Greek Testament, Aramaic Targums, and Questions of Comparison

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2014 DOI: 10.1163/17455227-13110202

Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 225–251

AramaicStudies

brill.com/arst

Greek Testament, Aramaic Targums,and Questions of Comparison

Bruce ChiltonBard University, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA

AbstractTwo unsupported assumptions have hampered comparison of the Targumim with the NewTestament. One assumption presumes the Targumim are pre-Christian; the other presumesthat they are too late to be of relevance to exegesis of the New Testament. The history of dis-cussion shows that, in alternating cycles, these views have posed obstacles to critical compari-son. Analogies between Targumic passages and the New Testament indicate a relationship offour types, each of which is explored in this essay. In aggregate they support the independentfinding that the process of Targumic formation overlapped with the emergence of the NewTestament.

KeywordsGreek Testament; Aramaic Targums; questions of comparison; New Testament

1. Introduction

Given that both the Targumim and the Gospels were linked, at least initially,to Galilee in early centuries in the Common Era, scholars have naturally drawncomparisons between them.Willem Smelik’s and RobertHayward’s kind invita-tion to consider ‘Greek Gospels, Aramaic Targums, and Questions of Compari-son’, comes at a moment within a cycle of interest in Targumim among scholarsof the New Testament.1

1) The author is grateful to Brill and Baylor University Press for agreeing to allow the authorto adaptmaterial within this article from the following volume: P.V.M. Flesher andB.Chilton,The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2011 and Leiden: Brill,2011). Some of the discussion was initially developed in B. Chilton, ‘Targum, Jesus, and theGospels’, in A.-J. Levine et al. (eds.), The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 2006), pp. 238–255; B. Chilton, ‘Aramaic, Jesus, and the Targumim’, inJ.H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions: The SecondPrinceton–Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,2013), pp. 305–334.The editors and publishers of those works were similarly gracious in theiragreement.

226 Bruce Chilton / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 225–251

The cycle has been identifiable since the seventeenth century. John Lightfoot’sHorae Hebraicae et Talmudicae2 provided a model which has been followed anddeveloped many times since,3 among others by Emil Schürer (and his revisers),4by Paul Billerbeck,5 by Claude Montefiore,6 by George Foot Moore,7 by Safrai,Stern, and Stone.8 Thedifficulties of comparing theNewTestament with Judaicahave been discussed often and thoroughly. Two types of problem have beenidentified: the encyclopedic works do not provide enough by way of context topermit of a sensitive reading of Judaica, and they typically fail to do justice to thechronological development of Judaism in its considerable variety.

Within each of these works and their reception, a cycle that alternates enthu-siasm and skepticism has been particularly apparent with reference to the Targu-mim. The opportunity offered by the initial language of the Gospels has some-times caused somuch enthusiasm that evenSyriac has beenwelcomed, to this day,as if it were the language of Jesus.9 But then the critical matter of dating comes

2) Published in Latin 1658–1674, the first edition was reprinted and translated during theseventeenth century and subsequently. A convenient reprint of the 1859 Oxford Englishedition is available: J. John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmudand Hebraica (4 vols., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).3) As seen in anotherwork from the same year as the reprint: T. Robinson,TheEvangelists andthe Mishnah: Illustrations Drawn from Jewish Traditions (London: Nisbet, 1859). Robinsonmakes liberal use of Lightfoot.4) See, for example, the revision of E. Schürer,TheHistory of the Jewish People in theAge of JesusChrist (175B.C.–A.D.135), (ed. M. Black et al., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–1987). Seealso A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London: Longmans, 1883).5) H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck (latterly with J. Jeremias and K. Adolph), Kommentar zumNeuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols., München: Beck, 1922–1961).6) C.G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930);cf. idem, with H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (London: Macmillan, 1938).7) G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (3vols., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927–1930).8) S. Safrai et al. (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, PoliticalHistory, Social, Cultural andReligious Life and Institutions (2 vols., CRINT, 1.1–2,Assen:VanGorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974–1976). See now alsoM.E. Stone (ed.), JewishWritingsof the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo,Josephus (CRINT, 2.2, Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); and S. Safrai withP.J. Tomson (eds.),TheLiterature of the Sages:TheLiterature of the Jewish People in the Period ofthe Second Temple and the Talmud (CRINT, 2.3, Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress,1987).9) See George Lamsa, Gospel Light. Comments on the Teachings of Jesus from Aramaic andUnchanged 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).

Bruce Chilton / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 225–251 227

into play, and exegetes of the New Testament are confronted by the inevitableproblem of dating, so that the sources that had been approached as if they wereantecedents are revealed as much later.

The fluctuation between enthusiasm for Semitic sources and critical acknowl-edgment of their chronology results in a cyclical reference to or deliberate inad-vertence of the Targumim within the field of New Testament studies. The latestinstance of that cycle has focused on the issue of what was called ‘the PalestinianTargum’.

To Paul Kahle, the Targums and the Gospels were more than comparable orsimilar; the latter depended upon the former. In his Schweich Lectures, givenat Oxford University in 1941, Kahle argued that the Palestinian Targum as atext was earlier than the New Testament, so that interpretations found in thePalestinianTargums and theGospels resulted fromtheNewTestamentwriters—or perhaps even Jesus himself—borrowing from the Targum.10 This positionbecame highly influential among Targum scholars, with Targum Pseudo-Jonathan being incorporated into the claim as well. When Alexander DíezMacho discovered the Neophyti manuscript in 1949, it was greeted as furtherevidence that the entire PalestinianTargumwas known to Jesus andhis followers.Martin McNamara’s writings identified a number of important instances wherethe Targums helped explicate the biblical passages.11

These arguments for the early dating of the Palestinian Targum ran into severelinguistic criticism. When they were refuted by P. Wernberg-Møller, A.D. York,and others during the 1960s and 1970s.12 Stephen A. Kaufman demonstrated

10) Published as P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (Oxford: Blackwell, 1959). The Palestinian Tar-gum which he invoked was best evidenced by the Targum fragments from the Cairo Genizawhich he had published in 1930 in P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens (2 vols., BWANT, 33, 50,Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927–1930).11) M.McNamara,TheNewTestament and thePalestinianTargum to thePentateuch (AnalectaBiblica, 27, Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966);M.McNamara,TargumandTestament;Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible. A Light on the New Testament (Shannon, IrishUniversity Press, 1972). See also M. McNamara, Targum andNewTestament. Collected Essays(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 279, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,2011).12) See P.Werberg-Møller, ‘An Inquiry into the Validity of the Text-Critical Argument for anEarly 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 Fragmentsof the Book of Genesis Published by P. Kahle, and their Relationship to the Peshitta’, JSS13 (1968), pp. 253–266; P. Werberg-Møller, ‘Some Observations on the Relationship of thePeshitta Version of the Book of Genesis to the Palestinian Targum Fragments Publishedby Professor Kahle, and to Targum Onkelos’, Studia Theologica 15 (1961), pp. 128–180;


to devastating effect how the uncritical claim of a linguistic precedence for thealleged Palestinian Targum could not be sustained.13 Not only was the dating ofthe Palestinian Targum discredited: the enterprise of comparing early Christianmaterials with Targumic writings fell into disrepute. This was unfortunate, foreven though the similarities between the two documents do not indicate histor-ical dependence between written texts, there is no denying that there are literary,interpretative and thematic connections between them.

The Targumim are a rich source of that form of early Judaism where the syna-gogue and academy met. For that reason, students of the New Testament shouldread them to help them comprehend the religious and social context withinwhich Jesus taught and in which his movement first developed, especially in theyears before the transition to a Hellenistic social milieu and the Greek language.Students of the New Testament have sometimes become so obsessed with theissue of whether particular Targumim predate Jesus; they appear to have for-gotten that Targumic connection the Gospels does not require that chronologyat all. The Gospels were composed during the close of the first century and thebeginning of the second century. This is the same period during which the earlystages of the Prophetic Targums and Targum Onqelos were composed, and it isreflected inmany of the PalestinianTargums’ early interpretations and additions.Indeed, although Targums as textswere composed after the events laid out in theNew Testament, since they drew upon a wide range of understandings of Scrip-ture, in many cases their interpretations of scriptural passages come from earlierdecades.

The composite nature of the Targumim is such that, upon occasion, one maydiscern in them the survival of materials that circulated in the time of Jesus, andwhich probably influenced his teaching and/or the memory of that teachingamong those disciples who were familiar with such traditions. Leviticus 22.28in Pseudo-Jonathan is an example of such a survival, ‘My people, children ofIsrael, since our father is merciful in heaven, so should you be merciful upon theearth.’The expansion in the Targum is unquestionably innovative in comparisonto the Masoretic Text. Furthermore, there is possibly an echo with Luke 6.36,where Jesus is speaking what is usually called ‘the sermon on the plain’: ‘Becomemerciful, just as your Father is also merciful.’

Since no sources for the Lukan remark other than theTargumhave so far beenidentified, it seems likely that the Targumic tradition—as distinct from Targum

A.D. York, ‘The Dating of Targumic Literature’, JSJ 10 (1979), pp. 49–62; A.D. York, ‘TheTargum 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 topublish his paper at the time I edited the journal.


Pseudo-Jonathan itself—was current during thefirst century. Its presence inLukeindicates either that it influenced Jesus or that it influenced his followers’ formu-lation of this teaching.

A causative reading taken in the opposite direction is, of course, theoreticallypossible: perhaps the saying originated with Jesus, and was then anonymouslytaken up within the Targum. Yet the statement is rhetorically more at homewithin Luke than in Pseudo-Jonathan, where it appears unmotivated, a tradi-tion incorporated simply because it was valued. It seems inherently unlikely thatPseudo-Jonathan, which of all the Pentateuchal Targumim is perhaps the mostinfluenced by a concern to guard and articulate Judaic integrity, would inadver-tently convey a saying of Jesus.14 More likely, both Pseudo-Jonathan and Luke’sJesus are here independently passing on proverbial wisdom: both sources conveymaterial from the stock of folk culture. After all, the sameTargum twice explainslove of another person (whether an Israelite or a stranger) with the maxim, ‘thatwhich is hateful to you, donot do’ (Leviticus 19.18, 34 inPseudo-Jonathan; Luke6.31 andMatthew 7.12).15 Luke shows that the stock of proverbial wisdom Jesusdrew on goes back to the first century, while Pseudo-Jonathan shows that it con-tinued to be reused until the seventh century. The Targumic echo is thereforemost certainly not the immediate source of Jesus’ statement, but itmay help us tounderstand thenature and general character of Jesus’ statementwithin Judaism.16

Examples such as Leviticus 22.28 in Pseudo-Jonathan demonstrate that theTargumim help illustrate the sort of Judaism that Jesus and his followers tookfor granted. The example cited is a case in which a Targum just happens tobe a good resource for understanding Judaism in the first century. Targumimmay therefore enable us to find materials that are useful in comparison with theGospels and the rest of the New Testament. In a scholarly age when comparisonbased on social models has become common,17 the Targumim provide insights

14) Pseudo-Jonathan’s rendering of Leviticus 22.28 is forbidden by the Palestinian Talmudat y Berakhot 5.3 (9c) and y Megillah 4.9 (75c), perhaps with the awareness that it hadbeen co-opted within Christianity. See the discussion in McNamara, New Testament andPalestinian Targum, pp. 133–138.15) There is also a well-established connection with Shabbat 31a in the Babylonian Talmud.For a discussion of the question, see B.Chilton and J.I.H.McDonald, Jesus and theEthics of theKingdom (Biblical Foundations inTheology; London: SPCK, 1987) p. 8; for further texts, seeA.DíezMacho,Neophyti 1:TargumPalestinenseMs deLaBibliotecaVaticana (6 vols.,Madrid:Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1968–1979), vol. 3, pp. 502–503.16) A similar claim can be made for the use of the phrase ‘high priests’ in Pseudo-Jonathan(Leviticus 16.1), which shows that the plural usage in the New Testament is no error. SeeM. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Leviticus, translated, with notes (The Aramaic Bible, 3,Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994), p. 165.17) Exegetes routinely refer to later Roman historians, such as Tacitus and Dio Cassius, to


into the treatment of Scripture among both non-specialist and specialist Jewishpractitioners.

Another example illustrates an instance in which Jesus appears to have cited aform of Scripture that is closer to the Targum than to any other extant source.In such cases, awareness that he does so helps us to understand his preachingbetter than the general similarity between Luke and Pseudo-Jonathan illustrates.Targum Isaiah 6.9, 10 is an especially famous instance, and it helps to explainMark 4.11, 12. The statement in Mark could be taken to mean that Jesus toldparables with the express purpose ‘that’ (Greek: hina) people might see and notperceive, hear and not understand, lest they turn and be forgiven:

And he was saying to them, To you the mystery has been given of the kingdom of God,but to those outside, everything comes in parables, so that (Greek: hina) while seeingthey see and do not perceive, and while hearing they hear and do not understand, lestthey repent and it be forgiven them.

The Targum also (unlike the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint) refers to peo-ple not being ‘forgiven’ (rather than not being ‘healed’), and this suggests thatthe Targum may give the key to the meaning presupposed in Mark. The relevantclause in the Targum refers to people who behave in such a way—‘so that’ (indi-cated inAramaic by the letter ‘d’ [dalet])—they see and donot perceive, hear anddo not understand, lest they repent and they be forgiven. It appears that Jesuswascharacterizing people in theTargumicmanner, as he characterizes his own fate asthe son of man similarly in Mark with a clause employing hina (see Mark 9.12);he was not acting deliberately in order to be misunderstood, any more than hisactions were calculated to bring about his death.

In this famous case from Mark, then, the underlying Aramaism of using theclause with d caused the saying of Jesus to use the term hina in Greek, whichmaymean ‘in order that’ or ‘so that’.18 If the former meaning obtains, Mark’s Jesus

later Hellenistic authors, such as Philostratus and Athanaeus, to later Christian writers, suchas Justin Martyr and Eusebius, and to later Gnostic sources, such as the the ‘TrimorphicProtonnoia’ and ‘On the Origin of the World’, all in order to understand the New Testamentbetter. (These texts are widely cited, and involve a time-lag after Jesus which is comparableto the delay in the production of the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Targumim.) In casesother than Rabbinic Judaism, the technique of extrapolating backward from literary evidenceis accepted. Once, Jewish sources were excluded from consideration for doctrinal reasons, andnow it seems a kind of chronological fundamentalism is being applied to them alone.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 publishedas AGalilean Rabbi andHis 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


speaks so as not to be understood, and deliberately to preclude the forgiveness ofthose who do not understand. If the latter meaning obtains, then Jesus referredto Isaiah in its Targumic form in order to characterize the kind of people who donot respond to his message, and what happens to them.The fact of the similarityin wording with the Targum shows us that the second meaning is preferable, asdoes the fact that Jesus elsewhere in Mark refers to his own followers as beinghard-hearted, with unseeing eyes and unseeing ears (Mark 8.17–18). His pointin alluding once again to Isaiah 6 is given at the end of the rebuke, ‘Do you notyet understand?’ (Mark 8.21). Jesus’ citation of Isaiah 6 in its Targumic formwasintended to rouse hearers to understanding, not tomake theirmisunderstandinginto his own program.

The two examples given so far, taken from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and theIsaiah Targum, instance cases in which the similarity between the New Testa-ment and the Targumim is a matter of shared expression and meaning, and evenof a common exegesis of Scripture. They illustrate how interpretations found inthe Targums help us understand the meaning of stories and remarks in the NewTestament without the requirement that one depends upon the other in a direct,historical sense.

Such examples do not demand any particular chronology for a Targum, al-though that chronology is now a matter of wide agreement.19 Neither an uncrit-ical recourse to the Targumim nor a rejection of their readings on the groundsof chronology can be sustained. Those two attitudes, cyclically instanced, havethe look of a syndrome, one we might call Targumic Deficit Disorder. The twoattitudes feed one another, because neither sufficiently addresses the issue of thekind of comparison that might be at issue.

2. Four Types of Comparison between the Targumim and the NewTestament

If historical dependence is not the onlymeans bywhich theTargums can provideinsight into understanding the New Testament, then how should that questionbe approached?This discussion identifies fourmain types of affinity between the

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 similaritybetween Jesus’ saying and the Isaiah Targum is refuted in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans, ‘Jesusand 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. 289–302.19) See P.V.M. Flesher and B. Chilton, The Targums. A Critical Introduction (Waco: BaylorUniversity Press, 2011, and Leiden: Brill, 2011).


NewTestament and the Targumim. In each, Targums provide a different kind ofassistance in understanding the interpretive world of early Christianity.

Thefirst type provides themost stringent sort of affinity. In the strongest cases,a passage from aTargum and a passage from aGospel evidence comparablemate-rial with cognate wording that is associated with the same text of Scripture. Thecomparison between Isaiah 6 in the Targum and its citation in Mark 4.12, dis-cussed above, provides an instance of this type.Weaker instances of the first typeof comparison occur when the New Testament and a Targum share wording butthere is no particular reason to assume that the wording arose as an interpreta-tion of a biblical passage. The example of Leviticus 22.28 in its relationship toLuke 6.36 instances this weaker formulation of the first type of analogy.

The second type of affinity takes place then a Targum passage and a NewTestament passage evidence a comparable understanding of the same biblicalpassage, but no common wording appears. An example is Jesus’ parable of thevineyard in Matthew 21.33–46, Mark 12.1–12, and Luke 20.9–19. After Jesushas told his story of the abuse suffered by the people who the owner sends toacquire his share of the vintage, the Synoptic Gospels agree that the oppositionto Jesus among the Jewish authorities has hardened to the point that theywantedto seize him. When the symbolism of the vineyard in the Isaiah Targum 5.1–7 isconsidered, the opposition to Jesus becomes easily explicable. There, the vine isa primary symbol of the Temple, so that the tenants of Jesus’ parable are readilyidentifiedwith the leadershipof theTemple.Theyknewhewas telling theparableagainst them.20

It is apparent that the second type of affinity is not as strong as the first.Because no actual wording is shared, the connection between the Targum andthe New Testament is not as demonstrable. Moreover, an image such as thevineyard is so resonant that several biblical passages may be used to illustrateand/or understand it. Nonetheless, when a given passage in a Targum provideshelp in interpreting a New Testament text, that affinity should not be ignored.

The third type of affinity comes about when characteristically Targumic phra-ses appear within the New Testament. The best example is the central categoryof Jesus’ theology, namely, the ‘kingdom of God’, which also appears in the form‘kingdom of the LORD’ in the Targumim (see Targum Onqelos to Exodus15.18; Targum Jonathan to Isaiah 24.23; 31.4; 40.9; 52.7; Ezekiel 7.7; Obadiah21; Zechariah 14.9).21 Thefirst usage in the Isaiah Targum (24.23) associates the

20) SeeChilton, AGalileanRabbi, 111–114;Chilton andEvans, ‘Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures’,pp. 304–306.21) For the comparable phrasing, ‘of the LORD is the kingship’, see Exodus 15.18 in Tar-gum Neophyti, an evident analogy of the statement in Onqelos. McNamara has argued for a


theologoumenon of the kingdom of God with God’s self-revelation on MountZion, where his appearing is to occasion a feast for all nations (see 25.6–8). Theassociation of the kingdom with a festal image is comparable to Jesus’ promisein Matthew 8.11 and Luke 13.28–29 that many will come from the ends of theearth to feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God.

The fourth type of affinity appears when the New Testament and the Targu-mim share only a thematic emphasis. Just as the second type of affinity is less sub-stantial than the first, the fourth is less demonstrable than the third—and for thesame reason. Comparability of actual wording is not at issue, but the less obviousquestion of themes is in play. Jesus, for example, lamented the persistent refusalto listen to the prophets (Matthew 5.12; Luke 6.23); the meturgeman of Isaiahalso lamented that ‘with odd speech and mocking tongue this people were scoff-ing at the prophets who prophesied to them’ (Targum Isaiah 28.11). Although therelationship with the Targumic interpretation may be helpful in understandingJesus’ perspective, since the Targum at Isaiah 28 is pointed in its condemnationof cultic abuses (as Jesus famously was), it must be borne in mind that the abuseof the prophets is a topos within the Judaism of the period and thus the sharedpoint does not indicate a strong connection.22

The remainder of this discussionwill deal with a number of analogies betweenthe Targum and the New Testament illustrating each of the four types and thendraw some conclusions from them.

2.1. Affinity 1. Comparisons Based on Common Wording

These examples require common wording found in both the Targum and theNew Testament. The more stringent of these will derive that common wordingfrom a shared interpretation of a biblical text, while the less stringent will notrequire a shared biblical passage.

2.1.1. Lest it Be Forgiven ThemThe relationship between Targum Isaiah 6.9–10 and Mark 4.11–12 has alreadybeen discussed above. Within that discussion, it became apparent that Jesus’usage was designed to characterize the attitude of those who were so dense whenit came to seeing and hearing that they were not forgiven. Characteristically, he

particular relationship with Revelation 4.2–11 in NewTestament and the Palestinian Targum,pp. 204–208.22) See O.H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. Untersuchungen zurÜberlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum undUrchristentum (WMANT, 23, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967).


directed such warnings to people who were trying to listen to him, such as hisown disciples (as in Mark 8.17–18).

Unquestionably, however, the present setting of Mark 4.11–12 gives Jesus’statement a fresh, rather elitist meaning. The new setting is revealed in the claimthat is directed by Jesus to ‘those aroundhimwith theTwelve’ that themystery ofthe kingdom has been given to them, while ‘to those outside everything happensin parables’ (Mark 4.10–11). Here the actual understanding of Jesus’ teachingis restricted, so that what was originally a rebuke of dense hearers (includingdisciples) becomes the warrant of the exclusive possession of the ‘mystery’ by aselect few. The term ‘mystery’ appears only here in the Gospels, while it is foundrather frequently in the Pauline corpus (in its broad sense), and in the Revelationof John. That fact comports with another: the reference to people who do notbelong to themovement as ‘those outside’ fits with the usage of laterChristianity(see 1Corinthians 5.11–13, 1Thessalonians 4.12, and Colossians 4.5).

Theprobable source of the saying of Jesus in its present context is the Jerusalemcircle around James, Jesus’ brother.Thatwould account for several factors: (1) theAramaismwith itsTargumic resonance, (2) the reference to a tight group ‘aroundJesus’ before mention of the Twelve, and (3) the claim exclusively to interpretand apply the teaching of Jesus. The last trait is expressly attributed to Jamesin the Acts of the Apostles (15.13–29), when he adjudicates the dispute overcircumcision: was it necessary for believers, along with baptism, for salvation(see Acts 15.1)? The decision, which is presented as James’ own judgment, isthat circumcision was not required, although uncircumcised Christians mustobserve certain basic rules of purity out of loyalty to the Law of Moses. Themeeting of the leaders present endorses that judgment, and demands by letterthat uncircumcised Christians in Antioch follow the policy. In Mark 4.10–12,the claim exclusively to interpret is also deployed.

2.1.2. The Sword‘All those who grasp a sword will perish by a sword’ (Matthew 26.52): the sword,like the ‘measure’ (see below) seems to have been a proverbial figure. In the IsaiahTargum 50.11, it is applied graphically:23

Behold, all youwho kindle a fire,who grasp a sword! Go, fall in the firewhich you kindledand on the sword which you grasped!

The link to the passage in Isaiah (or any passage of Scripture) cannot be demon-strated in the case of Jesus’ saying, so that the correspondence seems to be of the

23) The similarity with Matthew has been recognized for some time; for a discussion, seeChilton, A Galilean Rabbi, pp. 98–101.


proverbial type of the saying about the measure. Nonetheless, the close agree-ment in wording and imagery makes this a comparison of the first type.

2.1.3. GehennaThefinal verse of the bookof Isaiah in theTargum identifieswhowill suffer—andspecifies where they will suffer—at the end of time, when it says:

the wicked shall be judged in Gehenna until the righteous will say concerning them, Wehave seen enough (Targum Isaiah 66.24).

‘Gehenna’ is just what Jesus associates with the statement that ‘their worm willnot die and their firewill not be quenched’ (Mark 9.48, and see vv. 44, 46 inmanymanuscripts]), which is taken from the same verse of Isaiah.24

The term ‘Gehenna’ refers in a literal sense to the Valley of Hinnom in theKidron Valley, just across from the Temple in Jerusalem. Because it had been aplace where idolatrous human sacrifice by fire had taken place (see 2Kings 16.3;21.6), the site was deliberately destroyed and desecrated by King Josiah as partof his cultic reform during the seventh century bce (see 2Kings 23.10). As aresult, Gehenna came to be known as the place of the definitive punishment ofthe wicked.

In the New Testament, apart from James 3.6, the term appears exclusively insayings of Jesus. Beyond that, only the Pseudepigrapha (especially the book ofEnoch) and Rabbinic literature provide us with examples of the usage from thesame period or near the same period that enable us to see what the term means.Gehenna is the place of fiery torment for the wicked. But it is not known as suchin the Septuagint, Josephus, or even Philo: evidently, the usage belongs to anAramaic environment.25

Rabbi Aqiba also is said to have associated Gehenna with the end of the bookof Isaiah (see Mishnah Eduyoth 2.10). The Isaiah Targum takes the phrase in66.23, ‘from new moon to new moon’ in a way that makes the length of timeindeterminate—until the righteous decide they have seen enough in v. 24.Aqiba,however, interprets the same verse to indicate that punishment inGehenna has alimit of twelve months; he seems to be thinking of the new moon of Passover inparticular, which requires a year for recurrence. For Jesus, as in the IsaiahTargum,part of the threat of Gehenna was that its limit could not be determined inadvance. As Cathcart and Gordon conclude, ‘The correspondence between the

24) In theTargum, the first part of the phrase reads, ‘their breaths will not die’. For a discussionof the passage, see Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi, pp. 101–107.25) See D.F. Watson, ‘Gehenna’, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (NewYork: Doubleday, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 926–928.


Targumic Gehinnam, both the term and the concept, and the New TestamentGehenna is particularly close.’26

2.1.4. Jannes and JambresMartin McNamara has pointed out that these two names are given to the sor-cerers who opposed Moses in Pseudo-Jonathan at Exodus 7.11–12, just as in2Timothy 3.8–9.27 In a searching criticism, Lester Grabbe has objected that theGreek form of the names in the Targum shows that ‘the form known to us isat least as late as the 7th century’.28 To his mind, that refutes McNamara’s twoprincipal contentions, (1) that there was a ‘PalestinianTargum’ extant during thefirst century, and (2) that the names given in 2Timothy correspond only to thatTargum. On that basis, Grabbe goes on to conclude, ‘McNamara’s arguments,according to his own criteria, are totally irrelevant in this particular case.’

The heat of Grabbe’s conclusion stems from his attack on the assumptionthat ‘the Palestinian Targum’ already existed during the first century. That iswhy the Greek form of the names (for Yohanan and Mamre in Hebrew andAramaic) strikes him as so telling. But once it is granted—as it has been in thisdiscussion—that the sharing of the names does not establish the existence or theantiquity of ‘the Palestinian Targum’, the simple fact of the similarity remains.

Although the first name in the pair is referred to in the Damascus Documentfrom Qumran (CD 5.17–19) and Pliny the Elder (Natural History 30.2.11),both extant in the first century, finding the two names together proves moreelusive. Eusebius, the Church historian of the fourth century, quotes Numenius,a second-century Greek writer, as referring to them (Preparation of the Gospel9.8.1), and the later Babylonian Talmud includes a reference (B. Mena

¯hoth 85a),

but in neither case is there a close fit with the passage in Pseudo-Jonathan’s

26) SeeK.J.Cathcart, andR.P.Gordon,TheTargumof theMinorProphets (TheAramaicBible,14,Wilmington:Glazier, 1989), p. 133, citingTargumNahum1.8, TargumPsalms 88.13, andthe many uses in the Gospels. They are particularly struck by the emphasis on Gehenna as aplace of darkness, as in Targum Psalms 88.13 and Matthew 8.12. Céline Mangan notes thefrequent usage of the term in the Job Targum, of which the most striking case is perhaps ‘fireofGehenna’ in 20.26 (compareMatthew 5.22); seeC.Mangan,TheTargum of Job. Translated,with a critical introduction, apparatus, and notes (TheAramaic Bible, 15, Collegeville: Liturgi-cal Press, 1991), p. 27, n. 15; see also M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Genesis, translated,with introduction andnotes (TheAramaicBible, 1B,Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 30.But Gehenna can also be cold in the Job Targum (28.5; 38.23), and can refer to how one feels(17.6) at the point of death (5.4; 38.17); those are quite evolved images.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’, JBL98.3 (1979), pp. 393–401 (400).


Exodus or 2Timothy. Unless one were to argue that 2Timothy has influencedPseudo-Jonathan, the similarity would incline one to the view that the namingof the two sorcerers is not the invention of 2Timothy, but is grounded in acontemporary tradition inGreek and perhaps in Aramaic. At the same time, it isevident that the tradition in Pseudo-Jonathan, according to which Jannes andJambres successfully interpreted Pharaoh’s dream, as referring to Moses’ birth(Pseudo-Jonathan Exodus 1.15), is a later development.29

2.2. Affinity 2. Comparisons of Common Understanding

The similarity between the Synoptic parable of the vineyard and the song of thevineyard in the Isaiah Targum 5 has already been discussed. It is worth noting inaddition, however, that both Matthew (21.33) and Mark (12.1) allude to Isaiah5.2 in the parable, when they refer to a hedge set around the vineyard.Their allu-sion is to the Septuagintal version of Isaiah 5.2, so that any conscious awareness ofthe Targum at the point of the composition of those Gospels cannot be claimed.The point is rather that the memory of allusion to Isaiah 5 is preserved; what theTargumic version of Isaiah explains—while other versions do not—is why thepriestly opposition to Jesus would feel particularly enraged by his parable.

2.2.1. Hanging upon a TreeIn his letter to the Galatians, Paul uses this phrase to describe Jesus’ execution.The wording itself comes from Deuteronomy 21.23, and Paul applies it to arguethat, in being crucified, Jesus was subject to the curse of ‘everyone who hangsupon a tree’ (Galatians 3.13, which follows the Septuagint in its wording). Paul’sargument assumes that crucifixion carries with it some sanction of Judaic law,and that is just what we find in the Ruth Targum, when Naomi says,

Wehave four kinds of death for the guilty, stoning with stones, burning with fire, execu-tion by the sword, and hanging upon a tree.

In his commentary on the Targum Ruth, Derek Beattie observes the contradic-tion of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7.1), which refers to stoning, burning, behead-ing, and strangling. That is a principal support of his suggestion of ‘an ancientorigin, at least for that part of the Targum’.30

29) And here the general agreement with the positive evaluation in Numenius is perhapstelling. The relevant texts are set out by McNamara and in a summary form by Grabbe.30) See D. Beattie, The Targum of Ruth. Translated, with introduction, apparatus, and notes(The Aramaic Bible, 19, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1994).


The argument is vitiated by the criticism that has been leveled at the generalassertion that a statement that appears to be anti-Mishnaic in content must bepre-Mishnaic in origin. After all, midrashic exegeses explore almost any logicaland historical possibility, precisely because midrashim are not identified withhalakhic authority. And the Ruth Targum is midrashic in nature. Yet Beattie’sinsight might be supported by reference to what Paul says. After all, Paul repre-sents an indisputably first-century usage, contexted in the Judaism he absorbedin Tarsus and Jerusalem, in which the midrashic connection between crucifix-ion and Deuteronomy 21.23 appears explicitly. Taken together, Galatians andthe Ruth Targum show us that this connection is indeed as ancient as Beattiesuggests, and that Paul was making an argument that was within the idiom ofmidrashic possibility.31

2.3. Affinity 3. Comparisons of Common, Named, Theological Concepts

Wementioned above the usage of the phrase ‘kingdom ofGod’ in the Isaiah Tar-gum. Influence of such a usage on Jesuswould help to account for one of themoststriking features of Jesus’ theology: his insistence that the kingdom is a dynamic,even violent intervention within human affairs. In the past, scholars of the NewTestament have held that ‘the kingdom of the heavens’ in Judaism was a staticreference, and have contrasted Jesus’ usage to that.32 The Isaiah Targum providesa theological precedent for the sort of usage that Jesus developed further.

The Masoretic Text offers a picture of the Lord descending upon Mount Zionas a lion, which is not afraid of the shepherds who attempt to protect the prey.That arresting image is referred explicitly to the kingdom in Isaiah Targum 31.4:

As a lion, a young lion roars over its prey, and, when a band of shepherds are appointedagainst it, it is not broken up at their shouting or checked at their tumult, so the kingdomof the Lord of hosts will be revealed to settle upon the Mount of Zion and upon itshill.

This passage should put to rest the outworn generalization that the kingdomwithin Judaic usage was static in nature, and that the dynamic aspect was Jesus’innovation. The kingdom’s dynamism was not original with Jesus; his particularcontribution was in his portrayal of how the kingdom comes.

31) In the same letter, Paul alludes to the idea that theTorahwasmediated by angels (Galatians3.19, compare Acts 5.53 and, for example, Targum 1Chronicles 29.11), although he then usesthatwell-knownmotif to suggest that the law is derivative in its authority (Galatians 3.20–29).32) For a full discussion, see B. Chilton, Pure Kingdom. Jesus’ Vision of God (Studying theHistorical Jesus, 1, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids and London: SPCK, 1996).


TheJobTargum speaks ofGodmaking the righteous sit ‘upon the throne of hiskingdom with established kings’ ( Job Targum 36.7) in a way which invites com-parison with Luke 22.28–30 and Matthew 19.28. Here, the motif of entry intothe kingdom and the joint reign with the just is clearly articulated. Stress uponthe ethical conditions which make entry into the kingdom possible was charac-teristic of Jesus’ message (see Matthew 19.16–30 as a whole, with its parallels).

2.3.1. Measure for MeasureThe moral concept of ‘measure for measure’ is well known in Judaism, beingbroadly evidenced by the Targums and by rabbinic literature. Targum Isaiah27.8 contains the addition, ‘With the measure you were measuring with they willmeasure you.’ In Matthew 7.2 and Mark 4.24, Jesus utters a similar saying; ‘Inthe measure you measure it shall be measured you.’ In both locations, the maximis stated as an ethical concept that explains a judgment. In Targum Isaiah, thejudgment applies to a future kingwhowill oppress Israel and signals Israel’s rescuebyGod and the king’s defeat. In bothMatthew andMark, the phrase is cast in theplural and refers to Jesus’ listeners as he urges them. The text in Matthew 7.1–2reads:

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you willbe judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

The principle in both the Targum and the Gospels works in the same way, withslight reformulation for the context.Thatflexible character suggests that the ethi-cal notion of ‘measure formeasure’ functions as proverb. A quick survey of otherJewish writings supports that conclusion. The Mishnah, at M. Sotah1.7, statesthe principle in the third person, as does the Babylonian Talmud in Sanhedrin100a. Genesis Rabbah to Genesis 1.31 similarly emphasizes the principle as anongoing key fulcrum in judgment.

The concept of measure for measure is deployed in Judaism even when theformula is not used. It appears in the biblical works such as Proverbs and Job,yet Ezekiel comes closest to the formulation here when he prophesies in God’sname against Jerusalem, ‘Thus says the Lord God: I will deal with you as youhave done’ (Ezekiel 16.59; see also Proverbs 22.8 and Job 4.8). It also appearsin later Targums, such as Lamentations Targum, where the principle of measurefor measure organizes three large addition in Lamentations Targum 1.3, 1.4 and2.20.33 In this case we seem to be dealing with a proverb in Aramaic which Jesus

33) See C. Brady, The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations. Vindicating God (Studies in theAramaic Interpretation of Scripture, 3, Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 60–66.


and a meturgeman of Isaiah both just happened to use.34 This is an instance inwhich, despite close verbal agreement, no case for dependence can be made oneway or the other.

2.3.2. Other Key Shared ConceptsTargum Jonathan instances other key phrases that are classified as comparisonsof the third type. The phrase ‘mammon of deceit’ in the Isaiah Targum (5.23;33.15) is certainly not unique within Rabbinic or Judaic usage,35 but 1SamuelTargum 8.3; 12.3; 2Samuel Targum 14.14 and Isaiah Targum 5.23; 33.15 pro-vide an analogywith Jesus’ usage in the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16.9),because in all those cases bribery is at issue. In any case, key concept of ‘mammon’is a shared usage between Jesus and the Targumim.36

A more theological notion emerges in the phrase, ‘The people inquire of theiridols, the living from the dead’, which is an obvious rebuke in IsaiahTargum8.19.But its concluding expression seems echoed in the pointed question that ‘twomen in dazzling clothes’ pose to the women at the tomb of Jesus (Luke 24.5),‘Why do you look for the living among the dead?’ Obviously, these remarksfeature turns of phrase rather than content, but they should be noted.

Also in Luke, Jesus cites what appears to be a passage from Isaiah 61 in asynagogue (Luke 4.18–19), but it turns out to be amixture of several passages orthemes from the book of Isaiah. Among them is Isaiah 42, which in the Targum(Isaiah Targum 42.3, 7) especially refers to the poor, the blind, and prisoners,who are pointedly mentioned in Jesus’ ‘citation’.

At the time of Jesus’ baptism, a voice is said to attest that God ‘is well pleased’with him (soMatthew3.17;Mark 1.11; Luke 3.22); in the IsaiahTargum,God issaid to be well pleased with Israel or Jacob (41.8–9; see also 43.20; 44.1) and theMessiah (43.10), when the Masoretic Text speaks only of God’s choice of suchfigures. Similarly, the idiom that there is (or is not) ‘pleasure before’God is sharedby the Gospels (Matthew 18.14) and the Targumim (for example ZephaniahTargum 1.12).37

34) For other instances and further discussion, see Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi, pp. 123–125.35) See Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi, pp. 117–123.36) See Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, pp. 40,152, also citing the Habakkuk Targum2.9, 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) SeeCathcart andGordon, Minor Prophets, p. 167. On p. 190 they come to the conclusionthat the usage is so ubiquitous: ‘It is very unlikely… that there is theological significance inTg.’sless than literal rendering.’ The present point is not theological, but regards the turn of phrasein itself. Still, in that God is invoked, the precise point of denying the theological significanceof the phrase eludes me.


Paul portrays ‘the scribe’ in particular as led astray by the wisdom of God(1Corinthians 1.20). In that portrayal he agrees with the IsaiahTargum (3.1–3),as well as with Targum Jonathan more generally.

Céline Mangan has helpfully observed that it is specifically ‘new wine’ thatsplits wineskins in JobTargum32.19, and that invites comparisonwith Jesus’ say-ing in Matthew 9.17, Mark 2.22 and Luke 5.37. The underlying image is alreadysimilar to theMasoretic Text, andMangan herself comments that thewine is also‘new’ in Symmachus, a Greek version that competed with the Septuagint.38 Butthe agreement between the Targum and the Gospels is nonetheless worth not-ing. Similarly, the phrase ‘flesh and blood’ is used innovatively in the Job Targum(inmanuscript 110 of the BibliothèqueNationale), to refer to human beings andtheir limited knowledge ( Job Targum 37.20, within the speech of Elihu). Man-gan notes this and the similar usage in Matthew 16.17 and 1Enoch 15.4.39 Butshe does not mention that, in the following chapter ( Job Targum 38.17, theLord’s reply to Job), the question is posed ‘is it possible that the gates of deathhave been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of the shadow of death ofGehenna?’ When Peter is told in Matthew 16.17–18 that ‘flesh and blood’ hasnot revealed the identity of Jesus to him, and that ‘Hades’ gates’ will not prevailagainst the church of which he is the rock (kepha’ in Aramaic), thatmay be takento be a use of imagery comparable to what is reflected in the Job Targum in ref-erence both to the limitations of flesh and blood and to the power of the gatesof death.40 Similarly, those echoes join the resonance of the passage with the Isa-iahTargum22.22, where shutting and opening aremade into specifically priestlyfunctions.41

It is interesting that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, a later Targum, contains manyphrases that echo the New Testament. Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis 37.11 statesthat Jacob kept the dreaming of Joseph ‘in his heart’, which is reminiscent ofLuke 2.51, ‘His mother treasured all these things in his heart.’42 Although nodirect connection one way or the other with the New Testament can be claimed,it is striking that in Exodus 10.28 in Pseudo-Jonathan, Pharaoh tells Moses, ‘I

38) Mangan, Targum of Job, p. 73.39) Mangan, Targum of Job, p. 83.40) See T. Finley, ‘ “Upon this Rock”: Matthew 16.18 and the Aramaic Evidence’, AS 4.2(2006), pp. 133–151.41) See B. Chilton, ‘Shebna, Eliakim, and the Promise to Peter’, in B. Chilton, TargumicApproaches to the Gospels. Essays in the Mutual Definition of Judaism and Christianity (Studiesin Judaism; Lanham: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 63–80.42) See Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, pp. 125. He also points out (p. 39) that the positivereference toNoah’s ‘goodworks’ atGenesis 6.9 in bothTargumNeophyti andPseudo-Jonathan(i.e., the Proto-PT source) is reminiscent of Ephesians 2.10 and Titus 2.14.


will deliver you into the hands of those who were seeking your life’, a phrasing thatMichael Maher compares with the prediction of Jesus’ death in Mark 9.31, ‘TheSon ofMan is to be betrayed intomen’s hands.’43 He also observes that the phrase‘high priests’ (in the plural) appears in Pseudo-Jonathan (at Leviticus 16.1), asit does in the New Testament.44 And, as we have already seen, Leviticus 19.18includes the negative form of the Golden Rule in Pseudo-Jonathan, which isattributed to Hillel in Bavli Shabbat 31a and is frequently compared to theteaching of Jesus in Matthew 7.12 and Luke 6.31. Finally, Pseudo-Jonathan inNumbers 24.3 (and in the earlier Targum Neophyti) says of Balaam that ‘whathas been hidden from all the prophets has been revealed to him’, a claim similar toonewhich Jesus expressed inMatthew13.17 andLuke 10.21, 24.45 Such cases arereminders that theTargumim, like Rabbinic literature as a whole,may illuminatethe language and imagery of the New Testament, even at the remove of severalcenturies.46

The Gospel according to John has not featured prominently in this discussionof possible affinities with theTargumim, butMartinMcNamara has called atten-tion toonenotable convergence.Thephrasing of Jesus’ promise in John14.2, thathe goes ‘to prepare a place’ for his followers, is similar to the theme expressedin the Pentateuchal Targumim generally that God or his Shekhinah preparesfor Israel a place of encampment or rest, as in Numbers 10.33 and Deuteron-omy 1.33. AsMcNamara points out, the usage renders a variety ofHebrew termsin the Masoretic Text, and should therefore be seen as characteristically Targu-mic.47 The usage in John is not sufficiently specific to make the Targumic con-nection more than possible, but the convergence remains notable.

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). Itshould be noted, however, that Josephus also reflects the usage, see B. Chilton, ‘Judaism’, inJ.B.Green et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and theGospels (DownersGrove: InterVarsity, 1992),pp. 398–405.45) So M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1. Numbers, translated with apparatus and notes (TheAramaic Bible, 4, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1995), p. 136. But might the association withBalaam be a case of anti-Christian polemic?46) The Targum Neophyti makes the use of the verbs ‘releasing’ and ‘forgiving’ as synonyms(see Genesis 4.7, 13 in Neophyti, and Matthew 16.19; 18.18; John 20.23). See McNamara,Targum Neofiti 1. Genesis, p. 66. See also Leviticus 4.20, 31; 5.10, 13, 16, 18, 26; 19.22.47) He first called attention to the usage in Targum Neophyti Exodus in Targum and Testa-ment, p. 88, but then observed that it is also characteristic of Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, theFragmentTargums, and even the Peshitta; seeM.McNamara, ‘ “ToPrepare aResting-Place for


2.4. Affinity 4. Comparisons of Common Themes

The fourth type of affinity between the Targums and the New Testament lies inthe area of common themes. Here there is no common wording, terminologyor formulation, but only a similar articulation of thematic concepts. This is theweakest form of comparison between Targums and the New Testament, andalthough it provides evidence of the common Jewish background of the twokinds of writings, it cannot be pushed much further than that.

The theme of the consequences of Israel’s failure to attend to the utterancesof the prophets was shared by Jesus with Judaic tradition, including the IsaiahTargum, but Jesus also formulated a demand based on the unique experience ofhis followers (Matthew 13.17; compare Luke 10.24):

Amen I say to you that many prophets and just people wished to see what you see anddid not see, and hear what you hear and did not hear.

This conviction that a fresh experience of God brings with it new requirementsof response is also reflected in Isaiah Targum 48.6:

You have heard: has what is revealed to you been revealed to any other people; and will younot declare it?

Obviously, no case for dependence can bemade here, but the thematic coherenceis nonetheless worthy of note.

The Isaiah Targum speaks of ‘the righteous, who desire teaching as a hungryperson desires bread, and the words of the law, which they desire as a thirsty per-son desires water’ (Isaiah Targum 32.6).That interpretation of hunger and thirstis reminiscent of the Matthean Jesus, who blesses those who hunger and thirstafter righteousness inMatthew5.6.The statement ‘Blessed are you, the righteous’in Targum Jonathan at 2Samuel 23.4 might also be mentioned in comparisonwith Matthew 5.6. Neither comparison extends to the Lukan Jesus at Luke 6.21,which raises the possibility that the present wording in Matthew was shapedduring the course of transmission—as has happened with Targumic interpreta-tion. Similarly, Craig A. Evans has suggested that the Targum’s association of thelame with sinners and exiles might illuminate Matthew 21.14–15 (see TargumJonathan to 2Samuel 5.8; Zephaniah 3.19; Isaiah 35.6; Micah 4.6–8).48

You”. A Targumic Expression and John 14:2f.’, Milltown Studies 3 (1979), pp. 100–108. Heespecially cites their renderings of Numbers 10.33 (in respect of the ark) and Deuteronomy1.33.48) C.A.Evans, ‘ANoteon2Samuel 5.8 and Jesus’Ministry to the “Maimed,Halt, andBlind” ’,JSP 15 (1997), pp. 79–82.


Robert Hayward has observed a similar comparison, citing Jeremiah Targum23.28:

Behold, just as one separates the straw from the grain, so one separates the wicked from therighteous, says the LORD.

This image appears in both the preaching of John theBaptist (Matthew3.12) andin a parable of Jesus’ (Matthew 13.30).49 Since John’s statement also appears inLuke 3.17, a purely Matthean usage cannot be claimed; still, the compositionalpattern manifested more clearly in Matthew than in any other Gospel. Perhapseven more striking is the phrase ‘doers of the truth’, which appears in JeremiahTargum 2.2 and in the Johannine literature ( John 3.32; 1John 1.6).50 A moregeneral, but less exact, analogy exists between Jesus’ complaint about the ‘adulter-ous and sinful generation’ in which he found himself (see Matthew 12.39; 16.4;Mark8.38) and the cognate characterization in the IsaiahTargum57.3. Jesus’ ref-erence to sin as ‘debt’ (see Matthew 6.12 and 18.23–35) appears to be an idiomshared with the Targumim.51

The Targumim participate in a cosmology that reflects convictions of howeschatological reward andpunishment are to beworkedout. It is unlikely that theTargumic scheme is original; more probably, it reflects widespread expectations.But sometimes the Targumim illuminate otherwise esoteric statements withinthe New Testament. Isaiah Targum 63.6 specifies the ‘lower earth’ as the place towhich God will cast the ‘mighty men’ of his enemies. A similar phrase is used inEphesians 4.9 in order to refer to Christ’s descent to the dead.52 Divine anger is

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 connec-tion between the image of harvest and judgment at the end of time. For the related motif ofthe handling of chaff (see Matthew 3.12; 13.30; Luke 3.17; Hosea Targum 13.3; ZephaniahTargum 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 JeremiahTargum51.26. It is more plausible that the image of the stone could be taken messianically; see alsoCathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 194 (commenting on Zechariah Targum 4.7).51) The general point is made in Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 139.52) Indeed, the similarity should settle the question in favor of that interpretation, instead ofseeing it as a reference to the Incarnation. A recent attempt has been made to link the termkathegetes in Matthew 23.10 to parnas in the Ezekiel Targum 34.23; 37.24; see J.C. de Moor,‘The Reconstruction of the Aramaic Original of the Lord’s Prayer’, in P. van der Meer andJ.C. de Moor (eds.), The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry ( JSOTSup, 74,Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 397–422. The difficulty here is that the sense of kathegetesapplies to teaching, while that of parnas applies to pragmatic leadership and care.


invoked in the Isaiah Targum 3.16–24 against women who adorn themselves—especially their hair—in an exaggerated fashion, and that invites comparisonwith 1Timothy 2.9 and 1Peter 3.3. God’s anger is understood to whiten(Malachi Targum 3.2), in a way that may illuminate passages such as Mark 9.3and Revelation 7.14.53 The definitive punishment of the wicked is that theyare to suffer the ‘second death’. That is the threat of both Targum Jonathan(Isaiah 22.14; 65.6, 15; Jeremiah 51.39, 57) and the Revelation of John (2.11;20.6, 14; 21.8).54 Any extension of time serves to allow for the possibility ofrepentance (see Targum Isaiah 26.10; 42.14; Targum Habakkuk 1.13; 3.1–2;2Peter 3.9; Revelation 2.21).55 When the God who judges in this fashion takesnotice of people, a ‘memorial’ or ‘remembrance’ may be said to come before him.This is a generally Targumic expression—amply attested in Targum Jonathan—which also appears in the New Testament (see Acts 10.4, as well as Matthew26.13; Mark 14.9).56 Awareness of such divine remembrance is a foretaste ofthe ‘consolation(s)’ people are to enjoy as a consequence of divine judgment (see2Samuel Targum 23.1; Isaiah Targum 8.2; 18.4; 40.1–2; Jeremiah Targum 12.5;31.6, 26; Hosea Targum 6.2, with Luke 2.24–25; 6.24; Acts 4.36; Romans 15.5;2Corinthians 1.7; 1Thessalonians 2.3–4).57 Moreover, favorable judgment maybe attributed to an angelic advocate, designated by the Greek term parakletos (soJobTargum 33.23 and John 14.16–17, 26; 15.26; 16.7; 1John 2.1–2). In all this,God acts as sovereign, the king of the ages (see IsaiahTargum6.5; 30.33 JeremiahTargum 10.10; Zechariah Targum 14.16; as well as 1Timothy 1.17; [Rev 15.3]),who is able to raise the dead with the sound of a trumpet (see 1Corinthians15.52; 1Thessalonians 4.16, and Exodus 20.18).58

Not every point of contact between Judaism and the early Christian writingsof theNewTestament involves direct analogy.There are several passages inwhichthe Targums present an interpretation that rules out a Christian exegesis. RobertHayward suggests that the statement in the Jeremiah Targum 33.25, that Godmade the heavens and the earth ‘that they should not pass away’, contradictsChris-tianbelief thatGodwould cause thepresentheaven and earth topass away.59Sim-

53) See Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 235.54) That threat is elegantly explained in L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jona-than to the Prophets (The Library of Biblical Studies, New York: Ktav, 1983), p. 183.55) See Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 155.56) See Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, p. 93, n. 13.57) See Hayward, Targum of Jeremiah, p. 131. For further discussion, and citation of Num-bers 23.23 in Neophyti, see McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1. Numbers, p. 133.58) See Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan. Exodus, p. 219.59) 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


ilar cases include the rendering of the Hosea Targum 11.1, ‘Out of Egypt I havecalled them sons.’ That corrects the passage away from the singular applicationof ‘Out of Egypt I have called to my son’, which had long been used as a Chris-tian testimonium (see Matthew 2.15). It obviously cannot be demonstrated thatthe Hosea Targum here responds to the testimonial usage; but that it removesthe possibility of such an interpretation is notable. Perhaps for a similar reason,the Zechariah Targum omits the reference to thirty pieces of silver at 11.12, thereference to ‘the potter’ at 11.13 (compare Matthew 27.3–10), and the refer-ence to ‘himwhom they have pierced’ at 12.10 (compare John 19.37; Revelation1.7).60 It has also been suggested that the surprising rendering of Malachi 2.16,‘But if you hate her, divorce her’, which contradicts the straightforward meaningof theHebrew (‘But he hates divorce’), is designed tomilitate against the stricterChristian teaching (see Matthew 5.31–32; 19.3–9; Mark 10.2–12; Luke 16.18;Romans 7.2–3; 1Corinthians 7.10–11).61

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 theMasoretic Text, but they do not speculate on the reasons for the departure of the Targumfrom the other versions. Along the same lines, Gordon rightly cautions in a series of remarksthat we can only surmise in regard to the influence of Matthew upon the Targumic renderingof Zechariah 11 (pp. 412–415). On that basis he makes a connection between Zephaniah 2.1in the Targumic Codex Reuchlinianus andMatthew 7.3–5 and Luke 6.41–42, which is basedon the speculation that a reading of the term ‘straw’ (qosh inHebrew)was applied verbally.Theidea is, as ProfessorGordon explained in a letter that he has given permission to cite, that a punsuch as ‘Be “strawed” and then “straw” ’ is behind Jesus’ usage. Their treatment of ZechariahTargum 12.10 in respect of the New Testament (pp. 218–219) is balanced, and develops asurmise 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 isassigned to the school of Aqiba on the basis of m. Gittin 9.10 and b. Gittin 90b; Cathcartand Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 235. Similarly, it is perhaps a bit of a strain to conceive ofinterpreters imputing seduction to Hezron simply because he is mentioned in the genealogyof 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 Targum1Chronicles 2.21 and Matthew 1.3; Luke 3.33. After all, the name of the resulting son is notthe same in the Targum as in the New Testament. McIvor also suggests (p. 41) that namingShem as ‘the great priest’ in 1Chronicles 1.24 is a response to claims about Melchizedek andJesus in Hebrews 7. It seems more plausible that the association with Shem shows the kind offorce and affiliation the image ofMelchizedek exercised; see B.Grossfeld,TheTargumOnqelosto 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 ofinterest that Maher (Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 58) accepts the anti-Christian reading ofMelchizedek in Pseudo-Jonathan. But that is because he sees the verb ‘to minister’ as denying


Still, in several passages, Targums supportChristian interpretations. InZecha-riah 14.21, in the Targum refers to the time when there will be no ‘trader’, ratherthan ‘no Canaanite’, in the Temple, and that may be an antecedent of Jesus’ com-plaint in John 2.16.62 Similarly, the statement found inHoseaTargum1.3, ‘if theyrepent, it will be forgiven them; but if not, they will fall as the leaves of a fig-tree fall’,may be a precedent for the imagery of the story in Mark 11.12–14, 20–23 andparallels. The idea that an animal which has been strangled is offensive to God(because its blood has not been drained away), is shared by Acts 15.20 and theMalachi Targum 1.13.63 Those connections are too slight to warrant the conclu-sion of direct contact; similarly, passages such as Matthew 26.64, Mark 14.62and Luke 22.69 represent a convergence with the well-known Judaic tendencyto refer to divine ‘power’, rather than to God himself.64 The interpretation ofincense offered to God as prayer is perhaps a somewhat more specific connec-tion (see Malachi Targum 1.11 and Revelation 5.8; 8.3–4), as is the image ofwater as a multitude of people (2Samuel Targum 22.17; Habakkuk Targum 3.8;Rev 17.15).65

We end this section with a word of caution concerning the Proverbs Targum.Although it presents several usages of imagery that seem to cast light on theGospels, the Proverbs Targum is based on the Peshitta, which in turn was trans-lated in close consultation of the Septuagint. So the Targum primarily echoesthe Septuagint in its parallels with theNewTestament. For example, the Targumindicates the ant is said to have no ‘harvest’, rather than no ‘chief ’ in Proverbs 6.7,and JohnHealy has compared that to the characterization of animals inMatthew6.26 and Luke 12.24.66 But because the point of Proverbs is to promote indus-try, while the Gospels commend release from care, the similarity should not bepressed. Indeed, the Targum simply follows the Septuagint here. A stronger casemay be made for the statement, ‘It is a snare for a man that he vows to the sanctu-ary and afterwards his soul rejoices’ (Proverbs Targum 20.25). The basic situationis as envisaged inMatthew 15.4–6 andMark 7.10–13: the practice of dedicating

priestly function, when in fact that term is quite consistent with a priestly understanding ofMelchizedek.62) So Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 226.63) So Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, p. 231.64) 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, citingthe 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.65) Cathcart and Gordon, Minor Prophets, pp. 231 and 158.66) J. Healy, The Targum of Proverbs: Translated with a critical introduction, apparatus andnotes (The Aramaic Bible, 15, Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 21.


property to the Temple while continuing to enjoy its use.67 But since the Septu-agint renders the verse similarly, there is no question of a particular comparisonwith the Targum.

3. Conclusion

Our initial finding must be categorical and negative. The comparison of the sec-ond type, where the New Testament and the Targumim share a common, liter-ary understanding of the same biblical passage, resulted in the smallest numberof cases of all the categories of comparison we have considered. That stronglyunderlines what has emerged from this discussion as a whole: in their literaryform, theTargumimhadnot fully emergedby thefirst century.Had that been thecase, the literary category of comparison would have been much more stronglyrepresented.

The comparison of the first type—where actual wording is involved in theinterpretation of the same scriptural passage or in a different context—representsa stronger relationship between the New Testament and the Targumim. Thisresult seems paradoxical. Why should that be the case? In each instance, a say-ing of Jesus was involved, and a saying of Jesus in regard to a key concept withinhis teaching (forgiveness, violence, andGehenna). Evidently, the Targumim rep-resent traditions that were a formative influence on the tradition of the Gospelsat an early stage. Once the Gospels emerged in their Greek form, however, Tar-gumic influence all but disappeared. This explains why the second, literary typeof comparison yielded so few results.

That complex relationship, in which the Targumim represent traditions fromthe earliest period of formative Judaism in texts that are relatively late in theirliterary forms, is best attested in the third type of comparison. Here, many ofJesus’ most famous sayings find their echoes: the kingdom of God, the measureby which one is measured, mammon, the citation of Isaiah 61, new wine, thepromise to Peter, beingmerciful as God is merciful, and the golden rule. But thiscomparison (unlike the comparison of the first type) is not limited to sayingsof Jesus. Characteristic expressions of God being well pleased, of seeking theliving among the dead, of keeping things in one’s heart, of being delivered todeath, and of a plurality of high priests, also find their place here. That raisesinteresting questions with regard to actual contacts that may be posited betweenthe Targumim and the New Testament.

67) See Healy, Targum of Proverbs, p. 45. For further discussion, see B. Chilton, The Temple ofJesus: His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park: Pennsyl-vania State University Press, 1992), pp. 127–128.


Finally, the fourth type of comparison includes more passages than may berepeated here, but it is instructive in its range. It includes Jesus’ statement aboutthe revelation of what was hidden from the prophets to Jesus’ own followers,those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, divine judgment as the separa-tion of straw and grain, the present generation as adulterous and sinful, and thedanger of vows concerning the Temple. Although it should be borne in mindthat comparisons of the fourth type do not concern typically Targumic expres-sions, the very fact of this overlap means they are of value in an understanding ofthe New Testament. For all the variety of the dates, involving different degreesof distance from the first century, the Targumim include material that resonateswith some of the most primitive materials in the New Testament. Here again, asin the third category, that resonance involves more than sayings of Jesus. Expres-sions such as ‘doing truth’ (as in 1John 1.6), ‘the lower earth’ (Ephesians 4.9), ‘thesecond death’ (Revelation 20.14; 21.8) find their place here, as does the particu-lar concern about women decorating their hair (1Timothy 2.9, 1Peter 3.3).

Our approach has worked to chart a path between extremes in a cycle ofattitudes toward the use ofTargumim in the exegesis of theNewTestament.Thatis why we have insisted upon an approach that identifies the kind of comparisonappropriate to each case, and why we have not begun by assuming either thepriority or the irrelevance of Targumic material in any of them. Even so, weneed to close on another note of caution. As has been pointed out, similarity toTargumicmaterials is no guarantee of what is commonly called the ‘authenticity’of a given passage in the New Testament. Simply put: a Targumic analogy is noproof in itself that Jesus saidwhat theGospels claimhe said.As amatter of fact, inthe first case of the first type of comparison (the teaching about those who fail tosee andhear)wehaveobserved the formative influenceof the circle around James.The types of comparison we have offered are between two bodies of traditionalliterature, and should not be confused with historical findings. The compositenature of the Gospels as well as of the Targumim is reinforced at every turn bymeans of critical comparison.

As we have emphasized, historical relationship differs from verbal and literarycomparison. Once a verbal or literary comparison has been developed, it opensthe historical question: why should the two kinds of literature be related as theyare? In global terms,we have provided an answer to that question.TheTargumimwere in the process of formation during the period in which the New Testamentemerged.

Another type of similarity between the Targums and the New Testament,broader than wording or meaning, involves a common presentation. Time andagain, the Targumim present a synoptic relationship amongst their materials.

At Genesis 4.8, an actual argument breaks out—in the Cairo Geniza frag-ments, Pseudo-Jonathan, Neophyti and the Fragments Targum—between Cain


and Abel, prior to Cain’s primal act of murder. In all these Targumim, the twobrothers dispute whether God was just in preferring the offering of Abel to thatof Cain. The wording of the dispute is comparable in the four versions, but thereis also complex diversity among them. And what is most striking in relation tothe synoptic relationship among the first three Gospels: the order of the disputediffers from Targum to Targum. In the ‘Poem of the Four Nights’, a liturgicalhymn associated with keeping Passover, Palestinian Targumim present the nightof the exodus (Exodus 12.42) as the third in the sequence of four great divineacts: the creation, the call of Abraham, the exodus, and the redemption whichis to come. That order, and the scriptural references associated with it, remainrather constant, but the radical abbreviation—or expansion, from the oppositepoint of view—associatedwith a comparison ofmaterial in the SynopticGospelsis notable.TheAqedah (Genesis 22 in the Palestinian Targumim and Isaiah 33.7in themargin of Reuchlinianus) also presents features comparable to synopticityin the Gospels.68 In that the synopticity of the Targumim is evinced among fourdocuments, not three (as in the case of the relationship among the Gospels), itis evenmore complicated to trace a purely documentary, rigidly literary relation-ship among the texts. The study of the synoptic aspect of the Targumim remainsin its infancy, but it appears possible that, once it is better understood, we findthat we also conceive of the literary relationship among theGospels in a differentway.

Resonance of the sort we have seen does not by itself demonstrate contact orpriority between the two literatures. As a matter of inference, Jesus’ citation ofIsaiah 6 in a Targumic form, and the subsequent development of that citation inthe circle of James, is consistent with the evidence, but by no means proven bythat evidence. In historical terms, resonance only suggests that there might be ananalogy between the two literatures involved in comparison.

The four types of comparison indicate that historical analogies between theNew Testament and the Targumim appear when we attend to their possiblerelationships. Literary comparison of the New Testament with the Targumim

68) For the study of such cases, see B. Chilton, Profiles of a Rabbi. Synoptic Opportunities inReading About Jesus (Brown Judaic Studies, 177, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); B. Chilton,TargumicApproaches to theGospels: Essays in theMutualDefinition of JudaismandChristianity(Studies in Judaism, Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1986); B. Chilton, ‘Genesisin Aramaic: The Example of Chapter 22’, in C.A. Evans et al. (eds.), The Book of Genesis.Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup, 152, Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 495–518;B.Chilton, ‘TheExodusTheology of the PalestinianTargumim’, in J.N. Lohr,T.Dozeman andCraigA.Evens, (eds.),TheBook ofExodus.Composition,Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup,Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).


by itself does not solve ‘the problem of the historical Jesus’, but it can proceedin a way which does not exacerbate it, and which may be productive for furtheranalysis.

Documents

Greek Testament, Aramaic Targums, and Questions of Comparison