EXEGETICAL EXERCJ.

ISES
IN COMPAR,ATIVE TARGUM STUDY

GENESIS 15:1

l. More than a quarter of ,a century has passed since I pre-

pared the first edition of my Aramaic Bible Versions 1, intended as
a primer in comparative Aramaistic and exegetical exercises. Jud-
ging by the need for new printings and editions there is reason to
assunie that it fulfilled a purpose in initiating generations of stu-
dents into the problems of studying Targumic crystallizations on a
cornparatíve oasis. In the mid-fifties it was not that easy to select
P.entateuchal passages for which more than two 'Palestinian' re-
censions could be printed side by side. At that time is was difficult
to find suitable passages in which Pseudo-Jonathan was paralleled
by both a Palestinian recensión from a Geniza fragment as well as
the traditional 'Yerushalmi' - possibly, in addition, sorne 'To-
sefta' 2.
2. If matters are different today, it is to a large extent thanks
to a new conscíousness created by the very fact that our much
lamented friend Alejandro Diez Macho recognized, about that very
time, the nature of MS Neofiti 1 and spent so much of the following
decades working on it. This is not to belittle the work of others
who have done their share in improving upon previous editions 3•
But without the find by Diez Macho, comparative Targumic studies

1 The first edition appeared in 1957 as Selections [rom the Aramaic

Versions of the Old Testament for the use of students at the Hebrew
University. Sinoe 1963 editions were publíshed as Aramaic Bible Ver-
sions-Comparative Selections atui Glossary.
2 Such a comparison could be offered at the time for Gen. 4:7-10.
There was little material from the Geniza beyond what Ka.hle had
published thirty years earlier (1927) in Masoreten des Westens. A new
edition of all known Geniza Targum fragments by M. Klein should
be out soon, whíle the Pentateuchal Toseftas nave not yet been col-
lected. The Toseftas for the Prophetic books were collected for me
in the MA thesis of Rimmon Kasher (1973). For the Pa1estinian recen-
sions, Ginsburger's editions had to be used at the time.
3 We owe tanks to the late David Rieder for his improved edítíon
of Pseudo-Jonathan (J·erusalem 1974) and to Míchaeí Klein for his
new edition of the two sub-groups of the traditional Targum Yeru-
shalmi: M. L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Peniateuch. (Ana-
lecta Biblica 76), Rome 1980.
376 M. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

would be today on a much less firmer basis. To be sure, differences

of opinion as to the precise nature of MS Neofiti 1 will persist.
But they do not detract from our gratitude to Diez Macho, who
will be sorely míssed by all his friends and colleagues.
3. Given today the existence of MS Neofiti 1 we can carry
out many comparative exercises of both philological and exegetícal
interest. A Geniza fragment or a Tosefta may add sorne further
points, but they are not as essential as they used to be in the
mid-fifties - even though linguistic forras in Geniza fragments are,
generally speakíng, usually less susceptible to influence by non-
Palestinian Aramaic forms". The present exercise is neither maxi-
malistic 5 nor has it been chosen for any unusual features. This just
happens to be the latest exercise of its type carried out in pursuance
of my day-to-day work. To this extent, it is almost a random exam-
ple 6 - certainly not the most convincing of its kind. This exercise
will deal with different aspects of - analysis and it goes without
saying that a certaín point may have been dealt with by other scho-
lars in a different context 7• Far reasons of economy I shall not
print here the entire array of Targums; the reader should be able
to consult them without difficulty from the standard editions s.

4 It is abundantly clear today that, generally speakíng, chances

are greater for a scríbe in medieval or renaíssance times to substitute
Babylonían (or Onqelos) forms. For purely linguistic compartsons, Ge-
niza fragments are therefore an important control. In this present
paper I have kept discussion of línguístíc issues to a minimum.
5 I.e., I have not tried to choose a section extant in five or six
transmíssíons. Also, I was not interested in Palestintan non-Jewish
Aramaic recensions - let alone comparisons with LXX, Pseudepígra-
pha, etc. Such an exercise will be offered on another occasion.
6 Of course, I have chosen a verse that seemed to off,er sorne
instructive material, But many instances could be found that exem-
plify additional interesting points of method.
7 I do not think that this kind of exercíse has been publíshed
before. Traditional commentaríes on Targums do not engage in such
analysís. Translations in Introductions such as J. Bowker, The Tar-
gums arui Rabbinic Literature (1969) contaín little beyond the obvious
references. G. vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism 2, 1973,
ch. 4-5: "The life of Abraham" ad loe. otfers no specíñc insights into
our problem. I wouíd hope that sorne aspects of my approach can be
discerned in the fine dissertation by A. Shinan, Th.e Form and Content
of the Aggadah in the "Palestinian" Targums on the Pentateuch (1977).
8 Le. Sperber for Onqelos, Rieder for Pseudo-Jonathan, Diez Ma-
cho for Neofiti, Klein for the traditional Fragment- Y.erushalmi. I shall
refer to these as follows: T-0, T-PJ, T-N, T-Y. Peshitta, Samaritan
Targum, etc. will be referred to as occasion arises. For midrashic com-
parisons M. M. Kasher's Torah Shelemah (vol. 4), New York 1949,
p. 626ff. has been used, cross-checked where applicable against Gene-
sis Rabba (= GenR), ed. Theodor and Albeck.
 EX EGETICAL EX ERCICES IN COM PARATIVE TAR GUM STU DY 377

4. Our first step will be to search for possible points in the

Hebrew text of Gen 15: 1 that might lead to the creation of Tar-
gumic tradition 9• The initial ¡¡',Nil 0'1:liil inN presents an obvious
challenge. Such an opening formula cries out for connective exe-
gesís. Since, however, all such observations depend on the specifics
of each case, this question - like so many others - should be
answered in the light of longitudinal ínquíry. In other words, our
experience teaches us that a Palestinian Targum - in contrast to
T-0 - will often rise to the occasion, but this is not a must. In
passing we may note that the connecting formula in this case
starts with inN , not with the often-used introductory ~il'1 . We
shall have occasion later on (§ 7) to come back to this point.
The next word a Targum may · wish to clarify is the nature of
mn~. God appeared to Abram mn~:i. In the light of later theo-
Iogy: 10 is mn~ a specific type of prophetic experience, or is it
prophetic experience as such? JI So far the non-operational part of
the sentence. All further units almost cry out for exegetical re-
action: why would Abram be afraid at this juncture and why would
he need reassurance? What does the noun p~ signify - and is
there anything specific in the nominal way of expression, different
from a -possible corresponding verbal one? 12• Lastly, how does the
element of 1::ltt/ fit into the context, and why the hyperbolic 'very
much'? 13

9 I am not dealing at present with the interrelationships of Tar-

gumic and Midrashic crystallizations. From the days of S. D. Luzzatto
and A. Geiger to the appendices in Diez Macho's edition of T-N,
G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (1973) and A. Shinan's
above-mentioned dissertation this issue has never ceased to be de-
bated. For examples cf. also the Introductory volume by Y. Komlosh,
The Bible in tne Light ot the Aramaic Translations (1973, Hebrew')
and R. le Déaut, Introduction .a la Littérature Targumique (1966). Also
the fine papers by P. Grelot are of interest in this context.
no Both Jewish and Christian commentators have díscussed for
centuríes, what type of divine inspiration was granted to whom, and
how. Similariy, the degress of walJ,y, ilhsim, tafhim and tatuiiih. beca-
me the source of much debate in Islam, partly between Sunnites and
,Shi'ites, and in turn exercised sorne influence on medieval Jewish
formulations.
JI Note the harmonizing formulation GenR 44: 6 and parallels.
ri Put differently: is it only the styüstíc feeling of a modern

clauses: ,~~ i1:J'iil

13
¡,
commentator that notes the two terse complementary non-verbal
,.,,ru / / p~ ''l~ ?
Because of the impact of bíblica! language on our own - both
in Hebrew and in European languages - we may not always be fully
conscious that .,,ru is 'reward' in two senses, concrete and abstract.
In the semantics of Rabbinic Hebrew .,,lt' is easily connected with
reward in the world to come. It is not impossible that behind this
wordíng líes the unexpressed statement that Abram did not accept
378 M. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

I have tried to point out points in the source-text that may

have caused a Targumist to comment upon them. This does not
mean that all types of Targum will do so nor that their contents
can be predetermined by studying these issues. But a prelímínary
review of 'legitimate' exegetical issues wíll often serve as a good
introduction to a comparative study of Targums.
We shall now look into the actual evidence, as offered by dif-
Ierent crystallízations before us.
5. True to its general character, T-O only touches upon two
of the points. The specific Hebrew mno is rendered ilNt:l.l, in
general 14• Such an observatíon, however, is not ínstructíve unless
we ask ourselves, whether this is a versional stereotype. To be
sure, the material in Onqelos may be too limited and there may be
differences between books. Even so, it is ínstructíve to note that
the specific ínstances of prophetic mno with regard to ·Moses and
Balaam (Num. 12:8; 24:4) are rendered by the etymological cog-
nate H,n . On the other hand, in a non-translatíon unit (Gen. 27: 13)
T-O uses freely: i1Nt:l.l:l iONli,N ,,v 15 • As far as it goes, then,

T-O's ilNi:l.l:l may be exegetically meaningful.

Of somewhat greater interest is the renderíng of j.:10 ,::,.lN
as r¡ipr, ,¡o,o . Obvíously, T-O evaded any attempt at strict ver-
batim rendering. The core-sense of r¡ipr, (used as a predícate in
the absolute) is 'strength', while ,¡o,o covers the pronoun for the
Divine. This is no set phrase, but a reasonable rendering in light of
nt. 33: 29:7,rv po = 7,vo r¡ipr, 16•
6. All in all, T-O does not offer any unusual insights, even if
it is slightly less verbatím than the majority of T-0 renderings.
However, there happens to remaín one point that seems of particu-
lar interest for comparative Targum studíes. A glance into Sperber's

any 'reward' for his acts of succor as recounted in chapter 14. Both
at the leveí of text and exegesis there may be an additional link bet-
ween the neíghboríng pericopes.
• 14 Hebrew ;,mr.i~ is taken as generíc determination, not reproduced
in Aramaic.
1s It is a matter of general method that within the overall ana-
lysis of a given version, source-bound renderíngs should be investiga-
ted separately from non-transíatíon elements, This goes for the lexi-
con as well as for the syntax. Cf. the MA thesís written for me by
J. A. Lund, A Descriptive Syntax of the Non-translational Passages
according to Codex Neofiti 1 (1981; Hebrew). Non-translation passages
are, of course, comparatívely rare in T-O.
16 Altogether, Kt¡,1r, fills in for quite a number of Hebrew words
conveying the notion of divine strength. In the Pentateuch, Hebrew
pr.i does not appear in any concrete sense, but that sense may be
assumed as the basis for metaphoric use.
 EXEGETICAL EXERCICES IN COM PARATIVE TARGUM STUDY 379

apparatus shows that for the standard ' ni ~~.lri!:l { = ':"11::11) the
T-0 text of the Complutensis off.ers 'il oi¡, ¡~ ,~~~ 17• This is no
spontaneous interchange or scribal mishap. Also, it would seem
to be of significance that this reading occurs in the Complutensis.
Even though Sperber's apparatus is very far from · being complete
and caution must be exercised, a longitudinal study would show
that ínstances of non T-0 readings in early Spanish (and Portugue-
se) pre-Bomberg editions are not that rare. What I am pointing
out is this: our longitudinal pilot studies suggest that these early
editions show a significantly higher proportion of non T-0 readings
than the mss collated by Sperber. Only further study will show
whether this was due to events in certain T-0 mss-tradítions 18, or
whether also this feature is due to the speciñc prehistory of the
text prepared for the Complutensis by Alfonso de Samora 19• Be
that as ít may, ' iI oi¡, j~ ,~~~ is identifiable in one sub-tradition
of T-Y 20• Precisely because the variant is not a matter of contents
but rather of a different formula 21, it may serve as a marker. Only
a full-scale díssertation can teach us to what extent, when and
where, the tradition of T-O mss was contaminated significantly by
T-Y traditíons or, perhaps, by one specific sub-group.
6. Looking at the combined evidence of all Palestínian Tar-
gum traditions, we encounter a picture that a longitudinal compa-
rative study could multiply many times over. The initial unit of the
pericope is built as a compound midrashic díscourse: 22 while each
'recensíon' is free to elaborare on details, all work the same 'word-
for-word' substratum into the overall fabric. While T-PJ has long
been known to excel in such features, we have learned from the

11 The same constellation v. 4, but not e.g. Ex. 9:20.

1 I emphasize that sometimes, though rarely, such a 'freak'
s
readíng in the pre-Bomberg Spanish editions is evidenced by an
earlier manuscript. Sperber's editio minar is not based broadly enough
far an exact evaluation.
19 Cf. my remarks in Bíblica 56 (1975), p. 307f. I understand that
Alfonso's mss are now being studied in connection with edítíons pre-
• pared by colleagues in Spain.
20 Future exact notations may be stemmatically instructive. In
thís ínstance, the 'Palestinian' reading is found in sub-group P of
T-Y only, We thus have the constellation: T-O (Complut.) = T-Y(P)
=t T-Y(V), N, N-marg., T-PJ. Here and elsewhere, 'Palestinian' is used
as a portemanteau-term.
21 There is no need to bel-abar the theologícaü aspect of c,p lb "lb'b.
22 There is a considerable correlation between midrashic expansión
and beginnings of pericopes, but no necessary íderitrty. In this instan-
ce, we have varíous reasons to assume that we deal with a petitüa -
if we may borrow that term from Midrash studies. Gen. 15:1 was pro-
bably once the beginning of a new sidra, and the Targumist would
tend to use that beginning f.or expansíve treatment.
380 M. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

other Palestinian crystallizations that the basic method is the same

and that correlations of incidences are high. While predictions are
a dangerous game, my feeling is that if this pericope would turn
up in a Geniza fragment of a dífferent Palestinian recensíon, it
would still start with a similar opening 23. All Palestinian Targums
offer a detailed connection to chapter 14, all explain Abram's need
for reassurance in light of his fear, all try to solve the issue of po
and the promised bountiful reward. On the other hand, differences
in wording betray individuality of both theology and expression. As
far as it goes, this is quite oharacterístic of the constellations we
encounter in comparative exercíses, Without entering at this stage
·into detaíled comparisons, we should point out that the entire
tradition contains a fusion of midrashic elements that we do not
encounter in this form in the treatment of GenR nor of_ any other
single midrashic recension 24• Again, this is quite typical: while it
is a matter of course that a targumic unit is often paralleled in a
midrash, a targumic expansion of the petih.ta type includes, as
often as not, elements not paralleled in the known midrashic lite-
rature 25•
7. Now that T-N is available, we shall start by presenting its
formulation. The connecting technique to the rpreceding pericope is
standard. After the verbatim initial r~,Nil N,o,:ir,~ 1.M:l , the exegeti-
cal expansión is fused into the story: Nl)1Ni ;,.nit:)~~ ~:, itu.l:).MNi ¡o
etc. 26• It is of interest that the entíre Palestinian traditíon offers a
picture quite different from that offered by text and Tar,gums in
chapter 14. In our passage "all the kings of the earth" Iought
Abram 27 - from among whom he killed four. Abram - who in the
bíblícal story attacks the victorious four kings to save his kinsman
is depicted as being attacked { N:ii¡, ,,,o ) by all the kings of the
earth 28• This hyperbolic beginning was further expanded - pos-

23 Even tcday our knowledge of Palestíman Pentateuchal Targums

,is hampered by lack of materíals. But one may formulate that the
occurence of midrashic expansions is not coíncidental. Still, what used
to be the only full-1ength 'Paleetinían' recensíon extant - i.e. T-PJ -
ldoes not exactíy follow the deduced rule.
24 To be sure, GenR and other midrashic collections offer additio-
nal and different materials.
2s The quaütatíve and quantítatíve relatíons between Targum and
·Midrash are now being examined in a detailed pilot-study for the
book of Ezekiel in a forthcoming doctoral dissertation by M. Ben-
Yashar.
26 Other recensions use N':l'~ . I did not pursue the question whe-
ther Nrm:,,~ / N':l'~ are interchangeable like their counterparts in
Hebrew or Phoenician.
n In keepíng to the text, I shall use this form.
2s I am dealing with the problem that different Targumic refe-
 EXEGETICAL EXERCICES IN COM PARATIVE TARGUM STUDY 381

síbly for reasons of líterary balance: i1li,j'1~ ',j,~~tu ~~, : all the
kíng(dom)s of the earth and all the rulers of the countries. Now,
thís statement already contaíns a critícal judgment. Thís paralle-
lístic unit appears in T-Y and on the margín of T-N, but is not
extant in T-N and T-PJ - not an unusual constellation. But how
are we to judge whether the unít was added here or omitted
there? Given no obvious contextual criterion 29, we may be torced
to follow our literary evaluation unless we are firm believers in
following always the lectio brevior model or its opposite 30• I would
submit that at this stage of our knowledge no rule of thumb is
acceptable, and we are forced to judge each case on its specific
merits 31•
The petitiia puts matters this way: after all the kings had
attacked Abram and he killed four of them and brought back
nine armies 32, then he reflected ... Befare we continue, ,a remark on
another comparati ve aspect is in arder. T-N expresses 'bringing
back' by itn (pasel) . This is not contradicted by the margin, and
this is the lexeme used by all T-Y texts. However, T-PJ h35 i1i1N.
Looking at 14: 16 we find that T-PJ uses ::l'liNi whereas T-N uses
again itn. On the other hand, in Gen. 49: 19 the 1exemes are dis-
tríbuted similarly to our verse. I do not intend to carry out a
full investigation as to the lexemic synonyms used for renderíng
'bríng back' in different recensions. All I wish to point out at
present is that subgroups may be differentiated by intra-dialectal
synonymic varíatíon 33•

.rences to the same issue are not necessarily ironed out into harmony.
'To be sure, one can offer explanations why the story was retold dif-
ferently, and one may even detect elements of prefiguration.
29 The fact that later on only 'kings' are mentioned should not be
used as a criterion.
30 I have remarked in Bíblica 56 (1975), p. 304f. on sorne aspects
of 19th century evolutionary ideology and the notion of Urtargum.
31 In order to gaín sorne perspectíve, we may employ a heuristic
.devíce: Let us assume that T-N itself would have offered the paral-
lelístic recension. In this case - according to his procedure - the
marginal annotator would not have made any note (he did not em-
ploy obeli!). In the collation, the constellation of Palestinian wítnesses
would then look considerably different. Would this set of facts influen-
ce our judgment?
32 This is to say: Abram brought back the forces mustered by ñve
plus four kings (or, rather, what remained). N'"'l!t'~ can be used for
.an army-camp - which, in this case, would ínclude the women and
children taken prisoner.
33 There is, of course, a difference between variations that put
T-PJ in a group by itself and those that run right across the line
between, say, subgroups of T- Y. The tools prepared by M. Sokoloff at
the Institute for Lexicography at Bar-Ilan University and by G. E.
382 M. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

Abram's reflection starts with a lament, evidenced by the

entíre tradition: ,,_v l.V:) ,,, . This corresponds to an outcry as
in Hebrew ,, N.l ,,N 34• This seems appropriate enough contextually.
However, this tradition may not be as ínnocent as it seems. I would
almost go so far as to suggest that there is a standard mídrashíc
way of segmentíng story-initial ,;,,, , as occasion arises: (N ),;,·,,.
To wit: when suítable, narrative ,;,,, is midrashically analysed
as containing an element of lament: ,n . Again, while such a device
is widely employed we are hampered at present by lack of tools
in verifying the degree of correlation: which and how widespread
are cases of ,n-lament wíthout the ubíquitous ,;,,, in the source?
Is ,n in a peiitcta context especially indicative of such a word-
midrash? To push our question further: is it possible that such a
tradition in T-Y could point to an actual Hebrew Vorlagé, or would
such an assumptíon be too far-reaching? 35•
8. The analysis of T-N yíelds the following elements detailing
Abram's fear: 36 a) by being granted victory he may have used up
his store of reward for obeying the Law, and thus become deprived
of hís share in the world to come. This is the ñrst element of
Abram's , reflection, and a oase could be made for the claim that
this meditation on the world to come is matched, inclusio-fashion,
by the final words of this petitcta, as God promises him that his
share in the world to come remains fully ~tact { ... 7,,:i,_vi~N
,r,Ni N~'V'); b) on a more mundane level, the next of kin of
those slain by him will join forces and overcome him in another
battle. This is perhaps patterned, in a way, after Jacob's reflections
in 34: 30; c) in the first round he, Abram, had sorne merit that got
him over the hurdle - but that might not be so in the second
round, and then God's name would be profaned. This reflection
is not far removed from the first, but it adds - almost as an
aside - a further reason for fear: man through his shortcomings
may become guilty of profaning God's name 37• All in all, thís enu-
Olarke at Toronto are going to prove valuable for this kind of inves-
tigation as well.
34 As far as I can see, none of the midrashic traditions that dwell
on Abram's fear contain this element. In comparing such traditions
to Targumic recensíons, such points are worth stressíng.
3;1 I would be rather hesitant to follow this Une of thought with
regard to the case díscussed here. But I admit that if there would
exist corroborative evídence from another version I might teel tempted
to reconsider.
36 These elements are not strung together anywhere in the mi-
drashic líterature, and only b) recurs in variations; cf. GenR 44:4.
37 There is an almost fatalistic quality in these reflections. The
measure of what man's reward is is absolute. God cannot give a 'bo-
 EX EGETICAL EX ER CICES IN COM PAR ATIVE TAR GUM STUDY 383

meration of possible misgivings does not show a line of inner cohe-

rence or necessary connectedness. However, the tradition of Pales-
tinian Targums again emerges as basically stable -38, since all recen-
síons contain the elements in that arder íntrodueed by repetitive
musings. Perhaps, in spite of this basic stabrlíty, there is a fluc-
tuation as to details. Abram's positíon vis-a-vis God is píctured
as insecure. God rewards - but man may unwittingly use up the
store. Hence the need far the following covenant. Also, man's merit
is expressed in T-N as a matter of ;n~~ ~,~:J n:irirtt~~- However, the
marginal reading and all other traditions offer i:it ~, M:llirt/N , which
is not quite the same 39• In any event, man cannot know God's
measure for rewarding his meríts. It is man's íault if he turns
out to have used up his store or merits, and then God's name
becomes profaned. Small wonder that wíth all this theologícal
bookkeeping going on, Abram is frightened.
It líes in the nature of this kind of internalized discourse
that the targumist (or mídrashíst) encounters a problem of actua-
lization. Assuming, for the present, that Turgum has a Sitz im Le-
ben, such reflection may confuse the símple-mínded listener. How
could Abram even think such thoughts ! Hence targumic traditions
evolved sorne kind of saíety-valves 40: T-N speaks simply of Abram,
but the recensión collated in the margin adds immediately n¡,~,~ -
and T-Y even uses this formula twice 41•
It is, of course, temptíng far the student of targumic tradi-
tions to try and pinpoint terms, expressions and theologoumena
in relation to historical situations. However, our tools rarely suffice.
We cannot find out easily what sources would use ~p~,~ oi:JN -
or its Hebrew equivalent; what - if any - is the difference of
;n~~ M:lr'trt/N in contrast to Nrii:it ; whether there are Iímítations of
usage on N~~~rtti N~tu ',',nr,~ ;
whether the l\l,~,l~', that might join
forces against Abram possess marking character, etc. 42• Longitu-

nus' - even to Abram. If Abram's merits are not sufficient, it is God

whose name will be prophaned because man's merits proved insuffi-
cient. This is quite a bit of theologícal reasoning.
38 But subgroup P of T-Y does not contain the reflection on pro-
phaning God's name.
39 There is evidence of recensional reemployment, since subgroup
V of T-Y uses the variations as complementary reñectíons,
40 Perhaps one of the better k¡nown is the targumist's introduc-
tíon to the curses in Dt. 27: 15f., so as to avoid the semblance of direct
address of curse to the listener.
41 'I'here could be sorne connectíon with the emphasís placed on
º'P'1ll in midrashic rormuíatíons such as GenR 44:5.
42 I shall not deal with minutiae of readings or strange gram-
matical forms. These may be indicators of stemmatic interest and
'they may help in the overall evaluation of a textual witness.
384 M. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

dinal studíes of recensions may be helpful, but apart from very

specific instances, identification of historical provenance through
analysis of lexemes or idiomatic and ideonic configuration will need
more reñned instruments than we possess today.
9. The following textual unit leads us back to the wordíng
of the verse, taking up the theme of Abram's fear. However, only
refiection b) is being considered: fear not, even though legions
joín to kill you q',ro¡,~', 7',J;J\n~, r.lo r.li'.l' r::iito~~, :l.l ',J; ~N ) .
Since - on a literary level - it would be rather clumsy to
repeat all reñectíons, I would be hesitant to use this as proof
that b) was the 'original' reflection. One ought to note, however,
the somewhat curious wording. Abram had consídered, in bis fear,
all kinds of possible reasons that míght cause bis future rout. Now
element b) is taken up, in the Divine promise, at an almost factual
level. The sentence could have been worded in sorne way expressing
the non-reality, but the assumptíon that legíons gather against
Abram is expressed in a concessíve clause denoting reality 43'.
We have dealt in our analysis of T-0 with the issue of i1Ni:l.l.
T-N uses i:i.li t:l.lJ"1!:) and so does subgroup V of T-Y. Again, the
rendering of mn~ in such contexts ought to be studied for the
Palestínían tradition, but the usage should on no account be ínter-
preted as connecting necessarily the two targumic traditions. It
is therefore of recensional ínterest that T-PJ renders ~.lit'M:l, and
subgroup P does not render mn~:i at all 44.
10. At this juncture we encounter what is possibly the most
instructive example in this comparative exercise, i.e. the renderíng
of 7',p~ '~.l~ . The text of T-N is oi¡r, 'i~~ - whích has been
corrected by the editor into [O']ili on the basis of T-PJ 45• O'ili
for Hebrew p~ is obvíous, and 'i~~ is self-evident. However, the
margin reads O'i!:l 46 - and this reading comes up in the doublet
O'il'1 O'i!:l in subgroup V of T-Y47• The semantíc range of Oi!:l is
43 Agaín, it is of no use to speculate on historie circumstances.
44 One ought to bear in mind that this omission might be sígní-
ficant theologícally, but I would be hesitant to allow such a claim.
This minor point is, however, of interest because it illustrates consi-
derable variation in a relatívely unifi:ed recensíon,
45 I am not quite sure whether 1,~~ is fully spel1ed out, but this
is a detail. On the other hand, in the overall evaluatíon of T-N as
a source, one must ask oneself, who is responsíble for the meaningless
tml"I . Presumably, the scribe copied his Vorlage farthfully, but it could
be his own misreading.
46 As often, the margin is not absolutely clear, but the first letter
can hardly be anything but a !:l ; it cannot be a l"I .
47 A further ms development: ci!:l • Judgment at flrst blush would
 EXEGETICAL EXERCICES IN COM PARATIVE TAR GU M STU DY 385

that of 'spread out and cover'. This comes near the sense of 'affor-
ding shade' and could possibly be taken as an acceptable render-
íng 48• However, since o~¡r, is the natural, verbatim rendering of
po, there can be little doubt. The question remains, however, why
o~,n was mísread as o~iD. Was it purely a scribal míshap? It could
perhaps be argued that this is an instance of textual dynamics:
for the translator o~¡r, ,¡oo was an absolutely natural renderíng.
In the tradition, however, this made 1ess sense, so that ,a variant -
and subsequently a doublet - could arise 49•
We have noted that o,¡r, o,¡!:) appears in the V subgroup. Sub-
group P reads nothing of the sort. Instead we find: 7,:,r,, ~,o,o 50.
This reading contrasts with the rest of the Palestínian tradítion
and cannot be derived from it. Again, if this were the only renderíng
we would find it acceptable, even though a bit far-fetched. Given
the circumstances, 7,:,r,, must be judged to be a separate attempt.
But we cannot stop here. While there are diíferenoes between the
mss that have been jucl.ged edítorially to constitute two subgroups
of T-Y, this lexical variation seems to be rather glaring and thus
indicative of a more radical recensional activity.
Possible answers are perhaps interesting from the point of
víew of method. Any comparative exercíse in studying Palestinian
targumíc traditions reckons ,today with the lack of finalization.
Phrased differently: even if we put T-PJ aside for the moment,
any targumic crystallízation we encounter may show certain fluc-
tuations over against the rest. This, I think, has emerged clearly
over the past two decades as a decisive typological difference bet-
ween the 'variations' within T-0 and the Palestinian 'recensíons'
and need not be discussed again. However, each individual case
must be judged on its merits. The difference between two mss (or
groups) may be such that w,e must judge them to belong to dif-
ferent crystallizations. Or, the groups may be, in general, so close

be that oníy T-PJ offers the original text. Since readings evidenced
by T-PJ alone have become slightly discredited, this would be ,a so-
mewhat unexpected constellation.
4s We would, however, have to assume a diff.erent development:
Ci!:l 'it:>t:> (understood as a participle?) changed into C'i!:l - alterna-
'tíve for c•;n . Judging by both evídence and plausibility of develop-
ment this seems rather unlíkely.
4'1 In the context of this exercise I thínk it important not to be
satísñed With suggestíng my preference but to offer sorne explanatíon
as to why readings may have developed the way they did. To be sure,
this may be overdoing a good thíng, if all that really oecurred was a
simple scribal místake.
~ The meaning is: lend support, securíty. More complete tools
of Aramaic lexicography should offer examples of this torm which
ought to be parsed as Af'el of II ',:,n .
25
386 M. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

that we must be careful not to attribute a oertain glaring textual

difference to the non-finalized state of the Palestínian Targums. It
is thus on the basis of each specific judgment that we must decide
between two models, whether a radically different readíng is an
ad locum issue or a matter of general textual instability. In this
specific ínstance it may be that the misreading of o~¡r, ultírnately
caused a change in an otherwise pretty well unified tradition, and ·
in one tradition 7,:m~ ínfíltrated or was secondarily substituted 51•
11. The three lexemes we have seen are not the sole reflex
or Hebrew po . T-N continues ri;i N~,j):,, 7, po m;,i . Ob- m;,
víously, this is an additional reflex. But the sentence presents a
problem as it stands. It is the comparative aspect that will clinch ·
our argument, but even without this dimension T-N's text is unli-
kely. m;,m;;i could be corrected with minímal effort. But over
against ri;, No,v:,, we would expect a contrasting member like
~l1N1 NO',!):,,. Such a contrasting pair occurs, índeed, in the next
sentenoe and sorne kind of balance would seem almost inevitable 52•
What I am suggesting is that on purely internal literary criteria
T-N's text is dubious and other recensions present not just different
texts but more plausible ones - whatever the exact wording 53•
Thus, e.g., N's margín divides the double reflex of po :
N~o,~ ,~ 7'V 7'
po, ri;, No,!):,, O~it), while T-Y offers o~¡r, O~it)
~nNi No,v, No,~ ,~ 7'V
r)o, t~i;, 'o,v:,, 7' ,
(subgroup V) 54• It
seems, however, that this is not quite the end of the targumíst's at-
tempt to deal with po. All recensions contaín a final element: Abram
has vanquíshed his enemíes 'in this world', yet his reward is going
to be ready for him entirely in the world to come. Put diff.erently:
he did not diminísh his reward and God granted hírn victory with-
out subtractíng from his store of merits. I submit that behind
this phrasing stands the attempt to connect po and n:,,¡;, 7¡~t,

51 At present we possess no comprehensíve study of this type of

glaring varíatíons within T-Y, nor of possíble correlatíons with
other Palestinian recensions or midrashic formulations.
sz The full sequence in T-N reads thus:
7:i:ii '~V':l r,,-,obi ':l.'1 ~V .IJNl ; 1'1i1 Nb~V':l 7' pb run (1) illi11 7' (0')-,r, ,-,bb
º'l1N1 Nb~V~ "b1p ,~ (1) l'~Pl1b N'':lt:l 7'1':llV .,.'IN 1'7i1 Nb~V':l 1'b1p
A counter-argument would be the God's shielding would be needed in
this world only, In any event, o,-,r, and pb are doublet reflexes.
'5 3 Recensíons differ as to how the reñexes are divided between
balancing units. Cf. also the division in the late midrashic compila-
tíon, Pirke d'Rabbí Elíezer, ch. 28.
54 I stress again the inclusio-dfect between the beginning of
Abram's reflection and the end of God's reassurance. There remains
sorne problem wíth the expression N'bl' / Nbl' ,:i in this context.
 EXEGETICAL EXERCICES IN COMPARATIVE TARGUM STUDY 387

,~e . Hebrew pe suggests, in this guise, Aramaic maggan = 'gra-

tis': victory was granted to Abram 'gratis'.
A few comments on details. N introduces in the last sentences
Abram's victory - the margin does not - and T-PJ spins out the
contrasts even more. N phrases N\:l~ 7~,~~V i.:IN 55 - the margin:
n~~~~ 7,~~, 7~i.:IN. All recensions finish the unít by statíng that
Abram's reward will be ready for him in the :world to come. T-PJ
feels obliged to tack on the verbatím Nin';, ~.:io, as in T-0, etc. These
are the kind of slight variatíons - partly textual oddities - that
occur within a recensíon and need not detain us.
· 12. This exercise was meant to analyse at sorne lenght certain
aspects of comparative Targum study which can be verified only
in longitudinal evaluations, For this minimalistic exercíse we used
neither a Geniza text, nor did we compare usages in other versions
transmitted in a Palestinian Aramaic dialect 56• However, I ought
to add an ínteresting point which I have raised in my Fragments
of Lost Targumim 57• It so happens that for the verse under consi-
deration we also have the remmant of a 'lost Targum'. For ~:iJN
.,, pe the list in MS Seassoon 368 reads: 7';, v~~oe
NJN. This rende-
ríng is completely outside the entire known targumic tradítion
but - as I have pointed out - is almost identical wíth the readíng
of the Peshitta ad loe: 7v~oN NJN . At this stage of our research
we have no reason to claim that this is a reflex of the Peshitta that
somehow entered Jewish tradition 58• At present we must remain
content to note that beside the multi-faoeted Palestinian targumic
tradition, the Onqelos tradition and non-Jewish Palestinian tradi-
tíons, we may have to reckon with an even more complicated pie-
ture. The model might be that an ancient targumíc tradition found

55 T-PJ is similar.
56 The passage under consideration is not extant in the remnants
of the Syropalestinian versíon: cf. my edítíon The Bible in the Syro-
palestinian Version I, Jerusalem 1973. In spíte of its different prehis-
tory . and character, Syropalestinian comparisons are often instructive.
As for the ,Samaritan Targum, it may be of ínterest that the text-type
Iabelled J did not translate at all 7', p~ ,:ilN , while text-type A
renders 7', :,,¡,n illN , Iíke T-0. These two text-types are also divided
in theír rendering of mn~::i : nN,::il::i ::j:: ,m:i . This illustrates again that
the issue whether a renderíng is exegetícally meaningful or not must
be studied separately far each source.
57 Vol. I, Bar-Han (1983), p. 129.
se The model would be that a Jewish targumic prototype of the
Peshitta disappeared somewhere in the second or third century. C. E.,
and by sorne odd fate the Peshitta reading was picked up later on by
P-ews and finally found its place in the collectíon in Ms Sassoon 368.
While there are ínstanoes of targumíe quotes that seem to reflect the
Peshitta, I do not think that this hypothesis applíes in this case.
388 M. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN

its way into the Peshitta, did not survive in the mainstream aa
locum traditions, but survived as a targumic 'splinter' in a col-
lection. Admittedly, such a model is intriguing, but in the light of
what we are going to see it may not be as improbable as we would
assume at first blush s9,
13. As regards the passage studied in this exercise, we are
a ble to compare a corresponding passage as retold in the Qúmrán ·
Genesis Apocryphon 60• There is no need to reopen the discussion
as to how this text should be labelled - the fact is that certain
passages have unmistakable targumic features. As to our verse:
the initíal i"ltM~:l 'il i:ii il~il is rendered ~~m:i Nil':iN ~mr,N . This
is not paralleled by any later Targum, but it is contextually accep-
table - though not particularly instructive. The following sentence
is of greater interest: in the Palestinian tradition revíewed above
Abram refíected on bis success - and became fearful, Gen. Apoc.
also dwells on the issue of Abram's .success up to now in the context
of his fear, only from another angle. Abram is exhorted to con-
template how much more successful he has been than others \vho
left Harán together with him - and to learn the moral not to be
afraid 61• More to our point, also Gen. Apoc. offers various reñexes
of 7';, p~ ~~.:it-t as follows: il.:iNi l:)pl"1i ivo 7';, il[,iiNi] 7~V il.:iN
7~,v p~ . These expressíons look almost like a combination of tar-
gumic renderíngs known from later sources. Obviously, p~ il.:IN
7~,v comes naturally, But l:)¡,rii ivo do not. ")i'l"1 reminds us of
T-O and one Samaritan subgroup, while ivo is the synonym of
v~o 62• W,e are far from maintaining that these are persuasive exam-

s9 In my Introduction to the above-rnentíoned volume I have ex-

pressed my feeling that once the three volumes of the initial collection
'.of Lost Targums are befare us we may have to rethink our posítíons
on basic issues of targumic tradítíon. Traditions of retelling thé bibli-
cal passage in Aramaíc, as preserved in Qumran, are of course of vital
importan ce.
d3 Edited by N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, Jerusalem 1956.
61 This exhortatíon is connected to the issue of reckoning the years
that passed - somewhat similar to Jub. ch. 14.
62 'I'here are quite a number of verses, especíally in the Psalms,
in whích expressíons of help and saívatíon parallel God's function as
pb . The point is, of course, that the words entered a targumic tradí-
tion in the way they did. An addítíonal tanta'lizing aspect, which I
must leave to historians of prayer formulations: are the biblical
collocations of pb and ))te' (or synonyms) enough to explaín the
formula in the first of the eighteen benedictions: Jlb1 ))'W1b1 '111)) 7',b ?
Or is there an additional element, common to the 'targumic' for-
mulation in GenApoc and the benedíctíon - ultímateíy beíng re-
flected in both Peshitta and the targumic splinter? I do not • go at
present into detaíls of dírrerent formulations of the benediction, such
as the wording in the old Palestinian rite ,,,, ,,, ',:,::i un~::ib, 1l'l"l1'.:IN pbl Ullb'
 EX EGETICAL EX ERCICES IN COM PARATIVE TARGUM STUDY 389

ples that strengthen the 19th century model of all-inclusive arche-

typal Targums that were split up in la ter diíferent crystallizations 63•
But targumic renditions such as we have seen remain tantalizing.
The relative wealth of materials that are at our dísposal today -
in contrast to what we knew thirty years ago - may enable us to
deepen our understanding and to enter a new stage in the compa-
rative study of targumic traditíons.
M. H. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEiN

etc. The Iexeme nt:>:lo, in íts way, comes near the specífíc sense of
~,r, which we have seen in one of the T-Y rormulatíons.
63 Cf. above, n. 30.