Whenever in the Pentateuch the term “to hear” is applied to God,
Onkelos, the Proselyte, does not translate it literally, but
paraphrases it, merely expressing that a certain speech reached Him,
i.e., He perceived it, or that He accepted it or did not accept, when
it refers to supplication and prayer as its object. The words “God
heard” are therefore paraphrased by him regularly either, “It was heard
before the Lord,” or “He accepted” when employed in reference to
supplication and prayer; [e.g.] “I will surely accept,” lit. “I will
surely hear” (Exod. xxii. 22). This principle is followed by Onkelos in
his translation of the Pentateuch without any exception. But as regards
the verb “to see,” (raah), his renderings vary in a remarkable manner,
and I was unable to discern his principle or method. In some instances
he translates literally, “and God saw”; in others he paraphrases “it
was revealed before the Lord.” The use of the phrase va-ḥaza adonai by
Onkelos is sufficient evidence that the term ḥaza in Chaldee is
homonymous, and that it denotes mental perception as well as the
sensation of sight. This being the case, I am surprised that, in some
instances avoiding the literal rendering, he substituted for it “And it
was revealed before the Lord.” When I, however, examined the various
readings in the version of Onkelos, which I either saw myself or heard
from others during the time of my studies, I found that the term “to
see” when connected with wrong, injury, or violence, was paraphrased,
“It was manifest before the Lord.” There is no doubt that the term ḥaza
in Chaldee denotes complete apprehension and reception of the object in
the state in which it has been perceived. When Onkelos, therefore,
found the verb “to see” connected with the object “wrong,” he did not
render it literally, but paraphrased it, “It was revealed before the
Lord.” Now, I noticed that in all instances of the Pentateuch where
seeing is ascribed to God, he translated it literally, except those
instances which I will mention to you: “For my affliction was revealed
before the Lord” (Gen. xxix. 32); “For all that Laban doeth unto thee
is revealed before me” (ib. xxxi. 12);—although the first person in the
sentence refers to the angel [and not to God], Onkelos does not ascribe
to him that perception which implies complete comprehension of the
object, because the object is “iniquity”—“The oppression of the
children of Israel was known to the Lord” (Exod. ii. 25); “The
oppression of my people was surely known to me” (ib. iii. 7); “The
affliction is known to me” (ib. 9); “Their oppression is known to me”
(ib. iv. 31); “This people is known to me” (ib. xxxii. 9), i.e., their
rebellion is known to me—comp. the Targum of the passage, “And God saw
the children of Israel” (ib. ii. 25), which is equal to “He saw their
affliction and their trouble”—“And it was known to the Lord, and he
abhorred them” (Deut. xxxii. 19); “It was known to him that their power
was gone” (ib. 36); in this instance the object of the perception is
likewise the wrong done to the Israelites, and the increasing power of
the enemy. In all these examples Onkelos is consistent, following the
maxim expressed in the words, “Thou canst not look on iniquity” (Hab.
i. 13); wherefore he renders the verb “to see,” when referring to
oppression or rebellion, It is revealed before him, etc. This
appropriate and satisfactory explanation, the correctness of which I do
not doubt, is weakened by three passages, in which, according to this
view, I expected to find the verb “to see” paraphrased “to be revealed
before him,” but found instead the literal rendering “to see” in the
various copies of the Targum. The following are the three passages:
“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth” (Gen.
vi. 6); “And the Lord saw the earth, and behold it was corrupt” (ib.
vi. 12); “and God saw that Leah was hated” (ib. xxx. 31). It appears to
me that in these passages there is a mistake, which has crept into the
copies of the Targum, since we do not possess the Targum in the
original manuscript of Onkelos, for in that case we should have assumed
that he had a satisfactory explanation of it.
In rendering Genesis xxii. 8, “the lamb is known to the Lord,” he
either wished to indicate that the Lord was not expected to seek and to
bring it, or he considered it inappropriate, in Chaldee to connect the
divine perception with one of the lower animals.
However, the various copies of the Targum must be carefully examined
with regard to this point, and if you still find those passages the
same as I quoted them, I cannot explain what he meant.