Targums and the Transmission of Scripture Into Judaism and Christianity Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture

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 Díez 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. Judaism—History—Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.–210 A.D. 3. Church history—Primitive and early church, ca. 30–600. 4. Midrash. 5. Rabbinical literature—History and criticism. I. Title. II. Series.

BS709.4.H39 2010 221.4’26—dc22 2009040256

ISSN 1570-1336 ISBN 978 90 04 17956 1

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 ...... vii Preface ...... ix Abbreviations ...... xiii

PART ONE TARGUMIC PORTRAYALS OF BIBLICAL FIGURES

I. Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in the Pentateuchal Targumim ...... 3

II. Abraham as Proselytizer at Beer-sheba in the Targums of the Pentateuch ...... 17

III. Balaam’s Prophecies as Interpreted by Philo and the Aramaic Targums of the Pentateuch ...... 35

IV. The Figure of Adam in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities ...... 53

V. The Sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish Polemic against Christianity ...... 72

VI. A Portrait of the Wicked Esau in the Targum of Codex Neofiti 1 ...... 88

PART TWO DATING TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN

VII. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic ...... 109

VIII. The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments ...... 126 vi contents

IX. Jacob’s 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

XII. Red Heifer and Golden Calf: Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ...... 234

XIII. The Priestly Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ...... 259

PART THREE SAINT JEROME AND JEWISH TRADITION

XIV. Jewish Traditions in Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah and the Targum of Jeremiah ...... 281

XV. Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim ...... 300

XVI. Some Observations on St. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis and the Rabbinic Tradition ...... 318

PART FOUR TARGUM AND TEMPLE

XVII. Sirach and Wisdom’s 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 ...... 401 Index of Scriptural, Rabbinic, and Patristic References ...... 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. 67–80.

“Abraham as Proselytizer at Beer-sheba in the Targums of the Penta- teuch”, JJS 49 (1998), pp. 24–37.

“Balaam’s 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. 19–36.

“The Figure of Adam in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities”,JSJ 23 (1992), pp. 1–20.

“The Sacrifice of Isaac and Jewish Polemic against Christianity”,CBQ 52 (1990), pp. 292–306.

“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. 291–301.

“Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic”, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 77–93.

“The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments”, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 7–30. viii acknowledgements

“Jacob’s 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. 175–192.

“Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan”, JJS 42 (1991), pp. 215–246.

“Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: The Case of Eliezer and Nimrod”, JSS 37 (1992), pp. 31–55.

“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. 9–32.

“The Priestly Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan”, JSP 19 (1999), pp. 81–101.

“Jewish Traditions in Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah and the Tar- gum of Jeremiah”, PIBA 9 (1985), pp. 100–120.

“Saint Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim”, JSS 32 (1987), pp. 105– 123.

“Some Observations on St. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis and the Rabbinic Tradition”, PIBA 13 (1990), pp. 58–76.

“Sirach and Wisdom’s Dwelling Place”, in S.C. Barton (ed.), Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), pp. 31–46. 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 x 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 first- rate importance for our knowledge of Judaism in the early Amoraic period. Yet his work is, perhaps, still not investigated and appreciated as much as it might be for the information he has to offer about the Judaism of his days; and his reports of contemporary Jewish 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 Jerome’s 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 Temple’s 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 (361–363 ce) may, Mortensen suggests, have provided the incentive for Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s inclusion of so much extensive and sustained exegetical material. In any event, the Temple’s 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. George’s Day 2009

ABBREVIATIONS

Ab. Aboth ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary APOT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, (ed.) R. H. Charles, 2 volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) ARNa Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, recension A ARNB Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, recension B ALUOS Annual of the Leeds University Oriental Society Ant. Jewish Antiquities AZ ‘Abodah Zarah b. Babylonian Talmud, followed by the title of a tractate BB Baba Batra Ber. Rab. Bereshit Rabbah BK Baba Kamma BM Baba Metsia Ber. Berakhot Bib. Biblica Bik. Bikkurim BJ Bellum Judaicum BZ Biblische Zeitschrift CA Contra Apionem CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina CD Damascus Document CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Est. Bib. Estudios Biblicos Enc. Jud. Encyclopedia Judaica Erub. ʿErubin FT/Frg. Tg. Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch FTP Fragment Targum MS Paris 110 FTV Fragment Targum MS Vat 440 Gitt. Gittin xiv abbreviations

Hag. Hagigah Hor. Horayot HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JE Jewish Encyclopaedia Jer. Jerusalem Talmud, followed by the title of a tractate JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies Ker. Keritot Ket. Ketubot LAB Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum LXX Septuagint m. Mishnah, followed by the title of a tractate Makk. Makkot Meg. Megillah Mekh. Mekhilta Men. Menahot MGWJ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums MQ Moʿed Qatan Ned. Nedarim Nidd. Niddah Ngl Marginal and interlinear glosses of MS Targum Neofiti 1 OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, (ed.) J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983, 1985) PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Pes. Pesahim Pesh. Peshitta PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association PJ/Ps.-Jon. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan abbreviations xv

PL Patrologia Latina PR Pesiqta Rabbati PRE Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer PRK Pesiqta de Rab Kahana Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon PT Palestinian Targum Qid. Qiddushin R./Rab. Rabbah RB Revue Biblique REJ Revue des études juives RHPR Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses RHR Revue de l’Histoire des Religions RQ Revue de Qumrân Sanh. Sanhedrin SC Sources Chrétiennes Shab. Shabbat Sheq. Sheqalim Sot. Sotah T /Tg. Targum Taʿan. Taʿanit Tanh. Tanhuma Yashen Tanh. B. Tanhuma (ed.) S. Buber (Wilna, 1885) TJ Targum Jonathan of the Prophets TN/Tg. Neof. Targum Neofiti 1 TO/Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos Tos. Tosefta, followed by the title of a tractate TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Vg. Vulgate VL Vetus Latina VT Vetus Testamentum ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

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. 14.18–24; Ps. 110.4), the earliest Christians regarded him as a figure of great significance. The epistle to the Hebrews is the earliest Christian document to speak of him as a type of Christ the eternal high priest. There we read: For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham divided a tithe of everything, is by interpretation first ‘King of Righteousness’, and then ‘King of Salem’, which is ‘King of Peace’; without father, without mother, without a genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but being like to the Son of God, for ever remains a priest (Heb. 7.1–3). The epistle says nothing explicitly of the bread and wine which Melchizedek the priest brought out (Gen. 14.18); but the Church Fathers held these things to be types of the eucharistic sacrifice (e.g., Cyprian, Ep. 63.4, PL 4 cols. 387–88; Ambrose, De Sacramentis IV.10; V.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 sixty- fifth birthday, in grateful acknowledgment of his distinguished scholarship and outstanding service in the Aramaic targumim. 4 chapter one makes him a Semite par excellence and ancestor of the Jews, a great Torah scholar, and head of an academy. That these texts offer a Jewish counterblast to Christian claims about Melchizedek seems prima facie a probability, and the case for so understanding them claims the 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 Noah’s Eldest Son

The Hebrew text of Gen 10.21 is ambiguous. It may be translated: ‘And to Shem also, the father of all the sons of Eber, the brother of

1 See especially M. Simon, ‘Melchisédech dans la polémique entre juifs et Chrétiens et dans la Légende’, RHPR 27 (1947), pp. 93–113, esp. pp. 60–62; J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 196–199; R. le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Genèse (SC, 245; Paris: Cerf, 1978), pp. 163–164 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 Origen’s 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. 255–264. shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 5

Japtheth the elder (ʾaḥî yepet haggādôl), to him also children were born.’ Japheth, ancestor of Gentiles, is thus Noah’s first-born, with all the rights and privileges of inheritance belonging to that position. The Hebrew text is understood in this way by Symmachus, Gen. R. 37.9, and Rashi, who follow a mode of translation represented already in pre-Christian times by the lxx. As a reading of the Hebrew it was pal- atable to Christians, since it gives some Gentiles a definite prominence as eldest sons of Noah. It is evident, however, that some Jews of Second Temple times took the Hebrew to mean: ‘And to Shem the elder also, the father of all the sons of Eber, the brother of Japheth, to him also children were born.’ Here the adjective haggādôl, ‘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. 8.15–21). Israel’s superiority to Gentiles is thus indicated: they inhabit land where God’s earthly presence is manifested, granted to the ancestor of the Semites from primaeval times. Tg. Neof., Tg. Onq., and Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 10.21 survive. The first two of these render the Hebrew literally, preserving its ambiguity. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, like Jerome and Jubilees, refers the adjective haggādôl to Shem, understanding it as ‘great’ rather than ‘elder’: And to Shem also was born a son. He is the father of all the sons of the Hebrews, the brother of Japheth: he was great in the fear of the Lord. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan here indicates Shem’s outstanding reputation as a Torah scholar. His Beth Ha-Midrash receives more attention in this targum than in any other (see Gen. 22.19; 24.62; 25.22), so it is natural that his ‘greatness’ be understood in this way, and not with reference to his age. None of these targumim, however, feels it necessary to emphasize Shem’s seniority. The concerns that motivatedJubilees appear to be absent, and they feel no need to engage with any case which Christians might have put forward in the name of Japheth’s privilege as the first- born son of Noah. 6 chapter one

2. Noah’s Blessing of Shem and Japheth

Along with their apparent lack of concern about Shem’s seniority, the targumim seem to have no particular anxieties about Gen. 9.26–27. In these verses, Noah blesses his sons Shem and Japheth because they ‘covered his shame’ when he lay in a drunken stupor (9.21–24). The story is obscure; but it appears that Canaan, the son of Ham, had done some disgraceful thing to Noah (9.24), for which Noah cursed him (9.25). Then he blessed Shem and Japheth: Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and may Canaan be servant to them. (9.26) May God enlarge Japheth; and may he dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be servant to them. (9.27) Once more, the Hebrew is ambiguous. In v. 27, the one who shall dwell in the tents of Shem may be either God, or Japheth himself; the same ambiguity persisted in the lxx, and was thus ripe for use by Christian exegetes. As early as Justin Martyr’s time (c. 100–c.165) this verse was taken to mean that the Gentiles, represented by Japheth, would take over the position of Shem and ‘dwell in his tents’; the Gentile Church would thus oust the Jews from their place as God’s people (Dial. with Trypho 139.2–3). Other interpreters, notably Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.5.3; Dem. 21), followed suit. This Christian use of the verse, however, is not reflected in the targumim. For v. 26, Tg. Onq., Tg. Neof., and Tg. Ps.-J. are extant. The first of these offers a straightforward translation of the Hebrew; the second specifies only the wish that Canaan be a servantsubjected in slavery to them, and is otherwise literal. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has: Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem whose action was righteous; therefore Canaan shall be servant to him. Shem’s righteous deed is given as the reason for Canaan’s loss of status; but this is readily explicable as a reasonable deduction from the Hebrew text itself. The idea that Canaan shall be Shem’s rather than ‘their’ servant is already expressed in Jub. 7.11. Shem’s concern with righteousness will feature again in Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 14.19, where in the figure of Melchizedek he will bless Abraham by God who created the universe ‘for the sake of the righteous.’ The same targumim and marginal glosses in Targum Neofiti are extant for Gen. 9.27. Targum Onqelos makes Noah pray: shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 7

May the Lord enlarge Japheth, and make His Shekhina dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be servant to them. Here the ambiguity is resolved: it is God who should dwell in Shem’s tents, not Japheth. This is the solution also of Targum Neofiti: May the Lord enlarge the boundaries of Japheth, and make the Glory of His Shekhina dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be a servant subjected in slavery to them. Targum Neofiti says that the boundaries of Japheth should be enlarged, displaying a positive attitude to these Gentiles. Only Canaan, cursed by the Bible itself, is censured. Targum Neofiti’s marginal glosses are fragmentary, but clearly represent a tradition found fully in Targum 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-Jonathan’s translation of Hebrew yapt, ‘may He (God) enlarge’ as ‘may he beautify’: this is not found in the glosses of Targum Neofiti. The Hebrew is taken as deriving from yph, ‘be beautiful’, and concentrates the exegesis on the spiritual nature of what shall happen to Japheth’s sons. In none of these interpretations is anti-Christian sentiment at work. Astonishingly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the glosses of Targum Neofiti point in quite another direction. They predict a conversion of Gentiles to Judaism, and provide a ready tool for opportunis- tic Christian propaganda, in so far as they indicate an adoption of

4 The glosses of Tg. Neof. read: ‘. . . and when his sons become converts, may they dwell in the Study-houses of Shem, and may Canaan be subjected [in slavery] . . .’; and ‘. . . in the Study-houses of Shem the Great may they be . . .’ For the text and further exegetical details, see B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), I, p. 120. 5 See Shinan, The Aggadah, II, p. 343; and Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 46. 8 chapter one monotheism by Japheth’s descendants. At least one Christian exegete who was familiar with Jewish tradition seems to have been aware of the potential of this verse. Jerome’s interpretation of Gen. 9.27 in his Quaest. Heb. in Gen. sounds remarkably like a ‘Christianized’ version of Targum 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 Jerome’s thinking. Far from counteracting Christian exegesis of Gen. 9.27, there is a sense in which Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the glosses of Targum Neofiti might be held to invite it.

3. Melchizedek Identified with Shem

The first biblical reference to Melchizedek occurs in Gen. 14.18, where we read: And Melchizedek the king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God Most High. The five extant targumim of this verse, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Onqelos, Targum Neofiti and glosses, Fragment Targum V and P, all define Salem as Jerusalem,7 agreeing with Ps. 76.3; Josephus Ant. 1.180; War 6.437; and Gen. R. 43.6. No anti-Christian tendency is 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. shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 9

Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran.8 The Palestinian targumim identify Melchizedek with Shem, and differ from one another only in detail. Frag. And Melchizedek the king of Jerusalem, who is Shem the Tg., P 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. And the king Zedek,9 the king of Jerusalem, he is Shem the Neof. Great, brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest ministering in the High Priesthood before God Most High. Tg. And the righteous king (mlkʾsdyq̣ ʾ), he is Shem son of Noah, Ps.-J. 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’, mšmš, 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-Jonathan’s note that he ‘went out to meet Abram’. None of these unique details in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems directed

8 1QapGen 22.13. For full discussion of this passage, see F.L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition (SNTSMS, 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 62–64. 9 This could be a mistake for Melchizedek, or an attempt to compromise between the version of Tg. Ps.-J. mlkʾ sdyq̣ ʾ and the Hebrew mlky sdq̣ : see the views of Fitzmyer and le Déaut respectively, summarized by A. Rodríguez Carmona, ‘La figura de Melquisedec en la literatura targúmica’, EstBíb 37 (1978), p. 84. 10 Pace Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58. The most natural sense of mšmš here and in Tg. Onq. of this verse is ‘acting as priest’: see Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos, p. 69 and literature there cited; and Rodríguez 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 first- born son of Noah has already been noted. This book also describes Noah’s blessing of Shem as prophecy (Jub. 8.18), that God would dwell in the dwelling of Shem (7.12; 8.18), that is, in Shem’s allotted territory; for Noah knew that the Garden of Eden is the holy of holies, and the dwelling of the Lord, and Mount Sinai the centre of the desert, and Mount Zion—the centre of the navel of the earth: these three were created as holy places facing each other.13 God dwells in land for which Shem is responsible: we may therefore assume that Shem has the proper qualifications, which will necessarily be priestly, to deal with this. Priestly service had already been offered before Shem’s days, by Adam (Jub. 3.26–27), Enoch (4.25–26) who knew the rules of sacrifice (21.7–10), and Noah (6.1–3). Further, Noah gave all that he had written to Shem his eldest son (Jub. 10.14). Charles quite properly compares this with the statement of Jub. 45.16, that 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 Rodríguez Carmona, ‘La figura’, pp. 84–85, 94; and Horton,Melchi- zedek, pp. 56, 82–83. 12 See J.J. Petuchowski, ‘The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek’,HUCA 28 (1957), pp. 127–136. The whole article supports the point; but see especially pp. 128–130. 13 Jub. 8.19, translated by R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London, 1902), pp. 71–72. Charles notes (Jubilees, p. 71) that the three holy places on earth belong to Shem. 14 See Charles, Jubilees, p. 81. shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 11 at pains to point out to his pagan readers that the official records of the Jewish people were written and preserved by the priests (Apion 1.29–36). Jubilees also records that Shem built a city and named it after his wife Sêdêqêtêlebâb (7.16), a word meaning ‘righteousness of the heart’.15 The implication may be that Shem particularly among Noah’s sons followed his father’s repeated injunctions to observe ‘righteousness’ (7.20, 34, 37). This may have influenced his later identification with Melchizedek, dubbed by Philo (Leg. All. 3.79) and Josephus (Ant. 1.180; War 6.438) ‘the righteous king’. Finally, Jubilees makes Shem the particular recipient of divine blessings which are carried forward in Jacob, who is Israel. Abraham blesses Jacob, praying that God grant him all the blessings with which He blessed Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Shem (19.27). As noted earlier, Jubilees makes the first three of these men perform priestly service; Shem is thereby placed in distinguished priestly company.16 Jubilees offers sufficient evidence to show that, already in the mid- second century bce, the necessary elements of the tradition that Shem was a righteous priest were known, and available for further development. Indeed, the characterization of Shem which we find in Philo’s work represents a great advance on Jubilees. For Philo, Shem is the type of a good and wise man, who is described in most noble terms (Quaest. et Sol. in Gen. 2.75–76). He thus devotes a large part of De Sobrietate (51–67) to Shem, whose name means ‘good’, and whom Moses counts worthy of the prayer recorded in Gen. 9.26–27. This last speaks of the Lord and God of the universe as peculiarly, by special favour, the God of Shem: therefore Shem and the universe are of equal value, and a man granted such privileges is God’s friend, like Abraham.17

15 See Charles, Jubilees, p. 61. 16 In Hebrew Sir. 49.16 Shem, with Seth and Enoch, is said to have been ‘visited’ (i.e., by God), and is linked to Adam as the ‘beauty’ (Hebrew tipʾeret) 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 tipʾeret of his people. See also P.W. Skehan and A.A. di Leila, The Wisdom of ben Sira (AB, 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), p. 545. 17 Sobr. 51–55. In associating Noah’s blessing of Shem with Abraham as friend of God, Philo comes close to the sentiments of a Qumran fragment (4Q252) which juxtaposes the prayer ‘may he dwell in the tents of Shem’ (Gen. 9.27) with the words ‘He gave a land to Abraham His friend.’ The Hebrew of the fragment reads: wbʾhly šm yškwn ʿrs ̣ ntn lʾbrhm ʿhbw; see T.H. Lim, ‘Notes on 4Q252 fr. 1, cols. i–ii’, JJS 44 (1993), p. 123. For comment on the text and interpretation of this fragment, see 12 chapter one

Philo’s understanding of Shem is a lofty one. Shem, whose God is God of the universe, has passed the bounds of human happiness. He is nobly born, with God as his father, and himself as only adopted son of God having all riches; he is alone king, deriving universal sovereignty from his God who is God of the world; and he is alone a free man. Because of this, he praises his patron with words, songs, and hymns, which is the only fitting recompense he can pay (Sobr. 56–58). Philo thus glorifies the ancestor of the Jewish people, the nation whose high priest he depicts as representing the universe before God (Vit. Mos. 2.133–35; cf. Wis. 18.24). Turning specifically to Gen. 9.27, ‘May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem’, Philo follows the lxx reading of ‘houses’ instead of ‘tents’, and fully recognizes the ambiguity of the subject of the verb ‘dwell’. Taking God as subject of this verb, Philo understands that it is fitting that he should dwell in a soul perfectly purified (Sobr. 62); such is his interpretation of ‘the houses of Shem’. Philo points out, however, that God does not dwell in a place; rather, his special providence watches over the place, so every householder has the duty of taking care of the house (Sobr. 63). From this we may conclude that Philo held Shem responsible for the maintainance of those ‘houses’ in which God dwells, a thought which probably motivated the author of Jubilees in noting that God’s dwellings were pre- eminently in Shem’s territory (Jub. 8.19). Having given these allegorical interpretations of Noah’s blessing of Shem, Philo then (Sobr. 65) argues that the unadorned scriptural narrative itself (τὸ ῥητὸν) supports what he has said. For Shem, he declares, is as it were a root (ὡσανεὶ ῥίξα) underlying what is noble, from which issues the tree ‘wise Abraham’, whose fruit is the self- taught Isaac. From that fruit Isaac arises the seed Jacob: this Jacob Philo describes as an athlete, trained in wrestling with the passions, using the angels who are reason to anoint himself for the contest (ὧν ἀθλητής ἐστιν ὁ τὴν πρὸς πάθη πάλην γεγυμνασμένος Ἰακώβ ἀγγέλοις ἀλείπταις λόγοις χρώμενος). This is clearly an allegorical interpretation of Jacob’s famous struggle with the supernatural being described in Gen. 32.24–31 (cf. 35.9–12), 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. 11–12, who also comments on the targumim of Gen. 9.27. shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 13 changed to Israel. Significantly, it is precisely at the point when Jacob’s name becomes Israel that Jubilees places the ordination of Levi to the everlasting priesthood (32.1–17), a tradition which is probably reflected in Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 35.11. Philo crowns his exegesis of the verse by declaring that Jacob forms the beginning (κατάρχει) of the twelve tribes: the verb κατάρχειν 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) βασίλειον καὶ ἱεράτευμα θεοῦ, ‘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’ isἀκολουθία , which has the sense of ‘series, regular succession’: it shows clearly how Philo regards Shem as the point of origin of that series of individuals who, in succession and from ancient times, bore the privileges of kingship and priesthood which bear fruit in Jacob, named Israel after his struggle with the angel. Philo concludes his comment with a brief note on the other possible sense of the verse, that Japheth should dwell in the tents of Shem (Sobr. 67–68).

Conclusions

The evidence examined here leaves no doubt that, by the early first century at the latest, the figure of Shem had assumed an importance in Jewish thought out of all proportion to the meagre information given about him in the Bible. In particular, the priestly characteristics of the man, obliquely conveyed by Jubilees, much more strongly in evidence in Philo’s work De Sobrietate, are seen to be ripe for exploitation. Both writings also make it clear that Shem was a wise and learned man. Now according to the Hebrew Bible, Shem lived for 500 years after the birth of Arphachshad (Gen. 11.10), which means that he was still alive

18 Sobr. 66. The Greek has:κατὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν πεῶτον Σὴμ ἀκολουθίαν οὗ τοῖς οἴκοις ἦν εὐχὴ τὸν θεὸν [ἐν]οικῆσαι. βασίλειον γὰρ ὁ βασιλέως δήπουθεν οἶκος ἱερὸς ὄντως καὶ μόνος ἄσυλος. 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. 11.10–11), and Abraham was not born until 1876 anno mundi (Jub. 11.15). Philo followed the lxx text of Genesis, which gives a period of 1072 years from the flood to the birth of Abraham, during which period Shem would have died.20 What these sources demonstrate, however, is the availability of learned tradition about Shem which could be brought to bear on the question of who is Melchizedek, once the chronology of patriarchal times was investigated from the standpoint of the Hebrew text. Both Jubilees and Philo offer a vivid picture of an aged, highly respected sage with priestly characteristics, who might be consulted by his juniors. The targumim of the Pentateuch entirely accord with such a picture. Shem’s judgments are God’s judgments, which the wicked Nimrod tried to persuade his generation to abandon (Frag. Tg. P and V of Gen. 10.9). Tg. Ps.-J. of Gen. 22.19 says that Abraham took Isaac to Shem’s study-house (cf. Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof., Frag. Tg. P and V of Gen. 24.62, where Isaac leaves the study-house of Shem): this is not surprising, since Jubilees itself insists that Isaac knew the Torah, and he must presumably have acquired his knowledge from a teacher. Similarly Rebecca, seeking God’s mercy when carrying the twins Jacob and Esau, visited the 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. 115–116. 20 A comparative chronological table according to the calculations of the Hebrew, lxx, and Josephus listing patriarchs from the flood to the birth of Abraham is found in H.St.J. Thackeray’s translation of Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), IV, p. 73. shem, melchizedek, and concern with christianity 15 glosses, Frag. Tg. V and P of Gen. 25.22); and even Jacob himself had studied there (Tg. Neof. of Gen. 25.27, first marginal gloss). Nothing remaining in the story of Melchizedek as the targumim present it requires anything but a Jewish origin. Thus at Gen. 14.19 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti respectively speak of God Most High ‘who for the sake of the righteous’ or ‘who by His Word’ created heaven and earth, thoroughly Jewish sentiments.21 Tg. Onq. and Tg. Neof. of Gen. 14.20 fairly literally translate the final part of Melchizedek’s 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. 13.25–27; Josephus Ant. 1.181; Philo Cong. 93, 99; and, of course, the epistle to the Hebrews.22 In the light of the material examined in this essay, it seems reasonable to suggest that the identification of Melchizedek with Shem in the pentateuchal targumim arose simply and naturally from Jewish study of biblical texts about the two men together with traditions about Shem which were demonstrably current in Second Temple times. At no point has it been necessary to invoke external stimuli to account for the identification, and it seems unlikely that it originated in anti- Christian thinking. In this regard it should be recalled that Jerome certainly knew of the identification and quoted it more than once, apparently discerning in it nothing to conflict with Christian teaching (Ep. 73.2; Quaest. Heb. in Gen. on Gen. 14.18).23 It is true that the identification ensures that Melchizedek is seen as a historical figure; for this reason, it may have been developed as a counter to the kind of

21 See Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58, n. 46. 22 See Heb. 7.4; cf. Gen. R. 43.8, and Rodríguez Carmona, ‘La figura’, pp. 95–96. 23 In both of these writings Jerome notes that the identification depends on calculating the years of Shem’s life according to the Hebrew text of Genesis, which he regards as authentic. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 2.6, haer. 35) attributes the identification of Melchizedek with Shem to the Samaritans, and rejects it with chronological data culled from lxx, which for him is authoritative. 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 BEERSHEBA 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. 89–90, 144–145. See also his earlier study, ‘Proselytising in Rabbinic Judaism’, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 175–185, particularly pp. 179, 182–183, in respect of Abraham. Another important pre-Rabbinic text, Pseudo-Philo’s 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. Schürer, 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. 328–329. See also F.J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Re-Writing the Bible (Oxford, 1993), pp. 262–270, for a first-century dating. Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (2 vols.), vol. 1 (Leiden, 1996), pp. 199–210, argues in favour of a date in the second century ce. 2 With Goodman’s 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. 553–554, provides a summary list of the most significant treatments. 18 chapter two

This paper will argue that Goodman’s 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 Abraham’s 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 win- ning 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 Beer- sheba.4 He swore an oath and made a covenant with Abimelech there; whereupon Abimelech returned to the land of the Philistines (Gen. 21:22–32). Then we read (Gen. 21:33): ויטע אשׁל בבאר שׁבע ויקרא שׁם בשׁם יהוה אל עולם 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. ,RSV’s tamarisk tree) occurs only here in the Pentateuch) אשׁל ,First

3 See Goodman, Mission, pp. 4–5. For a critique of Goodman’s definition of ‘proselytizing mission’, see Shaye Cohen’s 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 hiphʿil form, ‘and he caused ,ויקרא may also be better understood קרא people) to call’: the verbal root) אל עולם ,’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 Abraham’s 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 (ἄρουραν) at the Well of the Oath; and there he called (or: invoked, Greek ἐπεκαλέσατο) the name of the Lord the Everlasting God (Θεὸς αἰώνιος). here becomes an ἄρουρα, a piece of tilled ground: in אשׁל Hebrew Egypt, where the LXX translation was made, the ἄρουρα 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 LXX’s 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 ἐπεκαλέσατο . . . τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου θεὸς αἰώνιος is patient of both senses.7 Furthermore, Θεὸς αἰώνιος 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 d’Alexandrie, vol. 1: La Genèse (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. 11–20. 7 See M. Harl, op. cit., p. 191. 8 Harl, op. cit., p. 190, translates the phrase as Dieu éternel. 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 author’s enterprise, we must glance at his re-structuring of the story of Abraham told in Gen. 20–21, which he substantially re-wrote in Jub. 16:10–17:14. Most striking is the complete suppression of the account of Abraham’s and Sarah’s dealings with the non-Jew Abimelech, king of Gerar, recorded in Gen. 20:1–17. 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. 16:10–11; cf. Gen. 20:1). Thereafter, the author turns to Gen. 21:1–4 with its account of Isaac’s birth, naming and circumcision, which he more or less reproduces in Jub. 16:12–14. The Bible then (Gen. 21:5–7) gives the ages of Abraham and Sarah and comments on the meaning of Isaac’s name; ignoring this, Jub. 16:15–31 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 Isaac’s 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. 19:5–6, 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 Schürer, op. cit., vol. III. 1, pp. 311–313. 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. 52–142. abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 21 enters into covenant with Israel at Sinai and commands that His people be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, suggests that Abraham’s actions at Beer-sheba carry, for the author of Jubilees, a foundational character: what occurs here is a necessary preliminary to, even fore- shadowing of, the covenant at Sinai; and it will have abiding meaning for the future of Israel. There now follows an account of the first earthly celebration of the Feast of Sukkoth through its seven days (Jub. 16:20–31). First, Abraham built an altar, provided booths for himself and his servants, and offered sacrifice each day (Jub. 16:20–23). 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. 16:25–26) 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 Abraham’s 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 Isaac’s weaning, the feast in his honour, and the expulsion of Hagar (Gen. 21:8–21, followed essentially by Jub. 17:1–14). The second meeting of Abraham with Abimelech (Gen. 21:22–32) 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. 20:1–22:1, after which we hear of the sacrifice of Isaac. Jub. 17:15–18:3 locates Isaac’s offering at Pesah, so it is reasonable to assume that Gen. 21:33, which immediately precedes Isaac’s 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 in Beer-sheba (the Well of the אשׁל verse states that Abraham planted Oath). The author of Jubilees most likely interpreted the word to mean a plantation with fruits and trees: LXX’s rendering of it as ἄρουρα, already noted, was current in the author’s 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 δενδρῶνα, ‘thicket’; Symmachus as φυτείαν, ‘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 were traditional at the time of Jubilees (and אשׁל understandings of the evidence of LXX suggests that they could have been), then the author’s linking of Sukkoth’s trees and fruits to this verse is unex- ceptional. 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 -under אל עולם everything’ (Jub. 16:26), a likely reference to God as stood 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 Lord’s 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. 14:16–19; cf. 14:9). It is might suggest Sukkoth אל עולםnot difficult to see how the divine title as the appropriate time-setting for Gen. 21:33. Given all this, we might expect Jubilees to make Abraham, wor- shipping 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’. abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 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. 73–89 Philo discusses Gen. 21:33 at some length.13 He as ἄρουρα, observing that אשׁל quotes LXX with their translation of

11 See above, p. 22. The removal of Gentiles from the scene by the author ofJubilees 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. 117–118; and K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, Judische Schriften aus hellenistisch- römischer Zeit, Band II (Gütersloh, 1981), pp. 414–415. 12 The guiding impulse controlling the author of Jubilees here seems to be his well- known desire to link events in the lives of the Patriarchs to the great festivals. Gen. 21:33 provided him with a ready-made excuse for making Abraham celebrate a feast, providing that Abimelech could be removed from the scene. In the event, he placed all material relating to this Philistine in Jub. 24:8–33, which re-works the story of Isaac’s sufferings at Abimelech’s hands recorded in Gen. 26:1–33, and culminates in Isaac’s 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 ἄρουρα. Feldman, Jew and Gentile, p. 318, cites De Virtutibus 217 as evidence of Abraham as missionary. Certainly the whole section 211–19 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 ἄρουρα 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 Lord’s Name into Everlasting God’ (73–74). Philo discusses each of these in turn. The numerical symbolism of the ἄρουρα 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 (75–77). Then the place, the Well of Oath, he expounds with reference to Gen. 26:32 LXX, Isaac’s servants digging but finding no water (78–84). 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 Κύριος refers to God’s rulership, θεός 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 (85–87). 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 Philo’s words elsewhere about the Creator who lovingly provides food and sustenance for the whole human race with every passing season, a favour recalled

Abraham’s 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’ (ἅπασιν ἐπηλύταις εὐγενείας ἐστὶ κανών) 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. 1–28. abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 25 in various items of the Temple service (De Vit. Mos. II.104, 124–25; 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 (δένδρον), 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 Abraham’s 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 Abraham’s family, there is every reason to suppose that he would have recorded as much. For there is no doubt that he was favourably dis- posed towards Gentiles who turned to Judaism: most recently, Louis Feldman has singled out no fewer than eighteen passages in Philo’s writings testifying to his admiration of and high esteem for such converts.16 All the more striking, then, is the absence in Philo’s 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 Abraham’s dealings with Abimelech in Ant. 1.207–12, drawing into one continuous narrative the Biblical material found in Gen. 20:1–18 and 21:22–32. 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 römischen Welt, 2. Principat, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, Band 21 (Religion), pp. 227–271; and P. Borgen, article ‘Philo of Alexandria’, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5 (New York, 1992), pp. 337–339. 16 See Feldman, Jew and Gentile, pp. 295–296. 26 chapter two with the explanation of Isaac’s name, notes of his parents’ ages, and his circumcision (Ant. I.213–14). 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.166–68) 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: in Beer-sheba, and prayed there in the (אילנא) And he planted a tree Name of the Lord, the God Everlasting.19 ,as ‘tree’ was known already to Philo אשׁלThe interpretation of Hebrew and possibly to exegetes older than he. The Syriac Peshitta putns bṭ ʾ, ‘plant’. Abraham’s calling on God is reasonably represented as prayer. TO knew that Abraham sought proselytes, and told of the souls which Abraham’s 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.166–68 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 according to אשׁל Edinburgh, 1988), p. 85, noting that ‘tree’ is interchangeable with) abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 27

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (PJ) represents a second, and quite distinct, mode of translation. at the well of the seven young (פרדיסא) And he planted a garden lambs, and prepared in it food and drink for those who passed by and to them there: ‘Give thanks (מכריז) returned; and he used to proclaim and believe in the Name of the Word of the (אודו ,or: acknowledge) 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 Abraham’s 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. 21:28–31). 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 PJ’s opinion, this is just what Abraham does. Alone of to describe Abraham’s activity. It כרז the Targums PJ uses the verb means ‘to announce, to make public proclamation’, and in this verse may אודו it introduces a call to confess, acknowledge, or praise (for 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 (יכרזו) makes them merely ‘say’ them. The witnesses of a man’s 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 Abraham’s tree (sic) at Beer-sheba.22 Even those who made the golden calf are said to have

bBezạ 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 (Tübingen, 1995), pp. 92–94. 21 Aramaic text in E.G. Clarke, W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, 1984). Trans- lations are mine. 22 This tree formed the middle plank of the Tabernacle. PJ reads: And when Israel 28 chapter two proclaimed their opinion of its status before it (PJ Exod. 32:8). Thus PJ surely regards Abraham’s 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, PJ’s 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 of Abraham’s speech to the passers-by, nor כרז which uses the root makes Abraham call on them to believe in the Name of God. PJ’s exegesis of the Hebrew text here is again unique among the Targums in as qal, rendering it with a verb in the active voice such ויקרא taking that Abraham ‘proclaims’ a message: the remaining Targums, in common with Talmudic and Midrashic texts, read the verb as a hiph‘il and make Abraham ‘cause to call’ others to God. Second, at the end of the last century, Adolf Büchler demonstrated that PJ was aware of traditions found in Jubilees.23 This may lead to suspicion that PJ’s rendering of Gen. 21:33 might be directed against Jubilees’ version of Abraham’s deeds at Beer-sheba, set out above (section 2). Finally, the verbal root -occurs in both Aramaic and Hebrew, and in pronunciation resem כרז bles the Greek κηρύσσω used by authors of the New Testament as a technical term for Christian preaching.24 In his epistle to the Romans (10:9–15), 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 sur- and said, This is the tree which (מכרז) face of the water, and the angel proclaimed 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. Büchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jeruschalmischen Tempels (Vienna, 1895), pp. 151–159; J. Schwarz, ‘Jubilees, Bethel, and the Temple of Jacob’, HUCA 56 (1985), pp. 63–86; and C.T.R. Hayward, ‘Jacob’s 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. 185–187. 24 It was sometimes thought to be a loan-word from Greek κῆρυξ, ‘herald’: see e.g. G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1905), p. 183. For general discussion, see G. Friedrich, articles ‘κῆρυξ, κηρύσσω, κήρυγμα, προσκηρύσσω’, in G. Kittel (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 683–718. abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 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 Paul’s 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 PJ’s exegesis has eliminated ‘calling on the Name of the Lord’ from the Genesis verse. It should also be observed—and 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 Abraham’sown belief in God led to his own justification. That, for Paul, was the decisive point in Abraham’s life. The appearance in PJ Gen. 21:33 of terms so redolent of Paul’s 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 ten- tatively suggest that PJ’s exegesis, in part, represents the Targumist’s 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, PJ’s 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 PJ’s 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. 22–23. 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 ,(מגייר יתהון) 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 it happened that when ;(לערליא) and drink for the uncircumcized 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 .(אורחיה דעלמא) 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. Díez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1, vol. 1: Génesis (Madrid and Barcelona, 1968). Translations are mine. The latter part of the marginal gloss in the Ms. of TN on this verse reads: ‘Our father Abraham answered and said to them: Pray before your Father who is in heaven; for from what is His you have eaten, and from what is His you have drunk. They did not move from there, since he was proselytizing them in the Name of the Word of the Lord, the God of the universe.’ 27 Aramaic text of the Fragment Targums in M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, vol. 1 (Rome 1980). Translations are mine. The fragment preserved in Ms. Vat. 440 (FTV) is similar to TN, but adds that Abraham ‘was not willing to receive’ payment from the passers-by, exhorted them to ‘pray before your Father who is in heaven, since from what is His you have eaten and drunk’, and (cf. FTP) ‘taught them right conduct’. FTV concludes: ‘And Abraham confessed (or: gave thanks) and prayed there in the Name of the Word of the Lord, the God of the universe.’ abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 31

Midrashim. Unlike PJ, these Targums envisage Abraham’s 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 .in Gen. 21:33 אשׁל opinion among the Sages about the meaning of 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 ,14 נח to mean ‘inn’.28 Thus in Tanḥuma אשׁל altogether, and take R. Nehemiah interprets the word as a ‘tree’ (in the manner of TO) and :’to ask‘ ,שׁאל re-arranges its letters to form the root 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. where Abraham ,12 לך לך All this seems to be assumed in Tanḥuma 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

as ‘Sanhedrin’, which need not concern us, is given אשׁל A third interpretation of 28 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 אכל 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‘ ,שׁתה לון Ha-Gadol on the verse. Aboth de R. Nathan rec. A 7 concentrates almost entirely on Abraham’s hospitality. 29 Gen. 12:5 is a locus classicus in the Targums for Abraham’s 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 Déaut, 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. Abraham’s 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.’ but ‘and he ,(ויקרא) ’Resh Laqish said: Do not read ‘and he called teaching that Abraham our father caused all the ,(ויקריא) ’caused to call 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 Abraham’s 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: Genèse (Paris, 1978), pp. 148–149. On proselytism in the Targums, see M. Delcor, ‘La Portée chronologique de quelques interprétations du Targoum Néophyti contenues dans le cycle d’Abraham’, JSJ 1 (1970), pp. 106–108; and M. Ohana, ‘Prosélytisme et Targum Palestinien: Données nouvelles pour la datation de Néofiti I’, Biblica 55 (1974), pp. 317–332. 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 Abraham’s proselytizing activity by LXX; Jubilees 12:16–13:4; Philo, De Abr. 67; or, indeed, by Josephus, Ant. I.154–57, who states that the Chaldeans and other Mesopotamians ‘rebelled’ (στασιασάντων) against Abraham for his declaration of one sovereign creator God, precipitating his departure from their midst. אשׁל Gen. Rab. 54:7 is less detailed: ‘In the opinion of R. Nehemiah, who said that 30 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.’ abraham as proselytizer at beer-sheba 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 This detail .12 לך לך here, with the possible exception of Tanḥuma 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 twice, first as hiphʿil and now as qal, is to place Abraham’s ויקרא of 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. 16:20–31 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 Paul’s 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 PJ’s 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 ויקרא Talmud and the Midrashim. If the ascription of the reading of as hiphʿil 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 Abraham’s 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 Goodman’s arguments that Jewish attempts to win converts at that time were not uncommon. CHAPTER THREE

BALAAM’S PROPHECIES AS INTERPRETED BY PHILO AND THE ARAMAIC TARGUMS OF THE PENTATEUCH

Discussing Philo’s 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 God’s cosmic law given to the Jews at Sinai, is fundamental to the sage’s 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 Israel’s enemies: in short, Philo had discerned the ultimate goal of Israel’s existence as the subjection of the human race to God’s universal law, the law which He gave to Mosel.1 This essay attempts to show that Borgen’s thesis finds support not only in Philo’s own writings, but also in traditional Jewish exegesis of the Balaam oracles. It will note how apt is Borgen’s description as imperial of the ‘man’ destined to arise from Israel; and it will suggest that the evidence allows for further definition of the man’s identity. It begins, however, with necessary preliminary observations about Philo’s 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. 341–361. For Philo’s 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. 395–426; Borgen (1992), pp. 341–342 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. 139–148. Students disagree (inter alia) whether messianism was central or tangential in Philo’s 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. 91–97, 163–172, see Borgen (1992), pp. 342– 343, 348–351, 354–360. 36 chapter three

1. Balaam’s Oracles in Philo: General Remarks

Three points must be emphasized. First, the Bible records four separate oracles of Balaam concerning Israel (Num. 23:7–10, 18–24; 24:3–9, 15–19): Philo reduced these to three (Vit. Mos. I. 278–279, 283–284, 289–291). 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 Israel’s beginnings in the past (Vit. Mos. I. 279), on Israel’s γένεσις, her present status as divinely blessed (e.g., Vit. Mos. I. 284, 289), and her future victorious destiny (Vit. Mos. I. 290–291). Signifying completeness, the number three used to formulate Balaam’s oracles invites the reader to regard the seer’s words as a full expression of Israel’s significance. Secondly, Philo and the Rabbis insist that Balaam was a villain.3 Despite this, Philo contends that his words about Israel were genu- inely prophetic. Balaam spoke his first oracle as one possessed by the prophetic spirit (προφητικοῦ πνεύματος ἐπιφοιτήσαντος) which had ridded him of his soothsayer’s 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 ἔνθους, inspired by God (Vit. Mos. I. 288). Balaam contributed nothing to the oracles: he spoke as God’s instrument, expounding another’s words, without employing his own reason (Vit. Mos. I. 277, 283). Even as a Gentile soothsayer, Balaam accurately predicted the future (Vit. Mos. I. 264–265). Inspired by God, therefore, his prophecy was to be of exceptional quality.4 So much is evident

3 See G. Vermes, ‘The Story of Balaam: The Scriptural Origin of Haggadah’, in G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, 2nd ed. 1973), pp. 127–177; J.R. Baskin, Pharaoh’s Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition (Chico, 1983), pp. 94–96; M.S. Moore, The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and Development (Atlanta, 1990), pp. 66–67, 103; J.T. Greene, Balaam and His Interpreters (Atlanta, 1992), pp. 145–147; and M. McNamara, ‘Early Exegesis in the Palestinian Targum (Neofiti 1) Numbers 24’, Proc. of the Irish Bib. Ass. 16 (1993), pp. 57–79. 4 For Philo’s theory of prophecy, see Baskin (1983), pp. 93–94; J.R. Levison, ‘Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus’, JSJ 26 (1995), pp. 271–323. J.R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (Leiden, 1997), pp. 29–33, 47–55, 229–233 examines Philo’s Balaam story, comparing it with that of Josephus: balaam’s prophecies 37 when Philo’s words are juxtaposed with LXX’s account of Balaam: never do the latter refer to him as προφήτης or say that he spoke in προφητεία, saying only that the Spirit of God came upon him.5 Rather, it is the Targums which most closely reflect Philo’s belief that Balaam’s 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 שׁתם הﬠין 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 proph- [דרזיא סתימיא] ets 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 Philo’s description of Balaam constitutes the final general point. LXX translated Balaam’s self-description ‘the man with the penetrating eye’ (Num. 24:3,15) as ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀληθινῶς ὁρῶν, ‘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 God’s 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 Plutarch’s essay De Defectu Oraculorum. He says little, however, about the content of the oracles, and does not discuss Philo’s emphasis on Balaam’s 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. 144–145, and G. Dorival, La Bible d’Alexandrie, vol. 4 Les Nombres (Paris, 1994), pp. 434, 444–445. 6 So rendered by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary, Numbers (New York, 1946), pp. 118, 120. to‘ שׂתםThese Targums expound the first Hebrew word twice, first as from root 7 to open’ as it occurs‘ שׁתם close’ implying something concealed, and then as from root 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 Péricope de Balaam (Nombres 22–24) La Prose et les ‘Oracles’ (Paris, 1985), pp. 347–350; 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 ὅστις καθ᾿ ὕπνον ἐναργῆ φαντασίαν εἶδε θεοῦ τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ἀκοιμήτοις ὄμμασιν, ‘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 Balaam’s hearing God, and his knowledge of the Most High. His emphasis is wholly on sight. Most tellingly, Balaam’s ‘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 Israel’s sight is knowledge of the divine, as the following passage from De Mig. Abr. 39 makes plain: it should be carefully compared with Philo’s words about Balaam. Here Philo comments on Jacob’s change of name to Israel, indicating vision through the eyes of the soul which is superior to hearing: For the coin of learning and teaching from which Jacob took his sur- name is engraved anew into Israel, ‘the one who sees’. Now through this comes about the seeing of the divine light, which does not differ from knowledge, which opens the eye of the soul and leads it to perceptions more luminous and clear than those which come by hearing.9 Why should Balaam be presented as prophesying in persona Israel, about the past, present and future of the Jewish people? Undoubtedly his self-designation as ‘the man who truly sees’ (LXX Num. 24:3,15; cf. 23:9) gave Philo reason to link the prophet with Israel; but Jewish tradition encouraged him to go further. For according to TN, PJ, FTV,

8 Of numerous examples, see especially Leg. All. II.34; III.172, 186; De Conf. 56, 72; De Praem. 27; De. Ebr. 82; De Mig. 125, 200, 224. For etymologies of Hebrew names, Philo possibly used Jewish tradition: see G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlori- legium in its Jewish Context (Sheffield, 1985), pp. 17–25. L.L. Grabbe,Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Atlanta, 1988), argues (pp. 102–113) that Philo may have used an onomasticon: for discussion of Israel, see pp. 172–173. 9 See also De Somn. I.129. For Philo’s interpretation of Jacob’s encounter at the Jabbok, when his name was changed to Israel, see A. Butterweck, Jakobs Ringkampf am Jabbok: Gen. 32, 4ff. in der jüdischen Tradition bis zum Frühmittelatler (Frankfurt- am-Main, 1981), pp. 62–71. balaam’s prophecies 39 and a Tosefta Targum of Gen. 49:1, the dying Jacob-Israel had sum- moned his twelve sons to announce to them ‘the hidden mysteries’, including the secret of Israel’s 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-Israel’s blessings in Gen. 49 and Balaam’s 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; sceptre’, in both Gen. 49:10 and‘ ,שׁבט and mysterious reference to a Num. 24:17. These, and other verbal similarities, allowed the Targumists to interpret Balaam’s oracles with an eye to Jacob’s blessings.11 That Philo followed a similar procedure is indicated by a small but significant detail. In paraphrasing Balaam’s lion imagery he twice (Vit. Mos. I. 284, 291) uses forms of the verb ἐγείρειν 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 (τίς ἐγερεῖ) the lion’s 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: but ,(וירד) ’the Hebrew states that this star shall ‘exercise dominion LXX rendered the verb as ‘he shall awake’ or ‘rise up’ (ἐξεγερθήσεται). It seems likely that LXX had already established a lexical connection between the fourth Balaam oracle and Jacob’s 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. 162–163, which speaks of -as in their ver ,סתמייא cf. FTV). TN and PJ speak of the mysteries as) רזייה טמיריה sion of Num. 24:3. On the Targums of Gen. 49:1 and the Balaam oracles, see also A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tübingen, 1986), pp. 199–203. bow‘ ,כרﬠ prey’, in Num. 23:24 and Gen. 49:9; the verb‘ ,טרף Note references to 11 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. 281–282; R. Syrén, The Blessings in the Targums (Åbo, 1986), pp. 54, 102, 196; and J.L.W. Schaper, ‘The Unicorn in the Messianic Imagery of the Greek Bible’, JTS 45 (1994), pp. 130–131. 12 In LXX of the Pentateuch, ἐγείρειν occurs at Gen. 41:4, 7; 49:9; Exod. 5:8; 23:5 (some Mss.); Num. 10:35 (some Mss.), and ἐξεγείρειν at Gen. 28:16; 41:21; Num. 40 chapter three

In fine, Philo portrayed Balaam’s 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 Israel’s 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 Balaam’s oracles, and must now be addressed.

2. Philo’s Version of the Oracles and the Aramaic Targums

Examination of the substance of Balaam’s 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 nations—not because they dwell at random, nor because of the segrega- tion of their lands (from those of others), but because of the distinctive character of their special customs—not 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 .of the nations (נימוסי with the laws (or: customs, Aramaic More complex is what follows. Having made Balaam proclaim Israel’s fidelity to ancestral custom, Philo uses his first of the three prophetic utterances to describe Israel’s origins in Vit. Mos. I. 279: Who has found accurately the first foundation of the beginning γενέσεως( ) 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 Colson’s note in Philo VI, p. 420, where he renders καταβολή as ‘sowing’ rather than ‘foundation’: he gains support from Philo’s use of the word in De Op. Mundi 132; Quis Rerum 115; Spec. Leg. III.36; Leg. ad Gaium 54. balaam’s 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 Israel’s 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 words which may equally be ,מראשׁ צרים ,’from the top of the rocks‘ rendered ‘from the beginning of the rocks’. The Targums understood them thus, with reference to the spiritual character of Israel’s 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 Philo’s exegesis, this takes account both of Israel’s ancestry and spiritual affinity. On the latter, Philo is forceful: Israel’s souls are of divine origin, being near of kin to God, ἀγχίσποροι θεοῦ. The word ἀγχίσπορος, is rare in Philo’s writings; and its use here relates the Israel of Balaam’s prophecy both with their righteous ancestors, and with all those whose reason leads them to practise virtue in accord with God’s 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. 7–8) 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 God’s 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 Balaam’s 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. 23:9–10, see Dorival (1994), pp. 435–436. 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 1:116–118; N.A. van Uchelen, ‘The Targumic Versions of Deuteronomy 33:15: Some Remarks on the Origin of a Traditional Exegesis’, JJS 31 (1980), pp. 199–209; Syrén (1986), p. 59; McNamara (1995), p. 131. 15 For Philo’s other uses of ἀγχίσπορος, see De Op. Mundi 144; Spec. Leg. IV. 14, 236; De Virt. 80. In what follows, Philo applies Balaam’s words about Israel to practisers of virtue: see further Borgen (1992), pp. 346–351. 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 Philo’s writings and directly related to his views on souls ‘near of kin’ to God. In brief, the Targums of Num. 23:9–10 catalogue Israel’s physical origins, spiritual character, and her numbers like the stars. These elements lay the foundation for Philo’s exegesis, not easily derived from LXX, but entirely comprehensible in the light of the Targum. Philo’s 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 Balaam’s 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 Philo’s 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 God’s promises to Abraham and Jacob that their descendants should be like the dust of the earth: see Gen. 13:16 (where the -is used) and 28:14, neither of which, however, has any refer ,מנה ,’same verb ‘count ence to ‘stars’. These are introduced by the Targums: cf. TN, ‘Who can number the young men of the house of Jacob, of whom it was said that they should be blessed like the dust of the earth? Or who can number one of the four orders of the camps of Israel, of whom it was said, they shall be as numerous as the stars?’ 17 See further Dorival (1994), pp. 438–439. balaam’s 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 Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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. Philo’s correspondence with Targumic exegesis shown here could be illustrated further. He uses LXX’s vocabulary, only to depart from its sense to incorporate notions attested in the Targum. Josephus, too, in recounting Balaam’s prophecy, shows knowledge of traditions found in Targum, demonstrating their currency in his day and strengthening the case for Philo’s 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 Philo’s re-written Balaam oracles.

3. Imperial Victory and the Triumphal Hymn

Borgen has perceived that Philo fastened upon Israel’s victory over Egypt at the Exodus as a guarantee of future victories.19 This is corroborated by his retaining Balaam’s 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 Israel’s present, and the other in the third oracle, dealing with Israel’s future. A translation of the Hebrew of the verses yields: God brings them (Num. 24:8 has ‘him’) out from Egypt: he has as it were the horns (or: strength) of a wild ox.

18 See Vermes (1973) passim. 19 See Borgen (1992), pp. 352–354. 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 (δόξα μονοκέρωτος). Here the unicorn’s glory can belong only to God, and what Schaper calls a ‘spiritualizing translation’ has been adopted.20 This has no bearing on Philo’s 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 unicorn’s 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). God’s ‘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. 120–121, and Dorival (1994), p. 138. 21 See further Borgen (1992), p. 352. 22 See also LXX in Codex Alexandrinus of Num. 23:22; but the unicorn as such has no place in Philo’s work. balaam’s prophecies 45

The Targums took Balaam’s 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 Philo’s second Balaam oracle, paraphrasing LXX Num. 23:24, Behold, the people shall rise up like a lion’s 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 lion’s 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, ἐγρηγορὼς τὸν ἐπινίκιον ᾄσεται ὕμνον. (Vit. Mos. I. 284) Nothing in the Bible suggests this climax of Philo’s second Balaam oracle. The Targumic evidence is thus especially valuable, and is best appreciated in light of Philo’s overall train of thought. First (Vit. Mos. I. 282) he tells how Balak sent Balaam to get good auspicies (ἀισίους) by means of birds and voices (οἰωνοὺς καὶ φήμας). 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 (ὀιωνῶν) and oracle-mongering, trusting in the One Ruler of the world (Vit. Mos. I. 283–284). Then Balaam sees the people rising like a lion to sing the victory hymn. All this smacks of the Roman triumph. The wordsἐπινίκιον ὕμνον in particular suggest chants sung during the triumphal procession of a victorious imperator.23 To qualify for a triumph, the victor must have been a magistrate possessing his own auspicia, that is, the right to consult the omens, especially those of birds: at least five thousand of a foreign enemy must have been killed, with outright victory ensu- ing. The victor must have been acclaimed imperator, and have been

23 This very phrase is found in Plutarch’sLife 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. 278–279) in their triumphal hymn at the Exodus.25 This emperor’s triumph requires no auspicia: Balaam, prophesying in persona Israel, does without them—like the people he represents, who ‘unsleeping’, ‘wide awake’ (ἐγρηγορὼς) 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 Israel’s (earthly) imperator in the defeat of the Egyptians, although not explicitly acknowledged, would be evident to any Jew reading Philo’s 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. Philo’s words imply future victories (however understood) for Jewish monotheism over pagan polytheism, as his treatise De Vita Contemplativa shows. There, Balaam’s 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. 10–13).

24 Philo’s 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. 174–193, and (for the relationship of auspicia to imperium) pp. 304–355. For bird omens, see also Moore (1990), pp. 66–67. 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 Israel’s likeness to a lioness is interpreted .יחידאה ,to mean that she is unique 26 For this group, see Philo’s 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. 75–99; and see E. Schürer, 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. 591–597. balaam’s 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 (εὐχαριστηρίους ὕμνους) throughout the night in imitation of the victory song which Moses and Miriam led after the Exodus (Vit. Con. 84–88). The participants celebrate without sleep until dawn; then, more wide awake (διεγηγερμένοι) 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. 104–121, 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. 21:16–18): both he and Abraham are leaders of the hymn of triumph and thanksgiving, τὸν ἐπινίκιον καὶ εὐχαριστικὸν ὕμνον, 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 Israel’s 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 Balaam’s prophecy.28

27 For affinities between Philo’s depiction of Abraham and his description of the Therapeutae, see R. Martin-Achard, Actualité d’Abraham (Neuchâtel, 1969), pp. 132–137. 28 Borgen (1992), pp. 353–360. From what has been said here about the Therapeutae, it should be evident that there is truth in Hecht’s 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 Balaam’s 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 Israel’s 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’, Israel’s children here addressed. He will get mastery (ἐπικρατήσει) rather than exercise lordship (κυριεύσει), 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 Balaam’s 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. 24:7’s prediction of a man coming forth.30 This last

29 On this exegesis, see Dorival (1994), pp. 139, 446. 30 For a succinct account of messianic interpretation of this verse, see Dorival (1994), pp. 451–453; for its use in eschatological prayer at Qumran, see B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (Leiden, 1994), pp. 216–217. On the Balaam balaam’s prophecies 49 verse could then be read in the light of 24:17, which Hebrew and LXX amplify (in Num. 24:18–19) by predicting the man’s destruction of Moabites, the sons of Seth, Edomites, and an unnamed city: here we have a ready-made list of ‘many nations’ which the man will subdue one by one. Philo says nothing of the star predicted in Num. 24:17; but stars featured in his interpretation of these oracles, as he intimates that the whole Jewish people may be regarded as stars insofar as they are ‘near of kin to God’.31 In this last oracle, he appears deliberately to focus on the ‘man’ as single leader and representative of the multitu- dinous ‘stars’ who are ‘near of kin to God’. Philo has links with traditions preserved in Targum. We give TO, then TN, of Num. 24:7. The king who shall be anointed from among his sons shall increase and have dominion over many nations; and his king shall be stronger than Agag, and his kingship shall be exalted. Their king shall arise from among them, and their redeemer shall be from among them. He shall gather for them their exiles from the provinces of their enemies; and his sons shall have dominion over many peoples. He shall be stronger than Saul [who] sp[ared] Agag, king of the Amalekites; and the kingship of King Messiah shall be exalted. In certain details, LXX and Targum share the same essential exegesis. The ‘water’ of the Hebrew text becomes a person, ‘man’ who has a ‘kingdom’ in LXX and ‘king’ in Targum; both versions take its ‘flow- ing’ from the ‘buckets’ to indicate the origin of this person from Israel; and the ‘many waters’ become ‘many nations’ ruled by this individual.32 LXX, however, speak of Gog rather than Agag of the Hebrew text: this is followed neither by Targums nor by Philo.33 Finally, the Targums refer this verse and its companion Num. 24:17 to an anointed king or Messiah. LXX are more reticent, speaking of the ‘man’ and ‘his 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. 61–62 and the literature there cited. 31 See above pp. 41–42. 32 See further Dorival (1994), p. 139, and R. le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque III Nombres (Paris, 1979), pp. 230–233. 33 Mention of Gog may allow LXX to avoid reference to a Davidic monarch: so Dorival (1994), pp. 139–140; but see Schaper (1994), pp. 127–131 for a different view. 50 chapter three tribe of Judah, as a summary of the rest of his third oracle (Vit. Mos. I. 290–291) 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 Israel’s 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 Philo’s 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 lion’s 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 God’s 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 Israel’s 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 Philo’s words. It reads: He lay down, he rested like a lion and like a lion’s 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 lion’s 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. 353–357. balaam’s prophecies 51

The repetition of the lion imagery recalls Israel’s praise of Judah in Gen. 49:8ff.; and given that Balaam prophesiesin 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 Philo’s fellow Jews. Here is TN’s version of Jacob-Israel’s blessing of Judah in Gen. 49:9, so similar to TN of Num. 24:9. I liken you, O Judah, to a lion’s 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 Jacob’s blessing with Balaam’s 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 Balaam’s final oracle, the Hebrews were encamped (ἐστρατοπεδευκότας) in order, resembling a city rather than a camp (Vit. Mos. I. 288). Philo’s 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 Balaam’s oracles as re-written by Philo supports several elements of Peder Borgen’s interpretation of the sage’s 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 Jacob’s blessing of his royal son Judah in Gen. 49:8–12, 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. 162–163. 52 chapter three may be explained with the help of the Targums and their exposition of Balaam’s 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 Israel’s 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 Philo’s strong affinities with the Targums throughout his exposition of Balaam’s words, and his awareness of the links between those words and Gen. 49:8–12, 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 pre- vents full comparison of Philo’s 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 Borgen’s emphasis on Philo as a Biblical exegete, but also gives some support to Wolfson’s view that Philo’s 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 Balaam’s prophecies as represented by Philo. He evidently regarded them as having great authority. While much has been written about Philo’s messianism in his writings as a whole, his re-structuring of Balaam’s 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. 109–110 and Hecht (1987), pp. 139–168, the latter seeing Philo’s messianism as at best ‘a “real- ized 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. 259–264; article ‘Philo of Alexandria’, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, D.N. Freedman (ed.), vol. 5 (New York, 1992), pp. 337–339. Wolfson (1948), vol. 2, pp. 395–426, advances some Targumic evidence in support of his case. Hecht’s 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 PSEUDOPHILO’S 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 1–8 (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38a; Word Books: Dallas, 1988), pp. 271–300, who also provides an extensive bibliography, pp. 269–270. 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. 14–23. 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. 265–268, 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 Levison’s book. As a secondary concern, therefore, we shall seek to relate the results of our analysis to Levison’s 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 Adam’s 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. 107–110; D.J. Harrington, Pseudo-Philo, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. by J.H. Charlesworth; Darton, Longman & Todd: London, 1983–1985), 2.297–303; E. Schürer, 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. 325–331 with excellent bibliography; and D.J. Harrington, J. Cazeaux, C. Perrot, P.-M. Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques (2 vols.; Sources Chrétiennes pp. 229–230; Paris: Cerf, 1976), 2.10–78. 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, 1–4; 40, 2. 8 See Levison, op. cit., pp. 145–161. 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-philo’s 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 Levison’s thesis.9

1. LAB 13, 8–9

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 Israel’s cult.10 Chapter 13 tells how Moses, at God’s 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 God’s 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 Year’s 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 Levison’s 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, 1–2. 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. 55–60. 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. 113–114. 12 See LAB 13, 2–3. 13 See LAB 13, 4–7, and Pseudo-Philon 2. 116–117. 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 God’s 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 Israel’s Temple service.16 Indeed, with the inau- guration of the Tent, its appurtenances, and its sacrifices offered by the legitimate anointed priests, God’s covenant with Noah is made effective and firm. Cosmic order and earthly fertility are assured. What follows should come as no surprise: God commanded Moses about the year of the life of Noah and said to him: These are the years which I established after the weeks in which I visited the city of men, at the time when I showed to them the place of creation and the serpent.17 Although partly obscure, the text speaks clearly enough of the 120 years which God ordained at the Flood and which, according to LAB 3, 2, constituted the limits of life for the men of that generation. God then explains to Moses the significance of what He had showed to Noah:

14 See LAB 13, 7: Et memor ero in pluvia totius terre et constituetur modus tem- porum, et constituam astra et precipiam nubibus, et sonabunt venti, et percurrent coruscationes, et erit turbo tonitruum. Et hoc erit in signum sempiternum, et rorem dabunt noctes, sicut locutus sum post diluvium terre. 15 See Zech. 14, 16–17, and M. Succ. 4, 9–10 which describes the famous water- libation offered in the Temple at the Feast of Tabernacles: it was intended as a request to God to send the rains and ensure the fertility of the coming year. See R. Patai, Man and Temple (Ktav: New York, 1967), pp. 24–53. 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. Taʿan. 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 readcolorem , 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 Adam’s is paralleled in 2 Baruch 4, 3. adam in pseudo-philo’s biblical antiquities 57

And He said: This is the place about which I taught the first-formed man when I said, If you do not transgress what I have commanded you, all things will be under your control. But he transgressed My ways, and was persuaded by his wife; for she was seduced by the serpent. And then death was established for the generations of men. And the Lord still went on to show him the ways of Paradise, and said to him: These are the ways which men have lost, since they did not walk in them, because they sinned against Me.18 For present purposes, it is not important to decide whether God, in this quotation, showed the ways of Paradise to Moses, to Noah, or to Adam: each of the three possibilities has points in its favour.19 What is important is LAB’s 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 Israel’s cult. This cult, which Moses establishes at God’s 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, 8–9: 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. Adam’s 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. 47–54; and Pseudo-Philon 2. 118. 20 See LAB 13, 10: Et precepit ei Dominus de salvatione animarum populi et dixit: Si in viis meis ambulaverint, non relinquam eos sed miserebor eis semper et benedi- cam semen eorum, et festinabit terra dare fructum suum, et pluvia erit eis in lucri- ficationem et non sterilizabit. Sciens autem scio quoniam corrumpent vias suas et relinquam eos, et obliviscentur testamenta que disposui patribus eorum, et ego tamen non in sempiternum obliviscar eo. Ipsi enim scient in novissimis diebus quoniam pro peccatis eorum derelictum est semen eorum, quia fidelis sum in viis meis. 58 chapter four the covenant which God made with Noah, that the cosmos would be stable and the fertility of the earth be assured. After the Flood, a promise that the cosmos would not be reduced to chaos is essential for Noah; and the promise that the earth will be fertile goes some way towards mitigating the curse which Adam caused, that it should bring forth thorns and thistles.21 Evidently LAB takes for granted the Biblical story of Adam’s 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 God’s ways. The final part of the text seems to suggest that God’s 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 Adam’s 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, 17–19. 22 Thus the Qumran community could regard itself as the Temple (e.g. 1QS 8, 1–11) which is a plantation (1QS 11, 7–9) described as a Garden of Eden (1QH 8, 4–20). For ben Sira, Wisdom is resident in the Sanctuary, whence it flows forth like the four rivers issuing from Paradise (24, 8–27). 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’, ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ 2 (1926), pp. 74–128; 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. 85–87. Both the Garden of Eden and the Temple were among the seven things created before the world: see, e.g., B.T. Pesaḥim 54a; Nedarim 39b. 23 See Jubilees 8, 19. The translation is that of O.S. Wintermute inOld Testament Pseudepigrapha 2. 73. adam in pseudo-philo’s biblical antiquities 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 inJubilees , 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 Adam’s 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 Noah’s flood. Before we turn to LAB’s version of the Flood, however, it will be helpful to note that this book’s 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. 45–46. 25 See Jubilees 3, 26–27 and the comments of K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistich-römischen Zeit, Band II, Lieferung 3; Mohn: Gütersloh, 1981), p. 337; Apocalypse of Moses 29, 3–6; 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. Adam’s priesthood in Jubilees is described by Levison, op. cit., pp. 93–95; 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. 12–19. 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 LAB’s presentation of the Flood. As we have seen, LAB binds the Temple service with God’s 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 dis- continuity with the past which marks one important element in God’s 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 Adam’s 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 timeLAB 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. 28 See Pseudo-Philon 2. 87, and J.P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Brill: Leiden, 1968), p. 75. 29 Deleam hominem et omnia que germinata sunt in terra. This presumably includes plants and trees, which do not feature in Genesis 6, 7. 30 See LAB 3, 8, and Pseudo-Philon 2. 88. 31 See LAB 3, 10: Et non erit sine fetu terra, nec sterilis habitantibus in se. There are strong eschatological elements here, which are noted by Lewis, op. cit., pp. 76–77, and discussed in Pseudo-Philon 2. 88–89. adam in pseudo-philo’s biblical antiquities 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 toLAB , 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 God’s 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 Moses’s rod and the rainbow is established when God shows secrets to Moses before he dies: the promised land, the place where clouds go up to water the earth, the origin of the waters of the river; the land of Egypt, the place whence Israel gets its water. Once again, the stress on water should be noted. God then shows him the ways of Paradise; the measurements of the sanctuary; the number of offerings; and the signs by which they start to observe the heavens.35 And He said: These are the things which have been prohibited to the race of men, because they have sinned against themselves.36

32 See LAB 4, 5. 33 See above, p. 3. 34 See LAB 19, 11. 35 See LAB 19, 10. This passage refers to four sources of water; possibly the four rivers of Paradise (Genesis 2, 10–13) are in mind: see Pseudo-Philon 2. 132. 36 See LAB 19, 10: Et dixit: Hec sunt que prohibita sunt generi hominum quoniam peccaverunt sibi. 62 chapter four

The items listed in the preceding paragraph will by now be familiar, and serve only to underline the dire consequence of Adam’s transgression. Adam’s 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 earth’s 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 earth’s 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 Philo’s treatment of these subjects in De Vita Mosis II. 59–65: see Levison, op. cit., pp. 78–79. 38 See LAB 25, 11. 39 See LAB 25, 12. adam in pseudo-philo’s biblical antiquities 63 the high priest’s breast-plate. Each stone will be engraved with the appropriate name of an Israelite tribe.40 Before the seven precious stones and the books disappear, Kenaz tests them with fire, iron, and water, but he cannot destroy them; whereupon he exclaims: Blessed be God who has done so many mighty deeds for the sons of men, and who made the First-formed Adam, and showed him all things; so that when he sinned in them, Adam might then renounce all these things lest, showing them to the race of men, they might have the dominion of them.41 Once more it would seem that LAB has knowledge of and is allud- ing to a number of well-known traditions which it does not make explicit. From the passage quoted, we must presume that Adam had been shown the seven miraculous stones in Paradise before his expulsion, in accordance with what is said in LAB 13, 8–9. 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, 10–12, 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 priest’s vestments.42 From Pishon also came the precious stone which

40 See LAB 26, 2–4. 41 See LAB 26, 6: Benedictus Deus qui fecit tantas virtutes in filios hominum, et fecit protoplastum Adam, et ostendit ei omnia ut, cum pecasset in ipsis, Adam tunc hec universa abnegaret ne ostendens hec generi hominum dominarentur eis. Our translation follows that of Cazeaux in Pseudo-Philon 1. 207. D.J. Harrington, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2. 337, renders the latter part of the text: ‘. . . and showed him everything so that when Adam sinned thereby, then he might refuse him all these things (for if he showed them to the whole human race, they might have mastery over them).’ Cf. with this M.R. James, op. cit., pp. 154–155. The verbabnegare may mean ‘renounce’ or ‘deny’; so we may understand either a voluntary renunciation of knowledge by Adam, or God’s 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. 26–27. Individual letters engraved on the precious stones would light up and spell out answers: this was the oracle Urim and Thummim, so called because of the illuminated letters and the illuminating answer revealed: see Targum 64 chapter four illuminated Noah’s 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 priest’s ephod and breastplate. Adam’s 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 ofLAB 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. 215–218; cf. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus I. 88–90. 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, 14–15. adam in pseudo-philo’s biblical antiquities 65 suggestive on a number of counts. First, the text is aware that Adam’s 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, 1–2; Bereshith Rabbah 12, 6; Tanḥuma 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, ‘Essénisme et gnose chez le Pseudo-Philon. Le symbolisme de la lumière dans le Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum’, in Studies in the History of Religions (ed. J. Neusner; Brill: Leiden, 1967), pp. 401–410. 49 See LAB 12, 1. 50 See LAB 19, 16. 51 Thus at the giving of the Torah the light of Moses’s face was shining more bril- liantly than the sun and moon (LAB 12, 1). This seems, if anything, to exceed the light given to the righteous after God ‘remembers the world’, which light derives from the precious stones, sun, and moon. 52 See LAB 28, 8–9, and Pseudo-Philon 2. 163–164. 66 chapter four

Moses is shown at the institution of Israel’s 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 Adam’s 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 inLAB ’s version of the Song of Deborah and Barak, which gives a lengthy survey of Israel’s history. Certain events receive special mention: thus we are told of the Tower of Babel; God’s 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 Moses’s death, of which heaven, earth, sun, moon, and stars are witnesses. Mention of these heavenly bodies triggers an account of Joshua’s 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 See LAB 32, 7: fundamentum intellectus quod preparavit ex nativitate seculi. 54 See LAB 32, 8, and Pseudo-Philon 2. 173. adam in pseudo-philo’s biblical antiquities 67

his rib Israel should be born. For your forming shall be for a witness of what the Lord has done for his people.55 At least since the time of M.R. James, editors have tended to emend this text so that the earth is to rejoice because the knowledge of the Lord that builds a tower upon you is present.56 What this might be supposed to mean is not entirely clear; and the main reason adduced for adopting the emendation, that LAB elsewhere represents Israel as the true tower built by God, seems, on 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 First- formed Man. What seems often to have been overlooked is the fact that Adam is portrayed as a priest whose particular offering was one of incense, after he had been expelled from Paradise: so much is clear from Jubilees 3, 26–27 and Apocalypse of Moses 29, 1–6. 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 LAB’s treatment of Adam to date. Deeper appreciation of what LAB is saying may be possible when we set its notion of Israel’s formation from Adam’s rib alongside traditions

55 See LAB 32, 15: Gratulare terra super habitantes in te, quoniam adest concio Domini que thurificat in te. Non enim iniuste accepit Deus de te costam protoplasti, sciens quoniam de costa eius nasceretur Israel. Erit enim in testimonium plasmatio tua, quid fecerit Dominus populo suo. This is the text as printed by G. Kisch,Pseudo- Philo’s 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 tur- rificat in te. See his translation in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2. 347, and M.R. James, op. cit., p. 178: ‘for in thee is the knowledge of the Lord which buildeth his stronghold in thee’. 57 See Pseudo-Philon 2. 175, where LAB 6, 16 and 32, 1 are brought as evidence of this. But 6, 16 refers only to the building of a furnace into which Abraham and his companions are to be thrown: the word ‘tower’ nowhere appears. 32, 1 refers to this event, and tells how God freed Abraham from the fired bricks used in building the tower of Babel. 58 See above, p. 57, and LAB 11, 15; 13, 1. 68 chapter four preserved in the Aramaic Targum. Announcing Adam’s expulsion from Paradise, Targum Neofiti of Genesis 3, 22 makes God say: Behold, the First Man (ʾdm 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 Adam’s 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 God’s 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 Adam’s 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 Génesis (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas: 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 Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (Biblical Institute Press: Rome, 1963), p. 227. 61 See Levison, op. cit., pp. 93–97 for Adam as Patriarch in Jubilees; pp. 44–45 for a discussion of ben Sira 49, 16, where Adam also appears as an Israelite Patriarch. adam in pseudo-philo’s biblical antiquities 69

4. LAB 37, 3

LAB’s version of Jotham’s 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 Adam’s 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 Hebrewsnh of Exodus 3, 2–4 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 qwẓym, 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 (Tanhumạ Shemot 14); and the bush may symbolise idol-makers, who are like thorns and thistles (Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 40).64 Adam’s sin led to a curse, that the earth bear thorns; but the product of Adam’s 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 LAB’s understanding includes not only the revelation of God’s 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 iudi- catus est protoplastus mortis, spinas et tribulos adiudicata est proferre terra. Et cum Moysen illuminabat veritas, per senticem illuminabat eum. 63 See Philo, De Vita Mosis I. 65, 68: batos ên, akanthôdes ti phuton kai asthenestaton. 64 Other sources assume this tradition as a matter of course: see Mekhilta de R. Shimʿon b. Yoḥai, ed. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed (Hillel Press: Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 1–2; 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 priest’s breast-plate. In LAB, Urim and Thummim are regularly spoken of as Demonstration and Truth.66 It will not be necessary to repeat what we have said about the cult, the giving of the Law, illumination, and the precious stones themselves: all these things are subtly related to this text about Adam and the thorns which, as a result of his transgression, the earth brought forth. There could be no more forceful way for LAB to indicate that the abiding significance of Adam lies in his trangression, which had both negative and positive results. Through it, men lost the ways of Paradise and were condemned to death: the earth was cursed, and eventually the Flood came and swept everything away. Yet the curse which Adam initiated brought forth the thorn, and this very same useless and trou- blesome piece of vegetation provided the instrument for God to reveal His Name and thus redeem Israel from Egypt. From this follows the gift of the Law to Israel, God’s 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, 8–9; 25, 5; 46, 1; 47, 2; and cf. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus IV.69. 67 Tendenz is a word much favoured by Levison. It has been deliberately avoided in this paper, since it is sometimes very difficult to define what theTendenz of a particular post-biblical writer might be. adam in pseudo-philo’s biblical antiquities 71

On the other hand, we have seen reason to believe that LAB is very often aware of, sometimes even dependent upon, preexisting 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 author’s 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 Moses’s 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 LAB’s own doing. We should also recall the significant number of cases in whichLAB 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 priest’s breastplate; the notion that Adam’s 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 Adam’s 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 Judaism’s interpretation of Isaac’s 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 suc- cumbs to the sacrificial knife. Some sources speak of Isaac’s 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 God’s 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 temple’s destruction

1 Best exemplified in Pirqe R.El. 31:3. For the text, I have used quotations in M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah 3.2 (Jerusalem: Azriel, 1934), and the Spanish translation of M. Pérez Fernández, Los Capítulos de Rabbí Eliezer (Valencia: Institución S. Jerónimo, 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. 193–227; and R. Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (AnBib 22; Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1963), pp. 131–212. 3 P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton, ‘The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History’, CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 514–546. 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 Isaac’s 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 200–500), 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 Déaut, in reviewing Chilton’s 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. 59–67; and B.D. Chilton, ‘Isaac and the Second Night: A Consideration’, Bib 61 (1980), pp. 78–82. 4 See especially Davies and Chilton, ‘The Aqedah’, pp. 537–540. 5 See C.T.R. Hayward, ‘The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac’, JJS 32 (1981), pp. 127–150; 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. 169–184, 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. 109–130. 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. 39–49, and the review of this book by R. Le Déaut, JSJ 18 (1987), pp. 228–231. 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. 339–397) 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) Christ’s 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 10:14–22; cf. John 6:53–56). The universal saving efficacy of Christ’s 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 ‘ass–people’, Pirqe R. El. 31:2. See also his interpretation (De Abrah. I.8:75) of Gen 22:9, which tells of the binding of Isaac: Et colligatis manibus et pedi- bus Isaac filii sui, imposuit eum in aram super ligna. Nectit filio manibus suis vincula pater; ne refugiendo filius, et vi ignis excitus peccatum incurreret. With this, cf.Frg. Tg., Tg. Neof., and Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 22:10. the sacrifice of isaac 75

When we meet in rabbinic writings the phrase ‘the blood (of the Aqedah) of Isaac’, should we discern there a Jewish counterblast to Christian doctrine? Superficially, at least, there would seem to be no more pointed and potent phrase to use as a weapon against one of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Indeed, both Davies and Chilton regard the phrase as having grown out of Judaism’s 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 Israel’s 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 God’s commandment to daub the houses with the lamb’s blood, God will be seen and protect his people.15 This exposition is followed by another:

13 See Davies and Chilton, ‘The Aqedah’, p. 539, where they state that one way of counteracting Christian claims was to recall the Aqedah at Passover time: for this tac- tic to be effective in the amoraic period, ‘the dramatic impact of Isaac’s sacrifice had to exceed that of Jesus’ crucifixion,’ and this was achieved by adding to theAqedah details of the Passion Narratives, including the shedding of Isaac’s blood. 14 See Mek. de Rabbi Ishmael (ed. J.Z. Lauterbach; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publi- cation Society of America, 1961), Pisḥa 7:70–82; 11:85–96; Mek. de Rabbi Simeon b. Yoḥai (ed. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed; Jerusalem: Hillel, 1955), pp. 4–5; Tanḥuma ,.Yal. Shimʿoni 1 (Wilna: Romm, 1909), pp. 58–59; ʾAbot R. Nat ;3 ,אחרי ;23 ,וירא quoted by Kasher, Torah Shelemah, p. 886. For texts which regard the ram’s blood as if it were Isaac’s blood, see below, n. 30. 15 See Mek. de R. Ishmael, Pisḥa, pp. 70–77, especially lines, 73–75: ‘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.’ Lauterbach’s 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 -but is an integral part of the com ,דבר אחר ,an alternative explanation mentary.17 R. Ishmael poses a real theological problem, and answers it by saying that God gave a specific commandment which Israel carried out: as a reward, therefore, rather than seeing the blood, God Himself was seen, revealed to spare Israel. He understands the verb ‘to see’ as if it were a passive form, ‘I will be seen’, and thus solves the theological difficulty. But there remains the fact that the verb in the Hebrew text is active in form; thus the blood of Isaac’s Aqedah is introduced without preamble, and is then justified by Abraham’s 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 Isaac’s 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 Isaac’s 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 is used also to describe His שחת Now the very root .וכהשחיח ,destroy action at the first Passover in Egypt in Exod 12:13,23. Thus a verbal

16 Mek. de R. Ishmael, Pisḥa, pp. 78–82. 17 Lauterbach, Mek. de R. Ishmael, 2.57 makes this clear. His apparatus lists only the late collection Midrash Ḥakhamim (on which see his introduction, Mek. de R. Ishmael, here. The manuscripts of Mekhilta at this point have דבר אחר xxxii) as indicating a .1 no such reading. For this reason, we assume that Davies and Chilton (‘The Aqedah’, p. 536) are referring, not to this passage, but to Pisḥa 11:92, where Lauterbach’s text but attention to the apparatus will show that the witnesses ;דבר אתר indeed reads from which Lauterbach adopted this reading are not mss of Mekhilta, but the Midrash Ḥakhamim and the Wilna Gaon’s ʾEyphat Tzedeq (see his introduction, Mek. 1. xxxiv). There is, therefore, considerable doubt whether Mekhilta regarded even this second passage as an ‘alternative explanation’ of the text. the sacrifice of isaac 77 link is forged between three verses of Scripture, all of which can then be interpreted in the light of one another. 1 Chr 21:15 refers to the Lord’s 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 Isaac’s readiness to be sacrificed, since he was not actually slaughtered; but he notes other rabbinic sources which speak of Isaac’s blood.19 It seems that the Mekhilta may preserve the exegetical origins of the expression ‘the blood of Isaac’s Aqedah’, which set out to explain what it was that Abraham prophesied God would see, through the process described above. And since Isaac’s sacrifice was in any case linked explicitly with Passover in pre-Christian times,20 recourse to God’s seeing the blood of the Passover victim/Isaac was exegetically in order. Leaving aside for the moment any question of intended anti-Christian polemic in these passages, or any queries as to their date of origin, it is undeni- ably the case that the Mekhilta attributes to Isaac’s 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 God’s rewarding the piety of the Fathers also provides the key to correct understanding of the third text which speaks of Isaac’s blood. The Mekhilta de R. Simeon b. Yoḥai, in expounding God’s summons to

18 See Pisḥa 11:85–96. 19 See Lauterbach, Mek. 1.57. 20 This is undoubtedly the case, despite all attempts of Davies and Chilton to avoid the facts: see ‘The Aqedah’, pp. 533–536, and Chilton, ‘Recent Discussion’, p. 43. For an independent critique of Davies and Chilton on this point, see Segal, ‘The Sacrifice of Isaac’, pp. 114–115. 21 Cf. Segal, ‘The Sacrifice of Isaac’, p. 112. 78 chapter five

Moses to bring Israel out of Egypt, lays great stress on the forthcoming exodus as the fulfillment of an oath which he had sworn in the past to Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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 44:19–23 we find these covenants associated with God’s 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. Yoḥai, pp. 4–5. 23 On these covenants in rabbinic tradition, see C.T.R. Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra (Totowa: Allenheld, Osmun, 1981), pp. 73–84. the sacrifice of isaac 79 to the Fathers were the reason for the exodus; thus Isaac’s Aqedah does not stand alone as the sole cause of God’s urgent desire to effect Israel’s release from bondage. His blood has no particular atoning power; rather, as the text makes clear, Isaac’s sacrifice is a meritorious deed which deserves its proper reward.24 Yet one quarter, or a quarter of a measure of Isaac’s 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 Tanḥuma. 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 Abraham’s 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 God’s command to slay his son; he even drew blood from him, and would have killed him altogether but for Satan’s intervention and the heavenly voice. Abraham’s obedience to God’s decree is absolute. Nothing is said of divine rewards for his obedience, nor of the future saving effects of Isaac’s blood. The theme of Abraham’s 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 Christ’s sacrificial blood.28 Further, none of these texts requires the hypothesis that it originated or developed with Christianity in mind; on the contrary, they make perfect sense within a purely Jewish religious

24 Note particularly the comment of R. Yehudah in the last paragraph of the quoted text. 25 Thus there is no question of Isaac’s death and resurrection. .translated from Hebrew in Kasher, Torah Shelemah, p. 896 ,23 ,וירא Tanhumạ 26 27 See Davies and Chilton, ‘The Aqedah’, p. 520. 28 See above, p. 74. 80 chapter five and theological context. Besides this, there are three additional reasons for denying any connection between this phrase and anti-Christian polemic. First, there is evidence that attempts were made to suppress the tradition that Isaac’s 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 Isaac’s 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 Tanhumạ quoted above, Abraham is determined, if possible, to slay his son. But Genesis Rabbah, unlike Tanhumạ , clearly states that Abraham was forbidden by God to draw even so much as a single drop of Isaac’s blood. Other sources are equally insistent that this was so.29 In this way, a concept which might have developed into a weapon for use against Christianity was removed from the field of operations. And we may infer why this happened; for to speak of the blood of Isaac, to associate it with means of atonement and forgiveness, and perhaps tacitly to imply that it was as good as, or superior to, the blood of Jesus, would be to admit in principle that the fundamental axioms of the Christian doctrine of the atonement were in substance correct, and that Judaism was in some sense defective without a Jesus- like figure. Nevertheless, what could quite properly be a response to Christian notions of atonement may be discerned later on in the same text, at Gen. Rab. 56:9, where we read: R. Judah in the name of R. Benaiah said: He (Abraham) said before Him: Lord of all the worlds, see the blood of this ram as if it were the blood

29 The quotation from Genesis Rabbah is our translation of the Hebrew text printed by J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (Berlin: Itzkowski, 1927). See also Pesiq. R. 40; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:3; ʾAg. Ber. 66, 71; and Yal. Shimʿoni, 1.59. the sacrifice of isaac 81

of Isaac my son, the sacrificial portions of this ram as if they were the sacrificial portions of my son Isaac—like 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 God’s 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 quasi- Christian doctrine of a sacrificed redeemer; and, far more important, they accrue to Jews as the result of the application of a basic halakhic principle found in the Mishnah and directly invoked by the Midrash.32 The effect of this is to concentrate some exegetical endeavor on the ram caught in the thicket and offered as a substitute for Isaac; and this, too, would make sense when it is recalled that the Church Fathers had long pointed out how the ram, rather than Isaac himself, was the true anticipation of the redeemer.33 Second, it may be possible to trace the original use and Sitz im Leben of the phrase ‘the blood (of the Aqedah) of Isaac’ back to a

30 For the notion that the ram’s 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 Tanḥuma Shallaḥ 14. 31 For the Aqedah and God’s mercy, see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 56:10; y. Taʿan. 2:5.4 end; and zikhronoth in the Musaf service for Rosh Ha–Shanah. Its remembrance will effect God’s 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. 111–137. 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, all’antēllaxato tēn thysian, the ram being offered in place of the rational victim. See also Melito of Sardis, Fragment 10; Ambrose, De Abrah. I.8:77–78; In Psalmum XXXIX Enarratio 12. For the significance of the ram’s horn in rabbinic writing, see, .b. Roš Haš. 16a ;46 ,23 וירא e.g., y. Taʿan. 2:5.4; Pesiq. R. 40; Tanḥuma 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 Balak’s summons to Balaam to curse Israel. God asks Balaam who Balak’s 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 Balak’s 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 32:24–27). 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 God’s 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 God’s choice of Israel is directly linked to Isaac’s 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 Israel’s

34 For the most recent critical assessment of Bib. Ant.’s date, see E. Schürer, 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. 325–330. 35 Bib. Ant. 18:5–6. 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 Pseudo–Philon, Les Antiquités Bibliques 1, (Introduction et Texte Critiques par D.J. Harrington; SC 229; Paris: Cerf, 1976). the sacrifice of isaac 83 election by God and His covenant with them.36 The clause et pro sanguine ejus elegi istos might conceivably refer to Abraham; but the most natural interpretation of the words would refer them to the blood of Abraham’s sacrificial victim, namely, Isaac.37 Nonetheless, it is evident that the other references to Isaac’s sacrifice, Bib. Ant. 32:1–4; 40:2, neither allude to Isaac’s 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. Yoḥai which we inspected above. The same basic principles are at work in both sources. That is to say, God’s 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 God’s 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 Isaac’s Aqedah, offers the same kind of thinking: in this case, Israel in Egypt is spared the slaughter of the firstborn because of Abraham’s 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 Isaac’s 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 Isaac’s 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 Antiquités Bibliques (Introduction Littéraire, Commen- taire et Index par C. Perrot et P.-M. Bogaert; SC 230; Paris: Cerf, 1976), p. 126. J. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah (AnBib 94; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981), pp. 50–51, offers particularly valuable insights and perceptive commentary on this section of Bib. Ant. 37 See Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale, p. 194: note how he proposes a possible Hebrew Vorlage which involves the notion of zekhut. 84 chapter five

Christian ideas about the blood of Jesus may account for its curtail- ment by certain rabbinic authorities, as in Gen. Rab. 56:7,9. The third reason for arguing that ‘the blood (of theAqedah ) 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 110–165), 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 Isaac’s blood.39 This last point, we would submit, is most telling. For had ‘the blood of Isaac’ featured at all significantly in the teachings of the late Tannaim and the Amoraim, the Church Fathers would have taken malicious delight in it. Here, they would have said, is the proof of Jewish fal- sification of Scripture: here is proof of the lies and deceit which we Christians have always known them to practice! In the hands of the Church Fathers, a phrase like ‘the blood of Isaac’ would have been much more than a stick to beat the Jews; it would have been used to justify horrible anti-Jewish acts on the grounds that they were blas- pheming against the blood of Christ. To illustrate what has been said, we might briefly analyze what Melito actually says about Isaac and Jesus. His evidence is particularly enlightening since he was bishop of a city which had a large Jewish community and a thriving synagogue. The Jews of Sardis, indeed, were persons of power and influence in their society.40 In his Homily on the Pascha he lists Isaac as a type of Christ; but he is one type among many, including Abel who was murdered, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David,

38 See Hayward, ‘The Present State’, p. 146; R.L. Wilken, ‘Melito and the Sacrifice of Isaac’, TS 37 (1976), pp. 62–64; and see P. Prigent’s notes in the volume prepared by himself and R.A. Kraft, Epître de Barnabé (SC 172; Paris: Cerf, 1971), pp. 129–131. 39 This holds true also of the text of St. Athanasius, Festal Epistle 6:8–9, quoted by Wilken, ‘Melito’, p. 66. 40 See Wilken, ‘Melito’, pp. 53–58; Schürer, History III. 1, pp. 202–222. the sacrifice of isaac 85 and the paschal lamb.41 But his Fragments may, as Wilken suggested, betray some knowledge of Jewish traditional understanding of Isaac’s 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 Melito’s comment that Isaac was silent, because Jewish sources like Josephus’ Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo’s Bib. Ant., which are demonstrably earlier than Melito’s 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 city’s large Jewish population. But Melito does not remark that Christ’s blood was shed, whereas Isaac’s was not; and he surely could not have overlooked this matter if, at Passover time, the Jews of Sardis were recalling the blood of Isaac’s Aqedah. Interesting is Melito’s description of the events as a mystery, a word used also by the Syriac writer St. Ephraim (ca. ad 306–373) 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 Melito’s work are cited according to Hall’s edition. 42 For translation, see Hall, Melito, p. 75. 43 See Josephus, Antiquities I., pp. 222–236; Bib. Ant. 32:3. 44 See especially Segal, ‘The Sacrifice of Isaac’, pp. 117–118. 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 fromDes Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Ecclesia (CSCO 199 [Scriptores Syri 85); ed. 86 chapter five

Once again, Ephraim says nothing about Isaac’s 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 Isaac’s blood was shed.48 Whatever the exact relationship between individual details of Jewish and Christian elaboration of the story of Isaac’s 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 Satan’s attempts to prevent the Aqedah, represented by the passage of Tanḥuma 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. 30–31. For Ephraim’s 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 134–35]; 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 19:41–42; and Matt 27:42: see the translation of L. Leloir, Ephraim. Commentaire de l’Evangile concordant ou Diatessaron (SC 121; Paris: Cerf, 1966). Pesiq. R. 40; and cf. Kasher, Torah ;22 וירא See Gen. Rab. 56:7,9; Tanḥuma 49 Shelemah, pp. 886–887. the sacrifice of isaac 87 future suffering and death (Matt 4:8–11; 16:21–23; Mark 8:31–33). 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 Isaac’s 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 Satan’s 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 Satan’s 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 3:22–27; Matt 12:24–29; Luke 10:17–20). 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 Isaac’s 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 Isaac’s 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 opposition’s 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 Isaac’s emotions; Gen. Rab. 56:9 for for וירא Abraham’s fear that he will make the sacrifice blemished; andTanh ̣uma 22 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 Esau’s character and activity in Targum Neofiti becomes increasingly apparent the more that Targum is studied. Most evident, even at first sight, is this Targum’s 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 Neofiti’s 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 Neofiti’s 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 Targum’s 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. Díez Macho, Ms. Neophyti (5 vols.; Madrid-Barcelona, 1968–1978); 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 (1988–89), pp. 101–151, esp. 118–133. 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 uncompro- misingly 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 Esau’s 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 Jacob’s children.3 But Josephus seems to moderate this unrelievedly black portrait of Esau, while managing nonetheless in a diplomatic manner to point to Esau’s 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. 19.13–14 for Esau’s illiteracy, which Feldman, ‘Josephus’ Portrait’, p. 119 properly notes as intended to contrast with Abraham’s learning, Jub. 11.16; 12.27; and Jub. 35.8–38.10. 1 En. 89.12 also describes Esau in uncomplimentary language. 3 See, for example, Philo, Sacr. 4 (ii); Congr. 129 (xxiii); Vit. Mos. 1.239–49 (xliii– xliv). 4 See Feldman, ‘Josephus’ Portrait’, pp. 130–133. 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. 19–48; H. Hunzinger, ‘Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des I. Petrusbriefes’, in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land (ed. H. Reventlow; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), pp. 67–77; and S. Zeitlin, ‘The Origin of the Term Edom for Rome and the Christian Church’, JQR 60 (1969), pp. 262–263. 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 Esau’s birth; events during his lifetime; references to him after his death; and the question of Esau’s identification with Rome.

1. Events before and during the Birth of Esau

According to Gen. 25.21, Rebecca’s lack of children led Isaac to entreat God on her behalf. Neofiti’s version is remarkable in three respects. First, it begins by agreeing with Onqelos in translating Hebrew wy‘tr, ‘and Isaac entreated’, as ‘and Isaac prayed’: the Peshitta has the same translation, and so, in essence does Pseudo-Jonathan. But in translating the Bible’s 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 lnkḥ 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. Neofiti’s agreements with the Peshitta, and its translations now with, now against, Onqelos, should be particularly noted. The Bible (Gen. 25.22) describes Rebecca’s pregnancy thus: And the children struggled together wytrsṣ ẉ 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 wytrsṣ ẉ with some form of the root dḥq, which has the sense of ‘press, squeeze, impel’. While Onqelos uses the Pe‘al of this verb, Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragmentary Targum Paris Ms 110 (= FTP) and Fragmentary Targum Vatican Ms 440 (= FTV) use the Ithpe‘el, 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 dḥq is elsewhere associated a portrait of the wicked esau 91 with afflictions ( ‘rṇ ) and servitude (š‘bd) of Israel in Egypt, as in Neofiti of Deut. 26.7. Rebecca’s question in the Hebrew is a little obscure, so Neofiti elucidates and translates: If the distress (s‘rhwṇ ) 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 Neofiti’s 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 Rebecca’s question literally, has no reference to Shem’s Study House, and has Rebecca seek instruction, not mercy, from God. Neofiti appears fully integrated with the Palestinian Targumim here, being closest to Pseudo- Jonathan 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. 393–c. 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 Rebecca’s state: And the Lord said to her: Two nations (gyym) are in your belly; and two peoples (l’mym) 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. Neofiti’s 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 Rebecca’s 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 l’wm 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 archôn, hêgemôn, and despotês, while the other would be hupêkoos and doulos.6 The last part of the prophecy, that the elder should serve the younger, is expressed in Hebrew as wrb y‘bd s‘yṛ . All the Targums keep close to the actual Hebrew vocabulary, using similar words in Aramaic: Neofiti has wrbh yhwwy mš‘bd qdm z‘yr’, 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 š‘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 Díez 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 6.8–10, which derives from the aftermath of the destruction of 70 ce; to whatever verse of scripture it belongs, it seems

6 See Philo, Leg. All. 3.88 (xxix). 7 See M. Aberbach and B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis. A Critical Analysis together with an English Translation of the Text (New York: Ktav, 1982), pp. 150–151; B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (Aramaic Bible, 6; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), p. 95. a portrait of the wicked esau 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 Philo’s

8 For the date of 4 Esdras, see E. Schürer, 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. 297–300. 4 Esdras 6.8–10 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 Jacob’s hand held Esau’s 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. 31–38; and M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie. La Genèse (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. 240–241. 10 Justin’s 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. Ḥ 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 Esau’s 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 Esau’s 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 ḥqlyn. Neofiti says nothing more in this verse about Esau, so the remark is particularly arresting: Esau is a land- owner, a master of territory unspecified in extent, but probably to be understood as great. The expression certainly implies that Esau is rich and powerful.13 By contrast, Jacob is said to be ‘perfect in good deed, dwelling in the Study Houses’. The pregnant brevity of Neofiti is worlds apart from the two Ngls. The first of these actually offers an explanation of Onqelos, which has used the unusual word nḥšyrkn to describe Esau. The gloss expounds this as meaning that Esau had bronze thighs, nḥwš 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 asagroikos , a boorish field-dweller, the latter as a farmer. a portrait of the wicked esau 95 in punning fashion as a ramm’ay, 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 Neofiti’s interpretation.14 There is little to note in the next three verses, beyond Neofiti’s agreement with Onqelos that v. 28 means that Isaac used to eat of Esau’s venison, and its agreement in v. 29 with Pseudo-Jonathan that Jacob’s 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 kayyôm, 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 Esau’s to dispose of as he chooses.15 Neofiti, however, has interpreted the Hebrewkayyôm as k‘n, ‘now’, and reinforces its rendering by translating the same expression in v. 33 ‘as on this day’. Of ancient translations, only lxx compares, reading sêmeron, ‘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 latter’s 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 Jacob’s perfection and study were to be deleted from v. 27 as secondary accre- tions, 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 Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Genèse (SC, 245; Paris, 1978), pp. 246–247. 15 See Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, pp. 96–97. 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 kayyôm 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. Šab. 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. Neofiti’s 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 Neofiti’s 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 Esau’s 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 (1975–1976), pp. 27–38. 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. 28–43. 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 ḥwlq, ‘portion’ or ‘lot’ in connection with the world to come. See also Gen. R. 63.14. Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 25.29 includes Esau’s 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 Esau’s denial is not uniformly attached by the Targums themselves to v. 34 in particular. Further, Neofiti’s 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 Neofiti’s 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 retainedbzy in its translation? On midrashic additions to Targum Neofiti, see Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, pp. 54–63. a portrait of the wicked esau 97 take seriously Shinan’s 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 Neofiti’s 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 father’s 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, Isaac’s 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. Neofiti’s 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, wtšlt ̣ 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 Esau’s 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 Levy’s thesis is plausible, more should be said about Neofiti’s translation of the difficult Hebrew verb tryd, rendered in our translation above as ‘you wander’ as from the Hiph‘il 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. 1–19. 23 See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, pp. 183–186. 24 See A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch (Manchester, 1991), pp. 47–48. a portrait of the wicked esau 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, 100–500 ce might connect it with Neofiti’s understanding that two kingdoms were to be born from Rebecca; and there- from 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’, tšlt ̣ 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 šlt ̣ 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. Neofiti’s 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 3–4; and in the same treatise (14–18) he demonstrates that in temporal terms vice, being represented by the elder brothers Cain and Esau, is unfortunately senior to virtue.26

25 Hebrew w’th tmšl bw. This expression, with second person masculine singular imperfect Qal of mšl, 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 Esau’s yeseṛ 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 [wyśtṃ ] 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 father’s 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 Neofiti’s interpretation of this verse may be secondary. In the lengthy account of Jacob’s 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. Neofiti’s ‘I shall wait until the days of my father’s 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. a portrait of the wicked esau 101 also uses this word in both verses.28 Esau is here presented as a military commander, an understanding of him which we meet also in Jubilees and in Josephus, Ant. 1.327 (xx:l). Secondly, Neofiti does not share with FTP, FTV, and Ngl Jacob’s suspicion, voiced in a paraphrase expounding the word mḥnh 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 Esau’s 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, dis- qualified from service of the Almighty.30 In Gen. 49.26, he is described as one of the ‘great ones of the world’ along with Ishmael. The famous midrash which tells of God’s 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 Joseph’s death in Targum Neofiti of Gen. 50.1 includes mention of the ‘rulers (šwltnyṇ ) 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. 4–5. 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 rootpsl 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. 89–91. 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 Neofiti’s failure to speak in royal terms of Esau’s 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 Pseudo- Jonathan, FTV, and Josephus, Ant. 4.76–77 (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. 24.18–19, 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’. Neofiti’s 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-Jonathan’s 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 Díez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1. IV. Números, pp. 184–185. 33 See Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, II (New York, 1987), p. 148 (‘it seems that the gap existed in the text copied by the scribe of N’); R. Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque. III. Nombres (SC, 261; Paris, 1979), pp. 236–237; and Díez 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. 151–152; Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, pp. 240–241. The Latin loan-word legio is found in Neofiti again at Gen. 15.1; Num. 12.16. a portrait of the wicked esau 103

At Gen. 15.12, the famous midrash which tells how Abraham was shown the four empires which would enslave Israel is included in Neofiti, as in Pseudo-Jonathan, FTP, and FTV. In Neofiti, the identity of the fourth empire has been scratched out of the ms; but there is little doubt that Edom was intended by Neofiti in this place, as in the other Targums and midrashim which we know. According to these, Edom’s 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 Neofiti’s 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 Esau’s 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 Targum’s 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 Neofiti’s 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. 139–140; Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque. I. Genèse, pp. 170–171, and, for more detailed consideration of the texts referred to here, R. Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), pp. 271–272. On the question whether Targum Neofiti of Exod. 12.42, the Poem of the Four Nights, makes mention of Rome, see Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale, pp. 359–369. 104 chapter six

Neofiti, even allowing for the work of the censor. They may also be superficial; because when we look beyond them, a picture of Esau emerges which, in important respects, is incompatible with them. For Esau is revealed as a latter-day Cain. He is so depicted in Gen. 27.41; 25.34; and probably also in 27.40. The note that Esau was a land- owner (Gen. 25.27) recalls Cain’s profession as a cultivator of the land (Gen. 4.2). The hostility of the two brothers Esau and Jacob was very early related to Cain’s 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 Cain’s 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 Esau–Rome 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 Esau–Rome 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. 156–162 [in Hebrew], and R. Syrén, The Blessings in the Targums (Åbo, 1986), pp. 144–148. a portrait of the wicked esau 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 Esau’s sons is striking in this regard.37 Different strata are also discernible in the more obviously ‘trans- lational’ 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 kayyôm as ‘now’ coincides with lxx’s ‘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 Neofiti’s 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 Neofiti’s 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 Esau–Rome–Christendom certainly had ‘kingdoms’ at that time. 38 It was certainly known to St Jerome, Comm. in Iesaiam 21.11–12; 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 Jerome’s evidence suggests an earlier origin for it. Feldman (‘Josephus’ Portrait’, pp. 130–133) 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. 22–23; and M.D. Herr, ‘Edom’, EncJud, VI, cols. 379–380.

PART TWO

DATING TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN

CHAPTER SEVEN

TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN AND ANTIISLAMIC 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 ʿĀʾisha and Fāṭima, Muhammad’ṣ 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. Díez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I 5 vols. (Madrid-Barcelona 1968–78), 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. xvii–xix; R. Bloch, ‘Note sur l’utilisation des fragments de la Geniza du Caire pour l’étude du Targum Palestinien’, REJ 14 (1955), p. 31; and R. Syrén, The Blessings in the Targums (Åbo 1986), pp. 179–199, 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 4:3–16’, ALUOS 3 (1961–62); Leiden 1963), pp. 81–114, reprinted in Post- Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden 1975), pp. 92–126; G.J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and its Relationship to Targum Onkelos (Rome 1972), and R. Syrén, op. cit. pp. 195–199. TO probably reached its final form in the late third to early fourth centuries ad: see E. Schürer, 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. 101–102. 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 Tanḥuma.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 Islam’s 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 hypoth- eses which themselves require proof before they can be accepted as convincing. As ilustrating what has just been said we may turn to Ohana’s essay, which deals with Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:9–21. Central to his conclusion that the Targum’s exegesis is anti-Islamic in tone is his argument that much of Ps-Jon’s aggadah depends on PRE: the Targum’s author- compiler 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 Targum’s 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. 41–49; ‘The “Palestinian” Targums— Repetition, Internal Unity, Contradictions’, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 72–87; D.M. Splansky, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targumim, Use of Midrashim, and Date, unpublished dissertation (Hebrew Union Colloge—Jewish Institute of Religion 1981); and A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tübingen 1986), pp. 252–256. 3 M. Ohana, ‘La Polémique judéo-islamique et l’image d’Ismaël 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 gener- alized claims for Ps-Jon’s 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-Jon’s supposed dependence on PRE in his treatment of Gen. 21. First, however, we must correct the impression left by Ohana, that Ps-Jon’s 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 Ishmael’s mother Hagar free from her slavery. Hagar’s 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 Hagar’s status as a slave. But Ps-Jon’s aggadah makes no great play of Ishmael’s 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 Abraham’s death, and by Gen. 50:1, where the house of Ishmael attend Jacob on his death-bed. Given Ps-Jon’s somewhat ambiguous attitude towards Ishmael, then, we may turn to a closer inspection of his relationship with PRE.

1. Ps-Jon of Genesis 21:9–21 and PRE 30

Ishmael’s prowess as an archer shooting at birds, according to PRE 30:1, provides the occasion for Sarah’s 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

4 Ibid. pp. 384–385. 5 Ibid. p. 386. 6 See below, pp. 112–114. 7 Cf. C.T.R. Hayward, ‘The Present State of the Research into the Targumic Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac’, JJS 32 (1981), p. 131, n. 25. 112 chapter seven

acts with Isaac . . . By your life, this son of a slave shall not inherit with my son Isaac’.8 Here Ishmael appears guilty of attempted murder, with malice afore- thought. Ps-Jon, by contrast, merely suggests that one day Ishmael will attack Isaac, as Sarah says: Cast out this handmaid and her son, for it is not possible for the son of this handmaid to inherit with my son, for he will wage war with Isaac.9 This possibility of future violence, however, is not the only pretext for Sarah’s demand. Earlier, we have been informed that Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, jesting (mgḥk) 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, Hagar’s idolatry is frankly admitted, and is said to have caused her water-supply to fail: Because of Abraham’s 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 father’s 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. Pérez Fernández, Los Capitulos de Rabbí 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 mgḥk by H. Bietenhard, Sifre Deuteronomium, Judaica et Christiana 8 (Bern 1984), pp. 74–75. The manuscript of Ps-Jon, the editio princeps, and Walton’s 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 Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque vol. 1 Genèse, 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. 50–74. 11 See N and FT Gen. 21:9, and below, pp. 82–84. pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 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 Ishmael’s attempted murder of Isaac? It would admirably suit the Targum’s purposes, if Ohana’s 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 Abraham’s 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 Hagar’s banishment from this world and the next; for what more effective attack on the pretensions of Islam could there be than evidence of Abraham’s 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 Hagar’s 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 Hagar’s 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 Friendlander’s translation of PRE; but the majority of textual witnesses read as follows:

12 See Pérez Fernández, 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. 41–44. 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 Ishmael’s idolatry which gave displeasure to Abraham. 14 According to Islamic belief, Abraham was a true worshipper of the One God who built the Kaʾba at Mecca. 15 Ohana, art. cit. pp. 371–373. 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 Ishmael’s 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 Ohana’s 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 Pérez Fernández, op. cit. p. 210 and notes. 17 Cf. Ps-Jon of Gen. 11:28, and literature cited by R. le Déaut, op. cit. pp. 146–147; Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 45–46; and J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969), pp. 179–180; 187–189. pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 115 made entirely dependent on Abraham’s merit for its salvation, since it is only the religion of a slave’s 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 Ishmael’s ‘jesting’, and comments: Dupliciter itaque hoc ab Hebraeis exponitur—sive quod idola ludo fecerit, iuxta, quod alibi scriptum est sedit populus manducare et bibere, et surrexerunt ludere—sive 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. 385–386. 19 See A. Guillaume, Islam (2nd ed., Harmondsworth 1956), pp. 8–9; 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. 101–109; 118–129. 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 Ishmael’s 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 Ishmael’s 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 Ishmael’s sons are listed according to their villages, kwprnyhwn, and (military) camps, wbqsṭrwwthwn: the Fragment Targum and Targum Onqelos record similar information. Once again, Jerome’s 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 Déaut, op. cit. pp. 243–245. 23 Thus Gen. 25:18. See further below, pp. 85–86. 24 See Antin’s edition, cited above, n. 20, p. 31. pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 117

names on the Arabian nation and its tribes in honour both of their own prowess and of the fame of Abraham.25 Thus Jerome shows the Ishmaelites as living in towns, villages, and 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 Ishmael’s 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. Thackeray’s in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books I–IV, Loeb Classical Library (Harvard 1967), p. 109. On the Nabateans and their importance in pre-Islamic times, see Schürer, op. cit. pp. 574–586. 26 See Antin’s 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, Splansky’s suggestion, that Ps-Jon’s 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-Jon’s picture of the Ishmaelites is entirely consonant with Jerome’s and is confirmed by his description of their ancestor as a brig- and, 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. 24:18–19, 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 people’s 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 ʿrby 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. 21:16–7; Ps. 120:5; Jer. 2:10; and Jerome, In Hieremiam I.22; II.84, ed. S. Reiter, Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera Pars 1 Opera Exegetica 3, CCSL LXXIV (Turnhout 1960), 16, p. 101. 31 Op. cit. p. 329. pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 119

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 God’s 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 lat- ere iungitur, incursant, et impugnantur ab omnibus.33 Ps-Jon’s 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), ytʿrbb.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’ (ytʿrbb) with his brethren probably conceals, as Le Déaut 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 20:12–3, which points out that

32 In Hieremiam I.50, ed. Reiter, p. 31. 33 Hebraicae Quaestiones on Gen. 16:12, ed. Antin, p. 21. 34 Cf. Gen. R. 53:11. 35 On the Islamic conquests and the establishment of Pax Islamica, see T.W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam (London 1913), pp. 45–77; The Cambridge History of Islam, ed. P.M. Holt, A.K.S. Lambton, and B. Lewis, vol. 1 (Cambridge 1970), pp. 31–92. 36 Op. cit. p. 177. 37 Splansky, op. cit. pp. 98–99. 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 andJubilees 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 Ishmael’s 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 Isaac’s blessing of Jacob; and by the evidence of Jubilees, cited earlier, which states that Ishmael’s and Keturah’s 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 Déaut, op. cit. p. 241; Pérez Fernández, op. cit. p. 213; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews vol. 5 (Philadelphia 1955), pp. 264–265; and Shinan, The Aggadah vol. 1, p. 98. 40 Hebraicae Quaestiones on Gen. 25:1, ed. Antin, pp. 30–31. 41 Splansky, op. cit. pp. 92–94. pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 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 ʿlmʾ. He suggests that Ps-Jon may have known of the dynasty of the Twelve Shiʿa 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. 25:13–5), and that God promised to make of him a nation (Gen. 21:13). Furthermore, Gen. 17:20 states that twelve princes, Hebrew nśyʾym, 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-Jon’s 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 nśyʾym 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-Jon’s version of Gen. 49:26. The Hebrew of this verse is difficult, and the relevant part of it reads: brkt ʾbyk gbrw ʿl brkt hwry ʿd tʾwt gbʿt ʿwlm . . . A literal translation would yield: The blessings of your father have prevailed over the blessings of my pro- genitors, up to the desire of the everlasting hills . . . Ps-Jon’s 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 Splansky, op. cit. pp. 96–98. 43 See Wintermute, op. cit. p. 86; R.H. Charles, ‘The Book of Jubilees’,Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament vol. 1 (Oxford 1913), p. 36; Charles rev. by C. Rabin, ‘Jubilees’, The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H.F.D. Sparks (Oxford 1984), p. 55. 44 For detailed discussion and a list of Rabbinic references, see Syrén, op. cit. pp. 58–60, 135–136. The exegesis of mountains as eminent persons is attested already 122 chapter seven

May the blessings of your father be added to the blessings with which my fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob blessed me, which the princes of the world, Ishmael, Esau, and all the sons of Keturah desired . . . The Hebrew expression gbʿt ʿwlm, ‘everlasting hills’, is thus understood as symbolic of these princes, whom the ‘hills’ represent and which the Bible qualifies byʿ wlm, a word meaning both everlasting and world.45 It is the biblical text itself, therefore, which leads to the Targum’s exegesis, since the word ʿwlm 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 Heinemann’s careful study of this tradition has led him to conclude that Ps-Jon’s version of it is the oldest form extant. If Heinemann’s results can be accepted, then we have yet another indication that Ps-Jon’s 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 (rbrbyʿ dmn ʾlmʿ) desired for themselves.’ 46 See J. Heinemann, Aggadah and Its Development (Jerusalem 1974), pp. 156–162 (in Hebrew), and Syrén, op. cit. pp. 144–148. 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 Walton’s Polyglott read šnyn, ‘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 (1960–61), pp. 69–73 Hebrew section, and Le Déaut, op. cit. pp. 184–185. pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 123 to explain how, in the course of the long aggadah in Ps-Jon Gen. 22:1, Ishmael can claim to be more meritorious than Isaac. The aggadah itself points to a debate in purely Jewish terms: Ishmael and Isaac dispute the right of inheritance from Abraham. Ishmael is the first-born son, while Isaac asserts that Ishmael is a slave-woman’s son, he the son of Abraham’s free wife Sarah. Ishmael then claims righteousness through his voluntary circumcision at the age of thirteen years, taunting Isaac with the latter’s 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 God’s 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 man’s 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 Prophet’s revelation which make a man Muslim. It is hard to see how any Muslim could claim that Ishmael’s circumcision gave Muslims a special status before God, expecially since, from the earliest days of the Islamic conquests, non- Arabs embraced the religion on the basis of their faith in it.

48 See R. Le Déaut, ‘Traditions targumiques dans le Corpus Paulinien?’, Biblica 42 (1961), pp. 37–43; idem, op. cit. pp. 214–215; and Hayward, art. cit., pp. 129–132: 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 ‘K̲h̲itān’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed. vol. 5 (Leiden 1986), pp. 20–22; 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 God’s 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 Targum’s 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 Targum’s 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 Targum’s exegesis. In the light of all this, we may say that Ps-Jon of Gen. 21:21, which its reference to ʿĀʾisha and Fāṭima, 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 Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome 1963), pp. 131–212; G. Vermes, ‘Redemption and Genesis XXII’, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, (2nd ed., Leiden 1973), pp. 193–227; P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton, ‘The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History’, CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 514–546; 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 ‘Ismāʿīl’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed. vol. 4 (Leiden 1978), p. 184. pseudo-jonathan and anti-islamic polemic 125 the finished text of Ps-Jon. A post-Islamic date for Ps-Jon, then, stands revealed as at best unproven, and more probably as highly uncertain. Clearly, it cannot be assumed as a result of modern scholarship; and future discussion of Ps-Jon must be wary of accepting it without more rigorous proof than has hitherto been forthcoming. CHAPTER EIGHT

THE DATE OF TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN: 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 sanc- tioned by Rabbinic authority. The nature and significance of that relationship have often been discussed; so, too, the character of Ps-Jon’s 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

* The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have been used: E.G. Clarke, in collaboration with W.E. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and F. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo- Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Ktav, 1984); A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden, 1959); A. Díez Macho, Ms. Neophyti I, 5 vols. (Madrid and Barcelona, 1968–1978); M.L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, 2 vols. (Rome, 1980). 1 See R. le Déaut, Introduction à la Littérature Targumique (Rome, 1966), pp. 89–101, and the survey of more recent literature in B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targumic Literature, vol. II (New York, 1977), pp. 31–40; A. Díez Macho, El Targum (Madrid, 1982). There is good critical discussion of Ps-Jon in the specialist study of G. Bienaimé, Moïse et le don de l’eau dans la tradition juive ancienne: Targum et Midrash (Rome, 1984). 2 See e.g. M. Ohana, ‘La Polémique judéo-islamique et l’image d’Ismaël dans Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer’, Augustinianum 15 (1975), pp. 367–387; 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. 109–116 (in Hebrew). 3 See D.M. Splansky, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to other Targu- mim, Use of Midrashim, and Date’, unpublished dissertation (Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981), and the convenient survey of material in A.N. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 127

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-Jon’s 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 Shinan’s many important conclusions, his understanding of Ps-Jon as primarily a literary construction stands out clearly. In Shinan’s 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-Jon’s internal consistency and occasional internal contradictions are further evidence of the author-compiler’s 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-Jon’s character and origins are, however, by no means impossible. Twenty-five years ago, Geza Vermes argued that much of Ps-Jon’s 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-Jon’s 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 (Tübingen, 1986), pp. 252–256. 4 Cf. A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1979) (in Hebrew), especially vol. 1, pp. 119–146; idem, ‘The “Palestinian” Targums—Repetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions’, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 72–87. 5 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 155–177; vol. 2, pp. 243–285; and idem, ‘Live Translation: On the Nature of the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch’, Prooftexts 3 (1983), pp. 41–49. 6 See G. Vermes, ‘The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3–16’,The Annual of the Leeds University Oriental Society 3 (1961–62; Leiden, 1963), pp. 81–114; reprinted in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden, 1975), pp. 92–126. 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-Jon’s 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-Jon’s 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 Déaut, op. cit., pp. 100–101. However, the unpublished Ph.D. thesis of G.J. Cowling, ‘The Palestinian Targum: Textual and Linguistic Inves- tigations in Codex Neofiti I and Allied Manuscripts’ (University of Aberdeen, 1968), includes detailed criticisms of Vermes’s article. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 129

The Targum has translated the Hebrew almost literally, but has inserted into its rendering three exegetical comments. First, Isaac has become blind because he has looked on the Throne of Glory on the occasion of the Aqedah. Indeed, at Ps-Jon of Gen. 22:10 we are told that Isaac saw the angels of the height as he lay bound on the altar, a tradition known also to Targum Neofiti (N), and the Fragment Targums 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 Isaac’s 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 Isaac’s eyes and make him lose his sight. Ps-Jon is silent about other supposed causes of Isaac’s disability which are recorded in late documents. Thus Tanḥuma Toledot 8 states that God made Isaac blind so that he should not have to see the idolatrous practices of Esau’s 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 Esau’s 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 Isaac’s 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 Isaac’s blindness and the Aqedah, see R. le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), p. 140, and Debarim R. 33:1 cited by le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, Genèse (Paris, 1978), p. 256. M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 4 (Jerusalem, 1934) (in Hebrew), pp. 1069, 1071, notes the traditions of the Tanḥuma 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 PRE’s 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 Isaac’s 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 Jacob’s 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 Isaac’s 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 63–64, he sets out an allegorical explanation of the Passover ritual and ceremonies, and goes on immediately to compare them directly with Jacob’s bringing the savoury meat to his father Isaac. Philo represents the Passover as symbolizing the pious man’s passage from the life of the passions to the practice of virtue, and it is pre-eminently exemplified for him in the case ofὁ ἀσκητὴς Ἰακώβ, Jacob the practiser, who brings the savoury dish to his father.11 In Philo’s writings, Jacob

9 For the text of PRE, I have used quotations in Kasher’s Torah Shelemah and the translation of M. Pérez Fernández, Los Capílulos de Rabbí Eliezer (Valencia, 1984); see p. 227 for the stress on Isaac still living. 10 See Vermes, art. cit., Post-Biblical Jewish Studies, pp. 111–112. 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 ἄσκησις in IV Macc. 13:22. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 131 frequently exemplifiesὁ ἀσκητὴς, the practiser of God’s commandments given in the Torah; and this understanding of Jacob is also central to Ps-Jon’s 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 Isaac’s 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-Jon’s 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 28–29, 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 theSitz im Leben for the interpretation of this verse.

12 See Josephus, Antiquities I.267: ἐμποδὼν ἦν αὐτῷ θεραπεύειν τὸν θεόν. 13 See le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, pp. 256–256, for the link between Passover and prayers for dew. 14 See Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 227. 15 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 262–263: he does not refer to the Ms. variant in PRE, which coincides with Rebecca’s words later in the text. 16 See I. Elbogen, Der jüdische 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. Taʿanith 4b. 132 chapter eight

Verse 5 And Rebecca heard by means of the Holy Spirit when Isaac was speaking with Esau his son; so Esau went to the field to hunt prey to bring it. Ps-Jon refers to Rebecca’s 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 Schäfer.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 Jacob’s 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. Schäfer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (München, 1972), p. 55; le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 257; Kasher, op. cit., p. 1075. See also Ber. R. 67:9; Tanḥuma 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. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 133

Verse 9 Go now to the sheep-shed, and take for me from there two kids of the goats, fat ones; one for the Pesaḥ, and one for the ḥagigah; 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 ḥagigah, 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 PRE’s exegesis is, in truth, quite different from the Targum’s. First it reports Rebecca’s order to Jacob, and speaks of his fear that he might invoke his father’s curse, a fear which his mother disarms. Next, we read that Jacob went and took two kids of the goats: Did Isaac’s 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 ḥagigah, and for the Targum these rules sufficiently explain the presence of two goats. Ps-Jon seems entirely ignorant of any suggestion that Isaac may have been a glutton, even to the extent of describing the lambs as fat ones.23 PRE, however, is obviously concerned to exonerate Isaac from the charge of gluttony. It is not easy to discover the identity of those who may have slan- dered Isaac in this way, but it is evident that some such charge against him was known in pre-Christian times, since Philo offers an apologia for the Patriarch’s 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. Pesaḥim 6:3; t. Pes. 5:3; b. Pes. 114b. 22 Cf. le Déaut, 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. Díez Macho (ed.), Ms. Neophyti I, vol. 2: Éxodo (Madrid and Barcelona, 1970), p. 559. 23 This point has not, it seems hitherto been noticed. LXX of this verse describes the kids as tender and good. 134 chapter eight

Israel, hence he could legitimately consume two lambs without being considered greedy.24 It is certain that Philo’s 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, εὐσεβείας, 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-Jon’s 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 Jacob’s fear of his father’s curse, but fails to speak of him as a sin-fearing man.28 There is no suggestion of Jacob’s 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. Schürer, 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 à Lapide, Commentaria in Pentateuchum Mosis (Antwerp, 1623), p. 230. 26 See Marcus, op. cit., pp. 492–493, for translation and notes. 27 Cf. above, p. 130. 28 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 55. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 135 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 26:7–8, 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 Jacob’s 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 Jacob’s 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 Both Ps-Jon and N interpret the Hebrew word as .כמתעתע ,mocker -as one who jests’: this is a term used specifically of idol-wor‘ ,כמגחך ship in Ps-Jon Exod. 32:6, 18 (the episode of the golden calf) and in Gen. 21:9 with reference to Ishmael.33 In like manner, Ber. R. 65:15 and b. Sanhedrin 32a understand the Hebrew word to signify idolatrous practice. Ps-Jon’s 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-Jon’s 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 Rebecca’s 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 Isaac’s blessing.36 Ps-Jon’s 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 TO’s standpoint, it is hard to see

34 See below, p. 146. 35 See Kasher, op. cit., p. 1079. 36 TO here assumes the very tradition which Ps-Jon has explicitly enunciated in verse 1. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 137 how Ps-Jon’s 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 ver- which Jacob שכם אחד sions of Gen. 48:22 as an explanation of the 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 Shinan’s 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 Adam’s 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 Jacob’s successful deceiving of Isaac, a matter which was greatly to exercise Christian exegetes like Augustine: see his Contra Mendacium 10:4. Again, Jacob’s 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; Tanḥuma B. Toledot 67; PRE 24:2, 5; Wayyiqra R. 18:2; Aggadath Bereshith 42; Shir Ha-Shirim Zutta 3:8; Tanḥuma B. Bereshith 9. 39 Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 117–118, 156. 40 Ibid., pp. 155–160. 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 Esau’s murder of Nimrod and his son which, in other sources, is said to have been motivated by Esau’s overweening desire for the robes.43 Further, we have drawn attention to the sacrificial and cultic elements which are to the fore in Ps-Jon’s exegesis of this chapter, and priestly robes fit properly into this context. Already in the fourth century ad it was a common opinion that Esau’s 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. Aqiba’s view that Nimrod was a universal monarch, possessing Adam’s garments. See also Kasher, op. cit., p. 1026. 42 See Ber. R. 97:6; yer. Meg. 1.11; Bem. R. 4:8; Tanḥuma B. Toledot 67; Aggadath Bereshith 42; FT(P) to Gen. 48:22; Ber. R. 20:12; Tanḥuma B. Bereshith 9; Tanḥuma 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 Déaut, 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 Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, pp. 258–259. 45 See texts cited above, n. 42. The antiquity of the tradition of Adam’s 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 (Göttingen, 1975), pp. 98–104; ‘Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources’, JJS 30 (1979), pp. 222–223. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 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 Adam’s 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 Isaac’s 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 Esau’s garments were desirable: the idea that they were Adam’s is already assumed, but in the context of a Nimrod tradition which finds no mention in Ps-Jon. Finally, we may note Ps-Jon’s 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 Isaac’s question how it was that Jacob had found animals so quickly, the latter replied that it was because the Lord had sent The Hebrew verb might suggest that the Lord had .הקרה ,him success done this by chance;48 Ps-Jon, N and TO, therefore, indicate that the to do so.49 זמן animals were prepared by the Lord, using the verbal root 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 Pérez Fernández, 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 Adam’s garments; makes mention of Enoch, Nimrod’s 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 Esau’s garments were in his mother’s house. .’has the sense of ‘meet, encounter, happen by accident קרהThe root 48 49 Ps-Jon uses this root in verse 25 to refer to the wine which the angel brought to Jacob. 140 chapter eight

to refer to the lamb which זמן and FT(V) to Gen. 22:8 use forms of 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 Isaac’s 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 God’s 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 Jacob’s 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 Tanḥuma.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. 142–143. 51 Tanḥuma B. Toledot 16; cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 262, who cites also Yalqut Shimʿoni; and le Déaut, 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. 132–134. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 141

Verse 27 Ps-Jon translates literally until the words of Isaac’s 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, Jacob’s 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 Tanḥuma 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. 98–99: 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-Jon’s 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 Lord’spresence 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 in good deeds, and he was ministering in the study-house (שלים) perfect of Eber, and seeking instruction before the Lord.56 .is taken up by Ps-Jon of Lev , שלים,This definition of Jacob as perfect 22:27, which itself alludes to the very verse under discussion here, as follows:

54 Ps-Jon Exod. 40:5. 55 See Exod. 30:6, 36. 56 Ps-Jon Gen. 25:27. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 143

. . . the kid of the goats was chosen after it to recall the virtue of the who made a kid of the goats into savoury meat (שלים) perfect man 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 Philo’s interpretation of Gen. 27:27, we may simply note that there is no necessary reason why Ps-Jon’s 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 N’s 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-Jon’s 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 other’s 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 Déaut, La Nuit Pascale, pp. 141–142, 170–174. 58 For Sages compared with incense, see also ben Sira 39:13–14; b. Menaḥoth 110a; -often used of the incense offer ,קטר and possibly 4QFlor 1:6, where the Hebrew root .which offers up the works of the Torah ,מקדש אדם ing, is applied to the 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 mother’s sons be the first to ask of your welfare. May those who curse you, my son, be cursed like Balaʾam the son of Beʾor; 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-Jon’s 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, serve’, and‘ ,פלח be in subjection’, in stead of their word‘ ,שעבד using -The evidence of the vocabu .שעבד do obeisance’, where they use‘ ,גחן lary suggests that while Ps-Jon is linked with the tradition of the PTgg, it nonetheless stands somewhat apart from it. This suspicion is confirmed when we examine the exegesis in detail. The Bible lists four groups who are to be placed under Jacob’s authority: peoples, nations, his brethren, and his mother’s 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 mother’s

59 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 99, who cites Kasher to this verse; cf. also le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, pp. 260, 262. 60 For the sons of Noah, see Tanḥuma Toledot 16; Aggadath Bereshith 42; and for the seventy nations, see Ber. R. 66:4. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 145 sons Ps-Jon translates the Hebrew literally, but N, FT(V) and FT(P) define the former as sons of Keturah and the latter as sons of Laban. Thus Ps-Jon refers to two named groups, while the other PTgg name families of four individuals. Particularly striking is Ps-Jon’s failure to name the sons of Ishmael. Splansky has attributed great significance to Ps-Jon’s 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-Jon’s tendency to shorten aggadic material is a sign of its late date. The independence of Ps-Jon’s 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 argument’s 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. 92–99, 112. 62 Splansky, op. cit., p. 26, also argues that the phrase ‘a great one and a ruler’ is a conflate, a term which he defines (p. 24) as ‘individual words or groups of words which appear in Ps-Jon along with additional words which either have the same meaning as the words taken from Onk[elos] or provide translations for Biblical words which Onk[elos] had not translated’. Such conflates, he believes, demonstrate Ps-Jon’s dependence on TO. Indeed, TO has ‘a great one’, but he says nothing of the fact that ‘a ruler’ is the rendering of N, FT(V) and FT(P). Ps-Jon shows knowledge of the PTgg at this point. 146 chapter eight

Verse 31 Now the word of the Lord had withheld pure prey from him; so he found a dog and killed it. And he also made of it savoury meat . . . This well-known aggadah is peculiar to Ps-Jon, as Zunz noted long ago.63 Shinan remarks that it represents a popular, vulgar tradition, similar to others which speak of God or an angel preventing Esau from gaining the blessing.64 He correctly emphasizes that it looks forward to verse 33, where Esau’s 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 Esau’s 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 dog’s 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-Jon’s 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 Esau’s voice, and the smell of his savoury dish came into his nostrils like the smell of Gehin- nom. And he said, Who is this who has hunted prey and brought it to me, and I have eaten of all he brought before you came in? And I have blessed him; and even so he is blessed.

63 Cf. L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 2nd ed. (Frankfurt-am- Main, 1892), p. 76. 64 Cf. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 55; vol. 2, p. 286. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 147

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 N’s translation of this verse: So afterwards a bat qôl came forth from heaven and said, Certainly he shall be blessed. Such divine confirmation of Isaac’s 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-Jon’s 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-Jon’s view, although Ngl Esau may be able to .ליסטיס ,of Gen. 25:27 portrays Esau as a brigand make Jews apostatize from the Torah, presumably through his use of sword and terror tactics: Ps-Jon has achieved this understanding by a first taking it as deriving from ,תריד double interpretation of Hebrew .’to bring down‘ ,ירד to wander’, and then as if from the hiph’il of‘ ,רוד תריד 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; Tanḥuma B. Toledot 10, 22; Tanḥuma 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 Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, p. 265. 68 See A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzung 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 to express the idea of פלח other Targumim.69 It does not use the root servitude, which is characteristic of the other PTgg and TO, but the as in verse 29. It lacks the expression ‘to labour in the ,שעבד form Torah’, which it uses elsewhere once only, Gen. 49:15, and all reference to Jacob’s 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 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 311. 70 The picture of Esau as a violent man of terror who makes Israel turn aside from the Torah does, however, fit well with the persecutions after the Second Revolt against Rome. See Schürer, op. cit., vol. 1 ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh, 1973), pp. 550–557. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 149

the mourning of my father’s 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 (’and [Esau] bore a grudge‘ , )וישטם the first Hebrew word of the verse in much the same way as Ber. R. 67:8, understanding it by notarikon hating, avenging, and keeping’.71 The image‘ ,שנא ונקם ונטר to mean 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 Esau’s words were told her in a dream, itself a form of prophetic revelation. Ps-Jon’s 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 :מתנחם as ‘lying in ambush’ was known to Philo, who, in De Fuga מתנחם of 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. lie in ambush’, eight times: twice it occurs‘ ,כמן Ps-Jon uses forms of 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 Esau–Rome: ‘to this day they shout the vindictiveness of Rome’. It is also important to note that TO renders ,סנטרוי דרומי the Hebrew as ‘to keep’. thereby rendering Hebrew ,כמין ,TO also states that Esau is lying in ambush 73 .but it does not understand the latter word as taking counsel ,מתנחם 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 one’s 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. as ‘taking counsel’. This, too, has an מתנחם Ps-Jon next renders ancient pedigree, being attested by Origen’s Hexapla as the reading of Alios. N has the same interpretation, which is probably implied in the Septuagint’s translation of the word as ‘threatens’; see also the Vulgate, and Jubilees 26:35. Splansky believes that Ps-Jon represents as ‘lie in ambush’ has מתנחם a ‘conflate’, in which TO’s rendering of received the addition ‘and is taking counsel’. But it is unclear whether this supposed addition represents Ps-Jon’s version of a Hebrew word which TO left untranslated, or is a clarification of TO’s rendering ‘lie in ambush’.74 Splansky’s approach to this word is unconvincing. He cannot bear its normal sense מתנחם ,fails to notice that, in this verse 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 Splansky’s ‘conflates’ see above, n. 62. He seems unwilling to accept the fact that the Targumists often sought for as many meanings in single words of Scripture as they felt appropriate to the context of their exegesis. 75 See above, p. 148. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 151 about which brother should receive acceptance from God. The cultic dimension of the story is once again brought to the fore.

Verse 46 Rebecca worries lest Jacob select a wicked wife from the daughters of Heth. In this Ps-Jon is at one with Jubilees 27:6; and N, like Ps-Jon, is further concerned lest such a wife be like one of the daughters of the people of the land.

Concluding Remarks

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 Spirit’s revelation to Rebecca (5, 42); fat goat-kids (9); Jacob as sin-fearer (11); ‘mocking’ and hint of idolatry, cursings not blessing (12); Adam’s 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); Esau’s dish smelled like Gehenna (33); Jacob’s wisdom (35); Esau lies in ambush and takes counsel (42); and Rebecca’s 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 Israel’s 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 Isaac’s blessing. PRE 24:5 has the story of Adam’s 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 inPRE : the reason for Isaac’s blindness; the praises of the angels; Esau’s possession of Adam’s garments; the blessings of dew and earth; and Esau’s plan to kill Jacob (a very superficial parallel). (d) The only exact parallels between Ps-Jon andPRE are: Passover time; dews and angelic praise mentioned by both Isaac and Rebecca; one goat for Passover, the other for the meal; Jacob’s fear of his father’s curse; and Rebecca’s 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 cat- egories (a), (b) and (c), the sketchy material in category (d) is not of itself sufficiently strong to bear the weight of an argument that Ps-Jon is dependent on PRE. Even where exact parallels between the two works are found, we have been able to offer explanations for them which do not involve theories of dependency. We conclude that Ps-Jon of Gen. 27 is not to be regarded as dependent on PRE for its aggadic exegesis; and, consequently, that claims for the dependence of the whole Targum on that late midrashic work require much more firm and detailed prosecution before they can be accepted.76

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. 155–156; and Shinan, The Aggadah, especially the English Summary, vol. 2, p. xvi: ‘PsJ’s remarkably close connection to Pirke deRabbi Eliezer comes to light wherever the Ag. Mt. [= Aggadath HaMeturgemanim] is added to, a phenomenon which demonstrates PsJ’s dependency upon that late and unparalleled work.’ Of late, however, he has advanced more cautious conclusions: see ‘The Palestinian Targumim’, p. 87. the date of targum pseudo-jonathan 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 Rebecca’s fear that Jacob select a wicked wife; and, with LXX and the Allos of Origen’s 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 Splansky’s 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-Jon’s 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, Shinan’s claim that Ps-Jon wrests Targumic aggadot from their proper context and transfers them to

77 See especially The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 284–285. 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. Splansky’s 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. lie in ambush’; ‘take‘) מתנחם In verse 41, his double translation of 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

JACOB’S SECOND VISIT TO BETHEL IN TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN*

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

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 Targum’s exegesis is, in places, very much sui generis. Ps-Jon. Gen. 35.1–15 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 God’s 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 Jacob’s 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 Jacob’s desire to build the altar to the God

Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981); and A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim, Tübingen, 1986, pp. 252–256. 2 ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 77–93; and ‘The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments’,JJS 40 (1989), pp. 7–30. jacob’s 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. 28.20–22), 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 Jacob’s return to Bethel as necessary for the vow’s 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 Jacob’s 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-Jon’s. exegesis is to establish a firm link between Jacob’s 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 God’s keeping him free of idolatry (inter alia); cf. Gen. R. 70.4 (ed. J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, Berlin, 1903–1936), and Tanḥuma Wayyišlaḥ 8. 4 See Jub. 31.29; Gen. R. 81.1; y. Nedarim 1.1; Tanḥuma Wayyišlaḥ 8. 5 See Jub. 31.2; Midrash Sekhel Ṭov 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 Jacob’s 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 tʿ̣wwt. 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 Targum’s strong language must, presumably, have been forged at a time when relations between Jews and Samaritans were more than usually strained. Ps-Jon. is fairly precise about the kind of idols which were buried. They are the statues which had been kept in the idol-house, and ear- rings painted with the likeness of what, one may presume, were the same statues. This precision contrasts, to some extent, with the rather general terms in which the Talmud and Midrash speak of what Jacob buried. Thus Talmud Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 7.5.4 has R. Ishmael tell in the name of R. Jose how he went to Neapolis and encountered the Kuthim, the Samaritans. He said to them: I see you, that you do not worship (at) this mountain, but rather the images which are under it, for it is written, ‘And Jacob hid them (the foreign gods) under the terebinth which is with Shechem’.8

6 See Ps-Jon. of Gen. 34.31, where Simeon and Levi assert that it would not be proper for Israelites to say that uncircumcised and idolaters had defiled Jacob’s daughter; and cf. TN, its marginal gloss (Ngl), and FT of this verse. 7 See Rashi on Gen. 35.2, and cf. Midrash Ha-Ḥ ephetz cited by Kasher, op. cit., p. 1337. 8 Quoted by Kasher, op. cit., p. 1340. jacob’s second visit to bethel 159

The text goes on to tell how the Rabbi heard the Kuthim plotting to kill him, so he fled from the city. Similarly, in Gen. R. 81.4 R. Ishmael, again in the name of R. Jose, takes one of the Samaritans [ḥd šmryy] to task as he passes by the ‘Palatinos’, the site of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim: I say to you, Why are you like a dog which has a passion for carrion [nblh]? It is so, since you know that idolatry is hidden beneath it: ‘and Jacob hid them . . .’ (Gen. 35.4). That is why you have a passion for it. From the first century ce we have the testimony of the Liber Anti- quitatum Biblicarum, falsely attributed to Philo, which indicates a strong tradition of idols buried in the vicinity of Shechem. The tribe of Asher, asked by Cenez to reveal their wrong-doings, announce: We found seven golden images which the Amorites called holy nymphs, and we carried them off with the most precious stones which had been put on them, and we hid those things. And now behold: they have been laid down under the summit of mount Sichem.9 Earlier in the same section of the LAB, the tribe of Naphtali say that they wish to make what the Amorites made, and that these things are hidden under the tent of Elas, a Latin transcription of the Hebrew Elah [’lh], the oak or terebinth, probably a covert reference to the terebinth of Gen. 35.4.10 According to LAB, all these items were deposited later than the time of Jacob, in the period of the Judges; and they are a powerful means of bringing into disrepute the cult which was offered at Shechem. Indeed, anti-Samaritan polemic has long been recognized, at least by some authorities, as an element in the LAB’s general programme.11

9 LAB 25.10. For recent discussion of LAB’s date, see E. Schürer, 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 Antiquités Bibliques, vol. 1 (Sources Chrétiennes, 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 Antiquités Bibliques, vol. 2 (Sources Chrétiennes, 230), Paris, 1976, pp. 152, 154–156. M.F. Collins, ‘The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions’, JSJ 3 (1972), pp. 114–115, 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. 279–355; A. Zeron, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu M.F. Collins, The Hidden Vessels in 160 chapter nine

While the LAB seems to refer only in passing to the events of Gen. 35, it is nonetheless illuminating in two respects. First, it shows that by the first century ce the idolatrous cache in and near Shechem had become part of a general anti-Samaritan polemic. Second, the idols themselves are described in some detail as nymphs; and Bogaert has suggested that this designation may have arisen from confusion of the word byt ’l, baetyl, sacred stone, with Hebrew btwlh or Aramaic btwlt’, virgin, nymph. In any case, statues or figurines are, it seems, presup- posed, and it may be that LAB is in fact expounding the text of Gen. 35.4 in a discreet and indirect manner.12 Given the Jewish material at our disposal, it is not easy to see what light it may cast on Ps-Jon.’s exegesis of these two verses. The view that Shechem was the original home of the idols is found again at the earliest in Rashi’s commentary on v. 2. TheLAB , 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. 456–c. 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 Laban’s and the notion that the gods were booty from the sacked city of Shechem.13

Samaritan Tradition’, JSJ 4 (1973), pp. 165–169; and the considered views of Bogaert and Harrington, Pseudo-Philon, vol. 2, p. 29, who quote Vermes, ‘La Figure de Moïse au tournant des deux Testaments’, Cahiers Sioniens 8 (1954), p. 89, linking LAB’s polemic with that of the Targumim. 12 See Pseudo-Philon, vol. 2, pp. 154–155. 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. jacob’s second visit to bethel 161

Second, we have the evidence of John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 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 (354–430 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. 35.1–6 in Homily LIX.4. 15 Augustine, Quaestionum S. Augustini in Heptateuchum I.cxi: Ergo illae inaures quaecum idolis datae sunt, ut dictum est, idolorum phylacteria fuerunt; cf. Epistle ccxlv.2. 16 On the revolts of the Samaritans in Justinian’s 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. 214–243. 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 Lord’s terror in particular, and that it fell on the cites surrounding Shechem, a significant note givenPs-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 Israel’s full-scale victories over the Gentiles.17 Ps-Jon. does not allude to these tales, and its sober exegesis is in keeping with the restrained language of Jubilees as it re-writes this verse.

Verse 7

And he built there an altar, and called the place El who caused his Shek- hina to dwell in Bethel; for there the angels of the Lord had been revealed to him when he had fled from before Esau his brother. Ps-Jon. here directly recalls Jacob’s 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 God’s 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 Targum’s 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 ̣ Shim‘oni, Midrash Wayyissa‘u, and other texts quoted in full by Kasher, op. cit., pp. 1341–1345. 18 So FT according to Mss. Paris 110 and Vat 440 of Gen. 28.12. jacob’s second visit to bethel 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 Jacob’s 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 mother’s 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 Rebekah’s death; but from the first century ce at the latest it was believed that it had happened during Jacob’s second visit to Bethel: so much is plain from Josephus’s 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. 23–27. 20 Chester, op. cit., p. 27. 21 TO, TN, and Ngl make no mention of her death, which is recorded by FT Ms. Paris 110 of the following verse. The Targum of Geniza Ms. C to this verse is very close to Ps-Jon.; see Klein, GM, vol. 1, p. 75; and cf. Pesiqta Rabbati 12.4; Pesiqta deRab Kahana 3.1; Kasher, op. cit., p. 1347. 22 See Josephus, Antiquities 1.345. 23 Cf. R. le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1. Genèse (Sources Chrétiennes, 245), Paris, 1978, p. 325. 164 chapter nine

This interpretation is remarkable for its failure to cite an extended paraphrase, found in TN and the Fragment Targums, which lists God’s 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 choos- ing. 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. 81–5 (R. Aha in the name of R. Jonathan). 25 See M. Zulay, Zur Liturgie der babylonischen Juden, Stuttgart, 1933, pp. 63–65; A. Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 69–70, 117; vol. 2, pp. 235, 305; and Chester, op. cit., pp. 39–45. 26 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 155–160. 27 See Chester, op. cit., p. 45. jacob’s second visit to bethel 165 need only consider texts like Tobit 1.16–18; 4.12, 16–17. 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 God’s 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 Shinan’s 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 God’s promise to Jacob’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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. 32.18–19 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. Naḥman 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. jacob’s second visit to bethel 167

Ps-Jon. of Gen. 35.11, however, looks not to Israel’s rule over the nations, nor to righteous peoples and tribal groups. Its language clearly recalls God’s 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 Jacob’s progeny follows immediately the Scriptural verse (Gen. 35.10) which tells how God had changed the Patriarch’s 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 65–66). We should note also most particularly that Philo clearly associates the change of Jacob’s 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). Philo’s 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 Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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 Fête Juive de la Pentecôte, vol. 1, Paris, 1971, pp. 207–226. 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 Israel’s political hopes for the future. On the contrary, its exegesis seems to be determined by an ancient tradition that circumstances surrounding Jacob’s 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. 32.3–29 likewise places this, and a whole complex of related events, at Sukkoth. At the end of the last century, Adolf Büchler 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 31–32, and has concluded that its traditions of Jacob’s 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. Büchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jeruschalmischen Tempels, Vienna, 1895, pp. 151–159. 37 See J. Schwarz, ‘Jubilees, Bethel, and the Temple of Jacob’, HUCA 56 (1985), pp. 63–86, especially p. 84. jacob’s second visit to bethel 169 texts, they also diverge at various key points. We must now turn to fuller discussion of these matters. What Ps-Jon. shares with Jubilees is substantial. The events surrounding Jacob’s second visit to Bethel take place at Sukkoth; during this period, Jubilees relates that Levi was chosen in heaven for the high-priesthood (30.18–20) because of his right conduct in sacking Shechem (30.1–17). 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 (31.5–20). While both Ps-Jon. and Jubilees stress the link between the attack on Shechem and Jacob’s 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 ceLiber 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 Jacob’s visit to his father Isaac at this time, a prominent feature of the narrative in Jub. 31.5–30. 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 7.1–4; 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. 91–93. 39 In this respect, cf. 1 Clement 31.4–32.2, 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 Eli’s 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 Jacob’s 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 Targum’s 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 Targum’s 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. 24–53. 41 See J. MacDonald, The Theology of the Samaritans, London, 1964, pp. 16–17, 310–313. 42 See above, n. 31. 43 See R. le Déaut, 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 Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, p. 329. jacob’s second visit to bethel 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 Targum’s 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. 35.1–15 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. 234–250. 45 On Marqah and Baba Rabba, see MacDonald, op. cit., pp. 36–40. CHAPTER TEN

PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER AND TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN

1. The Problem

Introducing his new translation and commentary on the text of Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer (PRE), Miguel Pérez Fernández 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 Friedländer 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 Friedländer 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, Pérez Fernández has addressed this matter more rigorously, and seems to rule out Friedländer’s clear-cut opinion that the Targum used PRE as a source. Accepting that a syn- optic 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. Pérez Fernández, Los Capítulos de Rabbí Eliezer (Valencia, 1984), pp. 31–36. He also notes (p. 33) M. Ohana, ‘La Polémique judéo–islamique d’Ismaël dans Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer’, Augustinianum 15 (1975), pp. 367–387, an essay dealing with Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 21:9–21, 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 Ohana’s arguments, see most recently C.T.R. Hayward, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 77–93. 2 See G. Friedländer, 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 Shinan’s 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 writer’s 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 Pérez Fernández, 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 Targum’s 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 Pérez Fernández 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 Pérez Fernández, but will not necessarily be dealt with in the order of his list.

2. Some Very Unlikely Bedfellows

The first tradition which Pérez Fernández cites forms an excellent illustration of points made in the preceding paragraphs. He quotes

3 See Pérez Fernández, 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. 57–61. This is a response to my earlier essay ‘The Date of Targum Pseudo- Jonathan: Some Comments’, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 7–30. 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 Targum’s 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 and on his ;(זעיר בנוי) come King Messiah, the youngest of his sons 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 Messiah’s name is ‘youth’ or ‘youngest’, but that Neither text proves .צעיר ,’Bethlehem, the home of the Messiah, is ‘little that Messiah is called ‘youth’: they demonstrate the pre-existence of his name.8 Targum’s 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 Targum’s 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 Friedländer and Pérez Fernández 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 inb. Pes. 54a, Gen. R. 1:4, jer. Ned. 39b, and ARNb 37. 8 The Targum of Micah 5:1 has the same purpose: ‘And thou, O Bethlehem Ephrath, wast like a youth (little one) to be numbered among the tribes of the house of Judah: from thee shall go forth before Me the Messiah, to be exercising rulership over Israel; and whose name has been uttered from of old, from days everlasting.’ The text is quoted from A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. III: The Latter Prophets (Leiden, 1962), and the translation is ours. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 175

לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומחקק מבין רגליו עד כי יבא שילה ולו יקהת עמים: 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 -and the expres (מבין רגליה) ’includes the words ‘from between her feet and towards her afterbirth’, which has consonants in‘ ובשליתה sion .of Gen. 49:10 יבא שילה common with the which comes out from between ( )ובשליתה And towards her afterbirth and towards her children whom she shall bear; for ,(מבין רגליה) her feet she shall eat them for lack of all things, in secret . . . This is the biblical passage which has allowed Ps.-Jon. to interpret Gen. the enigmatic ‘Shiloh’ of that verse, has been ,שילה :as it does 49:10 .in Deut , ובשליתה,’understood in the light of ‘towards her afterbirth 28:57. And this is in accordance with targumic tradition, for Targum Onqelos (Tg. Onq.) translates the opening of Deut. 28:57 as follows: who shall come (ובזעיר בנהא) And towards the youngest of her daughters 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 Rashi’s 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 šʿltk in I Sam. 1:17, points out that the word means ‘children’ and is to be understood in the same way as šlyth in Deut. 28:57. 11 For the close relationship between these two Targums, the problems involved and relevant bibliography, see most recently R. le Déaut, Introduction à la Littérature Targumique, Première Partie (Rome, 1988), pp. 98–101. 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-cum- calendrical treatise, while the Targum of Exod. 40 has a sustained exposition, grounded in Scripture, of the parts and furnishings of the Sanctuary, comparing them symbolically with individuals and groups of people in Israel. The Targum describes the south as 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. 7:18–19 associates wisdom with the sun, moon and planets. 14 See Philo, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit 221; De Vita Mosis II.102–103; 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. 196–199, for full discussion and bibliography. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 177

It is highly improbable that a tiny detail, which does not precisely 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 Leviathan’s 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 Hezekiah’s 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 Leviathanand 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 God’s creation on that day to Leviathan (R. Levi in the name of R. Hama bar Hanina; cf. PRE 9:3). Behemoth’s creation separate from Leviathan on the sixth day was favoured by late texts, which Friedländer 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 sea—those 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 Friedländer, op. cit., p. 75, citing Chronicles of Jeraḥmeel v, vi; Yalqut ̣ Shimʿoni 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. 856–857. 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 Pérez Fernández 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 (כאחד ממנו) hand and also take from the Tree of Life, and eat and live for ever . . . Pérez Fernández 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 inm.Sanh. 4:5. This, it seems, is lacking in Ps.-Jon.18 PRE 12:2 offers the following: see most recently discussion in E. Schürer, 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. 752–753. Tg. Neof. of Gen. 1:21 also records the creation of both monsters on the same day, and see also b.Baba Bathra 74b–75a. 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 pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 179

While he (Adam) was at leisure in the Garden of Eden like one of the ministering angels, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am alone in my world and this one is alone in My (or: his) world. Before Me there is 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 Targum’s 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 Adam’s 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 Beshallaḥ 7:72–78, 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 PRE’s exegesis quoted here below. The verse is discussed by Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 90–91; vol. 2, pp. 207–208. 19 Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, pp. 174–175, 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. 212–213, 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 Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1: Genèse (Sources Chrétiennes 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 ̣ Shimʿoni Genesis 34. R. Akiba, however, powerfully refutes this view, stating .means that Adam had the choice of one of two ways כאחד ממנו that 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. Akiba’s 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 Pérez Fernández 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 God’s 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 Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 31, and Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 272–273, who notes a parallel with material in Tanḥuma B. Introd. p. 155; he believes that PRE is closely related to the Targum or its source. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 181

Ps.-Jon. knows none of this. Rather, the serpent tells Eve that God’s 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. 36:11–12. Eve cannot have heard this excla- mation, since nothing untoward happens to the serpent, and she is thereby convinced that she may safely approach the tree. The woman went and touched the tree, and she saw the angel of death coming towards her. She exclaimed: Now I shall die, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, will make another woman and give her to Adam. For this reason she resolves to implicate Adam in her sin, and gives him some of the fruit. At this crucial point in primeval history, the Targum understands events quite differently from PRE. Eve needs no demonstration that the tree is safe, and it is before she has touched it that she sees Sammael and is afraid. Eve’s 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 resumé of PRE seems out of the question. Sammael appears again in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 4:1, where he is held responsible for Eve’s 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 theeditio princeps has a translation of the whole verse:

22 See Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:5, which further demonstrates that Targum’s 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 Cain’s father in PRE 21:1. Theeditio 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 theeditio 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 ad—it 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 8:31–45: I John 3:8–12; further New Testament and early patristic evidence cited by Friedländer, op. cit., pp. 150–151; b.Yeh. 103b; Shabb. 146a; Yalqut Shimʿoni Genesis 35; and A.M. Goldberg, ‘Kain: Sohn des Menschen oder Sohn der Schlange?’, Judaica 25 (1969), pp. 203–221; N.A. Dahl, ‘Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk. 7 1 und Joh 8 44)’, in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen (Berlin, 1964), pp. 70–84, both cited by le Déaut, Targum, p. 101. 25 According to a text included in M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan (Thargum Jonathan ben Usiël zum Pentateuch) (Berlin, 1903), Eve saw that Cain was ‘like the ones on high, and not like those below’. This is not found in the manuscript or pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 183

According to Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:17, God cursed the ground because it did not declare to you (Adam) your sin (literally: debt). usually translated ‘because , בעבורךThe Targum so renders the Hebrew 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 Adam’s sin: it is actually posed by PRE 14:6, and the .לא הגידה המעשה ,’answer is given that it did not ‘declare the deed This very answer raises another question: whose deed? Was it the serpent’s, or Adam’s, or Eve’s? At least one witness to PRE declares that it was the serpent’s, 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 -to trans‘ עבר as deriving from the root בעבורך translation of Hebrew gress, to sin’, shared with Theodotion’s ‘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. Pérez Fernández 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 Pérez Fernández, suggest that the Targum’s 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 Pérez Fernández and Friedländer 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. 273–274, and Bowker, op. cit., p. 136, who compares it with a similar type of statement in I Enoch 106:5. 26 See Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 127. 27 See Jerome, Hebraicae Quaestiones in libro Geneseos (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina LXXII) (Turnhout, 1959), ad. loc.; and cf. Geiger, op. cit., pp. 465–467. 28 See Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 134. For Eliezer, see further Gen. R. 59:10; b.Sanh. 95ab; Baba Bathra 130a; Ḥullin 91b. The Targum does not identify him with Og, king of Bashan, which is a feature of PRE 16:3, and PRE’s 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. Pérez Fernández invokes as a parallel Ps.-Jon. of Deut. 34:6, which tells of God’s 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 God’s dealing with Abraham. Two talmudic passages, b.Sotaḥ 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. Pérez Fernández refers to PRE 20:1, which, in his translation, records Adam’s 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; Friedländer notes the fact, and comments that Adam’s dwelling in this spot is taken from Gen. 3:24 understood as the LXX have interpreted it.30 What has shaped the Targum’s 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 Adam’s creation

29 See Friedländer, 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 Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 156; Friedländer, 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 God’s placing the Cherubim, not Adam, over against the garden. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 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 Pérez Fernández 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 Eve’s children, suggest caution in any suggestion that PRE be associated with Ps.-Jon. In Gen. R. 22:2–3 and b.Sanh. 38b, Cain has one twin sister and Abel two twin sisters; Cain’s twin is found also in PRE 21:1. The Targum, however, speaks of only one daughter born to Eve, and that is Abel’s twin; this does not coincide with PRE, but may reflect the first-century ad statement of Pseudo-Philo’sLiber 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. 32:8–9 with its account of God’s 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. Simeon’s 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. 14:8–9 and jer.Nazir 7:2, and is related in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 2:7 to Adam’s creation from red, black and white dust, a tradition which PRE 11:2 does not agree with according to Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 35. Adam’s 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. 16:5–6; Sifre Deut. 41; and Bowker, op. cit., p. 119. 33 See Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 162; cf. Friedländer, 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, Schürer, op. cit., vol. III.1, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman (Edinburgh, 1986), pp. 328–329. 35 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1. p. 44; vol. 2, pp. 120–121; A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tübingen, 1986), pp. 102–104. 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 168–175 (especially 174–5); 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 God’s

36 Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1. p. 44, notes Jubilees 10:23, but not Philo. Friedländer, 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 Achelis’s edition, II, p. 243. These Christian uses of the verse serve to underline the traditional and popular character of the exegesis. 37 See Friedländer, op. cit., p. 176. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 187 acquisition of Israel at this very time. Only then is God’s descent with the angels to confound men’s speech recorded. Finally, the witnesses to PRE’s 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 Israel’s 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 God’s 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 See Friedländer, op. cit., p. 177, n. 6; Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 180. 39 See Hayward, ‘The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’, pp. 16–18. 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. 18:1–2, which does not feature in the targumic verse under review. Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 18:1–2 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 Abraham’s 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 Abraham’s standing in 17:3 with his sitting in 18:1–2, not because of the pain of circumcision, but as a demonstration of circumcision’s 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 tostand before God, in accordance with Ps.-Jon. of Num. 24:3, which enunci- ates 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. Friedländer, op. cit., p. 205; Pérez Fernández, 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 Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. III: Nombres (Sources Chrétiennes 261) (Paris, 1979), p. 229, who cites L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols. (Philadelphia, 1911–1938), vol. III, p. 366; vol. VI, p. 128. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 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 Pisḥa 5:8–10; cf. Num. R. 14:12. in the singular, and does not so אדמא ’Ps.-Jon. refers only to ‘blood 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. 16–17; the ancient East Syrian rite (between the second and fourth centuries), ed. B.D. Spinks, Addai and Mari—The 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 19:2–4; and 28:2–5, which also uses the prophecy of Malachi 1:11. They attached particular importance to Melchizedek’s 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 4:10–12. 43 See Friedländer, 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 Déaut’s 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. Qorḥa 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 Pharaoh’s daughter? PRE answers by quoting the Hebrew text of Gen. 16:1, which, however, merely states that Hagar was Sarah’s Egyptian maid; it says nothing of her parentage, her status vis-à-vis Pharaoh or of Sarah’s 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 Pharaoh’s 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 concubine’s 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 Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (Rome, 1963), pp. 209–211; G. Vermes, ‘Circumcision and Exodus IV.24–26’, in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1973), pp. 178–192. 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 College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981), pp. 155–156; Chester, op. cit., p. 254, n. 131. 46 For Abraham’s marriage to Hagar, see our discussion of Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 25:1 below, p. 231. The Targum’s method of procedure here seems reminiscent of the devices used by pre-Christian Hellenistic Jewish apologists: see G. Vermes, ‘La Figure pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 191

The story that Pharaoh loaded Sarah with gifts has very ancient roots: a form of it occurs in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, col. 20 lines 30–32. It is a fragmentary text, but already Hagar may be listed among Pharaoh’s 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 PRE’s 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, Abraham’s wife, as ‘Hagar, who was bound to him from the beginning’. PRE 30:4 tells that, after Sarah’s 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 qtṛ ‘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 ,9 חיי שרה R. Jehudah, but disputed by R. Nehemiah) and Tanḥuma) and familiar to Jerome, Hebr. Quaest. on Gen. 25:1–6. Isaac’s 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 Friedländer.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 Isaac’s and Ishmael’s ages, and then relates a dispute between Eliezer and Ishmael, who should inherit when Isaac de Moïse aux tournant des deux Testaments’, Cahiers Sioniens 2–3 (Paris, 1955), pp. 63–92. It certainly does not support an alleged anti-Islamic stance on the part of Ps.-Jon. 47 See Friedländer, op. cit., pp. 219–220; 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 See Friedländer, op. cit., p. 225. 192 chapter ten is slaughtered! Isaac’s 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 Targum’s 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: Abel’s 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 Esau’s 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, Jacob’s 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 Abraham’s death; this is not so in PRE, but is a tradition known to Jubilees 23:1–7. Abraham’s death is noted in Gen. 25:8, and the birth of Jacob and Esau in Gen. 25:25–26. The Targum’s relating Jacob’s activity with the lentils in Gen. 25:29 to Abraham’s death recorded earlier in the chapter (before Jacob’s birth!) implies the kind of ‘rearrangement’ of the scriptural record represented in tradition by the ‘rewriting’ of Jubilees. Third, Esau’s 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. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 193 in PRE the reason for Jacob’s mourning is not primarily the death of Abraham: it is the ascendancy of Esau. Thus the Targum’s exegetical foundations involve an understanding of the biblical text which PRE does not share, and Abraham’s 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 Laban’s 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 man’s 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 father’s 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 Joseph’s brothers are guilty, whereas in PRE it is only the sons of his father’s 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 Friedländer’s translation, op. cit., p. 291. Pérez Fernández, 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 Jacob’s 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 Joseph’s 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 Pérez Fernández adds: Onqelos translates: ‘And the Spirit of Prophecy dwelt on Jacob their father.’51 In many respects, this passage offers one of the clearest demonstra- tions 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 Joseph’s brothers, and the explicit testimony of some witnesses to PRE’s 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 Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 269. Friedländer, op. cit., p. 294, n. 5, specifies this as the readings of the first editions, regarded by Luria as a gloss. The reading which PRE attributes to Tg. Onq. is, in fact, more akin to Ps.-Jon., which has ‘spirit of prophecy’ for Tg. Onq.’s ‘spirit of holiness’. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 195 that ‘the Holy Spirit dwelt on Jacob their father’; thus Ps.-Jon., with its special relationship to Tg. Onq., stands firmly within targumic 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?’ Theglory of God’s 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 mountain’s being lifted into the air, nor of its transparency, but it does say that the heavens were opened and that Sinai’s 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 Friedländer, 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 Friedländer, op. cit., p. 314, n. 10. 54 See Friedländer, op. cit., p. 314. 196 chapter ten the Targum,55 but Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Baḥodesh 3:123–130, Yalqut ̣ Shimʿoni 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 Baḥodesh 2:6–7 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 תורה 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 Friedländer, op. cit., p. 318, n. 5. 56 For the tradition of two commandments delivered in one Divine utterance, see Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Shirta 8:34–41; Baḥodesh 7:61; Sifre Num. 42, 102; Num. R. 11:7. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 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 Targum’s 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 Mezorạ ʿ Parashah 2:11, b.Moʿed Qataṇ 7b and 15b, and Ḥullin 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 Pharaoh’s 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 Israel’s 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 Jochebed’s age. PRE has no reference to her betrothal to Amram, their divorce, Jochebed’s return or her renewed youth. By the same token, the Targum says nothing of the length of stay in Egypt, which is PRE’s only concern; the latter uses Exod. 7:7, not Exod. 2:1, to give Jochebed’s age, which is plucked from the air without scriptural authority. The Targum’s true affinities are with texts such as b.Sotaḥ 12a, Baba Bathra 119b–120a, Exod. R. 1:19, and Num. R. 13:20, all of which fully share the aggadic concerns of Ps.-Jon., including Jochebed’s 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. 24:10–11 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 Shelomit’s husband and raped her; the son of this union followed his father’s 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 blasphemer’s 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 Pérez Fernández appears to find it there.58 Joseph’s brothers bought shoes with the money they acquired by selling him, according to Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 37:28 and PRE 38:4. Friedländer 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 moon’s size, a matter discussed and explained in b.Ḥ ullin 60b and Shevuʿot 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 Targum’s reference to Jochebed’s 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 See Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 33. 59 See Friedländer, op. cit., p. 293, n. 3, who records also the appearance of this theme in the Liturgy of Yom Kippur. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 199

Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:7 says that Adam and Eve were naked of the gar- nail-skin or onyx, in which they had been created.60 ,טופרא ment of .to make girdles ,טרפי תינין They sewed together fig-leaves, Aramaic 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. Friedländer has translated a text which also records that the cloud of glory departed from him;61 see also Yalqut ̣Shimʿoni 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: Adam’s original clothing of twpṛ ʾ is replaced by trpỵ , leaves, of figs. It is possible that a play on words of this kind actually produced the tradition which Ps.-Jon. records, although R. Isaac’s 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 ̣ Shimʿoni Genesis 35. Friedländer’s 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 Abel’s 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 Déaut is correct in reading beauty’, then any possible link between the Targum and PRE ,שפרא garments of‘ dissolves; see Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, p. 91. Given the indubitable reference to ‘garments of nail/onyx’ in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 3:21, however, support for reading the same expression in this verse is not entirely absent. 61 See Friedländer, op. cit., p. 98. 62 Clarke et al. list at least forty-five uses of this expression in their concordance, op. cit., p. 469. 63 See Friedländer, 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 PRE’s 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 Noah’s 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 Targum’s device for eliminating the

64 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 261. 65 Sec above, pp. 226–228 on Gen. 11:7. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 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. 32:4–5, 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 Targum’s 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 towns- folk. Ps.-Jon. may assume that this story is so well known as merely to require a hint of it in his paraphrase.67 But it is open to question whether this mention of Pelitit constitutes proof that the Targum has borrowed the story from PRE. The aggadah about a girl who shows pity to the poor in Sodom is represented outside PRE in b.Sanh. 109b and Gen. R. 49:6 where, however, she is unnamed. The name Pelitit is the only item in which PRE and the Targum agree, and in actual fact we have no means of knowing whether the name was borrowed by PRE from the Targum or vice-versa, or by both from some common source. For the Targum is entirely silent on the whole aggadah, and may only hint that it knows

66 See Chester, op. cit., pp. 105–109; FTP, FTV and Tg. Onq. of this verse; Gen. R. 49:6; Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Beshallaḥ 5:46–57; Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, pp. 214–216. 67 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 162; vol. 2, p. 214; and discussion in Bowker, op. cit., pp. 212–213; le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1, p. 191; and Yalqut ̣ Shimʿoni 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 Esau’s 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, Jacob’s 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.Sotaḥ 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.Sotah.̣ 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 ̣ ushimH ben Dan: the latter cut off Esau’s head with a sword. PRE, Gen. R. andb.Sot aḥ note that Ḥ ushim was deaf, a point lacking, though probably assumed, by the Targum. PRE makes Ḥ 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 Ḥ ushim that he should kill Esau. (5) In the Targum, Esau’s head rolled into the cave and came to rest in Isaac’s bosom. In PRE, however, Ḥ ushim takes the head into the cave. According to the account in b.Sotaḥ , Esau was struck by Ḥ ushim’s club so that his eyes were dislodged and rolled out, a detail found also in Gen. R.; both these sources relate the incident to Jacob’s laughter. (6) In the Targum, the sons of Esau buried their father’s body in the field of the cave; PRE notes that ‘they’, Jacob’s sons, sent his body to Mount Seir. (7) PRE adds that Isaac grasped Esau’s 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 Friedländer, op. cit., p. 309, and Pérez Fernández, op. cit., pp. 279–280, who compares Test. Naph. 3:2–4; 5:1–8. 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 Esau’s claim is part of the stock of targumic lore, and is not borrowed from PRE: see Tg. Neof. and FT of Gen. 49:21, and Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 31:4; 49:21. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 203 that mercy be shown to him, a request which God firmly denies. This does not figure in the Targum. This brief survey of what is an extended aggadah in different texts is enough to indicate that simple dependence of one document on another is not sufficient to account for the variations in the same 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 for they are dead’ has been‘ כי מתו Abiram, and the biblical statement they are as if they were dead’.71 Dathan and Abiram‘ כמתו understood as 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 צו from texts such as b. Avodah Zarah 5a, Exod. R. 5:4 and Tanḥuma 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 Tanḥuma ;Yalqut ̣ Shimʿoni Genesis 162; and Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 143 ;6 במדבר vol. 2, p. 286. 71 This matter is discussed by le Déaut, 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 Baḥodesh 3:33–34, b.Shabb. 88a and Sefer Ha-Yashar 82:6. It is a well- known tradition and it is improbable that the Targum has borrowed it from PRE, where the hour of the day, made precise in a manner foreign to Ps.-Jon., has a particular exegetical part to play.73 Direct dependence of the Targum on PRE is hardly likely, given the existence of the tradition in other authoritative texts. Ps.-Jon. of Exod. 2:13 identifies the two Hebrews who were con- tending as Dathan and Abiram: Moses saw that Dathan had raised his hand to strike Abiram and checked him. PRE 48:4 quotes the Hebrew of the same verse as proof that the men were Dathan and Abiram, but has no reference to Dathan’s lifting his hand. While Friedländer regarded this Targum verse as dependent on PRE, Pérez Fernández 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. 16:25–26 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: ;(עדישא) 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 Targum’s anti- Islamic stance and of its dependence on PRE 30:3, so much so that

72 See Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 319. 73 Thus Israel received the Torah at the sixth hour, returned to their tents at the ninth, ate the prepared manna, and rested on the Sabbath. 74 See Friedländer, op. cit., p. 380, n. 2; Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 335. 75 See le Déaut, Targum du Penlateuque, vol. 2: Exode, p. 23. 76 See Friedländer, op. cit., p. 379, who points to the antiquity of this notion. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 205

Shinan seems to believe that this verse can only properly be understood in the light of PRE.77 In the latter text, Ishmael’s wife is called Ayesha; there are variants of the name but none correspond to the Targum’s 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 Ishmael’s 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 father’s 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 Ishmael’s 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 PRE’s message is pro-Islamic, praising Fatima and putting into Abraham’s mouth prayers for the blessing of Ishmael. Ohana especially has asserted that Ps.-Jon. adoped from PRE mainly negative aspects of the latter’s 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 Ishmael’s two wives were introduced late into the completed text of the Targum by a modernising scribe. The curious targumic spelling

77 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 1, p. 163, and literature cited there. 78 Variants include ʿEssah, ʿEphah, ʿyysh: see Friedländer, op. cit., p. 218, n. 7; and Pérez Fernández, op. cit., p. 211. 79 See Ohana, art. cit., pp. 384–385. 206 chapter ten of the first wife’s 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 anti- Islamic text which can only be correctly understood in the light of a pro-Islamic original. The description of the teraphim in Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 31:19 has material in common with PRE 36:4, but a similar description appears in which has details lacking in the account of PRE also ,וירא Tanḥuma 12 found in the Targum. Thus Tanḥuma 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 collections—Yalqut ̣ Shimʿoni Genesis 130, Zechariah 578 and Sefer Ha-Yashar 31:41—have the same description, but with some variations of detail. Indeed, a glance at Friedländer’s translation and his notes of the textual variants, and a comparison of these with the material given by Pérez Fernández, 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 Tanḥuma, might suggest that a common source lies behind all the present versions. PRE states that one of Rachel’s motives for stealing the teraphim was to extirpate idolatry from Laban’s house; this does not feature in Ps.-Jon. But Jacob’s statement that whoever had stolen the idols would die before his proper time found in PRE 36:4 does find a place in and Pesiqta de Rav 13 וירא Ps.-Jon. of Gen. 31:32, as also in Tanḥuma Kahana 14, 116b. Finally, we may note that Ps.-Jon. of Num. 22:5 and

80 See Friedländer, op. cit., pp. 273–274: Pérez Fernández, op. cit., pp. 254–255. Two witnesses lack almost the entire passage. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 207

31:8 identifies Laban with the arch-sorcerer Balaam; the identification of Laban as Beor, Balaam’s father, is made by b.Sanh. 105a, which goes on to say that Beor was also Balaam’s name, but it is entirely lacking in PRE. It is just possible that the Targum’s 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 Laban- Balaam with the golden plate worn on the high priest’s 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 Déaut,Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 3: Nombres, p. 208. 208 chapter ten

Holy Spirit resting on Jacob; the place of the burning bush as the site of the Giving of the Torah; dwelling in the tent as a metaphor for sleep- ing with one’s 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 Esau’s 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 Targum’s exegesis

82 See Friedländer, op. cit., Introduction pp. xiii–xvi; and Pérez Fernández, op. cit., pp. 25–26. pirqe de rabbi eliezer and targum pseudo-jonathan 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 Leviathan’s creation on the fifth day. In all this, we have reckoned without the undoubted differences between PRE and Ps.-Jon. which Pérez Fernández 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 Pérez Fernández’s 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 Pérez Fernández, op. cit., pp. 35–36. CHAPTER ELEVEN

INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN: 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 Déaut, Introduction à la Littérature Targumique, Première Partie (Rome 1966), pp. 89–101, 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 (Tübingen 1986), pp. 252–256. 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. 119–146; 2, p. xvi. 2 See C.T.R. Hayward, ‘The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: some comments’, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 7–30, and the response of Shinan, ‘Dating Targum Pseudo- Jonathan: some more comments’, JJS 41 (1990), pp. 57–61; Hayward, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 77–93; and ‘Jacob’s 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. 175–192. 3 See A. Shinan, ‘The “Palestinian” Targums—Repetitions, Internal Unity, Contra- dictions’, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 72–87, 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 wordwyrq , 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 Abram’s 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 ʿwlmwyy] 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. 15:2–3, with specific reference to Eliezer, and 18:11–15. The childlessness of Abraham and Sarah laid them open to Gentile taunts, according to the midrashim: see, e.g., Ber. Rab. 53:10; Deb. Rab. 1:25; and PJ of Numb. 21:34. 5 The following editions of Targumim of the Pentateuch have been used: E.G. Clarke, in collaboration with W.G. Aufrecht, J.C. Hurd and E. Spitzer, Targum Pseudo- Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (New Jersey 1984); A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (Leiden 1959); A. Díez Macho, MS Neophyti I, 1, Genesis (Madrid-Barcelona 1968); M.L. Klein, The 212 chapter eleven

The Targum’s understanding of Hebrew wyrq ʾt ḥnykyw as ‘he armed his young men’ is found in Targum Neofiti I (hereafter TN) and Peshittạ 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 PJ’s 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 šwtrym’, (= Deut. 20:1–9). 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 Tanḥuma, which presents Abram addressing his troops and dissuading the sin- ners 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 PJ’s rendering of the Hebrew, and the possibilities set forth in Ber. Rab. and more fully worked out in Tanḥuma. The Targum says that Abram armed his men of war, but that they were unwilling (wlʾsbẉ ) 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: wbḥr mn ʿbdwhy gbryn bḥyryn 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’. לך ,.See Midrash Tanchuma, ed. S. Buber (Wilna 1885), hereafter Tanḥuma B 7 16, and J. Theodor and H. Albeck, Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar, 4 vols. (Berlin 1903–1936), p. 416 notes. The exegesis of Tanḥuma 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 Targum’s statement that Abram’s men refused to go with him is not related to Tanḥuma’s interpretation. inconsistencies and contradictions 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 Patriarch’s army; and this helps us to establish the Targum’s 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 Targum’s presentation of that character.9 For the moment, we shall leave this matter, and concentrate on the comparison of Eliezer’s 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 Eliezer’s 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

8 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. Pérez Fernández, Los Capítulos de Rabbí Eliezer (Valencia 1984). 9 See below, p. 223 ff. 10 The story of Aner, Eshchol, and Mamre, Abraham’s disciples, is found also in Midrash Ha-Gadol, Genesis, ed. M. Margoliouth (Jerusalem 1967), pp. 234–235. 11 See also, e.g., b. Ned. 32a; Wayy. Rab. 28:4; Bem. Rab. 18:21; Pesiqta de Rab .and Mid. Teh. on Ps. 110:1 ;13 לך Kahana 8:2; Tanḥuma 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 Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, I, Gènese (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 Levine’s suggestion;14 and we may strengthen his observations by noting that PJ’s exegesis is implicit already in a pre- Christian source. Philo, in De Abrahamo 230–233, 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 tōi hupermachōi kai proagōnistēi 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 Nimrod’s son. This may be accounted for in different ways. It might be argued that here we find evidence for the late, post-Islamic composition of the Targum, or that the text, while incorporating very ancient material, has under- gone substantial redaction in the early Middle Ages. Again, it might be argued that this note is a mere scribal gloss introduced by one familiar with the Midrash Ha-Gadol, and that it is therefore of little evidential value for determining the date and place of the Targum. Or we may here have evidence that PJ is like a Yalqut,̣ gathering materials from different sources and places, whose final date must be determined by

also said to be the total of the Fathers assembled at the first Council of Nicaea in 325: see Athanasius, Ad Afros 2. 13 See E. Levine, ‘Some Characteristics of Pseudo-Jonathan Targum to Genesis’, Augustinianum 11 (1971), p. 93. 14 See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 2, 346. 15 Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 224, also draws attention to Philo’s 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 Shinan’s 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. inconsistencies and contradictions 215 the latest elements in its compilation. That none of these arguments is necessarily convincing becomes clear once the whole picture of the Targum’s treatment of Eliezer and Nimrod is examined. To this we must now address ourselves. Eliezer’s 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 mšq) of my house is Dammeseq Eliezer (dmsq ʾlyʿzr)? 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 PJ’s ‘son of the administration’, br prnst, is TO’s version, which has br prnsʾ. Both phrases mean much the same thing: Eliezer is the person in charge of the management of Abraham’s household. This interpretation of the Hebrew bn mšq is reflected in other ancient interpretations, and features again in PJ.18 In common with the other Palestinian Targums, PJ understands dmsq ʾlyʿzr as referring to wonders which Eliezer performed for Abraham in Damascus, the place-name providing the springboard for

17 The meanings of mšq and dmsq ʾlyʿzr 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. 278–279. 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 mšq 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 Eliezer’s part in Abraham’s conquest of the four hostile kings recorded in Gen. 14:14. Thus inBer. Rab. 44:9 R. Simon b. Lakish in the name of bar Kappara interprets dmsq ʾlyʿzr 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 inWayy. 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 Abraham’s 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 God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. But the question who shall be Abraham’s 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 Ishmael’s birth as a natural son of Abraham (Gen.

19 See also the Targumic material preserved in Bereshith Zutṭ ạ , quoted by M. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments of Lost Targumim, Part 1 (Ramat-Gan 1983), pp. 42–43 (in Hebrew). The complex narrative of Abraham and Eliezer pursuing the kings to Damascus, found, e.g., in PRE 27:2, is entirely lacking in the Targums; on the other hand, Josephus, Ant. I. p. 183 makes Abraham question God about what benefit he may derive from the divine favour when he is childless, a ploy found also in the Targums. It should not too readily be assumed that the ‘wonderful deeds’ refer to the defeat of the kings: Jerome, Heb. Quaest. ad. loc., says that ‘they’ (probably his Jewish sources) relate this verse to the founding of the city of Damascus. 20 See Midrash Ha-Gadol, ed. Margoliouth, p. 351; Theodor-Albeck, Bereschit Rabba, 594, notes; Sefer Ha-Yashar, 44b; and Rashi on this verse. inconsistencies and contradictions 217

16:4–11). 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., Abraham’s) 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 PJ’s 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 PJ’s version of Gen. 24, which tells how Isaac acquired his wife Rebekah at Abraham’s 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 Talmud’s 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 Abraham’s 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 Isaac’s 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 Nimrod’s 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 emp- tied the house of idolatry, and have prepared a place for the camels.

23 Pérez Fernández, 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 PJ’s version of Gen. 14:13, Og is named as the fugitive who tells Abraham of Lot’s capture, while according to PRE 27:1 the archangel Michael performs this task. inconsistencies and contradictions 219

The Targum does not explain why Laban thought that Eliezer was Abraham. Possibly it takes for granted the view of Ber. Rab. 59:8 (cf. 60:7), that the splendour of his appearance (lit.: eikōn) was comparable with Abraham’s, 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 Peshitta,̣ 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 Abraham’s 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 visi- tor could be considered: and PJ may have developed its understanding in purely Targumic terms, without reference to other sources. Laban offered Abraham’s 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 (kmʾdqtwl): 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 Paʿel, 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 smʾ dqtwḷ , ‘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 PJ’s interpretation of 24:55, which reports that Rebekah’s 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 Rebekah’s father, Bethuel, appears once only in the whole story: in verse 50, he readily agrees with Laban that it is God’s will that Rebekah go with Eliezer to become Isaac’s 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 Usiël 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 Ṭov, and Leqaḥ Ṭov cited there; Yalqut ̣ Shimʿoni 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 1–4 (Harvard 1967), p. 123, notes that Bethuel’s death is also implied by Gen. 24:28, which already speaks of her mother’s house rather than her father’s. See also S. Speier, ‘The Targum Jonathan on Genesis 24.56’, JQR (n.s.), 28 (1937–1938), pp. 301–303. inconsistencies and contradictions 221

Rebekah’s 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 Abraham’s servant, and intensifying the wickedness of Laban’s 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 Eliezer’s 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 Ginsburger’s edition of PJ as the cause of adulteration: Shinan sees this aggadah as evidence of PJ’s 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 wyysṛ in Gen. 2:7, in which the repeated letter yodh is referred first to the good, then to the evil ysṛ (inclination) in human beings.32 Although the adulteration of Eliezer’s food is not recorded in extant early texts, we should not conclude that PJ’s 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 Shinan’s 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 Bethuel’s 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. 14:2–3, 5; and Bowker, op. cit., pp. 116–117. 222 chapter eleven demand explanation. A popular tradition may also be involved, and the exegesis of wyysm provided by Ginsburger’s 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. Eliezer’s 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; Ḥullin -It is possible that Jerome knew the bare out .3 וירא 91b; and Tanḥuma lines 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 Abraham’s 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 Targum’s exegesis. Second, with the possible exception of the statements that Eliezer was Nimrod’s 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 Eliezer’s journey to and from Paddan-Aram on the same day is, however, implied by Gen. 24:42, where he says ‘And I have come today to the well . . .’: so b. Sanh. 95a. inconsistencies and contradictions 223 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 Eliezer’s food has its beginnings in the ancient, non-Biblical story of Bethuel’s death, and is part of an attempt to explain an old tradition. Fourth, the Rabbinic writings which stand closest to the Targum’s 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 Targum’s occasional peculiarities are the more obviously in need of explanation. With these observations in mind, we may now address ourselves to the Targum’s treatment of Nimrod.

2. The Story of Nimrod

The Bible’s 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 Nimrod’s 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. Nimrod’s name is here understood as deriving from the root mrd, to rebel: the Hebrew for ‘he began’, hḥl, was also interpreted by some authorities (e.g., R. Simon in Ber. Rab. 23:7) as meaning ‘rebel’.34 Nimrod’s wickedness is asserted unambiguously by Philo, De Gigantibus 66 and Josephus, Antiquities I.113–114; and the first century ad writing attributed to Philo, the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 4:7,

34 See J. Bowker, op. cit., pp. 179–180; 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; Ḥagigah 13a; Pes. 94b; and Meg. 11a. This wickedness and rebellion are further emphasised in PJ’s rendering of Gen. 10:9. The Hebrew reads: He was a mighty hunter (syḍ ) before the Lord. Therefore it is said: Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter (syḍ ) 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 Nimrod’s 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 place- name 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 hʾrs ̣ hhwʾ yṣʾ ʾšwr wybn ʾt nynwh wʾt rḥbt ʿyr wʾt klḥ. 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. Schürer, 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. 325–331. 36 For TO’s treatment of this verse, see J. Bowker, ‘Haggadah in the Targum Onqelos’, JSS 12 (1967), pp. 57–58, and Shinan, The Aggadah, 1, p. 140. 37 See, for example, M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth, and Rashi’s Commentary (London 1946). inconsistencies and contradictions 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.113–114. The Rabbinic tradition generally concurs with this: see b. Ḥullin 89b, PRE 11:3, and the reference to the destroyed temple of Nimrod in b. Abodah Zarah 53b. PJ’s 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 interpo- lation 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 PJ’s positive approach to Nimrod affinities with late medieval midrashim such as Maʿaseh 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. 140–141. I have failed to find anything in the medieval midrashim, quoted by Shinan, which corresponds to PJ’s 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. 306–373), which others have correctly noted,40 that Nimrod waged war on the nations with God’s approval. Ephraem does not make Nimrod responsible for the Tower of Babel; rather, according to the Lord’s will, he made war with each nation and perse- cuted them from there, so that they should go and be gathered together into their regions, allotted to them by God . . . Nimrod was the one who scattered them; he also captured Babylon and reigned in it first, for if he had not scattered all of them there would not have been a place which could have held them all.41 Finally, a further point needs consideration. PJ altogether fails to 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 10:18–26. In the light of these facts, it seems to us most unlikely that PJ’s 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. 60–61: 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. Díez 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 Kirchenvätern’, MGWJ 45 (1899), pp. 466–467. 41 Our translation of the text in R.-M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri In Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium p. 72 (Louvain 1955), on Genesis section VIII. inconsistencies and contradictions 227 that they do not make Nimrod responsible for the Tower; and that Ber. Rab. borrowed PJ’s 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 Targum’s 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 (ʿl pny) Terah his father in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldees. Once more, the Hebrew is ambiguous, since ʿl 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 Haran’s 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 Abram’s 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 Abraham’s 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 6:4–18 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 Abraham’s experience is made to resem- ble 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. 85–90. His observations on 228 chapter eleven

(b) Haran’s 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 Haran’s double mindedness, and nsḥ ̣ 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 12:12–13, 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) Haran’s Death A tradition that Haran died by fire is old, being found in Jubilees 12:12–14; 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 alreadycombines two principal elements

the dating of these traditions are particularly relevant for this essay. See also le Déaut, 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; Maʿaseh Abraham Abinu and other sources. 45 See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 46. inconsistencies and contradictions 229 of PJ’s exegesis; that Haran’s death was caused by God, and that he was burned in fire from the furnace. InBer. 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 God’s sending a bolt of fire from the furnace to kill Haran, this last being reminiscent of LAB.47 Shinan, however, disagrees with Levine’s 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 Shinan’s argument that PJ has quite negligently and carelessly combined two mutually exclusive stories, one attributing Haran’s death to God, the other to Nimrod.49 But PJ does not state that Nimrod threw Haran into the fire, and the Targum’s narrative is anything but careless: close attention to the text shows that an important point is being subtly conveyed. Thus the nations ascribe Abraham’s safety to Haran’s 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 Nimrod’s 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 PJ’s description of Nimrod as King of Pontus.50 The Targum’s 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; Ḥ agigah 13a; Tanḥuma 6; Pesiqta Rabbati 33, and Midrash Ha-Gadol (ed. Margoliouth), pp. 231–232. But, to the best of my knowledge, only this Targum refers to him as king of Pontus: and this must be

46 For a different view, see Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 175. 47 See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 46. 48 See Shinan, ibid., arguing against E.B. Levine, ‘Some Characteristics of Pseudo- Jonathan Targum to Genesis’, Augustinianum 11 (1971), p. 91. 49 See Shinan, op. cit., pp. 1, 175. 50 See above, p. 46. 230 chapter eleven 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 Plutarch’s 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 Nimrod’s 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 twenty- two, 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. 558–564, 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; 112–113; XVI.18. 52 See Reinach, op. cit., p. 276. 53 See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 53–54, 276. 54 See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 251, 295; and PJ of Gen. 10:10–11. If we are correct in arguing that PJ has modelled Nimrod on Mithridates, then the Targum’s version of Gen. 10:11 discussed above is entirely comprehensible. 55 See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 244, 288–289. 56 See Reinach, op. cit., pp. 250, 282; some authorities credited him with knowledge of fifty tongues. inconsistencies and contradictions 231 confiscated money from the Jews of Cos.57 He died, at his own request, by the hand either of his son or of a trusted servant;58 but the ultimate cause of his demise was Rome, against which he waged many wars: PJ of Gen. 25:27 records that Esau, a famous Rabbinic code-name for Rome, killed Nimrod and his son.59 Finally, it should be noted that the Aramaic word mitṛ edaʾ 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 PJ’s presentation of Nimrod draws on popular stories about Mithridates VI. If this be the case, the Targum’s 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 (3rd–2rd 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 Pharaoh’s daughter; but nowhere else do we hear that Pharaoh was son of Nimrod, and PJ’s 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. 112–113. 58 See Reinach, op. cit., p. 410. 59 This is not at all connected with PRE 24:5 (cf. Ber. Rab. 65:16), according to which Esau killed Nimrod to gain possession of Adam’s 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. 16–18. 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. 889–903 (Artapanus); pp. 861–872 (Eupolemus); pp. 873–879 (Pseudo-Eupolemus); and cf. Schürer, op. cit., pp. 521–525 (Artapanus); pp. 517–521 (Eupolemus); and pp. 528–531 (Pseudo-Eupolemus). 62 For Hagar as Pharaoh’s daughter, see Ber. Rab. 45:1; and for discussions of PJ’s rendering of this verse, see Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 231; Gottlieb, art. cit., p. 33; and Shinan, The Aggadah, 1, pp. 153, 159. 232 chapter eleven

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 PJ’s rendering is once more to bring Abraham into contact with royalty, and to insist on Nimrod’s 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 PJ’s 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 Bethuel’s 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 Nimrod’s 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 pre- Rabbinic 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. inconsistencies and contradictions 233

PJ also shares many traditions with Ber. Rab. and the Babylonian Talmud. The affinities between this Targum and such major Rabbinic writings must surely mean that the Targum was no stranger to the milieux which produced these texts. Indeed, it is entirely possible, as this study has shown, that PJ himself may be both a source of information and a ‘sparring partner’ for Talmud and Midrash in certain items of exegesis. So, for example, PJ’s 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 Abraham’s servant. PJ’s 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: DATING TARGUM PSEUDOJONATHAN

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 PJ’s 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 PJ’s 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

1 See especially A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Makor, 1979) (in Hebrew), see especially vol. 1, pp. 119–146 and vol. 2, p. xvi; idem, ‘The “Palestinian” Targums—Repetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions’, JJS 36 (1985), pp. 72–87; idem, ‘Live translation: On the Nature of the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch’, Prooftexts 3 (1983), pp. 41–49; D.M. Splansky, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: its relationship to the other Targumim, Use of Midrashim, and Date’, diss. Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981; and A.N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tubingen: Mohr, 1986), pp. 252–256. 2 See C.T.R. Hayward, ‘The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments’, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 7–30; ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, JSS 34 (1989), pp. 77–93; ‘Jacob’s 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. 175–192. Shinan has responded to the first of these articles in ‘Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some More Comments’, JJS 46 (1990), pp. 57–61; his criticisms are answered in ‘Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’, JJS 42 (1991), pp. 215–246. 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. 19:1–10), then we may discover fixed points from which to chart the targum’s 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 PJ’s 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 targum’s treatment of the red heifer, and attempts to show how PJ’s individual understanding of this much debated yet vitally important ritual may yield pointers to the date of that targum’s origins. As is well known, the Bible’s 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. God’s 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 Übersetzung der Bibel (Breslau: Hainauer, 1857), pp. 170–200. 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. 212–216, 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 ḥqh, 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 Sifré 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 Sifré 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 s̆lym, ‘perfect, entire;’7 and second, because of the opening statement of tos. Parah 1:1 which defines a s̆lm 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 Científicas, 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. Eliezer’s 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 Shimʿoni (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 s̆lm. These renderings are almost invariable where Hebrew has tmym. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 237

As for an ox which is 24 months and one day old—lo, this is a s̆lm ox, This view is immediately corroborated by R. Eliezer here as well as in Sifré 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 slm̆ attributed by other sources to R. Eliezer. It is no doubt possible that R. Eliezer speaks in tos. Parah 1:1 of a pr slm̆ under targumic influence, since the Torah nowhere refers to a beast as being slm̆ . In any event, PJ’s 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 heifer’s age, adopts an exegetical base different from that of the Sifré, which makes this word apply to the heifer’s 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 Sifré 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 Sifré, Sifré Zutta, or Tosefta.

8 See m. Parah 1:1; Sifré Num. 123; Yalqut Shimʿoni p. 512; and Geiger, pp. 476–477. 9 Quoted from H.S. Horovitz, Siphre d’be Rab (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966). Translations are my own. See also Rashi ad loc. and Yalqut Shimʿoni p. 572. That the heifer should be perfectly red is the opinion of R. Joshua b. Betera in m. Parah 2:5; cf. Sifré Zutta on Num. 19:2. 238 chapter twelve

In the Hebrew, the last clause of the verse reads ‘on which no yoke has come up’. PJ considerably elaborates this fact by stipulating that no male shall have mounted the heifer. This is the view accepted by the Sages in m. Parah 2:4, and is consonant with m. Parah 2:1, which disqualifies a pregnant heifer; its exegetical springboard in the targum is clearly the verb ‘come up’ or ‘mount’. The Mishnah, however, does not seek to anchor this rule in Scripture; and neither Sifra nor Sifré 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; Sifré 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. 138–146 and Part 10, pp. 156–161. The Mishnah, Parah 2:3 gives the general rule: whatever is done for the heifer’s 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. 229–231 and Part 10, p. 216. 12 See above, note 10. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 239

PJ’s 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 Sifré Num. 123, but only to be rejected. For Sifré 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 Eleazar’s 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 Sifré, 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. Jose’s opinion stated in m. Parah 3:7, and the same view expressed by Rabbi in Sifré 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 targum’s 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 striking—it occurs again in the following verse—and 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 Sifré Num. 123, Sifré Zutta Ḥ 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 targum’s closest allies remain the Sifré and Sifré Zutta. The former text seems to assume what the targum makes explicit, that the slaughter is to be

14 The Hebrew ‘and he shall bring her out’ is taken to imply this. See also b. Yoma 42b. 15 See m. Parah 3:8; 4:3; and Neusner, Part 10, p. 141. 16 Cf. R. Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque: Gènese, vol. 1. (Paris: Cerf, 1978), p. 217. This Mishnah does indeed stress the suitability of fig wood, but along with walnut and oleaster; see also m. Tamid 2:5. The Bodleian Aramaic Fragment of the Testament of Levi translated by R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), p. 364 does, however, include the olive tree, like PJ. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 241 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 targum’s 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; Sifré Zutta Huqqat 3), and Sifré Num. 123 offers this as a specific exegesis of the words ‘the priest’, in the same way as PJ.19 Similarly, PJ agrees with Sifré Num. 123, m. Parah 3:9, and the Sifré 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 PJ’s insistence on another practice referred to in this verse.20 The targum is, however, in complete agreement with Sifré 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 Sifré Zutta to this verse.21

17 See Sifré Num. 123: ws̆ḥt ̣ ’th—mgyd s̆’m ntnblh bs̆ḥytḥ pswlh. 18 PJ differs from TO mostly in spelling. TN has a its own way of expressing ‘outside the camp’, Ibr mn ms̆ryth, which it shares with CG. 19 So Sifré 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 Shimʿoni, p. 514; and Horovitz’s notes on the Sifré at this point, vol. 1, p. 154. 242 chapter twelve

The Hebrew text does not say what is to be sprinkled by the blood. PJ supplies the object by specifying the fig-wood arrangement, an opinion which is most probably informed by the kind of discussions recorded in b. Men. 26b–27a. What follows is confusing. The manuscript of PJ states that the blood should be sprinkled ‘from a jar’, mn lgyn. As Le Déaut points out, no known source refers to a jar at this point. Indeed, Levy and Jastrow long ago suggested that the targum’s text here was corrupt for mn lgyw, ‘from the midst’.22 Since the targum otherwise agrees with the Sifré 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, PJ’s interpretation of verse 9 speaks of the Mount of Olives as one of the three places where the heifer’s 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 Sifré 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 targum’s clear disagreement with Sifré 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 Sifré refutes this very point with reference to Scripture: I might understand seven sprinklings and one immersion (of the priest’s 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 Sifré. To my knowledge, it is the only extant text which

22 See Le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque: Nombres, vol. 3 (Paris: Cerf, 1979), p. 175. 23 See also m. Parah 3:9 and Sifré Zutta on this verse. The point is not discussed in the Tosefta. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 243 makes such a ruling absolutely clear; and it is not the only occasion on which the targum behaves in this way. We have already noted PJ’s disagreement with the Sifré and other sources about the Segan’s part in the ritual.24 Two other matters to be discussed presently will furnish further examples of the targum’s acceptance of rulings specifically refuted by the Sifré; 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 Sifré.25 Indeed, Baumgarten’s 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 (l’ynyw): its skin and its flesh and its blood upon its dung he shall burn. The targum’s 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 Sifré Num. 124 and b. Yoma 42b agree that another priest performs the burning. A marginal gloss of TN specifies that this is done while Eleazar looks on.

24 See above, p. 239. 25 See J.M. Baumgarten, ‘The Laws ofʿ Orlah and First Fruits in the light of Jubilees, the Qumran writings, and Targum Ps. Jonathan,’ JJS 38 (1987), pp. 195–202. 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 TN’s mn ’dmh. PJ’s b’db’ ‘with the finger’ is a variant of b’ysb’̣ (TN) or b’sb’ḥ (TO; cf. CG) altered to suit the paraphrase. ‘And he shall sprinkle’ = TO, GM; cf. TN; ‘opposite the front of ’ = TN exactly, not TO, which rather = CG; ‘tent of meeting’ = TO; whereas ‘with its blood’ and ‘seven times’ are not expressed in exactly the same way in any other targum. 244 chapter twelve

Where PJ translates the Hebrew and does not interpret, the rendering is almost identical to that of TN.28 We turn now to verse 6: And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop and scarlet, and shall cast them into the midst of the burning of the heifer. The targum renders: And another priest shall take a chopped log of cedar (= golamish) wood, and hyssop, and color which has been changed into scarlet,29 and he shall cast them into the midst of the burning of the heifer; and he shall increase the fire to multiply the ash. The notion that yet another priest should add these things is not, as far as I know, attested elsewhere, but is peculiar to PJ. The chopped log, however, features in Sifré Num. 124 and in Sifré Zutta on this verse. For the cedar specified as golamish, see also Sifra Meṣʿora 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 Sifré 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 targum’s attachment of the command to increase the ash to this verse, rather than to the preceding, we may suggest a general agreement with R. Judah’s 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 Sifré are in the process of making specific. Finally, PJ’s 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 Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque: Nombres, p. 176. 30 See m. Parah 4:4; tos. Parah 7:20; Sifré Num. 124; Sifré Zutta on this verse. 31 PJ may also agree with R. Akiba in this midrash, if he means that wood may be added to increase the ash after the burning has started; see Horovitz, vol. 1, p. 156. The glosses of TN and the FT(V) make it clear that the cedar, hyssop, and scarlet are to be added into the ash of the burning; i.e., they are not to be used in large quanti- ties to increase ash. This would seem to agree broadly with the view of R. Ishmael, against the sense of PJ. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 245 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 Sifré Num. 124 in making the slaughterer the subject of this action; the Sifré 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 PJ’s 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’, ʿsq, is common to Hebrew and Aramaic; and it is used in this verse and in Sifré 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 col- lect the ashes. Elsewhere, we are told that this may be done by any man (see, e.g., Sifré Num. 124, Sifré Zutta on this verse, m. Parah 4:4, tos. Parah 4:11, and b. Yoma 43a). Once more, however, the Sifré takes up

34 Otherwise, note the differences between PJ, and TN and CG, which are very close to one another. 35 See above, what was said on verse 7. The translation language of PJ is here again very close to TO, differing from TN; see note 34. TN and CG very similar. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 247 the question whether a priest should not perform this function, only to prove that the ash must be gathered by a male lay-person. By contrast, the targum’s clear description of the vessel into which the ash is put corresponds almost verbatim with Sifré 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 smyḍ ptyl, according to the Sifré. 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; Sifré Num. 124; and Sifré Zutta on this verse. PJ places the information here because of the requirement of the Hebrew text that the ash be lmšmrt 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) Ḥ uqqat 26; the following section, Ḥ 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 PJ’s 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 PJ’s attitudes to the Levites, see A. Büchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jeruschalmischen Tempels (Wien: Holder, 1895), pp. 151–159. 37 See also Yalqut Shimʿoni, p. 512; Rashi on this verse, and the long sermon of R. Moshe Ha-Darshan which he there reproduces; and further below, pp. 254–256. 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., Sifré 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 PJ’s translation of the actual Hebrew is once more almost verbatim that of TO. The detailed discussion of PJ set out above forms the basis for the conclusions which this part of the essay will attempt to justify. PJ mod- ifies the original Hebrew of Num. 19:1–10 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 Sifré: 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, ‘Prosélytisme et Targum palestinien: Données nouvelles pour la datation de Neofiti I’, Biblica 55 (1974), pp. 317–332; ‘Agneau Pascal et Circoncision: Le Problème de la Halakha Prémishnaique dans le Targum palestinien,’ VT 23 (1973), pp. 385–399. 40 I say ‘approximately’, because it might be argued that the targum’s listing of ‘bit, cross-piece of a yoke, goad, wooden prick, or thorn’ might be counted as one single item, whereas I have counted the various objects separately. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 249 clay seal (18) and divided into three portions, each kept in a different place (19). It is an atonement for the sin of the calf (20). This material shared with other rabbinic texts makes it abundantly clear that PJ’s 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 Sifré 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 Sifré 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 heifer’s blood. Nothing in that description necessarily contradicts what is said in the Mishnah or Sifré, 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 Sifré 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 Sifré 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. 42 This, however, is the view of M. Pérez Fernández, Midrás Sifre Números (Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1989), p. 37, n. 44, who believes that PJ systematically copies exegesis of Sifré Numbers. This blanket view is refuted by PJ’s use of halakah rejected by Sifré, and by its manifest disagreements with the Sifré noted in this essay. 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. PJ’s 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 heifer’s mating with a male; but this verb is not so understood in the Mishnah or Sifré. 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 heifer’s 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 Sifré say simply ms̆mrt. 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 PJ’s date. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 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 targum’s insistence on the use of fig- wood 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 priest’s hand (2), and the man who gathers the ash is required to be a priest (3). In each of these instances, we find Sifré 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 Sifré, 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 ṣ̆lm, 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 Sifré, 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 targum’s ‘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 Sifré 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. 242–243, on Baumgarten’s comments. 252 chapter twelve for PJ, the less likely it is that such a text would have passed through the net of authority’s 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 3:7–8 and tos. Parah 3:7–8. 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 PJ’s 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 Maʿaseh 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 purification—all 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) 1:121–128 and 2:661–692; J. Baumgarten, ‘The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies’, pp. 155–161 and pp. 169–170; and H. Mac- coby, ‘Neusner and the Red Cow’, JSJ 21 (1990), pp. 74–75. 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: ואף על טהרת פרח החטאח השׁוחט אותה והסורף אוחה והאוסף את אפרה והמזה את (מי) החטאת לכול אלה להערי(בו)ח השׁמשׁ להיות טהורים בשׁל שׁא יהיה הטהר מזה על הטמה dating targum pseudo-jonathan 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 PJ’s 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 targum’s 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. 155–161, who introduces and discusses also passages from 11QTemp at pp. 159–160. 48 Clearly expressed, e.g. in m. Parah 4:1, 4; 7:9; yer. Ber. 2:5; tos. Parah 7:6; Sifré Num. 123–124; Sifré Zutta to Num. 19:2, 5, 9; b. Yoma 42a; and Neusner’s 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. 60–64. 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 Mishnah’s 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 targum’s exegesis.50 Without either accepting or rejecting Geiger’s 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, Sifré, and Sifré 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. 32:1–6, 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 Milluʾim 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 Maʿaseh 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 Geiger’s view that PJ may represent a quasi-Sadducee opinion. See also below, note 58. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 255

so that Satan do not speak about you (with) triple tongue, about the matter of the calf which you made in Horeb. Although the calf is not directly mentioned in Sifra Shemini 3 on Lev. 9:2, Moses points out that while God has accepted Aaron, he must nonetheless put into Satan’s 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 Aaron’s priesthood, but also Israel’s 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 Reuben’s group of tribes in the wilderness had depicted on it the form of a young ram:

51 Perhaps we should emend Sifra’s 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 Israel’s 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, Aaron’s part in it, and his and Israel’s 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 disas- trous sin, rather than the later ‘amoraic’ exegesis of the story, which attempts to excuse the deed and ‘whitewash’ the participants.56 PJ not only stands alongside the traditions of the Sifra, but even heightens them, by making the red heifer ceremony another means of atonement for the calf. Moreover, PJ sets out to emphasize the great fear which the golden calf had inspired in Aaron, the first high priest, and quite subtly indicates Aaron’s 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 PJ’s account of the red heifer ceremony can date from a period later than the final redaction of the Sifra, Sifré, and Sifré Zutta in (probably) the late fourth

55 PJ of Num. 2:10. 56 See I. Mandelbaum, pp. 207–223. dating targum pseudo-jonathan 257 century ce.57 Its many agreements with the rabbinic sources show that it is familiar with debates conducted in the academies, while its specific disagreements with the Sifré point in the same direction, and indicate that the Sifré was aware of divergent halakah found specifically in PJ. Indeed, Baumgarten has pointedly drawn attention to PJ’s 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 PJ’s 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 Maʿaseh Hattorah, and the priestly conduct of the rite. The latter derives from PJ’s 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 7:7–8; 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 priesthood’s 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 (361–363), 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 God’s 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. 455–456. M. Pérez Fernández, pp. 15–16, argues for a date in the third century ad. 58 See especially ‘The Law ofʿ Orlah . . .’, p. 196, where he discusses the redemption of fourth year fruits and the interpretation of Lev. 19:24. His remarks about PJ’s interpretation of that verse are, as we have seen already, entirely applicable to those items in the red heifer ritual where Sifré clearly rules out of order halakah recorded in PJ. His comments about Geiger’s 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 4:7–8; 14:1–6, where the calf is said to have annulled God’s 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-Jonathan’s 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 PJ’s 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.1–2, 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 Julian’s 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. 6.24–26), 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 Pseudo- Jonathan’s paraphrase apparently ignores the rabbinic rules. This essay will investigate its peculiar exegesis of the blessing, in the hope of deci- phering its development. This, however, is no easy matter, as becomes apparent when we examine the relationship between Targum Pseudo- Jonathan 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. 6.24–26, verse by verse. Theeditio 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. 367–370; M. Ginsburger, ‘Verbotene Thargumim’, MGWJ 44 (1900), pp. 1–7; M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), pp. 46–49; P.S. Alexander, ‘The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim’,JJS 27 (1976), ,’לא מתרגם בציבורא—pp. 177–191; and M.L. Klein, ‘Not to Be Translated in Public JJS 39 (1988), pp. 80–91. 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 agrees—up 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-Jonathan’s note that they their hands, however, shows that the Targum regards (פרס) ’spread out‘ 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-Jonathan’s paraphrase of Gen. 12.3 presents God as blessing ‘the priests who spread out their hands in prayer and bless your sons’. the ,דוכנא Secondly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s reference to the ‘platform’, a technical term for the place where the priests stand to give the blessing, agrees with information given in Num. R. 11.11. The word indicates that priests should stand to give the blessing, a point empha-

3 On the manuscript and editions of Targ. Ps.-J., see R. le Déaut, Introduction à la littérature targumique (Rome: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1988), p. 101; and U. Glessmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch (TSAJ, 48; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995), pp. 182–185. 4 Theeditio 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 Mishnah’s other rules governing its Temple use, namely, the pronunciation of the Divine Name, and the exact position of the priests’ and high priest’s 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

in‘ ,בעמידה sized by Sifre Num. 39 with the note that it is to be given 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 .’rendered above as ‘in this form of words ,בהדין לישׁן blessing be said 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 a Hebrew expression meaning ‘according to this ,כלשׁון הזה be recited 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 you shall bless them’, before quoting the ,בהדין סידרא ,this order 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 thus effectively summarizing results ,בלשׁון הקודשׁ blessing be uttered 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. 11.10–11), for example, discusses use of the Divine Name

was the platform in the Temple from which priests would give the דוכןThe 6 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. 244–247. Targ. Onq. of this verse certainly has the synagogue service in mind: see Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos, pp. 88–89. 7 On this rendering, and for elucidation of Targ. Neof. to this verse, see further R. le Déaut, Nombres (Targum du Pentateuque 3; Paris: Cerf, 1979), pp. 58–59. 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-Jonathan’s paraphrase will further illustrate these difficulties.

1. A Translation of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 6.24–26 with Comments

The Hebrew text of Num. 6.24–26 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 tri- partite 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 Pseudo- Jonathan preserves the Hebrew outline of the blessing (divergences from Hebrew in italics):

8 See Milgrom, Numbers, pp. 50–52, 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. 411–442; and M. Fishbane, ‘Forms and Reformulation of the Biblical Priestly Blessing’, JAOS 103 (1983), pp. 115–121. See also B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 145–147. 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. 92–93 and notes, p. 290. Magical use of God’s 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. 74–81, 131–134, 196–198, is not apparent in Targ. Ps.-J.’s version of the blessing. the priestly blessing 263

24 The Lord bless you in all your occupations, and keep you from night demons and from frightening demons and noon-day demons and morning demons and damaging demons and shadow demons. 25 May the Lord make the splendour of his face lighten upon you when you are occupied in the Torah, and may he reveal to you hidden things and show consideration to you. 26 May the Lord make the splendour of his face shine upon you when you pray, and may he grant peace for you in all your borders. Targum’s procedure is clear: each clause of the Hebrew original is first translated in a reasonably straightforward way, and then supplemented with explanatory material. Thus the Targum reveals its concerns. First, it associates the blessing with those engaged in Torah study. The addi- to v. 24 coincides with (בכל עיסקך) ’tion of ‘in all your occupations the plea in the following verse, that the splendour of God’s face lighten and refers ,(במעסקך באורייחא) ’when you are occupied in the Torah‘ principally to Torah study and keeping of the commandments: Targum literally, ‘to be occupied) עסק Pseudo-Jonathan regularly uses the root 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 night demons’, known also from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan‘ ,לילי stand 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 ,לילית בני) ’self-explanatory ‘frightening demons’ come ‘noon-day demons named again in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Deut. 32.24 and ,(טיהררי

9 It is not clear why M. Pérez Fernández, Midrás Sifre Números (Biblioteca Midrásica, 9; Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 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, לילתהp. 129, and literature cited there (both works in Hebrew). The forms ,(1992 often occur on Aramaic incantation bowls: see J. Naveh and לליתא and ,ליליתא S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jeru- salem: Magnes Press, 1985), glossary ad loc., p. 272. 264 chapter thirteen

Targ. Song 4.6, and sometimes explained as evil spirits which lie in wait at twilight or night. Yet ‘noon-day demons’ should be preferred as a noon’, often appears in Targum‘ ,צהרים translation, since the Hebrew .The ‘morning demons’ (see also Targ. Psalm 121.6; Targ 11.טיהרה as damaging demons’ which were created‘ ,מזיקי Song 4.6) precede the 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 shadow demons’, known also‘ ,טלני and Midrash.12 Finally come the from their appearance on amulets and charms.13 Shinan quotes this verse of the blessing as evidence of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s interest in evil spirits, destroying angels and demons; and there is force in Ginzburger’s 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-Jonathan’s 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 are not common in טמירתא This noun and the related .טמירן ,’things 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; Ḥul. 105b; Targ. Song 8.3; Targ. Job 5.7; and further refer- .and Shinan, The Aggadah, II, p. 276 מזיק ences in Sokoloff, Dictionary, under 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 either singular מזיקא Amulets 4.15; 7.6, 13; 7b.13; 11.8; 13.8), often along with the) or plural (Amulets 7.13; 11.8; 13.9). 14 See Shinan, The Aggadah, II, pp. 271–279; idem, Embroidered Targum, pp. 128– 134; and Ginsburger, ‘Verbotene Thargumim’, pp. 4–5.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.12–13, ‘the evil spirit and the demon and the shadow-spirit and the tormentor and the destroyer’; Amulet 7b.2–3; Amulet 13.7–11 (see Naveh and Shaked, Amulets, pp. 70–71, 99). This apparent similarity between Targum and the amulets may also have encouraged Rabbinic reserve about Targum of the blessing—assuming 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. 16–32. the priestly blessing 265 explains the Egyptian name Zaphnath-paaneah which Pharaoh gave because of ,טמירן ,’to Joseph as ‘the man who publishes hidden things his God-given ability to interpret the prophetic meaning of dreams.15 Association with divine mysteries is evident again in Targum Pseudo- ,טמירתא ,’Jonathan 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 pub- of the house of Israel’: on the Urim and [טמירן] lish the hidden things Thummim is engraved the Divine Name, and all who invoke it in their -revealed to them.16 Targum Pseudo טמירן distress have hidden things Jonathan understood Urim as something which illuminates, deriving it light’, and thereby relating the word to his almost‘ ,אור from Hebrew The .אורייתא ,’invariable understanding of Torah as ‘illumination blessing’s 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 -is appro (ויחוס עלך) show consideration to’ or ‘protect’ such persons‘ priate 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 Israel’s borders. This last echoes Ps. 147.13–14. 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. 41.14–33. 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 Déaut, Exode et Lévitique (Targum du Pentateuque, 2; Paris: Cerf, 1979), pp. 226–227; M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus (The Aramaic Bible, 2; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994), pp. 241–242. .which Targ. Ps.-J , חנןCf. Maher, Exodus, p. 205. The original Hebrew verb is 17 .at Exod. 33.19; Deut. 28.50; cf. Gen. 33.5, 11 חוס translates again with the Aramaic root 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, God’s 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-Jonathan’s succint exegesis occurs in other rabbinic sources, although these sometimes coincide with elements of the Targum’s 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; Roš Haš. 17b; Nid. 80b; cf. Gen. R. 50.21; Tanḥ. Haʾazinu 4), a matter which bothers the Targum not at all, but which receives lengthy treatment in Sifre Num. 42 and Num. R. 11.14–15. The comments of Sifre Numbers and Numbers Rabbah, however, occasionally reflect some ofTargum Pseudo-Jonathan’s concerns. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan refers the initial request for God’s blessing to Israel’s ‘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. 28.2–6 or applying it to Israel’s 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 damaging demons, appear in Sifre Num. 40 and , מזיקיdemons. The Num. R. 11.13; but only as one item in a great list explaining the blessing’s use of the verb ‘keep’. Sifre explains this ‘keep’ as a plea that God preserve Israel’s 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. 267–268. 19 See above, p. 262. Even if ‘occupations’ is understood simply as ‘business’, Targ. Ps.-J.’s exegesis remains unrepresented in Sifre and Num. R. the priestly blessing 267 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. 91.5–6, 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 God’s 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. 60.1–2]; 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 Targum translates without expansion ‘may he show ,ויחנך ,the verse

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 Targum’s exegesis of the first part of Num. 6.25. Another explanation: ‘And may he be gracious to you’—with knowledge and with understanding and with insight and with discipline and with wisdom. Another explanation; ‘And may he be gracious to you’—in the study of the Torah, for so Scripture says: ‘She will give to your head a they [חן] and it also says: ‘For a garland of grace ;’[חן] garland of grace 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 -in the light of the fourth bene ויחנך the midrash is here interpreting to Israel [חננו] diction of the ʿAmidah, which asks God to be gracious precisely with gifts of knowledge, understanding and insight.21 Sifre clearly speaks of study of Torah; but the proof-texts from Proverbs in the blessing has led to חנן show that the appearance of the root 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 Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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 Pseudo- Jonathan. 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: .חננו מאתך דעה בינה והשׂכל 22 See above, p. 265. the priestly blessing 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 Targum’s ambience. Similarly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan emphasizes items that either have no place in other rabbinic sources—such as the plea for peace in Israel’s borders and the request that God reveal hidden things—or 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 non- rabbinic 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. 12.1–3, 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. 12.25–26). Abraham was thus able to copy Terah’s books, which were written in Hebrew, and to study them with the angel’s 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. 12.1–6), stay- ing with Abraham (12.12–15) 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. 3.26–27 Adam acted as priest, and the priestly office eventually passed to Abraham (e.g. Jub. 13.8–9; 14.10–20; 16.19–31): see J.R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSPSup, 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 93–95; C.T.R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 88–99. 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 withTargum Pseudo-Jonathan, except a request for protection from evil, which hardly corresponds with the Targum’s 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 -in Num. 6.24. While Jubilees might pro וישׁמרך as an explanation of vide evidence for the antiquity of elements of the midrashim, it tells us little about Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s exegesis.25 Unlike that Targum, which faithfully reproduces the thrice-repeated Divine Name of the Hebrew original, Jubilees but once speaks of the Lord, substituting the title ‘eternal God’ for the Name when it first occurs, and altogether omitting its last appearance. All this notwithstanding, in one vital respect Targum Pseudo- Jonathan and Jubilees coincide: both offer a paraphrase of the blessing in a language other than Hebrew. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is an Aramaic Targum; and Terah was born in Ur of the Chaldees (Jub. 11.7–13), 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 Terah’s 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, 8.4–5 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. Schürer, G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175bc–ad 135), III.1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), pp. 311–314; K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen (JSHRZ, 2.3; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981), pp. 295–301; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 78–79; J.C. VanderKam, ‘Jubilees, Book of ’, in ABD, III, pp. 1030–1031. the priestly blessing 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 son’s 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 1–2, 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 2.2–4, 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 Schürer et al., History, III.1, pp. 311–312; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 71–80. Note Terah’s response to Abraham’s 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. 12.6–7); see also 1 Macc. 2.23; 2 Macc. 6.1–9. 27 On the blessing at Qumran, see Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 148–171; D.K. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), pp. 222–225; and cf. the observations of K.-E. Grözinger, ‘Midraschisch erweiterte Priestersegen in Qumran’, Frankfurter Jüdaistische Beiträge 2 (1974), pp. 39–52. I am indebted to Dr Alex Samely for drawing my attention to the latter. On the relationship between 11QBer 1–2 and the priestly blessing in particular, see Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 167–170, and Grözinger, ‘Midraschisch’, pp. 42–44. 28 My translation of Hebrew printed by Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 150. On restruc- turing of the blessing by Qumran Jews, see J.A. Loader, ‘The Model of the Priestly Blessing in 1QS’, JSJ 14 (1983), pp. 11–17; but note Nitzan’s modifications of the model (Qumran Prayer, p. 152 n. 22). Nitzan (Qumran Prayer, pp. 156–158; see 272 chapter thirteen

This approach to the blessing is quite different from the Targum’s 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 God’s 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. 91.5–6, 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. -and ‘everlast (שׂכל חיים) ’Strangely, however, ‘life-giving insight in 1QS 2.3 may throw some light on (דעת עולמים) ’ing knowledge Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s concern with ‘hidden things’. In a passage of the War Scroll encouraging Israel’s 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

Grözinger, ‘Midraschisch’, pp. 46–51 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 4Q510–511 (‘Songs of the Maskil’): see Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 228–229, 233–238. 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 1.5–6 in Nitzan’s translation, Qumran Prayer, p. 240; cf. 4Q511 48–51); but these texts do not use the blessing in their attack on the forces of evil. 31 See Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, p. 149. the priestly blessing 273

all flesh. And justice shall rejoice up on high, and all sons of His truth 32.[בדעת עולמים] shall be glad in eternal knowledge Echoes of the priestly blessing are evident in the language of ‘light- ing up’, ‘peace’, ‘blessing’ and ‘light’—all these being interwoven with Michael’s actions among the inhabitants of heaven and with Israel’s ,(1QM 17.9 ,רזיו) ’struggle on earth. These things are ‘his mysteries God’s 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 ʿelim, all those powerful of insight with everlasting knowledge, with seven powerful words . . .33 those who have דעת עולמים Here, heavenly authorities bless with in the course of a liturgy celebrated in the heavenly ,שׂכל ,’insight‘ realms. Although the interpretation of these Songs is a matter of intense debate, no one seriously doubts that they purport to describe the work- ings of the supernatural realms, the duties of the angelic ‘princes’ and the characteristic virtues of the heavenly world.34 Here, ‘everlasting ,שׂכל דעה 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 God’s 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 2.2–4 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 17.5–8, 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. 276–277. 34 Discussion of the relationship of these Songs to Scriptural exegesis, worship at Qumran, and mystical practices is offered by Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 273–318. See also E. Hamacher, ‘Die Sabbatopferlieder im Streit um Ursprung und Anfänge der Jüdischen Mystik’, JSJ 27 (1996), pp. 119–154. 35 See above, pp. 264–265. 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 2.5–9). 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 Targum’s version of the blessing.36 In truth, the Qumran material may legitimately be used to elucidate only one item of the Targum’s paraphrase, the plea for revelation of ‘hidden things’.

4. The Blessing in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Sirach 36.1–16

As already noted,37 the Targum’s 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. 32.19–25) following the Baʾal-Peʾor 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-Jonathan’s 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 lik- swollen up with hunger, and to damaging demons [שׁידין] ened to demons afflicted [בני טיהררי] devoured of birds, and to noon-day demons [מזיקי]

36 See Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, pp. 151–153. Quotations from the curse are given in her translation, Qumran Prayer, p. 151. Cf. also P. Wernberg-Møller, 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. 130–134. 37 Above, pp. 262–263. 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. 96–97; R. le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque. IV. Deutéronome (Paris: Cerf, 1980), pp. 272–273. the priestly blessing 275

inflated with evil spirits. And [לילין] by evil spirits and to night demons 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, 32–33), 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 Israel’s political and military foes, festering with ancient hatreds. The force of the Targum’s 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 Sira’s Wisdom, undertaken by his grandson. Greek Sir. 36.1–17 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. 36.16–17 translated from Greek text in A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, II (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). The Greek of ch. 36 follows a different order from the Hebrew text: Hebrew ben Sira 36.22–23, which corresponds to Sir. 36.16–17, 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 ἐλέησον( ) and look upon (ἐπίβλεψον) 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 (36.2–4), a request reiterated in the closing lines of the prayer. He is asked to show his wrath against Israel’s enemies as in ancient times, especially against enemy rulers who claim there is none beside them (36.5–9). This claim (οὐκ ἔστιν πλὴν ἡμῶν, 36.9) is a blasphemous parody of God’s 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 (ἐλέησον) on the people called by his Name, an indirect reference to the priestly blessing by which God’s Name is placed upon Israel (Num. 6.27). Next come peti- tions for God’s pity (ὀικτείρησοσν) on Jerusalem, the manifestation of his glory in Zion, and the fulfilment of prophecies (36.12–15), before the final words of the prayer quoted earlier. In other words, Sirach understands this prayer of God’s ‘suppliants’ as encapsulating the sense of Aaron’s blessing over Israel; that is, as a petition for Israel’s 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 Sira’s Wisdom, where the high priest’s utterance of the blessing at the end of the service in the Temple (50.20–21) 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 Israel’s enemies.40

in lxx, the :חנן Both ἐλέησον and οἰκτείρησον may represent the Hebrew root 39 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; at lxx האר and elsewhere. Greek ἐπιβλεψάτω represents Hebrew ;101.14 ;76.9 ;66.1 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. 50.20–21, see Skehan and di Lella, Wisdom, pp. 554–555, who suggest (p. 558) that the following attack on foreign enemies (50.25–26) is in no way related to it. Even if such were the case, there was nothing to prevent ben Sira’s 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 priest’s enemies, however, is entirely appropriate at this point, following the praise bestowed on him: see Hayward, The Jewish Temple, pp. 61–63. the priestly blessing 277

5. Conclusions

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s 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 Targum’s present text. This is apparent where the Targum’s 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 Targum’s 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 Heinemann’s 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 pro- nouced 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. 33–41 (in Hebrew). His thesis is accepted by Klein, ‘Not to Be Translated’, pp. 80–81. 278 chapter thirteen versions of the blessing; and Jubilees puts one into Terah’s 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 Targum’s carefully orthodox paraphrase. Hebrew rewriting of the blessing preserved in 1QS 2.2–4 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 Targum’s ‘hidden things’ are divine mysteries involving the Torah and Israel’s destiny: they seem to have a practical import, directed towards Israel’s well-being in this world, whereas the Qumran writer is firmly fixed on heavenly realities. Finally, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s application of demonic characteristics to Israel’s ancient enemies gives a political and military twist to his plea for peace in Israel’s borders, another non-rabbinic sentiment reflected in Sirach’s understanding of the blessing as a prayer for God’s mercy in Israel’s 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 Targum’s 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 blessing’s almost magical power to avert demons becomes, in this Targum, a petition for God’s 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 JEROME’S 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 Church—a ‘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. 141–167; H.D.F. Sparks, op. cit., pp. 535–541; A. Penna, Principi e carattere dell’ Esegesi di S. Gerolamo (Rome, 1950); and F. Cavallera, S. Jérôme: 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. 115–118; A. Penna, op. cit., pp. 6–10; G. Bardy, ‘Saint Jérôme et ses Maitres Hebreux’, Revue Bénédictine 46 (1934), pp. 145–164; S. Krauss, ‘The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers’, Jewish Quarterly Review 6 (1894), pp. 225–261; H. Grätz, ‘Hagadische Elemente bei den Kirchenvätern’, Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 3 (1854), pp. 311–318. 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 translation- cum-interpretation of the Hebrew Bible which was transmitted in Aramaic.9 Before looking at St. Jerome’s 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 Origen’s 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 conjec- tures, of Judith. But the Preface to Tobit (PL 29, cols. 25–26) 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. 39–42), but notes that it is written in Chaldean. 9 For the Targum and its methods, see R. le Déaut, Introduction à la Littérature Targumique (Rome, 1966); J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cam- bridge, 1969); M. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Shannon, 1968); idem, article ‘Targum’, Interpreters’ Dictionary of the Bible Supplement volume (Nashville, 1976), pp. 856–861, and the bibliography cited there. 10 See Kelly, op. cit., pp. 76–77. 11 See N.R.M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge, 1977). 12 He wrote it probably in 414–415. 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 jerome’s 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. Jerome’s 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

Jerome’s 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. 145–164, esp. pp. 148–153. For the controversy, see Cavallera, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 193–286; Kelly, op. cit., pp. 195–209; and the list of heretical teachings which S. Jerome ascribes to Origen in Adversus Ioann. Hier. 7. 14 Cf. Stummer, art. cit., pp. 174–181; 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 Eusebius’s Onomasticon. 17 All quotations from S. Jerome’s 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 said—‘on 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 God’s 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, ʿAmalek 2:85–87, 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 Shimʿoni (Wilna, 1909), vol. 2, p. 821: ‘Kedar—These are the Ishmaelites’. 19 On Jer. 3:2, see yer. Taʿan. 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. 26–39. jewish traditions in jerome’s commentary on jeremiah 285 of R. Simeon b. Yohai, Beshallaḥ 17:14;21 Sifre Deut. 357; and Yalqut Shimʾoni vol. 1, pp. 575, 687. I am unable to trace it elsewhere: Sifre Deut. 6, 28, refers in the main to Lebanon. Jerome’s 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 verse—like that of its Targum—reveals 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, Jerome’s 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, 1933–35); 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 God’s 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 lʾhwʾ, ‘it is not He’, may also be translated as ‘He is not’ and be understood as a denial of God’s existence;24 or even as ‘He is nothing’, a contemptuous dismissal of his power.25 The Targum’s 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 Targum’s interpretation of the Hebrew lʾ hwʾ. In this version, sinful Israel and Judah deny God’s 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 Israel’s ancestors he will perform.28 There is a treasury of God’s 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 Targum’s emphasis on God’s 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 1515–17); 2:13; Tg. Hos. 8:3, ‘The house of Israel have gone astray from my service, for the sake of which I bring good things upon them’. 27 Tg. Joel 2:21; cf. Tg. Mic. 6:3, ‘O my people, what good thing did I say that I would do for you, and I have not done it?’ 28 Tg. Mic. 7:20, ‘You will perform with us the good things which you swore to our fathers from days of old’; Tg. Zeph. 3:7; Tg. Zech. 9:12; Tg. Jer. 31:6. 29 Tg. Isa. 33:6. 30 Tg. Isa. 33:21. 31 With Ps. Sol. 11:7, cf. Tg. Zeph. 3:7; Tg. Zech. 9:12, where God says that he will do good things; and with Pss. Sol. 17:44; 18:6, cf. Tg. Mic. 7:20; Tg. Jer. 31:6. jewish traditions in jerome’s commentary on jeremiah 287

The Rabbinic sources which deal with this verse do not understand it as implying a denial of God’s providence; rather, they concentrate on Israel’s denying God or lying to him, and often try to relate the text to specific historical events. For the Targum, however, it is precisely God’s providence which is under attack, for to deny God’s 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 He—or, These things are not32—neither 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 God’s providence . . . (In Hier. I. xcviii). Denial of God’s 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 God’s 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 Targum’s theology here is as old as the first century bc cannot be ruled out. Note that the Targumic eschatology is by and large, basic and under- developed; and the hope of ‘good things to come’ is a feature of popular eschatological hope in the period around the first century. See S.H. Levey,The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation (Cincinnati—New York, 1974); R.P. Gordon, ‘The Targumists as Eschatologists’, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 29 Congress Volume (Gottingen, 1977/78), pp. 113–130. 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. 255–285, and E. Schürer, 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. 392–394. 34 See, for example, S. Isenberg, ‘An Anti-Sadducee Polemic in the Palestinian Targum Tradition’, Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970), pp. 433–444; G. Vermes, ‘The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3–16’, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden, 1975), pp. 114–116. 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, 20:14–18. 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. 36 The verse is not catalogued by A. Hyman, Torah Hakketubah Wehammesorah, 2nd ed. rev. and enlarged by A.B. Hyman, (Tel-Aviv, 1979), vol. 2, ad loc. jewish traditions in jerome’s commentary on jeremiah 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 Targum’s 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 Hillel’s 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 God’s 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. 38 See Urbach, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 252–253. 39 Ibid., pp. 253–254. He quotes Lev. R. 35:5; Sifra Beḥuqqotay 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 Urbach’s conclusions. 290 chapter fourteen

Jeremiah is criticising the man who announced his birth for having said of Jeremiah that he should have been as if he had not existed. This man would be, in effect, like a Rabbi saying of a sinner or law-breaker: ‘It would have been better for him if he had not come into existence’. But here is a problem. Jeremiah was not a sinner; as a true prophet he kept the commandments; he was a holy and righteous man. How, then could anyone say of him that he should not have existed? A wicked man might say this of him; but on what grounds? An easy answer to this question would be forthcoming if we are prepared to believe that the Targumist knew of traditions, attested elsewhere, that the wicked priest Passhur announced Jeremiah’s birth; and that from his first breath the prophet uttered oracles of doom against Zion.40 But we look in vain for any such traditions in the Targum. The second way of understanding the Targum is by far the sim- plest and most probable. We should read the text in sections. First, Jeremiah attacks the man who announced his birth for having wished the prophet’s 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 Jeremiah’s 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 weari- ness, and that my days should come to an end in shame? If we follow this argument, the Targum would be putting into Jeremiah’s 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. Jerome’s day understood the verse in this way.

40 For Passhur as the announcer of Jeremiah’s birth, see Kimḥi on on this verse; and for Jeremiah’s 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. 203–205. jewish traditions in jerome’s commentary on jeremiah 291

Those who think that souls have existed in the heavenly places, and have fallen from a better to a worse state, use this and witnesses of this kind to prove that it would indeed have been better to have dwelt in the heavenly places than in the earthly and to have assumed a body of humility; seeking (thereby) new—yet already old—arguments 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 born—not 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. Jerome’s 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 Origen’s 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. 233–242; vol. 2, pp. 791–793. 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

Jerome’s 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 bôr 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. Jerome’s exegesis of Jer. 1:5, where he denies that Jeremiah had existed before his conception, with Mekhilta of R. Ishmael, Pisḥa 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, 1743–1749). 49 He stresses that lacus has a semantic range which differs from Greek. jewish traditions in jerome’s commentary on jeremiah 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 bôr. It is very likely that Jerome knew this, and translated accordingly. At Jer. 2:21, and at Isa. 5:2, occurs the Hebrew word sôrēq, 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 sôrēq as ‘chosen vine’, vineam electam, corresponding to the Targum’s rendering of sôrēq 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 Jerome’s 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, Jerome’s nomenclature is not precise. But see Krauss’s remarks, ‘Jerome’, p. 116; ‘The Jews in the works of the Church Fathers’, pp. 245–249. 294 chapter fourteen

There are few Rabbinic comments on this verse, and such as there are hardly deal with the partridge’s 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. Jerome’s 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 another—that is, a different partridge—and 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 God’s 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). Jerome’s 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 Tanḥuma Buber Tesẹ ’ 17; Yalqut ̣ Shimʿoni vol. 2, p. 825; but both these collections post-date Jerome’s work, and do not provide material sufficiently similar to Jerome’s work to allow proper comparison with it. For the original significance of the prophet’s saying, see J.F.A. Sawyer, ‘A Note on the Brooding Partridge in Jeremiah XVII 11’, Vetus Testamentum 28(1978), pp. 324–329. 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. jewish traditions in jerome’s commentary on jeremiah 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 prophet’s threat against Judah, specifying that because your debts are many, your shame is discovered, your prostitu- tion is seen.56 Jerome is likewise quite plain: . . . the multitude of your iniquity has done these things for you, so that your shame is revealed like that of a harlot woman with clothes lifted up; and your fornications are openly displayed. (In Hier. III. xxii). The prophets spoken of at 14:14 are described by Targum as false prophets: Jerome follows suit. For the Hebrew text’s ‘cedars’ at 22:7 Targum has ‘strong men’, Jerome ‘strong ones and princes of the city’;57

54 See Reiter’s note in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. lxxiv, p. 167 to line 4, and Sawyer, ibid., pp. 327–328. 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. 143–144. Origen says of the partridge that it has disgusting manners, is deceitful, and decoys hunters from its nest; that it is a lascivious bird with uncontrol- lable sexual appetite, information which, Klostermann points out (p. 143), derives from Aristotle, Hist Anim. 9:8 and Ambrose, Epist. 32:1–8. This information is used in part by Jerome, In Hier. III, lxxv, where he speaks of the partridge’s impurity; and in In Hier. III. lxxv he relates the verse to heretics, as does Origen, Homily XVII.2. Cf. also Homélies sur Jérémie, ed. P. Nautin, trans. P. Husson and P. Nautin, Sources Chrétiennes (Paris, 1977), vol. 2, pp. 160–169. 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 Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s knowledge of Jewish exegetical tradition in general, and possibly of the Targum in particular. An example of a more extended correspondence between Jerome’s 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. Jerome’s comment is that God’s 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 11:8–9 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 Jerome’s use of Jewishpšat 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 ass’s carcase.59 On other occasions, however, Jerome is aware of the haggadah, and quotes traditions which either are unknown to the Targum, or are found in the Targum only in part. The word ‘lion’, which occurs in 2:15 and 4:7, is translated by Targum as ‘king’;60 but Jerome is more specific, and commenting on 4:7, identified the lion as king Nebuchadnezzar,

58 In Hier. IV. xxxix. 59 Cf. Yalqut Shimʿoni vol. 1, p. 594; Rashi on 2 Kings 24:6; 2 Chron. 36:6. 60 See Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, pp. 40–44. Jerome also identifies the lion with the devil in his comment on Jer. 4:7, In Hier. I. lxxii, like Origen, Homily V.17. jewish traditions in jerome’s commentary on jeremiah 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 wood’—namely 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 Jerome’s 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 Krauss’s 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., Jeremiah’s 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 God’s 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; Kimḥi ad loc. 62 Origen, Homilies Fragment 3 on Jer. 5:6, can identify both lion and leopard as Nebuchadnezzar (ed. Klostermann, p. 200); but this does not compare with Jerome’s comments. 63 See Krauss, ‘Jerome’, p. 117. 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 Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s 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. 24:1–3, ed. Klostermann, pp. 208–209. 65 See Stummer, art. cit., pp. 174–175. jewish traditions in jerome’s commentary on jeremiah 299 sion of Jer. 20:17 with reference to the pre-existence of souls, and the case of the partridge in Jer. 17:11, lead one to conclude that further researches in this area could be fruitful. We have stressed points of what we may call positive contact between Jerome and Jewish sources; but there are, understandably, points of negative contact as well. These can also help us to appreciate Targumic exegesis more deeply. Although the Targum was an official document of the Rabbinic Academies—in its final form, at least—it 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. 31:35–36 that, just as it was impossible for God’s ordinances for the luminaries of heaven to cease to exist, so it would be impossible for Israel to cease to exist as God’s people. Why should a Jew need to be reminded of these basic facts? Jerome’s commentary tells us. Commenting on Jer. 31:36–37 (In Hier. VI. xxvii–xxviii) he proves to his own satisfaction that God has not promised that the created order will exist for ever—and that, by the same token, Israel will not exist for ever as God’s 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. 239–240. 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 writer’s 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 Jerome’s 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

1 It will be published later this year by Michael Glazier. 2 For a description of Targum and its methods, see J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969): M. McNamara, ‘Targums’, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supp. Vol. (Nashville 1976), pp. 856–861; A. Díez Macho, El Targum: Introducción a las traducciónes 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. 199–231; 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 Déaut, 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. 205–252; ‘Targums’, in New Caholic Encyclopaedia (Washington 1967), vol. 2, pp. 431–433; L. Díez Merino, ‘Los estudios targumicos en el VIII Congreso Mundial de Estudios Judaicos’, Estudios Biblicos 40 (1982), pp. 159–177. 4 See C.T.R. Hayward, ‘Jewish Traditions in Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah and the Targum of Jeremiah’, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 9 (1985), pp. 100–120. 5 Ibid., pp. 103–108; 109–111. 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 Jerome’s use of Jewish tradition now extant in the Targum of the Minor Prophets. In particular, we shall look at his commentaries on Zechariah and Malachi, published around 406, and that on Nahum, published around 391/2. We shall make an attempt to see whether, during the twenty- nine years or so which separate the Nahum commentary from that on Jeremiah, there is any significant development in Jerome’s 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 31:35–6; 33:25, which asserts that Israel is no more likely to cease being God’s people than that the earth and creation should pass away, or that God’s 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 Jerome’s commentaries, see especially F. Cavallera, S. Jérôme: sa vie et son oeuvre, vol. 2 (Louvain 1922), pp. 20–63; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London 1975), pp. 163–167, 290–316, 326–327. 7 On the growth and redaction of the Targum of the prophets, see R. le Déaut, Introduction à la littérature Targumique Première Partie (Rome 1966), pp. 124–127; B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (Sheffield 1982); M. McNamara, ‘Targums’, in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supp. Vol., pp. 860–861; 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 300–438, 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. 79–149; M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine (Oxford 1976), pp. 158–231. 9 See J. Neusner, Midrash in Context. Exegesis in Formative Judaism. The Foundations of Judaism: Method, Teleology, Doctrine, Part 1, Method (Philadelphia 1983), pp. 111–137. 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 Jerome’s commentary on Zechariah holds a number of Jewish traditions which probably derive from a Targumic milieu.12 The prophet’s first vision is of a man riding a red horse, who stood among the myrtle trees bmslḥ , 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. Grätz, ‘Hagadische Elemente bei den Kirchenvätern’, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenchaft des Judenthums (hereafter MGWJ) 3 (1854), pp. 311–319, 352–355, 381–387, 428–431; MGWJ 4 (1855), pp. 186–192; M. Rahmer, ‘Die Hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus’, MGWJ 14 (1865), pp. 216–224, 460–470; MGWJ 16 (1867), pp. 103–108; MGWJ 17 (1868), pp. 419–427; S. Krauss, ‘The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers’, Jewish Quarterly Review o. s. 6 (1894), pp. 225–261; F. Stummer, ‘Beiträge zu dem Problem “Hieronymus und die Targumim”’, Biblica 18 (1937), pp. 174–181; L. Ginzberg, ‘Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern. Exodus’, Livre d’hommage à la Mémoire du Dr. Samuel Posnánski (Warsaw 1927), pp. 199–216; ‘Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern’, Studies in Jewish Bibliography and Related Subjects in Memory of Abraham Solomon Freidus (New York 1929), pp. 503–518. 12 All quotations from Jerome’s 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 Sperber’s apparatus by the siglum f. saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 303

Jerome implicitly accepts the Targum’s definition of bmslḥ 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 Jerome’s 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. Nappaḥa, 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 Jerome’s understanding of them as the prophets and the holy ones, R. Johanan’s exegesis is more general than Jerome’s. Furthermore, R. Johanan does not identify the man with Michael the angel. It is unlikely, then, that R. Johanan’s comment as recorded in the Talmud is the source of Jerome’s information. As far as I am aware, this section of Talmud is the only Jewish source anywhere near to Jerome’s time which explains ‘the deep’ as ‘Babylon’, with the exception of the Targum. The possibility exists, then, that Jerome’s source for this detail was the Targumic tradition of popular synagogue piety.

14 Adriaen, pp. 754–755. 15 See W. Bacher, Die Agada der Palestinensischen Amoräer, vol. 1 (Strasbourg 1892), p. 307. 16 See the same tradition in Pesikta de Rab Kahana 27:9; Pesikta Rabbati 51:2; and cf. Esther Rabbah 9:2 (the myrtles are Israel) and Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 78b (the righteous are called trees). 304 chapter fifteen

More may be said, since among the medieval Jewish commenta- tors17 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 Qimḥi accepts this view, quoting b. Sanhedrin 93a as proof; further, he links Zechariah’s vision with one of Daniel’s, 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. Johanan’s sustained exegesis of the passage which may have been in existence in Jerome’s day. What Jerome does not give us is R. Johanan’s 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 Jerome’s comment on Zech. 3:3–5. 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 Joshua’s iniquity pass away, and that he will clothe him with mḥlswṭ , 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 angel’s command to remove the filthy garments and the subsequent comment on Joshua’s 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, Qimḥi, and ibn Ezra, I have consulted Miqraʾoth Gedoloth, vols. 9–10 (Warsaw 1865–6). 18 See Adriaen, p. 755: ‘plenissime super hoc Danielis ultima visio loquitur’. saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 305

and they made him take a wife proper for the priesthood. (Tg. Zech. 3:5) It should be noted that the Targum understands that Joshua himself, as well as his sons, has married an unsuitable wife. Jerome opens his 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 standing—for thus Satan is to be interpreted—to oppose him. And he was rightly standing at his right hand, not at his left, because the accusation was true—namely 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 Joshua’s illegal marriage, others are also involved, and specific reference is made to the writings of Ezra and Malachi. Adriaen, in his edition of Jerome’s commentary on Zechariah, refers to Ezra 10:2, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 44; Mal. 2:13–17; and we should notice in particular that Ezra 10:18 singles out Joshua’s 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 Joshua’s 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 Joshua’s sons, and refers verses 4 and 5 to Joshua’s 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’, Jahrbücher für 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-à-vis the Hebrew text differ. The removal of Joshua’s sin recorded in Zech. 3:4 draws the following comment from Jerome: ‘Behold, I have taken your iniquity from you’—this refers to the filthy garments; ‘and I have clothed you with changes of raiment’—that 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 Joshua’s 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 Joshua’s 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. Papa’s view corresponds exactly to the Targum of Zech. 3:3, and, of course, to the view implicit in Jerome’s comment about the others listed in Ezra and Malachi. R. Papa was a Babylonian Amora who lived

22 Ibid. 23 See especially b. Sanhedrin 93a; Eliyahu Rabbah 4:19; Zohar 3:214; Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 6:4.22; and sources cited by L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 6 (Philadelphia 1946), pp. 426–427, which tell this story. saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 307 c. ad 300–375.24 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 100–165) 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 Justin’s use of the Zechariah passage is quite different from Jerome’s. Jerome does not say that Joshua’s 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’. Jerome’s aims in his Christian interpretation are mainly Christological

24 See W. Bacher, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amoräer, 2nd ed (Frankfurt 1913), pp. 141–143. 25 Similarly, ibn Ezra is at pains to point out that, although one of his sons was son- in-law to the foreigner Sanballat, Joshua himself was married to a kosher wife. Rashi follows the Targum, and Qimḥi quotes both Targum and b. Sanhedrin 93a. 26 A. Lukyn Williams, Justin Martyr. The Dialogue with Trypho (London 1930), pp. 239–240. 27 See Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 6, pp. 426–427. 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. 11:1–2 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. 771–773. 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 soul’s taking of a human body: see Origène. Homélies sur S. Luc. Introduction, Translation, and notes by H. Crouzel, F. Fournier, and P. Perichon in Sources chrétiennes 87 (Paris 1962), pp. 220–221. The note on these pages indicates how often the Church Fathers refer these verses to Christ, and cites J. Lécuyer, ‘Sur Jésus fils de Josédec et son interprétation patristique’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 43 (1955), pp. 82–103; there is an indication that Jerome may have borrowed his Christological interpretation of the verses from Didymus the Blind. 29 Adriaen, pp. 792–793. The Targum describes them as ‘four kingdoms which are like the four winds of heaven’. 30 See Num. Rabbah 18:21; Adriaen, pp. 796–800. This verse was a favourite with the Fathers: see Cornelius à Lapide, Commentaria in Zachariam Prophetam (Antwerp 1625), pp. 241–242. 31 The translation is that of the Revised Version. 32 See G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, pp. 26–39. saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 309 quarters, been understood as a prophecy of the Temple’s 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 fir- trees, 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. 31:3–4 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 Temple’s destruction. 34 Adriaen, pp. 848–849: ‘Et quia Libanum, templum appellaverat μεταφορικῶς 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 theAboth 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 Jerome’s 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 ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, angeli eius, ‘of his angel/messenger’, stating that the Hebrew means ‘my messenger’. He strongly resists Origen’s 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 atb. Megillah 15a. R. Joshua b. Qorḥa, 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. Naḥman (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. Naḥman, or according to a variant reading, Rav, identified Malachi with Mordecai. This view the Talmud refutes:

37 Adriaen, p. 901. 38 See W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten, vol. 2 (Strasbourg 1890), p. 313. 39 Idem, Die Agada der Babylonischen Amoräer, p. 83, who notes that the midrashic collection En Jacob attributes the tradition to R. Naḥman b. Isaac, who died c. ad 356. saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 311

The following was cited in objection to this: Baruch the son of Neriah and Serayah the son of Mahseyah and Daniel and Mordecai, Bishan, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all prophesied in the second year of Darius! This is a refutation.40 The proposed identification of Malachi with Mordecai is made by a Babylonian scholar, whichever reading of the text we adopt; Rav, the great Abba Arika, having founded the famous academy at Sura before this death in the mid-third century. The identification is unknown to Jerome, and was probably not a popular tradition. The final piece of evidence drawn from commentaries written before 406 concerns Mal. 2:11–15. 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 Israel’s descent from Abraham is to found in Jerome’s 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 9:1–3; 10:18–19, 44. We recall that he has already followed the Targum in accepting the identity of Malachi as Ezra. He explains that the returned exiles had put away their Jewish

40 Cf. also Yalqut ̣ Shimʿoni, vol. 2 (Vilna 1909), p. 873. 41 The Hebrew reads: wlʾ ʾḥd ʿsh wšʾr rwḥ lw wmh hʾḥd mbqš zrʿ ʾlhym wnšmrtm brwḥkm. An alternative rendering is given in the R.V. footnote: ‘And not one hath done so who had a residue of the spirit. Or what? Is there one that seeketh a goodly seed?’ 42 Adriaen, p. 920: ‘Hebraeorum est ponenda traditio, immo Scripturae veritas explicanda’. 312 chapter fifteen wives who were tired, jaded, weak, and deformed as a result of the long journey home from exile, and had taken instead the fresh, young and attractive Gentile women whom they found living around Jerusalem. Thus Ezra the prophet seizes on these men, and summons them to a divorce of the new wives, so that they should take back those wives whom they had sent away. ‘Was not’, he said, ‘Abraham the one father of all of us?’ Concerning whom it is written in Isaiah, ‘Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah who bore you; for he was one, and I called him.’ Did not one God create us, who from Abraham chose our race? Why then do we disparage our old wives, and put away the daughters of our fathers, so that we abandon the covenant of our fathers, and do not take wives according to the Law?43 The Targum and Jerome both understand the one to refer to Abraham, and Jerome preserves the exegesis which underlies the Targum’s 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 God’s 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 Jerome’s Hebraeorum traditio, therefore, could well be a tradition of the sort now preserved only in the Targum. Jerome’s commentary on Nahum begins with a number of theological observations on God’s zeal, jealousy, vengeance which have points of contact with the Targumic rendering of Nahum 1:2–3. Where the original Hebrew presents Nahum as saying that The Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies (1:2) the Targum understands that the Lord is about to take revenge on those who hate his people, even with violent wrath on his enemies.

43 Adriaen, p. 921. 44 Later midrashim quote the verses, such as Aggadath Bereshith 76; Eliyahu Zutta 3. saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 313

Nahum’s 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. 48:26–7) 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 1:2–3, make any such comment. Jerome’s 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. 46 For lists of other examples and discussion of these points, see Smolar and Abernach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, p. 148. 47 See Chilton, The Glory of Israel, pp. 37–46; Smolar and Aberbach, op. cit., pp. 187–221. 48 Adriaen, p. 528. 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 Jerome’s explanation of Nahum 1:10–11. 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 tʿ̣y, 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, ṭʿwwʾ, 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 God’s 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 18:19–25; 28–35, 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. 50 For a convenient survey of Marcion’s opinions, see E.C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London 1948). 51 So the Revised Version. 52 Adriaen, p. 537. saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 315 has gone out from Nineveh. The Targumic description of the people involved is very general, almost vague. This is also a feature of the Targum of 2:3–7, where the vagueness and imprecision follows the Hebrew original, and once more contrasts with Jerome’s 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 2:3–7 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 1:2–3, 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. 11:1–2 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 Targum’s development.

53 On the whole, the Targum makes it its business to make precise what is impre- cise; to fill gaps in the narrative; and to smooth out inconsistencies. For a fine range of examples of this procedure with respect to geographical and historical matters, see, most recently, Smolar and Aberbach, op. cit., pp. 63–128. 54 See Hayward, art. cit., pp. 113–114. 316 chapter fifteen

This observation is confirmed to some extent by analysis of Jerome’s comment on Zech. 3:3–5. 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 Joshua’s 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 Joshua’s 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 Joshua’s sons are involved: this is the view which the Talmud will later adopt as the ‘correct’ official interpretation. Perhaps Targum took the Talmud’s view to its own commentary, preserving in the meantime the older tradition of Joshua’s illegal marriage.55 If this were the case, Jerome would be an important witness to the growth of Targumic tradition. Finally, Jerome’s comments on Nahum 1:10–11; 2:3–7 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 archaeologist’s 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 Jerome’s use of Jewish tradition. What is quite remarkable is the curious circumstance that the growing body of anti-Jewish legislation during Jerome’s lifetime seems not to have discouraged this Father from communicat- ing 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 Ginzberg’s remarks correctly when he says (Legends, vol. 6, pp. 426–427) 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 Joshua’s being clothed in filthy garments, which is a Scriptural datum and cannot be changed. If the tradition that these filthy garments represent his sons’, not his own, sin, then Joshua is a fully righteous man, and that very thing in itself could equally well be used by Christian allegorists! saint jerome and the aramaic targumim 317 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. 191–206; cf. the comments on Neusner’s work by Peter Schäfer, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Rabbinischen Judentums (Leiden 1978), pp. 1–22. 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. 86–90. CHAPTER SIXTEEN

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON ST. JEROME’S 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. Schäfer, ‘Research into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to define the Status Quaestionis’, JJS 37 (1986), pp. 139–152, and others who in some degree accept Schäfer’s stance, all subjected to criticism by Ch. Milikowsky, ‘The Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature’, JJS 39 (1988), pp. 201–211. Schäfer 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. 89–94. 2 See F. Cavallera, Saint Jérôme. Sa Vie et Son Oeuvre (Louvain, 1922), vol. 2, pp. 12–63; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1977), pp. 141–167. st. jerome’s 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 Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s 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 Penna’s observations the curious fact that the Jewish character of the book is further heightened by the comparative scarce- ness 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

3 See H. Grätz, ‘Hagadische Elemente bei den Kirchenvätern’, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 3 (1854; reprinted 1969), pp. 311– 319; 352–355; 381–387; 428–431; MGWJ 4 (1855; reprinted 1969), pp. 186–192; M. Rahmer, ‘Die Hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus’, MGWJ 14 (1864; reprinted 1972), pp. 216–224; 460–470; MGWJ 16 (1867), pp. 103–108; MGWJ 17 (1868; reprinted 1972), pp. 419–427. 4 See F. Stummer, ‘Beiträge zu dem Problem “Hieronymus und die Targumim”’, Biblica 18 (1937), pp. 174–181; the frequent use made of Jerome’s work by R. le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque, vol. 1 Genèse (Sources Chrètiennes 245; Paris, 1978); and C.T.R. Hayward, ‘Jewish Traditions in Jerome’s 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. 105–123. 5 See A. Penna, Principi e Carattere dell’Esegesi di S Gerolamo (Rome, 1950), pp. 6–10. 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 exégétique de Jérôme dans le Commentaire du Zacharie’, Revue des études augustiniennes 14 (1968), pp. 3–16. 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 Jerome’s larger concerns. In this essay, therefore, we shall attempt to undertake a close analysis of Jerome’s 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 exposi- tory 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 Jerome’s 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 God’s wrath and the rain of sulphur. By the Greeks it is called limnê asphaltitis, that is, pool of bitumen.

7 Rabbi S. Lowy, in a private communication, has also noted the lack of a clear plan or theme in Heb. Quest. Examples of Jerome’s dismissal of Jewish exegesis as fabulae may be found in his commentaries In Esaiam V. xiv:12–14, 18–20; In Hiezchielem V. xvi:55; VII. xxv:8–11; In Osee II. x:2; In Aggaeum ii:16–18; In Danielem II.vi:4. st. jerome’s hebrew questions on genesis 321

The original Hebrew text, which Jerome does not quote verbatim, is essential for a proper understanding of what he has to say. It reads: . . . and the king of Bela: this is Zoar. All these were confederate together in the Vale of Siddim: that is the Sea of Salt. The use of Greek words and expressions, in whichHeb. 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 LXX’s preference for translating words deriving from hebrew root blʿ 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 rootbl ʿ 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 Tanḥuma 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 Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s 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. 520–521. 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. Tanḥuma 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 inHeb. Quest., sum- marises 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 stron- gest.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 Third- born Heifer’: see C.T.R. Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah, The Aramaic Bible 12 (M. Glazier: Wilmington, 1987), p. 174. 12 See In Esaiam V. xv:5, ed. M. Adriaen, CCSL 73 (Turnhout, 1963), p. 177: Vectes eius usque ad Segor vitulam conternantem. De hac et in libris Quaestionum Hebraicarum diximus, et nunc breviter annotamus, quod ipsa sit quinta urbs post Sodomam et Gomorram, Adamam et Seboim, quae ad preces Lot parva servata est. Appellaturque Bela, id est absorpta, tradentibus Hebraeis, quod tertio terrae motu prostrata sit. Ipsa est quae hodie Syro sermone vocatur Zoora, Hebraeo Segor, utroque parvula. Possumus vitulam conternantem pro perfecta aetate accipere. Sicut enim tri- cesimus annus in hominibus, ita in pecudibus ac iumentis tertius robustissimus est. st. jerome’s hebrew questions on genesis 323 was to sacrifice: he thereby draws into the discussion another verse of Scripture.13 It is possible that Jerome’s remarks about Zoar and Bela may have arisen because he was working on Heb. Quest. and research- ing 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 Jerome’s statements merit a brief footnote in Theodor and Albeck’s 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 Jerome’s 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 = zwʿr. Ps-Jon consistently writes zwʿr whenever it refers to the place-name, even where Targumic paraphrase occurs. N has it as zwʿr except here, where it repeats Hebrew ṣʿr, a practice followed throughout by Targum

13 See In Esaiam VI. xv:3–9, 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 13–23 appeared c. 398. See further M. Rahmer, Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus (Breslau, 1861), pp. 5–11, 29. 15 See J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, Bereschit Rabbah, 3 vols (Berlin, 1912–1929), vol. 1, p. 410. One must assume, presumably, that Jerome thinks of three earthquakes, the first two of which destroyed the other cities of the plain, the third swallowing up Zoar- Segor; there is no mention of such a thing in L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 1 (Philadelphia, 1954), pp. 252, 256; vol. 5 (Philadelphia, 1955), pp. 239–240. 16 Cf. Rahmer, Die hebräischen Traditionen, pp. 48–49; and le Déaut, op. cit. pp. 345–347. 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 2:8–11; and the two comments on Isaiah referred to above.18 In fact, the Biblical and other passages which we have examined do not exhaust Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s 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 ṣʿr, 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:3–9, above, n. 13. st. jerome’s hebrew questions on genesis 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.455–456; 476–485, albeit without naming him—a 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 Jerome’s work.19

Verse 5 next comes under Jerome’s 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 metʾ 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 rpʾym 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 hʾymym 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. 190–205. And for a good example of Jerome’s interest in geography outside Genesis, see his commentary In Esaiam XVII. lx:6–7 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 bšwh 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 Jerome’s 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. 158–159. 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 behâm. 25 Thus N has: ‘those who were dwelling in the midst of the city’, and Frag. Tg. Ms. Vat 440 ‘those who dwelt in the midst of the city’. See McNamara, op. cit. p. 203. st. jerome’s hebrew questions on genesis 327

And they smote the whole territory of the Amalekites, and the Amorites who dwelt in Asason Thamar. This is the town which is now called Engaddi, abundant in balsam and palms. Besides, in our language Asason Thamar means ‘the city of palms’, because Thamar indicates a palm-tree. It should also be known that, instead of what follows a little later, namely (verse 8): And they set in order against them battle formation in the Vale of Salt Pits, there is contained in the Hebrew in the Vale of Siddim, which Aquila translated as tôn irineônôn26 and Theodotion as tôn aktôn, meaning ‘pleasant groves’. Jerome’s 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. 46:26–27. 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 14’s 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 Aquila’s reading as prineônôn; but this, too, is unknown to the lexica. Antin suggests the meaning ‘holm-oaks’, but I cannot trace .sic), a word which he supposes to lie behind Aquila’s translation) שיךיו Hebrew 27 For the notion of ‘anticipation’, see also Tanḥuma Lekh 8; Ḥ 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

Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s own renderings of Hebrew words, like that which appears in verse 11. There he notes thatrkš means ‘property’, not ‘cavalry’ as the LXX have it. Here all depends on the manner of vocalising the consonantal Hebrew text: Jerome opts for rekûš, ‘property’, rather than for rekeš, ‘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 rkš 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 Jerome’s identification of these men as Jews or Ebionites see E. Schürer, 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. 493–504. Aquila and Theodotion were almost certainly Jews, the former a proselyte; Symmachus seems to have been an Ebionite. 31 The Targumim use the word prds, meaning a park or pleasure garden. st. jerome’s hebrew questions on genesis 329

Aunan’ as the LXX render it, but ‘of Aner’, to show that Mamre, Eschol, and Aner were Amorites, and genuine brotherly allies of Abraham. He derives the word ‘Hebrew’ from the root ʿbr, which, indeed means ‘to cross over, pass by’: the LXX likewise translate as tôi peratêi. 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 Abraham’s 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 Jerome’s 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 God’s 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 men’s status as Abraham’s allies although they were foreign- ers, Aner possibly being a foreign name, and so not expounded in Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum.

32 See Lib. Int. Heb. Nom. p. 61. Mambre appears in this work as Mamre, which is said to mean divisio sive perspicuum (p. 69); Eschol is rendered as botrus sive ignis omnis (pp. 65, 81); Aunan in Gen 38:4 is moeror eorum vel labores (p. 62) or, in Num 16:1, non est vel inutile (p. 78). 33 Cited by M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, Genesis vol 3 (Jerusalem, 1931), p. 604 (in Hebrew). 34 See S. Krauss, article ‘Jerome’, Jewish Encyclopaedia, vol. 7 (New York, 1904), p. 117; C.T.R. Hayward, ‘St Jerome and the Aramaic Targumim’, p. 109. 330 chapter sixteen

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 Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s own knowledge of the Hebrew word yʾr, 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. 32:28–29,

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 Jordan’s sources: see War III 509 ff; Jerome’s use of this author is clearly selective. st. jerome’s hebrew questions on genesis 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 God’s 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 Josephus’s 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 mis- led 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. Jerome’s final comments on chapter 14 are based on verses 18–19, 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. Jerome’s 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, Jerome’s 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 Melchizedek’s 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; Tanḥuma Lekh 15. For what follows, see J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 196–199; and le Deaut, op. cit. pp. 163–165 and the literature there cited. 38 See, e.g. Ber R 43:6; Bemidbar Rabbah 4:8; Wayyiqra Rabbah 25:6; Aboth de R Nathan 2; Pirqe de R Eliezer 8:2. st. jerome’s hebrew questions on genesis 333

Shem, while the Jews made him the son of a prostitute.39 It is not easy to discern the age of this idea; but Jerome says nothing to indicate that its origin was known to him, nor of its use in anti-Christian polemic.40 The fact that Scripture has no record of Melchizedek’s father and mother raised pressing questions about his origins which demanded quaestiones. Such investigations were already taking place in the pre- Christian period, and produced speculations about Melchizedek as a heavenly figure, possibly identified with the Archangel Michael, which are set out in the scroll 11QMelch of the Qumran Sect. But Jerome does not include such matters among his Hebrew traditions.

2. Melchizedek’s Life up to Isaac’s 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 Melchizedek’s survival of Abraham by 35 years.41

3. The First-Born and the Priesthood The Targumim strongly emphasise that Melchizedek-Shem wasthe 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 65–66; see also Jubilees 8:12–21, which speaks of Shem’s territory as including the Garden of Eden and the Holy of Holies. 41 See his Epistle 73 Ad Evangelum (Evagrium) Presbyterum, ed. J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latina 22 (Paris, 1864), p. 444 (col 679). 42 See above, nn. 37, 38. 334 chapter sixteen information supplied by Exodus 24:5, that Moses had ordered the first- born to arrange sacrifices at the time of the making of the Sinai covenant.43 Other verses which suggested such an office for the first-born are Numbers 3:12–13; 8:16–18, and as early as Philo’s 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 Aaron’s 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 Jerome’s 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. Zebaḥim 14:4; b. Zebaḥim 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 118–120; 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 Noah’s family: see the following note. st. jerome’s hebrew questions on genesis 335

4. The Identification of Salem with Jerusalem Psalm 76:2 states that God’s 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 Jacob’s 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 Jerome’s 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. 16–18. 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. 14:18–19 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 14:18–19. (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 14:2–3 and 18–19. 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. 50 Thus he never uses the verbs somnio, dream, idly think; contendo, strongly argue, assert; or autumno, aver, suppose, to introduce Hebrew tradition; nor does he use the expression fabulam narrare, to tell a story or fable. All these expressions, and others which might carry with them pejorative connotations, are very common in his commentaries. st. jerome’s hebrew questions on genesis 337

(f) While his near obsession with geography in Heb. Quest may owe something to Christian needs,51 Jews were zealous in their attempts to provide ‘modern’ equivalents for the old Biblical place-names, a practice of which Jerome could not have been ignorant.

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 Jerome’s Hebrew enquiries.52

3. Jerome’s 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 Jerome’s lifetime that Christian pilgrimage to the Land of Israel became fashionable: see J. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels (London, 1971). 52 For descriptions of the Targum and its methods, see especially R. le Déaut, Introduction à la Littérature Targumique (Rome, 1966); G. Vermes, ‘Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis’ in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, pp. 199–231; and M. McNamara, Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament (Dublin, 1983), pp. 205–216. Noteworthy are the extensive agreements between Jerome and Targum Ps-Jon in this chapter. 53 For a discussion of Jerome’s teachers, see S. Krauss, article ‘Jerome’, pp. 115–118. 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 Jerome’s 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 WISDOM’S 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 Alexander’s 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 man’s 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. Job’s 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 wisdom’s location, a Jew loyal to tradition might have argued that the Bible should provide the answer. Indeed, Job’s 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 Job’s 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. Schürer, 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. 29–183. For Greek education, philosophy and the Jews, see M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols. (London: SCM Press, 1974), vol. 1, pp. 65–102; L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (London: SCM Press, 1994), pp. 147–170. 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 Job’s 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 Sira’s 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 Sira’s 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 Sira’s grandson

2 For the date of ben Sira’s Hebrew book, see P.W. Skehan and A.A. di Lella, The Wisdom of ben Sira, Anchor Bible 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 8–16; Schürer, op. cit., vol. III.1, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), pp. 198–212 and literature there cited; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 55–65. For discussion of ben Sira’s 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. 931–945. 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. 433–455. 3 See Skehan and di Lella, The Wisdom, pp. 51–62; 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. 290–292; 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. 164–170; and Schürer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 202–206 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 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965). On the Greek text of Sirach, see Harrington, ‘Sirach Research’, pp. 165–170. For the grandson, see H.J. Cadbury, ‘The Grandson of ben Sira’, HTR 48 (1955), pp. 219–225; he went to Egypt probably in 132 bce: so Schürer, 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. 331–338; B.L. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1985), pp. 161–164; M. Gilbert, ‘L’éloge de la Sagesse (Siracide 24)’, Revue Theologique de Louvain 5 (1974), pp. 328–330; and J. Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur sirach and wisdom’s dwelling place 343 might have been to his grandfather’s 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 translator’s concerns often manifest themselves plainly.6 Modern retrover- sions 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 Sira’s poem, and seek to elucidate an aspect of it which seems to have been unjustly neglected.

1. The Biblical Background to Wisdom’s 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. 5–6). 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 Lord’s inheritance (v. 12). The question ‘where shall wisdom be found?’ is thus answered with precision: she is located in Jacob-Israel, in Jerusalem, in the Temple where she ministers to God. Her place is the outcome of a journey; for she had first pitched her tabernacle in the heights before coming to reside in the holy tabernacle in Jerusalem (v. 10). Why did Sirach locate Wisdom in Jerusalem and the Temple? The usual answer to this question is suggested by 24.23, which identifies Wisdom with the Torah of Moses. According to Isa 2.3, Torah oper- ates on mount Sion where stands the house of the God of Jacob: from

Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira, Bonner Biblische Beiträge 37 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1971), pp. 44–49. 6 So B.G. Wright, No Small Difference. Sirach’s 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. 365–379. 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 Wisdom’s 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 Wisdom’s 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 Wisdom’s 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 (28.13–14). 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 brʾš, ‘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 4.6–8; 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. Marböck argues that Stoic notions helped to yoke together Law and Wisdom in ben Sira’s thinking: see his Weisheit im Wandel, pp. 81–96. E.J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from ben Sira to Paul, WUNT 2.16 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1985), pp. 84–86, chal- lenges Marböck’s thesis and those who believe that Torah constitutes the order in creation: see ibid., pp. 79–81. His insistence that it is the Torah of Moses which is identified with Wisdom, and not some universal cosmic law (ibid., pp. 43–44), seems likely given the evidence presented below. 9 See especially Skehan, ‘Structures’, pp. 377–378. 10 Skehan, ‘Structures’, p. 374 retroverts Greek en hupsêlois into Hebrew bmrw- mym, which he links (ibid., p. 377) with Prov 8.2. sirach and wisdom’s dwelling place 345 paths’ (Hebrew byt ntybwt) to refer to paths which that journey might take. In short, the verse could be rendered: ‘At the beginning, she 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 šknty): prudence and knowledge of discretion I find out.’ It is well known that the verb škn, ‘to pitch a tent, tabernacle’, is commonly used in Scripture to express God’s 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 škn 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 Wisdom’s 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 Sira’s day may have already expounded these verses to determine Wisdom’s 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 Wisdom’s place; and this should become clear as we examine the particular manner of her dwelling in Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple.

11 Gilbert, ‘L’éloge’, pp. 330–332, notes Wisdom’s journeys in Sirach 24.3–8, 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. 157–159. Sirach’s 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 Sira’s time, see G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1 (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), pp. 263–268. 346 chapter seventeen

2. Wisdom and the Ark of the Covenant

Sirach defines Wisdom’s residence in Israel and the Temple with the words ‘rest’, ‘tabernacle’, and ‘inheritance’. After she had ‘taber- nacled’ (kateskênôsa) in the heights and had journeyed (vv. 4–6), she sought rest (anapausis) and an inheritance (klêronomia): God made her tabernacle rest (katepausen tên skênên mou) and told her to pitch her tabernacle (kataskênôson) in Jacob, and to have her inheritance (kataklêronomêthêti) in Israel (vv. 7–8). 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). Sirach’s choice of vocabulary recalls the stories of Israel’s 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 Sirach’s 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 tên katapausin kai eis tên klêronomian) which the Lord would give her. Here Greek katapausis and klêronomia represent Hebrew mnwḥh and nḥlh 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 mnwḥh 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 Ark’s new location into David’s mouth: ‘Arise O Lord, into thy rest (lmnwḥtk, LXX eis tên anapausin sou), Thou and the Ark of thy might.’ Thus the Chronicler speaks of David’s 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. 34–35; 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. 103–128. 14 See C. Dogniez and M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie, vol. 5, Le Deutéronome (Paris: Cerf, 1992), p. 195. In Sir 24.7, Greek anapausis almost certainly represents Hebrew mmnwḥh: see Skehan, ‘Structures’, p. 374, and Wright, No Small Difference, 242. On Deut 12.10–12 and Sirach 24, see also A. Fournier-Bidoz, ‘L’Arbre et la Demeure: Siracide xxiv pp. 10–17, VT 34 (1984), p. 3. 15 See G. Dorival, La Bible d’Alexandrie, vol. 4, Les Nombres (Paris: Cerf, 1994), pp. 283–284. sirach and wisdom’s dwelling place 347

‘a house of rest’ (mnwḥh, 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 Chronicler’s words in 1 Chr 28.2, the Targumic interpretations are possibly ancient, and may have influenced ben Sira or his grandson.17 Sirach’s version of his grandfather’s 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 grandfather’s Hebrew byt šbtyk, which otherwise might be understood as ‘the place of Thy dwelling’.18 It seems that Sirach modelled Wisdom’s journeys to her ‘place’, which he probably derived from exegesis of Job 28 and Prov 8, on Israel’s journeys through the desert seeking the rest which, with the Ark, she finds in Jerusalem in a tent pitched by David, and finally in Solomon’s Temple. The Ark contained the tablets engraved by God with the commandments (Deut 10.1–5; 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 Wisdom’s journeys, like Israel’s, 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 Chronicler’s conception of the Temple as a ‘house of rest’ for the Ark, and his use of Num 10.35–36; Ps 132.8–10, 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; ,See R. Syrén, The Blessings in the Targums (Åbo: Åbo Akademi .11 ויחי Tanḥuma 1986), pp. 132–133. to‘ ,ישׁב to rest’, rather than‘ שׁבת Sirach interpreted the phrase through root 18 dwell’. See further Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, pp. 218–219. 19 Wisdom was present at the Exodus in the pillar of cloud and fire, Sir 24.4. See Gilbert, ‘L’éloge’, p. 342, who notes that Philo (Quis rerun 42) identifies the pillar with Wisdom. In Sir 24.10, Wisdom says that she was fixed (estêrichthên) 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 (ʾrwn) as kibôtos. This they had already used to translate a different word (tybh) which the Bible uses to speak of Noah’s Ark. Marguerite Harl has shown that LXX deliberately chose the one word kibôtos to do duty for two different Hebrew terms so as to present the Ark of the covenant in the light of Noah’s Ark, and vice versa.20 Thus the Ark of the covenant might somehow correspond to Noah’s Ark, which preserved the lives of chosen people and enabled God to inaugurate a covenant, ensur- ing the stability of the universe (Gen 8.20–22): 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 yʿd ‘to meet’, but ydʿ ‘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 God’s 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 Sira’s 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 (estêrigmenê) 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 Jacob’s 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, ‘Jacob’s Dream at Bethel as Interpreted in the Targums and New Testament’, St. Rel. 4 (1974–75), pp. 367–377. 20 See M. Harl, ‘Le Nom de l’“Arche” de Noé dans la Septante’, in ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΙΝΑ. Mélanges offerts à Claude Mondésert S.J. (Paris: Cerf, 1987), pp. 16–43. 21 See A. le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, vol. 2, L’Exode (Paris: Cerf, 1989), p. 259; and G. Dorival, La Bible d’Alexandrie, vol. 4, pp. 69, 361. sirach and wisdom’s dwelling place 349 daily sacrifice was offered: God says that it is a place ‘in which I shall make Myself known to you from there’. Similarly, the incense is burnt before the veil concealing the Ark, where God makes Himself known to Moses (LXX of Exod 30.6, 36). In all these verses, the Hebrew text speaks of God’s ‘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 Wisdom’s 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. Taʾan. 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 d’Alexandrie, vol. 2, pp. 303, 306, 314. 23 For the Rabbinic lists, see especially tos. Yoma 2.12; b. Yoma 21b, 52b; Hor. 12a; Ker. 5b; jer. Makk. 2.7:32a; Taʾan. 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. Taʾan. 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 Schürer, History, vol. II, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), pp. 244–245. 25 Urim and Thummim were linked with the high priest’s 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 grandfather’s work. See Wright, No Small 350 chapter seventeen

These rabbinic lists represent real concerns of Second Temple times. The section 1.18–36 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 2.1–8) 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 God’s keeping.27 Given this, Sirach’s presentation of Wisdom in terms of the Ark— not present in the Temple of his day—takes 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 30.23–24. 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 Temple’s incense listed by LXX Exod 30.34.

Difference, pp. 176–177; pp. 185–186. This observation supports Schnabel,Law and Wisdom, 50, against Stadelmann’s 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 Schürer, History, Vol. III.1, pp. 533–534, and J.A. Goldstein, I Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 546–548; idem, II Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 41a (New York: Doubleday, 1983), pp. 24–27 and commentary ad loc. 27 See Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 546–547. 28 See Gilbert, ‘L’éloge’, pp. 332–333, and Fournier-Bidoz, ‘L’arbre’, 6, for their symbolism. For the ingredients themselves, see le Boulluec and Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie, vol. 2, p. 313. sirach and wisdom’s dwelling place 351

Elsewhere, Sirach compares incense with wisdom and its students (39.13–14); and a similar tradition linking incense with wisdom and Torah study is found in the Qumran literature at 4Qflor 1:6–7, 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 30.32–33, 37–38). The references to Wisdom’s 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 God’s mouth, whose journeys have encompassed the heaven, the abyss, the sea, the whole earth, and all the nations. This Wisdom rests in Jerusalem’s 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 Sirach’s 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. 25–27). 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. 38–84. Philo, Quis Heres, pp. 196–199, 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 d’Alexandrie, vol. 2, pp. 310–313. 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 Gilbert’s 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 Gilbert’s perception of things.32 Pishon, Tigris, Euphrates, and Gihon (vv. 25–26) recall the garden of Eden from which these rivers flow, according to the only biblical text where they are named together (Gen 2.11–14). 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 tbwṛ hʾrz,̣ an expression which LXX took to mean ‘the navel of the earth’.34 This notion was developed

30 See ‘L’arbre’, especially pp. 5–10; Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 55, pp. 93–94 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 God’s inheritance (Exod 15.17), see De Plantatione, pp. 44–49. 31 See Gilbert, ‘L’éloge’, p. 332. 32 For the trees in Sirach 24 and 50, see C.T.R. Hayward, ‘Sacrifice and World Order: Some Observations on ben Sira’s Attitude to the Temple Service’, in S.W. Sykes, ed., Sacrifice and Redemption. Durham Essays in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 23–27; and see also Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic, 163; and Fournier-Bidoz, ‘L’arbre’, pp. 4, 9. 33 See Gilbert, ‘L’éloge’, pp. 338–341, and his suggestion (pp. 342–343) that the ‘mist’ with which Wisdom compares herself (24.3) may refer to the ‘mist’ covering the earth at creation (Gen 2.6) as understood by texts like Targums Neofiti and Pseudo- Jonathan: they interpreted this mist as the cloud of the divine presence. 34 It’s not for certain that Ezekiel’s words referred to the navel of the earth: see in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, G.J. Botterweck ,’הר‘ S. Talmon, article and H. Ringgren (eds.), vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 427–438. LXX’s sirach and wisdom’s dwelling place 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 book’s 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 26.1–4, 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 Schürer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 311–314. On its geographical ideas, see P.S. Alexander, article ‘Early Jewish Geography’, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, pp. 980–982. 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. 72–73. 36 For the date of the Book of Watchers, see Schürer, History, III.1, pp. 252–257. 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 Jerusalem’s pre-eminence, Sirach’s 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 East’s 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 Pythia’s utterances in prose.38 Not only Greek, but also foreign rulers sought Delphi’s 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. 984–985. 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. 444–446. See also F. Poulsen, Delphi (London: Glyndendal, 1920), who describes (ibid., p. 24) the transmission of oracles. sirach and wisdom’s dwelling place 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 Delphi’s fame in mind as he pictured, not Apollo’s 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 isekphainein , used in LXX Dan 2.19, 30, 47 translating Aramaic gly, ‘to reveal’.40 In these verses God reveals what is rzʾ, a secret of heavenly realities dis- closed 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 Israel’s Torah, God’s gift to Israel which Scripture explicitly calls a light (Prov 6.23). Wisdom’s 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 Sirach’s understanding, is the true guide to Israel

39 For Delphi and the philosophers, see Poulsen, Delphi, pp. 28–32. 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, 6–8; 14.16–23; 2 Macc 5.9, on which see Schürer, History, vol. 1, ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), pp. 184–185; Goldstein, I Maccabees, pp. 445–462, 492–496. 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 Sira’s 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 phôtizein, which in 42.16 answers to Hebrew zrḥ, ‘rise, come forth’; 43.9 to zhr in hiphʿil ‘instruct, teach’; 50.7 to niphʾal of rʾh, ‘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 24.30–33 is the poet, Gilbert, ‘L’éloge’, pp. 339–340, 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

Sirach’s ‘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 Sirach’s writing which seems often to have been overlooked. We have tried to show that Sirach envisaged Wisdom’s 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 unim- paired 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 Jerusalem’s Temple.43 Jesus ben Sira’s Hebrew of that chapter survives: he evidently loathed the Shechemites.44 But they had their defenders: fragments of an anonymous Samaritan’s 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 God’s presence on Sion.45 Later Samaritan tradition holds that Gerizim is the navel of the world: to boost the legitimacy of Gerizim’s claims against Jerusalem, it is possible that this notion existed in ben Sira’s lifetime.

42 For a survey of recent writing on this, see Harrington, ‘Sirach Research’, pp. 170–176. 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. 123–138. 44 See J.D. Purvis, ‘Ben Sira and the Foolish People of Shechem’, JNES 24 (1965), pp. 88–94; Skehan and di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 558. 45 Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, pp. 66–67 notes anti-Samaritan tendencies. On Sirach and the title Most High, see Hayward, The Jewish Temple, pp. 75–77. The anonymous Samaritan writer makes Abraham meet Melchizedek, priest of God Most High (Gen 14.17–18) at Argarizin. sirach and wisdom’s dwelling place 357

Jesus ben Sira’s 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 Jerusalem’s Temple had been desecrated and its furniture, including the altar of incense, removed to a foreign land (1 Macc 1.20–23). 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 Sira’s grandson could hardly have been unaware of them. With the Samaritans and supporters of Onias’s 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 1.6–14 (89.73) are repeated by 1 Enoch 89.73, predicting (90.26–29) 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. 266–267; M. Delcor, ‘Le Temple d’Onias en Egypte’, RB 75 (1968), pp. 188–205; S.A. Hirsch, ‘The Temple of Onias’, Jews’ College Jubilee Volume (London, 1906), pp. 39–80; C.T.R. Hayward, ‘The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration’, JJS 33 (1982), pp. 429–443. 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. 165–180. 48 Cf. Hayward, ‘The New Jerusalem’, pp. 124–126. 49 The date of this text is much disputed. See Schürer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 282–283; 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 Sira’s ‘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.153–154) 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. Moses’s wisdom, the alphabet and his written legislation are presented as the sine qua non of human civilisation—and 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 Apollo’s 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 Schürer,History , vol. III.1, p. 255. Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, p. 63, notes that according to 1 Enoch 42.1–2 Wisdom does not dwell on earth, but is domiciled in the heavens. Might this account in part for Sirach’s reticence towards the figure of Enoch? 51 See Ben Zion Wacholder, Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974), especially pp. 71–86, 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 Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, p. 63. For him, Jewish law is older than Greek: see Schürer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 579–587; A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Aristobulus’, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, pp. 831–842; and N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964). sirach and wisdom’s dwelling place 359 during the second century bce. Defending Judaism’s 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 Sira’s grandson, resident in Egypt, writing in Greek, and like his grandfather defending the Temple in Jerusalem. We have sought to show that Sirach’s praise of Wisdom included a determination to prove that Temple’s legitimacy. Wisdom’s 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. Sirach’s 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 Jerusalem’s Temple is authentic because it houses Wisdom, who is older than the universe and gives order and discipline to all that exists. Disaster befell Sirach’s beloved Temple when, in the year 70 ce, the Romans put it to the torch. Yet Sirach’s Greek translation of his grandfather’s 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 Christ’s body (Jn 2.20–22; Mt 26.61; Mk 14.58). Sirach proved to be a rich quarry from which the Church’s teachers could unearth almost inexhaustible theological resources in their explorations of Christ’s relationship to

52 On Artapanus, see Schürer, History, vol. III.1, pp. 521–525. 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 God’s 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 Rashi’s comments on Gen. 1:29–30, see M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary, 5 vols (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1935), pp. 7–8. See also N.M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Genesis (Philadelphia-NewYork-Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 5749/1989), pp. 13–14. 2 The Bible’s 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. 2:21–23). 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. 2:16–17). The sequel is well known. At the instigation of the serpent, a canny speaker endowed with a certain rhetorical gift, the woman suc- cumbs and eats of the prohibited tree, sharing the fruit with Adam (Gen. 3:1–7). 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). Adam’s punishment, like the serpent’s, 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 ‘ēseb hassādeh). 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 Adam’s 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; 16:5–6; 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. 120–121, 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. 1–29. 4 See Apoc. Mos. 26:2–3; 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 God’s decree that Adam should eat plants of the field might be taken to mean that Adam’s 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 God’s 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 Adam’s dominion over the animals, see Gen. 1:26, 28; 2:19–20; Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Genesis, pp. 21–22, and C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), pp. 158–160, who also cites (pp. 147–148) an extensive bibliography treating of Gen. 1:26–27. 364 chapter eighteen

Among ancient interpretations of Gen. 3:18–19, 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 God’s 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-Jonathan’s 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 prš, ‘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 Adam’s 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 ’pršwt’ to translate the Hebrew terûmāh: see TN of Exod. 30:13; 35:5; Numb. 15:20, 21; TO of Exod. 25:3. 9 See Shinan, The Aggadah, vol. 2, p. 334; Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, p. 28. food, the animals, and human dignity 365

as animals, beasts, cattle, to eat vegetation. There is also a ,נתחשב hint of word-play in the Aramaic here, suggesting a carefully crafted petition which will be confirmed as we investigate: Adam prays not be Adam’s formal .דבאפי ברא so as to eat the plants כבעירא regarded 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 Tar- gumim will know is essential for priests and prophets who stand before the Almighty; and it is a sine qua non for any Jew who wishes properly to address God in prayer, a subject on which the Ara- maic Targumim10 are apt to offer extensive information. In 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). Stand- ing posture, then, is crucial for any human being to have access to the sacred, to pray and to be heard in the heavenly realms. In the post-Eden world, when humans will be barred from the 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. 226–246, noting particularly his comments on pp. 235–236, 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. 353–364; M. Taradach, Le Midrash (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991), pp. 51–62; 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. 611–629; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 546–548. 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 ,לעי 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 Adam’s 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, What seems to be in Adam’s mind as he makes 14.לחם Hebrew 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. 13 The Hebrew of this verse emphasises that ha-’adam‘ does not live by bread alone; but ha-’adam lives by everything which proceeds from the Lord’s 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 (1928–1929), pp. 211–262; J. Heinemann, ‘Birkath Ha-Zimmun and Havurah Meals’, JJS 13 (1962), pp. 23–29; Macy Nulman, The Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer (Northvale, NJ:1992), pp. 108–109. food, the animals, and human dignity 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 God’s 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 Tar- gumic 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 Adam’s petition at the end of Gen. 3:18, the Palestinian Targumim are able to offer Gen. 3:19 as God’s 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 The rest of FTP is very close to TN until the closing .עד זמן ,’time 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 Adam’s petition that he ‘labour’ with his hands. The grant ofmazon or bread will at least ensure that humans may utter a blessing to the Almighty over

16 According to Gen. Rab. 20:26, R. Simeon b. Yohai also discerned in the words ‘and to dust you shall return’ an allusion to the resurrection of the dead in the Torah. food, the animals, and human dignity 369 food; and the production of such food will require human beings to stand upright. Adam’s 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 ,חשבון ,לא נתחשב ,answer to Adam’s 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, Adam’s 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 (Tűbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), pp. 67–90. 18 Rabbinic interpretations of God’s 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. 967–968. 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 not as בזעת אפיך involves reading the opening words of Gen. 3:19 the Masoretes vocalized them, bezē‘at ’appêykā, ‘in the sweat of your face’, but as ‘because of the shaking, moving, contorting of your face’, זועas if the first of the pair of Hebrew words derived from the stem trembling, terror’. We are‘ זועה tremble, quake’ and its related noun‘ to understand that Adam was so shocked by God’s 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. Levi’s words in b.Pes. 118a, that tears flowed from Adam’s 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. 3:18–19 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 serpent’s punishment

19 They also include aggadic material not represented in the Targumim. For example, in b. Pes. 118a R. Johanan states that man’s 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 b‘tzb, whereas the man will eat food b‘tzbwn (Gen. 3:17): he interprets the additional letters in the word applied to Adam’s 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 160–150 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. 17–22. 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. 35–142. food, the animals, and human dignity 371

(Jub. 3:23) lacks entirely the biblical decree that the serpent would henceforth eat dust; and Adam’s punishment is limited to the note that the earth would sprout thorns and thistles for him, and that he should eat bread in the sweat of his face (Jub. 3:25). Jubilees entirely omits the divine decree that Adam should eat the grass of the open country. Any problems which might be perceived in the relationship between Gen. 3:18 and Gen. 3:19 are thus removed. In stark contrast to the matter of food, what exercises Jubilees mightily is a preoccupa- tion with clothing.21 Having eaten of the forbidden fruit, Eve (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. 30:34–38) 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. 89–97. The clothing of Adam, which Jubilees intimately associates with Adam’s function as a priest in relation to the sanctuary, Levison discusses on pp. 93–95. So intent is Jubilees on underlining the essential connection between Adam’s 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. 108–111, and Levison, Portraits, pp. 93–95, 215, note 14. 24 See Segal, The Book of Jubilees, pp. 10–11. 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. 3:28–31 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 non- Jews who go about naked, like the animals. As has often been noted, the Torah of Moses has no explicit prohibition of nudity; Jubilees cir- cumvented this by appeal to the ‘heavenly tablets’,26 and to the Torah’s injunction that priests in particular should not minister at the altar

25 Hebrew is described as ‘the language of creation’ at Jub. 12:25–27, 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. 463–471 [in Hebrew], and Segal, The Book of Jubilees, pp. 313–316, who also discusses (pp. 273–282) the approach of Jubilees to the transmission of Torah in the pre-Sinai period. food, the animals, and human dignity 373 in such a way that their nakedness be seen (Exod. 20:26). Thus this whole episode Jubilees addresses to Jews, regarded as a priestly people under obligation to ‘cover their shame’ not simply when occupied in the Temple service, but as a regular practice, to distinguish themselves from non-Jews, and from the animals. Although Jubilees does not at all use the word ‘distinction’ or ‘separation’ in its narrative, it 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 pre- eminently a priestly people. And as for priests, the Torah commands at Exod. 28:42 that they must put on sacred garments ‘to cover the flesh This, then, is the ultimate source of .לכסות בשר ערוה ,’of their shame Jubilees’ concern with ‘covering shame’, and its importation into the discussion of the animal-human distinction is what gives Jubilees its characteristic approach to this topic, and at the same time problema- tises the matter further. For it makes us ask whether the author of Jubilees really believed that non-Jews who did not wear clothes were to be reckoned as animals? And if non-Jews are, in some way, reckoned as animals in this author’s 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. 1:11–15; 2 Macc. 4:11–17): see further Levison, Portraits, pp. 94–95. 374 chapter eighteen quite up to the mark, as it were? They can speak; but they do not speak Hebrew, which is the language of creation: what might the author of Jubilees have thought about the speech of non-Jews, especially the dominant Greek language? The Targumim, when set alongside what we have found in Jubilees, offer a much more nuanced and sophisticated account of the human- animal distinction. It will be recalled that the Targumim actually use the word ‘distinction’, while Jubilees does not. Jubilees, despite its 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 Adam’s 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 God’s 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 Adam’s request to stand upright

28 The specific relationship between prayer and God’s provision of food is touched upon by Wis. Sol. 16:26–28, 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 (tōn karpōn) which feed a man, but your word guards those who trust in you; for what was not destroyed by fire was simply melted when it was warmed by the fleet- food, the animals, and human dignity 375 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 TN’s 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 in her; and the one who keeps her orders is going to [לעי] who labour 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. 299–301; C. Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse ou La Sagesse de Salomon, vol. 3 (Paris: Gabalda, 1985), pp. 938–943; J. Vilchez, Sabiduria (Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1990), pp. 427–428; 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. 24–37. 376 chapter eighteen

in this [לפלחי] Torah is good for those who those who work/cultivate it world, like the fruits of the tree of life.30 Here, if we are not mistaken, the Palestinian Targumim give their final answer to Adam’s 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 remains—the 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 Holies—but 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 God’s 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. 101–104. 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. 14:18–20; 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 reader’s 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 Philadelphia-NewYork-Jerusalem: The Jewish) בראשית Torah Commentary Genesis Publication Society, 5749/1989), pp. 109–110, 380–382; J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘Melchizedek in the MT, LXX, and the NT’, Biblica 81 (2000), pp. 63–69; and for Melchizedek’s place in Psalm 110 in particular, see P.J. Nel, ‘Psalm 110 and the Melchizedek Tradition’, JNSL 22 (1996), pp. 1–14. 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 1–15 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), pp. 301–302. 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. 3–4, 93–113. 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 skir- mish 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. 14:21–24. In all this, the single occurrence of the with its overtones of ‘peace’ and ‘perfection’ is ,שלם ,Hebrew stem מלך striking and dramatic: when Gen. 14:18 describes Melchizedek as -Gen. 14:18), the temptation to relate this ambiguous designa) שלם tion, 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 meaning here ‘unhewn’, but implying also ,שלמות stones described as 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 in Gen. 14:18, the first time that the priest, essential כהן described as for the worship of the Temple, is spoken of in the Hebrew Bible. That this Melchizedek had been priest of the God worshipped in Israel’s 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, 68–69 in par-

Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai) and Pesiqta RabbatiPisqa) 17 יתרו See Tanhuma 4 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 11:80–92. 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 Israel’s temple worship. Ancient interpreters would also be aware that the next mention of the tithe was to be found in the account of Jacob’s dream at Beth-el, ‘the house of God’ (Gen. 28:22 ff.).6 To these biblical ‘firsts’—the first biblical usage of the Hebrew word for ‘priest’; the first designation of the Almighty as God Most High; the first reference to tithe—others 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; 97:8–9, a link which in Second Temple times was taken for granted by writers like Jesus ben Sira: see Ben Sira’s 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 Jacob’s dream of the ladder unit- ing heaven and earth (Gen. 28:11–22) 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. 498–507. For the relationship of tithes to Jerusalem and its Temple in post-biblical times, see Tobit 1:6–7. 7 The difficulties involved in translating this title are conveniently summarized by M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie. 1. La Genèse (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. 752–764. 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 perfect’ or ‘whole’, until he‘ ,שלם ,that Abraham had not been called 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. 14:19–20).’ 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 Melchizedek’—that is, because of the word of Melchizedek. And this corresponds to what is was priest of God Most High.’ He ,והוא ,written (Gen. 14:18), ‘And 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 Melchizedek’s 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 Talmud’s 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, ‘Melchisédech dans la polémique entre juifs et chrétiens et dans la Légende’, RHPR 27 (1947), pp. 93–113; J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), pp. 196–199. melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 381 noted here. The identification is not explained, nor is the reader given prior notice that the identification is about to be made: anyone who reads or hears this passage is expected to know it already. As we shall see presently, it is common in other Rabbinic documents. It cannot be denied that this Talmudic passage contains material which might prove useful for Jewish scholars in debate with Christians; but there are solid reasons for doubting whether the hermeneutical problems which the Talmud highlights originated in such debates. From the outset, ancient readers could not fail to have been struck by the Scriptural evidence in front of them: the first person explicitly to be styled priest, in uttering a formal berakhah, does not, in the first instance, bless his master, the Most High God, whose exalted status is emphasized by the repeated use of the title ’El ‘Elyon. On the contrary, he blesses a human being, Abraham. It is well to pause here for a moment, for this Scriptural datum is open to an explanation which not only the Rabbis of the Talmudic period, but also Jews of much earlier generations might have wished to exclude. It is this. Pondering Gen. 14:18–20, 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. 12:2–3). 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 Melchizedek’s blessings either as showing that Melchizedek had direct knowledge of God’s decree about Abraham, or even that in some mysterious way he was party to it. And if Melchizedek knew so much about God’s 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

are used no fewer than ברך In Gen. 12:2–3, words deriving from the Hebrew stem 10 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 Melchizedek’s demonic opponent Melchiresha at the end of days is also described.12 The Qumran Melchizedek scroll offers no explanation of Melchizedek’s heavenly status, but rather takes it for granted.13 If Scriptural foundation for its claims about Melchizedek were needed, they might be found in Melchizedek’s bold suspension of priestly liturgical protocol as indicating his exalted status, as well as in the Bible’s failure to provide him with a genealogy. The matter of Melchizedek’s genealogy will need to be addressed more fully; but for the moment we may note just two things about it. First, the identification of Melchizedek as Shem is unlikely to have originated as an anti-Christian device, given the stance of the pre- Christian Jewish writer Philo, whose treatment of Melchizedek and Shem is designed to bring out the affinities between the two 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. García Martínez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar and A.S. van der Woude, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXIII. Qumran Cave 11.II 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 221–241. 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 scroll’s contents, see G.J. Brooke, ‘Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures’, in (ed.) M. Henze, Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 150–152; and for the relationship of this text to Jewish and Christian writings, see particularly J.T. Milik, ‘Milkî-sedeq et Milkî-rešà dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens’, JJS 23 (1972), pp. 95–122, 124–126. 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, ‘L’énigme de Melkisédeq’, RHR 211 (1994), pp. 297–333. 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. 383–384, 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. 71–74, argues that it identifies him as the archangel Michael; but for opposing arguments see Bodinger, ‘L’énigme’, pp. 325–326. 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. 67–80; 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. 284–285, 289–291, who is likewise unhappy with attempts to discover the identification of Melchizedek with Shem in Jewish-Christian disputes. Note also melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 383 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 Noah’s flood which destroyed the world peopled with Adam’s 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 Noah’s ark.15 This Og many Rabbinic sources identify with the escapee who brings news of Lot’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 14:18–19, is fully aware of the Jewish identification of Melchizedek as Shem, and seems not unduly disturbed by it: see C.T.R. Hayward, Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis Translated with an Introduction and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 47, 156–159. 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: seeb. Nidd. 61a; Zeb 113b; Ber. Rab. 42:7–8; 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 šālēm, and šālēm 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, presup- posed 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 Melchizedek’s 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 pre- Rabbinic attitudes to Melchizedek. Again, evidence from Qumran, this time in the shape of the Genesis Apocryphon from cave 1 (1Qap- Gen) 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 135–425 (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1996), pp. 84–85, 164–165, 170–171; Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, pp. 281–283. 18 See D.A. Machiela, The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees (PhD Thesis: University melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 385 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. 22:9–14), 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. 13:3–4, 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 Abraham’s 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 šālēm 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 city’s ownership to Abraham’s 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. 50–66. 386 chapter nineteen

Second, the Apocryphon paraphrases Gen. 14:18’s statement that Melchizedek brought out ‘bread and wine’. 1QapGen 22:14–15 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, Shem’s 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.

.מאכל ומשתהThe manuscript is quite clear on this matter: the Aramaic reads 22 23 LXX of Gen. 14:18 rendered the Hebrew singular ‘bread’ as a plural form αρτους, 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 1–4 (Brill: Leiden, 2000), p. 68. Significantly,Genesis Rabbah 47:8 describes how Abraham would set out food and drink for travellers, and would then instruct them to utter a blessing of the Almighty: this is said with reference to the title ‘possessor of heaven and earth’. See further below, p. 390. melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 387

In short, the discussion of Melchizedek in b.Ned.32b, while useful to some limited degree as an argument against Christian appropria- tion 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 priest’s status might easily have been derived from Scripture. Were there other possible explanations of Melchizedek’s 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. 43:7–11, the section which is most concerned with Gen. 14:18–20. While Gen. Rab. 43:7 comments explicitly on Melchizedek, the rest of the section expounding these verses apparently concentrates heavily on Abraham, although Melchizedek’s presence is in fact implicit in discussions of 43:8–11, 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 šālēm, 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. 687–688, 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, righteous—Melchizedek, Adonizedek. Jerusalem is called zedek, as it is said (Is. 1:21), Righteous- ness 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 Lord’s 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 Melchizedek’s 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-king’s 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 openingwaw of Gen. 14:18 is treated as an adversative, to yield: ‘But Melchizedek, the king of Salem . . .’. 26 Adonizedek was king of Jerusalem in the time of Joshua (Jos. 10:1). 27 See Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, p. 173. melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 389

Melchizedek’s 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. Samuel’s 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. 9:1–4). 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. Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 58–93. 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. God’s 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 Abraham’s 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 Abraham’s power. The expression ‘delivered up’ is the common rendering of the difficult Hebrew form miggēn, which the midrash interprets by reference to the word mangānā’, ‘charm, contrivance’ to indicate that God had brought the kings under Abraham’s 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 miggēn, see Rashi’s 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 melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 391 lowing section deals with the tithe, Gen. Rab. 47:10 indicating that Abraham had paid tithe to Melchizedek without, however, naming the priest; and the exegesis makes it clear that blessings which accrued to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the future had been granted by 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. 6:24–27? Three different answers are set forth, all of them based on God’s 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 ‘thus’—‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Jacob’ (Exod. 19:3). R. Jose b. R. Hananiah said: When I am revealed against their Leaders (manhîgām) 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 Abraham’s 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. 499–500; vol. 2, pp. 910–911. 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. 78–79. 392 chapter nineteen

Moses confronts the cruel Pharaoh with the declaration that Israel is God’s 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 stain’s) 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 rôšem, ‘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, Israel’s afflictions began, for Abraham’s 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 Lord’s 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 Melchizedek’s presence is merely implicit. An important example of this is afforded by the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael Shirta 9 lines 118–126 commenting on Exod. 15:16, ‘the people whom You have possessed’, ‘am zû qānîtā. We are told that four are called qinyān, ‘possession’, of which the second is the land of Israel. The proof adduced for this is Gen. 14:19, God’s 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 inSifre Deut. 309, commenting on melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 393

Deut. 32:6 with its question to Israel concerning the Almighty: ‘is He not your Father, your possessor, qānekhā?’. The extended exegesis of these words concludes with a note that three things are called qinyān, 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 God’s 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 Israel’s 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 Melchizedek’s 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 ministering’, means that‘ ,משמש High’. His use of the Aramaic term

33 It is possible to read a similar understanding of Melchizedek’s words in TO is [דקניניה] of Gen. 14:19, ‘Blessed be Abram of God Most High, whose possession , וארעא,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. 527–529. 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 Neofiti’s 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 priest’s name, and is reminiscent of the comment in Gen. Rab. 43:7, that the place Jerusalem makes its inhabitants ‘zedek’, ‘righteous’. Melchizedek’s 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 the same Aramaic term משמש ,Gen. 25:22). As priest he ministers 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: Š & Š Clark, 1988), pp. 68–69. 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. Díez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1 Tomo I Génesis (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968). For valuable notes on this Targum of Genesis 14:18–20, see B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1. An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis Including full Rabbinic Parallels (New Yor: Sepher- Hermon Press, 2000), pp. 139–140. 39 The notion that this Targum’s description of Melchizedek as ‘ministering in the high priesthood’ might date from post-Talmudic times has been convincingly questioned by A. Díez Macho, Ms. Neophyti 1 Tomo II Exodo (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1970), pp. 76*–78*. See further R. le Déaut, ‘Le titre Summus Sacerdos donné à Melchisedech est-il d’origine juive?’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 50 (1962), pp. 222–229. melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 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 Targum’s version of Genesis 1, seems which we have until now rendered as ,קנה to indicate that the word ‘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 -the refer וברוך הוא ,’us begins with a Hebraism ‘and blessed be He ence 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; .’before God Most High ,משמש ,and at that time he was ministering 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. Muñoz Leon, Dios-Palabra. Memra en los Targumim del Pentateuco (Granada: Institucion San Jeronimo, 1974), pp. 144–167. 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. 7–9; B.B. Levy, Targum Neophyti 1. A Textual Study, vol. 1 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 1–10. 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 Gen.in 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 Targum’s explication of Melchizedek’s name as ‘the righteous king’ confirms this, as is clear from its interpretation of Gen. 14:19 when Melchizedek’s 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, Melchizedek’s 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. 42:7–8; 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 Shem- Melchizedek, as priest, had co-offered. Second, the same Targum verse tells us that it was the eve of Passover when Og arrived, to find Abraham busy making mazzot, the unleavened bread for the Festival.46 This is confirmed when the

44 See the sources cited by M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis. Translated, with Introduction and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 1B (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992), p. 58. 45 The giants were deeply implicated in the causes of the Flood, according to many post-biblical Jewish writers: see (e.g.) Hebrew text of Ben Sira 16:7; Baruch 3:36–38; Wis. Sol. 14:6; 3 Macc. 2:4; Damascus Document 2:16–21. 46 Pseudo-Jonathan has a particular interest in the Passover: see the illuminating study of P.Å. Bengtsson, Passover in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis. TheConnection melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 397

Targum arrives at verse 15 with its account of the night raid made by Abraham on the kings. The opening words of the Hebrew are ambigu- and might be translated as either ‘the night was ויחלק עליהם לילה :ous 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. Abraham’s 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. 14:15’s 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 Israel’s Egyptian enslavement in the time of Melchizedek, but also employs the Melchizedek episode to announce the redemption of Israel, the Lord’s 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 Isaac’s 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 Adam’s 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 Israel’s 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. 15:25–32). 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 Melchizedek’s 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. 196–199. melchizedek as priest of the jerusalem temple 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 Noah’s 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 Noah’s covenant, and looks forward to Israel’s redemption from Egypt. His place is Jerusalem, the site of the Lord’s 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 Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek would be expected at Jubilees 13:24–27, 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 Cadbury, H. J. 342 Ackroyd, P. R. 281, 300 Cathcart, M. J. 382 Adriaen, M. 118, 302–305, 308, 309, Cavallera, F. 281, 282, 283, 301, 318 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 322 Cazeaux, S. 54, 63 Albeck, Ch. 80, 157, 212, 216, 323 Charles, R. H. 10, 11, 23, 121, 177, Alexander, P.S. 257, 259, 353, 354 217, 240 Altmann, A. 89 Charlesworth, J. H. 20, 34, 54, 82, 93, Anderson, G. A. 362 120, 135, 231, 353, 370, 399 Antin, P. 115, 116, 177, 120, Chester, A. N. 39, 110, 127, 154, 138 156, 163, 164, 185, 190, 201, 210, Aptowitzer, V. 377 234 Argall, R. A. 345, 347, 352, 355 Chilton, B. D. 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, Arnold, T. W. 119 124, 301, 313 Aufrecht, W. E. 27, 88, 109, 126, 155, Churgin, P. 309 174, 211, 236, 395 Clarke, E. G. 27, 88, 109, 126, 155, Avi-Yonah, M. 161, 301 174, 199, 211, 236, 348, 395 Coggins, R. J. 169, 257 Bacher, W. 109, 303, 307, 310 Cohen, F. L. 261 Bamberger, B. J. 96 Cohen, G. D. 89, 93, 105 Bardy, G. 281, 283 Cohen, S. 18 Barr, J. 19 Collins, J. J. 341 Baskin, J. R. 36 Collins, M. F. 159 Baumgarten, J. M. 243, 245, 252, 253, Colson, F. H. 23, 40, 130 257 Cowling, G. J. 128 Beck, E. 85, 86 Crouzel, H. 308 Bengtsson, P. Å. 396 Berger, K. 23, 59, 270 Dahl, N. A. 24, 182 Bernstein, M. 12 Dalman, G. 28 Bienaimé, G. 126 Danby, H. H. 81 Bietenhard, H. 112 Davidson, S. J. 4 Black, M. 46, 287, 341, 349 Davies, P. R. 28, 72, 75, 76, 77, 79, Blackman, E. C. 314 124, 210, 234 Bloch, R. 109 de Lagarde, P. 321 Bodinger, M. 382 de Lange, N. R. M. 282 Borgen, P. 23, 35, 41, 43, 44, 47, 50, Delcor, M. 32, 357 522 de Silva, D. A. 342 Botte, B. 189 de Vaux, R. 317 Botterweck, G. J. 352 Dietrich, A. 138 Bowker, J. 4, 114, 175, 179, 183, 185, di Lella, A. A. 11, 275, 276, 342, 356, 193, 201, 213, 223, 224 282, 300, 332, 389 380, 391 Díez Macho, A. 30, 68, 88, 102, 109, Brock, S. P. 138 126, 133, 155, 211, 226, 300, 394 Brockington, L. H. 177 Díez Merino, L. 300 Brooke, G. J. 38, 357, 382 Dogniez, C. 346 Buber, S. 212 Dorival, G. 37, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49, 346, Büchler, A. 28, 168, 247 348 Butterweck, A. 38 Dunn, J. D. G. 53 402 index of modern authors

Elbogen, I. 131 Grossfeld, B. 8, 9, 26, 31, 37, 51, 92, Epstein, J. N. 69, 75, 285 95, 126, 175, 226, 259, 261, 274, 394 Evans, C. F. 281, 300 Guillaume, A. 115

Falk, D. K. 271, 375 Haase, W. 25 Feldman, L. H. 17, 23, 25, 26, 88, 89, Haenchen, E. 182 105 Hall, S. G. 85 Field, F. 327 Hamacher, E. 273 Finkelstein, L. 252, 366 Harl, M. 19, 93, 346, 348 Fischer, B. 19 Harrington, D. J. 54, 55, 56, 63, 67, 81, Fishbane, M. 262 159, 160, 342, 356 Fitzmyer, J. 4, 9, 212, 377, 385, 388 Hecht, R. D. 35 Flanagan, J. W. 262 Heinemann, J. 104, 122, 277, 366 Flesher, P. V. M. 365 Hengel, M. 341 Flint, P. 398 Herr, M. D. 105 Fournier, F. 308 Henze, M. 382 Fournier-Bidoz, A. 346, 350, 352 Hirsch, S. A. 357 Freedman, D. N. 20, 262, 342 Holt, P. M. 119 Frerichs, E. 35 Hornblower, S. 354 Friedländer, G. 172, 173, 176, 182–189, Horovitz, H. S. 237, 241, 244 191, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201–206, Horton, F. L. 9, 14, 377 208 Houlden, J. L. 257 Friedrich, G. 28 Hunzinger, H. 89 Hurd, J. C. 27, 88, 109, 126, 155, 174, García Martínez, F. 382 211, 236, 395 Geiger, A. 147, 179, 183, 235, 254, 257, Husson, P. 259 259 Hyman, A. 168, 170, 288 Georgi, D. 17 Gese, H. 346 Idelsohn, A. Z. 131 Gibb, H. A. R. 115 Isenberg, S. 287 Gilbert, M. 342, 345, 347, 350, 352, 355 Jacobson, H. 12, 17, 26 Ginsburger, M. 109, 112, 133, 138, James, M. R. 56, 57, 59, 63, 67 182, 220, 259, 264 Japhet, S. 347 Ginzberg, L. 120, 188, 213, 214, 223, Jay, P. 319 225, 226, 302, 306, 307, 316, 323 Jeremias, J. 17, 58 Glessmer, U. 27, 260 Goldberg, A. M. 182 Kampen, J. 342 Goldin, J. 309 Kasher, M. 63, 72, 79, 112, 129, 130, Goldstein, J. A. 350, 355, 357 136, 138, 144, 157, 158, 162, 163, 166, Golomb, D. M. 101 174, 329 Goodman, M. 17, 18, 26, 34, 46, 54, Kasher, R. 98 82, 93, 134, 159, 178, 185, 224, 270, Katz, S. T. 387 328, 342 Kelly, J. N. D. 281, 282, 283, 301, 318 Gordon, R. P. 287 Kisch, G. 67 Goshen-Gottstein, M. 216 Kittel, G. 28 Gottheil, R. 124 Klein, M. L. 30, 39, 68, 88, 109, 126, Gottlieb, Z. Y. 225, 231 155, 163, 166, 211, 236, 239, 277, 366 Grätz, H. 281, 319 Klostermann, E. 295, 298 Grabbe, L. L. 38, 341, 357 Knibb, M. A. 354 Green, P. 230 Kobelski, P. J. 382 Green, W. S. 35, 317 Koetschau, P. 291 Greene, J. T. 36 Kraft, R. A. 84 Grözinger, K.-G. 271, 272 Kraus, H.-J. 379 index of modern authors 403

Krauss, S. 281, 282, 283, 293, 297, 299, Milgrom, J. 260, 262, 357 302, 329, 337 Milik, J. T. 317, 382 Kugel, J. L. 362, 371, 382, 384 Milikowsky, Ch. 318 Kuiper, G. J. 109, 128 Millar, F. 17, 46, 54, 82, 93, 109, 134, 148, 159, 178, 185, 224, 270, 287, 328, Lambton, A. K. S. 119 341, 342, 349, 355 Larcher, C. 375 Moore, G. F. 345 Lauterbach, J. Z. 75, 76, 77, 285 Moore, M. S. 36, 56 le Déaut, R. 4, 9 31, 49, 68, 72, 73, 87, Muñoz Leon, D. 395 95, 102, 122, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, Murphy, F. J. 17 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 138, 140, 143, Murray, R. 86 144, 147, 163, 170, 175, 179, 182, 188, 190, 199, 201, 203, 204, 207, 210, 213, Nautin, P. 295 228, 240, 242, 244, 260, 261, 265, 274, Naveh, J. 263 282, 300, 301, 319, 323, 326, 334, 337, Nel. P. J. 377 394 Neusner, J. 35, 65, 81, 105, 235, 236, Leaney, A. R. C. 274 238, 240, 249, 253, 301, 365, 387 le Boulluec, A. 348, 349, 350, 351 Newsom, C. 273 Lebram, J. C. H. 346 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 53, 270, 342 Lécuyer, J. 308 Niehoff, M. 171 Leloir, L. 86 Nitzan, B. 48, 262, 271, 272, 273, Levine, E.B. 133, 138, 214, 226, 229 274 Levine, L. I. 365 Nulman, M. 366 Levison, J. R. 36, 53, 54, 55, 59, 62, 68, 70, 71, 269, 371, 372, 373 Ohana, M. 32, 110, 113, 114, 115, 126, Levy, B. B. 7, 32, 39, 96, 98, 102, 103, 135, 155, 172, 190, 205, 248 376, 395 Lewis, B. 119 Paret, R. 124 Lewis, J. P. 60 Patai, R. 56, 58, 170 Lim, T. 11 Penna, A. 281, 319 Loader, J. A. 271 Pérez Fernández, M. 72, 112, 113, 114, Lukyn Williams, A. 307 120, 130, 131, 172, 173, 180, 183–185, Lyons, W. J. 264 187, 188, 193, 194, 198, 202–209, 213, 218, 249, 257, 263 Machiela, D. A. 384, 385 Perrot, C. 54, 55, 83, 159 Maccoby, H. 252, 253 Perichon, P. 308 MacDonald, J. 170, 171 Petit, F. 93 Mack, B. L. 25, 342, 352 Petuchowski, J. J. 10 Maher, M. 4, 7, 9, 15, 28, 265, 361, Philonenko, M. 65 364, 365, 382, 391, 396 Potin, J. 167 Mandelbaum, I. 255, 256 Poulsen, F. 354, 355 Marböck, J. 342, 344, 356, 358, 389 Priest, J. A. 357 Marcus, R. 129, 134 Prigent, P. 84 Margoliouth, M. 213, 216, 219, 220, Purvis, J. D. 356 228 Martin-Achard, R. 47 Qimron, E. 252, 254 McKenzie, J. L. 262 McKnight, S. M. 18 Rabin, C. 121 McNamara, M. 3, 36, 37, 41, 49, 176, Rahlfs, A. 275, 292 259, 282, 283, 300, 301, 325, 326, 337, Rahmer, M. 302, 319, 323 395 Ravid, L. 372 Melamed, E. Z. 69, 75 Reeves, J. C. 342 Metzger, B. M. 93 Reifman, Y. 264 Migne, J.-P. 282, 318, 333 Reimer, A. M. 264 404 index of modern authors

Reinach, T. 230, 231 Spiegel, S. 72 Reiter, S. 118, 283, 330 Spiro, A. 159 Reventlow, H. 89 Spitzer, F. 27, 88, 109, 126, 155, 174, Rhodes, P. J. 230 175, 211, 236, 395 Richardson, P. 73 Splansky, D.M. 110, 188, 119, 120, Ringgren, H. 352 121, 126, 145, 150, 152, 154, 155, 190, Robinson, A. W. 262 210, 234 Rosenbaum, M. 37, 175, 224, 295, Stone, M. E. 53, 342 361 Strugnell, J. 252, 254 Rouillard, H. 37 Stummer, F. 283, 298, 302, 319 Rowland, C. C. 379 Swartz, M. D. 262 Swetnam, J. 83 Sabatier, P. 292 Sykes, S. W. 352 Salibi, K. 112 Syrén, R. 39, 41, 104, 109, 121, Saldarini, A. J. 309 347 Salvesen, A. 37, 98 Sysling, H. 369 Samely, A. 271 Sandevoir, P. 348, 349, 350, 351 Talmon, S. 352 Sandmel, S. 52 Taradach, M. 365 Sarna, N. A. 361, 363, 377, 388 Temporini, H. 25 Sawyer, J. F. A. 294 Thackeray, H. St. J. 14, 117, 220 Schäfer, P. 132, 317, 318 Theodor, J. 80, 157, 212, 216, 323 Schaper, J. 39, 44, 49 Thompson, S. 221 Schnabel, E. J. 344, 346, 350 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 382 Schürer, E. 17, 20, 46, 54, 82, 84, 93, Tonneau, R.-M. 226 109, 134, 148, 159, 178, 179, 185, 224, Trachtenberg, J. 262 270, 271, 287, 328, 341, 342, 349, 353, 355, 357, 358, 359 Urbach, E. E. 287, 289, 291, 369, 391, Schwartz, J. 28, 168 393 Seaver, J. E. 301 Segal, A. F. 24, 73, 77, 85 VanderKam, J. C. 20, 370, 398 Segal, M. 371, 372 Van der Woude, A. S. 382 Shaked, S. 263 van Uchelen, N. A. 41 Sharrett, M. 275 Vermaseren, M J. 346 Shinan, A. 4, 7, 97, 110, 114, 126, 127, Vermes, G. 4, 7, 36, 37, 43, 46, 52, 54, 131, 134, 137, 140, 141, 144, 146–149, 72, 82, 93, 109, 124, 127, 128, 130, 152, 153, 155, 164, 173, 175, 180, 183, 134, 148, 155, 159, 160, 178, 179, 185, 185, 186, 188, 200, 201, 203, 205, 210, 190, 210, 224, 227, 234, 255, 270, 284, 214, 220, 221, 225, 226, 228, 229, 231, 287, 290, 296, 300, 308, 328, 337, 341, 234, 263, 264, 363, 364, 365, 387 342, 349, 355 Siegfried, C. 305 Versnel, H. S. 46 Silbermann, A. M. 37, 175, 224, 361 Vilchez, J. 375 Simon, M. 4, 380, 384 Skehan, P. W. 11, 275, 342, 343, 344, Wacholder, B. Z. 342, 358 346, 348, 356, 389 Wadsworth, M. 59 Skinner, J. 215, 219 Walter, N. 358 Smolar, L. 301, 313, 315 Walton, B. 122, 220 Sokoloff, M. 264, 317 Wellhausen, J. 115 Sparks, H. F. D. 21, 177, 281, 282, 276, Wenham, G. J. 377 321, 354 Wensinck, A. J. 58, 123 Spawforth, A. 354 Wernberg-Møller, P. 274 Speier, S. 122, 220 Westermann, C. 363 Sperber, A. 26, 88, 109, 126, 155, 174, Whitaker, G. H. 23 175, 211, 236, 283, 302, 393 Wilken, R. L. 84 index of modern authors 405

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

Genesis 9:26–27 6, 11 1:26 363 9:27 6, 8, 11–12 1:28 363 10:8 223 1:29 361 10:9–11 224 1:30 361 10:21 4–5 2:6 352 10:10 224 2:7 221 10:11 224–226 2:9 361 10:22 386 2:10–12 63 11:2 230 2:10–13 61 11:7 185–86 2:11 352 11:10 13 2:15 362 11:10–11 14 2:16–17 362 11:28 227 2:18 178–79 12:1–3 269 2:19–20 363 12:2–3 381 2:21–23 362 12:5 26, 32 3:1–7 362 12:7 385 3:7 371 12:8 385 3:14 362 13:3–4 385 3:16 362, 370 13:16 42 3:17 370 13:8 385 3:17–19 58 14 320, 380, 393 3:18 69, 362–364, 370 14:2 324, 378 3:19 362, 362–364, 366, 14:2–3 321 369–70 14:5 325 3:23 184 14:7 382 3:24 369, 372, 372 14:13 383 3:24–25 184 14:14 211, 212, 214, 216, 5:32 383 217, 327 4:3 150 14:15 397 4:5 104 14:16 15 4:7 99 14:17–18 356 4:15 101 14:18 3, 8, 15, 379, 380, 386, 6:5 100 388, 394 6:7 60 14:18–19 331 6:18 383 14:18–20 377, 381, 387 6:19 200 14:18–24 3 8:20–22 348 14:19 390, 392, 394–396 8:21 100 14:20 379 8:22 56 14:21 386 9 61 14:22 47, 329 9:21–24 6 15 78 9:22 218 15:2 215, 216 9:24 6 15:2–3 211 9:25 6 15:5 41 9:26 6 15:6 29 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 407

15:12 103 25:29 192 15:13 78 25:31 95 15:5 312, 391 25:34 95, 99 15:15 392 26:1–33 23 16:1 189, 191 26:25 385 16:4–11 216 26:32 24 17:1 187 27 97, 134, 139 17:18 312 27:1 132 17:20 121 27:9 130 17:23 214 27:12 135 18:1–2 188 27:15 138–39 18:11–15 211 27:28 143 18:14 397 27:28–29 131 18:17 81 27:29 97 19:21 268 27:40 97 20–21 20 27:41 99–100 20:1 20 28 78, 156 20:1–17 20 28:3 166 20:1–18 25 28:11–22 379 20:2 18 28:12 348 21:5–7 20 28:14 42 21:8–21 21 28:16 39 21:13 120 28:20 157 21:22–32 18, 21, 25 28:20–22 157 21:28–31 27 29:29 193 21:33 18, 20–23, 25–26, 28:22 379 28–30, 32–33 31:19 219 22 72–73, 76, 78, 169 31:30 219 22:1 77 31:34 219 22:5 391 32:7 100, 104 22:8 77 32:24–27 81 22:9–14 385 32:24–31 12 22:10 76 33:1 100, 104 22:12 79 33:5 276 22:14 76 33:8 101 22:17 82, 391 35 160, 169 22:19 5 35:1 156 24:2 217 35:1–2 157 24:18–19 102 35:2 160 24:28 220 35:4 159–60 24:31 218 35:9–12 12 24:33 219 35:10 167 24:42 222 35:21 170 24:50 220 37:25 284 24:62 5 37:28 284 25:5 116 41:4 39 25:8 192 38:4 329 25:13–15 121 41:7 39 25:18 117, 120 41:21 29 25:21 90 45:27 194 25:22 5, 90 48:16 367 25:23 91 49 122 25:25–26 192 49:8ff. 51 25:27 94, 139, 151 49:8–12 51–52 408 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

49:9 39 Numbers 49:10 174–75 3:12–13 334 49:15 347 6:23 391 49:24 144 6:24 268, 270 49:25 143 6:24–26 259, 262 49:26 101, 104, 6:24–27 391 121 6:25 270, 273 50:1 104 6:26 266 6:27 276 Exodus 8:16–18 334 2:1 197 10:18 102 2:13 204 10:33 346 2:24 78 10:35 39–40 3:2–4 69 10:35–36 347 4:13 78 20:14 102 4:22 391 16:1 329 5:8 39 17:4 348 7:7 197 19:1–10 235, 248 12:13 76 19:2 239 12:23 76–77 19:4 241 12:29 397 19:5 243, 244, 249 15:16 392 19:6 244 15:17 347 19:7 245 17:16 275 19:8 246 19:3 391 19:9 246 19:5–6 20 19:10 247 19:6 13, 167 21:16–18 47 20:22 378 23:3 37 20:26 373 23:5 39 20:36 351 23:6 37 23:5 39 23:7–10 36 24:5 334 23:9 38, 40–41 25:22 348 23:10 41–42 28:1 394 23:15 37 28:30 349 23:18–24 36 28:42 373 23:19 42 29:42 349 23:21 43 30:6 142 23:22 43–44 30:32–33 351 23:24 39, 45, 50 30:36 142 24:2 37 32:1–6 254 24:3 38 32:35 254 24:3–9 36 33:19 276 24:4 37 30:34–38 371 24:6 38 30:37–38 351 24:7 47 33:20 129 24:8 43, 50 40:20 347 24:9 39, 50 24:15 38 Leviticus 24:15–19 36 8:8 349 24:17 48–49 14:8 197 24:18–19 49 19:24 257 24:19 39–40 26:42 78 24:16 37 27:21 349 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 409

Deuteronomy 1 Chronicles 3:11 383 1:17 386 4:6 389 21:15 76–77 7:2 276 23:32 247 8:3 366 28:2 347 10:1–5 347 10:8 365 2 Chronicles 10:17 266 3:1 77 28:57 175 20:1–9 212 Ezra 12:10 346 9:1–3 311 12:11 345 10:2 305, 310 16:2 345 10:10 305, 310 17:12 365 10:11 305, 310 18:5 365 10:14 305, 310 20:8 212–12 10:17 305, 310 22:15 218 10:18 305, 310 26:2 345 10:18–19 311 27:5 378 10:44 305, 310–11 27:6 377 28:2–6 266 Psalms 32:6 393 4:1 276 32:8 186 9:3 379 32:24 274 9:12 379 33 122 9:13 276 33:2 101 25:11 276 33:13 143 29:5 309 34:1 284 29:10 276 32:6 296 Joshua 36:11–12 181 10:1 388 36:21 276 50:1 78 Judges 45:13 387 9:5ff. 69 50:2 78 18:29 327 58:5 276 62:11 196 1 Samuel 66:1 276 1:17 175 67:2 267 15:20 275 72:17 174 15:32–33 275 76:2 335 22:6 19, 31 76:3 8, 388 31:13 19 76:9 276 79:11 78–79 2 Samuel 78:35 378 6:17 346 78:68–69 378 87:5 379 1 Kings 91:5–6 267, 272 8:6 347 91:10 267, 272 8:12 345 91:11 267 17:1 365 97:8–9 379 18:15 365 101:14 276 110 380, 384 2 Kings 110:1 379–80 5:16 365 110:4 3, 377, 380 18:19–25 314 118:27 267 18:28–35 314 121:7 272 410 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

132:8 346 Jeremiah 132:8–10 347 1:5 288, 292 136:13 367 2:10 283 136:24 367 2:15 296 136:25 367 2:21 293 145:16 367 3:2 284 147:13–14 265 4:7 296 5:6 297 Proverbs 5:12 286 1:9 268 6:7 292 2:6 341, 349 7:31 146 3:13 342 7:32 146 4:9 268 8:22 285 6:23 267, 355 9:25 284 8 344, 347 14:14 295 8:2 344, 345 17:11 293, 299 8:8 349 20:17 291, 299 8:10 349 20:14–18 288 8:12 345, 349 22:6 284 8:22 389 22:7 295 8:35 342, 348 22:19 296 9:1–4 389 24:1ff. 297 9:5 389 31:20 296 13:25 133 31:36–37 299 23:6 132 32:35 146 49:7 176 Job 28 344, 347 Ezekiel 28:12 341 5:5 58 28:20 341 16:6 189 28:13–14 344 38:12 58, 352 28:21 345 22 344 Daniel 23 344 2:44 94 2:19 355 Isaiah 2:30 355 1:21 388 2:47 355 2:3 343 4 363 2:12 309 4:9 367 2:13 309 4:18 367 5:2 293 4:31 363 15:5 322 4:33 363 40:3 219 7:10 365 42:6 356 7:14 94 43:15 93 9:17 276 44:27 303 11:45 31 45:5 276 12:3 176 46:10 327 51:2 312 Hosea 52:7 122 6:4 296 57:14 219 11:8 296, 390 60:1–2 267 11:9 296 60:7 117 66:3 146 Joel 3:5 29 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 411

Micah 4QFlor 5:1 174 1.6 143 1.6–7 351 Nahum 4QMMT 1:1–10 314 Frag. 252, 257 1:2–3 312, 313, 315 11QBer 1:10–11 316 1–2 271 2:3–7 316 11QJub 5 270 Zechariah 8.4–5 270 1:8 304 11QMelch 3 308 l.17 122 3:2 306 16 381, 383, 3.3–5 304, 316 399 3:4 306 11QPsa 272 6:5 308, 315 11QTemp 6:12 308 Frag. 253 11:1 309 1 QapGen 11:1–2 308, 315 21.2 385 14:9 22 21.20 385 14:16–17 56 20.12 385 14:16–19 22 20.30–32 191 21.2 385 Malachi 21.20 385 1:6–4 357 22.6 212 2:11 310 22.13 9, 335, 2:11–15 311 385 2:13–17 305 22.14 385, 388 2:15 315 22.14–15 386 3:1 219 LXX Exodus Qumran 30:6 349 1QH 30:36 349 8.4–20 58 11.27 273 LXX Numbers 1QM 19:3 240 17.5–8 272–3 17.9 273 LXX Deuteronomy 1QS 12:9 346–47 2.2–4 271, 273, 278 2.3 272, 273 1 Reigns 2.5–9 274 22:6 19 8.1–11 58 31:13 19 11.7–9 58 1QSb 271 Peshitta 4Q252 11–12 Gen 14:14 212 4Q403 1.1.21 273 Tg. Onq. 4Q405 Genesis 13.5 273 3:5 181 4Q510 3:17 183 1.5–6 272 9:26 6 4Q511 10:21 5 48–51 272 12:5 31 4Q510–511 272 12:33 32–33 14:5 325 412 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

14:18 393 26:7 91 14:19 393 28:57 175 14:20 15 33:15 41 21:33 26 25:23 91 Tg. Neof. 25:28 95 Genesis 25:31 95 2:15 68, 362 27:13 136 2:19 395 27:20 139 3:5 181 27:29 145 3:15 98, 366 27:40 148 3:17 183 27:41 149 3:18 364 27:42 150 3:19 368 28:3 166 3:22 68, 178 28:17 348 4:2 104 34:31 158 4:7 99 35:2 157 9:26 6 35:8 163 9:27 6–7 35:11 165 10:21 5 37:25 284 11:1 395 48:4 166 11:31 227 49:26 122 12:5 31 Exodus 14:3 321 3:1 195 14:14 212 3:6 195 14:18 3, 394 12:5 236 14:19 15 15:2 44 14:20 15, 395 15:7 44 15:1 102 25:3 364 15:7 227 29:1 236 15:12 103 16:5 227, 232 Leviticus 17:6 166 1:3 236 21:9 112 1:10 236 21:33 30, 32–34, 4:3 236 375 4:23 236 22:1 395 4:28 236 22:8 139 4:32 236 22:10 74, 129 8:2 254 22:14 81 Numbers 24:62 3, 14 20:14 102 25:1 191 20:18 102 25:18 116 20:21 102 25:21 105 23:19 42 25:22 3, 15, 90, 394 23:21 43 25:23 91, 104 24:2 37 25:25 94 24:3 37 25:27 15, 95, 104, 24:7 48 147 24:9 51 25:28 95 24:15 37 25:29 95 24:18–19 102 25:31 105 25:33 95, 105 Deuteronomy 25:34 96, 104, 192 1:1 256 27:12 135 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 413

27:13 136 Numbers 27:15 137 12:14 103 27:20 139 12:16 102 27:28 143 15:20–21 364 27:29 91, 97, 144–45 20:21 103 27:33 147 23:7 37 27:40 97–99, 103–4, 366 23:9 40–41 27:41 100–101, 104 24:1 256 27:46 151 24:3 37, 39 28:3 166 24:4 37 28:14 42 24:7 48 28:17 348 24:9 50–51 31:47 395 24:15 37 32:3 101 24:24 102 32:7 100–101 Deuteronomy 33:1 100 1:1 256 33:8 100, 103 2:23 285 33:18 95 6:4 101, 104 34:31 158 32:14 366 35:2 157 32:30 366 35:8 163 33:2 104 35:9 164–65, 171 35:11 166 Isaiah 35:18 395 21:16–17 118 45:12 395 48:4 166 FTP 48:22 137–38 Genesis 49:1 39 2:15 68, 362 49:2 101, 104 3:17 183 49:9 51 3:18 364 49:15 347 3:19 368 49:17 150 10:9 14 49:21 202 11:2 224 49:26 41 15:12 103 50:1 101, 104 14:18 3 16:5 232 Exodus 21:9 112 3:1 195 21:33 30, 33–34, 375 3:4 395 22:8 139 3:6 195 22:10 74, 129 4:19 203 22:14 81 15:1 44 24:62 3, 13 15:3 44 25:1 191 15:7 44 25:22 15, 90 15:13 44 25:34 96, 192 15:18 44 27:15 137 19:3 196 27:27 141 30:13 364 27:29 97, 144–45 35:15 364 27:40 97, 148 Leviticus 27:41 100, 149 10:6 96 32:3 101 19:3 96 34:31 158 22:27 95 35:8 163 26:37 149 35:9 164–65 414 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

35:11 166 27:29 97, 144–45 48:4 166 27:40 97 48:22 137–38 32:3 101 49:15 347 34:31 158 49:17 150 35:8 163 49:21 202 35:9 164–65 49:26 41 35:11 166 50:1 101 48:4 166 Exodus 48:22 137–38 15:1 44 49:1 39 15:2 44 49:17 150 15:3 44 49:2 202 15:11 44 50:1 101 15:13 44 Exodus 17:12 41 15:1 44 19:3 196 15:2 44 Numbers 15:3 44 23:9 40–41 15:11 44 23:10 42 15:16 44 23:22 44 19:3 196 24:4 37 Numbers 24:8 44 20:21 102 24:18–19 102 23:9 40–41 Deuteronomy 23:10 42 26:7 91 23:22 44 33:15 41 24:3 39 34:3 324 24:4 37 24:6 295 Psalms 24:8 44 120:5 118 24:18–19 102

FTV Deuteronomy Genesis 26:7 91 2:15 362 34:3 324 3:17 183 Psalms 3:18 364 120:5 118 10:9 14 Isaiah 11:2 224 21:16–17 118 12:5 31 14:18 3 Tg. Ps-J. 15:12 103 Genesis 16:5 232 1:21 177–78 21:33 30, 33–34, 2:7 221 375 2:15 68, 362 22:8 140 2:15 362 22:10 74, 129 3:5 181 22:14 81 3:6 180 24:62 3, 14 3:7 199 25:1 191 3:14 362 25:22 15, 90 3:17 183 25:34 96, 192 3:18 364 27:15 137 3:19 368 27:27 141 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 415

3.21 199 18:15 136 3:22 178 19:14 136 3:23 184 19:22–23 324 4:1 181–82 19:30 324 4:2 185 21 111 4:3 199 21:9 112, 114, 135 6:16 64 21:9–21 110–11, 172 6.20 200 21:10 112, 114 8:20 59, 369 21:11 113–14 8:22 56 21:13 118 9:26 6 21:14 111, 113 9:27 7 21:15 112, 114 10:8 223 21:16 114 10:9 224 21:21 109–110, 124, 204 10:11 225, 226, 230 21:33 26, 28–29, 33–34, 10:21 5 375 11:7 185–86 22:1 123–24, 216 11:8 187 22:3 216, 240 11:28 114, 227 22:10 74, 129 11.31 227 22:19 14, 333 12:3 260 24:2 183, 215, 217 12:5 31 24:31 218 13:10 324 24:33 219 14:1 229 24:55 220 14:2 324 24.61 222 14.3 321, 383 24:62 3, 14, 333 14:5 325 25:1 120, 190–91 14:8 324 25:4 116 14:9 229 25:8 111, 114 14:13 218, 383, 396 25:11 145 14:14 211 25:13 118, 284 14:15 397 25:16 116, 121 14:18 3, 332 25:18 116–117 14:19 6, 15 25:22 15, 90 14:20 15 25:23 91 15:2 215 25:27 139, 231 15:7 227 25:29 95–96, 192 15:12 103–4 25:31 95 16 114 27 111, 128, 130, 151–53 16:1 190 27:1 56, 128–9, 131, 136 16:2–3 111 27:5 132, 149, 151 16:5 111, 114, 227, 231 27:6 132 16:11 190 27:9 133, 151 16:12 119 27:11 130, 134, 151 17:3 187–88 27:12 135, 187 17:6 166 27:13 136, 151, 153 17:16 166 27:15 137–38, 151, 154 17:18 122 27:16 56 17:20 121–22 27:20 139, 151 17:25 122 27:25 139–40, 147, 151 17:26 122, 187 27:27 141, 151 18:13 136 27:28 143 18:24 324 27:29 97, 120, 144–45, 148, 18:28–30 324 153–54 416 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

27:31 146–47, 151, 153 Exodus 27:33 146, 151, 153 2:1 197 27:35 147, 151 2:13 204 27:40 147–48, 153 3:1 195 27:41 100, 148–49, 154 3:5 195 27:42 132, 149, 151, 153 3:6 195 27:45 140, 150, 151 4:19 203 27:46 151 5:9 263 28:11 379 9:29 260 28:17 348 9:33 260 28:20 157 10:23 263 29:24 193 10:29 203 29:29 193 12:3 239 30:18 263 12:5 236 31:4 202 12:13 189 31:19 206 14:24 131 31:32 206 15:1 44 33:5 265 15:2 44 33:11 265 15:3 44 34:31 158 15:11 44 35 156, 168 15:16 44 35:1–15 156, 171 15:18 44 35:2 156–57, 162 19:3 196 35:3 157 19:7 195 35:4 157, 162 19:16 204 35:5 161–2 22:7 263 35:7 156 22:10 263 35:8 163 24:5 334 35:9 163–64, 171 24:12 196, 208 35:11 163, 165, 167 26:8 27–28 35:14 163, 168 28:30 63–64, 265 35:22 145 29:1 236 35:28 142 32:8 28 36:43 118 32:6 135 37:2 193 32:18 135 37:25 284 33:16 167 37:28 198 33:19 265 38:6 9, 333 35:27 63 38:23 136 39:37 176 38:24 9 40:4 175–77 39:14 135 40:5 142, 263, 39:17 135 351 41:14–33 265 Leviticus 41:45 265 1:3 236 46:27 197 1:10 236 49:1 39 3:1 236 49:2 145 3:6 236 49:10 174–75 4:3 236 49:15 148, 347, 366 4:23 236 49:17 150 4:28 236 49:21 202 4:32 236 49:26 41, 120–22 8:2 254 50:1 101, 111 9:2 255 50.13 202 9:3 255 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 417

9:7 255 15:4 263 14:8 197 15:7 263 14:32 236 18:14 167 14:57 236 19:11 150 14:54 236 22:26 150 15:32 236 24:3 27 16:4 255 25:10 27 22:27 140, 142–43 26:7 91 24:10–11 198 27:14 27 26:37 149 28:50 265 Numbers 29:5 263 2:10 255–56 29:28 265 6:13 236 30:20 263 6:21 236 32:4 263 6:23 260–61 32:8 186 6:24 267, 272, 274 32:8–9 185 6:24–26 259 32:19–25 274 6:25 264, 267–68 32:24 263, 274–5 6:26 265 32:31 260 7:87 121 33:2 121 7:88 262 33:15 41 11:22 117 34:3 324 16:25–26 204 34:6 164, 184 19:2 235–7, 239, 250, 253 Tg. 2 Kings 19:4 241–42 19:23 295 19:5 243 19:6 244, 249 Tg. Isaiah 19:7 245 21:16–17 118 19:8 246, 263 33:6 286 19:9 242, 246, 253, 254 33:21 286 19:10 247–48 34:14 263 19:18 254 37:24 295 19:19 254 19:20 254 Tg. Jeremiah 20:21 102 2:11 286 21:14 149–50 2:13 286 22:5 207 2:15 296, 311 22:8 264 3:2 283 23:7 37 4:7 296 23:9 41 5:12 286, 298 23:24 46 9:25 284 24:2 37 13:22 295 24:3 37, 39, 188 14:14 295 24:6 295 17:11 294, 298 24:15 37 20:17 288, 298 24:18–19 102, 118 20:18 290 28:15 198 22:6 284, 298 31:8 207 22:7 295 27:5 296 Deuteronomy 31:6 286n.28, n.31 1:1 256 31:20 296, 298 4:10 263 31:35–6 301 4:44 236 33:25 299, 301 418 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

47:4 285 Matthew 48:26–27 313 4:8–11 87 12:24–29 87 Tg. Minor Prophets 18:6 288 Hosea 26:24 288 8:3 286 26:28 74 Joel 26:61 359 2:21 286 27:42 86 Zephaniah Mark 3:7 286 3:22–27 87 Micah 8:31–33 87 5:1 174 14:58 359 6:3 286 7:20 286 Luke 10:17–20 87 Nahum 19:41–42 86 1:2 312–13 22:3 87 1:2–3 315 1:3 313 John 1:10 314 2:20 359 1:11 314 6:53–56 74 2:3–7 315 8:31–45 182 Malachi 8:56 86 1:1 310 13:27 87 2:15 312 19:34 74 Zechariah Acts 3:3 304, 306 20:28 74 3:4 304 3:5 305 Romans 6:5 315 3:25 74 9:12 286 4:3 29 4:10–12 187 Tg. Psalms 4:11 29 95:11 347 5:9 74 120:5 118 10:13 29 121:6 264 10:9–15 28

Tg. Job 1 Corinthians 5:7 264 1:24 359 1:30 359 Tg. Song 10:14–22 74 3:7 262 11:25 74 4:6 264 8:3 264 Galatians 3:6 29 Tg. Esther 3:7 178 Ephesians 1:7 74 Tg. 1 Chronicles 1:30 116 Colossians 2:3 359 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 419

Hebrews 1 Peter 7:1 4 1:19 74 7:1–3 3 7:2 9 1 John 7:3 380 1:7 74 7:4 15 3:8–12 182 9:12 74 9:14 74 Revelation 10:19 74 1:5 74 10:29 74 5:9 74 13:12 74 13:20 74

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Apocalypse of Baruch Jubilees 29.4 177 3:21 371 3:22 371 Apocalypse of Moses 3:23 371 20.1–2 65 3:25 183, 371 26.2–3 362 3:26–27 58, 67, 269, 371 29.1–6 67 3:27 184 29.3–6 59 3:28–31 372 3:30 372 Baruch 4:25–26 10 3:22 176 4:33 5, 14 3:36–38 396 6:1–3 10 8:12 353 2 Baruch 8:12–21 333 4:3 56–57 8:18 10 8:19 10, 12, 353 1 Enoch 8:21 353 18:6 354 7:11 6 26:1–4 353 7:16 10 38:2 288 7:20 11 39:7 176 7:34 11 60 56 7:37 11 60:20 131 8:15–21 5 60:24 178 8:19 58 89:12 89 10:14 5, 10 89:73 357 10:18–26 226 106:5 183 10:23 186 11:7–13 270 2 Enoch 11:8 228 6:1 131 11:15 14 31:1 362 11:16 89 12 271 2 Esdras 12:1–6 269 4:30 182 12:6–7 271 12:12–13 228 4 Esdras 12:12–14 228 6:8–10 92–93 12:12–15 269 420 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

12:16 269 35:11 13 12:17–13:4 32 45:16 10 12:25–26 269 12:25–27 372 1 Maccabees 12:27 89, 269 1:11–15 373 12:29 269–70 1:20 357 13:8–9 269 2:23 271 13:24–27 399 12:2 355 13:25 212, 399 12:6–8 355 13:25–27 15 14:16–23 355 14:10–20 269 15:20 121 2 Maccabees 15:25–32 398 4:11–17 373 16:10–11 20 5:9 355 16:10–17:14 20 6:1–9 271 16:12–14 20 6:7 23 16:12–14 20 16:15–31 20 3 Maccabees 16:18 20 4:1 355 16:19–31 269 2:4 396 16:20–31 21, 33 16:20–23 21 4 Maccabees 16:25 22 13:22 130 16:25–26 21 18:9 182 16:26 22 16:31 21 Psalms of Solomon 17:1–14 21 11:7 286 17:15–18:3 21 17:44 286 17:16 87 18:6 286 19:13–14 89 19:27 11 Sibylline Oracles 20:12–13 119–20 5.250 353 21:7–10 10 21:12 217 Sirach 22:5 74 14:7 355 23:1–7 192 16:7 396 24:8–33 23 16:25 355 26:7–8 135 18:19 355 26:35 150 19:25 355 27:1 149 22:19 355 27:6 151 24:2 343 28:9 193 24:3 352 30:1–17 196 24:4 343–44 30:18–20 169 24:4–6 346 31–32 168 24:5–6 343 31:2 157 24:6 351 31:5–20 169 24:7 343, 346 31:5–30 169 24:7–8 346 31:29 157 24:8–27 58 32:1–17 13 24:8 343, 351 32:3–39 168 24:9 355 32:18–19 166 24:10 343, 347, 351 35:8–10 99 24:11 343, 346, 351 35:8–38:10 89 24:12 343, 347 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 421

24:13 351 Naphtali 24:14 351 1:9 193 24:20 346 1:11 193 24:23 343, 346 3:2–4 202 24:25–27 351 5:1–8 202 24:27 355 Gad 24:32 355 1:6 195 24:33 355 2:3 198 27:6 355 34:10 354 Wisdom of Solomon 36:1–17 275 7:1 55 36:2–4 276 7:18–19 176 36:5–9 276 10:1 55 36:11 276 14:6 396 36:12–15 276 16:26–28 374 36:18 347 18:24 12 36:22–23 275 38:33 355 Philo 39:4 354 Cong. 39:8 355 93 15 39:13–14 143, 351 98 334 42:16 355 99 15 43:9 355 129 89 44:19–23 78 45:10 349 De Abr. 45:17 355 56 167 49:16 11, 68 67 32 50:7 355 230–33 214 50:8 352 50:10 352 De Agr. 50:12 352 79 45 50:14 379 81 45 50:16–17 379 50:20–21 276 De Conf. Ling. 50:23–24 276 168–75 186 50:25–26 352 50:26 169, 356 De Dec. 49 41 Tobit 1:6–7 379 De Ebr. 1:16–18 165 104–121 47 4:12 165 4:16–17 165 De Fuga et Inv. 12:13 165 24 149 14:5 357 De Gig. Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 7–8 41 Levi 66 223 7:1–4 169 De Mig. Abr. Zabulon 39 38 3:2 198 153 135 422 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

De Op. Mundi 4.200 133 132 40 4.214 142 144 41 Quis Rerum De Plant. 86ff. 41 12 41 42 347 73–89 23–24 221 176 75 19 Spec. Leg. De Sacr. 1.172 25 3–4 99 3.36 40 4 89 4.14 41 14–18 99 4.69 70 63–64 130 64 99 Vit. Con. 118–120 334 10–13 46 135 99 84–88 47 89 47 De Sobr. 90 47 13 47 51–55 11 Vit. Mos. 51–67 11 1.65 69 56–58 11 1.68 69 62 12 1.239–49 89 63 12 1.264–65 36 65 12 1.277 36 65–66 167, 333 1.278 40 66 13 1.278–79 36, 46 67–68 13 1.279 36, 40 1.282 45 De Virt. 1.283 36, 42 80 41 1.283–84 36, 45 1.284 36, 43–45, 50 Jos 1.287 46 265 1.288 36, 51 1.289 36, 38 Leg. All. 1.289–91 36 1.3 36 1.290 43–44, 48 3.79 9, 11 1.290–91 50 3.88 92, 94 1.291 50 2.59–65 62 Leg. ad Gaium 2.102–3 176 54 40 2.104 25 2.124–25 25 Quaest. in Exod. 2.133–35 12 1.79 176 2.103 176 Josephus Ant. Quaest. in Gen. 1.50 362 2.5 36 1.113–14 223, 225 2.75–76 11 1.177 330 2.82 225 1.180 385 4.147 191 1.183 216 4.157 94 1.248 220 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 423

1.327 101 6 228–29 1.333 331 6.4–18 227 1.345 163 6.16 67 1.154–57 32 6.17 228–29 1.166–68 26 7.4 26 1.180 8, 9, 11 11 55 1.181 15 11.1 65 1.207–212 25 11.15 67 1.213–14 26 12.1 65 1.220 116–17 13 55 1.270 135 13.1 55, 67 2.91 265 13.2–3 55 3.62 195 13.4–7 55 3.123 176 13.7 56 3.215–18 64 13.8 56 4.76–77 102 13.8–9 57, 63 4.79 238 13.10 57 13.421 230 15 55 13.173 287 16.2 62 14 231 18.5–6 82 14.53 230 19.6 65 14.112–13 230 19.10 61 16.18 230 19.11 61 18.28 330 19.16 65 22.8–9 70 Apion 25.5 70 1.29–36 11 25.8 159 25.10 159 War 25.11 62, 64 1.138 230 25.12 62 2.164 287 26.2–4 63 3.52 353 26.4 63 3.509ff. 330 26.6 62–63 5.217 176 26.13 64 6.10 335 26.14–15 64 6.437 8 28.3 69 6.438 9, 11 28.8–9 65 32.1 67 Pseudo-Philo 32.1–4 83 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 32.3 85 1.1 185 32.7 66 1.1–2 55 32.8 66 3.2 56 32.15 66–67 3.3 60 33.3 65 3.4 60 37.3 69 3.8 60 40.2 83 3.10 60 46.1 70 4.5 61 47.2 70 4.7 224 53.8 65 424 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

Rabbinic Texts

Mishnah Par. 2.4 238 Ab. 2.8 134 Par. 3.7–8 252 Ab. 2.9 135 Par. 3.9 242 Ab. 5.9 264 Par. 3.10 241 Hag. 13a 224, 229 Par. 3.14 247 Hag. 2.1 288, 390 Par. 4.6 239–241 Meg. 1.8 8 Par. 4.11 246 Meg. 4.10 259 Par. 7.6 253 Meg. 11a 224 Par. 7.20 244 Men. 5.5 81 Par. 9.5 247 Nid. 20.6 261 Pes. 5.3 133 Ned. 3.11 380, 384 Qid. 1.2 284 Neg. 3.11 187 Yom. 2.12 349 Neg. 14.8 197 Par. 1.1 237 Jerusalem Talmud Par. 2.1 236, 238 A.Z. 2.40 288 Par. 2.3 238 A.Z. 7.5.4 158–59 Par. 2.4 238 Ab. Z. 1.2 149 Par. 2.5 237n.9 Ber. 1:5.3 288 Par. 3.3 247 Ber. 2:5 253 Par. 3.7 240 Hor. 3:2 349 Par. 3.7–8 252 Hor. 3:3 349 Par. 3.8 240 Hor. 47c 349 Par. 3.9 241–42 Hor. 12a 349 Par. 3.10 243 Ker. 5b 349 Par. 3.11 247 Mak. 2:7 349 Par. 4.1 239, 241, 253 Mak. 32a 349 Par. 4.3 240 Meg. 1.11 9, 137–38 Par. 4.4 244, 246, 248, 253 Meg. 1.12 347 Par. 7.9 253 Meg. 1.9.10 8 Par. 10.3 247 Meg. 75c.39 259 Pes. 6.3 133 Naz. 7.2 185 Pes. 94b 224 Ned. 1.1 157 Sanh. 4.5 178 Ned. 39b 174 Sanh. 5 286 Qid. 4.1.16 284 Sheq. 4.2 236 Shab. 1.5.3 288 Sot. 7.6 260 Shab. 2.5 65 Sot. 7.7–8 257 Shab. 6.4.22 306 Sukk. 4.9–10 56 Shab. 13.4.14 288 Sukk. 4.9 168 Sheq. 6.1.49c 349 Tam. 2.3 217, 240 Sot. 8.3.22c 349 Tam. 2.5 240 Ta’an. 2.1.65a 349 Tam. 7.2 260 Ta’an. 2.5.4 81 Tam. 7.3 257 Ta’an. 3.3.13 284 Yom. 3.9 257 Yoma. 6.3.30 309 Yom. 4.1 257 Yoma. 7.3 64 Yom. 7.1 257 Yom. 7.8 241 Babylonian Talmud Zab. 14:4 334 A.Z. 2b 92–93 A.Z. 3a 227 Tosefta A.Z. 5a 203 Par. 1.1 236–7 A.Z. 8a 59 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 425

A.Z. 53b 225 Sanh. 32a 135 B.B. 16b 192, 219 Sanh. 38a 362 B.B. 63a 95 Sanh. 38b 185 B.B. 74b–75a 178 Sanh. 46b 184 B.B. 78b 303 Sanh. 89a 87 B.B. 119b–20a 197 Sanh. 93a 303, 304, 306, 307 B.B. 130a 183 Sanh. 95a 222, 222 B. Met. 59a 288 Sanh. 95ab 193 B.Q. 17a 347 Sanh. 105a 37, 207 Bek. 4b 334 Sanh. 108b 64, 389 Bek. 55a 330 Sanh. 109b 202 Ber. 6a 264 Shab. 10b 323 Ber. 20b 266 Shab. 28b 59 Ber. 43b 288, 351 Shab. 87a 196 Ber. 61a 221 Shab. 88a 204 Er. 13b 288 Shab. 146a 182 Er. 18b 263 Shev. 9a 198 Er. 53a 224, 229 Sot. 10a 30–31 Hul. 29b 246 Sot. 10ab 375 Hul. 60b 198 Sot. 10b 288 Hul. 89b 225 Sot. 12a 184 Hul. 91b 183, 222 Sot. 14a 184 Hul. 92a 93 Sot. 13a 202 Hul. 105b 264 Sot. 33b 261 Hul. 141a 197 Sot. 46a 238 Ket. 67b 288 Ta’an. 4b 56, 131 Meg. 3a 261 Tam. 29b 217 Meg. 9b 7–8 Yeb. 103b 182 Meg. 10a 347 Yom. 9b 8 Meg. 15a 310 Yom. 21b 349 Meg. 25b 259 Yom. 28b 217, 219, 219 Men. 26b–27a 242 Yom. 39b 309 Men. 110a 143, 351, 362 Yom. 42a 240, 253 Mo’ed. Qat. 7b 197 Yom. 42b 239–41, 243 Mo’ed. Qat. 15b 197 Yom. 43a 246 Ned. 31a 284 Yom. 52b 349 Ned. 32a 213, 217 Yom. 72b 255 Ned. 32ab 380 Yom. 73b 64 Ned. 32b 9–10, 332, 387, Yom. 75a 63 397 Zeb. 113b 383 Ned. 39b 58, 393 Zeb. 115b 334 Ned. 64b 204 Zeb. 119a 347 Nid. 31a 37 Nid. 61a 383 Aggadath Bereshith Nid. 80b 266 42 137–38, 144 Pes. 54a 174, 393 Pes. 54ab 264 Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Pes. 114b 133 Pisha Pes. 118a 227, 370 5.8–10 189 Qid. 29b 264 7.70–82 75 Ros. Hash. 16a 81 11.85–96 75, 77 Ros. Hash. 17b 266 11.92 76 Ros. Hash. 26a 255 19.89 292 Sab. 33 95 426 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

Besh. 28 285 7.72–78 179 32 17, 31 Shirta 41 185, 362 8.34–41 196 66 347 9.118–26 392 110c 288 255 264 Amalek 309 393 1.116–18 41 352 141 2.44 309 357 285 2.85–87 284 3.106ff. 187 Midrash Rabbah Bahodesh Genesis Rabbah 2.6–7 196 1.4 174 3.33–34 204 7.4 177–78 3.123–30 196 11.9 177 7.61 196 12.6 65 11.80–92 378 14.2–3 221 14.4 221 Sifra 14.5 221 Mekh. de Milluʾim 14.8–9 185 Exod 32.35 254 14.9 362 Lev 8.2 254 16.5–6 185, 362 19.5 181 Shemini 20.12 138, 199 Lev 9.2 255 20.22 367 Lev 9.7 255 20.24 370 Qedoshim 20:26 368 3.7 217 21.3 179 22.2–3 185 Mesʿora 22.4 199 1.12 244 23.7 223 26.3 389 Sifre Numbers 30.6 389 39 260, 261, 266 34.9 59, 396 40 266, 270 36.8 8 41 267, 268, 270 37.4 225–26 42 196, 266, 268, 270 37.9 5 52 347 38.13 227–29 102 196 39.21 31 123 236–242 42/43.2 212–13 124 243–248 42.4 229 123–124 253 42.5 321 134 309 42.6 326 42.7 327, 328 Sifre Zutta 42.7–8 396 Num 19.2 237, 253 42.8 329 Num 19.4 241–42 43.7 392, 394 Num 19.5 253 43.7–11 387 Num. 19.6 244 42.7 383 Num 19.9 246, 247, 253 43.6 8, 332 43.7 384–386, 390 Sifre Deuteronomy 43.8 15, 390 5 288 43.9 390 6 285 43.10 391 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 427

44:9 215–16 98.12 347 45.1 190, 231 99.10 347 46.4 187 99.22 297 46.5 284 Exodus Rabbah 47.8 187, 386, 390 1.1 112 47.10 391 1.29 204 47.11 391 1.9 69 49.6 202, 232 1.19 197 49.21 202 1.28 197 50.21 266 2.7 69 51.4 197 5.4 203 53.10 211 28.2 196 53.11 112 28.3 334 54.6 375 29.9 297 54.7 31–32 30.5 286 56.3 74 33.8 63 56.7 80, 84, 86 40.1 288 56.9 80–81, 84, 86–87 56.10 81 Leviticus Rabbah 59.8 218–19 9.9 268, 270 59.9 218 13.5 297 59.10 183, 222 18.2 137 60.2 218 19.2 286 60.7 219 16.3 255 60.12 220, 221 18.2 269 61.4 120, 191 22.8 149 63.7 92 22.10 178 63.11 96 25.6 332 63.12 192 26.2 216 63.13 231 26.6 284 63.14 96 26.7 216 65.15 135, 137 27.11 100 65.22 141, 147 28.4 213 65.16 139, 231 29.7 81 66.4 144, 147 34.2 198 67.2 146–47 35.5 288 67.7 99 Numbers Rabbah 67.8 149 1.25 211 67.9 132 4.6 74 68.7 93 4.8 9, 137–38, 269, 322, 68.8 379 334 69.7 379 8.4 284 70.4 157 9.7 286 74.13 193 11.7 196 75.9 100, 104 13.20 197 79.4 222 11.10 260, 261, 266 81–85 164 11.10–11 261 81.1 157 11.11 260 81.4 159 11.13 266–268, 270 81.8 163 11.14 268, 270 82.4 166 11.14–15 266 84.7 194 13.13 255 90.4 265 14.4 69 97.6 138 14.12 189 428 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

14.18 262 Midr. Ha-Gadol 15.7 176 Gen 21:33 31 17.2 81 1.187 332 19.1 246 19.6 327 Pesiq. de R. Kah. 19.32 383 1.2 69 22.5 207 3.1 163 Deuteronomy Rabbah 8.2 213 1.35 396 13.1 297 14 206 Song Rabbah 23 81 1.1.12 28 26.3 80 1.9.2 179 27 81 5.1 286 27.9 303 7.14.1 298 29 93 8.9 349 116b 206 Ecclesiastes Rabbah 129 286 9.7.1 81, 216 Pesiq. Rab. Lamentations Rabbah 3.4 166 Proem 1 297 7.2 180 4.19 306 12.4 163 33 166 23/24.2 138 Esther Rabbah 26.1/2 290 Proem 5 297 28.4 286 9.2 303 33 229 34.13 286 Aboth de R. Nathan 40 74, 80–81, 87 1 181 47 81 2 332 50.6 378 7 31 51.2 303 7 375 8 219 Pirqe de R. Eli. 20 204 3.2 174 37 174 7.2 175 41 349 8.2 74, 332 42.117 362 9.3 177 10.3 178 Aggadat Bereshith 11.1 177–78 42 9 11.3 225 66 80 12.1 362 68 219 12.2 178–80 71 80 12.4 65 13.1 180 Mekh. R. Simeon b. Yohai 13.3 180–81 4–5 75, 78 14.2 199 Bes. 17.14 285 14.6 183 16.3 183, 213, 218, 222 Midr. Abkir 17.1 184 Gen 3.21 138 19.3 196 20.1 184 Midr. Aggadah 21.1 182–83, 185, 199 1.23 332 23.1 64, 200 112 347 23.2 383 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 429

24.2 137–38, 269 Hayye Sarah 24.4 185 9 191 24.5 138–39, 151, 231 Toledoth 26.2 190 8 129 27.1 218 9 137–38 27.2 213, 216, 330 10 132 29 284 11 147 29.1 187 12 138 29.4 189 16 144 30 111 22 141 30.1 111, 113–14 67 137–38 30.2 112 30.3 204 Wayetze 30.4 120, 191 11 347 31.2 74, 191, 216 Shemot 31.3 59, 72, 74 14 69 32 56, 132 32.4 129, 130–34, 136, Tzav 143–44, 151 13 203 35.1 192 Shallah 35.2 379 14 81 36.3 193 36.4 206 Ahare 38.4 193–94, 198 3 75 39.1 198 Bemidbar 39.3 202 6 203, 229 40 69 40.2 195, 203 Naso’ 41.1 195 2 286 41.6 196 Huqqat 46.1 197, 203 11 327 48.4 204 26–27 247 48.5 198 Tetze Sefer Ha-Yashar 17 294 31.41 206 Ha’azinu 82.6 204 12 375

Tanhuma Shir Ha-Shirim Zutta Bereshith 3.8 137 18 65 Noah Shir. R. 14 31 4.11 147 Lekh Lekah Wayyislah 8 321, 327 8 157 12 31, 33 15 332 Yalqut Shim’oni Wayera 1.59 80 3 222 Gen 27 199 12–13 206 Gen 34 180 22 86–87 Gen 35 182, 199 23 75, 79, 81 Gen 130 206 46 81 Gen 162 203 430 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

Exod 284 196 De Bono Poenitentiae Jer 17.11 294 10 74 Proverbs 1047 220 Ep. Rashi 63.4 3 Gen. 34:2 158 Augustine Church Fathers and Classical Authors Contra Mendacium Ambrose 10.4 137 De Abr. 1.3:20 74 De Civ. 1.8:71 74 16.5 186 1.8:72 74 1.8:75 74 Enarratio in Ps. 1.8:77–78 81 51.5 74

De Sacr. Epistle 4.10 3 245.2 162 5.1 3 Quaestionum S. Augustini in De Spir. Heptateuchem 2.51 360 1.111 162

In Psalmum XXXIX Enarratio Cyprian 12 81 De Bono Poenitentiae 10 74 Aphrahat Dem. Diogenes Laertius 5.22 118 8.8 355

Aristotle Ephraim Syrus Hist. Anim. Camina Nisibena 9.8 295 72.3 74

Athanasius Adv. Marcionem Ad Afros 3.8 84 2 213 Hymns on the Church Festal Epistle 11.3 85 6:8–9 84 Hymns on Virginity 1 Clement 8.16 74 31.2–32.2 169 46.8 288 Epiphanius Adv. Haer. Clement of Alexandria 2.1.6 333 Clementine Recognitions 2.1.55 333 2.42 186 2.6.35 15

Stromateis Panarion Haer. 1.5 335 9.2.4 160 4.25 3 6.11 213 Epistle of Barnabas 6.17 186 4:7–8 257 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references 431

8:9 213 3.22 295 9:8 214 3.75 294–95 13 93 4 282 14:1–6 257 4.28 291–92 4.36 285, 295 Eusebius 4.39 296 PE 9.17 356 4.47 296 9.22 169 5.2 297–98 6.21 296 Gregory Nazianzus 6.27–28 299 Oratario xlv In Sanctum Pascha 12 81 Comm. in Hiezchielem 5.16.55 320 Herodotus 7.25.8–11 320 Hist. 8.27.19 330 2.14 19 8.27.19 330

Irenaeus Comm. in Osee Adv. Haer. 2.10.2 320 1.30.9 182 3.5.3 6 Ep. 66.7 74 Dem. 73 189, 333–34 21 6 73.2 15 108.11 324 Jerome 122.1 324 Adversus Ioann. Hier. 7 283 In Sophoniam 2:8–11 324 Comm. in Aggaeum 2.16–18 320 Prefaces to Tobit and Judith col. 25 282 Comm. in Danielem 2.4.4 320 Quaest. Heb. in Gen. 3:18 335–36 Comm. Ep. Galatians 3:24 184 2.469 123 9:27 8 11:28 336 Comm. in Jesaiam 12:4 336 5.14.12–13 320 14:2–3 336 5.14.18–20 320 14:18 15 5.15.5 322 14:18–19 336, 383 6.15.3–9 323–24 15:16 322 17.60.6–7 325 16:12 119 21.11–12 105 19:30 324, 336 60.7 117–18 21:9 115 22:20 336 Comm. in Hieremiam 24:49 336 1.50 118–19 25:1 120 1.95 297 25:1–6 191 1.98 287 25:18 117 2.3 292 27:15 335–36 2.72 296 31:21 327 2.84 284 32:28–29 331 432 index of scriptural, rabbinic, and patristic references

37:36 336 3.4.2 291 41:43 336 3.3.10 291 41:45 336 46:26–27 327 Homily 17.1 295 John Chrysostom 17.2 295 Adv. Jud. 5.17 296 1.7 258 Frag. 3 297 4–5 258 Frag. 22 298

De Laz. Conc. In Genesim Homilia 5.5 74 8.6 74

Homily Plato 59.4 162 Apology 5 355 Justin Martyr Laws Apology 355 1.65 189 Republic Dial. Trypho 11 355 11.5 189 19.2–4 189 Plutarch 19.4 3 Life of Romulus 28.2–5 189 16 45 116 307 116.3 258 Procopius of Gaza 135 93 Comm. in Gen. 139.2–3 6 35.2 160

Melito of Sardis Tertullian Frag. 9 74 Adv. Jud. Frag. 10 81 1 93, 257 2 3, 189 Origen Comm. in Joh. Theodoret of Cyrus 3 3 Quest. in Gen. 77 91 De Princ. 1.7.14 291 Theodotus 3.3.5 291 Frag. 7 169