Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Jer 52:12 vs 2 Kings 25:8


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
> >
> > I put this up on text criticism site @ Yahoo, so I figured I put it
> > here as well.
> >
> >
> > I am assuming this is a variant, anyone got any ideas which reading
> > it the correct one?
> >
> > Jer 52:12 WBAXODE$  HAXAMIY$IY  BE`F&OR
> >
> > In the fifth month and 10th day...
> >
> > 2 Kings 25:8 WBAXODE$ HAXAMIY$IY B:WIBY$IY
> >
> > In the fifth month and 7th day....
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kelton Graham
> > KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>

KARL:
> Look at the context.
>
> Nebuzeardan may have arrived at the Nebuchadnezzar's encampment on the
seventh, but the city wasn't taken until the nineth 2 Kings 25:3, delaying
> Nebuzeardan's entrance to the city until the tenth after mopping up
resistance to the invasion.
>Thus both could be correct.


That is harmonizing. Since that whole section of 2 Kings 25 and Jer. 52 are
parallel almost word for word, they must have been copied from a common
source. The Jer. text seems to be more "complete" (for examle the
information about Riblah in verse 10, missing from the parallel verse 7),
which would seem to indicate that 2 Kings 25 is an abbreviation of Jer. 52,
but in the verse in question, Kings' "Nebuzeardan... 'ebed melek Babel"
("servant of the king of Babylon") makes more sense than Jer.'s
"Nebuzeardan... 'amad lipney melek Babel" ("stood before the king of
Babylon"). The letter bet in 'ebed seems to have been miscopied by Jer. as a
mem, and then the word "lipney" added in to make the context work. So it's
difficult to judge which version of the date is the original.


KARL:
> Or we could be dealing with scribal error on one or the other account.


It's hard to see how "B$B(H" became "B($WR". I would assume that whichever
version is the secnodary one simply "corrected" the date according to the
information that the editor had.

KARL:
 >It seems that in the context, the entrance into Jerusalem was the tenth.

Why?

>
> Karl W. Randolph.
> --


Yigal