Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: tc-list Micah 5:1 in 4QXII(f)

Expand Messages
  • James R. Adair
    One possibility that comes to mind is that LO is a variant form of LY that has worked its way into the text, perhaps from the margin. I couldn t tell from the
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 27, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      One possibility that comes to mind is that LO is a variant form of LY that
      has worked its way into the text, perhaps from the margin. I couldn't
      tell from the transliteration whether LO included a final aleph, but I
      don't think the presence (or not) of the aleph affects the argument, since
      the interchange of LOW and LO) is not uncommon.

      Jimmy Adair
      Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
      and
      Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
      -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <--------------
    • Curt Niccum
      I am working on a course on Micah and have come across an interesting text in one of the Qumran mss. In 4QXII(f), Micah 5:1 reads: w eth beth lehem
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 5, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        I am working on a course on Micah and have come across an
        interesting text
        in one of the Qumran mss. In 4QXII(f), Micah 5:1 reads:
        <heb>"w'eth beth lehem 'ephratha ts'ir lehayoth be'alphey yehuda
        mimmek li
        LO yatsa"</heb> ... etc.

        The transcription offered here is misleading on two accounts.
        First, the variant you are concerned with is written lamed-aleph, which
        may or may not have been pronounced "lo" (see below). Second, you have
        not indicated where actual text is or is not preserved. The reading "li"
        is not extant but supplied by the editor. This is almost surely an
        error.

        It is this LO which strikes me as really remarkable. This LO is,
        of course,
        absent from the MT, though it is present in a couple of Greek
        mss (B*, C).
        The editor of the scroll fragment suggests that <gk>ek sou</gk>
        may derive
        from <gk>ex ou</gk>.

        The Hebrew and Greek variants are not related. The versional
        evidence reflects an inner Greek problem with the phrase translating
        mmk. "Ou" is a personal pronoun, not a negative.

        Considering the fluid state of Hebrew orthography during the
        time this scroll was written, one should not assume too quickly that the
        scribe of this small fragment was using biblical (Masoretic) Hebrew,
        i.e. "l)" equals "not.". The use of metathetic aleph and matres
        lectionis was common. Both were also seemingly optional. For example,
        the common word "ky" is found also as "ky)" and "k)" at Qumran. The
        variations on "l)" also include "lw" and "lw)." Thus, the extant "l)"
        could have been pronounced "li" or "lo." If the former, it is not a
        textually significant variant. If the latter, it could be due to a
        waw/yod interchange at some point in the history of transmission, an
        easy mistake. Even then the word could still be understood by the scribe
        or any contemporary reader as "to him," "indeed," or "not."

        It is impossible to tell which the scribe understood. (Remember,
        frg. 5 does not actually belong to 4QXII-f and contains only ten extant
        letters, thus we have no comparative data for this scribe's
        orthography). Since a negative is found nowhere else (as far as I know)
        in the manuscript tradition or in the history of Jewish or Christian
        exegesis of this passage (again, as far as I know - and here my
        knowledge is even more limited), concluding that "l)" must be read as a
        negative here is certainly precarious.

        Curt Niccum
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.