Onkelos the Proselyte, who was thoroughly acquainted with the Hebrew
and Chaldaic languages, made it his task to oppose the belief in God’s
corporeality. Accordingly, any expression employed in the Pentateuch in
reference to God, and in any way implying corporeality, he paraphrases
in consonance with the context. All expressions denoting any mode of
motion, are explained by him to mean the appearance or manifestation of
a certain light that had been created [for the occasion], i.e., the
Shekhinah (Divine Presence), or Providence. Thus he paraphrases “the
Lord will come down” (Exod. xix. 11), “The Lord will manifest Himself”;
“And God came down” (xvi. 20), “And God manifested Himself”; and does
not say “And God came down”; “I will go down now and see” (Gen. xviii.
21), he paraphrases, “I will manifest myself now and see.” This is his
rendering [of the verb yarad, “he went down,” when used in reference to
God] throughout his version, with the exception of the following
passage, “I will go down (ered) with thee into Egypt” (Gen. xlvi. 4),
which he renders literally. A remarkable proof of this great man’s
talents, the excellence of his version, and the correctness of his
interpretation! By this version he discloses to us an important
principle as regards prophecy.
This narrative begins: “And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the
night, and said, Jacob, Jacob, etc. And He said, I am God, etc., I will
go down with thee into Egypt” (Gen. xlvi. 2, 3). Seeing that the whole
narrative is introduced as a vision of the night, Onkelos did not
hesitate to translate literally the words addressed to Jacob in the
nocturnal vision, and thus gave a faithful account of the occurrence.
For the passage in question contains a statement of what Jacob was
told, not what actually took place, as is the case in the words, “And
the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai” (Exod. xix. 20). Here we have an
account of what actually occurred in the physical world; the verb yarad
is therefore paraphrased “He manifested Himself,” and entirely detached
from the idea of motion. Accounts of what happened in the imagination
of man, I mean of what he was told, are not altered. A most remarkable
distinction!
Hence you may infer that there is a great difference between a
communication, designated as having been made in a dream, or a vision
of the night, and a vision or a manifestation simply introduced with
phrases like “And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying”; “And the
Lord spake unto me, saying.”
According to my opinion, it is also possible that Onkelos understood
Elohim in the above passage to signify “angel,” and that for this
reason he did not hesitate to translate literally, “I will go down with
thee to Egypt.” Do not think it strange that Onkelos should have
believed the Elohim, who said to Jacob, “I am God, the God of thy
father” (ib. 3), to be an angel, for this sentence can, in the same
form, also have been spoken by an angel. Thus Jacob says, “And the
angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob. And I said, Here
am I,” etc. (Gen. xxxi. 11); and concludes the report of the angel’s
words to him in the following way, “I am the God of Bethel, where thou
anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me” (ib. 13),
although there is no doubt that Jacob vowed to God, not to the angel.
It is the usual practice of prophets to relate words addressed to them
by an angel in the name of God, as though God Himself had spoken to
them. Such passages are all to be explained by supplying the nomen
regens, and by considering them as identical with “I am the messenger
of the God of thy father,” “I am the messenger of God who appeared to
thee in Bethel,” and the like. Prophecy with its various degrees, and
the nature of angels, will be fully discussed in the sequel, in
accordance with the object of this treatise (II. chap. xiv.).