Microsoft Word - Revised dissertation2.docx

(backadmin) #1

11QLevb 3 4 Myt#wp nite article.


Q893 MT Lev 13:59 wrh+l OV(l) – Difference in grammati-
11QLevb 3 5 wtrh+l cal form.^1312


Q894 MT Lev 25:33 ]( wtyb Not Counted – The reading in
11QLevb 7 3 ry(w tyb 11QLevb is not certain.^1313


Q895 MT Gen 46:7 hmyrcm SV(1) – MasGen lacks the loca-
MasGen 1 Myrcm tive h.^1314


Q896 MT Gen 46:8 hmyrcm SV(1) – MasGen lacks the loca-
MasGen 2 M[yrcm tive h.


Q897 MT Gen 46:8 bq(y hmyrcm SV(1) – MasGen has extra parti-
MasGen 2 bwq(y t) M[yrcm cle t), lacking in MT.^1315


1312

The form in the MT is read as a preposition l plus Pi‘el infinitive construct with an appended pronomi-
nal object suffix: wrh+l, “to pronounce it clean,” against the preposition plus feminine noun with appended
pronominal object suffix in 11QLevb: wtrh+l, “for its cleanness.” The form in the MT appears only here,
while the form in 11QLevb appears also in MT Lev 13:7; 14:23 and 15:13. The form in 11QLevb may
therefore be seen as a harmonisation towards a more common form. 1313
The form in 11QLevb appears to be an error in letter spacing rather than an alternative reading. The
reading in the MT is admittedly difficult, but the reading in 11QLevb does not make sense in the context. It
is perceivable that the word division in 11QLevb or its textual predecessor may have become confused due
to the difficult placement of the 1314 waw conjunction. None of the versions support the reading in 11QLevb.
See S. Talmon, Masada VI, 32, esp. n. 6, where this variant is analysed as a spelling difference. How-
ever, in this analysis the final heh is read as locative in agreement with the modern translations. For exam-
ple, see NIV: “he took with him 1315 to Egypt,” and RSV: “he brought with him into Egypt.”
S. Talmon, Masada VI, 33, reads this as the particle “with,” which is lacking in the other witnesses.

Free download pdf