LANGUAGE.) In their origin they were designed to meet the needs of the unlearned among the people who had ceased to understand the Hebrew of the Old Testament. In the absence of any precise evidence on the point it is impossible to give more than a rough estimate as to the period at which Hebrew, as a spoken language, was finally displaced by Aramaic. It is, however, certain that the latter language was firmly established in Palestine in the 1st century A.D. By that time, as we know from many sources, Aramaic was not only the language in common use, but had also received official recognition despite the fact that Hebrew still remained the learned and sacred tongue. Hence we may reason ably infer that the mass of the people had adopted Aramaic at a considerably earlier period, probably, as early as the and century B.C., and that the need of Aramaic translations of the sacred text made itself felt but little later.
The Talmudic tradition, however, is, doubtless, correct in con necting the origin of Targums with the custom of reading sec tions from the Law at the weekly services in the synagogues, since the need for a translation into the vernacular must first have arisen on such occasions. As we know from the New Testament, the custom of reading in the synagogues both from the Law (Acts xv. 21) and from the Prophets (Luke iv. 16 f. ; Acts xiii. 14, was well established in the 1st century A.D.: its introduction, therefore, will date from a much earlier period. The practice of accompanying these readings with a translation into Aramaic is, further, so generally recognized by the and century A.D. that the Mishna takes it for granted, and merely inculcates certain regu lations to be observed by the Meturgeman (translator), who had by this time acquired a definite status. From it we learn that the Meturgeman, who was distinct from the reader, translated each verse of the Law into Aramaic as soon as it had been read in Hebrew : in the readings from "the Prophets" three verses might be read at a time.
Judging by the contents of our existing Targums, and the Tar gumic renderings given in Jewish literature, it is improbable that any definite system of interpretation was ever formally adopted, the rendering into the vernacular being left to the discretion of the individual Meturgeman. At first, no doubt, the translator endeavoured to reproduce the original as closely as possible, but, inasmuch as his object was to give an intelligible rendering, a merely literal rendering would soon be found to be insufficient, and he would be forced, especially in the more difficult passages, to take a more elastic view of his obligations. To prevent mis conception he must expand and explain what was obscure, adjust the incidents of the past to the ideas of later times, emphasize the moral lessons to be learned from the national history, and, finally, adapt the rules and regulations of the Old Covenant to the conditions and requirements of his own age. As time went
on the practice of introducing additional matter of an edifying character grew in popular favour, and was gradually extended.
Thus, by degrees, the reproduction of the original text became of secondary importance, and merely served as a pretext for the discussion of topics that had little or no bearing on the con text. The method, by which the text was thus utilized as a vehicle for conveying homiletic discourses, traditional sayings, legends and allegories, is abundantly illustrated by the Palestinian and later Targums, as opposed to the more sober translations of Onkelos and the Targum to the Prophets.
It would, however, be incorrect to suppose that the transla tion of the text was left entirely to the individual taste of the translator. The latter is rather to be regarded as the representa tive of the age in which he lived, and his interpretation is to be taken as reflecting the exegesis of that period. That there were certain limits beyond which the translator might not venture, with out incurring the censure of the authorities, may be inferred from the few instances of translation which are mentioned with dis approval in the Mishna and elsewhere. A definite rule for guidance in translating is apparently preserved in the Tosefta where it is stated that "he who translates quite literally is a liar, while he who adds anything is a blasphemer." There can be little doubt that the Targums existed for a long time in oral form. They belonged to the class of traditional literature which it was forbidden to write down, and, so long at least as the Targum tradition remained active, there would be little temptation to commit it to writing. But it is highly probable that this prohibition, in the case of the Targums, was mainly enforced with respect to those parts of the Old Testament which were read in the synagogal services, e.g., the Law and the Prophets, and that it was less rigidly observed in regard to the other por tions of Scripture : a written translation of the latter would be of special value for the purpose of private study. Hence there is no need to reject the tradition as to the existence of a written Targum on Job in the time of Gamaliel I. (1st century A.D.), especially as references to Targum mss. occur in the Mishna and elsewhere. But, as Dalman has pointed out, it was not these manuscripts, but the living tradition of the learned which was recognized as authoritative throughout the period which closes with the compilation of the Talmud. . . . The official recognition of a written Targum, and therefore the final fixing of its text, belongs to the post-Talmudic period, and is not to be placed earlier than the 5th century.