Targum (תִּרגּוּם, i.e. translation, interpretation) is the name given to a Chaldee version or paraphrase of the Old Test., of which there are several extant.

I. Origin of the Targums. — The origin of the Chaldee paraphrase may be traced back to the time of Ezra. After the exile it became the practice to read the law in public to the people, with the addition of an oral paraphrase in the Chaldee dialect. Thus we read in Ne 8:8, ושום שכל ויקראו בספר בתורת האלהים מפורש, which expression the Talmud, Bab. Megillah, fol. 3, col. 1, explains מפורש זו תרגום, i.e. "to explain means Targum." This ecclesiastical usage, rendered necessary by the change of language consequent on the captivity, was undoubtedly continued in aftertimes. It rose in importance, especially when the synagogues and public. schools began to flourish, the chief subject of occupation in which was the exposition of the Thorah. The office of the interpreter (מתורגמן, תורגמן, אמורא, less frequently דרשן, comp. Zunz, Die gottesd. Vortrage, p. 332) thus became one of the most important, and the canon of the Talmud, that as the law was given by a mediator, so it can be read and expounded only by a mediator, became paramount (Jerus. Megillah, fol. 74). The Talmud contains, even in its oldest portions, precise injunctions concerning the manner of conducting these expository prelections. Thus, "Neither the reader nor the interpreter is to raise his voice one above the other;" "They have to wait for each other until each have finished his verse;" "The methurgeman is not to lean against a pillar or a beam, but to stand with fear and with reverence;" "He is not to use a written Targum, but he is to deliver his translation viva voce;" "No more than one verse in the Pentateuch and three in the prophets shall be read or translated at a time ;" "That there should be not more than one reader and one interpreter for the law; while for the prophets one reader and one interpreter, or two interpreters, are allowed" (Mishna, Megillah, 4:5, 10; Sopherinm, 11:1). Again (Megillah, ibid., and Tosiphta, c. 3), certain passages liable to give offence to the multitude are specified, which may be read in the synagogue and translated; others which may be read but not translated; others, again, which may neither be read nor translated. To the first class belong the account of the creation— a subject not to be discussed publicly on account of its most vital bearing upon the relation between the Creator, and the Cosmos, and the nature of both; the deed of Lot and his two daughters (Ge 19:31); of Judah and Tamar (ch. 38); the first account of the making of the golden calf (Exodus 32); all the curses in the law; the deed of Amunon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13); of Absalom with his father's concubines (2Sa 16:22); the story of the woman of Gibeah (Judges 19). These are to be read and translated, or נקדאין ומתרגמין. To be read but not translated, נקראין ולא מתרגמין, are the deed of Reuben with his father's concubine (Ge 25:22); the latter portion of the story of the golden calf (Exodus 32); and the deed of David and Bathsheba (2Sa 11:12).

At what time these paraphrases were written down we cannot state; but it must certainly have been at an early period. Bearing in mind that the Hellenistic Jews had for a long time been in possession of the law translated into their language, and that in the 2nd century not only had the Jews themselves issued Greek versions in opposition to the Alexandrian version, which were received with decided approbation even by the Talmudists, as the repeated and honorable mention of Aquila in the Talmud proves, but that also the Syrians had been prompted to translate the Holy Scriptures, it would indeed be strange had not the Jews familiar with the Aramsean dialect also followed the practice at that time universally prevalent, and sought to profit by it. We have, in point of fact, certain traces of written Targums extant at least in the time of Christ. For even the Mishna seems 'to imply this in Yadacim, 4:5, where the subject treated is the language and style of character to be used in writing the Targums. Further, the Talmud, Shabbaih, fol. 115, col. 1, mentions a written Targum on Job of the middle of the 1st century (in the time of Gamaliel I), which incurred the disapprobation of Gamaliel. Zunz here justly remarks, "Since it is not likely that a beginning should have been made with Job, a still higher antiquity as very probably belonging to the first renderings of the law may be assumed" (loc. cit. p. 62). Gritz, in his Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 84, believes that this Targum of Job, mentioned four times in the Talmud, can only refer to a Greek translation of that book, and Derenbourg, in his Essai sur l' Histoire et la Geographie de la Palestine, p. 242, accounts for the action of Gamaliel, because it was written avec des caracteres non- hebraiques. But as Delitzsch, in Ioorne lebr. et Talmucd. (Zeitschrift für die luth. Theologieu. Kirche [Leips. 1878], p. 211), remarks," כתב תרגום means 'in Targum,' i.e. written in the Aramaean and refers not to the characters with which, but to the language in which, it was written. Gamaliel acted according to old principle, דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לכותכן, i.e. all that belongs to oral tradition was not to appear in written form. This principle included also the Targum, but it was not strictly observed, and, like the Mishna, so, also, Targums were clandestinely circulated in single copies. That this was the case we see from the fact that Gamaliel of Jabneh, the grandson of Gamaliel I or elder, having been found reading the Targum on Job, was reminded of the procedure of his grandfather, who had the copy of the Job Targum, which was brought to him while standing on the mountain of the Temple, immured in order to prevent its further use. Dr. Frarikl, in Die. Zusdtze in der Sept. zu Hiob (in Grlitz, Monatsschrift,. 1872, p. 313), says, "There is no doubt that the additions in the Sept. were made according to an old Aramaean Targum," and in corroboration of his statement he quotes Tosiphta Shabbath, c. 14; Shabbath, fol. 115, col. 1; Jerus. Shabbath, 16, 1; Sopherin, v, 1.5. We are thus obliged to assume an early origin for the Targums, a fact which will be corroborated further on, in spite of the many objections raised, the chief of which, adduced by Eichhorn, being the silence of the Christian fathers, of whom none, not even Epiphanius or Jerome, mention the subject. But this silence is of little weight, because the fathers generally were ignorant of Hebrew and of Hebrew literature. Nor was any importance attached to them in comparison with Greek translations. Besides, in truth, the assertion in question is not even supported by the facts of the case; for Ephraem Syrus, e.g., made use of the Targums (comp. Lengerke, De Ephraemi S. Arte Hermeneut. p. 14 sq.; Assemani, Bibl. Orient. 1, 66).

See also the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

II. The Targum of Onkelos. — There is a Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch which has always been highly valued by the Jews.

1. Authorship. — In regard to the author, the notices of him are meagre and uncertain. We now approach one of the most mooted questions as to the identity of Onkelos with Akilas or Aquila; but before solving it we must hear the different witnesses. The first mention of Onkelos is found in the Tosipohta, a work drawn up shortly after the Mishna. From this we learn:

a. That Onkelos the Proselyte (אנקלוס הגר) was so serious in his adherence to the newly adopted (Jewish) faith that he threw his share of his paternal inheritance into the Dead Sea, ִהולי ִחלקו לים המל (Tos. Demci', 6:9).

b. At the funeral of Gamaliel the elder he burned more than seventy mince worth of spices in his honor (Tos. Shabbath, 100. 8; the same story is repeated with variations Semchoth 100. 8, and Talm. Aboda Zarah, fol. 11, col. 1).

c. He is finally mentioned, by way of corroboration to different Halachas, in connection with Gamaliel in- three more places, viz. Chagigah, 3, 1; Mikvaoth, 6:1; Kelim, 3, 2,2. In the Babylonian. Talmud, Onkelos is mentioned in the following passages:

(1.) Gittin, fol. 56, col. 2; fol. 57, col. 1, where we read, "onkelos the Proselyte, the son of Kalonikos (Callinicus or Cleonicus?), the son of Titus's sister, who, intending to become a convert, conjured up the ghosts of Titus, Balaam, and Jesus [the latter name is omitted in later editions, for which, as in the copy before us, is substituted פושע ישראל, but not in Bomberg's and the Cracow editions], in order to ask them what nation was considered the first in the other world. Their answer that Israel was the favored one decided him."

(2.) Aboda Zarah, fol. 11, col. I, here called the son of Kalonymos (Cleonymos?); and we also read in this place that the emperor sent three Roman cohorts to capture him, and that he converted them all.

(3.) Baba Bathra, fol. 99, coil. 1, where Onkelos the Proselyte is quoted as an authority on the question of the form of the cherubim (comp. 2Ch 3:10).

(4.) Megillah, fol. 3, col 1, where we read, "II Jeremiah, or, according to others, 1t. Chia bar-Abba, said the 'Targum, on the Pentateuch was made by the proselyte Onkelos; from the mouth of R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshna; the Targum on the prophets was made by Jonathan ben-Uziel from the month of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.... But have we not been taught that the Targum existed from the time of Ezra?... Only it was forgotten and Ollelos restored it. In the Miidrash Tanichuma, section ִל ִל in (Ge 28:20), we read, "Onkelos the Proselyte asked an old man whether that was all the love God bore towards a proselyte, that he promised to give him bread and a garment? The old man replied that this was all for which the patriarch Jacob prayed." In the book of, Zohar, section אחרי מות (Le 18:4), Onkelos is represented as a disciple of Hillel and Shammai. Finally a MS. in the library of the Leipsic Senate (B. H.) relates that Onkelos, the nephew of the wicked Titus (נכדו של טיטוס הרשע), asked the emperor's advice as to what merchandise he thought it was profitable to trade in. Titus told him that that should be bought which was cheap in the market, since it was sure to rise in price. Onkelos went to Jerusalem and studied the law under R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, and his face became wan (והיו פניו עהובות). When he returned to Titus, one of the courtiers observed the pallor of his countenance, and said to Titus, "Onkelos appears to have studied the law." Interrogated by Titus, he admitted the fact, adding that he had done it by his advice. No nation had ever been so exalted, and none was now held cheaper among the nations than Israel; "therefore," he said, "I concluded that in the end none would be of higher price" (comp. Anger, De Onkelo, pt. 2 [Lips. 1846], p. 12, where the whole passage in the original is copied). In all these passages the name of Onkelos is given. But there are many passages in. which the version of Akilas (תרגם עקילס) is mentioned, and the notices concerning Akilas bear considerable likeness to those of Onkelos. Akilas is mentioned in Siphra (Le 25:7), and in Jerus. Talmud, Demai, 27 d, as having been born in Pontus; that, after having embraced the Jewish faith, he threw his paternal inheritance into an asphalt lake (Jerus. Demaz, 25 d); that he translated the Torah before R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, who praised him (וקילסו אותו) and said to him, "Thou art fairer than the sons of men" (יפיפית מבני אדם); or, according to the other accounts, before R. Akiba (comp. Jerus. Kiddushin, 1, 11, etc.; Jerus. Megillah, 1, 9; Babyl. Megillah, fol. 3, col. 1). We learn,. further, that he lived in the time of Hadrian (Chag. 2, 1), that he was the son of the emperor's sister (Tanchun, ed. Prague, fol. 34, col. 2), that he became a convert against the emperor's will (ibid. and Shemoth Rabbah, fol. 146 c), and that he consulted Eliezer and Jehoshua about his conversion (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 78 d; comp. Midrash Coheleth, fol. 102 b).

That Akilas is no other than Aquila (Α᾿κύλας), the well-known Greek translator of the Old Test., we need hardly add. He was a native of Pontus (Iren. Adv. Haer. 3,24; Jerome, De Vir. Ill. c. 54; Philbstr. De Icer. § 90). He lived under Hadrian (Epiph. De Pond. et Mens. § 12). He is called the πενθερίδες (Chronicles Alex. πενθερός) of the emperor (ibid. § 14), becomes a convert to Judaism (§ 15), whence he is called the Proselyte (Iren. loc. cit.; Jerome to Jer 8:14, etc.), and receives instructions from Akiba (Jerome, loc. cit.). He translated the Old Test., and his version was considered of the highest import and authority among the Jews, especially those unacquainted with the Hebrew language (Euseb. Praep. Evang. loc. cit.; Augustine, De Civ. Dei, 15:23; Philostr. De Her. § 90; Justin, Novell. 146). Thirteen distinct quotations from this version are preserved in the Talmud and Midrash; and we may classify the whole as follows:

Greek Quotations. Ge 17:1, in Beresh. Rab. 51 b; Le 23:40, Jelrs. Sukkah, 3, 5, fol. 53 d (comp. Iaj. Rab. 200 d); Isa 3; Isa 20, Jerns. Shabb. 6, 4, fol. 8 b; Eze 16:10, Mid. Thren. 58, 100; Eze 23:43, Vaj. Rab. 203 d: Ps 48; Ps 15 (Masor. text 47, according to the Sept.), Jers. Meg. 2, 3, fol. 73 b; Pr 18:21, Vaj. Rab. fol. 203 b; Es 1:6, Midr. Esth. 120 d; Da 5; Da 5, Jerns. Yoma, 3, 8, fol. 41 a.

Hebrew Quotations (retranslated from the Greek). — Le 19:20, Jerus. Kid. 1, 1, fol. 59 a; Da 8:13, Beresh. Rab. 24 c.

Chaldee Quotations. — Pr 25:11, Beresh. Rab. 104 b; Isa 5; Isa 6, Midr. Coh. 113 c, d.

All these quotations are treated at: length by Anger, De Onkelo, 1, 13, sq., and the variations adduced there show how carefully they have to be perused, and the more so since we have as yet no critical edition of the Talmud.

The identity of Akilas and Aquila having been ascertained, it was also argued that, according to the parallel accounts of Onkelos and Aquila, Onkelos and Aquila must be one and the same person, since it was unlikely that the circumstances and facts narrated could have belonged to two different individuals. But who will warrant that the statements are correct? There are chronological differences which cannot be reconciled, unless we have recourse to such means as the Jewish historian Dr. Gratz, who renders ר8 8ג הזקן (i.e. R. Gamaliel I, or elder) "Gamaliel II." Is it not surprising that on one and the same page Onkelos is once spoken of as "Onkelos the Proselyte," and "Onkelos the son of Kalonymos became a convert" (Aboda Zarah, fol. 11, col. 1)? It has also been stated that Onkelos was neither the author of the Targum nor a historical person, but that Targum Onkelos means simply a version made after the manner of Akils, the Greek translator. Aquila's translation was a special favorite with the Jews, because it was both literal and accurate. Being highly valued, it was considered a model or type after which the new Chaldee one was named, in commendation, perhaps, of its like excellences. This view is very ingenious, but it is hardly probable. Now the question arises, how is it 'that there is only a version of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, while Aquila translated the whole Old Test.? If Onkelos's Targum was really made after the manner of Aquila, how is it that the latter is so slavishly literal, translating even the את, sign of the accusative, or, as Jerome states (De Opt. Genesis Interpret.), "Non solum verba sed et etymologias verborum transferre conatus est... Quod Hebrsei non solum habent ἄρθρα sed et πρόαρθρα, ille κακοζήλως et syllabas interpretetur et litteras, dictatque σ ὺ ν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σ ὺ ν τὴν γῆν quod Graeca et Latina lingua non recipit," while Onkelos is freer, adding sometimes here and there a word or phrase for the better understanding?

That the Targum Onkelos cannot mean a Targum after the manner of Aquila is also evident from the fact that while Aquila made a recension of the then existing Sept., nothing of the kind can be said of Onkelos. The latter wrote for the people in a language which it understood better than the original Hebrew; the former wrote for polemical purposes, to counterbalance the arguments of the Christians, who made use of the Alexandrian version against the Jews. That the author of the Chaldee paraphrase was not a proselyte, but a native Jew, is sufficiently proved from the excellence and accuracy of his work; for without having been bred up from his birth in the Jewish religion and learning, and long exercised in all the rites and doctrines thereof, and being also thoroughly skilled in both the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, as far as a native Jew could be, he could scarcely be thought thoroughly adequate to that work which he performed. The representing of Onkelos as having been a proselyte seems to have proceeded from the error of taking him to have been the same with Aquila of Pontus, who was indeed a Jewish proselyte. A comparison of both versions must show the superiority of Onkelos's over that of Aquila. The latter, on account of his literal adherence to the original, makes his version often nonsensical and unintelligible, and less useful than the former, as the following will show:


Ge 2:6. ואיד— Aq. ἐπιφλυγμός; Onk. יעננאּ.

7. נשמת-Aq. ἀναπνοή; Onk. נשמתא.

Ge 6:4. הנפילים-Aq. ἐπιπίπτοντες; Onk. גבוריא.

16. צוהר—Aq. μεσημβρινόν; Olk. ניהור.

Ge 8:1. וישבו—Aq. καὶ ἐστάλησαν; Onk. ונחוGe 12:8. ויעתק-Aq. μετῆρε Onk. ואסתלק.

Ge 15:2. ובן משק-Aq. υἱὸς τοῦ ποτίσοντος; Onk. פרנסא ובַר.

Ge 18:12. בקרבה—Aq. κατ᾿ αὐτῆς; Onk. במעהא.

בלותי-Aq. κατατριβῆναι; Onk. דסיבית.

Ge 22:2. אר המוריה-Aq. τὴν γῆν τὴν καταφανῆ; Onk. לארעא פולחנא.

13. ִבסב—Aq. ἐν συχνῷ; Onk. באאּלנא.

Ge 26:33. באר שבע-Aq. Φρέαρ πλησμονῆς; Onk. שבע באר.

Ge 30:8. נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי-Aq. συνέστρεψέν με ό Θεός; Onk. קבלח8 בעותו.

11. בגד (Keri בא גד)-Aq. ηλθεν ἡ ζῶσις; Onk. אתא גד.

Ge 32:25. ויאבק-Aq. ἐκυλίετο; Onk. λδτvας.

Ge 34:21. שלמים-Aq. •πηρτισμένοι; Onk. שלמין.

Genesis 35:16. כברת אר-Aq. καθ᾿ ὅδον τῆς γῆς; Onk. כרוב ארעא.

Ge 36:24. את הימים—Aq. τοὺς Ι᾿αμεῖν; Onk. גבריא ית.

Ge 37:27. מה בצע-Aq. τὶ πλεονέκτημα; Onk. ממון נתהני לנא מה.

Ge 38:18. ִופתיל-Aq. στρεπτόν; Onk. שישיפא.

Ge 42:4. אסון—Aq. σύμπτωμα; Onk. מותא.


Ex 1:9. ועצום—Aq. ὀστοῖνον (id. De 9:1); Onk. תקיפין.

11. ערי מסכנות-Aq. πόλεις σκηνωμάτων; Onk. קרוי בית אוצרא.

13. ִבפר-Aq. ἐν τρυφήματι; Onk. בקשיו.

Ex 4:12. ִוהורותי-Aq. φωτίσω σε (id. ver. 15; 24:12 always φωτίζειν, taken from אור); Onk. ִאלפינ (id. ver. 15; 24:12).

Ex 8:12. הערוב-Aq. παμμυῖαν; Onk. עירובין. 14:27. לאיתנו- Aq. εἰς ἀρχαῖον αὐτοῦ; Onk. לתוקפיה.

Ex 15:8. נערמו—Aq. ἐσωρεύθη; Onk. חכימא.

Ex 24:6. באגנות-Aq. ἐν προθύμασιν; Onk. במזרקיא.

Ex 28:8. שני-Aq. διάφορον (id. 35:22, 35); Onk. זהורי.

Ex 29:6. נזר-Aq. τὸ πέταλον; Onk. כלילא.

36. על כפורים וחטאת-Aq. ἐξιλασμοῦ περὶ ἁμαρτίας; Onk. על כפוריא ותדכי.

Ex 30:12. כופר—Aq. ἐξίλασμα; Onk. פדרקן.

35. פרוע הוא כי פועה—Aq. ἀποπετασμένος αὐτὸς ὁτι; Onk. בטיל הוא. Aq. ἀπεπέτασεν αὐτόν; Onk. אריאבטליניה.

Ex 34:24. שלוש פעמים—Aq. τρεῖς καθόδονς; Onk. תלת זמנין.


Le 3:1. שלמים-Aq. εἰρηνικῶς; Onk. נכסת קידשׁא.

Le 13:6. פשה תפשה-Aq. ἐπιδώση ἐπίδομα; Ouk. אוספא תוסיŠ.

Leviticus 17:7. לשעירים-Aq. τοῖς τριχιοῦσιν (id. Isa 13:21); Onk. לשידין.

Le 25:33. ואשר יגאל-Aq. ὅς ἄν ἐγγίζων ἐστιν; Onk. ודי יפרוק.

Le 27:2. יפליא—Aq. θανμαστώση; Onk. יפרש.


Nu 1:47. למטה-Aq. εἰς ῥάβδον; Onk. לשבטא.

Nu 11:8. לשד השמן—Aq. τοῦ μαστοῦ ἐλαίου; Onk. דליש במשחא.

Nu 23:12. הפסגה—Aq. λαξευτήν; Onk. רמתא.


De 1:40. פנו לכם—Aq. νεύσατε αὐτοῖς; Onk. לכון אתפנו.

De 22:9. כלאים—Aq. ἀνομοιόμενος; Onk. עיריבין. שעטנז—Aq. ἀντιδιακείμενον; Onk. שעטנזא.

De 23:15. ִולתת אויכי ִלפני-Aq. τοῦ δοῦναι τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου εἰς πρόσωπόν σου; Onk. בעלי דבב ִקדמ ִולממסר.

De 28:20. את המארה ואת המהומה—Aq. σπανὴ καὶ φαγέδαινα; Onk. שגושיא ית מאירתא וית.

It has been urged that while Akilas's version is always cited in the Talmud by the name of its author, תרגום עקילס, the Targum of Onkelos is never quoted with his name, but introduced with כד מתרגמינן, "as we translate," or תרגום דדן, "our Targum," or כתרגומו, "as the Targum has it;" but this only shows the high' esteem in which Onkelos's Targum stood. And as to the quotations of Aquila, almost all which are cited are on the prophets and Hagiographa, while Onkelos's Targum is only on the law; and a close examination of the sources themselves shows that what is said there has reference only to the Greek version, which is fully expressed in the praise of R. Eliezer.and R. Jehoshua when saying יפיפית מבני אדם, "Thou art fairer than the sons of men," thereby alluding to Ge 9:27, where it is said that Japheth (i.e. the Greek language) should one day dwell in the tents of Shem (i.e. Israel) (Megillah, 1, 11, 71 b and c; Bereshith Rabba, 40 b).

There is another very important point, which has been overlooked by all favoring the identity of Akilas with Onkelos, and thus putting the origin of the Targum of Onkelos at a late date, viz. the use of the mentra = λόγος by Onkelos; and this peculiarity of the Targum shows that its origin belongs to the time of Philo and the New Test. period. It is not unlikely that, in this respect, Onkelos was followed by the other Targumists, and that his intention was to reconcile Alexandrian with Palestinian theology. John's doctrine of the Logos would be without any foundation or point of departure if we could not suppose that at the time of Jesus a similar doctrine concerning the Word of God, as it can be deduced from the Targum, was known among the Palestinian Jews. That later Judaism has put aside this important moment of older theology must be explained from its opposition to Christianity.

In the Targum of Onkelos we find not the least indication that it was made after the destruction of Jerusalem; we find neither the least trace of hostility to the Romans nor of opposition to Christianity. The Temple is regarded as still standing, the festive days are still celebrated, the Jews are still a nation which never ceases to resist its enemies. This may be seen from the prophetic passages, as Ge 49; Nu 24; De 33; the explanation of which, as given by Onkelos, could have hardly originated after A.D. 70. Onkelos uses for Argob (De 3; De 4; De 14; so also Jonathan, 1Ki 4:13) the name Trachona (טרָכוֹנָא)=Trachonitis (Lu 3; Lu 1); Josephus writes Τραχωνίτις, sometimes ὁ Τράχων (Ant. 15:10, 1 and 3; 18:4, 6; 20:7, 1). The Peshito of the Pentateuch did not follow this explanation (Lu 3; Lu 1, אתרא דטרכונא), probably because the division of Palestine at the time of Jesus did not exist in the Syrian translator's days, or it was unintelligible to him (among the rabbins טרכונא is used in the sense of "palace," פלטין [Buxtorf, Lex. p. 913 sq.]). All this indicates, or rather confirms, the supposition that this Targum belongs to the time of Jesus. There is a similar indication in Onkelos's rendering of Bashan by מתנן (Syr. מתנין), Batansea (see Gesenius, Comm. zu Jes. 2, 13); ים כנרת, by Gennesaret, גינוסר. This reminds one of the language of the New Test.; so also ממונא (Mammon), "the injustice with the Mammon" (בישין בממונּה ון; it is said, in Ge 13:13, of the Sodomites). When Paul speaks of that "spiritual rock" that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness (1Co 10:3), he undoubtedly refers to the tradition preserved by Onkelos (also by Pseudo Jonathan), "The well which the princes digged, the chiefs of the people cut it, the scribes with their staves; it was given to them in the wilderness. And from [the time] that it was given to them it descended with them to the rivers, and from the rivers it went up with them to the height, and from the height to the vale which is in the field of Moab" (Nu 21:18 sq.). Hence the expression of the apostle, "spiritual, following rock." The Syriac retains the proper names of the Hebrew text. After what has been said, we believe the Targum of Onkelos originated about the time of Philo-an opinion which is also held by Zunz (Gottesd. Vortrige, p. 62). This being true, Onkelos and Akilas (or Aquila) are not one and the same person-a view also expressed by Frankel (Zudem Targum dera Propheten [Breslau, 1872.] p. 6); and the Talmudic notices concerning Onkelos, the disciple of Gamaliel I (or elder), the teacher of the apostle Paul, are corroborated by our argument, minus the notice that Onkelos was a proselyte, as we have already stated above. For with the identity of Onkelos with Akilas (or Aquila), it is hardly conceivable that a man like Aquila, who, from a Christian, became a Jew, and such a zealous one that he prepared another Greek version for polemical purposes against the Christians, should have spent so much money at the death of Gamaliel I, whose liberal and friendly attitude towards Christianity was known, and who is even said to have become a Christian, as a tombstone covering his remains in a church at Pisa indicates:

"Hoc in sarcophago requiescunt corpora sacra Sanctorumn... Sainctus Gamaliel. Gamaliel divi Patuli didascalus olim, Doctor et excellens Israelita fuit, Concilii mnagui fideique per omnia cultor." We now come to the work itself.

2. Style, etc. — The language of Onkelos greatly approaches the Biblical Chaldee, i.e. it has still much of Hebrew coloring, though in a less degree than the other. It also avoids many Aramaisms (such as the contraction of nouns), which at a later period became prevalent, and comprises a comparatively small number of Greek words, and of Latin words none whatever. Of Greek words we mention, Ex 28:25, ברלא = βήρυλλος; ver. 11, גלŠ = γλυφή; Ge 28:17, הדיוט = ἰδιώτης; Le 11:30, חלטתא = κωλώτης; Ex 28:19, טרקיא = θρακίας (Pliny, 37:68); 39:11, כרכדינא = καρχηδόνιοι; De 20:20, כרכום = χαράκωμα; Ex 28:20, כרום = χρῶμα; Nu 15:38; De 22:12, כרוספדא = κράσπεδον; Ex 30:34, כשת = κἰσιος; Ge 37:28, לטום= λῆδον; Ex 24:16, פרסא = φάρσος; 26:6, פורפא = πόρπη; Ge 6:14, קדרוס = κέδρος; Ex 28:19, קנכרי = κέγχρος (Pliny, 37:14). There are, besides, some obscure expressions which were partly unintelligible to the Talmudists, as םסגונא for תחש, etc., in Ex 35:23; Ex 28:4, מרמצא for תשב; ver. 17, ירקן for פטדה; ver. 18, קנכירי for לשם; Le 22:20, חילין בעיניה for בעיניו תבלל, etc.

The translation of Onkelos is, on the whole, very simple and exact. It is obvious from the character of the work that the author was in possession of a rich exegetical tradition; hence we never find him omitting any passage of the original. His elucidations of difficult and obscure passages and expressions, perhaps less satisfactory, are commonly those most accredited by internal evidence, and in this particular he is worthy of a more careful regard and assent than have usually fallen to his lot. Ge 3:15 he translates לסופא ל ִמה דעבת ליה מלקדמין ואת תהינטר ליה הוא יהי דכיר, i.e. "he shall remember thee what thou hast done to him from the beginning, and thou shalt watch him unto the end;" Ge 4:7 he translates דינא חטא ִנטיר ודעתיד לאתפרעא מנ ִוכ8 עובד ִישתנק ל ִואם לא תיטב עובד ִליום הלא אם תיטב, ".shall not pardon be given to thee if thou doest well; but if thou doest not well, thy sin shall be preserved till the day of judgment, when it will be exacted of thee," etc. Here שאת is taken from נשא, in the sense of tollere peccata. i.e. "taking- away of sin," and not in the sense of "lifting-up of the countenance." Onkelos did not understand the meaning of the verse, but- (says Winer) "sensum hujus loci prudentissimos etiam interpretes mirifice vexavit." Ge 6:3, Onkelos, like the Sept., Syr., Saad., and many recent commentators, gives לא יתקים דרא בישא הדין בדיל דאנון בשרא (שגם = באשר גם), i.e. "this evil generation shall not stand before me forever, because they are flesh;" Ge 14:14, וזריז ית עולמוהי, i.e. "he armed his young men," but Ge 15:2, בןאּמשק = בןאּפרנסא, "governor," is contrary to the true sense of the words; Ge 20:16, he did not rightly understand ונובחת, for he translates ועל כל מה דאמרת אתוכחת "and with respect to all she said she was reproved;" Ge 24:55, עשור ימים אי, which the Sept. correctly translates ἡμέρας ὡσεὶ δέκα, Vulg. salter decem dies, Onkelos, in accordance with all Jewish interpreters, explains by בעדן או עשרא ירחין עדן, i.e." a season of times, or ten months;" Ge 24:63, לשיח is translated by לצלאה, "to pray ;" Ge 27:42, מתנחם is translated, by way of explanation, ִכמן ל ִלמקט ל, "plotteth against thee, to kill thee." The difficult ִאבר, in Ge 41:43, is explained by אבא למלכא, '"a father to the king," and צפנת פענה by גברא דטמירין גלין ליה, the man to whom mysteries are revealed." The אח ִנתתי ל ִשכם, in Ge 48:22, is correctly given by ִחולק חד יהבית ל, "and I give thee one part ;" and פחז כמים, in Ge 49:4, by ִאזלת לקדם אפ, "thou hast been carried away by thine anger." Explanatory additions, which evidently belong to Onkelos, are found in Ge 6:3 (אם יתובון, "if they may be converted," at the end of the verse); Ge 9:5 (דישוד ית דמא דאחוהי,"who sheddeth the blood of his brother"); Ge 14:22 (where בצלי, "in prayer," is added to הרימותי ידי); Ge 43:32 (where we have אריבעירא דמצראי דחלין ליה עבראי אכלין, "because the Hebrews eat the animals 'which are sacred to the Egyptians") (comp. Winer, De Onkeloso, p. 41). Larger additions and deviations from the original text are found mostly in the poetical parts of the Pentateuch (Ge 49; Nu 24; De 32; De 33). In the multiplicity of words, which is here employed, the original text almost disappears. Thus Ge 49:11-12, which is referred to the Messiah (the parallel being Nu 24:17), is rendered, "Israel shall dwell in the circuit of his city; the people shall build his temple; and there shall be the righteous in his circuit, and the makers of the law in his doctrine; the best purple shall be his clothing; his covering shall be silk dyed with purple and with various colors. His mountains shall be redder in their vineyards; his hills shall drop wine: his fields shall be white with his grain and with flocks of sheep." In passages relative to the Divine Being, we perceive the effect of a doctrinal bias in certain deviations from the Hebrew text. Anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions are avoided, lest human attributes should be assigned to the Deity. Thus, אלהים and יהוה are rendered מימרא דיי, "the Word of God ;" or יקרא דיי, "the splendor of God;" or שכנתא דיי, "the Shechinah of God." Akin to this peculiarity is the avoidance of אלהים, when it is applied to men or idols, and the employment of רב, דיניא, טעון, דחלן. In cases where divine qualities or ornaments appear to be assigned to men, Onkelos modifies and smoothes the meaning, and substitutes a different idea. Thus, ותהון כרבהבין, i.e. ye shall be as princes," is ,substituted for כאלהי חייתם, in Ge 3:5; or הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו, in ver. 22, is translated by מניה אדם הוה יחידי בעלמא, "behold Adam is the only one in the world of himself." Onkelos shows an apparent desire to present the great men of his nation in as favorable a light as possible (comp. Ge 16:12; Ge 25:27; Ge 45; Ge 27). Difficult words are not infrequently retained, as in Ge 2; Ge 12; Ex 12:7; Le 13:30; and De 22:12. Names of peoples, cities, and mountains are given as they were common in his time. Thus, in Ge 8:4, instead of הרי אררט, he has טורי קרדו, as in Syr. and Arab.; אר שנעי, in 10:10, becomes: ארעא בבל; כפתורים, in ver. 14, becomes קפוטקאי; ישמעאלים, in 37:25,.becomes ערבאי, etc. (see Winer, op. cit. p. 39). In perusing Onkelos as a source of emending the Hebrew text, great caution is necessary, and the more so because we have not as yet a critical edition of this Targum. The only safe rule in emending the Hebrew text is when the same variety of readings which the Chaldee presents is found in several Hebrew MSS. Thus, e.g., in Ex 9:7, we read in the Hebrew ממקנה ישראל, but in the Chaldee מבעירא דבני ישראל. The original reading was probably ממקנה בני ישראל, which is found in several MSS. of Kennicott and De Rossi, and in most of the ancient versions. The Targum of Onkelos has always been held in high regard among the Jews, who also composed a Masorah upon it. Such a Masorah has lately been published, from a very ancient codex, by Dr. Berliner, Die Massorah zum Targqum Onkelos, enthaltend Massorah Magna und Massorah Parva (Leips. 1877).

3. Manuscripts of Onkelos are extant in great numbers. Oxford has five, London (British Museum) two, Vienna six, Augsburg one, Nuremberg two, Altdorf one, Carlsruhe three, Stuttgart two, Erfurt three, Dresden one, Leipsic one, Jena one, Dessau one, Helmstadt two, Berlin four, Breslau one, Brieg one, Ratisbon one, Hamburg seven, Copenhagen two, Upsala one, Amsterdam one, Paris eight, Molsheim one, Venice six, Turin two, Milan four, Leghorn one, Sienna one, Geneva one, Florence five, Bologna two, Padua one, Trieste two, Parma about forty, Rome eighteen, more or less complete, etc., containing Onkelos. For a full description of these MSS, see Winer, De Onkeloso, p. 13 sq.

4. Editions. — The Targum of Onkelos was first published with Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch (Bologna, 1482, fol.). It was subsequently reprinted quite frequently, and may be found in the Rabbinic and Polyglot Bibles. Buxtorf was the first to add the vowel-points to the Targum. As yet, we have no critical edition of this Targum. Dr. Berliner purposes to publish a new and critical edition according to that of Sabioneta (1557). This Targum has been translated into Latin by Alphonso de Zamora in the Complutensian Polyglot, by Paul Fagius, and by John Mercier (1568). That of Fagius is the best. It was rendered into English by Etheridge (Lond. 1862-65).

5. Literature. — Jes. Berlin (Pik), מיני תרגימא, or glosses and comments upon the Targum of Onkelos (Breslau, 1827); Luzzato, אוהב גר, Philoxenus, sire de Onkeloosi Chaldaica Pentateuchi Versione Dissertatio, etc. (Vienna, 1830), distributes the deviations from the Hebrew into thirty-two classes, and endeavors to emend the text from MSS., although the genius of the version is not well described in it (the writer of the art. "Targum" in Smith's Dict. of the Bible, besides a great deal of useless ballast, thought it' necessary to copy Luzzato); Berkowitz, עוטה איר, on the hermeneutics of Onkelos (Wilna, 1843); id. חליפות שמלות (ibid. 1874); Levy, in Geiger's Zeifschrift, 1844, 5, 175-198; Fürst, Literaturblatt, 1845, p. 337 sq., 354; Smith, Diatribe de Chald. Paraphrastis eorumque Versionum (Oxf. 1662); Winer, De Onkeloso ejusque Paraphrasi Chaldaica (Lips. 1820); Maybaum, Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos, etc. ( Breslau, 1870); Geiger, Jidische Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 85-104; לגר נתינה, or a commentary on Onkelos by Dr. Adler in the edition of the Pentateuch with ten commentaries (Wilna, 1874); and the literature given in the art. ONKELOS SEE ONKELOS in this Cyclopaedia.

III. Jonathan ben-Uzziel on the Prophets, i.e. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, stands next in time and importance to Onkelos.

1. Authorship and Sources — As to Jonathan himself, we read in the Talmud—

(1.) "Eighty disciples had Hillel the elder, thirty of whom were worthy that the Shechinah [Divine Majesty] should rest upon them, as it did upon Moses our Lord; peace be upon him. Thirty of them were worthy that the sun should stand still at their bidding, as it did at that of Joshua ben-Nun. Twenty were of intermediate worth. The greatest of them all was Jonathan ben-Uzziel, the least R. Jochanall ben-Zachai; and it was said of R. Jochanan ben-Zachai that he left not [uninvestigated] the Bible, the Mishna, the Gemara, the Halachahs, the Haggadahs, the subtleties of the law, and the subtleties of the Sopherim . . . the easy things and the difficult things [from the most awful divine mysteries to the common popular proverbs].... If this is said of the least of them, what is to be said of the greatest, i.e. Jonathan ben-Uzziel?" (Baba Bathra, 134 a; comp. Sukkah, 28 a).

(2.) A second passage, referring more especially to our present subject, reads as follows: "The Targum of Onkelos was made by Onkelos the Proselyte from the mouth of R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, and that of the prophets by Jonathan ben-Uzziel from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. And in that hour was the land of Israel shaken three hundred parasangs. And a voice was heard, saying, 'Who is this who has revealed my secrets unto the sons of man?' Up rose Jonathan ben-Uzziel and said, 'It is I who have revealed thy secrets to the sons of man.... But it is known and revealed before thee that not 'for my honor have I done it, nor for the honor of my father's house, but for thine honor, that the disputes may cease in Israel.'... And he further desired to reveal the Targum to the Hagiographa, when a voice was heard, 'Enough.' And why? Because the day of the Messiah is revealed therein" (Megillah, 3 a).

There is some exaggeration in 'this description of Jonathan's paraphrase, but it only shows the high esteem in which it stood. Fabulous as the whole may appear, yet there is no doubt as to the high antiquity of this paraphrase. Many doubts were raised as to the authorship of this Targum. Some, who would not deny the existence of Jonathan, hesitate to believe that he had any share in the Targum commonly ascribed to him. 'It has also been suggested by Luzzato and Geiger that Jonathan is the same with the Greek Theodotion, and that the Babylonians gave this name to the paraphrase-especially as they were acquainted with that of Jonathan ben- Uzziel-to indicate that the Targum was after the manner of Theodotion, like the reputed origin of the name Onkelos in connection with the Greek Akilas or Aguila." But this more ingenious than true suggestion has no support, and needs no refutation. It has also been suggested by most of the modern critics that because this Targum is never once quoted as the Targum of Jonathan, but is invariably introduced with the formula כדמתרגם ר8 יוסŠ, "as R. Joseph interprets," that not Jonathan, but R. Joseph, is the author of this Targum; and this supposition is based upon the fact that the Talmud relates that this R. Joseph, in his latter years, occupied himself chiefly with the Targum when he had become blind. This relation of the Talmud, and perhaps the fact that Jonathan's Targum, which was called, by way of abbreviation, ת8 8י, i.e. תרגום יונתן, made Joseph the author of this Targum, since ת8 8י may also mean תרגום יוסŠ, or something else, and the real Targum is now quoted under Joseph's name. That Jonathan's Targum was really extant before the time of R. Joseph we see from Megillah, 3 a, where on Zec 12:12 R. Joseph remarks, "Without the Targum to this passage, we could not understand it;" but when the writer, of the art. "Targum" in Smith's Dict. of the Bible remarks, Twice even it is quoted in Joseph's name, and with the addition, Without the Targum to this verse (due to him), we could not understand it,' he only betrays his carelessness as to the Talmudic sentence. After all, we do not see why we should not rely upon the Talmudic notice concerning Jonathan equally as much as upon that concerning R. Joseph. The language concerning the former, we admit, is a little hyperbolical, but this does not exclude the truth of the matter. Besides, there is nothing to militate against Jonathan having written a Targum on the prophets; and even the expression that this Targum was made "from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi" is not so absurd as the writer of the art. "Targum" in Kitto's Cyclopaedia would suppose, for if it means anything, it means this, that the explanation of Jonathan contains the transmitted- exposition in the spirit of Hillel, and, as Zunz remarks (Gottesd. Vortrage, p. 332), "Jonathan's Targum on the prophets, as a result of studies which were instrumental in forming fixed national opinions, proves that a considerable time before it was customary to explain the contents of the prophetical books, by means of Targumical prelections or otherwise, to the public. Nay, he commends the teachers for-even in evil times teaching the law in the synagogues at the head of the congregations" (Targ. on Jg 5:2,9). From the New Test. we know that Moses and the prophets were read in the synagogues, and, deducting all hyperbolical language, there is no reason for doubting the high antiquity of this Targum. The text is rendered, in the same manner as by Onkelos, free from all one- sided and polemical considerations, which the Jews since the 2d century followed. Many passages are referred to the Messiah; even such as do not rightly belong to him, so that no polemical tendency against Christians appears in the version. The following is a list of them: 1Sa 2; 1Sa 10; 2Sa 23:3; 1Ki 4:33; Isa 4:2; Isa 9:6; Isa 10:27; Isa 11:1,6; Isa 15:2; Isa 16; Isa 1-5; Isa 28:5; Isa 42; Isa 1; Isa 43; Isa 10; Isa 45; Isa 1; Isa 52; Isa 13; Isa 53; Isa 10; Jer 23:5; Jer 30:21; Jer 33:13,15; Ho 3:5; Ho 14:8; Micah 4:8; 5, 2, 18; Zec 3:8; Zec 4:7; Zec 6:12; Zec 10:4.

2. Character, etc. — In the historical books the exegesis is simple and tolerably literal. A few words are added occasionally, which have no representatives in the original, but they are not many. The interpretation is good, giving the sense fully and fairly; but in the prophetic books the text is more freely handled, for, as Zunz justly remarks (op. cit. p. 63), "The prophetical writings, not containing anything of the nature of legal enactment, admitted of a greater latitude in handling the text. This became even unavoidable because of the more obscure language and the predictions concerning Israel's future by which they are characterized. Even in the case of the historical books, Jonathan often acts the part of an expositor. In the case of the prophets themselves, this course of exposition- in reality becoming a Haggadah-is pursued almost uninterruptedly." "This pervading, often misunderstood, characteristic," says Havernick, "constitutes the chief proof, confirmed also by external evidence, of the oneness of the authorship of this Targum; for not only do parallel passages (such as Isaiah 36-39; comp. 2Ki 18:13 sq.; Isa 2; Isa 24; Mic 5; Mic 1-3) literally harmonize, but he is also in the habit of furnishing, particularly the poetical portions of the historical books (Jg 5; 1Sa 2; 2Sa 23), with profuse additions. These additions often very much resemble each other (comp. Jg 5:8 with Isa 10:4; 2Sa 23:4 with Isa 30:26)." Another peculiarity of this Targum are the Jewish dogmatical opinions of that day with which the work is interwoven, and the theological representations, in introducing which a special preference was given to the book of Daniel. Examples of this are the interpreting of the phrase "stars of God" by "people of God" (Isa 14:13; comp. Da 8:10; Da 2 Macc. 9:10); the application of the passage in Da 12:1 to that in Isa 4:2. In Isa 10:32 the author introduces a legend framed in. imitation of the narrative in Daniel 3, which is repeated by later Targumists (comp. Targ. Jesus; Ge 11:28; Ge 16; Ge 5; 2Ch 28:3); in Isa 22:14,25,25 he has interwoven the doctrine concerning the second death (comp. Re 2; Re 11), which the wicked should die in the next world or kingdom of the Messiah; and in Isa 30:33 he mentions Gehenna. In various places the notices respecting the Messiah's offices, character, and conduct, the effects of his advent and personal influence, harmonize with those of the New-Test. writers (comp. Isa 42:1 sq.; Mt 12:17 sq.); but from this the Sept. differs, and at other times the N.T. writers differ from this Targum. Isaiah 53 it recognizes as referring to the Messiah, and assumes a suffering and expiatory Messiah. Its author nevertheless here, as well as elsewhere (Mic 5; Mic 1), indulges in many perversions. He seems to have entertained-in germ, at least-the idea, which became further developed in the Talmud, of a Messiah submitting to obscurity for the sake of the sins of the people, and then appearing in glory (comp. Mic 4:8 with Zec 3:8; Zec 4:7). There is little doubt that the text has received several interpolations. To this head Zunz (op. cit. p. 63, 282) refers all that is hostile to Rome, e.g. Ex 39:16; 1Sa 2:5; Isa 34:9. So, too, Armillus, in Isa 11:14. To these may be added perhaps Germania, from Gomer, in Eze 38:6, the superstitious legend inserted in Isa 10:32 relative to the army and camp of Sennacherib; and the peculiar story about Sisera (Jg 5:8). Even Rashi speaks of interpolations in the text of Jonathan (Eze 47:19); and Wolf says (Bibl. Heb. 2, 1165), "Quse vero, vel quod ad voces et barbaras, vel ad res metate ejus inferiores, ant futilia nonnulla, quamvis pauca triplicis hujus generis exstent, ibi occurrunt, ea merito falsarii cujusdam ingenio adscribuntur." The printed text of the Antwerp Polyglot confirms this supposition of interpolations, since several of them are wanting there. So long as we have no critical edition of this Targum, we must be careful to draw the inference, as did Morinus and Voss, in favor of a very late origin of the Targum; for a perusal of the recently published edition of this Targum by Lagarde, from the Codex Reuchlin, and its comparison with our present editions, will only show the corrupt state in which the text at present is.

The style of Jonathan is, upon the whole, the same as that of Onkelos. Eichhorn and Berthold asserted that this Targum teems with "exotic words." Yet, notwithstanding their assertion, we believe that Carpzov (Crit. Sacra, p. 461) is correct when he says, "Cujus nitor sermonis Chaldai et dictionis laudatur puritas, ad Onkelosum proxime accedens et purum deflectens a puro tersoque Chaldaismo Biblico." The text lying at the basis of the Targum is the Masoretic one; yet it differs from the Masoretic text in various places, where it appears to follow preferable readings. But the freedom which the translator took makes it difficult to tell in every case what particular form of the text lay before him. Hence great caution must be used in applying the Targum to critical purposes, and the more so as we have not as yet a critical edition.

We subjoin from the art. "Targum" in Smith's Dict. of the Bible the following specimens of this Targum from different books:

3. Literature. — For the editions, translations, and oldbr literature, see Fürst, Bibl. Jud. 2, 106 sq.; Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. 2, 1166; Le Long (ed. Masch), II, 1, 39 sq.; Rosenmüller, Handbuch, 3, 9 sq.; Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten (Breslau, 1872); Lagarde, Prophetae Chaldaice. Efide Codicis Reuchliniani (Lips. 1872 sq.); Bacher, Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum, in the Zeit schrift d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesellschaft 1874, 28:1 sq.; 1875, 29:157 sq., 319 sq. SEE JONATHAN BENUZZIEL.

IV. The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerushalmi on the Pentateuch. — The greater simplicity which characterized the older Targums soon ceased to satisfy the progressively degenerating taste of the Jews, especially after the Talmud began to assume a written form. Hence Targums marked by greater laxity soon began to be written which embraced more the opinions peculiar to the age, and furnished the text with richer traditional addenda. Of these latitudinarian Targums we possess two on the Pentateuch-the one known by the name of Pseudo-Jonathan, inasmuch as writers of a later period ascribe it to the author of the Targum on the Prophets; and the commonly so-called Targum Hierosolymitanum or Jerushalmi.

1. Pseudo Jonathan. This paraphrase is falsely ascribed to Jonathan ben- Uzziel. It extends from the first verse of Genesis to the last of Deuteronomy. The way in which it came to be regarded as his is supposed to have been the mistake of a copyist, who made out of ת8 8י, i.e. Targum Jerushalmi. ת8יונתן, Targum Jonathan. Proof is not needed at the present day to show that the Jonathan of the prophets is not the Jonathan of the Pentateuch, for he could have little to do with a Targum which speaks of Constantinople (Nu 24:19,24), describes very plainly the breaking-up of the West-Roman empire (ver. 19-24), mentions the Turks (Ge 10:2), and even Mohammed's two wives, Chadija and Fatima (Ge 21:21), and which not only exhibits the fullest acquaintance with the edited body of the Babylonian Talmud, by quoting entire passages from it, but adopts its peculiar phraseology: not to mention the complete disparity between the style, language, and general manner of the Jonathanic Targum on the Prophets, and those of this one on the Pentateuch, strikingly palpable at first sight. This was recognized by early investigators (Morinus, Pfeiffer, Walton, etc.), who soon overthrew the old belief in Jonathan ben-Uzziel's authorship, as upheld by Menahem Rekanati, Asariah de Rossi, Gedaljah, Galatin, Fagius, etc. The work of the Pseudo- Jonathan is not a version. It is rather a paraphrase, though by no means exclusively so. Neither is it a Haggadic commentary. Version and paraphrase are interwoven throughout, the author seldom confining himself to simple explanation, but proceeding to large Midrashim. Halachah and Haggadah are richly imbedded in the work, the latter especially. His legends are rich and copious. His Haggadah is not historical; it is ethical, religious, metaphysical, lyrical, and parabolic. It has been well observed that he is only the interpreter of the ideas prevailing in his time-the narrator of traditions, religious and national, not their inventor, because most of them are found in preceding literature, or, as Zunz states it, "almost all his explanations and embellishments coinciding with the Haggadah we find occurring in the other Haggadic writings; the few which are peculiar to him he has not devised, any more than Jonathan has devised his interpretation of the prophets. In both the culture of the age and the potency of traditional ideas are manifest" (Gottesd. Vortrage, p. 72). To these embellishments belongs the manner in which events and characters are dressed out hyperbolically in Jonathan's Midrashim; not only the Biblical heroes, as was natural, but even the enemies of the Jewish nation. Thus Og carries on his head a piece of rock sufficient to bury all the camp of Israel beneath its weight (Nu 21:35). A mountain possessed of divine virtues is suspended in the air over the children of Israel (Ex 19:17), etc. Many examples are given by Zunz (op. cit. p 72, note b) to show, against Winer and Petermann, that all these stories were not invented by Pseudo-Jonathan, but borrowed from traditional usage. The ethical Haggadah is perhaps the best part of the work, for here the exegete becomes didactic. Thus we are told in Genesis 40 that Joseph suffered two additional years of imprisonment because he built on man's rather than God's help, a view also espoused by Rashi. The region of the supernatural is treated very freely by Jonathan. His angelology is marvelous. He has the names of many angels outside the circle of the Bible, as Samael, Gabriel, Uriel, Saglnugael, etc. We find rhetorical or poetical digressions in Ge 22:14 (the prayer of Abraham on Mount Moriah), De 34:6 (the hymn on Moses death); Ge 49:4; Nu 21:34; De 32:50 (parables). Like Onkelos and others, he avoids anthropomorphic ideas, and is averse to ascribe superhuman attributes to heathen gods. The Halachah is also brought within the circle of his paraphrase, and its results employed in the exposition. This part of Jonathan's version has of late been treated by Dr. S. Gronemann, in his Die jonathanische Pentateuch-Uebersetzung in ihrem Verhalltniss zur Jalacha (Leipsic, 1879).

The language of this Targum shows it to be of Palestinian origin, as it is in what is called the Jerusalem dialect, like that of the Jerusalem Talmud, but with many peculiarities. It is far from being pure, because the Syriac had deeply affected it. Foreign elements enter into it largely, such as Ge 50:7, אוקיינוס = ὠκεανός (2, 6; Nu 34:6); ver. 9, דוכתא = δοχεῖον, or δοχή; ver. 20, אויר = ἀήρ; 2, 12, בורלין = βήρυλλος, Syr. ברולא; 3, 4, דילטור = delator; 4:6, איקונין = εἰκόνες; 6:2, פקס, from πείκω, or πείξω, or πέκω; ver. 9, גניסא = γένεσις, γέννησις, γένος; Syr. גנס and גנסא, etc.; comp. Petermann. De Duabus Pentateuchi Paraphrasibus' Chaldaicis, particula 1, p. 66 sq., where a collection of these foreign words is given. The names of Constantinople and Lombardy, and even of two of Mohammed's wives, which occur in this paraphrase, besides the many foreign words, prove the Targum to have originated in the second half of the 7th century. That Jonathan had Onkelos before him, a very slight comparison of both will show. Many places attach themselves almost verbally to Onkelos, as Ge 20:1-15. Indeed, one object which the Pseudo-Jonathan had in view was to give a criticism upon Onkelos. He corrects and alters him more or less. Where Onkelos paraphrases, Jonathan enlargest 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 Onkelos are slight, sometimes important and they are often superior 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 primarily on the latter, but upon another paraphrase; or, in other words, he worked upon Onkelos indirectly in the first instance because his whole production rests on the basis of the Jerushalmi, or Jerusalem, Targum. But, before proceeding with our observation on the Pseudo-Jonathan, let us speak of

2. The Jerushalmi, or Jerusalem, Targum — The Jerusalem Targum, written in the same dialect substantially 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. Judging from the rounded and complete form in which the different parts are given, we may infer that it is now in its primitive state. If so, it cannot 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 Jerusaleni Targum. Indeed, there is often a verbal agreement, or nearly so, between them, so that one might at first 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 fragmentary recension of it. The latter opinion is held by Zunz. But against this there are many arguments, especially the fact that the work is complete and rounded off in many parts. 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 angels: Michael is the only one ever occurring. In Jonathan, on the other hand, angelology flourishes with great vigor: to the Biblical 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 millions 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 Haggadah: 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 indicate 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 difference between them, however, and the one, which is most characteristic of either, is this, that while Jerushalmi 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 Memra, 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? Only 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-Jonathan afterwards resumed the same office, and completed what his predecessor had begun. The Jerusalem Targum formed the basis of Jonathan, and its own basis was that of Onkelos, Jonathan used both his predecessors paraphrases, the author of the Jerusalem Targum that of Onkelos alone. There is no doubt that the small glossarial passages of the Jerusalem Targum are intended as a critical 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 anthropomorphisms from the text had obscured the sense, the Jerusalem Targum restores the original meaning by some addition or change. Thus in Ge 6:6, 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 Aramaean one, as in Ge 8:22, where the קִיטָא of Onkelos is displaced for שׁוֹרַבָא. So in Ge 34:12, where Onkelos has מוֹהֲרַין וּמִתּנָו, the Jerusalem Targum puts פּוֹוִן וּכתוּבתָּא. Vice versa, the Jerusalem Targum often prefers a Hebrew word to Onkelos's Aramaean one, perhaps because the latter was better known in Palestine, as in Ge 22:24. There is, indeed, no uniformity between Onkelos and Jerusalem in the use of Aramaean words, while consistent divergences may be readily traced. After all that has been said there can be no doubt that the general object of the author of the Jerusalem Targum was to correct and explain Onkelos, adapting it to a later time and different country by enriching it with the Haggadic lore which had accumulated, 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 Peterman has collated them (op. cit. p. 60 sq.). It is this fragmentary Jerusalem Targum to which Jonathan had regard in the first instance. He uses the larger paraphrases and Haggadic parts of it, as well as the smaller variations from Onkelos, but always with discretion. More commonly the Haggadah of the Jerusalem Targum is simplified and abridged. Nor does Jonathan follow Onkelos implicitly, but often diverges. If he does not adhere consistently to the Jerusalem Targum, we need not expect to see him copying 'Onkelos.' Thus in Ge 7:11; Ge 22:24, he leaves Onkelos for the Jerusalem Targum. It should also be observed that Jonathan relies upon Onkelos much more than the Jerusalem Targum, which is freer and more independent. Thus the former follows Onkelos, and the latter departs from him in Ge 11:30; Ge 12:6,15; Ge 13:6; Ge 14:5,21; Ge 16:7,15; Ge 19:31; Ge 20:18, etc. The interval of time between the Jerusalem 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 upon the margins of the Pentateuch, or an abridgment of Onkelos" (Alix, 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 and complete Jerusalem 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 authors and now wanting, which Zunz has brought together, need a great deal of sifting and correction, as has been ably shown by Seligsohn in Frankel's Monatsschrift, 1857, p. 113. The view of the relation now given between Onkelos, the Jerusalem Targum, and Pseudo-Jonathan was briefly advocated by Frankel (op. cit. 1846, p. 111 sq.) 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- Jonathan 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 princeps, having Onkelos and the Jerusalem Targum. It is also in the London Polyglot, vol. 4. 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 Rabbinical Bibles issued by himand 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-Jonathan and Jerusalem Targums by David ben-Jacob Zebrecyn (Prague, 1609), entitled ותרגום ירושלמי פירוש על תרגום יונתן; by Mordecai ben-Naphtali Hirsch (Amsterdam, 1671), entitled קטרת הסמים, but על תרגום יונתן וירושלמי פירוש is given in the Pentateuch edition published at Wilna in 1859. R. Pheibel benDavid (Hanau, 1614), author of באוד המלות, did not compose, as the writer of the art. "Targum" in Kitto states, a commentary on Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerushalmi, but an elucidation of difficult words found in Jonathan's Targum.

We subjoin the following specimens from Genesis and Deuteronomy, selected at random:

4. Literature. Winer, De Jonathanis in Pentateuchum Paraphrasi Chaldaica (Erlangen, 1823); Petermann, De Duabus Pentateuchi Paraphrasibus Chaldaicis, pt. 1; De Indole Paraphraseos quas Jonathanis esse dicitur (Berolin. 1829); Bar, Geist des Jeruschalnzi (PseudoJonathan), in Frankel's Monatsschrift, 1851-52, p. 235-242; Seligsohn and Traub, Ueber den Geist der Urebersetzung des Jonathan ben-Usiel zum Pentateuch und die. Abfassung des in den Editionen dieser Uebersetzung beigedruckten Targum Jeruschalmi, in Frankel's Monatsschrift, 1857, p. 96-114, 138-149; Geiger, Das Jerusalemische Targum zzum Pentateuch, in the Urschrift u. Uebersetzung der Bibel (Breslau, 1857), p. 457-480; Seligsohn, De Duabus Hierosolymitanis Pentateuchi Paraphrasibus (ibid. 1858); Gronemann, Die Jonathan'sche Pentateuch-Uebersetzung, etc. (Leips. 1879).

V. Targqums on the Hagiographa. — These Targums are generally divided into three groups, viz.: a. Job, Psalms, Proverbs; b. The five Megilloth; c. Daniel, Chronicles, and Ezra. Tradition ascribes to R. Joseph the Blind the authorship of this Targum, but this is contradicted by writers even of the 13th century (see Zunz, op. cit. p. 65).

1. The Targum on the Book of Job. — A feature of this Targum is its Haggadical character.: As early as the middle of the 1st century a paraphrase on the book of Job is: mentioned. Its difficulty, but more especially its adaptation to allegorizing fancies, presented a peculiar temptation to Chaldee expositors. In many places we find a double Targum. After one interpretation, which is always free in character, another still more paraphrastic is annexed with the introductory, ת8 8א, i.e. תרגום אחר, another Targum (comp. Job 18:7-8,18). The extraneous insertions are very numerous, uncertain, fabulous, and incorrect. Thus at 2, 1 we read, "And the three friends of Job heard of all the evil that had come upon him when they had seen the trees of his garden burned up, and the bread of his food changed into living flesh, and the wine of his drink into blood; and they came each one from his place, and for this service they were delivered from the place appointed them in Gehenna." In Job 1:15 the words of the original ותפל על שבא are rendered לילית ממלכת זמרגד ונפלת בתכיŠ, "and the queen of Samarcand (?) suddenly rushed in." If Samarcand be really mentioned, the date is late. The language is intermixed with Greek and Latin words in the same degree as the Palestinian Targumim and Midrashim. Thus the word אנגלי, ἄγγελος (angel), is used in Job 15:15; Job 20:27; Job 35:10. Bacher also finds in this Targum the Latin word delator, and comes to the conclusion that the author lived in Palestine, under Roman dominion, in the 4th or 5th century, while the writer of the art. "Targum" in Kitto states that "the work is a growth belonging to various times and writers, of which the beginning and end cannot be precisely determined." With regard to the Masoretic text, the Targum of Job agrees sometimes with the Sept. (as Job 19:29: בי, Targ. ביה, Sept. ἐν αὐτῷ; Job 22:21: ִתבואת, Targ. ִעללת, Sept. καρπός σου; Job 31:32: לאוֹרִח, Targ. לאכסניא, Sept. ξένος, both אירֵח),or with the Peshito (comp. Job 3:8; Job 6:16; Job 7:4; Job 9:7; Job 16:10; Job 26:10; Job 33:28). Often the reading of the Targum has to be explained from an interchange of letters, thus:

ר and ד— Job 24:24; רמו, Tar. דמו (אורוכו).

אּ " Job 5:5; אל, " חל (פולמוסין).

Job 30:3; שואה, " שוחה (שוחא).

Job 28:7; איה, " חיה (חוה).

אּ and מ Job 7:4; ומדד,Tar. ואדד (ונדדית).

ִח " מ Job 30:12; פרחה, " פרח (בניהון).

ה " ת Job 17:2; ובתמֻרות םובהמרותם(ובפירוגיהון).

י " ו — Job 19:28; בי, " בו (ביה).

י " ו — Job 28:7; איה, " חוה (חוה).

Job 22:29; עינים, " עונים (סורחנא).

Job 36:10; און, " אין(דדמיןלמא).

נ " ש — Job 7:9; ענן, " עשן (היכמא דפסק ( תננאJob 36:20; תשאŠ, " תנאŠ (תגיר).

In two cases the variation is to be accounted for by hearing amiss, viz. Job 29:22, where, instead of תטŠ, תיטב (תשפר), and Job 39:23, where, for תרנה, תרמה (תשדי) is read. The number is greater where the vowel-points differ from those of the Masorah. Variations of this kind may amount to about thirty.

The Targum on Job was published by John Terentius (Franek. 1663) [the text being that of Buxtorf, and the Latin translation that of Arias Montanus], with notes, consisting of various readings and explanations of Chaldee words. The Latin version of Alphonso de Zamora was published with notes by John Mercier (ibid. 1663), and Victorius Scialai translated it into Latin (Rome, 1618). This Targum has been treated by Bacher, in Gratz's Monatsschrift, 1871, p. 208-223, and by Weiss, De Libri Jobi Paraphrasi Chaldaica (Vratisl. 1873).

2. The Targum on the Psalms. — This Targum is not so Haggadic or diffuse as that of Job. Sometimes it follows the original with a tolerable degree of closeness, as in 1, 3, 5, 6:etc. In more cases, however, it indulges in prolix digressions, absurd fables, and commonplace remarks. Two or three different versions of the same text occasionally follow one another without remark, though the introductory notice ת8 8א, i.e. אחר תרגום, sometimes precedes (comp. Ps 110:1). The additions to the text are often inappropriate, the sense distorted, the titles wrongly paraphrased, and fables are abundant. Thus in ex, 1 the paraphrase has, "The Lord said in his word that he would appoint me lord of all Israel; but he said to me again, Wait for Saul, who is of the tribe of Benjamin, till he die, because he does not agree in the kingdom with an associate; and afterwards I will make thine enemies thy footstool," to which is subjoined ת8 8א, thus, "The Lord said in his word that he would give me the dominion because I was intent upon the doctrine of the law of his right hand wait till I make thine enemy the footstool of thy feet." Deviations from the Masoretic text are numerous. On the whole, the linguistic character of this Targum corresponds with that on Job, and resembles that of the Jerusalem Targum. It abounds in Greek words; thus, besides the ἄγγελοι, occurring also in Job, we meet with δῶρον, 20:4; πέλαγος, 46:3; κύρνος, 53:1, and 97:10; νῆσος, 72:10; πλατεῖα, 58:12; κύριος, 73:13; ὅχλος, 89:7; συνέδριον, 57:32; χάλκωμα, 18:34, etc. According to Bacher, Das Targum zu den Psalmen, in Gratz's Monatsschrift, 1872, p. 408416; 463-473, the author of this Targum is the same as that of Job. Davidson, in Kitto's Cyclop. s.v. "Targum," thinks that, "like the Targum on Job, this one is an accumulation of expositions extending over centuries." The Targum on the Psalms was printed in Justiniani's Polyglot Psalter (Genoa, 1516), and in the Hexaglot edition of the Psalter, published at Rostock, 1643. It is also printed in the latest Rabbinical Bible (Warsaw. 1875). The Antwerp and following Polyglots (1572, 1645, 1657) contain the Latin version of Arias Montanus. From the Codex Reuchlin, it was published by Lagarde in his Hagiographa Chaldaice (Leips. 1873), and republished by Nestle in his Psalterium Tetraglottum (Tüb. 1877-79).

3. The Targum on Proverbs. — This Targum is not Haggadic, and adheres more closely to the original text. Its remarkable agreement with the Syriac version has often been noticed an agreement which extends even to the choice and position of words, comp. 1, 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 13; 2, 9, 10, 13-15; 3, 2-9; 4:1-3, 26; 5, 1, 2, 4, 5; 8:27; 10:3-5; 26:1; 27:2, 5, 6, 8; 29:5, 6; 31:31. Dathe, in his De Ratione Consensus Versionis Chaldaicae et Syriacae Proverbiorum Solononis (Lips. 1764), was the first who gave special attention to this fact, and came to the conclusion that the Chaldee interpreter was dependent on the Syriac. He endeavors to prove his position by many pertinent arguments, such as that the Syriac explains Aramaean departures from the Hebrew most naturally, and that many Syriacisms in words, forms, and orthography appear in the version which are otherwise unknown to Chaldee, or at least are very rare. Eichhorn and Volck take the same view. Havernick denies the use of the one by the other, endeavoring to account for their similarity by the cognate dialects in which both are written, the identity of country in which they had their origin, and their literality. Davidson, in Kitto's Cyclopaedia, is inclined to believe that, the Targum having been made in Syria, the Syriac as well as the Hebrew was consulted, or rather the Greek through the medium of the Syriac. While the Hebrew was the basis, the Syriac was freely used. Different entirely is the opinion of Maybaum, who takes the opposite ground to that of Dathe, Eichhorn, and others. He believes that the Syriac interpreter was dependent on the Chaldee. The statements in the art. SEE SYRIAC VERSION, ITS RELATION TO THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHALDEE, in this Cyclopaedia, confirm this view. The greatest obstacle in all these disquisitions is the want of a critical text, and Maybaum, who compared the different readings together with an ancient codex preserved at Breslau, has come to the conclusion that Dathe s evidence is based upon corrupt readings. As to the original language of this Targum, Dathe (op. cit. p. 125) expresses it as his opinion that it was originally written in Syriac, the Chaldaisms which we find at present having been interpolated by Jews: "Nempe Judmei utebantur versionibus Syriacis, quas legere atque intelligere ob summam utriusque linguae consensionem paterant. Sed.mutabant eas passim, partim ad suse dialecti proprietatem, partim ad lectionem textus Hebrei inter eos receptam." His hypothesis is based upon the fact that the Chaldee in 18:22 agrees with the Hebrew מצא אשה מצא טוב, and while the other versions read טובה after אשה, the Chaldee agrees with the Hebrew. But it is evident that because the word is wanting in one MS., this inference cannot be drawn concerning all others. The fact in the matter is, that only in Walton's edition does the Chaldee agree with the Hebrew text; while others, as Dathe himself admits, have the word טובה. And, after all, how is it that the Chaldee so often deviates from the Masoretic text? Whence is it that so many Chaldaisms are found even in those codices which, in the passage quoted above, do not agree with the Masoretic text? The answer is that, as the Chaldaisms in our Targum are as original as the Syriacisms, we have here evidently to do with a mixed dialect; and from the analysis given on the linguistic peculiarities, Maybaum comes to the conclusion that the language of the Targum on Proverbs is Syro-Chaldaic, and the original language of the author. The relation of the Chaldee to the Syriac version having already been treated at some length in the art. SEE SYRIAC VERSION, ITS RELATION TO THE SEPTUAGINT AND CHALDEE, we can only refer to it. If the hypothesis of Maybaum, which we have adopted, be true, viz. that the Syriac depended upon the Chaldee, not vice versa for even Davidson admits that "a uniform dependence of the Aramaean upon the Syriac cannot be sustained" the Targum on Proverbs must have existed at a very early period; at any rate, Davidson acknowledges that the Targum on Proverbs is older than those on Job and Psalms, in this respect following Zunz. This being so, we do not err in assuming that the Targum on Proverbs belongs to the 2d or 3d century. It is generally found in the Polyglot and Rabbinical Bibles. It was translated into Latin by Alphonso de Zamora and John Mercier. See, besides Dathe s treatise, already mentioned, Maybaum, Ueber die Sprache des Targum zu den Spriichen und dessen Verhdltniss zum Syrer, in Merx's Archiv für wissenschcftliche Forschung des Alten Testaments, 2, 66 sq.

4. The Targum on the Five Megilloth, i.e. on Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations, is, according to Zunz, a Midrashic paraphrase, exceedingly loose and free in character, containing legends, fables, allusions to Jewish history, and many fanciful additions. The whole bears the impress of a date considerably posterior to the Talmudic time, and is written in an intermediate dialect between, the West Aramaean of Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, and the East Aramaean of the Babylonian Talmud. The least Haggadic is Ruth, the most rhapsodical that of Song of Solomon. Delitzsch (Gesch. d. jüd. Poesie, p. 135) thinks that "the Targums on the five Megilloth are the most beautiful national works of art, through which there runs the golden thread of Scripture, and which are held together only by the unity of the idea." Whether these Targums are the work of one or different persons cannot be well decided. The former is the opinion of Zunz, Volck, and Deutsch, the latter that of Davidson.

(1.) The Targum on Ruth was published separately with a Latin translation and scholia by John Mercier (Paris, 1564), and the following specimen will give a fair idea of the same: Ru 2:10-11," Why have I found pity in thine eves to know me, and I of a strange people, of the daughters of Moab, and of a people who are not clean to enter into the Church of the Lord? And Boaz answered and said to her, In telling it has been told me by the saying of the wise men, that when the 'Lord decreed, he did not decree respecting women, but men; and it was said to me in prophecy that kings and prophets are about to spring from thee on account of the good thou hast done," etc.

(2.) The paraphrase on Lamentations is more Midrashic than that on Ruth, but of the same type, being copiously interwoven with pieces of history, allegory, fables, reflections, etc.

(3.) The paraphrase on Ecclesiastes is more Midrashic than the former, the author having given a free rein to his imagination and made copious insertions. The following verses will best illustrate the character of this paraphrase. In 1, 2, we read:

"When Solomon the king of Israel foresaw, by the spirit of prophecy, that the kingdom of Rehoboam his son would be divided with Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and that Jerusalem and the holy temple would be destroyed, and that the people of Israel would be led into captivity, he said, by the Divine Word, Vanity of vanities is this world; vanity of vanities is all which I and my father, David, have labored for, all of it is vanity... (ver. 12,13). When king Solomon was sitting upon the throne of his kingdom, his heart became very proud of his riches, and he transgressed the Word of God, and he gathered many horses and chariots and riders, and he amassed much gold and silver, and he married from foreign nations, whereupon the anger of the Lord was kindled against him; and he sent to him Ashmoda, the king of the daemons, who drove him from the throne of his kingdom, and took away the ring from his hand, in order that he should roam and wander about in the world to reprove it; and he went about in the provincial towns and the cities of the land of Israel, weeping and lamenting, and saying, I am Coheleth, whose name was formerly called Solomon, who was king over Israel in Jerusalem: and I gave my heart to ask instruction of God at the time when he appeared unto me in Gibeon, to try me, and to ask me what I desire of him; and I asked nothing of him except wisdom, to know the difference between good and evil, and knowledge of whatsoever was done under the sun in this world, and I saw all the works of the wicked children of men-a sad business which God gave to the children of men to be afflicted by it." As this Targum has been translated into English by Ginsburg, in his Commentary on, Ecclesiastes (London, 1861), the reader, by perusing the same, will be enabled to judge for himself better than by any extracts.

(4.) The Targum on Song of Solomon is the most Haggadic of all, and hardly deserves the name of a paraphrase, because the words of the original are: completely covered by extravagant and inflated expressions (nugae atque frivolitates") which refer to another subject. "The paraphrast has indulged in the greatest license, and allowed his imagination to run riot in a multiplicity of ways." He has composed a panegyric on his people, describing prophetically the history of the Jewish nation, beginning with their exode from Egypt, and detailing their doings and sufferings down to the coming of the Messiah and the building of the third Temple. Thus, according to this allegory, 1:3 relates Jehovah's fame which went abroad in consequence of the wonders he wrought when bringing the Israelites out of Egypt; ver. 12 describes the departure of Moses to receive the two tables of stone, and how the Israelites in the meantime' made the golden calf; ver. 14 particularizes the pardon of that sin and the erection of the tabernacle; 3:6-11 refers to the passage of the Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, over the Jordan, their attacking and conquering the Canaanites, and the building of Solomon's Temple; 5:2 describes the Babylonian captivity; 6:2 represents the deliverance of Israel through Cyrus, and the building of the second Temple; ver. 7, etc., names the battles of the Maccabees; 7:11,12 represents the present dispersion of the Jews, and their future anxiety to learn the time of their restoration; 8:5, etc., describes the resurrection of the dead, the final ingathering of Israel, the building of the third Temple, etc.

The very first verse of this Targum reads thus: "The songs and praises which Solomon the prophet, king of Israel, sang by the spirit of prophecy, before God, the Lord of the whole world. Ten songs were sung in this world, but this song is the most celebrated of them all. The first song Adam sang when his sins were forgiven him, and when the Sabbath-day came and protected him he opened his mouth and said, 'A song for lie Sabbath-day,' etc. (Psalm 92). The second song Moses and the children of Israel sang when the Lord of the world divided the Red Sea for them. They all opened their mouths and sang as one man the song as it is written, 'Then sang Moses and the children of Israel' (Ex 15:1). The third song the children of Israel sang when the well of water was given to them, as it is written, 'Then sang Israel' (Nu 21:17). The fourth song Moses the prophet sang when his time came to depart front- this world, in which he reproved the people of the house of Israel, as it is written, 'Give ear, 0 heavens, and I will speak' (De 32:1). The fifth song Joshua the son of Nun sang when he waged 'war in Gibeon, and the sun and moon stood still for him thirty-six hours; and when they left off singing their song, he himself opened his month and sang this song, as it is written, Then sang Joshua before the Lord' (Jos 10:12). The sixth song Barak and Deborah sang in the day when the Lord delivered Sisera and his army into the hands of the children of Israel, as it is written, 'Then sang Deborah, etc. (Jg 5:11). The seventh song Hannah sang when a son was given her by the Lord, as it is written, 'And Hannah prayed prophetically and said' (1Sa 2:1, and the Targum, ad loc.). The eighth song David the son of Israel sang for all the wonders which the Lord did for him. He opened his mouth and sang a hymn, as it is written, 'And David sang in prophecy before the Lord' (2Sa 22:1, and the Targum, ad loc.). The ninth song Solomon the king of Israel sang by the Holy Spirit before God, the Lord of the whole world. And the tenth song the children of the captivity shall sing when they shall be delivered from their captivity, as it is written and declared by Isaiah the prophet, 'This song shall be unto you for joy, as in the night in which the feast of the Passover is celebrated; and gladness of heart as when the people go to appear before the Lord three times in the year, with all kinds of music, and with the sound of the timbrel, to go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to worship before the Lord the mighty one of Israel' (Isa 30:29)." From this specimen it will be seen how far the learned Broughton was correct in saying that the paraphrase "is worth our-study, both for delight and profit." This Targum is found in the Rabbinical Bibles; it has been translated into Latin, and is also accessible to English readers in the translation of Gill, at the end of his Commentary on the Song of Solomon (Lond. 1751), p. 535 sq.

(5.) The Targum, or rather Targums, on Esther; The book of Esther, enjoying, both through its story like form and the early injunction of its being read or heard by every one on the Feast of Purim, a great circulation and popularity, has been targumized many times. One translation of concise form, and adhering closely to the text, occurs in the Antwerp Polyglot (vol. 3); it was issued enlarged with glosses by Tailer in Targum Prius et Posterius in Esther, studiis F. Taileri (Lond. 1655), and forms the Targum Prius which is contained in the London Polyglot. Much more prolix, and amplilying still more the legends of this Targum (comp. 1:2, 11; 2:5, 7; 3:1; 5:14, etc.) is the Targum Posterius in Tailer, it being "a collection of Eastern romances, broken up and arranged to the single verses; if gorgeous hues and extravagant imagination, such as are to be met with in the Adsharib or Chamis, or any Eastern collection of legends and tales." Its final redaction probably belongs to the 11th century. This is the view of Dr. Munk, the latest editor of this second Targum, one of the tales of which runs as follows:

"One day when the king (Solomon) was again full of wine, he commanded that all wild animals, the fowls of the air, and the creeping animals of the earth, as well as the devils, daemons, and spirits, be brought to him, that they might dance before him, and behold, with all the kings who were with him, his glory. The royal scribe called them by their name, and they all congregated before the king, with the exception of the wild cock. At this the king angrily commanded that he should be sought for, and when found, should be brought in, intending to kill him. Then said the wild cock to the king, My lord king, trive heed and hear my words! For three months I weighed in my mind, and flew about in the whole world ill search of a town which does not obey thee. I saw then a city in the East, of the name of Kitor, in which are many people, and a woman governs them all; she is called queen of Sheba. If it please thee, my lord king, I shall go to that city, bind their kings in chains, and their rulers with iron fetters, and bring them hither. As it pleased the king, writers were called who wrote letters and bound them to the wings of the wild cock. He came to the queen, who, observing the letter tied to the wing, loosened it and read the following contents: From me, king Solomon, greeting to thee and to thy princes! Thou knowest well that God has made me king over the beasts of the field, over the birds of heaven, over daemons, spirits, and goblins. The kings from all regions of the earth approach me with homage: wilt thou do this, thou shalt have great honor; if not, I will send upon thee kings, legions, and horsemen. The kings are the beasts of the field; the horsemen the birds of heaven, the hosts, daemons and spirits; the goblius are 'the legions who shall strangle you in your beds. When the queen had read this, she rent her garments and called for the elders and lords, saying, Know ye what king Solomon has sent to me? They answered, We neither know nor esteem him. The queen, however, trusting them not, called for sailors and sent presents to the king, and after three years she came herself. The king, on hearing of her arrival, sat in a crystal hall to receive her, which made her fancy that he was, sitting in water; she therefore uncovered her feet to pass through. On seeing his glory, she said; May the Lord thy God be praised who has found pleasure in thee and made thee sit on the throne to exercise mercy and justice." We have purposely selected this: piece from the first chapter, because it is also found in an abridged form in the Koran (sura 27). With a commentary, the second Targum is found in the Warsaw Rabbinical Bible. A separate edition, with various readings, notes, etc., was published by Munk, Targum Scheni zoum Buche Esther (Berlin, 1876). It has lately been translated by Cassel, in an appendix to his Das Buch Esther. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Morgenlandes (ibid. 1878). It has been treated in an essay by Reiss, Das Targum Scheni zu dem Buche Esther, in the Monatsschrift edited by Gratz, 1876, p. 161 sq., 276 sq., 398 sq.

5. The Targum on the Books of Chronicles. — This is preserved in three codices. The oldest, bearing the date of 1294, is in the Vatican, known as Cod. Urbin. I, and is still awaiting a critical edition or perusal. A second codex, of the year 1343, belonging to the Erfurt Library, was published by Beck (Augsburg, 1680-83, 2 vols.), and edited with a Latin translation and learned annotations. The Erfurt MS. has many chasms, especially in the first fourteen chapters. The third codex, of the year 1347, and belonging to the University of Cambridge, was published by David Wilkins (Amster. 1715). Here the text is complete, so that the lacuna in Beck's edition are filled. Like its predecessor, it has also a Latin version, but there are no notes. Great as was Wilkins's ability for editing this Targum, yet it speaks badly for his knowledge that he has put on the title-page R. Joseph as the author (though Beck was of the same opinion), and that he has made him rector of the academy in Syria, instead of Sora in Babylonia. Wilkins's edition was lately republished from a copy found at Prague by Dr. Rahmer, under the title של דברי הימי תרגום (Thorn, 1866), and the deviations from Beck's edition are given in notes. We cannot enter here upon a comparison of the Erfurt codex with that of Cambridge. As to the authorship of this Targum, its ascription to R. Joseph the Blind must be regarded as exploded. Whether it is the work of one author or of more cannot now be decided. Language, style, manner, and Haggadic paraphrase show its Palestinian origin. Zunz remarks that it sometimes transcribes the Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch verbally, as in the genealogical table of the first chapter (comp. ver. 51 with the Jerusalem Targum on Ge 36:39). So, also, in the psalm passages in 1 Chronicles 16 its words often coincide with the Targum on Ps 105; Ps 96. The origin of this Targum cannot be put earlier than the 8th century; or, as the most recent writer on this Targum thinks, the older text, as preserved in the Erfurt codex, belongs to the middle of the 8th century, and the later, as preserved in the Cambridge codex, to the beginning of the 9th. Owing to the late origin of this Targum, we must not be surprised at finding the name of Hungary occurring in it, as well as some other foreign words, besides many fables, especially in the explanation of proper names. For critical purposes both editions must be used-the first, Paraphrasis Chaldaica Libr. Chronicorum, cura M. F. Beckii, for the learned notes; the second, Paraphrasis… auctore R. Josepho, etc., for the more correct and complete text. The writer of the art. "Targum" in Smith's Dict. of the Bible states that "the science of exegesis will profit little by it" (this Targum). What we know of the subject induces us to hold an opposite opinion (see Frankel, Monatsschrifi, 1867, p. 349 sq.; but, more especially, Rosenberg, Das Targum zur Chronik, in Geiger's Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1870, p. 72 sq., 135 sq., 263 sq.).

6. The Targum on Daniel. — The existence of this work was first noticed by Munk, who thinks that he found it in a MS. in the Imperial Library at Paris (No. 45 du Fonds de St. Germain-des-Pres). The MS., however, contains only a Persian Targum, giving an apocryphal account of Daniel. According to the learned writer, this קצה דניאל, or History of Daniel, was taken from a Targum on Daniel in Chaldee. The first words are written in Chaldee, they are then repeated in Persian, and the history continues in the latter language. After several legends known from other Targums, follows a long prophecy of Daniel, from which the book is shown to have been written after the first Crusade. Mohammed and his successors are mentioned, also a king who, coming from Europe (אז רומיאן), will go to Damascus, and kill the Ishmaelitic (Mohammedan) kings and princes; he will break down the minarets (מנארה), destroy the mosques (מסגדהא), and no one will after that dare to pronounce the name of the Profane (פסול = Mohammed). The Jews will also have to suffer great misfortunes (as, indeed, the knightly Crusaders won their spurs by dastardly murdering. the helpless masses-men, women, and children in the Ghettos along the Rhine and elsewhere, before they started to deliver the holy tomb). By a sudden transition, the prophet then passes on to the "Messiah son of Joseph," to Gog and Magog, and to the "true Messiah, the son of David." Munk rightly concludes that the book must have been composed in the 12th century, When Christian kings reigned for a brief period over Jerusalem (Notice sur Saadia [Par. 1838], p. 82). According to the description here given, there can be no doubt that it is the same which Zotenberg published some years ago, in Persian, with a German translation, in Merx's Archiv, 1, 385 sq., and beginning thus: "History of Daniel (peace be upon him). I am Daniel, of the children of Jeconiah, king of the house of Judah." Davidson says, "We must express our doubts about such a Chaldee paraphrase on Daniel, in the absence of all proof that the Persian was' made from the Chaldee; for a few Chaldee words at the beginning are no argument in favor of it. All that Munk communicates i.e. part of a page is insufficient to warrant us in accepting the fact. Yet Steinschneider has referred to 'a Targum on Daniel,' simply on the authority of Munk's notice (Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana). No Targum upon Daniel is extant, so far as we yet know, and it is very doubtful whether one was ever made. The reason assigned in the Talmud for not rendering the book into Chaldee is that it reveals the precise time of the Messiah's advent. A good part of the book is already in Chaldee." To this it may be answered that at the time when Davidson wrote, this Targum was not yet published, otherwise he would have thought differently. Its contents show that the original Chaldee was the basis of it. A number of Hebrew words occur in it, and it closes with quoting Ps 147:2.

7. There is not any Targum, so far as is known, upon Ezra and Nehemiah. Part of Ezra is already Chaldee, and Nehemiah was counted with it as one book.

8. To the Roman edition of the Sept. of Daniel, published in 1772, a Chaldee version is added of the Apocryphal pieces in Esther. This has been printed by De Rossi, accompanied by a Latin version, remarks, and dissertations (Specimen Variarunz Lectionum Sacri Textus et Chaldaica Estheris Additamenta, etc. [ Tüb. 1783, 8vo ]). An edition of the Chaldee Hagiographa was published by Lagarde (Leips. 1873).

VI. Fragmentary Targums on the Other Books. — According to Zunz, the Jerusalem Targum-or rather, as it should be called, the Palestinian one- extended to the prophetic books also, and he justifies his opinion by the following particulars, which we give in his order: Abudraham cites a Jerusalem Targum on 1Sa 9:13, and Kimchi has preserved several passages from it on Judges (11:1, consisting of 47 words), on Samuel (1:17,18: 106 words), and Kings (1:22, 21: 68 words; 2, 4, 1: 174 words; 4:6: 55 words; ver. 7: 72 words; 13:21: 9 words), under the simple name of Tosephtah, i.e. Addition, or Additional Targum. Luzzato has also lately found fragments of the same, under the names "Targum of Palestine," "Targum of Jerushalmi," "Another Reading," etc., in an African codex written A.M. 5247=A.D. 1487, viz., on 1Sa 18:19; 2Sa 12:12; 1Ki 5; 1Ki 9; 1Ki 11; 1Ki 13; 1Ki 10:18,26; 1Ki 14:13; on Ho 1:1;

Ob 1:1. On Isaiah (ch. 66), Rashi, Abudraham (Isa 54:11), and Farissol (Isaiah 66) quote it, agreeing in part with a fragment of the Targum on this prophet extant in Cod. Urbin. Vatican. No. 1, containing about 190 words, and beginning, "Prophecy of Isaiah, which he prophesied at the end of his prophecy in the days of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah, the king of the tribe of the house of Judah, on the 17th of Tamuz, in the hour when Manasseh set up an idol in the Temple," etc. Isaiah predicts in this his own violent death. Parts of this Targum are also found in Hebrew, in Pesiktah Rabbathi, 6 a, and Yalkut Isaiah 58 d. A Jerusalem Targum on Jeremiah is mentioned by Kimchi; on Ezekiel by R. Simon, Nathan (Aruch), and likewise by Kimchi, who also speaks of a further additional Targum on Jonathan for this book. A Targum Jerushalmi on Micah is known to Rashi, and of Zechariah a fragment has been published by Bruns (Repert. pt. 15:p. 174) from a Reuchlinian M6. (Cod. Kennic. 154), written in 1106. The passage, found as a marginal gloss to Zec 12:10, reads as follows:

"Targum Jerushalmi. — And I shall pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of prophecy and of prayer for truth. "And after this shall go forth Messiah the Son of Ephraim to wage war against Gog. And Gog will kill him before the city of Jerusalem. They will look up to me and they will ask me wherefore the heathens have killed Messiah the Son of Ephraim. They will then mourn over him as mourn father and mother over an only son, and they will wail over him as one wails over a first-born." A Targum Jerushalmi on the third chapter of Habakkuk, quoted by Rashi, is mentioned by De Rossi (Cod. 265 and 405, both of the 13th century). To these quotations, which led Zunz to draw the inference that the Jerusalem Targum extended to the prophetic books also, a large number of fragments and variations must now be added since the publication of the Reuchlinian codex by Lagarde. These fragments and variations deviate from the common translation, and are introduced by five different designations, as on, תרג, ספראחר, לישנא אחרינא, ואית דמתרגמי, ירוש, alid פליג. These additions, as found in the Reuchlinian codex, have been analyzed in a very scholarly manner by Dr. Bacher, in the Zeifschrift der deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1874, 28:1 sq., and they extend to the following books, viz.: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai, and Malachi are not included. Zunz, after referring to the conjecture that the Jerusalem Targum on the prophets embraced nothing more than the Haphtaroth, or lessons, remarks that the idea is untenable, because the expressions of the authors who allude to it go to show that they had seen Targums upon entire books (Gottesd. Vortrage, p. 78). This may be so; but the existence of an entire Targum of Palestine on all the prophets is problematical. We have seen above, if the Reuchlinian MS. may be taken as a standard, that on four prophets, viz. Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai, and Malachi, such fragments are not given. Some books may have received such a paraphrase; on others, and those the great majority of the prophetical books, there is reason to doubt its existence. It is more probable that portions were treated paraphrastically in the spirit of the later Haggadah—portions selected on no definite principle, but adopted by the fancy or liking of paraphrasts; and we are the more justified in this conclusion when comparing Dr. Bacher's parallels from the Talmud and Midrash with these fragmentary additions. Deutsch, the writer of the art. "Targum" in Smith's Dict. of the Bible, thinks "the Babylonian version the Jonathan Targum though paraphrastic, did not satisfy the apparently more imaginative Palestinian public. 'Thus from heaped-up additions and marginal glosses, the step to a total rewriting of the entire codex in the manner and taste of the later times and the different locality was easy enough." Be it as it may, this question will always remain, as Dr. Bacher says, "one of the darkest points in the disquisition of the Targum on the prophets."

VII. Character and Value of the Targums in General. There is nothing to indicate that the Targums were written at first with vowels. Buxtorf endeavored to correct the punctuation and bring it as near as possible to the standard of that in Daniel and Ezra, for which some censured him, though, we believe, unjustly. It is no reproach to his memory to say that he did not perfect their vocalization. As there is at present no critical text of the Targums, they can only be carefully employed in the criticism of the Hebrew original, although they show the substantial integrity of the Masoretic text. They may be advantageously used in suggesting readings of some importance and value. Perhaps they are more useful in interpretation than the lower criticism. On the whole, Richard Simon's view of the Targums deserves to be noted here. In his Hist. Crit. Vet. Test. lib. 2, c. 18, he says," Omnes iste paraphrases, praeter illam Olnkelosi et Jonathanis. non magna mihi utilitatis esse videntur, nee forsan multum e re fecit, illas curiose quaesiisse. Non quanta tamen multis existimatur, illarum utilitas: ex adverso Judei ex illis arma adversus Christianos depromunt, sibi fingentes, nobis ipsorum superstitiones aniles et absurdas probari, quasi veteribus cersionibus quibus conjunguntur a nobis aequipararentur. Proeterea videntur Judaici ritus et cerimoniae iis magis quam fides Christiana confirmari: incerta itaque et anceps ex illis ducta contra Judseos victoria. Quid quod qus nostrae fidei fayentia credimus, pleraque verae sunt allegorise, quas non operosum verbis alio convertere; neque enim religio allegoriis probatur."

VIII. Literature. — Since we have already mentioned under the different heads the special literature, we will here name the works on the Targumim in general. Here belong-besides the general introductions to the Old Test. of Eichhorn, Havernick, De Wette, Bleek, Kaulen, and Kleinert- Prideaux, Connection (ed. Wheeler, Lond. 1865), 2, 443 sq.; Walton, Prolegomena (ed. Dathe); Smith, Diatriba de Chaldaicis Paraphrasibus; Wolf, Bibl. Hebraea, 2, 1135-1191;' 4:730-734; Zunz, Die gotfesd. Tortrdge der Judein (Berlin, 1832), p. 61-83; Gfrorer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, i, 36- 59; Fürst, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1840, Nos. 44-47; id. Bibl. Jud. 2, 105-107; '3, 48; Frankel, Einiges zu den Targum, in the Zeitschrift fuib die religisen Interessen des Judenth. 1846, p. 110-120; Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, 3, 61 sq., 551 sq.; Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 162-167; Volck, s.v. "Thargumim," in Herzog's Real- Encyklop. 15:672-683; Deutsch, s.v. "Targum," in Smith's Dict. ofthe Bible; Davidson, id. in Kitto's Cyclopcedia; id. Biblical Criticism, 1, 224 sq.; langlen, Das Judenth. in Paldstina, p. 70-72, 209-218, 268 sq., 418 sq.; Noldeke, Die alttestamentliche Literatur, p. 255-262; Schurer, Lehrbuch der neutestamnentlichen Zeitgeschichte (Leips. 1874), p. 476 sq. The best lexicon on the Targums is that of Levy, Chalddisches Wörterbuch über die Targumint (ibid. 1867); the latest Aramrean grammar is that of Lerner, ארמית ספר דקדוק לשון (Warsaw, 1875). SEE CHALDEE LANGUAGE. (B. P.)

Topical Outlines Nave's Bible Topics International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online King James Bible King James Dictionary

Verse reference tagging and popups powered by VerseClick™.