Targumic traditions developed in the day-to-day synagogue application of Scripture, (as Hebrew ceased to be the vernacular and was replaced by Aramaic), and they are a witness for identifying common theological conceptions among ordinary Jews in Jesus’ day. However, the Targums as we have them are professional translations,[1] which involved rabbinical schools after the first century. Accordingly, their value as evidence of first century thought is qualified. However, as G. Vermes notes, the Targums have an advantage as to evidence compared with other rabbinical literature because the Aramaic texts were “probably subjected to a less thorough updating than the Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud and halakhic Midrashim”.[2] The main Targums of value for understanding NT times are the Palestinian Pentateuchal Targums, Neofiti, Fragment Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan and Onqelos, and the main Targum for the History books and the Prophets, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets.[3]
It has long been held that the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch have “preserved many exegetical traditions which would have circulated in the Jewish community of the first century”.[4] However, an early date for the Palestinian Targums as a whole cannot be an assumption in any comparative investigation of the Targums.[5] M. J. McNamara,[6] one of the leading Targumic scholars, argues that the language of Neofiti and Fragment Targum suggests a 3c. C.E. date, includes earlier tradition, but does not preclude there having been a “proto-Palestinian” Targum in the first century from which Onqelos and Neofiti derive. S. A. Kaufman, another leading scholar, treats Pseudo-Jonathan as a late post-Talmudic composite Targum based on Onqelos and Palestinian Targum traditions.[7] Thus, McNamara’s (2004) latest summary of scholarship is that, “it is now generally recognized that Pseudo-Jonathan should not properly be classified as representing the Palestinian Targum…it is the work of a scholar and was not intended for synagogue use”.[8]
It is important to recognize the relative dates of the various Targums when using them as a source of information about Jewish ideas in the first century. There is no one “Jewish Targum” but several, and the main writing of each of the Targums dates from different times. Pseudo-Jonathan is the least valuable as evidence, while Onqelos and Neofiti have some value.
Scholars locate Onqelos in either Babylon or Palestine.[9] B. Grossfeld adopts the latter view speculating that there was a Proto-Onqelos “containing older Palestinian traditions which were preserved throughout the final redaction process in Babylonia”.[10] McNamara notes that several scholars date the language of Onqelos to the early 2c.[11] On this basis, we would assign Onqelos greater weight as evidence of first century views. Our assumption would be that the Palestinian Targums, including Onqelos, represent alternative though not necessarily competing traditions, some of which reflect first century views.
The date and place of origin for Targum Jonathan to the Prophets has been assigned to Palestine and the late first century or early second century. Because of the linguistic affinity between Onqelos and Targum Jonathan, the two Targums are often given the same provenance.[12] L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, after reviewing scholarship on the question of dating, conclude that Targum Jonathan to the Prophets “is a late first century-early second century work which originated and was first developed in the land of Israel before being brought to Babylonia where it was redacted prior to the Arab invasion”.[13] This is a reasonable assumption, and as such, it admits Targum Jonathan as evidence of first century Judaism.[14]
The multi-volume nature of Targum Jonathan requires us to be aware of the issues concerning the dating and authorship of each of the volumes; accordingly, the conclusion of Smolar and Aberbach is only indicative. Hence, D. J. Harrington and A. J. Saldarini favour a date for the Former Prophets (History Books) of 135 C.E., but recognise the need to take into account a period of later redactional composition. R. D. Hayward argues that there are “sufficient grounds for discerning the origins of Tg. Jeremiah in the land of Israel during, or slightly before, the first century A.D” but allow for later editing. R. P. Gordon and K. J. Cathcart argue for a literary composition after 70 C.E. for the Minor Prophets, and so on. B. D. Chilton, who edited the Isaiah volume in the Aramaic Bible Series, offers the consensus view that, “it is impossible to know whether a complete Targum was produced at the Tannaitic phase [c. 70-200 C.E.], and reworked at the Amoraic phase [c. 200-400 C.E.], or whether both phases were partial affairs”. Accordingly, the evidence that Targum Jonathan can provide for first century Jewish thought ought to be restricted to the provision of analogies with other more precisely dateable first century materials.
In conclusion, we can say that while scholars use the Jewish Targums as evidence of first century thought, their use can only be tentative; they can support clearer lines of evidence for first century thought from documents known to be extant in the first century, but only with the provision of analogies.
[1] The standard English edition is comprised of The Aramaic Bible Series (ed., M. J. McNamara; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988—). For an overall introduction to the Targums, see P. S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed., M. J. Mulder; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 217-253.
[2] G. Vermes, “Jewish Literature and New Testament Exegesis: Reflections on Methodology” JJS 33 (1982): 361-376 (361).
[3] We are excluding the Targums devoted to the Ketubim because of their relative late dates; see M. J. McNamara, “Interpretation of Scripture in the Targumim” in A History of Biblical Interpretation (eds., A. J. Hauser and D. F. Watson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 167-197 (169).
[4] R. Le Déaut, The Message of the New Testament and the Aramaic Bible (Targum) (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982), 24.
[5] A. D. York in “The Dating of the Targumic Literature” JSJ 5 (1974): 49-62 (59), discusses the arguments for the priority of the Palestinian Targums over that of Onqelos and concludes, “the prior antiquity of the Palestinian Targum, must be, if not abandoned altogether, modified drastically to say simply that the PT includes some quite ancient traditions”.
[6] M. J. McNamara, “Some Targum Themes” in Justification and Variegated Nomism (eds., D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien and M. A. Seifried; 2 vols; WUNT 2/140-141; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001-2004), 305-356 (303-306).
[7] S. A. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century C.E. Texts” in The Aramaic Bible (eds., D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara; JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 117-141 (124); see also M.J. Maher, “Introduction” to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, (ed., M. J. Maher; Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1992), 1-14 (12), who comments that “both the content and the language of Tg. Ps.-J allow us to accept with confidence the view that this Targum in its final form cannot be dated before the seventh or eighth century”. Compare also G. J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and its Relationship to Targum Onqelos (Rome: Institutum Patristicum, 1972), ch. 1.
[8] “Interpretation of Scripture in the Targumim”, 169.
[9] For a review of the two schools of thought, see E. M. Cook, “A New Perspective on the Language of Onqelos and Jonathan”, in Targums in their Historical Context (eds., D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara; JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 142-156.
[10] B. Grossfeld, “Introduction”, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (ed., B. Grossfeld; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 1-39 (18), and for a summary of arguments, 30-35.
[11] “Some Targum Themes”, 306.
[12] For a description of the historical background to Targum Jonathan and its relationship to Onqelos, see Pinkhos Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927), ch. 1.
[13] L. Smolar and Moses Aberbach, eds., Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (New York: Ktav Publishing, 1983), xxviii.
[14] Daniel J. Harrington and Anthony J. Saldarini, “Introduction”, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets (eds., Daniel J. Harrington and Anthony J. Saldarini; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 1-15 (3), favour a date for the Former Prophets of 135 C.E., but recognise the need to take into account a period of redactional composition. B. D. Chilton, “Introduction”, The Isaiah Targum (ed., B. D. Chilton; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), xiii-xxxv (xxiv), argues that, “it is impossible to know whether a complete Targum was produced at the Tannaitic phase, and reworked at the Amoraic phase, or whether both phases were partial affairs”. R. D. Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah (ed., R. D. Hayward; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 38, argues that there are “sufficient grounds for discerning the origins of Tg. Jeremiah in the land of Israel during, or slightly before, the first century A.D.”. R. P. Gordon and K. J. Cathcart, “Introduction”, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (eds., R. P. Gordon and K. J. Cathcart; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 1-25 (18), argue for a literary composition after 70 C.E.
The Library of St. Catherine’s Monastery digitises ancient texts