Targum Isaiah 52
_The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uzziel]_ tr. by C.W.H. Pauli (1871), 226pp., on 181-182
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Chapter LII.  …
13 Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper.
He shall be exalted and extolled,
and He shall be very strong.
14 As the house of Israel
_anxiously_ hoped for Him many days,
(which was poor among the nations ;
their appearance and their brightness
being worse than that of the sons of men : )
15 Thus shall He scatter many nations;
before Him kings shall keep silence :
they shall put their hands upon their mouths,
for that which had not been told them
shall they see:
and _that_ which they had not heard
shall they consider.

Jintae Kim, “Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement” (2008)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Before examining these passages, a brief statement concerning the antiquity of the tradition in Targum Isaiah is in order.
Targum Isaiah is usually considered part of the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, who lived in the first century BCE, but the dating of the Targum cannot be exactly determined, since the Talmud assigns some portions of it to Joseph ben Chija (c. 300 CE).^6
The text now extant is presumably the result of an editorial process.

It is primarily Chilton’s contribution that identified the two-tier editorial process of Targum Isaiah.^7
Chilton compared the exegesis incorporated in Targum Isaiah with departures from the Hebrew text evidenced in the LXX, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the scrolls of Qumran, the New Testament, and the rabbinic literature, and concluded that targumic traditions were incorporated within an exegetical framework, a version of Isaiah in Aramaic composed by a meturgeman who flourished between 70 and 135 CE.
That work, according to Chilton, was completed by another meturgeman, associated with Joseph ben Chija.

Chilton makes an important point:
‘Within that early framework, materials were incorporated which appear to reflect the interpretations of earlier periods, including the period of Jesus.’^8
There is much evidence that the translation tradition preserved in _Targum Isaiah_ is very old.
Jeremias provides examples that point to the antiquity of _Targ. Isa_. 53:

“Isa. 6:10.  the HT reads: …
The Tg. transl. very differently: …, ‘and they shall be forgiven’;
… (‘to heal’) is confused with … (‘to remit’), Schl. Mk. on 4:12.
This version of the text is very old, for it appears in sy^p :  …
and Mk. 4:12: … 
(cf. T.W. Manson, _The Teaching of Jesus_ [1948], 77…).
As concerns Is. 53 in particular, it is easy with the help of LXX, Peshitta, ‘A, Σ, Θ, to give many instances of the antiquity of the text preserved in the Tg.
A few examples may be offered:  …”

…
There are also evidences from Qumran that indicate the antiquity of _Targum Isaiah_.
Of particular importance are two witnesses that are directly related to _Targum Isaiah_ and four others that are indirectly related:

(1) the messianic interpretation of Targ. Isa. 52.13 and 53.10 is paralleled by an interpretive alteration of the Hebrew text in 1QIsa^a 52.14.^10
(2) In place of the Hebrew … in Isa. 53.10, the targumist seems to have read a similar verb form … as attested in an Isaiah scroll from Qumran (1QIsa^a 53.10).

(3) Minute remains of both Targum Leviticus (4QtgLev) and Targum Job (4QtgJob; 11QtgJob) were discovered in Qumran caves 4 and 11.
J.H. Charlesworth argues on the basis of this that
‘it is now clear that the earliest traditions in the other, but much later, targums must be included in an assessment of early Judaism’.^11

(4) The Tannaitic authorities (_b. Šab_. 115a) state the antiquity of written Targum.
According to Churgin,
‘the official Targumim were in a definite shape in the time of R. Akiba’ (second century CE), and
‘Certain traces in the Targum carry unmistakable evidence of a Babylonian re-cast, which was, however, of a very limited scope’, and ‘the substance was left untouched’.^12

(5) The author of the Habakkuk Scroll seems to have borrowed his interpretation of Hab. 1.6 directly from the Targum to the Prophets.^13
(6) There is evidence for Targum Jonathan at the time of Josephus.^14
…
_Targum Isaiah_ agrees with the LXX in its handling of illnesses as transgressions.
The LXX renders the Hebrew word … with the Greek … and interprets the whole verse in terms of the Servant bearing the sins of the unnamed ‘we’.
Furthermore, this understanding of illness as sin is also found in Mk 4.12, which follows Targ. Isa. 6.10, and this implies the antiquity of the tradition.^19
…
10. W.H. Brownlee, ‘The Servant of the Lord in the Qumran Scrolls’, _BASOR_ 132 (1953), pp. 8-15 (11).
The variant is found in 1QIsa^a 52.14, which may be translated
‘As many were astonished at you—
I so anointed (…) his appearance beyond anyone (else),
and his form beyond that of (other) sons of men.’
The difference between … in 1QIsa^a 52.14 and … in the MT is only one consonant.
As suggested by Brownlee, the variant reading cannot be correct since it is not suited to the context; rather, it is a pun upon the word … (‘marred’), which was made for the purpose of interpretation by adding a single Hebrew letter yod (y).
This is the clearest case of alteration for the purpose of giving the Servant a messianic interpretation.

11. J.H. Charlesworth, _The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha_ (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983), I and II, p. xxvii.
…
19. Seidelin, ‘Ebed Jahwe’, p. 212 n. 55;
Manson, _Teaching of Jesus_, p. 78;
Black, _Aramaic Approach_, pp. 213-14;
B. Chilton, ‘Four Types of Comparison between the Targumim and the New Testament,’ _Journal for the Aramaic Bible_ 2 (2000), pp. 163-88 (166-67).

=======================
Pinkhos Churgin (1894-1957), _Targum Jonathan to the Prophets_ (1927), on 19-21, 42
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But this does not imply that no change was introduced in the existing official Targumim.
Certain traces in the Targum carry unmistakable evidence of a Babylonian recast, which was, however, of a very limited scope.
This will be discussed later.
The substance was left untouched.
Consequently, we may rest assured there was no unified authorship even to the extent of a thoroughgoing redaction.
But before advancing other views with regard to the authorship, we might well direct our attention to evidence preserved in the Targum.

It should be noticed at the outset that tradition assigns an early origin to the official Targumim.
The same tradition which vaguely ascribed the Targum to late authorities is sponsor of the statement that they originated far back of the age of these authorities.
Of Jonathan the tradition makes clear that he “said” the Targum from the mouths of the Prophets Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.
With regard to Onkelos the tradition explains that Onkelos only restored the Targum, which originated with Ezra.
The latter was inferred, in the name of Rab, from the interpretation of Nehemiah 8:8, according to which … carries the meaning of … (R. Judan, Nedarim 37a; Gen. r. 36, end).

Making all allowance, the Targum Jonathan contains evidence pointing to a comparatively early date.
Evidence of a general character consists, first, of the textual deviations which abound in Jonathan as well as in Onkelos.
The same may be said with reference to the unacceptable Halaka, found in Onkelos.
This fact points to a date when these matters were still in the balance.
Why, however, they were permitted at a later age to remain in the Targum can easily be explained.
There was first of all the tradition referring the Targumim to the last Prophets and Ezra, which cast a halo over them, and none would venture either to question the propriety of the rendering or attempt to emend them, just because they appeared amazingly striking.

There was no cause for general alarm.
The Targum was read verse for verse with the Hebrew Text, which would bring home to the reflection of the hearer the established reading.
Still, precaution was sought to exclude a possible impression that the Targum represents the right reading.
I am persuaded to interpret the causes for the limitations placed upon the reading of the Targum in the light of this supposition.

The elimination of anthropomorphisms, so persistently carried through in the official Targumim, goes back to an early period.
…
Although the official Targumim were in a definite shape in the time of R. Akiba, the process of transformation had been still going on to a comparatively late date.
It affected both the literal and exegetical rendering.
Some older exegetical renderings were rejected and replaced by others.
Of the rejected, some have been preserved in the Ps. Jonathan, which in itself is an Aramaic Jalqut comprising also later Agadic material.

“How can someone die for a righteous man when ‘no one is righteous'”
Beats me.

Do you believe Paul originally wrote:
‘Hardly any man would die for the sake of the wicked’?
‘Hardly any man would die for the sake of a righteous person’?

“Latin doesn’t exist anymore. The devil’s tongue”
When did Latin start being “the devil’s tongue”?

John 19:20
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(NIV)
Many of the Jews read this sign,
for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city,
and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

(Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
And many of the Judeans read this tablet,
because the place in which Yeshua was crucified was near the city,
and it was written in Aramaic and in Greek and in Latin.