Contemporization in the Septuagint and Targums
Explore how Greek and Aramaic biblical translations adapt earlier texts and traditions through familiar places, customs, and religious practices, sometimes introducing details from centuries after the events they describe.
38 min read
Share:
Translation and Familiar Places
Greek and Aramaic biblical translations frequently describe the archaic world of the original narratives through details familiar to later readers and listeners. Place names offer an example of this practice, since a translator can identify a location no longer known through a name known by later readers and hearers.
1
What Contemporization Does to a Biblical Text
Ancient Jewish translators inherited biblical narratives whose geographical references, monetary units, and social customs could be unfamiliar to the communities for whom they translated. They regularly adapted these details to the circumstances of their own audiences, allowing the archaic setting of a narrative to take on features of a much later world. In the Aramaic translation of Kings, people return to cities where the Hebrew tells them to return to tents, and a payment of gold receives the name of a Roman coin.[1]
1 Kings 12:16
16 When all Israel saw that the king refused to listen to them, the people answered the king, “We have no portion in David, no share in the son of Jesse! Return to your tents28, O Israel! Now, look after your own dynasty, O David!” So Israel returned to their homes.
Jonathan 1 Kings 12:16
16 And all Israel saw that the king did not accept them, and the people answered the king a word, saying: What portion is there for us in David? And there is no inheritance in the son of Jesse. Each man to your cities, O Israel. Now rule over the men of your house, O David. And Israel went to its cities.
2 Kings 5:5
5 The king of Syria said, “Go! I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So Naaman went, taking with him 10 talents of silver, 6,000 shekels of gold, and 10 suits of clothes.
Jonathan 2 Kings 5:5
5 The king of Aram said, "Go, then. I will send a letter to the king of Israel." He went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand gold denars, and ten changes of clothing.
וַאֲמַר מַלְכָּא דַאֲרָם אִיתָא אֱזֵיל וַאֲשַׁדַר אִגַרְתָּא לְוַת מַלְכָּא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲזַל וּנְסִיב בִּידֵיהּ עֲסַר כִּכְּרִין דִכְסַף וְשִׁתָּא אַלְפִין דִינְרִין דִדְהַב וְעַסְרָא אִצְטַלְוָן דִלְבוּשָׁא:
וַאֲמַר מַלְכָּא דַאֲרָם אִיתָא אֱזֵיל וַאֲשַׁדַר אִגַרְתָּא לְוַת מַלְכָּא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲזַל וּנְסִיב בִּידֵיהּ עֲסַר כִּכְּרִין דִכְסַף וְשִׁתָּא אַלְפִין דִינְרִין דִדְהַב וְעַסְרָא אִצְטַלְוָן דִלְבוּשָׁא:
Contemporization describes the adaptation of an earlier text to the geographical, social, or religious circumstances of a later audience. The practice can involve identifying an ancient location by a later name, explaining an archaic expression, or extending a commandment to religious practices familiar to the receiving community. The events still belong to the biblical past, but some of the details through which they are understood belong to the translator's present.[2]
The Greek Septuagint translation and the Aramaic Targums both preserve this kind of adaptation. The Septuagint, often abbreviated LXX, is the collection of ancient Greek translations of biblical books, begun with the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, in the centuries before Christianity. The Targums are Jewish translations into Aramaic, a language closely connected to Hebrew, whose surviving forms preserve interpretations from different periods. Neither collection came from a single translator applying one rule to every passage, and even an expansive Targum can follow the Hebrew closely for long stretches.[3][4]
An anachronism occurs when a detail belongs to a different time from the setting in which it appears. Naming Roman coins in a story about an Israelite prophet creates an anachronistic account, even if the coin name makes the payment easier for a later listener to imagine. A new place name works somewhat differently: it can tell readers where an earlier event happened without claiming that the inhabitants of that earlier world used the same name. Contemporization includes both kinds of change, so its examples need not all be equally anachronistic.[5][6]
For Jewish communities living among Greek speakers, some adaptations also reflect Hellenization, the influence of Greek language and culture. A Hellenized description of an Egyptian place or a religious ceremony uses Greek cultural language to make it recognizable. That does not necessarily imply approval of Greek religious practices, since a translation can use familiar Greek language to condemn them.[7]
The need for explanation extended beyond readers who knew no Hebrew. Aramaic translations also circulated among people who could read it, and in synagogue practice the Hebrew reading and its Aramaic interpretation could be heard alongside one another. Interpretation was incorporated into the translated passage itself, allowing the explanation to accompany the public reading of the Hebrew text.[8]
Identifying a particular change still requires care, especially in the Greek tradition, because a translator might have worked from a Hebrew text different from the one preserved in the Masoretic tradition, the main source behind many modern translations. Differences between the Greek and that Hebrew tradition cannot all be assigned to a translator's decision to adapt the narrative. Place names provide a useful beginning because the later identification can often be seen directly in the translated account.[9]
The Greek Septuagint translation and the Aramaic Targums both preserve this kind of adaptation. The Septuagint, often abbreviated LXX, is the collection of ancient Greek translations of biblical books, begun with the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, in the centuries before Christianity. The Targums are Jewish translations into Aramaic, a language closely connected to Hebrew, whose surviving forms preserve interpretations from different periods. Neither collection came from a single translator applying one rule to every passage, and even an expansive Targum can follow the Hebrew closely for long stretches.[3][4]
An anachronism occurs when a detail belongs to a different time from the setting in which it appears. Naming Roman coins in a story about an Israelite prophet creates an anachronistic account, even if the coin name makes the payment easier for a later listener to imagine. A new place name works somewhat differently: it can tell readers where an earlier event happened without claiming that the inhabitants of that earlier world used the same name. Contemporization includes both kinds of change, so its examples need not all be equally anachronistic.[5][6]
For Jewish communities living among Greek speakers, some adaptations also reflect Hellenization, the influence of Greek language and culture. A Hellenized description of an Egyptian place or a religious ceremony uses Greek cultural language to make it recognizable. That does not necessarily imply approval of Greek religious practices, since a translation can use familiar Greek language to condemn them.[7]
The need for explanation extended beyond readers who knew no Hebrew. Aramaic translations also circulated among people who could read it, and in synagogue practice the Hebrew reading and its Aramaic interpretation could be heard alongside one another. Interpretation was incorporated into the translated passage itself, allowing the explanation to accompany the public reading of the Hebrew text.[8]
Identifying a particular change still requires care, especially in the Greek tradition, because a translator might have worked from a Hebrew text different from the one preserved in the Masoretic tradition, the main source behind many modern translations. Differences between the Greek and that Hebrew tradition cannot all be assigned to a translator's decision to adapt the narrative. Place names provide a useful beginning because the later identification can often be seen directly in the translated account.[9]
Citations
- [1] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 5, 17–18) Brill, 2006
- [2] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 110–115) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [3] Wevers, John William Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (pp. ix) Scholars Press, 1993
- [4] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 92–96) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [5] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 5, 17–19) Brill, 2006
- [6] Brayford, Susan Septuagint Commentary Series: Genesis (pp. 435) Brill, 2007
- [7] Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (pp. 154–159) Brill, 2008
- [8] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 93–95) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [9] Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (pp. 158–161) Brill, 2008
Translation and Familiar Places
Greek and Aramaic biblical translations frequently describe the archaic world of the original narratives through details familiar to later readers and listeners. Place names offer an example of this practice, since a translator can identify a location no longer known through a name known by later readers and hearers.
2
Joseph Meets Jacob on a Greek Map of Egypt
The reunion of Joseph and Jacob in Genesis 46 provides a geographical example of contemporization, since the Hebrew and Greek narratives locate their meeting through different place names. Jacob has arrived in Egypt with his family, and Joseph travels to meet him in the region identified in Hebrew as Goshen. The Greek translation identifies the destination as Heroonpolis in the land of Ramesses.
Genesis 46:28-29
28 Jacob sent Judah before him to Joseph to accompany him to Goshen. So they came to the land of Goshen. 29 Joseph harnessed his chariot and went up to meet his father Israel in Goshen. When he met him, he hugged his neck and wept on his neck for quite some time.
LXX Genesis 46:28-29
28 And he sent Ioudas ahead of him to Ioseph in order to meet him over against Heroonpolis in the land of Ramesses. 29 And when Ioseph had hitched up his chariots, he went up to meet his father Israel over against Heroonpolis. And when he appeared to him, he fell upon his neck and wept with much weeping.
Heroonpolis is a Greek name for a place in the eastern Nile Delta, and its appearance here belongs to the Greek translation's tendency to update geographical information. The translator identifies the destination through a place that readers in Greek-speaking Egypt would likely find more recognizable than the name Goshen alone. The larger designation, the land of Ramesses, helps locate the meeting within Egypt.[1]
The substitution goes beyond representing a Hebrew name in Greek letters. Joseph and Jacob also receive Greek forms of their names, but Heroonpolis is a geographical identification supplied in place of Goshen. The translator treats the later place as the location intended by the older narrative, and repeats it when Joseph travels out to meet his father. The repetition makes the identification part of the story's geography.[2]
The geographical adaptation leaves the sequence of the reunion intact, including Joseph's preparation of his chariot, his embrace of Israel, and his weeping. By incorporating the identification into the account of Joseph's journey, the translation supplies the geographical explanation as part of the narrative rather than requiring a separate comment on the location of Goshen.
There is a limit to what the new name establishes. The precise identification of Goshen, Heroonpolis, and other ancient sites in this part of Egypt has been disputed, although the proposed locations fall within the same broad area of the eastern Delta. The Greek rendering records an ancient attempt to connect the biblical account to known geography; it does not settle every question about the location of the meeting.[3]
That distinction also explains the kind of anachronism involved. The name comes from a later Greek geographical world, but the narrative does not have Jacob call the place Heroonpolis in conversation. It is the narrator's identification of the destination, intended to locate an earlier event for later readers. The Greek account can therefore bring the past closer to its audience while preserving the earlier setting of the family's journey.[4]
An audience familiar with the later name would likely hear the passage as a recognizable account of a journey through Egypt, rather than as an interruption requiring a separate geographical explanation. In Greek Isaiah, the problem becomes more complicated because entire lists of ancient places need to be understood, and the translator draws on other biblical passages to explain them.[5]
The substitution goes beyond representing a Hebrew name in Greek letters. Joseph and Jacob also receive Greek forms of their names, but Heroonpolis is a geographical identification supplied in place of Goshen. The translator treats the later place as the location intended by the older narrative, and repeats it when Joseph travels out to meet his father. The repetition makes the identification part of the story's geography.[2]
The geographical adaptation leaves the sequence of the reunion intact, including Joseph's preparation of his chariot, his embrace of Israel, and his weeping. By incorporating the identification into the account of Joseph's journey, the translation supplies the geographical explanation as part of the narrative rather than requiring a separate comment on the location of Goshen.
There is a limit to what the new name establishes. The precise identification of Goshen, Heroonpolis, and other ancient sites in this part of Egypt has been disputed, although the proposed locations fall within the same broad area of the eastern Delta. The Greek rendering records an ancient attempt to connect the biblical account to known geography; it does not settle every question about the location of the meeting.[3]
That distinction also explains the kind of anachronism involved. The name comes from a later Greek geographical world, but the narrative does not have Jacob call the place Heroonpolis in conversation. It is the narrator's identification of the destination, intended to locate an earlier event for later readers. The Greek account can therefore bring the past closer to its audience while preserving the earlier setting of the family's journey.[4]
An audience familiar with the later name would likely hear the passage as a recognizable account of a journey through Egypt, rather than as an interruption requiring a separate geographical explanation. In Greek Isaiah, the problem becomes more complicated because entire lists of ancient places need to be understood, and the translator draws on other biblical passages to explain them.[5]
Citations
- [1] Brayford, Susan Septuagint Commentary Series: Genesis (pp. 435) Brill, 2007
- [2] Wevers, John William Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (pp. 787) Scholars Press, 1993
- [3] Brayford, Susan Septuagint Commentary Series: Genesis (pp. 435) Brill, 2007
- [4] Wevers, John William Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (pp. 787) Scholars Press, 1993
- [5] Ngunga, Abi T. Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis (pp. 99) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013
Translation and Familiar Places
Greek and Aramaic biblical translations frequently describe the archaic world of the original narratives through details familiar to later readers and listeners. Place names offer an example of this practice, since a translator can identify a location no longer known through a name known by later readers and hearers.
3
Isaiah Names Places His Greek Readers Might Recognize
The Assyrian king's boast in Isaiah depends on a list of places his armies have overcome, with each name making the next conquest sound inevitable. In the Hebrew account he compares one city with another, including Hamath and Arpad, before placing Samaria alongside Damascus. The Greek translation turns that compact list into a more explanatory account of conquered territory.
Isaiah 10:9
9 Is not Calneh like Carchemish? Hamath like Arpad? Samaria like Damascus?
LXX Isaiah 10:9
9 then he will say, “Did I not take the country above Babylon and Chalanne, where the tower was built? And I took Arabia and Damascus and Samaria.
The Greek king names Arabia in place of Hamath and adds an explanation involving Babylon, Chalanne, and a tower. These changes have been connected with the translator's effort to make the old geographical references intelligible to his audience. He draws on names and associations available elsewhere in the Greek Bible, so that the inherited list acquires geographical associations more accessible to his readers.[1]
The connection with Genesis is particularly useful here. Greek Genesis names Babylon and Chalanne together in the account of Nimrod's kingdom, while the account in the following chapter describes the tower in the same broad geographical setting. Greek Isaiah gathers those associations into the Assyrian boast, where they explain the territory the speaker claims to have taken.[2]
The connection with Genesis is particularly useful here. Greek Genesis names Babylon and Chalanne together in the account of Nimrod's kingdom, while the account in the following chapter describes the tower in the same broad geographical setting. Greek Isaiah gathers those associations into the Assyrian boast, where they explain the territory the speaker claims to have taken.[2]
Genesis 10:10
10 The primary regions of his kingdom were Babel, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar.
LXX Genesis 10:10
10 And the beginning of his kingdom came to be Babylon, Orech and Archad and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.
The translator's familiarity with other biblical books is part of the adaptation. A new geographical explanation need not come entirely from experience outside scripture, since another translated passage can supply the names through which an older reference is understood. Contemporization and the reuse of earlier texts can work together within the same sentence.[3]
The name Arabia appears again in the next chapter, this time within a promise that scattered members of Israel will return. Hamath occurs in the Hebrew list of places from which they will be reclaimed, while the Greek list ends with Arabia. The same substitution therefore occurs in a threat concerning foreign conquest and in a promise concerning the return of God's people.
The name Arabia appears again in the next chapter, this time within a promise that scattered members of Israel will return. Hamath occurs in the Hebrew list of places from which they will be reclaimed, while the Greek list ends with Arabia. The same substitution therefore occurs in a threat concerning foreign conquest and in a promise concerning the return of God's people.
Isaiah 11:11
11 At that time the Lord will again lift his hand to reclaim the remnant of his people from Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and the seacoasts.
LXX Isaiah 11:11
11 And it shall be on that day that the Lord will further display his hand to show zeal for the remnant that is left of the people, whatever is left from the Assyrians, and from Egypt and Babylonia and Ethiopia and from the Ailamites and from where the sun rises and out of Arabia.
These identifications should not be read as precise statements that the ancient cities and the later regions were geographically identical. They show how the translator understood and explained the inherited names. His readers encounter a Hellenized account of the biblical world, with recognizability carrying more weight than preserving each old name unchanged.[4]
The geographical changes also leave the passages available for renewed use: the king still boasts of conquest, and the promise still gathers people from distant lands. The geographical adaptations make the scope of conquest and return more recognizable, while other passages in Greek Isaiah apply comparable adaptations to the religious practices under criticism. A feast offered to foreign gods provides the next example.[5]
The geographical changes also leave the passages available for renewed use: the king still boasts of conquest, and the promise still gathers people from distant lands. The geographical adaptations make the scope of conquest and return more recognizable, while other passages in Greek Isaiah apply comparable adaptations to the religious practices under criticism. A feast offered to foreign gods provides the next example.[5]
Citations
- [1] Ngunga, Abi T. Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis (pp. 99) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013
- [2] Ngunga, Abi T. Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis (pp. 99) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013
- [3] Ngunga, Abi T. Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis (pp. 99) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013
- [4] Ngunga, Abi T. Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis (pp. 99) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013
- [5] Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (pp. 155, 158–159) Brill, 2008
Greek Religious Life in Biblical Translation
The Greek translation of Isaiah describes forbidden worship through religious language familiar in the Greek cultural world, while Greek Deuteronomy expands a prohibition to include initiation into mysteries. These examples connect the translation of earlier commandments with religious practices that later Jewish readers would likely recognize.
4
Fortune and the Divine Powers in Greek Isaiah
Isaiah's criticism of forbidden worship includes a meal prepared for divine powers associated with fortune and destiny. The people have abandoned God's holy mountain, yet they continue to set out food and drink for other recipients. The Greek translation preserves the accusation while naming those recipients through language with associations in the religious world of its later readers.
Isaiah 65:11
11 But as for you who abandon the Lord and forget about worshiping at my holy mountain, who prepare a feast for the god called ‘Fortune,’ and fill up wine jugs for the god called ‘Destiny’—
LXX Isaiah 65:11
11 But as for you who forsake me and forget my holy mountain and prepare a table for the demon and fill a mixed drink for Fortune,
The names behind the Hebrew passage are Gad and Meni, represented in this English translation by Fortune and Destiny. The Greek account instead connects the power translated here as a demon with Fortune, whose Greek name is Tyche. This pairing has been understood as an adaptation to worship in the Hellenistic world, where Greek language and culture had spread after Alexander the Great. In that setting, Daimon and Tyche were recognizable divine powers associated with the course of human life.[1]
The English translations make the change less immediately obvious than a comparison of the names would. Fortune already appears on the Hebrew side as an explanation of Gad, while Fortune on the Greek side represents Tyche in the second part of the sentence. Reading only the English could suggest that one familiar name has simply been retained. The proposed contemporization concerns the Greek pairing as a whole and the religious associations it would likely have carried for its audience.[2]
For readers familiar with these Hellenistic divine figures, the prophetic accusation would have recognizable contemporary associations. The preparation of a table and a drink offering for powers associated with human fortune connects the earlier prophetic accusation with religious practices encountered in the later Greek world. The translation makes the old warning available in the language of practices its readers might encounter around them.[3]
The identification with particular Greek divine figures remains an interpretation of the rendering, rather than a complete description of a ceremony supplied by Isaiah. The Greek sentence names the recipients and the offerings, but gives no city, festival, or named group of participants. Its connection to Hellenistic religious life is more defensible than an attempt to identify the precise occasion the translator had in mind.[4]
The next verse also keeps the direction of the passage clear. The people who seek favor from these powers are threatened with death because they have refused God's call, so the use of Greek religious language carries a condemnation. A Hellenized description of worship can serve a Jewish argument against participation in that worship.
The English translations make the change less immediately obvious than a comparison of the names would. Fortune already appears on the Hebrew side as an explanation of Gad, while Fortune on the Greek side represents Tyche in the second part of the sentence. Reading only the English could suggest that one familiar name has simply been retained. The proposed contemporization concerns the Greek pairing as a whole and the religious associations it would likely have carried for its audience.[2]
For readers familiar with these Hellenistic divine figures, the prophetic accusation would have recognizable contemporary associations. The preparation of a table and a drink offering for powers associated with human fortune connects the earlier prophetic accusation with religious practices encountered in the later Greek world. The translation makes the old warning available in the language of practices its readers might encounter around them.[3]
The identification with particular Greek divine figures remains an interpretation of the rendering, rather than a complete description of a ceremony supplied by Isaiah. The Greek sentence names the recipients and the offerings, but gives no city, festival, or named group of participants. Its connection to Hellenistic religious life is more defensible than an attempt to identify the precise occasion the translator had in mind.[4]
The next verse also keeps the direction of the passage clear. The people who seek favor from these powers are threatened with death because they have refused God's call, so the use of Greek religious language carries a condemnation. A Hellenized description of worship can serve a Jewish argument against participation in that worship.
Isaiah 65:12
12 I predestine you to die by the sword, all of you will kneel down at the slaughtering block, because I called to you, and you did not respond; I spoke and you did not listen. You did evil before me; you chose to do what displeases me.”
LXX Isaiah 65:12
12 I will deliver you over to the dagger; all of you shall fall by slaughter; because I called you and you did not answer, I spoke and you misheard, and you did what was evil before me and chose the things I did not desire.
Greek Deuteronomy takes the connection with later religious life into the language of a commandment, where the surviving translation includes a warning concerning initiation. The question there is how an earlier prohibition came to speak about practices recognizable in the Greek world.[5]
Citations
- [1] Seeligmann, I. L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies (pp. 264) Mohr Siebeck, 2004
- [2] Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (pp. 155) Brill, 2008
- [3] Seeligmann, I. L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies (pp. 264) Mohr Siebeck, 2004
- [4] Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (pp. 155, 158–159) Brill, 2008
- [5] Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (pp. 154–155) Brill, 2008
Greek Religious Life in Biblical Translation
The Greek translation of Isaiah describes forbidden worship through religious language familiar in the Greek cultural world, while Greek Deuteronomy expands a prohibition to include initiation into mysteries. These examples connect the translation of earlier commandments with religious practices that later Jewish readers would likely recognize.
5
Deuteronomy Adds a Warning Against Initiation
The Greek translation of Deuteronomy expands a prohibition into two parallel statements, introducing religious language without a separate counterpart in the surviving Hebrew text. The Hebrew passage addresses men and women through descriptions associated with religious service and conventionally translated here as sacred prostitution. The Greek text first prohibits prostitution and then adds a second pair of religious designations, including an initiated man.
Deuteronomy 23:17
17 There must never be a sacred prostitute among the young women of Israel nor a sacred male prostitute among the young men of Israel.
Greek Septuagint, Deuteronomy 23:18 in the Brenton translation (translated excerpt): "There shall not be a harlot of the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be a fornicator of the sons of Israel; there shall not be an idolatress of the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be an initiated person of the sons of Israel."[1]
The additional language appears in the Greek counterpart of this verse, numbered 23:18 in the Brenton translation quoted here and 23:17 in some other English editions. The Hebrew numbering is also 23:18, while the English Hebrew Bible translation uses 23:17. Its reference to someone initiated has long been connected with Greek mysteries, religious rites into which participants were admitted through initiation. On that understanding, a commandment delivered by Moses also addresses participation in a form of worship familiar to later Greek-speaking Jews.[2]
The expansion is visible even though its history is difficult to reconstruct. One Hebrew prohibition is represented by two Greek prohibitions, both arranged around the women and men of Israel. The second may preserve another translation of the same Hebrew expression that was subsequently retained alongside the first. It is therefore possible to identify an expanded Greek text without assuming that its first translator freely invented an entirely new commandment.[3]
The religious setting also needs to be described carefully. The Greek term applied to the woman has been understood in more than one way, including as a reference to a sorceress or to someone involved in initiation; the Brenton translation uses idolatress. There is no secure basis for turning the whole passage into a description of sexual rites practiced in Greek mysteries. The earlier Hebrew expressions and the later Greek expressions pose separate questions, and the English phrase sacred prostitution cannot settle either one by itself.[4]
An early Jewish reader shows that the connection with initiation was nevertheless available in antiquity. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish writer of the first century CE, attributes to Moses a prohibition against participation in mysteries when discussing the commandments. His discussion is reasonably connected with this Greek passage, although he does not reproduce its language exactly. By his time, Mosaic instruction could be read as addressing the religious choices of Jews living in a Greek cultural setting.[5]
The example shows why Hellenization need not imply religious accommodation. Greek expressions could make a prohibition more immediately applicable to a Hellenized audience while prohibiting participation in other forms of worship. Identifying the target specifically as the rites of Dionysus goes beyond what the language establishes, but an association with Greek initiation is a plausible part of the passage's ancient interpretation.[6]
The surviving Greek text therefore puts later religious language into Moses' instruction even though the stages by which that language entered the translation remain uncertain. The Aramaic Targums contain more everyday adaptations, where descriptions of settlement, dining, and payment reflect the social conventions of later audiences.[7]
The additional language appears in the Greek counterpart of this verse, numbered 23:18 in the Brenton translation quoted here and 23:17 in some other English editions. The Hebrew numbering is also 23:18, while the English Hebrew Bible translation uses 23:17. Its reference to someone initiated has long been connected with Greek mysteries, religious rites into which participants were admitted through initiation. On that understanding, a commandment delivered by Moses also addresses participation in a form of worship familiar to later Greek-speaking Jews.[2]
The expansion is visible even though its history is difficult to reconstruct. One Hebrew prohibition is represented by two Greek prohibitions, both arranged around the women and men of Israel. The second may preserve another translation of the same Hebrew expression that was subsequently retained alongside the first. It is therefore possible to identify an expanded Greek text without assuming that its first translator freely invented an entirely new commandment.[3]
The religious setting also needs to be described carefully. The Greek term applied to the woman has been understood in more than one way, including as a reference to a sorceress or to someone involved in initiation; the Brenton translation uses idolatress. There is no secure basis for turning the whole passage into a description of sexual rites practiced in Greek mysteries. The earlier Hebrew expressions and the later Greek expressions pose separate questions, and the English phrase sacred prostitution cannot settle either one by itself.[4]
An early Jewish reader shows that the connection with initiation was nevertheless available in antiquity. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish writer of the first century CE, attributes to Moses a prohibition against participation in mysteries when discussing the commandments. His discussion is reasonably connected with this Greek passage, although he does not reproduce its language exactly. By his time, Mosaic instruction could be read as addressing the religious choices of Jews living in a Greek cultural setting.[5]
The example shows why Hellenization need not imply religious accommodation. Greek expressions could make a prohibition more immediately applicable to a Hellenized audience while prohibiting participation in other forms of worship. Identifying the target specifically as the rites of Dionysus goes beyond what the language establishes, but an association with Greek initiation is a plausible part of the passage's ancient interpretation.[6]
The surviving Greek text therefore puts later religious language into Moses' instruction even though the stages by which that language entered the translation remain uncertain. The Aramaic Targums contain more everyday adaptations, where descriptions of settlement, dining, and payment reflect the social conventions of later audiences.[7]
Citations
- [1] Brenton, Lancelot Charles Lee The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (pp. Deuteronomy 23:18) Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1851
- [2] Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (pp. 154) Brill, 2008
- [3] Boyd-Taylor, Cameron Robbers, Pirates and Licentious Women: Echoes of an Anti-Dionysiac Polemic in the Septuagint (author manuscript) (pp. 544–546) 2008
- [4] Boyd-Taylor, Cameron Robbers, Pirates and Licentious Women: Echoes of an Anti-Dionysiac Polemic in the Septuagint (author manuscript) (pp. 544–549) 2008
- [5] Boyd-Taylor, Cameron Robbers, Pirates and Licentious Women: Echoes of an Anti-Dionysiac Polemic in the Septuagint (author manuscript) (pp. 545, 549) 2008
- [6] Boyd-Taylor, Cameron Robbers, Pirates and Licentious Women: Echoes of an Anti-Dionysiac Polemic in the Septuagint (author manuscript) (pp. 549–550) 2008
- [7] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 5, 17–19) Brill, 2006
Everyday Life in the Aramaic Targums
The Aramaic translation of Kings brings biblical accounts closer to the everyday experience of its audience through changes to housing, meals, and money. Some renderings explain an old expression, while others place later customs and coin names inside narratives about Israel's kings and prophets.
6
Israel Returns to Towns Instead of Tents
When the northern tribes reject Rehoboam's rule in 1 Kings, their declaration of independence ends with a call for Israel to return to its tents. The Aramaic translation tells the people to return to their cities instead, putting a familiar kind of settlement into a speech that still announces the breakup of Solomon's kingdom.
1 Kings 12:16
16 When all Israel saw that the king refused to listen to them, the people answered the king, “We have no portion in David, no share in the son of Jesse! Return to your tents28, O Israel! Now, look after your own dynasty, O David!” So Israel returned to their homes.
Jonathan 1 Kings 12:16
16 And all Israel saw that the king did not accept them, and the people answered the king a word, saying: What portion is there for us in David? And there is no inheritance in the son of Jesse. Each man to your cities, O Israel. Now rule over the men of your house, O David. And Israel went to its cities.
The Aramaic passage belongs to Targum Jonathan, the collection of translations of the biblical books known in Jewish tradition as the Prophets, which includes Kings. Its rendering of tents as cities occurs repeatedly, and has been connected with the settled life familiar to its later audience. The political action remains the same, but the place to which people return is expressed through the language of that audience's own communities.[1][2]
The Hebrew phrase should not be taken to mean that everyone in the kingdom actually lived in a tent. It could function as an inherited expression for returning home, and the English translation already uses homes at the end of the verse. The Targum's cities make the intended destination more explicit, replacing the inherited expression with language appropriate to the settled communities familiar to its audience.[3]
The same change occurs in a very different setting at the end of the temple celebrations under Solomon. There the people leave with gratitude and happiness, and the Targum again uses cities for the Hebrew tents. The adaptation is therefore not limited to the rebellious speech under Rehoboam; it appears in descriptions of returning home whether the people are rejecting a king or celebrating with him.[4]
The Hebrew phrase should not be taken to mean that everyone in the kingdom actually lived in a tent. It could function as an inherited expression for returning home, and the English translation already uses homes at the end of the verse. The Targum's cities make the intended destination more explicit, replacing the inherited expression with language appropriate to the settled communities familiar to its audience.[3]
The same change occurs in a very different setting at the end of the temple celebrations under Solomon. There the people leave with gratitude and happiness, and the Targum again uses cities for the Hebrew tents. The adaptation is therefore not limited to the rebellious speech under Rehoboam; it appears in descriptions of returning home whether the people are rejecting a king or celebrating with him.[4]
1 Kings 8:66
66 On the fifteenth day after the festival started, he dismissed the people. They asked God to empower the king and then went to their homes, happy and content because of all the good the Lord had done for his servant David and his people Israel.
Jonathan 1 Kings 8:66
66 On the eighth day he sent the people away. They blessed the king and returned to their cities, rejoicing and glad at heart for all the good the Lord had done for David his servant and for Israel his people.
בְּיוֹמָא תְמִינָאָה שַׁלַח יַת עַמָא וּבָרִיכוּ יַת מַלְכָּא וַאֲזַל לְקִרְוֵיהוֹן כַּד חָדָן וְשַׁפִּירָא לִבְּהוֹן עַל כָּל טַבְתָא דַעֲבַד יְיָ לְדָוִד עַבְדֵיהּ וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמֵיהּ:
בְּיוֹמָא תְמִינָאָה שַׁלַח יַת עַמָא וּבָרִיכוּ יַת מַלְכָּא וַאֲזַל לְקִרְוֵיהוֹן כַּד חָדָן וְשַׁפִּירָא לִבְּהוֹן עַל כָּל טַבְתָא דַעֲבַד יְיָ לְדָוִד עַבְדֵיהּ וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמֵיהּ:
The recurrence across different narrative settings supports identifying the substitution as a translation practice. An isolated substitution could seem tied to the needs of one story, but the same replacement across different accounts suggests a regular way of presenting biblical life. The translation supplies the expected meaning of the expression where it occurs, without interrupting the narrative to explain the history of the phrase.[5]
Calling this contemporization does not require treating the change as a claim that cities were unknown in the time of Solomon or Rehoboam. The adjustment concerns how an older description is expressed to later hearers, and in this case clarification and cultural adaptation are difficult to separate. The Targum brings the language closer to its audience without necessarily introducing a historically impossible settlement into the story.
Other everyday changes go further than replacing an inherited expression for home. When the same Aramaic translation describes people at a meal, it can change the posture of their bodies, making biblical diners recline in a way associated with later dining customs.[6]
Calling this contemporization does not require treating the change as a claim that cities were unknown in the time of Solomon or Rehoboam. The adjustment concerns how an older description is expressed to later hearers, and in this case clarification and cultural adaptation are difficult to separate. The Targum brings the language closer to its audience without necessarily introducing a historically impossible settlement into the story.
Other everyday changes go further than replacing an inherited expression for home. When the same Aramaic translation describes people at a meal, it can change the posture of their bodies, making biblical diners recline in a way associated with later dining customs.[6]
Citations
- [1] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 5) Brill, 2006
- [2] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 95–96) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [3] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 5) Brill, 2006
- [4] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 5) Brill, 2006
- [5] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 5–6) Brill, 2006
- [6] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 19) Brill, 2006
Everyday Life in the Aramaic Targums
The Aramaic translation of Kings brings biblical accounts closer to the everyday experience of its audience through changes to housing, meals, and money. Some renderings explain an old expression, while others place later customs and coin names inside narratives about Israel's kings and prophets.
7
Biblical Diners Recline at the Table
A meal in the story of the old prophet at Bethel contains a small change between the Hebrew account and its Aramaic translation. The Hebrew describes the men sitting at the table when a message from God arrives. The Aramaic translation in Targum Jonathan describes them as reclining, a posture familiar from later Greek and Roman dining.[1]
1 Kings 13:20
20 While they were sitting at the table, the Lord’s message came to the old prophet who had brought him back.
Jonathan 1 Kings 13:20
20 While they were reclining at the table, a word of prophecy from the Lord came to the prophet who had brought him back.
The change concerns the dining posture assigned to the participants, who are represented as taking their meal in a supported, reclining position. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods that posture was part of the social setting of meals, and the Targum introduces it into an earlier biblical account.[2]
The same adaptation appears in the account of the queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon. Among the things that impress her is the arrangement of the king's servants at his table. Where the Hebrew refers to their seating, the Targum describes their reclining, so the splendor of the royal household is presented through a dining custom familiar in the later world of the translation.[3]
The same adaptation appears in the account of the queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon. Among the things that impress her is the arrangement of the king's servants at his table. Where the Hebrew refers to their seating, the Targum describes their reclining, so the splendor of the royal household is presented through a dining custom familiar in the later world of the translation.[3]
1 Kings 10:5
5 the food in his banquet hall, his servants and attendants, their robes, his cupbearers, and his burnt offerings which he presented in the Lord’s temple, she was amazed.
Jonathan 1 Kings 10:5
5 The food at his table, his servants reclining at their meal, his attendants standing in service and their clothing, his drink service, and his burnt offerings at the sanctuary of the Lord left her breathless.
וּמֵיכַל פָּתוֹרֵיהּ וְאַסְחָרוּת עַבְדוֹהִי וּמְקָם מְשׁוּמְשָׁנוֹהִי וּלְבוּשֵׁיהוֹן וְשַׁקָיוּתֵיהּ וַעֲלָתֵיהּ דְמַסִיק בֵּית מַקְדְשָׁא דַייָ וְלָא אִשְׁתָּאֵר בָּהּ עוֹד רוּחַ:
וּמֵיכַל פָּתוֹרֵיהּ וְאַסְחָרוּת עַבְדוֹהִי וּמְקָם מְשׁוּמְשָׁנוֹהִי וּלְבוּשֵׁיהוֹן וְשַׁקָיוּתֵיהּ וַעֲלָתֵיהּ דְמַסִיק בֵּית מַקְדְשָׁא דַייָ וְלָא אִשְׁתָּאֵר בָּהּ עוֹד רוּחַ:
The distinction between sitting and reclining also mattered within Jewish practice. The Mishnah, a collection of teaching from Jewish teachers known as rabbis, compiled around the beginning of the third century CE, distinguishes a group merely sitting together from a group reclining together at a meal. In its discussion of blessings, sitting diners each say their own blessing, while reclining diners may have one person say it for them all. Posture can therefore describe the character of a shared meal as well as the position of someone's body.[4]
The Targum does not add that rule about blessings to the story at Bethel, and the meal need not be identified as a particular Jewish ceremony. Reclining had become recognizable as a posture at meals in the later culture, and the translator uses it where the earlier account describes sitting. The cultural explanation belongs to the change in posture, without requiring every later rule about reclining to be read into the passage.
This is a more substantial adjustment than replacing tents with cities, because the translated account presents the characters as doing something differently. It is an example of projecting a later custom into an earlier narrative, though it cannot establish that no one ever reclined at a meal before the Hellenistic period. The evidence is the repeated change from the particular posture named in the Hebrew to the one preferred in the Aramaic translation.[5]
The adaptation is incorporated into the circumstances of the meal without interrupting the prophetic narrative. The message arrives while the diners are at the table, and nothing in the sequence requires the listener to stop over their posture. The next everyday example makes the chronological distance more visible, since the name of a coin can belong to a period far later than the people carrying it.[6]
The Targum does not add that rule about blessings to the story at Bethel, and the meal need not be identified as a particular Jewish ceremony. Reclining had become recognizable as a posture at meals in the later culture, and the translator uses it where the earlier account describes sitting. The cultural explanation belongs to the change in posture, without requiring every later rule about reclining to be read into the passage.
This is a more substantial adjustment than replacing tents with cities, because the translated account presents the characters as doing something differently. It is an example of projecting a later custom into an earlier narrative, though it cannot establish that no one ever reclined at a meal before the Hellenistic period. The evidence is the repeated change from the particular posture named in the Hebrew to the one preferred in the Aramaic translation.[5]
The adaptation is incorporated into the circumstances of the meal without interrupting the prophetic narrative. The message arrives while the diners are at the table, and nothing in the sequence requires the listener to stop over their posture. The next everyday example makes the chronological distance more visible, since the name of a coin can belong to a period far later than the people carrying it.[6]
Citations
- [1] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 19) Brill, 2006
- [2] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 19) Brill, 2006
- [3] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 19) Brill, 2006
- [4] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 19) Brill, 2006
- [5] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 19) Brill, 2006
- [6] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 17–18) Brill, 2006
Everyday Life in the Aramaic Targums
The Aramaic translation of Kings brings biblical accounts closer to the everyday experience of its audience through changes to housing, meals, and money. Some renderings explain an old expression, while others place later customs and coin names inside narratives about Israel's kings and prophets.
8
Naaman Pays in Coins from a Later World
Naaman sets out to seek healing from the prophet Elisha with a letter from his king and a large quantity of valuables. The account in 2 Kings names silver, gold, and changes of clothing, but the Aramaic translation makes the gold more specific by expressing it in denars. A coin name from the Roman world enters a story about a Syrian commander and an Israelite prophet of a much earlier period.[1]
2 Kings 5:5
5 The king of Syria said, “Go! I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So Naaman went, taking with him 10 talents of silver, 6,000 shekels of gold, and 10 suits of clothes.
Jonathan 2 Kings 5:5
5 The king of Aram said, "Go, then. I will send a letter to the king of Israel." He went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand gold denars, and ten changes of clothing.
וַאֲמַר מַלְכָּא דַאֲרָם אִיתָא אֱזֵיל וַאֲשַׁדַר אִגַרְתָּא לְוַת מַלְכָּא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲזַל וּנְסִיב בִּידֵיהּ עֲסַר כִּכְּרִין דִכְסַף וְשִׁתָּא אַלְפִין דִינְרִין דִדְהַב וְעַסְרָא אִצְטַלְוָן דִלְבוּשָׁא:
וַאֲמַר מַלְכָּא דַאֲרָם אִיתָא אֱזֵיל וַאֲשַׁדַר אִגַרְתָּא לְוַת מַלְכָּא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲזַל וּנְסִיב בִּידֵיהּ עֲסַר כִּכְּרִין דִכְסַף וְשִׁתָּא אַלְפִין דִינְרִין דִדְהַב וְעַסְרָא אִצְטַלְוָן דִלְבוּשָׁא:
The English translation supplies shekels for the gold, while the Hebrew itself gives the quantity without naming a unit at that point. The Aramaic translation in Targum Jonathan supplies gold denars instead. The number remains six thousand, but the translator provides a familiar monetary designation where the older text leaves the unit unstated.[2]
This is a direct anachronism in the description of Naaman's possessions. The designation makes the payment intelligible through a familiar monetary unit while attributing that later unit to a figure from the biblical past. The practical explanation and the chronological mismatch arise from the same small addition, without requiring any larger change to Naaman's journey or his purpose in visiting Elisha.
The same translation updates money elsewhere in Kings. When Elisha announces that food will become affordable at the gate of Samaria, the Hebrew prices flour and barley in shekels. The Aramaic rendering uses the name sela, a coin designation familiar in the later world, for the monetary shekel.[3]
This is a direct anachronism in the description of Naaman's possessions. The designation makes the payment intelligible through a familiar monetary unit while attributing that later unit to a figure from the biblical past. The practical explanation and the chronological mismatch arise from the same small addition, without requiring any larger change to Naaman's journey or his purpose in visiting Elisha.
The same translation updates money elsewhere in Kings. When Elisha announces that food will become affordable at the gate of Samaria, the Hebrew prices flour and barley in shekels. The Aramaic rendering uses the name sela, a coin designation familiar in the later world, for the monetary shekel.[3]
2 Kings 7:1
1 Elisha replied, “Listen to the Lord’s message. This is what the Lord has said, ‘About this time tomorrow a seah of finely milled flour will sell for a shekel and two seahs of barley for a shekel at the gate of Samaria.’”
Jonathan 2 Kings 7:1
1 Elisha said, "Receive the word of the Lord. This is what the Lord says: At this time tomorrow, a seah of fine flour will sell for a sela, and two seahs of barley for a sela, at the gate of Samaria."
וַאֲמַר אֱלִישָׁע קַבִּילוּ פִתְגָמָא דַייָ כִּדְנַן אֲמַר יְיָ כְּעִדְנָא הָדֵין מְחַר סְאָה סוּלְתָּא בְסִלְעָא וְסָאתָן סְעוֹרִין בְּסִלְעָא בִּתְרַע דְשֹׁמְרוֹן:
וַאֲמַר אֱלִישָׁע קַבִּילוּ פִתְגָמָא דַייָ כִּדְנַן אֲמַר יְיָ כְּעִדְנָא הָדֵין מְחַר סְאָה סוּלְתָּא בְסִלְעָא וְסָאתָן סְעוֹרִין בְּסִלְעָא בִּתְרַע דְשֹׁמְרוֹן:
The distinction between money and weight is necessary here because a shekel began as a unit of weight and could later name a coin. The Targum does not replace every occurrence indiscriminately: when the Hebrew refers to a straightforward weight, it can retain the corresponding Aramaic term for that weight. Its treatment of money therefore reflects attention to the context in which the amount appears.[4]
The substitution does not establish an equivalent value between the earlier weight of gold and the later monetary denomination. The examples establish that monetary names have changed; they do not supply the exchange rates or purchasing power needed to equate every amount across the periods concerned. The listener gains a recognizable kind of payment, while the original distinction between a weight of precious metal and a later coin can become less visible.
The two accounts also show the range of this everyday practice. A wealthy commander's gift and the price of food at a city gate concern very different transactions, but both can be narrated through later monetary language. The adaptation belongs to the description of ordinary life, and its usefulness did not depend on the translator preserving the precise economic conditions of the earlier setting.[5]
Religious membership could be updated in a comparable way. A term that once described where a person lived could acquire a more specific meaning about the community that person had joined, allowing a commandment about a resident foreigner to be heard as a commandment about a convert.[6]
The substitution does not establish an equivalent value between the earlier weight of gold and the later monetary denomination. The examples establish that monetary names have changed; they do not supply the exchange rates or purchasing power needed to equate every amount across the periods concerned. The listener gains a recognizable kind of payment, while the original distinction between a weight of precious metal and a later coin can become less visible.
The two accounts also show the range of this everyday practice. A wealthy commander's gift and the price of food at a city gate concern very different transactions, but both can be narrated through later monetary language. The adaptation belongs to the description of ordinary life, and its usefulness did not depend on the translator preserving the precise economic conditions of the earlier setting.[5]
Religious membership could be updated in a comparable way. A term that once described where a person lived could acquire a more specific meaning about the community that person had joined, allowing a commandment about a resident foreigner to be heard as a commandment about a convert.[6]
Citations
- [1] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 18) Brill, 2006
- [2] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 18) Brill, 2006
- [3] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 17–18) Brill, 2006
- [4] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 17–18) Brill, 2006
- [5] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 5, 17–18) Brill, 2006
- [6] Drazin, Israel, and Stanley M. Wagner Onkelos on the Torah, Exodus: Understanding the Bible Text (pp. 69) Gefen, 2006
Later Jewish Practice in Earlier Narratives
The Aramaic Targums also explain biblical society through the religious categories of later Jewish communities. Resident foreigners can become converts, and the relationships between prophets and their followers take on the language of teachers and disciples familiar from later traditions of study.
9
Resident Foreigners Become Converts in Targum Onkelos
The Passover instructions in Exodus apply the prohibition on leaven to both the native population and foreigners living among them. Targum Onkelos, the Aramaic translation of the Torah that became standard in rabbinic tradition, describes the foreigner in this verse as a proselyte, meaning a person who has joined the Jewish religious community. The commandment has been expressed through a later category of membership.[1][2]
Exodus 12:19
19 For seven days yeast must not be found in your houses, for whoever eats what is made with yeast—that person will be cut off from the community of Israel, whether a resident foreigner or one born in the land.
Onkelos Exodus 12:19
19 Seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses; for whosoever will eat of that which is leavened, that man shall perish from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a proselyte, or of the native of the land.
The Hebrew term behind resident foreigner is ger, which describes a stranger or sojourner living among another people. In later Jewish usage the term acquired the meaning proselyte, and the Aramaic translation of this passage follows that later sense. Its two groups are therefore the convert and the person native to the land, both subject to the same Passover restriction.[3]
The change also affects the category of people understood to fall under the commandment. Residence and conversion are different relationships to a community, even though one person might be described by both. A foreigner can live among a people without having joined its religion, while the word convert makes religious affiliation part of the description. The translation brings that later understanding of membership into the commandment.[4]
Onkelos does not apply the later meaning everywhere, however, and Abraham's negotiation for a burial place provides a useful comparison. He describes himself to the people of the land as a foreign resident, and the Aramaic translation preserves the sense of a guest and sojourner. Calling Abraham a convert to the community from which he seeks land would give the wrong account of his position.
The change also affects the category of people understood to fall under the commandment. Residence and conversion are different relationships to a community, even though one person might be described by both. A foreigner can live among a people without having joined its religion, while the word convert makes religious affiliation part of the description. The translation brings that later understanding of membership into the commandment.[4]
Onkelos does not apply the later meaning everywhere, however, and Abraham's negotiation for a burial place provides a useful comparison. He describes himself to the people of the land as a foreign resident, and the Aramaic translation preserves the sense of a guest and sojourner. Calling Abraham a convert to the community from which he seeks land would give the wrong account of his position.
Genesis 23:4
4 “I am a foreign resident, a temporary settler, among you. Grant me ownership of a burial site among you so that I may bury my dead.”
Onkelos Genesis 23:4
4 I am a guest and a sojourner with you: give me the possession of a sepulchre with you, that I may bury my dead from before me.
The contrast shows why a translation's recurring preference must still be examined in its particular setting. The later religious meaning is available to the translator, but the context can call for the older sense of someone residing among strangers. The practice is selective, rather than a mechanical replacement of every Hebrew occurrence with a term for a convert.[5]
In the Passover commandment, the later category would likely help an audience recognize the people to whom the restriction applied within its own community. At the same time, it makes the social world of the commandment resemble the world of later Jewish membership more closely. This is contemporization through a change in the meaning of a familiar term, rather than through an added place name or a new account of an event.[6]
The example also explains why a translation that follows much of its source closely can still contain significant interpretation. One designation of a person can determine how the surrounding commandment is understood. In the Aramaic translation of the prophetic narratives, the names given to teachers and their followers make a similar adjustment to the relationships between biblical characters.[7]
In the Passover commandment, the later category would likely help an audience recognize the people to whom the restriction applied within its own community. At the same time, it makes the social world of the commandment resemble the world of later Jewish membership more closely. This is contemporization through a change in the meaning of a familiar term, rather than through an added place name or a new account of an event.[6]
The example also explains why a translation that follows much of its source closely can still contain significant interpretation. One designation of a person can determine how the surrounding commandment is understood. In the Aramaic translation of the prophetic narratives, the names given to teachers and their followers make a similar adjustment to the relationships between biblical characters.[7]
Citations
- [1] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 95–96) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [2] Drazin, Israel, and Stanley M. Wagner Onkelos on the Torah, Exodus: Understanding the Bible Text (pp. 69) Gefen, 2006
- [3] Drazin, Israel, and Stanley M. Wagner Onkelos on the Torah, Exodus: Understanding the Bible Text (pp. 69, 156) Gefen, 2006
- [4] Drazin, Israel, and Stanley M. Wagner Onkelos on the Torah, Exodus: Understanding the Bible Text (pp. 69, 156) Gefen, 2006
- [5] Drazin, Israel, and Stanley M. Wagner Onkelos on the Torah, Exodus: Understanding the Bible Text (pp. 69) Gefen, 2006
- [6] Drazin, Israel, and Stanley M. Wagner Onkelos on the Torah, Exodus: Understanding the Bible Text (pp. 69, 156) Gefen, 2006
- [7] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 11–12) Brill, 2006
Later Jewish Practice in Earlier Narratives
The Aramaic Targums also explain biblical society through the religious categories of later Jewish communities. Resident foreigners can become converts, and the relationships between prophets and their followers take on the language of teachers and disciples familiar from later traditions of study.
10
Prophets and Their Followers Become Teachers and Disciples
Elisha's cry when Elijah is taken from him describes their relationship through the language of family. He calls Elijah his father, even though the narrative presents Elijah as the prophet whom he follows. Targum Jonathan expresses that relationship through the language of a master or teacher, making the meaning of the address more explicit for its later audience.[1]
2 Kings 2:12
12 While Elisha was watching, he was crying out, “My father, my father! The chariot and horsemen of Israel!” Then he could no longer see him. He grabbed his clothes and tore them in two.
Jonathan 2 Kings 2:12
12 Elisha saw it and cried out, "My master, my master, whose prayer did more for Israel than chariots and horsemen!" He saw him no more. He seized his own clothes and tore them into two pieces.
וֶאֱלִישָׁע חָזִי וְהוּא מְצַוַח רַבִּי רַבִּי דְטַב לְהוֹן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּצְלוּתֵיהּ מֵרְתִיכִין וּפָרָשִׁין וְלָא חֲזָהִי עוֹד וְאַתְקֵיף בִּלְבוּשֵׁיהּ וְסַדְקִינוּן לִתְרֵין סְדִיקִין:
וֶאֱלִישָׁע חָזִי וְהוּא מְצַוַח רַבִּי רַבִּי דְטַב לְהוֹן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּצְלוּתֵיהּ מֵרְתִיכִין וּפָרָשִׁין וְלָא חֲזָהִי עוֹד וְאַתְקֵיף בִּלְבוּשֵׁיהּ וְסַדְקִינוּן לִתְרֵין סְדִיקִין:
The change belongs to a wider pattern in the Aramaic translation of Kings. The people called sons of the prophets in Hebrew become disciples of the prophets, and the young man who serves a prophet can likewise become his disciple. Family descriptions and accounts of service are thus interpreted through the relationships of teaching and learning familiar in later Jewish communities.[2]
That explanation does not require treating the Hebrew sons of the prophets as a statement about biological parentage. The expression already names a group associated with the prophets, and the English translation describes its members as a prophetic guild. The Targum chooses disciples as its explanation of the relationship, bringing the group into the more specific language of instruction.
That explanation does not require treating the Hebrew sons of the prophets as a statement about biological parentage. The expression already names a group associated with the prophets, and the English translation describes its members as a prophetic guild. The Targum chooses disciples as its explanation of the relationship, bringing the group into the more specific language of instruction.
2 Kings 2:3
3 Some members of the prophetic guild in Bethel came out to Elisha and said, “Do you know that today the Lord is going to take your master from you?” He answered, “Yes, I know. Be quiet.”
Jonathan 2 Kings 2:3
3 The disciples of the prophets in Bethel came out to Elisha and asked him, "Do you know that today the Lord is taking your master away from over your head?" He answered, "I know it too. Be silent."
וּנְפַקוּ תַּלְמִידֵי נְבִיַיָא דִי בְּבֵית אֵל לְוַת אֱלִישָׁע וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ הַיְדַעְתָּא אֲרֵי יוֹמָא דֵין יְיָ דְבַר יַת רִבּוֹנָךְ מֵעַל רֵישָׁךְ וַאֲמַר אַף אֲנָא יָדַעְנָא שְׁתוּקוּ:
וּנְפַקוּ תַּלְמִידֵי נְבִיַיָא דִי בְּבֵית אֵל לְוַת אֱלִישָׁע וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ הַיְדַעְתָּא אֲרֵי יוֹמָא דֵין יְיָ דְבַר יַת רִבּוֹנָךְ מֵעַל רֵישָׁךְ וַאֲמַר אַף אֲנָא יָדַעְנָא שְׁתוּקוּ:
The treatment of Gehazi makes the preference particularly visible. In the Hebrew account he is Elisha's servant, while the Targum calls him a disciple. His pursuit of the payment Elisha has declined places Gehazi in conflict with his master, so the designation disciple does not imply approval of his conduct. It identifies the kind of relationship through which the translator understands his attachment to Elisha.[3]
2 Kings 5:20
20 Gehazi, the prophet Elisha’s servant, thought, “Look, my master did not accept what this Syrian Naaman offered him. As certainly as the Lord lives, I will run after him and accept something from him.”
Jonathan 2 Kings 5:20
20 Gehazi, the disciple of Elisha the prophet of the Lord, said, "My master has refused to accept what this Aramean Naaman brought. As the Lord lives, I will run after him and take something from him."
וַאֲמַר גֵיחֲזִי תַּלְמִידָא דֶאֱלִישָׁע נְבִיָא דַייָ הָא מְנַע רִבּוֹנִי יַת נַעֲמָן אֲרַמָאָה הָדֵין מִלְקַבָּלָא מִנֵיהּ יַת דְאַיְתֵי קַיָם הוּא יְיָ אֱלָהֵין אֶרְהוֹט בַּתְרוֹהִי וְאֶסַב מִנֵיהּ מִדָעַם:
וַאֲמַר גֵיחֲזִי תַּלְמִידָא דֶאֱלִישָׁע נְבִיָא דַייָ הָא מְנַע רִבּוֹנִי יַת נַעֲמָן אֲרַמָאָה הָדֵין מִלְקַבָּלָא מִנֵיהּ יַת דְאַיְתֵי קַיָם הוּא יְיָ אֱלָהֵין אֶרְהוֹט בַּתְרוֹהִי וְאֶסַב מִנֵיהּ מִדָעַם:
The same interest in instruction can change the designation of the prophets themselves. In the warning to Israel and Judah in 2 Kings 17, the Hebrew describes God speaking through prophets and seers. The first part of the Aramaic verse instead describes the warning as coming through scribes and teachers, people whose work is associated with the transmission and explanation of religious instruction.[4]
2 Kings 17:13
13 The Lord solemnly warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and all the seers, “Turn back from your evil ways; obey my commandments and rules that are recorded in the law. I ordered your ancestors to keep this law and sent my servants the prophets to remind you of its demands.”
Jonathan 2 Kings 17:13
13 The Lord warned Israel and Judah through every scribe and every teacher, saying, "Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law I commanded your ancestors and sent to you through my servants the prophets."
וְאַסְהֵיד יְיָ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִיהוּדָה בְיַד כָּל סָפַר כָּל מֵילַף לְמֵימָר תּוּבוּ מֵאוֹרְחַתְכוֹן בִּישָׁתָא וְטַרוּ פִּקוּדֵי וּקְיָמַי כְּכָל אוֹרַיְתָא דְפַקְדִית יַת אֲבָהַתְכוֹן וְדִשְׁלָחִית לְוַתְכוֹן בְּיַד עַבְדֵי נְבִיַיָא:
וְאַסְהֵיד יְיָ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִיהוּדָה בְיַד כָּל סָפַר כָּל מֵילַף לְמֵימָר תּוּבוּ מֵאוֹרְחַתְכוֹן בִּישָׁתָא וְטַרוּ פִּקוּדֵי וּקְיָמַי כְּכָל אוֹרַיְתָא דְפַקְדִית יַת אֲבָהַתְכוֹן וְדִשְׁלָחִית לְוַתְכוֹן בְּיַד עַבְדֵי נְבִיַיָא:
The substitution fits the content of the warning because the people are being told to obey the commandments, but it is not a general removal of prophecy from the Targum. The translation usually retains the designation prophet, and the same verse returns to that designation in its later phrase. Its occasional use of scribes and teachers brings a later form of religious authority into the account without erasing the older one.[5]
Here the change is best understood as contemporization of a relationship or role, rather than proof that teaching and discipleship were absent from biblical society. The Targum gives the earlier figures a recognizable place within the world of instruction its hearers knew. A different kind of expansion names a particular person from later history, placing him directly within a blessing spoken by Moses.[6]
Here the change is best understood as contemporization of a relationship or role, rather than proof that teaching and discipleship were absent from biblical society. The Targum gives the earlier figures a recognizable place within the world of instruction its hearers knew. A different kind of expansion names a particular person from later history, placing him directly within a blessing spoken by Moses.[6]
Citations
- [1] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 11) Brill, 2006
- [2] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 11–12) Brill, 2006
- [3] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 12) Brill, 2006
- [4] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 119–120) Brill, 2006
- [5] Dray, Carol A. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings (pp. 119–120) Brill, 2006
- [6] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 113) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
Later History Within Biblical Prophecy
Explicit references to later rulers and empires are less common than changes to everyday language, but they make the distance between a biblical setting and its later interpretation especially visible. A blessing on Levi names a later Jewish high priest, while the Aramaic translation of Lamentations brings Rome and Persia into its account of Edom.
11
Moses Blesses Yohanan the High Priest
Moses' final blessing on the tribe of Levi asks for its work to be accepted and its enemies to be defeated. In the Hebrew text, those enemies remain unnamed. One Aramaic translation supplies a particular priest whose opponents are to lose their power, bringing a figure from much later Jewish history into the blessing.
Deuteronomy 33:10-11
10 They will teach Jacob your ordinances and Israel your law; they will offer incense as a pleasant odor, and a whole offering on your altar. 11 Bless, O Lord, his goods, and be pleased with his efforts; undercut the legs of any who attack him, and of those who hate him, so that they cannot stand.”
Pseudo Jonathan Deuteronomy 33:11
11 Bless Lord, the sacrifice of the house of Levi, who give the tenth of the tenth; and the oblation of the hand of Elijah the priest, which he will offer on Mount Karmela, receive Thou with acceptance: break the lons of Achab his enemy, and the neck of the false prophets who rise up against him, that the enemies of Johanan the high priest may not have a foot to stand.
The Aramaic translation in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan names Yohanan the high priest in its rendering of the final phrase, asking that his enemies have no foot on which to stand. Yohanan is commonly identified here with John Hyrcanus, a high priest and ruler from the Hasmonean dynasty that governed Judea in the second century BCE. The blessing on Levi has therefore been directed toward the enemies of a named leader from centuries after the narrative setting of Moses.[1]
Pseudo-Jonathan is an expansive Aramaic translation of the Torah, distinct from Targum Jonathan to the Prophets used in the examples from Kings. Its surviving form contains material from different periods, including traditions much earlier than its final compilation. A reference to an early historical figure must therefore be considered within a work whose contents were transmitted and developed over a long time.[2]
The addition follows the subject of the biblical blessing closely enough to make its interpretation understandable. Levi's work includes religious instruction, incense, and sacrifice, and the prayer asks that those who attack him be unable to stand. Naming a later high priest gives that general request a specific historical application. The older blessing supplies the relationship between priestly service and hostile opponents, while the Targum identifies a later conflict to which it can be applied.[3]
The expansion gives the blessing a specific historical application beyond the geographical identifications found in Greek Genesis and Isaiah. Yohanan is a new person introduced into the interpretation, and the prayer is explicitly directed toward the defeat of his enemies. Within the translated narrative, Moses' blessing reaches forward to a priest whom the audience could know from later history. The anachronism is part of the way the blessing acquires a specific relevance beyond its earlier setting.
The historical name does not, however, tell exactly when the addition was made. A favorable reference to John Hyrcanus might preserve an early interpretation, but later Jewish tradition also remembered Yohanan the high priest. His name could have been introduced or retained by people looking back on his career long after his death. The appearance of a ruler in a translation cannot by itself date the translation to that ruler's lifetime.[4]
Explicit references of this kind are less common in the Targums than the adjustment of everyday language and religious practice. Their relative rarity makes them especially noticeable, but also makes them poor grounds for describing every Targum as a running commentary on political events. The next example is unusually extensive: the interpretation of Edom in Lamentations brings whole later empires into the promise that Jerusalem's suffering will end.[5]
Pseudo-Jonathan is an expansive Aramaic translation of the Torah, distinct from Targum Jonathan to the Prophets used in the examples from Kings. Its surviving form contains material from different periods, including traditions much earlier than its final compilation. A reference to an early historical figure must therefore be considered within a work whose contents were transmitted and developed over a long time.[2]
The addition follows the subject of the biblical blessing closely enough to make its interpretation understandable. Levi's work includes religious instruction, incense, and sacrifice, and the prayer asks that those who attack him be unable to stand. Naming a later high priest gives that general request a specific historical application. The older blessing supplies the relationship between priestly service and hostile opponents, while the Targum identifies a later conflict to which it can be applied.[3]
The expansion gives the blessing a specific historical application beyond the geographical identifications found in Greek Genesis and Isaiah. Yohanan is a new person introduced into the interpretation, and the prayer is explicitly directed toward the defeat of his enemies. Within the translated narrative, Moses' blessing reaches forward to a priest whom the audience could know from later history. The anachronism is part of the way the blessing acquires a specific relevance beyond its earlier setting.
The historical name does not, however, tell exactly when the addition was made. A favorable reference to John Hyrcanus might preserve an early interpretation, but later Jewish tradition also remembered Yohanan the high priest. His name could have been introduced or retained by people looking back on his career long after his death. The appearance of a ruler in a translation cannot by itself date the translation to that ruler's lifetime.[4]
Explicit references of this kind are less common in the Targums than the adjustment of everyday language and religious practice. Their relative rarity makes them especially noticeable, but also makes them poor grounds for describing every Targum as a running commentary on political events. The next example is unusually extensive: the interpretation of Edom in Lamentations brings whole later empires into the promise that Jerusalem's suffering will end.[5]
Citations
- [1] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 113) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [2] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 92, 95–96) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [3] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 113) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [4] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 113) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [5] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 113–115) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
Later History Within Biblical Prophecy
Explicit references to later rulers and empires are less common than changes to everyday language, but they make the distance between a biblical setting and its later interpretation especially visible. A blessing on Levi names a later Jewish high priest, while the Aramaic translation of Lamentations brings Rome and Persia into its account of Edom.
12
Edom Becomes Rome in Targum Lamentations
Near the end of Lamentations 4, the poem turns from the suffering of Zion, meaning Jerusalem and its people, to the people of Edom, warning that their opportunity to rejoice will not last. The cup of judgment will reach them as well, while Zion's punishment will come to an end. The Aramaic translation retains that reversal and gives its opposing communities names from a much later world.
Lamentations 4:21-22
21 ש (Shin) Rejoice and be glad for now, O people of Edom, who reside in the land of Uz. But the cup of judgment will pass to you also; you will get drunk and take off your clothes. 22 ת (Tav) O people of Zion, your punishment will come to an end; he will not prolong your exile. But, O people of Edom, he will punish your sin and reveal your offenses!
Targum Lamentations 4:21-22
21 Rejoice and be of good cheer Constantinople, city of wicked Edom, which is built in the land of Armenia with crowds from the people of Edom. Retribution is about to come upon even you, and the Parkevi will destroy you and the accursed cup shall pass to you and you shall become drunk and exposed. 22 And after this your iniquity will be finished, O Congregation of Zion and you will be freed by the hands of the King Messiah and Elijah[3] the High Priest and the Lord will no longer exile you. And at that time I will punish your iniquities, wicked Rome, built in Italy and filled with crowds of Edomites. And the Persians will come and oppress you and destroy you because your sins have been made known before the Lord.
The Aramaic translation in Targum Lamentations identifies Edom with Constantinople in the first verse and with Rome in the second, drawing on the widespread association of Edom with Rome in rabbinic interpretation. The earlier name remains meaningful, but it now identifies the power confronting the later Jewish community. The translation states the connection within the poem, so a listener is told which later cities occupy Edom's place.[1]
This is a more extensive contemporization than a simple substitution of names. The Aramaic version adds the expectation that the Persians will attack, and it identifies the promised deliverance of Zion with the work of the King Messiah and Elijah. The Messiah is the expected deliverer, and Elijah appears here as a priestly figure participating in the release of the community. An earlier promise that punishment will end has become a description of how a later audience might expect that release to arrive.[2]
The unfamiliar name Parkevi in the first verse reflects a textual complication rather than another biblical people named in the Hebrew poem. Some manuscripts read Persians at this point, while the form behind this translation has the different name. The following verse explicitly names the Persians, so the later imperial setting does not depend on resolving that first reading.[3]
The conflict between the Byzantine Empire, centered on Constantinople, and the Sassanian Persian Empire in the early seventh century CE provides a plausible setting for this expectation of political upheaval and Jewish deliverance. The historical identification is not exact, however. The prediction about Rome in Italy does not fit neatly into that conflict, and the placement of Constantinople in Armenia adds a geographical difficulty. These details should remain features of the Targum's description rather than being repeated as an accurate account of the map or the course of the war.[4]
One possible explanation is that the passage was revised over time, with an earlier expectation about Rome adapted to a later conflict involving the eastern empire. That would make contemporization a process occurring within the history of the Aramaic translation itself, as inherited interpretations were made relevant again. The surviving passage does not permit certainty about that sequence, but it does show that a later political world has entered the biblical poem.[5]
The promise still depends on the reversal announced in Lamentations: the community that has suffered will be released, and the people who rejoice over it will face judgment. The identification of Edom with later imperial powers gives that reversal a political application within the circumstances and expectations of the receiving community. In a synagogue reading, that explanation could be heard alongside the earlier Hebrew reading, preserving the older name Edom while making Rome and Constantinople explicit in the Aramaic interpretation.[6]
This is a more extensive contemporization than a simple substitution of names. The Aramaic version adds the expectation that the Persians will attack, and it identifies the promised deliverance of Zion with the work of the King Messiah and Elijah. The Messiah is the expected deliverer, and Elijah appears here as a priestly figure participating in the release of the community. An earlier promise that punishment will end has become a description of how a later audience might expect that release to arrive.[2]
The unfamiliar name Parkevi in the first verse reflects a textual complication rather than another biblical people named in the Hebrew poem. Some manuscripts read Persians at this point, while the form behind this translation has the different name. The following verse explicitly names the Persians, so the later imperial setting does not depend on resolving that first reading.[3]
The conflict between the Byzantine Empire, centered on Constantinople, and the Sassanian Persian Empire in the early seventh century CE provides a plausible setting for this expectation of political upheaval and Jewish deliverance. The historical identification is not exact, however. The prediction about Rome in Italy does not fit neatly into that conflict, and the placement of Constantinople in Armenia adds a geographical difficulty. These details should remain features of the Targum's description rather than being repeated as an accurate account of the map or the course of the war.[4]
One possible explanation is that the passage was revised over time, with an earlier expectation about Rome adapted to a later conflict involving the eastern empire. That would make contemporization a process occurring within the history of the Aramaic translation itself, as inherited interpretations were made relevant again. The surviving passage does not permit certainty about that sequence, but it does show that a later political world has entered the biblical poem.[5]
The promise still depends on the reversal announced in Lamentations: the community that has suffered will be released, and the people who rejoice over it will face judgment. The identification of Edom with later imperial powers gives that reversal a political application within the circumstances and expectations of the receiving community. In a synagogue reading, that explanation could be heard alongside the earlier Hebrew reading, preserving the older name Edom while making Rome and Constantinople explicit in the Aramaic interpretation.[6]
Citations
- [1] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 114–115) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [2] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 114) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [3] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 114, note 47) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [4] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 114) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [5] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 114) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
- [6] Cook, Edward M. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism (pp. 95, 114–115) William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012
13
Read More
- Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. Robbers, Pirates and Licentious Women: Echoes of an Anti-Dionysiac Polemic in the Septuagint (author manuscript). 2008.
- Brayford, Susan. Septuagint Commentary Series: Genesis. Brill, 2007.
- Brenton, Lancelot Charles Lee. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1851.
- Cook, Edward M.. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012.
- Dray, Carol A.. Translation and Interpretation in the Targum to the Books of Kings. Brill, 2006.
- Drazin, Israel, and Stanley M. Wagner. Onkelos on the Torah, Exodus: Understanding the Bible Text. Gefen, 2006.
- Ngunga, Abi T.. Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
- Seeligmann, I. L.. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies. Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
- Troxel, Ronald L.. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah. Brill, 2008.
- Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. Scholars Press, 1993.