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.

alternative explanation, it is suggested that in terms of its ability to account for every case of Bomberg's irregular ordering, the above hypothesis is a very reasonable one.

      The use of the term reasonable at this juncture is not incidental. While the combined force of the above evidence is powerfully suggestive, in terms of proving a case of dependence of one text on another, shared readings, and even the similar arrangement of multiple targumim can in fact only be admitted as circumstantial evidence. In other words, while this type of evidence establishes emphatically the link between the two texts, it provides no means for adjudicating the case of dependence. For example, we might easily imagine a case in which the MS tradition which underlies Bomberg (it seems reasonable to think it was a MS of some importance) had been in existence for centuries before de Prato encountered it. In this case, Nürnberg could have been been corrected and supplemented by this "proto-Bomberg" MS, to which it may have had some affinity anyway. Insofar as the shared readings and even otherwise unattested ordering of alternative targumim might also fit this set of circumstances, we must look for evidence of a decisive nature before a verdict may be reached regarding the direction of dependence. This type of decisive evidence is often found in cases where the copyist has made a mistake of interpretation in which later observers may, so to speak, "catch him in the act" ³⁷.

Further evidence

      The relationship between the marginal material of Nürnberg and the text preserved in Bomberg sheds light not only on Bomberg's ordering of alternative targumim, but also provides us with the means to explain an even more distinctive feature found in Bomberg — that of dislocated targumim.

      In chapter 24, Nürnberg, along with virtually all other witnesses, preserves three targumim to verse 19 (See Illustr. 2). While at first glance, Bomberg seems to provide only two targumim (T1 and T2)