To my wife, best friend, and co-heir of the grace of life, Kristen. His unimaginable attitude yet profound understanding of the text illustrates a pastor/scholar worthy of the highest honor.
INTRODUCTION
Se også Tovs diskussion af den bibelske DSS i Tov, "The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert", 152-57. Skehan, "The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old Testament," The Biblical Archaeologist 28, no.
4Q10 does not preserve a category 2 variant
4Q10 does not preserve a category 3 variant
Even Baillet, the editor of the text in DJD, does not identify the textual tradition of 2Q2. Thus the addition appears to match Exodus 1:14 to the sequence found in Exodus 1:11-12 in the MT.
2Q2 does not preserve any category 3 variants
Reymond even notes that the usual form of the first personal pronoun in [Qumran] biblical manuscripts is ינא, not יכונא or יכנא. See also 4Q98g where several letters are crammed together to fit the available space of the first line. Nevertheless, the variant proposed by Baillet is weakened since the next word of the MT begins with a crippled preposition: תוֹשֲׂﬠַל.
Second, there is not enough Paleo-Hebrew to support the reading הוהי.48F49 Therefore, both of these proposed variants depend on insufficient evidence in the manuscript.
2Q3 does not preserve category 1 variants
Baillet מציע כי 2Q3 הוהיל ת֯ב[שה תא לרשי יאנב ורמשו] כתוב "[בני ישראל ישמרו את יום השבת לה'" ואילו המ"ט קורא "בני ישראל ישמרו את השבת". ההצעה של Baillet אינה בטוחה משתי סיבות.
Only one variant is accepted here, and it is a category 2 variant
2Q3 does not preserve category 3 variants
The ambiguity in fragment 8 may be the result of the extraction process, as the text appears to go from Exodus 19:9 to Exodus 34:10. The exact nature of this fragment is enigmatic, as it is poorly preserved and because of the order of the text. This form may therefore be evidence of the text's non-biblical status or evidence that it was copied from memory.
Bat 14a as proof, which states: "The size of the columns must be in accordance with the size of the scroll.".
Four variants belong to category 1. These variants include the omission of three conjunctive vavs at L6 (Exod 13:5) and the transposition of two nouns
These variants include the omission of three subjunctive vavs in L6 (Exodus 13:5) and the transfer of two nouns. This omission could arise from parablepsis due to homoioarcton (the scribe's eyes skip from the end of םירצם to the end of םידבע). רשא introduces a demonstrative/relative clause,68 while רשאכ introduces a comparative clause.68F69 Thus, this version falls into category 2 because it represents a slight change in perspective.
4Q16 does not preserve a category 3 variant
However, the phrase most likely followed the last sentence of the MT's verse: "his uncleanness, it is" או ִה וֹתאָ ְמֻט. The appropriate clause of the MT reads הָוהיַֽלוּבי ִר ְק ַתּ "they shall sacrifice to the Lord", while 11Q1 reads הוהיל הלא ובירקת. 11Q1 omits וֹעָבּ ְצֶא ְבּ "with his finger". The MT reads that “he will sprinkle some of the fat with his finger seven times before the Lord as 11Q1 reads that.
The omission of this phrase thus fits within the general tradition preserved in the MT.
11Q2 does not preserve category 3 variants
First, you can refer to a reading by the exact fragment and line number of the reading. Three of these versions are additions, while the nature of the last version is unclear. Nevertheless, this addition emphasizes even more the closeness of the Lord's commandment.
This addition completes the list to include another profession within Israel that is not included in Deuteronomy 31:28 in the MT.
4Q29 does not preserve category 3 variants
159 White [Crawford] does not discuss the possibility that the letters יהלא could correspond to םהילא found earlier in the verse in the MT. This is the addition of the direct object ןדריה with less detail implicit in the MT explicit. The prepositional phrase in MT adds an additional adverbial idea in MT, probably an explanation or specification.
The substitution of 4Q30 has the effect of aligning the less common term "six days" in the MT with the more common term "seven days". Israel is.
4Q30 does not preserve any category 3 variants
Although this evidence seems convincing, three of these readings in 4Q175 were corrected against the reading of 4Q35 against the text of the MT. If so, the one line of the MT conveys what the LXX does in two lines; namely that the Thummin and the Urim belong to Levi. The subject of the first verb in the MT is Benjamin, but the participle of the next clause clearly describes God.
4Q35 omits the subjunctive vav of MT on three other occasions: twice within fragment 12 (Deut 33).
4Q35 does not preserve category 3 variants
Wevers, argues against this explanation when discussing the LXX reading noting that the LXX never translated ןוילע as ὁ θεός. Third, all the differences between the LXX, 4Q35, and the MT can reasonably be attributed to the writing process.218 Thus, shared readings between the LXX and 4Q35 do not indicate a common anti-MT tradition. Moreover, the fragmentary nature of the text makes the exact order of the columns uncertain,221 although Duncan argues that the order is the same as 4Q41 (4QDeutn).222 The orthography of 4Q37 is more complete than the MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch.
Textual analysis of excerpted texts must be done with great care, as the variants of the excerpted text may not always be evidence of the textual tradition of the text.
Seven differences between 4Q37 and the MT belong to category 2. Four of these differences are additions that have precedent in MT parallel passages
Moreover, spatial considerations are of little help due to the textual damage to the fragment. Nevertheless, even if one were to read the MT and the LXX for the rest of the verse, the meaning of םיהולא ינב would still be "sons of God". Tov argues that the reading found in 4Q37 and the LXX is original and that the writer of the MT redirects the text by changing a single word.244.
See also Tigaya who says that the MT scribes probably changed the term םיהולא ינב to לארשי ינב for one of two reasons.
4Q37 does not preserve a category 3 variant
Thus, all the differences between MT and 4Q37 can be attributed to the writing process. Instead, Duncan suggests that the type and range of variants found in 4Q37 can be attributed to the scribe copying from memory.267 Tov and Lange identify 4Q38 as unrelated.268. Unlike Tov and Lange, 4Q38 is grouped here as a detached text belonging to the Masoretic tradition.
It differs from the MT in only a few minor details, which can reasonably be attributed to the writing process.
Four variants belong to category 2. Three of these are additions
Two of these differences are not included in the following discussion and statistics because they differ from MT only orthographically. The first difference concerns the addition of the indicative nuna at F2:L6 (Deut 11:9), while the second concerns qere perpetuum at F2:L9 (Deut 11:10). As illustrated by the discussion of this text, when Israel is described as crossing over into the Promised Land, sometimes it states that they are crossing the "Jordan," but at other times this detail is implied.
4Q38 does not preserve category 3 variants
Besides preserving three additions, 4Q38 also preserves an omission: the omission of the לָכּ particle "all" at F1:L2 (Deut 5:29). For a discussion of the reasons why 4Q38 and 4Q38a are now understood as separate manuscripts, see Duncan, "4QDeutk1," 93. Duncan here lists an additional possible section break that may coincide with MT's system.
The MT's prepositional phrase conveys that Israel must declare that they have entered the promised land of the Lord.
4Q38a does not preserve category 3 variants
The prepositional phrase of 4Q38a says that when Israel enters the Promised Land, they must go to the priest and declare before the Lord that they have entered the Promised Land. 50-1 BC, during the transitional period between the late Hasmonean and early Herodian periods.286 Duncan describes the orthography as more complete than that of the MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch.287 Long forms of the pronoun suffixes and the independent pronouns are used.288 Two corrections , most likely from the hand of the scribe who copied the text, occurs in 4Q40.289. This variant is a correction to the MT and offers an expansion of the divine title.
4Q40 reads ^המכיהולא^ הוהי “the Lord^your God^,” while the MT reads ה ָוהְי “the Lord.” The difference is small, especially since the fuller phrase preserved by 4Q40 - "The Lord your God" - occurs later in the verse in the MT.
4Q40 does not preserve category 3 variants
Interestingly, most of the variants of the Pentateuchal non-aligned texts achieve this result: greater clarity. Tov, however, no longer regards 4Q41 as belonging to the pre-Samaritan family, as is evident from Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 91. Therefore, all the differences discussed by Crawford are accounted for here, but divided slightly differently.
Here 4Q41 reads םייח ונלוכ םויה "we are all alive today," while the MT simply reads םי ִיַּח וּנָלֻּכּ "we are all alive." The reading of 4Q41 further emphasizes the identity of the generation that is about to enter the Promised Land.
4Q41 does not preserve category 3 variants
Milik describes 5Q1 as belonging to a small group of archaic Qumran texts, especially in terms of orthography.349 He dates 5Q1 as coming from the first half of the second century BCE. second-hand in order to bring the text systematically into line with the Vorlage of the LXX.351 Further, he notes that two of the emendations are made for the purpose of ease of reading.352 The Tov, however, disagrees that the emendations of 5Q1 are an attempt to adapted 5Q1 to the Vorlage of the LXX as an example could be a correction based on homoioteleuton, one could have made it independent of the LXX and the latter is irrelevant.353 Tov concludes that the correction in Col 2:L6 ( Deut. 8:12) could have been a correction of a text like the LXX, but since the text does. Milik argues that two of these emendations are corrected in the direction of the Vorlage of the LXX, one in uncertain, and one matches a word with its Greek pronunciation. 353 Emanuel Tov, "The Textual Base of the Corrections in the Biblical Texts Found at Qumran," in Dimant and Rappaport, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, 307-8.
In his discussion of 5Q1 in DJD, Milik argues that 5Q1 is more consistent with the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch than the MT based on spellings from Col 1:3 (Deut 7:17).355 Tov assesses Milik's reasoning to understood as unconvincing. .356.
Fourth, conclusions are drawn based on the nature of the variants (section 2) and on the basis of the overall statistical relationship (section 3). Ulrich argues that fragment 1 of 4Q47 preserves a sequence of events about the building of the first altar in the Promised Land that contradicts the MT and the LXX. The LXX then places the building of the altar and the reading of the law after both of these episodes (Jos 9:2a-f).
The MT, however, records the building of the altar and the reading of the words of the law (Josh 8:30-35) during the destruction of Ai (Josh 8:1-29) and the account of the kings beyond the Jordan. they gather to fight against Israel (Josh 9:1-2).
4Q47 does not preserve certain category 3 variants
Second, the suggestion that the circumcision account followed the Jordan crossing is plausible, but uncertain. Better evidence in support of this proposition can be found in the preserved text of fragment 1: it retains the addition ן] ׄדריה תא "the Jordan" at F1:L2 which situates the reading of the law at the Jordan. Ulrich who says that 4Q47 "strongly suggests" the construction of the altar immediately after crossing the Jordan.
See also Tov, "The Literary Development of the Book of Joshua," 151-53, who made this conclusion.
Three differences belong to category 1. The category 1 variants include the omission of two conjunctive vavs at L3 (Judg 6:4) and the substitution of the
4Q49 does not preserve any certain category 3 variants
101 Ulrich, “Multiple Literary Editions,” 86, argues that 4Q49 contains an early literary form of the book of Judges. Rezetko, "The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges," 29n117, concludes that this claim is unconfirmed. Finally, the nature of the omission (probably an entire literary unit is omitted) and the fact that the text itself preserves this reading suggest that this text is a type of abbreviated text.
126 Despite this evidence and due to the limited size of the text, judgment on the nature of this text can reasonably be refused.
6Q4 does not preserve any certain category 1 variants
After Baillet’s seven readings based on insufficient manuscript evidence and one potential difference concerning a synonymous reading are removed,
However, Elisha is mentioned twice in 2 Kings 8:4, once as a "man of God" and once as "Elisha." Unfortunately, the second mention of Elisha is no longer preserved in 6Q4, but if read with the MT, it is.
6Q4 does not preserve category 3 variants
See also Tov's discussion of the radiocarbon testing in Tov, "The Text of Isaiah at Qumran," 494. Tov, "Scribal Features of Two Qumran Scrolls," 370-76, comments on the differences in orthography between the first half and the second half. half of the book. Beegle, "Ligatures with Waw and Yodh in the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no.
Se også Millar Burrows, "Waw and Yodh in the Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll (DSIa)," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, nr.
