Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter wrote: 
> Maybe this is X-qatal, and maybe this explanation is correct. Dave 
> Washburn's suggestion is also interesting.
> 
> But also there is textual doubt here (see BHS footnotes): apparently 
> one Hebrew MS with support from LXX reads ("BER "region beyond" rather 
> than (FBAR "passed on" (qatal). Several MSS and ancient versions add 
> )EL- "to". So we could read "he passed through Mizpeh of Gilead, and 
> from Mizpeh of Gilead to the other side of (the camp of) the sons of 
> Ammon." This actually makes more sense than the MT; but one can see 
> why (in a later period when X-qatal was the simple past tense) the 
> consonants (BR were read as (FBAR to match the verb used twice already 
> in the verse.

Thanks for bringing this up.  I intended to, but I'm at home with a 
sick child and my attention is somewhat divided...so which reading 
do you go with?  I'm inclined toward the MT myself (and not just 
because of my analysis of the clause!), partly because I can see 
later scribes inserting )EL to clear up an odd reading.  Of course, 
it's also possible that the particle fell out from a lapsus calami, but 
I've seen relatively few instances of this that can be detected with 
real certainty.  Also, I should probably point out that the ("BER 
reading is actually part of a humongous conjecture by BHS in 
which they would replace the entire phrase )ET MICP"H GIL:(FD 
with MMCPFH GIL(AD L:("BER, "from Mizpah of Gilead to the 
other side."  This variant doesn't seem to be connected to the word 
(FBAR later in the verse.

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