“The” Messiah in “The” Targum?

The following was the paper I presented at the International SBL meeting in Amsterdam this week. As it turned out, Almost half of the scholars in the room had written on one Targum text or another dealing it the Messiah! I do not intend to publish this as is, so I thought I would share the early stages of research here. As is described below, I started with one idea for a concept and now…well, I still think the project worth while but I will have a lot of considering methodology and approach. There is a reason so many works on verse-by-verse commentaries or word studies. This project requires a more sophisticated approach.

IOTS 2024 – “When the King Messiah Will Come,” The Original Proposal

This paper will examine the references to the “King Messiah” (מלכא משׁיחא) in Tg. PsJon and Tg. Neof. to Genesis. The focus will be not only exegetical, understanding the references within the biblical context, but historical, in an attempt to situate the messianic tradition expressed in the Targumim in their broader Jewish context.
This study is the first effort in a broader project to consider messianic traditions within the Targumim. More than an updating of S. H. Levey’s The Messiah – An Aramaic Interpretation, the project, like this paper, is intended to understand this particular exegetical tradition with the larger and varied Jewish traditions in which they developed and how they were adapted for the unique genre of Targum.

I.         Introduction

As noted in the proposal, this paper was intended as the beginning of a larger project investigating messianism, and perhaps more broadly eschatology, in the Targumim. In many ways, I am late to this discussion and that is, in part, intentional. As my name suggests and most of you know, colleagues and friends of nearly three decades, I am not a Jew and I have always felt it important to demonstrate through my research that I am interested in ancient Jewish literature for its own sake and not for the sake of what it might say about the faith of my upbringing, that is, Christianity. The irony, of course, is that the theological setting of emergent Christianity is firmly Jewish. Conceptions and questions of the resurrection of the dead, a final day of judgment, the establishment of the Kingdom of God, and messianism are all Jewish concerns long before the first century CE. My self-imposed restriction to strict exegetical questions of the Targumim of the Megillot began to end when I was asked several years ago to write a chapter about Jesus within the Talmudim. Then I was asked to be a reviewer of a work on this very subject, the Messiah in the Targumim. Nearly thirty years into my career, I think it may be safe to enter these waters.

In 1974 Samson Levey published The Messiah – An Aramaic Interpretation: The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum, “The basic research for this work was contained in the author’s doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California” (p. xiii). The impetus at the time, he pointed out, was the then recent publication of A. Sperber’s The Bible in Aramaic, Diez Macho’s discovery and publication of the Vatican manuscript Neofiti 1, and J. Bowker’s The Targums and Rabbinic Literature. This past year Michael B. Shepherd published The Messiah of the Targums: Messianic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible, which builds upon Levey’s work, following its canonical outline, with some updated citations. M. Shepherd (so as not to confuse with D. Shepherd) also adds a final chapter on “The Reception of the Messiah of the Targums” which considers the work of medieval scholars who knew the Targumim, specifically Rashi and Redak (Rabbi David Kimchi) and the Christian Hebraists. Between these two works have been many examinations of specific Targumic texts with respect to messianic and eschatological features, including works by Geza Vermes, Martin McNamara, Philip Alexander, Craig Evans, Bruce Chilton, David Shepherd, Dinke Houtman, and Andrew Litke. And I have no doubt missed many others. We will return to Levey and M. Shepherd’s survey works in due course.

Now, I will begin as my proposal stated, with an examination of the references to the “King Messiah” (מלכא משׁיחא) in the Targumim to Genesis. This review will be brief because (a) others have done fairly thorough work of expounding on these passages and (b) they paucity of new information raised the larger question which I want to bring to you today, that is, can we even talk about “the Messiah” of “the Targum?”

II.         Review of sample texts, Gen. 3:15 and 49:10-12.

On the handout I have provided the text and translations (from Accordance) of TgPsJon and TgNeof Gen. 3:15 and 49:10-12. I have selected these passages and these targumim because they are representative of all those found in the various targumim to Genesis.¹ But quickly referencing the other passages:

1. Gen. 35:21, “Israel journeyed on, and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder” (וַיִּסַּע יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵּט אָהֳלֹה מֵהָלְאָה לְמִגְדַּל־עֵדֶר׃ ) receives a short expansion in PsJon, “Then Israel journeyed and pitched his tent beyond the tower of Eder, the place where King Messiah will be revealed at the end of days.” As Levey points out, “the Hebrew מהלאה, ‘from there,’ is taken in the sense of time, rather than of place.” While I think Levey is correct in what inspired the Targumist’s reading, PsJon provides a double rendering, first with the fairly straightforward מן להלא and then with the expansionist reference and temporal reading of “the place where the King Messiah will be revealed at the end of days.”
2. Gen. 38:26 is only in Geniza Ms FF. The phrase is actually מלכא דיי so not relevant for this study! It is an interesting and highly midrashic addition, the relevant passage being, “Then a bat-qol went out from heaven and said to them, ‘Both of you are innocent, for from him the Messiah of the Lord will come forth and rule over all the nations, and will bring my people out from among the nations to the sanctuary. Rejoice, therefore, for the affair came about from me.” Then Judah said, “For this reason I did not give her to Shelah, my son.” And he did not know her again.
3. The only other reference not included in your handout is Gen. 49:1, which I will mention when we come to the discussion of Genesis 49 and Jacob’s speech.

So, let us now turn our attention to the fuller passages of Gen. 3:15 and 49:10-12.

Gen. 3:15 – The conflict between the Serpent and “her children” is a passage that lends itself readily to the interpolation of messianic expectations.² The serpent is told by God, “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” PsJon, Neof, and the Fragment Targumim all contain additions that interpret that future day when the Woman’s son “will strike” the serpent’s head as the coming days of the King Messiah.

Levey and M. Shepherd have, as you might expect, detailed discussions of this passage to which we should add Pauline Paris Buisch’s 2018 article on the relationship between Gen. 3:15 and Revelation 12.³ A few observations here will suffice.

Of particular note is the importance of the Torah and the keeping of its commandments. ⁴This is, for the Targumim, key to justifying the serpent’s attack against the Woman’s children (interpreting “seed” זרע as collective) and their ability to “turn and smite” the serpent on his head. Their obedience to Torah is what enables them to find healing from the serpent’s attacks and ultimately peace. McNamara points out that this rendering of the “seed” as a plural and the need to keep the Law, precludes a Messianic interpretation. “One thing is clear at any rate: all texts of the PT interpret ‘seed’ of the HT as a collectivity. Even in N there can be no question of taking it to refer to the Messiah, seeing that the paraphrase informs us that this “seed”, i.e. the son or sons of the woman, might not observe the precepts of the Law. Such would be inconceivable for the Messiah.”⁵

Instead, the Messianic interpolation is predicated upon reading עָקֵב as “end” rather than “heel” and then further extended to the end of days, that is “the days of the King Messiah.” Again, both Targumim offer a double rendering, once in a literal manner then with a metaphorical interpretation. Levey suggests the Targumim also “play[s] on words from תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ “you shall bruise,” to Aramaic שׁפיותא, “peace;” “tranquility.”⁶ There is a fair amount of exegetical material added to the text, yet very little of it is related to the “King Messiah” or the events surrounding his advent.

Gen. 49:1, 10-12 – Turning to Genesis chapter 49, the first verse introduces Jacob’s final speech with words which, in the Hebrew text, lend themselves to eschatological or messianic reading. “Then Jacob called his sons, and said: ‘Gather around, that I may tell you what will happen to you in days to come (בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים).’” As the rendering of Gen. 35:21 might lead us to expect, PsJon, the only Targum to include a messianic reference at this point, interprets the phrase, בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים “the days to come” as “the time that the King Messiah would come.”

PsJon renders that portion of the verse, “And when the glory of the Shekhinah of the Lord was revealed, the time that the King Messiah would come, it was concealed from him. And then he said, ‘Come and I will tell you what will happen to you at the end of days.’”⁷ Again, we find PsJon provides a double rendering of a Hebrew phrase, in this case the messianic interpolation occurs before the literal rendering.

Moving to the texts you have on the handout, we find that PsJon and Neof have inserted references to the King Messiah in verses 10, 11, and 12. Both are heavily expansive (and I note parenthetically, this rendering of biblical poetry as prose follows the practice found throughout all Targumim) and begin with the interpretation of that “the scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet” as referring to the kings of Judah. Neof says “kings shall not cease from the house of Judah” while PsJon emphasizes “kings and rulers” (perhaps as a nod to the fact that kings of Judah did cease) and both extend the “ruler’s staff” to the “scribes who teach the Torah.” The Hebrew “until tribute comes to him” is rendered as “until the time when King Messiah comes,” PsJon specifying it is “the youngest of the sons.”⁸ [8] The final clause of verse 10, “and the obedience of the peoples is his,” refers to the conquest by the King Messiah of “the nations” (or “kingdoms”).

The next two verses are rendered in slightly different yet interesting ways by PsJon and Neof. Focusing here upon the similarities, both depict the violent conquering of the King Messiah over the enemies of the house of Judah. Both Targumim also ignore the entire first stiche of verse 11 – “donkey” (עִירֹה) [Onk reads with the Q’re עירו, “his city”] and vines – and declare “how beautiful is the King Messiah who will arise from those of the house of Judah.” “His eyes” of verse 11 serve as the next moment to assert the beauty of the King Messiah, as both Targumim share this tradition and emphasize the Messiah’s innocence even while he violently avenges the house of Judah. The description of the beauty of the Messiah and his violent victory are striking, as is the lack of detail about the King Messiah.

This quick survey shows that while מלכא משׁיחא is occasionally introduced to the Targumim to Genesis, we learn little about the King Messiah from these perfunctory appearances. And this brings us to the other half of my paper and the questions I have about the viability of my initial proposal.

III.         Summary of Findings

Levey wrote that the aim of his study was, “a critical analysis of the Messianic exegesis of the Targum, containing a detailed study of the individual passages and leading to some general conclusions concerning Targumic Messianism.⁹ Unfortunately, Levey sought to make “general conclusions” across all the Targumim, without any consideration of the distinction of the various Targumic traditions, as if “Targumic Messianism” was a unified conception across all Targumim, whenever and wherever (and for whatever purpose) they were created.

My proposal was to take such considerations into account and to understand the messianic (and perhaps eschatological) exegetical traditions of the various Targumim within the larger and varied Jewish culture, traditions, and theology in the time and place in which those specific traditions developed. The goal was not simply to analyze verse by verse, on the one hand, or to make sweeping generalizations about all the Targumim as if they were the product of a single meturgeman or school, on the other hand. Rather this project was to consider each Targum (or class of Targum) in their own Sitz im Leben, attempting to place them within their historical and theological context. In other words, if we cannot speak of the “Messiah of the Targum” can we more properly talk about, for example, the “Messiah as portrayed in PsJon”?

Now, many of you are rightly thinking that such a project was doomed from the start and wondering how anyone with even a cursory introduction to Targumic literature could have had such a notion. Well, I am a slow learner, to be sure, but I think my excuse is that I have spent so much of my career studying the Targumim of the Megillot. They are truly unique and distinct, and that distinctiveness helped to form some false assumptions in my mind. But I will return to the Megillot and their Targumim later in this paper.

So, why did I ever think such a project was a good idea? It was because when reviewing Levey and M. Shepherd’s work I was struck by how granular they are and, indeed, it is how most studies on these matters in the Targumim are conducted. They are effectively word studies, searching for the term משיחא and then doing a verse-by-verse analysis wherever it occurs. Then, in spite of this focused assessment, the attempt is made to pull back and make sweeping generalizations about “the Messiah in the Targum.” I was also struck by the pair of papers presented at IOTS in 2018 by Leeor Gottlieb and Gavin McDowell that independently showed, and I think convincingly, that PsJon can be dated and located in 12th century southern (if memory serves) Italy. If we are beginning to have some real understanding of the context of creation of these Targumim, can we not do better than such simplified word studies? That is how I got from there to her.

Then I began to go back to school, as it were, on the Targumim of the Pentateuch and the Prophets. Even our cursory study of the occurrence of מלכא משיחא in Genesis demonstrates that these texts really DO need to be read granularly. Unlike the effusive Targumim of the Megillot, Onk (of course), PsJon, and Neofiti are far more contained, by and large limiting their interpolations regarding the Messiah to those passages that were already and widely understood to have some messianic meaning. [Now that is something we might be able to study fruitful, looking and comparing for those rare occasions where such insertions might be unexpected.] As M. Shepherd noted, “The messianism of these Targums is largely driven in one way or another by their Hebrew source texts….” In other words, there is little “eisegesis,” as it were, to allow us to gain insight into the meturgeman’s exegetical agenda.

This does not mean we cannot make some worthwhile observations. For example, Levey comments that “the Messianism in PsJ is not at all consistent” and while “PsJ dips into the Messianic much more readily and freely than O, and he interprets as his fancy strikes him. Yet, considering the vast amount of Scriptural resources, he does not have an overabundance of Messianic references.”¹⁰ So, some comparisons and conjectures might be made between Onk and PsJon, but that does not really address the overall theology or interpretative strategy of either.

In spite of the sparing nature of the evidence, as noted, scholars seem very open to placing a significant amount of weight on the material. A prime example would be Levey’s comment regarding the Targumic reading of Gen. 3:15. “In the Targumic interpretation there is no hint of original sin, but the Targum’s influence on Christian Messianic thought on this passage is unmistakable.” The inference that the Targumic rendering had contributed to Christian interpretation is more than the evidence can bear, and that is even before taking into account the work of Gottlieb and McDowell regarding the late date of PsJon.

A more recent and more careful study by Pauline Paris Buisch, seeks to bring back the relevance of the Targumim to New Testament study and stumbles at the same hurdle.¹¹ Buisch examines the Targumic traditions relating to Gen. 3:15 in order to better understand Rev. 12. Buisch offers a very good, close reading of the Targumic interpolations of Gen. 3:15 followed by an analysis of Rev. 12. Her conclusion, however, oversteps the evidence when she states that “this comparison [of TgNeof Gen. 3:15 and Rev. 12] confirms that the interpretations reflected in the expansions of the Palestinian Targums can in fact predate the New Testament, though each case must be examined separately.” ¹² While common interpretative moves between the texts were elucidated, she did not, in fact, offer any evidence regarding the date of the Palestinian Targumim or their exegetical traditions.

It is all just so promising! We find in the Targumim the same or similar words that are found in the New Testament (“messiah,” “kingdom,” “word of God”), and it is tantalizing. It is understandable to seek out the relationship between the Targumim, the New Testament, and rabbinic literature. Yet, the truth is, we cannot, with any certainty, say when, how, or where the Targumim were created. We cannot even agree how they were used, was it in the school, the synagogue, for personal study, or some combination of all three? Sometimes in one context, sometimes another? With such uncertainty, how are we to accomplish any sort of systematic study of concepts across a single Targum, let alone across the corpus? In short, we can’t. Or rather, maybe we can but with significant limitations that need to be acknowledged.

IV.         Whither a Methodology?

The field of Targum Studies has long been rife with debates about methodology, often with little consensus on how we should approach the study of the Targumim. In 1985 a young, but clearly already cantankerous Steve Kaufman reflected on the state of affairs in his article, “On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and Their Chronology.” He reflected back to an earlier meeting. “In the summer of 1973, a group of scholars met in Baltimore to found the Association for Targum Studies. It was at that gathering that I first realized not that the currently accepted methods of Targum study are of questionable validity (though to be sure there are many questionable ‘methods’ in vogue), but rather that there really is no generally accepted methodology in the study of the Targumim.”¹³ Kaufman, being Kaufman, argued that the “first step must always be, as in all aspects of Targumic studies, a philologically sound reading of the text itself.” Yes. And. And we also need to consider how we study the content of the texts.

I do not have a methodology to offer, at least not yet, but as a sort of case study, I will conclude with some of the primary challenges I see to assessing themes and concepts within the Targumim, using messianic and eschatological concerns as our example.

Date, Provenance, and Sitz im Leben – As already noted, we have very little certainty in this area. After stating that Onk must have been completed post-200 CE, Jack Neusner with Paul Flesher summed it up in this way: “But we do not know that that Targum—or any other—constitutes a unitary document, accomplished at essentially a single moment and not the result of a process of collection and agglutination of ad hoc translations over a long period of time. We have no firm evidence about the dates of any of the other Targumim, or who may have done the translating, or why and for what particular audience or circumstance the work was undertaken.”¹⁴ Things have progressed somewhat since that was written in 1984 (although not as much as we might have hoped or expected). Even if we are all agreed on McDowell and Gottlieb’s conclusions regarding PsJon, there is much we still do not know. As consensus emerges, we should consider our texts accordingly, but with humility. We must ask, even if the answer is “we don’t know,” what are the circumstances that gave rise to this rendering and what was its effect?

For example, if PsJon is from the 12th century southern Italy, this is well after Saadia Gaon’s Eighth Treatise of the Book of Beliefs and Opinions articulated the detailed view of the Messiah and the End Days. It is well after the apocalyptic fervor of the 7th and 8th centuries that produced, for example, Sefer Zurabbabel with its fully articulated eschatological plan.¹⁵ What does it mean then that the references to the Messiah in PsJon are relatively modest and constrained? Particularly when many scholars, me included, have argued that the Targumim of the Megillot are late precisely because they include eschatological material. If that material is evidence of a later date, then what does its absence in PsJon mean?

The Nature of Targum ¹⁶ – The answer may be in the nature of Targum. Targum, per force, reflects and is constrained by the underlying Hebrew text. David Shepherd has already spoken today about the importance of the isomorphic character of Targum. Perhaps PsJon has simply stayed closer to the Hebrew Vorlage and Sperber was right, the Targumim of the Megillot are “are not Targum-texts but Midrash-texts in the disguise of Targum.”¹⁷ That being said, it is not beyond the bounds of the Targumim outside the Ketuvim to include expansionist material when it suits the meturgeman’s remit and purpose. For example, our passages considered today, Gen. 3;15 and 49:10-12, are both poetic texts in Hebrew. In keeping with the Targumic approach found throughout the corpus, they are rendered in prose, thus necessitating additions and not simply careful diction. Material has and must be added, but how do we determine what has not been added?

What is not expected in Targum and, indeed, does not occur except notably in the Targumim of the Megillot (see especially TgSS), is the interpolation of widely unrelated material. There must be some “hook” in the text upon which to hang the meturgeman’s reading and thus our references to the Messiah in Genesis and the Pentateuch are actually quite limited. They are also not terribly expansive. When we do get to the Targumim of the Megillot we find not only significant expansions but also extensive allusions and references that can be, with a fairly significant degree of certainty, connected to rabbinic parallels. These parallels even include eschatological material, such as in the case of the eschatological lists found in three of the TgMeg.¹⁸

Rabbinic Relationships – Finally, when we come to examining to Targumim for parallels, we might be headful of another warning from Kaufman, “We enter once again the realm of New Testament and Rabbinic parallels, and the bogey of circular reasoning looms large.”¹⁹ There has long been an assumption and assertion of the distinction between rabbinic and Targumic thought and literature. In Neusner’s study Messiah in Context, for example, he draws a sharp distinction, saying he would not consider the Targumim in the body of the work because “we cannot introduce into our account the picture [of messianism] emerging from documents that at that age did not clearly form part of that canon.”²⁰ Yet much of the messianic and eschatological material in the Targumim come from TgMeg which are very rabbinic in their theology.²¹

The Mishnah and the Talmud, our classic rabbinic texts, seem to take very different positions with respect to the Messiah. The Talmudim have many and varied references to the figure, while the Mishnah is essentially silent on the subject and the figure. Neusner goes so far as to argue that “the Mishnah is anti-messianic.”²² Alexander tends to agree. “The fact is that messianism does not sit easily with Mishnaic Judaism. Messianic Judaism and Mishnaic Judaism are pulling in opposite directions.”²³ Yet in TgSS and TgLam we find texts that have no concerns with speaking about the King Messiah and the importance of studying Mishnah.

Then again, PsJon is often understood as “counter” to rabbinic teaching, so it is not surprising that messianism shows up in this Targum. After all, the Targumim are outside of the rabbinic milieu. This argument is beginning to feel awfully curricular. What are we to do with the rabbinic connection (or lack thereof) to the Targumim?

So, where are we? (Back where we started, having gone in a circle.) The study of important theological concepts across the Targumim is a reasonable and valuable enterprise, but it is more challenging than for many other corpora and we must acknowledge the limitations.  

• Varied – The Targumim are not unified and cannot be considered as a single corpus, beyond their shared traits.
• Ignorance – We know so little about the context in which the Targumim were created or used. This limits our assessment of why certain exegetical choices were made.
• Genre – The nature of Targum restricts the material we have to assess. It is bound and constrained by the Hebrew text it must represent. In the case of large books like Genesis, a sustained exegetical agenda may not be maintained.
• TgMeg – The major exceptions are the Targumim of the Megillot because they are festival scrolls, likely read in the synagogue during service in a single sitting (or two, e.g.,TgSS), and thus have a sustained exegetical agenda that can be discerned.

Perhaps we will never be able to (and should not assert) in the words of Levey’s title what “the Messianic exegesis of the Targum” is. But we might, eventually, be able to say what a given Targum textual tradition such as PsJon has to say on the subject.

Maybe.

---

1. All occurrences of מלכה משיחא in the targumim are: Gen. 3:15, 35:21, [38:26 מלבר דיי], 49:1, and 49:10-12. ↩︎
2. Craig Evans sees Gen. 3:15 as the inspiration behind T Levi 18 and its “messianic figure, whose “star shall rise in heaven like a king.” Craig A. Evans, Craig, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), pp. 156-157. He also adds, “As the common words indicate, Jesus’ utterance in Luke 10:18-19 is surely related to T. Levi 18:10-12,” (p. 158). ↩︎
3. Pauline Paris Buisch, “The Rest of Her Offspring: The Relationship between Revelation 12 and the Targumic Expansion of Genesis 3:15,” Novum Testamentum 60, pp. 386-401. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26566551 See also, McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib 27A; 2nd ed., Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978) pp. 217-22. ↩︎
4. The keeping of Torah is a concern for Neof and is found throughout. (Is it true for PsJon as well?) “The law was created two thousand years prior to the creation of the world (Tg. Neof. Gen 3:24), Adam is placed in the garden in order to work in and keep the law (Tg. Neof. Gen 2:15), and the tree of life is the law itself (Tg. Neof. Gen 3:24). The success of those who keep the law and the failure of those who neglect it continue to appear throughout the Palestinian Targums (Tg. Neof. Gen 3:24; 27:40; Deut 5:26; 6:5; 8:11 32:13, 29, 30; 33:29; Lev 26:14).” Buisch, p. 393. ↩︎
5. McNamara, p. 219. ↩︎
6. Levey, p. 2. ↩︎
7. See Gen. R. 98,2; b. Pesah. 56a. ↩︎
8. It is, to point out the obvious “the King Messiah,” descended from Judah, from David. Levey notes, “Reference to the Messiah as the youngest son of Judah has no RP [rabbinic parallel]. It may point to the Messiah as the last, hence youngest, in the line of Davidic succession; or, it may be a reference to David, the founder of the dynasty, the youngest of the sons of Jesse, I Sam. 16:10 ff.” ↩︎
9. Levey, p. xviii. ↩︎
10. Levey, p. 31. Emphasis mine. ↩︎
11. Pauline Paris Buisch, “The Rest of Her Offspring: The Relationship between Revelation 12 and the Targumic Expansion of Genesis 3:15,” Novum Testamentum 60 (2018), pp. 386-401. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26566551 ↩︎
12. Her thesis, that “Gen 3:15 should be understood as the primary intertext that frames the drama of Revelation 12” is sound, it is just not proven by an analysis of the Targumic tradition. ↩︎
13. Stephen A. Kaufman, “On Methodology in the Study of the Targums and Their Chronology,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 7 (1985), pp. 117-124. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0142064X8500702310 ↩︎
14. Jacob Neusner, Messiah in Context: Israel’s History and Destiny in Formative Judaism, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press Philadelphia, 1984), p. 240. ↩︎
15. See, Martha Himmelfarb, Jewish Messiahs in a Christian Empire: A History of the Book of Zerubbabel, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2017), p. 2. “It was composed during a period of struggle between the Persian and Byzantine empires in the early seventh century of the Christian era, which it understands as signaling the imminent arrival of the eschaton, the end of the world as we know it, and the beginning of the age of redemption.” ↩︎
16. Note, the exceptions of specific translation techniques, such as the anti-anthropomorphisms in the Targumim that Klein articulated. ↩︎
17. See Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic IVA, p. viii. ↩︎
18. [18] See Brady, “The Use of Eschatological Lists within the Targumim of the Megilloth,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 40:4, 493-509. From the abstract: “Several of the Targumim of the Megilloth contain lists (songs, famines, kings, etc.) that culminate in the future Messianic age. For example, Tg. Song opens with the list of Ten Songs and Tg. Ruth opens with the list of Ten Famines. Such lists are well known from other midrashic texts….” ↩︎
19. Kaufman, p. 121. ↩︎
20. Neusner, p. 233. ↩︎
21. TgSS and TgLam both reference the Mishnah (TgSS 1:2, 5:10; TgLam 2:19) and both refer to the King Messiah (multitudes, and add in Ruth and Eccl.). ↩︎
22. [22] Alexander, “The King Messiah in Rabbinic Judaism,” in John Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, (Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1998), p. 468. See Neusner, pp. 74ff. ↩︎
23. [23] Alexander, p. 469. ↩︎