This may be a rather stupid question but does anyone know of an Aramaic-English (interlinear-type) of Targum Onqelos(Onkelos) to the Pentateuch?
The closest I can come up with is J.W. Etheridge's english version.
How about this?
The Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumashim 5 Volume Slipcased Set (http://www.mesorah.com/Books/inchs.html)A Newly-reset, crisp, large size Hebrew text of the Chumash, Targum Onkelos and Rashi's commentary
Unfortunately it's in Hebrew, not Aramaic.
But this looks like a resource that would be good for Logos to add.
Here are some other possibilities. Neither looks like it would be interlinear, just the Aramaic with English translation beside or below:
1) [Targum Onkelos in English and Aramaic]
http://www.worldcat.org/title/targum-onkelos-in-english-and-aramaic/oclc/047671067
2) From Ancient texts for New Testament studies: a guide to the background literature by Craig A. Evans (p. 188):
M. ABERBACH and B. GROSSFELD, Targum Onkelos to Genesis (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1982) (Aramaic with English translation)
I. DRAZIN, Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1982) (Aramaic with English translation)
IDEM, Targum Onkelos to Exodus (New York: Ktav, 1997) (Aramaic with English translation)
IDEM, Targum Onkelos to Leviticus (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1994) (Aramaic with English translation)
IDEM, Targum Onkelos to Numbers (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1998) (Aramaic with English translation)
How about this? The Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumashim 5 Volume Slipcased Set (http://www.mesorah.com/Books/inchs.html)A Newly-reset, crisp, large size Hebrew text of the Chumash, Targum Onkelos and Rashi's commentary Unfortunately it's in Hebrew, not Aramaic. But this looks like a resource that would be good for Logos to add. Here are some other possibilities. Neither looks like it would be interlinear, just the Aramaic with English translation beside or below: 1) [Targum Onkelos in English and Aramaic] http://www.worldcat.org/title/targum-onkelos-in-english-and-aramaic/oclc/047671067 2) From Ancient texts for New Testament studies: a guide to the background literature by Craig A. Evans (p. 188): M. ABERBACH and B. GROSSFELD, Targum Onkelos to Genesis (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1982) (Aramaic with English translation) I. DRAZIN, Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1982) (Aramaic with English translation) IDEM, Targum Onkelos to Exodus (New York: Ktav, 1997) (Aramaic with English translation) IDEM, Targum Onkelos to Leviticus (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1994) (Aramaic with English translation) IDEM, Targum Onkelos to Numbers (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1998) (Aramaic with English translation)
Oooow! Very Nice Chumash. Nicer than the ArtScroll version I have which only has Torah, Haftaros and Five Megillos with limited commentary and no interlinear and it's not much more than I paid a few years ago.
Looks like I may have to save up if I want Aramaic-English versions in print.... well maybe l'll just hold off since interlinear is not in the cards. At least I'm better informed ( I never heard of ABERBACH and GROSSFELD, Ktav or Sperber) and it never crossed my mind to check for an ArtScroll version (though its Hebrew it may be a lesser alternative).
Thanks Rosie [:D]
P.S. I vote yes as a Logos resource on the Interlinear Chumashim with all the extras. [;)]
Thanks Rosie
You're welcome. And please note that I don't know the first thing about Aramaic or Chumash or Megilloth or Targums. I just used Google to find what you were looking for... That I'm good at! [:)]
The closest I know is this one.
Thanks Rosie You're welcome. And please note that I don't know the first thing about Aramaic or Chumash or Megilloth or Targums. I just used Google to find what you were looking for... That I'm good at!
You're welcome. And please note that I don't know the first thing about Aramaic or Chumash or Megilloth or Targums. I just used Google to find what you were looking for... That I'm good at!
Impressive googling..
I didn't come up with near those results when I google "Targum Onkelos Aramaic-English".
I think I need to learn how to Google...[:S]
P.S. I don't know that much either but I'm looking to know more. [;)]
I had seen that after Rosies' list, I search on Amazon but wasn't sure it was Aramaic or a Hebrew rendition of the Aramaic.
I think in my situation I may have to wait for an Interlinear as I just don't have the skills yet for a tandem version.... maybe before I'm 50. LOL
It is the Aramaic text (Berliner's edition, if you're interested). I presume you know the Aramaic Targums are available in Logos? They're morphologically tagged, so if you've got an Aramaic lexicon you can make good sense of them. Onqelos is the easiest of the lot as it's closer to a word-for-word translation of MT, so you can read it alongside your Hebrew-English Interlinear.
It's obviously very slow, but depending on what you want to use them for, it's probably better than waiting for an interlinear.
Impressive googling.. I didn't come up with near those results when I google "Targum Onkelos Aramaic-English".
The problem is you put that entire phrase in quotes, which is too limiting. You need to let the results be more flexible. Also realize that Onkelos has several alternative spellings (which I learned by looking it up on Wikipedia); you'd not want to limit Google to finding just that spelling. So here's a Google search that will find more results:
{"Targum Onkelos" | "Targum Onqelos" | "Targum Unkelus"} Aramaic {interlinear | English}
The vertical bar means OR and the curly brackets are like the parentheses in Logos Search; they group those terms together. Putting search terms adjacent to each other with no punctuation or joining word implies AND. So the above search is the same as if there were ANDs flanking the word Aramaic. Thus it will find all web pages that mention any of the three spellings of Targum Onkelos which also mention Aramaic somewhere on the page, and also mention either interlinear or English. That should catch the gist of what you're looking for. It's just a matter of knowing these these three bits of syntax and then thinking logically about how to combine them to narrow down or widen your search. There's a great resource for learning Google better called Google Guide (not affiliated with Google itself; it's done by someone else).
Here's also a bibliography I just found on another try:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/aramaic5.html
Searching on Google Books (books.google.com) is where I found the earlier bibliography with the translations by Aberbach and Drazin.
It is the Aramaic text (Berliner's edition, if you're interested).
Thanks.
I presume you know the Aramaic Targums are available in Logos? They're morphologically tagged, so if you've got an Aramaic lexicon you can make good sense of them.
I do have them in L4. My interest the 200 years on either side the first century is was spark my specific interest in the Targums and I have used the morph/lex with limited success but feel it's a bit slow (or I am).
Onqelos is the easiest of the lot as it's closer to a word-for-word translation of MT, so you can read it alongside your Hebrew-English Interlinear.
I hadn't though about using the Hebrew-English Interlinear alongside, but I had assumes there would be a resource available with a little more "English Meat" to guide my process.
You say "Onqelos is the easiest of the lot as it's closer to a word-for-word translation of MT". Some of my interest is looking at how the MT is interpreted (translated) into Aramaic (I see a problem in that I'm still another step away since I'm limited to only an "American" English mindset as the conduit to view it with).
I mean, am I going to see enough of the "interpretation" in so "close" of a translation since my lack of familiarity with the two languages has moved me to a greater distance.
Sheeese! Did that even make any sense?
Impressive googling.. I didn't come up with near those results when I google "Targum Onkelos Aramaic-English". The problem is you put that entire phrase in quotes, which is too limiting. You need to let the results be more flexible. Also realize that Onkelos has several alternative spellings (which I learned by looking it up on Wikipedia); you'd not want to limit Google to finding just that spelling. So here's a Google search that will find more results: {"Targum Onkelos" | "Targum Onqelos" | "Targum Unkelus"} Aramaic {interlinear | English} The vertical bar means OR and the curly brackets are like the parentheses in Logos Search; they group those terms together. Putting search terms adjacent to each other with no punctuation or joining word implies AND. So the above search is the same as if there were ANDs flanking the word Aramaic. Thus it will find all web pages that mention any of the three spellings of Targum Onkelos which also mention Aramaic somewhere on the page, and also mention either interlinear or English. That should catch the gist of what you're looking for. It's just a matter of knowing these these three bits of syntax and then thinking logically about how to combine them to narrow down or widen your search. There's a great resource for learning Google better called Google Guide (not affiliated with Google itself; it's done by someone else). Here's also a bibliography I just found on another try: http://www.bible-researcher.com/aramaic5.html Searching on Google Books (books.google.com) is where I found the earlier bibliography with the translations by Aberbach and Drazin.
You just might be the master of the "search string". Excellent information Rosie, I really appreciate it. I'm added this one to my favorites.
Some of my interest is looking at how the MT is interpreted (translated) into Aramaic (I see a problem in that I'm still another step away since I'm limited to only an "American" English mindset as the conduit to view it with).
As you probably know, there are several different Targums. Just to take the Pentateuch as an example. Onqelos, is the most literal of the translations (think NIV). Neofiti is fairly paraphrastic (think The Message), Pseudo-Jonathan is paraphrastic and has several additions (think The Book of God: The Bible as a Novel).
When I say Onquelos is 'easiest', I mean it's easy to compare individual words directly with the Hebrew text. But that may not be what you want to do. It depends what you're interest is, but Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan are (at times) so different from the MT, that's it's easy to pick out the differences in an English translation. So here's an example of Genesis 1:26
MT:And God said, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens and over the cattle and over all the earth and over all creeping things that creeps on the earth.”
Targum Onquelos:And the LORD said, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of heaven and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the crawling things that crawl on the earth.”
Targum Neofiti I:And the Lord said, “Let us create mankind in our likeness similar to us and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of heaven and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the crawling things that crawl on the earth.”
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:And God said to the angels that minister before Him, who were created on the second day of the creation of the world: “Let us make man in our image after our resemblance and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl which are in the air of the heavens and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
Now, my point is that if it's the additions (or non-additions) that interest you, then you can get a pretty good idea just from the English text. And when you want to get into the Aramaic, you can use the CAL lexicon. Obviously its better if you can read Aramaic, but for most of us that's not really an option. I'd love an interlinear too, but it is possible to muddle along without one if you have English translations.
Some of my interest is looking at how the MT is interpreted (translated) into Aramaic (I see a problem in that I'm still another step away since I'm limited to only an "American" English mindset as the conduit to view it with). As you probably know, there are several different Targums. Just to take the Pentateuch as an example. Onqelos, is the most literal of the translations (think NIV). Neofiti is fairly paraphrastic (think The Message), Pseudo-Jonathan is paraphrastic and has several additions (think The Book of God: The Bible as a Novel). When I say Onquelos is 'easiest', I mean it's easy to compare individual words directly with the Hebrew text. But that may not be what you want to do. It depends what you're interest is, but Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan are (at times) so different from the MT, that's it's easy to pick out the differences in an English translation. So here's an example of Genesis 1:26 MT:And God said, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens and over the cattle and over all the earth and over all creeping things that creeps on the earth.” Targum Onquelos:And the LORD said, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of heaven and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the crawling things that crawl on the earth.” Targum Neofiti I:And the Lord said, “Let us create mankind in our likeness similar to us and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of heaven and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the crawling things that crawl on the earth.” Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:And God said to the angels that minister before Him, who were created on the second day of the creation of the world: “Let us make man in our image after our resemblance and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl which are in the air of the heavens and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” Now, my point is that if it's the additions (or non-additions) that interest you, then you can get a pretty good idea just from the English text. And when you want to get into the Aramaic, you can use the CAL lexicon. Obviously its better if you can read Aramaic, but for most of us that's not really an option. I'd love an interlinear too, but it is possible to muddle along without one if you have English translations.
Mark,
I've got to tell you that this is some very good information. In fact it has cleared up some of the questions I've had as to what exactly I can or should expect to learn from the effort.
Your comparison of "Bible types" to "Targums" is a pretty clear picture and I appreciate you taking the time to present it in a concise manner with an example.
Your congregation being an attentive and prayerful group (which I do not doubt they are), I would suspect that they grow steadily in the "grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".
I think I would find it very hard to explain but I have "felt" ( I hate using that expression to describe direction from the Lord - I lack a vocabulary word to fit.) like the Lord has put a direction in my heart to dig in deeper particularly in OT Biblical languages.
As wild as it may sound I believe the Lord used you to remove some of my doubt in the direction and confirm some specifics about the reasons. I was reminded of these verses while reading through your post - Matthew 13:52; Proverbs 25:2
This may have seemed a trivial thing but, Brother in Christ Jesus, this indeed has been a blessing to me on a very personal level.
Bless you and thank you.
Anthony
Anthony,
Usually I post replies fairly quickly. This one took a little while, and about halfway through I thought "This is a waste of time - he's not asked for this, he's probably not going to read it". So I almost cancelled my post. But for some reason I didn't. Now I know why.
God is good,
Mark
AMEN!
