Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Shavua' tov all,

A question from a friend that I thought I would post here regarding the origin of Onqelos. It seems fair to say that the classical rabbinic understanding is that the Aramaic translation of the Torah, known as Targum Onqelos, was given to Moses on Sinai. For example, BT Megillah 3b introduces the targum as having been "composed by Onqelos haGer" but then clarifies that what it means is that he restored the targum which was given at Sinai but had been forgotten. Rashi adopts this position explicitly in his comment on Qiddushin 49a, s.v. harei ze meharef. On the other hand, of course, contemporary academic scholarship assumes that Onqelos, like other targumim, is a compilation of (anonymous) oral Aramaic renderings of Torah reading, beginning in the Second Temple period and evolving well into the rabbinic period.

So, the question: are there Orthodox* scholars who would agree with some version of the academic understanding of Onqelos' origin? In other words, do you know of any Orthodox scholars who deny the divinity of the targum? (For example, my friend reports that Aryeh Kaplan writes in the bibliography of The Living Torah that "the Septuagint is the oldest translation of the TaNaKh," implying that Onqelos is not from Sinai, but I haven't been able to check that).

Or is this topic as verboten as TaNaKh source criticism?

*I am using the term 'Orthodox' here with some hesitation. I know there are self-identified Orthodox scholars who (attempt to) reconcile their religious beliefs with an acceptance of modern Biblical criticism, e.g. those involved with the TABS project. Qal wahomer I assume those people would be on board with a historical approach to Onqelos. Perhaps to state the question differently: are there rabbis/scholars who maintain a "Torah mi-Sinai" approach to Biblical text while accepting the academic view on the targumim?

share|improve this question
    
seriously, no answers? do i have to put a bounty on it? –  Noam Sienna Jan 20 at 19:53
1  
The quote from R' Aryeh Kaplan, if accurate, does not care contradict Chazal. The Septuagint includes all of Tanach (and some apocryphal works). Targum Onkelos only translates the Torah. –  LazerA Jan 21 at 21:21
    
@LazerA It also may not contradict Chazal because Chazal may not have thought Onkelos is actually from Sinai. No one ever thought Aryeh Kaplan would come along and claim something that contradicts Chazal. Why do you feel a need to prove otherwise? –  Double AA Jan 22 at 23:16
    
i agree with @double and say that 7azal didnt really believe it was from sinai. or if there were a group who did, they would be minority. and even if they were majority, that still doesn't prove onqalus is from sinai. –  MoriDoweedhYaa3qob Feb 3 at 6:51
    
@MoriDoweedhYaa3gob I never made a claim about what Chazal believed. I just protested LazerA's making such an absolute claim. –  Double AA Feb 3 at 7:04

2 Answers 2

Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chayos (assuming he falls under your definition of "Orthodox") discusses this in the opening section of his Iggeres Bikores.

At first astounded at where Rashi conjures this information given that the implication of the gemara is that a targum existed only as far back as the time of Ezra, he concludes that perhaps what Rashi (and others such as Maharsha) mean by this is that additions that Onqelos added to the text beyond the strict translation are explanations that are valid traditions transmitted through his teachers back to Sinai. The translation itself, though, was written by Onqelos.

Update: After a bit of research, we can add another couple of names of Orthodox scholars who agree with the above: Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler in Nethina L'Ger and Rabbi Yaakov Schor in Ittim L'Binah.

share|improve this answer
    
Great — thanks!! That's exactly the kind of answer my friend's looking for, I think. I'd love to see other examples. –  Noam Sienna Jan 22 at 2:49
    
@NoamSienna, See the update above. I'll see if I can find some more sources later. –  jake Jan 22 at 23:14

The Maharal Teferes Yisroel 65 says that the meaning of Onkelos from Sinai is that the content and meaning of the Targum is in accordance with the tradition from the prophets and not his own innovation.

It seems very difficult to understand Rashi as intending anything else, since Rashi writes:

אונקלוס תרגם לשון מוקש. ואני אומר שלא חש לדקדק בלשון

Onkelos renders תִּנָּקֵשׁ as an expression of מוֹקֵשׁ, a “snare.” [However,] I say that he was not meticulous in examining the language ...

And then goes on to translate the word differently. If he thought this was Moshe Rabbeinu's translation of the word, we would at least expect a more respectful dissent.

Here from Rabbi Refael Binyamin Pozen (who has written books on Onkelos's translation and is Orthodox [Daat Limudi]) where he brings other sources which support this as well.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.