Targum

Boaz in Targum Ruth

In just a few weeks I will be in Finland for the triennial conference of the International Organization for Targumic Studies.¹ The program has already been published and I will be presenting a paper, The Figure of Boaz in Targum Ruth. So while ~~procrastinating~~ working on the paper I thought I would share a sample of what you can expect from this study.

Targum Ruth 2:11 gives a good example of how the Targumist has enhanced the character of Boaz. (“Character” is here used in both sense of the term, as a dramatis personæ and the nature of the man.)

10 She fell on her face and bowed to the ground and said to him, “Why have I found favor in your eyes that you should befriend me since I am from a foreign people, from the daughters of Moab, who are not purified to enter into the congregation of the Lord?”

11 Boaz replied and said to her, “It has surely been told to me concerning the word of the sages that when the Lord decreed concerning them he did not decree against any but the men. And it was told to me by prophecy that there will come forth from you kings and prophets because of [all] the kindness that you have done for your mother-in-law, that you have supported her after your husband died and you forsook your god and your people [and your father and mother] and the land of your birth and went to become a proselyte and to dwell among a people who were not known to you before.

Boaz, who is characterized in the biblical text as a solid bloke, is now the apotheosis of the rabbinic manhood. When confronted by the difficult situation of Ruth’s foreignness, the central challenge of the Book of Ruth which is resolved only by the fact that Boaz does marry her, Boaz of the Targum responds with the words of the sages. Once the halakhic explanation has been given Boaz the Righteous (TgRuth 1:1) and Pious (TgRuth 1:6) adds Prophet to his titles.

That the targumist offers two explanations of how it is that Ruth is acceptable in the congregation is likely based upon the dual declaration in Ruth 2:11 that Boaz has “heard fully” (NRSV) of all that Ruth had done for Naomi (‏הֻגֵּד הֻגַּד לִי). (So Beattie, Aramaic Bible, p. 24 n. 10.) Neither are new or unique to the Targum, but when placed together within the flowing narrative of the Targum the figure of Boaz becomes more fully fleshed.

So there you have a little taste that actually summarizes much of what the Targumist has done in developing the figure of Boaz. Other key “additions” are identifying him with the judge Ibzan (Judges 12:8), crediting his prayers and piety as the reason God lifted the famine on Israel, and making it explicit that nothing untoward occurred at the threshing floor, rather it states that he “restrained his desire” like Joseph “the Righteous” and Paltiel “the Pious.”

My first ever conference was, in fact, the first IOTS conference, before it even had a name. I will never forget the discussion of whether it should be “International Organization FOR or OF Targumic Studies.” Fr. Joe Fitzmeyer settled the discussion by saying that he would rather be “for something” for a change. Hence the name…. [↩]

A basic definition of “Targum”

Jul 13th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

7 comments

In commenting on another, unrelated post John asked,

Would you please provide a concise definition of “targum.” I am planning to write a paraphrase with brief commentary on the Sermon on the Mount for Sunday’s sermon and make reference to the Targumim to introduce it.

I hope John will chime in with some additional context for how he thinks Targum would fit into his commentary. I often find that Christians are unintentionally appropriating rabbinic methods in an inappropriate manner. I am not suggesting that John is doing that! But I will never forget the preacher who asked me to explain midrash to her since she had recently been doing a lot of reading on the subject and wanted my opinion. When I asked why she said, “Because midrash allows you to make the text say whatever you want!” Not so much. At any rate, it occurs to me that I have not provided any such introduction here.¹

Alex Samely has a nice concise definition: “Targum is an Aramaic narrative paraphrase of the biblical text in exegetical dependence on its wording.”²

In slightly more accessible language, I would say it is a unique kind of translation that often incorporates interpretive material even while presenting a word-for-word representation of the original Hebrew base text.

For example, from Tg Ruth 1:4-5, the biblical text reads (NRSV)

3 But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. 4 These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. When they had lived there about ten years,

The Targum adds explanatory material while still representing equivalents for the Hebrew text, in its appropriate order. (The portions in italics are additions over the MT.) The translation is mine.

3 Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died and she was left a widow and her two sons orphans.
4 They transgressed the decree of the Memra of the Lord and they took for themselves foreign wives from the house of Moab. The name of one was Orpah and the name of the second was Ruth, the daughter of Eglon, the king of Moab. And they dwelt there for a time of about ten years.

I think you can see how the Targumist is answering the “questions” that he felt were presented by the text, or supplying information that was necessary to “flesh out” the narrative. Naomi’s status as a widow is made explicit as too her sons status as “orphans.” (Interesting, of course, since we would say that they were not if mum is still alive, but I will save that for my commentary.)

Sometimes the additions can be far more expansive and aggadic. In a small way we find that in this example with the identification of Ruth as “the daughter of Eglon, the King of Moab.” The first verse of TgRuth, however, contains a massive expansion discussion the various famines that Israel has faced throughout its Heilsgeschichte. You can read far more of that than you probably would like in my article on the “The Use of Eschatological Lists within the Targumim of the Megilloth.”

I hope that is helpful as a quick starter definition. Let me know if you would like any clarification or further examples.

BTW, if you know of anyone who works at The Daily Targum, Rutger’s student paper, who can get me one of their mugs, I would love it!

You can find my brief article on Targum in The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Eds., Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2005), “Targum,” pp. 780-81. [↩]
A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuchal Targums (TSAJ, 27; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), p. 180. [↩]

Ruth’s “Conversion” in Targum Ruth

Jun 28th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

3 comments

As you all know I am working Targum Ruth. Those who know me well know that my interests are more with the exegetical concerns than linguistic issues. Still, one must slog through a translation at some point… Ruth 1:16-17 has received a lot of attention throughout the millennia. For the majority of its reception the passage has been interepreted as Ruth’s “conversion” to Judaism. In this “confession” she becomes a follower of Yhwh. Many modern commentators (and I) do not see this as a confession, but rather a simple statement that by following Naomi to Israel Ruth is acknowledging that she is also accepting the culture and religion of her new community. But let’s see what the Targumist does with this.

The biblical text (NRSV) is

16 But Ruth said,

“Do not press me to leave you

or to turn back from following you!

Where you go, I will go;

Where you lodge, I will lodge;

your people shall be my people,

and your God my God.

17 Where you die, I will die—

there will I be buried.

May the LORD do thus and so to me,

and more as well,

if even death parts me from you!”

The Targumist, as is so often the case, takes some liberties. (The italics indicate words added to the base MT.)

16 Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you, to go back from after you, for I desire to be a proselyte.”

Naomi said, “We are commanded to keep Sabbaths and holy days such that we may not walk more than two thousand cubits.”

Ruth said, “Wherever you go, I will go.”

Naomi said, “We are commanded not to lodge with Gentiles.”

Ruth said, “Where you lodge, I will lodge.”

Naomi said, “We are commanded to keep six hundred and thirteen commandments.”

Ruth said, “What your people keep I will keep as if they were my people from before this.

Naomi said, “We are commanded not to worship foreign gods.”

Ruth said, “Your god is my god.”

17 Naomi said, “We have four death penalties for the guilty: stoning with stones, burning with fire, execution by the sword and hanging on a tree.”

Ruth said, “How you die, I shall die.”

Naomi said, “We have a cemetery [three cubits].”

Ruth said, “And there I will be buried. And do not say any more. May the Lord do thus to me and more against me if even death shall separate me from you.”

I have touched on this scene in TgRuth before and then as now I have promised more in the future. I actually presented a paper on this at SBL in 2008 and I am working it into an article. Suffice to say at the moment that in these two passages we find a summation of the rabbinic expectations of a proselyte.

Naomi “rejects” Ruth three times.
Naomi provides general instructions as to the law: keep the Sabbath and Holy Days, not to walk more than 2,000 cubits (on those days), 613 commandments, idolatry forbidden, four death penalties, and [two cemeteries]

This seems to be fairly straightforward. Ruth’s conversion, for such it is as far as the targum and other rabbinic commentaries are concerned, is the rubric that all converts are to follow. A similar reading of Ruth 1:16-17 as that found in the Targum is offered as Scriptural proof of the steps required of a Gentile’s conversion in b Yeb. 47b. Thus Ruth is the prototype of a proselyte. Furthermore, Ruth’s conversion overcomes the biblical injunctions against allowing intermarriage with the nations (since she is now a proselyte she may marry Boaz). What is of interest, and dealt with in my paper, is why there still remains then in the Targum (and other rabbinic texts) the tension about the validity of such a union. But that will have to wait for another time…

IOTS 2010 Schedule Posted

Jun 10th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

The 2010 International Organization for Targumic Studies conference is nearly here! Held triennially as part of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, this year’s conference is in Helsinki, Finland during the first week in August. The program(me) has just been posted at the conference website and I will share it below as well, but first I thought I would share my abstract with you.

The Figure of Boaz in Targum Ruth

This paper will consider how the Targumist has transformed the character of Boaz from that found in the biblical text. There is no doubt that Boaz is a key player in the book of Ruth; without the male redeemer safety and security for Naomi and Ruth could not be ensured. But Boaz’s engagement is restricted to reacting to Ruth’s actions and directions. There are certain tropes and themes to be expected, Boaz is certainly presented as the pious patriarch, however it is the women, and more specifically the foreign woman Ruth, who are in complete control. As a character Boaz has more in common with Rachel or Leah than Jacob; he has certain key moments of dialogue that move the plot, but his primary function is to provide offspring.

The Targum, as we might expect, presents Boaz in a different light. In the Targum we find that Boaz is actually the judge Ibzan whose piety brings about the conclusion of the famine and the messianic dynasty. He has even received a prophecy from God that kings and prophets would descend from Ruth and is the model of rabbinic propriety. This figure who is marginally central in the biblical account now becomes the paragon of piety and the righteous judge.

International Organization for Targumic Studies (IOTS) will have
its 6th congress. Person in Charge: Dr. Willem F. Smelik, President of IOTS. For more information of IOTS, see here.

Programme of IOTS

Wednesday 4 Aug, 9:00–10:30, Main Building Hall 10

Keynote Lecture: Steven Fraade, Targum and Multilingualism in Late Antique Judaism and Jewish Society

Wednesday 4 Aug, Session A (11:00–13:00)
Main Building Hall 10

Philology & Methodology
11:00 Shamma Friedman, The Dating of Targum Onqelos
11:30 Shai Heijmans, About the ‘Unreliability’ of the Vocalization of Western Targum-Manuscripts
12:00 Margaretha Folmer, Forms and Uses of the Demonstrative Pronouns in Targum Onqelos
12:30 James K. Aitken, Septuagint and Targum Studies: Historical and Methodological Relations

Wednesday 4 Aug, Session B (14:30–18:00)
Main Building Hall 10

Genre
14:30 Alex Samely, The Targums within a New Description of Jewish Text Structures in Antiquity
15:15 Robert Hayward, ‘Targum a Misnomer for Midrash’? A new typology of the Second Targum of Esther

Afternoon coffee break 16:00

16:30 Philip Alexander, ‘Translation and Midrash Completely Fused Together’? The Form of the Targums to Canticles, Lamentations and Eccleasiastes
17:15 Rocco Bernasconi, A Literary Analysis of the Genesis Apocryphon

Thursday 5 Aug, 9:00–10:30, Main Building Hall 10

Keynote Lecture: Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch, Avoiding Anonymity in the Bible and Beyond

Thursday 5 Aug, Session A (11:00–13:00),
Main Building Hall 10

Exegesis
11:00 Willem Smelik, Targum in Talmud
11:30 Beatrice Lawrence, Jethro and Jewish Identity in Targumic Interpretation
12:00 Chris Brady, The figure of Boaz in TgRuth
12:30 Craig Morrison, dyt[/dyt[and the World to Come in the Syriac New Testament and Targum Neophyti

Thursday 5 Aug, Session B (14:30–18:00),
Main Building Hall 10

Translation Strategies
14:30 Dmytro Tsolin, The Transformation of Poetical Lines of the Song at the Sea (Ex. 15:1–18, 21) in the Targum Onqelos
15:00 Bjørn Olav Kvam, Genesis 14 as Key-text for the Balaam Texts – A Case study of Text-immanent Exegesis in the Targumim
15:30 Gudrun Lier, Translation Techniques in Malachi according to Targum Jonathan

Afternoon coffee break 16:00

Identifying Targum
16:30 Paul Flesher, Identifying the Palestinian Targums: The Case of the Cairo Geniza Manuscripts
17:00 David Shepherd, Can Anything Targumic Come from Qumran? Revisiting Klaus Beyer’s ‘Targums’ of Tobit and Isaiah
17:30 Announcements: NTCS-website

Thursday 5 Aug, 18:00, Main Building Hall 10

IOTS Business Meeting

Friday 6 Aug, 9:00–10:30, Main Building Hall 13

Keynote Lecture: Dineke Houtman, The Use of Paratextual Elements in Targum Research

Friday 6 Aug, Session A (11:00–13:00), Main Building Hall 13

Manuscripts, Reception and Edition
11:00 Luis Díez Merino, A New Complete Aramaic Bible
11:30 Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, ‘Christian’ Targums in a Targum edition?
12:00 Hector Patmore, The Italian Textual Tradition of Targum Jonathan
12:30 Hans Van Nes, “Rome” in Targum Jonathan and its European Reception

New Article – “The Use of Eschatological Lists within the Targumim of the Megilloth”

Oct 6th, 2009

by Christian Brady.

3 comments

This morning I received an email from Brill letting me know that my article “The Use of Eschatological Lists within the Targumim of the Megilloth” is now in print, Journal for the Study of Judaism, Volume 40, Numbers 4-5, 2009 , pp. 493-509(17). Well, it is available online, but will not be in actual print on paper for another 30 days. At that time I will be able to make a pdf available for download directly from this site, but in the meantime (and for 90 days from today) you may download the article directly from their server: The Use of Eschatological Lists within the Targumim of the Megilloth

Abstract:

Several of the Targumim of the Megilloth contain lists (songs, famines, kings, etc.) that culminate in the future Messianic age. For example, Tg. Songopens 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 and this article will consider how and why these lists are used in the Targumim of the Megilloth and will propose that these additions are not merely the result of an opportunity presented by the Hebrew text but are being used specifically to further the overarching exegetical agenda of the Targum in question.

(This is the article resulting from the paper I presented at the last IOTS.)