1 Background
Targum Onqelos (TgOnq) is a complete Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch. There are several theories regarding the composition of Targum Onqelos, which we have covered in Chapter 1. Though often referred to as the standard ‘Babylonian’ Targum, the origins of Targum Onqelos may not strictly be Babylonian. The most compelling argument for a ‘Western’ origin of this Targum is its language, having been composed in what is known as Jewish Literary Aramaic (JLA), a dialect native to Palestine.1 Nevertheless, Eastern dialectal elements from what is known as Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (JBA) have been recognized and identified within the text.2
While the exact origins of Targum Onqelos remain largely unclear, its authorization by the Babylonian authorities3 ensured its propagation and dissemination across many Jewish communities, as well as its continued status as ‘standard translation’ well into the Middle Ages. Similar to the Babylonian Talmud (in which it is often quoted), Targum Onqelos garnered more influence than its Palestinian counterpart(s). It also benefited from a largely unified and stable transmission due to the later development of a masorah,4 which reflected the Babylonian authorities’ desire to preserve its wording. As a result, the text of Targum Onqelos is known to us on the basis of a few hundred complete manuscripts, making it by far the most well-attested Targum.
Manuscript evidence shows us that, at least for some time, Targum Onqelos was employed as part of the weekly reading, though extant material dates no earlier than the tenth century.5 In addition, serugin (or short-hand manuscripts) found in the Cairo Genizah contain only the first letters of each word in a verse, indicating that they must have been used by someone who had memorized the entire text (or had access to it). Klein suggested these abbreviations were used to aid the preparation of the meturgeman as a learning device.6 However, we also find serugin for portions of the Hebrew Torah which would have normally been read from a scroll, rendering them redundant.7
Medieval commentators such as Rashi made frequent use of Targum Onqelos for both linguistic and exegetical purposes.8 Over time, Rashi’s commentary replaced the translation in many communities, evidenced by the many manuscripts in which we find it accompanying the Hebrew text instead of the Targum, or side-by-side.9 Other commentators such as Rashbam wrote commentaries arguing for the superiority of Targum Onqelos, which they considered to be important sources for the simplest meaning of the Hebrew text.10 The appreciation of Targum Onqelos was certainly not limited to Europe—the learned elite of Byzantium also made frequent use of Targum Onqelos in their commentaries.11
We mentioned that Targum Onqelos at one point must have earned a fixed place within the liturgy and weekly readings. In some communities, discussions were being had about whether or not continued use of the Targum was beneficial to the general public. Some medieval authorities across Europe expressed their firm beliefs that reading the Targum was essential.12 We must not overestimate these statements, however, as our own manuscript evidence would rather suggest that the Targum had a diminished role in the European synagogue by the medieval period. It is more prudent to consider the statements defending the value of Targum as idealistic, rather than accurate representations of reality. As we argued in the introductory chapter, the Targum likely had a stronger presence in the private sphere.
However, as Targum Onqelos was losing its practical value for the average European Jew, it gained a renewed and elevated status among the literary elite. As Tal illustrated, Targum Onqelos would form the ideal model for Aramaic literary creations in the medieval period. These creations ranged from an Aramaic version of the Book of Tobit to the countless piyyutim and reshuyyot found in the mahzorim; all which bear significant influence of Targum Onqelos. it would seem scribes had a clear preference for the language of Onqelos in contrast with that of the Palestinian Targums, which Tal attributes to their ‘faithful attachment to Onqelos.’13 As we will see in the next section, the line between conscious and unconscious influence is not always clear.
2 Onqelosization
All recensions of the PalTg contain varying degrees of Onqelosization.14 With the term Onqelosization, I refer to the noticeable influence of TgOnq in a text. In a comparative study of the texts of various PalTg witnesses to the Decalogue, Díez Macho argued that the texts of Mahzor Vitry and FragTgP bore the highest degree of Onqelosization, closely followed by the text of TgNeof.15 The two former texts were described as a mixture of TgOnq and PalTg.16 One genre of texts that had a history of Onqelosization were the Tosefta Targums, which we discussed in Chapter 3, and will discuss below.
Just recently, Patmore’s discovery of FragTgStP revealed that its text contained unmistakable traces of Onqelosization, which he attributed to the status and ubiquity of Targum Onqelos.17 The examples he provided were not attested in the other FragTgs, which suggests they were accidental or unintentional.
2.1 Conscious vs. Unconscious Onqelosization
Up to this point we have discussed the influence of TgOnq without making a distinction between conscious and unconscious Onqelosization, both of which are apparent in the various witnesses of the PalTg available to us.
When we refer to conscious Onqelosization, we mean the intentional adaptation of a text to the dialect of Targum Onqelos. The most prominent examples that comes to mind are the Tosefta Targums. These units of Targum are aggadic expansions incorporating material from across the Jewish corpus; but fundamentally have their roots in the broader Palestinian Targum tradition.18 Many of these expansions can be found in both the continuous PalTg tradition as well as the Fragment Targums. Some of these toseftot have even been inserted into manuscripts of TgOnq or preserved as separate supplementary collections to the text of TgOnq.19 In his publication of the Palestinian Targum manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, Klein makes an important remark: whereas the Fragment Targums (largely) preserve the Palestinian dialect of the Tosefta Targums, “most of the tosefta texts, on the other hand, have undergone a conscious dialectal transformation to the language of Onqelos.”20 This reflects a desire to integrate the tosefta material into the text of Targum Onqelos.
On the other hand, there is the case of unconscious Onqelosization, which occurs on a much smaller scale. This can take different forms, though the most common are: 1) replacements (i.e., single units of PalTg that are replaced with the form in TgOnq) and 2) conflations (i.e., both PalTg and TgOnq units placed back-to-back or organized into a new combination). Some variants belong to a third category that we are calling 3) dialectal hybridization (i.e., the combination of distinct dialectal features, sometimes leading to the creation of new forms). We will provide examples of these in the discussion of the Liturgical Targum below. The most obvious difference with conscious Onqelosization is that this adaptation of the text happens sporadically and inconsistently. Put differently, conscious Onqelosization leads to changes in the text with the intention of keeping these changes in subsequent transmissions; unconscious Onqelosization can occur in a text but is not necessarily carried over in subsequent transmission. The intended form of the transmitted text remains PalTg. As we see below in the case of the Liturgical Targum, wary copyists occasionally spot Onqelosization and correct it back to the respective original (Palestinian) form. For example, as we see in ms Add. 19664 (f. 61r):
ואמר משה לעמא לא תדחלון איתעתדו וחזו ית פירקנא דייי דעבד לכון יומא דין ארום כמה דח (ז )⟨מ ⟩יתון ית מצראי יומא דין לא תוספון למיח (ז )⟨מ ⟩יהון עוד עד עלם :
It is clear that this manuscript intends to preserve the PalTg for Ex 14:13 (evidenced also by the form
2.2 Macro vs. Micro Onqelosization
As we have mentioned early on, the Targum units in mahzorim provide a complicated picture of intertextuality. On the one hand, the text of the Liturgical Targum to the Pentateuch is fundamentally Palestinian (i.e., aligned with the Palestinian Targum tradition), and yet traces of both conscious and unconscious Onqelosization in all its aforementioned forms can be found in various capacities. As Díez Macho noted in his study of the Decalogue, the text of Mahzor Vitry exhibited the highest degree of Onqelosization—he went so far as to describe it as a combination of TgOnq and PalTg.21 Subsequent studies would build on this further, most notably Kaufman and Maori, whose study of the Liturgical Targum to the Decalogue revealed that the influence of TgOnq was pervasive.22 But what makes the Liturgical Targum so susceptible to the influence of Onqelos?
In order to answer this question, we have to approach the Onqelosization of the Liturgical Targum from both a macro and a micro perspective. From the macro perspective, many mahzorim incorporate the text of TgOnq alongside the Liturgical Targum reading. For example, for the parashah for Pesach across all witnesses of LTg (except for LTgs), only select verses and the Song of the Sea (Ex 13:17, 14:13–14, 14:30–15:18) are Palestinian Targum; the verses before and after (Ex 13:18–14:12, 14:15–29, 15:19–26) are TgOnq. It is likely that earlier mahzorim contained the entire PalTg reading for the seventh day of Pesach, evidenced by the vestiges of PalTg preserved in some witnesses of LTga.23 Though the picture for the parashah for Shavuot (Ex 19:1–20:26) is more heterogenous, as we have discussed in the previous section, we see a similar trend among the witnesses of LTga: the majority of manuscripts preserve TgOnq for the verses preceding and following the Decalogue. Though we cannot be certain, the gradual replacement of PalTg with verses from TgOnq was likely caused by two factors: 1) due to the ubiquity and popularity of TgOnq, copyists preferred its wording to the lesser known PalTg (or simply knew the text of TgOnq better); and 2) as the festival reading shortened over time, only the most popular material remained (e.g., the Song of the Sea and the Decalogue);24 the remaining verses were either dropped (LTgi) or replaced with TgOnq (the majority of LTga).
The micro perspective of Onqelosization refers to individual units of PalTg (words, phrases) that are haphazardly influenced by TgOnq forms. As mentioned earlier, these can largely take three forms, namely: replacement, conflation and dialectal hybdridization. These kinds of Onqelosizations are almost certainly due to the ubiquity of TgOnq in the mind of the copyist and can occur both intentionally and unintentionally in the transmission of the text of the Liturgical Targum.
2.3 Examples of Onqelosization
To recapitulate, we have, up to this point, introduced several concepts pertaining to Onqelosization in the Liturgical Targum. The distinction between conscious and unconscious Onqelosization happens mainly within the realm of the intent of the copyist (i.e., the intended output). We mentioned the example of the Tosefta Targums in which the dialect of these units of Targum was consciously adapted to fit the dialect of TgOnq. Unconscious Onqelosization happens unintentionally; the output of the text is still fundamentally a version of ‘the Palestinian Targum’, but units of Onqelos enter the text haphazardly. The distinction between macro and micro Onqelosization is in relation to the scope of the text. Macro Onqelosization refers to entire verses of PalTg being replaced with TgOnq (as is the case with LTga), whereas micro Onqelosization occurs within the verse (i.e., individual units of Targum). We will use some examples below to illustrate these concepts more clearly.
2.3.1 Replacement
By far the most common form of micro Onqelosization in the witnesses of the Liturgical Targum are replacements. Most frequently, these replacements are individual units of Targum, but occasionally some manuscripts replace entire phrases of PalTg with TgOnq. A key characteristic of this type of Onqelosization is that the unit of PalTg is entirely replaced with TgOnq. When it is added to the beginning or end of the unit of PalTg, we are dealing with conflation, which we will discuss in the following section. There are far too many examples to list exhaustively, so we will provide a selection of examples below.
|
Ex 14:30 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTgi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTga |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
t1646a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though the interchange of genitive constructions is common to the transmission of all Targumic texts, in this example, we see that LTgi preserves
|
Ex 15:5 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
LTgi |
|
|
|
|
LTga |
|
|
|
|
LTgs |
|
|
|
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
Here we see a case of more widespread Onqelosization. While LTgi consistently preserves
|
Ex 15:17 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTgi27 |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
Add. 19664a28 |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
LTgs |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
[…] |
||
The phrase we find at the end of LTgi and about half of the manuscripts of LTga for this verse, namely
2.3.2 Conflation
One of the more creative ways that copyists engaged with their intruding knowledge of TgOnq, was through the conflation of readings. In most cases, conflations between PalTg and TgOnq are harmonizations. In other words, the copyist tries to blend the form he encounters in his Vorlage [= LTg] with the version he knows from memory [= TgOnq]. Conflating both forms reflects an uncertainty on the part of the scribe; he may not know which form is ‘correct’ and decides to preserve both, even if this results in tautology.
|
Ex 14:31 |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTgi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
LTga,s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
t1629a29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
t1614a30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
This verse is an ideal example of how Onqelosization can lead to a diversity of readings. LTgi preserves the ‘correct’ PalTg reading according to other PalTg recensions [= TgNeof, TgCGJ, FragTgP], employing the phrase
|
Ex 15:4 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTgi |
|
|
|
[…] |
||
|
LTga |
|
|
|
[…] |
||
|
t1668a |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
t1673a32 |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
t1636s |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
As expected, LTgi follows the other PalTg recensions’ rendering of
|
Ex 15:15 |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTgi |
|
[…] |
|
|
|
|
||
|
LTga,s |
|
[…] |
|
|
|
|
||
|
t668a33 |
|
[…] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FragTgP |
|
[…] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TgOnq |
|
[…] |
|
|
|
|
||
Conflation occasionally leads to less legible readings, as is the case in this verse. LTgi preserves a version of Ex 15:15 that is in line with other PalTg recensions [= TgNeof, TgCGW]. LTga,s and FragTgP are more or less identical except for the verb (
|
Ex 20:1 |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTgi |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
LTga |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harley 5714a34 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Or. 2735a35 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
LTgs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
|
||
This verse illustrates another diversity in forms that is caused by underlying Onqelosization. The phrase
2.3.3 Dialectal Hybridization
A final category of Onqelosization is what I have decided to call ‘dialectal hybridization’, which, in contrast with the previous two categories, occurs least frequently. There are instances where authentically Palestinian Aramaic forms have become ‘Easternized’ or unintentionally recast into the dialect of TgOnq. Other times we find—often within the same verse—the usage of both typically Babylonian and Palestinian forms for the same word. As we discussed in Chapter 3, it is important to remember that manuscripts of the Liturgical Targum (as well as other contemporaneous Targum manuscripts) were transmitted by medieval European scribes, who did not speak Aramaic (or even Hebrew) as their native language. They learned Aramaic as part of their training, but on the basis of a variety of works of both Babylonian and Palestinian origins.36 It is clear that our scribes knew the language of TgOnq best, and as a result, (accidentally) used its language in copying the Liturgical Targum. As our data illustrates, different dialects became mixed. We will illustrate the complexities of this category with some examples below.
|
Ex 20:18 |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTga37 |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
[…] |
|
t1646a38 |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
[…] |
|
t1685a |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
[…] |
|
TgNeof |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
[…] |
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
[…] |
The verses following the Decalogue are only preserved in LTga, though we find great diversity among the witnesses. About less than half of the witnesses of LTga are aligned with TgNeof, with the remaining majority preserving TgOnq. The only differences between TgOnq and the PalTg recensions are the different forms of the verb ‘to see’ (
t1646a in our table represents the group of manuscripts that simply preserve TgOnq for this verse. We find a peculiar situation in t1685a, where
|
Ex 14:18 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTga |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add. 19664a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LTgs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This example requires a closer look at the word level. We are mainly concerned with the final two words of the verse, which are preserved in various forms. The first level of distinction is at the noun level, where the form
3 The Transmission of Targum Onqelos
The macro-Onqelosization of the Liturgical Targum (i.e., the structural replacement of entire verses of PalTg with verses from TgOnq, as evidenced in LTga) reveals a small number of variants to the text of TgOnq that were circulating in medieval Europe. In other words, in the parts where one or more manuscripts replaced the PalTg with TgOnq, the text of TgOnq contains variants vis-à-vis other witnesses of TgOnq. This suggests that these readings are based on manuscripts of TgOnq that contained variants. These are readings that do not appear in any recensions of the PalTg. Some of these are variants that have been registered in Sperber’s critical apparatus,41 while others are otherwise unattested. These variants may have been introduced in the European transmission of TgOnq. We will present the cases below:
|
Ex 13:21 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
t1668a42 |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
t1646a43 |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
According to Sperber’s edition of the manuscripts of TgOnq,
|
Ex 14:20 |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
t1614a45 |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
Cod. Hebr. 31346 |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
The variant reading
|
Ex 14:22 |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
t1681a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
t1646a47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
Or. 2735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
The reading in Sperber’s edition is
|
Ex 19:4 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
t1685a |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
B.H.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
LTgs |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
B.H.3 and t1664s both align largely with other PalTg recensions for this verse, with B.H.3 preserving
|
Ex 19:9 |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
t1614a49 |
[…] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: |
|
JTS 809250 |
[…] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: |
|
TgOnq |
[…] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: |
In this example we are again dealing with a variant to the text of TgOnq that was not noted by Sperber. Though the majority of LTga contains
4 Summary
The status and ubiquity of TgOnq among European Jewish communities ensured that scribes had a robust knowledge if its wording. Sometimes their knowledge of TgOnq interfered with the copying of other texts, such as LTg and the other PalTg recensions. We have approached this process from a macro (verse-level) and micro (unit level) perspective and illustrated that Onqelosization comes in many different forms. This Onqelosization can occur both intentionally and unintentionally, though the majority of cases we have presented would suggest an unconscious interference of TgOnq. In some cases, a unit of PalTg has been replaced entirely with a unit from TgOnq, whereas in others, copyists attempt to harmonize the two readings by placing them back-to-back or combining them to create new readings entirely. The text of FragTgP also contains Onqelosizations that can be placed into our categories,51 which is unsurprising as we have argued in the previous chapter that this particular text was extracted from a Sephardi mahzor.
Some Onqelosizations resulted in the creation of new forms, that cannot directly be prescribed to any particular dialect of Aramaic, combining elements of both Babylonian and Palestinian Aramaic. As we mentioned earlier, linguistic distinctions in Aramaic that are apparent to us today, may not have been so apparent to a medieval copyist, whose training in Aramaic involved the study of a broad range of Aramaic texts, from different dialects and linguistic phases of Aramaic. We must also remember that these texts were copied in medieval European Jewish communities, where neither Hebrew nor Aramaic was spoken as the mother tongue.
Lastly, we discovered certain variants to the text of TgOnq that were preserved in LTg. Some of these variants were noted by Sperber, though the majority are not present in his critical apparatus.
This is also the dialect of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, another Targum that is connected to Babylonia. For more information on the different dialects of Aramaic see Tal, ‘The Dialects of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic’, pp. 441–448. For a full and updated grammar of this particular dialect, consult W. Stevenson, Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013).
Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, p. 84. See also, the work done by E. Cook, ‘A New Perspective’, pp. 142–156. See also E. Cook, A Glossary of Targum Onkelos According to Alexander Sperber’s Edition (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture: 6; Leiden: Brill, 2008).
See for example, b. Qid. 49a.
For more information consult M. Klein, ‘The Masorah to Onqelos: A Reflection of Targumic Consciousness’, Hebrew Union College Annual 68.68 (1997), pp. 63–75; M. Klein, The Masorah to Targum Onqelos: As Preserved in MSS Vatican Ebreo 448, Rome Angelica Or. 7, Fragments from the Cairo Genizah and in Earlier Editions by A. Berliner and S. Landauer / Critical Edition with Comments and Introduction by Michael L. Klein. (Binghamton, NY: Global Publications, 2000).
Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, p. 36; Kasher, ‘The Aramaic Targumim and Their “Sitz Im Leben” ’, pp. 75–85; Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II, 3º.
M. Klein, ‘Serugin (Shorthand) of Onqelos’, pp. 275–287.
See Patmore, Efrati, and Verrijssen, ‘Aramaic from Antiquity to the Middle Ages’, p. 40.
E. Viezel, ‘Targum Onkelos in Rashi’s Exegetical Consciousness’, The Review of Rabbinic Judaism: Ancient, Medieval and Modern 15.1 (2012), pp. 1–19.
For example, ms Oppenheim 14 (Bodleian Library, 13th century). See also Attia, ‘Targum Layouts in Ashkenazi Manuscripts’, pp. 99–122.
J. Jacobs, ‘Rashbam’s Approach to Targum Onqelos in His Commentary to the Torah’, Aramaic Studies 16.1 (2018), pp. 64–77.
J. Jacobs, ‘Onqelos in Byzantium in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: The Relationship of R. Samuel of Rossano and R. Meyuhas Ben Elijah to the Aramaic Translation’, The Review of Rabbinic Judaism: Ancient, Medieval and Modern 24.2 (2021), pp. 231–246.
Tal, ‘The Role of Targum Onqelos’, pp. 138–139.
Tal, ‘The Role of Targum Onqelos’, p. 146.
Doubles, ‘Towards the Publication of the Extant Text’, pp. 23–25.
A. Díez Macho, ‘The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum; its Antiquity and Relationship with other Targumim’, SVT 7 (1960), pp. 237–238.
Díez Macho, ‘The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum’, p. 238.
Patmore, ‘A Previously Overlooked Manuscript of Fragment Targum’, p. 33.
Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of the Palestinian Targum, p. xxvi.
Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of the Palestinian Targum, p. xxvi.
Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of the Palestinian Targum, p. xxvi. See also Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, p. 47.
Díez Macho, ‘The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum’, pp. 237–238.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, p. 29.
We know that such a text was circulating in Europe, on the basis of two our witnesses to LTgs (t1636s, t1609s) and the liturgical material contained in FragTgP. See also Verrijssen, ‘The Liturgical Targum to Pesach’, pp. 178–179.
The gradual reduction of the reading is also evidenced by the transfer of the toseftot which we discussed in Chapter 3. Some toseftot which were attached to verses outside the Song of the Sea (e.g.,
With the exceptions of t1673a, JTS 8092 and t1636s which preserve
My colleague Shlomi Efrati explored the various PalTg recensions of this verse (including LTg) in more detail and discusses the implications of the variant versions. See S. Efrati, ‘Rectifying an Obvious Error: Text-Critical Sensitivity in Late Medieval Targum Manuscripts’,in Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Bulletin. Special Issue: Criticism of the Variant (forthcoming).
= t1668a, t1673a, t1681a, t1685a, t1646a, t1629a.
= t1614a, Or. 2735, Cod. Hebr. 313, B.H.3, JTS 8092.
= t1646a, Or. 2735, JTS 8092, t1664s.
= t1668a.
It is also possible that this reading is influenced by the Hebrew text
= t1629a.
= t1673a, t1685a, t1629a.
= t1646a, t1614a.
= Cod. Hebr. 313.
Gottlieb, ‘Composition of Targums’, p. 5. See also Houtman, ‘The Role of Targum’, pp. 86–93.
= t1668a, Michael 617, t1629a, B.H.3.
= t1614a, Or. 2735, Cod. Hebr. 313, JTS 8092.
The form
E. Cook, ‘The Kaufman Effect’, pp. 123–132; Cook, ‘Rewriting the Bible’, p. 132; Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum, pp. 114–115.
Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic.
= t1629a, t1614a, Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664.
= Or. 2735, JTS 8092; ≈t1681a
Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, p. 111.
= Or. 2735, JTS 8092.
= Add. 19664.
= t1614a, Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664, JTS 8092.
Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, p. 120.
= t1646a, t1614a, Or. 2735, Cod. Hebr. 313, Add. 19664.
= Michael 617, B.H.3.
See, for example: Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, p. 29, Díez Macho, ‘The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum’, pp. 237–238; and Verrijssen, ‘The Liturgical Targum to Pesach’, pp. 179–182.