. But Genesis Rabbah, unlike Tanhuma, clearly
states that Abraham was forbidden by God to draw even so much as
a single drop of Isaacs blood. Other sources are equally insistent that
this was so.29 In this way, a concept which might have developed into
a weapon for use against Christianity was removed from the field of
operations. And we may infer why this happened; for to speak of the
blood of Isaac, to associate it with means of atonement and forgiveness,
and perhaps tacitly to imply that it was as good as, or superior to, the
blood of Jesus, would be to admit in principle that the fundamental
axioms of the Christian doctrine of the atonement were in substance
correct, and that Judaism was in some sense defective without a Jesuslike figure.
Nevertheless, what could quite properly be a response to Christian
notions of atonement may be discerned later on in the same text, at
Gen. Rab. 56:9, where we read:
R. Judah in the name of R. Benaiah said: He (Abraham) said before Him:
Lord of all the worlds, see the blood of this ram as if it were the blood
29
The quotation from Genesis Rabbah is our translation of the Hebrew text printed
by J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (Berlin: Itzkowski, 1927). See also Pesiq. R. 40; Pesiq.
Rab Kah. 26:3; Ag. Ber. 66, 71; and Yal. Shimoni, 1.59.
81
of Isaac my son, the sacrificial portions of this ram as if they were the
sacrificial portions of my son Isaaclike as we have learned: See, this is
instead of that, this is an exchange for that; behold, this is a substitute for
that. See, this is (a valid) exchange. R. Pinhas in the name of R. Benaiah
said: He (Abraham) said before Him: Lord of the worlds, regard it as if
I had sacrificed Isaac my son at first, and afterwards I had offered this
ram instead of him, just as Scripture says, And Jotham his son reigned
in place of him.30
Here we have a sacrifice which, it could be argued, is different from

anything Christians might adduce; without dying and without shedding even a drop of his blood, Isaac at his Aqedah makes available for
Israel the benefits of his piety, provokes Gods remembrance of His
people, and assures Israel of His continuing mercy.31 All these benefits and privileges are available to Israel without recourse to a quasiChristian doctrine of a sacrificed redeemer; and, far more important,
they accrue to Jews as the result of the application of a basic halakhic
principle found in the Mishnah and directly invoked by the Midrash.32
The effect of this is to concentrate some exegetical endeavor on the
ram caught in the thicket and offered as a substitute for Isaac; and this,
too, would make sense when it is recalled that the Church Fathers had
long pointed out how the ram, rather than Isaac himself, was the true
anticipation of the redeemer.33
Second, it may be possible to trace the original use and Sitz im
Leben of the phrase the blood (of the Aqedah) of Isaac back to a
30
For the notion that the rams blood is accounted as if it were the blood of Isaac,
see also Num. Rab. 17:2; Eccl. R. 9:7.1; Pesiq. R. 40; and Tanhuma Shallah 14.
31
For the Aqedah and Gods mercy, see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 56:10; y. Taan. 2:5.4 end;
and zikhronoth in the Musaf service for Rosh HaShanah. Its remembrance will effect
Gods deliverance of Israel: thus, e.g., Tg. Neof. Gen 22:14 and its marginal gloss; and
will make for their atonement, Pesiq. R. 47; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23, 27; Lev. Rab. 29:7; and
Frg. Tg. Gen 22:14.
32
M. Tem. 5:5, discussing valid and invalid means of substituting one sacrificial
beast for another, states: (If he said,) Let this be instead of this, (or) the substitute
for this, (or) in exchange for this, it is a valid substitute (tr. H.H. Danby, The
Mishnah [Oxford: Clarendon, 1933]). On the use of the oral law and scriptural exegesis which supported it as a defense against Christianity and as an apology for Judaism
by the Amoraim, see J. Neusner, Midrash in Context: Exegesis in Formative Judaism
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 111137.
33
It is interesting to record that, according to St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio xlv
In Sanctum Pascha 12, God the Father would not accept Isaac, but exchanged the sacrifice, allantllaxato tn thysian, the ram being offered in place of the rational victim.
See also Melito of Sardis, Fragment 10; Ambrose, De Abrah. I.8:7778; In Psalmum
XXXIX Enarratio 12. For the significance of the rams horn in rabbinic writing, see,
e.g., y. Taan. 2:5.4; Pesiq. R. 40; Tanhuma 23, 46; b. Ro Ha. 16a.
82
chapter five
period when developed Jewish polemic against Christianity hardly

existed. The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Bib. Ant.), erroneously
attributed to Philo, is datable to the first century ad; and it is widely
acknowledged that the bulk of the traditional material contained in
it belongs to the period before ad 70.34 It alludes to the Aqedah on
three occasions, the first of which will claim our attention. This is set
in the context of Balaks summons to Balaam to curse Israel. God asks
Balaam who Balaks emissaries might be, and in return is questioned
by Balaam why He subjects men to temptation, since they cannot
endure it. God knows what is to happen in the world, even before He
created it. So is it right for Balaam to go with Balaks men and curse
Israel? God replies to this:
Is it not regarding this people that I spoke to Abraham in a vision, saying, Your seed shall be like the stars of heaven (Gen 22:17), when I lifted
him above the firmament and showed him the arrangement of all the
stars? And I demanded his son as a holocaust. And he brought him to
be placed on the altar, but I gave him back to his father and, because he
did not refuse, his offering was acceptable before me, and on account
of his blood I chose them (et pro sanguine ejus elegi istos). And then I
said to the angels who work secretly, Did I not say regarding this, I will
reveal everything I am doing to Abraham (Gen 18:17) and to Jacob his
son, the third one whom I called firstborn, who, when he was wrestling
in the dust with the angel who was in charge of hymns, would not let
him go until he blessed him? (Gen 32:2427). And do you propose to go
forth with them to curse whom I have chosen? (Et nunc ecce tu cogitas
proficisci cum eis ut maledicas quos elegi?) But if you curse them, who
will there be to bless you?35
Gods answer to Balaam asserts that He has chosen Israel, and the proof
of this fact is to be found in his dealings with the three Patriarchs
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; we should note particularly that Jacob is
styled the third one whom the Lord called firstborn. But Gods choice
of Israel is directly linked to Isaacs sacrifice in this context, so much
so that Perrot and Bogaert are entirely in order when they comment
that the blood of Isaac, considered as a real sacrifice, seals Israels
34
For the most recent critical assessment of Bib. Ant.s date, see E. Schrer, The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ III.1 (rev. and ed. G. Vermes,
F. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), pp. 325330.
35
Bib. Ant. 18:56. Translation of D.J. Harrington in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha 2 (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1985),
p. 325. For the original text, I have used PseudoPhilon, Les Antiquits Bibliques 1,
(Introduction et Texte Critiques par D.J. Harrington; SC 229; Paris: Cerf, 1976).
83
election by God and His covenant with them.36 The clause et pro sanguine ejus elegi istos might conceivably refer to Abraham; but the most
natural interpretation of the words would refer them to the blood of
Abrahams sacrificial victim, namely, Isaac.37 Nonetheless, it is evident
that the other references to Isaacs sacrifice, Bib. Ant. 32:14; 40:2, neither allude to Isaacs blood, nor speak of the sacrifice as having taken
place in reality.
It would seem that Bib. Ant., which yields the earliest datable written
reference to the blood of Isaac, is very much in the same mold as the
passage from the Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yohai which we inspected
above. The same basic principles are at work in both sources. That
is to say, Gods activity on behalf of Israel is, in quite specific ways,
determined by his covenant promises to the Patriarchs. In Mekhilta,
the virtues and pious deeds of the Fathers urge God to fulfill His oath
to bring Israel out of Egypt; in Bib. Ant., the election of Israel as Gods
own people, whom Balaam is forbidden to curse, is the outcome of
fundamental acts and words expressed in the lives of the Patriarchs
long ago. The Mekhilta de R. Ishmael, in speaking of the blood of
Isaacs Aqedah, offers the same kind of thinking: in this case, Israel
in Egypt is spared the slaughter of the firstborn because of Abrahams
prophecy that the Lord would see.
If our analysis of these texts is correct, it is reasonable to suggest
that the phrase the blood of Isaac originated during or before the
first century ad in the context of Jewish thinking about the merit of
the Fathers. Furthermore, its importance should not be overestimated,
since Isaacs blood stands alongside other equally weighty considerations
which involve Abraham and Jacob. In answer to such questions as:
Why did God bring Israel from Egypt? Why did He not allow Balaam
to curse Israel? Why did Israel escape the death of the first-born
through blood?, some aspect of Patriarchal fidelity is paraded, of which
Isaacs sacrifice is one. It is unnecessary therefore to see the blood of
Isaac as an anti-Christian device; indeed, its superficial resemblance to
36
See Pseudo-Philon, Les Antiquits Bibliques (Introduction Littraire, Commentaire et Index par C. Perrot et P.-M. Bogaert; SC 230; Paris: Cerf, 1976), p. 126.
J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the
Aqedah (AnBib 94; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981), pp. 5051, offers particularly valuable insights and perceptive commentary on this section of Bib. Ant.
37
See Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale, p. 194: note how he proposes a possible Hebrew
Vorlage which involves the notion of zekhut.
84
chapter five
Christian ideas about the blood of Jesus may account for its curtailment by certain rabbinic authorities, as in Gen. Rab. 56:7,9.
The third reason for arguing that the blood (of the Aqedah) of Isaac
owes nothing to Jewish reaction to Christianity is the evidence of the
Church Fathers themselves. It is well known that the apologist bishop
Melito of Sardis, who died ca. ad 190, was the first Christian writer
to use Isaac-Christ typology to any effect. Before him, the writers of
the First Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas make scant
and superficial references to Isaac, who plays no part in their main
arguments.38 And it is striking that Justin Martyr (ca. ad 110165),
whose Dialogue with Trypho shows considerable knowledge of Jewish
exegetical tradition, has nothing to say about the figure of Isaac. The
Church Fathers of the third and fourth centuries never, to the best
of my knowledge, show signs that Jews of their day spoke of Isaacs
blood.39
This last point, we would submit, is most telling. For had the blood
of Isaac featured at all significantly in the teachings of the late Tannaim
and the Amoraim, the Church Fathers would have taken malicious
delight in it. Here, they would have said, is the proof of Jewish falsification of Scripture: here is proof of the lies and deceit which we
Christians have always known them to practice! In the hands of the
Church Fathers, a phrase like the blood of Isaac would have been
much more than a stick to beat the Jews; it would have been used to
justify horrible anti-Jewish acts on the grounds that they were blaspheming against the blood of Christ.
To illustrate what has been said, we might briefly analyze what
Melito actually says about Isaac and Jesus. His evidence is particularly
enlightening since he was bishop of a city which had a large Jewish
community and a thriving synagogue. The Jews of Sardis, indeed, were
persons of power and influence in their society.40 In his Homily on
the Pascha he lists Isaac as a type of Christ; but he is one type among
many, including Abel who was murdered, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David,
38
See Hayward, The Present State, p. 146; R.L. Wilken, Melito and the Sacrifice of
Isaac, TS 37 (1976), pp. 6264; and see P. Prigents notes in the volume prepared by
himself and R.A. Kraft, Eptre de Barnab (SC 172; Paris: Cerf, 1971), pp. 129131.
39
This holds true also of the text of St. Athanasius, Festal Epistle 6:89, quoted by
Wilken, Melito, p. 66.
40
See Wilken, Melito, pp. 5358; Schrer, History III. 1, pp. 202222.
85
and the paschal lamb.41 But his Fragments may, as Wilken suggested,
betray some knowledge of Jewish traditional understanding of Isaacs
offering, and a desire to refute this understanding by outright denial
of its major elements:
But Christ suffered, whereas Isaac did not suffer; for he was a model
(typos) of the Christ who was going to suffer. But by being merely the
model of Christ he caused astonishment and fear among men. For it was
a strange mystery to behold, a son led by his father to a mountain for
slaughter, whose feet he bound and whom he put on the wood of the
offering, preparing with zeal the things for his slaughter. But Isaac was
silent, bound like a ram, not opening his mouth nor uttering a sound.
For not frightened by the sword nor alarmed at the fire nor sorrowful at
the suffering, he carried with fortitude the model of the Lord. Thus Isaac
was offered in the midst foot-bound like a ram, and Abraham stood by
and held the sword unsheathed, not ashamed to put to death his son.42
What is striking here is Melitos comment that Isaac was silent, because
Jewish sources like Josephus Antiquities and Pseudo-Philos Bib. Ant.,
which are demonstrably earlier than Melitos time, indicate that Isaac
had a good deal to say.43 And the tradition that Isaac suffered is strongly
represented in 4 Maccabees which presents him as the model of a martyr for the Jewish faith, yet without any mention of his blood.44 It would
not seem unlikely, then, that Melito is flatly contradicting two Jewish
traditions about the Aqedah which were well known to Christians in
Sardis because of the citys large Jewish population. But Melito does
not remark that Christs blood was shed, whereas Isaacs was not; and
he surely could not have overlooked this matter if, at Passover time, the
Jews of Sardis were recalling the blood of Isaacs Aqedah.
Interesting is Melitos description of the events as a mystery, a word
used also by the Syriac writer St. Ephraim (ca. ad 306373) whose
association with Jews and knowledge of their traditions are well known.45
41
See S.G. Hall, Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon,
1979), p. 37; cf. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem III. 18. All references to Melitos work
are cited according to Halls edition.
42
For translation, see Hall, Melito, p. 75.
43
See Josephus, Antiquities I., pp. 222236; Bib. Ant. 32:3.
44
See especially Segal, The Sacrifice of Isaac, pp. 117118.
45
See his Hymns on the Church 11:3 in Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen
de Ecclesia (CSCO 198 [Scriptores Syri 84]; ed. E. Beck; Louvain: Catholic University
of America/Catholic University of Louvain, 1960), p. 28: To Abraham you gave the
promise, and in Isaac you fashioned the great mystery. The translation is from Des
Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Ecclesia (CSCO 199 [Scriptores Syri 85); ed.
86
chapter five
Once again, Ephraim says nothing about Isaacs blood, but, like Melito,
seems to refute a Jewish tradition by flatly contradicting it: on this
occasion, it is the tradition that Abraham had told Isaac that he was
to be the lamb for the offering.46
Isaac had asked about the sacrifice, Where is the lamb for the whole
burnt offering? The speaking lamb asked the question about the dumb
lamb. Abraham did not reveal to his son that You are the lamb for the
whole burnt offering, lest he turn in sobbing and there be a blemish in
his offering.47
Like the Western Fathers, Ephraim uses the Isaac-Christ typology to

full effect; but there is no hint that he is aware of any Jewish tradition
that Isaacs blood was shed.48
Whatever the exact relationship between individual details of Jewish
and Christian elaboration of the story of Isaacs offering, our investigations have led us to conclude that the blood (of the Aqedah)
of Isaac, at least, has nothing to do with alleged Jewish attacks on
Christianity. Indeed, we have reason to believe that this phrase may
have been suppressed in rabbinic terminology, precisely because of its
superficial resemblance to Christian theological discourse about the
blood of Jesus. We should, therefore, be alive to the suggestion that
other apparent similarities of detail in the Aqedah and the Christian
Passion Narratives are not necessarily the result of antagonism between
Judaism and Christianity in the period of the Tannaim or Amoraim.
For example, it is tempting to suggest that Satans attempts to prevent
the Aqedah, represented by the passage of Tanhuma quoted above and
by other sources,49 may represent a Jewish adaptation of NT passages
which present Satan as trying to dissuade Jesus from undergoing his
E. Beck; Louvain: Catholic University of America/Catholic University of Louvain,

1960), pp. 3031. For Ephraims acquaintance with Judaism and Jews, see R. Murray,
Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975).
46
For this tradition, see especially Tg. Neofiti, its glosses, and the Frg. Tg. Gen
22:8.
47
Ephraim Syrus, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones II (CSCO 311
[Scriptores Syri 13435]; ed. E. Beck; Louvain: Catholic University of America/
Catholic University of Louvain, 1970), p. 6. The translation is ours.
48
This much is evident from the sermon quoted above, and from his commentary
on the Diatessaron at John 8:56; Luke 19:4142; and Matt 27:42: see the translation
of L. Leloir, Ephraim. Commentaire de lEvangile concordant ou Diatessaron (SC 121;
Paris: Cerf, 1966).
49
See Gen. Rab. 56:7,9; Tanhuma 22; Pesiq. R. 40; and cf. Kasher, Torah
Shelemah, pp. 886887.
87
future suffering and death (Matt 4:811; 16:2123; Mark 8:3133).

Equally, Satan can be seen in other sources as the initiator of the
Aqedah (e.g., Jub. 17:16; b. Sanh. 89a), just as he is of the sufferings
of Jesus (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). Both Isaac and Jesus overcome him
through their voluntary acts of total submission to the divine will.
Once more, however, close examination of the texts shows that
Jewish and Christian writers have quite different ends in view. In trying to prevent the Aqedah, Satan plays on Isaacs emotions, suggesting
that he, the promised son of his parents old age, will inflict untold
suffering on Sarah and Abraham; some sources indicate that Satan
would have tried to make the sacrifice blemished. Satan also reminds
Isaac that, should he be killed, Ishmael will inherit.50 All this is quite
different from Satans temptation of Jesus, that he should avoid his
destiny of suffering and death because he is Son of God, and has the
power to do as he will. Again, according to Babli Sanhedrin, Satan
incited God to test Abraham with the Aqedah because, up until that
time, Abraham had offered no sacrifice, although he had received
many benefits and blessings from God. But Satans reasons for conniving at the crucifixion of Jesus are rooted in his perception that Jesus
constitutes a terrible threat to his power and dominion on this earth,
and announces its end (Mark 3:2227; Matt 12:2429; Luke 10:1720).
For the NT, Satan is bound and ultimately defeated by the Passion of
Jesus: no such effect is attributed to the Aqedah.
Enough evidence exists, we would submit, to justify a thorough
reassessment of the apparent similarities between the exegetical
details of Isaacs Aqedah and the Christian Passion stories. The opinion which holds that Jews in the second to fifth centuries ad reacted
against Christian doctrines of atonement by embellishing the account
of Isaacs sacrifice with motifs derived from the NT is open to serious
question. In this essay, we have tried to show that the Jewish response
to Christian atonement, if indeed such a response was involved in the
Aqedah, was conducted in rather more subtle ways than by means of
filching the oppositions terminology. And one would expect nothing
less of the rabbis, whose use and understanding of Scripture and tradition could be relied upon to defend Judaism in its own terms.
50
See, e.g., Pesiq. R. 40 for Satan playing on Isaacs emotions; Gen. Rab. 56:9 for
Abrahams fear that he will make the sacrifice blemished; and Tanhuma 22 for
the threat that Ishmael would inherit.
CHAPTER SIX
A PORTRAIT OF THE WICKED ESAU IN THE

TARGUM OF CODEX NEOFITI 1*
The striking oddity, if not outright eccentricity, of the delineation of
Esaus character and activity in Targum Neofiti becomes increasingly
apparent the more that Targum is studied. Most evident, even at first
sight, is this Targums restrained and sparing use of post-biblical material hostile to Esau. Indeed, close examination of the Targum suggests
that even such fragments of hostile material as are presently incorporated in the text may, in some cases, have formed no part of the
original rendering. Also noticeable is the poor state of the manuscript
in many verses which speak of Esau: this is the case, even leaving aside
passages which censors have erased or otherwise modified. Finally, we
may point to aspects of Neofitis interpretation which seem vague and
even ambiguous; and the rationale behind some of its divergences
from the translations of the other Targums is not always immediately
apparent.
Each of these peculiarities may, however, help to shed light on
Neofitis character. For Esau was a figure of central importance in
Jewish thought from late Second Temple times until the redaction of
the Babylonian Talmud and after; and it would not be unreasonable
to suppose that the Targums presentation of him was determined by
its reaction in favour of, or against, other currents of Jewish thinking
about him.1 Hence it will be important to show briefly something of
the depth of the antagonism towards him displayed in postbiblical literature, and to set this alongside the Targum.
* The following editions of Targums of the Pentateuch have been used: A. Dez
Macho, Ms. Neophyti (5 vols.; Madrid-Barcelona, 19681978); E.G. Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd, and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (New York: Ktav, 1984); A. Sperber, The
Bible in Aramaic. I. The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959);
M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources
(2 vols.; Rome, 1980); idem, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum (2 vols.;
Cincinnati, 1986). Translations are my own.
1
For a recent survey of postbiblical attitudes to Esau, see L.H. Feldman, Josephus
Portrait of Jacob, JQR 79 (198889), pp. 101151, esp. 118133.
a portrait of the wicked esau
89
Already in the second century bce, the book of Jubilees offers a

highly developed re-writing of biblical data about Esau, in which he
is described as fierce, illiterate, and dangerous. His mother Rebecca,
rather than Isaac his father, knows his true character: he is uncompromisingly depraved, unrighteous, and violent. She catalogues his wickedness, which culminates in the idolatry of his descendants. Although
Esau admits to his father that he freely sold his birthright to Jacob,
and agrees on a proper division of the inheritance with his brother, he
is compelled by his sons to go to war with Jacob once their father is
dead. In the course of this war, Jacob kills Esau, and brings his people
into servitude.2
Philo, although less concerned about the details of Esaus history,
is as convinced as the author of Jubilees that Esau is wicked: he is,
in short, the very representation of evil, and his descendants were
deadly enemies of Jacobs children.3 But Josephus seems to moderate
this unrelievedly black portrait of Esau, while managing nonetheless
in a diplomatic manner to point to Esaus shortcomings and defects
of character. Louis H. Feldman has recently argued that Josephus
has deliberately moulded his presentation of Esau to suit his Roman
patrons, since the equation of Esau with Rome and the Romans had
already been established in his day.4 Whether or not he is correct on
this matter, it is well known that Jewish texts, including the Talmuds
and Midrashim, eventually came to use Esau as a code-name for the
hated Rome, the tyrannical destroyer of the Temple and the Jewish
state.5
As for the Targums, the Fragment Targums, marginal glosses of
Neofiti (= Ngl), and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan view Esau as utterly
wicked, and are aware of the identification of Esau with Rome. It is
2
See Jub. 19.1314 for Esaus illiteracy, which Feldman, Josephus Portrait, p. 119
properly notes as intended to contrast with Abrahams learning, Jub. 11.16; 12.27; and
Jub. 35.838.10. 1 En. 89.12 also describes Esau in uncomplimentary language.
3
See, for example, Philo, Sacr. 4 (ii); Congr. 129 (xxiii); Vit. Mos. 1.23949 (xliii
xliv).
4
See Feldman, Josephus Portrait, pp. 130133.
5
See G.D. Cohen, Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought, in Jewish Medieval
and Renaissance Studies (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1967), pp. 1948; H. Hunzinger, Babylon als Deckname fr Rom und die Datierung
des I. Petrusbriefes, in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land (ed. H. Reventlow; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), pp. 6777; and S. Zeitlin, The Origin of the Term
Edom for Rome and the Christian Church, JQR 60 (1969), pp. 262263.
90
chapter six
not clear, however, that Neofiti is of one mind with them; and to the
particulars of this Targum we should now address ourselves. In the
discussion which follows, it will be convenient to order the targumic
material under four headings: events before and during Esaus birth;
events during his lifetime; references to him after his death; and the
question of Esaus identification with Rome.
1. Events before and during the Birth of Esau
According to Gen. 25.21, Rebeccas lack of children led Isaac to entreat
God on her behalf. Neofitis version is remarkable in three respects.
First, it begins by agreeing with Onqelos in translating Hebrew wytr,
and Isaac entreated, as and Isaac prayed: the Peshitta has the same
translation, and so, in essence does Pseudo-Jonathan. But in translating
the Bibles succeeding remark that God was entreated of him, wy tr lw
Yhwh, Neofiti departs entirely from the consistency of Onqelos, which
says that the Lord received his prayer: Neofiti, and the Peshitta, have
instead and the Lord answered him. Second, the Bible says that Isaac
entreated God lnkh his wife: the literal meaning of the Hebrew word
is facing, which Onqelos represents as opposite, thereby allowing for
a tradition attested by b. Yeb. 64a that Isaac and Rebecca prayed at
opposite corners of the room. But Neofiti parts company with Onqelos
by translating the word as on account of , in the same way as lxx,
Vulgate, and Peshitta. Finally, Neofiti has no trace of the tradition
recorded in Ngl, Pseudo-Jonathan, and PRE 32.3 that Isaac prayed on
the Temple mountain where his father had bound him. Neofitis agreements with the Peshitta, and its translations now with, now against,
Onqelos, should be particularly noted.
The Bible (Gen. 25.22) describes Rebeccas pregnancy thus:
And the children struggled together wytrssw
within her; and she said, If
it is so, why am I like this? And she went to enquire of the Lord.
All the extant Targums translate wytrssw

with some form of the root
dhq, which has the sense of press, squeeze, impel. While Onqelos uses
the Peal of this verb, Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragmentary Targum
Paris Ms 110 (= FTP) and Fragmentary Targum Vatican Ms 440
(= FTV) use the Ithpeel, which has the additional sense of be oppressed,
afflicted. Possibly these Targums thereby hint that the brothers were
enemies even from the womb; for the verb dhq is elsewhere associated
91
with affliction (srn) and servitude (bd) of Israel in Egypt, as in Neofiti

of Deut. 26.7. Rebeccas question in the Hebrew is a little obscure, so
Neofiti elucidates and translates:
If the distress (srhwn) of having sons is like this, why should I now have
children?
This clarification coincides for the most part with Pseudo-Jonathan,

FTP, FTV, and two glosses in Neofitis margin, as, indeed, does Neofiti
to the rest of the verse:
And she went to the Study House of Shem the Great to beseech mercy
from before the Lord.
But Neofiti here contrasts with Onqelos, which translates Rebeccas

question literally, has no reference to Shems Study House, and has
Rebecca seek instruction, not mercy, from God. Neofiti appears fully
integrated with the Palestinian Targumim here, being closest to PseudoJonathan and FTP; FTV and the second Ngl state that she went to
seek mercy and only then add in the Study House of Shem the Great.
Interestingly, the Church Father Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393c. 466) in
his Quaestiones in Genesim 77 states that Rebecca went to consult a
priest, probably Melchizedek.
The Bible next records (Gen. 25.23) the divine explanation of
Rebeccas state:
And the Lord said to her: Two nations (gyym) are in your belly; and two
peoples (lmym) shall be separated from your innards: and (one) people
shall be stronger than (the other) people, and the elder shall serve the
younger.
Neofiti understands the first part of this prophecy to mean:

Two peoples (wmyn) are in your belly, and two kingdoms shall be separated from your belly: and (one) kingdom shall be stronger than (the
other) kingdom, and the greater shall be in servitude before the lesser.
Neofitis translation of Hebrew gyym as wmyn is not shared with

Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan (cf. Peshitta), which have mmyn: it is,
however, picked up later in the verse by Ngl (cf. Peshitta), which says
that one wmh shall be stronger than the other wmh; and most significantly by Neofiti itself at Gen. 27.29, where the wmy who will be in
servitude to Jacob are defined as all the sons of Esau.
But Neofiti certainly agrees with Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan,
against lxx, Vulgate, and Peshitta, that two kingdoms rather than two
92
chapter six
peoples are in Rebeccas womb, one of which will be the stronger: and
it is the view of rabbinic texts such as Gen. R. 63.7, b. Avod. Zar. 2b,
and PRK 29 that the Hebrew lwm means kingdom. Such an interpretation may be latent in the thought of Philo, who emphasizes that God
does not allude to their names, but to the nations which were to arise
from them, since they were both patriarchs of great nations which
would later appear; and that the one would be archn, hgemn, and
despots, while the other would be hupkoos and doulos.6
The last part of the prophecy, that the elder should serve the
younger, is expressed in Hebrew as wrb ybd syr. All the Targums
keep close to the actual Hebrew vocabulary, using similar words in
Aramaic: Neofiti has wrbh yhwwy mbd qdm zyr, which may indeed
refer to the two children as elder and younger, but equally may speak
of them as greater and lesser respectively. Grossfeld, commenting on
Onqelos here, notes the power of the verb bd, to enslave, reduce to
servitude or slavery, and thus translates as greater and lesser, seeing
in these expressions a reflection of the conflict between Jacob-Israel
and Esau-Rome.7 It is possible that Neofiti should be understood in
the same way; but it is not certain, and it should be noted that there is
no reference in the text to Esau or to Rome. Possibly to remedy what
was felt to be a defect, the Ngl has supplied further information:
because the kingdom of Esau is at an end; and afterwards (will arise)
Jacob, his kingdom which shall not be destroyed and which shall not
cease from him for the ages of ages. Therefore he called his name
Jacob.
It is not clear whether this marginal note belongs with this verse,
although Dez Macho places it here: it might, given its final sentence,
belong rather with v. 26, most of which is lacking in the ms of Neofiti.
The literal translation given here reflects the awkwardness of the
Aramaic; but the gloss, with its allusions to Dan. 7.14 and 2.44, obviously intends to represent Esau as the fourth world empire destined
for destruction and replacement by the eternal kingdom of Jacob. The
gloss recalls 4 Esdras 6.810, which derives from the aftermath of the
destruction of 70 ce; to whatever verse of scripture it belongs, it seems
6
See Philo, Leg. All. 3.88 (xxix).

See M. Aberbach and B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis. A Critical Analysis
together with an English Translation of the Text (New York: Ktav, 1982), pp. 150151;
B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (Aramaic Bible, 6; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1988), p. 95.
7
93
to be a historical note, designed to counter the vagueness of the other

Targumim in these verses.8
If we ask what has prompted the Targums to change peoples to
kingdoms, we should recall that the early church viewed this verse as
presaging its own destiny, and used it to argue that Esau represented
the old people of God, the Jews, while Jacob represented the younger
brother, the church, which would arise to be Gods new people with
dominion over the synagogue.9 The so-called Epistle of Barnabas 13
takes for granted such a reading of the verse, offering no proof for it;
but Justin Martyr, most interestingly in his Dialogue with Trypho 135,
absolutely insists that Jacob was never a king; and both Hippolytus
and Tertullian base their argument on Gods promise to Rebecca of
precisely two peoples or nations, not some other entity.10 To refer this
verse to kingdoms, as the Targums and many Midrashim do,11 effectively annuls the Christian exegesis, by anchoring it firmly in political
history rather than in speculative theology. But to say this is not to
bring proof that Neofiti, Onqelos, and Pseudo-Jonathan, at some point
in their history, exchanged an original literal rendering of this verse,
still partially attested by Ngl, for an exegesis determined by opposition to Christianity. For as we have seen, the rendering kingdoms
is possibly older than Christianity, being very likely latent in Philos
8
For the date of 4 Esdras, see E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1986), III.1, pp. 297300. 4 Esdras 6.810 is discussed on p. 298; see
also Cohen, Esau as Symbol, p. 21. The text, as translated by B.M. Metzger in J.H.
Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London, 1983), I, p. 534,
reads: From Abraham to Isaac, because from him were born Jacob and Esau, for
Jacobs hand held Esaus heel from the beginning. For Esau is the end of this age, and
Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows.
9
On this matter, see particularly Cohen, Esau as Symbol, pp. 3138; and M. Harl,
La Bible dAlexandrie. La Gense (Paris, 1986), p. 209, who notes other statements
of this kind surviving in catena fragments collected by F. Petit, Catenae Graecae in
Genesim et Exodum 1 Catena Sinaitica (CChr Series Graeca 2; Turnhout: Brepols,
1977), pp. 240241.
10
Justins comment occurs in a discussion of Isa. 43.15, where he refers to Christ
as everlasting king, saying to the Jew Trypho: you are aware that Jacob the son of
Isaac was never a king. See the fragment of sermon by Hippolytus, quoted by Jerome,
Epistle 36 ad Damasum, where Esau is presented as the devil, and associated with
Cain. But Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeos 1, insists at length that the two sons born to
Rebecca are nations, peoples differentiated only in order of birth; and the designation
of the Jews as people he uses to convict the Jewish people of idolatry in the matter of
the golden calf and the idols of Jeroboam son of Nebat.
11
See Gen. R. 68.7; b. H ul. 92a; Abod. Zar. 2b; PRK 29.
94
chapter six
writings.12 The most that may be said is that the majority of the Targums
may have come to prefer kingdoms as a translation of peoples, and
that known Christian exegesis may have played a part in this. And
the question whether these same Targums, with the exception of the
Ngl, implicitly identified Esau with Rome, cannot be answered on the
evidence sifted so far.
Neofiti translates literally the description of Esaus birth (Gen. 25.25),
but the ms omits his name at the end of this verse, and the whole of
the next verse up to the name Jacob, probably by homoioteleuton.
The Bible says that Isaac was sixty years old when he fathered them:
instead of them, Ngl has this nation, a curious reading not without
interest given our previous observations.
2. Events during Esaus Lifetime
The Bible tells (Gen. 25.27) how the boys grew up:
and Esau was a man knowing hunting, a man of the field; but Jacob was
a plain man, dwelling in tents.
Neofiti follows the Hebrew in describing Esau as knowing hunting;

but, uniquely among the Targums, translates a man of the field as a
man, lord of fields, gbr mry hqlyn. Neofiti says nothing more in this
verse about Esau, so the remark is particularly arresting: Esau is a landowner, a master of territory unspecified in extent, but probably to be
understood as great. The expression certainly implies that Esau is rich
and powerful.13 By contrast, Jacob is said to be perfect in good deed,
dwelling in the Study Houses.
The pregnant brevity of Neofiti is worlds apart from the two Ngls.
The first of these actually offers an explanation of Onqelos, which has
used the unusual word nhyrkn to describe Esau. The gloss expounds
this as meaning that Esau had bronze thighs, nhw yrkn; and goes
on to speak of him as a brigand, thief, and kidnapper, thus following lines of thought we have already encountered in other sources.
The second gloss hints at his identification with Rome, describing him
12
See Leg. All. 3.88 (xxix); and cf. Quaest. in Gen. 4.157, where Jacob and Esau are
described as patriarchs of two nations.
13
lxx and Vg are quite different: the former presents Esau as agroikos, a boorish
field-dweller, the latter as a farmer.
95
in punning fashion as a rammay, deceiver of a man. Much could be

said about these glosses; but our concern is with Neofiti, and they are
noted here to emphasize the laconic and peculiar nature of Neofitis
interpretation.14
There is little to note in the next three verses, beyond Neofitis agreement with Onqelos that v. 28 means that Isaac used to eat of Esaus
venison, and its agreement in v. 29 with Pseudo-Jonathan that Jacobs
pottage consisted of lentils, a fact made plain in the Hebrew only with
v. 34. The translation of v. 31, however, is of a different order. It is here
that the Bible presents Jacob as requesting Esau to sell him his birthright kayym, that is, literally, as on the day. Onqelos interprets this
word as on that day, and Pseudo-Jonathan is more explicit, reading
sell to me today your birthright, as on the day you are going to inherit
it. Both these understandings take into consideration a fundamental
point of law, that one cannot dispose of something he does not yet
possess. Grossfeld has shown how both Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan
appear to assume this ruling as expressed in b. B. Bat. 63a, and therefore refer to that day, that is, the day when Isaac dies and the inheritance will legally become Esaus to dispose of as he chooses.15
Neofiti, however, has interpreted the Hebrew kayym as kn, now,
and reinforces its rendering by translating the same expression in v. 33
as on this day. Of ancient translations, only lxx compares, reading
smeron, today, in both verses. The implications of these renderings
are very serious. Not only does Jacob ask Esau to do something which
is illegal and not in the latters power: he would also appear to be
ignorant of the law, even though Neofiti has already told us in v. 27
that he was perfect in good deed and frequented the Beth Ha-Midrash!
The Targum seems to contradict itself; and even if references to Jacobs
perfection and study were to be deleted from v. 27 as secondary accretions, the problem would still remain, since elsewhere Neofiti portrays
Jacob as a righteous man.16 But here the Targum opens up a horrific
possibility, that Jacob may be ignorant, or conniving at a breach of
14
On these glosses, see further R. Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Gense (SC,
245; Paris, 1978), pp. 246247.
15
See Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, pp. 9697. The same expression
occurs in v. 33, where Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan render accordingly, but Neofiti
renders the Hebrew literally, as on the day.
16
Jerome most likely saw the problem, since the Vg omits a translation of kayym
altogether in both vv. 31 and 33. Neofiti regularly describes Jacob as pious: see, for
example, Gen. 33.18; Lev. 22.27; and cf. b. ab. 33.
96
chapter six
the law, or both these things. We shall return to this problem, noting
for the moment that Neofiti here displays an attitude which might be
described as anti-halakhic.17
There are difficulties of a different order in v. 34, which offers
the first clear indication that Neofiti regarded Esau as a particularly
wicked man. The Targum translates the Hebrew fairly literally: Jacob
gave Esau bread and lentil pottage, and he ate, drank, rose up, and
went away: so Esau despised his birthright. Neofitis rendering of the
final words of the Hebrew, and its additional material, are set out in
literal translation below:
and Esau despised his birthright, and against (or: upon) the resurrection
of the dead, and he denied the life of the world to come.
In his careful study of the text of Neofiti, B.B. Levy remarks of this
addition that the verb governing the phrase against the resurrection
of the dead is lacking.18 The same author argues in another place that
Neofiti can often betray, through difficulties and irregularities in its
grammar and syntax, reasonably clear evidence of additions to its text.19
May it not be the case that, rather than lacking a verb, this section
represents a later, rather clumsy addition to Neofitis original literal
translation of the Hebrew text? It is true that FTP, FTV, and Ngl show
that the Palestinian Targums contained the substance of this addition;
but they use vocabulary different from that of Neofiti, and Esaus denial
of these things is well known from other rabbinic sources.20 If we also
17
Neofiti does contain rulings which are not in accord with the halakhah: see, for
example, its version of Lev. 10.6; 19.3; and the discussion of these, and other passages, by B.J. Bamberger, Halakhic Elements in the Neofiti Targum: A Preliminary
Statement, JQR 66 (19751976), pp. 2738.
18
See B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study, I (New York, 1986), pp. 174
175.
19
See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, pp. 2843.
20
Thus FTP, FTV, and Ngl say that Esau desecrated, pys, the life of the world to
come, an expression not used by Neofiti which also avoids the word hwlq, portion or
lot in connection with the world to come. See also Gen. R. 63.14. Pseudo-Jonathan
of Gen. 25.29 includes Esaus denial of the world to come among a list of five sins he
committed on that day: see Gen. R. 63.11; b. B. Bat. 16b; Exod. R. 1.1. Thus Esaus
denial is not uniformly attached by the Targums themselves to v. 34 in particular.
Further, Neofitis literal rendering (bzy) of the Hebrew bzh, he despised, is not shared
with the other Targums; but it is precisely this Hebrew verb R. Levi in Gen. R. 63.14
expounds with reference to resurrection of the dead. Might not Neofitis present text
arise as the result of an addition of the kind of midrash represented by Gen. R. 63.14,
inspired precisely because Targum Neofiti had retained bzy in its translation? On
midrashic additions to Targum Neofiti, see Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, pp. 5463.
97
take seriously Shinans suggestion that this material is not necessarily

a polemic directed against a particular group, but a topos, a general
Targumic grouse of literary-didactic character directed against heresy
in general, then we can see how this whole section might indeed represent an addition to Neofitis original text.21 Thus although Neofiti in its
present form portrays Esau as a wicked heretic, there are grounds for
arguing that, in this verse at least, it may not always have done so.
Genesis 27 tells how Jacob came to receive his fathers blessing
instead of Esau: Neofiti has little to tell us about the latter that is not in
the biblical narrative, until we reach v. 29, where Isaac actually blesses
Jacob. He prays that peoples, Hebrew mmym, should serve Jacob:
Neofiti speaks of these as wmy, and defines them as all the sons of
Esau. In this, it agrees with FTP, FTV, and Pseudo-Jonathan Of greatest significance for our purposes, however, is Gen. 27.40, Isaacs necessarily limited blessing of Esau, which in the Bible runs as follows:
And by your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother: and
it shall be, that when you wander [tryd], that you shall break his yoke
from upon your neck.
Neofitis version of this is, at first sight, similar to that of the other
Palestinian Targums:
And by your sword you shall live, and before your brother you shall be
serving and in servitude: and it shall be, that when the sons of Jacob
labour in the Torah and keep the commandments, that they shall place
the yoke of their burden on your neck; but it shall be, that when the
sons of Jacob forsake the commandments, and restrain themselves from
labouring in the Torah, you shall have dominion over him, and you shall
break the yoke of servitude from your neck.
In three crucial matters, Neofiti differs sharply from the versions of

FTP, FTV, and the remains of two Ngls, which in other respects it very
closely resembles. First, unlike FTP and Ngl, it does not turn the singular your brother of the Hebrew into your brethren the Jews. Second,
the words you shall be serving and in servitude represent a conflate
of the readings of, on the one hand FTP and Onqelos you shall serve,
and on the other FTV and Ngl you shall be in servitude. Finally,
21
See A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch (2 vols.;
Jerusalem, 1979) [in Hebrew], I, pp. 98, 117, where other rabbinic witnesses to the
tradition are cited, and attempts to identify the targets of the supposed polemic are
critically assessed.
98
chapter six
Neofiti alone of all the Targums states that Esau will have dominion
over Jacob, wtlt byh, if the latter fails to keep the commandments of
the Torah.
The first two items are closely related. The phenomenon of conflates
in Neofiti has recently been studied by Rimon Kasher, who shows how
scribes have combined readings particularly of the various Palestinian
Targums (rarely of Palestinian Targums and Onqelos) to produce the
present text of Neofiti on many occasions.22 If we have such a conflate
before us, and it seems likely that we do, then Neofiti has most probably chosen deliberately not to include the further definition of Esaus
brother as the Jews. Rather, Neofiti continues to speak of Esau in the
singular as your brother; and when we turn to the third peculiarity
in its presentation, we note that the singular form in the sentence and
you shall have dominion over reappears towards the end of the verse,
and fits awkwardly with the intervening plural references to the sons
of Jacob and their burden.
One possible explanation of the present state of this verse in Neofiti
would suggest that the whole of the section with plural nouns and verbs,
from and it shall be, when the sons of Jacob labour . . . to . . . restrain
themselves from labouring in the Torah, is a latter addition to a text
which originally, like the Hebrew, had only singular nouns and verbs.
Levy has pointed to the similarities between this section and Neofiti
of Gen. 3.15, where God warns Adam of the consequences which will
follow for his descendants should they keep, or not keep, the commandments of the Torah; and his discussion allows for the possibility
that Neofiti of Gen. 27.40 has modified this well-known material from
Gen. 3.15 before incorporating it into the present text.23
While Levys thesis is plausible, more should be said about Neofitis
translation of the difficult Hebrew verb tryd, rendered in our translation above as you wander as from the Hiphil of root rwd, show
restlessness. But the verb may derive from other roots; and the ancient
versions offer a wide range of alternative explanations of it, which have
most recently been listed and discussed by Alison Salvesen.24 Neofiti
alone of all these versions seems to derive tryd from the root rdh, to
rule, have dominion, an interpretation of it known also to R. Jose in
22
See R. Kasher, Targumic Conflations in the Ms Neofiti 1, HUCA 57 (1986),

Hebrew section, pp. 119.
23
See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, pp. 183186.
24
See A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch (Manchester, 1991), pp. 4748.
99
the name of R. Halafta according to Gen. R. 67.7. Two observations

are in order here.
First, it is possible that anyone meeting this interpretation of tryd
in the period, say, 100500 ce might connect it with Neofitis understanding that two kingdoms were to be born from Rebecca; and therefrom conclude that Esau in this verse represented Rome, the kingdom
which had overpowered Israel. However, Neofiti itself has, up to this
point, given no explicit indication that Esau is Rome; and a reader or
hearer of the text would have to base the identification on knowledge
derived from other sources. Second, if, for the moment, we set aside
the consideration that Esau may represent Rome, then the translation of tryd as you shall have dominion over him, tlt byh, should
strikingly call to our attention another biblical verse. In Gen. 4.7, God
warns Cain of sin, and declares to him: you shall have dominion over
it.25 Neofiti translates this with the root lt in the course of a paraphrase bluntly warning Cain that evil deeds in this world will receive
their reward in the world to come. In the verse immediately following,
Neofiti records a famous dispute between Cain and his brother, in the
course of which he denies the world to come and the rewards and
punishments associated with it.
There can be no doubt that, at some point in its history, Neofiti has
linked Esau with Cain: for this we have the evidence of Gen. 25.34,
where Esau, like Cain, denies resurrection and the world to come,
and that of Gen. 27.41, yet to be discussed, where Esau compares and
contrasts himself with Cain. Neofitis rendering of tryd in Gen. 27.40
seems to point in the same direction; Esau will have dominion over
Jacob precisely when the latter forsakes the Torah, which in ages past
Cain himself should have obeyed so as to retain his dominion over
sin. The association of the two characters was bound to arise, given
that both hated their righteous brothers, and could therefore be made
to represent all that was opposed to the Torah. Most dramatically was
this association made by Philo, De Sacrificiis 34; and in the same treatise (1418) he demonstrates that in temporal terms vice, being represented by the elder brothers Cain and Esau, is unfortunately senior
to virtue.26
25
Hebrew wth tml bw. This expression, with second person masculine singular
imperfect Qal of ml, plus bw, occurs only here in the whole Hebrew Bible.
26
See also Sacr. 64, 135. Jub. 35.8 end-10a, which is represented by a Hebrew fragment from Qumran, links Esau to antediluvian wickedness by saying that Esaus yeser
100
chapter six
As we have remarked, Neofiti makes explicit the link between Esau

and Cain in its translation of Gen. 27.41, which in the Hebrew original
reads:
And Esau [wytm] bore a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing
with which his father had blessed him. And Esau said in his heart: The
days of mourning for my father shall approach; then I kill my brother
Jacob.
Neofiti translates the first sentence literally, and then addresses the
question why Esau should wait before killing his brother, translating
as follows:
I shall not do as did Cain, who killed Abel his brother during the life
of his father, so that he turned and fathered Seth, and called his name
according to his name. Behold, I shall wait until of the days of my
fathers mourning approach; then I shall kill Jacob my brother, and I
shall be called killer and inheritor.
This understanding is common to the Palestinian Targums as represented by FTP, the Ngl, and Pseudo-Jonathan, and is expressed in
words and phrases which are almost identical in all these Targums. The
versions of this tradition found in Gen. R. 75.9 and Lev. R. 27.11 show
different emphases, and in all probability are later developments of the
stuff found in the Targums.27 The text of Neofiti runs entirely smoothly.
There is, therefore, no indication in the text that Neofitis interpretation
of this verse may be secondary.
In the lengthy account of Jacobs return from Laban and his meeting with Esau, only three aspects of Neofiti require comment. First,
the 400 men who accompany Esau according to Gen. 32.7; 33.1 are
defined by Neofiti as polemarchs (32.7) and foot-soldiers (33.1). In
the latter verse, the Ngl reads polemarchs again; Pseudo-Jonathan,
had been evil since his youth, like those in the days of Nephilim (Gen. 6.5) and the
days of Noah (Gen. 8.21).
27
Apart from the fact that these two sources place their versions of the material
in settings other than Gen. 27.41, it should be noted that their exegetical goals are
quite different from those of Neofiti. Thus Lev. R. gives only a summary of the tradition. Gen. R. makes Esau recall that God did nothing to Cain for killing his brother,
and removes an ambiguity in the biblical text, found also in Neofiti, by making Esau
plan to kill his father and then his brother. Neofitis I shall wait until the days of my
fathers mourning approach is ambiguous: it may imply, but does not state, that Esau
intended to murder his father, and the version of Gen. R. looks like a further development of a targumic insight.
101
also uses this word in both verses.28 Esau is here presented as a military
commander, an understanding of him which we meet also in Jubilees
and in Josephus, Ant. 1.327 (xx:l). Secondly, Neofiti does not share
with FTP, FTV, and Ngl Jacobs suspicion, voiced in a paraphrase
expounding the word mhnh of 32.3, that Esau has come to kill him.29
Thirdly, in the Hebrew of 33.8, Jacob says that he has acted to gain
favour in the eyes of my lord, referring to Esau: Neofiti renders this
phrase as in your sight, so that Jacob does not appear to acknowledge
Esaus superiority.
3. References to Esau after his Death
These may be dealt with briefly. Neofiti and other Palestinian Targums
of Gen. 49.2 and Deut. 6.4 have Jacob refer to Esau as a blemish or a
disqualification, root psl. Ishmael and the sons of Keturah are described
by the same term. The sense is that Esau is unfit to approach God, disqualified from service of the Almighty.30 In Gen. 49.26, he is described
as one of the great ones of the world along with Ishmael. The famous
midrash which tells of Gods offering the Torah to the nations of the
world (Deut. 33.2) represents the sons of Esau rejecting the offer on
the grounds that the Torah contains the commandment thou shalt not
kill; like Esau their father (cf. Targum Neofiti of Gen. 27.41), they are
killers.31
The description of Josephs death in Targum Neofiti of Gen. 50.1
includes mention of the rulers (wltnyn) from the sons of Esau and
Keturah: the representatives of Ishmael, however, are described as
kingdoms (malkwwn) and rulers. None of the Targumim of this verse
apply language of kingship to the sons of Esau at this point: they are
spoken of as mighty men, warriors in FTV, Ngl, and GM; and as
men in Pseudo-Jonathan and FTP. The military character of these
people is again emphasized. And when Israel on their journey from
28
In Gen. 32.7, the interlinear gloss of Neofiti reads pwlmwsyn, and FTV has gwbryn
pwlmr byn, a mistake for pwlmrkyn. On the relationship of these renderings to Gen. R.,
see D.M. Golomb, A Grammar of Targum Neofiti (Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 45.
29
Thus Ngl reads: And Jacob said when he saw them: Perhaps they are camps of
Esau my brother coming before me to kill me . . .
30
The root psl is well known in both rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic as expressing
what is unfit for sacrifice or for food.
31
For further discussion of the Targums of these verses, see C.T.R. Hayward,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 8991.
102
chapter six
Egypt ask permission from the sons of Esau to pass through Edomite
territory, we are struck by the fact that the Edomite reaction described
in Num. 20.18 is missing from the text of Neofiti, as is the name of
Edom in Num. 20.14. It is possible that the Ngl has preserved the text
of Targum Neofiti of Num. 20.18: it notes that the king of Edom, not
spoken of in the Hebrew of this verse, but only in the Hebrew of Num.
20.14, will come against Israel with those who draw the sword.32 But
given Neofitis failure to speak in royal terms of Esaus sons elsewhere,
we may be justified in questioning whether it is certain that Ngl here
represents the original text of Neofiti. Targum Neofiti of Num. 20.21
gives the reason why Israel did not attack the Edomites on this occasion: God had forbidden them to do so, a view shared by PseudoJonathan, FTV, and Josephus, Ant. 4.7677 (iv.5).
4. Esau-Edom and Rome
Nowhere in the text of Neofiti as we now possess it is Esau-Edom
explicitly identified with Rome. The locus classicus for such identification is Num. 24.1819, where Balaam prophesies the downfall of Edom
and the destruction of the survivors of the city, which FTP and FTV
unambiguously render as the sinful city, that is, Rome. Neofitis text
speaks only of the city: it is the sinful one. No identification is offered,
and the ms leaves a blank line after this notice. Onqelos here refers to
the city of the nations, Gentiles, while Pseudo-Jonathans text is greatly
confused, although there is clear reference to Constantinople and
Caesarea.33 It is almost certain that Neofiti, like the extant Fragment
Targums, originally identified the city as Rome, and that censorship is
to blame for the present text and gap in the ms of Neofiti. Most students are also agreed that censorship has probably excised an original
reference to Rome in Neofiti of Num. 24.24, which otherwise speaks
of the legions of the Roman army.34
32
See Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1. IV. Nmeros, pp. 184185.

See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, II (New York, 1987), p. 148 (it seems that the gap
existed in the text copied by the scribe of N); R. Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque.
III. Nombres (SC, 261; Paris, 1979), pp. 236237; and Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1.
IV. Numeros, p. 238 n. 6, for a discussion of the textual state of Neof. and the other
Targums of these verses.
34
See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, II, pp. 151152; Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque,
pp. 240241. The Latin loan-word legio is found in Neofiti again at Gen. 15.1;
Num. 12.16.
33
103
At Gen. 15.12, the famous midrash which tells how Abraham was
shown the four empires which would enslave Israel is included in
Neofiti, as in Pseudo-Jonathan, FTP, and FTV. In Neofiti, the identity
of the fourth empire has been scratched out of the ms; but there is
little doubt that Edom was intended by Neofiti in this place, as in the
other Targums and midrashim which we know. According to these,
Edoms kingdom is the one which is destined to fall, never to rise
again. Clearly the censor of the ms understood that Edom was here a
cipher for Rome, or for the Christian church; but the text of Neofiti,
as restored along the lines of the other Targums, does not make the
identification explicit.35
Conclusion
Targum Neofitis portrait of Esau is confused, inconsistent, and partial.
It corresponds to a text which shows clear signs of careless transmission and of interference. The carelessness includes omissions of words,
phrases, and whole verses: some of this could be deliberate. The interference manifests itself in the work of the censor, and in tell-tale additions of material not integral to the translation. The common-place
rabbinic equation of Esau with Rome has been influential, not only in
the work of the censor, but in other more subtle ways. Thus it is likely
that Neofiti has omitted the Jews as a closer definition of Esaus brothers in the conflate expression of Gen. 27.40, and has made Jacob refuse
to address Esau as my lord in Gen. 33.8, to avoid any suggestion that
Rome might have eternal dominion over the Jewish people. The omission of Num. 20.18, and the name of Edom in Num. 20.14, may also be
determined by the Targums unwillingness to suggest implied conflict
with Rome at this point in the scriptural narrative, since God forbids
Israel to fight Esau (Targum Neofiti of Num. 20.21).
Yet it cannot be said that the equation of Esau with Rome entirely
defines Neofitis picture of this man. As we have seen, the lines of
connexion drawn between Esau and Rome are somewhat indirect in
35
See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, I, pp. 139140; Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque.
I. Gense, pp. 170171, and, for more detailed consideration of the texts referred
to here, R. Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), pp. 271272. On the question
whether Targum Neofiti of Exod. 12.42, the Poem of the Four Nights, makes mention
of Rome, see Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale, pp. 359369.
104
chapter six
Neofiti, even allowing for the work of the censor. They may also be
superficial; because when we look beyond them, a picture of Esau
emerges which, in important respects, is incompatible with them. For
Esau is revealed as a latter-day Cain. He is so depicted in Gen. 27.41;
25.34; and probably also in 27.40. The note that Esau was a landowner (Gen. 25.27) recalls Cains profession as a cultivator of the land
(Gen. 4.2). The hostility of the two brothers Esau and Jacob was very
early related to Cains attack on Abel: it was certainly known to Philo,
and so close was the association of Esau with Cain that the targumic
paraphrases of Gen. 27.41 were given as explanations why Esau did
not, in actual fact, do what everyone might expect him to have done,
and act like Cain in murdering his brother instanter. Esau, in this picture, is a killer, and his descendants have the same reputation, as in
the ancient exegesis preserved in Neofiti of Deut. 33.2.36
Furthermore, it was notorious that Cains sacrifice (Gen. 4.5) was
not accepted; it was thus pswl, like Esau himself, according to Neofiti
of Gen. 49.2 and Deut. 6.4. And we should note one further, and crucial, fact of biblical history. As Gen. R. 75.9 points out, God did not kill
Cain for murdering his brother; rather, he protected him from anyone
who sought to slay him (Gen. 4.15). The link between Esau and Cain,
therefore, belongs to a world removed from that which could equate
Esau with Rome, because in the latter the everlasting downfall of Rome
is essential stuff of the equation. As the Palestinian Targums of Gen.
15.12 insist, Edom is to fall, never to rise again: there is no question of
this Esau being protected from the wrath of his enemies. We may suggest, therefore, given the evidence of Philo and the observations made
here, that the association between Esau and Cain in Neofiti belongs
to an older stratum of tradition than the EsauRome equation. This
study has, we believe, enabled us to see how the one tradition has been
superimposed on the other.
It would also seem reasonable to argue that verses which present
Esau as a commander of troops, a mighty warrior, and one of the great
ones of the world, but do not speak of him in royal terms (Gen. 32.7;
33.1; 49.26; 50.1) may ante-date the introduction of the EsauRome
equation into Neofiti. These verses do not speak of legions, have no
36
For the dating of the Targums of this verse, see J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its
Development (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 156162 [in Hebrew], and R. Syrn, The Blessings
in the Targums (bo, 1986), pp. 144148.
105
necessary reference to Rome, and echo, albeit faintly, the description

of Esau as a military commander found in Jubilees. The failure of
Targum Neofiti of Gen. 50.1 to use the word kingdoms in respect of
Esaus sons is striking in this regard.37
Different strata are also discernible in the more obviously translational elements in Neofiti. We have noticed places where Neofiti
agrees with one or more of the ancient versions over against the other
Targums, for example in Gen. 25.21 and in Gen. 25.31, 33, where
its translation of kayym as now coincides with lxxs today. This
seems to be a very old rendering, and quite naive given the legal point
at issue, carelessly preserved, hardly a deliberate anti-halakhic ploy.
Such would only involve a major contradiction with the rest of the
Targum, and would allow for a favourable view of Esau which is not
found elsewhere in Neofiti. And as we saw in the discussion of Gen.
25.23, where Hebrew peoples become kingdoms, there is evidence
within the Neofiti tradition to suggest that the present rendering may
have been adopted in preference to another, for particular theological
purposes.
Yet throughout our study we have been careful to exercise caution.
It does, indeed, seem possible to separate layers of interpretation in
Neofitis picture of Esau, and to offer some sort of dating of them
relative to one another. Absolute dates are quite another matter, and
in this instance are probably impossible to determine, since we do
not know for certain when the equation of Esau with Rome was actually established.38 What does seem clear, however, is that the text of
Neofitis Esau material, as we possess it, dates most likely from some
time in the talmudic period.
37
Although this text speaks of Ishmael in royal terms, it is unlikely to belong to
the Islamic period, since EsauRomeChristendom certainly had kingdoms at that
time.
38
It was certainly known to St Jerome, Comm. in Iesaiam 21.1112; but how much
older than his time it may be is disputed. J. Neusner, From Enemy to Sibling: Rome and
Israel in the First Century of Western Civilization (New York, 1986), dates it to the fifth
century, but Jeromes evidence suggests an earlier origin for it. Feldman (Josephus
Portrait, pp. 130133) argues that Josephus knew of it, and that it may be traced back
as far as Philo; but it would seem that it became current in rabbinic circles only at the
time of the Second Revolt: see Cohen, Esau as Symbol, pp. 2223; and M.D. Herr,
Edom, EncJud, VI, cols. 379380.
PART TWO
CHAPTER SEVEN
TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN AND

ANTIISLAMIC POLEMIC*
The date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (hereafter Ps-Jon) is a matter of
controversy and debate. On the one hand are ranged those who argue
that this text is essentially related to the other Palestinian Targums;
and that it is, au fond, based on early, in some instances pre-Christian,
exegetical traditions. In its present form, however, the text shows clear
signs of modernization to make it relevant to generations living after
the Second Revolt against Rome. Modernization continued, on this
view, until the seventh century ad, when Islam appeared in the land
of Israel: thus the names of isha and Ftima, Muhammads wife and
sister respectively, feature in Ps-Jon Genesis 21:21. None of this, however, is held to affect the fundamental thesis that many traditions of the
Targum are in substance older than the second century ad.1
On the other hand a growing number of scholars is persuaded that
Ps-Jon is best explained as a late, entirely literary compilation, often
* The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have been used: E.G.
Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd, and F. Spitzer, Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Ktav 1984), abbr. Ps-Jon;
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1, The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos
(Leiden 1959), abbr. TO; A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I 5 vols. (Madrid-Barcelona
196878), abbr. N; M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to
their Extant Sources, 2 vols. (Rome 1980), abbr. FT.
1
See W. Bacher, article Targum, Jewish Encyclopaedia 12 (New York 1904),
p. 60; M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin 1903), pp. xviixix; R. Bloch, Note sur
lutilisation des fragments de la Geniza du Caire pour ltude du Targum Palestinien,
REJ 14 (1955), p. 31; and R. Syrn, The Blessings in the Targums (bo 1986),
pp. 179199, who regard Ps-Jon at base as a Palestinian Targum older than TO, by
which it has been influenced. An earlier date for (proto-) Ps-Jon is implied should it
be that TO depends on a form of Ps-Jon: so G. Vermes, The Targumic Versions of
Genesis 4:316, ALUOS 3 (196162); Leiden 1963), pp. 81114, reprinted in PostBiblical Jewish Studies (Leiden 1975), pp. 92126; G.J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan
Targum and its Relationship to Targum Onkelos (Rome 1972), and R. Syrn, op. cit.
pp. 195199. TO probably reached its final form in the late third to early fourth centuries ad: see E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ,
vol. 1, rev. and ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh 1973), pp. 101102. We shall
not here deal with relationships between Pentateuchal Targumim, nor offer absolute
dates for texts.
110
chapter seven
dependent for its traditions on late midrashic collections like Pirqe

de Rabbi Eliezer (PRE) and the Tanhuma.2 In support of this thesis
they argue that Ps-Jon was not only familiar with Islamic traditions,
as his rendering of Gen. 21:21 and other verses suggests, but was also
engaged in a formal and determined rebuttal of Islams pretensions.
Seminal in this respect was the impressive and learned treatment of
Ps-Jon as an anti-Islamic polemic, which M. Ohana published in 1975.
This essay has acted as a stimulus for more recent writers in their conviction that this Targum is, in its entirety, a work composed after the
Islamic conquest of the land of Israel.3
In this discussion, we shall argue that it is very probably a mistake
to regard Ps-Jon as a document engaged in dispute with Islam. Indeed,
the Targum seems to betray only sparse and superficial knowledge of
it, and detailed examination of the relevant verses suggests that they
are quite simply and easily explained without reference to Islam. A
thorough analysis of the points which Ohana and others have raised
will, we submit, reveal the provisional nature of the results of their
research, since their conclusions seems often to be based on hypotheses which themselves require proof before they can be accepted as
convincing.
As ilustrating what has just been said we may turn to Ohanas essay,
which deals with Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:921. Central to his conclusion
that the Targums exegesis is anti-Islamic in tone is his argument that
much of Ps-Jons aggadah depends on PRE: the Targums authorcompiler has, we are told, selected from this midrashic collection only
material hostile to Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs, and has deliberately left out those elements in the midrash which show him in a
good light. The Targums presentation of Ishmael, unlike that of PRE,
is thus entirely negative, and appears as a reaction against the claims of
2
See A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols.,
(Jerusalem 1979) in Hebrew; Live Translation: On the nature of the Aramaic Targums
to the Pentateuch, Prooftexts 3 (1983), pp. 4149; The Palestinian Targums
Repetition, Internal Unity, Contradictions, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287; D.M. Splansky,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targumim, Use of Midrashim, and
Date, unpublished dissertation (Hebrew Union CollogeJewish Institute of Religion
1981); and A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal
Targumim (Tbingen 1986), pp. 252256.
3
M. Ohana, La Polmique judo-islamique et limage dIsmal dans Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Augustinianum 15 (1975), pp. 367
387.
pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic
111
spiritual supremacy put forward by Islam.4 Ohana therefore concludes

that the whole Targum probably derives from one author-compiler,
whose anti-Islamic purpose is evident at various significant points in
the work.5
In a recent study of Ps-Jon on Gen. 27, I have argued that generalized claims for Ps-Jons direct dependence on PRE and other late
midrashim are far less substantial and well-founded than they might
appear. As we shall see presently,6 the same holds true for Ps-Jons
supposed dependence on PRE in his treatment of Gen. 21. First, however, we must correct the impression left by Ohana, that Ps-Jons presentation of Ishmael is entirely negative. While he stresses the black
portrait of Ishmael given in the verses which he studies, he nonetheless
overlooks the thrice-repeated comment in Ps-Jon of Gen. 16:2, 3, and
5 that Sarah had set Ishmaels mother Hagar free from her slavery.
Hagars son Ishmael is thus, according to these verses, the son of a
freed woman, even though Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:14 continues to emphasize Hagars status as a slave. But Ps-Jons aggadah makes no great
play of Ishmaels birth to a slave-woman, useful though this might
have been in any dispute with Islam.7 A favourable view of Ishmael
is also given by Ps-Jon of Gen. 25:8, which records that he repented
at the time of Abrahams death, and by Gen. 50:1, where the house
of Ishmael attend Jacob on his death-bed. Given Ps-Jons somewhat
ambiguous attitude towards Ishmael, then, we may turn to a closer
inspection of his relationship with PRE.
1. Ps-Jon of Genesis 21:921 and PRE 30
Ishmaels prowess as an archer shooting at birds, according to PRE
30:1, provides the occasion for Sarahs demand that Abraham divorce
Hagar and banish Ishmael with her:
On one occasion he [Ishmael] saw Isaac sitting alone, and dispatched an
arrow to kill him. Sarah saw it, and told Abraham: So it is that Ishmael
Ibid. pp. 384385.

Ibid. p. 386.
6
See below, pp. 112114.
7
Cf. C.T.R. Hayward, The Present State of the Research into the Targumic Account
of the Sacrifice of Isaac, JJS 32 (1981), p. 131, n. 25.
5
112
chapter seven
acts with Isaac . . . By your life, this son of a slave shall not inherit with
my son Isaac.8
Here Ishmael appears guilty of attempted murder, with malice aforethought. Ps-Jon, by contrast, merely suggests that one day Ishmael will
attack Isaac, as Sarah says:
Cast out this handmaid and her son, for it is not possible for the son of
this handmaid to inherit with my son, for he will wage war with Isaac.9
This possibility of future violence, however, is not the only pretext for
Sarahs demand. Earlier, we have been informed that
Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to
Abraham, jesting (mghk) for idolatry and bowing down to it.10
Other Palestinian Targums of this verse agree with Ps-Jon that Ishmael
was a worshipper of idols, a fact which Ps-Jon goes out of his way to
highlight and which will merit full discussion in the next section of
this essay.11 PRE, however, does not say that Ishmael worshipped idols;
rather, he prays to the Lord of the Universe (PRE 30:2). By contrast,
Hagars idolatry is frankly admitted, and is said to have caused her
water-supply to fail:
Because of Abrahams virtue, the water in the wine-skin did not fail.
But when she reached the desert and began to go astray after the idols
of her fathers house (var. lect.: of the Pharaoh) at once the water ceased
in the wine-skin.
Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:15, however, has a different explanation of events:

both Ishmael and Hagar come to the desert and stray after idolatry,
8
PRE 30:1. The text of PRE is translated from quotations in M. Kasher, Torah
Shelemah, vol. 3:2 (Jerusalem 1934), and from the Spanish version of M. Prez
Fernndez, Los Capitulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia 1984).
9
Ps-Jon Gen. 21:10; cf. Gen. R. 53:11.
10
Ps-Jon Gen. 21:9; cf. Gen. R. 53:11 (R. Ishmael); Exod. R. 1:1; and Sifre Deut
31. See the discussion of mghk by H. Bietenhard, Sifre Deuteronomium, Judaica et
Christiana 8 (Bern 1984), pp. 7475. The manuscript of Ps-Jon, the editio princeps, and
Waltons Polyglott read . . . bowing down to the Lord, lyyy: the reading bowing down
to it, lh, is preferred by Ginsburger, op. cit. p. 34, followed by R. le Daut, Targum
du Pentateuque vol. 1 Gense, p. 209. The picture of Ishmael as both idolatrous and
worshipper of the Lord may reflect the historical situation among pre-Islamic Arabs,
many of whom were pagan, while others converted to Judaism: see, e.g. K. Salibi,
A History of Arabia (Beirut 1980), pp. 5074.
11
See N and FT Gen. 21:9, and below, pp. 8284.
113
whereupon Ishmael is struck with a burning fever, presumably as a

punishment for his apostasy, and drinks all the water in the skin.
All this suggests that Ps-Jon is not simply and directly dependent on
PRE. If such were truly the case, why is there no allusion to Ishmaels
attempted murder of Isaac? It would admirably suit the Targums purposes, if Ohanas theory were correct. Moreover, further inspection
of Ps-Jon and PRE shows how far removed from each other the two
documents really are, a state of affairs illustrated especially by their
respective accounts of Abrahams divorce of Hagar.
In PRE 30:1 Sarah orders Abraham to write a divorce document for
Hagar and to get rid of her and her son; three witnesses to the text add
that their dismissal shall be both from this world and from the world
to come.12 This was the hardest of all the misfortunes which Abraham
had to bear, as Gen. 21:11 is said to make clear;13 but he wrote the
document and sent Hagar and Ishmael away, the same three witnesses
adding that her dismissal was from both worlds. Now if Ps-Jon had
been dependent on PRE, one must assume that the text known to the
Targum did not include notice of Hagars banishment from this world
and the next; for what more effective attack on the pretensions of Islam
could there be than evidence of Abrahams direct excommunication of
Ishmael and his mother from future bliss and rewards?14
Other variant manuscript readings of PRE are significant for a
proper understanding of Hagars divorce. Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:14 follows the Bible in stating that Abraham gave Hagar bread and water
and the boy to carry; but the Targum explains that the boy was tied to
Hagars loins, to show that she was a slave. Ohana explains this as a
much truncated aggadah deriving from PRE 30:1, according to which
Abraham tied a veil to Hagar in a particular way to indicate her slave
status.15 Ohana here follows Friendlanders translation of PRE; but the
majority of textual witnesses read as follows:
12
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit. 210. These witnesses he designates Ven, A, B, viz.,
the edition of PRE printed at Venice in 1544, and MSS Cassanatensia 1.VI.1 and
10.IV.1: see pp. 4144. Ohana seems not to take account of variant readings of manuscripts and editions of PRE.
13
PRE 30:1. Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:11, however, differs from PRE: it was Ishmaels idolatry which gave displeasure to Abraham.
14
According to Islamic belief, Abraham was a true worshipper of the One God who
built the Kaba at Mecca.
15
Ohana, art. cit. pp. 371373.
114
chapter seven
He took a barrel (var. lect.: clothing; chain) and fastened it to her, and
the girdle with which she carried it dragging across her, to show that
she was a slave; but not only for this reason, but also because Abraham
wanted to see his son and to know by what road he went.16
Nothing resembling this aggadah, nor any mention of a veil, is found

in Ps-Jon; and had Ohana considered the textual problems which PRE
poses at this point, his conclusion may have been other than it was. We
may go further, and note how the Targum has no reference to other
material in PRE which would be of use in anti-Islamic polemic, such
as the revelation to Abraham that Sarah was his divinely predestined
wife, Hagar being a mere slave (contrast Ps-Jon of Gen. 16).
The upshot of all this seems clear: it is highly improbable that Ps-Jon
is simply and directly dependent on PRE for his treatment of Hagar and
Ishmael. Consequently, we may conclude that Ohana has constructed
his thesis of a late dating of Ps-Jon as a whole upon an hypothesis
which cannot stand up to critical analysis. This conclusion, we submit,
is supported by other factors which we shall now investigate.
2. Ishmael and Hagar as Idolaters
According to Ps-Jon, Sarah saw Ishmael acting obscenely in idolatry
and bowing down to idols (Gen. 21:9); Abraham regarded Ishmaels
idolatrous worship as something evil in his sight (Gen. 21:10) and
a departure from his education of the boy (Gen. 21:11); Hagar and
Ishmael resorted to idolatry the moment they came into the desert,
Hagar invoking the god of her father (Gen. 21:15); but she eventually
cast the idol from her (Gen. 21:16), just as Ishmael later did penance
(Gen. 25:8). Ps-Jon also refers to Hagar as daughter of Pharaoh the
son of Nimrod (Gen. 16:5), the latter being an archetypal idolater for
the aggadists.17
In Ohanas view, Ps-Jon has portrayed Hagar and Ishmael as idolaters in order to attack the spiritual pretensions of Islam, which represents itself as the ultimate revelation. Far from being anything of
the kind, the Targum would assert, Islam, in the person of Ishmael, is
16
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit. p. 210 and notes.

Cf. Ps-Jon of Gen. 11:28, and literature cited by R. le Daut, op. cit. pp. 146147;
Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 4546; and J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic
Literature (Cambridge 1969), pp. 179180; 187189.
17
115
made entirely dependent on Abrahams merit for its salvation, since it

is only the religion of a slaves son.18
Certainly Ps-Jon of these verses takes a dim view of Ishmael; but
is anti-Islamic polemic really at work? One general point may be
made at once: Islam, from its earliest beginnings, was a determined
and unbending scourge and opponent of idolatry in any form. Idols
were destroyed, and images absolutely forbidden.19 It goes without
saying that any Jew who lived under Islamic dominion would know
this. Presentation of the ancestors of the Arabs, therefore, would be of
little significance in an attack on Islam. Indeed, devout Muslims would
readily admit that their forefathers had been pagans: once Islam was
established, however, neither Jew, Christian, nor Pagan could possibly
maintain that Arabs were tainted with idolatry. In other words, the
picture of Ishmael and Hagar as idolaters is, at best, of limited use in
polemic.
More important, however, is the fact that Ishmael was regarded
as an idolater in pre-Islamic Jewish sources. This we know from the
Christian scholar Jerome, who lived and worked in the land of Israel,
and whose Hebraicae Quaestiones in Genesim was composed between
c. 389 and 392 ad. He explicitly refers to the Jewish interpretation of
Gen. 21:9, which speaks of Ishmaels jesting, and comments:
Dupliciter itaque hoc ab Hebraeis exponitursive quod idola ludo
fecerit, iuxta, quod alibi scriptum est sedit populus manducare et bibere,
et surrexerunt luderesive quod adversum Isaac, quasi maioris aetatis,
ioco sibi et ludo primogenita vendicaret.20
Jewish sources other than the Targumim share this exegesis of the
verse, and information supplied by other pre-Islamic Church Fathers
makes it clear that certain Arabs of their day were regarded as idolatrous.21 Thus Jewish presentation of Ishmael as an idolater cannot, of
itself, be taken as evidence of an attack on Islam. On the contrary, such
18
Ohana, art. cit. pp. 385386.

See A. Guillaume, Islam (2nd ed., Harmondsworth 1956), pp. 89; p. 40. The making of images is strictly forbidden: cf. H.A.R. Gibb, Mohammedanism: An Historical
Survey (2nd rev. ed., Oxford 1961), p. 68.
20
Hebraicae Quaestiones in Genesim, ed. P. Antin, Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri
Opera Pars 1 Opera Exegetica, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina LXXII (Turnhout
1959), p. 24.
21
See above, n. 10, and the writings of Nilus and Clement of Alexandria discussed
by J. Wellhausen, Reste Arabischen Heidentums (2nd ed., Berlin 1897), pp. 101109;
118129.
19
116
chapter seven
a presentation seems more likely to refer to the pre-Islamic period, and

further evidence from Ps-Jon now to be examined will, we submit,
confirm this suggestion.
3. The Geographical Location of the Ishmaelites
Once the Arabs had adopted Islam, their conquest of vast areas of the
Eastern and Western Roman Empires was accomplished in a very short
space of time. Not only was the expansion of Islam rapid; it was also
effective in converting people to the new faith. Ps-Jon, however, seems
to know nothing of Arab expansion outside the traditional lands associated with Ishmael and his sons. The Bible names Ishmaels first sons
as Nebaioth and Qedar: Ps-Jon Gen. 25:13 translates them as Nebat and
Arab, ancestors of the Nabataeans and Arabs respectively. The Targum
explains the names of some of Ishmaels other sons symbolically;22 all
of them, however, are said to occupy land stretching from India to
Halusah (Ps-Jon and Targum Neofiti Gen. 25:18), that is, as the Bible
makes clear, eastwards of the land of Israel, from Egypt as one goes to
Assyria.23 Nabataeans and Arabians, however, are singled out as particularly significant in that area.
Furthermore, Ps-Jon of Gen. 25:16 states that the names of Ishmaels
sons are listed according to their villages, kwprnyhwn, and (military)
camps, wbqstrwwthwn: the Fragment Targum and Targum Onqelos
record similar information. Once again, Jeromes comments on these
verses in Hebraicae Quaestiones coincide almost exactly with the
Targumim. Of the twelve sons of Ishmael, he singles out Nebaioth,
a quo omnis regio ab Euphrate usque ad Mare Rubrum Nabathena usque
hodie dicitur, quae pars Arabiae est.24
His comment shows apparent knowledge of Josephus Antiquities I. 220,

which lists the twelve sons of Ishmael and says that
these occupied the whole country extending from the Euphrates to
the Red Sea and called it Nabatene; and it is these who conferred their
22
In Gen. 25:4 his sons names are given in Hebrew as Mishma, Duma, Massa, and
Hadad: Ps-Jon renders them as Hearing, Silence, Hope (or: Carrying) and Sharpness.
See Tg. of I Chron. 1:30 and Le Daut, op. cit. pp. 243245.
23
Thus Gen. 25:18. See further below, pp. 8586.
24
See Antins edition, cited above, n. 20, p. 31.
117
names on the Arabian nation and its tribes in honour both of their own
prowess and of the fame of Abraham.25
Thus Jerome shows the Ishmaelites as living in towns, villages, and little forts, in the same way as Ps-Jon: having noted the name Nabathena,
which is part of Arabia, he says of those who live there
Nam et familiae eorum oppidaque et pagi ac minuta castella et tribus
eorum appellatione celebrantur ab uno quoque: ex his Cedar in deserto
et Duma alia regio et Theman ad austra et Cedema ad orientem plaga
dicitur.26
Thus Ps-Jon and Jerome describe the region and the dwelling-places
of the Ishmaelites in almost exactly the same terms. And Ps-Jon states
unambiguously that Ishmaels territory was defined, and that he dwelt
there. We can see this by setting his version of Gen. 25:18 alongside
the original Hebrew, which reads in literal translation:
And they dwelt from Havilah up to Shur, which faces Egypt as you came
to Assyria: upon the face of all his brethren he fell.27
Ps-Jon interprets as follows:

They dwelt from India to Halusah, which faces Egypt as you come to
Assyria. And he dwelt in his inheritance in the face of all his brethren.
In other words, Ps-Jon has no inkling that Ishmaelites or Arabs might

occupy zones not allotted to them by God and recorded as such in the
Bible. They live in the wilderness, rearing sheep and cattle for which
they are famous: thus the sheep of Qedar and the rams of Nebaioth are
understood as the sheep of the Arabs and the rams of Nebaioth (Isaiah
60:7 and its Targum), an understanding shared by Ps-Jon of Numbers
11:22, which alludes to the sheep which are in Arabia and the oxen in
Nebat, and by Jerome, who remarks
25
The translation is H.St.J. Thackerays in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books IIV,
Loeb Classical Library (Harvard 1967), p. 109. On the Nabateans and their importance
in pre-Islamic times, see Schrer, op. cit. pp. 574586.
26
See Antins edition, p. 31.
27
Even the Biblical verse seems to point to the desert dwellings of the Ishmaelites:
they are outside settled society.
118
chapter seven
Cedar autem regio Saracenorum est, qui in scriptura vocantur Ismaelitae.
Et Nebaioth unus est filiorum Ismael, ex quorum nominibus solitudo
apellatur, quae frugum inops, pecorum plena est.28
Given this evidence, Splanskys suggestion, that Ps-Jons interpretation

of Nebaioth and Qedar in Gen. 25:13 as Nebat and Arab supports a
post-Islamic date for the Targum, will not bear scrutiny. He believes
that the place-name Nebat refers to a small Arab village settlement
of that name in South-East Palestine;29 but he fails to take account of
the importance of the Nabataeans in the pre-Islamic period, and does
not mention the translation of Qedar as Arabia by the Targumim and
Jerome.30 Ps-Jons picture of the Ishmaelites is entirely consonant with
Jeromes and is confirmed by his description of their ancestor as a brigand, a matter which will next occupy our attention. By contrast, the
Targum is perfectly aware that Edomites may refer to the Romans and
to their geographical distribution, as is clear from Ps-Jon, Gen. 36:43
and Num. 24:1819, the latter a censored text. Likewise the Syriac
Church Father Aphrahat in Demonstratio V, De Bellis 22 (end), written in 337 ad, attests that the Romans are sons of Esau.
4. Ishmael as a Brigand and the Sons of Keturah
Alone of the Targumim, Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:13 says that God will make
of Ishmael a brigand nation. The Targum uses the Greek loan-word
lystys for brigand, the only occurrence of this word in Ps-Jon according
to the concordance prepared by Clarke, Aufrecht, Hurd, and Spitzer.31
The word refers to bandits and raiders who suddenly appear to rob
and destroy property and to loot peoples goods. Once more, Jerome
provides first-hand evidence that, in his day, the Arabs were raiding
and looting the land of Israel, and were notorious for this activity. Thus
he comments on Jeremiah 3:2, which depicts Judah as waiting K rby
bmdbr: this, he says, may be rendered either like a brigand or like a
crow in the desert. He continues:
28
Commentariorum in Esaiam XVII, ed. M. Adriaen, Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri
Opera Pars 1 Opera Exegetica 2A, CCSL LXXIII A (Turnhout 1963), p. 697.
29
See Splansky, op. cit. p. 99.
30
See Tg. Isa. 21:167; Ps. 120:5; Jer. 2:10; and Jerome, In Hieremiam I.22; II.84, ed.
S. Reiter, Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera Pars 1 Opera Exegetica 3, CCSL LXXIV
(Turnhout 1960), 16, p. 101.
31
Op. cit. p. 329.
119
Pro latrone et cornice in Hebraeo arabe scriptum est, quod potest

et Arabes significare, quae gens latrociniis dedita usque hodie incursat
terminos Palestinae et descendentibus de Hierusalem Hierichum obsidet
vias, cuius rei et dominus in evangelio recordatur.32
Such violent and sudden acts of banditry are characteristic of Ishmael,

the ancestor of the Arabs. Thus Jerome comments on Gen. 16:12,
explaining Gods prediction that Ishmael will be a wild ass among men:
Pro rustico scriptum habet in hebraeo fara, quod interpretatur onager.
Significat autem semen eius habitaturum in heremo, id est Sarracenos
vagos incertisque sedibus, qui universas gentes, quibus desertum ex latere iungitur, incursant, et impugnantur ab omnibus.33
Ps-Jons interpretation of the verse is as follows:

And he will be like a wild ass among the sons of men. His hands will
exact punishment of his enemies, and his enemies hands will be stretched
out to do him harm. He will dwell before all his brethren, and will be
mingled (with them), ytrbb.34
This is consistent with the information which Jerome supplies: Ishmael

is a tempestuous one who has enemies, and is constantly at odds with
them. Ps-Jon seems not to reflect the actual progress of the Islamic conquest, which was a swift, relatively bloodless affair, and its aftermath,
which assured the Jews a peaceful and largely stable environment.35
The remark that Ishmael will be mingled (ytrbb) with his brethren
probably conceals, as Le Daut suggests, a pun on the word Arab:
Ishmael will become ancestor of Arabs among his brethren, and the
Arabs themselves will be mixed with other closely related groups.36
Splansky, however, goes further, and understands the Targum as possibly suggesting that Ishmael will be Arabised: this, on his view, would
amount to yet another interpretation pointing to a post-Islamic date
for the Targum.37 But the real sense of the Targum is made clear by a
pre-Christian source, Jubilees 20:123, which points out that
32
In Hieremiam I.50, ed. Reiter, p. 31.

Hebraicae Quaestiones on Gen. 16:12, ed. Antin, p. 21.
34
Cf. Gen. R. 53:11.
35
On the Islamic conquests and the establishment of Pax Islamica, see T.W. Arnold,
The Preaching of Islam (London 1913), pp. 4577; The Cambridge History of Islam, ed.
P.M. Holt, A.K.S. Lambton, and B. Lewis, vol. 1 (Cambridge 1970), pp. 3192.
36
Op. cit. p. 177.
37
Splansky, op. cit. pp. 9899.
33
120
chapter seven
Ishmael and his sons and the sons of Keturah and their sons went
together and they dwelt from Paran to the entrance to Babylon in all of
the land which faces the east opposite the desert. And these mixed with
each other, and they are called Arabs or Ishmaelites.38
That is to say, both Targum and Jubilees see Ishmael as mingling with
his brethren, which whom he dwells, as Scripture itself makes clear
(Gen. 25:18): he is not resident among non-Semitic peoples. This point
is even more strongly maintained in Ps-Jon than in Jubilees, since the
former identifies Keturah with Hagar (Ps-Jon Gen. 25:1), and her sons
will therefore be Ishmaels brethren in the fullest sense of the word.39
Once more, Jerome attests that this identification was made by Jews in
the fourth century ad, and has material of his own to contribute about
the sons of Keturah.40
In the light of the above remarks, we may properly deal with a matter to which Splansky attaches some significance: he argues that Ps-Jon
betrays his post-Islamic date by frequently suppressing mention of the
sons of Keturah in those aggadic sections which he holds in common
with other midrashic sources, and which do indeed include reference
to the sons of Keturah. Such omissions, he argues, often enable Ps-Jon
to juxtapose Ishmael with Edom in exegetical passages which may
be derogatory to them both, and thereby to address a world divided
between Islam (= Ishmael) and Christianity (= Edom = Rome).41
This theory, however, is contradicted by important aggadic paraphrases like Ps-Jon Gen. 27:29 and 49:26, where the sons of Keturah,
far from being suppressed, are explicitly named along with the sons
of Ishmael in Isaacs blessing of Jacob; and by the evidence of Jubilees,
cited earlier, which states that Ishmaels and Keturahs sons were mingled together. The fact that Ps-Jon also identifies Hagar and Keturah
means that the sons of Ishmael and Keturah are to all intents and purposes the same family group, and that the supposed omission of the
latter from a few aggadic passages is unlikely to bear the significance
which Splansky appears to find.
38
Translated by O.S. Wintermute, Jubilees, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
vol. 2, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (London 1985), p. 94. (Italics ours.)
39
FT and two marginal glosses of N also identify Keturah as Hagar: cf. Gen. R.
61:4 (R. Judah) and PRE 30:4. For explanations, see le Daut, op. cit. p. 241; Prez
Fernndez, op. cit. p. 213; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews vol. 5 (Philadelphia
1955), pp. 264265; and Shinan, The Aggadah vol. 1, p. 98.
40
Hebraicae Quaestiones on Gen. 25:1, ed. Antin, pp. 3031.
41
121
5. The Princes of Ishmael

As we have seen, Splansky has maintained that Ps-Jon was composed
at a time when the religion of Islam ruled supreme over one part of the
world; and he sees further evidence of this in Ps-Jon Num. 7:87, which
speaks of the twelve princes of Ishmael; and in Ps-Jon Gen. 49:26, with
its reference to Esau, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah as the princes
of the world, rbrbny lm. He suggests that Ps-Jon may have known of
the dynasty of the Twelve Shia Imams, and notes that the Zohar also
speaks of twelve princes of Ishmael.42
The verses which Splansky quotes, however, may be more simply and
correctly understood without recourse to Islam. It is a Biblical datum
that Ishmael had twelve sons (Gen. 25:135), and that God promised to make of him a nation (Gen. 21:13). Furthermore, Gen. 17:20
states that twelve princes, Hebrew nyym, will be born to him: Ps-Jon
renders this word as rbrbyn, as in Gen. 25:16. The construct state,
rbrby, he also uses in Num. 7:87. Splansky seems to have overlooked
these verses. There is no need to look beyond the Bible, therefore, for
Ps-Jons use of the term princes in the aggadah which he introduces
into Num. 7:87; and we may also note that the pre-Christian source
Jubilees 15:20 renders the Hebrew word nyym as princes when it
comes to re-write Gen. 17:20.43
Likewise, careful attention to the Biblical text underlying the Targum
will properly explain Ps-Jons version of Gen. 49:26. The Hebrew of
this verse is difficult, and the relevant part of it reads:
brkt byk gbrw l brkt hwry d twt gbt wlm . . .
A literal translation would yield:

The blessings of your father have prevailed over the blessings of my progenitors, up to the desire of the everlasting hills . . .
Ps-Jons interpretation takes for granted an ancient tradition that hills

and mountains often symbolize great men and women of the past,44
and reads as follows:
42

See Wintermute, op. cit. p. 86; R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees, Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament vol. 1 (Oxford 1913), p. 36; Charles rev. by C. Rabin,
Jubilees, The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H.F.D. Sparks (Oxford 1984), p. 55.
44
For detailed discussion and a list of Rabbinic references, see Syrn, op. cit.
pp. 5860, 135136. The exegesis of mountains as eminent persons is attested already
43
122
chapter seven
May the blessings of your father be added to the blessings with which my
fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob blessed me, which the princes of the
world, Ishmael, Esau, and all the sons of Keturah desired . . .
The Hebrew expression gbt wlm, everlasting hills, is thus understood

as symbolic of these princes, whom the hills represent and which the
Bible qualifies by wlm, a word meaning both everlasting and world.45 It
is the biblical text itself, therefore, which leads to the Targums exegesis,
since the word wlm requires translation into Aramaic. Consequently,
it is highly unlikely that any reference to Islam, however indirect, is
intended by the translator; and it is certainly unnecessary to posit
one.
Closely related to Gen. 49 is the Blessing of Moses recorded in
Deut. 33. Ps-Jon to verse 2 of this chapter relates a famous aggadah,
that God offered to give the Torah to the sons of Esau and of Ishmael
before He offered it to the Israelites, but they refused to accept it. Joseph
Heinemanns careful study of this tradition has led him to conclude
that Ps-Jons version of it is the oldest form extant. If Heinemanns
results can be accepted, then we have yet another indication that
Ps-Jons picture of Ishmael is essentially pre-Islamic.46
6. The Circumcision of Ishmael
Ps-Jon reports that Ishmael was circumcised (Gen. 17:25), probably
on the Feast of Passover,47 and Abraham hopes that Ishmael will
serve before the Lord (Gen. 17:18), a hope not expressed in the other
Targumim. God replies that he will grant this petition (Gen. 17:20).
These verses seem to present Ishmael in a favourble light, and they help
by 11Q Melch line 17 commenting on Isa. 52:7, that the mountains of that text refer
to prophets.
45
With Ps-Jon cf. very closely TO: May the blessings of your father be added to
the blessings with which my fathers blessed me, which the princes who were from of
old (rbrby dmn lm) desired for themselves.
46
See J. Heinemann, Aggadah and Its Development (Jerusalem 1974), pp. 156162
(in Hebrew), and Syrn, op. cit. pp. 144148.
47
Ps-Jon of Gen. 17:26 should read: On that very day, on the fourteenth of Nisan,
Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son. The one surviving Ms. of Ps-Jon,
British Library add. 27031, omits Nisan; while the editio princeps and Waltons
Polyglott read nyn, years. This reading is probably an error for Nisan: see S. Speier,
The Date of the Circumcision of Abraham and Ishmael according to the Targum
attributed to Jonathan, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 29
(196061), pp. 6973 Hebrew section, and Le Daut, op. cit. pp. 184185.
123
to explain how, in the course of the long aggadah in Ps-Jon Gen. 22:1,
Ishmael can claim to be more meritorious than Isaac.
The aggadah itself points to a debate in purely Jewish terms: Ishmael
and Isaac dispute the right of inheritance from Abraham. Ishmael is
the first-born son, while Isaac asserts that Ishmael is a slave-womans
son, he the son of Abrahams free wife Sarah. Ishmael then claims
righteousness through his voluntary circumcision at the age of thirteen years, taunting Isaac with the latters involuntary circumcision
when he was but eight days old. Stung into response, Isaac declares
that, being now thirty-seven years old, he would hand himself over
entirely to God: thus the stage is set for the Aqedah, the sacrifice of
Isaac, which follows.
The origins of the aggadah can be traced in the first century ad.
It tackles a problem implicit in the Torah itself which existed long
before the appearance of Islam, namely, the status of those descendants of Abraham who, like the Jews, are themselves circumcised.48
The Targum solves the problem: not circumcision alone, but that and
descent from Isaac establish the Jews as Gods people, and the Aqedah
proves the point.
It is highly improbable, however, that Ps-Jon of Gen. 22:1 originated
as a counter to Islam. Ishmael claims right of inheritance because of
his merit gained through voluntary circumcision; but Islam does not
regard circumcision as sufficient to justify a mans claim to be Muslim.
The rite is indeed of great importance, and is almost universally practised; but the Koran is silent about it.49 Rather, it is submission to the
will of God and acceptance of the Prophets revelation which make
a man Muslim. It is hard to see how any Muslim could claim that
Ishmaels circumcision gave Muslims a special status before God,
expecially since, from the earliest days of the Islamic conquests, nonArabs embraced the religion on the basis of their faith in it.
48
See R. Le Daut, Traditions targumiques dans le Corpus Paulinien?, Biblica 42
(1961), pp. 3743; idem, op. cit. pp. 214215; and Hayward, art. cit., pp. 129132:
I must now modify what I wrote there (p. 131) about the possible anti-Islamic bias in
this verse of Ps-Jon. It seems that Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians
II.469, knew of Jewish traditions that Isaac and Ishmael had quarrelled over the matter of circumcision.
49
See A.J. Wensinck, article Khitn, Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed. vol. 5 (Leiden
1986), pp. 2022; Gibb, op. cit. p. 64.
124
chapter seven
Further, Islam eventually felt the need to appropriate the aggadah

of the Aqedah, which had certainly developed in pre-Islamic times.50
The Koran leaves in doubt the identity of the son whom Abraham led
to sacrifice; but later traditions are clear that Ishmael, not Isaac, was
the victim.51 The Aqedah was of such significance for Jews in proving
their status as Gods people that Islam seems to have had little option
but to take over the tradition for its own purposes.
7. Conclusion
Certain students of the Targumim have recently pointed to verses and
sections of Ps-Jon which, they believe, indicate that Targums knowledge
of or polemic against Islam. Our study of these same passages, however,
points to a different conclusion: we find no evidence that Ps-Jon knew
of Islam, let alone engaged in an attack upon it. We have shown that
there are grounds for doubting whether Ps-Jon is simply and directly
dependent on late midrashim like PRE, as some have posited. We have
found that the Targums portrait of Ishmael as idolater and brigand
is entirely consonant with descriptions of pre-Islamic Arabs known
in the land of Israel and attested by Jerome in the fourth century ad.
For Ps-Jon, Ishmael is confined to his ancient biblically-allotted lands,
not spread across the known world; and the claim that Ps-Jon was
composed in a world split between the dominant powers of Islam and
Christianity rests, we have seen, on very shaky foundations.
Likewise, the aggadah of Isaac and Ishmael in Ps-Jon of Gen. 22:1
in no way requires an anti-Islamic background to explain its origins:
there, as in other verses of the Targum, we have been able to show that
pressing concerns far older than the rise of Islam have been effective in
creating the Targums exegesis. In the light of all this, we may say that
Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:21, which its reference to isha and Ftima, stands
out as a peculiarity whose most likely explanation has already been
given by those scholars who see it as a late, modernizing addition to
50
See R. Le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome 1963), pp. 131212; G. Vermes,
Redemption and Genesis XXII, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, (2nd ed., Leiden
1973), pp. 193227; P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton, The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition
History, CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 514546; and C.T.R. Hayward, art. cit.
51
See Ohana, art. cit. p. 178; R. Gottheil, article Abraham, Jewish Encyclopaedia
vol. 1 (New York 1901), p. 89; R. Paret, article Isml, Encyclopaedia of Islam, new
ed. vol. 4 (Leiden 1978), p. 184.
125
the finished text of Ps-Jon. A post-Islamic date for Ps-Jon, then, stands
revealed as at best unproven, and more probably as highly uncertain.
Clearly, it cannot be assumed as a result of modern scholarship; and
future discussion of Ps-Jon must be wary of accepting it without more
rigorous proof than has hitherto been forthcoming.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE DATE OF TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN:

SOME COMMENTS*
Of the Targums of the Pentateuch, Pseudo-Jonathan (hereafter Ps-Jon)
is most famous for its rich aggadic traditions and remarkable consistency and internal unity. It occupies a special place in Targumic studies, not least because it seems to bear a special relationship to Targum
Onqelos (hereafter TO), the official Targum of the Pentateuch sanctioned by Rabbinic authority. The nature and significance of that relationship have often been discussed; so, too, the character of Ps-Jons
exegesis has occasioned important studies.1 In recent years, there has
been a growing tendency for students to argue that this Targum is
a very late text, produced in the eighth, ninth, or tenth centuries, or
even later, probably as the work of a single author-compiler who drew
heavily upon the Palestinian Targumim (PTgg), TO, and the traditions now preserved in late midrashim like the Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer
(PRE).2 Some argue that Ps-Jon is dependent on PRE, and possibly also
on other later works; and they attempt to discern an engagement with
and polemic against Islam in many of its aggadic traditions.3
Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum PseudoJonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Ktav, 1984); A. Sperber, The Bible
in Aramaic, vol. 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden, 1959);
A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I, 5 vols. (Madrid and Barcelona, 19681978); M.L. Klein,
The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, 2 vols.
(Rome, 1980).
1
See R. le Daut, Introduction la Littrature Targumique (Rome, 1966), pp.
89101, and the survey of more recent literature in B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of
Targumic Literature, vol. II (New York, 1977), pp. 3140; A. Dez Macho, El Targum
(Madrid, 1982). There is good critical discussion of Ps-Jon in the specialist study of
G. Bienaim, Mose et le don de leau dans la tradition juive ancienne: Targum et
Midrash (Rome, 1984).
2
See e.g. M. Ohana, La Polmique judo-islamique et limage dIsmal dans
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Augustinianum 15 (1975),
pp. 367387; and A. Shinan, The Nature of the Targum of the Torah attributed to
Jonathan, Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1986),
pp. 109116 (in Hebrew).
3
See D.M. Splansky, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to other Targumim, Use of Midrashim, and Date, unpublished dissertation (Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion, 1981), and the convenient survey of material in A.N.
the date of targum pseudo-jonathan
127
Many different arguments and interpretations of the evidence are

deployed in support of what seems to be a growing consensus of opinion. Most impressive is the detailed analysis of Ps-Jons traditions by
Avigdor Shinan, whose major study of the Pentateuchal Targumim
against their social, religious, and political background leads him to
suggest that Ps-Jon is less of a Targum, more of an Aramaic re-written
Bible.4 Among Shinans many important conclusions, his understanding of Ps-Jon as primarily a literary construction stands out clearly.
In Shinans opinion, Ps-Jon lacks the characteristic features of oral
transmission which, he argues, may be detected in the other PTgg: it is
the work of a single author-compiler, who has systematically reworked
a Targum whose text was akin to the other PTgg, expanding that text
with aggadic traditions drawn very often from late midrashic works like
PRE, and reworking the whole document in the light of TO. Ps-Jons
internal consistency and occasional internal contradictions are further
evidence of the author-compilers single-minded approach. Shinan
adduces examples of folk elements and vulgarisms in the Targum:
these, surely distasteful to the Rabbis, further serve to indicate the Sitz
im Leben of our text, not in the public worship of the synagogue, but
in the library of the collector of aggadah.5
Other appreciations of Ps-Jons character and origins are, however,
by no means impossible. Twenty-five years ago, Geza Vermes argued
that much of Ps-Jons aggadic tradition was essentially ancient, even
though there were indications that the text had been modernized
with the passage of time.6 He suggested that TO itself might have been
based on an original Targum very similar to, or possibly identical with,
the fore-runner of Ps-Jon. To some degree his argument was based
upon Ps-Jons language, which by turns agrees now with TO against
the PTgg, now with one or other of the PTgg against TO, now with
no other Targum. After thorough analysis of the language, Vermes felt
Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tbingen,
1986), pp. 252256.
4
Cf. A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols.
(Jerusalem, 1979) (in Hebrew), especially vol. 1, pp. 119146; idem, The Palestinian
TargumsRepetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287.
5
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 155177; vol. 2, pp. 243285; and idem, Live
Translation: On the Nature of the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, Prooftexts 3
(1983), pp. 4149.
6
See G. Vermes, The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:316, The Annual of the
Leeds University Oriental Society 3 (196162; Leiden, 1963), pp. 81114; reprinted in
Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden, 1975), pp. 92126.
128
chapter eight
compelled to conclude as he did. Although his work on Ps-Jon has

received some independent confirmation and support, no-one has yet
published a refutation of his main thesis.7
The conclusions of Shinan and others stand so opposed to those
of Vermes that some further testing of Ps-Jon is not only justifiable,
but necessary. This essay, therefore, will attempt to evaluate some of
the claims and conclusions which scholars have urged for Ps-Jon over
the last twenty-five years or so. It will not, however, deal fully with the
matter of Ps-Jon and its relationship to Islam. That subject is sufficiently important to warrant separate treatment.
Here we shall examine Ps-Jons version of Genesis 27, a text chosen
at random, scrutinizing verses which include Targumic interpretation.
We shall offer a detailed analysis and explication of them, reserving
treatment of Ps-Jons language for another essay. Shinan, in particular,
has concentrated on the aggadic material in Ps-Jon, and it will therefore be important to focus on this, and to see how far, in the course of
a single extended chapter, his view of Ps-Jon may be maintained.
Analysis of Targumic Aggadah in Pseudo-Jonathan
Genesis 27
In the following verses, Ps-Jon offers distinctive interpretations of the
Hebrew text. The Targumic interpretations and additions are italicized
in the quotations set out below.
Verse 1
And it happened when Isaac grew old that his eyes grew too dim to see,
because when his father had bound him, he had looked on the Throne of
Glory, and from that time his eyes began to become dim. So he called Esau
his elder son on the fourteenth of Nisan and said to him: My son, behold,
on this night the high ones praise the Lord of the World, and on it the
treasuries of dews are opened. And he said to him, Here I am.
7
Cf. G.J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and its Relationship to Targum
Onkelos (Rome, 1972); R. le Daut, op. cit., pp. 100101. However, the unpublished
Ph.D. thesis of G.J. Cowling, The Palestinian Targum: Textual and Linguistic Investigations in Codex Neofiti I and Allied Manuscripts (University of Aberdeen, 1968),
includes detailed criticisms of Vermess article.
129
The Targum has translated the Hebrew almost literally, but has inserted
into its rendering three exegetical comments. First, Isaac has become
blind because he has looked on the Throne of Glory on the occasion
of the Aqedah. Indeed, at Ps-Jon of Gen. 22:10 we are told that Isaac
saw the angels of the height as he lay bound on the altar, a tradition
known also to Targum Neofiti (N), and the Fragment Targums represented by the Paris and Vatican Manuscripts (FT(P) and FT(V)) of the
same verse. Ps-Jon is thus in agreement with the other PTgg, and the
interpretation of Gen. 27:1 recalls that agreement. A similar reason for
Isaacs blindness is given in Ber. R. 65:10, where it is so elaborated that
tears streaming from the eyes of the watching angels fall into Isaacs
eyes and make him lose his sight. Ps-Jon is silent about other supposed
causes of Isaacs disability which are recorded in late documents. Thus
Tanhuma Toledot 8 states that God made Isaac blind so that he should
not have to see the idolatrous practices of Esaus wives; or, by way of
another explanation, so that Isaac should not recognize that he was,
in fact, giving his blessing to Jacob, and not to his favourite son Esau.
The Midrash Ha-Gadol, however, tells us that God deprived Isaac of
sight lest he should look on Esaus wicked deeds.8
With these late texts Ps-Jon has nothing in common. Nonetheless,
in PRE 32:4 R. Simon states that when Isaac was bound he saw the
Shekhina, and had consequently become blind. As a result of this
statement, PRE 32:4 is often adduced as a parallel to Ps-Jon. The two
texts are, however, only superficially similar: the Targum relates that
Isaacs father had bound him, that he had seen the Throne of Glory,
and that his eyes, from that time onwards, had begun to grow dim. By
contrast, PRE says that when Isaac was bound (there is no reference
to his father) he saw the Shekhina; and he did not die, as, by rights,
he should have done (Exod. 33:20). Rather, his sight was weakened at
the time of his old age. From this, one may conclude that a blind man
8
On Isaacs blindness and the Aqedah, see R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome,
1963), p. 140, and Debarim R. 33:1 cited by le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol.
1, Gense (Paris, 1978), p. 256. M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 4 (Jerusalem, 1934)
(in Hebrew), pp. 1069, 1071, notes the traditions of the Tanhuma and the Midrash
Ha-Gadol. FT(P) states that the Holy Spirit was removed from Isaac so that Jacob
could receive the blessing; cf. Philo, Quaestiones in Genesim IV.196, translated by
R. Marcus, Philo Supplement 1, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1961).
130
chapter eight
is to be regarded as a dead man; and PRE twice in the course of the

chapter stresses that Isaac, while still alive, must bless Jacob.9
PREs thrust and intention thus stand revealed as quite other than
those of the Targum, which is concerned only to explain why Isaac
had become blind. The details of the exegesis in the two texts do not
correspond, and PRE goes far beyond Ps-Jon and the tradition which
he shares with the other PTgg by embroidering the simple explanation
of Isaacs condition and turning it into a kind of homily. In the course
of this investigation, we shall encounter many other items which have
been claimed as parallels to an interpretation offered by Ps-Jon and
which, on examination, turn out to bear only the slightest and most
superficial resemblances to the Targum.
Ps-Jon continues his exegesis by setting the events of Gen. 27 on
the fourteenth of Nisan, the feast of Passover. As in other places, the
Targum here displays a predilection for associating important events
with this festival.10 We shall see that Ps-Jon is signalling a priestly and
sacrificial aspect of Jacobs activity which becomes stronger as the chapter proceeds; this aspect, however, is lacking in PRE 32:4, which also
sets these events in the context of the Passover. Even though Ps-Jon
and PRE agree on the dating of the event, it is open to doubt whether
the Targum is dependent on PRE for this information. Already Ps-Jon
has established a link between Isaacs blessing of Jacob and the Aqedah,
which may have influenced the Targumist in his choice of a date. More
suggestive, however, is the possibility that some essential link between
Passover and the blessing of Jacob was known to Philo. In De Sacrificiis
6364, he sets out an allegorical explanation of the Passover ritual and
ceremonies, and goes on immediately to compare them directly with
Jacobs bringing the savoury meat to his father Isaac. Philo represents
the Passover as symbolizing the pious mans passage from the life of
the passions to the practice of virtue, and it is pre-eminently exemplified for him in the case of , Jacob the practiser,
who brings the savoury dish to his father.11 In Philos writings, Jacob
9
For the text of PRE, I have used quotations in Kashers Torah Shelemah and the
translation of M. Prez Fernndez, Los Caplulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia, 1984); see
p. 227 for the stress on Isaac still living.
10
See Vermes, art. cit., Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, pp. 111112. Rashi quotes the
tradition in his comment on Gen. 27:9.
11
See Philo II, translated by F.H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.,
1968); compare this description of Jacob with Ps-Jon of verse 11. The discipline of
Torah study is called in IV Macc. 13:22.
131
frequently exemplifies , the practiser of Gods commandments given in the Torah; and this understanding of Jacob is also central to Ps-Jons presentation of the Patriarch, as we shall see.
The sacrificial character of the meal prepared for Isaac may also
have been known to Josephus, who recounts how Isaac had ordered
Esau to hunt the game because he himself was blind, and was thus
hindered from serving God.12
The third element which Ps-Jon inserts into verse 1 concerns the
praises of the angels, the high ones, and the gift of dew. Once again
PRE 32:4 is adduced as a parallel, in that it records Isaacs words to
Esau:
My son, on this night the whole world sings the Hallel, and on this night
the treasuries of the dew are opened.13
Two manuscripts of PRE, however, indicate that the angels of the

height sing on Passover night.14 This manuscript variant is closer to
Ps-Jons text which, however, has no reference to the Hallel, nor to
the whole world singing it. As Shinan points out, the angelic song
is a favourite theme for Ps-Jon, who records it at Passover time in
Exod. 14:24.15 Prayer for dew is a feature of the synagogue liturgy at
Passover, but when it became so we do not know for certain.16 Since
Isaac explicitly refers to the dews in his blessing of Jacob in verses
2829, however, it was open to exegetes to infer a link with Passover
and with the angels song, particularly since it was a fact of nature
known to everyone that the dew was expected in the month Nisan.17
It is unnecessary, therefore, to suppose that Ps-Jon was dependent on
PRE for his exegesis of this verse. On the contrary, the Targum is
informed by the Synagogue Liturgy, which dictates the connection of
the dew and the Passover in the first instance, and provides the Sitz
im Leben for the interpretation of this verse.
12
See Josephus, Antiquities I.267: .

See le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, pp. 256256, for the link between Passover
and prayers for dew.
14
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 227.
15
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 262263: he does not refer to the Ms. variant
in PRE, which coincides with Rebeccas words later in the text.
16
See I. Elbogen, Der jdische Gottesdienst, 3rd ed. (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1931),
p. 214; A.Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and Its Development (New York, 1960), p. 196.
17
See I Enoch 60:20; II Enoch 6:1; b. Taanith 4b.
13
132
chapter eight
Verse 5
And Rebecca heard by means of the Holy Spirit when Isaac was speaking
with Esau his son; so Esau went to the field to hunt prey to bring it.
Ps-Jon refers to Rebeccas possession of the Holy Spirit again at verse

42, thereby indicating that she is one of the prophetesses of Israel: the
Targum shares this understanding of the Matriarch with a number
of other Rabbinic texts, all of which have been discussed by Schfer.18
PRE 32, although included in their number, does not say that Rebecca
heard Isaac, still less that she did so through the Holy Spirit; the reference to the Spirit is directed towards a quite different end.19
Verse 6
And Rebecca said to Jacob her son, saying, Behold, on this night the high
ones are uttering praise to the Lord of the world, and on it the treasuries
of dew are opened; and I have heard your father speaking with Esau your
brother, saying:
Precisely because Rebecca had heard through the Spirit what Isaac had
said, she repeats his words exactly as they are recorded in verse 1.
PRE 32:4 stands apart from Ps-Jon, and does not suggest that Rebecca
possessed the Holy Spirit; consequently, she is made to say that
the treasuries of the dews are to be opened, and that the angels of the
height will sing, thereby reversing the order of things set out by the
Targum. PRE then says that Jacobs sons will be delivered in the future
on Passover night, and that they will sing a song: of this, Ps-Jon says
nothing, although a reference to future redemption and the Song at
the Sea would be appropriate in the present context, and might even
have been expected, had the Targum been dependent on PRE.20
18
P. Schfer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur
(Mnchen, 1972), p. 55; le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 257; Kasher, op. cit.,
p. 1075. See also Ber. R. 67:9; Tanhuma Toledot 10.
19
Isaac commands Esau to make him a good dinner, and PRE states that the Holy
Spirit agrees with this when it says Do not eat the bread of the niggard, Prov. 23:6.
20
PRE also records that Isaac had asked Esau to prepare him a good dinner, information which Rebecca passes to Jacob. This is not found in Ps-Jon.
133
Verse 9
Go now to the sheep-shed, and take for me from there two kids of the
goats, fat ones; one for the Pesah, and one for the hagigah; and I will
make them into savoury food for your father, just as he loves.
The Bible speaks of two goats rather than one, and Ps-Jon offers an
explanation: one is the Passover victim, the other a hagigah, an animal
killed to provide supplementary meat for the meal.21
PRE 32:4 agrees with Ps-Jon as to the purpose of the two goats, and
is generally cited as a parallel to the Targum at this point.22 Yet once
again PREs exegesis is, in truth, quite different from the Targums.
First it reports Rebeccas order to Jacob, and speaks of his fear that he
might invoke his fathers curse, a fear which his mother disarms. Next,
we read that Jacob went and took two kids of the goats:
Did Isaacs meal then consist of two goat-kids? Was he not satisfied
with one? As it is said, The righteous has enough to satisfy the appetite
(Prov. 13:25). One was to celebrate the Passover, and the other to prepare him a good meal, as has been handed down to us by tradition: the
Paschal victim comes only when a man is satisfied.
Both Targum and PRE are clearly dependent on well-known Talmudic

rules about the Passover lamb and its supplementary hagigah, and for
the Targum these rules sufficiently explain the presence of two goats.
Ps-Jon seems entirely ignorant of any suggestion that Isaac may have
been a glutton, even to the extent of describing the lambs as fat ones.23
PRE, however, is obviously concerned to exonerate Isaac from the
charge of gluttony.
It is not easy to discover the identity of those who may have slandered Isaac in this way, but it is evident that some such charge against
him was known in pre-Christian times, since Philo offers an apologia
for the Patriarchs large appetite in Quaestiones in Genesim IV.200. He
speaks of Isaac as a man of enormous stature and wonderful structure,
such as befits a man of virtue and the founder of such a nation as
21
See m. Pesahim 6:3; t. Pes. 5:3; b. Pes. 114b.

Cf. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 258; M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan
(Berlin, 1903), p. 48; E.B. Levine, The Aggadah in Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel and
Neofiti I to Genesis: Parallel References, in A. Dez Macho (ed.), Ms. Neophyti I, vol.
2: xodo (Madrid and Barcelona, 1970), p. 559.
23
This point has not, it seems hitherto been noticed. LXX of this verse describes
the kids as tender and good.
22
134
chapter eight
Israel, hence he could legitimately consume two lambs without being

considered greedy.24 It is certain that Philos opinion was known in
Christian circles, since it is quoted in Greek by Procopius of Gaza. It is
possible, therefore, that PRE is engaged in a refutation of such ideas.25
Philo finishes his comment on this verse with further information
about the goats: one of them refers to the desire for piety, ,
the other to the desire for humanity in form.26 It may be possible
to discern behind this allegorical exegesis the rather more mundane
notion that one goat was a sacrificial victim, the other intended for
a meal, since we have already seen how Philo links these goats with
the Passover.27 In any case, it must be recalled that the Passover dinner was a meal, and that the households who partook of it would, in
most cases, have required some meat for food in addition to the single
Passover victim. For this reason alone it may be argued that Ps-Jons
understanding of the two goats need not depend on PRE; and the differences between the two texts set out above make any direct connection between them improbable.
Verse 11
And because Jacob was a sin-fearing man, he was afraid lest his father
should curse him; and he said, Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man,
but I am a smooth man.
Shinan rightly observes that PRE 32:4 tallies with Ps-Jon in reporting Jacobs fear of his fathers curse, but fails to speak of him as a
sin-fearing man.28 There is no suggestion of Jacobs fear in the text
of Genesis 27, and the expression sin-fearing man is found in Ps-Jon
only in this verse. The sin-fearing man is, of course, well known from
Mishnah Aboth 2:8, and may be defined as one who sees what will be,
that is, one who weighs up the consequences of an action or a state
24
Marcus, op. cit., above, n. 8, translates: (This he did) not through insatiableness,
for he was continent as no-one else has ever been found (to be), but because of his
wonderful structure.
25
See Marcus, op. cit., p. 490; cf. E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in
the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman, vol. III.2
(Edinburgh, 1987), p. 829. Procopius gave the exegesis some currency: it is refuted by
Cornelius Lapide, Commentaria in Pentateuchum Mosis (Antwerp, 1623), p. 230.
26
See Marcus, op. cit., pp. 492493, for translation and notes.
27
Cf. above, p. 130.
28
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 55.
135
of mind.29 Shinan is unable to find any Rabbinic text which presents

Jacob in these terms.30
Some pre-Rabbinic sources, however, do describe Jacob as fearing
sin. Pre-eminent among them is Jubilees 26:78, where Jacob begs:
O my mother, I will not refuse anything which my father would eat and
which would please him, but I am afraid, my mother, lest he recognize
my voice and wish to touch me. And you know that I am smooth and
Esau, my brother, is hairy. And I shall become in his sight like one who
acts wickedly and I shall be doing a deed which he did not command me
to do. And he will be angry with me and I shall bring upon myself a
curse and not a blessing.31
This description of Jacobs attitude fairly describes a man who fears

sin by weighing up the possible outcome of his actions, considering
his state of mind, and gauging the reaction of others. By contrast,
Josephus speaks of Jacobs fear of being discovered as an evil-doer
before his father could bless him.32 While the motif of fear is present,
it springs from a source quite unlike that represented by Jubilees and
the Targum.
Verse 12
According to the Bible, Jacob is afraid that Isaac regard him as a
mocker, . Both Ps-Jon and N interpret the Hebrew word as
, as one who jests: this is a term used specifically of idol-worship in Ps-Jon Exod. 32:6, 18 (the episode of the golden calf ) and in
Gen. 21:9 with reference to Ishmael.33 In like manner, Ber. R. 65:15
and b. Sanhedrin 32a understand the Hebrew word to signify idolatrous practice. Ps-Jons translation of it may have sexual connotations,
as in Ps-Jon Gen. 39:14, 17; and it is otherwise used in a bad sense at
29
See m. Aboth 2:9, where R. Simeon b. Nathanael, dubbed a sin-fearer in the
preceding mishnah, says that the good way to which a man should adhere is one that
sees what will be.
30
As he rightly observes, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 55, PRE provides a parallel only for the
end of Ps-Jons comment.
31
Translated by O.S. Wintermute in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (London, 1985), p. 106. Philo comments on this verse in De
Migratione Abraham 153 that Jacob, the practiser of good things, is called smooth by
Scripture. Once again Jacob is seen as the practiser of Torah, who, almost by definition, fears sin.
32
See Josephus, Antiquities I.270.
33
See Ohana, art. cit., for a view of this verse as anti-Islamic. But have Jews ever
regarded Islam as idolatrous?
136
chapter eight
Gen. 18:13, 15; 19:14; 38:23. Ps-Jon makes it clear that Jacob wishes
to avoid being suspected of idolatry, and will soon indicate in a quite
subtle and suggestive way that Esau commits that very sin by bringing
a stewed dog to his father.34
Verse 13
And his mother said to him, If he blesses you with blessings, may they
come upon you and upon your children; but if he curses you with curses,
let them come upon me and upon my soul. But listen to me and go, take
for me . . .
The aggadic expansion of the verse is of an obvious kind and spells

out rather woodenly what is the plain sense of the text. PRE 32:4 has
a similar, but much shorter, comment:
His mother said to him, My son, may blessings be upon you and on
your descendants. But if (there are) curses, may they come on me and on
my soul, as it is said, On me be thy curse, my son (Gen. 27:13).
The exegesis is substantially the same in Targum and PRE, and Kasher
adduces further examples of the same interpretation in later midrashic
collections.35 While N renders the verse literally, TO offers a version
which altogether rules out the nagging doubts of Rebeccas speech in
Ps-Jon:
And his mother said to him: It has been said to me in prophecy that
curses shall not come upon you, my son.
TO remembers what Ps-Jon seems temporarily to have forgotten, that

Rebecca is a prophetess: she therefore has foreknowledge of Isaacs
blessing.36 Ps-Jons interpretation of this verse was open to dangerous
possibilities. Any hint that Isaac might have cursed Jacob could be of
service to anti-Jewish propagandists, and perhaps for this very reason
TO so effectively excludes the line of exegesis represented by Ps-Jon,
PRE, and other documents. Given TOs standpoint, it is hard to see
34
See below, p. 146.

See Kasher, op. cit., p. 1079.
36
TO here assumes the very tradition which Ps-Jon has explicitly enunciated in
verse 1.
35
137
how Ps-Jons interpretation of this verse could have come into existence after the rise to power of Christianity or Islam.37
Verse 15
So Rebecca took the desirable garments of Esau her elder son, which
were from the first Adam; for on that day Esau had not put them on,
so that they were left with her in the house. And she clothed Jacob her
younger son.
The tradition that the garments which God made for Adam were handed
down to subsequent generations of first-born sons is very widespread,
and most of the sources name Esau as one of the recipients.38 Shinan
attaches special significance to its place in this verse, maintaining that
the proper location for this Targumic aggadah is retained by N, the
glosses of Targum Neofiti (Ngl), and FT, who include it in their versions of Gen. 48:22 as an explanation of the which Jacob
gave to Joseph.39 These Targumim speak of the garments as passed
down from Abraham to Isaac (via Nimrod, according to N); thence
to Jacob and to Joseph. Shinan believes that Ps-Jon has shortened the
aggadah and moved it from its rightful context: such procedures are all
that might be expected of a work which is the contrived product of a
literary process, and serve to indicate the late date of the Targum.40
It seems highly probable, however, that Shinans account of this verse,
and the conclusions which he draws, are mistaken. All the Targumim
of the Pentateuch, except TO, agree with the general tradition of other
Rabbinic texts that Esau received Adams garments, but this tradition
is preserved in two distinct forms, a fact which Shinan has failed to
notice. In the first form, the garments reach Esau via Nimrod, either
indirectly through Isaac (e.g. N, Ngl, FT of Gen. 48:22), or directly as
a result of his taking them from Nimrod by force (e.g. Ber. R. 65:16;
37
Ps-Jon also fails to tackle the theological problem posed by Jacobs successful
deceiving of Isaac, a matter which was greatly to exercise Christian exegetes like
Augustine: see his Contra Mendacium 10:4. Again, Jacobs mendacity would have
provided useful material for Islamic controversialists!
38
Cf. FT(P), N, Ngl, FT(V) to Gen. 48:22; yer. Megillah 1.11; Bemidbar R. 4:8;
Tanhuma B. Toledot 67; PRE 24:2, 5; Wayyiqra R. 18:2; Aggadath Bereshith 42; Shir
Ha-Shirim Zutta 3:8; Tanhuma B. Bereshith 9.
39
Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 117118, 156.
40
Ibid., pp. 155160.
138
chapter eight
PRE 24:5). The garments which come to Esau through Nimrod have a
strongly marked royal and military character.41
The second form never includes Nimrod amongst those who receive
the garments, which are priestly vestments, the special robes of the
first-born who acted as priests before Levi was chosen for the priestly
office.42 It is to this form of the tradition that Ps-Jon of Gen. 27:15
belongs. Nowhere does Ps-Jon indicate that Esau acquired the garments from Nimrod. This fact is significant, given that he had ample
opportunity to do so, recording as he does Esaus murder of Nimrod
and his son which, in other sources, is said to have been motivated
by Esaus overweening desire for the robes.43 Further, we have drawn
attention to the sacrificial and cultic elements which are to the fore in
Ps-Jons exegesis of this chapter, and priestly robes fit properly into
this context.
Already in the fourth century ad it was a common opinion that
Esaus garments were priestly robes. The Christian scholar Jerome
states clearly that Gen. 27:15 was referred by the Jews of his day to
the garments in which first-born sons had served as priests before the
time of Aaron, and his report is confirmed by the Jerusalem Talmud
and other texts.44 That these pre-Levitical robes had once belonged to
Adam was also widely known.45 To this nexus of ideas Ps-Jon properly
belongs, and it is consequently a mistake to connect his exegesis in any
way with the PTgg of Gen. 48:22.
41
This is clear from Pesiqta Rabbati 23/24:2 and PRE 24:2, which quotes R. Aqibas
view that Nimrod was a universal monarch, possessing Adams garments. See also
Kasher, op. cit., p. 1026.
42
See Ber. R. 97:6; yer. Meg. 1.11; Bem. R. 4:8; Tanhuma B. Toledot 67; Aggadath
Bereshith 42; FT(P) to Gen. 48:22; Ber. R. 20:12; Tanhuma B. Bereshith 9; Tanhuma
Toledot 12; Midrash Abkir on Gen. 3:21.
43
See Ps-Jon on Gen. 25:27. But there is no mention of his motive for the killing,
and the supposed parallel with PRE 24:5 is at best superficial, although it is cited
by le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 246; Ginsburger, op. cit., p. 45; and Levine,
op. cit., p. 558.
44
See Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Genesim, ed. P. Antin, S. Hieronymi
Presbyteri Opera Pars 1. Opera Exegetica, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72
(Turnhout, 1959), p. 34; yer. Meg. 1:11; and cf. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque,
pp. 258259.
45
See texts cited above, n. 42. The antiquity of the tradition of Adams priestly
garments is well argued by S.P. Brock, Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac, in
A. Dietrich (ed.), Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet (Gttingen, 1975),
pp. 98104; Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources, JJS 30 (1979), pp. 222223.
139
The exegesis of PRE of this matter is equally unconnected with

Ps-Jon. The two texts agree on one point only, that Esau possessed
Adams garments. Otherwise PRE does not relate this to its re-telling
of Genesis 27, but to the story of Nimrod:
Rabbi said, Esau the brother of Jacob saw on Nimrod the garments
which the Holy One, Blessed be He, had made for Adam and Eve, and
he desired them with all his heart; so he went and killed him and took
them. Whence might one conclude that they were so desirable before
his eyes? Because it is said: Rebecca took the desirable garments of Esau,
etc. (Gen. 27:15). When he put them on he was turned, as it were, into a
mighty man, as it is said: And Esau was a mighty hunter (Gen. 25:27).46
The midrash concludes with Isaacs verdict that Esau was not worthy
of the garments, so he made a hole and hid them in it. Gen. 27:15 is
used only as a proof that Esaus garments were desirable: the idea that
they were Adams is already assumed, but in the context of a Nimrod
tradition which finds no mention in Ps-Jon.
Finally, we may note Ps-Jons explanation why the garments had
been left in the house: Esau had not, on that day, put them on.47 There
is no hint of the tradition represented (for example) by Ber. R. 65:16
according to which Esau refused to allow his idolatrous wives to keep
these robes.
Verse 20
In response to Isaacs question how it was that Jacob had found animals so quickly, the latter replied that it was because the Lord had sent
him success, . The Hebrew verb might suggest that the Lord had
done this by chance;48 Ps-Jon, N and TO, therefore, indicate that the
animals were prepared by the Lord, using the verbal root to do so.49
This root may be significant, since the Targumim use it in the context of the Aqedah, which took place at Passover time. Thus N, FT(P)
46
PRE 24:5. Although Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 181, connects this exegesis with
Ps-Jon of Gen. 25:27, the differences between the two texts are sharp. Ps-Jon does not
refer to Adams garments; makes mention of Enoch, Nimrods son, which PRE does
not; and has no allusion to the hiding of the garments either here or in Gen. 27.
47
Unlike Aggadath Bereshith 42, Ps-Jon does not explain why Esaus garments were
in his mothers house.
48
The root has the sense of meet, encounter, happen by accident.
49
Ps-Jon uses this root in verse 25 to refer to the wine which the angel brought
to Jacob.
140
chapter eight
and FT(V) to Gen. 22:8 use forms of to refer to the lamb which
the Lord will make ready and prepare for the whole burnt offering.
Furthermore, Ps-Jon on Lev. 22:27 uses the same root with respect to
the lamb substituted for Isaac at the Aqedah, and speaks also of Isaacs
blessing of Jacob clad in goatskins. The connection of this chapter and
verse of Leviticus with the Passover will be discussed further below.50
It should be noted that PRE makes no reference to Gods preparation
of animals for Jacob.
Verse 25
The verse is rendered literally until mention is made of the wine which
Jacob brought in to his father; Ps-Jon then continues:
But he had no wine with him. And the angel made ready for him, and
brought some wine which been stored up in its grapes since the days of the
beginning of the world, and he put it in Jacobs hand; and Jacob brought
it to his father, and he drank.
There has been no mention of wine until this moment: what, then was
its place of origin? Ps-Jon provides the answer, in agreement with the
Tanhuma.51 The pre-Rabbinic texts appear to ignore the wine altogether; similarly, PRE is silent about it. For Ps-Jon, however, the matter is of some importance, and serves to link the blessing of Jacob
with primordial time and the Garden of Eden. Indeed, this Targum
indicates that certain events in the lives of the Patriarchs repair the
relationship with God which Adam had damaged, and to some extent
restore the harmony between God and man which had existed in the
Paradise garden.52 Ps-Jon again manages to bring into play a parallelism between Isaac and Rebecca on the one hand, and Adam and Eve
on the other, in his exegesis of verse 45.
50
See below, pp. 142143.

Tanhuma B. Toledot 16; cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 262, who cites also
Yalqut Shimoni; and le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 260, for other Rabbinic
references to the wine.
52
See C.T.R. Hayward, The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account
of the Sacrifice of Isaac, JJS 32 (1981), pp. 132134.
51
141
Verse 27
Ps-Jon translates literally until the words of Isaacs blessing, which he
renders as follows:
See, the smell of my son is like the smell of the sweet incense which is to
be offered on the mountain of the house of the Sanctuary, which is called
Field which the Lord has blessed and where He has been pleased to make
his Shekhina to dwell.
Proper appreciation of this exegesis requires us to compare it with the

versions of the other targumim. Thus FT as preserved in Vatican Ms
440 reads:
like the smell of good sweet-smelling incense which is to be offered on
the mountain of the house of the Sanctuary, which the Lord, He who
lives and exists, has blessed.
The FT preserved in Paris Ms 110 closely resembles FT(V), but specifies that the incense is offered on top of the altar. N is slightly more
verbose:
like the smell of good sweet-smelling incense which is to be offered on
top of the altar on the mountain of the house of the Sanctuary. This is the
mountain which He who lives and exists for all the ages has blessed.
The Ngl record two variants: in the first, Jacobs smell is compared, not
with the incense, but with the garden which is planted in the portion/
field of Eden; in the second, the comparison is with good sweet-smelling aromatics which are to be offered on the mountain of the house of
Sanctuary which the word of the Lord has blessed.
Ps-Jon clearly represents a well-defined tradition of the PTgg found
in very similar form in FT(V) and the fragmentary material of the second Ngl. There is no question here of Ps-Jon relating to us an abbreviated version of material common to the PTgg.53 Most of the individual
elements of the exegesis may be found in other Rabbinic works: thus
Tanhuma Toledot 22 explains the verse with reference to the incense;
the field is taken by Sifre Debarim 352 to mean the Sanctuary; and the
reference to the Garden of Eden in Ngl, which is so much bound up
with the Sanctuary, is paralleled by Ber. R. 65:22. Indeed, the source
53
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 9899: this verse closes a Seder, and, like
others of its kind, calls forth extended Targumic aggadah as a result.
142
chapter eight
of incense which is offered in the Sanctuary is none other than the

Garden of Eden according to Ps-Jon of Exod. 35:28.
Ps-Jons exegesis, however, has an element which the other PTgg
lack, namely, the notice that the Lord has made his Shekhina dwell in
the Sanctuary. There is thus a direct reference to the Lords presence in
the place where the incense, now being compared with the Patriarch
Jacob, is to be offered. Commenting on the same verse, Philo, in
Quaestiones in Genesim IV.214, speaks of the field which the Lord has
blessed as symbolic of a soul full of wisdom, virtue and fruits, and of
lives made fragrant by virtues which send out smells to bystanders
who will be gladdened by incorporeal smells
which are better than incense or myrrh or any other material (smells).
He goes on to say that to bless and to be blessed by the Lord renders

the spiritual field full of virtues, and that wherever God is not present
is a place altogether imperfect and easily taken. Thus the place where
God is present is perfect. Souls full of virtue and wisdom, lives made
fragrant by virtues which smell sweeter than incense, are, of course,
lives ordered by the divine Torah, which Philo acknowledges as the
key to all wisdom and goodness. Comparison of such lives with sweet
smells is found also in Ps-Jon, which regards the incense offered in the
Sanctuary as symbolic of
the wise who labour in the Law, and whose smell is spread abroad like
the sweet incense.54
Incense is offered in the Sanctuary at the very place where God is

present and meets with the officiating priest.55 Both Philo and Targum
stand in a very old tradition of exegesis here, for Ps-Jon also presents
Jacob as a wise man who labours in the Torah: he was
perfect ( )in good deeds, and he was ministering in the study-house
of Eber, and seeking instruction before the Lord.56
This definition of Jacob as perfect, , is taken up by Ps-Jon of Lev.

22:27, which itself alludes to the very verse under discussion here, as
follows:
54
55
56
Ps-Jon Exod. 40:5.

See Exod. 30:6, 36.
Ps-Jon Gen. 25:27.
143
. . . the kid of the goats was chosen after it to recall the virtue of the
perfect man ( )who made a kid of the goats into savoury meat
and brought it to his father, and was worthy to receive the order of
blessing.
This portion of Scripture has a long and ancient association with the
Passover.57 Jacob is seen as a wise man, a Torah scholar, a perfect
man; given the symbolic interpretation of the incense elsewhere in the
Targum, we can see how the exegesis of the verse came about, and
the complex and subtle meanings which are latent within it. Given
Philos interpretation of Gen. 27:27, we may simply note that there is
no necessary reason why Ps-Jons exegesis should be late. PRE offers
no parallel to the Targum at this point.58
Verse 28
And may the word of the Lord give you of the good of the dews which
come down from heaven, and of the good of the fountains which ascend
and make the sprouting things of the earth grow below, and plenty of
corn and wine.
This should be closely compared with Ns rendering of the verse:

And may the Lord give you of the good of the dew, the choicest which
comes down from heaven, and of the good of the earth; and abundance
of corn, wine, and oil.
Ps-Jons exegesis of the second part of the verse is inspired by Deut.

33:13 and Gen. 49:25, in which Moses and Jacob respectively bless
Joseph. This is the exegesis of Scripture by Scripture, in which passages having material in common are explained in the light of each
others meanings. Ps-Jon has no contact with the elaborate and highly
wrought homily of PRE 32:4 (end):
R. Jehudah said: Isaac blessed Jacob with ten blessings; for the dew of
heaven and for the wheat of the earth, according to the ten utterances
with with the world was created, as it is said, May God give you the dew
of heaven (Gen. 27:28). And when Jacob went out from the presence
of his father, he went crowned like a bridegroom, as a bride with her
jewels; and on him descended the dew of heaven which gave life, and
57
Cf. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale, pp. 141142, 170174.

For Sages compared with incense, see also ben Sira 39:1314; b. Menahoth 110a;
and possibly 4QFlor 1:6, where the Hebrew root , often used of the incense offering, is applied to the , which offers up the works of the Torah.
58
144
chapter eight
his bones acquired new strength, and so he was turned into a valiant and
strong warrior. For this reason it is said: By virtue of the hand of the
mighty one of Jacob, by the name of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel
(Gen. 49:24).
It should be evident that Ps-Jon and PRE are not related in their comments on this verse. One may, perhaps, ask why this should be the
case, if there were any substance in the suggestion that other verses
of Ps-Jon in this chapter are dependent upon, or closely related to,
PRE?
Verse 29
May the nations, all the sons of Esau, be in subjection to you; and may
the kingdoms, all the sons of Keturah, do obeisance before you. Be a great
one and ruler over your brethren, and may your mothers sons be the
first to ask of your welfare. May those who curse you, my son, be cursed
like Balaam the son of Beor; and may those who bless you be blessed
like Moses the prophet, the scribe of Israel.
With justice Shinan remarks that he has not found a complete parallel to Ps-Jons exegesis, although both he and other scholars note that
parts of it feature in other midrashic collections.59 Ps-Jon shares with
the other PTgg the expressions great one and ruler and to ask of your
welfare, but it diverges noticeably from them in choice of vocabulary,
using , be in subjection, in stead of their word , serve, and
, do obeisance, where they use . The evidence of the vocabulary suggests that while Ps-Jon is linked with the tradition of the PTgg,
it nonetheless stands somewhat apart from it.
This suspicion is confirmed when we examine the exegesis in detail.
The Bible lists four groups who are to be placed under Jacobs authority: peoples, nations, his brethren, and his mothers sons. All the PTgg,
N, FT(V), FT(P) and Ps-Jon refer to the peoples as sons of Esau; other
sources explain them as sons of Noah, or the seventy nations.60 The
nations become kingdoms in all PTgg, and are then further defined in
Ps-Jon as the sons of Keturah; not so N, FT(V) and FT(P), who dub
them all the sons of Ishmael. In dealing with brethren and mothers
59
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 99, who cites Kasher to this verse; cf. also le
Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, pp. 260, 262.
60
For the sons of Noah, see Tanhuma Toledot 16; Aggadath Bereshith 42; and for
the seventy nations, see Ber. R. 66:4.
145
sons Ps-Jon translates the Hebrew literally, but N, FT(V) and FT(P)
define the former as sons of Keturah and the latter as sons of Laban.
Thus Ps-Jon refers to two named groups, while the other PTgg name
families of four individuals.
Particularly striking is Ps-Jons failure to name the sons of Ishmael.
Splansky has attributed great significance to Ps-Jons exegesis of verses
like Gen. 25:11, 35:22, 49:2, in which, he claims, mention of the sons
of Keturah (who feature in aggadic exegeses of these verses found in
other sources) has been suppressed by Ps-Jon to bring about a stark
juxtaposition of the sons of Ishmael and Esau. In this way, Splansky
argues, Ps-Jon witnesses to the date of its composition, a time when
the world was sharply divided between the power of the Church (=
Esau = Rome) and Islam (= Ishmael).61 It is thus hardly surprising that
his brief remarks on Ps-Jon of this verse seem lame and unconvincing,
for Gen. 27:29 utterly contradicts his general theory. Despite its echoes
of the other PTgg, Ps-Jon omits the sons of Ishmael, names only sons
of Esau and Keturah, and defines the latter as kingdoms. There is not a
shred of evidence that this verse attests a world divided between Islam
and Christianity.62
Neither does this verse provide support for those who would argue
that Ps-Jons tendency to shorten aggadic material is a sign of its late
date. The independence of Ps-Jons language over against that of the
PTgg and TO suggests that his exegesis of this verse is sui generis,
not simply an abbreviation of common Targumic material; and even
if, for arguments sake, we were to admit the possibility that Ps-Jon
had abbreviated this aggadah, it is astonishing that Ishmael should be
omitted if the Targum of this verse dated from the Islamic period.
61
See Splansky, op. cit., pp. 9299, 112.

Splansky, op. cit., p. 26, also argues that the phrase a great one and a ruler is
a conflate, a term which he defines (p. 24) as individual words or groups of words
which appear in Ps-Jon along with additional words which either have the same
meaning as the words taken from Onk[elos] or provide translations for Biblical words
which Onk[elos] had not translated. Such conflates, he believes, demonstrate Ps-Jons
dependence on TO. Indeed, TO has a great one, but he says nothing of the fact that
a ruler is the rendering of N, FT(V) and FT(P). Ps-Jon shows knowledge of the PTgg
at this point.
62
146
chapter eight
Verse 31
Now the word of the Lord had withheld pure prey from him; so he found
a dog and killed it. And he also made of it savoury meat . . .
This well-known aggadah is peculiar to Ps-Jon, as Zunz noted long

ago.63 Shinan remarks that it represents a popular, vulgar tradition,
similar to others which speak of God or an angel preventing Esau
from gaining the blessing.64 He correctly emphasizes that it looks forward to verse 33, where Esaus food is compared with the burning of
Gehenna: similarly, Ber. R. 67:2 says that Gehenna went in with Esau
when he visited Isaac. But the smell of Gehenna is not connected with
Esaus food in this latter source, and Ps-Jon alone makes a connection
between the two.
Ginsburger referred to Isa. 66:3 in respect of this aggadah; there,
idolatrous rituals and abominable practices include the breaking of
a dogs neck, as if in sacrifice. Ps-Jon is really suggesting that Esau is
an idolater, killing a dog according to practices condemned by Isaiah.
Naturally, this food would stink of Gehenna: that place is not only the
scene of idolatrous rites in ancient times (e.g. II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31,
32; 32:35), but will be the site where the wicked and idolatrous burn
on the great day of judgement. Pre-eminent among these will be Esau,
who offered idolatrous food to his father. Ps-Jons exegesis, it seems, is
a learned one, based on sound knowledge of the Bible, and it makes a
sound homiletic point. It may, therefore, be doubted whether it should
properly be counted as a popular and vulgar tradition.
Verse 33
And Isaac was terrified with great terror when he heard Esaus voice, and
the smell of his savoury dish came into his nostrils like the smell of Gehinnom. And he said, Who is this who has hunted prey and brought it to
me, and I have eaten of all he brought before you came in? And I have
blessed him; and even so he is blessed.
63
Cf. L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrge der Juden, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt-amMain, 1892), p. 76.
64
Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 55; vol. 2, p. 286.
147
The comments on verse 31 are relevant here, and similar material in

other Rabbinic sources has often been noted.65 But Ps-Jon lacks words
found at the end of Ns translation of this verse:
So afterwards a bat ql came forth from heaven and said, Certainly he
shall be blessed.
Such divine confirmation of Isaacs blessing would, one might suppose, be very much to the point if Ps-Jon were, in actual fact, engaged
in polemic with Islam, as some suppose, but our Targum shows no
trace of it.
Verse 35
Ps-Jon agrees with N and TO that Jacob came with wisdom, defined by
Ber. R. 67:4 as Torah learning. This is consonant with Ps-Jons interpretation of verse 25 and his view of Jacob as a wise man.66
Verse 40
And in your sword you shall be trusting, entering every place and going
to sow terror; and you shall be in submission to your brother. And it
shall be that, if you go astray and make his sons decline from keeping the
commandments of the Law, then you shall break the yoke of his servitude
from your neck.
Ps-Jon brings into high relief the picture of Esau as a violent terrorist:
he goes everywhere bringing terrible fear by means of his sword.67 The
other Targumim of this verse do not share Ps-Jons view, although Ngl
of Gen. 25:27 portrays Esau as a brigand, . Esau may be able to
make Jews apostatize from the Torah, presumably through his use of
sword and terror tactics: Ps-Jon has achieved this understanding by a
double interpretation of Hebrew , first taking it as deriving from
, to wander, and then as if from the hiphil of , to bring down.
Long ago Geiger pointed out that the Septuagint had understood
in this second sense, and compared their rendering with Ps-Jon.68
65
Cf. Ber. R. 65:22, 67:2; Shir R. 4:11; Tanhuma B. Toledot 10, 22; Tanhuma Toledot
11; Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 55.
66
See Shinan, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 318, and the literature cited there.
67
For the translation of this awkward verse I have followed le Daut, Targum du
Pentateuque, p. 265.
68
See A. Geiger, Urschrift und bersetzung der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), p. 459.
148
chapter eight
The other Targumim are quite different, and may well be represented by FT(P), which reads:
And by your weapons of war you shall live, and before your brethren the
Jews you shall serve; and when the sons of Jacob labour in the Torah and
keep the commandments, they shall set the yoke of their subjection on
your neck; but when the sons of Jacob restrain themselves from labouring in the Torah and from keeping the commandments, behold! then
you shall be breaking the yoke of their bondage from your neck.
Pace Shinan, Ps-Jon has only superficial points of contact with the
other Targumim.69 It does not use the root to express the idea of
servitude, which is characteristic of the other PTgg and TO, but the
form , as in verse 29. It lacks the expression to labour in the
Torah, which it uses elsewhere once only, Gen. 49:15, and all reference to Jacobs sons restraining themselves from Torah study.
Further, Ps-Jon includes material not found in the PTgg and TO.
The PTgg view Esau as being in subjection while the Jews observe the
Torah, but when the latter fail to observe it, Esau will escape their
yoke. The material peculiar to Ps-Jon makes for a quite different argument: if Esau makes the sons of Jacob go astray from the Torah, then
he will break the Jewish yoke from his neck. It is Esau, not Ishmael as
representing Islam, who may lead Jacob into apostasy. Does Esau here
represent Christianity, offering conversion by the sword? Or may Esau
stand for pagan Rome, whose appalling atrocities during the Second
Revolt caused some Jews to desert their ancestral faith? Definite historical conclusions are almost impossible,70 but Islam seems quite
excluded from the picture.
Verse 41
And Esau kept hatred in his heart against Jacob his brother because of
the order of the blessings with which his father had blessed him. And
Esau said in his heart: I am not going to do as Cain did, who killed his
brother during the lifetime of his father, and his father went again and
engendered Seth. But I shall restrain myself until the time that the days of
69

The picture of Esau as a violent man of terror who makes Israel turn aside from
the Torah does, however, fit well with the persecutions after the Second Revolt against
Rome. See Schrer, op. cit., vol. 1 ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh, 1973), pp.
550557.
70
149
the mourning of my fathers death arrive; and then I shall kill Jacob my
brother; and I shall be found as a slayer and an inheritor.
Ps-Jon here stands very close to TO, Ngl and FT(P), which interpret
the first Hebrew word of the verse (, and [Esau] bore a grudge)
in much the same way as Ber. R. 67:8, understanding it by notarikon
to mean , hating, avenging, and keeping.71 The image
of Esau is as powerful as in the preceding verse: he hopes to be slayer
and inheritor, violent, aggressive and vengeful, but also cunning and
contriving, waiting until his father dies lest reprisals befall him. Again,
it is difficult to draw historical conclusions, but we may note that a
post-Islamic date is unlikely.72
Verse 42
And there were told to Rebecca by the Holy Spirit the words of Esau her
elder son, who planned in his heart to kill Jacob. So she sent and called
Jacob her younger son and said to him: Behold, Esau your brother lies in
wait in ambush for you and is taking counsel against you to kill you.
As in verse 5, Ps-Jon presents Rebecca as a prophetess. Thus she knew

that Esau planned murder in his heart, a fact heavily stressed by verse
41. It may also be inferred from Jubilees 27:1 that Rebecca enjoyed
prophetic inspiration, since Esaus words were told her in a dream,
itself a form of prophetic revelation. Ps-Jons version of her words
to Jacob are produced by a double translation of the Hebrew word
: Esau is lying in ambush and making plans.73 Understanding
of as lying in ambush was known to Philo, who, in De Fuga
et Inventione 24, refers this verse allegorically to the worse part of the
soul which sets an ambush and lies in wait for the better part.
Ps-Jon uses forms of , lie in ambush, eight times: twice it occurs
here, and in other contexts it speaks of violence and stealth. Thus at
Lev. 26:37 (cf. N) it refers to men waiting in ambush who stumble
before the edge of the sword; at Num. 21:14 it describes Edom and
Moab who hid in the mountains to ambush and destroy Israel; in Gen.
71
See also yer. Abodah Zarah 1.2; Wayyiqra R. 22:28; Pesiqta deRab Kahana 9; and
Shinan, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 99.
72
In Ber. R. 67:8 the whole emphasis is on EsauRome: to this day they shout
, the vindictiveness of Rome. It is also important to note that TO renders
the Hebrew as to keep.
73
TO also states that Esau is lying in ambush, , thereby rendering Hebrew
, but it does not understand the latter word as taking counsel.
150
chapter eight
49:17 (cf. N, Ngl, FT(P), FT(V)) it is used of a viper hiding to bite

horses; in Deut. 19:11 it refers to hatred of ones friend; and at Deut.
22:26 the context is one of violence and murder. Esau, then, is portrayed as a violent and cruel man. Ps-Jon Num. 21:14 is instructive in
this respect: Esau here is a bandit, a brigand in the mountains ready
to attack Israel.
Ps-Jon next renders as taking counsel. This, too, has an
ancient pedigree, being attested by Origens Hexapla as the reading
of Alios. N has the same interpretation, which is probably implied
in the Septuagints translation of the word as threatens; see also the
Vulgate, and Jubilees 26:35. Splansky believes that Ps-Jon represents
a conflate, in which TOs rendering of as lie in ambush has
received the addition and is taking counsel. But it is unclear whether
this supposed addition represents Ps-Jons version of a Hebrew word
which TO left untranslated, or is a clarification of TOs rendering lie
in ambush.74 Splanskys approach to this word is unconvincing. He
fails to notice that, in this verse, cannot bear its normal sense
of be sorry, have compassion, repent, comfort oneself . It must have
some other meaning, and ancient interpreters proposed two senses for
it, the one as lie in ambush (e.g. Philo), the other as plan, threaten
(e.g. Allos in the Hexapla, Jubilees, LXX). Ps-Jon is simply explained
by observing that his Targum records both ancient understandings of
the word.
Verse 45
The end of this verse receives the following addition:
so that you should be put to death and be banished, as Eve was bereft of
Abel whom Cain killed, and the two of them were banished from the faces
of Adam and Eve, all the days of the life of Adam and Eve.
This aggadah is peculiar to Ps-Jon, and introduces an implicit comparison of Isaac and Rebecca with Adam and Eve, Esau and Jacob with
Cain and Abel.75 According to our Targum, Cain and Abel quarrelled
over a sacrifice offered at Passover (Gen. 4:3), when there was debate
74
For the definition of Splanskys conflates see above, n. 62. He seems unwilling to
accept the fact that the Targumists often sought for as many meanings in single words
of Scripture as they felt appropriate to the context of their exegesis.
75
See above, p. 148.
151
about which brother should receive acceptance from God. The cultic
dimension of the story is once again brought to the fore.
Verse 46
Rebecca worries lest Jacob select a wicked wife from the daughters of
Heth. In this Ps-Jon is at one with Jubilees 27:6; and N, like Ps-Jon, is
further concerned lest such a wife be like one of the daughters of the
people of the land.
Concluding Remarks
We are now in a position to comment on a number of matters set out
for consideration in the introduction to this essay.
1. Relationship of Ps-Jon and PRE
Claims that the Targum is dependent upon, or closely related to, PRE
are very difficult to substantiate on examination of Ps-Jon Gen. 27,
and, under close scrutiny, almost evaporate altogether. We might
summarize our findings under four headings.
(a) Substantial targumic material in Ps-Jon is quite unrepresented in
PRE: the Holy Spirits revelation to Rebecca (5, 42); fat goat-kids
(9); Jacob as sin-fearer (11); mocking and hint of idolatry, cursings
not blessing (12); Adams garments as priestly robes, not assumed
that day by Esau (15); the Lord prepares prey for Jacob (20); primordial wine (25); Jacob smells like incense (27); the stewed dog
(31); Esaus dish smelled like Gehenna (33); Jacobs wisdom (35);
Esau lies in ambush and takes counsel (42); and Rebeccas worry
about being bereaved of sons (45).
(b) Traditions found in PRE 32:4 are entirely lacking in Ps-Jon: the
open presentation of Jacob as pious and righteous, and definite link
with Genesis 25:27; the conflict of Esau with Nimrod; reference
to Israels future redemption at Exodus and Song at the Sea; an
extended midrash on the voice of Jacob and the hands of Esau;
and the extended homily on Isaacs blessing. PRE 24:5 has the
story of Adams garments hidden in a hole, which is not found
in Ps-Jon.
152
chapter eight
(c) A few traditions in Ps-Jon find superficial parallels in PRE: the

reason for Isaacs blindness; the praises of the angels; Esaus possession of Adams garments; the blessings of dew and earth; and
Esaus plan to kill Jacob (a very superficial parallel).
(d) The only exact parallels between Ps-Jon and PRE are: Passover time;
dews and angelic praise mentioned by both Isaac and Rebecca; one
goat for Passover, the other for the meal; Jacobs fear of his fathers
curse; and Rebeccas promise and oath (verse 13).
Very few exact parallels between the two works can be demonstrated
for this chapter; and, given the overwhelming preponderance of categories (a), (b) and (c), the sketchy material in category (d) is not
of itself sufficiently strong to bear the weight of an argument that
Ps-Jon is dependent on PRE. Even where exact parallels between the
two works are found, we have been able to offer explanations for
them which do not involve theories of dependency. We conclude that
Ps-Jon of Gen. 27 is not to be regarded as dependent on PRE for its
aggadic exegesis; and, consequently, that claims for the dependence
of the whole Targum on that late midrashic work require much more
firm and detailed prosecution before they can be accepted.76
2. Early Material in Ps-Jon
A remarkable feature of Ps-Jon of Gen. 27 is the affinity of some of
its exegesis with the work of Philo. That writer implies that the events
of Gen. 27 took place at Passover time; regularly depicts Jacob as a
practiser of Torah, and thereby hints that he fears sin; links the smell
of Jacob with incense and the Divine Presence; and speaks allegorically
of Esau as lying in ambush for Jacob. A proper estimate of Ps-Jon
must not overlook evidence of this sort, which speaks of a potentially
pre-Christian origin for at least some of the exegetical material in the
Targum. Also we must note that Philo takes care to avoid portraying
Isaac as a glutton, and in so doing links hands with PRE. Thus on this
76
Such claims are advanced with a fair degree of confidence by Chester, op. cit.,
p. 254, n. 131; Splansky, op. cit., pp. 155156; and Shinan, The Aggadah, especially the
English Summary, vol. 2, p. xvi: PsJs remarkably close connection to Pirke deRabbi
Eliezer comes to light wherever the Ag. Mt. [= Aggadath HaMeturgemanim] is added
to, a phenomenon which demonstrates PsJs dependency upon that late and unparalleled work. Of late, however, he has advanced more cautious conclusions: see The
Palestinian Targumim, p. 87.
153
point PRE has an ancient lineage, which should encourage caution

when we speak of the relationship between PRE and Ps-Jon, for where
these two texts are seemingly in exact agreement both may be dependent, au fond, on common traditions older than either of themselves.
Only careful examination of all the evidence, rather than the listing of
apparent parallels, will reveal whether such is the case.
Other points of contact between Ps-Jon and pre-Rabbinic material
serve only to confirm what we have already made plain. Thus, with
Jubilees, Ps-Jon shares the description of Jacob as a sin-fearer, and
Rebeccas fear that Jacob select a wicked wife; and, with LXX and the
Allos of Origens Hexapla, he records ancient understandings of single
words (verses 40, 42). Full weight must, we submit, be given to all this
evidence.
3. Supposed Allusions to Islam
While we shall return later to this matter, it should by now be evident
that Islam does not figure in Ps-Jon of Gen. 27. Claims that certain
verses exhibit anti-Islamic propaganda cannot, in truth, be sustained.
Thus verse 29 is in flat contradiction with Splanskys theory that Ps-Jon
contains anti-Islamic polemic. The Targum translates verses 13 and 33
so loosely that they might afford dangerous toe-holds for Islamic controversialists, and other Targumim seem keen to give tighter interpretations, without any loop-holes. Furthermore, Esau as a violent and
cruel enemy dominates the Targum of this chapter, which seems to
indicate that the power of Rome is still intact. A period before the
Arab conquest seems to us to fit best Ps-Jons portrayal of Esau in
such a light.
4. Popular Traditions and Misplaced Aggadot
The peculiar incident of the stewed dog (verse 31) may, as we have
seen, be derived from learned exegesis, and not simply from a popular tale. If this is so, caution is once more needed in assessing those
items which Shinan adduces as vulgarisms and popular stories in other
parts of Ps-Jon:77 deeper examination may show that some of them,
too, have a learned origin. Similarly, Shinans claim that Ps-Jon wrests
Targumic aggadot from their proper context and transfers them to
77
See especially The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 284285.
154
chapter eight
other parts of the Pentateuch cannot, in the light of our observations

on verse 15, be accepted without question, and may, on further investigation, turn out to need modification.
5. Splanskys Conflates
The two examples of conflates which occur in this chapter call into
question the usefulness of this term and its application. In verse 29,
Ps-Jon simply records the readings both of TO and also of the PTgg.
In verse 41, his double translation of ( lie in ambush; take
counsel) does not produce an additional word having the same meaning as the word supposedly taken from TO (lie in ambush); nor does
it render a word which TO does not translate (take counsel). On the
basis of these two examples, nothing can confidently be asserted about
the relationship of TO and Ps-Jon.
We have, of course, discussed only one chapter of Ps-Jon, and have
restricted ourselves to study of its aggadic material. But we should
maintain that the results of our investigation are significant for an
estimate of the whole Targum, in that we have been able to show, time
and again, how evidence which has been used to support a late date
for Ps-Jon is patient of other equally reasonable interpretations. In the
light of our observations it cannot simply be maintained that a late,
post-Islamic date for Ps-Jon is one of the assured results of modern
scholarship. Consequently, those who favour such a late date for the
Targum must bring forward more adequate proof.
CHAPTER NINE
JACOBS SECOND VISIT TO BETHEL

IN TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN*
The contribution which Geza Vermes has made to the study of the
Aramaic Targumim needs no documentation. Indeed, he has been
intimately associated with the revival of scholarly interest in these
texts which began over forty years ago, and which shows few signs
of losing its impetus. In considering the relationships of the various
Pentateuchal Targumim to one another, Vermes has for long suggested the possibility that Ps-Jon., either in its present or some earlier
form, constitutes the basis of Targum Onqelos: Ps-Jon. would thus,
in essence, preserve material of great antiquity, even though its final
redaction took place in the Islamic period. In recent years, however, it
has become fashionable amongst students of the Targumim to regard
Ps-Jon. as a late, literary composition, produced in the Islamic period
as an anti-Islamic polemic. It is seen as depending on the Palestinian
Targumim and late midrashic collections like the Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer
(PRE) for much of its exegetical paraphrase, its language having been
modified under the influence of the official and authoritative Targum
Onqelos.1
Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd, and F. Spitzer, Targum PseudoJonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance, New York: Ktav, 1984 (Ps-Jon.);
A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1, The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos,
Leiden: Brill, 1959 (TO); A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I, 5 vols. Madrid-Barcelona,
19681978 (TN); M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to
their extant Sources, 2 vols., Rome, 1980 (FT); Geniza Manuscripts of Palestinian
Targum, 2 vols., Cincinnati, 1986 (GM).
1
See G. Vermes, The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4.316, Annual of the Leeds
University Oriental Society 3 (19611962), pp. 81114, reprinted in Post-Biblical Jewish
Studies, Leiden: Brill, 1975, pp. 92126. The notion that Ps-Jon. is an anti-Islamic
polemic was argued by M. Ohana, La Polmique judo-islamique et limage dIsmal
dans Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Augustinianum 15
(1975), pp. 367387. The consequent late date of the Targum is argued by A. Shinan,
The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols., Jerusalem, 1979 [in
Hebrew]; The Palestinian TargumsRepetition, Internal Unity, Contradictions,
JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287; D.M. Splansky, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship
to Other Targumim, Use of Midrashim, and Date (unpublished dissertation, Hebrew
156
chapter nine
In two articles which have been be published elsewhere, we have

argued that the case for a post-Islamic date for Ps-Jon. rests on very
shaky foundations, and that the simple dependence of Ps-Jon. on late
works like PRE is open to question.2 In this essay we shall attempt a different kind of exercise, undertaking an analysis of a chapter in which
the Targums exegesis is, in places, very much sui generis. Ps-Jon. Gen.
35.115 has no points of contact with PRE, and Islam is nowhere in
view. Even though this is the case, certain features in the text might
seem, superficially, to indicate a late date. Whether such a view may
be sustained can only be determined by careful comparison of Ps-Jon.
with the other Targumim of Gen. 35 and with other interpretations of
the chapter. We shall attempt to relate Ps-Jon.s exegesis to that found
in other sources, seeking, wherever possible, to uncover its particular
purpose. Only then will the character of the Targum of this chapter
begin to emerge, and some possible hints as to its relative dating.
We begin with a close investigation of those verses which show significant addition to, and alterations of, the Hebrew original, which we
indicate in our translations by the use of italics.
Verse 2
And Jacob said to the men of his house and to all who were with him:
Remove entirely the idols of the nations which are among you, which
you took from the idols house of Shechem, and purify yourselves from the
impurities of the slaughtered men whom you have touched, and change
your garments.
Following Gods command that he go to Bethel and build an altar to

the One who appeared to him when he fled from his brother (Gen.
35.1), Jacob orders his entourage to dispose of foreign gods and to
purify themselves. The Bible clearly links Jacobs second visit to Bethel
with his previous journey recorded in Gen. 28 and, as we shall see,
Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.7 is keen to do the same. The Bible gives as a reason for this second visit Jacobs desire to build the altar to the God
Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion, 1981); and A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation
and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim, Tbingen, 1986, pp. 252256.
2
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 7793;
and The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments, JJS 40 (1989), pp.
730.
jacobs second visit to bethel
157
who answered him when he was in distress and who was with him;
the Targumim follow suit.3 The Midrashim, however, discuss the vow
which Jacob had made on his first visit to Bethel (Gen. 28.2022),
and note that he had not fulfilled it; like the pre-Christian book of
Jubilees, they warn against delay in carrying out vows, and present
Jacobs return to Bethel as necessary for the vows completion.4
Such lack of interest in the matter of vows on the part of the
Targumim serves to underline their evident concern with the business
of foreign gods. Ps-Jon. renders the Hebrew expression lhy hnkr as
the idols of the nations (or: Gentiles), as does Onqelos (TO); Neofiti
(TN) speaks of idolatry, and its censored marginal gloss (Ngl) probably
refers to images of idols. At a very early period the question of the
origin of these idols arose: Jubilees states that they were the property
of Laban which had been with Jacobs family since he had fled from
his father-in-law, and some later sources agree with this.5 But Ps-Jon.
is quite specific in saying that they came from Shechem, in particular
from the house of idols which was there. Indeed, this Targum goes
out of its way to stress Shechem as their home, as may be seen in its
rendering of v. 4.
Verse 4
So they gave over into the hand of Jacob all the idols of the nations which
were among them, which they had taken from the idols house of Shechem,
and the rings which were in the ears of the inhabitants of the city of
Shechem, on which were depicted the likeness of its image; and Jacob hid
them under the oak which is near to the city of Shechem.
One immediate effect of Ps-Jons. exegesis is to establish a firm link

between Jacobs second visit to Bethel and the events of the preceding
chapter, which tells of the notorious attack on Shechem by Simeon
3
See Gen. 35.1, 2. In Ps-Jon. of v. 3 Jacob plans to build an altar to God who
received my prayer on the day of my distress, and whose word has been for my help on
the journey which I have made, thereby referring back to his vow recorded in Gen.
28.20. In the latter verse, Ps-Jon. has Jacob make his vow conditional upon Gods
keeping him free of idolatry (inter alia); cf. Gen. R. 70.4 (ed. J. Theodor and Ch.
Albeck, Berlin, 19031936), and Tanhuma Wayyilah 8.
4
See Jub. 31.29; Gen. R. 81.1; y. Nedarim 1.1; Tanhuma Wayyilah 8.
5
See Jub. 31.2; Midrash Sekhel T ov to this verse cited by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah,
vol. 5, Jerusalem, 1935, p. 1337.
158
chapter nine
and Levi. The Targumim of Gen. 34.31 leave one in no doubt that
Shechem was full of idol-worshippers; indeed, Simeon and Levi give
this as a reason for their action on behalf of their sister Dinah.6 Ps-Jon.
appears to assume what Rashi later states openly, that the idols came
into Jacobs possession as part of the spoils of the victorious war against
Shechem.7 The Targum reinforces this understanding by speaking further of the purification needed after contact with the bodies of those
killed in the battle.
The idols, then, are not some family heirloom, but plunder taken
from a city which has a house of idols, byt t wwt. This expression is
used only here in the whole of Ps-Jon., and suggests that the Targum
regarded Shechem as having once been a supreme metropolis of
paganism. Even the earrings of its inhabitants are idolatrous; and the
abominations are there to this very day, albeit buried by Jacob under
an oak tree near to the city. The meaning of this is evident, in that
Ps-Jon. is heaping calumnies on the people who regard Shechem and
nearby Mount Gerizim as a holy place. These are the Samaritans; they
are not directly called idolaters, since the idols have been removed.
But they are the object of contempt; and the Targums strong language
must, presumably, have been forged at a time when relations between
Jews and Samaritans were more than usually strained.
Ps-Jon. is fairly precise about the kind of idols which were buried.
They are the statues which had been kept in the idol-house, and earrings painted with the likeness of what, one may presume, were the
same statues. This precision contrasts, to some extent, with the rather
general terms in which the Talmud and Midrash speak of what Jacob
buried. Thus Talmud Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 7.5.4 has R. Ishmael
tell in the name of R. Jose how he went to Neapolis and encountered
the Kuthim, the Samaritans.
He said to them: I see you, that you do not worship (at) this mountain,
but rather the images which are under it, for it is written, And Jacob hid
them (the foreign gods) under the terebinth which is with Shechem.8
6
See Ps-Jon. of Gen. 34.31, where Simeon and Levi assert that it would not be
proper for Israelites to say that uncircumcised and idolaters had defiled Jacobs daughter; and cf. TN, its marginal gloss (Ngl), and FT of this verse.
7
See Rashi on Gen. 35.2, and cf. Midrash Ha-H ephetz cited by Kasher, op. cit.,
p. 1337.
8
Quoted by Kasher, op. cit., p. 1340.
159
The text goes on to tell how the Rabbi heard the Kuthim plotting to
kill him, so he fled from the city. Similarly, in Gen. R. 81.4 R. Ishmael,
again in the name of R. Jose, takes one of the Samaritans [hd mryy]
to task as he passes by the Palatinos, the site of the Samaritan temple
on Mount Gerizim:
I say to you, Why are you like a dog which has a passion for carrion
[nblh]? It is so, since you know that idolatry is hidden beneath it: and
Jacob hid them . . . (Gen. 35.4). That is why you have a passion for it.
From the first century ce we have the testimony of the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, falsely attributed to Philo, which indicates a
strong tradition of idols buried in the vicinity of Shechem. The tribe
of Asher, asked by Cenez to reveal their wrong-doings, announce:
We found seven golden images which the Amorites called holy nymphs,
and we carried them off with the most precious stones which had been
put on them, and we hid those things. And now behold: they have been
laid down under the summit of mount Sichem.9
Earlier in the same section of the LAB, the tribe of Naphtali say that
they wish to make what the Amorites made, and that these things are
hidden under the tent of Elas, a Latin transcription of the Hebrew Elah
[lh], the oak or terebinth, probably a covert reference to the terebinth
of Gen. 35.4.10 According to LAB, all these items were deposited later
than the time of Jacob, in the period of the Judges; and they are a
powerful means of bringing into disrepute the cult which was offered
at Shechem. Indeed, anti-Samaritan polemic has long been recognized, at least by some authorities, as an element in the LABs general
programme.11
9
LAB 25.10. For recent discussion of LABs date, see E. Schrer, The History of the
Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. III.1, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar,
and M. Goodman, Edinburgh, 1986. We have used the text of LAB edited by D.J.
Harrington, Pseudo-Philon. Les Antiquits Bibliques, vol. 1 (Sources Chrtiennes, 229),
Paris, 1976.
10
LAB 25.8. On these passages, see the important comments of C. Perrot, P.-M.
Bogaert, and D.J. Harrington in Pseudo-Philon. Les Antiquits Bibliques, vol. 2 (Sources
Chrtiennes, 230), Paris, 1976, pp. 152, 154156. M.F. Collins, The Hidden Vessels in
Samaritan Traditions, JSJ 3 (1972), pp. 114115, suggests that the material which we
have quoted from the Rabbis and LAB may have been a direct response to Samaritan
claims that sacred vessels of their cult had been buried by Moses on Mount Gerizim.
11
See especially A. Spiro, Samaritans, Tobiads, and Judahites in Pseudo-Philo:
Use and Abuse of the Bible by Polemicists and Doctrinaires, PAAJR 20 (1951), pp.
279355; A. Zeron, Einige Bemerkungen zu M.F. Collins, The Hidden Vessels in
160
chapter nine
While the LAB seems to refer only in passing to the events of Gen.
35, it is nonetheless illuminating in two respects. First, it shows that
by the first century ce the idolatrous cache in and near Shechem had
become part of a general anti-Samaritan polemic. Second, the idols
themselves are described in some detail as nymphs; and Bogaert has
suggested that this designation may have arisen from confusion of the
word byt l, baetyl, sacred stone, with Hebrew btwlh or Aramaic btwlt,
virgin, nymph. In any case, statues or figurines are, it seems, presupposed, and it may be that LAB is in fact expounding the text of Gen.
35.4 in a discreet and indirect manner.12
Given the Jewish material at our disposal, it is not easy to see what
light it may cast on Ps-Jon.s exegesis of these two verses. The view
that Shechem was the original home of the idols is found again at
the earliest in Rashis commentary on v. 2. The LAB, while indicating
that idolatrous statues and figurines were buried at Shechem, offers no
real help, since the burials are not directly associated with Jacob. We
might, therefore, be tempted to conclude that Ps-Jon. presents us with
late and largely unparalleled musings on the text of these two verses.
Such a conclusion, however, would be both hasty and intemperate.
For if we extend our investigations beyond Rabbinic and pre-Rabbinic
Judaism, into the writings of the early Church Fathers, we shall find
three authors who offer vital evidence for the history of exegesis of
these verses. First is Procopius of Gaza (c. 456c. 538 ce), who lived
and worked in the land of Israel, and who thus had access to Jewish
exegetical traditions. Commenting on Gen. 35.2, he explains that the
foreign gods were not only those which Rachel had taken from Laban,
but also those captured from the Shechemites. Thus he demonstrates
the currency in his day both of the pre-Christian tradition that the
idols were Labans and the notion that the gods were booty from the
sacked city of Shechem.13
Samaritan Tradition, JSJ 4 (1973), pp. 165169; and the considered views of Bogaert
and Harrington, Pseudo-Philon, vol. 2, p. 29, who quote Vermes, La Figure de Mose
au tournant des deux Testaments, Cahiers Sioniens 8 (1954), p. 89, linking LABs
polemic with that of the Targumim.
12
See Pseudo-Philon, vol. 2, pp. 154155.
13
Procopius of Gaza, Commentarii in Genesim 35.2 in PG LXXXVII Part 1 (Paris,
1865), section 184. Cf. also Epiphanius, Panarion Haer. 9.2.4, who describes the
Samaritans as unwitting idolaters, since the idols of four nations are concealed on
Gerizim.
161
Second, we have the evidence of John Chrysostom (c. 347407 ce)

that the ear-rings described in Gen. 35.4 were signs of the idols.14 More
detailed, however, is the third authority, Augustine of Hippo (354430
ce), who not only describes the ear-rings as phylacteries of idols, but
also tells how the pagans of his own day wore such ornaments in the
service of their gods, a practice which he castigates as a superstition
and the service of demons.15
Ps-Jon.s exegesis is not, therefore, quite so out of the ordinary as
it may at first appear: two important elements in it are attested by
Christian writers of the fourth and fifth centuries ce. To this we may
add a general observation, that Islam would soon have eradicated the
use and the memory of idolatrous ear-rings; and the coincidence of
Ps-Jon. with Christian writers on the nature of these ornaments may
indeed be a pointer to the pre-Islamic date of the exegesis. The powerful
anti-Shechemite, that is, anti-Samaritan stance of Ps-Jon. shares more,
in broad and general terms, with the LAB than with the Yerushalmi
and Genesis Rabbah. The latter sources, nonetheless, are hostile to
Shechem, and, like Ps-Jon., think it worthwhile to heap contempt on
that place of worship. Hostility of such a kind would make good historical sense earlier than the reign of Justinian who, in the year 529 ce,
inflicted a heavy defeat on the Samaritans.16 Their recovery from that
blow was very slow, and thereafter they seem not to have threatened
Jewish religious sensibilities as in the preceding period. With some
degree of confidence, then, we may provisionally suggest a pre-Islamic
date for Ps-Jon.s interpretation of Gen. 35.2, 4.
Verse 5
So they journeyed from there, giving thanks and praying before the Lord,
and there was trembling from before the Lord upon the nations who were
in the cities round about them; and they did not pursue the sons of
Jacob.
14
John Chrysostom on Gen. 35.16 in Homily LIX.4.

Augustine, Quaestionum S. Augustini in Heptateuchum I.cxi: Ergo illae inaures
quaecum idolis datae sunt, ut dictum est, idolorum phylacteria fuerunt; cf. Epistle
ccxlv.2.
16
On the revolts of the Samaritans in Justinians reign, and earlier rebellions quelled
by Rome, see M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar
Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest, Oxford, 1976, pp. 214243.
15
162
chapter nine
In this verse, Ps-Jon. links hands with old and well-established interpretations found in Jewish texts from before the Christian period. Jub.
30.25 specifies that it was the Lords terror in particular, and that it fell
on the cites surrounding Shechem, a significant note given Ps-Jon.s
interest in that city. The terror of the Lord also features in other, later
works, and came to be elaborately expounded in such a way that some
sources speak of Israels full-scale victories over the Gentiles.17 Ps-Jon.
does not allude to these tales, and its sober exegesis is in keeping with
the restrained language of Jubilees as it re-writes this verse.
Verse 7
And he built there an altar, and called the place El who caused his Shekhina to dwell in Bethel; for there the angels of the Lord had been revealed
to him when he had fled from before Esau his brother.
Ps-Jon. here directly recalls Jacobs first visit to Bethel recorded in

Genesis 28. There the angels are a biblical datum (Gen. 28.12); and
the Fragment Targum likewise recalls their presence.18 The mention
of Gods Shekhina as dwelling in Bethel is intended to remind us
that Bethel has already been identified as the place of the Temple: so
much is made clear in Ps-Jon. Gen. 28.11, 12, 17, 19 and 22. The
Targums intention is to indicate the consistency and unity of the biblical revelation.
Neither TN nor its marginal gloss (Ngl), however, refers to the
angels; nor do they allude to the dwelling of the Shekhina in Bethel.
According to the latter, Jacob set up an altar
and worshipped and prayed there in the Name of the Word of the Lord,
the God who had appeared to him in Bethel; for there the Glory of the
Shekhina of the Lord had been revealed to him at the time when he had
fled from before Esau.
The interpretation of this verse in the Targumic tradition has been

well discussed by Andrew Chester, who notes the use made of it by the
minim and the concerns of Rabbinic authority to counteract the heresy
of the two powers in heaven. The Ngl, quoted above, firmly rules out
17
See the treatment of this in Yalqut Shimoni, Midrash Wayyissau, and other texts
quoted in full by Kasher, op. cit., pp. 13411345.
18
So FT according to Mss. Paris 110 and Vat 440 of Gen. 28.12.
163
any possible heretical use of the verse.19 Chester, however, remains

undecided whether Ps-Jon. here represents a further development of
basic Targumic tradition, or an early tradition of an angelophany.20
Whatever concern Ps-Jon. may have felt about heresy, if indeed any
was felt at all, it seems that its essential purpose is to assert, above all
else, that Jacobs visit was a return to the very place of his original
vision. Why this should be so will, we hope, become clear when we
examine the strongly cultic interpretations of vv. 11 and 14.
Verse 8
Then died Deborah, the tutor of Rebekah and she was buried beneath
Bethel in the extremity of the plain. And there the news was also told to
Jacob about the death of his mother Rebekah; so he called its name Other
Weeping.
That the news of his mothers death reached Jacob at this point is
a well-known and widespread tradition, represented not only by the
Fragment Targums (FT), but also by Gen. R. 81.8 and other midrashic
sources.21 The Bible does not report Rebekahs death; but from the first
century ce at the latest it was believed that it had happened during
Jacobs second visit to Bethel: so much is plain from Josephuss statement that, on his arrival in Hebron, Jacob found that she had died.22
Since, by this exegesis, two deaths are involved, Ps-Jon. joins with the
Midrashim in expounding the Hebrew ln, oak, as if it were Greek
allon, other.23
Verse 9
And the Lord was revealed to Jacob again when he came from Paddan
of Aram, and the Lord blessed (him) in the Name of His Word after his
mother had died.
19
See A. Chester, Divine Revelation, pp. 2327.

Chester, op. cit., p. 27.
21
TO, TN, and Ngl make no mention of her death, which is recorded by FT Ms.
Paris 110 of the following verse. The Targum of Geniza Ms. C to this verse is very
close to Ps-Jon.; see Klein, GM, vol. 1, p. 75; and cf. Pesiqta Rabbati 12.4; Pesiqta deRab
Kahana 3.1; Kasher, op. cit., p. 1347.
22
See Josephus, Antiquities 1.345.
23
Cf. R. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1. Gense (Sources Chrtiennes,
245), Paris, 1978, p. 325.
20
164
chapter nine
This interpretation is remarkable for its failure to cite an extended

paraphrase, found in TN and the Fragment Targums, which lists Gods
blessing of bride and groom in the persons of Adam and Eve; his visiting the sick in the case of Abraham; and his blessing of the mourners,
exemplified by this verse, which seemingly acts as the Biblical springboard for the exegesis.24 It has been argued that a piyyut of Yannai
on these same themes may be dependent on the Targumim (except,
of course, Ps-Jon.) of this verse; so those Targumim would represent
a fairly early liturgical composition.25 Ps-Jon. does, however, record
what some regard as a similar paraphrase at Deut. 34.6 in a form more
extended than that found in the Targumim of Gen. 35.9. For this reason, we may venture two brief comments.
First, Shinan has argued that Ps-Jon. characteristically moves haggadic material from verses to which it properly belongs, as attested by
the other Pentateuchal Targumim, to other verses of its own choosing. Such behaviour is, he believes, evidence of the late, literary, and
secondary artificial nature of the Targum.26 Ps-Jon.s treatment of Gen.
35.9, therefore, indicates the late date of the Targum. Against Shinan,
however, it is possible to bring evidence to show that Ps-Jon.s version
of Deut. 34.6 is the original form and location of the paraphrase, and
recently Chester has shown how this may be done. But he does not
find such evidence entirely convincing, and regards the originality of
Ps-Jon. simply as a possibility.27
One could, however, add to the evidence which Chester uses such
that the character of Ps-Jon. of Deut. 34.6 becomes much more clearly
defined. It is noticeable that both Shinan and Chester stop short of
detailed comparison and analysis of the relevant texts. Thus they fail
to note how Ps-Jon. is concerned to list six good deeds held in high
esteem by Jews, which are nevertheless not specifically commanded
by Scripture. These are the clothing of the naked, the joining of bridegroom and bride, visiting the sick, comforting mourners, provision
for the poor, and the burial of the dead. From very early times all
these actions were viewed as obligatory for pious Jews; indeed, one
24
See Gen. R. 815 (R. Aha in the name of R. Jonathan).

See M. Zulay, Zur Liturgie der babylonischen Juden, Stuttgart, 1933, pp. 6365;
A. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 6970, 117; vol. 2, pp. 235, 305; and Chester, op. cit.,
pp. 3945.
26
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 155160.
27
See Chester, op. cit., p. 45.
25
165
need only consider texts like Tobit 1.1618; 4.12, 1617. The wish to
root them in Scripture, then, would be natural and compelling. Ps-Jon.
does that very thing, showing how God taught them not by a verbal
commandment, but by his actions. The thrust of the paraphrase in TN,
Ngl, the Geniza Manuscripts (GM) and FT is quite different, having
a strongly liturgical character not found in Ps-Jon., and a tendency,
beginning in TN and gathering force in FT and GM, to provide explicit
Scriptural proof-texts for Gods actions. It is thus possible to argue
that the paraphrase in Ps-Jon. is related only superficially, or even not
at all, to the paraphrases in TN and the other Targumim.28 If such be
the case, there is then little likelihood that Ps-Jon. moved a tradition
from its rightful place in Gen. 35.9, and Shinans observations based
on this suggested transfer of texts have to be evaluated accordingly.
Second, a long paraphrase of the sort found in TN fits uneasily with
the overall aims and objectives of Ps-Jon. in this chapter. As we shall
see in the next verse, those aims are quite specific, and may have their
roots in very ancient preoccupations indeed.
Verse 11
And the Lord said to him: I am El Shaddai. Grow and multiply. A holy
nation and an assembly of prophets and priests shall be from your sons
which you shall beget; and again, two kings shall go forth from you.
Comparison of this verse with the interpretations of the other

Targumim will, we believe, highlight the peculiar concerns and ultimate purpose of Ps-Jon.s exegesis of the whole of this chapter. In
the Hebrew original Gods promise to Jacobs consists of two parts: a
nation and a congregation of nations (gwy wqhl gwym) will come from
him; and kings shall issue from his loins. Ps-Jon.s rendering of the first
promise as referring to a holy nation and an assembly of prophets and
priests is unique among the Pentateuchal Targumim. TO speaks of a
28
Even where items listed by Ps-Jon. agree with those in TN and FT, there are clear
differences between the paraphrases. TN speaks of the blessing of bride and groom and
Gods blessing of Jacob as a mourner; it uses the stock phrases our father Abraham,
our father Jacob; and it attempts to use Gen. 35.9 as a proof text, an attempt carried
further by Ngl and FT. None of these things appears in Ps-Jon., whose lack of liturgical
interest only strengthens the halakhic value of his paraphrase. He has the angels present at the burial of Moses: with this, compare the presence of the archangel Raphael
when Tobit buried the dead (Tob. 12.13).
166
chapter nine
people and an assembly of tribes, echoing thereby its own exegesis of

the similar divine promise in Gen. 28.3. Ps-Jon. of the latter verse also
takes up the theme of the tribes, and, along with TO, does so again at
Gen. 48.4. That Gods promise referred to the future tribes is a view
found also in a number of midrashim.29 TN of Gen. 35.11, however,
promises that an assembly of righteous peoples shall arise from Jacob,
repeating here its exegesis of Gen. 28.3 and paving the way for its
identical rendering of Gen. 48.4. FT of Gen. 35.11 and 48.4, however,
speaks only of assemblies of many crowds.30
The second part of the promise Ps-Jon. understands as referring to
two kings, thus in a general way joining hands with those Midrashim
which name two particular royal individuals.31 TO, TN, and the FT,
however, speak of kings who shall rule over the nations as issuing from
Jacob; thus these Targumim allude to their identical interpretation of
earlier divine promises set out clearly in their versions of Gen. 17.6
and 16, verses where Ps-Jon. as well speaks of kings who shall rule over
the nations destined to issue from Abraham.32
Leaving aside for the time being Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.11 and its peculiarities, we should note that the general Targumic tradition of exegesis
of all these verses is potentially very old, essential elements within it
being clearly represented in the book of Jubilees. Thus, in re-writing
Gen. 28.3, Jub. 25.3 promises to Jacob a righteous progeny, as does
TN; and the idea that his descendants will rule the nations is asserted
with some directness in Jub. 32.1819 in much the same way as in the
Targumim of Gen. 17.6, 16; 35.11. In all these texts there is the hope
of Israelite political power, which finds its most natural setting before
the tragedy of the Second Revolt against Rome.33
29
The reasons for this are set out in Pesiqta Rabbati 3.4; Eykhah Rabbah Petichta
33. Gen. R. 82.4 refers gwy to Benjamin and qhl gwym to Ephraim and Manasseh. But
Ps-Jon. does not allude to this, and seems unaware of the problems which prompted
the exegesis.
30
See also Klein, GM, vol. l, p. 75, for the same interpretation.
31
They are variously identified: in Gen. R. 82.4, R. Berekhiah and R. Helbo in the
name of R. Samuel b. Nahman state that they are Jeroboam and Jehu; but the Rabbis
understand them to be Saul and Ish-bosheth. See further Kasher, op. cit., p. 1352.
32
This departure of Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.11 from the common Targumic understanding is thus all the more striking.
33
Notice how TN, using the root tqp, has God say to Abraham, I will make you
exceedingly powerful for the Hebrew I will make you fruitful at Gen. 17.6. It uses
tqp again at Gen. 28.3; 35.11; and 48.4; with the last two verses, cf. also Klein, GM,
vol. 1, pp. 75, 151.
167
Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.11, however, looks not to Israels rule over the
nations, nor to righteous peoples and tribal groups. Its language clearly
recalls Gods command of Exod. 19.6, that Israel shall be for him a
kingdom of priests and a holy nation, interpreted there by Ps-Jon. to
mean that Israel shall be kings binding on the crown and ministering priests and a holy nation.34 And Ps-Jon.s description of Jacobs
progeny follows immediately the Scriptural verse (Gen. 35.10) which
tells how God had changed the Patriarchs name to Israel, a fact which
Ps-Jon. reports without any exegetical elaboration. The Targum here
stands side by side with Philo, who remarks that Jacob, prepared by
the angels of reason for struggle with the passions, is the source of the
twelve tribes whom Scripture calls a royal house and a priesthood of
God (De Sobrietate 6566). We should note also most particularly that
Philo clearly associates the change of Jacobs name to Israel with the
description of the nation in Exod. 19.6 as a royal house, a priesthood,
and a holy nation (De Abrahamo 56). Philos direct linking of Exod.
19.6 with the patriarch Jacob and his descendants is remarkable, and
points to the antiquity of Ps-Jon.s exegesis of Gen. 35.11, an exegesis
not represented elsewhere in rabbinic literature.
In fact, Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.11 sets out to anticipate the setting up
of Israels formal structures of lawful government and worship. The
prophets belong to the very same structures, as Ps-Jon. of Deut. 18.14
explains, contrasting Israel with other nations:
For these people whom you are about to dispossess pay attention to
deceivers of the eye and practisers of divination; but you are not like
them. Rather, priests consulting Urim and Thummim and upright prophets the Lord your God has given you.
Ps-Jon. of Exod. 33.16 also shows how Israels possession of the spirit
of prophecy differentiates it from the nations of the world:
And by what means shall it be known that I have found mercy before
you, except when your Shekhina speaks with us, and miracles are done for
us when you take up the spirit of prophecy from upon the nations, and
when you speak in the Holy Spirit to me and to your people, so that we
are different from all the peoples who are on the face of the earth?
34
For further comment on this and what follows, see J. Potin, La Fte Juive de la
Pentecte, vol. 1, Paris, 1971, pp. 207226.
168
chapter nine
It should be evident that, since Ps-Jon. has been content elsewhere to

speak of future Israelite kings ruling over the nations, its interpretation
of this verse is not dictated by the possible disappearance in its day
of Israels political hopes for the future. On the contrary, its exegesis
seems to be determined by an ancient tradition that circumstances
surrounding Jacobs second visit to Bethel led to the choice of Levi for
the high priesthood and the blessing of Judah as a royal prince. This
can be properly appreciated on examination of what follows.
Verse 14
And he set up there a pillar in the place where He had spoken with him,
a pillar of stone; and he poured a libation upon it, a libation of wine and
a libation of water: for thus his sons are destined to do on the Feast of
Tabernacles; and he poured out upon it olive oil.
This verse receives very little attention in rabbinic literature.35 The ritual of Sukkoth as required by rabbinic law, not by the written Torah, is
explicitly described (cf. m. Sukkoth 4.9), and Ps-Jon. fixes the incident
in relation to this Feast; Jub. 32.329 likewise places this, and a whole
complex of related events, at Sukkoth.
At the end of the last century, Adolf Bchler listed numerous points
of contact between Jubilees and Ps-Jon. in matters of cultic and priestly
law and traditions.36 Much more recently, Joshua Schwarz has carefully analysed Jubilees 3132, and has concluded that its traditions
of Jacobs cultic activity during his second visit to Bethel were possibly known to the Rabbis, although in garbled form. Thus he specifically notes that Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.14 refers, like Jubilees, to Sukkoth.37
Points of contact between aspects of the Jubilees tradition and Ps-Jon.
should not, therefore, surprise us. It seems to us that such contact does
exist; although it should be made clear at once that Ps-Jon. of Genesis
35 is far from being directly dependent on Jubilees. The relationship
between the traditions recorded in the two texts is much more complex. Thus, while there are major areas of agreement between the two
35
See A. Hyman, Sefer Torah Haketubah Vehamessurah, 2nd edn rev. by A.B.
Hyman, vol. 1, Tel-Aviv, 1979, p. 67; and Kasher, op. cit., p. 1355.
36
See A. Bchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jeruschalmischen Tempels, Vienna, 1895, pp. 151159.
37
See J. Schwarz, Jubilees, Bethel, and the Temple of Jacob, HUCA 56 (1985), pp.
6386, especially p. 84.
169
texts, they also diverge at various key points. We must now turn to
fuller discussion of these matters.
What Ps-Jon. shares with Jubilees is substantial. The events surrounding Jacobs second visit to Bethel take place at Sukkoth; during this period, Jubilees relates that Levi was chosen in heaven for the
high-priesthood (30.1820) because of his right conduct in sacking
Shechem (30.117). Ps-Jon.s comment that priests would come forth
from Jacob is in line with this general tradition, as is his reference to
the kings; in Jubilees, Isaac blesses not only the future tribe of Levi as
priests, judges, and rulers, but also Judah as a prince, as well as one of
his sons (31.520).
While both Ps-Jon. and Jubilees stress the link between the attack
on Shechem and Jacobs visit to Bethel, the nature of the link is by
no means the same in both sources. Here Ps-Jon.s insistence that the
idols removed by Jacob were of Shechemite origin finds no place in
Jubilees, which says nothing of Shechemite idolatry. In this respect,
Jubilees tallies with other pre-Christian sources.38 So far as I am aware,
the earliest datable written source which makes polemical use of the
idols hidden at Shechem is the first-century ce Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum. Further, in re-writing Genesis 35 and the surrounding
chapters, Jubilees says nothing about prophets as a major constituency
in Israel along with kings and priests.39 Neither does Ps-Jon. refer to
Jacobs visit to his father Isaac at this time, a prominent feature of the
narrative in Jub. 31.530.
Some tentative conclusions and suggestions may now be offered.
Much of what we have examined may be explained if we are prepared
to envisage Ps-Jon. as engaged in an attack on the Samaritan community based at Shechem. Taking the outlines of a very old exegesis on
Genesis 35 of the kind extant in Jubilees, the Targum re-arranges them
in order to deal with a new situation. It emphasizes the Shechemite
38
Idolatry does not feature in the condemnations of Shechem found in Ben Sira
50.26; Test. Levi 7.14; or Theodotus, Fragment 7 in Alexander Polyhistor apud
Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9.22.9. See also R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews,
Oxford, 1975, pp. 9193.
39
In this respect, cf. 1 Clement 31.432.2, which speaks of the dignity of Jacob,
noting that all the priests and Levites who serve the altar come from him, as do the
Christ according to the flesh, and the kings, rulers and leaders who arise from Judah.
In the preceding section (31.3), Clement has referred to the sacrifice of Isaac, and
shows knowledge of Jewish exegesis of Genesis 22 by stating that Isaac went willingly
and knowingly to be sacrificed. It is thus possible that his treatment of Jacob owes
something to Jewish opinion current in his day.
170
chapter nine
origin of the idols still buried in the vicinity of the mountain, and
goes on to assert that at Bethel, which it is careful to identify with
the Jerusalem Temple on Mount Zion, God promised that kings and
priests and prophets would come forth from Jacob. This happened
at the Feast of Sukkoth, whose ritual is described in terms explicitly
required by rabbinic law: libations of wine are accompanied by water
libations, the latter not demanded by the written Torah, so that they
became a notorious bone of contention among Jewish groups.40
The promise of a future legitimate priesthood is firmly located in
Jerusalem: the localization of the promise in Bethel-Jerusalem is significant, in view of the Samaritans claim to possess the true priesthood ministering on Mount Gerizim, and their contention that the
Jewish priesthood originated improperly in Elis unlawful migration
from Shechem to Shiloh, where he set up a false sanctuary in the days
of the Judges.41 Furthermore, Ps-Jon. says that there will be prophets
arising from Jacobs sons in the future, a telling prediction given the
Samaritans rejection both of the prophets who succeeded Moses and
of the sacred books ascribed to them. About the identity of the kings to
come forth from Jacob Ps-Jon. is discreetly vague, avoiding the names
of the northerners Jeroboam and Jehu suggested by some midrashim.42
And it may also be that the Targums interpretation of Migdal-Eder,
to which Jacob eventually repairs (Gen. 35.21), as
the place from where the King Messiah is to be revealed at the end of
days
is intended to put the Messianic hopes of Israel firmly in the tribal

area of Judah and outside the sphere of the territories once occupied
by Ephraim, Manasseh, and the other Northern tribes.43
The apparently anti-Samaritan nature of the Targums interpretation of these verses is therefore quite strongly marked, and is directed
at a number of fundamental beliefs and practices over which Jews and
Samaritans were in profound disagreement. Ps-Jon. seems to have a
very negative view of Shechem and, by implication, the mountain of
40
See R. Patai, Man and Temple, New York: Ktav, 1967, pp. 2453.
See J. MacDonald, The Theology of the Samaritans, London, 1964, pp. 1617,
310313.
42
See above, n. 31.
43
See R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale, Rome, 1963, p. 277. Ps-Jon.s exegesis is found
in T. Micah 4.8; otherwise Gen. 35.21 is hardly referred to in rabbinic literature: see
Hyman, op. cit., p. 156, and le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, p. 329.
41
171
Gerizim, which the Samaritans hold to be the site of the legitimate

temple. As we have already hinted, a time before 529 ce would best
account for Ps-Jon.s exegetical furniture and attitudes: a date in
the Islamic period seems to us extremely improbable, considering
the weakened state of Samaritanism at that time. This last point is
strengthened by the Targums familiarity with interpretations of individual verses found in Jubilees and Philo, but absent from the Rabbinic
commentaries.44 We have also seen that Ps-Jon.s failure to insert the
long paraphrase found in TN and other Targumim at v. 9 does not
afford solid grounds for a late dating of the text. Similarly, items which
might at first blush appear post-Islamic in date, such as die identification of the idols as of Shechemite origin, turn out on examination to
have good pre-Islamic credentials. Without offering a precise date for
Ps-Jon.s interpretation of these verses, we may nevertheless conclude
that we are dealing with material deriving from pre-Islamic times. It
is possible, indeed, that the sharpness of the polemic against Shechem
originated in some specific event or series of events; and the major
Samaritan religious revival in the fourth century ce associated with
the names of Marqah and Baba Rabba would no doubt have called
forth some Jewish protest, of which Ps-Jon. to Gen. 35.115 may have
been a part.45
To determine precisely how much older than the seventh century
the text here considered might be is a task for those who, like Geza
Vermes, are concerned to chart the history of Jewish exegesis through
its many and varied stages of development. This essay is presented to
him in grateful acknowledgment of his major contribution to Jewish
studies, in thanks for his friendship, and with good wishes for his happiness in the coming years: may they be many and prosperous.
44
On this point, cf. most recently M. Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph in the Targums,
JJS 39 (1988), pp. 234250.
45
On Marqah and Baba Rabba, see MacDonald, op. cit., pp. 3640.
CHAPTER TEN
PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER AND TARGUM

PSEUDOJONATHAN
1. The Problem
Introducing his new translation and commentary on the text of Pirqe
de Rabbi Eliezer (PRE), Miguel Prez Fernndez lists no fewer than
thirty-nine instances of what he considers as coincidences in small
detail between PRE and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch
(Ps.-Jon.). The implication that these coincidences may indicate that
Ps.-Jon. in some way depends on PRE is strengthened by his citation of three targumic verses which, he alleges, seem to depend on
that Midrash.1 Earlier this century, Gerald Friedlnder had also
noted the many apparent similarities between the two texts. He had
recorded material, which PRE seems to hold in common with ancient
Pseudepigrapha like Jubilees and I Enoch, in the introduction to his
translation of PRE, and he remarked that PRE was, in his opinion, one
of Ps.-Jon.s sources.2 Friedlnder often refers to Ps.-Jon. in his work,
but he offers there no sustained discussion or systematic evaluation
of such evidence as might have led him to conclude that Ps.-Jon. was
dependent on PRE. By contrast, Prez Fernndez has addressed this
matter more rigorously, and seems to rule out Friedlnders clear-cut
opinion that the Targum used PRE as a source. Accepting that a synoptic reading of the two texts is most important, he denies that either
should be seen as dependent upon the other. He is cautious in allowing that PRE may have followed a Palestinian Targum as a guide, but
1
See M. Prez Fernndez, Los Captulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia, 1984),
pp. 3136. He also notes (p. 33) M. Ohana, La Polmique judoislamique dIsmal
dans Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Augustinianum 15
(1975), pp. 367387, an essay dealing with Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 21:921, and
which has been influential in promoting the view that the Targum largely depends
on Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer. For a critique of some of Ohanas arguments, see most
recently C.T.R. Hayward, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS
34 (1989), pp. 7793.
2
See G. Friedlnder, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (London, 1916), Introduction pp. xxi
lii, for parallels between PRE and the Pseudepigrapha, and p. xix for his comments
on PRE and Targum Ps.-Jon.
pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan
173
seems less reserved in seeing PRE and Ps.-Jon. as coming from the
same ambiance and, in some cases, even from the same hand.3
Avigdor Shinans recent comments leave no doubt that the relationship between PRE and Ps.-Jon. is fundamentally important for dating
the Targum.4 Seeking to counter the present writers view that arguments for the simple dependence of one document upon the other are,
on close examination, quite unjustified, he brings as evidence for close
contact between the two works the list of coincidences drawn up by
Prez Fernndez, without offering comment upon it.5 This essay will
attempt to show that almost every item on that list affords no reliable
evidence of connection between PRE and the Targum, and that, even
in cases where some affinity between the texts may appear to exist, the
Targums exegesis may be explained satisfactorily without recourse to
PRE. Time and again we shall notice how a relationship between PRE
and Ps.-Jon. has been posited quite inappropriately and incorrectly,
as a result of inadequate and superficial readings of the two documents; along with this tendency, we shall observe how material in the
Talmuds and early Midrashim which has clear affinity with Ps.-Jon.
has been passed over in silence.
Our task must necessarily require systematic analysis of every item
which Prez Fernndez lists: nothing less would be adequate. We
shall make every effort to avoid laboured long-windedness, however,
by dealing first with items where the issues are fairly clear. The more
complex matters will be reserved for the end of the essay. All the targumic verses for discussion are, therefore, listed by Prez Fernndez,
but will not necessarily be dealt with in the order of his list.
2. Some Very Unlikely Bedfellows
The first tradition which Prez Fernndez cites forms an excellent
illustration of points made in the preceding paragraphs. He quotes
3
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 36. His remarks should be read carefully. It is
not entirely clear how he envisages the relationship between the two documents, but
he appears to deny that the Targum is simply and directly dependent on PRE, or vice
versa.
4
See A. Shinan, Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some More Comments, JJS 41
(1990), pp. 5761. This is a response to my earlier essay The Date of Targum PseudoJonathan: Some Comments, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 730.
5
See Shinan, op. cit., p. 59.
174
chapter ten
PRE 3:2 naming the Messiah as youth or little one on the basis of
Micah 5:1, notes that Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 49:10 offers the same designation, and comments that the Targum does this without any basis in the
biblical text itself, and counter to the remaining targumic witnesses.
Analysis of both texts reveals that there is no connection between
them, that the Targums exegesis does, indeed, have a biblical basis,
and that Ps.-Jon. is in tune with targumic material. The verse in question reads:
Kings and rulers shall not cease from those of the house of Judah, nor
scribes, teachers of the Torah, from his seed; until the time that there
come King Messiah, the youngest of his sons ( ;) and on his
account the peoples shall be wasted.6
By contrast, PRE 3:2 speaks of the seven things created before the
world, which include the name of the Messiah.7 For each of these
seven, PRE adduces a scriptural proof-text which, in the case of
Messiah, is Ps. 72:17. In this case alone, however, PRE adds a second
proof-text, namely Micah 5:1, which is quoted in abbreviated form.
It does not state that Messiahs name is youth or youngest, but that
Bethlehem, the home of the Messiah, is little, . Neither text proves
that Messiah is called youth: they demonstrate the pre-existence of his
name.8 Targums description of Messiah as youngest or youth, therefore, does not feature in PRE, which quotes a biblical text describing
Bethlehem as little.
Reasons for the Targums exegesis can be discerned clearly within
the original Hebrew text of Gen. 49:10.
6
The text of Ps.-Jon. is cited from E.G. Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht,
J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and
Concordance (Ktav, 1984). Deviations from the Hebrew text in the Targum are italicised in the translations, which are ours. PRE will be quoted from the translations
of Friedlnder and Prez Fernndez where textual variations are apparent; we have
checked these translations against the Hebrew text in M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah
(Jerusalem, 1930 onwards: in Hebrew).
7
The list of pre-mundane creations is famous, and occurs (e.g.) also in b. Pes. 54a,
Gen. R. 1:4, jer. Ned. 39b, and ARNb 37.
8
The Targum of Micah 5:1 has the same purpose: And thou, O Bethlehem Ephrath,
wast like a youth (little one) to be numbered among the tribes of the house of Judah:
from thee shall go forth before Me the Messiah, to be exercising rulership over Israel;
and whose name has been uttered from of old, from days everlasting. The text is
quoted from A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. III: The Latter Prophets (Leiden,
1962), and the translation is ours.
175

:
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his
feet, until Shiloh come; and his shall be the obedience of the peoples.9
Ps.-Jon.s biblical basis for interpreting this verse is Deut. 28:57, which
includes the words from between her feet ( ) and the expression and towards her afterbirth, which has consonants in
common with the of Gen. 49:10.
And towards her afterbirth ( )which comes out from between
her feet () , and towards her children whom she shall bear; for
she shall eat them for lack of all things, in secret . . .
This is the biblical passage which has allowed Ps.-Jon. to interpret Gen.
49:10 as it does: , the enigmatic Shiloh of that verse, has been
understood in the light of towards her afterbirth, , in Deut.
28:57. And this is in accordance with targumic tradition, for Targum
Onqelos (Tg. Onq.) translates the opening of Deut. 28:57 as follows:
And towards the youngest of her daughters ( ) who shall come
forth from her, and towards her daughter whom she shall bear . . .10
The very close relationship between Ps.-Jon. and Tg. Onq. has long
been recognized, and if Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 49:10 is truly dependent on
any source for its understanding of Shiloh as youth, we need look no
further than the targumic tradition itself.11
The case for a link between PRE 7:2 and Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 40:4b is
feeble.12 The Targum interprets the divine command to Moses, that he
9
The translation of the Hebrew is that given in M. Rosenbaum and A.M.
Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashis Commentary
(New York), p. 245.
10
See A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. I: The Pentateuch According to Targum
Onkelos (Leiden, 1959); the translation is ours. See also J. Bowker, The Targums and
Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, 1969), p. 278, who also relates this verse to Gen.
49:10; and B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos of Deuteronomy (The Aramaic Bible, vol.
9) (Edinburgh, 1988), p. 81. Rashi, commenting on the occurrence of ltk in I Sam.
1:17, points out that the word means children and is to be understood in the same
way as lyth in Deut. 28:57.
11
For the close relationship between these two Targums, the problems involved
and relevant bibliography, see most recently R. le Daut, Introduction la Littrature
Targumique, Premire Partie (Rome, 1988), pp. 98101.
12
It is discussed by A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the
Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1979: in Hebrew), vol. 2, p. 325.
176
chapter ten
bring the seven-branched candlestick into the sanctuary and set up its
lights, with a splendid paraphrase:
And you shall bring in the candlestick on the south side, because from
there are the paths of the sun and the moon, and from there are the paths
of the luminaries; and there are the treasures of wisdom which are likened
to the luminaries; and you shall light its seven lamps corresponding to the
seven planets which are likened to the righteous who enlighten the world
through their merits.
The supposed coincidence with PRE 7:2 amounts to very little. In the
course of a long discourse on the New Moon, PRE observes that all
the days serve the moon, that all the constellations also serve it, and
that all the hours (or planets) serve it, two each in the south, north,
east and west. All the great and radiant luminaries are situated in the
south, except the Wagon, which is in the north. A disquisition on evil
spirits follows.
It is hard to see how the Targum might be related to all this. For a
start, the two texts present radically different settings for their information about the planets: PRE gives us a turgid, astronomical-cumcalendrical treatise, while the Targum of Exod. 40 has a sustained
exposition, grounded in Scripture, of the parts and furnishings of the
Sanctuary, comparing them symbolically with individuals and groups
of people in Israel. The Targum describes the south as encompassing the paths of sun, moon and planets; this is lacking in PRE, but
is known to Philo, who explicitly states that the planets travel in the
south. He also, like the Targum, compares them with Wisdom.13 The
comparison of the seven lamps of the menorah with the seven luminaries is very old, attested by both Philo and Josephus. It does not
occur in PRE 7:2, but almost certainly underlies Christian writing in
the Apocalypse of John which bears a striking similarity to Ps.-Jon. The
whole matter has been thoroughly discussed by Martin McNamara.14
Finally, the righteous are compared with the stars in the Bible at Dan.
12:3, and in early writings such as II Baruch 51:10 and I Enoch 39:7.
13
See Philo, Quaestiones in Exodum I.79, II.103. That the south is the region of
wisdom is found in the Bible (Jer. 49:7) and in post-biblical texts like Baruch 3:22.
Wis. Sol. 7:1819 associates wisdom with the sun, moon and planets.
14
See Philo, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit 221; De Vita Mosis II.102103;
Josephus, War V.217; Antiquities III.123; Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 39:37; Num. R. 15:7; and
M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch
(Rome, 1966), pp. 196199, for full discussion and bibliography.
177
It is highly improbable that a tiny detail, which does not precisely correspond with its targumic counterpart, has been transferred from PRE
into Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 40:4b. Other sources provide much closer and
more reliable points of comparison with the Targum.
The potentially misleading character of coincidences in small detail
between PRE and Ps.-Jon. is evident in the matter of Leviathans creation. Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 1:21 records that, on the fifth day of creation,
God created the great sea-monsters, Leviathan and his partner, who
are destined for the day of consolation; and every living creature which
swarms . . .
PRE lists events which took place on the fifth day. They include the
plague on the Egyptians when their waters were turned to blood; the
Exodus; the parting of Jordan before the Ark; and Hezekiahs diversion
of the water in Jerusalem. PRE 9:3 notes:
On the fifth day he brought forth the Leviathan from among the waters,
that flying serpent. His dwelling is in the lowest waters, and between his
two fins is the middle column of the earth. All the great monsters of the
sea are food for the Leviathan . . .
The Targum places the creation of Leviathan and his partner on the
fifth day. PRE 9:3 notes only the creation of Leviathan then; his mate
Behemoth was not created until the sixth day, according to PRE 11:1.
There were different opinions on this. Gen. R. 7:4 agrees with Ps.-Jon.
that both monsters were created on the fifth day (R. Pinchas in the
name of R. Iddi), but Gen. R. 11:9 restricts Gods creation on that day
to Leviathan (R. Levi in the name of R. Hama bar Hanina; cf. PRE
9:3). Behemoths creation separate from Leviathan on the sixth day was
favoured by late texts, which Friedlnder has assembled.15 By contrast,
Ps.-Jon. and R. Pinchas in Gen. R. 7:4 are exactly in line with the Syriac
Apocalypse of Baruch 29:4, which was composed in the first part of
the second century ad:
And Behemoth shall appear from his place and Leviathan shall ascend
from the seathose two great monsters I created on the fifth day of
creation and have kept until then; and then they shall serve as food for
all that survive.16
15
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 75, citing Chronicles of Jerahmeel v, vi; Yalqut
Shimoni Genesis 12; Num. R. 21:18; and Lev. R. 22:10.
16
Translated by R.H. Charles, revised by L.H. Brockington in The Apocryphal Old
Testament, ed. H.F.D. Sparks (Oxford, 1984), pp. 856857. For the date of this text,
178
chapter ten
Like the Targum, Apoc. Bar. also refers to the destiny of the monsters.
They will serve as food at the banquet for the righteous on the last
day, the day of consolation.17 Far from establishing a close connection
between the Targum and PRE, Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 1:21 helps positively to
indicate the independence of the two texts, and the information from
Gen. R. 7:4 helps to place the Targum firmly in the line of a particular
tradition evidently favoured by earlier authorities before the later views
espoused by PRE gained the ascendancy.
The paraphrase of Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:22 must be quoted at length,
since Prez Fernndez seems to have misunderstood it.
And the Lord God said to the angels who minister before Him: Behold,
Adam is unique in the earth as I am Unique in the heavens of the height;
and there are destined to arise from him those who know how to distinguish between good and evil. If he had kept the commandments which I
had commanded him, it is the case that he would have lived and endured
as the Tree of Life, for ever. But now, because he has not kept what I have
commanded him, we decree against him, and banish him from the Garden
of Eden, before he stretch out his hand and take from the fruits of the
Tree of Life. For behold, if he eats of it, he will live and endure for ever.
The Targum is interpreting an original Hebrew text which reads:

And the Lord God said: Behold, the man has become like one of us
( ) to know good and evil; and now, lest he stretch forth his
hand and also take from the Tree of Life, and eat and live for ever . . .
Prez Fernndez believes that the phrase like one of us has been interpreted by PRE 12:2 in the light of Gen. 2:18, where God states that it is
not good for Adam to be alone; and he compares Ps.-Jon.s paraphrase
with PRE. On the other hand, he notes another exegetical tradition
which understands one as a reference to the uniqueness of Adam,
found in Targum Neofiti (Tg. Neof.) of Gen. 3:22 and in m.Sanh. 4:5.
This, it seems, is lacking in Ps.-Jon.18 PRE 12:2 offers the following:
see most recently discussion in E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ, vol. III.2, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman
(Edinburgh, 1987), pp. 752753. Tg. Neof. of Gen. 1:21 also records the creation of
both monsters on the same day, and see also b.Baba Bathra 74b75a.
17
PRE 10:3, 11:1 states that the righteous shall feast off Leviathan and Behemoth,
but this is not related directly to their creation, as it most certainly is in Ps.-Jon. and
Syr. Apoc. Bar. The idea that these beasts provide food for the final banquet is very
old: see I Enoch 60:24; and cf. b.Baba Bathra 74b; Targum Sheni of Esther 3:7; Lev.
R. 22:10.
18
See his brief comments, op. cit., p. 31. But I cannot trace in Ps.-Jon.s paraphrase any sense that God needs to provide the one Adam with a partner lest the
179
While he (Adam) was at leisure in the Garden of Eden like one of the
ministering angels, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am alone in my
world and this one is alone in My (or: his) world. Before Me there is neither propagation nor growth, just as there is no propagation or growth
before this one. In future the creatures will be able to say, since there was
no propagation or growth before him, it is he who created us. It is not
good for Adam to be alone, as it is said: And the Lord God said: it is not
good for man to be alone; I will make a help meet for him.
We should notice first that, in the Targum, God addresses the angels;
Adam is thus clearly differentiated from them, as the divine speech
emphasises and the divine decree confirms. Quite different is PRE,
which actually compares Adam with a ministering angel.19 Next, the
Targums comment about Adam owes nothing to Gen. 2:18 as found
in PRE 12:2. The very exegetical line which understands this verse as
a reference to Adams uniqueness is clearly stated in Ps.-Jon. in language virtually identical to that found in Tg. Neof. and the Fragment
Targums of this verse in the Paris and Vatican Manuscripts (FTP and
FTV). Likewise, Tg. Onq. states that Adam is unique in the world.20
Third, there is nothing in Ps.-Jon. suggesting that the animals may
come to look upon Adam as their creator because he appears to be
uncreated. Finally, PRE lacks reference to those destined to arise from
Adam who will know good and evil; nor does that text make any distinction between the life which Adam would have merited had he kept
the commandments, and the death implied in his banishment from
the Garden following his failure to observe them. All these, however,
are part of the common stock of targumic tradition represented by Tg.
Neof., FTP and FTV.
It is not PRE which relates to the Targum of this verse, but texts
such as Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Beshallah 7:7278, Gen. R. 21:3, and
Song R. 1:9.2. In Mekhilta, R. Pappias interprets the words that Adam
animals mistake him for their creator, which is the point of PREs exegesis quoted
here below. The verse is discussed by Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 9091; vol. 2,
pp. 207208.
19
Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 174175, notes that Ps.-Jon. alone of the Targums
makes God address the angels; he regards this an an anti-Christian device directed
against the doctrine of the Trinity and thus disagrees with A. Geiger, Urschrift und
Uebersetzung der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 212213, about its antiquity. Adam is also
distanced from the angels in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 1:26; cf. Bowker, op. cit., p. 130.
20
See G. Vermes, Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum, JSS 8 (1963), p. 165; le Daut,
Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1: Gense (Sources Chrtiennes 245) (Paris, 1978), p. 97;
and Bowker, op. cit., p. 130.
180
chapter ten
has become like one of us to mean that he has become like one of
the angels; this is exactly the view of PRE 12:2 and Yalqut Shimoni
Genesis 34. R. Akiba, however, powerfully refutes this view, stating
that means that Adam had the choice of one of two ways.
The one would lead to life, the other to death. This same exegesis features in Pesiqta Rabbati 7:2, although R. Akiba is not named there. It is
precisely R. Akibas exegesis of like one of us which all the Targumim,
including Ps.-Jon., follow in their paraphrases. Adam could have kept
the commandments and lived for ever, but he did not, and thus merited expulsion from Eden, and death. Ps.-Jon. seems as concerned as
R. Akiba to dispel the idea that Adam was like an angel: he restricts
Adam to the earth, while placing the angels in heaven where God
addresses them. Ps.-Jon. and PRE, in truth, represent two opposing
exegeses of this verse, not coinciding interpretations.
Angels figure again in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:6, which Prez Fernndez
and Shinan21 relate to PRE 13:3.
And the woman saw Sammael, the angel of death, and was afraid; and
she knew that the tree was good to eat, and that it was healing of light
for the eyes, and that the tree was delightful so as to understand with it:
so she took of its fruit and ate, and gave also to her husband with her,
and he ate.
The differences between the two texts outweigh the similarities. In PRE
13:1, the angels are jealous of Adam who is able to name the animals,
while they cannot. They realize that they will have no power over him
unless they can make him sin. None of this occurs in Ps.-Jon., but it is
necessary background to PRE 13:2, where Sammael goes to the earth
in rebellion, finds the serpent which then had legs and resembled a
camel, rides on it, and elicits a rebuke from the Torah. Two parables
follow, and in PRE 13:3 the serpent, with Sammael riding on it, debates
whether to induce Adam or Eve to sin. It chooses Eve, and asks why
she has not eaten from the tree. She replies in the words of Gen. 3:3,
but the serpent dismisses this as a case of the evil eye on Gods part,
since He knows that when she eats from the tree she will be like Him,
able to create and destroy, to bring to life and to kill.
21
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 31, and Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 272273,
who notes a parallel with material in Tanhuma B. Introd. p. 155; he believes that PRE
is closely related to the Targum or its source.
181
Ps.-Jon. knows none of this. Rather, the serpent tells Eve that Gods
command that they should not eat from the tree is the product of a
natural resentment which every creator feels towards his handiwork.
If they eat, they will be like mighty angels, who are wise to distinguish
between good and evil.22
In PRE 13:3, the serpent tricks Eve by touching the tree, which cries
out in the words of Ps. 36:1112. Eve cannot have heard this exclamation, since nothing untoward happens to the serpent, and she is
thereby convinced that she may safely approach the tree.
The woman went and touched the tree, and she saw the angel of death
coming towards her. She exclaimed: Now I shall die, and the Holy One,
Blessed be He, will make another woman and give her to Adam.
For this reason she resolves to implicate Adam in her sin, and gives
him some of the fruit.
At this crucial point in primeval history, the Targum understands
events quite differently from PRE. Eve needs no demonstration that
the tree is safe, and it is before she has touched it that she sees Sammael
and is afraid. Eves experience of fear is the direct opposite of the scene
in PRE, where the serpent gives her courage; fear is nowhere on the
agenda, even after she realizes what she has done. In PRE, it is only
after touching the tree that she sees the angel of death and imagines
that God will create another woman, a notion utterly foreign to the
Targum.23 Given this evidence, any idea that Ps.-Jon. might represent
a resum of PRE seems out of the question.
Sammael appears again in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 4:1, where he is held
responsible for Eves conception of Cain. The single manuscript of Ps.Jon. reads:
And Adam knew Eve his wife, that she had conceived from Sammael,
the angel (of the Lord).
The text of the manuscript ends here, but the editio princeps has a
translation of the whole verse:
22
See Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:5, which further demonstrates that Targums indebtedness,
not to PRE, but to stock targumic tradition. Tg Neof. has the serpent promise that they
will be like angels. Tg. Onq. that they will be like mighty ones. Ps.-Jon. has combined
these two understandings and contrasts strongly with PRE at this point, which suggests that they would have divine powers to create and to destroy.
23
It is found in (e.g.) Gen. R. 19:5 and ARNb 1. This last text again stresses that the
angel of death appeared after Eve had eaten.
182
chapter ten
And Adam knew Eve his wife who lusted after the angel; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, I have acquired a man, the angel of
the Lord.
Sammael is named as Cains father in PRE 21:1. The editio princeps

of Ps.-Jon. relates the tradition, which is much older than PRE and
very widespread, that an angel engendered Cain. The reasons for the
origin and development of this aggadah are clear, and convincing arguments for its antiquity have been rehearsed elsewhere; they need not
be repeated here.24 The further statement of the editio princeps that Eve
lusted after the angel is, however, incompatible with anything found
in PRE. Mention of Sammael in the manuscript of the Targum seems
to be a scribal addition to the original text as preserved in the editio
princeps, designed to identify the angel. There is no reason to suppose
that the scribe derived the name from PRE, since Sammael as the name
of the one who seduced Eve was widely known by the second century adit was used by the Gnostics, according to Irenaeus, Adversus
Haereses I.30:9.
The textual variant in the tradition of Ps.-Jon. should also be noted
here. In the same way, careful attention will be paid below to textual
variants in PRE. Claims that one text is dependent on the other have
not always paid sufficient attention to such textual evidence which
may, as in the present verse, prove illuminating. For here we confront
a tradition, attested by sources of unimpeachable antiquity, that Cain
was sired by an unnamed spirit-angel; with this, the editio princeps of
Ps.-Jon. agrees. Later sources, like PRE, name the angel, and the suspicion must arise that a copyist might have imported into the completed
Targum text a piece of information current in his day and with which
he was familiar. The textual evidence argues for a complexity in the
supposed relationship between Ps.-Jon. and PRE which has not hitherto been sufficiently appreciated.25
24
See IV Maccabees 18:9; II Esdras 4:30; John 8:3145: I John 3:812; further New
Testament and early patristic evidence cited by Friedlnder, op. cit., pp. 150151;
b.Yeh. 103b; Shabb. 146a; Yalqut Shimoni Genesis 35; and A.M. Goldberg, Kain:
Sohn des Menschen oder Sohn der Schlange?, Judaica 25 (1969), pp. 203221; N.A.
Dahl, Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk. 7 1 und Joh 8 44),
in Apophoreta: Festschrift fr Ernst Haenchen (Berlin, 1964), pp. 7084, both cited by
le Daut, Targum, p. 101.
25
According to a text included in M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Thargum
Jonathan ben Usil zum Pentateuch) (Berlin, 1903), Eve saw that Cain was like the
ones on high, and not like those below. This is not found in the manuscript or
183
According to Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:17, God cursed the ground

because it did not declare to you (Adam) your sin (literally: debt).
The Targum so renders the Hebrew , usually translated because

of you, as in Tg. Onq., Tg. Neof., FT, Jubilees 3:25, Aquila, and Syriac.
The question naturally arises why the earth, an innocent party, should
suffer a curse for Adams sin: it is actually posed by PRE 14:6, and the
answer is given that it did not declare the deed, .
This very answer raises another question: whose deed? Was it the serpents, or Adams, or Eves? At least one witness to PRE declares that
it was the serpents, presumably wishing to end speculation, but no
clear statement that Adam was responsible is forthcoming.26 Ps.-Jon.
owes nothing to the ambiguity of PRE, but represents a very ancient
translation of Hebrew as deriving from the root to transgress, to sin, shared with Theodotions because of your transgression,
and recorded by Jerome.27 Here, transgression fits exactly the Targumic
translation, as opposed to the vague word deed of PRE.
The servant whom Abraham sent to fetch a wife for Isaac is identified as Eliezer by Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 24:2. Prez Fernndez notes the
same tradition in PRE 16:3, and believes that the latter follows the
Targum in this matter. In truth, there is no reason to argue that Ps.Jon. borrowed this item from PRE. It is well known from many different documents, and other traditions about Eliezer, not listed by
Prez Fernndez, suggest that the Targums portrait of this man is not
determined by PRE.28
editio princeps of the Targum, but is derived from a Targum quotation of Menachem
Recanati. It is far from certain that it forms a part of Ps.-Jon. Both Prez Fernndez
and Friedlnder accept it as such, but without discussion of its textual history: the former believes that PRE 21:1, where the same tradition is found, derived it from Ps.-Jon.
(op. cit., p. 162), while the latter regards Ps.-Jon. as having taken it from the Midrash
(op. cit., p. 150). See also Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2. pp. 273274, and Bowker,
op. cit., p. 136, who compares it with a similar type of statement in I Enoch 106:5.
26
27
See Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in libro Geneseos (Corpus Christianorum
Series Latina LXXII) (Turnhout, 1959), ad. loc.; and cf. Geiger, op. cit., pp. 465467.
28
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 134. For Eliezer, see further Gen. R. 59:10;
b.Sanh. 95ab; Baba Bathra 130a; H ullin 91b. The Targum does not identify him with
Og, king of Bashan, which is a feature of PRE 16:3, and PREs view that Eliezer was
set free from his service to Abraham finds no place in the Targum.
184
chapter ten
3. Close Reading of the Texts, and its Results
PRE 17:1 is a confusing text, which seeks to show that God ordered
kindness to mourners by referring to His burial of Moses. Prez
Fernndez invokes as a parallel Ps.-Jon. of Deut. 34:6, which tells of
Gods burial of Moses, but does not use it to prove that concern for
mourners is a divine command.29 The comforting of mourners is a
feature of Ps.-Jon. of this verse, but the proof of it is related to Gods
dealing with Abraham. Two talmudic passages, b.Sot ah 14a and Sanh.
46b, are clearly very similar to the Targum, and the confusion in PRE
is easily explained if the compiler of that Midrash, familiar either with
Targum or Talmud, garbled his source in an attempt to abbreviate
what, in both, is a fairly lengthy aggadah. In any event, it is impossible
that the ordered aggadah of Ps.-Jon. should have been developed from
PRE 17:1.
The expulsion of Adam from Eden is expounded by Ps.-Jon. of Gen.
3:23 in detail:
And the Lord God drove him out of the Garden of Eden, and he went
and dwelt on Mount Moriah to till the land from which he had been
created.
Prez Fernndez refers to PRE 20:1, which, in his translation, records

Adams dwelling on Mount Moriah, which is the Temple Mount, after
his banishment. This is not found, however, in the manuscripts of PRE,
but only in the first editions; Friedlnder notes the fact, and comments
that Adams dwelling in this spot is taken from Gen. 3:24 understood
as the LXX have interpreted it.30 What has shaped the Targums version here is not PRE, but ancient exegesis of the kind found in LXX
and assumed by Jubilees 3:27, according to which Adam offered sacrifice on the very day of his departure from Eden.31 In this. Gen. 3:23
was read in the light of Gen. 3:24, with its note that God made the
Cherubim to dwell east of Eden. The further detail of Adams creation
29
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 114, who correctly points to the oddity of PRE 17:1
invoking the Hebrew of Deut. 34:6 at this point.
30
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 156; Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 143. The LXX interprets Gen. 3:24 (which is 3:25 in that version) as And he expelled Adam, and made
him dwell over against the paradise of delight . . . .
31
The meaning attributed by the LXX to Gen. 3:24/25 was evidently widely known:
Jerome, Hebr. Quaest. on Gen. 3:24, strongly attacks it and insists that the Hebrew
refers to Gods placing the Cherubim, not Adam, over against the garden.
185
from Mount Moriah is also an ancient and well-known tradition, and

there are no solid grounds for supposing that the Targum needed to
derive its information from PRE.32
Prez Fernndez relates Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 4:2, that Eve bore Abel and
his twin sister, to PRE 21:1, but only some witnesses to the latter record
this tradition.33 The textual state of PRE, and the clear differences of
opinion in other rabbinic sources about the number and sex of Eves
children, suggest caution in any suggestion that PRE be associated
with Ps.-Jon. In Gen. R. 22:23 and b.Sanh. 38b, Cain has one twin
sister and Abel two twin sisters; Cains twin is found also in PRE 21:1.
The Targum, however, speaks of only one daughter born to Eve, and
that is Abels twin; this does not coincide with PRE, but may reflect
the first-century ad statement of Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum 1:1, that Adam had one daughter.34
In Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 11:7, God addresses the seventy angels who stand
before Him about His decision to confuse the languages of man. In the
following verse, God is revealed with the seventy angels corresponding
to the seventy nations, each with the language and its script, and He
scatters the nations. Both Chester and Shinan argue that this Targum
is only fully understood in the light of Ps.-Jon. of Deut. 32:89 with its
account of Gods allocation of the seventy nations, their languages and
scripts to the seventy angels, and is closely associated with PRE 24:4 in
placing the allocation of nations to the different angels at the time of
Babel.35 There are several reasons for doubting this view.
First, PRE puts in R. Simeons mouth an unsubstantiated statement
that God was addressing the seventy angels. PRE asks how we know
that this was so, and quotes the Hebrew text of Gen. 11:7 which has
32
It is found, e.g., in Gen. R. 14:89 and jer.Nazir 7:2, and is related in Ps.-Jon. of
Gen. 2:7 to Adams creation from red, black and white dust, a tradition which PRE
11:2 does not agree with according to Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 35. Adams creation
from dust of the Temple Mount was directly connected to his requirement to till the
ground, understood as an obligation to study the Torah and keep its commandments;
see Gen. R. 16:56; Sifre Deut. 41; and Bowker, op. cit., p. 119.
33
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 162; cf. Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 152, n. 4.
34
The agreement between Ps.-Jon. and LAB in this matter is of some interest, given
the variations within the rabbinic tradition. For the date of LAB see, most recently,
Schrer, op. cit., vol. III.1, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman
(Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 328329.
35
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1. p. 44; vol. 2, pp. 120121; A.N. Chester,
Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tbingen, 1986),
pp. 102104.
186
chapter ten
God say, Let us go down, not, I will go down. The plural us is

held to refer to the angels. PRE knows, then, that the verse constitutes
a proof-text that God was addressing angels, but this same verse in
its original Hebrew form says nothing of angels, and does not identify the addressees. But the Targum does exactly these things, and if
PRE can confidently quote the verse as proof that God spoke with the
angels, then it must do so knowing that the verse was traditionally and
legitimately understood as referring to angels. That such is indeed the
case is confirmed by Jubilees 10:23; Philo, De Confusione Linguarum
168175 (especially 1745); and Augustine, De Civitate Dei XVI.5. The
Targum thus stands in a line of recognized authoritative exegesis of
Gen. 11:7 which PRE accepts.36
Second, the seventy angels who rule the seventy nations form a commonplace of aggadah from a very early period; they appear already in
LXX of Deut. 32:8.37 Long before the turn of the eras, Jews were sure
that God had allotted the nations to seventy angels, keeping Israel for
Himself. That this took place at Babel is a view shared by Targum with
PRE, and it is a view that could have arisen naturally and with ease at
any time after the fundamental idea that God had allotted the nations
to the rule of angels had become established. The fact that the Targum
and PRE share the same view here may be purely accidental; it is certainly not proof that the Targum derived its aggadah from PRE.
Third, Ps.-Jon. of Deut. 32:8 specifically states that the nations and
angels number seventy, and correspond to the seventy sons of Israel
who went down to Egypt. If Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 11:7 is fully intelligible
only in the light of the Targum of this verse, as Chester suggests, one
would expect to find there some reference to Israel at the least, if not
to the seventy corresponding souls who went into Egypt, but no such
allusion is found. This is very strange, for if God divided the nations
at Babel, what then happened to Israel? Contrast PRE 24:4, which
tackles this very problem: after establishing that God had spoken to
angels before Babel, the text expounds Deut. 32:8 and glories in Gods
36
Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1. p. 44, notes Jubilees 10:23, but not Philo. Friedlnder,
op. cit., p. 176, gives the passage from Augustine and adds references to Clement of
Alexandria, Stromateis 6:17; Clementine Recognitions 2:42; and Hippolytus in Acheliss
edition, II, p. 243. These Christian uses of the verse serve to underline the traditional
and popular character of the exegesis.
37
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 176.
187
acquisition of Israel at this very time. Only then is Gods descent with
the angels to confound mens speech recorded.
Finally, the witnesses to PREs text state that God confused men
into seventy nations and languages. The first editions add a reference
to each nation having its own writing and language, while Israel fell
to God.38 This features in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 11:8, and suggests that PRE
may, at some stage in its textual development, have borrowed material
from the Targum. Indeed, a good case can be made for arguing that
PRE has assembled its account of the Babel episode from pre-existing material, some of it related to traditions in Ps.-Jon. In accepting
this material, PRE needed to explain to his readers when it was that
God allocated Israel to himself, if at this time he confused the seventy
nations. He does this by introducing into his account of Babel the division of the nations recorded in Deut. 32:8 as traditionally understood,
where Israels part is explicit, and has a firm anchor in the biblical
text. In our opinion, Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 11:7 is clear and fully comprehensible in its own terms; it is only when PRE attempts to introduce
Israel into the picture of the confusion at Babel that Deut. 32:8 needs
to be invoked. That is to say, it is PRE, not Ps.-Jon., which can only
properly be understood in the light of the traditional understanding of
both Gen. 11:7 and Deut. 32:8.
We have discussed elsewhere Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 27:12, which has no
connection with PRE.39 Equally mistaken is any attempt to relate Ps.Jon. of Gen. 17:3 to PRE 29:1. The Targum reads:
And because Abram was not circumcised, he was not able to stand up;
and he bowed down upon his face.
PRE understands Gods command to Abraham to be perfect (Gen. 17:1)

as a command that he circumcise himself, and discourses on the
uncleanness of the foreskin following principles laid down in m.Neg.
3:11, Gen. R. 46:4 and 47:8, and Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Amalek 3:106 ff.
R. Gamaliel says that Abraham called Shem to perform the circumcision on Yom Kippur; this contradicts Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 17:26, that
Abraham was circumcised on 14th Nisan. All this happened at the site
of the future altar, and PRE continues by remarking on the pain of circumcision, averring that one who separates himself from circumcision
38
39
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 177, n. 6; Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 180.
See Hayward, The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, pp. 1618.
188
chapter ten
is as if he separated himself from the Holy One. R. Gamaliel b. R.

Judah ha-Nasi tells that God tested Abraham on the third day of his
circumcision, and went with his ministering angels to visit Abraham.
God said to them:
Come and see the power of circumcision. Before Abraham was circumcised he fell on his face, and afterwards I spoke with him, as it is said,
And Abraham fell on his face (Gen. 17:17). Now that he is circumcised,
he sits and I stand. Whence do we know that the Holy One, Blessed be
He, was standing? Because it is said, And he looked, and lo, three men
stood over against him.40
The Targum and PRE are quite different in statement and intention.
PRE stresses the power of circumcision, which plays no part in the
Targum; it brings into the arena Gen. 18:12, which does not feature in
the targumic verse under review. Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 18:12 refers to the
intensity of pain which Abraham suffered from the circumcision, but
otherwise makes no change in the Hebrew and asserts that Abraham
initially sat, because of his pain, and then fell down to the earth when
he saw the three men.
The essential point is that the Targum of Gen. 17:3 contrasts
Abrahams bowing down to God with his inability to stand because he
was uncircumcised. PRE is completely different, and has no concern
with his bowing down; rather, it contrasts Abrahams standing in 17:3
with his sitting in 18:12, not because of the pain of circumcision, but
as a demonstration of circumcisions power. The two texts have different concerns, and are quite independent of each other. The Targum
is dealing with the proper qualifications needed for a man to stand
before God, in accordance with Ps.-Jon. of Num. 24:3, which enunciates the principle that the uncircumcised cannot stand before God:
this is stated with reference to the wicked Gentile Balaam, and the
standing which is in mind refers to sacrificial worship and prophecy,
both of which Balaam had carried out.41 This emphasis on standing
can be fully appreciated as a remark directed against early Christians,
who repeatedly insisted that God had counted them worthy to stand
40
For the translation, cf. Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 205; Prez Fernndez, op. cit.,
p. 203, gives a slightly different version, which is similar to that quoted by Shinan, The
Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 47.
41
See further le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. III: Nombres (Sources
Chrtiennes 261) (Paris, 1979), p. 229, who cites L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
7 vols. (Philadelphia, 19111938), vol. III, p. 366; vol. VI, p. 128.
189
and minister to Him. The claim is prominent in the earliest Eucharistic

liturgies and in pre-Nicene writers who denigrate circumcision as an
outmoded ritual.42
Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 12:13 orders Israel, on the eve of the Exodus, to
mingle the blood of the Passover lamb with the blood of circumcision, and to make the sign on the houses with this mingled blood.
God will see the merit of this blood (singular) and spare Israel from
the destroyer. PRE 29:4 records that all were circumcised when they
went out of Egypt, and that they took the blood of circumcision (some
witnesses add: and the blood of the Passover victim)43 and put it on
their houses. When God saw the blood of circumcision on the houses,
and the blood of the Passover lamb, He was filled with compassion,
and said in the words of Ezek. 16:6, in thy bloods (plural) live!, the
plural bloods referring to the blood of circumcision and that of the
Paschal sacrifice. R. Eliezer states that these same bloods will redeem
Israel from the power of the fourth and final world empire prophesied
by Daniel. The two kinds of blood, and the proof-text from Ezekiel,
are discussed also in an older Midrash, Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Pisha
5:810; cf. Num. R. 14:12.
Ps.-Jon. refers only to blood in the singular, and does not so
much as hint that Ezek. 16:6 may provide the grounds of his exegesis.
The Targum refers first to blood of circumcision, then to blood of the
Passover victim, and the single blood is produced by the explicit command to mingle the two types, a command entirely absent from PRE;
the latter, indeed, might be understood to mean that the bloods should
be kept separate, a point which is reinforced if the words found only
in some witnesses and quoted above (and the blood of the Passover
victim) originally formed no part of PRE. These observations suggest
42
See the Eucharistic Liturgy ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome (mid-second century
ad), edited by B. Botte, La Tradition Apostolique de Saint Hippolyte (Munster, 1963),
pp. 1617; the ancient East Syrian rite (between the second and fourth centuries),
ed. B.D. Spinks, Addai and MariThe Anaphora of the Apostles: A Text for Students
(Bramcote, 1980), p. 19; Apostolic Constitutions VIII.38; Justin Martyr, Apology I.65.
Early Christian writers heavily stress the priestly character of the Christians and associate this with pre-Levitical characters in the Bible, whom they consider uncircumcised.
See Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 19:24; and 28:25, which also uses the prophecy of
Malachi 1:11. They attached particular importance to Melchizedeks uncircumcision:
see Jerome, Epist. 73, and Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeos 2. That Abraham was blessed
while still uncircumcised is noted in Dialogue with Trypho 11:5 drawing on Romans
4:1012.
43
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 210; the addition is made by the first editions.
190
chapter ten
that the Targum and PRE are so distinct exegetically as to be unrelated

to one another, and they are confirmed by le Dauts demonstration
that the Targumim, including Ps.-Jon., preserve traditions about the
blood of circumcision and the blood of the Paschal victim which are
indeed of greater antiquity than those in PRE.44
At Gen. 16:1, Ps.-Jon. adds information about Hagar, that she was
the daughter of Pharaoh; he had given her as handmaid (to Abraham) at
the time when he had taken her (Sarah) as wife, and had been struck by
a word from before the Lord.
In PRE 26:2, R. Joshua b. Qorha states that Pharaoh, because he loved

Sarah, had written for her a marriage document giving her silver, gold,
servants, land, the territory of Goshen, and Hagar, his daughter from
a concubine. How do we know that she was Pharaohs daughter? PRE
answers by quoting the Hebrew text of Gen. 16:1, which, however,
merely states that Hagar was Sarahs Egyptian maid; it says nothing
of her parentage, her status vis--vis Pharaoh or of Sarahs privileges.
Once more, PRE must surely have in mind not the original Hebrew of
this verse but the manner in which it was traditionally understood; that
is to say, the way in which it is translated by Ps.-Jon. and interpreted by
(e.g.) Gen. R. 45:1. In neither of the latter texts, however, is she called
the daughter of Pharaohs concubine. This detail may be significant:
if, as some claim, Ps.-Jon. is an anti-Islamic polemic, a blunt notice
that Hagar, ancestress of the Arabs, was a concubines daughter might
prove usefully derogatory. The fact that it is not represented in the
Targum is important, and suggests that Ps.-Jon. is not related to PRE
at this point.45 By presenting Hagar as an Egyptian princess, Ps.-Jon.
ensures that Abraham, who later married Hagar according to targumic
tradition, was related to one of the most ancient and noble of all royal
houses. A better defence of the Jewish people against pagan calumnies
would be hard to muster.46
44
See R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), pp. 209211; G. Vermes,
Circumcision and Exodus IV.2426, in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2nd ed.
(Leiden, 1973), pp. 178192.
45
For Ps.-Jon. as motivated by anti-Islamic concerns, see especially Ohana, art. cit.;
D.M. Splansky, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targumim, Use
of Midrashim and Date, unpublished dissertation (Hebrew Union CollegeJewish
Institute of Religion, 1981), pp. 155156; Chester, op. cit., p. 254, n. 131.
46
For Abrahams marriage to Hagar, see our discussion of Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 25:1
below, p. 231. The Targums method of procedure here seems reminiscent of the
devices used by pre-Christian Hellenistic Jewish apologists: see G. Vermes, La Figure
191
The story that Pharaoh loaded Sarah with gifts has very ancient roots:
a form of it occurs in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, col. 20
lines 3032. It is a fragmentary text, but already Hagar may be listed
among Pharaohs gifts to Sarah and Abraham. Gen. R. 45:1 tells how
Pharaoh gave Hagar to Sarah when he had been smitten with plague,
which Ps.-Jon. both here and in 12:17 regards as the result of a word
from before the Lord, an idea absent from PRE. It is almost impossible to maintain that PRE has informed Ps.-Jon. of this verse; rather,
given PREs quotation of Gen. 16:1 as a proof-text for its own aggadah,
a good case could be argued that PRE is indebted to the Targum and
other sources of the kind catalogued above.
Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 25:1 identifies Keturah, Abrahams wife, as Hagar,
who was bound to him from the beginning. PRE 30:4 tells that, after
Sarahs death, Abraham took again his divorced wife (Hagar), because
Gen. 25:1 (Hebrew) says that he again took a wife, whose name was
Keturah, because she was perfumed (Hebrew root qtr) with all kinds
of perfumes. PRE is not related to the Targum of this verse. It fastens
on the fact that Abraham again took a wife; this is absent from the
Targum, which, rather, concentrates on her name Keturah as deriving from the root qtr to bind. This tradition finds no place in PRE,
where her name is firmly linked to perfume and incense.47 Ps.-Jon. is
clearly one representative of common targumic tradition on this verse,
found also in FTP, FTV and two marginal glosses of Tg. Neof., that she
was bound to Abraham, an interpretation known from Gen. R. 61:4
(R. Jehudah, but disputed by R. Nehemiah) and Tanhuma 9,
and familiar to Jerome, Hebr. Quaest. on Gen. 25:16.
Isaacs age at the time of his sacrifice is given by the manuscript of
Ps.-Jon. as thirty-seven years; the editio princeps reads thirty-six. PRE
31:2 likewise gives his age as thirty-seven, as do other sources listed
by Friedlnder.48 Ps.-Jon. sets this in a lengthy dispute between Isaac
and Ishmael about their respective merits and rights of inheritance
from Abraham; PRE gives Isaacs and Ishmaels ages, and then relates
a dispute between Eliezer and Ishmael, who should inherit when Isaac
de Mose aux tournant des deux Testaments, Cahiers Sioniens 23 (Paris, 1955),
pp. 6392. It certainly does not support an alleged anti-Islamic stance on the part of
Ps.-Jon.
47
See Friedlnder, op. cit., pp. 219220; and cf. Philo, Quaestiones in Genesim
IV.147, for the same derivation of the name. PRE has made use of an ancient tradition, but whether wittingly or not is difficult, perhaps impossible, to decide.
48
192
chapter ten
is slaughtered! Isaacs age could have been deduced from Scripture

at any time. It is unnecessary to suppose that the Targum derived
information from PRE, and the variant reading of the Targums editio
princeps, coupled with the fact that the settings in PRE and Ps.-Jon. in
which the information is given diverge sharply, militate against such
a supposition.49
In Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 25:29 we find the following aggadah:
And on the day that Abraham died, Jacob boiled dishes of lentils and
went to console his father. And Esau came from the countryside and
he was weary, for he had committed five transgressions on that day: he
had served idolatry, shed innocent blood, had sexual intercourse with a
betrothed maiden, denied the life of the world to come, and despised his
birthright.
This aggadah exists in similar form in b.Baba Bathra 16b, and Ps.-Jon.s
version should properly be compared with the talmudic account. By
contrast, PRE 35:1 has a statement from R. Eliezer that lentils are food
of mourning: Abels parents ate them after his murder, and Jacob ate
them because the kingdom, dominion and birthright belonged to Esau.
This is followed by the abrupt note that Abraham had died that day.
Israel ate lentils in mourning for the destroyed Temple and because of
their exile; only when Israel gave Esaus children lentils in mourning,
and took from them the dominion of the kingdom and the birthright,
would Esau fall.
The Targum and PRE are poles apart. First, Jacobs consumption
of lentils is part of targumic tradition and is found in Tg. Neof. of
this verse. Second, Ps.-Jon. envisages Isaac, Jacob and Abraham in
close geographical proximity on the day of Abrahams death; this is
not so in PRE, but is a tradition known to Jubilees 23:17. Abrahams
death is noted in Gen. 25:8, and the birth of Jacob and Esau in
Gen. 25:2526. The Targums relating Jacobs activity with the lentils in
Gen. 25:29 to Abrahams death recorded earlier in the chapter (before
Jacobs birth!) implies the kind of rearrangement of the scriptural
record represented in tradition by the rewriting of Jubilees. Third,
Esaus five transgressions play no part in PRE, but are found in Gen.
R. 63:12; his denial of resurrection and despising of his birthright are
found also in Tg. Neof., its gloss, FTP, and FTV of Gen. 25:34. Finally,
49
See further C.T.R. Hayward, The Present State of Research into the Targumic
Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac, JJS 32 (1981), p. 132.
193
in PRE the reason for Jacobs mourning is not primarily the death of
Abraham: it is the ascendancy of Esau. Thus the Targums exegetical
foundations involve an understanding of the biblical text which PRE
does not share, and Abrahams death appears in the latter merely as a
stray detail, awkwardly introduced into the aggadah. In the Targum,
however, it is integral to the interpretation of the whole verse. Far
from supporting the view that the Targum has derived the detail from
PRE, the evidence indicates that there is a strong argument in favour
of PRE having borrowed this note from another source, possibly from
Ps.-Jon. itself.
That Zilpah and Bilhah were both daughters of Laban from a concubine is found in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 29:24, 29. It is an old tradition,
found in Jubilees 28:9; cf. Test. Napht. 1:9, 11. A scriptural basis for
the view that they were Labans daughters is given in Gen. R. 74:13,
as is the case in Ps.-Jon.s rendering of the two verses under consideration. PRE 36:3 takes Gen. 29:29 as proof of the general statement
that a mans daughters by his concubine are called handmaids, but the
Hebrew of this verse, And Laban gave to his daughter Rachel Bilhah
his handmaid, to be her handmaid, does not in fact support the statement of PRE. Clearly, PRE has in mind the traditional, and presumably authoritative, understanding of Gen. 29:29 set out here, not the
Hebrew text pure and simple. Thus Ps.-Jon. and Gen. R. stand as representatives of that tradition on which PRE bases its case.
The account of the evil report made by Joseph to Jacob about his
brothers in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 37:2 reads:
He had seen them eating flesh torn from a living animal, the ears and
the tail. So he came and told his father.
According to PRE 38:4, Joseph had seen the sons of his fathers concubines eating flesh from live sheep and lambs. The Targum does not
specify the animal, but PRE does, and while the Targum lists the parts
of the animals eaten, PRE does not.50 Furthermore, in the Targum,
all Josephs brothers are guilty, whereas in PRE it is only the sons of
his fathers concubines who are to blame, a tradition attested earlier
in Test. Gad 1:6; but they merely kill the best of the sheep without
Reuben and Judah knowing. The tearing of limbs from live animals,
50
So in Friedlnders translation, op. cit., p. 291. Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 267,
gives a text which reads the flesh of the tail of living sheep, noting the variant readings. Cf. also Bowker, op. cit., p. 241.
194
chapter ten
however, is an accusation brought against the brothers in Gen. R. 84:7.

The divergencies of the material in the Targum and PRE, the witness
of a mainstream midrashic source that the brothers had eaten live animals, and the coincidence of PRE with Test. Gad regarding the identity
of the offenders, all suggest that we are not dealing with texts which
depend on one another in some simple and obvious manner. Rather,
we have a tradition of high antiquity, which has evolved slowly over
the centuries in different ways in different documents.
The statement of Gen. 45:27, that Jacobs spirit revived when he
heard that Joseph was alive, becomes in Ps.-Jon.:
and the Spirit of prophecy which had been taken up from him at the time
when they sold Joseph dwelt and rested on Jacob their father.
PRE 38:4 refers to a vow taken by Josephs brothers when they sold
him; during the time that ban was in force, the Holy Spirit was absent
from Jacob. When they ended the vow, the Holy Spirit returned to
their father, as recorded in Gen. 45:27. The version translated by Prez
Fernndez adds:
Onqelos translates: And the Spirit of Prophecy dwelt on Jacob their
father.51
In many respects, this passage offers one of the clearest demonstrations of a characteristic of PRE which has become progressively more
evident throughout this essay, namely, its citation of verses from the
Hebrew Bible as proof of matters which themselves do not figure in
that same Hebrew text, but are indeed part and parcel of traditional
interpretations and understandings of those same verses. The traditional
interpretations concerned are to be found, as we have seen, in Talmud
and Midrash, and in non-rabbinic sources; they are also found in Ps.Jon. It is, therefore, no surprise to discover that Ps.-Jon. says nothing
of a vow taken by Josephs brothers, and the explicit testimony of some
witnesses to PREs text, that Tg. Onq. refers to the Spirit dwelling on
Jacob at this juncture, confirms in some degree our view that PRE
often cites Scripture taking for granted its already existing and widely
known and accepted traditional interpretation. Tg. Onq., indeed, says
51
So Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 269. Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 294, n. 5, specifies
this as the readings of the first editions, regarded by Luria as a gloss. The reading
which PRE attributes to Tg. Onq. is, in fact, more akin to Ps.-Jon., which has spirit
of prophecy for Tg. Onq.s spirit of holiness.
195
that the Holy Spirit dwelt on Jacob their father; thus Ps.-Jon., with its
special relationship to Tg. Onq., stands firmly within targumic tradition and need owe nothing to PRE.
In Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 3:5, God says of the holy ground were Moses
receives the revelation in the burning bush:
on it you are destined to receive the Torah, to teach it to the sons of
Israel.
Once more, PRE 40:2 quotes the Hebrew of Exod. 3:5 as proving the
very matter predicated by Ps.-Jon.:
Moses! Stand where thou art standing, for there in the future will I give
the Torah to Israel, as it is said, And He said: Draw not nigh hither . . .
for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground . . . Hence (the sages)
said: Anyone who enters the Temple must remove his shoe . . .52
The first editions of PRE vary the last statement, to the effect that all
who enter a holy place should remove their shoes.53 Targums Neof.,
Onq. and Ps.-Jon. indicate that Moses was standing in a holy place;
perhaps the first editions of PRE have been influenced by the official
Targum. The site of the burning bush is the place of the giving of the
Law in Josephus, Antiquities III.62. Furthermore, PRE in this section
has a sentence in Aramaic: on seeing the bush, Moses asks, What kind
of glory is there in its midst? The glory of Gods presence features
prominently in the Targums of this chapter, in Tg. Neof., Tg. Ps.-Jon.
and Tg. Onq. of verses 1 and 6. These facts suggest that PRE has used
well-known ancient material, current particularly in targumic sources,
to construct its exposition.54
Before the Torah was given at Sinai, Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 19:17 tells
that the Lord uprooted the mountain and lifted it into the air. It was
transparent, like a mirror. PRE 41:1 says nothing of the mountains
being lifted into the air, nor of its transparency, but it does say that
the heavens were opened and that Sinais summit went into them,
details absent from Ps.-Jon. The first editions of PRE add that Sinai
was torn from its place, which may bear some slight resemblance to
52
Translated Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 314. See his textual notes: the citation of the
scriptural verse in his manuscript does not extend beyond the words draw not nigh
hither.
53
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 314, n. 10.
54
196
chapter ten
the Targum,55 but Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 3:123130, Yalqut

Shimoni Exod. 284, b.Shabb. 88a, Avod. Zarah 2b and other texts all
record the removal of Sinai. Given the discrepancies between PRE and
Ps.-Jon., there is no good reason for associating the two texts directly
in respect of a single somewhat doubtful detail.
Interpretation of the house of Jacob as the women of the house of
Jacob, and of the sons of Israel as the house of Israel, is found in
Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 19:3; the marginal gloss of Tg. Neof. interprets similarly, defining sons of Israel as the men of the house of Israel, exactly
as in Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Bahodesh 2:67 and Exod. R. 28:2; cf.
b.Shabb. 87a. PRE 41:3 says that the sexes were separated when Israel
received the Torah, and Exod. 19:3 is offered in support of this view,
its exegesis being set out as in Mekhilta, Exod. R. and the gloss of Tg.
Neof. But Ps.-Jon. does not state that the sexes were separated at this
time, and it seems as if PRE has utilised once more a well-known traditional interpretation of a verse to underscore its own concerns. Ps.Jon. stands firmly within targumic tradition: it is not drawing upon
PRE. The Targums of Exod. 19:3 show variations into which Ps.-Jon.
comfortably fits. The gloss of Tg. Neof. is identical with the exegesis of
Mekhilta; Ps.-Jon. is close to this, lacking only the precision that sons
of Israel refers to the men. FTP speaks of men and tribes, FTV of
men and synagogues. Ps.-Jon. seems to stand half-way between the
FT, which does not distinguish the sexes, and the gloss of Tg. Neof.,
which names both women and men.
It is true that Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 24:12 refers to the rest of the Torah
and to the 613 commandments on the tablets of stone which God
wrote to teach Israel, but this exegesis does not correspond to PRE
41:6, which expounds Exod. 20, produces by gematria from the word
the number of 611 commandments, and finds in a well-known
exegesis of Ps. 62:11 the remaining two commandments.56 Ps.-Jon. is
dealing with Exod. 24:12, which includes the words the Torah and the
commandment. The Targum does not employ gematria to produce
611 commandments from the word Torah, but explains it as the rest
of the words of the Torah and goes on to define the commandment
as the 613 commandments. The common interpretation of Ps. 62:11
55
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 318, n. 5.

For the tradition of two commandments delivered in one Divine utterance, see
Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Shirta 8:3441; Bahodesh 7:61; Sifre Num. 42, 102; Num.
R. 11:7.
56
197
as referring to two commandments of God spoken in one utterance

has no relevance here. There is no connection between the Targum
and PRE; on the contrary, the Targums exegesis of this verse is based
on principles and concerns quite different from those of PRE.
The Hebrew of Lev. 14:8 orders the cleansed leper to remain outside
his tent for seven days. Ps.-Jon. renders:
. . . he shall remain outside the Tent where he dwells, and shall not draw
near at all to his wife for seven days.
The Targum translates the Hebrew literally, and then incorporates traditional exegesis of the clause dwell outside his tent found in m.Neg.
14:8, Sifra Mezora Parashah 2:11, b.Moed Qatan 7b and 15b, and
H ullin 141a, as meaning refrain from conjugal relations. It is certainly
not dependent on PRE 46:1, which offers an interpretation of Deut.
5:30, return to your tents, as meaning return to your wives, itself
based on the earlier command in Leviticus. Ps.-Jon. gives the traditional meaning of this expression in its traditional place, and it is wilful
even remotely to imply that PRE 46:1 provides a source for Ps.-Jon. in
this matter.
4. Some Cases of Mistaken Identities
The aggadah about Jochebed in Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 2:1 says that Amram
divorced her because of Pharaohs decree; she was 130 years old when
he again took her to wife, and her youth was miraculously restored.
PRE 48:1 discusses the length of Israels stay in Egypt, calculating the
years and noting that Jochebed was 130 when she bore Moses. The only
point of contact between these two texts is Jochebeds age. PRE has no
reference to her betrothal to Amram, their divorce, Jochebeds return
or her renewed youth. By the same token, the Targum says nothing
of the length of stay in Egypt, which is PREs only concern; the latter
uses Exod. 7:7, not Exod. 2:1, to give Jochebeds age, which is plucked
from the air without scriptural authority. The Targums true affinities are with texts such as b.Sotah 12a, Baba Bathra 119b120a, Exod.
R. 1:19, and Num. R. 13:20, all of which fully share the aggadic concerns of Ps.-Jon., including Jochebeds age.57
57
Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 46:27 notes that Jochebed was born at the moment when Jacob
entered Egypt, so as to make up the exact number of seventy persons who went into
198
chapter ten
Ps.-Jon. of Lev. 24:1011 has a long description of the blasphemer

who uttered the Divine Name. He was a sinful man who rebelled
against God. The son of an Egyptian who had killed an Israelite man in
Egypt fathered a son who was born in the midst of Israel. When Israel
dwelt in the desert, he claimed the right to pitch his tent among the
tribe of Dan, but was forbidden to do so. The matter was brought to
the judges. The son of the Israelite woman (whose name was Shelomit)
and the Israelite man of the tribe of Dan was judged guilty, and thereupon he blasphemed.
PRE 48:5 tells how an Egyptian taskmaster murdered Shelomits
husband and raped her; the son of this union followed his fathers
nature and began to blaspheme when Israel left Egypt. Such are the
differences between this simple story and the complex narrative of Ps.Jon. that it is hard to envisage how one text might be related to the
other. Somewhat closer to the Targum, although far from identical,
are versions of the blasphemers origins and actions found in Exod.
R. 1:28 and Lev. R. 32:4. Decisive is the rape of the Israelite woman
in PRE. No such thing occurs in Ps.-Jon., although Prez Fernndez
appears to find it there.58
Josephs brothers bought shoes with the money they acquired
by selling him, according to Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 37:28 and PRE 38:4.
Friedlnder notes the affinities of PRE with Test. Gad 2:3, and suggests that the note may derive from Test. Zab. 3:2 or its source.59 There
is thus no a priori reason why the Targum should depend on PRE for
its information.
The alleged dependence of Ps.-Jon. of Num. 28:15 on PRE 51:4 is
also highly improbable. This verse refers to the offering of a he-goat on
the New Moon day as an atonement for the diminution of the moons
size, a matter discussed and explained in b.H ullin 60b and Shevuot
9a. Unless decisive evidence to the contrary is available, it would seem
simpler and more reasonable to argue that the Talmud, with all its
stature and authority, has provided the information used by both PRE
and the Targum.
Egypt. The Targums reference to Jochebeds age is motivated by exegetical concerns

foreign to PRE. The exact number of seventy persons who descended into Egypt is
brought about by the inclusion of God Himself, according to PRE 39:1.
58
59
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 293, n. 3, who records also the appearance of this
theme in the Liturgy of Yom Kippur.
199
Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:7 says that Adam and Eve were naked of the garment of , nail-skin or onyx, in which they had been created.60
They sewed together fig-leaves, Aramaic , to make girdles.
PRE 14:2 describes the dress of the first man as
a skin of nail, and a cloud of glory covered him. But when he ate of
the fruit of the tree, he was divested of his skin of nail and saw himself
naked.
Friedlnder has translated a text which also records that the cloud of
glory departed from him;61 see also Yalqut Shimoni Genesis 27. But Ps.Jon. has, very strikingly, no reference to a cloud of glory, even though
this cloud is a favourite theme of that Targum.62 This omission may be
compared with the view of R. Isaac in Gen. R. 20:12 that Adam was
clothed only in nail-skin; there is no talk of a cloud of glory. Further,
we should note the possibility for a play on words in the Aramaic here:
Adams original clothing of tw
pr is replaced by trpy, leaves, of figs.
It is possible that a play on words of this kind actually produced the
tradition which Ps.-Jon. records, although R. Isaacs comment strongly
suggests that he and the Targum represent a point of view which PRE
has gone on to embroider with a cloud of glory.
The sacrifice of Cain and Abel took place on 14 Nisan according to Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 4:3, PRE 21:1 and Yalqut Shimoni Genesis
35. Friedlnders note on this suggests that the Palestinian synagogue lectionary began its first-year cycle of readings in Nisan and
thus determined the date of the brothers sacrifice.63 Long before PRE
was composed, there was dispute whether the world was created in
Nisan or in Tishri, and this was related to the length of Abels life;
Gen. R. 22:4 records one such debate between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua,
the latter arguing that the world was created in Nisan and that Abel
lived from Passover to Pentecost. Ps.-Jon., however, has a clear preference for placing important events in Nisan which PRE does not share,
60
Ps.-Jon. may here present a textual problem. If le Daut is correct in reading
garments of , beauty, then any possible link between the Targum and PRE
dissolves; see Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, p. 91. Given the indubitable reference
to garments of nail/onyx in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:21, however, support for reading the
same expression in this verse is not entirely absent.
61
62
Clarke et al. list at least forty-five uses of this expression in their concordance,
op. cit., p. 469.
63
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 153, n. 1. But his reference to Chrysostomus c. 175
c.e. must be a typographical error!
200
chapter ten
and introduces this month no fewer than eighteen times into paraphrase where the Hebrew original does not require him to do so. It
must frankly be admitted that PRE could easily have acquired this
detail from Ps.-Jon.
In Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 6:20, God tells Noah that the animals for the Ark
shall come in to you by the hand of the angel, as of one taking and bringing them to you to preserve them alive.
Shinan regards this as a digest of material found in PRE 23:1, but if this
is the case, not only pruning but also substantial alteration has taken
place.64 In PRE, the very complex problem facing Noah is described.
Where is he to put which animals? There were 366 kinds each of cattle,
fowls and reptiles; there were more beasts unclean than clean; how
was he to distinguish them all? Noah protests to God that he has no
strength to gather them, so the angels appointed over each species went
down and gathered them together, and brought them and all their food
into the Ark.
PRE speaks of angels appointed over each kind of animal. If Ps.Jon. has truly made a summary of PREs aggadah, why has he omitted
this detail, which is precisely in line with Ps.-Jon.s recognized interest in the various classes and duties of the angels?65 More important,
it is also the very detail which would give a clue to his audience that
he was referring specifically to a tradition known in PRE. There are
considerable differences between the two texts as they stand, and the
Targum on its own gives no hint of Noahs perplexity, the vast problems confronting him and his lack of strength. If the Targum had
wished to intimate to cognoscenti that it was referring to a fuller tradition found in PRE by giving a hint of a digest of that tradition, would
it not have said that the animals should go into the Ark by the hands
of the angels appointed over each kind? The matter would surely have
been simplicity itself. It is far more probable that Ps.-Jon. presents not
a digest of PRE, but a variant of one aspect of a tradition of which
PRE happens to be a representative. The Targum itself needed to
explain the differences between Gen. 6:19, where God orders Noah to
bring the animals, and the following verse, which says that they would
come to him. The angel is the Targums device for eliminating the
64
65

Sec above, pp. 226228 on Gen. 11:7.
201
problem presented by Scripture; PRE, however, includes the notion

that the animals would come to Noah of their own accord (see also
Gen. R. 32:45, b.Zeb. 116a), which is rendered otiose by Ps.-Jon.s
translation.
5. Well-Known Aggadah in PRE and Ps.-Jon.:
Some Observations
The story of the girl Pelitit and the wicked men of Sodom appears
briefly in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 18:21. God says:
I shall be revealed now, and see whether they have acted entirely according to the complaint of the young girl Pelitit which has come before Me
(lit.: Him). (If so), they are guilty; but if they have performed repentance,
are they not righteous before Me as if I did not know it? Then I will not
punish them.
The Targums discussion of repentance, which takes up most of the

exegesis, is closely related to Tg. Neof. of this verse, and has been analysed by Chester.66 It plays no part in PRE. Mention of Pelitit is found
in PRE 25:3, with a long account of her charity towards a poor man of
Sodom and her subsequent discovery and torture by the wicked townsfolk. Ps.-Jon. may assume that this story is so well known as merely
to require a hint of it in his paraphrase.67 But it is open to question
whether this mention of Pelitit constitutes proof that the Targum has
borrowed the story from PRE.
The aggadah about a girl who shows pity to the poor in Sodom
is represented outside PRE in b.Sanh. 109b and Gen. R. 49:6 where,
however, she is unnamed. The name Pelitit is the only item in which
PRE and the Targum agree, and in actual fact we have no means of
knowing whether the name was borrowed by PRE from the Targum or
vice-versa, or by both from some common source. For the Targum is
entirely silent on the whole aggadah, and may only hint that it knows
66
See Chester, op. cit., pp. 105109; FTP, FTV and Tg. Onq. of this verse; Gen.
R. 49:6; Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Beshallah 5:4657; Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2,
pp. 214216.
67
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 162; vol. 2, p. 214; and discussion in Bowker,
op. cit., pp. 212213; le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, p. 191; and Yalqut
Shimoni Genesis 83.
202
chapter ten
more than it expresses. Neither can the possibility that the name Pelitit
was added by a copyist be entirely ruled out.68
The long account of Esaus death in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 50:13 exists in
a number of different versions, and the evidence suggests that Ps.-Jon.
represents a particular form of a tradition which developed in different ways in different documents; there is no reason to suppose that it
must depend on PRE 39:3, since the differences between the texts are
very great. Thus (1) in the Targum, Jacobs sons carry their dead father
to Canaan and Esau sets out from Mount Gabla to go to Hebron for
the funeral. In PRE, Esau comes from Horeb or Seir to stir up strife
and claims ownership of the burial cave; this is lacking in the Targum.
(2) The Targum has Esau refuse to let Joseph bury Jacob in the cave;
this is found in PRE, but also in other texts, notably b.Sot ah 13a and
Gen. R. 97 on Gen. 49:21. (3) Naphtali went to Egypt, and on the same
day brought back the title deed to the cave; so the Targum, Gen. R. and
b.Sota h. PRE says that Joseph sent him to subdue the constellations;
otherwise, he is noted as a swift messenger.69 These details are missing
in the Targum. (4) The Targum has Joseph hint to H ushim ben Dan:
the latter cut off Esaus head with a sword. PRE, Gen. R. and b.Sotah
note that H ushim was deaf, a point lacking, though probably assumed,
by the Targum. PRE makes H ushim ask questions about Esau at this
point, which are not found in the Targum. The Targum alone presents
Joseph as the one who indicates to H ushim that he should kill Esau.
(5) In the Targum, Esaus head rolled into the cave and came to rest in
Isaacs bosom. In PRE, however, H ushim takes the head into the cave.
According to the account in b.Sotah, Esau was struck by H ushims
club so that his eyes were dislodged and rolled out, a detail found also
in Gen. R.; both these sources relate the incident to Jacobs laughter.
(6) In the Targum, the sons of Esau buried their fathers body in the
field of the cave; PRE notes that they, Jacobs sons, sent his body to
Mount Seir. (7) PRE adds that Isaac grasped Esaus head and prayed
68
It is quite possible that the name Pelitit has been added by a copyist to a complete Targum text which, like b.Sanh. 109b and Gen. R. 49:6, originally referred to an
unnamed girl.
69
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 309, and Prez Fernndez, op. cit., pp. 279280, who
compares Test. Naph. 3:24; 5:18. The tradition that Naphtali was the swift runner
who brought news to Jacob that Joseph was alive and who went to Egypt to fetch the
deed of the burial cave to refute Esaus claim is part of the stock of targumic lore,
and is not borrowed from PRE: see Tg. Neof. and FT of Gen. 49:21, and Ps.-Jon. of
Gen. 31:4; 49:21.
203
that mercy be shown to him, a request which God firmly denies. This
does not figure in the Targum.
This brief survey of what is an extended aggadah in different texts
is enough to indicate that simple dependence of one document on
another is not sufficient to account for the variations in the same tradition represented in the sources. We have here an aggadah used by different authorities for different purposes at different historical periods,
and Ps.-Jon.s version has its own integrity.70
When God instructed Moses to return from Midian to Egypt, Ps.Jon. of Exod. 4:19 (cf. also Exod. 10:29) makes Him say that the men
who sought to kill Moses
have become nothing and have gone down from their possessions, and lo,
they are accounted as dead persons.
In PRE 40:2, we read:

Were they dead? Were they not alive? Only they had gone down from
their wealth. Hence you may learn that all who lose their wealth are as
though they were dead as it is said: For all the men who sought your life
are dead (Exod. 4:19).
Those who sought to kill Moses had been identified as Dathan and
Abiram, and the biblical statement for they are dead has been
understood as they are as if they were dead.71 Dathan and Abiram
play a part in later narratives, so their death here is not meant literally but figuratively. The marginal gloss of Tg. Neof. interprets in the
same way as Ps.-Jon., and this understanding of the verse is also known
from texts such as b. Avodah Zarah 5a, Exod. R. 5:4 and Tanhuma
13. Again, PRE appears to assume the very interpretation of the verse
which the other texts, including Ps.-Jon., establish as valid; there are,
therefore, no grounds for supposing that the Targum owes its exegesis
to PRE. Finally, Ps.-Jon. has the detail that the men have become nothing, which PRE lacks.
According to PRE 46:1, Israel received the commandments on a
Friday, the sixth day of the month, at the sixth hour; there is a variant
70
The Targum is much gentler to Esau than is PRE, which has a harsh conclusion,
possibly reflecting bitter hostility to Rome in a particular period. See also Tanhuma
6; Yalqut Shimoni Genesis 162; and Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 143;
vol. 2, p. 286.
71
This matter is discussed by le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 2: Exode,
p. 38, where further bibliography is listed.
204
chapter ten
reading to the effect that this happened on the ninth day at the sixth
hour.72 Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 19:16 places the giving of the Law on the
sixth day of the month at morning time, that is, before the sixth hour,
which is noon. The Targum and PRE agree that the Law was given on
the sixth day, but this is a view held also by Mekhilta de R. Ishmael
Bahodesh 3:3334, b.Shabb. 88a and Sefer Ha-Yashar 82:6. It is a wellknown tradition and it is improbable that the Targum has borrowed
it from PRE, where the hour of the day, made precise in a manner
foreign to Ps.-Jon., has a particular exegetical part to play.73 Direct
dependence of the Targum on PRE is hardly likely, given the existence
of the tradition in other authoritative texts.
Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 2:13 identifies the two Hebrews who were contending as Dathan and Abiram: Moses saw that Dathan had raised his
hand to strike Abiram and checked him. PRE 48:4 quotes the Hebrew
of the same verse as proof that the men were Dathan and Abiram,
but has no reference to Dathans lifting his hand. While Friedlnder
regarded this Targum verse as dependent on PRE, Prez Fernndez
suggests that PRE may have used Ps.-Jon.!74 The Targum is hardly
likely to depend on PRE, however, since the latter regards Exod. 2:13
as a proof-text that Dathan and Abiram were the men in question, and
this can be gleaned, not from the Hebrew text itself, but only from the
traditional understanding of that verse, of which Targum Ps.-Jon. is a
representative, along with b.Ned. 64b, ARNAa 20 and Exod. R. 1:29.
Num. 16:2526 describes these two as wicked men, on the basis of
which they are identified as the contenders in Exod. 2:13.75 Finally,
PRE stresses that Moses killed the Egyptian in the land of Midian by
a word, and this is not recorded in Ps.-Jon.76
Most famous is the note in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 21:21 about Ishmael:
And he dwelt in the desert of Paran, and took as wife Adisha (;)
and he divorced her, and his mother took for him Fatima, a woman of
the land of Egypt.
Much has been made of this verse, as indicative of the Targums antiIslamic stance and of its dependence on PRE 30:3, so much so that
72

Thus Israel received the Torah at the sixth hour, returned to their tents at the
ninth, ate the prepared manna, and rested on the Sabbath.
74
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 380, n. 2; Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 335.
75
See le Daut, Targum du Penlateuque, vol. 2: Exode, p. 23.
76
See Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 379, who points to the antiquity of this notion.
73
205
Shinan seems to believe that this verse can only properly be understood in the light of PRE.77 In the latter text, Ishmaels wife is called
Ayesha; there are variants of the name but none correspond to the
Targums Adisha.78 Although the point is a minor one, it may prove
useful as an indicator to the independence of the texts. Both texts,
however, agree that Ishmaels second wife was Fatima.
PRE has a long aggadah which explains why Ishmael took two wives.
Abraham visited Ishmael and encountered his first wife Ayesha, who
was a Moabitess. Ishmael was absent from his tent, so Abraham asked
for refreshment; Ayesha refused to supply food or water. Abraham
therefore asked her to give Ishmael a cryptic message, and on his return
Ishmael understood his fathers enigmatic words; as PRE points out,
the son of a wise man is half a wise man, so Ishmael was not lacking
intelligence, and divorced his wife. His mother took for him Fatima, a
woman of Egypt. Later Abraham paid another visit and Ishmael was
again absent, but Fatima provided food and refreshment for Abraham,
who stood and prayed to God for Ishmael. Thereupon Ishmaels house
was filled with good things and blessings, and Ishmael knew that his
father still loved him.
The story as told by PRE carries no anti-Islamic thrust. The opposite
is the case, since Abraham ends by praying that Ishmael be blessed,
and it is clearly stated that Abraham still loves him. Those who regard
Ps.-Jon. as informed by anti-Islamic polemic are presented with a
severe problem, if it be truly the case that Ps.-Jon. can only be understood in the light of PRE, for PREs message is pro-Islamic, praising
Fatima and putting into Abrahams mouth prayers for the blessing of
Ishmael. Ohana especially has asserted that Ps.-Jon. adoped from PRE
mainly negative aspects of the latters portrait of Ishmael,79 but if Ps.Jon. is anti-Islamic, and dependent on PRE such that this verse can be
properly understood only through PRE, how are we to interpret this
piece of pro-Islamic material in Ps.-Jon.?
But not all are agreed that Ps.-Jon. is in reality anti-Islamic, or even
that it has Islam in view at all, and it may be argued that the names
of Ishmaels two wives were introduced late into the completed text
of the Targum by a modernising scribe. The curious targumic spelling
77
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 163, and literature cited there.
Variants include Essah, Ephah, yysh: see Friedlnder, op. cit., p. 218, n. 7; and
Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 211.
79
See Ohana, art. cit., pp. 384385.
78
206
chapter ten
of the first wifes name suggests that the copyist of that manuscript
was unfamiliar with the PRE names in their various forms. That these
names are the additions of a late copyist is not at all improbable. The
wives would originally have been unnamed, and an exegesis of this
kind would have provided the springboard for the developed aggadah
of PRE. A modernising copyist of the Targum later added, incorrectly
in one case, the names of the wives known to him from PRE or some
other source. This explanation of the Targum, we submit, is as convincing, if not more compelling, than that which sees it as an antiIslamic text which can only be correctly understood in the light of a
pro-Islamic original.
The description of the teraphim in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 31:19 has material in common with PRE 36:4, but a similar description appears in
Tanhuma 12 , which has details lacking in the account of PRE also
found in the Targum. Thus Tanhuma and the Targum refer to the divinations or incantations put beneath the tongue of the salted head of
a first-born which makes up the teraphim; this is lacking in PRE, and
it is noticeable that some texts of the latter omit the whole extended
description. Two other collectionsYalqut Shimoni Genesis 130,
Zechariah 578 and Sefer Ha-Yashar 31:41have the same description,
but with some variations of detail. Indeed, a glance at Friedlnders
translation and his notes of the textual variants, and a comparison
of these with the material given by Prez Fernndez, shows that this
material, which is of a potentially very dangerous sort for religious
orthodoxy, was subject to a good deal of attention in the early Middle
Ages.80 Consequently, it would be extremely hazardous to venture any
opinion about the relationship of the various descriptions of the teraphim to one another, although the agreement of the Targum in detail
now with PRE, now with Tanhuma, might suggest that a common
source lies behind all the present versions.
PRE states that one of Rachels motives for stealing the teraphim
was to extirpate idolatry from Labans house; this does not feature in
Ps.-Jon. But Jacobs statement that whoever had stolen the idols would
die before his proper time found in PRE 36:4 does find a place in
Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 31:32, as also in Tanhuma 13 and Pesiqta de Rav
Kahana 14, 116b. Finally, we may note that Ps.-Jon. of Num. 22:5 and
80
See Friedlnder, op. cit., pp. 273274: Prez Fernndez, op. cit., pp. 254255.
Two witnesses lack almost the entire passage.
207
31:8 identifies Laban with the arch-sorcerer Balaam; the identification

of Laban as Beor, Balaams father, is made by b.Sanh. 105a, which goes
on to say that Beor was also Balaams name, but it is entirely lacking
in PRE. It is just possible that the Targums note about the teraphim of
Laban arises from the aggadah of his death found in Ps.-Jon. of Num.
31:8 and Num. R. 22:5, where the high priest Phinehas slays LabanBalaam with the golden plate worn on the high priests forehead. It is
entirely fitting that Laban, who consulted teraphim which had incantations inscribed on a golden plate under its tongue, should be brought
down by the real, authentic golden plate of the high priest.81
6. Concluding Remarks
This necessarily lengthy survey has revealed several recurring features,
of which five in particular stand out. First, in certain instances, we have
shown that the Targum and PRE have nothing whatever in common.
A selection of such cases would include the Messiah styled youth or
little one; the creation of Leviathan and his mate on the fifth day;
the inability of uncircumcised Abraham to stand before God; and the
story of the blasphemer. In these and other similar instances listed
above, it would seem that a kind of dogma is at work. PRE is alleged
to have some relationship with Ps.-Jon., thus it must follow that any
apparent and superficial similarity between the two documents may be
used quite uncritically to show a coincidence or link indicating that
mutual relationship. There can be little doubt that gratuitous assumptions about the supposed dependence of Ps.-Jon. on PRE have led to
mistaken identification of parallels between the two texts. This phenomenon is not rare, and as a rule of thumb it is worthwhile to suggest that any alleged parallel between PRE and Ps.-Jon. be thoroughly
investigated; it often turns out to be no such thing.
Second, on numerous occasions PRE makes use of verses from the
Hebrew Bible as proof of some aggadic statement. The Hebrew texts
themselves constitute no such proof; their interpretations, however,
commonly do provide the meaning which PRE takes for granted. These
interpretations are to be found in the Talmud and the Midrashim, and
are represented also in Ps.-Jon. As examples, we may recall here the
81
For the identification of Laban with Balaam, see further le Daut, Targum du
Pentateuque, vol. 3: Nombres, p. 208.
208
chapter ten
Holy Spirit resting on Jacob; the place of the burning bush as the site of
the Giving of the Torah; dwelling in the tent as a metaphor for sleeping with ones wife; and the ancestry of Hagar. In all these cases and
in many others, PRE assumes such interpretations of the Hebrew text
as well-known, lawful and authoritative. It follows that the idea that
Ps.-Jon. may depend in some way on PRE in these particular instances
is so highly improbable as to be without real foundation.
Third, Ps.-Jon. is seen to share with the other Targums interpretations and details of exegesis which may figure in whole, in part or in
small point in PRE. Very many items which we have discussed show
this to be the case, and, where Ps.-Jon. is so clearly linked to the common stock of targumic tradition, possible influence from PRE is effectively reduced to vanishing point.
Fourth, discussion of apparent similarities between Ps.-Jon. and
PRE has hitherto paid little or no attention to the textual state of these
documents. PRE itself exists in a number of witnesses which sometimes differ markedly from one another, alleged parallels with Ps.Jon. occurring in only one or two of the manuscripts or editions. The
question arises as to what constitutes PRE, given that the work appears
to be composite, is possibly incomplete, and is undoubtedly indebted
to traditional source material which it has utilised for its own particular purposes.82 The strong and evident possibility that individual
scribes and copyists, throughout the history of the text of PRE, continued to lift material from other documents and insert it into PRE
must never be forgotten. Ps.-Jon., indeed, may have been one such
document from which material was derived.
Fifth, we have encountered a number of extended traditions which
are found not only in Ps.-Jon. and PRE but also in other documents.
Examples include the lengthy account of Esaus death and the making
of the teraphim. In these and in many other items of aggadah, we have
found that Ps.-Jon.s version may have as much, if not more, in common with documents other than PRE. We have noted how the underlying exegetical principles of the two texts are often radically different
and completely unconnected: a case in point is the matter of the 613
commandments in Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 24:12. And the survey has shown
again and again how the fundamental thrust of the Targums exegesis
82
See Friedlnder, op. cit., Introduction pp. xiiixvi; and Prez Fernndez, op. cit.,
pp. 2526.
209
differs radically from that found in PRE. There are also clear indications in this catalogue of supposed points of contact between Ps.-Jon.
and PRE that the texts are independent of each other: one need only
recall the matter of Leviathans creation on the fifth day.
In all this, we have reckoned without the undoubted differences
between PRE and Ps.-Jon. which Prez Fernndez has listed.83 Neither
have we taken account of the necessary requirements for proof that
one text is dependent on another. This latter concern must be taken
seriously. Before ever we may assert that one text depends in some
way upon another, there must be clear and unequivocal evidence that
this is truly the case. There must at least be substantial borrowings
of material; regular use of identical phraseology and vocabulary over
wide portions of text; the use of the same material for the same general
purposes; firm grounds for holding that the texts in question are not
themselves dependent upon sources prior in date to them which they
might have drawn upon independently; and good reason to believe
that minor similarities between the documents are not, in fact, the
result of coincidence or the work of later copyists. To the best of our
knowledge, no claim that Ps.-Jon. stands in such relationship to PRE
has been convincingly put forward. When these considerations are
added to the results of our analysis of Prez Fernndezs list of coincidences in small details between Ps.-Jon. and PRE, we feel justified
in reiterating our original conclusion that the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
is not simply and directly dependent upon Pirqe de R. Eliezer.
83
See Prez Fernndez, op. cit., pp. 3536.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN TARGUM

PSEUDOJONATHAN: THE CASE OF ELIEZER AND NIMROD
Since critical study of the Aramaic Targumim began, scholars have
debated the date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (hereafter PJ) and its
relationship to the other Targumim of the Pentateuch. Those who
consider this Targum an essentially ancient composition dating from
Talmudic times or earlier have consistently been challenged by others,
who regard PJ as having originated in the Islamic period.1 Scrutiny
of the arguments adduced in support of an Islamic (or later) date for
PJ, however, reveals them as not entirely convincing. So, for example,
the alleged dependence of the Targum on Pirqe de R. Eliezer (= PRE)
and other late midrashim is open to serious question; there are no
solid grounds for believing that the Targum is aware of the Islamic
conquests; and in places where its exegesis is very much sui generis,
the Targum reveals concerns of the Talmudic period, or earlier.2 On
the other hand, PJ displays apparent inconsistencies and contradictions
which are cited as evidence of its Islamic or medieval date.3 Thus the
Targum seems to offer inconsistent, contradictory, and even blatantly
1
An excellent survey of nineteenth century opinions is offered by R. le Daut,
Introduction la Littrature Targumique, Premire Partie (Rome 1966), pp. 89101,
with a critique of more recent views. A date in the Islamic period is championed by
D.M. Splansky, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: its relationship to the other Targumim, use
of Midrashim, and Date, thesis (Hebrew Union College, 1981), and largely accepted
by A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim
(Tbingen 1986), pp. 252256. But the most impressive arguments for the lateness of
this Targum are marshalled by A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to
the Pentateuch, 2 vols, (Jerusalem 1979) (in Hebrew): see especially 1, pp. 119146;
2, p. xvi.
2
See C.T.R. Hayward, The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: some comments,
JJS 40 (1989), pp. 730, and the response of Shinan, Dating Targum Pseudo- Jonathan:
some more comments, JJS 41 (1990), pp. 5761; Hayward, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 7793; and Jacobs Second Visit to
Bethel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish
and Christian Literature and History, ed. P.R. Davies and R.T. White (Sheffield 1990),
pp. 175192.
3
See A. Shinan, The Palestinian TargumsRepetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287, and the discussions of this matter which follow.
inconsistencies and contradictions
211
mistaken accounts of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, and Nimrod

the wicked tyrant; whether this is truly the result of its alleged lateness, or whether other explanations are more probable, is the subject
of this essay.
The difficulty and complexity of the verses which we have to discuss
are themselves good reasons for dealing with these passages, and serve
to indicate that oversimple solutions to questions which the Targum
raises are unlikely to tell the whole story. So much, we believe, will
become clear as we proceed.
1. The Story of Eliezer
The Targum first speaks of Eliezer in its rendering of Gen. 14:14. The
Hebrew text, which has no reference to him, reads as follows:
And when Abram heard that his brother had been taken captive, he led
forth (wyrq) his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and
eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan.
Difficulties here include the word wyrq, which may be translated in

different ways. Furthermore, this is the only verse which refers to three
hundred and eighteen servants of Abraham: there has been no preceding record of their birth, and they take no further part in the narrative
of Genesis. Their appearance was bound to arouse comment, given that
Abrams household at this time was not renowned for its high birth
rate.4 PJ has the following interpretation: deviations from the Hebrew
text are italicized.
And when Abram heard that his brother had been taken captive, then he
armed his young men [wzyyn yl wlmwyy] whom he had trained for war
out of those who had been reared in his house; but they were unwilling
to go with him. So he chose from them Eliezer, the son of Nimrod, who in
strength was likened to all of them, three hundred and eighteen; and he
pursued as far as Dan.5
4
See Gen. 15:23, with specific reference to Eliezer, and 18:1115. The childlessness
of Abraham and Sarah laid them open to Gentile taunts, according to the midrashim:
see, e.g., Ber. Rab. 53:10; Deb. Rab. 1:25; and PJ of Numb. 21:34.
5
The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have been used: E.G.
Clarke, in collaboration with W.G. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and E. Spitzer, Targum PseudoJonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (New Jersey 1984); A. Sperber,
The Bible in Aramaic, 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden 1959);
A. Dez Macho, MS Neophyti I, 1, Genesis (Madrid-Barcelona 1968); M.L. Klein, The
212
chapter eleven
The Targums understanding of Hebrew wyrq t hnykyw as he armed

his young men is found in Targum Neofiti I (hereafter TN) and
Peshitta of this verse: the latter uses exactly the same words as PJ. It is
one of the oldest understandings of the words known, being found in
Jubilees 13:25, which states that Abram armed the servants of his house.
Another ancient text, 1QGenApoc col. xxii:6, explains the Hebrew as
meaning that Abram chose from his servants men chosen for war, a
rewriting of the narrative which has obvious affinities with the Targum.6
The antiquity of these interpretations makes it clear that PJs understanding of the Hebrew is a traditional one. Other possible meanings
of the words are not considered, as they are, for example, in Ber. Rab.
42 (43): 2. There we find five explanations of wyrq: the third of these,
given by R. Abba b. Zabda, corresponds closely with the Targum and
says that Abram made them glisten (hwryqn) with armour. But the
final explanation of the word in Ber. Rab., in the name of R. Levi, states
that Abram made them courageous (hryqn) by reading the Scriptural
passage wtrym, (= Deut. 20:19). This last includes an invitation to all
who are afraid or faint hearted (wrk hlbb) to depart before battle begins
(Deut. 20:8), an exegesis taken up by later Midrashim like Tanhuma,
which presents Abram addressing his troops and dissuading the sinners from taking part in the battle. As a result, they wander away, and
only Eliezer is left.7
These observations point to the distance between PJs rendering of
the Hebrew, and the possibilities set forth in Ber. Rab. and more fully
worked out in Tanhuma. The Targum says that Abram armed his men
of war, but that they were unwilling (wlsbw) to go with him; therefore
Eliezer was chosen. The clear sense of the Targum is that they refused
Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, 1 (Rome 1980);

Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, 1 (Cincinnati 1986).
Translations are our own.
6
See the text in J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1. A
Commentary (Rome 1971), p. 72: wbhr mn bdwhy gbryn bhyryn lqrb. While LXX read
he numbered his own people, the Vulgate introduces a more markedly military note
with he numbered his home-born ones who were ready for action, expeditos.
7
See Midrash Tanchuma, ed. S. Buber (Wilna 1885), hereafter Tanhuma B.,
16, and J. Theodor and H. Albeck, Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und
Kommentar, 4 vols. (Berlin 19031936), p. 416 notes. The exegesis of Tanhuma
is remote from the Targum, depending as it does not on the actual word wyrq of
Gen. 14:14, but on the similar-sounding, but quite unrelated, rk, tender or faint, of
Deut. 20:8. The Targums statement that Abrams men refused to go with him is not
related to Tanhumas interpretation.
213
to go, so that Abram was forced to make other arrangements: the

same view is expressed in the marginal gloss of TN of this verse. Thus
PJ does not interpret the Hebrew verb wyrq along the lines of more
developed interpretations to explain the departure of the Patriarchs
army; and this helps us to establish the Targums independence of
later midrashic texts in this matter.
The description of Eliezer as son of Nimrod, however, appears not to
be found in ancient sources. We find it in the late Midrash Ha-Gadol,
which has probably derived it from the Targum. We encounter elsewhere a related opinion, that Eliezer was a slave whom Nimrod had
given to Abraham.8 The probable reason why PJ has made Eliezer the
son of Nimrod will become clear when we discuss the Targums presentation of that character.9 For the moment, we shall leave this matter, and concentrate on the comparison of Eliezers strength with that
of the three hundred and eighteen.
We should first record that PJ owes nothing to PRE for its explanation of this verse. Here we read (PRE 27:2) that Abram at first pursued
his enemies with Eliezer and three disciples, named in some witnesses
as Aner, Eshchol, and Mamre, as far as Dan; and then left his disciples
and wives to go with Eliezer alone to Damascus. The only point of
contact between PJ and PRE is the three hundred and eighteen which,
as is well known, is the numerical value of Eliezers name.10 This gematria appears in a host of sources, including Ber. Rab. 42(43):2, where
R. Simeon b. Lakish uses it to prove that Eliezer alone accompanied
Abram.11
It is often pointed out that the early Christians had recourse to this
verse, and contrived that the number three hundred and eighteen
should refer in some way to Jesus.12 Etan Levine has therefore suggested
that PJ presents a piece of anti-Christian polemic, according to which
See PRE 16:3, according to which Nimrod gave him to Abraham when the latter left Ur. For the text of PRE, we have used the Spanish translation in M. Prez
Fernndez, Los Captulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia 1984).
9
See below, p. 223 ff.
10
The story of Aner, Eshchol, and Mamre, Abrahams disciples, is found also in
Midrash Ha-Gadol, Genesis, ed. M. Margoliouth (Jerusalem 1967), pp. 234235.
11
See also, e.g., b. Ned. 32a; Wayy. Rab. 28:4; Bem. Rab. 18:21; Pesiqta de Rab
Kahana 8:2; Tanhuma 13; and Mid. Teh. on Ps. 110:1.
12
See J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969), p. 195,
quoting Epistle of Barnabas 8:9 and Clement, Stromateis 6:11; R. le Daut, Targum du
Pentateuque, I, Gnese (Paris 1978), p. 162; and L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
5 (Philadelphia 1934), p. 224. See also Ambrose, De Fide, Prologue. This number was
214
chapter eleven
Eliezer, not Jesus, is the hero of the story.13 But Shinan gives good
reasons for rejecting Levines suggestion;14 and we may strengthen his
observations by noting that PJs exegesis is implicit already in a preChristian source. Philo, in De Abrahamo 230233, presents Abraham
as without allies: he dismisses his servants (oiketas) as unreliable, and
organizes those born in his house into an army. He did not, says Philo,
trust in these, but in God, the champion and defender of the just (alia
ti hupermachi kai proagnisti tou dikaiou theou).15 In other words,
Abraham knows that God is my helper, which is a meaning of the
name Eliezer.16
On the one hand, PJ is familiar with pre-Christian understandings
of individual words in this passage which have, to some degree, determined its exegesis of the whole verse. The Targum owes nothing to
PRE; and its presentation of Eliezer conforms to that expressed also in
Ber. Rab. and the Babli. On the other hand, it is only in the medieval
Midrash Ha-Gadol that we encounter Eliezer as Nimrods son. This
may be accounted for in different ways. It might be argued that here
we find evidence for the late, post-Islamic composition of the Targum,
or that the text, while incorporating very ancient material, has undergone substantial redaction in the early Middle Ages. Again, it might be
argued that this note is a mere scribal gloss introduced by one familiar
with the Midrash Ha-Gadol, and that it is therefore of little evidential
value for determining the date and place of the Targum. Or we may
here have evidence that PJ is like a Yalqut , gathering materials from
different sources and places, whose final date must be determined by
also said to be the total of the Fathers assembled at the first Council of Nicaea in 325:
see Athanasius, Ad Afros 2.
13
See E. Levine, Some Characteristics of Pseudo-Jonathan Targum to Genesis,
Augustinianum 11 (1971), p. 93.
14
See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 2, 346.
15
Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 224, also draws attention to Philos interpretation; it may
well be based on the observation that the three hundred and eighteen play no further part in the story, and the further deduction from this that Abraham must have
received help which could have come only from God.
16
Further confirmation of Shinans contention that anti-Christian polemic is not
at work in the Targum and related texts comes from the Christian documents themselves. Ep. Barn. 9:8 conflates the three hundred and eighteen men of Gen. 14:14 with
the note in Gen. 17:23 that Abraham circumcised all the men of his household to
show that Abraham, the first to be circumcised, looked forward in spirit to Jesus, since
the 318 in Greek numerals may be represented as I H for eighteen, and T, a symbol
of the cross, standing for three hundred. The Targum does not even begin to engage
with this assertion.
215
the latest elements in its compilation. That none of these arguments

is necessarily convincing becomes clear once the whole picture of the
Targums treatment of Eliezer and Nimrod is examined. To this we
must now address ourselves.
Eliezers first, and only appearance in the Bible occurs in Gen. 15:2,
which reads:
And Abram said: O Lord God, what will you give me, since I go childless, and the one who is heir (bn mq) of my house is Dammeseq Eliezer
(dmsq lyzr)?
The translation of the Hebrew given here is only one of many possibilities, for the text bristles with problems.17 Attempting to deal with
these, PJ renders:
And Abram said: O Lord God, many things hast Thou given me, and
many things are before Thee to give me; but what profit do I have, since
I am going forth from the world, who am without sons? And Eliezer, the
son of the administration of my house, by whose hands wonderful deeds
were performed for me in Damascus, is hoping to inherit from me.
This interpretation is shared largely with TN, the Fragment Targums in

the Paris and Vatican MSS (FT[P], FT[V]), and the Geniza Manuscripts
(GM); they, however, describe Eliezer as son of my house, in common
with R. Simeon b. Lakish in the name of bar Kappara, Ber. Rab. 44:9.
Much closer to PJs son of the administration, br prnst, is TOs version,
which has br prns. Both phrases mean much the same thing: Eliezer
is the person in charge of the management of Abrahams household.
This interpretation of the Hebrew bn mq is reflected in other ancient
interpretations, and features again in PJ.18
In common with the other Palestinian Targums, PJ understands
dmsq lyzr as referring to wonders which Eliezer performed for
Abraham in Damascus, the place-name providing the springboard for
17
The meanings of mq and dmsq lyzr are quite uncertain. The former is hapax
legomenon, and the latter is scarcely intelligible. The problems, and attempts of the
Versions to solve them, are set out in J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on Genesis (Edinburgh 1912), pp. 278279.
18
See Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in Genesim on this verse: he cites Aquila, who
reads the son of the one who gives drink to my house, and Theodotion, the son of
the one who is over my house. These interpretations do not, however, entirely agree
with PJ and TO, who rather understand Eliezer himself as the one in overall control
of the household. Nonetheless, all these sources seem to represent him as a steward
of Abraham, understanding mq in that sense. See further PJ of Gen. 24:2, discussed
below, p. 217 f.
216
chapter eleven
the exegesis. But the Palestinian Targums, including PJ, do not specify
these wonders: they are spoken of as simply as nysyn. Perhaps we are
meant to think of Eliezers part in Abrahams conquest of the four
hostile kings recorded in Gen. 14:14. Thus in Ber. Rab. 44:9 R. Simon
b. Lakish in the name of bar Kappara interprets dmsq lyzr as meaning the one by whose hands I pursued kings as far as Damascus, and
Eliezer was his name; but nothing is said here of wonderful deeds. PJ
stands entirely within the tradition of the Palestinian Targums of this
verse, and does not elaborate it in any way. While the victory over the
kings may be implied by PJ, it is certainly not stated, and need not be
part of the exegesis at all.19
PJ next refers to Eliezer in its account of the Aqedah. Alone among
the Targums, it gives the names of the two young men who accompanied Abraham and Isaac as Eliezer and Ishmael (Gen. 22:3).
And Abraham arose early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took
with him his two young men, Eliezer and Ishmael, and Isaac his son.
And he cut wood of olive, fig, and palm, which are fitting for the whole
burnt-offering, and arose and went to the place which the Lord had said
to him.
The same identification of the youths is found in Wayy. Rab. 26:2, 7;

Qoh. Rab. 9:7.1; Midrash Ha-Gadol of this verse; and later collections.20
PRE 31:2 names them, and has them dispute during the journey to the
Aqedah which of them shall be Abrahams heir. PJ owes nothing to this
tradition, having already (Gen. 22:1) recorded a serious disagreement
between Isaac and Ishmael over the same matter: it is presented as the
direct cause of Gods command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. But the
question who shall be Abrahams heir is forced on us by the Bible itself,
which has already hinted that Eliezer stands to inherit (Gen. 15:2), and
goes on to speak of Ishmaels birth as a natural son of Abraham (Gen.
19
See also the Targumic material preserved in Bereshith Zutta , quoted by
M. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments of Lost Targumim, Part 1 (Ramat-Gan 1983), pp.
4243 (in Hebrew). The complex narrative of Abraham and Eliezer pursuing the kings
to Damascus, found, e.g., in PRE 27:2, is entirely lacking in the Targums; on the other
hand, Josephus, Ant. I. p. 183 makes Abraham question God about what benefit he
may derive from the divine favour when he is childless, a ploy found also in the
Targums. It should not too readily be assumed that the wonderful deeds refer to the
defeat of the kings: Jerome, Heb. Quaest. ad. loc., says that they (probably his Jewish
sources) relate this verse to the founding of the city of Damascus.
20
See Midrash Ha-Gadol, ed. Margoliouth, p. 351; Theodor-Albeck, Bereschit
Rabba, 594, notes; Sefer Ha-Yashar, 44b; and Rashi on this verse.
217
16:411). By naming the two youths as Eliezer and Ishmael, PJ may be

referring indirectly to this same question; the two are unambiguously
called his (i.e., Abrahams) young men in the Hebrew text, and it is
hard to see who else could be referred to here.
Furthermore, the identification may well be an ancient one, despite
its non-appearance in early texts, since PJs exegesis of the rest of the
verse includes pre-Christian material in the note that Abraham used
olive wood for the sacrifice. This is forbidden by the Mishnah (Tamid
2:3; cf. b. Tamid 29b), but permitted by an ancient halakha preserved in
Jubilees 21:12 and in an Aramaic fragment of the Testament of Levi.21
Finally, Eliezer figures in PJs version of Gen. 24, which tells how
Isaac acquired his wife Rebekah at Abrahams prompting. A servant
was sent to find a wife for Isaac:
And Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his house, who had
authority over all that he possessed, Put now your hand beneath my
thigh. (Gen. 24:2)
The Targum refers this to Eliezer, as follows:

And Abraham said to Eliezer his servant, the elder of his house, who
had authority over all his storehouse, Put now your hand on the mark of
my circumcision.
None of the other Targums identifies the servant as Eliezer, but we find
the same tradition in b. Yoma 28b, where it is already assumed that the
servant is Eliezer, and where he is said to have been a Torah scholar:
thus R. Eleazar explains this verse as meaning that Eliezer ruled over
the Torah of his master. The Talmuds exegesis very probably arises from
the often-stated view (see, e.g., Sifra Qedoshim Parashah 3, Pereq 7)
that the word elder, zqn, which is used in this verse to describe Eliezer,
may mean sage in the sense of Torah scholar.22 For the moment, let us
record that PJ simply identifies the servant as Eliezer, and notes that
he had control of Abrahams store-house: whether the Targum knows
of the Talmudic picture of Eliezer as Torah scholar cannot be decided
on the information given by its version of Gen. 24:2.
21
For the Aramaic fragment of Test. Levi, see R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 (Oxford 1913), p. 364.
22
Eliezer is also presented as a Torah scholar in b. Ned. 32a (R. Abbahu in the name
of R. Eleazar), which expounds Gen. 14:14 accordingly.
218
chapter eleven
The treatment on Eliezer by Bereshith Rabbah, however, reveals a

negative side to his character. On the one hand, Ber. Rab. 59:8 comments on Gen. 24:2 without telling us who the servant was, and explains
the clause who had authority over all that he possessed as meaning
that he was master of his passions, as was Abraham. It is only when we
reach Ber. Rab. 59:9, commenting on Gen. 24:5, that the equation of the
servant with Eliezer is made, and that in an oblique and unflattering
manner. The servant is assumed to be a Canaanite; consequently the
Midrash applies to him the dictum of Hosea (12:8) Canaan, balances
of deceit are in his hand; whereupon we are told that Canaan refers to
Eliezer. The verse of Hosea is then interpreted: it signifies that Eliezer
had thought to take Rebekah for himself, and to rob Isaac of his rightful wife; whereupon Abraham reminds the Canaanite of the curse laid
upon his ancestor Ham (Gen. 9:22). The implication, of course, is that
Eliezer is a slave, and this is made explicit in Ber. Rab. 60:2.
This negative appreciation of Eliezer is heightened in PRE 16:3,
which uses the quotation from Hosea to suggest that he was guilty
of immorality. Thus when Rebekah reached Isaacs dwelling, it was
suspected that she was not virgo intacta, and she was required to
undergo the examination prescribed by Deut. 22:15. She was found
to be unharmed; and PRE takes the opportunity to tell how Eliezer
had been Nimrods slave, presented by his owner to Abraham when
he left Ur: now Abraham grants him his freedom. God, too, gives him
a reward in this world, since there is no reward for the wicked in the
world to come: he is declared to be Og, king of Bashan.23 It will be
clear that all this is far removed from the simple, direct statements of
the Targum.
When Eliezer reaches his destination, he meets Laban, who invites
him into the house, saying, according to the Bible, I myself have prepared (Hebrew pnyty, lit.: turned) the house and a place for the camels (Gen. 24:31). PJ states:
Now Laban thought that he was Abraham, and said . . . I myself have emptied the house of idolatry, and have prepared a place for the camels.
23
Prez Fernndez, op. cit., p. 136, n. 15, believes that the identification of Eliezer
with Og, king of Bashan, depends on PJ of Gen. 14:13. This cannot be correct, since
PJ never identifies the two men, and clearly distinguishes between them. Again, in PJs
version of Gen. 14:13, Og is named as the fugitive who tells Abraham of Lots capture,
while according to PRE 27:1 the archangel Michael performs this task.
219
The Targum does not explain why Laban thought that Eliezer was
Abraham. Possibly it takes for granted the view of Ber. Rab. 59:8
(cf. 60:7), that the splendour of his appearance (lit.: eikn) was comparable with Abrahams, and therefore Laban confused the two men. We
should also recall the remark of b. Yoma 28b, that Eliezer was a Torah
scholar. Furthermore, in Biblical Hebrew, the verb pnh may have the
force of clear away, put out of the way as well as the more common
meaning of turn.24 Not only PJ, but also TN and the marginal gloss of
TN understand that Laban had rid the house of idolatry, the marginal
gloss of TN adding incest and shedding of innocent blood as well.25
But they do not follow PJ in suggesting that Laban thought that Eliezer
was Abraham. Unlike LXX, Vulgate, and Peshit ta, which render the
verb as prepare, these Targums have taken it to mean get rid of ; and
they must consequently supply it with an object. Now Abraham was a
monotheist, and his household must also be worshippers of the One
true God. A visit from a member of Abrahams entourage would therefore require Laban, a known idolater (Gen. 31:19, 30, 34), to remove
his cult objects from the house. Once the removal of the idols had
been established as a Targumic interpretation, the identity of the visitor could be considered: and PJ may have developed its understanding
in purely Targumic terms, without reference to other sources.
Laban offered Abrahams servant hospitality:
There was set (wyysm) before him to eat. But he said: I shall not eat until
I have spoken my words. So he [Laban] said: Speak. (Gen. 24:33)
The form of the verb set, wyysm, is curious: the Massorah records
wayyisem as Kethib and wayyusam as Qere. What should be noted is
the consonantal form of the word, which is spelled with two letters
yodh.26 The Targum translates:
And they set before him a dish to eat in which was the like of something
fatal (kmdqtwl): but he sensed it, and said, I shall not eat until I have
spoken my words. So he said: Speak.
24
See, e.g., Isa. 40:3; 57:14; Mal. 3:1. The Aramaic cognate verb, pny, is used by PJ:
in Pael, it means remove, empty.
25
For pnyty as meaning the removal of idolatry, see also Ber. Rab. 60:7; b. Yoma
28b; b. Baba Bathra 16b; ARNa 8; Aggadath Beresith 68; Midrash Ha-Gadol, ed.
Margoliouth, p. 401. Shinan, The Aggadah, I, p. 170, suggests that PJ may depend on
Ber. Rab. for exegesis of this verse: it is not clear that such is necessarily the case, given
the different emphases of PJ on the one hand and the Midrash on the other.
26
On the Kethib-Qere variant, see Skinner, op. cit., p. 345.
220
chapter eleven
PJ specifies what was set before Eliezer, as do LXX and Vulgate with
their addition of bread. That the food was adulterated is expressed
differently, however, in the text of PJ edited by Ginsburger, which
states that there was sm dqtwl, fatal poison contained in it.27 This latter reading co-incides with the statement of the Midrash Ha-Gadol on
this verse that they put sm, poison, in the food, and is repeated in
other late Midrashim. This detail is not recorded in early texts.28 It can
be understood only in the light of PJs interpretation of 24:55, which
reports that Rebekahs brother and mother suggest that she remain
with her family for some time. The Targum adds to the Hebrew text
the information that
while they were speaking in the evening, Bethuel was eating from that
dish; and they found him with lips compressed, for behold, he was dead.
It is evident that the Targum is attempting to resolve difficulties inherent in the Biblical text. Foremost among these is the fact that Rebekahs
father, Bethuel, appears once only in the whole story: in verse 50, he
readily agrees with Laban that it is Gods will that Rebekah go with
Eliezer to become Isaacs wife. However, when the time comes for
Rebekah to leave home, her father is not in evidence; it is her brother
and mother who grant permission for her to leave, but at the same
time request that she delay the journey for ten days. These curious
details could easily be explained if it were assumed that Bethuel had
died after his conversation with Laban; and, from the first century
ad onwards, a tradition is known to this effect. Thus Josephus, Ant.
I. 248, has Rebekah herself declare that Bethuel is dead, and that her
brother and mother are now her guardians.29 Likewise Ber. Rab. 60:12
asks where was Bethuel, and reports laconically that he had been smitten in the night. Given this death, we might reasonably suppose that
27
See M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan. Thargum Jonathan ben Usil zum Pentateuch
nach der Londoner Handschrift (Berlin, 1903), p. 41. The same reading is attested by
B. Walton, SS Biblia Polyglotta (London 1657).
28
See Midrash Ha-Gadol, ed. Margoliouth, p. 403, and the references to Bereshith
Rabbati, Midrash Aggadah, Sekhel T ov, and Leqah T ov cited there; Yalqut Shimoni
on Proverbs 1047; and Rashi on this verse, and Shinan, The Aggadah, 2, p. 286, note
208, for the restriction of this detail to recent texts.
29
H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, p. 4, Jewish Antiquities Books 14 (Harvard 1967),
p. 123, notes that Bethuels death is also implied by Gen. 24:28, which already speaks of
her mothers house rather than her fathers. See also S. Speier, The Targum Jonathan
on Genesis 24.56, JQR (n.s.), 28 (19371938), pp. 301303.
221
Rebekahs brother and mother request a delay of her departure so that

appropriate mourning could take place.
PJ evidently accepts the tradition that Bethuel had died. But the
positing of his death raises obvious questions, how and why did he
die? PJ consequently introduced the aggadah of adulterated food
intended for Eliezer, thereby indirectly making something of a hero of
Abrahams servant, and intensifying the wickedness of Labans character: these are important side effects which will help to determine
what PJ intends.30
The single extant manuscript of PJ informs us that the like of something fatal was put into Eliezers food: this phrase tends to distance the
Targum from those Midrashim which speak of poison as the cause
of death. Poison, as we have seen, is given in Ginsburgers edition of
PJ as the cause of adulteration: Shinan sees this aggadah as evidence
of PJs tendency to incorporate folk traditions, popular stories of a
stereotyped kind.31 He may well be correct, for he certainly provides a
reasonable explanation of the reading the like of something fatal. The
specific mention of poison, however, seems less popular, and more
likely to derive from a scholarly exegesis of the Hebrew verb wyysm,
in which the two letters yodh give rise to two interpretations of the one
word: first it is understood as the verb swm, to place, set, and secondly as the noun sm, poison. Something similar to this is, perhaps,
suggested by the Midrash Ha-Gadol on this verse (ed. Margoliouth,
407). One is reminded of the technique used to explain wyysr in
Gen. 2:7, in which the repeated letter yodh is referred first to the good,
then to the evil ysr (inclination) in human beings.32
Although the adulteration of Eliezers food is not recorded in extant
early texts, we should not conclude that PJs aggadah is necessarily a
medieval development from the ancient tradition that Bethuel had suddenly died. The Biblical narrative itself, and the curious word wyysm,
30
This observation strengthens Shinans view that Josephus and Ber. Rab. 60:12 do
not themselves refer to the aggadah of PJ: see The Aggadah, 1, p. 51. The evidence of
these sources, however, is clear proof that the tradition of Bethuels death was old and
widely known: the Targum equally knows the tradition, and sets out to explain it.
31
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 51, citing S. Thompson, Motif Index of Folk
Literature, 8 (Copenhagen 1955), p. 582, for the theme of the poisoned meal and its
claiming the wrong victim.
32
See, e.g., Ber. Rab. 14:4; b. Ber. 61a; PJ of Gen. 2:7. But the repeated yodh was
also understood as referring to other types of twofold creation: see Ber. Rab. 14:23,
5; and Bowker, op. cit., pp. 116117.
222
chapter eleven
demand explanation. A popular tradition may also be involved, and

the exegesis of wyysm provided by Ginsburgers text of PJ is of a kind
already attested in the Talmudic period. A final verdict must wait,
however, until we have examined all the data.
Eliezers last appearance in PJ occurs in 24:61. The Targum adds to
the Biblical verse this aggadah:
And just as the road was shortened for him (Eliezer) when he went to
Paddan-Aram, so it was shortened for him when he returned: for on one
day he went, and on one (i.e., the same) day he came back.
The story is well known, and is told also (e.g.) in b. Sanh. 95a; H ullin
91b; and Tanhuma 3. It is possible that Jerome knew the bare outlines of this aggadah, since the Vulgate notes that the servant returned
in haste ( festinus revertebatur) to his master. The Targum says nothing,
however, about details furnished by PRE 16:3, that an angel accompanied Eliezer (cf. Ber. Rab. 59:10; 79:4) to shorten the road, and that
the journey took three hours each way. PRE also insists that the whole
journey was accomplished during the hours of daylight, so that Eliezer
should not have to travel alone with Rebekah at night.
Some general comments are now possible. First, it cannot be doubted
that the Targum gives us an entirely positive account of Eliezer. He is
the son of a monarch, Nimrod: not a hint is given that he might once
have been a slave. His strength is likened to that of three hundred and
eighteen; wonders were performed by him for Abraham in Damascus;
he is the eldest of Abrahams servants, and is so like his master that
he may be taken for him, and those who meet him remove idols from
their dwellings. Laban tried to poison him; but his mission to procure
a wife for Isaac was not thwarted, and he accomplished his task, miraculously, on one and the same day. There is not the slightest trace of
criticism of Eliezer; and the negative elements found in Ber. Rab., PRE,
and other texts noted above play no part in the Targums exegesis.
Second, with the possible exception of the statements that Eliezer
was Nimrods son and that his journey was miraculously shortened,33
every item of Targumic interpretation is the product of a direct attempt
to resolve real difficulties in the Hebrew text: these are either inherent
in the narratives themselves, or are posed by individual words and
33
Eliezers journey to and from Paddan-Aram on the same day is, however, implied
by Gen. 24:42, where he says And I have come today to the well . . .: so b. Sanh. 95a.
223
phrases. Many of the solutions which PJ offers have demonstrably

ancient (in some cases pre-Christian) antecedents.
Third, only one item of interpretation is entirely without precedent
in texts of the Talmudic period or earlier, namely the designation of
Eliezer as son of Nimrod. Even the aggadah of the poison in Eliezers
food has its beginnings in the ancient, non-Biblical story of Bethuels
death, and is part of an attempt to explain an old tradition.
Fourth, the Rabbinic writings which stand closest to the Targums
exegesis are not texts like PRE and medieval compilations, but works
such as Ber. Rab. and the Babylonian Talmud. PJ clearly has strong
affinities with traditions found in other Rabbinic texts of central
importance. Nonetheless, for this very reason, the Targums occasional
peculiarities are the more obviously in need of explanation. With these
observations in mind, we may now address ourselves to the Targums
treatment of Nimrod.
2. The Story of Nimrod
The Bibles first statement about Nimrod is apparently uncontroversial
and factual. Gen. 10:8 reads:
And Cush begat Nimrod. He began to be a mighty man upon the
earth.
In the Targum, this becomes a statement of a kind known from many

other sources about Nimrods wickedness:
And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty man in sin, and to
rebel before the Lord upon the earth.
The marginal gloss of TN of this verse records the same tradition.

Nimrods name is here understood as deriving from the root mrd, to
rebel: the Hebrew for he began, hhl, was also interpreted by some
authorities (e.g., R. Simon in Ber. Rab. 23:7) as meaning rebel.34
Nimrods wickedness is asserted unambiguously by Philo, De Gigantibus
66 and Josephus, Antiquities I.113114; and the first century ad
writing attributed to Philo, the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 4:7,
34
See J. Bowker, op. cit., pp. 179180; and L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
5, p. 198.
224
chapter eleven
describes him as superbus, arrogant.35 His wickedness features in the

Babylonian Talmud, most notably in Erub. 53a; H agigah 13a; Pes. 94b;
and Meg. 11a. This wickedness and rebellion are further emphasised in
PJs rendering of Gen. 10:9. The Hebrew reads:
He was a mighty hunter (syd) before the Lord. Therefore it is said: Like
Nimrod, a mighty hunter (syd) before the Lord.
This becomes, in PJ:

He was a mighty man of rebellion before the Lord. On account of this it
is said: From the day the world was created, there was none like Nimrod,
a mighty man in hunting and rebellion before the Lord.
In general, PJ agrees with the interpretation of the other Palestinian

Targums. His understanding of the verse is close to TN and its gloss;
but he does differ from FT(V) and FT(P), both of which present
Nimrod as trapping men in their words and urging them to leave the
judgements of Shem in favour of his own.36
The Bible tells next of Nimrods kingdom and its extent: it includes
territory in the land of Shinar (Gen. 10:10). While TO, TN, and FT(V)
refer Shinar to Babylon, PJ interprets the place as Pontus, as also do
FT(P) and the marginal gloss of TN. Shinar is understood as Pontus
by FT(V) and FT(P) of Gen. 11:2, which speaks of the location of the
tower of Babel: in this verse, however, PJ and TN render the placename as Babel. All this, as we shall see presently, is of the very greatest
significance. For the moment, however, it is necessary to proceed step
by step to Gen. 10:11, which reads in the original Hebrew:
mn hrs hhw ys wr wybn t nynwh wt rhbt yr wt klh.
The usual translation of this verse yields:

From that land Asshur went out, and built Nineveh and the city Rehoboth
and Calah.37
35
For the most recent and comprehensive discussion of this work and its date, see
E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3.1, rev. and ed.
by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh 1986), pp. 325331.
36
For TOs treatment of this verse, see J. Bowker, Haggadah in the Targum
Onqelos, JSS 12 (1967), pp. 5758, and Shinan, The Aggadah, 1, p. 140.
37
See, for example, M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth, and Rashis Commentary (London 1946).
225
Accordingly, we can properly understand the exegesis put forward by

Ber. Rab. 37:4, in which Asshur is the subject of discussion:
From that land Asshur went out: from that plan Asshur dissociated
himself. When he saw them coming to wage war against the Holy One,
Blessed be He, he left his land. And God said to him: By your life, since
you have departed from four places, I will give you four (places). Hence
(Scripture says): And he built Nineveh . . .
The plan referred to in this midrash is the proposal to build the Tower
of Babel; and the majority of our sources attribute it to Nimrod, who is
named as the brains behind it as early as Philo, Quaestiones et Solutiones
in Genesin II.82, and Josephus, Antiquities I.113114. The Rabbinic tradition generally concurs with this: see b. H ullin 89b, PRE 11:3, and the
reference to the destroyed temple of Nimrod in b. Abodah Zarah 53b.
PJs interpretation of this verse, however, appears very strange and
perplexing, and most scholars seem baffled by it.
From that land Nimrod went out and ruled as king in Asshur, since he
did not seek to be in the counsel of the generation of the division. So he
left these four cities, and because of this the Lord gave to him a place, and
he built four other cities, Nineveh . . .
The generation of the division planned the Tower of Babel; and the
Targum is obviously related in some way to the exegesis quoted above
from Ber. Rab. 37:4. But it is the wicked Nimrod, not Asshur, who
piously leaves the rebellious schemers: can this possibly be correct?
Ginzberg believes not, suggesting that the aggadah in PJ is an interpolation based on the tradition in Ber. Rab., introduced into the Targum
by mistake: Gottlieb argues strongly for this point of view, and it is
sympathetically reviewed by Shinan, who sees in PJs positive approach
to Nimrod affinities with late medieval midrashim such as Maaseh
Abraham Abinu.38
All this, however, fails to notice a point made by Bernard Grossfeld,
that the Hebrew text of Gen. 10:11 is ambiguous. The subject of the verb
went out may indeed be Asshur; but it may equally still be Nimrod,
38
See L. Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 5, p. 214; Z.Y. Gottlieb, Targum Jonathan ben
Uzziel on the Torah, Melilah 1 (1943), p. 29 (in Hebrew); Shinan, The Aggadah,
vol. 1, pp. 140141. I have failed to find anything in the medieval midrashim, quoted
by Shinan, which corresponds to PJs exegesis of this verse.
226
chapter eleven
who is the subject of the preceding verse.39 The Hebrew might then
quite properly be rendered:
From that land he (sc. Nimrod) went out to Assyria, and he built
Nineveh . . .
This reading was known in the fourth century ad. It lies behind the
comments made by Ephraem Syrus (c. 306373), which others have
correctly noted,40 that Nimrod waged war on the nations with Gods
approval. Ephraem does not make Nimrod responsible for the Tower
of Babel; rather,
according to the Lords will, he made war with each nation and persecuted them from there, so that they should go and be gathered together
into their regions, allotted to them by God . . . Nimrod was the one who
scattered them; he also captured Babylon and reigned in it first, for if he
had not scattered all of them there would not have been a place which
could have held them all.41
Finally, a further point needs consideration. PJ altogether fails to attribute the plan to build the Tower of Babel to Nimrod. It is not alone
in this, since all the other Targumim of the Pentateuch follow suit.
There is ancient precedent for their approach, for example in Jubilees
10:1826.
In the light of these facts, it seems to us most unlikely that PJs interpretation of Gen. 10:11 is the result of a mistake. For if the Hebrew text
of this verse is taken as referring to Nimrod, then the question at once
arises, why he went out from that land? One might, indeed, make out
a case for arguing that the Targum preserves a very old understanding
of this verse, which was partly favourable to Nimrod; that this tradition was reflected in the other Pentateuchal Targumim, to the extent
39
See B. Grossfield, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, The Aramaic Bible, 6
(Edinburgh 1988), pp. 6061: he also points out that Ber. Rab. 37:4 makes Abraham
the subject of the verb. See also the English renderings of the Revised Version and
Revised Standard Version.
40
For the similarity between Ephraem and PJ of this verse, see E.B. Levine, The
Aggadah in Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel and Neofiti 1 to Genesis, Anexo III in
A. Dez Macho, MS Neophyti 1, 2 Exodo (Madrid-Barcelona 1970), p. 550; and Shinan,
op. cit., pp. 1, 140, who also cites L. Ginzberg, Die Haggadah bei den Kirchenvtern,
MGWJ 45 (1899), pp. 466467.
41
Our translation of the text in R.-M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri In Genesim
et in Exodum Commentarii, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium p. 72
(Louvain 1955), on Genesis section VIII.
227
that they do not make Nimrod responsible for the Tower; and that
Ber. Rab. borrowed PJs interpretation, transferring it to Asshur and
making it conform to the general view that Nimrod was the planner of
Babel. Other information about Nimrod which we gather from PJ will
also presently lead us to conclude that this verse is not a mistake.
The Targums rendering of Gen. 11:28 has also caused problems for
commentators. In the Hebrew, this verse informs us that
Haran died before the face of (l pny) Terah his father in the land of his
birth, in Ur of the Chaldees.
Once more, the Hebrew is ambiguous, since l pny might mean prior
to, or in the presence of . PJ has the following explanation:
Now it happened, when Nimrod threw Abram into the furnace of fire
because he would not worship his idols, that no authority was (given)
to the fire to burn him. And thus Harans heart was divided, saying, If
Nimrod gets the victory, I will be of his party; but if Abram is victorious,
I will be of his party. And when all the nations who were present saw
that the fire had no dominion over Abram, he [sic] said in their hearts:
Is not Haran Abrams brother full of divinations and sorceries? And has
he not cast a spell on the fire so that it should not burn his brother? At
once fire fell from the highest heaven and consumed him; and Haran died
in the sight of Terah his father, just as he was burned in the land of his
birth, in the furnace of fire which the Chaldeans had made for Abram
his brother.
This interpretation divides naturally into four sections, which it will be

convenient to discuss individually.
(a) Abraham, the Idols, and the Furnace
The story of Abrahams being thrown into a furnace because he would
not worship idols was famous. Both PJ and TN refer to it here, and
again at Gen. 11:31; 15:7; and 16:5. It is attested as early as the first century ad: indeed, LAB 6:418 even names Nimrod as one of those who
consign Abraham to the fire. Ber. Rab. 38:13 knows of this also, and
develops the narrative so that Abrahams experience is made to resemble that of Daniel at the court of Nebuchadnezzar.42 PJ here reiterates
in brief compass what is well known from demonstrably early texts.
42
Cf. b. Pes. 118a; Avodah Zarah 3a. See G. Vermes, The Life of Abraham, Scripture
and Tradition in Judaism (2nd rev. ed., Leiden 1973), pp. 8590. His observations on
228
chapter eleven
(b) Harans Dilemma
Here the Targum is very close to Ber. Rab. 38:13, even to the point of
using the same verbal roots, plg to express Harans double mindedness,
and nsh to express the victory which one party or the other will be
able to claim. But Ber. Rab. continues in a vein quite different from PJ.
Abraham was delivered from the flames and Haran opted for his party;
consequently, they (the onlookers) took him and threw him into the
furnace. His bowels were burned up, and he came out and died before
Terah his father. Pace Shinan, Ber. Rab. does not say that Nimrod commanded that Haran be thrown into the flames.43
(c) The Nations Think that Haran is a Sorcerer
Shinan notes that medieval texts picture Haran as sorcerer and
diviner.44 This is undoubtedly true; but he does not reckon with the
probability that they have borrowed this description from PJ, nor does
he consider older presentations of the events. The Targum states that
all the nations are present to witness what happens: this is an old opinion, as is clear from LAB 6; but it does not figure in the medieval
sources. Haran is roundly declared an idolater by Jubilees 12:1213,
and it would be strange if he were not also a diviner and astrologer,
since he came of a family which specialised in these things: his grandfather Nahor had carefully taught them in Ur of the Chaldees, according to Jubilees 11:8.
(d) Harans Death
A tradition that Haran died by fire is old, being found in Jubilees
12:1214; but that book does not foreshadow the complex interpretation
in the Targum, and Shinan is right to reject it as ultimately irrelevant
to study of PJ.45 Certainly relevant is LAB 6:17, which tells how God
caused a great earthquake, such that fire gushed out of the furnace and
lept forth in flames and sparks, killing 83,000 who stood by including,
presumably, Haran. This text already combines two principal elements
the dating of these traditions are particularly relevant for this essay. See also le Daut,
op. cit., p. 146.
43
See Shinan, The Aggadah, 1, p. 46. n. 24; p. 175.
44
See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 46. He cites Midrash Ha-Gadol (ed. Margoliouth,
p. 306); Midrash Aggadah; Maaseh Abraham Abinu and other sources.
45
229
of PJs exegesis; that Harans death was caused by God, and that he
was burned in fire from the furnace. In Ber. Rab. 38:13, the bystanders
killed Haran by throwing him into the furnace: the Targum does not
reflect this tradition.46 Neither Midrash Ha-Gadol nor the Zohar, medieval sources quoted by Shinan, speak of fire from heaven, and Midrash
Aggadah refers only to Gods sending a bolt of fire from the furnace
to kill Haran, this last being reminiscent of LAB.47 Shinan, however,
disagrees with Levines evaluation of this tradition as characteristic of
the spirit of later Judaism, and suggests that it is a popular story of
possibly ancient origin.48 His suggestion is, in our view, entirely valid,
and receives support from LAB 6:17.
What is more difficult to accept is Shinans argument that PJ has
quite negligently and carelessly combined two mutually exclusive
stories, one attributing Harans death to God, the other to Nimrod.49
But PJ does not state that Nimrod threw Haran into the fire, and the
Targums narrative is anything but careless: close attention to the text
shows that an important point is being subtly conveyed. Thus the
nations ascribe Abrahams safety to Harans occult powers, so that
God must prove immediately and directly that these are futile in the
face of His might. But the onlookers may still harbour the belief that
Haran, left to his own devices, might have been able to use sorcery to
protect Abraham; PJ, therefore, resorts to irony, reporting that Haran
himself ended up as a corpse in the very fire he was thought capable
of controlling. The fire from heaven killed him, while Nimrods fire
burned his corpse. This aggadah could have developed easily out of
stories of the kind still extant in LAB 6.
We have still to explain PJs description of Nimrod as King of
Pontus.50 The Targums version of Gen. 14:1, 9, identifies Amraphel,
king of Shinar, as Nimrod, king of Pontus. Nimrod is equated with
Amraphel in many sources as, for example, Ber. Rab. 42:4; b. Erubin 53a;
H agigah 13a; Tanhuma 6; Pesiqta Rabbati 33, and Midrash Ha-Gadol
(ed. Margoliouth), pp. 231232. But, to the best of my knowledge,
only this Targum refers to him as king of Pontus: and this must be
46
For a different view, see Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 175.

48
See Shinan, ibid., arguing against E.B. Levine, Some Characteristics of PseudoJonathan Targum to Genesis, Augustinianum 11 (1971), p. 91.
49
50
See above, p. 46.
47
230
chapter eleven
deliberate, since the place Shinar is otherwise understood as Babel at

Gen. 11:2. At first blush, it seems eccentric of PJ to place Nimrod in
Pontus, a kingdom of north-east Asia Minor; but when it is recalled
that one of the most famous kings of the ancient world, Mithridates
VI Eupator, was king of Pontus, the Targum begins to make sense.
This remarkable man ruled Pontus from 112 to 63 bc. He was a deadly
enemy of the Romans, and his frequent victories over them helped in
the creation of many legends about him. He was the subject of one of
Plutarchs Lives; and the Jews were certainly aware of his activities.51
It is not hard to see why PJ might have been tempted to describe
Nimrod as king of Pontus, given the curious similarities between
Mithridates VI and the biblical character. Like Nimrod, Mithridates
was a giant of a man: Pompey marvelled at his stature, and his armour
was awesome in size.52 He was certainly a mighty hunter, for he had
roamed the wild mountain forests for seven years in his youth, living
by the chase.53 Although he was king of Pontus, he and his ancestors claimed descent from the Persian Achaemenids, the centre of
whose power had been the Mesopotamian region which PJ says was
Nimrods first realm.54 His Persian associations were manifested in
his religion, which gave due deference to Greek and native gods, but
found its clearest expression in the fire-cult of the Magi. On occasions,
as in his celebrations of 81 bc, his vast fire-offerings were little short
of spectacular.55 He ruled as absolute monarch over what Reinach calls
a mosaic of nations speaking an after Babel assortment of twentytwo, or twenty-five, languages.56 Guilty of many murders, especially of
members of his family, he also blasphemed the God of Israel when he
51
The standard treatment of Mithridates VI is still that of Th. Reinach, Mithridate
Eupator Roi de Pont (Paris 1890); but see now P. Green, Alexander to Actium. The
Hellenistic Age (London 1990), pp. 558564, who gives the most recent critical account
of ancient sources for our knowledge of this monarch. I am particularly grateful
to Professor P.J. Rhodes for his help in my work on Mithridates. For Jewish knowledge of this monarch, see Josephus, War I.138; Ant. XIII.421; XIV.53; 112113;
XVI.18.
52
See Reinach, op. cit., p. 276.
53
See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 5354, 276.
54
See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 251, 295; and PJ of Gen. 10:1011. If we are correct in
arguing that PJ has modelled Nimrod on Mithridates, then the Targums version of
Gen. 10:11 discussed above is entirely comprehensible.
55
See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 244, 288289.
56
See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 250, 282; some authorities credited him with knowledge
of fifty tongues.
231
confiscated money from the Jews of Cos.57 He died, at his own request,
by the hand either of his son or of a trusted servant;58 but the ultimate
cause of his demise was Rome, against which he waged many wars:
PJ of Gen. 25:27 records that Esau, a famous Rabbinic code-name for
Rome, killed Nimrod and his son.59 Finally, it should be noted that the
Aramaic word mitreda means hunting dagger; and that in Hebrew
the names Nimrod and Mithridates easily lend themselves to puns on
the root mrd, to rebel.
It would seem, then, that PJs presentation of Nimrod draws on
popular stories about Mithridates VI. If this be the case, the Targums
elaboration of Nimrod as king of Pontus probably dates from the first
century ad at the latest. Such an early date would explain why PJ
describes Eliezer as son of Nimrod rather than his servant.60 For the
Targum would then stand in the tradition of pre-Christian apologists
for Judaism such as Artapanus (3rd2rd centuries bc), Eupolemus
(before 1st century bc), and Pseudo-Eupolemus (before 1st century
bc), who defended their nation by presenting the Patriarchs and great
people of Jewish history as the equals or betters of contemporary
Pharaohs and monarchs, with whom they often consorted.61
Another mystery may also be solved. At Gen. 16:5, PJ makes Sarah
speak to Abraham of the sons of Hagar, the daughter of Pharaoh, the
son of Nimrod, who threw you into the furnace of fire. Many other
sources speak of Hagar as Pharaohs daughter; but nowhere else do
we hear that Pharaoh was son of Nimrod, and PJs version has caused
seemingly intractable problems for commentators.62 Matters may be
explained, however, once we perceive that PJ is moulding a common
57
See Reinach, op. cit., p. 281; Josephus, Ant. XIV. pp. 112113.
See Reinach, op. cit., p. 410.
59
This is not at all connected with PRE 24:5 (cf. Ber. Rab. 65:16), according to
which Esau killed Nimrod to gain possession of Adams garment. It is even further
removed from Ber. Rab. 63:13, which has Nimrod seeking to kill Esau for the robe. See
further C.T.R. Hayward, The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments,
JJS 40 (1989), pp. 1618.
60
See above, p. 211 ff.
61
For the authors named here, their lives, translations of what remains of their works,
and probable dates, see J.H. Charlesworth (ed), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
II (London 1985), pp. 889903 (Artapanus); pp. 861872 (Eupolemus); pp. 873879
(Pseudo-Eupolemus); and cf. Schrer, op. cit., pp. 521525 (Artapanus); pp. 517521
(Eupolemus); and pp. 528531 (Pseudo-Eupolemus).
62
For Hagar as Pharaohs daughter, see Ber. Rab. 45:1; and for discussions of PJs
rendering of this verse, see Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 231; Gottlieb, art. cit., p. 33; and
Shinan, The Aggadah, 1, pp. 153, 159.
58
232
chapter eleven
Targumic tradition to conform to his picture of Nimrod. TN, FT(P),

FT(V) of this verse refer to Hagar as belonging to the sons of the sons
of the people who put Abraham in the furnace. PJ absolutely insists
that Nimrod threw Abraham into the furnace, not surprisingly, if he
delineates Nimrod with Mithridates VI and his fire-offerings in mind.
PJ also knows that Hagar is daughter of Pharaoh; what, then, is simpler than to make Pharaoh the son of Nimrod, and thus set out clearly
the generations of the sons of the sons which the Palestinian Targums
of the verse describe? The effect of PJs rendering is once more to bring
Abraham into contact with royalty, and to insist on Nimrods key role
in the business of the fiery furnace.
3. Conclusions
This study suggests that too much may have been claimed for alleged
inconsistencies, contradictions, and mistakes in PJ as pointers to its
character, provenance, and date. Although we have examined in detail
only two biblical personalities, the results must lead us to question
whether other elements in the Targum, which are commonly regarded
as contradictory or mistakes, are truly so. For close and detailed examination of alleged mistakes and contradictions may indicate that they
are probably nothing of the kind; and that the Targum has a clear and
logical purpose in presenting material in the way it does. As a result,
the use of alleged contradictions and mistakes to give a date to the
Targum should be regarded with suspicion.
There can be no doubting the pre-Christian origin of much of PJs
interpretation of these two figures. We have seen how the Targum
seems to be refining, developing, and explaining not only the text of
Scripture itself, but also very old aggadah of the kind represented,
for example, by the notice of Bethuels death. In other words, it deals
with problems which would have occurred the moment serious study
of Genesis was undertaken by the Jews. As we have seen, there are
good reasons for supposing that PJ has modelled aspects of Nimrods
character on Mithridates VI of Pontus. Once this is recognized, puzzling features of the Targum, which might otherwise be regarded as
mistakes, begin to make perfect sense, and may be explained as preRabbinic interpretations faithfully preserved. Despite claims to the
contrary, I cannot find, in any of the verses examined here, convincing evidence that PJ depends for his exegesis on late Midrashim of the
vintage of PRE and later.
233
PJ also shares many traditions with Ber. Rab. and the Babylonian
Talmud. The affinities between this Targum and such major Rabbinic
writings must surely mean that the Targum was no stranger to the
milieux which produced these texts. Indeed, it is entirely possible, as
this study has shown, that PJ himself may be both a source of information and a sparring partner for Talmud and Midrash in certain
items of exegesis. So, for example, PJs presentation of Eliezer is part
of an aggadic spectrum which extends from neutral and favourable
notices about him in pre-Rabbinic sources, through the mixed reception he receives in Ber. Rab., to hostile comments about him found
in the Babli and, most particularly, in PRE. Within this spectrum, PJ
seems to us to agree most easily with pre-Rabbinic material and with
those positive assessments of Eliezer found in Ber. Rab. and the Babli.
Thus it relays stories which, in interaction with Rabbinic debate, could
form the basis for later criticism of Abrahams servant. PJs stories of
Eliezer and Nimrod would therefore appear to fit convincingly into
the Judaism of the late fourth to fifth centuries ce; indeed, the differences between these stories and those related in medieval sources tend
to confirm our suggestions on this matter.
CHAPTER TWELVE
RED HEIFER AND GOLDEN CALF:

Every student of the Aramaic Targum is aware of the problems and
pitfalls which beset any effort to offer even an approximate date for the
pentateuchal targum conventionally named Pseudo-Jonathan (hereinafter, PJ). The editor of this collection of essays, in a private communication to the writer, has stressed the growing need in targumic research
for contributions which might attempt to offer a positive solution to
the question of PJs date; and he is surely correct to suggest that scholarly attention now focus on items which might afford solid evidence
to decide that question. Yet it would seem that many modern scholars
feel, in fact, that there is sufficient evidence already to justify a reasonably confident dating of PJ in the Islamic period.1 It is because he
is convinced that critical examination of this same evidence does not
support the theories of these scholars, that the present writer has had,
of necessity, to argue in some detail that they have yet to prove their
case.2 Thus the question of PJs date presses more acutely upon us. If
indeed it was not actually composed in the Islamic period, but by that
time already existed as a complete text subject to the minor, random
additions and alterations of copyists which have given it an Islamic
See especially A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch,
2 vols. (Jerusalem: Makor, 1979) (in Hebrew), see especially vol. 1, pp. 119146
and vol. 2, p. xvi; idem, The Palestinian TargumsRepetitions, Internal Unity,
Contradictions, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 7287; idem, Live translation: On the Nature of the
Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, Prooftexts 3 (1983), pp. 4149; D.M. Splansky,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: its relationship to the other Targumim, Use of Midrashim,
and Date, diss. Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion, 1981; and A.N.
Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tubingen:
Mohr, 1986), pp. 252256.
2
See C.T.R. Hayward, The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments,
JJS 40 (1989), pp. 730; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic, JSS 34
(1989), pp. 7793; Jacobs Second Visit to Bethel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, A
Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed.
P.R. Davies and R.T. White (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 175192. Shinan has
responded to the first of these articles in Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some
More Comments, JJS 46 (1990), pp. 5761; his criticisms are answered in Pirqe de
Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, JJS 42 (1991), pp. 215246.
dating targum pseudo-jonathan
235
veneer, when did it come into existence? Can we begin to discover

traces, at the very least, of its origins in the period before the rise of
Islam?
One way of beginning to answer this query might be to try to determine the exact position of the targum in relation to a major halakic
matter. It has long been known that PJ at times diverges quite sharply
from accepted rabbinic rulings.3 If we can explain its peculiar interpretations of a difficult, disputed, and much debated matter like the red
heifer (Num. 19:110), then we may discover fixed points from which
to chart the targums relationship to other rabbinic writings. The red
heifer was of cardinal importance when the Temple stood, and continued to occupy the finest minds among the tannaim and amoraim.4 PJs
interpretation of the heifer, which was clearly of central importance to
Jewish scholars, may lead us part of the way towards discovering the
secret of its origins. This paper examines the targums treatment of the
red heifer, and attempts to show how PJs individual understanding of
this much debated yet vitally important ritual may yield pointers to
the date of that targums origins.
As is well known, the Bibles regulations about the heifer are only
superficially straightforward. Close scrutiny of the text discloses a host
of problems, many of which had long been under discussion before
the Mishnah and talmuds sought to provide authoritative guidance in
the shape of tractate Parah. We shall examine PJ verse by verse, noting in our translation its divergences from the original hebrew text by
means of italics. It will be apparent that its solutions to the problems
of the text many times correspond to those of the Mishnah and other
authoritative sources; on many other occasions, however, the targum
is startling in its individuality. Gods communication with Moses and
Aaron at Num. 19:2 is presented thus by PJ:
This is the decree of the instruction of the law which the Lord has commanded, saying: Speak with the sons of Israel, that they take for you,
from the heave-offering of the chamber, a red heifer, two years old, in
which is no blemish nor trace of any other (color of) hair; on which there
has not come up a male; and which has not been wearied by any burden
3
See, for example, A. Geiger, Urschrift und bersetzung der Bibel (Breslau:
Hainauer, 1857), pp. 170200.
4
So much is evident from the two volumes devoted to the subject by J. Neusner, A
History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities: Part 9, Parah Commentary, and Part 10, Parah
Literary and Historical Problems (Brill: Leiden, 1976). His description of the targumic
handling of the heifer is to be found in Part 10, pp. 212216, and will feature in our
discussions below.
236
chapter twelve
of work or a bit or a cross-piece of a yoke; and which has not been spurred
by a goad, or a wooden prick, or a thorn, or anything which resembles
a yoke.5
The expression decree of the instruction of the law is found elsewhere

in PJ at Lev. 14:54, and the phrase the decree of the instruction occurs
at Lev. 14:32, 57 and 15:32. Where the Hebrew has a bold statement
this is the torah . . ., PJ tends to specify that what is referred to is a
particular instruction, as at Num. 6:13, 21 and Deut. 4:44, understanding Hebrew torah, quite correctly, as an individual rule. The decree,
Hebrew hqh, is regularly translated as Aramaic gzrh: so also Targum
Onqelos (hereinafter, TO), and the Cairo Genizah manuscripts (hereinafter, CG) along with Targum Neofiti (hereinafter, TN), render the
decree of the law. The marginal gloss of TN expounds it as the instruction of the law. PJ here stands within the tradition of the targumim
generally, a matter to which we shall have to return.
The first divergence from the Hebrew of any consequence is the
additional note that the heifer be taken from the heave-offering of the
chamber, that is, from Temple resources. This requirement corresponds
to the regulations laid down by the rabbis in Sifr Num. 123, stated in
general at m. Sheqalim 4:2, and means that the heifer is bought out of
public funds, not from the priests private resources.6 This agreement
with Sifr and the Mishnah is quite direct and uncomplicated.
Having added to the Hebrew a necessary note about the source of
the red heifer, PJ proceeds to interpret the next Hebrew word, which is
tmymh, complete, whole, as meaning two years old. This interpretation is possible first, because the targumim normally translate tmym as
slym, perfect, entire;7 and second, because of the opening statement
of tos. Parah 1:1 which defines a slm beast as two years old:
5
PJ of Num. 19:2. The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have
been used: E.G. Clarke, in collaboration with W.G. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and E. Spitzer,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ:
Ktav, 1984); A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic: The Pentateuch according to Targum
Onkelos, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1959); A. Diez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I: Numeros, vol. 4
(Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1974); M.L. Klein, Genizah
Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, vol. 1 (Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College Press, 1986). Translations are my own.
6
Cf. Neusner, Part 9, p. 226. R. Eliezers view in m. Parah 2:1 that it should not
be bought from the gentiles would certainly not contradict the rule that it be derived
from Temple property. See also Yalqut Shimoni (Wilna: Romm, 1909) vol. 1, p. 512.
7
See, e.g., PJ and TO of Ex. 12:5; 29:1; Lev. 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; TN usually
follows suit, adding the words without blemish to slm. These renderings are almost
invariable where Hebrew has tmym.
237
As for an ox which is 24 months and one day oldlo, this is a slm ox,
This view is immediately corroborated by R. Eliezer here as well as in

Sifr Num. 123. This view of R. Eliezer and the targum is not in agreement with the general view of other rabbis.8 It seems clear, however,
that PJ is indebted first of all to common targumic tradition, which it
then understands in the light of the meaning of slm attributed by other
sources to R. Eliezer. It is no doubt possible that R. Eliezer speaks in
tos. Parah 1:1 of a pr slm under targumic influence, since the Torah
nowhere refers to a beast as being slm. In any event, PJs understanding
of the heifer as a beast two years old indicates a most intricate association between this targum, the other targumim, and halakhic discussions in the academies, a point to which we must return.
We should notice, however, that PJ, by explaining tmymh with
reference to the heifers age, adopts an exegetical base different from
that of the Sifr, which makes this word apply to the heifers perfect
redness.
Heifer: I might understand a black or white one. Scripture says tmymh.
Does that mean perfect with regard to redness, or perfect in respect of
blemishes? When it says in which is no blemish, behold, blemishes
have been spoken of (in any case); so why does Scripture say tmymh? It
means perfect in regard to redness.9
The Scriptural phrase in which is no blemish is translated literally

by PJ, and follows immediately upon its rendering of tmymh as two
years old, (as is apparent from our quotation of it). To express the
requirement that the heifer be perfectly red, the targum adds, after in
which is no blemish, the words nor trace of any other (color of) hair
thus agreeing with the detailed ruling of Sifr and other sources, but
deriving its authority not from exegesis of tmymh, but possibly from
an extension of the significance of in which is no blemish. That is to
say, while the targum acknowledges that the beast be perfectly red, it
would seem not to owe this knowledge to interpretation found in Sifr,
Sifr Zutta, or Tosefta.
See m. Parah 1:1; Sifr Num. 123; Yalqut Shimoni p. 512; and Geiger, pp. 476477.
Quoted from H.S. Horovitz, Siphre dbe Rab (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966).
Translations are my own. See also Rashi ad loc. and Yalqut Shimoni p. 572. That the
heifer should be perfectly red is the opinion of R. Joshua b. Betera in m. Parah 2:5; cf.
Sifr Zutta on Num. 19:2.
9
238
chapter twelve
In the Hebrew, the last clause of the verse reads on which no yoke
has come up. PJ considerably elaborates this fact by stipulating that
no male shall have mounted the heifer. This is the view accepted by
the Sages in m. Parah 2:4, and is consonant with m. Parah 2:1, which
disqualifies a pregnant heifer; its exegetical springboard in the targum
is clearly the verb come up or mount. The Mishnah, however, does
not seek to anchor this rule in Scripture; and neither Sifra nor Sifr
even refer to it. Thus while the targumic ruling on this matter agrees
with the Mishnah, PJ does not necessarily depend on other sources
for the rule. The same may be said of what follows: the heifer must
not have been troubled by work. The statement is quite general, and
certainly includes the well-known requirement of the Mishnah that
any extraneous work involving the heifer makes the beast and the
ritual invalid; but the targum would seem, in fact, to go further than
the Mishnah in stipulating that the heifer do no work of any kind.10
She must not, we are told, have been burdened by anything which
resembles a yoke, implying that a yoke either for work, or not for
work, is prohibited; and with this agree tos. Parah 2:4; Sifr Num.
123; and b. Sotah 46a.11 We should note also the distance between PJ
and the Mishnah when it is a question of other prohibited activities.
The former forbids the heifer to have encountered bit, cross-piece of
yoke, goad, wooden prick or thorn. She must not have been used for
agricultural work (see also Josephus, Antiquities IV.79) or coerced in
any way. The Mishnah, in Parah 2:3, forbids a beast on which a man
had ridden or leaned or hung on its tail: it is invalid if someone had
crossed a river with its help, or doubled its halter on its back, or put his
cloak on it. This is quite a different list of prohibitions from that in PJ,
and serves to introduce the general rule of the Mishnah that work for
the sake of the heifer leaves her valid for the rite, whereas work with
her for any other purpose disqualifies her.12 Of this general rule, the
targum appears unaware, along with the distinction of work for the
heifer or not for the heifer. Before leaving discussion of this verse,
we should note that TO renders the Hebrew almost literally, and that
10
On extraneous work in general as invalidating the rite, see Neusner, Part 9,
pp. 138146 and Part 10, pp. 156161. The Mishnah, Parah 2:3 gives the general rule:
whatever is done for the heifers sake is valid, but work done not for the sake of the
beast invalidates the ritual.
11
For fuller discussion of the yoke, see Neusner, Part 9, pp. 229231 and Part 10,
p. 216.
12
See above, note 10.
239
PJs translation of that Hebrew (as opposed to its exegetical insertions)

exactly corresponds with that of TO, word for word.13
The Hebrew of verse 3 reads:
And you shall give her to Eleazar the priest, and he shall bring her out
to the outside of the camp, and shall slaughter her before him.
PJ interprets as follows:
And you shall give her to Eleazar the prefect of the priests, and he shall
bring her out on her own to the outside of the camp: and he shall set in
order around about her arrangements of wood of fig [trees]. And another
priest shall slaughter her before him, [acting in accordance] with the two
signs [of severed wind-pipe and gullet] as in the case of other beasts; and
he shall inspect her in accordance with the eighteen signs of terefah.
It should be noted that neither here nor elsewhere does PJ suggest

that the high priest is involved in this ritual; and the Targum makes
it clear that the whole procedure is supervised by Eleazar, the Prefect
(Hebrew and Aramaic segan) of the priests. No explanation is given for
the non-involvement of Aaron or Moses; and the expression prefect of
the priests, well known in rabbinic writings, is found in PJ only in this
verse. This means that the targum is certainly implying and probably
stating what other sources rule out, namely, that the Segan was always
to be the supervisor of the red heifer ceremony, a view set out in Sifr
Num. 123, but only to be rejected. For Sifr says red heifers slaughtered after the time of Moses were to be dealt with either by the high
priest or ordinary priests: the Segan is explicitly ruled out. Similarly,
CG describes Eleazar as the high priest. For m. Parah 4:1 the high
priest was normally expected to slaughter the heifer, although R. Judah
permits an ordinary priest to do it; also tos. Parah 4:6 and b. Yoma
42b remove the Segan from this activity in generations subsequent to
Moses. PJ, however, appears to contradict the general rule of the sages.
It signally fails to distinguish between the ritual performed in Eleazars
presence and the rules for later generations, a distinction of a kind
which it knows perfectly well how to draw in other spheres. Thus at
Ex. 12:3 details of Passover observance are restricted to the times of the
Exodus, and are explicitly ruled out for performance by later generations. We may therefore conclude that the targum presumes that the
13
The only variations are minor ones of orthography. TN adds words not found in
PJ, some of which appear also in CG.
240
chapter twelve
Segan will always perform the ritual, and it is this particular point of
view which the Sifr, Tosefta, and Bavli are at pains to reject.
In explaining the Hebrew to mean that Eleazar shall bring out the
heifer on her own, PJ agrees exactly with R. Joses opinion stated in m.
Parah 3:7, and the same view expressed by Rabbi in Sifr Num. 123.14
But the restriction of the fuel for the fire to fig-wood is peculiar to PJ,
even though fig is one of the species enjoined as part of the arrangement (the root sdr is used both in the targum and the Mishnah) by
m. Parah 3:8, which also includes cedar, pine and spruce. Further, the
Mishnah points to a dispute about the type of wood which may be
used.15 Fig-wood is not named in the dispute. The dispute does provide, however, evidence of early disagreements among the authorities
about the wood appropriate for the ritual. The unmishnaic character of PJ on this point is noteworthy, and should be set alongside
the targums interpretation of Gen. 22:3. There, Abraham cuts wood
of olive, fig, and palm, which are said to be suitable for the whole
burnt offering, thus seemingly contradicting the rules of m. Tamid
2:3, which excludes olive.16 The insistence of the targum on fig wood
is strikingit occurs again in the following verseand may be the
result of the great significance accorded to the heifer; for fig wood particularly is used to burn the incense on the great altar in the Temple,
according to m. Tamid 2:5.
The note that another priest slaughtered the heifer is found also in
Sifr Num. 123, Sifr Zutta H uqqat 3, the gloss to TN, and CG. Once
more, PJ does not specify who the priest is; for tos. Parah 4:6, it should
be the high priest, but Rav Samuel in b. Yoma 42a permits a layman to
do it. The idea that someone other than Eleazar the priest slaughters
is very old, since the LXX of this verse states that they (unspecified)
shall slaughter her before him, and it also provides a fairly obvious
explanation for the rather curious Hebrew text. But the targums closest allies remain the Sifr and Sifr Zutta. The former text seems to
assume what the targum makes explicit, that the slaughter is to be
14
The Hebrew and he shall bring her out is taken to imply this. See also b. Yoma
42b.
15
See m. Parah 3:8; 4:3; and Neusner, Part 10, p. 141.

Cf. R. Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque: Gnese, vol. 1. (Paris: Cerf, 1978),
p. 217. This Mishnah does indeed stress the suitability of fig wood, but along with
walnut and oleaster; see also m. Tamid 2:5. The Bodleian Aramaic Fragment of the
Testament of Levi translated by R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the
Old Testament, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), p. 364 does, however, include
the olive tree, like PJ.
16
241
conducted according to the correct rules for the incision of windpipe

and gullet. It may also imply that the beast is free of signs of terefah.17
But the requirement that the heifer show no signs of terefah is in any
case presumed by all rabbinic sources. Finally, the language of PJ in its
rendering of the Hebrew original (not its additional material) is almost
identical to that of TO.18
Verse 4 states:
And Eleazar the priest shall take some of her blood with his finger, and
shall sprinkle toward the front of the Tent of Meeting with some of her
blood seven times.
The targums version presents a number of refinements and difficulties.

And Eleazar, vested in his white garments (bkyhwny), shall take some of
her blood with the finger of his right hand; but he shall not receive it in
a vessel. And he shall sprinkle the arrangement of fig-wood with some of
her blood from a jar (lgyn) from the side which is at the middle opposite
the front of the Tent of Meeting, with one immersion (of his hand in her
blood) seven times.
All sources agree that the priest who slaughtered the heifer wore the
simple white priestly robe (e.g. m. Parah 4:1; tos. Parah 4:6, m. Yoma
7:8; b. Yoma 42b; Sifr Zutta Huqqat 3), and Sifr Num. 123 offers this
as a specific exegesis of the words the priest, in the same way as PJ.19
Similarly, PJ agrees with Sifr Num. 123, m. Parah 3:9, and the Sifr
Zutta on this verse that the priest takes her blood in his right hand; the
targum is unaware of the complex suggestion of R. Judah in m. Parah
3:9 (cf. tos. Parah 3:10) that the blood received in the right hand is
transferred to his left, so that the priest may then dip his right hand in
it to sprinkle. This, as we shall see, is the direct result of PJs insistence
on another practice referred to in this verse.20 The targum is, however,
in complete agreement with Sifr Num. 123 that the blood is not to
be collected in a vessel, an opinion not heard in the Mishnah, but one
attributed to R. Jose the Galilean in Sifr Zutta to this verse.21
See Sifr Num. 123: wsht thmgyd sm ntnblh bshyt h pswlh.

PJ differs from TO mostly in spelling. TN has a its own way of expressing outside the camp, Ibr mn msryth, which it shares with CG.
19
So Sifr asks: Why does Scripture say the priest? It means bkyhwnw, in his
white priestly robes. CG again specifies that Eleazar is high priest.
20
See below, p. 242, on the one immersion seven times.
21
See also Yalqut Shimoni, p. 514; and Horovitzs notes on the Sifr at this point,
vol. 1, p. 154.
17
18
242
chapter twelve
The Hebrew text does not say what is to be sprinkled by the blood.
PJ supplies the object by specifying the fig-wood arrangement, an
opinion which is most probably informed by the kind of discussions
recorded in b. Men. 26b27a.
What follows is confusing. The manuscript of PJ states that the
blood should be sprinkled from a jar, mn lgyn. As Le Daut points
out, no known source refers to a jar at this point. Indeed, Levy and
Jastrow long ago suggested that the targums text here was corrupt for
mn lgyw, from the midst.22 Since the targum otherwise agrees with
the Sifr that the blood should not be collected in a vessel, this simple
emendation has a good deal to commend it.
Both m. Parah 3:9 and tos. Parah 3:9 state that the heifer should
be burned on the Mount of Olives. PJ does not say this explicitly,
since the actual text of Numbers 19 envisages the law being laid down
for the period when Israel is still wandering in the desert outside the
land of Israel. Nonetheless, PJs interpretation of verse 9 speaks of the
Mount of Olives as one of the three places where the heifers ashes are
to be stored; and there is nothing in the directions which the targum
gives in verse 4 to contradict the details of the Mishnah. It is noticeable, however, that the general rubric of Sifr Num. 123, that the priest
should stand directly and see the door of the Temple at the moment
when he sprinkles the blood, is very close indeed to the requirement
laid down by PJ.
All the more striking, then, is the targums clear disagreement with
Sifr Num. 123 on the manner of the sprinkling of the blood. PJ rules
that the priest immerse his hand once only in the blood, and then
sprinkle that same blood with seven sprinklings. The Sifr refutes this
very point with reference to Scripture:
I might understand seven sprinklings and one immersion (of the priests
hand in the blood); Scripture says, with its blood seven times, thus
declaring that he (the priest) returns seven times to the blood.23
In this case PJ actually records for us an important variant in halakhic

practice which we should, in any event, have been able to deduce from
the words of the Sifr. To my knowledge, it is the only extant text which
22
See Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque: Nombres, vol. 3 (Paris: Cerf, 1979),

p. 175.
23
See also m. Parah 3:9 and Sifr Zutta on this verse. The point is not discussed
in the Tosefta.
243
makes such a ruling absolutely clear; and it is not the only occasion on
which the targum behaves in this way. We have already noted PJs disagreement with the Sifr and other sources about the Segans part in the
ritual.24 Two other matters to be discussed presently will furnish further examples of the targums acceptance of rulings specifically refuted
by the Sifr; and Baumgarten, in an important contribution concerning
the place of PJ in the history of the halakah, has drawn attention to
other targumic statements coinciding with variants in halakah which
might reasonably be inferred from statements in other sources such
as the Sifr.25 Indeed, Baumgartens observations will deserve further
consideration below, since they seem to us to furnish vital clues to
the place occupied by PJ in the complex history of the development
of halakah from Second Temple times onwards.26 Before leaving this
verse, we should note that the language of PJ, when translating the
actual Hebrew rather than paraphrasing, shows agreement now with
TO, now with TN; the wording of the Palestinian Targums now begins
to appear more clearly.27
In Hebrew, verse 5 reads:
. . . And he shall burn the heifer in his sight (lynyw): its skin and its flesh
and its blood upon its dung he shall burn.
The targums interpretation is as follows:

And they shall go out from the arrangement (of the fig-wood), and another
priest shall burn the heifer while Eleazar watches: its skin and its flesh
and its blood upon its dung he shall burn.
The Mishnah likewise requires the priest to remove himself from the
place of the pyre at this juncture (m. Parah 3:10); and the Sifr Num.
124 and b. Yoma 42b agree that another priest performs the burning. A
marginal gloss of TN specifies that this is done while Eleazar looks on.
24
See above, p. 239.

See J.M. Baumgarten, The Laws of Orlah and First Fruits in the light of Jubilees,
the Qumran writings, and Targum Ps. Jonathan, JJS 38 (1987), pp. 195202. See especially his observations on p. 202.
26
See below, p. 18.
27
Thus And Eleazar shall take = TO and TN; some of her blood is mn dmyh which
= CG, and is similar to TNs mn dmh. PJs bdb with the finger is a variant of bysb
(TN) or bsbh (TO; cf. CG) altered to suit the paraphrase. And he shall sprinkle =
TO, GM; cf. TN; opposite the front of = TN exactly, not TO, which rather = CG;
tent of meeting = TO; whereas with its blood and seven times are not expressed in
exactly the same way in any other targum.
25
244
chapter twelve
Where PJ translates the Hebrew and does not interpret, the rendering
is almost identical to that of TN.28
We turn now to verse 6:
And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop and scarlet, and shall
cast them into the midst of the burning of the heifer.
The targum renders:

And another priest shall take a chopped log of cedar (= golamish) wood,
and hyssop, and color which has been changed into scarlet,29 and he
shall cast them into the midst of the burning of the heifer; and he shall
increase the fire to multiply the ash.
The notion that yet another priest should add these things is not, as far
as I know, attested elsewhere, but is peculiar to PJ. The chopped log,
however, features in Sifr Num. 124 and in Sifr Zutta on this verse. For
the cedar specified as golamish, see also Sifra Mesora Parashah 1:12.
Furthermore, all sources agree with PJ that the ash should be made
as voluminous as possible.30 But there was debate about how and
when the ash should be increased, as is evident from Sifr Num. 124.
R. Ishmael argues from the two occurrences of the verb burn in
the preceding verse (Num. 19:5) that a limitation is placed on those
burning the heifer not to increase the amount of wood beyond what
was in the original pile necessary to burn her. He brings this opinion
against that of R. Judah, who says that large amounts of wood and
hyssop should be thrown in once the burning has begun. Given the
targums attachment of the command to increase the ash to this verse,
rather than to the preceding, we may suggest a general agreement with
R. Judahs view.31 On the other hand, the targum may either be giving a digest of rabbinic views without precision, or it may represent
an ancient general rule which the named authorities of Sifr are in
the process of making specific. Finally, PJs translation of the Hebrew,
28
PJ agrees with TO, although there are variations in spelling. Certain expressions
are found in TN as well, and these are very similar to those used by CG.
29
With cochineal: see Le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque: Nombres, p. 176.
30
See m. Parah 4:4; tos. Parah 7:20; Sifr Num. 124; Sifr Zutta on this verse.
31
PJ may also agree with R. Akiba in this midrash, if he means that wood may be
added to increase the ash after the burning has started; see Horovitz, vol. 1, p. 156.
The glosses of TN and the FT(V) make it clear that the cedar, hyssop, and scarlet are
to be added into the ash of the burning; i.e., they are not to be used in large quantities to increase ash. This would seem to agree broadly with the view of R. Ishmael,
against the sense of PJ.
245
as opposed to its paraphrase, agrees closely with TO, except in using

the verb tlq for he shall cast; this same is found in TN, and CG and
FT(V), while TO has the root rmy.
Verse 7 begins to tell how this rite is to be concluded:
And the priest shall rinse his garments and wash his flesh in water, and
afterwards he shall come into the camp; and the priest shall be unclean
until the evening.
PJ expounds these requirements as follows:

And the priest who slaughtered the heifer shall rinse his clothes and wash
his flesh in 40 seahs of water; and after this he shall enter the camp; and
that priest shall be unclean before his immersion until the evening.
The targum differs here from Sifr Num. 124 in making the slaughterer
the subject of this action; the Sifr refers this verse to the one who has
thrown in the cedar, hyssop, and scarlet. He is to immerse in the usual
amount of water necessary for a purificatory bath; and it is made absolutely clear that he (that priest) shall be unclean before his immersion.
After that, he is evidently regarded as clean; and as Baumgarten has
pointed out, the targum in this way accepts and recognizes the rabbinic category of the tebul yom, that is, a person who has immersed
to remove impurity, but who has not waited until sunset for absolute
purity to be restored.32 Such a person, in having contracted an uncleanness of which Scripture says he is unclean until evening (as in this
instance), is in a second grade of uncleanness, such that he does not
convey impurity to ordinary food, and may therefore eat it. He is thus
clean for all ordinary purposes.33 To this vital point we shall return,
noting here only that there were Jews in Second Temple times and later
who did not acknowledge that partial purity of the tebul yom and who
regarded the category as essentially one of impurity. As a final point we
may note that PJs translation of the Hebrew, as opposed to the insertions in his text, corresponds almost exactly with the rendering of TO:
32
See J. Baumgarten, The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the
Qumran Texts, JJS 31 (1980), p. 160.
33
But he can still convey impurity to terumah and to Holy Things, i.e. sacrificial
food. Thus TN of this verse states: and the priest shall be unclean and kept away from
holy things until the evening. So also CG, thus implying (at the least) that he is pure
for other purposes, that is, tebul yom.
246
chapter twelve
although the phrase after this wmn btr kdyn agrees, against TO, with
TN verbatim.34
We turn to verse 8:
And he who burns it shall rinse his garments in water and shall wash his
flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the evening.
PJ interprets:
And the priest who has been occupied with the burning shall rinse his garments in 40 seahs of water, and shall wash his flesh in 40 seahs of water;
and he shall be unclean before his immersion until the evening.
The root to be occupied, sq, is common to Hebrew and Aramaic; and

it is used in this verse and in Sifr Num. 124, m. Parah 4:4, Num.
Rabbah 19:1, b. Hullin 29b and other texts to describe the activities
with the heifer. Once more, the priest who has burned the heifer is
ordered to undergo immersion in the correct amount of water: he is
then in the status of tebul yom, pure for all ordinary purposes.35
Verse 9 orders:
And a pure man shall gather the ashes of the heifer, and put them down
outside the camp in a pure place; and it shall be preserved for the congregation of the children of Israel as waters of purification (my ndh = lit.
waters of impurity); it is a sin-offering.
The targum elaborates this considerably:

And a man, a pure priest, shall gather the ashes of the heifer in a pitcher
of earthenware surrounded by a stopper of clay; and he shall divide the
ashes into three portions. One he shall set on the rampart; and one on
the Mount of Olives; and the other he shall divide between each guard of
the Levites. And it shall be for the assembly of the children of Israel for
waters of sprinkling: only, it is forgiveness for the sin of the calf.
PJ begins by contradicting all other sources in ordering a priest to collect the ashes. Elsewhere, we are told that this may be done by any man
(see, e.g., Sifr Num. 124, Sifr Zutta on this verse, m. Parah 4:4, tos.
Parah 4:11, and b. Yoma 43a). Once more, however, the Sifr takes up
34
Otherwise, note the differences between PJ, and TN and CG, which are very close
to one another.
35
See above, what was said on verse 7. The translation language of PJ is here again
very close to TO, differing from TN; see note 34. TN and CG very similar.
247
the question whether a priest should not perform this function, only to
prove that the ash must be gathered by a male lay-person.
By contrast, the targums clear description of the vessel into which
the ash is put corresponds almost verbatim with Sifr Num. 124; it is
a pitcher, qll, (see also m. Parah 3:3; 10:3, tos. Parah 9:5), stopped
with a clay seal, smwqp smyd ptyl, according to the Sifr. Likewise
the division of the ashes into the three portions and their places on
the rampart and Mount of Olives agrees with the information in m.
Parah 3:11; tos. Parah 3:14; Sifr Num. 124; and Sifr Zutta on this
verse. PJ places the information here because of the requirement of
the Hebrew text that the ash be lmmrt for Israel. This word suggests
to PJ the guard, watch, or ward of the Levites as described in I Chron.
23:32 and elsewhere.36 The waters with which the ashes are mixed are
termed water of sprinkling, exactly as TO, TN, and CG.
The idea that this ritual constitutes forgiveness for the sin of the
golden calf is found also in Tanhuma (ed. Buber) H uqqat 26; the
following section, H uqqat 27, points out that the rite had not been
entrusted to Aaron because he had been involved in the matter of the
calf.37 PJs paraphrase is very complex and divergent from the Hebrew;
but when the Targum offers straight translation of Hebrew words,
these agree with TO in substance. TO itself has much in common with
TN and CG on this verse.38
We find in verse 10 that
And he who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall rinse his garments and
be unclean until the evening; and it shall be for the sons of Israel and for
the stranger who sojourns among them for an everlasting statute.
PJ explains:
And the priest who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall rinse his garments and shall be unclean before his immersion until the evening; and
36
For a discussion of PJs attitudes to the Levites, see A. Bchler, Die Priester und
der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jeruschalmischen Tempels (Wien: Holder, 1895),
pp. 151159.
37
See also Yalqut Shimoni, p. 512; Rashi on this verse, and the long sermon of
R. Moshe Ha-Darshan which he there reproduces; and further below, pp. 254256.
38
PJ and TO are virtually identical in stating and a pure man shall gather the
ashes of the heifer . . . and it shall be for the assembly of the Children of Israel waters
of purification. TO says of the ash gatherer that he shall conceal them outside the
camp in a pure place: this is similar to TN, but the latter agrees almost verbatim in
respect of language throughout this verse.
248
chapter twelve
it shall be for purification for the sons of Israel and for the proselytes who
shall be converted among them for an everlasting statute.
We must again note here the acceptance of the status of tebul yom for
the priest who has gathered the ashes, and the stress on the purificatory aspects of the rite. This latter note may hint obliquely at what
was, in any case, generally known, that all those who took part in the
ritual of burning the heifer were ipso facto made unclean (see, e.g.,
Sifr Num. 124 and m. Parah 4:4), although the actual product of the
rite was ash designed to remove uncleanness from those defiled by
corpses.39 PJs translation of the actual Hebrew is once more almost
verbatim that of TO.
The detailed discussion of PJ set out above forms the basis for the
conclusions which this part of the essay will attempt to justify. PJ modifies the original Hebrew of Num. 19:110 on approximately 34 occasions.40 The targumic modifications, as we have seen, include additions
to the original Hebrew; definite exegesis of what, in the original, may
appear vague; and the occasional omission of material in the original
in the interests of paraphrase. If we look carefully at the 34 items, we
find as follows:
A. Approximately 20 of these items are shared with other rabbinic
sources, such as the Mishnah, the Tosefta and Sifr: the heifer is taken
from terumah (1) and is two years old (2); she should not have a trace
of any hair other than red (3). No male should have mounted her (4);
and forbidden to her are any work (5) and anything resembling a yoke
(6). She is to be brought out to sacrifice on her own (7); a priest other
than Eleazar slaughters her (8), wearing white priestly robes (9); he
takes her blood in his right hand, not in a vessel (10), and sprinkles
it on the pyre (11) in the direction of the Temple (12). They leave
the pyre (13), and another priest burns the heifer (14) while Eleazar
watches (15). Logs of golamish-cedar are thrown in (16) and the ash
is to be increased (17): it is gathered in an earthenware vessel with a
39
The rendering of gr, alien, as proselyte, is a common targumic exegesis. See
especially M. Ohana, Proslytisme et Targum palestinien: Donnes nouvelles pour la
datation de Neofiti I, Biblica 55 (1974), pp. 317332; Agneau Pascal et Circoncision:
Le Problme de la Halakha Prmishnaique dans le Targum palestinien, VT 23 (1973),
pp. 385399.
40
I say approximately, because it might be argued that the targums listing of bit,
cross-piece of a yoke, goad, wooden prick, or thorn might be counted as one single
item, whereas I have counted the various objects separately.
249
clay seal (18) and divided into three portions, each kept in a different
place (19). It is an atonement for the sin of the calf (20).
This material shared with other rabbinic texts makes it abundantly
clear that PJs exegesis of the red heifer is closely related to that known
from those texts, and hence is no stranger to the rabbinic milieu. The
world of Sifr Numbers, in particular, is apparently familiar to the
targum; and to the extent that PJ agrees on these twenty points with
the Mishnah and Tosefta, it is true to say, with Professor Neusner,
that our targum looks like a commentary or exegetical summary of
these sources.41 Any account of PJ and its date must take this volume
of evidence very seriously and explain it.
On the other hand, it must be made quite clear that the targum
does not simply copy material from the rabbinic texts which we have
discussed.42 This much is evident from the detailed analysis of the
sources given above. Several examples make this clear: the targum to
Num. 19:2 expounds the description of the heifer as perfect with reference to her age, while Sifr differs by understanding the adjective as
defining her color. Again, the heifer is to do no work; but the targum
expresses this in a way utterly different from the Mishnah, and with a
somewhat different aim, even though both texts agree on the matter
in general. Similarly the targum describes how the priest must stand
when sprinkling the heifers blood. Nothing in that description necessarily contradicts what is said in the Mishnah or Sifr, but it is hard to
see how the targum might have copied from these texts, which have
many more minute regulations than PJ. Furthermore, the heifer must
be inspected for the signs of correct ritual slaughter and for the marks
of terefah; the Sifr and other sources do not state this in anything
like the unambiguous manner of PJ, even though they imply what
the targum demands. There is general agreement that the ash from
the burning be made as plentiful as possible; but the Sifr expounds
Num. 19:5 as requiring this, over against the targum, which interprets
Num. 19:6 as referring to the ash, thereby tending to side-step a dispute about how and when it should be increased. We need not belabor
the point. Suffice it to say that careful reading of these texts shows
41
See Neusner, Part 10, p. 213.

This, however, is the view of M. Prez Fernndez, Midrs Sifre Nmeros (Valencia:
Institucin San Jernimo, 1989), p. 37, n. 44, who believes that PJ systematically copies
exegesis of Sifr Numbers. This blanket view is refuted by PJs use of halakah rejected
by Sifr, and by its manifest disagreements with the Sifr noted in this essay.
42
250
chapter twelve
frequent agreement in general on individual issues between PJ and

other sources, but also considerable differences between the same texts
in the details.
Further evidence that PJ does not simply copy other rabbinic
sources derives from its vocabulary, most of which it shares with the
other targums when it renders the actual Hebrew text of Scripture. PJs
agreements, now with TO (very common), now with other Palestinian
Targums, serve to emphasize its place within the general targumic tradition. This simple fact has important repercussions for its halakah.
We may again recall Num. 19:2, where PJ interprets perfect as meaning that the heifer is to be two years old; this is possible because of the
general targumic way of rendering the original Hebrew in a regular
and precise manner. In the same verse, the verb come up is treated
in a manner typical of targum, and made to refer to the heifers
mating with a male; but this verb is not so understood in the Mishnah
or Sifr.
B. Nine items are unique to PJ. We are told that this is the decree
of the instruction of the Law (1), a targumic method of specifying the
nature of the pericope. The sacrificial fuel is restricted to fig-wood (2),
on which the heifers blood is sprinkled (3). A priest, not the one who
slaughtered or burned the heifer, throws on cedar, hyssop, and scarlet
(4); the slaughtering priest immerses (5) and is unclean (only) before
his immersion (6); the priest who burned the heifer is unclean before
immersion (7); the ash is given to the watches of the Levites (8); and
the one who gathers the ash is unclean before his immersion (9).
The first of these items is a targumism which occasions no surprise;
and two other items refer to the fig-wood, which all agree is fit for
the burning of the heifer. What is unique is that PJ permits fig-wood
alone; and such is the force of the ruling that it will be more properly considered in section C below. PJ specifies that the watches or
guards where the ashes are to be stored are those of the Levites; the
Mishnah and Sifr say simply msmrt.
The remaining unique items, however, yield two crucially important
pieces of evidence. First, PJ regarded the red heifer as a priestly ritual.
Second, the targum acknowledges the rabbinic status of tebul yom as
having effect, and applies it to three persons who had been occupied in
the ritual, namely, the one who slaughtered the heifer (1), the one who
burned the heifer (2), and the one who gathered her ashes (3). This
evidence, too, must be fully incorporated into any reasonable account
of PJs date.
251
C. The remaining items show PJ adopting rules of procedure and

halakhic practice which are at variance with those recorded and laid
down in other authoritative sources. Such is the force of its statements
that we may include here the targums insistence on the use of figwood alone, over against the permission of other texts that a number
of woods including fig may be used. Three other rules are particularly
striking: the Segan appears to be the priest who is always to preside
over the ritual (1), the blood is to be sprinkled seven times, but with
only one immersion of the priests hand (2), and the man who gathers
the ash is required to be a priest (3). In each of these instances, we find
Sifr Numbers actually arguing against these very rulings; so much so
that, even without the text of PJ we should be driven to deduce the
existence of such rulings at some place or time.43 The command to
increase the ash by adding more wood (verse 6) probably belongs in
this category. The targum may be aware of the debate pre-supposed
in the Sifr, but it may also represent a general rule which is older
than those documents which attempt to make its application precise.
Finally, the demand that the heifer be two years old is contrary to
the halakah of the Mishnah, but is based on an interpretation of the
scriptural tmymh as referring to a beast which is slm, defined by the
Tosefta as two years old.
The most satisfactory explanation of this state of affairs, I argue, is
that PJ is either older than or roughly contemporary with the Sifr,
Tosefta, and other texts. The exact correspondences between the targum and the other sources in individual details, as well as those particular items of divergent halakah which the other sources refute, but
which actually occur as rulings in PJ can be seen as evidence of the
targums participation in the very same debates and discussions of
the red heifer which confront us in those same rabbinic sources. Any
argument which sought to place PJ later than the Sifr and Tosefta
would have to explain why the targum had deliberately embraced
halakhic positions which authoritative sources had ruled incorrect;
who was likely to do such a thing; and when in talmudic (or later)
times it might have been done? It must be remembered that rabbinic
authority over texts and their practical application increased rather
than decreased with the passage of time. The later the date proposed
43
See further above, pp. 242243, on Baumgartens comments.
252
chapter twelve
for PJ, the less likely it is that such a text would have passed through
the net of authoritys censure.
These matters aside, other weighty considerations support our analysis. First, we should examine the business of tebul yom. PJ is silent
about the ritual status of the Segan who presides over the slaughter
and burning of the heifer. This is in marked contrast to other texts
which require the (high) priest who burns the heifer to be tebul yom.
He is even specially put into this category before the ceremony begins,
according to m. Parah 3:78 and tos. Parah 3:78. The Mishnah and
Tosefta explain this procedure as a deliberate, public demonstration
directed against the views of the Sadducees, who, it seems, required
the priest who burned the heifer to be in the highest possible state of
purity.44 PJs silence on this issue, then, is distinctly unmishnaic.
Nonetheless, PJ does, by implication, refer to the status of tebul
yom. It insists that the priest who slaughters the heifer, the priest who
burns her, and the priest who gathers her ashes are all unclean before
their immersion but after they have participated in the ceremony. This
means that once immersed, they are in a state of tebul yom, and may
eat ordinary food.45 This halakah stands in flat contradiction to that
found in the Qumran Halakhic Letter 4Q Miqsat Maaseh Hattorah,
which states:
And (also) concerning the purity (ritual) of the (red) heifer of the sin
offering: he who slaughters it and he who burns it and he who gathers
its ash and he who sprinkles the water of purificationall these should
become pure (only) at sundown, so that the pure should sprinkle upon
the impure.46
44
Likewise none of the targumim says anything about the purity of any of the participants in the rite; so Neusner, Part 10, p. 216. This well-known difference of opinion
between the rabbis and Sadducees has been often treated: see, e.g., L. Finkelstein, The
Pharisees: The Sociological Background of their Faith, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962) 1:121128 and 2:661692; J. Baumgarten,
The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies, pp. 155161 and pp. 169170; and H. Maccoby, Neusner and the Red Cow, JSJ 21 (1990), pp. 7475.
45
See above, p. 242.
46
The translation is that of E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, An Unpublished Halakhic
Letter from Qumran, Biblical Archaeology Today (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 1985), p. 402. The text which they give reads as follows:

)( )(

253
This Qumran letter is clearly a polemic against the very practices prescribed by PJ for the personnel involved in the red heifer ceremony.
Although the targum says nothing of the purity of the one who sprinkles the water, it does single out specifically the other three quite separate individuals as being unclean before their immersion. The Qumran
writer was clearly opposed to the whole institution of tebul yom, not
only in general, but more specifically in relation to the purity of those
who had taken part (not those who were about to take part) in the rite
of the red heifer.47 The material from Qumran suggests that PJs statement of an opposing halakah is of potentially very great antiquity.
Next we must consider another item which features in the Mishnah
and other sources, and which is apparently absent from the targum.
I refer to the firm conviction of the rabbis that any labour extraneous to the ceremony makes the whole rite useless, a matter which has
been thoroughly investigated and explored by Neusner.48 The omission is puzzling, as Neusner states.49 The targum is, in fact, intent on
ruling out extraneous labour; but concentrates this rule and applies
it directly to the heifer itself. This is clear from its rendering of Num.
19:2, where we read that the beast must not have been burdened with
any labour or any yokes at all. We should, however, be alive to the
possibility that the targums silence about extraneous labour and the
personnel who take part in the ritual may be more apparent than
real. PJ is often capable of implying things rather than stating them
openly. It does so, in all probability, in this section, saying nothing
openly about the place where the heifer is to be burned, but naming
the Mount of Olives (Num. 19:9) as one of the places where the ashes
were to stored in conformity with rabbinic rules. The Mount of Olives
was, of course, the place designated by the Mishnah for the burning of
the heifer. Furthermore, PJ restricts the ritual to priests: no fewer than
five separate individuals are entrusted with its performance. That is to
say, each major component part of the ceremony is given over to one
man, who, when his task is completed, departs. In such a way the targum lessens the chances of the participants intentions and attentions
47
See Baumgarten, The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies, pp. 155161, who
introduces and discusses also passages from 11QTemp at pp. 159160.
48
Clearly expressed, e.g. in m. Parah 4:1, 4; 7:9; yer. Ber. 2:5; tos. Parah 7:6; Sifr
Num. 123124; Sifr Zutta to Num. 19:2, 5, 9; b. Yoma 42a; and Neusners work on
the heifer listed in note 4. His interpretation of the significance of the ban on extraneous labour has recently been criticized by Maccoby, pp. 6064.
49
See Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 10, p. 216.
254
chapter twelve
being distracted by outside influences. Be this as it may, however, PJ is

not specific about these priests and extraneous labour; and the targum
thus shows its difference from the Mishnahs perspective on this item
of the law.
PJ envisions even greater priestly involvement than is immediately
apparent from the section of text which we have studied. Later in
the same chapter, the sprinkling of the water is reserved for priests
(Num. 19:18, 19, 21). Accordingly, Geiger concluded that this targum
had preserved an ancient tradition of priestly privilege in the ritual,
which the rabbis later modified as part of their anti-Sadducee stance.
He pointed also to other ancient halakot preserved in verses 16 and 18
of this same chapter as evidence of the high antiquity of the targums
exegesis.50 Without either accepting or rejecting Geigers conclusions,
which prima facie do not seem unreasonable, we may venture two
observations: first, such priestly prominence in a text which also shows
clear signs of affinity with the Mishnah, Tosefta, Sifr, and Sifr Zutta
is likely to be a sign that PJ belongs to a time when the priesthood
still had great influence and importance. Second, we may allow that
this stress on the priests is deliberate, and we shall need to ask why it
surfaces so strikingly in this portion of Scripture. The answer is in all
likelihood provided by PJ itself: the red heifer ceremony is a forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf.
Outside of Ex. 32, which tells the story of the golden calf, PJ alludes
to this episode no fewer than nine times, including the reference at
Num. 19:9. The targum was clearly very worried about the calf, and
particularly about its effect on Aaron, the first high priest who, of
course, had had a hand in making it (Ex. 32:16, 35). Thus PJ and TO
of Lev. 8:2 order Moses to bring near for sacrificing Aaron, who was
rejected (or abominated) because of the deed of the calf. In the same
way, Sifra Mekhilta de Milluim 1 on Lev. 8:2 states that Ex. 32:35
implies that Aaron had been rejected or abominated, while Lev. 8:2
implies that he was now to be brought near for the sacrificial worship.
The command in Lev. 9:2 to Aaron that he take a calf of an ox for a
sin offering is explained by PJ:
50
See Geiger, Urschift, p. 477. It should be noted, however, that 4Q Miqsat Maaseh
Hattorah cited above (p. 242) does not specify that all the participants in the rite
listed in that document are priests: so correctly, Qimron and Strugnell, p. 407, n. 14,
criticizing Geigers view that PJ may represent a quasi-Sadducee opinion. See also
below, note 58.
255
so that Satan do not speak about you (with) triple tongue, about the
matter of the calf which you made in Horeb.
Although the calf is not directly mentioned in Sifra Shemini 3 on

Lev. 9:2, Moses points out that while God has accepted Aaron, he
must nonetheless put into Satans mouth the sending of a gift before he
enters the sanctuary, so that Satan should not hate him when he does
so.51 The calf affects not only Aarons priesthood, but also Israels right
to offer sacrifice. Thus PJ of Lev. 9:3 explains that Israel should offer a
goat because it resembles Satan, lest he should slander them because of
the goat kid which their ancestors killed to deceive Jacob into thinking
that Joseph was dead,
and a calf because you were enslaved to the calf.
The Sifra Shemini 3 knows the same tradition, and points out that
the sacrificial calf is to come and atone for the sin of the golden calf.52
Later, in Lev. 9:7, PJ makes it clear that the calf is still a problem for
Aaron:
And when Aaron saw the altar with its horns resembling the calf, he was
terrified to approach to its midst. So Moses said to him, Take courage,
and approach the altar, and do not be terrified.53
On the day of Atonement, PJ of Lev. 16:4 explains why Aaron shall

enter the sanctuary in linen, not golden vestments: the latter are
forbidden
so that there be not remembered for him the sin of the calf of gold.54
The same sin may even later be remembered for the people; so that the
banner of Reubens group of tribes in the wilderness had depicted on
it the form of a young ram:
51
Perhaps we should emend Sifras text here, to read that Satan should not accuse
Aaron, following the reading of Nahmanides quoted by I. Mandelbaum, Tannaitic
Exegesis of the Golden Calf Episode, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes, pp. 215, 222.
52
See also Num. Rab. 13:13.
53
The same tradition appears in Sifra Shemini 8: And there are those who say that
Aaron saw the altar as it were in the pattern of an ox, and was afraid of it; so Moses
said to him. . . .
54
See also b. Rosh Ha-Shanah 26a; Yoma 72b; Lev. Rab. 16:3., PJ of Num. 2:10.
256
chapter twelve
It would have been proper for there to have been on it the form of a
young ox. Moses the prophet changed it, so that there should not be
remembered for them the sin of the calf.55
The sin of the calf is one of those acts of disobedience which had
rightly provoked God to anger, according to Deut. 1:1 in TO, PJ, TN,
the Vatican and Paris Manuscripts of the Fragmentary Targumim, and
probably CG (the text has a lacuna at the point where the calf might
be expected); and God has forgiven this sin. Finally, and most significantly, when the evil Balaam came to try to curse Israel, he looked
towards the desert, the place where they had made the calf, to bring
to mind that sin. This tradition is found in PJ, TN, and the Fragment
Targum in both Paris and Vatican Manuscripts of Num. 24:1. For PJ
and other targumim of these verses, the calf obviously posed a terrible
threat to Israels safety and well-being.
Irving Mandelbaum has recently demonstrated that, in those sources
conventionally labelled tannaitic and amoraic, the oldest accounts of
the golden calf episode always stress the gravity of this sin, Aarons part
in it, and his and Israels need of atonement and divine forgiveness. He
has examined all the materials which we have quoted from the Sifra,
and other similar traditions; and he has concluded that these represent an earlier strand of tannaitic interpretation of the calf as a disastrous sin, rather than the later amoraic exegesis of the story, which
attempts to excuse the deed and whitewash the participants.56 PJ not
only stands alongside the traditions of the Sifra, but even heightens
them, by making the red heifer ceremony another means of atonement
for the calf. Moreover, PJ sets out to emphasize the great fear which
the golden calf had inspired in Aaron, the first high priest, and quite
subtly indicates Aarons need of assurance that the sin is forgiven. The
performance of the red heifer ceremony by priests other than the high
priest offers such assurance: the sin of the calf is thereby forgiven, the
cleansing being carried out by priests other than the high priest on
behalf of all Israel and of the high priest himself.
Given this evidence, it is difficult to see how PJs account of the
red heifer ceremony can date from a period later than the final redaction of the Sifra, Sifr, and Sifr Zutta in (probably) the late fourth
55
56
PJ of Num. 2:10.
See I. Mandelbaum, pp. 207223.
257
century ce.57 Its many agreements with the rabbinic sources show that
it is familiar with debates conducted in the academies, while its specific
disagreements with the Sifr point in the same direction, and indicate
that the Sifr was aware of divergent halakah found specifically in PJ.
Indeed, Baumgarten has pointedly drawn attention to PJs deviation
from normal rabbinic halakah as evidence for the existence of a wide
spectrum of halakhic interpretations in Second Temple times.58 To this
spectrum belong also PJs unique features in dealing with the heifer,
namely, its discussion of tebul yom which corresponds almost exactly
(although, of course, in reverse!) to the concerns of the pre-Christian
text 4Q Miqsat Maaseh Hattorah, and the priestly conduct of the
rite. The latter derives from PJs opinion of the golden calf: Aaron, as
maker of the calf, was unfit to preside over the ritual of the heifer. The
sin of the calf is so grave that succeeding high priests are also not fit to
take part in it, such that it must fall to the lot of the Segan, the priest
most senior in rank after the high priest (see m. Yoma 3:9; 4:1, 7:1;
Sotah 7:78; Tamid 7:3).
All the participants must be priests, a ruling which makes best sense
at a time when the purity and validity of the priesthood as such were
matters of the first importance, and were still live issues in discussion
and debate. Certainly the priesthoods legitimacy and purity were live
issues in Second Temple times, and they remained so in the period
down to and including the time of the Emperor Julian (361363),
when a restoration of the Temple and the sacrifices seemed likely. It is
in the second and third centuries also that Christian attacks on Jews,
using the golden calf to argue that Israel was no longer Gods people,
and claiming that Christians were the true high priestly caste, were at
their most bitter, as witness the writings of Pseudo-Barnabas, Justin
Martyr and Tertullian.59
57
On this matter, see most recently P.S. Alexander, Midrash, in A Dictionary of

Biblical Interpretation, ed. R.J. Coggins & J.L. Houlden (London: SCM, 1990), pp.
455456. M. Prez Fernndez, pp. 1516, argues for a date in the third century ad.
58
See especially The Law of Orlah . . ., p. 196, where he discusses the redemption of fourth year fruits and the interpretation of Lev. 19:24. His remarks about PJs
interpretation of that verse are, as we have seen already, entirely applicable to those
items in the red heifer ritual where Sifr clearly rules out of order halakah recorded
in PJ. His comments about Geigers assumption of an ancient, widespread halakah
represented at points in PJ are entirely justified in the light of evidence now available
from Qumran. See especially p. 202.
59
See Epistle of Barnabas 4:78; 14:16, where the calf is said to have annulled
Gods covenant with Israel; Tertullian, Adversos Judaeos 1, where the calf is used in
258
chapter twelve
The red heifer occupies a central place in the deliberations of the

authorities we have examined. We have sought to place Targum
Pseudo-Jonathans presentation of the ritual firmly in the setting of
these deliberations, noting the antiquity of some of its rulings. They
may, indeed, have their roots in Second Temple times. If a matter of
such evident importance suggests that the date of PJs version of it be
fixed, at the latest, in the late fourth or early fifth centuries, we may
also suggest that the targum itself belongs to that period. This is not to
deny that later copyists of the text may have modernized the targum
in minor respects as the years went by. These modernizations, however, do not in our opinion constitute solid evidence for the view that
it was produced in the Islamic period.
anti-Jewish polemic; and Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 116:3, for the view that Jews
have ceased to have a priesthood, since it has now passed to Christians. From the
fourth century come strong objections to the Jewish cult voiced by John Chrysostom,
Adversos Judaeos I.7; IV.6; see especially V.12, where he insists that the Temple will
never be rebuilt, and later (V.4) quotes the episode of the calf as one proof of this.
The ill-fated attempt of the Emperor Julian to rebuild the Temple is bitterly described
(V.11); Chrysostom refers to the mysterious events which accompanied the failure
of the restoration, and in passing alludes to the sons of Aaron who were killed for
offering illegal sacrifices. Their death is seen as a parallel to the curious happenings
recorded at the time of the Emperor Julians attempt to rebuild the Temple.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE PRIESTLY BLESSING IN TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN

It is well known that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan offers an Aramaic
translation and extended interpretation of the priestly blessing (Num.
6.2426), whereas Targum Neofiti I does not translate the verses, but
reproduces them in their original Hebrew wording. Sperber lists witnesses to Targum Onqelos which render the blessing in Aramaic;
but many manuscripts of that Targum simply reproduce the original
Hebrew text in the manner of Targum Neofiti I.1 That is to say, the three
Hebrew verses that make up the threefold petition of the blessing are
incorporated into the body of the Targum without alteration or addition. Both Targum Neofiti I and most manuscripts of Targum Onqelos
thus coincide with a famous rabbinic ruling that the priestly blessing
is read in Hebrew, but not translated into Aramaic (b. Meg. 25b; y.
Meg. 75c.39; and a variant reading of m. Meg. 4.10).2 Targum PseudoJonathans paraphrase apparently ignores the rabbinic rules. This essay
will investigate its peculiar exegesis of the blessing, in the hope of deciphering its development. This, however, is no easy matter, as becomes
apparent when we examine the relationship between Targum PseudoJonathan and other rabbinic texts.
The sole surviving manuscript of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, British
Library Ms. Add. 27031, places the Hebrew text in front of its Aramaic
rendering of Num. 6.2426, verse by verse. The editio princeps of
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, however, prefaces the Aramaic with the
1
See A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. I. The Pentateuch According to Targum
Onkelos (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959), p. 230. For an English translation of Targ. Onq. and
manuscript variants, see B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and Numbers
(The Aramaic Bible, 8; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), p. 88.
2
On rabbinic discussion of verses which may, or may not, be put into Aramaic,
see A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), pp. 367370;
M. Ginsburger, Verbotene Thargumim, MGWJ 44 (1900), pp. 17; M. McNamara, The
New Testament and the Palestinian Targum (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966),
pp. 4649; P.S. Alexander, The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim, JJS 27 (1976),
pp. 177191; and M.L. Klein, Not to Be Translated in Public ,
JJS 39 (1988), pp. 8091.
260
chapter thirteen
Hebrew original of all three verses, one after another.3 In this respect,
the editio princeps may be attempting to indicate awareness that
Targum of these verses was forbidden, and that the rabbinic rules
applied.4 Certainly Targum Pseudo-Jonathan agreesup to a point
with other rabbinic texts when it paraphrases the introduction to the
blessing, Num. 6.23, as follows (divergences from the Hebrew are
given in italics):
Speak with Aaron and with his sons, saying: Thus you shall bless the
sons of Israel. When they spread out (their hands) upon the platform, they
shall say to them, in this form of words: (the blessing follows).
First, the priests are to spread out their hands: this refers to their holding up their hands with fingers spread out in the traditional manner.5
Such is implied by the regulations of m. Sot . 7.6; m. Tam. 7.2; Sifre
Num. 39; and Num. R. 11.10, that the priests give the blessing with
the raising up of their hands. Targum Pseudo-Jonathans note that they
spread out ( )their hands, however, shows that the Targum regards
this blessing as a prayer, since it often uses the phrase to spread out the
hands to speak of prayer (e.g. Exod. 9.29, 33; Deut. 32.31); and Targum
Pseudo-Jonathans paraphrase of Gen. 12.3 presents God as blessing
the priests who spread out their hands in prayer and bless your sons.
Secondly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathans reference to the , the
platform, a technical term for the place where the priests stand to give
the blessing, agrees with information given in Num. R. 11.11. The word
indicates that priests should stand to give the blessing, a point empha-
On the manuscript and editions of Targ. Ps.-J., see R. le Daut, Introduction

la littrature targumique (Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1988), p. 101; and
U. Glessmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch (TSAJ, 48; Tbingen: J.C.B.
Mohr, 1995), pp. 182185.
4
The editio princeps presents the blessing in Hebrew as a single unit, as it might
appear in a Torah scroll. The Mishnah states (Sot . 7.6; Tam. 7.2) that the blessing,
when given in the Temple, was uttered as a single unit: outside the Temple its three
verses were pronounced as three separate blessings. These are customarily separated
from each other by a repeated Amen. While the editio princeps of Targ. Ps.-J. may
so wish to record the blessing as used in the Temple service, it is silent about the
Mishnahs other rules governing its Temple use, namely, the pronunciation of the
Divine Name, and the exact position of the priests and high priests hands when uttering the blessing. See further J. Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (New
York: Jewish Publication Society, 5750/1990), p. 362.
5
On the arrangment of the priests fingers during the blessing, see the editorial
article Priestly Blessing, EncJud, XIII, col. 1062. For the meaning of this practice, see
PRK Pisqa 5.8.
the priestly blessing
261
sized by Sifre Num. 39 with the note that it is to be given , in

standing posture.6 A certain ambiguity is attached to this expression,
however: Sifre may wish to hint that the blessing be said as part of
the Amidah, that central prayer of the synagogue service which is, by
definition, recited standing. Once more, the notion that the blessing
should be construed as a prayer, this time in a formal liturgical setting,
is clearly suggested. Thirdly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan insists that the
blessing be said , rendered above as in this form of words.
In the editio princeps of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, what follows is the
Hebrew text of the complete blessing; and the Aramaic formula introducing it recalls the statement of R. Jehuda in Num. R. 11.10 that it
be recited , a Hebrew expression meaning according to this
formula, indicating the precise form of words to be used. Similar is
a marginal gloss to Targum Neofiti I of this verse, which states: With
this order, , you shall bless them, before quoting the
Hebrew words of the blessing.7
Even so, the manuscript of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan places the
Hebrew text immediately before its extended Aramaic paraphrase of
each single verse, which is then to be uttered in this form of words:
as the text stands, we seem to have an order to proclaim the blessing
both in Hebrew and in Aramaic. If this is so, and the manuscript itself
does not represent a faulty textual tradition of the genuine Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan preserved in the editio princeps, we are confronted
by a contradiction of the rabbinic rules. Sifre Num. 39 insists that the
blessing be uttered , thus effectively summarizing results
of the debates in b. Sot 33b and Num. R. 11.10. Might the rule that
the blessing be recited only in Hebrew be directed against (inter alia)
the sort of Aramaic translation we find in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan?
Despite the affinities between Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Num. 6.23
and rabbinic texts noted above, the latter present requirements for the
blessing which the Targum does not record. Thus Sifre Num. 39 (see
also Num. R. 11.1011), for example, discusses use of the Divine Name
6
The was the platform in the Temple from which priests would give the
blessing and Levites perform music: see m. Mid. 20.6; cf. b. Meg. 3a. The term was
transferred to the synagogue service: see F.L. Cohen, Blessing, Priestly, in The Jewish
Encyclopaedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1902), pp. 244247. Targ. Onq. of this
verse certainly has the synagogue service in mind: see Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos,
pp. 8889.
7
On this rendering, and for elucidation of Targ. Neof. to this verse, see further
R. le Daut, Nombres (Targum du Pentateuque 3; Paris: Cerf, 1979), pp. 5859.
262
chapter thirteen
in the blessing; notes that it includes proselytes, women, slaves and

priests; and orders that the priests should face the people as they utter
it and that the whole congregation should hear it. On these matters the
Targum is silent, a silence which raises more acutely the question of
its relationship to texts like the Sifre. The following scrutiny of Targum
Pseudo-Jonathans paraphrase will further illustrate these difficulties.
1. A Translation of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 6.2426
with Comments
The Hebrew text of Num. 6.2426 may be translated into English as
follows:
24 The Lord bless you and keep you.
25 The Lord make his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
26 The Lord lift up his face towards you and grant peace to you.
Modern interpreters have remarked that this seemingly simple tripartite formula is artfully constructed, its threefold repetition of the
Divine Name being linked to an increasing number of syllables and
consonants in each succeeding line, to produce what Jacob Milgrom
has called a rising crescendo of petition to the Lord. He has also noted
that the blessing is made up of 60 Hebrew letters: likewise Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan of Num. 7.88, Targ. Song 3.7 and Num. R. 14.18,
which anchor it firmly within the Temple service.8 Targum PseudoJonathan preserves the Hebrew outline of the blessing (divergences
from Hebrew in italics):
8
See Milgrom, Numbers, pp. 5052, and other authors there cited, especially D.N.
Freedman, The Aaronic Blessing, in J.W. Flanagan and A.W. Robinson (eds.), No
Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie (Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press, 1975), pp. 411442; and M. Fishbane, Forms and Reformulation of the Biblical
Priestly Blessing, JAOS 103 (1983), pp. 115121. See also B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer
and Religious Poetry (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 145147. For use of the blessing in
magic, and the relationship between the number of letters in its component clauses and
secret forms of the Divine Name, see J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition:
A Study in Folk Religion (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961),
pp. 9293 and notes, p. 290. Magical use of Gods name as found in texts described
by M.D. Swartz, Scholastic Magic: Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 7481, 131134, 196198, is not
apparent in Targ. Ps.-J.s version of the blessing.
263
24 The Lord bless you in all your occupations, and keep you from night
demons and from frightening demons and noon-day demons and
morning demons and damaging demons and shadow demons.
25 May the Lord make the splendour of his face lighten upon you when
you are occupied in the Torah, and may he reveal to you hidden things
and show consideration to you.
26 May the Lord make the splendour of his face shine upon you when
you pray, and may he grant peace for you in all your borders.
Targums procedure is clear: each clause of the Hebrew original is first

translated in a reasonably straightforward way, and then supplemented
with explanatory material. Thus the Targum reveals its concerns. First,
it associates the blessing with those engaged in Torah study. The addition of in all your occupations ( ) to v. 24 coincides with
the plea in the following verse, that the splendour of Gods face lighten
when you are occupied in the Torah () , and refers
principally to Torah study and keeping of the commandments: Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan regularly uses the root ( literally, to be occupied
with) to express occupation in matters of Torah (e.g. Gen. 30.18; Exod.
10.23; 40.5; Num. 19.8; Deut. 4.10; 15.4, 7; 29.5; 30.20; 32.4). Otherwise,
the root refers to occupation in some kind of work or business (e.g.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exod. 5.9; 22.7, 10); but it remains strongly
redolent of Torah study.9
The blessing is, next, interpreted as a plea for protection from
demons, particularly during the occupations of Torah study. First
stand , night demons, known also from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
of Deut. 32.24, Targ. Isa. 34.14, and Targ. Sheni Est. 1.2 where they
accompany demons and spirits which Solomon makes to skip before
him, and b. Erub. 18b. It is sometimes suggested the word be read as
, Lilith the night-demoness; but this is not certain.10 After the
self-explanatory frightening demons come noon-day demons (
), named again in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Deut. 32.24 and
9
It is not clear why M. Prez Fernndez, Midrs Sifre Nmeros (Biblioteca
Midrsica, 9; Valencia: Institucin San Jernimo, 1989), p. 151, associates this word
with possessions.
10
See further A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch
(2 vols.; Jerusalem: Makor, 1979), II, p. 276; idem, The Embroidered Targum: The
Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1992), p. 129, and literature cited there (both works in Hebrew). The forms
, and often occur on Aramaic incantation bowls: see J. Naveh and
S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985), glossary ad loc., p. 272.
264
chapter thirteen
Targ. Song 4.6, and sometimes explained as evil spirits which lie in wait
at twilight or night. Yet noon-day demons should be preferred as a
translation, since the Hebrew , noon, often appears in Targum
as .11 The morning demons (see also Targ. Psalm 121.6; Targ.
Song 4.6) precede the , damaging demons which were created
on the first Sabbath eve (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Num. 22.8;
m. Ab. 5.9; b. Pes. 54ab; Sifre Deut. 355) and are often named in Talmud
and Midrash.12 Finally come the , shadow demons, known also
from their appearance on amulets and charms.13 Shinan quotes this
verse of the blessing as evidence of Targum Pseudo-Jonathans interest in evil spirits, destroying angels and demons; and there is force
in Ginzburgers suggestion that the rabbinic prohibition of Targum
of the blessing may have been motivated by anxiety that the naming
of such entities in an important liturgical text might encourage the
unlearned to believe in them.14 Yet Targum Pseudo-Jonathans mention
of demons may have a further purpose, to be investigated presently,
which may yield clearer insight into his interpretative strategy here.
Striking is the request in Targum of v. 25 that God reveal hidden
things, . This noun and the related are not common in
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and their occurrence in other verses of the
Targum is suggestive. Thus Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 41.45
11
See Shinan, Embroidered Targum, p. 129, following Y. Reifman; and M. Sokoloff,
A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat-Gan: Bar
Ilan Press, 1990), p. 221.
12
See b. Ber. 6a; Qid. 29b; H ul. 105b; Targ. Song 8.3; Targ. Job 5.7; and further references in Sokoloff, Dictionary, under and Shinan, The Aggadah, II, p. 276.
13
See Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 225, and Shinan, Embroidered Targum, p. 129. See
Naveh and Shaked, Amulets, pp. 57, 69, 70, 90, 99 for mention of them in amulets
(Amulets 4.15; 7.6, 13; 7b.13; 11.8; 13.8), often along with the either singular
or plural (Amulets 7.13; 11.8; 13.9).
14
See Shinan, The Aggadah, II, pp. 271279; idem, Embroidered Targum, pp. 128
134; and Ginsburger, Verbotene Thargumim, pp. 45. Targ. Ps.-J.s list of demons
is not replicated on the bowls and amulets discussed by Naveh and Shaked, who do
not name morning demons and noon-day demons. But the amulets do list types of
demon in order, like the Targum: e.g. Amulet 7a.1213, the evil spirit and the demon
and the shadow-spirit and the tormentor and the destroyer; Amulet 7b.23; Amulet
13.711 (see Naveh and Shaked, Amulets, pp. 7071, 99). This apparent similarity
between Targum and the amulets may also have encouraged Rabbinic reserve about
Targum of the blessingassuming that Targ. Ps-J. represents the kind of Targum the
Rabbis had in mind. Even so, what follows in this essay should indicate that Targ. Ps.J.s version of the blessing cannot be understood merely as an incantation or magic
formula. In any event, great care is needed in the use of terms such as magic in
discussion of ancient Judaism: see W.J. Lyons and A.M. Reimer, The Demonic Virus
and Qumran Studies, Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998), pp. 1632.
265
explains the Egyptian name Zaphnath-paaneah which Pharaoh gave

to Joseph as the man who publishes hidden things, , because of
his God-given ability to interpret the prophetic meaning of dreams.15
Association with divine mysteries is evident again in Targum PseudoJonathan Deut. 29.28, which states that the hidden things, ,
are revealed before the Lord. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Exod. 28.30
declares that the priestly oracle Urim illuminate their words and publish the hidden things [ ]of the house of Israel: on the Urim and
Thummim is engraved the Divine Name, and all who invoke it in their
distress have hidden things revealed to them.16 Targum PseudoJonathan understood Urim as something which illuminates, deriving it
from Hebrew , light, and thereby relating the word to his almost
invariable understanding of Torah as illumination, . The
blessings petition for illumination thus suggested to the Targumist
the revelation of hidden things associated with the priestly oracle and
the Torah. The succesful petitioner would, therefore, share in the privileges of a Joseph or of a high priest. To some, hidden things might
suggest magical mysteries; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, on the contrary,
seems once again to be speaking of Torah study, and praying that its
devout practitioners be blessed with the sort of practical divine guidance granted to the most eminent in Israel, entrusted, as were Joseph
and the high priest, with the welfare of the people. The plea that God
show consideration to or protect such persons ( ) is appropriate in the circumstances.17
Finally, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of v. 26 relates the blessing to
prayer and understands the request for peace as a plea for peace in
Israels borders. This last echoes Ps. 147.1314. There, Jerusalem is
asked to praise God, who has made strong the bars of your gates, and
blessed your children in your midst: who makes your border peace,
and satisfies you with the choicest wheat. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
thus indicates that the second-person singular adressee of the Hebrew
text should be understood as a collective, encompassing the whole
15
Gen. 41.1433. Targ. Ps.-J.s explanation of the name is paralleled in Targ. Onq.,
Targ. Neof. and Gen. R. 90.4, and is attested by Josephus, Ant. 2.91. See also Philo,
Jos. 121.
16
For discussion of this verse, see R. le Daut, Exode et Lvitique (Targum du
Pentateuque, 2; Paris: Cerf, 1979), pp. 226227; M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
Exodus (The Aramaic Bible, 2; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994), pp. 241242.
17
Cf. Maher, Exodus, p. 205. The original Hebrew verb is , which Targ. Ps.-J.
translates again with the Aramaic root at Exod. 33.19; Deut. 28.50; cf. Gen. 33.5, 11.
266
chapter thirteen
nation.18 In short, the blessing is invoked on the Jewish people as a

whole, to grant them blessing in their Torah study and obedience to
the commandments, protection from evil, knowledge of divine mysteries, Gods favourable reception of their prayers, and peace in their
land. The question now arises: how is this exegesis related to other
rabbinic texts?
2. The Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Other
Rabbinic Sources
Nothing exactly like Targum Pseudo-Jonathans succint exegesis occurs
in other rabbinic sources, although these sometimes coincide with
elements of the Targums exposition. Some talmudic passages explain
and resolve the apparent contradiction between scriptural verses
like Deut. 10.17, which declare God impartial (literally, he does not
lift up the face), and the request of Num. 6.26 that God lift up his
face upon Israel (see, e.g., b. Ber. 20b; Ro Ha. 17b; Nid. 80b; cf.
Gen. R. 50.21; Tanh. Haazinu 4), a matter which bothers the Targum
not at all, but which receives lengthy treatment in Sifre Num. 42 and
Num. R. 11.1415. The comments of Sifre Numbers and Numbers
Rabbah, however, occasionally reflect some of Targum Pseudo-Jonathans
concerns.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan refers the initial request for Gods blessing to Israels occupations, that is, her occupation in the Torah and
commandments.19 Neither Sifre Num. 40 nor Num. R. 11.13 suggest anything similar, both rather associating the blessing with Deut.
28.26 or applying it to Israels possessions. Num. R. 11.13 adds extra
explanations, that Israel be protected from brigands, and in respect of
her property or her children, which do not feature in Targum. Next,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan asks that Israel be kept from six kinds of
demons. The , damaging demons, appear in Sifre Num. 40 and
Num. R. 11.13; but only as one item in a great list explaining the blessings use of the verb keep. Sifre explains this keep as a plea that God
preserve Israels possessions, or keep her in body, or from the evil
18
This is also the opinion of Sifre Num. 39 and Num. R. 11.10; but it is not based
on exegesis of v. 26 and its reference to peace. See below, pp. 267268.
19
See above, p. 262. Even if occupations is understood simply as business, Targ.
Ps.-J.s exegesis remains unrepresented in Sifre and Num. R.
267
inclination, or so that others have no dominion over her; or that he

keep the covenant made with the fathers, or keep Israel at the end of
days, or the soul at the hour of death, or individuals from Gehenna,
or Israel in this world. All this, and the similar list in Num. R. 11.13, is
foreign to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Both midrashim, however, offer
Ps. 91.11 as scriptural proof that the keep of the blessing refers to
protection from evil spirits. This verse speaks of God commanding his
angels to keep the psalmist from terrors named earlier: these are the
dread of night, the arrow that flies by day, the pestilence that walks
in darkness, the destruction that devastates at noon, evil, and plague
(Ps. 91.56, 10). The midrashim thus indicate the scriptural foundation on which Targum Pseudo-Jonathan bases his exegesis of keep in
Num. 6.24, but do not develop it in the manner of the Targum. While
demons predominate in the Targum, they play a very minor role in
the midrashim.20
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Num. 6.25 prays that God make his
face shine when Israel is occupied with Torah, and that he reveal hidden things. Both Sifre Num. 41 and Num. R. 11.13 agree that this part
of the blessing speaks of the light of Gods Shekhina and the light of
the Torah; but their mode of expression differs from the Targum. Here
is the Sifre:
The Lord make his face shine upon you. May he grant you illumination
of eyes. R. Nathan said: This refers to the light of the Shekhina, as it is
said: Arise, shine, for your light has come . . . for behold darkness shall
cover the earth and thick darkness the peoples [Isa. 60.12]; God be
merciful to us and bless us and make his face shine on us, Sela [Ps. 67.2]:
and it also says, God is the Lord and he shall shine with light for us [Ps.
118.27]. Another explanation of may he make to shine: This refers to
the illumination of the Torah, for thus Scripture says: For the commandment is a lamp, and the Torah a light [Prov. 6.23].
Indeed, the similarity between Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Sifre and

Numbers Rabbah on this point is of a quite general nature. These
midrashim do not speak of Israel being occupied with the Torah; nor
do they, or other rabbinic texts, allude to the revelation of hidden
things, so prominent in the Targum of this verse. The last word of
the verse, , Targum translates without expansion may he show
20
But see Pes. K. Pisqa 1.5, where R. Johanan seems to assume that the natural interpretation of The Lord bless you and keep you refers to protection from demons.
268
chapter thirteen
consideration to you, or may he protect you. Contrast Sifre Num. 41,

offering five explanations: Num. R. 11.13 adds yet more. Two of these
agree with the general drift of Targums exegesis of the first part of
Num. 6.25.
Another explanation: And may he be gracious to youwith knowledge
and with understanding and with insight and with discipline and with
wisdom. Another explanation; And may he be gracious to youin the
study of the Torah, for so Scripture says: She will give to your head a
garland of grace [ ;]and it also says: For a garland of grace [ ]they
shall be for your head, and chains for your neck (Prov. 4.9; 1.9).
Although knowledge, understanding, and the other benefits which the

Sifre envisages might be construed as the fruit of the revelation of hidden things spoken of in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, it is more likely that
the midrash is here interpreting in the light of the fourth benediction of the Amidah, which asks God to be gracious [ ]to Israel
precisely with gifts of knowledge, understanding and insight.21 Sifre
clearly speaks of study of Torah; but the proof-texts from Proverbs
show that the appearance of the root in the blessing has led to
this exegesis, not earlier petition that God show the light of his face.
Despite superficial resemblances, the exegeses of Targum and the Sifre
rest on differing premises.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan appears in closest agreement with the
midrashim when interpreting the first petition of Num. 6.24, that
the Lord lift up his face, in relation to Israels prayer. Thus both Sifre
Num. 42 and Num. R. 11.14 refer the petition to the time when Israel
stands in prayer, on the basis of an interpretation of the verb lift up
in Gen. 19.21. The list of other interpretations which make up Num.
R. 11.14 find no place in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. In the final request
of the verse for peace, Targum stands alone explaining it as a request
for peace in Israels borders;22 the comments of the Sifre and Numbers
Rabbah are quite different, and lead into a famous paean of praise
for peace reflected in Lev. R. 9.9, but lacking in Targum PseudoJonathan.
In fine, the Targum shares some exegetical material with other rabbinic texts, in particular tradition relating to demons, Torah study, and
21
The prayer is commonly known as Binah, the relevant passage reading:
.
22
See above, p. 265.
269
prayer. Nonetheless, its exegesis of the blessing stands somewhat apart

from other rabbinic sources. Important concerns of the latter, like the
praise of peace, either find no place in Targum, or, like the matter
of Torah study, are expressed in a manner foreign to it and founded
on verses of Scripture remote from the Targums ambience. Similarly,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan emphasizes items that either have no place
in other rabbinic sourcessuch as the plea for peace in Israels borders and the request that God reveal hidden thingsor that play only
a minor role therein, such as the demons. Given this evidence, it is
difficult to explain Targum Pseudo-Jonathan in the light of rabbinic
material alone; it will, therefore, be in order to invoke the help of nonrabbinic texts.
3. The Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Jubilees and
Texts from Qumran
A version of the priestly blessing features in Jub. 12.29, uttered by
Terah over his son Abraham setting out from Haran to go to the land
of Canaan. It is not represented in Gen. 12.13, the biblical source
of the paraphrase created by the author of Jubilees. The blessing is
directed to an individual, not to a group. It follows directly on a note
that the Angel of the Presence had instructed Abraham in the Hebrew
language, described as the revealed language and the language of creation, which had disappeared from human knowledge (Jub. 12.2526).
Abraham was thus able to copy Terahs books, which were written in
Hebrew, and to study them with the angels help (Jub. 12.27). It is not
said that Terah gave this blessing in Hebrew, nor that he was a priest;
but he had served idols, regarding them as errors (Jub. 12.16), staying with Abraham (12.1215) after the latter destroyed them.23
His father Terah said to him: Go in peace.
May the eternal God make your way straight;
23
According to Jub. 3.2627 Adam acted as priest, and the priestly office eventually
passed to Abraham (e.g. Jub. 13.89; 14.1020; 16.1931): see J.R. Levison, Portraits
of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSPSup, 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1988), pp. 9395; C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook
(London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 8899. Possibly the author of Jub. thought that the
priesthood passed from father to eldest son, as rabbinic tradition believed (e.g. Lev.
R. 18.2; Num. R. 4.8; PRE 24.2, 5). If so, Terah might (at least in theory) have priestly
authority.
270
chapter thirteen
May the Lord be with you and protect you from every evil;
May He grant you kindness, mercy, and grace before those who see you;
And may no person have power over you to harm you.
Go in peace.24
This has little in common with Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, except a

request for protection from evil, which hardly corresponds with the
Targums urgent plea for preservation from the demons. Rather, its
emphasis on peace, here named first and last, recalls the midrashim
with their praise of peace (Sifre Num. 42; Num. R. 11.14; Lev. R. 9.9).
The request for kindness, mercy and grace before those who see you
resembles an explanation of Num. 6.25 in Sifre Num. 41, May he grant
you favour in the sight of the creatures. The words may no person have
power over you are almost identical with the sentiment so that others
do not have dominion over you found in Sifre Num. 40; Num. R. 11.13
as an explanation of in Num. 6.24. While Jubilees might provide evidence for the antiquity of elements of the midrashim, it tells us
little about Targum Pseudo-Jonathans exegesis.25 Unlike that Targum,
which faithfully reproduces the thrice-repeated Divine Name of the
Hebrew original, Jubilees but once speaks of the Lord, substituting the
title eternal God for the Name when it first occurs, and altogether
omitting its last appearance.
All this notwithstanding, in one vital respect Targum PseudoJonathan and Jubilees coincide: both offer a paraphrase of the blessing in a language other than Hebrew. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
is an Aramaic Targum; and Terah was born in Ur of the Chaldees
(Jub. 11.713), doubtless speaking Chaldee, that is, Aramaic. It would
seem that Aramaic paraphrases of the blessing were not unthinkable
in the mid-second century bce; and it may be significant that one
such is put into Terahs mouth specifically. Jubilees rails against the
24
Jub. 12.29, translated by J.C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO, 511,
Scriptores Aethiopici, 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1988), p. 74, who notes that the corresponding Hebrew fragment 11QJub 5, 8.45 almost certainly lacks the line May He
grant you kindness . . . before those who see you; nonetheless, he translates the text of
Ethiopic Enoch (reproduced here) without emendation.
25
For discussion of the date of Jubilees, see E. Schrer, G. Vermes, F. Millar and
M. Goodman, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 bcad
135), III.1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), pp. 311314; K. Berger, Das Buch der
Jubilen (JSHRZ, 2.3; Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981), pp. 295301; G.W.E. Nickelsburg,
Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1981),
pp. 7879; J.C. VanderKam, Jubilees, Book of , in ABD, III, pp. 10301031.
271
Hellenistic reform; and Terah may well represent a particular type of

Jewish reaction to that terrible episode.26 As described in Jubilees 12,
he is an ambiguous character: possibly a priest, ignorant of Hebrew yet
possessing Hebrew books, serving idols while recognizing the justice
of his sons virulent hatred of them, making no attempt to save them
when Abraham burns them, willing to leave his home to accompany
his son, and blessing him with a version of the priestly blessing in
Aramaic. Of that blessing there is no hint of censure in Jubilees; yet
later generations might have come to associate it with a commitment
to Judaism which was at best vacillating, and not built on any sure
Hebrew foundation. By contrast, the blessing recorded in Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan is directed towards those who are occupied in the
Torah, its commandments and prayer.
The Jews of Qumran used the priestly blessing as a model for many
of their specially composed blessings: they felt able to adapt the biblical text for their own purposes. One such adaptation seems to be
the ceremonial blessing preserved in 11QBer 12, which shows some
affinity with rabbinic exegesis of the priestly blessing without, however,
reflecting the interests of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.27 More significant
for study of the latter is the paraphrase in 1QS 2.24, used by priests
at the annual covenant ceremony to bless members of the Yahad:
May he bless you with every good and keep you from all evil;
and may he enlighten your heart with life-giving insight and be gracious
to you with everlasting knowledge;
and may he lift up His gracious face to you for everlasting peace.28
26
See Schrer et al., History, III.1, pp. 311312; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature,
pp. 7180. Note Terahs response to Abrahams debunking of idols: I, too, know
[this], my son. What shall I do with the people who have ordered me to serve in their
presence? If I tell them what is right, they will kill me because they themselves are
attached to them so that they worship and praise them. Be quiet, my son, so that they
do not kill you (Jub. 12.67); see also 1 Macc. 2.23; 2 Macc. 6.19.
27
On the blessing at Qumran, see Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 148171; D.K. Falk,
Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998),
pp. 222225; and cf. the observations of K.-E. Grzinger, Midraschisch erweiterte
Priestersegen in Qumran, Frankfurter Jdaistische Beitrge 2 (1974), pp. 3952. I am
indebted to Dr Alex Samely for drawing my attention to the latter. On the relationship between 11QBer 12 and the priestly blessing in particular, see Nitzan, Qumran
Prayer, pp. 167170, and Grzinger, Midraschisch, pp. 4244.
28
My translation of Hebrew printed by Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 150. On restructuring of the blessing by Qumran Jews, see J.A. Loader, The Model of the Priestly
Blessing in 1QS, JSJ 14 (1983), pp. 1117; but note Nitzans modifications of the
model (Qumran Prayer, p. 152 n. 22). Nitzan (Qumran Prayer, pp. 156158; see
272
chapter thirteen
This approach to the blessing is quite different from the Targums

approach. Here, the three separate verses are run together by the addition of conjunctions, to make a continuous, single blessing, and the
Divine Name is entirely removed.29 The second verse jetisons mention of Gods face, replacing it with your heart; and the third makes
one petition out of the two in the original Hebrew. There is no mention of Torah, demons, prayer or peace in the land. The influence of
Ps. 121.7 is evident in the request that God keep the petitioner from all
evil, whereas the Targum depends on Ps. 91.56, 10 at this point in his
commentary.30 Finally, as Bilhah Nitzan has shown, the contasting of
good and evil, and the expressions life-giving insight and everlasting
peace, betray a sectarian frame of mind, if only by way of allusion.31
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan lacks any such thing.
Strangely, however, life-giving insight ( ) and everlasting knowledge ( ) in 1QS 2.3 may throw some light on
Targum Pseudo-Jonathans concern with hidden things. In a passage
of the War Scroll encouraging Israels fight against the powers of darkness, we find the following:
Today is His appointed time to subdue and to humble the prince of the
dominion of wickedness. He will send eternal assistance to the lot to be
redeemed by Him through the might of an angel: he hath magnified the
authority of Michael through eternal light to light up in joy [the house
of Israel], peace and blessing for the lot of God, so as to raise amongst
the angels the authority of Michael and the dominion of Israel amongst
Grzinger, Midraschisch, pp. 4651 for similarities with rabbinic material) discusses
what she terms an expanded pattern of this 1QS blessing attested in 1QSb. The latter blesses at length those who fear God; the high priest; the ordinary priests; and the
prince of the congregation, and is quite unlike the compact blessing for the whole
Jewish people given in Targ. Ps.-J.
29
On the relationship of 1QS to the Rabbinic rules on these matters (see n. 4
above), see Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 150.
30
Cf. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 161, and see above, p. 88. Ps. 91 was known to the
Talmudic Sages as an anti-demonic Psalm, and seems to have been so understood at
Qumran, influencing such texts as 11QPsa and 4Q510511 (Songs of the Maskil): see
Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 228229, 233238. Like Targ. Ps.-J. of Num. 6.24, 4Q510
lists classes of demons, namely spirits of the destroying angels and the spirits of the
bastards, the demons, Lilith, the howlers and [the yelpers . . .] they who strike suddenly
to lead astray the spirit of understanding and to appal their heart and their so[uls] . . .
(4Q510 1.56 in Nitzans translation, Qumran Prayer, p. 240; cf. 4Q511 4851); but
these texts do not use the blessing in their attack on the forces of evil.
31
See Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 149.
273
all flesh. And justice shall rejoice up on high, and all sons of His truth
shall be glad in eternal knowledge [] .32
Echoes of the priestly blessing are evident in the language of lighting up, peace, blessing and lightall these being interwoven with
Michaels actions among the inhabitants of heaven and with Israels
struggle on earth. These things are his mysteries (, 1QM 17.9),
Gods heavenly secrets revealed to the Jews of Qumran. The supernatural dimension of the phrase is further emphasized by the Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice. In 4Q405 13.5 we read:
. . . the wondrous [prin]ces shall bless, in the name of the po[wers of
the elim, all those powerful of insight with everlasting knowledge, with
seven powerful words . . .33
Here, heavenly authorities bless with those who have

insight, , in the course of a liturgy celebrated in the heavenly
realms. Although the interpretation of these Songs is a matter of intense
debate, no one seriously doubts that they purport to describe the workings of the supernatural realms, the duties of the angelic princes and
the characteristic virtues of the heavenly world.34 Here, everlasting
knowledge is a supernatural quality, reminiscent of the ,
insightful knowledge, which the author of 1QH 11.27 perceives as a
gift of God allowing him to understand Gods wonders.
When Targum Pseudo-Jonathan asks that hidden things be revealed,
divine mysteries are in view.35 Despite differences in terminology and
view of the world, the Targum and 1QS 2.24 partly agree in taking
Num. 6.25 as a request for supernatural knowledge. The Qumran Jews
possibly also understood the blessing as a plea for protection from evil
spirits: what is evidently a reversal of the blessing into a curse uttered
by the Levites against the men of the lot of Satan threatens the latter
32
1QM 17.58, translation taken from Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of
Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 340.
33
For the Hebrew, restored in the light of the parallel text 4Q403 1.1.21, see
C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSM, 27; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 276277.
34
Discussion of the relationship of these Songs to Scriptural exegesis, worship at
Qumran, and mystical practices is offered by Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 273318.
See also E. Hamacher, Die Sabbatopferlieder im Streit um Ursprung und Anfnge der
Jdischen Mystik, JSJ 27 (1996), pp. 119154.
35
See above, pp. 264265. Nitzan herself (Qumran Prayer, p. 162) also associates
Targ. Ps.-J.s hidden things with the supernatural gifts described in 1QS 2.3.
274
chapter thirteen
with terror through all those who breathe vengeance and destruction
through all those who take revenge (1QS 2.59). This may imply that
the blessing in some sense begs protection from these powers. It is not
certain, however, that these entities are evil in themselves: they may
be agents of divine wrath, in which case this curse is best left on one
side in considering the Targums version of the blessing.36 In truth,
the Qumran material may legitimately be used to elucidate only one
item of the Targums paraphrase, the plea for revelation of hidden
things.
4. The Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and
Sirach 36.116
As already noted,37 the Targums interest in demons shows itself in Num.
6.24. This interest is not, however, confined to the supernatural realm;
for Targum Pseudo-Jonathan thought it proper to compare directly the
evil spirits with traditional, flesh-and-blood enemies of Israel known
from the Scriptures. Deuteronomy 32.24 is part of an extended description of the disasters which befell Israel (Deut. 32.1925) following the
Baal-Peor incident, when God says that Israel would be
wasted with hunger and devoured with burning heat and with bitter
destruction; and I shall send against them the teeth of beasts, with fury
of those crawling in the dust.
Here is Targum Pseudo-Jonathans extended paraphrase of the verse

(divergences from the Hebrew are in italics):
I shall exile them in Media and in Elam from out of the captivity of
Babylon. There shall oppress them men of the house of Agag, who are likened to demons [ ]swollen up with hunger, and to damaging demons
[ ]devoured of birds, and to noon-day demons [ ] afflicted
36
See Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 151153. Quotations from the curse are given
in her translation, Qumran Prayer, p. 151. Cf. also P. Wernberg-Mller, The Manual
of Discipline (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1957), p. 52 (the avengers are angels), and in greater
detail A.R.C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning (London: SCM Press,
1966), pp. 130134.
37
Above, pp. 262263. In what follows, note how Targ. Ps.-J. stands apart from
the other Targums and Peshitta of Deut. 32.24, which speak of evil spirits, but do
not compare them with the hostile nations: see B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to
Deuteronomy (The Aramaic Bible, 9; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp. 9697; R. le
Daut, Targum du Pentateuque. IV. Deutronome (Paris: Cerf, 1980), pp. 272273.
275
by evil spirits and to night demons [ ]inflated with evil spirits. And
I shall hurl against them the Greeks who bite with their teeth like wild
beasts; and I shall send them into exile through the Edomites who are full
of poison like venomous snakes, those crawling in the dust.
The house of Agag are the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15.20, 3233), of whom
it was said that the Lord would have war with them for generations
(Exod. 17.16). They are thus long-standing enemies of Israel; and
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has no difficulty in describing them as three
classes of demon and malignant spirit represented in his version of
the priestly blessing. The demons named in that blessing, therefore,
must not be understood merely as disembodied supernatural forces:
they represent and incarnate on earth the most deadly of Israels political and military foes, festering with ancient hatreds. The force of the
Targums re-working of the last clause of the blessing to read and may
he grant you peace in all your borders may now be understood more
clearly. God is petitioned to keep and preserve his people, as they pursue Torah study and the requirements of the commandments, from
those evil forces, natural and supernatural enemies which would divert
them from and deprive them of both their religious duties and their
rightful land.
A similar understanding of the priestly blessing may also be traced
in the translation of Jesus ben Siras Wisdom, undertaken by his
grandson. Greek Sir. 36.117 is in the form of a prayer, which reaches
its climax with the words:
Give ear, O Lord, to the prayer of your suppliants,
According to the blessing of Aaron concerning your people;
And all those upon the earth shall know
That you are the Lord, the everlasting God.38
38
Sir. 36.1617 translated from Greek text in A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, II (Stuttgart:

Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). The Greek of ch. 36 follows a different order
from the Hebrew text: Hebrew ben Sira 36.2223, which corresponds to Sir. 36.1617,
apparently did not refer to the blessing. A translation of the Hebrew in M. Sharett, The
Book of Ben Sira (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the
Book, 1973), p. 35, yields: May You hear the prayer of your servants (var.: servant),
according to (var . . . by) Your will . . . concerning our people; and all the ends of the
earth shall know (var.: see) that You are the [ever]last[ing] God. P.W. Skehan and
A.A. di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira (Anchor Bible, 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987),
pp. 414, 423 take the Hebrew as the basis of their translation of and commentary
on these verses (signalled by them as 36.22): they do not refer to the Greek version
presented by Rahlfs.
276
chapter thirteen
The prayer opens with a plea for God to show mercy () and
look upon () Israel by sending his fear on the nations, lifting his hand against them that they may see his power, so that they
may know him (36.24), a request reiterated in the closing lines of
the prayer. He is asked to show his wrath against Israels enemies as
in ancient times, especially against enemy rulers who claim there is
none beside them (36.59). This claim ( , 36.9) is a
blasphemous parody of Gods proclamation that there is none like him
(Isa. 45.5, 21), and marks these enemies as effectively demonic agents.
36.11 again pleads with God to show mercy () on the people
called by his Name, an indirect reference to the priestly blessing by
which Gods Name is placed upon Israel (Num. 6.27). Next come petitions for Gods pity () on Jerusalem, the manifestation of
his glory in Zion, and the fulfilment of prophecies (36.1215), before
the final words of the prayer quoted earlier. In other words, Sirach
understands this prayer of Gods suppliants as encapsulating the sense
of Aarons blessing over Israel; that is, as a petition for Israels well-being and safety in her political and military dealings with other nations.39
That the blessing could be understood in this way is suggested by the
climax of Hebrew ben Siras Wisdom, where the high priests utterance
of the blessing at the end of the service in the Temple (50.2021) leads
to a request that God be among Israel in peace (50.23), confirming his
covenant with the high priest (50.24): to this, ben Sira adds a vehement
condemnation of Israels enemies.40
39
Both and may represent the Hebrew root : in lxx, the
former often does duty for it (e.g. Gen. 33.5; Exod. 33.19; Deut. 7.2, and frequently in
the Psalter, Pss. 9.13; 25.11; 29.10), and the latter renders it at lxx Pss. 4.1; 36.21; 58.5;
66.1; 76.9; 101.14; and elsewhere. Greek represents Hebrew at lxx
Dan. 9.17, in a verse strongly redolent of the priestly blessing, which runs in Hebrew:
And now, O our God, listen to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplications,
and make Your face shine upon Your sanctuary which is desolate . . .
40
On the blessing in Sir. 50.2021, see Skehan and di Lella, Wisdom, pp. 554555,
who suggest (p. 558) that the following attack on foreign enemies (50.2526) is in
no way related to it. Even if such were the case, there was nothing to prevent ben
Siras grandson from concluding that the blessing and the attack on foreign nations
were indeed related to each other, because they had been placed next to each other
in the text. An attack on the high priests enemies, however, is entirely appropriate
at this point, following the praise bestowed on him: see Hayward, The Jewish Temple,
pp. 6163.
277
5. Conclusions
Targum Pseudo-Jonathans interpretation of the priestly blessing is
complex, and appears to consist of different layers of material deriving from different times and places. Of these, rabbinic tradition is
most prominent in the Targums present text. This is apparent where
the Targums exegesis agrees with that of other rabbinic texts (e.g. the
same words and phrases being expounded of demons, Torah study, and
prayer in both Targum and rabbinic texts), and in the general rules for
the utterance of the blessing set out in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num.
6.23. The surviving manuscript of the Targum, by prefacing each verse
of Aramaic paraphrase with the Hebrew original, and writing them
clearly as separate verses (as they would be uttered when the blessing
were given in the course of the synagogue liturgy), may also hint at
approval of the rabbinic rule that this text may be read in synagogue,
but not translated. As it stands, therefore, the Targums version of the
blessing is unlikely to be older than the fourth century ce.
Nevertheless, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan lacks whole areas of rabbinic concern, and, more significantly, the scriptural foundations of
his exegesis often differ from those of other rabbinic sources. Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan also signals items which either find no place, or play
only a minor part, in the rabbinic documents. This prompts a search
of non-rabbinic texts, beginning with Jubilees, which preserves from
the mid-second century bce a paraphrase of the blessing. While the
substance of this has little in common with Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,
Jubilees provides evidence for the use of Aramaic versions of the blessing in Second Temple times, without suggesting that their use was
improper. This observation incidentally supports Joseph Heinemanns
thesis, that the rabbinic rule permitting reading of the priestly blessing
in Hebrew, but not its translation into Aramaic during the synagogue
service, arose as an afterthought. He argues that priests were once
forbidden to read the blessing from a written Hebrew text as they pronouced it. This prohibition was later assimilated to well-known mishnaic rules governing passages of Scripture which might be read but
not translated.41 Originally, therefore, there was no ban on Aramaic
41
See J. Heinemann, The Priestly Blessing . . . Is not Read and not Translated, Bar
Ilan 6 (1968), pp. 3341 (in Hebrew). His thesis is accepted by Klein, Not to Be
Translated, pp. 8081.
278
chapter thirteen
versions of the blessing; and Jubilees puts one into Terahs mouth. But
Jubilees depicts Terah as ignorant of Hebrew, and one whose commitment to Judaism was weak and questionable. Possibly the association
of Aramaic versions of the blessing with Jews like Terah influenced
both the Rabbis eventual prohibition of such Targum, and the extant
Targums carefully orthodox paraphrase.
Hebrew rewriting of the blessing preserved in 1QS 2.24 shows
how some Jews in the Second Temple period understood the second
petition as a request for enlightenment in divine mysteries. In this,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan stands apart from midrashic expositions,
and shows affinities with earlier concerns about the heavenly world
and its secrets. Yet even here differences manifest themselves. The
Targums hidden things are divine mysteries involving the Torah and
Israels destiny: they seem to have a practical import, directed towards
Israels well-being in this world, whereas the Qumran writer is firmly
fixed on heavenly realities. Finally, Targum Pseudo-Jonathans application of demonic characteristics to Israels ancient enemies gives a
political and military twist to his plea for peace in Israels borders,
another non-rabbinic sentiment reflected in Sirachs understanding of
the blessing as a prayer for Gods mercy in Israels defence against
hostile nations.
Beneath its rabbinic outer garments, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan preserves older interpretations of the blessing which most likely originated
in Second Temple times and continued to influence exegetes for some
time thereafter. In this respect, the Targums exposition can appear sui
generis, the work of different interpreters transmitting ancient tradition, in ways acceptable to later generations and sensibilities. Thus an
interpretation that might once have emphasized the blessings almost
magical power to avert demons becomes, in this Targum, a petition
for Gods protection of his people as they study the Torah, keep its
commandments, and search for its hidden treasures in their own land,
safe from enemies natural and supernatural.
PART THREE
SAINT JEROME AND JEWISH TRADITION
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
JEWISH TRADITIONS IN JEROMES COMMENTARY ON

JEREMIAH AND THE TARGUM OF JEREMIAH
Jerome had an innate flair for languages. He lived at a time when the
linguistic cleavage between East and West was deepening: few Christians
in the East ever had known any Latin; and fewer and fewer in the West
now knew any Greek. By his indefatigable study of Hebrew Jerome
turned himself into a near-unique phenomenon at any period in the
history of the early Churcha trilingual (competent in Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew).1
If this alone were true of St. Jerome, it would be remarkable enough

in itself, since it enabled him to produce his famous Latin translation
of the Bible, the Vulgate. But St. Jerome is renowned, not only for his
translation of the Bible but also for his commentaries on the Biblical
books; indeed, in many respect he remains as a model exegete, with his
careful attention to text, language, context, and exposition.2
Particularly impressive in these commentaries is his knowledge and
use of Jewish exegetical traditions; indeed, he often frankly acknowledges his debt to the Jews.3 In this, he was helped by his understanding
of Hebrew, and his learning of Syriac, which had been forced upon
him by his sojourn in the desert of Chalcis.4 He also knew Aramaic,
although it would seem that he found this language easier to read than
1
H.D.F. Sparks, Jerome as Biblical Scholar, in The Cambridge History of the Bible,
ed. P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1970), p. 517.
2
For general information on St. Jerome as commentator, see J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome:
His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1975), pp. 141167; H.D.F. Sparks,
op. cit., pp. 535541; A. Penna, Principi e carattere dell Esegesi di S. Gerolamo (Rome,
1950); and F. Cavallera, S. Jrme: Sa Vie et son Oeuvre (Louvain, 1922).
3
See, for example, the list of references cited by Sparks, op. cit., p. 539; S. Krauss,
article Jerome, Jewish Encyclopaedia vol. 7 (New York, 1904), pp. 115118; A. Penna,
op. cit., pp. 610; G. Bardy, Saint Jrme et ses Maitres Hebreux, Revue Bndictine
46 (1934), pp. 145164; S. Krauss, The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers,
Jewish Quarterly Review 6 (1894), pp. 225261; H. Grtz, Hagadische Elemente bei
den Kirchenvtern, Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 3
(1854), pp. 311318.
4
For the details, see Kelly, op. cit., p. 49; Krauss, Jerome, p. 115.
282
chapter fourteen
to speak.5 Sometimes he carefully distinguishes Hebrew from Aramaic,

as in his commentaries on Tobit and Judith;6 but at other times he
refers to Aramaic as Syriac, as he does in a paragraph quoted below.7
His linguistic ability in Aramaic and Syriac meant that he had a wide
range of Jewish traditions at his disposal, since he had access to material handed on in languages other than Hebrew.8 In particular, as we
shall see presently, it is highly probable that he was conversant with
traditions now preserved in the Targum, that ancient translationcum-interpretation of the Hebrew Bible which was transmitted in
Aramaic.9
Before looking at St. Jeromes commentary on Jeremiah, we must
bear in mind one important preliminary point. His predecessor
Origen had composed homilies on Jeremiah, and early in his career as
translator Jerome had turned these into Latin.10 Origen had been, in
his own generation, almost as remarkable as Jerome was to be in his:
for he, too, had learned some Hebrew, and knew of Jewish exegetical
traditions, even though his knowledge was much less than that of his
brilliant successor.11 But by the time that Jerome came to compose his
commentary on Jeremiah,12 he had radically changed his opinion of
Origen and his work. The controversy which had raged over Origens
theology had been long and bitter, and Jerome had taken a leading
role in having Origen condemned as a heretic. In consequence, his
5
See Sparks, op. cit., p. 517, citing the Preface to the commentary on Daniel, and
Krauss, Jerome, p. 116.
6
See Prefaces to Tobit and Judith in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latina 29 (Paris,
1865), col. 25: Now because the tongue of the Chaldeans is related (vicina) to the
Hebrew language . . .
7
See below, p. 292.
8
Kelly, op. cit., p. 285, suggests that he was unfamiliar with Aramaic, and used an
interpreter who knew both it and Hebrew for his translation of Tobit and, he conjectures, of Judith. But the Preface to Tobit (PL 29, cols. 2526) says only that he used
a most skilled speaker (peritissimum loquacem) of both languages, who expressed in
Hebrew words that Jerome put into Latin. He refers to no such loquax in the Preface
to Judith (PL 29, cols. 3942), but notes that it is written in Chaldean.
9
For the Targum and its methods, see R. le Daut, Introduction la Littrature
Targumique (Rome, 1966); J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, 1969); M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon, 1968); idem, article
Targum, Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplement volume (Nashville, 1976),
pp. 856861, and the bibliography cited there.
10
See Kelly, op. cit., pp. 7677.
11
See N.R.M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge, 1977).
12
He wrote it probably in 414415. The preface to Book IV does not know of the
Dialogue against the Pelagians which was being composed in July 415 for publication
in the spring of 416. See Cavallera, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 55; Kelly, op. cit., p. 316.
jewish traditions in jeromes commentary on jeremiah
283
commentary on Jeremiah is ambivalent in its attitude to Origen, and

a careful look-out for unacknowledged borrowings from Origen and
his knowledge of Jewish tradition is in order.13
This article will examine four particular aspects of St. Jeromes commentary on Jeremiah: some explanations of geographical terms; two
major theological problems; some explanations of Hebrew words; and
the exegesis of particular verses and words. Again and again we shall
see how his interpretations coincide with those of the Aramaic Targum,
and how unlikely it is that he derives these from Origen. It will, we
trust, become clear that he was deeply indebted to Targumic tradition; and this observation will be of help in trying to decide whether
he knew the Targum.14 And we shall certainly find confirmation of an
opinion which Krauss offered many years ago, that Jerome attests the
high antiquity of a number of Jewish haggadic traditions which are
known to us otherwise only from sources of a late date.15
1. Geographical Terms
Jeromes interest in places and their names is well-known, and it is not
surprising that a number of his geographical observations correspond
to the popular Jewish material of his day.16 The place Kedar (Jer. 2:10),
for example, he explains as being
a region of desert and of the Ishmaelites, whom nowadays they call
Saracens.17
Targum of this verse interprets Kedar as meaning the province of the

Arabs, whom Tg. Jer. 3:2 further defines as dwelling in tents in the
13
Cf. F. Stummer, Beitrage zu dem Problem Hieronymus und die Targumim,

Biblica 18 (1937), p. 181; G. Bardy, art. cit., pp. 145164, esp. pp. 148153. For the
controversy, see Cavallera, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 193286; Kelly, op. cit., pp. 195209;
and the list of heretical teachings which S. Jerome ascribes to Origen in Adversus
Ioann. Hier. 7.
14
Cf. Stummer, art. cit., pp. 174181; M. McNamara, The New Testament and the
Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome, 1966), p. 55.
15
See Krauss, Jerome, p. 117.
16
See, for example, his famous Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum and
his edition of Eusebiuss Onomasticon.
17
All quotations from S. Jeromes Commentary on Jeremiah are taken from
the edition of S. Reiter, S. Hieronymi Presbyteri In Hieremiam Prophetam, Corpus
Christianorum Series Latina, vol. lxxiv (Turnhout, 1960), hereafter In Hier.; and quotations from the Targum of Jeremiah from the edition of A. Sperber, The Bible in
Aramaic, vol. 111 (Leiden, 1962).
284
chapter fourteen
wilderness. This same definition is used to describe those who cut the
corners of their hair (Tg. Jer. 9:25), thus identifying them as Arabs.
Similarly, Jerome, commenting on this latter verse, refers to
the whole region of the Saracens who dwell in solitude, and of whom it
is saidon all who cut their hair, dwelling in the desert. (In Hier. II.
lxxxiv).
Now the Ishmaelites and Saracens are the Arabs,18 and the identification of Kedar as the place of the Arabs is attested by other Targumic
texts, especially Ps. Jon. Gen. 25:13. But the Septuagint of the verses
quoted here does not specify that Kedar refers to the region of the
Arabs; nor do the main Rabbinic texts which comment on them;19 and
Origen here is silent about the identification of the place.
A particularly interesting exegesis of the place-names Gilead and
Lebanon, which corresponds exactly to the Targum and Tannaitic
sources, is given by Jerome in his commentary on Jer. 22:6. In a threat
addressed to the king of Judah, Jeremiah says on Gods behalf
You are Gilead to me, the top of Lebanon . . .
This section of the verse is translated by the Targum as

Should you be as beloved before me as the house of the sanctuary, which
is high on the tops of the mountains . . .
Gilead here is understood as symbolising the Temple; elsewhere in

post-biblical Jewish tradition Lebanon, also named here, is taken as a
symbol of the Temple or the king.20 The Gilead-Temple identification,
however, is not common. The Targum of this verse has it, but it is not
found in the Targum of the Pentateuch, of the rest of the Prophets,
or of the Writings. Such a clear identification occurs in Mekhilta of
R. Ishmael, Amalek 2:8587, commenting on Deut. 34:1; Mekhilta
18
See Genesis 37:25, where Ishmaelites are named: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Ps.Jon) and Targum Onqelos (TO) render as Arabs (cf. Gen. 37:28); Targum Neofiti (N),
the Fragment Targum (FT) and the Geniza Fragments (G) render as Saracens. So
also at Gen. 39:1 Hebrew Ishmaelites becomes Saracens in N and G, Arabs in Ps.-Jon
and TO. See also Yalqut Shimoni (Wilna, 1909), vol. 2, p. 821: KedarThese are the
Ishmaelites.
19
On Jer. 3:2, see yer. Taan. 3:3.13; Qidd. 4:1.36; t.Qidd. 1:2; Num. R. 8:4; and on
Jer. 9:25 see b.Ned. 31a; Gen R. 46:5; Lev. R. 26:6; PRE 29.
20
See G. Vermes, Lebanon in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (2nd ed., Leiden,
1973), pp. 2639.
285
of R. Simeon b. Yohai, Beshallah 17:14;21 Sifre Deut. 357; and Yalqut

Shimoni vol. 1, pp. 575, 687. I am unable to trace it elsewhere: Sifre
Deut. 6, 28, refers in the main to Lebanon. Jeromes comment is very
close to that of the Targum:
Therefore in the present place, because he (Jeremiah) was speaking to
the royal house, he speaks by way of metaphor to the temple and to the
house of the stock of Judah, because it itself is on high, and because
from the temple and the sanctuary the healing of all sins is demanded;
wherefore also this same prophet records: Is there no balm in Gilead, or
no physician there? Why has the healing of the daughter of my people
not ascended? (In Hier. IV. xxxvi).
Earlier, St. Jerome had stated that Gilead is the head of Lebanon,
entirely covered with cedars (In Hier. IV. xxxvi), another point of contact with the Targum. He continues:
He therefore threatens the royal house, and the city of Jerusalem and
the Temple, which he calls the head of Lebanon, (saying) that it is to
be turned into a desert with all its cities not by the power of the king of
Babylon, but by order of the Lord who says: I will sanctify a slaughterer
over you. (In Hier. IV. xxxvi).
There can be little doubt that Jerome is here in touch with a Jewish tradition which is demonstrably older than his time (witness the Tannaitic
Midrashim), is found in Targum, and is very rare elsewhere. Neither
the Septuagint nor Origen interpret this text in such a way. That he
should so understand Gilead in this verse is striking; and although,
as proof of his exegesis, he quotes another reference to the place at
Jer. 8:22, his comment on that verselike that of its Targumreveals
no identification of Gilead with the Temple.
Finally, we may note that Jerome identifies Caphtor as Cappadocia,
just as the Targum does at Jer. 47:4.22 The Neofiti Targum of Deut. 2:23
treats Caphtor in the same way. Once again, Jeromes awareness of
Jewish tradition in respect of geographical information is underlined,
and the likelihood of his knowledge of the Targumic tradition is
strengthened.
21
Mekhilta of R. Ishmael is edited by J.Z. Lauterbach, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 193335);

and Mekhilta of R. Simeon b Yohai by J.N. Epstein (Jerusalem, 1955).
22
See Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum, Corpus Christianorum Series
Latina vol. lxxii (Turnhout, 1959), pp. 63, 86.
286
chapter fourteen
2. Two Theological Problems
(1) Both Jerome and the Targum expound Jer. 5:12 with reference to
Gods providence. This verse, which is often quoted in late Rabbinic
literature,23 relates the treacherous words of Israel and Judah:
They have denied the Lord, and have said: It is not He; neither shall evil
come upon us . . .
The Hebrew lhw, it is not He, may also be translated as He is not and
be understood as a denial of Gods existence;24 or even as He is nothing, a contemptuous dismissal of his power.25 The Targums exegesis,
however, is quite distinctive:
They have denied (or: lied to) the Word of the Lord, and have said: Not
from before him do good things come upon us; neither, indeed, shall evil
come upon us . . .
The italicised words represent Targums interpretation of the Hebrew

l hw. In this version, sinful Israel and Judah deny Gods providence.
The Targum of the prophets speaks often of good things which shall,
do, or have come from God. God brings good things on Israel because
she serves Him;26 He has done more and more good things in the land
of Israel for his people;27 and the good things which he had promised
in the past to Israels ancestors he will perform.28 There is a treasury
of Gods goodness,29 and in the future his power will be revealed to do
good for Israel.30 The biblical foundations of such teaching are evident,
and the Targums emphasis on Gods present and future goodness is
clearly reflected in such pre-Rabbinic works as the Psalms of Solomon,
composed in the latter half of the first century bc.31
23
See Ex. R. 30:5; Lev. R. 19:2; Num. R. 9:7; Song. R. 5:1; Tanhuma Naso 2; PRK
129; PR 28:4; 34:13; Mid. Sam. 5.
24
So New English Bible and the Vulgate.
25
So Jerusalem Bible.
26
Tg. Jer. 2:11 (First Rabbinic Bible, Venice 151517); 2:13; Tg. Hos. 8:3, The
house of Israel have gone astray from my service, for the sake of which I bring good
things upon them.
27
Tg. Joel 2:21; cf. Tg. Mic. 6:3, O my people, what good thing did I say that I
would do for you, and I have not done it?
28
Tg. Mic. 7:20, You will perform with us the good things which you swore to our
fathers from days of old; Tg. Zeph. 3:7; Tg. Zech. 9:12; Tg. Jer. 31:6.
29
Tg. Isa. 33:6.
30
Tg. Isa. 33:21.
31
With Ps. Sol. 11:7, cf. Tg. Zeph. 3:7; Tg. Zech. 9:12, where God says that he
will do good things; and with Pss. Sol. 17:44; 18:6, cf. Tg. Mic. 7:20; Tg. Jer. 31:6.
287
The Rabbinic sources which deal with this verse do not understand
it as implying a denial of Gods providence; rather, they concentrate
on Israels denying God or lying to him, and often try to relate the text
to specific historical events. For the Targum, however, it is precisely
Gods providence which is under attack, for to deny Gods goodness
is to deny his control of history and the government of the world, and
to deny the promised future blessing for Israel in the world to come.
Jerome comments:
They have denied the Lord and have said: It is not Heor, These things
are not32neither shall evil come upon us . . . Because they have denied
the Lord, and have said, It is not He by whose justice everything shall
come about, but all these things have happened by chance; nor shall the
things with which the voices of the prophets threaten us come to pass . . .
this is the oracle. Let the Church hear this, as she neglects and denies
Gods providence . . . (In Hier. I. xcviii).
Denial of Gods justice in human affairs or in history, and the assertion

that all things occur at random, were notions fostered by the popular peddlers of Epicureanism. Denial of divine providence was not
unknown among Jews; and it is almost certain that Josephus portrays
the Sadducees as maintaining a very thin and truncated theology of
Gods governance of the world.33 A number of verses in the Targums
of the Pentateuch are also best interpreted as polemics against such
tendencies, and, in the opinion of some authorities, may have once
been directed against Sadducees.34 Targum of Jer. 5:12 attacks a heresy of the same sort, which survived the demise of the Sadducees and
The possibility that Targums theology here is as old as the first century bc cannot
be ruled out. Note that the Targumic eschatology is by and large, basic and underdeveloped; and the hope of good things to come is a feature of popular eschatological hope in the period around the first century. See S.H. Levey, The Messiah: An
Aramaic Interpretation (CincinnatiNew York, 1974); R.P. Gordon, The Targumists
as Eschatologists, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 29 Congress Volume (Gottingen,
1977/78), pp. 113130.
32
So the Old Latin (non sunt haec); cf. LXX.
33
See War II. 164; Ant. XIII.173; on the subject of Divine Providence in Jewish
thought see E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols., Jerusalem,
1979), vol. 1, pp. 255285, and E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age
of Jesus Christ, revised and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black, vol. 2 (Edinburgh,
1979), pp. 392394.
34
See, for example, S. Isenberg, An Anti-Sadducee Polemic in the Palestinian
Targum Tradition, Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970), pp. 433444; G. Vermes,
The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:316, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden, 1975),
pp. 114116.
288
chapter fourteen
flourished in fertile soil after the tragic collapse of the Second Revolt
against Rome in 135 ad.
It is probable that Jerome owes his understanding of this verse to a
once popular Jewish exegesis which now remains only in the Targum.
Origen transmits no such interpretation, nor does the Septuagint; and
the Rabbinic sources which quote this verse are all, in their present
form, later in date than his work.35 It is the insistence of the Targum
and Jerome on divine providence which is so remarkable and (unless
he derived it from some earlier Christian source which I have failed
to trace) which makes it probable that Jerome depended on Jewish
traditional reading of the verse.
(2) More than any other prophet, Jeremiah suffered because of
his commission; and his pain finds expression in a famous poem in
which he curses the day of his birth, 20:1418. He curses the man who
announced his birth,
because he did not kill me from the womb, so that my mother would
have been my grave, and her womb pregnant for ever. (20:17).
The Targumist could not allow this verse to stand unaltered. He makes
important changes, and translates:
Would that he had not said concerning me that I should have died from
the womb, and that my mother should have been my grave, and that I
should have been as if I had not existed.
It is a curious fact that, as far as I am aware, this verse is never quoted

in the Rabbinic Literature. The Targum seems to be the only document
from ancient times to deal with it.36 But the Targumist, of course, was
compelled to tackle it, because it raises at least three important difficulties.
First, Jeremiah wishes that the man who announced his birth
had killed him. He would thus seem to deny his prophetic vocation
from the womb (1:5), an unthinkable and impious idea which the
Targumists could not tolerate.
Second, the verse suggests that Jeremiah would have been guilty of
suicide, and of encouraging another man to commit murder to bring
this about. This, again, had to be changed. Finally, the prophet seems
35
See above, note 23.

The verse is not catalogued by A. Hyman, Torah Hakketubah Wehammesorah,
2nd ed. rev. and enlarged by A.B. Hyman, (Tel-Aviv, 1979), vol. 2, ad loc.
36
289
inconsistent in his language. He wants to be killed from the womb,

after his birth, by the man who announces it; but at the same time he
wishes that he had died in the womb. This contradiction is resolved in
typically Targumic fashion with the opening clause of the translation;
and this leaves free the last clause for further exegesis: Jeremiah wishes
that he had been as if he had not existed.
If this somewhat laborious explanation of the Targums purpose
seems tedious, it should at least high-light one crucial feature of the
interpretation: the punch-line of the translation is its last clause, for
which the Targumist has cleverly and decisively cleared the ground.
How is such a wish, that one should not have existed, to be understood in respect of ancient Jewish thought? We naturally turn to the
famous Baraita in which the House of Shammai argue that it would
have been better for man not to have been created, in opposition to
the House of Hillels view that it was better for man to have been created than not to have been created. The debate led to a vote, in which
the House of Shammai prevailed; but it was agreed that, since man
had been created, he should examine his (past) deeds or, according to
others, consider his future behaviour.37
Urbach points out the unparalleled nature of this debate: it leads
to no discussion or comment elsewhere, and its conclusion is at variance, both with the general Rabbinic view that the creation of man
was very good, and with Gods command to men to be fruitful and
multiply.38 He examines passages in which Rabbis say that it would
have been better if a particular individual had not existed, or had died;
and he concludes that these sources say nothing at all about the value
of human existence in general, but express Rabbinic attitudes towards
the man who sins, or who studies Torah but does not perform the
commandments, or one who neither studies Torah nor performs the
commandments, or even one who had recourse to invoking the name
of Jesus.39
If we return to the Targum in the light of this information, we find
two ways in which the text may be read. First, we may understand that
37
b. Erub. 13 b.
See Urbach, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 252253.
39
Ibid., pp. 253254. He quotes Lev. R. 35:5; Sifra Behuqqotay 5, 110c; b. Ber. 43b;
Ket. 67b; Sot. 10b; BM 59a; yer Ber. 1:5.3; Shabb. 1:5.3; Ex. R. 40:1; Matt. 18:6; 26:24;
I Clement 46:8; yer. AZ 1:2.40; Shabb. 13:4.14. To these add m. Hag. 2:1 and I Enoch
38:2, which serve only to strengthen Urbachs conclusions.
38
290
chapter fourteen
Jeremiah is criticising the man who announced his birth for having
said of Jeremiah that he should have been as if he had not existed. This
man would be, in effect, like a Rabbi saying of a sinner or law-breaker:
It would have been better for him if he had not come into existence.
But here is a problem. Jeremiah was not a sinner; as a true prophet he
kept the commandments; he was a holy and righteous man. How, then
could anyone say of him that he should not have existed? A wicked
man might say this of him; but on what grounds? An easy answer to
this question would be forthcoming if we are prepared to believe that
the Targumist knew of traditions, attested elsewhere, that the wicked
priest Passhur announced Jeremiahs birth; and that from his first
breath the prophet uttered oracles of doom against Zion.40 But we look
in vain for any such traditions in the Targum.
The second way of understanding the Targum is by far the simplest and most probable. We should read the text in sections. First,
Jeremiah attacks the man who announced his birth for having wished
the prophets death, thus eliminating the theological problem posed
by the original Hebrew. But we should then understand the Targum
to turn immediately to an expression of Jeremiahs own wish that his
mother had been his grave, and that he had been as if he had not
existed. The Aramaic will permit this interpretation;41 such atomistic
exegesis of the Hebrew is common in the Targum;42 and such an interpretation connects very well with the following verse, Jer. 20:18, where
Jeremiah is the speaker:
Why was it that I came forth from the womb to see trouble and weariness, and that my days should come to an end in shame?
If we follow this argument, the Targum would be putting into Jeremiahs

mouth a sentiment found in the Talmud, voiced by the House of
Shammai, whose view prevailed. It would seem, too, that certain people in S. Jeromes day understood the verse in this way.
40
For Passhur as the announcer of Jeremiahs birth, see Kimhi on on this verse; and
for Jeremiahs prophecy on coming out of the womb, cf. PR 26:1/2.
41
There is no particle d, that, to introduce the second and third clauses. We could,
indeed, translate: Would that he had not said concerning me that I should have died
from the womb; rather, my mother should have been my grave, and I should have
been as if I had not existed.
42
See the clear examples cited by G. Vermes, Bible and Midrash: Early Old
Testament Exegesis, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, pp. 203205.
291
Those who think that souls have existed in the heavenly places, and have
fallen from a better to a worse state, use this and witnesses of this kind
to prove that it would indeed have been better to have dwelt in the heavenly places than in the earthly and to have assumed a body of humility;
seeking (thereby) newyet already oldarguments for their heresy. But
of blessed Job we read this: Cursed be the day on which I was born, and
that night on which they said, See, a man-child! And: Cursed be the
man who told the news to my father and said, A boy is born to you. We
join with this witness, that it is indeed better not to exist than to live
with punishments, according as it is written: Death is rest for the man
for whom God has shut up the way; and again, Why is light given to
the wretched, and life to those who are souls in bitterness? And in the
Gospel we read it said plainly: it would have been better for him, if he
had not been bornnot meaning by this that he should not have existed,
but that it would have been better for him not to exist than to exist in an
evil state.43 For it is one thing entirely not to exist, another thing, when
a man exists, to be tortured without any respite, so that we prefer quiet
death to wretched life. (In Hier. IV, xxviii).
The Hebrew text of Jer. 20:17 does not suggest this kind of interpretation, which Jerome relates to his opponents; but the text in the Targumic
version does precisely that very thing. Jerome is attacking the views of
Origen and his followers, who believed in the pre-existence of the soul:
apparently such thinkers had already latched onto Jer. 20:17 and surrounding verses as proof-texts.44 This may have come about because
Jewish exegetical tradition already associated the verses with the To
exist/Not To have existed question. At any rate, the Targum is witness
to their use in this way in ancient times. Jeromes comment is valuable
in that it offers one possible explanation of the otherwise rather peculiar Targumic interpretation. Here a Christian writer very probably
sheds illumination on the background of an otherwise obscure Jewish
exegesis. Amongst some Jews, the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls
was known;45 and the Targum here is very likely taking issue with such
thinkers, and expressing itself in such a way that even Jerome would
have approved.
43
Et in evangelio simpliciter dictum legimus: melius ei fuerat, si natus non esset,
non quo sit, qui natus non fuerit, sed quo melius sit non esse quam male esse.
44
Origens belief in the pre-existence of souls is expressed (e.g.) in De Principiis
I.7:4; III.3:5; 4:2; IV.3:10, ed. P. Koetschau, in Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller
der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte, Origen, vol. 5 (Leipzig, 1913). So far as I am aware, he
makes no use of Jer. 20:17, either in De Principiis or in the homilies.
45
A most convenient survey and discussion of the sources relating to this matter is
provided by Urbach, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 233242; vol. 2, pp. 791793.
292
chapter fourteen
But did he know the Targum to the verse, or the Jewish exegesis
which is now enshrined in it? Quite possibly he included Jews among
those who think that souls have a pre-existence; and it is remarkable
that, immediately after the lengthy comment quoted above, he alludes
to the Jewish tradition that Jeremiah was born in the fifth month (Ab),
in which the Temple was destroyed.46 Perhaps Jewish tradition also
informed his earlier comment: such a possibility cannot be ruled out,
and the remarkable similarity in language and phraseology between
the Targum and Jerome, whatever the final explanation of it, is in support of his having known an exegesis of this verse which is close to
that in the Targum.47
3. Explanations of Hebrew Words
Jeromes knowledge of Hebrew and cognate languages meant that he
could display and justify a precision in translation which his Christian
predecessors could not. A good example of this occurs at Jer. 6:7,
where he insists that the Hebrew word br means cistern. The LXX
had translated it as lakkos, which means hollow, hole, pit, cistern, tank,
cellar store-house, pond; and the Old Latin48 had followed suit with
the similar-sounding translation lacus which, however, means any hollow, cistern, reservoir, pool, tank, or lake. Jerome prefers the precise
translation of this word as cistern.49 He justifies his view by saying:
Now let the Latin reader understand . . . that among the Greeks laccus
does not mean pool, but cistern, which in the Syriac and Hebrew language is called gubba. Now in the present verse, for lacus . . . is found
Hebrew bor. (In Hier. II. iii).
46
In Hier. IV. xxviii. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 6 (Philadelphia),
p. 384, cites as its source Seder ha-Doret 3298, which I have not been able to trace.
47
Cf. Jeromes exegesis of Jer. 1:5, where he denies that Jeremiah had existed before
his conception, with Mekhilta of R. Ishmael, Pisha 16:89, which takes the verse as a
proof-text for the notion that the names of the righteous and their deeds are revealed
before God before they are formed.
48
For the Septuagint, we have consulted Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs (Stuttgart,
1935); and for the Old Latin Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones antiquae seu Vetus
Latina, ed. P. Sabatier (Rheims, 17431749).
49
He stresses that lacus has a semantic range which differs from Greek.
293
Jerome had learned Syriac, and speaks elsewhere of gubba as meaning

cistern.50 The Hebrew language to which he first alludes is not, in fact,
Hebrew itself, which has no word gubba. It is almost certainly Aramaic
that is meant.51 Gubba is a defined noun, this being indicated by the fact
that it is in the emphatic state, which does not exist in Hebrew; and in
fact gubba is used in the Targum of this verse to translate Hebrew br.
It is very likely that Jerome knew this, and translated accordingly.
At Jer. 2:21, and at Isa. 5:2, occurs the Hebrew word srq, which
LXX had either not translated, but merely transliterated into Greek
characters (Isa. 5:2), or had rendered as fruit-bearing (Jer. 2:21).
Jerome explains that
In the Hebrew, for chosen or fruitful vine stands sorec, which is placed
in the song of Isaiah. Now it is a sort of the best vine . . . (In Hier. I.
xxix).
He had translated srq as chosen vine, vineam electam, corresponding

to the Targums rendering of srq here, and at Isa. 5:2, as the plant of
the chosen vine. The Old Latin had translated it as fruitful, and the
rendering chosen is most likely to derive from the Jewish tradition of
the sort which was readily available in the popular translation of the
Aramaic Targum.
4. Exegesis of Particular Words and Phrases
One of the most striking and impressive links between Jeromes commentary and the Jewish interpretation of Jeremiah concerns the case
of the interloping partridge, a much maligned bird which makes only
a brief appearance in the Hebrew text:
The partridge incubated (eggs), but does not bear offspring; (so is) the
man who makes riches, and that unjustly: in the midst of his days he
forsakes them, and at his end he will be foolish. (Jer. 17:11).
50
See Vita Pauli 6, describing a monk living in an old cistern which the Syrians in
Gentile speech call gubba . . ., quoted by Cavallera, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 40.
51
Like Josephus, who cites Aramaic words and calls them Hebrew, Jeromes
nomenclature is not precise. But see Krausss remarks, Jerome, p. 116; The Jews in
the works of the Church Fathers, pp. 245249.
294
chapter fourteen
There are few Rabbinic comments on this verse, and such as there
are hardly deal with the partridges supposedly furtive activities.52 The
Targum, however, presents the bird in a most unflattering light:
Behold, like the partridge who gathers eggs53 which are not his own, and
hatches the broods which shall not follow him, so is every wicked man who
acquired goods unjustly: in the midst of his days he forsakes them, and
at his end he is called wicked.
Jeromes comment reflects the Targum almost exactly:

The writers of natural history . . . of whom the principal among the
Greeks are Aristotle and Theophrastus, and Pliny the Younger among
ourselves, say that this is the nature of the partridge: that it steals the
eggs of anotherthat is, a different partridgeand incubates and
hatches them. And when the offspring is grown, it flies away from this
(bird) and leaves the foreign parent. Rich men are of this sort who plunder things not their own, and, without recognition of Gods judgement,
make riches unjustly, which they leave in the midst of their time, taken
away by sudden death, when it is said to them: Fool, tonight they shall
demand your soul from you. Then whose shall these things be, which
you have prepared? (In Hier. III. lxxv).
Jeromes correspondence with the Targum is so close that both comments are involved in a non sequitur: the wrongly acquired broods
leave the partridge, which fact does not agree with the deeds of the
rich man and his wrongly acquired goods; for according to Targum
and Jerome these goods do not leave the rich man: rather, he forsakes
them or is snatched from them!
Reiter has shown that Jerome is mistaken in alleging that Aristotle,
Theophrastus, and Pliny are witnesses to the supposed behaviour of
the partridge. He suggests that Jerome has confused the partridge with
the cuckoo, which Aristotle and Theophrastus describe in these terms.
He also records that Philostratus and St. Ambrose malign the par-
52
The only discussions of the habits of the partridge which I can find are in
Tanhuma Buber Tese 17; Yalqut Shimoni vol. 2, p. 825; but both these collections
post-date Jeromes work, and do not provide material sufficiently similar to Jeromes
work to allow proper comparison with it. For the original significance of the prophets
saying, see J.F.A. Sawyer, A Note on the Brooding Partridge in Jeremiah XVII 11,
Vetus Testamentum 28(1978), pp. 324329.
53
The Hebrew root dgr, incubate, is translated as if it were the Aramaic root dgr,
pile up, accumulate. This translation is old as LXX, and is the ancestor of the tradition found here: cf. Sawyer, art. cit., p. 325.
295
tridge in the same way as Jerome.54 The latter may derive his information from the former; but if he does, why has he cited other, irrelevant
authorities?
Given the close association between what Jerome says on the one
hand, and the Targum on the other, we might suggest that he derived
his information from popular Jewish understanding of the verse, and
alluded to the great Greek and Latin writers en passant. A careful
reading of his words may indicate that he does not actually derive
his information from Aristotle and others whom he names, but from
anonymous writers of natural history of whom, as everyone knows,
the greatest representatives are men like Aristotle! It is very clear that
his exegesis does not derive from Origen.55
Other close correspondences with Targum may be listed here; and
once again, we are dealing with verses to which very little Rabbinic
comment attaches. Targum of Jer. 13:22 actually sharpens the prophets
threat against Judah, specifying that
because your debts are many, your shame is discovered, your prostitution is seen.56
Jerome is likewise quite plain:

. . . the multitude of your iniquity has done these things for you, so that
your shame is revealed like that of a harlot woman with clothes lifted up;
and your fornications are openly displayed. (In Hier. III. xxii).
The prophets spoken of at 14:14 are described by Targum as false

prophets: Jerome follows suit. For the Hebrew texts cedars at 22:7
Targum has strong men, Jerome strong ones and princes of the city;57
54
See Reiters note in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. lxxiv, p. 167 to line
4, and Sawyer, ibid., pp. 327328.
55
See Origen, Homily xvii.1 on Jer. 17:11, ed. E. Klostermann, in Die Griechischen
Christlichen Schrifsteller der Ersten Drei Jahrhunderte, Origenes Werke, vol. 3 (Leipzig,
1901), pp. 143144. Origen says of the partridge that it has disgusting manners, is
deceitful, and decoys hunters from its nest; that it is a lascivious bird with uncontrollable sexual appetite, information which, Klostermann points out (p. 143), derives
from Aristotle, Hist Anim. 9:8 and Ambrose, Epist. 32:18. This information is used
in part by Jerome, In Hier. III, lxxv, where he speaks of the partridges impurity; and
in In Hier. III. lxxv he relates the verse to heretics, as does Origen, Homily XVII.2.
Cf. also Homlies sur Jrmie, ed. P. Nautin, trans. P. Husson and P. Nautin, Sources
Chrtiennes (Paris, 1977), vol. 2, pp. 160169.
56
The Hebrew has: . . . because of the greatness of your iniquity your skirts are
uncovered, your heels bared.
57
In Hier. IV. xxxvi; cf. Tg. 2 Kings 19:23; Tg. Isa. 37:24; Ps.-Jon, N, FT Num. 24:6.
296
chapter fourteen
and the Targumic assertion at 27:5 that God made the earth by His
Word is reflected in Jeromes comment when he quotes Ps. 32:6, that
the heavens were made firm by the Word of the Lord (In Hier. IV.
xlvii).
All these correspondences are minor, but they serve to indicate the
extent of Jeromes knowledge of Jewish exegetical tradition in general,
and possibly of the Targum in particular.
An example of a more extended correspondence between Jeromes
commentary and the Targum is found at Jer. 31:20, where the Hebrew
text has God say of Ephraim
for as soon as I speak about him, I surely remember him again.
Targum interprets:
For at the time when I put the words of my Law upon his heart to do
them, I surely remember to do good for him again.
Jeromes comment is that Gods words were in Ephraim,

not in his mouth, nor on his lips, but in the deepest feeling of his
heart.
Quoting Hos. 6:4 and 11:89 as proof-texts, he adds:

For my words were in him, and he received all my commandments with
eager mind, and kept them in his heart. (In Hier. VI. xxi).
Other passages also reflect Jeromes use of Jewish pat interpretation,

which is a feature of much of the Targum. Thus the burial of an ass
with which Jehoiakim is threatened (Jer. 22:19) is explained by saying that Jehoiakim will be unburied, to be torn by beasts and birds.58
Targum says that his corpse will be thrown out in the same way as an
asss carcase.59
On other occasions, however, Jerome is aware of the haggadah, and
quotes traditions which either are unknown to the Targum, or are
found in the Targum only in part. The word lion, which occurs in 2:15
and 4:7, is translated by Targum as king;60 but Jerome is more specific,
and commenting on 4:7, identified the lion as king Nebuchadnezzar,
58
In Hier. IV. xxxix.

Cf. Yalqut Shimoni vol. 1, p. 594; Rashi on 2 Kings 24:6; 2 Chron. 36:6.
60
See Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, pp. 4044. Jerome also identifies the lion
with the devil in his comment on Jer. 4:7, In Hier. I. lxxii, like Origen, Homily V.17.
59
297
as do certain midrashim.61 His comment on the animals listed in 5:6

is even more telling:
The lion has smitten them from the woodnamely the Babylonian kingdom; the wolf at evening has laid them waste signifies the Medes and
Persians . . . the leopard watching over their cities prefigures the attack
of Alexander and his swift incursion from the west as far as India . . . And
because he prophesies, not of the future, but of the past . . . he is also
silent, then, about the Roman Empire, about which, perhaps, it is said,
everyone who shall have gone out from them shall be taken captive (Jer.
5:6. In Hier. I. xcv)
The same haggadah is found almost exactly at Lev. R. 13:5:

This the view of R. Johanan; for R. Johanan said, Wherefore a lion from
the wood has smitten them refers to Babylon; an evening wolf shall
plunder them refers to Media; a leopard watching over their cities
refers to Greece; everyone who goes out from there shall be torn refers
to Edom (i.e., Rome).
An older midrash, Gen. R. 99:2, identifies the lion as Babylon and the
wolf as Media, but omits the leopard; Esther R. Proem 5 is very close
to Jeromes comment and to that in Lev. R. Rashi refers the lion to
Babylon and the wolf to Media, but interprets the leopard as meaning
Assyria, doubtless under pressure from the censorious Christians who
knew that Edom was used as a cipher for Rome.62
Krausss observation, that Jerome attests the antiquity of haggadic
material otherwise known only from comparatively late sources, is
hereby supported.63 A final example concerns Jer. 24:1ff., Jeremiahs
vision of the two baskets of figs.
The basket of good figs meant Jechoniah, who had handed himself over
to the Babylonian king at the advice of Jeremiah and at Gods order . . .
but the basket of bad figs refers to Zedekiah, who contradicted the sentence of God, was captured, blinded in the eyes, led to Babylon, and died
there. (In Hier. V. ii).
61
See Ex. R. 29:9; Lam. R. Proem 1; PRK Piska 13:1; Kimhi ad loc.
Origen, Homilies Fragment 3 on Jer. 5:6, can identify both lion and leopard as
Nebuchadnezzar (ed. Klostermann, p. 200); but this does not compare with Jeromes
comments.
63
See Krauss, Jerome, p. 117.
62
298
chapter fourteen
This interpretation is found in the late midrash Song of Songs R. 7:14, 1:

R. Levi said, It is written, The Lord showed me, and behold two baskets
of figs . . . one basket had very good figs: this refers to the captivity of
Jechoniah; the other basket had very bad figs: this refers to the captivity
of Zedekiah.64
Conclusion
The evidence collected in this paper strongly suggests that Jerome
knew Jewish exegesis which has survived to this day in the Targum
of Jeremiah. There is also proof that he was familiar with haggadic
interpretations of Jeremiah which now survive only in late midrashim.
Consequently, his work is of first rate importance for dating individual
exegetical traditions, and plotting their historical development. We can
locate in space and time a number of these traditions with his help;
and this is of incalculable benefit to students of Targum who, more
often than not, face acute problems in dating the material which they
study.
The Targum of the Prophets known as Targum Jonathan was well
on its way to becoming the official Aramaic interpretation of the text
when Jerome composed his commentary on Jeremiah. This may, in
part, explain why many of his comments show such striking affinity
with the Targum; but we cannot, of course, be certain that he had
access to an actual written Targum text which was the ancestor of our
present Aramaic version. Nonetheless, our study has shown that verses
such as Targum Jer. 5:12; 17:11; 20:17; 22:6 31:20 share with Jeromes
commentary interpretations which are either very rarely found, or are
altogether unattested, either in Rabbinic Literature, the Septuagint, or
in Christian sources. The evidence presented here, therefore, serves
rather to strengthen the conclusions of scholars like Stummer, that
Jerome may well have known a text of Targum, rather than to weaken
them.65
We have also found that Jeromes work may be of first hand help
in elucidating otherwise obscure Targumic paraphrases. His discus-
64
Jerome goes on to compare the two sets of figs with the saved and the damned,
In Hier. V.ii; cf. Origen, Homilies Fragment 22 on Jer. 24:13, ed. Klostermann,
pp. 208209.
65
See Stummer, art. cit., pp. 174175.
299
sion of Jer. 20:17 with reference to the pre-existence of souls, and the
case of the partridge in Jer. 17:11, lead one to conclude that further
researches in this area could be fruitful.
We have stressed points of what we may call positive contact between
Jerome and Jewish sources; but there are, understandably, points of
negative contact as well. These can also help us to appreciate Targumic
exegesis more deeply. Although the Targum was an official document
of the Rabbinic Academiesin its final form, at leastit was meant
to be heard and understood by the ordinary Jew, the person who
came Sabbath by Sabbath to hear the Torah and the Prophets read
and expounded in his local synagogue. In Targum Jer. 33:25 he would
hear that God had not created heaven and earth so that they should
pass away; and he would hear in Targum Jer. 31:3536 that, just as it
was impossible for Gods ordinances for the luminaries of heaven to
cease to exist, so it would be impossible for Israel to cease to exist as
Gods people. Why should a Jew need to be reminded of these basic
facts? Jeromes commentary tells us. Commenting on Jer. 31:3637 (In
Hier. VI. xxviixxviii) he proves to his own satisfaction that God has
not promised that the created order will exist for everand that, by
the same token, Israel will not exist for ever as Gods people. It would
seem that he is in negative interaction with the Targum, which has
taken into its exegesis a series of already well-developed anti-Christian
propositions. Whether or not Jerome is in open debate with the popular Jewish Targum of his day in a kind of battle for souls is an interesting question.66
66
Cf. the remarks of Krauss, The Jews . . ., pp. 239240.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
SAINT JEROME AND THE ARAMAIC TARGUMIM

Study of the Aramaic Targumim continues to excite scholarly interest.
Indeed, an international project to translate the whole Targum into
English is already under way; and some sections of it, including the
present writers translation of Targum Jeremiah, with a critical introduction and commentary, are already completed.1 The Targum, as a
Jewish institution closely associated with the synagogue, has an importance and value in its own right, which have often been studied.2 Its
use in the liturgy ensured that its interpretations of the Scriptures were
widely known, and recent studies have drawn attention both to the
antiquity of some of these traditions, and to their possible influence
on the writers of the New Testament.3
Recent scholarship, however, has devoted rather less attention to
the relationship between the Aramaic Targumim and the writings of
the Church Fathers, although it seems probable that such a relationship existed.4 St Jeromes commentary on Jeremiah, for example, indicates his knowledge not only of a wide range of Jewish traditions, but
also of exegesis which survives today solely in the Aramaic Targum.5
It will be published later this year by Michael Glazier.

For a description of Targum and its methods, see J. Bowker, The Targums and
Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969): M. McNamara, Targums, in The Interpreters
Dictionary of the Bible, Supp. Vol. (Nashville 1976), pp. 856861; A. Dez Macho,
El Targum: Introduccin a las traduccines aramaicas de la Biblia (Barcelona 1972);
G. Vermes, Bible and Midrash, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, ed.
P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans (Cambridge 1970), pp. 199231; idem, Scripture and
Tradition in Judaism, 2nd edn (Leiden 1973).
3
Hence the interest which recent Catholic scholars in particular have shown in
Targum: see, e.g. R. le Daut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome 1963); M. McNamara, The New
Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome 1966); Targum and
Testament (Shannon 1972); Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Michael
Glazier 1983), pp. 205252; Targums, in New Caholic Encyclopaedia (Washington
1967), vol. 2, pp. 431433; L. Dez Merino, Los estudios targumicos en el VIII
Congreso Mundial de Estudios Judaicos, Estudios Biblicos 40 (1982), pp. 159177.
4
See C.T.R. Hayward, Jewish Traditions in Jeromes Commentary on Jeremiah
and the Targum of Jeremiah, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 9 (1985),
pp. 100120.
5
Ibid., pp. 103108; 109111.
2
saint jerome and the aramaic targumim
301
This commentary, which occupied him from ad 415 to 420, was never
completed; and it was his last major work.6
This paper sets out to explore some examples of Jeromes use of
Jewish tradition now extant in the Targum of the Minor Prophets.
In particular, we shall look at his commentaries on Zechariah and
Malachi, published around 406, and that on Nahum, published around
391/2. We shall make an attempt to see whether, during the twentynine years or so which separate the Nahum commentary from that
on Jeremiah, there is any significant development in Jeromes use of
material which may derive from Targumic sources. This is a matter
of some importance, because it was during the fourth and fifth centuries that the Targum of the Prophets was being moulded into its final
form.7 This was happening at a time when repressive laws were being
passed against the Jews, and conversions to Christianity were on the
increase.8 The appearance of the Jerusalem Talmud around this time
was itself, in one respect, a response on the part of the Jewish Sages to
those events which were to prove so critical for their people.9 On the
popular level, too, the Targum was in dispute with the Christians. A
good example is provided by Targum Jeremiah 31:356; 33:25, which
asserts that Israel is no more likely to cease being Gods people than
that the earth and creation should pass away, or that Gods ordinances
with the heavenly luminaries should come to an end. Jerome directly
counters such teaching in his commentary, and disproves it to his own
satisfaction.10 What, we may ask, was his attitude to the Targum in his
earlier works?
6
For the dating of Jeromes commentaries, see especially F. Cavallera, S. Jrme:
sa vie et son oeuvre, vol. 2 (Louvain 1922), pp. 2063; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life,
Writings, and Controversies (London 1975), pp. 163167, 290316, 326327.
7
On the growth and redaction of the Targum of the prophets, see R. le Daut,
Introduction la littrature Targumique Premire Partie (Rome 1966), pp. 124127;
B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum
(Sheffield 1982); M. McNamara, Targums, in Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible,
Supp. Vol., pp. 860861; and the valuable information collected by L. Smolar and
M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New York 1983).
8
See J.E. Seaver, Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire 300438, University
of Kansas Publications, Humanistic Studies No. 30 (Lawrence 1952); Y. Baer, Israel,
The Christian Church and the Roman Empire, Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961),
pp. 79149; M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine (Oxford 1976), pp. 158231.
9
See J. Neusner, Midrash in Context. Exegesis in Formative Judaism. The
Foundations of Judaism: Method, Teleology, Doctrine, Part 1, Method (Philadelphia
1983), pp. 111137.
10
See Hayward, art. cit., p. 114.
302
chapter fifteen
First, however, we must decide what material, if any, Jerome is likely

to have derived from the Targum. If his comments on a particular
verse are either identical with or very close indeed to those of the
Targum, we may feel that we are on the right track; but we shall be
on much surer ground if we find that these same comments have no
connections with the Septuagint and versions of the Bible other than
the Vulgate; pre-Rabbinic Jewish literature; Rabbinic writings older
than or contemporary with Jerome; Christian writings of his day or of
an earlier period; and in particular the writings of Origen. Most of the
material presented here is, I believe, likely to have some more on less
probable connection with the Aramaic Targums, and may be added to
the list of Jewish traditions used by the Church Fathers and noted by
scholars now for over a century.11
Jeromes commentary on Zechariah holds a number of Jewish traditions which probably derive from a Targumic milieu.12 The prophets
first vision is of a man riding a red horse, who stood among the myrtle
trees bmslh, in the deep (or: in the bottom; or: in the shady place). The
Targum has this man stand
between the myrtle trees which were in Babylon.13
11
See, for example, H. Grtz, Hagadische Elemente bei den Kirchenvtern,
Monatsschrift fr Geschichte und Wissenchaft des Judenthums (hereafter MGWJ) 3
(1854), pp. 311319, 352355, 381387, 428431; MGWJ 4 (1855), pp. 186192;
M. Rahmer, Die Hebrischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus, MGWJ
14 (1865), pp. 216224, 460470; MGWJ 16 (1867), pp. 103108; MGWJ 17 (1868),
pp. 419427; S. Krauss, The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers, Jewish
Quarterly Review o. s. 6 (1894), pp. 225261; F. Stummer, Beitrge zu dem Problem
Hieronymus und die Targumim, Biblica 18 (1937), pp. 174181; L. Ginzberg, Die
Haggada bei den Kirchenvtern. Exodus, Livre dhommage la Mmoire du Dr.
Samuel Posnnski (Warsaw 1927), pp. 199216; Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvtern,
Studies in Jewish Bibliography and Related Subjects in Memory of Abraham Solomon
Freidus (New York 1929), pp. 503518.
12
All quotations from Jeromes commentaries are cited from the edition of
M. Adriaen, S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera Pars 1, Opera Exegetica 6, Commentarii
in Prophetas Minores, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. LXXVI A (Turnhout
1970). The translations are ours. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to this
work as Adriaen, followed by page number.
13
The Targum is quoted from the edition of A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic,
vol. 3, The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan (Leiden 1962). The translations are ours. Codex Reuchlinianus, the oldest extant Manuscript of Targum of the
Prophets, to which we shall specifically refer on occasions, is indicated in Sperbers
apparatus by the siglum f.
303
Jerome implicitly accepts the Targums definition of bmslh as in Babylon,

but does so in the context of a much larger Jewish understanding of
the verse:
The Hebrews think this refers to Michael the angel, who is the avenger
of the iniquities and sins of Israel. And because he stands between the
myrtle trees which were in the deep, they wish the myrtles to be understood as the prophets and holy ones who were dwelling in the midst of
the captive people and were in the deep . . .14
The place of the captive people is, of course, Babylon, as is specified by

a Targum text preserved in the margin of Codex Reuchlinianus, and
dubbed by Sperber as witness f6:
between the myrtle trees, and among the righteous who were in the captivity of Babylon.
It is remarkable that Jeromes comment is not found as an integrated

whole in the Rabbinic sources; but individual elements of it can be
found in the Talmud and Midrash. Commenting on Zech. 1:8 in the
Babylonian Talmud (hereafter b.) Sanhedrin 93a, R. Johanan (R. Johanan
b. Nappaha, a Palestinian Amora of the first part of the third century
ad who taught at Sepphoris and Tiberias15 explains that the man is the
Holy One, Blessed be He; the myrtles are the righteous;16 and the deep
is Babylon, the proof for this last being found in Isa. 44:27. Only in
this last detail do Jerome and R. Johanan agree; and, while the definition of the myrtles as symbolic of the righteous may include Jeromes
understanding of them as the prophets and the holy ones, R. Johanans
exegesis is more general than Jeromes. Furthermore, R. Johanan does
not identify the man with Michael the angel. It is unlikely, then, that
R. Johanans comment as recorded in the Talmud is the source of
Jeromes information. As far as I am aware, this section of Talmud is
the only Jewish source anywhere near to Jeromes time which explains
the deep as Babylon, with the exception of the Targum. The possibility exists, then, that Jeromes source for this detail was the Targumic
tradition of popular synagogue piety.
14
Adriaen, pp. 754755.

See W. Bacher, Die Agada der Palestinensischen Amorer, vol. 1 (Strasbourg
1892), p. 307.
16
See the same tradition in Pesikta de Rab Kahana 27:9; Pesikta Rabbati 51:2; and
cf. Esther Rabbah 9:2 (the myrtles are Israel) and Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 78b
(the righteous are called trees).
15
304
chapter fifteen
More may be said, since among the medieval Jewish commentators17 Rashi specifies that the man of Zech. 1:8 is an angel, and ibn
Ezra names him as Michael. Older sources do not do this. In fact,
Rashi quotes the Targum that the deep means Babylon, and R. David
Qimhi accepts this view, quoting b. Sanhedrin 93a as proof; further, he
links Zechariahs vision with one of Daniels, in much the same way
as Jerome does in a later comment.18 But none of these points am I
able to locate in the Talmuds or the Midrashim. Jerome would appear
to witness to some ancient Palestinian Jewish tradition which has survived as fragments in much later writings; unless, of course he himself
has collected fragments which he found into his own kind of Yalqut.
This is unlikely, given R. Johanans sustained exegesis of the passage
which may have been in existence in Jeromes day. What Jerome does
not give us is R. Johanans comment, but a distinct variant of it; and
the likelihood that Targumic tradition is involved here is quite high.
We find a similar sort of complexity when we turn to Jeromes
comment on Zech. 3:35. The prophet, in another vision, sees Joshua
the high priest clothed in filthy garments, standing before the angel
who orders bystanders to remove those dirty clothes. Joshua has been
accused by Satan, and the angel explains that he has made Joshuas
iniquity pass away, and that he will clothe him with mhlswt, rich garments. Then a mitre is put on his head, and they clothe him with the
garments. Three sections of Targum concern us. First, the statement
that Joshua was dressed in filthy garments becomes
Now Joshua had sons who had taken for themselves wives who were not
proper for the priestly office. (Tg. Zech. 3:3)
Second, the angels command to remove the filthy garments and the
subsequent comment on Joshuas moral state is phrased as a request
That he should remove the wives who were not proper for the priestly
office from his house. And he said to him: See that I have removed your
sins from you, and have clothed you with merits. (Tg. Zech. 3:4)
Finally, the statement that they clothed Joshua with garments becomes
in Targum
17
For the comments of Rashi, Qimhi, and ibn Ezra, I have consulted Miqraoth
Gedoloth, vols. 910 (Warsaw 18656).
18
See Adriaen, p. 755: plenissime super hoc Danielis ultima visio loquitur.
305
and they made him take a wife proper for the priesthood. (Tg. Zech. 3:5)
It should be noted that the Targum understands that Joshua himself, as

well as his sons, has married an unsuitable wife. Jerome opens his comment on these verses by stating that, before giving the spiritual meaning of them, he must say how the Hebrews have fully analysed this
passage.19 He then says that they regard Joshua as the son of Jehozadak,
and as the high priest,
On whose right hand the adversary was standingfor thus Satan is to
be interpretedto oppose him. And he was rightly standing at his right
hand, not at his left, because the accusation was truenamely that both
he, along with others, had taken a foreign wife, as it is written fully in
Ezra and in Malachi, who follows this prophet.20
While most of the emphasis here would seem to be on Joshuas illegal

marriage, others are also involved, and specific reference is made to the
writings of Ezra and Malachi. Adriaen, in his edition of Jeromes commentary on Zechariah, refers to Ezra 10:2, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 44; Mal.
2:1317; and we should notice in particular that Ezra 10:18 singles out
Joshuas sons as having contracted foreign marriages:
And among the sons of the priests there were found that had married
strange women: namely, of the sons of Joshua, the son of Jozadak, and
his brethren, Maaseiah, and Jarib, and Gedaliah.
A few lines later, Jerome continues

And as regards what follows, Joshua was clothed with filthy garments,
they (the Hebrews) understand it in three ways: either with reference to
the illegal marriage, or because of the sins of the people, or because of
the filthiness of the captivity.21
Here again Joshuas illegal marriage is singled out, along with the sins
of the people, which itself includes the contracting of mixed marriages.
The Targum restricts its interpretation of verse 3 to the marriages of
Joshuas sons, and refers verses 4 and 5 to Joshuas own marriage. The
19
See Adriaen, p. 770: Antequam veniamus ad intelligentiam spiritalem, quomodo
Hebraei locum istum edisserant, strictim breviterque dicendum est.
20
Ibid. Rashi, commenting on this passage, asserts that the accusation was true. See
C. Siegfried, Midraschisches zu Hieronymus und Pseudo-Hieronymus, Jahrbcher
fr protestantische Theologie 9 (1883), p. 348.
21
Adriaen, p. 771.
306
chapter fifteen
tradition of both Jerome and the Targum is much of a piece; but the
points at which it is expressed vis--vis the Hebrew text differ.
The removal of Joshuas sin recorded in Zech. 3:4 draws the following comment from Jerome:
Behold, I have taken your iniquity from youthis refers to the filthy
garments; and I have clothed you with changes of raimentthat is, I
have joined an Israelite wife to you.22
Jerome concludes his survey of Hebrew interpretation of this section

by pointing out that the mitre which is placed on Joshuas head is seen
by Jews as representing the dignity of the priesthood, now free of sin
and clean.
The likelihood that Jerome is here following Targumic tradition
is very strong. Targum asserts that both Joshua and his sons had
married unfit wives: Jerome is of the same opinion, even though he
tends to stress Joshuas own sin. The Rabbinic sources which treat of
these verses do not, for the most part, grapple with the question of
illegal marriages, but seek to explain why Joshua is called a brand
plucked from the burning (Zech. 3:2), and tell how Nebuchadnezzar
had thrown him into the fiery furnace along with Hananiah, Azariah,
and Misael, and how they had been delivered by divine help.23 One
important source, however, touches on our theme. According to b.
Sanhedrin 93a, it was while Joshua was in the fiery furnace that his
garments became filthy: they were singed, and the question arose why
the fire had had this limited power over him, but had not harmed his
three companions.
R. Papa said: Because his sons had married wives unfit for the priesthood, and he had not protested, as Scripture says: Now Joshua was
clothed in filthy garments. Now it was certainly not his custom to wear
filthy garments. But this shows that his sons had married wives unfit for
the priesthood.
R. Papas view corresponds exactly to the Targum of Zech. 3:3, and,

of course, to the view implicit in Jeromes comment about the others
listed in Ezra and Malachi. R. Papa was a Babylonian Amora who lived
22
Ibid.
See especially b. Sanhedrin 93a; Eliyahu Rabbah 4:19; Zohar 3:214; Jerusalem
Talmud Shabbat 6:4.22; and sources cited by L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
vol. 6 (Philadelphia 1946), pp. 426427, which tell this story.
23
307
c. ad 300375.24 Here one element in the traditions which we have

examined comes to the surface: but there is no suggestion of the other
element, namely, that Joshua himself had married an unfit wife.25 We
must recall that Jerome explicitly asserts that this tradition is derived
from Hebraei.
With this in mind, we turn to the early Christian Apologist Justin
Martyr (c. ad 100165) who was a native of the land of Israel, having been born at Shechem. In the Dialogue with Trypho 116 he writes
(around ad 155) as follows:
For in the same that Jesus (Joshua) was called priest by the prophet (i.e.
Zechariah), appeared wearing filthy raiment, because he is said to have
taken a woman that was a harlot, and was termed a brand plucked from
the fire because he had received remission of sins, when even the devil
that opposed him was rebuked, so we . . . are now the true high priestly
race of God . . .
Lukyn Williams, whose translation of the Dialogue we have quoted,

suggests that Justin may have confused Joshua with the prophet Hosea;
but he also noted some of the Targumic and Talmudic material which
we have cited.26 Louis Ginzberg also points out that Justin was either
unacquainted with, or did not accept, the rabbinic tradition that Joshua
was put into the fiery furnace since he is said, without reference to that
legend, to have received remission of sins.27 Is it possible that Jerome
derived the tradition that Joshua had contracted an illegal marriage
from Justin? It is most improbable that such is the case. Not only does
Jerome say that he has the tradition from Jews, but that same tradition
is attested by the Targum, and Justins use of the Zechariah passage is
quite different from Jeromes. Jerome does not say that Joshuas wife was
a harlot, but speaks of Joshua-Jesus as the high priest after the order of
Melchizedek, and of his relationship to the angel of mighty counsel.
Jeromes aims in his Christian interpretation are mainly Christological
24
See W. Bacher, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amorer, 2nd ed (Frankfurt 1913),
pp. 141143.
25
Similarly, ibn Ezra is at pains to point out that, although one of his sons was sonin-law to the foreigner Sanballat, Joshua himself was married to a kosher wife. Rashi
follows the Targum, and Qimhi quotes both Targum and b. Sanhedrin 93a.
26
A. Lukyn Williams, Justin Martyr. The Dialogue with Trypho (London 1930),
pp. 239240.
27
See Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 6, pp. 426427.
308
chapter fifteen
and Trinitarian; he does not concentrate, as Justin does, on the priestly

connotations of the verses.28
Jerome shares with the Targum a common exegesis of Zech. 6:5,
by which the four winds, represented by four horses of different
colours, are made to represent four kingdoms, the four world empires.
Jerome names the empires as those of the Babylonians, the Medes and
Persians, the Macedonians, and the Romans. The Targum does not
name names, perhaps out of fear of the power of Rome.29 In any case,
every Jew knew what they were! Likewise, the Messianic interpretation of the Branch spoken of in Zech. 6:12 is shared by Jerome and
the Targum, and by a number of other sources.30 It is in the exegesis
of Zech. 11:12 that Targum and Jerome come close together. The
Hebrew text reads:
Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars. Howl,
O fir-tree, for the cedar is fallen, because the goodly ones are spoiled:
howl, O ye oaks of Bashan, for the strong forest is come down.31
The Targum regards Lebanon and the trees as symbols. Lebanon represents the Gentiles; the cedars are strongholds; the fir-tree represents
kings; the cedar (in its second appearance) means rulers; and the oaks
of Bashan stand for the tyrants of the provinces. At first, Jerome takes
Lebanon to refer to the Temple, following a standard and widespread
Jewish interpretation of the name.32 Indeed, Zech. 11:1 had, in some
28
See Adriaen, pp. 771773. The angel of mighty counsel figures in the Septuagint
and Vulgate of Isa. 9:5, and was very early used as a title for Christ: see the Introit for
the Third Mass of Christmas Day in the Old Roman Rite (the so-called Tridentine
Rite). Jerome points out that, in Zech. 3, Joshua is not, as elsewhere, styled the son
of Jehozadak: he is really Joshua/Jesus, tempted like us in all things, but without sin;
bearing our sins and weaknesses, but ultimately possessed of the Divine Majesty Itself.
Origen refers this whole passage to the souls taking of a human body: see Origne.
Homlies sur S. Luc. Introduction, Translation, and notes by H. Crouzel, F. Fournier,
and P. Perichon in Sources chrtiennes 87 (Paris 1962), pp. 220221. The note on these
pages indicates how often the Church Fathers refer these verses to Christ, and cites
J. Lcuyer, Sur Jsus fils de Josdec et son interprtation patristique, Recherches de
Science Religieuse 43 (1955), pp. 82103; there is an indication that Jerome may have
borrowed his Christological interpretation of the verses from Didymus the Blind.
29
Adriaen, pp. 792793. The Targum describes them as four kingdoms which are
like the four winds of heaven.
30
See Num. Rabbah 18:21; Adriaen, pp. 796800. This verse was a favourite with
the Fathers: see Cornelius Lapide, Commentaria in Zachariam Prophetam (Antwerp
1625), pp. 241242.
31
The translation is that of the Revised Version.
32
See G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, pp. 2639.
309
quarters, been understood as a prophecy of the Temples destruction.33

Commenting on this verse, both Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Amalek 2:44
and Sifre Numbers 134 equate Lebanon with the Temple. The various
sorts of tree Jerome then refers to are the princes, priests and people
of the Jews.34 But a few lines later he remarks:
Certain people, not understanding this passage, refer Lebanon and firtrees, pines and oaks, Bashan and shaded or fortified grove to opposed
powers ( fortitudines), concerning whom the story is also told in Ezekiel
under the name of Assyria and Pharaoh (a quotation of Ezek. 31:34 follows); and the other things, which are said both of Assyria and Pharaoh,
they think are being spoken with regard to opposed powers, or with
regard to those proud men and princes of whom we read in the Psalm:
The voice of the Lord breaking the cedars, and the Lord will break the
cedars of Lebanon (Ps. 29:5). And in another place: The day of the Lord
of Sabaoth is over every man who committs outrage and arrogant man,
and over every lofty and exalted man (Isa. 2:12); and after a little space:
And over every lofty cedar of Lebanon and over every tree of oak of
Bashan (Isa. 2:13).35
Thus these uninformed people interpret the verses as referring to

Gentile powers, rulers, and tyrants, just as the Targum does. This line
of interpretation is not found in the Septuagint, the other Greek versions, Origen, or any Jewish literature prior to or contemporary with
Jerome; and it is entirely probable that the Targumic tradition, in
slightly garbled form, could represent the source of his statements.
In commenting on the short book of Malachi, Jerome had before him
works now lost, namely the commentaries of Origen and Apollinaris
of Laodicea.36 What he may have derived from these Christian authors
we cannot say; but in one instance at least he is at pains to refute an
33
See b. Yoma 39b; Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 6:3.30, where this view is attributed to
R. Johanan b. Zakkai, who lived at the time of the Temples destruction.
34
Adriaen, pp. 848849: Et quia Libanum, templum appellaverat et
in reliquis servat translationem, ut per cedros et abietes et quercus Basan saltumque
nemorosum, principes ac sacerdotes et populum significet Iudaeorum. The closest
parallel to this which I can find is in the two recensions of the Aboth de Rabbi Nathan.
See J. Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Yale 1955), p. 37 for recension
A in English translation; and A.J. Saldarini, The Fathers According to R. Nathan (Abot
de Rabbi Nathan) Version B (Leiden 1975), p. 72. In the latter, the cypress or fir-tree
is Abraham; the cedar is King Zedekiah, and so on. Neither of these texts casts very
much light on Jeromes information.
35
Adriaen, p. 849. P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (Yale 1927) finds
the Targumic interpretation of these verses very strange, and suggests that it may
derive from before the Destruction of the Temple in ad 70.
36
Adriaen, p. 902.
310
chapter fifteen
interpretation of Origen, and agrees with the Jewish understanding

of the text. In the Prologue to his commentary he remarks on the
Septuagint rendering the word Malachi as , angeli eius,
of his angel/messenger, stating that the Hebrew means my messenger. He strongly resists Origens opinion that Malachi was an angel, a
celestial being, and states bluntly:
Moreover the Hebrews think that Malachi is Ezra the priest, because
everything contained in that book this prophet also recalls, saying, The
lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek the Law
from his mouth, because he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts.37
The Prologue continues to make it clear that Jerome takes the identification of Malachi with Ezra very seriously, because both share a common priestly nature and concern. The Targum in Codex Reuchlinianus
and the Rabbinic Bibles reads:
The burden (or: oracle) of the word of the Lord to Israel by the hand of
Malachi, whose name is called Ezra the scribe. (Tg. Mal. 1:1)
The same tradition is found at b. Megillah 15a. R. Joshua b. Qorha,

a Tanna of the mid-second century, is credited with this view, which
is rejected by the Sages who claim that Malachi is his actual name.38
R. Nahman (b. Jacob), a Babylonian Amora who died c. ad 320,39 supports R. Joshua, quoting Mal. 2:11 and Ezra 10:2. Both men had to deal
with the problem of mixed marriages in the community: thus they may
be identified. It is improbable that Jerome had access to this Babylonian
support for his view; indeed, he argues that the two men are the same
person on entirely different grounds, namely, their shared priesthood.
If the tradition is genuine, that R. Joshua held that Malachi was Ezra,
then Jerome would possibly have access to this in some Palestinian
source, very probably the Aramaic Targum tradition.
The Palestinian background of the tradition may also be confirmed
by a statement made earlier in the same section of the Talmud. There,
R. Nahman, or according to a variant reading, Rav, identified Malachi
with Mordecai. This view the Talmud refutes:
37
Adriaen, p. 901.
See W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, vol. 2 (Strasbourg 1890), p. 313.
39
Idem, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amorer, p. 83, who notes that the midrashic
collection En Jacob attributes the tradition to R. Nahman b. Isaac, who died c. ad 356.
38
311
The following was cited in objection to this: Baruch the son of Neriah
and Serayah the son of Mahseyah and Daniel and Mordecai, Bishan,
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all prophesied in the second year of
Darius! This is a refutation.40
The proposed identification of Malachi with Mordecai is made by a

Babylonian scholar, whichever reading of the text we adopt; Rav, the
great Abba Arika, having founded the famous academy at Sura before
this death in the mid-third century. The identification is unknown to
Jerome, and was probably not a popular tradition.
The final piece of evidence drawn from commentaries written before
406 concerns Mal. 2:1115. This passage consists of an extended attack
on the treachery of those who have contracted foreign marriages, and
have put away their lawful Jewish wives. The invective soars to a climax in 2:15, the Hebrew of which is obscure and difficult. The Revised
Version translates as follows:
And did he not make one, although he had the residue of the Spirit? And
wherefore one? He sought a goodly seed. Therefore take heed to your
spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.41
The Targum gives the highly distinctive interpretation:

Was not Abraham one, unique, from whom the world was created? And
what did one seek, except that posterity might endure for him from
before the Lord? So take care for yourselves, and do not act deceitfully
against the wife of your youth.
So far as I can ascertain, the only source other than the Targum surviving from ancient times which relates the problem of foreign marriages
to Israels descent from Abraham is to found in Jeromes commentary
on Malachi. He refers to the tradition of the Hebrews which must be
set out so that the truth of the Scripture can be unfurled,42 and begins
by quoting at length Ezra 9:13; 10:1819, 44. We recall that he has
already followed the Targum in accepting the identity of Malachi as
Ezra. He explains that the returned exiles had put away their Jewish
Cf. also Yalqut Shimoni, vol. 2 (Vilna 1909), p. 873.

The Hebrew reads: wl hd sh wr rwh lw wmh hhd mbq zr lhym wnmrtm
brwhkm. An alternative rendering is given in the R.V. footnote: And not one hath
done so who had a residue of the spirit. Or what? Is there one that seeketh a goodly
seed?
42
Adriaen, p. 920: Hebraeorum est ponenda traditio, immo Scripturae veritas
explicanda.
40
41
312
chapter fifteen
wives who were tired, jaded, weak, and deformed as a result of the long
journey home from exile, and had taken instead the fresh, young and
attractive Gentile women whom they found living around Jerusalem.
Thus Ezra the prophet seizes on these men, and summons them to a
divorce of the new wives, so that they should take back those wives
whom they had sent away. Was not, he said, Abraham the one father
of all of us? Concerning whom it is written in Isaiah, Look to Abraham
your father, and to Sarah who bore you; for he was one, and I called
him. Did not one God create us, who from Abraham chose our race?
Why then do we disparage our old wives, and put away the daughters of
our fathers, so that we abandon the covenant of our fathers, and do not
take wives according to the Law?43
The Targum and Jerome both understand the one to refer to Abraham,
and Jerome preserves the exegesis which underlies the Targums interpretation of Mal. 2:15 in pointing out that Abraham is addressed as one
by God in Isa. 51:2. This verse is then associated with Mal. 2:10
Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us? Why does
each one of us deal treacherously with his brother in profaning the covenant of our fathers?
According to the Targum of 2:15, Abraham has sought posterity that

should endure; and this, indeed, was one of the fundamental promises
in Gods covenant with him, according to Gen. 15:5; 17:18.
There would appear to be no surviving rabbinic comment, apart
from the Targum,44 along these lines. The likely source of Jeromes
Hebraeorum traditio, therefore, could well be a tradition of the sort
now preserved only in the Targum.
Jeromes commentary on Nahum begins with a number of theological observations on Gods zeal, jealousy, vengeance which have points
of contact with the Targumic rendering of Nahum 1:23. Where the
original Hebrew presents Nahum as saying that
The Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for
his enemies (1:2)
the Targum understands that

the Lord is about to take revenge on those who hate his people, even
with violent wrath on his enemies.
43
44
Adriaen, p. 921.
Later midrashim quote the verses, such as Aggadath Bereshith 76; Eliyahu Zutta 3.
313
Nahums prophecy is directed against Nineveh, the capital city of the

Assyrian empire before its final disintegration. Jerome, like the Targum,
makes the general description of the Hebrew text precise when he
comments:
The voice of the prophet praising God, because He is avenging the wrong
done to his people by the Assyrians.45
Like the Targum to this verse, and to other places (e.g. Tg. Jer. 48:267)
God fights, not his own adversaries, but the enemies of his people Israel.
Such interpretation is very common in the Targum.46 Furthermore,
in the following verse, which it its Hebrew original form states that
the Lord is great in power, and will by no means clear the guilty, the
Targum comments:
The Lord . . . . . pardons those who return (repent) to the Law; and those
who do not repent He does not acquit.
The Targum of the prophets emphasizes Gods salvation of those who

repent and His punishment of those refuse to return to the Law: this
matter has been carefully and exhaustively discussed by Chilton and
by Smolar and Aberbach.47 Jerome makes almost exactly the same
comment:
For a long time, indeed, He was patient with the crime of the Assyrians,
and bore their iniquities through the power of His magnanimity, calling them to repentance; but because they had despised Gods goodness,
they have stored up for themselves (according to their impenitent heart)
wrath on the day of wrath.48
Neither the Septuagint, nor the other ancient versions of Nahum

1:23, make any such comment. Jeromes exegesis may rest on an
unacknowledged, but well-known tradition spread throughout Jewry
by the popular medium of the Targum. Perhaps it was such a common
understanding of the verses that it needed no documentation. But it
is more probable that Jerome conceals the Jewish origins of his commentary because much of what he has to say is directed against the
45
Adriaen, p. 527.
For lists of other examples and discussion of these points, see Smolar and
Abernach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, p. 148.
47
See Chilton, The Glory of Israel, pp. 3746; Smolar and Aberbach, op. cit.,
pp. 187221.
48
Adriaen, p. 528.
46
314
chapter fifteen
blasphemous heretic and notoriously anti-Jewish Marcion (referred to

directly in this commentary)49 who jettisoned the Hebrew Bible, and
regarded the God of Israel as a God of law, wrath, and anger, finding
support for his heresy in a work like Nahum. Jerome is at pains to
counter this error, possibly with Jewish tradition!50
It is also likely that Targumic tradition forms the background for
Jeromes explanation of Nahum 1:1011. The very obscure Hebrew
of 1:10,
For though they be like tangled thorns, and be drenched as it were in
their drink, they shall be devoured utterly as dry stubble,51
left a good deal for the Targumist to explain. He referred the verse to
the rulers of the Gentiles who plundered Israel: and just as they went
astray through wine, they led them astray (into idolatry): they destroyed
them as a fire destroys stubble which is very dry.
The Aramaic root t y, go astray, wander, has the sense also of going
astray after idols, and is common in the Targum with this sense. The
noun from this root, tww, error, is commonly used to mean idol.
Israel, then, is seen by the Targum as led into idol-worship by these
rulers of the Gentiles. Rather oddly, Jerome refers not verse 10, but
verse 11 to something very close to the Targum:
They (the Hebrews) wish this to be understood of Rabshakeh, because
he came out from the Assyrians, blasphemed God, and wished to persuade the people that they should despair of Gods help and hand themselves over to the Assyrians, and that they should worship not God, but
idols.52
Rabshakeh was the Assyrian army commander who attacked Jerusalem

in the days of Hezekiah. He is certainly a ruler of the Gentiles; but the
text of 2 Kings 18:1925; 2835, which records his speech to the Jews
defending Jerusalem, has no direct invitation to the people to worship
idols. Such a thing is, however, implicit in what the Assyrian commander is saying; and may have been known to Jerome as a tradition.
But Jerome and the Targum do not fully agree here. Targum does not
name Rabshakeh, and the Targum of 1:11 speaks merely of a king who
49
Adriaen, pp. 530, 534.

For a convenient survey of Marcions opinions, see E.C. Blackman, Marcion and
His Influence (London 1948).
51
So the Revised Version.
52
Adriaen, p. 537.
50
315
has gone out from Nineveh. The Targumic description of the people
involved is very general, almost vague.
This is also a feature of the Targum of 2:37, where the vagueness
and imprecision follows the Hebrew original, and once more contrasts
with Jeromes comments which name people and places, and aim for
the kind of precision in exegesis which we normally associate with the
Targum.53 Once again, the detailed exposition of 2:37 he says is iuxta
Hebraicam traditionem: it does not conflict with that of the Targum,
but the Targum is very general. We may ask whether Jerome might
not have known a Targum of these verses different from the one which
has come down to us, one which once was more detailed, and has
since been edited to make it fit circumstances more general for wider
application?
There is, it would seem, sufficient evidence to suggest that Jerome
was aware of the traditions now enshrined in the Aramaic Targumim
as early as 391, when he completed his commentary on Nahum. This
evidence is not strong enough to allow us to conclude that he had
access to written texts of Targum: here we have a contrast with his
knowledge of Targum Jeremiah, in the case of which it seems possible that he was aware of a written tradition.54 But in the commentaries examined here we have found distinct examples of his use of
Targumisms, such as that in Zech. 6:5, where the four winds represent the four world empires; and Nahum 1:23, where God takes vengeance on the enemies of his people because they have not repented.
Some of the comments for which he claims Jewish authority find their
counterparts in surviving Jewish literature only in the Targumim. Thus
the interpretation of Zech. 11:12 with regard to Gentile, not Jewish,
powers, and the reference to Abraham in the argument about foreign
marriages preserved in his commentary on Mal. 2:15, probably derive
from Targumic sources. But the latter comment, it may be, is even
more important. Here, it will be recalled, Jerome actually preserves the
complex stages of exegesis which stand behind the exposition of the
verse in our current Targum text. Jerome possibly provides us with a
glimpse into the history of the Targums development.
53
On the whole, the Targum makes it its business to make precise what is imprecise; to fill gaps in the narrative; and to smooth out inconsistencies. For a fine range
of examples of this procedure with respect to geographical and historical matters, see,
most recently, Smolar and Aberbach, op. cit., pp. 63128.
54
See Hayward, art. cit., pp. 113114.
316
chapter fifteen
This observation is confirmed to some extent by analysis of Jeromes

comment on Zech. 3:35. Here, he has a major point of contact with
the Targum when he records that Joshua himself had married a foreign wife: this view is not expressed in the Talmud. But Jerome also is
aware that others, including Joshuas sons, had married unfit persons;
and this tradition is also explicit in the Targum. In the Talmud, this
latter opinion is the only one which is heard. Now it might be possible to argue that the tradition of Joshuas illegal marriage is very old,
being attested in garbled form by the second-century writer Justin:
this ancient tradition is preserved in the Targum, and is also attested
by Jerome at the end of the fourth century. But already he suggests
indirectly that Joshuas sons are involved: this is the view which the
Talmud will later adopt as the correct official interpretation. Perhaps
Targum took the Talmuds view to its own commentary, preserving in
the meantime the older tradition of Joshuas illegal marriage.55 If this
were the case, Jerome would be an important witness to the growth of
Targumic tradition.
Finally, Jeromes comments on Nahum 1:1011; 2:37 represent
Targumic-type exegesis; but he produces material more detailed than
that found in the present texts of Targum. Here again, he may witness
to an earlier stage in the formation of the Targumic tradition.
This exercise has been something akin to an archaeologists digging
of trial trenches through various strata, to see what there may be to discover. We have, I believe, discovered enough to suggest further lines of
enquiry, and enough also to encourage further work on Jeromes use
of Jewish tradition. What is quite remarkable is the curious circumstance that the growing body of anti-Jewish legislation during Jeromes
lifetime seems not to have discouraged this Father from communicating with Jewish scholars; nor does it seem to have prevented the Jews
from talking to him.
There is, however, one further and most important conclusion.
Jerome undoubtedly gives us glimpses, albeit sometimes only tantalizing glimpses, of the Targumic and Rabbinic traditions at a period of
55
I am not sure that I have understood Ginzbergs remarks correctly when he
says (Legends, vol. 6, pp. 426427) that Rabbinic tradition perhaps found fault with
Joshua because the Rabbis wished to counter Christian allegory. It seems to me that
the Christians made full use of Joshuas being clothed in filthy garments, which is a
Scriptural datum and cannot be changed. If the tradition that these filthy garments
represent his sons, not his own, sin, then Joshua is a fully righteous man, and that
very thing in itself could equally well be used by Christian allegorists!
317
time and at a stage of their development which ante-date by several

centuries the earliest surviving manuscripts of Targum, Talmud, and
Midrash. Since he stands outside the Jewish community, and his works
can be dated, he is an excellent independent witness of the first rank to
the state of non-Biblical traditions in the fourth and fifth centuries ad.
The current study of Rabbinic Literature, which has correctly emphasized the crucial role of the final redactors of our texts, may benefit
enormously from the first-hand evidence of a scholar like Jerome
when he attests the antiquity of individual traditions.56
As we have seen, Jerome is a particularly valuable witness to Targumic
tradition. This is not, perhaps, surprising: like the Targum, he makes
it his business to give a continuous verse-by-verse commentary on the
Scriptural books, and Targum would provide a handy Jewish source
for his needs. The Talmuds and the Midrashim, on the other hand,
deal with verses of Scripture in a piecemeal manner, as the need arises
in their discussion of a given halakhic or haggadic point. Furthermore,
the Targum, like the Septuagint and the Peshitta, is a particular version
of the Bible, with its own distinctive peculiarities; and, thanks to the
Qumran discoveries, we know that Targum in written form existed,
for some biblical books at least, in the pre-Christian period.57 And the
Targum was a popular institution: as Dr Philip Alexander has pointed
out to me in a private communication, Jerome rarely shows detailed
knowledge of the complexities of Jewish Law of the sort found in the
Talmuds. What he has learned from the Jews is often popular tradition
and exegesis of Scripture. It is hardly surprising, then, that he shows a
knowledge of the popular medium of Targum. If there is any hope at
all of our getting behind the work of the final redactors and earliest
extant manuscripts of Targum, Talmud, and Midrash, the writings of
Jerome and other Church Fathers might yet provide vital evidence for
us to begin the reconstruction of the history of Rabbinic traditions
however skeletal that reconstruction might turn out to be.
56
The literary criticism of the Rabbinic Literature associated with the names of
Jacob Neusner and his pupils is too vast to document here. A useful survey of such
criticism is provided by W.S. Green, Reading the Writing of Rabbinism: Toward an
Interpretation of Rabbinic Literature, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 51
(1983), pp. 191206; cf. the comments on Neusners work by Peter Schfer, Studien
zur Geschichte und Theologie des Rabbinischen Judentums (Leiden 1978), pp. 122.
57
See M. Sokoloff, The Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI (Ramat-Gan 1974);
and, for fragments of the Targum of Leviticus, R. de Vaux and J.T. Milik Qumran
Grotte 4. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert VI (Oxford 1977), pp. 8690.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON ST. JEROMES HEBREW

QUESTIONS ON GENESIS AND THE RABBINIC TRADITION*
One of the many significant consequences of continuing scholarly
interest in the form-criticism and tradition history of the Rabbinic
Literature has been an increased awareness that the manuscripts, in
which these works are preserved, may have a good deal to tell us about
the history and development of the works themselves. Some powerful
trends in most recent research have, indeed, indicated that we may
say little about the origin, growth, and date of Rabbinic material apart
from what the manuscript evidence itself may tell us. Manuscripts of
any given work may vary considerably from one to another, such that
there may be said to be as many Bereshith Rabbahs (for example) as
there are manuscripts of this midrash.1
For any scholar who wishes to trace the history and development
of Rabbinic writings in the period before that of our earliest surviving
manuscripts, the works of the Church Fathers occupy a special place.
And of these Fathers, St Jerome is pre-eminent as the most learned in
Hebrew language and Jewish tradition, and the most sensitive towards
their ramifications for his own textual and exegetical work. His individual writings can, of course, be dated fairly precisely during the last
quarter of the fourth and the first quarter of the fifth centuries ad; and
many of them were produced in the land of Israel.2 The extent of his
knowledge of Jewish tradition, and the many points of contact which
* All works of St Jerome, except the Epistles, are cited from the critical editions
in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina: the Epistles are cited from Migne, Patrologia
Latina. All translations are our own.
1
See especially P. Schfer, Research into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to define
the Status Quaestionis, JJS 37 (1986), pp. 139152, and others who in some degree
accept Schfers stance, all subjected to criticism by Ch. Milikowsky, The Status
Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature, JJS 39 (1988), pp. 201211. Schfer
has responded to these criticisms in Once Again the Status Quaestionis of Research in
Rabbinic Literature: An Answer to Chaim Milikowsky, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 8994.
2
See F. Cavallera, Saint Jrme. Sa Vie et Son Oeuvre (Louvain, 1922), vol. 2,
pp. 1263; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1977),
pp. 141167.
st. jeromes hebrew questions on genesis
319
he shows with items preserved in the Rabbinic writings, have often

attracted attention;3 and their value in terms of historical research
into the Rabbinic tradition seems assured, especially as regards his
knowledge of exegesis now preserved in the Aramaic Bible translations known as Targumim.4
Not unreasonably, then, one might turn to Jeromes Hebrew
Questions on Genesis (Heb. Quest.) in hopes of discovering something
fairly substantial and reliable about the state of Jewish Bible exegesis in his day. As A. Penna remarked nearly forty years ago, this text
is one which brims over with Jewish material; but the same scholar
also noted a number of peculiarities about it which give rise to serious questions. Penna showed how difficult it proves to link Jeromes
exegesis to that of any known Rabbi, and how little explicit use is made
of interpretative techniques such as the middoth. The book also contains many Jewish traditions which Jerome does not acknowledge as
such, in addition to the host of interpretations which are introduced
as deriving from the Hebrews.5
We may add to Pennas observations the curious fact that the Jewish
character of the book is further heightened by the comparative scarceness of overtly Christian exegesis.6 And the strangest circumstance of
all is that slow, deliberate, and careful study of Heb. Quest. reveals no
obvious discernible over-arching plan or theme; no regularly recurring
theological concepts; nor, remarkably, any consistent presentation
See H. Grtz, Hagadische Elemente bei den Kirchenvtern, Monatsschrift fr

Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 3 (1854; reprinted 1969), pp. 311
319; 352355; 381387; 428431; MGWJ 4 (1855; reprinted 1969), pp. 186192;
M. Rahmer, Die Hebrischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus, MGWJ
14 (1864; reprinted 1972), pp. 216224; 460470; MGWJ 16 (1867), pp. 103108;
MGWJ 17 (1868; reprinted 1972), pp. 419427.
4
See F. Stummer, Beitrge zu dem Problem Hieronymus und die Targumim,
Biblica 18 (1937), pp. 174181; the frequent use made of Jeromes work by R. le Daut,
Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1 Gense (Sources Chrtiennes 245; Paris, 1978); and
C.T.R. Hayward, Jewish Traditions in Jeromes Commentary on Jeremiah and the
Targum of Jeremiah, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 9 (1985), pp. 100
120; Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim, JSS 32 (1987), pp. 105123.
5
See A. Penna, Principi e Carattere dellEsegesi di S Gerolamo (Rome, 1950),
pp. 610.
6
The terminology which Jerome uses to introduce material which he claims has
Jewish origin will repay careful study, and will be the subject of a forthcoming essay.
Cf. P. Jay, Le Vocabulaire exgtique de Jrme dans le Commentaire du Zacharie,
Revue des tudes augustiniennes 14 (1968), pp. 316. It is true that Christological concerns do manifest themselves (e.g. in comments on Gen 1:1; 24:43; 35:21; 49:7,11); but
they are far from prominent.
320
chapter sixteen
of Jewish tradition whose worth is then denigrated or denied. Thus

Jerome never refers in Heb. Quest. to Jewish traditions as fabulae, stories or fables, which are then dubbed as unreliable or simply the product of exegetical fantasies.7
On what principles, then, has Jerome organised and built his Heb.
Quest.? Given the absence of any evident broad theme or unifying
concept which might conveniently be studied, we are left with the
details of the text; and there is at least the possibility that these, if
critically analysed, may begin to reveal Jeromes larger concerns. In
this essay, therefore, we shall attempt to undertake a close analysis of
Jeromes comments on one chapter of Genesis, being especially concerned to relate his remarks to such Jewish material as is available for
comparison. The chapter chosen is Genesis 14, which is rich in expository potential and includes matters of theological importance for Jews
and Christians alike.
As is the case in other chapters of Genesis, Jerome comments on
selected verses only; and we must ask why this should be so. This question is particularly pressing at the start of his comment on chapter 14,
which begins with remarks on the latter part of verse 2 and continues
into verse 3. These verses are quoted, as is usual in Heb. Quest., in
Jeromes translation of their form in the Septuagint (LXX): they are
hereafter reproduced in italic script.
. . . and the king of Bale: this is Segor. All these conspired toqether at the Salt
Valley: this is the Sea of Salt. In the Hebrew language Bale means kataposis, that is swallowing down. Therefore the Hebrews hand on a tradition
that this town is named Salissa in another place of the Scriptures, and
the second time is called moschada trisseuousan, that is, a three year old
heifer, doubtless because it was swallowed up in the third earthquake;
and from the time when Sodom and Gomorrah, Adama and Seboim
were overthrown by divine fire it was called The Little One, since Segor
is indeed translated as little, which in the Syrian language is pronounced
as Zoara. The Vale of Salt Pits, moreover, as it is written in this same
book, in which formerly there were pits of bitumen, was turned into the
Dead Sea after Gods wrath and the rain of sulphur. By the Greeks it is
called limn asphaltitis, that is, pool of bitumen.
Rabbi S. Lowy, in a private communication, has also noted the lack of a clear plan
or theme in Heb. Quest. Examples of Jeromes dismissal of Jewish exegesis as fabulae
may be found in his commentaries In Esaiam V. xiv:1214, 1820; In Hiezchielem V.
xvi:55; VII. xxv:811; In Osee II. x:2; In Aggaeum ii:1618; In Danielem II.vi:4.
321
The original Hebrew text, which Jerome does not quote verbatim, is
essential for a proper understanding of what he has to say. It reads:
. . . and the king of Bela: this is Zoar. All these were confederate together
in the Vale of Siddim: that is the Sea of Salt.
The use of Greek words and expressions, in which Heb. Quest. abounds,
clearly indicates that the work is intended as a serious scholarly exercise destined for an intelligent and literate readership.8 The Greek rendering of Bale as kataposis reflects the LXXs preference for translating
words deriving from hebrew root bl by pinein or its compounds: Jerome
often quotes the LXX verbatim, possibly to allay fears in his Christian
readers that he had altogether abandoned that version.9 The comment
as a whole, however, binds together three separate, albeit related Jewish
traditions, each with its own concerns; and separate examination of
these will prove to be desirable.
1. The Meaning of the Name Bale
The significance of root bl as swallowing up is emphasised in many
different Jewish sources: according to Ber. R. 42:5, Bela is so called
because its inhabitants were swallowed up, a fact noted also in Tanhuma
Lekh 8, the Midrash Aggadah on this verse, and Targums Neofiti (N)
and Pseudo-Jonathan (Ps-Jon). These parallels are, in themselves, of
no great significance. What is distinctly odd is Jeromes failure either
to quote or to give interpretation of the first part of verse 2 listing the
four other kings: Bera king of Sodom, Birsha of Gomorrah, Shinab
of Admah, and Shemeber of Zeboiim. Both Ber. R. and Ps-Jon give
learned explanations of these names which one might reasonably
expect to find here, given Jeromes intense, not to say near obsessional
interest in the meaning of names: no such explanations are found.10 It
8
It should also become clear in the course of this essay that Jerome assumes a fair
degree of familiarity with the Bible on the part of his readers.
9
On the reception of Jeromes Bible translations see H.F.D. Sparks, Jerome as
Biblical Scholar, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1 From the Beginnings to
Jerome (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 520521.
10
See, however, Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum, ed. P. de Lagarde,
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72 (Turnhout, 1959), pp. 62, 72. Bereshith Rabbah
42:5 has R. Meir expound Bera as evil son; Birsha as wicked son; Shinab as amassed
wealth; and Shemeber as he flew and obtained riches. Other interpretations were also
offered: see e.g. Tanhuma Lekh 8.
322
chapter sixteen
is true that Jerome is similar to N, which also expounds only the name
Bela; but this fact may be pure co-incidence, and cannot be used as
evidence that Jerome was here following a source representing the kind
of Targumic tradition still surviving in N. It will not suffice to argue
that Jerome has expounded the meaning of the names elsewhere and
seeks to avoid repetition, for, as we shall see presently, repetition of
material is often a feature of his work; and had he wished to direct his
readers attention to his writings on Hebrew names he could have indicated his intention, as he does in Heb. Quest. 15:16. The only proper
conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, it seems, is that Jerome has
deliberately drawn attention to the city Bale, which swallowed up its
inhabitants, to the exclusion of the other cities. We must try to discover
why this is so.
2. The Three Year Old Heifer and the Third Earthquake
This tradition appears to be based on the identification of Zoar-Segor
with Salissa. Here Jerome becomes allusive and obscure, and, to follow
his train of thought, the reader would need to have a more than average
familiarity with the Scriptures. The key to what he is saying is found
in Isa 15:5, where Zoar may, on one possible reading of the Hebrew
text, be equated with a place called Eglath-shelishiya, the three year
old heifer.11 Twice he refers to this verse in his Commentary on Isaiah.
On the first occasion, he alludes to his statements in Heb. Quest., summarises what he has said there about the third earthquake, and notes
that the thirtieth year in men and the third year in beasts is the strongest.12 The second time he links the notion of the three year old beasts
to the calf, ram, and heifer which according to Genesis 15 Abraham
11
Isa 15:5 reads, in the Revised Version: My heart crieth out for Moab; her nobles
flee unto Zoar, to Eglath-shelishiyah . . .. The place-name occurs again in Jer 48:34,
and in both instances the Targum translates it as Great Eglath Taltom, Great Thirdborn Heifer: see C.T.R. Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah, The Aramaic Bible 12
(M. Glazier: Wilmington, 1987), p. 174.
12
See In Esaiam V. xv:5, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 73 (Turnhout, 1963), p. 177:
Vectes eius usque ad Segor vitulam conternantem. De hac et in libris Quaestionum
Hebraicarum diximus, et nunc breviter annotamus, quod ipsa sit quinta urbs post
Sodomam et Gomorram, Adamam et Seboim, quae ad preces Lot parva servata est.
Appellaturque Bela, id est absorpta, tradentibus Hebraeis, quod tertio terrae motu
prostrata sit. Ipsa est quae hodie Syro sermone vocatur Zoora, Hebraeo Segor, utroque
parvula. Possumus vitulam conternantem pro perfecta aetate accipere. Sicut enim tricesimus annus in hominibus, ita in pecudibus ac iumentis tertius robustissimus est.
323
was to sacrifice: he thereby draws into the discussion another verse of

Scripture.13 It is possible that Jeromes remarks about Zoar and Bela
may have arisen because he was working on Heb. Quest. and researching material which would later become part of the Commentary on
Isaiah at roughly the same time, although his extraordinary emphasis
on these names seems to require some more adequate explanation.14
Although Jeromes statements merit a brief footnote in Theodor and
Albecks edition of Bereshith Rabbah, there is no Jewish source which
tallies exactly with them.15 Traces of a belief that Zoar was spared while
earthquakes were happening elsewhere may be found in Ber. R. 49:6,
according to which God had made the mountains tremble to encourage all the cities to repent, and in b. Shabbat 10b, where Zoar is said to
have survived the other cities by a year; but the parallels with Jeromes
material are sketchy, and we may here encounter one of those cases,
noted in the last century by Moritz Rahmer, where Jerome gives in
detail a tradition which extant Jewish writings have partly forgotten.16
3. The Name Zoar-Segor
The LXX reproduced Hebrew Zoar as Segor. Jerome notes that the word
means small, which in Aramaic (the Syrian language) is Zoara = zwr.
Ps-Jon consistently writes zwr whenever it refers to the place-name,
even where Targumic paraphrase occurs. N has it as zwr except here,
where it repeats Hebrew sr, a practice followed throughout by Targum
13
See In Esaiam VI. xv:39, ed Adriaen, CCSL 73, p. 257: Vectes autem eorum . . . ad
Segor, hoc est ad parvulum usque pervenient. Et ostendentur non robusti esse, sed
fragiles. Haec autem Segor, hoc est parva paenitentia si perseveraverit, perducet eos ad
perfectam salutem, quod vitula trium annorum significat, iuxta illud quod in Genesi
legimus, ubi praecipitur Abraham, ut offerat vitulum, arietem et hircum trium annorum, perfectum scilicet sacrificium, et heres Domini esse mereatur.
14
He had finished Heb. Quest. by 392; his Commentary on Isaiah 1323 appeared
c. 398. See further M. Rahmer, Die hebrischen Traditionen in den Werken des
Hieronymus (Breslau, 1861), pp. 511, 29.
15
See J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, Bereschit Rabbah, 3 vols (Berlin, 19121929), vol.
1, p. 410. One must assume, presumably, that Jerome thinks of three earthquakes, the
first two of which destroyed the other cities of the plain, the third swallowing up ZoarSegor; there is no mention of such a thing in L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews,
vol. 1 (Philadelphia, 1954), pp. 252, 256; vol. 5 (Philadelphia, 1955), pp. 239240.
16
Cf. Rahmer, Die hebrischen Traditionen, pp. 4849; and le Daut, op. cit.
pp. 345347.
324
chapter sixteen
Onqelos (TO).17 Since Jerome specifically refers to the Aramaic language, and his interpretation agrees with the Palestinian Targumim N
and Ps-Jon, he may well owe a debt here to the Targumic tradition. But
of greater significance is the number of occasions where he utilises the
exegesis of Zoar and its smallness: as examples of its occurrence, we
may cite only Epistles cviii 11; cxxii 1; In Sophoniam 2:811; and the
two comments on Isaiah referred to above.18
In fact, the Biblical and other passages which we have examined
do not exhaust Jeromes interest in Zoar and Bela. He refers to them
again in Heb. Quest. 19:30. These observations seem highly suggestive,
and probably furnish us with a clue to Jeromes motives in selecting
just one particular part of Gen 14:2. This part-verse seems to act as a
key for the interpretation of a fairly large number of other Scriptural
verses, and has implications for the understanding of other Scriptural
books. Thus Jerome highlights it, in much the same way as Rabbis in
the Midrashim might give prominence to similarly pivotal verses. In
all this, it is possible to suppose that Jerome was behaving as a Jewish
scholar, in his understanding and experience of such scholars, might
behave. Thus the Hebrew commentary which he produces derives on
the one hand directly from his Jewish sources, some of which may, in
a slightly altered form, be extant in known writings; and on the other
hand from his own efforts to ape and imitate Jewish scholarly procedures and methods which he had learned. Such an explanation goes
some way towards accounting for the curiously obscure and allusive
nature of his comments on Gen 14:2. His inclusion of so many Greek
words and phrases is an indication that he is writing for an educated
readership; and his overall concern in verses like this is, one suspects,
to show the educated Christian world how Jewish scholarship actually
works, and to give some impression of what he considers to be the
mental furniture of the Jewish scholars to whom he owed so much.
His concluding note about the Vale of Salt Pits and the Dead Sea is
an example of the intense interest which Jerome shows in geographical
and topographical details. The information which he gives here will
17
See Ps-Jon of Gen 13:10; 14:2, 8; 18:24, 28, 29, 30; 19:22, 23,30; at Deut 34:3 this
Targum produces an exegesis of the Hebrew place name deriving it from the root sr,
with the sense of distress. See also the interlinear gloss of N at Gen 19:22, the marginal gloss at 19:30; and the Fragment Targum Mss Paris 110 (= FT(P)) and Vatican
440 (= FT(V)) at Deut 34:3.
18
Note especially its use to symbolise repentance in In Esaiam VI xv:39, above,
n. 13.
325
be relevant to his comments on verse 7; and there is little doubt that

he is dependent on a Jewish source, since he virtually quotes Josephus
Antiquities I.174; cf War IV.455456; 476485, albeit without naming
hima matter to which we must return. Amongst other Jewish writings, however, it is the Aramaic Targumim which display most clearly
that fascination for geographical detail and the equation of ancient
names with modern sites so characteristic of Jeromes work.19
Verse 5 next comes under Jeromes scrutiny. And they destroyed the
giants in Astaroth-Carnaim. and the mighty nations with them at the
same time, and the Ommaei in the city of Sauhe, before they reached
Sodom. Four kings set out from Babylon and killed the giants, that
is, the Rafaim, every strong man of Arabia, and the Zozim in Hom
and the Emim in the city of Sauhe, which is so named to this day.
Now Zozim and Emim mean dreadful and awesome, in place
of which the Septuagint have put the mighty nations, translating the sense rather than word for word. Then bahem, for which
they have said met autois (that is, with them), they have regarded
as written with the letter he, when in fact it is written with the letter
heth. They have been led to this by the similarity of the elements (in
the two letters he and heth). For bahem is written with three letters:
if the middle letter is he, it means in them; if, however, it is heth (as
in the present instance), it signifies a place, that is in Hom.
Here Jerome sets the LXX against the original Hebrew which he
does not, however, quote verbatim. The first hint that he is doing this
comes with his identification of the giants with the Rafaim, the latter
being his version of the Hebrew rpym found in this verse. He does
not dispute the LXX rendering of it as giants, which is the same as
that found in all the extant Targumim.20 The origin of his reference to
Arabia is not clear; but his comments on the Zozim and Emim, who
feature in the Hebrew as hzwzym and hymym are very close indeed to
19
For a convenient discussion of Targumic geography as it relates to Genesis, with
examples, see M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon, 1972), pp. 190205.
And for a good example of Jeromes interest in geography outside Genesis, see his
commentary In Esaiam XVII. lx:67 on the identity of the Arab regions Midian,
Ephah, Sabah, and Qedar.
20
See Ps-Jon, N, TO, and the Fragment Targum Ms Vat 440 of this verse.
326
chapter sixteen
those of TO and Ps-Jon.21 In all this, it would seem that he is setting

the LXX against a traditional understanding of the Hebrew Bible.
The discussion of bahem, however, introduces a new and perplexing
factor. The LXX have been excused their rendering of Zuzim and Emim
as the mighty nations because it conveys the real sense of the words;22
but with bahem they appear to have made a mistake, although Jerome
does not say so explicitly. This is interesting, in view of N and the
Fragment Targum, whose renderings agree with LXX here. Ps-Jon and
TO, by contrast, have what Jerome considers to be the correct reading,
at Hamtha.23 Variant readings in manuscripts of the Hebrew presumably are the cause of this divergence of texts, and Jerome seems to
have had before him a Hebrew text which read bhm, a non-Massoretic
reading.24 He does, however, give a meaning to the word which agrees
with that of the official Targum Onqelos, and with the closely related
Ps-Jon: both these Targumim also retain the Hebrew bwh qrytym,
which LXX had translated the city of Sauhe, an understanding shared
with Ber. R. 42:6. The other Targumim, however, offer a paraphrase
of these words.25
Jeromes exegetical procedure in this verse once more seems
designed to give the flavour of Jewish scholarship. He reports, in effect,
his understanding of the traditional Jewish meaning, without directly
quoting in toto the Hebrew of the verse. His correspondences with the
Targumim are here of special importance for our perception of the
principles with which he is working when laying this verse before his
readers. His next comment deals with verse 7.
And they returned and came to the Fountain of Judgement, that is Cades.
This statement is made by way of anticipation, since it was only later
on that it was so named. It refers, in fact, to a place near Petra which
is called The Fountain of Judgement because God judged the people
there.
21
TO and Ps-Jon have Mighty Ones and Fear-inspiring Ones; for Zuzim, N, Frag.
Tg. Ms. Vat 440, and Ber. R. 42:6 have noble ones! See McNamara, op. cit. pp. 203
204 and le Deaut, op. cit. pp. 158159.
22
The LXX and the Targumim seem to share common understandings of these
names: perhaps this is one reason why Jerome says that LXX express the sense of the
original Hebrew.
23
See McNamara, op. cit. p. 204.
24
The present Massoretic Text has bhm, vocalised as behm.
25
Thus N has: those who were dwelling in the midst of the city, and Frag. Tg. Ms.
Vat 440 those who dwelt in the midst of the city. See McNamara, op. cit. p. 203.
327
And they smote the whole territory of the Amalekites, and the Amorites
who dwelt in Asason Thamar. This is the town which is now called
Engaddi, abundant in balsam and palms. Besides, in our language
Asason Thamar means the city of palms, because Thamar indicates a
palm-tree. It should also be known that, instead of what follows a little
later, namely (verse 8): And they set in order against them battle formation in the Vale of Salt Pits, there is contained in the Hebrew in the Vale
of Siddim, which Aquila translated as tn irinenn26 and Theodotion as
tn aktn, meaning pleasant groves.
Jeromes comment that Cades was not the name of the place at the
time of this narrative, but was a later name, points very strongly yet
again in the direction of his imitating the Rabbis. He applies a principle to Scripture, that places are often given their more recent names
by anticipation: he notes it again at Heb. Quest. 31:21, where he states
that he has spoken of it frequently, and at Heb. Quest. 46:2627. The
principle is clearly expressed in Ber. R. 42:7 on this verse, although not
with reference to Cades:27
Amalek had not yet arisen; and yet you say: And they smote the whole
territory of the Amalekites. Rather, Scripture says that He declares the
end from the beginning. (Isa 46:10)
Along with this principle, he names the place as Petra, in exact accord
with the Targumim Ps-Jon and TO; and in agreement with Ps-Jon and
Ber. R. he identifies it as the place where Moses judged the Israelites.28
Having established this principle of anticipation, however, it is remarkable that he does not use it to explain verse 14s anachronistic use of the
name Dan for the city of Laish.29 It is quite possible that, having enunciated the general principle, he is content in the later verse to allow his
readers to use their intelligence and draw their own conclusions.
26
This Greek word is not found in the lexica, as Antin points out in his edition
of Heb Quest, CCSL 72 (Turnhout, 1959), p. 18. F. Field, Origenis Hexapla Quae
Supersunt, vol 1 (Oxford, 1875), p. 31, gives Aquilas reading as prinenn; but this, too,
is unknown to the lexica. Antin suggests the meaning holm-oaks, but I cannot trace
Hebrew ( sic), a word which he supposes to lie behind Aquilas translation.
27
For the notion of anticipation, see also Tanhuma Lekh 8; H uqqath 11; Bemidbar
Rabbah 19:6.
28
In the Targumim, Petra regularly features under the name Reqem: see Ps-Jon,
N, TO, and le Deaut, op. cit. p. 159 and the literature cited there. The theme of judgement in the desert is found in TO and N, but most clearly in Ps-Jon and Bemidbar
Rabbah 19:14.
29
According to Judges 18:29, Dan was named Laish until the days of the judges.
328
chapter sixteen
Jeromes citation of Aquila, Theodotion, and, in other places,

of Symmachus arises because they are Jewish or Jewish-Christian
(Ebionite) scholars who had a thorough knowledge of Hebrew and
whose versions preserve various traditional Jewish understandings of
the text.30 Along with their translations of individual words and phrases
we should place Jeromes own renderings of Hebrew words, like that
which appears in verse 11. There he notes that rk means property,
not cavalry as the LXX have it. Here all depends on the manner of
vocalising the consonantal Hebrew text: Jerome opts for rek, property, rather than for reke, steeds. He does not tell us how he has
arrived at this translation, any more than he tells us how Aquila and
Theodotion have arrived at their rendering of Siddim in verse 7; but it
should be carefully noted that the rendering of this word as pleasant
groves stands very close to that of N and Ps-Jon who interpret Siddim
as gardens.31 Similarly, all the Targumim understand the Hebrew rk
as property; and Jerome has most probably been led to include all
these items because he knows that they co-incide with authentic thinking favoured by Hebrew scholars of his acquaintance.
The Targumim once more come to mind when we consider his
identification of Asason Thamar with Engaddi (so Ps-Jon, TO, N, Ber.
R. 42:7), the city of palm trees (so N and Ber. R. 42.7). All this information is of a sort which Jewish Bible teachers would have given to
Jerome as they did to their own students, or to congregations of ordinary Jews through the medium of Targum. The same concern with
individual words whose interpretation owes much to unacknowledged
Jewish sources appears in his comments on verse 13.
And the one who had fled told the news to Abram, the one who had
crossed over: and he was sittinq at the oak of Mambre the Amorite, the
brother of Eschol and the brother of Aunan, who were joined to Abram
by oath. In place of what we have put as the one who had crossed over,
the Hebrew is written in the Hebrew text, for this word is to be understood as one who crosses over. And as regards what it says: at the oak
of Mambre the Amorite, we read things better in the Hebrew, at the
oak of Mamre the Amorite the brother of Eschol and the brother not of
30
For discussion of Jeromes identification of these men as Jews or Ebionites see
E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol III 1, rev. and
ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 493504. Aquila
and Theodotion were almost certainly Jews, the former a proselyte; Symmachus seems
to have been an Ebionite.
31
The Targumim use the word prds, meaning a park or pleasure garden.
329
Aunan as the LXX render it, but of Aner, to show that Mamre, Eschol,
and Aner were Amorites, and genuine brotherly allies of Abraham.
He derives the word Hebrew from the root br, which, indeed means to
cross over, pass by: the LXX likewise translate as ti perati. Although
he gives no further comment, we may recall the Rabbinic remark in
Ber. R. 42:8 that Abraham was called the Hebrew since he had come
from across the River Euphrates. So much is straightforward: the rest
of his comments about Abrahams friends is utterly perplexing.
The only apparent change which Jerome makes in the LXX is that
of the name Aunan, now given in its Hebrew form Aner. It is most
unlikely that the names themselves contain any clue to the meaning of Jeromes statements; in the Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum
Nominum he is content merely to list the name Aner without interpretation.32 How the change of name helps us to see that the three men
were germanos socios of Abraham is not explained. The Targumim
offer no help, and Ber. R. 42:8 has an aggadah in which Eschol and
Aner try to dissuade Abraham from carrying out Gods command to
circumcise himself, while Mamre urges him to be faithful to the One
who has blessed him: thus Mamre is rewarded. The aggadah supports
the view of R Nehemiah that Mamre is the name of a person, not, as
R. Judah had argued, the name of a place.
On the other hand, we read in Midrash Aggadah on this verse that
Abraham had made a friendly alliance with them, that when he himself
went out to war they should preserve his (dwelling-) place in safety.33
There are occasions on which Jerome shows knowledge of Jewish
interpretations surviving only in late texts.34 Possibly we have such a
case here, in that Jerome is saying not that the name Aner is important
in and of itself, but rather that the Hebrew text more clearly expresses
the three mens status as Abrahams allies although they were foreigners, Aner possibly being a foreign name, and so not expounded in
Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum.
32
See Lib. Int. Heb. Nom. p. 61. Mambre appears in this work as Mamre, which
is said to mean divisio sive perspicuum (p. 69); Eschol is rendered as botrus sive ignis
omnis (pp. 65, 81); Aunan in Gen 38:4 is moeror eorum vel labores (p. 62) or, in Num
16:1, non est vel inutile (p. 78).
33
Cited by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, Genesis vol 3 (Jerusalem, 1931), p. 604 (in
Hebrew).
34
See S. Krauss, article Jerome, Jewish Encyclopaedia, vol. 7 (New York, 1904),
p. 117; C.T.R. Hayward, St Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim, p. 109.
330
chapter sixteen
Geography once again features as a major concern in comment on

verse 14.
And he pursued them as far as Dan. To a town of Phoenicia which is now
called Paneas. Moreover Dan is one of the sources of the Jordan. For the
other source is called Ior, which means rheithron, that is, a brook. Thus
when the two sources, which are not very far distant from one another,
are joined together into one little river, it is finally called the Jordan.
Almost the whole of this material, with further information, appears in

Jeromes Commentary In Hiezchielem VIII 27:19, and finds echoes in
his work on Jeremiah.35 Dan is identified with Paneas in Jewish texts
such as Pirqe de R. Eliezer 27:2; but the overwhelming probability is
that Jeromes remarks about two sources, not one, for the Jordan do not
derive from the Jewish tradition of his own day. Babylonian Talmud
Bekhoroth 55a derives the word from Hebrew yrd, went down, and
the place Dan (so R Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R Yohanan), and
the legal discussion which takes place assumes a single source for the
Jordan, which is indeed Dan-Paneas-Leshem: the evidence for this is a
Baraita which all parties accept.
Jerome seems, rather, to be dependent on Josephus, who in
Antiquities I.177 refers to Dan as one of the two sources of the Jordan,
and speaks in Ant.XVIII.28 about Paneas as a city near the sources
of the Jordan, improved by Philip the tetrarch and named by him
Caesarea.36 The information about Ior as a component of the word
Jordan is not found, as far as I am aware, in any extant Jewish sources,
and may derive from Jeromes own knowledge of the Hebrew word
yr, which is often found in the Bible describing the stream of the
River Nile.
As in the commentary on verse 7, Josephus is not named, even
though his work was known to Jerome, and he is almost certainly the
source of the information about the Jordan. In Heb. Quest. 32:2829,
35
Jerome worked on Ezekiel between 410 and 415. He states, In Hiez VIII 27:19,
ed. F. Gloire, CCSL 75 (Turnhout, 1964), p. 374: Ex nomine patriarchae Dan, et tribus, et locus in quo habitavit tribus, nomen accepit ubi hodie Paneas, quae quondam
Caesarea Philippi vocabatur, inde et Iordanis fluvius sortitus vocabulum: Ior, rivus
videlicet, Dan, qui fluit de Libano. Cf. In Hieremiam I lxxx, ed. S. Reiter, CCSL 74
(Turnhout, 1960), p. 46.
36
N, the marginal gloss of N, and Frag. Tg. of this verse understand Dan as
Caesarea; Ps-Jon and TO retain the Hebrew. Josephus is not, however, entirely consistent in his information about the Jordans sources: see War III 509 ff; Jeromes use
of this author is clearly selective.
331
however, Josephus is cited by name: his first book of Antiquities is

given as the source for the meaning of the name Israel as one who
stood against Gods angel. Such an etymology does indeed figure in
Ant.I.333; but Jerome goes on to declare that this meaning of the
name is wrong. Most significantly, he declares that he has carefully
and deeply examined the word in Hebrew, and has not been able to
find Josephuss meaning. The original text reads as follows:
Iosephus in primo antiquitatum libro Israhel ideo appellatum putat,
quod adversum angelum steterit: quod ego diligenter excutiens in
hebraeo penitus invenire non potui.
The implication seems to be that the information which Josephus offers

about the name Israel is not Hebrew information. Readers of Josephus,
untutored in the Hebrew language and Hebrew tradition, may be misled by his etymology; Jerome, therefore, proposes to set them on the
right track. In other cases, however, where he is apparently satisfied that
Josephus stands firmly within the Jewish tradition, Jerome presents his
opinions without direct reference to him. This suggests that Jerome has
subjected Josephus, who, of course, published his writings in Greek,
to criticism which was in some measure based on what he believed to
be authentic Hebrew tradition, which he himself had obtained from
reputable scholarly sources.
Jeromes final comments on chapter 14 are based on verses 1819,
and deal with Melchizedek. While he could hardly have ignored this
figure, he makes it clear at the outset that his interest is in Jewish
interpretations, even though the greater part of the comment talks of
Melchizedek as he appears in the Epistle to the Hebrews. We shall
concentrate for the purposes of this essay on the specifically Jewish
material. It should be noted that, although Jerome implicitly denies
the validity of the Jewish tradition, he does not say so openly, nor does
he enter into debate with it. He merely juxtaposes the Christian view.
And Melchisedec kinq of Salem brouqht forth bread and wine. and he
was the priest of God Most Hiqh; and he blessed him. Because our little
work is first of all a collection of Hebrew investigations (quaestiones) and
traditions, let us then repair to what the Hebrews think about this. They
declare that this man is Sem, the son of Noah; and by calculating the
years of his life they show that he lived up to the time of Isaac; and that
all the first-born sons of Noah had been priests before Aaron performed
the priestly office. Then the king of Jerusalem, which formerly was called
Salem, is described as king of Salem.
332
chapter sixteen
He then tells how the Epistle to the Hebrews refers Melchizedek to

Christ and, through him, to the Gentile Church, because he was
uncircumcised and blessed Abraham who had been circumcised; and
in Abraham he had blessed Levi and the priesthood of Aaron which
descended from him. The commentary ends with reference to Psalm
110 and to the Christian Eucharist.
Jeromes description of his work in this paragraph may be instructive
as to his methods and intentions. It is, he says, a book of quaestiones
and traditiones. The word quaestio may mean an act of searching, the
examination of witnesses, scientific investigation, research of disputed
points, or an object of enquiry. The emphasis on investigation is very
strong; and it is an investigation into what the Hebrews think about
certain matters, as this comment on Melchizedek shows. It is also a
book about traditio, which means, in this setting, an item of teaching,
and the transmission or handing on of such teaching. The verb trado
implies the bequeathing and entrusting of items of teaching to others,
as well as the mere recitation of their contents. Thus what follows is,
in effect, Jeromes digest of Jewish teachings about Melchizedek, the
results of Hebrew investigations into the text. He seems to assume
that his readers will know that the Biblical text itself is of such a kind
as to prompt and require investigations. The Jews, with their quaestiones and traditiones, have solutions to problems like the identity of
Melchizedeks parents, and the existence of an authorised legitimate
priesthood before Aaron, problems to which the Church has its own
quite different answers. So he sets out four separate items of Jewish
investigation and tradition on these matters.
1. The Identification of Melchizedek with Shem
This tradition is often found in Jewish sources, and appears in the Targum
and the Midrashim.37 It is assumed as standard by b.Nedarim 32b and
other documents.38 It was known to other Church Fathers, including
Epiphanius, who tells that the Samaritans equated Melchizedek with
37
See Ps-Jon, N, Frag. Tg. Ms. Paris 110 of Gen 14:18; Midrash Tehillim 76:3;
Midrash Acggadah 1:23; Midrash Ha-Gadol I 187; Tanhuma Lekh 15. For what
follows, see J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, 1969),
pp. 196199; and le Deaut, op. cit. pp. 163165 and the literature there cited.
38
See, e.g. Ber R 43:6; Bemidbar Rabbah 4:8; Wayyiqra Rabbah 25:6; Aboth de
R Nathan 2; Pirqe de R Eliezer 8:2.
333
Shem, while the Jews made him the son of a prostitute.39 It is not easy
to discern the age of this idea; but Jerome says nothing to indicate that
its origin was known to him, nor of its use in anti-Christian polemic.40
The fact that Scripture has no record of Melchizedeks father and
mother raised pressing questions about his origins which demanded
quaestiones. Such investigations were already taking place in the preChristian period, and produced speculations about Melchizedek as a
heavenly figure, possibly identified with the Archangel Michael, which
are set out in the scroll 11QMelch of the Qumran Sect. But Jerome
does not include such matters among his Hebrew traditions.
2. Melchizedeks Life up to Isaacs Time
Although I am not aware of any Jewish text which states baldly that
Shem-Melchizedek lived until the time of Isaac, calculating the years,
an understanding of these things is logically required for statements
found in Ps-Jon of Gen 22:19; 24:62, that Isaac went to study in the
Beth Ha-Midrash of Shem the Great, and frequented it. The same
Targum of Gen 38:6 makes Tamar the daughter of Shem the Great;
given her age, she cannot have been born earlier than the time of Isaac.
In his Epistle lxxiii, Jerome gives the actual figures which the Jews set
forth as proof for Melchizedeks survival of Abraham by 35 years.41
3. The First-Born and the Priesthood
The Targumim strongly emphasise that Melchizedek-Shem was the
priest at that time (Ps-Jon), ministering before God Most High (TO)
in the high priesthood (N, FT(P)), and, as we have seen, the same
point is made elsewhere.42 The general tradition that the first-born had
exercised priestly ministry before the appointment of Aaron as high
priest is likewise well known: it was based ultimately on the Scriptural
39
See Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses II 1:55,6 (Contra Melchizede-cianos): Igitur
Samaritani Sem esse ilium arbitrantur. In quo ridiculi plane sunt . . . Sed Iudaei justum
eumdem ac probum fuisse, et sacerdotem Altissimi fatentur, ut est in sacris litteris
proditum. Quod autem meretricis filius esset, neque matris nomen esse scriptum,
neque patris ullo modo cognitum.
40
Philo emphasises the priestly character of Shem in De Sobrietate 6566; see also
Jubilees 8:1221, which speaks of Shems territory as including the Garden of Eden
and the Holy of Holies.
41
See his Epistle 73 Ad Evangelum (Evagrium) Presbyterum, ed. J.-P. Migne,
Patrologia Latina 22 (Paris, 1864), p. 444 (col 679).
42
See above, nn. 37, 38.
334
chapter sixteen
information supplied by Exodus 24:5, that Moses had ordered the firstborn to arrange sacrifices at the time of the making of the Sinai covenant.43 Other verses which suggested such an office for the first-born
are Numbers 3:1213; 8:1618, and as early as Philos time we find
discussion of the first-born and the priesthood in such a way as to
indicate that the tradition found in the later Rabbinic texts was already
known to him in the first century bc.44 Indeed, the witness of Genesis,
that sacrifice had been offered to the One True God before the time of
Aaron, posed the questions who were legitimate priests in those days,
and why?
The specific notice that the priestly first-born had been sons of
Noah, that is, presumably, the first-born son of Melchizedek-Shem
and his sons after him, is more clearly stated in Epistle lxxiii, where
he writes:
And at the same time they (sc the Hebrews) hand on this tradition,
that up to the time of Aarons priesthood, all the first-born sons of the
stock of Noah, whose succession and order is described, were priests
and offered sacrifices to God: and these were the rights of the first-born,
(primogenita) which Esau sold to his brother Jacob.45
Jeromes language here very strongly implies the existence of some list
or roster of pre-Aaronic priests.46 Such a list is, in fact, to be found in
Bemidbar Rabbah 4:8, which is careful to state why certain first-born
sons were unsuitable for the priesthood and had to be replaced by
younger men, the succession ultimately deriving from Noah.47
43
See Ps-Jon of Exod 24:5, which states: And he (Moses) sent the first-born of
the Israelites; since up to that time the sacrificial service had been in the hands of the
first-born. For until then the Tent of Meeting had not been made, and before then the
priesthood had not been given to Aaron; and they offered up whole burnt offerings
and peace-offerings of oxen before the Lord. Similar is the marginal gloss of N to
this verse; cf. m. Zebahim 14:4; b. Zebahim 115b; Bekhoroth 4b; Shemoth Rabbah 28:3;
R. le Deaut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), p. 85, n 43.
44
See Philo, De Congressu 98; De Sacrificiis 118120; and N and Ps-Jon of the
verses concerned, which stress that the first-born belong to the Lord.
45
See Epistle 73, ed. Migne, p. 444 (col 679).
46
The Latin has: cuius series et ordo describitur, which I have translated as whose
succession and order is described.
47
Bemidbar Rabbah particularly notes the succession of priests in Noahs family:
see the following note.
335
4. The Identification of Salem with Jerusalem

Psalm 76:2 states that Gods tabernacle is in Salem, and undoubtedly assisted the many post-Biblical scholars who equated that place
with Jerusalem. The identification is found in the Qumran Genesis
Apocryphon 22:13; Josephus War VI. 10; the Aramaic Targumim of
Gen 14:18; and it is assumed as a matter of course in the Rabbinic
writings generally. It is found also in Christian writers like Clement
of Alexandria, Stromateis I.5, and is taken for granted by Jerome, who
alludes to it again at Heb. Quest. 33:18 in distinguishing it from Salem,
the city of Sychem where Jacobs thigh was healed.
As in the case of Zoar in verses 2 and 3, Jerome uses Jewish material about Melchizedek-Shem in his other writings. We have already
alluded to Epistle lxxiii, which offers extended treatment of Jewish traditions about Melchizedek, and to Heb. Quest. 33:18. We should also
note that Heb. Quest. 27:15 tells how the first-born acted as priests
before Aaron, and adds that they possessed the priestly garment which,
it seems, had once belonged to Esau the first-born son of Isaac.48
Concluding Remarks
1. Close examination of Jeromes procedures in expounding this chapter of Genesis strongly suggests that he has compiled Heb. Quest. for an
educated, even scholarly readership who knew some Greek; and that
one of his principal aims was to show how a Jewish scholar might go
about his business of interpreting the Bible. In the process, Jerome acts
very much as a Jewish scholar might; or, to be more precise, Jerome
acts very much in the way that he thought Jewish scholars might act. In
particular, he expects his readers to know the Bible fairly thoroughly.
No doubt his models would have been those Jews who taught him
Hebrew and with whom he had conversed about the Bible, and the
meanings which Jews were accustomed to find in particular verses.
Peculiar facts about Heb. Quest. tend to support this understanding of
the book.
48
It is interesting to observe that Jerome seems quite unaware of a tradition that
this garment had once belonged to Nimrod: see further, C.T.R. Hayward, The Date of
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 1618.
336
chapter sixteen
(a) Although there is some Christian material in Heb. Quest, it is

restricted and limited in scope. Jewish traditions, however, are
found in almost every comment, sometimes acknowledged as
such, but usually not.
(b) In Heb. Quest. 14:1819 Jerome describes his little work as a collection vel quaestionum hebraicarum vel traditionum, either Hebrew
enquiries or traditions, and on many occasions he associates the
Hebrews explicitly with some form of the word trado.49 We have
noted the likely significance of this description of his book.
(c) The absence of negative criticism or caustic remarks directed
towards Jewish traditions is striking, and stands in marked contrast
to some of his statements in other exegetical works.50 He openly
accepts that certain of these traditions are true (e.g. at 12:4; 19:30;
41:45), and tends to register his disagreement with Jewish views
simply by juxtaposing Christian interpretation without argument,
as in 14:1819.
(d) His choice of certain verses for comment seems to be dictated
by their importance for gaining understanding of other passages
of Scripture: so much seems probable from 14:23 and 1819.
They contain material which can be used over and over again,
often rather allusively. This is redolent of Jewish scholarship and
practice, as is also his description of the Scriptural principle of
anticipation set out in verse 7 and then used again in other
places.
(e) His comments on single words and short phrases of Scripture can
reveal common cause with traditional Jewish understanding of these
expressions; his interest in Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus
seems grounded in his belief that they are men learned in Jewish
lore whose comments count as Hebrew enquiries or traditions
on Genesis. As we have seen, these three Bible translators not
infrequently agree with the Targumim.
49
See, for example, Heb. Quest. 11:28; 12:4; 22:20; 24:9; 27:15; 33:18; 37:36; 41:43.
Thus he never uses the verbs somnio, dream, idly think; contendo, strongly argue,
assert; or autumno, aver, suppose, to introduce Hebrew tradition; nor does he use
the expression fabulam narrare, to tell a story or fable. All these expressions, and
others which might carry with them pejorative connotations, are very common in his
commentaries.
50
337
(f) While his near obsession with geography in Heb. Quest may owe
something to Christian needs,51 Jews were zealous in their attempts
to provide modern equivalents for the old Biblical place-names,
a practice of which Jerome could not have been ignorant.
2. The material which Jerome shares with the Aramaic Targumim is
very striking, and suggests that one of his main sources for the writing of Heb. Quest. was Targumic, either a person or persons whose
duties involved putting the Scriptures into Aramaic for the synagogue
or school, or even a written text. Since one of the main functions of
the Targum and the Targumist was precisely to expound the meaning
of the Bible for contemporary Jewry, and to resolve difficulties in its
text, Targumic interpretation would have been invaluable as a source
of knowledge for Jeromes Hebrew enquiries.52
3. Jeromes use of Josephus is also instructive. It would seem that when
he agrees with this author he does not name him, but passes off his
work as part of the general stock of Hebrew scholarship. He names
Josephus, however, when he wishes to take issue with him on particular points which do not seem warranted by that Hebrew tradition into
which Jerome himself has made enquiries. Unsuspecting readers may
believe that, because he was a Jew, Josephus always hands on accurate information; and his work was readily accessible in Greek. Jerome
seeks to make Josephus accountable to the Hebrew tradition itself.
Analysis of this one chapter of Heb. Quest. does indeed suggest that
Jerome may have valuable information to give us about the state of
Jewish Bible exposition in his lifetime. Such information, however, has
to be culled very carefully. His understanding of Jewish scholarship
will inevitably have been conditioned by those Jews who taught him
and with whom he discussed Scripture,53 as well as by his own peculiar perceptions of what they were saying. These are filters through
51
It was during Jeromes lifetime that Christian pilgrimage to the Land of Israel
became fashionable: see J. Wilkinson, Egerias Travels (London, 1971).
52
For descriptions of the Targum and its methods, see especially R. le Daut,
Introduction la Littrature Targumique (Rome, 1966); G. Vermes, Bible and
Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1,
pp. 199231; and M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Dublin,
1983), pp. 205216. Noteworthy are the extensive agreements between Jerome and
Targum Ps-Jon in this chapter.
53
For a discussion of Jeromes teachers, see S. Krauss, article Jerome, pp. 115118.
338
chapter sixteen
which his information is transmitted, and they must be duly recognised for what they are. Heb. Quest. is, therefore, a work of considerable complexity, combining a variety of different methods of dealing
with the text, and possibly a number of different objectives on the
part of Jerome himself. Fully to understand it requires that we first
uncover Jeromes methods of approach to the text of Genesis, and the
reasons for his adopting those methods in particular circumstances.
We must then attempt to discern the questions which he supposes the
text to put to us. Jerome is apparently aware that Jews have for generations addressed enquiries to this text, and that their investigations
have provided them with particular answers. Thus it is possible to see
how certain lines of exegetical procedure were already well-established
in Judaism by his time; and detailed study of Heb. Quest. as a whole
would prove a worthwhile undertaking for those concerned to plot the
development of Rabbinic exegesis.
PART FOUR
TARGUM AND TEMPLE
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
SIRACH AND WISDOMS DWELLING PLACE

No educated Jew of Second Temple times could have ignored the
question: Where shall wisdom be found?, because the Bible poses it
forcibly. Twice Job demands: But as for wisdom, where shall it be
found?; But as for wisdom, whence does it come?, twice and where
is the place of understanding? (Job 28.12, 20). This Jewish question,
posed by and for Jews in Hebrew, may have remained Jewish but for
Alexander the Great. The advent of Greek settlements in the land of
Israel following Alexanders conquest of the Near East gave it greater
urgency; for the culture of the Greeks was especially bound up with
their avowed attachment to philosophy, that love of wisdom essential
for a learned mans education or culture, paideia.1 Contemporary Jews
could not avoid claims that wisdom might be found in the thinking
of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, or Zeno, or in the writings of their disciples. Jobs questions might then be answered, but in such a way that
traditional Judaism would be left at a disadvantage. For what would
be the significance of the Torah of Moses, if wisdom were to be found
in the musings of Greek philosophers?
Since the Bible asks about wisdoms location, a Jew loyal to tradition might have argued that the Bible should provide the answer.
Indeed, Jobs second question, But as for wisdom, whence does it
come?, is answered by another verse of Scripture. Proverbs 2.6 states
clearly: For the Lord gives wisdom: from His mouth come knowledge and understanding. If Scripture answers one of Jobs questions,
why not the other? For the Bible hints that wisdom may indeed be
found; otherwise the words of Prov 3.13, blessed is the man who finds
1
For Hellenistic culture during Second-Temple times, see E. Schrer, The History
of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. II, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar,
and M. Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), pp. 29183. For Greek education, philosophy and the Jews, see M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols. (London: SCM
Press, 1974), vol. 1, pp. 65102; L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (London:
SCM Press, 1994), pp. 147170. For diaspora Jews see J.J. Collins, Between Athens
and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad
Publishing, 1983).
342
chapter seventeen
wisdom, and of Wisdom herself in Prov 8.35, for whosoever finds me

finds life, would be otiose. However, a general reading of Scripture
might still leave a pious Jew at a loss; for the Bible nowhere, it would
seem, tells exactly where wisdom may be located. Can Jobs first question, But as for wisdom, where shall it be found?, be answered more
specifically?
A direct answer was given by Jesus ben Sira, a traditional Jew of
Jerusalem, in a wisdom book written around 190 bce.2 It was composed in Hebrew, and large portions of Hebrew text survive.3 But the
complete work survives in a translation of the Hebrew into Greek made
by ben Siras grandson in Egypt towards the end of the second century
bce.4 This was included in the version of the Bible commonly called
Septuagint under the title Sirach or Wisdom of Sirach; and it is our
primary witness to chapter 24 of ben Siras book, in which he clearly
stated where wisdom was to be found. No fragments of the Hebrew
original of this chapter remain.5 However faithful ben Siras grandson
2
For the date of ben Siras Hebrew book, see P.W. Skehan and A.A. di Lella, The
Wisdom of ben Sira, Anchor Bible 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 816; Schrer,
op. cit., vol. III.1, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1986), pp. 198212 and literature there cited; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 5565.
For discussion of ben Siras work, see A.A. di Lella, article Wisdom of ben Sira, in
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D.N. Freedman, vol. 6 (New York: Doubleday, 1992),
pp. 931945. Although open to cultural trends of his day, Jesus ben Sira remained a
traditional Jew: see D.A. de Silva, The Wisdom of ben Sira: Honor, Shame and the
Maintenance of the Values of a Minority Culture, CBQ 58 (1996), pp. 433455.
3
See Skehan and di Lella, The Wisdom, pp. 5162; M. Gilbert, Wisdom of ben
Sira, in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Compendium
Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Section 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984),
pp. 290292; D.J. Harrington, Sirach Research since 1965: Progress and Questions,
in J.C. Reeves and J. Kampen, eds., Pursuing the Text. Studies in honour of Ben Zion
Wacholder on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1994), pp. 164170; and Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 202206 for history of
the discovery of the Hebrew text.
4
For the text of Sirach we have used the edition of J. Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii
Sirach, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1965). On the Greek text of Sirach, see Harrington, Sirach Research, pp.
165170. For the grandson, see H.J. Cadbury, The Grandson of ben Sira, HTR 48
(1955), pp. 219225; he went to Egypt probably in 132 bce: so Schrer, History, vol. III.1,
p. 202.
5
Almost all commentators agree that the central position of chapter 24 within
the structure of the book corresponds to the importance which the author sought
to accord to it. See (e.g.) Skehan and di Lella, The Wisdom, pp. 331338; B.L. Mack,
Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1985), pp. 161164;
M. Gilbert, Lloge de la Sagesse (Siracide 24), Revue Theologique de Louvain 5
(1974), pp. 328330; and J. Marbck, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur
sirach and wisdoms dwelling place
343
might have been to his grandfathers work, it must be frankly admitted that Sirach 24 is a Greek version of a Hebrew text composed in
political and religious conditions very different from those which confronted Jesus ben Sira in Jerusalem. Where it is possible to compare
the Hebrew of ben Sira with the Greek version called Sirach, the translators concerns often manifest themselves plainly.6 Modern retroversions of Sirach into a Hebrew which ben Sira might have written may
be informative, but are inevitably hypothetical.7 This essay, therefore,
will deal with the Greek version of ben Siras poem, and seek to elucidate an aspect of it which seems to have been unjustly neglected.
1. The Biblical Background to Wisdoms Place of Dwelling
In Sirach 24, Wisdom herself speaks about her origin from the mouth
of the Most High (v. 2). Her first dwelling was in the heights and a
pillar of cloud (v. 4). She journeyed in heaven, the abysses, the sea,
and in all the earth (vv. 56). She desired rest on earth (v. 7): she
sought an inheritance, which the Creator granted to her. She is to
tabernacle in Jacob and have inheritance in Israel (v. 8). More precisely, v. 10 locates her in the holy tabernacle, where she ministers
before God, firmly fixed in Sion: thus she is in Jerusalem, where she
has authority (v. 11), planted among an honoured people in the Lords
inheritance (v. 12). The question where shall wisdom be found? is thus
answered with precision: she is located in Jacob-Israel, in Jerusalem, in
the Temple where she ministers to God. Her place is the outcome of a
journey; for she had first pitched her tabernacle in the heights before
coming to reside in the holy tabernacle in Jerusalem (v. 10).
Why did Sirach locate Wisdom in Jerusalem and the Temple? The
usual answer to this question is suggested by 24.23, which identifies
Wisdom with the Torah of Moses. According to Isa 2.3, Torah operates on mount Sion where stands the house of the God of Jacob: from
Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira, Bonner Biblische Beitrge 37 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1971),
pp. 4449.
6
So B.G. Wright, No Small Difference. Sirachs Relationship to its Hebrew Parent
Text, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). See particularly p. 246.
7
The most recent attempt at retroversion is by P.W. Skehan, Structures in Poems
on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24, CBQ 41 (1979), pp. 365379. The Hebrew
version is found on p. 374. Skehan explicitly points out (p. 379) that this discussion
of Sirach 24 is not directed towards any broad conclusions.
344
chapter seventeen
there, Torah goes forth.8 It need not be doubted that Wisdoms identification with Torah is related to her place of residence; but it should
be observed that this identification is not revealed, or even suggested,
until more than half-way through Wisdoms speech. We are justified,
therefore, in asking whether Sirach had reasons for locating Wisdom
in Jerusalem independent of her identification with Torah, reasons
cohering with her journeyings and search for rest which feature prominently in the first part of the poem.
Sirach probably derived the idea of Wisdoms residence in the
Temple from particular readings of Job 28 in tandem with Prov 8, a
chapter which influenced the composition of his poem.9 From Job 28,
he could determine where Wisdom is not to be found: in the land of
the living, the abyss, and the sea (28.1314). These verses may imply,
however, that Wisdom had been in those places formerly. Sirach would
also have learned that Wisdom is concealed from the eyes of all living
(28.21). But she does have a place which Abaddon and death have
heard (28.22) and which God knows; and that place is bound up with a
road, way, or journey. Thus Sirach would learn from Job 28.23 that
God understands her way: and He Himself knows her place.
Turning to Prov 8.2, Sirach would have found Wisdom making
public proclamation to passers by as she stations herself at the top of
the heights by the road, at the place of the paths. The Hebrew of this
verse, however, might properly be understood in another way. Sirach
(or his grandfather) might have taken br, at the top of , to mean
something akin to at first, at the beginning, to yield the sense that
at the beginning Wisdom stationed herself in the heights:10 this is precisely what we find expressed in Sir 24.4. Next, by the road, Hebrew
ly drk, might be taken to mean on a journey, and at the place of the
8
Identification of Wisdom with Torah is suggested by the Bible (Deut 4.68; Jer
8.8). Within biblical Wisdom writings, Wisdom is the principle of order in the universe: among Stoics order was understood as nomos, a cosmic law giving coherence to
all things. Marbck argues that Stoic notions helped to yoke together Law and Wisdom
in ben Siras thinking: see his Weisheit im Wandel, pp. 8196. E.J. Schnabel, Law and
Wisdom from ben Sira to Paul, WUNT 2.16 (Tbingen: Mohr, 1985), pp. 8486, challenges Marbcks thesis and those who believe that Torah constitutes the order in
creation: see ibid., pp. 7981. His insistence that it is the Torah of Moses which is
identified with Wisdom, and not some universal cosmic law (ibid., pp. 4344), seems
likely given the evidence presented below.
9
See especially Skehan, Structures, pp. 377378.
10
Skehan, Structures, p. 374 retroverts Greek en hupslois into Hebrew bmrwmym, which he links (ibid., p. 377) with Prov 8.2.
345
paths (Hebrew byt ntybwt) to refer to paths which that journey might
take. In short, the verse could be rendered: At the beginning, she stationed herself in the heights: on a journey at the place of the pathways.
If this particular reading of Prov 8.2 indicates that Wisdom had undertaken journeys,11 Sirach could also have deduced that she had come to
rest by pitching her tent; for ten verses later in the same chapter she
declares, according to the present Masoretic Text: I, Wisdom, have
dwelt with prudence: I find out knowledge of discretion. Once again,
however, it is legitimate to read the Hebrew in another way, ignoring
the Masoretic verse division (dating from a time later than Sirach) and
reading: I, Wisdom, have pitched my tabernacle (Hebrew knty): prudence and knowledge of discretion I find out. It is well known that the
verb kn, to pitch a tent, tabernacle, is commonly used in Scripture to
express Gods residence in the Temple (e.g., Deut 12.11; 16.2; 26.2). If
Prov 8.12 means that Wisdom has pitched her tabernacle, and if it be
asked where she might have done this, the verb kn invites the answer
that she has pitched her tent in the Holy of Holies of the Temple,
where God dwells in thick darkness (1 Kings 8.12), thus hidden from
the eyes of all the living like Wisdom herself (Job 28.21).
These observations suggest that Wisdoms present residence in the
Temple and her past journeyings and dwelling in the heights could have
been deduced by Sirach from scriptural verses avowedly speaking of
Wisdom independently of her identification with the Torah. Scriptural
exegetes earlier than ben Siras day may have already expounded these
verses to determine Wisdoms journeys and her present abode, in a
whole-hearted attempt to answer biblical questions with biblical materials.12 Even so, the Torah is crucial for understanding of what Sirach
says about Wisdoms place; and this should become clear as we examine the particular manner of her dwelling in Israel, Jerusalem, and the
Temple.
11
Gilbert, Lloge, pp. 330332, notes Wisdoms journeys in Sirach 24.38, but
does not explain them. See also R.A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative
Literary Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgement
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 157159. Sirachs statements go beyond the obvious sense of Scripture, and require foundation in an authoritative source. Our suggestion concerning learned exegesis of the Hebrew of Prov 8.2 offers reasons why he
presents Wisdom as one who had journeyed.
12
For the possibility that Wisdom was identified with Torah before ben Siras time,
see G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1 (New York:
Schocken Books, 1971), pp. 263268.
346
chapter seventeen
2. Wisdom and the Ark of the Covenant
Sirach defines Wisdoms residence in Israel and the Temple with

the words rest, tabernacle, and inheritance. After she had tabernacled (katesknsa) in the heights and had journeyed (vv. 46), she
sought rest (anapausis) and an inheritance (klronomia): God made
her tabernacle rest (katepausen tn sknn mou) and told her to pitch
her tabernacle (katasknson) in Jacob, and to have her inheritance
(kataklronomthti) in Israel (vv. 78). So God made her rest (katepausen) in the beloved city (v. 11), where she has an inheritance
(v. 20), itself a powerful bond with the Torah which is an inheritance
for the assemblies of Jacob (v. 23).
Sirachs choice of vocabulary recalls the stories of Israels journey
through the desert, the Ark of the Covenant going before her as she
awaited the rest and the inheritance which God had promised. Gese
and Schnabel have noted Sirachs allusions to the Ark, but only en
passant: it will repay closer inspection.13 According to LXX Deut
12.9, Moses told Israel that she had not yet come into the rest and
the inheritance (eis tn katapausin kai eis tn klronomian) which the
Lord would give her. Here Greek katapausis and klronomia represent
Hebrew mnwhh and nhlh respectively.14 The former word is used to
represent the goal of the Ark of the Covenant as described in Num
10.33, where it travels before Israel on a three days journey to seek
out rest. LXX there rendered mnwhh as anapausis.15 Eventually the
Ark found rest in Jerusalem, in the Tabernacle which King David
pitched for it (2 Sam 6.17). Ps 132 (LXX 131).8 puts appropriate words
for the Arks new location into Davids mouth: Arise O Lord, into
thy rest (lmnwhtk, LXX eis tn anapausin sou), Thou and the Ark of
thy might. Thus the Chronicler speaks of Davids intention to build
13
See H. Gese, Wisdom, Son of Man, and the Origins of Christology: The
Consistent Development of Biblical Theology, Horizons in Biblical Theology 3 (1981),
pp. 3435; and Schnabel, Law and Wisdom, 22, against J.C.H. Lebram, Jerusalem,
Wohnsitz der Weisheit, in M.J. Vermaseren, ed., Studies in Hellenistic Religion (1979),
pp. 103128.
14
See C. Dogniez and M. Harl, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 5, Le Deutronome (Paris:
Cerf, 1992), p. 195. In Sir 24.7, Greek anapausis almost certainly represents Hebrew
mmnwhh: see Skehan, Structures, p. 374, and Wright, No Small Difference, 242. On
Deut 12.1012 and Sirach 24, see also A. Fournier-Bidoz, LArbre et la Demeure:
Siracide xxiv pp. 1017, VT 34 (1984), p. 3.
15
See G. Dorival, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 4, Les Nombres (Paris: Cerf, 1994),
pp. 283284.
347
a house of rest (mnwhh, LXX anapausis) for the Ark (1 Chr 28.2).16
This last scriptural verse is the foundation for Targumic interpretations of rest as meaning Temple. In Deut 12.9 a marginal gloss of
Targum Neofiti interprets rest as the house of the Sanctuary which
is called the house of rest, while Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has simply
you have not arrived until now at the house of the Sanctuary, which
is the house of rest. Given the Chroniclers words in 1 Chr 28.2, the
Targumic interpretations are possibly ancient, and may have influenced ben Sira or his grandson.17 Sirachs version of his grandfathers
words in 36.18 begs God to have mercy on the city of Thy sanctuary,
Jerusalem the place of Thy rest, katapaumatos sou, glossing his grandfathers Hebrew byt btyk, which otherwise might be understood as
the place of Thy dwelling.18
It seems that Sirach modelled Wisdoms journeys to her place,
which he probably derived from exegesis of Job 28 and Prov 8, on
Israels journeys through the desert seeking the rest which, with the
Ark, she finds in Jerusalem in a tent pitched by David, and finally in
Solomons Temple. The Ark contained the tablets engraved by God
with the commandments (Deut 10.15; Exod 40.20). Thus in the figure of the Ark Sirach was able to unite Wisdom and Torah: and the
Ark, now in its place in the Holy of holies (1 Kings 8.6), indicated
that Wisdoms journeys, like Israels, were now over. The prophecy of
Moses, that God would bring Israel and plant her on the mountain
of his inheritance, in the sanctuary which his hands had made (Exod
15.17), was now realised, with Wisdom fixed on Sion, planted among
an honourable people (24.10, 12).19
16
For the Chronicler and the Ark, see S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles. A Commentary
(London: SCM Press, 1993), p. 156. On the Chroniclers conception of the Temple as
a house of rest for the Ark, and his use of Num 10.3536; Ps 132.810, see ibid., pp.
487, 602.
17
The rest of Deut 12.9 refers to the sanctuary, either at Shiloh or in Jerusalem,
elsewhere in Rabbinic Literature: see Sifre Deut. 66; b. Meg. 10a; Zeb. 119a; jer. Meg.
1:12; Targum Ps 95.11. At Gen 49.15, the rest which Isaachar saw refers to the
Temple (FTP, FTV, and Midrash Aggadah 112): Isaachar was a keen Torah scholar,
PJ and TN of Gen. 49:15; b. Baba Qamma 17a; Gen. R. 98.12; 99.10; Sifre Numb. 52;
Tanhuma 11. See R. Syrn, The Blessings in the Targums (bo: bo Akademi,
1986), pp. 132133.
18
Sirach interpreted the phrase through root to rest, rather than , to
dwell. See further Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, pp. 218219.
19
Wisdom was present at the Exodus in the pillar of cloud and fire, Sir 24.4. See
Gilbert, Lloge, p. 342, who notes that Philo (Quis rerun 42) identifies the pillar with
Wisdom. In Sir 24.10, Wisdom says that she was fixed (estrichthn) on Sion, a likely
348
chapter seventeen
Sirach probably had further reasons for associating Wisdom with

the Ark, arising from contemporary Scriptural exegesis. First, LXX
had represented the Hebrew word for the Ark (rwn) as kibtos. This
they had already used to translate a different word (tybh) which the
Bible uses to speak of Noahs Ark. Marguerite Harl has shown that
LXX deliberately chose the one word kibtos to do duty for two different Hebrew terms so as to present the Ark of the covenant in the
light of Noahs Ark, and vice versa.20 Thus the Ark of the covenant
might somehow correspond to Noahs Ark, which preserved the lives
of chosen people and enabled God to inaugurate a covenant, ensuring the stability of the universe (Gen 8.2022): Wisdom herself states
that whoever finds her finds life, and obtains favour of the Lord
(Prov 8.35).
Second, LXX associate the Ark with knowledge of God, and thus
with Wisdom. According to the Hebrew text of Exod 25.22, Num
17.19 God promises Moses that he will meet with him from between
the cherubim surmounting the Ark, or from the testimony. In both
verses, LXX present God not as meeting with Moses, but as being
made known to him, reading not the Hebrew root yd to meet, but
yd to know. In Exod 25.22, LXX make God say: And I shall make
myself known to you from there and speak to you . . . , and in Num 17.4
(= Hebrew 17.9) . . . where I shall make myself known to you, where the
Hebrew refers to Gods meeting Moses. Whether LXX used a Hebrew
text differing from ours, or represent an interpretation of the Hebrew
text in quasi-Rabbinic fashion (al tiqre), need not concern us.21 Their
version is relevant in showing that, before ben Siras time, some Jews
had understood the Ark with its appurtenances as the place where
God is made known to Israel. LXX used the same mode of translation
in Exod 29.42, referring to the door of the Tent of Meeting where the
allusion to LXX Gen 28.12 describing how Jacob at Bethel saw in his dream a ladder
fixed (estrigmen) on the earth reaching to the heavens. (It is not clear what this
verb might have represented in the original Hebrew: see Skehan, Structures, pp. 374,
377; and for an opposing view Wright, No Small Difference, 240.) The place of Jacobs
dream is the Temple according to TO, TN, marginal glosses of TN, PJ of Gen 28.17,
a view shared by the Samaritans. For the Targums, see E.G. Clarke, Jacobs Dream at
Bethel as Interpreted in the Targums and New Testament, St. Rel. 4 (197475), pp.
367377.
20
See M. Harl, Le Nom de lArche de No dans la Septante, in .
Mlanges offerts Claude Mondsert S.J. (Paris: Cerf, 1987), pp. 1643.
21
See A. le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 2, LExode (Paris:
Cerf, 1989), p. 259; and G. Dorival, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 4, pp. 69, 361.
349
daily sacrifice was offered: God says that it is a place in which I shall
make Myself known to you from there. Similarly, the incense is burnt
before the veil concealing the Ark, where God makes Himself known
to Moses (LXX of Exod 30.6, 36). In all these verses, the Hebrew text
speaks of Gods meeting Moses.22 The Ark and the Tent (prototype
of the Temple) are thus, according to LXX, places where God offers
knowledge of Himself to Moses and Israel. Returning to Prov 8.8, 10,
12, we find that knowledge is a gift of Wisdom, of divine origin, coming from the mouth of the Lord (Prov 2.6).
Sirach begins his poem in elevated style, suited to the theme
of Wisdoms stately progress from the heights to her dwelling in
Jerusalem, like the Ark of the Covenant in ancient times. Yet in his
day the Second Temple had no Ark. Its Holy of Holies stood empty.
Nor was the Ark the only sacred thing it lacked. To the alleged defects
of that Temple we must now turn, since it seems that Sirach himself
was exercised with them.
3. The Alleged Defects of the Second Temple
Both Talmuds and midrashic texts like Song R. 8:9 list items in which
the Second Temple was deemed defective compared with the First.23
Among things missing or lacking their former sanctity, sources list the
oil for consecrating the priests, sanctuary, and holy objects.24 Urim and
Thummim and the sacred fire were either not present or less effective
than formerly, and the Holy Spirit was absent (see jer. Taan. 2:1.65a;
Makkot 2:7,32a; Hor. 3:2,47c; Song R. 8:9; b. Yoma 21b). Finally,
b. Yoma 21b suggests that the Shekhina was lacking, and ARNa 41 lists
the absence of the tabernacle.25
22
See le Boulluec and Sandevoir, La Bible dAlexandrie, vol. 2, pp. 303, 306, 314.
For the Rabbinic lists, see especially tos. Yoma 2.12; b. Yoma 21b, 52b; Hor. 12a;
Ker. 5b; jer. Makk. 2.7:32a; Taan. 2.1:65a; Hor. 3.3:47c; Sheq. 6:1.49c; Sot. 8:3.22c;
Song R. 8:9; ARNa 41.
24
So tos. Yoma 2:12; b. Yoma 52b; Hor. 12a; Ker. 5b; Jer. Taan. 2:1.65a; Makk.
2:7.32a; Hor. 3:3.47c; Sheq. 6:1.49c; Sot. 8:3.22c; Song R. 8:9; ARNa 41. Anointing
of priests, if practised during Second Temple times, seems to have been restricted
to high priests: see Schrer, History, vol. II, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), pp. 244245.
25
Urim and Thummim were linked with the high priests breastplate and precious
stones (Exod 28.30; Lev 8.8; Num 27.21). Ben Sira 45.11 (Hebrew) apparently regarded
them as operative, holding the oracle in high regard: his grandson introduced a reference to it (Sirach 45.10) not found in his grandfathers work. See Wright, No Small
23
350
chapter seventeen
These rabbinic lists represent real concerns of Second Temple times.

The section 1.1836 of 2 Macc is part of a letter to Egyptian Jews from
Judaean colleagues telling how the altar fire of the First Temple had
been miraculously preserved, discovered by Nehemiah, and was now
effective in the Second Temple.26 This tradition makes best sense when
seen as a counterblast to persons attacking the validity of sacrifice in
the Second Temple: their possible identity will concern us presently.
Another source (2 Macc 2.18) tells how Jeremiah hid the tabernacle, Ark, and altar of incense in a cave, a tradition known in part to
Eupolemus (apud Eusebuis PE IX.39), writing around 158/7 bce. As
Goldstein has noted, even those loyal to the Second Temple accepted
that it was somewhat deficient compared with the First. The traditions
prefacing 2 Maccabees were intended to uphold its validity, showing
how its essential furniture was even now in Gods keeping.27
Given this, Sirachs presentation of Wisdom in terms of the Ark
not present in the Temple of his daytakes on striking significance.
He further compares Wisdom with the anointing oil, which some
Rabbinic sources report as absent from the sanctuary. In 24.15, Sirach
compares Wisdom with cinnamon, aspalathus, and choice myrrh; she
has already been compared with olive in 24.14. Gilbert notes that all
these items, except aspalathus, are ingredients of the anointing oil
prescribed by LXX of Exod 30.2324. Indeed, aspalathus may represent a scribal error for an original kalamos, reed, listed in LXX Exod
30.23 as a component of the oil.28 Sirach 24.15 compares Wisdom with
incense, which, according to 2 Macc 2.5, could not have been burned
in the Second Temple. For galbanum, onyx, stacte, and frankincense
are ingredients of the Temples incense listed by LXX Exod 30.34.
Difference, pp. 176177; pp. 185186. This observation supports Schnabel, Law and
Wisdom, 50, against Stadelmanns view that for Sirach the Torah has taken the place
of Urim and Thummim. The Jews of Qumran, however, may have regarded the oracle
as defunct: see 4Q164 (4Qplsad), and C.T.R. Hayward, Pseudo-Philo and the Priestly
Oracle, JJS 46 (1995), pp. 50, 52.
26
For the date (probably late second century bce) and provenance of the letters prefixed to 2 Maccabees, see Schrer, History, Vol. III.1, pp. 533534, and J.A. Goldstein,
I Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible
(New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 546548; idem, II Maccabees. A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 41a (New York: Doubleday, 1983),
pp. 2427 and commentary ad loc.
27
See Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 546547.
28
See Gilbert, Lloge, pp. 332333, and Fournier-Bidoz, Larbre, 6, for their
symbolism. For the ingredients themselves, see le Boulluec and Sandevoir, La Bible
dAlexandrie, vol. 2, p. 313.
351
Elsewhere, Sirach compares incense with wisdom and its students

(39.1314); and a similar tradition linking incense with wisdom and
Torah study is found in the Qumran literature at 4Qflor 1:67, and in
Rabbinic texts like b. Men 110a; Ber. 43b; and PJ of Exod 40.5. In all
these sources, including Sirach, biblical information about the incense
is assumed: of the highest degree of holiness, it is offered next to the
divine Presence (Exod 30.36). Like the anointing oil, it is confined to
the sanctuary: imitations for use outside the holy place are forbidden
under strictest penalties (Exod 30.3233, 3738).
The references to Wisdoms tabernacling in the holy tabernacle (24.8,
10) now take on added meaning. It seems that Sirach is joining hands
with defenders of the sanctity of the Second Temple. The author of the
epistles prefixed to 2 Maccabees speaks of the secret preservation of
the altar fire, and of Jeremiah storing sacred objects. Sirach, however,
sees these things as symbolising Wisdom, who is infinitely superior
to even the most holy of manufactured objects. She is a living being,
sent forth from Gods mouth, whose journeys have encompassed the
heaven, the abyss, the sea, the whole earth, and all the nations. This
Wisdom rests in Jerusalems Temple as a priestly minister of God.
There she exercises authority (24.11), having assumed the leadership
of every people (24.6). This Wisdom is thus axis mundi, the central
point of the universe, the single principle unifying the heights, heavens, abysses, sea, earth, and all nations.29 By residing in Jerusalem and
its Temple, she makes that city and Temple the centre of the world.
This leads us to consider Sirachs geography.
4. Sirach and Contemporary Jewish Geography
The praise of Wisdom abounds in geographical references. We have
met Israel, Sion, and Jerusalem (vv. 8, 10, 11). Next we find Lebanon
and Hermon (v. 13), En-Gedi and Jericho (v. 14), Pishon, Tigris,
Euphrates, Jordan, and Gihon (vv. 2527). As for Lebanon, Hermon,
29
Wisdom is fully expressed in the Temple service, the high priest in his vestments embodying Wisdom as he officiates on behalf of the whole human race: see now
C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple. A Non-biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge,
1996), pp. 3884. Philo, Quis Heres, pp. 196199, notes that the four ingredients of
the incense represent the elements making up the universe, and that the cosmos gives
thanks to God during the service: see further le Boulluec and Sandevoir, La Bible
dAlexandrie, vol. 2, pp. 310313.
352
chapter seventeen
En-Gedi, and Jericho, Sirach relates them to various trees which are
exalted. A. Fournier-Bidoz views them as aspects of a single, cosmic world-tree, a symbol of the created universe rooted in the land
of Israel.30 Gilberts emphasis on the locations of the trees must not
be ignored: they probably mark the frontiers of the land of Israel as
occupied by the Jews.31 Further, the trees compared with Wisdom in
this chapter are virtually identical with those compared with the high
priest Simon as he offers priestly service (50. 8, 10, and 12). Simon is
the religious and political head of Jews in their homeland. The appearance of the same trees in both chapters seems to confirm Gilberts
perception of things.32
Pishon, Tigris, Euphrates, and Gihon (vv. 2526) recall the garden
of Eden from which these rivers flow, according to the only biblical
text where they are named together (Gen 2.1114). The inclusion of
Jordan in the list was probably suggested by Gen 15.18, which notes
that Israel extends from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates; its effect is
to suggest that Wisdom is analogous to the four rivers of paradise, and
that she belongs in the land whose own river is the Jordan. Residing at
the centre of things, she flows in great torrents to the four corners of
the earth, like the four rivers of the garden of Eden.33
Here Sirach has assumed a tradition that Jerusalem with its Temple
constitutes the navel (omphalos) of the world, that central point of
origins giving stability to the cosmos. The Hebrew text of Ezek 38.12
had spoken of the land of Israel as tbwr hrz, an expression which
LXX took to mean the navel of the earth.34 This notion was developed
30
See Larbre, especially pp. 510; Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 55, pp. 9394 and
literature there cited for interpretations of the tree imagery. Philo associates trees,
especially the trees of Eden, with wisdom and the planting of the virtuous on the
mountain of Gods inheritance (Exod 15.17), see De Plantatione, pp. 4449.
31
See Gilbert, Lloge, p. 332.
32
For the trees in Sirach 24 and 50, see C.T.R. Hayward, Sacrifice and World
Order: Some Observations on ben Siras Attitude to the Temple Service, in S.W. Sykes,
ed., Sacrifice and Redemption. Durham Essays in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), pp. 2327; and see also Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic,
163; and Fournier-Bidoz, Larbre, pp. 4, 9.
33
See Gilbert, Lloge, pp. 338341, and his suggestion (pp. 342343) that the
mist with which Wisdom compares herself (24.3) may refer to the mist covering the
earth at creation (Gen 2.6) as understood by texts like Targums Neofiti and PseudoJonathan: they interpreted this mist as the cloud of the divine presence.
34
Its not for certain that Ezekiels words referred to the navel of the earth: see
S. Talmon, article , in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, G.J. Botterweck
and H. Ringgren (eds.), vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 427438. LXXs
353
during the second century bce, significantly by the Book of Jubilees,

dating from around 160 bce but depending on older traditions.35 This
highly influential work naturally listed the Jews among the descendants of Shem. When Noah divided the earth among his three sons, it
declares, the lot of Shem was assigned in the document [of Noah] as
the middle of the earth, which he would take for his possession and for
his sons for eternal generations (Jub 8.12). Allocation of this land to
Shem gave joy to Noah, since he knew that the garden of Eden was the
holy of holies and the dwelling of the Lord. And Mount Sinai (was) in
the midst of the desert and Mount Zion was in the midst of the navel
of the earth. The three of these were created as holy places, one facing
the other (Jub 8.19).
This text binds Eden, the site of paradise; Sinai, where Torah was
given to Israel by Moses; and Zion, the place of the Temple, in one
perfect continuum: they correspond to each other. For Sirach, Zion
is the place where Wisdom who is Torah given by Moses resides, the
source of the paradisal rivers. Jubilees tells also how Noah knew that
a blessed portion and a blessing had thus reached Shem and his sons
in a land including all the land of Eden. It is a land of origins and
of creation: Jubilees echoes the book of Genesis, saying simply that
everything which is in it is very good (8.21). That Jubilees used the
Ionian world map of its day to make political statements justifying
Jewish rights in the land of Israel has been demonstrated by Philip
Alexander. For our purposes, the books insistence that Mount Zion is
in the centre of the navel of the earth is of capital importance: it was
a tradition that would almost certainly have been known to Jesus ben
Sira himself, writing only some thirty years before Jubilees reached its
present form.
The holy land and Jerusalem are also placed in the centre of the
earth by 1 Enoch 26.14, part of the Book of Watchers dating possibly
from the third century bce.36 This says that Enoch was transported to
see the land of Israel and Mount Zion: I went to the middle of the
notion reappears in later writings such as Josephus, War III.52; Sibylline Oracles
V. 250. Aristeas 83 may know it: see Hayward, The Jewish Temple, p. 30.
35
For the date of Jubilees, see Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 311314. On its geographical ideas, see P.S. Alexander, article Early Jewish Geography, in The Anchor
Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, pp. 980982. Translations of Jubilees below are by O.S.
Wintermute, Jubilees, in J.H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
2 vols. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983, 1985), vol. 2, pp. 7273.
36
For the date of the Book of Watchers, see Schrer, History, III.1, pp. 252257.
354
chapter seventeen
earth and saw a blessed, well-watered place . . . And there I saw a holy
mountain, and under the mountain, to the east of it, there was water
and it flowed toward the south . . .37 Again we find the mountain in the
middle of the earth linked with streams. Set alongside these near contemporary writings, both of which use geographical lore to establish
the Jerusalems pre-eminence, Sirachs poem also marks out Jerusalem
and her Temple as the navel of the world. We do not know if he had
visited Greece; but he had travelled and knew the world outside Judaea
(34.10 and 39.4). Greece was the homeland of the Easts rulers and
of their philosopher guides. Sirach and other writers here considered
could hardly ignore this; and their geographical learning was used to
defend their ancestral faith. For they contrived to contrast Jerusalem
with that most famous of all navels of the world, the Temple and
oracle of Apollo at Delphi, where the omphalos-stone, reputed to be
the very centre of the world, was preserved and honoured.
The oracle of Apollo at Delphi lay beneath Mount Parnassus. It had
three streams: Castalia, the spring of the Muses in which those consulting the oracle first purified themselves; Cassotis, running through
the temple and beneath the adyton, its cold exhalations stimulating
the ecstasy of the priestess; and the brook Delphusa. Oracles were
given through the Pythian priestess, who by tradition was required
to be without learning. Having purified herself in Castalia, she would
chew laurel leaves or inhale the smoke of burning laurel mixed with
myrrh. She would enter the adyton, and, descending into the earth
through a cleft in the rock to the place of the omphalos, she would
sit upon a tripod above the stream Cassotis. In an ecstasy she would
give forth oracles in unintelligible sounds, which were then translated into hexameter verse by prophets, the priests of Apollo. In the
Hellenistic period, these priests contented themselves with expounding the Pythias utterances in prose.38
Not only Greek, but also foreign rulers sought Delphis advice.
Philosophers acclaimed it. Plato ascribed all authority in matters of
37
Translated M.A. Knibb, in H.F.D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), p. 215. See also 1 Enoch 18.6, and Alexander, Early
Jewish Geography, pp. 984985.
38
For summaries of recent research on the oracle and bibliography, see articles
Delphi and Delphic oracle in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. S. Hornblower
and A. Spawforth (3rd edn; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 444446. See
also F. Poulsen, Delphi (London: Glyndendal, 1920), who describes (ibid., p. 24) the
transmission of oracles.
355
religion to Delphian Apollo, whose power he envisaged as extending from the omphalos to the whole human race (Republic XI, end).
Pythagoras was accused of filching much of his philosophy from the
Delphic oracle (Diogenes Laertius VIII.8), and Socrates insisted that
it had proclaimed him the wisest of men (Plato, Apology 5). Aristotle
and his nephew Callisthenes were honoured in an inscription set up
in the temple at Delphi in 331 bce. Finally, Plato (Laws Book 1, beginning) records that the Spartans ascribed to the Delphic oracle the most
ancient of all legislation.39
It is likely that Sirach had Delphis fame in mind as he pictured, not
Apollos shrine, but the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem at the navel
of the world, with Wisdom issuing from it like the four rivers of paradise. More ancient than the world (24.9), Wisdom billows forth like
the rivers, bringing things to light (24.27, 32). The verb is ekphainein,
used in LXX Dan 2.19, 30, 47 translating Aramaic gly, to reveal.40 In
these verses God reveals what is rz, a secret of heavenly realities disclosed in symbol, dream, and mysterious utterance. Wisdom pours
out discipline, paideia, a word meaning also education, the culture
undergirding all civilisation. This discipline (24.27, 32, 33) she pours
forth like prophecy (24.33). Unlike the obscure utterances of the Pythia,
Wisdom is a source of light and enlightenment (24.27, 32). For Sirach,
this is necessarily so since she is Israels Torah, Gods gift to Israel
which Scripture explicitly calls a light (Prov 6.23). Wisdoms residence
in Jerusalem brings light; and either she, or her expounder,41 brings to
light her benefits to those afar off (24.32). The oracle at Delphi gave
advice to people from far and near, Greeks and non-Greeks. Might it
be that Wisdom, in Sirachs understanding, is the true guide to Israel
39
For Delphi and the philosophers, see Poulsen, Delphi, pp. 2832. Spartan interest
in the most ancient legislation may be significant in view of the association of Jews and
Spartans recorded in 1 Macc 12.2, 68; 14.1623; 2 Macc 5.9, on which see Schrer,
History, vol. 1, ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), pp.
184185; Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 445462, 492496.
40
It is rare in LXX, found only in III Macc 4.1, Sirach, and the verses of Daniel
quoted. In Sirach 8.19 it corresponds to glh of Siras Hebrew; elsewhere (14:7; 16:25;
19:25; 22:19; 27:6; 38:33; and 39.8) no Hebrew Vorlage survives. In 24.32 it parallels
phtizein, which in 42.16 answers to Hebrew zrh, rise, come forth; 43.9 to zhr in
hiphil instruct, teach; 50.7 to niphal of rh, be seen, appear; in 45.17, where there
is no extant Hebrew Vorlage, and it refers to Aaron enlightening Israel by means of
the Torah.
41
While most believe that the speaker in 24.3033 is the poet, Gilbert, Lloge, pp.
339340, argues that Wisdom continues to utter praise. Concerning the prophecy
which is poured out, see further Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, p. 57.
356
chapter seventeen
and the nations? Might she not be that light to the nations prophesied
by Isaiah (42.6)? In short, is she the instructress of the Gentiles?
5. Sirach, Some Hellenistic Jewish Writers, and
Concluding Remarks
Sirachs praise of Wisdom has never lacked interpreters.42 This essay
has not sought to rehearse their concerns yet again, but rather to draw
out a vital aspect of Sirachs writing which seems often to have been
overlooked. We have tried to show that Sirach envisaged Wisdoms
residence in Jerusalem as a powerful proof that the Second Temple,
built on Sion in Jerusalem, was in truth the one place chosen by God
as His earthly residence, and that its sanctity and status were unimpaired by the absence of the Ark and the alleged disappearance of
other items essential for its service. He seems determined to disprove
all calumnies uttered against it.
Who were the calumniators? They would include the Samaritans
with their temple at Shechem, who denied the validity of Jerusalem
and its Temple as a place of divine residence. Sirach singles them
out for attack (50.26) after his eulogy of the high priest sacrificing in
Jerusalems Temple.43 Jesus ben Siras Hebrew of that chapter survives:
he evidently loathed the Shechemites.44 But they had their defenders:
fragments of an anonymous Samaritans work preserved by Eusebius
(PE IX.17) and dating from around 200 bce define Argarizin (Mount
Gerizim) as the Mount of the Most High, a divine title which ben
Sira and Sirach use repeatedly to emphasise Gods presence on Sion.45
Later Samaritan tradition holds that Gerizim is the navel of the world:
to boost the legitimacy of Gerizims claims against Jerusalem, it is possible that this notion existed in ben Siras lifetime.
42
For a survey of recent writing on this, see Harrington, Sirach Research, pp.
170176.
43
Some aspects of this eulogy may defend the Second Temple: see C.T.R. Hayward,
The New Jerusalem in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira, Scandinavian J. of the Old
Testament 6 (1992), pp. 123138.
44
See J.D. Purvis, Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem, JNES 24 (1965),
pp. 8894; Skehan and di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 558.
45
Marbck, Weisheit im Wandel, pp. 6667 notes anti-Samaritan tendencies. On
Sirach and the title Most High, see Hayward, The Jewish Temple, pp. 7577. The
anonymous Samaritan writer makes Abraham meet Melchizedek, priest of God Most
High (Gen 14.1718) at Argarizin.
357
Jesus ben Siras grandson had gone to Egypt, where Onias IV, the
son of the Jerusalem high priest Onias III, had built a Jewish temple. This he had modelled on Jerusalem, and legitimate priests and
Levites served it. It was sited in Heliopolis, with royal approval; and
it attracted powerful Jewish support, including a strong military force.
It was built as a direct result of the Hellenistic crisis, during which
Jerusalems Temple had been desecrated and its furniture, including
the altar of incense, removed to a foreign land (1 Macc 1.2023). No
doubt, as the son of the last legitimate Zadokite high priest, Onias
IV claimed for his Egyptian temple a sanctity and validity which he
denied to that in Jerusalem.46
Associated with Zadokite priests and their claims were Jews settled
at Qumran, who rejected the Second Temple and its service.47 Ben
Siras grandson could hardly have been unaware of them. With the
Samaritans and supporters of Oniass temple, they represented opposition to the Jerusalem sanctuary which he was at pains to defend.
Either contemporary with, or slightly older than Jesus ben Sira was
the author of Tobit, who predicted (Tobit 14.5) the building of the
Second Temple. It would be unlike the First, lasting only until the
times of that age be fulfilled, when the house of God shall be built . . .
for ever with a glorious building, as the prophets have spoken.48
Testament of Moses 4.8, which may date from the time of the
Hellenistic crisis, compares the Second Temple unfavourably with the
First, possibly suggesting that its sacrifices were worthless.49 Criticisms
of the Temple by the prophet Malachi 1.614 (89.73) are repeated by
1 Enoch 89.73, predicting (90.2629) that the Temple, in the middle
of earth, would be folded up by God with its ornaments and placed in
46
For the Heliopolis Temple, see Grabbe, Judaism, pp. 266267; M. Delcor, Le
Temple dOnias en Egypte, RB 75 (1968), pp. 188205; S.A. Hirsch, The Temple of
Onias, Jews College Jubilee Volume (London, 1906), pp. 3980; C.T.R. Hayward, The
Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration, JJS 33 (1982), pp. 429443.
47
The Temple Scroll from Qumran implicitly damns the Second Temple. For the
Scriptural authority on which the Qumran group based their approach to the Temple
law, see J. Milgrom, The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles, in G.J. Brooke, ed.,
Temple Scroll Studies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), pp. 165180.
48
Cf. Hayward, The New Jerusalem, pp. 124126.
49
The date of this text is much disputed. See Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 282283;
Goldstein, I Maccabees, p. 546; idem., II Maccabees, p. 188. For a brief commentary
on the verse, see J. Priest, Testament of Moses, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
vol. 1, p. 929.
358
chapter seventeen
the south of the land, to make way for a superior house with appropriate furnishings.50
With such enemies, the Second Temple needed friends: both ben
Sira and his grandson appear to have recognised this, and to have lent
support to the most potent symbol of Jewish nationhood. The translation into Greek of ben Siras praise of Wisdom may thus properly be
seen as part of a larger defence of Jews in the Hellenistic world. Sirach
insists that Wisdom is the Torah of Moses (24.23), a living reality older
than the universe (24.9) bringing to light that paideia which makes
civilisation possible (24.27, 32, 33). Sirach insists that paideia comes
through Moses, who received the Torah which is Wisdom. He thus
moves in the same intellectual world as the Jew Eupolemus, who wrote
in Greek a treatise On the Kings of Judaea, surviving in fragments.
One of these, quoted by Clement (Stromateis I.153154) and Eusebius
(PE IX.25.4), presents Moses as the first wise man, who taught the
alphabet to the Jews, whence it passed to the Phoenicians, and thence
to the Greeks. Eupolemus made Moses the first to write for the Jews;
according to Wacholder, he is thus the father of all Oriental and Greek
civilization. The alphabet is his legacy not only to Israel, but to the
whole human race. Mosess wisdom, the alphabet and his written legislation are presented as the sine qua non of human civilisationand
they originate with the Jews. As first wise man, Moses ranks with the
Seven Wise Men of Greek tradition, of whom one, Chilon of Sparta,
is said to have coined the maxim Know Thyself inscribed on Apollos
temple at Delphi.51
Eupolemus represents an orthodox defence of Judaism which contrasts with that of Artapanus, a Jew who wrote in Greek probably
50
This may date to before the death of Judah Maccabee: see Schrer, History, vol.
III.1, p. 255. Marbck, Weisheit im Wandel, p. 63, notes that according to 1 Enoch
42.12 Wisdom does not dwell on earth, but is domiciled in the heavens. Might this
account in part for Sirachs reticence towards the figure of Enoch?
51
See Ben Zion Wacholder, Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature
(Cincinnati: Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion, 1974), especially
pp. 7186, and his observation (p. 13) that Eupolemus knew of the contemporary
question whether Greek philosophy derived from the Orient. Aristobulus, probably an
Alexandrian Jew, devoted his writings (probably mid-second century bce, fragments
only surviving) to defending Judaism by using the argument from antiquity, as noted
by Marbck, Weisheit im Wandel, p. 63. For him, Jewish law is older than Greek: see
Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 579587; A. Yarbro Collins, Aristobulus, The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, pp. 831842; and N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger
Aristobulos (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964).
359
during the second century bce. Defending Judaisms antiquity and

noble origins, he made Abraham the inventor of astrology, Joseph the
father of agriculture, and Moses, whom he identified as Musaeus the
teacher of Orpheus, the originator of ship-building, philosophy, native
Egyptian religion, and Egyptian hieroglyphs, for which reason he was
identified with Hermes.52 This syncretistic picture of the Jewish patriarchs offers an apology radically different from that of a Eupolemus,
whose work is based firmly on biblical tradition.
Unless the original Hebrew of ben Sira 24 is recovered, we shall
never know what precisely motivated the author. What survives is
Sirach 24, which represents the efforts of ben Siras grandson, resident in Egypt, writing in Greek, and like his grandfather defending the
Temple in Jerusalem. We have sought to show that Sirachs praise of
Wisdom included a determination to prove that Temples legitimacy.
Wisdoms residence there is linked with themes in other Jewish writings of the period which point to Jerusalem and its Temple as Paradise
and as the navel of the world. Jerusalem is thus implicitly contrasted
with Delphi, and found to be superior. Sirachs defence makes sense as
part of a larger strategy shared with some other Jews writing in Greek
during the second century bce, who were determined to uphold the
nobility of their ancestral faith by insisting on its antiquity. Sirach goes
beyond all others in his insistence that Jerusalems Temple is authentic
because it houses Wisdom, who is older than the universe and gives
order and discipline to all that exists.
Disaster befell Sirachs beloved Temple when, in the year 70 ce,
the Romans put it to the torch. Yet Sirachs Greek translation of his
grandfathers book was not forgotten. It was included in the Greek Old
Testament and was thus available for Gentile Christians to ponder. For
them, the work proved so popular that it was regularly read in worship,
and in course of time came to be called Ecclesiasticus, a church book
of great distinction. No doubt this process was encouraged because
St Paul, the earliest Christian writer, had dubbed Christ the wisdom
of God (1 Cor 1.24, 30; cf. Col 2.3), and because the evangelists had,
in their several ways, used Temple imagery to speak of Christs body
(Jn 2.2022; Mt 26.61; Mk 14.58). Sirach proved to be a rich quarry
from which the Churchs teachers could unearth almost inexhaustible
theological resources in their explorations of Christs relationship to
52
On Artapanus, see Schrer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 521525.
360
chapter seventeen
God. And since Wisdom, both in Hebrew and Greek, is personified

as a woman, the way was open for them to develop their thinking on
the role of the Blessed Virgin in the Christian economy of salvation.
Reflection on Mary as Wisdom and Mother of God, the Temple of
the Holy Spirit, is discernible already in the writing of St Ambrose
(De Spiritu Sancto 2.51, PL 16.753), and was destined to bear abundant and nourishing fruit in the liturgies of the Eastern and Western
Churches alike.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
FOOD, THE ANIMALS, AND HUMAN DIGNITY.

JEWISH PERCEPTIONS IN A TARGUMIC CONTEXT
Almost from the beginning, the Hebrew Bible makes food an object
of divine command for humans and animals. The creation of Adam
as male and female is followed at once by Gods blessing of them;
His command to them to reproduce, to fill the earth and subdue it;
and His grant of authority to them over other living things. God then
explicitly states that He has given to human beings every plant producing seed which is upon the surface of the earth, and every tree in
which is fruit of a tree yielding seed (Gen. 1:29). Following at once
on this decision about food for human beings, God declares that He
has granted to the animals every green plant for food (Gen. 1:30). As
Rashi notes in his commentary on these verses, Scripture puts animals
and humans on the same level as regards food: all alike were to eat
plants.1 Nonetheless, there is an imbalance between the information
provided by the two Scriptural verses. Gen. 1:29 is quite detailed in
its prescription of human food, speaking of trees as well as plants,
and taking up more than twenty Hebrew words to describe the divine
gift to humans of the trees which yield fruits and seeds.2 By contrast,
Gen. 1:30 is strikingly terse, limiting animal food to every green plant,
et kol yereq eseb.
Mention of the tree at Gen. 1:29 as a source of human food comes
into its own, of course, in the following chapter, which tells how God,
following the creation of the man, put him into the garden of Eden
which He had planted (Gen. 2:9). At once we note that this garden is
a sacred space: the Divine Presence is manifest there, and God speaks
1
For Rashis comments on Gen. 1:2930, see M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann,
Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashis Commentary, 5 vols (New
York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1935), pp. 78. See also N.M. Sarna, The JPS
Torah Commentary Genesis (Philadelphia-NewYork-Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication
Society, 5749/1989), pp. 1314.
2
The Bibles emphasis on trees at this point clearly impressed PJ, which adds the
note that God granted to humans for building purposes and for fire-wood trees which
do not bear fruit: see the discussion in M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis
Translated, with Introduction and Notes (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1992), p. 20.
362
chapter eighteen
directly with the first human being and with his wife, who is eventually created in this garden (Gen. 2:2123). God put the Adam into
this garden to work it and to keep it (Gen. 2:15), a requirement traditionally understood in ancient Judaism as meaning that the Adam
was to labour in the Torah and to observe its commandments.3 At the
same time, the human being is granted leave to eat of every tree of
the garden, except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Consumption of that tree will end in death (Gen. 2:1617).
The sequel is well known. At the instigation of the serpent, a
canny speaker endowed with a certain rhetorical gift, the woman succumbs and eats of the prohibited tree, sharing the fruit with Adam
(Gen. 3:17). The divine condemnation of the three actors in this
drama is swift. The serpent is cursed henceforth to walk on its belly,
and a new command is given about its food: dust is what it shall eat
(Gen. 3:14). The Bible strongly implies that the serpent had hitherto
walked with upright posture: this was not lost on the ancient interpreters, who concluded that God had punished the serpent by chopping
off its feet.4 Eve is given over to the pangs of childbirth and an unequal
relationship with her husband (Gen. 3:16). Adams punishment, like
the serpents, involves his food. God now decrees (Gen. 3:18) that the
earth is to be cursed because of Adam, and that from now on he will
eat of it in toil. This is spelled out in detail:
And thorns and thistles it shall sprout for you; and you shall eat plants
of the field (or: plants of the open country, Hebrew seb hassdeh).
To this decision the following verse (Gen. 3:19) adds a supplement,

which might appear to modify, or even to contradict what God has
just laid down as Adams penalty. The traditional vocalization of the
Hebrew of Gen. 3:19, as given by the Masoretic Text, shows how God
ordered Adam:
3
See, for example, b. Sanh. 38a; Men. 110a; Sifre Deut. 41 end; Gen. Rab. 14:9;
16:56; PRE 12:1; PJ, TN, FTP, FTV of this verse. The tradition is also mentioned in
2 Enoch 31:1. See further J.L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible. A Guide to the Bible as it
was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997),
pp. 120121, and discussion of Second Temple attitudes towards the notion of the
keeping of commandments before the Giving of Torah examined by G.A. Anderson,
The Status of Torah before Sinai, Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994), pp. 129.
4
See Apoc. Mos. 26:23; Josephus Ant. I.50; Gen. Rab. 20:5; PRE 14:3; ARNb
42:117; PJ of Gen. 3:14.
food, the animals, and human dignity
363
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the
earth; for from it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you
shall return.
How might these two verses be regarded as coherent?5 Gods decree

that Adam should eat plants of the field might be taken to mean
that Adams food was from now on to be exactly the same as that
of the animals: there is no mention of trees supplementing human
food. As we shall see presently, ancient readers of these verses had
good reason to suppose just that very thing: Adam and the animals
were condemned to eating identical foodstuffs. Eating bread, however,
which is juxtaposed to the eating of plants of the open country, is certainly not characteristic of the animal realm. What might these verses
then signify?
We should note that Gen. 3:18, requiring Adam to eat plants of the
open country, would very likely conjure up in the mind of ancient
readers or hearers the famous story of king Nebuchadnezzar, who was
transformed from a human being into an animal for seven years. The
story is found in Daniel 4, and tells how the king had dreamt of a great
tree joining heaven and earth, affording food and shelter for all the
animals: this tree was cut down, and only its stump remained. Daniel
had explained the dream as signifying that the king, who is symbolized
by the tree, would be driven away from human beings as a punishment for his hubris in refusing to recognize the divine sovereignty. In
the event, Nebuchadnezzar crossed over into the animal world: he ate
grass like cattle; his body was wet with dew; and he grew feathers like
the eagle and talons like the birds. Above all, this process of transformation resulted in a loss of manda, reason, understanding, which
is only restored to him when he returns to the human condition
(Dan. 4:31, 33). The parallels with Adam are not difficult to discern:
having been granted royal authority to name all the animals and to
hold dominion over them, he disregards Gods commandment about
his food, and is to be transferred into the animal realm as a result.6
5
This seems to be the crucial question confronting the Targumists: see A. Shinan,
The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Makor
Press, 1979), vol. 1, p. 90 [in Hebrew].
6
For Adams dominion over the animals, see Gen. 1:26, 28; 2:1920; Sarna,
The JPS Torah Commentary Genesis, pp. 2122, and C. Westermann, Genesis 111
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), pp. 158160, who also cites (pp. 147148) an
extensive bibliography treating of Gen. 1:2627.
364
chapter eighteen
Among ancient interpretations of Gen. 3:1819, the Palestinian

Targumim most clearly exposed the tension between the two sections of the divine decree about Adam: they sought to resolve it in a
rather sophisticated manner. Four such Targums of Gen. 3:18 survive,
namely TN, PJ, FTP, and FTV. To their Aramaic translation of the
Hebrew of Gen. 3:18, they each add an aggadic supplement, whose
wording is similar in all four Targumim. Two of them will be given
here in full; and it will be recalled that these Targumic supplements
follow immediately Gods decision that Adam should eat plants of the
open country. Here is Targum Neofiti:
Adam answered and said: I beseech in mercy from before you, O Lord,
let us not be reckoned like the cattle so as to eat the vegetation which
is on the surface of the earth. Let us now stand up and labour; and
from the labour of my hands let us eat mazon from the fruits of the
earth. On account of this, let Him be distinguishing between people and
animals.7
Pseudo-Jonathans version is slightly more detailed, and perhaps brings

out more clearly some of the points at issue:
Adam answered and said: I beseech in mercy from before you, O Lord,
that we should not be reckoned before you as the cattle, so that we
should eat the vegetation of the surface of the earth. Let us now stand
up, and labour with the labour of my hands; and let us eat mazon from
mazon of the earth; and thus let there now be distinction before you
between people and animals.
The notion of a distinction between humans and animals in all the

Palestinian Targumim is conveyed by the significant root pr, separate, divide, which the Targumim often use in its various forms to
express the fundamental distinction between what is consecrated and
what is unconsecrated.8 Adams petition appears to have this distinction strongly in mind: he is uttering a formal prayer which opens with
a set form of petition well known in all the Targumim, begging for
divine mercy.9 From the outset he asks that humans be not regarded,
7
FTV and FTP are very close in wording to TN as translated here up to the end of
the first sentence. In the second sentence, they differ from one another slightly, FTV
showing affinities with PJ. This matter is addressed below, p. 366.
8
Of the many examples which could be cited, the most telling is the regular use
of the noun prwt to translate the Hebrew termh: see TN of Exod. 30:13; 35:5;
Numb. 15:20, 21; TO of Exod. 25:3.
9
See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 334; Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, p. 28.
365
, as animals, beasts, cattle, to eat vegetation. There is also a

hint of word-play in the Aramaic here, suggesting a carefully crafted
petition which will be confirmed as we investigate: Adam prays not be
regarded so as to eat the plants . Adams formal
request comprises four items
1. He says: let us stand or, more precisely, let us stand upright. Here
the contrast with the quadrupeds and others who graze from the
earth with heads bowed, walking perhaps on all fours, is strongly
marked; and the contrast with the serpent, whose feet had been cut
off and had been reduced to eating dust, is even more dramatically
stressed. Upright posture is the first distinguishing feature of the
human which Adam requests, a posture which readers of the Targumim will know is essential for priests and prophets who stand
before the Almighty; and it is a sine qua non for any Jew who wishes
properly to address God in prayer, a subject on which the Aramaic Targumim10 are apt to offer extensive information. In particular, the association of the Targumim with the public prayer of the
Synagogue service inevitably focuses attention on the central prayer
of that service, the Amidah, which by definition is recited by the
worshippers standing.11 In the heavenly realms, the celestial beings,
the angels, are said to stand before God (see Dan. 7:10). Standing posture, then, is crucial for any human being to have access to
the sacred, to pray and to be heard in the heavenly realms. In the
post-Eden world, when humans will be barred from the immediate access to the divine presence in the way which had once been
10
For priests standing before the Lord to minister to Him, see the biblical data
recorded by (e.g.) Deut. 10:8; 17:12; 18:5; likewise for prophets who stand before the
Lord, see 1 Kings 17:1; 18:15; 2 Kings 5:16. For a thorough discussion of the varied terminology related to prayer employed by the several Targumim, see M. Maher,
The Meturgemanim and Prayer, JJS 41 (1990), pp. 226246, noting particularly his
comments on pp. 235236, where he discusses the many instances where the biblical
Hebrew verb stand is interpreted by the Targumim as pray.
11
On the place of the Targums in the Synagogue liturgy, see A. Shinan, Echoes
from Ancient Synagogues: Vocatives and Emendations in the Aramaic Targums
to the Pentateuch, JQR 81 (1991), pp. 353364; M. Taradach, Le Midrash (Geneva:
Labor et Fides, 1991), pp. 5162; P.V.M. Flesher, The Targumim in the Context of
Rabbinic Literature, in (ed.) J. Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (New
York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 611629; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 546548.
366
chapter eighteen
available to them, the ability to stand upright will be fundamental

for human well-being and human dignity.
2. Second, Adam also requests that he may labour: the Aramaic root is
, and this labour will involve manual work. So much is evident
from the surface of the text. But there are concealed depths here,
since elsewhere in the Targumim this verb can be used to refer
to Torah study.12 Labour in the Torah is a key aspect of Jewish
life and practice which all the Targumim are at pains to promote.
The precise wording of the individual Targumim is suggestive here.
TN and FTP may be construed as follows: and let us labour; and
from the labour of my hands let us eat, as though two separate
activities may be involved: labour without qualification, perhaps
labour in the Torah, and manual labour to produce food. PJ and
FTV, however, must be understood as follows: let us stand upright
now, and let us labour with the labour of my hands, and we shall
eat . . ., though even here the hint of labour in the Torah may not be
entirely absent, since the Torah declares elsewhere (Deut. 8:3) that
the man does not live by bread alone, but by what comes forth
from the mouth of the Lord.13
3. Third, and most significant of all, is Adams request to eat mazon,
a request represented in all the Palestinian Targumim. To readers
and hearers of these Targumim this word would at once, in the
present context, suggest the custom of birkat ha-mazon, the formal
grace after meals at which bread has been eaten, for in the following
verse (Gen. 3:19), God will specifically permit Adam to eat bread,
Hebrew .14 What seems to be in Adams mind as he makes
this request to eat mazon is a hope that he might be allowed to
prepare and manufacture that most essential of human foodstuffs,
bread, which particularly distinguishes human food from animal
12
See, for example, TN of Gen. 3:15; 27:40; Deut. 32:14, 30; PJ of Gen. 49:15.
The Hebrew of this verse emphasises that ha-adam does not live by bread alone;
but ha-adam lives by everything which proceeds from the Lords mouth. For the
last clause, TN has everything which proceeds from the mouth of the decrees of
the Word of the Lord PJ has everything which has been created by the Memra of
the Lord; and FTP and FTN have a somewhat garbled text, which may have originally
indicated that man does not live by mazona alone: see Klein, The Fragment Targums,
vol. 1, p. 214.
14
See the classic study of L. Finkelstein, The Birkat Ha-Mazon, JQR new series 19
(19281929), pp. 211262; J. Heinemann, Birkath Ha-Zimmun and Havurah Meals,
JJS 13 (1962), pp. 2329; Macy Nulman, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer (Northvale,
NJ:1992), pp. 108109.
13
367
food. Unlike the serpent, which is confined to the ground and is to

consume dust, Adam hopes to be standing upright and preparing
mazon, an activity which, as all hearers and readers of Targum will
know, must also involve him in giving thanks to God by uttering a
formal blessing containing the divine Name. Once more, the realm
of the sacred is implied.
4. The final request, which sums up the first three, is that God recognize a distinction between humans and animals. We recall that,
from the start, animals and humans were directed to eat the same
kind of vegetarian food, although the range of human foods was
greater and differed in certain respects from that of the animals.
Now, following the departure from Eden, Adam has requested
mazon, a term not previously found in the Targumim. Although
this word can be used to refer to food in general, including animal
food (both in the Bible in the Aramaic portions of Daniel 4:9, 18
and in the Targumim), it is clear from the present context that the
mazon Adam has in mind is bound up with human upright posture
and manual labour: it is manufactured food. The word mazon itself,
however, derives from root zwn, whose basic sense is to provide,
sustain, and offers a powerful reminder that the One who provides food and sustains the living, both human and animal, is God.
Gen. Rab. 20:22 presents us with an extended disquisition on the
relative difficulties relating to Gods provision of food on the one
hand and His other mighty deeds, the redemption and the splitting of the Red Sea on the other, and emphatically insists that the
divine provision of food is no simple and easy matter.15 The Targumic choice of the word mazon in this context, a word which can
15
The text states: R. Eleazar and R. Samuel b. Nahman: R. Eleazar declared,
Redemption is comparable to provision of food, and provision of food to redemption, as it is said, And He rescued us from our enemies (Ps. 136:24), and (there
stands) next to it (Ps. 136:25) He is giving bread to all flesh. Just as redemption is
miraculous, so also provision of food is miraculous: just as provision of food happens
on each day, so redemption happens on each day. R. Samuel b. Nahman declared: But
it is greater than the redemption, since redemption takes place through the agency
of an angel, whereas provision of food takes place through the agency of the Holy
One, blessed be He. From where do we deduce that redemption happens through
the agency of an angel? As it is said, The angel who redeems me from all harm
(Gen. 48:16). Provision of food is through the agency of the Holy One, blessed be He,
as it is said (Ps. 145:16), You open Your hand, and satisfy the desire of all the living. R. Joshua b. Levi declared: It is greater than the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is
said (Ps. 136:13): To Him who divided the Red Sea into divisions, then it says He is
giving bread to all flesh, for His steadfast love is for ever, etc.
368
chapter eighteen
refer to food for all living as provided by the One who sustains all,
but specifically in these verses refers to human prepared food as
differentiating men from animals, is thus particularly subtle and
suggestive.
Having inserted Adams petition at the end of Gen. 3:18, the Palestinian
Targumim are able to offer Gen. 3:19 as Gods response to it. For this
verse, we have only PJ, TN, and FTP, which offer slightly differing
interpretations of the text. We may first address PJ:
By the labour of the palm of your hands you shall eat mazon, until you
return to the dust from which you were created. For dust you are, and
to dust you shall return; and from the dust you are destined to stand up
to give an account and reckoning concerning all that you have done, on
the great day of judgement.
TN is similar to PJ:
In the sweat from before your face you shall eat bread until you return
to the earth, because you were created from it. For dust you are, and to
dust you are to return; and from the dust you are to return and to stand
up and to give an account and reckoning concerning all that you have
done.
The version of FTP corresponds in its beginning with a marginal gloss

preserved in the manuscript of TN, in the sweat of your face you shall
eat mazon until the time that you return to the earth; we should note
here the hint of a wordplay between mazon and the phrase until the
time, . The rest of FTP is very close to TN until the closing
words, which read: and from the dust you are going to stand up to
give an account and reckoning about what you have done.16
What, then, does God really grant to the human being? There is no
direct reference in these Targumim to the distinction between humans
and animals which Adam had explicitly requested, although such a
distinction is implicitly permitted, as we shall see. We may begin by
noting that Adam is permitted to eat mazon (PJ, Ngl, FTP) or bread
(TN), although only PJ ties this permission verbally to Adams petition that he labour with his hands. The grant of mazon or bread will
at least ensure that humans may utter a blessing to the Almighty over
16
According to Gen. Rab. 20:26, R. Simeon b. Yohai also discerned in the words and
to dust you shall return an allusion to the resurrection of the dead in the Torah.
369
food; and the production of such food will require human beings to
stand upright. Adams first request is thus implicitly granted; but here
we encounter a sting in the tail. Adam may stand upright to prepare mazon insofar as that mazon is prepared food; but the Targumim
introduce a new dimension here. They declare that he will certainly
stand upright, but post mortem, from the dust, to give an account of
his deeds. And here the Targumim introduce slantwise the distinction between human and animal: humans are to give a reckoning,
, of what they have done, and it is this that appears now as the
answer to Adams request that humans be not reckoned, ,
as being among the animals. Humans and animals are going to be distinguished after all; but the reckoning of humans as not animals will
consist of a reckoning of human deeds in the face of the divine court,
which PJ specifies as being held on the great day of judgement.17
Although the actions of Adam and Eve result in their removal from
Eden (Gen. 3:24), the question of their continuing relationship with
the sacred remains implicit as a matter of concern for the Targumim
throughout this dialogue between Adam and God. On one level, Adams
requests to stand upright and labour are obvious enough; but they
carry implications beyond the obvious, as we have seen. May human
beings stand, from now on, to minister like priests and prophets, and
like the angels in heaven? May they stand to pray before God? May
they labour in Torah study, and strive to teach the commandments,
as the Targumim tell us they were originally charged to do?18 All these
things, it seems, are implicitly permitted; but over them all now hangs
the shadow of a final reckoning which will distinguish human from
animal in a way which Adam had perhaps not bargained for, when
humans will indeed stand upright, unlike the animals.
Before we turn to another Jewish account of the human-animal
distinction, we may note for the sake of completeness that some elements of the Targumic interpretation we have considered here are
found in other Rabbinic sources. The possible contradiction between
17
For a discussion of the doctrine of the resurrection among the Rabbis and
the Samaritans in relation to Gen. 3:19, see H. Sysling, Tehiyyat Ha-Metim. The
Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel
Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature, TSAJ 57 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996),
pp. 6790.
18
Rabbinic interpretations of Gods command that Adam be in the Garden of Eden
to till it and to keep it are discussed briefly by E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts
and Beliefs, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), vol. 2, pp. 967968.
370
chapter eighteen
between Gen. 3:18 and Gen. 3:19 was taken up in Gen. Rab. 20:24 and
explained very succinctly with a report that when Adam heard the
words you shall eat the grass of the open country his face was shaken
or contorted, and he said: What? Am I bound to the manger like a
beast? The Holy One then said to him, Because your face was contorted, you shall eat bread. The exegetical ploy underlying the midrash
involves reading the opening words of Gen. 3:19 not as
the Masoretes vocalized them, bezat appyk, in the sweat of your
face, but as because of the shaking, moving, contorting of your face,
as if the first of the pair of Hebrew words derived from the stem
tremble, quake and its related noun trembling, terror. We are
to understand that Adam was so shocked by Gods decision that he eat
grass that his face contorted in pain, and God went on to ameliorate
the punishment. We may also note R. Joshua b. Levis words in b.Pes.
118a, that tears flowed from Adams eyes and he pleaded with God,
when he heard that the earth would yield thorns and thistles for him.
Adam said: Lord of the world, am I and my donkey to eat out of the
same manger? But when He said to him In the sweat of your face you
shall eat bread, his mind was set at rest. These classical sources represent elements of the Targumic exegesis we have examined;19 but no
other Rabbinic sources, to my knowledge, offer a systematic explanation of Gen. 3:1819 of the sort found in the Palestinian Targumim.
A rather different picture of the human-animal distinction is to be
found in the Book of Jubilees, a composition which reached its present
form around the middle of the second century bce, or perhaps a little
earlier.20 In re-presenting Genesis 3 to its readers, Jubilees radically
reduced the references to food: its version of the serpents punishment
19
They also include aggadic material not represented in the Targumim. For
example, in b. Pes. 118a R. Johanan states that mans food, mazon, involves twice
as much suffering as a woman in childbirth on the grounds that Scripture states
(Gen. 3:16) that the woman will give birth btzb, whereas the man will eat food btzbwn
(Gen. 3:17): he interprets the additional letters in the word applied to Adams toil
as indicating a more painful task. A similar understanding is found in the name of
R. Immi (Ammi) at Gen. Rab. 20:22.
20
The most likely date for the final form of Jubilees is 160150 bce: see the critical
discussion of all the evidence, and a wide range of scholarly views, presented by
J. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001),
pp. 1722. I have used the English translation of O.S. Wintermute, Jubilees. A New
Translation and Introduction, in (ed.) J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983, 1985), vol. 2,
pp. 35142.
371
(Jub. 3:23) lacks entirely the biblical decree that the serpent would
henceforth eat dust; and Adams punishment is limited to the note
that the earth would sprout thorns and thistles for him, and that he
should eat bread in the sweat of his face (Jub. 3:25). Jubilees entirely
omits the divine decree that Adam should eat the grass of the open
country. Any problems which might be perceived in the relationship
between Gen. 3:18 and Gen. 3:19 are thus removed. In stark contrast
to the matter of food, what exercises Jubilees mightily is a preoccupation with clothing.21 Having eaten of the forbidden fruit, Eve (according to Jub. 3:21), covered her shame with a fig-leaf; then Adam ate,
took another fig-leaf, and covered his shame (Jub. 3:22). What in
the Bible (Gen. 3:7) is something Adam and Eve do simultaneously
in Jubilees is presented as two discrete actions of separate individuals,
stressing the covering of shame.22 The significance of this will become
clearer as the narrative progresses.
Jub. 3:26 tells how God made garments of skins for the pair, clothed
them, and sent them out from the Garden of Eden. Jubilees is absolutely explicit that the garden is sacred space: according to Jub. 8:19,
the garden is the Holy of Holies and the dwelling of the Lord.23 Once
Adam and Eve are outside the garden, Jub. 3:27 makes Adam perform actions not represented in the Bible: he offered a sweet-smelling
sacrifice of incense in the morning at sun-rise, from the day he covered his shame. The wording of this verse suggests that Adam in fact
offered the incense of the Tamid, the daily offering of the Temple service (see Exod. 30:3438) and for this, of course, he would need to be
clothed. He is presented as a priest,24 and Jubilees presumably takes
it for granted that he is wearing priestly vestments at this point in
21
For detailed analysis of the presentation of Adam in the book of Jubilees, see
J.R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), pp. 8997. The clothing of Adam, which Jubilees
intimately associates with Adams function as a priest in relation to the sanctuary,
Levison discusses on pp. 9395. So intent is Jubilees on underlining the essential connection between Adams clothing and his offering of the incense that he is reported as
having covered his shame twice: as a result, a chronological contradiction is created
between Jub. 3:22, where he covers his shame on the day he eats of the fruit, and
Jub. 3:27 on the day he was expelled from Eden. For details, see Levison, Portraits,
p. 216, note 19.
22
A brief account of this section of Jubilees is given by M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees.
Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007), p. 310.
23
The thinking lying behind this assertion of Jubilees is expounded by Kugel,
Traditions of the Bible, pp. 108111, and Levison, Portraits, pp. 9395, 215, note 14.
24
See Segal, The Book of Jubilees, pp. 1011.
372
chapter eighteen
the narrative. What suggested this to the author of Jubilees was most
likely Gen. 3:24, with its report that God had stationed cherubim at
the entrance to Eden: cherubim are otherwise present on the covering
of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies, the most sacred part
of the Temple.
At this juncture, Jub. 3:2831 supplies further, non-biblical information. First, from this point onwards, all the animals stopped speaking; beforehand, they had all spoken the same language, which most
commentators believe was biblical Hebrew.25 Secondly, all the animals
were removed from Eden and were scattered, each according to their
kinds and families, to the place which had been created for them. Then
the author of Jubilees announces:
But from all the beasts and all the cattle, He granted to Adam alone that
he might cover his shame (Jub. 3:30).
Thus although humans are distinguished from animals by retaining

the power of speech and by remaining unscattered, it is clothing which
Jubilees regards as the quintessential mark distinguishing humans
from animals; and if there were any doubt about this, it is removed
by the statement, unqualified and unambiguous, which follows these
notices:
Therefore it is commanded on the heavenly tablets to all who will know
the judgement of the Law that they should cover their shame, and that
they should not be uncovered as the gentiles are uncovered (Jub. 3:31).
Here Jubilees clearly reveals one aspect of its larger agenda. This whole
episode is actually addressed to Jews, all who know the judgement of
the Law, who should know how to distinguish themselves from nonJews who go about naked, like the animals. As has often been noted,
the Torah of Moses has no explicit prohibition of nudity; Jubilees circumvented this by appeal to the heavenly tablets,26 and to the Torahs
injunction that priests in particular should not minister at the altar
25
Hebrew is described as the language of creation at Jub. 12:2527, and is also
described as the language which is revealed which ceased either at the time when
the tower of Babel was destroyed, or when Adam was expelled from Eden: see further
Levison, Portraits, p. 216, note 20.
26
On these tablets, and their relationship to the Torah, see Liora Ravid, The Special
Terminology of the Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees, Tarbiz 68 (2000),
pp. 463471 [in Hebrew], and Segal, The Book of Jubilees, pp. 313316, who also discusses (pp. 273282) the approach of Jubilees to the transmission of Torah in the
pre-Sinai period.
373
in such a way that their nakedness be seen (Exod. 20:26). Thus this
whole episode Jubilees addresses to Jews, regarded as a priestly people
under obligation to cover their shame not simply when occupied in
the Temple service, but as a regular practice, to distinguish themselves
from non-Jews, and from the animals. Although Jubilees does not at
all use the word distinction or separation in its narrative, it nonetheless makes plain that clothing, the covering of shame, is what most
particularly separates not only humans from animals, but one set of
humans from another. Those other non-animal characteristics common to all humanity, the faculty of speech and not being scattered, are
not discussed, and they make no further appearance in the narrative.
The historical circumstances which may have given rise to the
very definite ruling about the distinction between humans and animals adopted by Jubilees, while of very great intrinsic interest, are
not our particular concern us here.27 Rather, Jubilees allows us to
deduce that already in the mid-second century bce the question
what distinguishes humans from animals after the first human pair
left Eden? had already been addressed; and Jubilees itself preserves
two other answers to this question in addition to the one which it
so clearly wishes to promote. Humans continue to use language, and
are not scattered; whereas animals have lost the use of language, and
are dispersed to places appointed for them. Be that as it may, for the
author of Jubilees the human-animal distinction is, in the last resort,
bound up with a Jew-Gentile distinction, and with a fundamental
teaching which informs the whole of this book, that the Jews are preeminently a priestly people. And as for priests, the Torah commands at
Exod. 28:42 that they must put on sacred garments to cover the flesh
of their shame, . This, then, is the ultimate source of
Jubilees concern with covering shame, and its importation into the
discussion of the animal-human distinction is what gives Jubilees its
characteristic approach to this topic, and at the same time problematises the matter further. For it makes us ask whether the author of
Jubilees really believed that non-Jews who did not wear clothes were to
be reckoned as animals? And if non-Jews are, in some way, reckoned
as animals in this authors estimation, is their speech somehow not
27
The particular rulings of Jubilees concerning nudity are most often related
to the institution of the gymnasium in Jerusalem in the time of Antiohus IV
(1 Macc. 1:1115; 2 Macc. 4:1117): see further Levison, Portraits, pp. 9495.
374
chapter eighteen
quite up to the mark, as it were? They can speak; but they do not speak
Hebrew, which is the language of creation: what might the author of
Jubilees have thought about the speech of non-Jews, especially the
dominant Greek language?
The Targumim, when set alongside what we have found in Jubilees,
offer a much more nuanced and sophisticated account of the humananimal distinction. It will be recalled that the Targumim actually use
the word distinction, while Jubilees does not. Jubilees, despite its failure to use this word, nonetheless offers what seems on the surface
to be a fairly hard and fast distinction between humans and animals;
yet the Targumim, in which Adam is shown as specifically requesting
God to make such a distinction possible, are in the last resort quite
reticent about the matter. God does not directly accede to Adams
request for this distinction. Quite unlike the Book of Jubilees, the
Targumim emphasise food as the marker distinguishing human and
animal. In permitting humans to eat mazon, the Targumim represent
God as offering them a somewhat ambiguous gift, in that mazon can
refer to prepared food, especially bread (and in this particular context
almost certainly does so), but nonetheless remains a term designating
Gods merciful provision of food for all His creatures, both human
and animal. It is only when the Targumim talk of the reckoning which
human beings will encounter in divine judgement that the distinction
between human and animal is on absolutely firm ground, in terms
of the language which the Targumim use; then, humans will stand
upright, unlike the animals, and give a reckoning of what they have
done, and in this sense they will not be reckoned with the animals.
And what of the human relationship to sacred space in the post-Eden
world, as far as the Targumim are concerned? In Jubilees, this emerged
as something quite unambiguous: the solemn service of the Temple
can be performed only by those who cover their shame. By contrast,
the Targumim offer hints and allusions which take for granted knowledge of the Jewish tradition and biblical turns of phrase. In the service
of the Temple, the priest stands to minister; the prophets stand before
the Lord; and people stand to pray.28 Adams request to stand upright
28
The specific relationship between prayer and Gods provision of food is touched
upon by Wis. Sol. 16:2628, where the author discusses the gift of Manna to Israel,
so that your sons whom you love, O Lord, might learn that it is not the birth of fruits
(tn karpn) which feed a man, but your word guards those who trust in you; for
what was not destroyed by fire was simply melted when it was warmed by the fleet-
375
is implicitly granted, according to the Targumim; and it is granted to

Jew and non-Jew alike, because the latter may pray to the Lord, and
indeed are under obligation to do so particularly after having eaten
food which the Almighty has provided. Was it not Abraham himself
who at Beersheba gave food and drink to passers by, and would not
let them go until he had taught the Gentiles to thank God for their
food? This tradition is very well known, and is widely represented in
Talmud, Midrash, and Targum.29
Yet the ministry of the priests is a specialised one, restricted to the
members of the house of Aaron. The prophetic office, too, is limited
to persons specially called to that duty. The Palestinian Targumim do
have an answer to the question of where humans stand, post-Eden,
in relation to sacred space, and it is found in their exegesis of the last
verse of Genesis 3, which tells how God drove Adam out of Eden and
placed the cherubim and a fiery sword turning every way to guard the
way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). Here is TNs version of that verse:
And He drove out the man, and made the Glory of His Shekhina dwell
from of old, from the east of the garden of Eden from between the two
cherubim. Two thousand years before He created the world, He created the Torah. He established the garden of Eden for the righteous and
Gehenna for the wicked. He established the garden of Eden for the righteous who will eat and provision themselves from the fruits of the tree,
because they kept the commandments of the Torah in this world, and
fulfilled its orders. He established Gehenna for the wicked, which is like
a sharp sword consuming from both its sides. In its midst he established
sparks of fire and burning coals for the wicked, to exact punishment of
them in the world to come, because they did not keep the commandments of the Torah in this world. For the Torah is the Tree of Life to all
who labour [ ]in her; and the one who keeps her orders is going to
live and endure like the Tree of Life for ever, for the world to come. The
ing ray of the sun, so that it might be known that that it is necessary to get up before
the sun to give thanks to You, and at the dawn of light to pray to You. See further
D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, Anchor Bible 43 (New York: Doubleday, 1979),
pp. 299301; C. Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse ou La Sagesse de Salomon, vol. 3 (Paris:
Gabalda, 1985), pp. 938943; J. Vilchez, Sabiduria (Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino,
1990), pp. 427428; D.K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea
Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 115, 248.
29
See b.Sotah 10ab; Gen. Rab. 54:6; Tanh. ;l ;l 12; ARNa 7; TN, PJ; FTP; FTV
of Gen. 21:33 (note the theme of conversion to Judaism in the Fragment Targums),
and C.T.R. Hayward, Abraham as Proselytizer at Beersheba in the Targums of the
Pentateuch, JJS 49 (1998), pp. 2437.
376
chapter eighteen
Torah is good for those who those who work/cultivate it [ ]in this
world, like the fruits of the tree of life.30
Here, if we are not mistaken, the Palestinian Targumim give their final
answer to Adams questions and concerns about the animal-human
distinction, and it will be noted how his original concern with food
has remained, but has itself been transformed into a matter of Torah
food, Torah study, and Torah cultivation. The specific sacred space
of the Temple still remainsthe opening sentence of this extended
aggadah deals with it by reference to the cherubim, which are numbered as two in order to recall the two cherubim set over the Ark in
the Holy of Holiesbut from then on the emphasis shifts decisively
to Torah. In this world, we are told, the Torah provides food of an
order which distinguishes the human from the animal, and will in the
end allow the human who is righteous and has eaten fruits of Torah
to stand in the judgment, and be reckoned worthy to enter the Garden
of Eden from which the first human pair had been removed. In this
way the Palestinian Targumim, at the very end of the third chapter
of Genesis, present a coherent interpretation of the whole episode
of the transgression of the first human couple, a coherence which is
achieved by their willingness to conceive of the chapter as a whole as
a distinct unit of sense, whose underlying meaning can be drawn out
with reference to information conveyed by the two chapters which
precede. The distinctive character of the Targumic discussion of the
questions about the animals, food, and human dignity posed by Gods
decrees against the first human pair thus arises from the willingness of
the Palestinain Targumim to integrate into a coherent synthesis ideas
drawn from biblical and post-biblical sources, and to present them in
such a way that the verses of Scripture underlying their exegesis never
disappear from sight.
30
On the structure of this expansion, see B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual
Study, vol. 1 (New York: Lanham, 1986), pp. 101104.
CHAPTER NINETEEN
MELCHIZEDEK AS PRIEST OF THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE IN

TALMUD, MIDRASH, AND TARGUM
No serious account of ancient Jewish thinking about the Jerusalem
temple and its service can ignore the mysterious figure of Melchizedek,
whose two brief appearances in the records of the Hebrew Bible
(Gen. 14:1820; Ps. 110: 4) are recounted in language so terse, enigmatic,
obscure and even guarded that they seem almost deliberately designed
to arouse instant curiosity on the readers part.1 The final editors of
Genesis and the Psalms need not have been anxious: Melchizedek has
been the subject of a vast body of literature from ancient times to the
present.2 Not so frequently examined in their own right are the classical
Rabbinic texts which refer to Melchizedek.3 These have an interest all
their own; they contain a vast reservoir of information; and given the
constraints of this essay, it will not be possible to discuss in detail all
they have to tell. Here, we shall attempt to bring to light and explicate
some of the basic information which they share among themselves,
as they seek to expound Melchizedek and his place in respect of the
Temple, its institutions, and its worship.
A proper appreciation of what the classical Rabbinic sources have
to say requires that we are sensitive to the numerous idiosyncrasies
of the two key biblical texts which the Rabbis and their predecessors
would find significant. Most obviously, a glance at Genesis 14 in the
1
For a useful discussion of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible, see N.J. Sarna, The JPS
Torah Commentary Genesis ( Philadelphia-NewYork-Jerusalem: The Jewish
Publication Society, 5749/1989), pp. 109110, 380382; J.A. Fitzmyer, Melchizedek in
the MT, LXX, and the NT, Biblica 81 (2000), pp. 6369; and for Melchizedeks place
in Psalm 110 in particular, see P.J. Nel, Psalm 110 and the Melchizedek Tradition,
JNSL 22 (1996), pp. 114.
2
Fitzmyer, Melchizedek in the MT offers a good account of the extent of the
discussion in recent times; see further literature cited by G.J. Wenham, Word Biblical
Commentary Genesis 115 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), pp. 301302.
3
The standard critical treatment of Melchizedek in post-biblical Jewish tradition remains the monograph of F.L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, SNTSMS
30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). On Melchizedek in specifically
Rabbinic texts, see V. Aptowitzer, Malkizedek. Zu den Sagen der Agada, MGWJ 70
(1926), pp. 34, 93113.
378
chapter nineteen
Masoretic Text reveals a section of text deeply concerned with kings:

forms of the word for king appear some 27 times in the space of
24 Hebrew verses. The chapter also narrates the account of a battle:
the language of conflict is pervasive from Gen. 14:2 onwards, where
we are told that four kings, Ampraphel, Arioch, Chedarlaomer, and
Tidal king of nations made war against five other kings. Abraham
himself would likewise arm his 318 retainers, and engage in a skirmish to rescue his kinsman Lot who had become involved in the war
and taken captive. The matter of appropriate division of the spoils of
war occupies Gen. 14:2124. In all this, the single occurrence of the
Hebrew stem, , with its overtones of peace and perfection is
striking and dramatic: when Gen. 14:18 describes Melchizedek as
( Gen. 14:18), the temptation to relate this ambiguous designation, which may refer to a prefect king or a king of peace, to peace
over against conflict might not seem unreasonable. Indeed this king
Melchizedek, is also a priest who, by virtue of his office has access
to the altar which Scripture declares (Deut. 27:6) shall be built of
stones described as , meaning here unhewn, but implying also
peace and wholeness.4 It is therefore of some interest to note that the
classical Rabbinic sources which we consider here have very little
to say directly about Melchizedek as a representative of peace over
against war.
Turning to the Melchizedek episode itself, we encounter other information which ancient exegetes would deem important. Melchizedek is
described as in Gen. 14:18, the first time that the priest, essential
for the worship of the Temple, is spoken of in the Hebrew Bible. That
this Melchizedek had been priest of the God worshipped in Israels
Temple service, and not the servant of some foreign cult, would be
confirmed for the ancient Jewish exegete by two important pieces of
information. First, Melchizedek is described as priest of God Most
High, El Elyon. This divine title finds its first biblical mention here.
It had long been linked by the Psalmist to the God whose dwelling is
on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, as reference to Ps. 78:35, 6869 in par-
4
See Tanhuma 17 (Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai) and Pesiqta RabbatiPisqa
50:6 for the association of peace with the altar and its offerings. The command
(Exod. 20:22; Deut. 27:5) prohibiting the use of iron tools in respect of the altar stones
is explained by the Rabbinic declaration that the altar and its offerings are intended to
prolong life, whereas iron, used for weapons, shortens life: see Mekhilta de R. Ishmael
Bahodesh 11:8092.
melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple
379
ticular would prove.5 Second, Gen. 14:20 takes for granted the Israelite
institution of the tithe; once more, we find in this section of text the
first biblical reference to this tithe, which was a characteristic feature
of Israels temple worship. Ancient interpreters would also be aware
that the next mention of the tithe was to be found in the account of
Jacobs dream at Beth-el, the house of God (Gen. 28:22 ff.).6
To these biblical firststhe first biblical usage of the Hebrew word
for priest; the first designation of the Almighty as God Most High;
the first reference to titheothers may be added. Gen. 14:18 is the
first biblical verse to speak of bread and wine; Gen. 14:19 records the
first blessing of a human being by a priest; and Gen. 14:19 also is the first
verse to speak of God as possessor/acquirer of heaven and earth, a
title which Abraham invokes at verse 22 in an oath which he swears
to the Lord, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth.7 These
scriptural data would serve to underline the unusual qualities of this
chapter to which the exegete would need to pay attention; and they
would be strengthened when the interpreter looked to Psalm 110. For
this is a royal Psalm, headed for David (Ps. 110:1); and it speaks of
conflict involving enemies and kings (vv. 2, 3, and 5); the humbling of
nations (v. 6); and an oath sworn to my lord by YHWH that he is a
priest for ever according to order of Melchizedek.8 Both Genesis 14
and Psalm 110 leave the ancient exegete, and ourselves, with two crucial questions: who is Melchizedek, and why should he feature in these
particular biblical passages? In looking to classical Rabbinic sources
for guidance in these matters, let us begin with the most authoritative
text, the Babylonian Talmud.
5
For the association of God Most High with Mount Zion in Jerusalem, see Ps. 9:3,
12; 87:5; 97:89, a link which in Second Temple times was taken for granted by writers
like Jesus ben Sira: see Ben Siras account of the Temple Service in Jerusalem, where
the title Most High occurs in the Hebrew text at 50:14, 16, 17.
6
Post-biblical exegetes commonly located Jacobs dream of the ladder uniting heaven and earth (Gen. 28:1122) at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: see Gen.
Rab. 68:8; 69:7; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 28:11; Pirqe de R. Eliezer 35:2. For
other sources and further analysis, see C.C. Rowland, John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic
and Targumic Tradition, NTS 30 (1984), pp. 498507. For the relationship of tithes
to Jerusalem and its Temple in post-biblical times, see Tobit 1:67.
7
The difficulties involved in translating this title are conveniently summarized by
M. Harl, La Bible dAlexandrie. 1. La Gense (Paris: Cerf, 1994) pp. 52, 161.
8
The text of this Psalm, and scholarly attempts to offer an historical-critical
account of it, are fraught with difficulties, one of the best accounts of which remains
H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, 2 vols., BKAT (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), vol. 2,
pp. 752764.
380
chapter nineteen
1. Melchizedek in the Babylonian Talmud
Only one Talmudic passage treats of Melchizedek, and in this section

both Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 are utilized in the argument. The passage, from b. Nedarim 32b, comes at the conclusion of an analysis of m.
Ned. 3:11, which offers a well-known, extended exposition of the greatness of circumcision. In this mishnah, Rabbi (Judah ha-Nasi) remarks
that Abraham had not been called, , perfect or whole, until he
had fulfilled the commandment of circumcision, despite his fulfilment
of all the other commandments; Abraham is thus the most significant
exemplar of the greatness of this commandment (see b.Ned. 32a); and
the Talmudic discussion comes to a conclusion with these words:
R. Zechariah in the name of R. Ishmael said: The Holy One, blessed be
He, sought to bring forth the priesthood from Shem, as it is said: And
he was the priest of God Most High (Gen. 14:18). When he placed the
blessing of Abraham before the blessing of the Omnipresent, He brought
it (the priesthood) forth from Abraham as it is said: And he blessed him
and said, Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and
earth; and blessed be God Most High (Gen. 14:1920). Abraham said
to him: Now is it the case that the blessing of a servant should take
precedence over the blessing of his master? Immediately He gave it (the
priesthood) to Abraham, as it is said: The Lord said to my lord. . . . your
feet (Ps. 110:1); and after it is written (Ps. 110:4), The Lord has sworn
and will not repent: You are a priest for ever ytrbd li Melchizedekthat
is, because of the word of Melchizedek. And this corresponds to what is
written (Gen. 14:18), And he, , was priest of God Most High. He
was priest, but his seed was not a priest.
At first sight, this passage might reasonably be construed as a Rabbinic

refutation of Christian interpretations of the Scriptural verses quoted
in the discussion. In the New Testament writing styled the Epistle to
the Hebrews, both Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 figure prominently, and much
is made of Melchizedeks lack of a biblical genealogy: he has neither
father nor mother, says the Epistle (Heb. 7:3), and thus is an everlasting priest.9 Noteworthy, therefore, is the Talmuds identification of
Melchizedek with Shem the son of Noah which opens the discussion
9
For presentations of Melchizedek in Rabbinic texts as either motivated or influenced by a need to refute Christian claims about him, see M. Simon, Melchisdech
dans la polmique entre juifs et chrtiens et dans la Lgende, RHPR 27 (1947),
pp. 93113; J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1969), pp. 196199.
381
noted here. The identification is not explained, nor is the reader given
prior notice that the identification is about to be made: anyone who
reads or hears this passage is expected to know it already. As we shall
see presently, it is common in other Rabbinic documents. It cannot be
denied that this Talmudic passage contains material which might prove
useful for Jewish scholars in debate with Christians; but there are solid
reasons for doubting whether the hermeneutical problems which the
Talmud highlights originated in such debates. From the outset, ancient
readers could not fail to have been struck by the Scriptural evidence in
front of them: the first person explicitly to be styled priest, in uttering
a formal berakhah, does not, in the first instance, bless his master, the
Most High God, whose exalted status is emphasized by the repeated
use of the title El Elyon. On the contrary, he blesses a human being,
Abraham.
It is well to pause here for a moment, for this Scriptural datum is
open to an explanation which not only the Rabbis of the Talmudic
period, but also Jews of much earlier generations might have wished
to exclude. It is this. Pondering Gen. 14:1820, a reader might reasonably conclude that the mysterious Melchizedek was a character of
such exalted status, so close to the Almighty and with such detailed
knowledge of His ways, that he could with perfect propriety dispense
with liturgical protocol. Why so? Because God himself had earlier proclaimed that He would bless Abraham, and that those who blessed
Abraham would in turn themselves be blessed (Gen. 12:23). In those
verses, the matter of blessing is heavily emphasised and repeated;10 and
an ancient interpreter might, in light of this, understand the sequence
of Melchizedeks blessings either as showing that Melchizedek had
direct knowledge of Gods decree about Abraham, or even that in
some mysterious way he was party to it. And if Melchizedek knew so
much about Gods proclamation concerning Abraham, it would follow
that he was no ordinary person.
Now it so happens that, from the pre-Christian period, we possess a
Jewish document which speaks of Melchizedek as a figure with heavenly significance: the famous scroll 11Q13 allocates to Melchizedek
a vital role in the redemption to be accomplished in the final jubilee
10
In Gen. 12:23, words deriving from the Hebrew stem are used no fewer than
five times; and it is noticeable that verse 2 ends with a divine command to Abraham:
Be thou a blessing! according to the vocalisation of the Masoretes.
382
chapter nineteen
year.11 In this scroll, we hear also of teachers who have been hidden and
kept secret, and the final judgment of Melchizedeks demonic opponent Melchiresha at the end of days is also described.12 The Qumran
Melchizedek scroll offers no explanation of Melchizedeks heavenly
status, but rather takes it for granted.13 If Scriptural foundation for
its claims about Melchizedek were needed, they might be found in
Melchizedeks bold suspension of priestly liturgical protocol as indicating his exalted status, as well as in the Bibles failure to provide him
with a genealogy.
The matter of Melchizedeks genealogy will need to be addressed
more fully; but for the moment we may note just two things about
it. First, the identification of Melchizedek as Shem is unlikely to have
originated as an anti-Christian device, given the stance of the preChristian Jewish writer Philo, whose treatment of Melchizedek and
Shem is designed to bring out the affinities between the two characters. Both Shem and Melchizedek Philo depicts as exalted priestly
figures, and the evidence for this I have assembled elsewhere.14 Second,
11
The manuscript is designated 11Q13 (11QMelch): for the Hebrew text, see (eds)
F. Garca Martnez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar and A.S. van der Woude, Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert XXIII. Qumran Cave 11.II 11Q218, 11Q2031 (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1998), pp. 221241. The editors date the manuscript palaeographically (see
p. 223) to around the middle of the first century bce. For a recent critical description
and analysis of the scrolls contents, see G.J. Brooke, Thematic Commentaries on
Prophetic Scriptures, in (ed.) M. Henze, Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 150152; and for the relationship of this text to Jewish
and Christian writings, see particularly J.T. Milik, Milk-sedeq et Milk-re dans les
anciens crits juifs et chrtiens, JJS 23 (1972), pp. 95122, 124126. The major study
of this Qumran text is the monograph of P.J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa,
CBQMS 10 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981); see also M. Bodinger,
Lnigme de Melkisdeq, RHR 211 (1994), pp. 297333.
12
For the teachers, see 11Q13 line 5: the reference is interesting, given the Rabbinic
identification of Melchizedek with Shem, who is a great Torah teacher: see below,
pp. 383384, 389. The notion of judgment is already present in Scripture at Gen. 14:7
with the place-name Ein-mishpat, meaning literally Spring of Judgment.
13
It must be emphasised that the scroll is fragmentary, and that it is not possible to determine whether it depicts Melchizedek as an angel, even though Kobelski,
Melchizedek, pp. 7174, argues that it identifies him as the archangel Michael; but for
opposing arguments see Bodinger, Lnigme, pp. 325326.
14
See Robert Hayward, Shem, Melchizedek and Concern with Christianity in the
Pentateuchal Targumim, in (eds) M.J. Cathcart and M. Maher, Targumic and Cognate
Studies, JSOT Supp. Series 230 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 6780;
and the important observations of James Kugel, Traditions of the Bible. A Guide to the
Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1998), pp. 284285, 289291, who is likewise unhappy with attempts to discover
the identification of Melchizedek with Shem in Jewish-Christian disputes. Note also
383
the notion that Melchizedek was Shem plays an important role in

Rabbinic thinking which has sometimes been underestimated. It signifies that he was born before the catastrophe of Noahs flood which
destroyed the world peopled with Adams children (see Gen. 5:32;
6:18); and this has important implications for the kind of priesthood
he possesses. We shall have to explore this later; but at this point it
will be important to recall that Rabbinic interpretation of Gen. 14:13
brings yet another antediluvian to our attention. This is Og the King of
Bashan, traditionally understood to have been one of the wicked giants
who had helped to cause the Flood, but who had survived by clinging
onto the side of Noahs ark.15 This Og many Rabbinic sources identify with the escapee who brings news of Lots capture to Abraham.16
The presence in Rabbinic interpretations of Genesis 14 of two characters from before the Flood, whose antecedents could be regarded
as mysterious, and who are identified as well known personages, is
not likely to be accidental, and we must reckon with the distinct possibility that Melchizedek who is Shem and the escapee who is Og
represent transitional bonds between the vanished world from before
the Flood and the world re-constituted through Gods covenant with
Noah, who himself functioned as a priest and offered sacrifice at a
crucial moment in world history. In other words, both Og-the escapee
and Shem-Melchizedek have a more than passing significance for the
Rabbis. Melchizedek-Shem is a testimony to Gods goodness and justice which binds together the ages, years and seasons under his control:
the world is never without priestly representatives who witness to perfection and Gods goodness. Evil, however, persists: it too has its representatives from age to age; but like Og, it is destined to be destroyed.
The Qumran document 11QMelchizedek pits Melchizedek against an
evil counterpart, Melchiresha: the opposition of Melchizedek-Shem
that Jerome, Hebrew Questions on Genesis 14:1819, is fully aware of the Jewish identification of Melchizedek as Shem, and seems not unduly disturbed by it: see C.T.R.
Hayward, Jeromes Hebrew Questions on Genesis Translated with an Introduction and
Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 47, 156159. The same tradition is
known to Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis 11:2.
15
See b. Zeb. 113b; Niddah 61a; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 14:13; Pirqe de
R. Eliezer 23:2. Og was thought to have survived the Flood because Deut. 3:11 speaks
of him as the last one remaining of the Rephaim, the giants whose wicked deeds were
instrumental in corrupting humanity.
16
The identification is widely attested: see b. Nidd. 61a; Zeb 113b; Ber. Rab. 42:78;
Numb. Rab. 19:32; PRE 23:2; PJ of Gen. 14:13; Deut. 3:11.
384
chapter nineteen
and the wicked Og in Rabbinic sources may, perhaps, display a family

resemblance to the Qumran characters.
The Talmudic passage brings another important matter to our attention. Although a priest himself, Melchidezek-Shem was not permitted
to pass this privilege to his descendants: his failure to bless God first
and foremost is noted by Abraham, whose words make the Almighty
transfer the priestly office from Melchizedek-Shem to Abraham himself. Again, this transfer of priestly status to Abraham, and the exegesis of Ps. 110 which supports it, could certainly serve to undermine
Christian teaching about Melchizedek. Its setting in the Talmud, as
the climax of a discussion which emphasises the central importance
of circumcision, might indeed be intended to answer the Christian
claim sometimes advanced that Melchizedek functioned as priest in an
uncircumcised state, since the commandment to circumcise had not
been given when he met Abraham.17 Other Jewish sources, however,
responded to Christian argument of this sort with the assertion that
Melchizedek had been born already circumcised: one notable example
of such a declaration is found on the lips of a Babylonian authority,
R. Isaac the Babylonian, at Ber. Rab. 43:7. The line of reasoning is as
follows. Melchizedek is described as melekh lm, and lm should
be construed as an adjective such that he is king perfect, entire,
whole: it is the very adjective used by Rabbi in m.Ned. 3:11, presupposed throughout the Talmudic discussion based upon it, to describe
the effect of circumcision on the pious Jew. Why, then, is the Talmudic
discussion silent on the matter of Melchizedeks circumcision? Given
the thrust of the discussion, one might reasonably suggest that the text
takes for granted that Melchizedek was indeed circumcised, in order
to fulfil the priestly office. But then why does it emphasise instead the
transfer of priesthood to Abraham?
An explanation of this difficulty may, once more, originate in preRabbinic attitudes to Melchizedek. Again, evidence from Qumran,
this time in the shape of the Genesis Apocryphon from cave 1 (1QapGen) provides assistance.18 This Aramaic re-writing of episodes
17
This argument was adduced as early as the time of Justin, Dialogue with Trypho
19. See M. Simon, Verus Israel. A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews
in the Roman Empire ad 135425 (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization,
1996), pp. 8485, 164165, 170171; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, pp. 281283.
18
See D.A. Machiela, The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of its Text,
Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees (PhD Thesis: University
385
from Genesis certainly pre-dates the Christian era, and is intent on

presenting Abraham as a sacrificing priest. It is well known that the
Bible records how Abraham builds altars; but it does not state that he
offered sacrifice upon them.19 The only exception to this general rule
is found at the Binding of Isaac (Gen. 22:914), when he sacrifices
a lamb in place of his son; otherwise, the function of these altars is
not explained. But the Genesis Apocryphon tells in some detail what
Abraham offered up. In col. 21:2, paraphrasing Gen. 13:34, we are
told that he offered whole burnt offerings and cereal offering; and the
Apocryphon notes in another place (col 21:20) that he built an altar
and offered on it whole burnt offering and cereal offering. In both
these instances, Abraham offered his sacrifices to God Most High,
the divine title which the Bible places first on the lips of Melchizedek.
In the Apocryphon, however, it is made very clear that God Most
High is the title of Abrahams God, and Abraham addresses Him as
such long before Melchizedek appears on the scene.20 For this Aramaic
document, Abraham is most certainly a priest, and his status as such
is taken for granted.
Furthermore, in re-telling the Melchizedek episode, the Apocryphon
elaborates the original Hebrew narrative with small, but highly significant additional details. First, the ambiguous phrase melekh lm of
Gen. 14:18 is interpreted as the king of Salem (1QapGen 22:14): the
author has already (1QapGen 22:13) indicated explicitly that Salem is
Jerusalem. Any explanation of this phrase as perfect king or king of
peace is quietly left to one side.21 The mention of place, however, is
important, and recurs in other documents, most notably the Septuagint
translation of this verse; Gen. Rab. 43:7; and Josephus, Ant. I.180.
of Notre Dame, 2007); J.A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1:
A Commentary (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1971).
19
See Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18; 26:25.
20
See 1QapGen 20:12; 21:2, 20. Melchizedek does not appear in the scroll until
22:14.
21
Place is central to the overall concerns of the author of the Genesis Apocryphon,
and the explicit naming of Jerusalem indicates the degree of importance attached to
importance the Melchizedek episode by this text. As king of Jerusalem, Melchizedek
might be perceived as granting a royal welcome to Abraham: one monarch greets
another and, if the author of the Apocryphon envisaged Melchizedek as giving tithes
to Abraham, then the event may be understood as a proleptic handing over of the
citys ownership to Abrahams descendants. For a discussion of place in this text, see
D.A. Machiela, Each to His Own Inheritance. Geography as an Evaluative Tool in the
Genesis Apocryphon, Dead Sea Discoveries 15 (2008), pp. 5066.
386
chapter nineteen
Second, the Apocryphon paraphrases Gen. 14:18s statement that

Melchizedek brought out bread and wine. 1QapGen 22:1415 tells
how he brought out food and drink for Abraham and all the men
who were with him.22 The effect of this paraphrase is to remove any
links that Melchizedek may have with the Temple service at this point:
he appears, rather, as the provider of a banquet on a large scale for
Abraham and his soldiers.23 To anticipate a little, we may here record
the comment given in Gen. Rab. 43:7 by R. Samuel bar Nahman about
the bread and wine: this Sage notes that the halakhot of the high priesthood had been revealed to Melchizedek, and that the bread refers to
the Bread of the Presence, while the wine refers to the drink-offerings.
The Apocryphon shows no interest in any such Temple discourse.
Thirdly, Gen. 14:21 is famous for its ambiguity, recording that he
gave to him a tithe of everything. Who gave the tithe, and to whom?
The Apocryphon seemingly retains the ambiguity, but specifies that
the tithe was a tithe of all the property (or: possessions) of the king of
Elam and his companions. Two things are of note. First, this tithe is
unlike anything which Israelites would set aside. While it is described
as tithe, any connection it might have with the Jewish system of tithing, and the object of that tithing, remain obscure. The obscurity is
heightened by the source of the tithe: it comes from Elam. According
to Gen. 10:22; 1 Chr. 1:17, Elam was the first-born son of Shem. The
extant text of the Apocryphon does not identify Melchizedek with
Shem; but this identification is a common-place among the Rabbis.
The report of the Apocryphon is tantalizing; for if its writer knew that
Melchizedek was Shem, the property of Elam, Shems son, might have
been easily available for Melchizedek to pay to Abraham, along with
the banquet which that same Melchizedek provided for Abraham and
his retainers. These are deep waters, and speculation is best avoided.
The manuscript is quite clear on this matter: the Aramaic reads .

LXX of Gen. 14:18 rendered the Hebrew singular bread as a plural form ,
probably meaning loaves; this may have suggested the idea of a meal, which later generations developed. Certainly the notion that Melchizedek had provided a substantial
feast for Abraham and his men was known to Josephus, Ant. I. 181. See further L.H.
Feldman in (ed.) Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary. Vol. 3,
Judean Antiquities 14 (Brill: Leiden, 2000), p. 68. Significantly, Genesis Rabbah 47:8
describes how Abraham would set out food and drink for travellers, and would then
instruct them to utter a blessing of the Almighty: this is said with reference to the title
possessor of heaven and earth. See further below, p. 390.
22
23
387
In short, the discussion of Melchizedek in b.Ned.32b, while useful

to some limited degree as an argument against Christian appropriation of Melchizedek, is unlikely to find its origins in Jewish-Christian
disputes. Its roots seem to lie much further back in time, in the Second
Temple period, where we have indisputable evidence that Jews could
hold widely differing opinions about Melchizedek. In the meeting
between Abraham and Melchizedek, some Jews discerned the greatness of Abraham: he is a mighty man with royal qualities and a priest;
and Melchizedek honoured him as such. This seems to be the view of
1QapGen; and it lays down an exegetical trajectory which could be
followed by others, in which Abraham is the principal character, with
Melchizedek in an honoured supporting role. On the other hand, an
exalted, heavenly status for Melchizedek is also in evidence, and we
have seen how such an appraisal of the priests status might easily
have been derived from Scripture. Were there other possible explanations of Melchizedeks person and activity? It is here that the classical
Midrashim have valuable information.
2. Melchizedek and the Midrashim
On any estimate, Genesis Rabbah is a central, classical Rabbinic composition, whose appraisal of Melchizedek deserves careful attention.24
A complex picture results from a close reading of Gen. Rab. 43:711,
the section which is most concerned with Gen. 14:1820. While Gen.
Rab. 43:7 comments explicitly on Melchizedek, the rest of the section
expounding these verses apparently concentrates heavily on Abraham,
although Melchizedeks presence is in fact implicit in discussions of
43:811, as we shall see. Thus the midrash begins by portraying both
Melchizedek and Abraham as royal figures. The opening words of Gen.
14:18, And Melchizedek, melekh lm, etc. are expounded with reference to Ps. 45:13, And the daughter of Tyre is present with tribute: the rich ones of the people shall mollify your countenance: the
midrash interprets the daughter of Tyre in this instance as a reference
24
See A. Shinan, Midrashic, Paytanic and Targumic Literature, in (ed.) S.T.
Katz, The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 4 The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 687688, who dates the final
form of the midrash to around 425 ce (p. 687); J. Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic
Commentary to the Book of Genesis. A New American Translation, 3 vols (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1985) offers a brief commentary on the text.
388
chapter nineteen
to Abraham, while the rich ones refer to Melchizedek, who mollifies

Abraham with a gift of bread and wine.25 The royal status of Abraham
is here explicit; and the tenor of the comment as a whole is not unlike
elements of the Genesis Apocryphon paraphrases already examined.
Melchizedek seems to take a subordinate position here, although his
royal status remains as a biblical datum. In this sense, Abraham stands
out as the important character in this opening section dealing with
Melchizedek.
In this same comment, shalem is understood as a place-name,
which the midrash goes on to expound: And Melchizedek, the King of
Salem: This place makes its inhabitants zedek, righteousMelchizedek,
Adonizedek. Jerusalem is called zedek, as it is said (Is. 1:21), Righteousness lodges in her.26 That shalem might be a place rather than an adjective qualifying king we have discovered already at 1QapGen 22:14;
but it is attested much earlier, in the LXX version of Gen. 14:18. In
all this, Ps. 76:3 will have played its part by setting Zion as the site
of the Lords tabernacle in poetic parallelism with shalem.27 For the
midrash, Jerusalem is significant: it is explicitly named, and we are
left in no doubt that Melchizedek operated there, and that his meeting with Abraham took place there. Yet this interpretation of shalem
as a place is immediately juxtaposed to another explanation which
we have already noted: Melekh Shalem: R. Isaac the Babylonian says,
Because he was born circumcised. The import of this comment we
have discussed; but here it is introduced quite suddenly and without
explanation. The exegesis clearly presupposes prior knowledge on the
part of the reader; and the effect of the comment is to underscore
Melchizedeks status as a Patriarch, and to activate in the reader or
hearer a recollection of what R. Judah the Patriarch had said in the
Mishnah about circumcision as the acme of perfection, making a person shalem. This comment leaves us in no doubt that Melchizedek is
to regarded as a Jew, who shares the same privilege in respect of berit
milah as does his interlocutor Abraham.
25
The Melchizedek episode is regarded by many modern commentators as something of an intrusion into the narrative, the priest-kings generosity at this point contrasting with the niggardly attitude of the king of Sodom: see Sarna, Genesis, p. 109.
This contrast is heightened if, as is permissible, the opening waw of Gen. 14:18 is
treated as an adversative, to yield: But Melchizedek, the king of Salem . . ..
26
Adonizedek was king of Jerusalem in the time of Joshua (Jos. 10:1).
27
See Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, p. 173.
389
Melchizedeks status as a Jew is a sine qua non for the next step
taken by the midrash. The commentary moves to the matter of the
bread and wine which Melchizedek brought out: here R. Samuel b.
Nahman and the Rabbis offer differing expositions. R. Samuels view
we have already encountered: it is clearly focused on Melchizedek, to
whom, says the Rabbi, high priestly halakhot were revealed, and who
was thus by implication a high priest. The bread, it will be remembered,
R. Samuel referred to the Bread of the Presence, the wine to the Temple
libations. At once, however, we hear the view of the Rabbis juxtaposed:
Torah was revealed to him, as it is said (Prov. 9:5) , Come, eat of my
bread, and drink of my wine which I have mingled . The text gives no
indication whether these views are complementary or in opposition to
one another: as they stand, they serve to depict Mekchizedek as either
high priest, or as one proffering Torah, and thus a Torah scholar, or
as combining both these great offices in his own person. The exegesis
of the Rabbis, however, implies that the reader of the midrash knows
that Melchizedek can be identified as Shem, who in Rabbinic tradition
is known as Shem Rabbah (see b.Sanh. 108b), a great scholar learned
in Torah who presides over a famous Beth Ha-Midrash. Indeed, Gen.
Rab. 26:3 records that Shem was born circumcised, and we learn from
Gen. Rab. 30:6 that he had oversight of the sacrifices offered when
Noah emerged from the ark. Within this single midrashic work, therefore, Shem is both priest and Torah scholar, just as Melchizedek is
presented in this section. Thus a strong impression is created that
Melchizedek is both high priest and Torah scholar, and that the two
offices complement each other.
The introduction of Torah at this juncture, however, will eventually lead the midrash in another direction. The quotation of Prov. 9:5
gives us the words of lady Wisdom as she invites the uninstructed to
her house with its seven pillars (Prov. 9:14). Jewish exegetes routinely
identified lady Wisdom with Torah;28 and Wisdom herself, in Prov.
8:22, famously declared that the Lord had possessed or acquired her
(the Hebrew verb qnh is used) as the firstfruits of His way. Thus it
28
This identification is implicit in Scripture at Deut. 4:6, where the divine commandments are described as your wisdom, and explicit from at least as early as
the time of Ben Sira 24:23. See P.W. Skehan and A.A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben
Sira, Anchor Bible 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), p. 336; J. Marbck, Weisheit
im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (Berlin: de Gruyter,
1999), pp. 5893.
390
chapter nineteen
was no accident that the midrash should introduce Wisdom-Torah in

discussion of verses where God is entitled qnh, acquirer or possessor
of heaven and earth. In its turn, this allows the midrash to move aside
from Melchizedek, and to focus once more on Abraham: Gen. Rab.
47:8 describes how Abraham had received travellers, given them food
and drink, and had insisted that they utter a blessing to God for his
bounty. Gods response to this generous action is to praise Abraham
for having made Him recognized by His creatures, because of which
God attributes it to Abraham as if he had been a partaker with Him in
the creation of the world. It is with reference to this, says the midrash,
that the words possessor/acquirer of heaven and earth, are written in
Scripture.29 But the speaker of these words in Scripture is Melchizedek,
not Abraham; the midrash has adroitly taken the divine title used by
Melchizedek and explained it in such a way that Melchizedek, by uttering the title, becomes a witness to pious activities of Abraham whose
effect is to display to the world key benefactions and attributes of the
Almighty Himself. And the food and drink associated with all this is
bread and wine, which both Melchizedek and Wisdom offer according
to Gen. Rab. 43:7. Here, in Gen. Rab. 43:8, it is precisely Abrahams
use of food and drink, and his invitation and hospitality to travellers,
which allows the midrash to suggest that Abraham himself is one who
offers wisdom and Torah to the passers-by, and enlightens them by
revealing the true source of sustenance both physical and spiritual.
With this return of attention to Abraham, the midrash can continue to focus on him: Gen. Rab. 43:9, indeed, needs to explain
Gen. 14:19, where Melchizedek blesses God Most High who has
delivered up the warring kings into Abrahams power. The expression delivered up is the common rendering of the difficult Hebrew
form miggn, which the midrash interprets by reference to the word
mangn, charm, contrivance to indicate that God had brought
the kings under Abrahams sway by artful enchantments.30 The fol-
29
The blessing formula which Abraham requires his guests to utter runs: Blessed
be the God of the Universe, from whose own things we have eaten! An anonymous
statement in m.Hagigah 2:1 should be recalled here, to the effect that everyone who
has no regard for the honour of his creator, qwnh, it would have been better for him
if he had not come into the world.
30
On the meaning of miggn, see Rashis commentary ad loc. which cites Hos. 11:8
as also having the sense of hand over. The same meaning is given to this verb by LXX,
and Targum Onqelos. Gen. Rab. 43:9 reads: R. Huna said: Who turned your enchantments against your enemies. R. Judan said: How many enchantments did I make to
391
lowing section deals with the tithe, Gen. Rab. 47:10 indicating that
Abraham had paid tithe to Melchizedek without, however, naming the
priest; and the exegesis makes it clear that blessings which accrued
to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the future had been granted by virtue of that original tithe.31 With Gen. Rab. 47:11, Melchizedek seems
finally to have disappeared. A question is posed: from where did Israel
merit the priestly blessing ordered by Numb. 6:2427? Three different answers are set forth, all of them based on Gods instruction to
Aaron and the priests in Numb. 6:23, Thus you shall bless the sons of
Israel. R. Judah explains that Abraham had merited this priestly blessing, since God had said to him (Gen. 15:5) Thus shall your seed be. R.
Nehemiah selected Isaac as the source of the privilege, since Abraham
at the Akedah had said of him (Gen. 22:5) I and the lad will go as far
as thus .32 The rabbis attribute the privilege to Jacob, because God
had ordered Moses before the giving of the Torah at Sinai (Exod. 19:3)
Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob. The priestly blessing, therefore, was merited for Israel by one of the three Patriarchs: Melchizedek
plays no part in it. It is therefore striking that the section ends with
an implied flashback to Melchizedek which has darker connotations,
tinged with hints of suffering. It is worth quoting in full.
When shall I make your children as great as the stars (Gen. 22:17)?
R. Eliezer and R. Jose b. R. Hananiah: R. Eliezer said, When I am revealed
over them by means of thusThus you shall say to the sons of Jacob
(Exod. 19:3). R. Jose b. R. Hananiah said: When I am revealed against
their Leaders (manhgm) by means of thus, as it is said (Exod. 4:22),
Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My first-born.
R. Jose alludes, of course, to the time of the redemption from Egypt:

God will make Abrahams children as numerous as the stars when
bring them under your power! They had been friends of one another; one would give
documents to another, one would give gifts to another; but I made them rebel against
one another, so that they came and fell beneath your power.
31
Commenting on he gave to him a tithe of all, Gen. Rab. 43:10 declares: R. Jose
b. R. Zimra said, From the strength of that blessing the three great tent-pegs who are
in the world, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did eat with Scriptural citations supporting
the exegesis. The emphasis here is on the rewards received by all three Patriarchs as a
result of this tithe. For the description of the Patriarchs as tent-pegs, see E.E. Urbach,
The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), vol. 1,
pp. 499500; vol. 2, pp. 910911.
32
For Rabbinic interpretation of this somewhat obscure verse elsewhere, see Bowker,
The Targums, p. 213; and M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translated,
with Introduction and Notes (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992), pp. 7879.
392
chapter nineteen
Moses confronts the cruel Pharaoh with the declaration that Israel is
Gods first-born son. The presence of this powerful exegesis is explained
by an earlier comment in Gen. Rab. 43:7, which we have not yet examined. It is the last of the explications of the bread and wine which
Melchizedek offered to Abraham, but it is attached to the description
of Melchizedek as priest of God Most High The exegetical interest,
however, is entirely on the wine which Melchizedek brought forth.
R. Abba b. Kahana and R. Levi: R. Abba b. Kahana said: All the wine
which is written of in Torah makes a bad stain, apart from this instance.
R. Levi said: Even this instance we do not exempt from its (the stains)
power, because from there God called out to him, And they shall enslave
them and afflict them for four hundred years (Gen. 15:15)
R. Levi understands wine, whenever it is mentioned in Scripture, as

always connoting some rem, stain: it has negative qualities. He
insists that the wine which Melchizedek brought to Abraham is no
exception: from this point onwards, R. Levi insists, Israels afflictions
began, for Abrahams meeting with Melchizedek announced the sufferings and slavery which the Jews would endure under the Pharaoh
in Egypt. Thus Melchizedek, despite his appearance at a time of victory and triumph, might be understood also as a harbinger of future
sufferings, which in their turn would be reversed by God with Moses
proclamation that Israel is the Lords first-born son. In all this, it is not
difficult to see a restrained, but powerful attack on the Roman leaders who are enslaving and persecuting Israel, even as Genesis Rabbah
reaches its final form. The oblique, sophisticated exegesis may have the
Christian Church in its sights as well.
The hesitation displayed in the last sentence is the result of awareness
that Jewish engagement with Christian claims appears perhaps more
clearly in midrashim other than Genesis Rabbah, and in texts where
Melchizedeks presence is merely implicit. An important example of
this is afforded by the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael Shirta 9 lines 118126
commenting on Exod. 15:16, the people whom You have possessed,
am z qnt. We are told that four are called qinyn, possession, of
which the second is the land of Israel. The proof adduced for this is
Gen. 14:19, Gods title as possessor of heaven and earth being understood as possessor of heaven and the Land (of Israel). The speaker of
those words was, of course, Melchizedek; but his name is not mentioned in the whole of the exposition. The same line of thought is pursued in a slightly different manner in Sifre Deut. 309, commenting on
393
Deut. 32:6 with its question to Israel concerning the Almighty: is He

not your Father, your possessor, qnekh?. The extended exegesis of
these words concludes with a note that three things are called qinyn,
the Torah, Israel, and the House of the Sanctuary; but here there is no
reference to Genesis 14 in a supporting role, and Melchizedek plays
no part in the midrash, not even by implication. Both these midrashim
heavily stress the fact that those things called Gods possessions are
uniquely and unmistakeably Jewish: the people Israel, the Torah, the
Land of Israel, and the Temple cannot be anything other than what
they are. Melchizedek might be discerned in the Mekhilta, but by
implication only; and his words are taken to indicate plainly that God
is the one who is the possessor of Israels land.33
3. Sidelights from the Aramaic Pentateuchal Targumim
Information preserved in the Pentateuchal Targumim may help to
provide us with a rather fuller picture of the Talmudic and midrashic
traditions we have examined. Especially is this the case with Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan, whose exegesis brings together a number of items
considered here in a remarkable synthesis. Since Melchizedeks place
in the Pentateuchal Targums has been treated elsewhere, we shall
here confine remarks to items directly relevant to the Talmudic and
midrashic sources examined in this essay.34
Targum Onqelos35 informs us that Melchizedek was the King of
Jerusalem: such is his interpretation of melekh shalem in Gen. 14:18.
In the same verse, instead of the Hebrew and he was priest of God
Most High, this Targum has and he was ministering before God Most
High. His use of the Aramaic term , ministering, means that
33
It is possible to read a similar understanding of Melchizedeks words in TO
of Gen. 14:19, Blessed be Abram of God Most High, whose possession [ ]is
heaven and earth, if one translates the ambiguous final word in this sentence, ,
as and the Land. The word qinyan itself is a clear indication of ownership: God has
acquired for himself these things by purchase, as it were. The list of four possessions
given by Mekhilta recalls lists of items created before the creation of the world given
in b.Pes. 54a; Ned. 39b; they include the people Israel, the Torah, and the Temple, and
may well have served their purpose in debates with Christians: see Urbach, The Sages,
vol. 1, pp. 527529.
34
For my earlier essay on Melchizedek in the Targum, see above, note 14.
35
Aramaic text cited from A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. I The Pentateuch
according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959). Translations are mine.
394
chapter nineteen
he avoids stating directly that Melchizedek was a priest; but the term is
used consistently elsewhere by this Targum to refer to the priestly service in the Temple (e.g., of Aaron and his descendants at Exod. 28:1).
Possibly the word involves a pun on the name of Shem: such a
learned reference would certainly be in keeping with what we know
of Onqelos and his exegetical procedures.36 In Gen. 14:19, Onqelos
stays close to the Hebrew until the divine title possessor of heaven
and earth is used. For this, the Targum refers to God Most High,
whose possession, property (qinyaneh) consists of heaven and earth;
an equally valid translation of this phrase would be . . . whose possession, property, consists of the Land (of Israel).37
Targum Neofitis opening statement at Gen. 14:18 is of the utmost
importance.38 It runs as follows: And the king Zedek, the king of
Jerusalem, that is, Shem Rabbah, brought out bread and wine; and he
was priest ministering in the high priesthood before God Most High.
Zedek appears as the key element in the priests name, and is reminiscent of the comment in Gen. Rab. 43:7, that the place Jerusalem
makes its inhabitants zedek, righteous. Melchizedeks explicit identification with Shem, by now familiar, would activate in the mind of
the reader who knew this Targum well the story of Rebecca who, pregnant with the fighting twins Esau and Jacob, went to seek mercy from
before the Lord at the study house of Shem Rabbah (Targum Neofiti of
Gen. 25:22). As priest he ministers, the same Aramaic term
which Onqelos had used to describe his activity. His high priestly status is explicit, and fits well with the tradition that high priestly rules
had been revealed to him.39
36
See B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, The Aramaic Bible 6 (Edinburgh:
& Clark, 1988), pp. 6869. It would also hint at the antiquity of the equation
of Melchizedek with Shem, since Targum Onqelos is likely to have been completed
around the time of the Second Revolt.
37
See above, note 33.
38
Aramaic text cited from (ed.) A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1 Tomo I Gnesis
(Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1968). For valuable notes on this Targum of Genesis 14:1820, see B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1. An
Exegetical Commentary to Genesis Including full Rabbinic Parallels (New Yor: SepherHermon Press, 2000), pp. 139140.
39
The notion that this Targums description of Melchizedek as ministering in the
high priesthood might date from post-Talmudic times has been convincingly questioned by A. Dez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1 Tomo II Exodo (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1970), pp. 76*78*. See further R. le Daut,
Le titre Summus Sacerdos donn Melchisedech est-il dorigine juive?, Recherches de
Science Religieuse 50 (1962), pp. 222229.
395
His blessing of Abraham in Gen. 14:19, according to this Targum,

contained a reference to God Most High, who by His word, Memra,
possessed, or acquired, heaven and earth. Mention of the Memra,
which plays a key role in this Targums version of Genesis 1, seems
to indicate that the word , which we have until now rendered as
possessor or acquirer, was taken by Neofiti to mean creator.40 If
that is so, the business of creation obtrudes itself into the narrative yet
again. In its version of Gen. 14:20, the text of Neofiti as it has reached
us begins with a Hebraism and blessed be He, the reference being to God Most High. If original to the Targum, this formula
indicates on the part of the Targumist a recognition that Melchizedek
uses the holy tongue, Hebrew, which Neofiti elsewhere describes as
the language of the house of the Sanctuary: the setting of these events
would thus be the Temple mount.41 Unfortunately, however, the late
date of the single manuscript of Neofiti, and the errors for which the
copyist may be responsible, make this last observation uncertain.42
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan introduces Melchizedek as follows:43 And
the righteous king, that is Shem the son of Noah, the king of Jerusalem,
went out to meet Abraham and brought out to him bread and wine;
and at that time he was ministering, , before God Most High.
Much of this familiar, but this Targum puts into relief something
which has been implicit from the start: Jerusalem has been under the
rulership of a great priest and king since the days of the great flood.
The brief aside, that Melchizedek was ministering at that time, signals
a matter of key importance for this Targum, which has carefully noted
the building of altars and offering of sacrifice since the days of Adam.
Thus Noah, after the flood, is said to have rebuilt the altar which Adam
40
For Memra in the creation narratives as expounded by Targum Neofiti, see
especially D. Muoz Leon, Dios-Palabra. Memra en los Targumim del Pentateuco
(Granada: Institucion San Jeronimo, 1974), pp. 144167.
41
The phrase the language of the House of the Sanctuary referring to Hebrew is
not uncommon in Targum Neofiti, for example at Gen. 2:19; 22:1; 31:47; 35:18; 45:12;
Exod. 3:4. This Targum explicitly states that Hebrew is the language of creation at
Gen. 11:1.
42
For the date and provenance of the single manuscript of this Targum, see
M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes,
The Aramaic Bible 1A (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992), pp. 79; B.B. Levy, Targum
Neophyti 1. A Textual Study, vol. 1 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986),
pp. 110.
43
Aramaic text cited from E.G. Clarke, W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ:
Ktav, 1984); translations are mine.
396
chapter nineteen
had constructed on leaving Eden, and on which Cain and Abel had
offered sacrifice (PJ of Gen. 8:20). This altar features also in Gen. Rab.
34:9, which records that it was located in Jerusalem. Melchizedek and
this altar are links which take us back to origins, to the creation of the
world and the first representative of humanity. The Targums explication of Melchizedeks name as the righteous king confirms this, as is
clear from its interpretation of Gen. 14:19 when Melchizedeks blessing of Abraham is made to speak of God Most High, who on account
of the righteous ones created/possessed acquired, heaven and earth.
The notion that the world was created for the sake of the righteous
is widespread in Rabbinic Judaism.44 In this Targum, Melchizedeks
own status as righteous is thus directly linked to the creation of the
universe and its purpose as brought into existence for those who, like
Melchizedek, are righteous.
To these observations should be two further important exegetical
details. First, at Gen. 14:13, Pseudo-Jonathan identifies the one who
escaped to tell Abraham that his friends had been taken captive with
Og, who out of the giants who had died in the Flood had been rescued; and he had ridden upon the ark . . .; his plan was to ensure that
Abraham was also taken captive by them. The escapee is identified as
Og also at Gen. Rab. 42:78; Deut.Rab. 1:35, and by this means the
exegetes lead us to understand that Abraham at that time was threatened with truly hostile and malicious forces. The last remnant of the
wicked giants, who had helped to cause the great Flood, comes into
direct conflict with him.45 Melchizedek, who is also Shem, is thus to
be seen as the representative of righteous humanity such as it was
before the Flood, a righteous chosen humanity selected by God in his
covenant with Noah, a covenant made with a sacrifice which ShemMelchizedek, as priest, had co-offered.
Second, the same Targum verse tells us that it was the eve of
Passover when Og arrived, to find Abraham busy making mazzot,
the unleavened bread for the Festival.46 This is confirmed when the
44
See the sources cited by M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translated,
with Introduction and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 1B (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992),
p. 58.
45
The giants were deeply implicated in the causes of the Flood, according to many
post-biblical Jewish writers: see (e.g.) Hebrew text of Ben Sira 16:7; Baruch 3:3638;
Wis. Sol. 14:6; 3 Macc. 2:4; Damascus Document 2:1621.
46
Pseudo-Jonathan has a particular interest in the Passover: see the illuminating
study of P.. Bengtsson, Passover in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis. The Connection
397
Targum arrives at verse 15 with its account of the night raid made by
Abraham on the kings. The opening words of the Hebrew are ambiguous: and might be translated as either the night was
divided for them, or he divided the night for them, or at night, he
deployed against them. Pseudo-Jonathan interprets as follows:
And the night was divided for them on the way: half (of it) fought with
the kings; and (the other) half was stored up to smite the first-born of
Egypt.
Abrahams victory over the kings, then, this Targum evidently viewed as
part of a larger process which would be completed when the Passover
was celebrated at the time of the Exodus, on the night when the Lord
would smite the first-born of Egypt, but would miraculously spare the
first-born of Israel: the division of the night is similarly explained in
Gen.Rab. 49:3. These interpretations depend on Exod. 12:29, which
states that God went out to smite the Egyptian first-born at midnight,
literally, at half of the night; so Gen. 14:15s reference to the division
of the night could easily be associated with the first Passover and its
redemption. Melchizedek, high priest and Torah scholar who has survived the Flood as representative of those chosen by God to re-populate
the world, thus meets Abraham at Passover, as Abraham returns from
a defeat of enemies which represents one half of a victory to be completed in generations to come. Again, one recalls the exegesis of Gen.
Rab., which sets the announcement of Israels Egyptian enslavement in
the time of Melchizedek, but also employs the Melchizedek episode to
announce the redemption of Israel, the Lords first-born son.
Conclusion
The classical Rabbinic sources, insofar as we have been able in this
short paper to look at key writings, have a good deal to tell us about
the figure of Melchizedek and his status. The reference to him in the
Babylonian Talmud Ned. 32b, though in its present form useful for
questioning Christian claims about Melchizedek, seems to have its
of Early Biblical Events with Passover in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan in a Synagogue Setting

(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001). Bengtsson does not discuss Melchizedek, but
focuses on the sacrifices of Cain and Abel; the circumcision of Abraham; the visit of
the three men to Abraham (Gen. 18:14); and Isaacs blessing of Jacob, all of which
this Targum locates at Passover time.
398
chapter nineteen
origins long before the days of the Church, in attempts to solve serious
difficulties presented by Scripture: why did Melchizedek the priest first
utter a blessing of the man Abraham, and only then of his Creator? We
have noted that biblical evidence might be seen as presenting two possible but contrasting answers to this question, one of which is represented by the Talmud, whose reserve towards Melchizedek is reflected
in much earlier times by the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon. We considered the identification of Melchizedek with the Patriarch Shem, common in the Rabbinic texts. Again, this might be pressed into service
as a means of casting doubt on Christian biblical exegesis in a limited
kind of way;47 but it is perhaps better understood in tandem with the
presence of another antediluvian figure, the left-over giant Og. These
two representatives of the world before the Flood, the world which was
people by Adams descendants, are brought face to face in this episode
against the background of a conflict which represents the first part (the
first half of a night) of Israels redemption from the hands of hostile
and tyrannical slave-masters.
For many of the sources we have examined, Melchizedek is high
priest: he is also king, combining priestly and royal elements in a unique
synthesis which is noted, but not discussed. His city is Jerusalem, when
it is named; but his title melekh shalem speaks also of his perfection
as a model, pious Jew, and exemplar for others. The sense that his
perfection consists in his being born circumcised is clearly articulated
in some, but not all, Rabbinic texts we have examined. While this, too,
might be used to circumvent a Christian theological stance, it does
not seem to require Christianity to account for its origins. The Book
of Jubilees, which tells us virtually nothing about Melchizedek in its
re-written version of Genesis 14, nonetheless insists that the angels
of the Presence and the angels of sanctification were created circumcised, and that in this respect the Jewish people are on a par with the
highest orders of angels (Jub. 15:2532). The Qumran Jews held this
book, finally redacted around the middle of the second century bce, in
high esteem.48 Possibly they regarded it as Scripture; and Melchizedek
47
While it provides an ancestry for Melchizedek, and therefore excludes any notion
that he might be an angelic figure, at the same time it strengthens Melchizedeks
priestly status.
48
For a convenient summary of discussion of the date of Jubilees and its place at
Qumran, see J. VanderKam and P. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London:
T and T Clark, 2002), pp. 196199.
399
was certainly understood by the authors of 11Q Melch as having a

heavenly, if not exactly angelic status.49 For some Qumran Jews, therefore, the notion that Melchizedek was circumcised would be a necessary requirement for his role and function as announcing the final
redemption.
The conviction that Melchizedek was high priest of the Jerusalem
sanctuary is remarkably well embedded in Rabbinic texts. He knows
the halakhot of the high priestly office; he is directly associated with
the most holy offering of the Bread of the Presence; he has knowledge of the wine libations; and he presided at Noahs great sacrifice
at the flood. In all this, it seems that the Rabbinic writers most certainly perceive in Melchizedek a figure of continuity. As Shem, he
links the original cosmos of which Adam was first high priest with
the new order established with Noahs covenant, and looks forward to
Israels redemption from Egypt. His place is Jerusalem, the site of the
Lords Temple, and the location of the altar which Adam had built,
on which Cain and Abel had sacrificed, and which Abraham was to
rebuild for the Binding of Isaac. Melchizedek-Shem, then, provides an
essential link between the priestly activity of Noah and his covenant
sacrifice, and that of Abraham when he offered up Isaac. The Rabbis
were certainly aware that Christians had appropriated the figure of
Melchizedek for their own purposes; but their response to this seems
quite nuanced. We have noted how some of the things they have to
tell us about Melchizedek could be useful, in perhaps rather restricted
ways, in countering Christian claims. Their most effective response to
the Christian teachers, however, consists not so much in their presentation of the figure of Melchizedek, but in their interpretation of his
words to Abraham. Here Melchizedek joins others, in witnessing that
the Lord has personal possessions, of which not the least is the Land
of Israel.
49
An account of Abrahams meeting with Melchizedek would be expected at
Jubilees 13:2427, but there seems to be a lacuna in the text. Surviving witnesses to
the text of Jubilees preserve no mention of Melchizedek, though references to the
tithe remain. The translation of Jub. 13:25 given by O.S. Wintermute in (ed.) J.H.
Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols (London: Darton, Longman &
Todd, 1983, 1985), vol. 2, p. 84, reads: And he armed the servants of his house . . . upon
Abram and his seed a tenth of firstfruits to the Lord. And the Lord ordained it (as) an
ordinance for ever that they should give it to the priests, to those who minister before
him so that they might possess it for ever.
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Aberbach, M. 92, 301, 313, 315
Ackroyd, P. R. 281, 300
Adriaen, M. 118, 302305, 308, 309,
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 322
Albeck, Ch. 80, 157, 212, 216, 323
Alexander, P.S. 257, 259, 353, 354
Altmann, A. 89
Anderson, G. A. 362
Antin, P. 115, 116, 177, 120,
138
Aptowitzer, V. 377
Argall, R. A. 345, 347, 352, 355
Arnold, T. W. 119
Aufrecht, W. E. 27, 88, 109, 126, 155,
174, 211, 236, 395
Avi-Yonah, M. 161, 301
Bacher, W. 109, 303, 307, 310
Bamberger, B. J. 96
Bardy, G. 281, 283
Barr, J. 19
Baskin, J. R. 36
Baumgarten, J. M. 243, 245, 252, 253,
257
Beck, E. 85, 86
Bengtsson, P. . 396
Berger, K. 23, 59, 270
Bernstein, M. 12
Bienaim, G. 126
Bietenhard, H. 112
Black, M. 46, 287, 341, 349
Blackman, E. C. 314
Bloch, R. 109
Bodinger, M. 382
Borgen, P. 23, 35, 41, 43, 44, 47, 50,
522
Botte, B. 189
Botterweck, G. J. 352
Bowker, J. 4, 114, 175, 179, 183, 185,
193, 201, 213, 223, 224 282, 300, 332,
380, 391
Brock, S. P. 138
Brockington, L. H. 177
Brooke, G. J. 38, 357, 382
Buber, S. 212
Bchler, A. 28, 168, 247
Butterweck, A. 38
Cadbury, H. J. 342
Cathcart, M. J. 382
Cavallera, F. 281, 282, 283, 301, 318
Cazeaux, S. 54, 63
Charles, R. H. 10, 11, 23, 121, 177,
217, 240
Charlesworth, J. H. 20, 34, 54, 82, 93,
120, 135, 231, 353, 370, 399
Chester, A. N. 39, 110, 127, 154,
156, 163, 164, 185, 190, 201, 210,
234
Chilton, B. D. 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79,
124, 301, 313
Churgin, P. 309
Clarke, E. G. 27, 88, 109, 126, 155,
174, 199, 211, 236, 348, 395
Coggins, R. J. 169, 257
Cohen, F. L. 261
Cohen, G. D. 89, 93, 105
Cohen, S. 18
Collins, J. J. 341
Collins, M. F. 159
Colson, F. H. 23, 40, 130
Cowling, G. J. 128
Crouzel, H. 308
Dahl, N. A. 24, 182
Dalman, G. 28
Danby, H. H. 81
Davidson, S. J. 4
Davies, P. R. 28, 72, 75, 76, 77, 79,
124, 210, 234
de Lagarde, P. 321
de Lange, N. R. M. 282
Delcor, M. 32, 357
de Silva, D. A. 342
de Vaux, R. 317
Dietrich, A. 138
di Lella, A. A. 11, 275, 276, 342, 356,
389
Dez Macho, A. 30, 68, 88, 102, 109,
126, 133, 155, 211, 226, 300, 394
Dez Merino, L. 300
Dogniez, C. 346
Dorival, G. 37, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49, 346,
348
Dunn, J. D. G. 53
402
index of modern authors
Elbogen, I. 131
Epstein, J. N. 69, 75, 285
Evans, C. F. 281, 300
Grossfeld, B. 8, 9, 26, 31, 37, 51, 92,

95, 126, 175, 226, 259, 261, 274, 394
Guillaume, A. 115
Falk, D. K. 271, 375

Feldman, L. H. 17, 23, 25, 26, 88, 89,
105
Field, F. 327
Finkelstein, L. 252, 366
Fischer, B. 19
Fishbane, M. 262
Fitzmyer, J. 4, 9, 212, 377, 385, 388
Flanagan, J. W. 262
Flesher, P. V. M. 365
Flint, P. 398
Fournier, F. 308
Fournier-Bidoz, A. 346, 350, 352
Freedman, D. N. 20, 262, 342
Frerichs, E. 35
Friedlnder, G. 172, 173, 176, 182189,
191, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201206,
208
Friedrich, G. 28
Haase, W. 25
Haenchen, E. 182
Hall, S. G. 85
Hamacher, E. 273
Harl, M. 19, 93, 346, 348
Harrington, D. J. 54, 55, 56, 63, 67, 81,
159, 160, 342, 356
Hecht, R. D. 35
Heinemann, J. 104, 122, 277, 366
Hengel, M. 341
Herr, M. D. 105
Henze, M. 382
Hirsch, S. A. 357
Holt, P. M. 119
Hornblower, S. 354
Horovitz, H. S. 237, 241, 244
Horton, F. L. 9, 14, 377
Houlden, J. L. 257
Hunzinger, H. 89
Hurd, J. C. 27, 88, 109, 126, 155, 174,
211, 236, 395
Husson, P. 259
Hyman, A. 168, 170, 288
Garca Martnez, F. 382

Geiger, A. 147, 179, 183, 235, 254, 257,
259
Georgi, D. 17
Gese, H. 346
Gibb, H. A. R. 115
Gilbert, M. 342, 345, 347, 350, 352,
355
Ginsburger, M. 109, 112, 133, 138,
182, 220, 259, 264
Ginzberg, L. 120, 188, 213, 214, 223,
225, 226, 302, 306, 307, 316, 323
Glessmer, U. 27, 260
Goldberg, A. M. 182
Goldin, J. 309
Goldstein, J. A. 350, 355, 357
Golomb, D. M. 101
Goodman, M. 17, 18, 26, 34, 46, 54,
82, 93, 134, 159, 178, 185, 224, 270,
328, 342
Gordon, R. P. 287
Goshen-Gottstein, M. 216
Gottheil, R. 124
Gottlieb, Z. Y. 225, 231
Grtz, H. 281, 319
Grabbe, L. L. 38, 341, 357
Green, P. 230
Green, W. S. 35, 317
Greene, J. T. 36
Grzinger, K.-G. 271, 272
Idelsohn, A. Z. 131
Isenberg, S. 287
Jacobson, H. 12, 17, 26
James, M. R. 56, 57, 59, 63, 67
Japhet, S. 347
Jay, P. 319
Jeremias, J. 17, 58
Kampen, J. 342
Kasher, M. 63, 72, 79, 112, 129, 130,
136, 138, 144, 157, 158, 162, 163, 166,
174, 329
Kasher, R. 98
Katz, S. T. 387
Kelly, J. N. D. 281, 282, 283, 301, 318
Kisch, G. 67
Kittel, G. 28
Klein, M. L. 30, 39, 68, 88, 109, 126,
155, 163, 166, 211, 236, 239, 277, 366
Klostermann, E. 295, 298
Knibb, M. A. 354
Kobelski, P. J. 382
Koetschau, P. 291
Kraft, R. A. 84
Kraus, H.-J. 379

Krauss, S. 281, 282, 283, 293, 297, 299,
302, 329, 337
Kugel, J. L. 362, 371, 382, 384
Kuiper, G. J. 109, 128
Lambton, A. K. S. 119
Larcher, C. 375
Lauterbach, J. Z. 75, 76, 77, 285
le Daut, R. 4, 9 31, 49, 68, 72, 73, 87,
95, 102, 122, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126,
128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 138, 140, 143,
144, 147, 163, 170, 175, 179, 182, 188,
190, 199, 201, 203, 204, 207, 210, 213,
228, 240, 242, 244, 260, 261, 265, 274,
282, 300, 301, 319, 323, 326, 334, 337,
394
Leaney, A. R. C. 274
le Boulluec, A. 348, 349, 350, 351
Lebram, J. C. H. 346
Lcuyer, J. 308
Leloir, L. 86
Levine, E.B. 133, 138, 214, 226, 229
Levine, L. I. 365
Levison, J. R. 36, 53, 54, 55, 59, 62, 68,
70, 71, 269, 371, 372, 373
Levy, B. B. 7, 32, 39, 96, 98, 102, 103,
376, 395
Lewis, B. 119
Lewis, J. P. 60
Lim, T. 11
Loader, J. A. 271
Lukyn Williams, A. 307
Lyons, W. J. 264
Machiela, D. A. 384, 385
Maccoby, H. 252, 253
MacDonald, J. 170, 171
Mack, B. L. 25, 342, 352
Maher, M. 4, 7, 9, 15, 28, 265, 361,
364, 365, 382, 391, 396
Mandelbaum, I. 255, 256
Marbck, J. 342, 344, 356, 358, 389
Marcus, R. 129, 134
Margoliouth, M. 213, 216, 219, 220,
228
Martin-Achard, R. 47
McKenzie, J. L. 262
McKnight, S. M. 18
McNamara, M. 3, 36, 37, 41, 49, 176,
259, 282, 283, 300, 301, 325, 326, 337,
395
Melamed, E. Z. 69, 75
Metzger, B. M. 93
Migne, J.-P. 282, 318, 333
403
Milgrom, J. 260, 262, 357

Milik, J. T. 317, 382
Milikowsky, Ch. 318
Millar, F. 17, 46, 54, 82, 93, 109, 134,
148, 159, 178, 185, 224, 270, 287, 328,
341, 342, 349, 355
Moore, G. F. 345
Moore, M. S. 36, 56
Muoz Leon, D. 395
Murphy, F. J. 17
Murray, R. 86
Nautin, P. 295
Naveh, J. 263
Nel. P. J. 377
Neusner, J. 35, 65, 81, 105, 235, 236,
238, 240, 249, 253, 301, 365, 387
Newsom, C. 273
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 53, 270, 342
Niehoff, M. 171
Nitzan, B. 48, 262, 271, 272, 273,
274
Nulman, M. 366
Ohana, M. 32, 110, 113, 114, 115, 126,
135, 155, 172, 190, 205, 248
Paret, R. 124
Patai, R. 56, 58, 170
Penna, A. 281, 319
Prez Fernndez, M. 72, 112, 113, 114,
120, 130, 131, 172, 173, 180, 183185,
187, 188, 193, 194, 198, 202209, 213,
218, 249, 257, 263
Perrot, C. 54, 55, 83, 159
Perichon, P. 308
Petit, F. 93
Petuchowski, J. J. 10
Philonenko, M. 65
Potin, J. 167
Poulsen, F. 354, 355
Priest, J. A. 357
Prigent, P. 84
Purvis, J. D. 356
Qimron, E.
252, 254
Rabin, C. 121
Rahlfs, A. 275, 292
Rahmer, M. 302, 319, 323
Ravid, L. 372
Reeves, J. C. 342
Reifman, Y. 264
Reimer, A. M. 264
404
Reinach, T. 230, 231

Reiter, S. 118, 283, 330
Reventlow, H. 89
Rhodes, P. J. 230
Richardson, P. 73
Ringgren, H. 352
Robinson, A. W. 262
Rosenbaum, M. 37, 175, 224, 295,
361
Rouillard, H. 37
Rowland, C. C. 379
Sabatier, P. 292
Salibi, K. 112
Saldarini, A. J. 309
Salvesen, A. 37, 98
Samely, A. 271
Sandevoir, P. 348, 349, 350, 351
Sandmel, S. 52
Sarna, N. A. 361, 363, 377, 388
Sawyer, J. F. A. 294
Schfer, P. 132, 317, 318
Schaper, J. 39, 44, 49
Schnabel, E. J. 344, 346, 350
Schrer, E. 17, 20, 46, 54, 82, 84, 93,
109, 134, 148, 159, 178, 179, 185, 224,
270, 271, 287, 328, 341, 342, 349, 353,
355, 357, 358, 359
Schwartz, J. 28, 168
Seaver, J. E. 301
Segal, A. F. 24, 73, 77, 85
Segal, M. 371, 372
Shaked, S. 263
Sharrett, M. 275
Shinan, A. 4, 7, 97, 110, 114, 126, 127,
131, 134, 137, 140, 141, 144, 146149,
152, 153, 155, 164, 173, 175, 180, 183,
185, 186, 188, 200, 201, 203, 205, 210,
214, 220, 221, 225, 226, 228, 229, 231,
234, 263, 264, 363, 364, 365, 387
Siegfried, C. 305
Silbermann, A. M. 37, 175, 224, 361
Simon, M. 4, 380, 384
Skehan, P. W. 11, 275, 342, 343, 344,
346, 348, 356, 389
Skinner, J. 215, 219
Smolar, L. 301, 313, 315
Sokoloff, M. 264, 317
Sparks, H. F. D. 21, 177, 281, 282, 276,
321, 354
Spawforth, A. 354
Speier, S. 122, 220
Sperber, A. 26, 88, 109, 126, 155, 174,
175, 211, 236, 283, 302, 393
Spiegel, S. 72
Spiro, A. 159
Spitzer, F. 27, 88, 109, 126, 155, 174,
175, 211, 236, 395
Splansky, D.M. 110, 188, 119, 120,
121, 126, 145, 150, 152, 154, 155, 190,
210, 234
Stone, M. E. 53, 342
Strugnell, J. 252, 254
Stummer, F. 283, 298, 302, 319
Swartz, M. D. 262
Swetnam, J. 83
Sykes, S. W. 352
Syrn, R. 39, 41, 104, 109, 121,
347
Sysling, H. 369
Talmon, S. 352
Taradach, M. 365
Temporini, H. 25
Thackeray, H. St. J. 14, 117, 220
Theodor, J. 80, 157, 212, 216, 323
Thompson, S. 221
Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 382
Tonneau, R.-M. 226
Trachtenberg, J. 262
Urbach, E. E.
393
287, 289, 291, 369, 391,
VanderKam, J. C. 20, 370, 398

Van der Woude, A. S. 382
van Uchelen, N. A. 41
Vermaseren, M J. 346
Vermes, G. 4, 7, 36, 37, 43, 46, 52, 54,
72, 82, 93, 109, 124, 127, 128, 130,
134, 148, 155, 159, 160, 178, 179, 185,
190, 210, 224, 227, 234, 255, 270, 284,
287, 290, 296, 300, 308, 328, 337, 341,
342, 349, 355
Versnel, H. S. 46
Vilchez, J. 375
Wacholder, B. Z. 342, 358
Wadsworth, M. 59
Walter, N. 358
Walton, B. 122, 220
Wellhausen, J. 115
Wenham, G. J. 377
Wensinck, A. J. 58, 123
Wernberg-Mller, P. 274
Westermann, C. 363
Whitaker, G. H. 23
Wilken, R. L. 84

Wilkinson, J. 337
Winston, D. 375
Wintermute, O. S. 20, 58, 120, 121,
135, 370, 399
White, R. T. 28, 210, 234
Wolfson, H. A. 35, 52
Wright, B. G. 343, 346, 348, 349
Yadin, Y. 273
Yarbro Collins, A.
Zeitlin, S.
Zeron, A.
Ziegler, J.
Zulay, M.
Zunz, L.
89
159
342
164
146
405
358
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL, RABBINIC, AND PATRISTIC

REFERENCES
Genesis
1:26
1:28
1:29
1:30
2:6
2:7
2:9
2:1012
2:1013
2:11
2:15
2:1617
2:18
2:1920
2:2123
3:17
3:7
3:14
3:16
3:17
3:1719
3:18
3:19
3:23
3:24
3:2425
5:32
4:3
4:5
4:7
4:15
6:5
6:7
6:18
6:19
8:2022
8:21
8:22
9
9:2124
9:22
9:24
9:25
9:26
363
363
361
361
352
221
361
63
61
352
362
362
17879
363
362
362
371
362
362, 370
370
58
69, 362364, 370
362, 362364, 366,
36970
184
369, 372, 372
184
383
150
104
99
101
100
60
383
200
348
100
56
61
6
218
6
6
6
9:2627
9:27
10:8
10:911
10:21
10:10
10:11
10:22
11:2
11:7
11:10
11:1011
11:28
12:13
12:23
12:5
12:7
12:8
13:34
13:16
13:8
14
14:2
14:23
14:5
14:7
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:16
14:1718
14:18
14:1819
14:1820
14:1824
14:19
14:20
14:21
14:22
15
15:2
15:23
15:5
15:6
6, 11
6, 8, 1112
223
224
45
224
224226
386
230
18586
13
14
227
269
381
26, 32
385
385
385
42
385
320, 380, 393
324, 378
321
325
382
383
211, 212, 214, 216,
217, 327
397
15
356
3, 8, 15, 379, 380, 386,
388, 394
331
377, 381, 387
3
390, 392, 394396
379
386
47, 329
78
215, 216
211
41
29
index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

15:12
15:13
15:5
15:15
16:1
16:411
17:1
17:18
17:20
17:23
18:12
18:1115
18:14
18:17
19:21
2021
20:1
20:117
20:118
20:2
21:57
21:821
21:13
21:2232
21:2831
21:33
22
22:1
22:5
22:8
22:914
22:10
22:12
22:14
22:17
22:19
24:2
24:1819
24:28
24:31
24:33
24:42
24:50
24:62
25:5
25:8
25:1315
25:18
25:21
25:22
25:23
25:2526
25:27
103
78
312, 391
392
189, 191
216
187
312
121
214
188
211
397
81
268
20
20
20
25
18
20
21
120
18, 21, 25
27
18, 2023, 2526,
2830, 3233
7273, 76, 78, 169
77
391
77
385
76
79
76
82, 391
5
217
102
220
218
219
222
220
5
116
192
121
117, 120
90
5, 90
91
192
94, 139, 151
25:29
25:31
25:34
26:133
26:25
26:32
27
27:1
27:9
27:12
27:15
27:28
27:2829
27:29
27:40
27:41
28
28:3
28:1122
28:12
28:14
28:16
28:20
28:2022
29:29
28:22
31:19
31:30
31:34
32:7
32:2427
32:2431
33:1
33:5
33:8
35
35:1
35:12
35:2
35:4
35:912
35:10
35:21
37:25
37:28
41:4
38:4
41:7
41:21
45:27
48:16
49
49:8ff.
49:812
192
95
95, 99
23
385
24
97, 134, 139
132
130
135
13839
143
131
97
97
99100
78, 156
166
379
348
42
39
157
157
193
379
219
219
219
100, 104
81
12
100, 104
276
101
160, 169
156
157
160
15960
12
167
170
284
284
39
329
39
29
194
367
122
51
5152
407
408
49:9
49:10
49:15
49:24
49:25
49:26
50:1
39
17475
347
144
143
101, 104,
121
104
Exodus
2:1
2:13
2:24
3:24
4:13
4:22
5:8
7:7
12:13
12:23
12:29
15:16
15:17
17:16
19:3
19:56
19:6
20:22
20:26
20:36
23:5
24:5
25:22
28:1
28:30
28:42
29:42
30:6
30:3233
30:36
32:16
32:35
33:19
30:3438
30:3738
33:20
40:20
197
204
78
69
78
391
39
197
76
7677
397
392
347
275
391
20
13, 167
378
373
351
39
334
348
394
349
373
349
142
351
142
254
254
276
371
351
129
347
Leviticus
8:8
14:8
19:24
26:42
349
197
257
78
Numbers
3:1213
6:23
6:24
6:2426
6:2427
6:25
6:26
6:27
8:1618
10:18
10:33
10:35
10:3536
20:14
16:1
17:4
19:110
19:2
19:4
19:5
19:6
19:7
19:8
19:9
19:10
21:1618
23:3
23:5
23:6
23:710
23:9
23:10
23:15
23:1824
23:19
23:21
23:22
23:24
24:2
24:3
24:39
24:4
24:6
24:7
24:8
24:9
24:15
24:1519
24:17
24:1819
24:19
24:16
27:21
334
391
268, 270
259, 262
391
270, 273
266
276
334
102
346
3940
347
102
329
348
235, 248
239
241
243, 244, 249
244
245
246
246
247
47
37
39
37
36
38, 4041
4142
37
36
42
43
4344
39, 45, 50
37
38
36
37
38
47
43, 50
39, 50
38
36
4849
49
3940
37
349

Deuteronomy
3:11
4:6
7:2
8:3
10:15
10:8
10:17
28:57
20:19
12:10
12:11
16:2
17:12
18:5
20:8
22:15
26:2
27:5
27:6
28:26
32:6
32:8
32:24
33
33:2
33:13
34:1
383
389
276
366
347
365
266
175
212
346
345
345
365
365
21212
218
345
378
377
266
393
186
274
122
101
143
284
Joshua
10:1
388
Judges
9:5ff.
18:29
69
327
1 Samuel
1:17
15:20
15:3233
22:6
31:13
175
275
275
19, 31
19
2 Samuel
6:17
346
1 Kings
8:6
8:12
17:1
18:15
347
345
365
365
2 Kings
5:16
18:1925
18:2835
365
314
314
1 Chronicles
1:17
21:15
23:32
28:2
386
7677
247
347
2 Chronicles
3:1
77
Ezra
9:13
10:2
10:10
10:11
10:14
10:17
10:18
10:1819
10:44
311
305, 310
305, 310
305, 310
305, 310
305, 310
305, 310
311
305, 31011
Psalms
4:1
9:3
9:12
9:13
25:11
29:5
29:10
32:6
36:1112
36:21
50:1
45:13
50:2
58:5
62:11
66:1
67:2
72:17
76:2
76:3
76:9
79:11
78:35
78:6869
87:5
91:56
91:10
91:11
97:89
101:14
110
110:1
110:4
118:27
121:7
276
379
379
276
276
309
276
296
181
276
78
387
78
276
196
276
267
174
335
8, 388
276
7879
378
378
379
267, 272
267, 272
267
379
276
380, 384
37980
3, 377, 380
267
272
409
410
132:8
132:810
136:13
136:24
136:25
145:16
147:1314
346
347
367
367
367
367
265
Proverbs
1:9
2:6
3:13
4:9
6:23
8
8:2
8:8
8:10
8:12
8:22
8:35
9:14
9:5
13:25
23:6
268
341, 349
342
268
267, 355
344, 347
344, 345
349
349
345, 349
389
342, 348
389
389
133
132
Job
28
28:12
28:20
28:1314
28:21
22
23
344, 347
341
341
344
345
344
344
Isaiah
1:21
2:3
2:12
2:13
5:2
15:5
40:3
42:6
43:15
44:27
45:5
46:10
51:2
52:7
57:14
60:12
60:7
66:3
388
343
309
309
293
322
219
356
93
303
276
327
312
122
219
267
117
146
Jeremiah
1:5
2:10
2:15
2:21
3:2
4:7
5:6
5:12
6:7
7:31
7:32
8:22
9:25
14:14
17:11
20:17
20:1418
22:6
22:7
22:19
24:1ff.
31:20
31:3637
32:35
49:7
288, 292
283
296
293
284
296
297
286
292
146
146
285
284
295
293, 299
291, 299
288
284
295
296
297
296
299
146
176
Ezekiel
5:5
16:6
38:12
58
189
58, 352
Daniel
2:44
2:19
2:30
2:47
4
4:9
4:18
4:31
4:33
7:10
7:14
9:17
11:45
12:3
94
355
355
355
363
367
367
363
363
365
94
276
31
176
Hosea
6:4
11:8
11:9
296
296, 390
296
Joel
3:5
29

Micah
5:1
174
Nahum
1:110
1:23
1:1011
2:37
314
312, 313, 315
316
316
Zechariah
1:8
3
3:2
3.35
3:4
6:5
6:12
11:1
11:12
14:9
14:1617
14:1619
304
308
306
304, 316
306
308, 315
308
309
308, 315
22
56
22
Malachi
1:64
2:11
2:1115
2:1317
2:15
3:1
357
310
311
305
315
219
Qumran
1QH
8.420
11.27
1QM
17.58
17.9
1QS
2.24
2.3
2.59
8.111
11.79
1QSb
4Q252
4Q403
1.1.21
4Q405
13.5
4Q510
1.56
4Q511
4851
4Q510511
58
273
2723
273
271, 273, 278
272, 273
274
58
58
271
1112
273
273
272
272
272
4QFlor
1.6
1.67
4QMMT
Frag.
11QBer
12
11QJub
5
8.45
11QMelch
l.17
16
11QPsa
11QTemp
Frag.
1 QapGen
21.2
21.20
20.12
20.3032
21.2
21.20
22.6
22.13
22.14
22.1415
143
351
252, 257
271
270
270
122
381, 383,
399
272
253
385
385
385
191
385
385
212
9, 335,
385
385, 388
386
LXX Exodus
30:6
30:36
349
349
LXX Numbers
19:3
240
LXX Deuteronomy
12:9
34647
1 Reigns
22:6
31:13
19
19
Peshitta
Gen 14:14
212
Tg. Onq.
Genesis
3:5
3:17
9:26
10:21
12:5
12:33
14:5
181
183
6
5
31
3233
325
411
412

14:18
14:19
14:20
21:33
25:23
25:28
25:31
27:13
27:20
27:29
27:40
27:41
27:42
28:3
28:17
34:31
35:2
35:8
35:11
37:25
48:4
49:26
393
393
15
26
91
95
95
136
139
145
148
149
150
166
348
158
157
163
165
284
166
122
Exodus
3:1
3:6
12:5
15:2
15:7
25:3
29:1
195
195
236
44
44
364
236
Leviticus
1:3
1:10
4:3
4:23
4:28
4:32
8:2
236
236
236
236
236
236
254
Numbers
20:14
20:18
20:21
23:19
23:21
24:2
24:3
24:7
24:9
24:15
24:1819
102
102
102
42
43
37
37
48
51
37
102
Deuteronomy
1:1
256
26:7
28:57
33:15
Tg. Neof.
Genesis
2:15
2:19
3:5
3:15
3:17
3:18
3:19
3:22
4:2
4:7
9:26
9:27
10:21
11:1
11:31
12:5
14:3
14:14
14:18
14:19
14:20
15:1
15:7
15:12
16:5
17:6
21:9
21:33
22:1
22:8
22:10
22:14
24:62
25:1
25:18
25:21
25:22
25:23
25:25
25:27
25:28
25:29
25:31
25:33
25:34
27:12
91
175
41
68, 362
395
181
98, 366
183
364
368
68, 178
104
99
6
67
5
395
227
31
321
212
3, 394
15
15, 395
102
227
103
227, 232
166
112
30, 3234,
375
395
139
74, 129
81
3, 14
191
116
105
3, 15, 90, 394
91, 104
94
15, 95, 104,
147
95
95
105
95, 105
96, 104, 192
135

27:13
27:15
27:20
27:28
27:29
27:33
27:40
27:41
27:46
28:3
28:14
28:17
31:47
32:3
32:7
33:1
33:8
33:18
34:31
35:2
35:8
35:9
35:11
35:18
45:12
48:4
48:22
49:1
49:2
49:9
49:15
49:17
49:21
49:26
50:1
136
137
139
143
91, 97, 14445
147
9799, 1034, 366
100101, 104
151
166
42
348
395
101
100101
100
100, 103
95
158
157
163
16465, 171
166
395
395
166
13738
39
101, 104
51
347
150
202
41
101, 104
Exodus
3:1
3:4
3:6
4:19
15:1
15:3
15:7
15:13
15:18
19:3
30:13
35:15
195
395
195
203
44
44
44
44
44
196
364
364
Leviticus
10:6
19:3
22:27
26:37
96
96
95
149
Numbers
12:14
12:16
15:2021
20:21
23:7
23:9
24:1
24:3
24:4
24:7
24:9
24:15
24:24
103
102
364
103
37
4041
256
37, 39
37
48
5051
37
102
Deuteronomy
1:1
2:23
6:4
32:14
32:30
33:2
256
285
101, 104
366
366
104
Isaiah
21:1617
118
FTP
Genesis
2:15
3:17
3:18
3:19
10:9
11:2
15:12
14:18
16:5
21:9
21:33
22:8
22:10
22:14
24:62
25:1
25:22
25:34
27:15
27:27
27:29
27:40
27:41
32:3
34:31
35:8
35:9
68, 362
183
364
368
14
224
103
3
232
112
30, 3334, 375
139
74, 129
81
3, 13
191
15, 90
96, 192
137
141
97, 14445
97, 148
100, 149
101
158
163
16465
413
414

35:11
48:4
48:22
49:15
49:17
49:21
49:26
50:1
166
166
13738
347
150
202
41
101
Exodus
15:1
15:2
15:3
15:11
15:13
17:12
19:3
44
44
44
44
44
41
196
Numbers
23:9
23:10
23:22
24:4
24:8
24:1819
4041
42
44
37
44
102
Deuteronomy
26:7
33:15
34:3
91
41
324
Psalms
120:5
118
FTV
Genesis
2:15
3:17
3:18
10:9
11:2
12:5
14:18
15:12
16:5
21:33
22:8
22:10
22:14
24:62
25:1
25:22
25:34
27:15
27:27
362
183
364
14
224
31
3
103
232
30, 3334,
375
140
74, 129
81
3, 14
191
15, 90
96, 192
137
141
27:29
27:40
32:3
34:31
35:8
35:9
35:11
48:4
48:22
49:1
49:17
49:2
50:1
97, 14445
97
101
158
163
16465
166
166
13738
39
150
202
101
Exodus
15:1
15:2
15:3
15:11
15:16
19:3
44
44
44
44
44
196
Numbers
20:21
23:9
23:10
23:22
24:3
24:4
24:6
24:8
24:1819
102
4041
42
44
39
37
295
44
102
Deuteronomy
26:7
34:3
91
324
Psalms
120:5
118
Isaiah
21:1617
118
Tg. Ps-J.
Genesis
1:21
2:7
2:15
2:15
3:5
3:6
3:7
3:14
3:17
3:18
3:19
17778
221
68, 362
362
181
180
199
362
183
364
368

3.21
3:22
3:23
4:1
4:2
4:3
6:16
6.20
8:20
8:22
9:26
9:27
10:8
10:9
10:11
10:21
11:7
11:8
11:28
11.31
12:3
12:5
13:10
14:1
14:2
14.3
14:5
14:8
14:9
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:18
14:19
14:20
15:2
15:7
15:12
16
16:1
16:23
16:5
16:11
16:12
17:3
17:6
17:16
17:18
17:20
17:25
17:26
18:13
18:24
18:2830
199
178
184
18182
185
199
64
200
59, 369
56
6
7
223
224
225, 226, 230
5
18586
187
114, 227
227
260
31
324
229
324
321, 383
325
324
229
218, 383, 396
211
397
3, 332
6, 15
15
215
227
1034
114
190
111
111, 114, 227, 231
190
119
18788
166
166
122
12122
122
122, 187
136
324
324
18:15
19:14
19:2223
19:30
21
21:9
21:921
21:10
21:11
21:13
21:14
21:15
21:16
21:21
21:33
22:1
22:3
22:10
22:19
24:2
24:31
24:33
24:55
24.61
24:62
25:1
25:4
25:8
25:11
25:13
25:16
25:18
25:22
25:23
25:27
25:29
25:31
27
27:1
27:5
27:6
27:9
27:11
27:12
27:13
27:15
27:16
27:20
27:25
27:27
27:28
27:29
415
136
136
324
324
111
112, 114, 135
11011, 172
112, 114
11314
118
111, 113
112, 114
114
109110, 124, 204
26, 2829, 3334,
375
12324, 216
216, 240
74, 129
14, 333
183, 215, 217
218
219
220
222
3, 14, 333
120, 19091
116
111, 114
145
118, 284
116, 121
116117
15, 90
91
139, 231
9596, 192
95
111, 128, 130, 15153
56, 1289, 131, 136
132, 149, 151
132
133, 151
130, 134, 151
135, 187
136, 151, 153
13738, 151, 154
56
139, 151
13940, 147, 151
141, 151
143
97, 120, 14445, 148,
15354
416
27:31
27:33
27:35
27:40
27:41
27:42
27:45
27:46
28:11
28:17
28:20
29:24
29:29
30:18
31:4
31:19
31:32
33:5
33:11
34:31
35
35:115
35:2
35:3
35:4
35:5
35:7
35:8
35:9
35:11
35:14
35:22
35:28
36:43
37:2
37:25
37:28
38:6
38:23
38:24
39:14
39:17
41:1433
41:45
46:27
49:1
49:2
49:10
49:15
49:17
49:21
49:26
50:1
50.13
14647, 151, 153

146, 151, 153
147, 151
14748, 153
100, 14849, 154
132, 149, 151, 153
140, 150, 151
151
379
348
157
193
193
263
202
206
206
265
265
158
156, 168
156, 171
15657, 162
157
157, 162
1612
156
163
16364, 171
163, 165, 167
163, 168
145
142
118
193
284
198
9, 333
136
9
135
135
265
265
197
39
145
17475
148, 347, 366
150
202
41, 12022
101, 111
202
Exodus
2:1
2:13
3:1
3:5
3:6
4:19
5:9
9:29
9:33
10:23
10:29
12:3
12:5
12:13
14:24
15:1
15:2
15:3
15:11
15:16
15:18
19:3
19:7
19:16
22:7
22:10
24:5
24:12
26:8
28:30
29:1
32:8
32:6
32:18
33:16
33:19
35:27
39:37
40:4
40:5
Leviticus
1:3
1:10
3:1
3:6
4:3
4:23
4:28
4:32
8:2
9:2
9:3
197
204
195
195
195
203
263
260
260
263
203
239
236
189
131
44
44
44
44
44
44
196
195
204
263
263
334
196, 208
2728
6364, 265
236
28
135
135
167
265
63
176
17577
142, 263,
351
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
254
255
255

9:7
14:8
14:32
14:57
14:54
15:32
16:4
22:27
24:1011
26:37
Numbers
2:10
6:13
6:21
6:23
6:24
6:2426
6:25
6:26
7:87
7:88
11:22
16:2526
19:2
19:4
19:5
19:6
19:7
19:8
19:9
19:10
19:18
19:19
19:20
20:21
21:14
22:5
22:8
23:7
23:9
23:24
24:2
24:3
24:6
24:15
24:1819
28:15
31:8
Deuteronomy
1:1
4:10
4:44
255
197
236
236
236
236
255
140, 14243
198
149
25556
236
236
26061
267, 272, 274
259
264, 26768
265
121
262
117
204
2357, 239, 250,
253
24142
243
244, 249
245
246, 263
242, 246, 253, 254
24748
254
254
254
102
14950
207
264
37
41
46
37
37, 39, 188
295
37
102, 118
198
207
256
263
236
15:4
15:7
18:14
19:11
22:26
24:3
25:10
26:7
27:14
28:50
29:5
29:28
30:20
32:4
32:8
32:89
32:1925
32:24
32:31
33:2
33:15
34:3
34:6
263
263
167
150
150
27
27
91
27
265
263
265
263
263
186
185
274
263, 2745
260
121
41
324
164, 184
Tg. 2 Kings
19:23
295
Tg. Isaiah
21:1617
33:6
33:21
34:14
37:24
118
286
286
263
295
Tg. Jeremiah
2:11
2:13
2:15
3:2
4:7
5:12
9:25
13:22
14:14
17:11
20:17
20:18
22:6
22:7
27:5
31:6
31:20
31:356
33:25
286
286
296, 311
283
296
286, 298
284
295
295
294, 298
288, 298
290
284, 298
295
296
286n.28, n.31
296, 298
301
299, 301
417
418
47:4
48:2627
285
313
Tg. Minor Prophets

Hosea
8:3
286
Joel
2:21
286
Zephaniah
3:7
286
Micah
5:1
6:3
7:20
174
286
286
Nahum
1:2
1:23
1:3
1:10
1:11
2:37
31213
315
313
314
314
315
Malachi
1:1
2:15
310
312
Zechariah
3:3
3:4
3:5
6:5
9:12
304, 306
304
305
315
286
Tg. Psalms
95:11
120:5
121:6
347
118
264
Tg. Job
5:7
264
Tg. Song
3:7
4:6
8:3
262
264
264
Tg. Esther
3:7
Tg. 1 Chronicles
1:30
178
116
Matthew
4:811
12:2429
18:6
26:24
26:28
26:61
27:42
87
87
288
288
74
359
86
Mark
3:2227
8:3133
14:58
87
87
359
Luke
10:1720
19:4142
22:3
87
86
87
John
2:20
6:5356
8:3145
8:56
13:27
19:34
359
74
182
86
87
74
Acts
20:28
74
Romans
3:25
4:3
4:1012
4:11
5:9
10:13
10:915
74
29
187
29
74
29
28
1 Corinthians
1:24
1:30
10:1422
11:25
359
359
74
74
Galatians
3:6
29
Ephesians
1:7
74
Colossians
2:3
359

Hebrews
7:1
7:13
7:2
7:3
7:4
9:12
9:14
10:19
10:29
13:12
13:20
4
3
9
380
15
74
74
74
74
74
74
1 Peter
1:19
74
1 John
1:7
3:812
74
182
Revelation
1:5
5:9
74
74
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Apocalypse of Baruch
29.4
177
Apocalypse of Moses
20.12
65
26.23
362
29.16
67
29.36
59
Baruch
3:22
3:3638
176
396
2 Baruch
4:3
5657
1 Enoch
18:6
26:14
38:2
39:7
60
60:20
60:24
89:12
89:73
106:5
354
353
288
176
56
131
178
89
357
183
2 Enoch
6:1
31:1
131
362
2 Esdras
4:30
182
4 Esdras
6:810
9293
Jubilees
3:21
3:22
3:23
3:25
3:2627
3:27
3:2831
3:30
4:2526
4:33
6:13
8:12
8:1221
8:18
8:19
8:21
7:11
7:16
7:20
7:34
7:37
8:1521
8:19
10:14
10:1826
10:23
11:713
11:8
11:15
11:16
12
12:16
12:67
12:1213
12:1214
12:1215
371
371
371
183, 371
58, 67, 269, 371
184
372
372
10
5, 14
10
353
333
10
10, 12, 353
353
6
10
11
11
11
5
58
5, 10
226
186
270
228
14
89
271
269
271
228
228
269
419
420
12:16
12:1713:4
12:2526
12:2527
12:27
12:29
13:89
13:2427
13:25
13:2527
14:1020
15:20
15:2532
16:1011
16:1017:14
16:1214
16:1214
16:1531
16:18
16:1931
16:2031
16:2023
16:25
16:2526
16:26
16:31
17:114
17:1518:3
17:16
19:1314
19:27
20:1213
21:710
21:12
22:5
23:17
24:833
26:78
26:35
27:1
27:6
28:9
30:117
30:1820
3132
31:2
31:520
31:530
31:29
32:117
32:339
32:1819
35:810
35:838:10
269
32
269
372
89, 269
26970
269
399
212, 399
15
269
121
398
20
20
20
20
20
20
269
21, 33
21
22
21
22
21
21
21
87
89
11
11920
10
217
74
192
23
135
150
149
151
193
196
169
168
157
169
169
157
13
168
166
99
89
35:11
45:16
13
10
1 Maccabees
1:1115
1:20
2:23
12:2
12:68
14:1623
373
357
271
355
355
355
2 Maccabees
4:1117
5:9
6:19
6:7
373
355
271
23
3 Maccabees
4:1
2:4
355
396
4 Maccabees
13:22
18:9
130
182
Psalms of Solomon
11:7
286
17:44
286
18:6
286
Sibylline Oracles
5.250
353
Sirach
14:7
16:7
16:25
18:19
19:25
22:19
24:2
24:3
24:4
24:46
24:56
24:6
24:7
24:78
24:827
24:8
24:9
24:10
24:11
24:12
355
396
355
355
355
355
343
352
34344
346
343
351
343, 346
346
58
343, 351
355
343, 347, 351
343, 346, 351
343, 347

24:13
24:14
24:20
24:23
24:2527
24:27
24:32
24:33
27:6
34:10
36:117
36:24
36:59
36:11
36:1215
36:18
36:2223
38:33
39:4
39:8
39:1314
42:16
43:9
44:1923
45:10
45:17
49:16
50:7
50:8
50:10
50:12
50:14
50:1617
50:2021
50:2324
50:2526
50:26
Tobit
1:67
1:1618
4:12
4:1617
12:13
14:5
351
351
346
343, 346
351
355
355
355
355
354
275
276
276
276
276
347
275
355
354
355
143, 351
355
355
78
349
355
11, 68
355
352
352
352
379
379
276
276
352
169, 356
379
165
165
165
165
357
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs

Levi
7:14
169
Zabulon
3:2
198
Naphtali
1:9
1:11
3:24
5:18
193
193
202
202
Gad
1:6
2:3
195
198
Wisdom of Solomon
7:1
55
7:1819
176
10:1
55
14:6
396
16:2628
374
18:24
12
Philo
Cong.
93
98
99
129
15
334
15
89
De Abr.
56
67
23033
167
32
214
De Agr.
79
81
45
45
De Conf. Ling.
16875
186
De Dec.
49
41
De Ebr.
104121
47
De Fuga et Inv.
24
149
De Gig.
78
66
41
223
De Mig. Abr.
39
153
38
135
421
422
De Op. Mundi
132
40
144
41
De Plant.
12
7389
75
41
2324
19
De Sacr.
34
4
1418
6364
64
118120
135
99
89
99
130
99
334
99
De Sobr.
13
5155
5167
5658
62
63
65
6566
66
6768
47
11
11
11
12
12
12
167, 333
13
13
De Virt.
80
41
Jos
265
Leg. All.
1.3
3.79
3.88
36
9, 11
92, 94
Leg. ad Gaium
54
40
Quaest. in Exod.
1.79
176
2.103
176
Quaest. in Gen.
2.5
2.7576
2.82
4.147
4.157
36
11
225
191
94
4.200
4.214
133
142
Quis Rerum
86ff.
42
221
41
347
176
Spec. Leg.
1.172
3.36
4.14
4.69
25
40
41
70
Vit. Con.
1013
8488
89
90
46
47
47
47
Vit. Mos.
1.65
1.68
1.23949
1.26465
1.277
1.278
1.27879
1.279
1.282
1.283
1.28384
1.284
1.287
1.288
1.289
1.28991
1.290
1.29091
1.291
2.5965
2.1023
2.104
2.12425
2.13335
69
69
89
36
36
40
36, 46
36, 40
45
36, 42
36, 45
36, 4345, 50
46
36, 51
36, 38
36
4344, 48
50
50
62
176
25
25
12
Josephus
Ant.
1.50
1.11314
1.177
1.180
1.183
1.248
362
223, 225
330
385
216
220

1.327
1.333
1.345
1.15457
1.16668
1.180
1.181
1.207212
1.21314
1.220
1.270
2.91
3.62
3.123
3.21518
4.7677
4.79
13.421
13.173
14
14.53
14.11213
16.18
18.28
101
331
163
32
26
8, 9, 11
15
25
26
11617
135
265
195
176
64
102
238
230
287
231
230
230
230
330
Apion
1.2936
11
War
1.138
2.164
3.52
3.509ff.
5.217
6.10
6.437
6.438
230
287
353
330
176
335
8
9, 11
Pseudo-Philo
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
1.1
185
1.12
55
3.2
56
3.3
60
3.4
60
3.8
60
3.10
60
4.5
61
4.7
224
6
6.418
6.16
6.17
7.4
11
11.1
11.15
12.1
13
13.1
13.23
13.47
13.7
13.8
13.89
13.10
15
16.2
18.56
19.6
19.10
19.11
19.16
22.89
25.5
25.8
25.10
25.11
25.12
26.24
26.4
26.6
26.13
26.1415
28.3
28.89
32.1
32.14
32.3
32.7
32.8
32.15
33.3
37.3
40.2
46.1
47.2
53.8
22829
227
67
22829
26
55
65
67
65
55
55, 67
55
55
56
56
57, 63
57
55
62
82
65
61
61
65
70
70
159
159
62, 64
62
63
63
6263
64
64
69
65
67
83
85
66
66
6667
65
69
83
70
70
65
423
424

Rabbinic Texts
Mishnah
Ab. 2.8
Ab. 2.9
Ab. 5.9
Hag. 13a
Hag. 2.1
Meg. 1.8
Meg. 4.10
Meg. 11a
Men. 5.5
Nid. 20.6
Ned. 3.11
Neg. 3.11
Neg. 14.8
Par. 1.1
Par. 2.1
Par. 2.3
Par. 2.4
Par. 2.5
Par. 3.3
Par. 3.7
Par. 3.78
Par. 3.8
Par. 3.9
Par. 3.10
Par. 3.11
Par. 4.1
Par. 4.3
Par. 4.4
Par. 7.9
Par. 10.3
Pes. 6.3
Pes. 94b
Sanh. 4.5
Sanh. 5
Sheq. 4.2
Sot. 7.6
Sot. 7.78
Sukk. 4.910
Sukk. 4.9
Tam. 2.3
Tam. 2.5
Tam. 7.2
Tam. 7.3
Yom. 3.9
Yom. 4.1
Yom. 7.1
Yom. 7.8
Zab. 14:4
134
135
264
224, 229
288, 390
8
259
224
81
261
380, 384
187
197
237
236, 238
238
238
237n.9
247
240
252
240
24142
243
247
239, 241, 253
240
244, 246, 248, 253
253
247
133
224
178
286
236
260
257
56
168
217, 240
240
260
257
257
257
257
241
334
Tosefta
Par. 1.1
2367
Par. 2.4
Par. 3.78
Par. 3.9
Par. 3.10
Par. 3.14
Par. 4.6
Par. 4.11
Par. 7.6
Par. 7.20
Par. 9.5
Pes. 5.3
Qid. 1.2
Yom. 2.12
Jerusalem Talmud
A.Z. 2.40
A.Z. 7.5.4
Ab. Z. 1.2
Ber. 1:5.3
Ber. 2:5
Hor. 3:2
Hor. 3:3
Hor. 47c
Hor. 12a
Ker. 5b
Mak. 2:7
Mak. 32a
Meg. 1.11
Meg. 1.12
Meg. 1.9.10
Meg. 75c.39
Naz. 7.2
Ned. 1.1
Ned. 39b
Qid. 4.1.16
Shab. 1.5.3
Shab. 2.5
Shab. 6.4.22
Shab. 13.4.14
Sheq. 6.1.49c
Sot. 8.3.22c
Taan. 2.1.65a
Taan. 2.5.4
Taan. 3.3.13
Yoma. 6.3.30
Yoma. 7.3
238
252
242
241
247
239241
246
253
244
247
133
284
349
288
15859
149
288
253
349
349
349
349
349
349
349
9, 13738
347
8
259
185
157
174
284
288
65
306
288
349
349
349
81
284
309
64
Babylonian Talmud
A.Z. 2b
A.Z. 3a
A.Z. 5a
A.Z. 8a
9293
227
203
59

A.Z. 53b
B.B. 16b
B.B. 63a
B.B. 74b75a
B.B. 78b
B.B. 119b20a
B.B. 130a
B. Met. 59a
B.Q. 17a
Bek. 4b
Bek. 55a
Ber. 6a
Ber. 20b
Ber. 43b
Ber. 61a
Er. 13b
Er. 18b
Er. 53a
Hul. 29b
Hul. 60b
Hul. 89b
Hul. 91b
Hul. 92a
Hul. 105b
Hul. 141a
Ket. 67b
Meg. 3a
Meg. 9b
Meg. 10a
Meg. 15a
Meg. 25b
Men. 26b27a
Men. 110a
Moed. Qat. 7b
Moed. Qat. 15b
Ned. 31a
Ned. 32a
Ned. 32ab
Ned. 32b
Ned. 39b
Ned. 64b
Nid. 31a
Nid. 61a
Nid. 80b
Pes. 54a
Pes. 54ab
Pes. 114b
Pes. 118a
Qid. 29b
Ros. Hash. 16a
Ros. Hash. 17b
Ros. Hash. 26a
Sab. 33
225
192, 219
95
178
303
197
183
288
347
334
330
264
266
288, 351
221
288
263
224, 229
246
198
225
183, 222
93
264
197
288
261
78
347
310
259
242
143, 351, 362
197
197
284
213, 217
380
910, 332, 387,
397
58, 393
204
37
383
266
174, 393
264
133
227, 370
264
81
266
255
95
Sanh. 32a
Sanh. 38a
Sanh. 38b
Sanh. 46b
Sanh. 89a
Sanh. 93a
Sanh. 95a
Sanh. 95ab
Sanh. 105a
Sanh. 108b
Sanh. 109b
Shab. 10b
Shab. 28b
Shab. 87a
Shab. 88a
Shab. 146a
Shev. 9a
Sot. 10a
Sot. 10ab
Sot. 10b
Sot. 12a
Sot. 14a
Sot. 13a
Sot. 33b
Sot. 46a
Taan. 4b
Tam. 29b
Yeb. 103b
Yom. 9b
Yom. 21b
Yom. 28b
Yom. 39b
Yom. 42a
Yom. 42b
Yom. 43a
Yom. 52b
Yom. 72b
Yom. 73b
Yom. 75a
Zeb. 113b
Zeb. 115b
Zeb. 119a
Aggadath Bereshith
42
425
135
362
185
184
87
303, 304, 306, 307
222, 222
193
37, 207
64, 389
202
323
59
196
204
182
198
3031
375
288
184
184
202
261
238
56, 131
217
182
8
349
217, 219, 219
309
240, 253
23941, 243
246
349
255
64
63
383
334
347
13738, 144
Mekhilta de R. Ishmael
Pisha
5.810
189
7.7082
75
11.8596
75, 77
11.92
76
19.89
292
426
Besh.
7.7278
179
Shirta
8.3441
9.11826
196
392
Amalek
1.11618
2.44
2.8587
3.106ff.
41
309
284
187
Bahodesh
2.67
3.3334
3.12330
7.61
11.8092
196
204
196
196
378
Sifra
Mekh. de Milluim
Exod 32.35 254
Lev 8.2
254
Shemini
Lev 9.2
Lev 9.7
255
255
Qedoshim
3.7
217
Mesora
1.12
244
Sifre Numbers
39
40
41
42
52
102
123
124
123124
134
260, 261, 266

266, 270
267, 268, 270
196, 266, 268, 270
347
196
236242
243248
253
309
Sifre Zutta
Num 19.2
Num 19.4
Num 19.5
Num. 19.6
Num 19.9
237, 253
24142
253
244
246, 247, 253
Sifre Deuteronomy
5
288
6
285
28
32
41
66
110c
255
309
352
357
Midrash Rabbah
Genesis Rabbah
1.4
7.4
11.9
12.6
14.23
14.4
14.5
14.89
14.9
16.56
19.5
20.12
20.22
20.24
20:26
21.3
22.23
22.4
23.7
26.3
30.6
34.9
36.8
37.4
37.9
38.13
39.21
42/43.2
42.4
42.5
42.6
42.7
42.78
42.8
43.7
43.711
42.7
43.6
43.7
43.8
43.9
43.10
285
17, 31
185, 362
347
288
264
393
141
285
174
17778
177
65
221
221
221
185
362
185, 362
181
138, 199
367
370
368
179
185
199
223
389
389
59, 396
8
22526
5
22729
31
21213
229
321
326
327, 328
396
329
392, 394
387
383
8, 332
384386, 390
15, 390
390
391

44:9
45.1
46.4
46.5
47.8
47.10
47.11
49.6
49.21
50.21
51.4
53.10
53.11
54.6
54.7
56.3
56.7
56.9
56.10
59.8
59.9
59.10
60.2
60.7
60.12
61.4
63.7
63.11
63.12
63.13
63.14
65.15
65.22
65.16
66.4
67.2
67.7
67.8
67.9
68.7
68.8
69.7
70.4
74.13
75.9
79.4
8185
81.1
81.4
81.8
82.4
84.7
90.4
97.6
21516
190, 231
187
284
187, 386, 390
391
391
202, 232
202
266
197
211
112
375
3132
74
80, 84, 86
8081, 84, 8687
81
21819
218
183, 222
218
219
220, 221
120, 191
92
96
192
231
96
135, 137
141, 147
139, 231
144, 147
14647
99
149
132
93
379
379
157
193
100, 104
222
164
157
159
163
166
194
265
138
98.12
99.10
99.22
Exodus Rabbah
1.1
1.29
1.9
1.19
1.28
2.7
5.4
28.2
28.3
29.9
30.5
33.8
40.1
427
347
347
297
112
204
69
197
197
69
203
196
334
297
286
63
288
Leviticus Rabbah
9.9
268, 270
13.5
297
18.2
137
19.2
286
16.3
255
18.2
269
22.8
149
22.10
178
25.6
332
26.2
216
26.6
284
26.7
216
27.11
100
28.4
213
29.7
81
34.2
198
35.5
288
Numbers Rabbah
1.25
211
4.6
74
4.8
9, 13738, 269, 322,
334
8.4
284
9.7
286
11.7
196
13.20
197
11.10
260, 261, 266
11.1011
261
11.11
260
11.13
266268, 270
11.14
268, 270
11.1415
266
13.13
255
14.4
69
14.12
189
428

14.18
15.7
17.2
19.1
19.6
19.32
22.5
262
176
81
246
327
383
207
Deuteronomy Rabbah
1.35
396
Song Rabbah
1.1.12
1.9.2
5.1
7.14.1
8.9
28
179
286
298
349
Ecclesiastes Rabbah
9.7.1
81, 216
Lamentations Rabbah
Proem 1
297
4.19
306
33
166
Esther Rabbah
Proem 5
297
9.2
303
Aboth de R. Nathan
1
181
2
332
7
31
7
375
8
219
20
204
37
174
41
349
42.117
362
Aggadat Bereshith
42
66
68
71
9
80
219
80
Mekh. R. Simeon b. Yohai

45
75, 78
Bes. 17.14
285
Midr. Abkir
Gen 3.21
138
Midr. Aggadah
1.23
112
332
347
Midr. Ha-Gadol
Gen 21:33
1.187
31
332
Pesiq. de R. Kah.
1.2
3.1
8.2
13.1
14
23
26.3
27
27.9
29
116b
129
69
163
213
297
206
81
80
81
303
93
206
286
Pesiq. Rab.
3.4
7.2
12.4
23/24.2
26.1/2
28.4
33
34.13
40
47
50.6
51.2
166
180
163
138
290
286
229
286
74, 8081, 87
81
378
303
Pirqe de R. Eli.
3.2
7.2
8.2
9.3
10.3
11.1
11.3
12.1
12.2
12.4
13.1
13.3
14.2
14.6
16.3
17.1
19.3
20.1
21.1
23.1
23.2
174
175
74, 332
177
178
17778
225
362
17880
65
180
18081
199
183
183, 213, 218, 222
184
196
184
18283, 185, 199
64, 200
383

24.2
24.4
24.5
26.2
27.1
27.2
29
29.1
29.4
30
30.1
30.2
30.3
30.4
31.2
31.3
32
32.4
35.1
35.2
36.3
36.4
38.4
39.1
39.3
40
40.2
41.1
41.6
46.1
48.4
48.5
Sefer Ha-Yashar
31.41
82.6
13738, 269
185
13839, 151, 231
190
218
213, 216, 330
284
187
189
111
111, 11314
112
204
120, 191
74, 191, 216
59, 72, 74
56, 132
129, 13034, 136,
14344, 151
192
379
193
206
19394, 198
198
202
69
195, 203
195
196
197, 203
204
198
206
204
Tanhuma
Bereshith
18
65
Noah
14
31
Lekh Lekah
8
12
15
321, 327
31, 33
332
Wayera
3
1213
22
23
46
222
206
8687
75, 79, 81
81
Hayye Sarah
9
191
Toledoth
8
9
10
11
12
16
22
67
129
13738
132
147
138
144
141
13738
Wayetze
11
347
Shemot
14
69
Tzav
13
203
Shallah
14
81
Ahare
3
75
Bemidbar
6
203, 229
Naso
2
286
Huqqat
11
2627
327
247
Tetze
17
294
Haazinu
12
375
Shir Ha-Shirim Zutta

3.8
137
Shir. R.
4.11
147
Wayyislah
8
157
Yalqut Shimoni
1.59
Gen 27
Gen 34
Gen 35
Gen 130
Gen 162
80
199
180
182, 199
206
203
429
430
Exod 284
196
Jer 17.11
294
Proverbs 1047 220
Rashi
Gen. 34:2
Ep.
63.4
De Spir.
2.51
3
3
360
In Psalmum XXXIX Enarratio

12
81
Aphrahat
Dem.
5.22
Aristotle
Hist. Anim.
9.8
Athanasius
Ad Afros
2
Festal Epistle
6:89
1 Clement
31.232.2
46.8
Augustine
Contra Mendacium
10.4
137
De Civ.
16.5
186
Enarratio in Ps.
51.5
74
Epistle
245.2
162
Quaestionum S. Augustini in
Heptateuchem
1.111
162
Cyprian
De Bono Poenitentiae
10
74
118
Diogenes Laertius
8.8
355
295
Ephraim Syrus
Camina Nisibena
72.3
74
Adv. Marcionem
3.8
84
213
Hymns on the Church
11.3
85
84
Hymns on Virginity
8.16
74
169
288
Clement of Alexandria
Clementine Recognitions
2.42
186
Stromateis
1.5
4.25
6.11
6.17
158
Church Fathers and Classical Authors

Ambrose
De Abr.
1.3:20
74
1.8:71
74
1.8:72
74
1.8:75
74
1.8:7778
81
De Sacr.
4.10
5.1
De Bono Poenitentiae
10
74
335
3
213
186
Epiphanius
Adv. Haer.
2.1.6
2.1.55
2.6.35
333
333
15
Panarion Haer.
9.2.4
160
Epistle of Barnabas
4:78
257

8:9
9:8
13
14:16
213
214
93
257
Eusebius
PE 9.17
9.22
356
169
Gregory Nazianzus
Oratario xlv In Sanctum Pascha
12
81
Herodotus
Hist.
2.14
Irenaeus
Adv. Haer.
1.30.9
3.5.3
Dem.
21
19
182
6
6
Jerome
Adversus Ioann. Hier.
7
283
Comm. in Aggaeum
2.1618
320
Comm. in Danielem
2.4.4
320
Comm. Ep. Galatians
2.469
123
Comm. in Jesaiam
5.14.1213
320
5.14.1820
320
5.15.5
322
6.15.39
32324
17.60.67
325
21.1112
105
60.7
11718
Comm. in Hieremiam
1.50
11819
1.95
297
1.98
287
2.3
292
2.72
296
2.84
284
3.22
3.75
4
4.28
4.36
4.39
4.47
5.2
6.21
6.2728
295
29495
282
29192
285, 295
296
296
29798
296
299
Comm. in Hiezchielem
5.16.55
320
7.25.811
320
8.27.19
330
8.27.19
330
Comm. in Osee
2.10.2
320
Ep.
66.7
73
73.2
108.11
122.1
74
189, 33334
15
324
324
In Sophoniam
2:811 324
Prefaces to Tobit and Judith
col. 25
282
Quaest. Heb. in Gen.
3:18
33536
3:24
184
9:27
8
11:28
336
12:4
336
14:23
336
14:18
15
14:1819
336, 383
15:16
322
16:12
119
19:30
324, 336
21:9
115
22:20
336
24:49
336
25:1
120
25:16
191
25:18
117
27:15
33536
31:21
327
32:2829
331
431
432
37:36
41:43
41:45
46:2627
336
336
336
327
John Chrysostom
Adv. Jud.
1.7
258
45
258
De Laz. Conc.
5.5
74
Homily
59.4
162
Justin Martyr
Apology
1.65
Dial. Trypho
11.5
19.24
19.4
28.25
116
116.3
135
139.23
Melito of Sardis
Frag. 9
Frag. 10
291
291
Homily
17.1
17.2
5.17
Frag. 3
Frag. 22
295
295
296
297
298
In Genesim Homilia
8.6
74
Plato
Apology
5
355
Laws
355
189
Republic
11
189
189
3
189
307
258
93
6
74
81
Origen
Comm. in Joh.
3
3
De Princ.
1.7.14
3.3.5
3.4.2
3.3.10
291
291
355
Plutarch
Life of Romulus
16
45
Procopius of Gaza
Comm. in Gen.
35.2
160
Tertullian
Adv. Jud.
1
2
93, 257
3, 189
Theodoret of Cyrus
Quest. in Gen.
77
91
Theodotus
Frag. 7
169

SAIS 010 Hayward - Targums and The Transmission of Scripture Into Judaism and Christianity - 2010 PDF

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

SAIS 010 Hayward - Targums and The Transmission of Scripture Into Judaism and Christianity - 2010 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into

Judaism and Christianity

Studies in the Aramaic

Paul V.M. Flesher

Bruce Chilton, Bard College

Targums and the Transmission

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

TARGUMIC PORTRAYALS OF BIBLICAL FIGURES

Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in

Abraham as Proselytizer at Beer-sheba in the Targums

Balaams Prophecies as Interpreted by Philo and the

The Figure of Adam in Pseudo-Philos Biblical

The Sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish Polemic against

A Portrait of the Wicked Esau in the Targum of

DATING TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN

VIII. The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some

Jacobs Second Visit to Bethel in Targum

Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ...

Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Targum

Red Heifer and Golden Calf: Dating Targum

The Priestly Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan .........

SAINT JEROME AND JEWISH TRADITION

Jewish Traditions in Jeromes Commentary on

Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim ......................

Some Observations on St. Jeromes Hebrew Questions

TARGUM AND TEMPLE

XVIII. Food, the Animals, and Human Dignity. Jewish

Melchizedek as Priest of the Jerusalem Temple in

Index of Modern Authors ................................................................

Jacobs Second Visit to Bethel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, in P.R.

TARGUMIC PORTRAYALS OF BIBLICAL FIGURES

SHEM, MELCHIZEDEK, AND CONCERN WITH

shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity

shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity

Here the ambiguity is resolved: it is God who should dwell in Shems

Targum Neofiti says that the boundaries of Japheth should be enlarged,

monotheism by Japheths descendants. At least one Christian exegete

Jerome here understands the tents of Shem as learning and knowledge

The five extant targumim of this verse, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,

shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity

Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran.8 The Palestinian targumim identify

And Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, who is Shem the

Frag. And Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the

And the king Zedek,9 the king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the

And the righteous king (mlksdyq), he is Shem son of Noah,

Melchizedek is a priest: although Targum Pseudo-Jonathan does not

against Christianity. Rather, the Epistle to the Hebrews may here be

God dwells in land for which Shem is responsible: we may therefore

shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity

See Charles, Jubilees, p. 61.

Philos understanding of Shem is a lofty one. Shem, whose God is

shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity

changed to Israel. Significantly, it is precisely at the point when Jacobs

The word rendered sequence of things is , which has the

shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity

See Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58, n. 46.

speculation represented by 11QMelch, where Melchizedek is a celestial

ABRAHAM AS PROSELYTIZER AT BEERSHEBA

This paper will argue that Goodmans interpretation of the figure

abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba

Hebrew here becomes an , a piece of tilled ground: in

abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba

The angels eternally blessed Abraham and his descendants because