Target (Hastings' Dictionary)

l.=ft mark to aim at; see Mark (vol. iii. p. 244). 2. = a shield; see BUCKLER and Shield. TARGUM (c'j-iB * 'translation,' 'interpretation, cf. cj-ir3 Ezr 4'j. — The Targums are the transla- tions or paraphrases of the OT books made in the Aram, dialect, wliich superseded Hebrew as a spoken language among the Jewish population of Palestine and Babylon.

The language of the Targums was formerly called Chaldee, but, while the incorrectness of this is universally recognized, no quite satisfactory designation has replaced it. The Targums w ere composed in Palestine ; their language is the Aramaic of Juda-a, a later repre- sentative of the Aramaic already found in Ezra and Daniel, t In the features that chiefly distin- guish Eastern and Western Aramaic it agrees with the old Pal. forms as against the dialect of the Bab. Talmud.

Those Targums that were offici- ally recognized in the Bab. schools probably owe something to the infiuence of the Aramaic spoken by those who edited and copied them, while the influence of the Hebrew is seen in those transla- tions which exhibit least tendency to free com- position and paraphrase.! Jewish tradition connects the origin of the Targums with the need for an intelligible trans- lation felt b\- those who no longer spoke or easily understood the Heb. language. The disuse of Ueb.

as the vernacular of the Jews, before the en- croachments of Aramaic on all sides, was a very gradual process, and was probably not general much before the time of Christ. Several books or parts of books in the OT canon stand as proof that Heb. was written and read fully three cen- turies after the return from Babylon. The bilin- gual character of the books of fezra and Daniel (liowever it is to be explained) presupposes equal familiarity with both languages.

Then the Semitic words which occur in the NT are, with few excep- tions, Aramaic. Probably the desire to pos-sesa explanations of the Heb. text in Aramaic made itself felt in some places earlier than in others. The first translations consisted of the oral explana- tions given along with the reailing of the Sabbath lessons in the sjTiagogue.

These were made by a class or guild of interpreters called mct/iorge- manim (c':Dnirc), appointed for the i)urpose, but in no sense was their exposition regarded as official or 'authorized.' How far back tlie custom extended we cannot be certain. The Mishna (c. 200 A.D.) contains some rules made to regulate the practice.§ Thus the reading of the Law was to proceed verse by verse, first in Heb. by the reader, and then its Aram, equivalent by the mcthorginidn.

In the reading of the lesson from the Prophets three verses at a time might be read, to be followed by their Aram, rendering. There is no mention here of reading out of written Targums, and elsewhere || the use of such writ- ings was forbidden, at least for the Law, in the Sabbath .service, but not the preparation and use of them by individuals for private studj' or .school instruction (see, further, art. Synagogue, p. 641'').

There must therefore have been a time wlien the caprice of the mithorgiman contributed to the form of the translation, and in fact it is known that certain renderings which have found their way into the Targums were not approved. H Nevertlie- less, tlie general phraseology of the oral trans- lations would tend to become fixed by the custom of learning them, and by the recurring u.se of them in public. Thus we find in NT times trace3 of Aram, renderings of Heb.

verses in books like • Etymology unknown ; probably non-Semitic, t Noldeke, 00.il, 1872, p. 8281. ; Die SemitUchen Sprachtn 1899, p. 351. I NoHeke, LU. Centralbl. 18T7, p. S04t., 1884, p. 1345 L Daltnan, Grammatik, p. 9, ZMe Wartt Jau, pp. 6«, 67. ft Meg, iv. 4. II JeruB. Mtg. Iv. 1. S See passages enumerated in Dalman, QrvMnatdt, p. 24. N TAKGUM TAKGUM 679 the Psalms.

* The agreement of these vcith read- ings still found in Targunis, which we know were not reduced to their present form till long after, cannot be purely accidental. The tradition of the conliscation of a Targuni on Job in the 1st cent. A.D.t sliows that written Targunis existed then, though the use of them was not countenanced liy the authorities and guardians of the sacred text. Of the chanicter of these earliest attempts at translating the lleb.

Scriptures into Aramaic we know notliing, as none of tiium have come down to us. All those in our liands are the products of a much later time, none perliaps older than the 4th or 5th cent. A.D. Like much else in Jewi-sb literature, these late productions were based upon older exegetic material, the origin of which lies far behind our lirst means of access to it. But it is no longer possible for us to separate the diti'erent strata and assign them to dill'erent ages of com- position.

The examinations of them which have betn made in this direction do not yield asuflicient number of cases of distinctly older contents to enable us with conlidence to assign them to an early date, embedded as they are in documents admittedly late, of which they share the linguistic a.'xd other peculiarities. The Targums now known to be extant are as follows : — i. For the Pent., three Targums : (1) the Targ. of Onlieloa, also called the Bab. Targ. on the Pentateuch ; (2) a Tarj;.

ot certain parts of the Pent., called the Jems. Tarp. II. or the Fra^Tuentary Targum : (3) a complete Targ. on the Pent, akin to No. C^), called the Targ. of Jonathan [pseudo-Jonathan], or Jerus. Targ. I, ii. On the Prophets, Earlier and Later ; the Targ. of Jonathan bar Uzziel, also called the Bab. Targ. on the Prophets. iii. On the Hat^iographa we have Targums for (1) Psalms, Proverbs, Job ; (li) the Megilloth (Cant., KuLh, Lam., Ec-cles., Eat.) ; (3) Chronicles.

No Targums have been found for Ezra, Nebemiah, Daniel. In harmony with their character as popular translations of religious books, intended in part to meet tlie wants of the religious community, tlie Targums are not always or jjrimarily literal trans- lations. The translations are often mixed up with uuriuus paraphrases and stories such as we meet Willi in the other Jewish exegetical or homiletic works (midrdshim).

They contain, besides, expan- sions or alterations adapted to secure that the sense of Scripture current among the authorities should lind access in an intelliijible form to the niinils of the people.

The theology of the early books of IsraePs history and religion took no pains to obviate the appearance of a very distinct an- thropomorphic character, but the time came when the main feature of Jewish criticism and exegesis was the anxiety to remove or soften down all references to God that could thus give rise to mis- understanding in the popular mind. The history of the lleb. text itself bears witness to this scru- pulous feeling for the Divine majesty : cf.

the tikkuni' S(>phirim; the use of Ti3 = jxj or '?Sp when Used directly before the name of God ; punctuation like niKiV Is 1", etc. ; and the LXX has sometimes been intluenced by the same solicitude (cf. Ex 24'"). Hut the clearest expression of this hernicneutic principle is to be found in the Targums, and every wage of them illustrates the practice.

In fact the oasis for antliropoinorphic views of God is taken away by the Jewish notion that man was created, not m the image of God but iu the image of tlie angels (cf. Gn 1* Jerus. Targ.) It will be sulh- cient here to enumerate the more usual ways by which everything wjus avoided that could lead to erroneous or undi^-nilied conceptions of God in His own nature or in llis manner of revealing Himself.

When Qod is spoken of ofl coming into relation with man, walking, speaking, swearing, repenting, etc., some periphrasis • Mt 27«, cf. Ps 22a; Eph 4", cf. P» «»». t Bab. Shab. 116. 1. for the Divine name is used, by which literar)' device it was felt that God was somewhat removed or raised above the plane of human alfairs, and that His action, therefore, was less direct and more fittingly mediated. There is some evidence that Nim m.Ti, 'word of Jahweh,' found only in the so-called Jerus. Targg.

(cf. Lv 11), was poetically and fantastically personified, and so treated as a mediating factor between tiod and the world.* In much the same way the "T KTO'O, as God's messenger in nature and in history, unfailingly operative wherever He sends it, is the most usual expres-sion for bridging over the chasm between God and man.

But it is so identified with Jehovah Himself as creator, judge, helper, deliverer of His jjeuple, that, from the mediating use of it, it has become but another name for Him {e.p. Gn 181 36», Ex 312 68 j-jw. Am gs. Is 42', Ps 2-' '2, Job 121). How completely trO'O has lost all reference to ita own meaning \i seen esp. from such a phrase as ni.Ti KiD'D TD, Jos 2231. t God has His dwelling-place in the central division of the highest heavens, and the throne of His glory is there.

This glory, resting upon the throne, is conceived of .as ligiit, and manifestations of God become manifestations of His glory, veiled doubtless in a cloud so as not to cause blindness (cf. Gn 271 Targ. Jerus.) This ' glory ot God ' ("T Kip-) and ' the presence of the glory of God' ("n nip- ny2-j) are further expressions which may be used for God Himself active in the world : Gn 2»13, Ex »I 2020 344 (pseudo-Jon.), 1 K 221'J, Is Gl^, Ps 912 17" ; similarly -;sx VI Ps 132, cf. Ex 33" (pseudo-Jon.)

; "n Km'2a VI Ps 423. This instance is indicative of the tendency in later times to use a doul>le expression for the earlier simple one, e.g. "1 N-lO'D Dlty Gn Iflia 21J3 (Krag.), "1 xnr^t? ip- Gn 221-' 4927 (Frag.), Job 14l8.t As God is and remains infinitely exalted above and distant from men. His actions and theirs become, equally, events that happen in His presence as a spectator. Hence the preposition DTp is in almost exclusive use before the Divine name through- out the Targums.

As a variant for it we sometimes find NCcS esp. in the Jerus. Targums (cf. Ex 22i», Lv 2312) ; or such words as NanSiD, Nntrn are used before the Divine name (Nu 14^^, Dt 4'i). Of course, unUke KTD'D, Kip", NJ'JC, these cannot be subjects of verbs. Another way of removing the Divine name from too imme- diate a relation to man was found in putting a verb to which the name was subject in the passive voice : Gn 4416, Ex I'Jiy, Nu 9*. In this way yT, .TNT become Dip '>J ; l'DB'=Dip VCl?

; IT, Nn, T3y = 'Sjni<. In passages where eyes, arms, hands, fingers, face, mouth, wings, etc., are attributed to God, some other expression (as 'word,' 'might,' 'shekinah') is often (not always) employed: Gn821, Ex 7-1 »ii> Ism, Jos 42 9", Ps 3iii. Expressions in the gen. case before the name ot God are paraphrased : Gn 2Sl'~ 3113, Ex 420. The sense of a passage is even altered from motives of rever- ence or to avoid anthropomorphisms : tin 4i4 2013, Ex 33^, Is 118 Hi", Ps 27. Interrog.

sentences are rendered by the words that expressed the translator's sense of what the answer intended would be : Gn IS'-*, Dt 3'". When one and the same expression has for object both God an<l men, the difference to the IraTishitor's mind is obtained by using a diiTerent preposition : On 32'-^ 60'20, Ex 1431, Nu2P. The word D'hVn, when used of heathen deities, is usually rendered Kiyo : Jos 23'' lo, Jg 21'2.

When applied to men it is rendered 3T (Ex 418 71), K':-n (Ex 210, i„ Ps 821 \'i-1) ; ct, further. On 3» I'DIDTS = D'.lVxD, Ps 8" N'SnScD = D'.TJNO. i. TaHOUMS on THE PENTATEUCH.— 1. OnkcloS. — The official Targ. on the Pent, has been lianded down under the name of the Targ. of Onkolos. According to the Bab. Talmud, Unkclos wjis a proselyte who lived in the 1st cent, a.d., but only once is any mention made of him as the \\Titer of a Tai'gum ;§ and here the corresponding passage in the Jerus.

Talmud,|| which makes no mention of a Targ. of Onkelos, makes it clear that a confusion with the Gr. translator Aquila is the origin of the tradition which connects Unl>eIos with the Targ. called by his name. The author of the Targ. is (|uile unknown ; and it is not at all certain that we have to seek for it a sinj'le author. It has certainly a uniformity of style and diction, but this may equally well arise Irora official revision.

The work, or parts of it, may have been first com- piled during the 2iid or 3rd cent. A.D. in Judiea, • Weber, System der A ltjt]/n(tgofjatiichen Theotoffis, p. 174 f. t Notice the use of nO'D Job "8 19I8 (of Job himself). J Cf. GInsburgor, /Ktf AiithropoTnorphiiimen in tUn Thar gumim, p. 44. i Bab. Ueg. iii. 1. I Pal. Jfiv. L Ml 680 TARGUM TARGUM but it never seems to have obtained any great iQirency or esteem in Palestine.

It is first quoted by the name of Onl>elos in a writing of Gaon Sar Shalom in the 9th cent. A.D.* In the Bab. Talmud it is referred to as 'our Targura' (pn Duin), or by the formula ' as we translate.' t The name ' Baby- lonian Targum ' does not therefore refer to its lin- guistic character, as was formerly supposed, for its language is the Aramaic of Juda'a, but has been given to it because in the 4th or 5th cent.

, after a final revision in Babylon, the centre of literary activity among the Jews at that time, it was sanctioned or recognized as an 'authorized' version. It came, in fact, to enjoy the reputation of being tlie best of all the Targums, and a special Massorah was prepared for it as for the original text itself. Even after the original purpose of the Targ. had been left behind, when Aramaic had disappeared before the rise of Islam and tlie spread of the Arabic language, the Targ.

of Onkelos con- tinued to be written, and printed, as an accompani- ment of the Heb. text, verse after verse, or in parallel columns. The custom of reading it in the synagogue has gradually died out. Yemen, in South Arabia, is now the only exception to this. Speaking generally, the translation is good, and faithful to the original.

The text from which it was made was in all essentials the Massoretic text, and it is rendered in accordance with the con- ceptions that prevailed in the Jewish schools of tlie period. Poetic passages, e.g. Gn 49, Dt 32. 33, are not rendered so accurately, probably on account of their greater ditticulty ; paraphrase occasionally takes the place of translation ; mid- rdshim, both halakhd and haggadd, though by no means in the same degree as in the other Targg. to the Pent.

, are not entirely wanting. The removal of anthropomorphic or anthropo- pathic expressions referring to God is efl'ected by the devices mentioned above ; but, apart from this, the characteristic Jewish theological doctrines find scarcely any illustration in this Targum. Figura- tive language, as a rule, is not translated literally, but is explained: e.g. Gn 49-=, Ex 15s- a- lo 29K For an instance of cabbalistic interpretation in Onkelos cf. Nu 12', where NnT£:[? xnnx is the Targ. for n-i?

2n ncxn. Gn 49'" and Nu 24" are ' Messiani- cally' explained. Geographical names are some- times replaced by those current at a later time ; cf. Gn 1U'"37», L)t3". The first edition of this Targum was published at Bologna in 148l'. 2. Fragmentary Jerusalem Targum. — This Targ. contains only certain parts of the I'ent., estimated at about 850 verses in all. Three-fourths of it are on the historical sections of tlie Pent., and the remaining fourtli on the legislative sections in Exod., Lev.

, Numbers. In about 90 verses the trans- lation refers only to some single word of the text, and in about 14 chapters there is no translation or annotation at all. Where longer sections of it occur it is often extremely paraplirastic, the text being overlaid with midrashic stories. Its lan- guage is Palestinian Aramaic, but of a degenerate type, foreign words occurring in it to a great extent. It has afiinities with the lanmiage of Onlcelos, the Pal.

Talmud, and midr&shtm, and also with the vocabulary of the Bab. Talmud.t 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. 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- {lanion works. From certain passages which both lave verbally in common, it has been inferred, probably correctly, that Jonathan used Onkelos : cf. Jg 5», Dt 32", 1 S 12", Nu W\ 2 K 14», Dt ii-', Jer 4S"-" Nu 21^'-. J The Targ. on the historical books is more literal than that on the Prophetce Posteriores, but poetical or dillieult passages are paraphrased : cf.

1 S 2'''", which is exjilained verse by verse with references to Sennacherib, Nebu- chadnezzar, the Greeks, Hasmonu'ans, Mordecai, Esther, etc. ; 1 S 15'^ 17', 2 S 14" 20'". Of the pro- phetic books we have generally a faithful transla- tion, with explanatory additions. F"or examples of paraphrase, cf. Is 28'"- '" 49'= 50" ; for instance?

of ImygOdd, Is 12» 33-'- G2'», Mic 6^ With regard to the rendering of anthropomorphic expressions, figurative language, and the like, the usual rules of Targumic interpretation are observed: e.g. the whole story (Hos 1') of the prophet and Gomer gives place to a series of denunciations upon the continued sins of Israel, with promise of pardon on repentance, and the perplexing features of the original never once appear. Geographical names are mostly retained as in the Heb.

, but are some- times tr. into more modern forms: ■\';yj/ = h2Z ; ]o:^ = [jnD ; k:d pcN [or, more proli., nj alone] = n,-<m:DD'7K ; Tp = 'j'Tp; nDnjin = K'DOiJ. Tlie inlluence of the re- ligious or dogmatic ideas of the author's time is more noticeable than in Onkelos. Tlie Targura in this respect is a mean between Onk. and the Jerus. Targum on the Pentateuch. First edition of this Targum, Leiria, 1494. Reference has been made already to the quotations which Jewish writers make from Jerus.

Targg. on the Pent., and which are not now found in either of our recensions (the Frag. Targ. or pseudo.Jon.)- Similar fragments of Targg. on the Prophets have been printed from tile Iteuchlin Codex in Lagarrle's ed. of the I*rvphet(v Vhaldaice, and Bacher hjuj investigated their character in ZDMO, 1874. He finds that the variants may be divided into five cliu^ses which come from as many sources, and concludes that they are remains of Jerus. Targg.

to the Pro- phets, as they resemble in certain features of language and style the Jerus. Targg. to the Pentateuch. Some of them he considers older than the olllcial Targ. to the Prophets (of. his view, men. tioned almvc, of the relation of the Frag. Targ. to Onk.); others he considers are the result of a hagiiadiatic enlargement of earlier texts at a date later than the Bab. Talmud and UiQ midrdshim (cf. his view of the Targ. pseudo-Jon. in relation to the Fragmentary Targ. and Onkelos). iii.

Targums on the Haoiographa.— A Targ. on the lik. of Job is mentioned as in existence in the 1st cent. A.D., but it is certain that no Taig o) • Ilab. ileg. 8 a. f ft. Cnmm. Mer den Jetaia, I. pp. 70, 71. I Berliner, Targ. Onqelo; p. 124. 682 TAKGUM TARGUM that age has come down to us. None of the Tar<;g. to the Hagioj,'. which we possess is earlier than the close of the Talniudic period, and probably all of them are much later. The tirst mention of them is in the 11th century.

Unlike the translations of the Law and the Prophets, the Tar"g. on the Hajjiog. are entirely the work of indi\ iiTiial trans- lators, modelled upon the older Targums. They were never meant for public use in synagogue or school, having, in fact, been composed alter the need for Aram, translations had ceased. They may be conveniently divided : 1. Psalms, Job, (I'rov.) 2. The Megilloth. 3. Chronicles. 1. It is possible that tlie Targg.

on the Psalms and Job come from a single author ; at anj' rate they exhibit marks of similarity in their general method of handling the Heb. text, and they have some linguistic and other features in common. Unlike the Jerus. Targg. on the Pent.

, they aim at givin" a jjretty faithful rendering of the ori- ginal, llaggadk additions are met with occasion- ally, but they are concise, and can easily be separated from the translation proper, ilar^jf verses are provide<l with double translations, the second being ascribed to a different Targ. (N"n = •\n» Dijin). In such cases one of the translations is generally haggadic, while the other is more literal.

Between forty and fifty verses in Job have such alternative translations, but there are not so many in the Psalms. Half a dozen verses in Job have even a third rendering. The age of the interpolator has been given as the 8th or 9th cent., but tliere is really no reason for claiming a higher age for the Targg. themselves. Their lan- guage is late and artificial ; tliey are compositions in what is no longer to tlie translators a living speech. The general exegetic devices of the older Targg.

are reproduced. Anthropomorjjlusms as a rule, and all figures of speech, are set aside ; refer- ences to the history of Israel, to the Law and its study, are frequently introduced ; passages are applied to Edom, Ishiiiael, or Gog ; and the eschato- logical ideas of the synagogue are all met with. We may note that n^D in the Psalms is rendered [•□-y'j (cf. Hab S^- »• "). The peculiar dialect in which the Targ.

to the Proverbs appears has taken up so many features from Syriac that it can only be regarded as an in- congruous mixture of the Aramaic of the Targg. and the Syriac of the Peshitta. Linguistic elements have been gathered from different quarters and placed side by side, without any regard to the unity of structure which must exist in a spoken or written language.

Many entire verses, esti- mated as forming a third of the whole book, are identical with the Syriac translation ; in a further large number tliere are close resemblances between the two versions, all the more striking where they agree as against the Heb. ; cf. 1' 4-" 5' 7'-" '^ 9" 12'" 16' ^. It has been shown t that the peculiari- ties of the Targ. are due to the use of the Pesh. by the Targuniist. The view that the Pesh. has borrowed from the Targ.

does not account for the Syriasms which the latter contains ; the analogy of the Jerus. Talm., where most of the peculiari- ties of the Targ. occur, though in less proportions, does not help us to understand why just in such large proportions these peculiarities are here found together. Apart from the distinctly Syriac forms, the language and style of the Targ. are akin to that of the Targg. on the Psalms and .lob, and there is no reason for assigning it an earlier date. * Of. the preform.

Impf. 8 pen. masc. iniat well a< in ; emph. nati cf noun etc. )rm. Impl in •.. ; V (or n; adverbs in n'K, ; Vl (=qi-!K), t Dathe, De rati&ne cniisensus vfrsionis chaldairce et gijriacfe i^rov. Saloin., ed. Rosenniuller, 1814; cf. Noldeke in Merx'B Archie, 1871, p. 240; MayUum, ti. p. 8& The translation is literal, and additions to the text are extremely rare. 2. The Targg. on the Megilloth are distinguished among the Targg. to the Uagiog.

by their extreme Ijaraplirastic treatment of tlie text. In parts of them we can still liud the translation embedded in the paraphrase, but in other parts the legendary and hoimletic sections whicli have been added form the main feature of the work. These are made up in various ways. Historical parallels are cited for the narratives of the te.xt, with what would be anachronisms if the Targ. were regarded as a tr.

of an ancient writing ; motives and reasons are supplied to explain the occurrence of events ; proper names are etymologized and 'explained'; wliilo hgurative language is rendered into prose, allegory takes the place ol narrative ; the Sanliedrin is fre- quently mentioned, and the study of tlje Law intro- duced on every possible occasion ; lengthy gene- alogies are appended to some of the names occurring in the text ; general statements are connected witn the names of particular individuals, esp.

the patri- archs, Nimrod, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus and Vespasian, Alexander (? = Antiochus), Messiah the king, and Elias the high priest. The books of Kuth and Lam. are less paraphrastic than Eccles., Esth., or Canticles. One text of the Targ. on Esther (that given in the Antwerp Polyglot) Is, with few exceptions, a literal translation. Essenti- allj' the same text, with many haggadic additions, is printed in the London Polyglot, and this forms the usual Targum to Esther.

The so-called second Targum (Sheni) is much more voluminous than the last named, and is regarded as an amalgam from other Targums and midrdxhim which from time to time were made for this favourite book. It is quoted by the commentators as ' haggada ' and as ' niidrash.' More than half the work has nothing to do with the story of Esther, but contains legends about Solomon, the queen of Sheba, etc. The Targ.

on Canticles is of the same midrashic class : on the basis of certain words of the text we have outlined for us the varying fortunes of the Jewish people from the days of Moses down to the Talmud. We may note besides in this Targ. references to the two Messiahs — Messiah son of David, and Messiah son of Epliraiiu (iv. 5, vii. 3 ; cf. Jerus. Targ. on Ex 40" ; also Jerus. Targ. on Zee 12'" in Lagarde, p. xlii). 3. No Targ.

to the Books of Chronicles was known to exist until after the great Polyglot Bibles had been published. In A)S0-83 a some- what incomplete Targ. from an Erfurt MS was edited with tr. and notes by M. F. Beck ; t and in 1715 a more complete form of the text from a Cainb. MS was edited with tr. by D. Wilkins. There are numerous variations in the two recen- sions. The tr. is in many parts fairly literal, but examples of mw/)«.v/uc ainplilication are not want- ing (cl. ICh l-'o- ■-!

4'» 7=' 11"-^ 12^-, 2Ch2«3'23"). The author made use of the Jerus. Targg. to the Pent. (cf. Gn lU-" and 1 Ch I'", Gn 36^" and 1 Ch I''*). The Targ. on the Books of Samuel and ICings was also largely used, of course with the changes in diction and orthography which characterize the Jerus. Targums. 1 Ch IG is tr. from the Heb. text of Chronicles, and the variations from the Targ. on the Psalms are quite as noticeable as the agree- ments. Indications of the age of tlie Targ.

are the translations or modern forms of geographical names. The redaction of the te.xt represented by the Erfurt MS has been assigiieil to the 8th cent., that of the Cainb. text to the Uth.J The text of the various Targg. has been banded • Of. PinltuBS in ZA TW. 1894, p. 109. He mention inlj twc instances ol paraphrase, 24'- 28'. t Cf. Lai^arde, ila'iioijrapha ChaUlaicr, 1873.

i Bobeuberg und Koliler in Geijfer's ZUcJu 1870L TAEGUM TARSHISH G83 down and edited in a very unsatisfactory condition. Tlie official Targums on the Pent, and Prophets are relatively the best preserved, but an exandnation of >ISS and the printed edd. shows that a critical ed. was never attempted, nor were the materials for it forthcoming. The early disuse of the Targg. accounts for the unskilful and arbitrary treatment of the texts, and of the nou-olficial Targg.

it would be correct to say that they never readied a fixed form till such was obtained by the multiplication of printed copies. The voc;ilization is specially faulty. The South Arabian MSS, with the simpler supra- linear system of vowel points first brouglit to Europe in 1876, provide us with an older and more trustworthy recension of the Targ. on the Law and Prophets tlian any vet in our hands. MSS on the Pent., Prophets, anil Megillotli are now to be found in London, St.

Petersburg, and Strassburg, and selections from these have been published.* Even when critically edited, the Targums are not likely to be of much use for the criticism of the lleb. text of the OT. That text was fixed as we have it before any of our Targg. were com- piled, anil it is but seldom that they throw any reliable light where it is needed.

For a reflexion of the spirit of Judaism, on the other hand, as well as for the Jewish interpretation of the text of their sacied books, they are invaluable. Not that any importance would now be attached to the use formerly made of them by Christian controver- sialists. The Jewish Messianic ideas run through- out all their Targg., t but it is now clear that the correct interpretation of particular passages was not exclusively to be found either on the Jewish or on the Christian aide (cf.

Is 7'"- 52'»-^3"). LiTt:[iATURB. — Carpzov, Critica Sacra Vet. Test., Lips. 1748 ; Zuiiz, Die Gottesdiciistliclien Vortrage der Juden, Berl. 1832, 2n(i ed. Frankfurt a/ll. 1S92 ; Geiger, Crschrift und Ueber- §eUtingm der Bibcl, Breelau, 1857 ; Levy, Chald. WOrterb. uber Jit Targumim, Leipzic, 1867-68; Noldeke, Die alUest. Li'trratur, 1868, Die Hemilischen Sprachen', Ltipz.

1899, and tev'iews mentioned below; Maybaum, Die Anthropu- viorjthien bei Onqclos und den spaUren Targumitn^ 1 870 ; Weber, Syitem der attsun. Pal. Theot. 1880, 2nd ed. 1897 ; Merx, Bemerkunien utter die Vocalisation der Targume^ Berlin, 1882, CAre*(onut(Auirar3wmica, Berl. 1SS8; Oinsburger, Die Anlhropomorphismen in aen Thargumim, Braunschweig, 1891; Buhl, Kanon und Text dcs AT, Leipz. 1891 [ISng. tr.) ; bchwally, Idiotit-'in deg ehrixtlu^h-palast. Aramuisch^ Giessen, 1893 ; Dalmari, 'inun.

deijiid.-palast. AramdiicU, Leipz. 1894, Aram. Dialekt^iroben, Leipz. 1896, Araviditch-Neuhebrdiicheg Wtirterbuch, Frankfurt a/.M. 1897-1901, Die Worte Jeeu, Leipz. 1898 ; The Introductiont to the OT, by Eichhom, de Wette, Kiehm, Bleek-Wellhausen, Konig, Cornill, Strack ; cf. also Deutsch, Literanj iiemainn, Lend. 1874=art. 'Targum' in Smith's DB; Schiller-Szinessy, art. in Eiicycl. Brit.y ; Volck, art. in Piili\ revised by Nestle in 3rd edition. On the Pent.

Tar,;uniB: Winery DeOnqelosoeiuequeParaphrasi Chald., Lips. 1S20; Petennann, De duabue Pent, paraphrasi- bun chaid., Berl. 1829 ; Luzzatto, Philoxenui, sive de Onket. chald. Pent, vernifrne Dinsertatio, Vienna, 1830 ; Frankel, ' Einiges ru den Tarj^uniim' in Ztech. /ur die Interejtjten dee JutLnUwne, 1846, Zii dan Targum der Propheten, Breslau, 1872 ; Seligsohii und Traub, * Ueber den Geist der Ueberset- z-jng des Jonathan zum Pent.' in Frankel's SIotiatHSchrift G. W. J. 18.^)7 ; Seligsohn.

De duabue UieroKoL Pent, paraphrasibne, Bretijau, 186& ; Ktheridpe, The Targume of Onkeloa and Jon- athan ben Uzzicl on the Pent, nith the Fraginentg of the Jerusalejn Targum : from the Chaldee, 2 vols. Lend. 1862-65 ; Geiger, Das nach Onkelos benannte babylonische Thargum zuni Pent.' in his JCdieche Ztsch. 1871 ; Bacher, Ueber daa gegenHeitigc Verhaltnis der pent. Thargumim * in ZDilG, 1874 ; Berliner, Die MoMora zum Targum Onkelos, I>eipz. 1877 (cf. review by Noldeke, Lit. Centralbl.

1877), Targum Onkelos, Berl 1884 (cf. review by Noldeke, Lit. Crntralhl. 1884, by de Logarde, OGA, 1886); Groneniann, Die Jonathnnjfche Pent.. Uftiersetzung in ihrem Verhultnitee zur lialacha, Leipz.

1870 ; Singer, Onkelot und dae Verhaltnisi teinen Targumt zur Ualacha, Halle, 1881 ; Kantzsch, Miltheilnng iiber eine alte Uandnctirijt de* Targum Onkelos, ilalle, 1893; Bamstein, The Targum of Onkelos to Genesis, a critical enquiry into the value of the text ea/'ibiUd by Jemen ilSS, London, 1896; Bass- freund. Das Froffmententargum zum Pent.

, Breslau, 1896; Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas, Vienna, 1896; Ijindauor, Die Masorah zum Onkelos, Amsterdam, 1890 ; Ginsburgcr, Das See the Literature, mentioned below, under the oanies Uerx, Kautcsch, Pratorltls, Dalman, Barnsteln. f Cf. Huhn, Die MessianiscJien Weissagungen des isretetitiseh- NducAm Volkes, 1899, p. Ill L Fragmentcntargum (edited from 5ISS), Berl. 1899 ; Diettrich, Beobachtun),'en zu drei jemenitiscben Uandschriften des Onqelostargums * in ZATW, 1900.

Targunu) on the Propheu, : Gesenius, Coinmentar iiber den Jesaia, Leipz. 1821, Einl. § 11; Pauli, The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Prophet Isaiah, Lond. 1871 ; Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Prop/u-tm, Bresl. 1872 (cf. review by Nf.ldekc, GGA, 1872) ; de Lagarde, Proplietae Chaldaice, Lips. 1872 (cf. review by Noldeke, Lit. Centralbl. 1S72) ; Bacner, ' Kritische Unter- suchungen zum Propheten-Tliurgum' in ZDMG, 1874; Pra* torius, Daa Targum zu Josua in jemeni^cher Ueberlie/erung, Berl.

1899, Das Targum zum BuchederHichterinjmnen. Ueberl. Berl. 1900. Targums on the Hagiographa : Ginsburg, Translation of Targum on Ecclesiostes in his Coiiime7itary, London, 1861; Rosenberg und Kohler, ' Das Targuui zur Chronik ' m Geiger'e Ztsch. 1870 ; Maybaum, ' Ueber die Sprache des Targum zu den Spriichen und dessen Verhiiltniss zum Syrer" iu Mer.x, Archiv, 1871, p. 66 f. (cf. Ndldeke'8 review, p. 246 J.); Bacher, 'Das Thargiim zu Hiob' in Monatxschrift G. ir, J.

1871, ' Das Thar- gum zu den Psalmen,' do. 1872 ; de La^rarde, Ilagiugrajtha Chaldaice, Lips. 1873 ; Weiss, De Lihri Jobi Paraphrani dial- daica, Berl. 1873 ; Reis, ' Das Thargum Scheni zu dem Buche Esther' in Munatsschrift O. W. J. 1S76, 1881 ; Munk, Targum Scheni zum Buche Etit/ier, Berl. 1876; Caasel, Das Bach Esther, Berl. 1878 [gives tr. of the Targ.] ; Baethgen, ' Der textkritische Wert der alten Uebersetzungen zu den Psalmen ' in Jahrb. Prot. Theot.

1882 ; Gelbhaus, Die Targuinliteratur, Ueft 1, ' Das Targum Sheni,' Frankfurt a/M. 1893 ; Pinkuss, ' Die Syrische Uebersetzung der Proverbien' in ZA'l'W, 1894 ; Levin, 'largum und ilidrasfi zum Buche Hiob, Mainz, 1895 ; David, Das Tar- gum Scheni, Berlin, 1898. T. WALKER.