John Frederick Stenning

“ The Israelites are represented as living among the Egyptians, and enjoy no immunity from the plagues, except that of darkness. Their departure from Egypt is deliberate; the people have time to borrow raiment and jewels from their neighbours. E regularly uses the phrase “and Pharaoh’s heart was strong (חזק‎) ,” or “and Yahweh made strong (חיזק‎) Pharaoh’s heart” and “he would not let the children of Israel (or, them) go.” In the priestly narrative (P) the plagues assume the form of a trial of skill between Aaron, who acts at Moses’ command, and the Egyptian magicians, and thus connect with vii. ”

“ Like other collections the group of laws on leprosy easily betrays its composite character and exhibits unmistakable evidence of its gradual growth. There is, however, no reason to doubt that a large portion of the laws is genuinely old since the subject is one that would naturally call for early legislation; moreover, Deut. xxiv. 8 presupposes the existence of regulations concerning leprosy, presumably oral, which were in the possession of the priests. The earliest sections are admittedly xiii. 1-46a and xiv. 2-8a, the ritual of the latter being obviously of a very archaic type. ”

“ As it stands, however, this chapter represents the legislation which it contains as a renewal of a former covenant, also written on tables of stone, which had been broken (1b, 4a) . But the document from which the chapter, as a whole, is derived, is certainly J, while the previous references to tables of stone and to Moses’ breaking them belong to the parallel narrative of E. Moreover, the covenant here set forth (v. 10 f.) is clearly a new one, and contains no hint of any previous legislation, nor of any breach of it by the people. ”

“ Its peculiarities of rendering are due to the same principles which were noted as underlying the translation of the Pentateuch. Anthropomorphisms, as a rule, are avoided by means of the same expedients as those employed by Onkelos, expressions derogatory to the dignity of God, or of the heroes of the nation, are softened down, while figurative language is either boldly transposed, or its character clearly shown by the introduction of the particle “as” or “like.” ”

“ The most noticeable of these is the prominence assigned to certain leading ideas and motives, especially to that of holiness. The idea of holiness, indeed, is so characteristic of the entire group that the title “Law of Holiness,” first given to it by Klostermann (1877) , has been generally adopted. ”

“ Every endeavour is made to gloss over, or modify, expressions which seemed derogatory to the ancestors of Israel, and to amplify everything which redounded to their credit. On the other hand, pseudo-Jonathan shows a tendency to condense those additions which it has in common with the Fragmentary Targum: in particular he omits all quotations from Scripture.
In regard to the source of the two Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch, we must accept the conclusion of Bassfreund [19] that they both derived their variants from a complete Targum Jerushalmi. ”

“ In E, on the other hand, Aaron is sent by God to meet Moses at Mt. Horeb, after the latter had taken leave of Jethro, and, later on, accompanies him into the presence of Pharaoh. The succeeding narrative (v. 1–vi. 1) is mainly taken from J, though E’s account of the first interview with Pharaoh has been partially retained in v. 1, 2, 4. Moses and the elders ask leave to go three days’ journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, a request which is met by an increase of the burdensome work of brick-making: henceforward the Israelites have to provide their own straw. ”

“ The chapter consists of two main elements which can easily be distinguished from one another, the one being derived from P and the other from H. To the former belongs the fuller and more elaborate description of vv. 4-8, 21, 23-38; to the latter, vv. 9-20, 22, 39-44. Characteristic of the priestly calendar are (1) the enumeration of “holy convocations,” (2) the prohibition of all work, (3) the careful determination of the date by the day and month, (4) the mention of “the offerings made by fire to Yahweh,” and (5) the stereotyped form of the regulations. ”

“ On the linguistic side, therefore, wemay regard Onkelos " as a faithful representative of a Targum which had its rise in Judaea, the old seat of Palestinian literary activity." It is not, however, to be regarded as a reproduction in written form of a Palestinian trans- lation, but rather as an official translation of the Law, in the Judaean dialect, which was carried out in Babylon, probably about the 4th century a.d.: in its final form, according to Dalman (/.c.) it cannot be earlier than the 5th century. ”

“ The magicians succeed in turning the Nile water into blood (vii. 19, 20a, 21b, 22) , and in bringing up frogs (viii. 5-7) , but they fail to bring forth lice (viii. 15b-19) , and are themselves smitten with boils (ix. 8-12) : the two last-named plagues have no parallel either in J or E. Throughout the P sections Aaron is associated with Moses, and the regular command given to the latter is “Say unto Aaron”: no demand is ever made to Pharaoh, and the description of the plague is quite short. ”

“ Signs of the redactor’s handiwork may be seen in vv. 9, 11-13 (the year of Jubilee treated as a fallow year) and 15, 16 (cf. the repetition of “ye shall not wrong one another,” vv. 14 and 17) . Both on historical and on critical grounds, however, it is improbable that the principle of restitution underlying the regulations for the year of Jubilee was originally extended to persons in the earlier code. For it is difficult to harmonize the laws as to the release of Hebrew slaves with the other legislation on the same subject (Exod. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv.) ”

“ Moses’ Intercession.—The time for departure from the Sacred Mount had now arrived, and Moses is accordingly bidden to lead the people to the promised land. Yahweh himself refuses to accompany Israel owing to their disobedience, but in response to Moses’ passionate appeal finally consents to let his presence go with them. The account of Moses’ intercession has been preserved in J, though the narrative has undergone considerable dislocation. The true sequence of the narrative appears to be as follows: Moses is commanded to lead the people to Canaan (xxxiii. 1-3) ”

“ But the arguments which he adduces in favour of the threefold origin of H are not sufficient to outweigh the general impression of unity which the code presents.
Chap. xvii. comprises four main sections which are clearly marked off by similar introductory and closing formulae: (1) vv. 3-7, prohibition of the slaughter of domestic animals, unless they are presented to Yahweh; (2) vv. 8, 9, sacrifices to be offered to Yahweh alone; (3) vv. 10-12, prohibition of the eating of blood; (4) vv. 13, 14, the blood of animals not used in sacrifice to be poured on the ground. ”

“ Other distinctive features of J’s narrative are: (1) Moses alone is bidden to interview Pharaoh (vii. 14 f.; viii. 1 f., 20 f.; ix. 1 f., 13 f.; x. 1 f.) ; (2) on each occasion he makes a formal demand; (3) on Pharaoh’s refusal the plague is announced, and takes place at a fixed time without any human intervention; (4) when the plague is sent, Pharaoh sends for Moses and entreats his intercession, promising in most cases to accede in part to his request ”

“ In the same Mishnic passage it is forbidden to render Lev. xviii. 7 as if the text had " his father " and " his mother." [10] Yet another translation (that of Lev. xxii. 28) is mentioned with disapproval in the Jerusalem Talmud, [11] though it has been preserved in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc* A definite rule for guidance in translating is apparently preserved in the Tosefta, [12] where it is stated that " he who translates quite literally is a liar, while he who adds anything is a blasphemer," Exod. ”

“ Chap. v. 14 (Heb. v. 26) –vi. 7 contain regulations for the trespass-offering, in which the distinctive character of that offering is clearly brought out. The cases cited in vi. 1-7 (Heb. v. 20-26) are clearly analogous to those in v. 14-16, from which they are at present separated by vv. 17-19. These latter prescribe a trespass-offering for the same case for which in iv. 22 f. a sin-offering is required: it is noticeable also that no restitution, the characteristic feature of the āshām, is prescribed. ”

“ In view of these facts we are forced to conclude that 1b (“like unto the first . . . brakest”) , 4a (“and he hewed . . . the first”) and v. 28 (“the ten words”) formed no part of the original narrative, [7] but were inserted by a later Deuteronomic redactor. In the view of this editor the Decalogue alone formed the basis of the covenant at Sinai-Horeb, and in order to retain J’s version, he represented it as a renewal of the tables of stone which Moses had broken. [8]
The legislation contained in xxxiv. ”

“ Such treatment, though perfectly legitimate according to the older legislation (Exod. xxix. 14; cf. Lev. viii. 17) , was in direct contradiction to the ritual of vi. 24 ff., which prescribed that the flesh of ordinary sin-offerings should be eaten by the priests. Such a breach of ritual on the part of Aaron and his sons seemed to a later redactor to demand an explanation, and this is furnished in the present section.
II. The Laws of Purification.—Chaps. xi.-xv. This collection of laws comprises four main sections relating to (1) clean and unclean beasts (xi.) , (2) childbirth (xii.) ”

“ Of these the former contains only portions of the Pentateuch, [16] and is therefore usually designated the Fragmentary (Jerusalem) Targum. In a large number of cases this Targum gives merely a variant rendering cf single words: where longer passages are given it presents a very paraphrastic translation, and bears all the marks of a late Haggadic composition. Its fragmentary character arises from the fact that it is simply a collection of variae lectiones and additions to the version of Onkelos, intended possibly for use at public services. ”

“ The evidence, however, afforded (a) by the parallel version of Deuteronomy and (b) by the literary analysis of J and E not only fails to support this tradition, but excites the gravest suspicions as to the originality both of the form and of the position in which the Decalogue now appears. For when compared with Ex. xx. 1-17 the parallel version of Deut. v. 6 ff. is found to exhibit a number of variations, and, in particular, assigns an entirely different reason for the observance of the Sabbath. ”

“ The exact relation of H to Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is hard to determine. That chaps. xvii.–xxvi. display a marked affinity to Deuteronomy cannot be denied. Like D, they lay great stress on the duties of humanity and charity both to the Israelite and to the stranger (Deut. xxiv.; Lev. xix.; compare also laws affecting the poor in Deut. xv.; Lev. xxv.) , but in some respects the legislation of H appears to reflect a more advanced stage than that of D, e.g. the rules for the priesthood (chap. xxi.) ”

“ Of the latter only one manuscript (Brit. Museum Add. 27031) is known to exist, and this has been utilized by Ginsburger in his Pseudo-Jonathan (Berlin, 1903) . The same scholar has also edited the Paris manuscript (110) of the Fragmentary Targum (Das Fragmententkargum, Berlin, 1899) , to which he has added the variants from Cod. Vat. 440 and the manuscripts at Nuremberg and Leipzig. In the same edition are collected the various fragments of the Targum Jerushalmi, which are to be found in the early editions of the Pentateuch and in part also in various manuscripts. ”

“ The subscription (vii. 37, 38) is our chief guide to determining the original extent of the second group of laws (vi. 8 [Heb. vi. 1] –vii. 36) . From it we infer that originally the collection only dealt with the five chief sacrifices (vi. 8-13; 14-18; 24, 25, 27-30; vii. 1-6; 11-21) already discussed in i.–v., since only these are referred to in the colophon where they are given in the same order (the consecration-offering [v. 37] is probably due to the same redactor who introduced the gloss “in the day when he is anointed” in vi. 20) . ”

“ Yet another difficulty, which disappears as soon as the composite character of the narrative is recognized, is that of the signs. In J three signs are given for the purpose of reassuring Moses, only one of which is wrought with the rod (iv. 1-9) , but in iv. 17 (E) the reference is clearly to entirely different signs, probably the plagues of Egypt, which according to E were invariably wrought by “the rod of God.” Further, it is questionable if the passage iv. ”

“ Chap. xi. consists of two main sections, of which the first (vv. 1-23, 41-47) contains directions as to the clean and unclean animals which may or may not be used for food, while the second (vv: 24-40) treats of the defilement caused by contact with the carcases of unclean animals (in v. 39 f. contact with clean animals after death is also forbidden) , and prescribes certain rites of purification. ”

“ But, if no argument can be based on the discrepancy between the two names, we may at least assume that the namelessness of the priest in v. 16 f. points to a different source for those verses from that of iii. 1 f. Elsewhere J speaks of “Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law” (Num. x. 29) ; the addition, “the priest of Midian,” only occurs in the (secondary) passages iii. 1, xviii. 1 (E) . Probably RJE omitted the name in ii. 16 and added “the priest of Midian” in iii. ”

“ Elsewhere, [8] we only find references to certain passages of Scripture, viz., the stories of Reuben and Tamar (Gen. xxxv. 22 and xxxviii.) , the two accounts of the golden calf (Exod. xxxii.) , the blessing of the priests (Num. vi. 22 f.) , the stories of David and Amnon (2 Sam. xi., xii. and xiii.) , which might be either read and translated, or only read and not translated, or (according to a different tradition) neither read nor translated. ”

“ The people refuse to listen to Moses; (2) Aaron is appointed to be Moses’ spokesman, not with the people, but with Pharaoh; (3) one sign is given (not three) and performed before Pharaoh; (4) the rod is turned into a reptile (tannīn) , not a serpent (nāhāsh) .
(2) vii. 14–xi. 10. The First Plagues of Egypt.—In this section the analysis again reveals three main sources, which are clearly marked off from one another both by their linguistic features and by their difference of representation. The principal source is J, from which are derived six plagues, viz. ”

“ Of the remaining sections vi. 19-23 (Heb. 12-16) , the daily meal-offering of the (high-) priest, betrays its secondary origin by its absence from the subscription, cf. also the different introduction. Chaps. vi. 26 (Heb. 19) and vii. 7 assign the offering to the officiating priest in contrast to vi. 18 (Heb. 11) , 29 (Heb. 22) , vii. 6 (“every male among the priests”) , and possibly belong, together with vii. 8–10, to a separate collection which dealt especially with priestly dues. ”

“ This is made evident not only by the present position of chap. xii. which in v. 2 presupposes chap. xv. (cf. xv. 19) , and must originally have followed after that chapter, but also by the contents of the different sections, which exhibit clear traces of repeated revision. At the same time it seems, like chaps. i.–vii., xvii.–xxvi., to have been formed independently of P and to have been added to that document by a later editor; for in its present position it interrupts the main thread of P’s narrative, chap. xvi. forming the natural continuation of chap. x. ”

“ Sinai (or Horeb) , followed by the Decalogue in xx. 1-17. Alongside of this code we find another, dealing in part with the civil and social (xxi. 2–xxii. 17) , in part with the religious life of Israel, the so-called Book of the Covenant, xx. 22–xxiii. 19. Ch. xxiv. contains a composite narrative of the ratification of the covenant. In chs. xxxii. and xxxiii. we have again two narratives of the sin of the people and of Moses’ intercession, while in ch. xxxiv. we are confronted with yet another early code, which is practically identical with the religious enactments of xx. ”

“ But there are also points of difference both as regards phraseology and subject-matter, and in view of these latter it is impossible to hold that Ezekiel was either the author or compiler of this chapter.
Chap. xxvii. On the commutation of vows and tithes. The chapter as a whole must be assigned to a later stratum of P, for while vv. 2-25 (on vows) presuppose the year of Jubilee, the section on tithes, vv. 30-33, marks a later stage of development than Num. xviii. 21 ff. (P) ; vv. 26-29 (on firstlings and devoted things) are supplementary restrictions to vv. 2-25. ”

“ I, where the meaning is given as — " He who marries an Aramean woman and raiseth up children by her raiseth up enemies to God "; for another explanation, see Ginsburger, M.G.W.J., xliv. 5 f. ↑ Cf. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. ”

“ Num. xv. 24) , (3) the altar of incense is distinguished from the altar of burnt-offering (as opposed to Exod. xxix.; Lev. viii. ix.) . Chap. v. 1-13 have usually been regarded as an appendix to iv., setting forth (a) a number of typical cases for which a sin-offering is required (vv. 1-6) , and (b) certain concessions for those who could not afford the ordinary sin-offering (vv. 7-13) . But vv. 1-6, which are not homogeneous (vv. 2 and 3 treating of another question and interrupting vv. 1, 4, 5 f.) ”