Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 3/30/07, Yohanan bin-Dawidh wrote:

> Dear Yitzhak,
>
> You wrote, "Then, the Massoretic version at some point reinterpreted
> "bprm$l$" as "bprm $l$", while it should have read "bpr m$l$". So,
> here is an example where two versions (DSS, LXX) against the MT
> suggest rereading the words differently."
>
> I might be a bit biased, since I do personally feel the Masoretic Text
> as we have it today to be more accurate than the LXX or DSS, but even
> if I was not biased, I must ask - what makes one think that it should
> not have read "bpr m$I$" over "bprm $I$"? Is it merely because we have
> two sources which suggest the idea of "bprm $I$"?

Dear Yohanan,

I think it is much more than just two sources vs one.  A lot of factors
come together here.  First, the issue comes up as soon as there is
a question of reading.  For example, even if the MT agreed with either
the LXX or the DSS against another source, the question would come
up: is there a common source to both versions, and if so, what did that
source read?  However, when we come to answer the question -- in this
case -- we find a lot of reasons to accept that "bpr m$l$" was the
original.  Note that this is not what the DSS fragment reads.  That
one reads "bqr m$l$", although perhaps there is a missing "[bpr bn]
bqr m$l$".  So we are reconstructing a version that is not really attested
exactly in any extant source.  But there are good reasons to accept it.
In 1 Sam 1:25, it writes that they slaughtered the bull.  Which is "the"
bull, if there were three?  Why do we all of a sudden have one bull, or
one special bull?  Furthermore, in 1 Sam 1:24, the other offerings are
all singular: one eph@ of flour, one container of wine.  The "m$l$"
reminds of Gen 15:9.  Finally, how likely is it for the author to have
written "bulls three", rather than "three bulls."  Normally, we would
expect the number (except for "one") to come before the noun it
describes.  You are right, thousands of years after the fact we cannot
say "this is correct" or "this is wrong."  Not the MT, not the LXX, not
the DSS.  We can try to ask "which came first? what was the common
source?"  To that, we can at best give an educated guess.  Sometimes,
that guess will be more certain than others.  In this example, I think the
factors in favor of the emendation are extremely strong.  You can't
really put percentages to such a feeling of how good the factors in favor
of the emendation are, but I'd describe that feeling as one of "99
percent or more."  That is, as close to certainty as we can ever get.

Yitzhak Sapir