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.
Targum of Job displays the phenomenon of multiple translation 31. While Bomberg, as a printed edition, has incorporated these alternative targumim into the body of its text, designating them as such through its use of an appropriate formula ()"t), some manuscripts (MSS Nürnberg, Paris Bib. Nat. 17., Wroclaw Bib. Uniw. 1106) also present targumic material (under various rubrics) in the margins. In fact, the location and order of these alternative targumim constitute a further plank in the case for dependence of Bomberg on Nürnberg.
While most MSS order alternative targumim in generally the same fashion (ie., T2 in one MS corresponds to T2 in other MSS) Bomberg diverges from this tendency frequently, often reversing the order of the various targumim which it includes for a given verse. For example, in 14,22, where all MSS but Bomberg have a common order. Bomberg reverses the order giving T2 first, followed by T1. Stec suggests that the most reasonable explanation of the idiosyncratic position (and therefore ordering) of alternative targumim is that they were originally written in the margin of some manuscripts and only later imported into the body of a subsequent text during the copying of such manuscripts 32.
Nürnberg seems to provide support for this suggestion. Because no alternative material in Nürnberg is contained within the body of the text itself, alternative words, phrases or targumim are given in the margins. These alternative textual materials must then in some fashion or another, be connected with their corresponding locations in the base text through the use of a reference system (usually identical marks at the location and in the margin) The relationship between this reference system (and the alternative targumim it serves to incorporate) and the idiosyncratic ordering of Bomberg's alternative targumim are extremely suggestive of a close link between the two texts. In Nürnberg, the targum and the Hebrew text of Job alternate verse by verse. The evidence seems to suggest that Bomberg's idiosyncratic ordering may be best explained by the fact