Qlnrttcll JlntuEraitg Hihtarg Htliata, Hem ^atk Tale University Library Cornell University Library BS1506 .C56 olln Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029305286 YALE ORIENTAL SERIES RESEARCHES VOLUME XIV YALE ORIENTAL SERIES — RESEARCHES XIV TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS BY PINKHOS CHURGIN NEW HAVEN YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS MDCCCCVII ^■r TO MY HONORED TEACHER PROFESSOR CHARLES CUTLER TORREY AS A TOKEN OF DEVOTION AND RESPECT THIS BOOK IS CONSECRATED CONTENTS Page I. The Historical Background 9 II. Textual Variations 52 III. The Exegesis in Jonathan 78 IV. General Peculiarities Ill V. Interpolated Targum 126 VI. Additions : 1 46 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF TARGUM JONATHAN The Aramaic rendering of the Prophets belongs to the earliest translations of the Bible which have come down to us. Its importance for the textual investigation and early Biblical in- terpretation cannot be overestimated. While the targumist makes little display of critical study in rendering intricate passages, and while he does not pretend to present a minutely literal translation of the Hebrew text, his reverence for the letter and transmitted reading of the text must be far have exceeded that of the Greek and Syriac translators. At the same time his trans- lation is doubtlessly based on a sounder and exacter understand- ing of both the etymology and usages of the Hebrew language. Again, its value may be said to rest in the fact that, forming a distinct and independent rendering of the text, it presents a helpful source in establishing the principles pursued m the early translations. A good many emendations and assumed violations of the Hebrew text on the sole basis of the transla- tions, so eagerly sought by the modern Biblical scholar, would thus be completely done away with. It is also a mine of Agadic exegesis, to which, in most instances, parallels are preserved in the extant sources. It cannot fail to be of considerable importance for the history of that vast Hterature, giving in this connection new and vivid emphasis to the religious, national and political state of mind of that age in Palestine. The authorship of the Targum to the Prophets has been the object of protracted and diverse discussion. Tradition ascribes it to Jonathan b. Uziel, the most prominent disciple of Hillel, of the first century. This single mention in the Talmud of the authorship of Jonathan and the mystic manner in which it is related, can hardly help solve the problem. There is, further- more, the astounding fact that in the parallel passage in the 10 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS YerushalmiD there is complete silence of this tradition of the Babli.2) Had this tradition been common, there could have been no possible reason for the Yerushalmi to ignore the work of the distinguished and holy Jonathan, who "when he discussed the law, a bird flying near him would be burned". 3) The Talmudic tradition mentions Aquila's translation. Both Talmudim have set monuments to the Seventy. Is it because the Targum was originated on Palestinian soil, extensively used and known in Palestine, forming even a necessary part in the worship, that they failed to be impressed by it? So the inference was drawn that the Aramaic version of the Bible fell in disfavor with the authorities in Palestine who, how- ever, were distinctly pleased with the Greek translation, particu' larly the Greek version of Aquila.*' The alleged reasons for 1) Y. Megilla 1, 9. 2) Babli Meg. 3b. Blau's contention (J. Q. R., v. 9, p. 738) has no foundation. Cases of disagreement in assigning the author of a say- ing are numerous. It needs no explanation and consequently cannot be made a basis for a new theory. 3) Suk. 28a; Baba Bathra 134a; Y. Nedarim 5, 6. 4) Berliner (Onkelos 108-110) has even the idea of a complete suppression of the official Targumim in Palestine. Weiss (Dor Dor etc., V. 1, 200) even knows exactly the time when this suppression took place and its author. It was Rabban Gamliel, of whom it is said (Shab. 115a; Tosef. 13 (14) and with some changes in Sof. 5, 15; Y. Shab. 16, 1) that he hid the Targum to Job. So then it was he who put the ban also on the official Targumim. And it was not until the time of R. Akiba that the ban was lifted. This conjecture is read by Weiss into the phrase D1« '32'i' '"IflD n^J 'a . It is evident that the whole supposition hinges on the mere finding that Rabban Gamliel forbade the use of a certain particular Targum. That the express mention of the Targum should be taken to indicate that the other Targumim were spared this interdiction seems to have escaped their observation. Furthermore, their theory is exposed to a dangerous contradiction. If the Targum was restored in the time of R. Akiba, what sense could there have been to the contention of R. Chalafta with Gamliel the younger, a contemporary of R. Akiba, with regard to his Hcense with the Targum, and his reminder of R. Gamliel the Elder? They should not have overlooked the remarkable coincidence presented in the story of Gamliel the Elder and his grand- child. In both instances it was the Targum to Job that evoked disfavor. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 11 such a departure will hardly stand their ground. But aside from other considerations, this assertion is flatly contradicted by the very fact that the Aramaic version was not ignored by the Palestinian authorities. Both Onkelos and Jonathan are quoted in the Yerushalmi and Midrashim,^) while, on the contrary, the genuineness of the quotations from Aquila is doubtful.*" It was, then, clearly this Targum which was hit by Rabban Gamliel the Elder, and which was still regarded as forbidden. There is little to be said of Finn's conjecture (v. 1, 56, Q'a'n nm) that the suppression of the Targum to the Pent, was due to the intro- duction of the Samaritan Targum with its dangerous divergencies from the Hebrew text. This he attempts to discover in the obscure saying of Mar Zutra (San. 21b). It needs only to be mentioned that there is not the faintest hint in the Talmud of a suspension of the Targum-reading in the worship, as he would have us believe. Rosenthal (Beth Ha-Midrash 2, 276) takes the view that the reverence in which Aquila's translation was held in Pales- tine was due to the fact that Greek was spoken more than Aramaic in Palestine. It is pure imagination. 5) The reader is referred to Zunz G. V., p. 67, Notes b, c. It should be remarked that the list of citations given by Zunz; represents by no means an exhaustive research. It is not my present task to cite the numerous cases which, for some reason or other, he does not cite. Suffice it to state that citations from Onkelos alone in Genesis r. exceed considerably the number of citations from Aquila taken together. Com. Lerner, An. u. Quellen d. Breishit Raba 63-65. His view that the respective citations may not represent actual quotations from the Targum, is open to question. One would be at a loss to explain the identity of these citations with the rendering in the Targum. For one of the mind of Geiger, who makes the general assertion that citations from the Targumim are not to be found except in the latter Midrashim, it will be of interest the following remark in D'i'JBO Tn33 to Gen. r. 45,7: Q^a B1B3 Duinn fii* niDipa no3i N'nn^ t8>nBn im .ini' D^ijra j>Tni ddtibd n>n Ninn Dunnn awv Dvian Dipo This is just as true of other cases. 6) Com. Field Hex. XVII. Of all the 12 respective citations, one, on Is. 5, 6 (Eccl. r. 11, 7) belongs to Jonathan, and yet carries the name of Aquila. Luria 1. c. would emend Jonathan but admits Jonathan is never mentioned in the Midrash. Einhorn (ad loc.) would have here Aquila agree with Jonathan, so Herzfeld (Geschichte II, 63). Equally, Weiss' assertion (Dor, v. 2, 123) that this implies Aquila must have made use of Jonathan needs no refutation. Another Aramaic quotation referring to Prov. 25, 11 (Gen. r. 93, 3) is partly taken from the Targum to Prov. 12 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS Yet they are not traced to their respective translators. Such is also the case in Babli, where this tradition of Jonathan's authorship is told. In all the many quotations from Targum Jonathan there is no single reference to Jonathan. These facts combine to show that both in Babylonia and Palestine this tradition was otherwise understood, and not until a com- paratively late period did it succeed in gaining currency. Aquila's authority, then, in these cases is a mistake. One other case, namely that referring to Lev. 19, 20 (Y. Kid. 1, 1 end) deals with a Halakic exposition. In the first place, it imphes in no way a trans- latory interpretation. Further, the authority of Aquila given in the name of Jochanan is contested by Chiya who refers it to R. Laser, changing only the reference for evidence. On the other hand, in the Babli (Krithoth lib) no authority is cited for the same interpretation. If the authority of Aquila was correctly quoted, then DJin should be in- terpreted in its general sense as SDJIfl is used in the Babli. His trans' lation was not meant, and all assumptions by De Rossi (Meor Einaim, Ch. 45) and Krauss (Steinschneider Fest. 153) in this case deserve little consideration. The case of Dan. 8, 13, where Aquila is cited (Gen. r. 21, 1; Jalqut Dan. 1. c.) in Hebrew, is instructive. There can be no question that the words D^p3K DUIfl are an interpolation. It is Rab Huna's interpretation played on a particular form of the word and the contracted tjl^s ; it should read: ni 'D'JS'? ,n"JB NJin m T"rnK , It admits of no other explanation. It is not necessary to enlarge upon these four non-Greek citations. It is scarcely necessary to state that none of these citations is to be found in the Hexapla. But of no more valid authenticity are the re- maining eight Greek citations. The citation of Lev. 23, 40 (Y. Sukka 3, 5 Gem.) is a misquotation. As Field and others remarked, such a rendering is fundamentally foreign to Aquila. Besides, in Babli (Sukka 35a) this is recorded as said by Ben Axai, and deducted by the npfl ha method. In Yerushalmi, again, R. Tanchuma is citing Aquila '•\ IDK TlTn nn rpt* CJin DI^PJM 'jin «ninjn ■ This is striking. Aquila is always cited plainly. In the Midrash, however (Lev. r. 30, 8; Jalqut 1. c), the name of R. Tanchuma is omitted. At the same time Ben Ajai is cited in the Midrash as the authority of the saying -\in Dt lin nitt'^ n:va i:^'S«3 while in BaWi 1. c. R. Abbahu is mentioned as the author, and in Yerushalmi (1. c.) R. Levi is the one who said it. It appears that Ben Ajai's authority was particularly intended for the last part of the saying, namely the citation from Aquila, as if Ben Azai were citing Aquila. A reconciliation of the Babli and Yerushalmi on this point would appear to have been in the view of the compiler. That might have been the case in the Yerushalmi. According to one report, R. Tanchuma was the author of this exegetic note, just as Ben Azai is THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 13 Furthermore, Targum Jonathan is quoted in Babli, in many instances, in the name of Rab Joseph, the president of the Pumbeditha Academy, who flourished in the fourth century. Even as late as the author of a commentary on Taharoth, for a long time ascribed to Hai Gaon (flourished in the 11th Century), quotations from Targum Jonathan are given in the name of Rab Joseph, which led Zekaria Frankel, Schiirer, Buhl, Winter u. Wiinsche, Graetz and many others to take Rab Joseph as the named as its author in the Babh; according to the other, it was Aquila's (interpretation, not translation). And both reports were united in the form it reads in the Yerushalmi. Either B. A. or R. T. made use of the semblance of the respective Hebrew word to the Greek word, a method pursued extensively by the Agadists (Com. Shab. 63b; Gen. i. 99, 7; com. Shorr I'l'^nn 12, 6.). It is not Aquila's translation which is quoted. Zipper's Theory (Krauss 1. c.) as well as Rappaport's fine sug- gestion (Jintf ,t'70 11J?) employed by Krauss (1. i,. 153) in this case, are superfluous. Of a similar nature is the interpretation attributed to Aquila in Lev. i. 33, 6 on Ez. 23:43. This curious explanation could hardly have found a place in the literal translation of Aquila. It does not belong to Aquila. With reference to the allegorical interpretation of Prov. 18:21, attributed in Lev. r. 33, 1 to Aquila, it was justly characterized by Field (1. c.) along with Lev. 23:40 as "Omnino absurdae et ridiculae sunt". Com. Tanchuma Lev. yiisB 4, where practically the same idea is expressed without resorting to this Greek expression. Questionable is the quotation from Aquila on Ps. 48, 21, cited in Y. Meg. 2, 4; Y. M. K. 3, 7. In the first place, Aquila renders nia^y by Ps. 46, l by EmveovioxriTtov . So a 1 s o i n 9:1 vei6tt)T05 . It stands to reason that 48, 21 was similarly rendered by him and not by the alleged dftavaoia . This would agree with the T. rendering Kjni'^tS 'Ol'l which is also indicated in the Y. (1. c), namely niO'^i': It should also be noticed in passing that one other interpretation given there ntn Q^1J?3 UJnJ' Nin agrees with the Lxx, which renders it eI; rovi; Elcova; , which is also implied in Cant. r. 1, 22. The Syriac Hex., as well as Jerome (Field XXVI), would lend support to such a rendering by Aquila. The rendering dftavaoia cited in Field (1. c.) under column Ed. Prima, ought not to be take in serious consideration for obvious reasons. To all intents, this rendering of niO^J? is so Midrashic that it would not find its way even into a less rigorous translation than Aq. The quotation in Y. Shab. 6, 4 from Aq. on Is. 3:20 is not found in the Hex. The case of Ez. 16, 10 (Lam. r. 1, 1), containing a double rendering, may even be a quotation from Jon. The Lxx might as well 14 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS real author of the T. Jonathan.** But Rashi and Tosaphoth arc unqualifiedly right in their common explanation of this curious occurrence.** I It should be borne in mind that Rab Joseph him- self often cites the Targum Jonathan with the introductory phrase KIP ■'Sm KDinn S^O^'K, which clearly signifies he had the Tar- gum before him.**' Furthermore, Rab Joseph also cites Onke- los.i"> On the other hand, we have a citation from the Targum to Esth. 3, 1, ascribed to Rab Joseph, where it is clear from the Greek names it contains that we have a Palestinian Targum before us.^-^' Again, some of Rab Joseph's interpretations fail to coincide with those in the Targum Jonathan. i^* In addition. be meant, which here, as also in Ex. 27:16, agrees with Aq. as recorded in the Hex., and also disagrees, just as Aq., with its version in the Midrash. Similarly, the citation from Aq. on Gen. 17:1 in Gen. r. 46, 2; in this case also there is no telling which Greek translation was meant, for the Lxx contains also such a rendering (com. Field Hex., 1. c). The ascription, again, to Aq. of citations from other sources was demonstrated above. This might have been the case with the quotations from Aq. on Dan. 5, ? (Y. Joma 3, 8 Gem.) and Esth. i. 6. In the former, Aq. is preserved in the Lxx only. 7) Keilim 29, 30 on Judges 3:16; IS. 3:23, 13:21; Ez. 17:7; Oholoth 18 on Is. 49:22. It is interesting that the Aruch(2 103 ,2 I'^i) cites the Targum from Hai, refraining from mentioning the source, by the same direct reference to R. Joseph :]D1' 2T DJlinDl . Com. Schurer, Geschichte, VI, 149 (4th German ed); Z. Frankel, Zu d. T., 10-12; Buhl, Kanon, 173; Winter u. Wunsche, Jiid. Lit. 1, 65. Winter u. Wiinsche, ib., would interpret the tradition as pointing to the authorship of Jonathan of the fragmentary Targum to the Prophets in Codex Reuch. Com. also Weiss, Dor, 1, 200; 2, 123. 8) Rashi, Kidushin 13a; Tos. Baba Kama 3a DJnnDT3 . 9) San. 94b; Moed Katan 28b; Meg. 3a. 10) Shab. 28a; Exod. 25:5, 64; Num. 31, 50; Nasir 39a; Num. 6:9; Sota 48b: Deut. 1:49, the latter ascribed to Rab Shesheth in another recension. 11) As to the existence of a Targum to Esther at a compara- tively early date, com. Megilla 17a, Mishna and Gemara 18a; Y. Meg. 2, 1. As to the assumption of Rab Joseph being the author of the Targum to Hagiog., com. Tosafoth Shab. 115a n'31 and Megilla 21b n^Uiaai pointing out that the Targum to Hag. dates back to the Tanaitic age, while Rashi Megilla (1. c.) mtS'j; asserts a Ulfl l'i Others would look for its cause in the careless handling by the early Aramaic translators of the Hebrew text.i^' Berliner and Geiger adhere to the theory that the revision was brought about by the necessity of furnishing the congregations in the Diaspora, particularly in Babylonia, with a unified and carefully redacted Aramaic version of the Bible. i~> It should be first borne in mind that these theories start from the viewpoint that these Targumim were, so to speak, rejected in Palestine and consequently found eleva' tion to general reverence in Bablyonia. This theory of Palestinian disregard for the Targum is already shown to be erroneous. On the whole, however, this theory will, on full examination, prove to be perplexing. The question arises, how is it, that the redactors permitted renderings to remain in the Targum which unmistakably signify a different reading from the Masoretic text? 18' 15) Luz;2,atto, Oheb, VHI; Rapaport 1. c. 16) Meor Enaim, Ch. 45. 17) Ur. 164, Nach. Schriften 4, 103; Berliner, On. 108-110. Com. Rapoport yntr nnJN p. 214. Weiss, Dor 11, 123; Deutsch in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible 3411. Com. also Jost, Geschichte d. Jud., V. 2, 54, Note 1. 18) Com. chapter on textual variations, group A. As to Onk., THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 17 It is further assumed that the revision was made necessary in order to make the Targumic interpretations conform to current Halakic exposition. If this were the case, we should expect to find the Targum in complete harmony with current Halaka. But this is far from being the case. Onkelos presents a long list of cases where it differs from the formally accepted Halakic interpretations and decisions. So are the renderings of Exod. 21, 24 and Lev. 24, 19, 20 against the accepted Halaka, "transmitted from Moses and so seen at the court of every genera- tion from Joshua and on" (Maimonides 1, 6 pnDI ?3in ni3^n) that a monetary and not a corporal retaliation is meant (Baba Kama 83b, 84a); Lev. 19:32 disregarding Baraitha Kidushin 32; Deut. 23:18 against Halaka. Sifri 1. c; San. 54b; Abodah Zara 36b. (com. Maimonides S"^n ,3 HSn niD^N nptnn T> , and Magid Mishna 1. c). In all of which the Targum undoubtedly has preserved an afterwards superseded Halaka. i^' The same may be said, in a certain measure, of the Agada. Many are the cases both in Jonathan and Onkelos where the popular interpretations are ignored but which could hardly be ignored by a later redaction.^©) Pseudo- Jonathan and the Frag- com. Rosenthal in Weiss' Beth Talmud, 2, 284. The adduced evidence, however, tends rather to contradict his hypothesis of a late single com- position of T. Jonathan. Com. also ion 013 1, 220. 19) It is instructive to notice the rendering of the respective cases in Ps. Jonathan, which conform with the Halaka. This betrays the hand of a later day editor. The Ps. Jonathan, as is generally known, con- tains some Halakic interpretations conflicting with the current Halaka, which led some writers, among them Geiger, to regard it as a mine of early, Sadducean Halaka. Com. Revel, Karaite Halaka, p. 18. 20) Some examples: Is. '17:8; Kethuboth 9b; Ezek. 1:14; Hagiga 13b; com. also the singular rendering of vv. 5, 6. Com. Hag. 1. c; Kid 72a, referring to 2K 18:11. Both official Targumim abound with such cases. Yawetz (bH^m■' nn'i'in v. 9, 254-264) is the author of a novel theory, namely, that Rab Joseph was the redactor of both Onkelos and Jonathan, as it is evident from the Targumic citations in the Talmud which are quoted in his name. These Targumim have originated from the Greek translation of Aquila, wjhich was translated into Aramaic. 18 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS mentary Targum may serve as instructive illustrations. Finally, there are many inconsistencies in reference to certain prin' ciples followed in the Targum (com. groups B and C in the chap' ter on textual deviations), which would not have occurred had it proceeded from the hand of a single redactor. Nothing, again, can account for the silence in the Talmudic sources over an act of such magnitude and importance. The tradition of the Babli of the official Targumim can hardly be taken in any degree to contain the historical kernel of a single authorship. It might be assumed, on the other hand, that it does not, in sub' stance, imply that Jonathan was the author of the extant Targum or of one lost, but points to the fact that this great Rabbi was preeminently skillful in the interpretation of the Prophets. Tar- gum would then be used in this case in its acquired and more general sense. Targum as a quality is counted among the merits of the fellow student of Jonathan, Rabban Jochanan b. Zakkai.^D What has been said of Jonathan is true of Onkelos. There could not have been a revised redaction of the magnitude the sponsors of this theory maintained. The corruptionist hypothesis rests on the doubtful foundation that the unofficial Targumim, as Pseudo'Jonathan, to which unfavorable references are sup- posedly made in the Talmud, preceded the official Targum. But just the reverse may be true, namely, that these extra-Targumim were built upon the official Targum. Suffice it to say that the existence of "Our" Targum, stated by Tanaitic authorities, im- plies the fact that the other Targumim existed along with the official Targum. Rab Joseph edited and put them in final shape. Hence the name of Aquila (Onk.) on the Targum of the Pentateuch and also of the Prophets (namely, the citation in Ecd. r. 11, 3 from Jonathan Is. 5:6, which was considered above) and of Rab Joseph on the Targum of the Prophets and also of the Pent, (the citation in Sota 48b). It is the queerest of theories propounded on the question of the author- ship of the Targumim. Ingenuity must fail when one identifies the literal Aquila with the interpretative Jonathan. ' 21) Soferim 16, 8: ms'lB Pl'Jn ii'fV 'N3t \'J pmt im b)} I'^l' nON nnjNi n)ibn vita numi Nipna no'i' t^bm minna nnx , which is omit- ted in the modified version of this saying in Sukka 28a and Baba Bathra 134a; so also in NTntt* 3m mJN Com. also Sifri Deut. 179: Du-in n^b «)3B K^pa .Kipo 'T^ s'aD xiiant!» lo'rn .hnt^ lab^ ij?n^ THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 19 But this does not imply that no change was introduced in the existing official Targumim. Certain traces in the Targum carry unmistakable evidence of a Babylonian recast, which was, however, of a very Hmited scope. This will be discussed later. The substance was left un- touched. Consequently, we may rest assured there was no unified authorship even to the extent of a thoroughgoing redaction. But before advancing other views with regard to the authorship, we might well direct our attention to evidence preserved in the Targum. It should be noticed at the outset that tradition assigns an early oHgin to the official Targumim. The same tradition which vaguely ascribed the Targum to late authorities is sponsor of the statement that they originated far back of the age of these authorities. Of Jonathan the tradition makes clear that he "said" the Targum from the mouths of the Prophets Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. With regard to Onkelos the tradition explains that Onkelos only restored the Targum, which originated with E2;ra. The latter was inferred, in the name of Rab, from the interpretation of Nehemiah 8:8, according to which B'liaD carries the meaning of DIJID (R. Judan, Nedarim 37a; Gen. r. 56, end). Making all allowance, the Targum Jonathan contains evidence pointing to a comparatively early date. Evidence of a general character consists, first, of the textual deviations which abound in Jonathan as well as in Onkelos. ^s) The same may be said with reference to the unacceptable Halaka, found in Onkelos. This fact points to a date when these matters were still in the balance. Why, however, they were permitted at a later age to remain in the Targum can easily be explained. There was first of all the tradition referring the Targumim to the last Prophets and E2;ra, which cast a halo over them, and none would venture either to question the propriety of the ren- 22) Rosenfeld's long list of supposed deviations from the M. T. in Talmud (Mishpachoth Soferim, Vilna, 1883) will be found on closer examination to present no contradiction to this statement. With minor exceptions, nearly all the adduced cases are of a Midrashic nature and should be regarded as such. 20 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS dering or attempt to emend them, just because they appeared amazingly striking. There was no cause for general alarm. The Targum was read verse for verse vnth the Hebrew Text, which would bring home to the reflection of the hearer the established reading.^^) Still, precaution was sought to exclude a possible impression that the Targum represents the right reading. I am persuaded to interpret the causes for the limitations placed upon the reading of the Targum in the light of this supposition. 2* > The elimination of anthropomorphisms, so persistently carried through in the official Targumim, goes back to an early period. It is a tendency which has its roots in the movement that gave rise to the 18 Tikune Soferim (Mek. Ex. 17, 7) and to the substitution of descriptive appelations (Adonai, Heaven, etc.) for the name of God.^s) In the later part of the Amoraic age a reaction set in against this tendency, which did not reappear until the Arabic Era. This principle would not have been so singularly stressed in the 4th century in Babylonia, not to speak of the 7th century. Numerous anthropomorphic sub' stitutes were eliminated in the official Targumim by the latter redactors, to whom, it would seem, the anthropomorphic ex' pression was no longer terrifying and repugnant. It will be of some interest in this connection to note the relaxing of this principle in the Targum to Hagiog., which is certainly later than the Targumim to the Pent, and Prophets. This targumlst does not hesitate to render literally such expres- sions as God laughs (Ps. 2:4; 37:13), God sees (Ps. 33:13; 35:17, 22 etc), God's eyes and eyelids (Ps. 11:4; 33:18), God's hands 23) Com. Meg. 23b; Tos. Meg. 3; Rosh Hashana 27a. 24) Com. Sota 39b and Y. Meg. 4, 1 Gem. The alleged reason mini 3103 DUin naxi t^bv becomes more sensible if interpreted to mean that the pubhc should not suppose the Targum version to corres- pond to the established reading. 25) It was this tendency which influenced both the Aramaic and the Lxx versions. Com. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 175; Einfluss, pp. 30, 82, 130; Palaest u. Alex. Shrift., 21 et seq.; Zeller, Philosophic d. Griechen, v. 3, 11; 3, 253. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 21 (Ps. 119:73). 26) This reavels the notions of a later generation, which would undoubtedly have come to the surface in the official Targumim, had they been its production. The term SID id , employed in the Targumim to cover anthropomorphic expressions, strikes me also as of early origin. It should be noticed at the outset, what a good many have missed to observe, that there is nothing in it to imply Greek influence. It represents no identity. It disavows the slightest implication of an agency. It is merely a term of speech adopted to disguise anthropomorphic presentations, for the awe-inspiring exaltation of God, hiding the face, like Moses, for fear "to look up to God". It was intended not so much to interpret or explain as to remind and evoke a higher reaction. It is fully employed in the same sense as "12T or idxd is used in the Bible, in which image sia^D was certainly cast. 27) In a later age, under the influence, it would seem, of the Greek Logos, this term acquired the meaning of a definite essence, an embodied heavenly power approaching an intermediary agency.^s) The "im calls to Moses;29) it visits, surrounds and kisses. ^o) In the Book of Wisdom, probably of Palestinian origin, the all-powerful word of God leaps down from heaven, "a stern warrior into the midst 26) L. Ginsburg in the Jewish En. Anthropo. seemingly failed to take notice of this distinction when he made the unqualified statement that the earlier Targumim retained in translation such expressions as the hand, finger, eye etc. of God. This is true of the Targum to the Hagiog. only. In Jonathan an evasive substitute is always employed in such cases. As to the hand of God, com. Joshua 22:31; IS 5:7; IK 18:46: Is. 5:25, 9:11, 11:11, 15:31, 3; Jer. 1:9 etc. As to finger, com. Exod. 8:15 with the exceptions of Exod. 31:18 and its parallel in Deut. 9:10, in which case, it seems, the substitute was eliminated, as in the creation story, in order to avoid an explanation that the tablets were given by some inferior power, or to escape the danger of allegorizing the fact of the tablets. Com. further Exod. 33:12, 13; 1 Kings 8:29; Is. 1:15; 43:4; Jer. 7:30. 27) In Ps. 33:6, 9; 107:20; 147:15, 18; 148:8 inn is a descrip- tive term for the action of God, while in 119:89 it is descriptive of the Torah. 28) Com. Gen. ,. 4, 2. 29) Lev. r. 1, 4. 50) Cant. r. 1:13. 22 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS of a doomed land".3i) The term nio'D , then, could not have originated in a period when it might be taken to signify a distinct God'hke power. In its use in translation it would have the effect of investing the XlDiD with all activity, God being inactive- — and nothing could be more horrible to the non-Hellenistic Jew than a transcendentalism of the Alexandrian mould. As was noticed before, the later Bablyonian redactors have limited in the Targum the use of the XID'D It is remarkable that in the creation story all anthropomorphic expressions are, contrary to principle, literally rendered. In most of the parallel cases in Ps. Jonathan XID^D is inserted. The reason for that might be found in the new significance which this term had assumed, so that the application of this term in the creation story would carry the implication that some other power, separate from God, was the author of the act of the creation. ^2) The Targum to the Prophets is not wanting in more specific evidence, although this sort of evidence is admittedly scant. This T. is far from being Midrashic. It is primarily a translation, and the chief concern of the translator is to find the right mean- ing and the interpretation of the word and phrase; it is not seeking to explain the exigencies of the age, or to propound the mysteries of the generations. It does, however, in a few cases make use of allegory. In the allegorical interpretation un- mistakable allusions were preserved to events which can be placed. The events extend over many periods, which furnish us the clue to the historical origination of the Targum. Direct historical reference is made in the Targum to Hab. 3:17: ...nn ntj'jjo t^ns fi-'iSii'i ?ni fxi msn n? njxn ••3 The Targum interprets this to refer to the four Kingdoms vaiN nV^^D ^^^ But referring to Rome, the version reads indII nvnB'i 31) Wisdom 18:15. Com. also 16:12; 4 Esd. 6:38. 32) Com. On. Gen. 3:9, 22; 5:2; 6:3. In all these cases Ps. Jonathan has Nia'B inserted. In Gen. 8:1 there is a complete agreement in the translation between On. and Ps. Jonathan, except that the latter has NIB' a ■ No explanation can plausibly account for that, except the supposition that a later redactor, out of fear for a possible misleading in- ference, and who would not feel irritated over an anthropomorphic expression, eliminated XIB'D in the respective cases. 33) The reading of the extant editions fil^lDl D13313 i13iy naJl THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 23 D^tS'lT'D NDID'P tnv K?l . This emphasis on the tribute by the tar- gumist is remarkable. None of the barbarities committed by the Romans inflamed his rage as did the tribute. This reference then, must have been coined at a time when the chief agitation of the people gathered around the problem of the tribute. The targumist meant the census instituted by the second Procurator Quirinius (6'7 C. E.), which aroused rebelHon, being regarded by the people as bondage. Had the destruction of the Temple taken place at the time of this reference to Rome, this act would have certainly been recorded instead of the census.^*) IS. 28:1: ...CnEJS ni3B' JTINJ mDV ^IH translating allegorically: nifinati'in triPO n^n . In the same way also vv. 3, 4. Allusions are here made to the deplorable state of the High Priesthood. The reference may go to the Sadducean Hasmonean rulers, particularly to Alexander Jannaeus, who incurred the deadliest hatred of the people. This hatred of the "sinners who rose against us"; who "laid waste the throne of David in tumultous arrogance" (Ps. of Sol. 17, 4'8); who "utterly polluted the holy things of the Lord (1, 8) and had profaned with iniquities the offerings of God" (2, 3).*'5> Reference to John Hyrcanus is made in Ps. Jonathan to Deut. 33:11, according to Geiger (Ur. 479), which, however, may also be equally applicable to the father of Mattath- ias, John, whom later authorities, mistakenly, took for a High Priest. The failure, however, of the targumist to allude to the Kingship of the sinful High Priest, speaks against this supposi- tion. It is a safer supposition that the Herodian High Priests or the state of the High Priesthood under the Roman Procurators, when this most sacred dignity became a salable article, is here is a later emendation, probably to escape the rigors of the censor. It should read with Lagarde, ]li 113J . 34) Com. Ant. XVII. 21. As to the date of the Census, com. Schiirer, Geschichte, 4th German ed. VI, erste Anhang. Com. also Hausrath N. T. Times (Eng. ed.) v. 2, pp. 74-83. It was this state of mind from which emanated the curious rendering of n^B'SOni (Is. 3:6) xn'nJDI , taxation, against the Agadic interpretation to mean the Law (Chag. 14b; Gittin 43b). Com also Is. 55:5. 35) Com. also 8:10, 13, 26. Com. Buchanan, Charles, Apocrypha. II, 628. 24 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS meant. 3S' I am persuaded to believe that the targumist had in mind particularly the appointment by Herod of Annanel to the High Priesthood, which by right and general expectation was to belong to Aristobul III. 3''') IS. 64:11: pasnn n?K '?vn is so rendered as to give vent to the general excitement of the time. It runs: nxi tonnn V'Pii '?]in ND^j; -\]> KJ3 n^ytroi X'-V'K'I^ tons n'n' ; likewise Hab. 3:1. The wicked are the rulers over the people. They are not the Gentiles, Romans, whom the T. would call either by name or by the general appelation DiU ,S'D»V ; X^y'B'lis applied to the wicked of Israel only. I am inclined to think the allusion is made to the Herodian rulers rather than to the later Hasmo- nean rulers. The expression t<3lN TTf DXl could hardly have been intended for Alexander Jannaeus, whose rule was not too long, being then followed by the just rule of Alexandra. The targumist would, at the same time, place the beginning of the Herodian rule in the early days of the Antipater's political as' cendency. There are other references to the Herodian rulers. Hos. 4:13 D3iniJ3 nrJTD p '?V is rendered pJTD p '7V s'ODV ID paija^ priDDJT n^n^ai x^ddv ri:3D it^"? n«im panji 36) Com. Ant. XX, 8, 8; Pesachim 57a; Tos. Menachoth end. ,DnB"n'5a i': >in ,i'in rraa ^b nx .on'JND '^ 'in .oirna niao '^ >ik 'IK .nxB p ^NjjoB" n'30 1^ 'IK : DDiB^ipa 1^ '!« .onns irna ib mx D'aain onnsyi D'^sibn Dn'jnni onoai o'^n; cuna one' DBiuxa ^b .riibpa^ Djfn n« Also Lev. 1. 21, 5; Y. Yoma 1, 1: nty vipo .nuns n"> n it^aty n^iaxi i8'Bt8't!> 't ^j?* titsfXT tripa k^n ... 'B itrBB' DiBts'33 HT DK n? pjTin pntT n"m iiaB2 nniN T^tau I'ne- 'jj? D'ati iniN I'TatPB nrn'? nints' ii>3 .hjb' 'b pnsn tiyatr jnai .o'jna ...S1D3 h» nna iritt* 133 T3 nhifv inxa ntpya .nnspna ininiJ8> im .muan riH n'D nsi nan ...anx '?» nna intf 133 t3 n^B*! inn layi Com. Yoma 9a. 37) Ant. XV, 2, 4. This reference might also be applicable to the High Priest Simon the son of Boethus, whose daughter Herod loved and married, and, in order to augment the dignity of the family, con- ferred upon him this high honor (Ant. XV, 9, 3). Although a priest of note, his elevation to office in this manner and the overthrow of Jesus the son of Phabet, his predecessor, brought upon him the indigna- tion of the people and the hatred they entertained for the Herodian dynasty. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 25 This is certainly an early T.; v. 14 is interpreted literally. Had it been the intention of the T. to soften some harsh ex- pression flung against the morality of the Jewish daughters, it would have been followed in the other v. But the former deals a rebuke to the Herodians, who have intermarried with Gentile rulers. Herod married a Samaritan woman (Ant. 12, 2, 19); his son Alexander — Glaphira, daughter of Archelaus, King of Cappadocia (Ant. 16, 1, 2) ; Drusilla, the sister of Agrippa II, was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her forebears and to marry Felix, the procurator (Ant. 20, 7, 2), while her former husband, the heathen King of Emesa and the second husband of her sister Berenice, the King of Cilicia, though circumcised, would hardly be regarded as a proselyte. The latter renounced his conversion as soon as Berenice left him (Ant. ib.) . The cohabi' tation of Berenice with Titus (Dio Cassius 66, 15) is a further instance. It was the general reaction towards this open violation of the Law which the Rabbi would express in the only safe way through the exposition of some Prophetic utterance. Of a more pronounced nature is the reference contained in the T. to Is. 65:4 ir?^ dni^fj3i ciDpn a^2^in — NTian pnn inn XtJ'JX ■'J3 n:i2 DVI ii''-\2P nsyo pan . It is a valuable historical statement of the erection of Tiberias. Herod Antipas built it on a site strewn with sepulchres. This was resented by the ortho- dox Jews, who would not, on account of uncleanliness, settle there, even after the sepulchres had been removed. Herod was on that account impelled to bring pressure to bear on the first settlers, a great many of whom were strangers, poor people and slaves. (Com. Ant. 18, 2, 3; Gen. r. 23, 1). The whole incident was soon to be forgotten, as the city came to assume great emi- nence in the Great RebelHon, although the more scrupulous would still hesitate, until the time of R. Simon Ben Jochai (com. Shab. 34a) to settle in certain parts of it. So that this indignation. of the targumist must emanate from the very time of the act of Herod. This T. belongs to 28 C. E. I am inclined to think that the T. to Am. 6:1 n^E'KI '•aPJ O^un 'OaV 'J3 mtJ'^ pn'Ja DW pomp's refers to the Herodians and their followers, who would give themselves foreign names, and were not known, like the Hasmoneans, by the Hebrew double. As it is well known, Jews during the Hasmonean rule 26 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS would unhesitatingly give themselves Greek names. But this practice grew abominable in the sentiment of the people in the days of the Herodian rulers. There are many references to this effect in the Agada (Exod. r. 1, 30; Lev. r. 32, 3; Tan. Balak 25, etc.), all of which, I suppose, emanated from that period. Com. also Hos. 8:12. The reference in T. to Ez. 39:16 to the destruction of Rome is interesting. It suggests that the T. took Rome as aiJ . As Gog is the Messianic foe of Israel, one feels that in the time of either the Great or the Bar'Kochba Rebellion, the revolutio- naries, in their pious and Messianic mood, would take Rome as the prophetic JU , so that its overthrow is sure to come. Hence the source of the targumic interpretation. I am also led to be- lieve that this was the reason why the T. turns the gloomy and miserable description of the "Servant" (Is. ch. 53) into a most glorious presentation. The targumist, living in a time when the Messiah stood at the head of warring armies, could hardly have conceived those objectionable features in a literal sense. V. 5 points clearly to Bar Kochba. Mi. 5:9, 10, 12 ...T'n33nD TnnNni impo t-did iniDni The T. changes the simple meaning of the words and renders them this way: K''DBj; inp ^^''B'Ni .(9) nnoTi-i Taisi ijud k-'dov didid •'Vts'm IinriDpi s'DDj; 'of'S ■■v^e'ki .(10) t<''fi''Pn nn'3-i3 ?3 Tjaxi ly-ixa (12) ir:i» . This is a curious rendering. The second half of v. 12 is ren' dered literally. All other references in the Prophets to the idolatry of Israel are rendered literally by the T. But the T. in these verses is construed to give expression to the popular re- sentment of the act of Herod to construct heathen cities in Palestine, and the erection in them of temples and statues. Another allusion to a contemporary situation is found in the Targum to Judges 5:11. The interpretation reads: pm nnSD pD3io nmriDi I'DD? nji3D nu iinnm p^dji tin^ pdjn . There is here the twofold reference to the robber and to the publican. In both aspects the hint is to the last days of Jerusalem. The ab- THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 27 horrence for the publican, who was considered an outlaw,3 8) was general among the people in those troublesome days. Re- garding the former, the implication seems to be of the activities of the Sicarii under the Procuratorship of Felix or Festus, par- ticularly the latter, of whom Josephus says that upon his coming Judea was afflicted by robbers while all the villas were set on fire and plundered by them.^") The targumist is setting the mark on the facts against which his generation most vehemently reacted. The interpretation of the T. of D''N^t33 DTPD''1 (Is. 15:4) xnos noxa pj^jai is also suggestive of an event preceding the destruction of the Temple which is told in the Talmud of Agrippa I, that wishing to know the number of the people while avoiding its prohibition, he asked the High Priest to count the Paschal sacrifices. *"> I would not, however, stress this evidence. A later targumist might as well have used for exe- getical purpose a current Agada. Of more historical suggestiveness is the Targum to Ze. 11, 1 ITi^T t1J2^ nriS interpreted to refer to the heathen peoples and the destruction of their cities. This verse was interpreted by Rabban Jochanan b. Zakkai to imply the pending destruction of the Temple, which was generally accepted. *i) Why a tar- gumist living in a generation in; pressed by the destruction of the Temple should select so strange an allegorical interpretation is hardly conceivable. It would seem that he did not know of the destruction of the Temple and was imbued with the political Messianism, which was an important factor in the Rebellions. The Targum, however, also contains evidence pointing to a period subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem. Is. 54:1 38) Com. B. Kama 113a, Mish.; Shab. 39a; San. 25b. 39) Ant. XX, 9, 10. The distinction should be drawn between the patriots and the sicarii who, to all intents, were robbers of the vilest sort and employed by Felix for the purpose of inflaming unrest to screen his outrages. 40) Pesachim 64b; Tosefta 4. Com. Wars 6, 9, 3. There are strong reasons for assuming that it was a historical reality. 41) n»'3E)t3 ^3'n '?3'n -.■\h laN '«3t p pnii im ,n lyja' ij) .^"S'\ T33^ nns NHV Yoma 39b, and in Yerushalmi in a somewhat modified version, 6, 3 end. 28 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS n?1Jf3 1J30 nDDW 'J3 QUI '^ the Targum interprets pH'' '3D nx .xnan' non 'jdo snns d'^b'TT' ''J3 In the same sense Is. 2:5 n^^iDK D'J3 nmi nwi^ m^' n-]pV IV is rendered in the Targum mTlV K1PJ/ NnntO nim D'-^tJ'TT' p tiQiD"! K'-aoy ijD K''?an 'nni Knni^j dvd x^'^onm . Jerusalem is here seen to be desolate. Rome is in its bloom. There is still the thirst for revenge from Rome, which also found expression in the Targum to Is. 25:12 meaning by 113 Rome, and Ez. 39:16. Com. also Targum Is. 32:14. The targumist lived in a period following the destruction but not too far away. Mi. 7:11 is interpreted in the T. to refer to the cessation of the persecu- tions of the nations: KiDav mn5 l^tJlD' K'lnn KJiya . The refer- ence is to the situation which arose in Palestine after the rebellion of Bar Kochba. The targumist had in mind the persecutions of Hadrian. It is hardly appropriate to the political repressions of the Roman Procurators. It might be well applied to the per- secutions of the Byzantine rulers which, however, could hardly have found room in the Palestinian Targum, known and used in Babylonia in the third century. A less pronounced indication of a post- Destruction age is suggested in the T* to Malachi 1:11 lOB*? tJ'JD IDPD DIPO ^331 rendering: tnni^SI ...I13ni?S ?3PK KJS Ti^V-) V12V priKT \1^]1 ^331 .^mp '3T I3-1'1P3 The conception implied here that the prayer replaced the sacrifice is an outgrowth of the age following the destruction of the Temple, after the cessation of sacrifice. The sacrifice was regarded with so much holy reverence by the Rabbis, that such a conception would be considered an attempt at the divinity of the sacrifice. *2' Finally, the Targum to Is. 21:9 may also be of historical contents. Here the Targum reads 533 ?Dd5 KTiflj; iqK n^QJ ■ The wish is here expressed for the downfall of Babylonia. This sug- gests an age of persecution in Babylonia against the Jews. 42) This conception has its origin in the saying of R. Jochanan B. Zakkai: nnioa N'riB' nnx msa Mb »> (Aboth of R. N. 4, 5). Com. saying of R. Shmuel b. Nachmani on this verse nnjan D^BD Tin (Jal- qut 1. c). So saying of R. Eliezer nuaipno IflP n^BD n'jnj (Berak. 32b). Com. Jalqut EHeaer mp ; DIN pB"nntt' iat3 ir"tS'n ^x-itS" nD>« THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 29 Babylonia in an earlier period was looked upon with admiration by the Jews. It was only after the fanatical Sassanides had estab- lished themselves on the throne of Persia that the large Jewish population of Babylonia began to experience the same tribulation which their brethren in Palestine were undergoing under the Roman rule.*^) After the new departure in the ruling dynasty. Babylonia, like Rome, incurred the bitter resentment of the Jews. Before the Chebarin (Magii) came to Babylonia, we are told in Gittin 17a, the saying of R. Chiya: "God knew that Israel could not bear the persecution of the Edomites, so he led them to Babylonia" was true, but after their arrival Rabbi Bar Bar Ghana was right in his utterance: in NJOm IB'V laT N^1D3 n** ITI N?1!33 . This period is implied in the Targum to Is. 28:20 DJDnna ms n^DDHi — p'VD ^xJiaa pnJn .sno •'JO' On the other hand, the fall of Babylonia is with the author still a desire, a fervent expectation. The overthrow of Babylonia by the Arabians is not yet in sight. There is no other allusion in the Targum to the Arabs. So that this allusion to Babylonia affords us a terminus ad quem. To check up the findings, the scant evidence preserved in the Targum to the Prophets falls apart in different groups. Some 43) Com. Saying of Rab. iBll T3 ^snti' DIB mTlJ? Yoma 17a; also Pesachim 54a: DIB nis'jm ...aiN 'J3B D'Dl^a Dn2T nyntt* pal liD ^ISn 'DD . Tfiere is a striking parallel interpretation in Ps. Jonathan Gen. 15:12 referring D^SJ to Persia: „]»nBl NB'pr nb It'?! ^B'B'7 KTDin or in the version of the Frag, s'jl ^SD'J NTnjTT N'DIST Nnn'iia Nin Km I'D^y 'ts'Jv^ noipn n^ Minn . It should be remarked that Ps. Jonathan introduces here the Messianic conception of the Four Kingdoms of the Exile, the Fourth being Edom or Rome. The targumist in this instance dismisses Rome, placing in its stead Persia-Babylonia. In the Midrash (Gen. 1. 44, 2), on which this interpretation is based, n^flJ is referred to Edom with the parenthetic note: ^33 It l>^Jf n'JBi: I'B^nDB' t!" 1 733 n^BJ n'jBi n3 n3'nDT It is clear that both in the Midrash and the Ps. Jon. Babylonia (or Persia) had come to be regarded as worse than Rome, as fully expressed in the saying of Rab. At the same time, it is made clear in the Midrash that the interpretation of n^B3 as refer- ring to Bablyonia is based upon Is. 21:9, consequently the Targum to Is. 21:9 was either known to them and used by the Ps. targumist or that the interpretation in the respective cases was simultanously origin- ated. The former assumption, however, is the more plausible one. 30 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS are pointing to a pre-Destruction date, some to a period im- mediately following the Destruction, some, again, to a still later period. But they do not lead to contradicting results. The evi' dence demonstrates in a most excellent manner the progressive composition of the Targum until it assumed its present form. During this long time, the Targum was submitted to changes of different natures, when finally, before the Arabic invasion of Babylonia, it was indorsed in the shape in which it has come down to us. We shall now devore our attention to a study of the relation between the official Targumim. There is a con- spicuous affinity between Onkelos and Jonathan. Most of the early writers on this subject were struck by it but failed to realize its extent, which consequently lead them to different con- elusions. So, while De Rossi and Her^feld were certain that Onkelos knew the Targum to the Prophets, Zuni; took the view that Jonathan had Onkelos before him, whom he quoted in Judges 5:26; 2 Kings 14:6; Jerem. 48:46.**> Herzfeld would consider all these citations as later interpolations.* 3' But on closer study of the official Targumim the cases of agreements between them will be found to be so numerous and of such a nature that they can be explained neither on the hypothesis of in- terpolation nor on the assumption of one having made use of the other. The reader will first be referred to the chapter on gen- eral peculiarities of Jonathan. The peculiar treatment by this T. of certain expressions, to distinguish between the holy and pro- fane; Israel and other peoples; the belief in a second death for the wicked, all are found in Onk. Besides, there are numerous other cases in which both Targumim agree. I will cite here the Ps. Jonathan only to show that there could be a different render- ing in the respective cases. Josh. 1:6 roXI Prn Targum D'-f'KI ^pn . So Onkelos Deut. 31:7. Ps. Jon. ^'■'nnsi ^Pirr-s . ib. 1:9 nnn »'? Targum nann So Onk. Deut. 31:8. Ps. Jon. vTinn . 44) De Rossi Meor Enaim 1. c; Herzfeld, Geschichte 1. c; Zun?, V. I. c. 45) L. c. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 31 ib. 3:13 ...IJ novi Targum snpn So Onk. of D'D n»n (Gen. 21:14, 15, 19). Ps. Jon Kim ivn . In Exod. 15:8 i: 1DD nVJ Onk. TE'D IDP . Ps. Jon. spn • The Targum to Psalms 33:7; 78:13 is tAp-'l ib. 7:21 lyjc nmK Targum i^DDI "i^OVK . So Onk. Gen. 14:1. Ps. Jon. D1DJ1D ■ ib. 10:26 d'-XV nt^DH ^V D^nn Targum snn^^S. So Onk. Lev. 40:19; Deut. 21:22, 23. Ps. Jon. SD'p . ib. 12:5; 13:13 insvoni Targum Dmp'BKl. So Onk. Deut. 3:14. Ps. Jon. D1TP''D:K *^'. ib. 13:3 Kin ^'XiE''' ■'H^s nw ,n^nj nts'o inj k^ m5 dsk'^i cn^n: Targum iinnjons ^sib''' •'h^n ■>■' iin? an'' n tjno . Also Ezek. 44:28 Dntns ''JX ^KT^"! DH^ Unn K^ ninxi Targum IinnJOnN prx Iin^ nunn IJnn This is the rendering by Onk. of Deut. 18:2 in^HJ Kin 'n • But Ps. Jon. xnnniD V3"1K1 □nts'y -xnjinsT ib. 14:4 on^t^njOl Targum nn^nilV Also Ezek. 45:2; 48:17. So Onk. Lev. 25:34; Num. 35:2, 3, 4. Ps. Jon. p^ns • ib. 20:1 D^PO nv Targum snUfB' mp. So Onk. Num. 35:6, 11, 13. Ps. Jon. t^DPT 'np. ib. 20:5, 9 cnn ?KJ Targum xm ^KJ. So Onk. Num. 35:19, 21, 24, 25; Deut. 19:6. But Ps. Jon. KDT V3n . ib. 20:5 nVT '^33 'a Targum n''Vno S^3 nK. So Onk. Deut. 19:4. Ps. Jon. pnno K^3. ib. 23:16 ...mna nmaxi Targum xyiK ^VD vnsn tnain't Kn3D. So Onk. Deut. 11:17. Ps. Jon. ^•\'?-3 IHUD S? . 2K. 5:16 13 "ISQM Targum nn sq^pnsi. So Onk. Gen. 19:3. Ps. Jon. D'^3. ib. 5:19 ns 0133 Targum 'KynN 3113. So Onk. Gen. 35:16; 48:7. Ps. Jon in former: V31K3 xn^^V \\1ti'H •'liyo in latter: syix ■'yrD. ib. 6:18 DniJD3 D3'1 Targum Knn3B'3. So Onk. Gen. 19:11. Ps. Jon. Nni-niin3 . Frag. nn3nn3. ib. 16:6 ^KTI Targum inni. So Onk. Deut. 7:22. Ps. Jon. •'^'ri . ib. 18:32 K'3ni nn nx Targum snti'D in3v snnm Nvnx {2^31 K13j; X'ni So Onk. Deut. 8:8. Ps. Jon in3j; Kn^lOID ID1 .{i'3T ib. 21:6 DiJVTI 31S ntJ'VI B'HJI IJIVI Targum n3j;i B'^'Hil pJJ'l n'3n inu So Onk. Lev. 19:26; 20:6; Deut. 18:10, 14. Ps. Jon. pj'V n'ns. ib. 23:25 IIKD ?331 Targum 'niD3J ^331. So Onk. Deut. 6:5. Ps. Jon. p3J1DO ?33. IS. 3:20 nnvvn Targum m^'pii n't^l. So Onk. Num. 31:50 jn^B' Ps. Jon. nn''jniK id Nitj'np. Jerem. 7:24 etc. D3? nmtJ'3 Targum nn3? 1in'in3. So Onk. Deut. 29:18. Ps. Jon. tyu SIV ninn3. Ezek. 12:7, 8, 12 HD^V Targum K^3p. So Onk. Gen. 15:17. Ps. Jon. NDDin. Gen. r. 45, 9 KDD'OS. 47) Ps. Jon. agrees with On. and Jon. in Gen. 16:7; 20:1. Onkelos renders na pai trip pi (ibid 16:14) Nn;in pn Dpi ]12 presumably influenced by 20:1 •^^m I'll Vip pn . Cases of this sort are numerous in Onkelos. Similar cases in Jonathan are cited in the chapter on textual deviations. But as to Ps. Jon., the render- ing also of Tits' in 16:7; 20:1 was nsi'JPI as in 28:18, iii which the Fragmentary concurs, Evidence for this is presented in Gen. r. 45, 9: nsi'jm miN3 ,Dtan pj; by ■ Also Ps. Jon. to Exod. 15:22. Grone- mann's (Pent. Uber., p. 20) argument on this is thus a miscalculation. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 33 ib. 20:39 my ■\'?^nr\ i<'? 'c-ip Dty nsi Targum p^nn n^ . So Onk. Exod. 20:22; Lev. 21:6, 12, 1?; 22:32. Ps. Jon. pDQn But I'^rrn □■•013 IVDJ (Jer. 31:4) l^^nsi . So Onk. Deut. 20:6. Ps. Jon. n'PIQ. ib. 28:13 nac"! nnc C'^-C-\r\ Q'?:^^) moa DTK Targum tnaiDTN rt::L" p-i^nji:i x^nm xd' diid n^nnoi ipni tPoo . So Onk. Exod. 28:17, 18, 19, 20. But not so Ps. Jon. and F. Joel 2:13 non ni D''BX niK Targum nayo^ nooi tJi p^niD I13D . So Onk. Exod. 34:6. Ps. Jon. non ...nn inx. These cases are of special interest also for determining the nature of the relation between Onkelos and the non'official Tar- gumim. But of equal importance are the cases of agreement between the official Targumim in which the non'official Targumim concur. They also belong to Onkelos. I do not intend to raise the question of the origin and history of the non-official Tar- gumim to the Pentateuch. I have my own view of them, differ- ing appreciably from those offered. But whether we assume with Bacher that in the Fragmentary is preserved a relic of the ancient and original Palestinian Targum on which were based both Onkelos and Ps. Jonathan which form stages of the same Targum,* 9) or whether we choose the simpler view enunciated by Traub u. Seligson, that Ps. Jon. and the Fragmentary are to some extent a critical revision of Onkelos,-''°> there is the general recognition of the common ground of these Targumim and Onkelos. The fact, therefore, that they agree with Onkelos cannot be construed to impart to the cases in question a different character. Josh. 10:11; 14:6,7 yjin t^npD Targum HK'J Dpi So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Num. 32:8 etc. ib. 12:2 paTl IVI Targum xpDV . So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 32:23; Num. 21:24 etc. 48) This is true only when it is spoken of profanation of God (Is. 48:11; Ez. 20:9, 14; 22:36; 27:33); profanation of the Sabbath (Is. 56:2, 6; Ez. 20:16, 21, 24, 38). But when it is spoken of pro- fanation of the land and temple «DBN is employed. 49) Z. D. M. G., V. 28, 60-63. 50) Frankel's Monatschrift, 1857, 101 et seq. Gronemann (Pent. fJbersetz., p. 8, note) also thinks that the Fragmentary and Ps. Jon., especially the latter, have expanded Onkelos. 34 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS ib. 11:2; 12:3 nnJO Targumnoirj . So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Num. 34:11 etc. ib. 12:8; 10:13, 20 nntJ'X Targum xnoiO IDtJ'O . So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Deut. 4:49. Judges 1:6 ijip ijni Targum HKD^B' 'J31. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 15:19 and Frag. Num. 24:21, 22. ib. 3:8 onnj aiN Targum niE ^V n DiX So Onk. and i's. Jon. Gen. 24:10. lb. 17:5, 12 T> na K^OM Targum \2l\> H' anPI- So Onk. diid Ps. Jon. Exod. 28:41. IS 19:13, 16 D"Qin Targum KiJoi'V So Onk. and Ps Joa. Gen. 31: 19, 34, 35. 2S 1:19 ^siB''' usn Targum Iinnvns. So On. Exod. 33:21 nasJI — inynni. Ps. Jon. nnj/D 'nni . Also Deut. 29:9. IK 11:36; 15:4 "I'J nVH IVD^i Targum I3^a . So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Num. 21:30 DI'JI . 2K 3:13 ...^K ^NltJ''' I^D?" 1DK''1 Targum 1J?33 , So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 19:7, 18. ib. 5:21 na^IDH ^VO ^ifJ'l Targum Ii3-insi So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 24:64. ib. 19:37 tillN riS Targum mp SVIS!?. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 8:4. (Ps. Jon. I1-npl)=i>. There is also agreement between them with regard to the belief in a second death for the wicked in the Messianic Age. So Jon. Is. 65:6; Jerem. 51:39. Both Onk. and Frag, render Deut. 33:6 nv ?si laiKi Tf — s:'':n sniai kd^v 'inn t^isi 'n' nw »"? ; Frag.: nm sjijn sjniDi niDi s?i so^'va laisi in' KiyitJ'"! Tl'D . ^SDtJ'l I'D"! indicating direction (Is. 9:19; Egek. 21:21; Zech. 12:6) are rendered by KJISS SDIIT . So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 13:9. Is. 14:9 D^KDn Targum fiaj . So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 15:20. Chayjoth in mp3 mJK ^3) has brought to notice the remarkable change in the rendering of QilDj? by Onk. Everywhere in Gen. it is rendered ixn^Jf but beginning with Exod. iNnini is the rendering. The motive for that might be the exegetical saying of R. Simeon b. Jochai on Gen. 49:8: 51) Cited also in Gen. r. 33, 2. i^l) Page 8. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 35 In that Ps. Jon., with a single exception, agrees. (Gen. 43:32). But Exod. 21:2n3V 135; HJpn '3 and Deut. 15:20; 13:12 nn3S/n IX nnyn ■pnx '['? ISD' •'3 both Onk. and Ps. Jon. have ^ixnt^' 13 in order, it would appear, to avoid the misinterpreta- tion: the slave of an Israelite (com. Mechilta 1. c). Jonathan as a rule renders Dn3V — iNlin^ IS 13:3, 17; 14:11, 21; Jonah 1, 9. But Jerem. 34:9 (also 14) innQB' nx ti'^'SI 1131? DK tS'^X n'?ti>'> nnnym n3Vn . The T. follows Onk. and Ps. Jon. rendering ^KIB''' n31 ?K1B'i 13 xn^^i"^. Zech. 12:8 Din5iX3 I'll DUI Targum P31313. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 6:4 D'H^NH 'J3 — K'3131. This comparative Hst could be extended appreciably. But the number of cases presented are sufficient to show the real nature of the problem. There could be found sound ex' planation for the similarity between Onk. and the Frag, and Ps. Jon. even were we not to proceed along the lines of the theories offered, for they are exploiting the same field, the Penta- teuch. Why, however, should an author of a Targum to the Prophets seek harmony with Onkelos in many comparatively un- important details of rendering, will hardly be possible to explain. Could not the Targum to the Prophets have its own way of rendering in the respective cases? Neither could it be the way of a redactor. But this Targum, like the Mishna, Tosefta, Talmudim and Midrashim, had no single author: there was no single re- vision. The inference will yield the only possible conclusion that there was a common source for the official Targumim. They were originated in one and the same time; in one and the same way, under one and the same circumstances and share a com mon history. They were the product of the Aramaic rendering of the portion from the Law and the Prophets read in public worship. The Lxx had a similar origination, although later genera- tions, actuated by propaganda motives, formed a different notion of the act.53> The official Targumim are the work of genera- 53) This view is held by most scholars. "Sie verdanken nicht der Wissenschaft sondern dem Relig. Bedurfnisse" (Frankel, Vorstudien, 36 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS tions. They were formed and reformed through many centuries, gradually, invisibly. They were not a new attempt, supplanted none, but are the continuation of the Targumim used in the service. Hence also the remarkable balance between the paraphrastic and literal so skillfully maintained in the official Targumim. That formed a necessary condition with the regulations of the reading in early as in later ages. The Lxx assumed the same course. There was sought an exact rendering, a simple and ground understanding, as close to the original as possible. Literalness was insisted upon and expository rendering would only be tolerated in difficult or poetical passages, or where the danger of a misinterpretation had to be averted. I completely disagree with Zun?, Geiger, Bacher^*) and others, who insist on the priority of the Mid- rashic Targum to the literal. Their theory is wrong. It is built upon, it would seem, the doubtful foundation that the poetical and difficult passages were first to be rendered. ■''^^ But as they can furnish no evidence it is just as safe to assert that the simpler passages involving a literal rendering were rendered either first or at one time with the poetical ones. Invoking again the Lxx, the literalness is the conspicuous feature in them and not the paraphrastic. The exposition of the Law and the Prophets held on the Sabbaths in the synagogue in Alexandria left little trace in the Lxx. Nothing approaching the Philonian exposition has 20). Com. Tischendorf, V. T. G. XHI; Geiger, Urschrift, 160; Konig, Einleitung, 103. 54) Zuns, G. V., 344; Geiger, Ur., 425. Com. Frankel, Uber d. Zeit etc., Ver. Deut. Orient, 1845, 13. Bacher ib. 64, after assert' ing that the literalness of Onkelos was a later and Babylonian tendency, is not in the least disturbed when, following this assertion, he draws a list of cases in which Onkelos is expository while the Frag., the original and oldest, according to his view, is literal. Com. also Ps. Jon. Deut. 33:26 rendering the v. literally, while Onk. and Frag, are exegetical. 55) Com. Steinschneider, Jewish Lit. (Heb.) 20. He also takes the view that the Targum in essence was not different from the Midrash, assuming that the Targum originated from single translation of difficult words. Like Geiger and Bacher, he asserts (ib. 190) that from these (Midrashic) Targumim resulted the simpler and exacter understanding of the Bible. It is certainly a curious and queer process. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 37 found room in the translation. It was the knowledge and not the exposition of the Bible which formed the prime necessity for instituting the reading of the translation. These writers have exaggerated innocent sayings in the Mishna reproaching ren- derings of certain targumists, which are found in Ps. Jonathan. Because they Eire cited in the Mishna and because they were re- jected, they came at once to be regarded not only as belonging to an early Targum but to the earliest. Consequently, the ex- position preceded in point of time the literal which marked a new departure and had been accomplished in Babylonia. But these citations could as well belong to a later Targum. On the contrary, the way they are quoted pO^iniOT I^^Xl ^®' clearly signifies the existence of another Targum upon which these new Targumim had attempted to encroach.^''') Again, it should be borne in mind that the Agada had been the product of a generation subsequent to the simple exposition of the Soferim and tKe Zugoth. The exegetical element in the Targumim was influenced, and on occasion determined, by the Halaka, which also had a progressive history. But the Targum existed before the new tendencies made their appearance. The official Targumim thus represent the early as well as the later recognised Targumim used in public worship. Through common use there had been a continuous interchange of influence between them. It is customary to consider the T. to the Pentateuch as older than the T. to the Prophets.^^) Thjs opinion rests on a questionable argument. There can be no doubt that the introduction of the Targum in public service dates back to a comparatively early period. But in my judgment it had not originated before the Maccabean age.3^> There is suf- ficient evidence in support of the view that Hebrew had not 56) Y. Berakoth 5,3: PKT nD3 '5X18" i33T NDJJ ItOJinOT p^'NI K'ntri IDm . The other citation in Megilla IJa reads: |nn h') lyTtHl 1B1«n "ibtib which carries the same implication. 57) Com. Z. Chajoth on Megilla 25a. 58) It is interesting to note that later tradition also assigns to the Targum to Pent, an earlier date. Com. Sifri beginning nsiin flNTl . Com. Maimonidas 3> .n^sfi 'S"i : Dyb pjiin DB* Nn'B' npn mtj; nio'D mina snip xnipntS' no ; of the T. to the Prophets he proceeds only to repeat the regulations appearing in the Mishna. 59) Com. KautMch Gram. d. Biblisch-Arara., p. 4. 38 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS only been well understood in Palestine in the time of Ezra and Nehemaia, but that it had been the vernacular tongue. 6*" There is, on the contrary, no positive evidence either that Aramaic had been in those early days the vernacular among the Jews in Palestine or even that the general ignorance of the Jews of the Aramaic tongue of the period of the Kings had entirely passed. What use would that generation have for an Aramaic version of the Law ? But whether it had been introduced in the period immediately preceding the Maccabean uprising or in the early days of Mac- cabean rule, it is certain that when the need of the Targum arose there had already been established the custom of reading in public service from the Prophets as a supplement to the reading from the Law. As the reading from the Law goes back to Ezra, 61) and because of the greater interest in the knowledge 60) Frankel, Palast. Ex., 208, 280, consistent with his literal interpretation of the tradition that the Targum originated with E?ra, ac cepts the genial but useless theory put forward by De Rossi (1. c.) that Onkelos was consulted by the Greek translators. But unlike De Rossi, Frankel would not consider the Aramaic version — a corrupted rendering of the original. Rapaport, DOnnx^ in3t Let. 3, takes the same view, and it should be followed by all others of the same mind as regards the date of the origin of the Targum. To overlook the difficulty arising from an assumption that either the Targum had not been carried to Egypt, or, being in use, that it exercised no influence on the Lxx, would certainly be unforgiveable. 61) The Karaites ascribe the reading of the Haftora to Ewa (com. Neubauer, Aus Petersburger Bibliothek, p. 14); Abudraham placed its origin in the persecutions of Antiochus. But whatever cause one may unearth (com. Biichler J. Q. R. v., p. 6 et seq.), one outstanding cause was the institution of the reading of the Law in public service. The reading from the Prophets served the purpose of administering an admonition as to the holiness and observance of the Law. I completely agree with Biichler that the introduction of the reading of the Penta- teuch had its origin in the festivals (J. Q. R., v. 5, p. 442). Thus the Sifra to Lev. 23:43; Sifri to Deut. 16:1; Meg. 4a, 32a. The Law was read by Ezra on the festivals of the New Year and Tabernacles (Neh. 8:2, 8, 18; 9:3). The reading on Saturday appears to have arisen later, when synagogues arose outside Jerusalem. Hence the supposition that the selection of definite portions for each festival preceded the definite apportioning of the Sabbatical reading. I disagree, however, with the motive to which Biichler attributes the origin of both the Pentateuchal THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 39 of the Law, the necessity of an Aramaic translation of the Law might have been earher appreciated than that of the Prophets. But no sooner was the reading from the Prophets instituted than the necessity of an Aramaic rendering became apparent. Although the Greek translation of the Pentateuch leads all other books of the Bible in point of time, not even a century passed before the Prophets "and the other writings" were to be found in the Greek tongue. As far as the general ordinance is concerned, no distinction is made between the Targum to the Law and the Targum to the Prophets. Accordingly, it is said in Soferim 18:4 pnn IDI .minn nxnp inN? natj' '?^ nuji -no ?3 nipirm Ditj'j^i w^ onn^ In the Mishna Meg. 21a, 23b; Yerushalmi 4, 1, 5, the Tar- gum to the Prophets is discussed alongside with the Targum to the Law, the limitations on the reading of the former being less rigid than the latter for other reasons nsnin iTirD KPBJ S^T . Again in Mishna 25a; Tosefta 4 (3); Y. Meg. 4, 11 a list of passages both from the Law and the P;:ophets is given which were not to be translated. Both were not considered obHgatory, so that their omission in the service would not call for repetition, as it is made clear in Y. Meg. 4, 6 31 "idIK ?3D3;d DlJinm and Prophetical readings, which would place their institution at nearly the same date. One should not resort to the magical Samaritan influence in order to find the cause for such an ordinance when it is readily presented in Nehemia: "And on the second day there gathered themselves together unto Ezra, the expounder, to obtain again intelligence of the words of the Law. And they found written in the Law that the children of Israel should dwell in booths during the feast in the seventh month. And (they ordered) that they should publish... throughout all their cities and through Jerusalem saying, go forth unto the mountain and fetch leaves to make booths, as it is written (13' 15)." It was the ignorance of the people of the ordinances of the festivals which formed the cause of the reading from the book of the Law. These passages present suf- ficient ground for ascribing the ordinance of the reading from the Law to Ezra. This might also be implied in the tradition ascribing it to Moses. Com. B. Kama 82a. The Haftora is much later, and dates to the end of the third century or the beginning of the second century B. C. Direct and positive evidence cannot be furnished. Early tradition is silent over it. But what has been said above and the fact that a Greek translation of the Prophets had already been made at that time, and also the mention of the Prophets in Ben Sira in a manner suggesting general acquaintance with them by the people, lend support to this view. 40 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS .mn I'DJiriD x^i psipi sn'jvn? ppQJ im t^an psT no in nor 335;d DIJinn pXB' niOX . This is in substance implied in the saying of R. Chalafta b. Saul, Meg. 24a, as interpreted in To- safoth 1. c. But the reading from the Law and from the Prophets in the Sabbath service had not been definitely set as late as in the time of the composition of the Mishna. The selection was left to the discretion of the individual community. Any portion from the Prophets, as from the Law, would be read.^^) The readings were translated. Hence the rise of a Targum to all the Prophetical books. The author of the official Targumim was the congregation. The Targum in its first stages had no definite shape. The reader framed the translation at the reading of the original. Every reader had his own choice of words and his own way of rendering. He was only conditioned to present a close and exact rendering. But with the persistence of the Targum and its growing significance the free translation progressed by various degrees to a definite and unchangeable form. Anything which endures 62) Com. Maimonides 2' ,1' .n'i'Sn "jn .Hitt'O f\D2 :n>n X^iy nN^31 ]iajf "iitasa nin ins bo n'jk Din> nx jnina (Ez. 16) should not be read. Had the passages represented a definite Sabbatical reading, a sub- stitute reading would be indicated which should be read instead of the interdicted ones. It should be borne in mind that all these portions from the Prophets cited in the Tosefta (ibid), with the exception of Ezek. 1, have not found a place on the calendar of the Haftora. The attempt of Biichler to discover the early divisions of the readings from the Law and the accompanied readings from the Prophets is highly hypothetical. Again, the definite mention of the Targum in the Mishna and Tosefta shows that the Targum was introduced before a definite order of the Sab- batical readings had been introduced. 42 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS misleading as to the proper kind, Jeremiah would force the tar' gumist to retranslate it in a different way. The third case con- cerned the rendering of nJI' 'J31 nmn (Lev. 5:7), and R. Pineas would not allow to render dniD by pD'DQ. These cases demon- strate the peculiar manner in which the composition of the T. was accomplished. Although the official Targumim were in a definite shape in the time of R. Akiba,^^) ^hg process of transformation had been still going on to a comparatively late date. It affected both the literal and exegetical rendering. Some older exegetical render- ings were rejected and replaced by others. Of the rejected, some have been preserved in the Ps. Jonathan, which in itself is an Aramaic Jalqut comprising also later Agadic material. Rejected paraphrases of the Targum to the Prophets might be those which appear on the margin in the Codex Reuch. and in some early editions. Although the notes prefaced 'K DIJID contain Agadic material of a later date, they contain elements which might have been first incorporated in the Targum but rejected later as not to be read in the service. The same may be said of those ascribed to 'K 1SD although being on the whole an attempt to simplify and to supplement the extant T. Again, the duplicate renderings which are found both in Jonathan and Onk. can be explained by the fact that one formed the older explanation while the other represents a more recent one but which for some reason had not succeeded in dispossessing the older one. This explains also the curious renderings of certain verses, one half retaining one rendering while the other half contains a remnant of a dif' ferent rendering. As rejected paraphrases may be considered the Targum to Micah 7:3, quoted in Rashi, and another quoted in the name of Jehuda of Paris on 2S 6:11. ^*> 63) Com. R. Akiba's homily on 2ek. 12:1 (Moed Katan 28a), whcih shows that R. Akiba knew the Targum to this verse. Com. R. Jehuda's saying referred to aliove; also Beraitha Baba Kama 17a H'jN ntftyi nttf^B' i'Jb^ ins'B' min' ']ba n'ptn nt iniB3 i^ wy Tinsi .13 ivy iNns 'jb^ K'jni .rrom y'« .min> 'n nan ,c\n2 >si^n 64) Com. Zun?, G. V. 80: TtBO B'nBB rmn> 0V2 n'j'jt nn ksh nta^BI "ntS 'tyiT 'in ISISOI . Com. also Rashi, Ezek. 27:17: D:nn inJT Buin siijan Nsoty ins^fa ]iyf:m 'i 'BD ...t8>in n ttsna ::s^ nna tan .NO^pl K^tS'im iD^tS^IT THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 43 The same can be said of the selection of words in the ren' dering. It should be noticed at the outset that the remarkable unity exhibited in the official Targumim is strongly emphasised also in the wording of the translation. Once the Aramaic word was set for a Hebrew word, you are certain to find it in each case where this Hebrew word occurs. An illustration of this amazing fact is presented in the rendering of the names of peoples, countries and cities. Other instances can be picked up at random. It demonstrates in a most emphatic way the scrupu- lous rigor with which the work of the Aramaic rendering had been accomplished. If, therefore, a word is rendered in one place one way and another way somewhere else, we are certain to have two different Targumim of the word in question. But apart from cases of this sort which are contained in the official Targumim, variations have come down to us from different sources. Concerning Onkelos variations are contained in Ps. Jonathan. In some cases in which Ps. Jonathan has a different Aramaic word for the Hebrew from that contained in Onk., the Fragmentary will be found to correct it, replacing it by the one used in Onkelos. There is, however, no means enabling us to dis' cover which of the two represents the earlier form. They might have had their origin in the same time. Two communities might have coined them at the same time. Instructive instances are pres' ented in the different renderings given by Rav and Levi of Gen. 49:27 (Zebachim 54a); ib. 30:14 (San. 99a), Onkelos agreeing with that of the former; R. Jehuda and Nehemia — of Gen. 18:1 (Gen. r. 42, 6). Variations of this kind are not wanting also in the Targum to the Prophets. Some have been preserved in Jonathan. A good many others are contained in Talmud and Midrashim and in the marginal notes in the Codex Reuch., under the names of •'onDDT n^Xl ,r^Q ,S"^ ,x"D ,N"n. In a few cases of the latter the variant will be seen to agree with Ps. Jonathan and Fragmentary. This fact lends new support to the view of the common source of all Targumim. The former cases shall be considered first. Joshua 19:8 1S3 n^J?3 Targum ...n^yn ; N"?— 1{J''B . So is theT. of 13 ?5/n(ib. 11:17; 12:7) 'Din ^y3 (Jud. 3:3) lan D^yn (Jud. 20:33) etc. Judges 6:38 ^aon Targum K3P? lev.dvr] ; onnK ?DD3 44 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS (ib. 5:25) Targum Nnnj '^'33. The latter is the rendering of nj/3P (Is. 51:17, 22). So is rendered siD3 mj/p (Num. 7:13) in Ps. Jon.; Onk. xnoaD. Judges 8:21 D'JintJTl Targum Nipjy ; in Is. 3:18 it is ren- dered by X1D3D. The latter is given to Judges by K"? in Cod. Reuch. IS. 19:13, 16; Ez. 21:26; 2a. 10:2 DiQin Targum K''JD?X . Judges 18:17, 18, 20 psDI while K"^ has NDny. ib. 16 onyn 1'331 Targum sn'JJT XIIJI • But N"? has XDJ1J1. This is the rendering of IDSDD (2K 8:15) connected with 1^3 . Com. Kimchi 1. c. IK 22:49 {j'iK'in Targum NpnSK . So Jer. 10:9; Jonah 1:3. But Is. 2:16; 23:1, 14; Eziek. 27:12 kqi . 2K 5:23 D'tiin Targum D^m^Q. Is. 3:22 xi^na . Jerem. 31:28 nn'^V T\1P^ 1tJ'X3 Targum nntJTn ri03 ; in the second half npt^s p Targum na^D nri' p . The same was certainly the rendering of impt^ "itJ'tO which is found in n"D- Here is a case of a rejected Anthropomorphism of a latter time. Ezek. 27:6 D'n3 Targum N'^lDK or K'^D'N. Everywhere else it is rendered it> n3ns . Koheleth r. nD3n n31t2 on 2K 18:16 nUDIsn DKl — S'n no .SnjiB' tn»N tJ3Tl SnQiV ids 11? U ? nUOINn Targum .NiQIpD Lev. r. 4:1 on Is. 1:21 QinviD nnvi — «i?1DP inny . Jon. ttJ'QJ i^lDP . Shochar Tob 32, 2 (com. Y. San. 10, 1) on Mi. 7:8 v^B '?v — p3in itj'jiKT . Jon. pmn 5y 135/01 . Similar cases are: Lev. r. 5, 2; Num. r. 10, 5 on Am. 6:4 and Lev. r. 6, 2 on Zech. 5:1, all of which represent, undoubtedly, a different and rejected Targumic rendering. The following case is to my mind an interesting relic of a rejected rendering. This THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 47 is in Frag. Deut. 32:1: jnTV S'OK'^ 1^10 IDSI ti'lEia Sin 131 /^an SB'iD^a kviki pdc kjjds k''OB' nx vi^o syix^ i^anosi The rendering in Jon. is as follows: I^DHDNI 113'J'S; S^DB'? IS^PT K''?m KniD33 svisi nv p nj?n sjjna x'djj' ns n^o xyisa i^an ID The rendering in the F. is hteral. We cannot determine which is the earlier rendering. The process of alteration had been going on until a com- paratively late date but not so late as the final redaction of the Babylonian Talmud. That was made especially possible by the fact that the T. was recited in the worship by heart. Reading the Targum from a written copy was prohibited. This inter- diction is indicated in Tanchuma Gen. 18:17: ? 3n33 ^Dno't^ t^'H no minn snip^ nannD sintj' ^d uun mo^" 1TB p mini '1 -iot< .3n33 ^DnDn?" nios ojinon irnm uk* na 5y ID ; KipDn nn — n^xn onmn dk -['? ana : sin s^o nip» .na ^va in'jti' Duinn nn — nJsn onmn 's This passage is quoted in the Pesiqta (ed. Friedmann), p. 28. Does it imply an interdiction to put the Targum into writing? This question was the cause of much contention. Rashi inclined to an extreme interpretation of the prohibition to write down all belonging to traditional exposition. So with regard to the Mishna which, he insists, was not written down by Rabi (Ketuboth 19b). Com. Rashi Erubin 62a, beginning nj3 : nn^Dia nains na^n nm nrrn s^c r\^:vr\ n^JD dpj pni ; niJVri n^JDO nn nns nis l^'SS also Taanith 12a. He takes the view that the Targum had not been allowed to be written down. Commenting on the Mishna Shabbath 115a he says: i"svn jiNi^jK K^i iKP imnDs "lONpn ]w'? '?^n ism wia 'nnni p in:^ irvoti' ijao 'JK nnnoi ,r^v:i ]>i)va \)^'? ?33 f^iDDB' -IDS DX ,D'N''3n ^S nolS 1JS1 ,13 PB'iaD m DUIH IIOSK' ^SniV -iDKT tsoT n^JD 'DD3 B-iao ''Dm pnsnJ' unj s^i una s^- injr .IDS inJipa According to Rashi's teachers, with whom he disagrees, not only was the T. to the Prophets written down, but also allowed to be read in the service in written form; for, as Rashi him- self remarks, one is dependent upon the other. For this reason it was seemingly his teachers who would interpret the contention, between Rab Huna and Rab Chisda as referring only to the 48 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS Hagiographa, as according to the interpretation of the Gemarah they only differ on the view of those who prohibit the reading from a written Targum. Rashi, however, makes capital of the expression in the Babli Meg. 3a nox lan 'PJIX as does Luzzatto (O. G. IX). But as the saying of R. Jeremia is also quoted in the Yerushalmi, it is just as well to take nox as an innocent substitute for dJin of the Yerushalmi version, which does not carry this implication. The main source of Rashi's con- tention is the prohibition contained in the saying of Rabban Simon b. Gamliel, Y. M. 1, 9; BabH 8b n^nn a"? Dn-:Dn fix n^JV X^K inna't^. But there are the D''DDn (ib. and Shab. 115b) who differ with him, and as it is said in Soferim 15,2 H'nti' (Jx'^DJ pn) 3"3t5'-i3 nt^va noxc D'oan i^ nin x? ,d'<:v k^k ■•a '?v nxi t^^nipn nna ?3 noxty nnnna noy o^Mn fixi ...noiy .nT^Jj D'Jiyto PL"'' ?Dn imnDtj' Furthermore, there is no implication in R. Simon b. Gamliel's saying of a prohibtion to write down the T. He only meant to say that the reading from a written T. in service does not fulfil the required Aramaic rendering. Consequently, as Rab Porath, quoted in Tosafoth (Shab. ib. x^l) rightly put it, be- cause it is not allowed to read it, is equivalent to reading the Torah by heart and n3^1?3 DIDX^ iSCI nns 'X 3nD3{J' onm . The question raised there against it is thus well answered. Com. also Tos. Sota 33a 53 . There is certainly not the slightest ground for an inference that no written T. to the Prophets existed. Witness the interpretation (in Babli ib.) of R. Jehuda "iJinmi 1DD3 x^x iiTin x5 u'nnx n^nna'D m mm'' "i idx nijr n^nn min . But we well know that at that time all the books of the Bible existed in the Greek translation. There is the same base- lesness for the reason ascribed by Lu^atto (1. c), Zunz (G. V. 65) and others to the prohibition, namely, that the T. contain- ing some Halaka, was regarded on one plane with B"j;dB' min which was not to be written down (Temura 14b, Gittin 60b). Had this been the reason, how was the Lxx sanctioned by all the Rabbis, containing as it does so many Halakic interpretations? (Com. Z. Frankel nJCOn '311 10 and Ober d. Einfluss 1. c). It should also be noticed that the reason given for R. Simon b. Gamliel's interdiction of other than the Greek translation is THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 49 naiv ^3 DJin? n^lS^ minn PKB* and not because it belongs to the On the other hand, it is well known that in spite of the interdiction on the written Halaka, the Rabbis did not hesitate to write down for private use Halakic decisions and intercourses. It will also be remembered that in the time of Rabban Gamliel the Elder there was already in existence a Targum to Job. That the interdiction passed by him on this Targum was not due to the fact of its being written was shown above. Again, Esther had also been translated, as it appears from the Mishna Meg. 17a: n^nv H"? ...xifi K? \)a'^ ?33 DiJiD Kip H^jon nx xiipn D13in npl main a^nSl . The reason is pointed out, for it is written DJIK'^DI D3n33 . But there could be no more reason for considering the T. to the Prophets s"y3K' Dn3T than the T. to Esther. It is clear then that the prohibition against the written T. had only been instituted against the public reading in the service. The reason for that was mainly to avert sharing by the T. the same sanctity with the original. This is in essence the very reason given for R. Simon b. Gamliel's view. And this pro- hibition, it would seem, was enforced even at a date when the Mishna was already written down and allowances were made for the written Agada (com. Gittin 60b). Rapoport (piSt letter 3) well expounded the case of the written Halaka when he said that the prohibition was directed mainly against the public discussion and was not intended to exclude it from private use. Berhner (On. 89) rightly appHed this view to the T. This view might be substantiated by Tanchuma (ib.) Quia Dnno^ IIDNI minn fiDnDn? , which Friedmann (Pesiqta ib.) is inclined to emend 3n33 ^anon^ . The implied indication is that a written T. may be permitted for private use. There certainly were in existence written copies of the Targum, which were restricted to personal use. One such copy a targumist would employ in public worship and was hindered by R. Samuel b. Isaac telling him ,n-:3 — HDD IIDNJC Dnm 2nD3 — nn32 •\-\DKW Dnani (Y. Meg. 4, 5). What he meant amounted to saying that the T. should be read by heart, just as the original is to be read from the written only. 50 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS Targum Jonathan was used by later targumists. It was pointed out above that Targum Ps. 18 is a copy with minor modifications, notice of which will be taken in the chapter on Other Targumim, of the Targum to Samuel 22. T. Jonathan was used by the targumist of Chronicles. The T. to Chronicles exhibits pronounced and independent characteristics. It pursues, on the whole, its own way of ex' position and translation. It is more Midrashic than the official Targumim. He will not, in most cases, let himself be influenced by the official Targumim. In some instances he will neither fol' low Onkelos nor Ps. Jonathan. Yet, even this targumist made definite and considerable use of the Targum Jonathan. The cases in question are of a typical nature, which do not admit of an incidental agreement. I will quote them in order of Chronicles. 1 Chronicles 11:11 TiB'DI IDXy Targum 11031 IDnp . Jon. 2S 5:1. 1 Ch. 13:7 ins ns n'ST-l Targum in^HSI. Jon. 2S 6:3. 1 Ch. 13:9 HT-a ]-\i Targum Ipno ins . Jon. 2S 6:6. ib. inuno Targum IDOE'. Jon. ib. 1 Ch. 14:1 nip 'E'ini Targum sJni3 pJ3? fJDlNT f^^msi . Jon. 2S 5:11. 1 Ch. 14:9 D1KDT PDVa 1 to B'Qil Targum snU'J ItJ'iBn IB'^DIIT'I Jon. 2S 5:18 reading Iti'Lin . 1 Ch. 14:11 D'-Via ?V3 Targum QiviS -|{J'''D . Jon. 2S 5:20. ib. DID n03 Targum p'O ifel inQT iKO "inn^ .Jon. ib. 2S. 1 Ch. 14:15 niDH^ T-JQ? d'H^NH NV i3 Targum PQJ nnx ^DPD> IDnp sn^VN? 11 DIP ID nSK^a. Jon.2S 5:24. 1 Ch. 16:3 "iQt^K Targum JlJ^Q . Jon. 2S 6:19. 1 Ch. 17:1 Dmx nnn Targum sms mi33 ??t3»T. Jon. 2S 7:2, 7. ib. niVT' nnn ...insi Targum 11J3 KJ3B'03 na' sjnxi snyn'' . Jon. 2S 7:2. 1 Ch. 17:7 11JJ nrn? IKSn nns id l^nnp^ 'JX Targum XD^D 'inD^ NJV inao snn id limm XJS. Jon. 2S 7:8. The usual rendering of iijj in the T. to Chronicles is ims (1 Ch. 11:2) tniD (1 Ch. 13:1). THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 51 1 Ch. 17:9 DlpD TlDB'l Targum IpriD ins . Jon. 2S 7:10. 1 Ch. 17:16 D'n^S " •'JN 10 Targum nO'DS KJS Jli? . Jon. 2S 7:18. 1 Ch. 17:17 piniD? lanni Targum inST KD^V^. Jon. 2S 7:19. 1 Ch. 17:20 irjtxa IjyOB' Itrs ?33 Targum SJJ/DK' n ?33 KJOnP IIDKl . Jon. 2S 7:22. 1 Ch. 17:21 )-\ii2 ins •'U Targum xyiKa vn^) ''NT'n'' KDV Jon. 2S 7:23 '...Tna nn SDV. 1 Ch.. 17:25 nn 1^ niJ3^ Targum ']'? d^pN 13^0 . Jon. 2S 7:27. 1 Ch. 18:2 nnJD 'KB*: Targum DIB i^DJ . Jon. 2S 8:2, 6. 1 Ch. 18:3 IT" n^XH^ Targum n'Dinn HSJtJ'K? . Jon. 2S 8:3 ni 3'E'n^ . 1 Ch. 20:3 mmn ntJ'M Targum nnn^ IDDI. Jon. 2S 12:13 ...nti'M 2Ch. 1:14 ^?D^ DVI 33-in nvi on'ri Targum Mlpa tIJ'IK'XI ...DV 1im na to in SiSim . So Jon. IK 10:26. 2Ch. 2:9 nno D^Dn Targum DUIS ftjn . Jon. IK 5:25 TEXTUAL VARIATIONS IN JONATHAN Jonathan, like Onkelos, deviates in many cases from the Masoretic reading to which allusion was already made in the previous chapter. There is a way to differentiate the paraphrastic from the literal sense. Out of the obscurity of the exegetical ex- pansion there comes forth the simple, written phrase on which it rests. The Targum Jonathan, although, on the whole, far from literal adhesion to the text, is unmistakably careful to transmit both the sense and version of the text. The literal pre dominates in the historical portions of the Prophets. Any render- ing ,then, not in accord with the Masoretic reading constitutes a deviation from the reading. This fact was noticed by the rabbinical authorities. Rashi, while for the most part overlooking them and even following them in evident belief that they were merely of an exegetical nature, could not escape the impression that Jonathan had a different reading. Kimchi and Minchat Shai did not hesitate to point out in the plainest language some of these deviations. They have engaged the attention of later rabbinical writers as well as the modern biblical student. D On close examination the deviations will be found to con- 1) However, Abrahm Ibn Ezra, critic as he was, would not ac- cept such a possibihty. Thus he remarks in Safa Berura (9, 11, ed. Lippmann): Dsn fl'iT S'j '3 .D'yTT lj'731 ,^N'tlJ? p inJl''? mn« ini Nini .inji' n'lna imin^ in^yo j;un k^i ,iniB3 >n3t t^ \inv "\ inn IBS .Djra ei'Din'j wn hit vsnv mai maipni n'sm .d'S'isd '?nj n'n pT ...iD'n ni"?** laa Kinif psD px la ,(;i ,j pipin) xm la'nn rtibn m)j3 i^fo nasi ...qDij mn o pD' mitja la'n v^tsb aya ei'Din ityi .anjjn las sintJ' m trm Dtrnai iTp n^i my ninan naNir nnyn pi iniB3i ...Dtnyn dj? i^t'jn aijjn lajjia rum .U'^n n^aa itjr Nsatt* ,(ita ,'k QO^a) nj?n is^a '73 102 Nin 's j?t xin dj ,(ji ,xd niytj") ^«>in') nnnn nx Dino v-wa n t^n (n .t nnai) nn xu anoji onmni snan i»k «^b' nnjfi nsa tyni (t ,20. It is an unsuccessful attempt on his part to explain away renderings that represent a differ- ent reading. 52 TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 53 sist of three distinct categories. Some of them represent an un- questionably different reading. With minor exceptions, they do not admit of being explained away. The preponderate number of these deviations consists of a difference in the pointing. Dif' ferences of this kind are found in great numbers in MSS. claim- ing the Masoretic sanction. They emanate from a period when doubts still existed, as to the reading of certain words. Even the scrupulously literal Aquila version contains variations from the text. The Talmud presents abundant testimony to them. 2) On the other hand, many of these deviations are either followed by the Lxx and P. or they appear in them in a different form. De- viations of this description are here classed under heading "A". There is another class of deviations of a mere grammatical char- acter. There is a noticeable tendency on the part of the translator to eliminate the more striking discrepancies either in the number or in the person of the substantive in the sentence. So the tran- lator renders them in either one or the other way. Sometimes he subordinates all the forms of the sentences to the last in order.*) In some cases the reverse is true s' and in some instances all follow the one in the middle. 6) This principle is observed by the Lxx and P. to some extent. But it does not appear to have been consistently followed by the targumist. The number of ex- ceptions by far exceeds the number of the cases where this principle is enforced. Thus it is impossible to determine the basic rule of this principle. It takes the appearance of an arbitrary and haphazard device. At any rate, this group of variations does not involve a dfferent reading. They appear under heading "B". There is another body of deviations which are very instruct- ive for the biblical student. The targumist made it a rule to render sentences which resemble one another, but differ in some 2) Tin aniQ 13 Slip nns r»n 'Hn 'i'NyoB'i ,j;B>in' 'i '^ ibn nnb ,T^j? ia':a nin nne- p wn ps V'x nnn V'h lyi^i i« yiav Mish. Aboda Zara 29b. Com. also Gen. i. 94, 4: '}V imina .Diiyin n Pl ^1"3 1>*^° "l'"" "^ 3) Com. More Nebuchim 3, 43. 4) Jerem. 9:5; 11:12. 5) Ezet. 11:19 6) Is. 26:8. 54 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS particulars occuring in diiferent parts, in one and the same way. A similar process had been pursued by the Rabbis. It is the K'PTI and the mtJ' mnj of Hillel and R. Ishmael b.Jose,'''> which forms the seventh Mida s) of the 32 Midoth enunci- ated by R. EHezer. But while in the Halaka and Agada the con- formation is sought mainly in the circumstances or in the legal conditions of the cases involved, the targumist is interested in the wording. The Samaritan text, as it is well known, will often change a phrase to agree with a similar phrase somewhere else.9> The Lxx in some instances and the P. to a larger extent follow the same rule. (Com. Frankel, Pal. Ex., p. 166.). There can be little doubt that the author had been actuated by re- flection. Rendering a phrase, the recollection of the other similar phrase flashed through the mind of the translator to leave its stamp upon his rendering. Mental activity of this sort accounts for many misquotations from the Bible found in the Talmud. i°> But this practice could not have originated from a mere un- conscious play of recollection. The translator must have been moved by something which he considered an imperative neces- sity. It will be observed that in most instances treated this way the author was concerned in eliminating an outstanding di- vergence in the version of the narrative of one and the same fact.li> Whether or not the translator pursued a definite rule in applying this principle is diiScult to determine. For the most part the author is seen to make the passage second in order to conform the one preceding it. This kind of variation is placed under heading C. They are of an interpretative nature. They do not point to a different reading, as they were taken by many biblical students. I have 7) Tos. San. 7, Pirkei Aboth of R. Nathan 35, and introduction of Sifra. 8) Com. R;ifm-> 1, Meshib Dabor (Wien, 1866). 9) Com. Kircheim inOB* 'D13 p. 37 et seq. 10) Com. Aboda Zara 24b, citing IS 15:15 DJjn ^BH "iVK nyn ^on ib-k ipnm ]mn amo : onani Dutyani ipnni ixsn nma bv IKSn bs ^J?l according to v. 9, and San. 49a, citing 23 3:27 aVf inm B-nnn — tt'Onn 'bx according to 20:10. 11) Com. Judges 7:7 and 20; IS 4:21 and 19; 2S 12:21 and 22; IK 13:9 and 17; 2K 9:19 and 18. TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 55 omitted all deviations of a doubtful character or consisting of an unrendered or added Waw or change of the preposition, which might be due to the distraction of a copyist or the Aramaic idiom. GROUP A M.T. Targ. R. Joshua 2:7 ni-avor '?v 1]! (ins/ " 7:5 ona'jn iv Iijnnm nv ^^d-iatfmv " 9:4 HDiya on m )wvi 1U''X !n« nnyi Vac.iaJin Tl^DVn id5>ii nntsi XD3in3 " 11:17; 12:7 p^nn inn id S^i^fJ NTID |D (3p^n " 13:16 N3TD '?]! SaTD iv (4 T,, Judges 3 :2 DiyT' i<'? fn' nn x^ (5ij;-ii " 9:9 ijB'T ns Ti^nnn ... inp'D n'ljDT 13 IK'S i''pjBnD nm 11:34 IJDD 1? t'x nj'>D 14:15 u? DriNip UK'T^n iinnp NniJ3Da?n (6,3 (■^njDD 1) So in many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi. Com. Kimchi. But Onk. Gen. 49:13 has it literally. 2) So P. and in marg. Syro-Hex. Com. Field Heit. and also Arab. Kimchi's explanation lacks force. Dillmann's contention (Hand' buch), "dass blosse Vervolgen passt zu dieser Wirkung nicht", missed the order of the narrative — as did Herrheimer's objection that "der Verlust von 36 Mann ist keine Zertrumerung". The same could be said with much greater force of Joshua's overpowering fright (w. 6-9). But the current interpretation that the defeat at the descent is identical with the loss of the 36 in killed told in the beginning of the v., is not at all impressive. It is rather to be assumed, which the reading of the T. unquestionably implies, that the loss of the 36 gave cause to the ensuing defeat at the descent, where the loss, it would appear, was sufficient to cause anxiety. I am inclined to believe that the reading of the T. was DnittTI . Com. "ip' ''73. The form in itself wouldn't appear strange to the targumist, as cases of this nature are numerous. 3) So P. A. Com. Field Hex., 1. c. 4) So Sebirin. Many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi and extant editions follow the reading of the T. ')) So P. Lxx read nvT 6) Probably influenced by v. 13. 7) Felt by Kimchi. So Sebirin. 56 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS M. T. Targ. R. " 19:9 run sj ir^ ton tw inu ^^nan diin nun pi ndv nin? " 20:34 nv3J? njJD xnvaj? cima <3 ^jjd " 21:10 nnx one' Qrn vnjj yjon^s <*v-i3j IS 2:31 nynt ns 'nnji iJ/it fiipn '^^-ly-it 3:2 x-nn aiu 'n'l s'am xim D'cainn IiJ''sn <« nnn 6:3 ;nx nx D'-n^ti'o DK Din^tj'D pdn nt< d'-n^a'DDK " 12:21 nnx ■'3 nion n?i in^D pDon k^i (« Vac. o innn tin^sn a"?) n'ljn^ia " 15:32 man na ID pK inD Kjm iwi <9 "i^ xniD " 22:14 nnyoB'a ?s idi inuDB'D 5y am do ie* 2S. 1:21 IDti'3 n'K'D '^3 sn'B'Oaia n'-B'DT dVac. '•^3 1) Com. Kimchi. Lxx nST vacant. In one of the MSS. of De Rossi the Keri is dSt and Ketib x'jn and in two others dSt is the Ketib. Ginsburg: np D^n 3'n3 N^n tjiTinj'? ,np xSt mna D^n 'niid^ . 2) So Lxx Lag., otherwise na p^ DTH nnn are vacant. P. Dl'n nnn njn nnj?'? vacant. The T. does not render nnn. 3) Minchat Shai: ■2Sin 3in3 nns" niNipa inwa . So in many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi. 4) Com. Onk. Exod. 21:10. Com. Minchat Shai. This reading is found in many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi. 5) The second Ti2S nn JfllT nx is rendered J?n ejlpn. If the targumist followed here the Masoretic reading there is hardly any reason why it occured to him a different reading in yiT nx . Lxx read in both J?1T while P. follows in both the Mesoretic reading. 6) So P. Probably influenced by v. 1. 7) So Lxx, P. and many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi. 8) So Lxx and P. Com. end of verse non inn '3 Targum .in'K nb'? nK 9) So p. Lxx ID vacant. 10) So Lxx. Com. P. 1) So P. and Arab. The suggestion that T. read '^3 , as in Kenn. MSS. 30, is hardly tenable. It would seem that the T. con' sidered this phrase to refer to D'^^n DIH . Com. Ehrlich Randglossen TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 57 M.T. Targ. R. " 5:12 inn^aD nb*: ■'31 n^nn^D x^djd ns *2 nst^j-sKo " 14:14 IIQDS' S? ntJ'K Iin^ la'SK n'?-i tiDDinn (3 paox' " 15:23 ns 111 ■•JQ '?v mis ■'Qs 5'v nmon K1310 ** Vac. nx '■ 22:44 DMJ B'SI^ 'JIDBTI 'j'jon <^ 'JBic^n " 23:13 DiE'5'tj'nD ntj'^a' NnntJ'D tj'n nnjs <6 cnti'Jtj' IK. 1:18 I^DH ''jnN nnj/1 ...nsi ^'^ nnxi " 1:20 "I^on ijns nnsi iwi nnj/1 " 6:31 n''K'»n mtiTD ^^xn PDPDD <^ni{j'iDn IK. 7:3 nsa isDi in3J sani (9 I3D1 " 8:26 inn xj iDNi x'Djna iw pa^pJT' inn " 8:30 D1PD '?« vntJTi nnxi injati' nn inso to ...DlpDO D'oK-n ?s inatj' K'Dti' ID (10 Qiotj,^ " 8:31 n^K xm n'-j^on Tii'i <"n?N1 N31 " 13:6 nv3 ^^anni Mimp to 'Wi (12 ,,Jx and Thenius Sarn., to which the expression NriB'Dms points. On the other hand, it is possible that the T. took )^3 to mean annointing, from root bb2 PS. 92:11. Ehrlich's assumption (ibid) that the T. read instead of mnnn ntr — n nb is founded on a misunderstanding of the T. 2) So P. Probably influenced by 1 CH. 14:2. 3) Exod. 5:7. But Com. T. to PS. 104:22. 4) So Lxx. P. riK is omitted in many MSS. 5) This is the reading in PS. 18:44. As the T. to PS. renders this word in accordance with the reading here, it is obvious that he intended to correct the rendering of Jonathan. The rendering of the T. is supported by P. and Lxx Lag. 6) Com. T. to vv. 23, 24 and Rashi and Kimchi. Onk. Exod. 14:7 felt by Kimchi. Com. Field Hex. Note 26. So Lag. Lxx. 7) So Lxx, P. and 250 MSS. Kimchi: nxta 1J)Q D'lElonD cm ts i3^!iK «in nn2 bix ,T:y7 2np Nints' 's'? si'jNn nnyi i:n:i nion D'j?iBi ^bt<2 nriNi int mioBn 'bbi Dtpiman d'-ibd ieo i"v: nnin sin 8) But com. T. to v. 33; 7:5. Felt by Kimchi: D'tyian it33 I'Dpisa n"M . 9) So Lxx p. 10) So p., in accordance with 2 Chronicles 6:21. 11) So Lxx p. 12) Lxx omit the whole phrase. 58 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS M.T. Targ. R. " 13:12 l-nn nx m ist-i isnnK'i n^x ...■2 'S'nj ?3 nu 1BD ?D nu D2>2 Knp K^ M3 ?N Targ. tuipD tins 6:14 loy inK- DK 1KaT>1 10:24 Jer. &:14 loy -]2^ DK 1KaT>1 inn ri' IN'DKl D3B'D3 IS ^jiDi itan fipn' x^ •■JD^jriDn IS inj/f xdJt una 11:12 nnan nan ns ivok) sdjds jt iJap 11:14 nya i?x DK1P ni;2 i^sa dst iTva onvi tmntj'n n'vn iw^y l^iK riN 'mayni 'm n'lavnt^m 3^3 c"n Tia ny n^x Tia's iv ni''K''3jn nnn^a nn Dns 'Dn ly iinni iddst nj; 15:14 23:26 27:8 R. <2ni^i»j '?V2 <2n?nn nn '* xnp <« Dmni Odds;-! nyn (10 innajrni 1) So Lxx. Kimchi: jisn^pn ^31 inju iniN QJini!' nainn loi .rtrn 1D3 DJin impa 2) But Is. 63:7 itt-N ^; ^ya literally. 3) It is possible to explain the rendering of the T. as suggested by the parallel n'O nn , and would smoothen the difficulties felt by the commentators on this point. 4) So Lxx P. 5) They might, however, have been influenced by 8:11. 6) So Lxx. Com., however, chapter General Peculiarities. 7) So Lagarde. The same MS. was also before Kimchi, but in the copy of the Minchath Shai and many others the reading is'jl^tem 8) So Lxx. Com. P. 9) Lxx P. A. and many Hebrew MSS. Otherwise the T. might have been influenced by v. 12: .Dnv"! fljf2 Dn^ lJ?'tS'li nS ytt'ini 10) So Lxx P. Kimchi noticed it in the T. and remarks that he found this reading in many MSS. See also Kittel: Guesebrecht. Still, it is not impossible that the T. was influenced here by 17:4 Ttm3J?ni ■Ji:'!* SIX and hence the reading of the Lxx P. 11) So Lxx P. 12) So P.; also noticed by Giesbrecht and Cor., but it may also be interpretative. 62 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS M.T. Targ. R. " 29:12 Dn3^ni TiK DnxiPi 53PX1 'DIP n^sni insnnsipi •■^K nn^^Dnni ID iiyani inni^v (i D3'?K TlVOK'l w^K TivotJ'i n^niva ?3pKi ■'DIP " 31:39 mmtj'n ?3i xri'-nx ^31 (2niaitn?3i " 49:3 nmn njiDQiK-nm tvoa Konnsi <3 nmn " 51:3 ?vni ?si ...inT ?N K?i ...nriD' K? '*1iT' ?»: Es. 1:7 I^j^jD p5J"i riDnQ3 <5?jy " 5:11 vim •'JS D31 '131 <6 vias " 7:5 nvi nns nvi sntj'in ina sriE'n ('ins •' 10:6 D3? ••mr) it^N 113? nnnn <8d3? •■nnj " 10:29 DB' D'xan DDX nB'x iriK iiDNT " 12:12 K^ -iK'K iv noa'' vja x?i Kin 3rn (i?n K? IB'K IV' ns K''n py? nxT' Nvix )!•• nn'' ])V'? nsTi n^n (lonxn ns 1 ) Probably DDshn was omitted in the text of the T. P. also omits it. Lxx omits the entire portion and begins with DflS^nnm Giesb. conjecture 'mr)l?31 by the T. is not justified. 2) Lxx has here the Ketib. P. omits it entirely. The reading nilSIT by the T. is the only plausible explanation of the peculiar ren- dering of this word. niaiB* is usually rendered by the T. byR^n3 S1t!"t3 (IK 23:4; IS. 16:1). Com. Aruch XiTHN and xmiK . 3) Felt by Kimchi. Com. P. 4) So Lxx codd. 88, 106, P. In some MSS. nb is the Keri. Felt by Minchat Shai and Kimchi. ?) So A. Rashi follows it. 6) So P. Sym. Vulg. This is the Ketib to Madnechai, but this reading is to be found in many MSS. So in M'turgom of Eliahu Halevy under root vpp . He cites this verse reading yim . 7) Noticed by Kimchi. 8) So P., so Toy. was probably influenced by V. 15. 9) So Lxx P. 10) So P. Probably both of them read Jij;'? (Com. Is. 18:9 etc.). On the other hand, we find this case I'J? Ketib and lljj Keri (Com. 2S 16:12). TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 63 M. T. Targ. R. " 13:11 B'uj^s 'jDN njriKi t}'i3J?N 1J3N nil 1J3N riKI iTht) anp nna 7) Probably interpretative, making the following N^ referring to K';t2; also Lxx; so 28th middah of R. Eliezier. See Eb'ezer of Beau' gency, who puts as an explanation of ^ij; iJjfD . Com. Heller .triTH 'inn 'j'j 8) So A. ahter et dimit palatium eorum. So EW. Toy yin Com. Kimchi. His point, however, is not clear. The T. rendering of Jud. 8:16 Vll'l is aani or llJl as Kimchi had it or nj as in Lag. or ip^KI as cited in jna pt* by Menachem b. Solomon. 9) So Lxx P. A. Vulg. was noticed also by Kimchi. 10) So is rendered mnin (v. 15). John d. Buch Ez. assumes it represents a Syr. 1th. form. TARGUM JONATHAN TO THK PROPHETS M.T. Targ. R. " 24:26 K11D3 TniVOB-S? ni'7j? 'run : D'Nsn i^ nii^r (Is. 14:9) The reading of the T. was probably See Min. Shai. KSON found in many 7) So Syra. Aid. Codd. Ill, XII, 22, 23, 26. De Rossi found this reading in the Lxx. Kimchi D'lBD nspaa NSD3 131 . So Kimchi DttS'lB'n TBD; also R. Eliah Halevy D'B'ltt'n finjn and Ibn Ezra pointing out this being the reading of mrtsn ^VIX . Com. Eich. Bin. V. 1, p. 419 (German Ed. 1787). 8) But com. Gen. 42:9 etc. See Rikmah on the change of Waw to Jod. Com. Sup. Am. 5:10. 9) So Lxx P. 66 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS GROUP B M.T. Targ. Following Joshua 7:8 fiiy ^sntj''' lan im^np )i ^3 13 IK. 8:46 311s ija^ Iin'33T i?y3 nnnji " 18:18 l^ni pn^TKi n33Tj;3 " 21:11 3in3 n{j'K3 n3n3T S03 nn^B' iB'K 2K. 19:4 M}^1Q->) pjiDnai Dnaon ns " 23:5 IDpil IpiDKI unj itj'K IS 10:8 iK'3 nyi B'fjjo nnnaa dj; pn'B'aj ?j; D^^ii^j nncvi ni33 m n3DB' n3in3 1) Lxx P. render them all in absolute. 2) So P. 3) So P. Lxx seem to have had an entirely different reading. 4) So Lxx. 5) So Lxx P. Sym. Vul. 6) So Lxx Sym. TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 69 23:40 M.T. njn^BTi o PINT 26:11 nn ns^i 35:8 n^nis'ji n^niyaa 1'P'QX ?31 35:10 1? niv-isn 'JIB' 36:20 IK'S Diun ?K Knn Ti^y iDOB' ntj'to Hos. 10:1 nmn ina^ 3i3 31D3 vninntD^ nnso U'lDn ixis^ " 14:9 ina Targ- nn^r lis ...n^na nvm nnyi ijo' :nn'' ...ddt ini^'m ininoi n' inn infiifi is'ijDN ...ma? Iinnop Am. , 2:3 DQW imam NHjn nnB' ?3i Mi. 5:4 v^j; xj^j; ...uvixa ...UTiUDnsa " 7:15 nnsv 'D'a linpQo UDpm IJXIS Na. 2:14 3:7 1^5' Za. 14:5 ?3 HDJ/ D'K'np n''DV <5Nai 1) It is not necessary with Cor. (D. B. Ez.) to suppose a differ- ent reading by the T. Suggested by the text, the T. would not hesitate to render it as if it were in Hiph. 2) So P.; so also in Ez. 20:38; 23:44; Jerem. JlrSe; Mi. 7:12, noticed by Min. Shai. In Masoreth Seder Sh'lach this is considered among those that are written in sing, and the Sebirin in pi. That the T. follows in a good many cases the Sebirin as well as the Mad- nechai was noticed by the Min Shai. (Com. E?. 5:11; 13:17; 14:19; Min. Shai Jerem. 49:36; Mi. 7:12). In P'sichta Lam r. Nnp Tns n>n Kb ...^13'13 «'7K INllM HbH ID'ts'i' . So in many Kenn. MSS. 3) Lxx make niraTO^ conform to DU'iD. 4) So P. Lxx put all in the 3rd person, is found in many MSS. 5) So Lxx P. noticed also by Kimchi. P. follows it closely. The reading of ']'} 70 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS M. T. Targ. Following Mai. 2:1? ^N iniVJ riB'SlI nptJTl X^i ... :d^ . Joshua 9:4 II'DVI Targum (^ .|-,^-,fj^^ According to v. 12 Joshua 12:8 nna'Sai Targum snoiD IBB'Dai . According to 12:13 HiDBn nntj'K . Joshua 18:7 m^m HIH'' njno Targum tU'iS pn? DH' n IJno nnnjons. According to 13:33 dn^nJ Nin ^snK'i M^iN mn'' — ...tin^ 3n' n pnn . Joshua 22:24 ^Niti'i in?N "^l D3? nD Targum p^in t"l3^ ri'^ KID'03 . According to w. 2?, 27 ...p^n d3? pX • Judges 5:8 D'S'in d'n^N inn'' Targum ^NltJ'"' iJ3 IN'Vins 13 .pDnnnx tina ipovn^t? n5t KinvriN mpon pmn sniyD? n^ao^i According to Deut. 32:17 dllS/B' N^l 1N3 anpo D'E'nn d'n^N d3''n2N . 1) So Lxx. 2) So Lxx. 3) Lxx in both places have exqi)i1)ev Com. Jalqut 1. c. 4) So P. 5) So P. V. and 4 MSS. and in 3 Kenn. 6) Many Kenn. and De Rossi MSS. readlTaSM . So Lxx P. Felt by Kimchi TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 71 Judges 7:7 n''i?p5Dn tj'''sn nixo na'^E'a Targum 2S 9:3 ^IStJ' nu? B'lK -t)V DQXn Targum ("Kiaj IIV JT-Sn . According to v. 1 mv B" "i^n — n'xn . 2S 9:3 D''^J"l naj Targum •'ni^JI pmna ■'pfi . According to V. 13 v'7:-\ TIE' noB Kim — •■m^ai pmna ■. According to 20:16 ^?D D''J6J'1 D'65'^t5' . 1) So P. and in 2 MSS. Kenn. 2) So Lxx P. Com. Ehrlich, Randglossen. 3) So P. and in 2 MSS. Kenn. 4) In Lag. NDy ^31 . 5) So Lxx P. 6) So P. Lag. e6coxe ar\\iEQo\ in xofi aiteevixaTo; fiov 7) So is the T. to 2S 14:11 133 mjTB'n . So P. here and in 2S 14:11. Lxx here only. 8) Com. P. 9) In Lag. Nj'JNa . 10) In Lag. IBD is omitted. 11) Literally in Lag. TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 73 2K 4:19 10K ?« inSB* Targum d n''^'>31N ^n20 . According to V. 20 insaM inst^"i . 2K 4:42 nB'^'t}' 5iy3D Targum Kom VIND . According to IS 9:4 HB'^ti' nxi — snm y-iN3 . 2K 9:19 Dl^tr n^DH IDK HD Targum <2 D^ij>n . According to V. 18 Di^t^n i^DH ION na . 2K 20:14 ^330 1X3 Hpim Visa Targum (3 'm? ins . According to y'?ii 1X13' pXDl . 2K 21:18 Sty tJ3 irT'3 P3 -;3P'1 Targum (*XTV 133 "i3pnK1 . According to v. 26 sty 133. 2K 23:2 D^CIT' ntJ" ^31 milT' &^H ?31 Targum tJ'JX ?31 D^B'IT' unn mm'' . According to 2 Ch. 34:3 UtJ'il mini b>ix ^131 D^'B'ni . 2K 24:3 '1 iQ ^y "is Targum O '> Clip ninST ?y 013 . According to v. 20 v\n '?v 13 . IS. 10:7 ttVD H'? C|i13 nn3n^1 Targum D'n3 X? . According to Hab. 1:17 ^loni s?" DM3 3nn? — D''n3 s? foay kqds?. IS. 17:6 nn tnpjs ni^^y n ikb'ji Targum ni3 inxriB"! xniD^o !u Ko^y 133 K'pnv v«i^w nsnti'i p ...snn myns i^^^iy. According to 24:1 3 nn nPJ3 D^Dyn 1^3 nsn 31P3 nmi 13 13 -- ...K'piiv I'NT'n'' inxriE''' in3 n« . IS. 22:3 nni IIDS niNVOJ fi3 Targum (e^tSPJT' lU n3nB'S1 5i3. According to 13:15 IpT NSDJI ?3 — ^iDpni 13 n3n!J'i n ?3 . IS. 26:1 nti I'tfi in' «inn nm Targum nn3t5" Sinn S3iy3 HDin Knn3nn '^> According to 42:10 cnn I'B' ''^ lists'. IS. 29:16 IHB'y? IK'yO IDS' 13 Targum KJit3 1f3"1 IK'BKI n'13y? . According to 45:9 nv'? IDI IDS'I . 1) So P. Com Lxx. 2) Com. P. Lxx eI eIotivt) 3) So Lxx P. ifil^ is omitted in Lag. 4) Com. Lxx. Both are rendered in Lag. 5) So Lxx. Com. P. 6) The whole phrase is omitted in Lxx and P. 7) In Lag. Nin . 74 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS IS. 33:11 D3^3Kn B'K Dsnn Targum K'E'n mniiy ^nn NK*?^ X^iy^W nO'D . According to 40:24 DKBTl tJ'P3 myoi — p^ K^iv^w nn»iDi , IS. 41:4 nxi tiK-K-i nw 1JS E'KiD nmn kip hb-vi ?vq "io Kin "'JN nijnnxTargum <3 nna s:n ...T-ayi nox D'P p^'k ios p According to 44:6 d'H^K I'-S nV^DOl inns ''JKl ptJ'Sn iJX — <3...KiB?j; •'a'pii f\H tionpJan sin «:x . IS. 42:18 IVDB' D'B'nnn Targum K^T ptS'ina lU'NT X'VtJ'T lyotJ' in? pni«. According to 43:8 )o'? QiJTNl D'E'ini . IS. 44:12 imS'' nnpoai Targum JT''? n'priD pnipD31. According to Jer. 10:4 (*mpTn'' nnpa31 — H'? ^'pno P3pam . IS. 45:9 nt^vn no nx'J inn idkih Targum ijmay «?. According to 29:16 iJB'J/ X? IHB'y?' HtJ-VD nns'' '3. IS. 47:7 maj n'HK c^iy? Targum (3?d na'pn ins dJij;?, According to v. 5 ni3?DD m3j '['? ixnpi ''Q'Din s? — \'\2'?D nsipn . IS. 50:8 ipnXD 3np Targum ini3r Snnp . According to 51:5 'pnv 3np — iniDT sanp. IS. 63:5 lyiT ■>? wini n»iD pKi Dtoinii'Ki niv psi Dnsi 'jnaoD K'ln Tioni Targum pn'JV ^Wl Dlpn K'lS JTi^l ''Onp VTiV lUTnpD Ti'm iDioai ^apin ma iirnpiai . According to 59:16 yiJBO pN 13 DDinB'''1 — DIPH K-JN IT'?! •'nionp VTI lunvD n^nm loioai n^apin vna pjipiai pni^y ■'ya^i . Jer. 6:11 j^an in^K^j nin' non nsi Targum s^aiD^i 'n'K? "laB'Dj' JT'^ia'' N?l . According to 20:9 5aiK S? ?a?a TliX^JI — JT'^'a-' K^i siaiD? •'JTsJi. Jer. 8:15 Dl^tJ'? niP Targum n^ty? NJiao . According to 14:19 ...unon vn» — d^e'? Njiao. 1) It renders this way Is. 41:16: DniN yiBD m:;D1 — nnOtai Httpb N^1V'?J'3 • In Lag. HVp'p is omitted. 2) So the T. renders Is. 40:12, seemingly for their similar be- ginning and contents. 3) So, for the same reason, it renders 43:10: tjB^ Kin 'JX '3 bK "isij Hb — ...pmp^DT Nin njn . 4) See Jerem. 10:4. The rendering there was influenced by the sequel, but the influence in this case might have been reciprocal, so that the v. was put in the same p. in accordance with the verse here. TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 75 Jer. 10:4 ma^' 3nt31 !1D33 Targum n'? "lan Xamil NSDOa. According to Is. 40:19 (^uypli nntD finvi — H'^ 'sno . Jer. 10:4 p'lai N^il Targum i^iDV N?T . According to Is. 40:20, 41:7 (2(00^ K^ — t^DS^ K^T . Jer. 30:15 latOO tJ'lJS Targum ynno SVnoD . According to V. 12 inaa n^n: — iinna xvnoD . Jer. 31:9 Drills D'JUnnai 1N3i 'Dai Targum pN''5D foma n^^aiPS . According to Is. 54:7 "isnpK D''?nj D'omm — pom31 31P« pK''JD. Jer. 32:35 u^ ?y nn^V N?1 DTl'IV K^ IB'X Targum nnpQ K^T 'nni«a . According to 7:31 (Si^^ ^5; nn^V K^l Tl'IV K^ IK'S — inniKi nnpa k^t . Jer. 33:3 nnvai ni^nj -['7 m'JNI Targum p'DJl pnai . According to Is. 48:6 <*DnVT' K^l nnVJl — n'0:i . Jer. 41:15 \)m iJ3 ?« l^iM Targum M? naV'O^ ^tSI IIDj; 'Jl . According to v. 10 pov ''Jl ?X 135/? I^M . Jer. 46:8 n« nD3S n^VK Targum nX^ai xns ''SnK . According to 47:2 nxi^Dl n« 1QDtJ'''1 — HS^OI NJ/IX !ir3''l . Jer. 48:4 3K1D m3B'J Targum 3N1D nn^D n-|3n''S< . Accord- ing to 48:25 3K1D pp nVUJ — 3K1D ni3?D . Ez. 11:19 d3np3 tns HB'in nni inx 3? nn"? Tinji Targum ?''m 3? nn? tnsi^' According to 36:26 tjnn 3? — p3?i tn«1 5"n-i 3fi . 1) So p. Rashi; Kimchi etc. curiously combine both readings. F. Perles in J. Q. R., v. 18, p. 388, would read here insS' and refers to Is. 30:22; so Kittel, both of whom refer to the T. not appreciating the principle followed in this case. So also in Jerem. 10:19, and curiously enough, P. there renders i:ypT in the same way as inBiM . 2) So Lxx, except in Is. 40:20. 3) Lxx read there DTl'lS as here. 4) Minchat Shai sees another reading by the T. and goes so far as to think that Rashi, who follows the T., has also had the same reading. But Rashi does it in numerous instances where such an as- sumption is out of question. Kimchi remarks: n>n ,lTtS31 im31 H"'! I"i33 nnisJi Klip . 5) Also 18:31. So P., felt by Minchat Shai. Curiously, this read- ing appears also in the com. of Eliezer of Beaugency (published by Posnansky, 213). So is the reading in 3 Kenn. MSS. and 1 De Rossi. 76 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS Ez. 17:5 J/-|» men injnil Targum mta ^pni nnn''') . Accord- ing to V. 8 V1 K''JP laD. According to Is. 36:6 riVin HJpn — KVJfl K'JP 10D . Ez. 30:18 n3D3' pV K^H Targum D^ 'SHI P'^DT SJJW snK. According to 38:16 o nsn niD3^ IJW — S:JW SV1N ni "isni p'l^DT . Ez. 31:14 113 mr ^N Targum KJins nu 315 ''nnj Dy. According to 32:18, 24 113 mv DK . Ez. 31:15 n^'IKia' im-i Dl'3 Targum ininns DV3, Accord- ing to V. 16 n^sB' ins nmn3 — n^ir- •■mnnKa . Ez. 32:5 nvs''jn ins^OI Targum K''?''n t'l^O"'''! • According to V. 6 <* IlK^Di D'PBKI — Il^DH'' - Ez. 32:18 nrnnn Vn« ^« Targum sn^nx synx^ .Accord- ing to 31:14 <5n'nnn ns ?« — Kir-ns kvik^. Ez. 32:24 nriTin IJriJ ItJ'K Targum -i3n? n'DOJT'Kn . Accord- ing to V. 23 riTin UDJ IK'S . Ez. 34:24 D3in3 N^E'J nn n35;i Targum (6x3^D TIT n3yi . According to 37:24 DH'^V I^D nn n3yi . Ez. 36:12 Dnx D3^?y ^n3^ini Targum «'' \\2>1>)! iJDKI . According to w. 10, 11 CnN DD'^iy TlUini — 113''?^ '3DS1 . Ez. 41:17 nnan '?V0 ?y Targum ii'?iy'? iv . According to V. 20 nnsn '?vo in nsno . 1 ) As to the change in person, com. De Rossi V. L. V. T., 1. c. 2) P. reads 1Ni ; Lxx have v. 9 as in v. 3. 3) It also influenced Jer. 46:8. 4) Lxx have in v. 6 as in v. 5. Kittel wonders if the reading was not IN^OJI . 5) So 26:20 ntnnn nxa. 6) Lxx have in 37:24 as in 34:24. Lag has here xm . However, in 37:25 the T. stands alone. 7) Ehrlich E?. finds support in this rendering of the T. that it is used here in the sense of increase, as in Jerem. 12:2. Equally wrong is Jahn, ascribing a different reading to the T. TEXTUAL VARIATIONS 77 Ez. 43:10 n''J3n ns moi Targum iTiDIPD ni i'intJ'D''l. According to v. 11 (iin:i3ni niDH mis. Mi. 2:8 nD"'B'Qn nns no^tJ' ?1DD Targum nnJD limpi IIDD lUDJ. According to 3:3 ID^'K'Sn DHi^VD DIIVI — timp'' 11DO Ze. 3:10 njsn nnn '^ki isj nnn ^n Targum na ninn? inijirrns ninn^i inijsu. According to IK 5:5 usj nnn b^'n inj«n nnni . Ze. 9:8 niVD n''35> ^niJHI Targum ...iK-lPD nU3 nB'SI ■nno -lino n? siPID KB'NT IW^ . According to 2:9 niHK 'JX1 t^'K noin n'? — iinD -iino n? ^pa kb'st tib^3 . Ze. 11:17 ^i^sn iVi iin Targum kb'SD KDJIS ^ly i1 . According to V. 15 i^MK nn — SB'BD KDJ1B . 1) So P. 2) Lxx read in 2:8 llj? as in 33. So P. THE EXEGESIS IN JONATHAN The exegetical nature of T. Jonathan is in a conspicuous manner emphasized in the report of the Talmud : 'Said R. Jeremia, others say R. Hiyya b. Abba, Targum to the Prophets Jonathan b. Uziel said it. And Eretz Israel trembled 400 para- sangs. A Bath Kol said: Who is the one who revealeth my mysteries to the children of men? Rose Jonathan b. Uziel and said: I am the one who revealeth Thy mysteries to the children of men. It is reavealed and known unto you that ... I did it for Thy sake in order that strife may not abound in Israel." To the question why no such occurrence accompanied the act of the Targum to the Pentateuch, the ans- wer is given: "The Pentateuch is clear while the Prophets con- tain things some of which are clear, while others are ob- scure." 1) Framed as this report is in the characteristic phraseology of the Agada it serves not only to demonstrate the prevalent view of the age as to the principal characteristic of the T. to the Prophets, its main value resting in the exegesis, but is instructive also in that it manifests the worshipful rever- ence in which the exegesis was held. It was regarded as mysteries which should not, except for a weighty reason as alleged by Jonathan, he disclosed to the uninitiated in holi- ness. It does, however, in no way indicate the nature of the exegesis. There is nothing of the mystical in it. It is governed by rules and based on principles of a kind placing it in the domain of logical hermeneutics. The general underlying principle in the exegesis of T. Jonathan consists in an attempt to render intelligible to the fullest possible degree that which is obscure. To accomplish this the targumist does not resort to the undersense. It is the sense, the explicit and simple, which is fundamental in the exege- 1) Meg. 3a; Yerushalmi 1, 10. 78 THE EXEGESIS 79 sis. The object of the targumist was to translate the poetical mind of the Prophet into the lay-mind behind it. In other words, to the targumist the implication rather than the surface Hteralness of the passage or word involved is of chief consideration. It is, on the one hand, a desire to correctly understand the prophet, 2) and on the other hand, to make the author intel' ligible to others. 3) Passages which are untouched by the exegesis of the targumist, the reason is to be sought in the assumption that the passage in question was not obscure to the generation of the targumist. In determining the general nature of the exegesis of this Targum a few saHent points call for recording at the outset. In the first place, the targumist in no way dis- misses any passage or word unrendered due to its embarrassing nature as is frequently the case in the Lxx and P. Whether or not the targumist is assured of having found a plausible escape or is resorting to some hopelessly obscure paraphrase, he is not evading it. On the other hand, it should be noticed that the T. appears entirely unaffected in his translation. He is not preoccupied with any particular thought, or hypothetical idea, "which assumes a connection in the train of thought which does not appear on the surface", as was the case with the Agada, Philo and the Church Fathers.*' The aim he set for himself was translation; nothing beyond it. The targumist is inclined, however, in certain cases to parallelism of circum- stances, as is the case with the Agada. One thing, however, stands forth as peculiarly remarkable. It would appear the targumist had little regard for the his' torical reality of the prediction. With few exceptions he manifests no interest in the particular historical period or event of the prophecy. There is a strong inclination on the part of the targumist to shift the predicted reality to the Messianic age whenever the contents admit of such a presenta- tion. He is this way interpreting the prophecies of "consola- 2) Com. Scheleiermacher, Hermenutik, etc. (ed. 1838), p. 3. 3) Immer, Hermenentik (ed. 1877), p. 10. 4) The case with the Agada needs no illustration. It constitutes one of its fundamental bases (com. particularly Maimonides preface to Seder Zerai'm end 2nd part). As to the Apostles, com. Epistle of James 2:21; Rom. 10:17. 80 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS tion" which his age of national depression and poHtical de- jection would hardly regard as already accomplished.^) In addition, there is the poetical side of the prophecy, its overflowing richness of expression and exuberance of color in portrayal which are not susceptible of reahzation, but which were, in the belief of the people, unaware of this fact, to be inevitably translated into reality. Hence the tendency to interpret the glowing description of the "consolation" in Messianic terms. 6* The Messianic tone is made audible also in the prominence given in his exegesis to the "righteous ones". In a good many instances no other reason except to give Messianic sense to a phrase, is evident.'') But of significance is also the introduction of the wicked side by side with the righteous. In this way the Messianic description is complete. The Messianic epoch, as is generally known, is in its final form rather religious and individual than political, national. The righteous and the wicked, not the na- tion and nations, are the object of its justice. Finally, the Messianic tendency has found its expression in the targumist references to Gehenna. In the chapter on "General Peculiarities" it will be pointed out that the Gehenna referred to by this Tar- gum is the Messianic doom. The major principles of the exegesis of the Targum can be placed under four headings; namely, the allegorical, the metaphorical, the complement and the lexical. The allegorical shall be considered first. The allegorical method was employed in the Agada and by Philo, and to a larger extent by the Apostles and latter Church Fathers. s> But it is to be noticed that the targumist 5) Com. Am. 9:1; 2e. 11:7-11, particularly v. 10. On the other hand, com. Ze. 6:5 — the "four kingdoms" are not called by name. 6) Com. Is. Ch. 9, 11, 12, 6-5; Jer. 23:3-9; Hos. 6:1-4; 14:15, etc. 7) Com. Is. 24:19-18; 25:4-5 ; Ch. 32; 33:13; Jer. 23:28; Hab. 2:4; 3:2, etc. 8) The two former need no illustration. With regard to the N. T., Jesus himself was addicted to it (Com. Mat. 21:42, Luk. 4:16-22). With regard to Heb. Ch. 8, Riehm (Lehrb. p. 204, ed 1867) remarks: "The author leaves out of consideration the historical meaning of Old Testa- ment passages.'' THE EXEGESIS 81 confines the application of this method to passages which garb an impHcation. Whether or not he strikes the right point he is distinctly approaching it. He is making no strange and artificial combinations. In most cases his exposition falls in line with the Agadic interpretation. The larger portions treated allegorically by the T. are Ez;. 16, Hos. 1:2, 5, 6, 8; 3, 1-4. Ch. 16 in Ez. is turned by the T. into a reahearsal of the History of Israel: ". . . your habitation and your birth was in the land of the Canaanites, there I was revealed to your father Abraham between the pieces (Gen. 15:9' 18) and I announced to him that you shall descend into Egypt, (and that) I (shall) deliver you with an uplifted arm, and on account of your ansectors I (will) expell from before you the Amorites and destroy the Hitites. And then your ancestors descended into Egypt, inhabitants in a land which is not theirs, enslaved and oppressed. . . The eye of Pharaoh did not pity you, to render unto you one generous act, to give you respite from your bondage, to have mercy on you, and he decreed concerning you ruinous decrees to throw your male children in the river to destroy you, while you were in Egypt. And the rememberance of the covenant of your ancestors came before me and I was revealed to deliver you, for it was divulged before me that you were oppressed in your bondage, and I said unto you by the blood of circumcision I will pity you, and I said unto you on account of the blood of the Passover (sacrifice) I will redeem you. And I was re vealed unto Moses in the bush, for you, and I put off your sins and swore to deliver you as I swore to your ancestors, in order that you shall be a people serving before me. And I delivered you from the bondage of the Egyptians. And I lead you (forth) in freedom. And I clothed you with painted garments from the riches of your enemies (Exod. 14:21) and I sanctified priests from your midst to serve before me. . And I reformed you in the reform of the words of the Law written on two tablets of stone and (which) I gave them through Moses. And I gave in your midst the Ark of My covenant and the cloud of My Glory on you and an Angel sent from before Me leads at your head. And I gave My Tabernacle in your midst fitted out with gold ... and you be- 82 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS came very rich and very powerful and you prospered and ruled over all kingdoms." Whether this exposition is right is open to question. The portion beginning with v. 7 may refer to the Kingdom of Solomon as well. But that it was allegorically framed is evi- dent, and the T. only follows the current interpretation trace- able in the Agada.8> On the other hand, it should be noticed, the targumist asserts the dependence of his exposition on the text. On the whole, however, it runs like a Midrashic treatise. The phraseology is free in the use of parenthetical phrases and synonyms. !"> The textual form is paid little heed.ii) Hosea, 1:2'5, 8; 3:1-4, comprising the command of God and the action on the part of Hosea to take to himself "a wife of whoredom", are interpreted in the T. allegorically. Accordingly, the rendering is put in this way: "Go and prophesy on the inhabitants of the city of the idols who increase in sin (v. 2). And he went and prophesied to them that if they repent they will be pardoned, and if not they will fall like the falling of the leaves of a fig tree (D'^m n3 no3)and they increased and committed evil deeds (vv. 3, 6, 8) and their generation, exiled among the peoples, were not acceptable (pnTIl) in their deeds. And God spoke to me again: Go and prophesy on Israel who resmble a woman who is beloved of her husband and betrays him (3:1). And I redeemed them on the fifteenth of Nisan, and I put the Shekel as atonement 9) The interpretation of the T. as a whole is in full agreement with the Agada. It is generally accepted that this passage refers to the deliverance from Egypt (com. Sota lib). V. 6, which the targumist refers the repeated iin T'Oli to the blood of circumcision and Passover, is so interpreted in Seder Eliahu r. 25 (p. 138 P.); Mechilta 21,5; Pesiqta r, 15 F. (Com. Note 46). On the other hand, the interpretation of V. 10 as referring to the booty of the drowned Pharaoh is apphed by the Agada to v. 7 (Mechilta), while v. 10 is interpreted as referring to the priestly garments and to the Mishkan (com. Jalqut 1. c). To the latter the T. refers v. 13, while it agrees with the former. In the in- terpretation of V. 11 the T. is in accord with the Agadaist (ibid). 10) Com. particularly vv. 4, 7. 11) Com. vv. 4, 5, 6, 10. THE EXEGESIS 83 for themselves and I said that they shall bring before Me the Omer of the offering from the produce of barley." (v. 3).i2) The allegorization in this case is somewhat peculiar. The text requires the literal conception of the act which, in its fulfilment, carries both the situation and reality of the prediction. It was taken in the literal sense by the Agada.i^) That some agadist, however, would have it allegorically in- terpreted and that the T. is following his interpretation is fairly certain.!*' The reason, however, for the exposition can only be the horror the targumist must have felt at the supposition that the prophet would be told by God to take a harlot to wife. The absence of such a cause is probably the reason why Zech. 6:1-9 is rendered literally. The Servant of God is by the T. identified with the Mes- siah, whose approaching appearance has been expected by his contemporaries. That being the case, the allegorization on the same lines of Is. 53 must follow as a self evident result. This had been the case with all those adhering to the allegoriza- .tion of the Servant of God. But the targumist is strikingly 12) Com. Chull 92b: "And I bought her for me for fifteen pieces of silver", R. Jonathan said: . . for fifteen (means) this is the fifteen Nissan, when Israel was redeemed from Egypt." So Pesiqta 15. On the other hand, the latter part of the verse is interpreted differently (ibid). 13) Com. note 18. Com. Pesiqta on 3:3: Hb ; iai« N'TI 'l N'Jfl Com. P'sachim 87a end. "The Holy One Blessed Be He said to Hosea: 'Thy children sinned', and he should have said: 'They are Thy chiuldren, the children of Thy favored ones, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, show Thy mercy to them'. Not only did he not say so, but said, 'exchange them for another people'. Said the Holy One, Blessed Be He: 'What shall I do to this aged one? I'll say to him: Go and take for yourself a harlot and have for you harlot children, and then I'll say to him, send her away from your presence; if he can send (her away), I also will send away Israel. For it is said: and the Lord said to Hosea, etc.'' The Agada goes on to tell that after two sons were born to him God intimated to him that it would be proper for him to divorce her. Upon which Hosea refused to comply and God then said to him: "If this be the case with your wife, being a harlot, and thy children being children of whoredom, and you know not whether they are yours or belong to others, how should it be with Israel," etc. 14) Com. Jalqut 1. c. 84 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS singular. Assured that this prediction is about the Messiah, the targumist reverses the simple meaning of the words, trans- forming the gloomy portraiture of the Messiah into an image of magnificence and splendor, unHke the Agadist contemporaries, who would rather play thoughtfully on the humbleness and sufferings of the Messiah. i3> He was influenced by the great national movements of his time, which assumed a Messianic character. So, while he would, seemingly with this end in view, change in 52:14 the p. only as if Israel and not the Messiah is the object, he actually rewrites ch. 53, replacing it by one bearing no resemblance to the original. Instead of the Messiah being regarded as of no form, no comeliness, of no beauty (v. 2), he becomes one of extra- ordinary appearance, differing from the appearance of the former Davidic Kings, his terror unlike that of the profane king; for his countenance will be a holy countenance. Who- ever will see him will gaze at him (v. 3). Describing how he was despised, rejected and a man of sorrow, he makes it refer to the kingdoms whose glories will be destroyed by the Messiah. So, the rendering of the T. runs: "For our sins he will supplicate and our transgressions will be pardoned on account of him. We are considered stricken and oppressed from before the Lord." Note the rendering of v. 5: "And he will build the Temple, which was desecrated through our sins, delivered to the enemies for our transgressions, and through his teaching peace will abound for us, and by our gathering of his words our sins will be forgiven to us." In this spirit the rendering is carried on to the end of the chapter. THE METAPHOR Prophecy is clothed in the magnificent form of poetry. It directs its thoughts in a superfluity of imagery. The over- coming force with which the prophet perceived his vision and the vehemence with which, "like a fire," it is impelled to come forth, make the metaphor the instrumentality of prophetical 15) Com. San. 98a, Pesiqta Rabati 36. THE EXEGESIS 85 speech. It is addressed in terms of nature and natural phenomena, leaving the emphatic to the layman to unveil and distinguish. The targumist made it a principle to render not the metaphor but what it represents, the event described and not the descrip- tion. It is the purpose which is of chief import to him. In a way this is with him rather a principle of translation, as in most cases there can be no claim to exegetical examination. The parabolic metaphor is the prophetic parable which resolves itself less in event than in metaphorical presentation. The T. instead of giving the literal rendering of such a parable renders its underpoetical parallel, thus stripping it of its para- bolic nature. Except for the substitution of the simple for the meta- phorical, the T., as a rule, in these cases keeps closely to the text styhstically as well as grammatically and synthetically. Exceptions to this rule are Is. 5:1-3; 5-7. The substitute is the one made obvious by the text, with the exception, again, of the parable in Is. 5, where somewhat far-fetched substitutes are used. Otherwise the T. will introduce its equivalent by the short phrase ^m mm "which is equal", and insert, where such is required for better understanding, a complementary word or phrase. A few verses of each case of the parabolic metaphor will sufficiently illustrate the application of this principle. This will best be accomplished by placing the rendering of the T. side by side with the original. Ez. 19:3, 6 V. 3 T. H. And she brought up one of And she brought up one of her children, he became a her whelps, he became a king, and he learned to kill, young lion, and he learned killing, men he killed. to catch the prey, he de- voured men. 86 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS V. 6 T. And he went up and down among the kings, he became a king and he learned to kill, killing, men he killed. H. And he went up and down among the lions, he became a young lion; and he learned to catch the prey; he de- voured men. Ez. 23:2, 5 V. 2 Son of man prophesy on two cities which are like two women who were the daughers of one mother. Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother. V. 5 And Ohlah erred from my worship and she was wil- ful to err after her lovers, the Assyrians, her near ones. And Ohlah played the har- lot when she was mine, and she doted on her Jovers, on the Assyrian warriors. Eg. 31:3-15, however, is rendered by the T. in a more detached manner. This is due to the fact that while it con- stitutes a similitude it is framed as a comparative metaphor. Assyria is here likened to a cedar in Lebanon, around which turns the entire description. The T., translating it as a descrip- tion of the greatness and strength of Assyria according to the implication, had to change the p. as well as the number. Otherwise it keeps the rendering in line with the original. The poetical metaphor, forms of expression given in ob- jects of nature, is treated in the same manner by the T., name- ly, the object represented by the description is rendered. In this case also closeness to the original is observed, while a circumscription of phraseology is predominantly maintained. But, as if it were a concession on the targumist's part to the poetical element in prophecy, the insertion, "it is equal", "like", is, with few exceptions, not employed in such cases. Ex- THE EXEGESIS 87 amples of this sort are: Is. 2:13: "And upon all the cedars of Lebanon that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan." The T. renders it: "And upon all the princes (ki3"i31) of the strong and powerful and upon all the tyrants (■ijiid) of the lands (xnno); or Is. 9:9: "The bricks are fallen, but we will build with hewn stones; the sycamores are cut down, but cedars will be put in their place." T.: "The chiefs were exiled but better ones we will appoint, property Ckidsj) was spoiled, and more excellent we will buy." Other examples of this sort are: Is. 10:18, 19; Ez. 9:4, 5; Hos. 7:9; Joel 2:25 etc. Finally, the targumist is not consistent in the selection of the substitute figures. (Com. Diyn Jer. 2:8; Ze. 11:3 ren- dered by K''3^0 , while in E2;. 34:2, 5, 7 etc., it is rendered by Xid:-|S (D'-VV Ez. 24:5 and 24:10). The rendering of the T of the comparative metaphor, i. e., the metaphor employed expressly for comparison, rests on the same basis, but it is effected in a different way, namely, both the literal and the implied rendering of the metaphor in question is given. An illustration of this sort of rendering is Is. 28:2: "Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one. As a storm of hail, a tern- pest of destruction. As a storm of mighty waters overflowing, that casteth down to the earth with violence," which the T. ren- ders: "There is a mighty and powerful stroke coming from the Lord as a storm of hail, as a tempest, as a storm of mighty waters overflowing so will peoples come upon them and will exile them in another land for their sins." Other examples are Is. 8:6, 7; 17:6; Jer. 2:24. In this particular instance the T. instroduces the necessary complement which the poetical lan- guage implies. In other cases the T. assumes a comparative metaphor and renders it accordingly, the literal is then put after the implied one and the comparative )3t or 3 is inserted. Instances of this sort are numerous. Com. Ez. 2:6; Hos. 8:7; 10:71, 16; 12:2 etc.i«> 16) As to the scope of the appHcation of the metaphorical prin- cile it should be noticed that ahhough applied in full measure of per- sistency, it still has a multitude of exceptions. These excetions occur particularly in those parts of the Prophets where the T. is predominantly 88 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS The symbolic expression is rendered in the T. in its simple sense, as the text would indicate. No comparative is employed. Instances of this sort are Is. 6:6; Ez. 2:8; 3:1, 2, 3. Some meta- phorical expressions are rendered allegorically by the T., in which the T. is following a Midrashic course. The rendering is free in every respect. An instructive example of this sort is Am. 4:14: "That maketh the morning darkness and treadeth upon the high places of the earth." Targum: "To set light to the pious like the light of the morning, which is setting, to bring darkness to the wicked, to break the wicked of the land." Other examples are Is. 42:11, ?7:16; Am. 8:13. A principle extensively applied in the T. is one that may be described as the exegetical complement. This, in the first place, was intended to fill the gaps created by the poetical contraction of the prophetical style. In some cases a complement is dictated by the sense of the passage. This will be fairly well demon- strated by the following passages: Mai. 1:4: "Whereas Edom saith we are impoverished but we will return and build." The sense of this passage requires some linking word between "impoverished" and the rest, as being impoverished, it is impossible to build. In order to fill this gap, the T. renders it this way: "We are impoverished now we are enriched we will return," etc. Jer. 17:4in?nJD ^31 nnD»t5>l the shortcomings of this pas- sage need not be pointed out. (Com. Lxx and particularly P. on this v.). The T. supplies both "131 and in^TIJO with com- plements to fill the gap, rendering: "And to you I shall render a punishment of judgment until I shall exile you from your in- heritance." Com. also Is. 10:15; Hos. 2:15; Ez. 7:13; 16:29; 38:14 etc. In other cases the passage is supplemented by the T. with a view to simplify it where such a step is considered necessary. Here are some examples: Ez. 20:29: "What is the high place whereunto ye go," which is supplemented in the T.: ""whereunto ye go to make yourself foolish" (worshipping the idol). Hos. 2:1: "The number of the children of Israel literal. Com. Jer. 51:13; Ez. 34:4; Joel 2:2, 3; 3-6; Am. 3:12, 15; 5:19; Mi. 4:7, and a few othera. THE EXEGESIS 89 shall be as the sand of the sea." The T. inserting a complement renders it: "Shall be numerous as the sand," etc. Other cases of this category are: Ez. 20:9;' 33:24; 44:19; Hos. 2:11, 16; 8:1 etc. The T. again is inclined to provide the substantive for the pronoun in cases wrhere it is not sufficiently obvious. Three passages from Ez. will serve the purpose of illustration. Ez. 1:4: "And out of the midst thereof." This pronoun the T. substitutes by the noun rendering: "And out of the midst of the cloud and out of the midst of the whirlwind" (both of which are mentioned in the v.). Ibid v. 13: "It went up and down" etc. The T. replaces the "it" by the fire. Ibid. 29:5: "Upon the field shall it (taking the 3rd p.) fall." Targum: "Thy corpse shall be thrown." (Com. also Ez. 45:8; Jer. 6:l.)i'^> Repetition of the same word or of identical words, con- sidered as one of the principles governing the exegesis of Philo.^^ > affords the targumist a cause for introducing an exegetical complement, thus transforming the single word into a clause. The obvious reason for this, it would appear, is the disregard of the targumist of the poetical chord of prophecy so persistently insisted upon by the T. in each exegetical turn. He was un- able to resist the conviction, so effective with the Halaka and Agada, that each of the repeated words must possess independent significance and carry independent implication. However, he is not explaining it but complementing the repeated word, heading, as a rule, the clause. Here are a few illustrations: Is. 6:3: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts." Targum: "Holy (is He) in the high lofty heavens, the house of His Shekina; holy on the earth the work of His strength; holy in the world of worlds." Jer. 7:4: "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these." Targum: "Before the temple 17) An interesting case presents Is. 28:10. The complement is supplied in an ingenious way to obviate the difficulty in this verse. The rendering runs: "For they were commanded to observe the Law and they were commanded (to do) they wanted not to do, and prophets prophesied to them . . . and the words of the prophets they did not accept." Observe: is^ is treated thus IS t and in a lesser degree also by the P. Illustrations are: Gen. 25:22: "And she said: 'If it be so, wherefore am F," which the Lxx render: eI oi)T(05 [xoi heXXei yivEO'&ai etc. Gen. 40:16: "in my dream" xdyo) vbev Ivvrtviov In the Prophets this is evident to a lesser degree. It found, however, application in this part also. Com. Zech. 14:7: "And there shall be one day which shall be known" etc. Lxx ladai [xiav f| fifXEQav xal fifXEga exeivti yeveotti etc. So. P. Com. also P. Hos. 2:11 (8). The lexical principle also was pursued to some extent by the Lxx, and in a lesser degree by P. Com. Gen. 13:2: "And Abram was very heavy." 'APQap, cte ev JtXauaiog So P. 15:2 1-11-ij; (XTExvog . So. P. (Onk. agreenig in both instances). But com. Lxx T. Jer. 22:30, 49:3: ijx n^tJ'XI — aQ/r) texvcov (P. lit. Onk. Alleg.) v. 10: — ti^fj, aQimv (P. lit. Onk. Alleg.) etc. Is. 8:4 ij3D3 Lxx ev tt] E|ifj ito^Ei Apart from these major principles there is an element of commentary in the exegesis of Jonathan. At the first glance it be comes clear, that the tendency of this commentary is merely to explain away the harassing difficulty. No heed is exhibited to the text, no effort to fit it into the phraseology of the respective passages. So Mi. 2:8: ...^iik^ idj; JiioriKI — "^Y people is delivered because of their sins; because of them existing peoples will inherit them." Compare also Is. 10:32, 32:19, 33:6; Jer. 4:9; Hos. 10:11; Mi. 2:11; Hab. 3:2; Mai. 1:11. But while this sort of commentary is somewhat of the nature of a homily, there is another phase of the exegesis resting on definite principles. The T. usually changes the interrogative into the categorical. This happens particularly with such interrogative phrases which, in the first place, imply a definite answer, and, in the second place, the implied answer is not given in any form. It should be observed that the Lxx in Pentateuch also employs such a 19) A most elucidative treatment on these points in the Lxx is found in Z. Frankel's "Ober den Einfluss" etc. See particularly pp. 4, 9, 73. 92 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS device. 20) The following are examples: Is. 66:9: "Shall I bring to birth and cause to bring forth? Shall I that cause to bring shut the whomb?" Targum: "I (am) the God who created the world from the beginning. I created all men and I spread among the people. I shall gather thy exile." Jer. 18:14: "Doth the snow of the Lebanon fail from the rock of the field? Or are the strange cold flowing waters plucked up?" Targum: "Be- hold, as it is impossible that the water snow running down the fields of Lebanon shall cease, so will not cease rain coming down and welling water from the source." Compare also Ob. 1:12, ly. Another interesting characteristic device of the com- mentary is the turning of one part of the verse into a comple- ment of the other part. Some examples will well illustrate this point. Is. 5:20: "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that change darkness into light and light into darkness, that change bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter." Targum: "Woe who say to the wicked ye are good, and unto the humble be said you are wicked, behold when light will come to the just will be dark for the wicked, and sweet will be the words of my Torah to those observing them, and bitterness will come to the wicked." Am. 5:12: "Ye that afflict the just, that take a ransom." Targum: "Ye that afflict that just in order to take mamon of falsehood." Compare also Ze. ll:8.2i> 20) Com. Gen. 18:7; 27:36. Com. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 171. fiber den Einfluss, 76. 21) The T. turns a comparative phrase into a resultant, treating DN as ]S So Jerem. 22:28. Here the T. follows another principle, namely, turning one phrase of the v. into a comparative to the pre' ceding one. Com. Is. 8:2, in which case an Agadic interpretation is in- volved (Mak. 24a); 42:2. THE EXEGESIS 93 II. The interpretative rendering of single words or phrases is of a positive value. The interpretation is characteristic of the early Palestinian exegesis. With little exception, they are found in the Agada. Joshua 7:1 ^yo '?ii-\^> iJ3 l^yOM Targum '?H'\^'< ''J3 "npB'l .-IpB' So Sifri Num. 7: n^'VD PX (3^ ,n -im»3) '?V0 U H^J^DI Onkelos 1. c. and v. 6 has a similar rendering. Joshua 10:13 (also 2S 1:18) nE"n IDD Targum SIQD sn^niKT . Com. Aboda Zara 25b. Also Y. Sota 1, 18. .Dpj/n pns' omnx iqd nr sas 12 x^in n"N ne'^n isd 'no .3it3ni iB^n D'ti'yi (i nnan) nu a^riDT min njiyD iqd nt ids "t Judges 5:10 nnnv nuns 'ddi Targum nn^PDy p^DaD 11m 3n»5> pninriDi ^Kna'n «y-is Dinn ?33 pa^noi ...uns ?j; paoT So Erubin 54b T-v^ niyo pa^noK" D'DDn iTD^n i5s nuns nan .min la'p'? njnn? njnoDi ib. 5:31 imnn K'DB'n nsva vanxi Targum pni iniDmi nnp' ninna Kinrx^ p^nj; . Com. Sifri Deut. 145 nioB'n ■'D'-a DKsa vaniKi idin Kin pi ,DTa Dvns '?iy on^ja v^':^• v"itm n (s ,3"a D'<^nn) ?k rni;3 avj dm?n niatJ') "iDX nsT io3 dio'D's 3V3 D'-h^s n^s t^^ 3^n3 ps noiy .iivn Js; n3V3i (s"3 ,:"'? Both Onkelos and Ps. Jonathan render n3VJ1 by ■inv ib. 5:6 D'riDSni DniVn Targum snTII S''Kt3n Com. 36 nry^K 'n vna : r"y n3iy sjib' nn n^'nti' nn t^aj ^kub' ib. 5:24 niK33n 'K'N13 mVV ^1P ns nVOB-l ^m1 Targum .N'J^^S ^K'n3 snniV ?P n' nVDti"»3 ^nn Com. Shochar tob 27, 2 THE EXEGESIS 95 HKnnts' -w i^vK iinp vn ds i^'dk ma n^ tile's? nwi i? pK icxna myx 5ip riK nyntj'n inn itsKJti' pvjyjo nu^'Kn ■'tJ'Kn D'K32n and with minor alterations in Pesiqta Rabati 8. ib. 6:20 n^pin nnx m^j: m^jns Targum i^jnoi v^im The Targum interprets D'PI empty, naked. Com. Jalqut 1. c. nsiJB' nn? n^'i^n ,i«2o nsj nirn k3k ni3 ^c nnaco i? max .n5ij» 3pyi ?jn ddqi ti noa tn''oia Com. Y. Sukka 5, 14; San, 2, 4 V^V TlOK ^D'pnn ins WD DH^'D^D ?niJN N?1 3PV N? DHa HNIJ X^K* ^IStJ' nn ?y . ib. 21:19 injn rf'Pi nx nV' p pn^S nil Targum ■■'!?'•' p m ?t3pi So Jalqut 1. c. nn nr dijiis ny id un^x im .lyp ^ina nine' ny id ;?n ijjhk' 'B'"' p ib. 23:1 D^JIinxn in nm n^SI Targum filD?" '■ajriNT xnonJT •'O'? KO^y Com. Shochar Tob 18, 5 Kl'SfD ^XltJ'i 1^ miB' Dnois u^'DU mnaa n''E'D. ib. 23:4 t^-oB' mt' Ipn 11X31 Targum Tinyi XB'DB'DI nyaB' nirr'jD xn^m pymx nxo n^n in 5y nnp'' thtd xinjx5i .X'D'' xnyDB" X'laDP The T. was apparently influenced in that by Is. 30:26 with minor changes. The Midrash also in- terprets it in a Messianic sense. Com. Midrash Shmuel 29, end: n'-tJ'D '7^ ipa n"3pn T'X''ti'3 x?x npa nix3i inn D''ynv ux px E'DB'n nnrn ; and in Pesachim 2a: l-^)/:: ntn D^iyi Ipl 11X31 xan D^iy? n'pnv? b'db' nnnr . Com. R. Channel 1. c. ib. 23:7 lait^' <^i^ K'xni JT-jn vyi ?T-i3 x^D' Dn2 yr t;'''xi nntj*! Targum pQpm p^tx painn aip'-n? ntfm m« 5y fixi pnoni pJiiD ■'voa p^d' x^t x?ns B'n5'3 n'? psm iy 'ni^y pipini xnpinx? piTiy xriB'xa pn^x a^jx nu pninuyiis jt-^i pn .xo^y JTi pD? pT x'DiiD ?y nno? xm xjn nu nx^anxn In a like manner runs the interpretation in nil liT^X IID ,3 : •D''tJ'P DDUPTDI D'lai DnUDpa XJiX p DJ1X ^XltJ'' ^tJ' D'-yti'lB 5i3X iox:b' i^tf ^nan K'npan niaa cnix paim v'?VD\i> ? iidc noi .naa'D iiQ-iB'i B'xa idixi rP3 ?y'?3i ib. 23:8 DnUJn niotr n^X Targum iim xn33 nnoB' p?N .XJn ■'DIP ?y xnPB'D tJ-n Xina in oy The interpretation of CIPJ as representing rather the learned who pronounce judg- ment, and not the warriors, is the favorite one in the Agada. Com. Moed Katan 16b, Y. Mak. 6, 7 and Pesiqta r. 11. 96 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS ib. 24:15 nyio tiV 1V1 IpnnD Targum D'iJriDT ]TVO •KTion So Berakoth 62b r\aT\& nytj'o ?Niot5' 1DK is/ia nv ^hd •inp^lT nytJ' IJ/ Tonn and in the name of R. Chiyya in Pesiqta r. 11. IK 7:26 ?iD' na D''D^« Targum .S2^D13 pnu D'Q^K pID So Erubin 14b, Sifri Num. 42. 3in3i (n ,T a"''m) ^''Si diq^s ntJ'^B' dtii pnno idix nns 3in3 CD^x — i??n QUIDS 'JB' lo^'pn'' 1V3 ^131 n3 D''Q?K noiK ins .tyau D's^N riB'^B' nntj' n'?2 ib. 37 in m'3 Targum K'JVJ VT Com. Rosh Hashana 11a, Y. Rosh Hashana 2, 8 dlt^O Sinn ? in ti'nna "iDJ STOn s'-j^'Ni sin nn jtst . ib. 8:2 D'jri'sn mu Targum ni? ppT N'p'nyn Kmu nxvat^' sni' Kin tV21 niiaip smi . In the Talmud (Rosh Hashana 11a) R. EHezer would interpret it to refer to the "Aboth". The T. is based on this interpretation. At the same time it intends to account for the change of the order of the months following Josephus (Ant. 1, 3, 3) that it was Moses who appointed that Nisan should be the first month for their festivals. Com. PS Jonathan Exod. 12:2. ib. 16:34 ijisn nn Targum ifflia nn So P. Com. San. 113a. 2K 2:3 D'Najn 'ja IXXn Targum S'-n: •'T'D^n. (So ib. 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 6:1). Com. Sifri Deut. 131: ^J3 ISVn IDISI n'33 Dmp DHB'. ib. 12 ux US Targum m U1 . Com. Sifri 1. c. na^ai Kini nsT vK'iJ'Ni iDSJtj' ,3N mp 3nn i3 n^'ja omp on'o^nnB' UN UN PVVO ; Moed Katan 26a, where this Targum is quoted. IS 1:23 QiJID^K' tm Targum 1^ lUV nuin^ "13J p"lf31« .HJna 1^ Df'B'Nl ''Jna saitJ Com. Pesiqta n3''N : CJID^tJ' tnni ib. 3:4 Di5l5yni Targum .sntJ'^m Probably according to Chaggiga 14a ^'?vn ''J3 '?Vn 1?N 3py 13 NHN 31 1»N . IS 4:3 n^ti'lIU D'ln^ 3in3n ?3 Targum iin? 3TI31 ^3 .tai^K'lT' nonu nni NO^J? This interpretation in a Messianic sense agrees with San. 92b. THE EXEGESIS 97 ib. 5:1 nn''? H'n Dn3 io-d^ nn nv^ nn'? nj m'tj'N toe 13 I-li53 Targum NonS? ?'n«31 ^KntJ'^? tW n'HDK'K K'3J "IBK .lam Dmasn n'lyiT Com. Lamentation r. 2, 3 niJIP "IW .''T'T'? n-'H OnD lOSJC Dn-|3X '?& IJIP in andMenachoth53a ib. 2 u 3Vn 3P' 031 Targum ininD t^NI . So Y. Sukka 4, 16 .pn'B' )'?n n 3vn ap^ dji naton nt 3p' ^la^nn nr ^im Com. Sukka 49a nvn 2p' D51 naiD nt laina '?i:r2 pn cipdh nt piitj' ib. 10 D-13 nox niB'If ''3 Targum nn'' S^T N3in3 ns .xntJ'yD Com. Pesiqta D'rav Kahana, — pK'VIO fSB' pva .iB'j; D-13 ^tJ' niT-o "itry na in'nna'va ib. 17 Dnann n'-tJ'lS mi Targum pn'^I? TiOXT KD3 (from root in). Com. Pesachim 68a n"N ,Dim3 D'B'33 1V"I1 .D3 nanaa m "lax h'-bt in S'B'ja ib. 18 pyn 'atyia nn Targum tnjj ina^: lana? pB'aT ■'i .pD'pm nv IJDl I^TS sa? '^ana fnin Com. Suk. 52b, San. 99a nan siion^i s''3n '?^ Din^ nan n^nna j/in iv 'dk 'an 'k -■•in 's:^' n^jvn niaya Also R. Akiba, Gen' r. 22, 2; Sifri Num. 112. ib. 6:1 ma nJtJ'a Targum yjjnST NntJ'a (2 Chronicles 26:20). So Exod. r. 1, end. Jalqut 1. c. naVJB' H'i'H '^. rT'n na '31 .naa awn ynisai Com. Ps. Jonathan, Exod. 2:23. ib. 2 v'pii nD3' D''nt5'3i VJD noai d'hb's Targum pina nnna x^n n^n^u •'oaa tnnai nn s^t 'mas poaa. Com. Pirke d. Eliezer, 4: — i'':a noa' D^na'ai ,nj''3B'n na id'3'' ^e'pfi' — v'?:i riOT t:''nB'3i nj'-atJ'n ^jaa an' x^k*. ib. 8:2 in3n nms ns n^jas: nnp nTiyxi Targum nnis nxiaja nxn''^? nnaxT n'di? ni pja^na in'no ■'bip Tinoxi p nnat nsnja nxn's? nnaxn xnan: ?3 p ns ins xni sjna .nsn'K^ T-ny kjk in'3i3' This is exactly the interpretation of R. Akiba Makkoth 24b: ^yitj' 1K1 nun in^ is/'jntj' 1113 n-''?m'\^'? p5ij? vn nns nya aiB' n3? in^ iBK pnsa Vii P3i3 in i^'nnn D-icnpn 'tj'np nua nx'E' n?n s5s nn3t 5vn nnis p:^ na 'ai '^i m^ysi a''n3n pnxa ij« D3?^3a ta^ aina nnisa ,nniK ?b' insiaja nnsr '?^ inxiaj ainan .D'^K'n'' ni3ima nupn □■'Jpt latj''' mv 3in3 nn3T3 ,B'nnn pis .nai'pna nn3t ?b' inKiajc vn^a nnis ^k* insia: na'pnjB' way 98 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS ib. 9:4 cvia IKD IISD '?:: '3 Targum .VB'13 iin^DD ^3 ns The- interpretation is based on the transposition of the two last letters of t^'J;^D . On the reading of the T. rests also the say. ing of R. Meir, Tos. Sota 3: DTXB' mD2B' pJO noiX TiK ■'31 H^n .t^'J/ia IKID USD ?D ''3 lai^ niO^n 1? imio nnio Otherwise the inference is hardly explicable. Apparently, the T. identified |1SD with pxti' formed from the root .SBtj This was apparently the underlying reading of the rendering of the Lxx, while P. and I presume, also, Sym. read the same way and rendered it accordingly. ib. 10:16 ^H nip'3 ipi np'' n33 nnni Targum i:d ninm ■I'lIP'''' TP''0 prnp' The Targum interprets the phrase in the terms of the current Agada that, for the purpose of rendering the mircale of the destruction of the army of Senacherib more pronounced, God caused the bodies of his host to be burned within the raiments which were left intact. Com. the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 63, 8: "And at that time I burned their bodies within but their raiment and arms I preserved outwardly,, in order that still more wonderful deeds of the Mighty one might appear, and thereby His name might be spoken of through' out the whole earth." It was, it would seem, a current Agada. Com. Tanchuma,nJ 21: D^^ti'lT? annjD n^J!tJ' nVtJ'3 D''j;tJ'-|3 pjoi •Dnnan lais'j x^i on^aij laiK'j idv vm^^n ^31 Also Lekach Tob, Noach 9, 23. Com. Shab. 113b (and Rashi 1. c), San. 94a n''JKo^ ni? np mv 'm sn '•3 cdo ni33 k?i nn3 nnn jjnv -1"^ .iJTniSO Com. Tos. San. 52a. oniK ib. 13:12 liQiN Dn3D D^^?1 tSD K'US TPIN Targum nDHK .NnniK nnyi snmo •'^m Com. also 32:2. In all other cases the rendering of these two words is literal. Here the translation was influenced by the Messianic nature which the targumist assumes for this prophecy. The T. takes mx to imply the observer of the law following R. Jeremiah (Sifra Lev. 18, 5): minn ns ntj'w n3J i^'ax nois nns p^jo idin n^oi'' 'n n^n .Dna ''ni msn Dnis nfi>y< itj's idi? iiD^n ^na tn33 Kin nn ib. 13:21 ntJ' npl' Dn''Va'1 Targum p^K'l Com. Sifri, Deut. 218: Qlff npT on'VtS'l IDWti' 1^ N^S TytJ' pXl; Lev. r. 5, 1 .DB' npT- Dn'-ytfi notit nD3 Nna' p^'xs pipT- on^n ib. 17:11 ijB'jB'n "iJ/tiJ DV3 Targum pnti-npriNI insn THE EXEGESIS 99 .panaiV pri^P^ip inn av nno^ The targumist evidently took ''JK'Je'n as based on the noun yo, dross (Isaiah 1:25). Com. Lev. r. 18, 3. N"ia3 n?iD£3 DJT'B'V QV'p "i^ d3nK 'nyDjB' or a .vn eiD3 D'ro ib. 19:25 ^siB-i Ti^nji "iitj'x n^ ntt-VDi onvD lov inn Targum pnn^ "Ti'i^jK 'Dnp nm ^yn nnsoo ri'-pasT 'oy ina ''X1L'" Tijonxi ■'oy iipr.D nm nsi ninx^ . The targumist would not accept the literal and obvious meaning of this verse placing the Egyptians and Assyrians on one footing with Israel. In his view, therefore, the whole verse refers to Israel. So was the view, apparently for the same rason, of the Greek and the Syriac rendering of the verse. Eliminating the insertions, this interpretation is found in Hebrew xDir in''?X "no (p. 194 Friedmann) DnxD •'oy 1112 Dni niB'sfi i^JB* i^K — ■iitj's IT- HB'yDi ,DnvDr3 1t?nj ^oa K''2: n^y IxnjnST ND^'TII . This agrees with R. Jochanan (Pe- sichta Lam. r. 24) DixajJiD oninn ^SB' s'3 inn s':i Ktf'D nns \:nv 'i .IT'^y While Beraitha Taanith 28b would interpret it to refer to the Tepmle. Rashi, however, would place the Beraitha in har- mony with the interpretation of R. Jochanan. ib. 8 lyn nn PB'J ?y Targum .HO^ipn nJ3 nn pT 5y The T. was evidently prompted to this interpretation by IK 10:17, where it is called tlJ3?n IV reinterpreting p:3^ to mean the Temple, as he rendered 37:24 (2K 19:23), which coincides with the explanation in Joma 39b. -iDi? iiJ3^n ly nn td'di ly lotj- kipj no? nmo la nidit ■i"k ,.3fi3^D fTPon nn ^K 3?3^0 ly no "1^ Similarly Num. r. 11, 5. 100 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS b. 17 nnj n^D^D Targum Niajn K^D^B Com. San. 25b ...nE'p NnajT K^iti^ta m idn laj n^D^tD ib. 18 i^jnx nn n?P Targum K^T '?v i^pD inin^ lon^i .TJ131 nu npi Nmtij Com. San. 1. c. niD^ p^P tj'p3 xin wn .n^p^ nn3 isnj nD'-sj^i vjnx ib. 23 nn' rnvpni Targum .pino ^DIDN n'JJOS The tar' gumist is of the opinion that «J3t5' was only ^DIDS which dig- nity was to be transferred to EHakim. Accordingly, he renders pID (v. 15) .snu ?y KJD» IT SDJnS This is the view of R. jehuda (Lev. r. 5, 3) ,n'n ?n3 IHD "Ity^N n"K IDIDH ^K N3 1? .nin ^aiDK IDIN n"3 mm'' n The T., however, to IBJV flJX (v. 18) snSJVD D' IJO nj/' would point to the opposite view, that Shebna was a High Priest. (Com. T. 28:1). The T. to V. 18 has all the appearance of a Midrashic T., a portion of which was incorporated here. ib. 27:5 myon ptn'' in Targum inniN ■•oanaa iiapn'' ox Com. San. 99b D1^K> D'-tJ'D HDB'? mini PDIVH 53 mJDD^iS "i"N .nij;o3 Pin' ix idnjb' hdd ^^ H'^dsii n?j?o ^b' n^^osn ib. 27:8 njinn nn?tj>a nxoxDa Targum Nrr-im nnxon 1? tlJ^l'' na ?'X3 .So Sota 8b, San. 100a noiN "I'NO m H^ X'-JD .riNDSDi noNjB' i5 pmiD m mio mxti' moat}' pjo ib. 28:7 n^'i^'S 1PS3 Targum .srun 1Vt3 So Meg. 15b, San. 111b .D'^ii^iQD inji nONJC DTn N^iN n5''5S fXI ib. 10 ip5 IP iv5 IS ID Targum snniN niVD^ npanx ns N^i xniVD tn^is iin? d^pnn nan nnvo5 iN'av n5 npansi nai (IP? IP) itj'Tpo nu infiia? nao . Com. nm in''5N mo (p. 19, Friedman) DDK p2''5'5o ^30 "'nta Qn« fOB'B' X^S p CinN ''S ,DnS nsip nNi!i nj'Nty nxiv imx ons d'-b'ivi too om i^n i5'N3 nan 5y niri3in iddd oanx timi; ,DnvBo Donxvi didn ^jtiix nsip nyn^ 'JTI1P1 ■'mtn ,nnn nj3j sJ'ts' nv d'':idb'i nixo win D3nx ti^p .ipji IP iv5 IS 13 iDKJB' nun nJiJiyD D^jtr ntj'y'i nisn j;31n D3nN ib. 29:1 ^snN ^iNnN ''in Targum an^lO xniTD According to Midoth 4, 7 it is the 53in Pesichta Lam. r. 26. But com. Sebachim 53a, 59b, according to Rab. ib. 17; 32:15 iK'n'' "IV? ^iDlim Targum airi'' pS'JD pTlP Com. Gen. r. 24, 1 tJ'JiS 'm 1t^''^1^? StJ-ni IV? 5D13ni Com. Caro 1. c. and Rashi. THE EXEGESIS 10] ib. 30:15 iiynn nnji nnwa Targum snniN^ imnn n .pPIBrini Iinun The Targum interprets nsicn to mean repent' ance and rendering the following as a resultant phrase. It agrees with R. Eliezer, Y. Taanith 2, 8; San. 37b. .nnji naiB'a idnj ~id3 nty^iK ■'31 ib. 20 nniD ns nisn T-jiy iini iniD niv fuai k^i Targum nTijiSB' D' inn Tij'y pinn stripo jriao htu-'DE' nis? p^d' s^i .KtfipD nnn Com. Sota 49anwan ps fis lois kj^jh na xnx m ims pynB'o ioik mas n inio my sijd'' k?i idkjb' vjs? 5yjj iniD nx nisn i^rj? rni noKJt^ nj''3E'n mo . Both, it would appear, depend upon the interpretation of the Targum which interprets iniD to mean the Shekina, introducing the Temple as a necessary complement. ib. 31:9 nnan Targum DJTIJ So Erubin 19a; Pesachim 54a; Seder Eliahu r. 29 (p. 150 Friedman). ib. D'-^tyi-m 1^ nuni Targum scsT n^'? n'va num .nno^O '?y nan^ Com. Erubin 1. c; Gen. r. 6, 4 ^"^^ "'KJ'' 'T njn DVD no niytfin ns D^not^ nv k^k djh'j i^k pidn in^in ('D ,'a i3k?d) ■ii:n3 ivn sa dv. Mek. i-in\ 9: nt nun njni ib. 2 inyatj'n nnnjs ^3 Targum cnp |a pnjxno nm ?d .^lam K3?o So Cant. r. 1. c. .'?22 5'B' nnnjs ^3 •'nnB'n nnnjs ?3 ib. 33:20 tysi ^3 Jins Targum piano K?T NJ3B'»3 So Cant. r. ib. 32:5 an: '?2:'? my ixip'' n^ Targum my naxn'' »"? .K'pnv s^yiE'i? Com. Sota 41b KD'jT'Ki Sanyo "13 miri' m cm iDK'' N? 1D8JB' ntn Dfiiy3 D'yB'ifi n'jnn^ nnia na I3 iiyoa' m .an: '72:'? my ib. 14 Dmy nyiD Disia a^B'a t^taj toi^' ''3 Targum Tao nin it'H n-ia xim ins ann st^'ipo nu ns. Com. Lam. r. 2. 5. ib. 20 D''a ?3 ?y •'yit OantJ'S Targum I';m3y tyn 'a Com, Gen. r. 42, 1; Exod. r. 15, 50; Seder Eliahu r. 6 (p. 28 Friedman) . ib. 42:11 v^D 13B" UT" Targum \^p' idik sin pi Mak. 23b, Mish.: nx ni3T^ n"apn nsi iDis ^''K'ps; t3 x^Jjn n .ipns lyo^ ran '■' iokjb' dixdi min on? nam i3''a^ Exits''' ib. 43:4 TiJinn ms jriKI Targum N'DDV nnODI SoMe- chilta 10 fPtJT Nn3DD and Exod. r. 15, 3: nnOB' nn? yap "13^ . . . ms inxi loKJE' DnnnxD vis: xintj' ib. 12 inyDtym Tu/cini Tn^n 'ajx Targum ijiMn kjk n-iOVT ND3 DnVOD tlDD'' fT-PIQ SJK XIT-D^ TTiyi IIDUN Dmnx^ ■■j^DD ■'nniN isi'lx inn^ n^yoB'K kjki xnna in n''? . Similarly Jalqut 1. c. .1J1D3 TivDtj'n'i . . . nnsD3 ^mjn ojs ib. 44:5 n' 3nD' nil 3pyi OB'S sipi nn 'jk 'i? ion'' nr Targum nnp^ fni 3py Dwa ■'^v' im kjk 'n N^^mo id''' m ,n''J311P The interpretation approaches the Midrashic explana- tion of the verse to refer to four estates of the righteous ones. Aboth of R. Nathan 36 ntl Dmoj Dipns 1?N 'JK '? IDK'' nt D'-VB'-i i^K n"? IT 3031 nn ,y!j'i ^:2 dijdp i?s 3pyi ass's xip' na i?s nj3' ^sntj'i ntj'ni ,0311^0 iwi dn3 nrni Dn^smo WT'atj' .D^IVn niOIS And m a different way in Mechilta ppTJT Kn3D0) "■^ -iDxi nt nnaiKi nuiy inn' nin3 5/31x3 nsiq nnx i3i : (28 13 3nj;nj s^i mpo? i^i3B' nt — nnaoo xDn '3 3ij;ni ?xi 'js i^j;3 i^K — ... 303' nn ,pnv nj i^k — spy 0^2 xnpi nn .son .DiOty iXli 1?K — njSi ^XIK" D6}'31 .nSlBTl Seder Eliahu r. 18 (p. 105 F.) is following Aboth of R. Nathan i^K — nasi nt .nyc nniw ^sntj'i ip^nj dtis y3is? nox 1310 — 3031 ntl ,Diytj'in 'J3 d'jdp i^k — sipi nti .onioa oipnv .D'ytJ'T 1?K The T. seems to follow this interpretation, although it is less outspoken with regard to the last three which, how- ever, allow themselves to be implied. Com. Sifri Deut., 119. ib. 27 n^lS^ noxn Targum ^33 ?y IDXn. Com. Y. Berakoth 4, 1; Zebachim 113a; Shab. 113a; Lam. r. Pesichta 23 (Buber) .^33 It uin n'p'i'i'? laixn \:nv n idk ib. 45:18 nnX' n2ti>'? Targum KtfJK iJ3 n^y nxjDK? It is so interpreted in the Talmud as implying the obligation of human reproduction. Com. Jebamoth 62a; Gittin 41a, etc. ib. 46:11 ^nvy tJ"N Pmo riKD Targum Kpim xyiKo 104 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS Dmns 1J3 . So Gen. r. 54, 1 Dmnx nt ,tff-is< I'K la kt>i Targum iij ni^T iniDlP '?J1 •tno tnaiv ni^T Com. San. 98b s?K si nn t^ t'« I^nv n"K1 xnn 3in3T 3"n i^nc nna .a^in i^'IDB' ina is 'S3t i^iatr nnn . . . {J"S fS ''3 ib. 64:3 unsn N^l IJ/DB' N? D^IVDI Targum ^J1a la ri'^ ns K'pnv inay? navo? ttiv dni. Com. Eliahu r. 20 ci'vti'i ?»> on'i^B'D D^iiyDi naiKi ,Nnn d^iy?' nipnv ^tj* t'^^6^' trie no^ nns ntn o^iya ...unsn S^l lyDC K? Com. also Shab. 63a; Exod. r. 45 end; Esther r. 1. ib. 65:8 ?13B'S3 ti'n'nn SVOi IB'SS Targum nariB'ST SOD .KJSIDT Smi 'SOT nj So R. Simon, Gen. r. 29, 1. ib. 20 nioi njtj* nsD I3 ivjn la Targum D'^is; 3"m ns .rCND 'ni fJtJ' nXD ni Com. San. 91a and Pesachim 68a. The interpretation of the T., however, agrees with Gen. r. 26, 3. ib. 22 laV •'D'' Yvn iBi^ la Targum K"n ]'?» iDrD n« .'oy 1CV Com. Tan. Gen. 2 (18) .yyn ^a'^ IDSJtJ- fJO V'ni Similarly Gen. r. 12, 5; Num. r. 13, 4. Lxx has a similar in- terpretation. Com. T. PS. 1:3 ^inK" I'M — '"'•n t^'S3 . Jerem. 2:2 l^n^l^a nans iniyj ion l? imat Targum i^irsi nDiD3 'joim n^nans nam ,mp 'dv dud ti3? kji>3t THE EXEGESIS 105 •init s^i pJB' pvms Kimaa pnxi ntj-a ina 'n^^B' inn nni Com. Mechilta n^d 3 : nJONH S'H ''Sna ...flDIN Dnnx D^sw UK is^n ntj'D^' noK s^k' ,D'in nx nn? npsB' n iroxne' Dn'^iv .ntro nns n?ni u^'osn s^s nn? iTino ijitii fxi lano^ ...nxnpl ni^n n^apa B'IIQD And in a modified form in Seder Eliahu r. 17 (p. 85). Jerem. 2:31 y'pt^ niif snj Sl^ IJTi 'OV na« i;na Targum .^3^5|^a? my ainJ K^ HJ^i'D^DK Com. Tanchuma Num. 2 yno s"t KUJ s^ my uao nwatr np^Di B'lpa nn u^ nm )'? nos ,noN ib. 22:6 lU3^n tyxi '^ nnx ny^J Targum 3>3n n« l^i'K KmD ^j-na on xtynpo nuo 'dip . Com. Mechilta ,p^Dy, 2 : s^K nyjj pxi nyJjn nx -nxjtj' ,isini K-npon rra ns nisi^ tj'pa ■>? nnx nyJj ionjb' B'npDn nn . ib. 28:17 '>yi3E'n B'lna Kinn n^t^a x'ajn n^jjn noM Targum .syatr smu nnpriKi Nnn xnt^a siptj* kuj nijjn ttioi Com. Y. San. 11, ? p moN nxi ,nnir] mnx njt^ ...sujn n^jjn non inn •'J3 nsi Via nx mvi nja'n tj'sn aiya noK' no^o s5^? inxuj mtj'y? ^ne-n n"n inx imt^'svti' ,imn r\« mnon? •IPB' rTiD"!' JtS* . Com. also v. 16. ib. 32:18 nn'j3 p'-n '7« nns ]^v d^b'd'i Targum inin D^trm nnnna ^ana'? pO^tJ'a na S'J3? Knnnx . Likewise all Targumim to Exod. 34:7 making it clear that the suiFering sons are subject to punishment also on their own account. This explanation is that assumed in Berakoth 7a niJD ?y nns \)V HPIS 3'n3ni 'J'K .K'B'p s? IJ''j{jn2i mnK isip p'laTi max 5y inia' Nf- D'jni a^nni .onniK psB'D xn .DniTin an-innx nB'ya prnisK'3 kh The refer- ence is to San. 27b. ib. 38:7 iB>l3n l?a 1211 yDB"1 Targum X3^dt Kiay yoB'M .H'pnv Com. Moed Katan 16b nay yas^ii ■1D1^? nns ima svio .las' iTplV S?ni las' iB'n i31 'K'lDn l?a But Sifri Num. 99 (mentioned anonymously by Rashi) would interpret it to refer to Baruch b. Neriah. E?. 1:1 njB' D'B'^tj'3 MM Targum [at^ I'JK' pn^nn H'lni .KnmKT K1SD K3n njna n^P^n nStS'SI This numerical interpreta- tion is given in Seder 01am. Com. Jalqut 1. c. ib. 3 . . . H'n r\Ti Targum.. . DIP la nsuj njns nin ■'ina .•'snoD yns njnan n'-ay ^^ansi nirjn nn ^xiB'n synxa So Mech. 106 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS .nx^ nsina lov i^ub' n''n ,nK3 itsy imjtj' n^n ,n''n hm iDXJt;' Also Rab Chisda Moed Katan 2?a. ib. 24 moyn njn» ?ip3 n^ion ^ip Targum tni^ii^D ?ip N''a^s; i?D No'p nnjm n^ pmaDi pnio id . It seems to follow the homily in Gen. r. 65, 5: nvcn fil QV K3 mova Sin HDI .DH'sja njsnn 3"nKi i''pnw d'Sk^oh ^kib'' var inois ^Knts^tj' Its repetition in the v. 25 is interpreted by the T. in the same way, the silence preceding the word of prophecy descending upon the prophet. ib. 2:10 ini njni d'J'P ni?s ainni Targum nn dti^i Kjm K'^K linJD ^ID^ «nniN nv Com. chapter General Peculi- arities. However a similar evasive interpretation is found in Sifri Num. 103 ,DipnX '?^ HJni ,D''J;B''1 'P^ D'rp D'J'P Hi^J? 3in31 ib. 7:11 n: K^l Cinona S^l Targum UDD K?1 Iin'J30 S^l tin'Jl Com. Gen. r. 31, 1, as interpreted rightly in D'J''JBD inaj ib. 13:5 DDi^'V N^ Targum p^D pl31V pS? pmiy N^l .^K"IB" nu ?V 'yao^ Com. Jalqut 1. c; Esther r. 6. ib. 16:10 B'K'3 Iti-nnKl Targum K'JHD PSJO ni^HPI . Com. Pesiqta ^nj ins ^'^^ HJiHD nn nr.DK' i5"x tj'tya i^i'anxi C't;' Dna rrriti' . The targumist, however, would interpret 'K'O "103X1 as referring to the High Priest. ib. 11 on^Olf Targum D'jax •'Hl^ nn '?V p3^ri3 . So Pesiqta 33 nnnn mm? ^jt;' i?-s d'T'ds njnsi . ib. 12 -\\:-ii-i2 niKQn mtjyi Targum imp [o n^^tj' ik^di .ps'K'nn nmts Com. Cant. r. ?iyj p : n iK'sna mxan mtij?i .no''3E'n; Pesigta 33. ib. 26:21 ^Jns mn^a Targum nnn k5ii3 Kimchi niH^a n"n .mn ?3 — D^^D T\^ It is, It would seem, an old Midrashic in- terpretation. So Tanchuma Gen. 19 (Buber) "|jnx niri?3 iriD , . . mn?3 1DXJB' nvn? pmnj? k?i vn k^i d^ivn niais .nrxi -nrn ?3 mn^a ib. 28:13 13 lUPJI 1''Dn n3K?D Targum n^SDDK K? D13, P3PJ1 r'?'?n T'3Vn''«T "lljaa . So Baba Bathra 77a ...-i^Dn n3Nf>D in?3nDj 13 lis 1^0 Din? n"3pn i? ids 3-1 nos nnim 3-i nos .mK3 nupj DUPJ ''0X131 THE EXEGESIS 107 Com. Ps. Jon. and Frag. Deut. J2:18, which is the interpreta- tion of R. Meir, Sifri Deut. 227. ib. 4?:11 nan lonn ntj'vo nxti*? Targum pxo n^n ono .KIT'3 xn'D-l Kn^303 snn aDO? Com. Menachoth 77a ijn K:n B'^B' nan no ,n'n nns tain nam nsixn sip snon an nos '^'d .nan lOB'n pni xana s^s j^jd ksu nai ,pKDThe T. to y. 14 is literal. The specification here of the number of kors is because it forms the source for the inferenle of the measure of the epha. Hos. 2:1 ...Dn? nos'' Dns •DV N? nns 'a nnsj na? .nnaina n? ^aia '-jsb' aina sn )'? mis D'n ^ina ^SltJ''' ija laDa 1D1«1 . And Pesiqta ll. R. Meir, however (Kidushin 36a), would not draw such a distinction. ib. 2 'pnvw Qv ^nj ia Targum tinnB'''ja Dv ai ns So Pesachim 88a n iNiaJB' Dva nv^j nap Dv ?nj tjnv 'n ids .^Kyif nr ^na 'a idsjk' visi Qiatj' ib. 7 Dmin nB'mn Targum .pn'-D^D inina The T. explains omin as of the root nT to teach. It was so taken by others. Com. Deut. r. 2, 2: ,Dn-iin nB"ain DDx nnjT 'a a'na 'k^db* i''^ .nsn Qv ijsa onnan D'B'^aa (o'j^in) Dne* And the version in Jalqut 1. c. nan DiK^UD D'jinn n"apn ion 'n^db' 't nos ...DOS nnjT o "losj na^i nsn dv ''Jsa ib. '"IPE'I Targum 'DIJIB . Com. Ketuboth 65a "IPB'l .pD'-E'an inj'j •'Nai in'^v nppina'o nu'sna' onai ib. 4:7 ■>'? INDH p Dana Targum i<'?'?V pn^ 'n^JDNT Noa . Deut. r. 2, 2 .''5 INDH p nB'iy in^ 'nunna' ^a K"t In a similar way Lxx. ib. 6:2 C|iDVa U'^n' Targum pninVT xnonJ ^DV^ NJJ^n' .N'n'D nvnx era in'D? The Messianic interpretation of this V. was a current one. Com. San. 97a; Rosh Hashana 31a. Com also Seder Eliahu r. 6: n''B'Dn niOM ntn D^ivn nt D'aVD U'^n' .Nan D^iyn nt uav 'B'^^K'n mui 108 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS ib. 6:7 nna nay msD n«m Targum .ismp xmD ]iy«'\ Com. R. Abahu, PsichtaLam. r., 4: ,I1B'N-in Dns Ht ...mtO HOm •Tinyi DTlMXlCom. also Gen. r. 19, 7. ib. 7:4 mVDin nv PV3 tri^a Targum pDJ nsiK «'?•[ ?J?1 •DnvDD tinpDo Dva in? nuj/rr'KT innai Com. Mechika .snos) ,t^«3JB' nj; Tivon? ipison s?i nD''yn ns iri'^B' tjo : 13 ,sn •tj'iJio D'laKJD D?i3 ainan ^'v^i ssid nnx pi ib. 8:4 DDHTI DEJOa Targum pn? IP'iDST iin^mi IinSDO Dnxoa Com. Gen. r. 28, 7 piDDH ?y "IJD 1K1P ?3n na'pv -i"s .D13S5? on? iw D3nn oaoa nnsjcj' nnxoo nnoy sv'ts' antni Com. also Lam. r., Pesichta 23 (Buber), interpreting in the same way E?. 7:19. ib. 11:9 -\iv2 ^?nN s? '•mip laipa iqs tnn nt^ys x? Targum .D^B-iT iiv nniK snpa !i'?ns K?i njii siipn tid^s n? Com. Eliahu Zuta 10 DJ2'"' i Targum .]TK)'? ^nr^^ns DV^ So in Pesiqta r. 34 Tya ''osy3 'JK Tin^D? n3inB' 5'3tj' ,''js? N'H nyntj' .ny? 1D1P DV5 noxjtv n31D5 n The Agadist also took ny^i to mean to witness, from the root ^^^]) . Com. also Exod. r. 17 end ■<'? i3n !3? 3'n3i ...nT'oy3 iD^iy ns im nmy sin S35 iTiy^ 53s .ly^ 1D1P 0113 Zech. 3:3 Disis cinn E'35 niH ytj'inii Targum iin ynn^i .Kmjn35 nE'3 S^T PB'J lin5 P3DJT pJ3 H'^ So San. 93a 31 IDS 'Hja* in3 nn'D k5i win35 nuun trsB' d'-b': pne'ij vj3 vhe* ndd D^xiv Dnj3 tj'n^? y^'iiT 5tj' i3-n i3'i Disi^i nnn tfn^ hm ynn^i .in3 nn^D x^i KJin35 niJi:in trx:;' dik'j pnb'IJ v:2 vnc no^D n^n ib. 8 non nsio 'B'JK '3 Targum nsyo? plE'3 pn3J ns .PDJ pn5 Exod. r. 9, 1 ncyjB' DitrjK on iPs ,non nsiD ib'jk 13 110 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS nx i^pn-ii NJi/T y's nntyi Jikk^d H'jjh nt idix nn nsia nn? inn N'jns k^ nntvi ^kej'^d n'jjni jVM nin^ nn^B'Ji Tin? tinn33 in: nu . Com. Suk. 22a Dn3n x?ni u-'&: min max 03 ta^itf nn nv pxi nsons i'pdivb' y'v"? V'p . . . rE'3v n3? D''K'jxi n3? Malachi 1:1 •'SXJd TU Targum n'DtJ' npnn ''3X?a m .X1QD xntV So R. Jehoshua b. Korcha, Meg. 15a: [3 ■'""I X'Jfl .xnrv nt '3x?d noix snip ib. 11 minD nnJDI 'DB'? &M IDPD mpo 5331 Targum .iDnp ''3n t3niP3 I13ni?Vl . . . Com. Num. r. 13, 2 DlpO ?33 ''31 onoii; ^xnti'^'K' dipo ?33 x?x n"3pn na'? nnjoi miDP 3np» "itipD ...nnntj' n^an it b'sd ...nnjo noxj n^'?y nnjo n^sn d^^^ariDi .nmv n^sn it ib. 2:12 nnjo ia''>joi 3?^ ''5'nxD njyi iv nj^'y nti'x Targum .XJ3niP 3np n'J •'n'' X? Xin pn3 DXI Com. San. 82a; Shab. 55b DX ,DniDSi3 njiyi 0^03^3 -\v 1? n'n'' x^i xin n"n nx ...'■' m3'' .nnjD K^'jo 13 1? n'n' x? xin in3 GENERAL PECULIARITIES The Targum Jonathan reflects many interesting peculiarities which arose primarily from the state of mind of the age which produced the Agada and the Apocryphal Hterature. The Targum was read in pubHc worship, and the translator would have to take full account of the susceptibilities of the worshipper. On the other hand, in the homilytic portions ample expression is to be found of the believes, expectations and views of that generation. The targumist made it a principle to differentiate between the holy and the profane. Words which are equally applied to the holy and unholy are rendered by the targumist by distinct words' to maintain the difference. The Masorites follow a similar way. So that when ^n is followed by the name of God it is vocalized with a patach (IS 20:3, 2S 12:15 etc.). While followed by a profane it is vocalized with a zeire. Genesis 42:15. (Com. IS 28:26 -[^S2 'ni ■>' in) . The same tendency was made evident in the vocalization of ijtn and in such forms as in the compound pnv ''JTX (Joshua 10:13) and P?3 ''ilH (Judges 1:5, 6, 7). The targumist carried the principle to an extreme application. i* DTI^X is applied both to God and the idol; the T. draws the distinction between them rendering the profane DTI^X — 1) Com. Geiger ion: ItJIx p. 3. Such a distinction has its parallel in the Talmud. So it is said (Shabbath 32a): "For three transgressions are women dying. Others say because they call the trilpn inx — njIN (box); R. Ishmael b. Elozor says: 'For the trans- gression of two things are the amei ha'arazoth dying: for caUing the ITTlpn inx Arna and because the Beth Ha-K'neseth is called Beth Am." No doubt, despite the unanimity of the commentaries that Arna and Beth Am are derisive, and for this reason their application to holy subjects was condemned, they desired to separate the holy from the profane. It would appear that this was urged only as a sort of mannerism. For the Talmud does not follow this distinction; in many passages Arna is employed in the sense of tS'Tlpn inn (Com. Berakoth 47b). Ill 112 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS nVD Joshua 24:14 D'H^iKH DK IT'DHI — I1Vt3 So v. 15 Judges 5:8 D't^nn D^n^S — HVD 2K 19:18; Is. 33:37, 37:19 t5'K3 Dn^n^S ns tnJI — nnniVia. So also Jer. 2:10, 11; 11:12; Hab. 1:11 etc. In order to avoid any semblance of imputation of divinity to idols, the T. treats the adjective nnriN following the profane DTl^K as a noun, and Din^iK as a noun in const, state, thus rendering Dnns wr^'PH — S'Day niVD So Josh. 20:16, 24; Judg. 2:12, 17, 19; Is. 26:19; Jer. 13:10, 16:11; 19:4, 13; 22:9 etc. In the same way is rendered "iDJn TlJiX Josh. 20:23, 24; Jer. 5:19 etc. Probably this expression has influenced the rendering by the T. of D''inK DTl^K- Compare Mech. nn'' ,5 : onnsB' n^n ,DnnK en ?x nni? mo^n nni nini^K DniN D'8<^1p . Equally is D'^Va rendered. So Jer. 2:23 C^Van nriN — N^dov niVtJ . In some cases it is rendered like the detached profane D'n^X . So Jer. 2:8 ^3;33 1S3J CS'^jni — »mva Ditj'n. Hos. ii:2 mif n^'py^'? — smvti? ; 13:1 5V32 QfffH'') — xniVD^ ■ Otherwise '?il2 is rendered by s^va (Jer. 7:9; 9:13 etc.). This scrupulosity of the T. is strikingly illustrated by his treatment of this term applied to idolatrous divinity, which is made by the context to inevitably express godly divinity. So Judges 6:31 Kin D'H^s Ds — sjiyn H''^ yisri'' nu it's tiv dk This rendering which, it would appear, was suggested by such passages as Is. 44:10; Jer. 2:8 etc., he applies also to 2K 19:18; Is. 37:19 Qin^K X? noni as well as to the passage in Hos. 8:10 Kin QT\'?» K?1 — TIX nu n^fiT , "the unuseful one"; also Ez. 28:2, 9, in all of which the divine sense of DTI^X is obvious. But the targumist is anxious to avoid even an innocent pro- fanation of this sort. On the other hand, when this profane DTl^X is not employed in the sense of incrimination but as a fact the rendering is xn^m "fear" 2) go for instance 2K 18:33; 34:35; Is. 36:18; 37:12 : non Tl'PH ri'N ..-D'ljn Tl'PH ^'?'''inn naiSI — xn^m or Jerem. 2:28; 11:13 ~[^n'?t^ vn inv 1SD0D 2) The Talmud also employs its Hebrew equivalent PIKT So San. 64a, 106a. Also Y. Kidushin 1; P'siqta of Rab Kohna p. 65. On the other hand, s^m is employed in the divine sense abo. See Proverbs 1, 7: Nn^m snasin vn; F. Deut. 32:13 KBiDfi N^mi nasi Jinn' piB n and Is. 2:6 -;ojf nrwoi '3 — Nsipn N'jm iinpat*' nx GENERAL PECULIARITIES 113 So also Jona 1:5 vn^K ?N B'lN Ipyj^l — iTTi^m • Here it was only meant to state the plain reality. Com. also Ez. 28:2, 9. In the case of the first two instances the targumist has merely identified the profane D'n^K with the special name given to idols in the Bible, namely n ''?'''? 8 and Di^l^J, both of which he renders by Iivta with the exception of the latter, which jn^lS is in the most cases added to pj/D • Com. Is. 8:8, 18, 20; 19:1, 3; Ez. 14:3; 18:6 etc. In this tendency the T. Jonathan IS followed by Onkelos and the other Targumim only. With one exception, namely Di"ins DTI^K in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7), in which case Onkelos would not side- track the meaning, rendering them by priK in^S (Ps. Jon. fol' lowing On.). In all other cases On. also renders the profane Din^N — nVD (Exod. 23:24; 34:15; Deut. 12:2) and goes even with Jon. to render "inx '?» — S '» KTUN ; J. 6 KH^K IH' 't KTUK:Sachau (Aram. Pap. 1, 2). However, in Pap. 3 instead ofNTUN the term em- 114 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS A distinction of this kind is traceable also in the Talmud, There is no particular name in the Talmud for the profane altar. But it has, however, special appelations for objects connected with the altar, one of which has a derisive air. So a sacrifice to an idol is called nnnpn a present.*) Com. Aboda Zara 32b, 48b; Chullin 13b, 24a. But while the Targum to the Pentateuch reserves snanpn for the profane offering, the holy offering being rendered by Xjaip, Nnaipn is the judicial term, applied to idolatrous sacrifice in the Talmud using however plip to denote present. Com. Nedarim 20a D'3^D ni33-|p3 ; Ab. Zara 64b. So does also T. Jonathan, s) Com. Hos. 12:2 onso^ !0!f1 Targum KJDIPI, although Korban is joined by the Tetra- gramm (Menachoth 110a, Sifra Lev. 2). Sometimes the idolat- rous sacrifice is called D'n» innT (according to PS 106:28) Aboth 3, 3; Aboda Zara 29b; 32b. Instead of nnt the usual verb for sacrificing, the Talmud in several places uses the verb '?21 to manure. ^^ Aboda Zara 18b; Y. Berakoth 9, 1; Pesiqta r. 6. ployed is Nnaia D'a ■ I am tempted to assume that this was prompted by this very desire of differentiating the holy from the profane temple. Here, the writer is a Jew and the writing was intended for Jews, and therefore he would not use the profane name NIlJX for the holy temple. The others are documents of an official nature intended for the con- sideration of a Persian official or court. The current name of a temple would be used in such a case. Sachau's assumption (ib. p. 29) that STUN was somewhat the intimate appelation among the Jews of the synagogue (p. 12) is not impressive. On the other hand, it is interest- ing to note that the priest of the temple is called Kohan U NOns t^rtbn irr (Pap. 11), while the idolatrous priest is called Komer snos aun 't (Pap. 1 and Sayce E. 15 3i:n^ ^B2 Ita'JB 12 Tmo), However, there is not sufficient ground in this to justify the assumption that even then the Jews would observe a distinction to which later generations adhered. The writer might simply- have used the appelation by which the Jewish priest was commonly known. 4) naipn is the abbreviated form of NDanpn . The Targum renders by it nn:B (Genesis 32:13; 20:21; Is. 18:7; Jer. ?1:59 etc.). 5 ) It would seem that T. Jonathan did not follow at all such a distinction. So Djmp DJ?3 (Ez. 20:28) is rendered by T. Jon. ^n'MTip unless the translator understood it in a holy sense. 6) In Toscfta Ab. Zara 2 there is ]in2Tt3 instead of p^STB though in Pesiqta i'. 6 Dl'jo ^ut DT «"n. The version in Sota 36b is GENERAL PECULIARITIES 115 Moved with this spirit, the Targum is also differently- rendering Kohan according as the reference is to an Aaronite or a priest of an idol. The latter is rendered by sn^Q. (So Jer. 48:7; 49:3) or, which is the usual rendering, by S1D13 (2K 10:19; 17:32 etc.) which is considered by some scholars to be a trans- lation of the Persian Atharnan, the priest of the fire-worshippers. (See Aruch, Kohut IOD) Both of them are found in the Talmud and the Agada. The priest of the idol is called mtS'B (San. 63b, 64a) . In one passage both of them are used side by side, namely Erub. 79b. K1D13 however is the usual connotation for the Kohan of the idol. But 2S 8:18 D'jn3 1)1 ''J31 the rendering is i^mai (Com. Mech. nn^ ,2 : ...1)1 ^m noNJc ,pjj;3 d'5'Q3d cjna ^d) Com. Mek. 1. c. nn^ voB'''i : ,n''n noiD idi}< UK-in' 'i ,tno in3 •ijin DnB*^ Dijns vn VJ31 r\a>:a p a^i: p injinM iokjb' pjV3 rrn DJn DT. Com. also Cant. i. beginning and Gen. i. 87,3. The T. Jon. in general does not favor any distinction in this case. Thus IK 11:8- inin^N^ mnairJI Targum ninaiDI ■ So also in 12:32; Am. 4:4 and in some other places. So Onk. Num. 24:2 in'n^K 'nit'? — 'nil'? ; Deut. 32:17 ontf^ inat' — 'naT • This principle found application in the Bible, nwa is placed for '}y2 ; IIN fl'l for bK n'2 . This might have been the reason for the peculiar vocahzation of DiTtPipa (Ezek. 7:24), which is otherwise hardly explicable. (Com. Kirachi 1. c; Ew. Gramm. 215 Jahn, Das Buch Ez. 1. c). The reference here is to the idolatrous shrines (so Rashi, Kratezschmar and many others) and was so understood by the Masorites. They therefore changed the pointing as a mark of distinction. Similarly ia>l!>n (Esra 10:2; Nehemia 13:23) instead of \XV3 As in the judgment of the writer intermarriage is an enormous violation of the Law, he would hesitate to use the word commonly used for the act of taking to a wife. The names of Gods should be changed into derogatory names (R. Akiba in Sifri Deut. 61). Mockery of the idol was the rule with the Hellenistic Jews also. It was for this reason that they applied the EiScoXo-Bvtog to what the Gentiles called IsooduTOs (Diessman, Die Hellen., p. 5). Likewise the idolatrous festival is called TN (Abod. Zara 2a), and Maimonides (in his com- mentary on Mishnayoth) says: "and it is not allowed to call them (the festivals of the idolators) DnyiD because they are b^n " Com. Rab, Aboda Zara 20a. A temple of an idol is called niBin (Mishna Ab. Zara 29b, 32b). Its underlying meaning is not from nsiin ;Aruch eiin) . but synonymous with niBin as Tos. (Ibid 32b beginning -I^inn). 116 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS iDKJB' !^JV3 ,n''n IB' imx 'mon itv^k "i ;nsn ni?j dv nj; Also 2S 20:26 nn^ tn3 n''n XTiV nai— in? an ■ The targumist does not consider them priests of any kind, although with regard to NTj; the T. is in opposition to the view expressed in the Talmud (Erubin 63b) that he was a rightful priest. On the other hand, IS 1:3 D^jna DnJDI 'JBH Targum pe'atJ'ffl obviously be- cause they were sinful priests, as against Samuel b. Nachmani, who would clear them of crime (Shab. 55b). Impelled by the same consideration, the T. renders naan (IS 9, 12, 13, 14, 25) by KnnriDN by which he renders 11{}>1D (IS 20:18) and nn365'? (IS 9:22) to distinguish it from the bama denoting high places of idolatrous worship which he renders by snion (IK 13:32; 14:23 etc.), having also the meaning of heaps of ruins. (Ez. 36:2). The targumist appears to decline the talmudic view (Zebachim 112b, 118a) that the ban of bama had been lifted at that time. In order to exonerate Samuel of the sin of bama- worship, the T. rendered nDDH as denoting the place where gatherings were held with the Prophet. Hence the rendering for nntn "yiV (IS 9:13) in the essenic sense '7> KJITD Dns SIH nx (Ant. 1, 18, 5; Berakoth 55a), while IS 16:3, 5 is equally rendered by sniT'E'l . For the same reason the T. renders D''Sin (Jud. 17:5) by psDT instead of KiJD^V which is other- wise the rendering of QiQin (So On. Ps. Jon. Gen. 31:19). As well said Levy (Chal. Woer.) : "Um nicht einem Jiidischen Priest die Anbetung eines homlichen gotten Bildes zu?u- schreiben." So he differentiates in the rendering of tibk . When it is used in a holy sense (IS 2:28) it is rendered Ti£3X but in a profane sense (IS 2:181 2S 5:14) it is translated vm Dm3. This is the rendering of di^iya (2S 13:18). As regards other translations, the K1013 connotation for the priest of the idol is adopted by Onk. and P., while the Lxx makes no dinstinction. Of the same character is the separation drawn by the targumist between DBB'D referring to that of God or Israel and that of the Gentiles. In the former case it is rendered by KJi"t. 7) Abudraham (nanB" DnriB'') cites a Targum Yerushalmi which would seem to be a later recenssion, this principle being disregarded. r'"he rendering there is: «D32 b)} D"1B> Nin ns. GENERAL PECULIARITIES 117 Referred to the DStJ'D of the Gentiles or denoting custom it is rendered by the Greek vo[ib<; D1D''J ■ So Ez. 5:7 CMn ''DSB'D31 Targum Kioaj; •'D10J31 ; E?. 20:18 noBTl ?S Dn''DBK'D HKI — !n'D1D''J nM. Also E?. 7:27; 21:25 and in one verse Ez. 11:12 ''DBE'031 on^m »'? itosB'tDi nna^n s^ "ipina nt^s 'i 'jk 13 onvT'i Diian Targum iDiojsi iim3v K^ ijni iina^n k^ lo^pn n Kinoy. When BStyD denotes custom: IS 2:13 D''jn3n DSE'D (IS 8:9) '131 I^DH DStro Targum DID'J ; (2K 1:7) tf'Kn tDSK'D HD Targum t?DiaJ. Also Am. 8:14 ynty-isa Tn 'ni Targum DItDiJ Applying to the holy laws, commandments or judgment it is rendered sjn Of this sort are Is. 1:27; 3:14; 5:7; Jer. 2:12; 22:3; Ez. 20:16; 12:21, 24. Sometimes suggested by Instances of both cases are numerous. On the other hand, as^C the contents DtfPT truthful, is added. Instances of this kind are Jer. 5:1 tSSt^O HtJ*!? E" DK Targum Dtrpl fl 1)2]! D'S DK So vv. 4, 5 ; 7:5 tiBB'JD ItfVn ntfV D« Targum pnavri nnVO DX DIB'PT m . Ez. 18:19 ntJ'j; nplVI DBK'O lani Targum nav Dtf'pT in. Ez. 18:19 wj; npnvi tsBtfo idhi Targum tJit^pn in and V. 21 dbe^ HB'yi Targum DE'PT pT TiDW It appears from the citations that the targumist adds DtrpT when DBK'D is the object of ntJ'V, did, or when this is understood by the targumist to be implied. (Jerem. 5:45). It might have appeared to him that to render DBCO in these cases by Kjn alone would be obscure, as it might be taken in a profane sense. In this con' nection it will be notcied that in a single case is tOBtJ'O rendered by KD"ip, otherwise the rendering of pn as it will appear presently. This is Jer. 8:7. However, tiBE'D there is also the object of ntJ'y . The Lxx and P. in the Prophets are not fol' lowing such a distinction. Onk. renders pn by D1D''J if it refers to Gentiles. So Lev. 20:23 etc., while otherwise pn , as is the case with Jonathan, is rendered by kd^P . So Lev. 20:22; 26:3 etc.; the Lxx have for pn in holy sense nQogTayfiaTog So ibid: 20:22; 26:3 etc. While the profane pn ibid 2:23 is rendered by Lxx vonifio? In the Talmud this term is applied to custom, manner, judicial formatlity. (Com. Gittin 43b; 65b). The same principle the targumist apphes to pn • It is ren- dered by KTIT3 when it refers either to Gentiles or idolatrous 118 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS law or order. When, however, it refers to the holy laws, it IS rendered by sd'P covenant (the usual rendering of TT'll). Instances of the latter are: Jer. 31:35; Ez. 5:6; 18:9, 10, 19, 21; Am. 2:4; Ze. 1:6; Mai. 3:22 etc. Instances of the former are: Jer. 10:3 D''Dyn nipn Targum m'TJ ; 33:25 nsi Wntif mpn Targum mnj (the same 33:34 i:'33131 nT" nipn) ; Ez. 20:18 n^n ?X oa'TiinK ^pna Targum mnan ; 43:18 nipn n?x Targum mnr So 44:5 nipn '?:i'? — mna . In Ez. 33:9 mpna — S'^n mnaa. In this way the T. renders Ez. 20:25 ■DUin N? Dipin Dn^i innJ ■'JK DJI — hna , thus eliminating the disturbing nature of this passage. According to this rendering of the T., the assumption is that also their customs (laws) were decreed by God. Concerning the use of Kinj it will be noticed that in the Talmud it has the eifect of arbitrariness. So there are hard niinJ (Makkoth 24a; Ketuboth 3b; Shab. 145b). A Kina can be recalled, Gittin 55b; Taanith 2 Xinj K?D3"l NTiy ;to the targumist it appeared to express profanity. Apart from Jonathan, no other translation adhers in this case to such a distinction. 8) The same principle is applied by Jonathan to the rendering of KUJ In the case of the true prophet, the one sent by God, it is rendered by SUJ , its Aramic equivalent. On the other hand, whenever it carries the implication of either false prophetism or, so to say, professional prophetism, K''3J is rendered by IBD scribe, a term of general currency in the age of the Targum. So it renders Is. 9:14 ip^ miO S'3J1 — "IQD Jer. 6:13 nyi snJOl jnn — IQDDI . Other examples of this sort are: Jer. 14:18; 18:18. In plural: Ez. 32:25 n'NUJ "IB'P — nxnEJD ns/'D. Ze. 7:3 D'sujn ^Ni — KnsD^i- Note IS 10:5 n''Xi3ja J'lKtj' fixn— NnaDi When reference is made to a prophet of another deity, the targumist renders it literally, adding siptj' false. So Jer. 2:8 ^M3 1K3J iD'N'3jni — snptj' 'nj ; 5:31 -ipt>> isaj ci''Ni3jni — KlPt}* "3J; IK 22:10 .-.nisnjn — KIPB* 'iDJ ^31 . To this cate- gory belongs also Mi. 2:5. There is annother case which is intimately connected with these cases. In the first place the T. 8) Kohut's identifying xtit;i with pn as suggested by the render- ing of the T. (see Aruch tij) is based on his overlooking the principle of distinction of the T. GENERAL PECULIARITIES 119 applies the same distinction to the verb as well as to the noun. tOJna referring to the true prophet is rendered by the T. ^jr^K, referring to the false prophet it has a substitute ex- pressing ridicule. So Jer. 29:26 N3JnD1 B'^'S '72'? — tfDDai (but V. 27 xajnon 'mnjvn n^'onn mw hd^ — xajno). IK 18:29 n:non m^v^ nv isDjri'i — is'^nDB'si In all these cases the Targum stands alone among other translations in observing such a differentiation. Special regard has been paid in rendering by the targumist to Israel. 8' In the first place some harsh expressions flung towards Israel is rendered in such a way as to evaporate their sharpness. It should be remarked that in this the Targum is to some extent followed by all the Greek translations as well as the Peshitta. A few cases will be sufiicient to illustrate the point. The Piel from Dlty in the sense of transgression is given a favorable turn when applied to Israel. i°* So $>K~itJ''' nat^a (Jer. 3:6) is rendered by the T. ijn^lS^ in^K)'? pJonnoT Lxx: xaTOixia . So also P. In the same way T. Lxx P. in v. 8 A. Sym. f| djiostQoqjT] lapar]^. In v. 11 the T. and P. are fol' lowing the same rendering while Lxx omit n^tJ'O . Again D''33165' (v. 14) T. and P. render as in former cases, Lxx 9) It is generally known that Jewish-Hellenistic writers, led, it would appear, by this principle, applied efrvog to the Gentiles, while retaining Xaog for the Jewish people. (So Wisd. 15:14. Com. Cheyne, Encyc. Bibhca, Hellen.). The Lxx followed the same division in an opposite way, applying the latter to the Gentiles. Com. Gen. 23:12, 13; 42:10 etc pwn Djr — ^do? tfis 7fig. But Lev. 20, 2, 4 the rendering is xov t'frvos , the reference being to Israel. Com. also 2 Mak. 6:3. In this connection it is of interest to note that Rashi somehow felt this pecuharity in the Targum. However, he is wrong in the illustration. Thus he remarks in Ze. 13:7: "the Targum never renders onB'l ^'70 when they are those of Israel except by mm and not by I'Jlts^B'. It is first of all to be remarked that the ren- dering of nnB' by pnim is not peculiar to those of Israel. The same is applied to those of other nations also. Com. Is. 16:6; 34:6 (having both renderings used synonymously); Jer. 25:19; 39:3; 46:21, 23, and in many other instances. On the other hand we find ]>iMi'}V applied to those of Israel. So Is. 37:24 etc. 10) This is also the case in Onk. (Com. Deut. 32:6 the ren- dering of DDH Hbl ^3i DV- See A. Berhner, Onk. p. 120.) 120 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS having dqpEaTTjxoTEg ; Sym. Qeii66\izvoi . V. 22 D'J3 131B' oannitj'D nsnx duiik' is rendered by T. pjonnm N^a mn DSTinti'D, however, is rendered by the Lxx aiFHction (so that there is no reason to ascribe to the Lxx a different read' ing; com. Schlesner Lexicon awTQifXfxa ). Also ib. 5:6, 31:32. Exceptions are: Jer. 2:19; 14:17, where Lxx render in the unfavorable sense. T a r g u m and P. hold to the above rendering. The same word is rendered in its intended sense when it refers to other nations than Israel. Note Jer. 49:4 naaiBTl nan (referring to Amon) T. KriB'fJD t In the following case the T. is followed by Aquila in some measure. Ez. 2:10 'HI nJHl h^i->P H'-^K ain^l 'JS? nniS tynS'^ the T., apparently disturbed by the vehemency of the prophecy, renders : pna pti^^j''' Knnis '7V ?Kit5'i nn pi3v DST na ninai .snnrni smi xi^s iinjo tiio' snnis n' piav n3i k^dov In this way the gloomy predcition is turned into one of con' solation. A., it seems, was also actuated by the same motive, rendering wy^i — creation (probably from the root fljp) ; com. also Is. 28:9; 56:3; Hos. 13:14. In his regard for Israel the T. goes farther to differentiate them from other peoples. Here are some interesting examples: Jer. 1:10 rnj^i tJTiJ^ ni3^Don Jyi D'un ?j; ntn ovn I'mpsn nxi Dnn^l "I'^t^n^il — the T. divides the phrase, assigning its favorble part to Israel .spin? xnis^D ^yi x'D»y 55/ pin vfov TTTjan 'tn 11) Kimchi's Sefer Ha-Sharashim, after enumerating all the cases which the targumist as well as the Greek translations and the P. render them by its favorable meaning, remarks: "all these mean rebellion." In this point he follows Menachem Ibn Saruck. (Com. Machbereth Slty). In Machbereth Rabeinu Tam (Ed. Pilpowsky) p. 36, it is said: Hos. 8:6 iTn' D13311S' '3 the sinful man is called aaity , being removed from the good direction. GENERAL PECULIARITIES 121 Kiaa^'i snns^il KO^P^I iJia^ ^SIB'"' iJ3 ^yi . Nothing but a passion- ate regard for Israel could have produced such a rendering. Com. Is. 10:25; Jer. 18:7. i^' This scrupulous passion for Israel is accompanied by a kind of active disregard for the gentiles. It was the product of the catastrophies of the age. Thus the targumist is aghast at the idea that the prophet should be over- come by the calamities of other peoples. For this reason he changes the person, and instead of the prophet agonizing for sympathy, as the text requires, the peoples involved are describing their sufferings. So, for instance. Is. 15:5 : PVV asio? n? Targum ino" ])n2'?2 ; Is. 16:11; Jer. 48:36 ion'' 11:33 3KiiD^ ■'yo p ^y Targum ...pnn^i ukiot pniva I3 ?v ; Is. 21:3 : iniiyj m^v n'S3 ■'Jirnx d't-v n^n^n ^jno i«?a i3 '?]i ms-io Ti^niJ voK'D Targum K^m N'-vn iin'vin ik'-^ditn p '?v nn''o?n ii;d VD^'?a ib'ssox iirmnx and v. 4 : ms^ss '33^ nvp ntin'? •''? Dtj* ipB'n b'sj jin 'jnny3 Targum pmyui npv pnn?' kj;d n3n? Iinfi n''n Iin'JVnn nns p:nnx . In some instances he le- tains the p. but alters the sense. Examples of this sort are : Is. 16:9; Jer. 48:32 TWDl 1VM< noiB' pJ ITV '333 n33K p ^V Targum n03tJ' '?V V'P)aP TT'K P Ity '?V PItJ'O 'riTT'ST SD3 13 '7V KJIVDT "imx But otherwise is such a case treated by the targumist when Israel is meant. The prophet's description of his feelings towards the affliction of Israel is rendered literally. So Is. 22:4 '?y 'JDHJ^ IV'Xn ^N ^333 niDS 'JO IVK* Ti-iax 13 ^v •'oy n3 11B' Targum in'wnn k^ 1103 '33n 'Jo ipuk' nnoN p ^v .iDVT «nt5'J3 130 ^y 'niarij' The Lxx are in agreement with the Targum in the render, ing of Is. 15:5 and Jer. 48:31 and v. 36. The Syriac in all these cases follows the literal meaning. The fact that Aq. and Sym. have instead of the rendering of the Lxx of vv. 31, 36 one which is Hteral strengthens the supposition that the render- ings of the Lxx in these cases were caused by the same motives as lead the targumist to his. However, there is less consistence in the Lxx with regard to this point. Com. Lxx Is. 16:9, 11. 12) Kimchi remarks: "And Jonathan divided this verse — the un- favorable for the Gentiles and the favorable for Israel." In the present Rabbinic text the 'JNlB'i iJ3^ is omitted, evidently by the censor. Com. Exod. r. 45, 1 ...'5«ntrt ^<}t^ ns^no ^i;i ...^nib" i^« 'U 'js; i3n« i?Ji .DTDtrn^ lypai nvya ini« wyir 'B^ ...btij^ 122 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS On the other hand, this peculiar agreement between the Lxx and the Targum is another case of weight for an hypothesis of a common background of these translations. However, Geiger (Ur. 245 et seq.), who carried this principle too far, failed to notice these renderings. He was most unfortunate in the choice of examples. Thus his assertion (p. 93) that Jer. 48:47 ; 49:6, where the restoration of Moab and Ammon is foretold, are not rendered in the Lxx, is errone- ous, for the lost renderings are found in Gmg. Other examples are: Jer. 8:23; 13:17; 14:17; Mi. 4:5 etc. Com. particularly Ze. 8:2. Other agadists would not follow this interpretation. Com. Num. r. 20, 1. The targumist would not have been actuated by a hatred towards the respective peoples; Edom and Moab have ceased to exist at his time. It is more correct to take it as the reaction of the age against the Roman world. It is the deep-seated hatred of the time immediately preceding and following the destruction of the second Temple. It was the Prophetical writings where that generation looked for the signs of the times. The prophecies were interpreted in the terms of that period. The old oppressors of Israel, long dead, were revived in the new oppressors. Edom and Aram be- come Rome or Persia. Compassion by the prophet towards the biblical enemies would strike them as if their present oppressors were meant. Such would be horrible to them. The targumist shares in full measure the worshipful venera- tion of the Torah manifested in the Talmud and Agada. The Torah is given by him prominence in the Prophetical books. The Torah is identified with words descriptive, in the sense they are employed, of qualities representing the will of God. The targumist is again reflecting current views which are to be found in the Agada. nVT is identified by the T. with the Torah. Is. 40:14 nVT imo^^ Targum Nnm^i^) ; ib. 28:9 nv\ mr •'O nx Targum KnniN nnp (Hos. 6:6). Connected with it is Am. 3:10 nniOJ nwv IVT' X^ ; Is. 30:10 1J^ nnn »'? 13) Com. Alef Beitha of R. Akiba A'in: "and she ,the Torah, is called nyi ■ ''S it is written" etc. GENERAL PECULIARITIES 123 mnaj Targum Knms ]Si'?M< . So also miK IS. 2:3; Mi. 4:2 VnimiKa n:i^: Targum jnTiniS \Q'?\ti2 XTidI*'; Mai. 2:5 S110 '^ DJDNI Targum 'nnix ID^IS ; Is. 2:5 ii IIKD Targum Tims 1S^1S3"'; ib. 5:12 IDU' H'? " ^S;S flKI Targum KnniK31 i^ariDK N? ; ib. 9:5 iDSB' ^y niK'on 'nni Targum i<')t;nmK ; Hos. 10:12 Tij d3? ITiJ Targum NnniK [S^IS ; Jerem. 4:5 JilV natJ' Targum «nniN ; Is. 26:2 niJIDK 1DB' Targum KnniS (So nJDXJ Hos. 5:9); ib. 27:5 niVDa pnn' Targum i'^>inniN ; Jer. 32:6 lion'' XDV HPB'DI Targum i^jinniK '•0:103^ (Com. Is. 55:1); Ze. 13:1 nriQJ "lIPD Targum Knni« IQ^IK ^H' In their related positions, whether those cases occur in metaphor or are simply conceived, they carry the significance of the all-conceived good which Israel is urged by the Prophet to follow. It was natural for the T., as it was the case with his contemporary agadists, to identify them with the Torah. The Torah thus gains centrifugal force in the prophecy. On the observances or disregard of its precepts hinges the fate of the nation; they are punished because they transgressed the Torah (Am. 9:1; Jer. 11:16; 5:22 etc.). Other peoples suffer for their failure to accept the Torah (Mi. 5:14). On the other hand, Israel forsaking the Torah ceases to be God's people (Hos. 1:9; 2:1; Zef. 2:1). Repentance forstalls calamity, but this repentance is the return to the Torah (Is. 12:1; 31:7; Jer. 31:18; Ez. 34:1). In this connection it is worth while noticing the Halakic element in the T. Jonathan. Of course, compared with the Pent., there is not much of Halaka in the Prophetical writings. But in a few cases, which are especially accessible to Halakic inter- pretation, the targumist follows the interpretation of the Halaka. All these cases occur in Ez.; the first is Ez. 24:17 IB'SI^ K'nn "I-IKS 14) Com. Jalqut 1. c: "Who accepted the words of the Torah with fear.'' 15) Com. Midrash Shochar Tob (49): "R. Aba says, sweet are the words of the Torah likened to tin etc." 16) Com. Jalqut (prov. 8): "By me princes will niS" (prov. 8:16), both the crown of priesthod an kingship come from the power of the Torah." i 17) Com. Zeb. 116a. 18) Com. B. Kama I7a; Canticles r. 1. 124 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS The Targum renders isa — DIQDID (Tephilin). This is in ac cordance with Sukka 25b: "Said R. Aba b. Zabada : A mourner has to observe all the commands of the Torah except Te- phiHn; for (this is to be inferred) because God said to Ez. y'?]! B'Un TIKS , you are obliged to observe it while a mourner, but no other mourner is to observe it." Ez. 44:17 VV2 nan^ n5i Targum ^v I'liJ-K iin'vin 5>y nnt^ S^l ]^^^\D^<^< pn32^ • This agrccs with the Beraith Zebachim 18b (end) : "They (the priests) do not girt below their loins but against the knuckles." Finally there is Ez. 44:22 mp' tn3D HJD^S Hinn I^K nJD^Kni Targum \^2D•> K''jn3 "IKB* ND^ms 'nn n Nn^onsi. This interpreta- tion removes the flagrant contradiction which this in- terdiction presents to Lev. 3:17. It is so interpreted in Kid. 78b .inpi iHDo — inp'' Kijna nstrD The Messianic hope occupies a prominent place in the exegesis of this Targum. In addition to the Messianic sense which the targumist is giving to passages admittedly accessible to such a conception, he introduces the Messianic note in many a passage that is scarcely allowing itself of such an impliation. The targumist is following the current interpretation of that age of intense expectation. In his Messianic interpretation the targumist had pre- served many of the current ideas about the last days. On the whole, they are identical with the Messianic description con- tained in the Apocryphal books, Enoch and 4 Ezra and the Agada. The rectification of the evils of the world will be completed on the Day of Judgment. The evil doers are given respite in this world so that they may repent and turn to the Torah (Hab.3:l, 2; Zef. 2:1, 2). But on the Day of Judgment stern judgment will be meted out to the evil doers. There will be no intercession and no escape (Is. 5:30. Com. 4 Ezra 7, 105; On. Deut. 32:12). After the closing of the decree (the Day of Judg- ment) there will be no acceptance of repentance (Is. 8:22). The world will be renewed (Jer. 23:23; Hab. 3:2. Com. Ps. Jon. Deut. 32:1). Great wonders and miracles will appear, as in the time of the Exodus from Egypt (Hos. 21:66; Ze. 10:11). The Messiah, who was created from the beginning of the world and who was hidden from the world on account of the sins of the GENERAL PECULIARITIES 125 poeple (Mi. 4:8; 5:1; Zech. 4:7; 6:12. Com. Enoch 48, 3, 6; 62, 7) will appear. There will be a resurrection of the death. It seems the targumist expects both the righteous and the wicked to re- surrect, the former to receive final judgment. (Com. Is. 38:16; 42:11; 45:8, and particularly 57:16. Com. Enoch 51, 2, 3). The Great Court will sit to judgement (2S 23:7), the wicked will die a second death (IS. 22:14; 65:6; Jer. 51:39, 57; com. Enoch 22, 6- 12; the Syr. Baruch 76, 4), they will be thrown in Gehenna (Is. 33:17; 53:9; Jer. 17:13; Hos. 14:10), whose fire is burning always (Is. 65:5). In Jerusalem will the wicked be condemned to Gehenna (Is. 33:14; com. Enoch 90:20). The righteous ones will hve the life of eternity K»?J? ''n(Is. 58:11; Hos. 14:10); they will shine 343 times (7x7x7), as the light of the seven stars in the seven days of creation (Judges 5:31; 2S 23:4; Is. 30:26; the extant edition of the Tanchuma Gen. 6 cites the Targum to Judges 5:31). Com. Tanchuma ed. Buber, Gen. note 143. INTERPOLATED TARGUM The composite nature of T. Jonathan has been definitely demonstrated above. The T. did not escape the peculiar fate of the Greek and Syriac versions, which were preyed upon by later editors, forcing into them other material. It was all the more so an inevitable procedure with the T. Its original purpose to be merely an instrument for the instruction of the ignorant; its place in the public worship; its varied history of wandering were strong factors in rendering it susceptible to changes. It was exposed to the irresistible influences of the Midrash, which thrived in the immediate centuries following the destruction of the Second Temple. Later Midrashim crowded into the original, simple exegesis of Jonathan. The new material caused in many cases a mutilation of the original rendering, thus becoming either obscure or an overflowing rhetoric. Such portions contrast sharp' ly with the close, smooth, natural rendering of Jon. The Mid' rashic incursion is especially remarkable in the first 35 chapters of Isaiah. One need only read the T. to Jerem. or E2;ekiel to be impressed by the curious difference. But in most all these cases it is impossible to release the original from the new form. In some instances the translation may represent a completely new rendering which replaced the older one. Few additions can be safely pointed out. Some of them will be found to be two different renderings put side by side. As it is generally known, duplicates of this kind are found in the ancient versions, On- kelos included. We will begin with the major portions, present- ing Midrashic portions which have made inroads into the T. Jonathan. Judges 5':2Dy nunni ^s-itj'13 mj?-iQ yioa — nn ma i3 niVD? nn 131 — tumtoi k'dov pn'^v inx Nnnisn ?K■lt^" Kj;i« Dinn Cpvd) ^3d tirDini pnun ''?V2 "pv prx inaanx Nnnis KjpTiQi SDJ '?v) n^nntj'a ^di kid''D nan nuyiia ?v I3a — ^nib"! 126 INTERPOLATED TARGUM 127 .nisi 13113 pD ; xnniN •'oana nov ri'' kq^k^i ■'^ji The T. to this verse contains three different renderings to the second half of the v. One interpreting it as implying that when the people return to the Torah they overcome their enemies and expel them from the land of Israel; the other taking it to refer to the overthrow of Sisra; the third to the deliverance from the prohibition on the study of the Law, the targumist having in mind the Hadrian persecutions. It is hardly possible to determine which is the older one. But the latter persisted in V. 9 .DV3 omjnon Com. Seder Eliahu r. 11 (p. 52): in33 lUnn IIH^ '•«■' HSI nioiso yisj n"3Pn ■•oa .Nnnix 'aana aav n"' i-is^kdi kdb'js . . . -iDSJC nojsn nu? pmvoi pD'-atj'D intj' mx ■'jai ? n'?)vn .ri"Dpn ns D''DnDDi ova niaunnn ib. 3 013^0 1UDti< — ; X3-lp^ KID'D DV insi — Ki3^D IVDB' s^i psTi^na x^ — ii?J3T X3?K5 P3'' 05/ iim — K'^D^t^ snivx .^KiB" n''3 fiy tinp^Di iimnjriK p3muj3 The two portions following the horizontal line are missing in Cod. Reuch. and in Ant. Polyg. and preceded by 'DID in ed. Leira, and appear in brackets in the London Polyg. and in the Basel ed. ib. 4 ...T'jTB'o inxva " — n^y ^kib'''J snann xriniK — ,Iinnm ^^vn '?v prx pinano n^ pa^n idi kiodj; tinn pD^tJ' nin . . . pn^ njno? -inv?:!nK diu The intrusive character of the portion is obvious. It belongs to V. 2 and is a recenssion of the first rendering. It is missing in the Ant. Polyg. ib. 5 vjso i^n onn— ,inm s-iid— '' mp la m sniD 'iKTi '^y loK pn ,in? pT inosi x^onan siidi poim xniD — xnn ^^1 n'-nj^OB' ntsri '?y ids pn? pni snn '^i rrrirnB' . . . c^JiriD •'j'-D pn — sniD ?3d -I'vn ri-^n sim It is a shortened form of the Targum on the margin of Cod. Reuch containing a current Agada (Com. Gen. r. 99, 1) cited in Jalqut from Jelamdenu. Refrence to this Agada is made in T. to PS 68:16, 17. That it is an interpolation is shown in the 128 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS London Polyg., where the whole portion is placed in brackets, while in Cod. Reuch the addition is found 'i nip ID Xliyi mm .n''n3''3tJ' ntf Kl It is completely omitted in Ed. Leira and in the Ant. Polyg. ib. 8 D''n^s ini''— snwD? n?ao^ '?»-\^^ ^n lynn^s na innan'KT nv tin^ i5'3'' «'? Nnms lava^ nn nai — pmn I'ts'Dna pT'B'D •'{j'n ps^N pwisa .sp'voi hsjd sid^d pn^'^i/ P'^di K'ma •'vsno pa^K pDna ponn nnx ps^x pntj'3 xs'd nnx pa^s ^31 s^a^K p^x ^3 H'DV nm N^nm pam nxD j/sjtid na ...rT'D''5;T snaj pa^s mti'y mpi Pin mp dpd? !1?3' t<'? Krinro p?x There cannot be the slightest doubt that this Agada was on the margin to v. 2, the end of which formed K-|D''D nuyniS '7V n^IT'lB'D ^31 of V. 2, which is strikingly out of all connection. Witness the beginning nn 131 of v. 2. It was by a marginal mistake that it was introduced here, where it has no room. As to its source, com. Jalqut 1. c. It appears in a shortened form in Cod. Reuch., where the version is as follows: nnx n'D^vi nsotj' iin'^v sns 1^1 pn^ "i5"3i x? xnnix? i3n n3i snip xnjK^ 'i?'3'' N? pn'B'o ■'E'n pa^x py3is3 pnom ponn In Ed. Leira it is headed by: snaoin ib. II ninxtyD n^n ci'ssna ?iPD — \m'? pojx I'm nnxD p3iJ ^v PD31D naioDi pDD? (njD3) nji3D nu pnnu na P3dji nxin x^T N'lD '^oD? ?N-i!i"-nj3 ppaj pirn inx^ — s'on S'ptJ' ri'i nsJD (njD3) mp p ■■k^ji ddiq (naiD) ?p kvdb'k? (P^m) p?3' Is is a second rendering. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. In Leira ed. it is preceded by the following addition: . . . "iDN ]'''o-\p'7i2 ^siB'^ nun? iinji poj tin? xiuyn'sn sins ib. 16 DTiaB'Dn p3 n3B" HO? — S3np nntJ'Do nnan n»? pia? Ki ]D KT Nmiti'3 VDti'D? xmix ncian — pDinn pa nna? yatJ'D? ■'3 Njnjs i?n pidk pnx kid''d? sjnjs n?n pnas pns xiitrn . This interpretation might have been intended to deal a rebuke to the half-hearted revolutionists of the Saducean party in the Great Rebellion. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. and in ed. Leira it is headed 'aoin ; the rendering pDinn p3 — D'TiaB'Dn pi agrees with Onk. and Ps. Jon., Gen. 49:14. INTERPOLATED TARGUM 129 ib. 26 njn^BTi nrr'J' m' — naipn nxo^tj' nnn riB'N J'y kdid Ipn' K?i Knnx ?v inn iipti iin^ k? ntfOT Nnnis 1£3D3 itisi no . . . xnoD? i^ii t'n^K snriK ■'Jip'-nn inj It is a current interpretation in a shortened form. Com. Jalqut 1. c. (cited from Midrash Achbar) : nT- DTi^n nnu n^s i^n '^33 main s^tj* ?v' it •iitJ"33 nn^tJ' nn' n'-n^ K^ iDSJti' HD D'lp^ ? pn '^33 innn s? no ■'Jsdi . . . in^^ .ntj-K '?y 133 i5'3 This addition is missing in Cod. Reuch., and in the Ant. Polyg.; in ed. Leira it is headed by 'DID . ib. 11:1 «-innD» N^T pmp^D 5iN1t5"3 DIH NDIDiJ K'H ST 3D1D? 13J ^n' HTI K? p31 Xt:3B'^ NDntJ'ID NrUDHK NB'j uo XPS3 nin ni33 n»in"n xnnN nim3i rr^a^&a nin n?t Knnx KD3B'D K^n K-133 rT'Dnn Nri'piJia n? pip pb'jn pni xdjohn n?3 .nnsn n''a''K^ n^ nin I3i This Targum is cited by Kimchi 1. c. and is found in ed. Leira under heading "Tosefta" No other edition has it. ib. 39 ^xnB'n pn^ •'nni — x^n ?n3 — ^sitj'n mnj? nsini s^n nsiv^j nno'' n3Vi nos sn^y? n''n'i3 dm nn3 n' n33 npox? .I'm3 nn'' pna nin xjn3 Dnjs? ^iKtj' i^^xi ,Kjn3 onja? ^'nb> It appears in a different version on the margin of Cod. Reuch. to 12:7. The essence of this Agada is found in Gen. r. 60, 1, holding to the view of R. Jochanan that a vow of this sort should be redeemed by money. This author also condemns Jef' tah for not going to Pinehas to ask the disavowal. Others think the reverse is true. Com. Seder Eliahu r. 12 (p. 55). This portion beginning ^n3 is found in the Leira ed. headed by "Tosefta" and is missing in the Ant. Polyg. IS 2:1 ■<>2 n? r?y "iDsm n:n 5?anni — nns njn niK^si fy N''3J iina? ttiv n3 ^nidb' "133 — '13 'jip 'di nnosi nxuj PDJ tin^ in3vn' ■■nn^ 5vi •'xnii^^Qn kh^d ppnan^ iniDiu '>H'im ^siDB' n3 13 icn fiKi ; •<'? 3nn Kp^in3 u^ (T'pn ; t33 pnjT. n-i'tJ'3 in»x lino? iniJ3 iot 3/31x1 sin diph ttij/ (n : 1 k"mi> ; p3 si^ipD ni33 sn3ti'? iK'i? iin'inN dj? piupi p?3j n' 5jr ■-in? TTiVT KD'j nuniQ ^v fiKi — " '? 'Jm Nnjno3 'jip non pnip n'lovi xmn xn?3V3 'in xjiik jt' prrn tninn 'Krir'^aa . . . ■'DID nnss : ^siB'n xnB'J3 iD'n 1133 nocx The whole portion is missing in the Ant. Polyg. 130 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS The additions appear with minor modifications in all editions. In the Basel ed. and the London Polyg., however, they are placed in brackets. As to the interpretation that Hanna was prophesying, com. Meg. 14a. ib. 2 E'np pN — m»xi nxnin's iiriNT xa^a ai^njo ?j; \^'?B•' ton n'a Tivn' 'jd dji Q'?m-[-' ?j? n'm^^n ^-di Kin nipn n^ns/ ...mp rr? niD"1 N'JK-'^l S'DIS K'DDJJ ?D IHV p3 iTDnB'O nJB The whole addition is missing in the Ant. Polyg. and appears in the Basel ed. and the London Polyg. in brackets. ib. 3 mn ^Ki — moNi dkujitx ^nm xDf-D isnauj ?v . . . iuon «? ; ^xiK-u D^a'o? pT'nn ^''Doy ?3i 'xioa prix It is missing in the Ant. Polyg. and appears in brackets in the Basel ed. and the London Polyg. ib. 4 Dnaj ntyp — jnan' — moNi nsujri'x \v nn?o '?v .. . . ve^'?n iim : 'KJioa'n nuni ; •'Njii nasT nntj'p In the ^asel ed. and in the London Polyg. these portions are in brackets, and are omitted in the Ant. Polyg. ib. y nn^n D'yat^ — iim : moNi nisajD'-N lom inun "pv . . . Kipy xnnK3 mm ni^m'' p : nnosi '3tid — xon^n pj/ntj' .■■n-inni n5;n — nnc'D paio'- . . . •'oni In the Basel ed. and in the London Polyg. these portions are in brackets. Instead of iDH it has DIK , an intentional change, for obvious reasons, and are missing in the Ant. Polyg. 2S 22:2 — 1D13B1 "'ajtj'D ^vK'i ppi 'Jao n nonK niv 'nJx «iipn ■'?' nnnino 'hidip [ot 'QPin rrri^mJ 'jaip ^n ij/inxi ■ti^h iD«i vm sjx nnD''o '?vi — ■'jvnn n^T •'^yi ^y N-iianx? pniQi . . .p'^'w 'niima — ■>? ttod no'D mm ■'jddid n^jpniai 'jnp KDnx? This portion is missing in the Targum to Ps. That the portion is a second and different rendering to the second half of the verse, is evident. Its other part to the first half seems to have been included in the first rendering. In the Ant. Polyg. the portion n'D^m? ''Jmp U ■'ViriNT is omitted. As to the rendering of niV Com. IS 2:2; 2S 22:47, On. Deut. 32:4. And ppl Com. IS 2:1. All of which would lend strength to this supposition. ib. 23:4 ipn 11X31 — pnniv 113? pmay svnx ti3"'2it: nini NiDr nyatj' mn^js xn^im pvmx nxo n^ri in ?jr — ...p3t3 ...KH — i^'DNT Knanj 'rc'^ p-iono pn^m in?" 3D'1 pnnn pi3o INTERPOLATED TARGUM 131 This part is missing in the Ant. Polyg. This is another indica- tion that the Targum to this verse belongs to a Midrashic T. which was by a later editor incorporated in the T. and which displaced the original T. In the text used by Montanus it ap- peared in a shortened form. Com. Cod. Reuch., Judges 5:8. ib. 32 ^x •'D 'D — in'B'o^ Tuynn kjpiibi xd'j ?j; pn ...xn^N n'? : ino^M x'-je'm k'doj; ^3 inv rnxriK'XT mn nikb'^i It is an addition. The same appears in a shortened form in the T. to IS 2:2, which in the London Polyg. is found in brackets. It is missing in the Ant. Polyg. ib. 47 " 'n — '!>t<-\tif nu '\av'p xmnvT kjpiiqi xd''j 5y 133 . . . Cp IIDXI INniN It is another form of v. 32. Is is missing in the Ant. Polyg. and in the T. to Ps. IK 4:33 snxn lyi pja^a ntj-x nan ]d D'syn ?v niTi — TiKT KD?i;3i in sD^va o''L''»D? pT'nyi nn n^n •'35d ?v •'3jn''Ni It is a Midrashic interpretation which can in no way be read into the verse. Had it represented the original of the T., the same interpretation would have been applied to the second part of the V. But the latter is rendered literally. However, the original was displaced by the toseftoic rendering. The displaced original is found in the Ant. Polyg.; the rendering there is as follows: 5v ^^ai s^nni pan N3it« nvi p^^^ 'i ktixo x''Vk '7V ?''?oi 2K 4:1 □is<'3jn ''J3 ^ma nn« ntj'si— ^mo Nin snnxi n'o '^V3 nn3ii/ -[12]! no'o^ vb'''^k mp sniva n^suj n'-o^n 8'3a n' ^3r'K n^op idt '" dip to ?'m mn 113^ n>? nvT nxi Kmvo3 x-133 pK'on pa'on lunoosi in3i3 n»r> pnjD 13t "n DIP 10 3KnKn n'D3JD iinm5i3N^ k^t ^n3 nn^i ^'3iai ^>v nini pnK'i ina in3V^ n'? ^j3 pin n'' 3Dd^ xnx k^b'j iv31 ndjik pj'kt nvT x^i njB'D nin s?"! KJ112 ^«m nniiv ns nniiv pjot SB'Dni K?p n^ yontJ'xi ''n x^m snivi n3p u^ k^tnt nv n? nsyo? no n N^m np-iK nv3is rT'j;3 xpt n K?m pin ixn xti'o 'J'30 3^n3i "I'n K^N Krv3 K^ moKi K3inn nn3iyi 3vxi nor Dm3K nnav3 xt^^ano np nin nn3p n^ynix nai xnn? 'n x^m n^3 nnoK '3 KDiDT «nv{^'3 ••? inv nn K3^n no no mo«i xnix kpi 132 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS "iDn' P13E' '? iDKi 1? rn^ «d^j/ inn 'jnaTiK '? pub' ns txo^ 1^ 'DD'i an'tj'D nnstj'nj k^ nm vmnn •■^y in^Dixi iu'd^'P's kjki "l^^ '^n n? 1DS1 nnaiv aTiN ,k3k t^inp n3k n?3p nosi 'mv •>»: nD KJNT nn nmaJii nua nNntfiKT xntj'DT xmian j/b"^k nj? nn ■'^'D Snj H'^ "IDT •>? S^'i^a X^l KDOn K? IH^J'-D "inB'DT 'J'V »inio KIP ins nm n^ri'DnKT na m? D'^itrn sin y\2 NtfTip? This Tosefta is found in the edition Leira, which is also cited by Kimchi (1. c). All editions contain only the beginning of this Tosefta without any indication of any sort to show its toseftoic character. Here again an instructive example is pres' ented to show how the toseftoic material was handled by later editors. Such can be surmised was the case with other material incorporated in the Targum but whose source we are unable to trace. Com. Otzar Tov, v. 1, p. 10, Berlin, 1878. Is. 10:32 nay? 2J3 DITI TlJ? — ]iy iJOl m KDV tN3 IV n^m 1311 Q'Jis ri^n layi '?a: nnsT n3?o mnJD sn '?vk>'? H'^ imi pnn fniT' san •'vw p3?» 'jaT ami pjsDU pa^s pyms pD^s pjT'tJ'i iriSD niDV im pnam ps^o nn« vq'ph inxo n^oy yms nTinB'DT k3tik pa^s nt«o ■'nioip pDmn pinu pn^j 'ssno pnty') inxD n^nntj'D pjo ,pDia pynix n'moiD ixix ,pdiq hsd smp'' Kiij 13^ n''ni idi i3 nmas '?v ins pi nn ion i<):i-'-\ pa^s KrintTD «npan»? 'sp KD^y n^ts" na jimi jij ny ti'd? pn^ny pi ns «nijn xrinca WTiu urn tV 1X3 131 niB'-|3 IXtJ'ni nms niv3nK void nxix 3ni"i ndib 'n injn» iiis sjn xn^jns njicKi KJD ... in ion pa^s sm ctj'K'i dTixo imno no oni^Ji ?v iDV i^vn Dijinnx . . . nDip3 yyiv n^vvos . . . •'rit5'3 i"i3j; •ins D1PDD CO isnnK' nv nintj'? -^^3 d'd ixijd k?i Com. also Seder Eliahu r. 8 (p. 45) . They represent two versions of a current Agada. But the following portion containing Sena- cherib's address is also toseftoic. It is cited in the Aramaic in San. 95a. Furthermore, it even has the complementary portion which was dropped at its introduction in the T. ib. 49:15 njnsKTi nJs 03 ,n3D3 13 nma n^iv nt^N n3B'nn KnK'J3 K3ino — snj/D 13 ?y som^D m3 Nnns •'B'jnm itj'asn — r)n3j/T n' '^ ••cjiid s? nd^t nstj'jns inimp n''? dn mnsi ^Kitj'n (masi) siDNi s<3'nD : x'tj-jriK p?** •!*< ^'^j n^i idk .3nn ?3j? nuvj ij''D3 nnosT n^ i? •'^jno kd^t nxK'jriK inimp ri's as n''? .irpni' vd nca n? nasi 5i3PJ1 So in Berakoth 34b : •■JD? nsipntf ,d''iDm nnsi o'i^'k ni^iv nsti's di?3 n"3pn idx SDB' 11133 ND3 ''JQ? nn3t^ pKI ^'Kin j;"6J'3-| 11JD? mOS ?13103 ? 1J1D HB'yD '? n3B'n kok' ini33 xd3 'jq? nn3tj' k'm ^■'Kin y"B'3i It appears from this that a part of this Midrash was dropped by the interpolator. The first and last are remnants of the original Targum. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. and First Bomberger ed. (Com. Bacher Z. D. M. G., p. 48.) ib. 24, 25 Kvti'n wvo 3''Djnn it^Bsn D'-^mi'' niDK xm nxnv ^x '" "los IJ13 nx ? 3"'i^nt5" x'-n spnvT n'-^y t-dst -I'DXT SOnrj ^KVDB''' I^JD «3B'l KUB'1 H'JD 3Djn"' S133 WV 'X'^Q ..."iTuniQ n'1 — 3niri{j" kb'js3 inv jT-^v The latter presents an excellent example of how a combination of this sort was accomplished. The last portion is the original Targum, upon which was built the Midrashic interpolation. Both portions, which unquestionably belong somewhere in the Geonic age, appear in the current editions after the orginal and 134 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS literal rendering under the heading sn . They appear on the margin of the Cod. Reuch. under the same name, being omitted in the text; while in the first Bom. ed. they appear in a shortened form in the T. to Is. 66:5 (Bacher, p. 20). ib. 50:10, 11 . . . KT DD3 'ID— in^ KB'niP TTlV Xnj lOK inionp pIDKI K'DDJ? pnTlD . . . 1133 p ,K'DDV? IDK MHOJ' NIH (nn'B'j) xrDB'i nn^na kjt'PIx jn? jn Kjnsj i3i Kmpi tn (^J') . . . tn^n sn '3 pn? idni sin ina xB'nip ^tid ,KnniK3 It is a satire particularly on Rome and Persia. Com. Aboda Zara 2b. In most all editions these portions are placed in brack- ets. They are missing in Cod. Reuch. and First Bom. ed. Jer. 8:18 ]'\r ^'PH TlT^iaa — N"3J ?3P? V^-'V'PO Kim 'PV It is a toseftoic addition which was probably intended for explanation. It can by itself in no way be read into the verse. It had replaced the original rendering, from which the last ^7ords remained. Com. T. to Am. 5:9 ib. 9:22 inoana Q3n ^^nn' '?» — in in no^ti' — nans" t6 ,n'mi2n snaa nuo -i3 pti'OB' — nnnK'-' x^i n'nosinn NO"'3n .nnniva m'ny nop in asnK nana''' n^i As regards the reference to Samson, the T. seemingly was in- flluenced by Eccl. r. on 9:11. It appears on the margin of Cod. Reuch. under heading no an and is missing in the text. ib. 10:11 nin^ inDxn njiD — n^tn smas pntrs sjt 1X103 ■\)^'P jno'" OKI ?333 n Kni^J '•3D IXK* Dt'? NU: H'ST 11131 nTin 1113 f'KiB''' nu Nniya^ in^Q iin''j''3 iinxi (sioop) to tirx "iiiv 1113 n^^i niyti pn? pn^s priKi iivd pn^ piosn pJ'X ins XIDV? p?3'' S? SPIN ID KIDO NDnX^ p^3"i H^ «VD^ .p^K N'DEJ' ninn id pxtib^i svixd 111311 pnin^si This rhetorical exposition appears in all editions. In the Cod. Reuch. it appears after the literal Aramaic of the verse. In all other editions the Aramaic is omitted. Its position in the former testifies to its being an incursion, while is position in the latter INTEEPOLATEB TARGUM 135 demonstrates, as another instance, how the original was forced out by the interpolation. ib. 12:? ... nnsn Di^n nx 'a — 3dio «jkt ino '?v dki nannsT iia tm n-onoi nn ns ,k^3j hx^jt ^nan nd^d ivjiouj^ xniDiDD iDnin nd5'V !dt Nvnv inans^ nivo? ttiv njkt no This part appears in all editions after the complete rendering of the V. Hence it is toseftoic. It is found fully in San. 96a: ino^cB' niyoa yms iSK'n noi nns (hk . . . nnvT D'^n ns o Dm3N? -IDC' D^K'D ':k-jo ,n'Dn nns nnD nnx nc J'b'i iniN^ .no3i HDD nns ?y d'dios ^jb^ i^ntj' apyi pnv^ Com. also San. 26a, Cant. r. ■■maVB' tiVDD with minor changes. ib. 31:14 ]!D^: nana ^ip— «d?v onn ^ip '" los iJnD .sna-TD K''^iL3p m It contains a shortened Agada found in Lam. r. Pesichta, end. That it does not belong here is evident from the two render- ings of noT one being literal, the other expository. Which of them belongs to the original is difficult to determine; probably the former. Eaek. 1:1 ...in''i — NJn3 nv^n nDtj-XT \ai> pjtj" pn^nn mm nu^aa — sd^ij; ninn «mry3 ke'tpo n^an Knmsn kiqd kit ...■•DIU — tniT'D 'J^yD ina H'?'''? The portion after the horizontal line is missing in the Targum of the Haftora of the first day of the Feast of Weeks in the Machzor Witri. As the Targum to this verse beginning IDT? and ending XirriO is Midrashic in construction and matter, its partial omission in Mach?or Witri lends support to the hypothesis that the whole portion is an interpolation. ib. 6 nn'? nns^ D'2J3 ymsi nnx^ 0^:2 nymsi — xyanxi pjo Kin snnn? pax noy nnc' nni nn ?3? pax xymsi xin? pas syansi snn? pax xyaisi — I'ax xyanxi i^nc pin yanxn K^as pEj xyaiKi pnc nbni xax ?3^ paa loy nriE' nni nn Jia^ paj .jiej xriE'i pti'Dni tnxo inn yansn s'-aa p:d iini xnn xnnn^ The whole portion preceded by the horizontal line is missing in the Ant. Polyg. having instead of the second paK xyaiNI — PSJ syDIKI . It also is a case of shortened toseftoic Targum. 136 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS ib. 8 ...dns nn — xn^n nas^ N^yt^'i in« ^y PirtD?... xnnvn ■'^ya ^di xnivn nna s^ap^i — nno'D nnv . This ad- dition is found in the Ant. Polyg. only. Com. Pesachim 119a: ...DIN n'1 I'noT ^K» s'B-j Knin' n oitJ'o b"P^ p ^"^ ion flip? 113 nrnn ^ajs nnn nonQt^ n"3pn ^ti' it ht a^n^ it nniBTi i^yn. In Mach2;or Witri (ib.) there is the following addition prefacing the literal rendering of the Targum to v. 12: ^up? nn iijnsT pnn yaiN Kim s^aini N^nj viok "i3 nivtri^i — DiB'pa NSN imno iinijip'n nin I3i nTiijriiiJiy n^rnx^ nnnn ...X'T^I . It is found nowhere else. ib. 28:13 nn3DD mpi pK ^3 — NIP'I xnVJ NinV ?3 "1? 31111)10 . The literal translation was preserved in the toseftoic version of this verse found on the margin of Cod. Reuch., entitled nx 'QD, namely,pn i:3K ^3. ib. 34:9 diyi p^ — NnniK^ nin — siyits'i kidjib p3 .KDjna i?3P S1DJ13 133 — iiQ^ix? pnivK n^'^v xom^ niny njni It is missing in Cod. Reuch. A Midrashic Targum to 37:1 is found in Machzor Witn in the Targum to the Haftora of the Sabbath of Passover: 'in isip !Dt ly n3yix k^t iini33 'nvoo ipbjt sudij pn khi KL531B' 31 nin sini iini niBB'i Sinn xdv? 'i-ivd3 ni33 mm poiip iin 'iK'i ni3 pn?i3 sinn Kjniy3 pn^ ids diibs nm jia^Ni insD pnni in3y xjiin i3n ijki siti-p wn^iQ3i Kiijiy3 pjnDD p3i 'in sjpma k?3 ixanxi crnvoD ipqji x^in ij3 pi33 snyp3 Nnn iin ijhib'ni inn3yi pjj pnni ^topi n;n S3?» nn 'n .pytyri nd^t Nnyp3 Kinn3 'ntj'i ni 'n 131 n? sjpma iDt3i This is told in San. 92a; Pirke d. E. 58. It is so interpreted in Ps. Jon., Exod. 13:17. Joel 2:2? p^n n3-|Kn ^3Nn ItJ'N DiJB'n nx D3? inD?5i''l Dtjni JiiDnm — n^a ti^ni it3T nijb' fi^n Nn3D Nija* p3^ diss's! .N3n i^n nijyma siJiD^t^-i nijb'i^'i niqin ni3313 It is a latter Midrash. Com. Seder Eliahu r. 20 (p. 113) : nixnoi ^NiB'1-nN^ p3?in niB'cn mai^i vnN3 nnNt^jn diij '7'z . . . n3iNn ^3N its'N 1D1X1 . . . ^xiB'i fiB* onijis iin^ ptoi on^ 13 .^xi^i !n3 n3yn65'JB' nv3?D y3ix i^ix But 1 ;4 is rendered literally, and such was the case here, which INTERPOLATED TARGUM 137 was displaced by the interpolation from which was left only the last part .p33 nTi^n Km ^'?'v lajriN I'dip^d K-iaoa 3'n3i na3 'cip nno mn: n^y njn-'Ni 3n 'dhd? nsiDisT •tnn This is toseftoic. It has displaced the original Targum to the second half of the v. It is a late one. Witness the rendering "'B'P^sn by it'lp n''3D being evidently influenced by the Arabic, the vernacular of the age. In the edition used by Rashi the reading was tJ'IP^K nUDT . Com. the rendering of TUyiDn Mi. 1:1. Hab. 3:1 s3-iK 5v rf'? '^jn'K 13 s'3: piP3n ■<'?-i'\ sm^v in iDN |3 ijy niJ3 dpi smiv ivt suj pipsn xin vik'i^ ann n3nin t<3nN ^v ^'? pirn ny Kin xmiv id nv njn ni? hidb' dupi pDij? ^y N'3J Pip3n^ ni? ids i3i xtj'nipn xnn xaino xivityn? Iin? pi3nB'i Df'K' 33^3 NnniK^ inini q^t N^y't;n'' nnnn s3in .Kni''-j'3 Kn J'KiB'i ni3 ihidtp nm pnuin ?3 pnii Com. Shochar Tob 7, 17, ed. Buber. live inn nivo ?y nsvinsi mioyN ididb'o ^y iok piP3n s3B'3i . . .nt 13T liyninB* ly is3d n ijis nasi nDin3 noyi mix ivtj' no^o This Agadic interpolation is found in the Cod. Reuch., of which Buber had no knowledge. It is missing in all other edi' tions. Rashi (Taanith 23a), refers to it; Jb' Dinn3 ti'lDDnS P1P3n n^an . The manner in which this reference is expressed would suggest that Rashi refers to the Targum of the Haftora of the second day of the Feast of Weeks, which was customary to read in the communities of Northern France. It is found in the Machzor Witri. On the other hand, it appears that Kimchi had no knowledge of this Targum. Probably the portion beginning s<3nK '?V to the end, which is found in all editions, is a part of this T. J., the original being replaced by it. ib. 2 iDKii lyoB' inyoc 'i — imua yot;' niyoK' 'i — Nnuy-iia nno ?y m'i — ; ^n^mi — niti'si3 to sjaiD3 sm3yi na no3 _ .'1 niyn niyntj' noip itijin i3 dud iiars ^y xninnsT ...ITjn 1J3 — ...K''pnxi xiyiK'T ^y xnTinsT itjn ij3 — ...Ii3i3i .pni^y nmni 138 TARGUM JONATHAIsT TO THE PROPHETS These exegetical interpolations are found in the Targum of the Haftora of the second day of the Feast of Weeks in the Mach' zor Witri. They are not found in any other accessible edition of the Targum. In verse 8 the words TtJn mn S'3^0 ^ which is evidently the rendering of -jB^ DnnJ3 DS , and which are found in all editions, are missing there. ib. 3:11 n^at iDV HT' tJ'DtJ' — vmry'? vd: innvDn ^s D^B'nn xs^o rs^o ns'on *ni^5? ip'^dh i-i2:n'K no — nvaj -ib'''03 kIjTDI kk'db' jji^jvt x3fiD B-oJiT ND^D nia-in ND>D innm so^ .tj/E? n^m pn^n — pnnnoa inp The portions following the horizonal lines are found in Cod. Reuch. and in Machsor Witri only. The same Targum was used, it would appear, by the editor of the text of the other editions, who shortened it. That the original rendering was a literal one is evident from the comparison of these two texts. Zech. 12:10 nsnj nn qi^e'Tii lani ^yi in nu ^y isb'si Dj; K31P NnjK? Dnsx nn h'K'd pis'- p^ "i^^ idi dwpt xm^vi n'':a iivnM rrni^ n^'ano"'! d^ipitt sy-in mp Jt; nTT- J'TOPM 3i:i inam xoa imJiv pnaoii onss "la mt^a? x^oaj; nPT no ^idd This Midrashic Targum is found in Kenn., Cod. 154, and on the maj-gin of Cod. Reuch., giving the source as E'Ti'' '31J1 and in Machzor Witri. It is omitted in all other editions. It will be seen that the Midrashic interpretation is based mainly on the portion TriTl '?]! 1DDID3 V^V IIDDI which, according to this interpretation, refers to the violent death of the first Messiah, namely the son of Ephraim or Joseph. On the other hand, the rendering preceding and following it is close to the text but differs slightly from the rendering of the Targum. As to the Midrashic interpretation in general, com. Suk. 52a, Yer. 5, 8. Two more cases of later interpolation may be added. The first is in Judges i0:16 'Ji^n^"' ^DV3 IK'S: IVPni . It is rendered literally. In the Ant. Polyg. the Targum here has the Hebrew text. Maimonidas (Moreh Nebuchim 2, 29) makes it plain that this portion was not rendered by Jonathan for anthropo- morphic considerations. Tlie other case is Ezek. 1:26, which Kimchi (1. c.) says that it is not rendered by the T., but all INTERPOLATED TARGUM 139 accessible editions do have a literal rendering. It was in- serted by a later hand. The same may have also been the case with Ezek. 1:27; 2:8, containing a peculiarly cirmumscribed rendering. II. There is a considerable number of other interpolations which are of an exegetical character. Some are recensions of the rendering of the T. Others aim at a clarification not so much of the text as of the rendering. They have a disturbing effect upon the rendering. Evident interpolations of this category are numerous. I have selected some of the most characteristic in- stances for the purpose of illustration. Finally I wish to call attention that some of these duplicates were brought to notice by Frankel (Zu Dem Targum d. Propheten, pp. 39, 40). Duplications IS. 18:4 niaiprw — (pn? D^pts'KO ^snu" ■^ay'? n^js ib. 19:18 Dnnn TV — mno? m-run m2& nim nm? One takes 0")^ ^iDin while the other would have it as it stands. This passage of the T. is cited in Menahoth 110a; this duplicate then is of a comparatively early date. It was noticed by Frankel Zu Dem T., 40) . ib. 21:5 13D iHB'o — s^T (invnvi) ipno ib. 33:24 ^n^^n pB' 1DS1 ^ni — ii3ni5iD «n:3t5'^ a^nx .yiD nno kj^v nnx According to one the refernce is to the absence of the Shekina; the other is a simpler rendering. ib. 38:17 D-\'7a>'? njn— nxi idip -[d'?-z' ^jd Knnix naj;? sn i^va 'nvat na^SB' tiid nv n^Vf na pa x'V'ii'n? Kino 'n^a /JD '^ no -[oip The latter is an interpolation. It disagrees with the interpreta- tion of the T. of Dlfir^ nan referring to the pious ones. That the entire phrase: ID ''7 10 is rendered by the latter is evident from the rendering — .''JD i? "123 140 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS ib. 66:20 nnDiaai — tnnt^'inii — nsiaai However pDlsai is missing in Cod. Reuch. Jerem. 2:3 iivn ii'ti'D')— K^^y Dianx nyona— xniDix loiy In the former Israel is likened to the priestly tithe, in the latter to the first ripened of the produce before the offering of the Omer (Com. Rashi and Kimchi 1. c). ib. 2:16 "^pii? Iiyi'' — 1D3J nt3'1 — 11133 \)'?W\ ib. 13:19 D^Di^tj' n^jn — ti^nniv ni2'?mn N^apns — In the former O'Dl^B" is taken in the sense of Q'?\i> ; in the latter Q^tj* — pay. ib. 20:8 PVTK imN no '3 — HIVDI 'Sn — SJKT iOt3 n« E2;ek. 16:6 ISISI l^^y 13^X1 — 'mp IIDnnnX D'p pST ^yi . . . tint? ns •'DTP 1^3 ns ,n3PiBD? •'n''^anN — ib. 34:9 Ci'iyin D3? — K^y^K'n — K'DJIQ p31 . The former read Dij;i ; the latter D''5;"i . This was noticed by Kimchi. The T. renders D'lyi throughout this chapter by KiDJIS In Lag. S'ytJ'n is omitted. Am. 6:8 Dpj;' ])Hi — ^pvi xni3i — stJ'npD nu . The last is the rendering in 8:7; the former is a duplicate. Mica 1:10 "rriE'^STin nsv — tiiT'ti'n isn — sotapa \w'?Qr\> In Cod. Reuch. \W'?qd'< is omitted. ib. 11 nE'3 nnv — pnni fK^iiDny — xny i^j. The latter is more literal. ibid. 5sKn nu nsDD — iN^'is n'3 nsDD in^ nnv ...p33 ,in iDD^ fT r^ipDi I1DJK iDT'im inmon inn — The former renders fivsn as a p. n., while the latter as JvK, near. Com. Rashi and Karo 1. c. ib. 12 _ 31D? n^n '3 — snnix^' aniD? «i3ddi — sinoai .313? ib. 2:13 Dn'JB^ nSH H^V — NDiCnpn 13 pafB'D PPD' — .nnitj>n3 imD i?d pon The former renders VIS — pmB'D deliverers and on^JQ^ — nJltJ'Xnn, INTERPOLATED TARGUM 141 the former, as in the former days, while the latter understood "IB as king and Dri'JEi?, in their front. ib. 3:6 ...noy — nr5'3^3 p iiHuinn NViK vnsi i^ijnK The recenssion, it is obvious, would render this v. in a symbolic sense. The T. would render it literally. This is evident from the literal rendering of what follows. On the other hand, the inserted recenssion may constitute only a portion of a Toseftoic rendering. ib. 12 ...Dvta — ID]! 's<:d ?v a)'? invrixa — inv^jrisa Com. Rashi and Karo; as to the rendering of DVt3 Com. Ze. 1:12; Mai. 1:4. Zech. 3:7 DO^HD ']'? ^nnJI — lO^HB T?J1 -[^ tnsi — The inserted recenssion would render it symbolically. ib. 3:8 HDX nav DN KUD 'JJH — '•^jTiii — in^a KJK xn 142 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS Insertions IS. 1:24 nvo DnjK nn — (■•^ans i3 K'VE'n? ■'i mi) ib. 2:22 lasa HOB'J IK'S cnNH ID i^nn — 113? iwonx SDV nx) iniaxa t''''n nn hob'jt x^m mavD? xtj'js^ t^nnvriB'N^D .sin 2^tifn KD^ai (••nin''? inoi d'-p kw in ib. 3:15 UHD D'^jy i:ai — tri'Dl) tins n^3D K''3''E'n •'SKI .(Iinunn ib. 5:3 pm '•JU KJ 1DBB' miH'' B"K1 D''?B'ni 3B'V HDVI tav k5i KnniN id mo ^kib" n^3 sn pn^ ids kuj) — 'did . . . urr- tw (irT'D^ The preceding passages of the T. make this rhetoric portion entirely excessive. ib. 24:1 iTJE Hiyi — (xnniN 'pv nan ?y) snna 'snni There is no more necessity for a reason here than there is for the preceding yisn DK PP12 and the following niac* VBITI ib. 30:25 D'O •'^l'' D'J^Q — 31 ^IDP DVl — P3?d5i S^pn) .P''D injj pTisa (pn'nntJ'oJ'i ib. 41:7 &-\n pm''i — er-pnoT (tinnniya pnnii x^n) There is only one other such case, also evidently an interpolation, this is Ez. 16:20. The T. as a rule knows of no such rhetorical prefacing. ib. 57:20 B'nJ3 D''3 CVK'ini — (D3n''J3 mt3') It is found in Cod. Reuch. only. Jerem. 1:6 i33N lyj n — KJK K31 nx — Kpi; 'nn^B'3l) ib. 2:10 ijni D^ins "s nay •-a — irni snn? i^anoni ... p53ini pnniVD ni p^taj ny']K)'? njnooi Ti3^ ti3o i^n k'o?dv) pnniyD rr pD^poi pn^J3E'D n' pDia pt^ tiJ''«"i insai pnov pn? . . . xais s''n NT'K (tin^ tnaoi ib. 2:27 dfin nWl — PH'^V K'riN KnK'3T n^y3i — pnD3) M'?v D^m pnoK imp nio (i t'ininivD3 ib. 4:1 3iB'n '^s — (imnj dnnnn k'? ly) in3rn ?3pnn Com. 31; 17, 20. INTERPOLATED TARGUM 143 ib 51:1 1DP 3^ — ''KIDD V"l« nrr- "?]!) ^33 ^y 'JTiD XJ KH) . . . pnnn ,kdip3 fT-an nn3? on (i''5idp poay The insertion is in fact a duplicate interpretation of the former, interpreting idp ^'? to refer to the Chaldeans by the method of CSriK Com. Karo, the latter takes it in a more literal sense. Ezek. 13:19 ...nvB'SJ JT'on^i — pmDn \)n'? nn x^t xnos^ .XD^P? Iin^ nn x^t ityaj xd^p^i (irr'aD tinx x^) Two different interpretations are here obviously incorporated. In the London Poiyg. the reading is: IDIPnm jri'DD Iinx pnion ■IDipD pnx Whether this was a correction by the editor due to misunder- standing or it represents a different reading, it adds emphasis to the fact that the passages in question are insertions. ib. 16:5 xom^ — (xnn x3tD pD?' i^va"?) pa? xnjx? .pn'-n xom? p3ni3j;^o ib. 16:20 ■■npm — (^xiB" nc'J3 ■'DIP xt3ix? D'jD^x xa'ix) ..."133 IT' nn3-n ib. 17:4 loB' D''jyj3 TV3 — x:n?iDa x?D3n xy-ix? n''?3'Xi .HMB' p-un nnp3 (^xib'^ n''3 n3 p^y x? iv\) tyjsi xy-ix3 Hos. 10:11 mxiv 3112 ?v ^n-i3y ^jxi — pnn^ n'PiQ xjxi .pnnivo fi'pn t-j Tinyx — onxo nuyt^-D Hos. 3:3 nu-i D^o' ^3 — ^xiB'n 8nB':3 n?) lox xnj .■■jn^ie? Iinjnn px'jo pov (p^jm p3? ima p3'3in ib. 7:4 ...D?3 — XD'P? tniDT N133 IIH^IIPD ynB3 P?r 133) IWPDD Din pn? nnynxn piuji I^dj i-i3ix x^n ?yi (ytJ'T naK'no .xon x5i ny xb'''? tr^'o pvo dhvod The inserted passage has no connection with the rest and renders irritating the whole passage. Com. Rashi on this v. ib. 12:1 ?x Dy m ny min^i — papno iin mm' nmi .(pny-iKo xn^xT x»y K?:n iv) x:n5>iQ3 Joel 2:3 1? nnm X^ Hti'^S 031 — HU JT^i X3r'B' ^IXI .(x'y'B'i?) 144 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS ib. 4:2 DMjn ntD iB'K — Tino) ...xniD 'n'-s •'J13 mm The inserted portion is found in extant editions, but is omitted in all other editions, including the princeps edition of Mikraoth Gedoloth. Am. 7:14 i3JK "ipU i3 — i? niN pOpB-l SJN Tl':! no ib. 9:11 ...n^n'jni — iin n^n snnJo dk dips x^nn njiw ••JD 'vtiTii iD5ni sni35'o fi^a d^btii) ppns iinntfoai ...n^DJi This portion, intended for the last three words of the verse, is to all intent a different version of a sort of a homily, examples of which are readily presented in the portions of the interpolated Targumim cited above. The original version seems to have been replaced by the interpolation. Mica 7:1 J'''P ■'SDW iniin 'D — S''DD SjD'M Ti^^TI ns The inserted passage is merely putting Ki^d >1D1DD of the T. in other words. ib. 12 ■•jD^i msD nvi iiB'x •'JD? xn'' inj;! xin or — Ksp^n Mip iiDK IDT «ni^J tit^J^JT" K''nn wnya — nyi iixd .Ki'v mpi snm ijonin loni The latter part seems to me to belong to the first half of the v. forming a different rendering, which was incorporated in the T. to the second part of the v. and displaced the original. The former renders ^JD as ]Ki and TIB'S — lins while the latter, im' pressed by the sound of the word, would render /jd^i — iJDIin Armenia. It was the same case with *iiVD Aq. and Theod. follow the first rendering of the T. The Lxx and P. are some what following the interpolated rendering. ib. 7:14 in?nj t«^ — injDnsT kdv — (Tnv sim sd^w The inserted portion is entirely disconnected with the rest, has no reference to any part of the v. It is explaining or com' INTERPOLATED TARGUM 145 plementing the T. It was inserted with the intention ot import- ing into this v. a Messianic air, while the T. might not have taken the v. in this sense. lb. 7:20 nmnx non 2\>v>'? hdk inn — m'py v'? nann) .(noip snaiD m '?y npynsn pnv No reference is made in this v. to pnv • The interpolator, it would appear, was anxious to supply this mossion. Nahum 1:6 iDVT 'JB^ — NnniK ino^ xnoma '^jn^K na) ...|33 (^nionp ]o KD^y yr p n^oy^ It has no connection and makes no sense with what follows It can be, however, connected with the preceding v. ^CVT Dnn It is probably a recenssion of the rendering of the T. of that V. and inserted at its end and then misplaced at the beginning of this V. ADDITIONS Quotations, from Targum Jonathan in Talmud and Midrash, ]ike those from Onkelos, do not carry the name of the author to whom tradition ascribes the composition of the Targum. In most of the instances in Talmud Babli Targum Jonathan is quoted in the name of Rab Joseph. In two cases Rab Joseph himself quotes it, while in other cases the quotations are introduced by Ijiajnnt) . In one case in the Midrash the quota- tion from Jonathan carries the ' name of Aquila. In the rest of 'the cases there is no indication of the source. They are just'" the' iteame quotations from Jonathan. Incidental similarity canilot serve as a basis for a contrary view, particularly when so-tiie of -the quotations are of an 'exegetical nature. Several quotations in Yerushalmi and Midrash, which I assumed to be a different version of the targumic rendering in the respective cases, were cited above. However, there are at least two cases in which the rendering of the Targum is clearly implied. One is Y. Shekalim 2, 6, with reference to Is. 33:21: r\^M: pj-in!' i^^sn luy^ f'Dix n^ -ck :?nj «i^n lo^i i^'ni ikdo .u-iav' N? iMK •'VI t3"D 13 nnv? n^n^ hj'k This implies the rendering of the Targum of 'vi . In Joma 77b the same exposition is accompanied by a quotation from the Targum. The other case is Mech. 'nri\ 9 with reference to Is. 21:9, which was quoted above (p. 29, note 43) from Gen. r., namely, .^33 n^DJ n3 3'n3T ^33 nn?a it n^Qu -i3n3 D'a^^no e"i It is based on the rendering of the Targum STTIV ^S n?Q3 ?33 Ja^a^ . Had it not been based on the rendering of the Targum (which was well known to the scholar), there would certainly have followed a note giving the interpretation of the quotation from Is. As regards the quotations from the Targum in Babli, it is well to notice that most of them represent interpretations of an expository nature. At least in two cases the quotations represent a different version of the targumic rendering. 146 ADDITIONS 147 Most of the quotations were referred to by Dc Rossi, Zuns and Frankel. Quotations given in the name of Rab Joseph: Moed Katan 26a on 2K 2:12 : PVXD Kini nsn yt."'!^N'i stijt p;e min -.t;'?::' mi tivSi vnx ^snL"'' 33~i .iDNi V2N nr '3N '2x ,msi ^i<~,z'^ aan ^^n -zx !in> 3Dn tiDV an DJ-inDi3 yotj'D 'xo min ito'^l- im nr vr-ci .PKHBI I'3'mD nT11?V3 '?i^m p:a pn'^-in ^ov an 148 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS Nedarim 38a on Am. 7:14 : N13J P N?1 '3JN K13J H'? niVDS f-S lOXM DIDV IVI 3'nDT DIOj; 'n'j no ns idv 3t Dnncns .D'opti' o^iai "laJK "ipn 13 '3jn .xnJBB'a 1? popu"! NJN Baba Kama 3b bn Ob. 1:6 : pnD^N IDl' 31 Dnn013 ,VDB'» 'NO ,rj1DVD 1V3J WV ISfSHJ I'X .'nnaoD p'^anis ii^y B'i^3n'N Berakoth 28a on Zef. 3:18 : mm' n? nivtr wnx ins? pbdid ^b' n^sn ^^snon ^3 y'sn nox 'ju 'sm jfDB'D 'KD ,rn hdd tidds ividd "'31J -1DIK 3in3n v'?v .D^cnm nyio "ijot nnsn ^y ^«-ib" The saying of R. Jehoshua b. Levi is based on the ren- dering of the Targum of this verse, which is: ^3 p335;D 1im inyiD 'Jat . The quotation here in the name of Rab Joseph agrees in sense with the Targum but not in the wording. This might be explained as being a misquotation. However, the rhetorical prefacing phrase ...iJiK N13n , which is missing in our text, seems to have been in the text of the Agadist. It was this beginning of the rendering which, it would appear, caused the complication with regard to the reference. For what was wanted here was to show that '31J means delay, and the reference here is to the rendering of this particular word in the Targum, namely, paayo nrn . But because the Targum of this verse had as the beginning the words ^ns X"l3n the ref- erence was made to N-i3n although it was dropped from the Targum. Kiddushin 72b on Zech. 9:6 : nu n3n' nor 3-1 D5-inDi3 ,nnt5's<3 itdd sb-m 'kd 'dv n^ k^n .pN~i3i:i? nn 'ot 11m nwi><3 isnn^ 5n-il'" This is also a different version of the Targum to this verse Our Targum renders it: ni lim -ilTj'xn ''KTJ" n'2 p3n"1 .PS-|31J3 Two quotations are said by Rab Joseph: Sanhedrin 94b on Is. 8:6 : f\'?n -lONp 'ND KiVT- nin x^ xip 'xm somn 'l^o^x '^ov ^"^? pnjjT sni^'K' '03 n'J3 pnJ' -i3idt in n^m m3?o3 pin xoy vpi .in'^Di 131 I'vns ix'yiD'xi n^^n ADDITIONS J 49 Moed Katan 28b on Zcch. 12:11 : ,iiDmn nsDca o'rrn': ibddh ?nr xinn avz .idni S3'py n njVJ sonvn noKP ■'So SjirT" mn k?" xip 'Km n'ouin s^d^n f\DV -/'si HTi'' ^Dpi nov "13 2NnNi S1SD03 D^ti'nu KisDo 'JD'' x\nn Sinn nyns nTi' ^dpt pox in ni^'sn nsDoai po'iats -i3 iiomn .inijo nvpaa Quotations preceded by |3D''3TnDl : Na?ir, last Mishna, according to the version in Ein'Jakob, on IS 1:11 Rosh Hashana 22b on 2S 5:21 .VB'JNI in Qii'y^^ nTim Kin mp-i Krj""' ps'-j^^^T y^t;--; 'kd .nn !i:npisi iJ'Dnnoi Moed Katan 2a on Is. 62:5 '7V2-' 13 2''n3T Kin KnuiT'OT KJC'f' J'van rr2 'Km ycK'D 'kdi innun'' Kn^ina av n^'iy ir.in-;-! kod '-k iJiDJinoi ,n?in3 -iinn .■l''''J3 yMi Quotations without reference to the Targum: Sanhedrin 95a on Is. 10:32 : n^TK •'K ■'Kn^a n'^ noK .31J X- n;iyo -.''hl": cvn iniK KDin i"k mtJ'V3 'MJD^i Kj;3T KmiK .n? n''3' k? k? iki nJi n^D' kjtikh P'l^DT 15/' ,''pnnD''3 n"? nt" c^rr/r 11:0 'd .kdv inn kjd '■or .n'ljiyn idii^k jT'nn '3 .a^^'i-' n^'iD"' nvtm ny ,mic' m^'Vo d^hm n?5?i TinB'D ^3 n'B'JiK n^n D'-rnn Kmp K^n ki K;^n idk n"j.'33i K-iOi' ■3-:3 '■ro K'j'^Ri KTyt K'n x'-n , Kruno ^3 n:;"33 ni3 iiD 'pv n>i^2 'jT'^oi ^'3io n'-j'n3 1^:01 dpi .ni'y n'' ti^pnn ...niDK c?-j'n'3-i Kmiy '?v irvsn k'jhpd The portion beginning KT K^n is found in ail editions of the Targum, and has been considered above (p. 132). At any rate, the portion beginning -1^:01 DPI is the targumic rendering of the verse. Shabbath 128a on Josh. 7:21 : .K^'im K^DDK -IDK 'DK H .lyr^^' miK ^y^>2 KIKI The rendering of nmK in Targum is n^'UV'N A quotation of the Targum to Nahum 3, 8, preceded by tJ''03nno in Gen. r. I : K3D nKH tJ'Djnnoi jiok k;'^ ou^nn x^-m nor xnm poK .Kmnj pn K3n-i Kn3T KniJDD'PKD 150 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS Ecc. r. 11, 3 quotes the Targum to Is. 5:6 in the name of Aquila: Y. Shabbath 6, 4 contains a translation of Is. 5:18-23. Some of the rendering coincide with those in the Targum, namely: niicn — PST'P' (Targum xn'' nw). nnSDH — S^'^D ; niS?3t3n — K'lpT'V (Targum xnPTV). The rendering of D'^nnon — IT'PJiy follows the T. Jud. 8:21, to which reference is made (The T. here having S'^ao agrees with s"^ on the margin of Cod. Reuch. to Jud. 1. c. having for K'PJ''j; — N'33'D). S'^B'np as the rendering of D'BTl^ni is the translation in the T. of B'Djn Ti'l . There are good reasons for the supposition that this is a version of the Targum to these verses. Com. HE'D ■'3D 1. c. Y. Taanith 2, 5: .Vi-\ pim D''B« -["Mi IHD M? T'X The renrering of D'BS TiK in the Targum to Joel 2:13 is U-\ P'mo . (Also On. Exod. 34:6; Ps. Jon. having nn T^H). Psichta Lam. r. 16 on Jer. 4:18: T'^^J/OI ^^^^ 1^ n&V '01 xriKino inaiVI NnNB^S Tnn-ili< . This agrees with the Tar- gum except that the latter has instead of sriKTilO — K'^P^ipa , It is to be noticed that both this and the preceding citation contain exegetical renderings. Lev. r. 6, 4: pDHJOT \'?» p3"V!on p^N pjnoni D^QVOVOn Targum ponJOll liBVJDT . Lev. r. 5, 2; Exod. r. 10:5 on Am. 6:4 pony ^V IE' men ^iQT . Targum 5"Bn [B'D It^a^DT tDiy ^y pOB'T . Can. r mint;' on Ez. 16:61 min? mo ...pnv m n'nyi Kin .pjiBia? This is the usual rendering of ni33^ in the Targum (com vv. 46, 48, 49, 57), although in this verse the rendering is NyoDE'X^ . R. Jochanan would have here also the usual ren- dering. Finally, there is the use of snnyD for idols in Yerushalmi and Midrashim. Com. Y. Berakoth 9, 1 ^333 pnrmyDI S3n Iirs pnoy nnniiym wn iirxi 'Dnn tinniiyai kdh pj'si ; Y. San 10, 2: naniyD^l B3? 'IK . As xniiyD is the peculiar render- ing in the Targumim of idols, it is reasonable to assume that ADDITIONS 151 this descriptive term came into use in the Yerushalmi from the Tarcrum. Tiie toseftoic portions which were examined in the chap- ter on Interpolated Targumim do not represent all the Mid- nishic additions to Targum Jonathan. Many more are to be found in the commentaries of Kimchi, Rashi and other Rab- binical sources. A great number of fragmentary Targumim are found on the margin of Cod. Reuch. All of which were col:- Iccted and elaborated by Bacher (Z. D. M. G., v. 28, p. 1 ct seq.). On close examination it will be found that those frag- ments on the margin of Cod. Reuch. which are headed by en' 'Jin /ns onn and 'ns 'DD have many characteristic points in. common. Hence there is no ground for an insistence on a hne of division between them as is held by Bacher. They may have a common source. Or, certain fragments in each group may be assigned to an earlier date and a different source tji^n the rest. It will be noticed that the additions to the targum of Is. 49:24, 25, which in Cod. Reuch. is referred to •J"",' 'Jin is designated in the extant editions S"n . In the main, the fragments described as 'ti'll' 'Jin, 'HN 'Jin and 'HN '50 contain current. Agadic expositions. But while to the group of 'tJ'n' 'Jin belong; the larger portions, there is hardly any peculiar characteristic either with regard to material or language to justify its placing in a separate catci^'ory. Furthermore, all of them exhibit a dependence on Targum Jonathan. So . 't'lT on' Judges 12:6 following Jon. ...i^npn^Ki XJ11' nv:o2 n^'? i^ddji n''^ innsi . Com. also ?:4, 5 and oh Josh, 14:15. It is quoting Jon. to IK 8:27 and 2K 21:16 (Yerush. on Is. 66:6). As to s"n ands"D com. K"D1 s"n on Jerem. 9:72 ...n'^nODinn t<0'3n 111 n3 HO^K' nnnK" K^ . «"n on Zech. 11:8 ^j? pnn' no'D P^nT ...s'DJis m'pn n^ ^n^if^ti'i 'jn?133 KVP nnntJ'DJI . Also on Is. 45:7, which are so rendered in Targum Jonathan. All these groups contain fragments which either explain or are complementing the rendering of Jonathan; 152 TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS 'B-n' on Josh. 22:20 n'lmna n'lo k'? in xnnj xim . Yemsh. in N-133 tains lOl X'>jns<3 DJiri'' Sim . Com. also on Judges 1:3. N"n on Josh 6:1 NQpnoi K^nEJT t''t^^2 KTRN inn''i NinxriDi . s"n adds x-^njT piaya . s"d on IS 26:20 fimriDT noa nxnip complementing snltsa HKIIP SV1VJ 13 fimi nn3 Also explaining the Targum Josh 4:19 nXDIP NPII''? — sni'^ .tO'iJI So that there is scarcely any foundation for a supposition that they represent three distinct sources. There is equally no basis for a theory of an earlier Targum to the Prophets of which the 'nx '30 or even 'BJII' and K"n are remnants. Certain portions are admittedly late. Such, for instance as Is. 49:24, 25 and its parallel on Is. 66:5 which have made their way into the text of the Targum (the latter is found in the first Bomberger edition). They bear the traces of the Arabic era. The fact also that the 'CII'' on IS 17:8 interpreting nnaiy nsi — niDS DJ nn is not quoted by Rab Joseph, the author of this interpretation in Babli (Keth. 9b) shows that this Targum was not known yet at that time. Then, their dependence on Jon. and also on Onkelos (com. 'tJ'lT' on Judges 18,3 following Onk. Exod. 3:5; 32:1; Deut. 5:28; 23:4; Also 'mi' on IS 17:8 no '11 NIDiD '?V VIOti priK OKI ...K21P tnvj which is the rendering in Onk. of non^O tyi< 'n , Exod. 15:3) would tend to place their origination at a date subsequent to that of the official Targumim. However, although of a comparatively later date, they have preserved some earlier and later displaced renderings of the Targum. Here are the instances in the Yerushalmi: 'K-n' on Josh, 5:3 piT'U ; Jon. psnn Jud. 3:31XDS1 n' ;5:4 iJOin^S S''OB';Jon, 1DO ; 2K 11:12 X3^o 'n'' ; Jon. n^X' ; 13:21 pan ; Jon. nn ; SiDD^IB Jon. nnB'a ; pp^OI ; Jon. 1D11; 16:3 Pinn3 ; Jon. nivina ; 19:35 piJ't}' ; Jon. pus ; ib. 37 133X ; Jon. nt^nt'is ; Is. 21:5 wvn IP'^IS ; Jon. pxnD iDipX . As for those in 'nn 'QD /ns 'in com. Bacher 1. c. tHlliiUiil ' ''"«^"l»»!""'