Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.
1163/17455227-13110104
Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 126
Aramaic
Studies
brill.com/arst
TargumPseudo-Jonathan
and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic
Stephen A. Kaufman
*
Hebrew Union College Cincinnati, OH, USA
Translated by Seth Ward, Bernard Grossfeld and Paul V.M. Flesher
Edited by Paul V.M. Flesher
Abstract
Te twentieth-centurys Targum manuscript discoveries made clear that if Neoti, the Frag-
ment Targums, and the Cairo Geniza fragments were composed in Jewish Palestinian Ara-
maic, thenTargumPseudo-Jonathanwas not. Inthis classic essay, originally writteninHebrew
in 19851986 and translated here for the rst time, Stephen Kaufman worked to describe
Pseudo-Jonathans dialect. He found that it borrowed from other dialects, but merged them
intoa single unieddialect appearing not only inPseudo-Jonathan, but alsoinseveral Writings
Targums. Tis essay thus presented the earliest description of Late Jewish Literary Aramaic.
Keywords
Aramaic; dialect; Late Aramaic; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; Targum writings
In the nineteenth century, it was traditional for researchers of Jewish Aramaic to [363]
divide Targum into three types, from the criterion of linguistic dialect:
1) Babylonianthat is to say, Targum Onqelos to the Torah (hereinafer TO)
and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets;
2) YerushalmiTat is to say, Targum Jonathan to the Torah (generally de-
scribed in research literature as Targum attributed to Jonathan, Targum
*
Tis article was written while I was a Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Studies of the
Hebrew University, in a group organized by Professor Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (1985
1986). I ameternally thankful for the invitation to participate in this group. I wish to indicate
my great gratitude to the staof the Institute for their constant readiness to assist me. Tis arti-
cle originally appeared as Stephen (Shalom) A. Kaufman, TargumPseudo-Jonathan and Late
Jewish Literary Aramaic, in M. Bar-Asher et al. (eds.), Moshe Goshen-GottsteinIn Memo-
riam(Studies in Bible and Exegesis, 3; Ramat Gan, Bar Ilan University Press, 1993), pp. 363
382 (in Hebrew).] Pagination given here in square brackets refers to the original article.
2 Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 126
Pseudo-Jonathan or YI, hereinafer PJ), the Fragmentary Targums (YII),
Targum Job and Targum Psalms.
3) A mixed typeTat is to say, the Targums to the Five Megillot
Today, afer the manuscripts of the original Yerushalmi Targum of the Torah
have been discovered (hereinafer TY: manuscript fragments from the Cairo
Geniza, and a complete manuscriptthe well-known Neoti manuscript from
the Vatican Library), it is clear that even though the Targumknown by the name
Pseudo-Jonathan includes signicant material from the tradition of the Land
of Israel, it is not a Yerushalmi targum at all, but something of a mixture of
TO, the Yerushalmi Targum, and fragments of midrash from various sources.
Moreover, it is not uniform from a linguistic point of view: it contains words
and idioms fromthe Aramaic of the Yerushalmi Targum, fromthat of TO, from
Biblical Aramaic, and from the language of the Babylonian Talmud as well.
In this light, M. Sokolo was right when he decided to exclude PJ from the
sources used in his new dictionary dedicated to the Jewish Aramaic of the Land
of Israel.
1
But there is a newlexicographical project in the eld of Aramaicthe
CAL (Te Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon)
2
and for the purpose of den-
ing the scope of this comprehensive dictionary, one must, from the inception,
take into account all Jewish texts written in Aramaic, including TargumPseudo-
Jonathan. Te question is this: Is it proper to cite from PJ in the dictionary, and
if so, under what dialect of Aramaic would it be reasonable to put it?
In order to answer these questions, and despite my feeling that the language
of PJ is nothing | but a complete mixture (and therefore not to be considered for [364]
the purposes of the CAL), I have undertaken to study the characteristic features
of its language in more fundamental way.
Since PJ includes material taken both from TO and from TY, it is clear that
in order to get a correct impression about the language of the author of PJ
himself, we must analyze only textual fragments that are not parallel to these
Targums. Terefore I went over the rst two parashot of Genesis, Exodus, and
Deuteronomy, and isolated the places where the text of PJ diers fromboth TO
1)
My thanks to Prof. Michael Sokolo for making it possible for me to reviewthe enormous
body of material he gatheredandeditedfor his dictionary [nowpublishedas Michael Sokolo,
ADictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Uni-
versity Press and Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990). Second edition, 2002.]
2)
Te work of preparing the CAL was centralized at John Hopkins University in Baltimore,
MD, USA. Te main editors are D. Hillers, J.A. Fitzmyer and S.A. Kaufman, with the partic-
ipation of an international committee of Aramaic scholars. [Ed. Shortly afer the publication
of the original article, the CALmoved to the HebrewUnion College/Jewish Institute of Reli-
gion in Cincinnati, OH, under the direction of Professor Kaufman.]
Stephen A. Kaufman / Aramaic Studies 11 (2013) 126 3
andTYinall its forms, evenwhenthe dierence betweenthemencompassedone
word only.
3
I thus found about 700 words, about half in continuous texts, and I
went over this corpus again, in order to discover the lexicographical character of
PJ.
It is clear from the start that some drawbacks lie in this approach:
A. Tere may be some places (perhaps many places) where the text of PJ was
taken from a text of the Targum of the Land of Israel unknown to us.
4
B. I did not try to discover whether word combinations in PJ lacking parallels
in TO or PT in that location were actually borrowed from another place in
PJ, and in that place the combinations were taken from TO or TY.
C. I didnot attempt to separate the material according to its aggadic source, that
is to say, I did not examine whether the author used Babylonian terms when
bringing a citation froma Babylonian source, but used Western dialect when
taking an aggada from a Palestinian source.
Despite these caveats, it seems to me the general picture is correct, and if it is
necessary to revise our conclusions, it will only be in minute details.
Tis analysis resulted in a list of words may be divided into seven groups (for
the specic wordlists see the appendix to the essay):
1) General Aramaic: words known in most dialects and most periods of Ara-
maic.
2) Jewish Literary Aramaic: words and/or forms known from the languages of
TOand TargumJonathan to the Prophets, or fromthe Aramaic texts discov-
ered in the Qumran caves. Tese two dialectal sources (Targum and Qum-
ran) reect the literary language in the Land of Israel in the last centuries of
the Second Temple Period, and up to the year 200ce, more or less.
5
3)
Only one manuscript of PJ has survived to our times. I used the newedition. E. Clarke et al.
(eds.), TargumPseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav,
1984). Please note that the concordance should be used with great caution.
4)
Te known texts are A. Diez Macho, Neophyti I, vols. 15 (Madrid-Barcelona: CSICPress,
19681978); Fragment Targum: Michael L. Klein, Te Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch
According to the Extant Sources (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), and the Geniza frag-
ments that Prof. Klein is about to publish. My thanks to himfor enabling me to use his edition
before it appeared in print. [Ed. Te translation retains Hebrewterminology used in the orig-
inal essay for this category of texts. Targum of the Land of Israel is equivalent to Targum
Yerushalmi and the Palestinian Targum.]
5)
[Editor: Referred to inrecent scholarship and the CALas Jewish Literary Aramaic ( JLA).]
3) Jewish Aramaic of the Land of Israel: Words characteristic of the dialect of
the Targumof the Land of Israel and/or of Galilean Aramaic (dialects of the
Jerusalem Talmud and the Jerusalem Midrashim).
6
| [365]
4) Babylonian Aramaic: words/forms/orthography borrowed from or inu-
enced by the dialect of the Babylonian Talmud.
5) Hebrew: Hebrew forms or words imitating forms in sources written in
Hebrew (including words borrowed from Greek).
6) Archaic or obscure: It is known that our author ofen uses forms that imitate
the salient characteristics of Biblical Aramaic, in particular nasalization
(adding a nun in place of a doubled consonant) and the haphel form in
place of the aphel, and also loves to invent forms which have an archaic
avor.
7) Unique/Syriac: Tis is the most important list. (See below.)
In my comments on the lists, I noted justications for my analysis, as well as the
forms attested in the corpus when there is more than one attested form for a
word.
What conclusions derive fromour analysis? At rst glance, it appears we face a
situation of complete chaosthat state which we expected to nd at the begin-
ning. How can it be explained? Were we to consider PJ exclusively, even if we
discount the existence of list 7, perhaps we could suggest two explanations: (1)
We have a late author, with a decient knowledge of Aramaic (more precisely,
one with relatively good knowledge of the classic dialects, but lacking the abil-
ity to distinguish between them, and lacking any spoken Aramaic dialect of his
own), or, (2) we are dealing with a pure Yerushalmi text (a sort of Yerushalmi
reworking of TO), that underwent all kinds of scribal adventures until it reached
its present state.
And indeed, these two explanations are the ones usually accepted by Targum
scholarship at present. And from the point of view of many scholars, the same
reasons even explain the state of the known manuscripts of the Targums of the
books of the Hagiographa. But the truth of the matter is that the Targums of the
Writings are not part of the problem, but rather part of its solution! Te other
part of the solution we nd in our list 7.
List 7 contains single words that occur, among Pentateuchal Targums, only in
PJ. But most of the words of the list are common to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
and to the Targums to the book of Job and the book of Psalms (and sometimes
also in other Targums of the Writings)and are not found in other Targums.
6)
[Editor: Referred to in recent scholarship and the CAL as Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
( JPA).]
An additional characteristic of list 7 is that many words are also known in Syriac
(with small dierences, of course). Tis phenomenon spurred me to review all
the lists an second time from the point of view of the lexicon of the Writings
Targums, from which a very interesting fact emerged.
EventhoughPJ has some characteristics of a source of the Landof Israel, others
of a Babylonian source, additional characteristics of Literary Aramaic, and oth-
ers not characteristic of any of these dialects, almost all the characteristics in all
the groups (lists) are found also in language of the Yerushalmi Targums to the
Writings. But our data demonstrates that what unies these Targums is not their
Yerushalmi-ness but a unique, standard system of Yerushalmite characteris-
tics, both lexical and grammatical. Furthermore, these common Yerushalmite
characteristics are merely part of a larger group of features | that characterize the [366]
literary dialect in which these Targums were writtenLate Jewish Literary Ara-
maic (hereinafer, LJLA).
I do not intend to claimthat all these texts (i.e., TargumPseudo-Jonathan and
the Writings Targums), or even a single pair of them, were written or edited
in the same place or the same century, and we cannot escape the conclusion
that every composition has unique characteristics that deviate from the nor-
mative type we might have been able to delineate on the basis of the clearly-
shared characteristics. But I am prepared to defend two basic conclusions, each
of which contradicts one of the fundamental conclusions of one of the major
schools of Targum scholarship: On the one hand, LJLA was a literary dialect
used in an area in which Aramaic was still spoken, an area in which the tradi-
tion of Aramaic literary dialects was still alive and kicking. When the language
deviates fromthe ordinary (excluding archaisms, scribal corrections and hyper-
corrections), it is possible to suppose that local dialects peek through the literary
screen, just as we suppose with other literary dialects. On the other hand, the
fact that these Targums are characterized by a standard, lengthy list of linguistic
features of the Aramaic of the Land of Israel does not prove that the Targumic
traditions found in them are Yerushalmi. Nor does this prove that the home-
land of even a single one of these texts is in the Land of Israel. Te Yerushalmi-
ness of these texts is merely a feature of the literary language we are examin-
ing.
Can it be that an Aramaic text, from a period in which Aramaic was still
spoken, would have articial forms and linguistic inventions such as we nd in
PJ? Not in an early period, apparently, as long as the original exegetical-targumic
tradition was still felt. But PJ and the Writings Targums do not directly belong
to this chain of tradition. Tey are something else, from another period (and
from another place?). From the standpoint of the language they contain, they
are much more related to the later Jewish biblical targumsthe product of the
Academy and not the product of the Synagoguein which we nd a freedomof
language usage greatly similar to what we nd in PJ.
7
Let us clarify, I acknowledge that here I propose to forego once and for all a
foundational premise established by Prof. Y. Kutscher, zl. He argued, correctly,
that the presence of characteristics from Babylonian Aramaic in a Jewish Ara-
maic text does not prove that the source of that text is in the East. For, given the
central position of the Babylonian Talmud in late scribal tradition (and, regard-
ing TargumOnqelos and in TargumJonathan to the Prophets, in the light of the
Babylonian transmission of the texts), the later scribes ofen xed the text to
match the known Babylonian typology. But I am no longer prepared to accept
his second claim, that is, that the presence of Aramaic traits of the Land of Israel
dialect in a particular text could be explained solely by the Land of Israel origin
of that text. He used to say, Why would a scribe add Western characteristics
to a text whose origin was not in the West?
8
I am not now prepared to argue
that characteristics like these were never indeed added even once, | but I suggest [367]
that there is a block of texts connected to scriptureTargum Pseudo-Jonathan,
Targums of the Writings and othersthat were composed from the start in an
Aramaic dialect that usedcertainspecic Westerncharacteristics abundantly, but
it is very likely these texts were not composed in the Land of Israel. So it is quite
proper to consider this question: Why did this literary dialect use these features
of the language of the Land of Israel? I amnot willing or able to give the decisive
answer to this question now, but what I do wish to emphasize is that we can-
not answer our question with the simple response: Teir source is in the Land
of Israel. In the meantime, it is possible to surmise that one of the reasons for
using Western characteristics is because in that period (between the sixth cen-
tury and the ninth century?) and in that area (from the Land of Israel to cen-
tral Syria and even further east) the Yerushalmi Targums to the Pentateuch were
well-known, and they served as archetype for writing in Jewish Literary Ara-
maic.
So what are the distinguishing characteristics of this Aramaic dialect, LJLA,
and which texts are written in it? We will not achieve a satisfactory answer with-
out undertaking comprehensive research. For now, it is possible only to list a few
general principles: apparently, most of the words inlists 3, 7andeven4are typical
of our dialect, especially , , , , , , , , , ,
7)
See, for example, Yona Sabar, Sefer Bereshit be-Aramit hadasha (Te Book of Genesis in
Neo-Aramaic) ( Jerusalem: Magnus Press, 5743 [1983] (in Hebrew)), pp. 2535.
8)
But I tend to think that the Targum Yerushalmi to the Pentateuch is based on a source
formulated in Literary Aramaic (that is, the same text that served as a basis for TO), that
underwent aferwards a series of additions and changes that made it closer to the Western
dialect, and to the Yerushalmi system of doing Targum.
, , , , and . Tis is also true of many morphologies from
Jewish Literary Aramaic in general and fromTargums Onqelos and Jonathan in
particular. And nally, scriptural / Syriac archaizing such as and is
typical of our dialect.
Froma grammatical aspect it is very dicult torecognize the special character-
istics because of many corrections which have fallen into the manuscripts before
us. But it is clear that the ending for masculine third person (for example, ,
his hands) was typical of the dialect, and so also the use of pronominal suxes
attached to a verb to indicate the object (in contrast to the Yerushalmi Targums
to the Pentateuch). In most cases the morphology is similar to that of Targum
Onqelos. Additionally, it seems to me, that there are principles of usage in this
dialect, at least as used by the more talented authors who wrote in it, not found
in any other Jewish Aramaic dialect whatsoever. See, for example, the notes to
, (list 2), , (list 4), and (list 7).
Likewise it is dicult to assemble a complete list of the written texts in this
new dialect, especially inlight of the poor state of the manuscripts inour hands.
For example, although the nature of the targums to the Five Megillot appears
quite dierent from that of PJ, Job and Psalms, apparently these were all writ-
ten in this dialect (except, perhaps, the Second Targumto Esther, which appears
to me to be very late), and underwent further correction because of their use
in the synagogue. And as for the Targumim that remained Yerushalmite, they
remained that way because they were not used at all in the Synagogue.
9
Tese
corrections may be divided into two groups: those which mimic TO, and those
based upon the language and orthography of the Babylonian Talmud. It is pos-
sible to add to these Targums (merely as an initial suggestion): | [368]
A) Most of the Yerushalmi supplements (tosephtot) for Targum Jonathan of
the Prophets.
B) Later compositions and translations such as the Book of Tobit and Bel and
the Dragon.
10
C) Piyyutim and reshuyot (personal liturgical poems introducing a major
prayer) from medieval times, that is, written afer the Land of Israel piyyu-
timof the Byzantine period, but earlier than the later compositions written
in the Western diaspora.
9)
Targum Proverbs is known to be translated from Syriac, but the dialect of the Targum is
that of Late Jewish Literary Aramaic!
10)
Both of these are found in A. Neubauer, Te Book of Tobit (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1878). Tere is no doubt that Bel and the Dragon is translated from Syriac, and apparently
so is the Book of Tobit.
We must emphasize that it is very apparent that there are many texts (and
among them certainly some that appear on this list) that were not written in
our dialect itself, but only afer the period in which the dialect ourished. Teir
similarity to the texts in our dialect teaches that they were inuenced by it just
as our dialect was inuenced by the earlier Literary Aramaic.
What is new in our explanation? A few scholars in the nineteenth century,
and even already in the sixteenth century, emphasized that there is a similarity
between the Targum of the book of Job and the Targum of the book of Psalms,
and that both of them are similar to Targum Yerushalmi (that is to say, PJ).
Eveninour owngeneration, several scholars who treated the Targums of selected
books of the Writings tended increasingly to emphasize the Land of Israel char-
acter of these texts.
11
Our innovationlies inthe conclusionthat the Landof Israel
features of the Targums to the books of the Writings and PJ are not Land of Israel
in the full meaning of the term. In other words they did not derive froman origi-
nal Land of Israel tradition of the Targumof these biblical books. Tese features
represent only one dimension, albeit a truly important and central one, of the
LJLA: a dialect, in which dierent Aramaic traditions participate: Biblical Ara-
maic, Jewish Literary Aramaic, Aramaic of the Yerushalmi Targums, Aramaic of
the Babylonian Talmud, and a spoken Aramaic dialect very close to Syriac in its
forms (and also cognizant of the orthographic tradition of Syriac). All of these
take their part, not in anarchy, but every one in a measured and normal manner.
I doubt very much if it is possible to compare sections from Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan, Targum Job, Targum Psalms, and Targum Chronicles (of course, sec-
tions lacking outside sources) and to argue that in one of them there are more
words or forms corresponding to the dialect of the Yerushalmi Targums to the
Pentateuchthaninanother. True, some use more archaic forms or articial forms,
and some make more use of Babylonian forms. In contrast to this, the Land of
Israel character derives from a shared, circumscribed nucleus of Land of Israel
lexicographical and grammatical material (in addition to that part of the nucleus
that is not Land of Israel). None of these texts testies to a source within a liv-
ing and ourishing tradition of spoken Aramaic of the Land of Israel, as do the
various Pentateuchal Targums, neither in the form known to us today, nor even
in any | form we are able to reconstruct, if we thought the text underwent far- [369]
reaching corrections by later scribes.
11)
For example, Raphael Weiss, Te Aramaic Targumof Job (Tel Aviv: Te ChaimRosenberg
School for Jewish Studies, 5738 [1979]); and R.T. White, ALinguistic Analysis of the Targum
to Chronicles with Specic Reference to its Relationship with Other Forms of Aramaic (Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Oxford, 1981). Te exaggerated dating suggested for PJ in this dissertation should
not be taken seriously.
A long road stands before scholars of Jewish Aramaic until they are able to
sketch the full picture of this dialect. It is a fact that the single manuscript of
Pseudo-Jonathan is an exceedingly poor manuscript. But we know of much bet-
ter manuscript of the Targums of some books of the Writings, and I am certain
that the dialect reected in the best among themwill emerge as very close to the
standard I have described here. I amlikewise certain that research will determine
that there are a very fewdistinctly Babylonian forms in the reconstructed source
of those texts. If so, we have succeededinresurrecting a lost andimportant dialect
of Jewish Aramaic. Its lexicography deserves to stand alongside the other dialects
in CAL.
Postscript by Stephen A. Kaufman, October, 2013
Tis paper was written when the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project
(CAL) was just a dream. Almost all the texts mentioned in the article are now
available for study online at the projects web site http://cal.huc.edu, and many
of its proposals and tentative conclusions should now be rened using the tools
found there. A sample such study will be published in a subsequent issue of this
journal fromthe Munich conference proceedings. Te following remarks reect
a quarter-centurys work with this data for the project. One thing that this work
has made crystal clear that was not emphasized enough in the original paper is
that the amount of scribal tampering and/or error reected in the known copies
of these texts was both substantial and widely varied. Especially in the case of
the Syriac-like expressions distinctive to the LJLAdialect, later scribesliving in
non-Aramaic-speaking milieuscould not possibly be expected to understand
most of them, and corruption is rampant.
It should also be emphasized that Dr. E. Cook had actually started on his dis-
sertationworkat UCLAonthe grammar of Pseudo-Jonathanbefore my research
that took place in the autumn of 1985. We reached very similar conclusions and
have since collaborated, but I did not have the opportunity to see his work until
afer my oral presentation. Nonetheless, I should have insisted that reference to
it be included in the six-years delayed print publication. Lamentably, Dr. Cook
has yet to publish his complete ndings.
Specic Comments
p. 3 paragraph B). Tis procedure can and should be easily done now using the
CAL. At the time of the original article the only concordance for these texts was
the somewhat unreliable one for Pseudo-Jonathan referenced in fn. 3.
p. 7, 2nd full paragraph. Te Second Targum to Esther. When I wrote this
impression I was undoubtedly inuenced simply by the massive aggadic mate-
rial in the text to suggest it was very late. Only with the study appearing in the
forthcoming Munich paper did I learn that its base text in fact belongs, from a
lexicographic perspective, to the core of LJLA. Having gone through substan-
tially more generations of scribal tampering, however, it gives a false impression
when compared with the other LJLA core material.
p. 7 bottomparagraph B) and fn. 10. I have no idea howI came up with the idea
that Tobit and Bel and the Dragon were translated from Syriac. It is now clear
Tobit was not at all from the Syriac, but was rather rendered from a European-
language source in a non-Aramaic-speaking environment. (Consult my forth-
coming Munich paper.) As for the additions to Daniel, the Bel and the Dragon
material published by Neubauer referenced in the article indeed shows unde-
niable connection to the Syriac text where the portions are parallel and must
have been based on it. Te text published by M. Gaster in Proceedings of the Soci-
ety of Biblical Archaeology vol. 16 (Dec. 1894): 312. (which contains both the
Prayer of the Tree andBel andthe Dragon), onthe other hand, shows no such
similarities and is written in an Onqelos-type but simplistic Aramaic similar to
that of the medieval Tobit text and is thus strongly suggestive of a non-Aramaic-
speaking milieu. As a demonstrative example, consult the passage at v. 27 of Bel
and the Dragon (CAL text number 62035) where the Syriac

corresponds wordfor wordto the Neubauer text except for a fewstandardortho-
graphic dierences between Jewish Aramaic and Syriac scribal practice:

whereas the Gaster text is totally dierentcloser to the Greek texts but corre-
sponding precisely to neither Greek recension:

In sum, the core texts of LJLA properly speaking are Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
to the Pentateuch, Targum Psalms, Targum Job, and Targum Sheni, along with,
perhaps, a few of the tosephtot to Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. (Which
ones and precisely how much demands further research.) All other late texts are
included in the general rubric of LJLA but must be understood to have widely
varied origins as regard both place and time.
Appendix
1. General Aramaic

1

2

3

4

5

6

(a long period)

7

8

9

,

10

11

12
) (

13

14

15
(you m.pl.
bound)

16

17

(you m.pl.
tarried)!
(period)

18

19
,
20
1)
, .
2)
, .
3)
, , .
4)
, .
5)
, .
6)
, .
7)
, .
8)
.
9)
(3 times).
10)
Some say that is Western (for example, Weiss, Job, p. 306), but since it is used in both
TO and Syriac, I include it here.
11)
, .
12)
(1 time).
13)
, , , , , .
14)
.
15)
Gen. 9:23, a mistake for .
16)
A word common to all Jewish dialects.
17)
.
18)
(1). (11).
19)
.
20)
See in list 6.

21

22

23

| [371]

24
/
(in construct
case)
25

26
(then)
27

,
28

29

30

31

32
(eld)

33
(creature)

(healthy)

34

35

36
21)
, .
22)
See in list 6.
23)
.
24)
. , ,
25)
, ( is an error for and not an unusual orthography for the Babylonian form
, even though this form is present in this manuscript).
26)
Tis is the correct and expected form. On rare occasions, the Babylonian form
) ( is attested in PJ.
27)
Perhaps this should be transferred to List 2.
28)
Te long form is characteristic of JLA and Galilean Aramaic; the short form is more
characteristic of our dialect.
29)
, .
30)
.
31)
, , , , , , , .
32)
, .
33)
, , , .
34)
, .
35)
, , , .
36)
(4) In contrast to only one occurrence of the classic form , as is generally the case in
PJ. Its not clear tome whichgroupthis wordbelongs to. Perhaps it is inuencedby Babylonian
traditions, but one may also suppose that it is a good form in late Literary Aramaic, or even

37

38

39

40

41

(Godhead)

42

(similar)
43
(to sleep)
44
| [372]

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

(to prepare,
summon)
55

56

an articial orthography based on the western form (settee), a development from the
common word (from Akkadian), the meaning of which is wedding canopy.
37)
Gen. 8:20. A classic form, see .
38)
, , , .
39)
.
40)
, .
41)
, .
42)
.
43)
.
44)
.
45)
, .
46)
(17). See in List 4.
47)
, , , , , , , , , . See also in List 3, and forms without
in List 2.
48)
(9). See in List 4.
49)
Gen. 7:11. : Correct to the regular form .
50)
.
51)
, .
52)
, .
53)
.
54)
, , .
55)
, .
56)
.

57

58

59

60

61

) (

62

63

64

65

66

,

67
| [373]
(you swear)

68

69

70

71

57)
, .
58)
, .
59)
, , .
60)
, .
61)
, , .
62)
Ex. 4:2. Ex. 2:21 by mistake.
63)
.
64)
.
65)
, , .
66)
.
67)
, , , .
68)
, .
69)
, .
70)
(4) , . Compare on List 3 which appears only three times.
71)
, , .

72

73

74

75

76

77

78
(towards)

79

80

(afer)

81

82
72)
, , .
73)
, .
74)
, , .
75)
, .
76)
, .
77)
.
78)
, .
79)
.
80)
In Jewish Literary Aramaic and the Aramaic of the Targums of the Land of Israel, this is
written as in all early dialects of Aramaic. ( appears only four times in Neoti). Despite
what appears at rst glance, this is not a Babylonian form! It is the usual form in our dialect,
which appears in about 90% of occurrences. Important testimony to its authenticity is given
in MS Paris 110 of T. Ecclesiastes, in which there are an abundance of Land of Israel forms,
whereas the other testimonies use literary forms: MS 110 always uses , as opposed to in
the other MSS.
81)
See in List 4.
82)
, , .

83

84

85

| [374]

86

87

88

89

90

91

92
(vessel, utensil)

) (

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

83)
, .
84)
.
85)
, .
86)
, , , .
87)
.
88)
, , .
89)
(3) .
90)
Gen 5:4.
91)
.
92)
.
93)
, , .
94)
, .
95)
, , , , .
96)
.
97)
, , , , , .
98)
, , .
99)
, .
100)
.

101

102

103

104

105
(reexive
pronoun)
106

107

108

(moon)

109

110

111

| [375]

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120
101)
.
102)
, , .
103)
, .
104)
, , , , .
105)
, .
106)
, , .
107)
.
108)
.
109)
.
110)
, .
111)
.
112)
See in List 5.
113)
(2).
114)
, , , , , , , , .
115)
, , , .
116)
.
117)
.
118)
Withthe 3rdpersonmasculine pronoun, (2) as is usual andcorrect inPJ. But scribes
also ofen corrected the form to ) ( see List 4.
119)
, .
120)
Sic! Gen. 2:8.

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133
| [376]

134

135

136

137

121)
/ .
122)
, .
123)
.
124)
, , .
125)
, .
126)
, .
127)
, .
128)
.
129)
.
130)
, .
131)
, , .
132)
.
133)
.
134)
, , , .
135)
.
136)
, , .
137)
.

138
(compartments)

139

140

141

142

(will)
143
) (

144

145

,

146

147

148

149

150

151

152
138)
.
139)
, , , , , , , , , and see in List 4.
140)
, , , , , , , , .
141)
, (in Babylonian!).
142)
.
143)
, .
144)
!
145)
, .
146)
, , .
147)
, .
148)
, .
149)
Perhaps a Western word.
150)
, .

153

154
| [377]

155

156

(permitted)
(dwells)

157

158

159

160

161

,

162

| [378]
151)
.
152)
In PJ, this is always written with the archaic (sin rather than samekh).
153)
, , , , .
154)
.
155)
.
156)
.
157)
, , , .
158)
, .
159)
Deut. 6:9, instead of .
160)
, .
161)
.
162)
.
2. Jewish Literary Aramaic
(to be late)
163
(others)
(another)
164
(its
fundamentals)
165

(woman)
166
(you
delayed)
(oven)
, (in front
of, before)
167
(sour,
unripened)

(ock)
168

(possessive)
(lest)
(this)
(this)
169
, !
170
(today)
(dened accusative
marker)
(like this)
(compared to)
(now)
(from now)
(to look at)
171

(red)

(because)
(mouth)
172

173

163)
Deut. 1:6, , a mistake for ?
164)
Feminine! Here, a mistake instead of masculine in Deut. 4:34, but in most of PJ, it is used
correctly, compare T. Tos. to Gen. 4:8 ( JTS MS 605 26v).
165)
Note the orthography of the sux, as in TO.
166)
, , . Amost important form. Orthography with nun does not appear
in TO or TN, but is normal in Qumran, in Ocial Aramaic and Syriac, and sometimes in
the Geniza fragments. Tere are exceptions (see ), but PJ mostly distinguishes carefully
between the two forms: without nun in absolute and construct, and with nun when dened
or with personal pronouns. Compare T. Tos. to Gen. 4:8 (Bod Heb c 74r) line 19, in which
and appear in the same line!
167)
Two examples of each form, parallel to the general situation in PJ. As is the case with
, PJ uses a literary form here which is not found in TO but is frequently found in
Qumran and more ancient Aramaic. In this case, the form is also found in BA.
168)
Te ending in yod does not come from Babylonian Aramaic but is a salient feature of
Literary Aramaicthe plural form of a collective noun. See A. Tal, Te Language of the
Targum of the Former Prophets and its Position within the Aramaic Dialects (in Hebrew), (Tel
Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 5735 [1975]), pp. 83-85.
169)
Tis form (in contradistinction to ) is mostly used only for in the original in an
adverbial sensealready etc. But Deut. 3:25is anincorrect usage (compare TNmargin ).
170)
See Gustaf Dalman, Grammatik des jdisch-palstinischen Aramisch, (second edition,
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1905), p. 353.
171)
.
172)
(a mistake! Tis is the only time without mem in PJ.) , , ;
correct?
As is well-known
from Prof. Kutschers research, the form of this word in the West is . It remains to be
investigated as to whether there are in fact PJ orthographies without vav in texts lacking a
Land of Israel source.
173)
, .
(to deposit)
(their cities)
174
(to put)
175
(its ame)
(to tire)
176

177
| [379]
3. Jewish Aramaic of the Land of Israel
(blood)
178
(also)

179
(because)

(son)
180
(self-, reexive
pronoun)
181
(commandment)
(of )
(where)
(I was)
, (like, as)
182
,
(when)
183

184
(they)
(other)
185
(to know)
186
(to see)
187

188
(mountain)

189
(to throw)
190
174)
Te plural formof (city) alternates freely in PJ between this literary form(TO) and
the form known from the Land of Israel. But see also Syriac .
175)
, , .
176)
.
177)
, , , , , , .
178)
, .
179)
Tis is the correct form, as it is in TN(and PJ) Gen. 28:12. Only in Gen. 5:3 uses
the possessive pronoun his with this word. occurs 12 times, whereas the Babylonian
form (see List 4) is documented six times in PJ.
180)
One time, in contrast to six times for the normal form .
181)
, , . Te Syriac New Testament also uses instead of as is usual
in Syriac.
182)
PJ ofen uses this divided orthography. TN has only . Apparently this is a literary
orthography, based, as it were, on the form in TO. On the other hand, the conjunction
) ( is written as a single word some hundred times in contrast to only ten times for
. In TN it is always ! I have no explanation.
183)
See previous note.
184)
Most think this to be a Palestinian form, but it is found in Geniza fragments. In the light
of the nun in Syriac, it may perhaps be considered to be the normative form in Late Jewish
Literary Aramaic. See below.
185)
.
186)
, , , , .
187)
, , , , , , .
188)
, . In the Geniza fragments, the form with doubled vav is found frequently
whereas in the construct case the double vowel has collapsed . Tere are many
forms in PJ that follow the path of these variations, although there are also many deviations.
Its possible the original Galilean form became the normative form in this dialectboth as a
dened nounand inthe construct casebut it may be that the deviant forms are scribal errors.
189)
, .
190)
.
(inammation)
(to advise)
191
(honor)

192

193

194
(before him)

(sevenfold)
(return)
(repentance) | [380]
4. Babylonian Aramaic
(that, m.)
(that, f.)
195
(Majus)
(fourteen)
(ropes)
(his seed)
(learned)
196

197
(maid-
servant)
(block)

(now)
(to return)
198

199
(wedding
feast)
(now)
200
(sh)
(canopy)
(water)
201
(skull)
(fears)

202
(on)
191)
.
192)
4 times, and twice only , the late Galilean form.
193)
3 times, correctly, = . For the corrupted forms, see List 4.
194)
In the case of a dened numeral, the sux is correct in Palestinian Aramaic (See
Dalman, Grammatik des jdisch-palstinischen Aramisch, p. 129). But inthe four occurrences
in our texts, this form comes with the independent plural form. Apparently such forms were
learned from phrases such as Te Ten Commandments and were transferred
mistakenly to other places.
195)
Te forms and are identical to the regular personal pronouns in the Babylonian
Aramaic of the Talmud, but the usage is not the same. Here, the reference is to that onethat
is, exactly as the parallel forms in Syriac and .
196)
Deut. 6:7 .
197)
.
198)
, , . Te root is occasionally found in good texts of Galilean Aramaic,
but it is certain that it is always a case of scribal Babylonization of the Western root .
199)
See also T. Tos. to 1Sam. 17:43.
200)
Only twice in PJ. Compare a Geniza text of T. Tos. T-S AS 69:1:5.
201)
Te correct literary form for the waterthat is appears ofen in PJ. means its
waters in Galilean Aramaic, and appears three times in this meaning in our texts (see List 3).
But it seems to me that thanks to the Babylonian and Galilean forms being identical, despite
the dierence in meaning, the authors (or scribes) of Late Literary Aramaic chose precisely
this form, because its meaning was clear to all Aramaic speakers.
202)
12 times in our texts, 6 of them are clearly Babylonian forms instead of the expected ,
and 6 are scribal errors, resulting from the correct Galilean form on it but it must be
(rises, stands)

(seven)
(excommunica-
tion)
(thirteen)
) ? ( (both of
them)
203

(lower)
204
| [381]
5. Hebrew

205

(heating)
206

207

208

209

210
emphasized that, as an inseparable part of the preposition , this form is documented
with great frequency in the Targum of the Land of Israel also.
203)
Tis correction is found frequently in Jewish texts, even among the best of them. About
half of the occurrences in PJ reect this error, and the forms and even occur,
forms with the Biblical sux . But these forms with vav are the normal ones in TO/Jona-
than also. Terefore it is very possible that they belong to a layer of Jewish Literary Aramaic.
See Tal, Te Language, p. 66.
204)
.
205)
Gen. 4:8. Only one other place in PJ, Deut. 32:31, apparently reecting a midrashic
source in Hebrew. But see Kutscher, Studies, p. 63.
206)
Tis understanding is based on midrashic parallels.
207)
=Pirqe deRabbi Eliezer, chapter 23.
208)
= .
209)
.
210)
, , .
6. Archaic or Obscure

211

212
(messengers)

213
(BA)
(BA)
(he will throw
it)
214
(BA)
(BA)
(around)
215

216
(ood)
(to suer)
217
| [382]
7. Special / Syriac
(magician)
218

219
(fatal drug)
(between, among)

(wings)

(place)
) ( (thus, how)
220
(thus)
(these)
(planners)
(shame)
(what!)
221
(reprimand)
(since)
222
(from the
rst)
223
211)
Obscure. See Werner Philipp, Eine Notiz zumTargumJonathan, Jdische Literaturblatt,
5 (1876), p. 19.
212)
In Literary Aramaic and Syriac . Tus ayin replacing aleph is an innovation. Com-
pare the usual form frog parallel tothe usual formwith eventhoughinthis second
example, the ayin is justied etymologically!
213)
Likely borrowed from BA, but compare the orthography in Syriac.
214)
Te dalet is a hypercorrection. In every other Aramaic dialect the rst root letter is zayin.
215)
An articial forman amalgamation of from Literary Aramaic with the parallel
Land of Israel root .
216)
once, but this is a mistake. Te word is frequent in Late Jewish Literary Aramaic,
the result of a false archaizationof the parallel forminSyriac andLiterary Aramaic (from
the root in Syriac). It is as if it derives from the root .
217)
. Apparently an articial archaization of the Palestinian root in analogy to the
well-known root in the Land of Israel . But it is likely this is a spoken-dialect form! Note
its use in Tos. MS T-S AS 69.11 line 6.
218)
.
219)
.
220)
Galilean Aramaic has / (see in Christian Palestinian Aramaic), meaning
how. Perhaps the usage here is an amalgamation of two forms: thusLiterary Aramaic
, and how.
221)
Deut. 5:21.
222)
, . In general, PJ distinguishes between two formsalways lacking the
alephfor the independent form, andwiththe alephbefore personal pronouns, as inBabylonian
Aramaic. But in Babylonian, the independent form is .
223)
is found in Samaritan and Mandaic, in the Targums of Psalms and Job, and in
Aramaic logograms in Persian (see Dr. Mashkour, Te Huzvaresh Dictionary (Tehran: Tehran
University, 1968), p. 172) and even in the Neo-Aramaic of the Jews of Kurdistan (see Sabar,
Genesis, p. 164).
(to stone)
(blows)
(your wages)
(blow)
(to look at)
224
(assembly)
(panic)
(detectives)
225
(echoes, bat qol
[pl.])
226
(satchels)
227
(fate)
(blush)
228
(mixture)
(side)
229
(areas)
230

231
(to ask)
232

233
(to send)
(their paths)
(its nest)
(one third)
224)
, . In literary, Galilean and Syriac Aramaic this words meaning is to hope.
Te meaning to look at is characteristic of Late Jewish Literary Aramaic.
225)
Unique.
226)
Deut. 5:5. Tis occurs only one more time in Jewish Aramaic, in T. Job, 4:16, where it
also occurs as . Compare Syriac and/or Greek .
227)
Unique. But compare the Talmudic .
228)
.
229)
Alternates with the better-known Literary form . also appears in Samaritan
Aramaic, but since it is lacking in Galilean Aramaic, I include it here and not in List 3.
230)
Syriac, Babylonian, and Targum Job.
231)
.
232)
, . Most scholars think this is a Babylonian form, but in truth it appears to
a certain extent in all the late dialects. Terefore I place it here, as it is late Aramaic, and not
exactly Babylonian Aramaic.
233)
. , , , , .

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen