Article

The Bible Translator

The Origins of
2018, Vol. 69(2) 184­–198
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
Interpreting in the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2051677018786366
Old Testament and journals.sagepub.com/home/tbt

the Meturgeman in the

Synagogue
Heidemarie Salevsky
Professor of Translation Studies

Abstract
Interpreting as a form of mediated interlingual communication can be traced back to
the third millennium B.C. in the secular sphere. In the Bible Nehemiah 8 shows how
Hebrew passages were rendered into Aramaic. Luther’s translation (1984) of Neh 8.8
is compared in the article with RSV (1952), NRSV (1989), and the Russian Tolkovaja
Biblija (1904–1907/1987). The emergence of targumim can be attributed to the need to
render Hebrew texts into Aramaic, especially in the synagogue service. The Babylonian
Talmud acknowledges this as established practice and gives elaborate instructions as
to the correct way of delivering the targumim. They are often interpretive to an extent
that far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase because the interpreter
(meturgeman) had to transmit the teachings of the rabbi to the common people by
placing the original text into a wider context or by amplifying and explaining it.

Keywords
history of interpreting, meturgeman, targum, Nehemiah 8

Dr. David J. Clark was a Translation Consultant for UBS when we met for
the first time at a UBS meeting in Spain in 1992. I owe him much gratitude
for the many useful discussions we had, for a wonderful friendship that
has lasted for twenty-five years now, and for invitations to undertake joint
travels with our marriage partners, not forgetting of course his helpful hand
whenever a native speaker was needed to check the English-language ver-
sions of publications from my pen.1

1 The English version of this article was provided by Mr. Bernd Zöllner, graduate inter-

preter and translator (Berlin).

Corresponding author:
Heidemarie Salevsky, Niebergallstr. 3, D-12557 Berlin, Germany.
Email: heidemarie.salevsky@t-online.de
Salevsky: Interpreting in the OT and the Meturgeman in the Synagogue 185

In the following I will deal with (1) the origins of interpreting in the
Old Testament, (2) the targumim, and (3) the rules for the conduct of the
meturgeman in the synagogue.2

Introduction
Interpreting, as the oral form3 of mediated interlingual communication, is
one of the oldest professions and can be traced back to the third millen-
nium B.C. In Egypt, a class of interpreters, known today as dragomans,
emerged as early as the Old Kingdom (ca. 2700–2200 B.C.), their task being
to conduct political and commercial transactions abroad, for which purpose
they accompanied trading expeditions whose organizers were known as the
“treasurers” of God (i.e., the king). The princes of Elephantine, charged with
overseeing the “southern gate” of Egypt, proudly bore the title “overseer of
all interpreters ” (or in Gardiner’s translation, “overseer of all dragomans”)4
at the time of the Sixth Dynasty. They held an important position as caravan
leaders, members of advance parties sent abroad, heads of expeditions (e.g.,
famous expeditions to Sudan), and business negotiators (e.g., in the copper
mining area of Sinai, where the local population spoke a Semitic language;
cf. Pohling 1971, 125).
From the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2050–1610 B.C.) onwards the Egyptians
also recruited the sons of foreign princes. And conversely, Herodotus
reported (in Historiae, 2:154, quoted in Hermann 1956, 30) that the Pharaoh

2 Not all the facts gathered about biblical interpreting are reliable because the sources
are, in part, contradictory. I would like to thank the Bible Institute and the Gregoriana in
Rome as well as the Theological Faculty of Leopold Franzens University in Innsbruck
and the Jesuit College in Innsbruck for granting me permission to use their libraries. I
also owe gratitude to the members of the Scholarly Forum of the United Bible Societies
(where I had the privilege to represent the discipline of translation studies in the 1990s)
and to EUMECOT/UBS for stimulating discussions on issues of Bible translation, dis-
cussions that included, notably, Dr. David J. Clark. For a more detailed version of the
origins of interpreting, see Salevsky and Müller 2015, 1–27.
3 This simple distinction between interpreting and translating based on the criterion of oral

or written communication is now obsolete given the technical possibilities that exist. The
principal difference is that in interpreting, the text cannot be absorbed as a whole and not
repeatedly. An interpreter must deal with segments of texts or even utterances. Nowadays
even oral texts can be translated, various recording options being available. Translation
is used as a generic term covering both interpreting and translating (cf. Salevsky 2002,
95–97; Salevsky and Müller 2011, 282–85).
4 Gardiner 1915, 124. There is disagreement over the translation of this phrase; see the

discussion in Falbo 2016. The hieroglyph depicts a loincloth used only by foreigners/peo-
ple speaking a foreign tongue (see Sander-Hansen 1963, 248, and Brunner 1967, 11). One
probably has to make a distinction between the development of the activity of interpret-
ing as a profession (see Salevsky 2002, 15–22) and that of the name for it (see Salevsky
and Müller 2015, 22–27).
186 The Bible Translator 69(2)

Figure 1. Bas-relief from the tomb of Haremhab in Saqqâra, Egypt, depicting

an interpreter in action. Photo courtesy of the National Museum of Antiquities,
Leiden, The Netherlands.

Psamtik I (seventh century B.C.) had entrusted Egyptian boys to Hellenic

settlers in the Nile delta so they might learn the Greek language. Reputedly,
these boys were the ancestors of the later dragoman class.5
That the Egyptians (who regarded themselves as “human beings” and
other peoples as “barbarians”) began to learn foreign languages at an early
stage can be gathered from excavated clay tablets dating from ca. 1400 B.C.
which contained Akkadian inscriptions (cf. Pohling 1971, 125), partly with
Egyptian equivalents, suggesting that this may well have been one of the
earliest attempts to compile bilingual word lists (cf. Pohling 1971, 155). The
interpreter’s role is depicted impressively in the bas-relief scene from the
tomb of Haremhab in Saqqâra (14th century B.C.; see Figure 1).

1. The origins of interpreting in the Old

Testament
The book of Genesis mentions an interpreter acting as an intermediary
between Joseph’s brothers, who had left their famine-stricken homeland
for the rich country on the banks of the Nile, and their presumed Egyptian
host at the court of the Pharaoh (ca. 1700 B.C.): “They did not know that

5 If Augustine was right in assuming that Plato grasped the content of Egyptian and bibli-

cal writings through an interpreter in Egypt, this would be evidence that mediated inter-
lingual communication existed as a profession in the fourth century B.C. (cf. Hermann
1956, 30–31).
Salevsky: Interpreting in the OT and the Meturgeman in the Synagogue 187

Joseph understood them, since he spoke to them through an interpreter”

(Gen 42.23, NRSV).
Nehemiah 8 gives insight into how Hebrew passages were rendered into
Aramaic later on in the service in the synagogue (cf. Schäfer 1980, 216).
The interpreter, or meturgeman, played a crucial role here. The passage
relates that Ezra the scribe6 gathered the Israelites who had returned from
exile (in the last third of the fifth century B.C.) on the square before the
Water Gate and, facing them, opened God’s book of the law while standing
on a wooden platform. The Levites at his side then helped the people to
understand the law. Luther translated this passage as follows:7

Und sie legten das Buch des Gesetzes Gottes klar und verständlich aus, so dass
man verstand, was gelesen worden war. (Neh 8.8, Luther 1984; emphasis mine)

NRSV provides the following translation for Neh 8.8:

So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave
the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (NRSV; emphasis mine)

While the German text uses the words klar und verständlich (in clear
and intelligible terms), NRSV renders the passage as with interpretation,
which leaves it open as to whether explanation or oral translation is meant.
The older RSV (1952) offers two options:

And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly;* and they gave the
sense, so that the people understood the reading.

Footnote: *or with interpretation. (RSV; emphasis mine)

In this context it is quite useful to look at the Russian translation in the

Tolkovaja Biblija (vol. 1, 1904–1907/1987) and the accompanying com-
mentary. Nehemiah 8.8 there reads as follows:

И читали изъ книги, изъ закона Божiя, внятно, и присоединяли толкованіе,

и народъ понималъ прочитанное.

6 For Ezra’s title sofer/safra (“scribe of the law of the heavenly God”; Ezra 7.12), see

Schaeder 1930, 51; for Ezra and Nehemiah, see also Rudolph 1949.
7 The law was written down in Hebrew and read in this form. For the people to be able

to understand it, the Levites had to provide an oral rendering. Presumably, this was not
because the Jews in Jerusalem had ceased to speak anything but Aramaic by the fourth
century B.C., but because the Torah was couched in an archaic scholarly language based
on the written language used in the Kingdom of Judah from the eighth to the sixth centu-
ries B.C. (Knauf 2013, 3; see also Frei and Koch 1996, 51–61 and 206–20).
188 The Bible Translator 69(2)

[Roughly: They read audibly8 from the book, the law of God, and subsequently
interpreted its meaning, and the people understood the reading. (emphasis
mine)]

The commentary starts from the assumption that the Hebrew word mefo-
rash‎(which strictly means “divided into sections” or “laid out for inspec-
tion”) here signifies “divided and clear” and emphasizes that the text
was being rendered into Aramaic. After presenting counterarguments the
commentators concluded that the Levites might have given explanations
of the text read by Ezra in the form of a paraphrase, contrasting it with
the binding “original text,” which consequently became established as
the authentic text (the Egyptian Diaspora excepted) ever since the days
of Ezra/Nehemiah.

2. The targumim
Targum9 means “rendering” and is related to meturgeman,10 which denotes
an “interpreter.” At the beginning of the talmudic period it usually referred
to the rendering of biblical passages into Aramaic (see the entry “Targumim”
in Schäfer 1980; cf. also Thieme 1956, 13; Ribera 1994).
The emergence of targumim is mainly attributable to two interrelated
factors: (1) In Persian times the Aramaic language began to supplant
Hebrew as a lingua franca in the ancient Near East. As proficiency in (bib-
lical) Hebrew declined, it became necessary to render texts written in this
language into Aramaic.

8 The Russian word vnjatno can also mean “clear” and/or “distinct.”
9 Beattie and McNamara (1994, 9) draw attention to the fact that the targumim were
published for the first time in the rabbinic Bibles and then, with a Latin translation, in
the polyglot Bibles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The discovery of a com-
plete copy of the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch in the Vatican Library (1949)
and the Qumran excavations (from 1947) generated an increased interest in the Aramaic
targumim and, hence, the interactions between Judaism and Christianity. The Aramaic
language of the targumim provides insights into the origins of Jewish traditions and the
way they were transformed by Christians from Syria, Armenia, and the Orient all the way
to Ireland. The targumim tell us much about the history of the Jews in Cairo, Italy, Spain,
and Germany, among other places.
10 The oldest sources mentioning the word targumannu (see the entries “Dolmetscher”

and “targuman” in Klauser 1959) concern a trading centre called Kaneš (now Kültepe)
near Caesarea (now Kayseri) in Cappadocia, a multilingual town containing an Assyrian
merchant colony. Even before 1800 B.C. they refer to a rabi targumannē “chief of inter-
preters” (cf. Pohling 1971, 126). The term melits‎(spokesman) used in the Old Testament
to denote an interpreter was applied to the Babylonian emissaries, i.e., to people who
were not only proficient in languages, but also capable of spiritual insights (Hermann and
von Soden 1959, 31).
Salevsky: Interpreting in the OT and the Meturgeman in the Synagogue 189

The Hebrew language used for these books began to die out; it became less and
less familiar to the Jews whereas Aramaic, which the inhabitants of Judaea did
not understand in Isaiah’s day . . . , emerged as the vernacular in Palestine even
before the Hasmonean period. . . . Several simultaneous causes were responsible
for the ascendancy of the Aramaic language. Following their deportation to
Babylonia from Nebuchadnezzar’s reign onwards, the Jews were able to spread
undisturbed for a considerable period of time and, during the reign of Cyrus,
a steady and often sizable stream of colonists returned to Judea, their mother
tongue being Aramaic. (Zunz 1966, 7–8; my translation)

(2) The synagogue service provides the social context, the Sitz im Leben,
for the targumim. The public reading of the Torah as the centrepiece of
synagogue worship made it necessary (because few people were fluent in
Hebrew) to render the written texts into Aramaic (cf. Schäfer 1980, 216).
The Babylonian Talmud (b. Megillah 3a) acknowledges the rendering of the
Torah passages into Aramaic during the synagogue service as established
practice and gives elaborate instructions as to the correct way of delivering
the targum. We must seriously consider the possibility that the Sitz im Leben
for the oral delivery of the targum (in the synagogue) differed from that for
the written targum (i.e., bet ha-midrash, the study centre).
There are targumim for all the books of the Old Testament (with the
exception of Ezra/Nehemiah and Daniel). The targum to the Pentateuch is
notable for the largest number of differing versions (cf. Schäfer 1980, 218).
As an object of study, the targum generally enjoyed the same status as the
Scriptures and the Mishnah.
Before A.D. 70, Torah readings in the synagogue were mainly a phe-
nomenon of the Diaspora. With the temple out of reach, they served as a
substitute for the sacrificial cult and gave the Jewish communities a sense of
identity. It is likely that regular scriptural readings had their origins there. In
the first century the Sabbath readings were observed as an age-old custom.
Opinions differ on the order in which these readings took place in the old-
est times. In Palestine, for example, the entire Torah was read in a triennial
cycle. Each Torah reading was followed by the haftarah (reading selection
from the Prophets; see Zunz 1966, 3–6).
From an early stage, however, the readings made it clear that it was
also necessary to bridge the language gap. Here is what Zunz wrote on this
subject:

Lessons were given on every shabbat . . . to expound the Scriptures . . . , to
provide edification . . . or to instruct the congregation in the application of the
law. Preferably, the lessons . . . took place two or four shabbats . . . before the
three chief festivals to explain the laws concerning these holidays. . . . It was also
190 The Bible Translator 69(2)

common to give lessons on the three chief festivals . . . , on the intermediate days
. . . , on Yom Kippur . . . , on Purim . . . , on days of mourning . . . and on special
fast days . . . , in the latter cases mostly for edification and comfort. . . . This office
was administered by the head of the academy, the highest-ranking school teacher
or, with the permission of the superiors, another rabbi. . . . The person delivering
the sermon . . . was sitting . . . on a raised seat . . . , but for the most part he did
not address the congregation; but a rabbi was hired for this purpose and in this
capacity was called meturgeman, turgeman or emora, i.e., speaker, expounder,
interpreter. Adopting a standing position, he announced to the congregation what
the hakam11 had told him in a whisper. The most prestigious teachers, notably
the heads of schools and academies, used to rely on a specific emora . . . who
often expanded on what the hakam had merely faintly suggested. The emora had
to make the teacher’s words audible with his loud and pleasant-sounding voice,
answer questions for him . . . and render texts from the learned language into the
vernacular, which was necessary in particular when instructing the congregation
in the halaka. (Zunz 1966, 349–51; my translation)

Sources outside rabbinical literature also refer to the close link between
synagogue and study centre. York quotes Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263–
339, Bishop of Caesarea Palaestinae from 313), who penned the first history
of the church, which contains numerous quotations from early Christian
sources that were deemed lost, but now provide valuable information:

Moreover, they (the Jews) have certain teachers . . . of primary studies—for so
they like to call the interpreters of their Scriptures—who make clear those things
obscurely taught in riddles . . . by means of translation . . . and interpretation.
(quoted in York 1979, 84)

In the sixth century there were essentially two traditions—the Palestinian

and the Babylonian—for reading from the Torah and the Prophets. The
difference between East and West mainly relates to the triennial cycle or
the annual cycle. In the annual cycle as still practised today the Torah was
divided into 53 or 54 pericopes (parashiyot); in the triennial cycle the num-
ber of sections (sedarim) was less uniform, presumably about 150 (see
Wacholder 1971, xxi–xxiii). Reputedly, liturgical differences between the
Palestinian and Babylonian synagogue in Cairo still existed in the twelfth
century (Wacholder 1971, xlii–xliii).
Following the Arab conquest of the East, which made Baghdad the cen-
tre of the Muslim empire, the annual cycle as practised in Babylonia became

11 According to Cohen (1948, 255) hakam meant “sage,” “Pharisaic teacher” (for the

Pharisaic exegetes see, among others, Hengel 1994). The title “rabbi” did not exist before
the first century A.D.
Salevsky: Interpreting in the OT and the Meturgeman in the Synagogue 191

firmly established in northern Africa and western Europe. The Palestinian

tradition was still alive in the days of Maimonides (1138–1204).12 Most of
the verses were rendered literally or almost literally, some provided with
brief additions and others with comments and rhetorical embellishments
that sometimes were longer than the verses themselves. This is also con-
firmed by The Oxford Companion to the Bible:13 “All translations of the
Bible are necessarily interpretive to a degree, but the Targums differ in that
they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far
exceeds the bounds of ‘translation’ or even ‘paraphrase’” (Metzger and
Coogan 1993, 754–55).
This was especially true of the first and last verse of the pericope. By
way of example, let us have a look at how Gen 50.1 is rendered in the
Neofiti manuscript.14
In NRSV it reads:

Then Joseph threw himself on his father’s face and wept over him and kissed
him.

Here is the corresponding passage in the Neofiti manuscript:

And Joseph fell upon the face of his father and wept over him and kissed him.
And Joseph laid his father on a bed of ivory, overlaid with gold and set with
pearls, and strengthened with precious stone, byssus and purple. And there
were poured out there wines and perfumes; there were burnt there precious

12 The Jewish philosopher, scholar, and doctor Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon) also
expressed his views on translating or rendering a text into another language (along the
lines of Cicero and Jerome): “Whoever wishes to translate, and purposes to render each
word literally, and at the same time to adhere slavishly to the order of the words and
sentences in the original, will meet with much difficulty; his rendering will be faulty and
untrustworthy. This is not the right method. The translator should first try to grasp the
sense of the subject thoroughly, and then state the theme with perfect clearness in the
other language. This, however, cannot be done without changing the order of the words,
putting many words for one word, or vice versa, and adding or taking away words, so
that the subject be perfectly intelligible in the language into which he translates” (Epistle
addressed by Rabbi Moses Maimonides to Rabbi Samuel Ibn Tibbon, Sacred Text
Archive, Judaism, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/mhl/mhl19.htm).
13 I would like to thank David Clark for presenting me this book as a gift.
14 Codex Neofiti is a Targum manuscript (see McNamara 1994), which was identified

as late as 1956 as a Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (it was long incorrectly titled
as a manuscript of Targum Onkelos). As Schäfer notes, Codex Neofiti is a completely
preserved targum to the Pentateuch (1980, 218–19). The manuscript apparently involved
three different scribes, with numerous variants inserted in the margin and between the
lines. Schäfer (219) regards this as proof that the targumim are not the work of a single
author (authorial literature), but reflect divergent traditions from different eras (collective
literature).
192 The Bible Translator 69(2)

aromas. There stood there kingdoms and rulers from the sons of Ishmael;
there stood there rulers from the sons of Esau; there stood there rulers from
the sons of Keturah; there stood Judah, the lion; men of his brothers. Judah
answered and said to his brothers: Come, let us plant for our father a tall
cedar, its top reaching unto the heavens and its roots reaching unto the
generations of the world, because from him there have gone forth the twelve
tribes of the sons of Israel, because from him have gone forth priests with
their trumpets and Levites with their harps. Then Joseph bent down over
the neck of his father and Joseph wept over him and kissed him. (Quoted
from Shinan 1987, 105; emphasis mine)

This example highlights the role of the meturgeman, which Shinan

describes as follows:

It is clear from these sources that the mĕtûrgĕmān held a professional position
and was the bearer of tradition that served, among other things, as a means of
transmitting the teachings of the Rabbis to the common people. His audience
comprised simple folk who had no great erudition of Torah and whose ability
to absorb such learning was quite limited. The Rabbis, for their part, did not
overly esteem the mĕtûrgĕmān, and his remarks were subject to their supervision.
Nevertheless, they could not ignore the mĕtûrgĕmān’s central role to serve as a
kind of popular extension of the scholarly world, who was to mediate between
the spiritual leadership and the people. (Shinan 1987, 104–5)

Zunz (1966, 6–9) considers that as long as the Asian Jews spoke Aramaic
the custom doubtless subsisted in most places. Where this was not the case
this was apparently due to the lack of an appropriate interpreter. It was not
until written targumim began to gain currency that interpreting was increas-
ingly neglected, which in Zunz’s view mainly concerned western Asia and
Persian and/or Arabic translations.

3. Rules for the conduct of the meturgeman in

the synagogue
In marked contrast to the Western tradition, where the translated version of
the Bible took the place of the original, the tradition of the Jewish synagogue
service was notable for the juxtaposition of the Torah reading and its render-
ing into the vernacular. As Kaufmann notes, the weekly lesson proceeded as
follows. The handwritten sacred text, copied by a scribe versed in the rules
of calligraphy on a parchment scroll, was read or chanted by a ba‘al qore.
The latter was not allowed to turn his eyes away from the text while reading
to avoid any impression that he was improvising. But the principal reason
was that the Torah as the “law” which Moses had received in written form
Salevsky: Interpreting in the OT and the Meturgeman in the Synagogue 193

should not be passed on orally (Kaufmann 2005, 978).15 Standing alongside

the ba‘al qore was the meturgeman, who was obliged to listen carefully and
to interpret without the aid of a written text. He was not permitted to look
at the Hebrew text in order that the people should not think that the transla-
tion was contained in the Torah. Needless to say, he was not allowed to take
notes either, all the more so as writing was one of the thirty-nine creative
activities prohibited on the Sabbath (Kaufmann 2005, 978; see also Elbogen
1962, 187).16 Shinan described the approach to interpreting as follows:

The mĕtûrgĕmān had to function by memory only, since it was prohibited to use
written texts for translating the Torah in public . . . ; and the mĕtûrgĕmān, as all
oral narrators, had developed a number of devices, such as the rhetorical speech
to capture the attention of his audience. (Shinan 1987, 105)17

Kaufmann points out (with Jerusalem Talmud tractate Megillah 4 in

mind)18 that according to the rule the reader and the interpreter should
be two different persons (2005, 979). The reader of the Torah was not
allowed to intervene in order to help the meturgeman (2005, 979, with
regard to the Babylonian Talmud Megillah 32a). The weekly lessons
from the Pentateuch and the Prophets were interpreted from memory in
a standing position whereas the reader was seated while reading the text
(Elbogen 1962, 187).
Both reading and interpreting were considered an honourable task to be
assumed on ceremonial occasions by the most distinguished personalities,
with members of the priesthood invariably being the first choice (Elbogen
1962, 188). The entry “meturgeman” in The Jewish Encyclopedia provides
the following information:

15 Klauser (1959, 43) sees the following reason: Reading a pre-existent translation was
forbidden to prevent the emergence of a new holy scripture alongside the Torah.
16 In the Hellenistic world, however, the Septuagint represented an exception as it was

read in the synagogue from a book, sometimes even instead of the Hebrew text because
the Hellenized Jews only spoke Greek. From the ninth or tenth century onwards it was
also common in the synagogues to read the Arabic translation of the Bible as a targum
(cf. Kaufmann 2005, 979). The Talmud also mentions Egyptian (Coptic), Elymian, and
Median translations of the Bible. In later times, Arabic and Persian translations were also
used in the synagogue (cf. Elbogen 1962, 187).
17 Cf. also the entry “meturgeman” in The Jewish Encyclopedia (Singer 1904, 521).
18 Readings from the following sections of the Bible were read on Jewish holidays:

Song of Songs on Pesach (Passover), the book of Ruth on Shavuot (Feast of Weeks),
Lamentations on Tisha B’av, the day commemorating the destruction of the temple,
Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) on Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles), and the book of Esther on Purim
(Festival of Lots). B. Megillah 18a stipulates that scrolls containing the book of Esther
may only be read “as written” (i.e., from the scroll in Hebrew).
194 The Bible Translator 69(2)

The head of the academy, while seated, would tell him [i.e., the meturgeman]
in Hebrew and in a low voice the outline of his lecture; and the meturgeman
would in a lengthy popular discourse explain it in the vernacular to the
audience. . . .

He did not limit himself to a mere literal translation, but dilated upon the Biblical
contents, bringing in haggadic elements, illustrations from history, and reference
to topics of the day. This naturally required much time, to gain which the weekly
lesson had to be short, so that the Pentateuch was finished only in a cycle of three
or three and one-half years; while the portion from the Prophets was frequently
abbreviated.

The free handling of the text, which frequently changed the translation into a
sermon or homily, gave the meturgeman ample opportunity to introduce his
subjective views into the lesson; and with the multiplication of sects this became
distasteful to the Rabbis. The increase in the opposition to the meturgeman led to
the fixation of the Targumim and to the demand that the meturgeman keep strictly
to mere translation. But a mere translation satisfied neither the public, who had
known the text from early school-days, nor the meturgeman, who was deprived
of an opportunity to parade his knowledge and to display his oratorical gifts.
As a consequence the “darshan,” or preacher, was introduced; and the literal
translation fell into disuse. (Singer 1904, 521)

According to the Mishnah (m. Megillah 3) the reader had to adjust his
rate of speech and his pauses to several requirements, especially the absorp-
tion and delivery of the text by the interpreter. In other words, the reader
was not entitled to begin a new verse before the interpreter had completed
his rendering (Kaufmann 2005, 980).
Only a single verse at a time was read when excerpts from the Torah had
to be interpreted. By contrast, it was acceptable to read three verses at a
time from the books of Prophets before the interpreting. However, if these
three verses represented different sections, they had to be read one by one.
Moreover, there was a rule to the effect that the haftarah had to comprise
at least twenty-one verses if no interpreter was present. When an official
meturgeman was available to interpret into Aramaic, it was permissible to
reduce the total number of verses to ten or (at the very least) three so as
not to draw out the service (Mann 1971, 9; regarding this point see also
Kaufmann 2005, 981).
Respect for the sacred text dictated that both the reader and the meturge-
man began from scratch if they had committed a mistake (cf. Kaufmann
2005, 982). A rabbi was allowed to rebuke both the reader and the inter-
preter, in the latter case especially when he disagreed with the interpreter’s
Salevsky: Interpreting in the OT and the Meturgeman in the Synagogue 195

understanding of the text (cf. Kaufmann 2005, 983–84). As an example

Kaufmann cites Gen 29.17, where Leah’s eyes are described as rakot (soft,
tender, weak, gentle, moist), which some view as a compliment, but others
as a disparaging remark, the word being derived by folk etymology from
arukot (elongated > stupid). The rabbi insisted on the latter interpretation,
while the interpreter had offered the former.19 The interpreter was torn
between closely following the text and obeying the instructions of the rabbi
who employed him. The interpreter had to take into account the “norms”
of the exegetical tradition that held sway in his time and in his sphere of
activity.

Conclusion
The foregoing can be summed up as follows: The meturgeman was an
important figure, mediating between the immutability of the written word
and the adaptability of the spoken word. In the time of Nehemiah this
practice was not yet fully established. Taking into account the state of
knowledge of his audience, the meturgeman had the task of placing the
original text, whenever necessary, into a wider context or amplifying and
explaining it. In ancient Jewish times the interpreter in the synagogue was
clearly important because he had to express in a different language what
the original “was meant to say.”

The office of the turgeman was a prestigious one, a stepping-stone for the career
of men of high repute. When the era of the Babylonian Amoraim was over, the
office became extinct, and henceforth the preacher addressed the congregation
directly once again. (Elbogen 1962, 198; my translation)

Some interpreters became rabbis, as did, for example, Rabbah Jehuda bar
Nachmani, who is even said to be the author of laws or exegeses (Kaufmann

19 Luther’s version (as published in Luther 1912) of this passage reads, “Aber Lea hatte

ein blödes Gesicht, Rahel war hübsch und schön” (roughly: But Leah was misty-eyed,
Rachel was pretty and beautiful). The Bibel in gerechter Sprache puts it differently: “Die
Augen Leas waren zärtlich, Rahel aber hatte eine schöne Figur und sah gut aus” (roughly:
Leah’s eyes were tender, but Rachel had a fine figure and good looks). Leah means “cow”
in Akkadian (cf. von Soden 1981, at No. 557b). To be cow-eyed was deemed beautiful
and expressed approval (cf. for instance Raoul Schrott’s German translation of Homer’s
Iliad (Homer, XV, line 34) where he rendered boōpis as “her large cow-eyes”). But for
theological reasons such an interpretation was not desirable. Luther’s revised version
published in 2017 uses a different wording: “Leas Augen waren sanft, Rahel aber war
schön von Gestalt und von Angesicht” (roughly: Leah’s eyes were gentle, but Rachel was
beautiful in form and appearance).
196 The Bible Translator 69(2)

2005, 983). It is generally assumed that in the first century A.D. the first
turgeman was an ordained rabbi (Gächter 1936).20

References
Bail, Ulrike et al., eds. 2006. Bibel in gerechter Sprache. Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus.
Beattie, Derek R. G., and Martin J. McNamara. 1994. The Aramaic Bible: Targums in
their Historical Context. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series 166. Sheffield: Academic Press.
Brunner, Hellmut. 1967. Abriss der Mittelägyptischen Grammatik: Zum Gebrauch
in akademischen Vorlesungen. Zweite erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage.
Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.
Cohen, Simon. 1948. “Titles.” Pages 254–55 in vol. 10 of The Universal Jewish
Encyclopedia. 10 vols. Edited by Isaac Landmann. New York: Universal Jewish
Encyclopedia.
Elbogen, Ismar. 1962. Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen
Entwicklung. Third edition. Hildesheim: Olms. Originally published in 1931 by
Kaufmann.
Falbo, Caterina. 2016. “Going Back to Ancient Egypt: Were the Princes of
Elephantine Really ‘Overseers of Dragomans’?” The Interpreters’ Newsletter
21: 109–14.
Frei, Peter, and Klaus Koch. 1996. Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im
Perserreich. 2nd edition. Freiburg/Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen:
Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Gächter, Paul. 1936. “Die Dolmetscher der Apostel.” Zeitschrift für Katholische
Theologie 60: 161–78.
Gardiner, Alan H. 1915. “The Egyptian Word for ‘Dragoman’.” Proceedings of the
Society of Biblical Archaeology 37: 117–25.
Hengel, Martin. 1994. “The Scriptures and Their Interpretation in Second Temple
Judaism.” Pages 158–75 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical
Context. Edited by Derek R. G. Beattie, and Martin J. McNamara. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: Academic
Press.
Hermann, Alfred. 1956. Dolmetschen im Altertum: Ein Beitrag zur antiken
Kulturgeschichte. Pages 25–59 in Beiträge zur Geschichte des Dolmetschens.
Edited by Karl Thieme, Alfred Hermann, and Edgar Glässer. München: Isar.
——, and Wolfram von Soden. 1959. “Dolmetscher.” Pages 24–49 in Dogma II—
Empore, vol. 4 of Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum: Sachwörterbuch zur
Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Edited by Theodor
Klauser. Stuttgart: Hiersemann.
Homer. 2008. Ilias. Translated into German by Raoul Schott. München: Hanser.

20Republished with the permission of Peter Lang GmbH, excerpted, translated, and
adapted from ch. 1 “Die Anfänge des Dolmetschens” of Beiträge zu einer Geschichte
der Translation, by Heidemarie Salevsky and Ina Müller, 2015; permission conveyed
through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Salevsky: Interpreting in the OT and the Meturgeman in the Synagogue 197

Kaufmann, Francine. 2005. “Contribution à l’histoire de l’interprétation consécu-

tive: le metourgemane dans les synagogues de l’Antiquité.” Meta 50(3): 972–86.
Klauser, Theodor, ed. 1959. Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum: Sachwörterbuch
zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Vol. 4. Dogma
II—Empore. Stuttgart: Hiersemann.
Knauf, Ernst Axel. 2013. “Kann man die Bibel übersetzen?” konstruktiv:
Theologisches aus Berlin: Beilage zur Reformierten Presse, 39: 3–5.
Mann, Jacob. 1971. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue: A Study
in the Cycles of the Readings from Torah and Prophets, as well as from Psalms,
and in the Structure of the Midrashic Homilies. Vol. 1. The Palestinian Triennial
Cycle: Genesis and Exodus. With a Hebrew Section Containing Manuscript
Material of Midrashim to these Books. Prolegomenon by Ben Zion Wacholder.
New York: KTAV Publishing House.
McNamara, Martin. 1994. The Aramaic Bible. Vol. 2. Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus.
Translated with Introduction and Apparatus by Martin McNamara and Notes by
Robert Hayward. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus. Translated with Notes by
Michael Maher. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd.
Metzger, Bruce M., and Michael D. Coogan, eds. 1993. The Oxford Companion to
the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pohling, Heide. 1971. “Zur Geschichte der Übersetzung.” Pages 125–62 in Studien
zur Übersetzungswissenschaft. By Otto Kade et al. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
Fremdsprachen 3/4. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Ribera, Josep. 1994. “The Targum: From Translation to Interpretation.” Pages
218–25 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context. Edited by
Derek R. G. Beattie, and Martin J. McNamara. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: Academic Press.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. 1949. Esra und Nehemia, samt 3. Esra. Handbuch zum Alten
Testament. Erste Reihe, 20. Tübingen: Mohr.
Salevsky, Heidemarie. 2002. Translationswissenschaft: Ein Kompendium.
Unter Mitarbeit von Ina Müller und Bernd Salevsky. Frankfurt am Main:
Lang.
Salevsky, Heidemarie, and Ina Müller. 2011. Translation as Systemic Interaction: A
New Perspective and a New Methodology. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
——. 2015. Beiträge zu einer Geschichte der Translation: Vom Wirken bedeutender
Dolmetscher und Übersetzer. Unter Mitarbeit von Bernd Salevsky. Frankfurt
am Main: Lang.
Sander-Hansen, C. E. 1963. Ägyptische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Schaeder, Hans Heinrich. 1930. Esra der Schreiber. Beiträge zur historischen
Theologie 5. Tübingen: Mohr. Reprint Ltd. Nendeln, Liechtenstein, 1966.
Schäfer, Peter. 1980. “Bibelübersetzungen. II. Targumim.” Pages 216–28 in vol.
6 of Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by Gerhard Krause and Gerhard
Müller. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Shinan, Avigdor. 1987. “Sermons, Targums, and the Readings from Scriptures in the
Ancient Synagogue.” Pages 97–110 in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity. Edited
by Lee I. Levine. Philadelphia: The American Schools of Oriental Research.
Singer, Isidor, ed. 1904. The Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. VIII. Leon—Moravia. New
York: Funk and Wagnalls.
198 The Bible Translator 69(2)

Soden, Wolfram von. 1981. Akkadisches Wörterbuch in drei Bänden. Vol. III.
Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Thieme, Karl. 1956. “Die Bedeutung des Dolmetschens für die ‘Weltgeschichte
Europas’.” Pages 9–24 in Beiträge zur Geschichte des Dolmetschens. Edited by
Karl Thieme, Alfred Hermann, and Edgar Glässer. München: Isar.
Tolkovaja Biblija ili kommentarìj na vsě knigi Sv. Pisanìja Vetchago i Novago
Zavěta. 1987. Vol. I: Bytìe—Pritči Solomona. Repr. of the St. Petersburg edi-
tion 1904–1907. Vol. 2: Ekklesiast—3 Ezdry. Repr. of the St. Petersburg edi-
tion 1908–1910, 1913. Vol. 3: Novyj Zavět. Repr. of the St. Petersburg edition
1911–1913. Stockholm: Institute for Bible Translation.
Wacholder, Ben Zion. 1971. “Prolegomenon: A History of the Sabbatical Readings
of Scripture for the ‘Triennial Cycle’.” Pages xi–xlix in The Bible as Read
and Preached in the Old Synagogue: A Study in the Cycles of the Readings
from Torah and Prophets, as well as from Psalms, and in the Structure of the
Midrashic Homilies. Vol. 1. The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Genesis and
Exodus. With a Hebrew Section Containing Manuscript Material of Midrashim
to these Books. Edited by Jacob Mann. New York: KTAV Publishing House.
York, Anthony D. 1979. “The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School.” Journal
for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 10(1):
74–86.
Zunz, Leopold. 1966. Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwick-
elt: Ein Beitrag zur Altertumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und
Religionsgeschichte. Hildesheim: Olms 1966. Reprogr. Nachdruck der Ausgabe
Frankfurt am Main 1892.

Bibles
Bibel in gerechter Sprache see Bail et al. 2006 in References
Luther 1912 Luther Bible with the text of 1912
Luther 1984 Luther Bible with the revised text of 1984
Luther 2017 Luther Bible with the revised text of 2017
NRSV New Revised Standard Version (1989)
RSV Revised Standard Version (1952)
Tolkovaja Biblija see Tolkovaja Biblija 1987 in References