1 Summary of Results
1.1 The Liturgical Targum
Our corpus of manuscripts consists of thirty-two mahzorim from a diversity of liturgical rites across Europe. These manuscripts’ contents have largely been untouched until now, and our hopes are that the publication of the units of Targum they contain will incite further study into this corpus.
In the broadest terms, our research has established that the Liturgical Targum shares a clear genealogical relationship to the other recensions of the Palestinian Targum, though, as we have argued, it forms a fundamentally separate textual tradition with an independent line of transmission (Chapter 3). In other words, there are readings and features unique to the Liturgical Targum that constitute it as an independent recension, and our data clearly indicates that these texts had their own line of transmission (i.e., from mahzor to mahzor), separate from other PalTg recensions.
1.2 The Textual Families
Our textual analysis of the passages for the seventh day of Pesach (Ex 13:17–15:26) and the first day of Shavuot (Ex 19:1–20:26) revealed three underlying textual families within the Liturgical Targum: the Italian, Ashkenazi, and Sephardi groups, respectively. Each of these groups were distinguished on the basis of their scope and shared readings, as well as the toseftot (expansions) that accompanied the Targum.
The Italian textual family (LTgi) was by far the most coherent, with remarkably low variation among the witnesses. The influence of Targum Onqelos was also barely noticeable, especially when compared to LTga,s. In general, the text of LTgi shared a high affinity with the continuous PalTg tradition, of which TgNeof and some manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah are witnesses. Ashkenazi mahzorim exhibited much more textual variation, most of which was caused by a pervasive influence of TgOnq (Chapter 5). Some manuscripts replaced entire sections of PalTg with verses from TgOnq, indicating, in many cases, a clear preference for this text above the PalTg. Nevertheless, common to all manuscripts in the corpus was the PalTg for the Song of the Sea (Ex 14:30–15:18) and the Decalogue (20:1–20:17). The Sephardi textual family contained only three witnesses, though shared readings against the other textual families justified its own grouping. Two of these manuscripts (t1609s and t1636s) are the only known witnesses of a PalTg text for the entirety of the readings for the seventh day of Pesach (Ex 13:17–15:26) and the first day of Shavuot (Ex 19:1–20:26)—a text previously only known from FragTgP.
1.3 FragTgP
There has long been some speculation regarding the relationship between some of the material in FragTgP and the Liturgical Targum. Previous research by Gleßmer, Klein, and Kaufman and Maori (see Chapter 4) indicated that their similarities surpassed mere common genealogical ancestry (i.e., the ‘Palestinian Targum’). In other words, previous scholarship suggested a more direct relationship between the festival material for Exodus in FragTgP and the Liturgical Targum. However, due to other research interests and a lack of textual witnesses to the Liturgical Targum, this relationship was never investigated in great detail. Our textual analysis has confirmed a direct genealogical relationship between LTgs and FragTgP. More specifically, our data indicates that the readings for Pesach and Shavuot in FragTgP must have come from a mahzor belonging to the Sephardi tradition (Chapter 4).
1.4 Onqelosization
In Chapter 5, we discussed the different ways in which the text of Targum Onqelos influenced the transmission of the Liturgical Targum. This phenomenon, common to the transmission of all the various recensions of the Palestinian Targum, is the result of a strong passive knowledge of the text of Targum Onqelos in Europe. Medieval scribes clearly knew its wording better than that of the Palestinian Targum leading to frequent instances of Onqelosization (i.e., the replacement, conflation, or dialectal hybridization of PalTg with TgOnq). We distinguished between conscious and unconscious Onqelosization, as well as macro and micro Onqelosization. We also noted that the Liturgical Targum could sometimes be used in the study of the transmission of the text of Onqelos in Europe.
2 The Targumic Network
We ended the introduction of this work with several guiding research questions. The first and most important of these questions was:
How does the Liturgical Targum relate to other Targums?
Previous scholarship already established the Liturgical Targum as a separate recension of the larger Palestinian Targum tradition, however details of its relationship(s) to other Palestinian Targum recensions remained largely vague until now. Our data has clarified several aspects of this research question, which we will illustrate with the use of the diagram in Figure 2.1 In this diagram hypothetical works are indicated with the prefix ‘Proto-’. We will explain the diagram in general and then explore individual relationships between the various Palestinian Targum recensions and the Liturgical Targum.
The diagram is based on the existence of a ‘Proto-Onqelos’ text, referring to whatever text may have come before Targum Onqelos in its extant witnesses. This text originated in Palestine and would also form the basis of the ‘Palestinian Targum’.2 The Palestinian Targum, with its diverse witnesses, has been represented as a cloud. The various recensions of this tradition (e.g., TgNeof, TgCGs, FragTgs) share enough material that we can confidently assume they have a common ancestor, sometimes referred to as the Proto-Palestinian Targum.
Though we have no extant witness of the Proto-Palestinian Targum, we generally make a distinction between the continuous and fragmentary recensions of the Palestinian Targum. Among the continuous recensions, we find Targum Neofiti and several manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah.3 Directly related to the continuous recensions are the Fragment Targum(s), which are, in Patmore’s words, most likely “substantially derived from continuous Targums.”4 As we described in Chapter 4, these manuscripts preserve extracts of Palestinian Targum that, among other reasons, scribes felt it worthwhile to preserve.
There are two simplifications represented in the diagram, namely: 1) we have not included the Tosefta Targums in the diagram due to their complicated nature; and 2) the FragTgs are presented as one entity whereas we now know that there are different recensions of Fragment Targum. Nevertheless, as we use this diagram mainly to illustrate the origins and position of the Liturgical Targum within the Targumic Network, we will have to make do with these simplifications.
Within the same line of reasoning as the theorized raison d’être of the Fragment Targums, certain parts of the Palestinian Targum were deemed suitable as festival reading portions.5 These readings, and in particular their toseftot, were enjoyed by a wide public on festival occasions, evidenced by their popularity in transmission. We tentatively refer to these liturgical extracts as the ‘Proto-Liturgical Targum’. Much like the Fragment Targums, we believe these liturgical readings were extracted from continuous manuscripts of the Palestinian Targum. Extant manuscripts of the Liturgical Targum preserve only the readings for the seventh day of Pesach and the first day of Shavuot, though it is possible that the Palestinian Targum was also read on other festival occasions.6 As the Proto-Liturgical Targum was introduced and transmitted within Europe, local variants entered the text and produced different recensions, leading to the different textual families of the Liturgical Targum (LTgi,a,s) in the mahzorim. As reading traditions evolved, the text of the Liturgical Targum changed and shortened over time, until in some communities (e.g., Italy), only the ‘core’ parts of the readings remained (i.e., the Song of the Sea and the Decalogue).
We have placed a dotted line from LTgs to the Fragment Targums to indicate the Liturgical Targum material that is contained in FragTgP (as argued in Chapter 4).
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s placement in this diagram is based on recent scholarship that suggests the text was composed in medieval Italy.7 Our own textual analysis supports this proposed provenance for TgPsJ, as we highlighted some readings shared only between TgPsJ and LTgi (see Chapters 3 and 4). As TgPsJ is considered to be composed from many different sources, it is possible that the compiler drew on liturgical material specific to the Italian liturgical rite. We will also discuss this in more detail below.
The dotted line from Targum Onqelos to the Palestinian Targum cloud represents the phenomenon of Onqelosization, or the persistent influence of Targum Onqelos in the transmission of the Palestinian Targum witnesses. This dotted line applies to all Palestinian Targum recensions but is most clearly evident in the transmission of the Liturgical Targum and the Fragment Targums (Chapter 4).
3 Relationships with Other Recensions of the Palestinian Targum
We discussed the relationship of the Liturgical Targum to the Fragment Targums in Chapter 4. Below we will discuss some of the other recensions of the Palestinian Targum.
3.1 Targum Neofiti
ms Neofiti 1 is dated to the sixteenth century,8 though the text it contains (Targum Neofiti) is considered to be much older.9 Le Déaut considered Targum Neofiti to be the best witness of the Palestinian Targum. We have frequently used Targum Neofiti to represent the Proto-Palestinian Targum, though we must express caution when doing so. Put differently, Targum Neofiti as a work is significantly older than the manuscript in which its only extant witness is preserved (ms Neofiti 1). Throughout its transmission over time, this work has undergone significant changes.
Throughout our analysis, we identified at several points that the text contained in LTgi was largely aligned to the text of TgNeof and Genizah manuscripts that preserve the continuous Palestinian Targum tradition. This textual affinity is partly due to the remarkably stable transmission of the Italian Liturgical Targum, which we believe is substantially derived from a continuous Palestinian Targum tradition. The presentation of the Decalogue (Chapter 4) in particular highlighted the significant similarity between LTgi, TgNeof and the manuscripts of the Cairo Genizah (in particular TgCGF,S,Q). LTgi, TgNeof and the Genizah manuscripts lack the expansions within the Decalogue which are found in LTga,s and FragTgP. This suggests that these are local expansions that were added at a later stage, and that the text preserved in LTgi is older and closer to the continuous tradition of the Palestinian Targum.
Kaufman and Maori believed that the Liturgical Targum was a useful witness in their endeavor to reconstruct a singular Palestinian Targum.10 In some cases, we find significant variation among the recensions of the Palestinian Targum, making it difficult to establish which form might be ‘original’. Though our goal is not to attempt to reconstruct the Palestinian Targum, we do agree with Kaufman and Maori about the usefulness of the Liturgical Targum in this regard. This can best be illustrated with an example:
|
Ex 14:28 |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTga |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
LTgs |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
TgOnq |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
TgNeof |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
FragTgP |
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
|
TgPsJ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
We are mainly concerned with the second verb in the example above. In TgOnq and LTga, we find
3.2 Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah
3.2.1 Festival-Liturgical Collections
A group of manuscripts that are similar to the Fragment Targums are the so-called ‘festival-liturgical collections’ named by Klein.11 These manuscripts contain units of Targum associated with the festival liturgy.
These manuscripts align closely with the continuous Palestinian Targum tradition (as preserved more or less in TgNeof). For the verses that are extant in LTgi, the festival-liturgical collections align very closely, further reinforcing that LTgi preserves the continuous PalTg tradition with minimal variation, as opposed to LTga,s. The toseftot, however, are preserved in their ‘original’ forms (e.g.,
3.2.2 Tosefta Collections
Our corpus was compared to three tosefta collections in the Cairo Genizah: TgCGX,CC,FF. In addition to five toseftot to verses in Genesis,12 TgCGX contains the tosefta to Ex 13:17 (
TgCGCC contains only Ex 20:13–17, the final five commandments. It aligns closely to the version found in LTga,s, particularly for the final commandment, where it is missing a large expansion like LTgs and some members of LTga. It is possible that TgCGCC is a fragment of a mahzor or was copied from one, as the expanded version of the final commandment is found in all PalTg recensions except LTga,s.
TgCGFF is a larger fragment that contains toseftot from Genesis and Exodus. In terms of our pericopes, it contains Ex 12:42 (
3.3 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan covers the entirety of the Pentateuch, though it is several times longer than the Hebrew text. The text is known to us based on only two versions, one handwritten text (ms Brit. Mus. Add. 27031), and the version printed in the Biblia Rabbinica dated to 1591. These two versions differ from one another to the extent that it is unlikely that one has served as the Vorlage of the other.14 Its dialect has been called ‘Late Jewish Literary Aramaic’, which essentially encompasses a combination of linguistic features from Targum Onqelos (JLA) and what we find in the PalTgs (JPA).
Some scholars considered this Targum to be Palestinian, perhaps because of its label as ‘Targum Yerushalmi 1’ though general consensus has abandoned this classification. Indeed, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan contains much of the material shared amongst the witnesses of the Palestinian Targum tradition (also referred to as the Proto-PalTg source),15 but this is mixed with material found in Targum Onqelos. When the text was printed in 1591, the text of the Fragment Targum was added to the text due to the similarity in many readings.16 In many cases, the Proto-PalTg material is updated or recast together with what we find in Targum Onqelos. In addition to the shared material, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan also contains an enormous amount of ‘other’ material, labelled by most scholars as the ‘TgPsJ unique’ source.17
Recent discussions concerning the dating of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan are pointing to a much later date of composition. Gottlieb18 and McDowell’s19 groundbreaking research used two separate methodologies yet reached the same conclusion: the composition of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan likely occurred in twelfth-century Italy. This has implications when considering what kind of sources might have been available to the compiler of this text.
Any direct relationship of influence between Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the Liturgical Targum is inherently difficult to prove because of the large amount of shared material belonging to the Proto-PalTg source, which both recensions drew from. It is therefore more effective to consider areas where both recensions share readings that deviate from the other PalTg recensions. We have indicated two of these occasions in the discussion of the toseftot (see Chapter 3), which we provide below:
-
והוה כד שלח פרעה (Ex 13:17): This tosefta occurs only in LTg, FragTgP, and TgCGX. These two latter sources extracted their material from LTg. This tosefta was composed for the liturgy. TgPsJ contains a summarized version of the tosefta and is clearly secondary. -
והוה כד אישתעבידו (Ex 15:2): Klein pointed out that the version in TgPsJ must be secondary to the version in LTg but did not go further into the direct overlap in content between the version in LTg (more specifically LTgi) and TgPsJ, that is missing from the other PalTg witnesses. The ending of TgPsJ contains an addition namely: בעידן דאימן נפקן לאנפי ברא וילדן ושבקן יתן תמן ומשדר מלאכא ומסחי יתן ומלפף יתן ‘[…] when our mothers went out to the field, gave birth, and abandoned us there. And he sent the angel and washed us and swaddled us.’ The phraseology of this addition and in particular the words ומסחי יתן ומלפף יתן ‘washed us and swaddled us’ is identical to what we find in LTgi, and is, to my knowledge, not directly reflected in any of the midrashic literature.20
In addition to the similarities in the toseftot, we also find one occasion where LTgi and TgPsJ share a reading that was previously considered to belong to the TgPsJ unique source.21
|
Ex 15:13 |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
LTg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
|
TgPsJ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[…] |
This expansion is missing from the other recensions of the PalTg, and its wording is so specific that it is possible this phrase entered TgPsJ under influence of LTg. Subsequent investigation is needed to further develop this theory, but we can suggest that LTg (and more specifically LTgi) was among the sources that the compiler of TgPsJ consulted.
4 The Textual Families of the Liturgical Targum
The second major question we posed in the introduction was the following:
What can the different textual families of the Liturgical Targum tell us about its transmission in European communities?
4.1 The Italian Liturgical Targum (LTgi)
We will begin with a discussion of LTgi. We mentioned several times that the Liturgical Targum originated as an extract from the continuous Palestinian Targum tradition, of which Targum Neofiti is likely the most complete extant witness. Its high affinity with Neofiti and the manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah that preserve the continuous tradition, as well as its overall heavily Palestinian linguistic character, we can confidently assert that LTgi represents the oldest recension of LTg.
While originally LTg may have been a much longer text, only the readings for Pesach and Shavuot remained in transmission throughout the medieval period and are available to us. These readings became further reduced over time until only the Song of the Sea (Ex 14:30–15:17) and the Decalogue (Ex 20:1–17) remained in Italian mahzorim. This reduction likely occurred due to an evolution in reading tradition (i.e., the attenuation of Targum in the medieval synagogue).
What then with the toseftot? As we discussed in Chapter 3, the toseftot in LTgi have characteristics that, in many cases, are secondary to the versions of the toseftot we find in LTga,s and other recensions of the Palestinian Targum. For example, we mentioned that
4.2 The Sephardi Liturgical Targum (LTgs)
Though we have only three witnesses of LTgs, we may draw some conclusions from our textual analysis. Firstly, where LTgi represents the oldest recension of LTg, LTgs certainly presents the youngest. Kaufman and Maori argued that FragTgP contains the latest and “most developed” recension of LTg.22 We subsequently established that FragTgP must have extracted its material from a source containing LTgs (see Chapter 4). This recension is the most expansive, especially in regard to the Decalogue, where the Sephardi manuscripts preserve large expansions within the commandments.
Another unique feature of LTgs is the preservation of the Palestinian Targum for verses preceding and following the Song of the Sea and the Decalogue. In the other recensions of LTg, these verses are missing (LTgi) or have been replaced with Targum Onqelos (LTga). In our view, this suggests that, in the formative period of the Proto-LTg, the text covered the entirety of the readings of Pesach and Shavuot. During its transmission, this text was heavily expanded—especially within the Decalogue—which explains the large expansions in LTgs that are missing from other recensions of the Palestinian Targum. Additionally, changes were made to the text to accommodate evolutions in reading traditions (see for example, the discussion of
4.3 The Ashkenazi Liturgical Targum (LTga)
We have intentionally left the discussion of LTga for last, because in many ways it represents an intermediate text form between LTgi,s. LTga is by far the most heterogenous recension, with a high degree of variation among its witnesses. This can largely be explained due to geographic reasons, as LTga covers a much larger geographic area than the other recensions.
LTga’s witnesses predominantly preserve only the Palestinian Targum for the Song of the Sea and the Decalogue. The remaining verses have simply been replaced with Targum Onqelos (i.e., macro-Onqelosization), though some vestiges of Palestinian Targum remain scattered among these verses. Its version of the Palestinian Targum is heavily Onqelosized (see Chapter 5). In many cases, LTga and LTgs are very similar, particularly regarding the toseftot. They both preserve the adapted versions of
Putting all these pieces of the puzzle together, we can form a conclusion about LTga: its transmission was by far the most active of all the recensions, and it was influenced by both LTgi and LTgs. Only a handful of witnesses of LTga contain the tosefta to Ex 15:3 (
5 Suggestions for Further Research
This work represents only the first step in the study of the Liturgical Targum. First and foremost, expanding the corpus with more textual witnesses is a logical improvement to the study. The study includes thirty-two mahzorim from a range of liturgical rites, though the vast majority of the witnesses belonged to either the Italian or Ashkenazi groups. The Sephardi group only contained three witnesses—expanding this pool with more textual witnesses (if they are to be found), is primary.
The inspiration of this project came from Hector Patmore (PI of textevolve), whose study of manuscripts of the Targum to Samuel included a chapter on the text contained in liturgical manuscripts.23 He and others recognized the need for a more comprehensive study of the Liturgical Targum. Until now, studies (including this one) have approached the Targum to the Pentateuch and the Prophets separately. We believe that a study combining the Liturgical Targum to the Pentateuch and the Prophets would be greatly beneficial. After all, these texts are heavily linked through intertextuality and—when they were being read—were read together.
There were numerous questions brought forth throughout my research, but perhaps the most pertinent one pertains to language. The field is in desperate need of a reconsideration of Aramaic literacy in the Middle Ages: we now have evidence that medieval European Jews continued to study and even compose new works in Aramaic but know very little about how Aramaic was taught and learned. Medieval Aramaic compositions exhibit a form of Aramaic categorized as Late Jewish Literary Aramaic, which has (due to a lack of systematic analysis) become a dialectal melting-pot. In our view, the key to understanding the dialect of LJLA is in how Aramaic was learned in medieval Europe (i.e., on the basis of a multitude of Aramaic texts in a variety of Aramaic dialects).
We mentioned in Chapter 3 that this work will not explore the vocalization of the Liturgical Targum—though future scholarship will likely benefit from a systematic analysis of this data. As these Targum texts were arguably read out loud until the medieval period, it would be interesting to explore how this was possible, given the inconsistency and overall illegibility of the vocalization in the manuscripts available to us.
The manuscripts of the Liturgical Targum are generally well-preserved and as such, are ideal subjects for OCR-analysis. Automated alignment software such as Dicta or CollateX work remarkably well in aligning the texts and identifying variants. My colleague Estara Arrant (University of Cambridge) and I are preparing an article in which we modify alignment sequence algorithms from phylogenetic studies and apply them to the manuscripts of the Liturgical Targum.24 These algorithms allow the philologist to see minute details in the texts that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. When applied to the Ashkenazi manuscripts, the algorithm was able to identify sub-groups within this textual family. The preliminary results are promising, and we look forward to publishing them soon. This is also one of the advantages of having this textual data in Unicode-format; we hope that new methods in quantitative textual analysis will be applied to this textual corpus to reveal even more findings.
A less detailed but similar diagram can be found in Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, p. 100.
The foundations of this theory are clearly explained and illustrated in Flesher, ‘Is Targum Onqelos a Palestinian Targum? The Evidence of Genesis 28–50’; Flesher, ‘The Translations of Proto-Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums.’
These latter manuscripts are what Klein refers to as ‘Palestinian Targum proper’. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, pp. XXII–XXIII.
Patmore, ‘A Previously Overlooked Manuscript of Fragment Targum’, p. 39.
See for example, Chapter 1 and the popular comment of Judah b. Barzillai.
Some Italian mahzorim also include the passage for Simhat Torah.
McDowell, ‘The Date and Provenance of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’; Gottlieb, ‘Towards a More Precise Understanding of Pseudo-Jonathan’s Origins’.
Díez Macho, Neophyti 1.
Díez Macho, ‘The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum’, pp. 222–245. Le Déaut, La nuit pascale, pp. 41 ff.; York, ‘The Dating of Targumic Literature’, p. 54.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’.
Klein, The Fragment Targums, pp. 19–25; Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, pp. xxiii–xxvi.
Gen 38:25, 38:26, 42:36, 44:18, 49:18.
As well as FragTgP, but as we argued in Chapter 4, this material was copied from a mahzor and is therefore LTg.
Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 88.
A. Shinan’s work has largely focused on the relationship of the PalTg material shared amongst the PalTg witnesses and TgPsJ. Some of the works discussing the relationship(s) are: Avigdor Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic Targums to the Pentateuch (Makor, 1979); Avigdor Shinan, “The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Rabbinic Aggadah: Some Methodological Considerations,” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. Derek R.G. Beattie and Martin McNamara (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 203–217; Avigdor Shinan, “ ‘Targumic Additions’ in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,” Textus 16 (1991): 139–155.
Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 91.
A. Shinan, The Embroidered Targum: The Aggadah in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992); B. Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 4; Leiden: Brill, 2006). For a detailed overview of the different kinds of discussions relating to the date of TgPsJ, consult ‘Dating Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’ in C. Hayward, Targums and the Transmission of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2009) pp. 10:108–278.
Gottlieb, ‘Towards a More Precise Understanding’.
McDowell, ‘The Date and Provenance of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’.
The other elements, such as an angel being sent instead of the Lord directly helping (as in the original midrash) are reflected in Exodus Rab. 1:16 as well as b. Soṭ. 11b; and also, in the version in Sefer haYashar (ed. L. Goldschmidt, Berlin 1923) p. 141; see Klein, ‘The Targumic Tosefta to Ex 15:2’, p. 139.
See Mortensen, The Priesthood in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Appendix B.2.
Kaufman and Maori, ‘The Targumim to Exodus 20’, p. 28.
Patmore, The Transmission of Targum Jonathan, pp. 301–344.
E. Arrant and J. Verrijssen, ‘Measuring Similarities and Visualising Patterns in a Text Tradition using Sequence Alignment and t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbour Embedding’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (forthcoming).