biblical theology of the messiah 49
been well documented,
27
but derashic techniques can also be located in the
composition of the Bible itself.
28
For example, the relationship between the
318 men of Gen 14:14 and the man Eliezer in Gen 15:2 is forged by gematria
(Eliezer = 318). The identification of Sheshak with Babylon in Jer 51:41 is
made known through atbash, and so on.
As for the Targums themselves, there is some debate over the reason for
the use of Aramaic. A common view is that Hebrew was no longer spoken,
necessitating a translation in the vernacular of the people. Others, such as
James Barr, have contended that some form of Hebrew was still spoken when
the targumic tradition began.
29
According to C. Rabin, the rabbinic litera-
ture never limits the reading of Aramaic to those who do not know Hebrew,
as it does with the reading of Greek.
30
Rabin believes there is another ex-
planation for the Aramaic:
In the synagogue, explanations had to be brief and clear, and closely linked to
each verse; they also had to be complete, as no dialogue between teacher and
taught was possible. A paraphrase into Hebrew was impossible, because the
uninstructed could easily take the paraphrase as part of the sacred text. The
difference between mixed language and pure biblical Hebrew was hardly such
that it would assure the clear distinction, at speaking speed, between the two
kinds of text. It was therefore an almost ideal way out of the difficulty to provide
the explanations in a literary language, transitional Aramaic, which was no
doubt widely understood, resembling both spoken mishnaic Hebrew and spoken
Aramaic, but almost word for word clearly set off from its Hebrew equivalents.
31
The transposed Hebrew words, Hebraisms, and midrashic expansions
within the Targums all presuppose knowledge of the Hebrew original.
32
Therefore, a Targum has more value as an ancient commentary on the
Hebrew text—“a guide to the correct understanding of a Hebrew text for
those who already understood the words”—than as a translation.
33
Rabin
has not been alone with this perspective,
34
yet he is confronted with at least
27
See Philip S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra: Text,
Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity, vol. 1 (ed. M. J. Mulder; CRINT 2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 225–28.
28
See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1985).
29
James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1968; reprint with additions and corrections, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987)
38–43.
30
C. Rabin, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century,” in The Jewish People in the First Cen-
tury, vol. 2 (ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern; CRINT 1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 1030.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid. 1031–32.
33
Ibid. 1032. “The fact that its language differed greatly from the spoken Aramaic of those
whom it served, that it was artificial and bristled with semantic difficulties, did therefore not
matter” (ibid.).
34
E.g. Ernest G. Clarke, “Jacob’s Dream at Bethel as Interpreted in the Targums and the New
Testament,” SR 4 (1974–75) 369; Michael G. Steinhauser, “The Targums and the New Testament,”
TJT 2 (1986) 264.