The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

ALEXANDER The Tar gum of the Song of Songs 321
predisposition of certain scholars to hold the Targumim, particularly
the 'unofficial' Targumim of the Writings, in low esteem. They are
regarded as popular works designed for popular consumption, and no
hiddush is expected from them. This attitude is found among Jewish
scholars and is epitomized in the case of Targum Shir ha-Shirim by
the work of Pinkhos Churgin and E.Z. Melamed. I hesitate to say that
these scholars are reflecting a traditional rabbinic bias, since some of
the giants of rabbinic literature (notably Rashi) have clearly valued
the Targumim. But it is surely fair to say that within traditional
rabbinic circles a clear hierarchy exists in which Talmud takes pride
of place, followed by Midrash, with Targum coming up a long way in
the rear.
Whatever the origins of the bias, its effects are clear: the Targumim
tend to be treated as secondary, derivative, unoriginal works. Where
parallels exist between Targum and Midrash it is almost automatically
assumed that the Targum depends on the Midrash. Much work on
Targum Shir ha-Shirim, beginning already with Gill, has been
devoted to the search for parallels, and where a parallel is found in a
classic rabbinic text it tends to be identified as the source of the
Targum. And since by ransacking rabbinic literature from end to end
more or less convincing parallels can be found for over ninety per
cent of Targum Shir ha-Shirim, the work can be dissolved into a mere
pastiche of rabbinic tradition. This view, as I hinted earlier, is implicit
especially in the work of Churgin and Melamed. Churgin treats the
parallels to Targum Shir ha-Shirim under the heading, 'Sources of the
Aggadah of the Targum' (meqorot ha-aggadah shel ha-targum), while
in Melamed's article the central section on 'Targum Shir ha-Shirim
and Talmudic Literature' begins with a discussion of the 'use of the
sources' (shimmush ba-meqorot).
This position is highly questionable on a number of counts. First, as
Heinemann rightly objects in his penetrating criticism of Melamed, it
seems to presuppose a very static model of rabbinic tradition, in
which the tradition is viewed essentially as a collection of finished literary
works. This is manifestly incorrect. Rabbinic tradition was fluid
in late antiquity. Each of the classic documents of rabbinic literature
(including Mishnah and Talmud) is to a high degree textually unstable,
as an examination of the manuscripts will show. Even in the Middle
Ages the revered texts of the talmudic period were not simply copied,
but were, to an astonishing degree, recreated. Moreover, each of these