The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

322 The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context
works had its sources, so when we discover a parallel between
Targum Shir ha-Shirim and, say, Shir ha-Shirim Rabba, how are we
to decide whether the Targum is directly dependent on the Midrash,
or on the source of the Midrash? In many instances a given aggadah in
Targum Shir ha-Shirim can be paralleled from a number of different
midrashic and talmudic texts. How, in such cases, are we to choose
which is the 'source' of the Targum? Rabbinic tradition in late
antiquity was transmitted not only through written texts, but also
orally, through preaching in synagogue and through study and debate
in the schools. This mixture of oral and written media vastly complicates
the problem of literary dependence, and in many cases makes it
insoluble. The complexities of the situation are usually ignored. The
best we can do is to collect the attestations of a given aggadah, compare
and contrast them, and, hopefully in a few instances, postulate
some sort of tradition history.
There is a further objection. Most studies of Targum Shir ha-
Shirim suffer from acute parallelomania: parallels are simply thrown
side by side with little attempt at serious analysis. The parallels are of
very different kinds. They may be classified into two broad groups:
(1) aggadic, and (2) translational. The aggadic group comprises parallels
to the aggadic substance of the Targum; the translational group
comprises texts which parallel the way in which Targum Shir ha-
Shirim translates the biblical text, and which use the same, or similar,
Aramaic words to render the underlying Hebrew. Aggadic parallels
are found mainly (though not exclusively) in the Midrashim; translational
parallels are found in the other Targumim.
Aggadic Parallels
In almost every case the aggadic parallels to Targum turn out on
closer inspection to be inexact. They usually display small, but
significant differences. These differences are important since the
Rabbis, unlike ourselves, did not lay great store by originality.
Originality in their world was displayed by the subtle manipulation of
tradition. The sort of nuancing to which I am alluding may be illustrated
from Song 5.1:
I have come into my garden, my sister, bride,
I have gathered my myrrh with my spice,
I have consumed my honeycomb with my honey,