Concepts of Scripture in the Synagogue Service 27is encountered as a written text, the fi rst tendency, that which asserts its
discrete and distinctive identity, is oft en paramount. Th e most basic Bibles
contain (aft er the front matter) only the words of scripture. If a Bible con-
tains commentary, typographical elements such as typeface, font size, and
placement on the page strongly delineate between the words of scripture
and the more expansive discourse that accompanies them. While both sets
of discourse, the scripture and the commentary, might ultimately contrib-
ute to the reader’s understanding of the text, many elements of the textual
encounter facilitate the distinction between scripture and commentary.
In the synagogue setting, various elements of the lectionary ritual sup-
port both convictions. Ultimately, though, the synagogue ritual creates an
experience in which the performed Torah consists of both scriptural and
nonscriptural discourse and the boundaries between the two discourses
are quite porous, and diff use. Th e Torah performance ritual articulated in
the Mishnah provides an example: M. Megillah 4:4 mandates a bilingual,
dialogic performance of the parashah and the haft arah. In the case of the
parashah, the Torah reciter reads aloud a verse from a Torah scroll. He then
pauses to allow the translator (meturgeman) to recite an Aramaic transla-
tion (targum) of the verse. According to the Mishnah, the Torah reader and
the translator must be diff erent people, and unlike the Torah reader, who
must recite from a scroll, the translator must off er his translation without
reference to a written text. In the case of the haft arah, the reader of the pro-
phetic text can read up to three verses before pausing for translation. Th is
mode of performance clearly enacts the distinction between the words of
scripture and their accompanying discourse. Th e two are uttered by diff er-
ent people in diff erent languages, and one of them is visibly derived from a
text, while the other is not. At the same time, though, the actual “script” re-
ceived by the audience is a thorough hybrid of scripture and nonscripture.
Th e audience of this ritual never receives continuous scripture. Rather,
they only receive a discourse in which scripture and its nonscriptural ex-
planation are consistently interwoven.
While the Mishnah gives a clear picture of what this intralinear, bilin-
gual performance should have looked like, it is impossible to reconstruct
the actual content that any given audience in late antiquity would have
received. While there are extant Aramaic translations of scripture dat-
ing from the rabbinic period, it is impossible to know to what degree the
orally performed translations would have conformed to these extant writ-
ten texts.17 It is also diffi cult to know to what degree late-antique Pales-
tinian audiences would have relied on the Aramaic translation for their