Greek Testament, Aramaic Targums, and Questions of Comparison
In: Aramaic StudiesSearch for other papers by Bruce Chilton in
Current site
Google Scholar
Two unsupported assumptions have hampered comparison of the Targumim with the New Testament. One assumption presumes the Targumim are pre-Christian; the other presumes that they are too late to be of relevance to exegesis of the New Testament. The history of discussion shows that, in alternating cycles, these views have posed obstacles to critical comparison. Analogies between Targumic passages and the New Testament indicate a relationship of four types, each of which is explored in this essay. In aggregate they support the independent finding that the process of Targumic formation overlapped with the emergence of the New Testament.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
6
C.G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930); cf. idem, with H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (London: Macmillan, 1938).
-
9
See George Lamsa, Gospel Light. Comments on the Teachings of Jesus from Aramaic and Unchanged Eastern Customs (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman, 1939); and Neil Douglas-Klotz, The Hidden Gospel. Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus (Wheaton: Quest, Theosophical Publishing, 1999).
-
10
Published as P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959). The Palestinian Targum which he invoked was best evidenced by the Targum fragments from the Cairo Geniza which he had published in 1930 in P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens (2 vols., BWANT, 33, 50, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927–1930).
-
12
See P. Werberg-Møller, ‘An Inquiry into the Validity of the Text-Critical Argument for an Early Dating of the Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum’, VT 12 (1962), pp. 312–330; P. Werberg-Møller, ‘Prolegomena to a Re-examination of the Palestinian Targum Fragments of the Book of Genesis Published by P. Kahle, and their Relationship to the Peshitta’, JSS 13 (1968), pp. 253–266; P. Werberg-Møller, ‘Some Observations on the Relationship of the Peshitta Version of the Book of Genesis to the Palestinian Targum Fragments Published by Professor Kahle, and to Targum Onkelos’, Studia Theologica 15 (1961), pp. 128–180; A.D. York, ‘The Dating of Targumic Literature’, JSJ 10 (1979), pp. 49–62; A.D. York, ‘The Targum in the Synagogue and the School’, JSJ 10 (1979), pp. 74–86.
-
13
S.A. Kaufman, ‘On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and their Chronology’, JSNT 7 (1985), pp. 117–124. I remain grateful that Professor Kaufman permitted JSNT to publish his paper at the time I edited the journal.
-
18
See T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955), pp. 76–80; B. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (Wilmington: Glazier, 1984, also published as A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Own Interpretation of Isaiah [London: SPCK, 1984] and reprinted [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2013]), pp. 90–98; C.A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6:9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (JSOTSup, 64; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). A recent attempt by Michael Goulder to deny the similarity between Jesus’ saying and the Isaiah Targum is refuted in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans, ‘Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures’, in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS, 19, Leiden: Brill, 1994) pp. 281–335; see M.D. Goulder, ‘Those Outside (Mk. 4.10–12)’, NovT 33 (1991), pp. 289–302.
-
20
See Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi, 111–114; Chilton and Evans, ‘Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures’, pp. 304–306.
-
22
See O.H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT, 23, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967).
-
27
See McNamara, New Testament and Palestinian Targum, pp. 83–85.
-
28
L. Grabbe, ‘The Jannes/Jambres Tradition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and its Date’, JBL 98.3 (1979), pp. 393–401 (400).
-
30
See D. Beattie, The Targum of Ruth. Translated, with introduction, apparatus, and notes (The Aramaic Bible, 19, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994).
-
33
See C. Brady, The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations. Vindicating God (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture, 3, Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 60–66.
-
36
See Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, pp. 40,152, also citing the Habakkuk Targum 2.9, the Jeremiah Targum 6.13 and Matthew 6.24; Luke 16.9, 11, 13; Mangan, Targum of Job, p. 6, citing Job Targum 22.3, 27.8.
-
37
See Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 167. On p. 190 they come to the conclusion that the usage is so ubiquitous: ‘It is very unlikely … that there is theological significance in Tg.’s less than literal rendering.’ The present point is not theological, but regards the turn of phrase in itself. Still, in that God is invoked, the precise point of denying the theological significance of the phrase eludes me.
-
40
See T. Finley, ‘“Upon this Rock”: Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence’, AS 4.2 (2006), pp. 133–151.
-
42
See Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, pp. 125. He also points out (p. 39) that the positive reference to Noah’s ‘good works’ at Genesis 6.9 in both Targum Neophyti and Pseudo-Jonathan (i.e., the Proto-PT source) is reminiscent of Ephesians 2.10 and Titus 2.14.
-
43
See M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Exodus, translated, with introduction and notes (The Aramaic Bible, 2, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994), p. 188.
-
44
Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Leviticus, p. 165 (citing Matthew 2.4; 16.21; 21.15). It should be noted, however, that Josephus also reflects the usage, see B. Chilton, ‘Judaism’, in J.B. Green et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), pp. 398–405.
-
45
So M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1. Numbers, translated with apparatus and notes (The Aramaic Bible, 4, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1995), p. 136. But might the association with Balaam be a case of anti-Christian polemic?
-
48
C.A. Evans, ‘A Note on 2Samuel 5.8 and Jesus’ Ministry to the “Maimed, Halt, and Blind”’, JSP 15 (1997), pp. 79–82.
-
49
See R. Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah (The Aramaic Bible, 12, Wilmington: Glazier, 1987), pp. 27, 75, 113. As he mentions, the usage is linked with the well-established connection between the image of harvest and judgment at the end of time. For the related motif of the handling of chaff (see Matthew 3.12; 13.30; Luke 3.17; Hosea Targum 13.3; Zephaniah Targum 2.2).
-
50
See Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, p. 53 for further references. Hayward also (pp. 27, 187) sees a comparison between 1Peter 2.1–10 and Isaiah Targum 28.6 and Jeremiah Targum 51.26. It is more plausible that the image of the stone could be taken messianically; see also Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 194 (commenting on Zechariah Targum 4.7).
-
57
See Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, p. 131. For further discussion, and citation of Numbers 23.23 in Neophyti, see McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1. Numbers, p. 133.
-
59
Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, pp. 34, 143; he cites 2Peter 3.10–13; Revelation 20.11; 21.1 by way of comparison, as well as 1Enoch 91.16 and the Stoic teaching that the world would be destroyed by fire. As Cathcart and Gordon point out (Minor Prophets, p. 158), elsewhere the Targumim would seem to agree with such a teaching.
-
60
Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 54 cite the support of Matthew 2.15 for the Masoretic Text, but they do not speculate on the reasons for the departure of the Targum from the other versions. Along the same lines, Gordon rightly cautions in a series of remarks that we can only surmise in regard to the influence of Matthew upon the Targumic rendering of Zechariah 11 (pp. 412–415). On that basis he makes a connection between Zephaniah 2.1 in the Targumic Codex Reuchlinianus and Matthew 7.3–5 and Luke 6.41–42, which is based on the speculation that a reading of the term ‘straw’ (qosh in Hebrew) was applied verbally. The idea is, as Professor Gordon explained in a letter that he has given permission to cite, that a pun such as ‘Be “strawed” and then “straw”’ is behind Jesus’ usage. Their treatment of Zechariah Targum 12.10 in respect of the New Testament (pp. 218–219) is balanced, and develops a surmise also considered in Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, p. 165.
-
61
See Smolar and Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan, p. 3, where the interpretation is assigned to the school of Aqiba on the basis of m. Gittin 9.10 and b. Gittin 90b; Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 235. Similarly, it is perhaps a bit of a strain to conceive of interpreters imputing seduction to Hezron simply because he is mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus. See J.S. McIvor, The Targum of Chronicles. Translated, with introduction, apparatus, and notes (The Aramaic Bible, 19, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994), p. 50, citing Targum 1Chronicles 2.21 and Matthew 1.3; Luke 3.33. After all, the name of the resulting son is not the same in the Targum as in the New Testament. McIvor also suggests (p. 41) that naming Shem as ‘the great priest’ in 1Chronicles 1.24 is a response to claims about Melchizedek and Jesus in Hebrews 7. It seems more plausible that the association with Shem shows the kind of force and affiliation the image of Melchizedek exercised; see B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis. Translated, with a critical introduction, apparatus, and notes (The Aramaic Bible, 6, Wilmington: Glazier, 1988), p. 69, citing Genesis 14.18 in Onqelos. It is nonetheless of interest that Maher (Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58) accepts the anti-Christian reading of Melchizedek in Pseudo-Jonathan. But that is because he sees the verb ‘to minister’ as denying priestly function, when in fact that term is quite consistent with a priestly understanding of Melchizedek.
-
64
See S.H. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel. Translated, with a critical introduction, apparatus, and notes (The Aramaic Bible, 13, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1987), p. 63, n. 8, citing the Ezekiel Targum 20.22; Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, p. 67 notes the frequency of ‘power’ in the Targumim, although he cites the wrong passage in Mark.
-
66
J. Healy, The Targum of Proverbs: Translated with a critical introduction, apparatus and notes (The Aramaic Bible, 15, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 21.
-
67
See Healy, Targum of Proverbs, p. 45. For further discussion, see B. Chilton, The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), pp. 127–128.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 327 | 40 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 82 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 90 | 8 | 0 |
Greek Testament, Aramaic Targums, and Questions of Comparison
In: Aramaic StudiesSearch for other papers by Bruce Chilton in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Two unsupported assumptions have hampered comparison of the Targumim with the New Testament. One assumption presumes the Targumim are pre-Christian; the other presumes that they are too late to be of relevance to exegesis of the New Testament. The history of discussion shows that, in alternating cycles, these views have posed obstacles to critical comparison. Analogies between Targumic passages and the New Testament indicate a relationship of four types, each of which is explored in this essay. In aggregate they support the independent finding that the process of Targumic formation overlapped with the emergence of the New Testament.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 327 | 40 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 82 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 90 | 8 | 0 |
