Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

TARGUM

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V26, Page 422 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

TARGUM . The Targums are the Aramaic See also:

translations—or rather paraphrases—of the books of the Old Testament, and, in their earliest See also:form, date from the See also:time when Aramaic superseded See also:Hebrew as the spoken See also:language of the See also:Jews (see HEBREW LANGUAGE). In their origin they were designed to meet the needs of the unlearned among the See also:people who had ceased to understand the Hebrew of the Old Testament. In the See also:absence of .any precise See also:evidence on the point it is impossible to give more than a rough estimate as to the See also:period at which Hebrew, as a spoken language, was finally displaced by Aramaic. It is, however, certain that the latter language was firmly established in See also:Palestine in the 1st See also:century A.D. By that time, as we know from many See also:sources, Aramaic was not only the language in See also:common use, but had also received See also:official recognition,' despite the fact that Hebrew still remained the learned and sacred See also:tongue. Hence we may reasonably infer that the See also:mass of the people had adopted Aramaic at a considerably earlier period, probably, as See also:early as the and century B.C., and that the need of Aramaic translations of the sacred See also:text made itself See also:felt but little later. By the Jews 2 the introduction of Targums is ascribed to See also:Ezra; but this tradition, which probably owes its origin to the Talmudic explanation of Neh. viii. 8,3 is inconsistent with the linguistic evidence furnished by the See also:post-exilic literature of the Old Testament, and must be rejected as unhistorical, if only because the See also:process by which Aramaic took the See also:place of Hebrew was admittedly a very See also:gradual one. The Talmudic tradition, however, is, doubtless, correct in connecting the origin of Targums with the See also:custom of See also:reading sections from the See also:Law at the weekly services in the synagogues, since the need for a See also:translation into the See also:vernacular must first have arisen on such occasions. As we know from the New Testament, the custom of reading in the synagogues both from the Law4 and from the Prophets5 was well established in the 1st century A.D.: its introduction, therefore, will date from a much earlier period. The practice of accompanying these readings with a translation into Aramaic is, further, so generally recognized by the 2nd century A.D. that the Mishnas takes it for granted, and merely inculcates certain regulations to be observed by the Meturgeman (translator), who had by this time acquired a definite status.

From it we learn that the Meturgeman, who was distinct from the reader, translated each See also:

verse of the Law into Aramaic as soon as it had been read in Hebrew: in the readings from " the Prophets " three verses might be read at a time. Later regulations are also laid down in the Talmuds in See also:order to prevent any See also:appearance of authority attaching to the translation, and also to ensure reverential 'Cf. Dalman, See also:Die Worte Jesu, p. 2 f.; Grammatik See also:des jiid.-palast. Aramaisch, and ed., p. 9 f. 2 Sanhedrin, 21b.; Jer. Meg., i. 3 Nedarim, 37b; Jer. Meg., iv.—" and they read in the See also:book, in the law of See also:God, this is the Scripture, anima (R.V. distinctly), this is the Targum." 4 Acts xv. 21. 5 See also:Luke iv. i6 f.; Acts xiii.

14, 27. c Meg. iv. 4—6, 10. treatment on the See also:

part of the translator.' Elsewhere,2 we only 1 find references to certain passages of Scripture, viz., the stories of See also:Reuben and Tamar (Gen. See also:xxxv. 22 and xxxviii.), the two accounts of the See also:golden See also:calf (Exod. xxxii.), the blessing of the priests (Num. vi. 22 f.), the stories of See also:David and Amnon (2 Sam. xi., xii. and xiii.), which might be either read and translated, or only read and not translated, or (according to a different tradition) neither read nor translated. It is noticeable that none of the passages cited conveys any rules or See also:information as to the See also:character of the translation to be employed. Judging by the contents of our existing Targums, and the Targumic renderings given in Jewish literature, it is improbable that any definite See also:system of See also:interpretation was ever formally adopted, the rendering into the vernacular being See also:left to the discretion of the individual Meturgeman. At first, no doubt, the translator endeavoured to reproduce the See also:original as closely as possible, but, inasmuch as his See also:object was to give an intelligible rendering, a merely literal rendering would soon be found to be insufficient, and he would be forced, especially in the more difficult passages, to take a more elastic view of his obligations. To prevent misconception he must expand and explain what was obscure, adjust the incidents of the past to the ideas of later times, emphasize the moral lessons to be learned from the See also:national See also:history, and, finally, adapt the rules and regulations of the Old See also:Covenant to the conditions and requirements of his own See also:age. As time went on the practice of introducing additional See also:matter of an edifying character See also:grew in popular favour, and was gradually extended. Thus, by degrees, the See also:reproduction • of the original text became of secondary importance, and merely served as a pretext for the discussion of topics that had little or no bearing on the context. The method, by which the text was thus utilized as a vehicle for conveying homiletic discourses, traditional sayings, legends and allegories, is abundantly illustrated by the Palestinian and later Targums, as opposed to the more sober translations of Onkelos and the Targum to the Prophets.

It would, however, be incorrect to suppose that the translation of the text was left entirely to the individual See also:

taste of the translator. The latter is rather to be regarded as the representative of the age in which he lived, and his interpretation is to be taken as reflecting the exegesis of that period. That there were certain limits beyond which the translator might not venture, without incurring the censure of the authorities, may be inferred from the few instances of translation which are mentioned with disapproval in the Mishna and elsewhere. Thus the rendering of Lev. xviii. 21 a by " See also:Thou shalt not give any of thy See also:seed to an Aramean woman to make her conceive " is censured, presumably because the See also:prohibition of Molech See also:worship is thereby ignored.3 In the same Mishnic passage it is forbidden to render Lev. xviii. 7 as if the text had " his See also:father " and " his See also:mother."' Yet another translation (that of Lev. xxii. 28) is mentioned with disapproval in the See also:Jerusalem See also:Talmud,' though it has been preserved in the Targum Pseudo-See also:Jonathan ad loc8 A definite See also:rule for guidance in translating is apparently preserved in the Tosefta,7 where it is stated that " he who translates quite literally is a liar, while he who adds anything is a blasphemer," Exod. See also:xxiv. to, " and they saw the God of See also:Israel " is cited as an example. It is argued that the literal rendering of this passage is inadmissible, because no See also:man has ever seen God; on the other See also:hand, the insertion of the word " See also:angel " before God would be blasphemous. The correct rendering is stated to be " and they saw the See also:glory of God." But it is doubtful if the rule here given was ever intended to Tos. Meg., 3; Jer. Meg., iv. 1–3; See also:Sala, 39b; Sapherim, xi.

1, xii. 7, xiv. 2. Meg., 25, 25b; ef. Ginsburger, M.G.W.J., xliv. T f. 3 Meg., iv. 9; cf. Jer. Meg., iv. 9; Sanhed., ix. 1, where the meaning is given as—" He who marries an Aramean woman and raiseth up See also:

children by her raiseth up enemies to God "; for another explanation, see Ginsburger, M.G.W.J., xliv.

5 f. Cf. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. p. 85 f. Meg., iv. To. ' Cf. Ginsburger, l.c. 7 Tos. Meg., end.apply to more than the particular type of passage exemplified: if it had been applied generally, it would have clashed with the whole trend of Midrashic and Targumic See also:

paraphrase. There can be little doubt that the Targums existed for a See also:long time in oral form. They belonged to the class of traditional literature which it was forbidden to write down, and, so long at least as the Targum tradition remained active, there would be little temptation to commit it to See also:writing.

But it is highly probable that this prohibition, in the See also:

case of the Targums, was mainly enforced with respect to those parts of the Old Testament which were read in the synagogal services, e.g. the Law and the Prophets, and that it was less rigidly observed in regard to the other portions of Scripture: a written translation of the latter would be of See also:special value for the purpose of private study. Hence there is no need to reject the tradition as to the existence of a written Targum on See also:Job in the time of See also:Gamaliel I8 (1st century A.D.), especially as references to Targum See also:MSS. occur in the Mishna and elsewhere.9 But, as Dalman has pointed out,10 it was not these See also:manuscripts, but the living tradition of the learned which was recognized as authoritative throughout the period which closes with the compilation of the Talmud. . . . The official recognition of a written Targum, and therefore the final fixing of its text belongs to the post-Talmudic period, and is not to be placed earlier than the 5th century. I. TARGUMS ON THE See also:PENTATEUCH (T) The so-called Targum of Onkelos admittedly owes its name to a mistaken reference in the Babylonian Talmud." In its original context, that of the Jerusalem Talmud,12 the passage refers to the See also:Greek translation of See also:Aquila. With the exception of this one reference, the Targum is always introduced in the Babylonian Talmud by the phrase " as we trans-See also:late " (p'nisnn1D), or " our Targum " (i,', on-'n): it is probable, therefore, that the name of the author, or authors, was unknown to the Babylonian Jews. It is first quoted under the See also:title of the Targum of Onkelos by See also:Gaon Sar Shalom (d. A.D. 859). According to Dalman,13 its language differs in many material particulars from the Aramaic dialects of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, and is more closely allied to the biblical Aramaic. On the linguistic See also:side, therefore, we may regard Onkelos " as a faithful representative of a Targum which had its rise in See also:Judaea, the old seat of Palestinian See also:literary activity." It is not, however, to be regarded as a reproduction in written form of a Palestinian translation, but rather as an official translation of the Law, in the Judaean See also:dialect, which was carried out in See also:Babylon, probably about the 4th century A.D.: in its final form, according to Dalman (i.e.) it cannot be earlier than the 5th century.

The translation, as a whole, is See also:

good, and adheres very closely to the Hebrew text, which has not been without its See also:influence on the Aramaic See also:idiom; at times, especially in the poetical passages, a freer and more paraphrastic method is employed, and the version shows evident traces of Halakhic and Haggadic expansion. The Hebrew text used by the translators appears to have been practically identical with the Massoretic. The version was held in high esteem in Babylon, and, later, in Palestine, and a special Massora was made for it. The latest edition is Berliner's reprint (1884) of the Edith) Sabbiofiela (1557). Of all the extant Targums that of Onkelos affords perhaps the most characteristic and consistent example of the exegetical methods employed in these See also:works. Two principles may be said to have guided the translators. On the one hand, they had, as their See also:primary object, to produce a faithful rendering of the original which at the same time would be intelligible to the people: for this purpose a purely literal translation would be insufficient. On the other hand, they regarded it as necessary to See also:present the sacred text in such a manner as best to convey the particular form of interpretation then current. But later Jewish exegesis was especially concerned to eliminate everything in the sacred writings that might give rise to misconception with respect to God on the part of the unlearned. Hence we find various expedients adopted in the Targums for avoiding any reference to the Deity, which might be misunderstood by the people, or which involved apparent irreverence. Examples of this peculiarly Targumic method are: (1) the insertion of " word " (wane), " glory " (See also:Hop'), " presence " (to' ') before the divine name, when God is referred to in his 8 Tos. Shabb.; cf.

Jer. Shabb., xvi.; Bab. Shabb., 115a; Sopherim, v. xv. Jad. iv. 5, and see the preceding references. Grammatik des jiidisch-paldstintschen Aramaisch, p. 12 f. " Meg. 3a. '2 Meg. i. 9. i3 Gramm. p. 12 f.

dealings with men ; (2) the insertion of the preposition " before " (cep) when God is the object of any See also:

action; (3) the use of the passive for the active See also:voice, e.g. onp for yn' or nan; "p se= for 3:n et; 'ymx for See also:top, as., me, au; n'en for vi; (4) the use of periphrasis for the more pronounced anthropomorphisms, such as " to See also:smell," " to taste," or when the use of the status constructus might seem to bring God into too See also:close connexion with men or things; (5) the use of different expressions, or the insertion of a preposition before the divine name, when God is compared to man, or the same action is predicated of God and man; (6) the use of " for mn' and o ,ASK, and the rendering HSm or siyn when n'n5H denotes See also:heathen gods. Instances of this endeavour to maintain, as it were, a respectful distance in speaking of God occur on every See also:page of the Targums, but cases also occur, by no means infrequently, where human actions and passions are ascribed to God. The explanation of this phenomenon is to be found in the fact that anthropomorphisms, as such, were not necessarily avoided, but only in those cases where they might be misunderstood by the people. (2) In addition to the Targum of Onkelos two other Targums to the Pentateuch are cited by Jewish authorities, under the titles of the Targum Jerushalmi and the Targum of Jonathan See also:ben Uzziel. Of these the former contains only .portions of the Pentateuch,' and is therefore usually designated the Fragmentary (Jerusalem) Targum. In a large number of cases this Targum gives merely a variant rendering of single words: where longer passages are given it presents a very paraphrastic translation, and bears all the marks of a late Haggadic See also:composition. Its fragmentary character arises from the fact that it is simply a collection of variae lectiones and additions to the version of Onkelos, intended possibly for use at public services? That this Targum was really intended to supplement that of Onkelos is shown by comparing the two texts. For the former is frequently unintelligible without the latter, since it offers no translation of those words, or clauses, for which it gave the same rendering as Onkelos. On the other hand, the version of Onkelos affords just the supplementary material that is required to restore sense to the shorter text. Moreover, in not a few cases the Fragmentary Targum itself attaches to its variant rendering the succeeding word from Onkelos, thus indicating that from this point onwards the latter version is to be followed. More conclusive still is the fact that in a number of old Mahzor MSS. we find Targums to the See also:Song of See also:Moses and to the See also:Decalogue, in which this process has been fully carried out, the text of Onkelos being given as well as the variants of the Fragmentary Targum.

The second Jerusalem Targum, or the so-called pseudo-Jonathan, admittedly owes its ascription to Jonathan ben Uzziel to the incorrect See also:

solution of the abbreviated form by which it was fre- quently cited, viz. '"n, or Targum Jerushalmi ('tren' ounn). This Targum represents a later and more successful See also:attempt to correct and supplement the Targum of Onkelos by the aid of variants derived from another source. It is not, however, a revision of the Fragmentary Targum—for it is clearly See also:independent of that version—but is rather a parallel, if somewhat later, See also:production, in which the text of Onkelos is already combined with a number of variants and additions. It is noticeable that this See also:Tar-See also:gum has been considerably influenced by the Targum of Onkelos, and in this respect, as in others, is far less trustworthy than the Fragmentary Targum, as a See also:witness to the linguistic and other peculiarities of the source from which they were both derived. It exhibits, to a marked degree, that tendency to expand the text by additions of every See also:kind, which has been already noted as characteristic of the later stages of Targumic composition. Homilies, legends, traditional sayings and explanations, in fact every form of Haggadic expansion are utilized by the Targumist, so that at times his works convey the impression more of a late See also:Midrash than of a translation. This impression is fully confirmed by (a) a comparison of the Talmud and later Midrashic works with which it has obvious points of contact, and (b) the See also:historical allusions, such as the mention of See also:Constantinople (Num. xxiv. 19), of a wife and daughter of See also:Mahomet (Gen. xxi. 21), and the references to See also:Esau and See also:Ishmael as representative See also:world-See also:powers (Gen. xlix. 26; Deut. xxxiii. 2; cf.

Fragm. Tg. to Gen. xlix. 2; Deut. xxxiii. 2).' In its translation of the Hebrew pseudo-Jonathan is careful to avoid anthropomorphisms and to give the sense of all but the most See also:

simple metaphors, though his method is not so thorough as that of Onkelos. Every endeavour is made to See also:gloss over, or modify, expressions which seemed' derogatory to the ancestors of i According to See also:Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrage, 2nd ed., p. 8o, its contents hear the following proportions:—; to See also:Genesis, zn to See also:Exodus, about r`4 to See also:Leviticus, s to See also:Numbers, and ; to See also:Deuteronomy. x Seligsohn, De duabus Hier. Pent. paraphrasibus (1858) : for a See also:fuller discussion see Bassfreund, " Das Fragmenten Targum " in M.G.W.J. xl. l he view that Deut. xxxiii. 11 could only have been written by a contemporary of See also:John See also:Hyrcanus cannot be maintained; cf. Dalman, Gramm. p. 3o f., and, more fully, Bassfreund, M.G.W.J.

'div. (i9oo), pp. 481 f. , Israel, and to amplify everything which redounded to their See also:

credit. On the other hand, pseudo-Jonathan shows a tendency to condense those additions which it has in common with the Fragmentary Targum: in particular he omits all quotations from Scripture. In regard to the source of the two Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch, we must accept the conclusion of Bassfreund 4 that they both derived their variants from a See also:complete Targum Jerushalmi. This conclusion is based on the following grounds: (I) Various Jewish works dating from the Ilth to the 14th century contain a large number of quotations under the heading '"n, i.e. Targum Jerushalmi. Of these rather less than a See also:quarter are found in the Fragmentary Targum, the See also:remainder being mostly taken from passages for which no translation of that Targum exists. This completer See also:work, however, cannot be identified with the pseudo-Jonathan, for more than See also:half of these quotations are missing from the latter; and further, in passages for which ee possess both the Targums, the'text of the Fragmentary Targum agrees much more closely with the quotations: the linguistic evidence also shows that the Fragmentary Targum is a more faithful representative of the original source; (2) the pseudo-Jonathan displays a curious inconsistency in its rendering of particular words and phrases, at one time following Onkelos, at another a different source. That this latter source is the Targum Jerushalmi is proved, in the See also:majority of cases, by a comparison with the Fragmentary Targum; (3) quotations from Scripture preserved in the Fragmentary Targum point to a completer version than our present Fragmentary Targum. But though the existence of an older Targum Jerushalmi cannot be denied, it is clear that the form in which it was utilized by the two Palestinian Targums cannot be of an early date, for many of the latest elements in the Fragmentary and pseudo-Jonathan Targums were undoubtedly derived from their common source.

Moreover, the existence of a written Palestinian Targum at an early date is expressly excluded by the evidence at our disposal. In the See also:

middle of the 2nd century A.D. R. See also:Simon ben Gamaliel forbade the translation of the Pentateuch in any language but Greek;' and this command was upheld by R. Johanan in the 3rd century. Even in the time of the later Amoraim there is no mention of a written Palestinian Targum, though the official Babylonian Targum is repeatedly referred to in the Babylonian Talmud, in the Midrashim, and at times also by Palestinian Amoraim. These considerations are sufficient to disprove the theory of Geiger,' which has for so long been accepted in one form or another, that the Targum of Onkelos was merely a reproduction of the old Targum Jerushalmi revised in accordance with the " new See also:Halakha" introduced by R. Aqiba. Yet it is impossible to hold that the Targum of Onkelos was the only representative of Targum tradition that existed among the Jews down to the 7th century A.D., the period to which the See also:internal evidence compels us to assign the Targum Jerushalmi as used by the Fragmentary Targum and the pseudo-Jonathan. We must rather assume that a tolerably fixed Targum tradition existed in Palestine from quite early times. The language employed in the Targum of Onkelos is, admittedly, Palestinian or Judaean, and since language and thought are ever closely allied, we may conjecture that the current Judaean exegesis, which, in part at least, must go back to the 2nd century A.D., was not without its influence on the Babylonian translation. This old Targum tradition, however, never received official recognition in Palestine, and was unable, therefore, to hold its own when the new Babylonian version was introduced.

We may infer that, as time went on, a reaction in favour of the older renderings made itself felt, with the result that these were collected in the form of variants and appended to Onkelos. But the authority enjoyed by the latter rendered it secure against any encroachments; hence any later expansions, especially those of a popular Haggadic character, naturally found their way into the less stereotyped Targum Jerushalmi. Unfortunately, we possess but little material for controlling the texts either of the Fragmentary Targum or of the pseudo-Jonathan. Of the latter only one See also:

manuscript (Brit. Museum Add. 27031) is known to exist, and this has been utilized by Ginsburger in his Pseudo-Jonathan (See also:Berlin, 1903). The same See also:scholar has also edited the See also:Paris manuscript (no) of the Fragmentary Targum (Das Fragmententhargum, Berlin, 1899), to which he has added the variants from See also:Cod. Vat. 440 and the manuscripts at See also:Nuremberg and See also:Leipzig. In the same edition are collected the various fragments of the Targum Jerushalmi, which are to be found in the early See also:editions of the Pentateuch and in part also in various manuscripts. il.,'TARGUMS ON THE PROPHETS The official Targum on the Prophets is stated by the Babylonian Talmud' to have been " said " by Jonathan ben Uzziel, the See also:disciple of See also:Hillel, and is usually known, therefore, as the Targum Jonathan. Elsewhere in the Talmud, however, the quotations from this Targum are given under the name of See also:Joseph See also:bar Chijah, See also:head of _et 4 M.G.W.J. xl.

5 Meg. i. 11. 6 Urschrift (1857), pp. 162 if., 451 ff.; Nachgelassene Schriften, iv. p. 98 f.; Jiidische Zeitschrift (1871), ix. p. 85 f. 7 Meg. 3a. the school at Pumbadita in the 4th century A.D. Both in language —though naturally there is some variation of vocabulary—and See also:

style it closely resembles the Targum of Onkelos, and appears to have been modelled on that translation: in certain passages, indeed, it appears to have made use of it.' Probably, like Onkelos, it did not assume its final form in Babylon before the 5th century A.D. It naturally follows from the character of the original that the rendering of this Targum is less literal than that of Onkelos, especially in the prophetic books, but, when due See also:allowance is made for the difficulty of the Hebrew, it may be described on the whole as a faithful reproduction of the original text. Its peculiarities of rendering are due to the same principles which were noted as underlying the translation of the Pentateuch.

Anthropomorphisms, as a rule, are avoided by means of the same expedients as those employed by Onkelos, expressions derogatory to the dignity of God, or of the heroes of the nation, are softened down, while figurative language is either boldly transposed, or its character clearly shown by the introduction of the particle " as " or " like." There is, further, a tendency to narrow down the See also:

scope of the prophetic utterances, and to limit their application to Israel and its immediate enemies. Lastly, in the obscurer passages the Haggadic method of interpretation is employed to its fullest extent, while the translation throughout shows a marked tendency to explanatory additions. Of a Targum Jerushalmi to the Prophets but little is known, though it is hardly doubtful that such a Targum existed, if only in oral form. Traces of this version have been discovered by Bacher in the variants attached to the margin of the Codex Reuchlinianus, and printed by See also:Lagarde in his edition of Prophetae Chaldaice (1872). These fragments, which have been preserved under the headings wrr, "v "»n, exhibit certain features in common with the Jerusalem Targums to the Pentateuch, and are demonstrably of post-Talmudic date. According to Kohut's See also:list of Targum quotations in 'Aruk, a Jerusalem Targum existed also for the See also:Psalms, See also:Proverbs, Job, See also:Canticles, See also:Lamentations, See also:Ecclesiastes and See also:Esther, but this list is scarcely reliable, and, as Dalman has pointed out,' the quotations in 'See also:Aria to See also:Kings, See also:Ezekiel, Proverbs and Lamentations are the only ones that point with certainty to the existence of a Targum Jerushalmi. These Targums possess but little See also:interest for the student of Jewish literature as they are almost entirely the work of individuals, made in See also:imitation of the older Targums. Despite the reference to a Targum of Job in the 1st century (see above), all the extant Targums to the Hagiographa are later in date than the Targums to the Law and the Prophets. (I) Targums to the Psalms and Job.—These Targums present certain features in common and may therefore be treated under the same heading. Like all the later Targums they exhibit a large amount of explanatory addition, chiefly Haggadic in character. At the same time the translation of the original is not neglected; and, when separated from the later accretions, this is found to follow the Hebrew tolerably closely. See also:Peculiar to these Targums are the See also:double translations, which they give to many verses, one of which is usually Haggadic in character, while the other is more literal.

Bacher 4 would assign these Targums to the 4th or 5th century, but, as Dalman has pointed out,' they exhibit linguistic features in common with the Jerusalem Targums to the Pentateuch. They cannot be earlier than the 7th century A.D., and possibly are of a considerably later date. (2) The Targum to the Proverbs stands apart owing to the peculiarity of the language in which it is written. The influence of the Peshitta version is so clearly marked,' that Dalman (l.c.) de-See also:

scribes it as a Jewish revision of that version. But setting aside the Syriasms due to the use of the Peshitta, the Targum shows See also:affinity to the Targums to the Psalms and Job. The translation is literal and almost entirely See also:free from Haggadic additions.? (3) The Targums to the Megilloth.—The See also:chief characteristic of these Targums is their exaggerated use of paraphrase. They See also:mark the final See also:stage in the development of Haggadic interpretation, in which the translation of the text has practically disappeared in a mass of fantastic and irrelevant matter. The Targum of Esther is known to us in three recensions (I) that of the See also:Antwerp Polyglot, almost a literal translation; (2) that of the See also:London Polyglot, which gives practically the same text with many additions of a Haggadic character; (3) the so-called second (sheni) Targum, a much larger work, containing a collection of later Midrashim to this book. According I Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. p. 124 f. x Z.D.M.G. See also:xxviii. and See also:xxix.

' Gramm. p. 29. 4 Jiidische Monatschrift, xx. 208 f., xxi. 408 f., 462 f. ' Gramm. p. 34. 6 Dathe, De ratione consensus version is chaldaicae et syriacae, roverbiorum Salomonis, ed. Rosenmiiller, 1814; cf. Maybaum and iildeke in Merx Archiv., 1871, and Baumgartner, Etude critique sur t'etat du texte du livre des Proverbs, 1890. ' Cf. Pinkuss, Die syrische Uebersetzung der Proverbien, Z.A.

T. W., 1894.to Zunz 8 this " second " Targum is quoted by See also:

Rashi (to Deut. iii. 4) as a Jerusalem Targum, and also (I Kings x. 19) as the " See also:Haggada " of the Megilloth Esther. The Targum to Canticles is of a similar character to that of the " second " Esther. Dalman assigns these Targums to a date half-way between the Babylonian Targums (Onkelos and that to the Prophets) and the Jerusalem Targums to the Pentateuch and those to the greater Hagiographa. The See also:British Museum possesses three important See also:Yemen manuscripts for the five Megilloth and the " second " Esther Targum in MSS. Or. 1302, 1476, and 2375. (4) The Targum to the See also:Chronicles was first edited from an See also:Erfurt manuscript by M. F. See also:Beck, 1680-1683.

A more complete and accurate edition from a See also:

Cambridge manuscript was edited by D. See also:Wilkins in 1715. In the translation, which at times is fairly literal, use appears to have been made of the Jerusalem Targums to the Pentateuch, and of the Targums to the books of See also:Samuel and Kings. The text represented by the Erfurt manuscript is assigned to the 8th, that of the Cambridge manuscript to the 9th century A.D.9 No Targums have so far been discovered to See also:Daniel and Ezra and See also:Nehemiah. (J. F.

End of Article: TARGUM

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
TARGET, GUI JEAN BAPTISTE (1733-1807) 		[next]
TARIFA

Site © 2006 - Net Industries