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.

unique readings ¹⁹. Thus already in the first chapter we see that in terms of rough indicators, there seems to be a general affinity (as befits texts of the same group) between all three texts but that Nürnberg and Bomberg have considerably more in common than do Nürnberg and MS 116.

      In the rather short chapter thirteen, the supposed last chapter for which we have three Group 3 texts, roughly the same proportions are obtained. Nürnberg, Bomberg and MS 116 share four readings unattested by any other MS ²⁰, while Bomberg and Nürnberg in this chapter share a total of seven otherwise unattested readings ²¹. Nürnberg and MS 116 do not in fact share any unique readings in chapter 13 ²².

      As shown by Chart 2, chapter fourteen presents a rather different picture from the trend established in the first 13 chapters of the Group 3 texts. While the shared readings of Nürnberg and Bomberg continue at a relatively high level (varying in absolute terms in proportion to the length of a given chapter), both the Group 3 readings and those in common between Nürnberg and MS 116 drop dramatically from chapter 14 onwards. This fits well with Stec's observations regarding the lack of affinity between the latter two thirds of MS 116 and Group 3.

      Thus in terms of locating Nürnberg within the existing stemmatological framework on the criteria utilised by Stec it is clear that Nürnberg stands beside Bomberg as the only other witness to Group 3 preserved in its entirety. With respect to its more specific affinity within Group 3, it seems safe to conclude that it shares far more with the text of Bomberg that it does with the Group 3 text preserved by the first 13 chapters of the MS 116.

      The collation of Nürnberg also supports the observation that in comparison to the other textual traditions, Group 3 texts have a