The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

khazarzar.skeptik.net
from khazarzar.skeptik.net More from this publisher
18.07.2013 Views

BEATTIE The Textual Tradition of Targum Ruth 343 First, those features which are characteristic of the printed texts as opposed to all the other manuscripts I have examined are present in N —pm ]Tns« for ]'m (alone) as the translation of DTTIDK (1.2); ^noK, presumably meaning 'bundles' 11 as opposed to Knni), 'pitchforks', in the manuscripts as the translation of DTDS (2.16); the double translation rrrm rraDton, one or other of which words appears in other manuscripts, for the Hebrew 1220(3) (3.4); the extended version of the exegesis of the ketiv/qere Tnj? (4.5), albeit with some orthographic differences, and the literal translation of •jn

344 The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context embarking on the process which reached its apogee in the Antwerp and Paris polyglots of evicting elements not found in the Hebrew. I somehow think the latter possibility is unlikely and it clearly cannot apply in the case of wrraa, for a larger portion of 3.15 ought, on this principle, to have been expunged. Nor is the first possibility convincing in the case of ~p tnnn »n», which I think is likely to have been the original translation of the Hebrew "pm rftaK. 'Simple accident' may be the best explanation. We may note, by way of returning from my digression, that there is another item in 3.15 shared by N and the printed texts. The verb in these texts is TVK, which has to be the 'aphel of «n», but a passive form is required by the context. I suggest that TP« arose out of an abbreviated form of TrrrPK, which is the word found in all other manuscripts. The error may not have originated in N, but I am satisfied that the printed texts got it from there. Some additional points may be mentioned under this head. According to N and the printed texts, stoning (1.17) is done with K33K instead of ]'33K, Naomi describes herself (1.20) as KC?D] rrvia, whereas elsewhere she is BD3 nT-in, and the foreman tells Boaz (2.7) that Ruth has remained 'now Qio) rather than 'here' (]to). My third head complements the second: when features unique to N do not appear in the printed editions, it is usually because the editors have corrected errors or otherwise sought to improve on the text of N. It is at this point that it might be suspected that those responsible for the printed text had recourse to another manuscript or manuscripts, but there is no need to postulate the use of any other manuscript. The points to be considered here would be obvious to an editor working only with N and a Hebrew text. For example, when N reads in 2.6 wy^ia twoivfcn Tn»i it is clear that the second and third words have been transposed. When Boaz says to Ruth in 2.8, 'Will you not go to glean ears in another field?' instead of 'Do not go...' it is clear that N"?n is an error for vfr. The words DI? ^ ~IDK are clearly omitted from N's version of 2.21, but easily restored by reference to the Hebrew. In other cases the remedy may be less obvious, but there is clearly something wrong with N's text. When Boaz says in 2.11, 'It has been told to me by of the wise (t^O'Dm 'Pi))', what was an editor to do but restore a missing nn'n—though perhaps he didn't need to drop the l, as the printed texts do, in the process. On second thoughts, perhaps there was such a need—if keeping the i meant that he had to

BEATTIE <strong>The</strong> Textual Tradition of Targum Ruth 343<br />

First, those features which are characteristic of the pr<strong>in</strong>ted texts as<br />

opposed to all the other manuscripts I have exam<strong>in</strong>ed are present <strong>in</strong> N<br />

—pm ]Tns« for ]'m (alone) as the translation of DTTIDK (1.2); ^noK,<br />

presumably mean<strong>in</strong>g 'bundles' 11 as opposed to Knni), 'pitchforks', <strong>in</strong><br />

the manuscripts as the translation of DTDS (2.16); the double translation<br />

rrrm rraDton, one or other of which words appears <strong>in</strong> other manuscripts,<br />

for the Hebrew 1220(3) (3.4); the extended version of the<br />

exegesis of the ketiv/qere Tnj? (4.5), albeit with some orthographic<br />

differences, and the literal translation of •jn

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!