Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Thanks, Nir:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat. <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br> wrote:

i allow myself a remark on a former string. i just happened to read
vevyurko 2007. there she says that both sept. and qumran4QDeut-q
diverge from the biblical text in deut 32:43 and are longer.
she reproduces the qumran text as:

הרנינו שמים עמו והשתחוו לו כל אלהים כי דם בניו
יקום ונקם ישיב לצריו ולמשנאיו ישלם ויכפר אדמת עמו

This reading makes good sense, though I disagree with some of the translations below.

 

this version is interesting for three reasons thematic to the
original question. the first is that ויכפר is a verb, for what it's worth.

Clearly so here. 

the second is in terms of double meaning (passive/active): god "pays" and
"redeems" the land; at the same time "castigates" and "recovers" the land.
if in the poet's mind ישלםis a metaphoric "castigate" (a ubiquitous
_expression_ up to these days), יכפר might as well be a metaphoric "recover".

In the Hebrew meanings ישלם is “pay back” in the sense of paying back, returning to those who hate him according to their hatred. “Recover” for יכפר is a bit of a stretch, but can be recognized as the end result of redemption. 

the third is the sensible question of a possible masoretic editing.
assuming (just for the argument) that qumran reflects better the original
version, secondary in importance (...) is the vav added to אדמת
for the obvious argument that the land does not belong to the hebrews
but to god. except that this creates a syntactic "plonter". then also
the Y is removed on וכפר, ending exactly where we started: "and his
people will expiate for his (sic!) land" which (i must agree with karl)
doesnt sound very natural.

Before we castigate the Masoretes, it could very well have been that the best text they had available after the Romans finished their swath of destruction may have been corrupted in this section, and the Masoretes did the best they could.

I believe that this is not the only place where translators found that the Hebrew was corrupted, so followed the LXX that made sense.

nir cohen

Thanks again, that clarifies the verse.

Karl W. Randolph.