Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

>11QtgJob has enough of the text preserved to show that the targum did
>not engage in the expansion, commentary and paraphrase typical of the
>later targums of the mishnaic period but is a literal translation of
>the Hebrew text into Aramaic. 

but 11Q Job was likely not a local product. see muraoka 1974 (?). there are
hints of eastern origin. (i would say 'central' with ed cook.)

on the style issue:
the targums from the land of israel (all later, since targums don't seem to
exist in judea in the 1 BCE/CE) show heavy expansion. that may be original
in the west (judea/land of israel).
fraade 1992 has shown that this was because even in later time, 4-6 century
CE, the audience was listening to BOTH and appreciating the delightful
antiphonal play between the texts.
the onkelos type was preserved in babylon, where it apparently did what
jack suggested, it served as the main biblical vehicle for people whose
biblical hebrew was too weak. it may actually respresent a targum, stripped
down, and the onkelos dialect itself may be more 'central' in origin (see
cook 1994) than an eastern reworking of a western text. the midrashic
expansions were more the exception than the rule. but that was "babylon".
not roman judea. 
the paraphrastic "targum" idea may be more related to geography than time
and seems to have originated where hebrew was still widely known and used.

yisge shlamxon
randall buth