First edition of Jems. Targ., Venice, 1591.
Order and muttial Relation 0/ the Pent. Tar'j urns.— The question whether the I'>ag. Targ. was not a collection ot variants and parallels to peeudo-Jon., and therefore later, has been referred to above. A further question was raised by Gei^rer,' when he clainied to prove that the Jems. Targj?. are, in respect both o( a ^Teat part of their contents and of their general manner of interpretation, older than Onk., and that Onk wa« manifestly the result of a complete revision of the Targ. pseudo-Jon. in the fourth century. Baohert holds, some- what similarly, that the Targ. Onlf. is an abridged and revised ed. of a Jerus. Targ. which has been only partially preserved, viz. in the Frag. Targ., and that the Targ. pseudo-Jon. is later than both Onk. and the Frag. Targ., being in fact a com- bination of them, with additional midrdshim. The Targ. pseudo- Jon, would thus form the third and final stage in the develop- ment of the Pent. Targums. Both the Jerus. Targunis in their present shape are admittedly much later than the Targ. Onk., as thev contain additions made to them through successive generations down to the 7th or 8th cent. On the other liaiid, all the Targg. probably contain material that is much older than the date of their final compilation and redaction. It still remains questionable whether actual proof has been furnished that any given passage is really ancient, or that the Targ. Onk. has been made up from an older Jerus. Targ. by curtailment not always successfully effected. As passages for which a verj- ancient date has been claimed may be mentioned : On 151**, Nu 21^1, the rendering ot 'yp by 'KC^S, the contemporaries and allies of the Nabatieans (cf. in Proph. Targ. Jg I'l 4" S"); Gn 4:i-, where Kgyptian animal-worslii}! is sjioken of as though it still eiii8te<i; Dt 33", the reference in which to Johannes II vrcaims could (it is claimed) come onl^v from a contemporary. I Further, the absence of polemics against the Christian faith points (it is thought) to an early pre-Christian date ; but unless we are prepared to show that all the Targg. were fixed on._e for all at the earlv date, if the Jews at a later time had wished to comliat Christian tenets, the opportunities for inserting such were not wanting, and there is no evidence of this. As regards the alleged dependence of Onkeloa upon an earlier version of the Jems. Targums, an examination of the (lassages adtluced by Geiger and Bacher does not produce the conviction that the priority is on the side of the Jerus. Targums. That OnHelos received some revision in Palestine or Babylon is pr-bable ; but It is not probable, if the original Jerus. Targ. were to any great extent similar in character to our Frag. Targ., that a translation like Onl(. could be reached by pruning it down. The resultant Targ. Is too dissimilar to be spoken of as a revision of such a work. Onifelos, when comi>ared with the MT, is quite as intelligible as any literal translation ever is ; and though the flume exegetic traditions or princijiles, drawn from the general mental atmusphere in which the comnilers lived, may disclose tluMiiselves here or there, it has not been nia/Ie out that the Targ. unlj. shows on the face of it any phenomena which are only reasonably to be explained by the use of the Jerus. Targuma. A few instances may lie cited where the reader may Judge whether the priority is necessarilv on the side of the Jerus, Targums : On 4" 4013 4922, Ex 8' 124«- *» 14l» 333- », Lv 26", Nu 12'^ 244, lit 32« S4'. The decision remains with an examination of such passages, rather than by quoting passages on the other haiiil which presuppose dependence of the Jerus. Targ on Onk., as no one denies that the Jerus. Targg. in their present form are
later than On|(. and have drawn from IL
• Urichn/t u. Uehertrlzunijen der BUiel, p. 4f,5f., 'Das nach Onkelos benannte bah. Thargum ' in his ZticK. 1S71.
\ y.DMll. vol. xxviii.
t Noldeke, Die alllest. LUteralur, pp. 2£e, £69 ; c(. Dalman, Oram. p. 23, and esp. WorU Jeeu, p. 67.
ii. TARGUM ON THE PUOPHETS. — The official Targ. on the Prophets bears the name of Jona- than (bar Uzziel), a disciple of Hillel in the 1st cent. B.C.* Elsewhere in the Talmud, passages are quoted from it under the name of K. Joseph bar Chija (A.D. 270-333), who wa-s president of tlia school of I'unibadita. Its origin is at least in part to be sought in Palestine, and it received its linal and authoritative form in Uabylon in the 5th cent. A.D. Its language largely resembles that of Onkelos. Whether more than the sections which were read in the synagogue services were included in the first translation of the Prophets we cannot say. Alaking allowance for the dilierence between the historical and the prophetic books, our Targ. has a uniformity of style and character, due to a careful revision which aimed at producing this. Gesenius has shown that iiarallel passages (2 K lSf.=Jer 36-39, Is 2=-*=Mic 4'-3) are tr. alike in both places of their occurrence, and vary only according to the variation of the originals, and that otlier features are common to the different books (e.g. p'nn rendered by «□■ in Jonah, Jer., Ezekiel).t The Targ. on the Prophets is not so literal as the Targ. of Onk., yet the method of both translations is alike, and they are clearly meant to be com-