is perhaps the best part of the work, for here the exe- gcte becomes didactic. Thus we are told in Gen. xl that Joseph suffered two additional years of imprison- ment because he built on man's rather than God's help, a view also espoused by Rashi. The region of the su- pernatural is treated very freely by Jonathan. His an- gelology is marvellous. He has the names of nianv angels outside the circle of the liible, as Samacl, Ga- briel, Uriel. Sagnugael, etc. We find rhetorical or poet- ical digressions in Gen. xxii, 14 (the prayer of Abraham on IMount iMoriah), Deut. xxxiv, G (^the hymn on Moses' death); (ien. xlix, 4; Numb, xxi, 34; Deut. xxxii, 50 (paral)les). Like Onkelos and others, he avoids an- thropomorphic ideas, and is averse to ascribe super- human attributes to heathen gods. The Halachah is also brought within the circle of his paraphrase, and its results employed in the exposition. Tliis part of Jonathan's version has of late been treated bj' Dr. S. tironemann, in his Die jonathanische Pentateuch-Ueber- setzumj in ihrem Verhal/uiss zur Halacha (Leipsic, 1879). The language of this Targum shows it to be of Pales- tinian origin, as it is in what is called the Jerusalem dialect, like that of the Jerusalem Talmud, but with man}' peculiarities. It is far from being pure, because the Syriac had deeply affected it. Foreign elements enter into it largely, such as Gen. i, 7, D12"''^p1N=w/<:f- avoQ (ii, C ; Numb, xxxiv, 6) ; ver. 9, Xmi = co- XfToj/, or ^oxh'-i ^'er. 20, "i"^'1S = fu';p; ii, 12, "|^5"i''3= iSnpvXXoc, Syr. Nbl~a; iii, 4, ^^•S'S''t=delator ; iv, 6, ■|^;ip'iX=f('/coj'fc; vi, 2, DpS, from tthkw, or nii^w, or TTfKbj; ver. 9, HO^i^=yivtai^,ysi']'i](jig,yh'oc; Syr. D35 and XD35, etc. ; comp. Petermann, I)e Duabvs Pentateuchi Paraphrasibus Chaldaicis, particula i, p. C6 sq., where a collection of these foreign words is given. The names of Constantinople and Lombard}-, and even of two of Mohammed's wives, which occur in this para- phrase, besides the many foreign words, prove the Tar- gum to have originated in the second half of the 7t!i century. That Jonathan had Oidielos before him, a very slight comparison of both will show. Many places attach themselves almost verbally to €)nkelos, as Gen. XX, 1-15. Indeed, one object which the Pseudo-Jona- than had in view was to give a criticism upon Onkelos. He corrects and alters him more or less. Where Onke- los paraphrases, Jonathan enlarges the 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 Oidielos are slight, sometimes important; and they are often su- perior 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 j)rima?i/i/ on the latter, but upon another par- aphrase; or, in other words, he worked upon Onkelos indirectly in the first instance because his whole pro- duction rests on the basis of the Jerushalmi, or Jerusa- lem, Targum. But, before proceeding with our obser- vation on the Pseudo-Jonathan, let us speak of
2. The Jerushalmi, or Jerusalem, Tarcpim. — The Je- rusalem Targum, written in the same dialect substan- tially 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. Judg- ing from the rounded and complete form in which the different parts are given, we may iitfer that it is now in its primitive state. If so, it cainiot 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 Jerusalem
TARGUxM
211
TARGUM
Taro'iim. Indeed, there is often a verbal agreement, or nearly so, between them, so that one might at tirst 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 fragmentarj' recension of it. The latter opinion is held by Zunz. But against this there are many argu- ments, especially the fact that tlie work is complete and rounded off in many jiarts. 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 an- gels: Michael is the only one ever occurring. In Jona- than, on the other hand, angelology flourishes with great vigor : to the Hiblical 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 mill- ions 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 Hag- gatlah : 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 indi- cate 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 dif- ference between them, however, and the one which is most characteristic of either, is this, that while Jeru- shalmi 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 J/emra, 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? Onlj' 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-.Ionathan afterwards re- sumed the same office, and completed what his prede- cessor had begun. The Jerusalem Targum formed the basis of Jonathan, and its own basis was that of Onke- los. Jonathan used both his predecessors' paraphrases, the author of the Jerusalem Targum that of Onkelos alone. There is no doubt that the small glossarial pas- sages of the Jerusalem Targum are intended as a criti- cal 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 anthropo- morphisms from the text had obscured the sense, the Jerusalem Targum restores the original meaning by- some addition or change. Thus in (ien. vi, G, 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 Aramae- an one, as in viii, 22, where the Nli"^!? of Onkelos is displaced for N2";'^C. So in xxxiv, 12, where Onke- los has '3Pi'?1 ■p'nrti'a, the Jerusalem Targum puts Xri3>irD1 "i^lS. Vice versa, the Jerusalem Targum often prefers a Hebrew word to Onkelos's Aramaean one, perhaps because the latter was better known in Pales- tine, as in xxii, 24. There is, indeed, no uniformity between Onkelos and Jerusalem in the use of Ar- amaean words, while consistent divergences may be