readily traced. After all that has been said there can be no doidjt that the general object of the author of the Jerusaleni Targum was to correct and explain Onkelos, adapting it to a later time and different country by en- riching it with the Haggadic lore which had accumu- lated, 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 Petermami has collated them {op, cit. p. 60 sq.). It is this fraginentary Jeru- salem Targum to which Jonathan had regard in the first instance. He uses the larger paraphrases and Hag- gadic parts of it, as well as the smaller variations from Onkelos, but always with discretion. More commonly the Haggadah of the Jerusalem Targimi is simplified and abridged. Nor does Jonathan follow Onkelos im- plicitly, but often diverges. If he does not adhere con- sistently to the Jerusalem Targum, we need not expect to see him copying Onkelos. Thus in Gen. vii, 11; xxii, 2-1, he leaves Oid^elos for the Jerusalem Targum. It shoidd also be observed that Jonathan relies upon Onkelos much more than the Jerusalem Targum, which is freer and more independent. Thus the former fol- lows Onkelos, and the latter departs from him in Gen. xi, 30; xii, 6, 15; xiii, 6; xiv, 5, 21; xvi, 7, 15; xix, 31 ; XX, 18, etc. The interval of time between the Je- rusalem 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 u])on the margins of the Pentateuch, or an abridgment of Onkelos" (Allix, 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 anil complete Je- rusalem 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 au- thors and now wanting, which Zunz has brought to- gether, need a great deal of sifting and correction, as has been ably shown by Seligsohn in Frankel's Mo- natsschrift, 1857, p. 113. The view of the relation now given between Onkelos, the Jerusalem Targum, and Pseudo-Jonathan was briefly advocated by Fran- kel {op. cit. 1846, p. Ill sij.) 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- Jona- than 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 prin- ceps, having Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum. It is also in the London Polyglot, vol. iv, 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 liabbinical Bibles issued by him, and 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-Jona- than and Jerusalem Targums by David ben-Jacob Ze-
TARGUM
212
TARGU3E
brecyn (Prague, 1G09), entitled 'jr:'!-' d15"in hi' im'^B ^w"'J1~^ D^J"im ; by Mordecai ben-Naphtali liirsch (Amsterdam, 1671), entitled D""3Dn miip, but OTT'S labriT'"! "iPr,"^ C^SnP bv is given in the Pentateuch edition published at Wilna in 1850. K. Pheiljel ben- David (Ilanau, 1G14), author of m^-on "IlXn, did not compose, as tlie writer of the art. " Targum" in Kitto states, a commentary on Pseudo-Jonathan and Jeru- shalmi, but an elucidation of difficult words found in Jonathan's Targum.
We subjoin the following specimens from Genesis and Deuteronomy, selected at random :
8, 18). The extraneous insertions are verj- numerous, uncertain, fabulous, and incorrect. Thus at ii, 1 we read, '"And the three friends of Job lieard of all the evil that had come upon liim when tliey had seen the trees of his garden burned up, and the bread of his food clianged into living Hesh, and the wine of his drink into blood; and they came each one from his place, anil for this service thej- were delivered from the place appointed them in Gehenna." In i, 15 the words of tlie original XiT 7V bsm are rendered Uj'^rr^ HbsSI "iri""CT ri:?"S'2 ri'^P"'i), " and the queen of Samar- cand (V) suddenly rushed in." If fSamarcand be really