The second proposed addition occurs at F7:L1 (Exod 31:16). Baillet proposes that 2Q3 reads הו]היל ת ֯ב[שה תא לארשי ינב ורמשו] “[The sons of Israel shall keep the Sab]bath to the Lord” whereas the MT reads ת ָבּ ַשַּׁה־ת ֶא ל ֵא ָר ְשִׂי־יֵנ ְב וּר ְמ ָשׁ ְו “The sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath.” Baillet’s proposal is not certain for two reasons. First, what is left of the lamed is faint, but possible. Nonetheless, Baillet’s proposed variant is weakened since the next word of the MT begins with a lamed preposition: תוֹשֲׂﬠַל. Second, there is not enough of the paleo-Hebrew to substantiate the reading הוהי.48F49 Therefore, both of these proposed variants depend on insufficient manuscript evidence.
Differences that may be caused by excerpted nature. The ambiguity of fragment 8 may be the result of the excerpting process since the text appears to transition from Exodus 19:9 to Exodus 34:10.
Statistics and Conclusion of 2Q3’s Textual Tradition
Based on this analysis, 2Q3 can be shown to fit well within the Masoretic tradition.51 Regarding agreements, 2Q3 agrees with the MT in most details. Concerning disagreements, 2Q3 preserves only one difference. This difference simply makes the MT explicit.
Table 3. The statistical relationship between 2Q3 and the MT Total #
of Words in 2Q3
Categories
1, 2, and 3 Statistical
Relationship Categories
2 and 3 Statistical
Relationship Category
3 Statistical Relationship
32 1 96.88% 1 96.88% 0 100%
4Q15
4Q15 (4QExodd) exists as one fragment preserving text from Exodus 13 and 15.52 The scribe wrote in an elegant Hasmonaean hand that dates from the late second or early first century BC.53 Out of the thirty-three full and partially preserved words, 4Q15 differs orthographically only twice—in the same word—from the MT.54
51 2Q3 is very damaged. Fifty-one of the words transcribed by Accordance will not be accepted here. Thirteen of these words derive from unidentifiable fragments. One derives from fragment 1; 5 from fragment 2; 4 from fragment 3; 5 from fragment 4; 7 from fragment 5; 1 from fragment 6i; 2 from fragment 6ii; 5 from fragment 7; and 8 from fragment 8.
52 Judith E. Sanderson, ed., “4QExodd,” in Qumrân Cave 4: Genesis to Numbers, 127.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid.
The exact nature of this fragment is enigmatic since it is poorly preserved and because of the sequence of text. The text preserves Exodus 13:15-16 followed by Exodus 15:1. Judith Sanderson suggests that 4Q15 may be a liturgical scroll.55 Tov more
confidently identifies 4Q15 as an abbreviated text for liturgical purposes.56 The fact that the fragment omits material between Masoretic paragraph markers (Exod 13:15-16 ends with a ס while Exod 15:1 begins with a פ) further indicates that the omission was likely intentional.
Only a few other scholars have commented on the textual nature of 4Q15 beyond stating that it may be an excerpted/abbreviated text. Emanuel Tov lists 4Q15 as a non-aligned text with an exclamation mark in appendix 8 of Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert.57 Lange classifies 4Q15 as unable to be classified because of textual damage.58 It is demonstrated here that 4Q15 can reasonably be classified as belonging to the Masoretic tradition since it agrees with the MT in most readings.
Description and Categorization of Variants
Besides the different sequence of texts, which likely indicates the text’s excerpted nature, the only difference is a difference in spelling. 4Q15 reads יכ ֯נ[א] at L2 (Exod 13:16) while the MT 4Q15 י ִנֲא.58F59
55 Sanderson, “4QExodd,” 127.
56 See Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 591, 597-98. Tov further states that 4Q15 was probably meant for personal use in Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed.
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 321.
57 Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 332.
58 Lange, “Textual Plurality,” 55.
59 Reymond argues that the biblical manuscripts tend to follow the biblical text when
representing personal pronouns. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 155. This form, therefore, might be evidence of the text’s non-biblical status or evidence that it was copied from memory.
Statistics and Conclusion of 4Q15’s Textual Tradition
Based on the analysis, 4Q15 can be shown to fit well within the Masoretic tradition.60 Due to the limited size of 4Q15, one cannot be sure that it originally belonged to a biblical document. It may have been a quote from a non-biblical text. Despite this fact, the content of this fragment is identical to the MT besides one substitution of
spelling. This substitution is insignificant; it does not even belong as a category 1 variant.
Table 4. The statistical relationship between 4Q15 and the MT Total #
of Words in 4Q15
Categories
1, 2, and 3 Statistical
Relationship Categories
2 and 3 Statistical
Relationship Category
3 Statistical Relationship
31 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%
4Q16
4Q16 (4QExode) exists in one fragment and partially preserves Exodus 13:3-5.
The fragment is written in an early Hasmonaean semi-cursive script dating from the middle to the late second century BC.61 The orthography is fuller than MT, but does not exhibit features common to Tov’s QSP.62 Sanderson and Tov argue that 4Q16’s small column size most likely indicates that the scroll originally did not contain all of Exodus, but existed as an excerpted text.63 Beyond labeling 4Q16 as an excerpted text, only a few other scholars have commented on the textual tradition preserved in the text. Tov labels
60 What remains of 4Q15 is well preserved. Only four words transcribed by Accordance are not accepted here. All of these words derive from line 5 of the fragment: the last line.
61 Judith E. Sanderson, ed., “4QExode,” in Qumrân Cave 4: Genesis to Numbers, 127.
62 For a list of the orthographic differences between 4Q16, see ibid., 130.
63 Ibid. See also Tov, “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts,” 596. He cites b. B. Bat 14a as evidence, which says, “The size of the columns should be commensurate with the size of the scroll.”
4Q16 as non-aligned,64 while Lange withholds judgment about the textual nature of 4Q16 because of textual damage.65
Description and Categorization the Variants
4Q16 possess both category 1 and category 2 variants.
Category 1. Four variants belong to category 1. These variants include the