4QNumb XXII 46 ii
23
#bkl hyhy Nyy Nyhh t(ybrw word order to the MT.^1101Q536 MT Num 29:11 htxnmw SV(1) – Difference in gender.^1102
4QNumb XXIII 48-
50 21
MtxnmwQ537 MT Num 29:28 omits SV(2) – 4QNumb has additional
4QNumb XXIV 51- text not in the MT.^1103
54 8
hmkyl[Q538 MT Num 30:5 Mwqy SV(1) – Difference in number.^1104
4QNumb XXIV 51-
54 29
w[]m[Q539 MT Num 30:8 hl #yrxhw w(m# Mwyb SV(3) – 4QNumb has a different
4QNumb XXIV 51- word order to the MT.^1105
54 31
[ ]hl #yrxhw1101
The qualifying term Nyy, “wine,” describes the material that is offered in a drink offering. The noun it-
self is clause final in the MT, but in 4QNumb the noun is moved to precede the predicate of the final clause,
inproving the syntax of the entire phrase. See E. Ulrich and F.M. Cross, Qumran Cave 4. VII, 246, for the
variaous formulations of this verse in the different witnesses, none of which appear to directly agree with
each other. 1102
The plural possessive pronominal suffix in 4QNumb probably harmonises with the plural possessive
pronominal suffix appended to the following form Mhycsnw, “their drink offerings.” A difference in gender
need not be read if the pronominal suffix in the MT is taken as an archaic form (see note above). The noun
to which the pronominal suffix refers is not clear, but if it refers to the noun at the beginning of the verse,
namely Myz( ry(#, “a young male goat,” then a masculine pronominal suffix would be required. Also in
favour of the plural reading in 4QNum 1103 b see 11QT XVII 14; XXV 6 and 14.
The description of the offering in Num 29:28 appears to be extended in 4QNumb, though the damaged
state of the text makes a certain reconstruction impossible. See E. Ulrich and F.M. Cross, Qumran Cave 4.
VII 1104 , 249, for a suggested reconstruction and the variant readings in the other witnesses.
The reading in 4QNumb is uncertain, with only the lower part of the mem and waw preserved. The bot-
tom horizontal ligature of a medial nun may also be visible between these letters, though this is very poorly
preserved. The possibility of a plural verb underlying the form remains strong. E. Ulrich and F.M. Cross,
Qumran Cave 4. VII, 249-50, note that in several places “the textual witnesses preserve widespread confu-
sion between sing. and pl. forms in this chapter.” The MT has the form with the pronominal suffix 3ms wn-
in Num 30:14, so it may be that the form in 4QNumb is harmonised with the form occurring there, giving
us the form wnmyqy. Without a certain reading the context would seem to require a plural verb, and so the
reading of a plural has been adopted here, and the possibility of a pronominal suffix 1105 wn- left aside.
The order of the phrases are reversed. 4QNumb agrees with the word sequence in the LXX.