Targum has been translated into Latin by Alfonso de Zamora, Paulus Fagius, Bernardinus Baldus, and Andrea de Leon of Zamora.

The second Targum, which is a more liberal paraphrase of the Pentateuch than the preceding, is usually called the TARGUM OF THE PSEUDO-JONATHAN, being ascribed by many to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, who wrote the much-esteemed paraphrase on the Prophets. But the difference in the style and diction of this Targum, which is very impure, as well as in the method of paraphrasing adopted in it, clearly proves that it could not have been written by Jonathan Ben Uzziel, who, indeed, sometimes indulges in allegories, and has introduced a few barbarisms; but this Targum on the law abounds with the most idle Jewish legends that can well be conceived; which, together with the barbarous and foreign words it contains, render it of very little utility. From its mentioning the six parts of the Talmud (on Exod. XXVI. 9), which compilation was not written till two centuries after the birth of Christ ;— Constantinople (on Numb. XXIV. 19), which city was always called Byzantium until it received its name from Constantine the Great, in the beginning of the fourth century; the Lombards (on Numb. XXIV. 24), whose first irruption into Italy did not take place until the year 570; and the Turks (on Gen. X. 2), who did not become conspicuous till the middle of the sixth century,-learned men are unanimously of opinion that this Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan could not have been written before the seventh, or even the eighth century. It was probably compiled from older interpretations. This Chaldee paraphrase was translated into Latin by Anthony Ralph de Chevalier, in the sixteenth century.

The JERUSALEM TARGUM, which also paraphrases the five Books of Moses, derives its name from the dialect in which it is composed. It is by no means a connected paraphrase, sometimes omitting whole verses, or even chapters; at other times explaining only a single word of a verse, of which it sometimes gives a twofold interpretation; and at other times Hebrew words are inserted without any explanation whatever. In many respects, it corresponds with the paraphrase of the PseudoJonathan, whose legendary tales are here frequently repeated, abridged, or expanded. From the impurity of its style, and the number of Greek, Latin, and Persian words which it contains, Walton, Carpzov, Wolfius, and many other eminent philologers, are of opinion that it is a compilation by several authors, and consists of extracts and collections. From these

internal evidences, the commencement of the seventh century has been assigned as its probable date; but it is more likely not to have been written before the eighth, or perhaps the ninth century. This Targum was also translated into Latin by Chevalier and by Francis Taylor.

The TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL.-According to the Talmudical traditions, the author of this paraphrase was chief of the eighty distinguished scholars of Rabbi Hillel, the elder, and a fellow disciple of Simeon the Just, who bore the infant Messiah in his arms; consequently he would be nearly contemporary with Onkelos. Wolfius, however, adopts the opinion of Prideaux, that he flourished a short time before the birth of Christ, and compiled the work which bears his name from more ancient Targums, that had been preserved to his time by oral tradition. From the silence of Origen and Jerome concerning this Targum, of which they could not but have availed themselves if it had really existed in their time, and also from its being cited in the Talmud, both Bauer and Jahn date it much later than is generally admitted; the former, indeed, is of opinion that its true date cannot be ascertained; and the latter, from the inequalities of style and method observable in it, considers it as a compilation from the interpretations of several learned men, made about the close of the third or fourth century. This paraphrase treats of the Prophets, that is (according to the Jewish classification of the sacred writings), of the Books of Joshua, Judges, I. and II. Samuel, I. and II. Kings, who are termed the former prophets; and of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, who are designated as the latter prophets. Though the style of this Targum is not so pure and elegant as that of Onkelos, yet it is not disfigured by those legendary tales and numerous foreign and barbarous words which abound in the latter Targums. Both the language and method of interpretation, however, are irregular. In the exposition of the former prophets, the text is more closely rendered than in that on the latter, which is less accurate, as well as more paraphrastical, and interspersed with some traditions and fabulous legends. In order to attach the greater authority to the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the Jews, not satisfied with making him contemporary with the prophets Malachi, Zachariah, and Haggai, and asserting that he received it from their lips, have related that while Jonathan was composing his paraphrase, there was an earthquake for forty leagues around him; and that if any bird happened to pass over him, or a fly alighted

on his paper while writing, they were immediately consumed by fire from heaven, without any injury being sustained either by his person or his paper. The whole of this Targum was translated into Latin by Alfonso de Zamora, Andrea de Leon, and Conrad Pellican; and the paraphrase on the twelve minor prophets, by Immanuel Tremellius.

The TARGUM ON THE CETUBIM, HAGIOGRAPHA, or Holy Writings, is ascribed by some Jewish writers to Rab Jose, or Rabbi Joseph, surnamed the one-eyed, or blind, who is said to have been at the head of the academy at Sora, in the third century; though others affirm that its author is unknown. The style is barbarous, impure, and very unequal, interspersed with numerous digressions and legendary narratives; on which account the younger Buxtorf, and after him Bauer and Jahn, are of opinion that the whole is a compilation of later times; and this sentiment appears to be the most correct. Prideaux characterizes its language as the most corrupt Chaldee of the Jerusalem dialect. The translators of the preceding Targum, together with Arias Montanus, have given a Latin version of this Targum.

The TARGUM ON THE MEGILLOTH, or five Books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ruth, and Esther, is evidently a compilation by several persons; the barbarism of its style, numerous digressions, and idle legends which are inserted, all concur to prove it to be of late date, and certainly not earlier than the sixth century. The paraphrase on the Book of Ruth and the Lamentations of Jeremiah is the best executed portion. Ecclesiastes is more freely paraphrased, but the text of the Song of Solomon is absolutely lost amidst the diffuse circumscription of its author, and his dull glosses and fabulous additions.

The THREE TARGUMS ON THE BOOK OF ESTHER.-This book has always been held in the highest estimation by the Jews, which circumstance induced them to translate it repeatedly into the Chaldee dialect. Three paraphrases on it have been printed; one in the Antwerp Polyglott, which is much shorter and contains fewer digressions than the others; another in Walton's Polyglott, which is more diffuse, and comprises more numerous Jewish fables and traditions; and a third, of which a Latin version was published by Francis Taylor, and which, according to Carpzov, is more stupid and diffuse than any of the preceding. They are all three of very late date.

A TARGUM ON THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES, which for a long time was unknown both to Jews and Christians, was discovered in the library at Erfurt, belonging to the ministers of the Augsburg confession, by Matthias Frederick Beck, who published it in 1680-3-4, in two quarto volumes. Another edition was published at Amsterdam by David Wilkins (1715, 4to.), from a manuscript in the University Library at Cambridge. It is more complete than Beck's edition, and supplies many of its deficiencies. This Targum, however, is of very little value; like all the other Chaldee paraphrases, it blends legendary tales with the narrative.

Of all the Chaldee paraphrases above noticed, the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel are most highly valued by the Jews, who implicitly receive their expositions of doubtful passages. Shickhard, Mayer, Helvicus, Leusden, Hottinger, and Prideaux, have conjectured that some Chaldee Targum was in use in the Synagogue where our Lord read Isaiah LXI. 1, 2 (Luke IV. 17-19); and that he quoted Psal. XXII. 1, when on the cross (Matth. XXVII. 46), not out of the Hebrew text, but out of a Chaldee paraphrase. But there does not appear to be sufficient ground for this hypothesis; for as the Chaldee or East Aramæan dialect was spoken at Jerusalem, it is at least as probable that Jesus Christ interpreted the Hebrew into the vernacular dialect in the first instance, as that he should have read from a Targum; and, when on the cross, it was perfectly natural that he should speak in the same language, rather than in the Biblical Hebrew, which, we have already seen, was cultivated and studied by the priests and Levites, as a learned language. The Targum of Rabbi Joseph the Blind, in which the words cited by our Lord are to be found, is so long posterior to the time of his crucifixion, that it cannot be received as evidence. So numerous, indeed, are the variations, and so arbitrary are the alterations occurring in the manuscripts of the Chaldee paraphrases, that Kennicott has sought to prove them to have been designedly altered in compliment to the previously corrupted copies of the Hebrew text; or, in other words, that "alterations have been made wilfully in the Chaldee paraphrase to render that paraphrase, in some places, more conformable to the words of the Hebrew text, where those Hebrew words are supposed to be right, but had themselves been corrupted." But notwithstanding all their deficiencies and interpolations, the Targums, especially those of Onkelos and Jonathan, are of considerable importance in the interpretation of the Scriptures, not only as they supply the

meanings of words or phrases occurring but once in the Old Testament, but also because they reflect considerable light on the Jewish rites, ceremonies, laws, customs, usages, etc., mentioned or alluded to in both Testaments. But it is in establishing the genuine meaning of particular prophecies relative to the Messiah, in opposition to the false explications of the Jews and Anti-trinitarians, that these Targums are preëminently useful.

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE SYRIAC VERSIONS.

Syria being visited at a very early period by the preachers of the Christian faith, several translations of the sacred volume were made into the language of that country.

The most celebrated of these, is the PESCHITO or Literal (VERSIO SIMPLEX), as it is usually called, on account of its very close adherence to the Hebrew and Greek texts, from which it was immediately made. The most extravagant assertions have been advanced concerning its antiquity; some referring the translation of the Old Testament to the time of Solomon and Hiram, while others ascribe it to Asa, priest of the Samaritans; and a third class, to the apostle Thaddeus. This last tradition is received by the Syrian churches; but a more recent date is ascribed to it by modern biblical philologers. Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, Lowth, and Kennicott, fix its date to the first century: Bauer and some other German critics, to the second or third century; Jahn fixes it, at the latest, to the second century; De Rossi pronounces it to be very ancient, but does not specify any precise date. The most probable opinion is that of Michaelis, who ascribes the Syriac version of both Testaments to the close of the first, or to the earlier part of the second century, at which time the Syrian churches flourished most, and the Christians at Edessa had a temple for divine worship erected after the model of that at Jerusalem; and it is not to be supposed that they would be without a version of the Old Testament, the reading of which had been introduced by the Apostles.

The OLD TESTAMENT was evidently translated from the original Hebrew, to which it most closely and literally adheres, with the exception of a few passages which appear to bear some affinity to the Septuagint; Jahn accounts for this by suppos ing, either that this version was consulted by the Syriac translator or translators, or that the Syrians afterwards corrected