What is the Jewish Targum?

The name given to the Chaldee version or paraphrase of the O.T. It was made professedly because the Jews who returned from exile knew that language well. Explanations were added, which crept into the text. There are ten Targums of parts of the O.T. The principal ones are the Pentateuch by Onkelos, and the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and the Prophets (except Daniel), by Jonathan Ben Uzziel.

The language agrees with the Chaldaic or Aramaic parts of Daniel and Ezra. It is easy to understand that pious Jews who did not return under Ezra and Nehemiah, and were gradually losing the use of the Hebrew tongue (as well as their descendants born in captivity) would value such a translation; and it has been stated that for centuries the Targums were publicly read on the Sabbaths, festivals, etc., their language being the only one understood by the greater part of the Jews even in Palestine.

As an illustration Genesis 22:10-13 is quoted from the Pentateuch of Onkelos, and from the one known as the Pseudo-Jonathan. This latter is of much later date, as far as dates are known, and has words of other languages here and there.

In all probability, the Hebrew text represents the recension used in the synagogues everywhere except in Egypt; while the Septuagint was another edition, in private use, also read in the synagogues by the Hellenists of Alexandria. This supposition is corroborated by the fact, that the existing Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases (which arose from the custom of interpreting the Hebrew into the vulgar tongue of Palestine, during the synagogue service), agree not with the Septuagint, but with the Hebrew.

§ 4. The Targums.

Confining ourselves still to Jewish sources, we have to notice the Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases of the several Books of the Old Testament. These are early witnesses for Jewish interpretations; and some are in Babylonian, others in Palestinian Aramaic. That of the Pentateuch ascribed to Onkelos is of considerable value. The Targum ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel of the historical Books is also useful; his paraphrase of the Prophets is less exact. These Targums were in existence at or shortly after the birth of Christ. The first employment of such helps to the elucidation of the original Text has been placed in Ezra's time (Neh. 8:7-8). Lagarde's are the best critical editions. Etheridge has translated Onkelos, and what is called the Jerusalem Targum of the Pentateuch; the one affording an example of the Babylonian, the other of the Palestinian dialect. There are several of less note upon other Books, which are often curious for their interpretations, but afford little help in determining the Text. Walton's Polyglott may be consulted, and the grammar of the Targums may be studied in Winer's Manual, translated from the second edition by Riggs, to which the Reading Book by the same German scholar, edited by Fürst, but of which there is no English edition, is a good companion. The Targum of Jonah, which affords a good example of the language of the Targums generally, is printed in Wright's Book of Jonah, parallel with Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions of the same Book, and is furnished with a glossary. The best Lexicon to the Targums is by Levy.

It will be seen that while the one is a comparatively correct translation of the Hebrew, the other has useless and undignified additions. A third translation, known as the Jerusalem Targum, has also some of the same additions.

With the rise of the first of the four great empires, which were to exercise supreme authority within the prophetic earth, the Aramean or Chaldee language came into prominence. A language foreign to the Jews in the days of Hezekiah, not understood by the common people when Rabshakeh appeared before Jerusalem, it was afterwards to be the tongue in which they would converse, when Hebrew would cease to be spoken in ordinary society. Hence we have the Targums, the translations (and often very free ones), of the sacred writings of the Old Testament. But, before the Jews had dropped the pure Hebrew, God made choice of Chaldee to make known the better thereby to the nations what it behoved them to be informed of. First used in Jer. 10:11 for the message sent by Him to the Gentiles, it was afterwards the language in which God's communications to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were made, and His gracious intervention on behalf of His suffering servants in the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius recorded. From Daniel 2:4 to the end of Dan. 7, the book in the original is in Chaldee. A glance at the book shows the wisdom of this. God would teach the Gentiles that, though they had triumphed over the kingdom of Judah, they had not triumphed over Jehovah: their gods had not given them the victory. He, and He alone, was the true God, the God of heaven. Those portions, therefore, which concerned the latter days, and the vicissitudes of the city and people, are written in Hebrew; but those portions, which were designed to remind the Gentiles, that God had vindicated His honour, and manifested His power to save those faithful to Him, are in Chaldee. The wisdom of man is found incapable of explaining the thoughts of God, Dan. 2. The power of man is powerless to destroy those who trust in God, Dan. 3. The pride of man is humbled, and God alone is to be exalted, Dan. 4. The impiety of man is signally punished, Dan. 5. The hostility of men to God's servant ends in their utter discomfiture and death, Dan. 6. And lastly, the counsels of God, as to supreme dominion over the earth, are revealed, ending with the establishment of that kingdom which shall never be destroyed, Dan 7. In Ezra we get another portion written in Chaldee, Ezra 4:8, – Ezra 6:19; and Ezra 7:12-27, just that part of the history which records God's interventions on behalf of the oppressed and feeble remnant, now returned to their own land, that the Gentiles might learn, that Jehovah could, and did, protect His faithful people; that His word, by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, could stimulate them to work, though the decree had as yet not been reversed in their favour; and, that He could turn the hearts of Darius, and Artaxerxes to favour them, and to take an interest in the work of His house at Jerusalem.

When the ten tribes were carried away, the colonists, who took their place, brought the Aramaic language with them. The Jews also who returned from Babylon brought many words of the same language. And, though it doubtless underwent various changes, this was the language commonly spoken in Palestine when our Lord was on earth, and is the language called HEBREW in the N.T., and is the same as the Chaldee of the Targums. In the ninth century the language in Palestine gave way to the Arabic, and now Aramaic is a living tongue only among the Syrian Christians in the district around Mosul.

We must now consider the history and condition of the Text represented by the MSS. The existing MSS. are based upon a strictly Jewish arrangement of the Text belonging to Christian times. Upon this 'Recension' — if the expression be correct have we to depend; so that there is no such variety of MS. evidence for any Hebrew readings of Old Testament texts as may be obtained for Greek readings in the New Testament writings. This doubtless damps the ardour of critics, which finds vent in an often too free use of versions: this is all that they have to fall back upon. The Text must for the most part have acquired a fixed form before the birth of Christ, as Aquila and the other Greek translators, of whom we shall have more to say, depart from it less than do the LXX. Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel, the Targumists, or Chaldee Paraphrasts, also follow it very closely. The essential agreement of the Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament is beyond comparison greater than that of Greek MSS. of the New. The former do on the whole give the same Text, that is, the Text which underlies the Masora: it is in the truest sense substance of tradition (cf. chap. 10). The Jews have so far been faithful to their trust. We may contrast with it the corrupt state of Mahommedan texts of which Arabic scholars complain. A proof of the general accuracy of the Hebrew Text we possess is afforded by the variation that exists between parallel passages, in which the temptation to alter would be strong: cf. Pss. 14 and 53; Ps. 18 and 2 Sam. 22. The state of the Greek Text of the New Testament in this respect stands on a much lower level.

As to the seventh verse then of Haggai 2,* it is admitted that there is an idiomatic difficulty for every rendering of the clause translated in our Bible — "the desire of all nations shall come." The modern Jewish version, which is generally that of German rationalists, is no more literal than the usual Christian one. As I have already explained, there is a peculiarity independent of every version and inherent in all; but I believe that "the desire, or object of desire, of all the Gentiles," is as literal and, what is of more moment, more true, as far better suiting the grandeur of the verse than that which some would force on us, "the precious things," meaning the gold and silver, etc., which are distinctly named afterwards. It must be borne in mind that the most literal version is not necessarily the most faithful or best, especially in such a case as this, where an irregularity occurs in the concord, no doubt for special emphasis. The Chaldee paraphrase, or Targum of Jonathan, takes the sense apparently just as our English Bible.† The Syriac is decidedly loose; the Arabic seems to give the sense much as the Septuagint.

It may be remarked here how singularly some of the ancient versions (the Greek, Syriac, and Arabic) have mistaken the plain and certain meaning of verse 8. All three have blundered alike in making Nlylin]h' 'Arabah' mean Galilee, the Septuagint and the Arabic adding also the error of translating hb;r;[}h; 'Lo'aroboh' as Arabia, the Syriac as the north, or north-east instead of the plain or valley of the Jordan. The Targum of Jonathan has avoided these mistakes.

It is not the Gentiles* but the Jews who say, "Who would have believed our report? … Our pains he carried while we indeed esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. Yet he was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and through his bruises was healing granted to us." It is Israel who thus speak, when repentant confessing their past unbelief. They had regarded Him as an utter aversion to God, when in truth He was making atonement for their transgressions. It is not only the language and the context, but the whole scope of the prophecy, that fix its real point to be Messiah, first bearing the sin of many, then dividing the spoil with the strong, when He is exalted and extolled and placed very high. And so Jonathan ben Uzziel interpreted in the Targum, and "the wise men of blessed memory," as Abarbanel tells us, in many of their Medrashes; so the book of Zohar (comment on Exod. fol. 95, col. 3), and even the Talmud Babyl. (in Sanhed. Perek Chelek, fol. 98, col. 2), and the Yalkat Shimoni on the passage. But the most remarkable of all perhaps is the fact that in the public prayers of the synagogue, both at the Passover and on the day of atonement, even the Jews of our day "allude to Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 53 as applying to Messiah, though the translator has tried to weaken the last of them by trying to bring in Josiah in defiance of the context.