4QLev-Numa 31, 32
i, 33 11
ttn pronunciation.^1037Q415 MT Num 3:12 l)r#y ynbm SV(1) – Interchange of preposi-
4QLev-Numa 31, 32 tions.
i, 33 14
l)r#y ynbbQ416 MT Num 5:3 d( SV(1) – The MT lacks the con-
4QLev-Num 34 ii, junction.
44-50 17
d(wQ417 MT Num 5:6 )whh SV(1) – Difference in gender.^1038
4QLev-Numa 34 ii,
44-50 22
)yhhQ418 MT Num 9:3 Nyb SV(2) – 4QLev-Numa has a dif-
4QLev-Numa 53-54 ferent expression to the MT.^1039
1
]MwybQ419 MT Num 12:3 d)m OV(l) – Difference in grammati-
4QLev-Numa 60-61 cal form.^1040
1
hd[1037
1038 See the comments in note and above.
1039 The pronoun refers to #pn. See note above.
Not enough text is preserved to read a hermeneutic variant here. It is true, though, that the wording in
4QLev-Numa seem difficult to reconcile with the MT if the placement of the fragment is accurate. Where
the MT reads: Mybr(h Nyb, “between the evenings,” 4QLev-Numa has a phrase the begins with Mwyb, “in the
day.” The SP and the LXX support the reading in the MT. The phrase in Tg. Ps.-J. may shed some light on
the problem, as it reads: )t#my# Nyb, “at twilight,” (see M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Ara-
maic, 558-59) but literally means “between the suns.” While the particle Nyb agrees with the reading in the
MT, the use of the term √#m# may somehow reflect a text like 4QLev-Numa. While this translation may
provide some clues it does not allow for any firm conclusions. The tone of E. Ulrich and F.M. Cross, Qum-
ran Cave 4. VII, 168, is equally perplexed: “If frg. 53 is placed correctly, the scribe wrote ]Mwyb where [the
MT and the SP] have 1040 Mybr(h Nyb. What the ensuing text would have read is uncertain.”
The form in 4QLev-Numa is restored hd)m, “very.” This is a form of the regular adverb d)m, terminat-
ing with a locative h, which had arguably become part of the spoken dialect reflected in certain scrolls from
Qumran (see E. Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 117-18). The form is identical in meaning the
d)m, according to Qimron, as “the he of direction has lost its syntactical function in DSS Hebrew. It was
rather perceived as a locative termination without any syntactical function” (Hebrew of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, 68.