Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan To The Prophets (khazarzar)

YALE ORIENTAL SERIES RESEARCHES VOLUME XIV

YALE ORIENTAL SERIES - RESEARCHES XIV

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

BY

PINKHOS CHURGIN

NEW HJ\VEN YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS MDCCCCVII

TO MY HONORED TEACHER

PROFESSOR CHARLES CUTLER TORREY AS A TOKEN OF DEVOTION AND RESPECT THIS BOOK IS CONSECRATED

Diait1,wd bv Microsoft Ci-

Digitized by Microsoft®

CONTENTS Page

I.

The Historical Background...............................................................

9

II.

Textual Variations.......................................................................................

52

III.

The Exegesis in Jonathan..................................................................

78

IV.

General Peculiarities,

V. VI.

111

Interpolated Targum................................................................................. 126 Additions

146

7

D1qitued by Microsoft q.

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 interpretation 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 b1 far have exceeded that of the Greek and Syriac translators. At the same time his translation is doubtlessly based on a sounder and exacter understanding 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 in the early translations. A good many emendations and assumed violations of the Hebrew text on the sole basis of the translations, 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 literature, 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, furthermore, the astounding fact that in the parallel passage in the 9

D,att12C'd by Microsoft<~'

10

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

Y erushalm i 1> 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 Y erushalmi 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 Targurn 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, particularly the Greek version of Aquila. 4 > 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 saying are numerous. It needs no explanation and consequently cannot be made a basis for a new theory. 3)

Suk. 28a; Baba Barbra 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 (Shah. 11 fa; Tosef. 13 (14) and with some changes in Sof. 5, 15; Y. Shah. 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 C1N , ~:i', , ilic ;,',J , o • 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 license 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 1t was the Targum to Job that evoked disfavor.

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 Midrashirn.P! while, on the contrary, the genuineness of the quotations from Aquila is doubtful.v! 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, C•Oll'l ,,:ii) that the suppression of the Targurn to the Pent. was due to the intro· duction of the Samaritan Targurn 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 \he Talmud of a suspension of the Targurn-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 tact 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 O•J•Jto in:i: to Gen. r. 4S',7: Cll'J 1:1,!l:i 01Jir,n MN r,1.0,po no~:i N•:in', l:'i'Ton ,,,,

. ,m,

c'nv:i

v,,,, cc,11:0 n•n N1nn cu,nn Cl!fl!f cr1:10 c,po

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 I. 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.

D1mt1zed by Microsoft (i

12

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

Y et they are not traced to their respective translators. Such is also the case in B ab li, w h ere th is tradition of Jonathan's authorship is told .

In all th e m any quotations from T argum

Jonathan there is no single reference to Jonathan. T hese facts com bine to sh ow that both in B abylonia and P alestine this tradition w as otherw ise und erstood, 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. l, l end) deals with a Halakic exposition. In the first place, it implies in no way a translatory 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 l lb) no authority is cited for the same interpretation. If the authority of Aquila was correctly quoted, then cJin should be interpreted in its general sense as 10~;,n is used in the Babli. His translation 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, l; Jalqut Dan. I. c.) in Hebrew, is instructive. There can be no question that the words c',j.))N ClJ1n are an interpolation. It is Rab Huna's interpretation played on a particular form of the word and the contracted 1)1',e : it should read: Mt 101)1)', ,i,11)!) N)l11 :ii i"nitt. 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 remaining 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 Azai, and deducted by the 1ipn ',tt method. In Y erushalmi, again, R. Tanchuma is citing Aquila 'i 10N l'i'N c;,n c1',p)t1 ';in tto,mn . This is striking. Aquila is always cited plainly. In the Midrash, however (Lev. r. 30, 8; Jalqut I. c.), the name of R. Tanchuma is omitted. At the same time Ben Azai is cited in the Midrash as the authority of the saying mil'', MJ!!'O l)',1 tt::i while in Babli I. c. R. Abbahu is mentioned as the author, and in Yerushalmi (I. c.) R. Levi is the one who said it. It appears that Ben Azai'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 Y erushalmi on this point would appear to have been in the view of the compiler. That might have been the case in the Y erushalmi, According to one report, R. Tanchuma was the author of this exegetic note, just as Ben Azai is

,,,,n ,,n

,,n m ,,n

Digitized by Microsoft®

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, Schurer, Buhl, Winter u. Wiinsche, Graetz and many others to take Rab Joseph as the named as its author in the Babli; 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. r. 99, 7; com. Shorr 1•1',nn 12, 6.). It is not Aquila's translation which is quoted. Zipper's Theory (Krauss I. c.) as well as Rappaporr's fine suggestion (.1,nic ,11',r., 11.V) employed by Krauss (I. c. 153) in this case, are superfluous. Of a similar nature is the interpretation attributed to Aquila in Lev. r. 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 (I. c.) along with Lev. 23:40 as "Ornnino absurdae et ridiculae sunt", Com. Tanchuma Lev. )111:ir.l 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 n,r.i',_v ',_v Ps. 46, 1 by liti.vmvto"tfJTOOV So a 1 s o i n 9:1 VEL6Tl}TO; . It stands to reason that 48, 21 was similarly rendered by him and not by the alleged di>avaow. . This would agree with the T. rendering ic)n,t',t.:1 ,r.,p:i, which is also indicated in the Y. (I. c.), namely n,r.i,',;,:i, . It should also be noticed in passing that one other interpretation given there nm c',1)1:i l).11'1)' MlM agrees with the Lxx, which renders it El; Tou; Elrova; , which is also i m p 1 i e d 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 di>avao(a cited in Field (I. c.) under column Ed. Prima, ought not to be take in serious consideration for obvious reasons. To all intents, this rendering of nir.i',v 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 ls. 3:20 is not foundin 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

D1qtt1zcd by M1:...rosoftCi-1

14

Tli.RGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

real author of the T . jonathan.r ' But R ashi and T osaphoth arc unqualifiedly right in their com m on explanation of this curious occurrence. 1-1 > It should be borne in mind that Rab Joseph himself often cites the Targurn Jonathan with the introductory phrase NiP 'Nil1 Nti,Jin N5ti:,N, which clearly signifies he had the Targum before him." ' Furthermore, Rab Joseph also cites Onkelos.!" > On the other hand, we have a citation from the Targum to Esth. 3, l, ascribed to Rab Joseph, where it is clear from the Greek names it contains that we have a Palestinian Targum before us.11. > Again, some of Rab Joseph's interpretations fail to coincide with those in the Targum Jonathan.12 > 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 io no telling which Greek translation was meant, for the Lxx contains also such a rendering ( com. field Hex., I. 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, 5 (Y. Joma 3, 8 Gem.) and Esth. r. 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 10J ,2 1'.lJ) cites the Targum from Hai, refraining from mentioning the source, by the same direct reference to R. Joseph =,c,, :ii cJino, • Com. Schurer, Geschichte, VI, 149 (4th German ed); Z. Frankel, Zu d. T., 10-12; Buhl, Kanon, 173; Winter u. Wiinsche, Jud. Lit. 1, 65. Winter u. Wimsche, 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 CJinoi:. 9) San. 94b: Moed Katan 28b; Meg. 3a. 10) Shah. 28a; Exod. 25:5, 64; Num. 31, 50; Nazir 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 cornparatively early date, com. Megilla 17a, Mishna and Gemara .18a; Y. Meg. 2, I. As to the assumption of Rab Joseph being the author of the Targum to Hagiog., com. Tosafoth Shah. 115a ,,,:. l and Megilla 21b i,',,m::i, pointing out that the Targum to Hag. dates back to the Tanaitic age, while Rashi Megilla (I. c.) nitt'J; asserts ::iiJin )'kl:'

c,::i,n:i::i. 12)

Here are some illustrations: Ahoda Zara 4a, R. Joseph's in-

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

15

in the instance of the Targumic citation on Is. 33 :21 put in the mouth of R. Joseph in Jomma 77b, it is given in the name of Rab in Rosh Hashana 23a, and on no authority in Shek. 6, 2, Gem. It may be further stated that in some instances the authority of R. Joseph is 9mitted; these are introduced by the impersonal ·p,r.iJir,r.ii Again, it should be noticed that Onkelos to Genesis 49:27 and Gen. 30:14 is said in the name of Rab and Levi (Zebachim 54a) bJ1f1r.l ,,, ,bJ1f1r.l :ii and San. 99b on Gen. 30: 14 without 'Jir,r.i , and still this would not constitute sufficient evidence to place the name of Rab on Targum Onkelos. The evidence in question presses in the direction of an entirely different conclusion, and that is, that so general was the ignorance of the authorship of the official Targumim that quotations from them were permitted or had to be recalled on the authority of the one citing them. There is no need to dwell at length on the fanciful hypo, thesis first formulated by Drusius and later set forth in his peculiar way by Geiger and supported by Karpeles, connecting Jonathan with Theodotion .13 > According to this theory, the Targum Jonathan is founded on the Greek translation of Theo, dotion, while Targum Onkelos is based on Aquila.vs > But the Theodotion version, which is rather a revised version of the Lxx than an independent rendering, and whose Pharasaic origin is open to question, and whose author shows a scant knowledge of Hebrew, could hardly become the groundwork for the Rab, binic Targum Jonathan. There is not the remotest agreement between them, either as to the principles employed or as to the rendering, except in the names of the translators, and only a

terpretation of Ez. 9:6; Shab. 26a on Jercm. 52:16; Shab. 54b; Kethuboth 6b on IS. 17 :8, which involves an Halakic exposition cited also in Shab. 56a. This is contained in the Toseftoic addition on the margin of Codex Reuch. That Rab Joseph, however, was also an independent interpreter appears from his interpretation of Gen. 10, 2 (Joma 10a), in which he disagrees with the extant Targumim, while Ps. Jonathan agrees with R. Simoi (R. Simon in Gen. r. 37, 1).

il',

13)

Geiger, Ursch. 163; Carpeles, History (Heb.) 159.

14)

Com. Rapaport Introduction.

m,n,

c,,1,nN', pi::t

3; Luzzatto

D1qitizcd bv Mtt:rosoft

n1,JN

214; Adler

16

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

h igh ly p ow erful im agin ation w ou ld be taken by its suggestive, ness. W ith th e collap se of th ese th eories;

w ith the tradition in

com plete silen ce over th e nam e of the author of the official T ar, 111 utter lack of other evidence leading to the establishment of a tenable hypothesis, there is no use in further attempts to solve the riddle. There was no single author to impress tradition, and in so far as the name of the author is concerned, the discussion should be considered as concluded. But there is another question closely allied with this problem, which calls for consideration. Many writers on this subject speak of a revised redaction of the official Targumim. Some assert that the revision was stimulated by a missionary desire to supply the Gentile world, speaking an Aramaic dialect, with a correct rendering of the Torah, as Luzzato, supported by Rappaport, would put it.15> Others would look for its cause in the careless handling by the early Aramaic translators of the Hebrew text. rn > 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.17>

gum to th e P rop h ets, an d

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 elevation 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> 1 5)

Luzzatto, Oheb, VIII; Rapaport I. c.

16) Meor Enaim, Ch. 45. 17) Ur. 164, Nach. Schriften 4, 103; Berliner, On. 108-110. Com. Rapoport ':-"'le, nl'1JN 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.,

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 r,,rr.ii 5:iin m:i5;i) 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 I. c.; San. 5'4b; Abodah Zara 36b. (com. Maimonides t("?i1 ,:,. ;,I(,:,. ,,,o,t( nemn ,, , and Magid Mishna I. c.). In all of which the Targum undoubtedly has preserved an afterwards superseded Halaka.w > 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.sv! 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 C"l::l 1, 220.

,~n

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, contains 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. I. c.; Kid 72a, referring to 2K 18:11. Both official Targumim abound with such cases.

n,,,,n

Yawetz (',M"ll:'' 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, which was translated into Aramaic.

D1mt1zC1d by Microsoft

18

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

mentary Targum may serve as instructive illustrations. Finally, there are many inconsistencies in reference to certain principles followed in the Targum (com. groups Band C in the chapter 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 substance, 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. Targum 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.2ll 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 supposedly 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, implies 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 Eccl. r. 11, 3 from Jonathan ls. 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 authorship of the Targumim. Ingenuity must fail when one identifies the literal Aquila with the interpretative Jonathan . 21) Soferim 16, 8: M~'1ll Mt)M N',~ tN.:lT p pn,1 J:!'1 ',l) 11':-;; 1'10N r,11;N1 n,:',n ~,,o ClJ'1r,1 N'1.;,o::i ,,o', N,~ n,,nno r,nN , which is omitted in the modified version of this saying in Sukka 28a and Baba Bathra 134a; so also in N'11"1~ :!'11 n'1;N . Com. also Sifri Deut. 179: ClJ"lr, ,,,,

N•::io N'1i'O ,N'1i'O ,1,, N•::io N'1mn~ 10,0 ,MN'1'' ,o,,

. m~o ,,,; N•::io cu,n

Digitized by Microsoft®

nm,

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

111

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 limited scope. This will be discussed later. The substance was left untouched. 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 origin to the official Targumim. The same tradition which vaguely ascribed the Targurn 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 Ezra. The latter was inferred, in the name of Rab, from the interpretation of Nehemiah 8:8, according to which ~iU:lr.> carries the meaning of tmin (R. Judan, Nedarim 37a; Gen. r. }6, 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. 22 > 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 Ezra, 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.

Dmtt,zcid by M,c, osoft (I.)

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 with the Hebrew Text, which would bring home to the reflection of the hearer the established reading.23 > 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.24> 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.2~> 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 substitutes were eliminated in the official Targumim by the latter redactors, to whom, it would seem, the anthropomorphic expression 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 targumist does not hesitate to render literally such expressions 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 ClJ'lM l'l~N• N71l' becomes more sensible if interpreted to mean that the public should not suppose the Targum version to correspond to the established reading.

;,,ir,::i ::i,r,::i

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, Philosophie d. Griechen, v. 3, 11; 3, 253.

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 t(it>1t> , 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 or it>t(t> is used in the Bible, in which image t(,t>,t> 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.28 > The calls to Moses;20 > it visits, surrounds and kisses.30 > 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

,:i,

,,:i,

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; 1S 5 :7; l K 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; i47:15, 18; 148:8 i:l'I is a descriptive term for the action of God, while in 119:89 it is descriptive of the Torah. 28)

Com. Gen. r. 4, 2.

29)

Lev. r. 1, 4.

10)

Cant. r. 1 :13.

D,ntt,wd by Microsoft {i-

22

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

of a doom ed lan d ". 31) The term Nir.l'r.l, then, could not have originated in a period when it might be taken to signify a distinct God-like power. In its use in translation it would have the effect of investing the Nir.l'r.l with all activity, God being inactiveand 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 Nir.l'r.l . 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 Nir.l'r.l 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.P s '

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 meaning 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 unmistakable 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: ..• T1't i1ttll/r.l tt1n::i ,tl'J:J):J, ,,:i, l'Nl n,::in N? i1JNT1 ,::, The Targum interprets this to refer to the four Kingdoms l/JiN n,,::i,r.i 33) But referring to Rome, the version reads 'Nr.ln P~'T1ttl' 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 wic•c inserted. In Gen. 8:1 there is a complete agreement in the translation between On. and Ps, Jonathan, except that the latter has Nic•c . 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 Nic•c in the respective cases. 33)

The reading of the extant editions

n,',m1 c•:i:i,:i ,,:i,v ,,:i,,

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

23

C5t:!-',1'r.l t-tr.i,c•p l':Jl' N5, . 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 rebellion, 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.34)

,,n

IS. 28:1: •.. 0'1!:lN ,,,:it:!-' mNl nitil/ translating allegorically: N'll't:!-'15 Nl1!:lJ'lrr.l :l'i1'' 5N1t:!-''1 i1:J1 Nt:!-'!:ltl NJnl'l5 N111:J :l'i1' •1 '' n•r,n:it:!-'m t:!-'1Pr.l r,•:ii • 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).35> 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 Mattathias, 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 supposition. 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, JP 11::iJ, 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',iz,:,~n, ( Is. 3 :6) ttti, ::i.:1~, , taxation, against the Agadic interpretation to mean the Law (Chag. 14b; Gittin 43b). Com also Is. 55:5. 35) II, 628.

Com. also 8:10, 13, 26. Com. Buchanan, Charles, Apocrypha.

Dmtt12ed by Microsoft~

24

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

meant.361 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. a 7 l IS. 64:11: v:::Nnn i15N 5Vi1 is so rendered as to give vent to the general excitement of the time. It runs: n~, tt:innn p5~ 5Vi1 ~~5v iv ~J:J. i'1:::in·~, ~,v,wi5 ~::i,~ ::l'i1' ; 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 t:l'\J ,~,~~l/ ; ~'V'Wiis applied to the wicked of Israel only. I am inclined to think the allusion 1s made to the Herodian rulers rather than to the later Hasmonean rulers. The expression ~:ii~ ::l'i1' n~, 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 ascendency. There are other references to the Herodian rulers. Hos. 4:13 t:l::l'n\J:J. i1J'Jtn p 5v is rendered l'Jt~ p 5v 1~ n::i,;:::i5 pn:::ic:m n::in5::i, ~,~~v m:::i~ p:::i5 ;,~,;,, tDm:::i

N'~~v l!:l'J.

36) Com. Ant. XX, 8, 8; Pesachim 57a; Tos. Menachoth end. ,CMt!''n,~ ,', ,rn .I'm M1:i~ ,', ,,N .cM',N~ ,, 11N .c,M,:i M1:i~ ,; ,,N ,rn .,,N!l p ',Nl/~t!'' M':i~ ,', •1N : com,,v~ ,', ,,N .01,n!l M':~ ,', 1m c,io:i,n cil,,:iv, c,,:,~N cil,:Mn1 Cil•::i, c,',,iJ c•:il:i Cilt!' c!l1i;N~ ,; .M,,j::~:l C)/il MN Also Lev. r. 21, 5; Y. Yoma 1, 1: !Jt!' t!'1j;)~ ,C•Jil:: n", 1:l lt!'~t!' ilJl~N:l lt!'~t!'tl' ,,, ',)It!' llt!'Ni t!'1j:)~ N',N ••. 'e lt!'~tl' Cl!:':!,':)::l m MN m 1'~,,il Pill!' N"ll 1m~:i. ilMlN !''.ttolJ 11ilt!' ':'~· c,~,:i. 1M1N 1',,:ii:,~ ni•il', ,,rnt!' 11•:i .ilJt!' '~ p1,~il lll/~t!' Jil~l ,c•:il:: ••• l:\o:i ,ti' M1,~ 'Mt!' i::i ,,:i. n',t!'t!' inN:i. ilt!'l/~ .M1,~i'M~ Jil•M1:::, 1•il .il,i:~il r.N n•o il!::: ,,~N •.. :im ',ti' M1,~ 'Mt!' ,::i ,,:i n',i:,1 inN ,~~·, Com. Y oma 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 indignation of the people and the hatred they entertained for the Herodian dynasty.

Digitized by Microsoft ~D

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, l, 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 cohabitation 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 u,5, Cl'"WitJ:l, Cl'"l::li?::l Cl'::ltt''i1 - N'l1::l::l r::in,, p,,, Ntt'JN 'J::l 'iJ!:l c:iv, N'i::li? i!:lVr;, p::ii. 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 orthodox 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 eminence in the Great Rebellion, 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 l1'tt'Ni '::li?J o,,J;, - ,i;,i;,v 'J::l o,tti::i 1,;,,J::i o,tti pr;,,pr;, 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

Dmit,zC'd by Microsoft 0-,

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 m. As Gog is the Messianic foe of Israel, one feels that in the time of either the Great or the Bar, Kochba Rebellion, the revolutionaries, in their pious and Messianic mood, would take Rome as the prophetic J'J , 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. 5 3) 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 ... 1•n::i::i,o •ni::iNm 1::i,po 1•1:1,1:1 ,n,:,m .1::i,po TT1t::i~o, 1•5•1:1!:l -rrorn ... 1•,~::io 5:, •nc,m ,~,N ,,v -rrom The T. changes the simple meaning of the words and renders them this way:

N'OOV ,,,p '~'rt'N' .(9) p;,,:,,r,, ,,:nN, lJ':10 N'OOV m1:1,1:1 '~'rt'N\ 1,;,r,op, N'OOV 105~ '~'rt'N' .(10) N'!:l'DT1 p;,,:,,:, 5:, i'J!:lN' 11/iNO (12) 1J':l0. This is a curious rendering. The second half of v. 12 is rendered 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: Pi11 iT1NO i'tl:m, n::imo, l'tit:15 nJ,::io r,1::i i,;,,,,::i, p::icJ, p;,5 pt:1JN . 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,

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

27

horrcnce for th e p u b lican , w h o w as con sidered an outlaw , 38 >

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.39> The targumist is setting the mark on the facts against which his generation most vehemently reacted. The interpretation of the T. of Cl'N?~:i Cl1i'El'i (Is. 15 :4) t<noe •ir-iN:i J'J'JOi 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.40> I would not, however, stress this evidence. A later targumist might as well have used for exegetical purpose a current Agada. Of more historical suggestiveness is the Targum to Ze. 11, 1 nne 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. 41> Why a tar, gumist living in a generation impressed 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.

,,n;,, JiJ:i?

The Targum, however, also contains evidence pointing to a period subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem. Is. 54:1 38) Corn. B. Kama 113a, Mish.; Shah. 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) rto•l!)O ',:,,n ',:,,n : ,, '10N IN:lT p pn,, P,'1 .,: '1,1JI%' 'TV 1:::1 n,,:i, N::i,m ,::i:i, : i,n,, 'T•riv ,!l,ct:> •lN .11'T11 ,10'!IV ri•v:i~ nriN • ,":ii l'l:J? nr,e Nl'Tl/ Yorna 39b, and in Yerushalmi in a somewhat modified version, 6, 3 end.

,,,v

D,nitucd by M,crot>oft

28

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

i1?Hl:J 'J:JO i100\t:1 'J:J t:l'::11 ,::, the Targum interprets J\i1' 'JD ,,N • Nn::in, ;,o,, 'J:Jo Nn,,i. t:l'?t:i\1' 'J:J

In the same sense Is. 2:5 i1??0N t:l'J:J n::i,, i1ll:Jt:I i11?' i11i?ll 1ll is rendered in the Targum i11'1ill N1i?ll NliliN::i 1i\i11 t:l'?t:in, p j\!:llD' N'OOll 'JD N'?01 ,r.,n\ Ni11i\?J t:ll/0 N'?01i1i1 . 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 11::i 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 persecutions of the nations: N'OOll 1i1'!J l?~:lli' N'i1i1 NJ1l/:J . The reference 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 persecutions 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 'Ot:I? t:IJO ,~po t:l\PO 5::i:i, rendering: 1,::in,,i., .•. p::im,i. ?:JPN NJN 'li'l/1 1'1:Jll j\1iN1 11'!.I 5::i:i, ,'01P '::l1 l::11\P::i

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. 4 2 > Finally, the Targum to Is. 21 :9 may also be of historical contents. Here the Targum reads S:i:i ?!lO? N1'1il.l l:JN li?!lJ . The wish is here expressed for the downfall of Babylonia. This suggests an age of persecution in Babylonia against the Jews. 42) This conception has its ongm in the saying of R. Jochanan B. Zakkai: nrm~::i N•i1tz' nnN i1'1!:l:l )!', iz,, (Aboth of R. N. 4, 5). Com. saying of R. Shmuel b. Nachmani on this verse nmon z,',~:, 'i1lT (Jalqut I. c.). So saying of R. Eliezer M1!:l'1j?i10 '1l"il' (Berak. 32b). Com. Jalqut Eliezer :i-,p: c,1;1 po"n:iiz, JOT:J v"iz,:i-, ',N'1tz'' l'10N

n',~:, n,,,~

.n,i:n N~N

D•11:i

l'N ,,iz,::i;i '1!!:::no, 1:-,;, N•:io

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 established 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.431 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 Chana was right in his utterance: u.: t.:mn, ,~v ,::i, t.:5m::i pt.: ,,,, t.:5m::i. This period is implied in the Targum to Is. 28:20 CJ:ll"li1:J n,~ rocern - v'l/~ •t.:5::i::i tm,~, . t.:ii~ 'JC'

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 quern . 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. ,,,,., ,,:i ?!ll'lll' O'l!l ni1riv Yoma 17a; also Pesachim 54a: C'lB ri,::i,o, ••• oil( 1):10 0101:0 c,,:i, MJ):lll' p:i, i:r, ?l!ll'I 1r,r,. There is a striking parallel interpretation in Ps. Jonathan Gen. 15:12 referring n',t>) to Persia: •• 1orio, N!l'i'T :,', r,,',, ',i,10', Ni•riv, or in the version of the Frag. N?l ',er,', Ni1rii:i N10'lB1 Nm::i;r, N'M NM"! 110',11 10',11', no,pr, :,', 111:,r, . 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. r. 44, 2), on which this interpretation is based, n'?!l) is referred to Edom with the parenthetic note: ',:i,:i, H 11 ?J) l'l?!ll) I' !);MOil' !%'' 1 ;:i,:i, M?!l) :,;!)) n:i n:i I ri::i, . 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 l'l?!l) 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.

'IQ1tized by Microsoft

30

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

are pointing to a pre, D estruction date, som e to a period im m ediately follow ing th e D estruction , som e, again, to a still later period. B ut th ey do not lead to contradicting results. T he evidence dem onstrates in a m ost excellent m anner the progressive com position of th e T argu m un til it assum ed its present form . D uring this lon g tim e, th e T argu m w as subm itted to changes of different natu res, w h en finally, before the A rabic invasion of B abylonia, it w as indorsed in th e shape in w hich it has com e dow n to us. We

shall

now

devote

our

attention

th e relation betw een the official T argum im .

to

a

study

of

T here is a con,

spicuous affinity betw een O n kelos and Jonathan. M ost of the early w riters on th is subject w ere struck by it but failed to realize its extent, w h ich consequ ently lead them to different con , clu sions. So, w h ile D e R ossi and H erzfeld w ere certain that O nkelos knew th e T argu m to the P roph ets, Z unz took the view that Jonathan had O nkelos before him , w hom he quoted in Judges 5:26; 2 K ings 14:6; Jerem . 48:46.44> Herzfeld would

consider all these citations as later interpolations. 4;; > 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 general 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 )'~~, Pin Targum Cl'~~, ~j.)Ii. So Onkelos Deut. 3 i :7. Ps. Jon. 5nnn~, 5vm'~. ib. 1 :9 nnn Ps. Jon. y,•nn . 44)

G. V. I. 45)

~~

Targum

,Jnn .

So Onk. Deut. 31 :8.

De Rossi Meor Enaim I. c.; Herzfeld, Geschichte I. c.; Zunz, C.

L

C.

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

31

ib. 3:13 .•. 1J 11011,, Targum N::li,11. So Onk. of Cl't:l nen (Gen. 21:14, 15, 19). Ps. Jon N't:l1 l'i''f. In Exod. 15:8 1J ir.i::, tlYJ Onk. ,,~::, 1t:li' . Ps. Jon. Ni''f . The Targum to Psalms 33:7; 78:13 is Ni''f ib. 7:21 11/J~ ni1N Targum ,5::,::,1 ,,~YN. So Onk. Gen. 14: 1. Ps. Jon. ci~JH:> . ib. 10:26 Cl'llll ;,~r.in 511 c,n,, Targum Nn::,,5y. So Onk. Lev. 40:19; Deut. 21 :22, 23. Ps. Jon. NC'i' . ib. 12:5; 13:13 ,n::,vr.im Targum c,,,p,!:lN1. So Onk. Deut. 3:14. Ps. Jon. 01,,p,~JN 46>. ib. 13:3 N1i1 5Ni~, 'i1?N m;,, ,i15nJ i1~t:l tru N5 ,,, ~:i~,, on5MJ Targum j1i1nJCnN 5Ni~·, 'i1?N ,, j1i15 ::,;,, ,, pnr.i . Also Ezek. 44:28 cmnN 'JN 5N1tu':i Ci15 unn N5 i1tnN1 Targum p;,nJtmN liJ'N p;,5 n':li1'1 pnr.i . This is the rendering by Onk. of Deut. 18:2 in5nJ N1i1 'i1. But Ps. Jon. Nm:li11t:l l/:!1N1 c,,~ll .NnJ1i1:J1 ib. 14:4 tli1'~1)t:l1 Targum l1i1'M111. Also Ezek. 45 :2; 48:17. So Onk. Lev. 25:34; Num. 35:2, 3, 4. Ps. Jon. J'?11D.

ib. 20:1 ~5pr.i '1ll Targum Nn1:lf'~ ,,,p. So Onk. Num. 35:6, 11, 13. Ps. Jon. t5~pi ,,,p. ib. 20:5, 9 tl1i1 ?NJ Targum Nr.ii ?N). So Onk. Num. 35:19, 21, 24, 25; Deut. 19:6. But Ps. Jon. Nt:l1 11:in. ib. 20:5 nvi ,5::,::, ,::, Targum i1'l/1t:l N5:i ,,N. So Onk. Deut. 19:4. Ps. Jon. 1,1::,nr.i N5:i. ib. 23:16 ••. n,nr.i cn,:iN1 Targum Nl/1N ?l/t:l l/'1D:i i,,:i,m Nn:i~. So Onk .. Deut. 11:17. Ps. Jon. ,,,,vr.i N':!1i11C:i 111:im . Nn::,~r., Nl/1N

Judges 5 :8 c,~,n c•n5N 15 in::,, Targum 'J:l 111,,nN ,:i i,nnn:iN tin::, 1pc11n'N N5i Ni,::,11 :iipr.ii trnn Nn1l/~5 n5tir.i5 5N,~' Onk. to Deut. 32:17 ... 1N::i :iiiDr.i c,~,n c,v,, N5 Cl'i1?N Rendering: pJn,n 11::,nn::iN p;,::, 1DClln'N N5 ,,,:ivnN ::,,,pr.ii trrm 15n, Fragmentary p::,nn:iN p;,::, 11::,1,N N?1 111:inN 111::, Jr.i. Com. Sifri I. c. and Friedmann On. and Ak., p. 65. 18. 13:12 DDNnN1 Targum n,;onnNi. So Onk. Gen. 45,1. Ps. Jon. Ni:iicr.i5 . 46) Kohut's suggestion on these renderings will only serve the point in question.

Digltlwd by Mici'O soft

(Aruch

01,,j:)!lll)

"-:J.

32

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS ib . 15 :7 ,,~· T argu m

• ;,~i;,n

KiJn

So O n k. G en . 2 5: 18 . P s. Jon .

n

4

ib. 23 :22 iJ,::,m Targum Ps. Jon. 1m,1,, .K"'.:>-iii::ll11'\i.

iJ'imKi.

So Onk. Exod. 16:4. 47l

l K. 18:28; 5:16 ,,,m,, Targum lr.ir.innKi. Also Jerem. 47:15. So Onk. Deut. 14:1. Ps. Jon. J'::l'it!'::l piim K?. 2K. 5:16 i::i i~!:l,, Targum il'::l ;i'Pl1Ki. So Onk. Gen. 19:3. Ps. Jon. D"!:l . ib. 5: 19 r·iK m::i.::i Targum 'KViK ::i.11::i • So Onk. Gen. 35:16; 48:7. Ps. Jon in former: V::liK::l Kl1??V Jlit!'K 'VJ'D in latter: KViK 'VJ'C. ib. 6: 18 tl'iiJD::l o::i•i Targum Ki'i::l~::l 19:11. Ps. Jon. K'ili1nn::i.. Frag. i1'i::l1i1::l.

So Onk. Gen.

ib. 16:6 ;,~J'l Targum 1'il1l. So Onk. Deut. 7:22. Ps. Jon.

,;,;,,

.

ib. 18:32 ~::i.,, l1'T l'iK Targum Knt!'r.i 1'1::lV Ki1l1'!1 KViK t!'::l1 K1::lV K'ill . So Onk. Deut. 8:8. Ps. Jon !'1::lV Kl1"ir.lil1 tr.ii • t!':11 ib. 21:6 tl'Jl/1', ::llK ilt!'lli ~m, JJU/l Targum ,:iv, t!"nJi l'JVl li'::lli 1'1'::l . So Onk. Lev. 19:26; 20:6; Deut. 18:10, 14. Ps. Jon. i'J'V ,,,nK. ib. 23:25 l1Kr.l ;,::i::i.i Targum 'i11D:JJ ;,::i::i.,. So Onk. Deut. 6:5. Ps. Jon. ti::iJlr.lr.l ;,::i::i.. IS. 3 :20 m,v~;, Targum K'?Ji 'i't!'i. So Onk. Num. 31 :50 l'i'C' . Ps. Jon. Jli1'J1U( fr., K't!''1P. Jerem. 7 :24 etc. o::i.;, miit::'::l Targum Jlil::l? iiiliil::l. So Onk. Deut. 29:18. Ps. Jon. t!'':l Ki~' mnrc. Ezek. 12:7, 8, 12 iltl?V Targum K?::lP. So Onk. Gen. 15:17. Ps. Jon. ·Kt:lr.im. Gen. r. 45, 9 Kl1tl't.:lK. 47) Ps. Jun. agrees with On. and Jon. 111 Gen. 16:7; 20:1. Onkelos renders ,,,. J':l !!tip y,::,. (ibid 16:14) NiJn l'Jl Cj:)1 1•: presumably influenced by 20:1 111!' 1 •:::.1 !!'1i' 1 •::,.. 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 rendering also of 111!' in 16:7; 20:1 was i1:i1'?n as in 28:18, in which the Fragmentary concurs. Evidence for this is presented in Gen. r. 45, 9: i1:il'm, n11N::,. ,c,r.m l'l,' ',l). Also Ps. Jon. to Exod. 15:22. Gronemanri's (Pent. Uber., p. 20) argument on this is thus a miscalculation.

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

33

,,v

ib. 20:39 ,55nn II(? •t:•ip ow nl:(, Targum p5nn 11(5. So Onk. Exod. 20:22; Lev. 21:6, 12! 15; 22:32. Ps. Jon. 1,0:in But ,55m o•r.i,:i ll/t:>J (Jer. 31 :4) ,5•nl:(, • So Onk. Deut. 20:6. Ps. Jon. i1'P1l:l. ib. 28:13 i1:l~'' Cli1W t:·•~,n Cl?i1'' i11t:>!:l 0111( Targum !'1J1r.lTI:( r•r::it:· pi•mn, 11(5,,:i, l:(r.,• o,,:i o5;,::io, JP1' JPr.io . So Onk. Exod. 28:17, 18, 19, 20. But not so Ps. Jon. and F. Joel 2:i3 ,on :ii, Cl'!:ll:( 1111( Targum ,::ivr.i5 'Jor.i, Di p•n,') nae • So Onk. Exod. 34:6. Ps. Jon. ,on ... nn 1111(. These cases are of special interest also for determining the nature of the relation between Onkelos and the non-official Targumim. 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, differing 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,-10> 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/iOJ 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 VJ1::l ~'1Pt-'Targum ill:('J ClP1 So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Num. 32:8 etc. ib. 12:2 P::l'i1 Targum l:(j:l::l''. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 32:23; Num. 21:24 etc.

,v,

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 profanation of the land and temple Nt:l~N is employed. 49) Z. D. M. G., v. 28, 60-63. 50) Frankel's Monatschrift, 1857, 101 et seq. Gronemann (Pent. Uberseta., p. 8, note) also thinks that the Fragmentary and Ps. Jon., especially the latter, have expanded ~nkelos.

Diqitized by Microsoft

34

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

ib . 11:2 ; 12 :3 nnI::, Targurn ntmu . So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Num. 34:11 etc. ib. 12:8; 10:13, 20 n1it!IN Targum Nnt.:m:i 1nt!lr.:i. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Deut. 4:49.

Judges 1 :6 'J'P ,J:1' Targum i1Nr.l?t!I 'J:i.1. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 15:19 and Frag. Num. 24:21, 22. ib. 3 :8 c,,,;,., :::1N Targum me ~V ,, CiN . So Onk. a11.J l's Jon. Gen. 24:10. ib 17:5, 12 ,, n~ Targum 1:i.;p n, :,.,;pi. So Ouk. . 11,c l's. Jon. Exod, 28:41.

N,~,,

1S 19:13, 16 c•n,n Turgum N'Jt::15~ Su Onk. and Ps J,111. Gen. 31: 19, 34, 35. 2S 1:19 5Nirt'' ,:,.~;, Targum i1inl/nN. So On. Exod. 33:21 n:i.1rn - ;nvnm. Ps. Jon. ;nvr.:i ,;,n, . Also Deut. 29:9. lK 11 :36; 15 :4 i'J n,,;, lllr.l? Targum i::i5r.:i. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Num. 21 :30 Ci'J1 • 2K 3:13 .. .?N ?Nit!!' 15r.:i5 ir.lN'1 Targum ,v:,.:,.. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 19:7, 18. ib. 5 :21 ;,:i.::iir.:ii1 511r.:i Targum J'::iinNi So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 24:64. ib. 19:37 ~iiN l'iN Targum 1iiD Nl/iN5. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 8:4. (Ps. Jon. 11iiPi) :II) .

,n,,

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 nr.:,, ?N1 1:i.,Ni ,n, - NJ'Jn Nmr.:i, Nr.:i5ll "M:i. t:i.1Ni 'M'

n,r.:,, N? ; Frag.: i1:i.i NJ'Jn NJmr.:i:i. n,r.:,, N?1 Nr.:i511:i. 1:i.1Ni ,n, N'll'rt'i ,n,r.:,. ?Nr.lt!-'1 pr.:,, indicating direction (Is. 9:19; Ezek. 21 :21; Zech. 12 :6) are rendered by NJ1nli Nr.l1ii • So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 13:9. Is. 14:9 C'Nni Targum l'i:i.l. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 15 :20. Chayjoth in n,p:,. nilN :12> has brought to notice the remarkable change in the rendering of c,;:,.y by Onk. Everywhere in Gen. it is rendered 'Ni:i.l/ but beginning with Exod. 'Ni1i1' 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.

fl.)

Page 8.

Digitized by Microsoft
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

35

it.:ilK CiK l'K ,1t.:IW 511 l'KivJ 1'MK 5::, l'i1' 'KMl' j:J Jll/t.:lW ,, it.:iK ,KJK '1lil' K5K KJK 'Jlllt.:lW ,KJK 'J:JlK1 In that Ps. Jon., with a single exception, agrees. (Gen. 43:32). But Exod. 21:2,i::,111::,11 ilJPI'l ,::, and Deut. 15:20; 13:12 il'i:Jl/il lK '1:Jllil 1'MK 15 i::,r.,, ,::, both Onk. and Ps. Jon. have 5Kiw, i:i in order, it would appear, to avoid the rnisinterpretation: the slave of an Israelite (com. Mechilta I. c.). Jonathan as a rule renders c,i::,11 - 'K1lil' 1S 13:3, 17; 14:11, 21; Jonah 1, 9. But Jerem. 34:9 (also 14) mnow I'lK W'Kl n:i11 I'lK W'K n5:!15 i1'1:Jl/ill '1:Jl/il • The T. follows Onk. and Ps. Jon. rendering 5K1W' J"l:Jl 5Kiw, ,:i Kn5w5 • Zech. 12:8 C'i15K::i ,,,, I'l':Jl Targum p:ii:ii::,. So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Gen. 6:4 C'i15Ki1 'J:J - K':J1:J1. This comparative list 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 unimportant 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 revision. The inference will yield the only possible conclusion that there was a common source for the official Targurnim. 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.:13) The official Targumim are the work of genera, 53) This view is held by most scholars. "Sie verdanken nicht der Wissenschaft sondern dem Relig. Bediirfnisse" (Frankel, Vorstudien,

D,attizcd by·M1crosoff(1,)

-f,

36

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

tions. T hey w ere form ed and reform ed through m any centuries, gradually, invisibly . T hey w ere not a new attem pt, supplanted none, but are the contin uation of th e T argum im used in the service. H ence also th e rem arkable balan ce betw een the paraphrastie and literal so skillfully m aintain ed in th e official T argum im . T h at form ed a necessary con dition w ith th e regulations of the reading in early as in later ages. T he Lxx assum ed th e sam e course.

T h ere w as sought an

exact rendering, a sim ple and groun d understanding, as close to the original as possible. L iteraln ess w as insisted upon and expository ren derin g w ould on ly be tolerated in difficult or poetical passages, or w h ere th e dan ger of a m isinterpretation had to be averted. I com p letely disagree w ith Z unz, G eiger, B acher 54 > 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.Pv? 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. XIII; Geiger, Urschrift, 160; Konig, Einleitung, 103. 54) Zunz, G. V., 344; Geiger, Ur., 425. Com. Frankel, Ober d. Zeit ctc., Ver. Deut. Orient, 1845, 13. Bacher ib. 64, after asserting 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. Deur. 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.

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 renderings of certain targumists, which are found in Ps. Jonathan. Because they are 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 pr.iJirir.i, p5N, 56> clearly signifies the existence of another Targum upon which these new Targumim had attempted to encroach. 57> 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 the 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 recognized 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.58 > This 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.59> There is sufficient evidence in support of the view that Hebrew had not 56) Y. Berakoth 'i, 3: 1,11, no:, ?N1='' ,,:ii NOV poJi.rio, 11,1111 1110=-::i Jon,. The other citation in Megilla 25a reads: triri 11', 1vim1 ,0111n 1',o', which carries the same implication. 57) Com. Z. Chajoth on Megilla 2'ia. 58) It is interesting to note that later tradition also assigns to the Targum to Pent. an earlier date. Com. Sifri beginning n:ii::in MNll • Com. Maimonidas :ii ,il?!lM '',n : CV? J0Ji1r, c=- NM'=' 1Ji'M il1TV r,,010 n,1.r,::i N11i' N11i'M=' no ; of the T. to the Prophets he proceeds only to repeat the regulations appearing in the Mishna. 'i9) Com. Kautzsch Gram. d. Biblisch-Ararn., p. 4.

D,attized by Microsoft

38

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

on ly been w ell un d erstood in P alestin e in the tim e of E zra and N eh em aia, bu t th at it had been th e vern acular ton gue. 60> 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 Maccabean 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, en> 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 Ezra, accepts the genial but useless theory put forward by De Rossi (I. 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, c•~1'1MN? 11'1~1 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 ov erlook 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 Ezra (com. Neubauer, Aus Petersburger Bibliothek, 7. 14); Abudraham placed its origin in the persecutions of Antiochus. But whatever cause one may unearth (com. Buchler 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 Buchler that the introduction of the reading of the Pentateuch 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 Buchler attributes the origin of both the Pentateuchal

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

89

of the Law, the necessity of an Aramaic translation of the Law might have been earlier 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 pi;, 1~, • i1iU1i1 I"IN'ii' inN5 1"1.JW

,w

N'JJ,

,,c

5:i 1"1\i'1J'm tl'WJ51

r..11,

tlJi1"15

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 i1Ni1i1 i1'J'~ Ni'DJ N5i • Again in Mishna 25a; Tosefta 4 (3); Y. Meg. 4, 11 a list of passages both from the Law and the Prophets is given which were not to be translated. Both were not considered obligatory, so that their omission in the service would not call for repetition, as it is made clear in Y. Meg. 4, 6 .Ji i~1N ~J:Jll~ ti,Ji1"1i11 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 sufficient 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.

D,ntt,zcd by M,crosoft<J

40

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

.rnn pr.i.i,nr.i t{;,1 l't{iP1 t{n')lm;, l'P:J) p::i, l''r.in pt{, nr.i i~ ii.:1• ::i:ivr.i cmnn i'~~ i1ir.lt{ . This is in substance implied in the saying of R. Chalafta b. Saul, Meg. 24a, as interpreted in Tosafoth 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.62> 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::,,,,::,,, ,n'n,r, "m ,n:tz'o c,o::i :n,n N',:z> Mki:, l'JV i•t:ito :,,:, ink ',::i N?N c,•n ,:m::i niv1:i;, rrrueen 101 1niN::: en, Mtz'i!l', cn,lio Nlo1t2' 1', nN,:?2'. The same may be applied to the reading of the Law. Only the reading on the festivals, including the New Moon, Purim and Chanuka, the Four Shabbaths, Maamodoth and days of fasting, are indicated (Babli, Meg. Mish. 30b; Y. Mish. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). There is no hint of a definite Sabbatical reading. The words tiic::i', l '"1llM (Y. Meg. 3, 5, 7; Babli 29a, 31a) should not be taken literally. The interpretation of R. Ami and Jeremia Meg. 30b refers to a time when there was a definite reading both from the Law and P. Had there been definite portions for the Sabbatical readings from the Law, there would certainly be also a definite selection of parallel Prophetical readings. There could be no reason why there should be a discrimination against the Prophetical reading. I am fully convinced that there existed a definite Prophetical reading for each festival enumerated in the Mishna. It is true, that in both Y. and B. the reading from the Law is given while no mention is made of the Prophetical readings. But the Tosefto, while registering for the festival only the readings from the Law, is, however, indicating for the Four Sabbaths the Prophetical readings side by side with the reading from the Law. If there had existed definite Prophetical readings for the Four Sabbaths, there had certainly been definite Prophetical readings for the more important festivals, and yet no mention of them is made in the Tosefto. The reason may be simple: it mentions

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

41

in humanity, as in the universe, tends to shape. It had become necessary to lay down certain rules to regulate the translation. How is the verb or adjective of a collective noun to be rendered: in singular, as in original, or in the plural? Is the literal sense to be considered or the implied meaning? How about the anthropomorphic expressions, shall they be rendered literally to the annoyance of the worshippers or explained away, and how? There are passages involving a Halakic interpretation of great importance, or a controversial point between the parties; shall such passages be left over to the intelligence of the reader, who might not be trained in the Halaka? A way of rendering had to be early devised, which the reader was to follow. The first attempts at uniformity were directed towards single phrases or words. Gradually they spread to include the less dangerous regions. The Rabbis, by concerted authority at each time, were responsible for the change. An excellent illustration is furnished us in Y. Meg. 4, 1 and Bik. 3, 4. In one case it is the rendering of ~J~ (Deut. 26:2). The targumist rendered ~J~, but R. Jona, holding it to be improper to present the first {ruits in any other receptacle than a basket, objected to this rendering and insisted upon the rendering of ~5c, , as the Targumim to the Pent. have it. Another case was rm,~ (Exod. 12:8), which the targumist rendered !JH'i' Cl/ )'i'~.!:l ; the rendering tm,,, being

c,,,,~,

the more important, the Pentateuchal reading. The same may be said of the Mishna also. But we know that there were no definite Prophetical readings for the Sabbath. The Mishna points out certain portions from the Prophets which are not to be read. Y. Meg. 4, 11 1rn~1u ,,, : n::i::i,c Y. Meg. 4, 12; Babli 25a, while according to R. Eliezerc1',eo1,, MK 31i1i"l::i (Ez. 16) should not be read. Had the passages represented a definite Sabbatical reading, a substitute 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 Buchler 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 Sabbatical readings had been introduced.

Dimtized by Microsoft

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 ;m, 'J:1' tl'iH1 (Lev. 5 :7), and R. Pineas would not allow to render tl'i"1 by l'~'t:l!3. 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, 133 > the process of transformation had been still going on to a comparatively late date. It affected both the literal and exegetical rendering. Some older exegetical renderings 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 ,~ c,Jir, 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 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 different 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. 64 >

'~ ,~o

63) Com. R. Akiba's homily on Zek. 12:l (Moed Katan 28a), whcih shows that R. Akiba knew the Targurn to this verse. Com. R. Jehuda 's saying referred to above; also Beraitha Baba Kama 17a l:)'JN tlll'II', Cll!''JII' , IJ!l'J lN:illl' r,1,:,1 ,,o tllj.)ltl tit ,rim:i ,, ltl?l/ ,,:i:n .p lll'l/ :lNMN IJ!)', N,n, ,MIOMJ ',"N .rrnn: ,, 1,:i, .i:iri:i l:ii',n

64) Com. Zunz, G. V. 80: U!lO l!'li!lo i,1in1 Cll':i i,',',t :i,n Nm ,,~11!li ,,,,~ 'll'ii1 'iri ,:i,:io,. Com. also Rashi, Ezek. 27:17: c:1,ri 1m,, c,:1,ri w,po:i Nmll' 1riNm Pl/OIi'

1 ,

1!lo ••• ll'lM ,, ,~n:i JJ!ll ri1Jo ,~n

.1m',j.)1 N',1!'1M1 10',11'1i1

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

43

The same can be said of the selection of words in the rendering. 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 scrupulous 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 ,r.ilinr.i, n,t(, ,l,5!:l ,t("' ,t("t:l ,t("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 it(:l n,11::i Targum ... n,v:i ; ~"5-itii,r.i. So is the T. of 1l ,v:i(ib. 11:17; 12:7) 'r.iin ,v:i (Jud. 3:3) ,r.in n,v:i (Jud. 20:33) etc. Judges 6:38 5!:lt:lil

Targum ~JD5

Digitized by Microsoft

44

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

(ib. 5 :25) T argu m

K'i:lJ ,5,n ::i.

T h e latter is th e rendering of

nv::iv (Is. 51:17, 22).

So is rendered r.,c:,:i mJJv (Num. 7:13) in Ps. Jon.; Onk. Knt:1Jt.:1. Judges 8:21 Cl'Jiiltt'il Targum N'i'JJJ ; in Is. 3:18 it is rendered by N':l:lO. The latter is given to Judges by N"5 in Cod. Reuch. is. 19:13, 16; Ez. 21:26; Za. 10:2 Cl'!:lin Targum N'Jt.:I?~. Judges 18:17, 18, 20 J'Nt.:11 while N"? has N~':llJ. ib. 16 Cl'llJil i':l:l1 Targum N'l'l/1 K1Dl . But N"5 has K:lJlJl. This is the rendering of 1::i:it.:1::i (2K 8:15) connected with i':l:l • Com. Kimchi 1. c. lK 22 :49 tt''tt>in Targum Ki''i!lK. So Jer. 10:9; Jonah 1 :3. But Is. 2:16; 23:1, 14; Ezek. 27:12 KO'. 2K 5 :2 3 Cl'~in Targum Cl't:11?!:I. Is. 3 :22 K,:int.:1 . Jerem. 31 :28 Cli1'5JJ 'n1i'tt' itt>K:i Targum n::itt1n1 i1t.:1:i ; in the second half 1i'tt>K 1:i Targum 'it.:l't.:1 ,,n, 1:i . The same was certainly the rendering of ,n,vtt> itt>K:l which is found in N"t:I· Here is a case of a rejected Anthropomorphism of a latter time. Ezek. 27:6 c-rc Targum N'?1::iN or N'?~'N. Everywhere else it is rendered 'Nn:i (Is. 23:1 etc.). Ezek, 27: 21 i1i' Targum ~:iJ. Otherwise 'NJiJJ(ls. 21:16, 17; 42:11; 60:7. So T. to Ps. 120:5.). Ezek. 27:23 l1lJ Targum :i,,n . This is the rendering of IJ:ltt'N (Jerem. 51 :27). Ezek, 40:19 nnnnnn Targum ilNlJ'~t.:I ; 't.:i1n'N - ilNJJiN So is the rendering of ilJmnn;, in v. 18. Ezek. 45:2; 48:17 Clil'tt'iJt.:11-l1iPmi1 .lb. 27:28 T. N'1i!3 As Ps. Jon. and F. Lev. 25:34. On. mi 5vm. Am. 2:7; Is. 47:6 55n5 Targum Nt:l!:IN?. So Ps. Jon. Exod. 20:25. Is. 48:41; Ezek. 20:39 Targum ti5nr,. But 't.:IJint.:11 n'N Am. 1. C. N5nN5 . Com. further Kimchi Ezek. 40:16. To these cases may be added the following cases, which Cod. Reuch. is at variance with the extant Targum, the latter being supported by N"5 . Jerem. 17:7 m~::it.:1 Targum il'1lJt:1::i ; N"5 - il'J~m,. So in extant T. Ez. 9:10 ci:i,, Targum i'il':nn ; N"5 - l'il'ni1N; in the extant T. j1il'ni1N nm1,1!:J .

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

45

Micah 3: 11 iJVt.:1' Targum PY'ni ; N"5 - j'.::iono~. So in the extant T. Cases in which the marginal variations follow the Ps. Jon.: Jud. 8:11 iwJ5o Targum i1'I1Jin5, ; N"5 - ;,,m,,,n,. So Ps. Jon. Gen. 22 :24, Onk. agreeing with Jon. IK 4:6 I1':li1 Targum NI1':l ; N"5 - imili'. So Ps. Jon. Num. 22:18; 24:13. On. follows Jon. Other cases of variants: Joshua 9:5 o,,ipJ Targum !'JO':, ; N"5' - l'WH:l'l/. Jud. 3:19 o,,,c:,e Targum N':JYno ; N"5 - N'ilt'J. lS 24:8 l/ow,, Targum t:l"!:ll ; N"5 - 5it!''. lS 30:16 b'W~J Targum l'W'~i; N"5 - l't:li9. 2S 18:14 0'~:lW Targum j't:lt:l'J ymaovt ; N"5- l'':,Ji5 IS. 3:23 0'Jl'?Ji1 Targum Nn'tnO ; N"5 - N'i?i'90N. the Greek 0'31:fXA<XQLOV Lat. specularia. Here is presented a case, where seemingly a Greek word was replaced by its Aramaic equivalent. The same was the case with Onkelos. Bacher (ib.) has made this point ~lear by a comparison between Onk. and Ps. Jon. and the Frag. That 1s true to some extent also of Jon., which is demonstrated in the Greek and its Aramaic substitute of Oi1'WiJoi cited above. Still, Jonathan appears to have been more immune to such an attempt than even Ps. Jonathan. Here is an instructive case: 5pw (Ez, 4:10) is rendered by the Greek t:l?'!:l cp6U~ while all-Onk., Ps. Jon. and Frag.-render it by .v5o (Num. 7:13 etc.). IS. 51:17 r,,yo Targum I1'il/N; N"t:1 - r,,yo. Ez, 44:20 tioc:,:,, oic:,:, Targum Jli!:lt:I' Ni!:lt:I ; N"t:I - Noc:,:, 1100::,,. Two cases, one in N"t:1 , the other in N"5 , vary with Jon. in anthropomorphisms: '?N (Jerem. 31 :38) T. ,n,5 ; N"t:1-'iO'O? 'I11N (ib. 16:11) T. ,r,,; N"5 - 'Jn5i!:l5. These cases and the case of Jerem. 31:27 cited above reinforce the view set forth above that later usage eliminated some anthropomorphic substitutes from the T. The following are cases of variations found in the Talmud and Midrash. Joshua 16:8 i15lt' I1JNI1 Targum i15W I1JNI1 . Y. Meg. 1, 12 i1?'ttti i1'!:ll:>t:l'N •

Dmittzed by Microsoft

46

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS IS . 25:6 ,n5 i1 .:J Dnir.iKl T argu m 1"n5 1'1.:J.

Nr.l"i').

Y . San . 2, 4

So Onk. and Ps. Jon. Deut. 4:4.

IS. 21: 13 .'.liV.'.l ~~~ Targum tl\51 tl.:J 5m"J. Y. Taanith 4, 5 .'.liV.'.l .'.li 5mr.i • IS. 21 :5 n,!:l~i1 i1:::!':. 1n5t:1i1 1iV Targum lr.l'i'~ l'ilnl:l rnc ~n.:i,o • Gen. r. 63, 9 ~ni.Jr.i i1D ~ilnl:l i1D and in Cant. r. ,ni.'.lV~ tlvr.i.:i ,lne!'r.i .~:i,-:.,.:i np5,~ .~ni:ir.i nr.,,p~ ,Kilnl:l rrno ~n,.:i5r.i 15.'.li' - pr.,. They agree with Jon. only in the rendering of tn5~i1 1iV . The citation from Cant. r. contains two recensions . The rendering ~.;,-:.1.:i np'.ii~ agrees with Cod. Reuch. and is identical with the marginal note headed ~li' 'Jin. Psichta Lamentation r. on Is. 22:1, 2 nm5 15.:i n'5V ,.:, - i1l')V i1'ii' ; ~n.'.l.'.lil/r.l ~mp - i1'r.lli1 i'V ; pi15 i'i')D ~iJ'K)1 ,m,.:i, DP ,.'.l.'.li\Vr.i ti,, - i1.:Jl.:ir.i, i1Dl:::!r.ll i1r.imr.i ; srnn i1'ii' • K':J.'.l1 Dl' But T. .?ltlPl ~t:•,nKl C!l'Ji tl1' 'iK ,;,~,n ~:li.:J ,Knn.'.le!I~ KniP ib. IS. 22 :8

rrnn- 1or.i 5J'l - ~o:i, ~,;,; Targum 1'1"5Jl

rrncco . ib. on Ez. 24:6 i1.'.l i1nK'.in it:':-: i'D t:l'r.l1i1 i'V 'lt{ ; i1\1J fr.l nPl:lJ ~5 i1n't:'lt:':::!nl ,i1llJ.'.l t:l'r.l1 D::::t:-'1 ~nii'1 ~r.li' fr.l 'l~ ~nii' 5v ,, Targum mr.ir.i nK':.' :-:5 ;,n~5m - i1llJ.'.l i1n'C!l't:'l:ln1 • .i1'.Jr.i nvl:lJ t{5 i1'nr.lli1'Tl i1'.'.l i1'nr.im'n ~i11.:i t{'i11 , ,~:ir o, ,,::.·Ki Cant. r. 1: 1 on Am. 8:3 5:J'i1 mi::' ,5,5m - K5:J'i11 mn.:i::• ; Targum Kir.ll ~5n . Y. Shabbath 6, 4 on IS. 29:1 5~,i~ )K'i~ '1i1-~i.'.lJ K'iK ~'i~ Targum ~n.:i,r.i .~n.:i,r.i . Cant. r. 'ni.'.lVt!' tlVr.i.:i on IS. 47:2 5.'.llt:' '::::t:•n - ~n5.:iio ,;::,5p Kii1J1 ; Targum 1'Jltl5t:' 'i.'.lnK.

Koheleth r. i1r.i:in i1.'.lltl on 2K 18:16 mmlKi1 n:-:, - ~'i1 ;,r., ~ n1Jr.l\Ki1 Targum .K':lli'D Lev. r. 4: 1 on Is. 1 :21 o,n-:.ir.i ;,nv, - ~')ltli' l'1'JV . Jon. t~.i:i ')ltli'. Shochar Tob 32, 2 (com. Y. San. 10, 1) on Mi. 7:8 l/~.!:l 5v - p.:im ,::•:i,~, . Jon. i'.'.lln 5v i.'.ll/r.ll.

. K'iJ'~ l'ir.l~ fj.'.lil ~'i!:l'':. ir.l~ 'l) '.'.l

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

Digitized by Microsoft®

47

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

is in Frag. Deut. 32:1: J1:l'J'll N'OW? 1?1t:l 10N1 tt'1DO N1i1 pi • ,,:in Nwi::i,:i Nl11N1 1'00' NJJn:i N'OW ,,N Nl11N? ,,:inoN, The rendering in Jon. is as follows: i5:inoN1 1,:i,J,31 N'OW? 1D'Pf N'?.J1 Nnio:i:i Nl11N1 p NJJnJ N•ow '1N Nl11N.J ,,:in p The rendering in the F. is literal. We cannot determine

v,,o

,,v, ,,v,

v,,o

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:

~ ::in:i::i 5:ino•w N'i1 no rrnru N11P? Cline N1i1W ,o 1J1::i, u,o,, ,re 1::i rrnn- ', ,oN .::in:i::i ,:inon, ,ioN clinon 1J1ni::i, 1Jw 1::i ?ll ,:, ; N1i'Oi1 ,,n - i1?Ni1 c,,::i,n nN ,, :in:, : N1i1 N?O N1PO .ne 5v::i 1n•Jw cu,nn ,,n - i1?Ni1 c,,::i,n ,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 wnte 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

m:i : cn,o,::i n::i,n:i n:i,n ,::i, nn,n N5w n,wn n~lo ~PJ ,:m, ; n•wn n?lOO rin nnN n,N ,,,DN also Taanith 12a. He takes the view that the Targum had not been allowed to be written down. Commenting on the Mishna Shabbath 11 5a he says:

,"ev, ,l'N'JJN N?1 'NP 1•::iin::iN 10ND1 1,w, ,:i::i 'Ni11 ,w,D ,n,::i,, 1::i 1m,,::i iJ,~ow 'JDC 'JN no,,o, .m-» i'J1ll~ i,w, 5:i::i 1,::i,n:iw 10N CN ,C'N'.JJJ ~N ,o,N 'JN1 ,1.J l'W1DO rn cu,n ,,oNW ?N'f1ll 10N1 lN01 i1?)0 'oo::i W1DO ,:,n, ,::in::in, 1JnJ N?1 ,:in:, N? 1m,, • 10N 1i1?1.JJ 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 himself 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

D1a,tuod by Microsoft Ci

48

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

H agiograph a, as accord in g to th e interp retation of the G em arah they

on ly

differ

on

th e

view

of

th ose

who

proh ibit

th e

reading from a w ritten T argu m . R ash i, how ever, m akes cap ital of th e expression in th e B ab li M eg . 3a lir.l~ iJi1 "i'JlK as does

Luzzatto (0. G. IX). But as the saying of R. Jcremia is also quoted in the Y crushalmi, it is just as well to take lir.lK as an innocent substitute for ClJin of the Y erushalmi 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; Babli Sb rnnn ~5 Cl'il::DJ ;i~ n'Jl' K;,~ 1Jn.:J't!'. Dut there arc the r:i,r.,:,n (ib. and Shab. 11 5b) who differ with him, and as it is said in Sofcrim 1 5 ,2 Jn::i5 ri-nn ~:=, t:l'i:lDJ ;iKt!' ?~'?r.l) iJ llJJr.lt!' !Ji ir.lKto 'S ?)) ;iK i1'i1t!' (?~'?r.lJ !Ji) J"Jt;,i::J m.:•vr., rn:Kt.:' c::•r.,:,n 15 rnn K:i ,n'Jl' ~5K ,s ?JJ ;i~, t:-'ili'i1 ,:in:, 5:, nr.i~t.:· Cli1'iJiJ lir.lJJ c:i,r.,:,n ;iK1 ... ,~lJJ .i1l'JJ O'Jl))t:l jlt:'? ?:JJ j'Jln.:Jt.!' Furthermore, there is no implication in R. Simon b. Garnliel'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. ~?1) rightly put it, be, cause it is not allowed to read it, is equivalent to reading the Torah by heart and ;,s;,v:::i t:lir.lK? '~t.:'i i1n~ 'K :::in.:JJt:' t:l'"l::Ji • The question raised there against it is thus well answereJ. Com. also Tos. Sota 33a '.",:,. 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 lJ'nlJil i::io:::i K5~ li'ni1 K5 lJ'nlJ~ ,,,nm.:•:i ;iK i111i1' ,, ir.i~ n'Jl' 1i'ni1 i1iln • 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 Luzzatto (I. c.), Zunz (G. V. 65) and others to the prohibition, namely, that the T. containing some Halaka, was regarded on one plane with E:i"))Jto i1iU1 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 i1Jt:'r.li1 '.:Ji1 10 and Ober cl. Einfluss l. c.). It should also be noticed that the reason given for R. Simon b. Gamliel's interdiction of other than the Greek translation is

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

49

i1::liY 5::i t:l)in5 i15i::i, i1ilni1 Pt(ftl and not because it belongs to the e"v:iw c,,:::n .

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: ;,::i,,y t(' ... t(Y, t(' pw, 5::i:i cmn t(ii' i15)r.ii1 nt( t(ili'il ClDin ,,pi ClDin :i,n::i, . The reason is pointed out, for it is written ClJlrt15::ii c:in::i::i . But there could be no more reason for considering the T. to the Prophets e"v:i~ c,,:i, 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 (pi::lf 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. Berliner (On. 89) rightly applied this view to the T. This view might be substantiated by Tanchuma (ib.) c,:i,:i Cl)inr.i, ilOt(i rruna 5::ino;,5, which Friedmann (Pesiqta ib.) is inclined to emend :in:i:i 5::ino;,5 . 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 ,i1~:l - i1!:l:l iir.itrn:• i:l'1:11 ::in:i:i - ::in::i:i ,,r.it(Jftl c•i::i,, (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.

D1mt1ZC'd by

MICf osoft (f

50

TARGUM JONATHAN TO TH E PROPH ETS

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 exposition 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 1i~::ll 1r.m1 Targum 1it:l::ll 1::l'ii' . Jon. 2S 5:1. 1 Ch. 13 :7 lli~ n~ l::l':li'l Targum in,n~l. Jon. 2S 6:3. 1 Ch. 13:9 )li':l JiJ Targum )imr.:i in~ . Jon. 2S 6:6. ib. limir.:i Targum t~r.:i~. Jon. ib. 1 Ch. 14:1 i'i' 't!linl Targum ~5m:i l';J5 p;r.:ii~, p5:i'i1~l. Jon. 2S 5:11. 1 Ch. 14:9 t:l'~!'.li i?r.lV::l mt!-'!'.l'l Targum ~'il::l'J it!l'r.l::l lt!l'~in'l Jon. 2S 5: 18 reading l~~J'l . 1 Ch. 14:11 t:l'~i!:I 511::l Targum t:l'~i!:1 ,~,r.:, . Jon. 2S 5 :20. ib. c,r.:, 1·1::i:i Targum l"r.l ,5r.:,, iM!'.l1 j~r.:, i1:::in:i .Jon. ib. 2S. 1 Ch. 14:15 m:i;,5 1'J!'.l5 t:l'i15~i1 ~~, ,:, Targum P!'.lJ Cllil:'( 5~i?r.:i? 1r.:i1P ~n5~~5 ,, tl1i? ir.l ;,:i~5r.:i. Jon.2S 5 :24. 1 Ch. 16:3 i!'.lt!I~ Targum J15!'.l. Jon. 2S 6:19. 1 Ch. 17:1 Cl'ti~ n'::l::l Targum ~'ti~ 'il':l::l 55~r.:i,. Jon. 2S 7:2, 7. ib. mv,,, nnn ... )li~l Targum 'D::l ~J:it!lr.:i::l 'it!' ~Jli~l ~nv,,,. Jon. 2S 7:2. 1 Ch. 17:7 1'JJ n,,;,5 l~~i1 'in~ Jr.:i 1'T1Mi?5 'J~ Targum ~:i5r.:i 'li1r.:i5 ~JV in:Jr.:i ~,,, Jr.:i 1'ni::l1 ~J~. Jon. 2S 7:8. The usual rendering of 1'JJ m the T. to Chronicles is )Di~ (1 Ch. 11:2) p:i1c (1 Ch. 13:1).

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1 Ch. 1 Ch. 2S 7:18 . 1 Ch. 1 Ch.

51

17:9 tllPr.l ,nr.,ri,1 Targum tvnr.i inN. Jon. 2S 7:10. 17:16 c,i1?N ,, ,JN ,r., Targum no•r.,:i NJN n,,. Jon.

17:17 Plnir.i5 ,:i,m Targum ,nNi Nr.l?l/5. Jon. 2S 7:19. 17:20 u,JtN:l lJl/r.lti' iti'N 5:i:i Targum NJl/r.lti' ,, 5:i:i NJr.liP lir.lNl. Jon. 2S 7:22. 1 Ch. 17:21 YiN:l inN ,,) Targum Nl/iN:l ,,n:i, ,N,•n• Nr.ll/ Jon. 2S 7:23 ... ,,n:i in Nr.ll/. 1 Ch. 17:25' n,:i ,, mJ:i5 Targum ,, c,pN 1:i,r.i. Jon. 2S 7:27. 1 Ch. 18:2 i1nJr., 'Nti'J Targum Oi!3 '?~J. Jon. 2S 8:2, 6. 1 Ch. 18:3 ,,, :i•~i15 Targum i1•r.imn i1NJti'N?. Jon. 2S 8:3 ,,, :l'ti'i1?.

1 Ch. 20:3 i1i)r.l:l iti''l Targum tli1n, ii:lr.ll. Jon. 2S 12:13 ••• Clri''l 2 Ch. 1:14 1?r.li1 tll/l :l:Jii1 'ill:l cn•J'l Targum 'liP:l tlJ'iti'Nl nm i1r.l lr.l i:l N•:i•n,. So Jon. lK 10:26. 2 Ch. 2:9 m:ir., c-en Targum OlJi!:l l'~n. Jon. lK 5':25' n,:ir.i c•~n • ••• Cl/

Diait,zed by Microsoft
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 expansion 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 predominates in the historical portions of the Prophets. Any rendering ,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.U On close examination the deviations will be found to con, 1) However, Abrahm lbn Ezra, cntic as he was, would not accept such a possibility. Thus he remarks in Safa Berura (9, 11, ed. Lippmann): c::,n r11n M? 1::, ,c1vi11 D':>::i, ,?M•nv p 1ri~11', rnn« ,,,,

Min, .1m11 ,,,:in:, 1ri11n', m,vo V'Jn M?l .,mo:, ,M::it p pn11 ', inN 10::, ,cvt:i i:pc,n', e,,, ,,, tl'!l.t"ltl' c,:i, mo1j:)o:i ,~•Mi1 .c,1:::, ,1,; n•n j:)i ••. JO•.t"I n,',M ,o::, M1i"ltl' i'~C JIM 1::, .(J ,J j:)lj:):lM) M1:J.I ;::,,:,::, M1?M :i,v:i ,v,:i n::i::i, •.• i:icD ,,rin ,::, po, m1tJo 101.r, e,,~, .:;!!I :l'o1n 11))1 .:i,vn 10::, Mli"ltl' 1:l e,,, Ctl'MOl M':>l :i,v :i,ri:n ,~Mtl' ,1:p p, 1n10::,1 ••• c,:i,vn cv ,~,,ri :i,v:i 1ovt:1 mn, .D•':>ri n';,::,:i ,iv M:mrr ,(lt:1 ,'M c1::,',o) :i,vn 1::,',o ',::, ,o::, K1M 1::, M1M CJ ,(;, ,K::i i"ll))tlll) ,M,,i) c,,,.,n MM c,ric e,it110 1:i e,,, (n .,, n,,:n) ,,n K•; enc~, cnn,:11 M,:i,n ioM M':>tll ,1:iv:i n::,::, t11ii1 (, ,: , ). It is an unsuccessful

,,i'

v,,

attempt on his part to explain away renderings that represent a different reading.

52

Digitized by Microsoft®

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

53

sist of three distinct categories. Some of them represent an unquestionably 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. Differences of this kind are found in great numbers in MSS. claiming 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. Deviations of this description are here classed under heading "A". There is another class of deviations of a mere grammatical character. 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 tranlator renders them in either one or the other way. Sometimes he subordinates all the forms of the sentences to the last in order. 4 > In some cases the reverse is true 5 > 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 exceptions 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) ,,,1-r QIJll:I 1::, M1li' i,r,M 1'Ml'1 IMM ',M)lt.:lt'I ,):'lt'll'11 11 ,; 101< n,,, itl,tl ,,:in ,,n1t1 p ,:i,n pie ',"ic : ,,,,, ',"ic ~ ,,,,, ,ic 1'Jtllt' Mish. Aboda Zara 29b. Com. also Gen. r. 94, 4: ;II' 1m1r,:i .C1lZ'lM ti l:ll :i1r,::, lM~t) 11Mt) 11 3) Com. More Nebuchim 3, 43.

,,,;v

4) S') 6)

Jerem. 9:5; 11 :12. Ezek. 11:19 Is. 26:8.

D,nic,zed by Mic.-osoft
54

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

particulars occu rin g in differen t p arts, in one and th e sam e w ay. A sim ilar p rocess It is th e ~p,;, an d th e

had

been

p u rsued

by

the

R abbis.

m~ i1i,t) of Hillel

and R. Ishmael b.Jose, 7 > which forms the seventh Mida 8> of the 32 Midoth enunciated by R. Eliezer. But while in the Halaka and Agada the conformation 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.o> 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 reflection. 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.w! But this practice could not have originated from a mere unconscious play of recollection. The translator must have been moved by something which he considered an imperative necessity. 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.Ill Whether or not the translator pursued a definite rule in applying this principle is difficult 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. Rzifm- ,, Meshib Dabor (Wien, 1866). 9) Com. Kircheim 11ir.it!' ,r.,,::i p. 37 et seq. 10) Com. Aboda Zara 24b, citing IS 15 :15 cim ',r.,r, ie-x i:l)l,T ',r.,r, it:'N ,;:::in, !Nl/,T ::i::i,r., : o,,::in, tll)t!'r.lm ,p::in, !Nl/,T ::i::i,r., ':,:, 1x::1:, ',::i ?)11 according to v. 9, and San. 49a, citing 2S 3:27 Ct!:' ,n;:, 1 t!'r.lMn - e,r.,r,:, ?N according to 20:10. 11)

Com. Judges 7:7 and 20;

is

4:21 and 19; 2S 12:21 and 22;

lK 13:9 and 17; 2K 9:19 and 18.

Digitized by Microsoft@

55

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

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

11:34 14:15

Targ.

c:i1,:i2•:-: ,v

1m,:ini ,v l'J1N ~N ,,:iv, ,,,,rN, t(r.i:im:i N:1?!:i Ni,~ lr.l N:ii1r.i ill

,,,~~,, ,:i,,, p5nn ii1i1 10 t(:i,,r.i ,v

i10il1:l en Cl) ,t'-'111,

11:17; 12:7 13:16 Judges 3:2 9:9

M.T. m,:i:i:r.i;:

,v

Joshua 2:7 7:5 9:4

c:iw,, t(?

R.

u,v

,v \2

Cli:lt'-'il ,v Vac.

,:i,,,

i,v,,

nn t(? ,Jt'-'i nN ,r,,,nn •.. p,p,r.i n Jr.ii ,:i jt','t( ,,PJ!:inr.i n,:i, ~Jr.ir.i ,, PN j1Jlr.) "' Cll1t(ii' "t'-'i1?il 1m,,p Nmrn::ir.i,n 1

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 Hex. 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 Zertriimerung". The same could be said with much greater force of Joshua's overpowering fright (vv. 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 c1,::1c,n . Com. iv' ,;:,. The form in itself wouldn't appear strange to the targurnist, as cases of this nature are numerous. 3) So P. A. Com. Field Hex., I. c. 4) So Sebirin. Many MSS. of Kenn. and De Rossi and extant editions follow the reading of the T. 5) So P. Lxx read n11i1 . 6) Probably influenced by v. 13. 7) Felt by Kimchi. So Sebirin.

Dmltiwd by Microsoft Cf

56

TARGUM JONATHAN TO TH E PROPH ETS

M.T. N?il

19:9 20:34 21:10 1S 2:31 3:2 6:3 12:21

run NJ 1J,:, tlPil nun ill/:::iJ5 ,m:i ,r.~ t,Jt!I !:l1'i1 :.'1JJ 111m nN •n11,J1 N'i1il .:ir:::i ,:,,,

;n~ n~ c,n,t:!lr.i c~

Targ. N:l?il NJn, N:lil ll/:l m,:::i pi Nr.lP i,n:, Nnl/:::iJ5 ornc l/Jr.in,N 111,r ~um N,r.:,p:::i Nm1 ID'Nil c,n,t:!lr.i 11nN tlN

,,nN •:i ,,,on N5i

,n:::ir.i r,~on N51 rin5!:ln N51 n,Jn5u3 ~r.l? 1J'Ni Nml/~? mr.in ,r.i ,o t:iN ,,,r.i NJ1::li 1l/::l::l Nn1r.l 1nl/r.lt!lr.l ?N i01 1n11r.it:!lr.i :ii,

R. tl?il < ilJil (1

2

<s : :irn~ ( 4 l/iJJ ( 51llif c,r.i,:::i ,n,, (O tlili1 tl,n,t:!lr.i c~ <7tlnN <8 Vac. ,:i

innn

15:32 22:14 2S. 1 :21

,v

jr.ic.:i:::i n•::,r.i ,,:::i

Nn•t:!lr.i:::i,:i n•t:!lr.i,

(9

it:!/

(10

it:!/

<1 Vac. ,,:::i

1) Com. Kirnchi. Lxx N?M vacant. In one of the MSS. of De Rossi the Keri ts c',n and Ketib N?M and in two others c',n is the Ketib. Ginsburg: iii,) c',n :l•M:l N?M ')11im', ,•iv N?M :J•M:i c',n •Ni10',. 2) So Lxx Lag., otherwise Mll p', Cl 1;, nun are vacant. P. c1•n MDn mn :iii))', vacant. The T. does not render MDM. 3) Minchat Shai: ::i;)~ :llM:l Ml)!:'' MlNip~ 'M!:':l. 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 1':lN M•::i )ll'H MN is rendered vii tppn. If the targumist followed here the Masoretic reading there is hardly any reason why it occured to him a different reading in .))it MN . Lxx read in both )111 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 n~:, 1n:, •: Targum • p)1N N~? 1iN

9) So P. Lxx i.:i vacant. 10) So Lxx. Com. P . 1) So P. and· Arab. The suggestion that T. read 1',: , as in Kenn. MSS. 30, is hardly tenable. It would seem that the T. considcred this phrase to refer to c,',',n i:m~ . Com. Ehrlich Randglossen

Digitized by Microsoft®

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

M.T.

Targ.

5:12 " 14:14

,M:i5r.ir.i NtUJ ':l1 JUlCIN' N7 itUN

" 15:23

MN 1i1 'J!:l 711 iJir.li1

•. 22:44 " 23:13 lK. 1 :18 1:20 6:31 lK. 7:3 8:26 8:30

57

(2 i1NtUJ·N~J

l'!:ICl,M'i ni1N '!:IN 711

cs 1'!:li:lN'

Vac. MN <~ 'Jr.l'tUM

14

Ni:lir.l

C'1J tUNi5 'Jir.itUM

'J'Jr.lM

C'tU71Ui1r.l i1~!7W

NM 'i!Ur.l IU'i 'i:lJr.:

;7r.li1 'JiN i1Ml11

••• MN1

17r.li1 'JiN i1MN1

111:i,

i1Ml1l

M'rur.in mme 7'Ni1

l'CID~r.l

cs mru,r.in

liN:l !!:101

l'i:JJ N!:lnl

1

1i:li NJ lr.lN N'r.lJM!:l 111:J !1r.l"DM' C1Dr.l 7N l1r.ltUM i1MNl 1m.:,ru M':l iMNr.l c,r.irun 5N 1M:iru N'r.l!U tr.i

..

R.

i1'm:,5r.i N7~Jt.:) 'iN tm5 itU!:lN N71

8:31 •• 13:6

i17N N:11 ,,11:i 55!:iMi11

i1'J'r.l1'1 'M"1 'i11t.:>1D tr.i '11:11

(6

i:l'tU7tU

<7

i1MNl

<9

i!:lCll

i:lii1 it.:> ••• c,i,r.ir.i (10 i:l'r.ltUi1

en i17N1 <12

N:11 1'7N

and Thenius Sarn., to which the expression NM!t'C::ii, points. On the other hand, it is possible that the T. took 17::,. to mean annointing, from root ;;::,. PS. 92:11. Ehrlich's assumption (ibid) that the T. read instead of n,c,,n 1i1t1 - ,, N? 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. MN 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: MNt:l ll,11!1 c,,i:,onc 0 1:, 1::, 1)?:iN NH'! iii:,. ?::IN ,! '))I; :llij:) NH'!lt' !!)? ')?N:l i!Ml,'l 1:r::1 it:'Cit

,m

C•)lll!ll ')?N:l itMNl n,,ccn !!)Cl Clj:)11\,CM c•i!:C l!:C 11,:,n1t1 •!l? 11111::i ,::i

• ::i,,i'

,n,,

8)

But com. T. to v. 33; 7:5. Felt by Kimchi:

C•lt'lCM lC:l J'Cj:)~C M"ll •

9) So Lxx P. 10) So P., in accordance with 2 Chronicles 6:21. 11) So Lxx P. 12) Lxx omit the whole phrase.

D1git1zcd by Microsoft([

111;:

nn;, Nlil

68

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

M.T. " 13:12 " 16:9

1iiil 11N ,,.:i:::i 'Ni'' ?l/ it'.'N N~iN 11'::l

Targ.

R.

,N•tnN, N11'JJ ,,

(1 l~i't (2

11•:::i:::i

(3

i'l/il

rron " 16:24 " " " "

1,,r.i,t'.' iilil Z,N ID''

20:33 21 :8 21 :13 22:30

N:li:l 11'

t:m

1.:ir.ir.iil m5n•,

il'Jr.l Ni11!::i~m

'i'l/::l it'.'N ,il,ll''

N11iDJi ,,,noN,

N:ll t'.'!:ln11il

?'ll'N' 'J11t'.'N NJN

i1~~5n•, (4 ,.:ir.ir.i (5

(6

i'l/::l ,,11,,

t'.'!:ln11N

< 7 NJNl 2K. 2:14 3:25

'il'?N 'il?N ,, il'N il'J:lN i•Nt>,1:, il/ 111'.'in i'i'J

" 17:11 17:13

"

1)

tl'l/i tl'i:Ji ,~·11•, run <,:, 'N'JJ 5:::i ,,,::i

<8 ililN

••• '11ll/J 5•::ip 11iN11t'.'N N5i il/ N11ii'J NJ:JN iliiJ!:l N5i ,n,r.,ip ,,:::i11, j£)i:) 5:i ,,:::i

i'Nt'.'il ill

< 911Dii1 i'i'J ( 10

l 'J 'l/:l

cu

N'JJ

So Lxx P. Kimchi: t•):JO 11'1'1 MM!l:i 1N'1'1 10:J 1NITMN1 1".n

• ',•l)!lM

2)

Com. Lxx. P.

3) So he renders in;, MN p, 1 ( ib), but t ioiz, "lilil , )1N is rendered literally. It might, however, be interpretative suggested by the text, for the city-not the mountain-was called by this name. Why should the T. to Am. 3 :9 render J"lOlt' ,,n literally while J1"1011t' in - N:J"l:J (Am. 4:1; 6:1), although we find p"1011t' •iv (lK 13:32) as well, would admit of no such explanation. Cases, however, of this sort are found in the T. Kimchi (followed by Gersonide) infers from the T. that there really was a city there and Omri just strengthened it. 4) So P.; according to the Maarabai this reading is the Keri while the Masoretic reading is the Ketib. 5) Com. P. Lxx omit ,,,v:i '11t'N. 6) So P. 7) So Lxx P. Felt by Kimchi. Probably interpretative suggested by what follows in the verse. 8) Or mN (Com. 2K 20:3). Probably for anthropomorphic reasons . 9) So Lxx P. Having read i,C'1il and taking it to refer to ;,1):.N the targumist changed the number. 10) Probably interpretative. 11) P. has both in plural, so that the T. might have been intTuenced by illM ',::i .

Digitized by Microsoft®

59

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

M.T. ,,J;,5 l:}'C:,1t{ t{51 ':>t{irt'' 5Ji n,nwr.iil ii15

" 21:8 " 23:13

R.

Targ. 5~5~5 l:l'C:,1t{ t{51 5t{itu' n, t{'n't im5

Vac. 5Ji ii15

u ilMWr.lil IS. 3:12 5 :13 8:14 8:21

t{:,,n ,,r.i:n t:l 15tur.i tl'WJ1 :iv, ,nr., n:1::,1 t{J!:l:,:, m'r.i pi1i'i''1 p:,:, il'ir.l'~ 'i1'1 !Jt{51 tuii'r.i5 il'i11 l:)JJ !lli1!:l5 1'i15t{:l1 1:,5r.,:, ,,.,, il'i:in!:l tl1W 'f:1'1

i1'mv~, " 10:15

" 10:34

" " " "

11:16 17:2 21:13 23:3

t{j~,n t{t.:)jt{:, t{i~,n t{5 'Mr.l'r.l5 ,nr.i, rr.i i'i15t{ ,nr.i il':, 'i::lJ 5,~p,, 5?i'.:::l ill'il ,:,:,c:, l:!i'J1 pi:,mr.i, ;,,n,,rur., t{5fi:l::J •. .'il tl'inm W:1'1 '-:Vil/ ,,v m::iw ,::i,n p;,,,,., pi,,:,ru t{t!/r.li:l t{rt'j,MJ 1J'5n :i,11::i ,v,:i ,n~ 11,r tl':li tl'r.i::i, t{,,r.c t{i'!:lcr.i m;,,

~,~,,r.i nt{ ~:iru 1:!'Jil::J l'l/ t{5 il~r.l tl'iil:i

<2t:1'WJ
,:i5r.i

~:iru l:!'Jil:i rs ,,r.i,,r.i nt{

Vac.

5ti:i:i :,,,n;, il/il/ 'ill (6 :lil/:l <7inc

1) Com. Rashi and Kimchi. It is so quoted by t!1e R. Josi, Shah. 56b. This reading is found in one MS. Kenn. 2)

Felt by Rashi, Kimchi. So Lxx. A. Com. Esther r. 2, 2: p::i!lli' N•Jin '1"N ,::i ,;iz,~ c•tz1J1 3) So Lxx P. Rashi and Karo follow the T. without taking notice of the deviation. Kimchi noticed it in the T. Hitzig, Ehrlich and Krauss would read here ll~ , (Com. Onk. Deut. 32, 34), which would, however, not agree with this rendering.

• ::11n

',v::i:i tn•',v

4) Kimchi seems to have noticed it. Though the absolute ,;~ is always rendered literally by the T. Com. Gray Is. In. Com. As to , , n',N::n see Dill P. Ehrlich IS. 5) Lxx P. omit ne~ c,,n:, and have part of J:\'Jn:, . 6) So Lxx P. In general the T. is apt to such an interchange, as will appear in the sequel. 7) So Lxx P. V. Kimchi also noticed it in the T. This reading of the T. was adopted by Hitz., Cheyne, Guthe and Kn.

D1ait1zc,d by Microsoft

60

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

M.T. WJJ ,:, Ill' IS. 29:13 30:6 Cli1r.l W'5l N'::15 ) rel="nofollow">iN::l ~!:lWr.l ~iWl i1l/!:lN

Jl'iN

o5w ill iv5 i1NWr.l i::i::il

lii1C5

30:8 30:27 38:13 40:6

,r,,,w

ricn 5:,1 n» pN:, Cl'lJi1 5:, 40:17 15 1::iwm li1nl c::Nr.i

,,nnn oiN JnNl it:!~J nnn Cl'r.>lN51

43:4

onvr.iw N51 o,, 'J::51 49:17 1'J::l lii1r.l

48:7

1)

R. WJJ <2Vac. Clilr.l (1

(3

,v5

Ni::llC5r.i 'Wi'l

i1NWr.l i::i:,1

l1'r.li1J NJnJN

'l1l/lW lJCn

tW!:lvin 5:i, Nr.,5:, N'r.lr.ll/ 5:, Ni'r.lJ llil'i::lUI llJ'N i1N~'Wl

... Cl!:lN

'illr.>iP p::i,wn

<• Vac. liJJ ll1Nl

N'r.lr.ll/ l1'iClr.ll

Nm:i5r.i, inmn 1W!:lJ ~?n

(:; Cl'r.ll/

jlJ 'niCl::l N5l

< 6 Cl' nvr.iw

,,n::i,n pJ::i' nm-

(71'J::l

i1Jl/J Nlill t!'JJ

'll::l

,5 nNt nJ ,r., ,:, N5 Cl'lli i1r.li1l I '::li1

m, ,r.,r:,

WJJ ,r.,,:,

j't!'N::lr.l jlJ'N

<9Cl'l/i

53:7 54:9 56:11

Targ. ::i,::i,nNi ~,n i::l N'iNi il1N

(8

w,,

So in many MSS.

Com. Kimchi and Seder Eliahu r. 2, 24

2) Cort would have C:!:'O so Krauss, which would have the 6Up• port of the T.; still, it is not improbable that the rendering is explanatory . 3)

So P. V.

4) Lxx also omit 11;! ; Lxx and P. read C!:H?. There is no reason to suppose that 11;) was omitted for anthropomorphical reasons. 5) This is suggester by the parallel; but it may also be explanatory. Graetz and Klost. amend Cl"H which would have the support of the T. 6) 7)

Com. Lxx P. V. So Lxx.

(Com. San. 64b: 1')1:1 N?H 1'):I H"lj:)tl ?H 1'):I 'J:n).

8) So P. Sym. V. (See Dil. P. T. 2) and in many olJ Hebrew MSS. Com. Chayoth, Mebo Hatalmud, 25. Com. Berachoth 7b, 14a. 9)

So Lxx P. and S. Kimchi remarks:

• l'IZ'H~ Cl1V")

Digitized by Microsoft®

1m1, '.l"ltlt!' Ho•r,;, 101

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

M.T. i,rumn c:i,::iYll ,:i, 59:18 c,ru, ,v:i m,oJ ,v:i 61:3 nnn n,nn ;,~vr.: ;,;,:i m, 65:1 'Ott':! t(ip t(? ''J ?t( 58:3

Targ. p::iipo tint( t('?OJ ,,o ~,n t(n::iruo m, 'Ott':! '?YO N?1

61

R. <1 t,tuJJn < 2 m,,oJ <3

,v:i

n,;,n m, (4 t(,p

Jer. 6:14 'Oll ,::iru nN ,N::i,,,

.. .

10:24 11:12 11:14

..

15:14

" 23 :26 " 27:8

,:in n, 'N'CN, ,::iru nt( 't.:ll/1 Nnt!'J:l c:"Oll n::i ~eruo:i 1N ,.:,,c:,, 1rm ~pn, N? ... c,c:,, i,,v,, No,, tm::i 'J~'llr.>n re (6 ,~lit.:>' n,,::i;, ,,::i, nN ,vowNOJn!:l n, ,,::ip <7m,,,om n,m, ~'N ?N cm::i,, <8 erro-n 1ll:J ''N tlNiP nv::i '?YO nN1 !1'll:J '?t( 1NiP cnv, t,Mtu':J l1'll:l Pil'?l/ <0cnv, nv::i 1':J't( nN ,n,::ivm ',:i, 1,1::ivnrum <10 ,n,::ivm :i,::i ru,;, ,no nv Ji't( 'nt.:l'N 1ll <11 ru, ,no ,v 1,n::i,::i tl 'N':JJi1 ,,,::i tlJit( 'Oli 1ll 1,;,n, ,coNi 111 u2 ,nn ,v

1) So Lxx. Kimchi: ,J'tl':1 10::l OJir, p:iipo

p::,r,',j,n ',::,1 1m11 lMlN o;ir,t11 no1r,;, 101

2) But Is. 63:7 it.l'N ',;: ?l,'::l literally. 3) It is possible to explain the rendering of the T. as suggested by the parallel nn::, t11i, and would smoothen the difficulties felt by the commentators on this point. 4) 5)

So Lxx P. They might, however, have been infiuenced 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"p',',QMl 8) So Lxx. Com. P. 9) Lxx P. A. and many Hebrew MSS. Otherwise the T. might have been influenced by v. 12: .onv, nv:i on', 1v1t1111 N? Vtl'lnl 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 ,,ri,:ivn, i1:i111 MN 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.

Dmit120d by Microsoft

62

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

M. T.

Targ.

R.

" 29:12

c:in:::,5n, 'T1N tlT1Niv, 5::ivN, 'r.>1P r,5~n, 'T1N tlT1Nii'' •5N c:ir,55!:inni Ir.> 1w::in, r,:::im5~ n c:i:::,,5N 'T1llr.>t:!'1 c:i:::,,5N 'T1llr.>t:!', p:::,nill::i 5::ivNi 'r.>i~ " 31 :39 n,r.>it:!'i1 5:::i, NT1"1N 5:::i, <2 mr.>,m 5:::i, " 49:3 nn,J::i i1J~~,r,:mn, lll'D::i Nr.>nnNi <3 miiJ::i •• 51 :3 ?llT1' 5N, ... ,,,, 5N N51 ... nnr.>• N5 ( 4 ,,,, ,~

Ez. 1:7

~:::,:::, tli1'?Ji ~:::,\ ?Jll ?Ji

!?J?JD !'?Ji T1Di!:i:::i

~pr,

5:11

~~i'~ ~J~

,,:::,, 7 :5 10:6 10:29 " 12:12

<s

~N,

(6

5,ll

l/1Jt{

< 7 int{ <Sc:i:::,5 'T1T1J tlT1~ 1t!'N <0 tl'N::l t{?\ ~m :in, ~5n ~, 11:!'N Ill' t{llit{ r,, 'tn' iHI? i1~1' (10 i'1t{i1 r,~

i1lli nn~ i1ll1 ~nt!l•::i ,n::i ~n~··::i c:i:::,5 •mn it!'~ p:::,5 T1'::li1'1 tlt!' tl'N::li1 tlT1N it.:'~ jT1~ PT1t{1 ~, ,e·N Ill' i1D:::i• ,,J~ ~'i1 I'll? i1Ni' 1'1Ni1

r,~

1) Probably cir,::i',;, was omitted in the text of the T. P. also omits it. Lxx omits the entire portion and begins with cn:i'ml'lm Giesb. conjecture ,r,;t,l)Jl by the T. is not justified. 2) Lxx has here the Ketib. P. omits it entirely. The reading Ml~iT by the T. is the only plausible explanation of the peculiar rendering of this word. nm,c- is usually rendered by the T. by tc'?nJ Nie''~ (!K 23:4; IS. 16:1). Com. Aruch Nl1"1N and NMilN. 3) Felt by Kimchi. Com. P. 4) So Lxx codd 88, 106, P. Felt by Minchat Shai and Kimchi. 5)

In some MSS.

N'?

is the Keri.

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 =J~i' . He cites this verse reading ;;i;N . 7) Noticed by Kimchi. 8)

So P., so Toy. was probably influenced by V. 15.

9)

So Lxx P.

10) So P. Probabiy both of them read 1':.'' (Com. Is. 18:9 etc.). On the other hand, we find this case i ·~· Ketib and p;.- Keri (Com. 2S 16:12).

· Digitized by Microsoft q.D

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

M.T. •• 13:11

W':IJ5N 'J:IN ilJJ"lN,

•• 13 :21

tl'W£:IJ l"lN ill/iii 511 cim:in.:i, ,,n,:ir::i m,mr::iwm ,,nm l"lN ,::,nwm 'il' ,, ,:nv 5::, 511 iWN 1'J:I 't.:ii::J' tli15 'l"ll"lJ ,,, :l'Wil 'Jl/t.:i

.. .. .

14:8 14:22 16:15 16:36 17:21 18:17 19:7

.. . ..

,,mJt.:i5N lli''

63

Targ.

R.

'J:IN l"lN, W':!J5N 'J:IN n '' <1w,::,5JN Pil'W£:IJ l"l' tlW£:IJ Nl"lW':1 5:i 5ll <2 5:i 5ll ,m,,:iJ
N5 'Jl/t.:i

v,,,

<7 :l'Wil

<8Pl"lUt.:iiN

21:19 21:21 21:21

tli15 l"liiMil :liM 'J't.:i'il 'iMNl"lil 't.:i'Wil

t,i15 Nl/'lt.:ii

<9 l"liiMil

',::,, ,n,,nwN

<10 ,,nnil

,y,w,

pw:i

1) Minchat Shai: ll''J..l',N ,,::N MNl N'lli' l"l'l"lt!' l"IN'l) Kirnchi remarks that he found this reading in a MS.

••• tm,,,;

2)

So in some MSS. Caro I. c .

3) 4)

So Lxx, Syro Hex. and in five MSS. of Kenn. and De RoS11i. Noticed by Rashi and Kimchi; so also in Aid. Codd. 42, 68.

5)

So P. and in some De Rossi MSS.

6) So P. and Vulg. and a great number of MSS.; the Afudi, ch. 14, remarks: (':i n•,:11) c•r.,t!'n nin,, VJ'lN::i n•::n rrnen =i::in l"IN:l .,,,:i m,::i (:i"• ,'T Vll'll"I) ,::i,, ,rrN::i (1"• ,n", n,r.,.,,) c•iv m,::i 7) Probably interpretative, making the following referring to ,,31~; also Lxx; so 28th middah of R. Eliezer. See Eliezer of Beaugency, who puts as an explanation of ',131 •J31r.,. Com. Heller • ll'l'l'l"I ',rm ',31

N',

8) So A. aliter et dimit palatium eorum. So EW. Toy 31,,, Com. Kimchi. His point, however, is not clear. The T. rendering of Jud. 8:16 is :i:in, or 'l:l..ll as Kimchi had it or 'l'l..l as in Lag. or 'i''Nl as cited in tn:: tJN by Menachem b. Solomon. 9) So Lxx P. A. Vulg. was noticed also by Kimchi.

31,,,,

10) So is rendered nin,n (v. 15). represents a Syr. Ith. form.

John d. Buch Ez. assumes it

D,att,zed by Microsoft

TA R G U M JO N A T H A N TO TH E PR O PH E T S

64

.. ..

24:26 26:2

.. ..

M.T. Targ. 1'?~ D'?!:lil ~:i ~,10:i 1'nll/Ot:'t'~5 C:l'Jt~ nll/r.it:'t'il5 ;,:iinil ;,~,o~ ;,:11,n ~,,o mm

<1.

R. 1nun:it:'t'il5 il~?t::lil il~,r.,~ ca m:i,n:i <4 1t:'t'~n:i (2

39:16

m:i,n:, t:l'1t!'~ n:i ;,:i,n o,,~, ,nm, 105:, ,,~~ m:i,:101 on~ ,nnJl ,nv:i; ;,;1r.,;, ,,v t:)~ t:)Jl

~n:i,n:i l'll1:it:'t'~, l'£l1 llil'iilJ rn~, ,,r.i, ,,n~ ,mo rmn, ,,C1~1 ,,no tr.in, ~~,

Hos. 4:18 6:5

o~:io ,o ~~, 11~ 1'D::l:!lr.ll

l~'Jt:l~ r,;,,;105t:1 l''£lJ 1lilJ:i 'J'1l

26:20 27:6 27:23

"

30:12 34:26

..

.. ..

c;,,,~,

,,r., 5:, nl:1'::20 t:l:!1

(G

7:12 8:5 9:1

" 11 :7 " 12:1

oniv5 vr.i::•:, rmmv5 1vo~, 5v jlir.it:• 15JV nn ~?Jl,' in::l ll/t) ,~it:,•, nr.it:•n ,~ ~,, pinn ~5 t:l'r.ll.1::2 ,, J ,~ pv,:in lil~ii'' ?l.l ,~, llillil,'r1 Cl.I 11 1ll.l il1lil'l W:ll,' ~?J1 1l.l ,~il,~1 o·:.:·11v ov, 5~ ,r.i,v i'n5::i 11;,, rr.i~J ~:.:·,,v ~~l.l iivnr.i 1:i5,:i 'il~ ••• j~

(9 ,,;

(10

,~,

l~1i''

r,;·~,

" 13:10 1)

So Lxx P.

2) 3)

So Lxx; accepted by Co. Seeg. Gratz. So Lxx P.

4)

Com. Is. 41:19. Felt by Kimchi.

5)

Felt by Kimchi.

6)

So Lxx P.

7) 8)

So Lxx P. ::i:i;,,, So P.

(ll

... 5~ Cl.I t:l't:'lii' Cil.ll (12 il'~

(Com. Nowack Die Kl. P.). (See Vollers Z. A. T. W., 1883, 250).

9) So Lxx P. 10) So P. 12.)

(:; it!' 'D!:l:.:'~l ~~, 11~:, 17 cm,v (8,n;t

So Lx x P.

Digitized by Microsoft~)

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

Ni:J• iY:Jt.,

,11

lli 'll'in ;,to,,

R. U N'::l' '!:liCt.,

Targ.

M.T. Am. 5:10 6:10 Mi. 4:9

65

ic,i i!:liCt.,i

nm,

r.,,,c,t., ... pm:::i, N1'i''t., m~ ;,to,, 1:11:i, Ni:::innt., ii.:irn ,Nil!''' i1'ni:Ji irn ,:i 'J'll'

llin <3 n:::ir•n l/Wi 'JfNt.,:J i1:ltNi1 Nahum 2:3 PNl ,Nil!'' PNl:I <4 'Ni, 3:6 'Ni:1 ,,;, 1t.,t., •n!:lCN ... ,,n,,11 ,, ... Zef. 3:18 <5 •n,,w, Ze. 9:13 ,11 ti'Y 1'J:J •m,w, l"Y 1J::l i:JJNi ,,, 1'J::l •• 12:5 c,wii• :JI!'' '' i1Yt.,N •:in,, IDi!:l n:inwN '::lWi•, NYt.,l\t <6 c,w,,, c,w,,, c•nnc,, <7 encl, ,,n N'J enen " 14:5 •• 14:6 <8 n,ip, rm» iiN i1'i1' N, l'i1'N Niii1J 'i1' N, ,,,), ,,v l'N!:lDi (9 tnNi n•:::in,, Mal. 2:5 ~iit., i, CJnNi ••. C rel="nofollow">:11

1)

So in some MSS. and Lxx P.

2) 3) 4) 5)

So Lxx, though in a different sense. So Lxx P. So Lxx P. (Is. 10:26) CIIM!li ,,

.n,1v11

,,,v ,,,.v,

,n,,v ,r,,,, :

6) The reading of the T. was probably MSS. See Min. Shai.

<2 Vi

,,;,

,,,.v

(Is. 14:9)

M'llCM found in many

7) So Sym. Aid. Codd. III, XII, 22, 23, 26. De Rossi found this reading in the Lxx. Kimchi o•i!lo l"l'lli'C'.:l M'llCl pi. So Kimchi 1:11tlfillfl"I ,~o; also R. Eliah Halevy l:l•tlfitlfM l"lM~M and lbn Ezra pointing out this being the reading of nitCl'I ltlflM . Com. Eich. Ein. 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 .

Diait1zed by Microsoft q,

66

'fARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

GROUP B M.T. Joshua 7:8 8:14

..

9:20 20:5

Judges 2:14

..

2:22 20:37

Following

Targ.

(1 ,,:i,,N ~ill ?Nit:!!' 1:lil tm5ir, '::J lli' N? Nlm Jllli' N5 JlJ'N' lr.1'::Jt:!I'' liilr.i,, 2 > 1'11,i'' ,5 :lilN Jlil? NJr.l::J 'iN tlnlN n-nrn <3 ilt!'l/J nNt tl'DJl nv, ,,:i:i '::J il'l/ir.i N?:l 'illli nN rcn

tl'tlt:!1 ,,:i

Pil'm:i

1ii 11N lt:!l'nil :lilNill

j;pn, JnilN iJJnN, ,n,N

tlil':l''N ,,:i tlil':l'lN 'J:l? < 4 o:i n::i55

.

,,,

::JilNil 1Wr.i,, (~

,~t:!l:l'l

IS. 2:29 6:4 " 17:40

tl::JN'"'l:lil?

Jlilnl?::JlN?

Implied

tl5::J5 nnN ilnJr.i ,::J tl'lliil •5::J:i

p::J5i::J5 il'?'r.li!1:l,

<7

2S. 3:15 " 23:5

t:!l'N tll/r.1 rcn 5::Ji

IK. 8:46 " 18:18 " 21 :11 2K. 19:4 23:5 IS 10:8 13:2

:i,,N 'J:l;

..

.. ..

15m :1111::J it:!IN::J lilttin,, j~p,,

,v,

<8

6)

c::•JiC5, ll/?Dl 15 it!'N

i15v:i m5r.i < 9 ililD'' ,r,,v:i 5::Jl (lO,llt:J' 5::J ,::J Jlil':i:i, ,,v:i pn5tN, n:in::Ji Nr.i::i

tlnm, tl::J:ltl/:l ilil?t:J it:!IN

JlJ'Ci:ll

tl'i!:lCil 11N uru it!!N

lD'CNl

iC!':l t:!l:lJr.i Jlil'i):l tll/ Jlil't:!l:lJ (ll ,5r.i"1::Jl lill' c,:i,,J ,nnn N:i,, Nill/in:i Jl?ll'l implied by

context 12> 19:20

tl''lli15 'J:lr.i

Pil'Dni

•.. tli15 n5t!!•i

oa c5•'11m 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Also v. 12; so P. Lxx put the whole in singular. So P. So P. Sbirin, followed by Lxx Lag. So P. So Lxx P. So P. 7) So P. 8) So P. 9) So Lxx P. 10) So P. 11) P. has it in the 2nd person. Com. Lxx. 12) P. in 2 p. f. 13) So Lxx.

Digitized by Microsoft®

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

M.T. ,on,:i

•• 21:14 " 23:13 " 26:8

" 26:9

" 26:19 " 30:11 " 30:13 " 33:2

" 33:3 " 34:7

.

" 40:26 44:7 " 46:1

67

Following Targ . W'lil IU'1N1 Non, 1'5:JN NilT'lHM il'T'lJOiN (1 ,,J,,t, NJi:io 1J'1 n,N, 1Ji:i,,,, 10~, NJ~!:lJ man N10MO '~!:lJ <2 ,m, ••• ,~!:lJ ••• ,mi qN 15 N:ti:io i,iln5:iJ ,o,) <3 uJ,, 'Y't:'il

''JM:J 1'Cl!a~O MiN qN 10~, ,,J,,t:i ~!:lJ mNn 1,:ir,, ...,n,,N '~!:lJ ':tit,:t 'mi qN 1in~N ,r,,:iJ ,,no ,,n, 1,0,i,, ,,, 'JO mo •.• NJPCICN m':t~il ni,N 'JO ,ciil NJ,5Cl:JN < 4 'J'J!:lO qi,r,o ,,~:i il:t)~J ilo,n:i 5!:lJ ri!:l:i c,,i,:i, cv,r n-n •.• NJ!:lt,,r, ''ii .. JJ''t:i ... mn ,mv,~, qN <~ unv,~, NJJt:ii,!:l qN iliY T'lll:J c,,) ,Y!:lJ 1noo,,o ,,1:ir,,N ti,:i) ')00 < 61,oil ,,i,o 010 CYiN ilT'lm Nm:i,o 1~,, :i,no ci!:lv, 1,i1010 1,ilviN ,,,m CYiN ilmi, 1,il:iirio 1,ili!:lv, <7 ci!:ll1' li11' Nii,, c~:i c,:i, <8 CN:JY lilO~:J 9 < ,,r,N:Jil ,:i,, n,5ym PMN:til T'1M'5YN, t,iln,vci ,,mo C:l'T'lN~J Cil':JYV ''ii

1)

So P. Lxx. Rashi, Kimchi, Karo fellow this explanation.

2)

So P.

3)

So P.

4)

So Lxx ( see the difficult explanations of Kimchi).

5)

So P.

6)

P. puts for the same purpose p~n in the 2nd p.

7)

So Lxx. P. in :i,n~ only.

8)

Lxx P. render in pl., influenced by Ps. 147:5.

9)

So Lxx P.

D1mtized by Microsoft

68

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

" 42:6 " 48:15

..

M.T.

Targ.

Following

KWt.:l ~?t.:l l?:l' K?l

lli1'?~J i1J 'Vil/ pi 'm:i Jt.:ll

tlW!:lJl n,.:i,,

5•:iKi KWl::l?:l 'iK

<1 i1:JiV'l • •• ,.:i::i:i

Kit.:lV:ll KWV i1'?

<2 it.:lY::J

KiP' 'Jlt.:l:l 't.:ll

51:8

WV tl?:lK' i.:i::i::i •:i ec tl?::JK' it.:lY::Jl

.. .

K::lPli i1'::l i•nKi

57:15

PWK w,,p, cmr.i

KW•iPl 'iW Kt.:lli::l

58:14

•.• ,•ri::i:i,m

1J'?:ll'l ••• ,J'i~''

<3 lt.:lW WliPl

i1!1J'::JW 1'11?:lKill

Jer. 2:27

.. .. ••

•::iK

7:24 9:6 10:4 11:14 11:22

rv,

c•,r.i,K i11'l.K

implied by context

11K KJl::IK

,;ri,,•

mYVt.:l::l

)li1'1'1YV::l

tl::l? llli'i:!l::l

nr.i,r.i im::i 111::iw

1,nriwJ:i ri•::i::i p::iri•

lJKt.:l i1t.:lit.:l::l

m::ipr.i::i, m,r.ior.i::i

i1'? ~·pr,r.,

li1!:l"

ClPfn' tlKiP 1111::l

•?Yt.:l 1'1Ki ti'V::l

::i,n::i ,mr.i• c•,m::i;,

1,,~pr,, ili1't.:l?ll/

c:n•mJ::i, cn•J::i

??!:1111'1

(¼

?K

tli1'J::l tli1'1'llJ::ll

::iv,::i mr.i•

Ez. 11 :19 11:22

..

..

inK ::i, en,

•rim,

•.• nw,n nm

11'1K K5•n, nm

tl::J::liP::l

22:10 22:30

n,.:i n•,v

< 5 en, ,

rim,

lli1'l/t.:l::l

::iK rinv

lK'?.l

<61::i m,

nriwv,

i1\J::l

ci 11:l!:IW

c,,,,.:i

i1::Jl1'1::l 1) 2)

Lxx P. render them all in absolute. So P.

3) 4)

So P. Lxx seem to have had an entirely different reading. So Lxx.

5)

So Lxx P. Sym. Vu!.

6)

So Lxx Sym.

Digitized by Microsoft@

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

..

M.T. 23:40"

69

Targ·

mn5ri,n ,:, '!N1

nn5ri, ,,N

,,n riN5 1•mN•J1 1•nw:iJ 1'P'!:lN 5:,1 ,5 mY,Nil •nri, mJri,,,, m••nn iri,N C•1Ji1 5N N1:J'1 Cti' 1N:J 1'511 1t::lt::lti' iti'N:J

iJr.i• nn5•m •mnr.i, n• 'ini''lt!:l 5:,1 m•n,N1

il:Jiil ,,,c5 :Ji:J :1m:, ,,n,n:1tr.i5 n1:J'ltt::l 1:l't:lil 1YiN5 14:9 1•,c

JM51!:l 1N'JCIN ••• t1il•i1JN5, tmnr.ip tiiln:Ji•n5

-rrom

Nill•i

1•511

NJ5ll

26:11 35:8 35:10 36:20

Hos. 10:1

Am. 2:3 Mi. 5:4

t:i!:l1ti'

N't::lt::ll/ •J,:J5 15111

• •• n5n:, mrn, n•,111 Jii1' ••• Cir.ii• 1'ii1 < 1 mit,Nil

•nri,

<2 1N:J ifl'K

il,5 1i:JCli ilt::l:J 1iNn1 ••• 1i1NiD <3

••• ,•i!:l5 WiN5 1Ji1~N1 il•iri, 5:,1 •.• 1JYiN:J

••• 1J' n1Jt::liN:J

1Jt::lPm

7:15

1TIN'lt •r.i•:,

11ilP!:lt::l

Na. 2:14 3:7

il:J:Ji i15 i1J• •r.i

1:i•n, 1511 ,,,, jt::l

Za. 14:5

5:, •i15N i11i1' N:J1 1011 c:,,ri,,,p

il't::lll

..

1JNiN

<415

1•,•!:l.:n c•r.inJ0 (:;N:J1

1) It is not necessary with Cor. (D. B. Ez.) to suppose a different 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. 51:36; Mi. 7:12, noticed by Min. Shai. In Masoreth Seder Sh 'Jach this is considered among those that are written in sing. and the Sebirin in pl. That the T. follows in a good many cases the Sebirin as well as the Madnechai was noticed by the Min Shai. (Com. Ez. 5:11; B:17; 14:19; Min. Shai Jerem. 49:36; Mi. 7:12). In P'sichta Lam r. ttij.) ,,,::r n1n I!? ••• ,,::i,::i::i l!?I! 11t1::i11 l!?I! ,r.i,r.,', • So in many Kenn. MSS. 3) Lxx make nin::ito', conform to ni::i::11:1. P. follows it closely. 4) So P. Lxx put all in the 3rd person. The reading of 1? is found in many MSS. 5) So Lxx P. noticed also by Kimchi.

D,aituC'd by Microsoft

70

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

M.T. Mal. 2:15

..

2:16

5N 1'ilVJ l1tuN:1' iJ:::,., ;,o:i, ... n,ru NJtu ,:, ,rui.:i.5 511 eon

Targ.

Following <1 t:ll1ir.ltuJi

ivtul1 N5 ... ilN~n ,o.:,n N5i irui::i.5::i.

... c.:,n,;:::,. <2 ,,J::i.11

GROUP C Joshua 1 :9 nnn 5Ni l'il/11 5N Targum ;:::,.1111 N5i 5nin N5 • According to Deut, 31 :8 nnn N5i Ni'l1 N5 On. ;:::,.1111 N5i 5n,n N5. Joshua 2:4 ucsm Targum <3r,Jl1ir.l~Ni. According to v. 6

t:lJr.i~m.

z,,.

Joshua 6:6 z,,;:::,.;, fiiN l1N iN:!' Targum <4,,, Nr.l'i' tiiN According to V. 8 ;,,;,, z,,;:::,. ri,N, . Joshua 6:8 ;,,;,, 'J~5 Targum <5,,, NJiiN t:ii'. According to V. 7 inil' fiiN 'J~5 . Joshua 9:4 Targum <6 According to v. 12

,,,~'!l,,

,,,,rNi .

iJi·~~il.

Joshua 12 :8 mituN::i.i Targum Nl1r.lir.l 1erur.i::i., . According to 12: 13 moe;, m,c·N. Joshua 18:7 in5nJ iliil' l1Jil.'.:l Targum f1J'N fiil5 :::,.;,, 'i !Jl1r.l tiill1JOMN . According to 13 :33 cn5nJ Niil 5NiC'' •i15N iliil' -

•.. ri;,5 :::,.;,, ,, rmr.i . Joshua 22:24 ,~iC'' 'i15N ,,,, c:,5 ilr.l Targum p5in r,:,5 z,,5 Nir.>•r.i:::,.. According to vv. 25, 27 •.. P5n c.:,5 l'N. Judges 5 :8 c•ru,n c•;i5N in:,., Targum 5Nitt'' ,J:::,. iN'llil1N ,:i .r,.:,11;,::i.N r,;,:::,. ivOl/l1'N N5i N1•::i.1111N :,.;pr.ii rmn Nml/~, n,~r.i, According to Deut. 32:17 ci,11ru N5i iN::i. :::,.i;pr.i c•c::•,n t:l'i15N c:i•n::i.N. 1)

So Lxx.

2)

So Lxx.

3) 4)

Lxx in both places have E:KQU,j)Ev • Com. Jalqut I. c. So P.

5)

So P. V. and 4 MSS. and in 3 Kenn.

6) Many Kenn. and De Rossi MSS. read Felt by Kimchi

Digitized by Microsoft®

n•~:i' 1

•

So Lxx P.

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

71

Judges 7:7 c,pp~;, W'Ni1 niNr., nw5w:l Targum op;,,1,:1 11w1 1mr.,Ul5. According to v. 6 Ci1'!:l 5N r::,pp;r.,;, iec.,r., ,;,,,. Judges 7:18 lU11J5i m;,,; on,r.,Ni Targum <2N5~pr.,1 N:iin C1P 1r.,. According to v. 20 P311J5i ,,; :1,n iNip,, • Judges 20:38 !W31i1 nNtut.:, Targum <3 pr,, ,,~,. According to v. 40 ,,,!W31i1 1ir.,31 - ,,~,. • , LI ! t !. rl : i I Judges 20:40 ;,r.,,r.,w;, ,,31;, ;,;:i ;,;31 rum Targum p,;c., Nm N't.:,W r,,y; Nnivi NJJr,. According to Joshua 8:20 tW31 ;,;31 mm ilt.:,'r.lWi1 ,,31;, - NJJr, p,;c., Nm • 1S 4:13 ii!:lYr.l 1,1 1' NC:Ji1 ;31 :lW' ,;31 i1Jm Targum 531 •.• HN31i.n niiN w:i:i. According to v. 18 i31tui1131:J - niiN W:l:J ;31 N31ir,.

1S 4:21 i1W'Ni n-en 5Ni Targum <:s;~pr,N1i ;,531:1. Ac.cording to v. 19 i1W'Ni ;,,r.,n r,r.,i i1531:J 5~pt,N1i , 1S 6:18 ;,5i1Ji1 5:lN 131, Targum <6Nn:li NJ:JN ing to vv. 14, 15 i15mi1 i:JNi1 • 1S 14:16 Jir.iJ nenn rum Targum <7 ,Nnw5e According to v. 19 o,r,w5e mnr.i:i iwN tir.i;,m. 1S 18:6 m5nr.,m Targum N'JJn:J Nn:iw;. 21:12 m5,nr.i:i u31, - N'JJn:1 pn:iwr.i. s>

,,w;

·Nmr.in r,,r.,11 Nmr.in r,,r.,1, 131, • Accord, r,,it!'r.i pr.,;,. According to

2S 9:3 5iNW r,,:i; W'N 1ill C!:lNi1 Targum <9 Ni:JJ 1W t,'Ni1. According to v. 1 1i31 W' ':li1 - n'Ni1 • 2S 9:3 c,5Ji i1:JJ Targum 'i115Ji pn,r,:i ,p;. According to v. 13 ,,;J, ,r,w nee Nim - ,;,,;J, pr,ir,:i ,p; • 1) So P. In some MSS. of the T. the words are omitted 2) So P. In Lag. 11,io~c, is omitted. 3) 4)

P. omits t'IN!:'C , So Lxx. Kimchi:

llilCl!:? llil'i,::i

ri,111 r:,:::i ?V CJinr:, i;:r:, 1::i 1pcli1 1m111 iv=-il ,, iv::i ,n11il p1c!l::i ,011=- ,c:i ,:cc 11i:,n . 5')

Com. Lxx.

6)

So Lxx and many MSS.

7) 8) 9)

So Lxx P. In Lag. 1')101:'C. So Lxx P. Kimchi: r,,11il 1m,, ,c~,n ilC? ,nilcn, •

D1qit1zC'd by Mu:rosoft

72

TARGUM JONATHAN TO TH E PROPHETS 2S 11 :6 ,,, 5N ;,•,iN nN ::i Ni• n,~ ,, T argum

<1;,Nnn i1'i1N n•.

According to the preceding •nni1 i1'iiN nN. 2S 12:21 •n ,,,;, ,,::i11::i Targum <2c:i,p N•::i,, ,11. According to v. 22 •n ,,,;, ,w::i . 2S 12:27 tl'r.li1 i'l/ Targum <3Nm:i,r.i nrie . According to v. 26 ;,:i,,r.i;, i'll. 2S 15:17 tll/i1 5:ii 17r.li1 N~,, Targum '~.lN 5:i, N:i5r., Dt!Ji n-rro . o. Accordnig to v. 16 in•::i ,:i, 15r.ii1 N~,, -i1•n•::i ~.lN ,:i,. 2S 18:12 il/J::l •r., ,,r.i~ Targum Nt.:1•5111::i ,, ,,r.inoN. According to v. 5 il/.l7 ,, ~N, - Nt.:1•5111::i ,, ,,r.inoN . 2S 22:13 ~N •5nJ 1il/::l 11J.l i1J.lt.:I Targum i1.l1 i'it.:IU:J ;,,,r.,,r., NP5i. According to v. 9 <51.ir.,r.i ,111::i c:i•,m -i1.l1 f'it.:11J:J i1'it.:l't.:I NP51 • lK 1 :48 'NO:J ,11 ::i~· tl1'i1 rn.i it!IN Targum <6p, Nt.:11' ::i;,,, ,o,,:i 511 ::i•n• 1::i. According to 3:6 ... ::i~, p ,, tnrn . lK 1 :52 '11il/~t.:I ,~, N5 Targum <7;,,~,, il/:!'t.:I. According to 1S 14:45 ,~Ni nil/~t.:I '.;,,i;i, tlN. lK 9:8 1,,,11 ;,,;,, i1fi1 n•::i;,, Targum <8•N7'll ;,,;,i l'1i1 Nn•::i, ::ii,n ,;,, • According to 2 Ch. 7:21 5:,5 r,•511 i1'i1 i~N i1fi1 n•::i;,, •.. tl~' ,,511 i::1111 l K 12:16 p'.;,n ;,r., Targum at.l5 n•59>. According to 2S 20:1 ,,,::i p5n t'N. 1 K 13 :9 tl't.:I ;,n~n N71 Targum (lON,r., rr.in ·n~n N71 . According to v. 17 c:i•r., tl~ ;,n~n N5i • 1 K 13 :34 nN~n, ;,r;, ,::i,::i ,;,,, Targum l'1i1 Nt.:IJn~ i11i11 • According to 12:13 nN~n5 nm i::l1i1 ,;,,,. lK 22:31 tl'.l~1 tl'~'~ ::l:Jii1 ,,~ nN ;,,~ tliN 1,r.i, Targum 11:i,r.i pim r•n5n .111. According to 20:16 15r.i c:i•.ie::,•i c:i•~5t!!.

,,,::i

,.i,

,.i,

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. NOi/ ',::1 , 5) So Lxx P. 6) So P. Lag. El'>wx.E OflµEQov EX ,:ou <11tEQVµcno; µoii 7) So is the T. to 2S 14:11 j):l Mi),'t!'O. So P. here and in 2S 14:11. Lxx here only. 8) Com. P. 9) In Lag. N)',N~ . 10) In Lag. Jon is omitted. 11) Literally in Lag.

Digitized by Microsoft®

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

73

2K 4:19 ,r.iN 5N ,nt-tw Targum <1 ;,,5,:i,tot 'i1JO. According to v. 20 ,nN:i,, mNw,, • 2K 4:42 nw5w 511:ir.i Targum Nr.i,,, l/iNt.:l • According to 1s 9:4 nw5w riNJ - t-tr.i,,, l/iNJ. 2K 9:19 ti,5w 15r.in it.:lN ;,:, Targum <2 ti5wn. · According to v. 18 ti,5wn 15r.in ir.iN ;,:, • 2K 20:14 5:i:ir.i ,NJ ni',ni fiNr.i According to 1'5N ,N,J' )'Nr.i,.

Targum

<3

,m5 ,nN.

2K 21:18 NTl/ p:i ,n,:i p:i iJi''' Targum <4NTl/ jJJ iJi'nN,. According to V. 26 NTl/ llJ • 2K 23:2 ti5w,,, ,:iw, 5" rrnn- W'N 5" Targum WJN 5" ti5w,,, ,:in,, n,,n,. According to 2 Ch. 34:3 ,:iw-,, n,m, W'N 5" ti5w,,,. 2K 24:3 ,, ,£) 511 1N Targum <:i ,, tl1i' 'TJiN1 511 tliJ • According to v. 20 ~N 511 ,:, • IS. 10:7 tll/t.:l N5 tl'U n,,:,;,5, Targum O'MJ N5. According to Hab. 1: 17 5,r.in, N5 tl'U )ii15 - c,,n:i N5 )'t.:lt.:ll/ N!:lON5 • IS. 17:6 n,T ~i'J:, m5511 ,:i iNWJ' Targum i1'J 1,1Nnw,, Nm:i,r.i i'J Nt.:l5l/ UJ N'i''1Y ptot,,n, ,,Nnw, t:J ••• Nn'T ,w,:i:i p55w. According to 24:13n,T ~i'J:i tl't.:llli1 ,,n:i fiNi1 Jii'J ;,,;,, ;,:, ,:, - ... N'i''1Y l'N1'M' 1,,Nnw, j,,:, 'iN. IS. 22:3 ,,n, ,,oN 1'NYr.iJ 5:, Targum <65tii'n' 1'J n:inwNi ,::i. According to 13: 15 ii'1' NYt.:lJi1 5::i - 5tii'n' i1J n::inw, ,, 5::i • IS. 26:1 nm

,,w;, ,wP N,nn ti,,:i Targum 1,n:iw, N'i1i1 NJ1l/J

amn Nnn:iw,n 7>. According to 42:10 win

,,w ,,, ,,,w.

IS. 29:16 ,nw115 ;,~·11r.i it.:lN' ,::i Targum NJ'tl ,r.i,,, it!'!:lNil i1'1Jl/5 . According to 45 :9 ,,y,5 ,r.in it.:lN'i1. 1)

So P. Com Lxx.

2)

Com. P. Lxx

3) 4) 5)

So Lxx P. 1r,1', is omitted in Lag. Com. Lxx. Both are rendered in Lag. So Lxx. Com. P.

6) 7)

The whole phrase is omitted in Lxx and P. In Lag. 11,:i •

Et ELQlJVf}

D1Qitized by Microsoft

74

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

IS. 33:11 c:i5:iNn ~N corm Targum N,~,:::i 1,.:i,,:::iu, 5,,:::i N~v5 N5U15ll:i ,,r.,,r.,. According to 40:24 CN~n ~p.:, n,110, <1N~v5 N5iv5v:i n,,o,o, . IS. 41 :4 nN, i,~N, n,n, ,JN ~N,o rrrrm N1i' n~v, 5ll!:l 'O Nin ,JN c,J,inNTargum <2 n,,:::i NJN ... ,,:iv, ir.>N c,i' p5,N ioN jr.> Nn5N n,5 ,Jr., ,:::i JiJ1N ,5,, N105ll 10511 ~N, n1~N,:::ir.> Nr.>511. According to 44:6 c1n5N l'N 1,115:::io, 11,nN 1JNi J1~N, 1JN 3 1 < ••• N1r.>5ll 0511 ~N 1,o,i'5r.>i Nin NJN . IS. 42:18 ,110~ c,~,n;, Targum N5i1 p~in:i JiJ'N1 N'l/'~, ivo~ p:i5 J'Ji1N. According to 43:8 ir.,5 C1JTNi c,~,m. IS. 44:12 i;,iy, m:::ii'o:::i, Targum n,5 ~,i'nr.> p:::i,i'r.>:11. According to Jer. 10:4 <4cii'Tn1 m:::ii'o:::i, - ;,,5 ~,pnr., J':li'r.>:::ii. IS. 45 :9 n~vn no ,,y,5 ion ioN1n Targum ,Jni:::iv N5 • According to 29: 16 1J~ll N5 1i1~ll5 n~l/r.> ir.>N1 ,:, • IS. 47:7 ni:::iJ i11i1N c5,v5 Targum p5r., n!:l1i'n 1nN c5v5. According to v. 5 n,:i5r.,r., n,:::iJ 15 iN1i'1 1!:l•oin N5 - Ji:i5r., n!:l'i'n. IS. 50:8 'i''1~r.> : :iiii' Targum ,n,.:,1 N:l11i'. According to 51 :5 'i'1~ : :i,,i' - ,n,:ir N:l'1i' . IS. 63:5 1l/1T ,5 11~,n, 10,0 l'N1 co,n~·N, 1Tll j'N1 ~·:::iN, 1Jn:ioo N'i1 ,nr.,n, Targum J1i1'5ll •11:::i,, c,i',, ~'N n15, 'r .l1i' 11,,,, i1J'nipo ,n,11, io•o:::i, ,!:li'in 11,,:::i tiJ•ni'i!:li . According to 59:16 ll'J!:lr.> J'N ,:, co,n~,, - C1i''1 ~JN n,5, ,n,r.,ii' l1J'1l1D n•mv, 1010:::i, n•!:li'in 11,,:::i 11J,i'1!:l1 1,n,511 111:::i,, .

v,,,,

Jer. 6:11 5•:in 1n•N5J n,;,, non nNi Targum Ni:::i,o5 •n•N5 19~r.>5 n,5,:,, N51 . According to 20:9 5:iiN N5 5:i5:i ,n,N5Ji n,5,:,, N51 Ni:::i,o5 1n•N51 . Jer. 8:15 c,5~5 il1i' Targum c5~5 NJ1::lD . According to 14:19 ... .1Jn':li1 l/iir., - c5~5 ~J1:JD. 1)

It renders this way Is. 41:16: crmc y1t,r, n,.i;c, - ;,1,0101 In Lag. Nt:,p; is omitted.

Nt:'j:)? N?,)I?)/;; •

2) So the T. renders Is. 40:12, seemingly for their similar be· ginning and contents. 3) ~N

i:m

So, for the same reason, it renders 43:10: 1,!)', Nli1 IJN 1;; N? - .•. J 1.01p',o1 Nli1 N'N •

4) See [erern, 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.

Digitized by Microsoft®

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

75

Jer. 10:4 1iHl" Jilf::11 ~o:,:::i Targum ii'' '!:In NJili:::i, N!:10:l:J. According to Is. 40:19 (llJlli,i' Jilf:J ~1Y1 - ;,,, '!:lnr.i. Jer. 10:4 i''!:i' N5\ Targum ''t::lY' N5i. According to Is. 40:20, 41:7 <2~r.,, N5 - ,5t::)y, N5i. Jer. 30:15 1:JN.:lr.i WUN Targum ,,nnr., ~11,or.,. According to v. 12 in:,r., n,m - ,,nnr., Nl/ir.,r.,. Jer. 31 :9 tl5'J1N tl'JUnn:i, 1NJ' ,:,:::i:::i Targum l'N'JO pr.,ni:::i l1J'J1i'N. According to Is. 54:7 1YJi'N tl'51iJ tl'r.>ni:::i, - pr.,ni:i, : :i,i'N !'N'JO. Jer. 32:35 ,:i, 511 iln511 N51 tl'n'W N5 1rt'N Targum n'ii'!:l N5i ,n,,iN:::i. According to 7:31 <3,:i, 511 nn,11 N5i ,n,,Y N5 iwN - ,n,,,N:::i n,,i'!:l N5i.• Jer. 33:3 n11YJ1 n,5iiJ ,, i1i'JN1 Targum l1't::lJ1 t:::ii:i,. According to Is. 48:6 <4t:inv,, N51 n11YJ1 - ti't::lJi . Jer. 41 :15 r,r.,11 'JJ 5N ,,,, Targum r>i5 i:::iv,r.,5 5tN1 i,r.,11 'JJ. According to v. 10 !1r.>l/ 'JJ 5N i:::i115 ,,,,. Jer. 46:8 riN no.:iN i15l/N Targum i1N5r.>i Nl/1N '!:inN. According to 47:2 i1Ni5r.,i riN 1!:lt::lrt''1 - i1N5r.ii Nl/1N tn:::i,,. Jer. 48:4 JN1r.> i11Jrt'J Targum JN1r.> ni:,5r., n,:::in,N. Accord, ing to 48:25 JN1r.> l1i' ill/iJJ - JN1r.> n,:,5r.,. Ez. 11 :19 c:iii':::i tnN ilrt1in nm inN : :i, tli15 ,nm, Targum ,,n, : :i, i,n, tnNi 5>. According to 36:26 ~·,n : :i, - p:,5 tnN1

,,n,

:::i,.

1) So P. Rashi; Kimchi etc. curiously combine both readings. F. Perles in J. Q. R., v. 18, p. 388, would read here 1:,1,::,1 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 Dlli'1' in the same way as 1Mll11\ • 2) So Lxx, except in Is. 40:20. 3) Lxx read there c,r,11::, as here. 4) Minchat Shai sees another reading by the as to think that Rashi, who follows the T., has reading. But Rashi does it in numerous instances sumption is out of question. Kirnchi remarks: n•n

I "D:i

T. and goes so far also had the same where such an as, ,ti•t:)\

i:,.,:i,

M"•l

M\11!11'1 1(1\i'.

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.

D,a,t,zC'd by Microsoft~

76

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

Ez. 17:5 11,r ilirt'::i ,nm,, Targum ::i,~ 5pn::,. ;,,::,.;,,,. Accord, ing to v. 8 u ::i,~ nirt' 5N - ::i,~ 5pn::,.. Ez. 29:3 '-'M'rt'll ,.,N, 'iN' ,, Targum N.)N, Nm::i,o ,,,i n,rt'::i::i. According to v. 9 <2 'M'rt'll '-'N' ,, iN, - Nm::i5o

n,rt'::,.::,

N.)N,

,,,, .

Bz. 29:6 il-'i' mllrt'O crn-n Ill' Targum Nll'll, N'Ji' 100. According to Is. 36:6 rw,n ruen - Nll'lli N'Ji' 100. Bz, 30:18 i1Jo::,, Pll N'il Targum n, '!:lm p,5oi N.)Jll::i NlliN. According to 38:16 <3 riNil mo::,5 py::, - NJJll::i NlliN n, '!:lm p,5oi .

,,:i ,,,,,

Ez. 31:14 5N Targum NJi::iN n,:::,. ::i,J ,nm Clll. According to 32: 18, 24 ,,::,. 'i,,, MN. Ez. 31:15 n5,Nrt' mii c,,::,. Targum ,n,nnN c,,::,.. According to v. 16 n5Nrt' ,nN 'i'i,n::,. - ;,,n, ,mnnN::i. Ez. 32:5 n,,N'Jil 'MN5o, Targum N,5,n r,5on,,. According to V. 6 <4 f'N50' Cl'i'!:lN, - !,5on,, Ez. 32:18 m,nnn fiN 5N Targum NM'lliN NlliN5 . Accord, ing to 31:14 <:5 n,nnn fiN 5N - Nn,11,N NlliN5. Ez, 32:24 cn-nn ,.,m irt'N Targum ,::in, ,,,oon'Ni . Accord, ing to v. 23 n,nn uru irt'N. Ez. 34:24 c::i,n::,. N'rt'J -m 'i::ill, Targum <6N::i5o i'i 'i::i11,. According to 37:24 Cli1'5ll 150 -m 'i::i11,. Ez. 36:12 CiN c::i,,11 ,n::i,m, Targum <7 p::,,,11 'JON'. According to vv. 10, 11 CiN c::,,,11 ,n,::i,m - 1,::i,,11 'JON, . Ez. 41: 17 nnen 5110 511 Targum N5,y5 ill. According to v. 20 nnsn 5110 ill riNno • 1) 2) 3) 4) was not

As to the change in person, com. De Rossi V. L. V. T., ]. c. P. reads "ll!P : Lxx have v. 9 as in v. 3. It also influenced Jer. 46:8. Lxx have in v. 6 as in v. 5. Kittel wonders if the reading Ht'?~~, •

5) So 26:20 mnnn f'11t:l. 6) Lxx have in 37:24 as in 34:24. Lag has here lt:l'1, However, in 37:25 the T. stands alone. 7) Ehrlich Ez. 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.

Digitized by Microsoft®

TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

77

Ez. 43 :10 .r,•J:i.r, I"IN ,,,r.i, Targum il'Civ~ .r,, 1,nwr.i•, • According to v. 11 n,m,:im ri•:Ji1 miY. Mi. 2:8 ti~'W!:lI"l .,,N nr.i,w ,,r.ir.i Targum Jii1Jr.i tinip• tir.ir.i J':lCJ. According to 3:3 ,~'W!:lil cn•,vr.i c,iv, - 1,n,p• i,r.ir.i l':JCJ tii1Jr.l . 2 > Ze. 3:10 i1JN1"l .r,n.r, 5Ni J!:l) nnn 5N Targum ,,e mnri, •mJ•.r, ,,e mnn,, •mJ!:liJ. According to tK 5:5 iJ!:lJ nnn w•N imNn rinm • Ze. 9:8 il:JYr.i n•:1, •n•Jm Targum ... •w,pr.i n•:J:J •iwNi ,,no ,,nc n, ~pir.i NWNi ,,w:i. According to 2 :9 il'i1N 'JNi wt< rir.i,n n, - ,me -nne n, ~Pr.i NwNi ,,w:i • Ze. 11; 17 5•5Ni1 'Vi ,,;, Targum NWB~ NCJie 5JJ ,, • According to v. 15 ,,,,N nv, - NW!.~ NCJie. 1)

So P.

2)

Lxx read in 2:8

iiv as in 33.

So P.

D1git1zC1d by Microsoft~

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 reverence 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 holiness. 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 exegc1)

Meg. 3a; Y erushalmi 1, 10.

78

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 literalness of the passage or word involved is of chief consideration. It is, on the one hand, a desire to correctly understand the propher.O and on the other hand, to make the author intelligible 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 salient 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. 4 > The aim he set for himself was translation; nothing beyond it. The targumist is inclined, however, in certain cases to parallelism of circumstances, as is the case with the Agada. One thing, however, stands forth as peculiarly remarkable. It would appear the targurnist 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 presentation. He is this way interpreting the prophecies of "consola2) Com. Scheleiermacher, Hermenutik, etc. (ed. 1838), p. 3. 3) lmmer, 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.

Dic,itizcd by Microsoft f1

80

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

tion" which his age of national depression and political dejection would hardly regard as already accomplished.a) 1n 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 realization, 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 giowing 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.t ' But of significance is also the introduction of the wicked side by side with the righteous. In this way the M e s s i a n i c 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 nation 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 Farhers.s! But it is to be noticed that the targumist 5') Com. Am. 9:1; Ze. 11:7-11, particularly v. 10. On the other hand, com. Ze. 6:5-the "four kingdoms" are not called by name. 6) Com. ls. Ch. 9, 11, 12, 6·5; Jer. 23:3•9; Hos. 6:1·4; 14:15, etc. 7) Com. ls. 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."

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE EXEGESIS

confines the application of this method an implication. Whether or not he he is distinctly approaching it. He is artificial combinations. In most cases line with the Agadic interpretation.

81

to passages which garb strikes the right point making no strange and his exposition falls in

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 revealed 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-

Dmitized bv M,uosoft

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 evident, and the T. only follows the current interpretation trace, able in the Agada.O > 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.tv! The textual form is paid little heed.11> 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 (c•,::ii n::i ,~,) and they increased and committed evil deeds (vv. 3, 6, 8) and their generation, exiled among the peoples, were not acceptable (l'~·ni) 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 l lb). V. 6, which the targumist refers the repeated nn ,,~,:i to the blood of circumcision and Passover, is so interpreted in Seder Eliahu r. 25 (p. 138 F.); 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 applied by the Agada to v. 7 (Mechilta), while v. 10 is interpreted as referring to the priestly garments and to the Mishkan (com. Jalqut I. 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.

Digitized by Microsoft®

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).12> 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.Ia> That some agadist, however, would have it allegorically interpreted and that the T. is following his interpretation is fairly certain.tv! 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 Messiah, whose approaching appearance has been expected by his contemporaries. That being the case, the allegorization on the same lines of Is. 5 3 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: k', : ,~1k kllM 'i k•!n

.c,,nk c•n':ok ,., ,,n, M', i:,,k', 11nn M',1 : ',ce ni:,1111 k? ,,rn 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 I. c.

D1qtt1zC1d by Microsoft

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, unlike the Agadist contemporaries, who would rather play thoughtfully on the humbleness and sulferings of the Messiah.1;,> 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 actualiy rewrites ch. 5 3, 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 overcoming 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.

Digitized by Microsoft q.

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 description. 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 parabolic nature. Except for the substitution of the simple for the metaphorical, the T., as a rule, in these cases keeps closely to the text stylistically 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 N01 nm, "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 her children, he became a king, and he learned to kill, killing, men he killed.

And she brought up one of her whelps, he became a young lion, and he learned to catch the prey, he devoured men.

Dmtt,wd by Microsoft

86

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

V. 6 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.

T. And he went up and down among the kings, he became a king and he learned to kill, killing, men he killed.

Ez. 23:2, 5

v.

2

Son of man prophesy on two cities which are like two w o m e n who were the
Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother.

V. 5 And Ohlah erred from my worship and she was wilful to err after her lovers, the Assyrians, her near ones.

And Ohlah played the harlot when she was mine, and she doted on her .lovers, on the Assyrian warriors.

Ez. 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 description 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,

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 (N,:::ii:::ii) of the strong and powerful and upon all the tyrants (,Jim) of the lands (Nm,ir.i); 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 (N,C:lJ) 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. c,v, Jer. 2:8; Ze. 11:3 rendered by N,:i,r.i , while in Ez. 34:2, 5, 7 etc., it is rendered by N,c:,Jie (c,~v 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 ternpest of destruction. As a storm of mighty waters overflowing, that casteth down to the earth with violence," which the T. renders: "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 Ian, 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 1:ii or :, is inserted. Instances of this sort are numerous. Com. Ez. 2:6; Hos. 8:7; 10:71, 16; 12:2 etc.16> 16) As to the scope of the application of the metaphorical princile it should be noticed that although applied in full measure of persistency, it still has a multitude of exceptions. These excetions occur particularly in those parts of the Prophets where the T. is predominantly

Dmitucd by Microsoft

88

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS T h e sym b olic exp ression is ren d ered in th e T . in its sim p le

sense, as th e text w ou ld in d icate. N o com parative is em ployed . Instances of th is sort are ls. 6:6 ; E z. 2:8 ; 3:1, 2, 3. Som e m etaph orical exp ression s are ren d ered allegorically by th e T ., in w h ich th e T . is follow in g a M idrash ic course. T h e ren dering is free in ev ery resp ect. A n in structiv e exam ple of this sort is A m . 4:14 : "T h at m aketh th e m ornin g darkn ess an d treadeth upon the high places of th e earth ."

T argum :

"T o set ligh t

to the pious lik e th e lig h t of th e m ornin g, w hich is setting, to bring darkn ess to th e w icked , to break the w icked of th e lan d."

O ther exam p les are Is. 42:11, 57 :16 ;

A m . 8:13.

A princip le exten siv ely ap p lied in th e T . is on e that m ay be described as th e exegetical com p lem en t. T h is, in the first place, w as in tend ed to fill th e gap s created by th e poetical contraction of th e prop h etical sty le.

In som e cases a com plem en t is dictated

by th e sense of th e passage.

T h is w ill be fairly w ell dem on -

strated by th e follow in g passages: M al. l :4 :

"W h ereas E d om saith w e are im poverished but

w e w ill return an d bu ild ."

T h e sen se of this passage requires

som e lin kin g w ord betw een "im p ov erished " and the rest, as bein g im p ov erish ed , it is im p ossib le to build .

In order to fill

th is gap, th e T. renders it this way:

"We are impoverished now we are enriched we will return," etc.

Jer. 17:4 1n5nJr.i 1:n ;,r,c,r.,~, the shortcomings of this passage need not be pointed out. (Com. Lxx and particularly P. on this v.). The T. supplies both 1:n and 1T1?nJr.l with complements to fill the gap, rendering: "And to you I shall render a punishment of judgment until I shall exile you from your inheritance." 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 othere,

Digitized by Microsoft(!-'

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 where 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. 6:1.)17> Repetition of the same word or of identical words, con, sidered as one of the principles governing the exegesis of Philo,18> 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 unable 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: 11':i 1s treated thus lY 16 and so with li';. 18) Com. Siegfried, Philo, etc., p. 168, put by Briggs (Biblical Study, p. 306) in group II.

Dmitizcd by Microsoft Q-

90

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

of the Lord ye worship, before the temple of the Lord ye sacnfice, before the temple of the Lord you bow three times through the year." Com. Is. 2:19; Jer. 22:29; Ez. 16:23; 21:14; 36:3. As to identical words, com. Is. 1:2; 33:22; 43:12. Finally it should be noticed, that though the principle pointed out in the foregoing instances is Midrashic in nature, the com, plement is simple, concise, and in considerable measure keeping within the boundaries of the text. On one plane with the metaphorical principle rests the lexical. This pnnciple affects singular words or expressions which, though not metaphorical, bear a poetical stamp, and in reality convey more or less the idea of the meaning than the meaning itself. Such words or expressions, instead of rendering them according to their surface meaning, the targumist takes them by their underlying value as suggested by the text. In, stances of single verbal words: Ez. 12:13: "And I shall bring him in Babel." Targum: "I shall exile him" etc. So also v. 16; 36:20 etc. ibid. 23:10: "they took", Targum: "they captured"; Hos. 4:3: "Therefore doth the land mourn." Targum: "There, fore shall the land be laid waste". Ibid. 13:5: "I did know thee in the wilderness" - "I supplied your needs in the wilderness." Instances of nouns: "And I will appoint over them four families" - "four calamitious afflictions." In Mi. 2:3: "On this family" - "generation; Ez. 24:8: "I gave her blood" - "I revealeth their transgressions"; ibid. 21:37: "they blood" etc. - "the sin of your murder." Ez. 34:2: "Prophesy on the shepherds of Israel" - "on the leaders (~'tlJi!:l) of Israel." Instances of ex, pressions: "And they shall do with thee in hatred" - "and shall revenge from thee" etc. Ez. 16:16: "not coming and not being (so)" - "not as required nor proper; Ez. 13:17 etc.: "put thy face" - "accept prophecy". Examples of all categories are numerous. In drawing a comparison between this Targum and Onk., as well as other translations with respect to the exegetical principles, it will appear that Onk. pursues the same principles. This point was well elucidated by Luzzato in Oheb. Ger. 31. As regards the other translations, some exceptions must be made. The allegorical principle as well as the metaphirocal,

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE EXEGESIS

91

as applied by the Targum, are to be found neither in the Lxx nor in P. On the other hand, the principle of the exegetical complement is followed by the Lxx in Pentateuch 10 > and in a lesser degree also by the P. Illustrations are: Gen. 25:22: "And she said: 'If it be so, wherefore am r, .. which the Lxx render: Et ou-rwi; µoL µEAi.EL ytvE<1{}m etc. Gen. 40:16: "in my dream" xayro U()Ev EVUJtvlOV

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 fo{}m µ[av iJ iJµEQaV xal iJµEQa EXELV'l'J yEVE<1l"ll 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." 'A~Qaµ <1E Ev n:A01J<1L0i; So P. 15:2 a.-rfavoi; . So. P. (Onk. agreenig in both instances). But com. Lxx T. Jer. 22:30, 49:3: ,)N r,,~N, - O.QX,ll -rfavwv (P. lit. Onk. Alleg.) v. 10: - ti:i~ O.QX,Wv (P. lit. Onk. Alleg.) etc. Is. 8:4 ,J:ir.:i:i Lxx EV l"'l'J tµrj TCOAEL

,,,,v

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: •.. :i,,N5 ,r.:,lJ 5,r.:inN, - "My 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; Mal. 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 i& found in Z. Frankel's "Ober den Einfluss" etc. See particularly pp. 4, 9, 73.

D1qttucd by Mic; osoft
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, 1 5. Another interesting characteristic device of the commentary is the turning of one part of the verse into a cornplement 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. 11:8.21> 20) Com. Gen. 18:7; 27:36. Com. Z. Frankel, Vorstudien, p. 171. Ober den Einfluss, 76. 21) The T. turns a comparative phrase into a resultant, treating CN as i::, . So Jerem. 22:28. Here the T. follows another principle, namely, turning one phrase of the v. into a comparative to the preceding one. Com. Is. 8:2, in which case an Agadic interpretation is in, volved (Mak. 24a); 42:2.

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 5vr.:, 5Niw, ,.:,.:, ,,11r.i,, Targum 5Niw, ,.:,.:, ,,pw, • 1PW So Sifri Num. 7: i15,31r., PN (.:,, ,i1 i.:,ir.,.:,) 511r.i ,.:, i15vr.:,,

.o,n.:, ,11r.i 5Niw, ,.:,.:, ,511r.i,, ,r.i,N, ..• ,,p,w N5N o,pr.i ,.:,.:, Onkelos 1. c. and v. 6 has a similar rendering. Joshua 10:13 (also 2S 1:18) ,w,i1 1DD Targum N1DD Nn,,,,Ni. Com. Aboda Zara 25b. Also Y. Sota 1, 18.

. .:,p31,, pny, t:li11:lN 1ElC m N:lN ,.:, N11n 1"N ,w,i1 1ElC 1Nr.l • .:,u~m ,w,i1 n1w11, <, o,,.:,,) i11:l .:,,n.:,, rrnn i1.:iwr.i i!lc m ir.iN "1 Judges 5:10 minY nun« •.:,:ii Targum tm•PCl/ t•5t:).:,r., nm .:,nr.,5 ,,,.:,nnr.i, 5Niw,, Nl/1N mnn 5.:,.:, 1•.:,5i1r.i, ••• 1.:inN 511 ,,.:,,.:,, •.. NJ11 51.' So Erubin 54b 11115 ,,vr.:, p.:,5i1r.iw o,r.,.:,n ,,,r.i5n ,5N m.:inN ,.:,.:,,, . :i,m ,r.i;, i1.:i,,r.i5 :,.:,,,r.ir.i, ib. 5 :31 mi,.:,,.:, wr.iwi1 mt~:, ,,::i:iN, Targum 1m, 1mr.in,, 1 i1'1P 1,i1•1:::, N1i11N5 pi•nl/. Com. Sifri Deut. 145 t:i'r.1Wi1 ,r.,,:, mtY:l ,,.:,mtt, ,r.i,N N,i1 p, ,or:, l:i'P'1Y 5w Cli1'J£) ''i1'W )'1Ni1 511 Wr.lWi1.

1 Sam. 1 :1 l:i'DW c1nr.ii:, tr.i Targum N'N:lJ ,,,r.i5nr.,. So Meg. 14a 5Niw,5 t:1i15 ,N:i.:in.:,w t:11!l,Y omNr.ir.i inN t:11tiw t:11r.c,:i tr.i The Targum assumed c•nr.iii1 to be in const. u:ate while Cl'DW as a descriptive noun as did P. Com. Lxx. So is the Targum to l S 9:15 ~,~ l'1N:l - ,,, N':lJ i1:l1 Nl/1N:l • ib. 1m!lN Targum Cl'iDN n•.:,i tti,t:):l N•wi,p.:, p5,n . siders Eli to have belonged to the Levites (1 Chronicles 6:18). (So R. Jochanan Jalqut 1. c.). The ni1P ,.:,.:, were given a portion on the Mountain of Ephraim (Josh. 21 :21). The Targum in other cases (Judg. 12:5, lK 11:26) merely transcribes it . Com., however, Berachoth 31b . IS 6:19 W'N ~5N c•wr.in w•N Cl'l/:lW t:ll/:l ,,, Targum 5•1:)p, N1:l) P!l5N pwr.in N5i1P:l' N1:l) l'l/:lW Nr.ll/ •.:,c.:, . Thus the discrepancy in the number is eliminated. This interpretation agrees with Y. San. 2, 4 tu'N Cl'l/:lt!' Cll/:l ,,, ir.iN ,m ,NJr.l ,,, i1J•Jn 'i

D1gitiwd by Micrnsoft

94

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

r'iNil tll/r.l l:]?N Cl'ttlr.lnl ,l'i1i1JO H and .i lil'?N 110 (pp. 58, 59, Friedmann), tlilr.ll/ i1?11) ,,,mo, l:J?N tl'ttlr.ln ?Nittl'r.l ?!:lJ 1:l'!:l?. ib. 12:11 r,:i T1N1 511::n,, nN 'ii n?ttl'l Targum tiwr.iw So Y. Rosh Hashana 2, 8; Babli 25a. Com. P.

r,,,.

ib. 13:11:,:,r.,::i ?1Nttl i1Jttl iJ Targum p::i,n il'::l r,,:,, i1Jttl 1::i:i 1:ir.i 1:i ?1Nttl p Y. Bikkurim 3, 3. N?ttl i1Jttl p:, NJlil Ji ir.lN Nt:)n tll/t:) cve . Joma 22b i1Jt!' 1::i PlJ'r,:, ,,r,mw :,:, 1:,nr.iJtt1 N?N. ib. 1 5: 17 i1T1N ?N'iW' 't:)JW WNi Targurn tm::iw n,:,, tli::l Nr.l'::l i::ll/r.l? ll/J '1 15 Nr.liJ 11::lN l'r.l'J::11 . Com. Sota 36b on Ps. 68 :28 Cl't:)Jttlil Pil tl'il ?l/ ?Nitti' ,,r.i11w ill/ttl::l ir.llN i'Nr.l ,., n-n n:,nr, 1iN 'JN ir.llN nn i15nr, 1iN 'JN ir.llN i1t rn T1N i1t T'MYU .tl'' ,.,,, pr.i•n m::iw r'!:lP

,w

Also Tanchuma WJ'l 8 on the same verse.

r,,,

ib 19:13, 16 tl'll/il i'!:l:l nNl Targum .Niu Com. Schochar Toh as cited in the Jalqut 1. c. Cl'!:liT1i1 T1N NYlr.l Nim .Cl'lll ?ttl t:)'Jllil T1N1 il:im::i Com. Kimchi I. c. ib 19:18, 19 T11'JJ 1::lt!''l Targum NJ!:l?lN r,•::i::i So Zebachim 5 4b j'Jttll' 1'i1W N?N ~ ilr.li ?YN l'Jll ilr.l ,:,, il::li ir.lN .c,111 ?ttl 1'1J::l l'i'Oll/ ilr.li::l ib. 23:18 1::l 11!:)N Nt!'J t!''N ilt!'r.lnl Cl'Jr.lW N1i1i1 Cll'::l T1r.l'1 Targum 11!:lN rt•::i:,r.,:, l'it!':l1 l'i::l) Ntt1r.in1 !Jr.in N1i1i1 NQ1'::l ?t:)i'l ;·,:ii . This interpretation of the expression implying that all of them were high priests is followed in Y. San. 10, 2, Gem. Cl'?11) Cl'Jil:l 'J~' l'Jr.lr.l l'N il"M 'i 'JT1 p N? ... 'r.l11Ni1 )N11 ::10'1 c•5,,) tl'Jil:l ni•i15 tl"1Ni c,,:i l'ilttl ir.,:,r., N?N nruo . 2S 1:19 ?Nitti' '::lYil Targum ?Nitti' 11nin11nN The T. identified it with the root, ·::iy, . Com. Is. 21 :5 Ps. Jon. Deut . 29:9. Com. Schochar Toh 22, 19: tl'il?N i'MY' ,., Clt!'J ')M ,., (N ,J"!:l c•:,nr,) ?N n,11::i JYJ tl'il?N T11r.lW) ir.lN T1N1 10:l Olr.l't:)'N JYJ Cl'il?N N?N !N:l J•r,:, l'N 10111 • i1Yi1 ?l/ T1JY Jl ( N":l ,J"? Both Onkelos and Ps. Jonathan render r,JYJ1 ib.

by ·ir,11

5 :6 c•nO!:li11 tl'ill/il Targum N•::i•n, N'Nt:)n Com. t"l/ '1::lll/ NJ1W 111 i1'i1W 111 W!:lJ 'NlJW

36 ill/?N 111 'i'i!:l :

ib. 5 :24 Cl'N:l::lil 'WNiJ i11l/Y ?li' T1N 11/r.lttl::l 'i1'1 Targum 111r.iw•r.i::i 'i1'1 Coin. Shochar tob 27, 2

• N•J?'N 'W'i::l NnniY :,p

r,,

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE EXEGESIS

96

i1N1J'IW ,11 15YN p::i,i, ,,;, tlN ,;,.cN !i1::l ,, tnw.c5 mw, ,; PK 't'N1::l i1il/Y ;,i, J'IN 1l/OW::l ,;,,, 10NJW l'l/Jl/JO mJ5'Ni1 ,wN, c,N:J::li1 and with minor alterations in Pesiqta Rabati 8. ib. 6:20 c,i,,;, inN m5JJ m5Jn:i Targum ,;mo, r,5ni The Targum interprets c,i,, empty, naked. Com. Jalqut 1. c. i1N1JW tli15 n;,;n ,100 nNJ nn-n N:::iN z,,::i 5w nnewr.i ,; nir.iN .i15UO ::li'll' 5J1 J'IC.C' ,, J'IC.C !il'O'O Com. Y. Sukka 5, 14; San. 2, 4 P5ll ,ir.iN ,tl'i'\1n inN ,no tln'O'r.l ;,m( N5, : li'l/ N5 cm:, nN1J N5W 5,Nw z,,::i 511 . ib. 21:19 ,mn z,,;J J'IN ,,31, p JJn5N ,,, Targum ·,w, 1::i ,,, ;~i,, So Jalqut 1. c. · ,,, rn tl'J,,N ,,31, t::i !Jn5N ,,, .,11,:i ;,,J ;,,nw ,,31, 1::i ; 5N mnw ,w, 1::i ib. 23:1 c,J,inNi1 ,,, ,,::i, n5N, Targum ~,c; '::lJl'INi Nl'lr.inJi ,r.i,; N05ll. Com. Shochar Tob 18, 5 N::l'W:J 5Ni~·, i:i n,,w o,,r.i,N ,J,r.i'::i ninr.i::i n,wr.i • ib. 23:4 wow n,,, ,i,,::i i,N:i, Targum ,,nv, Nwow:i, l'll/::lW ,,n,J:J Nn5m !'ll::l1N i1NO z,;z, ,n 5JJ ;,,,i,, ,,nr:i N1nJN5 .N'O' NJ'll/::lW N,::i:i,:i 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,wr.i 5w ,i,::i n"::ii,n ,,N,W:J N5N ii'::l ,,N:i, ,nr.i tl'lli,, ,JN l'N wr.iwn n,,m ; and in Pesachim 2a: l'll:J nm o5,v::i ii,::i ,,N:i, N:::in tl5'315 o,i,,,y; wow nn•it • Com. R. Channel 1. c. ib. 23:7 u::i,w, ~,w wN::i, nun rv, 5ti::i N5r.i, on::i VJ' ~·,N, n::iw::i Targum p.ci,m l'5tN p:nn::i ::i,i,,r.:,5 ,,wr.i, WJN 511 ~N, pnr.i,,, pJim •110::i 1,;:i, N5i N5tie w,:i5::i ;,,; p.cn, ,11 ,n,;JJ 1,,i,,z,, NiP,nN5 p,,z,11 NJ'IWN::l pn5N WJN ,,::i 1,n,mJl/i,e z,,; 1:i:i .Nr.l5l/ z,, tir.i5 pi N,c,,:i 511 ::ll'lr.l? N::11 NJ,i l'l'::l i1N5Jl'IN::l In a like manner runs the interpretation in n::i, m•5N ,,c ,3 : 'tl'WP tlmJi,t::i, c,:i, tlm)~j:)::l N5N 1:i tl)'N 5Niw, 5w tl'l/W,e 5::iN ir.iNJW ,;w ,,,Jn wii,r.in z,,::i::i tlmN p.c,,w, l'?l/r.iw ~ 11:iw no, . l'l::lW::l 1,.0,w, WN::l ,r.i,N, ri,:i 531,;::i, ib. 23:8 o,,,::iJn mr.iw n5N Targum ,,n, N'1::lJ z,;,r.:,w t'5K .NJ•i ,o,,:i 511 Nl'l'1WO w,, N1::lJ ,,, tll/ The interpretation of c,,,::iJ as representing rather the learned who pronounce judgment, and not the warriors, is the favorite one in the Agada. Com. Moed Katan 16b, Y. Mak. 6, 7 and Pesiqta r. 11.

D1mt1.w d by Microsoft

96

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

ib. 24:15' ,vu~ nv 1111 i;,Jilr.i Targum c•.::,Jnr.i, ti•vr.i .Ni•r.in So Berakoth 62b Tit.:i'ilt:' Til/t:'r.l 5N1r.iw ir.iN 11nr.i nl/ 'N~ .1n;,,,r nvw 1l/ i•r.inil and in the name of R. Chiyya in Pesiqta r. 11. IK 7:26 5,.::,, nJ c•:i5N Targum .NJ't.:i1J )'n•J t:i•£:>5N t•in So Erubin 14b, Sifri Num. 42. Jm::n (n ,, J"•n,) 5,:,, o•o5N nw5w o•nJ ;,•rnr.i ,r.i1N inN Jin:, t:l•£:>5N - 155i1 t:l'J1n::J 'JW ,r.i,,;,n, ,~,.::, 5,.::,, nJ t:l'£l5N ,r.i,N inN . WJ•J o•£:>5N nw5w onw n5J

ib. 37 ,,r ni•J Targum N•J~J ,,r Com. Rosh Hashana lla, Y. Rosh Hashana 2, 8 t:lH!'r.l N1ilil -~ ,,r c:,•inJ 'r.lJ a-ron N•J5•N1 N1'f il'J n•N1 .

ib. 8:2 t:i•Jn'Nil ni•J Targum il'5 11;,, N•;,•nv, Nni•J ~,n ll/J1 i1Noi;, ~n,, . In the Talmud (Rosh Hashana l la) R. Eliezer 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 Excd. 12 :2. ib. 16:34 •5Ni1 n•J Targum 'r.l'O n•J So P. Com. San. 113a.

ilNl/'Jt!' ~n,,

2K 2:3 t:l'NJJi1 'JJ 1N~'1 Targum N"JJ ,,,r.i5n. (So ib. 5', 7, 15'; 4:1, 38; 6:1). Com. Sifri Deut. 131: 'JJ 1N~'1 101N1 o,,,r.,5n5 p•o N;-N ,,;, o;,•i•o:ln

1;;,;,, ,,;, t:l'N'JJ;, 'JJ ,:,, t:l'N'JJil

t:l•JJ t:l'11i' t:lilt!' .

ib. 12 'JN 'J~ Targum •Ji 'J1. Com. Sifri I. c. t:lW::J1 N1i11 i1N1 l/t:'•5N1 ioNJt:' ,J~ ,,,;, :J1il 1::i t:i•J:J 0•11;, o,,,r.,5n;,w ':J~ ':J~ ;,11~0 ; Moed Katan 26a, where this Targum is quoted . IS 1:23 t:l•J105w t:iii Targum ,5 1'Jl/ ;,,,:m5 1:J) l'101N .1J'1J 15 t:i5WN1 'J'1:l N:Jt, Com. Pesiqta ;,:,,~ : t:l'J1r.i5w 1:)1111 .15 t:l5t:'~1 t:l5W ib. 3 :4 o•515vm Targum .Nnw5n1 Probably to Chaggiga 14a •5vn 'JJ •5vn 15N :Ji'l/' 1:J NMN :J1 IS 4:3 t:i5W11':l t:l"n5 :J\n::Ji1 5.::, Targum "i15 . t:l•5w11' nr.inn 'fil' N05l/ This interpretation in a sense agrees with San. 92b .

Digitized by Microsoft®

according ioN. J•n:,, 5:,

Messianic

THE EXEGESIS

97

ib. 5:1 ,,,,,, n-n c,:, i,~;:,5 ,,,, n,•w ,,,,,, ~J ni•wN IOW 1:i 11P:J Targum No,::i, ,,no, ?Niw,, IV:J n•n::iwK K':JJ 10K • ,on, cn,:iNi n•vit Com. Lamentation r. 2, 3 nuip • ,,,,,, n-n ci:, 10NJW c;,i:iK ?W uip tn and Menachoth 53a ib. 2 i:i :JYn ;ip, CJi Targum •n:iio ~Nl. So Y. Sukka 4, 16 .pn•w l?N ,:i :JYn :ip, CJ1 n:iton m :ip, ,:,,;,n m 5iJo Com. Sukka 49a :iyn :ip, CJ1 n:ito m 1:,,n:i 5iJo 1:i,, ruipo;, m piiw • pn•w ,:i

,wv

,,N

ib. 10 ci:, •ioY n,wv ,:, Targum ,:in• N?1 N:i1n:i '1N .N'1Wl,'O Com. Pesiqta D'rav Kahana, - l'K'Y10 !'NW Jll,':J .,wv c,::i ,w rm-e ,wv n:i 1n•n,,wvo ib. 17 c,::i,::i c•w::i:, u,,, Targum 1,n,,v 1'0N1 NO:> (from root i:ii). Com. Pesachim 68a i"N ,c,::i,:, c•w::i:, u,11 .c::i ,::i,,o::i ::i, ioN ;,,o,, ,:i K•ruJo ib. 18 l1Vi1 •::iw,o ,,;, Targum l'1JJ in::iY 't:lMO? pwoi ,, .J•!:i•pn, iv poi J?tN NO? •5::in:i p::iin Com. Suk. 52b, San. 99a no,, ~,o::i,, N•:i,:i t:iin, ;,o,i n,nn::i v,n iy, •oK ,:,, 'K • '1i1 'NJW n?Jl,'i1 n,:,1,1::,

,w

Also R. Akiba, Gen· r. 22, 2; Sifri Num. 112 . ib. 6:1 mo mw::i Targum 1mnN1 Nnw::i (2 Chronicles 26:20). So Exod. r. 1, end. Jalqut l. c. vit:iYJW N?K '? n-n no ,:,, .no:, :iiwn vi1Yr.i1 Com. Ps. Jonathan, Exod. 2:23. ib. 2 ,,,J, no:,, c,nw::i, l'J!J ;,o:,, c,nw:i Targum pin:i

,,r:no N5i n•n•u ,o:,o t•in:i, -m N5i •m!JK r,o:,o. Com. Pirke d. Eliezer, 4:

- l'J!J m,:,, c•nw::i, ,nJ•:iwn 'J!J m•:i• -e,w - ,,,Ji no:,, c•nw:i, nJ•:JWn 'J!:l:J b•:i• N?W . ib. 8:2 Ji1:li1 ;,,i,K nN tl•JONJ ti•iv i11'VN1 Targum ;,,,,~ nN,::iJ:i n~n•N5 n•,r.iNi N•t:ii, n• l'Jo•;,o pi•no •oip i•noN1 1::i n•,:n nNl:JJ:J i1Nn'N? n•,oN, NnOnJ ,::i t::i ~K ,nK Km NJn:, .i1Nn'N?

,,nv

KJK ,;,,:,,:,,

This is exactly the interpretation of R. Akiba Makkoth 24b:

,v,w

,n,

iN, n-an ,v•Jnru 1,,::, c•,w,,,, r,w ,,n nnN tiV!J ::i,w 1:i, rn, ioN pnyo p:,1::i tn ,,,nn;, c,w,p;, ,w,p n•::io NY'tu n,n N?N n,,:,r ?YN i1'11N l'Jl,' i10 ,:,, ,, ni•l,'Nl ::i•n:i, PMYO 'JN c::,55,:i p, :i,n:i n,,,N::i ,n•,1N 1nN1:in ;,,i:,t inN,::iJ aircn .ti,,w,,, ni::i,n,::i nuen c•JPt ,::iw• ,u, ::i,n::i n•,:it:i ,w,nn tl'Y .no,,pno n•,:it 1nN1::iJtu v,,,:, ;,,,,N 1nN1:iJ ;,o,pnJru ,w:iv

v",,

,w

,w

,w

,w

D1qtt,zcd by Microsoft

98

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

ib . 9 :4 Wl/iJ INC PNC 5:i ,::, Targum .l/WiJ l1i1Jt:'r.l 5:i 'it( The interpretation is based on the transposition of the two last letters of t!'l/iJ. On the reading of the T. rests also the say, ing of R. Meir, Tos. Sota 3: t:l1Nt!1 ilir.l::lt:1 j')!;) ir.l1~ i'~ ':::li i!'il .tt'lliJ lN1C i1NC 5:i ,::, ir.l15 ,,r.i,n ,, J'111r.l ,,,r.i Otherwise the inference is hardly explicable. Apparently, the T. identified tiNC with J1NW formed from the root .NWJ 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.

,,p,::, iv' iv' ,,:::i::i nnrn Targurn •;r., rnnr» 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, Go
.t,iD" iD'r.l PiliD'

i1'JNr.i5 il'' 'ii' tJm' 'ii Nil ,::, wr.ir.i ,,,:::i:i N5i ,,,:::i:i nnn pn,, i"N • •m,:::i:ir., Com. Tos. San. 52a. cn,t(

ib. 13:12 i'!:l1N t:ll'i::lr.l t:liN1 f5lr.l t!'1JN i'D1N Targum JJnN .Nl'i'i1~ '1::ll/1 NJilif? ,,n, 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 t:liN to imply the observer of the law following R. Jeremiah (Sifra Lev. 18, 5):

rrnnn J'iN ilt!'1ll1 'i::lJ 1?'!:lN ir.l1N ill'iN l"Jr.l ir.l1N il'r.li' 'i .OilJ •n, t:liNil CJ'i1N ilWll' iWN ir.i,, lil::l::l N1i1 'iil

,,r.i,n ,,,)

n-n

ib. 13 :21 OW 11Di' t:l'i'llW1 Targum l'1'W1 . Com. Sifri, Deut. 218: CW 11Di' O'i'l/1!'1 ir.lNJt!' it:' N?N i'l/t!' l'N1; Lev. r. 5, 1 .OW 11Di' t:l'i'llW1 Nr.l'J'ii ilr.l::l N'i!t' l'?'N::l l11Di' 0'1?'1

ib. 17: 11

')t!')Wn 1ll~J o,,:::i

Targum Pl'it!'iDJ'iNi il'iNJ

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE EXEGESIS

99

.Ji:,,i:1111 pn5p5p tr.in Cl/ ,,;,r.i5 The targumist evidently took 'JWJ~'n as based on the noun J'O, dross (Isaiah 1 :25). Com. Lev. r. 18, 3. N"ir.i:, n,,ce cn'Wll 011, ,, c:inN 'nllt:iJW c,,:::i .,,;, ~o:, C'J'CI ib. 19:25 ?NiW' ,n,m, ,,wN ,,, ilWl/r.l1 C'iYr.l 'r.ll/ ,,i:::i Targum 11;,n, 'n'?JN ,r.,ip ,:in, ,11, C'iYr.ir.i n'i'!:lNi 'r.lll 1'i:J ?Ni~'' ,n.::onNi 'r.ll/ jii'Iir.l ,:in, ,,:ii i1nN, . 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 Nt:>H 1il'?N (p. 194 Friedmann) c,iyr., 'r.ll/ 11i:J Ci11 iiWN? 1?JW 1?N - i1WN ,,, i1Wl/r.l1 ,C'iYr.lr.l iNY'W Cl/ 5NiC'' n5nJ • ib. 21:1 c:,, i:::iir.i NWr.l Targum Ni:::iir.ir.i l'nNi pi~·r.i 5t:ir.i Similarly Cant. r. t:il/r.l:J - N?N i:::iir.i ;,r.,5 C' ON C' i:::i,r.i NC'r.l •.. n,,:,5r., 11:JiN 1?N

,,o

ib. 21: 11, 12 NnN ir.)W ir.iN ,,,r.i i1r.) ,r.iw ;,,·,r.i i1r.) ,r.iw ;,,,, CJ1 ip:::i Ta_rgum n,N N'JJ ir.)N NnN'JJ n, l1i1? C''i!:l N'JJ .N'll'Wi? n,Jlli1!:l n'N1 N'v'iY5 iJN . Com. Y. Taanith 1, I iir.iN N? Ci1? ir.iN .nrn i1?'?il ,,nr.i 1J? NY,, i1r.l ,:,, i1'llW' u,:::i, i1'llW'? .C'l/Wi5 ;,,,,, c,p,,y5 iPJ N?N l'i'JO cnNW:J Com. also Pesachim 2a on 2S 23:4. ib. 22:1 n-m N'J NC'r.l Targum N:::in,, Nn1i' ,11 NnK1:JJ ,t:i~ N"JJ il?l/ ,~,:::iJn~, Nn,,n:::i . This agrees with R. Jochanan (Pesichta Lam. r. 24) C'NJJnr.i c-nnn 5:,w N'J nm N'J Nwr.i nns pn,, 'i ,i1'?ll While Beraitha Taanith 28b would interpret it to refer to the Tepmle. Rashi, however, would place the Beraitha in harmony with the interpretation of R. Jochanan. ib. 8 ,v,n n,:::i i'WJ ,11 Targum .Nt:1ivr.i 'tJJ n,:::i l't ,11 The T. was evidently prompted to this interpretation by IK 10:17, where it is called l1JJ?i1 ill' n,:, interpreting 11JJ? to mean the Temple, as he rendered 37:24 (2K 19:23), which coincides with the explanation in Joma 39b . ,r.i,, 1,n,n ill' n,:::i :::i,n:,, ill' ,r.iw Nii'J nr.i, ;,,:::i,t:i i:::i Nit:iit i"N •• :i,:::i,r.i t!'ivr.iil n,:::i qN :::i,:::i,r.i ill' nr.i ,, Similarly Num. r. 11, 5.

Dia,t,zC'd by Microsoft

100

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

i:iJ n5c,5c, Targum Ni:iJi N5c,5c, Com. San. 2 5b •.. nwp Ni:lJ1 N5,c,5c, :i, ioN i:iJ n5c,5c, ib. 18 1'J,1N r,,:i p5p Targum N51 511 J5v:i 1,:i,n, ton,, .,,J,:ii r,,;:i ip, Nn,c,J Com. San. I. c. r,,:i, p5p WP:l N,n NJ11 . t,5P5 m:i:, 1DnJ 1.:i,D5, l'J,1N ib. 23 ,,,, ,,nvpm Targum .Jo,no ,.:i,oN n'JJON The tar, gumist is of the opinion that NJ:lrt' was only 5.:iioN which dig, b. 17

nity was to be transferred to Eliakim. Accordingly, he renders 1.:i,o (v. 15) .N11':l 511 NJOO ,, NOJi!3 This is the view of R. Jehuda (Lev. r. 5, 3) .n-n 5m rn:, 1TV5N i"N 1.:i,cn 5N N:l ,, .n-n 5:,ioN io,N i":i rrnn- ,, The T., however, to 1DJ'll' ~J'll (v. 18) N11DJ'l10 r,, 1JO 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.

,,v,

'lll10:l Ptn' ,N Targum ,r,,i,N '0J11D:l PDP11' ON o,,w o,wo now, rrnrc pc,vn ,.:i ,,,Jc:>5N i"N . •t,vo:i Ptn' ,N ioNJW nc,o n•,oD:i, n,vo n•,oD:i ib. 2 7 :8 nJ:i•in nn,w:i nNcNc:i Targum Nn•,n, nnNC:l 15 p,,:,, n:i 5•N:> . So Sota Sb, San. 100a ,o,N ,,No •:ii n-n N'Jn .nNCNt:l:l ioNJW '' p,,,o n:i ,,,o Cl1NW n,o:iw i'Jr.l ib. 28 :7 n,,,D ,pe Targum .NnJ'1 ,vc, So Meg. 15b, San. 111 b .o,,,,D:i 1m, ioNJW Cl'J"1 N5N n,,,e l'N' ib. 10 ,v5 ,v ,'l/5 ,'ll •:i Targum Nn•,,N 1:a105 ,1PD11N ,,N N5, Nn,vc, in,,D 1,n, Cl"vn•, ,,:ic ,:ivo, ,N•:iy N5 ,,vDnN, no, (,p, ,v) ,t!liPo n•:i rn5,D5 ,,:ic . Com. n:i, ,n,,N ,,c (p. 19, Friedman) Cl11N J':l'l150 5Dn •nc, Cl11N J'OWW N5N p Cl11N 'N ,Cl11N nN,v nN,~ nJ•Nt.:1 nN,~ tmN Cl11N t:l't.:''31' t!lr.lr.l tlil:l l'N '''NJ ,,:i, n,n:,,n iDc:i o:inN ,r,,,y ,o•,Yoo o:inN'll:i o:inN ,r,,,y nN,v nJ•Nw •n,,v, -rnm .rren nJ:iJ N5w ,v o•J,ow, mNo v:i,N o:inN ,r,,,p ,y, ,Y ,:, ioNJW n•:in m:iJwo t:l'JW ,wv, n,No v:iiN o:inN ib. 29:1 5N,,N 5N•iN ,,;, Targum Nn:i,o Nn:i,o According to Midoth 4, 7 it is the 5:i•n Pesichta Lam. r. 26. But com.

ib. 27:5 Com. San. 99b

,w

,w

,v

. ,v, ,v

Sebachim 5 3a, 59b, according to Rab . ib. 17; 32:15 :iwn• Com. Gen. r. 24, 1 WJ'N •:ii I. c. and Rashi.

,v,,•w,m,,o,:in, :i•n• l'N'Jt:l l''ip :iwn• ,v,, ,o,:in, Targum

Digitized by Microsoft®

Com. Caro

THE EXEGESIS

101

ib. 30:15 m,w,n nm, n::i,w::i Targum 1m,,u,5 tmnn ,, .1,PiElnm 1,mJn The Targum interprets n::i,w::i to mean repent· ance and rendering the following as a resultant phrase. It agrees with R. Eliezer, Y. Taanith 2, 8; San. 37b.

5"N .i,5N)J n::i,wn j,wu, 5Niw, CN ,o,N ,u,,,N ,::i, ,,,N N,Jn . nm, n::i,w::i ioNJ i::i:, ,u,•,5N ,::i, ib. 20 ,,,,o nN mN,i ,,J,ll Pm ,,,,o iu, qJ:,, N5, Targum ;,,m,:,w n, t'tn ,,J'll 1,,n,, NwiPo n,::io ;,,nJ,.:,w ,,11 p5c,, N5, .Nwipo n,::i::i Com. Sota 49a ,u,en J,N qN ,o,N NJ'Jn ,::i NnN :ii ,mN 1,11,::iwo ,o,N ,n::iN ,, ,,,,o ,,11 qJ:,, N5, iONJW ''J!:l5 5llJJ ,,,,o nN mN,, 1'J'll ,,m ioNJW n~·:i:t-"i1 ''fO. Both, it would appear, depend upon the interpretation of the Targum which interprets to mean the Shekina, introducing the Temple as a necessary complement .

,,,,o

ib. 31:9 nn!:ln Targum CJ'i1J So Erubin 19a; Pesachim 54a; Seder Eliahu r. 29 (p. 150 Friedman) . ib. c,,w,,,::i ,, ,,Jn, Targum NWNi ;,,5 ,,11::i ,um .n,,o,o 511 ,,:iv,, Com. Erubin l. c.; Gen. r. 6, 4 w"i, 'NJ' ,,

i1Ji1 Cll~ i10 C'l1Wii1 nN ~,now c,, N5N CJ;,,) J'N 1,,oN ,n,,,n m ,,Jn mm c5ww::i ,5 :mm ioNJW ,CJi1'J. ib. 2 'nv::iwn nnmN 5:, Targum cip Jo 1,mNno nn, 5:, .5::i::i, N:i5o So Cant. r. I. c . .5::i::i 5w nnmN 5:, ,n::iwn nnnJN 5:, ib. 33:20 IVY' 5::i 5i1N Targum Pi!:lnO N5i NJ:,~:,

('~ ,'J ,:,N,o) ,un:, ,11,::i N:l c,,. Mek. ,,n,, 9 :

So Cant.

r.

'5i1N:J - ll'J' 5:i, NY' 5::i JllY' 5::i 5i1N :lPll, p itll'5N 'i 'Jn, ib. 32:5 :l'iJ 5:JJ5 iu, n~ir,, N5 Targum i,11 ioNn' N5 .N,v'iY N'll'Wi5 Com. Sota 41b NO'n'N' N::i,110 ,::i rmn: ,:i, ~,, ioN' N5 ioNJW nm c5u,::i C'l1Wi5 q,Jn;,5 ,n,o ,u:i t::i 1,110w ,::i, . ::i,,J 5::iJ5 ,u, . ib. 14 c,,,11 i1lli0 C'Nie w~ t1/~J JoiN ,:, Targum t::io mn ,,,n n,::i N,;,, inN ::ir,n l (t,:•ir,o n,::i 'iN. Com. Lam. r. 2, 5. ib. 20 C'O 5:, 511 'llif c:i,it11N Targum pn,::iv Nv'iY 1::i,::i,~ 5ll l'lliti5 Joi 1,nNi J:l~ 1,,::iu, 1,:,5 Com. Baba Kama 17b, Aboda Zara 5b ,c:,,iwN ::i,n:,i ,No ,"::i~, c,~ pm, ,, ioN ·c,,cn m5,oJ, rmrc PC'lli1 5:, Seder Eliahu Zuta 15 (ed. F.) ,N'i'W

D,atttzC'd by Microsoft (I.

102 i11~J

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

ne-nn

••• c•r.i 5:::i

5:u

i1iEl:::l1 N1~r.l? ,,r.in:::i, ?U/? ,,~:::i 1r.>Yll I1N Cl~~ 'r.l ·i~N •vit c:::i·i~N ir.iNJ~

ib. 33:17 1'J'll i1J'tnI1 1'El'J 1?r.l Targum I1J':::l~ 1P' I1' .N'r.l?l/ 1?r.l Com. Seder Eliahu r. 14 (p. 168 F.) i1"JPi1 i•nv 1?r.l 1r.>NJ~ PJEl? C':::lt!-'1' C?1l/ 'v'1Y1 1?W ?1iJi1 ~11r.li1 I1'JJ JW'? .1'El'J Eliahu Zuta l (p. 171 F.) I1N i1:l'~1r.>1 i1?l/r.l N'i1~ l'Jr.l1 .•• 1?r.l 1r.l1N1 ii:,:,;, Nt:l:::l 1JJ i1JI11J

ib. 40:8 i•Yn WJ' Targum .N'l/Wi n•r.i Com. Schochar Tob l, 20 (ed. Buber) and citation in Jalqut: cinm N:::lN n,:m~ lj•JJNJ I1l/J1Pr.li1 N?J~? nm C?1l/J c•r.i,, C'P'1Yi1 ilr.l? ,r.i,N ilr.l i1NiJ i1:::l1I1J~ ilr.l 1El~J1 N?J~i1 i1?~J i1:::l1I1J vi• I11l/P1 I11'?Jir.>1 .,,yn ~:i· ir.iNJ~ c•p•iy;, iNiJ c5u,n ir.> c•vwin u,5:iJ 1:::i N?J~:iw

ib. 40:10 1'JEl? 1I1?l/El1 lI1N ,i:::iw i1Ji1 Targum ,,:iv iJN Nil Com. Tanchuma Gen. (Noach) 12 .1I1N ,i:::i~ i1Ji1 c•p•iY? ?JN i1'llW' ir.>N ,:::i,

. •mr.iip J?J pn•,:iu, 5:::i, il'r.lll n•ir.i•r.i

ib. 29 ro ~ll'? JnJ Targum 'r.lJI1El? Jil5e·r.i, NP'iY? :in•, .Nr.i:::i,n Nn•iiN The T. was influenced by 50:4, of which this is the rendering.

So Seder Eliahu r. 17 (p. 84 F.) 1?r.l ?JN

ilr.i:::in:i c•p•iYil I1N DJiElr.>1 l?~ ND::JJ :iw,, N?N J::J 1J'N C'::J?r.lil ':l?r.l •••• ~11·5 tmJ ir.>NJ~

nv•,::i

ib. 40:31 c•it:1J:::i i:iN 1?ll' n::J 1El•5n• 'i1 ,,pi Targum n:io,, The ref· erence here is to the Messianic era. Sifri (Num. 40) explains it to refer to the future world which, however, might be taken in an identical sense. Com. San. 92b, Jalqut Machiri I. c. .J1ilI1r.l'?U/? tininn•i J1i1nl?J 'J'::Jr.> J1~J::JI1' ,,, NJPi1El?

ib. 41 :2 '~Ji? 1ilNiP• piy nitr.ir.i i'llil 'r.l Targum 'I1'N N•viY i•n:::i i:li1i::Jt( NnJ•ir.i~ 't(?J:::i . This and the following verses appear to have been generally explained to refer to the story of Abraham's struggle with the four Kings (Gen. 14). So Shabath l 5a, San. l 08b, Tanchuma I. c. 19: .1PiYJ 'r.l?U/ I1N i•y;, Ci1iJN i1"JPi1 ,r.iN ••• 1'llil 'r.l

Com. Gen. r. 42, 1; Exod. r. 15, 50; Seder Eliahu r. 6 (p. 28 Friedman). ib. 42:11 l/?D 1::JC'' Di' Targum l'P'tJ i:::i N'i1'r.l tir.Je" Com. Gen. r. l \ 2, Jalqut I. c. I11i1r.>N1 m::J~ ~N 1150 ·:::" i;i• ir.>t(Jt!'. Deut. r. 7, 3 iJi• ::J•n:::i c-nen n-nru J1i1'r.l?l/ Nn:lr.l . l/?t:l , Jt:'' .

Digitized by Microsoft q.D

THE EXEGESIS

103

ib. 21 iP1Y ll/t.:l? Targum ?NiW' i1niN::it5 5•i::i • The T is followed by the Pesiqta 40: •nr.:i•Ni .'ll':l~'i1 win::i . ,,m,i:::i m:n5 r::in Nii1w ,i1"i:::i ~ c:imN ;,::itr.i, c:i5,v;, nN i1 ;,":::ip;, • ,,n,,i:::i P'1Yi15 nm Nii1W ,,piy jl/t.:l? r~n ,, ir.:iiN Nli1 p, Mak. 23b, Mish.: nN m::n5 i1":lPi1 i1~i ir.:iiN N'WPll lJ N'JJn ,, • ,PiY 111r.:i5 r::in ,, ir.:iNJW m~r.:i, rrnn c:i;,5 i1Jii1 1::i·~, 5NiW'

ib. 43 :4 1•nnn c:iiN 1nNl Targum N•r.:ir.:iv. n•ior.:i, So Mechilta 10 l'PfJ1 Nn::ic:ir.:i and Exod. r. 15, 3: i1nt.:lt!! tli15 l/JP 1::15 •• , tl1N jnNl it.:lNJW tli1':::l'lNt.:l lliE:lJ Nli1W

ib. 12 •nvr.:iwm •nvw,m -rrun •::iJN Targum •n•,n NJN • n•r.:i•pi Nr.:i::i tl'i~r.:ir.:i i,::in• n•PiE:l NJN Nn•r.:i5 ,•nv, i,::i•:::iN tii1iJN5 'J'i:r.) •n•iiN 1~5,N 1,::in•_ n•vr.:iwN NJNl N'in:::i 1•::i ;,,5 • Similarly. Jalqut I. c .. 'J'tlJ •nvr.:iwm ..• tl'iYr.:i:::i -rrun '::IJN ib. 44:5 ,,, :in:,, m, JPll' tlWJ NiP' m, 'JN ,,5 it.:lN' i1t Targum J'iP' r-n JPll' c:i,w:::i ,5y, l'1l NJN ,,, N•5nir., it.:l" l'1 ,i1'J:::lilP The interpretation approaches the Midrashic explanation of the verse to refer to four estates of the righteous ones. Aboth of R. Nathan 36 ;,n tl'ilt.:lJ tl'P'1Y l5N 'JN ,5 it.:lN' m

m,

tl'l/Wi l5N ,,5 ,,, :in:,, ,l/Wi 'JJ tl'J~P i5N JPll' tlWJ NiP' •iJ i5N ilJ::i' 5NiW' c:iw:::i, ,;,:::iiwn ,wv, c:in:::i ,,m, c:i;,•::i,,r.:i iwi•::iw ,tl5llli1 mr.:iiN And m a different way in Mechilta l'PfJi Nn::ic:ir.:i) '•5 ir.:iN• m mir.:ilNl nmv mw nm:i l/JiN:::i NYir.:i nnN 1::i, : (2s· ,:::i JillnJ N5l c:iipr.:i5 ,,,::iw m - c:i•iJcr.:i sen •:::i Jilin' 5Ni •JN •511:::i l5N - , , , :in:,, m, ,P1Y 'i) l5N - JPll' tlW:l NiP' i1tl ,N~n • c:i•r.:iw 'Ni' l?N - i1J::I' ?NiW' tlWJl ,i1JlWn

Seder Eliahu r. 18 (p. 105 F.) is following Aboth of R. Nathan i5N - it.:lN' m ,i1l/W nmN:::i 5NiW' ip5nJ c:i•n::: , l/:liN5 nr.iN i::l'C - :in:,, m, ,tl'l/Wiil 'J:::I tl'J~P i5N - NiP' m, ,tl'1lt.:lJ tl'P'1Y .tl'l/Wi l?N 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 i15W5 ,r.:iNi1 Targum 5:::i:::i 511 ir.:iNi. Com. Y. Berakoth 4, 1; Zebachim 113a; Shah. 113a; Lam. r. Pesichta 23 (Buber) 5:::i:::i it 'Jin i15lY5 it.:llNil JJn,, ,, it.:lN

ib. 45:18 iliY' n::iw5 Targum Nt!!JN •J:::i n5v i1NJCN5 It is so interpreted in the Talmud as implying the obligation of human reproduction. Com. Jebamoth 62a; Gittin 41a, etc . ib. 46:11 •nYl/ W'N Pnir.:i YiNt.:l Targum NPlni Nl/iNt.:l

D1attuC'd by Microsoft Ci-

104

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

Cli1iJN 'JJ. So Gen. r. 54, 1 Cli1iJN i1t ,W'N •:ii, " n1YiJ t<"i . ,nyv W'N PMiO l'iNO i1'J :i•n:,, ,W'N NiPJW ib. 50:5 ttN ,, nns Targum NJN, i1NJJT'li1? •Jn5w Cl•i1?N .n:i•,o N? So Pesiqta 33 ,1m< ,, nne c•i15N 'i1 ~ ~no:i iOU< ,;,o • n,wN •o nN ioNw::> ,,,p vow, tntc ,, nmi Nm ib.57: 1 PiYi1 ~ONJ i1l/ii1 'J!:lO ,:, Targum Nnw•J CliP IO ,iN • 'li'tl' Ni':-li."i I'he belief is here expressed that the death of the righteous one is a signal of an approaching calamity to escape which he is taken away from life. This was a prevalent belief derived from the interpretation of this verse. Com . Baba Kama 60a: 5•nnow N?N t<5, ... n•nwo, 1n•Jtet 1,•:,

,,v

n,w,

•.. i1l/ii1 'J!:lO ,:, iONJW 'i1":D5 'i1 Nm:i·~ "JN ?"N .i15nn Cl'P'iYi1 10 San. 113a ... P'1Yi1 iO::<Jw c5w5 i1NJ i1l/i c5,v;,o i~!:lJ p•iY But com. Enoch 81, 9. ib. 19 :i,ip5, p,n,5 c,5w c,5w Targum N'P'i'lr? i:ivn• NO?W .Nn•,,t<, ,::in, N•:in, ,:ivn• No5w, 1•01p5o •n•,,t< ,i~J, Com . Sifri Num. 42: •.• c,,w c,,w iONJW ;,:i,wn •ww, 1mw c,,w;, ,,,l

n,,,

ib. 59:16 w,N l'N ,:, Ni•l Targum iJ) ,mo,p •5l, • 1·:i~ 1•,:iw ;,,,, Com. San. 98b N?N NJ ,,, IJ l'N tJnP i"N, Ni'' :i•n:,, J"M ,,,:,w ,,,:i ,J"n ,,,:,w i,,:i ,t< 'N::>t ,,t:iw i,,:i •.. W'N l'N ,:, ib. 64:3 ,J•tt
,w

Esther r. 1. ib. 65 :8 ,,:iwt<:i

w,,•n;, NYO' iWN:l Targum n:inwt

.NJ!:l,~i NiiJ •t<::>t nJ So R. Simon, Gen. r. 29, l. ib. 20 mo• i1JW i1NO iJ il/Ji1 ,:, Targum c•5w :i,,n, 'it< .n•No ,;,, l'JW i1NO iJ Com. San. 91a and Pesachim 68a. The interpretation of the T., however, agrees with Gen. r. 26, 3 . ib. 22 ,ov •o• l'lli1 •o•:, ,:, Targum N"n l?N •o,,:, •it< .•ov ·~,, Com. Tan. Gen. 2 (18) .l'l/i1 ,o,:, iONJW !'JO '""' Similarly Gen. r. 12, 5; Num. r. 13, 4. Lxx has a similar interpretation. Com. T. PS. l :3 l'll::l - "n l?'NJ . Jerem. 2 :2 1•n5,5:, nJi1N 1'i,l/J ion 15 ,n,:,r Targum

,,nw

,,rt<, •io•o:i •Jo•;,, p:,n:i;,t< non, ,c,p •o,, rnce tt:i5 NJi•:i,

Digitized by Microsoft®

THE EXEGESIS

105

• pin N5:::i !'JW p:s,:::i,N Ni:::iir.l:::i 1i;,Ni ilWr.l ,n:::i •n•5w p,n ,n:::i Com. Mechilta n5w:::i 3 : ilJr.lNil N'il •Ni::i ••. t•ir.liN c•inN tl'N'!l,, UN 1N'il i1Wr.l7 ,,t.:)N N7W ,tl'il nN tli17 viPNW ':J U'r.lNilW tlil'7l1 ,ilWr.l ,,nN ,::i5m U'r.lNil N7N ,,,5 il'nr.l u•,•:::i !'Ni ,:::i,r.l5 ••• nNivi 1i5;, ;,5:::ip:::i wiii::ir.l And in a modified form in Seder Eliahu r. 17 (p. 85). Jerem. 2:311'7N ,w Ni:JJ Ni5 iJii 'r.lll iir.lN :s,iir.l Targum .1Jn5u:i5 ,w :::i,m N7 NJ5•t:,5t:,N Com. Tanchuma Num. 2 viir.l N"i tti:::iJ N5 ,w iJr.lr.l 1nJ•::iw r,p5c, wivr.l r,,:::i u5 r,r,J ,5 iir.lN ,,ir.lN •1'7N ii:s, I ."I ib. 22:6 tu:::i5;, WNi ,5 ilnN i:s,5J Targum :::i•:::in nN i5•N N•,,t:, w•,:::i c,, NWivr.l T1':Jr.l 'r.liv • Com. Mechilta ,P5r.l:S,, 2 : N5N 1:S,7J t•Ni i:s,5Jil nN ir.lNJl!I ,,N,m wiPr.lil n•:::i nN niN,5 t:IP:J ,5 ;,nN i:s,5J ir.lNJW wivr.lil n•:::i • ib. 28:17 'll':JWil w,n:::i N'ilil ilJW:J N':JJil il'JJM nr.l•i Targum .N:S,':JW Nni•:::i i:::ipnN, N'ilil NT1W:J NiPW N':JJ il'JJn r,,t.:), Com. Y. San. 11, 5 p n,t.:)N nN, .nn-n mnN ilJW ... N':JJil il'.JJM r,t.:)•, ,n,:::i ·•J:J nN, i•J:J nN my, ilJWil WNi :::i,:s,:::i T1r.lt!' 1r.l5r.l N5N inN,:::iJ mw:s,5 5•:::iw:::i ;,"i inN i;,iN•Yi•t:i ,,:ii;, nN ,,r,c:,;,5 • ipw il'r.li' 5w. Com. also v. 16. ib. 32:18 tlil'J:J e-n 5N m:::iN 1,v c5wr.li Targum ,:::i,n c5wr.li ti;i•in:::i •t:,nr.l5 l'r.l7Wr.l ,::i N'J:::17 NT1il:JN . Likewise all Targumim to Exod. 34:7 making it clear that the suffering sons are subject to punishment also on their own account. This explanation is that assumed in Berakoth 7a tl'J:J 5:s, m:::iN IW ipii::i :::i•n:m, 'J'N ,N'WP N5 iJ'JWr.li 'NiP P'r.l,, m:::iN 5:s, ,mt.:)• N7 tl'.J:Ji :::i•n::i, .c•tmN l'NW::l Nil ,tli1'1':J c;,•m:::iN ilWVr.l t•tmNw::i Nil The reference is to San. 27b. ib. 38:7 ,w,::iil 17r.l ,:iv Vr.lW'i Targum N::l5r.li Ni:i:s, Vr.lW'i .;,,piy Com. Moed Katan 16bi:::i:s, Vr.lW'i ir.lit( ilr1N i:::ii:::i NYi•::i .ir.lw ;,•piy N5m ,r.lw •w,::i •:ii •w,:lil 17r.l But Sifri Num. 99 (mentioned anonymously by Rashi) would interpret it to refer to Baruch b. Neriah.

,,,;,N

Ez. 1 :1 ilJW c•w5w:::i ,;,,, Targum lr.lt5 l'Jt!I !'n5n:::i ;,,m .Nn•iiNi Ni!:ic N:::ii ilJil::l ;,•p5n n::iwNi This numerical interpretation is given in Seder Olam. Com. Jalqut l. c. ib. 3 ••• il'il il'il Targum ••• cip Jr.l ilNi:JJ CJT1!:i ;,i;, •iilr.l .•Nic::i :s,iN m•ir.l:::i il'r.lll 55r.lnNi nu•Jn :in 5Niw•, NViN:::i So Mech .

D1a,tucd b't' Microsoft

106

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

(~nn,n::i N:::i Nno::i) : .)'iN? ilYln:::i

,r.iv

l'iN? ;win:::i

i::liJW n-n ,)'iN::l

u~v ,:::i,Jl l'iN:::i ir.iv ,:::i,J N"'' ,r.iv i:liJW n-n .n-n n-n ir.lNJW

Also Rab Chisda Moed Katan 25'a. ib. 24 tlir.ll/::l ilJnr.i ?lP::l il?lr.lil ,u, Targum lil'?l?r.l ?lP N'r.l?l/ 1,r.i Nr.l'P llim:li l"l' J'::li:l'::ll !'ilr.l i::i . It seems to follow

the homily in Gen. r. 65, 5: ill/W:l ,Cli Cll/ N:l Clir.ll/:l Nlil ilr.ll .Clil'tlJ::i ilJtlil"l ::i"nNl l'Pl"llW Cl'::lN?r.lil ?NiW' l/r.lW f'ir.llN ?NiW'W

Its repetition in the v. 2 5 is interpreted by the T. in the same way, the silence preceding the word of prophecy descending upon the prophet . ib.

2:10

•m rum

tl'J'P il'?N :Jm::i, Targum il':l :J•n:n

,v

1n:::i11• c~, ~''::lr.ll/ jlil:l 1m'.ic" Nl"l'ilN '.iNit:1' l"l'::l lli::ll/' CNi NJlil N'?N jlilJr.l ~10' Nl"l'ilN Com. chapter General Peculi-

r,,.

arities. However a similar evasive interpretation is found in Sifri Num. 103 ,Cl'P'i'l: ?W rum ,Cl'l/Wi ?W Cl'J'P Cl'J'P il'?l/ :lll"l::ll . Cl'l/Wi

?W

•m

ib. 7:11 ilJ N?l Clilr.lilr.l N?' Targum 'J:lr.l N?l )lil'J:lr.l N?l )lil'J::l Com. Gen. r. 31, 1, as interpreted rightly in Cl'J'J!:lr.l in:JJ ib. 13 :5 Cll"l'?l/ N? Targum j':l~ )'i:lll/ )l::1? )ll"li:ll/ N?l 5NiW' r,,:3 ?l/ •11:::ir.i, Com. Jalqut I. c.; Esther r. 6. ib. 16:10 c•c•:::i ic•:::in~, Targum N'Jil:l p::,m n•c•ipi . 1 mm:, ,,,:::i m~r.:c• ,,,~ c•c•:::i 1:!':lnNl Com. Pesiqta :,,,, til::i c•t:1 t:il::l il'ilC'. The targumist, however, would interpret ,_:•,;:, 10::INl as referring to the High Priest. ib. 11 tl'i'r.l'l: Targum Cl'J::JN •m, 'il"l t•:::i•n::,. So Pesiqta 33 l"l'i::lil n,n,:, 'JC' l?'N l:i'i'r.l'l: ilJJ"lNl. ib. 12 1C'Ni::l msen m~v, Targum 'r.liP Jr.l n,,w 1N?r.ll • )l::l'W'i:l i:lir.l Com. Cant. r. ?ll/J p : n 1t!'Ni:l l"liN::in n,~11, .ilJ'::lltm; Pesigta 33. ib. 26:21 1JT1N l"llil?:l Targum l"l'lil N?i:l Kimchi l"llil?:l r,",, .rnn ?:l - Cl'?r.l 'l"lW It is, it would seem, an old Midrashic interpretation. So Tanchuma Gen. 19 (Buber) 1Jl"lN l"llil?:l lilr.l

'.ii

'.iv

•• , J"llil?:l ir.lNJt!' l"ll'il? J'i'l"lll N?l l'il N? Cl?ll/i1 J"llr.llN ,1J'Nl .m,;, ?:l m;,, :l

ib. 28: 13 1:::i 1'::lPJl 1•::in n:iN>r.i Targum n,::inoN N? tli::J. J':lPJl p55n i'::ll/T1'Ni 1iJti:::i • So Baba Bathra 77a ... 1•::in n::iN?r.l •n,:inc:,J 1:l iW 1,r.i tiin, n":::ipn ,, ir.iN :Ji ir.iN .CliN::l Cl':lPJ Cl':lPJ 'l"lNi:::i,

Digitized by Microsoft q.,

rrnn-

:Ji ir.lN

THE EXEGESIS

107

Com. Ps. Jon. and Frag. Deut. 32:18, which is the interpretation of R. Meir, Sifri Deut. 227. ib. 45:11 nan ion;, iWl/O 11NW5 Targum i'N~ r,5n c,.:io .Nri•:i N::l'~i N115.:io:i Nil::l :ioo5 Com. Menachoth 77a 'Jil NJO ru5w nan ilO .n-n inN p,n rem il!:llNil Nii' NiOn ::Ii iON ,5,0 .nan IOWil pm N::lilO N5N ,t5Jo N!m n:i, ,l'NO The T. to V. 14 is literal. The specification here of the number of kors is because it forms the source for the inferente of the measure of the epha . Hos. 2:1 •.. Ci15 iON' C11N 'Oll N5 Ci15 iON' iWN ClPO::l il'ill Targum Nn•iiN 5.v li::ll/ ,.:i N•ool/ •J•:i lN•5mNi Ni11N::l 'il'l Ni15Ni il'Ol/ !li15 iON11'l ll::lin,, 1mr,, ll11N 'Ol/ N5 !li15 iONnN, .NO'P This interpretation agrees with Sifri Num. 131 m:i Nll,,::l 5wo ilt5 m l'Jl/ ilO •:n 5NiW' •J:i ieOo iOlNl 'Oll N5 iOlN ilnN N:i N5w ill ~l i15 :i,n.:i5, Nl:::15 i!:)lO inN n5w lnWN 5JJ Ol/::lrt' 1505 N5N Pl5n JN::lO ilt i!:llO Nll'rt' iW!:lN 150;, iON lnWN5 illli11J i!:llOil 'Oll N5 cnN •.:i ioNJ 1.:i5 ,nn:i,n.:i n5 5!:ll::l 'JNW :im.:i Nl:i ,5 ,o,N e-n 5,n.:i 5NiC'' •n ieoo iOlNl. And Pesiqta 11. R. Meir, however (Kidushin 36a), would not draw such a distinction. ib. 2 5Nllit' Cl' 5lil •.:i Targum !li111W'J::l c,, ::Ii 'iN So Pesachim 88a ,:i lNi::lJtU c,,.:i n,,5l r,:ip c,, 5lil pm, 'i iON .5Nllit' c,, 5lil ,.:i iONJW l'iNl c•ow

ib, 7 tJniiil nw•:iin Targum .i,il•!:l5o ,r,,;,:i The T. explains Cnilil as of the root i1i' to teach. It was so taken by others . Com. Deut. r. 2, 2: .orrnn nw•:iin CON nnJt •.:i :i•n.:i •N5~t:· i"N •}'iNil CV 'J!:l::l cn,,:i, c,w,,:io (C'J"iil) CilW And the version in Jalqut l. C. ,,:i, C'rt'":::10 C'J"iil il"::lPil iON •N5o~ ,, iOK ••. CON il11Jt '::l iONJ 1::l5 l'iNil Cl/ 'J!:)::l ib. "li'Wi Targum •OlJi!:1 . Com. Ketuboth 65a ,,,i'e.>l • r~·w.:in inJ•J •NOi lil'5ll r,pp,nwo nwN;iru c•i:ii ib. 4:7 ,5 lN~n p C::li::l Targum N55lJ i,;,5 •n•JONi N~::l • Deut. r. 2, 2 . ,5 iNt:ln t.:i iWll/ 1i15 ,r,,:iinw 5.:i N"i In a similar way Lxx. ib. 6:2 c•oi•o ll,,n, Targum l'i'nlli NnonJ ·~l'5 NJJ"n'

. N•n•o m•nN c,,:i ,r,,r.,5 The Messianic interpretation of this v. was a current one. Com. San. 97a; Rosh Hashana 3 la. Com also Seder Eliahu r. 6: n•rur.in mo•, rnn c5w;, m c•r.i,•o lJ"n' .N::lil c5iJJil m lJO'i'' 'W'5Wil c,,:i,

D1a,t1zcid by Microsoft

108

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

ib. 6:7 n,,:::i 11:::lll t:l1N:l m~m Targum .,N01P N,i,:i 1'J,N1 Com. R. Abahu, Psichta Lam. r., 4: ,IH!'N1i1 t:l1N m ... t:l1N:l m~m ,"N5 t:imN ,nc,J:iil ,,J:::i ~N , ,m, 5v ,:iv, ,,n,,Y, 1,v IJ5 ,,nc,J:iil • ,,:iv, t:l,n,iYiCom. also Gen. r. 19, 7. ib. 7:4 ,mo,n iv i'Y:::I wi5o Targum pc,J ,,:::iiN N5i 5v, ,i:;,~oo 11i1PCO t:i,,:::i ti15 ,,,:::ivn,Ni 111:::iJi Com. Mechika .snee) ,15Nml-' ,v i1Yon5 1i',Eltlil N51 iltl,llil nN 1tv5tv ,,Jt.:) : 13 ,N:::1 .ti/170 t:l,!:lNJt.:) t:i5i:i :::i,n::,, 5"ll5 NY10 ilnN 1:i, ib. 8 :4 eann t:ioc:i Targum Pi15 1i',cNi nnarrn tmoc:i t:i,iyoo Com. Gen. r. 28, 7 ~C:::lil 5ll iJn 1N1i' 5:::ii1 il:::1,i'll i"N .t:l,:::IYll t:lil? 1Wl/ carm t:lE:ltl:l 10NJW t:i,iyoo t:li1Cll NY'tt' :::imm Com. also Lam. r., Pesichta 23 (Buber), interpreting in the same way Ez. 7:19. ib. 11 :9 ,,v:::i N1:::IN N5 ,t!l,ii' 1:::11i':::I ,E:)N ,,,n iltvl/N N? Targum .t:l5tvi,, ,,niN Niir,:::i ~,5nN N51 ,m, ~,i'n ,,:::illN N5 Com. Eliahu Zuta 10 t:lJtll, N5w 1Cll5 il":::li'il ll:::ltl'J ill/ti' ilmNo ... ,oN mn ili::-'l/N N5 10KJtv ninN ,,v:::i t:lJ,.::itv, N51 inK tll,1:::1 So Eliahu r. 22. Am. 4:12 1'i17N nN1i'5 !1:lil Targum .~,tvi'nN So Shah. 10a (Com. Rashi). Also Berakoth 23a. ib. 7:7 1JN Targum .pi Com. Lev. r. 33, 2 1JN ,,,:ii .5Nitv, 5tv i151iJ ,,,i1JC m 1JN ,oiN, ... ,,,:::i :::i,n ,v:::i:i ib. 9:1 ino:iil 1i1 Targum Jil'tl'N, N:i5o ,,~i'nN NniJo ,o~ Com. Lev. r. 33, 2 1i1,tl'N, ilt ino:iil 1i1 . ib. 7 c,,w.:, ,J:::I::, N5i1 Targum !'ti,ni r,J:::i:i N?il. Com. On. Num. 12:1, Sifri 99, Moed Katan 16b n,J,,,o N5m iln,il n,w,.:, ,.:,, 1:::1 NY1'.:, ... il'1.:i:::! i1J1tlltl i111E:lY 1.:, 1111/:::! ilJ1tilt.:) 'tl/1.:, iltl N?N ,iln'il i1J1ti'O ,ti/1:l ilO N?N ~ ,,;, t:l'Wl:l ,::,1 ,t:l,,tll::, ,J:::i::, N17i1 1t11N ilnN c5,v;, mtiiN 5.:,t.:) ,m, miYti:::i tl'J1tllti 5Nitv, ~N ,,111:::i. So Shochar Tob 7, 18. But ib. 14: t:imN K11i' K1il il":::li'i15 tl'N~,n 5Nitv,.:, Cl' 't!'1:l . Jona 1 :3 ·, 'J.i5ti m:,,t!'in ni:::i5 ;,;,, tli''1 Targum i1J1' tlP1 ,,,, Ntit!':::I ':::!Jn'Ni cip !ti Nti'7 P1l/r~5. The targumist desired to thus eliminate the difficulty to explain the flight of the Prophet. Com. Mechilta Nnn,ne ,Nnce : ,:::i:i K5m rrna N1i1 'ii 'JE:l5o ,.:,, ilJ':l:t'il !'Ntil 5"in5 1?K i1J1' it.:)K N?N ... 1n11tl 17N KJN 1t!NJ .t:ltv n,5JJ The targumist, however, has struck a plain and genial interpretation by putting a complement to .,JE:l?tl

,,v

,,~w,

Digitized by Microsoft
THE EXEGESIS

109

Mi. 2:13 cn,Jn5 r,,nn n,11 Targum i:, 1,:,r,tllr.i 1uc, .,:i,r.i 15r.i pc,, Nn,,:,ip:, This interpretation seems to have been held by r. Simon b. Aba (Gen. r. 73, 3) Pllr.ltll ,, lt',Nil r,n,, ,,n N:iil c,w 5tll Nr.lJ1i !'llr.l mr,n ,, ilYinJlt' ,r.i,r.i ir.iN N:iN ,:, .r,,nn n,11 N"ir.i Mica 4:5 Pi15N Clt':i tll,N 1:,,, c,r.il/il 5:, ,:, Targum 5:, ,,N m,n ,, 511 pi:i.N5 11:,n, N,r.iol/ Com. Shochar Tob 1, 20 !')i~pr.i1 c,wn mr.i1N ,,lt' 5:, J'N:l N:i.5 ,,n11, , ,11,,r.in ,r115N ', ,,,n ... T"ll ,,:,w 15N ll"tll:ii ,,Jn5 c,,01N1 n":,pn ,Jn5 5Nilt', ,J:, ,11 ilr.l1N1 ilr.l1N ,:, ,,n 1:i CN en, ir.iN ~ r,w !'N CJi1,J5 ,,,,, .,,n,N Ctll:l lt',N ,:i,, c,r.il/il ,:, ,.:, ir.iNJ!t' •.. CJi1,J5 ilr.ll/ n,n,N, Cod. Reuch has 11:i.,n, instead of 11,:i.N5 p:,n, . ib. 7:1 5:iN5 51:ilt'N l,N Targum ,p:,~ pi:i.111 il':li i:,J n,, This interpretation is implied in Mishna Sota 47a (Y. 9,10).

.Nnw~,

,,,m

Hab. 3 :9 nmr.i n,11:i.w Targum .N'~:llt' c11, Nr.i,p ,,,:, Com. Gen. r. 47, 7 15N :,", 5Niw, ,~:,Ill i15N 5:, :,,n.:, pny, i"N nmr.i 15N 5:i.N l,N,tl/J ln1N N5N :,", 1J,N 5Nl/r.llt',, n,1:i.J ,J:, ... rnee nw:i.w N"ir.i:, Also Exod. r. 44 end. ll:ltl'J il":lPiltll i,,Jr.i, ... nmr.i n1l/:llt' ir.iNJlt' c,~:i.lt'5 . Com. also Sifri Deut. 117. ib. 14,,~r.i:, n:i.pJ Targum .iltllr.ii n,,~,n:i. Nr.i, nl/T:l Com. Mechilta n5tll:l ,2 : c-n l/P:lJ ,C'il 511 5Nilt',5 1t!'l/J Cl'CJ ili:.!ll/ ... ,,~r.i:i. n:i.PJ ir.iNJlt' nn,.:, i,r.i:, illt'l/J1

,,,:,yr.,

Zef. 2:5 c,n,:, ,u Targum i1NY,ntl'N5 1,:i.,n, Nr.ll/ • Com. Cant. r. ,J1:ltllr.l ,ni:, :J,,ne, ,u . Zef. 3:8 ,11, 1r.l1P c,,, Targum .1,,r.i, ,n,,5mN c,,, So in Pesiqta r. 34 ,,:,yy:, ,JN ,n,:,5,:,5 n:,,nlt' 5:,w , ,Jn5 N'il ill/1::llt' .,11, 1r.l1P c,,, ir.iNJlt' n:i.m, 1:l The Agadist also took ,11, to mean to witness, from the root ,111 . Com. also Exod. r. 17 end ,, ,:in 1:i, :,,n:,, ... n,,r.i11:i. ,r.i,w nN 1,1 ,r.i,11 N1i1 N:i.5 ,,n11, 5:JN • ,11, ,,:,,p c,,:,

,,yr.,

Zech. 3 :3 c,N,Y c,,J:, tll:J5 n-n lltll1i1,, Targum ,,n 11e•m,, .Nnun:i, iill':i N5i !'ll'J tm5 r:i.cJi l'J:l n,, So San. 93a :i., ir.iN 'NJlt' lil:l ilM'r.l N51 NJ1n:i, rnmn !J'Nt!' C'tl'J l'Nt!'1J ,,J:, 1'i1t:' Ntin c,N,Y c,,J:, lt'1:J'5 lltll1i1, 5tll ,:i,, ,:,, c,N1Y c,,J:, tll1:J5 n-n l/lt'm,, ,lil:J nn,r.i N51 NJ1i1:,5 n,mn !J'Nt:' t:l't:'J l'NC'1J 1'J:l ,,nc• ,o,r.i N5N ib. 8 ilr.lil nnir.i ,lt'JN ':l Targum i:i.11r.i5 i,,t!':, i,i:JJ ,,N ,!'CJ 1m, Exod. r. 9, 1 illt'l/Jlt' C'C'JN Cil n,N .nen nn,o ,lt'JN ,.:,

D1q1t1zcid by Microsoft (i-

110

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

t1N NP'1~1 NJV1' 5"N i1'1tVi 5NC''r-l i1'JJn iH ,r-i,N ,,;, r,i:nr-i Cli15 i;,:,, N'Ji1N N5 i1'itVi 5N~''r-l i1'JJn1 NiiJ Nt1iHl

1:::, N'Ji1N t)"r-, N5N

.• 5'.i::i ib. 9: l ,nmr-i P~·r-iii Targum T1'J ViNr-1 '1ilr-15 :,,ir,r, Pt!'r-11' .i1't1J::lC' Com. Cant. r. ,,N,~ : i11'T1V mn;rJ PC'rJ1i tl"i'~ ':iN ;,~, ... P~'rJ1 ,v nv,r-i r,p;,5 ti'5t!lii'; Sifri Dcut. 116. ib. 11: 12 ~o::i tl't!l5t!I 'i::JC' nN i5i?C''i Targum r,, ,,:iv, .r,~pr-, J'i::lJ Saying of R. Jochanan JN::J '5 ON 'J'N1 .Cl'i''1'1: i"5 ,r-i,N ,,;, ~o::i Cl'C'5C' i1ni'Ni ,r-i,N N1i1C'::l ... ,"N::i i"t), This rendering is at the foundation of this Agada as well as that of R. Jchuda, who finds in it the implication of the thirty righteous ones among the Gentiles who exist by their virtue.

,mv,

v,,,

ib. 12:12 i:,,5 Cli1'C'Ji i:,,5 jriJ r,,:i, nni.;iei~ Targum t1'Vit ,,n5 Jii1'C'Ji iin'.i jii1'iJJ JnJ n-a . Com. Suk. 22a tl'i:J.1 N?i11 Cl'C'J i1i111 i1i~N Cl:J. t)?i~• Vii1 i~' l'Ni i!:lDi1:J. l'i?D,Vt!I ?"V? i"p ••. ''C'::lV i:i.5 Cl'C'JNi 1:J.? Malachi l :1 '::lN?r-1 ,,:,. Targum i1'r-lt!I 'ii'I1'1 '::lN?r-1 ,,:i .Ni!:lD NitV So R. Jehoshua b. Korcha, Meg. 1 fa: p ,", N'Jn .NitV nr '::lN?r-1 ir-liN NniP ib. 11 rrnnc ;inJr-ii 'r-lt!I? w,r-i it)i?r-1 ciipr-i 5::i::i, Targum • 'r-lii? '::li 1:i,ip::i ii::im5~, . • . Com. Num. r. 13, 2 ciipr-, :,::i:i ,::i, Cl'ir-1,V ?NiC''C' o,pr-i 5::i:i N?N ;,":i,p;, OW? ;imr-i, r,,mp :J.'ii'r-1 it)i?r-1 .•. r,,,nC" ri5!:lri it C'Jr-1 ••• ;,nm ir-lNJ ;,,:,y ;,nJr-i ri5!:ln ti'??!:lnr-i, .11':J.iV n5!:lt1 H ib. 2:12 ;,mr-i w,,r-i, :i,py, '?i1Nr-l mv, ,v m~·y, it!'N Targum .NJ:J.iiv ::l'ii' i1'? 'i1' N? Nii1 l'i1::l tlNi Com. San. 82a; Shah. 55b ciN ,tl'1'rJ'.in:i ;iJ,vi ci·~:in::i ,v ,5 i1'i1' N5 ~m ;,"n c~ ... '' n,::i, .nrue w,,r-, 1:i ,5 ;,,;,, N5 Nii1 ji1:J

Digitized by Microsoft®

GENERAL PECULIARITIES The Targum Jonathan reflects many interesting peculiarities which arose primarily from the state of mind of the age whicr, produced the Agada and the Apocryphal literature. The Targurn was read in public 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 1t a principle to d i f f e r e n t i a t e 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 (1S 20:3, 2S 12:15 etc.). While followed by a profane it is vocalized with a zeire. Genesis 42:15. (Com. 1S 28:26 1~'!:lJ ,n, ,, ,n). The same tendency was made evident in the vocalization of 'J1N and in such forms as in the compound P1'lt 'J1N (Joshua 10:13) and Pf:! 'J1N (Judges 1 :5, 6, 7). The targumist carried the principle to an extreme application.O is applied both to God and the idol; the T. draws the distinction between them rendering the profane tl'i15N tl'i15N

1) Com. Geiger ,om '1'.lllN 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 lnlj:m ll'1N- NJ'1N (box); R. Ishmael b. Elozor says: 'For the transgression of two things are the amei ha'arazoth dying: for calling the lnlj:l1'1 p'1N 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 11',li'l'I p'1N • (Com. Berakoth 47b). 111

D1ait1zcd by Microsoft

112

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

fUIU Joshua 24: 14 C'i1?Ni1 11N ,,,c;,i - IU/U . So v. 15 Judges 5:8 c,w,n C'il?N - fUIU . 2K 19:18; ls. 33:37, 37:19 wN::i Ci1'i1?N 11N tmi - tmmvu. 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 c,inN following the profane C'il?N as a noun, and Cl'il?N as a noun in const. state, thus rendering c,,nN C'il?N - N'DDV mvu . 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 1:JJi1 'il?N Josh. 20:23, 24; Jer. 5:19 etc. Probably this expression has influenced the rendering by the T. of c,,nN C'il?N. Compare Mech. ,,,,, ,5 : C'1nNW N?N ,c,,nN C'i1 ?N ,o,, ,m,r, ;,o, mm5N cmN Cl'Niip. Equally is Cl'?V:::l rendered. So Jer. 2:23 C'?V::J.il ,,nN - N'DDV mv~. In some cases it is rendered like the detached profane C'il?N . So Jer. 2 :8 5v::i.::i. iN::i.J C'N'::J.Jili Nmvu tm!'::J.. Hos. 11 :2 ,n::it, c,,v::i.5 - Nnu,u, ; 13:1 ,v::i.::i. Ctt'N'' - Nmvu, . Otherwise ,v::i. is rendered by N?V:::l (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 Niil C'il?N CN - N?V:::l ;,,, V1!:l11' il'::J. 11'N ,,Y CN 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. 3 7: 19 C'il?N N5 ;,o;,i as well as to the passage in Hos. 8: 10 Niil tl'il?N N5i - 11Y ;,,::i, r,,,, , "the unuseful one"; also Ez. 28:2, 9, in all of which the divine sense of C'il?N is obvious. But the targumist is anxious to a void even an innocent pro, fanation of this sort. On the other hand, when this profane C'il?N is not employed in the sense of incrimination but as a fact the rendering is Nn5ni "fear" 2>. So for instance 2K 18:33; 34:35; Is. 36:18; 37:12: non 'il?N il'N .:c,,J;, 'il?N ,e,Ni - Nn5n, or Jerem. 2:28; 11:13 1'i1?N ,,;, i!:lco::i

,,,v ,,,y;,;,

2) The Talmud also employs its Hebrew equivalent ;,1ti1 So San. 64a, 106a. Also Y. Kidushin 1; P'siqta of Rab Kohna p. 65. On the other hand, N'mi is employed in the divine sense also. See Proverbs 1, 7: Nn',ni Nno::,n t:'•i; F. Deut. 32:13 1t!)1:,r, N'mi::i 1i!l::1 pnr,, pi!l ,, and Is. 2:6 10v i"ll'11:'t:I) ,:, - N!l'i'M N',ni pnp::ii:, ,,N

Digitized by Microsoft@

GENERAL PECULIARITIES

113

So also Jona 1 :5' ,,n5N 5N ~,N ,vvr,, - n,z,;n, . 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 c,n5N with the special name given to idols in the Bible, namely c,;,;N and c,5,5l, both of which he renders by !UI~ with the exception of the latter, which tn5n:i is in the most cases added to TUI~ . 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 c,inN c,n5N in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7), in which case Onkelos would not side, track the meaning, rendering them by tinN ti15N (Ps. Jon. fol, lowing On.). In all other cases On. also renders the profane c,n5N - I'll~ (Exod. 23:24; 34:15'; Deut. 12:2) and goes even with Jon. to render inN 5N - N't:lOll 11UI~ . Of the other early translations no such distinction is noticeable, neither in the Pentateuch nor in any other part of the Bible, except in two cases in Lxx. These are: Num. 25':2. Com. Frankel, Ober d. Ein., 175'. Usually n:itr.i is rendered by the targumist by the Aramic parallel Nn:iio . But this rendering is applied only to the holy, to God's altar. Whenever it refers to the profane, referring to the idol either in stative or implied sense, it is rendered by Ni,lN, the pile. Ez. 6:4 cn,mn:irr.i ,o~J, - 1,:i,,,lN . Hos. 8:9 N~n5 mn:iro - i,iuN; Is. 17:8; 27:9; Jer. 11 :13; 17:12; Ez. 6:4, 6 etc. Accordingly ... ,,11,n:iro 11N, nm n:itoil 'J!:l5 ioN,, (Is. 36:7) the former is rendered by Ni,lN the latter by Nn:i,o In this case also, the Lxx and P. are making no such distinction. The only exception is the Targum Onk. and the other Targumim. They draw the same distinction and employ the same terms. Com. T. Exod. 34:13; Deut. 12:3; 7:5' etc.3> 3) So the rendering by Onkelos 'J;n 'Jv ,;:11• (Genesis 31:46) 1111JII . A striking analogy to this is found in Mandaic, where 1111::: is usually used to denote the worship of a false cult (Noeldke, Zeit. fiir Assuriologie, v. 20, p. 131). This distinction, it· would appear, was not known to the Jews in EgyPt in the fifth century B. C. The temple or shrine or altar of the Jews in Yeh is called 1111JII (Sayce Aram. Pap. E. 14 n';,11 n,n, If 1111;11 ; J. 6 t1n'J11 in• If 1111Jtt:Sachau (Aram. Pap. 1, 2). However, in Pap. 3 instead of11i1;11 the term em,

D1ait1zed by Microsoft

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 n:n,1,n a prcsent.O Com. Aboda Zara 32b, 48b; Chullin 13b, 24a. But while the Targum to the Pentateuch reserves Nn:nivn for the profane offering, the holy offering being rendered by NJ:i1i', Nn:iivn is the judicial term, applied to idolatrous sacrifice in the Talmud using however t:ii,v to denote present. Com. Nedarim 20a ci•:i:>r.:i mJ:l1D:l ; Ab. Zara 64b. So does also T. jonathan.P? Com. Hos. 12:2 ci•i'l/r.:i:> jr.l~l T a r g u m NJ:i1i',, although Korban is joined by the Tetra· gramm (Menachoth 110a, Sifra Lev. 2). Sometimes the idolatrous sacrifice is called ci•nr.:i •n:it (according to PS 106:28) Aboth 3, 3; Aboda Zara 29b; 32b. Instead of n:it the usual verb for sacrificing, the Talmud in several places uses the verb :>:it to manure.O Aboda Zara 18b; Y. Berakoth 9, 1; Pesiqta r. 6. ployed is Nn:m:i n•:i . 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 N'11JN for the holy temple. The others are documents of an official nature intended for the consideration of a Persian official or court. The current name of a temple would he used in such a case. Sachau's assumption (ib. p. 29) that N'11JN 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 tt N•:il:: Nil';,N 1i1' (Pap. 11), while the idolatrous priest is called Komer N•'10.:l :iun 'f (Pap. 1 and Sayce E. 15 :i,:n~ ,o:: 110':-!l '1:l 111,0). 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) M:l'1i'M is the abbreviated form of NM:l1'1j:,1'1 • The Targum renders by it ilmO (Genesis 32:13; 20:21; Is. 18:7; Jer. 51:59 etc.). 5) It would seem that T. Jonathan did not follow at all such a distinction. So c::i,p cv:: (Ez. 20:28) is rendered by T. Jon. unless the translator understood it in a holy sense.

1Ml!:l'11i'

6) In Tosefta Ab. Zara 2 there is pn:ito instead of 1•',:i10 though in Pesiqta r. 6 1:11',•: ';,1:n OP N"•,. The version in Sota 36b is

Digitized by Microsoft®

GENERAL PECULIARITIES

115

Moved with this spmt, 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 NM5!J. (So Jer. 48:7; 49:3) or, which is the usual rendering, by Nio,:i (2K 10:19; 17:32 etc.) which is considered by some scholars to be a translation of the Persian Atharnan, the priest of the fire-worshippers. (See Aruch, Kohut iO:J) . Both of them are found in the Talmud and the Agada. The priest of the idol is called mruo (San. 63b, 64a). In one passage both of them are used side by side, namely Erub. 79b. NiOt::J however is the usual connotation for the Kohan of the idol. But 2S 8:18 C'Jil:, ,,, 'J::n the rendering is i':li:li (Com. Mech. ,2 : ••. ,,, 'J:i, iONJC' ,l'JV:l c•5t):,i::, c•;;,:, 5:,) Com. Mek. I. c. voru,, : .n-n io,:, io,N vru,;,, 'i ,pio lil:,

,,r,,

,,r,,

'J"Jil ~:iru, C'Jil:J ,,;, ,,J:,, ilrl'JO r:i Crl/iJ t:i tmm•, iONJC' l'JV:J

n1n CJM Cl!. Com. also Cant. r. beginning and Gen. r. 87,3. The T. Jon. in general does not favor any distinction in this case. Thus lK 11:8· 1n,n,tc';, MlMJTOl Targum r,,n:i,01 . So also in 12:32; Am. 4:4 and in some other places. So Onk. Num. 24:2 tn•n':ttc •n::.,; - •n:,; : Deut. 32:17 0111:1', 1MJT' - ,n:i,. This principle found application in the Bible. n1:1:i is placed for '.tv:i : )lN n•:: for '.ttc n,:i. This might have been the reason for the peculiar vocalization of en• 1:1ipo (Ezek. 7:24), which is otherwise hardly explicable. (Com. Kimchi I. c.; Ew. Gramm. 215 Jahn, Das Buch Ez. I. c.). The reference here is to the idolatrous shrines (so Rashi, Kratezschrnar and many others) and was so understood by the Masorites, They therefore changed the pointing as a mark of distinction. Similarly 1:i•1:1n (Ezra 10:2; Nehemia 13:23) instead of 1N!:IJ . 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 el6roMihrtoi; to what the G e n t i I e s called 1.EQ6ihrto; (Diessman, Die Hellen., p. 5'). Likewise the idolatrous festival is called ,,tc (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) 011:,10 because they are ':t::n ". Com. Rab, Aboda Zara 20a. A temple of an idol is called mtin (Mishna Ab. Zara 29b, 32b). Its underlying meaning is not from ;u,,,r. ;Aruch ~in), but synonymous with n1tin as Tos, (Ibid 32b beginnmg

,,,nn).

Dmitizcid by Microsoft

116

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

iONJW !'Jll.:l .n-n iW ir.l1N 'l/i1r.li1 itl/5N 'i j l'iNi1 m5J C::1' ill .1'i1 t:l'Ji1.:l ,,, 'J::l1 Also 2S 20:26 1115 !i1::J n-n Ni'l/ t:lJ1-1115 Ji . The targumist does

not consider them priests of any kind, although with regard to Ni'll the T. is in opposition to the view expressed in the Talmud (Erubin 6Jb) that he was a rightful priest. On the other hand, l S 1 :3 t:l'Ji1.:i omn, »cn Targum !'WOWO obviously because they were sinful priests, as against Samuel b. Nachmani, who would clear them of crime (Shab. 5 5b). Impelled by the same consideration, the T. renders ;,r.,::i;, (lS 9, 12, 13, 14, 25) by NnnnoN by which he renders 1::iw10 (lS 20:18) and ;,n:::iw5 (lS 9:22) to distinguish it from the bama denoting high places of idolatrous worship which he renders by Nmr.,::i [LK 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 bamaworship, the T. rendered ;,r.,::in as denoting the place where gatherings were held with the Prophet. Hence the rendering for natn 1i::l' (lS 9:13) in the essenic sense 7> NJ,tr., O•itl N1i1 'iN (Ant. 1, 18, 5; Berakoth 55a), while lS 16:3, 5 is equally rendered by Nmi•w::i . For the same reason the T. renders t:l'tlin (Jud. 17:5) by !'Nr.l1 instead of N•Jr.,5~ which is otherwise the rendering of t:l'tlin (So On. Ps. Jon. Gen. 31: 19). As well said Levy (Chai. Woer.): "Um nicht einem judischen Priest die Anbetung eines hornlichen gotzen Bildes zuzuschreiben." So he differentiates in the rendering of 11tN . When it is used in a holy sense (lS 2:28) it is rendered 1\tlN but in a profane sense [l S 2:18! 2S 5:14) it is translated r,::i, erre. This is the rendering of t:i•5•vr., (2S 13: 18). As regards other translations, the Nir.l1.:l 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 oewo referring to that of God or Israel and that of the Gentiles. In the former case it is rendered by NJ'i. 7) Abudraham (n:inu,,, n•inu,,) cites a Targum Yerushalmi which would seem to be a later recenssion, this principle being disregarded. ;rhc rendering there is: NC::l~ ',)) ci!l• N1i'l •iN.

Digitized by Microsoft®

GENERAL PECULIARITIES

117

Referred to the oewo of the Gentiles or denoting custom it is rendered by the Greek voµoi; cir.i•J . So Ez, 5:7 c::•m, •oe~~:i, Targum N'O~V •c:m.:,J:,1; Ez. 20:18 ,,own 5N cn•oewo nN, Ji1'010'J n•,. Also Ez. 7:27; 21:25 and in one verse Ez. 11:12

•oewr.i:i, cn•tuv N5 •oel!I01 cn:i5n N5 •pm::i iwN ,, •JN ,:, cnv,,, c•,Ji1 Targum ,c,r.iJ:>i nn,::iv N5 •J•,, iln:>5n N5 •o•p::i ,, N•or.iv. When oewr.i denotes custom: lS 2:13 c,J;,:,;, oewo (IS 8:9) '1:i, 15on oewo Targum cir.i•J ; (2K 1 :7) tu'Ni1 oe1::•r., ;,r., Targum N01~J. Also Am. 8:14 v::itu-1N::i ,,, ,n, Targum cir.i•J Applying to the holy laws, commandments or judgment it is rendered NJ,, . 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, oewr.: the contents owpi truthful, is added. Instances of this kind are Jer. 5:1 ~ewo nwv w, CN Targum owpi t•i ,,:iv n•N CN So vv. 4, 5; 7:5 ~ewo ,wvn nwv CN Targum 11,::ivn i::ivr.i C::N ~,wv, pi • Bz. 18:19 nwv nviY, ~ewo tam Targum ,:iv otuvi pi. Ez. 18:19 ,wv i1i'iYi oewr.i 1::ini Targum ~,wv, pi and v. 21 oel!IO nwvi Targum ~Wi'i pi ,,:iv,,. It appears from the citations that the targumist adds OWi'i when ~ewr.i is the object of nwv, did, or when this is understood by the targumist to be implied. (Jerem. 5 :45). It might have appeared to him that to render oewo in these cases by NJ•i ·alone would be obscure, as it might be taken in a profane sense. In this con, nection it will be notcied that m a single case is ~Ell!IO rendered by NO'i', otherwise the rendering of 1,n as it will appear presently. This is Jer. 8:7. However, ~ewr.i there is also the object of i1WV . The Lxx and P. in the Prophets are not fol, lowing such a distinction. Onk. renders pn by C11.:i'J if it refers to Gentiles. So Lev. 20:23 etc., while otherwise i'n, as is the case with Jonathan, is rendered by Nr.i,p . So Lev. 20:22; 26:3 etc.; the Lxx have for tm in holy sense xeoi;'tciyµm:oi; So ibid: 20:22; 26:3 etc. While the profane pn ibid 2:23 is rendered by Lxx voµtµoi; In the Talmud this term is applied to custom, manner, judicial formatlity. (Com. Gittin 43b; 65b). The same principle the targumist applies to 1,n . It is rendered by Ni,u when it refers either to Gentiles or idolatrous

Du11t,zcd by Microsoft

118

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

law or order.

W hen , how ev er, it refers to the holy law s, it

Nt:l'i' covenant (the usual rendering of r,•i::i.). Instances of the latter are: Jer. 31:35; Ez. 5:6; 18:9, 10, 19, 21; Am. 2:4; Ze. 1:6; Mal. 3:22 etc. Instances of the former are: Jer. 10:3 Cl't:lllil mi.,n Targum r,i•tJ ; 33:25 !'1N, Cl't:IW rnen Targum l11'fJ (the same 33:34 o•::i.:n::n n,, ri,vn); Ez. 20:18 r::i5r, 5N o::i•m:::iN •pn:::, Targum r,i•TJ::i. ; 43:18 rnen i15NTargum rn-u. So 44:5 men 5::>5- ni•TJ. In Ez. 33:9 mpn:::, - N"n m-ua . In this way the T. renders Ez. 20:25 Cl•:::i,~ N5 Cl'v,n Cli15 •r,r,J •JN OJ, - i1'1J , 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 N1'fJ it will be noticed that in the Talmud it has the effect of arbitrariness. So there are hard ri,i•tJ (Makkoth 24a; Ketuboth 3b; Shab. 145b). A N1'1J can be recalled, Gittin 55b; Taanith 2 Ni•tJ N5~:::i, N1':ll1 ; to the targumist it appeared to express profanity. Apart from Jonathan, no other translation adhers in this case to such a distinction.e ' 1s rendered by

The same principle is applied by Jonathan to the rendering of N':lJ . In the case of the true prophet, the one sent by God,

it is rendered by t(':lJ, its Aramic equivalent. On the other hand, whenever it carries the implication of either false prophetism or, so to say, professional prophetism, N•:::iJ is rendered by ,no scribe, a term of general currency in the age of the Targum. So it renders Is. 9:14 ipw ;,i,r.i N•::i.J, - ,no . Jer. 6:13 iv, N':lJl:I\ Jil::J - i::ior.i, . Other examples of this sort are: Jer. 14:18; 18:18. In plural: Ez. 32:25 il'N':lJ 1Wi' - ilNino r,Jl'O. Ze. 7:3 Cl'N':lJil 5N, - t(•,no,,. Note lS 10:5 Cl•N•:::iJ:::i 5,Nw ~Nil-N•ino:::i When reference is made to a prophet of another deity, the targumist renders it literally, adding N1i'W false. So Jer. 2 :8 ?ll:l:l ,N:lJ Cl•N•:lJil, - N1i'W ":lJ ; 5 :31 1i'W ,N:::iJ Cl'N':lJil, N1i'W ":lJ; l K 22:10 :.Cl'N':lJil - N1i'W ":lJ 5::i, . To this category 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 Ni•l.l with pn as suggested by the rendering of the T. {see Aruch iu) is based on his overlooking the principle of distinction of the T.

Digitized by Microsoft®

GENERAL PECULIARITIES

119

applies the same distinction to the verb as well as to the noun. tC1Jno referring to the true prophet is rendered by the T. ,:iJn,N, referring to the false prophet it has a substitute ex, pressing ridicule. So Jer. 29:26 N:!Jno, ~,N ;:::,; - ~D~o, (but v. 27 N:iJnon •mmvn ;,,r.,,,:i n,v) ;,r.,; - N:iJnr.,). lK 18:29

nJnr.>n m5v5 ,v ,t(:iJn•, - ,N•n~~t(, 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. 9 > 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 sufficient to illustrate the point. The Piel from :i,~ in the sense of transgression is given a favorable turn when applied to Israel. 10 > So 51(1~, n:i~r., (Jer. 3:6) is rendered by the T. ,Jn5,D5 :in•o5 t•Jr.,nnr.i, Lxx: xa,mxtcc . So also P. In the same way T. Lxx P. in v. 8 A. Sym. ri wt~'tQ<>q?l} L<JQU'f}A. In v. 11 the T. and P. are fol, lowing the same rendering while Lxx omit il:i~r.,. Again c•:i:i,t::• (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 lil-vos to the Gentiles, while retammg :kaos for the Jewish people. (So Wisd. 15:14. Com. Cheyne, Encyc. Biblica, 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 yitcM Cl) - :kaos 'tijS 'YTiS- But Lev. 20, 2, 4 the rendering is 'tOV iil-vos , 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 peculiarity in the Targum. However, he is wrong in the illustration. Thus he remarks in Ze. 13:7: "the Targum never renders c•itz.'l ,,~ when they are those of Israel except by :,.i:,.i and not by 1' ,ri~',!Z,'. It is first of all to be remarked that the rendering of c•ic> by 1 •:i.i:i., is not peculiar to those of Israel. The same is applied to those of other nations also. Com. ls. 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 f'll~':-tz.' applied to those of Israel. So ls. 37:24 etc. 10) This is also the case in Onk. (Com. Deut. 32:6 the rendering of c::M tc',i ',:,.) Cl). See A. Berliner; Onk. p. 120.)

D1,qit1zc,d by Microsoft

120

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

acpEO'l'lJXOl'E; ; Sym. (lEµ66µEVOL. V. 22 t:l'J:J ,:::i,w c:in:::i,wo ;,niN c,:,.:,.iw is rendered by T. pJonno, N'J:J i:::i,n ti:::i,nn ,:i p:i5 p::iwN ::in,o5 • c:i,n,:::iwo, however, is rendered by the Lxx affliction (so that

h aving

there is no reason to ascribe to the Lxx a different reading; com. Schlesner Lexicon O"IJVt()Lµµa ). 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 rendenng. The same word is rendered in its intended sense when it refers to other nations than Israel. Note Jer. 49:4 ;,:,.:,.iw;, r,:,.;, (referring to Amon) T. t(r,wnti Nm:i5o, Lxx {}-uyal'E() haµ(a; audacious. Also Is. 47:10 1n:::i::i,w N'i1 1no:in - 1n5P5P fa. 57:17 forms an exception, although the reference is made to refer to Israel, the rendering by the T. and Lxx is plain. So strong, it appears, was the force of suggestion of the contents of this particular case that it was felt impossible to make other account of it. 11>

,m,,,

In the following case the T. is followed by Aquila in some measure. Ez. 2:10 ,;,, rum tl'J'P i1'?N ::iin:i, 'Jn5 nrn« w,,n,, the T., apparently disturbed by the vehemency of the prophecy, renders : p;,:,. pti5~, Nn,,iN 511 5Niw, n•::i pi::iv, t:lN1 i1::l ::i•n:i,

.NnnJ•m NJ•,, N•5N Jii1JO ~,c, Nn•,,N

r,,

t,1::lll' ,:i, N'00l/

In this way the gloomy predcition is turned into one of consolation. A., it seems, was also actuated by the same motive, rendering Cl'J'i' - c r e a t i o n (probably from the root tDv); 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 wm5 m:i5oo;, 511, c,,,;, 511 m;, tll'i1 1•nivni1 i1N1 ci;,5i 1':JNi15i - the T. divides the phrase, assigning its favorble part to Israel .Nvin5 Nm:i5o 5111 N'OOll 511 l'1i1 NOl' 1'T1'J01 -rn

rm,,

11) Kimchi's Sefer Ha-Sharashirn, 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 lbn Saruck. (Com. Machbereth :nci). In Machbereth Rabeinu Tam (Ed. Pilpowsky) p. 36, it is said: Hos. 8:6 iPil' c•:i:nci ,;:i the sinful man is called :i:iiiz, , being removed from the good direction.

Digitized by Microsoft®

GENERAL PECULIARITIES

121

N1)~5l N1JN?l Nr.,•p51 •J:ir.,5 ?N1rt'' 'JJ ?Vl . Nothing but a passion, ate regard for Israel could have produced such a rendering. Com. Is. 10:25; Jer. 18:7.12 > 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 c a l a m i t i e s 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 : DVt• JNlo:> •:i5 Targum i,,r.,,, !lilJ?J ; Is. 16:11; Jer. 48:36 ir.,n• iD:i:i JNlr.,5 ,yr., p 5v Targum •.. 1,n:i,, •:iN1r.,1 i,n•vr., p 5v ; . Is. 21 :3 : •n•,vJ n,51• ,,,1':i •mnN c•i•ll n5n5n •Jnr., lN5r., 1:i 5v mNir., •n5n:iJ vr.,rt>r., Targum N,rii N'V't llil'1'1n lN•5r.,n•N t:i 5v ,rn,r.,5r., Wt> vr.,rt>5r., lrt>!:lt>N llJ•n,nN and v. 4 : n,Y5e •:i:i5 nvri il11n5 •5 tlrt' 'Drt'n rt'~J nN •Jnnv:i Targum l'nlV'Jl Ni'll llilJ? NVtl i:in5 ilil? n-n llil'Jllnl1 inN 1m,nN . In some instances he 1etains the p. but alters the sense. Examples of this sort are : Is. 16:9; Jer. 48:32 •nvo, ,,,,N nr.,:irt> I~) ,rv• •:i:i:i il:JJt( 1:i 5v Targum no:irt> 5v p5ltiD •n•N i:J ,rv• 5v pirt>r., •n•n•Ni Nr.,:i 1:i 5v Nnvr.,i 1J'l1N . 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 5v •Jr.,nJ5 lY•Nn ?t( •:i:i:i ,,r.iN •Jr., lVrt' ,n,r.,t( 1:i 5v •r.,v n:i 1lrt' Targum m•v:inn N5 ,,r.i:i •:i:iN •Jr., lDlJrt' n•ir.,N t:i 5v

.•r.iv, Nnrt>J:i ,:in 5v ,n,r.,m~ The Lxx are in agreement with the Targum in the render. ing of Is. 15:5 and )er. 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 literal 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) favorable Rabbinic Exod. r. .t:1,1QU,1'1?

Kimchi remarks: "And Jonathan divided this verse-the unfor the Gentiles and the favorable for Israel." In the present text the 1,itiu,• •J:i.', is omitted, evidently by the censor. Com. 45, 1 ••• ,11iu,1 l?M ;,::,',QQ ?)11 ••• ?Mill'• l?M •ll ?)I i:i.iM l)li ll'i':l.l 1'111'l)Q lMlM 111')111' I!)? ••• !!'Ml?

D1ait1z0d by Microsoft
122

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

O n the other hand , this pecu liar agreem ent betw een the L xx and the T argu m is anoth er case of w eight for an hypothesis of a com m on backgrou nd of these translations. H ow ever,

G eiger

(U r.

245'

et

seq.),

w ho

carried

principle too far, failed to notice th ese renderings.

this

H e w as

m ost unfortun ate in th e ch oice of exam ples. T hus his assertion (p . 93) that Jer. 48:47 ;

49 :6, w h ere the restoration of M oab

and A m m on is foretold, are not ren dered 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 1t 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 become 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 veneration 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. riv, is identified by the T. with the Torah. Is. 40: 14 m,o:,, Targum Nn,11N 1.3 > ; ib. 28:9 nv, ;,,,, '0 nN Targum ~n,11N ,,:iv (Hos. 6:6). Connected with it is Am. 3: 1 O ;,m:iJ mrvv N:i ; Is. 30: 10 1J:, nnn N7

m,,

w,,

13) Com. Alef Beitha of R. Akiba A'in: is called :-::,, , as it is written" etc.

Digitized by Microsoft®

"and she ,the Torah,

GENERAL PECULIARITIES

123

mn::,J

Targum N11'iiN t!:l5lN . So also MiiN IS. 2:3; Mi. 4:2 l•mnilNJ n.:,5J Targum li1'11'ilN t!:l5lNJ Nilr.:i 14 >; Mal. 2 :5 Nilr.:i '' tlJ11Nl Targum '11'iiN !!:l5lN; Is. 2:5 " ilNJ Targum '11'ilNl~5,NJ15>; ib. 5:12 lt!'J' N5" ,ve 11Nl TargumNn'ilNJl 1,.:,110N N5 ; ib. 9:5 ir.:i.:,iv ,v i1i!Vr.:ii1 •nm Targum 1°> N11'ilN ; Hos. 10:12 i'J o.:,, li'J Targum N11'ilN t!:l5lN ; Jerem. 4:5 ,iv liJIV Targum N11'iit( ; Is. 26:2 tl'Jlr.:iN ir.l!V Targum N11'iiN (So i1Jr.:,NJ Hos. 5:9); ib. 27:5 'fl:llr.lJ P'fn' Targum 17hr,•ilN; Jer. 32 :6 ,,on• Nr.:ili i1P!Vr.:il Targum 1s "n'ilN •r.:im!:l5 (Com. Is. 55:1); Ze. 13:1 M11!:lJ ili'r.:i Targum N11'ilN j!:l5lN 'i1'. 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 interpretation, the targumist follows the interpretation of the Halaka. All these cases occur in Ez.: the first is Ez. 24: 17 11VNi5 !V lJn 1iNEI 14) Com. Jalqut I. c.: "Who accepted the words of the Torah with fear." 15) Com. Mid rash Shochar Toh ( 49): "R. Aha says, sweet are the words of the Torah likened to iitt de." 16) Com. Jalqut (prov. 8): "By me princes will 1,r:,, (prov. 8:16), both the crown of priesthod an kingship come from the power of the Torah." 17) Com. Zeb. 116a. 18) Com. B. Kama 17a; Canticles r. 1.

Dia,tucd by Microsoft

124

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

The Targum renders iNE:l-T11.!ltlm (Tephilin). This is in accordance with Sukka 25b: "Said R. Aba b. Zabada: A mourner has to observe all the commands of the Torah except Tephilin; for (this is to be inferred) because God said to Ez. wi::in 1iNE:l , you are obliged to observe it while a mourner, but no other mourner is to observe it." Ez. 44: 17 Vf':J run- N, Targum l'i1'N l1i1'~in nm- N,1 p,c,, pn:::i:::i,. This agrees 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 ,np, Jn:::ir.i i1Jr.l'N i1'i1T1 iWN i1Jr.i,Nm Targum p:::ic, N'Ji1:::) iNW Nn,r.iiN -nn ,, NT1,0iN1. This interpretation removes the flagrant contradiction which this in, terdiction presents to Lev. 3:17. It is so interpreted in Kid. 78b

,,,v

,v

,v

.mp, Ji1:::)r.l - ,np, N'Ji1:::) iNWr.l

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.3:1, 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 judgment) 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

Digitized by Microsoft®

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 righteousoneswill live the life of eternity t(O?l/ "" (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.

Diqit,zed by Microsoft (i.

INTERPOLATED T ARGUM 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 3 5 chapters of Isaiah. One need only read the T. to Jerem. or Ezekiel 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 an: found in the ancient versions, Onkelos inclu
Digitized by Microsoft®

INTERPOLATED TARGUM

,127

t>.''i:l Nnt>.1J:i •n:i:i :ino5 N•o•:in ,:in 1:i:i - ,5Nit>.1•5 ri;i5 1•:i1mN1 • ,,,N, ,:i,i:i p:i ; Nn•iiN •om!:l NOll n• N!:l5N5, '?) 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 1t 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 .cv:i c•:iiJnoi1

p:in•, !ii15 'N' ,,:ii rnoiNo lli!:lJ i1":li'i1 •o:i .Nn•iiN •om!:l Noll n• l'!:l?Noi Nnt>.1J:i ••• iONJI>.' noJ:li1 n•:i5 !':lil!Oi 1•0•:,t>,IO lilt>.' C1N •J:i:i ~ C?Wi1 .il":li'il nN c•:ii:io, cv:i c•:iiJnon

Com. Seder Eliahu r. 11 (p. 52): •n:i:i

ib. 3 c•:i5o ,vorl!I-; N:lii'? Nio•o cv mNi-N•:i5o ,vot>.1 N?i p:i•n5n:i N? - jl/J:l1 N:l?O l':l' tlll nn, - N'J'tl?t>.' Nn'YN 5Nit>.'' n•:i 511 pnp5o, 1,m:imN p:im,:iJ::i The two portions following the horizontal line are missing in Cod. Reuch. and in Ant. Polyg. and preceded by •o,n in ed. Leira, and appear in brackets in the London Polyg. and in the Basel ed. ib. 4 .•. i'llt>.10 1nNY:l " - il?ll ?Nit>.''? Nn:in•, Nn•iiN ,p;i•:i:i, '?ll:l ?ll 1,J'N l'i:lJnO il? p:i•n ,:i, N'OOll 1m:i !'tl?t>.' rnn ••• rin5 ;,Jno5 1m•5mN c,•:i 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 i•J!:)O ,,rJ C'iil -,ii::in, Niiti _,, c,p !O ,vr N'iil-' 'it>.'n '?ll iON 1'1 ,1,,, !'1 i'iONi N?Oi:l1 Niiti, poin, Niit) - N•rn ,,, n•nJ•:it>.1 •it>.1n •511 iON p,5 1•,, s-m ,,, n•m•:irv •J•o, N'iiti ?ll il'nJ:lt>.' 'it>.'N ,(,"!:ln ,tl1itlt>.'ON ,m,,,) mNiPO) ••. t>.'')inO 'J'O !'1 - N'iiti ,:io i'llfi t>.'?n Nli11 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

D1aitized by M,crosoff(J.)

128

TARGUM JONATHAN TO TH E PROPHETS

L ondon P oly g ., w h ere th e w h o le portion is placed in brackets, w hile in C od . R eu ch th e ad d ition is foun d ,, tl1v rr.i K,U/i mm

.iW1J'::ltt' 'itt'K, It is completely omitted in Ed. Leira and in the Ant. Polyg . ib. 8 tl'i17K in:,, - K.l'ln,t~;, n;,i:ir.,;, ?Kitti' 'J:J U/il'l'K 1:i p,:im,K1 111 rm;, ,;,,:,, K:> K.n,,,K 1:i11r.i:i ,:i.n 1:i, - p.n1n l'tt'r.lM:J l'i'tt'r.l 'tt''i p!:l:>K i'l/::liK:J .KP'llr.l' i1KJC KiC'C Pi1'?ll p,;,c, K'i'J ,yynr., l'!:l?K pr.i.n:i l'tl'il'l '1MN l'!:l?K p.nw:i N!:l'C '1MN l'El?K ;,:,, K'!:l?N l'?K ;,:, i1'r.ll/ nm N?ti:J1 p:i.n, i1N~ vc,.nr., i:l ••. i1'r.l'll1 Ki:JJ i'!:l?K i1itt'l/ tl1j.), j.)i:J tl1v tlj.)r.);, p;,:i, N? Kl'l'itt't:I !'?N There cannot be the slightest doubt that this Agada was on the margin to v. 2, the end of which formed Nitl'C .n,Jl/iH3 ?l/ i1'1'l'itt'r.l ;,:,, of v. 2, which is strikingly out of all connection. Witness the beginning ,:i.n 1:i, 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: '1MN ;,,r.,,11, i1N~tt' p;,,;,11 N.l'lN 1:i1 rm;, ,;,,:i, K? Kl'l'i,N? ,:i.n 1:i, K:Jij.) NnJK? ,;,,:,, N? r"i't!'r.l 'C''i j'!:l?K l'll:JiK:J pnr.i,,, pc,,.n .7Kitt'':J

In Ed. Leira it is headed by: Kl'l!:lCm ib. 11 tl':JNtt'r.l .r,,:, tl'YYMr.l :i,vr.i - p;,;, r'CJN "i11 i.l'lKt:I p:i,J ;,11 pc::i,r.i .n:imr.i, p~c;, (.nm:i) m,:ir.i .r,,:, p;,,1,:i nr.i p:icJ, nN,n N:>i N'r.l ,;,r.,r.,;, ?Nitt''-l'lJ:J l'P!:lJ p,n1 il'lK? - K't:11 N'vtt' .r,,:, mm, (rucc) r::::1v rr.i 'N:>Ji .nci!. (rime) ;,p N11r.itt1K:i (p;,n1) p;,:,, Is is a second rendering. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. In Leira ed. it is preceded by the following addition: , .• ii1N j't:11v?r.l ?Nie'' l'l':117 ri,:iJ, r'CJ r,n;, N1'::llll'l'K1 Ki.l'lK ib. 16 tl'l'l!:ltt'r.li1 l':J .l'l:Jtt'' ;,r.,;, - N:Jij.) l'l'itt'r.lr.l i,.n:i.r, ;,r.,;, vi:J? K1 rr.i N1 Kl'li,tt':J l/r.ltt'r.l? Nn,,N .l'le'i!:l:J - pr.i,n.n r,:i :,.r,r.,;, l/r.ltt'r.l? ,:, KJMJN 17'1 !'ir.lN p.nK Kitl'C? KJnJN 17'1 l'ir.lK p.nN Ki,tt':J .

This interpretation might have been intended to deal a rebuke to the half-hearted revolutionises of the Saducean party in the Great Rebellion. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. and in ed. Leira it is headed '!:lc,.n ; the rendering pr.i,n.n !':J - tl'l'l!att'r.li1 p:i agrees with Onk. and Ps. Jon., Gen. 49:14.

Digitized by Microsoft®

INTERPOLATED TARGUM

129

ib. 26 nJM5tt1!1 111'5 n1•-!1r.>'P1 nNr.>5tti 1::lM !1tt'N 531, N!1::l~ 1r,11, N5i N!1!1N 5v 1:::iJ1 r,r,,r, ,,n, N5 n~, N11•11N ,no:::i : :i•ri:i, no ••• N!1:J05 l;t1' j•n5N N!1!1N 'J\j:)'11::l 1:::1.l It is a current interpretation in a shortened form. Com. Jalqut l. c. (cited from Midrash Achbar): n,, : :i•ri:i, 111•::i N5N i"t •5::i::i ,m,n N5tti 5v• H iitti•::i:::i nn5tti n,,, n•n• N5 ir.>NJtti no tl"i'' ~ l"t •5:i::i ,m,n N5 no •Jno, ... ,11,, .ntt'N 531 1:JJ ,5::, This addition is missing in Cod. Reuch., and in the Ant. Polyg.; in ed. Leira it is headed by '0111 • ib. 11: 1 NiM!10r.) N51 po,r,5o 5Nitt'' ::i rnn NO\r.l' J N•n N1 :JO•r.>5 i::lJ 51::,, n•n N5 l:J:J\ N~:Jtt'5 N~::ltt'r.> N!1JOMN Ntt'J •:Jr.> Nj:)!;)J rnn Ni:JJ r,o,n,, N!1!1N r,,ni:i, n•~:Jt!lr.> 11,n N51 N!1!1N N~:Jtt'r.) N51 N1::lJ 11'r.>Mi1 NI1'i'1J1!:: n5 !'ii' l'tt'JN nm N!1JOMN N5:::i . nr,n,, n•r.>•N5 n5 rnn pi This Targum is cited by Kimchi I. c. and is found in ed. Leira under heading "Tosefta", No other edition has it. ib. 39 5Nitt'':J r,n5 •nm - N51 ,,,::i - 5N1tt'':J ni•t.:i5 nN,m N51 nN1l15J nr,n,, ,:iv, no::, N!15V5 i1'11i:J r,,, n•,:::i r,, i:JJ nPON5 .po,::i nr,, r,,,n rnn NJn:i omn5 5•Ntti ,,,Ni ,NJn::, omn5 5•Ntti 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 jeftah 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 5,,:::i is found in the Leira ed. headed by "Tosefta" and is missing in the Ant. Polyg. IS 2:1 ":J •:::i5 )'531 ir.>Nm MJM 55tir,m - m,:::i run I1'N5Y1 ~ll N':JJ ,,no5 1'1131 'i:J 5N1r.>tt' ,::i:i - ":J 'Jij:) 'r.li 11'ir.lN\ nN•:JJ !'OJ r,n5 r,,::ivr,, ,n,,, 'N!1tti5:i, N1'r.) l1Piti!1' 'i11r.>1':J 5N1tt'' ~N\r.>tt' 'i:J i:l ro•n ~NI ; ,5 :in,, Nv5in::i •::i5 ~,pr, ; p:::i )11::JJl ni•tti::i l'ir.>N ,,no5 •nu::i ittiv v:::i,Ni Nin c,r,,, (n : , N"•n,) ; 1:i::i Ntt'il'~ r,,::i:::i Nn:::itti5 'N''' 1,n,nN Clll p•m,::,, p5:::iJ ,,, 5.v ,,n5 ,,riv, NO'J 11\Jll'l\tl 5v ~NI - ,, ,5 'Jr.>1 NI1J!1r.):l 'J1j:) no, j:11\j:) n•ov, N!11M N!15Jll:l ,,,, NJ\iN 1111"1 'N!1~··5n:::i • • • · 'r.>\tl M!1tlN : 5Nitt''1 N!1tt'J:J ir.>'11 p::,:::i Nr.>tt'N The whole portion is missing in the Ant. Polyg .

,v,

,,r,v

r,,

Diatttzed by Microsoft

r,,,r,v,

130

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

T h e add ition s ap p ear w ith m in o r m odifications in all editions . In the B asel ed . an d th e L o nd on P olyg., how ever, th ey are placed in brackets. A s to th e in terp retation th at H anna w as proph esyin g , co m . M eg. 14 a. ib . 2

t:!!11P l'N - mr.iN, !iN':lJ!i'N 1lnN1 N:i5r.i :i,,nJo 511

p5El' tr.in iP:t 1':tlln' 'JD DJl o5t:!!i,, 511 iPn15,n 5:i, Nlil Cli''1 1'!ill ... t:!!11P r,,5 !l1r.l"1 N'Jt:!!'51 N'r.llN N'r.lr.ll/ 5:i P11' p:i i1'!i'1t:!!r.l '1J!:) T h e w ho le add ition is m issin g in th e A n t. P olyg. an d appears in th e B asel ed . an d th e L on d o n P o ly g. in brackets. ib . 3

,:i,n 5N1 - mr.iNl riN':tJ!i'N 5:i:i1 N:i5r.i ,~J1:l1:tJ 511

••. tucn N5 ; 5N1t:!!':l ti5C:!!!.:i5 l'1'ril/1 N'r.lr.ll/ 5:i, 'N"ID:l pnN It is m issin g in th e A n t. P o ly g . an d appears in brackets in th e B asel ed . an d th e L o n d on P oly g. ib . 4

0'1:lJ !it:!!P-!11::lri' - mr.iNl !iN':lJ!i'N 11' n,:i5r., 511

• • • l't:!!5n m,1 : 'NJlr.it:!!n r,,:i1, ; 'NJl' ,,:iJ1 nnt:!!P In th e B asel ed . an d in th e L on d o n P olyg. th ese portions are in brackets, an d are om itted in th e A nt. P olyg . ib . 5

cn"::i C'l/Jt!' - m11 : nir.iNi !i'NJJ!i'N jr.>i11 'i11J:t 511

N1Dl/ NnnN:i rnrn 0'5t:!!11' p : ,noNl ,:i1,r.i - Nr.in5::i l'll:tt:!! .,:i,nm ,1~n - i1'1t!-'r.> trnio, ... ,r.i,,, In the Basel ed. and in the London Polyg. these portions are in brackets. Instead of ,r.,,i it has c,~, an intentional change, for obvious reasons, and are missing in the Ant. Polyg. 2S 22 :2 - '01Jr.l1 ':lJC'r.l 'lit:!'' l1P1 'JJr.i 1:t i1DMN '11Y 'i1~N ~,vn ,5 n':ti1'nr.i 'i11r.i"1P 10, '£l1'1n i1'n5ni5 'J:t1D ,:i ,11,nN1 'i15N 10M1 l''M1 NJN i1'1r.l'r.l 5111 - 'J~n,, '::1::11 ,511:i 511 N1JJnN5 !D11:ll ..• P'1l/ '!i'li11:l - ,5 ,,r.io ,,r.,,r., i11i11 'Dr.>10 i1'Ji'11El:t 'J1D N01N5 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 i1'!i5n15 'J::11D ':l 'l/1!iN1 is omitted. As to the rendering of,,,~ Com. IS 2:2; 2S 22:47, On. Deut. 32:4. And Com. IS 2:1. All of which would lend strength to this supposition.

nv,

ib. 23 :4 1D:t 11N:l1 - !'1::111/ ti:i5 jln1:tl/ N'i''1~ !1:l':lltl ,,n, N'Ol' nv:it:!! 11i1'J:t Nn5m pv:iiN i1Nr.i n5n 1n 5v - ... p:iti ... Nil - t"nN1 Nnr.inJ 'Jt:!!5 l'"lr.inr.i t1n'li11 p:i5 Jtl'l p::i,nn !'1'.l'.:l

Digitized by Microsoft
INTERPOLATED TARGUM

131

This part is missing in the Ant. Polyg. This is another indication 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 Montanua it appeared in a shortened form. Com. Cod. Reuch., Judges 5 :8. ib. 32 ,N

•r., ,::, -

,v

1n•tt10, ,•:ivn•, NJviu:i, NO'J r:,:i f11Nnt'.'N1 1011, N1Nw,, It is an addition. The same appears in a shortened form in the T. to 1S 2:2, which in the London Polyg. is found in brackets. It is missing in the Ant. Polyg . ... Nil'N n,, : 1,,0,,, N'W'1 N'OOl/ ~::,

i,,,,

ib. 47 ,, •n - 'N1t'.'' n•:i 1011, Nni:iv, KJv11!:l1 NO'J 511 Pl ••. tl'v l10N1 1N'11N It is another form of v. 32. Is is missing in the Ant. Polyg. and in the T. to Ps .

lK 4:33 lHNil 1111 !1Jl5l 1t'.'N T1Nil fr., i:l'Yllil 511 1l1'1 •nN, NO,l/l1 pi Nr.,511::i ~,~r.,, p,,nv, ,,, n'l ,::,~ ':lJn'N1 • t(n•tllr.,i

,v

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: ,11 5,r.,i tc,n,::i:i. v!:lJ1 NlHN Pl5l. ,, NT1NO N'l/N . N•m Nwn, N!:lll/ N1'lll

,v,

,v,

,v,,v,

,v ,,,r.,,

2K 4:1 Cl'N'JJil 'Jl 't'.'JO nnK ilt'.'Nl - 't'.'Jr., Nin l(nntc, n•r., ,,v::i. il'1l1ll 11:iv ir.,•r.,5 vw•5N tiiv Nniyr., il"N'JJ ,,,o,n N'lJ n, 5:ir,N n,~v ,:i, ,,, tiiv 10 ,,n, rnn 11:iv 'iN nv,, nN, t(n,110:i NiJl f'IZ'OJ't pwr.,n f1J'10~Nl p,:ii.:i ilNO !1i1JO ,:i, ,,,, C1v !O lNnN1 il'O::lJr., !1iln15::lN5 N51 5,,:i !1i15 5,::,,01 ;l'T' illi11 1•ntt1, 1nr., j11:i11, ii'' 'Jl pin n• lOr.,5 NnN N't!!J 111::i, NCJ1N IU'N1

m,,,

N51 n,wr., i11il N5l NJm 'Nill il'1lll/ nN nn,w l'JOT Nt:'t.:lnl N5v i15 vont'.'Nl ,,,, N5n, NnlYl '1lv 'l' N5TN1 ,v i15 1ll/05 ilO ,, N5n, 1iv'N ill/liN n•vl Nv1 ,, N5n, l'1il !NO N•n•r., 'J'JO l1nl, 1'il N5N NJ'l/l N5 i110Nl Nl'M il'1lll/1 l1'Nl rio,, tlililN il•i!ll/l NW5!:lnr., Ni' rnn il'ilv il'll11N ,::i, Nin, ,,, N5n, il'l J'l'10N ,:, Nmo, Nnl/t'.'l ,, ,,,y n,, N::l'il ,,o ,,o i110Nl ~n,Y Nv,

Du11t1zed by Microsoft

132

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPH ETS

1r.in, p,:iw ,5 ir.iN, ,5 r-m Nr.i5v 1,:i,, 'Jn:i,nN ,5 p,:iw nN !Nr.>5 15 't:ln,, :i,r,wr.i nn:iwnJ N5 ,,:i, rrrinn ,5v 1n5r.iiN, l'J'r.l"P'N NJN, 1'7 ,5,r i15 ir.iN, i1'1:l'1/ :i,nN ,N:iN 15:ip N:IN n5:ip 'ir.>N, ,my 'r.lJ ,:i NJN1 il':l 1,:i,:i5, 1':IJ iNnw,N, Nnwr.i, NniU):l vw,5N ':IJ5 ,:i l"!:ltl'N N5 N'r.i:i, Nr.in5:i Nnil/r.l:l n-run N':IJ i1Nr.i5 'ilJ'nir.lt!N ,,,:i ,5,r., N':IJ i1'5 ,:i, ,5 N5,5:,. N5, Nr.lr.l':l N5 'il'J'r.l ,nwr.i, 'J'Y ~pnr.i Nii' ir.>N ,:,n, il'n'!:l"N, ;,r., r,:i5 c,5w,, N,n 1,,:,. Nw1,p5 vw,5N5 ,,nv,,N, n5tN 1:i:i, NJ,:,or.i 5v c,n,, rr.i 5:i Nr.i5v ,,r.i5 . 'Nil ,7,:, This Tosefta is found in the edition Leira, which is also cited by Kimchi (l. 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 ,r.iv5 :,.J:,. m-n ,w -1,v 'Jo, :i., Nr.iP tN:i ,v ;,,r.,v ,:i,, c,J,N n5n ,:iv, 5tiJ imN1 N::i5r.i :i.,nJo Nil 5v,r.i5 n,5

,::i,, pn:i p:in, Nm 'i'tii' p::i5r.i ,J:ii :in,, !'J!:lo,J !'D5N pv::i,N l'!:l5N r,n,w, tnNr.i il'r.ll/ ,:i, 1,nr.i,,, l'!:l'O ,,nN l'!:l5N tnNr.i il'r.ll/ v:iiN n,n,,wr.i, N:i,,N !'!:l5N ilNr.i ,mr.,ip l'tiili1 r,,:i,J l'i'J ,yynr., pnw, tnNr.i ;,,n,,wr.i t'Jr.l ,l'Oi!:l pv:i.,N n,mo,o iN,Y ,l'Oi!:l ilNc Nn1P' Ni,J u5 n,n, u::i, ,::i Ciii:JN 5v ,nN 1:i, ,n ion N,:i,, p!:l5N Nn,,wc NiP!:lnr.i5 ,yr, Nr.i5v ;,5w, ,:i mr.i, m cv ,n,t:l5 p,,nv 1:i, ,::i Nn,Jn Nn,,wr.i NJ1i':J ";,, N'r.i mw NJ1,,:,. ,,:iv ,:i Nn,r.,ip 5,:ip5 NJil:i n,,p ::iD::i cp, NnN N'r.l mw, p,,:,. ,,Dn NJi,,::i ,,:iv n'W'JiN n5v, c5w,,, NniP Ni N5i1 n,m5,n5 ,r.iN, 'Jlf' c5w,,,, ,,w 5:ir.i Nw5m Ni'llt N'il Nil ,nJ,,r.i 5::i n,w,::i:, n5v, ,n,,wr., 5::i ,n,o, 5,:,.,r.i n,w,,:i. ,,Jo cp n5v ,,, ~npn:,. n,w,:i.::i, N'r.iov ,:,,:, ... Nt!'1Pr.l n,:,. i,ti 5V i1'1':l All older Rabbinic editions contain this Midrashic Targum. In the recent editions the part beginning N::i5r.i and ending with N'r.l is placed in brackets. It is omitted in Cod. Reuch. and in the Ant. Polyg. It appears on the margin of Cod. Reuch. in an enlarged form . In a somewhat modified form it is told in San. 95b :

W'N ~5N nwr.im C'l/::liN:l :i,,nJO Ci1'5ll N:l :Ji ir.lN n,,n, :ii it:lN

Digitized by Microsoft®

INTERPOLATED TARGUM

133

,w

C'JlOW:Jl num nm,JW Ci10l/l am nlJiD:J 0':JWl'l 0'?0 'J:l l'J!:l? c,y, :i,n •nnN q5N C'WW:Jl i1!:l'?D ll'iW 'Wl:J? C'il:JJ q5N .mo, m Cl/ N:J?

pi•n11 Pl Cili:JN ?l/ lN:J J:Jl C'Wi:'.l iNWill

i1Ci!:l C'll:JiN ,,c,c iNlY arm NCi!:l 'n li1Jno 1ilN NJn Nn'Jn:J i1JlWNi NJn • • • in ,en J'!:l?N Nl:Ji c•ww, C'nNo mJno 10 Ci1'?Ji ?l/ i!:ll/ l?l/i1 C•JlinN ••• i10lD:J li:ll/ C'l/YON ••• ,nw:i li:Jl/ .inN ClDOO 0'0 lN':li1W ,11 mnw, ii1J:J 0'0 lNYO N?l

Com. also Seder Eliahu r. 8 (p. 45). They represent two versions of a current Agada. But the following portion containing Senacherib '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 i1Jn:Jwn n,N CJ ,i1J~:i 1::i cn,o n,w nwN n:Jwnn NnWJ:J N::i,no - Nill/0 ,:i ,11 Non,,o ili::l NnnN 'WJnn, iW!:lNi1 n•,::111, n• ,, 'WJnO N? No,, i1NWJnN li1l01D n,, ON nitlNl ?NiW'i (niONl) NiONl N:i•no

: N'WJnN J'?N qN N•::!J n, iON

.arrn

?Jl/

i':ll/J 'J'C:l n'iONi n, ,, 'WJno No,, i1N~'JnN 'illOiD n•N ON il'? .,J•vn,, N? 'iO'O il? iONl ?:Ji'Jl

So in Berakoth 34b : 'J!:l? n:JiDi1W ,c•on, 'i~!:ll C'?'N nl?ll/ n:JWN Cl5:J il":JDil iON NOW ,,,:i:J NC:J 'J!:l5 iln:Jw l'Nl ?'Nlil ll"W:Ji l'J!:l? iliON ~ ,:i,o::i l'J!:l? iliON .i1Jn:Jwn il?N CJ il? iON ~ ?Jl/ ilWl/0 ,, n:Jwn N? ~ 'J'C ilWl/0 ,, n:Jwn NOW ,,,:i:J NC:J 'J!:l? nn:iw W'l ?'Nlil ll"W:li .1n:JWN N? ':JJNl il? iON

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 Nl/'Wi lWl/0 :l'CJn'i iW!:lNil tl'?Wli' niON ~Nl/OW' N:JWi N•:iw tlNl 'JO ,,11, ilNil/ ,nn 1:i,n ,11 il'?ll i'ONi Nil/1 ilNil/ qN 'n iON IJi:J 'iN

~ :l't'nW' N'il ND'iYi il'?ll i'ONi

i'ONi NJnl'J ?Nl/OW' 1'JO N:JWi N':JWl il'JO :icJn' Ni::!J ltt'l/ 1'JO ••• ,,m11,,!:l n,, - :i•r,nw, NWJN:J ,,,11 il'?ll

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

D1qit1zed by Microsoft

134

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

N/1 . They appear on the margin of the Cod. Reuch. under the same name, being omitted in the text; while in the first Born. ed. they appear in a shortened form in the T. to Is. 66:5 (Bacher, p. 20) .

literal renderin g u n d er th e h ead ing

ib. 50:10, 11 •..

N1' c:,::i '0 -1'1:J Nrt'11P 1'11ll N':JJ 10N

1i1101P !'10Nl N'OOl/ l':J'/10 .•. ll:lJ jt.:, ,N'OOl/5 10N 'li105 toeli1 Cl/ !'1 NJ•1)11toe NJO' 5:, '1N ~11'11NJ i'Cl/05 NJ5 1rt'!l~ toe5 NJJlJ1 (Jli1'rt'J) NJ'Jrt'l lli1'11J NJ1'i'lN !'15 j'1 NJnYJ 1:ll NJ1PJ 1'1 (5ll) PCl/05 NJ5 1rt'!lN toe,, NJOl' ,o,,rt" Nm N1n:i, lli1'0:lJl 1,i15!lt:l ••. ll:l51:, Ni1 ':, lli15 10Nl Nli1 1'1J Nrt'1li' J'/10 ,N11'11NJ

It is a satire particularly on Rome and Persia. Com. Aboda Zara 2b. In most all editions these portions are placed in brackets. They are missing in Cod. Reuch. and First Born. ed. Jer. 8:18

llJ' ''ll '11'J'5Jo - t("JJ 5:ip5 l':i'll'r., Nli11 511

it.:)N lli1'5l/ lli1'Jln C1i' IO lli1'5ll '11'N N11nJ'11l NJ'1 !li15 IJJ1101 • '11 •J5 N•JJ

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 words remained. Com. T. to Am. 5 :9

ib, 9:22

1110:in:i c:in '5i111• 5N -111 ,:i ;,o5rt" - n:inrt"' N5

,i1•ni,:iJ:i N1JJ nrn~ ,:i llrt"ort" - n:inrt"' N5i i1'no:i,n:i No•:,n • i1'i11ll/J i11•nv ,,r.,11 ,:i :iNnN n:inrt"' N5i

As regards the reference to Samson, the T. seemingly was inflluenccd by Eccl. r. on 9: 1 I. It appears on the margin of Cod. Reuch. under heading NO Nn and is missing in the text . ib. 10:1 I

cm, 1110Nn ;,Ji:, - n5rt'1

N111JN pnrt"!l NJi

'N10:l r,:,5 1110" CNl 5JJJ ,, Nl115J 'JO 1Nrt' m, N'J) i1'01' 111:i, ,:i•nn 111:, 5Nirt'' l1'J N11lllt.,5 m,!:l jli1'J'J lll1N1 (N•OOl/) ro llJ'N 1nY ili1J n•,1 mvt:i lli15 !'n5!l r,nN1 rwt:i

1m,

1110Nn

ll)'N J'1!:l NnoY, l'':l' N5 Nl/1N ro N1t:l0 NnnN5 )'5:i• N5 N'Ort' • J'5N N'Ort' n,nn ro llY'11rt''l Nl/1NO r,,:i,, !li1'n,!:ll

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

Digitized by Microsoft®

INTERPOLATED TARGUM

135

demonstrates, as another instance, how the original was forced out by the interpolation. ib. 12:5' ••• nm, c•5Ji nN •.:i- : :i~,r.i NJNi p:::i~ 5:u CNl 1J'TnNi p;:i lt:ll n·r.inr.i, •m nN ,N'::lJ nN5J1 5::i:::ii N.:i5r.i i~Ji:i,:::iJ5 Nmo,o.:i ,~n,i N1~,v Jr.ii N•p,,~ 1n:::inN5 i:::ivr.i~ i•nv N;Ni nr.i Jr.inJ pi:::i pn•;:::i 5:u •n•Ni ili15 n•,r.iN ;oiNi •r.iip 1·:::i~ j'i:::iw i:::ivr.i, .NJi;•5 ;imw i'nmi N•r.i:i Nn This part appears in all editions after the complete rendering of the v. Hence it is toseftoic. It is found fully in San. 96a: 1nr.i5ww n,v,o;:i v:::iiN ,:iw:::i nr.i, nnN ;iN .•. nn~, 0 15li nN ,.:, cn,:::iN5 ,:it!' c5wr.i •;Nc·:i ,n'r.in nnN ,i,:::i:i ,,nN r,w v~, ,n,N5 .nr.i:i, nr.i:i nnN 5:u C'Dlo.:i ,;!:)5 w,w : lPV~l PTW' Com. also San. 26a, Cant. r. •ni:::ivw t:ll.'t:l::l with minor changes. ib. 31: 14 Vt:lrt'J nr.i,:::i 5li' - Nt:l5:U c,,:::i 5ip ,,, ,ON pi:i JiNin:::iJ n•n• n5w ,:i n't:li' ,n:::i jnJNnr.i, p:::i, 5Nitt'' n,:::i vr.ine>N . Nnr.iit.:> N•5mp :ii

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 nr.i; one being literal, the other expository. Which of them belongs to the original is difficult to determine; probably the former. Ezek. I: I ... ,;,,, - NJn:i n•p5n n:iwNi jr.it, p;w J'n5n:i mm nu5!:l:i - Nr.i5w rnnn Nn1tl,l::l Nwipr.i n•:i:::i Nn•ilNi N1!:lD N:i, ..• 't:ll':I - Nin•o •J5:Ut:l in:i N5•5 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 jt.:>15 and ending Nin•o 1s Midrashic in construction and matter, its partial omission in Machzor Witri lends support to the hypothesis that the whole portion is an interpolation . ib. 6 cn5 nnN5 C'!:l;:i v:::iiNl nnN5 c•;!: nv:iiN, - NV:liN1

i'Jr.i Nin Nn•i:i5 i'ElN ,ov nnw im in 5:i5 Nl,l::liNl Nin, !'ElN Nl,l::liN1 - /'!:N Nl,l::liNl l'tll NV::l1Nl pnw N!:lNl N!:lN 5:i5 !'Ell ,ov .!'Ell Nnw, p~·r.im rnNt.:> 1•,:::i v:::iiNi N'!:ll

l'!:N NV:11Nl Nin5 l'ElN j'nt!' l'i::l l,l:liN1 N'!:lN nnc• im in 5:i5 !'Ell i';t.:> nm Nin Nn•,:::i5

The whole portion preceded by the horizontal line is missing in the Ant. Polyg. having instead of the second J'!:N Nl,l:liNl !'ElJ Nl,l::liNl . It also is a case of shortened toseftoic Targum.

D1mtt2C'd by Microsoft

136

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

ib. 8 •.• 01t( '1'1 - t('J'M 1::Jt(? t('l/'tt'1 111t( ?l/ i'1105 •.. t(11J1'11 ,5y:::i 5:11 t(11:n•11 n;,::i t(?Jv51 - il'10'0 ,-,::iy . This addition is found in the Ant. Polyg. only. Com. Pesachim 119a: ... 01t( '1'1 :1'11:11 't(O t('tt'J t(11il' '1 01tt'O tt''i'? p ttl"1 10t( 5:::iv5 ,1::i 111,n;, '!:lJ:i 11n11 ;,c11t1t!' · ;,"::ip;, 5tt1 11, ;,1 ::i,11:::i 11, il::J1tt'11 ,5y::i, In Machzor Witri (ib.) there is the following addition prefacing the literal rendering of the Targum to v. 12: '1Mt(1 .t(r.l:1 'il t(11J':ltt' il'? 'lnt(1 t(Jnfn 11' t("JJ ?t(i'ln' t(ln 1:11 5•::ip5 1n pm:11 !"1::l 11:::iit( t(!n1 t(?:l'il::J t("JJ r1r.it( 1:::i il'lltt''' - t.,1tt1v::i t(!:lt( 1•11;,r.i !1il'J1P'11 m;, p1 ;,•mmm,y ilt(Tnt(5 ;,,1::in •.. t('1J' • It is found nowhere else. ib. 28: 13 111:lDr.l me- pt( 15 J'il'11r.l • The literal translation version of this verse found on entitled Mt( '!:lD, namely, )Jt., p::itt

5::i - t(1i''1 t(J11'l t(111l/ 5::i was preserved in the toseftoic the margin of Cod. Reuch., 5::i •

ib. 34:9 0'111 l:15 - t(11'11t(? 1:::1111 - t('l,''tt/1 t('DJ1!:l j:1::l .Kr.l)11!:l 1?::li' t('DJ1!3 l:1::J - i'!:l?1t(? !111''!rn jt::l'~ll t(l':: IM15 1'11l/ t(Jt(1 It is missing in Cod. Reuch. A Midrashic Targum to 37:1 is found in Machzor Witri in the Targum to the Haftora of the Sabbath of Passover: '"1 1'!.'i' tr.ii 111 1:::1:::iy,t( t(?1 tmi:i::i ''1'!.r.ir.i 1i'!:lJ1 t("r.l1J p1 t(il1 t(t.)J'tt' :::11 il1il t(1il1 1't(' il'r.ltt'1 t(1ilil t(r.)1•5 1'1'!.r.l::l t(1JJ il1il1 l'r.l"i' nn '1tt'' 11'::I p;,51:::i t(1ilil t(J1'l/J !1il5 1r.lt( 0'1!:lt( 11'::11 l'!:l?t(1 )11t(r.l )1il11' !'1::ll/ t(J'1il ':lil jJt(1 t('tt'i' t(JM?1!:l::J1 t(11J'll::l l1J'1Dr.l P:::11 "'1 t(Jj:)11!:l t(?J 1t(J11t(1 0'1'!.r.lO 1i'!:lJ1 t(?•n 'J::I !'1::IJ K11l/i'::I t('ilil 11J::l 'J"1tt't(1 'il11::ll11 )1JJ l1il11' ?t.,i'1 11J1 t(:l?r.l 1'::J ,,, .)1l/ll/1' t(r.l?1 t(11l/i'J t('ilil::I '1tt'' 11' ,,, 1J1 t(? KJi'11!:l !r.ll:::11 This is told in San. 92a; Pirke d. E. 58,. It is so interpreted in Ps. Jon., Exod. 13:17. Joel 2 :2 5 P?'il i1::l1t(il 5:lt(il 1tt1K· o•Jttlil 11t( o::i5 , 11r.i5tt1, 01Jm 510nm - ,n5!:l 11:111• 11:11 t('Jtt' i:i5n t(11Jt., t('Jtt' 11:15 o5tt1t(1 .t(J1 ,5,n 111Jl/11!:l K'J1U?tt'1 t('Jtt''?1 t('r.l1t( t(':::1:11:1 It is a latter Midrash. Com. Seder Eliahu r. 20 (p. 113) : 0't('Jr.l1 ?t(1tt''-l'1t(? l':1?1il M'tt'r.lil 111r.l'? r'1t(::l 0'1t(tt'Jil 0'1l 5::i •.. il::l1t(il 5::it( 1tt1t( 1r.i1t(1 ... ?t(1t!I' 5t!I o;,,11:::i 11115 mr.i, on5 1::i .?t(1tt'' !il::J 11::ll/11tt'JC:.' 111':l?r.l l/::lit( 1?'t( But I :4 is rendered literally, and such was the case here, which

Digitized by Microsoft®

INTERPOLATED TARGUM

137

was displaced by the interpolation from which was left only the last part .p:::,::i n•n5wi N::11 ,,,n nm11ie This part has scarcely any connection with the interpolated exposition. Nahum l :1 inJ'J Nfl/0 - inJ'J r,, i1NDWN5 ~,,, c,:::, 5~r.i ,,:::i, Ni1::iinr.i naru i!:ln nm, N•::iJ •nr.iN ,::i ;u,, ;,511 •::iJnN t•r.iip5r.i Ni::io::i ::i•n:::i, ;,r.,:::, •wip n•::ir.i oinJ ;,511 •::iJn•Ni :in ·~nr.i, n!:l•oiNi .)'1i1 This is toseftoic. It has displaced the original Targum to the second half of the v. It is a late one. Witness the rendering 'Wi'5Ni1 by ,w,p n•::ir., being evidently influenced by the Arabic, the vernacular of the age. In the edition used by Rashi the reading was wiD:'>N n,::ir.,i. Com. the rendering of ,n1t1ir.,;, Mi. l :1. Hab. 3:1 N:: l1N ,11 ;,,, ,,m,N ,:::i N'::IJ pip::in ,,s, Nm5Y ,n ir.iN t:::i 'Jll mJ::i op, Nniis ,s, N'::IJ pip::in Nin 11•w,, : :,;,,, n::i;,,, N:::l1N 511 ,, pin, 111 N1i1 Nn1W ir.l ,,11 NJN n,, ;,•r.,w o,,p, DO'l/ 511 N'::IJ DlD::ln5 ;,,, 1r.lN Pl NW1lD1 Nnl1 N::i•nr.i N'l/'W15 fli15 D•::inw• tl:'>W ::l::15::l Nn'1lN5 )l::lln• ONi N'll'W15 n•::li1'1 N:::l1N .Nm,~·:, Ni1 5N1W' n•::i 'i1lr.l1i' 1::in, )li1'::lln ,:::i p;,,, Com. Shochar Tob 7, 17, ed. Buber .

1lYO li10 ,wr.i ,11 i1::lY•nNl i11l0l/N ,n,r.,tt'f.) ,11 10N Dli'::ln N::IW::ll ... m ,::i, 'Jll'1lnw ,11 JN:: lt::) n 'J'N 1r.lNl ;,:::,1n::1 1r.ll/l i11lY 1YW ,r.i,o This .Agadic interpolation is found in the Cod. Reuch., of which Buber had no knowledge. It is missing in all other editions. Rashi (Taanith 23a), refers to it: ClJ1n::i W1!:lr.l1:::l Dli'::ln n5!:ln • The manner in which this reference is expressed would suggest that Rashi r~fers 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 N:::l1N 5J.' to the end, which is found in all editions, is a part of this T. J., the original being replaced by it.

,w

ib. 2 ,nN,, 111r.iw •n11r.iw ,, - 1n,1::1J 110w n,11r.,w ,, -

NnlJl/11!:l nno 511 qNi - ; •n:'>n,1 - n•wNi::i Jr.i NJ!:ll~::i Nni::111, ;,r., ;,r.,:::, - ,, n•11n n•11r.iw 1r.i1D H'J1N ,:::i 0110 'WJ'N 511 Nn•n,,Ni ••. ,m, lJ::l - ... N'D'1Yi N'l/'W1 ,11 Nnf'J1N1 ,m, lJ::l -:-- ... )'::11::11 • 11;,,,11 on,m

D1a,t1,w d by Microsoft (I.'

138

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

T hese exegetical interpolations are fou nd in the T argum of the H aftora of th e secon d day of th e Feast of W eeks in the M ach ,

zor Witri. They are not found in any other accessible edition of the Targurn. In verse 8 the words 1mi ;m, N•.:i5o ,11 which is evidently the rendering of 1!:lN Cl'iiUJ ON, and which are found in all editions, are missing there . ib. 3: 11 i1'.:i:::it ,ov n,, wow - vw,i1•'.:i i'OJ 11:::ivo:::i ;iN o,w,,,, N:J?O i':J)O i1WOn ,m,v ,p,,o, ,,:::i:n•N 1:J - lt!J:JJ itV'O:J Nii1'0' NWOW ; p'.:iJV1 N:J'.:io t!'':J?1 N:J'.:io mo,,, N:J?O jn:::in, N:J?O . JPW n•w, pn5n - 1,;,,,,,o:::i 1op The portions following the horizonal lines are found in Cod. Reuch. and in Machzor 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 nN•:::iJ m, o•5w,,, •:in• '.:ip, ,,, n•:::i '.:iP 1!:lWN1 OP N:JiP NnJN'.:i O'i!:lN ,:::i Ti't:"J p,::i, j1:J ,n:::i 10, ~,wp, Nm'.:il" i1•;0 1w:::i•, i1•m;, p'.:i.:,m,,, o;,t,,,,, NPin oip m i1'n' ,,i,p,, ~u l'1!:lC1 NO:J ,m,v pi::ic•, 0'i!:lt( ,:::i n•tt•o, N'OOP ,,p, NO ,,~o .Ni:n:::i 5p r,,ono, i10:J •m'.:iP ,,,on•, 'N1'Ti' ,:::i '.:,p NON1 N:JN This Midrashic Targum is found in Kenn., Cod. 1 5' 4, and on the margin of Cod. Reuch., giving the source as 'Jin and in Machzor Witn. It is omitted in all other editions. It will be seen that the Midrashic interpretation is based mainly on the portion i•n'i1 511 1:lCO:J ,,oc, 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. 5'2a, Yer. 5, 8.

w,,,

,,,v

Two more cases of later interpolation may be added. The first is in Judges 10:16 '.:iNiW' 5op:::i ,w;:iJ ;~pm . 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 anthropornorphic considerations. The other case is Ezek. 1 :26, which Kimehi (I. c.) says that it is not rendered by the T., but all

Digitized by Microsoft®

INTERPOLATED TARGUM

139

accessible editions do have a literal rendering. It was inserted 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

(rm, ~'i't.';'Nl) ,i:c,~, 'Cl15 n'..lN c,nn ,,v - :i,nr.i, .,,,r,:rr, r.mw n,:i, Nnii,

IS. 18:4 ,,~u,t.','K -

ib. 19:18 One takes o,n ,nc,n 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' ib. 33:24

pr., ,nr.m - KJ'l (,m1mn) ,r,,,n

1::,t.','

ir.iN' ,:i, -

,i,,,r.i

i,::im,c

i:cm:iiv, :l'l'IN

.l/it.:) nne NJ?JI l'lliN

According to one the refernce is to the absence of the Shekina; the other is a simpler rendering. ib. 38:17

,5Y:i

Cl?W) i1Ji1-liNl

1r.,iv 1~:,::• 'JC Nli'ilN '1:!ll? NM i:, l::J:l N'll'Wi5 Ni'ir.l 'l'l"r.l

'lillr.li 1'1:l'ElW 'nlr.l Cl' l'l'lli' .,Jc, ,, ir.l

10,r,

The latter is an interpolation. It disagrees with the interpretation of the T. of mn referring to the pious ones. That the entire phrase: ir.l ,, ir.l is rendered by the latter is evident from the rendering - .'lC ,, 1t)

c,,w,

D1Qit1zod by Microsoft

140

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

ib. 66:20 m,::i,::i::n - tn:irt"m:i, - 1,::i,::i::i, However li:Ji:J:i, is missing in Cod. Reuch. Jerem. 2:3 ,,~n ,,,rt'::i,-N55l1 mr.iiN ;,vr.ii::i-Nmr.iiN ir.llll 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 I. c.). ib. 2:16

jj:)jj:)

1,v,, - 10::iJ in:i,, - ,,,:i, i,5~p, .

ib. 13: 19 o,r.i,5t!I n5,n - i,::i,,:i,v nr.i5rt'm N5:JMN Nr.l?rt' 1?J . In the former tl,r.i,5rt' is taken in the sense of tl?rt' ; in the latter tl?rt'-pay. ib. 20:8 i'lltN i:JiN . N?i' tl,ir.l NJN ,::imr.i

,,r., ,::i - n1~r.l1 ,::i:i - NJNi fr.lt:l ,iN

Ezek. 16:6 1NiN11,?l1 i:ll1N1 - ,r.,ip l1:Jl1i1:!N tl'i' fi:Ji ?l/1 • . . IH1N ,iN 'r.lii' ,5J ,iN ,1'::Ji'i!:lr.l? ,i,,5mN -

ib. 34:9 tl,l1ii1 tl:J5 - N,ll,rt'i - N,DJi!:l f::J:11. The former read tl,lli ; the latter t:1,11, . This was noticed by Kimchi. The T. renders n-jri throughout this chapter by N'DJi!:l In Lag. N,ll,rt'i is omitted . Am. 6:8 :li'll, pNJ - :!i'll,, Nl11::li - Nrt'ii'r.l i,,:i • The last is the rendering in 8:7; the former is a duplicate. Mica 1 :10 'l1rt'5.E:>l1i1 i.E:>l1 - !1il'rt''i 1.E:>n - Nr.it,p:i f1rt'5!:ll1' In Cod. Reuch. l1rt'?!:ll1' is omitted. ib. 11 Jirt':i ;,,,v The latter is more literal.

-

pnn:i pN5,t,il1 -

N,,v

t5J .

ibid. 5~Ni1 r,,:i i.E:>tlr.l - 'N5W r,,:i i.E:>tlr.l f1:J5 1i':ll/ •.. 1,::i:i ,i,, ,~o5 i,, 1,:i,pr.i, poJN r,n,,n, r,::inir.in ,i,:i The former renders 5~Ni1 as a p. n., while the latter as 5~N, near. Com. Rashi and Karo 1. c. ib. 12

:i,~5 n5n ,::i - Nl'1,i1N5 :in,r.i, Ni:1Dr.l1 - Ni:!Dr.i,

ib. 2:13 tli1'Jb5 l'iEli1 i15l1 - Nl'1'r.lii':l i:J p:it,rt'r.l )1i'D' .)1i1'rt',i:l ,:i,r.i 15r.i po,, The former renders l'i!:l-,,:i,trt'r.l deliverers and cn,Jti5-i1J1rt'Ni:l,

Digitized by Microsoft®

INTERPOLATED TARGUM

141

the former, as in the former days, while the latter understood Y1El as king and CiPJEl5, in their front . ib. 3 :6 ... ,,r.i:u - i,J,5::i5::i j::l PiP::im::i Nl/1N :u,lN' ,5mN • ,;nr.,ip ,:in 1:l NTl,JTl::l ~N' N11 Cl/ 5:U N5,:ir., ,r,,N, - N,Ot.:ll/5 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 ... c:ut::i - 10:u ,NJD 5:u ~,5 1m•nN::i - 1m,5JnN::i ,l/~1 i::ir,r.,5 Com. Rashi and Karo; as to the rendering of Cl/l::l Com. Ze.

.Nl/1N

1:12; Mal. 1:4.

Zech. 3 :7 c,:,5;,r., 15 ,r,m, - i,:i,nr.i 1,5J1 15 tnN, . 1J,,nN N,r,r., m,nN::i, The inserted recenssion would render it symbolically. ib. 3:8

nr.iY ,,::iJt 11N N,::ir., ,JJi1 -

,5~r,,, -

Diait1zed by Microsoft (I

,r,,~ NJN Nil

142

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS Insertions

IS. 1 :24 ,,yr-, tlnJN '\i1 - ('?Jl"lN ,:::i N'V'W1? ,, tl1:J) ib. 2:22 \!:)N:J i11:lWJ 1WN tl1Ni1 tr-i ,5,n - )\:::l? Wlr-lnN Nr-l\' 'iN) \i1\!:lN:J t"n rm nr:iW.l1 N?n, i11:JVl:l? Ntt'.lN? N1:JVnWN?O .N\i1 ::l'Wn Nl:l?:::l\ ('i1ln'? inr-l\ tl'i' Nli1 !'1 ib. 3:15 une tl"JV 'J!:ll - tn'r-i\) tinN )\?:Jl:l N':::l'Wn '!:lN\ . (l\i1' J'1:J

ib. 5:3 l':J\ 'J':J NJ mtw i11\i1' W'Nl tl'?Wli' :JW\' ;,nv, l:JY N?\ Nn'11N fl:l 1111:l ?N1W' n,:J Ni1 lli1? 11:lN N':JJ) - '~1:::l • . • ':Jn, 111:::i (:Jn'o? The preceding passages of the T. make this rhetoric portion entirely excessive .

ib. 24:1

i1'.l~ i1Wl - (Nn'11N ?V \1:Jl/1 ?V) Nnii:J ,~nm

There is no more necessity for a reason here than there is for the preceding tiNi1 nN 1'i'l:J and the following l"l':!tt'' l"!:li11

ib. 30:25 tl'r-l '?::l' tl')?O - :Ji 5mp tll':l - l':::l?l:l' N?Pn) .t"r-i piJJ l'1'Y::i (p;,,n•,c•r-i5, ib. 41 :7 C'1i1 i'tn'l - ~'i'nr-i, (ili1'1:JW:J pni1:J' N?i1) 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 t!11JJ tl':J tl'Vt:!'ii1\ - (tl.li1'J::l ,,,~,) It is found in Cod. Reuch. only . Jerem. 1 :6 ':JJN il/J ':::l - NJN N:Ji '1N - Ni'V 'nl1':t':Jl) .(j'1i1 Nl:ll/ ?V ':JJnr:i N.lN \?Jl

ib. 2: 1 o 1ITT1 tl" n:, "N 11:Jv ,:, - um Nin, 15:::inc:i;,\ ..• p5:11r-i, p;,n,v~ n, l'?~J i1J'ir-l? i1J'1r-ir-i, ,,,5 11:::ir-i t?Ji N'r-ir-iv) p;,mv~ n, l'r-l'i'Ol Pi1'.l:::i~·r-i n, po,::i i,t.:1 P.l'N1 inN:Jl p;,r-iv p;,5 • • , Nl:llN N'i1 N1'N (tli1? j'1Jtll ib. 2:27 c:inv, nV:Jl - lli1'?V N'nN Nnt:!':J1 l1'V:Jl - 1'1!:l:J) .l.l?V

c-rn pir:iN ,r-i,i' 1,,r-i (1 ili1'nlV~:J

ib. 4:I :Jlt:!'n '?N - (1n,,tJ cnnnn N? iv) 1n:Jl'n ?:Ji'nn Com. 31; 17, 20 .

Digitized by Microsoft®

INTERPOLATED TARGUM

,v, :,:,.:,.

ib 51: 1 •or, :{, - •Kio:, 11,K •:m• 511 •n•o KJ l"'i1) 11;,n,, ,Koir,:i 1•,•tiw, 1m:i5 o,, (i•5itir, poov The insertion is in fact a duplicate interpretation of the former, interpreting •or, :,.'.:, to refer to the Chaldeans by the method of w:inK Com. Karo, the latter takes it in a more literal sense. Ezek. 13:19 ... rnwtJ n•o;,5i - ilmo•, 11;,5 'In N5i Kn,;,~; . KO'i'? lli1? 'In 11t5i !WtlJ KO'P?l (ln•oo tinN N?) Two different interpretations are here obviously incorporated. In the London Poiyg. the reading is: 101r,nn, ,1n•oo jlnK 11mr.i•,

.10,r,o 11nK Whether this was a correction by the editor due to misunderstanding or it represents a different reading, it adds emphasis to the fact that the passages in question are insertions. ib. 16:5 Kr.in,, - (Kin K::m p:,~ ,:ivr.i5) p:,5 Ni1;K5

. p;,~,, Kon,~ 11:i,,:iv:•o ib. 16:20 •nr,m - (5~1C'' nC'D '01i' KIJ1K? n'JO'~ K:l'K)

... ,J:i n• n•i:i,, ib. 17:4 ,ow C'Jl/J:l ,,v:,. - NJn5itio N5ti:i, Nl/1N5 ;,,:,::,.•Ni .;,,,e• p,m n•,r,:i (5N1C'' n•:i ;,:,. 11511 N5 ,v,) IVJ:i1 Nl/1K:i Hos. 10: 11

,p;,,,iyo ~·r,n ,,J

i11NlY :i.iti 511 •m:iv 'JNl - ili1n' n•r,iti NJNl o•iYr.i ,,:ivwo

•n•,vN -

Hos. 3 :3 o•:i, tl'O' ,:, - ?N1t,'1 NnWJ~ i1?) 10K N'JJ .•Jn5iti5 nrunn i'N'JO po,, (p5m, 11:i, ,r.i,J 11:i•:i,n ib. 7:4 ... tl?:l - NO'i'? 1n,r.i, KO:l ili1'11PO v•,ti:i ll?J' p:,.) p;,r,oo o,,:,. 11;,5 ,,,:ivnNi 11,::iJi i'OJ ,,:i,N K5i 511, (vw, n:icino .Non N5 ,v NC''? C'?'O i,vo tl'1YOO The inserted passage has no connection with the rest and renders irritating the whole passage. Com. Rashi on this v .

,v

rrnn» - ptir,nr.i iiil i1ili1' n•:i,, .(!li1V,NO Kil?Ni KOll N?Ji ill) NJn?lti:i ib. 12: 1 5N 011 ,,

Joel 2:'.\

,, nn-n N5 ilti•5e tlJl - il':i n•5 K:it•w ~Nl

.(N'll'tl/1?)

Dm1ttzC1d by Microsoft

144

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS ib. 4:2

0•1J:::i ,,1!:l ittiN - -nnc) ... N•i1r.i •n?!:l •J•:::i ,,,:::i,

.(?Ni~· NlliN, ,,no

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

•:,JN ii,l:J ,:, - '~ l'l'N f'Cl'~l NJN '1'1'.l •ic

.(•~!:)J ~'JOO NJN ?Ni~, NCl/1 ':Jln C11' Jr.l) NJ'15£l~:J

ib. 9: 11 .. J'l'J'l'JJl - ,,, .r,,::i, Nm:,5r., J'1N Oli'N N'i1i1 NJ1l/:J 'JD ,y,~m ir.iJm Nm:i,r.i ,:,:::i ~,~m) l'i'nN 1mn~'J:Jl ... n,.oJi ... '5:::i~m •J:::inn H'm (Nn•,~r.i 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 .

.(Nl/iN

Mica 7:1 y,p '£l0N:, 'l'1"i1 ,:, - N':J~ ~o•r.,:, 'l'1'li1 •iN IC N•i•on l1:JN1 1,v:::i)

The inserted passage is merely putting N'J~ ~o,r.i:, of the T. in other words. ib. 12 N!:li''n

'Jr.l?l il:itr.l •il/l il~N 'Jr.l? NlJ' 1'1lll ;:.;1;, Ol' tr.ii Nm?.l llt!'J:,.r,, N'i1i1 NJ1l/J - ,11, ,,:i:r.i

,,,p ,,nN

. Ni•:i:

,,,v,

Nn::i, 'Jr.i:nn rr.i,,

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 'Jr.l as tr.i and ilt!'N - imNwhile the latter, impressed by the sound of the word, would render .'Jr.l?-'Jr.ii,n Armenia. It was the same case with il:ir.l . Aq. and Theod. follow the first rendering of the T. The Lxx and P. are some, what following the interpolated rendering. ib. 7:14 ,n,m !NY - 1nJonN, Nr.ll/ - (i•n11 Nli11 Nr.l?l/J p,~, (Nninn•N?

.rm,m,::i

The inserted portion is entirely disconnected with the rest, has no reference to any part of the v. It is explaining or com,

Digitized by Microsoft®

INTERPOLATED TARGUM

145

plemenung the T. It was inserted with the mtcntion ot importmg into this v. a Messianic air, while the T. might not have taken the v. in this sense. ib, 7:20

cn,::iN ,en ::ii,11,, ncN inn - n,,i,v u, ,:i,n) ipvnNi pny,

.(10,p ~n::i,o ,::i,

,v

No reference is made in this v. to r,ny, . The interpolator, it would appear, was anxious to supply this mossion. Nahum l :6 ,c111 'J£l5 - Nn,,,N inc, Nncn,:i ,,;in,N ,:i) ... 1:i::i ('mr.i,i, 1c ttc5v llT p n•r.i115 It It It v. of

has no connection and makes no sense with what follows can be, however, connected with the preceding v. ,rt111i tl'"li1 is probably a recenssion of the rendering of the T. of that and inserted at its end and then misplaced at the beginning this v.

D1qttued by Microsoft Ci

ADDITIONS Quotations from Targurn Jonathan in Talmud and Midrash, lik~ those from Onkelos, do not carry the name of the author I<> 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 arc mtroduccd by r;·~,,n~ . In one case in the Midrash the quotanon from jonath.m carries the name of Aquila. In the rest of -t hc cases there is no indication of the source. They are 1usi.' the same quotations from Jonathan. Incidental similarity c ..• nnot serve as a basis for a contrary view, particularly when .i;,\ml' of the quotations arc of an exegetical nature. Several quotations in Y erushalmi and Midrash, which l assumed to be .1 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. Shckalirn '.2, 6, with reference to Is. 33:21: ;;~11;; i'J11::~ ,~·!::~

,,::v~

. 1;;::il,'' ~~ ';'11'{ ''.> 1 t:i''';)

~:,,I'{ I'{~ ;:;·I'{ >m ;-,~I'{ 1';)'1 1~•1'{1

,::i

i1:JJJ~

;,:,i.:·

i~::~

;,;•I'{

This implies the rendering nf the Targum of ,~, . In Joma 77h the same exposition is accompanied by ;1 quotation from the Targurn. The other case is Mech. nn•, 9 with reference to ls. 21 :9. which was quoted above · (p. 29, note 43) from Gen. r., namely,

. ,::i::i ;,:,::,; ;i::i ::i•n:i,

~::i::i

m:i~~

11

n5!::1J

1::1::i

i::'!::'~nr.i

:!''1

It 1s based on the rendering of the Targum ~1'nJJ ;ii'{ n>::i; .,::i:::: ~:::·i:i~ . Had it not been based on the rendering of the Targurn (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

Digitized by Microsoft®

ADDITIONS

147

Most of the quotations were referred to by De Rossi. Zunz and Frankel. Quotations given in the name of Rab Joseph:

· ·,

Moed Katan 26a on 2K 2:12 : i'l/'1'0 Ni;,, ilNi, 11::·•5N, ::i•n::i, t5Jo i111n 11'.:l;::• 1:::l'i1 ,~K) ,·:~ 5N1W' ::l::l1 ,1r.lN1 1':::l~ i1T ':::lN •:~ ,1'~'1:l1 5~1:!I' :::l::11 •:~ ·:~ J1i15 ::i~, '101' ::11 CJ1l"'lr.:ii::, llr.lWr.l 'Nr.l i111Ji 1i':!•5:." i::ii i1t 1':!''i!:1 .J'W1tl1 J'::l'Ji1r.l il'l"'l15>:l 5N'i::••5 Pesachim 68a on ls. 5: 17 : 1m•o::,J, r:io,, :ii CJil"'lr.:ii::i ,vowr.: •Nr.:i ,,;:~· ::•,J o·n~ m.: :i-;ri .J1JCIM' N'P'i> N'll'tVi1 j_ Menachoth 110a on ls. 19:18 : wow J"'l'::11, Nli'1P r:ioi• ::i, tlJil"'loi::i .i,nJr.:i Nin N•n, iONJ"'IN ::i,nr.:i5 · joma 77b on Is. 33:21 : ,vr.:iwr.:i •No ,iJi:Jll' N5 ,,,N ,>, 5"n ;,5,,J ·.::,,:::i 1;1:v· ~,:, .iD•mli N:> Nl"'l::ii •Jii::i, 1'1"> m•to::i il'::l 5tn .i-:5 ;-,c:,, :, o.::,n,~:, Aboda Zara 44a on Is. 41 : 16 : :ioi, CJil"'lr.ii::i ,Nm ,,,,r, ~J::••5 ,,,, oN~.,, •i-:;i, v~::·~ ·~~l .J1J':>~5~Ji n,,, J1J•irn JJ'r.lJiJ"'lr.:ii c:i-:::,n m,, mrn

,,nv,

The interpretation of 2S "i :21 is against the rendering there of the Taruum. It seems that the Azadist would render ,,, CNW'1 in the same sense as CNC'Ji i11'i1 is rendered in the Targum, namely, and Davit! scattered them. Other Agadists would adhere to the extant rendering of the Targurn. Hence the quotation in Rosh Hashana 22b. In the instance here, however, the quotation is introduced by '101' ::i, OJ1r.o;·,::i and also by p•r.:iJil"'IOi:, , one of them is seemingly an interpolation . Joma 32b on Jer. 46:20 : 'Nr.:i vm:· ,::i 1r.:im ::i, 1':!t-: ,K1i1 i-:5t)pi CJil"'lr.:ii::i ,vr.:iwo 'I':'.:) ,N: N: JH:>r.l l'1i' tl'i>'J jj'!j ii!:' il:>Jll t-:1i> n,11 11li" Nml>O p;,c,p j'Or.ll,' O'i>'.:l rnn 'K' Nm::i,o :ic,· ::i, . nt::ir.:i5 Kiddushin 13a on Hos. 4:2 : CJ1Ji01:J ,vr.:iwo 'NO ,1l/J.:: o•r.:i,::i 1>1!: =iKJ1 :;Ji M>11 ::·n::i, i1"'N l'El'01r.:i p::i,n 5v J'.::i,n J1il•i::in •wJ~ J'J:::i p,,,,t.:1 ;ior :::,

Dtqitued by Microsoft

148

TARGUM JONATHAN TO THE PROPHETS

Nedarim 38a on Am. 7:14:

l<':J.: 1:i i<5, •:,JI:( N':JJ N:> il'YON 5N iON•i o,r.iv rv•, ::1'11:i, 0101,' '11'J 'iO 'ii:( ;'j01' Ji t:lJi1101:J ,t:l'OPC!' D51J1 '::lJN iP1J •:, •:,;N .a<115t>r.l':J '' l'OPWi N;I:( Baba Kama 3b on Ob. 1 :6: !'1:J'N ~c,, Ji t:lY'l1101:J ,VOrt'O •l:(r., ,1'J1~YO 11/::lJ ,eiv 1C!'!:ln; 1'N . 'inir.i~o t"5JJ1'1:( ,~v ~"5Jn•N Berakoth 28a on Zef. 3:18 : n,,;,, ,,, nw~ V:Jil:( inN5 l'Dcir.i ,~ i15!l11 5'e11r.lil ,:1 5"J'i ioN •m •i
,v

,,v,~

,,,v

,v

,,n,

~c,,,

·i~,

Two quotations are said b)' Rab Joseph: Sanhedrin 94b on Is. 8 :6 : ~5n iOt,:P 'NO NJl/1' illil t,:5 1-:ii' 'Nil1 N01Ji11 •;,,;,;,N ;'ji:'1' i"~ i'1JJ1 Nin5•r.11 •o:i n•;::i 1,n, ,::i,o, ,,, n·::, m:i,r.i:: 1·1n Noll ;·p, .in•5o, iJi f'Yi:. 1N'llin•~, n"J::i

Digitized by Microsoft
ADDITIONS

149

Moed Katan 28h on Zech. 12:11 : .tu.:i•,,n ,eoo::, 05::,,,,::i ,eooil 51l' N1ilil 01•::i ,-:r.:N1 K:'i'll ,, ilJlll NJ1l/J iotci' •tco tcwi• mil N5 1<1i' •ten, n•r.it::,n tc5o;tc ~o~· i"tc1 ;,,n, 5tii'1 '1r.lll ,:::i JNntc1 N1!:lt:lt:l::l c5::•1i•: N1:it:l'.:l •;c:,• Wi1il Ni'JM ill/,!) n•n• )tli'1 )1t:ltc jJ i1't!'N'1 1!lt:l'.:l::i1 111.:l'i::!tl i::l J1'.:l'11il .11,•Jc mm:::i:::i Quotations preceded by 1Jt:l'lil"1t:l1 : Nazir, last Mishna, according to the version in Ein- Jakob, on 1S l :11 : . •m5v snn tc5 e1mc m,o, 1;•r.,;1no1 • 1c•tc, ,v n~v· :"i< ;,11':1 Rosh Hashana 22b on 2S 5 :21 :

...

,,.., •••• .;, , 1'tt'JN' 111 CNt:''1 J' n::,1 N1il i1i''1 u.,, .111 1'J'1i'11<1 !J't:llim,i Moc
D1mtucd by Microsoft
150

TARGUM JONATHAN TO ·T HE PROPHETS

Ecc. r. 11, 3 quotes the Targurn to ls. 5:6 in the name oi Aquila:

,,,v

;v,

N'N'::lJ 5v, ,,t,~ 1•t)r.:iir.: i11~K c•:::ivi1 1;i1 c::,:i•vv cr:n . KT1KlJ; jli15 JlKJ;r,, K:>1 1P.ElK Y. Shabbath 6, 4 contains a translation of Is. 5:18-23. Some of the rendering coincide with those in the Targum, namely: rmc-n - l'N1't!I (Targum N'1' '1'~). m1N.Eli1-N5,5::, ; mv.:: it)i1-N"Pl'V (Targum xnPIV). The rendering of C'Jl1i1Ci1 :.___ il'PJW follows the T. Jud. 8:21, to which reference is made (The T. here having K':J::lO agrees with K"5 on the margin of Cod. Reuch. to Juel. I. c. having for N•PJ'll-N'::l::l't:1). N't!l1P as the rendering of C't!lii:iiil is the translation in the T. of :niJil ,r,::i . Then: arc good reasons for the supposition that this is a version of the Targum to these verses. Com. ilt!I!: 'Jtl I. C. Y. Taanith 2, 'i: .l'J1 c,,n, C'ElN l•N mr., •,5 i"t< The renrering of C'ElN 111< in the Targum to Joel 2: 13 1s m p,n,c . (Also On. Exod. 34:6; Ps. Jon. having M'1 11N). Psichta Lam. r. 16 on Jer. 4:18: 1•;,,110, 1:ii, ,, ilt!ll/ 'Ol KT1K1'10 1'1::lUll KT1K:!,''::l l'T1n1lK . This agrees with the Targum except that the latter has instead of NT1N1'10 - N'5P5vo ; It is to be noticed that both this and the preceding citation contain exegetical renderings . Lev, r. 6, 4: l'tlilJt:l1 l:>K l';"~tli1 p5to: l';i1>:i11 .::·;:~EJ~r.:i1 . Targum l'OilJtl"ll l'.El~Jr.,"I . Lev. r .. 5, 2; Exod. r. 10:5 on Am. 6:4 J't:liV 511 j~· rnec ;,,;:i, . Targum 5•!:l"I Jt!l::l )t!'::l::lr.:1 JD,V· 511 l::l::lt:'1 . Can. r ;,1,n::· on Ez. 16:61 n,J:::i5 mr.: ... j;r.,· ,.,, ii'i1V1 Nii: . f'Ji£ll:i5 This is the usual rendering of nu:::i5 in the Targum (com. vv. 46, 48, 49, 57), although in this verse the rendering is KVr.:T1t!IK~. R. jochanan would have here also the usual rendcring . Finally, there is the use of t
Digitized by Microsoft®

ADDITIONS

151

this descriptive term came into use in the Yerushalmi from the Targum. 2.

The toseftoic portions which were examined in the chapta on Interpolated Targumim i,n•~, NJ1i' nt')t.:lJ ;,,5 J'C:m n•5 11,nNi. Com. also 5:4, 5' and on Josh. 14:15. It is quoting Jon. to lK 8:27 and 2K 21:16 (Yerush. on .Js. 66:6). As t_o N"n an•:in ,,, iJ nr.i5t:J nJnt:-·• N5 . ~"n on Zech. 11 :8 511 tinn• •ir->•r.i v•n,, ... ~'CJi:l ~n5n n• ·n·~·::·i •Jn51!:lJ N:iv pnnti1!:lJ1. Also on Is. 45:7, which are so rendered m Targum Jonathan. All these groups contain fragments which either explain or are complementing the rendering of Jonathan.

,,,n

,w,,,

to

Dm1t1zc,d by Microsoft
,,,n

152

TA R G U M ,JO N A TH A N TO TH E PRO PH E TS

•c•i1•

on

Josh. 22 :20 ;,•:1,n:1 11'1.:l ~5 in ~;::; ~~;,, . Yerush.

,r. ~,:u j:n11:, tt:ii ~·J:ii<::i c::ir.• Nm,. Com. also on Judges 1:3. N"ll on Josh 6:1 N!::i'llt:ii N5tit, l't.\'1:J N1'Ti~ 1n•1•1 t-:,r.Nnt:li . N"n adds N:!'TiJ1 j',Jl/J. N"c on 1 S 26:20 q,i,11t:ii ilt:i:l i1N1H> complementing N•1,~:i i1N1ii' N'lii'l.•; ;::: i1r.)J . Also explaining the Targum Josh 4:19 i1~t')1i' Nn1•5 - ~n,•5 . 1c•Ji So that there 1s scarcely any foundation for a supposition that they represent three distinct sources. There is equally no basis for ,1 theory of an earlier Targum to the Prophets of which the 'TiN 'tC or even •;;,i;• and N"ll arc remnants.

;i·,,,

Certain portions arc admittedly late. Such, for instance as ls. 49:24, 2 5 and its parallel on Is. 66:5 which have made their way into the text of the Targum (the latter is found in the 6rst Bomberger edition). They bear the traces of the Arabic era. The fact also that the ,w,1• on l S 17 :8 interpreting 011:1,i,, 11Ni - •,me ~, n•, is not quoted by Rab Joseph, the author of this interpretation in Babli (Keth. 9h) shows that this Targum was not known yet at that time. Then, their dependence on Jon. and also on Onkclos (corn. 'te''1' on Judges 18,3 following Onk. Exod. 3:5; 32:1; Deut. 5:28; 2 3 :4; Also ':!''1' on IS 17 :8 ,,o ,,, N1r.l't:l ,11 !'1t:lN l111N ON~ •.. N:l"1i' tr.'li; which is the rendering in Onk. of ilt:ln5t:l ~"N 'i1 , Exod. 1 5 :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. Herc are the instances in the Yerushalmi: 1t:1i1• on Josh. 5:3 1'11'1:l ; Jon. J'E,•in. Jud. 3:31 NCNCt,J •,m, ; Jon. ,,,11, :i·,~:i ; 4:21 rc-e 11• ; Jon. 1t:r'l 11' ; 5 :4 u•:,1n•N N•t:lt,:, ; Jon. i:,'::> ; 2K 11 :12 N::i5r.i •ri' ; Jon. n,~, ; 1 3 :21 j1'::>M ; Jon. •m ; N•oo5,e Jon. n·,~·o ; i,p:;o, ; Jon. 1-:,1,; 16:3 vin•,::i ; Jon. n:ll/in:, ; 19:35 pi5w ; Jon. ib. 37 ~:l!:lN ; Jon. i:ir,nl!''N; Is. 21 :5 NJ''liiJ ip,;,~ ; Jon p~,::ic i-:,·t,~ . As for those in 'TiN '!:C /TiN '"111 com. Bacher I. c.

,,.,,e ;