I. Targum and/as Translation

In previous generations of scholarship, scholars have at times assumed that the targums were a kind of translation literature; however, analyses did not discuss how this classification worked itself out in the context of specific targum texts. For example, Paul Kahle in The Cairo Geniza conflates the concepts of “translation” and “interpretation” in the targums, stating that a targumic “translation” of Exodus 21:5 and 6 matches the “official interpretation of the text.”Footnote ⁴ In contrast, Geza Vermes makes a distinction between “translation” and “haggadah” in his famous examination of Targum Onqelos.Footnote ⁵ John Bowker similarly writes, “the [biblical] text and its interpretation were woven together, and the interpretation often extended and amplified the text greatly.”Footnote ⁶ This distinction between translation and interpretation has often been maintained in recent studies of the targums, and has been used by scholars such as Paul V. M. Flesher and Philip Alexander in one way or another.Footnote ⁷ In making this distinction, these scholars have attempted to identify different kinds of relationships between the targums and the Hebrew Bible: the one-to-one rendering of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic on the one hand, and targumic narrative expansions on the other.Footnote ⁸ As it stands, the translation–interpretation distinction is both too general and too exclusive. It is general in the sense that it opens up a discursive space in which descriptions of specific hermeneutical–interpretative moves can be made. Yet it is too exclusive, in that it indicates, perhaps unintentionally, that targumic phenomena are either translation or interpretation–paraphrase. What happens to borderline cases in this conceptual framework? Is it possible that some targumic phenomena incorporate aspects of both translation and interpretation? Is it furthermore possible that some targumic phenomena undermine this distinction altogether? My answers to these latter two questions are both yes. As I seek to demonstrate in the rest of this essay, a strong distinction between translation and interpretation, as articulated by a figure such as Umberto Eco,Footnote ⁹ when held in targum studies is ill-founded and imprecise. This becomes evident simply when we examine two different targumic versions of the same passage, in this case Genesis 22:1.Footnote ¹⁰ Here is the Targum Onqelus version of Genesis 22:1:

To compare, the Hebrew Bible version reads:

By and large, this version of Genesis 22:1 is a one-to-one rendering of the Hebrew Bible source text. In fact, the two versions have such close lexical and syntactic similarities that it is unnecessary to reprint the Hebrew Bible version in English; in English, the two are indistinguishable, with the exception of the divine names. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan version of the same passage, however, is quite different:

For those familiar with both the Hebrew Bible version of this passage, as well as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, it is easy to determine how the targum produced its version. In short, the targum has inquired after the meaning of the Hebrew phrase אחר הדברים האלא, “after these things.” Taking the word הדברים to mean “words,” Targum Pseudo-Jonathan produces the dispute between Ishmael and Isaac.Footnote ¹³ In this dispute, the targum carries forward the theme of inheritance, a subject that had caused Sarah to urge Abraham to drive Hagar and Ishmael from their camp in the previous chapter. Furthermore, it sets up the narrative in this chapter to continue dealing with this theme, insofar as Genesis 22 in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is just as much concerned with demonstrating Isaac's worthiness to be Abraham's heir as it is with demonstrating Abraham's righteousness. Within much targum studies literature, this kind of passage would probably be called an interpretation or paraphrase of the biblical narrative, partially because it is based on a readily identifiable exegetical move, and partially because it significantly expands the narrative of the Hebrew Bible. In contrast, the Targum Onqelos version of this passage would be called a translation, because of its close relationship with the Hebrew antecedent.

In cases such as these, the translation–interpretation distinction appears to be justifiable and unproblematic. This is because the Targum Onqelus and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan versions seem to manifest qualitatively different relationships with the Hebrew Bible.Footnote ¹⁴ To a certain extent, I agree with this position. However, implicit within the translation–interpretation distinction is the judgment that somehow translation does not involve interpretation, and vice versa. Yet, both translation and interpretation involve certain decisions about how the source text will be represented in the target language and culture. In his hermeneutical magnum opus Truth and Method, Hans-Georg Gadamer claimed that every translation is an interpretation.Footnote ¹⁵ Similarly, Emmanuel Levinas, in his phenomenological ethics articulated in Totality and Infinity, emphasized that every act of human communication involves some sort of revelation of the other, which George Steiner later associated with translation.Footnote ¹⁶ From Levinas's perspective, this revelatory aspect of communication occurs because there is a gulf of alterity and otherness separating all human subjects. Language is the medium used to bridge this gulf. But given that the otherness of the Other is infinite, the language of the Other must be “translated” in order to be understood by either party in the face-to-face encounter. In this way, translation and interpretation describe hermeneutical movements that have as their goal understanding, whether it be in an interlinguistic and intercultural context, or in the context of everyday human interactions. Engaging in these movements may produce radically different results, depending on the interpreter and his or her skills and attitudes. But the goal of understanding remains constant. When creating the targums, the targumists probably asked how the Hebrew Bible text and narratives could be best represented in Aramaic. Here, Aramaic refers not only to the language of the target targumic text, but also to the Aramaic-speaking culture of early Palestinian Judaism. As such, the moves accomplished by both Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan are simultaneously interlinguistic and intercultural. Admittedly Targum Onqelos significantly masks the intercultural aspects of its version by maintaining a close lexical and syntactic relationship to the Hebrew antecedent. Yet this very closeness of relationship implies that a decision has been made concerning how the target targum text should appear in Aramaic. From my perspective, that decision is just as interpretative–hermeneutical as is the decision to represent the Hebrew Bible narrative with the passage in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan surveyed earlier.Footnote ¹⁷

There are several questions that emerge from my preliminary argument: (1) If translation and interpretation are linked, if not synonymous, as I have argued, how does one describe the seemingly different formal relationship between the Hebrew Bible and the targum texts as manifest in the preceding examples? (2) Are there any conceptual resources available that can aid targum scholars with these descriptive problems? (3) If conceptual resources do exist, how might they inform how we understand targumic literature to be functioning, both in relation to the Hebrew Bible text, as well as in relation to their variegated social and historical contexts? And (4) Is it possible that targumic literature had greater cultural importance than targum scholars have typically thought?

II. The Dynamics of Translation

To develop my argument, I will begin by acknowledging that the word translation, as it is used to describe both interlinguistic and intercultural phenomena, is difficult to define conceptually. This dynamic of translation, although readily acknowledged in translation studies discussions and literature,Footnote ¹⁸ has received little explicit attention in the field of targum studies. At times it would seem that targum scholars have often assumed that “translation” is a perspicuous category that needs little exploring or explanation.Footnote ¹⁹ This has sometimes resulted in a lack of understanding of the kinds of phenomena that can be described by the term translation. In the field of translation studies, an area in which many scholars are also practicing translators, “translation” includes much more than the one-to-one rendering of the source text into the target language. It is for this reason that the definition and the meaning of the term is such a contentious issue in translation studies discussions.Footnote ²⁰ Not only is defining “translation” a descriptive task, but it can also sometimes take on prescriptive overtones. Some scholars have very clear ideas of what translation can and cannot include, and these definitions often inform their own translation practices. Given this situation, a definition of translation cannot be assumed; it must be articulated and rearticulated depending on the situation in which it is being used. Furthermore, as descriptive translation theories become more and more informed by translation practices, fundamental shifts in the meaning of translation become increasingly probable. When I articulate my understanding of translation, therefore, I am fully aware that I am entering a theoretically contentious space. My role in this space is not to provide a completely original understanding of the term, but rather to explicate some aspects of it that might be useful for targum scholars.

These caveats being stated, for me “translation” involves a fundamental carrying across, a movement over and beyond linguistic and cultural boundaries, which ultimately facilitates cultural and linguistic growth on the target side of the translation process.Footnote ²¹ Being simultaneously interlinguistic and intercultural, “translation” concerns itself not only with semantic equivalence (if such a thing is possible), syntactic and stylistic coherence and transferability, and other interlinguistic problems. Translation also concerns itself with the questions of what are culturally acceptable and understandable forms of literature. Translators therefore ask: How can I make both the language and form of the source text understandable and acceptable to the target audience? By engaging in this type of questioning, translators open up a realm of numerous possibilities concerning how the final form of their target texts may appear. For most professional translators, translation is not just a matter of approximating semantic and pragmatic equivalence between the source and target texts; it is also a process of adaptation and modification to, in a sense, clothe the source text in the target language and culture, making that which is foreign not quite so foreign, thereby exposing new avenues of expression and understanding in the target language and culture. This process of adaptation and modification explores, at first, the potential meanings that a source text might have within the source culture. It then moves to ask which of these potential meanings might be effectively brought across into the target language and culture. Because the process of “bringing across” in some ways narrows down or at least solidifies the meanings of the source text, one could very well ask if the process of “translation” is ever complete or final.Footnote ²² For as soon as one translation is brought into being, another could be produced, representing the meanings of the source text in a way that is drastically different from the first translation. Translators must choose between the many possible interpretations of their source texts and then present their chosen interpretations in their target texts to the extent that their target languages and cultures will allow.

Matters are further complicated when considering poststructuralist critiques of language and language use, such as those articulated by Jacques Derrida. Derrida's critique of the Saussurean distinction between the signifier and the signified as constituent parts of the linguistic signFootnote ²³ proves devastating to traditional notions of translation. These notions of translation are somewhat similar to the description I articulated in the preceding paragraph. According to these traditional accounts, translation amounts to the recovery of the transcendental signified or logos from the source text.Footnote ²⁴ The transcendental signified or logos is that which the specific signifiers of a particular language refer to. The transcendental signified is outside language, but it is that which gives particular languages their meaning. In translation, once the transcendental signified has been identified, it is then clothed in the particular signifier of the target language, thereby becoming “translated.” However, by arguing against the presence of a transcendental signified, Derrida forces translation theorists to rethink their understanding of translation. Ironically, Derrida states in an interview with Julia Kristeva that only within the phenomenon of translation is it possible to maintain a notion of a transcendental signified.Footnote ²⁵ I call this position ironic because Derrida's texts themselves resist this notion of translation. Given that Derrida's texts call into question conventional notions of reading, interpretation, and the traditionally held boundary between philosophy and literature, his writings are notoriously difficult to translate. His incessant wordplays in French and his allusions to philosophical literature, both from classical Greece and early Modern Europe, without using the tools of explicit quotation, raise the question of whether the fullness of Derrida's texts can be adequately communicated in languages other than French. Often Derrida's translators have attempted to overcome these difficulties by providing lengthy introductions to his translated works, sometimes giving the readers extensive instructions on how to read the texts contained therein so as to gain the most from them.Footnote ²⁶ Despite these attempts to generate understanding for the target audiences, some of Derrida's translators have considered their task an impossible possibility; impossible because there is so much lost in the translation, but possible because at least some fragments of meaning may be communicated in the target text.

Although this last example may seem extreme, it does raise the important and difficult issue of fidelity in translation. There are two aspects to this issue. First is the issue of whether absolute fidelity is possible, even in a theoretical sense. Finding a solution to this problem is unlikely, given that there is always something that cannot be carried between languages and cultures. No matter how much a translator attempts to be faithful to his or her source text, the fullness of the source text can never be communicated completely for the target audience. Given the reality of this situation, the second aspect of the fidelity issue comes to the fore. Because absolute fidelity is impossible, what does it mean to be faithful to the source text? How can one ensure that the “essence” of the source text has been communicated in the target language and culture? Footnote ²⁷ In previous generations, these questions were answered with reference to the now highly problematized concept of the transcendental signified or logos. But now, as indicated above, the dynamics of this discussion have shifted. Today, fidelity to the source text is discussed in terms of conformity to social or communal norms governing what is acceptable within the context of translation. This new emphasis furthermore brings to light the political aspects of translation, insofar as “translation” can be used either to confirm and substantiate or undermine and subvert the ideological and hegemonic norms of a given society or culture. As such, translation becomes a highly contested issue, as it takes place at the boundaries of society and can therefore be used either to reinforce those boundaries or call them into question.Footnote ²⁸

Although none of these considerations completely eliminates the fundamental “carrying across” of translation, they do significantly complicate it. In all, the term translation should be understood to denote a somewhat empty conceptual space that has been filled in partially by the articulation of translation's etymology as “carrying across.” The remainder of the conceptual space is filled by various articulations of “translation” phenomena, all of which have some bearing on the notion of “carrying across.” Translation experience certainly plays an important role in articulating these concepts. But ultimately experience complicates concepts, making it impossible to bring closure to them. As a result, this open-endedness should caution scholars against making hasty assumptions about what is meant by the term translation. It should also prepare scholars for the possibility that certain phenomena that have not been considered “translational” in the past might, in fact, be covered by the term translation. When translation is understood to be both an interlinguistic and intercultural phenomenon involving a fundamental “carrying across,” many phenomena typically called “interpretation” can be described under the term translation. In making this move, I have broadened out the term, and somewhat conflated it with the term interpretation. This is not to deny that there are different ways in which the targums interact with the biblical text and narratives. Rather, I distinguish between what has typically been called “translation” and “interpretation” in the targums by using the terms one-to-one interlinguistic rendering and narrative expansion, because I believe these terms better describe how the targums are engaging the biblical text, while still maintaining an overall translational dynamic. From my perspective, this can be demonstrated from specific interactions between the targums and the Hebrew Bible.

III. Translation and the Targums

The case I want to examine in this section is Genesis 3:24, as it illustrates both the interlinguistic and intercultural aspects of translation quite well. In the Hebrew Bible this verse reads:

This verse presents several difficulties in the Hebrew, insofar as it uses the unusual verb וישׁכן to describe God's actions. It also employs strange descriptive terms in conjunction with the sword that God stations to guard the way to the tree of life. Even the notion of the tree of life is difficult, because it has only appeared once in the narrative at this point, in the previous chapter.Footnote ²⁹ In response to these various problems, Targum Neofiti renders this verse as follows:

As in the case of the Pseudo-Jonathan rendering of Genesis 22:1 examined above, it is easy here to observe which elements of the Hebrew antecedent have been brought into the Neofiti version. The verb וישׁכן has prompted the reference to the Shekinah (שׁכינתיה‎); the motif of the whirling flaming sword has provided the basis for some of the targumic images of Gehenna; and the notion of the tree of life has been metaphorically equated to Torah. There is also a double interpretation of the word קדם in the targum's introduction of the ideas of “former times” and “east.” Nevertheless, it is impossible to discern the origin of the figure of “two thousand years” if one remains narrowly within the dynamics of targumic exegesis.Footnote ³¹ The same can be said of the distinction between “this world” and “the world to come.” Evidently, the targum has integrated narrative motifs from the Hebrew Bible with motifs from other sources, the specific origins of which probably cannot be identified.

The precise dynamics of the targum's complex move become evident when one places this passage in the context of the episode of which it is a part. In the Genesis 3 episode, the themes of commandment, disobedience, rewards, and punishments have already been expressed in various ways, even though these terms are never used explicitly. By the time we reach Genesis 3:24, the woman and the man have already disobeyed God's command not to eat of the fruit of the tree, and they have had punishments placed upon them. The Targum Neofiti version of Genesis 3:24 explicitly introduces the key thematic terms, and demonstrates how they are to be understood in the context of the targum's own narrative by placing them into a paradigmatic relationship with the motifs of Torah and Gehenna. Certainly this move is based on specific interactions between the worldview of the targumists and the narrative world of the Hebrew Bible source text. From my perspective, these moves are just as “translational” as the one-to-one rendering of the first phrase of the Hebrew verse into Aramaic. By integrating the preceding biblical motifs with the early Jewish motifs I have identified, the targum has bridged the gap between the biblical text and world and the world of early Judaism.Footnote ³² When comparing Targum Neofiti Genesis 3:24 with other passages dealing with similar topics, it becomes evident that the themes of merit, reward and punishment, and obedience to Torah are significant priorities in the targum's narrative world. By stressing these themes, the targum reinforces a worldview wherein individual Jews will receive rewards for righteous actions and punishments for failing to obey Torah. Not only does the emphasis on these ideas correspond with similar emphases from other early Jewish literature, but it also serves to generate conformity to the communal norms assigned positive value by the paradigms of the targumic narrative. Yet it is also important to acknowledge that Targum Neofiti's version of Genesis 3:24 is not completely transparent, given that there are conceptual and practical gaps that are not addressed by this passage. What does obedience to Torah look like? Are there particular expressions of Jewish practice that lie behind the targum's exhortation to keep Torah? As crucial as these questions are for the reconstruction of Targum Neofiti's narrative and ideological world, Targum Neofiti does begin to bridge the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps separating its readers/audiences from the Hebrew Bible source text. In this sense, it has “carried” its understanding of the Hebrew Bible source text “across” to a new linguistic and cultural setting. From the perspective of the targumist, and perhaps from the perspective of Targum Neofiti's readers/audiences, Targum Neofiti has articulated the religious and ideological meaning of the Hebrew Bible text in early Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. In this respect, it has “translated” Genesis 3:24.

This description of Targum Neofiti Genesis 3:24 as translation is dependent upon the way I understand this passage to be explicating and articulating the themes evident in the Genesis 3 episode as a whole. In fact, the idea that the targums are by and large translational rests almost entirely on the theory that there are large-scale coherence structures found in targumic literature that both overlap with and develop the themes of Hebrew Bible.Footnote ³³ In this particular case, the biblical themes gain their specific postbiblical targumic nuance in Targum Neofiti conclusion to this chapter in 3:24. Targum Neofiti's rendering of Genesis 3:24 thereby rearticulates the themes of the Hebrew Bible in an early Jewish context and develops them according to its own discursive goals and desires. This tension between updating biblical material for the early Jewish audience and remaining within the bounds of one-to-one interlinguistic renderings is evident throughout the Palestinian targums to the Pentateuch; it is a constituent part of their translational relationship with the Hebrew Bible.

IV. A Complicating Example

The tension between updating and remaining close to the source text is felt acutely by many modern translators, and is recorded in translation studies literature.Footnote ³⁴ In what follows I examine one targumic approach to this problem where Targum Pseudo-Jonathan makes a strong distinction between its own narrative material and the one-to-one interlinguistic rendering of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, as I will argue, this move is no less “translational” than the phenomena examined in this article so far. In fact, my example conforms quite closely to a “translational” move that is beginning to receive some discussion in translation studies circles. And although the targumic example I use manifests an exceptional targumic phenomenon, both the rarity of the phenomenon and its extremity help to show how encompassing the concept of translation can be. The “translational” move examined in this section is called selective appropriation, and, as I will demonstrate, it both confirms and complicates what I have been already arguing about the connection between “translation” and “interpretation.”

V. Selective Appropriation

Mona Baker introduced the term selective appropriation to translation studies in Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account (2006). According to Baker, selective appropriation in its most basic form is a phenomenon that determines which details or sources are included or not included in target documents or languages. It can manifest itself within a single translation in which translators only translate certain portions of the source document for reasons of relevance, intelligibility, or ideological agreement or disagreement.Footnote ³⁵ Or it can manifest itself on a larger scale when translators choose to translate some documents and not others from a certain culture to create a particular narrative concerning that culture. In this latter case, Baker cites the example of the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI. According to Baker, MEMRI only translates Arabic media sources that portray Arabs as religious extremists and/or anti-Semites.Footnote ³⁶ Baker also states that selective appropriation can involve the active intervention of translators to add to or correct texts perceived to be deficient in one way or another. She accordingly remarks, “Selecting, and in some cases ‘inventing,’ texts that help elaborate a particular narrative of an ‘enemy’ culture, then, is a well-documented practice that often relies heavily on the services of translators and interpreters.”Footnote ³⁷ Baker later returns to this theme of inventing narratives when she discusses a court case in Israel in which a witness testifies that the Russo-German war began in 1921. In this case, both the translator and the judge correct the witness and have the real date of 1941 entered into the court record.Footnote ³⁸ According to Baker, these kinds of examples are common in translation practice. Not only do they indicate a difference of opinion between the translator and the source text or person, but they also show that “translation” is an active and, at times, creative practice wherein facts and stories may be modified to conform to the translator's presuppositions concerning the matters being translated.

VI. Selective Appropriation and the Targums

In approaching the targums, it is somewhat difficult to know precisely which cultural or ideological functions they played as translations, since their various temporal and geographical provenances are vague and in any case contested among targum scholars.Footnote ³⁹ There is also no extratargumic evidence to indicate how people in the targums' own contexts might have interpreted specific targumic passages. There is some evidence as to how the rabbis might have received the targums,Footnote ⁴⁰ but given that the relationship between the targums and the rabbis has been called into question recently, this evidence must be approached cautiously.Footnote ⁴¹ As a result, describing the cultural and ideological functions of the targums is to hypothesize and rely upon internal evidence provided by the targums themselves. Nevertheless, I believe it is possible to determine, at least in part, how the targums might have functioned culturally and ideologically by extracting evidence from their literary structures. Selective appropriation, as described earlier, provides a helpful framework for analyzing the complex relationship between the Hebrew Bible and various targum texts. To observe this dynamic at work, I examine Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's version of Numbers 21:35. This passage is interesting for my purposes because it manifests a rare targumic phenomenon: a large narrative expansion followed by an explicit quotation of the corresponding Hebrew Bible verse framed as a quotation. As I will argue, this phenomenon conforms in a variety of different ways to Baker's understanding of selective appropriation. If, then, a passage such as this, in both its rarity and extremity, conforms to a “translational” dynamic, cannot the same be argued for many passages that are less extreme in their relationship with the Hebrew Bible? I will answer this question in the affirmative, for reasons stated below. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Numbers 21:35 reads as follows:

For comparison, the following is the Hebrew Bible version of this verse:

The structural division in the targumic passage that serves as the starting point of my analysis is the division between the targumic narrative expansion and the one-to-one rendering of the Hebrew Bible framed as a quotation.Footnote ⁴³ The narrative expansion relates Og's response to seeing the camp of Israel, his actions following that response, God's actions to protect the people of Israel, Moses' actions against Og, and Og's subsequent death. Then comes the quotation from scripture, which is very brief and quite elliptical, describing events not narrated by the extrabiblical material. It indicates that the people of Israel themselves attacked Og, Og's sons, and all his people, defeating them. It then states that Israel took possession of Og's land, another detail not supplied by the narrative expansion. The relationship between the narrative expansion and the one-to-one rendering of scripture framed as a quotation is quite complex. On the surface, it would appear that the quotation is used to confirm what the targum has narrated in its own words. Yet when it is scrutinized more closely, we find that there are evidently a number of tensions between the two, if not outright contradictions, as indicated by my summary.

One way to resolve these tensions may be to state that the quotation is meant to supplement the targumic material, in that it fills in details omitted by the targumist. If this is indeed the case, the relationship between the two within the structure of the narrative must be sequential and chronological in a narrative sense: Og prepares to attack the Israelites, God intervenes, Moses attacks and defeats Og, and then the Israelites themselves complete the job, as is reported in scripture. There is a certain appeal to this interpretation, insofar as it harmonizes the two accounts without erasing their differences. But this raises the question: Why did the targumist frame the quotation from scripture as a quotation from scripture? Presumably this was not necessary, especially given the general targumic tendency to more fully integrate narrative expansions with one-to-one renderings of the Hebrew Bible.Footnote ⁴⁴ We must, therefore, see the quotation formula הכין כתיב, “just as it is written . . .” as playing a crucial role in the structure of this passage. It separates the narrative expansion from the Hebrew Bible narrative and indicates that these two narratives are quite different. On the one hand, the narrative expansion describes the details of Og's encounter with the Israelites. Yet on the other hand, the quotation from scripture links the targumic version of Numbers 21:35 to the corresponding Hebrew Bible verse. Without this quotation and its quotation formula, the connection between the targumic narrative material and the biblical verse would be tenuous at best; the only words linking the two are the Hebrew word נכה and the Aramaic word מחי, which both mean “to smite.” In this passage, the mechanism of selective appropriation allows the targumist to add the new material through selecting this verse as one to expand upon as opposed to others that might receive expansions. Selective appropriation also determines that the quotation from scripture must appear as a quotation from scripture by selecting to frame it as one. Together they form the single literary unit representing Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's appropriation of Numbers 21:35. And, according to the dynamics of selective appropriation, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's rendering is “translational” in nature.

VII. The dynamics of Selective Appropriation in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

When a translator uses selective appropriation, he or she makes several judgments concerning the relevance and/or meaning of the phrase or document being translated. In the targumic passage I have been discussing, the targumist has made several judgments about Numbers 21:35 as it is manifest in the Hebrew Bible. First, there is the judgment that the actual Hebrew words in this verse should be represented in Aramaic in one way or another. Second, there is the judgment that in some ways the Hebrew words by themselves are insufficient to describe the events that happened when Israel encountered Og. And third, there is the judgment that an expansion on the Hebrew words would be appropriate to make up for this perceived insufficiency. By including both the narrative expansion and the one-to-one rendering of the biblical words, the targumist displays a loyalty to his own knowledge, as well to the actual words of the Bible. According to Baker, this kind of double loyalty is typical of selective appropriation. As mentioned, sometimes translators will omit certain details in their translations because these details in the source texts do not conform to the translator's own understanding of history.Footnote ⁴⁵ In other cases, translators will add or correct details to make up for perceived inadequacies in the source documents.Footnote ⁴⁶ Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's targumist practices selective appropriation in this passage when he adds his own narrative material. The complicating factor is that the targumist holds his added details in tension with his one-to-one rendering of the Hebrew Bible verse. By framing his rendering of the Hebrew Bible text as a quotation from scripture, the targumist draws attention to the fact that the narrative expansion is extrabiblical material, or at least something that does not conform to the established targumic norm of one-to-one renderings of the Hebrew Bible source text. This is in contrast to the many instances when exclusively targumic narrative material is more fully integrated with one-to-one renderings of the biblical text.

VIII. Linking Targum Pseudo-Jonathan with modern “translation” practices

In modern contexts, Baker cites several examples in which the translator does not think that the source document has provided correct or accurate information. The translator there feels obligated to translate the source document regardless, along with a correction.Footnote ⁴⁷ In such cases, the translator often notes explicitly that his or her correction of the source document is a correction. This is quite similar to what Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's targumist has done in Numbers 21:35 in structuring his text in such a way as to clearly indicate that he has added his own narrative material. The most significant difference between Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's text and the examples cited by Baker is that the latter have the emended or expanded information following the “direct translation” of the source document; in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the reverse is the case. This ordering of material could perform various functions in the text of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. But one function appears most likely. Although Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's targumist probably considered his narrative material an accurate representation of the Israelites' encounter with Og, he nevertheless used the one-to-one rendering of scripture in an authoritative way. This authority was indicated by the one-to-one rendering, framed as a quotation from scripture. This aspect of presentation indicates that for the targumist, scripture narrated the correct version of events, as opposed to the exclusively targumic material that may or may not have been correct. The only way the targumic material could have been accepted was if it were seen to accurately unpack the meaning of the biblical wording. By including the one-to-one rendering in his text and by framing it as a quotation from scripture, the targumist provided a way for his readers or audiences to evaluate the appropriateness of his added narrative material. Because the quotation differs on several points with the new material, those attentive to these differences might have stated that the added narrative, not the Hebrew Bible, potentially needed revision.

IX. Differentiating between past and present practices

In the move I just described, we might want to see an inversion of the process of selective appropriation as Baker explicates it. From Baker's perspective, selective appropriation determines the value and relevance of the source documents translated by translators. In the targumic context, however, the value and relevance of the Hebrew Bible was taken for granted in terms of its retaining priority. What was at issue for the targumists was the value and relevance of their target targumic texts insofar as the texts differed from that of the Hebrew Bible. Given the different versions of specific biblical verses in various targumic contexts, there was likely some flexibility granted to the targumists in how they would render the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic.Footnote ⁴⁸ But at the same time, the actual biblical words were the control that prevented targumic renderings from completely abandoning the Hebrew original. No matter what the targumist did to alter the content and form of the biblical narrative, the biblical words themselves questioned the validity of the targumic content by remaining ever present, in one form or another, within the targum texts. The biblical words also remained present outside the targum texts in the text of the Hebrew Bible, the canonical document of the targumic communities. To preserve the biblical wording in a targumic context, the targums manifested a painstaking literalness when representing the Hebrew words in Aramaic. This is evident in the one-to-one Aramaic rendering of the Hebrew Bible in the targumic target texts. In effect, the Hebrew words remained more or less intact in both their triconsonantal root forms as well as in their morphology, at least in the Pentateuch targums, insofar as that was possible in a “translational” context.Footnote ⁴⁹ In contrast, there was some variety between the different targums in the exclusively targumic narrative material associated with a particular biblical verse. As such, there was a great deal of provisionality in targum texts as a whole. The way in which biblical words and ideas were combined with targumic words and ideas varied from targum to targum. Yet most targum scholars assume that each targum accurately represented its community's understanding of the biblical narrative by combining one-to-one renderings with added targumic narratives. Whether we can confirm this assumption with the available historical evidence is a question that extends beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, as the foregoing reflections demonstrate, there are some limits to selective appropriation when it is examined in a targumic context. I will conclude this section by discussing one further limit of selective appropriation.

One of Baker's many concerns is to make explicit some of the moral and ethical implications of various translation practices. Her description of selective appropriation thus focuses on contexts where the target audiences have no access to the source documents except through the process of translation. As a result, selective appropriation, at least in Baker's examples, plays a significant role in constructing the target audiences' impressions of the source documents and the cultures that produced them. Within a targumic context, selective appropriation would play this role only if the targums' readers or audience members had no access to the Hebrew Bible. But as I have demonstrated already, the Bible was accessible to the targumic communities in a variety of different forms. In this way, a targumist's situation was not like that of many twenty-first century translators. His translation practice would have supplemented and further developed knowledge of the Hebrew Bible already possessed by his target audience. In short, the targumist was not working in a vacuum. Rather, his activities would have been one part of the ongoing, multifaceted discussions surrounding the Hebrew Bible in early Jewish communities.Footnote ⁵⁰ Selective appropriation would only have been at work in this context when the translator was determining which biblical verses and passages would have been expanded upon with new narrative material. Selective appropriation would not have excluded certain parts of the Bible from being rendered targumically.Footnote ⁵¹ Presumably every part of the Hebrew Bible would have been available for targumic rendering within that social and historical context. The conclusion to draw from these reflections is that Baker's concept of selective appropriation is relevant to targum studies only insofar as it can be seen to structure the shape and content of the targumic narratives. With regard to the social dynamics surrounding the targums, selective appropriation is relevant insofar as the Hebrew Bible was determined to be the authoritative document of early Jewish communities. As a result, the Hebrew Bible deserved to be translated targumically, adding narrative expansions where necessary. Therefore, even though its application must be limited by the caveats just stated, selective appropriation as manifest in the Pentateuch Targums calls into question the strong distinction between translation and interpretation held by many targum scholars. There are many other phenomena discussed by translation scholars that similarly deconstruct this distinction. What remains is to ask what implications this conceptual insight may have for the study of the Pentateuch Targums specifically, and targumic literature more generally.