Microsoft Word - Revised dissertation2.docx

Q857 MT Lev 11:27 wypk l( SV(2) – 11QpaleoLeva has a dif-
11QpaleoLeva frg. C ferent expression to the MT.^1287
1

Q858 MT Lev 13:42 txrqb SV(2) – 11QpaleoLeva has an ex-
11QpaleoLeva frg. E pansive plus.^1288
3

wtxrqb

Q859 MT Lev 14:16 w(bc)b SV(2) – The MT has an expansive
11QpaleoLeva frg. F plus.^1289
2

omits

Q860 MT Lev 14:17 Kwnt SV(2) – 11QpaleoLeva has a dif-
11QpaleoLeva frg. F ferent expression to the MT.^1290
3

K[ ]nt)r

Q861 MT Lev 14:20 wyl( Not Counted – The form in
11QpaleoLeva is considered erro-
neous.^1291

11QpaleoLeva frg. F
7

yl[

Q862 MT Lev 15:3 omits SV(2) – 11QpaleoLeva has an ex-

1287

The phrase in 11QpaleoLeva is restored: Nwxg l( Klwh lk, “all that go upon the belly,” perhaps influ-
enced by the similar phrase in verse 42. 1288
The possessive pronominal suffix clarifies the subject, and the same form appears in the latter part of
the verse in the MT. The reading in 11QpaleoLeva is supported by the same reading in the SP, and by the
reading in the LXX. 1289
The noun is repeated in the MT from an occurrence earlier in the verse, clarifying the object of the verb
√lb+, “dip,” and the instrument of the verb √hzh, “spatter.” The SP supports the reading in 11QpaleoLeva,
while the LXX supports the reading in the MT. 1290
D.N. Freedman and K.A. Mathews, assume that a scribal error lead to the inclusion of the letters reš
and aleph being introduced into the scroll, but are unable to explain the mechanical process by which this
would have occurred. , M. Jastrow, Dictionary, 1438, has the root Nt)r, “a certain skin disease,” but this
makes no sense of the following kaph. In light of Rule 1 this variant must be considered as a legitimate
reading on the basis that no reasonable explanation for error can be determined. 1291
The form in 11QpaleoLeva is yl( for wyl( in the MT. The 1cs pronominal object suffix does not fit the
context, and in this script there can be no graphical confusion between the letters yod and waw, so a defec-
tive 3ms pronominal suffix is also ruled out. Reading the form in 11QpaleoLeva as a scribal error for wyl( is
the most likely explanation of this variant (so D.N. Freedman and K.A. Mathews, 31).