Its fragmentary condition ha» been accounted for in various ways. (1) Zunz 5 considered it a collection of various reading to the so-called pseudo-Jonathan Targum on the Pentateuch. But the agreements are no less numerous and striking than the dilTerences, and cannot be reasonably explained by the assumed
• Dalman, Graminatik, p. 9.
t Kiddimkin. 49a ; cf. Zunz, Oottt*dienatliche Vortrage^, p. 69 ; beutsoh, Lit. Remaint, pp S4S, StjO ; Friedmaim, OnluUo4 wid A kylas, p. 6 n.
t Dalman. Qmmmatik, p. 24.
} I.e. p. 74.
ne^digence of the compiler of the variants. (2) It has been supposed* to be a collection of variants and corrections to th4 Targ. Onlj., more suited to the taste of the compiler and his a^« than the bald and literal version that hud gained supremacy m the schools of Babylon. (3) Another fomi of this viewt is that the Fragmentary Targ. contains extracts from an earlier Jerus. Targ. which at one time existed complete.
Its present form is not due to chance : the selec- tion of passages was nia<le to be interpolated in the Targ. Onk., supplementing or correcting it at certain points. Such an interpolated On^., with the supplements and corrections combined, is actu- ally found for the Song of Moses and for the Decalogue in old Machzor MSS, and has been made known by Hurwitz's publication of the Machzor Vitry. J That tliere was an earlier com- plete Jerus. Targ. on the Pent, has been inferred from the fact that in various Jewish works from the 11th to the 14th cent, there have been counted over 300 quotations from a Jerus. Targ. whicli are not to be found in the Fragmentary Targ., and nearly 300 which do not occur in the Targ. of pseudo-Jonathan. As these quotations often be- long to several verses of the same chapter, and many chapters of all the books of the Pent, are represented, the source of them was evidently a continuous and complete work.§ The Fragment- ary Targ. is more akin to this source than the Targ. of pseudo-Jon., for, in passages where both the Frag. Targ. and pseudo-Jon. exist, over 100 quotations are found in the Frag. Targ., while only about 20 are found in pseudo-Jon. which are wanting in the Frag. Targum. || In about 100 passages the older Jerus. Targ. shows itself de- pendent on late sources : the two Talmuds, Tan- chuma, Rabba Gen., and Rabba Leviticus. It cannot be dated earlier than the second half of the 7th cent., and may be later. The Frag. Targ. therefore cannot be earlier than the 8tli century .IT
First edition of Frag. Targ., Venice, 1517.
3. The Jerusalem Targ. (so-called pseudo-JonO' than).— The complete Palestinian larg. on the Pent, has, since the 14th. cent., borne the name of Jonathan bar Uzziel, the reputed author of the Targ. on the Prophets. From the manifest in- correctness of this — '' DiJin intended for 'dVit DUin being read [niv Dunn — the name pseudo-Jonathan has gained currency. The name ^nib" px 'n is found in writers of the 11th cent., and 'D^cn' 'n ig only tnother, not so accurate, variation of this. It had its origin in Palestine, and its language is the Pal. dialect. It is a complete Targ. on the Pent, (onl}' about a dozen verses are wanting **), of the same general character as the Frag. Targ., and based partly upon this latter (or perhajis upon its source, the old Jerus. Targ. mentioned above) and partly upon Onkelos. Its essential cliaracter is its free haggadistic handling of tlie text. The Targumist's purpose, plainly, was to make the trans- lation but a vehicle tor all the popular stories and comments that had grown up around the Biblical characters and events. Among the indications of its date may be noted : Ex 26*, the six orders of the Mishna are referred to ; Gn 2P' kp-.v and ND'oi!, a wife and daughter of Mohammed, are men- tioned as wives of Ishmael ; Gn 49-'', Dt 33;, Edom and Ishmael are spoken of as world-powers in a way possible only in tlie 7 th cent, at the earliest. Like the other Targums, it sets aside figurative speech, and eliminates (though not with the same re^'ularity as Ontelos) all anthropomorphic expressions re-
• Seligsohn, De duatntt Biemolymitanit Pent. Paraph. 1868.
t Bassfreund, Das Fraginfntentargum twn Pent. 1896, p. 16 f.
t Baasfreund, I.e. p. 86.
i See, on the other hand, Dalman, (trammaiik, p. 26. Ui does not find any proof that the source of the c uotations « a» • single work on the whole Pentateuch.
I Bassfreund, I.e. p. 21. H Ibid. p. 08.
** Dalman, Aram. DiaUktproben,f. 86.
TARGUM
TARGUM
681
ferrini,' to tlie Deity. The lieroes of Israel are idealized and their faults leniently passed by, as in the Jewish miUrashic literature in general. The angelology and demonology of the earlier period appear in a much more developed fomi thp.n even in the Frag. Targ. ; but it is to be noted that Bouie of the relevant [las-sages do not occur in the latter, which ha-s references of its own to anfxels that are wanting in pseudo-Jonathan. In general, the additions of the Frag. Targ. are found in pseudo-Jon. in a somewhat more condensed forin, all the Scripture quotations being regularly omitted. Earlv geograpliical names are replaced by those current in a later age. The Targ. is a mine of information on most of the religious and dogmatic concejitions of the Judaism of the Talmudic age. Weber (^c.) gives illustrations, from the Tarjnims as well as from other Midrashic works, of the later Jewish doctrines of the Being of God, His dwelling- place, His revelation in the Torah, Angels, Creation, Sin, Death, the Jlessianic Kingdom, the resurrec- tion of the just and the future life, Gehenna and its torments, the second death which the wicked die in the world to come, etc.