To the generality, therefore, of the Jewish nation, the Law, which was "read in the fynagogue every fabbath day," would have been utterly unintelligible, if means had not been provided to adapt it to their comprehenfion. The Law, then, was first read in Hebrew, while an interpreter, or the priest himself, afterwards delivered the verse in Chaldee*.* And this cuftom feems to be alluded to by Nehemiah, viii. 8. "So they read in the book, in the law of God diftinctly, and gave the fense, and caused them to understand the reading." Thefe interpretations, however, of the facred text were, at firft, merely oral, and, confequently, depended on the peculiar notions and abilities of the refpective interpreters. But as many pious perfons were defirous of studying "the law of the Lord" when at home, and, indeed, were bound by a conftitution of their elders, to poffefs a copy of it, this gave occafion either to the collection into one body of thefe oral expofitions, or to the formation of new and connected verfions. And the confiftency of ftyle in the refpective paraphrafts feems to render this latter opinion the more probable.

II. Of the number of the Targumim.

There are now extant eight paraphrafes on different parts of the Old Teftament. 1. That of Onkelos, on the Pentateuch. 2. That on the Pentateuch, falfely attributed to Jonathan. 3. The Jerufalem Targum, also on the Pentateuch. 4. The Targum of Jonathan, the fon of Uzziel, on the Prophets, containing, according to the Jewish claffification of the Sacred Writings, Joshua, Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. 5. That of an anonymous Author, on the five Megilloth, or the books of Ruth, Efther, Ecclefiaftes, the Song of Songs, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, 6. A fecond paraphrafe of the book of Efther, by an unknown hand. 7. That of R. Jofe, the one-eyed, on part of the Hagiographa, or on the Pfalms, Proverbs, and Job. 8. That on the two Books of Chronicles, by an uncertain author.

By taking these together, we have a complete paraphrafe of the Old Teftament, with the exception of the books of Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah; and the reason why there is no Targum on these feems to be found in the little occafion that there was for fuch an explanation, as the greater part of thefet books is written in Chaldee; though it is the opinion of the learned Prideaux, that there were Targumim on these books also, but that, through the ravages of time, they have not been preserved to us. III. Of the Authors and Style of the Targumim.

1. It is not known, with certainty, at what time Onkelos flourished, or of what nation he was, though moit probably a Jewt; but the general opinion experienced a yet farther corruption, when Judæa was reduced, by the Romans, into the form of a province, and annexed to Syria, and fell under the jurifdiction of Syrian governors.

There are yet extant fome MSS. in which the text and the paraphrafe are written alternately: firft, a verfe or two or three in Hebrew, and then a verfe or two or three in Chaldee. But books of this defcription were not allowed to be used in the public reading of the Law.

Nehemiah was confidered as part of the book of Ezra.

We find two Onkelofes mentioned by Jewish writers: one, the fon of Kalonymas, and fifter's fon to Titus Vefpafian: the other, Onkelos the difciple of Gamaliel. But, in making this latter a profelyte, it appears that, they attribute to him what more properly belongs to the former. See Prideaux. He is likewife confounded in the Jewish writings with Aquila of Pontus, the Greek tranflator; and this anachro

opinion is, that he is that Onkelos, who, as we are told in the Gemara of the Talmudical tract pa, conducted the funeral rites of Rabban Gamaliel, (at whofe feet St. Paul was brought up,) and burned at that ceremony. feventy pounds of frankincenfe. Now Gamaliel is faid to have flourished about 18 years before the deftruction of the Temple: fo that Onkelos may have lived in the time of our Saviour. He is faid to have been made a profelyte to Judaifin (fee the note) under Eliezer the Great, the fon of Hyrcanus, and his colleague R. Jothua; and to have formed his tranflation under their infpection and with their approbation.

The Targum of Onkelos is justly preferred to all the others, both by Jews and Chriftians. His ftyle, in elegance and purity, approaches very nearly to the Biblical Chaldee of Daniel and Ezra. He makes use of very few barbarous words, and very rarely indulges in digreffions, or intermixes any traditionary fables. For the most part he renders the text word for word, fo that his Chaldee may, except in a very few paffages, be chaunted with the fame mufical accents as the Hebrew original. Indeed this Targum rather deferves the name of a clofe tranflation than a paraphrafe.

2. The fecond paraphrafe on the Pentateuch has been, by many Jews and fome Chriftians, afcribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel; but the learned have decided that it is not his, nor of an antiquity coeval with him: and that, from the difference of ftyle in the Targum confeffedly his, and in the prefent, which is very impure; from the grofs ignorance of the tranf lator; from the numerous marks of recentnefs fo evident throughout; and from the intermixture of abfurd legends and Talmudical fables, it is not known who was the author, or at what time it was compofed: indeed this Targum was not of public notoriety till late in the xvith century.

3. The Jerufalem Targum takes its name from the dialect in which it is compofed. The ftyle of this paraphrafe is very impure and barbarous, abounding in words of various foreign languages. Many fabulous legends and rabbinical fictions are interspersed throughout.

This, however, is not a connected paraphrafe, as many verfes are frequently omitted, and fometimes whole chapters: fometimes only one word in a verfe is noticed, fometimes two interpretations are given of the fame verfe. Concerning the author, or the time of the compofition of this Targum, nothing certain can be alledged, except that, from internal evidence, it appears to have been formed after the year of our Lord 600.

4. Jonathan, the fon of Uzziel, according to the Jewith traditions, was the chief of the celebrated 80 scholars of Hillel the elder, a fellow difciple of Simeon, who bore the infant Jefus in his arms, and of Gamaliel, the tutor of St. Paul. And as Hillel flourished in Judæa about thirty years before our Saviour's birth, Jonathan was moft probably contemporary with our Lord.

Although farther advanced in age than Onkelos, it is probable that Jonathan compofed his Targum after him. His ftyle is very elegant, and his language pure, and approaches very nearly to that of Onkelos. In his expofition of the former prophets, he adheres more clofely to the text, than in that on the latter, where he is more lax and paraphraftical, inferting fome traditions and fabulous comments, of which, in the former part nifm has been noticed by the learned; though it may, perhaps, only be that the Babylonifh Talmud calls him Onkelos, that of Jerufalem calls him Akilas, while the one mentioned in Berefchith Rabba refers to an Akilas who made a version of the Prophets or Hagiographa, but whose work is loft. T

Vol, II, Churchm. Mag. March, 180%.

of his paraphrafe, he is very fparing; though it is fuppofed that thefe, as well as the few barbarifms, which are to be met with in this Targum, are the interpolations of after ages. In order to attach greater authority to his paraphrafe, the Jews have invented many abfurd legends concerning this Jonathan, which may be feen in the Talmud treatife Megilla, and in Leufden, &c.

5. The author of the paraphrafe on the Megilloth is unknown, as well as the time at which it was compofed; though this was certainly after the year of our Lord 500. The ftyle of this Targum is very barbarous and corrupt. It abounds in prolix digreffions and fabulous legends. Many circumstances are alluded to, which prove it to be of very late origin, and many ufelefs and trifling additions are made to the text, particularly in the Song of Solomon and in Efther.

6. Nearly the fame may be faid of the Second Targum on Efther. This may be confidered rather as a bulky comment than a paraphrase. The author and the date are both unknown; though the latter must be very late. The ftyle is barbarous and corrupt, and the paraphrafe is made up of prolix and impertinent narrations, and abfurd rabbinical legends.

7. The Targum on part of the Hagiographa is generally attributed to R. Jofe, or Jofeph, furnamed the Blind or One-yed: and it is fuppofed to have been compofed by him in the fourth century, at the time that he was head of the Academy at Sora.

The ftyle of this Targum, though, in general, very barbarous and impure, is very unequal, being confiderably purer in Job and Pfalms than in Proverbs. In his paraphrafe on Job, however, he indulges in digreffions, for the fake of introducing fome fable: and, though he adheres more clofely to the text in Pfalms, yet he perverts many of the prophetical paffages relating to the Meffiah-while in Proverbs he fcarcely ever wanders from the text.

8. For a long time it was unknown, both to Jews and Chriftians, that there was extant any Targum on the Books of Chronicles, till it was difcovered in the library at Erfurt, by Matthias Frederick Beck, and published by him, with fome learned notes, at Augiburg: the paraphrafe on the first book in 1680, and that on the fecond in 1683. These were again published, more complete as to the text, by the learned David Wilkins, in 1715 from a MS. formerly belonging to Erpenius, in the public library at Cambridge. The author is there faid to be Rav Jofeph, who lived in the fourth century, and Beck and Wilkins acquiefce in fuppofing him to be the fame with the author of the preceding Targum.

This paraphrafe likewife mingles many legends and fabulous hiftories with the narrative, introduces very frequently words formed from the Greek, and is particularly trifling in the genealogical parts of the book. IV. Of the Authority and Ufe of the Targumim.

In calling in the Targumim to our affiftance, in any difpute with the Jews, we have an argumentum ad hominem againft them, which they cannot retort upon us. For while they attribute to them the highest authority (indeed to thofe of Onkelos and Jonathan no lefs than divine) we Chriftians confider them only as verfions, and, as fuch, infinitely inferior in authority to the divinely inspired text. Still, however, we hold them in great efteem, on account of the advantage which is frequently to be derived from them.

In the explanation of particular paffages, where we meet with phrases that

that occur but once in Scripture, or with words of foreign derivation, the Targum frequently fupplies us with the fignification; and where the Scriptures have mentioned any thing in concife terms, the Targum, by a fuller expofition, frequently throws much light upon the fubject.

They are likewife of ufe in proving that the text, in particular paffages of the Scriptures, is uncorrupted, and have been fuccesfully applied to this purpose against the Papifts. And in establishing the genuine expofition of particular prophecies relating to the Meffiah, thefe paraphrafes are of moft fignal ufe against the Jews, especially as they place fo high a value on them-this is, as Prideaux calls it, turning their own artillery upon them. They throw alfo confiderable light on the ancient hiftory of the Jews, as they give us many decifions of the Great Synagogue, elucidate many cuftoms of the ancient Church, and defcribe many of the facred veffels and rites of its fervice. They give us alfo interefting accounts of the state of the Holy Land, and of the calamities and fate of the Jewish nation.

Thefe paraphrafes are feen to the beft advantage in Buxtorf's Bible of 1620, and in Bishop Walton's Polyglott; and many ufeful directions, in what manner they are to be read, are given by Leufden, in his Appendix to his Differtation on the Targumim.

THEATRICALS.

Erubuit; falva eft res."

TER.

I BEG leave through the channel of your publication, to offer the following remarks on a modern and fashionable amufement, I mean the private theatricals under the patronage of fome of the first female nobility. I willingly allow, that the public must be amused; if they are not rationally entertained, they will be worfe; their morals will be corrupted, and their paffions inflamed. If the amusement is less public, there may be more danger. I have no objections to theatrical entertainments in themselves; they may be rendered useful and moral, if under proper regulations; but it is objected that the play-houfes are furrounded with immorality; wherever a great concourfe of human beings is, there will be vice. Though I allow this, I cannot attach that refpectability to the character of a player which a great law lord has lately attempted to do: a player, as fuch, can never be refpectable; they may not be grofsly immoral: but the better the players in general, the worfe the men; the easier they can adopt any and every character, the lefs real character and real worth they have in themselves.-True characters and moral worth cannot change with every fashion, and are not put on and off as our cloaths are. The continually affuming and fupporting different characters tends to degrade man, and only to make him an adept in buffoonry, mimicry, and deceit. It teaches him to impofe, and to be impofed upon. Players are expofed to many temptations; while they repeat fentiments of virtue, they are exposed to the influence of various paffions :-Their familiar intercourfe with each other can be no ways favourable to feminine virtues: modefty, delicacy, and referve, must be offended and shocked at many fcenes and addreffes: if they do not painfully difguft, they muft please to corrupt; they contaminate the mind and inflame the paffions, which are not as eafily laid afide, as the affumed character or the appropriate drefs. The modeft blufh; the cautious referve; the cold difdain, would be fo many drawbacks in the

celebrated actrefs. The undaunted look, the firm ftep, the bold advance, the martial air are more fuitable to the theatrical character: the better she acts, the lefs lovely fhe becomes, in private life; the more eafily the affumes any character, the lefs confidence could a father, a lover, or a husband repofe in her: the more fhe pleases all, the less she will please one; the more fhe exposes her perfon to all, the lefs will it be defired by one;-All that can engage efteem and fecure refpect is loft, by being expofed. It is bad for the men players, but it is worse for the women. One or two females on the ftage, once in a century, who preferve their character, are efteemed as a fort of prodigies. The character of the nobility and the player must make a ftrange compound together. They may lose their natural character, without attaining the artificial; they may attempt to exalt the player, but in fact they degrade the noble at this time, in particular every thing which degrades and exposes the nobility, is most carefully to be avoided. The only differ. ence between these fashionable and the common players is, that one receives money, the other empty praise: the one labours for a precarious fubfiftence, often envying the decent independent condition of the farmer or tradefman; the player muft do his beft; but these fashionable theatrical performers who feed on empty praife, fhall be applauded, with moft exquifite raptures, for ignorance, affectation, mifconception of character, and the most prepofterous mifrepresentation. The world is too much of a nafquerade already. Simulation and Diffimulation will not be corrected by fuch an education. It wants not another school for folly. The wives of the moft illuftrious managers of theatres, have been removed from the ftage as foon as they were honoured in becoming wives: undoubtedly, the managers had good reafon for their conduct; but now we are to follow an inverted rule, and wives are to be honoured by affuming falfe characters, and young girls are to hear impaffioned fpeeches, or indecent wit, addreffed directly to them; without the blush of modefty or the frown of indignation. If any husband or father regard the honour of his wife, or the chafity of his daughter, he will never permit them to exhibit at fuch places. He will never applaud what ought to be condemned; he will never affift to confound all characters, to break through every rational diftinction, to blend the first of the nobility with the loweft and the worst of the plebeians. Such an inftitution would be an act of Felo de fe against all order, decency and decorum: the nobility will do more to degrade their own character than was done by Cromwell or Roberfpierre. The nobles in France were, indeed, depraved and immoral, but their depravity and immorality never led them to adopt an inftitution, which muft carry fufpicion in its very name; and which if carried into effect* will prove the nursery of violent paffions; the eafy means of feduction; the familiar introduction to unfufpecting innocence, or confirmed guilt; where the young may deviate without a blush, and the old may rejoice in their iniquity, when fupported by numbers and confirmed by fashion. Foolish and unequal matches will be the lefs confequence of fuch an undertaking, but the more common will be feduction and adultery; and this fo common as fcarcely to caufe an alarm, or to obtain legal redrefs. Every father and husband muft expect his wife and daughter to become worfe by exhi biting at fuch a place.

It is carried into effect.

EDITORS.

DEAN