The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

252 The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context
Vatican's expansions occur in Genesis 49. That is a full 14 per cent
higher than Neofiti, which has only 32 per cent of its expansions in
Genesis 49. This difference becomes clearer from the opposite perspective;
92 per cent of the expansions in Neofiti ch. 49 also appear in
Vatican, while Vatican parallels the expansions in the remaining 22
chapters only 49 per cent of the time. The difference between Neofiti
and the Paris Targum is only slightly less marked. Paris's version of
Genesis 49 contains 81 per cent of Neofiti's expansions, while in the
other chapters, it parallels Neofiti only 56 per cent of the time. Both
the Fragmentary Targums, then, are more likely to include an expansion
from a large series of expansions than those more isolated within
the translation, away from other expansions.
This phenomenon has implications for our understanding of
Pseudo-Jonathan's character, for Pseudo-Jonathan's parallels with
Neofiti follow a similar pattern. In fact, Pseudo-Jonathan's parallels
with Neofiti in Genesis 28-50 suggest that Pseudo-Jonathan derives its
expansions from a fragmentary Targum, rather than a complete
Targum like Neofiti. In Genesis 28-50, Pseudo-Jonathan parallels
Neofiti's expansions in the same pattern as the two Fragmentary
Targums; more in Genesis 49, less in the other chapters. Pseudo-
Jonathan parallels 24 of Neofiti's 26 expansions in ch. 49—that is 96
per cent—while in the remaining 22 chapters, it parallels 40 of
Neofiti's 57 expansions, only 70 per cent.
Other circumstantial evidence supports the suggestion that Pseudo-
Jonathan's material comes from a fragmentary Targum. First, dependence
on a fragmentary Targum would explain the number of
expansions in Neofiti to Genesis 28-50 that find no parallel in Pseudo-
Jonathan; the 15 verses that contain expansions in Neofiti but which
Pseudo-Jonathan merely translates constitute the expansions which that
particular fragmentary Targum failed to include. Secondly, if Pseudo-
Jonathan's editor drew only upon a fragmentary Targum, he would
have had to compose his own translation. This would explain why
Pseudo-Jonathan's translation differs to such a great extent from that
of the other Palestinian Targums. Indeed, this might explain why
Pseudo-Jonathan's language has such strong links to Targum Onqelos.
If these results are borne out by further study, then this would be a
step forward in understanding Pseudo-Jonathan.
In conclusion, mapping the synoptic relationships among the
Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch provides both a new method of