The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

28 The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context
traditions of Targum Rishon and Sheni, but it also contains very
substantial unique passages that are unparalleled in those other
versions. In a number of instances textual parallels were found in the
Midrash Panin Aherim or in the Midrash Abba Gurion. However,
some of the new targumic passages contain midrashic motifs that are
unattested in the extant midrashic literature.
We concluded that, unlike Onqelos and Targum Jonathan of the
Prophets, Targum Esther was never subjected to the processes of
standardization or canonization. Even if some widely accepted targumic
base text existed, it could be contracted or elaborated upon, as
required by a particular Meturgeman.
e. A new targumic Tosefta to the Ten Commandments. In 1989,
Rimmon Kasher published a Cambridge Genizah fragment that contained
a very expansive Aramaic version of the Ten Commandments. 25
The text is a linguistic and translational hybrid of Onqelos and
Palestinian Targum, which contains many new elements that do not
appear in any of the other known targumim. This new tosefta 26 introduces
many historical and halakhic motifs between the phrases of
literal translation. Another unique aspect of this thirteenth-century
manuscript is its relationship to the piyyut and midrash literature of
the Jews of Kurdistan.
Finally a word about the overall contents of targumic manuscripts
at the Cambridge Genizah collections. As mentioned above, approximately
1,600 targumic fragments were identified among the 140,000
pieces in the collection—or slightly over 1.1 per cent. This may be
contrasted with the 30,000 fragments of Hebrew Bible which comprise
over 21 per cent of the collection. Among the targumic manuscripts,
approximately 1,000 are Onqelos (= 63%), which is not
surprising, considering its ultimate predominance as the official
translation in the synagogue and in private ritual. The next largest
25. R. Kasher, 'A New Targum to the Ten Commandments according to a
Genizah Manuscript', HUCA 60 (1989), pp. 1-17 [Hebrew section].
26. Kasher refrains from categorizing this text as a tosefta. However, I believe
that it fits the definition and description of tosefta that has been applied in the past.
See Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum, Introduction, pp. xxvixxvii;
idem, Targumic Toseftot from the Cairo Genizah', in Salvacion en la Palabra:
Targum, Derash, Berith: En memoria del Profesor Alejandro Diez Macho
(ed. Domingo Munoz Le