Statistics and Conclusion of 4Q10’s Textual Tradition
Based on the above analysis, 4Q10 can be shown to fit well within the Masoretic tradition.14 Regarding agreements, 4Q10 agrees with the MT in most details. Concerning disagreements, 4Q10 only preserves three differences. Two, possibly all three of these differences, simply make the text of the MT more explicit. Thus, reasonable evidence suggests that 4Q10 interprets an MT like exemplar.
Table 1. The statistical relationship between 4Q10 and the MT Total #
of Words in 4Q10
Categories
1, 2, and 3 Statistical
Relationship Categories
2 and 3 Statistical
Relationship Categories
3 Statistical Relationship
70 2 97.14% 0 100% 0 100%
include Isa 48:14; Gen 45:8, and Ezek 39:4. See also Isa 6:10 for an analogous construction. The non- repetition of a preposition is also discussed in Joüon Paul and and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, rev. ed., Subsidia Biblica, (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2003), §132g. For a similar phenomenon concerning the marker of the accusative, see the discussion of which birds are unclean in Deut 14:13-18.
13 Russell Fuller and Kyoungwon Choi, Invitation to Biblical Hebrew Syntax: An Intermediate Grammar (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2017).) §55a. See also Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar,
§150a.Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, §150a; Paul, and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew,
§161a. An interrogative particle is not necessary for interrogative statements in Hebrew nor in many other languages. Intonation alone can indicate a question.
14 Overall, 7 words transcribed by Davila will not be accepted in the final word count because of insufficient manuscript evidence: 4 words from fragment 2; 1 word from fragment 3; 1 word from fragment 4; and 1 word from fragment 5.
2Q2
2Q2 (2QExoda) partially preserves content from Exodus 1, 7-9, 11-12, 21, 26, 30, and 32 in ten fragments.15 Baillet describes the script of 2Q2 as typical Herodian script, while the orthography is characterized as generally full.16
Few scholars have commented on the textual tradition of 2Q2. Even Baillet, the editor of the text in DJD, does not identify the textual tradition of 2Q2. He does, however, indicate that 2Q2 shares characteristics with the LXX.17 Moreover, Tov does not include 2Q2 in his list of biblical texts categorized in Appendix 8 of his book Scribal Practices,18 but he does identify 2Q2 as a non-aligned text in an earlier list.19 Lange too identifies 2Q2 as a non-aligned text.20 Contrary to Tov and Lange, 2Q2 is identified here as belonging to the Masoretic tradition since it agrees with the MT in most readings while disagreeing in minor details.
Description and Categorization of Variants
Baillet proposes that 2Q2 differs from the MT in ten places. Two of these possible differences, however, are not included in the following discussion and statistics since they depend on insufficient manuscript evidence.21
15 Maurice Baillet, “Grottes 2: Exode (i),” in Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumran: Exploration de la Falaise, les Grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 7Q à 10Q, le Rouleau de Cuivre, vol. 3, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, pt. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 49-52. I am thankful to my friend Benjamin Tilson for translating Baillet’s discussion of 2Q2 for me from French into English.
16 Ibid., 49.
17 Baillet, “Grottes 2: Exode (i),” 49, comments that 2Q2 does possess a number of variants of the LXX.
18 Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 332.
19 Emanuel Tov, “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert—An Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, ed.
Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov (New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll, 2002), 156.
20 Lange, “Textual Plurality,” 54.
Category 1. Regarding the remaining eight differences, three of these belong to category 1. These include the addition of a noun at F4:L1 (Exod 11:3), a substitution of number at F1:L2 (Exod 1:12), and a substitution of a lexeme that shares sematic overlap at F1:L2 (Exod 1:12).
Category 2. Five further variants belong to category 2. Three of these variants are additions. The first addition is preserved at F1:L[5]-6 (Exod 1:14) and consists of the addition ל]ארשי ינב ינפמ םירצמ וצוקיו [ דאמ] [דאמב וצרשי ןכו וברי ןכ ] “[Thus, they multiplied and thus they swarmed greatly], and the Egyptians dreaded before the sons of Isra[el.” A similar expression found at Exodus 1:12 may have influenced this addition in 2Q2. In Exodus 1:12ff, Egypt treated Israel harshly (Exod 1:11), Israel multiplied (Exod 1:12a), and Egypt dreaded Israel (Exod 1:12b). Exodus 1:14 then emphasizes again that Egypt treated Israel harshly. 2Q2 has a lacuna that may have originally preserved Israel multiplied,21F22 followed by the preserved phrase Egypt dreaded Israel. Thus, the addition appears to conform Exodus 1:14 to the sequence found in Exodus 1:11-12 of the MT.
The second category 2 addition of 2Q2 is preserved at F4:L2 (Exod 11:4) and readsה]ערפ לא “to Pharaoh.” This addition makes explicit the person with whom Moses speaks. This phenomenon also occurs at Exodus 8:5. This is a minor difference that simply makes the MT explicit.
at F3:L2 (Exod 9:28). Baillet proposes that 2Q2 adds שאו “and fire.” Exod 9:23 claims, “The Lord gave thunder and hail, and fire came toward the earth,” yet Pharaoh only asks Moses to pray to God because of the thunder and the hail (Exod 9:28). These circumstances provide a fertile context to add שאו to Exod 9:28.
Nonetheless, the evidence of 2Q2 is too fragmentary. All that is visible is the first two letters and the top of the third (the shin), which could have belonged to the next word of the MT, הָחְלּ ַשֲׁאַו “and I will send.”
Baillet’s proposed reconstruction depends on the fact that no traces of the lamed are visible above the line, but the fact that letter spaces are irregular in 2Q2 weakens this reasoning. See Baillet, “Grottes 2: Exode (i),” 49. Compare the intervals between letters of the same word for words on line 6 with words on line 5 of fragment 1 to see the irregular spacing of 2Q2.
22 This phrase, if original to 2Q2, is now absent because of textual damage.
The third category 2 addition occurs at F9:L4 (Exod 30:25) and reads םכי]תורוד[ל “[throughout your] generations.”23 This addition conforms Exodus 30:25 to Exodus 30:31. Both of these verses identify the oil as anointing oil הֶי ְהִי שׁ ֶדֹק־תַח ְשׁ ִמ ן ֶמ ֶשׁ “it shall be a holy anointing oil,” but the MT only identifies this oil as a practice םֶכי ֵתֹרֹדְל
“throughout your generations” at Exodus 30:31, not 30:25. 2Q2, however, adds the statement םכי]תורוד[ל “[for your] generations,” to Exodus 30:25. This addition conforms 2Q2 to the immediate context.
Besides additions, one category 2 substitution is preserved in 2Q2. This substitution occurs at F5:L8 (Exod 12:39) and reads ם[י]רצמ םושרג “the Egyptians drove them” while the MT reads םִי ַר ְצ ִמּ ִמ וּשׁ ְרֹג “they were driven from Egypt.”24 The difference between these readings is slight. A difference in word division has led to two alternative readings. The differences concern voice (the MT is passive while 2Q2 is active) and the syntax of םירצמ (the MT reads this word as Egypt, a place, and understands it as a genitive of a prepositional phrase, whereas 2Q2 likely read it as a plural gentilic, Egyptians, and understands it as the subject of the active verb ושרג). The active voice of 2Q2 also has precedent in the MT. In Exodus 6:1, God tells Moses that “he [Pharaoh] will drive them [Israel] from his land” וֹצ ְראַ ֵמ ם ֵשׁ ְרָגְי. This variant belongs to category 2 since it represents a slight change in meaning while likely deriving from the scribal process (faulty word division).
Last, there remains one variant whose description is ambiguous because of the fragmentary nature of the evidence. This variant occurs at F3:L3 (Exod 9:29). Whereas 2Q2 reads וילא ]השומ רמאויו “And Moses said to him/And Moses said,” the MT reads
ַו ר ֶמאֹיּ ֹמ ויָל ֵא
ה ֶשׁ “And Moses said to him.” The scribe of 2Q2 has either transposed the
23 Although supplied by Baillet, the ל depends on too little manuscript evidence.
24 See Baillet’s notes about this variant in Baillet, “Grottes 2: Exode (i),” 51.
prepositional phrase with the subject or has omitted the prepositional phrase.25 The fragmentary nature of this line prohibits a more precise description of this variant.