Targum

TARGUM

A name given to the Chaldee paraphrases of the books of the Old Testament. They are called paraphrases, or expositions, because they are rather comments and explications than literal translations of the text. They are written in the Chaldee tongue, which became familiar to the Jews after the time of their captivity in Babylon, and was more known to them than the Hebrew itself; so that when the Hebrew text was read in the synagogue, or in the temple, they generally added to it an explication in the Chaldee tongue for the service of the people, who had but a very imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew tongue. It is probable, that even from the time of Ezra, this custom began: since this learned scribe, reading the law to the people in the temple, explained it, with the other priests that were with him, to make it understood by the people, Neh 8:7; Neh 8:9. But though the custom of making these sorts of expositions in the Chaldee language, be very ancient among the Hebrews, yet they have no written paraphrases or Targums before the aera of Onkelos and Jonathan, who lived about the time of our Saviour. Jonathan is placed about thirty years before Christ, under the reign of Herod the Great. Onkelos is something more modern.

The Targum of Onkelos is the most of all esteemed, and copies are to be found in which it is inserted verse for verse with the Hebrew. It is so short, and so simple, that it cannot be suspected of being corrupted. This paraphrast wrote only upon the books of Moses; and his style approaches nearly to the purity of the Chaldee, as it is found in Daniel and Ezra. This Targum is quoted in the Misna, but was not known either to Eusebius, St. Jerom, or Origen. The Targum of Jonathan, son of Uziel, is upon the greater and lesser prophets. He is much more diffuse than Onkelos, and especially upon the lesser prophets, where he takes greater liberties, and runs on in allegories. His style is pure enough, and approaches pretty near to the Chaldee of Onkelos. It is thought that the Jewish doctors, who lived above seven hundred years after him, made some additions to him. The Targum of Joseph the Blind is upon the Hagiographia. This author is much more modern, and less esteemed, than those we have now mentioned. He has written upon the Psalms, Job, the Proverbs, the Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, and Esther. His style is a very corrupt Chaldee, with a great mixture of words from foreign languages. The Targum of Jerusalem is only upon the Pentateuch; nor is that entire or perfect. There are whole verses wanting, others transposed, others mutilated; which has made many of opinion that this is only a fragment of some ancient paraphrase that is now lost. There is no Targum upon Daniel, or upon the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

These Targums are of great use for the better understanding not only of the Old Testament, on which they are written, but also of the New. As to the Old Testament, they serve to vindicate the genuineness of the present Hebrew text, by proving it to be the same that was in use when these Targums were made; contrary to the opinion of those who think the Jews corrupted it after our Saviour’s time. They help to explain many words and phrases in the Hebrew original, and they hand down to us many of the ancient customs of the Jews. And some of them, with the phraseologies, idioms, and peculiar forms of speech, which we find in them, do, in many instances, help as much for the better illustration and better understanding of the New Testament, as of the Old; the Jerusalem Chaldee dialect, in which they are written, being the vulgar language of the Jews in our Saviour’s time. They also very much serve the Christian cause against the Jews, by interpreting many of the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament in the same manner as the Christians do. Many instances are produced to this purpose by Dr. Prideaux in his Connexions of the History of the Old and New Testament. These Targums are published to the best advantage in the second edition of the great Hebrew Bible set forth as Basil by Buxtorf, the father, anno 1610.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Targum

Targum is the distinctive designation of the Aramaic translations or paraphrases of the Old Testament. After the return from exile Aramaic gradually won the ascendancy as the colloquial language over the slowly decaying Hebrew until, from probably the last century before the Christian era, Hebrew was hardly more than the language of the schools and of worship. As the majority of the population ceased to be conversant with the sacred language it became necessary to provide translations for the better understanding of the passages of the Bible read in Hebrew at the liturgical services. Thus to meet this need it became customary to add to the portions of the Scriptures read on the Sabbath an explanatory oral translation — a Targum. At first this was probably done only for the more difficult passages, but as time went on, for the entire text. The “Mishna” gives more elaborate instructions as to the way in which this translating should be done. According to the “Megillah” (IV, 4), when the lesson to be read aloud was from the “Torah” only one verse was to be read to the translator (Methurgeman). When the lesson was from the “Nebi’im” it was permitted to read three to him, unless each verse formed a special division. The directions also state which portions are to be read aloud but not translated (cf. for instance “Meg.”, IV, 10), and a warning is given against translations that are either to free, palliative, allegorical, etc.

Another regulation was that the Targum was not to be written down (“Jer. Meg.”, IV, i = fol. 74d). This prohibition, however, probably referred only to the interpretation given in the synagogue and did not apply to private use or to its employment in study. In any case, written Targums must have existed at an early date. Thus, for instance, one on the Book of Job is mentioned in the era of Gamaliel I (middle of the first century A.D.), which he, however, was not willing to recognize (“Sabb.”, 115a; cf. “Tos. Sabb.”, 13, 2=p. 128, ed. Zuckermandel). If Matt., xxvii, 46, gives the Aramaic form of Ps., xxi, 2, the last utterance of the Saviour upon the Cross, this shows that even then the Psalms were current among the people in the Aramaic language; moreover, Ephes., iv, 8, has a closer connection with the Targum to Ps., lxvii, 19, than with the Masoretic text. In addition, the “Mishna Yadayim”, IV, 5, and “Sabb.”, XVI, also indicates the early existence of MSS. of the Targum. These MSS., however, were only owned privately not officially as for a long period the Targums were without authoritative and official importance in Palestine. This authoritative position was first gained among the Babylonian Jews and through their influence the Targums were also more highly esteemed in Palestine, at least the two older ones. In the form in which they exist at present no Targum that has been preserved goes back further than the fifth century. Various indication, however, show the great antiquity of the main contents of many Targums, their theology among other things. That as early as the third century the text, for instance, of the Targum on the Pentateuch was regarded by the synagogue as traditionally settled is evident from the “Mishna Meg.”, IV, 10, “Jer. Meg.”, 74d, “Hab. Kidd.”, 49d, “Tos. Meg.”, IV, 41. There are Targums to all the canonical books excepting Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah; for some books of the Bible there are several Targums. As regards age and linguistic character they may be divided into three classes: (1) Targum of Onkelos and Targum of Jonathan; (2) Jerusalem Targums; (3) Targum on the Hagiographa.

The form of language used in the Targums is called specifically “Targum dialect”. It belongs to western Aramaic and more particularly to the Aramaic of Palestine. Its home in to be sought in Judea, the ancient seat of the learning of the scribes. It should be borne in mind that this Targumic language does not represent the spoken Aramaic, but is the result of the labours of scholars. Consequently the point under discussion turns on a literary Aramaic originally formed in Judea. This is particularly true of the two earlier Targums; the later ones show generally an artificially mixed type of language. The traditional pointing of the texts is valueless and misleading: a more certain basis was first offered by MSS. from Southern Arabia in which the pointing for the vowels was placed above the line. In Arabia the old synagogal custom of reciting the Targum at the religious services had been retained, and consequently more interest was felt there in the pronunciation. It must be acknowledged, however, that this cannot be regarded as a direct pronunciation of the Palestinian pronunciation; it may have sprung from a formal treatment of the Targum of Onkelos customary among the Babylonian scholars. As regards the method of translation all Targums in common strive to avoid as much as possible anthropomorphisms and anthropopathic terms, as well as other apparently undignified expressions concerning, and descriptive of God. The Targums are printed in the Rabbinical and Polyglot Bibles, although the two do not always contain the same Targums or an equal number of them. See below for particulars as to individual editions.

I. THE TARGUM OF ONKELOS

The official Targum to the Pentateuch is designated by the name of Onkelos. In the Babylonian Talmud and in the Tosephta, Onkelos is the name of a proselyte who is mentioned as a contemporay of the elder Gamaliel (“Aboda zara”, 11a; cf. “Tos. sabb.”, 8=p. 119, ed. Zuckermandel). The labours of Onkelos are referred to in “Meg.”, 3a, in the following words: “Rab Jeremiya, according to others Rab Hiya bar Abba says: ‘According to the statement of Rab Eliezer and Rab Josua, Onkelos the proselyte has said, that is, has orally formulated, the Targum of the Torah'”. Gaon Sar Shalon (d. 859) was the first who, taking this passage as a basis, called the Pentateuch-Targum the Targum of Onkelos. This he did in an opinion concerning the Targum which he evidently had before him at the time in a written copy. The designation that thus arose became customary through its acceptance by Rashi and others. It is evident, however, that in the passage mentioned (“Meg.”, 3a) there has been a confusion with the name of Aquila, the translator of the Bible, for the older parallel passage of the Palestinian Talmud (“Meg.”, I, 11 = fol. 71c) says the same of Aquila and his Greek translation of the Bible. Compare also Midrash, Tanchuma, Mishpatim, 91, 92 (ed. Mantua, 1863, fol. 36b). Thus it seems that in Babylonia the old and correct knowledge of the Greek translation of the proselyte Aquila was erroneously transferred to the anonymous Aramaic translation, that consequently Onkelos (instead of Akylas) is a corrupted form or a provincial modification of Aquila. It is not necessary to discuss here earlier views concerning this point. The effort to prove the existence of an Onkelos distinct from Aquila is still made by Friedmann (“Onkelos and Aquila” in “Jahresber. der Israelit.-theol. Lehranstalt in Wien”, 1896), but the proof adduced is not convincing (cf. Blau in “Jewish Quarterly Review,” IX, 1897, p. 727 sqq.).

Thus it is not known who wrote the Targum named after Onkelos. In any case the Targum, at least the greater part of it, is old, a fact indicated by the connection with Rab Eliezer and Rab Josua, and belongs probably to the second, or it may be to the first century of our era. It arose, as the idiom shows, in Judea, but it received official recognition first from the Babylonian Rabbis, and is therefore called by them “our Targum”, or is quoted with the formula “as we translate”. Rab Natronay (d. 869) in speaking of this says, that it is not permitted to replace it in the services of the synagogue by any other translation of the Pentateuch. The high reputation of this authorized translation is shown by the fact that it has a Masorah of its own. The fixing of the written form, and thereby the final settlement of the text as well, should not be assigned to a date before the fifth century. The language is, in general, an artificial form of speech closely connected with the Biblical Aramaic. It is probably not the spoken Aramaic used as a dialect by the Jewish people, but a copy made by scholars of the Hebraic original, of which the Targum claims to give the most faithful reproduction possible. In doing this the Aramaic language is treated similarly to the Greek in the translation of Aquila, consequently the many Hebraic idioms. There is no positive proof (Dalman, “Gramm”, 13) of a corrupting influence of the Babylonian dialect as Noldeke held [“Semit. Sprachen” (1887), 32; (2nd ed., 1899), 38].

As regards the character of the translation it is, taken altogether, fairly literal. Anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions are avoided by roundabout expressions or in other ways; obscure Hebrew words are often taken without change into the text; proper names are frequently interpreted, as Shinar-Babylon, Ishmaelites-Arabs; for figurative expressions are substituted the corresponding literal ones. Haggadic interpretation is only used at times, for instance in prophetic passages, as Gen., xlix; Num., xxiv; Deut., xxxii. This Targum was first printed at Bologna (1482) together with the Hebrew text of the Bible and the commentary of Rashi; later, in the Rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf, and with a Latin translation in the Complutensian Polyglot (1517), and the Polyglots of Antwerp (1569), Paris (1645), and London (1657). Among separate editions of the Targum special mention should be made of that printed in 1557 at Sabbioneta. More modern editions are: Berliner, “Targum Onkelos” (2 vols., Berlin, 1884), in which vol. I contains the text according to the Sabbioneta edition, and vol. II, elucidations; the Yemanites at Jerusalem have printed with an edition of the Pentateuch (sefer Keter tora) from MSS. the Arabic translation by Saadya (Jerusalem, 1894-1901), in which publication the vowel pointing above the line has been changed to sublinear pointing; Barnheim, “The Targum of Onkelos to Genesis” (London, 1896), on the text of the Yemen manuscripts. In addition to the Latin translations in the Polyglot Bibles there is one by Fagius (Strasburg, 1546); there is also an English translation by Etheridge, “The Targum of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pent., with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum”, from the Chaldee (2 vols., London, 1862-65).

THE TARGUM OF JONATHAN (YONATHAN)

The Targum to the Prophets (priores, historical books; posteriores, the actual Prophets) now in existence is ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, who is said on the authority of the Babylonian “Megillah”, 3a, to have formulated it orally, in accordance with the instructions of Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi. This assertion probably means that in his exposition he gives the traditional interpretation that had been handed down from one generation to another since early times. According to the Babylonian “Sukkah” (28a = baba bathra 134a), he was the most noted pupil of the elder Hillel, and is therefore assigned to the first Christian century. The Babylonian Talmud in quoting passages from this Targum ascribes them to Rab Joseph bar Hiya (d. 333), the head of the school at Pumbaditha. Rab Joseph was regarded as a great authority on the tradition of the Targum and his judgment on the translation of many individual passages was eagerly listened to; he may perhaps be considered as the editor of this Targum. For Jonathan as for Onkelos the final settlement of the written form did not occur until the fifth Christian century. Cornill claims to show (“Einleitung”, 2nd., ed., 1893, p. 308) that the Targum on the Prophets is older than the Torah-Targum, but the reasons produced are not convincing (cf. Dalman, 15, passim). Linguistically, this Targum approaches most closely that of Onkelos; in grammatical construction the two are alike but the words used differ, and this Targum is more paraphrastic. In the historical books Jonathan himself is often the expounder, but in the actual prophetic books the exposition is in reality Haggadic. The religious opinions and theological conceptions of the era that are interwoven are very instructive. The text, further, is not free from later additions; from this cause arise the double translations of which the Targum contains several. The “Prophetae priores” was the first printed with the Hebrew text and the commentaries of Gimhi and Levi at Leiria, Portugal, in 1494. At a later date the whole Targum was printed in the Rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg and Buxdorf and in the Polyglot Bibles of Antwerp, Paris, and London. The last edition is that of de Lagarde, “Prophetae chaldice e fide codicis Reuchliniani” (Leipzig, 1872). There are supplementary additions to this from an Erfurt MS. in “Symmicta”, I, 139. The Targum to the Haphtarah is to be found in what is called the Pentateuch edition of the Yemanites at Jerusalem. English translations are: Pauli, “The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Prophet Isaiah Translated” (London, 1871); Levy, “Targum on Isaiah,” I (London, 1889).

II. THE JERUSALEM TARGUMS

This designation is not correct; the older and more correct name, “Palestinian Targum”, is found for instance in the writings of Gaon Hai (d. 1038). Fundamentally the language of these Targums is Palestinian Aramaic but of a very mixed type. Neither of them is homogeneous grammatically and lexically. Besides expressions that recall the Galilean dialect of the Palestinian Talmud a preference is shown for imitation of the language of the Targum of Onkelos, while there are also various terms belonging to the language of the Babylonian Talmud.

A. Targum Yerushalmi I on the Pentateuch

This is generally called the Targum of Jonathan or of the Pseudo-Jonathan, because it is cited in the first printed edition (Venice, 1591) under the name of Jonathan ben Uzziel. This designation, however, rests on a mistaken solution of an abbreviation. The Targum could not have appeared in its present form before the second half of the seventh century. For example (Genesis 21:21), a wife and daughter of Mohammed are mentioned. Compare also (Genesis 49:26) the position of Esau and Ishmael as representatives of the Mohammedan world. The Targum covers the entire Pentateuch. The only passages that are lacking are: Gen., vi, 15; x, 23; xviii, 4; xx, 15; xxiv, 28; xli, 49; xliv, 30-31; Exod., iv, 8; Lev., xxiv, 4; Num., xxii, 18; xxx, 20b, 21a; xxxvi, 8-9. As to its form it is a free Haggadic treatment of the text, that is, an exposition of rather than a translation. A large part of it is made up of legendary narratives; there are also dialogues, rhetorical and poetical digressions. The paraphrase also discusses religious and metaphysical conceptions, as was the custom of the Jewish mystics of the seventh century. This Targum was first printed at Venice in 1591. It was also to be found in volume IV of the London Polyglot. A separate edition of this Targum was edited from the manuscript in the British Museum (MS. Addit. 27031) by Ginsburger, “Targum Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pentat,” (Berlin, 1903). Concerning this codex cf. Barnstein in “Jew. Quart Rev.”, XI (1899), 167 sqq. An English translation has been published by Etheridge (supra).

B. Targum Yerushalmi II

Targum Yerushalmi on the Pentateuch is also called the Fragmentary targum because the Targum on the entire Pentateuch has not been preserved, but only portions of it on numerous longer and shorter passages, frequently only the Targum on individual verses or parts of such. These fragments were first printed in the rabbinical Bible of 1517. In language, method of translation, and exegetical form they are related to the Pseudo-Jonathan. A perspicuously arranged compilation of the fragments that have been preserved is given by Ginsburger in the “ZDMG”, LVII (1903), 67 sqq., and in loc. cit., LVIII (1904), 374 sqq., on a page that came from a geniza or repository in a synagogue for damaged manuscripts. A Latin translation from the Venice edition of 1517 was published by Taylor (London, 1649); English tr. by Etheridge (supra).

Opinions concerning the connection between the Targums Jerushalmi I and Jerushalmi II agree in general that both are to be traced back to different recensions of an old Jerusalem Targum. This is the view of Zunz (p. 73, and passim), and also that of Geiger, “Urschrift und Udersetzungen der Bibel” (Berlin, 1857), 454. Bassfreund (infra) reaches the conclusion that the basis both of the Fragmentary Targum and that of the Pseudo-Jonathan is a complete Jerusalem Targum of post-Talmudic origin, but that the two Targums, Jerushalmi I and II, presuppose the existence of the Targum of Onkelos. The Fragmentary Targum gives from this ancient Jerusalem Targum gives from this ancient Jerusalem Targum, according to Bassfreund, only matter supplementary to Onkelos, while Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum have been used in preparing the Pseudo-Jonathan. In the preface to his edition of the Pseudo-Jonathan (see below) Ginsburger tries to prove that both the Fragmentary Targum and the Pseudo-Jonathan may be traced back to a very ancient Palestinian Targum, which was not influenced by the Targum of Onkelos until a later date. The Fragmentary Targum, in Ginsburger’s opinion, represents a variant collection, not to Onkelos (as Bassfreund thinks), but to another recensions of that ancient Jerusalem Targum. Ginsburger’s views will have to be accepted as the more probable.

C. Targum Yerushalmi III

Targum Yerushalmi III is the name assigned by Dalman (Gramm., 29) to fragments which are given in old editions of the Pentateuch, as Lisbon (1491), Salonica (1520), Constantinople (1546), Venice (1591), and in several MSS. Nearly all have been published by Ginsburger, “Das Fragmententargum” (1899), 71-74.

D. Other Jerusalem Targums

There have also been Jerusalem Targums on the Prophets and on individual books of the Hagiographa. As regards the Targums on the Prophets de Lagarde has given Reuchlin’s notes from the “Nebi’im Codex” in the introduction (pp. VI-XLII) to his “Prophetae chaldice” (infra). There are fragments on Josue, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaias, Jeremias, Amos, Jonas, Zacharias. [Cf. Bacher in “ZDMG”, XXVIII (1874), 1-72; XXIX (1875), 157 sqq., 319 sq.]

III. TARGUMS ON THE HAGIOGRAPHA

They are the work of various authors and have the character more or less of private undertakings, with the production of which the schools had nothing to do. Linguistically they are to be regarded as the work artificially produced of a late age. They depend in the main on the Jerusalem Targums and probably belong to the same era; the Targum on Chronicles may be somewhat later. Three groups are to be distinguished as regards linguistic character and relation to the original text: (a) Targums to Proverbs, Psalms, and Job; (b) Targums to the five Megilloth, that is Ruth, Esther, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; (c) Targums to the Books of Chronicles.

The Targums mentioned under (a) adhere relatively closest to the text of the Bible. The Targum to Proverbs is in language and contents very dependent on the text of the Syriac Peschitto, and is but little more than a Jewish recension of the same. [Cf. Noldeke in “Merx’ Archiv fur wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T.”, II (1872), 246 sqq.’ Baumgartner, “Etude critique sur l’etat du texte du livre des Proverbes” (Leipzig, 1890), 267 sqq.] Haggadic additions are found only occasionally in the Targum on the Psalms. In a number of passages a second translation is introduced with the remark “another Targum”. The Targum to Job contains many more additions. There are also variants of the usual formula of citation, and much oftener than in the Targum on the Psalms. In style and language this Targum resembles that on the Psalms, consequently both perhaps are the work of the same author.

(b) The Targums on the Megilloth are not in reality translations but rather Haggadic commentaries. the Biblical text is most clearly evident in the Targums to Ruth and to Lamentations. The Targum to Ecclesiastes is a tasteless declamation upon the text on which it is based; that on Canticles is an allegorico-mystical Midrash. There are two Targums to Esther, the one closely resembles a paraphrase and has no legends interwoven with it; the other, called Targum scheni, has altogether the character of a Midrash. It is only to a small degree a translation; the greater part of it consists of stories, legends, and discourses that have but slight connection with the contents of the book.

(c) A Targum on the Books of Chronicles was edited from a MS. in Erfurt by Matthias Beck (2 pts., Augsburg, 1680-83); a more complete and correct text taken from a MS. at Cambridge was edited by Wilkins, “Paraphrasis Chaldica in librum priorem et posteriorem Chronicorum” (Amsterdam, 1715).

All the Targums to the Hagiographa (excepting Chronicles) were printed for the first time in the Bomberg Bible in 1517; afterwards in the “Polyglots” of Antwerp, Paris, and London. A modern edition from the Bomberg text, with Chronicles from the Erfurt Codex, was edited by de Lagarde, “Hagiographa chaldaice” (Leipzig, 1873).

———————————–

GENERAL: ZUNZ, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden (Berlin, 1832), 61-83; HAUSDORFF, Zur Gesch. der Targumim nach talmudischen Quellen in Monatschr. fur Gesch. u. Wissensch. des Judentums, XXXVIII (1894), 203 sqq., 241 sqq.; MAYBAUM, Die Anthropomorphien u. Anthropopathien bei Onkelos u. in den spateren Targumim (Breslau, 1878); GINSBURGER, Die Anthropomorphismus in den Thargumim in Jahrbucher fur prot. Theol. (Brunswick, 1891), 262 sqq., 430 sqq. As regards the language: DALMAN, Grammatik des judisch-palastinischen Aramaisch (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1905); IDEM, Aramaisch-neuhebr. Worterbuch (Frankfort, 1897-1901).

I. THE TARGUM OF ONKELOS: KAUTZSCH, Mitteilung uber eine alte Handschr. des Targ. Onk. in Cod. Socini, No. 84 (Halle, 1893); BERLINER, Die Massorah zum Targ. O. (Leipzig, 1877); LANDAUER, Die Masorah zum O. (Amsterdam, 1896); BREDERECK, Concordanz zum T. O. (Giessen, 1906); IDEM, Uber die Art der Ubersetzung im T. Onk. in Theol. Studien u. Kritiken (Gotha, 1901), 351-77.

THE TARGUM OF JONATHAN: PRACTORIUS, Das Targum zu Josua nach Yemenischer Uberlieferung (Berlin, 1899); IDEM, Das Targum zum Buch der Richter nach yemen. Uberlieferung (Berlin, 1900); WOLFSOHN, Das Targum zum Propheten Jeremias in yemen. Uberl. (Halle, 1902), ch. i-xii; SILBERMANN, Das Targum zu Ezechiel nach einer sudarabischen Handschrift (Strasburg, 1902), ch. i-x; WRIGHT, Targum zu Jonas (London, 1857); ADLER, Targum to Nahum in Jew. Quart. Rev., VII (1895), 630 sqq.; BACHER, Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum in ZD MG, XXVIII (1874), I sqq.; KLEIN in loc. cit., XXIX (1875), 157 sqq.; FRANKEL, Zu dem Targum der Propheten (Breslau, 1872).

TARGUM YERUSHALMI I: SELIGSOHN AND TRAUB, Uber den Geist der Ubersetzung des Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pent. etc. in Monatschrift fur Gesch. u. Wissenschaft des Judentums (1857), 96 sqq., 138 sqq.; MARMORSTEIN, Studien zum Pseudo-Jonathan Targum (Presburg, 1905).

TARGUM YERUSHALMI II: GINSBURGER, Das Fragmententargum (Berlin, 1899); (1) Targum according to Cod. 110 of the National Library at Paris; (2) variants from Cod. Vat. 440 and Lips. 1; (3) quotations from old writers; matter supplementary to this work is given by MARX in Zeitschrift fur hebr. Bibliographie (1902), 55-58.

TARGUMS YERUSHALMI I & II: BASSFREUND, Das Fragmententargum u. sein Verhaltnis zu den anderen palast. Targumim in Monatschrift fur Gesch. u. Wissenschaft des Judentums, XL (1896), 1 sqq., 49 sqq., 97 sqq., 145 sqq., 241 sqq., 352 sqq., 396 sqq.; GINSBURGER, loc. cit., XLI (1897), 289 sqq., 340 sqq.; preface to Pseudo-Jonathan, ed. IDEM (Berlin, 1903); NEUMARK, Lexikalische Untersuchungen zur Sprache der jerusalemischen Pentat. Targume (Berlin, 1905).

TARGUM YERUSHALMI III: LEVY, Das Targums zu Koheleth nach sudarab. Handschriften (Berlin, 1905); GOLLANCZ, Targum to the Song of Songs (London, 1908), translation; POSNER, Das Targum Rischon zu d. bibl. B. Esther (Breslau, 1896); DAVID, Das Targum scheni zum B. Esther (Berlin, 1898); TAYLOR, Targ. prius et posterius in Estheram . . . in linguam Latinam translatum (London, 1655); GELBHAUS, Das Targum scheni zum B. Esther (Frankfort, 1893).

FR. SCHÜHLEIN Transcribed by John D. Beetham

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Targum

(, i.e. translation, interpretation) is the name given to a Chaldee version or paraphrase of the Old Test., of which there are several extant.

I. Origin of the Targums. The origin of the Chaldee paraphrase may be traced back to the time of Ezra. After the exile it became the practice to read the law in public to the people, with the addition of an oral paraphrase in the Chaldee dialect. Thus we read in Neh 8:8, , which expression the Talmud, Bab. Megillah, fol. 3, Colossians 1, explains , i.e. to explain means Targum. This ecclesiastical usage, rendered necessary by the change of language consequent on the captivity, was undoubtedly continued in aftertimes. It rose in importance, especially when the synagogues and public. schools began to flourish, the chief subject of occupation in which was the exposition of the Thorah. The office of the interpreter (, , , less frequently , comp. Zunz, Die gottesd. Vortrage, p. 332) thus became one of the most important, and the canon of the Talmud, that as the law was given by a mediator, so it can be read and expounded only by a mediator, became paramount (Jerus. Megillah, fol. 74). The Talmud contains, even in its oldest portions, precise injunctions concerning the manner of conducting these expository prelections. Thus, Neither the reader nor the interpreter is to raise his voice one above the other; They have to wait for each other until each have finished his verse;

The methurgeman is not to lean against a pillar or a beam, but to stand with fear and with reverence; He is not to use a written Targum, but he is to deliver his translation viva voce; No more than one verse in the Pentateuch and three in the prophets shall be read or translated at a time ; That there should be not more than one reader and one interpreter for the law; while for the prophets one reader and one interpreter, or two interpreters, are allowed (Mishna, Megillah, 4:5, 10; Sopherinm, 11:1). Again (Megillah, ibid., and Tosiphta, c. 3), certain passages liable to give offence to the multitude are specified, which may be read in the synagogue and translated; others which may be read but not translated; others, again, which may neither be read nor translated. To the first class belong the account of the creation a subject not to be discussed publicly on account of its most vital bearing upon the relation between the Creator, and the Cosmos, and the nature of both; the deed of Lot and his two daughters (Gen 19:31); of Judah and Tamar (ch. 38); the first account of the making of the golden calf (Exodus 32); all the curses in the law; the deed of Amunon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13); of Absalom with his father’s concubines (2Sa 16:22); the story of the woman of Gibeah (Judges 19). These are to be read and translated, or . To be read but not translated, , are the deed of Reuben with his father’s concubine (Gen 25:22); the latter portion of the story of the golden calf (Exodus 32); and the deed of David and Bathsheba (2Sa 11:12).

At what time these paraphrases were written down we cannot state; but it must certainly have been at an early period. Bearing in mind that the Hellenistic Jews had for a long time been in possession of the law translated into their language, and that in the 2nd century not only had the Jews themselves issued Greek versions in opposition to the Alexandrian version, which were received with decided approbation even by the Talmudists, as the repeated and honorable mention of Aquila in the Talmud proves, but that also the Syrians had been prompted to translate the Holy Scriptures, it would indeed be strange had not the Jews familiar with the Aramsean dialect also followed the practice at that time universally prevalent, and sought to profit by it. We have, in point of fact, certain traces of written Targums extant at least in the time of Christ. For even the Mishna seems to imply this in Yadacim, 4:5, where the subject treated is the language and style of character to be used in writing the Targums. Further, the Talmud, Shabbaih, fol. 115, Colossians 1, mentions a written Targum on Job of the middle of the 1st century (in the time of Gamaliel I), which incurred the disapprobation of Gamaliel. Zunz here justly remarks, Since it is not likely that a beginning should have been made with Job, a still higher antiquity as very probably belonging to the first renderings of the law may be assumed (loc. cit. p. 62). Gritz, in his Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 84, believes that this Targum of Job, mentioned four times in the Talmud, can only refer to a Greek translation of that book, and Derenbourg, in his Essai sur l’ Histoire et la Geographie de la Palestine, p. 242, accounts for the action of Gamaliel, because it was written avec des caracteres non- hebraiques. But as Delitzsch, in Ioorne lebr. et Talmucd. (Zeitschrift fr die luth. Theologieu. Kirche [Leips. 1878], p. 211), remarks, means in Targum,’ i.e. written in the Aramaean and refers not to the characters with which, but to the language in which, it was written. Gamaliel acted according to old principle, , i.e. all that belongs to oral tradition was not to appear in written form. This principle included also the Targum, but it was not strictly observed, and, like the Mishna, so, also, Targums were clandestinely circulated in single copies. That this was the case we see from the fact that Gamaliel of Jabneh, the grandson of Gamaliel I or elder, having been found reading the Targum on Job, was reminded of the procedure of his grandfather, who had the copy of the Job Targum, which was brought to him while standing on the mountain of the Temple, immured in order to prevent its further use. Dr. Frarikl, in Die. Zusdtze in der Sept. zu Hiob (in Grlitz, Monatsschrift,. 1872, p. 313), says, There is no doubt that the additions in the Sept. were made according to an old Aramaean Targum, and in corroboration of his statement he quotes Tosiphta Shabbath, c. 14; Shabbath, fol. 115, Colossians 1; Jerus. Shabbath, 16, 1; Sopherin, v, 1.5. We are thus obliged to assume an early origin for the Targums, a fact which will be corroborated further on, in spite of the many objections raised, the chief of which, adduced by Eichhorn, being the silence of the Christian fathers, of whom none, not even Epiphanius or Jerome, mention the subject. But this silence is of little weight, because the fathers generally were ignorant of Hebrew and of Hebrew literature. Nor was any importance attached to them in comparison with Greek translations. Besides, in truth, the assertion in question is not even supported by the facts of the case; for Ephraem Syrus, e.g., made use of the Targums (comp. Lengerke, De Ephraemi S. Arte Hermeneut. p. 14 sq.; Assemani, Bibl. Orient. 1, 66).

II. The Targum of Onkelos. There is a Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch which has always been highly valued by the Jews.

1. Authorship. In regard to the author, the notices of him are meagre and uncertain. We now approach one of the most mooted questions as to the identity of Onkelos with Akilas or Aquila; but before solving it we must hear the different witnesses. The first mention of Onkelos is found in the Tosipohta, a work drawn up shortly after the Mishna. From this we learn:

a. That Onkelos the Proselyte ( ) was so serious in his adherence to the newly adopted (Jewish) faith that he threw his share of his paternal inheritance into the Dead Sea, (Tos. Demci’, 6:9).

b. At the funeral of Gamaliel the elder he burned more than seventy mince worth of spices in his honor (Tos. Shabbath, 100. 8; the same story is repeated with variations Semchoth 100. 8, and Talm. Aboda Zarah, fol. 11, Colossians 1).

c. He is finally mentioned, by way of corroboration to different Halachas, in connection with Gamaliel in- three more places, viz. Chagigah, 3, 1; Mikvaoth, 6:1; Kelim, 3, 2,2. In the Babylonian. Talmud, Onkelos is mentioned in the following passages:

(1.) Gittin, fol. 56, Colossians 2; fol. 57, Colossians 1, where we read, onkelos the Proselyte, the son of Kalonikos (Callinicus or Cleonicus?), the son of Titus’s sister, who, intending to become a convert, conjured up the ghosts of Titus, Balaam, and Jesus [the latter name is omitted in later editions, for which, as in the copy before us, is substituted , but not in Bomberg’s and the Cracow editions], in order to ask them what nation was considered the first in the other world. Their answer that Israel was the favored one decided him.

(2.) Aboda Zarah, fol. 11, col. I, here called the son of Kalonymos (Cleonymos?); and we also read in this place that the emperor sent three Roman cohorts to capture him, and that he converted them all.

(3.) Baba Bathra, fol. 99, coil. 1, where Onkelos the Proselyte is quoted as an authority on the question of the form of the cherubim (comp. 2Ch 3:10).

(4.) Megillah, fol. 3, Colossians 1, where we read, II Jeremiah, or, according to others, 1t. Chia bar-Abba, said the Targum, on the Pentateuch was made by the proselyte Onkelos; from the mouth of R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshna; the Targum on the prophets was made by Jonathan ben-Uziel from the month of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi…. But have we not been taught that the Targum existed from the time of Ezra?… Only it was forgotten and Ollelos restored it. In the Miidrash Tanichuma, section in (Gen 28:20), we read, Onkelos the Proselyte asked an old man whether that was all the love God bore towards a proselyte, that he promised to give him bread and a garment? The old man replied that this was all for which the patriarch Jacob prayed. In the book of, Zohar, section (Lev 18:4), Onkelos is represented as a disciple of Hillel and Shammai. Finally a MS. in the library of the Leipsic Senate (B. H.) relates that Onkelos, the nephew of the wicked Titus ( ), asked the emperor’s advice as to what merchandise he thought it was profitable to trade in. Titus told him that that should be bought which was cheap in the market, since it was sure to rise in price. Onkelos went to Jerusalem and studied the law under R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, and his face became wan ( ). When he returned to Titus, one of the courtiers observed the pallor of his countenance, and said to Titus, Onkelos appears to have studied the law. Interrogated by Titus, he admitted the fact, adding that he had done it by his advice. No nation had ever been so exalted, and none was now held cheaper among the nations than Israel; therefore, he said, I concluded that in the end none would be of higher price (comp. Anger, De Onkelo, pt. 2 [Lips. 1846], p. 12, where the whole passage in the original is copied). In all these passages the name of Onkelos is given. But there are many passages in. which the version of Akilas ( ) is mentioned, and the notices concerning Akilas bear considerable likeness to those of Onkelos. Akilas is mentioned in Siphra (Lev 25:7), and in Jerus. Talmud, Demai, 27 d, as having been born in Pontus; that, after having embraced the Jewish faith, he threw his paternal inheritance into an asphalt lake (Jerus. Demaz, 25 d); that he translated the Torah before R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, who praised him ( ) and said to him, Thou art fairer than the sons of men ( ); or, according to the other accounts, before R. Akiba (comp. Jerus. Kiddushin, 1, 11, etc.; Jerus. Megillah, 1, 9; Babyl. Megillah, fol. 3, Colossians 1). We learn,. further, that he lived in the time of Hadrian (Chag. 2, 1), that he was the son of the emperor’s sister (Tanchun, ed. Prague, fol. 34, Colossians 2), that he became a convert against the emperor’s will (ibid. and Shemoth Rabbah, fol. 146 c), and that he consulted Eliezer and Jehoshua about his conversion (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 78 d; comp. Midrash Coheleth, fol. 102 b).

That Akilas is no other than Aquila (), the well-known Greek translator of the Old Test., we need hardly add. He was a native of Pontus (Iren. Adv. Haer. 3,24; Jerome, De Vir. Ill. c. 54; Philbstr. De Icer. 90). He lived under Hadrian (Epiph. De Pond. et Mens. 12). He is called the (Chronicles Alex. ) of the emperor (ibid. 14), becomes a convert to Judaism ( 15), whence he is called the Proselyte (Iren. loc. cit.; Jerome to Jer 8:14, etc.), and receives instructions from Akiba (Jerome, loc. cit.). He translated the Old Test., and his version was considered of the highest import and authority among the Jews, especially those unacquainted with the Hebrew language (Euseb. Praep. Evang. loc. cit.; Augustine, De Civ. Dei, 15:23; Philostr. De Her. 90; Justin, Novell. 146). Thirteen distinct quotations from this version are preserved in the Talmud and Midrash; and we may classify the whole as follows:

Greek Quotations. Gen 17:1, in Beresh. Rab. 51 b; Lev 23:40, Jelrs. Sukkah, 3, 5, fol. 53 d (comp. Iaj. Rab. 200 d); Isaiah 3, 20, Jerns. Shabb. 6, 4, fol. 8 b; Eze 16:10, Mid. Thren. 58, 100; Eze 23:43, Vaj. Rab. 203 d: Psalms 48, 15 (Masor. text 47, according to the Sept.), Jers. Meg. 2, 3, fol. 73 b; Pro 18:21, Vaj. Rab. fol. 203 b; Est 1:6, Midr. Esth. 120 d; Daniel 5, 5, Jerns. Yoma, 3, 8, fol. 41 a.

Hebrew Quotations (retranslated from the Greek). Lev 19:20, Jerus. Kid. 1, 1, fol. 59 a; Dan 8:13, Beresh. Rab. 24 c.

Chaldee Quotations. Pro 25:11, Beresh. Rab. 104 b; Isaiah 5, 6, Midr. Coh. 113 c, d.

All these quotations are treated at: length by Anger, De Onkelo, 1, 13, sq., and the variations adduced there show how carefully they have to be perused, and the more so since we have as yet no critical edition of the Talmud.

The identity of Akilas and Aquila having been ascertained, it was also argued that, according to the parallel accounts of Onkelos and Aquila, Onkelos and Aquila must be one and the same person, since it was unlikely that the circumstances and facts narrated could have belonged to two different individuals. But who will warrant that the statements are correct? There are chronological differences which cannot be reconciled, unless we have recourse to such means as the Jewish historian Dr. Gratz, who renders 8 8 (i.e. R. Gamaliel I, or elder) Gamaliel II. Is it not surprising that on one and the same page Onkelos is once spoken of as Onkelos the Proselyte, and Onkelos the son of Kalonymos became a convert (Aboda Zarah, fol. 11, Colossians 1)? It has also been stated that Onkelos was neither the author of the Targum nor a historical person, but that Targum Onkelos means simply a version made after the manner of Akils, the Greek translator. Aquila’s translation was a special favorite with the Jews, because it was both literal and accurate. Being highly valued, it was considered a model or type after which the new Chaldee one was named, in commendation, perhaps, of its like excellences. This view is very ingenious, but it is hardly probable. Now the question arises, how is it that there is only a version of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, while Aquila translated the whole Old Test.? If Onkelos’s Targum was really made after the manner of Aquila, how is it that the latter is so slavishly literal, translating even the , sign of the accusative, or, as Jerome states (De Opt. Genesis Interpret.), Non solum verba sed et etymologias verborum transferre conatus est… Quod Hebrsei non solum habent sed et , ille et syllabas interpretetur et litteras, dictatque quod Graeca et Latina lingua non recipit, while Onkelos is freer, adding sometimes here and there a word or phrase for the better understanding?

That the Targum Onkelos cannot mean a Targum after the manner of Aquila is also evident from the fact that while Aquila made a recension of the then existing Sept., nothing of the kind can be said of Onkelos. The latter wrote for the people in a language which it understood better than the original Hebrew; the former wrote for polemical purposes, to counterbalance the arguments of the Christians, who made use of the Alexandrian version against the Jews. That the author of the Chaldee paraphrase was not a proselyte, but a native Jew, is sufficiently proved from the excellence and accuracy of his work; for without having been bred up from his birth in the Jewish religion and learning, and long exercised in all the rites and doctrines thereof, and being also thoroughly skilled in both the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, as far as a native Jew could be, he could scarcely be thought thoroughly adequate to that work which he performed. The representing of Onkelos as having been a proselyte seems to have proceeded from the error of taking him to have been the same with Aquila of Pontus, who was indeed a Jewish proselyte. A comparison of both versions must show the superiority of Onkelos’s over that of Aquila. The latter, on account of his literal adherence to the original, makes his version often nonsensical and unintelligible, and less useful than the former, as the following will show:

GENESIS.

Gen 2:6. Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 2:7. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 6:4. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 6:16. Aq. ; Olk. .

Gen 8:1. Aq. ; Onk.

Gen 12:8. -Aq. Onk. .

Gen 15:2. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 18:12. Aq. ; Onk. . -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 22:2. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 22:13. Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 26:33. -Aq. ; Onk. . Gen 30:8. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 26:11. (Keri )-Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 32:25. -Aq. ; Onk. v.

Gen 34:21. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 35:16. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 36:24. Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 37:27. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 38:18. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Gen 42:4. Aq. ; Onk. .

EXODUS.

Exo 1:9. Aq. (id. Deu 9:1); Onk. .

Exo 1:11. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Exo 1:13. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Exo 4:12. -Aq. (id. Exo 4:15; Exo 24:12 always , taken from ); Onk. (id. Exo 4:15; Exo 24:12).

Exo 8:12. -Aq. ; Onk. . Exo 14:27. – Aq. ; Onk. .

Exo 15:8. Aq. ; Onk. .

Exo 24:6. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Exo 28:8. -Aq. (id. Exo 35:22; Exo 35:35); Onk. .

Exo 29:6. -Aq. ; Onk. . 36. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Exo 30:12. Aq. ; Onk. .

Exo 30:35. Aq. ; Onk. . Aq. ; Onk. .

Exo 34:24. Aq. ; Onk. .

LEVITICUS.

Lev 3:1. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Lev 13:6. -Aq. ; Ouk. .

Lev 17:7. -Aq. (id. Isa 13:21); Onk. .

Lev 25:33. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Lev 27:2. Aq. ; Onk. .

NUMBERS.

Num 1:47. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Num 11:8. Aq. ; Onk. .

Num 23:12. Aq. ; Onk. .

DEUTERONOMY

Deu 1:40. Aq. ; Onk. . Deu 22:9. Aq. ; Onk. . Aq. ; Onk. .

Deu 23:15. -Aq. ; Onk. .

Deu 28:20. Aq. ; Onk. .

It has been urged that while Akilas’s version is always cited in the Talmud by the name of its author, , the Targum of Onkelos is never quoted with his name, but introduced with , as we translate, or , our Targum, or , as the Targum has it; but this only shows the high’ esteem in which Onkelos’s Targum stood. And as to the quotations of Aquila, almost all which are cited are on the prophets and Hagiographa, while Onkelos’s Targum is only on the law; and a close examination of the sources themselves shows that what is said there has reference only to the Greek version, which is fully expressed in the praise of R. Eliezer.and R. Jehoshua when saying , Thou art fairer than the sons of men, thereby alluding to Gen 9:27, where it is said that Japheth (i.e. the Greek language) should one day dwell in the tents of Shem (i.e. Israel) (Megillah, 1, 11, 71 b and c; Bereshith Rabba, 40 b).

There is another very important point, which has been overlooked by all favoring the identity of Akilas with Onkelos, and thus putting the origin of the Targum of Onkelos at a late date, viz. the use of the mentra = by Onkelos; and this peculiarity of the Targum shows that its origin belongs to the time of Philo and the New Test. period. It is not unlikely that, in this respect, Onkelos was followed by the other Targumists, and that his intention was to reconcile Alexandrian with Palestinian theology. John’s doctrine of the Logos would be without any foundation or point of departure if we could not suppose that at the time of Jesus a similar doctrine concerning the Word of God, as it can be deduced from the Targum, was known among the Palestinian Jews. That later Judaism has put aside this important moment of older theology must be explained from its opposition to Christianity. In the Targum of Onkelos we find not the least indication that it was made after the destruction of Jerusalem; we find neither the least trace of hostility to the Romans nor of opposition to Christianity. The Temple is regarded as still standing, the festive days are still celebrated, the Jews are still a nation which never ceases to resist its enemies. This may be seen from the prophetic passages, as Genesis 49; Numbers 24; Deuteronomy 33; the explanation of which, as given by Onkelos, could have hardly originated after A.D. 70.

Onkelos uses for Argob (Deuteronomy 3, 4, 14; so also Jonathan, 1Ki 4:13) the name Trachona ()=Trachonitis (Luk 3:1); Josephus writes , sometimes (Ant. 15:10, 1 and 3; 18:4, 6; 20:7, 1). The Peshito of the Pentateuch did not follow this explanation (Luke 3, 1, ), probably because the division of Palestine at the time of Jesus did not exist in the Syrian translator’s days, or it was unintelligible to him (among the rabbins is used in the sense of palace, [Buxtorf, Lex. p. 913 sq.]). All this indicates, or rather confirms, the supposition that this Targum belongs to the time of Jesus. There is a similar indication in Onkelos’s rendering of Bashan by (Syr. ), Batansea (see Gesenius, Comm. zu Jes. 2, 13); , by Gennesaret, . This reminds one of the language of the New Test.; so also (Mammon), the injustice with the Mammon ( ; it is said, in Gen 13:13, of the Sodomites). When Paul speaks of that spiritual rock that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness (1Co 10:3), he undoubtedly refers to the tradition preserved by Onkelos (also by Pseudo Jonathan), The well which the princes digged, the chiefs of the people cut it, the scribes with their staves; it was given to them in the wilderness. And from [the time] that it was given to them it descended with them to the rivers, and from the rivers it went up with them to the height, and from the height to the vale which is in the field of Moab (Num 21:18 sq.). Hence the expression of the apostle, spiritual, following rock. The Syriac retains the proper names of the Hebrew text. After what has been said, we believe the Targum of Onkelos originated about the time of Philo-an opinion which is also held by Zunz (Gottesd. Vortrige, p. 62). This being true, Onkelos and Akilas (or Aquila) are not one and the same person-a view also expressed by Frankel (Zudem Targum dera Propheten [Breslau, 1872.] p. 6); and the Talmudic notices concerning Onkelos, the disciple of Gamaliel I (or elder), the teacher of the apostle Paul, are corroborated by our argument, minus the notice that Onkelos was a proselyte, as we have already stated above. For with the identity of Onkelos with Akilas (or Aquila), it is hardly conceivable that a man like Aquila, who, from a Christian, became a Jew, and such a zealous one that he prepared another Greek version for polemical purposes against the Christians, should have spent so much money at the death of Gamaliel I, whose liberal and friendly attitude towards Christianity was known, and who is even said to have become a Christian, as a tombstone covering his remains in a church at Pisa indicates:

Hoc in sarcophago requiescunt corpora sacra Sanctorumn… Sainctus Gamaliel. Gamaliel divi Patuli didascalus olim, Doctor et excellens Israelita fuit, Concilii mnagui fideique per omnia cultor. We now come to the work itself.

2. Style, etc. The language of Onkelos greatly approaches the Biblical Chaldee, i.e. it has still much of Hebrew coloring, though in a less degree than the other. It also avoids many Aramaisms (such as the contraction of nouns), which at a later period became prevalent, and comprises a comparatively small number of Greek words, and of Latin words none whatever. Of Greek words we mention, Exo 28:25, = ; Exo 28:11, = ; Gen 28:17, = ; Lev 11:30, = ; Exo 28:19, = (Pliny, 37:68); 39:11, = ; Deu 20:20, = ; Exo 28:20, = ; Num 15:38, Deu 22:12, = ; Exo 30:34, = ; Gen 37:28, = ; Exo 24:16, = ; Exo 26:6, = ; Gen 6:14, = ; Exo 28:19, = (Pliny, 37:14). There are, besides, some obscure expressions which were partly unintelligible to the Talmudists, as for , etc., in Exo 35:23; Exo 28:4, for ; Exo 28:17, for ; Exo 28:18, for ; Lev 22:20, for , etc.

The translation of Onkelos is, on the whole, very simple and exact. It is obvious from the character of the work that the author was in possession of a rich exegetical tradition; hence we never find him omitting any passage of the original. His elucidations of difficult and obscure passages and expressions, perhaps less satisfactory, are commonly those most accredited by internal evidence, and in this particular he is worthy of a more careful regard and assent than have usually fallen to his lot. Gen 3:15 he translates , i.e. he shall remember thee what thou hast done to him from the beginning, and thou shalt watch him unto the end; Gen 4:7 he translates 8, .shall not pardon be given to thee if thou doest well; but if thou doest not well, thy sin shall be preserved till the day of judgment, when it will be exacted of thee, etc. Here is taken from , in the sense of tollere peccata. i.e. taking- away of sin, and not in the sense of lifting-up of the countenance. Onkelos did not understand the meaning of the verse, but- (says Winer) sensum hujus loci prudentissimos etiam interpretes mirifice vexavit. Gen 6:3, Onkelos, like the Sept., Syr., Saad., and many recent commentators, gives ( = ), i.e. this evil generation shall not stand before me forever, because they are flesh; Gen 14:14, , i.e. he armed his young men, but Gen 15:2, = , governor, is contrary to the true sense of the words; Gen 20:16, he did not rightly understand , for he translates and with respect to all she said she was reproved; Gen 24:55, , which the Sept. correctly translates , Vulg. salter decem dies, Onkelos, in accordance with all Jewish interpreters, explains by , i.e. a season of times, or ten months; Gen 24:63, is translated by , to pray ; Gen 27:42, is translated, by way of explanation, , plotteth against thee, to kill thee. The difficult , in Gen 41:43, is explained by , a father to the king, and by , the man to whom mysteries are revealed. The , in Gen 48:22, is correctly given by , and I give thee one part ; and , in Gen 49:4, by , thou hast been carried away by thine anger. Explanatory additions, which evidently belong to Onkelos, are found in Gen 6:3 ( , if they may be converted, at the end of the verse); Gen 9:5 ( ,who sheddeth the blood of his brother); Gen 14:22 (where , in prayer, is added to ); Gen 43:32 (where we have , because the Hebrews eat the animals which are sacred to the Egyptians) (comp. Winer, De Onkeloso, p. 41). Larger additions and deviations from the original text are found mostly in the poetical parts of the Pentateuch (Genesis 49, Numbers 24; Deuteronomy 32, 33). In the multiplicity of words, which is here employed, the original text almost disappears. Thus Gen 49:11-12, which is referred to the Messiah (the parallel being Num 24:17), is rendered, Israel shall dwell in the circuit of his city; the people shall build his temple; and there shall be the righteous in his circuit, and the makers of the law in his doctrine; the best purple shall be his clothing; his covering shall be silk dyed with purple and with various colors. His mountains shall be redder in their vineyards; his hills shall drop wine: his fields shall be white with his grain and with flocks of sheep.

In passages relative to the Divine Being, we perceive the effect of a doctrinal bias in certain deviations from the Hebrew text. Anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions are avoided, lest human attributes should be assigned to the Deity. Thus, and are rendered , the Word of God ; or , the splendor of God; or , the Shechinah of God. Akin to this peculiarity is the avoidance of , when it is applied to men or idols, and the employment of , , , . In cases where divine qualities or ornaments appear to be assigned to men, Onkelos modifies and smoothes the meaning, and substitutes a different idea. Thus, , i.e. ye shall be as princes, is ,substituted for , in Gen 3:5; or , in Gen 3:22, is translated by , behold Adam is the only one in the world of himself.

Onkelos shows an apparent desire to present the great men of his nation in as favorable a light as possible (comp. Gen 16:12; Gen 25:27; Genesis 45, 27). Difficult words are not infrequently retained, as in Genesis 2, 12; Exo 12:7; Lev 13:30; and Deu 22:12. Names of peoples, cities, and mountains are given as they were common in his time. Thus, in Gen 8:4, instead of , he has , as in Syr. and Arab.; , in Gen 10:10, becomes: ; , in Gen 8:14, becomes ; , in Gen 37:25,.becomes , etc. (see Winer, op. cit. p. 39). In perusing Onkelos as a source of emending the Hebrew text, great caution is necessary, and the more so because we have not as yet a critical edition of this Targum. The only safe rule in emending the Hebrew text is when the same variety of readings which the Chaldee presents is found in several Hebrew MSS. Thus, e.g., in Exo 9:7, we read in the Hebrew , but in the Chaldee . The original reading was probably , which is found in several MSS. of Kennicott and De Rossi, and in most of the ancient versions. The Targum of Onkelos has always been held in high regard among the Jews, who also composed a Masorah upon it. Such a Masorah has lately been published, from a very ancient codex, by Dr. Berliner, Die Massorah zum Targqum Onkelos, enthaltend Massorah Magna und Massorah Parva (Leips. 1877).

3. Manuscripts of Onkelos are extant in great numbers. Oxford has five, London (British Museum) two, Vienna six, Augsburg one, Nuremberg two, Altdorf one, Carlsruhe three, Stuttgart two, Erfurt three, Dresden one, Leipsic one, Jena one, Dessau one, Helmstadt two, Berlin four, Breslau one, Brieg one, Ratisbon one, Hamburg seven, Copenhagen two, Upsala one, Amsterdam one, Paris eight, Molsheim one, Venice six, Turin two, Milan four, Leghorn one, Sienna one, Geneva one, Florence five, Bologna two, Padua one, Trieste two, Parma about forty, Rome eighteen, more or less complete, etc., containing Onkelos. For a full description of these MSS, see Winer, De Onkeloso, p. 13 sq.

4. Editions. The Targum of Onkelos was first published with Rashi’s commentary on the Pentateuch (Bologna, 1482, fol.). It was subsequently reprinted quite frequently, and may be found in the Rabbinic and Polyglot Bibles. Buxtorf was the first to add the vowel-points to the Targum. As yet, we have no critical edition of this Targum. Dr. Berliner purposes to publish a new and critical edition according to that of Sabioneta (1557). This Targum has been translated into Latin by Alphonso de Zamora in the Complutensian Polyglot, by Paul Fagius, and by John Mercier (1568). That of Fagius is the best. It was rendered into English by Etheridge (Lond. 1862-65).

5. Literature. Jes. Berlin (Pik), , or glosses and comments upon the Targum of Onkelos (Breslau, 1827); Luzzato, , Philoxenus, sire de Onkeloosi Chaldaica Pentateuchi Versione Dissertatio, etc. (Vienna, 1830), distributes the deviations from the Hebrew into thirty-two classes, and endeavors to emend the text from MSS., although the genius of the version is not well described in it (the writer of the art. Targum in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, besides a great deal of useless ballast, thought it’ necessary to copy Luzzato); Berkowitz, , on the hermeneutics of Onkelos (Wilna, 1843); id. (ibid. 1874); Levy, in Geiger’s Zeifschrift, 1844, 5, 175-198; Frst, Literaturblatt, 1845, p. 337 sq., 354; Smith, Diatribe de Chald. Paraphrastis eorumque Versionum (Oxf. 1662); Winer, De Onkeloso ejusque Paraphrasi Chaldaica (Lips. 1820); Maybaum, Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos, etc. ( Breslau, 1870); Geiger, Jidische Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 85-104; , or a commentary on Onkelos by Dr. Adler in the edition of the Pentateuch with ten commentaries (Wilna, 1874); and the literature given in the art. ONKELOS SEE ONKELOS in this Cyclopaedia.

III. Jonathan ben-Uzziel on the Prophets, i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, stands next in time and importance to Onkelos.

1. Authorship and Sources As to Jonathan himself, we read in the Talmud

(1.) Eighty disciples had Hillel the elder, thirty of whom were worthy that the Shechinah [Divine Majesty] should rest upon them, as it did upon Moses our Lord; peace be upon him. Thirty of them were worthy that the sun should stand still at their bidding, as it did at that of Joshua ben-Nun. Twenty were of intermediate worth. The greatest of them all was Jonathan ben-Uzziel, the least R. Jochanall ben-Zachai; and it was said of R. Jochanan ben-Zachai that he left not [uninvestigated] the Bible, the Mishna, the Gemara, the Halachahs, the Haggadahs, the subtleties of the law, and the subtleties of the Sopherim . . . the easy things and the difficult things [from the most awful divine mysteries to the common popular proverbs]…. If this is said of the least of them, what is to be said of the greatest, i.e. Jonathan ben-Uzziel? (Baba Bathra, 134 a; comp. Sukkah, 28 a).

(2.) A second passage, referring more especially to our present subject, reads as follows: The Targum of Onkelos was made by Onkelos the Proselyte from the mouth of R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, and that of the prophets by Jonathan ben-Uzziel from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. And in that hour was the land of Israel shaken three hundred parasangs. And a voice was heard, saying, Who is this who has revealed my secrets unto the sons of man?’ Up rose Jonathan ben-Uzziel and said, It is I who have revealed thy secrets to the sons of man…. But it is known and revealed before thee that not for my honor have I done it, nor for the honor of my father’s house, but for thine honor, that the disputes may cease in Israel.’… And he further desired to reveal the Targum to the Hagiographa, when a voice was heard, Enough.’ And why? Because the day of the Messiah is revealed therein (Megillah, 3 a).

There is some exaggeration in this description of Jonathan’s paraphrase, but it only shows the high esteem in which it stood. Fabulous as the whole may appear, yet there is no doubt as to the high antiquity of this paraphrase. Many doubts were raised as to the authorship of this Targum. Some, who would not deny the existence of Jonathan, hesitate to believe that he had any share in the Targum commonly ascribed to him. It has also been suggested by Luzzato and Geiger that Jonathan is the same with the Greek Theodotion, and that the Babylonians gave this name to the paraphrase-especially as they were acquainted with that of Jonathan ben- Uzziel-to indicate that the Targum was after the manner of Theodotion, like the reputed origin of the name Onkelos in connection with the Greek Akilas or Aguila. But this more ingenious than true suggestion has no support, and needs no refutation. It has also been suggested by most of the modern critics that because this Targum is never once quoted as the Targum of Jonathan, but is invariably introduced with the formula , as R. Joseph interprets, that not Jonathan, but R. Joseph, is the author of this Targum; and this supposition is based upon the fact that the Talmud relates that this R. Joseph, in his latter years, occupied himself chiefly with the Targum when he had become blind. This relation of the Talmud, and perhaps the fact that Jonathan’s Targum, which was called, by way of abbreviation, , i.e. , made Joseph the author of this Targum, since may also mean , or something else, and the real Targum is now quoted under Joseph’s name.

That Jonathan’s Targum was really extant before the time of R. Joseph we see from Megillah, 3 a, where on Zec 12:12 R. Joseph remarks, Without the Targum to this passage, we could not understand it; but when the writer, of the art. Targum in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible remarks, Twice even it is quoted in Joseph’s name, and with the addition, Without the Targum to this verse (due to him), we could not understand it,’ he only betrays his carelessness as to the Talmudic sentence. After all, we do not see why we should not rely upon the Talmudic notice concerning Jonathan equally as much as upon that concerning R. Joseph. The language concerning the former, we admit, is a little hyperbolical, but this does not exclude the truth of the matter. Besides, there is nothing to militate against Jonathan having written a Targum on the prophets; and even the expression that this Targum was made from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi is not so absurd as the writer of the art. Targum in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia would suppose, for if it means anything, it means this, that the explanation of Jonathan contains the transmitted- exposition in the spirit of Hillel, and, as Zunz remarks (Gottesd. Vortrage, p. 332), Jonathan’s Targum on the prophets, as a result of studies which were instrumental in forming fixed national opinions, proves that a considerable time before it was customary to explain the contents of the prophetical books, by means of Targumical prelections or otherwise, to the public. Nay, he commends the teachers for-even in evil times teaching the law in the synagogues at the head of the congregations (Targ. on Jdg 5:2; Jdg 5:9). From the New Test. we know that Moses and the prophets were read in the synagogues, and, deducting all hyperbolical language, there is no reason for doubting the high antiquity of this Targum. The text is rendered, in the same manner as by Onkelos, free from all one- sided and polemical considerations, which the Jews since the 2d century followed. Many passages are referred to the Messiah; even such as do not rightly belong to him, so that no polemical tendency against Christians appears in the version. The following is a list of them: 1Sa 2:10; 2Sa 23:3; 1Ki 4:33; Isa 4:2; Isa 9:6; Isa 10:27; Isa 11:1; Isa 11:6; Isa 15:2; Isa 16:1-5; Isa 28:5; Isa 42:1; Isa 43:10; Isa 45:1; Isa 52:13; Isa 53:10; Jer 23:5; Jer 30:21; Jer 33:13; Jer 33:15; Hos 3:5; Hos 14:8; Mic 4:8; Mic 5:2; Zec 3:8; Zec 4:7; Zec 6:12; Zec 10:4.

2. Character, etc. In the historical books the exegesis is simple and tolerably literal. A few words are added occasionally, which have no representatives in the original, but they are not many. The interpretation is good, giving the sense fully and fairly; but in the prophetic books the text is more freely handled, for, as Zunz justly remarks (op. cit. p. 63), The prophetical writings, not containing anything of the nature of legal enactment, admitted of a greater latitude in handling the text. This became even unavoidable because of the more obscure language and the predictions concerning Israel’s future by which they are characterized. Even in the case of the historical books, Jonathan often acts the part of an expositor. In the case of the prophets themselves, this course of exposition- in reality becoming a Haggadah-is pursued almost uninterruptedly. This pervading, often misunderstood, characteristic, says Havernick, constitutes the chief proof, confirmed also by external evidence, of the oneness of the authorship of this Targum; for not only do parallel passages (such as Isaiah 36-39; comp. 2Ki 18:13 sq.; Mic 5:1-3) literally harmonize, but he is also in the habit of furnishing, particularly the poetical portions of the historical books (Judges 5; 1 Samuel 2; 2 Samuel 23), with profuse additions. These additions often very much resemble each other (comp. Jdg 5:8 with Isa 10:4, 2Sa 23:4 with Isa 30:26).

Another peculiarity of this Targum are the Jewish dogmatical opinions of that day with which the work is interwoven, and the theological representations, in introducing which a special preference was given to the book of Daniel. Examples of this are the interpreting of the phrase stars of God by people of God (Isa 14:13; comp. Dan 8:10; 2Ma 9:10); the application of the passage in Dan 12:1 to that in Isa 4:2. In Isa 10:32 the author introduces a legend framed in. imitation of the narrative in Daniel 3, which is repeated by later Targumists (comp. Targ. Jesus; Gen 11:28; Gen 16:5; 2Ch 28:3); in Isa 22:14 and 65:35 he has interwoven the doctrine concerning the second death (comp. Rev 2:11), which the wicked should die in the next world or kingdom of the Messiah; and in Isa 30:33 he mentions Gehenna. In various places the notices respecting the Messiah’s offices, character, and conduct, the effects of his advent and personal influence, harmonize with those of the New-Test. writers (comp. Isa 42:1 sq.; Mat 12:17 sq.); but from this the Sept. differs, and at other times the N.T. writers differ from this Targum. Isaiah 53 it recognizes as referring to the Messiah, and assumes a suffering and expiatory Messiah. Its author nevertheless here, as well as elsewhere (Mic 5:1), indulges in many perversions. He seems to have entertained-in germ, at least-the idea, which became further developed in the Talmud, of a Messiah submitting to obscurity for the sake of the sins of the people, and then appearing in glory (comp. Mic 4:8 with Zec 3:8; Zec 4:7). There is little doubt that the text has received several interpolations. To this head Zunz (op. cit. p. 63, 282) refers all that is hostile to Rome, e.g. Exo 39:16; 1Sa 2:5; Isa 34:9. So, too, Armillus, in Isa 11:14. To these may be added perhaps Germania, from Gomer, in Eze 38:6, the superstitious legend inserted in Isa 10:32 relative to the army and camp of Sennacherib; and the peculiar story about Sisera (Jdg 5:8). Even Rashi speaks of interpolations in the text of Jonathan (Eze 47:19); and Wolf says (Bibl. Heb. 2, 1165), Quse vero, vel quod ad voces et barbaras, vel ad res metate ejus inferiores, ant futilia nonnulla, quamvis pauca triplicis hujus generis exstent, ibi occurrunt, ea merito falsarii cujusdam ingenio adscribuntur. The printed text of the Antwerp Polyglot confirms this supposition of interpolations, since several of them are wanting there. So long as we have no critical edition of this Targum, we must be careful to draw the inference, as did Morinus and Voss, in favor of a very late origin of the Targum; for a perusal of the recently published edition of this Targum by Lagarde, from the Codex Reuchlin, and its comparison with our present editions, will only show the corrupt state in which the text at present is.

The style of Jonathan is, upon the whole, the same as that of Onkelos. Eichhorn and Berthold asserted that this Targum teems with exotic words. Yet, notwithstanding their assertion, we believe that Carpzov (Crit. Sacra, p. 461) is correct when he says, Cujus nitor sermonis Chaldai et dictionis laudatur puritas, ad Onkelosum proxime accedens et purum deflectens a puro tersoque Chaldaismo Biblico. The text lying at the basis of the Targum is the Masoretic one; yet it differs from the Masoretic text in various places, where it appears to follow preferable readings. But the freedom which the translator took makes it difficult to tell in every case what particular form of the text lay before him. Hence great caution must be used in applying the Targum to critical purposes, and the more so as we have not as yet a critical edition.

3. Literature. For the editions, translations, and oldbr literature, see Frst, Bibl. Jud. 2, 106 sq.; Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. 2, 1166; Le Long (ed. Masch), II, 1, 39 sq.; Rosenmller, Handbuch, 3, 9 sq.; Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten (Breslau, 1872); Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice. Efide Codicis Reuchliniani (Lips. 1872 sq.); Bacher, Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum, in the Zeit schrift d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesellschaft 1874, 28:1 sq.; 1875, 29:157 sq., 319 sq. SEE JONATHAN BENUZZIEL.

IV. The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerushalmi on the Pentateuch. The greater simplicity which characterized the older Targums soon ceased to satisfy the progressively degenerating taste of the Jews, especially after the Talmud began to assume a written form. Hence Targums marked by greater laxity soon began to be written which embraced more the opinions peculiar to the age, and furnished the text with richer traditional addenda. Of these latitudinarian Targums we possess two on the Pentateuch-the one known by the name of Pseudo-Jonathan, inasmuch as writers of a later period ascribe it to the author of the Targum on the Prophets; and the commonly so-called Targum Hierosolymitanum or Jerushalmi.

1. Pseudo Jonathan. This paraphrase is falsely ascribed to Jonathan ben- Uzziel. It extends from the first verse of Genesis to the last of Deuteronomy. The way in which it came to be regarded as his is supposed to have been the mistake of a copyist, who made out of , i.e. Targum Jerushalmi. , Targum Jonathan. Proof is not needed at the present day to show that the Jonathan of the prophets is not the Jonathan of the Pentateuch, for he could have little to do with a Targum which speaks of Constantinople (Num 24:19; Num 24:24), describes very plainly the breaking-up of the West-Roman empire (Num 24:19-24), mentions the Turks (Gen 10:2), and even Mohammed’s two wives, Chadija and Fatima (Gen 21:21), and which not only exhibits the fullest acquaintance with the edited body of the Babylonian Talmud, by quoting entire passages from it, but adopts its peculiar phraseology: not to mention the complete disparity between the style, language, and general manner of the Jonathanic Targum on the Prophets, and those of this one on the Pentateuch, strikingly palpable at first sight. This was recognized by early investigators (Morinus, Pfeiffer, Walton, etc.), who soon overthrew the old belief in Jonathan ben-Uzziel’s authorship, as upheld by Menahem Rekanati, Asariah de Rossi, Gedaljah, Galatin, Fagius, etc. The work of the Pseudo- Jonathan is not a version. It is rather a paraphrase, though by no means exclusively so. Neither is it a Haggadic commentary. Version and paraphrase are interwoven throughout, the author seldom confining himself to simple explanation, but proceeding to large Midrashim. Halachah and Haggadah are richly imbedded in the work, the latter especially. His legends are rich and copious. His Haggadah is not historical; it is ethical, religious, metaphysical, lyrical, and parabolic. It has been well observed that he is only the interpreter of the ideas prevailing in his time-the narrator of traditions, religious and national, not their inventor, because most of them are found in preceding literature, or, as Zunz states it, almost all his explanations and embellishments coinciding with the Haggadah we find occurring in the other Haggadic writings; the few which are peculiar to him he has not devised, any more than Jonathan has devised his interpretation of the prophets. In both the culture of the age and the potency of traditional ideas are manifest (Gottesd. Vortrage, p. 72). To these embellishments belongs the manner in which events and characters are dressed out hyperbolically in Jonathan’s Midrashim; not only the Biblical heroes, as was natural, but even the enemies of the Jewish nation. Thus Og carries on his head a piece of rock sufficient to bury all the camp of Israel beneath its weight (Num 21:35). A mountain possessed of divine virtues is suspended in the air over the children of Israel (Exo 19:17), etc. Many examples are given by Zunz (op. cit. p 72, note b) to show, against Winer and Petermann, that all these stories were not invented by Pseudo-Jonathan, but borrowed from traditional usage. The ethical Haggadah is perhaps the best part of the work, for here the exegete becomes didactic. Thus we are told in Genesis 40 that Joseph suffered two additional years of imprisonment because he built on man’s rather than God’s help, a view also espoused by Rashi. The region of the supernatural is treated very freely by Jonathan. His angelology is marvelous. He has the names of many angels outside the circle of the Bible, as Samael, Gabriel, Uriel, Saglnugael, etc. We find rhetorical or poetical digressions in Gen 22:14 (the prayer of Abraham on Mount Moriah), Deu 34:6 (the hymn on Moses death); Gen 49:4; Num 21:34; Deu 32:50 (parables). Like Onkelos and others, he avoids anthropomorphic ideas, and is averse to ascribe superhuman attributes to heathen gods. The Halachah is also brought within the circle of his paraphrase, and its results employed in the exposition. This part of Jonathan’s version has of late been treated by Dr. S. Gronemann, in his Die jonathanische Pentateuch-Uebersetzung in ihrem Verhalltniss zur Jalacha (Leipsic, 1879).

The language of this Targum shows it to be of Palestinian origin, as it is in what is called the Jerusalem dialect, like that of the Jerusalem Talmud, but with many peculiarities. It is far from being pure, because the Syriac had deeply affected it. Foreign elements enter into it largely, such as Gen 50:7, = (Gen 2:6; Num 34:6); Num 34:9, = , or ; Num 34:20, = ; Num 2:12, = , Syr. ; Num 3:4, = delator; Num 4:6, = ; Num 6:2, , from , or , or ; Num 34:9, = , , ; Syr. and , etc.; comp. Petermann. De Duabus Pentateuchi Paraphrasibus’ Chaldaicis, particula 1, p. 66 sq., where a collection of these foreign words is given. The names of Constantinople and Lombardy, and even of two of Mohammed’s wives, which occur in this paraphrase, besides the many foreign words, prove the Targum to have originated in the second half of the 7th century. That Jonathan had Onkelos before him, a very slight comparison of both will show. Many places attach themselves almost verbally to Onkelos, as Gen 20:1-15. Indeed, one object which the Pseudo-Jonathan had in view was to give a criticism upon Onkelos. He corrects and alters him more or less. Where Onkelos paraphrases, Jonathan enlargest paraphrase. The same attention to the work of his predecessor is shown in his Halachic as in his Haggadic interpretation; as also in the avoidance of anthropomorphisms and anthro popathisms. Sometimes the divergences from Onkelos are slight, sometimes important and they are often superior to Onkelos, but sometimes the reverse. As his object was different, his production presents a great contrast on the whole, because he intended to interpret, not to translate. Besides, this divergence from Onkelos must be accounted for in another way: he did not base his work primarily on the latter, but upon another paraphrase; or, in other words, he worked upon Onkelos indirectly in the first instance because his whole production rests on the basis of the Jerushalmi, or Jerusalem, Targum. But, before proceeding with our observation on the Pseudo-Jonathan, let us speak of

2. The Jerushalmi, or Jerusalem, Targum The Jerusalem Targum, written in the same dialect substantially as that of the Pseudo-Jonathan, and interpreting single verses, often single words only, is extant in the following proportions: a third on Genesis, a fourth on Deuteronomy, a fifth on Numbers, three twentieths on Exodus, and about one fourteenth on Leviticus. Judging from the rounded and complete form in which the different parts are given, we may infer that it is now in its primitive state. If so, it cannot be a fragmentary recension of Jonathan. Yet their similarity is striking. The Haggadah of the one regularly appears in the other, and has usually a more concise form in the Jerusaleni Targum. Indeed, there is often a verbal agreement, or nearly so, between them, so that one might at first be inclined to assume their original identity, if not that they are fundamentally the same work the Jerusalem Targum containing variations from the other, or being a fragmentary recension of it. The latter opinion is held by Zunz. But against this there are many arguments, especially the fact that the work is complete and rounded off in many parts. And though the similarity of the Jonathan and Jerusalem Targums is considerable, there is so much divergence as to prove diversity of authorship. Thus Jerushalmi knows very little of angels: Michael is the only one ever occurring. In Jonathan, on the other hand, angelology flourishes with great vigor: to the Biblical Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, are added the Angel of Death, Samael, Sagnugael, Shachassai, Usiel; seventy angels descend with God to see the building of the Babylonian tower; nine hundred millions of punishing angels go through Egypt during the night of the Exode, etc. Jerushalmi makes use but rarely of Halachah and Haggadah, while Jonathan sees the text as it were only through the medium of Haggadah: to him the chief end. Hence Jonathan has many Midrashim not found in Jerushalmi, while he does not omit a single one contained in the latter.

There are no direct historical dates in Jerushalmi, but many are found in Jonathan; and since all other signs indicate that but a short space of time intervenes between the two, the late origin of either’ is to a great extent made manifest by these dates. The most striking difference between them, however, and the one, which is most characteristic of either, is this, that while Jerushalmi adheres more closely to the language of the Mishna, Jonathan has greater affinity to that of the Gemara. It is also perceptible that the reverence of Onkelos for the name of God, shown in substituting the Memra, or something intermediate, is not so excessive in Jonathan as’ in the Jerusalem Targum. If such be the diversity of Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum, they are not one work fundamentally; nor is the one a recension, now in fragments, of the other. But how is their resemblance to be explained? Only by the fact that both have relation to Onkelos. The author of the Jerusalem Targum worked upon that of Onkelos, his object being to correct it according to certain principles, and to insert in it a selection of Haggadahs current among the people. Pseudo-Jonathan afterwards resumed the same office, and completed what his predecessor had begun. The Jerusalem Targum formed the basis of Jonathan, and its own basis was that of Onkelos, Jonathan used both his predecessors paraphrases, the author of the Jerusalem Targum that of Onkelos alone. There is no doubt that the small glossarial passages of the Jerusalem Targum are intended as a critical commentary upon Onkelos, and from his standpoint the author proceeds freely in using his predecessor.

Thus he rejects his acceptations of words, and gives closer acceptations for his freer ones. In many places where Onkelos’s scrupulosity about removing anthropomorphisms from the text had obscured the sense, the Jerusalem Targum restores the original meaning by some addition or change. Thus in Gen 6:6, where Onkelos omits the name Jehovah and paraphrases, the Jerusalem Targum comes near the original text. Sometimes, where Onkelos Aramaizes a Hebrew word, the Jerusalem Targum substitutes a genuine Aramaean one, as in Gen 8:22, where the of Onkelos is displaced for . So in Gen 34:12, where Onkelos has , the Jerusalem Targum puts . Vice versa, the Jerusalem Targum often prefers a Hebrew word to Onkelos’s Aramaean one, perhaps because the latter was better known in Palestine, as in Gen 22:24.

There is, indeed, no uniformity between Onkelos and Jerusalem in the use of Aramaean words, while consistent divergences may be readily traced. After all that has been said there can be no doubt that the general object of the author of the Jerusalem Targum was to correct and explain Onkelos, adapting it to a later time and different country by enriching it with the Haggadic lore which had accumulated, so that its deficiencies might be removed. From being a version, he wished to supplement it in various parts, so that it should be a paraphrase there. That he has made many mistakes, and departed in not a few cases from Onkelos for the worse, we need not remark, nor enumerate his errors, since Peterman has collated them (op. cit. p. 60 sq.). It is this fragmentary Jerusalem Targum to which Jonathan had regard in the first instance. He uses the larger paraphrases and Haggadic parts of it, as well as the smaller variations from Onkelos, but always with discretion.

More commonly the Haggadah of the Jerusalem Targum is simplified and abridged. Nor does Jonathan follow Onkelos implicitly, but often diverges. If he does not adhere consistently to the Jerusalem Targum, we need not expect to see him copying Onkelos.’ Thus in Gen 7:11; Gen 22:24, he leaves Onkelos for the Jerusalem Targum. It should also be observed that Jonathan relies upon Onkelos much more than the Jerusalem Targum, which is freer and more independent. Thus the former follows Onkelos, and the latter departs from him in Gen 11:30; Gen 12:6; Gen 12:15; Gen 13:6; Gen 14:5; Gen 14:21; Gen 16:7; Gen 16:15; Gen 19:31; Gen 20:18, etc. The interval of time between the Jerusalem Targum and Jonathan cannot be determined exactly, but it must have been a century. From these observations it will no longer be uncertain whether the Targum of Jerusalem hath been a continued Targum, or only the notes of some learned Jew upon the margins of the Pentateuch, or an abridgment of Onkelos (Alix, Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church, etc., p. 88). All the guesses are incorrect. The only objection to this hypothesis is the statement of Zunz that because many citations made by older authors from the two Targums in question are now missing, an older and complete Jerusalem Targum must have existed, which is now lost. But when we consider the probable chances of passages being lost in the course of transcription, and of others being interpolated, as also the fact of variations in the editions, it need not be assumed, in the face of-internal evidence, that they are very different now from what they were at first. Many of the passages cited by authors and now wanting, which Zunz has brought together, need a great deal of sifting and correction, as has been ably shown by Seligsohn in Frankel’s Monatsschrift, 1857, p. 113. The view of the relation now given between Onkelos, the Jerusalem Targum, and Pseudo-Jonathan was briefly advocated by Frankel (op. cit. 1846, p. 111 sq.) with ability and success. His view has again been taken up by Seligsohn and Traub, and satisfactorily established by them in a prize- essay, published in Frankel’s Monatsschrift, 1857.

3. Editions and Commentaries. The Pseudo- Jonathan Targum was first published at Venice in 1591; then at Hanau, 1618; Amsterdam, 1640; Prague, 1646; Amsterdam, 1671 and 1703; Berlin, 1705; Wilna, 1852; Vienna, 1859, etc. all these, as well as the editio princeps, having Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum. It is also in the London Polyglot, vol. 4. together with a Latin translation made by Antony Chevalier. It was translated into English by Etheridge (Lond. 1862-65). The Jerusalem Targum was first printed by Bomberg (Venice, 1518) in his Rabbinical Bible, and reprinted in the subsequent Rabbinical Bibles issued by himand in the great Polyglots. Since its publication by Walton in 1657, it has also appeared at Wilna (1852), Vienna (1859), and Warsaw (1875). Francis Taylor made a Latin version of this Targum (Lond. 1649); but the more correct one is that of Antony Chevalier above noticed.

A commentary was written upon the Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalem Targums by David ben-Jacob Zebrecyn (Prague, 1609), entitled ; by Mordecai ben-Naphtali Hirsch (Amsterdam, 1671), entitled , but is given in the Pentateuch edition published at Wilna in 1859. R. Pheibel benDavid (Hanau, 1614), author of , did not compose, as the writer of the art. Targum in Kitto states, a commentary on Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerushalmi, but an elucidation of difficult words found in Jonathan’s Targum.

4. Literature. Winer, De Jonathanis in Pentateuchum Paraphrasi Chaldaica (Erlangen, 1823); Petermann, De Duabus Pentateuchi Paraphrasibus Chaldaicis, pt. 1; De Indole Paraphraseos quas Jonathanis esse dicitur (Berolin. 1829); Bar, Geist des Jeruschalnzi (PseudoJonathan), in Frankel’s Monatsschrift, 1851-52, p. 235-242; Seligsohn and Traub, Ueber den Geist der Urebersetzung des Jonathan ben-Usiel zum Pentateuch und die. Abfassung des in den Editionen dieser Uebersetzung beigedruckten Targum Jeruschalmi, in Frankel’s Monatsschrift, 1857, p. 96-114, 138-149; Geiger, Das Jerusalemische Targum zzum Pentateuch, in the Urschrift u. Uebersetzung der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), p. 457-480; Seligsohn, De Duabus Hierosolymitanis Pentateuchi Paraphrasibus (ibid. 1858); Gronemann, Die Jonathan’sche Pentateuch-Uebersetzung, etc. (Leips. 1879).

V. Targqums on the Hagiographa. These Targums are generally divided into three groups, viz.: a. Job, Psalms, Proverbs; b. The five Megilloth; c. Daniel, Chronicles, and Ezra. Tradition ascribes to R. Joseph the Blind the authorship of this Targum, but this is contradicted by writers even of the 13th century (see Zunz, op. cit. p. 65).

1. The Targum on the Book of Job. A feature of this Targum is its Haggadical character.: As early as the middle of the 1st century a paraphrase on the book of Job is: mentioned. Its difficulty, but more especially its adaptation to allegorizing fancies, presented a peculiar temptation to Chaldee expositors. In many places we find a double Targum. After one interpretation, which is always free in character, another still more paraphrastic is annexed with the introductory, , i.e. , another Targum (comp. Job 18:7-8; Job 18:18). The extraneous insertions are very numerous, uncertain, fabulous, and incorrect. Thus at Job 2:1 we read, And the three friends of Job heard of all the evil that had come upon him when they had seen the trees of his garden burned up, and the bread of his food changed into living flesh, and the wine of his drink into blood; and they came each one from his place, and for this service they were delivered from the place appointed them in Gehenna. In Job 1:15 the words of the original are rendered , and the queen of Samarcand (?) suddenly rushed in. If Samarcand be really mentioned, the date is late. The language is intermixed with Greek and Latin words in the same degree as the Palestinian Targumim and Midrashim. Thus the word , (angel), is used in Job 15:15; Job 20:27; Job 35:10. Bacher also finds in this Targum the Latin word delator, and comes to the conclusion that the author lived in Palestine, under Roman dominion, in the 4th or 5th century, while the writer of the art. Targum in Kitto states that the work is a growth belonging to various times and writers, of which the beginning and end cannot be precisely determined.

With regard to the Masoretic text, the Targum of Job agrees sometimes with the Sept. (as Job 19:29 : , Targ. , Sept. ; Job 22:21 : , Targ. , Sept. ; Job 31:32 : , Targ. , Sept. , both ),or with the Peshito (comp. Job 3:8; Job 6:16; Job 7:4; Job 9:7; Job 16:10; Job 26:10; Job 33:28). Often the reading of the Targum has to be explained from an interchange of letters, thus:

and Job 24:24; , Tar. ().

Job 5:5; , ().

Job 30:3; , ().

Job 28:7; , ().

and Job 7:4; , Tar. ().

Job 30:12; , ().

Job 17:2; ().

Job 19:28;, ().

Job 28:7; , ().

Job 22:29; , ().

Job 36:10; , ().

Job 7:9; , ( (

Job 36:20; , ().

In two cases the variation is to be accounted for by hearing amiss, viz. Job 29:22, where, instead of , (), and Job 39:23, where, for , () is read. The number is greater where the vowel-points differ from those of the Masorah. Variations of this kind may amount to about thirty.

The Targum on Job was published by John Terentius (Franek. 1663) [the text being that of Buxtorf, and the Latin translation that of Arias Montanus], with notes, consisting of various readings and explanations of Chaldee words. The Latin version of Alphonso de Zamora was published with notes by John Mercier (ibid. 1663), and Victorius Scialai translated it into Latin (Rome, 1618). This Targum has been treated by Bacher, in Gratz’s Monatsschrift, 1871, p. 208-223, and by Weiss, De Libri Jobi Paraphrasi Chaldaica (Vratisl. 1873).

2. The Targum on the Psalms. This Targum is not so Haggadic or diffuse as that of Job. Sometimes it follows the original with a tolerable degree of closeness, as in 1, 3, 5, 6:etc. In more cases, however, it indulges in prolix digressions, absurd fables, and commonplace remarks. Two or three different versions of the same text occasionally follow one another without remark, though the introductory notice , i.e. , sometimes precedes (comp. Psa 110:1). The additions to the text are often inappropriate, the sense distorted, the titles wrongly paraphrased, and fables are abundant. Thus in Exodus , 1 the paraphrase has, The Lord said in his word that he would appoint me lord of all Israel; but he said to me again, Wait for Saul, who is of the tribe of Benjamin, till he die, because he does not agree in the kingdom with an associate; and afterwards I will make thine enemies thy footstool, to which is subjoined , thus, The Lord said in his word that he would give me the dominion because I was intent upon the doctrine of the law of his right hand wait till I make thine enemy the footstool of thy feet. Deviations from the Masoretic text are numerous. On the whole, the linguistic character of this Targum corresponds with that on Job, and resembles that of the Jerusalem Targum. It abounds in Greek words; thus, besides the , occurring also in Job, we meet with , 20:4; , 46:3; , 53:1, and 97:10; , 72:10; , 58:12; , 73:13; , 89:7; , 57:32; , 18:34, etc. According to Bacher, Das Targum zu den Psalmen, in Gratz’s Monatsschrift, 1872, p. 408416; 463-473, the author of this Targum is the same as that of Job. Davidson, in Kitto’s Cyclop. s.v. Targum, thinks that, like the Targum on Job, this one is an accumulation of expositions extending over centuries. The Targum on the Psalms was printed in Justiniani’s Polyglot Psalter (Genoa, 1516), and in the Hexaglot edition of the Psalter, published at Rostock, 1643. It is also printed in the latest Rabbinical Bible (Warsaw. 1875). The Antwerp and following Polyglots (1572, 1645, 1657) contain the Latin version of Arias Montanus. From the Codex Reuchlin, it was published by Lagarde in his Hagiographa Chaldaice (Leips. 1873), and republished by Nestle in his Psalterium Tetraglottum (Tb. 1877-79).

3. The Targum on Proverbs. This Targum is not Haggadic, and adheres more closely to the original text. Its remarkable agreement with the Syriac version has often been noticed an agreement which extends even to the choice and position of words, comp. 1, 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 13; 2, 9, 10, 13-15; 3, 2-9; 4:1-3, 26; 5, 1, 2, 4, 5; 8:27; 10:3-5; 26:1; 27:2, 5, 6, 8; 29:5, 6; 31:31. Dathe, in his De Ratione Consensus Versionis Chaldaicae et Syriacae Proverbiorum Solononis (Lips. 1764), was the first who gave special attention to this fact, and came to the conclusion that the Chaldee interpreter was dependent on the Syriac. He endeavors to prove his position by many pertinent arguments, such as that the Syriac explains Aramaean departures from the Hebrew most naturally, and that many Syriacisms in words, forms, and orthography appear in the version which are otherwise unknown to Chaldee, or at least are very rare. Eichhorn and Volck take the same view. Havernick denies the use of the one by the other, endeavoring to account for their similarity by the cognate dialects in which both are written, the identity of country in which they had their origin, and their literality. Davidson, in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia, is inclined to believe that, the Targum having been made in Syria, the Syriac as well as the Hebrew was consulted, or rather the Greek through the medium of the Syriac. While the Hebrew was the basis, the Syriac was freely used. Different entirely is the opinion of Maybaum, who takes the opposite ground to that of Dathe, Eichhorn, and others. He believes that the Syriac interpreter was dependent on the Chaldee. The statements in the art. SEE SYRIAC VERSION, ITS RELATION TO THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHALDEE, in this Cyclopaedia, confirm this view. The greatest obstacle in all these disquisitions is the want of a critical text, and Maybaum, who compared the different readings together with an ancient codex preserved at Breslau, has come to the conclusion that Dathe s evidence is based upon corrupt readings. As to the original language of this Targum, Dathe (op. cit. p. 125) expresses it as his opinion that it was originally written in Syriac, the Chaldaisms which we find at present having been interpolated by Jews: Nempe Judmei utebantur versionibus Syriacis, quas legere atque intelligere ob summam utriusque linguae consensionem paterant.

Sed.mutabant eas passim, partim ad suse dialecti proprietatem, partim ad lectionem textus Hebrei inter eos receptam. His hypothesis is based upon the fact that the Chaldee in 18:22 agrees with the Hebrew , and while the other versions read after , the Chaldee agrees with the Hebrew. But it is evident that because the word is wanting in one MS., this inference cannot be drawn concerning all others. The fact in the matter is, that only in Walton’s edition does the Chaldee agree with the Hebrew text; while others, as Dathe himself admits, have the word . And, after all, how is it that the Chaldee so often deviates from the Masoretic text? Whence is it that so many Chaldaisms are found even in those codices which, in the passage quoted above, do not agree with the Masoretic text? The answer is that, as the Chaldaisms in our Targum are as original as the Syriacisms, we have here evidently to do with a mixed dialect; and from the analysis given on the linguistic peculiarities, Maybaum comes to the conclusion that the language of the Targum on Proverbs is Syro-Chaldaic, and the original language of the author. The relation of the Chaldee to the Syriac version having already been treated at some length in the art. SEE SYRIAC VERSION, ITS RELATION TO THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHALDEE, we can only refer to it.

If the hypothesis of Maybaum, which we have adopted, be true, viz. that the Syriac depended upon the Chaldee, not vice versa for even Davidson admits that a uniform dependence of the Aramaean upon the Syriac cannot be sustained the Targum on Proverbs must have existed at a very early period; at any rate, Davidson acknowledges that the Targum on Proverbs is older than those on Job and Psalms, in this respect following Zunz. This being so, we do not err in assuming that the Targum on Proverbs belongs to the 2d or 3d century. It is generally found in the Polyglot and Rabbinical Bibles. It was translated into Latin by Alphonso de Zamora and John Mercier. See, besides Dathe s treatise, already mentioned, Maybaum, Ueber die Sprache des Targum zu den Spriichen und dessen Verhdltniss zum Syrer, in Merx’s Archiv fr wissenschcftliche Forschung des Alten Testaments, 2, 66 sq.

4. The Targum on the Five Megilloth, i.e. on Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations, is, according to Zunz, a Midrashic paraphrase, exceedingly loose and free in character, containing legends, fables, allusions to Jewish history, and many fanciful additions. The whole bears the impress of a date considerably posterior to the Talmudic time, and is written in an intermediate dialect between, the West Aramaean of Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, and the East Aramaean of the Babylonian Talmud. The least Haggadic is Ruth, the most rhapsodical that of Song of Solomon. Delitzsch (Gesch. d. jd. Poesie, p. 135) thinks that the Targums on the five Megilloth are the most beautiful national works of art, through which there runs the golden thread of Scripture, and which are held together only by the unity of the idea. Whether these Targums are the work of one or different persons cannot be well decided. The former is the opinion of Zunz, Volck, and Deutsch, the latter that of Davidson.

(1.) The Targum on Ruth was published separately with a Latin translation and scholia by John Mercier (Paris, 1564), and the following specimen will give a fair idea of the same: Rth 2:10-11, Why have I found pity in thine eves to know me, and I of a strange people, of the daughters of Moab, and of a people who are not clean to enter into the Church of the Lord? And Boaz answered and said to her, In telling it has been told me by the saying of the wise men, that when the Lord decreed, he did not decree respecting women, but men; and it was said to me in prophecy that kings and prophets are about to spring from thee on account of the good thou hast done, etc.

(2.) The paraphrase on Lamentations is more Midrashic than that on Ruth, but of the same type, being copiously interwoven with pieces of history, allegory, fables, reflections, etc.

(3.) The paraphrase on Ecclesiastes is more Midrashic than the former, the author having given a free rein to his imagination and made copious insertions. The following verses will best illustrate the character of this paraphrase. In 1, 2, we read:

When Solomon the king of Israel foresaw, by the spirit of prophecy, that the kingdom of Rehoboam his son would be divided with Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and that Jerusalem and the holy temple would be destroyed, and that the people of Israel would be led into captivity, he said, by the Divine Word, Vanity of vanities is this world; vanity of vanities is all which I and my father, David, have labored for, all of it is vanity… (Rth 2:12-13). When king Solomon was sitting upon the throne of his kingdom, his heart became very proud of his riches, and he transgressed the Word of God, and he gathered many horses and chariots and riders, and he amassed much gold and silver, and he married from foreign nations, whereupon the anger of the Lord was kindled against him; and he sent to him Ashmoda, the king of the daemons, who drove him from the throne of his kingdom, and took away the ring from his hand, in order that he should roam and wander about in the world to reprove it; and he went about in the provincial towns and the cities of the land of Israel, weeping and lamenting, and saying, I am Coheleth, whose name was formerly called Solomon, who was king over Israel in Jerusalem: and I gave my heart to ask instruction of God at the time when he appeared unto me in Gibeon, to try me, and to ask me what I desire of him; and I asked nothing of him except wisdom, to know the difference between good and evil, and knowledge of whatsoever was done under the sun in this world, and I saw all the works of the wicked children of men-a sad business which God gave to the children of men to be afflicted by it. As this Targum has been translated into English by Ginsburg, in his Commentary on, Ecclesiastes (London, 1861), the reader, by perusing the same, will be enabled to judge for himself better than by any extracts.

(4.) The Targum on Song of Solomon is the most Haggadic of all, and hardly deserves the name of a paraphrase, because the words of the original are: completely covered by extravagant and inflated expressions (nugae atque frivolitates) which refer to another subject. The paraphrast has indulged in the greatest license, and allowed his imagination to run riot in a multiplicity of ways. He has composed a panegyric on his people, describing prophetically the history of the Jewish nation, beginning with their exode from Egypt, and detailing their doings and sufferings down to the coming of the Messiah and the building of the third Temple. Thus, according to this allegory, 1:3 relates Jehovah’s fame which went abroad in consequence of the wonders he wrought when bringing the Israelites out of Egypt; Rth 2:12 describes the departure of Moses to receive the two tables of stone, and how the Israelites in the meantime’ made the golden calf; Rth 2:14 particularizes the pardon of that sin and the erection of the tabernacle; Rth 3:6-11 refers to the passage of the Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, over the Jordan, their attacking and conquering the Canaanites, and the building of Solomon’s Temple; 5:2 describes the Babylonian captivity; 6:2 represents the deliverance of Israel through Cyrus, and the building of the second Temple; Rth 2:7, etc., names the battles of the Maccabees; 7:11,12 represents the present dispersion of the Jews, and their future anxiety to learn the time of their restoration; 8:5, etc., describes the resurrection of the dead, the final ingathering of Israel, the building of the third Temple, etc.

The very first verse of this Targum reads thus: The songs and praises which Solomon the prophet, king of Israel, sang by the spirit of prophecy, before God, the Lord of the whole world. Ten songs were sung in this world, but this song is the most celebrated of them all. The first song Adam sang when his sins were forgiven him, and when the Sabbath-day came and protected him he opened his mouth and said, A song for lie Sabbath-day,’ etc. (Psalms 92). The second song Moses and the children of Israel sang when the Lord of the world divided the Red Sea for them. They all opened their mouths and sang as one man the song as it is written, Then sang Moses and the children of Israel’ (Exo 15:1). The third song the children of Israel sang when the well of water was given to them, as it is written, Then sang Israel’ (Num 21:17). The fourth song Moses the prophet sang when his time came to depart front- this world, in which he reproved the people of the house of Israel, as it is written, Give ear, 0 heavens, and I will speak’ (Deu 32:1). The fifth song Joshua the son of Nun sang when he waged war in Gibeon, and the sun and moon stood still for him thirty-six hours; and when they left off singing their song, he himself opened his month and sang this song, as it is written, Then sang Joshua before the Lord’ (Jos 10:12). The sixth song Barak and Deborah sang in the day when the Lord delivered Sisera and his army into the hands of the children of Israel, as it is written, Then sang Deborah, etc. (Jdg 5:11). The seventh song Hannah sang when a son was given her by the Lord, as it is written, And Hannah prayed prophetically and said’ (1Sa 2:1, and the Targum, ad loc.). The eighth song David the son of Israel sang for all the wonders which the Lord did for him. He opened his mouth and sang a hymn, as it is written, And David sang in prophecy before the Lord’ (2Sa 22:1, and the Targum, ad loc.). The ninth song Solomon the king of Israel sang by the Holy Spirit before God, the Lord of the whole world. And the tenth song the children of the captivity shall sing when they shall be delivered from their captivity, as it is written and declared by Isaiah the prophet, This song shall be unto you for joy, as in the night in which the feast of the Passover is celebrated; and gladness of heart as when the people go to appear before the Lord three times in the year, with all kinds of music, and with the sound of the timbrel, to go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to worship before the Lord the mighty one of Israel’ (Isa 30:29). From this specimen it will be seen how far the learned Broughton was correct in saying that the paraphrase is worth our-study, both for delight and profit. This Targum is found in the Rabbinical Bibles; it has been translated into Latin, and is also accessible to English readers in the translation of Gill, at the end of his Commentary on the Song of Solomon (Lond. 1751), p. 535 sq.

(5.) The Targum, or rather Targums, on Esther; The book of Esther, enjoying, both through its story like form and the early injunction of its being read or heard by every one on the Feast of Purim, a great circulation and popularity, has been targumized many times. One translation of concise form, and adhering closely to the text, occurs in the Antwerp Polyglot (vol. 3); it was issued enlarged with glosses by Tailer in Targum Prius et Posterius in Esther, studiis F. Taileri (Lond. 1655), and forms the Targum Prius which is contained in the London Polyglot. Much more prolix, and amplilying still more the legends of this Targum (comp. 1:2, 11; 2:5, 7; 3:1; 5:14, etc.) is the Targum Posterius in Tailer, it being a collection of Eastern romances, broken up and arranged to the single verses; if gorgeous hues and extravagant imagination, such as are to be met with in the Adsharib or Chamis, or any Eastern collection of legends and tales. Its final redaction probably belongs to the 11th century. This is the view of Dr. Munk, the latest editor of this second Targum, one of the tales of which runs as follows:

One day when the king (Solomon) was again full of wine, he commanded that all wild animals, the fowls of the air, and the creeping animals of the earth, as well as the devils, daemons, and spirits, be brought to him, that they might dance before him, and behold, with all the kings who were with him, his glory. The royal scribe called them by their name, and they all congregated before the king, with the exception of the wild cock. At this the king angrily commanded that he should be sought for, and when found, should be brought in, intending to kill him. Then said the wild cock to the king, My lord king, trive heed and hear my words! For three months I weighed in my mind, and flew about in the whole world ill search of a town which does not obey thee. I saw then a city in the East, of the name of Kitor, in which are many people, and a woman governs them all; she is called queen of Sheba. If it please thee, my lord king, I shall go to that city, bind their kings in chains, and their rulers with iron fetters, and bring them hither. As it pleased the king, writers were called who wrote letters and bound them to the wings of the wild cock. He came to the queen, who, observing the letter tied to the wing, loosened it and read the following contents: From me, king Solomon, greeting to thee and to thy princes! Thou knowest well that God has made me king over the beasts of the field, over the birds of heaven, over daemons, spirits, and goblins. The kings from all regions of the earth approach me with homage: wilt thou do this, thou shalt have great honor; if not, I will send upon thee kings, legions, and horsemen. The kings are the beasts of the field; the horsemen the birds of heaven, the hosts, daemons and spirits; the goblius are the legions who shall strangle you in your beds. When the queen had read this, she rent her garments and called for the elders and lords, saying, Know ye what king Solomon has sent to me? They answered, We neither know nor esteem him. The queen, however, trusting them not, called for sailors and sent presents to the king, and after three years she came herself. The king, on hearing of her arrival, sat in a crystal hall to receive her, which made her fancy that he was, sitting in water; she therefore uncovered her feet to pass through. On seeing his glory, she said; May the Lord thy God be praised who has found pleasure in thee and made thee sit on the throne to exercise mercy and justice. We have purposely selected this: piece from the first chapter, because it is also found in an abridged form in the Koran (sura 27). With a commentary, the second Targum is found in the Warsaw Rabbinical Bible. A separate edition, with various readings, notes, etc., was published by Munk, Targum Scheni zoum Buche Esther (Berlin, 1876). It has lately been translated by Cassel, in an appendix to his Das Buch Esther. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Morgenlandes (ibid. 1878). It has been treated in an essay by Reiss, Das Targum Scheni zu dem Buche Esther, in the Monatsschrift edited by Gratz, 1876, p. 161 sq., 276 sq., 398 sq.

5. The Targum on the Books of Chronicles. This is preserved in three codices. The oldest, bearing the date of 1294, is in the Vatican, known as Cod. Urbin. I, and is still awaiting a critical edition or perusal. A second codex, of the year 1343, belonging to the Erfurt Library, was published by Beck (Augsburg, 1680-83, 2 vols.), and edited with a Latin translation and learned annotations. The Erfurt MS. has many chasms, especially in the first fourteen chapters. The third codex, of the year 1347, and belonging to the University of Cambridge, was published by David Wilkins (Amster. 1715). Here the text is complete, so that the lacuna in Beck’s edition are filled. Like its predecessor, it has also a Latin version, but there are no notes. Great as was Wilkins’s ability for editing this Targum, yet it speaks badly for his knowledge that he has put on the title-page R. Joseph as the author (though Beck was of the same opinion), and that he has made him rector of the academy in Syria, instead of Sora in Babylonia. Wilkins’s edition was lately republished from a copy found at Prague by Dr. Rahmer, under the title (Thorn, 1866), and the deviations from Beck’s edition are given in notes. We cannot enter here upon a comparison of the Erfurt codex with that of Cambridge. As to the authorship of this Targum, its ascription to R. Joseph the Blind must be regarded as exploded. Whether it is the work of one author or of more cannot now be decided. Language, style, manner, and Haggadic paraphrase show its Palestinian origin. Zunz remarks that it sometimes transcribes the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch verbally, as in the genealogical table of the first chapter (comp. v. 51 with the Jerusalem Targum on Gen 36:39). So, also, in the psalm passages in 1 Chronicles 16 its words often coincide with the Targum on Psalms 105, 96. The origin of this Targum cannot be put earlier than the 8th century; or, as the most recent writer on this Targum thinks, the older text, as preserved in the Erfurt codex, belongs to the middle of the 8th century, and the later, as preserved in the Cambridge codex, to the beginning of the 9th. Owing to the late origin of this Targum, we must not be surprised at finding the name of Hungary occurring in it, as well as some other foreign words, besides many fables, especially in the explanation of proper names. For critical purposes both editions must be used-the first, Paraphrasis Chaldaica Libr. Chronicorum, cura M. F. Beckii, for the learned notes; the second, Paraphrasis auctore R. Josepho, etc., for the more correct and complete text. The writer of the art. Targum in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible states that the science of exegesis will profit little by it (this Targum). What we know of the subject induces us to hold an opposite opinion (see Frankel, Monatsschrifi, 1867, p. 349 sq.; but, more especially, Rosenberg, Das Targum zur Chronik, in Geiger’s Jdische Zeitschrift, 1870, p. 72 sq., 135 sq., 263 sq.).

6. The Targum on Daniel. The existence of this work was first noticed by Munk, who thinks that he found it in a MS. in the Imperial Library at Paris (No. 45 du Fonds de St. Germain-des-Pres). The MS., however, contains only a Persian Targum, giving an apocryphal account of Daniel. According to the learned writer, this , or History of Daniel, was taken from a Targum on Daniel in Chaldee. The first words are written in Chaldee, they are then repeated in Persian, and the history continues in the latter language. After several legends known from other Targums, follows a long prophecy of Daniel, from which the book is shown to have been written after the first Crusade. Mohammed and his successors are mentioned, also a king who, coming from Europe ( ), will go to Damascus, and kill the Ishmaelitic (Mohammedan) kings and princes; he will break down the minarets (), destroy the mosques (), and no one will after that dare to pronounce the name of the Profane ( = Mohammed). The Jews will also have to suffer great misfortunes (as, indeed, the knightly Crusaders won their spurs by dastardly murdering. the helpless masses-men, women, and children in the Ghettos along the Rhine and elsewhere, before they started to deliver the holy tomb). By a sudden transition, the prophet then passes on to the Messiah son of Joseph, to Gog and Magog, and to the true Messiah, the son of David. Munk rightly concludes that the book must have been composed in the 12th century, When Christian kings reigned for a brief period over Jerusalem (Notice sur Saadia [Par. 1838], p. 82). According to the description here given, there can be no doubt that it is the same which Zotenberg published some years ago, in Persian, with a German translation, in Merx’s Archiv, 1, 385 sq., and beginning thus: History of Daniel (peace be upon him). I am Daniel, of the children of Jeconiah, king of the house of Judah. Davidson says, We must express our doubts about such a Chaldee paraphrase on Daniel, in the absence of all proof that the Persian was’ made from the Chaldee; for a few Chaldee words at the beginning are no argument in favor of it. All that Munk communicates i.e. part of a page is insufficient to warrant us in accepting the fact. Yet Steinschneider has referred to a Targum on Daniel,’ simply on the authority of Munk’s notice (Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana). No Targum upon Daniel is extant, so far as we yet know, and it is very doubtful whether one was ever made. The reason assigned in the Talmud for not rendering the book into Chaldee is that it reveals the precise time of the Messiah’s advent. A good part of the book is already in Chaldee. To this it may be answered that at the time when Davidson wrote, this Targum was not yet published, otherwise he would have thought differently. Its contents show that the original Chaldee was the basis of it. A number of Hebrew words occur in it, and it closes with quoting Psa 147:2.

7. There is not any Targum, so far as is known, upon Ezra and Nehemiah. Part of Ezra is already Chaldee, and Nehemiah was counted with it as one book.

8. To the Roman edition of the Sept. of Daniel, published in 1772, a Chaldee version is added of the Apocryphal pieces in Esther. This has been printed by De Rossi, accompanied by a Latin version, remarks, and dissertations (Specimen Variarunz Lectionum Sacri Textus et Chaldaica Estheris Additamenta, etc. [ Tb. 1783, 8vo ]). An edition of the Chaldee Hagiographa was published by Lagarde (Leips. 1873).

VI. Fragmentary Targums on the Other Books. According to Zunz, the Jerusalem Targum-or rather, as it should be called, the Palestinian one- extended to the prophetic books also, and he justifies his opinion by the following particulars, which we give in his order: Abudraham cites a Jerusalem Targum on 1Sa 9:13, and Kimchi has preserved several passages from it on Judges (Jdg 11:1, consisting of 47 words), on Samuel (1:17,18; 106 words), and Kings (1:22, 21; 68 words; 2:4, 1; 174 words; 4:6; 55 words; 9:7; 72 words; 13:2; 2 Samuel 9 words), under the simple name of Tosephtah, i.e. Addition, or Additional Targum. Luzzato has also lately found fragments of the same, under the names Targum of Palestine, Targum of Jerushalmi, Another Reading, etc., in an African codex written A.M. 5247=A.D. 1487, viz., on 1Sa 18:19; 2Sa 12:12; 1Ki 5:9; 1Ki 5:11; 1Ki 5:13; 1Ki 10:18; 1Ki 10:26; 1Ki 14:13; on Hos 1:1; Oba 1:1. On Isaiah (ch. 66), Rashi, Abudraham (Isa 54:11), and Farissol (Isaiah 66) quote it, agreeing in part with a fragment of the Targum on this prophet extant in Cod. Urbin. Vatican. No. 1, containing about 190 words, and beginning, Prophecy of Isaiah, which he prophesied at the end of his prophecy in the days of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah, the king of the tribe of the house of Judah, on the 17th of Tamuz, in the hour when Manasseh set up an idol in the Temple, etc. Isaiah predicts in this his own violent death. Parts of this Targum are also found in Hebrew, in Pesiktah Rabbathi, 6 a, and Yalkut Isaiah 58 d. A Jerusalem Targum on Jeremiah is mentioned by Kimchi; on Ezekiel by R. Simon, Nathan (Aruch), and likewise by Kimchi, who also speaks of a further additional Targum on Jonathan for this book. A Targum Jerushalmi on Micah is known to Rashi, and of Zechariah a fragment has been published by Bruns (Repert. pt. 15:p. 174) from a Reuchlinian M6. (Cod. Kennic. 154), written in 1106. The passage, found as a marginal gloss to Zec 12:10, reads as follows:

Targum Jerushalmi. And I shall pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of prophecy and of prayer for truth. And after this shall go forth Messiah the Son of Ephraim to wage war against Gog. And Gog will kill him before the city of Jerusalem. They will look up to me and they will ask me wherefore the heathens have killed Messiah the Son of Ephraim. They will then mourn over him as mourn father and mother over an only son, and they will wail over him as one wails over a first-born. A Targum Jerushalmi on the third chapter of Habakkuk, quoted by Rashi, is mentioned by De Rossi (Cod. 265 and 405, both of the 13th century). To these quotations, which led Zunz to draw the inference that the Jerusalem Targum extended to the prophetic books also, a large number of fragments and variations must now be added since the publication of the Reuchlinian codex by Lagarde. These fragments and variations deviate from the common translation, and are introduced by five different designations, as on, , , , , , alid . These additions, as found in the Reuchlinian codex, have been analyzed in a very scholarly manner by Dr. Bacher, in the Zeifschrift der deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1874, 28:1 sq., and they extend to the following books, viz.: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai, and Malachi are not included. Zunz, after referring to the conjecture that the Jerusalem Targum on the prophets embraced nothing more than the Haphtaroth, or lessons, remarks that the idea is untenable, because the expressions of the authors who allude to it go to show that they had seen Targums upon entire books (Gottesd. Vortrage, p. 78). This may be so; but the existence of an entire Targum of Palestine on all the prophets is problematical. We have seen above, if the Reuchlinian MS. may be taken as a standard, that on four prophets, viz. Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai, and Malachi, such fragments are not given. Some books may have received such a paraphrase; on others, and those the great majority of the prophetical books, there is reason to doubt its existence. It is more probable that portions were treated paraphrastically in the spirit of the later Haggadahportions selected on no definite principle, but adopted by the fancy or liking of paraphrasts; and we are the more justified in this conclusion when comparing Dr. Bacher’s parallels from the Talmud and Midrash with these fragmentary additions. Deutsch, the writer of the art. Targum in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, thinks the Babylonian version the Jonathan Targum though paraphrastic, did not satisfy the apparently more imaginative Palestinian public. Thus from heaped-up additions and marginal glosses, the step to a total rewriting of the entire codex in the manner and taste of the later times and the different locality was easy enough. Be it as it may, this question will always remain, as Dr. Bacher says, one of the darkest points in the disquisition of the Targum on the prophets.

VII. Character and Value of the Targums in General. There is nothing to indicate that the Targums were written at first with vowels. Buxtorf endeavored to correct the punctuation and bring it as near as possible to the standard of that in Daniel and Ezra, for which some censured him, though, we believe, unjustly. It is no reproach to his memory to say that he did not perfect their vocalization. As there is at present no critical text of the Targums, they can only be carefully employed in the criticism of the Hebrew original, although they show the substantial integrity of the Masoretic text. They may be advantageously used in suggesting readings of some importance and value. Perhaps they are more useful in interpretation than the lower criticism. On the whole, Richard Simon’s view of the Targums deserves to be noted here. In his Hist. Crit. Vet. Test. lib. 2, c. 18, he says, Omnes iste paraphrases, praeter illam Olnkelosi et Jonathanis. non magna mihi utilitatis esse videntur, nee forsan multum e re fecit, illas curiose quaesiisse. Non quanta tamen multis existimatur, illarum utilitas: ex adverso Judei ex illis arma adversus Christianos depromunt, sibi fingentes, nobis ipsorum superstitiones aniles et absurdas probari, quasi veteribus cersionibus quibus conjunguntur a nobis aequipararentur. Proeterea videntur Judaici ritus et cerimoniae iis magis quam fides Christiana confirmari: incerta itaque et anceps ex illis ducta contra Judseos victoria. Quid quod qus nostrae fidei fayentia credimus, pleraque verae sunt allegorise, quas non operosum verbis alio convertere; neque enim religio allegoriis probatur.

VIII. Literature. Since we have already mentioned under the different heads the special literature, we will here name the works on the Targumim in general. Here belong-besides the general introductions to the Old Test. of Eichhorn, Havernick, De Wette, Bleek, Kaulen, and Kleinert- Prideaux, Connection (ed. Wheeler, Lond. 1865), 2, 443 sq.; Walton, Prolegomena (ed. Dathe); Smith, Diatriba de Chaldaicis Paraphrasibus; Wolf, Bibl. Hebraea, 2, 1135-1191;’ 4:730-734; Zunz, Die gotfesd. Tortrdge der Judein (Berlin, 1832), p. 61-83; Gfrorer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, i, 36- 59; Frst, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1840, Nos. 44-47; id. Bibl. Jud. 2, 105-107; 3, 48; Frankel, Einiges zu den Targum, in the Zeitschrift fuib die religisen Interessen des Judenth. 1846, p. 110-120; Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, 3, 61 sq., 551 sq.; Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 162-167; Volck, s.v. Thargumim, in Herzog’s Real- Encyklop. 15:672-683; Deutsch, s.v. Targum, in Smith’s Dict. ofthe Bible; Davidson, id. in Kitto’s Cyclopcedia; id. Biblical Criticism, 1, 224 sq.; langlen, Das Judenth. in Paldstina, p. 70-72, 209-218, 268 sq., 418 sq.; Noldeke, Die alttestamentliche Literatur, p. 255-262; Schurer, Lehrbuch der neutestamnentlichen Zeitgeschichte (Leips. 1874), p. 476 sq. The best lexicon on the Targums is that of Levy, Chalddisches Wrterbuch ber die Targumint (ibid. 1867); the latest Aramrean grammar is that of Lerner, (Warsaw, 1875). SEE CHALDEE LANGUAGE. (B. P.)

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Targum

This word is not in the Bible, but as the Jews very much prize their Targum, it may not be amiss, just in a cursory way to notice it. The name itself signifies explanation. Sometimes the word is found in the plural number, Targumim, meaning that more than one subject is explained. No doubt, the Targum, took its rise from the Chaldee Paraphrase of the books of the Old Testament. And it is more than probable that this Targum was read to the people at the reading of the Scriptures after their return from Babylon; for it is said that when they read in the book of the law, “they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Neh 8:8)

The Jews speak with great confidence of the Targum. They have what is called the Targum of Jonathan, and the Targum of Onkelos. Jonathan was about 30 years before the coming of our Lord, and Onkelos somewhat later. They are said to be but short; the former chiefly on the prophecies, and the latter on the five books of Moses.

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Targum

targum (, targum):

1.Meaning and Etymology of the Term

2.Origin of the Targums

3.Language of the Targums

4.Mode in Which the Targums Were Given

5.Date of the Targums

6.Characteristics of the Different Targums

(1)Onkelos – the Man

Characteristics of His Targum

(2)The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Prophets

Characteristics of His Targum – Earlier Prophets; Later Prophets

(3)Hagiographa: Psalms, Job and Proverbs

(a)The Meghilloth

(b)Chronicles

(4)The Non-official Targums – Jonathan ben Uzziel and the Pentateuch

7.Use of the Targums

LITERATURE

The Targums were explanations of the Hebrew Scriptures in Chaldaic (Western Aramaic) for the benefit of those Jews who had partially or completely ceased to understand the sacred tongue.

1. Meaning and Etymology of the Term:

By Gesenius the word methurgam, which occurs in Ezr 4:7, is interpreted as derived from ragham, to pile up stones, to throw, hence, to stone, and then to translate, though no example is given. Jastrow derives it from the Assyrian r-g-m, to speak aloud, an etymology which suits the origin of the Targums. It is unfortunate that he gives no reference to any Assyrian document.

The word turgamanu is found, e.g., in the Tell el-Amarna Letters (Berlin edition, 21, 1. 25, Knudtzon, 154), with the meaning interpreter. It may, none the less, be of Aramaic origin. See Muss-Arnolt, Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language, 1191 f, and the references there given.

The word is used as the Aramaic interpretation of shiggayon (Psa 7:1), a term the precise force of which is yet unfixed. From this ragham comes meturgheman, an interpreter, and our modern dragoman. Whatever the original meaning of the root, the word came to mean to translate, to explain.

2. Origin of the Targums:

At the time when Nebuchadnezzar carried the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah captive to the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates, the language of everyday life in Assyria and Babylonia had ceased to be that which has come down to us in the cuneiform inscriptions, and had become Aramaic, the lingua franca of Southwestern Asia. It was the language of diplomacy, of business and of social intercourse, and had long been so. Dwelling in the midst of those who used Aramaic alone, the Jews soon adopted it for every occasion save worship. In the family they might retain their mother tongue for a time, but this would yield at length to continuous pressure from without. In Palestine a similar process had been going on in the absence of the captives. Intruders from various neighboring peoples had pressed in to occupy the blanks left by the removal of the Jewish captives to Babylon. Although it is not recorded, it is not impossible that following the example of the Assyrians, Nebuchadnezzar may have sent into Judea compulsory colonists from other parts of his empire. The language common to all these, in addition to their native dialect, was Aramaic. The Jewish inhabitants that had been left in the land would, like their relatives in Babylonia, have become accustomed to the use of Aramaic, to the exclusion, more or less complete, of Hebrew. Another process had begun among the captives. Away from the site of their destroyed temple, the exiles did not, like those in Upper Egypt, erect another temple in which to offer sacrifices. Their worship began to consist in the study of the Law in common, in chanting of the Psalms and united prayers. This study of the Law implied that it should be understood. Though some form of synagogue worship was known in the times preceding the captivity under the direction probably of the prophets (2Ki 4:23), it must have become weak and ineffective. With the arrival of Ezra there was a revival of the study of the Law, and with that the necessity for the interpretation of it in language which the people could understand.

3. Language of the Targums:

From the facts above narrated, this language was of necessity Aramaic. There were, however, forces at work to modify the language. A translation is liable to be assimilated so far, to the language from which it is made. Thus there is a difference, subtle but observable, between the English of our the King James Version of the Bible and that of Shakespeare, Bacon, or even Hooker. Or, to take an example more cognate, if less accessible to the general reader, the difference may be seen if one compares the Syriac of the New Testament Peshitta with that of the Peshitta of the Old Testament. The Aramaic of the Targums is Western Aramaic, but it is Western Aramaic tinctured with Hebrew. The fact that the returned captives originally had spoken Hebrew would doubtless have its effect on their Aramaic. German in Jewish lips becomes Yiddish. One very marked feature is the presence of yath, the sign of the accusative translating the Hebrew ‘eth, whereas in ordinary Aramaic, Eastern and Western, this is unused, except as supporting the oblique case of pronouns. Further, the intensive construction of infinitive with finite sense, so frequent in Hebrew, though little used in ordinary Aramaic, appears in the Targums wherever it occurs in the Hebrew text. As a negative characteristic there is to be noted the comparative rarity with which the emphatic repetition of the personal pronoun, so frequent in ordinary Aramaic, occurs in the Targumic.

4. Mode in Which the Targums Were Given:

The account given in Nehemiah (Neh 8:8) of the reading of the Law to the people not only mentions that Ezra’s helpers read distinctly (mephorash), but gave the sense (som sekhel) and caused them to understand the reading, the King James Version (wayyabhnu ba-mikra’). This threefold process implies more than merely distinct enunciation. If this passage is compared with Ezr 4:18 it would seem that mephorash ought to mean interpreted. The most natural explanation is that alongside of the readers of the Law there were interpreters, meturghemanm, who repeated in Aramaic what had been read in Hebrew. What interval separated this public reading of the Law from the reading of the Law as a portion of synagogue worship we have no means of knowing. The probability is that in no long time the practice of reading the Law with an Aramaic interpretation was common in all Jewish synagogues. Elaborate rules are laid down in the Talmud for this interpretation; how far these were those actually used we cannot be absolutely certain. They at least represent the ideal to which after-generations imagined the originators of the practice aspired. The Law was read by the reader verse by verse, and each verse was followed by a recitation by the meturgheman of the Aramaic version. Three verses of the prophetic books were read before the Aramaic was recited. The Talmudists were particular that the reader should keep his eye on the roll from which he read, and that the meturghemanm should always recite his version without looking at any writing, so that a distinction should be kept between the sacred word and the version. At first the Targum was not committed to writing, but was handed down by tradition from meturghemanm to meturghemanm. That of the Law became, however, as stereotyped as if it had been written. So to some extent was it with the Prophets and also the Psalms. The Targums of the rest of the Kethubhm seem to have been written from the beginning and read in private.

5. Date of the Targums:

We have assumed that the action of Ezra narrated in Neh 8:8 implied not only the reading of the Law, but also the interpretation of its language – its translation in fact from Hebrew to Aramaic, and that, further, this practice was ere long followed in all the synagogues in Judea. This view is maintained by Friedmann (Onkelos u. Akylas, 1896) and was that assumed to be correct by the Talmud. Dr. Dalman assures his readers that this is a mistake, but without assigning any reasons for his assertion. Dr. Dalman is a very great authority, but authority is not science, so we venture to maintain the older opinion. The fact is undeniable that, during the Persian domination all over Southwestern Asia, Aramaic was the lingua franca, so much so that we see by the Assouan and Elephantine papyri the Jewish garrison at Assouan in Egypt wrote to their co- religionists in Judea, and to the Persian governors, in Aramaic. Moreover, there is no trace that they used any other tongue for marriage contracts or deeds of sale.

We may assume that in Judea the language commonly used in the 5th century BC was Aramaic. We may neglect then the position of Mr. Stenning (Enc Brit (11th edition), XXVI, 418b) that probably as early as the 2nd century BC the people had adopted Aramaic. By that time Aramaic was giving place to Greek. His reason for rejecting the position above maintained is that the dates assigned by criticism to certain prophetic writings conflict with it – a mode of reasoning that seems to derive facts from theories, not theories from facts.

The fact that the necessity for translation into Aramaic existed in the Persian period implies the existence of the meturghemanm and the targum. It is more difficult to know when these Targums were committed to writing. It is probable that the same movement, which led Jehudah ha-Nas’ to commit to writing the decisions of the rabbis which form the Mishna, would lead to writing down the Targums – that is to say late in the 2nd century of our era. Aramaic was disappearing in Palestine and the traditional renderings would be liable to be forgotten. Talmudic stories as to dates at which the various Targums were written down are absolutely valueless.

6. Characteristics of the Different Targums:

The Targums that require most to be considered are the official Targums, those that are given in the rabbinic Bibles in columns parallel with the columns of Hebrew. In addition, there is for the Law the Targum Yerushalm, another recension of which is called Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel. The Book of Esther has two Targums. Besides these, Targums of doubtful value have been written by private individuals. Certain books have no official Targums: Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles. The reason for this is supposed to be that in both Daniel and Ezra there are portions written in Aramaic. Nehemiah and Chronicles were regarded as forming one book with Ezra. A late Targum on Chronicles has been found and published separately. Some of the apocryphal additions to Esther appear in a late Targum to that book. The official Targums of the Law and the Prophets approach more nearly the character of translations, though even in them verses are at times explained rather than translated. The others are paraphrastic to a greater or less degree.

(1) Onkelos – The Man.

This is the name given to the official Targum of the Pentatuech. The legend is that it was written by one Onqelos, a proselyte son of Kalonymus or Kalonikus, sister’s son of Titus. He was associated with the second Gamaliel and is represented as being even more minutely punctilious in his piety than his friend. The legend goes on to say that, when he became a proselyte, his uncle sent company after company of soldiers to arrest him, but he converted them, one after another. It is at the same time extremely doubtful whether there ever was such a person, a view that is confirmed by the fact that legends almost identical are related of Aquila, the translator of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The names are similar, and it may be are identical. While there may have been a person so named, the admission of this does not imply that he had any connection with the Targum of the Pentateuch named after him. Another explanation is that as the Greek version of Aquila was much praised by the Jews for its fastidious accuracy, and this Targum of the Law was credited with equally careful accuracy, so all that is meant is that it was regarded as a version which as accurately represented in Aramaic the Hebrew of the Law as did Aquila’s Greek. The probability is that whoever it was who committed the Targum to writing did little or no actual translating. It might not be the work of one unassisted author; the reference to the guidance Onqelos is alleged to have received from the rabbis Eliezer and Joshua suggests this. Owing to the fact that the Law was read through in the course of a year in Babylonian (once in three years in Pal) and every portion interpreted verse by verse in Aramaic, as it was read, the very words of the traditional rendering would be remembered. This gives the language of the Targum an antique flavor which may be seen when it is compared with that of the Palestinian lectionary discovered by Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Lewis. Especially is this observed when the renderings of the same passage are put in comparison. Both in vocabulary and grammar there is a difference; thus mar occurs for shallet, and yath as the sign of the accusative has disappeared in the lectionary. An analogy may be seen in the antique flavor of the language of our English Bible, even in the Revised Version (British and American). If any credence were to be given to the traditional account of the alleged authors, the date of this Targum would be the end of the 1st century AD. But we have seen that it has been named Aquila and that the title means as accurate as Aquila. He, however, lived in the beginning of the 2nd century. His Greek version must have already gained a reputation before the Aramaic Targum appeared. We cannot therefore date the actual committing of this Targum to writing earlier than late in the 2nd century, not improbably, as suggested above, contemporary with the writing down of the Mishna by Jehadah ha-Nasi’.

Characteristics of His Targum:

The characteristics of this Targum are in general close adherence to the original, sometimes even to the extent of doing violence to the genius of the language into which it has been translated. One prominent example of this is the presence of yath as the sign of the accusative; and there is also the intensive construction of infinitive with finite tense. There is a tendency to insert something between God and His worshipper, as mmera’ Yahweh instead of simply Yahweh. Where anthropomorphisms occur, an exact translation is not attempted, but the sense is represented in an abstract way, as in Gen 11:5, where instead of The Lord (YHWH) came down there is The Lord (yiya’) was revealed. At the same time there is not a total avoidance of paraphrase. In Gen 4:7 the Targum renders, If thou doest thy work well, is it not remitted unto thee? if thou doest not thy work well, thy sin is reserved unto the day of judgment when it will be required of thee if thou do not repent, but if thou repent it shall be remitted to thee. It will be observed that the last clause of the Hebrew is omitted. So in Gen 3:22, instead of Man has become as one of us, Onqelos writes Man has become alone in the world by himself to know good and evil.’ A more singular instance occurs in Gen 27:13, where Rebekah answers Jacob, Upon me be thy curse, my son; in the Targum it is, Unto me it hath been said in prophecy, there shall be no curse upon thee my son. Sometimes there is a mere explanatory expansion, as in Exo 3:1, where instead of the mount of God, Onqelos has the mountain on which the glory of the Lord was revealed. In the mysterious passage, Exo 4:24-26, later Jewish usage is brought in to make an easy sense: And it was on the way in the inn (house of rest) that the angel of the Lord met him and sought to slay him. And Zipporah took a flint knife and cut off the foreskin of her son and came near before him and said ‘In the blood of this circumcision is the bridegroom given back to us,’ and when therefore he had desisted she said, ‘Had it not been for the blood of this circumcision the bridegroom would have been condemned to die.’ Here hathan ( bridegroom) is used according to later custom of the child to be circumcised. Sometimes reasons of propriety come in, as when the sin of Onan is described corrupting his way on the earth. It is, however, in the poetical passages that the writer gives loose rein to paraphrase. As an example the blessing of Judah in Jacob’s blessing of his sons may be given: Judah, thou art praise and not shame; thee thy brethren shall praise. Thy hands shall be strong upon thine enemies, those that hate thee shall be scattered; they shall be turned back before thee; the sons of thy father shall come before thee with salutations. (Thy) rule shall be in the beginning, and in the end the kingdom shall be increased from the house of Judah, because from the judgment of death, my son, thy soul hast thou removed. He shall rest, he shall abide in strength, as a lion and as a lioness there is nothing may trouble him. The ruler shall not depart from the house of Judah nor the scribe from his son’s sons for ever till the Messiah come whose is the kingdom and whom the heathen shall obey. Israel shall trade in his cities, the people shall build his temple, the saints shall be going about to him and shall be doers of the Law through his instruction. His raiment shall be goodly crimson; his clothing covering him, of wool dyed bright with colors. His mountains shall be red with his vineyards, his hills shall flow down with wine, and his valleys shall be white with corn and with flocks of sheep.

Committed to writing in Palestine, the Targum of Onqelos was sent to Babylon to get the imprimatur of the famous rabbis residing there. There are said to be traces in the language of a revision by the Babylonian teachers, but as this lies in the prevalence of certain words that are regarded as more naturally belonging to Eastern than Western Aramaic, it is too restrictedly technical to be discussed here. The result of the Babylonian sanction was the reception of this Targum as the official interpretation of the books of the Law. It seems probable that the mistake which led to its being attributed to Onqelos was made in Babylon where Aquila’s Greek version was not known save by vague reputation.

(2) The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets.

This Jonathan, to whom the Targum on the Prophets is attributed, is declared to be one of the most distinguished pupils of Hillel. The prophetic section of the Bible according to the Jews contains, besides what we ordinarily reckon prophetic books, also all the earlier historical books except Ruth, which is placed among the Hagiographa. During the persecution of the Jews by Epiphanes, when the Law was forbidden to be read in the synagogue, portions of the Prophets were read instead. There was no attempt to read the whole of the Prophets thus, but very considerable portions were used in worship. This necessitated the presence of the meturgheman. If one might believe the Talmudic traditions, Jonathan’s Targum was committed to writing before that of Onkelos. Jonathan is regarded as the contemporary of the first Gamaliel, whereas Onkelos is the friend of Akiba, the contemporary of Hadrian. The tradition is that when he published his Targum of the Prophets, all Palestine was shaken, and a voice from heaven was heard demanding, Who is this who revealeth my secrets to the sons of men? As an example of the vagueness of Talmudic chronology, it may be mentioned that Jonathan was said to have made his Targum under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. He is said to have desired to write a Targum of the Kethubhm, but was forbidden by a voice from heaven. The Targum of Job was skid to have been already written, but was buried by Gamaliel. It is said to have been exhumed and that the present Targum on that book is from Jonathan’s hand. The tomb of Jonathan ben Uzziel is shown on the face of a hill to the North of Safed, Palestine.

Characteristics of His Targum – Earlier Prophets; Later Prophets

In the former Prophets – the historical books – the style does not differ much from that of Onqelos. Occasionally there are readings followed which are not in the Massoretic Text, as Jos 8:12, where the Targum has the west side of Ai instead of as in the Massoretic Text, the west side of the city. Sometimes two readings are combined, as in Jos 8:16, where the Massoretic Text has all the people which were in the city, the Targum adds in Ai. Again, the Targum translates proper names, as, in Jos 7:5, Shebarim (shebharm) is rendered till they were scattered. Such are the variations to be seen in the narrative portion of the Targum of the earlier Prophets. When, however, a poetical piece occurs, the writer at times gives rein to his imagination. Sometimes one verse is exceedingly paraphrastic and the next an accurate rendering without any addition. In the song of Deborah (Jdg 5) the 1st verse has only a little of paraphrase: Then sang praises Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on account of the lifting up and deliverance which had been wrought in that day, saying…The verse which follows is very paraphrastic; instead of the 7 words of the verse in the Massoretic Text the Targum has 55. it is too long to quote in full, but it begins, Because the house of Israel rebelled against His Law, the Gentiles came up upon them and disturbed their assemblies, and because they refused to obey the Law, their enemies prevailed against them and drove them from the borders of the land of Israel, and so on, Sisera and all his host being introduced. Jdg 5:3 reads thus, Hear O kings who are with him, with Sisera for war, who obey the officers of Jabin the king of Canaan; with your might and your valor ye shall not prevail nor go up against Israel, said I Deborah in prophecy before the Lord. I will sing praise and bless before Yahweh the God of Israel.

The later prophets are more paraphrastic as a whole than the earlier, as having more passages with poetic metaphors in them – a fact that is made plain to anyone by the greater space occupied in the rabbinic Bibles by the Targums of the Prophets. A marked example of this tendency to amplify is to be found in Jer 10:11 : Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, these shall perish from the earth, and from under the heavens. As this verse is in Aramaic it might have been thought that it would have been transferred to the Targum unchanged, but the Targumist has made of the 10 words of the original text 57. Sometimes these expansions may be much shorter than the above example, but are illuminative, showing the views held by the Jewish teachers. In Isa 29:1, Ho Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped! the Targum has Woe to the altar, the altar which David built in the city in which he dwelt. In this rendering we see the Jewish opinion that Ariel, which means lion of God, in this connection stood for the altar which David erected in Jerusalem. It seems unlikely that this whole Targum was the work of one writer, but the style gives little indication of difference. The paraphrase of the synagogal haphtaroth being traditional, the style of the person who committed it to writing had little scope. The language represents naturally an older stage of development than we find in the contemporary Christian lectionaries. As only portions of the Prophets were used in synagogue worship, only those portions would have a traditional rendering; but these fixed the style. In the Revised Version (British and American) of the Apocrypha the 70 verses which had been missing from 2 Esdras 7 are translated in the style adopted by the translators under King James. It is impossible to fix the date at which the Targum of any of the prophetic books was written down. It is probable that it was little if at all after that of Onqelos. The completion of the paraphrases of the prophetic writings, of which only portions were used in the synagogue, seems to imply that there were readers of the Aramaic for whose benefit those Targums were made.

(3) Hagiographa: Psalms, Job and Proverbs

(A) The Meghilloth

The Targums of the third division of the Hebrew sacred writings, the Kethubhm (the Hagiographa), are ascribed to Joseph Caecus, but this is merely a name. There is no official Targum of any of the Hagiographa, and several of them, Daniel, Nehemiah and Ezra, as above noted, have no Targum at all. Those of the longer books of this class, Psalms, Proverbs and Job, are very much closer to the text than are the Targums of the Meghilloth. In the Psalms, the paraphrase is explanatory rather than simply expansive. Thus in Psa 29:1, ye sons of the mighty is rendered ye companies of angels, ye sons of the mighty. Psa 23:1-6 is further from the text, but it also is exegetic; instead of Yahweh is my shepherd, I shall not want, the Targum reads, The Lord nourished His people in the wilderness so that they lacked nothing. So the last clause of the last verse of this psalm is, ‘I shall indeed dwell in the house of the holiness of the Lord for the length of days. Another example of exegesis is Psa 46:4, in which the river whose streams make glad the city of our God is explained as the nations as rivers making glad the city of Yahweh. Much the same may be said of Job, so examples need not be given.

The Targum of Proverbs has been very much influenced by the Peshitta; it may be regarded as a Jewish recension of it. Those of the five Meghilloth, as they are called, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentation, Ecclesiates, and Esther, are excessively paraphrastic. If one compare the space occupied by the text of Canticles and Proverbs, it will be found that the former occupies about one-sixth of the latter; if the Targums of the two books are compared in Lagarde’s text, the Canticles are two-thirds of Proverbs. So Lamentations occupies in the Massoretic Text less than a quarter the space which Proverbs occupies; but the Targum of Lain is two-fifths the size of the Targum of Proverbs. Ruth has not suffered such a dilatation; in the text it is a fifth, in the Targum a fourth, the size of Proverbs. The expansion mainly occurs in the first verse in which ten different famines are described. Ecclesiates in the Massoretic Text uses about three-eighths of the space occupied by Proverbs. This is increased to five-sixths in the Targum. There are two Targums of Esther, the first about five-sixths the size of Proverbs, the second, nearly double. The text is under one-half. We subjoin the Targum of Lam 11 from Mr. Greenup’s translation: Jeremiah the prophet and high priest said: How is it decreed against Jerusalem and against her people that they should be condemned to exile and that lamentation should be made for them? How? Just as Adam and Eve were condemned who were ejected from the garden of Eden and over whom the Lord of the universe lamented. How? God the judge answers and speaks thus: ‘Because of the multitude of the sins which were in the midst of her, therefore she will dwell alone as the man in whose flesh is the plague of leprosy dwells alone! And the city that was full of crowds and many people hath been deserted by them and become like a widow. And she that was exalted among the peoples and powerful among the provinces, to whom they paid tribute, hath been scattered abroad so as to be oppressed and to give tribute to them after this. This gives a sufficient example of the extent to which expansion can go. Verse 1 of Esther in the first Targum informs us that the cessation of the work of building the Temple was due to the advice of Vashti, and that she was the daughter of Evil-merodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and a number of equally accurate pieces of information. Yet more extravagant is the 2nd Targum; it begins by asserting that there are ten great monarchs of whom Achhashverosh was the 6th, the Greek and Roman were the 7th and the 8th, Messiah the king the 9th, and the Almighty Himself the 10th. It evidently has no connection with the first Targum.

(B) Chronicles

The Targum of Chronicles, although late, is modeled on the Targums of Jonathan ben Uzziel. In cases where the narrative of Chronicles runs parallel with that of Samuel the resemblance is very great, even to verbal identity at times. The differences sometimes are worthy of note, as where in 1Ch 21:2, instead of Dan the Targum has Pameas (Paneas), which affords an evidence of the lateness of this Targum. In the rabbinic Bible, Chronicles appear, as do Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel, without a parallel Targum.

(4) The Non-Official Targums – Jonathan Ben Uzziel and the Pentateuch

There is a Targum on the Pentateuch attributed to Jonathan ben Uzziel which is very paraphrastic. Fragments of another closely related Targum have been preserved, known as the Jerusalem Targum. In face the two may really be regarded as different recensions of the same Targum. It is supposed that some manuscript was denominated simply the targum of J, which, really being the initial representing, Jerusalem, was taken as representing Jonathan. At the end of each of the books of the Pentateuch is is stated that this Targum is the targum Yerushalm Of the two the Yerushalm is the longer. Both assert that five signs accompanied Jacob in his stay in Haran: the time was shortcried; the distance was shortened; the four stones for his pillow became one; his strength was increased so that with his own arm he moved the stone covering the well which it took all the shepherds to move; the water gushed from the well all the days he dwelt in Haran. But the narrative of ben Uzziel is expanded to nearly twice the length in the Yerushalm. This Targum may be regarded as to some extent semi-official.

7. Use of the Targums:

As the Targums appear to have been committed to writing after the Massoretic Text was fixed, textual differences are few and unimportant. Kohn mentions that in a few cases Onqelos agrees with the Samaritan against the Massoretic Text; they are, however, few, and possibly may be explained by differences of idiom, though from the slavish way in which Onqelos follows the Hebrew text this is improbable. The Palestine Targum agrees with the Samaritan and the versions in adding Let us go into the field in Gen 4:8. The main benefit received from the Targums is the knowledge of the views of the Jewish rabbis as to the meaning of certain passages Thus in Gen 49:10 there is no doubt in the mind of the Targumist that Shiloh refers to the Messiah. Some other cases have been noted above. The frequency with which the word of the Lord (mmera’ yeya’) is used in Onqelos as equivalent to YHWH, as Gen 3:8, They heard the voice of the word of the Lord God, mmera’ dheyeya’ ‘Elohm, requires to be noted from its bearing on Christian theology. There is a peculiar usage in Gen 15:1 : YHWH says to Abraham, Fear not, Abram, my word (mmera’) shall help thee. Pharaoh is represented as using this periphrasis: The word of the Lord (mmera’ yeya’) be for your help when I send away you and your little ones (Exo 10:10). A striking use of this phrase is to be found in Deu 33:27, where instead of Underneath are the everlasting arms, we have By His word the world was made. This is at once seen to resemble the usage of Philo and the apostle John. As the Targums had not been committed to writing during the lifetime of either of these writers, it might be maintained that the Targumists had been influenced by Philo. This, however, does not follow necessarily, as both apostle and philosopher would have heard the Targum of the Law recited Sabbath after Sabbath from their boyhood, and the phrase mmera’ yeya’ would remain in their memory. The Targums of the pseudo-Jonathan and that of Jerusalem have a yet more frequent use of the term. Edersheim has counted 176 occurrences of the phrase in Onqelos and 321 in that of the pseudo-Jonathan and in the fragments of the Yerushalm 99. This is made the more striking by the fact that it rarely occurs in the rest of Scripture. In Amo 1:2, instead of Yahweh … will utter his voice from Jerusalem, we have From Jerusalem will He lift up His word (memerh). The usual equivalent for the prophet’s formula the word of the Lord is pithgam YHWH. An example of the usage before us may be found in Psa 56:4, Psa 56:10 : In the righteousness of the judgment of God will I praise his word (memerh). There was thus a preparation for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity imbedded in the most venerated Targum, that of the Law.

Literature.

The text of the official Targums is to be found in every rabbinic Bible. Berliner has published a careful, vocalized edition of Onqelos. The Prophets and the Hagiographa have been edited by Lagarde, but unvocalized. For the language Peterrnann’s grammar in the Porta Linguarum Orientalium is useful. Levy’s Chaldaisches Woterbuch is very good. Jastrow’s Dict. of the Targumim is invaluable. Brextorf’s Lexicon Talmudicum supplies information not easily available elsewhere. The Targums on the Pentateuch have been translated by Etheridge. There is an extensive literature on this subject in German. In English the different Bible Dictionaries. may be consulted, especially McClintock, DB, HDB, EB, etc. The article in Encyclopedia Brit is worthy of study, as also naturally that in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Targum

The name given to the Chaldee version or paraphrase of the O.T. It was made professedly because the Jews who returned from exile knew that language well. Explanations were added, which crept into the text. There are ten Targums of parts of the O.T. The principal ones are the Pentateuch by Onkelos, and the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and the Prophets (except Daniel), by Jonathan Ben Uzziel.

The language agrees with the Chaldaic or Aramaic parts of Daniel and Ezra. It is easy to understand that pious Jews who did not return under Ezra and Nehemiah, and were gradually losing the use of the Hebrew tongue (as well as their descendants born in captivity) would value such a translation; and it has been stated that for centuries the Targums were publicly read on the Sabbaths, festivals, etc., their language being the only one understood by the greater part of the Jews even in Palestine.

As an illustration Gen 22:10-13 is quoted from the Pentateuch of Onkelos, and from the one known as the Pseudo-Jonathan. This latter is of much later date, as far as dates are known, and has words of other languages here and there.

ONKELOS.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to immolate his son. And the angel of the Lord called him from the heavens and said, Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Stretch not forth thy hand to the youth, nor do aught to him, for now I know that thou fearest God, and hast not spared thine only son for my sake. And Abraham lifted up his eyes after these [words] and looked, and behold a ram caught in a tree by his horns. And Abraham went and brought the ram, and offered him for a burnt offering instead of his son.

PSEUDO-JONATHAN.

And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. And Isaac answered and said to his father, Bind me properly, lest I should tremble through the affliction of my soul, and be cast into the pit of destruction, for profaneness shall be found in thy offering. The eyes of Abraham were intent upon the eyes of Isaac; and the eyes of Isaac were intent upon the angels on high. Isaac beheld them, but Abraham saw them not. The angels on high answered, Come, behold how these are alone in the world; the one slays the other; he who slays delays not; he that is slain reaches forth his neck. And the angel of the Lord called him from the heavens, and said to him, Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here am I. Then he said, Stretch not out thy hand to the young man, nor do him any harm, for now it is manifest before me that thou fearest the Lord, and hast not withheld thy son, thy only-begotten from me. Then Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold a ram, which had been created between the evenings of the foundation of the world, was caught in the entanglement of a tree by his horns. So Abraham went and took him, and offered him for a burnt offering instead of his son.

It will be seen that while the one is a comparatively correct translation of the Hebrew, the other has useless and undignified additions. A third translation, known as the Jerusalem Targum, has also some of the same additions.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Targum

Tar’gum. See Versions, Ancient, of The Old and New Testaments; Versions, Authorized.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Targum

See JEWS.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary