The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

COOK The Language of Onqelos and Jonathan 155
It is well known that Western Aramaic in some of the same environments
preserves the diphthong ay uncontracted. Here, then, is yet
another feature in common with the Central dialects. The ending of
the masc. pi. participle in final weak verbs, for instance, is as follows:
Qumran Palmyrene Syriac Onq/Jon
-yn -n -e(y)n -an
We can assume that the orthography of Qumran Aramaic represents
the segment ay in, for that is the vocalization in Late Western
Aramaic. For Palmyrene, we do not know whether the vowel was e or
a as in Onqelos and Jonathan, but the contraction is still present. We
know only the quality, not the quantity, of the Syriac vowel as well.
Yet it is clear that all three dialects differ from the Western dialects,
but resemble each other.
The last item I shall mention is the question of vocabulary. It is
impossible to discuss this aspect fully here. Except for Tal's study of
the vocabulary of Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, we lack
comparative dialectological studies of the lexicon of Onqelos and
Jonathan. Keyword-in-Context concordances now in the making by
the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon project may facilitate such
studies in the near future. For the present, we have to be content with
Tal's in-depth study. But does it not, after all, point to the same conclusion
as the grammatical phenomena? Tal presented lists of words
found both in Western and Eastern sources. It is unlikely that we
know enough right now definitely to categorize every Aramaic word
as either Eastern or Western. But even if Tal is right, this catholic use
of words from both poles of Aramaic points to a central position
between those poles.
I have already suggested that Tal misused his own evidence of a
lexical relationship between Syriac and Targum Jonathan. He
attributed this relationship to a common koine foundation in both languages.
Tal's perception of a link was right, but his koine-hypothesis
was ad hoc. Syriac and Targum Jonathan's Aramaic are related
because they are both Central Aramaic dialects.
This 'new perspective' may also be supported by two further facts
that have been subjects of controversy. The first is the fact that
Onqelos and Jonathan never appear in Palestinian literature, but are
solely cited and transmitted in the Babylonian academies. This fact
stumps even those who otherwise are strong supporters of the Western
view. The most straightforward reason for the non-appearance of