Zhakevich Ishmael 2020

Journal of Semitic Studies LXV/1 Spring 2020 doi: 10.
1093/jss/fgz052
© The author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester.
All rights reserved.
THE NEGATIVE IMAGE

AND THE REPENTANCE OF ISHMAEL
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

IN TARGUM PSEUDO-JONATHAN:
SOME IMPLICATIONS
FOR AN ANTI-ISLAMIC POLEMIC
Iosif J. Zhakevich
THE MASTER’S SEMINARY, LOS ANGELES
Abstract
The image of Ishmael in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Tg. Ps.-J.) has

been interpreted either as thoroughly negative or as ambiguous. While
the negative presentation of Ishmael has been used to argue for an
anti-Ishmael and an anti-Islamic polemic within the Targum, the Tar-
gum’s mention of Ishmael’s repentance has been submitted as evi-
dence of the Targum’s ambiguous perspective of Ishmael, with the
implication that Tg. Ps.-J. is not anti-Ishmael and therefore not anti-
Islamic. Beyond this, each interpretation has been used to argue for
a relative date of the composition of Tg. Ps.-J. — an ambiguous image
suggesting a pre-Islamic date, and a negative image suggesting a post-
Islamic date. Focusing on the implications of Ishmael’s repentance for
the image of Ishmael in Tg. Ps-J, this paper seeks to show that the
repentance of Ishmael does not subvert the Targum’s negative por-
trayal of Ishmael. On the one hand, the targumist exploits Ishmael’s
repentance to honour Abraham and Isaac, not Ishmael. On the other,
the targumist confirms the negative image of Ishmael by disparaging
him in the very context of his repentance. This conclusion, then,
affirms that (1) Ishmael is a thoroughly negative character-type in Tg.
Ps-J; that (2) the negative representation of Ishmael is a plausible liter-
ary device used to deliver an anti-Islamic polemic; and that (3) the
composition of Tg. Ps.-J. is better suited for a post-Islamic date —
when a Jewish targumist would have had reason to disparage a tradi-
tional ancestor of Islam and in this way to promote the Jewish claim
of superiority over Islam.
Introduction
The thoroughly negative presentation of Ishmael in Tg. Ps.-J. has

been interpreted as a form of anti-Islamic polemic. However, while
the Targum certainly exhibits a wicked Ishmael, two references to
223
101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 223 30/01/2020 12:39

THE NEGATIVE IMAGE AND THE REPENTANCE OF ISHMAEL
Ishmael’s repentance raise questions regarding the Targum’s ultimate

commitment to a dark depiction of Ishmael. Is the Targum consist-
ently antagonistic toward Ishmael? Or is the attitude of the Targum
toward Ishmael ambiguous, if not favourable? The answers to these

questions have implications for the claim that the Targum bears an
anti-Islamic sentiment. If Tg. Ps.-J. is ambiguous toward Ishmael,
then the claim that it is anti-Islamic is undermined, inasmuch as an
ambivalent perspective of Ishmael is evident in pre-Islamic Jewish
literature and even in the Bible itself.1 However, if Tg. Ps.-J. is,
indeed, thoroughly anti-Ishmael — even with the references to Ish-
mael’s repentance — then the conclusion that the Targum is anti-
Islamic is reinforced, inasmuch as a fervently negative portrayal of
Ishmael became more prominent in Jewish literature with the rise
of Islam. C. Bakhos explains that ‘The emergence of Islam’s political
power fostered dismissive, vitriolic rabbinic depictions of Ishmael.
Even though not all depictions after the Islamic conquest are invidi-
ous, there is a greater rabbinic tendency to portray Ishmael critically
than is found in pre-Islamic rabbinic sources’.2 Therefore, a consist-
ently antagonistic presentation of Ishmael in Tg. Ps.-J. would corre-
spond well with a time period during which Islam would have secured
its hegemony in the Near East, and when a Jewish targumist would
have had good reason to disparage a traditional ancestor of Islam and
in this way Islam itself.3
Indeed, the dark portrayal of Ishmael in Tg. Ps.-J. is impressively
comprehensive. From the time of his very origins, Ishmael is pre-
sented in a negative light — at Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 16, as one who is not
the son of promise, and at 22:1, as the son of a slave girl (cf. 21:10–
14). R. Hayward, however, contests this interpretation of Tg. Ps.-J.
Gen. 16, and suggests that Ishmael is presented favourably within the
context of 16:1–5 inasmuch as Hagar is freed (16:3), which, in his
view, implies that Ishmael is depicted as ‘the son of a freed woman’.4
But three factors undermine the view that Hagar’s freed state implies
a favourable perspective of Ishmael within the Targum. First, Tg.
1 On Ishmael in the Bible, see C. Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border: Rabbinic Por-
trayals of the First Arab (State University of New York Series, Albany 2006), 13–23;
and note R.E. Friedman, Commentary on the Torah with a New English Translation
and the Hebrew Text (San Francisco 2001), 71, n. 11; and on Ishmael in Tannaitic
and Amoraic literature, see Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border, 31–45.
2 Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border, 3.
3 Ibid., 95–6.
4 Robert Hayward, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, JSS
34:1 (1989), 79.
224

Ps.-J. never actually refers to Ishmael as the son of a freed woman.

Rather, as noted above, Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 21:10, 12, 13 and 22:1
explicitly refer to Ishmael as the son of a slave girl. In fact, pace
Hayward, these passages make great play of Ishmael’s birth to a slave

girl to contend for Ishmael’s inferiority and Isaac’s superiority (esp.
22:1).5 Second, the narrative continues to refer to Hagar as a slave
girl despite the fact that she is freed, as Hayward himself admits, cit-
ing 21:14 (see also 16:4, 6, 8; 21:10, 12, 13, 14; 22:1; 25:12).6 This,
in effect, suggests that the narrative continues to view Hagar as a slave
girl and, by implication, Ishmael as the son of a slave girl. The tar-
gumist’s perspective appears to be that the essence of Hagar’s charac-
ter as that of a slave is not done away with even though Hagar is
granted freedom.7 Third, Hagar is freed for the sake of Abraham’s
honour, not for the sake of Ishmael — that is, so that Abraham
would not be depicted marrying a slave girl, not so that Ishmael
would be viewed favourably. Indeed, b. Yebam. 100b clearly states
that Abraham must not marry a slave girl: ‘To be a God to you
[Abraham] and to your seed after you. What does the All Merciful
exhort him with regard to this? It is that which he said to him: Do
5 Hayward, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, 79. See also
A. Shapira, ‘‫מוסלמי בתרגום המיוחס ליונתן לפרשת העקדה‬-‫’עקבות פולמוס אנטי‬,

(‘Traces of an Anti-Moslem Polemic in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Parashah “Aqe-
dah”’) Tarbiz 54 (1985), 293–6, esp. 293–4; and B. Chilton, ‘Genesis in Aramaic:
The Example of Chapter 22’, in C.A. Evans, J.N. Lohr and D.L. Petersen (eds),
The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Supplements to
Vetus Testamentum 152, Leiden 2012), 495–518.
6 Hayward, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, 79.
7 See PRE 30; Gen. R. 45.6; L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (trans. Henrietta
Szold, Philadelphia 1968), 1:239, 264; 5:232, n. 122; H. Feivel Ben-Mendel, ‫תרגום‬
‫שמות‬-‫ בראשית‬:‫( יונתן בן עוזיאל על התורה עם פירוש יונתן‬Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel
on the Torah with the Interpretation of Jonathan: Genesis–Exodus) (Lakewood 2009),
253 (‫ רנג‬in ‫ ;)בראשית‬A. Shinan, ‫ תיאור וניתוח ספרותי של‬:‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬
‫החומר האגדי המשוקע בכל התרגומים הארמיים הארץ ישראליים לחמשה חומשי תורה‬
(The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch) (Jerusalem 1979), 1:139–
40, n. 86; cf. idem, ‘The “Palestinian” Targums––Repetitions, Internal Unity, Con-
tradictions’, JJS 36:1 (1985), 85, n. 46; B. Schmerler, ‫ ספר בר�א‬:‫סרפר אהבת יהונתן‬
‫( שית‬Ahavat Yehonatan: The Book of Genesis) (Poland 1932; repr., Brooklyn 1992),
195; É. Levine, ‘Internal Contradictions in Targum Jonathan Ben Uzziel to Gen-
esis’, Aug 9, no. 1 (1969), 118; idem, ‘‫’מקורות סותרים בתרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל‬, (‘Con-
flicting Sources in Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel’) Sinai 64 (1968), 37; idem, The
Aramaic Version of the Bible (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wis-
senschaft, Berlin 1988), 35–6; M. Maher (ed. and trans.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 1B, Collegeville 1992), 75, n. 15; Wenham observes
this tension between Gen. 16:3 and 21:10–13 already in the Hebrew Bible, for
which see G.J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2, Dallas 1998), 6.
225

not marry an idolatress or a slave girl so that your seed would not go after
her’ (italics mine).8 Considering the question of Abraham’s dignity at
Genesis 16, A. Shinan explains that it is inconceivable for the targu-
mist that Abraham would have married a slave girl; therefore, con-

cludes Shinan, the targumist has Sarah free Hagar.9 In the end, there-
fore, despite Hagar’s freed state to marry Abraham, the observations
mentioned above suggest that the Targum views Ishmael in a negative
light from the very time of his origins.10
8 For b. Yebam. 100b, see I.W. Slotki and I. Epstein (eds and trans), Hebrew-
English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud: Yebamoth (London 1984), 100b. See also
b. Giṭ. 41a–b, which discusses the legal prohibition of marriage between a slave (or
a half-slave) and a free person; b. Pesaḥ. 113a, which presupposes the principle that
a slave must be freed before marrying a free person. For more comments on
Abraham marrying Hagar and the honour of the patriarchs, see Maher, Pseudo-
Jonathan: Genesis, 62, n. 3; Schmerler, ‫ בראשית‬:‫אהבת יהונתן‬, 138–9; Ben-Mendel,
‫שמות‬-‫ בראשית‬:‫תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל על התורה עם פירוש יונתן‬, 146–7 (‫ קמו–קמז‬in
‫;)בראשית‬ Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, 2:318; idem, ‘Post-Pentateuchal Figures in
the Pentateuchal Aramaic Targumim’, in K.J. Cathcart and M. Maher (eds), Tar-
gumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara (JSOT Supple-
ment 230, trans. H. Davis, Sheffield 1996), 132, n. 30; idem, The World of the
Aggadah (Tel Aviv 1990), 41; Y. Komlosh, ‫( המקרא באור התרגום‬Ramat-Gan 1973),
208–16; M. Aberbach, ‘Patriotic Tendencies in Targum Onkelos’, Journal of
Hebraic Studies 1 (1969), 13–24; idem, ‘Patriotic Tendencies in Targum Jonathan
to the Prophets’, Hebrew Abstracts 15 (1974), 89–90; and compare R. Syrén,
‘Ishmael and Esau in the Book of Jubilees and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’, in
D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (eds), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their
Historical Context (JSOT Supplement 166, Sheffield 1992), 313.
9 In the original: ‫ שהרי לא ייתכן‬,‫שרה שיחררה את הגר לפני שנתנה אותה לאברהם‬
‫( שנשא שפחה‬Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, 2:318). See also similar expansions at

Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 30:4–21 with regard to the patriarch Jacob and Rachel’s slave girl
Bilhah and Leah’s slave girl Zilpah. For comments, see Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan:
Genesis, 115, n. 2; Schmerler, ‫ בראשית‬:‫אהבת יהונתן‬, 227–31; and Ben-Mendel,
‫שמות‬-‫ בראשית‬:‫תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל על התורה עם פירוש יונתן‬, 252–6 (‫ רנב–רנו‬in
‫)בראשית‬. For comments on the biblical text, see N.M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS
Torah Commentary, Philadelphia 1989), 208–10; H. Gunkel, Genesis (Mercer
Library of Biblical Studies, trans. M.E. Biddle, Macon 1997), 325–7; J. Skinner,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC, New York 1910), 386–8;
C. Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (A Continental Commentary, trans. J.J. Scullion,
Minneapolis 1985), 473–7; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 244–8.
10 Similar reasoning answers Hayward’s contention that Ishmael is depicted
positively at Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 50:1, where the house of Ishmael (‫וגוברןין מן דבית יש�מ‬
‫‘ עאל‬men of the house of Ishmael’) is present at the deathbed of Jacob. That is, the
passage attributes honour not to Ishmael, but to Jacob. On the one hand, no posi-
tive statement is attributed to the house of Ishmael. On the other, Jacob is the focal
point of honour — Joseph lays Jacob in a richly ornamented bed; Judah delivers
a speech in honour of Jacob; and Joseph honours Jacob with a kiss. See Hayward,
‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, 79.
226

Beyond his origins, the negative portrayal of Ishmael only ampli-

fies. At Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 21:9 (cf. vv. 11, 15–16), Ishmael is depicted
‘sporting with an idol and bowing down to it’ (the italic font marks
Tg. Ps.-J.’s additions to the Hebrew text);11 at 21:10 (cf. 25:11),

Ishmael is perceived as someone who would ‘make war with Isaac’;12
at 21:12, God declares that Ishmael ‘abandoned the training you
[Abraham] have given him’ and that he ‘shall not be recorded [in the
genealogies] after you [Abraham]’;13 at 21:13, God promises to make
Ishmael into ‘a nation of robbers’;14 at 21:17, an angel states that
Ishmael is destined to do evil deeds;15 at 25:11, Abraham does not
11 E.G. Clarke’s edition has a textual error at Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 21:9. Clarke’s
edition states that Ishmael was bowing down to the Lord (‫מגחך לפולחנא נוכראה‬
‫ ;וגחין לייי‬as also the ancient printed editions, but spelled ‫)ליי‬, while the manuscript
actually states that Ishmael was bowing down to ‘it’ (‫)לה‬, the antecedent of which
is an idol )‫ (לפולחנא‬:‫מגחך לפולחנא נוכראה וגחין לה‬. For Clarke’s edition, see
E.G. Clarke et al. (eds), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Con-
cordance (Hoboken 1984), at Gen. 21:9. For the digitized manuscript, see http://
www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_27031 (Gen. 21:9 at f. 21v;
eighth line from the bottom of the page). See also M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan
(Thargum Jonathan Ben Usiel Zum Pentateuch) Nach Der Londoner Handschrift (Brit.
Mus. Add. 27031) (Berlin 1903), 34; R. Le Déaut with J. Robert (eds and trans),
Targum du pentateuque: Traduction des deux recensions palestiniennes complètes avec
introduction, parallèles, notes et index, Genèse (Sources Cretiennes 245, Paris 1978),
209; A. Díez Macho et al., Targum Palaestinense in Pentateuchum: Additur Targum
Pseudojonatan Ejusque Hispanica Versio (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia IV, Madrid
1977–88), 133, n. 9; D. Rieder and M. Zamir, ‫תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל על התורה‬
‫שמות‬-‫ בראשית‬:‫( מתורגם לעברית עם באורים ציוני מקורות ומקבילות‬Targum Jonathan
ben Uzziel on the Torah Translated into Hebrew with Explanatory Notes, Comments
on Sources, and Parallels: Genesis–Exodus) (Jerusalem 1984), 28, n. 7 (in the Aramaic
section); and 45, n. 8 (in the Hebrew section); and for some additional remarks,
see Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 75, n. 8. For more on Ishmael practicing
idolatry, see Gen. R. 53.11, 14; t. Soṭ. 6.6; Sif. Deut. 31; Exod. R. 1.1; PRE 30.
12 Gen. R. 53.11 and PRE 30 record that Ishmael tried to kill Isaac; and cf. Gal.
4:29. See also A. Gold (ed.), The Torah: With the Baal HaTurim’s Classic Com-
mentary: Bereishis (Artscroll Series, New York 1999), 163; Ben-Mendel, ‫תרגום יונתן‬
‫שמות‬-‫ בראשית‬:‫בן עוזיאל על התורה עם פירוש יונתן‬, 179 (‫ קעט‬in ‫ ;)בראשית‬Gunkel,
Genesis, 226.
13 See comments in J. Heinemann, ‫( אגדות ותולדותיהן‬Jerusalem 1974), 189–90.
14 See Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 75, n. 14; M. Ohana, ‘La polémique
judéo-islamique et l’image d’Ismaël dans Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de

Rabbi Eliezer’, Augustinianum 15:3 (1975), 369; for Hayward’s perspective, see
Hayward, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, 86–9; and for
more on the depiction of Ishmael’s descendants as robbers, see Bakhos, Ishmael on
the Border, 67–8.
15 Moreover, Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 21:17 suggests that the only reason God has mercy
on Ishmael is on account of Abraham’s merit; but cf. Exod. R. 3.2; L. Ginzberg,

Legends of the Jews (trans. Henrietta Szold, Philadelphia 1968), 1:265.
227

want to bless Ishmael, and again Ishmael is portrayed as potentially

hostile to Isaac;16 at 28:9, the lineages of Ishmael and Esau (two
rejected sons) are associated by means of Esau’s marriage to Ishmael’s
daughter (cf. 36:3);17 at 35:22, Ishmael is identified as an ‘unworthy

one’;18 at Tg. Ps.-J. Num. 7:87, the text states that ‘the twelve chiefs
of Ishmael will perish’;19 and at Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 33:2, the Ishmaelites
reject the Law that God offers to them.20 This overview demonstrates
that the image of Ishmael in Tg. Ps.-J. is remarkably negative. Thus,
albeit focusing particularly on the negative portrayal of Ishmael at Tg.
Ps.-J. Gen. 21:9–21, M. Ohana argues pointedly that Tg. Ps.-J. is
anti-Islamic, the implication of which is that Tg. Ps.-J. is a post-
Islamic composition.21
16 See Gen. R. 53.11; 61.5, 6; Exod. R. 1.1; M. ben Solomon ben Isaac, ‫מדרש‬
‫ בראשית‬:‫( שכל טוב‬Jerusalem 2008), 102 (‫ ;)קב‬Schmerler, ‫ בראשית‬:‫אהבת יהונתן‬,
197–8; Ben-Mendel, ‫שמות‬-‫ בראשית‬:‫תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל על התורה עם פירוש יונתן‬,
210 (‫ רי‬in ‫ ;)בראשית‬cf. Rashi on Gen. 25:11, where Rashi states that Abraham
feared blessing Isaac because he foresaw Esau coming from Isaac. Rashi in
M.L. Katzenellenbogen (ed.), ‫ חמשה חומשי תורה עם ההפטרות‬:‫ בראשית‬:‫תורת חיים‬
(Torat Hayyim: Genesis: Five Books of Torah with the Haftarot) (Jerusalem 1993),
1:293 (‫)רצג‬.
17 See Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border, 60. The qualification ‘the sister of Nebaioth
by his mother’ likely hearkens back to Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 21:21, in which Ishmael is
said to have had two wives — Adisha and Fatima — and, more broadly, the context
in which Ishmael is cast out of Abraham’s home. See Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan:
Genesis, 99, n. 5; 76, n. 27; and H.Z. Hirschberg, ‫על מקומם של התרגומים הארמיים‬
‫בחיי עמנו‬, (‘The Place of the Aramaic Targumim in the Life of Our People’) Bar
Ilan 1 (1963), 16–23.
18 See Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 121, n. 23; Le Déaut and Robert, Tar-
gum du pentateuque: Genèse, 328, n. 15.

19 See comments in M. McNamara and E.G. Clarke (eds and trans), Targum
Neofiti 1: Numbers and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers (The Aramaic Bible 4,

Collegeville 1995), 209, n. 32.
20 Sifre Deut., 343; J.Z. Lauterbach, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edi-
tion, based on the Manuscripts and Early Editions, with an English Translation, Intro-
duction, and Notes2 (Philadelphia 2004), 2:317 (on Exod. 20:2); PRE 319; and for
the significance of Deut. 33:2 in Islam, see Ohana, ‘La polémique judéo-islamique’,
382.
21 Ohana, ‘La polémique judéo-islamique’, 367–87. See D.M. Splansky, ‘Tar� -
gum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targumim, Use of Midrashim,
and Date’, unpublished PhD dissertation (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute
of Religion 1981); A. Shinan, ‘Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some More Com-
ments’, JJS 41 (1990), 57–61; idem, ‘The “Palestinian” Targums –– Repetitions,
Internal Unity, Contradictions’, 72–87; idem, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, 2:349, n. 235.
For a discussion on this matter more generally, see P.V.M. Flesher and B. Chilton,
The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Studies in Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture
228

While numerous scholars have accepted this perspective,22 Hayward

has expressed a dissenting opinion, advancing a variety of arguments
— among which he mentioned the repentance of Ishmael — and
contending that the image of Ishmael is not exclusively negative in

Tg. Ps-J, but that it is, to the contrary, ‘ambiguous’.23 On account
of this, he concludes that the Targum is not clearly anti-Islamic and,
therefore, not post-Islamic.24 In his reference to Ishmael’s repentance,
in fact, Hayward remarks that ‘A favourable view of Ishmael is also
given by Ps-Jon of Gen. 25:8, which records that he repented at the
time of Abraham’s death’ (italics mine).25 Although Hayward’s com-
ment on Ishmael’s repentance is brief, his notice of this detail is
important, inasmuch as Ishmael’s repentance raises the question
regarding the ultimate depiction of Ishmael in Tg. Ps-J. Indeed,
Ishmael’s repentance contributed to Hayward’s broader conclusion
that ‘it is very probably a mistake to regard Ps-Jon as a document
engaged in dispute with Islam’.26 Moreover, though his reference to
Ishmael’s repentance is undeveloped, it nonetheless adds to his thesis
that the composition of Tg. Ps.-J. should not be assigned to a post-
Islamic date — when a Jewish targumist might have had reason to
serve a polemic against the Islamic power — but that it should be
dated to an earlier, pre-Islamic period.
12, Leiden 2011), 71–3 and 87–9. For remarks on anti-Ishmael rabbinic literature
during the Islamic hegemony, see Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border, 2–3, 95.
22 For some proponents of a late-date of Tg. Ps.-J., see Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan:
Genesis, 12; Splansky, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targu-

mim, Use of Midrashim, and Date’, 92–3; Shinan, ‘Dating Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan: Some More Comments’, 57–61; idem, ‘The “Palestinian” Targums––
Repetitions, Internal Unity, Contradictions’, 72–87; idem, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬,
2:349, n. 235. For works by R. Hayward, an advocate of an early date of Tg. Ps.-J.,
see C.T.R. Hayward, ‘Inconsistencies and Contradictions in Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan: The Case of Eliezer and Nimrod’, JSS 37:1 (1992), 31–55; R. Hayward,
‘Red Heifer and Golden Calf: Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’, in P.V.M. Flesher
(ed.), Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums (SFSHJ 55, Tar-
gum Studies 1, Atlanta 1992), 9–32; idem, ‘The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
Some Comments’, JJS 40 (1989), 7–30; idem, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-
Islamic Polemic’, 77–93; and idem, ‘Jacob’s Second Visit to Bethel in Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan’, in P.R. Davies and R.T. White (eds), A Tribute to Geza Vermes:
Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT Supplement Series 100,
Sheffield 1990), 175–92.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., 78.
229

Recognizing the significance of Ishmael’s repentance for this dis-

cussion, this paper seeks to analyse the two references to this tradition
at Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 25:8 and 25:17, and to ascertain the implications
of this repentance for the image of Ishmael within the Targum.

The primary question in view is: Do Tg. Ps.-J.’s two references to
Ishmael’s repentance betray an equivocal perspective of Ishmael? And
the secondary question, addressed briefly toward the end of this dis-
cussion, is: How does Ishmael’s repentance affect the contention that
Tg. Ps.-J. engaged in an anti-Islamic polemic?
In response to these questions, analysis of Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 25:7–11
and 25:17 serves to demonstrate that Ishmael’s repentance in Tg.
Ps.-J. does not undo the Targum’s negative characterization of Ish-
mael. Even with the repentance of Ishmael, Ishmael is not depicted
as a positive or even an ambiguous character, but indeed as a negative
character-type. Consequently, the negative image of Ishmael in Tg.
Ps.-J. is sustained, and this overwhelmingly negative characterization
of Ishmael is best explained by situating this Targum within a histori-
cal context in which such a depiction of Ishmael would have had
good reason — the context being an Islamic hegemony in which
anti-Ishmael rhetoric would have functioned as an anti-Islamic
polemic.
The Repentance of Ishmael
Three observations within Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 25:7–11 and 25:17 suggest
that even with Ishmael’s repentance, Ishmael is still perceived by Tg.
Ps.-J. to be a negative character, and that Ishmael’s repentance does
not betray an ‘ambiguous attitude towards Ishmael’.27 First, the tar-
gumist exploits Ishmael’s repentance at 25:8 to honour Abraham, not
Ishmael. Second, Ishmael’s repentance at 25:17 presupposes a tradi-
tion that renders tribute to Isaac, not to Ishmael. Third, despite the
two references to Ishmael’s repentance at 25:8 and 25:17, the targu-
mist expressly disparages Ishmael at 25:11 — in the very context of
Ishmael’s repentance — thus reaffirming the view that Ishmael’s
repentance does not rehabilitate Ishmael’s wicked character-type.
The text of Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 25:7–11 and 25:17 reads as follows
(the italic font marks Tg. Ps.-J.’s additions to the Hebrew text):
7 Thisis the total of the days of the life of Abraham, who lived a hun-
dred and seventy-five years. 8 Abraham expired and died in a good old
27 Pace Hayward, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, 79.
230

age, old and satisfied, with everything good; even Ishmael had repented
in his days; and then he was gathered in to his people. 9 His sons Isaac
and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Kapheltah, in the field of Ephron
son of Zohar the Hittite, which faces Mamre, 10 the field that Abraham

bought from the sons of the Hittite. There Abraham was buried, and
Sarah his wife. 11 Because Abraham had not wished to bless Ishmael, he
had not blessed Isaac either; for if he had blessed Isaac and had not blessed
Ishmael, the latter would have hated him. But after Abraham had died
the Lord blessed Isaac his son. And Isaac dwelt near the well where the
Glory of the Living and Enduring One, who sees but is not seen, was
revealed to him.
…
17 These are the years of the life of Ishmael: a hundred and thirty-seven
years. He repented and expired and was gathered in to his people.28
Ishmael’s Repentance at 25:8

In seeking to understand the meaning and the implications of Ish-
mael’s repentance, two fundamental questions of literary nature must
be raised: Why does Tg. Ps.-J. introduce Ishmael’s repentance into
these specific texts? And what does Tg. Ps.-J. achieve with these
expansions within these texts?
Analysis of 25:8 suggests that the targumist introduces Ishmael’s
repentance into this verse in response to the noticeably positive
description of Abraham’s death in the Hebrew text, and with this,
the mention of Ishmael’s repentance ultimately serves to honour
Abraham. The Hebrew text at 25:8 states that Abraham died ‘in
a good old age, an old man and full of years’ ‫טֹובה זָ ֵקן וְ ָש ֵב ַע‬
ָ ‫ב ֵש ָיבה‬.
ְ
This remarkable statement prompts the question: Why did Abraham
die so well? N. Sarna observes that ‘Such a summation of a life is
found with no other personality in biblical literature. The phrase
describes not his longevity, which is otherwise mentioned, but the
quality of his earthly existence’.29 Perceiving this peculiarity of the
description of Abraham’s death, Gen. R. 30.4 also attempts to discern
the meaning of this positive language concerning the death of Abra-
ham, though focusing on this matter at Gen. 15:15 rather than 25:8.30
28 Cf. translation in Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 88–9. Onqelos,

Neofiti, Neofiti Marginalia and the Genizah Manuscripts lack these expansions
at 25:8 and 17.
29 Sarna, Genesis, JPS, 174. Cf. Gen. 15:15. For a discussion of the old ages of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, see M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideo-
logical Literature and the Drama of Reading (ISBL, Bloomington 1985), 349–54.
30 See also Gen. R. 59.7.
231

The answer that both Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 25:8 and Gen. R. 30.4 provide
is that Abraham died well, at least in part, because Ishmael repented.
The link between Abraham’s good death and Ishmael’s repentance
is clearly manifested in the Targum in the fact that the targumist adds

the phrase ‘with everything good’ ‫כל טובא‬, thus emphasizing the
good manner of Abraham’s death, and then explains the meaning of
the good death by stating that ‘even Ishmael repented’ ‫ברם ישמעאל‬
‫עבד תתובא‬, thus indicating that Abraham’s good death was partly
due to Ishmael’s repentance. As a whole, then, this expanded text
reads: ‘in a good old age, old and satisfied, with everything good; even
Ishmael repented in his days; and then he was gathered in to his people’
‫בשיבו טבא סיב ושבע כל טובא ברם ישמעאל עבד תתובא ביומוי ובתר כן‬
‫אתכנש לעמיה‬. Also, by adding ‘in his days’ ‫ ביומוי‬as well as ‘and
afterwards’ ‫ ובתר כן‬the targumist indicates that Abraham died only
after Ishmael repented, in this way establishing that Abraham saw the
repentance of Ishmael and that it, therefore, contributed to his dying
well.31 In effect, the targumist’s integration of Ishmael’s repentance
into 25:8 proves to have been an exegetical step of unpacking the
unique text in the biblical passage, which, significantly, pertains to
Abraham, not to Ishmael.
On account of this, the literary function of Ishmael’s repentance
manifests itself to be to honour Abraham, not Ishmael. In other
words, the targumist employs the tradition of Ishmael’s repentance
to show reverence to Abraham by explaining how this repentance
positively contributed to Abraham’s death.32 This concern to honour
the patriarchs, especially in light of a potential stain they might suffer
on account of wicked children, fits well the context of Tg. Ps.-J. on
a broader level. For example, the father’s fear of having an unworthy
and wicked son is expressed in Tg. Ps.-J. explicitly in the case
of Jacob and his sons. At Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 35:22, in the context of
Reuben violating Jacob’s concubine Bilhah, the response of Jacob is
recorded as follows: ‘When Israel heard of it he was distressed, and
he said, “Woe! Perhaps an unworthy person has gone forth from me,
as Ishmael went forth from Abraham and Esau went forth from my
father”’. Similarly, Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 6:4 recalls Jacob on his deathbed
and articulates the same concern of Jacob having a son who is unfit.
The passage reads: ‘And it was, when the time was reached for our
father Jacob to be gathered from the midst of the world, he was afraid
31 Schmerler,‫ בראשית‬:‫אהבת יהונתן‬, 197.

32 Forremarks on Ishmael’s repentance more generally in Jewish literature, see
Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border, 36.
232

lest there be a defect among his sons. He called them and asked them:
“Is there any guile in your hearts?” All of them replied as one and
said to him: “Hear, Israel, our father, the Lord our God, the Lord is
one”. Jacob answered and said: “Blessed be his glorious Name for

ever and ever”’. Commenting specifically on Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 35:22,
but citing Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 6:4 as well, A. Samely writes: ‘The worry
of Jacob and other patriarchs about whether their sons may turn out
to be a “blemish” ‫ פסולא‬is a topos to which the targums return time
and again’ (italics original).33 Evidently being concerned with this
matter with respect to Abraham and his son Ishmael, the targumist
demonstrates that this threat of having an unworthy son is ultimately
averted inasmuch as Ishmael repents and, as the targumist makes
clear, Abraham consequently dies a good death. One might contend,
then, that Ishmael is by implication perceived positively; however,
the targumist actually quells this implication by focusing on Abraham
as the beneficiary, rather than by cultivating Ishmael’s positive char-
acter on account of his repentance.
The targumist, in fact, is not alone in making much of Ishmael’s
repentance for the sake of Abraham, rather than for the sake of
Ishmael. Various midrashim also utilize Ishmael’s repentance to
revere Abraham. In Gen. R. 30.4 (cf. 38.12), briefly mentioned
above, the dialogue cites Gen. 15:15 and states: ‘You shall be buried
in a good old age. He [God] informed him [Abraham] that Ishmael
would repent’.34 In other words, the mention of ‘a good old age’ in
reference to Abraham’s death prompted this midrash to associate
Abraham’s death with the repentance of Ishmael. In Gen. R. 59.7 on
Gen. 24:1, Ishmael’s repentance is once again mentioned in the con-
text of Abraham’s old age and the blessing that he receives from God.
The biblical version of Gen. 24:1 reads: ‘Now Abraham was old, well
advanced in years; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things’.
In its discussion of this verse, Gen. R. 59.7 reads: ‘And the Lord had
blessed Abraham in all things…. R. Levy said: This refers to three
things: that He made him master over his evil inclination, that
Ishmael repented, and that his storehouses had no shortage in any
regard’.35 According to this midrash, God’s blessing of Abraham ‘in
33 A. Samely, The Interpretation of Speech in the Pentateuch Targums: A Study of
Method and Presentation in Targumic Exegesis (TSAJ 27, Tübingen 1992), 75. See
also Neofiti Deut. 6:4 and Fragment Targumim Deut. 6:4.
34 J. Theodor and C. Albeck (eds), ‫ עם מראה מקומות וחילופי‬:‫מדרש בראשית רבא‬
‫( נוסחאות‬Midrash Bereshit Rabbah) (Veröffentlichungen der Akademie für die Wis-

senschaft des Judentums, Jerusalem 1965), 30.4 )‫(ל"ד‬, 1:271.
35 Theodor-Albeck, ‫מדרש בראשית רבא‬, 59.7 )‫(נט״ז‬, 2:635–6.
233

all things’ included Ishmael’s repentance.36 Assuming a similar per-

spective at Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 25:8, the targumist understands the remark
that Abraham died well to be related to the fact that Abraham saw
the repentance of Ishmael.37

As regards 25:8, then, Tg. Ps-J’s mention of Ishmael’s repentance
is prompted by the text describing Abraham’s remarkably good death,
and the Targum exploits the tradition of Ishmael’s repentance to
honour Abraham. Ishmael, in effect, is not even the focus of his
repentance in this expansion. Consequently, Ishmael’s repentance at
25:8 does not so much exhibit a positive depiction of Ishmael, as it
does the Targum’s commitment to honouring Abraham.
Ishmael’s Repentance at 25:17

With the second mention of Ishmael’s repentance at 25:17, the two
questions once again arise: Why does Tg. Ps.-J. introduce Ishmael’s
repentance into this specific text? And what does Tg. Ps.-J. do with
this expansion within the pericope?
On the one hand, the reiteration of Ishmael’s repentance at 25:17,
in such close proximity to 25:8 and without further elaboration,
results in a shared literary context. Thus, as at 25:8, so by implication
at 25:17 Abraham is the one who ultimately benefits from Ishmael’s
repentance. In other words, the reference to Ishmael’s repentance at
25:17 appears to hearken back to the reference of his repentance
36 For an analysis of this verse in the biblical text, see Sternberg, Poetics of Bibli-
cal Narrative, 349.

37 Repentance is a recurring theme in Tg. Ps.-J. On the repentance of Cain, see
Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 4:13, 24 (see Gen. R. 22.11; Lev. R. 10.5; PRE 21; b. Sanh. 101b;
Josephus, Ant. 1 §58; Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1:111; 5:140, n. 24; and
Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 34, n. 32; J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic
Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture [London 1969],
139–40; E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, The World and Wisdom
of the Rabbis of the Talmud [trans. Israel Abrahams, Cambridge 1975], 467–8; and
Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, 2:313–5); on the repentance of Reuben, see Tg. Ps.-J.
Gen. 37:29, and cf. 35:22; 49:4, 28; and Deut. 6:4 (see Gen. R. 84.19; 98.4; PRE
24; and Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 126, n. 23; 157, n. 11; Samely, Interpre-
tation of Speech, 75, 79); on the repentance of Judah, see Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 38:25–6
(see Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 2:34–5; 5:335, nn. 87–9; and Maher, Pseudo-
Jonathan: Genesis, 129, n. 19); and for other references to repentance, or to a lack
thereof, see Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 6:3 (cf. 7:4); 18:21; 19:24; Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 2:12, 25;
33:7; 34:7; 40:7; Tg. Ps.-J. Num. 14:18; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 30:1–20. For a general
discussion of repentance, see Urbach, Sages, 462–71; A.J. Heschel, Heavenly Torah:
as Refracted through the Generations (ed. and trans. Gordon Tucker, New York
2007), 179–84.
234

at 25:8, and by virtue of the shared literary context, 25:17 relies upon
and reaffirms the point at 25:8 that Abraham is the beneficiary of
Ishmael’s repentance.38
On the other hand, analysis of the specific text pertaining to

Ishmael’s repentance at 25:17 points to yet another beneficiary of this
repentance, that is, Isaac, though in a different way than that of
Abraham. As at 25:8, the starting point of the expansion at 25:17 is
the particular wording of the Hebrew text. However, in this instance,
the text that prompted the targumist to introduce Ishmael’s repent-
ance into this verse is the unexpected description of the death of
Ishmael himself. And yet, despite the targumist’s explication of the
description of Ishmael’s death, the tribute still does not go to Ishmael,
but, as will be shown, to Isaac. For a tradition associated with 25:17
reveals that Ishmael’s repentance signifies Ishmael’s personal acknowl-
edgment of Isaac’s priority over Ishmael.
The literary trigger that evidently prompted the targumist’s expan-
sion in this passage is the choice of verbs used to describe Ishmael’s
death. The Hebrew text at 25:17 states that ‘[Ishmael] expired and
died, and was gathered in to his people’ ‫ל־ע ָמיו‬ ַ ‫וַ יִ גְ וַ ע וַ יָ ָמת וַ יֵ ָא ֶסף ֶא‬.
What appears to have concerned the targumist here is the text’s com-
bined usage of ‘expired’, ‘died’, and ‘was gathered in’ with respect to
Ishmael’s death, for this raised the question: Why is the terminology
that is otherwise used to describe the death of righteous individuals
used here to describe the death of presumably wicked Ishmael (i.e.,
‘expired’ ‫ וַ יִ גְ וַ ע‬and ‘was gathered in’ ‫ ?)וַ יֵ ָא ֶסף‬That is, with regard to
Abraham’s death, Gen. 25:8 states: ‘Abraham expired and died …
and was gathered in to his people’ ‫ל־ע ָמיו‬ ַ ‫וַ יִ גְ וַ ע וַ יָ ָמת … וַ יֵ ָא ֶסף ֶא‬. With
regard to Isaac’s death, 35:29 states: ‘Isaac expired and died and was
gathered in to his people’ ‫ל־ע ָמיו‬ ַ ‫וַ יִ גְ וַ ע יִ ְצ ָחק וַ יָ ָמת וַ יֵ ָא ֶסף ֶא‬. With regard
to Jacob’s death, 49:33 states: ‘[Jacob] expired and was gathered in
to his people’ ‫ל־ע ָמיו‬ ַ ‫( וַ יִ גְ וַ ע וַ יֵ ָא ֶסף ֶא‬cf. 49:29).39 In contrast, with
38 The different formulation of Ishmael’s repentance at 25:8 (‫ )עבד תתובא‬and
25:17 (‫ )והדר בתייובא‬is inconsequential for the argument of this paper (cf. ‫דהדר‬
‫ בתתובא‬at Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 33:7). Tg. Ps.-J. expresses the idea of repentance in
a variety of lexical ways, employing the verbs ‫ עבד‬,‫ תוב‬,‫ הדר‬along with various
spellings of the noun ‫ תייובא‬,‫ תיובתא‬,‫ תיובא‬,‫תתובא‬, while the prevalent combination
is that of ‫ עבד‬and ‫( תתובא‬or ‫( )תיובתא‬see Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 4:24; 6:3; 7:4; 18:21;
19:24; Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 2:12, 25; 33:7; 34:7; 40:7; Tg. Ps.-J. Num. 14:18;
Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 30:1, 2, 3). See S.A. Kaufman, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Late
Jewish Literary Aramaic’, Aramaic Studies 11 (2013), 1–26.
39 See also references to the deaths of Aaron and Moses that make use of the
verb ‫ אסף‬at Num. 20:24, 26; 27:13; 31:2; Deut. 32:50. And see comments on
235

reference to the death of the wicked flood generation, Gen. 7:21

states: ‘And all flesh expired … and all human beings’ … ‫ל־ב ָשר‬ ָ ‫וַ יִ גְ וַ ע ָכ‬
‫וְ כֹל ָה ָא ָדם‬, that is, only the expression ‘expired’ ‫ וַ יִ גְ וַ ע‬is used, but not
the verb ‘was gathered in’ ‫( וַ יֵ ָא ֶסף‬cf. Gen. 6:17). Why then does

Ishmael receive the description that is typical of the patriarchs rather
than one that is used to describe the wicked flood generation?
Indeed, discussing the wording of this very passage and the signifi-
cance of Ishmael’s repentance, b. B. Bathra 16b contends that this
passage indicates that Ishmael repented and that he recognized the
priority of Isaac. B. B. Bathra 16b reads as follows:
And how do we know that Ishmael repented in his days [i.e., when
Abraham was still alive]? From the discussion between Rabina and
R. Hama b. Buzi who were sitting before Raba while Raba was dozing.
Rabina said to R. Hama b. Buzi: Is it indeed the case that your people
maintain that wherever ‘expired’ [‫ ]גוע‬is used with reference to the
death of a person, it implies that their death is that of the righteous?
He said: That is so! But what about the generation of the Flood? He
said: Only if both ‘expired’ [‫ ]גוע‬and ‘gathered in’ [‫ ]אסף‬are men-
tioned. But what about Ishmael, of whom it is written, ‘he expired’
[‫ ]וַ יִ גְ וַ ע‬and ‘was gathered in’ [‫ ?]וַ יֵ ָא ֶסף‬At this point Raba awoke on
account of them and said to them: Pupils, this is what R. Johanan said:
Ishmael repented in the lifetime of his father. As it says: And Isaac and
Ishmael his sons buried him. But perhaps the text arranges them in the
order of their wisdom? One might think this. But if that were so, then
why does it say: And Esau and Jacob his sons buried him! What is the
reason for this? Should they too be considered to be arranged in the
order of their wisdom? Rather, on account of the fact that the text places
Isaac first, we conclude that Ishmael made way for him; and on account
of the fact that he made way for him, we learn that he repented in his days
[i.e., in Abraham’s lifetime] (italics mine).40
This discussion links 25:17 (the death of Ishmael) to 25:8 (the
death of Abraham) and to 25:9 (Isaac’s and Ishmael’s burial of
Abraham) and explains that the usage of both expressions ‘expired’
and ‘was gathered in’ to describe Ishmael’s death at 25:17 indicates
that Ishmael repented. Then, appealing specifically to the text of 25:9
Gen. 25:8 in Sarna, Genesis, JPS, 174; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 160; Westermann,
Genesis 12–36, 397; Gunkel, Genesis, 272–3; Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Genesis, 352.
40 See M. Simon, I.W. Slotki and I. Epstein (eds and trans), Hebrew-English
Edition of the Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra (London 1976), 16b; and cf. transla-
tion in Simon, Slotki and Epstein (eds and trans), Hebrew-English Edition of the
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra, 16b.
236

(‘His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him’), this talmudic discussion
explicates the significance of the order in which Abraham’s two sons
are listed — Isaac as first, and Ishmael as second — to mean that
Ishmael ‘made way’ for Isaac, which, according to this discussion,

signifies that Ishmael repented. The text of 25:9, in other words,
elicits the question: If Ishmael is older, then why is Isaac listed first?
The passage explains that the inverted order of Isaac and Ishmael
suggests that Ishmael repented — he granted Isaac priority, and thus
Isaac is listed first.41 The Talmud then applies this conclusion from
25:9 to the particular wording of Ishmael’s death at 25:17 in order
to explain that the terminology that is otherwise used to describe the
deaths of righteous individuals is used also to describe the death of
the presumably wicked Ishmael because Ishmael repented, that is,
that he granted Isaac priority. In accordance with this talmudic logic,
what the targumist does then is take note of the particular Hebrew
wording applied to Ishmael — ‘expired’ and ‘was gathered in’ — and
then insert the tradition about Ishmael’s repentance in order to expli-
cate this unexpected formulation of the Hebrew text. In other words,
the targumist resolves the query of the particular Hebrew text by
stating that Ishmael repented, meaning that he acknowledged Isaac’s
preeminent status.42
But does this tradition betray an ambiguous or a positive image of
Ishmael? To answer this question, it is necessary to raise our second
fundamental question: What is the ultimate purpose of this tradition
with respect to Ishmael and Isaac? As the Talmud reveals, Ishmael’s
act of repentance is explained ultimately with regard to the implica-
tions this repentance has for Isaac — that is, it indicates that Isaac is
superior. In other words, the significance of this tradition is not that
Ishmael is to be honoured for his repentance, but that Ishmael him-
self honoured Isaac by recognizing Isaac’s superiority, and, thereby,
his own inferiority. Ishmael’s repentance seals Ishmael’s subordinate
status in relation to Isaac. As L. Ginzberg writes: ‘Ishmael repented
of his evil ways and subordinated himself to Isaac.’43 In this respect,
Ishmael’s repentance does not suggest so much an ambiguous per-
spective of Ishmael as a condescending perspective of Ishmael, because
the implications of Ishmael’s repentance actually further contribute
to the disparaging portrayal of Ishmael. The tradition, so to say,
41 See also Rashi on 25:9 in Katzenellenbogen (ed.), ‫ בראשית‬:‫תורת חיים‬, 1:292
(‫ ;)רצב‬Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1:292; Sarna, Genesis, JPS, 174.

42 See also Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border, 26–7, 53.
43 Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1:292.
237

exploits Ishmael himself as a mouthpiece to declare the superiority of

Isaac.
As this tradition appears in Tg. Ps-J, it arguably presupposes the
underlying content regarding Isaac’s priority, for this issue of priority

is central to the conflict between Isaac and Ishmael throughout Tg.
Ps-J. At Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 16:5 and 21:10, Sarah rejects Ishmael as the
heir; at 21:12, God too rejects Ishmael as the heir; and at 21:14,
Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael away in order to secure Isaac as
his heir. Moreover, this conflict over who shall be the heir is vividly
articulated in an expansion at Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 22:1:
After these events, after Isaac and Ishmael had quarrelled, Ishmael said,
‘It is right that I should be my father’s heir, since I am his first-born
son’. But Isaac said, ‘It is right that I should be my father’s heir, since
I am the son of Sarah his wife, while you are the son of Hagar, my
mother’s slave girl’. Ishmael answered and said, ‘I am more worthy than
you, since I was circumcised at the age of thirteen, and if I had wished
to refuse, I would not have handed myself over to be circumcised. But
you were circumcised at the age of eight days. If you had been aware,
perhaps you would not have handed yourself over to be circumcised’.
Isaac answered and said, ‘Behold, today I am thirty-seven years old, and
if the Holy One, blessed be He, were to ask for all my members,
I would not refuse’.44
The debate here concerns the true heir of Abraham. Who takes
priority — Ishmael or Isaac? The first round of arguments concerns
specifically the births of Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael contends: ‘I am
his first-born son’, which, indeed, he is, thus seemingly claiming prior-
ity. But Isaac responds with a superior argument: ‘I am the son of
Sarah his wife, while you are the son of Hagar, my mother’s slave girl ’,
thus decisively demonstrating his ultimate priority, because he is the
son of Abraham’s wife, not that of a slave girl. Then the argument
shifts to circumcision. At first, it again seems that Ishmael takes prior-
ity, because Ishmael had demonstrated a wilfulness to be circumcised,
while Isaac did not have the option to do so, since he was too young.
But in response to Ishmael’s argument, Isaac expresses a wilfulness to
give up his entire self, were God to require this of him, which leads
to the near-sacrifice of Isaac. And thus the targumist employs the
Aqedah to demonstrate that it is Isaac who is truly superior, not
44 Cf. translation in Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 77–8.
238

Ishmael; for Isaac offered himself as a willing participant in the

Aqedah.45
Considering this dispute between Isaac and Ishmael, Hayward
focuses on the contentions of Ishmael, and suggests that this passage

helps to explain ‘how Ishmael can claim to be more meritorious than
Isaac’.46 To be sure, the Targum has Ishmael deliver his strongest
arguments for his priority over Isaac, arguably even granting legiti-
macy to his claims — for Ishmael was indeed chronologically the
firstborn (Gen. 16:15); and, presumably, Ishmael did willingly keep
the command to be circumcised (Gen. 17:23–6). But immediately
upon Ishmael’s articulation of these arguments, Tg. Ps.-J. utterly dis-
credits Ishmael’s claims by deploying Isaac’s far superior assertions.
Thus the ultimate conclusion of Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 22:1 is that it is Isaac
who is preeminent, not Ishmael. The literary function of this passage
then is not to portray Ishmael in a positive manner, but to express
conclusively that Isaac is superior to Ishmael.
In short, the contest for priority between Isaac and Ishmael is
a significant theme in Tg. Ps-J.47 The fact that the targumist chooses
to introduce a tradition specifically about this contest between Isaac
and Ishmael into the Aqedah — as opposed to incorporating another
tradition associated with the Aqedah — indicates that the targumist
is concerned with demonstrating Isaac’s priority over Ishmael.48 On
account of this concern with Isaac’s priority in Tg. Ps.-J. — and on
account of the tradition that associates Gen. 25:17 specifically with
Ishmael’s repentance as indicative of Isaac’s priority, as expressed in
the Talmud — it stands to reason that the Targum’s reference to
Ishmael’s repentance presupposes this contest between Ishmael and
45 See also Chilton, ‘Genesis in Aramaic: The Example of Chapter 22’, 495–
518; P.R. Davies and B.D. Chilton, ‘The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History’,
CBQ 40 (1978), 514–46; for some comments on the translation of Tg. Ps.-J. Gen.
22:1, see S.G.D.A. Lasair, ‘Targum and Translation: A New Approach to a Classic
Problem’, Association for Jewish Studies 34:2 (2010), 266–71; for Hayward’s addi-
tional remarks on the significance of circumcision in this passage, see Hayward,
‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, 91–2; and for a close reading
of Gen. 22 in the Bible and in later Jewish transmission history, see J.D. Levenson,
The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice
in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven 1993), 111–42.
47 For more on this rivalry, see Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border, 49–54; and
Shapira, ’‫מוסלמי בתרגום המיוחס ליונתן לפרשת העקדה‬-‫‘עקבות פולמוס אנטי‬, 293–6.
48 I owe this observation to Professor Moshe Bernstein. Cf. the expansion at Tg.
Neof. Gen. 22:1 and see Gen. R. 55.1–6 for various midrashim associated with
Gen. 22:1.
239

Isaac. The literary effect of Ishmael’s repentance in light of this con-

test then is that if Ishmael repented, then he would have repented of
his contention for priority. Consequently, Ishmael’s repentance in
Tg. Ps.-J. arguably implies that Ishmael acknowledged his own sub-

ordinate status and Isaac’s superior status.
What adds further weight to this reading of Ishmael’s repentance
is the brevity of the targumist’s expansion at 25:17. Rather than capi-
talizing on Ishmael’s repentance and expounding upon this tradition
as a reflection of Ishmael’s positive character, the targumist remains
silent on Ishmael’s image. The significance of this silence manifests
itself furthermore when the terse reference to the repentance of
Ishmael is compared to other references to repentance in Tg. Ps-J, as,
for example, the repentance of the Israelites at the golden calf event.49
Describing this repentance of the Israelites, the text of Tg. Ps.-J.
Exod. 33:7 reads: ‘Anyone who repented before the Lord with a perfect
heart went out to the tent of the house of instruction which was outside
the camp. He confessed his sins and prayed about his sins, and praying,
he was forgiven’. In contrast to this, no supplementary remarks are
made to develop a positive perspective of Ishmael. Admittedly, the
targumist does not diminish the act of Ishmael’s repentance itself;
however, and very significantly, the targumist does not take advan-
tage of Ishmael’s repentance as a premise or a basis to recast Ishmael
as a favourable character. Thus, the noticeably brief nature of the
targumist’s comment at 25:17 suggests that the targumist did not
intend to distinguish Ishmael.
All this further commends the view that contrary to Hayward’s
proposition, the targumist’s integration of Ishmael’s repentance into
the narrative is not the result of the targumist’s ambivalent perception
of Ishmael. Rather, the targumist arguably presupposed the back-
ground of the tradition that Ishmael acknowledged the priority of
Isaac; and, as noted above as well, the targumist exploited Ishmael’s
repentance for the benefit of Abraham by virtue of the shared literary
context between 25:8 and 25:17. In this way, the targumist in fact
demonstrates his commitment, on the one hand, to explicate the
specific wording of the Hebrew text and, on the other, to promote
the Jewish patriarchs in the story.
49 Compare also Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 4:13, 24; 6:3 (cf. 7:4); 18:21; 19:24; 37:29
(cf. 35:22; 49:4, 28; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 6:4); 38:25–6; Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 2:12, 25;
34:7; 40:7; Tg. Ps.-J. Num. 14:18; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 30:1–20.
240

Ishmael’s Repentance in Light of Ishmael’s

Negative Portrayal at 25:11
Furthermore, the fact that Ishmael is still perceived as a negative

character in Tg. Ps-J, despite the two references to his repentance,
is evidenced in that within this very context of his repentance at
25:7–17, specifically at verse 11, the targumist unequivocally dispar-
ages Ishmael. This indicates that Ishmael’s repentance did not erase
Ishmael’s wicked character-type for the targumist.
While the Hebrew text of 25:11 quite evidently has nothing to do
with Ishmael, Tg. Ps.-J. nonetheless introduces an expansion that
both explicitly and implicitly denigrates Ishmael. The biblical text of
25:11 reads as follows: ‘After the death of Abraham God blessed his
son Isaac. And Isaac settled at Beer-lahai-roi’. Despite the lack of any
reference to Ishmael in this verse, the statement that it was God,
rather than Abraham, who blessed Isaac prompted a tradition that
Abraham did not bless Isaac because he did not want to bless Ishmael
(as well as the children of Keturah).50 Capitalizing on this tradition,
the targumist exploits the negative presentation of Ishmael to con-
demn Ishmael even in the midst of the two references to his repent-
ance. Thus, the text of Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 25:11 reads: ‘Because Abraham
had not wished to bless Ishmael, he had not blessed Isaac either; for if he
had blessed Isaac and had not blessed Ishmael, the latter would have
hated him. But after Abraham had died the Lord blessed Isaac his
son…’51
By including this expansion in his text, the targumist disparages
Ishmael in three respects. First, the targumist states that Abraham did
not want to bless Ishmael (‘Because Abraham had not wished to bless
Ishmael’). Second, the targumist alleges that Ishmael was a potential
threat to Isaac (‘if he had blessed Isaac and had not blessed Ishmael, the
latter would have hated him’). Third, in reiterating the biblical text
that God blessed Isaac, the targumist affirms the fact that God wanted
to bless Isaac, and that he did not want to bless Ishmael (‘the Lord
blessed Isaac his son’). This point is particularly pronounced when
viewed in the light of the tradition outlined in Gen. R. 61.6, which
50 See Gen. R. 61.6. Also see Gold, The Torah: With the Baal HaTurim’s Classic
Commentary: Bereishis, 27–9; Schmerler, ‫ בראשית‬:‫אהבת יהונתן‬, 197–8; Ben-

Mendel, ‫שמות‬-‫ בראשית‬:‫תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל על התורה עם פירוש יונתן‬, 210 (‫ רי‬in
‫ ;)בראשית‬Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, 1:52; Samely, Interpretation of Speech,
37–8; Splansky, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targumim,
Use of Midrashim, and Date’, 92–3; Sarna, Genesis, JPS, 174.
51 Cf. translation in Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 88.
241

explains that when Abraham hesitated to bless Isaac, Abraham

exclaimed: ‘Whatever God wishes to do in his world, let him do it’.52
Commenting on this tradition, Bakhos writes: ‘Caught in a conun-
drum, Abraham submits to the will of God. When he dies, God

blesses Isaac; preferential treatment of Isaac is providential’ (italics
original).53 Corresponding to this principle, Tg. Ps.-J. Gen. 25:11
demonstrates that the fact that God blessed Isaac means that God
wished to bless Isaac, and the fact that God did not bless Ishmael
means that God did not wish to bless Ishmael.54
In short, by discussing Ishmael’s repentance and his wicked con-
duct in the very same context, the targumist reinforces his conviction
that Ishmael’s repentance does not erase the status of Ishmael as
a wicked character-type. Analysing the effects of repentance within
the biblical text in general, S. Bar-Efrat states: ‘The change which
occurs in [the characters’] personality is, therefore, accompanied by a
shift in the reader’s attitude toward them. Nevertheless, this shift is not
enough to obliterate completely our negative attitude towards them as
a result of their sins’ (emphasis mine).55 For the targumist, Ishmael’s
repentance does not expunge his wicked conduct, and it does not
overturn his wicked character-type. Ishmael is defined not by his
repentance –– an exceptional remark introduced tersely and without
explanation as to how it affects his character –– but by his wicked
character-type, which is thoroughly established throughout the nar-
rative of Tg. Ps-J.56 Therefore, in the view of the targumist, the men-
tion of Ishmael’s repentance does not compromise the targumist’s
attempt to present Ishmael as a fundamentally wicked character.
Ishmael’s Repentance and Anti-Islamic Polemic

While the negative portrayal of Ishmael in Tg. Ps.-J. — including
Ishmael’s repentance — does not explicitly claim to be anti-Islamic
rhetoric, this antagonistic depiction of Ishmael certainly suits well the
general negative rabbinic reaction to the spread of Islamic power.
Bakhos, writing of this phenomenon more broadly, explains that
52 Theodor-Albeck, ‫מדרש בראשית רבא‬, 61.6 [‫]סא״ו‬, 2:665.

54 See Splansky, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targu-
mim, Use of Midrashim, and Date’, 92–3.

55 S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (New York 1989), 85. Though Bar-
Efrat is discussing specifically Saul and David, the principle applies to characters
and characterization in general.
56 See Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 80.
242

‘The animus toward Ishmael was a way in which the rabbis con-
fronted the swiftly emerging political force in the Near East, essen-
tially identified with Arabs. It was also a means of dispelling Islamic
claims as rightful heir to Abraham. In other words, by taking a swipe

at their Arab progenitor, the rabbis in a sense protest against Islamic
hegemony as well as contend with perceived theological supersession’.57
Indeed, as Bakhos observes, inasmuch as Ishmael became the ‘epony-
mous prototype of Islam’ at the time of the Islamic hegemony, this
anti-Ishmael rhetoric was able to serve as an effective form of an anti-
Islamic polemic.58 In other words, one way of polemicizing against
Islam was to denigrate Ishmael. As regards Tg. Ps-J, this is precisely
what the targumist achieves in his comprehensive negative portrayal
of Ishmael. Tg. Ps.-J. paints a thoroughly antagonistic image of
Ishmael, which, as a matter of rhetorical effect, suits well a time
period during which a Jewish targumist would have had reason to
disparage a traditional ancestor of Islam and, by virtue of this, Islam
itself. The implication of this for the composition of Tg. Ps-J, then,
is that Tg. Ps.-J. fits well a post-Islamic time-period.
Conclusion
Though on the surface Ishmael’s repentance ascribes to Ishmael

a pious act, beneath this tradition, his repentance actually serves to
elevate Abraham and Isaac; and, in contrast, Ishmael’s repentance
simultaneously disparages Ishmael. Accordingly Levine writes: ‘[Tg.
Ps-J] manifests concern both for conveying positive Jewish values and
for engaging in polemics’.59 Indeed, Tg. Ps.-J. does not at all take
advantage of Ishmael’s repentance to honour Ishmael. Rather, the
targumist capitalizes on this tradition to demonstrate how his repent-
ance benefited Abraham, rather than Ishmael, and to show how his
repentance confirmed the priority of Isaac, rather than that of

58 Ibid.,2; and see pp. 3, 95–6; for the historical development of the association
between the terms ‘Ishmael’ and ‘Arab’, see I. Ephʽal, ‘“Ishmael” and “Arab(s)”:
A Transformation of Ethnological Terms’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35:4
(1976), 225–35.
59 É. Levine, ‘British Museum Aramaic Additional MS 27031’, Manuscripta 16
(1972), 7. See also Ohana, ‘La polémique judéo-islamique’, 367–87; R. Pelcovitz

(ed. and trans.), Sforno: Commentary on the Torah (The Artscroll Mesorah Series,
Brooklyn 1987), 105; Splansky, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to
Other Targumim, Use of Midrashim, and Date’, 92–3; Shinan, ‫אגדתם של‬
‫מתורגמנים‬, 2:348; Heinemann, ‫אגדות ותולדותיהן‬, 189–91.
243

Ishmael. In effect, the targumist does not betray an equivocal perspec-

tive of Ishmael, for the targumic text neither overturns Ishmael’s
negative portrait nor does it introduce a righteous Ishmael. Ulti-
mately, in fact, the tradition of Ishmael’s repentance seals Ishmael’s

subordinate status in relation to Isaac, and thus adds to the denigra-
tion of Ishmael and of Islam in Tg. Ps-J.
Address for correspondence: izhakevich@tms.edu
244

Zhakevich Ishmael 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Zhakevich Ishmael 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zhakevich Ishmael 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Semitic Studies LXV/1 Spring 2020 doi: 10.

THE NEGATIVE IMAGE

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

The image of Ishmael in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Tg. Ps.-J.) has

The thoroughly negative presentation of Ishmael in Tg. Ps.-J. has

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 223 30/01/2020 12:39

Ishmael’s repentance raise questions regarding the Targum’s ultimate

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

34:1 (1989), 79.

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 224 30/01/2020 12:39

Ps.-J. never actually refers to Ishmael as the son of a freed woman.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

5 Hayward, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, 79. See also

A. Shapira, ‘‫מוסלמי בתרגום המיוחס ליונתן לפרשת העקדה‬-‫’עקבות פולמוס אנטי‬,

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 225 30/01/2020 12:39

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

‫( שנשא שפחה‬Shinan, ‫אגדתם של מתורגמנים‬, 2:318). See also similar expansions at

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 226 30/01/2020 12:39

Beyond his origins, the negative portrayal of Ishmael only ampli-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

judéo-islamique et l’image d’Ismaël dans Targum Pseudo-Jonathan et dans Pirke de

on Ishmael is on account of Abraham’s merit; but cf. Exod. R. 3.2; L. Ginzberg,

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 227 30/01/2020 12:39

want to bless Ishmael, and again Ishmael is portrayed as potentially

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

gum du pentateuque: Genèse, 328, n. 15.

Neofiti 1: Numbers and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers (The Aramaic Bible 4,

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 228 30/01/2020 12:39

While numerous scholars have accepted this perspective,22 ­Hayward

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

Genesis, 12; Splansky, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Its Relationship to Other Targu-

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 229 30/01/2020 12:39

Recognizing the significance of Ishmael’s repentance for this dis-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

The Repentance of Ishmael

27 Pace Hayward, ‘Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Anti-Islamic Polemic’, 79.

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 230 30/01/2020 12:39

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

years. He repented and expired and was gathered in to his people.28

Ishmael’s Repentance at 25:8

28 Cf. translation in Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, 88–9. Onqelos,

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 231 30/01/2020 12:39

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

31 Schmerler,‫ בראשית‬:‫אהבת יהונתן‬, 197.

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 232 30/01/2020 12:39

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

‫( נוסחאות‬Midrash Bereshit Rabbah) (Veröffentlichungen der Akademie für die Wis-

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 233 30/01/2020 12:39

all things’ included Ishmael’s repentance.36 Assuming a similar per-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

Ishmael’s Repentance at 25:17

cal Narrative, 349.

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 234 30/01/2020 12:39

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

38 The different formulation of Ishmael’s repentance at 25:8 (‫ )עבד תתובא‬and

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 235 30/01/2020 12:39

reference to the death of the wicked flood generation, Gen. 7:21

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/65/1/223/5738643 by London School of Economics user on 23 February 2020

101718_JOSS_65-1_2020_11_Zhakevich.indd 236 30/01/2020 12:39

Journal of Semitic Studies LXV/1 Spring 2020 doi: 10.

While numerous scholars have accepted this perspective,22 Hayward

Commentary: Bereishis, 27–9; Schmerler, ‫ בראשית‬:‫אהבת יהונתן‬, 197–8; Ben-