Q816 MT Deut 32:42 ryk#) OV(l) – Difference in grammati-
4QDeutq II 2 h[ cal form.^1260
Q817 MT Deut 32:42 #)rm SV(1) – The MT lacks the con-
4QDeutq II 5 #)rmw junction.
Q818 MT Deut 32:43 Mywg SV(2) – 4QDeutq has a different
4QDeutq II 6 Mym# expression to the MT.^1261
Q819 MT Deut 32:43 omits SV(2) – 4QDeutq has an expan-
1260
The form in 4QDeutq is restored: hrk#). On the long form of the 1cs imperfect hl+q) in Qumran He-
brew see E. Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 44, who notes that “It is a well known feature of DSS
Hebrew that cohortative forms hl+q)/n denote the indicative alongside the forms l+q)/n, as in the late
books of the Bible and the Samaritan Pentateuch.” However, as Qimron also notes, the two forms are not
simply in free variation, but rather the first person imperfect forms following waw consecutive or conjunc-
tive are regularly long. Here, though, no waw precedes the verb, so it may properly be read as a cohortative,
and thus represents a different grammatical form than the form in the MT. For other references concerning
long forms with appended 1261 h in Qumran Hebrew see note above.
The colon in 4QDeutq reads: wm( Mym# wnynrh, “Rejoice, o heavens, (in) his people” (or “with him”). The
LXX seems to have translated a similar Vorlage: ευφρανθητε ουρανοι αμα αυτω, “Rejoice, o heavens, with
him,” reading the final form as the preposition “with” rather than the noun “people”). The MT has a differ-
ent subject in this colon: wM( Mywg wnynrh, “Rejoice, o nations, (in) his people.” On the emendation of Deut
32:43 to include both versions of this colon, whereby parablepsis is assumed, see W.F. Albright, "Some
Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII," VT 9, 4 (1959) 340-341. For an alternative view
that posits the variant in the MT as a theological correction see A. Rofe, "The End of the Song of Moses
(Deuteronomy 32:43)," Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von
Lothar Perlitt (eds R.G. Kratz and H. Spiekermann; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 167. Such
a view would demand that the variant is read as a difference in hermeneutic, where the term Mym#, read
“heavenly beings” by Rofe, is replaced with the “nations,” which better suited the theological view of a
later copyinst. Indeed, graphical corruption is difficult to imagine in this context, and Albright’s suggestion
of haplography seems to have little advantage over Rofe’s proposal of an ideological correction to the text
that removed unwanted polytheistic material. However, in light of Rule 4 our methodology demands that
we read here with Albright, and adopt the reading that supposes the least amount of intentional alteration to
the text. The more obvious reading is, of course, to assume an exegetical concern behind the omission of
the line in the MT, however the fact that the line is omitted rather than changed, necessitates the view that it
is conceivably an addition in 4QDeutq in light of Rule 4. This is perhaps a limitation of the methodology
employed here that inhibits our ability to successfully describe very divergent texts. It should be noted,
though, that the purpose of our methodology is to describe close parallel texts that diverge subtley, and not
to deal rubustly with very different sources.