Perhaps we should invert this question. What would cause the editors of the
MT to split the word in two? 1QIsa(a) has lxprprym, Theodotian has parparwq
(farfaroth) the LXX OG has tois mataiois, Aquila oruktais, Sym. akarmois.
The LXX OG can be probably be safely ignored, the OG text of Isa. raises
more problems than it solves. However Theodotian and 1QIsa(a) lend support
to the single word reading. J.Oswalt (NICOT, Isa) suggests that the MT made
a mistake by dividing a noun which was formed on a reduplicated pattern. I
find this comment intriguing. Does Hebrew have reduplicated patterns? Greek
of course has lots of reduplication but I wasn't aware that it was a common
characteristic of Hebrew. Is it???
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.