Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Peter Kirk wrote:
> Dave wrote: "There seems to be some confusion about 4QDeut(q)...; but 
> 4QDeut(j) does read )LWHYM.  What's the significance of this?  Well, 
> the vast majority of DSS support a more MT-style text"
> 
> If I understand correctly, there is one Qumran MS which reads )LWHYM 
> in Deut 32:8 and another doubtful one that reads )L[...]. Are you 
> saying that there are other MSS from other caves which support the MT 
> reading "sons of Israel" in this verse? Or just that other MSS are 
> generally closer to MT but this verse is not otherwise attested?

Peter,
Sorry this wasn't clear.  I've had to do a lot of this stuff in haste 
lately because of other pressures (i.e., life keeps intruding on my 
intellectual pursuits!).  The two fragments from cave 4 are the only 
published DSS so far that include Deut 32:8.  What I intended to 
say was that "other MSS are generally closer to MT but this verse 
is not otherwise attested," as you deduced.  Again, my apologies 
for being vague.

> And where is the evidence for )L or )LYM to fit Lloyd's theory rather 
> than )LWHYM?

There isn't any.  Likewise for the BHS emendation.  The footnote 
cites Qumran (how's that for vague?) but fails to tell us that it reads 
)LWHYM, and instead proposes either )L or )LYM.  It looks to me 
as though the decision for this emendation was made on the basis 
of presuppositions similar to Lloyd's and not on the evidence, 
though I can't claim to see into the editors' minds.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.