21
[AS 2.2 (2004) 223-42] ISSN 1477-8351 Three Harsh Prophets: A Targumic Tosefta to Parashat Korah Harry Sysling Theological University of Kampen 1. Introduction The collection of Palestinian Targumim to the Pentateuch, known as the Fragmentary Targums, belongs in all likelihood to the festival- liturgical genre. 1 This is especially true for one of its primary sources, MS Paris – Biblioth` eque nationale H´ ebr. 110, in which, as M.L. Klein states, ‘the paraˇ sot of the annual cycle are marked by several words in square majusculae...’. 2 The fifty-four weekly sabbath readings of the annual cycle are all indicated in this manner, 3 although quite often the 1 See M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources (2 vols; AnBib, 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), I, pp. 19-23. It remains obscure, as Klein, pp. 12-13, rightly remarks, for what purpose this selection of targums was made. Was it composed of variants of one of the other Palestinian Targums or of targum Onqelos? For a discussion on their raison d’ ˆ etre, see also P.S. Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’, in M.J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Inter- pretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT II/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 221, 250. 2 Klein, Fragment-Targums, I, p. 27; see for other details of the manuscript, U. Gleßmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch (TSAJ, 27; T¨ ubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995), pp. 126-28. 3 See the list of parashiyyot in N. Fried, ‘Haftara’, Talmudic Encyclopedia (in Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1961), 10.1-31, 702-724; according to Fried (p. 709) the haftara reading for parashat Korah is 1 Sam. 11.14–12.22. In MS Paris of the Fragmentary Targum, the beginning of the second verse of a parasha is sometimes marked (see for instance Exod. 30.12, 35.2, Lev. 12.2, 14.2). Alternatively, not only the beginning of the first verse is marked, but also that of the second (see Num. 13.1, 2; 25.10, 11). It is to be assumed that the majusculae in Gen 49.3 were written down by mistake. c The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and 15 East 26th Street, suite 1703, New York, NY 10010, USA.

Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

aramaic

Citation preview

Page 1: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

[AS 2.2 (2004) 223-42]ISSN 1477-8351

Three Harsh Prophets:

A Targumic Tosefta to Parashat Korah

Harry Sysling

Theological University of Kampen

1. Introduction

The collection of Palestinian Targumim to the Pentateuch, known asthe Fragmentary Targums, belongs in all likelihood to the festival-liturgical genre.1 This is especially true for one of its primary sources,MS Paris – Bibliotheque nationale Hebr. 110, in which, as M.L. Kleinstates, ‘the parasot of the annual cycle are marked by several words insquare majusculae...’.2 The fifty-four weekly sabbath readings of theannual cycle are all indicated in this manner,3 although quite often the

1See M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to theirExtant Sources (2 vols; AnBib, 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), I, pp.19-23. It remains obscure, as Klein, pp. 12-13, rightly remarks, for what purposethis selection of targums was made. Was it composed of variants of one of the otherPalestinian Targums or of targum Onqelos? For a discussion on their raison d’etre, see also P.S. Alexander, ‘Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures’,in M.J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Inter-pretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINTII/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 221, 250.

2Klein, Fragment-Targums, I, p. 27; see for other details of the manuscript, U.Gleßmer, Einleitung in die Targume zum Pentateuch (TSAJ, 27; Tubingen: J.C.B.Mohr, 1995), pp. 126-28.

3See the list of parashiyyot in N. Fried, ‘Haftara’, Talmudic Encyclopedia (inHebrew; Jerusalem, 1961), 10.1-31, 702-724; according to Fried (p. 709) the haftarareading for parashat Korah is 1 Sam. 11.14–12.22. In MS Paris of the FragmentaryTargum, the beginning of the second verse of a parasha is sometimes marked (see forinstance Exod. 30.12, 35.2, Lev. 12.2, 14.2). Alternatively, not only the beginningof the first verse is marked, but also that of the second (see Num. 13.1, 2; 25.10,11). It is to be assumed that the majusculae in Gen 49.3 were written down bymistake.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004, The Tower Building, 11 York Road,

London SE1 7NX and 15 East 26th Street, suite 1703, New York, NY 10010, USA.

Page 2: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

224 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

lemmata are not followed by an Aramaic translation of the rest of theverse.4 Apart from this outward aspect, the liturgical character of MSParis is clearly visible in the midrashic expansions (toseftot), which areadded not only to the festival readings but also to the weekly sabbathreadings.5

As an example of such a targumic tosefta I adduce the lengthy in-troduction to Parashat Korah (Num. 16.1ff.) in MS Paris of the Frag-mentary Targums.6 This midrash, unknown to the other targumim,speaks about three prophets who denied their own prophecies, namelyMoses, Elijah and Micah. The story, as we shall see, is of special inter-est not least because it contains several quotations of scriptural versesfrom the Prophets which are at variance with the official targum onthe Prophets, targum Jonathan.7

2. Text and Translation

The text of this tosefta, in the edition of Klein,8 reads as follows:

h�m anyrp wgb ÷whtawbnb wrpkw ÷whtmyjb waybnta ÷y�q ÷yybn atlt .jrq jqywhkymw hylaw

4Why the editor chose to include these ‘empty’ markings remains unexplained.Another unsolved question is why the Fragmentary Targums do not follow thePalestinian triennial cycle. See R.M. Campbell, ‘Parashiyyot and their Implicationsfor Dating the Fragment-Targums’, in P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Targum and Scripture.Studies in Aramaic Translation and Interpretation in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke(Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2002), pp. 105-14.

5In 90 per cent of the cases these expansions are in line, as regards content, with(one of) the other Palestinian targums (most often Neofiti, see e.g. FragTgP/TgNeofGen. 18.1, 28.10, 44.18, Lev. 1.1, Deut. 1.1); an exception is FragTgP Exod. 13.17,which corresponds with TgPsJ.

6Hereafter FragTgP. Other abbreviations for the targumic sources I shall beusing in this article are FragTgV (MS Vatican Ebr. 440 of the Fragment-Targums),TgNeof (Codex Neofiti I), TgNeof [M] (Marginal Glosses in Neofiti), TgNeof [I](Interlinear Glosses in Neofiti), TgCG (Cairo Geniza Fragments), TgPsJ (Pseudo-Jonathan), PTg (Palestinian Targum), TgOnq (Onqelos).

7A large number of targumic quotations that are not identical with the extanttargums have been collected in M. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments of Lost Targumim(2 vols; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1983, 1989). For quotations of atargum on the Prophets in the Palestinian Targums, see FragTgP Num. 16.1 (1Kgs 18.37, 21.19, 22.28), PTg Deut. 32.1 (Isa. 1.2, 51.6, 65.17), PTg Gen. 40.23(Jer. 17.5, 7). See for these quotations Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments, II, pp. 19-21, 25-26, 27-28. The following are not mentioned in Goshen-Gottstein: TgCG/FragTgP Exod. 13.17 (Ezek. 18.13), TgPsJ Gen. 30.25 (Obad. 18), TgPsJ Deut.31.16 (1 Sam. 25.19).

8Klein, Fragment-Targums, I, p. 99.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 3: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Sysling Three Harsh Prophets 225

÷whtryzgbw ÷yylya <÷wtwmy> a�n ynb ytyymd antwmk µa rmaw hytmyjb ybntya h�mhytyrwa alw ana yyd yaybnm alw ym[ lylm yyd armym al ÷whyl[ rzgy–d„ a�n ynbdûymdq ÷wn?njtÀad amkh µrm[ rb h�m trmaw alq trb tqpn ydyb ttja yydyymdq annjtml ûpws ûk ÷whyl[ tmjr alw ÷whyl[ tsj alw ywld hyfb�ynb µkl br ÷whl trma ta ûl[ hagtm <ana> ûk ÷whyl[ twwgta yd <amkhw>

allml ¹swt al ûl br rmaty ÷k ywld hyfb�awh ta µwra ÷ydh am[ lk ÷w[dyw yty yn[ yy yty yn[ rmaw hytmyjb ybnta hylatyl ÷yaw ÷yrq�d ÷yhla ûmwq ÷yjlpd ÷yhla lkw ÷rja hlaw yyamq hla ÷whhlatkpaw ÷whldq tyy�qad awh ta at[� adhb ûtrwbg ysyn ymjmw yty yn[ tawhyla whyla trmaw alq trb tqpn ÷whyrwjal ÷whbl tyyfsaw ÷whyrtbl ÷whypa

yymdq [ym� atwlx ayhh hybwj ybgyd abwj yrml atqb� amyaybnm al µl�b baja rwzjy rwzjm ÷ya rmaw hytmyjb ybnta hlmy rb whykymûtrzg hlmy rb whykym trmaw alq trb tqpn yyd armym ym[ lylm alw ana yydtymyyq ymwp rmymw ywmwyb ayt�yb tytya alw„ tylybq bajad hytybwttw –h„tmyyqalw tylybq hytybtwtw µl�b baja rwzjy tyld tmyyq ûtryzg –tlfb alw ûyhhymda ty ayblk ÷wlk?aÀd am ûyh tymyyq ymwp rmymw ywmwyb ayt�yb tytyya

la[rzy qljb bajad hymda ty ayblk ÷wlky ÷k twbndµt

After this lengthy introduction the lemma is repeated, followed by itsAramaic interpretation:

jrq glpw afy[ bysnw .jrq jqyw

Before making some comments on the structural elements of this storyand on the targumic quotations it contains, I will offer an Englishtranslation:9

And Korah took: Three harsh prophets prophesied in their anger,and denied their (own) prophecies because of the meanness (with whichthey were treated):10 Moses, Elijah and Micah.[A] Moses prophesied in his anger and said: ‘If these men <die> accord-ing to the death that the sons of man die, and by the decree that isdecreed against the sons of man, then the memra of the Lord did notspeak with me, and I am not among the Lord’s prophets, nor was theLord’s Torah brought down by me’.11 A heavenly voice came forth, andsaid: ‘Moses son of Amram, just as the tribe of Levi petitioned beforeyou, but you had no compassion for them, nor did you have mercy uponthem, so ultimately you will petition before Me; <and just as> you ex-alted yourself over them, so <I> will exalt Myself over you. You said to

9I mainly follow Klein’s translation (Fragment-Targums, II, pp. 69-70), but atsome points I deviate from his rendering.

10Klein, Fragment-Targums, II, p. 69, translates ‘denied their own prophesies[sic] in despair’. On the meaning of anyrp wgb, see below.

11Lit.: ‘by my hands’. Cf. Num. 16.29.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 4: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

226 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

them: “(It is) enough for you,12 sons of the tribe of Levi.” So, you willbe told: “Enough for you, do not speak any more”’.13

[B] Elijah prophesied in his anger and said: ‘Answer me, O Lord, answerme, so that all these people may know that You are their God, first Godand last God; and that all the gods they worship in Your presence arefalse gods. And if You do not answer me, and display the miracles of Yourmight in this hour, then it will have been You who stiffened their necks,and turned their faces about and swayed their hearts backwards’.14 Aheavenly voice came forth, and said: ‘Elijah, Elijah, why have you allowedthe creditor to collect his debt? That prayer has (already) been receivedbefore Me’.[C] Micaiah son of Imlah prophesied in his anger, and said: ‘If Ahab doesreturn safely, then I am not among the Lord’s prophets, and the memraof the Lord has not spoken to me’.15 A heavenly voice came forth, andsaid: ‘Micaiah son of Imlah, I16 have fulfilled your decree, but I have(also) accepted Ahab’s repentance: (... )17 I have fulfilled your decree,that Ahab shall not return safely; and I have accepted his repentance, soas not to bring about the evil things in his days; and I have fulfilled theword of my mouth. Just as the dogs have eaten the blood of Naboth, soshall the dogs eat the blood of Ahab in the plot of ground of Jezreel’.18

End.And Korah took: And Korah took counsel and was at strife.19

3. Three Harsh Prophets: Form and Development of a Story

In the other recensions of the Fragmentary Targums and in the rest ofthe Palestinian Targums, there is no reference to this story about threeharsh prophets. Ginsburger20 may be right in seeing it as originallybelonging to Num. 16.29 (the first scriptural quotation in this midrash).

12That is: You have gone too far. See Num. 16.7.13Deut. 3.26.14See 1 Kgs 18.37.15See 1 Kgs 22.28, 2 Chron. 18.27.16Reading tymyyq instead of htmyyq.17Here the text wrongly adds ‘so as not to bring about the evil things in his days;

and I have fulfilled the words of my mouth just (as)... and it (the decree?) was notmade void’. It is partly marked with a superlinear line for deletion.

18A conflation of various scriptural verses, cf. 1 Kgs 21.19, 23; 2 Kgs 9.10, 36-37,and see below.

19Or: was divided.20M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (Thargum jeruschalmi zum Penta-

teuch) (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1899), p. 52 n. 3: ‘Dieses Stuck... bildete wol ursprunglichdas Thargum zu V. 29 wurde aber dann allem Anscheine nach als Einleiting zu ˜pjrq verwendet...’.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 5: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Sysling Three Harsh Prophets 227

It is reasonable to assume that the targumic rendering of this verse inthe introduction (‘If such and such happens , then the memra of theLord did not speak with me, and I am not among the Lord’s prophets,nor was the Lord’s Torah brought down by me’) is an expansion ofthe ‘traditional’ targumic rendering of the phrase ‘then the Lord didnot send me’ (Num. 16.29). If this is so, it is another example of thetransfer of toseftot in festival-liturgical collections from their originalplace, so as to form the introduction to the weekly sabbath reading.21

Prior to a more detailed examination of our story, I shall make somegeneral observations:

1. The story gives no direct answer to the problem confronting bothancient and modern readers of the Korah story: What is the object ofthe sentence jrq jqyw? What did Korah and his cohorts take?22 Thereis hardly any connection with the lemma jrq jqyw. It is therefore notsurprising to see that at the end the lemma is repeated, followed byits targumic explanation: jrq glpw afy[ bysnw ‘and Korah took counseland was at strife’. With minor variants, our targum shares this inter-pretation with MS Venice of the Fragmentary Targum and with themarginal glosses in targum Neofiti.23 It is beyond doubt that this is

21See Klein, Fragment-Targums, I, pp. 21-23.22For modern solutions of the problem that a direct object to jqyw is missing,

see B.A. Levine, Numbers 1-20 (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 410-11.In rabbinic literature there are divergent explanations: He [Korah] took people bypersuasion (Num. R. 18.2); he took a bad bargain for himself (b. San. 109b); hisheart took control of him (Num. R. 18.16); he took his fringes of blue (mentionedin Num. 15.38, see Num. R. 18.3; y. San. 10.1, 27d; TgPsJ); he created discord(Tanh. B., Korah p. 86, Num. R. 18.3). For a survey and for other possibilities, seeI. Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Numbers. (New York: Ktav, 1988), p. 176 n. 1; seealso B. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and Numbers (Aramaic Bible8; Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1988) p. 115. I am not convinced that the equation ofwayyiqah and discord (‘wayyiqah cannot but signify discord’) is due to metathesis(reading ql–y„j for jql) as Berkowitz in his commentary on Onqelos, Simlat Ger,p. 18 states (included in B. J. Berkowitz, Lehem We-Simla [Wilna, 1850–1855]).Thus also R. Le Deaut and J. Robert, Targum du Pentateuque. III Nombres. (SC,261; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1979), p. 149 n. 2. It can be explained sufficientlyby the use of the hermeneutical device ala ³³³ ÷ya; on this formula, see W. Bacher,Die exegetische Terminologie der judischen Traditionsliteratur (repr. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965), I, pp. 4-5; S. Lieberman, Hellenism inJewish Palestine (New York: Feldheim, 1950), pp. 49-51; I.B. Gottlieb, ‘FormulaComparison in Midrash Research’, JQR 70, 1979-80, pp. 32-38.

23Instead of afy[, FragTgV and Neof [M 2] read hxy[. Neof [M 1] is the mostelaborated of the Palestinian Targums: jrq wffwqtyaw ht�yb hxy[ wbysnw, ‘and theytook evil counsel and Korah quarrelled’. On the reflexive form we-itpeleeg in On-

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 6: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

228 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

the original targumic reading of the first verse, and that, as we havealready seen, the story of the three prophets was transferred from itsoriginal position, to precede the traditional reading.

2. The story of the three prophets who ‘denied’ their own propheciesis essentially a reflection of the prophet’s ambivalent attitude towardshis prophetic mission: ‘did the Lord send me or not’, or to put it other-wise: can I maintain the claim that God sent me to deliver his messageand to perform acts on his behalf. Do I still want to be one of theLord’s prophets?24 This ambivalence is the theme that connects thethree scenes of the story. Two of the three scenes (A&C) are linkedtogether by the formula ‘If X happens..., then I am not among theLord’s prophets’. The third one (B) deviates from this pattern with‘If... not..., then it will be You’. The three scenes are built up alongthe same lines:

A (Moses) and C (Micah)

X prophesied in his angerargument with scriptural quotation: If such and such happens...,then I am not among the Lord’s prophets (Num. 16.29 / 1 Kgs22.28)

A heavenly voice came forth, and said...refutation with scriptural quotations(Num. 18.18 / 1 Kgs 21.19, 23)

B (Elijah)

X prophesied in his angerargument with scriptural quotation: If you do not (answer me)...,then it will have been you... (1 Kgs 18.37)

A heavenly voice came forth, and said...refutation without scriptural quotation

qelos and Peshitta, see Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Numbers, p. 176 n. 1. TgNeofrenders jrq gylpw which could either mean ‘Korah divided’ or ‘Korah was at strife(with)’. TgPsJ translates ‘Korah... took his (prayer) cloak which was entirely pur-ple’; on this rendering see A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to thePentateuch (2 vols.; in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Makor Publishing, 1979), I, p. 128.

24On the image of the prophet as reflected in the targums, see J. Ribera,‘Prophecy according to Targum Jonathan to the Prophets and the Palestinian Tar-gums to the Pentateuch’, in P.V.M. Flesher (ed.), Textual and Contextual Studiesin the Pentateuchal Targums (Targum Studies, Vol. 1; Atlanta, Georgia: ScholarsPress, 1992), pp. 61ff. Ribera describes the characteristics given in the PalestinianTargums of Moses’ prophetic mission (p. 69), but the fact that Moses is allowed toquestion his own prophetic task is neglected.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 7: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Sysling Three Harsh Prophets 229

Will it be wide of the mark to suppose that the section about Elijahonce formed an independent tradition? This seems to be supported bythe fact that the same interpretation of 1 Kgs 18.37, isolated from theMoses and Micah traditions, can be found in b. Ber. 6b, 9b.25

The story as a whole, with the three witnesses, has only a fewparallels in rabbinic literature, in y. San. 10.1, 28a, Num. R. 18.12(75a) and Tanh. . B., Additions to Parashat Korah, p. 96. The lattertwo are practically identical. Let us first look at the text of y. San.10.1, 28a:

whylaw h�m ÷h wlyaw hyyrnwp ynpm ÷tawbnb wrpk ˜g �yql ÷b ÷w[m� ybr rmahkymw

˜wgw hla ÷wtwmy µdah lk twmk µa rma h�mtynrwja µbl ta twbysh htaw wal µaw hzh µ[h w[dyw ynyn[ ˜h ynyn[ rma whyla

yb ˜h rbyd al µwl�b bw�t bw� µa rma hkymRabbi Shimon ben Lakish26 said: “Three (prophets) have denied theirown prophecies because of the meanness (with which they were treated),and these are: Moses, Elijah and Micah...Moses said: ‘If these (men) die by the (common) death of all men’ etc.Elijah said: ‘Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know...and if they do not: For You have turned their hearts backward’.Micah said: ‘If (Ahab) does return in safety, then the Lord has not spokento me”’.

Compared with our tosefta, this parallel in the Yerushalmi shows a veryconcise form. It is merely a concatenation of three scriptural verses,preceded by a short introduction. It seems to allude to a well-knowntradition. Does this mean that it is to be seen as an abridgement of amore fully developed midrash, like the one we have in the prologue ofMS Paris? Or should we consider the lengthy midrash in the Fragmen-tary Targum as an elaboration of the tradition handed down by Resh

25Especially the latter part of 1 Kgs 18.37 (‘and that you have turned their heartsbackward’) is frequently quoted in rabbinic sources. See for instance b. Ber. 31b-32a (‘Rabbi Eleazar also said: Elijah spoke insolently toward heaven, as it says:For you have turned their hearts backward. Rabbi Samuel bar Isaac said: Whencedo we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Elijah right? Because it says:And those I have treated harshly [Mic. 4.6]’). See below.

26On the traditions handed down by Resh Lakish, see W. Bacher, Die Agadader Palastinensischen Amoraer (3 vols; Strassburg, 1892-1899) I, pp. 340-418, esp.pp. 403ff. on Resh Lakish’ predilection for numerical sayings; A. Goldberg, ‘ThePalestinian Talmud’, in S. Safrai (ed.), The Literature of the Sages (CRINT II/3a;Assen: Van Gorcum, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. 310.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 8: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

230 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

Lakish? In the lines preceding this passage, Korah challenges Moses’authority:27

At that hour Korah said: ‘There is no Torah from heaven, and Moses isno prophet, and Aaron is not a high priest’. At that hour Moses said:‘Lord of all the worlds, if from the six days of the beginning the earthwas formed with a mouth, then it is well and good, and if not: Let himcreate a mouth for it now!’ (For it is said:) ‘If a created thing... (Num.16.30)’.28

In Num. R. 18.12 and Tanh. . B., Additions to Parashat Korah, p. 96,this tradition is combined with that of the three prophets. UnlikeMS Paris and the Yerushalmi-fragment, it changes the order of theprophets: Elijah is mentioned first, to be followed by Micah and finallyMoses. In the case of Moses, these sources do not emphasize the themeof the prophet’s indignation (‘then the Lord has not sent me’), butrather Moses’ plea to create a ‘mouth for the earth’ in order to swal-low Korah and his followers and send them down to Sheol (cf. Num.16.30). Num. R. 18.12 (75a):29

h�mw whykymw whyla hzh ˜lb wrma� µyaybn ˜gm ˜a hzynaw lar�yb µyhla hja yk [dwy µwyh lar�yw qjxy µhrba yhla rma whylahta yk hzh µ[h w[dyw ynn[ ˜h ynn[ hlah µyrbdh lk ta yty�[ ûrbdbw ûdb[hta rmwa yna ytwa hnw[ hta ÷ya µa tynrwja µbl ta twbsh htaw µwhlah ˜h

tynrwja µbl ta twbshyb ˜h rbd al rmwa yna ¹a µwl�b bw�t bw� µa bajal rma whykym ÷kw

ata hm h�ml h˜˜bqh wl rma ˜wgw hla ÷wtmy µdah lk twmk µa rma h�m ÷kwarby wal µaw hpy yrh Åral hp tarb µa hayrb µa [˜˜�br wynpl rma �qbmrwa hgn ûykrd l[w ûl µqyw rmwa rzgtw h˜˜bqh wl rma hp wy�k[ hl arbw ˜h

He (Moses) was one of the three prophets speaking in this way: Elijah,Micaiah, and Moses. Elijah said: [1 Kgs 18.36-37] ‘God of Abraham,

27For the context of the passage, see M. Beer, ‘Korah’s Revolt – its Motivesin the Aggadah’, in J.J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer (eds.), Studies in Aggadah,Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (Jerusalem: MagnesPress, 1981), Hebrew section, pp. 23-27; H.J. Becker, ‘,,Epikureer” im TalmudYerushalmi’, in P. Schafer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Cul-ture, I (TSAJ 71; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1998), pp. 397-421 (411-12); H. Sysling,Tehiyyat Ha-Metim. The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums ofthe Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature (TSAJ 57;Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996), pp. 125-35, esp. p. 132 on Korah as an Epicureanavant la lettre.

28See also b. San. 110a.29There are minor differences between this text and Tanh.uma Buber. In

Tanh.uma Buber the name Micah is used as against Micaiah in Num. R.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 9: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Sysling Three Harsh Prophets 231

Isaac, and Israel! Let it be known today that You are God in Israel andthat I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Yourbidding. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may knowthat You, Lord, are God; for You have turned their hearts backward’.(He implied:) If You do not answer me, I shall say: ‘You have turnedtheir hearts backward’.Micaiah, in a similar way, said to Ahab: [1 Kgs 22.28] ‘If you do returnin safety, then I shall also say that the Lord has not spoken to me’.And so Moses also said: [Num. 16.30] ‘If a created thing...’30 (meaning:)‘If you have already created a mouth for the earth, then it is good. Butif not, then “The Lord will create”’. ‘Let him create a mouth for it now’.The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: [Job 22.28] ‘You shall alsodecree a thing, and it shall be established for you, and light shall shineon your ways’.

4. Analysis of the Tosefta in the Fragment-Targums (Ms. Paris)

Returning now to the prologue of Num. 16.1 in the Fragmentary Tar-gum, we see that the introduction of our story speaks of ‘three harshprophets’. The qualification ‘harsh’ is lacking in the parallel just quotedin y. San. 10.1, 28a, which simply speaks of ‘three (prophets)’, andalso in Num. R. 18.12 and Tanh.uma Buber. The number three wasnot chosen arbitrarily. The enumeration of things and people is a pop-ular hermeneutical device, and enumeration patterns are well-knownin the targums;31 they are also widely found in rabbinic sources, oftencombined with the enumeration of scriptural examples.32

30So literally the Hebrew text: ‘If the Lord creates a creation’. Also translatedas ‘If the Lord works a miracle’ (see REB).

31To restrict ourself to FragTgP: Five miracles (Gen. 28.1), Four Keys (Gen.30.22), Three Branches (Gen. 4.12), Three Baskets (Gen. 40.18), Four Groups(Exod. 15.3; cf. Mek., Beshallah 3.128-36), Four Nights (Exod. 15.8), Four Le-gal Cases (Lev. 24.12), Three Angels (Gen. 18.1), Three Leaders (Exod. 40.12),Three Righteous Patriarchs and Four Righteous Matriarchs (Exod. 17.12).

32On the origin and history of these exegetical enumeration patterns, see W.M.W.Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament (VTSup 13; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985)(Roth includes examples from Pirqe Avot); W.S. Towner, The Rabbinic “Enumera-tion of Scriptural Examples” (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973) pp. 95-117. With the story ofthe three prophets one may compare the tradition of the two prophets, Moses andIsaiah, who arose to bear witness against Israel (PTg Deut. 32.1); see also the tra-dition of ‘the three rightous men’ (Jacob, David and Moses) in TgPsJ Deut. 31.14.Examples from rabbinic literature are given in A. Wunsche, ‘Die Zahlenspruchein Talmud und Midrasch’, ZDMG 65 (1911), pp. 57-100, 395-421; 66 (1912) pp.414-59; see esp. pp. 66-100 (‘Pforte der Drei’).

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 10: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

232 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

The story says that the three prophets prophesied ‘in their anger’and denied their own prophecies.33 The latter phrase is perhaps bestunderstood as ‘they questioned their own prophetic utterances’. Eachof them formulates a restriction, thus narrowing the effect of theirprophetic abilities. Difficult to explain is the expression anyrp wgb, whichI have translated as ‘because of the meanness (with which they weretreated)’. The meaning of anyrp wgb is disputed.34 It is seen as a distor-tion of hyyrnwp ynpm, which we find in the Yerushalmi text just quoted(y. San. 10.1, 28a).35 But the meaning of hyyrnwp is equally questioned.According to Jastrow and Dalman, the word is taken from the Greekponhriva, ‘baseness’ or ‘meanness’.36 Levy relates it to fanerav,fanevrwsi~, ‘clarified, (made) manifest, clear explanation’,37 and Kraussderives it from paenuria, ‘poverty’.38 But the solutions offered by Levyand Krauss are contextually out of place and therefore not very at-tractive. The meaning ‘baseness’ or ‘meanness’ still seems the bestinterpretation of this enigmatic word.39

33That Moses became angry as a result of the fact that Korah and his followerschallenged his authority is easy to understand and is underlined in Num. 16.15.The Fragmentary Targums formulate this in even stronger terms: Moses was deeplyaggrieved (FragTgP, FragTgV, and cf. TgNeof).

34See M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the ByzantinePeriod (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990), p. 447.

35One would expect, however ÷ygb or ÷ygb ÷m for Hebrew ynpm instead of wgb.36See M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and

Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: The Judaica Press 1971), p.1144; G. Dalman, Aramaisch-Neuhebraisches Worterbuch zu Targum, Talmud undMidrasch (Frankfurt a. M.: J. Kauffmann, 1901), p. 324. Thus already in Nathanben Yehiel’s Arukh (ed. A. Kohut) VI, p. 372 s.v. rnp.

37J. Levy, Worterbuch uber die Talmudim und Midraschim (4 vols.; Berlin &Wien: Benjamin Harz Verlag, 1924), IV, p. 16. Levy translates the sentence inyerushalmi as follows: ‘Drei Propheten hielten ihre Prophetie zuruck wegen deut-licher Erklarung’. So also Bacher, Agada der pal. Amoraer, I, p. 403 n. 2.

38S. Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch undTargum (2 vols.; Berlin: S. Calvary, 1898-1899; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Ver-lag, 1987), II, p. 429. But this interpretation as well as that given by N. Brull (whosuggested fainevrwsi~) have been criticized by I. Low in his annotations to the bookof Krauss (‘Paenuria ergibt gar keinen Zusammenhang, aber auch fainevrwsi~ istunbefriedigend’).

39I do not see on what grounds Klein translates ‘in despair’ (Fragment-Targums,II, p. 69). In the concordance of Greek and Latin loanwords appended to his book(p. 255), he translates the Greek word with ‘distress’, ‘cowardice’. The latter is oneof its possible meanings, cf. H.G. Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford:At the Clarendon Press, 1961 [1843]), p. 1447, but it does not fit very well.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 11: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Sysling Three Harsh Prophets 233

4.1. MosesMoses (scene A) is the first of the three prophets questioning theirown prophetic mission. The targumist adduces a proof text from Num.16.29. One may compare this text from the introduction of ParashatKorah with the PTs linked to Num. 16.29. I will give them in a synopticpresentation:

FragTgP Num. 16.1 ÷yylya <÷wtwmy> a�n ynb ytyymd antwmk µaFragTgv ÷ylya ÷wtwmy ?aÀ�nya ynb hb ÷ytyymd atwmm µaTgNeof ÷yyla ÷twmy a�na ynb lk ÷tymd atwtymk ÷aTgNeof [M] lk hb ÷ytyymd atytwmm ?µaÀTgOnq ÷ylya ÷wtwmy a�na lkd atwmk µaTgPsJ ÷yylya ÷wtwmy a�n ynb lk hb ÷ytyymd atwtymk ÷ya

FragTgP Num. 16.1 ÷whyl[ rzgy–d„ a�n ynbd ÷whtryzgbwFragTgv ÷whyl[ µktsy a�nya lkd ?tÀwmkswTgNeof ÷ylya l[ rzgty htyyrb lk l[ rzgtmd htrzg ÷yawTgNeof [M] ÷whyl[ µkfsy a�na ynb lk twmkswTgOnq ÷whyl[ r[tsy a�na lkd arw[swTgPsJ ÷whyl[ µktsy a�nya lk twmksw

FragTgP Num. 16.1 alw ana yyd yaybnm alw ym[ lylm yyd armym alydyb ttja yyd hytyrwa

FragTgv yty ?jÀl� yy alTgNeof t?yÀjlt�a yyy µdq ÷m alTgNeof [M] yty jl� yyd hyrmym alTgOnq ynjl� ywy alTgPsJ ynrd� yyy al

In the first line, MS Paris of the Fragmentary Targum correspondswith MS Venice (apart from the use of antwm as against atwm40 andsome minor variants; MS Paris lacks hb), but it differs from the otherPalestinian Targums, which add lk to a�n–a„ ynb, in accordance with theHebrew text. In the second line, however, its use of the more idiomaticrzg and hryzg for Hebrew dqp / hdwqp is in agreement with targum Neofiti(but Neofiti is more paraphrastic in its wording),41 whereas the other

40See Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments, II, p. 53 on the use of these words. In Tg-Neof [M] one should read atwtymm (cf. TgNeof, TgPsJ) instead of atytwmm. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments, II, p. 52, incorrectly reads a�na ynb for a�n ynb in this line,and atyrwa instead of hytyrwa in the third line.

41TgNeof is the only text using hyyrb instead of a�nya ynb. The use of hyyrb meaning‘person’ is quite common in Palestinian texts, see Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 113.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 12: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

234 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

Palestinian Targums use the literal equivalents µks and wmks.42 In thelast line, MS P differs from all the other Palestinian Targums by itsthreefold rendering of the Hebrew ynjl� hwhy al. Here the targumistdeparts from the more traditional targumic rendering. The first tworeasons adduced (1. the memra of the Lord did not speak to me; 2.I am not among the Lord’s prophets) seem to be chosen to connectwhat is said of Moses (A) to the passage about Micah (C). There wefind the same arguments, but in another sequence. The third reasonbrought forward underlines that Moses disavows his bringing down ofthe divine words.

This argument of the prophet in anger is followed by the refutation,in each of the three passages with the conventional formula ‘A heavenlyvoice (lwq tb) came forth, and said’.43 Moses is addressed by his fullname, Moses son of Amram, as is Micah later on, but unlike Elijah.44

Moses is confronted with his attitude towards the tribe of Levi whopetitioned him and Aaron not to take too much work on their shoulders(see 16.3, µkl br ‘enough for you’) and reproached them for theirhaughtiness (‘Why do you set yourselves up above the assembly of theLord?’). Moses will eventually be punished for his lack of compassionand his reproof of the tribe of Levi (see 16.7 ywl ynb µkl br ‘enoughfor you, sons of Levi’): he will be silenced (see Deut. 3.26 la ûl bryla rbd ¹yswt ‘enough for you, do not speak any more to me...)’.45 In asimilar way, but with another metaphor, this is told in Num. R. 18.18:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘You have smitten themwith a rod; with that which you have used for smiting (others), you will

42See Sokoloff, Dictionary, pp. 125-26, 378. For µkfsy in TgNeof [M] one shouldread µktsy. On the use of r[s (itpa.) for Hebrew dqp in Onqelos, see Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments, II, p. 53. It is quite common in Babylonian texts (mostlyaf.), and sporadically found in the PTg (see e.g. FragTgP Exod. 20.5).

43On the bat qol, see J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cam-bridge: At The University Press, 1969), pp. 44-45 n. 3; S. Lieberman, Hellenism,pp. 194-99; P. Schafer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der RabbinischenLiteratur (Munich: Kosel Verlag, 1972), pp. 89ff; P. Kuhn, Offenbarungsstimmenim Antiken Judentum. Untersuchungen zur Bat Qol und verwandten Phanomenen(TSAJ 20; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989). Often in rabbinic literature a biblicalverse is quoted by means of this formula; see A. Marmorstein, ‘The Holy Spirit inRabbinic Legend’, in A. Marmorstein, Studies in Jewish Theology (London: OxfordUniversity Press 1950), pp. 136-38; Kuhn, Offenbarungsstimmen, pp. 280-303. Cf.for instance y. Pe‘a 1.1, 15d; y. Shebi. 9.1, 38d.

44Which could be taken as another sign that originally the Elijah-tradition (B)existed apart from A and C.

45See also TgNeof Deut. 1.6, 2.3 (÷wkl ÷ygs for Hebrew µkl br).

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 13: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Sysling Three Harsh Prophets 235

be struck. You said: Enough for you (Num. 16.7), and in the near futureyou shall hear: Enough for you ... (Deuteronomy 3.26)’.46

The targumist here pays full attention to the motif of ûl Ö µkl br inthe Korah episode.47 A closer look at the passages quoted reveals thatMS Paris differs from the other targumim in both instances:

Num. 16.7

mt ywl ynb µkl brFragTgP Introd. Num. 16.1 ywld hyfb� ynb µkl brTgNeof ywld ywnb ÷wkl ÷wtygsaTgNeof [M1] ÷wkl ywgsTgNeof [M2] ywld ywnb htwnbr ÷wkl ygsTgOnq // TgPsJ ywl ynb ÷wkl ygs

Deuteronomy 3.26

mt –hzh rbdh dw[„ yla rbd ¹yswt la ûl brFragTgP Introd. Num. 16.1 almml ¹yswt al ûl brTgNeof ymdq almml ¹yswt al ûl ÷ygsTgNeof [M] b dw[ ym[ almml ¹yswt al ûl ygsTgNeof [1] ygsTgOnq // TgPsJ ymdq almml ¹yswt al ûl ygs

MS Paris starts by repeating the Hebrew words. In the case of Num.16.7, it differs in this respect from the other Palestinian Targums andfrom Onqelos. Also the addition of –ywld„ hyfb� is not found in the othertargumim.48

4.2. ElijahAs we have seen, the second scene (B) of the introduction to the Korahstory differs from the foregoing (A) and the following (C), since noscriptural passage at all is quoted in the refutation (see above). Theargument of Elijah is of interest, for in it an Aramaic targum of theProphets is quoted on 1 Kgs 18.37 (‘Answer me, O Lord, answer me, sothat this people may know that You are the Lord, God, and you haveturned their hearts backward’) which differs from targum Jonathan. If

46See b. Sot.. 13b; Midr. Tan., ed. Hoffmann, p. 178. Cf. M. Beer, ‘Korah’s Revolt’,pp. 30-31.

47A motif often neglected in (modern) Bible translations, see R. Alter, The Artof Biblical Narrative (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1981), p. 136.

48TgNeof [M 2] adds htwnbr, ‘the office is enough for you, sons of Levi’. SeeSokoloff, Dictionary, p. 514.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 14: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

236 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

for the moment we leave out the additions, the targum quoted remainsclose to the Hebrew text, apart from some minor modifications:

mt µbl ta tbsh htaw µyhlah hwhy hta yk hzh µ[h w[dyw ynn[ hwhy ynn[tynrja

FragTgP ³³³ ÷whhla awh ta µwra ÷ydh am[ lk ÷w[dyw yty yn[ yy yty yn[÷whyrwjal ÷whbl tyyfsaw

Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so that all these people may knowthat You are their God... and (that You) have swayed49 their heartsbackward’.

The text of targum Jonathan,50 is much more paraphrastic:

÷whl ûdb[mb ÷ydh am[ ÷w[dyw rfmb ywy ytwlx lybq at�yab ywy ytwlx lybq÷whtwbtal ûrmymb ÷whl lyat�m ÷whty ûtmjrb taw µyhla ywy ta yra asn

gylp ÷whbl ty wbhy ÷wnaw ûtljdlReceive my prayer, Lord, with the fire, receive my prayer, Lord, withrain; and may this people know by your doing for them the sign thatYou, Lord, are God, and by your loving them are asking for them byyour Memra to bring them back to the fear of you. And they gave theirdivided heart.

The twofold ynn[ in the Hebrew text is translated by the words lybqytwlx ‘receive my prayer’.51 In contrast with the Hebrew text it repeatsthe word ’Adonai. The last part of the verse (‘that you... have turnedtheir hearts backward’)52 is interpreted in two ways, first by ‘by yourloving them are asking for them... to bring them back to fear of you’and secondly by ‘and they gave their divided heart’. The latter phrase

49Or ‘turned’; see Sokoloff, Dictionary, pp. 372-73.50See A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (4 vols.; Leiden. Brill, 1959-1973) II,

p. 260. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments, II, p. 19 incorrectly leaves out ywy after therepetition of ytwlx lybq, and reads ûmjrb instead of ûtmjrb.

51This expression is not uncommon in the targum on 1-2 Kgs, see 1 Kgs 8.28, 29,30, 35, 45, 49, 52, 17.22; 2 Kgs 13.4, 22.19. In the targum on Psalms Hebrew ynn[ isin most cases rendered as yty yn[ (TgPs 69.14, 17, 18 etc.) but in a few cases as l–y„bqytwlx (TgPss 4.2, 13.4, 60.7, cf. TgPs 27.7). Cf. Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments, II,p. 20 n. 5-6.

52Which either means ‘that you have caused them to be backsliders’ (negative)or ‘that you have turned their heart back again’ (positive). But the latter inter-pretation requires taking the verb as a future, and taking tynrja as meaning ‘backagain’. So the first interpretation seems the better one. See M. Cogan, I Kings (AB,10; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 443; J.A. Montgomery and H.S. Gehman, ACritical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T. &T. Clarke, 1951), p. 305. The first interpretation, however, is found already in theSeptuagint (see below) and is followed in many modern Bible-translations.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 15: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Sysling Three Harsh Prophets 237

is a reply to Elijah’s reproving the people with being a divided nation:‘How long are you to be divided into two divisions (Tg 1 Kgs 18.21)’?53

This twofold rendering of targum Jonathan is remarkable, for it canonly mean that God is asking for them to repent, and that as a resultthe people regretted their dissension. As M. Greenberg has shown, thisinterpretation of the Hebrew text, is close to that of the Septuagint,but it is not found in rabbinic sources.54 The addition ‘with the fire’is in line with b. Ber. 6b, 9b (‘Answer me, that the fire may descendfrom heaven’),55 but there the twofold ‘answer me’ in the Hebrew textis not explained as ‘(answer me) with fire as well as with rain’ (so ourtargum), but ‘answer me that fire may descend’ is followed by ‘thatthey may not say it is the work of sorcery’. So here the targum onlypartly follows the bavli texts.

The additions in MS Paris of the Fragmentary Targum are con-nected rather loosely with the translation as such and could, in con-trast with the additions in targum Jonathan, easily be left out. Thefirst (‘first God and last God’) seems to be based on Isaiah 44.6 (‘I amthe first and I am the last’), or 48.12 (‘I am the first, I am the lastalso’).56 As such it is a verbatim translation of the Hebrew text, dif-fering from the more expansive rendering in Targum Jonathan.57 Thesecond ‘and all the gods they worship in your presence are false gods’echoes such scriptural passages as Psalm 96.5 and 1 Chronicles 16.26(‘For all the gods of the nations are idols’).58

53De-metaphorizing the Hebrew text (lit.: ‘How long are you to be dancing ontwo boughs’ or ‘How long will you keep hopping between the two boughs’; nrsv

‘How long will you sit on the fence’?). Cf. TgJon on this verse: ÷ygylp ÷wta ytma d[÷wglp ÷ytrtl and see TgJon on 1 Kgs 16.21.

54See M. Greenberg, ‘You Have Turned Their Hearts Backward (I Kings 18:37)’,in J.J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer (eds.), Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jew-ish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1981),Hebrew section, p. 57; the Greek translation (Lucianic recension) reads: kaiv suve[streya~ thvn kardivan tou' laou' touvtou ojpivsw. The rabbinic sources remainclose to the Hebrew text, see Greenberg, ‘You Have Turned’, pp. 54-57 on y. San.10.1, 28a and b. Ber. 9b, 31b-32a.

55See also Tg 1 Kgs 18.24 ‘But I will pray in the name of the Lord, and He willsend his memra, and the fire will descend’. The addition ‘with (the) fire’ has ancientroots: it is found in the LXX, which reads evn puriv here and in v. 36 (ejpavkousovnmou, kuvrie, ejpavkousovn mou [v. 36 with the addition shvmeron] ejn puriv).

56And see Isa. 41.4.57TgJon makes both verses in Isaiah identical, neglecting the differences of the

Hebrew text: ylyd ayml[ yml[ ¹a ÷ymdqlmd awh ana awh ana, ‘I am he, I am he whowas from old, even the ages of the ages are mine’.

58I am not convinced that this phrase is inspired by the commandment ‘You shall

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 16: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

238 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

Elijah’s argument is comparable to that of Moses and Micah. Ifsuch and such does not happen (‘if you do not answer me, and if youdo not display the miracles of your might’59 and send the fire fromheaven), then it is no longer my responsability as a prophet, then I amno longer the one who can unite this divided people, but then you arethe one who ‘stiffened their necks, and turned their faces about andswayed their hearts backwards’. So in a way he threatens God. Therefutation is not put forward by means of a scriptural passage but bythe remark ‘Elijah, Elijah, why have you allowed the creditor to collecthis debt’,60 which in this context means: ‘Why have you incurred asin by unnecessarily threatening Me? The prayer had already beenaccepted’.61

4.3. MicahThe third of the harsh prophets is Micah. According to the Hebrewtext of 1 Kings, he had told Ahab, the king of Israel, not to attackthe Arameans in Ramoth-gilead and so brusquely contradicted all theother prophets of the kingdom, who had given Ahab a positive advice (1Kgs 22.12 ‘all the prophets prophesied: ‘Attack Ramoth-gilead...’). Theking had ordered the prophet to be thrown into prison and to be puton a diet of bread and water ‘until I come home in safety’. The prophetthen declares: ‘If you do return in safety, the Lord has not spoken byme’. To which he adds: ‘Listen, all you peoples’.62 The targumic textquoted differs not only from targum Jonathan on 1 Kgs 22.28,63 butalso from its parallel Tg 2 Chron. 18.27.64 One may compare:

have no other gods (µyrja µyhla) beside me’ (Exod. 20.3, Deut. 5.7), associatingµyrja with tynrja in 1 Kgs 18.37; pace Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments, II, p. 20.

59For the phrase ‘the signs (miracles) of your might’, see TgNeof Deut. 3.24, cf.FragTgP/FragTgV/TgNeof [M] Deut. 1.1 (‘How many miracles and mighty actsdid the memra of the Lord perform for you’).

60For this expression, see y. Ta‘an. 3.4, 66c: hybwj ybgy ald ybwj yrml rmym ana hm‘Can I say to the Creditor that He should not collect his debt?’; cf. Pes. K. 11.23(ed. Mandelbaum, pp. 199-200).

61So rightly Klein, Fragment-Targums, II, p. 70 n. 32.62Left out in REB, here as well as in the parallel 1 Chron. 18.27. It is omitted in

Codex Vaticanus and in the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint, and often seen asa gloss from Mic. 1.2 demonstrating that Micah son of Imlah is identical with theprophet Micah. See J. Gray, I&II Kings (Old Testament Library; London: SCMPress, 19773, 1964), p. 447; Cogan, I Kings, p. 493.

63See Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, II, p. 270.64See R. Le Deaut and J. Robert, Targum des Chroniques (2 vols; AnBib 51;

Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), II, p. 120.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 17: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Sysling Three Harsh Prophets 239

mt yb ˜h rbd al µwl�b bw�t bw� µa whykym rmaywµlk µym[ w[m� rmayw

TgJon 1 Kgs 22.28 µdq aw[r al aml�b bwtt btm µa hkym rmaw÷whlk aymm[ w[m� rmaw yb ywy

Tg 2 Chron. 18.27 yb yyyd aw[r tyl µl�b bwtt btym ÷ya hkym rmaw÷whlwk aymm[ w[m� rmaw ym[ htwbn jwrb llmta alw

FragTgP Num. 16.1 alw ana yyd yaybnm al µl�b baja rwzjy rwzjm ÷yayyd armym ym[ lylm

The Hebrew ‘(then) the Lord has not spoken by me’ is renderedin targum Jonathan by ‘(then) there was no favour before the Lordin me’. The marginal notes in codex Reuchlinianus add to this: tylymy[ yyyd hawbn.65 Targum Chronicles translates in the spirit of Jonathan:‘(then) the favour of the Lord was not in me’, but offers an additionalexplanation: ‘and he has not spoken to me by the spirit of prophecy’.The Fragmentary Targum (MS P) also has two explanations, but theyare expressed differently: ‘then I am not among the Lord’s prophets’and ‘(then) the memra of the Lord has not spoken to me’. In addition,this targum differs from targum Jonathan and targum Chronicles byits use of rzj as against bwt.66

Again, the refutation is put into the mouth of a heavenly voice. Theprophet Micah is told that there is no reason to question his propheticmission, as his message had been proved true: Ahab, the king of Israel,did not return from the battlefield. Although he had gone into thebattle in disguise, someone had drawn his bow at random and had hitthe king of Israel (1 Kgs 22.34).67 Being severely wounded, he died thenext day, and when he had been buried his chariot was swilled out and‘the dogs licked up the blood’ (1 Kgs 22.38).68 But not only is justicedone to Micah’s prophetic words—Ahab’s repentance is also accepted

65Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, II, p. 270.66On the use of rzj in Palestinian sources, see A. Tal, The Language of the Targum

of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (in Hebrew;Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1975), p. 108.

67In retelling the story, Josephus identifies this ‘someone’ with Amanos, that isNaaman, the Syrian (Ant. 8.414), see Tg 2 Chron. 18.33 and Midr. Ps. 78.11. Inaddition he explains Ahab’s disguising himself by saying that he sought to avoidhis fated end, see L. H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden:Brill, 1998), p. 287.

68And so Elijah’s prediction (1 Kgs 21.19) was fullfilled, although it did nothappen in the plot of Jezreel (see Cogan, 1 Kings, p. 495). Josephus, however,states that it happened at the spring of Jezreel: ‘And when they washed his chariot,which was stained with the king’s blood, in the spring (krhvnh) of Jezarel, they

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 18: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

240 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

‘so as not to bring about the evil things in his day’ (see 1 Kgs 21.27-29).69 At the same time, Elijah’s prediction to Ahab that he will bepunished for Naboth’s death has been fulfilled. For Elijah had said tohim: ‘At the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there dogswill lick your blood’ (1 Kgs 21.19), and these words have come true:‘and dogs licked up the blood, in fulfilment of the word the Lord hadspoken’ (1 Kgs 22.38).70 The prologue renders these words as follows:‘Just as the dogs have eaten the blood of Naboth, so shall the dogseat the blood of Ahab’, and adds ‘in the portion of Jezreel’. But inthe biblical text the latter is only added to the predicted death of hiswife Jezebel (1 Kgs 21.23, 2 Kgs 9.10, 36-37).71 There are additionalreasons to suppose that we have here, in the prologue, a conflation oftexts. We may compare the text and the targums of 1 Kgs 21.19:

mt twbn µd ta µyblkh wqql r�a µwqmb ˜h rma hkTgJon twbnd µd ty ayblk wkyjld artab ywy rma ÷ndkFragTgP Num. 16.1 twbnd hymda ty ayblk ÷wlkad am ûyhmt hta µg ûmd ta µyblkh wqlyTgJon ta ¹a ûmd ty ayblk ÷wkjlyFragTgP Num. 16.1 la[rzy qljb bjad hymda ty ayblk ÷wlky ÷k

The Fragmentary Targum’s rendering looks like a citation given byheart. The use of the verb lka indicates that the writer had in mindthe Jezebel texts, for it is used in the Hebrew of 1 Kgs 21.23, 2 Kgs9.10, 36-37 and in Targum Jonathan’s translation of these verses.

5. Concluding Remarks

1. The story of the three prophets is an elaboration of the extant tar-gum on Num. 16.29. It was transferred from its original position toform a lengthy introduction to one of the weekly sabbath readings,

acknowledged the truth of Elijah’s prophecy, for the dogs licked up his blood’ (Ant.8.417).

69See TgJon (Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, II, p. 267): yhwmwyb at�b ytya al. Com-pare the Palestinian wording in our prologue: ywmwyb ayt�yb tytyya alw. On Ahab’srepentance, see 1 Kgs 21.27-29 and its interpretation in y. San. 10.1, 28b, b. Ta‘an.25b, Pes. K. 24.11, PRE 43.

70Cf. b. San. 39b: ‘R. Eleazar said: This was in clear fulfilment of two visions,one of Micah, the other of Elijah. In the case of Micah it is written: If you do returnin safety, the Lord has not spoken by me. In the case of Elijah it is written: At theplace where dogs licked the blood of Naboth’.

71In these texts the Hebrew la[rzy qljb (in 1 Kgs 21.23 la[rzy ljb) is renderedin TgJon as la[rzy tnsjab. In FragTgP as la[rzy qljb

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 19: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

Sysling Three Harsh Prophets 241

parashat Korah.72 It consists of three scenes that are carefully struc-tured, with an argument (a scriptural quotation) and a refutation ofthe argument (in each of the scenes introduced by the stereotyped for-mula ‘a heavenly voice came forth and said’; followed by a citation intwo of the three scenes). We may probably assume that the Elijah-scene once formed an independent tradition that was combined withthe Moses and Micah scenes at a later stage. Two of the three scenesare built on scriptural verses that have in common the pattern ‘If suchand such happens..., then I am not...’ (thus in the case of Moses [A]and of Micah [C]); the third one (the Elijah-scene [B]) deviates fromthis with the formula ‘If you do not such and such, then it is you...’(B).

2. What can we conclude from the foregoing analysis about thedate and origin of this story? Only a few parallel sources are available.The yerushalmi text, attributed to rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, a teacherof the third century, consists of nothing but a concatenation of threeverses introduced by the frase ‘Three have denied their own propheciesbecause of the meanness (with which they were treated)’. As such, itseems to refer to a well-known tradition. Although that might be thestory as we have it in the prologue of MS Paris of the FragmentaryTargum, this is not very likely. If we see the expression as a distortionof hyyrnwp ynpm, it seems more justified to see our prologue as a laterdevelopment and reworking of a simple tradition. The other parallels,Num. R. 18.12 and Tanchuma Buber, Additions to Parashat Korah (p.96), are conflations of two passages in Yerushalmi, and in these sourcesthe original order of the prophets has been changed. We have to assumethat they are to be dated later. We might suggest, then, that the toseftain the prologue of MS Paris on Num. 16.1ff. lies somewhere betweenthese two sources. If the attribution of the yerushalmi passage to ReshLakish is reliable,73 this tosefta originated in its in its elementary form

72In my view, there is no direct influence of the haftara reading, 1 Sam. 11.14–12.10, on the formation of our tosefta. Generally speaking, the stories of Korah andof Samuel are related to each other in their descriptions of the prophets Moses andSamuel. Both have to defend themselves against fierce accusations. Moses’ wordsof self-defense ‘I have not taken from them so much as a single donkey’ (Num.16.15) are echoed in Samuel’s words ‘Whose ox have I taken, whose donkey haveI taken?’ (1 Sam. 12.3). See M. Fishbane, The JPS Bible Commentary. Haftarot(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002), pp. 233-38; cf. E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002), p. 288.

73There are two reasons to think that this might be the case: as we have seen.Resh Lakish is well-known for his numerical sayings, and, secondly, he took muchinterest in the story of Korah, see Beer, ‘Korah’s Revolt’, pp. 31-33.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 20: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

242 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

at the end of the third century, or even earlier.74 Its reworking intothe carefully structured text that we have studied in this article tookplace at a (much?) later date, but it must have acquired its presentform before the ninth century.75

3. The quotations of 1 Kgs 18.37, 1 Kgs 22.28 (= 2 Chron. 18.27)and of 1 Kgs 21.19 are of interest. The fact that the quotation of 1 Kgs18.37 in MS Paris, which has all the features of a Palestinian targum,76

differs from targum Jonathan in being an (almost) verbatim renderingof the Hebrew text raises an important question. Does it mean thatthere existed a Palestinian targum or selections of Palestinian targumswhich offered a more literal interpretation than the ones we know to-day?77 But such a difference between a verbatim rendering and a moreparaphrastic one is not visible in the case of the other quotations. Boththe Palestinian targums (targum Chronicles and Fragmentary Targum,MS P) and the ‘Babylonian’ targum (Jonathan) on 1 Kgs 22.28 and 2Chronicles 18.27 have a paraphrase of the Hebrew expression ‘the Lordhas not spoken by me’. The interpretation of MS P can be seen as anadaptation of the Moses scene. In the case of 1 Kgs 21.19, Jonathanoffers a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew text, whereas the ren-dering in MS P looks like a citation given by heart, in which severalpassages are combined. We need further studies on quotations of theprophetic books in the Palestinian Targums in order to see what dif-ferences there are between these citations and the official targum onthe Prophets.

74Its redactional form, of course, and its inclusion in the Korah-traditions inthe Palestinian Talmud, are to be dated later. On the redaction of the PalestinianTalmud, see Goldberg, ‘Palestinian Talmud’, pp. 307-11. It is generally assumedthat it originated in the fourth and fifth centuries, its final date being the extinctionof the Patriarchate in 425 / 429 C.E. See also the survey of H.L. Strack and G.Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1982),pp. 368-87.

75Chapters 15-23 of Num. R., which belong to the Tanh. uma-Yelammedenu typeof midrashim, are often dated in the ninth century, although, as Stemberger states(Einleitung, p. 286), these chapters could be much earlier.

76See Goshen-Gottstein, Fragments, 2.20.77See the remark of M.J. Mulder in his review of Goshen-Gottstein’s Fragments,

in Bibliotheca Orientalis 42 (1985), pp. 386-87: ‘Ofter ergibt sich auch, dass einverlorenes Targum eine verbatim Tradition kannte, weil das ad locum Targum einenmidraschischen Charakter hat. Deutet dies darauf hin, das fruher “buchstablichubersetzte” Targume da waren, wo wir jetzt nur noch Targume midraschischenCharakters haben...?’.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.

Page 21: Three Harsh Prophets - Sysling

306 Aramaic Studies 2.2 (2004)

are examined: 1. the word s.rp (¹rx) and the shifting meanings of someof its cognates across time; and 2. the word ’nk (ûna), that appears inAmos 7.7-8.

Matthew Morgenstern, Notes on a Recently Published MagicBowl.

This article presents a new transcription and translation of the Aramaicmagic bowl BM 135563, and suggests an interpretation that differsconsiderably from the previous editions. It is argued that the bowlpresents a narrative is that more coherent than has been suggested,and that it is the product of carefully considered literary activity.

Harry Sysling, Three Harsh Prophets: A Targumic Tosefta toParashat Korah.

In ms Paris of the Fragmentary Targums one finds lengthy introduc-tions to the festival readings and also to the weekly sabbath readings.In one of these introductions (to Numbers 16.1ff.) a story is told aboutthree prophets who denied their own prophecies, namely Moses, Elijahand Micah. This story is of special interest because of the quotationsit contains of scriptural verses from the Prophets that are at variancewith the official targum on the Prophets. The article offers a detailedanalysis of the story and discusses its date and origin by comparing itto the extant parallels in rabbinic sources.

Wido van Peursen, The Peshitta of Ben Sira: Jewish and/orChristian?

The religious context in which the Syriac translation of the Bible orig-inated is a much-debated issue. Some scholars argue that it originatedin a Jewish context, others that it has a Christian background. Alsovarious hypotheses about a Jewish-Christian origin have been put for-ward. This paper argues that the question ‘Jewish or Christian?’ andeven the question ‘Jewish, Christian, or Jewish-Christian?’ is an over-simplification of the problem because of the broad Jewish-Christianspectrum that existed in the first centuries of the Common Era. Thepaper concentrates on the Syriac translation of Ben Sira, which hassome undeniable traces of an origin somewhere on the Christian sideof the spectrum.

c© The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2004.