When readers hear the word “Targum,” they are encountering one of the most important bridges between the Hebrew Old Testament and the life of God’s people after the exile. The Aramaic Targums are not new Bibles, nor are they rival canons. They are paraphrastic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures into Aramaic, the language that became dominant among ordinary Jews from the Persian period onward.

Because they are both translation and interpretation, the Targums reveal how Scripture was heard in the synagogue and how biblical passages were applied in later Judaism. At the same time, they stand as secondary textual witnesses to the Hebrew Old Testament. They usually presuppose a Hebrew base very close to the Masoretic Text, but they sometimes reflect different interpretive traditions or, in a minority of cases, an alternate Hebrew reading that deserves attention.

This chapter explains what the Targums are, how they arose, how they functioned in synagogue worship, how they interpret and reshape the text, and what value and limits they have for Old Testament textual criticism.

The Historical Setting: From Hebrew to Aramaic

After the Babylonian exile, the language environment of the Jewish people changed. Hebrew remained the sacred and literary language of Scripture, law, and prayer. But Aramaic, the imperial language of the Persian period and a common tongue throughout the Near East, spread widely in daily life. By the time of Jesus, many Jews spoke Aramaic at home and in the marketplace while still hearing and reciting Hebrew in the synagogue and in formal religious settings.

This bilingual situation created both an opportunity and a challenge. The Torah and the Prophets were read in Hebrew; yet large parts of the population no longer understood Hebrew fluently. How could the Scriptures be heard and obeyed if the language was slipping from common use? The answer took the form of oral interpretation in Aramaic that eventually crystallized into written Targums.

The earliest stages of this development are hinted at in post-exilic passages that describe public readings of the Law accompanied by explanation. The pattern can be summarized simply: the Hebrew text was read aloud, followed by Aramaic rendering and exposition so that the people understood. Over generations this practice became regularized, and the Aramaic renderings were remembered, repeated, and eventually written down as Targums.

What Is a Targum?

The word “Targum” comes from a root meaning “to translate” or “to interpret.” A Targum is therefore an interpretive translation, not a word-for-word rendering. Its purpose is to communicate the sense of the Hebrew text to an Aramaic-speaking audience, often with added explanation and application.

Two characteristics define the Targums.

First, they are tethered to the Hebrew base text. A Targum proceeds verse by verse, following the sequence of the canonical book. It does not wander at will or rearrange material into new compositions.

Second, they are paraphrastic and expansive. The Targums freely insert clarifications, fill in implicit information, and import traditional interpretations into the translation. They are far less literal than the Greek Septuagint or the Syriac Peshitta.

Because of this, Targums preserve a unique combination: they transmit the structure and much of the wording of the underlying Hebrew, while simultaneously revealing how later Jews understood and applied those words in their own linguistic and cultural setting.

From Oral Paraphrase to Written Targum

The earliest Targums were oral. In the synagogue, a reader would chant the Hebrew text from a scroll, and a designated interpreter, the meturgeman, would immediately follow with an Aramaic rendering from memory. This practice allowed the congregation to hear the Word of God in its original form and in a language they understood.

Over time, these oral renderings stabilized. Certain formulations became standard, especially for well-known passages. The synagogue setting encouraged conservatism rather than constant innovation, because the congregation knew the patterns and expected a familiar rendering.

Eventually, the Aramaic paraphrases were written down. We possess written Targums for the Torah, the Prophets, and large parts of the Writings. Their written form reflects long oral use; they are not the product of a single author sitting down to produce a new translation, but the result of generations of interpretive tradition being committed to writing.

The very fact that these paraphrases were written shows how important they had become in communal life. The Targums were not private study aids only; they were public instruments of teaching and worship.

Major Targum Traditions

The Targum corpus is not monolithic; several distinct traditions developed in different regions and periods.

For the Torah, the most prominent Targum is associated with the name Onkelos. Targum Onkelos represents a relatively conservative, restrained paraphrase of Genesis through Deuteronomy. While it still interprets and expands, especially in the narrative sections, it often stays closer to the Hebrew wording than later, more midrashic Targums. Onkelos played a central role in later Jewish study of the Torah, being regarded as an authoritative Aramaic rendering.

For the Former and Latter Prophets, the main Targum tradition is associated with Jonathan. Targum Jonathan covers Joshua through Kings and the major and minor prophets. It tends to be more expansive and homiletical than Onkelos, particularly in prophetical passages. It weaves traditional interpretations into the translation, sometimes lengthening verses considerably.

In addition to these standard Babylonian Targums, there are Palestinian Targums, often called the Targum Yerushalmi traditions. These include Targum Neofiti, various fragment Targums on the Torah, and more expansive renderings used in the land of Israel. They are typically freer, more midrashic, and rich in vivid paraphrase.

For the Writings, the Targumic tradition is more uneven. There are Targums to Psalms, Job, Proverbs, the Five Scrolls (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), and some other books, though not all in equally full form. These Targums often show the most overt theological interpretation, especially in messianic and eschatological passages.

Despite these differences, all Targums share the basic function of mediating the Hebrew Scriptures to Aramaic-speaking communities.

Targums in Synagogue Worship

The primary liturgical role of the Targums was in synagogue worship. The standard pattern that developed in many communities was alternating Hebrew and Aramaic. The reader would chant a verse or small section in Hebrew; then the meturgeman would render the same portion in Aramaic. The congregation thus heard both the original sacred language and an immediately comprehensible interpretation.

This practice preserved the Hebrew text in the ears of the people even as Aramaic became dominant. It also gave the Targums substantial authority. While technically only the Hebrew reading was Scripture, the Aramaic paraphrase became deeply embedded in people’s understanding of what the text “meant.” For many worshippers, the Targum’s interpretation and the biblical text were closely linked in memory and devotion.

Because the Targums were recited in public worship, they tended toward a certain stability. The community would notice if a meturgeman radically altered the familiar phrasing. At the same time, because they functioned as explanation, they allowed room for elaboration and clarification where teachers believed it was needed.

In later centuries, the study of the weekly Torah portion would often include consultation of Targum Onkelos. For the Prophets, Targum Jonathan played a similar role. In this way, the Targums became standard tools of exegesis as well as instruments of worship.

Paraphrase, Interpretation, and Midrashic Expansion

The distinctive character of the Targums emerges most clearly in how they handle specific verses. They rarely confine themselves to a minimal translation. Instead, they weave in interpretive elements that reflect halakhic (legal) concerns, theological convictions, and homiletical applications.

For example, when the Hebrew text uses a metaphor that might be misunderstood, the Targum often replaces it with a more straightforward explanation. When Scripture speaks anthropomorphically about Jehovah—describing His “hand,” “eyes,” or “coming down”—the Targums frequently paraphrase in ways that protect divine transcendence, speaking of His “Word,” “Glory,” or “Shekinah” rather than implying that God literally has bodily form.

In narrative sections, the Targums sometimes add details drawn from interpretive tradition. Dialogue may be expanded with additional lines that express motives, fears, or theological reflections that are implicit but not explicit in the Hebrew. Names may be glossed with their symbolic meaning. Historical allusions may be unpacked.

Legal passages receive particular attention. The Targums may clarify how a commandment was applied in later Jewish practice, effectively incorporating halakhic interpretation into the translation itself. In such cases, the Aramaic line does double duty: it both renders the Hebrew and instructs the congregation in accepted legal understanding.

These expansions are not random. They follow lines of interpretation that can often be traced in rabbinic literature. The Targums thus stand at the intersection of Scripture and early Jewish exegesis.

Theological Shaping and Protective Paraphrase

Because the Targums developed within specific theological communities, their paraphrases reflect those communities’ convictions and concerns. Several recurring features illustrate this.

As already noted, the Targums work to protect the transcendence of God. Where the Hebrew text presents bold anthropomorphic expressions—Jehovah “walking” in the garden, “coming down” to see a tower, “repenting” of an action—the Targums frequently adjust the wording. They speak instead of the “Word of Jehovah,” the “Glory of Jehovah,” or the manifestation of His Presence. These renderings do not deny God’s involvement in the world, but they guard against any impression that He is a creature bound by physical form or changeable passions.

The Targums also emphasize monotheism. In passages that mention other “gods,” they often add phrases like “idols,” “images,” or “those who are called gods” to underline that these are not real deities. In historical narratives, they may amplify the folly of idolatry and the justice of God’s judgments on pagan nations.

In addition, some Targums show signs of responding to Christian claims. Messianic passages that were widely used by Christians, especially in the Psalms and Prophets, may be paraphrased in ways that redirect their application. The Targums do not erase messianic hope; they often intensify it. But they sometimes steer that hope into national, political channels rather than toward a suffering, atoning figure.

These theological adjustments remind us that the Targums, while extremely valuable for understanding early interpretation, are not neutral. They are confessional documents, shaped by the beliefs of the communities that produced and used them.

Targums as Witnesses to Messianic Expectation

One of the most striking features of the Targums, especially those on the Prophets and Writings, is their treatment of passages associated with the Messiah. They often make the messianic reference explicit.

For example, in certain prophetic or psalmic texts, where the Hebrew speaks of “the king” or “the branch” or a future deliverer, the Targums may render this as “the King Messiah” or “the Messiah of Jehovah.” They insert interpretive comments that identify the figure as the expected anointed ruler who will restore Israel and bring justice.

This openness about messianic interpretation shows that later Judaism did not read the Old Testament as devoid of messianic content. The Targums stand as witnesses to a living expectation of a personal, future Messiah. They differ from Christian interpretation mainly in the identity and role assigned to that Messiah, not in the basic conviction that the Old Testament speaks of such a figure.

For textual criticism, this is secondary. For biblical theology, it is significant. The Targums confirm that key passages were already understood messianically before and alongside Christian proclamation, even if later Jewish exegesis reinterpreted some of them in reaction to the gospel.

The Targums and the Masoretic Hebrew Text

When we ask how the Targums relate to the Masoretic Text as textual witnesses, two principles stand out.

First, the Targums presuppose a Hebrew base very close to the Masoretic Text. Their verse sequence, overall structure, and many specific lexical choices reflect a Hebrew Vorlage that is overwhelmingly Masoretic in type. Where the Targum is being merely translational, without heavy paraphrase, it typically confirms the wording of the Masoretic Text.

Second, because the Targums are paraphrastic and interpretive, they often move beyond the exact wording of their base text. In many cases, what looks like a “variant” is actually interpretive expansion rather than evidence of a different Hebrew reading. Distinguishing between these two is the central challenge when using Targums for textual criticism.

Textual critics therefore treat the Targums as secondary, not primary, witnesses. A Targum rarely justifies changing the Masoretic Text on its own. At most, it can support a reading when it aligns with independent evidence from Hebrew manuscripts or the Septuagint and when its rendering is clearly translational rather than homiletical.

Even where a Targum diverges from the Masoretic Text in a way that suggests a different underlying Hebrew phrase, that alternate form must be evaluated carefully. The Targumist may have altered the text for interpretive reasons, or he may be paraphrasing freely. Only when context, syntax, and cross-witness support converge does a Targumic reading carry significant textual weight.

Examples of Interpretive Versus Textual Differences

Concrete examples help illustrate the distinction between interpretive paraphrase and genuine textual variant.

Consider a narrative passage where the Masoretic Text says that a patriarch “lifted his eyes and saw.” A Targum might render this as “lifted his eyes in prayer and saw” or “lifted his eyes in the spirit of prophecy.” Here the addition is clearly interpretive. No one supposes that the Hebrew text included the extra words; they reflect the Targumist’s understanding of the patriarch’s inner state.

In a legal context, the Hebrew may command that Israel “shall not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.” A Targum might expand this to explicitly mention separating meat and dairy, reflecting later halakhic practice. Again, the base prohibition remains; the expansion comments on its application.

On the other hand, there are occasional places where the Targum’s wording could point to a different Hebrew reading. For instance, if the Masoretic Text has a rare verb, but the Targum consistently reflects a different common verb and this aligns with a Greek reading in the Septuagint, that convergence may indicate that some scribes read a slightly different Hebrew form. In such cases the Targum, in concert with other witnesses, can contribute to textual analysis.

These examples show why the Targums must be used with discernment. Their primary purpose is interpretation; any textual evidence they offer must be extracted carefully through comparison with other sources.

Targums and the Stability of the Hebrew Text

Despite their interpretive freedom, the Targums underscore the stability of the underlying Hebrew text. The very fact that they can operate as paraphrases tied to specific verses in a fixed order assumes a relatively stable canonical text. If the Hebrew were still in flux, constantly being rewritten or rearranged, the Targums could not function in this verse-by-verse way.

Furthermore, where the Targums paraphrase, they still usually respect the boundaries of the verse and the basic sense of the clause. They expand, but they do not generally contradict the narrative or legal structure of the Hebrew. This conservatism again points to a stable base.

The Targums also testify to the endurance of the Masoretic-type text across geographic and cultural boundaries. Babylonian and Palestinian Targums, although distinct in style, both assume the same Torah and Prophets. The differences lie more in interpretation than in the shape of the Hebrew books.

Thus, even while the Targums remind us that Scripture was constantly being interpreted, they also show that the text being interpreted remained substantially the same.

The Limits of Targumic Authority

Given their deep roots in synagogue life, the Targums acquired considerable practical authority. For many ordinary Jews, the Targum they heard week after week shaped their understanding of Scripture as much as, or more than, the Hebrew wording itself.

From a textual-critical standpoint, however, the Targums must be kept in their proper place. They are commentaries in translation, not alternative inspired texts. Their expansions may be helpful for understanding how a passage was read, but they are not themselves part of the canonical wording.

This means that when a Targum diverges from the Masoretic Text in a way that reflects later theology or halakhah, we do not reshape the Hebrew to match it. We learn how later Judaism handled that passage and how certain interpretive traditions formed, but we leave the underlying text anchored in the more ancient, conservative Masoretic tradition.

In short, the Targums have interpretive and historical authority, not textual authority. They help us understand how Scripture was explained; they do not rewrite what Scripture originally said.

Targums as Windows into the New Testament World

Because Aramaic was widely spoken in the time of Jesus and the apostles, the Targums provide valuable background for understanding the New Testament. While the New Testament writers primarily quote from the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint, they operated in a world where Aramaic paraphrases of Scripture were heard regularly.

Many of the themes that appear in the Targums—heightened messianic hope, sharp denunciations of idolatry, emphasis on God’s transcendence, and eagerness to apply Scripture to present circumstances—also appear in various forms in the New Testament and other Jewish literature of the period.

This does not mean that the New Testament depends on the Targums, but it shows that both arose in the same interpretive climate. The Targums thus help modern readers sense the atmosphere in which first-century Jews encountered the Old Testament: as a living Word translated, paraphrased, and applied in the language of the people.

Lessons from the Targums for Textual Preservation

The Aramaic Targums, taken together, reinforce several key conclusions about the preservation and use of the Old Testament text.

They show that, even when the spoken language of God’s people shifted, the Hebrew Scriptures remained central. Instead of abandoning the Hebrew text, the community supplemented it with translation and paraphrase. This speaks to the reverence with which the original language of revelation was held.

They reveal the inevitable presence of interpretation in every act of translation. The Targums make visible what always occurs, even in more literal versions: translators choose words, insert clarifications, and shape the reader’s perception of the base text. Recognizing this helps believers appreciate the value of returning to the Hebrew where possible, while still making good use of faithful translations.

They confirm that the Masoretic tradition stands on a solid foundation. The Hebrew text assumed by the Targums is essentially the same as that preserved in the Masoretic codices. The Targums’ differences lie more in interpretation than in base wording, underscoring that the textual core was stable long before the Masoretes added vowels and Masora.

Finally, they remind us that God’s Word has always been preached, explained, and applied, not merely read in isolation. The Targums are an ancient expression of that reality. They are not inspired Scripture, but they testify to the living engagement of God’s people with the inspired text.

Conclusion: Interpreting and Transmitting, Not Replacing, the Text

Aramaic Targums occupy a distinctive place in the history of the Old Testament. They stand between the Hebrew Scriptures and the everyday language of God’s people in the post-exilic world. They interpret and transmit the text in a paraphrastic form that both illuminates and sometimes obscures the underlying Hebrew.

For textual criticism, their value is real but limited. They confirm the general reliability of the Masoretic Text, occasionally support specific readings when aligned with other witnesses, and rarely suggest an alternate Hebrew wording that should override the Masoretic form. Their main importance lies in what they reveal about interpretation: how later Jews understood the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings; how they protected God’s transcendence; how they expressed messianic hope; and how they integrated Scripture into synagogue worship.

In Jehovah’s providence, the Targums do not compete with the Hebrew Old Testament. They stand alongside it as evidence that the same Scriptures preserved in the Masoretic Text were heard, paraphrased, and loved in the language of the people. They remind us that the inspired text has always been both a written foundation and a preached Word—and that, even amid paraphrase and commentary, the underlying Hebrew canon remained intact.

You May Also Enjoy

Text Critical Challenges in the Psalms: What They Tell Us About Stability

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS