Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Previously Overlooked Manuscript of Fragment Targum (EVR II A 371, National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg)

A Previously Overlooked Manuscript of Fragment Targum (EVR II A 371, National Library of Russia,... 1IntroductionThe Fragment Targums belong to the Palestinian Targum tradition and contain selections of verses from the Pentateuch. It has proved difficult to reach firm conclusions regarding their raison d’être and relation to the other Pentateuchal Targums because 1) the number of primary textual witnesses is limited, and 2) the known textual witnesses exhibit variation in terms of their scope (i.e., what verses they include) and content. Although this article cannot decisively solve these problems, it adds another piece to the puzzle by introducing a manuscript of Fragment Targum that was unknown to the editors of previous editions. An edition of the text is being prepared for publication and should be completed in the coming years. The aim of this paper is to bring the manuscript to the attention of a wider academic audience, describe its content, provide a preliminary characterisation of the text’s relationship to the other extant sources of the Fragment Targums and the other Pentateuchal Targums, and consider the possible wider implications of this new textual witness for our understanding of the origins, purpose, and transmission history of the Fragment Targums.1.1Previously Identified ManuscriptsThe critical edition published by Michael Klein was the last significant milestone in the modern critical study of the text of the Fragment Targums.1 His edition was widely welcomed,2 since it remedied the major shortcomings of the early attempts of Ginsburger and Doubles.3 Klein’s edition was complemented by the appearance around the same time of Targum Palestinense in Pentateuchum under the editorial hand of Díez Macho.4 This included readings from witnesses that Klein had excluded on text-critical grounds, e.g., ms. Sassoon 264, because its text is a replica of that of the Second Rabbinic Bible, and ms. Günzburg 3, because it is a direct copy of ms. Nürnberg Stadtbibliothek, Solg. 2,2°.5 In the absence of new textual witnesses, no need has since been felt to replace the editions of Klein and Díez Macho.6Until now, nine manuscripts of the Fragment Targums that were not copied from printed texts (as Ms. Sassoon 264 was) were known.7 Five are complete or substantially complete. Of these one is Sephardi:The National Library of France, Paris, ms. hebr. 110 (15th cent. [Klein siglum: P]).A further four are Ashkenazi:Biblioteca Apostolica, Vatican, Ebr. 440 (13th cent. [V]);Nürnberg Stadtbibliothek, Solg. 2,2° (1291 CE [N]);Leipzig University Library, B.H. fol. 1. (13th–14th cent. [L]);Russian State Library, Moscow, Günzburg 3 (16th cent.).In addition, three fragments from the Cairo Genizah were hitherto known:8British Library, London, Or. 10794 (fol. 8) (11th–14th cent. [Br]);Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Lutzki 605 (fol. 6–7) (11th–14th cent. [J]);Cambridge University Library, T-S AS 72.75, 76, 77 (9th–11th cent. [DD]).An additional manuscript was identified by Klein (T-S B9.11) after the publication of his Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, which preserved another page of Ms H (HUC Genizah ms. 1134r), confirming that it was, in fact, a Palestinian Fragment Targum and not the remnants of a once complete copy of the Book of Genesis.9 The surface of the sheet is badly eroded, so the text is only partially legible. Efforts are currently underway to recover more of the text using multi-spectral imaging.Additional manuscripts of works that are similar to the Fragment Targums, such as collections of targumic readings for the festivals are also known; the dividing line between the Fragment Targums and the Festival-Liturgical collections in particular is not always clear.10To these witnesses can now be added a further manuscript, namely, EVR II A 371 of the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg (hereafter: FragTgStP). This manuscript belongs to the second Firkovich collection, which was acquired in 1876 by the National Library of Russia (then the Imperial Public Library) in St. Petersburg and consists of about 17,000 items. The precise provenance of individual manuscripts within the collection is difficult to ascertain. The collection stems from Abraham Firkovich’s second tour to the Middle East (1863–1865). During this trip, which included visits to Istanbul, Jerusalem, Aleppo, Antioch, Damascus, and Cairo, among other places, he purchased manuscripts and antiquities from traders and acquired what materials he judged to be of worth from genizot.11 Ms EVR II A 371 was probably among these acquisitions.There is no catalogue of the collection as such, only a card catalogue prepared by Yehiel Ravrebe before World War II on the basis of which Harkavy compiled a handwritten list (both are in Russian). This contains only the sparsest of information, listing the content of the manuscript as ‘Targum Jonathan (end of Genesis and beginning of Exodus), 8 folios’.12 Happily, the manuscript is now recorded in ‘Ktiv: The International Collection of Digitized Hebrew Manuscripts’ (where digital scans of the microfilm are also available). Ktiv identifies the text as ‮תרגום ירושלמי לתורה (לקוטים)‬‎. According to Ktiv the manuscript dates to the 12th–13th century and is written in an ‘Oriental’ script.13Although Klein had examined in situ those manuscripts identified in Harkavy’s list as containing Targum,14 the present manuscript was somehow overlooked. It is not clear how this happened. Klein’s list of manuscripts from the second Firkovitch collection contains only manuscripts with shelf-marks EVR II B and EVR II C, that is, biblical manuscripts. However, our manuscript is classified under the shelf-mark EVR II A, which contains non-biblical manuscripts of various sorts. It may be that Klein did not look at material under this shelf-mark. In any case, since there are no fewer than 2,942 manuscripts and fragments under the shelf-mark EVR II A,15 the oversight is quite understandable.1.2MethodDespite the manuscript’s presence in ‘Ktiv’, its content has so far not been studied. This paper therefore focuses on the text contained in this manuscript. Specifically, it aims 1) to identify its alignment within the textual families of the Fragment Targums, and 2) to provide a preliminary characterisation of the relationship of the text to other Pentateuchal Targums.In order to achieve this, I compared FragTgStP with the extant witnesses where they overlapped. FragTgL was excluded from this preliminary analysis because of the careless way in which it had been copied, and the quantity of scribal errors it contains.16 In order to understand the material in FragTgStP that is unique vis-à-vis the other extant witnesses to the Fragment Targums, its text was also compared with Targums Onqelos, Neofiti (including its marginalia), Pseudo-Jonathan, and the fragments of Palestinian Targum from the Cairo Genizah. I therefore prepared full transcriptions of FragTgStP and FragTgN based on digital images acquired from the holding libraries.17 Transcriptions of the remaining sources were taken from Accordance.18 My colleague, Dr Estara Arrant (University of Cambridge) then used the CollateX and Difflib software to align these transcriptions so that similarities and differences between them could be easily identified.I then manually analysed these similarities and differences in order to classify them; a selection of the results of that classification is presented below. It is, of course, not possible in the context of a journal article to present all the available evidence. Instead, illustrative examples are given for each of the textual features discussed. Many of these examples are drawn from Genesis 49, Jacob’s valedictory address to his sons immediately before his death, in which he tells them what will happen to them in the future in highly poetic terms. Poetry, of course, is a form of speech that afforded the Targumist considerable latitude. Nonetheless, the features one finds in Genesis 49 are representative of those found elsewhere in the extant text.2Format and ScopeThe eight preserved pages of FragTgStP contain the verses of Targum written one after the other with Hebrew lemmata as we find in, e.g., FragTgP and FragTgV, rather than being spread throughout the running text of Targum Onqelos as we find in FragTgL. Unlike other manuscripts of Fragment Targum (e.g., FragTgBr, FragTgN), FragTgStP does not contain single words or isolated phrases, but offers the complete Targum for each verse (except for cases of accidental omission by, e.g., parablepsis). The text covers Genesis 40:12—Deut. 1:2, but originally extended further since the preserved text begins and ends mid-verse. A total of fifty-four different verses are preserved:Gen. 40:12, 18; 44:18–19; 48:22; 49:1–27; 50:1, 19;Exod. 12:42; 14:13–14; 17:12; 17:16;Lev. 1:1; 10:19–20; 22:27;Num. 11:26; 12:1, 12, 16; 20:29; 21:1, 6, 15, 34;19Deut. 1:1, 2.FragTgStP therefore contains much fewer verses than FragTgV and FragTgP. For the same unit of text (i.e., Gen. 40:12—Deut. 1:2), FragTgV provides 461 additional verses, FragTgN 381, and FragTgP 305. FragTgStP is therefore highly selective in its choice of verses compared to other witnesses. Although there is no clear governing rationale for the selection as a whole, the reason for the inclusion of some individual passages is clear, for example: the first verses of biblical books (Lev. 1:1; Deut. 1:1); the start or end of weekly torah portions (e.g., Exod. 17:16 ends parashat Beshallach); readings connected with festival (e.g., Exod. 13:17–15:26 for the seventh day of Pesach); and passages for which a number of toseftot are known (e.g., Jacob’s blessing, Gen. 49).In terms of the verses it covers, FragTgStP overlaps with FragTgV more than with FragTgP. FragTgP contains only forty-eight of the fifty-four verses preserved in FragTgStP,20 whereas FragTgV contains fifty-two (FragTgN contains fifty).21 This is perhaps unsurprising given that FragTgV is the most extensive of the Fragment Targums. Of these overlaps, there is one verse attested in FragTgStP and FragTgP but not in FragTgV (i.e., Gen. 49:16), and five verses attested in FragTgStP and FragTgV but not in FragTgP (i.e., Gen. 49:4–6, 12; Num. 21:1).Before I turn to the question of textual alignment, I present here the one verse preserved in FragTgStP that is not attested in any other extant witness of the Fragment Targums, nor in the Cairo Genizah manuscripts, nor the targumic toseftot published to date:Gen. 49:13TgOnqZebulun shall dwell on the shore of the seas, and with ships he shall subjugate harbours; he shall eat the choice produce of the sea, and his border shall reach as far as Sidon.‮זְבוּלוּן עַל סְפַר יַמְמַיָא יִשׁרֵי וְהוּא יְכַבֵישׁ מָחוֹזִין בִספִינָן וְטוּב יַמָא יֵיכוֹל וּתחוּמֵיה יְהֵי מָטֵי עַד צִידֹן‬‎FragTgStPZebulun shall dwell on the shores of the great sea, and he shall rule over the ships’ harbours, and his border shall reach as far as Sidon.‮זבולון לספרי ימה רבה ישרי והוא ישלוט במחוזי ספינתה ותחומיה יהוי מטי עד צידן‬‎TgNeof‮זבולן על סייפי דימא (‭TNmarg‬ לסייפי ימא) רבה ישרי והוא יהווי שליט (‭TNmarg‬ ישלוט) במחוזוי ספינתה ותחומה יהוי מטי עד ציידן׃‬‎TgPsJ‮זבולון על ספרי ימא ישׁרי והוא יהי שׁליט במחוזין ומכבשׁ הפרכי ימא בספינתא ותחומי<ה> ימטי עד צידון‬‎With the exception of ‮ספר‬‎ ‘bank, edge, shore’ (as opposed to ‮סייף‬‎ ‘end’), which agrees with Targum Onqelos (whence Targum Pseudo-Jonathan), FragTgStP is in substantial agreement (i.e., ignoring spelling and orthographic variants) with Targum Neofiti in the form that it would have if one were to ‘correct’ it according to its marginalia.22 Agreement with Targum Neofiti’s marginalia is a feature found repeatedly in FragTgStP (see § 4.3).3Relation to Other Fragment Targums3.1Readings Distinct to the Fragment TargumsThe existence of readings that are common to all the extant manuscripts of the Fragment Targums but that are not found in other witnesses to the Pentateuchal Targums indicate that the Fragment Targums constitute a distinct textual family, rather than being, say, a compilation of verses extracted from Neofiti or Pseudo-Jonathan. This suggests that manuscripts of the Fragment Targums were copied from other collections of Fragment Targums. Readings distinct to the Fragment Targum textual family are also found in FragTgStP, demonstrating that it is correctly classified as another witness to the textual family of the Fragment Targums. For example (showing agreements in bold/italics):Num. 11:26FragTgStPGod and Magog and their (lit. its) armies (will) go up to Jerusalem, but they will fall at the hands of the King Messiah. For seven full years23 the Israelites will kindle fires from their weapons. They will not (need to) go the forest nor (to) chop down tree(s).‮גוג ומגוג וחילוותיה סלקין לירושלם ובידוי דמלכא מש[י]חא אינון נפלין ושבע שנין דיומין דלקין בני ישראל מן מייני זיניהון לא חורש (לחורש ‭(read:‬ לא יפקון ואילן לא יקצצון‬‎FragTgV = FragTgP24‮גוג ומגוג וחיילוותיה סלקין לירושלם ובידוי דמלכא משיחא אינון נפלין ושובע שנין דיומין ידליקו בני ישר׳ מן מני זייניהון לחורשא לא יפקון ואילן לא יקצון‬‎TgNeof‮גוג ומגוג סלקין לירושׁלם ובידוי דמלכא משׁיחה אינון נפלין ושׁבע שׁנין ידלקון בני ישׂראל מן מני זייניהון וחרשׁ לא יפקון‬‎3.2Aligned with FragTgPIn his edition, Klein divided the then available manuscripts (i.e., excluding DD) into four textual families: FragTgV, FragTgN, and FragTgL belonged to a single family, whereas FragTgP, FragTgJ, and FragTgBr were each the sole representative of three distinct textual families.25 Despite overlapping more frequently with FragTgV in terms of the verses covered (§ 2), the alignment of the transcriptions (§ 1.2) reveals a pattern of agreement between FragTgStP and FragTgP against FragTgV.26 For the sake of clarity, the two witnesses agree in substance (e.g., vocabulary, pluses, order of words, phrases, or clauses, etc.) though not necessarily in every detail.27 In other words, FragTgStP may exhibit minor variants in spelling, morphology, syntax (e.g., the formation of the construct), or other small elements (e.g., prepositions), but the basic textual affinity is not obscured. FragTgStP supports the reading of FragTgP against FragTgV in at least the following cases (showing the reading of FragTgP only):‮‭Gen. 40:12‬ משה ואהרן ומרים (דמתילין) | ושויתא | פילוי <דרוגזא> דעתיד פרעה | אוף | קבל אגר טב | דין הוא (פתרוניה) דחילמא‬‎‮‭Gen. 40:18‬ וענא יוסף | דין הוא פתרוניה דחלמא | קשיא | וסופא | ויפקון (ישראל) | אגר ביש‬‎‮‭Gen. 44:18‬ שלמיה דאבא‬‎‮‭Gen. 44:19‬ וטפח ברגליה בגו פלטין | חשב | בליביה‬‎‮‭Gen. 48:22‬ אחיי‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:1‬ <סברין> דהוה (מגלי) | כל מא‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:7‬ דתקום‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:10‬ ושלטנין‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:17‬ (לחויא) הרמניא | וממרע יתיה | מתהפך | ונפק לקרבא כל־קבל‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:22‬ ועיברתה | דמלכיא | ומסתכלין בך מן שוריא | מ{ס}<ט>לקן עלך | דילמא (תתלי) אפייך | תהוי שותף עמה בגיהנם‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:23‬ וקמו לקובליה | כורסי מלכותיה | ולשנ{י}<ו>‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:27‬ שבט‬‎‮‭Lev. 1:1‬ וית כל מנוי וית מדבחא‬‎‮‭Lev. 10:19‬ תוקלא (רובא) הדין‬‎‮‭Lev. 10:20‬ הלכתא (אתעלמא)‬‎‮‭Num. 11:26‬ (מתנבא ואמר) סלוון סלק מן ימא והוי תוקלא לבני ישראל ומידד הוה מתנבא ואמר עתיד (משה) | מקבל נבואתא | די אתפרשו בשמהון‬‎‮‭Num. 12:12‬ למחסנא‬‎‮‭Num. 21:6‬ (במרומיא) אתון | ארעא (דמצרים)‬‎‮‭Num. 21:15‬ אמוראי | איליין לאיליין | ומשיצין יתהון | מלכין עם שלטונין | ונגידו‬‎‮‭Num. 21:34‬ (מלכא) רשיעא | שתילין | לית אינון (עבדין מן בגין) כן (קיים) ואמתין | משובח‬‎Despite being more closely aligned with FragTgP, there are fifteen agreements in substance between FragTgStP and FragTgV against FragTgP (showing the reading of FragTgV only):‮‭Gen. 44:18‬ למצרים | אומית בה (‭FragTgStP‬ ימי ביה = ‭FragTgN‬)‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:1‬ ואתני | טמורייה | ושליוותיה‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:2‬ יהי שמיה מברך לעלמי עלמין (‭FragTgStP‬ עלמא ולעלמי עלמיא)‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:21‬ דיעקב לישניה חלי‬‎‮‭Gen. 50:1‬ יהוד׳ גובריהון דאחוי עני‬‎‮‭Exod. 17:16‬ למיתב על כורסיהון דמלכותא‬‎‮‭Lev. 10:19‬ ותקן‬‎‮‭Num. 12:1‬ ואישתעו‬‎‮‭Num. 20:29‬ ריש | אחי | חד זמן בכל שנה‬‎The fact that FragTgStP shows evidence of agreements with FragTgP against FragTgV as well as with FragTgV against FragTgP has intriguing implications for our understanding of the filiation of the Fragment Targums. This fact might be accounted for in one of a number of ways. Theoretically, it is possible that FragTgV stands closer to the archetype and FragTgP the furthest from the archetype in the stemma (or vice versa), while FragTgStP occupies an intermediate position. Drawing any firm conclusions in this respect is, however, extremely challenging, since the data are too limited to establish a reliable stemma (a problem compounded by the fact that the evidence we do have suggests that the transmission of the Fragment Targums was relatively ‘fluid’). The readings of FragTgStP might therefore result from a range of other factors, such as contamination or conflation, or coincidental agreement resulting from scribal innovation in the text.In short, though nothing concrete can be inferred about its line of descent, it is clear that FragTgStP exhibits as strong correspondence with FragTgP.3.3Unique ReadingsFragTgStP contains many readings not attested in any other Pentateuchal Targum. For example:Gen. 49:2FragTgStPas for Isaac my father, (one who was) unfit arose from him, (namely) Esau, my brother. There is among you one whose mind is divided regarding the worship of the Lord your God‮יצחק אבא קם מיניה פסולה עשו אחי אית בכון מן בלביה פילוג על דחלתא דייי אלהכון‬‎FragTgV = FragTgN, TgNeof, TgCGZ (cf. FragTgP)as for Isaac my father, (one who was) unfit arose from him, (namely) Esau, my brother. So I am concerned that there should not be among you a man whose mind is divided against his brothers to go and serve before other idols‮ויצחק אבא קם מיניה פסולא עשו אחי ואנא דחיל דלא יהוי ביניכון גבר דליביה פלג על אחוי למיזל למיפלח קדם טעוון אחרניין‬‎As in this example, the unique readings in FragTgStP generally concern small variants in vocabulary or phraseology that have little bearing on the sense. This example also reflects another characteristic feature of the unique materials in FragTgStP, namely that the unique readings found in FragTgStP are often shorter than those found in the other extant Fragment Targums.Apart from the relatively frequent cases of parablepsis in FragTgStP, no clear pattern is discernible that might suggest either that FragTgStP consistently preserves the anterior reading or that the shorter readings reflect an editorial Tendenz. Put more prosaically, in most cases it is hard to tell why FragTgStP is shorter.That being said, in some instances a case can be made that the reading of FragTgStP is anterior vis-à-vis the reading of the other witnesses to the Fragment Targums. For example:Gen. 44:19FragTgStPWhen the beloved and exalted Joseph saw that the power of Judah his brother increased, he signalled to Manasseh …‮כד חמה יוסף חביבה ורא֯ימה די סלקת גבורתיה דיהודה אחוהי רמז יוסף למנשה‬‎FragTgV = FragTgN, FragTgP≈ TgNeofWhen the beloved and honoured Joseph saw that the power of Judah his brother increased (to such an extent that) the hairs of his chest stood on end and tore his clothes. At that very moment he signalled to Manasseh …‮כד חמה יוסף חביבה ויקירא דסליקת גבורתה דיהודה אחוי ונפקין סערתיה דליבי׳ ובזעו לבושיה ביה בשעתה רמז יוסף למנשה‬‎On the principle lectio brevior potior, the ‘plus’ in FragTgV and FragTgP here could be seen as a secondary embellishment to the shorter form preserved in FragTgStP.28 The resumptive ‮בשעתה‬‎ in FragTgV and FragTgP (cf. TgNeof ‮בההיא שׁעתא‬‎) certainly gives the longer reading a secondary character, reinforced by the fact that the tradition of Judah’s chest hair tearing through his garments is also found in Amoraic and post-Talmudic midrashim.294Relation to Other Pentateuchal Targums4.1Agreement with Cairo Genizah ManuscriptsFor many of the verses covered by FragTgStP there are simply no extant Cairo Genizah manuscripts. However, where Cairo Genizah manuscripts are extant, they occasionally agree with FragTgStP in ways that most likely indicate a genealogical relationship (i.e., descent from a common source). For example:Gen. 40:12FragTgStP = TgCGEyou, chief cup-bearer, said, ‘I took them and I crushed them’ … (you, chief cup-bearer, shall receive a good reward) since the dream that you have dreamed is a good dream‮אמרת רב מזוגיה דנסבית יתהון *ועצרת*/ועצרית/ יתהון … דחלמה דיחלמת חלם טב הוא‬‎cf. TNmarg‮רב מזוגיא דנסבת יתהון‬‎FragTgV = FragTgN, TgNeof, ≈ TgPsJyou have said, ‘I took grapes and I crushed them’ … (you, chief cup-bearer, your rewards shall not be lost) since you have dreamed (this) good dream‮אמרת נסבית ית ענבייה ועצרת יתהון … די חלמת חלמא טבא‬‎It seems likely that the variants that distinguish FragTgStP from the tradition represented by FragTgV are secondary; both may have originated as errors: The title ‮רב מזוגיה‬‎ appears later in the same verse in the other Palestinian Targums and in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and has probably been repeated by accident (or possibly to clarify the addressee); ‮דחלמה‬‎ is probably the result of dittography. Yet, regardless of how they may have originated, the occurrence of these two agreements between FragTgStP and TgCGE (and the partial correspondence with Targum Neofiti’s marginalia)30 is more plausibly explained in genealogical terms than as pure coincidence.Furthermore, the fact that FragTgStP shows agreement with materials from the Cairo Genizah is unsurprising, since manuscripts of a similar provenance (see § 1.1) are often textually aligned.31 In this case the manuscript involved, manuscript ‘E’, is among the earliest of the Cairo Genizah materials (9/10th century, according to the classification of Beit Arié). It once contained a continuous Palestinian Targum to the whole of Genesis (perhaps to the entire Pentateuch), though now only a few pages remain, scattered among various libraries.32 Such cases may be taken as additional evidence that the Fragment Targums were initially ‘extracted’ from continuous Targum(s) before subsequently undergoing their own distinct transmission history.4.2Agreement with Targum OnqelosSource-critical work by Flesher has shown that Targum Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums contain corresponding material in sufficient quantity that some kind of relationship of dependence must be assumed (e.g., a common source).33 However, some agreements between Targum Onqelos and one or more of the Palestinian Targums are not the result of a common origin, but are rather the result of the subsequent influence of Targum Onqelos on the Palestinian Targum tradition. The status and ubiquity of Targum Onqelos eventually resulted in the wording of Targum Onqelos seeping into the Palestinian Targum tradition. As Díez Macho recognized long ago, the Fragment Targums show the influence of Targum Onqelos to a greater extent than other representatives of the Palestinian Targum tradition (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan excluded).34 FragTgStP also contains instances of this sort of contamination by Targum Onqelos, including cases that are not attested in other Fragment Targums, for example:Gen. 49:2FragTgStP = TgOnq, TgPsJGather together and hear, O sons of Jacob, and receive instruction from Israel your father …‮אתכנשו ושמעו בני יעקב וקבילו אולפן מן ישראל אבוכון‬‎FragTgV = FragTgN, FragTgP, TgNeofAfter the twelve tribes of Jacob had gathered together, they surrounded the golden bed on which our father Jacob was lying …‮מן די איתכנשו תרי־עשרתי שבטוי דיעקב ואקיפו דרגשא די דהבא דהוו׳ אבונן יעקב (יעקב אבונן ‭FragTgP:‬) רביע בגווה‬‎4.3Agreements with Targum Neofiti’s MarginaliaWe have noted already one case of agreement with Targum Neofiti’s marginalia (§ 2), but others can be found. For example:Gen. 49:7FragTgStP = FragTgN, FragTgP Cf. FragTgVand I will disperse the tribe of Levi among the study houses of the children of Israel‮ואבדר ית שבטיה (שבטה ‭read‬) דלוי בבתי מדרשייה דבני ישראל‬‎‮‭(cf. FragTgV ‮למיתב בבתי מדרשייה‬‎)‬‬‎TNmarg35‮ואבדר׳ ית שבטיי[א] דלו֯י֯ בבתי מדרש דבני ישראל׃‬‎cf. TgPsJ‮ואבדר שיבטא דלוי בגו כלהון שבטיא דישראל‬‎cf. TgOnq‮ואבדרינון בישראל‬‎cf. TgNeof36‮ואסגי אחסנתיה דלוי בגו שבטה דבני ישראל‬‎Le Déaut was the first to present a critical analysis of the marginalia of Targum Neofiti that established an undeniable link with the Fragment Targums (and Cairo GenizahC, the fragmentary remains of a once-continuous Palestinian Targum to Genesis, perhaps the whole Pentateuch).37 He concluded that the text of both Targum Neofiti’s marginalia and the Fragment Targums went back to one or more recension of the Palestinian Targum, arguing that the text preserved in the Fragment Targums had been modified to a greater extent than the one preserved in Targum Neofiti’s marginalia. Subsequent studies have supported Le Déaut’s conclusions.384.4Cases Supporting the Reading of Targum Pseudo-JonathanThe link between the Fragment Targums and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has intrigued scholars since the beginning of the modern critical study of the Targums. Zunz maintained that two recensions of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan had once existed; the Fragment Targums, he claimed, recorded the variants.39 But, as Frankel quickly pointed out, the cases of agreement between Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targums, including in trivial matters, could not be passed off as mere carelessness or later interpolations as Zunz had tried to do.40 Frankel proposed instead that the Fragment Targums represented remnants from a Palestinian Targum, which had later been reworked and expanded, heavily influenced by Targum Onqelos, to produce Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Subsequent contributions to the discussion have broadly followed Frankel.41 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan can now be considered a late, composite work, which took Targum Onqelos as its base; the compiler re-worked it in order to integrate material from Palestinian Targum(s) that were known to him and added additional material drawn from a wide range of other sources (e.g., midrashim).42 The Palestinian Targum(s) from which his text borrowed were textually close to the works from which the Fragment Targums were extracted, hence the cases of agreement.FragTgStP brings some new data to this discussion, since it contains cases where its reading supports that of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. The example below appears in an expansion (i.e., material not found in Targum Onqelos). The scene is the death of Jacob, during which Judah proposes building a memorial to his father, saying to his brothers:Gen. 50:1FragTgStP = TgCGFF… from him arose the priests according to their divisions and Levites according to their sections.‮מיניה קמו כהניא בפלגתהון ולֵוָאֵי במחלקתהון‬‎TgPsJ ≈ TNmarg… from him is destined to arise kings and governors and the priests according to their divisions in order to offer offerings and from him (will also arise) Levites according to their sections to sing.‮מיניה עתיד למיקום מלכין ושׁליטין וכהנייא בפלוגתהון לקרבא קורבנין ומיניה ליואי במחלוקתהון לזמרא‬‎FragTgP ≈ FragTgV, TgNeof… from him arose priests with their trumpets and Levites with their lyres‮מיניה קמון כהניא בחצוצריהון וליואי בכינריהון‬‎As one might expect, the version in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is more expansive than that found in the other sources. When one compares it with that of the other extant Fragment Targums and Targum Neofiti, it is evident that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (as well as Targum Neofiti’s marginalia) is essentially an expanded version of a text identical—or at least very similar—to the text found in FragTgStP.43The potential implications of a case like this can be highlighted by turning to Mortensen’s recent work on Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.44 Mortensen defines the material in the unit ‮עתיד … לזמרא‬‎ as coming from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s ‘unique’ source, and therefore providing additional evidence for her theory that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s unique source shows an overwhelming interest in the priesthood.45 Her description of the process is somewhat unclear, but in essence she proposes that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s unique material originated from a scholarly group of priests and was subsequently edited by a single individual into the text of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan as we have it today. She believes that the expectation of the rebuilding of the Temple and revival of the cultic office of the priesthood during the reign of Emperor Julian (361–363 CE) prompted this activity.46The evidence of FragTgStP, however, indicates that the ordering of the priests and Levites belongs to a Palestinian Targum source. In fact, this conclusion is already indicated by material that would have been available to Mortensen when she completed her study, namely Cairo GenizahFF (with which FragTgStP is identical) and Targum Neofiti’s marginalia.47 In the course of its transmission, it seems that the shorter form attested in FragTgStP and Cairo GenizahFF was expanded to specify the functions (i.e., ‮לקרבא קורבנין‬‎ and ‮לזמרא‬‎), yielding the version now attested in Targum Neofiti’s marginalia. This was the reading known to the compiler of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, who further expanded it to introduce an element of future expectation (i.e., ‮עתיד למיקום מלכין ושׁליטין‬‎).None of this fundamentally undermines Mortensen’s observation that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan shows a particular interest in the priesthood, but it does raise a question about the theory she develops on the basis of this observation since this small piece of supposedly ‘unique’ material turns out not to be unique at all.48 Put more forcefully, the example from FragTgStP leads us to wonder how much more of the ‘unique’ material in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan may in fact have been culled from sources that are no longer extant or that await identification in archives or genizot (e.g., is ‮עתיד למיקום מלכין ושׁליטין‬‎ the work of the compiler or did he find it in one of his sources?).5ConclusionLet us summarize our characterisation of FragTgStP and consider some of the wider implications.5.1SummaryIn terms of its scope, FragTgStP is highly selective in the verses it includes compared to the other extant witnesses that cover the same range (i.e., Gen. 40:12–Deut. 1:2). In short, it is a very fragmentary Fragment Targum. It contains one verse (Gen. 49:13) not otherwise attested in extant sources of the Fragment Targums and contains a number of unique readings. Nonetheless, it reflects readings that are characteristic of the Fragment Targums as a distinct textual family. It is therefore correctly classified as Fragment Targum, as opposed to being a collection of ‘fragments’ of some other Targum. Within the Fragment Targum textual-family, it most closely aligns with FragTgP, yet exhibits some agreements with FragTgV. FragTgStP exhibits a tendency to preserve shorter readings. In most cases these are probably secondary shortenings (sometimes due to error), though in a few cases FragTgStP may preserve the earlier reading. As we find in the other witnesses of the Fragment Targum, its text exhibits agreements with continuous Palestinian Targums from the Cairo Genizah and the marginalia of Targum Neofiti that cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence. FragTgStP also shows signs of having been contaminated by Targum Onqelos and occasionally provides additional support for readings of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.5.2Wider ImplicationsWhat are some of the possible implications of these results for our understanding of the Fragment Targums in particular and Palestinian Targum traditions more generally?The agreements between Fragment Targums and the continuous Palestinian Targum discovered in the Cairo Genizah for which FragTgStP provides additional evidence (§ 4.1)—and, to a lesser extent, the marginalia in Targum Neofiti (§ 4.3)—favours the view that the Fragment Targums are substantially derived from continuous Targums. In other words, they originated as extracts from continuous Targums. The reverse argument—that the continuous Palestinian Targums grew out of collections of translations of individual verses49—requires that a strong rationale be found for the selection of verses included in the Fragment Targums. Since an explanation for only a minority of the data is possible (i.e., partial correspondence with liturgical cycles), this theory remains less convincing. The indications of influence of Targum Onqelos on the Fragment Targums also suggests that they are posterior (see § 4.2 cf. also § 2).Furthermore, two factors probably account for the fact that there are readings shared by all the Fragment Targums and not by other extant witnesses (§ 3.1): 1) all the Fragment Targums preserve some of the readings of the continuous Palestinian Targum text(s) from which they derive (i.e., a common source); and 2), manuscripts of the Fragment Targums were copied from other collections of Fragment Targums (i.e., a distinct tradition of transmission). These two genealogical factors help explain the puzzling fact that an Oriental manuscript—FragTgStP—exhibits agreements not only with a Sephardi manuscript (FragTgP) but also with the Ashkenazi branch of the Fragment Targums, of which FragTgV is the main representative.These factors may account for the coherence between the witnesses, but how can the divergence between them be accounted for? The fact that all the Fragment Targums, including FragTgStP, show traces of the influence of Targum Onqelos (§ 4.2) indicates that they were transmitted in contexts in which Targum Onqelos had become dominant, which is perhaps unsurprising given the date of the manuscripts. The evidence of influence of Targum Onqelos has important implications. On the one hand, it shows that the transmission of the Fragment Targums was not stable, and on the other, it demonstrates that they were influenced by the texts around them. Where the witnesses of the Fragment Targums differ, they often offer genuinely alternative readings (as opposed to one obviously being a corruption of the other). It is possible that such changes also came about under the influence of other Palestinian Targum texts that circulated in the environments in which the Fragment Targums were transmitted, as the agreements with Targum Neofiti and its marginalia may imply (§ 2). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, it seems, also knew and drew on such texts. These probably included continuous Palestinian Targums no longer known to us. The example presented above (§ 4.4) is a cautionary reminder that the unique content of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan may only be ‘unique’ because we have yet to uncover another primary source containing it.It is probably unhelpful, though, to imagine that the influence of other textual traditions on the texts of the Fragment Targums was unconscious and accidental. The nature and extent of the diversity between the extant witnesses, suggests an ‘active’ rather than a ‘quiescent’ tradition.50 In fact, this was already evident to Ginsburger on the basis of fewer textual witnesses than we now have at our disposal: ‘Wir haben es eben hier mit herrenlosem Gute zu thun’, he wrote, ‘wo ein Jeder sich für berechtigt hielt hinzuzufügen und umzuändern, was er wollte, und wo daher oft unmittelbar neben sehr alte Übersetzungen ganz neue zu stehen kamen’.51 In other words, it was a tradition in which scribes felt at liberty to intervene creatively in the text, which doubtless included the addition of interesting readings they found in other sources so that a ‘core’ of Fragment Targum material became intermixed with other material.In the case of the Fragment Targums, this sense of freedom seems also to have extended to the question of what to include. FragTgStP provides additional evidence of the fact that the witnesses to the Fragment Targums vary considerably in terms of what verses they include as well as whether only complete verses or also single words or phrases are recorded (§ 2). There is no obvious governing rationale for the selection as a whole. As Klein pointed out with respect to the textual witnesses known to him, there is a significant correlation with the liturgical calendar, but not a complete one (for example, only about a quarter of the verses preserved in FragTgP can be explained in this way).52Given the variation, it is clear that the liberty to modify the text, which copyists evidently felt, extended also to scope. The principle governing what a scribe did or did not include in the copy of the Fragment Targum he was preparing was therefore probably a matter of individual preference and pragmatism. If we accept that the copyists simply included material that they found useful and interesting, then a correspondence with the liturgy is natural, since it would be useful to have additional Targumic material for those texts on which the liturgical cycle puts particular emphasis. Assuming that the selection was idiosyncratic rather than systematic also helps account for the fact that the Fragment Targums often preserve those parts of the Palestinian Targum that differ significantly from Targum Onqelos, but do not always do so. To ask ‘Are the Fragment Targums variants to Onqelos?’, as both advocates and detractors of this theory have done, imposes an unhelpfully binary choice.53 The Fragment Targums contain material that differs from Onqelos, but the compilers did not include all such material nor did they limit themselves to such material. They include whatever they ‘did not want to do without’—to borrow Kahle’s expression.54Finally, it goes without saying that the implications sketched out above are provisional and remain open to revision once more primary data are found and the witnesses of which we already know (i.e., ms. DD; ms. T-S B9.11) have been subject to full textual analysis.5.3Next StepsThe analysis presented above aims, first and foremost, to draw attention to the existence of FragTgStP, as well as to give a preliminary characterisation of its text. Given the constraints of space, the examples presented here are inevitably illustrative, rather than exhaustive. I am currently preparing an edition of the text for publication, in which I hope to offer a fuller analysis along the lines set out in this article, along with a full transcription. In the meantime, FragTgStP can be consulted directly, since digital images are readily accessible (see n. 13) and its script easily legible. It is hoped that the preliminary characterisation of the text offered here might guide scholars as they do so.Key‮*אח*/אב/‬‎Correction in the manuscript (*original form*/corrected form/).‮א֯‬‎The character is unclear in the manuscript.ms.ManuscriptFragTgStPFrgTg according to ms. EVR II A 371, National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg.TNmargTargum Neofiti’s marginalia.AcknowledgementsThis research is part of the TEXTEVOLVE project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 818702). I would also like to acknowledge my gratitude for the assistance of Estara Arrant (University of Cambridge), who aligned transcriptions of various texts for me, and Jeroen Verrijssen and Ana Ashraf (KU Leuven), who proofread the text for me. The responsibility for any errors that remain is, however, mine alone to bear. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Aramaic Studies Brill

A Previously Overlooked Manuscript of Fragment Targum (EVR II A 371, National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg)

Patmore, Hector M.
Aramaic Studies , Volume 21 (1): 24 – Jun 7, 2023
Download PDF
24 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/a-previously-overlooked-manuscript-of-fragment-targum-evr-ii-a-371-Khp43iF7Dx

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1477-8351
eISSN
1745-5227
DOI
10.1163/17455227-bja10042
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

1IntroductionThe Fragment Targums belong to the Palestinian Targum tradition and contain selections of verses from the Pentateuch. It has proved difficult to reach firm conclusions regarding their raison d’être and relation to the other Pentateuchal Targums because 1) the number of primary textual witnesses is limited, and 2) the known textual witnesses exhibit variation in terms of their scope (i.e., what verses they include) and content. Although this article cannot decisively solve these problems, it adds another piece to the puzzle by introducing a manuscript of Fragment Targum that was unknown to the editors of previous editions. An edition of the text is being prepared for publication and should be completed in the coming years. The aim of this paper is to bring the manuscript to the attention of a wider academic audience, describe its content, provide a preliminary characterisation of the text’s relationship to the other extant sources of the Fragment Targums and the other Pentateuchal Targums, and consider the possible wider implications of this new textual witness for our understanding of the origins, purpose, and transmission history of the Fragment Targums.1.1Previously Identified ManuscriptsThe critical edition published by Michael Klein was the last significant milestone in the modern critical study of the text of the Fragment Targums.1 His edition was widely welcomed,2 since it remedied the major shortcomings of the early attempts of Ginsburger and Doubles.3 Klein’s edition was complemented by the appearance around the same time of Targum Palestinense in Pentateuchum under the editorial hand of Díez Macho.4 This included readings from witnesses that Klein had excluded on text-critical grounds, e.g., ms. Sassoon 264, because its text is a replica of that of the Second Rabbinic Bible, and ms. Günzburg 3, because it is a direct copy of ms. Nürnberg Stadtbibliothek, Solg. 2,2°.5 In the absence of new textual witnesses, no need has since been felt to replace the editions of Klein and Díez Macho.6Until now, nine manuscripts of the Fragment Targums that were not copied from printed texts (as Ms. Sassoon 264 was) were known.7 Five are complete or substantially complete. Of these one is Sephardi:The National Library of France, Paris, ms. hebr. 110 (15th cent. [Klein siglum: P]).A further four are Ashkenazi:Biblioteca Apostolica, Vatican, Ebr. 440 (13th cent. [V]);Nürnberg Stadtbibliothek, Solg. 2,2° (1291 CE [N]);Leipzig University Library, B.H. fol. 1. (13th–14th cent. [L]);Russian State Library, Moscow, Günzburg 3 (16th cent.).In addition, three fragments from the Cairo Genizah were hitherto known:8British Library, London, Or. 10794 (fol. 8) (11th–14th cent. [Br]);Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Lutzki 605 (fol. 6–7) (11th–14th cent. [J]);Cambridge University Library, T-S AS 72.75, 76, 77 (9th–11th cent. [DD]).An additional manuscript was identified by Klein (T-S B9.11) after the publication of his Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, which preserved another page of Ms H (HUC Genizah ms. 1134r), confirming that it was, in fact, a Palestinian Fragment Targum and not the remnants of a once complete copy of the Book of Genesis.9 The surface of the sheet is badly eroded, so the text is only partially legible. Efforts are currently underway to recover more of the text using multi-spectral imaging.Additional manuscripts of works that are similar to the Fragment Targums, such as collections of targumic readings for the festivals are also known; the dividing line between the Fragment Targums and the Festival-Liturgical collections in particular is not always clear.10To these witnesses can now be added a further manuscript, namely, EVR II A 371 of the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg (hereafter: FragTgStP). This manuscript belongs to the second Firkovich collection, which was acquired in 1876 by the National Library of Russia (then the Imperial Public Library) in St. Petersburg and consists of about 17,000 items. The precise provenance of individual manuscripts within the collection is difficult to ascertain. The collection stems from Abraham Firkovich’s second tour to the Middle East (1863–1865). During this trip, which included visits to Istanbul, Jerusalem, Aleppo, Antioch, Damascus, and Cairo, among other places, he purchased manuscripts and antiquities from traders and acquired what materials he judged to be of worth from genizot.11 Ms EVR II A 371 was probably among these acquisitions.There is no catalogue of the collection as such, only a card catalogue prepared by Yehiel Ravrebe before World War II on the basis of which Harkavy compiled a handwritten list (both are in Russian). This contains only the sparsest of information, listing the content of the manuscript as ‘Targum Jonathan (end of Genesis and beginning of Exodus), 8 folios’.12 Happily, the manuscript is now recorded in ‘Ktiv: The International Collection of Digitized Hebrew Manuscripts’ (where digital scans of the microfilm are also available). Ktiv identifies the text as ‮תרגום ירושלמי לתורה (לקוטים)‬‎. According to Ktiv the manuscript dates to the 12th–13th century and is written in an ‘Oriental’ script.13Although Klein had examined in situ those manuscripts identified in Harkavy’s list as containing Targum,14 the present manuscript was somehow overlooked. It is not clear how this happened. Klein’s list of manuscripts from the second Firkovitch collection contains only manuscripts with shelf-marks EVR II B and EVR II C, that is, biblical manuscripts. However, our manuscript is classified under the shelf-mark EVR II A, which contains non-biblical manuscripts of various sorts. It may be that Klein did not look at material under this shelf-mark. In any case, since there are no fewer than 2,942 manuscripts and fragments under the shelf-mark EVR II A,15 the oversight is quite understandable.1.2MethodDespite the manuscript’s presence in ‘Ktiv’, its content has so far not been studied. This paper therefore focuses on the text contained in this manuscript. Specifically, it aims 1) to identify its alignment within the textual families of the Fragment Targums, and 2) to provide a preliminary characterisation of the relationship of the text to other Pentateuchal Targums.In order to achieve this, I compared FragTgStP with the extant witnesses where they overlapped. FragTgL was excluded from this preliminary analysis because of the careless way in which it had been copied, and the quantity of scribal errors it contains.16 In order to understand the material in FragTgStP that is unique vis-à-vis the other extant witnesses to the Fragment Targums, its text was also compared with Targums Onqelos, Neofiti (including its marginalia), Pseudo-Jonathan, and the fragments of Palestinian Targum from the Cairo Genizah. I therefore prepared full transcriptions of FragTgStP and FragTgN based on digital images acquired from the holding libraries.17 Transcriptions of the remaining sources were taken from Accordance.18 My colleague, Dr Estara Arrant (University of Cambridge) then used the CollateX and Difflib software to align these transcriptions so that similarities and differences between them could be easily identified.I then manually analysed these similarities and differences in order to classify them; a selection of the results of that classification is presented below. It is, of course, not possible in the context of a journal article to present all the available evidence. Instead, illustrative examples are given for each of the textual features discussed. Many of these examples are drawn from Genesis 49, Jacob’s valedictory address to his sons immediately before his death, in which he tells them what will happen to them in the future in highly poetic terms. Poetry, of course, is a form of speech that afforded the Targumist considerable latitude. Nonetheless, the features one finds in Genesis 49 are representative of those found elsewhere in the extant text.2Format and ScopeThe eight preserved pages of FragTgStP contain the verses of Targum written one after the other with Hebrew lemmata as we find in, e.g., FragTgP and FragTgV, rather than being spread throughout the running text of Targum Onqelos as we find in FragTgL. Unlike other manuscripts of Fragment Targum (e.g., FragTgBr, FragTgN), FragTgStP does not contain single words or isolated phrases, but offers the complete Targum for each verse (except for cases of accidental omission by, e.g., parablepsis). The text covers Genesis 40:12—Deut. 1:2, but originally extended further since the preserved text begins and ends mid-verse. A total of fifty-four different verses are preserved:Gen. 40:12, 18; 44:18–19; 48:22; 49:1–27; 50:1, 19;Exod. 12:42; 14:13–14; 17:12; 17:16;Lev. 1:1; 10:19–20; 22:27;Num. 11:26; 12:1, 12, 16; 20:29; 21:1, 6, 15, 34;19Deut. 1:1, 2.FragTgStP therefore contains much fewer verses than FragTgV and FragTgP. For the same unit of text (i.e., Gen. 40:12—Deut. 1:2), FragTgV provides 461 additional verses, FragTgN 381, and FragTgP 305. FragTgStP is therefore highly selective in its choice of verses compared to other witnesses. Although there is no clear governing rationale for the selection as a whole, the reason for the inclusion of some individual passages is clear, for example: the first verses of biblical books (Lev. 1:1; Deut. 1:1); the start or end of weekly torah portions (e.g., Exod. 17:16 ends parashat Beshallach); readings connected with festival (e.g., Exod. 13:17–15:26 for the seventh day of Pesach); and passages for which a number of toseftot are known (e.g., Jacob’s blessing, Gen. 49).In terms of the verses it covers, FragTgStP overlaps with FragTgV more than with FragTgP. FragTgP contains only forty-eight of the fifty-four verses preserved in FragTgStP,20 whereas FragTgV contains fifty-two (FragTgN contains fifty).21 This is perhaps unsurprising given that FragTgV is the most extensive of the Fragment Targums. Of these overlaps, there is one verse attested in FragTgStP and FragTgP but not in FragTgV (i.e., Gen. 49:16), and five verses attested in FragTgStP and FragTgV but not in FragTgP (i.e., Gen. 49:4–6, 12; Num. 21:1).Before I turn to the question of textual alignment, I present here the one verse preserved in FragTgStP that is not attested in any other extant witness of the Fragment Targums, nor in the Cairo Genizah manuscripts, nor the targumic toseftot published to date:Gen. 49:13TgOnqZebulun shall dwell on the shore of the seas, and with ships he shall subjugate harbours; he shall eat the choice produce of the sea, and his border shall reach as far as Sidon.‮זְבוּלוּן עַל סְפַר יַמְמַיָא יִשׁרֵי וְהוּא יְכַבֵישׁ מָחוֹזִין בִספִינָן וְטוּב יַמָא יֵיכוֹל וּתחוּמֵיה יְהֵי מָטֵי עַד צִידֹן‬‎FragTgStPZebulun shall dwell on the shores of the great sea, and he shall rule over the ships’ harbours, and his border shall reach as far as Sidon.‮זבולון לספרי ימה רבה ישרי והוא ישלוט במחוזי ספינתה ותחומיה יהוי מטי עד צידן‬‎TgNeof‮זבולן על סייפי דימא (‭TNmarg‬ לסייפי ימא) רבה ישרי והוא יהווי שליט (‭TNmarg‬ ישלוט) במחוזוי ספינתה ותחומה יהוי מטי עד ציידן׃‬‎TgPsJ‮זבולון על ספרי ימא ישׁרי והוא יהי שׁליט במחוזין ומכבשׁ הפרכי ימא בספינתא ותחומי<ה> ימטי עד צידון‬‎With the exception of ‮ספר‬‎ ‘bank, edge, shore’ (as opposed to ‮סייף‬‎ ‘end’), which agrees with Targum Onqelos (whence Targum Pseudo-Jonathan), FragTgStP is in substantial agreement (i.e., ignoring spelling and orthographic variants) with Targum Neofiti in the form that it would have if one were to ‘correct’ it according to its marginalia.22 Agreement with Targum Neofiti’s marginalia is a feature found repeatedly in FragTgStP (see § 4.3).3Relation to Other Fragment Targums3.1Readings Distinct to the Fragment TargumsThe existence of readings that are common to all the extant manuscripts of the Fragment Targums but that are not found in other witnesses to the Pentateuchal Targums indicate that the Fragment Targums constitute a distinct textual family, rather than being, say, a compilation of verses extracted from Neofiti or Pseudo-Jonathan. This suggests that manuscripts of the Fragment Targums were copied from other collections of Fragment Targums. Readings distinct to the Fragment Targum textual family are also found in FragTgStP, demonstrating that it is correctly classified as another witness to the textual family of the Fragment Targums. For example (showing agreements in bold/italics):Num. 11:26FragTgStPGod and Magog and their (lit. its) armies (will) go up to Jerusalem, but they will fall at the hands of the King Messiah. For seven full years23 the Israelites will kindle fires from their weapons. They will not (need to) go the forest nor (to) chop down tree(s).‮גוג ומגוג וחילוותיה סלקין לירושלם ובידוי דמלכא מש[י]חא אינון נפלין ושבע שנין דיומין דלקין בני ישראל מן מייני זיניהון לא חורש (לחורש ‭(read:‬ לא יפקון ואילן לא יקצצון‬‎FragTgV = FragTgP24‮גוג ומגוג וחיילוותיה סלקין לירושלם ובידוי דמלכא משיחא אינון נפלין ושובע שנין דיומין ידליקו בני ישר׳ מן מני זייניהון לחורשא לא יפקון ואילן לא יקצון‬‎TgNeof‮גוג ומגוג סלקין לירושׁלם ובידוי דמלכא משׁיחה אינון נפלין ושׁבע שׁנין ידלקון בני ישׂראל מן מני זייניהון וחרשׁ לא יפקון‬‎3.2Aligned with FragTgPIn his edition, Klein divided the then available manuscripts (i.e., excluding DD) into four textual families: FragTgV, FragTgN, and FragTgL belonged to a single family, whereas FragTgP, FragTgJ, and FragTgBr were each the sole representative of three distinct textual families.25 Despite overlapping more frequently with FragTgV in terms of the verses covered (§ 2), the alignment of the transcriptions (§ 1.2) reveals a pattern of agreement between FragTgStP and FragTgP against FragTgV.26 For the sake of clarity, the two witnesses agree in substance (e.g., vocabulary, pluses, order of words, phrases, or clauses, etc.) though not necessarily in every detail.27 In other words, FragTgStP may exhibit minor variants in spelling, morphology, syntax (e.g., the formation of the construct), or other small elements (e.g., prepositions), but the basic textual affinity is not obscured. FragTgStP supports the reading of FragTgP against FragTgV in at least the following cases (showing the reading of FragTgP only):‮‭Gen. 40:12‬ משה ואהרן ומרים (דמתילין) | ושויתא | פילוי <דרוגזא> דעתיד פרעה | אוף | קבל אגר טב | דין הוא (פתרוניה) דחילמא‬‎‮‭Gen. 40:18‬ וענא יוסף | דין הוא פתרוניה דחלמא | קשיא | וסופא | ויפקון (ישראל) | אגר ביש‬‎‮‭Gen. 44:18‬ שלמיה דאבא‬‎‮‭Gen. 44:19‬ וטפח ברגליה בגו פלטין | חשב | בליביה‬‎‮‭Gen. 48:22‬ אחיי‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:1‬ <סברין> דהוה (מגלי) | כל מא‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:7‬ דתקום‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:10‬ ושלטנין‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:17‬ (לחויא) הרמניא | וממרע יתיה | מתהפך | ונפק לקרבא כל־קבל‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:22‬ ועיברתה | דמלכיא | ומסתכלין בך מן שוריא | מ{ס}<ט>לקן עלך | דילמא (תתלי) אפייך | תהוי שותף עמה בגיהנם‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:23‬ וקמו לקובליה | כורסי מלכותיה | ולשנ{י}<ו>‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:27‬ שבט‬‎‮‭Lev. 1:1‬ וית כל מנוי וית מדבחא‬‎‮‭Lev. 10:19‬ תוקלא (רובא) הדין‬‎‮‭Lev. 10:20‬ הלכתא (אתעלמא)‬‎‮‭Num. 11:26‬ (מתנבא ואמר) סלוון סלק מן ימא והוי תוקלא לבני ישראל ומידד הוה מתנבא ואמר עתיד (משה) | מקבל נבואתא | די אתפרשו בשמהון‬‎‮‭Num. 12:12‬ למחסנא‬‎‮‭Num. 21:6‬ (במרומיא) אתון | ארעא (דמצרים)‬‎‮‭Num. 21:15‬ אמוראי | איליין לאיליין | ומשיצין יתהון | מלכין עם שלטונין | ונגידו‬‎‮‭Num. 21:34‬ (מלכא) רשיעא | שתילין | לית אינון (עבדין מן בגין) כן (קיים) ואמתין | משובח‬‎Despite being more closely aligned with FragTgP, there are fifteen agreements in substance between FragTgStP and FragTgV against FragTgP (showing the reading of FragTgV only):‮‭Gen. 44:18‬ למצרים | אומית בה (‭FragTgStP‬ ימי ביה = ‭FragTgN‬)‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:1‬ ואתני | טמורייה | ושליוותיה‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:2‬ יהי שמיה מברך לעלמי עלמין (‭FragTgStP‬ עלמא ולעלמי עלמיא)‬‎‮‭Gen. 49:21‬ דיעקב לישניה חלי‬‎‮‭Gen. 50:1‬ יהוד׳ גובריהון דאחוי עני‬‎‮‭Exod. 17:16‬ למיתב על כורסיהון דמלכותא‬‎‮‭Lev. 10:19‬ ותקן‬‎‮‭Num. 12:1‬ ואישתעו‬‎‮‭Num. 20:29‬ ריש | אחי | חד זמן בכל שנה‬‎The fact that FragTgStP shows evidence of agreements with FragTgP against FragTgV as well as with FragTgV against FragTgP has intriguing implications for our understanding of the filiation of the Fragment Targums. This fact might be accounted for in one of a number of ways. Theoretically, it is possible that FragTgV stands closer to the archetype and FragTgP the furthest from the archetype in the stemma (or vice versa), while FragTgStP occupies an intermediate position. Drawing any firm conclusions in this respect is, however, extremely challenging, since the data are too limited to establish a reliable stemma (a problem compounded by the fact that the evidence we do have suggests that the transmission of the Fragment Targums was relatively ‘fluid’). The readings of FragTgStP might therefore result from a range of other factors, such as contamination or conflation, or coincidental agreement resulting from scribal innovation in the text.In short, though nothing concrete can be inferred about its line of descent, it is clear that FragTgStP exhibits as strong correspondence with FragTgP.3.3Unique ReadingsFragTgStP contains many readings not attested in any other Pentateuchal Targum. For example:Gen. 49:2FragTgStPas for Isaac my father, (one who was) unfit arose from him, (namely) Esau, my brother. There is among you one whose mind is divided regarding the worship of the Lord your God‮יצחק אבא קם מיניה פסולה עשו אחי אית בכון מן בלביה פילוג על דחלתא דייי אלהכון‬‎FragTgV = FragTgN, TgNeof, TgCGZ (cf. FragTgP)as for Isaac my father, (one who was) unfit arose from him, (namely) Esau, my brother. So I am concerned that there should not be among you a man whose mind is divided against his brothers to go and serve before other idols‮ויצחק אבא קם מיניה פסולא עשו אחי ואנא דחיל דלא יהוי ביניכון גבר דליביה פלג על אחוי למיזל למיפלח קדם טעוון אחרניין‬‎As in this example, the unique readings in FragTgStP generally concern small variants in vocabulary or phraseology that have little bearing on the sense. This example also reflects another characteristic feature of the unique materials in FragTgStP, namely that the unique readings found in FragTgStP are often shorter than those found in the other extant Fragment Targums.Apart from the relatively frequent cases of parablepsis in FragTgStP, no clear pattern is discernible that might suggest either that FragTgStP consistently preserves the anterior reading or that the shorter readings reflect an editorial Tendenz. Put more prosaically, in most cases it is hard to tell why FragTgStP is shorter.That being said, in some instances a case can be made that the reading of FragTgStP is anterior vis-à-vis the reading of the other witnesses to the Fragment Targums. For example:Gen. 44:19FragTgStPWhen the beloved and exalted Joseph saw that the power of Judah his brother increased, he signalled to Manasseh …‮כד חמה יוסף חביבה ורא֯ימה די סלקת גבורתיה דיהודה אחוהי רמז יוסף למנשה‬‎FragTgV = FragTgN, FragTgP≈ TgNeofWhen the beloved and honoured Joseph saw that the power of Judah his brother increased (to such an extent that) the hairs of his chest stood on end and tore his clothes. At that very moment he signalled to Manasseh …‮כד חמה יוסף חביבה ויקירא דסליקת גבורתה דיהודה אחוי ונפקין סערתיה דליבי׳ ובזעו לבושיה ביה בשעתה רמז יוסף למנשה‬‎On the principle lectio brevior potior, the ‘plus’ in FragTgV and FragTgP here could be seen as a secondary embellishment to the shorter form preserved in FragTgStP.28 The resumptive ‮בשעתה‬‎ in FragTgV and FragTgP (cf. TgNeof ‮בההיא שׁעתא‬‎) certainly gives the longer reading a secondary character, reinforced by the fact that the tradition of Judah’s chest hair tearing through his garments is also found in Amoraic and post-Talmudic midrashim.294Relation to Other Pentateuchal Targums4.1Agreement with Cairo Genizah ManuscriptsFor many of the verses covered by FragTgStP there are simply no extant Cairo Genizah manuscripts. However, where Cairo Genizah manuscripts are extant, they occasionally agree with FragTgStP in ways that most likely indicate a genealogical relationship (i.e., descent from a common source). For example:Gen. 40:12FragTgStP = TgCGEyou, chief cup-bearer, said, ‘I took them and I crushed them’ … (you, chief cup-bearer, shall receive a good reward) since the dream that you have dreamed is a good dream‮אמרת רב מזוגיה דנסבית יתהון *ועצרת*/ועצרית/ יתהון … דחלמה דיחלמת חלם טב הוא‬‎cf. TNmarg‮רב מזוגיא דנסבת יתהון‬‎FragTgV = FragTgN, TgNeof, ≈ TgPsJyou have said, ‘I took grapes and I crushed them’ … (you, chief cup-bearer, your rewards shall not be lost) since you have dreamed (this) good dream‮אמרת נסבית ית ענבייה ועצרת יתהון … די חלמת חלמא טבא‬‎It seems likely that the variants that distinguish FragTgStP from the tradition represented by FragTgV are secondary; both may have originated as errors: The title ‮רב מזוגיה‬‎ appears later in the same verse in the other Palestinian Targums and in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and has probably been repeated by accident (or possibly to clarify the addressee); ‮דחלמה‬‎ is probably the result of dittography. Yet, regardless of how they may have originated, the occurrence of these two agreements between FragTgStP and TgCGE (and the partial correspondence with Targum Neofiti’s marginalia)30 is more plausibly explained in genealogical terms than as pure coincidence.Furthermore, the fact that FragTgStP shows agreement with materials from the Cairo Genizah is unsurprising, since manuscripts of a similar provenance (see § 1.1) are often textually aligned.31 In this case the manuscript involved, manuscript ‘E’, is among the earliest of the Cairo Genizah materials (9/10th century, according to the classification of Beit Arié). It once contained a continuous Palestinian Targum to the whole of Genesis (perhaps to the entire Pentateuch), though now only a few pages remain, scattered among various libraries.32 Such cases may be taken as additional evidence that the Fragment Targums were initially ‘extracted’ from continuous Targum(s) before subsequently undergoing their own distinct transmission history.4.2Agreement with Targum OnqelosSource-critical work by Flesher has shown that Targum Onqelos and the Palestinian Targums contain corresponding material in sufficient quantity that some kind of relationship of dependence must be assumed (e.g., a common source).33 However, some agreements between Targum Onqelos and one or more of the Palestinian Targums are not the result of a common origin, but are rather the result of the subsequent influence of Targum Onqelos on the Palestinian Targum tradition. The status and ubiquity of Targum Onqelos eventually resulted in the wording of Targum Onqelos seeping into the Palestinian Targum tradition. As Díez Macho recognized long ago, the Fragment Targums show the influence of Targum Onqelos to a greater extent than other representatives of the Palestinian Targum tradition (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan excluded).34 FragTgStP also contains instances of this sort of contamination by Targum Onqelos, including cases that are not attested in other Fragment Targums, for example:Gen. 49:2FragTgStP = TgOnq, TgPsJGather together and hear, O sons of Jacob, and receive instruction from Israel your father …‮אתכנשו ושמעו בני יעקב וקבילו אולפן מן ישראל אבוכון‬‎FragTgV = FragTgN, FragTgP, TgNeofAfter the twelve tribes of Jacob had gathered together, they surrounded the golden bed on which our father Jacob was lying …‮מן די איתכנשו תרי־עשרתי שבטוי דיעקב ואקיפו דרגשא די דהבא דהוו׳ אבונן יעקב (יעקב אבונן ‭FragTgP:‬) רביע בגווה‬‎4.3Agreements with Targum Neofiti’s MarginaliaWe have noted already one case of agreement with Targum Neofiti’s marginalia (§ 2), but others can be found. For example:Gen. 49:7FragTgStP = FragTgN, FragTgP Cf. FragTgVand I will disperse the tribe of Levi among the study houses of the children of Israel‮ואבדר ית שבטיה (שבטה ‭read‬) דלוי בבתי מדרשייה דבני ישראל‬‎‮‭(cf. FragTgV ‮למיתב בבתי מדרשייה‬‎)‬‬‎TNmarg35‮ואבדר׳ ית שבטיי[א] דלו֯י֯ בבתי מדרש דבני ישראל׃‬‎cf. TgPsJ‮ואבדר שיבטא דלוי בגו כלהון שבטיא דישראל‬‎cf. TgOnq‮ואבדרינון בישראל‬‎cf. TgNeof36‮ואסגי אחסנתיה דלוי בגו שבטה דבני ישראל‬‎Le Déaut was the first to present a critical analysis of the marginalia of Targum Neofiti that established an undeniable link with the Fragment Targums (and Cairo GenizahC, the fragmentary remains of a once-continuous Palestinian Targum to Genesis, perhaps the whole Pentateuch).37 He concluded that the text of both Targum Neofiti’s marginalia and the Fragment Targums went back to one or more recension of the Palestinian Targum, arguing that the text preserved in the Fragment Targums had been modified to a greater extent than the one preserved in Targum Neofiti’s marginalia. Subsequent studies have supported Le Déaut’s conclusions.384.4Cases Supporting the Reading of Targum Pseudo-JonathanThe link between the Fragment Targums and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has intrigued scholars since the beginning of the modern critical study of the Targums. Zunz maintained that two recensions of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan had once existed; the Fragment Targums, he claimed, recorded the variants.39 But, as Frankel quickly pointed out, the cases of agreement between Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the Fragment Targums, including in trivial matters, could not be passed off as mere carelessness or later interpolations as Zunz had tried to do.40 Frankel proposed instead that the Fragment Targums represented remnants from a Palestinian Targum, which had later been reworked and expanded, heavily influenced by Targum Onqelos, to produce Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Subsequent contributions to the discussion have broadly followed Frankel.41 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan can now be considered a late, composite work, which took Targum Onqelos as its base; the compiler re-worked it in order to integrate material from Palestinian Targum(s) that were known to him and added additional material drawn from a wide range of other sources (e.g., midrashim).42 The Palestinian Targum(s) from which his text borrowed were textually close to the works from which the Fragment Targums were extracted, hence the cases of agreement.FragTgStP brings some new data to this discussion, since it contains cases where its reading supports that of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. The example below appears in an expansion (i.e., material not found in Targum Onqelos). The scene is the death of Jacob, during which Judah proposes building a memorial to his father, saying to his brothers:Gen. 50:1FragTgStP = TgCGFF… from him arose the priests according to their divisions and Levites according to their sections.‮מיניה קמו כהניא בפלגתהון ולֵוָאֵי במחלקתהון‬‎TgPsJ ≈ TNmarg… from him is destined to arise kings and governors and the priests according to their divisions in order to offer offerings and from him (will also arise) Levites according to their sections to sing.‮מיניה עתיד למיקום מלכין ושׁליטין וכהנייא בפלוגתהון לקרבא קורבנין ומיניה ליואי במחלוקתהון לזמרא‬‎FragTgP ≈ FragTgV, TgNeof… from him arose priests with their trumpets and Levites with their lyres‮מיניה קמון כהניא בחצוצריהון וליואי בכינריהון‬‎As one might expect, the version in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is more expansive than that found in the other sources. When one compares it with that of the other extant Fragment Targums and Targum Neofiti, it is evident that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (as well as Targum Neofiti’s marginalia) is essentially an expanded version of a text identical—or at least very similar—to the text found in FragTgStP.43The potential implications of a case like this can be highlighted by turning to Mortensen’s recent work on Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.44 Mortensen defines the material in the unit ‮עתיד … לזמרא‬‎ as coming from Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s ‘unique’ source, and therefore providing additional evidence for her theory that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s unique source shows an overwhelming interest in the priesthood.45 Her description of the process is somewhat unclear, but in essence she proposes that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s unique material originated from a scholarly group of priests and was subsequently edited by a single individual into the text of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan as we have it today. She believes that the expectation of the rebuilding of the Temple and revival of the cultic office of the priesthood during the reign of Emperor Julian (361–363 CE) prompted this activity.46The evidence of FragTgStP, however, indicates that the ordering of the priests and Levites belongs to a Palestinian Targum source. In fact, this conclusion is already indicated by material that would have been available to Mortensen when she completed her study, namely Cairo GenizahFF (with which FragTgStP is identical) and Targum Neofiti’s marginalia.47 In the course of its transmission, it seems that the shorter form attested in FragTgStP and Cairo GenizahFF was expanded to specify the functions (i.e., ‮לקרבא קורבנין‬‎ and ‮לזמרא‬‎), yielding the version now attested in Targum Neofiti’s marginalia. This was the reading known to the compiler of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, who further expanded it to introduce an element of future expectation (i.e., ‮עתיד למיקום מלכין ושׁליטין‬‎).None of this fundamentally undermines Mortensen’s observation that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan shows a particular interest in the priesthood, but it does raise a question about the theory she develops on the basis of this observation since this small piece of supposedly ‘unique’ material turns out not to be unique at all.48 Put more forcefully, the example from FragTgStP leads us to wonder how much more of the ‘unique’ material in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan may in fact have been culled from sources that are no longer extant or that await identification in archives or genizot (e.g., is ‮עתיד למיקום מלכין ושׁליטין‬‎ the work of the compiler or did he find it in one of his sources?).5ConclusionLet us summarize our characterisation of FragTgStP and consider some of the wider implications.5.1SummaryIn terms of its scope, FragTgStP is highly selective in the verses it includes compared to the other extant witnesses that cover the same range (i.e., Gen. 40:12–Deut. 1:2). In short, it is a very fragmentary Fragment Targum. It contains one verse (Gen. 49:13) not otherwise attested in extant sources of the Fragment Targums and contains a number of unique readings. Nonetheless, it reflects readings that are characteristic of the Fragment Targums as a distinct textual family. It is therefore correctly classified as Fragment Targum, as opposed to being a collection of ‘fragments’ of some other Targum. Within the Fragment Targum textual-family, it most closely aligns with FragTgP, yet exhibits some agreements with FragTgV. FragTgStP exhibits a tendency to preserve shorter readings. In most cases these are probably secondary shortenings (sometimes due to error), though in a few cases FragTgStP may preserve the earlier reading. As we find in the other witnesses of the Fragment Targum, its text exhibits agreements with continuous Palestinian Targums from the Cairo Genizah and the marginalia of Targum Neofiti that cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence. FragTgStP also shows signs of having been contaminated by Targum Onqelos and occasionally provides additional support for readings of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.5.2Wider ImplicationsWhat are some of the possible implications of these results for our understanding of the Fragment Targums in particular and Palestinian Targum traditions more generally?The agreements between Fragment Targums and the continuous Palestinian Targum discovered in the Cairo Genizah for which FragTgStP provides additional evidence (§ 4.1)—and, to a lesser extent, the marginalia in Targum Neofiti (§ 4.3)—favours the view that the Fragment Targums are substantially derived from continuous Targums. In other words, they originated as extracts from continuous Targums. The reverse argument—that the continuous Palestinian Targums grew out of collections of translations of individual verses49—requires that a strong rationale be found for the selection of verses included in the Fragment Targums. Since an explanation for only a minority of the data is possible (i.e., partial correspondence with liturgical cycles), this theory remains less convincing. The indications of influence of Targum Onqelos on the Fragment Targums also suggests that they are posterior (see § 4.2 cf. also § 2).Furthermore, two factors probably account for the fact that there are readings shared by all the Fragment Targums and not by other extant witnesses (§ 3.1): 1) all the Fragment Targums preserve some of the readings of the continuous Palestinian Targum text(s) from which they derive (i.e., a common source); and 2), manuscripts of the Fragment Targums were copied from other collections of Fragment Targums (i.e., a distinct tradition of transmission). These two genealogical factors help explain the puzzling fact that an Oriental manuscript—FragTgStP—exhibits agreements not only with a Sephardi manuscript (FragTgP) but also with the Ashkenazi branch of the Fragment Targums, of which FragTgV is the main representative.These factors may account for the coherence between the witnesses, but how can the divergence between them be accounted for? The fact that all the Fragment Targums, including FragTgStP, show traces of the influence of Targum Onqelos (§ 4.2) indicates that they were transmitted in contexts in which Targum Onqelos had become dominant, which is perhaps unsurprising given the date of the manuscripts. The evidence of influence of Targum Onqelos has important implications. On the one hand, it shows that the transmission of the Fragment Targums was not stable, and on the other, it demonstrates that they were influenced by the texts around them. Where the witnesses of the Fragment Targums differ, they often offer genuinely alternative readings (as opposed to one obviously being a corruption of the other). It is possible that such changes also came about under the influence of other Palestinian Targum texts that circulated in the environments in which the Fragment Targums were transmitted, as the agreements with Targum Neofiti and its marginalia may imply (§ 2). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, it seems, also knew and drew on such texts. These probably included continuous Palestinian Targums no longer known to us. The example presented above (§ 4.4) is a cautionary reminder that the unique content of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan may only be ‘unique’ because we have yet to uncover another primary source containing it.It is probably unhelpful, though, to imagine that the influence of other textual traditions on the texts of the Fragment Targums was unconscious and accidental. The nature and extent of the diversity between the extant witnesses, suggests an ‘active’ rather than a ‘quiescent’ tradition.50 In fact, this was already evident to Ginsburger on the basis of fewer textual witnesses than we now have at our disposal: ‘Wir haben es eben hier mit herrenlosem Gute zu thun’, he wrote, ‘wo ein Jeder sich für berechtigt hielt hinzuzufügen und umzuändern, was er wollte, und wo daher oft unmittelbar neben sehr alte Übersetzungen ganz neue zu stehen kamen’.51 In other words, it was a tradition in which scribes felt at liberty to intervene creatively in the text, which doubtless included the addition of interesting readings they found in other sources so that a ‘core’ of Fragment Targum material became intermixed with other material.In the case of the Fragment Targums, this sense of freedom seems also to have extended to the question of what to include. FragTgStP provides additional evidence of the fact that the witnesses to the Fragment Targums vary considerably in terms of what verses they include as well as whether only complete verses or also single words or phrases are recorded (§ 2). There is no obvious governing rationale for the selection as a whole. As Klein pointed out with respect to the textual witnesses known to him, there is a significant correlation with the liturgical calendar, but not a complete one (for example, only about a quarter of the verses preserved in FragTgP can be explained in this way).52Given the variation, it is clear that the liberty to modify the text, which copyists evidently felt, extended also to scope. The principle governing what a scribe did or did not include in the copy of the Fragment Targum he was preparing was therefore probably a matter of individual preference and pragmatism. If we accept that the copyists simply included material that they found useful and interesting, then a correspondence with the liturgy is natural, since it would be useful to have additional Targumic material for those texts on which the liturgical cycle puts particular emphasis. Assuming that the selection was idiosyncratic rather than systematic also helps account for the fact that the Fragment Targums often preserve those parts of the Palestinian Targum that differ significantly from Targum Onqelos, but do not always do so. To ask ‘Are the Fragment Targums variants to Onqelos?’, as both advocates and detractors of this theory have done, imposes an unhelpfully binary choice.53 The Fragment Targums contain material that differs from Onqelos, but the compilers did not include all such material nor did they limit themselves to such material. They include whatever they ‘did not want to do without’—to borrow Kahle’s expression.54Finally, it goes without saying that the implications sketched out above are provisional and remain open to revision once more primary data are found and the witnesses of which we already know (i.e., ms. DD; ms. T-S B9.11) have been subject to full textual analysis.5.3Next StepsThe analysis presented above aims, first and foremost, to draw attention to the existence of FragTgStP, as well as to give a preliminary characterisation of its text. Given the constraints of space, the examples presented here are inevitably illustrative, rather than exhaustive. I am currently preparing an edition of the text for publication, in which I hope to offer a fuller analysis along the lines set out in this article, along with a full transcription. In the meantime, FragTgStP can be consulted directly, since digital images are readily accessible (see n. 13) and its script easily legible. It is hoped that the preliminary characterisation of the text offered here might guide scholars as they do so.Key‮*אח*/אב/‬‎Correction in the manuscript (*original form*/corrected form/).‮א֯‬‎The character is unclear in the manuscript.ms.ManuscriptFragTgStPFrgTg according to ms. EVR II A 371, National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg.TNmargTargum Neofiti’s marginalia.AcknowledgementsThis research is part of the TEXTEVOLVE project, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 818702). I would also like to acknowledge my gratitude for the assistance of Estara Arrant (University of Cambridge), who aligned transcriptions of various texts for me, and Jeroen Verrijssen and Ana Ashraf (KU Leuven), who proofread the text for me. The responsibility for any errors that remain is, however, mine alone to bear.

Journal

Aramaic Studies – Brill

Published: Jun 7, 2023

There are no references for this article.