Talk:Targum Onkelos

Not everything in the world has to be related to modern Jewish denominations. This is an issue that has been discussed for a very long time. It properly belongs in a section on "history."Dovi 12:59, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

This is a quote by User:66.108.191.130 moved from the main page: I just want to point out that Onkelos was a convert. He started late down the path of a life of God and still managed to be a great scholar. His translation is not only a translation but also a commentary. Today we would consider such a work "biased" or just a bad translation, it was not intended to supplant, but rather to explain the Hebrew text. Let us pray that all of us, no matter when we begin to take our faiths or beliefs seriously, we will walk with the divine and serve as a beacon to others as Onkelos did. Frikle 06:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Onkelos / אונקלוס and Aquilas / עקילס, two names for the same person

@Ar2332: I wanted to use this section to discuss how it is that we know that Oneklos (Hebrew: אונקלוס) and Aquilas (Hebrew: עקילס) are one and the same person. Please raise your thoughts, and please give me a few days to collect the information that I have on this subject. I have no problem mentioning that some persons view them as two individuals, but it is by no means the consensus of scholars. The scholarly consensus is what should be given more weight. As it is, you were giving more weight to the fringe-view. Let's discuss it here. Onkelos is a convert to Judaism, and besides his Aramaic translation which he made with the assistance and help of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, he also made a Greek translation of the Bible for Greek readers. Since this article is NOT about Onkelos, but rather about his Aramaic translation, the subject matter of his identity should only briefly be touched here.Davidbena (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It was only the first sentence that suggested they were separate people, and I have added quotes to hopefully make that sentence clearer. Ar2332 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the following excerpt, taken from Epiphanius' treatise On Weights and Measures, is an important historical anecdote, I will copy and paste it here:

In folios [47a–49a]; [51d–52a]; [56d–57b] Epiphanius, in his treatise "On Weights and Measures" (Syriac version), names four major translations of the Hebrew Bible, made in the Greek tongue: the LXX (Septuagint) made by the seventy-two translators, another by Aquila (Aquilas) of Pontus, one by Theodotion, and yet another by Symmachus. Immediately thereafter, in folios [54a–55c], he writes more explicitly about Aquilas, saying:

"Concerning Aquila: In the twelfth year of Hadrian, Aquila became known. […] "[He] (Hadrian) came to Palestine – which is also called Judea, forty-seven years after the destruction of Jerusalem. And he went up to Jerusalem, the famous and illustrious city which Titus, the son of Vespasian, overthrew in the second year of his reign. And he found the temple of G-d trodden down and the whole city devastated save for a few houses, etc." […] "Therefore Hadrian made up his mind to [re]build the city, but not the temple. And he took the Aquila mentioned above, who was a Greek interpreter, since Hadrian was also a Greek – now Aquila was related to the king by marriage and was from Sinope in Pontus – and he established him there in Jerusalem as overseer of the work of rebuilding the city." […] "[He] (Aquilas) having cursed Christianity and renounced his life he became a proselyte and was circumcised as a Jew. And, being painfully ambitious, he dedicated himself to learning the language of the Hebrews and their writings. After he had first been thoroughly trained for it, he made his translation." […] "And this second translation by Aquila (i.e. the Aramaic translation, Targum Onkelos) came about after such a (long) time as this, the number of the years of which we have written above."Davidbena (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ar2332:, shalom. As for the exchange of names, this is very common with the Jerusalem Talmud and Midrash Rabba, where Onkelos is also called Aquilas. You may wish to see the Tosefta (Demai 6:12), where it says concerning Onkelos the proselyte that he divided his father's inheritance along with his brothers, but that he behaved stringently with himself by confiscating his portion of the inheritance and throwing it into the Salt Sea. The Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 6:7) , relating to the same incident in Tractate Demai, here, calls him Aquilas the proselyte! There are other names that change between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud; for example: Rav Assi in the Babylonian is called Rav Yessa in the Jerusalem Talmud, but they are one and the same person, just as scholars have noted.---Davidbena (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Disputed line

"Onkelos' Aramaic translation of the Five Books of Moses is almost entirely a word-by-word, literal translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, with very little supplemental material in the form of aggadic paraphrase."

According to the article, the Masoretic Text was prepared between the "7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE)" and the Targum Onkelos "thought to have been written in the early 2nd-century CE", so this is unlikely. Editor2020 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It's comparing it perhaps to a modern version of the MT, but may have been taken from some other MT-like manuscript. Misty MH (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Did they give the right reference? Deuteronomy 23:18?

"(Deuteronomy 23:18) (Aramaic: לָא תְהֵי אִתְּתָא מִבְּנָת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִגְבַר עֶבֶד וְלָא יִסַּב גּוּבְרָא מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִתָּא אָמָא, in Hebrew characters) [= "There shall not be a woman of the daughters of Israel married to a man who is a slave; nor shall a man of the sons of Israel be married to a woman who is a maidservant"], instead of "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum_Onkelos

Did they get the right reference?

Other versions:

Deuteronomy 23:18 (NASB20) “You shall not bring the earnings of a prostitute or the money for a [fn]dog into the house of the LORD your God as payment for any vowed offering, because both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God. FN: "Prob. refers to a male prostitute".

Deuteronomy 23:18 (NIV) You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute[fn] into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. FN: "Hebrew of a dog".

Deuteronomy 23:18 (YLT) thou dost not bring a gift of a whore*, or a price of a dog, into the house of Jehovah thy God, for any vow; for the abomination of Jehovah thy God are even both of them.

  *whore: An older meaning meant prostitute.

Copy-Pasted without footnote markings:

Deuteronomy 23:18 (NASB95) “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (NKJV) “You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the LORD your God for any vowed offering, for both of these [are] an abomination to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (KJV) Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (ASV) Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of Jehovah thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (ESV) You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (RSV) You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (NIV) You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (NET) You must never bring the pay of a female prostitute or the wage of a male prostitute into the temple of the LORD your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (HNV) You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (CSB) “Do not bring a female prostitute’s wages or a male prostitute’s earnings into the house of the L ORD your God to fulfill any vow, because both are detestable to the L ORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (WEB) Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination to the LORD thy God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (DBY) Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of Jehovah thy God for any vow; for even both these are an abomination to Jehovah thy God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (NLT) When you are bringing an offering to fulfill a vow, you must not bring to the house of the LORD your God any offering from the earnings of a prostitute, whether a man or a woman, for both are detestable to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (BBE) Do not take into the house of the Lord your God, as an offering for an oath, the price of a loose woman or the money given to one used for sex purposes in the worship of the gods: for these two things are disgusting to the Lord your God.

5 Mose 23:18 (LUT) Du sollst keinen Hurenlohn noch Hundegeld in das Haus des HERRN, deines Gottes, bringen aus irgend einem Gelübde; denn das ist dem HERRN, deinem Gott, beides ein Greuel.

Deuteronomy 23:18 (VUL) non offeres mercedem prostibuli nec pretium canis in domum Domini Dei tui quicquid illud est quod voverint quia abominatio est utrumque apud Dominum Deum tuum

Deuteronomy 23:18 (LXX) (23:19) οὐ προσοίσεις μίσθωμα πόρνης οὐδὲ ἄλλαγμα κυνὸς εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου πρὸς πᾶσαν εὐχήν ὅτι βδέλυγμα κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ σού ἐστιν καὶ ἀμφότερα

Misty MH (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a very obscure passage of the Deuteronomistic law, with no parallel in previous books of the Tanach. Starting from the LXX and Vulgate and going forward is interesting, albeit upside down. But the main citation, the original one, is missing, and it should be:

• Deuteronomy 23:19

But, the Onkelos version given at the beginning is really 23:18, which in the MT would be

• Deuteronomy 23:18

So the discrepancy refers to the words Kdeshah and Kadesh. The modern interpretations interpret the term as connected to prostitution, while Onkelos interprets them as referring to slavery of some kind. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

warshy ^(¥¥) 17:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot that in certain books, the Jewish versions differ by a verse from the Christian versions. The reference in Christian versions is Deuteronomy 23:17.

Misty MH (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that I cannot edit my long comment in the app. So it will remain that way until I can perhaps later delete all the extra stuff that doesn't need to be there. :( Misty MH (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)