« IndietroContinua »
There are ten Targums* or Chaldee translations of the Scriptures extant. None of them, however, include the whole of the Old Testament, and some only a single book or a few books. Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah have never been translated into Chaldee. At least, no Targums of these books are now extant.
The Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, from which all the sentences in Part I. are extracted, is the most esteemed of all the Targums, both for its faithfulness, and for the purity of the language employed. It is so literal that, being set to the same musical notes as the Hebrew text, it was read or cantilated in the synagogues on the Sabbath, in connexion with the Hebrew lesson appointed for the day. See Prideaux, Conn. Vol. IV. p. 623. Respecting Onkelos little is known. Prideaux places him before or about the time of our Saviour. Horne (Introd. Vol. II. p. 158.) gives the same as the generally received opinion. Jahn (Introd. p. 65 of the English transl.) supposes him to have written in the second century. The same is Prof. Winer's opinion. Compare his dissertation De Onkeloso, etc. $1. But Gesenius maintains very satisfactorily the former opinion, Einl. zu Jesa. $11.
The Targum next in value, and probably also in time, is that of Jonathan the son of Uzziel, who translated the books of Joshua, Judges, I. and II. Samuel, I. and II. Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. He is generally thought to have been earlier than Onkelos. Prideaux assigns him a later date, for the very probable reason, that he would not have commenced his translation at Joshua, unless the books of Moses had been already extant in Chaldee.
There are two other Targums of the Pentateuch, both of a late date. To the unknown author of one of these the name Pseudo-Jonathan has been applied, because it was long supposed to have been written by Jonathan Ben-Uzziel. The following literal translation of
The word is Chaldee, buan, (from barn to interpret), lit. an interpretation, a paraphrase. Its use is limited however to the Chaldee versions of the Scrip
Num. 24: 24., as it stands in this Targum,* shows how little care the author took to give the simple sense of the Hebrew text; while the mention of Constantinople and the Lombards makes it certain that this Targum was not the work of Jonathan Ben-Uzziel. It was probably composed in the ninth century. “And wings (ships ?) shall come with instruments of war, and shall go forth with great multitudes from Lombardy and from the land of Italy, and shall be joined with the legions which shall come from Constantinople ; and they shall afflict the Assyrians and enslave all the sons of Eber; but the end of these, as well as of those, shall be to fall by the hand of king Messiah ; and they shall be destroyed forever."
The Jerusalem Targum, so called from the dialect in which it was composed, is the other of the two mentioned above. It belongs probably to an age still later than the preceding. It is very imperfect, omitting many verses, and so loosely rendering the rest, that it hardly deserves the name even of a paraphrase. It abounds, much more than the Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan, with digressions and fables, which may be traditions of some antiquity. No. IV. of Part II. may serve as a specimen. Both these Targums abound in Greek and other foreign words. In the above extract, the word translated multitudes is 790ban, plainly nothing but a Chaldee plural of the Greek öylos,
. לַגְיוֹנִין and the word rendered legions
These four are the longest and most valuable of all the Targums. The first two are esteemed most highly as affording critical aid to the student of the Hebrew Scriptures, and (especially that of Onkelos) introducing us to a pure Chaldee, nearly resembling the style of Daniel and Ezra. Being extremely literal, they also serve to vindicate the Hebrew text, as it has come down to us, against those who charge the Jews with having corrupted it for the sake of evading the arguments of Christians. The other two mentioned above, and indeed all the Targums, are valuable as affording many expositions, particularly of passages relating to the Messiah, which agree with those given in the New Testament. These passages many of the modern Jews attempt to explain away, so as to get rid of the evidence that Jesus was the Messiah. Several examples of this kind are given by Prideaux (Conu. Pt. II. B. VIII. p. 639, seq.). One instance will suffice here.
“ Micah 5: 2. The words of the prophet are: An:l thou Bethlehem Ephratah shalt be chief among the thousands of Judah ; out of thee shall come forth unto me, he that is to be ruler in Israel
. The English translation of this passage, which is literal, is as follows. "And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish forever.”
This is the true translation of the Hebrew text, and this all Christians understand of the Messiah ; and so anciently did the chief priests and scribes of the people of the Jews, when consulted by Herod. But since that time, in opposition to the gospel, Jewish writers have endeavoured to give this text another meaning, some interpreting it of Hezekiah, some of Zerubbabel, and some otherwise. But Jonathan, who perchance was one among those scribes whom Herod consulted, gives the true meaning of it by interpreting it of the Messiah, in the same manner as Christians do: for his version of the text is : Out of thee shall come forth before me the Messiah, who shall exercise sovereign rule over Israel." (Id. p. 642.)
In another place (p. 635) Prideaux remarks, that "the Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos are in so great esteem among the Jews,
that they hold them to be of the same authority with the original sacred text."
The other Targums are, one on the Hagiographa; one on the Megilloth or five books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Ruth and Esther; three on Esther alone ; and one on the two books of Chronicles. The first has been ascribed to Rabbi Joseph the blind, who lived in the third century. But neither the dates nor authors of any of these Targums are known with certainty. The barbarous style in which they are written, is considered as affording sufficient proof that they are comparatively modern ; though they appear to have been compiled from more ancient materials.
For a full account of the Targums, see Prideaux, Conn. Vol. IV. pp. 618–645. Horne's Introd. Vol. II. pp. 157--163. Walton Proleg. XII, 994–20, and Winer De Onkeloso ejusque paraphrasi Chaldaica Dissertatio. Compare also Stackhouse's Hist. of the Bible, prelim. discourse p. 90, seq. Calmet's Dict. of the Bible, articles Jonathan, Onkelos, and Targum. Father Simon's Crit. Hist. B. II. Ch. 18. Eichhorn's Einleitung S$ 213--245. De Wette, Einl. $ $ 57— 62. Wolffii Bibliotheca Hebraea Vol. II. pp. 1135–1189. Allix, Judgment of the ancient Jewish Church, etc. Ch. VII. Carpzov. Critica Sacra, Part II. Ch. I. Gesenius, Comm. über Jesa. Einl. § 11. and Jahn's Introd. to the 0. T. pp. 64--68 of the English translation.
NOTES ON PART I.
I. Gen. 1:1, 72, plur. of Decl. III. a. comp. § 33. a. prep. is prefixed regularly with as in Hebrew. Lit. in principiis.-??, § 4. note. This is strictly an abbreviation, and must not be read yɛyā, as though it were a distinct name. It is said by some to have been formed by prefixing the first letter of to the last of", thus combining the Qeri with the Kethib and saving the trouble of marginal notes. Others affirm that its original form, which indeed appears in some editions, was, i. e. the initial of 1 repeated three times to express Trinity; and that later Jews, rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, have preferred the other form, and given it the other explanation. It is pronounced Adhō-nāy. As here, it is generally employed in the Targums to render N, when the latter stands alone (i. e. without any other name of God) and signifies the true God.—♫", i. q. Heb. n.—, emphatic state from 772, not used in the abs. form. See § 29. 3. c. The term emphatic seems to imply more than it really means; and the reader of Chaldee naturally inquires how strong that emphasis can be, which falls upon three fourths of the nouns with which he meets. Perhaps the term definite would be preferable, if the other were not in use. A noun in the emphatic state expresses usually the same idea which would be expressed in Hebrew by the noun with the article.-, emph. state. See in the vocabulary.
The reader will observe, on comparing the translation with the Hebrew text, that the same train of accents appears in both. § 2. 9. b. This agreement is not perfect throughout. Where however the train of accents in the Targum is different from that of the Hebrew text, the accents are still similar. For the sake of comparison with the Hebrew, the accents are inserted in the sentences of this part.
II. Gen. 9:9, 1, § 7. d. 1.—Dapa, do establish, 1st Part.
II. Note 4.-The .3 .8 , בָּתַר from בַּתְרֵיכוֹן .3 .22 $,קום Pael from
first two accents in this sentence differ from those of the corresponding Hebrew words. Instead of Rebhia the Hebrew has Zaqeph Ghadhol, and instead of Merka, Darga. The two former are both large disjunctives, and the two latter both conjunctives, and of course might easily be interchanged. Perhaps however the accents were originally transferred to the Targum from a Hebrew MS. which had Rebhia and Merka. The remaining accents in this sentence are the same as in the Hebrew. Similar remarks might be repeated on the other sentences; but it will be unnecessary.
III. Gen. 9: 13, n, with suff. 1. p. sing. from up, Dec. III. a.--27, 1. sing. Pr. Peal from 7, I do set, § 50. 1. The He
f. sing 2 תִּקְרֵא apoc. for תְּהִי-נָתַתִּי brew likewise has the Praeter
Fut. from N. See the note at the close of § 23.—ny, const. state, being immutable.-, pronounced mêm-ri, § 2. 3. In sense it is precisely equivalent to the Hebrew, myself or me. in the vocabulary.
IV. Gen. 9:27,
2, 3 sing. m. Fut. Aphel from, § 6. d. 1. -, sign of the Accusative case, § 60. 3.—And shall cause his glory to dwell, i. e. and he [God] shall dwell.- pleonastic suffix, § 47. 2. lit. in the tents of him, (even) of Shem. § 60. 1.-Servant to them; Hebrew in Vulg. servus ejus. But the Syriac, Arabic, and Samaritan versions, agree with our Targumist in giving a plural rendering.
V. Gen. 13: 15, ", 23. 1. note.-, 1 sing. Fut. from epenthetic, i. q.; § 16. note 1.—, to thy
· בַּר See
7, sign of the Gen. case, Sept. пαis avτov ·
VI. Gen. 15: 6, 7, Aphel from 72-72, (see the latter word in the lexicon), § 20. 3. b and § 12. II. 5.—177 8722, the Lord, i. q., $ 49. 1. c. But this expression, which occurs frequently in the Targums as a translation of the Hebrew, is considered by some critics as designating that Word which was afterwards "made flesh and dwelt among us."-, He (the Lord) reckoned it, § 16. 2. a.—ib, § 7. d.
VII. Gen. 27: 28, 7, sign of the Gen. case, § 60. 1.
VIII. Gen. 42: 38, nn, Fut. of nn, Tseri compensating for Dagesh forte, omitted on account of the guttural.-NN, § 6. 6.
IX. Gen. 45: 4, "♫ Janzzi?, § 48. 1. ", pleonastic.
X. Gen. 49: 10, 73, for 1, § 6. d.1.-, one exerci sing sovereignty, a ruler.—", irreg. see -7, (=Hebrew ib...), to whom, $8. 3. II. n. 3.-, the pron. used for the substantive verb in the present tense. See § 47. 1.-, Ithpe. from 7, § 6. b.-, irreg. see by. One bearing rule shall not depart from (be wanting to) the house of Judah, nor a scribe from the posterity of his sons forever; until Messiah shall come, whose is the kingdom; and to him shall the people hearken, or, him shall they obey.
XI. Ex. 33: 14, n, my glory, doubtless equivalent to the Hebrew, my presence, i. e. a mere periphrasis for I, used of course only in relation to God. Comp. nos. 4 and 13.-, § 22. 1.—TIN,