The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

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