This study addresses the views of two Byzantine commentators regarding Targum Onqelos: R. Samuel Roshano of the twelfth century and R. Meyuhas ben Elijah of the thirteenth. R. Samuel explicitly refers to the translation forty-six times; R. Meyuhas makes explicit reference to it 104 times. But there are differences between the two commentators in their relation to the Targum: R. Samuel never mentions the name Onqelos, while R. Meyuhas does so explicitly; R. Samuel systematically cites the text of the Targum, while in most cases in R. Meyuhas’ commentary, there is no accurate citation. The qualitative difference is in their respective relationships with the Targum: all of R. Samuel’s references to it signal his agreement; R. Meyuhas, on the other hand, while frequently agreeing with Onqelos, also brings the Targum as one of two possible alternatives and sometimes openly challenges its interpretation.

本研究探讨了两位拜占庭评论员关于 Targum Onqelos 的观点：12 世纪的 R. Samuel Roshano 和 13 世纪的 R. Meyuhas ben Elijah。R. Samuel 明确提到翻译四十六次；R. Meyuhas 明确提到它 104 次。但两位评论员在与塔古姆的关系上存在差异：R. Samuel 从未提及 Onqelos 的名字，而 R. Meyuhas 则明确提及；R. Samuel 系统地引用了 Targum 的文本，而在大多数情况下，在 R. Meyuhas 的评论中，没有准确的引用。本质上的区别在于他们各自与 Targum 的关系：R. Samuel 提到它的所有内容都表明他同意；另一方面，R. Meyuhas 虽然经常同意 Onqelos 的观点，