Phrase inspired by the spirit of the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and its interpretative function in the jewish tradition:

Says so:

“The sacred text does not change, but the soul that reads yes.
The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan not translated the Torah: the dreamt again.”

1) What is it and why it matters?

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (TgPsJ) it is a translation-aramaic paraphrase of the Pentateuch combining translation with abundant material aggádico and midráshico. It is, by far, the targum pentateucal more expansive; it integrates layers of tradition palestinian and babylonian and rewriting narratives to teach theology, halachah and controversy. Value: allows you to see how jews in late ancient/medieval releían the Torah in the synagogue and study.

(2) the Name, attribution and misunderstandings

In the printing venetian and copies medieval abreviaba TY (Targum Yerushalmi, “Jerusalem”); later evil-expanded as Targum Yonatan and up to “of Yonatán ben Uzziel” (who, in fact, is bound by the Talmud to the Prophetsnot to the Torah). Hence the label modern “Pseudo-Jonathan” to clear attribution.

3) Scope of the text

Covers almost all the verses of Genesis–Deuteronomy (unlike the fragmentary “Yerushalmi II/III”). In the text, it is a work composed: mixture Targum Onkelos (eastern/babylonian), a old Targum palestinian and other rabbinical traditions.

4) Testimonials and editing the text

• Printed prince: Venice 1591, released later in bibles rabbinical.
• Only complete manuscript preserved: British Library, Add. 27031 (copyist Italian, XVI century; the basis of modern editions). Repro available and facsimile public.
• Editions/key studies (TWENTIETH century): M. Ginsburger 1903; new edition Rieder 1973/84; translation criticism in the series The Aramaic Bible (Michael Maher, etc).
  (To see the manuscript and the princeps: British Library Add. 27031 and Venice 1591 are digitized.)

5) Language and style

Their language is a aramaic literary mixed (“Late Jewish Literary Aramaic”), with features western and eastern by the interweaving of materials (Onkelos + palestinian type Neofiti). Stylistically, alternate translation close with paraphrase expansive, speeches, dialogues, angelology, and notes halájicas.

6) Dating and provenance: what we know with security

The dating is controversial. Three firm points:

1. Is subsequent to the Mishnah (the known) and reaches the s. XIII because it is quoted by Menahem Recanati.
2. Exhibits anachronisms historical (e.g., mention of Constantinople in Num 24:19), and onomastics islamic in certain passages, which pushes the current form to post-arab conquest.
3. The source traditional links to the land of Israelbut recent studies have proposed Italy (s. XII) as the place of the edition/final drafting.

Mapping of academic positions (summary):

• Dating more early (s. IV-V): Flesher & Chilton invoke the absence of arabismos and a match with and. Berachot 5:3 (JT). Other (Hayward, Mortensen) hold old kernels. Critical: it could be common tradition, not direct summons of the TgPsJ.
• Dating late (s. XII–XIII, Italy): Gottlieb and others point out dependencies textual medieval concrete; in addition, the onomastics/themes posislámicos. Output current consensus wise: old kernel + editions/strata later, with final form medieval.

7) Sources and intertextos

Jack and reworked Talmud, Midrash Rabbah, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer (PRE -) and other compendiums; the direction of dependence with PRE discussed (part of the literature argues that TgPsJ depends PRE).

8) Features exegetical characteristic (with documented examples)

a) Paraphrase midráshica intensive

• Genesis 3:15 (enmity with the serpent): TgPsJ converts the physical fight in conflict intellectual/spiritual linked to Torah and observance.
• Sale of Joseph: added the detail of the sandals (intertext with Amos), typical of its tissue midráshico.

(b) Angelology and demonology

• Genesis 4:1: tradition Samael and the conception of Cain (with textual variants; the reading of the ms. BL was revised in the edition of Clarke and discussion by Cook). Eye: there are lines spurious in print; it should be match with the ms. Add. 27031.

c) Reconsidering symbolic noticeable

• Genesis 3:21: “garments of glory” “of the skin the snake had moved”, replacing the “nails” bright losses (typical formulation of TgPsJ); translation criticism Aramaic Bible what slogan.

d) the Halachah is integrated into the narrative
Inserts standards and practices (e.g., mercy, imitative of God; accuracies of worship and purity) within the flow of the text, a feature less frequent in Onkelos.

e) Controversy and anachronisms historical

• Num 24:19: Constantinople —indicator pos-constantiniano.
• Gen 21:21: tradition named for wives of Ishmael as “Aisha” and “Fatima” (read-used to set a terminus post quem posislámico; attention: the interpretation its precise intent is discussed, and should be used with caution).

9) Compared briefly with other targumim on the Torah

10) State of research and open discussion

• Date & place (see §6).
• Storied structure: layer palestine + tweens medieval; still discussed what it is a kernel and what is added.
• Relationship with PRE-and midrashim: growing evidence of dependence of TgPsJ in respect of PREbut there is no unanimity.
• Social function: it has been proposed that “speak to the priests” (emphasis worship, genealogies, holiness). Recent hypothesis, and thought-provoking.

Conclusion

• What is: the targum pentateucal more expansivemirror of theology, halachah and controversial jewish slow-ancient/medieval.
• How to work it: always parallel MT and Onkelos, controlling manuscript vs. printed and dating for layers.
• What debates are still alive: dating final (old kernel vs. writing a medieval), dependencies (PRE, Rabbah), and scope controversial of certain passages.