David Shepherd, «The Case of The Targum of Job in the Rabbinic Bible and the Solger Codex (MS Nürnberg)», Vol. 79 (1998) 360-380
It is a well-known fact that even in its earliest edition, an Aramaic translation or targum was amongst the vast and varied material assembled for inclusion in the Rabbinic Bible. But in contrast to the comparative wealth of information we possess regarding the circumstances surrounding its publication, we possess little knowledge with regard to the sources used by Felix de Prato when he took up the task of editing the 1517 Rabbinic Bible for the Venetian publisher Daniel Bomberg. While prior research has shown the importance of the targum text preserved in the Solger Codex (Stadtbibliothek Nürnberg) in any attempt to solve the puzzle of the pre-history of the Rabbinic Bible's targum text, many pieces of this puzzle remain as yet unexamined. The present study locates the targum text preserved in MS Nürnberg (Solger Codex) within the stemmatological framework proposed by D. Stec in the introduction to his critical edition of the Targum of Job. More importantly, the present paper presents decisive evidence (through the detection of editorial errors) that the editor of the first Rabbinic Bible (Felix de Prato) copied his targum text of Job directly from Codex Solger preserved in the Stadtbibliothek Nürnberg.
of any sort in the MS 116, the targum text it presents appears to be a type of composite text 11. While the first thirteen chapters of its text bear a strong affinity to that of the Bomberg Bible and thus belong to Group 3, this is not the case with the latter two thirds (chapters 14-42) which appear to belong to Group 2. In addition to this lack of affinity, Stec presents his evidence for the grouping of the first section of the MS 116 and Bomberg under three headings 12.
Unique verse patterns 13
Stec notes that in chapter 13,7 Bomberg and MS 116 share an otherwise unique targum pattern (allowing for minor variations). The targum pattern found in Nürnberg for 13,7 is the same as the one found only in the Group 3 texts and is in fact identical with that found in Bomberg. The version found in MS 116 diverges slightly from the other two. Our first clue that Nürnberg presents a unified Group 3 text as opposed to a composite text like MS 116 lies in the fact that the remainder of the targum patterns unique to Group 3, beginning with the first in chapter 24, are shared by Bomberg and Nürnberg, but not by MS 116 14.
Unique alternative targumim
Stec also brings forward otherwise unattested alternative targumim as evidence of a close relationship between Bomberg and MS 116. One of the alternative targumim to Job 12,6 was previously attested to only by Bomberg and MS 116. These two witnesses have been joined by the Nürnberg. While the three versions clearly represent the one and the same alternative targum, again MS 116 shows some spelling variation, while Nürnberg and Bomberg are entirely identical.
As for the latter section (chapters 1442), where Bomberg was formerly the lone witness to an an alternative targum to 38,25, Nürnberg now provides an additional witness (they are the only two texts which preserve 3 as opposed to 2 targumim to this verse).
Thus in the case of both the above categories, the collation of Nürnberg tends to corroborate Stec's conclusions about the lack of affinity between MS 116 1442 and Group 3. In addition, the evidence from Nürnberg 1442 strongly suggests that unlike MS 116, the entire text of Nürnberg belongs with Bomberg in Group 3.
Shared readings
The third category of evidence for a close relationship between Bomberg and MS 116 (1-13) comes in the form of otherwise unattested readings shared by the two manuscripts. It is this type of evidence which leads Stec to conclude that the break in MS 116 comes somewhere near the end of chapter 13 and the beginning of chapter 14 15. He provides 93 individual readings which link the first 13 chapters of MS 116 with Bomberg 16. While a simple listing of readings in common between only 2 witnesses may be rather deceptive in that it tends to gloss over any lack of agreement and undoubtedly fails to do justice to the entire network of stemmatological connections, it is perhaps to be admitted as a general indicator of affinity. While the following treatment of individual readings is the result of a slightly different approach, it too may be subject to the same criticism.
In chapter one, (See Chart 2) we find eight readings otherwise unattested but shared by all three Group 3 texts 17 Nürnberg and Bomberg share thirteen readings not found in any other MS including MS 116 18, while Nürnberg and MS 116 share only three