From Aramaic Paraphrase to Greek Testament

21 Pages·2004·0.16 MB·English

1
From Aramaic Paraphrase to Greek Testament
Bruce Chilton
Well-Known Cases ofSimilarity and the Problem ofChronology
ThesignificanceoftheTargumimforappreciatingJesusandtheGospelsfollows
naturally from an assessment of their purposes, origins, and dates. The Tar-
gumim present evidence of first importance for the way in which the Hebrew
Scriptures were understood not simply among rabbis but more commonly, by
the congregations for whom the Targumim were intended and by whom they
were, to some extent, actually used. Insofar as what is reflected in a Targum is
representativeofthereceptionofScriptureinthefirstcentury,thattargumicma-
terial is of crucial importance for any student of the NT. But care must also be
takenlesttheperspectiveoflatermaterialsbeaccepteduncriticallyasrepresenta-
tive of an earlier period: this would result in anachronistic exegeses. In the
Targumimthereareclearlyreadingsthatpresupposeeventslongafterthedeath
of Jesus.Oneexample,fromoneof theearlierTargumim,isTg.Isa.53:5,inits
referenceto“thesanctuarywhichwasprofanedforoursins,handedoverforour
iniquities.”1TheTargumclearlysupposesthatthosewhohearorreaditsinter-
pretation know all too well that the temple was burned and destroyed by the
Romans(in70C.E.and135C.E.).
1Theitalicshereandinotherquotationsaremine.ThefigureoftheMessiah,inhis
associationwiththelaw,therebuildingofthetemple,andprayerinviewofIsrael’ssin,is
throughly rabbinic; see J. Ådna, “Der Gottesknecht als triumphierender und inter-
zessorischer Messias: Die Rezeption von Jes 53 im Targum Jonathan untersucht mit
besonderer Berücksichtigung des Messiasbildes,”in Die leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53
und sien Wirkungsgeschichte (ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher; FAT 14; Tübingen:
Mohr[Siebeck],1996),129–58.Ådnacorrectlyagrees,however,thattheMessiahinIsa
53:12ischaracterizedasriskinghislife,andtothatextentanearlierinterpretationmaybe
shiningthrough;seeB.Chilton,TheIsaiahTargum:Introduction,Translation,Apparatus,
andNotes(ArBib11;Wilmington,Del.:Glazier,1987),105.
24 Bruce Chilton
Aparticularproblemforcurrentstudyisthepersistentnotionthata“Pal-
estinianTargum”thatsubstantiallyrepresentstheunderstandingoftheHebrew
Bible(HB)inthetimeofJesusissomewhereextanttoday.Atonetimethiswasa
comprehensible position because it was taken that “Palestinian Aramaic” was
more ancient than “Babylonian Aramaic.”2 Today, however, the discoveries at
QumranhavecastadazzlingnewlightonTargumOnqelosandTargumJonathan
thatmakesthemappearmoreancientinlinguistictermsthanwassupposedsixty
years ago and more similar to Aramaic as spoken in Palestine.Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan,oncetakentobethebestexampleof“thePalestinianTargum,”appears
torepresentamorerecenttendency,notonlyinitslanguagebutalsoinitshistor-
icalallusionsanditsform.Moreover,thepresentunderstandingofthevarietyof
earlyJudaism—andparticularlyoftheemergenceoftheinstitutionofthesyna-
gogue—doesnotsuggestthatasingle,authoritativetraditionofrendering,such
as“thePalestinianTargum,”couldhaveemergedwhilethetemplestillstood.
Thedifficultyofassessingthepreciseformoftargumictradition(s)within
the first century should also make us wary of any claim that we know the dia-
lect(s)ofAramaiccurrentinthatperiod.Theliteraryremainsofthelanguageare
sporadic,dialectvariationwasgreat,andtheresometimesappearstohavebeena
significantdifferencebetweenthelanguageasspokenandthelanguageaswrit-
ten.Forallthesereasons,attemptsto“retranslate”theGreekgospelsintoJesus’
ownlanguageareextremelyspeculative;whentheTargumimareappealedtoas
antecedent(asiftheycouldactuallybedatedwithintheperiodoftheNTintheir
presentform),speculationispileduponspeculation.Inpurelylinguisticterms,it
is evident that the Aramaic of Qumran, not of the Targumim or of other later
sources,istheappropriatepointofdepartureinanyprojectofretroversioninto
Aramaic.
ThecompositenatureoftheTargumimisnonethelesssuchthat,uponoc-
casion,onemaydiscerninthemthesurvivalofmaterialsthatdidcirculateinthe
time of Jesus and that therefore influenced his teaching and/or the memory of
thatteachingamongthediscipleswhowerefamiliarwithsuchtraditions.Leviti-
cus22:28inPseudo-Jonathanisanexampleofsuchasurvival:“Mypeople,chil-
drenof Israel,sinceourfatherismercifulinheaven,soshouldyoubemerciful
upon the earth.”The expansion in the Targum is unquestionably innovative as
compared with what may be read in the MT, and there is a possible echo with
Luke 6:36, within the address known conventionally as the Sermon on the
Plain: “Become merciful, just as your Father is also merciful.” Since this com-
parescloselywiththeTargum,andnoothersourcehassofarbeenidentified,the
2Foraclassicexpositionofthehypothesis,seeM.McNamara,TheNewTestament
andthePalestinianTargumtothePentateuch (AnBib27;Rome:PontificalBiblicalInsti-
tute,1966),andTargumandTestament:AramaicParaphrasesoftheBible—ALightonthe
New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972). The linguistic foundation of the hy-
pothesis,whichhaslongsinceeroded,waslaidbyP.Kahle,TheCairoGeniza(Oxford:
Blackwell,1959),and M.Black,AnAramaicApproachtotheGospelsandActs (Oxford:
Blackwell,1967;repr.Peabody,Mass.:Hendrickson,1998).
From Aramaic Paraphrase to Greek Testament 25
possibilityshouldlogicallybeentertainedthatthetargumictraditionwascurrent
duringthefirstcenturyandthatitinfluencedJesus.Itis,ofcourse,theoretically
possiblethat thesayingoriginatedwithJesusandwasthenanonymously taken
up within the Targum. Yet the statement is rhetorically more at home within
LukethaninPseudo-Jonathan,whereitappearsunmotivated.Butitseemsinher-
ently unlikely that Pseudo-Jonathan,which of all the pentateuchal Targumim is
perhapsthemost influencedby a concernto guardandarticulate Judaic integ-
rity,wouldinadvertentlyconveyasayingofJesus.3Moreprobably,bothPseudo-
JonathanandLuke’sJesusarehereindependentlypassingonwisdomofaprover-
bialnature:bothsourcesconveymaterialfromthestockoffolkculture.Afterall,
thesameTargumtwiceexplainsloveofanotherperson(whetheranIsraeliteora
stranger)withthemaxim“thatwhichishatefultoyou,donotdo”(Tg.Ps.-J.Lev
19:18,34;cf.Luke6:31;Matt7:12).4Lukeshowsthatthisstockgoesbacktothe
firstcentury,andPseudo-Jonathanshowsthatitcontinuedtobereplenisheduntil
theseventhcentury.Thetargumicechoisthereforemostcertainlynotimmedi-
atelythesourceofJesus’statement,butitmayhelpustodescribethenature,gen-
eraltype,andoriginofJesus’statement.5
Examples such as Lev 22:28 in Pseudo-Jonathan demonstrate that the
Targumim might have a heuristic value in illustrating the sort of Judaism that
Jesusandhisfollowerstookforgranted.(Thevalueofasourceiscalled“heuris-
tic”fromtheGreekverbeu[ri/skw,whichmeans“tofind”;thepointofthedesig-
nationisthatonecanfindusefulmaterialinadocumentwithoutclaimingthatit
predatesJesusandhismovement.)TheexamplecitedisacaseinwhichaTargum
justhappenstobethebestresourceforunderstandingJudaisminthefirstcen-
tury.Targumimmaythereforeenableustofindmaterialsthatareusefulincom-
parison with the Gospels and the rest of the NT. Recent study has greatly
increasedthecatalogofsuchinstances.Laterinthisdiscussion,Iwillpresentthe
best-substantiatedinstancesfromthatcatalog.
ButtherearealsocasesinwhichJesusappearstohavecitedaformofScrip-
turethatisclosertotheTargumthantoanyotherextantsource.Insuchcases,
an awareness of the fact helps us to understand better his preaching in a much
morespecificwaythanthegeneralsimilaritybetweenLukeandPseudo-Jonathan
3Atastagelaterthanthewillingnesstousethisparaphrase,theJerusalemTalmud
discouragestheusage,perhapswithanawarenessthatithadbeenco-optedwithinChris-
tianity.Seey.Ber.5.3(9c);y.Meg.4.9(75c);andthediscussioninM.McNamara,Palestin-
ianJudaismandtheNewTestament(GNS4;Wilmington,Del.:Glazier,1983),218–19.
4Thereisalsoawell-establishedconnectionwithb.Šabb.31a.Foradiscussionof
thequestion,seeB.ChiltonandJ.I.H.McDonald,JesusandtheEthicsoftheKingdom
(BFT;GrandRapids:Eerdmans,1988),8;forfurthertexts,seeA.DíezMacho,Neophyti1:
TargumpalestinenseMsdelaBibliotecaVaticana (5vols.;Madrid:Consejo Superiorde
InvestigacionesCientíficas,1968–1978),3:502–3.
5Asimilarclaimcanbemadefortheuseofthephrase“highpriests”inPseudo-Jon-
athan (e.g., Lev 16:1), which shows that the plural usage in the NT is no error. See
M.Maher,TargumPseudo-Jonathan—Leviticus:Translated,withNotes(ArBib3;College-
ville,Minn.:LiturgicalPress,1994),165.
26 Bruce Chilton
illustrates.TargumIsaiah 6:9–10isanespeciallyfamousexample,andithelpsto
explainMark4:11–12.ThestatementinMarkcouldbetakentomeanthatJesus
toldparableswiththepurposethat(i1na)peoplemightseeandnotperceive,hear
andnotunderstand,lesttheyturnandbeforgiven:
Andhewassayingtothem,“Toyouthemysteryhasbeengivenofthekingdomof
God,buttothoseoutside,everythingcomesinparables,sothat[i1na]whileseeing
theyseeanddonotperceive,andwhilehearingtheyhearanddonotunderstand,
lesttheyrepentanditbeforgiventhem.”
The Targum also (unlike the MT and the LXX) refers to people not being
“forgiven”(rather than not being “healed”), and this suggests that the Targum
may give the key to the meaning supposed in Mark. The relevant clause in the
Targumreferstopeoplewhobehaveinsuchaway—“sothat”(dinAramaic)—
they see and do not perceive,hear and do not understand,lest they repent and
theybeforgiven.ItappearsthatJesuswascharacterizingpeopleinthetargumic
manner,ashecharacterizeshisownfatesimilarlyinMarkwithaclauseemploy-
ingi1na(cf.9:12),notactinginordertobemisunderstood.
Inthisfamouscasefrom Mark,6then,theunderlyingAramaism of using
theclausewithAramaicdcausedthesayingofJesustousethetermin1 ainGreek,
which may mean “in order that” or “so that.” If the former meaning obtains,
Mark’sJesusspeakssoasnottobeunderstoodandinorderdeliberatelytopre-
cludetheforgivenessofthosewhodonotunderstand.Ifthelattermeaningob-
tains,thenJesusreferredto Isaiahinitstargumic form inorderto characterize
the kind of people who do not respond to his message, and what happens to
them.The fact of the similarity in wording with the Targum shows us that the
secondmeaningispreferable,asdoesthefactthatJesuselsewhereinMarkrefers
tohisownfollowersasbeinghard-hearted,withunseeingeyesandunseeingears
(Mark8:17–18).HispointinalludingonceagaintoIsaiah6isgivenattheendof
therebuke:“Doyounotyetunderstand?”(Mark8:21).Jesus’citationofIsaiah6
initstargumicformwasintendedtorousehearerstounderstanding,nottomake
theirmisunderstandingintohisownprogram.
The two examples given above, taken from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and
Targum Isaiah, instance cases in which the similarity between the NT and the
Targumimisamatterofsharedwordingandmeaning,andevenacommonexe-
gesis of Scripture with that shared wording and meaning. But there is another
type of similarity that is much broader than wording or meaning, involving a
6SeeT.W.Manson,TheTeachingofJesus(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,
1955),76–80;B.Chilton,AGalileanRabbiandHisBible:Jesus’OwnInterpretationofIsa-
iah(London:SPCK,1984),90–98;C.A.Evans,ToSeeandNotPerceive:Isaiah6.9–10in
Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation(JSOTSup 64; Sheffield, England: JSOT Press,
1989).ArecentattemptbyMichaelGouldertodenythesimilaritybetweenJesus’saying
andTargumIsaiahisrefutedinB.ChiltonandC.A.Evans,“JesusandIsrael’sScriptures,”
inStudyingtheHistoricalJesus:EvaluationsoftheStateofCurrentResearch(ed.B.Chilton
and C. A. Evans; NTTS 19; New York: E. J. Brill, 1995), 281–335, 300–304. Cf. M. D.
Goulder,“ThoseOutside(Mk.4:10–12),”NovT33(1991):289–302.
From Aramaic Paraphrase to Greek Testament 27
common presentation. Time and again, the Targumim present a synoptic rela-
tionshipamongtheirmaterials.
At Gen 4:8, an argument breaks out—in the Cairo Genizah fragments,
TargumPseudo-Jonathan,TargumNeofiti,andtheFragmentaryTargum—between
CainandAbelbeforetheprimalmurderbyCain.InalltheseTargumimfromthe
rabbiniccenterinTiberias,thetwobrothersdisputewhetherGodwasjustinpre-
ferringtheofferingofAbeltothatofCain.Thewordingofthedisputeiscompara-
bleinthefourversions,butthereisalsocomplexdiversityamongthem.Andwhat
ismoststriking,incomparisonwiththesynopticrelationshipamongthefirstthree
Gospels,isthattheorderofthedisputediffersfromTargumtoTargum.
Inthe“PoemoftheFourNights,”aliturgicalhymnassociatedwithkeep-
ing Passover, the Tiberian Targumim present the night of the exodus (Exod
12:32)asthethirdinthesequenceoffourgreatdivineacts:thecreation,thecall
ofAbraham,theexodus,andtheredemptionthatistocome.Thisorder,andthe
scriptural referencesassociated with it,remainsratherconstant,but the radical
abbreviation—or expansion, from the opposite point of view—in comparison
withmaterialintheSynopticGospelsisnotable.
The Aqedah (Genesis 22 in the Palestinian Targumim and Isa 33:7 in the
marginofCodexReuchlinianus)alsopresentsfeaturescomparabletosynopticity
intheGospels.7BecausethesynopticityoftheTargumimisevincedamongfour
documents,notthree(asintheGospels),itisevenmorecomplicatedtotracea
purely documentary,rigidly literary relationship among the texts.The study of
thesynopticaspectof theTargumimremainsinitsinfancy,butitappearspos-
siblethatonceitisbetterunderstood,wewillconceiveoftheliteraryrelationship
amongtheGospelsinadifferentway.
TheTargumimarearichsourceofthatformofearlyJudaismandrabbinic
Judaismwherethefolkandtheexpertaspectsofthereligionmet.Forthisreason,
seriousstudentsoftheNTmightwellreadthemsoastocomprehendthecontext
withinwhichJesustaughtandhismovementfirstdeveloped,beforethetransi-
tion to a Hellenistic compass and the Greek language. In particular cases, the
TargumimuniquelypresentmaterialthathelpstoilluminateJesus’teaching.(In
otherinstances,theymaysupportwhatweknowfromothersources.)Itmightbe
thataTargumjusthappenstopreserveproverbialmaterialthatJesuscitesoral-
ludesto.ButtherearealsocasesinwhichJesusseemstohavebeeninfluencedby
aspecificallytargumicunderstandingoftheBible.Finally,quiteapartfromwhat
theymaytellusof particularpassagesintheGospels,theTargumimgiveusan
exampleofhowcompositedocumentsevolvedwithinJudaismandtothatextent
theymayprovideananalogyforunderstandingtheGospelsthemselves.
7Forthestudyofsuchcases,seeB.Chilton,ProfilesofaRabbi:SynopticOpportuni-
tiesinReadingaboutJesus(BJS177;Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1989);TargumicApproachesto
theGospels:EssaysintheMutualDefinitionofJudaismandChristianity(StudiesinJuda-
ism;LanhamandLondon:UniversityPressofAmerica,1986);andJudaicApproachesto
the Gospels (International Studies in Formative Judaism and Christianity 2; Atlanta:
ScholarsPress,1994).
28 Bruce Chilton
Four Types ofComparison between the Targumim and the New
Testament,and the Assessment ofAnalogies
Theexamplescitedabove,withabitof supplementation,provideuswithillus-
trationsofthefourmaintypesofaffinitybetweentheNTandtheTargumimthat
arecatalogedinthischapter.OnceIhaveexplainedthetypesandtheprinciples
fordistinguishingamongthem,wecanthenproceed,inthethirdsectionofthis
discussion,toacatalogoftexts.
The first type isof the most stringent sort of affinity.Here there must be
evidenceofcomparablematerialwithcognatewording,associatedwiththesame
textofScripture.ThecomparisonbetweenIsaiah6intheTargumanditscitation
inMark4:12,discussedabove,providesaninstanceofthefirsttype.Aweakerin-
stanceofthefirsttypeofcomparisoniswhentheNTandaTargumsharewording
butthereisnoparticularreasontoassumethatthewordingaroseasaninterpre-
tationofabiblicalpassage.TheexampleofLev22:28initsrelationshiptoLuke
6:36(seeabove)instancesaweakercaseofananalogyofthisfirsttype.
Thesecondtypeof affinitydoesnotincludethesharingof explicitword-
ing,butitdoespresupposeacomparableunderstandingofthesamebiblicalpas-
sageintheTargumimandtheNT.AnexampleisJesus’parableoftheVineyardin
Matt21:33–46;Mark12:1–12;andLuke20:9–19.Afterhehastoldhisstoryofthe
abusesufferedbythosetheownersendstoacquirehisshareof thevintage,the
SynopticGospelsagreethattheoppositiontoJesusamongtheJewishauthorities
hardenedtothepointthattheywantedtoseizehim.Whenthesymbolismofthe
vineyardinTg.Isa.5:1–7isconsidered,theoppositiontoJesusbecomeseasilyex-
plicable.Therethevineisaprimarysymbolofthetemple,sothatthetenantsof
Jesus’parablearereadilyidentifiedwiththeleadershipofthetemple.Theyknew
hewastellingtheparableagainstthem.8
Itisapparentthatthesecondtypeofaffinityisnotasstrongasthefirst.Be-
causewordingisnotshared,theconnectionbetweentheTargumimandtheNTis
notasdemonstrable.Moreover,animagesuchasthevineyardissoresonantthat
severalbiblicalpassagesmaybeusedtoillustrateand/orunderstandit.Nonethe-
less,whenagivenpassageinaTargumpermitsustoappreciatemoreclearlythe
textoftheNT,thisisanaffinitythatshouldnotbeignored.
In the third type of affinity, characteristically targumic phrases appear
within the NT. The best example is the central category of Jesus’ theology: the
kingdomof God,whichalsoappearsintheform“kingdomof theLord”inthe
Targumim(seeTg.Onq.Exod15:18;Tg.Isa.24:23;31:4;40:9;52:7;Tg.Ezek.7:7;
8See Chilton,GalileanRabbi,111–14; “Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures,”304–6.The
importanceofthetargumiccontributionismissedinJ.S.KloppenborgVerbin,“Egyptian
Viticultural Practices and the Citation of Isa 5:1–7 in Mark 12:1–9‚” NovT 44 (2002):
134–59.SeethereplybyC.A.Evans,“HowSeptuagintalIsIsa5:1–7inMark12:1–9?”
NovT45(2003):105–10.
From Aramaic Paraphrase to Greek Testament 29
Tg.Obad.21;Tg.Zech.14:9).9ThefirstusageinTargumIsaiah(24:23)associates
the theologoumenon of the kingdom of God with God’s self-revelation on
Mount Zion, where his appearance is to occasion a feast for all nations (see
25:6–8). The association of the kingdom with a festal image is comparable to
Jesus’ promise in Matt 8:11 and Luke 13:28–29 that many will come from the
endsoftheearthtofeastwithAbraham,Isaac,andJacobinthekingdomofGod.
In the fourth type of affinity,the NT and the Targumim share a thematic
emphasis.Justasthesecondtypeofaffinityislesssubstantialthanthefirst,sothe
fourthislessdemonstrablethanthethird,andformuchthesamereason.Com-
parabilityofwordingisnotatissue;rather,thelessobviousquestionofthemesis
inplay.Jesus,forexample,lamentedthepersistentrefusaltolistentotheproph-
ets (Matt 5:12; Luke 6:23); the meturgeman(Aramaic,“interpreter,translator”)
ofIsaiahalsolamentedthat“withoddspeechandmockingtonguethispeoplewere
scoffingattheprophetswhoprophesiedtothem”(Tg.Isa.28:11).Althoughtherela-
tionshipwiththetargumicinterpretationmaybehelpfulinunderstandingJesus’
perspective,sincetheTargumatIsaiah28ispointedinitscondemnationofcultic
abuses(asJesusfamouslywas),itmustbeborninmindthatabusebytheproph-
etsisatoposwithintheJudaismoftheperiod.10
ComparisonsoftheFirstType
“LestItBeForgivenThem”
InthecaseofTargumIsaiah,therelationshipbetweenIsa6:9–10andMark
4:11–12hasalready beendiscussedabove.Thereit becameapparent that Jesus’
usagewasdesignedtocharacterizetheattitudeofthosewhoweresodensewhen
itcametoseeingandhearingthatforgivenesswasnottheirs.Characteristically,
Jesusdirectedsuchwarningstopeoplewhoweretryingtolistentohim,suchas
hisowndisciples(cf.Mark8:17–18).
Unquestionably,however,thepresentsettingofMark4:11–12givesJesus’
statement a fresh, rather elitist meaning. The initial setting is revealed in the
claimthatJesusdirectsto“thosearoundhimwiththeTwelve”:thatthemystery
ofthekingdomhasbeengiventothemwhereas“tothoseoutsideeverythinghap-
pens in parables”(Mark 4:10–11).Here the understanding of Jesus’teaching is
restricted,so that what was originally a rebuke of dense hearers (including dis-
ciples)becomesthewarrantfortheexclusivepossessionofthe“mystery”byase-
lect few. The term “mystery” appears only here in the Gospels, but it is found
rather frequently in the Pauline corpus (taking this designation in its broad
9For the comparable phrasing, “of the Lord is the kingship,” see Exod 15:18 in
Neofiti,anevidentanalogyofthestatementinTargumOnqelos.McNamarahasarguedfor
aparticularrelationshipwithRev4:2–11inTheNewTestament,204–8.
10See O. H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersu-
chungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament,
Spätjudentum,undUrchristentum(WMANT23;Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVer-
lag,1967).
30 Bruce Chilton
sense),andintheRevelationofJohn.Thisfactcomportswithanother:therefer-
encetopeoplewhodonotbelongtothemovementas“thoseoutside”fitswith
theusageoflaterChristianity(see1Cor5:11–13; 1Thess4:12; Col4:5).
The probable source of Jesus’ saying in its present context is the circle
around James,Jesus’brother,in Jerusalem.This would account for several fac-
tors: (1) the Aramaism with its targumic source, (2) the reference to “those
around Jesus” before the Twelve, and (3) the exclusive claim to interpret and
apply theteachingof Jesus.Thelast trait isexpressly attributedto Jamesinthe
ActsoftheApostles(15:13–29)whenheadjudicatesthedisputeoverwhethercir-
cumcision was necessary,along with baptism,for salvation (see Acts 15:1).His
decision,whichispresentedashisownjudgment,isthattheuncircumcisedmust
observecertainbasicrulesofpurityoutofloyaltytotheLawofMoses.Themeet-
ingoftheleaderswhoarepresentendorsesthisjudgmentanddemandsbyletter
that uncircumcised Christians in Antioch follow the policy. In Mark 4:10–12
also,theclaimexclusivelytointerpretisdeployed.
TheSword
“All those who grasp a sword will perish by a sword” (Matt 26:52): the
sword,likethemeasure(seebelow),seemstohavebeenaproverbialfigure.InTg.
Isa.50:11,itisappliedquitegraphically:11“Behold,allyouwhokindleafire,who
graspasword! Go,fall in thefire whichyoukindledand on the swordwhichyou
grasped!”AlinktothepassageinIsaiah(oranypassageofScripture)cannotbe
demonstratedinJesus’saying,sothecorrespondenceseemstobeoftheprover-
bialtype,likethesayingaboutthemeasure.Nonetheless,thecloseagreementin
wordingandimagerymakesthisacomparisonofthefirsttype.
Gehenna
ThefinalverseofTargumIsaiah clearlyidentifieswhowillsufferwhereat
theendoftime:“thewickedshallbejudgedingehennauntiltherighteouswillsay
concerningthem,‘Wehaveseenenough’”(66:24).GehennaiswhatJesusassociates
with the phrase “their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched”
(Mark9:48;seevv.44,46inmany MSS),whichistakenfrom thesameverseof
Isaiah.12Theterm“gehenna”refers,inaliteralsense,tothevalleyofHinnomin
the Kidron Valley,just across from the temple in Jerusalem.But because idola-
trous human sacrifice by fire had occurred there (see 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6), King
Josiahdeliberatelydestroyedanddesecratedthesiteaspartof hisculticreform
duringtheseventhcenturyB.C.E.(see2Kgs23:10).Asaresult,gehennacameto
beknownastheplaceofthedefinitivepunishmentofthewicked.
11Thesimilarityhasbeenrecognizedforsometime;foradiscussion,seeChilton,
GalileanRabbi,98–101.
12IntheTargum,thefirstpartofthephrasereads,“theirbreathswillnotdie.”Fora
discussionofthepassage,seeibid.,101–7.
From Aramaic Paraphrase to Greek Testament 31
ApartfromJas3:6,thetermappearsonlyinsayingsofJesusintheNT.Oth-
erwise only the Pseudepigrapha (especially Enoch) and rabbinic literature pro-
videuswithexamplesoftheusagefromtheNTperiodsothatwecanseewhatthe
usagemeans.Gehennaistheplaceoffierytormentforthewicked.Butitisnot
known as such in the LXX, Josephus, or even Philo;13 evidently, the usage is at
homeinanAramaicenvironment.RabbiAkibaalsoissaidtohaveassociatedge-
hennawiththeendofthebookofIsaiah(seem.ÁEd.2:10):“Thejudgmentofthe
wickedingehinnomlaststwelvemonths,asitissaid(Isa66:23),‘Anditshallbe
from new moon to new moon.’” Akiba, however, refers to punishment in
gehennahavingalimitoftwelvemonths;14forJesus,asinTargumIsaiah,partof
thethreatofgehennawasthatitslimitcouldnotbedeterminedinadvance.“The
correspondence between the Targumic Gehinnam, both the term and the con-
cept,andtheNewTestamentGehinnaisparticularlyclose.”15
JannesandJambres
MartinMcNamarahaspointedoutthatthenamesJannesandJambresare
giventothesorcererswhoopposedMosesinPseudo-JonathanatExod7:11–12,
just as we might expect to find on the basis of the reference to them in 2 Tim
3:8–9.16Inasearchingcriticism,LesterGrabbehasobjectedthattheGreekform
ofthenamesintheTargumshowsthat“theformknowntousisatleastaslateas
the7thcentury.”17Tohismind,thisrefutesMcNamara’stwoprincipalconten-
tions,(1) that there was a “Palestinian Targum”extant during the first century
and(2)thatthenamesgivenin2TimothycorrespondonlytothatTargum.On
thisbasis,Grabbegoesontoconclude,“Ergo,McNamara’sarguments,according
to his own criteria, are totally irrelevant in this particular case.”Grabbe grants
thathisargumentmayappear“facetious,”althoughitsharshnessseemslittleto
dowithhumor.
The reason for the heat of his finding is that Grabbe wishes to join the
criticism of the assumption of “the Palestinian Targum” in the first century.
13SeeD.F.Watson,“Gehenna,”ABD2:926–28.
14Whytwelvemonths,andnotonemonth?Akibaseemstobethinkingofthenew
moonofPassoverinparticular.
15K.J.CathcartandR.P.Gordon,TheTargumoftheMinorProphets (ArBib14;
Wilmington,Del.:Glazier,1989),133,citingTg.Nah.1:8,Tg.Ps.88:13,andthemanyuses
intheGospels.Theyareparticularlystruckbytheemphasisongehennaasaplaceofdark-
ness, as in Tg. Ps. 88:13 and Matt 8:12. C. Mangan, The Targum of Job (ArBib 15;
Collegeville,Minn.:LiturgicalPress,1991),27n.15,notesthefrequentusageoftheterm
inTargumJob, themoststrikingcaseperhapsbeing“fireofgehenna”in20:26(cf.Matt
5:22);seealsoM.Maher,TargumPseudo-Jonathan—Genesis:Translated,withIntroduc-
tionandNotes(ArBib1B;Collegeville,Minn.:LiturgicalPress,1992),30.Butgehennacan
alsobecoldinTargumJob (e.g.,28:5;38:23)andcanrefertohowonefeels(17:6)atthe
pointofdeath(5:4;38:17);thesearequiteevolvedimages.
16SeeMcNamara,TheNewTestament,83–85.
17L.L.Grabbe,“TheJannes/JambresTraditioninTargumPseudo-JonathanandIts
Date,”JBL98(1979):400.
32 Bruce Chilton
ThatiswhytheGreekformofthenames(forYochananandMamreinHebrew
orAramaic)strikeshimassotelling.Butonceitisgrantedthatthesharingof
the names does not prove the existence of any such thing as “the Palestinian
Targum,” the simple fact of the similarity remains. And although the first
name in the pair appears in the Damascus Document from Qumran (CD
5:17–19) and Pliny the Elder (Nat. 30.2.11), both extant in the first century,
the two names together prove more elusive. Eusebius, the church historian
of the fourth century, in Praep. ev. 9.8.1 quotes Numenius, a second-century
Greekwriter,asreferringtothem,andtheBabylonianTalmudincludesa ref-
erence (b. Menaÿ. 85a), but in neither case is there a close fit with the
passage in Exodus or 2 Timothy. Unless one were to argue that 2 Timothy
has influenced Pseudo-Jonathan, the similarity would incline one to the view
that the naming of the two sorcerers is not the invention of 2 Timothy
but is grounded in a contemporary tradition in Greek and perhaps in Ara-
maic. At the same time, it is evident that the further tradition in Pseudo-
Jonathan, according to which Jannes and Jambres successfully interpreted
Pharaoh’s dream as referring to Moses’ birth (Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 1:15), is a later
development.18
ComparisonsoftheSecondType
ThesimilaritybetweenthesynopticparableoftheVineyardandthesong
ofthevineyardinTg.Isa.5hasalreadybeendiscussed.Itisworthnotinginaddi-
tion,however,thatbothMatthew(21:33)andMark(12:1)alludetoIsa5:2when
theyrefertoahedgesetaroundthevineyard.TheirallusionistotheLXXversion
ofIsa5:2,sothatanyconsciousawarenessoftheTargumatthetimeofthecom-
positionoftheseGospelscannotbeclaimed.Thepointisratherthatthememory
ofallusiontoIsaiah5ispreserved;whatthetargumicversionofIsaiahexplains,
while other versions do not, is why the priestly opposition to Jesus would feel
particularlyengagedbyhisparable.
In his Letter to the Galatians, Paul uses the phrase “hanging upon a
tree” in order to describe Jesus’ execution. The wording itself comes from
Deut 21:23, and Paul applies it to argue that, in being crucified, Jesus was
subjecttothecurseof“everyonewhohangsuponatree”(Gal3:13,whichfol-
lows the LXX in its wording). The argument assumes that crucifixion car-
ries with it some sanction of Judaic law. This is just what we find in Targum
Ruth when Naomi says, “We have four kinds of death for the guilty: stoning
with stones,burning with fire,execution by the sword,and hanging upon a tree”
(1:17).DerekBeattieobservesthecontradictionoftheMishnah(cf.Sanh.7:1)
inequatingcrucifixionwiththepunishmentenvisagedinDeuteronomy.Thisis
18AndherethegeneralagreementwiththepositiveevaluationinNumeniusisper-
haps telling. The relevant texts are set out by McNamara and in a summary form by
Grabbe.