At least
since the time of Abraham Geiger (1857) the view that the final redaction (Schlussredaction)
of Targum Jonathan took place in the Babylonian Academies sometime in the id-Amoraic
period, i.e., 4th century CE, has become the generally accepted position. Quotations
of Targum Jonathan in the Talmudim and on the magic bowl from Nippur (c.
300-600 CE) confirms that Targum Jonathan achieved something of an ‘official’
status around this time. (Hector M. Patmore, Ada, Satan, and the King of
Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 in Late Antiquity [Jewish and
Christian Perspectives 20; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 81)
Examples of quotations of Targum Jonathan in the
Talmudim:
e.g. b.Ber
28a; b.Shab 26a; b.Pes 68a; b.Yoma 32b, 77b; b.Rosh Hash 22b, 23a; b.Meg 3a;
b.M.Qat 2a, 26a, 28b; b.Ned 38a; b.Qid 13a, 72b; b.B.Qam 3b; b.Sanh 44a, 63b,
94b, 95a; b.Abod.Zar. 4a, 44a; b.Men 110a; y.Sanh 20b, 23b, 28a; y.Meg 72c;
y.Qid 61a; y.Abod. Zar. 42cd; y.Shab 8b; y.Taan 65b, 69b; y.Sheq 50a; y.Ket
31d. (Ibid., 81 n. 4)
. . . the
identification of early strata is always clouded by the suspicion that we may
be dealing not with an authentically antique tradition but rather a later
retrospection. Equally historical allusions are often difficult to
substantiate, and where accepted as plausible at a particular locus within the
text, the dating can be applied only to the particular example in question and
cannot be extrapolated to include the entirety of Targum Jonathan.
The date at
which Targum Jonathan took written form therefore remains an open question,
though a consensus of opinion supports the assumption that the text began to
take recognizable shape in (roughly) the 15 years following the destruction of
the Second Temple (i.e. the tannaitic period), yet contains some traces of
earlier material. The extent to which this earlier material can be identified with
certainty, and the quantity and extent of later modifications, remain a matter
of debate. (Ibid., 83)