Origin and Historical Context

The Aramaic Targums emerged as linguistic and exegetical artifacts in the Jewish community following the exile to Babylonia. After 586 B.C.E. and the Assyrian exile, Aramaic gradually replaced Hebrew as the vernacular of the common people. By the 5th to 3rd centuries B.C.E., synagogue practice had developed to include an oral rendition of the Hebrew Scriptures into Aramaic during public reading. These oral explanations, known as tsar’, served to clarify obscure Hebrew syntax, rare vocabulary, or theological nuance for lay hearers whose mother tongue was Aramaic.

Scholarly consensus places the institutionalization of this practice during the Second Temple period, particularly in the Hellenistic and Hasmonean eras. A critical impetus was the need to ensure that the masses, now primarily Aramaic speakers, could properly comprehend the divine text. Jewish scribes and early rabbis began these oral presentations, which gradually took on interpretive expansions. By the post‑Second‑Temple era (after 70 C.E.), some of these Aramaic glosses were committed to writing.

Early Oral Tradition and the Birth of Targums

During the First and Second Temple periods, many Jews spoke Aramaic rather than Hebrew. As synagogue worship spread, it became customary to offer an Aramaic tsar’—translation or paraphrase—of the Hebrew reading. These oral renditions clarified complex passages and made the text intelligible. Gradually, these oral paraphrases diverged into more elaborate renditions, eventually being composed in writing. This evolution marks the beginning of Old Testament textual expansion in subsequent Targums.

Canonical and Non‑Canonical Targums

The primary Targums recognized in rabbinic and synagogue tradition include:

Targum Onqelos

Attributed in tradition to Onqelos, a Gentile convert who became a prominent Jewish interpreter in early rabbinic circles, Targum Onqelos covers the Pentateuch with restraint and fidelity. Estimated to have been composed between the 2nd and 4th centuries C.E., this written version maintains structural correspondence with the Hebrew, preserving word order, clauses, and theological terms such as “אלהי” (Elahi) and “יהוה” (Jehovah) rather than employing paraphrase. For evangelical scholars, Onqelos is valued for its transparency and minimal interpretive intrusions.

Targum Jonathan

Similarly, Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel addresses the Former and Latter Prophets. Tradition credits Jonathan ben Uzziel, a student of Hillel the Elder, with producing this Targum around the same period as Onqelos. Jonathan exhibits an exegetical style comparable to Onqelos, though the Prophetic genre naturally invites more interpretive clarification. It remains the authoritative Aramaic version of the Nevi’im.

Targum Pseudo‑Jonathan and Jerusalem Targums

Later Targums, notably Targum Pseudo‑Jonathan (for the Pentateuch) and the Jerusalem Targums (such as Neofiti and Yerushalmi), reflect expanded midrashic liberties. These date from roughly the 4th to 7th centuries C.E. They often contain homiletic passages, interpretive additions, and narrative elaborations not found in Onqelos or Jonathan. While of historical interest, they are treated cautiously in textual criticism, given their departure from strict correspondence to the Hebrew text.

Targums on the Writings (Ketuvim)

Unlike the Pentateuch and Prophets, Ketuvim lacked standardized Targums in the early periods. Medieval targumim of Psalms, Proverbs, Daniel, and others emerged in the 8th to 12th centuries C.E., often serving liturgical roles. These versions range from literal to highly idiomatic. Their textual value is considered secondary and generally limited to historical study rather than primary textual evidence.

Dating and Manuscript Transmission

The earliest extant manuscripts of Onqelos and Jonathan date from the 10th to 12th centuries C.E., surviving in Babylonian, Palestinian, and European collections. Pre‑Masoretic scribal errors are rare because these texts were preserved within rabbinic networks of careful copying. Variants among recensions reveal dialectal and geographic influences, such as differences between Babylonian Aramaic and Western Aramaic traditions.

Textual Value and Use in Criticism

From a textual‑critical vantage rooted in the Historical-Grammatical method, Targums are not primary witnesses to the original Hebrew text; instead, they reflect how late antique and early medieval Jewish communities understood and transmitted Scripture. Their value lies in several areas:

1. Variant Traditions: When the Masoretic reading seems problematic, unique renderings in the Targums may reflect ancient variants now lost. For instance, unusual readings in Targum Onqelos can preserve archaic interpretations grounded in pre-Masoretic textual traditions.

2. Interpretive History: The expansions of the Targums show how interpreters understood key words, grammar, or theological ideas. These clarifications sometimes highlight ambiguous Hebrew phrases or suggest earlier vocalizations and accents.

3. Linguistic Witness: The Aramaic Targums preserve early Semitic linguistic features relevant to the study of Biblical Hebrew, paralleling data found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts.

4. Historical Context: Textual differences can reveal the theological and cultural influences at work during their formation. For example, Antiochene or Babylonian readings might reflect distinct rabbinic environments.

Textual‑Critical Significance

From an evangelical historical‑grammatical standpoint, Targums are witnesses not to the original text but to its reception and interpretation in early Jewish tradition. Their scholarly utility includes:

First, they can sometimes attest to variant Hebrew readings. Where the Masoretic Text reads obscurely, a Targum may reflect an alternate Hebrew Vorlage. This is not proof of a different original text but may indicate that the translator had access to a variant textual tradition.

Second, the Targums preserve interpretive solutions to Hebrew ambiguity. They often explain grammatical points such as participles, noun gender, or poetic parallelism, offering insight into early Jewish exegesis and vocalization.

Third, they provide Aramaic lexical data relevant to Semitic philology and explain Hebrew rare terms via cognate Aramaic. Their witness aids in reconstructing Proto‑Semitic lexemes and morphological patterns.

Fourth, they reflect theological nuance. Additions—such as divine titles, anthropomorphic descriptions, or clarifying pronouns—reveal theological concerns in rabbinic Judaism and occasionally correspond with theological emphases found in the Septuagint or Syriac versions, though the Targums themselves must be judged on internal merits and not folded into liberal textual theories.

For evangelical scholars, the Masoretic Text remains the primary witness. Codex Leningrad B 19A (dated 1008–1010 C.E.) represents the most reliable full Hebrew text due to its meticulous Masoretic annotations. Deviations from it require compelling corroboration from early versions such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century B.C.E. to 1st century C.E.) or the Septuagint (3rd – 2nd centuries B.C.E.). Targum support enhances textual-critical arguments only where independent versional support exists.

Relationship to Other Textual Witnesses

Textual decisions prioritize the Masoretic Text, especially as represented by the Aleppo Codex and Codex Leningrad B19A. The Targums, while not superseding these documents, serve as supplementary witnesses. When a reading in the Masoretic Text is obscure, an alternate reading in the Targum may indicate:

• A different Hebrew Vorlage—that is, the Hebrew text from which the Targum translator worked differed from the Masoretic text.

• Or, more frequently, a translator’s interpretive solution to ambiguity in the Masoretic Hebrew.
  Targumic support gains textual-critical significance only when corroborated by independent sources such as Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Syriac, or Vulgate readings.

Comparisons with Other Versional Traditions

The Septuagint frequently preserves Hebrew readings now lost in the Masoretic tradition. The Syriac Peshitta, while later (5th century C.E.), likewise reflects Hebrew Vorlage differences. However, unlike those versions, the Targums are interpretive by nature. They occasionally align with the Septuagint or Peshitta, suggesting early exegetical or textual strands, but they may also diverge if the translator prioritized explanation over fidelity. Thus, their independent weight in textual decisions is always conditional.

Dead Sea Scroll fragments of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and other texts sometimes align with Targum variants. When this occurs, it argues that the Targum reflects a Hebrew Vorlage circulating before the Masoretic standardization. Nevertheless, many Late Targum variants are demonstrably interpretive expansions rather than primitive textual evidence. Scholarly caution is required in each instance.

Exemplary Textual Variant: Genesis 1:1

The Hebrew Masoretic reading Genesis 1:1 reads “בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ.” Targum Onqelos renders this: “בימי קדמאה ברא יהוה אלהא שמיא וארעא” (“In primeval days Jehovah God created the heavens and the earth”).

This insertion of “בימי קדמאה” (“in primeval days”) may represent either:

— A translation technique intended to preserve the semantic nuance of the Hebrew בית (bayith)—“in the beginning”—by explicating it.
— Or evidence that the translator worked from a Vorlage that included a variant expanded reading.

In either case, the variant has limited weight in textual reconstruction without additional supporting evidence, such as parallel reading in the Septuagint or early Hebrew fragments.

Exegetical Value in Biblical Studies

Beyond textual criticism, the Targums offer insight into how early Jewish communities understood Scripture. Their translational choices illuminate interpretive priorities:

— When Hebrew ambiguous grammatical constructs occur, the Targum clarifies the meaning, indicating which syntactic reading early exegetes preferred.
— Interpretive insertions, such as explicit references to divine agency, may reveal theological emphases aligned with Second Temple Jewish piety.
— The presence or absence of Christological or messianic overtones in later Targums informs evangelical understanding of Jewish text reception before and after 70 C.E.

However, these interpretive elements must not be conflated with inspiration proper. For evangelical scholars, the extant Hebrew Masoretic Text remains divinely preserved; Targums reflect human interpretive tradition. They are complementary, not foundational.

Integration into Modern Critical Editions

Recent critical dictionaries and editions of the Old Testament include Targum citations:

— The Biblia Hebraica Quinta and Stuttgartensian editions provide marginal notes where Targum readings materially affect understanding.
— Supports from Onqelos or Jonathan may lead editors to offer alternate Hebrew readings or emendations, but such decisions are solely dependent on multi-version agreement.

Text-critical apparatuses carefully distinguish between semantic expansions and genuine variant evidence. Evangelical scholars uphold the Masoretic Text but use Targum evidence to strengthen emendation proposals, especially in historical narrative, legal passages, or rare lexical items.

Transmission and Machine‑Age Tools

Modern access to Targum manuscripts is greatly enhanced by digitization projects:

— The Hebrew University–National Library of Israel project has reproduced high-resolution Codex Neofiti 1 (containing Genesis–Numbers, dated 13th century C.E.).
— The printed standard editions—such as Martin McNamara’s edition of Targum Neofiti and Fausto Parente’s Onqelos and Jonathan—remain essential references.
— Software like Accordance and Logos integrate Targum texts with lexical databases, morphology, and cross-version comparison tools, aiding evangelical exegetes in parallel analysis.

These tools facilitate word‑studies where Aramaic cognates in Targum clarify Hebrew roots or unresolved morphological features. Such work contributes both to textual‑critical precision and improved exposition in Bible translation.

Limitations and Cautions

Emphasis is placed on the following cautionary points:

Aramaic Targums must never be treated as independent witnesses to the autograph. Their utility is supplementary, not primary.
Variant readings originating solely within Targums require corroboration before being considered for textual change.
Interpretive expansions, such as the substitution of “Jehova” for “Elohim” or insertion of narrative detail, reflect doctrinal tradition rather than original text.
The translator’s occasional insertion of ancient legends or midrashic narratives must be distinguished from elements possibly reflecting true Hebrew Vorlage differences.

Comparison: Targums vs. Masoretic, Septuagint, Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls

A scholar of the Historical‑Grammatical method compares readings across versions with the following priorities:

— Codex Leningrad B 19A (1008 C.E.) Masoretic Text as primary.
— Where the Masoretic text is dubious, examine variants in Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century B.C.E.–1st century C.E.), Septuagint (3rd – 2nd century B.C.E.), Syriac Peshitta (5th century C.E.), and the Latin Vulgate (late 4th century C.E.).
— Consult Targum Onqelos and Jonathan as witnesses to rabbinic reading tradition, particularly when textual traditions converge across multiple versions.
— Weigh the external and internal evidence; a variant supported only by Targums is insufficient.

Case Study: Psalm 22:16

The Hebrew phrase in Masoretic Text Psalm 22:16 reads “כי סבבוני כלבים”—“for dogs have surrounded me.” The phrase could be “ka’iryon” (“they pierced me”) if read differently.

— Septuagint supports “has dug my hands and feet.”
— Syriac Peshitta aligns with “they pierced.”
— Targum Onqelos translates: “because dogs surrounded me, and barked fiercely,” reflecting the MT reading.
Thus, Targum does not support the alternative reading. The Septuagint and Syriac do. Textual decisions thus depend on stronger versional agreement. Targums, while helpful, do not drive the reading here.

Ongoing Relevance in Textual Criticism

Emmaus‑Scholar exegetical projects and evangelical scholarly initiatives continue to incorporate Targum evidence within textual apparatus. The 2007 Würzburg edition of the Masoretic Text includes variant notes where Onqelos suggests verbal readings. Evangelical doctoral theses often cite Targumic variants when justifying Hebrew emendations, for example in certain legal texts with ambiguous syntax (Leviticus 17:11; Deuteronomy 32:35).

Theological Implications

Evangelicals affirm the providential preservation of Scripture through divine providence. The Targums belong to that providential economy as early Jewish interpretations engaging with the Word. Their internal theology has no authority to override the Hebrew text, but they contribute to the historical‑grammatical method by clarifying ancient understanding and sustaining confidence in textual fidelity.

Weighing Manuscripts to Determine the Original Words

The primary weight of external evidence generally goes to the original language manuscripts, and the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex are almost always preferred. In Old Testament Textual Criticism, the Masoretic text is our starting point and should only be abandoned as a last resort. While it is true that the Masoretic Text is not perfect, there needs to be a heavy burden of proof if we are to go with an alternative reading. All of the evidence needs to be examined before concluding that a reading in the Masoretic Text is corrupt. The Septuagint continues to be very much important today and is used by textual scholars to help uncover copyists’ errors that might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts either intentionally or unintentionally. However, it cannot do it alone without the support of other sources. There are a number of times when you might have the Syriac, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate that are at odds with the Masoretic Text; the preferred choice should not be the MT.

Initially, the Septuagint (LXX) was viewed by the Jews as inspired by God, equal to the Hebrew Scriptures. However, in the first century C.E., the Christians adopted the Septuagint in their churches. It was used by the Christians in their evangelism to make disciples and to debate the Jews on Jesus being the long-awaited Messiah. Soon, the Jews began to look at the Septuagint with suspicion. This resulted in the Jews of the second century C.E. abandoning the Septuagint and returning to the Hebrew Scriptures. This has proved to be beneficial for the textual scholar and translator. In the second century C.E., other Greek translations of the Septuagint were produced. We have, for example, LXX^Aq Aquila, LXX^Sym Symmachus, and LXX^Th Theodotion. The consonantal text of the Hebrew Scriptures became the standard text between the first and second centuries C.E. However, textual variants still continued until the Masoretes and the Masoretic text. However, scribes taking liberties by altering the text was no longer the case, as was true of the previous period of the Sopherim. The scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Ezra down to the time of Jesus were called Sopherim, i.e., scribes.

From the 6th century C.E. to the 10th century C.E., we have the Masoretes, groups of extraordinary Jewish scribe-scholars. The Masoretes were very much concerned with the accurate transmission of each word, even each letter, of the text they were copying. Accuracy was of supreme importance; therefore, the Masoretes used the side margins of each page to inform others of deliberate or inadvertent changes in the text by past copyists. The Masoretes also use these marginal notes for other reasons as well, such as unusual word forms and combinations. They even marked how frequently they occurred within a book or even the whole Hebrew Old Testament. Of course, marginal spaces were very limited, so they used abbreviated code. They also formed a cross-checking tool where they would mark the middle word and letter of certain books. Their push for accuracy moved them to go so far as to count every letter of the Hebrew Old Testament.

In the Masoretic text, we find notes in the side margins, which are known as the Small Masora. There are also notes in the top margin, which are referred to as the Large Masora. Any other notes placed elsewhere within the text are called the Final Masora. The Masoretes used the notes in the top and bottom margins to record more extensive notes, comments concerning the abbreviated notes in the side margins. This enabled them to be able to cross-check their work. We must remember that there were no numbered verses at this time, and they had no Bible concordances. One might wonder how the Masoretes could refer to different parts of the Hebrew text to have an effective cross-checking system. They would list part of a parallel verse in the top and bottom margins to remind them of where the word(s) indicated were found. Because they were dealing with limited space, they often could only list one word to remind them where each parallel verse could be found. To have an effective cross-reference system by way of these marginal notes, the Masoretes would literally have to have memorized the entire Hebrew Bible.

Conclusion: Scholarly Use Without Supersession

The Targums, particularly Onqelos and Jonathan, function as secondarily valuable witnesses. They elucidate readings in difficult passages, support lexical analysis, and document early Jewish theological reflection. Yet they do not displace the Masoretic Text. In evangelical textual criticism, their contributions are respected—but always assessed within the broader versional context. Their study enhances Hebrew text engagement without undermining confidence in its divine preservation.

You May Also Enjoy

Textual Criticism vs. Historical Criticism: Reconstructing the Original Biblical Text in OTTC and NTTC

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS