Redating the Palestinian Targumim

Note: This article is provided here to make the information within publicly available. 

Redating the Palestinian Targumim

Abstract

Against the prevailing view that the Palestinian Targumim are to be dated in the third century CE this article proposes that they should be redated as early first century writings. Following a consideration of the manuscripts (the four Qumran Targumim, Targum Neofiti, Fragment Targums and Cairo Genizah Fragments) the arguments concerning their linguistic and editorial aspects as well as their special content are re-analysed in light of the available evidence. These arguments which have contributed to the traditional date reveal themselves instead as all pointing to a necessary redating of the texts and the traditions contained therein to the first half of the first century. This date presents scholars with a collection of theological writings from inter-testamentary times with which new aspects of the New Testament and other texts may be found.

   

Key Words

Redating the Palestinian Targum, Qumran Targumim, Targum Neofiti, Targumim and the New Testament.

Introduction

The Palestinian Targumim are traditionally dated between the second and the fourth century, but the purpose of this article is to examine and re-evaluate the existing evidence behind this dating and to consider a new dating more in line with the existing evidence.[1] The current date was established in the late 18th century and is yet the most widely accepted, even though it was reached without the knowledge gained by the many new Targum manuscripts and fragments discovered since then. These new texts, which include Targum Neofiti and Targumim from the Qumran caves, have among other things shown the great variety of Targumim and provided intriguing evidence of their internal relationship. This new understanding in combination with the increased knowledge of the diverse Aramaic dialects of that time makes it necessary to re-assess the existing date and provides firmer evidence to suggest a more defensible date for the Palestinian Targumim.

                      A review of the relevant and still debated arguments behind the dating together with this new evidence will have a marked influence on when the Palestinian Targumim and the traditions contained in these writings should be dated and I conclude that the most defensible dating is the first half of the first century. Provided this dating is acknowledged, these writings will be of vital interest both in interpretation of first century Jewish theology as well as it will provide unique and valuable new ways of interpreting and understanding the earliest Christian literature, and for those reasons this discussion should have the attention of any exegete.

The manuscripts

The purpose of the unique literary genre that constitute the Targumim was to provide the first century Jew with both an Aramaic translation of Scripture as well as an interpretation of the meaning contained within them. The earliest known Targumim are four discoveries from the Qumran caves 4, 6 and 11, which are Targumim to Genesis, Leviticus and Job.[2] These, together with Palestinian and Babylonian subgroups, constitute their own unique literary genre, characterised by the addition of new lengthy midrashim, halakha and haggada as well as new dialogue, monologue and prayers. In addition the translation has tried to solve any linguistic problems while the textual contradictions and perceived disrespectful mentions regarding Jahve and the patriarchs have been either changed or in some cases even removed. All these new additions and changes to the text provide interesting and unique insights into the theology of the redactors of the manuscripts. 

The main focus for this article is Targum Neofiti 1, the primary manuscript among the Palestinian Targumim. Rediscovered as recently as 1949 (after having been mislabelled and forgotten in the Vatican library) its publication was not completed until 1979, whereas the different editions of the manuscripts of Fragment Targums and Cairo Genizah Fragments were provisionally completed in 1986. These are all crucial manuscript editions that have been published long after the current dating of the Targumim genre was established, and although they have been included in the debate about the date, they, together with the Qumran discoveries, necessitate a completely new re-assessment of all the arguments.

For the purpose of this re-assessment I will begin by examining all the relevant linguistic arguments and hereafter the evidence concerning editorial arguments and the content of the writing on the basis of the new and vital knowledge that the new manuscripts have provided.[3]

Linguistic arguments

The primary linguistic argument for the traditional dating is that the Palestinian Targumim were written in a dialect that must be younger than the closely related Aramaic dialect of the Galilee region called Galilean Aramaic (GA). This is the dialect of both the Midrashim and the Palestinian Talmud. The argument in favour of including the Palestinian Targumim in this dialect was made by Jonas C. Greenfield (1978), whose studies have since formed the basis of most later linguistic dating efforts. The details of GA has since then been thoroughly examined by Stephen A. Kaufman (1996), who concludes that the Palestinian Targumim constitute their own dialect, Jewish Targumic Aramaic (JTA), which is distinct from GA in its geographical source as well being the elder of the two dialects. From this conclusion the most important linguistic argument for the current late dating of the Palestinian Targumim no longer seems valid.

                      The question still remains whether JTA could be contemporary with for instance the Qumran-writings, which is one of the dividing questions. Kaufman argues (1996) that they cannot have been contemporary, because religious texts are most often not written in the spoken dialects of their time. As evidence he adduces that similar cases of religious texts are almost always written in the, older, official dialect, while the spoken dialects are primarily used for letters, notes etc. But I speculate that Kaufman here forgets that the purpose of the targumim was to emulate the most familiar and widely used everyday language of the time. As for dating the JTA, Kaufman (1996) places it from his linguistic analysis as contemporary with the latter part of the Qumran writings, arriving at a date between 30-68 CE for the Palestinian Targumim.

                       Martin McNamara (1972) and Matthew Black (1967) have both argued that the JTA dialect must be dated earlier than this and have suggested the first three decades of the first century. Their conclusion is based, among other things, on the premise that the version of Aramaic used in the Qumran Scrolls is a literary dialect that does not indicate what character the commonly used dialect had; more likely it was an official archaic dialect. The same discrepancy can be found among the Hebrew text from Qumran, which are written in two versions; one imitating the language of the Hebrew Scripture, and a literary “mishna-hebrew” dialect. The latter was not the primarily spoken dialect, which is more adequately represented by manuscripts such as 4QMMT Some Precepts of the Law and 3Q15 Copper Scroll, respectively dated between 75 BCE and 50 CE and 30-50 CE (McNamara 1972).

This shows that the Aramaic of the Qumran scrolls was not the contemporary Palestinian spoken dialect which is better expressed by the dialect of the Palestinian Targumim which used the everyday Aramaic of their time to underline their purpose as (written) oral translations for the masses. This oral dialect at some point in time after the Palestinian Targumim evolved further into that of the Bar Kochba letters (130-140 CE) which show the same characteristics of JTA as well as later developments. JTA, the dialect of the Palestinian Targumim, should therefore be dated to the early first century where it is the strongest candidate for the most commonly used spoken dialect of its time (McNamara 1972).

                       Another linguistic argument concerns the geographical names used in the Palestinian Targumim. In this area William F. Albright’s assessment of the geographical data in Targum Neofiti has long been seen as necessitating a late date for the text. There are two important objections to this: McNamara (1972) has examined all the geographical data in Targum Neofiti and nowhere did he find elements that necessitated or indicated a late date. Also it should be mentioned that Albright apparently reached his conclusion after hearing a conference paper from Alejandro Díez Macho and not after his own examination of the text in question. There is therefore little or no reason based on the historic or geographical names used in the text that necessitate the current late date. 

                      The existence of Greek and Latin loan words has likewise been under scrutiny in the effort to find valid indications of when the texts should be dated. The Greek loan words and the lack of Latin ones (of which there are less than thirty) makes it likely that the Palestinian Targumim should be dated to a time before the Latin language had much influence on the language or to the early stages of such a process. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1968) has argued that the Greek loan words in Targum Neofiti are due to the third century Syrian-Aramaic influence of which, according to him there are none in the Qumran Scrolls. Against this McNamara (1972) has objected that the Qumran society was not very susceptible to new foreign words as it was an isolated community. And as a closer examination will reveal there are actually Greek loan words in some of the Qumran Scrolls, especially the 3Q15 Cobber Scroll which, contrary to Fitzmyer’s claims has quite a few Greek words. These are even of the same type that exists in Targum Neofiti and the Cobber Scroll is, as mentioned, a close linguistic parallel to the Palestinian Targumim. The spoken dialect of which the Palestinian Targumim are examples of, were more susceptible towards new words and their use in the common language made their inclusion in the translation natural. The Greek words, and the lack of Latin words, therefore support dating the Palestinian Targumim to the first part of the first century.

Editorial arguments

An analysis of the editorial processes has also been used as the basis of the current late dating of Targum Neofiti. Barry B. Levy (1986) has, among others, adduced that the presence of passages that contain double or triple translations of the same verses means that the Targum must have been edited late. Against this he himself states that the majority of these places are due to rhetorical elements, but it also seems unlikely that a late editor would, as often as is the case here, maintain one or even two translations that he found was against the rules or just disagreed sufficiently with to insert a new version into the text.

                      The relationship between the Palestinian Targumim and the Masoretic text has also been closely examined but no final conclusion has yet been reached. Targum Neofiti is in many places clearly a version of the text that is both unique and pre-masoretic. It contains elements known from both the Samarian Pentateuch and the Masoretic text-traditions, but there are also a number of verses that are independent of either and as such constitute its own text-tradition. As for vocalisation Targum Neofiti exhibits examples of Tiberian vocalisation as well as an alternative style and even verses where both styles exist (e.g. Gen 19.18; 20.13. Levy 1986). This indicates that the differences are not due to a late editorial process but that Targum Neofiti constitutes its own independent tradition.

                      There are also several verses where Targum Neofiti divides names and compound words in a way that is against the norm of both the Tiberian and the Babylonian traditions. Targum Neofiti also deviates from Masoretic praxis in other ways; e.g. by the lack of verse divisions, and what verses that are tiqqunei soferim. This has been disputed by both Preben Wernberg-Møller and Michael L. Klein, who have explained the discrepancies as translation and/or orthographical peculiarities. Wernberg-Møller has since realized that the differences are indeed indications of a unique textual tradition, while Klein has yet to find any weighty arguments (Klein 1974, Macho 1968-179, Sysling 1996, York 1974).

                      All this indicates that Targum Neofiti is not dependent on the Tiberian or on the Babylonian textual tradition, but is an example of an earlier tradition, or even constitutes its own original western tradition which in many places is independent of the other traditions.

Arguments of content

Among the arguments arising from comparing other text from the time and area with the Palestinian Targumim is that they contain halakhot and mishna which differs from or are contrary to the relevant passages in the Mishna (e.g. Targum Neofiti Gen. 22.4-6). Paul Kahle (1959) and Macho (1959) have argued that since this type of mishna was forcefully sought removed the manuscripts containing such translations must be dated from before the Mishna underwent its final edition. 

York (1974), however, believes that at best this is only an indication of a likely date and while Harry Sysling (1996) mentions that Hanoch Albeck and Joseph Heinemann have shown that a few other texts also includes such unsanctioned mishna which could express private opinions or varying interpretations kept for reference. Geza Vermes (1958) made an analysis on how circumcision and sacrifices were understood during the first centuries which shows that the Palestinian Targumim and the Septuaginta share the same understanding of these subjects and that this understanding must be from the time before the Bar Kochba rebellion.

The development of the Melchizedek-character has also been used as an argument for the necessity of a late dating for the Palestinian Targumim while Marcel Simon (1937), among others, has argued that the increased focus on this character in the Palestinian Targumim must be connected to the Christian use of the same character in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and as such constitute an argument against the Christian sectarian use of the character. Against this Richard Hayward (1996) has clearly demonstrated that if the unfolded role of Melchizedek is due to any apologetic motifs, then it is a tradition aimed at countering the use of it in manuscripts such as 11Q13, where Melchizedek is seen as a divine being and even given the epithet Elohim. This, together with the “provocation” that this interesting character was not further developed in the Hebrew Scripture, is the reason for the unfolded Melchizedek we find in the Palestinian Targumim, and Hayward suspects it is the Christian tradition that stems from Jewish literature such as the Targumim and not vice versa. 

  Another argument, that also touches on the subject of how closely the surviving manuscripts of the Targumim represents the earliest versions, is a comparison between the Palestinian Targumim and the Targum quotes that early Palestinian rabbis used. Here it appears that 16 out of 19 quotes are almost identical with the wording of the Targum Neofiti (McNamara 1966). This strongly suggests that Neofiti from early times looked like the manuscript that has survived and that the rabbis made extensive use of it, as well as it indicates that it held official status and that it was the most used Targum of its time and geographical location (both Fragment Targum and Cairo Genizah Targum differ in more quotes than Targum Neofiti, McNamara 1972).

In the Mishna there is a list of scriptural verses that the meturgeman are not allowed to translate, which are translated in the Palestinian Targumim (and Targum Onqelos) with the noteworthy exception of Targum Neofiti. In a different example Targum Neofiti also differs from the other Targumim in following the guidelines laid out by the Mishna concerning how the passage in Lev. 18.21 should be correctly translated. This can be explained in two ways; either it is because the verse has been edited later in Targum Neofiti to harmonize it with the Mishna or it could point to the conclusion that the mishnaic translation tradition and methods originate from Targum Neofiti or the tradition behind this Targum. This is substantiated by Targum Neofiti being the version of the Palestinian Targumim that has the closest ties to the Mishna tradition and that it seems to have been the official Targumim for its area, like Targum Onqelos was for the Babylonian area. Further evidence that these elements are not later changes in Targum Neofiti, is that in the case of Lev. 18.21 it is only half of the verse that follows the rules stated in the Mishna (Megillah 4.9-10, McNamara 1966). These arguments are strengthened by the many early rabbinical references to both oral and written Targumim.[4]

Among the consistent changes to the text done in the Palestinian Targumim are that the actions of Jahve are usually associated with the special concept of Memra. This theological structure is a compound of the verbs “to say” (rma)) and “to do” (hyFh) and has been examined in detail by Hayward (1981). He has deduced that the use of the term Memra is to be found only in texts originating before the fall of the Temple after which its use all but ceased. Memra is not used in the Mishna, Talmud or other rabbinic literature but is on the contrary to be found in both the 1Q20 the Genesis Apocryphon, the Book of Jubilees and most pronounced in the Palestinian Targumim. This, according to Hayward, makes it unlikely that the Palestinian Targumim should be dated later than the year 70 CE and more likely to sometime during the period where the word Memra was used in Jewish scripture, meaning between 200 BCE and 70 CE. Other early sources showing knowledge of the targumic tradition are Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Biblical Antiquities, the writings of Josephus, the Book of Jubilees, and several of the Dead Sea Scrolls (McNamara 1972, York 1972).[5]

 Finally the theological distinction between the righteous aspect and the merciful aspects of Jahve is unknown in the Palestinian Targumim, underlining that they should be dated before this distinction becomes pronounced in rabbinic literature, which occurs sometime between late first and early second century CE (Hayward 1981, who also argues that Memra might have been used in 11Q10 (11QtgJob) but that it is too fragmented to provide conclusive evidence).  

Conclusion

The history of Targum research shows that the majority of the conclusions reached before the 1970s must be rejected because of the new manuscripts found and published and the new knowledge obtained from these. This applies in particular to the question of when the Palestinian Targumim should be dated wherefore a re-assessment of all the major arguments concerning the establishment of a dating is necessary and required.

The re-assessment shows that most of the linguistic data regarding the dating of the Palestinian Targumim must be rejected, as they were not written in the GA but in the older dialect JTA: a dialect that geographically is located in the Palestinian area and which has been conservatively dated by Kaufmann to between 30-50 CE, while McNamara and others date them even earlier in the first century. Nor does the data concerning the use of geographic and historic names in Targum Neofiti require a later date, while the loan words contained in the text seems to correspond to the pattern in Qumran Scrolls such as the Copper Scroll. As such the proper names, the number and types of Greek loan words and the limited number of Latin ones, makes a date somewhere in the first half of the first century the most defensible.

The arguments stemming from the editorial criticism are mainly due to rhetorical elements and later scribal errors from scribes more accustomed to Babylonian than Palestinian Aramaic. The arguments concerning the content of the Palestinian Targumim also lacked the weight to necessitate the current late dating while there are several aspects of the language and content of Targum Neofiti which indicates that an early dating is the most likely. It was also shown that Targum Neofiti constitutes the earliest of the Palestinian Targumim and that it deviates in its use of vocalisation, of names, verse division etc. from both the Tiberian and the Babylonian traditions and in all probability also constitutes its own unique and early tradition, which already from the first or second century was the authoritative and primary text of its area. Moreover it is clear that Targum Neofiti from some of the earliest rabbinic texts was recognized as the authoritative Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scripture and as such was the version known to first century Jews in the Palestinian area in a text version very similar to the one that has survived to this day.

There thus remains no weighty evidence that demands a continuation of the traditional dating of Targum Neofiti to the 2-4.th century. Rather, this lack of evidence combined with the many shown indications of a necessary early date as well as the Targumim found among the Qumran Scrolls, and the established place of Targum Neofiti in the earliest rabbinic and liturgical traditions all supports an earlier dating of the Palestinian Targumim. This re-dating based on the dialect and the existing loan words makes it most likely that Targum Neofiti should be dated to the first half of the first century, conservatively estimated between 25 and 50 CE.

 This new dating enables the use of the Palestinian Targumim as interpretational keys to how the early first century Palestinian Jew understood the Hebrew Scripture, and as such the Targumim should be of extreme interest to the New Testament exegete as well. The result of this examination is thus that our understanding of the connection between the Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament will be significantly enriched by recognizing the Palestinian Targumim as one of the main links between these writings, available today. As the Palestinian Targumim was among the principal ways of accessing the Scripture in the first century Palestine area these writings could provide a fundamental new understanding of central aspects of both Jewish and early Christian theology and elaborates our understanding of their historical context; a context where the Palestinian Targumim constitutes one of the primary links between the narrative content and theology of the testaments.

References

Black, Matthew

1967                            An Aramaic approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Bloch, Renee

1955              “Note méthodologique pour l’étude de la Littérature rabbinique”, Recherches de science religieuse 43: 194-227.

Díez Macho, Alejandro

1959                            “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the other Targums”, Supplements VT VII: 222-245. 

1968-79                 Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense Ms de la Bibliotheca Vaticana (Madrid: Censejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas).

Greenfield, Jonas C.

1978                            “Aramaic and its dialects”, in H. H. Paper (ed.), Jewish Languages. Theme and variations (Cambridge: Association for Jewish Studies): 29-43.      

Fitzmyer, Joseph A.

1968                            review of M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospel and Acts, CBQ

30: 417-428.

Hayward, Richard

1996                            “Shem, Melchizedek, and Concern with Christianity in the Pentateuchal Targumim”, in M. Maher & K. J. Cathcart (Eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 67-80.

Kahle, Paul

                      1959              The Cairo Geniza (Oxford: Oxford).

Kaufman, Stephen A.

1996                            ”Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their use in the study of first Century CE Texts”, in (McNamara, M. and Beattie, D.R.G. (Eds.), The Aramaic Bible, Targums in their historical context (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 118-123.

Klein, Michael L.

                      1974              “Notes on the printed edition of MS Neofiti 1”, JSS 19: 216-230.

McNamara, Martin

1966                            The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).

                      1972              Targum and Testament (Shannon: Irish University Press).

Levy, Barry B.

1986                            Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study (New York: University Press of

America).

Simon, Marcel

1937                            “Melchizedek dans la polémique entre Juifs er Chrétiens et dans la légende”, RHPR 1937, 58-93.

Stöekl Ben Ezra, Daniel

2007                            “Old Caves And Young Caves. Two Qumran Collections?”, http://www.geocities.com/shunrata.

Sysling, Harry

1996                            Tehiyyat Ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature (Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr).

York, Anthony D.

1974                            “The Dating of Targumic Litterature”, JSJ 5: 49-62.

1979              ”Targum in the Synagoge”, JSJ 10: 74-86.

Vermes, Geza

1958                            “Baptism and Jewish Exegesis: New Light from Ancient Sources”, NTS

IV: 308-319.

---

[1] The Palestinian Targumim manuscript group consists of Targum Neofiti, Fragment Targum and Cairo Genizah Fragment. Apart from this date there are a few more extreme views such as Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, who dates Targum Neofiti to the Renaissance while Menahem Kasher dates the Palestinian Targumim as early as the 4-2. century BCE (McNamara 1972).

[2] These fragments are 4QtgLev = 4Q156, which contains parts of 16,12-15, 18-21. 4QtgJob = 4Q157, containing parts of 3,5-9; 4,16-5,4 and 11QtgJob = 11Q10, which contains parts of 17,14-42,11. 4Q156 and 4Q157 are, similar to 1Q20 the Genesis Apochryphon, written in middle Aramaic and via palaeographic and textual analysis dated to the first half of the second-century BCE. 11Q10 was written in herodian writing which dates it somewhere between the Book of Daniel and the Genesis Apocryphon. 6Q19 contains a Targum of Genesis (Sysling 1996).

Interestingly the caves where targumim have been found suggests that they must have been in use throughout the history of the Qumran library – according to Daniel Stöekl Ben Ezra’s theory (2007) the two targumim found in the oldest cave (4Q) were in all likelihood placed there before 9-4 BCE while the other two (caves 6Q and 11Q) were found in “younger” caves and might have been placed there anytime before 68 CE.

[3] I have, to avoid the most controversial of arguments concerning the date, refrained from using the apparently many interesting connections between the Palestinian Targumim and the New Testament. For this I will merely refer to the many examples suggested in Targum and Testament (McNamara 1972) and to my forthcoming article, “The Four Keys of God: A New Interpretation of Mark 4.35-6.44”, dealing with the relationship between Targum Neofiti and the Gospel of Mark.

[4] The earliest of these are Mishna Yad 4,5, Meg 2,1, Shab 16,1, Talmud Shab. 115a, J. Shab. 15c, Tosef. Shab. 14, Soferim 5,15. (York 1979). G. Vermes has been convinced from his research that the material contained within the Palestinian Targumim is the beginning of all midrash and haggadah while Renee Bloch (1955) argues that they are the link between the Hebrew Scripture and the later midrash and haggadah.

[5] As well as the earlier mentioned four Targumim-fragments found in the Qumran caves. Added to these sources are the close links between the Palestinian Targumim and the early Jewish liturgy, the Septuaginta and the Peshitta.