Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Re[3]: The Sons of El

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Re[3]: The Sons of El
  • Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:27:18 -0700


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.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page