Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants (Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible, 3) 9004410597, 9789004410596

Citation preview

Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants

Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible Editorial Board Russell Fuller (University of San Diego) Matthias Henze (Rice University) Armin Lange (University of Vienna) Emanuel Tov (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

volume 3

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/thbs

Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants By

Donald W. Parry Foreword by

Eugene Ulrich

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Parry, Donald W., author. | Ulrich, Eugene, 1938– writer of  foreword. Title: Exploring the Isaiah scrolls and their textual variants / by Donald  W. Parry ; foreword by Eugene Ulrich. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2020] | Series: Supplements to the  textual history of the Bible, 2214-5958 ; volume 3 | Includes  bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2019032200 (print) | LCCN 2019032201 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004410596 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004412033 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Isaiah. Hebrew—Criticism, Textual. | Dead Sea  scrolls—Criticism, Textual. Classification: LCC BS1515.52 .P365 2019 (print) | LCC BS1515.52 (ebook) |  DDC 224/.10446—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019032200 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019032201

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 2214-5958 ISBN 978-90-04-41059-6 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-41203-3 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Foreword vII Eugene Ulrich Acknowledgments IX Abbreviations and Sigla X 1 Introduction 1 1 Why Another Work on the Text of Isaiah? 1 2 The Significance of the Isaiah Scrolls 3 3 Textual Variants in the Isaianic Hebrew Witnesses 5 4 Major Objectives 9 5 Methodology 11 6 Issues and Challenges 18 7 The Qumran/MurIsaiah Isaiah Scrolls—the Data 21 2 Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24 29 Appendix 1: Textual Affiliation of the Isaiah Scrolls 443 Appendix 2: Qumran Isaiah Scrolls and Ketib-Qere Readings of Masoretic-Type Texts 445 Appendix 3: “Absolute” Hapax Legomena in Isaiah 453 Appendix 4: Corpus-Based Examination of Linguistic Features in MT Isaiah Versus 1QIsaa 458 Appendix 5: Textual Variants in This Work Not Exhibited in DJD XXXII 460 Selected Bibliography 470 Index of Ancient Sources 495 Index of Subjects 504

Foreword The Dead Sea Scrolls revolutionized our knowledge of the Hebrew Bible in various areas. They provide numerous Hebrew manuscripts dramatically closer to the original forms of the biblical books, since they are older by a millennium than our previously accessible texts. They also demonstrate the development of the biblical books from earlier forms into “new and expanded editions” of the books. That is, when historical, social, or theological developments sparked new insights, the books were augmented, updated, transmitted, and recopied over generations, producing variant editions. The manuscripts, when compared with the traditional Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint, record the growth of the biblical text. Moreover, the Scrolls provide hundreds of variant readings that are superior to readings in the traditional MT, and these are now being used to revise and improve modern vernacular translations of the Bible. The book of Isaiah was one of the most prized and cherished of the biblical books. At least twenty-two copies of the book were discovered at Qumran and neighboring caves—more than any other book except the Pentateuch and Psalms (the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and Psalms are also the most quoted books in the New Testament). Found also were fragments of six commentaries, or pesharim, on the book of Isaiah composed by the covenanters to explore the relevance of the ancient prophetic book to their contemporary situation. The covenant community also frequently employed quotations from the book in the theological writings they composed. They even used a verse from Isaiah (Isa 40:3) to express their self-identity, as they went out to the desert “to prepare the way of the Lord” (1QS 8:12–14). Donald Parry—combining the promise offered by the Dead Sea Scrolls with the richness of the book of Isaiah—has provided in this volume both a highly useful compendium of the Hebrew textual variants of the book of Isaiah and, more broadly, a veritable handbook on textual criticism. The book of Isaiah exhibits the entire bewildering gamut of possible textual complexities. Parry surveys, verse by verse throughout the sixty-six chapters of Isaiah, all the textual variants in the MT, the fully preserved Scroll (1QIsaa), and any of the other Hebrew witnesses of Isaiah. For each variant he lists the readings of the MT and any preserved Hebrew Scrolls, and then offers a discussion, drawing on a wide selection of scholars who have offered differing arguments concerning the cause and the preferability of the variants. Additionally, he includes divergent readings derived from citations of Isaiah in the nonbiblical Scrolls: the pesharim and the community’s religious compositions.

viii

Foreword

No two scholars would agree regarding all judgments contained in any large collection of textual variants, and not all would endorse every judgment presented here. Parry, of course, acknowledges the “subjectivity” involved, but that subjectivity is controlled by the theories and rules that constrain text-critical practice. What is important is that a scholar honestly attempt a nonbiased judgment that is reasonable, informed, and judicious. Taking advantage of the rapidly advancing world of technology a decade after the completion of the editio princeps maior in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, Parry has made use of electronic resources, computerized search programs, and especially, through cooperation with his colleague Steve Booras, multispectral imaging. This technology—not available even about a decade ago—makes possible a magnified and clearer vision of the Qumran fragments and damaged letters, which helps determine a more accurate reading of the fragments. This volume is the fruit of decades of study of Isaiah and other Scrolls by Parry, and the result is a rich resource of carefully arranged and presented material for analysis of the most, or one of the most, important and instructive manuscripts from antiquity. Eugene Ulrich

University of Notre Dame

Acknowledgments A number of individuals have contributed to this volume, and I gratefully acknowledge their contributions. Professor Eugene Ulrich, Dr. Jason Driesbach, and Richard W. Medina have reviewed all or portions of the manuscript and have provided me with a number of productive suggestions—I appreciate their professionalism, expertise, and text-critical skills! Additionally, I appreciate two blind peer reviewers—both have enriched my manuscript with their significant, constructive comments. I thank the WordCruncher team (www .wordcruncher.com), especially Dr. Monte Shelley and Jesse Vincent, for converting my Hebrew and Greek fonts to Unicode, and for helping me find and fix additional errors. I also express gratitude to Brigham Young University editors Scarlett Lindsay and Kim Sandoval who carefully edited the manuscript (standardizing the style, punctuation, grammar, etc.) and provided the manuscript with several improvements. And I thank Michael Goodman and Diana Willerth, who source-checked more than one thousand footnotes and hundreds of scriptural citations. Lastly, I appreciate the Brill team—Suzanne Mekking, Senior Acquisitions Editor, Liesbeth Hugenholtz, Editor, and Ester Lels, production editor—all of whom have exerted various masterful skills as they helped to advance the manuscript through its final stages. Notwithstanding those who have provided improvements to this manuscript, I am solely responsible for errors and inconsistencies.

Abbreviations and Sigla The abbreviations and sigla are adapted from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and DJD XXXII, with certain modifications that are especially oriented to the objectives of the present volume. The abbreviations of journals and other publications are derived from The SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd ed. (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2014), again with certain modifications. • | ◦ ‫ ֯א‬ ‫ ̇ו‬ [ ] vacat

divides lemmas separates textual variants (midline circlet). Unidentifiable letter circlet above letter. Identification of letter is doubtful dot above letter. Identification of letter is probable text is reconstructed in a fragmented text copyist intentionally left writing space blank, possibly to indicate a sense unit or paragraph division ‫ פ‬ petuḥa open section in MT ‫ ס‬ setuma closed section in MT // parallel text/register > element is lacking an author’s or editor’s additions { } signifies words or letters that have been erased = equals ≠ does not equal ‫אאא‬1, ‫אאא‬2 first occurrence of a word in a verse, second occurrence (e.g., see ‫על‬1 and ‫אל‬2 in 22:15) ‫א‬ ‫ א אא‬ signifies supralinear words or letters in the Qumran scrolls (e.g., see ‫‏כמאפכת‬in 1QIsaa 1:7) 5:8a, 5:8b first part of Isaiah chapter 5, verse 8; second part of Isaiah chapter 5, verse 8 64:1[2] verse in brackets usually signifies LXX versification MT Masoretic Text MTA Allepo Codex MTL Codex Leningradensis MTms(s) Masoretic manuscript(s) collated by Ginsburg, Kennicott, and/or Rossi MTket Ketib MTqere Qere G Hebrew mss. collated by Ginsburg

Abbreviations and Sigla LXX

xi

K Hebrew mss. collated by Kennicott 30 93 96 150 Kennicott’s numbering of collated mss. R Hebrew mss. collated by Rossi Septuagint translation+ (for manuscripts A[lexandrinus], reconstructed in the Göttingen Septuagint series+ or the edition of Rahlfs– Hanhart, Septuaginta as opposed to later revisions correcting LXX towards MT) LXXLuc Lucianic text (chiefly the mss. b, o, c2, e2) LXXO hexaplaric recension of Origen LXXC catena group Syr Peshiṭta translation Tg Targum Vulg Vulgate SP Samaritan Pentateuch α′ σ′ θ′ ο′ π′ Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, The Seventy, all εβρ′ Hebrew text of Origen (Greek transliteration) kaige-Th kaige-Theodotion+ 1QIsaa, 4QIsad Cave 1 of Qumran, book of Isaiah; Cave 4 of Qumran, book of Isaiah abs. absolute BCE/CE before the Common Era/Common Era BH Biblical Hebrew col(s). (when preceding a number) = column(s) const. construct etc. et cetera, and the rest f. feminine frg. (when preceding a number) fragment HB Hebrew Bible i.e., id est, that is ibid. ibidem, in the same place impf. imperfect impv. imperative inf. infinitive KQ ketib-qere LBH Late Biblical Hebrew MH Mishnaic Hebrew m. masculine Mm Masorah magna+ Mp Masorah parva+ MurIsaiah Murabba‘at Isaiah OG Old Greek+ translation

xii

Abbreviations and Sigla

orth? indicates that the form may be an orthographic variant pm prima manu (the first scribal hand) P(ap). papyrus pf. perfect pl. plural ptc. participle QH Qumran Hebrew, DSS Hebrew SBH Standard Biblical Hebrew sm secunda manu (a second “hand” in a manuscript) sg. singular v./vv. verse(s) (when preceding a verse number[s]) var? indicates that the form may be a variant (vid) (ut) videtur (apparently)



Books of Hebrew Scripture

Gen Genesis Exod Exodus Lev Leviticus Num Numbers Deut Deuteronomy Josh Joshua Judg Judges 1–2 Sam 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Kings Isa Isaiah Jer Jeremiah Ezek Ezekiel Hos Hosea Joel Joel Amos Amos Obad Obadiah Jonah Jonah Mic Micah Nah Nahum Hab Habakkuk Zeph Zephaniah Hag Haggai Zech Zechariah

Abbreviations and Sigla

xiii

Mal Malachi Ps Psalms Job Job Prov Proverbs Ruth Ruth Cant Canticles Eccl Ecclesiastes Lam Lamentations Esth Esther Dan Daniel Ezra Ezra Neh Nehemiah 1–2 Chr 1–2 Chronicles

AJSL ASTI AUSS BAR BASOR BDB BHK BHQ BHS Bib BO BRev BT CBQ DJD DCH DSD HALOT

Journals and Books American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Biblia Hebraica. Edited by R. Kittel. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905–1906. 1925, 1937, 1951, 1973. Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by A. Schenker; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004–. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Biblica Bibliotheca orientalis Bible Review Bible Translator Catholic Biblical Quarterly Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan). Vols. I–XL. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955–2010. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, edited by David J. A. Clines Dead Sea Discoveries Koehler, Baumgartner, & Stamm, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

xiv

Abbreviations and Sigla

HUB–Isaiah Goshen-Gottstein, Hebrew University Bible Project, Book of Isaiah HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies Or Orientalia OTS Old Testament Studies RB Revue biblique RevQ Revue de Qumran NEB Textual Notes on the New American Bible TCHB3 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Third Edition UF Ulrich/Flint, DJD XXXII VT Vetus Testamentum ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter 1

Introduction The chief objectives of this volume are twofold: (1) to present, on a verse-byverse basis, the variants of the Hebrew witnesses of Isaiah, and (2) to put forward, in a concise manner, judgments and characterizations regarding why specific variants and deviations exist. These objectives are aligned, more or less, with the following explanatory statement from Tov’s Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: “Textual criticism proper is subdivided into two stages: (1) collecting Hebrew readings and reconstructing them from the ancient versions; (2) evaluation of these readings.”1 I will return to these two objectives below. My thirty-page Introduction sets forth the following subcategories, “Why Another Work on the Text of Isaiah?” “The Significance of the Isaiah Scrolls,” “Textual Variants in the Isaianic Hebrew Witnesses,” “Major Objectives,” “Methodology,” “Issues and Challenges,” and “The Qumran/MurIsaiah Isaiah Scrolls—The Data.” Then, in the subcategory “Methodology,” I deal with the classifications Paleography, Transcriptional text, Word-word correspondences, Minor variants, Reconstructed texts, Parallel registers in the Bible, MT ketib-qere system, Isaianic citations in Qumran nonbiblical texts, Linguistic analysis, Intertextual/Contextual relationships, Text and sense divisions, Conjectural emendations, Scribal interventions, Hapax legomena, and Accessing electronic resources. 1

Why Another Work on the Text of Isaiah?

How is my book different from other works that deal with text-critical matters and the Hebrew witnesses of Isaiah? 1) Pre-Qumran Isaianic Textual Critics—Box, Bredenkamp, Cheyne, Condamin, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Duhm, Ehrlich, Ewald, Fischer, Gesenius, Gray, Halévy, Hitzig, Kittel, Knobel, Köhler, Lagarde, Marti, Mitchell, Nägelsbach, Ottley, Praetorius, Procksch, Seeligmann, Skinner, Slotki, Snaith, Torrey, Volz, von Orelli, Wade, Whitehouse, and Ziegler—lacked the benefit of viewing the readings of the Isaiah scrolls of the Judean Desert, e.g., 1QIsaa, 1QIsab (1Q8), 4QIsaa (4Q55), 4QIsab (4Q56), 4QIsac (4Q57), 4QIsad (4Q58), 4QIsae (4Q59), 4QIsaf (4Q60), 4QIsag (4Q61), 4QIsah (4Q62), 4QIsai (4Q62a), 4QIsaj (4Q63), 4QIsak (4Q64), 4QIsal (4Q65), 4QIsam (4Q66), 4QIsan (4Q67), 4QIsao 1  Tov’s TCHB3, 266; see also Tov’s discussions in ibid., chapters 2, 4, 6–7.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004412033_002

2

Chapter 1

(4Q68), 4QpapIsap (4Q69), 4QIsaq (4Q69a), 4QIsar (4Q69b), 5QIsa (5Q3), and MurIsaiah. 2) The earliest generation of Qumran scholars, such as Kutscher, had access to 1QIsaa and 1QIsab but apparently not full access to 4QIsaa–r, 5QIsa, and MurIsaiah. Kutscher, in fact, chose not to consider 1QIsab in his foundational work Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (published by Brill in 1974; first published in Hebrew, Jerusalem, 1959). Additionally, Kutscher does not examine all of the deviations that existed between MT Isaiah and 1QIsaa; his topical approach for the most part sets forth representative, rather than comprehensive, examples of textual variants. 3) Qumran scholars before the late 1980s lacked access to computerized forms of the Qumran Isaiah texts and electronic search engines, which allow for sophisticated searches, macro- and microscopic examinations of registers (i.e., pericopes or literary units) and texts, and corpus linguistic studies of the Isaianic texts. See the section labeled “Accessing electronic resources.” 4) Since Kutscher’s work, many other prominent and distinguished Qumran scholars, including Barthélemy, Flint, Tov, Ulrich, van der Kooij, and Wildberger, have delineated scores and hundreds of textual variants together with judgments and characterizations; but to my knowledge, none of these or other scholars have sought to characterize the textual variants with a seriatim (or verseby-verse) approach of Isaiah’s text. Barthélemy’s important work, for example, examines an even dozen deviations from Isaiah chapters 1 and 2 (see 1:7, 12, 17, 20, 21, 29, 31; 2:6, 9, 10, 12, 19), versus the literally scores of deviations (both major and minor) that exist in these two chapters. Barthélemy’s work, of course, sets forth exhaustive understandings for each entry, versus my own work, which presents brief remarks and conclusions. See my methodology below. As a second example, Wildberger, and other works like his, have dissimilar objectives than my own work. He does indeed deal with select textual variants, and then he investigates the following topics (as categories): “Form,” “Setting,” “Commentary,” and “Purpose and Thrust.” Wildberger’s “Commentary” comprises the most pages in his three volumes. 5) Additionally, Isaianic scholars have differing methodologies and objectives, all of which are significant and worthy of our attention. This present work does not replace the foundational works of the great writings of these and other scholars who have investigated MT Isaiah and the Qumran scrolls; rather, this present work attempts to build on their scholarly approaches and conclusions as well as to bring additional value and understanding. 6) This work also considers major deviations from Isaianic citations (chiefly those introduced with quotation formulae) in the following nonbiblical Qumran texts: the Isaiah pesharim (4QpIsaa–e), CD, 1QS, War Scroll, and

Introduction

3

4QTanḥumim (4Q176). See, for example, the lemmas and comments in 5:5, 12, 13, 14, 25; 8:7–8; 9:16–18, etc. 7) This volume includes the readings from various parallel registers, or blocks of texts that parallel Isaiah, most notably Isa 2:2–4 // Mic 4:1–3 and Isa 36–38 // 2 Kgs 18–20. 8) For other intentions of this book, see the various details in the Introduction and the appendices. 2

The Significance of the Isaiah Scrolls

The Isaiah scrolls, discovered between the years 1947 and 1952, are significant finds, signaling one of the most remarkable archaeological discoveries of the twentieth century. The scrolls predate by approximately one thousand years the medieval copies of MT. The scrolls present expanded understandings of the textual history of the Bible; as such, they are important texts for both academic and popular audiences. They help to fill gaps of knowledge with regard to scribal conventions and styles, orthography, paleography, scribal interjections, textual divergences, and other aspects of biblical scrolls from the late Second Temple era.2 The Qumran caves, located near the northwestern area of the Dead Sea, yielded twenty-one copies of the book of Isaiah—two from Cave 1, eighteen from Cave 4, and one from Cave 5. An additional copy of Isaiah (making a total of twenty-two copies) was discovered south of Qumran in a cave at Wadi Murabba‘at. All twenty-two copies of Isaiah are written in Hebrew. Most of these scrolls are severely damaged and fragmented, owing to long-term exposure to the elements. Altogether, the Isaiah scrolls represent about ten percent of all biblical scrolls discovered at Qumran. This statistic alone indicates that Isaiah held a prominent place in the Qumran community, but other indications also reveal Isaiah’s significance. Isaiah’s book is treated as an authoritative work by the Qumran covenanters; in their sectarian writings, they cite, paraphrase, and allude to Isaiah more than any other prophet. These Isaiah quotations and allusions are located in legal, eschatological, and poetic contexts of the sectarian writings and reveal ideological and theological positions of the Qumran community. In addition to the twenty-two Isaiah scrolls themselves and the 2  For a summary regarding the significance of the Qumran biblical scrolls, see several of the writings of Tov, such as Tov, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert,” 5–37. See also Ulrich’s multiple publications, including UF.

4

Chapter 1

sectarian writings that include quotations and allusions to Isaiah, the Qumran discoveries included six Isaiah pesharim (commentaries).3 The Isaiah scrolls present a view of what biblical manuscripts looked like at the end of the Second Temple era, before the stabilization of the Hebrew text after the first century CE. Unlike MT, with its consonantal and vocalization framework and system of notes, accents, and versification, the Isaiah scrolls feature handwritten manuscripts without vocalization or accents. Additionally, the scrolls contain interlinear and marginal corrections, scribal marks and notations, special morphological and orthographic features, and occasionally a different paragraphing system. Furthermore, the Isaiah scrolls have greatly impacted our understanding of the textual history of the Bible, and in recent decades, Bible translation committees have incorporated a number of these readings into their translations.4 For instance, Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, published by the Jewish Publication Society, occasionally utilizes variant readings from 1QIsaa in its English translation or refers to them in footnotes. One such example occurs in Isa 21:8: MT reads lion (‫ ;)‏אריה‬1QIsaa has the watcher (or, the seer) (‫)‏הראה‬, “and the watcher cried, My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower all day, and I am stationed at my post all night.” Because lion and the watcher in the Hebrew language are graphically similar, a copyist likely made a simple error when he copied this word. Another example noted in Tanakh is located in Isa 33:8, where MT reads cities (‫ )‏ערים‬versus 1QIsaa’s witnesses (‫)‏עדים‬, again an example of graphic similarity. The reading of 1QIsaa corresponds well with the parallelism, “A covenant has been renounced, witnesses rejected.” Isa 14:4 sets forth a third example, one accepted by a number of modern translations, including Tanakh, the New International Version, and the New English Bible. In this verse 1QIsaa reads ‫‏מרהבה‬, meaning “oppression.” This fits the parallelistic structure, “How is oppression ended! How is the taskmaster vanished.” Tanakh notes at the bottom of the page, “The traditional reading [of MT] madhebah is of unknown meaning.” 3  Several scholars have examined the pesharim of Isaiah, including Allegro, “Commentary on Isaiah (A–E),” 11–30 and Pls. IV–IX; Baillet, “Commentaire d’Isaïe,” 95–96 and Pl. XVIII; Brooke, “Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts,” 2:609–32; Brooke, “Qumran Pesharim and the Text of Isaiah,” 304–20; Jassen, “Re-reading 4QPesher Isaiah A (4Q161),” 57–90; and Swanson, “Text of Isaiah at Qumran,” 191–212. 4  For an investigation of the utilization of biblical Qumran texts in modern translations, consult Scanlin, Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament; Duhaime, “Les manuscrits de Qumrân dans trois traductions du livre d’Isaïe,” 319–49; and Peters, “Varianten des Jesajarolle in der revidierten Lutherbible,” 98–116.

Introduction

5

Van der Kooij, the editor of the text of Isaiah for Biblia Hebraica Quinta, explains the importance of the Qumran Isaiah texts in view of the BHQ series: In the period before Qumran the critical assessment of the Masoretic text (M) was mainly done on the basis of the early versions—translations, which by their nature do not provide direct evidence of the Hebrew text. Instead, the underlying parent text has to be reconstructed first, a procedure which in many instances creates a great deal of uncertainty. Most biblical texts of Qumran, however, are written in the language of the Hebrew Bible, Hebrew or Aramaic, thus representing direct evidence of the text. Moreover, they date from the earliest period in which the biblical text is attested, viz., the third century BCE up to the second century CE. In comparison to the other witnesses of the early period—the Septuagint (G) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (Smr)—the Qumran texts have an additional value in that they constitute manuscript evidence that goes back to this early period directly, and not indirectly, i.e., via a reconstruction of the text of a witness on the basis of manuscripts of a later date, as is the case with the G and Smr. Given the great significance of the biblical texts from the Dead Sea region it is, on the other hand, frustrating that in general the evidence is so fragmentary. Fortunately, the book of Isaiah … is attested by a large number of mostly fragmentary manuscripts from Qumran (22), but also by one complete scroll (lQIsaa), and another one that has been preserved for a fifth of the book (lQIsab). As a whole the Qumran evidence now available is very important, the more so since G-Isaiah—a version also going back to the early period—represents an indirect witness which, due to its nature as a “free” translation, causes much uncertainty as far as the underlying Hebrew text is concerned. Consequently, the evidence of the Dead Sea region will play a leading role in the selection of cases for the critical apparatus of Isaiah in BHQ.5 3

Textual Variants in the Isaianic Hebrew Witnesses

Determining a theory or theories regarding why textual deviations exist consists of multilevels of examination and approaches.6 One level of examination 5  Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 143–44. 6  The most complete and up-to-date study of Biblical Hebrew textual criticism is Tov’s TCHB3. See also Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition; and Weingreen,

6

Chapter 1

is associated with the Biblical Hebrew manuscripts during the last centuries before the Common Era, which presented distinct challenges for copyists and translators. These challenges included rare words (e.g., hapax legomena, dislegomena, and trislegomena), difficult-to-read book hands and unreadable letters and words, graphically similar characters (e.g., the graphical sets wāw/yôd, dālet/rêš, and so forth), irregular or inconsistent orthography, incomprehensible scribal notations, inconsistent use of matres lectionis, lack of vocalization, and more. Additionally, there are considerations concerning scribal school conventions, stylistic approaches and methods, possible theological changes,7 exegetical procedures and techniques, phonological considerations, Aramaic influence on the Hebrew language,8 paleographic features, paragraphing and text divisions, marginal and interlinear notations, and a multitude of categories of copyists’ accidents that occured when they copied the text onto a new leather scroll. Because of these and other factors, scribes and copyists made various (mechanical, unintentional) errors when making new copies of the text, as did the translators when creating translations from their Hebrew Vorlage. As UF 2:89 explain, Occasionally, all witnesses display erroneous or implausible readings, showing that the problem entered the text prior to any of the preserved witnesses. The JPS Hebrew English Tanakh in its translation of Isaiah lists “Meaning of Heb. uncertain” or “Meaning of verse uncertain” almost one hundred times, and suggests “Emendation yields …” approximately as often. If a committee of eminent specialists with a neatly printed Hebrew text and with all the scholarly tools available today finds the text “uncertain” at multiple places, we should not be surprised that ancient scribes as well as the Greek translator also felt challenged by the text they were copying. They often had to choose between copying a form which they Introduction to the Critical Study. Compare also the brief treatments of the subject by Barrera, Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, 367–421; and Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament, 107–20. 7  Scholars continue to discuss certain theories that the OG translator served not merely as a translator but also as an “author” of sorts, who occasionally interpreted the text as he conducted his translation efforts. For a look at opposing views regarding possible theological changes in the OG, see Ulrich, “Isaiah for the Hellenistic World,” 125–26. Ulrich summarizes his view of the matter, “If correct, this theory would be highly interesting and worthy of serious exploration. But I think the reality is more mechanical…. In every case I have checked, the arguments do not stand…. Accordingly, the OG should be viewed as generally a faithful translation of its Hebrew Vorlage” (ibid., 126). 8  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 104, maintains that “the Aramaic influence is all pervasive” in the DSS; “The Isaiah Scroll especially is permeated by Aramaic elements.”

Introduction

7

may not have recognized or may have thought erroneous and replacing it with their lectio facilior to achieve a sentence that made sense. Many textual variants may be divided into the following four categories (not all variant readings, of course, fit neatly into one of these four categories;9 some readings are indeterminate): (1) Accidental errors. Various handbooks that reveal the nature of textual criticism refer to mishaps that occur during the transmission of texts. These include pluses (e.g., dittography, conflations), minuses (e.g., haplography, homoioteleuton,10 homoiarcton), changes (e.g., confusion of letters, interchange of letters or metathesis, misdivision of letters or words, ligatures, word order, graphic similarity11), and differences in sequence (interchange of letters or metathesis and transposition of words). Each of these categories of errors are present in the Hebrew witnesses of Isaiah, as set forth below.12 (2) Intentional changes. Scribes and copyists of either MT or the Isaiah Qumran scrolls apparently made intentional changes to Isaiah’s text; these changes include exegetical pluses, editorial additions, harmonizations13 (when a scribe blends one reading with a second that is located in the immediate or greater context, or with a parallel register), morphological smoothing, updating the vocabulary, morphological updating, and euphemistic and orthographic changes. Some changes that are labeled “intentional” may signify subconscious changes on the part of the copyists. Multiple examples of intentional changes are found in this volume, set forth below. Additionally, some scholars maintain that a 1QIsaa scribe intentionally changed the text, on occasion, according to 9  For a discussion of various text-critical principles, including a review of the four categories, see Tov’s TCHB3 passim. 10  Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, 171–82, features a methodical examination of minuses caused by homoioteleuton. 11  See Weingreen, Introduction to the Critical Study, 38–45, for examples of graphically similar letters together with examples of variants in the HB. 12  The Isaiah scroll contains so many categories and examples of textual variants that it may appropriately be called a “handbook.” On this, see Parry, “Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa)— Handbook for Textual Variants,” 247–66. 13  For definitions and examples of harmonizations in the HB, see Tov, “Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts” 3–29; regarding harmonization in the Isaiah scroll, Tov writes, “When a text contains many such harmonizations, such as lQIsa and the Sam. Pent., their large number shows that harmonization is one of the characteristic features of that text…. These features are visible in the orthography, scribal errors, Aramaic influences, marginal and supralinear additions, and linguistic modernizations of lQIsa” (ibid., 15).

8

Chapter 1

his understanding of how the Qumran community viewed itself (“analogical interpretation”).14 (3) Synonymous readings.15 A few of the textual divergences in MT Isaiah and 1QIsaa consist of synonymous readings, which Talmon characterizes as follows: “a) They result from the substitution of words and phrases by others which are used interchangeably and synonymously with them in the literature of the OT. b) They do not affect adversely the structure of the verse, nor do they disturb either its meaning or its rhythm. Hence they cannot be explained as scribal errors. c) No sign of systematic or tendentious emendation can be discovered in them. They are to be taken at face value…. d) If, as far as we can tell, they are not the product of different chronologically or geographically distinct linguistic strata.”16 Examples of synonymous readings are scattered throughout this volume. (4) Scribes’ stylistic approaches and conventions. The scribes’ stylistic choices, conventions, or idiosyncrasies account for a number of variant readings that exist in the Hebrew witnesses of Isaiah. These conventions include paragraphing and text divisions, marginal and interlinear notations, paleographic features, and much more; taken as a whole, these conventions sometimes disclose the nature of the scribal school that produced them and assist in revealing the transmission history of the Isaiah scrolls. 1QIsaa, in particular, presents a singular example of an ancient scroll that contains manifold scribal interventions.17 1QIsaa’s scribal preferences pertain to changes to proper names, division of letters, filling out a parallelism, orthographic deviations, the articles ‫‏איך‬and ‫‏איכה‬, presentative exclamations, the abbreviated form ‫‏מני‬, the prepositions ‫ ‏ ַעד‬and ‫‏עדי‬, the morphological forms ‫‏בעודה‬and ‫‏בעודנה‬, and much more. Of course, it is well to remember that textual variants do not exist solely because of the scribal activity of one single witness or its ancestors, but rather, variants exist because of the scribal activity of one or multiple witnesses through a long historical time frame. Most scribal errors may be categorized according to the rules of textual criticism. A single type of reading does not 14  For a viewpoint of “analogical interpretation,” see Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique, 274–83. 15  See Talmon, “Synonymous Readings,” 335–83. See also Tov, TCHB3, 257–58 and Díaz Esteban, Sefer Okhlah we-Okhlah, 193–94, on the interchange of synonymous expressions “and he spoke” versus “and he said” in the manuscripts. 16  Talmon, “Synonymous Readings,” 336. 17  For a comprehensive view of Qumran scribes’ stylistic conventions and methods, see Tov, Scribal Practices; see also Tov, “Scribal Markings in the Texts from the Judean Desert,” 41–77. For a discussion of the two scribal hands (Scribe A and Scribe B) of 1QIsaa, see Tov, Scribal Practices, 19–20, plus the bibliographic references in notes 36–37.

Introduction

9

dominate the deviations between MT Isaiah, 1QIsaa, and the other Isaiah scrolls. Young’s studies have set forth significant statistics regarding textual variants of the Isaiah scrolls. He sums up: The nine Isaiah manuscripts with 50 or more words cluster around the range: one variant [versus codex L] every 20–30 words. Only three manuscripts fall outside this range. These exhibit lower ratios of words to variants than the other Qumran Isaiah manuscripts. 4QIsaf is only marginally below 20 (19.5). Of the remaining two manuscripts, 1QIsaa’s ratio (9.7) is much lower than that of the second lowest, 4QIsac (15.5). 1QIsaa is thus revealed as an idosyncratic Qumran Isaiah manuscript. The other cave 1 Isaiah manuscript, 1QIsab, has often been presented as the parade example of “the MT at Qumran”. However, it is certainly not as significant in detail as many other manuscripts, with 123 variations. Its ratio of 26.7 words per variant places it as a typical Qumran Isaiah manuscript in this respect.18 4

Major Objectives

Now I return to the two chief objectives of this volume: Objective #1: To present, on a verse-by-verse basis, the variants of the witnesses of Isaiah (see also my methodology, set forth below). This volume deals chiefly with textual variants that exist in the Hebrew witnesses of Isaiah— MT, the twenty-one Qumran Isaiah texts (1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsaa–r, 5QIsa), and MurIsaiah. While the Hebrew witnesses are treated systematically, the ancient versions (LXX, Tg, Syr, Vulg) are not given equal attention. With the discovery of the Qumran texts, Isaianic studies have been renewed with a high level of earnestness, and a new generation of scholars are examining the textual variants of Isaiah’s text; but this time around (since the 1950s), these scholars are focusing on the newly discovered Isaiah texts—more so than the ancient versions. There are many recently published significant works that deal with MT and the Qumran Isaiah scrolls; first and foremost, see Ulrich and Flint’s masterful and erudite DJD XXXII (2 vols.), which examines the Qumran Isaiah scrolls in light of MT, LXX, and other primary works. Ulrich writes that there 18  Young, “Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Masoretic Text,” 95; for Young’s methodology, see 81–3. See also Young’s specific study of 1QIsaa in “‘Loose’ Language in 1QIsaa,” 89–112.

10

Chapter 1

are “more than 2,600 variants” in 1QIsaa alone;19 there are also deviations in other Qumran Isaiah scrolls. In addition to DJD XXXIII, Ulrich and Flint have published many other works on the Qumran Isaiah scrolls. Other scholars, too, have vigilantly examined the Qumran Isaiah scrolls, including Baltzer, Blenkinsopp, van der Kooij, Kutscher, Goshen-Gottstein, Qimron, Roberts, Tov, Watts, Wildberger, the editors of the BHS/BHQ series, and many others (see this volume’s bibliography for more information). Most recently, Qimron’s A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls is an indispensable volume for comprehending various deviations between the Isaiah scrolls and MT Isaiah. Many Qumran Isaianic readings have been misunderstood over the past half century, and Qimron provides up-to-date understandings on such readings with regard to orthography, phonology, morphology, and syntax. For those who wish to examine major pre-Qumran studies that deal with MT Isaiah (especially MT ≠ LXX), consider consulting Box, Bredenkamp, Cheyne, Condamin, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Duhm, Ehrlich, Ewald, Fischer, Gesenius, Gray, Halévy, Hitzig, Kittel, Knobel, Köhler, Lagarde, Marti, Mitchell, Nägelsbach, Ottley, Praetorius, Procksch, Seeligmann, Skinner, Slotki, Snaith, Torrey, Volz, von Orelli, Wade, Whitehouse, Ziegler, and others. This present work, of course, does not replace the seminal and foundational works of the great writings of the scholars mentioned in the previous paragraphs, or those scholars identified in the bibliography, who have investigated the text-critical readings of the Isaiah scrolls. Rather, this present work attempts to build on their scholarly approaches and conclusions. The extensive bibliography (approximately 400 entries—journal articles, books, dissertations, reviews, facsimile and transcriptional editions, apparatuses, commentaries, grammars, critical editions, translations, lexicons, conference proceedings, and more) presented at the conclusion of this volume sets forth writings of numerous scholars who have dealt with text-critical matters with regard to the text of Isaiah, both before and after the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. The fact that 250 plus of the bibliographic entries represent publications (that deal with the Isaiah scrolls) that have come forth since Kutscher’s Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll is a certain indication that scholarly work on the Qumran Isaiah scrolls continues to be a lively enterprise. Furthermore, many of the earlier seminal writings that dealt with Qumran Isaiah focused solely on 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. It is well known that many of the earlier generations of Qumran scholars lacked access to some or all of the Isaiah texts from Caves 4 and 5, namely 4QIsaa–r and 5QIsa. Nor did 19  Ulrich, “Biblical Views,” 30.

Introduction

11

the earlier generations have access to electronic search engines and computerized forms of the Qumran Isaiah texts, which allow for sophisticated searches as well as corpus linguistic studies. See also below the section, “Accessing electronic resources” in this volume. Objective #2: To put forward, in a concise manner, judgments and characterizations regarding why specific textual variants exist, especially those variants that exist among the Hebrew witnesses (see also my methodology, set forth below). For such characterizations, I consulted both primary and secondary works (see the footnotes and the bibliography). I have also added my own characterizations. Over many decades, scholars have presented widely divergent opinions and theories regarding textual variants. While some views and text-critical decisions have garnered followers and a consensus, others are vigorously contested. Many of the discussions regarding specific textual variants remain open because textual criticism is a “subjective art” that has a variety of elements and complexities to it. In scholarly efforts (including in my own), there is a high level of subjectivity; and there are always refinements, speculations, exceptions to the rule, inconsistencies, uncertainties, and indeterminations. Many uncertainties continue to exist, even after sixty-five years of Qumran scholarship. Diachronic versus synchronic challenges for the different Hebrew texts of Isaiah will always exist; scholars have differing methodologies, and there are pre-Qumran discovery versus post-Qumran discovery approaches.20 There exist many challenges when large portions of the evidence are lacking (e.g., fragmentary texts, lack of historical knowledge, incomplete records). Even as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls caused critics to reexamine their approaches and understandings of the text, new discoveries of HB scrolls will encourage textual critics to continue to adjust their academic positions as well as their text-critical approaches. 5 Methodology The following items constitute, in the briefest of terms, my methodology for preparing the lemmas, listing the textual variants (presented verse by verse), and setting forth judgments and characterizations of the divergences. 1. Paleography. The opening task is to determine the correct readings of the Qumran Isaiah texts. This is conducted by closely examining the leather 20  For a brief review of text-critical approaches before and after the Qumran discoveries, see van der Kooij, “Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Before and After,” 167–77.

12

Chapter 1

scrolls themselves, when possible, as well as high-resolution photographs and images. When I examined the Great Isaiah Scroll on three different occasions (in Jerusalem),21 I had particular concerns about the scroll’s shadows, creases, wrinkles, folds, darkened areas, flaked-off leather, holes in the leather, and the like; such items may or may not appear in the photographs. 1QIsaa cols. 12 and 54 presented singular challenges. Col. 12 was torn in antiquity, with the tear beginning at the bottom of the leather and extending up to line 3. To remedy the situation, an individual in antiquity glued a patch of leather on the scroll’s verso, and an individual sewed together the torn leather; but in doing so, portions of several letters were covered up. Col. 54 is especially difficult to read because the upper-left portion of the leather has darkened over time and many letters have faded. Because of the fading, a scribe wrote over the original letters with thick, darker letters. Multispectral-imaging (MSI) expert Steve Booras accompanied me to Jerusalem on one occasion to conduct MSI on Isaiah cols. 12 and 54. The MSI verified some readings and clarified others for those two columns. In addition to examining 1QIsaa, I accessed high-resolution images of the same manuscript from the collection of first-generation negatives held by the Ancient Biblical Manuscripts Center (ABMC), Claremont, California, including the PAM series and those belonging to John Trever. Brigham Young University obtained permission to scan the entire collection of Dead Sea Scrolls negatives housed at ABMC.22 Additional photographic resources include Israel Antiquities Authority’s online photos (http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ home).23 After conducting paleographic research, I compared the publications of Brownlee, Sukenik, PQ, and UF to ensure the accuracy of the readings. Also helpful was Tigchelaar’s review of DJD XXXII, wherein he compared the transcriptions of the major editions and submitted corrections and clarifications to each of the editions.24 2. Transcriptional text. Based on the efforts to determine the correct paleography of the Qumran Isaiah scrolls (see item #1 in Methodology above), I 21  I extend my gratitude to Pnina Shor, of the Israel Antiquities Authority, for granting me access to the scrolls. 22  Professionals scanned the negatives onto a computer at 400 dpi on an Agfa Arcus II scanner. Each of the images was tagged and corresponds to a transcriptional text. There were duplicate images taken under different conditions with diverse methods. This process allowed for computerized zooming capabilities for which the user can examine highquality images at 400 times their actual size, often with little pixilation occurring. 23  For historical details regarding the photographers and their photographs of 1QIsaa, see Flint and Baek, “Photographing the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa),” 105–18. 24  Tigchelaar, “Review of Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint.”

Introduction

13

produced transcriptions of the thousands of Hebrew words that are presented in the series of variants in this volume. In doing so, I again consulted the editions. Occasionally, it was essential to double- and triple-check some of the readings in order to provide the best transcriptions available, in spite of the fragmented manuscripts (especially those of Qumran Cave 4). Note that where the 1QIsaa copyist utilized the initial-medial mêm in a final position of the word, or the final mêm in the nonfinal position of the word, I attempted to accurately represent that mêm according to the copyist’s representation, e.g., ‫‏אמ‬, ‫‏וגמ‬, and ‫‏נואמ‬.25 3. Word-word correspondences. Determining word-word correspondences among the Qumran Isaiah scrolls and MT, and then lemmatizing the words, proved to be a complex and prolonged task; this is because many supposed textual variants are no more than orthographic deviations. Divergences consisting of the letters ʾālep, hê, wāw, and yôd especially mark orthographic deviations, but not always. The word-word correspondences are structured as follows: first the Isaiah chapter and verse, then the MT reading followed by witnesses that affirm MT, then a vertical separator stroke (= ), and then a textual variant of one or more of the Qumran witnesses. Each entry closes with a solid, midline circle ( = ), after which my notes and comments follow. The textual variants presented here were derived from some of the scrolls themselves, from high-resolution photos of the scrolls (principally IAA), and from the apparatuses of HUB– Isaiah, BHS, and UF (DJD XXXII). The Ulrich/Flint apparatus proved to be an invaluable and indispensable resource; most of my readings of the Qumran scrolls accord with the Ulrich/Flint apparatus,26 although compare appendix 5 (Textual Variants in This Work Not Exhibited in DJD XXXII), where I present additional textual deviations. My approach in the lemma line is to place MT first, followed by other Hebrew witnesses, then the versions. This was a methodological decision and was not designed to suggest that MT has the primary or primitive reading. 4. Minor variants. Although I include minor variants in the lemma line, I do not regularly make comments on them. Minor divergences include

25  For an examination of the final mêm in the nonfinal position (and so forth), see Siegel, “Scribes of Qumran,” appendices I and II, 223–44. 26  For reviews of UF, see Feldman, “Review: Eugene Ulrich and Peter E. Flint,” 223–25; Holmstedt, “Review: Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint”; Jarick, “Qumran cave 1. II, The Isaiah Scrolls,” 62; Van der Kooij, “Review of Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint,” 113–17; and Williamson, “Review of Qumran Cave 1, II,” 230–34.

14

Chapter 1

conjunctions,27 the particle ‫‏את‬, articles,28 prepositions, paragogic nûn, directional hê, and the like. 5. Reconstructed texts. This volume does not include divergences from Qumran readings that have been fully reconstructed (i.e., a reading fully enclosed in brackets); but it does include partial reconstructions. 6. Parallel registers in the Bible. This volume includes the readings from blocks of texts that are parallel to Isaiah, most notably Isa 2:2–4 // Mic 4:1–3 and Isa 36–38 // 2 Kgs 18–20. 7. MT ketib-qere system. This volume examines the ketib-qere system of Masoretic type texts of Isaiah in light of 1QIsaa and other Qumran witnesses of Isaiah; therefore, both MTket and MTqere are set forth in the lemma lines in association with Qumran entries. Based on my study published in 2010,29 it is my position that the majority of ketib-qere variants of the book of Isaiah are not material variants that reflect a different Vorlage or textual tradition; rather, they are analogical readings, divergences that reveal different orthographic systems, or examples of archaic, dialectical, or phonological textual updating. In fact, beyond the qere perpetuum readings and three examples of euphemisms (13:16; 36:12 bis),30 variations between ketib-qere are, for the most part, from the grouping ʾālep, hê, wāw, and/or yôd. The catalog of ketib-qere readings in Isaiah is located in appendix 2. 8. Isaianic citations in Qumran nonbiblical texts. One significant avenue of Qumran research pertains to scriptural quotations and allusions that exist in nonbiblical Qumran texts, and a large body of literature is dedicated to that

27  For an analysis of the “794 variations” of the conjunction wāw in the Qumran scrolls versus MT, consult Jacobs, “Comprehensive Analysis of the Conjunction Waw in the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls.” Jacobs’s appendices 1–2 are especially serviceable. Jacobs’s analysis establishes that the variations belong to three chief categories: “lists, the verbal system, and the negation ‫‏לא‬.” See Jacobs’s Abstract (not paginated). See also Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 36–37. Note also that there are multiple variations of the use of the conjunction wāw in medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts; see HUB–Isaiah, apparatus 3, passim. 28  According to Jacobs’s study, the Qumran scrolls “contain a larger number of added definite articles and direct object markers: 52 added and 40 omitted definite articles and 48 added and 17 omitted direct object markers.” Jacobs, “Comprehensive Analysis of the Conjunction Waw in the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls,” 83. We also note that there are multiple variations of the use of the articles in medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts; see HUB– Isaiah, apparatus 3, passim. 29  Parry, “1QIsaa and Ketib-Qere Readings,” 17–32. 30  For an examination of euphemisms in light of text-critical studies, see Parry, “The ‘Word’ or the ‘Enemies’ of the Lord? Revisiting the Euphemism in 2 Sam 12:14,” 367–78.

Introduction

15

research.31 For the present volume, I have included a number of divergences derived from Isaianic citations in the following nonbiblical Qumran texts:32 Isaiah pesharim, CD, 1QS, War Scroll,33 and 4QTanḥumim (4Q176).34 In most cases I employ citations that belong to quotation formulae, such as “as it is written in the book of Isaiah,” “as God said by Isaiah the prophet,” “that is written in the words of Isaiah,” and so forth. Admittedly, many of these Qumran texts are fragmented, which means the yield of variants is minimal. Explicit Isaianic quotations of Isaiah from these nonbiblical Qumran texts serve to add to our understanding of both Qumran nonbiblical texts as well as the textual history of Isaiah. 9. Linguistic analysis. This endeavor constitutes another complex set of tasks, because the effort requires various determinations, when appropriate, with regard to orthography, lexicon, morphology, syntax, grammar, etc. Here the lexicons proved to be helpful (especially HALOT), as did multiple publications (see individual entries plus the bibliography). 10. Intertextual/Contextual relationships. An examination of a textual variant in the sentence level, pericope, entire text of Isaiah, or within the framework of the Bible often yields greater understanding as to why the variant exists. On several occasions below, I submit that certain factors serve to elucidate why a textual variant exists. For example, 1QIsaa’s plus of ‫( ‏והעמקים יתבקעו‬see 34:4) may be a harmonization outside of the framework of the text of Isaiah; 31  A number of scholars have written concerning the use of the Bible in Qumran literature, and bibliographic sources could easily be multiplied. The most complete sources, however, belong to Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions, and Lange, “‘Which Is Written in the Words of Isaiah,’” 275–87. See also Fitzmyer, “Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations,” 297–333; Vermes, “Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature,” 56–67; Gabrion, “L’interprétation de l’Ecriture dans la littérature de Qumrân,” 779–848; and Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran. 32  On the topic of quotations and allusions of Isaiah in nonbiblical Qumran texts, see Flint, “Interpretation of Scriptural Isaiah in the Qumran Scrolls,” 389–406; Flint, “Interpreting the Poetry of Isaiah at Qumran,” 161–95; see also Metso, “Use of Old Testament Quotations in the Qumran Community Rule,” 217–31. 33  The citations were based on my research and presentations at several sequential SBL Annual Meetings: “The Text of Isaiah in the Damascus Document,” San Diego, CA, Nov. 2014; “The Text of Isaiah in the War Scroll,” Atlanta, GA, Nov. 2015; “The Text of Isaiah in 1QS,” San Antonio, TX, Nov. 2016; “The Text of Isaiah in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira,” Boston, MA, Nov. 2017; and “The Text of Isaiah in the Hodayot (1QHa),” Denver, CO, Nov. 2018. 34  For the citations of 4QTanḥ in this volume, see Høgenhaven, “Literary Character of 4QTanḥumim,” 108–10. Based on Høgenhaven’s research, “there are eight instances where 4Q176 agrees with [1QIsaa] against the MT,” three occasions where “4Q176 agrees with MT against 1QIsaa,” and “nine instances [where] MT and 1QIsaa are in agreement against 4Q176” (ibid.).

16

Chapter 1

for this particular plus, I support that view that it was derived from Mic 1:4 (‫)‏וְ ׇה ֲע ׇמ ִקים יִ ְת ַּב ׇּקעּו‬. Also possible, both 1QIsaa and Mic 1:4 acquired this plus from a source that is common to both the book of Micah and the Isaiah Scroll or its Vorlage. Words in texts do not exist in isolation, and oftentimes intertextual/ contextual relationships can provide greater meaning to the textual critic. For such relationships, the use of various computerized search programs assist in locating words and expressions elsewhere in Isaiah or in other biblical and nonbiblical texts. Having stated these ideas about contextual relationships, however, space limitations do not permit thorough investigations of each textual variant in its immediate context, literary unit, or pericope, such as proposed by van der Kooij.35 11. Text and sense divisions. Also important to text-critical studies are the sense and text divisions that exist in the various biblical texts. Many important studies have been conducted in recent years that deal with such matters, especially in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. A few of these studies reveal the significance of text divisions with regard to textual criticism.36 In the present study I deal with various sense divisions at relevant places, but one should note that this volume lacks a consistent and thorough study of text and sense divisions in Isaiah. 12. Conjectural emendations. Except on rare occasions, this work does not submit conjectural emendations; while such an endeavor regularly yields fruitful results,37 producing conjectural emendations does not fall under my two chief objectives. 13. Scribal interventions. This volume occasionally deals with erasures, interlinear and intercolumnar corrections, and other Qumran scribal interventions, primarily when they are relevant to understanding particular textual variants. The study of scribal interventions is a complicated effort and involves a number of levels of understanding. For an important study of Qumran scribal interventions, see Tov’s Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. 35  For an example of how an evaluation of the context shapes one’s understanding of a textcritical matter, see van der Kooij’s examination of Isa 2:22 in “Septuagint of Isaiah and the Hebrew Text of Isaiah,” 378–80; see also van der Kooij, “Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Texts of Isaiah,” 205–7; however, unfortunately, this present volume does not examine textual variants (owing to space limitations) to the degree that is articulated in van der Kooij, “1QIsaa col. VIII, 4–11 (Isa 8, 11–18): A Contextual Approach of Its Variants,” 569–81. 36  See, especially, Tov, “Background of the Sense Divisions,” 312–50; Ulrich, “Impressions and Intuition,” 279–307. See also Maori, “Tradition of PISQĀ’ÔT in Ancient Hebrew MSS,” 1–50. 37  For a treatment of emendations in the Hebrew Bible, see Tov, TCHB3, 331–41.

Introduction

17

14. Hapax legomena. BH scholars in the modern era utilize the Greek expression hapax legomenon (“once said”) to identify unique words in the HB. Of the approximately 1,200–1,500 hapax legomena in the HB (the number varies according to scholarly approaches),38 about nine hundred are decipherable because they possess known and established roots. Approximately four hundred, however, are difficult to interpret. In this volume I deal with dozens of hapax legomena that exist as deviations in MT Isaiah and the Qumran Isaiah scrolls (i.e., 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsaa, 4QIsab, 4QIsac, 4QIsad, 4QIsaf, and 4QIsag). In 2015, I conducted a methodological examination of hapax legomena in Isaiah’s text, which includes an analysis of the Qumran Isaiah Scrolls (published in the Peter Flint Festschrift).39 See appendix 3. 15. Accessing electronic resources. To more fully comprehend many of the Isaianic readings, I conducted electronic searches of hundreds of morphological and inflected forms in MT, the Qumran Isaiah texts, and nonbiblical Qumran texts; I conducted these searches in order to observe and analyze the linguistic features and their distributions and variations (thus taking both quantitative and qualitative approaches). The multidimensional approach allows for both macro- and microscopic examinations of the texts and registers: macroscopic in the investigation of specific linguistic variation across a wide variety of texts (i.e., the Isaiah texts) and/or registers (i.e., groups of texts, such as specific chapters from particular books), and microscopic in the investigation of specific linguistic features in a single text or multiple texts. I specifically accessed three electronic resources: Tov’s The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library: Nonbiblical Texts, Vol. 1 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999); The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library: Biblical Texts, Vol. 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2015); and the OakTree Software product Accordance, Version 11.1.2b1. These resources rely on the linguistically tagged HB prepared for the Westminster Hebrew Morphological Database.40 These resources also enable users to either search for the qere readings in Isaiah or block this search feature 38  The numbers are difficult to determine. Greenspahn, for instance, calculates: “The Hebrew Bible contains about 300 absolute hapax legomena and over 1,200 non-absolute hapax legomena, the present number depending on how you define the term,” Greenspahn, “Words That Occur in the Bible Only Once,” 30. 39  Parry, “Text-Critical Study of Hapax Legomena,” 307–30. 40  For Westminster’s methodology, see “A Reference Guide to the Westminster Hebrew Morphology Database” (MORPH), Westminster Hebrew Institute, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA, Documents Release 4.2, June 30, 2004. MORPH followed the Masoretic Textual tradition (Leningrad Codex); utilized Ludwig Kohler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamms’s (eds.) Hebraisches ... (3rd ed., Leiden: Brill, 1967–1996) and other sources; and consulted a number of standard grammars for parsing and grammar.

18

Chapter 1

so that the computer does not double-count the ketib-qere readings and consequently skew numbers and statistics. 6

Issues and Challenges

1. Orthographic versus textual variants. Various scholarly studies have attempted, using text-critical means, to determine the nature of the variant readings that exist among the ancient Hebrew witnesses of Isaiah. Scholars have attributed text-critical readings for most of the lemmas that are set forth in this volume (see the individual lemmas), which leaves open the possibility for a textual understanding that goes beyond orthography. However, many of the readings that scholars have identified as textual variants may be no more than orthographic deviations,41 especially when the deviations deal with the characters ʾālep, hê, wāw, and yôd. This volume occasionally deals with orthographic deviations, especially if there are peculiar or out-of-the-ordinary circumstances associated with the reading (beyond hê, wāw, and yôd deviations). Nonetheless, any treatment of orthography in this volume is an irregular exercise. 2. Fragmented Isaiah scrolls. The fragmented nature of most Qumran Isaiah scrolls (especially those from Qumran Caves 4 and 5 and Wadi Murabba‘at) may provide an inadequate and incomplete view of the readings, especially when the Isaianic phrase or sentence itself is incomplete. Many of the readings from these fragmented scrolls must remain tentative because they feature only a portion of the text; if the complete scroll existed in these cases, then our view may change. Therefore, with regard to the present study, the explanations provided for each of the readings must remain tentative. In the end, a new discovery of an early text of Isaiah, in Hebrew, Greek, or another language, could completely change our understanding of a particular reading. 3. Lemmatization is a subjective effort. The process of lemmatization, or determining the lemma, is always a subjective effort. While those who analyzed and tagged the tens of thousands of lexical forms in the biblical and Qumranic corpora are professional and competent in their analytical skills, the possibility of human error always exists; or of equal importance, there is the prospect that researchers have diverging opinions concerning the tagging of individual lexical units.

41  For studies that deal with orthographic practices in the Isaiah scroll, see Cook, “Dichotomy of 1QIsaa,” 7–24; “Orthographical Peculiarities in the Dead Sea Biblical Scrolls,” 293–305; and “Orthography of Some Verbal Forms in 1QIsaa,” 133–47; and Wernberg-Møller, “Studies in the Defective Spellings in the Isaiah-Scroll of St. Mark’s Monastery,” 244–64.

Introduction

19

4. Removing scholarly quotations from their context. It can be hazardous to cite a scholar’s view of a particular reading outside of the full context of that scholar’s argument. Such an approach may lead to a misunderstanding of the scholar’s viewpoint and central argument(s). Scholars do not always provide arguments stating why they have determined a particular text to be a primary reading. Sometimes, after putting forward the textual variants, they simply make a terse statement regarding which reading is primary. For this reason some scholars are frequently cited in this volume without providing a reason for their choice of readings. On other occasions scholars provide their methodological approaches in their introduction. For example, for 1QIsaa’s plus of ‫( ‏הזואת‬37:4), Person simply states that the “reading (‫ )‏הזואת‬is an addition”42 without explaining his reasoning. However, in the introduction to his book, Person elucidates, “Preference is generally given to the shorter reading.”43 In my volume, however, for space considerations I do not provide the full introductions and methodologies of each author. For the user of this volume to obtain such, he/she will have to go to the respective bibliographic source, which is presented in abbreviated form in the footnotes and fully in the bibliography. 5. A representative, not a comprehensive, approach. Although in this work I present judgments and characterizations regarding textual variants, one of the greatest issues of this present work is that the judgments and characterizations are presented in abbreviated form; that is to say, owing to space considerations, I have not fully expressed complete arguments with regard to each textual variant. I do not cite every obtainable conclusion or opinion for a specific reading. Nor do I attempt to set forth a history of who declared what theory or when that theory was first presented. Rather, I try to be representative by pointing out one or more scholars who declare one point of view and one or more scholars who articulate another point of view or who present an opposing theory. This work deals with numerous possibilities but certainly not all. A comprehensive study of all characterizations concerning a particular reading would produce multivolumes, especially for a scriptural book the size of Isaiah. Some of the opinions in this volume are my own, and others belong to scholars and critics of both the present as well as former generations. 6. The issue of LXX readings. Over the past century, text critics Duhm, Klein, Koenig, van der Kooij, Ottley, Seeligmann, Tov, Troxel, Ulrich, Ziegler, and others have conducted extensive research into the Isaianic readings of the LXX.44 The entire topic is exceptionally complicated, and there are multiple intricacies 42  Person, Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions, 64. 43  Ibid., 6. 44  For specific bibliographic entries of these scholars, see the bibliography at the end of this volume.

20

Chapter 1

involved, as these scholars point out. Rather than attempt to articulate some of the issues concerning the LXX, I refer to van der Kooij’s words: It is far from certain that in all cases the Greek testifies to another Hebrew version of the book of Isaiah. Since the important work of J. Ziegler (Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias [Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934]) … it has become clear that deviations (variants, minuses, pluses) should not be taken as such, but should be analyzed within their context (the immediate one or the context of the book as a whole). Readings in the Greek version, which on the word-level may point to another source text, often turn out on closer examination to be the work of the translator. For example, instances of interpretative reformulations are best explained, in most cases, in the light of other passages of the book as well as of passages in other books, in particular the Pentateuch. Because of this and other factors most scholars agree that the relationship between the Greek version and MT is more complex than was previously thought. The text-critical value of LXX-Isaiah is limited because, due to its complexities, it is often difficult to say which Hebrew the Greek text might reflect.45 Although I include hundreds of LXX readings in the lemmas, and sometimes in the comments, my primary objective pertains to the Hebrew readings of Isaiah, in light of the Qumran Isaiah texts. For a comprehensive list of LXX readings, I refer the reader to the bibliography (see especially the apparatus of DJD XXXII); for discussions of individual LXX readings in light of MT, I refer the reader to both the pre-Qumran and Qumran scholarship on the subject. 7. A scribal error versus an error belonging to his Vorlage? Throughout this volume I make numerous statements that a copyist or scribe made this or that error, produced a harmonization, modernized a term, created a dittography or haplography, wrote an Aramaism, or made any number of pluses, minuses, or changes to Isaiah’s text. However, when I attribute pluses, minuses, or changes to a copyist or scribe, I am fully aware that the copyist may have received that exact word or expression from his Vorlage or from another text or source. This point could be repeated for many of the textual variants set forth below. We do not always know who made the correction in the text—first copyist, second copyist, or even perhaps a common reader made a correction. As Tov explains, “Upon completing the copying, and often while still in the process, scribes 45  Van der Kooij, “Review of Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II,” 116–17.

Introduction

21

frequently intervened in the text; by the same token, correctors and users often inserted their corrections in the text.”46 7

The Qumran/MurIsaiah Isaiah Scrolls—the Data47

The Qumran caves yielded twenty-one copies of the book of Isaiah.48 An additional copy (making a total of twenty-two copies) of Isaiah was discovered south of Qumran in a cave at Wadi Murabba‘at. Scholars have labeled these scrolls as follows: 1QIsaa, 1QIsab (1Q8), 4QIsaa (4Q55), 4QIsab (4Q56), 4QIsac (4Q57), 4QIsad (4Q58), 4QIsae (4Q59), 4QIsaf (4Q60), 4QIsag (4Q61), 4QIsah (4Q62), 4QIsai (4Q62a), 4QIsaj (4Q63), 4QIsak (4Q64), 4QIsal (4Q65), 4QIsam (4Q66), 4QIsan (4Q67), 4QIsao (4Q68), 4QpapIsap (4Q69), 4QIsaq (4Q69a), 4QIsar (4Q69b), and 5QIsa (5Q3). Unlike the MT, with its consonantal and vocalization framework and system of notes, accents, and versification, the Isaiah scrolls feature handwritten manuscripts without vocalization or accents. Additionally, the scrolls contain interlinear or marginal corrections, scribal marks and notations, a different paragraphing system, and special morphological and orthographic features. 7.1 1QIsaa 1QIsaa, or the Great Isaiah Scroll, is perhaps the best-known biblical scroll found at Qumran. It was one of the initial scrolls found in Qumran Cave 1 in 1947. It was wrapped in a linen cloth and stored in a clay jar. It consists of seventeen pieces of sheepskin sewn together into a single scroll and shows signs of being well used before it was stored away.49 The scroll comprises fifty-four columns of text that vary in width and average about twenty-nine lines of text per column. Measuring almost twenty-four feet in length and about ten inches in height, 1QIsaa is the longest of the Qumran biblical scrolls. As such, it presents a view of what biblical manuscripts looked like at the end of the Second Temple era, before the stabilization of the Hebrew text after the first century CE. 46  Tov, Scribal Practices, 222. 47  Parts of this section on the data have been adapted from Parry, “Isaiah Scrolls,” 776–78. 48  For the precise contents of the Qumran Isaiah scrolls, see Ulrich, “Index to the Contents of the Isaiah Manuscripts from the Judean Desert,” 477–80. 49  Elgvin, “MS 1926/1, MS 1926/3,” 311–12, describes the sewing repairs to 1QIsaa, which took place in antiquity. He also provides the latest information, together with photographs, on the uninscribed fragments from 1QIsaa, which belong to the Schøyen collection (ibid., 309–11).

22

Chapter 1

Its paragraphing system and intratextual divisions are unlike those of MT. Through paleographic analysis of the Hebrew script, scholars date the scroll to about 125 BCE. 1QIsaa represents a significant find because it includes all sixtysix chapters of Isaiah, except for minor lacunae, enabling scholars to conduct a complete study of this text. In contrast, the other Isaiah texts from Qumran, as fragmented and incomplete manuscripts, may slightly distort understandings of Isaiah’s textual history. In terms of mere numbers, 1QIsaa consists of 22,696 words, which represents approximately twenty-four percent of the Qumran corpus of biblical texts. As such, it is the largest of the biblical scrolls. By way of comparison, the second largest extant text is MurXII, at 4,834; the third largest is 1QIsab, at 4,603; and the fourth is 4QSama, which has 3,656.50 With these numbers in view, the Isaiah scrolls signify about thirty percent of all of the biblical texts from the Judean Desert discoveries (UF 2:1).51 1QIsaa has a number of scribal interventions, where the copyist or a subsequent scribe corrected readings or entered notations between the lines and in the margins. In addition, 1QIsaa has a large number of variants when compared to MT, most of them minor. Many of these divergences deal with orthography, and taken as a whole, 1QIsaa displays a fuller orthography than MT, meaning the scroll has more consonants in certain words. Some of the scroll’s textual variants result from accidental errors that occurred during the transmission of the text by one or more generations of copyists. These include haplography, dittography, graphic similarity, misdivision of words, interchange of letters, transposition of texts, and so forth. These errors also occur among other biblical scrolls and manuscripts during the last two centuries before the Common Era, and perhaps earlier, although a paucity of textual examples from earlier periods prevents a thorough investigation. The scribe(s) who copied the Isaiah scroll from a master copy (Vorlage) had a free or liberal approach to the text, characterized by exegetical or editorial pluses, morphological smoothing and updating, harmonizations, phonetic variants, and modernizations of terms. There is also evidence that a well-intended scribe simplified the text for an audience that no longer understood classical Hebrew forms. His editorial tendencies resulted in a popularization of certain terms, some from Aramaic,52 that reflected the language of 50  For these and other statistics, see Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 25. 51  See also the overview of 1QIsaa in UF 1:57–93; and Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, 258–63. 52  For Aramaic influences in 1QIsaa, Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 24, claims, “Our scribe, whose mother tongue seems to have been Aramaic, and who was undoubtedly familiar with the Aramaic literature of his day, now and again inadvertently

Introduction

23

Palestine in his time period. It is because of these modernizations that some scholars have concluded that 1QIsaa was a nonofficial, popular, or vulgar text. Notwithstanding 1QIsaa’s variants, it shares thousands of textual affinities with the proto-Masoretic text. The scroll also has more than two dozen readings where it agrees with the LXX versus MT; this may be due to the fact that both 1QIsaa and LXX date to approximately the same period and both demonstrate a free approach in some of their readings. Kutscher provides an understanding of the scribe’s milieu:53 “We have clear evidence that [the scribe] was conversant with works written in Late Biblical Hebrew, like Chronicles, etc. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that he also knew (and most probably spoke as well) the dialect which several generations later appears as Mishnaic Hebrew. However, the picture is very complex, to say the least, as many points with which I will deal … are common to both Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic.”54 Furthermore, “we may reasonably assume him to have had a good knowledge of Rabbinic Hebrew (in addition to Aramaic of the Empire, and the colloquial Aramaic dialect of Palestine);”55 and because of his knowledge of Aramaic, the scribe gave the Hebrew text of Isaiah “an Aramaic flavor.”56 Kutscher summarizes: “The pervasive influence of Late Biblical Hebrew, and Basic Biblical Hebrew … on all aspects of the Scroll’s language is clearly apparent.”57 And also, “Therefore we may assume that many of those points in which the Scroll differs linguistically from the Masoretic Isaiah represent characteristics of the literary Hebrew of the last centuries of the first millennium BCE.”58 More recent scholars have addressed the scribe’s sociolinguistic environment and its impact on the Great Isaiah Scroll. Rendsburg, for example, explained that, “the famous Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is throughout effected by trends characteristic of MH, demonstrating beyond doubt that the vernacular of the scribe was MH.”59 And Young et al. referred to “the book of Isaiah in its EBH MT form, and its more LBH form in the Qumran 1QIsaa.”60 Approximate Date: 125–100 BCE grafted Aramaic forms upon the Hebrew text.” Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 116, is more restrained: “Aramaic influences exist, but not to the extent assumed by Kutscher.” 53  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 29–63. 54  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 29. 55  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 29. 56  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 29. 57  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 29. 58  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 95. 59  Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew, 14. 60  Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 2:100.

24

Chapter 1

Content: The book of Isaiah, Isa 1:1–66:24 (except for several partial or full words)61 Bibliography: DJD XXXII and Parry/Qimron 7.2 1QIsab (1Q8) 1QIsab is the second largest of the Qumran Isaiah scrolls, although it is fragmented and missing a number of chapters and verses, especially from the first half of the book. This scroll was written in the Herodian book hand and dates to the “turn of the era.” 1QIsab’s readings correspond closely to those of MT—more so than any of the other Qumran Isaiah scrolls. And yet this scroll deviates from MT with about two hundred minor variants, half of which are deviations of orthography and half of which are variants that deal with function rather than content words (e.g., the plus or minus of the conjunction wāw, the definite article, missing letters, and different prepositions or pronouns).62 Approximate Date: Late Hasmonean or early Herodian, 50–25 BCE Content: Isa 7:20–8:1; 8:8 or 8:10?; 10:16–19; 12:3–13:8; 13:16–19; 15:2–16:3; 16:5–12; 19:7–17; 19:20–20:1; 22:9–20; 22:23–23:5; 24:18–25:8; 26:1–5; 28:15–21; 29:1–8; 30:10–15; 30:21–26; 32:17–20; 35:4–7; 37:7–13; 38:12–40:4; 41:3–24; 43:1–14, 20–27; 44:21–45:13; 46:3–47:14; 48:17–49:15; 50:7–51:11; 52:7–54:6; 55:2–57:4; 57:17–59:8; 59:20–61:2; 62:2–64:11; 65:17–66:24 Bibliography: E. L. Sukenik, DSSHU, 30–34, plates I–XV, figs. 10, 18–21; D. Barthélemy, DJD I, 66–68, plate XII; DJD XXXII 7.3 4QIsaa–r In 1952, Qumran Cave 4 yielded eighteen copies of Isaiah, all of which are written in either Hasmonean or Herodian scripts and date between the years 175 BCE and 50 CE. All Cave 4 Isaiah scrolls are written on leather except for 4QIsap, which is inscribed on papyrus. Compared to 1QIsaa–b, 4QIsaa–r are quite fragmented and have many gaps in the text. 4QIsab and 4QIsac are the best preserved of the Cave 4 Isaiah texts; 4QIsab contains remnants of thirtysix chapters, and 4QIsac has parts of twenty-four chapters. Fewer fragments survive from 4QIsaa,d,e,f, and only between one and eight fragments survive from 4QIsag–r. The readings of 4QIsaa–r reflect the consonantal text of MT, meaning their character is proto-Masoretic, although most 4QIsa manuscripts are too 61   U F 1:60 lists the verses that are lacking partial or full words, owing to the damaged leather: 1:21, 23–26; 2:15, 17, 19–21; 5:10–14; 7:9–12, 14–15; 8:7; 10:13–14; 14:27, 29; 45:10–14. 62  See also the overview of 1QIsaa in UF 2:195–208; and Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, 264–66.

Introduction

25

fragmented to make a precise judgment. At the same time, these scrolls exhibit minor divergences that are not regularly aligned with a particular Hebrew or Greek text. Of all of the 4QIsa manuscripts, 4QIsae,f exhibit the most differences from MT and are textually situated somewhere between 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. The orthography is mixed in the 4QIsa texts, at times fuller than MT but often less full. 4QIsa manuscripts generally have a different paragraphing system and different textual divisions than MT. 4QIsac exhibits a few unique traits because its scribe consistently wrote the Tetragrammaton and other names of God in Paleo-Hebrew script.63 7.4 4QIsaa (4Q55) Approximate Date: Late Hasmonean, circa “third quarter of the first century” BCE64 Content: Isa 1:1–3; 2:7–10; 4:5–6; 5:1; 6:4–8; 11:11–15; 12:4–6; 13:1–16; 17:9–14; 19:24– 25; 20:1–6; 21:1–16; 22:13–25; 23:1–12; 33:16–17(?) Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 7–18. Plates I–II 7.5 4QIsab (4Q56) Approximate Date: Late Hasmonean or Herodian, circa “third quarter of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 1:1–6; 2:3–16; 3:14–22; 5:15–28; 9:10–11; 11:7–9; 12:2; 13:3–18; 17:8–14; 18:1, 5–7; 19:1–25; 20:1–4; 21:11–14; 22:24–25; 24:2, 4; 26:1–5, 7–19; 35:9–10; 36:1–2; 37:29–32; 39:1–8; 40:1–4, 22–26; 41:8–11; 42:2–7, 9–12; 43:12–15; 44:19–28; 45:20–25; 46:1–3; 48:6–8; 49:21–23; 51:1–2, 14–16; 52:2, 7; 53:11–12; 61:1–3; 64:5–11; 65:1; 66:24 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 19–43. Plates III–VI 7.6 4QIsac (4Q57) Approximate Date: Formal Herodian with some Paleo-Hebrew, circa “middle of the first century” CE Content: Isa 9:3–12; 10:23–33; 11:4–11, 14–16; 12:1; 14:1–5, 13(?); 22:10–14, 23; 23:8–18; 24:1–15, 19–23; 25:1–2, 8–12; 26:1–9; 28:6–14; 30:8–17; 33:2–8, 16–23; 44:3–7, 23; 45:1–4, 6–8; 46:8–13; 48:10–15, 17–19; 49:22; 51:8–16; 52:10–15; 53:1–3, 6–8; 54:3–5, 7–17; 55:1–7; 66:20–24 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 45–74. Plates VII–XII

63  See also the overview of 4QIsaa–r in Skehan and Ulrich, DJD XV, 7–143; and Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, 265–75. 64  The dates for the texts 4QIsaa–r are derived from DJD XV, passim.

26

Chapter 1

7.7 4QIsad (4Q58) Approximate Date: Late Formal Herodian, circa “middle of the first century” CE Content: Isa 45:20; 46:10–13; 47:1–6, 8–9; 48:8–22; 49:1–15; 52:4–7; 53:8–12; 54:1– 11; 57:9–21; 58:1–3, 5–7 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 75–88. Plates XIII–XV 7.8 4QIsae (4Q59) Approximate Date: Early Herodian, circa “late first century” BCE Content: Isa 2:1–4; 7:17–20; 8:2–14; 9:17–20; 10:1–10; 11:14–15; 12:1–6; 13:1–4; 14:1–13; 14:20–24; 59:15–16 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 89–97. Plates XVI–XVII 7.9 4QIsaf (4Q60) Approximate Date: Hasmonean, circa “first half of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 1:10–16, 18–31; 2:1–3; 5:13–14, 25; 6:3–8, 10–13; 7:16–18, 23–25; 8:1, 4–11; 20:4–6; 22:14–22, 25; 24:1–3; 27:1, 5–6, 8–12; 28:6–9, 6–18(?), 22, 24(?); 29:8(?) Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 99–111. Plates XVIII–XX 7.10 4QIsag (4Q61) Approximate Date: Early Herodian or late Hasmonean, circa “latter half” first century BCE Content: Isa 42:14–25; 43:1–4, 16–24 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 113–115. Plate XXI 7.11 4QIsah (4Q62) Approximate Date: Hasmonean, circa “first half of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 42:4–11 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 117–119. Plate XXI 7.12 4QIsai (4Q62a) Approximate Date: Hasmonean, circa “first half of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 56:7–8; 57:5–8 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 121–22. Plate XXI 7.13 4QIsaj (4Q63) Approximate Date: Late Hasmonean, circa “third quarter of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 1:1–6 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 123. Plate XXII

Introduction

7.14 4QIsak (4Q64) Approximate Date: Late Hasmonean, circa “middle of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 28:26–29; 29:1–9 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 125–27. Plate XXII 7.15 4QIsal (4Q65) Approximate Date: Hasmonean, circa “first half of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 7:14–15; 8:11–14 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 129–30. Plate XXII 7.16 4QIsam (4Q66) Approximate Date: Hasmonean, circa “first half of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 60:20–22; 61:1, 3–6 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 131–32. Plate XXII 7.17 4QIsan (4Q67) Approximate Date: Hasmonean, circa “first half of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 58:13–14 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 133–34. Plate XXIII 7.18 4QIsao (4Q68) Approximate Date: Hasmonean, circa “first half of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 14:28–32; 15:1–2 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 135–37. Plate XXIII 7.19 4QpapIsap (4Q69) Approximate Date: Hasmonean, circa “first half of the first century” BCE Content: Isa 5:28–30 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 139. Plate XXIII 7.20 4QIsaq (4Q69a) Approximate Date: Early Herodian, BCE Content: Isa 54:10–13 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 141. Plate XXIII 7.21 4QIsar (4Q69b) Approximate Date: Hasmonean, BCE Content: Isa 30:23 Bibliography: P. W. Skehan, E. Ulrich, DJD XV, 143. Plate XXIII

27

28

Chapter 1

7.22 5QIsa and MurIsaiah Beyond the Isaiah scrolls from Caves 1 and 4, two other copies of Isaiah were discovered in the Judean desert: one in Qumran Cave 5 and the other at Wadi Murabba‘at. 5QIsa, consisting of two small fragments and dating to the Herodian period, includes words from Isa 40:16–19. MurIsaiah dates to approximately the time of the First Jewish Revolt (66–73/74 CE) and comprises words from Isa 1:4–14. 7.23 5QIsa (5Q3) Content: Isa 40:16, 18–19 Bibliography: J. T. Milik, DJD III, 173. Plate XXXVI

Chapter 2

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

Isaiah 11

1:1 ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ה | )ישעיהו‏‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬3QpIsa • ‫ ִּב ֵימ ‏י‬MT 4QIsaj Syr Vulg | ‫ ביומ ‏י‬1QIsaa | ἐν βασιλείᾳ LXX • ‫ ֻעּזִ יׇ הּו‏‬MT | ‫ עוזיה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ עזיה‏‬3QpIsa • ‫ֹיותם‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ויותם‏‬ ‫י‬ 3QpIsa LXX • ‫ יְ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ חזקי ‏‬1QIsaa | 3QpIsa (‫)ו֯ י֯ [חזקיה‏‬ ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו … ֻעּזִ יׇ הּו … יְ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ו‬Theophoric names (LBH) customarily featured shorter forms, ‫ ‑יה‏‬versus ‫‑יהו‏‬.2 1QIsaa regularly employs the shorter forms throughout the text, i.e., ‫ה‬ ‫ישעי ‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫יחזקי ‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫עוזי ‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫חלקי ‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫זכרי ‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫יברכי ‏‬, and ‫ה‬ ‫ רומלי ‏‬ver‑ sus MT’s ‫ישעיה‏ו‬, ‫יחזקיהו‏‬, ‫עזיהו‏‬, ‫חלקיהו‏‬, ‫זכריהו‏‬, ‫יברכיהו‏‬, and ‫רמליהו‏‬. Compare also the theophoric names listed in Isaiah 7:1, 4–5, 9; 36:1, 14–16, 22; 37:1–3, 6, etc. However, there exists a handful of cases where the longer form is used in the scroll. In Isaiah 1:1 (cf. also 38:21), for example, the scroll attests ‫ ישעיה ‏ו‬instead of ‫ישעיה‏‬, and in Isaiah 7:1, 4–5 and 9 the scroll has ‫ה‬ ‫רומלי ‏‬, but it has ‫ה‬ ‫ רמלי ‏‬in v. 4. Note also that 3QpIsa employs the forms ‫ישעיה‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫עזי ‏‬, and ‫ה‬ ‫ו֯ י֯ [חזקי ‏‬. The Masora magna for 1:1, designed in part to safeguard orthographic devi‑ ances, sets forth three forms for this proper name: ‫( יחזקיהו‏‬e.g., Isa 1:1; Jer 15:4), ‫( חזקיהו‏‬e.g., 1 Chr 3:13; 2 Chr 29:18), and ‫ה‬ ‫( יחזקי ‏‬e.g., Hosea 1:1). Ginsburg states that the reading without the yôd prefix but with the wāw suffix was likely the “correct reading.”3 For two treatments of the forms of the name Hezekiah, see Beegle4 and Weinberg.5 1  Special note: At literally the last minute in the production of this volume, we changed all Hebrew and Greek fonts to the Unicode character set. This process, conducted by experi‑ enced and competent computer specialists, took more than a week. Unfortunately, the pro‑ cess created a variety of errors in the fonts, especially those within and near the Hebrew and Greek fonts (which include circlets, dots, brackets, parentheses, vowels, accent marks, punctuation, quotation marks, and much more). Although we made every effort to repair the errors, we may have missed a small number of them. 2  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 94: “The suffix ‫ ‑יה‏‬is the post-exilic parallel of the classical theophoric form ‫ ;”‑יה ‏ו‬see also Hornkohl, “Biblical Hebrew: Periodization,” 322. For a brief examination of theophoric names in MT versus 1QIsaa, see Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 39; Burrows, “Orthography, Morphology,” 204–205; Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 60–61, 94; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 3–5; TCHB3 106; and Sáenz-Badillos, History of the Hebrew Language, 121, 134. 3  Ginsburg, Massorah, 4:379a, sect. 122. For a brief study on the name Hezekiah, see Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 2. 4  Beegle, “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll,” 28–29. 5  Weinberg, “Some Problems of the Masorah on Isaiah,” 111–16. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004412033_003

30

Chapter 2

‫ֹיותם … יְ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬ ‫— ׇ‬Both 3QpIsa (‫ )וֹיותם … ו֯ י֯ [חזקיה‏‬and LXX (Οζιου καὶ Ιωαθαμ καὶ Αχαζ καὶ Εζεκιου) present the names of the kings in pairs by utilizing the conjunction. ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬The superscripted ʿayin in the name ‫( ישעיה‏ו‬1QIsaa) presents an ar‑ gument for the ʿayin quiescent;6 ‫( יבור‏‬1QIsaa 28:15), with its loss of the ʿayin, serves as another example; the reading of 1QIsaa (when read as ‫ )י[ע]בו ‏ר‬equals MTqere.7 Other examples are located in Isaiah 5:4, 9:7, 17:4, and 48:14.8 The diminishing of pharyngeals and laryngeals in LBH texts occasionally caused the nonpronunciation of the guttural letters ʾālep, hê, ḥêt, and ʿayin in the language of the day, and this ultimately impacted the Isaiah scroll9 (e.g., 8:18; 13:4; 28:15; see also Rendsburg).10 1QIsaa’s ‫( נספים‏‬13:4) serves as an example where the ʾālep has dropped out.11 In fact, in 1959 Kahle theorized that both la‑ ryngeals and pharyngeals had ceased to exist in many Jewish communities, but centuries later such sounds had been reestablished as part of the Masoretic framework of the Bible.12 The phoneme rêš, too, often shares features with this class of characters (of the nonlaryngeal/pharyngeal root consonants, rêš is dropped from words more than other consonants). The weakening of pha‑ ryngeals and laryngeals also applies at times to MH13 and Samaritan Hebrew.14 ‫— ִּב ֵימי‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫ביומ‏י‬, see also ‫ וימ‏י‬in 38:10 (cf. also ‫ֹיומי‏‬ ֵ ‫ּוב‬ ְ in Dan 5:11) as one of four “unmistakable” evidences of “Aramaic influence” in the scroll (see Abegg in UF 2:41).15 For a significant study regarding Aramaic elements in 1QIsaa, see Kutscher’s study, which examines orthography, verbs, nouns, pro‑ nouns, prepositions, and various particles.16

6  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 26–27; see also the discussion in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 105–07. 7  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 30, states that the “Qere is no doubt correct here.” 8  For other examples of the ʿayin quiescent in the scroll as well as in MT, see McCarter, Textual Criticism, 55–56. 9  See the studies of Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, 67–96; Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 71–77; and Rendsburg, “Qumran Hebrew (With a Trial Cut [1QS]),” 221. 10  Rendsburg, “Qumran Hebrew (With a Trial Cut [1QS]),” 221. 11  See Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 57; for other examples, see Muraoka, “Isaiah Scroll (iQIsaa),” 3. 12  Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 164–71. 13  Pérez Fernández, Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, 11–12. 14   Ben-Hayyim, Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, 38–42. 15  See also Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 237–38. For additional exam‑ ples of the Aramaic pl. form of “days” in the Qumran scrolls, see Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 13. 16  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 187–215.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

31

1:2 ‫ ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּכ‏י‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ כי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶא ֶרץ‏‬The plus of the article of the Isaiah scroll disrupts the parallelism, where the corresponding word (‫ )שמים‏‬lacks the article. ‫ ארץ‏‬occurs dozens of times throughout Isaiah; more than half of the time it has the attached article (in both MT and 1QIsaa). For differences between MT and the Qumran wit‑ nesses, see the following: 1:2 ‫ ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 8:9 ‫ ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 4QIsae | ‫האר ‏ץ‬ 1QIsaa; 8:22 ‫ ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 8:23 ‫ה‬ ‫ ַא ְר ׇצ ‏‬MT | ‫ אר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 9:18 ‫ ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT | , ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 11:4 ‫ ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬1 2 MT | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 13:9 ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬+ ‫ כ ‏ל‬MT | ‫ אר ‏צ‬1QIsaa; 14:16 ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶרץ‏‬MT | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 18:6 ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬1 MT 4QIsab (‫ה]ארץ‏‬ ̇ [) | ‫ אר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 24:6 ‫ ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬2 MT 1QIsaa | ]‫ ‏ ̇ה[ארץ‬4QIsac; 24:20 ‫ ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 33:9 ‫ ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 40:21 ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ אר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 44:23 ‫ ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 47:1 ‫ ׇל ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ על האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa; 49:6 ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אר ‏ץ‬1QIsab; 52:10 ‫ ׇא ֶרץ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ הארץ‏‬1QIsaa; 52:12 > MT 1QIsab | + ‫ אלוהי כול הארץ יקרא‏‬1QIsaa. With this list, we observe that 1QIsaa has the article attached to ‫ ארץ‏‬thirteen times where MT lacks it; MT has the article attached to ‫ אר ‏ץ‬three times where 1QIsaa lacks it. And throughout the text we also note that the Qumran wit‑ nesses, other than 1QIsaa, often agree with MT in the use of the article. Kutscher catalogs definite article interchanges between MT and 1QIsaa.17 According to his list, there are forty-six instances where 1QIsaa has the article but MT lacks it, and there are twenty-six occasions where MT has the article but 1QIsaa lacks it. In the majority of these interchanges, it is an unachievable goal to establish which of the Hebrew witnesses has the original reading. As Kutscher has summarized: “Since, as it is well known, the use of the definite article in Biblical poetry follows no known rules, it is practically impossible to determine the superior reading.”18 Kutscher also hypothesizes that most of the deviations between 1QIsaa and MT were caused by the scroll’s scribe; this is due to the fact that most of the words impacted by definite article interchanges begin with either pharynge‑ als or laryngeals. “Since the scribe did not pronounce these consonants, but only the accompanying vowel—he could not of course tell offhand whether the vowel he pronounced was spelled with one or two gutturals.”19 A contrary view is set forth by Pulikottil, who states that Kutscher’s theory “fails close scrutiny.”20 One of Pulikottil’s major arguments against Kutscher is the fact

17  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 411. 18  Ibid., 412. 19  Ibid., 412. 20  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 90.

32

Chapter 2

that LXX frequently has the article = 1QIsaa ≠ MT;21 hence the scroll’s scribe was not inevitably confused by the words that begin with either pharyngeals or laryngeals. Rather, at times the article that is present in the scroll may have existed in his Vorlage. Pulikottil also provides examples where the scribe has added the definite article as a result of either harmonization or explication.22 ‫— ִּכ‏י‬Abegg explains that “digraphs of ʾalep with yod or waw are a character‑ istic feature of DSS Hebrew,”23 and scores of them are found in 1QIsaa. These include ‫מיא‏‬, ‫כיא‏‬, ‫לוא‏‬, ‫ליא‏‬, ‫ביא‏‬, and ‫בוא‏‬. For statistical data and examples, con‑ sult Abegg, Tov, and Qimron.24 1:3

‫ קֹנֵ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ קוניהו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵאל‏‬MT 1QIsaa Tg Vulg | ‫ וישראל‏‬4QIsaj LXX Vulgmss • ‫ ַע ִּמי‏‬MT 4QIsaa Tg Vulg | ‫ ועמ‏י‬1QIsaa LXX Syr ‫—קֹנֵ הּו‏‬The yôd in 1QIsaa’s ‫ קוניה‏ו‬does not signify the plural; rather, it repre‑

sents a vowel letter, a characteristic of the Qumran tradition.25 ‫—יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵא ‏ל‬For a list of passages where LXX attests καὶ and a Qumran Isaiah text has the conjunction wāw, versus MT, see Ziegler.26

1:5 ‫ ַּדּוׇ י‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ דו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַּדּוׇ י‏‬For MT’s ‫“( ַּדּוׇ י‏‬faint, sick,” HALOT, 216; cf. Jer 8:18; Lam 1:22; Job 6:7), 1QIsaa has ‫ה‬ ‫ ;דו ‏‬Kutscher27 suggests that the 1QIsaa copyist was influenced by the Aramaic. Compare also 30:22, where both MT and 1QIsaa read ‫“( דוה‏‬men‑ struating,” HALOT, 216). 1:7 ‫ ַא ְד ַמ ְת ֶכם‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אדרתכם‏‬MurIsa(vid) • ‫ּוׁש ׇמ ׇמה‏‬ ְ MT MurIsa LXX | ‫ושממו עליה‏‬ ‫א‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ְּכ ַמ ְה ֵּפ ַכת‏‬MT MurIsa | ‫ת‬ ‫ כמ פכ ‏‬1QIsaa 21  Ibid., 90. But we note here that the LXX generally utilizes the article according to its own rules versus that of the Vorlage. 22  Ibid., 91–92. 23  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 27; see also Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 48. 24  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 27–28; Tov, “Scribal Features of Two Qumran Scrolls,” 244–46; and Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 21; and see espe‑ cially Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 84–87. 25  For additional examples as well as an analysis of the forms, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 66–71. 26  Ziegler, “Die Vorlage der Isaias-Septuaginta (LXX),” 94. 27  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 371.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

33

‫— ַא ְד ַמ ְת ֶכ ‏‬For ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ אדרתכ ‏‬of MurIsa, see Lehmann, who argues that MurIsa reads ‫ם‬ ‫אדרתכ ‏‬.28 I have viewed the fragment, and although the letter in ques‑ tion resembles a rêš, it does not have the precise characteristics as does the rêš located in the line immediately above. Thus I have labeled the reading as MurIsa(vid). ‫ּוׁש ׇמ ׇמה‏‬ ְ —For MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ּוׁש ׇמ ׇמ ‏‬ ְ (‫ ְׁש ׇמ ׇמה‏‬, “waste, desolation,” HALOT, 1566), 1QIsaa has ‫ושממו עליה‏‬. In my judgment, 1QIsaa is in error;29 perhaps a scribe assimi‑ lated an expression from either Isa 52:14 (‫ )ושממו עליכה‏‬or Lev 26:32 (‫וַ ֲה ִׁשּמ ִֹתי ֲאנִ י‏‬ ‫ּיׁש ִבים ׇּבּה‬ ְ ‫יכם ַה‬ ֶ ‫יה א ֵֹיְב‬ ‫ת־ה ׇא ֶרץ וְ ׇׁש ְממּו ׇע ֶל ׇ‬ ‫) ֶא ׇ‬.30 Note that Lev 26:32 also refers to the land’s desolation and has the expression ‫ה‬ ‫ושממו עלי ‏‬. The thematic affiliation between Lev 26:32 and 1QIsaa’s rendering of 1:7 is so great that Pulikottil poses the question, “Could it be that the scribe is explaining that the judgment of God catalogued in Leviticus is being fulfilled in the city?”31 Before Pulikottil, Skehan listed twenty-seven passages in 1QIsaa that constitute harmonizations from other biblical passages, including from Isaiah’s text itself. “The process,” explains Skehan, is an “exegetical one”32 that existed during the period that the Qumran community existed. There exist other scholarly opinions. Cohen prefers the reading of 1QIsaa, as‑ serting that it is the lectio difficilior. According to his line of reasoning, 1QIsaa’s “text is better stylistically because it reflects the wordplay based on the two re‑ ciprocal meanings of the root ‫ם‬ ‫שמ ‏‬, ‘to be desolate’ and ‘to be appalled.’” Similar wordplays, writes Cohen, exist in 49:17–18; Lev 26:32–33; Jer 18:16; and 50:13.33 Van Peursen examines 1QIsaa 1:7–8 in view of the concept of “fulfillment interpretation” (Erfüllungsinterpretation), writing that “it is quite possible that the pericope of 1:2–9 in Qa is a description of the destruction brought about by Antioch IV…. This understanding of variant readings in Qa is substantiated by other passages in the Qumran documents, which show that the members of the Qumran community regarded the important events of their time as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies.”34 ‫— ְּכ ַמ ְה ֵּפ ַכ ‏‬In all three occurrences where the verb √‫ הפך‏‬appears in Isaiah ‫ת‬ (34:9; 60:5; 63:10), the readings of MT are equivalent to those of 1QIsaa. But for MT’s two occurrences of the noun ‫“( ְּכ ַמ ְה ֵּפ ַכת‏‬overthrow,” HALOT, 553) in Isaiah (1:7; 13:19), 1QIsaa reads ‫( כמאפכת‏‬with a superscript ʾālep) in 1:7 and ‫כמא ̇פ ̇כת‏‬ ̇ in 28  Lehmann, “Third Dead Sea Scroll of lsaiah,” 38–40. 29  See also Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 18–19. 30  As proposed by Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 319–20. 31  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 70. 32  Skehan, “Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” 152. 33  Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 46; see also n. 6. 34  Van Peursen, “Guarded, Besieged or Devastated?” 107.

34

Chapter 2

13:19. Perhaps a scribe has employed the alternate √‫אפך‏‬, which is well attested in Aramaic.35 There is also the possibility that the hê was replaced by another guttural; for this phenomenon, see Qimron.36 1:8 ‫ֹנות ׇרה‏‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ ונתר ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐγκαταλειφθήσεται LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִּכ ְמלּונׇ ‏‬MT Tg | ‫ה‬ ‫ וכמלונ ‏‬1QIsaa MurIsa(vid) LXX Syr Vulg ‫ֹנות ׇר ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ְ ְ‫—ו‬MT attests a nipʿal pf. third f. sg. via √‫“( יתר‏‬to be left over,” HALOT, 452); 1QIsaa also attests √‫יתר‏‬, reading a nipʿal f. sg. ptc. (‫ֹנות ֶרת‏‬ ֶ ), with ‫ת־צֹּיו‏ן‬ ִ ‫ ַב‬as the subject; or, ‫ת‬ ‫ ונתר ‏‬is an Aramaic verb, signifying the third f. sg.37 1:9

‫ ִּכ ְסד ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ כסוד ‏‬1QIsaa | ὡς Σοδομα LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַל ֲעמ ׇֹר ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ לעומר ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ὡς

Γομορρα LXX ‫— ִּכ ְסדֹם‏‬1QIsaa utilizes the form ‫ם‬ ‫ סוד ‏‬in 1:9, 10; 3:9; and 13:19, which form ap‑ proximates that of LXX (Σοδομα), Matt 10:15, and Josephus. Of the nonbibli‑ cal Qumran texts, 1Q20 usually attests ‫ סודם‏‬but strangely has ‫ם‬ ‫ סודו ‏‬once (1Q20 21:32).38 3Q14 f8:2 and 4Q221 f2i:3 attest ‫ = סדום‏‬MT. Kutscher assigns the follow‑ ing understanding to 1QIsaa’s ‫סודם‏‬: “The scribe apparently took this form to be an example of the pattern ‫ ֻקט ‏ל‬, since in his dialect the ‫ ֻקט ‏ל‬of the MT frequent‑ ly became qotol as in the Sept. transliterations…. However, the Scr.’s copyist shrank from a plene spelling of this sort,—i.e. with two ‫’ ‏ו‬s—and therefore wrote a ‫ ו‏‬at the first vowel only, which is the principle one, on the analogy of ‫בוק ‏ר‬, but not at the second one, it being the auxiliary vowel. In the Scr. the spelling Qotol, e.g. ‫פוע ‏ל = פועו ‏ל‬, is used only with the gutturals and pharyngeals.”39 ‫— ַל ֲעמ ׇֹרה‏‬Kutscher explains the difference between MT (‫ ) ַל ֲעמ ׇֹרה‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫)לעומרה‏‬: “There is no doubt that the form [of 1QIsaa] is parallel to that found in the Sept. and the Gospels, as e.g. Matth. x 15…. The ‘o’ of the first syllable which is parallel to the hataf patah of the MT results from the assimilation of the short vowel (hataf patah) to the following one, as in ‫ם‬ ‫סוד ‏‬.”40

35  See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 71; Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 156–57; see also Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 251. 36  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 101, 104. 37  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 191; Tov, TCHB3, 106. 38  See the discussion in Muraoka, Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 69n290. 39  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 109–10; see also Mansoor, “Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts,” 44. 40  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 113; see 114.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

35

1:10 ‫ ְסד ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ סודם‏‬1QIsaa | Σοδομων LXX • ‫ ַה ֲאזִ ינּו‏‬MT 4QIsaf (‫הא[זינו‏‬ ‫ם‬ ̇ ]) LXX Tg Vulg | ‫ ואזינו‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ואצית ‏ו‬Tgms Syr Vulgms • ‫ה‬ ‫ ֲעמ ׇֹר ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עומר ‏‬1QIsaa | Γομορρας LXX ‫— ַה ֲאזִ ינּו‏‬In 1QIsaa, the hê has elided because of its weakness in Qumran Hebrew. As Reymond explains, “The glottal fricative phoneme (heh) is dropped in essentially the same environments that the glottal stop (aleph) is dropped, though less frequently. It is best to conclude that this is partially at‑ tributable to the inherent weakness of this phoneme, reflected in numerous ways in the Tiberian tradition, and partially attributable to the quiescence of this phoneme in certain other environments in the dialect(s) of the scribes and writers.”41 One should also note the multiple cases of the quiescence of the hê in 1QIsaa where MT maintains the hê: ‫ ַמ ֲה ַתֹּלות‏‬MT; ‫ מתלות‏‬1QIsaa (30:10); ‫ ַל ֲהנׇ ׇפ ‏‬MT; ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ לנפ ‏‬1QIsaa (30:28); ‫ ֵהנַ ‏ע‬MT 2 Kgs 19:13; ‫ ונ ‏ע‬1QIsaa (37:13); ‫ת‬ ‫ְל ַה ְׁשֹאו ‏‬ MT 2 Kgs 19:25 (‫ לשאוות‏ ;) ַל ְהֹׁשות‏‬1QIsaa (37:26); ‫ ְל ַה ֲחֹיות … ְּול ַה ֲחֹיות‏‬MT 4QIsad (‫להחיו]ת … ולהחיות‬ ̇ ‫ת ;)‏‬ ‫ לחיות … ולחיו ‏‬1QIsaa (57:15); ‫יע‬ ‫ ְל ַה ְׁש ִמ ַ ‏‬MT 1QIsab; ‫לשמי ‏ע‬ 1QIsaa (58:4); and ‫ת‬ ‫ ַּב ְּתהֹֹמו ‏‬MT; ‫ת‬ ‫ בתומו ‏‬1QIsaa (63:13). 1:12 ‫מס‏‬ ֹ ‫ ְר‬MT 4QIsaf | ‫ס‬ ‫ לרמו ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ְל ֵמ ֵיתי ׇלא ְתדּוׁשּו‏ן‬Tg | ‫ ׇלא ְתדּוׁשּו‏ן‬Tgms ‫מס‏‬ ֹ ‫“(— ְר‬to trample with one’s feet, crush to pieces,” HALOT, 1245). Joüon and Muraoka write that “in LBH and MH the Lamed is almost an integral part of the inf. cst. as in contemporary Aramaic.”42 There are nine examples in Isaiah where the scroll has the preposition attached to the infinitive versus MT, which lacks it: ‫( לרמוס‏‬1:12), ‫( להביא‏‬1:13), ‫( לקראו‏‬8:4), ‫( לשמוע‏‬28:12), ‫( לשמוע‏‬30:9), ‫( להלוך‏‬42:24), ‫ה‬ ‫( לכפר ‏‬47:11), ‫ט‬ ‫( לאשקו ‏‬57:20), and ‫ת‬ ‫( מעשו ‏‬58:13). 42:24 presents a rather odd situation, because 1QIsaa adds a preposition to an inf. abs., i.e., ‫( להלוך‏‬versus MT’s ‫) ׇהֹלו ‏ְך‬. There is one example where 1QIsaa lacks the preposi‑ tion versus MT that has it, ‫( בע ‏ר‬5:5). It is also feasible that 1QIsaa facilitated the reading with the lāmed attached to the inf. const. It is well known that the 41  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 100; see also Reymond’s study regarding the quiescence of hê, 100–107. Consult also Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 99, 102. 42  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 436; elsewhere Joüon and Muraoka wrote, “In Late Aramaic dialects the Lamed has become an integral part of the infini‑ tive, so that it hardly occurs without Lamed” (ibid., 147). See also Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 41; Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 194; and Qimron’s discussion of the “predicate use of the infinitive” in the DSS, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 70–2. The discussion of Van Peursen, Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 248–9, 252–7, 275, 408, regarding the use of lāmed + inf. const. in Ben Sira, compared with LBH and QH, is instructive. See also Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P,’” 68; and Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 2:128–132.

36

Chapter 2

scroll’s scribe sometimes avoided paratactic clauses.43 The Chronicler’s use of the inf. const. plus the lāmed is sometimes comparable to cases extant in EBH.44 1:13 ‫ ׇה ִבי ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ להבי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וַ ֲע ׇצ ׇר ‏‬MT α′ σ′ θ′ | ‫ה‬ ‫ ועצרת ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἀργίαν LXX ‫— ׇה ִביא‏‬With the prefixed lāmed on the inf. const., 1QIsaa (‫ )להביא‏‬has the lectio facilior. MT lacks the preposition. For other instances (both nouns and verbs), where 1QIsaa has a preposition versus MT, see the discussion at 1:12. ‫—וַ ֲע ׇצ ׇר ‏‬BH attests ‫ ֲע ֶצ ֶרת‏‬and ‫ ֲע ׇצ ׇרה‏‬, apparently with no difference in mean‑ ‫ה‬ ing (“celebration, festive assembly,” HALOT, 872). Klein states that ‫ ֲע ׇצ ׇרה‏‬is “a collateral form of ‫ת‬ ‫ ֲע ֶצ ֶר ‏‬.”45 Different possibilities exist to explain the hê belong‑ ing to 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫עצרת ‏‬. If the hê signifies a third f. sg. suffix (“her solemnity”), there is no immediately apparent antecedent for this suffix (but compare ‫בת‏‬ ‫ עצרת ‏‬may be a hybrid, combining the forms ‫ת‬ ‫ עצר ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫עצר ‏‬. Or, ‫ ציון‬in 1:8). ‫ה‬ more likely, ‫ה‬ ‫ עצרת ‏‬is an Aramaism.46 See also other possible hybrid forms in 1QIsaa, including ‫( היכה‏‬1:21), ‫( תמלאה‏‬11:9), ‫( אודו‏‬12:4), ‫( כאוב‏‬17:11), ‫( לוחיי‏‬30:28), and ‫( אייאמים‏‬34:14); see also MT ‫( אגאלת‏י‬63:3).47 1:15 ‫ ַת ְרּבּו‏‬MT LXX | ‫ ̇הרב‏ו‬1QIsaa • > MT 4QIsaf LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫אצבעותיכם בעאו‏ן‬ 1QIsaa ‫— ַת ְרּב ‏ּו‬MT attests a hipʿil second m. pl. impf. (via √‫ )רבה‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s ‫̇הרבו‏‬ (also from √‫)רבה‏‬, which is either a hipʿil pf. third common pl. or a hipʿil impera‑ tive. MT’s second m. pl. corresponds with the second m. pl. pronominal suf‑ fixes in the passage—‫ובפרׂשכם‏‬, ‫כפיכם‏‬, ‫ם‬ ‫מכ ‏‬, and ‫ם‬ ‫ידיכ ‏‬. ‫—אצבעותיכם בעאו‏ן‬1QIsaa presents the plus ‫אצבעותיכם בעאו‏ן‬, which serves to fill out the parallelism, thus, ‫“( ידיכמה דמים מלאו אצבעותיכם בעאו‏ן‬your hands are full of blood, your fingers with iniquity”). Some scholars maintain that the 43  For other examples of paratactic avoidance in some clauses, see Rubinstein, “Formal Agreement of Parallel Clauses,” 318–19. 44  Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 60. 45  Klein, Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary, 481. 46  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 24, writes that ‫ עצרתה‏‬is the “Aramaic form with the definite article.” See also Høgenhaven, “First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran,” 22; cf. also Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 876. For recent examinations of Aramaic in the Hebrew Qumran scrolls, see Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 7–24. Joosten, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,” 358–59, provides this summary regarding Aramaisms in QH texts: “The amount of Aramaic influence in the Hebrew Qumran scrolls can best be explained as reflecting the bilingualism of the authors and their readers.” 47  For examples of possible hybrid forms in 1QIsaa, see Parry, “Artificial Forms in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa),” 83–96.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

37

plus is a primary reading, which dropped out of the proto-Masoretic text dur‑ ing its transmission history. Watts writes, “The addition [of 1QIsaa] is parallel to the previous stich and would be a metrical improvement on MT.”48 So, too, Burrows states regarding 1QIsaa’s plus that “a fourth stichos would undoubt‑ edly improve the metrical structure.”49 Cohen presents a compelling argument in favor of the originality of the plus belonging to 1QIsaa, presenting four rea‑ sons as to why the scroll is to be preferred. Not only does he produce Ugaritic parallels, but he points out that “the parallelism in the first two clauses makes the possibility of parallelism in the second half of the verse more likely.”50 Contrary to these views, some textual critics maintain that 1QIsaa features a harmonization, a word or phrase that has been drawn from a similar context or parallel passage, either from Isaiah itself or from another biblical book. This harmonization may have been created from the scribal school that produced 1QIsaa or from its Vorlage. This particular plus, many critics claim, was adapted from 59:3, which reads ‫ה‬ ‫כיא כפיכםה נגאלו בדם ואצבעותיכמ ‏‬. Wildberger, for one, writes that 1QIsaa’s “addition stands all alone and is the work of a glossator who looked in vain for a mention of fingers at this point.” And Williamson holds that 1QIsaa’s plus is secondary and borrowed from 59:3, “as demonstrated by the retention of the preposition ‫ ‏ב‬, which is appropriate in 59:3 … but not in 1:15.”51 Based on the fact that MT is supported by another Qumran witness, as well as the versions, 1QIsaa’s plus should be considered a harmonization. For ex‑ amples of other harmonizations in the scroll, see also 34:4 (cf. Mic 1:4); 51:3 (cf. 35:10; 51:11); 51:6 (cf. 40:26); 52:12 (cf. 54:5); and 60:4 (cf. 66:12).52 For other passages where blood is paired with iniquity, see 26:21 and Ezek 3:18. 1:16 ‫ ִהּזַ ּכ ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsaf LXX Tg Vulg | ‫ והזכו‏‬1QIsaa LXXmss Tgmss Syr • ‫ ׇה ִסירּו‏‬MT LXX | ‫ והסירו‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִהּזַ ּכּו … ׇה ִסירּו‏‬Vv. 16–17 features a series of nine m. pl. imperatives (wash, be pure, remove, stop, learn, seek, relieve, defend, plead). In v. 16, 1QIsaa adds the conjunction wāw to two of the imperatives (‫ והזכו‏‬and ‫)והסירו‏‬, which disrupts the flow of the reading. These added wāws are probably dittograms, created from the preceding m. pl. wāw suffix, i.e., ‫רחצו והזכו והסיר ‏ו‬. 48  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 14. 49  Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” BASOR 111, 19. 50  Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 47. 51  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 36; Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 80; Roberts, First Isaiah, 17. 52  For an additional study on harmonizations, see Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique, passim; and Tov, TCHB3, 258–59.

38

Chapter 2

1:17 ‫ ִּד ְרׁש ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ דרוׁש ‏ו‬1QIsaa 1:18 ‫ וְ נִ ּוׇ ְכ ׇחה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ח‬ ‫ונו]כ ‏‬ ̇ 4QIsaf • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַּכ ׇּׁשנִ י ‏‬MT | ‫ כשנ‏י‬MTmss 1QIsaa LXX Syr Vulg • ‫ יַ ְא ִּדימ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsaf (‫יא]דמו‏‬ ̇ ) | ‫ידומ‏ו‬ ̇ 1QIsaa LXX (ὦσιν (ως))? • ‫ע‬ ‫ֹּתול ‏‬ ‫ ַכ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫כתולע ̇ ‏‬ ‫ת‬ ̇ 4QIsaf ‫(—וְ נִ ּוׇ ְכ ׇח ‏‬via √‫יכח‏‬, “to argue [in a lawsuit],” HALOT, 410). MT and 1QIsaa have ‫ה‬ the cohortative form ‫ה‬ ‫ ונוכח ‏‬with the conjunctive wāw, versus 4QIsaf with the regular impf. ‫ונו]כח‏‬ ̇ . On two other occasions, 4QIsaf has the regular impf. where MT has the cohortative form (see 1:25–26; cf. also ‫ וְ ִת ְק ַר ‏ב‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ותקרב ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsab at 5:19).53 ‫“(— ַּכ ׇּׁשנִ י ‏‬crimson cloth,” HALOT, 1603). HUB–Isaiah (apparatus 2) sets forth ‫ם‬ multiple instances of ‫ כשני‏‬in biblical quotations found in rabbinic literature,54 which reading accords with the Qumran Isaiah scroll. So, too, multiple manu‑ scripts collated by KRG (HUB–Isaiah) attest ‫ כשני‏‬rather than ‫כשנים‏‬. MT’s ‫ׇּׁשנִ ים‏‬ is likely a pl. noun, a rare form also attested in Prov 31:21 (the sg. ‫ ׇׁשנִ י‏‬occurs forty times in the Bible). Also possible, the second mêm is an “enclitic mêm on a singular form.”55 If MT’s reading is primary, then it may signify a pl. amplifica‑ tion, designed to lay emphasis on the comparison between “sins” and the color scarlet (cf. other examples of pl. amplification, Gen 4:10 [‫ ;] ְּד ֵמי ׇא ִחיָך‏‬Prov 1:20 [‫)] ׇח ְכֹמות‏‬. But inasmuch as all other similes of this verse feature sg. forms (‫ ַּכ ֶּׁש ֶלג‏‬, ‫ֹּתולע‏‬ ‫ ַכ ׇ‬, ‫) ַּכ ֶּצ ֶמ ‏ר‬, it is possible that ‫ שנ‏י‬is primary. Driver proposes an emendation in favor of the scroll: “Occasionally a choice of readings seems to be offered … so in the MT (118) has arisen out of ‫ כשני כשלג‏‬with alternative ‫ מ‏‬written above ‫‘ כ‏‬like scarlet, more than/like snow’, which gets rid of the impossible plur. form.”56 Note also that Michaelis, before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, had emended the text to read ‫כשנ‏י‬.57 ‫—יַ ְא ִּדימ ‏ּו‬The reading of MT and 4QIsaf may be derived from √‫“( אדם‏‬be, be‑ come red,” HALOT, 14). It is unknown whether the deviation of 1QIsaa (‫) ̇ידומו‏‬ is orthographic (“they will be red”) or a textual variant (“they will be alike,” via

53  For an investigation of the cohortative and the prolonged impv. in Qumran texts ver‑ sus MT, see Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 196–99. 54  See also Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, 658. 55  Roberts, First Isaiah, 17. 56  Driver “Hebrew Scrolls,” 18; Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 104, too, prefers the reading of 1QIsaa. 57  Driver “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

39

√‫)דמה‏‬. Most likely, however, this is a case of conjugation substitution, hipʿil > qal (with the dropping of the ālep).58 ‫ֹּתול ‏‬ ‫ע‬ ‫— ַכ ׇ‬The 4QIsaf scribe first wrote ‫כתולע ̇ת‏‬ ̇ (“like a worm”), and then he or a subsequent scribe erased the tāw, thus reading ‫“( כתולע‏‬like scarlet”), which equals the reading of MT and 1QIsaa. 1:20 ‫ וְ ִאם‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX (ἐὰν δὲ) Tg Syr | ‫ם‬ ‫ א ‏‬4QIsaf | quod si Vulg • ‫ ֶח ֶר ‏ב‬MT | ‫בחר ‏ב‬ 1QIsaa Tg Syr ‫— ֶח ֶר ‏‬Note that Ibn Ezra proposes supplying the preposition bêt before ‫חר ‏ב‬, ‫ב‬ a reading that exists in 1QIsaa (‫)בחרב‏‬.59 But it is my judgment that a scribe of 1QIsaa provided the plus of the preposition in order to ease the syntacti‑ cal structure of ‫חרב תאכלו‏‬.60 However, compare Kissane, who proposes the text read ‫מחר ‏ב‬, with the mêm dropping out via haplography.61 For other cases where 1QIsaa supplied a preposition to nominal forms where MT lacks the preposition, see 10:29; 29:9; 31:1; 32:14; 36:9; 37:38; and 52:11. The adverbial ‫בחרב‏‬ in 1QIsaa was created owing to a late development, namely, the standard and widespread fashion of adverbial formation in the Second Temple period and beyond, in which the preposition bêt was prefixed to a word.62 1:21 ‫ ֵא ׇיכה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ היכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵא ׇיכה‏‬Throughout MT, the particles ‫( ֵאיְך‏‬61×), ‫( ֵא ׇיכה‏‬17×), ‫( ֵא ׇיכ ׇכה‏‬4×), and ‫( ֵהי ‏ְך‬2×) are exclamatory interrogatives meaning “how.” In the verse under dis‑ cussion, 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ היכ ‏‬is a derivation of ‫ ֵהי ‏ְך‬, which appears only in LBH texts (Dan 10:17, 1 Chr 13:12). Compare also ‫ה‬ ‫ היכ ‏‬in 4Q212 (4QEnochg) frg. 1, v. 23. 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ היכ ‏‬may have been influenced by Aramaic,63 is a hybrid of ‫ה‬ ‫ איכ ‏‬and ‫הי ‏ך‬,64 or is the result of a phonological change (see Abegg in UF 2:29).65 Cf. also 14:12, where the scroll reads ‫היכה‏‬ ֯ , versus MT’s ‫ ֵאיך‏‬. Elsewhere in Isaiah, MT has ‫ ֵאי ‏ְך‬where 1QIsaa reads ‫( איכה‏‬14:4; 36:9 [MT = 2 Kgs 18:24]; 48:11 58  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 363. 59  See also Brockington, Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, 175; and Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 54, who agrees with the reading of 1QIsaa. 60  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:7; this view is also supported by Roberts, First Isaiah, 17, and others. 61  Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:7. 62  Medina, “Adverbs ‫ד‬ ‫יח ‏‬, ‫ יחדיו‏‬and ‫ ביחד‏‬in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” forthcoming. 63  See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 377. 64  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 390. 65  See also the discussion in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 99–109.

40

Chapter 2

[MT = 4QIsad]). Only twice does MT and the scroll have the equivalent reading of the particle ‫( ֵאיְך‏‬19:11; 20:6). For other examples of possible hybrid forms in 1QIsaa, see the comments on ‫ה‬ ‫ עצרת ‏‬in 1:13. 1:22 ‫ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ הי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְל ִסיגִ י ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ לסו֯ גי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇהיׇ ה‏‬For the pl. verb ‫היו‏‬, the scroll’s scribe may have attempted to find agreement with the pl. ‫ם‬ ‫לסיגי ‏‬. But Rosenbloom writes that “in both the MT and the [Isaiah Scroll], both pl. and sg. verbs are found with collective nouns with pl. objects and vice versa. There is no regularity to be noted in this regard in either of the manuscripts.”66 ‫— ְל ִסיגִ י ‏‬MT attests ‫“( ִסיג‏‬galina, silver dross,” HALOT, 750) on eight occasions ‫ם‬ (see 1:22, 25; Ezek 22:18 [bis]; 22:19; Ps 119:119; Prov 25:4; 26:23). In Ezek 22:18, MTket has ‫ ְלסּו ‏ג‬versus ‫ ְל ִסי ‏ג‬in MTqere. 1QIsaa, in both 1:22 and 1:25, has the form ‫סו֯ ‏ג‬, although the identification of the wāw in ‫ סו֯ ‏ג‬of both verses is questionable. Compare also 1QIsaa 1:22 ‫ם‬ ‫ היו לסֹוגי ‏‬with Ezek 22:18 ‫היו … לסו ‏ג‬. 1:23

‫ ֻּכֹּלו א ֵֹה ‏‬MT α′ θ′| ‫ כולם אוהבי‏‬1QIsaa | ἀγαπῶντες LXX • ‫ וְ ר ֵֹדף‏‬MT | ‫ רודפי‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫ב‬ ‫— ֻּכֹּלו א ֵֹהב … וְ ר ֵֹדף‏‬V. 23 comprises three bicolons. The first and third bicolons

feature pl. forms; for rhetorical purposes and to individualize the statements of judgment against Jerusalem’s inhabitants, the second bicolon presents sg. forms. 1QIsaa changed the individualization with plurals: ‫‏כולם אוהבי … רודפי‬, likely impacted by the plurals of the first and third bicolons. Tov rightly cites 1QIsaa 1:23 as an example of the 1QIsaa scribe’s “contextual adaptations”: “The scribes of the texts written in the Qumran Scribal Practice often adapted seem‑ ingly irregular forms to the context.”67 But note that K and 96 (pm) (HUB– Isaiah) also attest both ‫ אוהב‏י‬and ‫ורודפ‏י‬. 1:24 ‫ ֹהוי‏‬MT | ‫ הוה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִמ ׇּצ ַרי‏‬MT 4QIsaf LXX α′ Syr Vulg | ‫ מצריו֯‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ִמ ׇסנְ ֵאי ַע ׇמא‏‬ Tg | ‫ מסנאי עמי‏‬Tgmss • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ִאּנׇ ְק ׇמ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ואנק ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹאויְב‏י‬ ‫ ֵמ ׇ‬MT LXX | ‫ מהאו֯ ב ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—ֹהוי‏‬The interjection ‫“ הו‏י‬woe” appears more than twenty times in Isaiah, and MT equals 1QIsaa in all of those instances except for the verse under discus‑ sion. Here 1QIsaa reads ‫ הוה‏‬versus MT’s ‫ֹהוי‏‬. Perhaps 1QIsaa reads ‫“( הֹוׇ ה‏‬disaster,” HALOT, 242; see 47:11; Ezek 7:26); but this is unlikely because ‫ה‬ ‫ הֹוׇ ‏‬is accompa‑ nied by the preposition ‫ ַע ‏ל‬, and v. 24 lacks this preposition. Furthermore, the 66  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 5. 67  Tov, TCHB3, 103.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

41

syntax of v. 24 makes an attestation of ‫ה‬ ‫ הֹוׇ ‏‬implausible. It is better to consider that 1QIsaa’s ‫ הוה‏‬is a form similar to ‫“( ֹה‏ו‬alas,” HALOT, 240) in Amos 5:16. See also Qimron, who views 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ הו ‏‬as a contraction from oy (‫ )הוי‏‬to o.68 See also the variants ‫ הוה‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ הוי ‏‬in 47:11. ‫ֹאויְבי‏‬ ‫—וְ ִאּנׇ ְק ׇמה ֵמ ׇ‬In place of the nipʿal cohortative (√‫נקם‏‬, “to take revenge,” HALOT, 721), 1QIsaa has a nipʿal impf. first common sg. (‫)ואנקם‏‬. And note the strange suspended hê in the scroll’s final word of the v., ‫מהאו֯ בו‏‬. The hê clearly represents a correction, but it was meant to be placed above the mêm of ‫ואנקם‏‬, thus making it a cohortative (MT ‫ה‬ ‫ ;)וְ ִאּנׇ ְק ׇמ ‏‬therefore, the corrector uncon‑ sciously created a second error while attempting to rectify the first. 1:25

‫ וְ ׇא ִׁש ׇיב ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ והשי ‏ב‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִסיגׇ יִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ סו֯ גי ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ׇא ִס ׇיר ‏‬MT | ‫ ואסי ‏ר‬1QIsaa 4QIsaf (‫)[וא]סיר‏‬ ‫—וְ ׇא ִׁש ׇיב ‏‬MT vv. 24–26 has a series of five first common sg. verbs (‫ ֶאּנׇ ֵחם‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫וְ ׇא ִׁש ׇיבה‏‬, ‫וְ ֶא ְצר ֹ ‏ף‬, ‫ה‬ ‫וְ ׇא ִס ׇיר ‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫)וְ ׇא ִׁש ׇיב ‏‬, with the Lord as the subject. 1QIsaa disrupts the flow of these verbs with ‫והשיב‏‬, a variant for ‫( וְ ׇא ִׁש ׇיבה‏‬v. 25); the confusion

between the ʾālep and hê arose owing to the idea that “the laryngeals and pha‑ ryngeals were indistinguishable in the dialect”69 of the scroll’s scribe. Note, fur‑ thermore, that MT features the cohortatives ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ׇא ִׁש ׇיבה … וְ ׇא ִס ׇיר ‏‬versus the short imperatives ‫ והשיב … ואסי ‏ר‬of 1QIsaa. 4QIsaf, too, reads ‫ואסי ‏ר‬, but this scroll is fragmented where ‫ה‬ ‫( ואשיב ‏‬or, ‫ )והשי ‏ב‬would exist on the leather. The lengthened impf. on the scroll, with the attached hê (“pseudocohortative”) that lacks a cohortative meaning, is a characteristic of SBH, LBH,70 and post-BH. Although the lengthened impf. is “ubiquitous” in Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, this form occurs once only in Chronicles.71 So, too, there is a height‑ ened usage of ‫ה‬ ‫ אקטל ‏‬in QH texts.72 The 1QIsaa scribe employed the attached hê here and elsewhere in the scroll. For a discussion and statistics, see Abegg in 68  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 35; see also Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 148. 69  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 508. 70  “It appears that authors of late books of the OT were attracted to the cohortative as an eminently archaic feature, but often used it wrongly as it was no longer an integral part of their language,” Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 375. 71  Rendsburg, “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P.’” 70, explains the absence of the pseudo-cohortative from Chronicles in this way: “First, there is a relative paucity of firstperson expressions in Chronicles.… Second … the paucity of the long imperfect in this book may be another instance of colloquial Hebrew exerting its influence on its author’s language.” 72  Van Peurson, Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 96; also, “The situation in Ben Sira conforms to that in LBH and QH: ‫ אקטלה‏‬is used in initial, ‫ אקט ‏ל‬in non-initial posi‑ tion” (ibid., 97).

42

Chapter 2

DJD XXXII 2:32 (Abegg, ibid., calls this a “LBH trend” and “LBH pattern”). See, for example, ‫ וׇ א ַֹמר‏‬MT; ‫ ואמרה‏‬1QIsaa (6:8, 11); ‫ ֶא ְפ ַּתח‏‬MT; ‫ אפתחה‏‬1QIsaa (41:18); ‫ ׇא ִׂשים‏‬MT; ‫ אשיםה‏‬1QIsaa (41:18); ‫ ֶא ֵּתן‏‬MT 1QIsab; ‫ אתנה‏‬1QIsaa (41:19); ‫ ׇא ִׂשים‏‬MT; ‫ אשימה‏‬1QIsaa (41:19); ‫ ֶא ְת ַא ׇּפק‏‬MT; ‫ אתאפקה‏‬1QIsaa (42:14); ‫ ֶאּׁשֹם‏‬MT 4QIsag; ‫אשמה‏‬ 1QIsaa (42:14); ‫ ַא ֲח ִרי ‏ב‬MT; ‫ אחריבה‏‬1QIsaa (42:15); ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇא ִׂשי ‏‬MT; ‫ אשימה‏‬1QIsaa (42:16); ‫ ֶא ְפ ַע ‏ל‬MT 4QIsab; ‫ה‬ ‫ אפעול ‏‬1QIsaa (43:13); and ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ יַ ְע ְר ֶכ ׇ ‏‬MT; ‫ה‬ ‫ ויעריכה ‏‬1QIsaa (44:7).73 There are occasions when the lengthened impf. with the attached hê is found at the beginning of clauses while the regular form (without the attached hê) is “used in non-initial positions.”74 Compare also 37:17, where 1QIsaa exhibits the prolonged or long impv. (‫ )ושמעה‏‬versus MT’s short impv. (‫ּוׁש ׇמע‏‬ ְ ). See 5:19 for an additional example where MT has a cohortative versus the impf. of 1QIsaa; cf. also Ruth 4:4. ‫— ִסיגׇ יִ ‏ְך‬Note also that K 150 (HUB–Isaiah) attests ‫ = סוגיך‏‬1QIsaa. For 1QIsaa’s ‫סו֯ גיך‏‬, see the comments in 1:22. 1:26 ‫ וְ ׇא ִׁש ׇיב ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ וא]שי ‏ב‬4QIsaf • ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT | ‫ יקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa | κληθήσῃ LXX ‫—יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT’s sg. verb ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר‏‬is grammatically linked to “the City of Righteousness, the Faithful City,” thus reading, “Afterward it will be called, the City of Righteousness, the Faithful City.” 1QIsaa wrote the pl. verb ‫יקראו‏‬, with judges and counselors as subjects. Or, a more likely proposal, the scribe of 1QIsaa intended ‫ יקראו‏‬to indicate a pl. indefinite, i.e., “Afterward they will call you, the City of Righteousness, the Faithful City.” Thus a conjugation substitu‑ tion took place: nipʿal > qal. With regard to impersonal constructions, Kutscher,75 supported by Muraoka76 and Qimron,77 makes it evident that 1QIsaa often replaces MT’s sg. passive verbs with active pl. forms. Qimron points out that “the verbal imper‑ sonal subject is expressed in the DSS in four major types,” but “the dominant construction in the DSS is the use of the third person plural.”78 For examples of √‫( קרא‏‬MT’s sg. passive verb versus 1QIsaa’s pl. active verb), see also 14:20; 35:8; 48:8; 58:12; 61:3; and 62:2, 4, 12. Mansoor points out that pl. and passive interchanges also exist in certain parallel passages of the biblical books (e.g., 73  See also Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 39; see also ibid., 326. 74  Qimron, “New Approach to the Use of Forms of the Imperfect without Personal Endings,” 178; see also the discussion in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 372–73. 75  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 401–3. 76  Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 200–1. 77  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 398–99. 78  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 398.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

43

Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles) as well as SP versus MT.79 Another example of a deviation of an impersonal construction is found in 14:3: MT ‫ ֻע ַּב ‏ד‬versus 1QIsaa 4QIsae ‫עבדו‏‬. But compare 53:5, where MT, 1QIsaa, and 1QIsab all attest ‫נרפא לנו‏‬. 1:27 ‫ וְ ׇׁש ֶב ׇיה‏‬MT 1QIsaa α′ σ′ | ‫ה‬ ‫ ]ו֯ שביה וש[ב]י֯ ‏‬4QIsaf | ἡ αἰχμαλωσία αὐτῆς LXX ‫—וְ ׇׁש ֶב ׇיה‏‬Either 4QIsaf experienced a dittography with its reading of ‫ה‬ ‫]ו֯ שבי ‏‬ ‫“( וְ ׇׁש ֶב ׇ‬and her converts and her captivity”).80 ‫וש[ב]י֯ ה‬, or the text reads ‫יה וְ ִׁש ְביׇ ה‏‬ A dittography is more likely, especially since two other Hebrew witnesses— MT and 1QIsaa—both attest a single ‫ושביה‏‬. LXX misreads the Hebrew and reads ‫“ ִׁש ְביׇ ה‏‬her captives” (ἡ αἰχμαλωσία αὐτῆς). 1:30 ‫ ַמיִ ם ֵאין‏‬MT 4QIsaf (‫ )מי֯ ֯ם[ אין]‏‬LXX Tg Syr | ‫מ‬ ‫ אין מי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַמיִ ם ֵאין‏‬These terms are syntactically variegated (or transposed) in MT ver‑ sus 1QIsaa. Both ‫( מים אין‏‬MT and 4QIsaf; see also Num 20:5) and ‫( אין מים‏‬1QIsaa; see also Exod 17:1; Num 21:5; Deut 8:15; Isa 50:2; Jer 38:6; Zech 9:11) exist in the Bible, although ‫ם‬ ‫ אין מי ‏‬is more common. Because of the multiple examples of such variations, Talmon has written that “the widely encountered textual phenomenon of inter-Version variations in the form of syntactical inversion cannot be judged to be merely an indication of ordinary scribal laxity.” Instead, Talmon sees many examples of such variations as “evidence for the existence of equally valid text-traditions which cannot be reduced to one common ar‑ chetype, and/or scribal manifestations of stylistic conventions.”81 For other ex‑ amples of syntactical variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 23:9; 36:12; 37:1, 7, 32–33; 43:3; 49:6, 25; 52:7; 55:13; 60:7; 61:7; 62:8; and 63:9, 17. For syntactical varia‑ tions between MT and 1QIsab, see 38:19; 52:13; and 62:8. And for an example of a syntactical variation between MT and 4QIsaf, see 8:7. 1:31

‫ ֶה ׇחסֹ‏ן‬MT 4QIsaf | ‫ם‬ ‫ החסנכ ‏‬1QIsaa Vulg ( fortitudo vestra) | ἡ ἰσχὺς αὐτῶν LXX • ‫ ּופ ֲֹעֹלו‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ופעלכ ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ αἱ ἐργασίαι αὐτῶν LXX ‫ ׇחסֹן‏(— ֶה ׇחסֹ‏ן‬, “strong,” HALOT, 338). The change of pronominal actants in

the greater context of MT (see esp. vv. 29–31) makes interpretation of these 79  Mansoor, “Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts,” 42. 80  As proposed by Morrow, “Text of Isaiah at Qumran,” 16. 81  Talmon, “Textual Study of the Bible,” 370–71. See also Fassberg’s views of word order in Isaiah and other biblical texts in Fassberg, “Syntax of the Biblical Documents,” 97, 101.

44

Chapter 2

verses confusing and the determination of antecedents difficult. For example, in three verses, the reader experiences “they” (‫ יֵבׁשּו‏‬and ‫ ;) ׇּוב ֲער ‏ּו‬pl. “you” (‫ ֲח ַמ ְד ֶּתם‏‬, ‫וְ ַת ְח ְּפרּו‏‬, ‫ ְּב ַח ְר ֶּתם‏‬, and ‫ ;) ִת ְהיּו‏‬and “he/its” (‫)ּופ ֲֹעֹלו‏‬. Confusion is amplified by the fact that for the suffixless ‫( החסן‏‬in MT), 1QIsaa features a second m. pl. suffix; this second m. pl. suffix, for both ‫ם‬ ‫ החסנכ ‏‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ופעלכ ‏‬, incorrectly refers back to “transgressors and sinners” of v. 28. The retention of the article (grammatically out of the ordinary!) on ‫ החסנכם‏‬of 1QIsaa may be an indicator that the suffix is secondary for this particular word.82 But Wildberger reject’s 1QIsaa’s reading on a different basis, arguing that the scrolls (plus LXX and Vulg) are attempting “to smooth out the text, when compared with the MT.”83 I hold to Wildberger’s view on this matter. Cohen considers 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫ החסנכם … ופעלכ ‏‬to be contextually superior to MT’s, but without the article on ‫חסנכם‏‬, which he explains as a dittograph. Based on various comparable passages, he prefers to read √‫ חסן‏‬as “treasure” rather than the traditional translation of “the strong [one].” He consequently translates: “Your treasured things shall become as tow, and your fashioned works as a mere spark. The two shall burn together with none to quench.”84 It may also be significant that the second m. pl. pronominal suffixes attached to 1QIsaa’s reading link this verse to the qal pf. second m. pl. verbs in 1:29 (‫… בחרתם‏‬ ‫)חמדתם‬. Note also the Vulgate’s agreement (fortitudo vestra) with the reading of 1QIsaa; Penna has catalogued dozens of instances where the Vulgate equals a reading of 1QIsaa versus MT.85 ‫—ּופ ֲֹעֹלו‏‬See also discussion above, with regard to ‫ ֶה ׇחסֹ‏ן‬.

Isaiah 2

2:1

‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ירּוׁש ׇ ִל ‏‬ ‫ׇ‬ ִ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ וירושלי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at

1:1.

‫ירּוׁש ׇ ִלם‏‬ ‫ׇ‬ ִ‫—ו‬MT Isaiah attests Jerusalem forty-nine times, never with the yôd (‫ירוׁשלם‏‬, but note MT’s punctuation demonstrates ‫ם‬ ‫ירוׁשלי ‏‬, qere perpetuum). 82  See Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:11–12. 83  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 75. 84  See Cohen’s full argument, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 47–48. 85  Penna, “La Volgata e il Manoscritto 1QIs,” 389–95.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

45

Contrast this with 1QIsaa, where Jerusalem occurs in 1QIsaa fifty times, thirtyfour times with the yôd (‫ )ירושלים‏‬and sixteen times without. According to Kutscher, the spelling of Jerusalem with the yôd “point[s] to a later origin,” and this is “convincing proof that the Scroll reflects a ‘modernized’ version of Isaiah.”86 We note here that 1QIsaa attests ‫ ירושלים‏‬in 36:7, where MT lacks it (see the comments at 36:7). 2:2 ‫ נׇ ֹכון יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsaf (‫ )נכון י]היה‏‬σ′ θ′ Tg | ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה … נׇ ֹכו ‏ן‬Mic 4:1 | ‫ נכו ‏ן‬4QIsae LXX ‫ה‬ (ἐμφανὲς) Vulg • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֶה ׇה ִרי ‏‬MT 4QIsae Mic 4:1 LXX Tg | ‫ם‬ ‫ הרי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ וְ נִ ׇּׂש ‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ]‫‏ונשא ה[וא‬4QIsae Mic 4:1 • ‫ ֵא ׇלי ‏ו‬MT 4QIsae 4QIsaf Vulg | ‫עלוה‏י‬ 1QIsaa Mic 4:1 (‫ ) ׇע ׇליו‏‬LXX (ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ) Tg • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַהֹּגויִ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsae | ‫ם‬ ‫ ַע ִּמי ‏‬Mic 4:1 ‫—נׇ ֹכון יִ ְהיֶ ה‏‬The verb ‫ה‬ ‫ יהי ‏‬is found in MT, 1QIsaa, and 4QIsaf but is lacking in 4QIsae. Perhaps it dropped out of 4QIsae, initiated by the similar ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬, which is located at the beginning of the passage, or prompted by the Divine Name ‫יהוה‏‬, found three words later. Note the parallel passage in Mic 4:1, ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה … נׇ ֹכון‏‬.87 For LXX’s ἐμφανὲς, the Greek translator may have read ‫ נבון‏‬instead of ‫נכון‏‬.88 ‫— ֶה ׇה ִרים‏‬The variant of 1QIsaa (‫ )הרים‏‬may have originated by means of hap‑ lography or fusion; or the scribe desired the indefinite ‫ם‬ ‫ הרי ‏‬to correspond to ‫מגבעו ‏‬, which also lacks the article. MT’s ‫ ֶה ׇה ִרים‏‬agrees with the reading of ‫ת‬ 4QIsae and the parallel Mic 4:1. ‫— ֵא ׇלי ‏ו‬With the reading of ‫עלוהי‏‬, 1QIsaa attests two differences: the prepo‑ sition ‫ על‏‬versus ‫ א ‏ל‬and the scribe’s employment of the Aramaic third m. sg. ending “his.” This suffixal ending is also used by the scribe(s) of 1QIsaa on six‑ teen occasions (see Abegg in UF 2:41), including 10:12 (‫ ;)מעשֹוהי‏‬17:7 (‫;)עושוהי‏‬ 44:5 (‫ ;)ידוהי‏‬46:7 (‫ ;)ויניחוהי‏ ;יסבלוהי‏ ;וישאוהי‏‬48:15 (‫ ;) ̇דרכוהי‏‬53:4 (‫ ;)חשבנוהי‏‬54:16 (‫ ;)למעשֹוהי‏‬55:6 (‫ ;)קראוהי‏‬62:9 (‫ ;)ישתוהי‏ ;יאכולוהי‏ ;מאספֹוהי‏‬65:8 (‫תשחיתוהי‏‬ ̇ ); and 65:9 (‫)וירשוהי‏‬. In MT, this ending is found only in Ps 116:12 and in the books of Daniel and Ezra. For the form ‫עלוה‏י‬, see also Sokoloff and Fassberg.89 For the suffixal ending ‫ ‑הי‏‬as an Aramaic form, see Beegle and Ben-Hayyim.90

86  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 94; see also Kutscher’s discussion of ‫ ירושלים‏‬in Language and Linguistic Background, 106–7. 87  For the complexities involved with regard to the parallel texts of Mic 4:1–3 and MT/ Qumran Isa 2:2–4, see the findings of Williamson, “Isaiah, Micah, and Qumran,” 203–11. 88  See the discussion in Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 18. 89  Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 862. Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 14. 90  Beegle, “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll,” 27; Ben-Hayyim, Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language, 90–92.

46

Chapter 2

2:3 ‫ ַע ִּמי ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsae | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ֹּגויִ ‏‬Mic 4:2 • ‫ה‬ ‫ל־הר־יְ הוׇ ‏‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬MT 4QIsae (‫)אל הר [יהוה]‏‬ Mic 4:2 LXX Tg Syr Vulg | > 1QIsaa • ‫ ֶאל‏‬2 MT 1QIsaa Tg (‫ ואל‏ | )ל‏‬4QIsae LXX Tgmss Syr Vulg • ‫ וְ י ֵֹרנ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsae (MT Mic 4:2) LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ וירונ‏ו‬1QIsaa (LXX Mic 4:2) Vv. 2–3: ‫— ַע ִּמים … ַהֹּגויִ ם‏‬Three Hebrew Isaiah witnesses (MT, 1QIsaa, 4QIsae) order the words “peoples … nations,” but Mic 4:1–2 presents a variant arrange‑ ment, “nations … peoples.” The divergences of these synonymous words in two separate prophetic works may indicate two separate traditions or a common source that subsequently was altered in either of the prophetic works, Isaiah or Micah.91 ‫ל־הר־יְ הוׇ ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ַ ‫— ֶא‬This expression was omitted in 1QIsaa by means of haplogra‑ phy, triggered by the prepositions ‫ ֶאל … ֶא ‏ל‬. ‫—וְ י ֵֹרנּו‏‬MT, with the support of 4QIsae (MT Mic 4:2) LXX Tg Syr Vulg, has a sg. verb (via √‫“( )ירה‏‬to teach someone something,” HALOT, 436), versus the pl. ‫ וירונו‏‬of 1QIsaa (also via √‫)ירה‏‬. Brownlee posits that the reading of 1QIsaa was impacted by the Qumran community’s belief that “they [the priests] may teach us of His ways.” For this position, Brownlee draws support from 4QpIsaa 11:3–4 and 1QS ix, 7 (see Mic 4:2).92 However, I am persuaded by Kutscher, who postulates that the Qumran “scribe misplaced the wāw by mistake.”93 2:4 ‫ ַהֹּגויִ ם‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsae | ‫ ַע ִּמים‏‬Mic 4:3 • ‫ֹהוכ ַיח‏‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬MT 4QIsae LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫וה‏‬ ‫ ְל ַע ִּמי ‏‬MT LXX Syr Vulg | ‫‏בין לעמים‬1QIsaa (pm) ‫ם‬ ‫ם | לעמי ‏‬ ‫ ְלֹגויִ ‏‬Mic 4:3 ‫ והוכיח‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ • > MT Tg | ‫ת‬ ‫ א ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫יֹתות ֶיה ‏‬ ֵ ִ‫ וַ ֲחנ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫וחניתתם‬ ‫֯‏‬ 4QIsab • ‫א‬ ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ולו ‏‬ 1QIsaa LXX ‫ֹהוכ ַ ‏‬ ‫יח‬ ִ ְ‫(—ו‬via √‫יכח‏‬, “to mediate, maintain justice,” HALOT, 410). The odd ‫ה‬ ‫ו‏‬ ‫ והוכיח‬in 1QIsaa may be explained as follows: the scribe wrote the first two char‑ acters of ‫ח‬ ‫ והוכי ‏‬at the end of line 11 (col. II); then he perceived that writing the whole word would extend too far beyond the vertical ruling, so he inscribed ‫ והוכיח‏‬at the beginning of the next line (line 12). For three other examples of this phenomenon in 1QIsaa, see 8:2 (col. VII, lines 19–20), 49:2 (col. XL, line 29), and 49:11 (col. XLI, lines 10–11). See also Tov’s study.94 ‫— ְל ַע ִּמי ‏‬The pm of 1QIsaa (‫ )והוכיח בין‏‬represents a rare reading, attested once ‫ם‬ in the HB (Gen 31:37; cf. also Job 9:33); but the preposition has been deleted 91  See Talmon’s views in “Synonymous Readings,” 340. 92  Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 157n3. 93  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 286. 94  Tov, Scribal Practices, 107–8.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

47

and the lāmed added interlinearly, conforming to MT and the corresponding passage in Mic 4:3 (‫ֹהוכ ַיח ְלֹגויִ ם‏‬ ִ ְ‫)ו‬. Initially the copyist of 1QIsaa had written ‫בין‏‬, impacted by ‫ בין‏‬located three words earlier, an obvious error. With regard to the ordering of ‫ גוים‏‬and ‫עמים‏‬, Mic 4:3 deviates from MT and 1QIsaa by placing ‫עמים‏‬ first, followed by ‫גוים‏‬. ‫—את‏‬The particle ‫ת‬ ‫( א ‏‬not to be confused with the homonymous ‫ת‬ ‫ ֶא ‏‬/‫ֵאת‏‬ “with”), sometimes called the nota accusativi (“sign of the accusative”) or a “marker of emphasis,”95 is a minor variant. With regard to MT versus 1QIsaa, there exists approximately twenty deviations involving the particle ‫( את‏‬see 2:4 [here MT = Mic 4:3]; 8:6, 17; 14:4; 28:18; 36:16 [MT = 2 Kgs 18:31]; 37:11 [1QIsaa = 2 Kgs 19:11]; 38:8; 44:20; 48:20; 51:6, 13; 52:9, 15; 55:11; 62:8; 65:21; 66:4). Of these deviations, on seventeen occasions 1QIsaa features the mark of the accusative where MT lacks it.96 On a single occasion, MT and 1QIsaa both lack the par‑ ticle versus 4QIsac, which has it (see 25:1). 1QIsaa’s pluses of the nota accusativi versus MT, at least in some cases, may indicate a facilitation of the text.97 It is important to recall that the nota accusativi is employed less in BH poetry versus prose and narrative, although it is difficult to determine whether or not this factor has impacted 1QIsaa’s usage. ‫יֹתות ֶיה ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ ִ‫—וַ ֲחנ‬The matter here pertains to the long suffix ‑oteyhemah versus the short ending ‑otam following the f. pl. ending ‫ת‬ ‫‑ו ‏‬: ‫ם‬ ‫יֹתות ֶיה ‏‬ ֵ ִ‫ וַ ֲחנ‬MT 1QIsaa; ‫֯‏‬ ‫וחניתתם‬ 4QIsab (2:4).98 Compare also ‫ֹּלותם‏‬ ‫ ִּב ְמ ִס ׇ‬MT, ‫ במסלותיהמה‏‬1QIsaa (59:7); ‫ֹלות ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ְּב ַמ ְעּגְ ׇ‬MT, ‫ במעגלותיהמה‏‬1QIsaa (59:8); ‫ּומגּור ׇֹתם‏‬ ְ MT, ‫ ובמגורותיהםה‏‬1QIsaa, ‫ ‏ו]במגרתם‬1QIsab (66:4). Both endings are attested in SBH and LBH, but Wright demonstrates “that there is a gradual process in which the extended ending begins to replace the shorter ending…. Only in later books of the Bible does the extended form ‫ ‑ותיהם‏‬occur more frequently.”99 Hurvitz, too, observes, “Biblical literature as a whole exhibits faithfully the gradual substitution of ‑otam by ‑oteyhem. The process reflected in the Bible illustrates very clearly the 95  See Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 177. 96  “There is a slight tendency to find ‫ת‬ ‫ א ‏‬added in the Dead Sea Scrolls before determined objects, though there are also cases where ‫ת‬ ‫ א ‏‬is absent, as there are in Classical Hebrew,” Fassberg, “Syntax of the Biblical Documents,” 103. 97  Deist, Towards the Text of the Old Testament, 46. Goshen-Gottstein, “Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents,” 130, writes, “There is, perhaps, a slight ten‑ dency to add the nota accusativi ‫ את‏‬in cases in which the syntactic construction is not unambiguous.” And Wyngaarden, “Servant of Jehovah in Isaiah,” 20, reminds us that “in poetry, the ’eth, as the sign of the accusative may be omitted.” 98  For an analysis of pronominal suffixes in Qumran Hebrew, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 264–90; for specific notes on ‑oteyhemah versus ‑otam, see especially ibid., 286–88. 99  Wright, Linguistic Evidence, 27; see also Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 26.

48

Chapter 2

transitional period which LBH represents between the fading away of ‑otam in the Bible on the one hand, and the taking over of ‑oteyhem in the Mishnah on the other.”100 2:6 ‫ יַ ְׂש ִּפיק ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ יספק ‏ו‬4QIsab ‫—יַ ְׂש ִּפיקּו‏‬As presently vocalized, ‫ספק‏√ = ׂשפק‏√( יַ ְׂש ִּפיקּו‏‬, “to clap one’s hands,” HALOT, 1349) is paired with ‫“ מלא‏√( ׇמ ְלא‏ּו‬to fill”), an atypical combination. 1QIsaa supports the reading of MT. However, Driver101 (see also Ibn Ezra) sug‑ gests revocalizing ‫ יַ ְׂש ִּפיקּו‏‬to read a qal verb (“to suffice,” cf. 1 Kgs 20:10), thus pairing “to fill” with “to suffice.”102 Notwithstanding that 4QIsab’s verb (‫)יספקו‏‬ features a sibilant different than that of MT and 1QIsaa, the lack of the infixed yôd suggests a qal form. 2:7 ‫ ֵק ֶצה‏‬1 MT | ‫ ק ‏ץ‬1QIsaa | ἀριθμὸς LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ֵק ֶצ ‏‬2 MT 4QIsaa | ‫ ק ‏ץ‬1QIsaa 4QIsab ‫ ֵק ֶצ ‏‬1/‫ ֵק ֶצה‏‬2—Four Hebrew witnesses set forth either ‫ קצה‏‬or ‫—קץ‏‬MT and ‫ה‬ 4QIsaa attest ‫ ;קצה‏‬1QIsaa and 4QIsab have ‫קץ‏‬. Later Hebrew regularly uses the shorter form ‫( קץ‏‬see 2 Chr 8:1 ‫ קץ‏‬versus 1 Kgs 9:10 ‫ ;קצה‏‬SP Gen 8:3 ‫ קץ‏‬versus MT Gen 8:3 ‫ה‬ ‫קצ ‏‬, etc.). It is unknown why 1QIsaa utilizes the short form here but ‫ קצ ‏‬elsewhere in Isaiah. But compare the scribe’s use of ‫ מקצוי‏‬in 43:6; 48:20; ‫ה‬ 49:6; 62:11. 2:9b–10 ‫ּומ ֲה ַדר ּגְ אֹֹנו׃‏‬ ֵ ‫ל־ּת ׇּׂשא ׇל ֶהם׃ ֹּבוא ַבּצּור וְ ִה ׇּט ֵמן ֶּב ׇע ׇפר ִמ ְּפנֵ י ַּפ ַחד יְ הוׇ ה‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַא‬MT 4QIsaa 4QIsab LXXBO (+ ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν) Tg Syr Vulg | > 1QIsaa Many critics argue that these verses have a complex history of transmis‑ sion (see, for example, Cheyne, Procksch, Duhm, and Gray).103 With regard to the expression of v. 9b (‫ל־ּת ׇּׂשא ׇל ֶהם‏‬ ִ ‫)וְ ַא‬, Wildberger asserts that these words are secondary, perhaps the result of a marginal gloss that made its way into the text.104 Weingreen, too, sees this as a gloss that was “appended to the verse in 100  Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 26; compare and contrast Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 370; see the entire study, 351–71. 101  Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 37. 102  See Barr’s discussion, Comparative Philology, 233–33. 103  Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 80; Procksch, Jesaia I, 64–67; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 41; Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 55. 104  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 100. The words ‫ם‬ ‫ל־ּת ׇּׂשא ׇל ֶה ‏‬ ִ ‫“ וְ ַא‬may just be a marginal gloss, which was inserted into the text.” Notwithstanding the possibility of a gloss, Wildberger includes the words in his translation.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

49

the massoretic text with the intent of reinforcing the severity of the fate to be suffered by idolaters, in that God will not relent but will withhold forgiveness from them.”105 Moffat, followed by REB, sees 9b as secondary; both translations dropped the expression. To add to the complexity of the textual history of vv. 9–10, 1QIsaa lacks v. 9b and all of v. 10 (‫)וְ ַאל … גאנו‏‬. At first glance, one may surmise that a copyist inadvertently dropped this passage during the transmission of the text. But Pulikottil carefully argues that the scribe knowingly omitted the passage; “An accidental omission in the Isaiah scroll is also to be ruled out because the scribe seems to be aware of this omission and has made other changes to accommodate the omission.” Pulikottil then sets forth what he believes to be “conscious and deliberate changes made by the person responsible for the scroll,”106 which includes adding the wāw on ‫ ועינ‏י‬to make the transition from vv. 9a to 11 as smooth as possible.107 Ulrich argues that vv. 9b and 10 are later additions. He writes, in part, that “verses 9a and 11 are both concerned with the humbling of human pride and use similar diction, expressed in the third person. In contrast, vv. 9b and 10 are second-person negative and positive commands, which sit uneasily in the context. Moreover, the commands do not even fit well with each other.… Thus, vv. 9b and 10 seem to be two separate late insertions into the Isaiah text, pos‑ sibly in two moves.”108 Cohen prefers the reading of 1QIsaa, suggesting that the repetition of ‫ ושפל‏‬in vv. 12 and 17, plus the similar content of both verses, prompted an error in MT.109 Notwithstanding several carefully articulated arguments, vv. 9b–10 exist in three Hebrew witnesses (MT 4QIsaa 4QIsab) plus LXX Syr Vulg; 1QIsaa remains the sole witness that omits vss. 9b–10; the other witnesses, including two from Qumran (4QIsaa 4QIsab, although note that the texts of these copies of Isaiah are fragmented), include vv. 9b–10. And furthermore, the Greek text features a significant plus at the end of v. 10 (ὅταν ἀναστῇ θραῦσαι τὴν γῆν, “when he rises to crush the earth”), a plus that was evidently assimilated from v. 19. After 105  Weingreen, Introduction to the Critical Study, 89. 106  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 41. 107  Ibid., 41–42. 108  Ulrich, “Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” 291. Ulrich, “Biblical Views,” 30, 68, argues that there exists “isolated interpretive insertions by later scribes in the MT; they are not contained in the original 1QIsaa text from Qumran. Unlike scribal corrections to reinsert text that was accidentally missed during the copying process, these insertions are complete thoughts that learned scribes occasionally added into texts they were copy‑ ing.” Ulrich provides examples in 2:9b–10; 2:22; 40:6–8. 109  Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 48.

50

Chapter 2

carefully weighing the evidence, some critics maintain that 1QIsaa did indeed accidently drop this long passage while copying the text. Although the mecha‑ nism for dropping it is not immediately apparent, it is my considered view that the scribe or one dictating the text inadvertently omitted a full (horizontal) line of text from the Vorlage. Forty-five characters are missing from 1QIsaa, just slightly above the average of 43–44 characters per line for this column. It should also be noted that Childs maintains that 2:6–22 constitutes a lit‑ erary unit.110 As for the content of vv. 9b–10, these words serve as a climactic declaration to the expressions that precede them and should not be omitted. 2:9 ‫ וְ ַא ‏ל‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ול ‏‬4QIsaa 4QIsab Tg ‫(—וְ ַאל‏‬see also the entry immediately above). After conducting a lengthy study of the negative particles in DSS Hebrew, Qimron concludes, “Character‑ istic of DSS Hebrew is the use of the negative particle ‫ ַאל‏‬where ‫ לא‏‬might have been expected.”111 Because of Qimron’s conclusions, the deviation under dis‑ cussion (2:9) is puzzling, because two Qumran texts read ‫ לא‏‬versus MT’s ‫ ַאל‏‬. Is it possible that ‫ ולא‏‬versus ‫ ואל‏‬here is the result of metathesis of the ʾālep and lāmed in either the MT or Qumran textual traditions? 2:11 ‫ ֵעינֵ ‏י‬MT 4QIsab α′ σ′ θ′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ ועינ‏י‬1QIsaa | οἱ γὰρ ὀφθαλμοὶ LXX • ‫ ׇׁש ֵפ ‏ל‬MT LXX α′ σ′ θ′ | ‫ה‬ ‫ תשפלנ ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ימאכ‏ן‬Tg Vulg • ‫ח‬ ‫ וְ ַׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ ויש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇׁש ֵפ ‏ל‬For this verb, MT’s subject is man, but it is the eyes and not man that will be brought low (‫)עיני גבהות אדם שפל‏‬. If MT is in error, then this is a case of assimilation from 2:12, where ‫ וְ ׇׁש ֵפל‏‬is attested. Huesman112 suggests emending ‫ ׇׁש ֵפ ‏ל‬to read an inf. abs., a somewhat satisfactory solution, but the f. pl. verb of 1QIsaa (‫ )תשפלנה‏‬also sets forth an acceptable reading, so Wildberger and Roberts.113 ‫—וְ ַׁש ‏‬In MT, the qal pf. third m. sg. verb of line 1 of the bicolon (‫וְ ַׁשח‏‬, via ‫ח‬ √‫ׁשחח‏‬, “to cower, crouch,” HALOT, 1458) corresponds with the qal pf. third m. sg. verb (‫) ׇׁש ֵפל‏‬, “to be (become) humiliated, abased (of people)” (HALOT, 1631) of the second line. 1QIsaa’s verb, a qal impf. (‫)וישח‏‬, disturbs this parallelistic 110  See Childs, Isaiah, 33. 111  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 414; see also 413–20, plus Qimron’s footnotes. 112  Huesman, “Finite Uses of the Infinitive Absolute,” 287. 113  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 100; Roberts, First Isaiah, 38.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

51

harmony. This is likely a case of verbal form substitution: weQatal (MT) > weYiqtol (1QIsaa); or, less likely, the scroll’s scribe harmonized the reading from v. 9, where ‫ח‬ ‫ ויש ‏‬is found. See also a similar reading in 5:15. 2:12 ‫ וְ ַעל ׇּכל־נִ ׇּׂשא‏‬MT 4QIsab α′ σ′ θ′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫א‬ ‫ ונש ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐπὶ πάντα ὑψηλὸν καὶ μετέωρον LXX | et super omnem arrogantem Vulg ‫—וְ ַעל ׇּכל־נִ ׇּׂשא‏‬In MT, the expression ‫ ועל כ ‏ל‬is repeated nine times in vv. 12–16. 1QIsaa lacks the second occurrence of ‫ ועל כ ‏ל‬in this verse, which I maintain likely dropped out through haplography. The scribe retained, however, the wāw connector and attached it to ‫א‬ ‫נש ‏‬. LXX’s ἐπὶ πάντα ὑψηλὸν καὶ μετέωρον is a doublet.114 Note that ‫ כו ‏ל‬is lacking in 1QIsaa (versus MT) in the following pas‑ sages: 2:12; 11:9; 14:18; 21:16; 23:17; 56:6; also, ‫ כול‏‬is erased in 1QIsaa in 7:22, and ‫כול‏‬ is doubled in 1QIsaa 66:20. 2:18 ‫ יַ ֲחֹלף‏‬MT | ‫ יחלופ ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg ‫—יַ ֲחֹל ‏ף‬MT features a sg. (‫ )יַ ֲחֹלף‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s pl. verb (‫ ;)יחלופו‏‬note that a K manuscript (HUB–Isaiah) has ‫יחלפ ‏ו‬. If we accept MT’s reading as original, then the Lord is the subject: “and he will completely pass away (i.e., abolish) the idols.” If the Lord is indeed the subject, then one would expect a piʿel or hipʿil rather than a qal verb. If 1QIsaa’s pl. verb is primary, then idols is the subject: “and the idols will completely pass away.” Here the scroll “seems to be supe‑ rior, with the holem having been dropped from the MT through haplography to ‫ובאו‏‬.”115 Wildberger116 and other scholars,117 too, support the reading of the Qumran scroll. 2:20 ‫ ֹלו‏‬MT Tg(vid) Syr(vid) Vulg | ‫אצ]בעותי ‏ו‬ ֯ 1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ת‬ ‫ ַל ְחּפֹר ֵּפֹרו ‏‬MT Syr Vulg | ‫ לחפרפרי ‏‬1QIsaa | τοῖς ματαίοις LXX | φαρφαρωθ θ′ ‫ם‬

114  See also the study of Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:16–18. 115  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 7. For the complexities involved in the textual vari‑ ants belonging to 2:18–19, see Williamson “Productive Textual Error in Isaiah 2:18–19,” 377–88. 116  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 101. 117  Consult Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 33; Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” BASOR 113, 24; Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 48; Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 57; and Roberts, First Isaiah, 38–39.

52

Chapter 2

‫—ֹל ‏ו‬The lower-right-hand segment of column 2 of 1QIsaa, including portions of lines 22–29, is missing from the scroll. The visible characters of the first ex‑ tant word in line 28 are ‫ ; ֯בעותי ‏ו‬PQ have reconstructed, based on an estimation of the space available, the beginning of this line to read ‫אצ]בעותי‏ו‬ ֯ ‫( [עשו לו‬PQ 5). This reading deviates from MT’s ‫ל‏ו‬. It is difficult to determine which text— MT or 1QIsaa—is primary. A scribe of MT may have accidentally dropped out ‫אצבעותיו‏‬, because its wāw third m. sg. suffix was the same as the final character of the two previous words. According to Roberts, MT’s reading “is grammati‑ cally very awkward, since it introduces a pl. verb into a context in which the antecedent is singular and is resumed by a singular suffix.”118 Cohen argues the following point, “The MT reading in the third clause (‫) ֲא ֶׁשר ׇעׂשּו ֹלו ְל ִה ְׁש ַּת ֲחֹות‏‬ could, syntactically, only be understood in the present context as referring to the idols being made for man by someone else (cf., e.g., Ibn Ezra), which con‑ tradicts 2:8 (cf. 17:8). The real proof of the superiority of 1QIsaa in this case is Isa 31:7” [then Cohen cites 31:7].119 Or, one could also argue that the scroll’s reading is secondary and that a scribe borrowed from either 2:8 or 17:8, both of which attest the expression ‫עש ‏ו‬ ‫אצבעתיו‬. MT is likely primary, following Wildberger’s translation.120 ‫— ַל ְחּפֹר ֵּפֹרות‏‬The obscure ‫ ַל ְחּפֹר ֵּפֹרות‏‬is an “absolute” hapax legomenon. HALOT (341) lists ‫ה‬ ‫ חפרפר ‏‬as a “species of bat.” ‫ ַל ְחּפֹר ֵּפֹרות‏‬evidently originates via √‫“( חפר‏‬to dig”), an appropriate name for a mole, which is a small burrow‑ ing mammal. 1QIsaa deviates from MT’s reading with ‫ם‬ ‫לחפרפרי ‏‬, presented as a single word with a m. ending. K [HUB–Isaiah] also presents a single word (‫ )לחפרפרות‏‬but = MT. MT’s f. pl. coincides with the sg. ‫ה‬ ‫חפרפר ‏‬,‫‏‬which has a f. ending (see also BDB, 344). For another example of m. pl. versus f. pl: 28:22 ‫ֹמוס ֵר ֶיכ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ְ MT | ‫ מוסרותיכם‏‬1QIsaa. It is my view that the scroll’s scribe harmonized the ending of ‫‏לחפרפרים‬with the following word, ‫‏ולעטלפים‬. But cf. Cohen, who states that the 1QIsaa variant “is a classic example of a superior DSS variant.”121 NEB (409) prefers 1QIsaa. φαρφαρωθ (θ′) is a transliteration.122

2:22 Employing a quotation formula (‫)כאשר כתוב‏‬, the author of 1QS V 17 cites 2:22 without deviation from MT and 1QIsaa.

118  Roberts, First Isaiah, 39. 119  Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 49. 120  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 99. 121  Ibid., 49. 122  For a list of transliterations in LXX and θ′, see Tov, Greek and Hebrew Bible, 507–12.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



53

Isaiah 3

3:1 ‫ ֵמ ִסי ‏ר‬MT | ‫ מהסי ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵמ ִסי ‏ר‬With the infixed hê in this hipʿil (haphʿel?) ptc. (‫ מהסיר‏‬via √‫)סור‏‬, 1QIsaa exhibits either an archaism or an Aramaic influence.123 See also 1QIsaa’s ‫ מהניף‏‬in 19:16, ‫והוליכת‏י‬ ̇ in 42:16, and ‫ ואוכלת‏י‬in 49:26. 3:4 ‫ יִ ְמ ְׁשלּו‏‬MT | ‫ ימשול ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫מׁשל‏√(—יִ ְמ ְׁשל ‏ּו‬, “to rule,” HALOT, 647). 1QIsaa occasionally attests length‑ ened forms of independent and suffixed pronouns, imperfects (with or with‑ out object suffixes), imperatives, and cohortatives.124 The present example pertains to the qal imperfect o vowel yqṭwlw and tqṭwlw. Tov’s research reveals that the Qumran scribal practice includes “Qal imperfect o (w) yqṭwlw and (w) tqṭwlw (without suffixes) which serve in MT as pausal forms, but occur in these [Qumran] texts as free forms.”125 For example, 1QIsaa 3:4 attests the lengthened ‫ימשול ‏ו‬, versus MT Isaiah’s ‫יִ ְמ ְׁשלּו‏‬. Similar forms exists in 1:17; 1:29; 5:11; 10:3; 20:1; 33:1; 34:11; 37:14; 47:2; 54:4; 55:2; 60:12; and 64:4. According to Kutscher, these forms “are typical of the colloquial Hebrew of the Second Temple Period” and found in “good Mishnaic Hebrew manuscripts.”126 3:6

‫ ְּב ׇא ִחי ‏ו‬MT | ‫ באחיה ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ ֶד ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ ידי ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּב ׇא ִחיו‏‬The suffix ‫( ‑יה ‏ו‬e.g., ‫ )באחיה ‏ו‬is a feature of QH, used often in place of ‫( ‑י ‏ו‬e.g., ‫) ְּב ׇא ִחי ‏ו‬.127

123  See Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 23; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 24–25; and Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 16. After providing several examples of Aramaisms in 1QIsaa, Fassberg summarizes: “The sketch presented above leaves no doubt that the scribe of 1QIsaa was heavily influenced by Aramaic and that other scribes were also influenced, though the manuscripts they wrote or copied show less evidence of it,” 17. 124  For a brief discussion together with examples, see Muraoka, “Isaiah Scroll (iQIsaa).” 125  Tov, Scribal Practices, 338; see also 339; and consult Muraoka, “Isaiah Scroll (iQIsaa)”; Bur‑ rows, “Orthography, Morphology,” 206–7; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 326–27, 332–40; and Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 50–53. 126  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 40; see also ibid., 326–27, 332–40; and Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 50–53. 127  On this topic, consult Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 272–73.

54

Chapter 2

‫—יׇ ֶד ‏ָך‬It is unknown whether 1QIsaa’s ‫ ידיך‏‬constitutes an orthographic devia‑ tion or a minor textual variant. If the later, then Wildberger states that “your hands” “is hardly correct.”128

3:7 ‫ יִ ׇּׂש ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ויש ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִׂש ְמ ׇל ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שלמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִׂש ְמ ׇלה‏‬MT (‫ ִׂש ְמ ׇלה‏‬, “outer garment, cloak, mantle,” HALOT, 1337) and 1QIsaa (‫שלמה‏‬, “mantle, cloak,” HALOT, 1332) exhibit two different words for clothing. In the HB, ‫ה‬ ‫( ׂשמל ‏‬thirty-one times) is attested approximately twice as often as ‫ה‬ ‫( שלמ ‏‬sixteen times). Both carry the same meaning. Kutscher produces a body of evidence “that ‫ שמלה‏‬is the original form and ‫ שלמה‏‬of later vintage”; at some point through the transmission of the word, ‫ שלמה‏‬came about by means of metathesis.129 Based on the fact that the previous verse (3:6) is part of the same pericope and that verse attests ‫ שמלה‏‬for both MT and 1QIsaa, then ‫ה‬ ‫שלמ ‏‬ in 1QIsaa 3:7 signifies an error, an example of metathesis of the mêm and lāmed. Or, alternatively, the scribe’s Vorlage already contained ‫שלמה‏‬. Cf. also the vari‑ ant of ‫ ושמלתנ ‏ו‬and ‫ ושלמתנ ‏ו‬in 4:1. 3:8 ‫ נׇ ׇפל‏‬MT | ‫ נפלה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶאל‏‬MT LXX α′ σ′ | ‫ על‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵענֵ י‏‬MT | ‫ עיני‏‬1QIsaa α′ σ′| διότι νῦν ἐταπεινώθη LXX ‫—נׇ ׇפל‏‬According to Wildberger, the proper noun Judah, when referring syn‑ ecdochically to the extended tribe or clan, uses either f. sg. (Jer 3:8; 14:2; 23:6) or m. sg. (1 Kgs 5:5; Hos 8:14) verbs. It is difficult, therefore, to determine which variant is correct, MT (‫ )נׇ ׇפל‏‬or 1QIsaa (‫)נפלה‏‬. But note that the corresponding verb in the bicolon (with Jerusalem as the subject) is ‫( כשלה‏‬in both MT and 1QIsaa), which is a f. verb. ‫— ֵענֵ י‏‬MT’s reading may constitute a misspelling or defective spelling of ‫עיני‏‬ (“eyes of”); or ‫ ענ‏י‬reflects nothing more than an early stage of orthography. Scholars react to ‫ עני‏‬by emending the text to read ‫“( פנ ‏י‬face”) or ‫ם‬ ‫“( ע ‏‬people”).130 Compare also LXX, which (misreads the Hebrew?) with διότι νῦν ἐταπεινώθη, via √‫“( ענה‏‬to humiliate”).

128  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 124. 129  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 288. 130  See Watts’s investigation, Isaiah 1–33, 39–40; see also Mitchell, Isaiah. A Study of Chapters I–XII, 128.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

55

3:9 ‫ ַה ׇּכ ַר ‏‬MT | ‫ הכרות‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּכ ְסדֹם‏‬MT | ‫ כסודם‏‬1QIsaa | ὡς Σοδομων LXX • ‫ לֹא‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ ולוא‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫— ַה ׇּכ ַר ‏‬MT has a sg. noun (hapax legomenon via √‫ )נכר‏‬in const. form fol‑ ‫ת‬ lowed by a pl. noun with a pronominal suffix: “The look of their faces” (al‑ though the article attached to the const. form is unusual). Occasionally, DSS Hebrew pluralizes the nomen regens in construct phrases when the nomen rectum is in the plural,131 consequently 1QIsaa reads ‫הכרות פניהם‏‬. Or, a second theory: perhaps ‫ת‬ ‫ הכרו ‏‬features a rare ‑ut ending, somewhat after the order of ‫( ַא ְר ְמלּו ‏‬see 4QTanḥ 8–11, 6).132 Further, ‑ut signifies forms of Pa’el and Aphel, ‫ת‬ as per Dalman’s discussion.133 LXX’s ἡ αἰσχύνη reflects ‫ת‬ ‫ חפר ‏‬versus ‫ת‬ ‫הכר ‏‬, when the translator inadvertently read ḥêt for hê and pê for kāp.134 3:10

‫ ַצ ִּדי ‏‬MT LXX σ′ θ′ | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ לצדי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַצ ִּדי ‏‬1QIsaa deviates from MT with a superscripted lāmed that is attached ‫ק‬ to ‫ק‬ ‫( צדי ‏‬i.e., ‫ק‬ ‫)לצדי ‏‬, designed by a scribe to correspond to ‫ לרש ‏ע‬in v. 11, thus facilitating the text. 3:11

‫ יׇ ׇדי ‏ו‬MT LXX α′ | ‫ יד‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ יֵ ׇע ֶׂש ‏‬MT α′ | συμβήσεται LXX | ‫ ישו ‏ב‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֹּל‏ו‬MT | ‫ לו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫א‬ ‫—יׇ ׇדי ‏ו‬The variant here pertains to MT’s ‫“( יׇ ׇדי‏ו‬his hands”) versus 1QIsaa’s ‫יד‏ו‬.

The theory that the scroll is attempting to avoid an anthropomorphism135 can‑ not be maintained because “his hands” in this passage pertains to the hands of the wicked, not the Lord’s hands; rather, the deviation likely pertains to orthog‑ raphy. The distinction between the suffixes ‫ ‑ו‏‬and ‫ ‑יו‏‬became indistinct in DSS Hebrew, as pointed out by Qimron,136 so that 1QIsaa’s ‫ יד‏ו‬may read the plural, “his hands.” Cf. also the deviations between MT and 1QIsaa pertaining to forms of ‫ י ‏ד‬in the following passages: 5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; 10:4, 32; 11:15; 14:27; 34:15, 17; 49:2; and 56:2. ‫—יֵ ׇע ֶׂש ‏‬MT uses √‫ עׂשה‏‬with ‫“( גְ מּו ‏ל‬accomplishment,” HALOT, 196), reading ‫ה‬ “the accomplishment of his hands will be done (‫ )יֵ ׇע ֶׂשה‏‬to him.” ‫ גְ מּול‏‬is also used with √‫ עׂשה‏‬in Judg 9:16, but nowhere else in the HB are ‫ גְ מּול‏‬and ‫ עשה‏‬employed 131  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 406–7. 132  The ‑ut ending was suggested by Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 167. 133  Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästininsischen Aramäisch, 279–82. 134  Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 19. 135  See Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 8. 136  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70.

56

Chapter 2

together. 1QIsaa differs with the verb √‫שוב‏‬,137 e.g., “the accomplishment of his hand will return (‫ )ישוב‏‬to him.” ‫ גְ מּול‏‬is also collocated with √‫ שוב‏‬in Joel 4:4, 7; Obad 1:15; Ps 28:4; Prov 12:14, etc. Consider also that a single K manuscript reads ‫ישיב‏‬, and another K manuscript attests ‫( ישוב‏‬HUB–Isaiah). Both readings—MT and 1QIsaa—are, therefore, apposite, although one could argue that the scribe has facilitated the text by writing ‫ ישו ‏ב‬rather than ‫ה‬ ‫יעש ‏‬. Thus Kutscher writes, “The Scr.’s scribe emended his text to accord with the majority of instances.”138 ‫—ֹּל ‏ו‬The deviation between MT (‫“ ֹּלו‏‬to him”) and 1QIsaa (‫“ לוא‏‬to him”) is probably not a variant but an orthographic difference. Occasionally the scroll’s copyist wrote “to him” with an ʾālep (compare also ‫א‬ ‫א ;כ‏י = כי ‏‬ ‫)ב ‏ו = בו ‏‬. For other examples of ‫א‬ ‫“( לו ‏‬to him”), see 5:26; 9:2 (MTqere ‫ ;ל ‏ו‬MTket ‫א‬ ‫ ;)ל ‏‬31:8; 36:22; 44:7; 57:18 (bis in the scroll); and 59:16; 63:9. 3:12

‫ נֹגְ ׇׂשי ‏ו‬MT | ‫ נגשו‏‬1QIsaa | οἱ πράκτορες ὑμῶν LXX • ‫ ְמ ַא ְּׁש ֶרי ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ משריך‏‬1QIsaa • ‫וְ ֶד ֶרְך‏‬ MT LXX | ‫ ודרךי‏‬1QIsaa LXXC ‫— ְמ ַא ְּׁש ֶרי ‏ָך‬The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )משריך‏‬lacks the ʾālep, which attests to the

weakening of the gutturals. For an early important investigation of the weak‑ ening of laryngeals and pharyngeals in the Isaiah scroll, see Kutscher.139 ‫—וְ ֶד ֶרְך‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫ודרךי‏‬, the scribe first wrote ‫( ודר ‏ך‬with the final kāp) and then corrected the reading by adding the yôd (while leaving the final kāp). Tov catalogs a number of scribal corrections in 1QIsaa and other Qumran texts, where the scribe wrote a word with a final letter, realized he had made an error, and then corrected the reading by adding another letter to the word. Examples include ‫( בשם‏ן‬1:6), ‫ת‬ ‫( חכם ‏‬29:14), ‫ה‬ ‫( האדם ‏‬30:24), and ‫( לכרם ‏ל‬32:15).140 3:13 ‫ וְ ע ֵֹמ ‏ד‬MT LXX | ‫ עומ ‏ד‬1QIsaa 3:14 ‫ ַעֹּמו‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXXmss Tg Syr Vulg | ‫עם‏‬ ̇ 4QIsab LXX Tgms ‫— ַעֹּמ ‏ו‬MT and 1QIsaa read ‫“( עמ‏ו‬his people”), versus 4QIsab’s ‫ם‬ ‫“( ע ‏‬people”). Perhaps 4QIsab was impacted by the homoform ‫ם‬ ‫“( ע ‏‬with”) located two words earlier. 137  See Talmud Babylonian Kid 40a, which supports 1QIsaa. 138  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 290. 139  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 505–7. 140  For a comprehensive view of this phenomenon as well as additional examples, see Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint, 380–85; see especially tables 7 and 8, 382–85.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

57

3:15 ‫ ַמ ׇּל ֶכ ‏‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ַמה ׇּל ֶכ ‏‬MTqere LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ נְ ֻא ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ נוא ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—נְ ֻא ‏‬For MT’s ‫נְ ֻאם‏‬, 1QIsaa attests ‫ נואם‏‬and ‫( נואומ‏‬for this second form, see ‫ם‬ 37:34). Abegg offers the most likely view of 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫נוא ‏‬:‫“‏‬The weakened ʾālep often (30×) changes position with the following o or u vowel, acting then as a digraph rather than a consonant.”141 Instances of this phenomenon also in‑ clude the frequently attested ‫ מואד‏‬for MT’s ‫אד‏‬ ֹ ‫ ְמ‬. See also the brief discussion at 8:4 under the entry “‫ ְקרֹא‏‬.” ‫— ַמ ׇּל ֶכם‏‬According to Ibn Ezra, ‫ם‬ ‫ מלכ ‏‬is a compound form for ‫ם‬ ‫מה לכ ‏‬, and the dagesh in the lāmed compensates for the hê that was omitted. KRG (HUB– Isaiah) = ‫מה לכם‏‬. Cf. ‫ה‬ ‫ה = מז ‏‬ ‫מה ז ‏‬. 3:16 ‫ נְ טֹּוו ‏‬MTket | ‫ נְ טּוֹיות‏‬MTqere | ‫ נטי֯ ות‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ׇט ֹפף‏‬MT | ‫ וטופפ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּוב ַרגְ ֵל ֶיהם‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ וברגליהנה‏‬1QIsaa ‫—נְ טֹּוו ‏‬Both ‫ נְ טֹּוות‏‬and ‫ נטי֯ ות‏‬are spelled defectively, versus ‫נְ טּוֹיות‏‬. Cf. K 30 ‫ת‬ (HUB–Isaiah), ‫נטיות‏‬. ‫טפף‏√(—וְ ׇט ֹפף‏‬, “to mince along, trip along,” HALOT, 379). MT correctly reads two qal inf. absolutes in an idiomatic expression: ‫ ; ׇהֹלוְך וְ ׇטפֹף ֵּת ַל ְכנׇ ה‏‬1QIsaa pres‑ ents √‫ טפף‏‬as a qal ptc. (‫)וטופפ‏‬. ‫— ְּוב ַרגְ ֵל ֶיהם‏‬The variant here consists of a third m. pl. suffix (‫ ‑יהם‏‬MT) versus a third f. pl. suffix (‫ ‑יהנה‏‬1QIsaa). Rosenbloom assesses that the Qumran scroll “seems to be superior since it agrees with the other nouns in the verse and the gender of the verbs.”142 This view is supported by Burrows143 and Cohen.144 3:17 ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫]א ֯דנ֯ [י‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ אדונ‏י‬corrected to ‫( יהוה‏‬superscript) 1QIsaa | ὁ θεὸς LXX | κύριος LXXO | ‫ יו ‏י‬Tg • ‫ה‬ ‫ וַ יהוׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ ואדונ‏י‬1QIsaa | > LXXmss ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬Both MT and 4QIsab set forth ‫ ;אדנ‏י‬a scribe of 1QIsaa wrote ‫אדוני‏‬, de‑ leted it with cancellation dots, and then corrected it with a superscript ‫ה‬ ‫יהו ‏‬. Various studies have shown deviations of divine names among the texts and translations.145 In one recent study, Lust examines the divine titles ‫אדנ‏י‬, ‫האדו‏ן‬, 141  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 29. See also Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 102, 363. 142  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 9. 143  Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” BASOR 113, 24. 144  Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 49. 145  See especially the study of Nagel, “θεός and κύριος Terms in the Isaiah Text,” 173–91, who summarizes that “‘naming’ or making reference to the Hebrew deity was a complex mat‑ ter, at least from the 3rd century BCE onwards,” 178.

58

Chapter 2

and ‫ יהוה‏‬in several Isaianic passages (3:15, 18; 6:11; 7:14; 8:7; 9:7; 21:16; 24:1; 28:2, 16, 22; 30:15; 49:22; 52:4; 56:8; 61:1; 65:13, plus others) from a text-critical point of view. He surveys and carefully documents pluses, minuses, supralinear inser‑ tions, and cancellation dots in the Qumran Isaiah scrolls and then concludes, “Scribes and translators clearly distinguish between ‫ האדו ‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫יהו ‏‬, but not be‑ tween ‫ אדנ‏י‬and ‫ה‬ ‫יהו ‏‬. A comparison between MT and 1QIsaa demonstrates that at the time of the Qumran community, ‫ אדני‏‬and ‫ יהוה‏‬were interchangeable, whereas ‫ האדו‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬were not. The Septuagint confirms this.”146 3:18 ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT | ‫ יהוה‏‬corrected to ‫( אדוני‏‬superscript) 1QIsaa | κύριος LXX • ‫ ׇה ֲע ׇכ ִסים‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ העכיסימ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ַה ְּׁש ִב ִיסי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ והשבישי ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsab (‫)והשבשים‏‬ ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬A scribe of 1QIsaa cancelled ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬with cancellation dots and then wrote ‫ אדוני‏‬in superscript above it. See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. ‫ה‬ ‫“( עכס‏— ׇה ֲע ׇכ ִסים‏‬anklet [for women]” HALOT, 824) occurs twice in the Bible, here and again in Prov 7:22. Its meaning is largely indeterminate, and the con‑ text does little to assist in settling on a connotation. 1QIsaa’s infixed yôd re‑ mains a puzzle. Perhaps the scribe was impacted by rabbinic Hebrew, which sometimes added a yôd to segolate nouns when they became pluralized.147 Or the scribe may have been influenced by the yôd of the following word ‫והשבישים‏‬. Contrast ‫ הכעסים‏‬of K (HUB–Isaiah). ‫—וְ ַה ְּׁש ִב ִיסי ‏‬The two Qumran scrolls (1QIsaa ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ והשבישי ‏‬and 4QIsab ‫ם‬ ‫)והשבשי ‏‬ present the same word, but the sibilants differ from that of MT (‫וְ ַה ְּׁש ִב ִיסים‏‬, a hapax legomenon148). The interchange of sibilants in Hebrew texts, including the HB, nonbiblical Qumran texts, Bar Kokhba letters, Ben Sira, and other writ‑ ings, is both multifaceted and complicated. For a brief treatment of the sub‑ ject, see Qimron;149 see also the sibilant deviations at 37:30 and 57:5. 3:19 ‫ ַהּנְ ִטיֹפו ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ והנטפו ‏‬1QIsaa 146  Lust, “Divine Titles ‫ האדון‏‬and ‫אדני‏‬,” 148. But note Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” who argues that variants between ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדני‏‬or vice versa in the scroll are the result of an error of hearing (if this portion of the scroll was dictated). 147  For examples, see Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 379, plus n. 6. 148   H ALOT, 1393, identifies ‫ ׁשביס‏‬as a “woman’s headress” or “small sun disc, used as jewellery or alternatively as an amulet.” Zurro-Rodriguez, “Siete hápax en el libro de Isaías,” 525–35, examines Isaiah hapax legomena in Isa 3:18; 9:4; 22:15; 30:24; 32:4; 34:15; and 56:10. 149  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 28–30; see also Abegg’s examples of sibilant inter‑ changes in Qumran versus Biblical Hebrew, Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 327.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

59

3:20 ‫ ַה ְּפ ֵא ִרי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ והפארי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ַה ִּק ֻּׁש ִרי ‏‬MT 4QIsab LXX α′ σ′ Tg | ‫ם‬ ‫ וקשרי ‏‬1QIsaa θ′ ‫ ִּק ֻּׁש ִרים‏(—וְ ַה ִּק ֻּׁש ִרי ‏‬, “ribbons, breast-sashes,” HALOT, 1154). Vv. 18–23 of MT ‫ם‬ present a list of twenty-one items associated with the daughters of Zion, all of which are preceded by the definite article. 1QIsaa features twenty of the items (cf. v. 22), also preceded by the article, but with the exception of ‫ וקשרים‏‬in v. 20, which points to an oversight by the Qumran copyist. 3:21 ‫ ַה ַּט ׇּבֹעות‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫והט ֯ב ̇עו ‏‬ ֯ 1QIsaa 3:22

‫ ַה ַּמ ֲח ׇלֹצו ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ והמחלצו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ וְ ַה ִּמ ְט ׇּפֹחו ‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫טפ ̇ח ̇ת‏‬ ̇ ‫ֹוהמ‬ ̇ ) | > 1QIsaa ‫ ִמ ְט ַפ ַחת‏(—וְ ַה ִּמ ְט ׇּפֹחו ‏‬, “garment wrapped around the body, shawl,” HALOT, ‫ת‬ 574). The plus in MT and 4QIsab may indicate a dittogram, e.g., ‫והמעטפות‏‬ ‫ ;והמטפחות‬or more likely the minus in 1QIsaa was caused by haplography. 3:24 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT LXX | ‫ ויהי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ַת ַחת … וְ ַת ַחת … וְ ַת ַח ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫]ת … ותחות … ותחו ‏‬ [‫תח‬ ̇ 1QIsaa • ‫ ּב ֶֹׂשם‏‬MT | ‫מ‬ ‫ הבש ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬MT | > 1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ֹגור ‏‬ ‫ ֲח ׇ‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫הגור ‏‬ 1QIsaa • > MT LXX α′ σ′ | ‫ת‬ ‫ בש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ה … יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬In MT, √‫ היה‏‬opens v. 24 as a temporal modifier, here designat‑ ‫ה‬ ing a prophecy of what will happen, i.e., “and it will come to pass …” Subsequent to this modifier, ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה‏‬appears in a verbal sentence that has a conventional tense value: “there will be.” Thus MT reads, “And it will come to pass, instead of per‑ fume there will be rottenness …” In place of the verb construction of MT (‫וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬ ‫)… יִ ְהיֶ ה‬, 1QIsaa has the pl. verb ‫( ויהיו‏‬via √‫)היה‏‬, a pl. designed to embrace all of the adverbial clauses in the verse. This is another case of a verbal form substi‑ tution, which is a late development: weQatal > weYiqtol. Grammatically, both Hebrew witnesses are correct, although at least one text critic prefers MT.150 ‫—‏ ַת ַחת … וְ ַת ַחת … וְ ַת ַחת‬1QIsaa presents these prepositions as … ‫]ת‬ [‫תח‬ ̇ ‫‏‬ ‫ותחות … ותחות‬, which is the Aramaic spelling (with /o/ pronunciation) of “under, instead of.”151 Driver calls 1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫“ תחו ‏‬a sheer Aramaism.”152

150  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 9. 151  See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 1201. 152  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 20; see Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 579. For other examples of Aramaic prepositions in QH texts, see Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 14.

60

Chapter 2

Beyond Driver’s Aramaic approach to 1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫תחו ‏‬, another understanding may explain this deviation versus MT’s ‫ ַת ַחת‏‬. It has long been established that various deviations exist between the Babylonian and Tiberian traditions of vo‑ calization, including differences between quṭl, qaṭl, and qiṭl patterns. With the discovery of the Qumran texts, scholars have added to our understanding of these patterns. Kutscher,153 followed by Qimron154 and Reymond,155 classifies ‫ תחו ‏‬with a group of words in both biblical and nonbiblical Qumran texts that ‫ת‬ have the quṭl pattern, in contrast to MT words that follow other patterns (i.e., qaṭl, qiṭl). Examples of the quṭl pattern of 1QIsaa (versus other patterns in MT) include: ‫ ַת ַחת‏‬MT; ‫ת‬ ‫ ותחו ‏‬1QIsaa (3:24); ‫ ְל ַאט‏‬MT 4QIsaf; ‫ט‬ ‫ לאו ‏‬1QIsaa (8:6); ‫ִרּנׇ ה‏‬ MT; ‫ה‬ ‫ רונ ‏‬1QIsaa (14:7); ‫ ִמ ִּק ְב ְר ‏ָך‬MT; ‫ מקובר ‏ך‬1QIsaa (14:19); ‫ ְל ׇחיֵ ‏י‬MT; ‫ לוחי‏י‬1QIsaa (30:28); ‫ ִמּגֶ ֶפ ‏ן‬MT; ‫ מגופ ‏ן‬1QIsaa (34:4); ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 18:30; ‫ה‬ ‫ חוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa (36:15); ‫ ַמ ‏ר‬MT; ‫ מו ‏ר‬1QIsaa (38:15); ‫ ֶּב ֶר ‏ְך‬MT 4QIsab; ‫בי ֹר ‏ך‬/‫ בֹורך‏‬1QIsaa (45:23); ‫ ְׁש ִב‏י‬MT; ‫ ושובי‏‬1QIsaa (49:25); ‫ ְּב ֶרגַ ע‏‬MT 4QIsac (‫בר]ג ֯ע‏‬ ֯ ) 4QIsad; ‫ ברוגע‏‬1QIsaa (54:7); ‫ֶא ְק ׇּד ְח‏‬ MT; ‫ אוקדח‏‬1QIsaa (54:12); and ‫ם‬ ‫ ִּב ְר ַּכיִ ‏‬MT; ‫ם‬ ‫ בורכי ‏‬1QIsaa (66:12). ‫“(—ּב ֶֹׂשם‏‬balsam oil,” HALOT, 163). For MT’s ‫ּב ֶֹׂשם‏‬, 1QIsaa deviates with the addition of the definite article (‫)הבשמ‏‬, an obvious error because none of the nouns of this verse require the article. ‫ֹגור ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫“(— ֲח ׇ‬girdle,” HALOT, 290). Two causes may explain 1QIsaa’s error, where a copyist wrote a hê for a ḥêt (‫)הגורה‏‬: (a) a phonological error (according to Muraoka, ‫ הגורה‏‬is an example of a “weakening of the gutturals”),156 or (b) an error based on the graphic similarity of the two letters. Elsewhere 1QIsaa incor‑ rectly has a hê for a ḥêt: ‫ ִח ְׁש ִק‏י‬MT; ‫ השק‏י‬1QIsaa (21:4); ‫ת‬ ‫ ֲח ׇרֹבו ‏‬MT; ‫ת‬ ‫ הרבו ‏‬1QIsaa (21:15); ‫ נִ ְר ׇח ‏ב‬MT; ‫ נרה ‏ב‬1QIsaa (30:23); and ‫ ַמ ְח ׇׁש ‏ך‬MT; and ‫ם‬ ‫ מהשוכי ‏‬1QIsaa (42:16). See also the same error (hê for a ḥêt) in 4QIsae, namely, ‫ֹלח‏‬ ַ ‫ ַה ִּׁש‬MT; ‫ השולח‏‬1QIsaa; and ‫ֹלה‏‬ ̇ ‫ השי‬4QIsae (8:6).157 ‫—י ִֹפי‏‬1QIsaa reads ‫“( תחת יפי בשת‏‬instead of beauty, shame”), a deviation of MT’s ‫ ַת ַחת י ִֹפי‏‬. The entire verse is freighted with challenges, and the variant under discussion is no exception. In fact, textual critics are sharply divided on which Hebrew witness sets forth the primary reading. Burrows, for one, writes that the plus in the scroll “obviates the necessity of assuming a change of order in this stichos as well as the hapax legomenon ‫ כ ‏י‬meaning burning”158 (or, alter‑ natively, ‫ כ‏י‬denotes “branding,” HALOT, 470). 153  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 458, 477–78. 154  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 65. 155  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 170–72. 156  Muraoka, “Isaiah Scroll (iQIsaa),” 3. 157  For a discussion of the hê for ḥêt readings, see Tov, TCHB3, 231, 233; and Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 108–10. 158  Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 19.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

61

Cohen provides several reasons why 1QIsaa’s reading should be accepted. One such reason pertains to “The order [of MT] , which occurs four times in this verse, would be changed just in this last case to ,” but for the scroll, “not only is the regular order preserved, but this last clause (which serves as a general justification for the preceding four clauses) opens with the conjunction ‫‘ ִּכ‏י‬for.’” Furthermore, if ‫ כ‏י‬is considered to possess the meaning of “burn,” derived from ‫ ְּכוִ ּיׇ ה‏‬, then “this solution is semantically unacceptable” because “the terms ‫( ְּכוִ ּיׇ ה‏‬Exod 21:25) and ‫ה‬ ‫( ִמ ְכוׇ ‏‬Lev 13:24–28), both meaning ‘burn,’ are never used abstractly in BH as signifying something unattractive, but rather as referring to a physical injury or skin inflammation.”159 Watts,160 too, prefers the Qumran reading, but Barthélemy,161 Driver,162 Tur-Sinai, and others favor MT. Tur-Sinai, for example, writes concerning 1QIsaa’s plus of ‫ת‬ ‫בש ‏‬: “This should not be taken as the original text of the verse, but as an attempt to complete—unsatisfactorily—what has been understood as the beginning of another, incomplete sentence.”163 Tur-Sinai argues that the final words of v. 24 actually belong to v. 25, thus reading, “For the beauty of thy men shall fall by the sword and thy might in the war.”164 In my view, 1QIsaa’s plus of ‫ בשת‏‬is none other than an attempt to harmonize the final words of the passage with the four-part pattern—“instead of x, then y”—that exists in the same passage. But what about MT’s difficult reading? Barthélemy summarizes, “Les témoignages en faveur du texte consonnantique du *M sont assez solides et les témoignages divergents sont assez dispersés pour que l’on puisse opter pour la lectio difficilior offerte par le *M.”165 3:25

‫בּור ֵת ‏ְך‬ ‫ ּוגְ ׇ‬MT LXX | ‫ וגבורותי ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫בּור ֵת ‏ְך‬ ‫בּורה‏(—ּוגְ ׇ‬ ‫גְ ׇ‬, “strength,” HALOT, 172). The Isaiah scroll’s correction, as

set forth with the superscripted pl. ‫ות‬ ‫ ‏‬, may be to find agreement with the cor‑ responding pl. item (‫ )מתיך‏‬of the first stich; or, perhaps its correction was to place the reading in line with a different Vorlage. Another possibility—the au‑ thor’s (i.e., Isaiah’s) intent may have been a pl., but the Masoretes misvocalized the word so that it would read a singular. With this view in mind, note the 159  Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 50. 160  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 44. 161  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:26–29. 162  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25. 163   Tur-Sinai, “Contribution to the Understanding of Isaiah i–xii,” 164. 164  Ibid. 165  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:27.

62

Chapter 2

reading of K ‫( וגב(ו)תיך‏‬HUB–Isaiah; contrast also the fact that a single manu‑ script of K has ‫[ וגבורי ‏ך‬HUB–Isaiah]). Compare also the variant in 63:15, where MT is vocalized to read a pl. (‫ )ּוגְ בּור ֶֹתָך‏‬versus 1QIsaa, which seemingly reads the sg. (‫)וגבורתכה‏‬.

Isaiah 4

4:1

‫ וְ ֶה ֱחזִ יק ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ והחזיק ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ִׂש ְמ ׇל ֵתנ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ושלמתנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ שבע נשים‏—וְ ֶה ֱחזִ יק ‏ּו‬is the subject of the pl. verb ‫והחזיק‏ו‬. Either 1QIsaa errs with the third f. sg. verb ‫ה‬ ‫ והחזיק ‏‬or the ‫ה‬ ‫ ‑ ‏‬ending is an example of an Aramaic third fem. pl. suffix.166 Compare also 48:3 (MT ‫ יׇ ְצאּו‏‬versus 1QIsaa ‫ )יצאה‏‬and 48:15 (MT, 4QIsad ‫יח‬ ‫ וְ ִה ְצ ִל ַ ‏‬versus 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫ ;והצליח ‏‬contrast 4QIsac ‫ח‬ ‫)וא[צלי ‏‬. ‫—וְ ִׂש ְמ ׇל ֵתנּו‏‬For a discussion of the variant ‫( ושמלתנ ‏ו‬MT) and ‫( ושלמתנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa),

see 3:7. For Isa 4:1, several medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts (KRG + others) present ‫( ושמלתינ ‏ו‬HUB–Isaiah).

4:2 > MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ ויהוד ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵא ‏ל‬Against all witnesses, 1QIsaa has a plus of “and Judah” at the end of the verse. It is conceivable that the scroll’s scribe was impacted by 5:7, where both Israel and Judah are attested, or by 37:31, where ‫ה‬ ‫ פליטת בית יהוד ‏‬is some‑ what analogous with ‫ לפליטת ישראל‏‬of the present verse. It is also possible that the scribe was influenced (instinctively or reflexively?) by the common col‑ location of Israel and Judah in both historical narratives and prophetic texts of the Bible. In any case, 1QIsaa’s plus is likely secondary. Rubinstein sees a possible theological element to 1QIsaa’s plus, stating that it “is best explained by the supposition that it was intended to make it unequivocally clear that both the northern and the southern kingdoms are destined to enjoy the future predicted by the prophet.”167 MT’s reading (supported by LXX) is primary; as Wildberger summarizes, 1QIsaa “inserts, in addition, ‫ה‬ ‫( ויהוד ‏‬and Judah), which is unnecessary, since Judah is naturally included when Israel is mentioned.”168

166  See the argument of Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 191–92; and the dis‑ cussion in Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 16. 167  Rubinstein, “Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings,” 188. 168  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 162.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

63

4:3 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ויהי ‏‬1QIsaa 4:4 ‫ ׇּב ֵער‏‬MT LXX | ‫ סע ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇּב ֵע ‏ר‬The variant of 1QIsaa (‫וברוח סער‏‬, “and by the whirlwind”) has no con‑ textual significance in this passage; it is likely that a copyist slipped by writ‑ ing sāmek rather than bêt, an error that pertains to the graphic similarity of the two characters. Or he was impacted by the expression ‫ה‬ ‫“( רוח סער ‏‬whirl‑ wind” or “stormy wind”) in Ezek 1:4; 13:11, 13 and Pss 107:25; 148:8. For support of MT’s ‫בער‏‬, see also Jer 21:12, which also collocates the words ‫ משפט‏‬and √‫בער‏‬ in the context of the execution of judgment. The primary reading is thus ‫ׇּב ֵע ‏ר‬ (= MT LXX). 4:5 ‫ ׇּוב ׇרא‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ויבר ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἤξει LXX (via ‫א‬ ‫ה • )בו ‏‬ ‫ ׇליְ ׇל ‏‬MT LXX | ◦‫ לז ◦ ‏‬4QIsaa ‫— ׇּוב ׇר ‏‬In this passage, MT has the qal pf. verb ‫ ברא‏‬with the attached wāw, ‫א‬ and 1QIsaa presents the qal impf. ‫א‬ ‫יבר ‏‬, also with the wāw (another case of a verbal form substitution, which is a late development, weQatal > weYiqtol). The LXX translator attests √‫בוא‏‬, which reading is preferred by several critics, in‑ cluding Condamin, Cheyne, Duhm, and Marti.169 A number of scholars have argued that there is a diminished use of wāw-consecutive verbs in the Second Temple period. “The waw conversive started losing ground in LBH, and it disappeared entirely from MH.”170 Joüon and Muraoka refer to the demise of the forms wayyiqtol (inverted future) and w-qatalti (inverted perfect) and state that they “are not found in Mishnaic Hebrew.”171 Also, “The later [biblical] books show clear signs of a gradual

169  But note that a number of critics prefer LXX’s reading, including Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 28; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 53; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 82; and Marti, Buch Jesaja, 50. 170  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 75, see also 45; so too, Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 100–2; Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 395. Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 121, “One of the characteristic features of MH grammar, when compared with that of BH, is the abandonment of the ‘waw consecutive’, together with the collapse of the complex system of ‘consecutive tenses.’” See also Rendsburg, “Qumran Hebrew (With a Trial Cut [1QS]),” 226–27. And compare Van Peursen, Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 127–8, 141–3, who points out that the consecutive perfect and imperfect were used by Ben Sira. Most recently, consult Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 369–73. 171  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 395.

64

Chapter 2

collapse or deterioration of the classical tense system.”172 Kutscher studied the wāw consecutive system in MT Isaiah versus 1QIsaa and observed that “the waw consecutive virtually disappeared from Mishnaic Hebrew. The language of the Book of Chron. already reflects this development.”173 Kutscher then demonstrates the impact that MH has on 1QIsaa. Abegg examined wāw-consecutives in MT Isaiah versus 1QIsaa, providing statistics and examples of the scroll’s diminished use of wāw-consecutive verbs.174 He writes that 1QIsaa exhibits “a more significant degree of variation involving the waw-consecutive with the suffix conjugation. Of the approxi‑ mately 450 occurrences in [MT] of Isaiah, 1QIsaa reveals 40 deviations (9%).”175 ‫— ׇליְ ׇל ‏‬4QIsaa’s reading is obscured because of the leather’s damaged sur‑ ‫ה‬ face, but if the reading had been ‫ =( לילה‏‬MT), the lāmed’s second head would be perceptible. Skehan and Ulrich (DJD XV:10) propose the reconstruction ‫“( לזהר‏‬for brightness”), which certainly fits the verse’s context. 1QIsaa is not attested here, owing to a parablepsis (see the explanation of 4:5–6 in the next paragraph). 4:5–6

‫ל־ֹיומ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ׇ‬ ‫ל־ּכֹבוד ֻח ׇּפה׃ וְ ֻס ׇּכה ִּת ְהיֶ ה ְל ֵצ‬ ‫ל־ּכ ׇ‬ ‫ וְ ׇע ׇׁשן וְ נֹגַ ּה ֵאׁש ֶל ׇה ׇבה ׇליְ ׇלה ִּכי ַע ׇ‬MT 4QIsaa (‫ )[ ] ונגה אש להבה לז◦◦ כי על כל כבוד חפה וסוכה [תהיה] לצל יו֯ ֯מ ֯ם‬LXX | > 1QIsaa

Both Cheyne and Procksch176 conjecture that one or more portions of MT Isaiah 4:5–6 signify late additions or marginal glosses that made it into the text. But MT has the support of 4QIsaa and the versions. As for 1QIsaa’s minus, vv. 5b–6a dropped out of 1QIsaa through parablepsis, when the scribe’s eye went from ‫ יומם‏‬to ‫יומם‏‬. UF 2:90 write: “1QIsaa has simply lost through parablep‑ sis text correctly preserved in the MT and LXX traditions.”

Isaiah 5

5:1 ‫ ּנׇ א‏‬MT | > 1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ היה ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇהיׇ ה‏‬The 1QIsaa copyist(s) inconsistently presented the qal pf. third m. sg. verb of √‫היה‏‬. He generally recorded ‫ה‬ ‫הי ‏‬, but he also wrote ‫א‬ ‫( היה ‏‬5:1; 12:2; 15:6 172  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 405. 173  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 42. 174  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 37–38; see also Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 337–38; and Sáenz-Badillos, History of the Hebrew Language, 144. 175  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 38; for Abegg’s entire discussion on the wāw-consecutive verbs, see ibid., 37–38. 176  Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 82; and Procksch, Jesaia I, 83.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

65

[‫אהיא‏‬, an error?], and 16:2), ‫( והייה‏‬19:20), and ‫( והיאה‏‬65:10). See also the peculiar ‫( והגה‏‬44:15), which evidently is an error for ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬. See as well 11:10, where MT and 4QIsac attest ‫ה‬ ‫ והית ‏‬but 1QIsaa has ‫א‬ ‫והי ‏‬. 5:2 ‫ וַ יְ ַס ְּק ֵלהּו‏‬MT | ‫ ויסקולה ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ֶּיִב‏ן‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ויבנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ׂש‬ ‫ וַ ּיַ ַע ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ויעש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וַ יְ ַס ְּק ֵלה ‏ּו‬MT uses a piʿel verb (‫סקל‏√( )וַ יְ ַס ְּק ֵלהּו‏‬, “to clear of stones,” HALOT, 768), and 1QIsaa has the qal form (“to stone,” HALOT, 768). The piʿel best fits the context of the passage. ‫—וַ ֶּיִבן‏‬For a handful of wāw-consecutive impf. III-hê verbs, 1QIsaa has the plene form versus MT’s short form: ‫ וַ ֶּיִב‏ן‬MT; ‫א‬ ‫( ויבנ ‏‬note the ʾālep for the hê, an Aramaism177) 1QIsaa (5:2); ‫ׂש‬ ‫ וַ ּיַ ַע ‏‬MT; ‫ ויעשה‏‬1QIsaa (5:2); ‫ וַ ְּת ִהי‏‬MT; ‫ ותהיה‏‬1QIsaa (29:11); and ‫ וַ ְּת ִהי‏‬MT; ‫ה‬ ‫ ותהי ‏‬1QIsaa (29:13). 5:3

‫ֹיוׁש ‏‬ ‫ב‬ ֵ MT | ‫ יושב‏י‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ ִׁש ְפטּו־נׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שפוטונ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹיוׁשב‏‬ ֵ —In the synonymous parallelism of v. 3a, the sg. ‫ב‬ ‫ֹיוׁש ‏‬ ֵ (MT) corresponds well with ‫ש‬ ‫אי ‏‬. The pl. of 1QIsaa (‫ )יושבי‏‬lacks the same correspondence, thus

disrupting the poetic structure. It is possible that 1QIsaa’s extra yôd is the re‑ sult of dittography, e.g., ‫‏יושבי ירושלם‬. Note that MT, 1QIsaa, and Vulg sequence “inhabitant of Jerusalem and man of Judah” differently than LXX Syr, “man of Judah and inhabitant of Jerusalem.” ‫— ִׁש ְפטּו־נׇ ‏‬For this form of MT, the 1QIsaa copyist connected the particle ‫נא‏‬ ‫א‬ to the impv. that precedes it, thus reading ‫ה‬ ‫שפוטונ ‏‬. Elsewhere the copyist con‑ ventionally, but not consistently, attached this particle to imperatives (see also ‫ ויגידונ ‏‬19:12; ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ התערבונ ‏‬36:8; ‫א‬ ‫ דברנ ‏‬36:11; ‫א‬ ‫ זכורנ ‏‬38:3; ‫א‬ ‫ עמודינ ‏‬47:12; ‫ה‬ ‫ הבטנ ‏‬64:8). For the spelling of ‫ה‬ ‫ נ ‏‬versus ‫א‬ ‫נ ‏‬, see also 7:13. 5:4 ‫ ְל ַכ ְר ִמי‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ בכרמ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ׂש‬ ‫ וַ ּיַ ַע ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ ויש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְל ַכ ְר ִמי‏‬This minor variant, which pertains to the use of the preposition lāmed (MT) versus the preposition bêt (1QIsaa), is a textual harmonization. The scribe of 1QIsaa coordinated the preposition bêt to agree with correspond‑ ing forms in vv. 2 and 4, i.e., ‫בתוכו‏‬, ‫בו‏‬, and ‫בו‏‬. This alteration of the preposition may have been an unintentional reflex to bring the prepositions into agree‑ ment; or, as Wildberger judges the matter, the scribe misunderstood the full

177  Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 9, cites 1QIsaa’s ‫ ויבנא‏‬as an example of an orthographic Aramaism.

66

Chapter 2

meaning of the Song of the Vineyard.178 For other cases where MT and 1QIsaa supply different prepositions, see, for example, 10:24 and 66:2. ‫—וַ ּיַ ַע ‏‬MT’s ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש‏‬is based on √‫עשה‏‬, versus 1QIsaa’s ‫וישה‏‬. Wildberger holds ‫ׂש‬ that ‫ וישה‏‬is from √‫“( נשא‏‬bear,” “lift up”), based on Ezek 17:8 (but compare also Ezek 36:8), where ‫א‬ ‫ נש ‏‬is collocated with vine or fruit.179 His view remains a pos‑ sibility, especially since the 1QIsaa scribe spells √‫ נשא‏‬as ‫ה‬ ‫ ונש ‏‬in 11:12. It is more likely, however, that the scribe erred by omitting the unpronounced ʿayin, read‑ ing the unintelligible ‫ה‬ ‫ויש ‏‬. Another possibility (but less likely): MT’s ‫ׂש‬ ‫( וַ ּיַ ַע ‏‬if secondary) may have arisen because of the three attestations of √‫ עׂשה‏‬in the verse.180 See also the discussion of ‫ם‬ ‫ נספי ‏‬in 13:4, and cf. the loss of the ʿayin (v. MT) in 1QIsaa 28:15 and 48:14. 5:5 ‫ וְ ַע ׇּת ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ ואתה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹאוד ׇיעה‏‬ ‫ה‬ ִ MT | ‫ אודיע‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ע ֶֹׂשה‏‬MT | ‫ עושא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇה ֵסר‏‬MT | ‫ אסי ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ׂשּוּכֹת‏ו‬ ‫ ְמ ׇ‬MT | ‫מסוכת‏ו‬ ̇ 1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬1,2 MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ויהי ‏‬1,2 1QIsaa | ‫ויה‏י‬2 4QpIsab • ‫ ְל ׇב ֵער‏‬MT LXX (εἰς διαρπαγήν) | ‫ בער‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ִמ ְר ׇמס‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ למרמס אשר‏‬4QpIsab ‫—וְ ַע ׇּתה‏‬On three occasions, 1QIsaa reads ‫ ואתה‏‬versus MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫( וְ ַע ׇּת ‏‬5:5; 28:22; 64:7[8]). If the text was dictated to the 1QIsaa copyist, the homonymic vari‑ ant ‫ה‬ ‫ ואת ‏‬is easily explained. Most likely this is an instance of a guttural re‑ placement, ʿayin for ʾālep (‫ ַע ׇּתה‏‬became ‫ה‬ ‫)את ‏‬.181 For the present instance (5:5), it is possible that a copyist was influenced by the forms ‫( אתכמה את‏‬thus, ‫ )ואתה … אתכמה את‬located three words away. Another possibility: the copyist was impacted by the multiple ʾāleps that begin the opening words of the verse (‫ )ואתה אודיע נא אתכמה אשר עושא‏‬and consequently wrote ‫ה‬ ‫ואת ‏‬. In any case, 1QIsaa is in error.) ‫ֹאוד ׇיע ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ִ —MT utilizes the cohortative versus the first common sg. impf. of 1QIsaa (‫)אודיע‏‬. Compare the cohortative ‫ ׇא ִׁש ׇירה‏‬that opens the Song of the Vineyard, attested in both MT and 1QIsaa. ‫— ׇה ֵסר‏‬MT attests a hipʿil inf. abs. of √‫ סור‏‬that is set in the context of four different first common sg. forms in vv. 5–6, i.e., ‫ה‬ ‫ֹאוד ׇיע ‏‬ ִ ;‫ה‬ ‫ה ;וַ ֲא ִׁש ֵיתה ‏ּו ; ֲאנִ י ע ֶֹׂש ‏‬ ‫ ֲא ַצּוֶ ‏‬. In place of the inf. const., 1QIsaa reads a hipʿil impf. first common sg. (‫)אסיר‏‬, which Rosenbloom calls an “attractive” variant because it pairs up with other first common sg. forms.182 But contrast Høgenhaven, who writes that the Isaiah 178  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 176–77. 179  Ibid., 177. 180  See Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 24. 181  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 106. 182  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 11.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

67

scroll “is definitely a secondary simplification.”183 It is my judgment that the scroll’s scribe facilitated the reading with ‫ אסיר‏‬to match other first common sg. forms; but it is also possible that the scribe changed the reading because inf. absolutes had fallen out of use during his time period (but compare ‫ פר ‏ץ‬in the same verse). ‫ׂשּוּכֹת ‏ו‬ ‫ׂשּוכה‏(— ְמ ׇ‬ ‫ ְמ ׇ‬, “thorn-hedge,” HALOT, 640). For the reading of 1QIsaa, PQ transcribe ‫ ;משוכת‏ו‬UF 2:99 transcribe ‫מסוכת‏ו‬ ̇ and explain, “It appears that samek was written over sin, though the reverse is possible (‫ משוכתו‏‬MT).” A multitude of medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts (including 30 93 96 150 and KG, HUB–Isaiah) read ‫מס(ו)כת ‏ו‬. ‫וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬1,2—For MT’s two-fold ‫והיה‏‬, 1QIsaa reads ‫ ויהיה‏‬for both attestations. For MT’s second attestation of ‫ והיה‏‬in v. 5, 4QpIsab has a variant (‫ )ויהי‏‬that has an exegetical component to it. Brooke explains that “4QpIsab reads wyhy lmrms where MT has whyh lmrms and so implies a reading of Isaiah 5 in which the vineyard is already destroyed but the final judgment is yet to come; wclh šmyr (Isa 5:6aβ) is preserved in line 3 of the Qumran fragment, implying a future desolation. As with the tendency in the other commentaries the effect of this alteration is to portray the community as standing between an initial destruc‑ tion and a future judgment.”184 ‫— ְל ׇב ֵע ‏ר‬MT’s ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה ְל ׇב ֵער‏‬follows a pattern found in Num 24:22 (‫ )יִ ְהיֶ ה ְל ׇב ֵער‏‬and Isa 6:13 (‫)וְ ׇהיְ ׇתה ְל ׇב ֵער‏‬. The Isaiah scroll lacks the preposition lāmed, thus reading ‫ויהיה בער‏‬. ‫ ִמ ְר ׇמס‏(— ְל ִמ ְר ׇמ ‏‬, “trampling, overtrodden land,” HALOT, 637). The plus found ‫ס‬ in 4QpIsab (‫ )למרמס אשר‏‬may be a textual variant, but more likely ‫ אשר‏‬was added as a transitional pronoun by the author of the pesher.185 5:6 ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ולו ‏‬1 1QIsaa LXX ‫—לֹא‏‬The incomprehensible ‫ה‬ ‫( בת ‏‬MT and 1QIsaa), which precedes the nega‑ tive particle, is a hapax legomenon. Scholars generally attribute to it the mean‑ ing “wasteland” (“according to context, devestation, wasteland,” HALOT, 166; cf. Ibn Ezra, who compares ‫ בתה‏‬to ‫“[ הבתות‏‬waste places”] in 7:19). The context will not permit ‫ בתה‏‬to be vocalized as ‫ה‬ ‫ ַּב ׇּת ‏‬, having the meaning of “precipice, cliff” (HALOT, 166). However, the scroll’s ‫ בתה ולוא‏‬lends to the emendation of ‫( בתהו לוא‏‬moving the wāw from the negative particle to ‫ה‬ ‫)בת ‏‬, via ‫“ ּתֹה ‏ּו‬formless,

183  Høgenhaven, “First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran,” 22. 184  Brooke, “Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries,” 90. 185  For the connective usage of ‫ר‬ ‫אש ‏‬, see HALOT, 98.

68

Chapter 2

empty, chaos,” as suggested by Cohen.186 Such an understanding finds support from Deut 32:10; Ps 107:40; and Job 12:24, where ‫ ּתֹה ‏ּו‬is found together with the preposition bêt. 5:7 ‫ׁשּועי ‏ו‬ ‫ ַׁש ֲע ׇ‬MT | ‫ שעשוע ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ח‬ ‫ ִמ ְׂש ׇּפ ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ למשפ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ׁשּועי ‏ו‬ ‫— ַׁש ֲע ׇ‬The noun ‫ם‬ ‫“( ַׁש ֲע ֻׁש ִעי ‏‬desire, delight,” HALOT, 1619) occurs nine times in the Bible, always in the pl. (e.g., Jer 31:20; Ps 119:77, 174; Prov 8:30–31, etc.). The suffix ‫ ‑ ‏ו‬of 1QIsaa’s ‫ שעשוע ‏ו‬may also signify the plural in DSS Hebrew, as per Qimron’s observations; so, too, in DSS Hebrew ‫ ‑י ‏ו‬may signify the singular.187 ‫“(— ִמ ְׂש ׇּפח‏‬legal infringement” or “shedding of blood,” see HALOT, 641). Pulikottil views the attached lāmed of 1QIsaa (‫ )למשפח‏‬as possessing an em‑ phatic function: “Emphatic lamedh stands before a noun in a verbless clause (as in this case). The emphatic use of the lamedh is confirmed here by the function of ‫והנה‏‬.”188 There is another possible explanation for the attached lāmed. V. 7b features a well-known wordplay with alliteration: ‫וַ יְ ַקו ְל ִמ ְׁש ׇּפט וְ ִהּנֵ ה‏‬ ‫ ִמ ְׂש ׇּפח ִל ְצ ׇד ׇקה וְ ִהּנֵ ה ְצ ׇע ׇקה‬. 1QIsaa inadvertently added the superfluous preposi‑ tion lāmed to ‫משפח‏‬, likely an assimilation from the two prepositions in the wordplay. 5:8 ‫ ְּב ַביִ ת‏‬MT LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫בי ‏‬2 1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫הּוׁש ְב ֶּת ‏‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ וישת ‏‬1QIsaa | μὴ οἰκήσετε LXX ‫— ַביִ ת ְּב ַביִ ת‏‬The scroll’s omission of the preposition bêt on the second occur‑ rence of ‫ בית‏‬was caused by haplography. ‫הּוׁש ְב ֶּתם‏‬ ַ ְ‫—ו‬MT has a hopʿal pf. second m. pl. via √‫“( יׁשב‏‬you were made to dwell”). The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )וישתם‏‬is uncertain. It may feature √‫“( ׁשית‏‬to put, set”), or more likely, the scribe accidentally omitted the bêt in the verbal expression, ‫ם‬ ‫וישבת ‏‬, which would present the qal form; thus, this is another case of a verbal form substitution, which is a late phenomenon: hopʿal > qal. LXX provides οἰκήσετε, which is equal to the qal (‫ )וישבתם‏‬rather than MT’s hopʿal. See also √‫ יׁשב‏‬in 44:26. 5:10

‫ ֶא ׇח ‏‬MT | ‫ אח ‏ד‬1QIsaa ‫ת‬ ‫— ֶא ׇחת‏‬MT’s f. adjective (‫ ) ֶא ׇחת‏‬does not agree with the m. noun (‫ ַּבת‏‬, the liq‑

uid measurement “bath,” HALOT, 166) that it modifies. The reading of 1QIsaa

186  Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 51. 187  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70. 188  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 100.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

69

(‫ )אחד‏‬is grammatically correct.189 Compare Ezek 45:14, where bath is modified by the m. ‫ת‬ ‫ ֲע ֶׂש ֶר ‏‬. Perhaps an MT copyist momentarily lost his focus and read ‫בת‏‬ as daughter rather than bath. 5:11 ‫ ְמ ַא ֲח ֵרי‏‬MT 4QpIsab | ‫ מאחזי‏‬1QIsaa | Vulg (indet) • ‫ יַ ְד ִל ֵיקם‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ידלקם‏‬ 4QpIsab ‫— ְמ ַא ֲח ֵר ‏י‬Multiple theories exist that explain the two different readings, ‫אחר‏√( מאחר ‏י‬, “to delay, to hesitate,” HALOT, 34–35) and ‫אחז‏√( מאחזי‏‬, “to seize, to grasp,” HALOT, 31–32).190 The most likely theory is that the copyist of 1QIsaa erred with the graphically similar zayin for rêš. Note that MT, with the support of LXX and Syr, has the primary reading. Cf. also Prov 23:30, where √‫ אחר‏‬is col‑ located with wine (‫)יין‏‬. ‫דלק‏√(—יַ ְד ִל ֵיק ‏‬, “metaph. inflame [sbj. wine],” HALOT, 223). As Horgan ‫ם‬ points out, the author of 4QpIsab spelled ‫ם‬ ‫ ידלק ‏‬defectively, which means that ‫ ידלק ‏‬may equal the reading of MT and 1QIsaa (‫;)ידליקם‏‬191 or, 4QpIsab’s word ‫ם‬ may be a qal verb, versus the hipʿil of MT and 1QIsaa. In the Bible, √‫ דלק‏‬is at‑ tested in both the qal and the hipʿil. 5:12

‫ּת ‏ף‬ ֹ MT | ‫ ותו ‏ף‬4QpIsab • ‫ וׇ יַ יִ ‏ן‬MT | ‫ יי ‏ן‬4QpIsab • ‫ ּפ ַֹע ‏ל‬MT 4QpIsab | ‫ת‬ ‫ פעל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ִיַּביט ‏ּו‬ MT | ‫ הביטו‏‬1QIsaa 4QpIsab • ‫ּומ ֲע ֵׂשה‏‬ ַ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ומעשי‏‬4QpIsab • ‫ יׇ ׇדיו‏‬MT LXX Syr Vulg | ‫ ידו‏‬4QpIsab ‫ּת ‏ף‬ ֹ , ‫וׇ יַ יִ ן‏‬, ‫—יׇ ׇדיו‏‬1QIsaa’s reading for these three words is unknown because a

lacuna exists in the leather. ‫—ּפ ַֹע ‏ל‬Both ‫( ּפ ַֹע ‏ל‬m. sg. MT, 4QpIsab) and ‫ת‬ ‫( פעל ‏‬f. sg. 1QIsaa) are appropri‑ ate in the context, and both forms are used to describe the work of the Lord in other scriptural settings. The translational value is the same for both. However, ‫ פעלה‏‬was the common form used in both rabbinic and QH, which may explain its use in 1QIsaa. ‫— ִיַּביטּו‏‬The verbs ‫ =( ִיַּביטּו‏‬MT) and ‫ ׇראּו‏‬correspond in this parallelism. Both 1QIsaa and 4QpIsab read the pf. ‫הביט ‏ו‬. If this reading is secondary, it is possible that a scribe changed the first verb to align it with the second.

189   See the brief discussion in Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 190; and Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 53. 190  See the summary of views in Williamson, Isaiah 1–5, 357. 191  See Horgan, Pesharim, 91.

70

Chapter 2

5:13 ‫ּוכֹבוֹד ‏ו‬ ְ MT | ‫ וכבוד ‏י‬1QIsaa | ‫ וכבד ‏ו‬4QpIsab | καὶ πλῆθος ἐγενήθη LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ וַ ֲהֹמוֹנו ִצ ֵח ‏‬MT Vulg | ‫ והמנו צחי֯‏‬4QpIsab ‫—וַ ֲהֹמוֹנו ִצ ֵחה‏‬Both words belonging to 4QpIsab (‫ )והמנו צחי֯‏‬are probably or‑ thographic variants. ‫ והמנ‏ו‬was written defectively, and the yôd of ‫ צחי֯‏‬reflects the tsere-hê vowel of ‫ ִצ ֵחה‏‬.192 5:14 ‫ וְ ׇע ֵלז‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ עלי ‏ז | )ועל[ז‏‬4QpIsab ‫—וְ ׇע ֵל ‏ז‬Beyond the omission of the wāw in 4QpIsab, the pesher sets forth the common adjectival form ‫עליז‏‬, versus the rare form attested in MT and 1QIsaa (‫ ;)ועלז‏‬both words mean “exulting, triumphing” (HALOT, 832). 5:15

‫ וַ ּיִ ַּׁש ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ח‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ יש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וַ ּיִ ַּׁשח‏‬For the textual variant of √‫“( ׁשחח‏‬to be obliged to keep low, be obliged to cower,” HALOT, 1458) in the present verse, compare also √‫ ׁשחח‏‬in 2:9, 11, 17 and the textual variant of ‫( וְ ַׁשח‏‬MT) and ‫ח‬ ‫( ויש ‏‬1QIsaa) in 2:11. 5:17

‫ ְכ ׇב ִׂשי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ כבושי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְכ ׇב ִׂשים‏‬UF does not tender ‫ ְכ ׇב ִׂשים‏‬/‫ כבושים‏‬as a textual variant, but Kutscher puts forth a variant here—‫“( ְכ ׇב ִׂשים‏‬lambs” MT) versus ‫ם‬ ‫( כבושי ‏‬qal passive ptc., via √‫ כבש‏‬1QIsaa)—stating that LXX understood ‫ כבשים‏‬to mean “to subjugate,

enslave,” thus writing διηρπασμένοι. According to Kutscher, “It would seem that the copyist thought the word to be from the word ‘subjugate, enslave.’”193 However, √‫ כבש‏‬makes no sense in the passage unless the words and syntax are manipulated, as is found in LXX.194 5:18 ‫ ַה ׇּׁשוְ א‏‬MT | ‫ הש ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ַה ׇּׁשוְ א‏‬For MT’s ‫ ׇׁשוְ א‏( ַה ׇּׁשוְ א‏‬, “worthless, unrestrained,” HALOT, 1425), the scribe of 1QIsaa wrote ‫השי‏‬, which is probably a case of the quiescence of the ālep in the word-final position.195 Certainly he did not intend “the gift” (‫“ ַׁשי‏‬gift”; i.e., 18:7; Pss 68:30; 76:12), which has no appropriate connotation in the passage. 192  As suggested by Horgan, Pesherim, 92. 193  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 247. 194  See, also, the study of Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 139–40. 195  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 99–102.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

71

Furthermore, the scribe intended to write a wāw, but he accidentally copied a yôd on the leather. Perhaps this error came about when his eyes saw the yôd, which terminated the previous word (‫)בחבלי‏‬. Elsewhere in Isaiah, where MT has ‫שוא‏‬, the copyist wrote ‫( שו‏‬59:4) (another quiescence of the ālep), but note that in 1:13 and 30:28 the scroll equals MT with ‫א‬ ‫שו ‏‬. 5:19

‫יׁש ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ יׇ ִח ׇ‬MT | ‫[י]חישה‏‬ ̇ ֯‫ ו‬4QIsab Vulg | ‫ יחיש‏‬1QIsaa | ἐγγισάτω LXX • ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשהּו‏‬MT ‫י‬ 4QIsab | ‫ מעש הו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ִת ְק ַר ‏ב‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ותקרב ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsab | > LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ֹבוא ‏‬ ‫ וְ ׇת ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫א‬ ‫ ותב ‏‬4QIsab • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ נֵ ׇד ׇע ‏‬MT | ‫ ונד ‏ע‬1QIsaa ‫יׁש ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫חוׁש‏√(—יׇ ִח ׇ‬, “to hurry,” HALOT, 300). The Hebrew witnesses exhibit three forms; the lengthened impf. (‫יׁשה‏‬ ‫;)יׇ ִח ׇ‬196 the lengthened impf. with the attached wāw (‫[י]חישה‏‬ ̇ ֯‫ ;)ו‬and the regular impf. (‫)יחיש‏‬. For other examples of deviations

of lengthened versus regular impf. forms in the Isaiah scrolls and MT Isaiah, see 43:4; 44:19; 55:3; 57:18; and 63:5. Fassberg’s observation, “the increased use of the 1st person lengthened imperfect, particularly with the waw consecutive, is attested in Late Biblical Hebrew, and is the rule in Samaritan Hebrew,”197 also has application to third-person impf. forms.198 Fassberg’s claim is supported by the fact that multiple rabbinic texts that cite Isa 5:19 feature the form ‫ה‬ ‫ויחיש ‏‬ (HUB–Isaiah, apparatus 2). See also the discussion of lengthened forms in 1:25. ‫— ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ‏ּו‬The yôd in 1QIsaa’s ‫ מעשיה‏ו‬does not signify the plural; rather, it rep‑ resents a vowel letter, a characteristic of DSS Hebrew.199 ‫—וְ ִת ְק ַר ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsab present the lengthened imperfect of ‫ה‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ותקרב ‏‬, versus MT’s ‫וְ ִת ְק ַרב‏‬. Van der Kooij expresses that this lengthened form “may be due to influence of ‫ה‬ ‫תבוא ‏‬.”200 ‫—וְ נֵ ׇד ׇע ‏‬MT has the cohortative ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ נֵ ׇד ׇע ‏‬with the wāw conjunctive versus 1QIsaa’s impf. ‫ונדע‏‬, also with a wāw conjunctive. See also the discussion at 1:18. 5:23

‫ ׁש ַֹח ‏ד‬MT | ‫ שחו ‏ד‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַצ ִּד ִיקי ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ק‬ ‫ ַצ ִּדי ‏‬MTmss LXX Vulg ‫“(—ׁש ַֹחד‏‬bribe,” HALOT, 1457). In QH, words of the qutl pattern appear in three different ways: ‫קוטו ‏ל‬, ‫קטו ‏ל‬, and ‫;קוטל‏‬201 consequently, in this passage 196  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 138, identify three third-person length‑ ened imperfect forms in the HB: two in Isa 5:19 and one in Job 11:17. 197  Fassberg, “Syntax of the Biblical Documents,” 101. 198  See ibid., 97. 199  For additional examples as well as an analysis of the forms, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 66–71. 200  Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 144. 201  See Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 331–34.

72

Chapter 2

1QIsaa reads ‫ שחוד‏‬versus MT’s ‫ׁש ַֹחד‏‬. See also the deviations ‫ ַּבּׁש ַֹחד‏‬MT; ‫בשחוד‏‬ 1QIsaa (33:15) and ‫ ְבׁש ַֹח ‏ד‬MT; and ‫ בשוחו ‏ד‬1QIsaa (45:13). ‫— ַצ ִּד ִיקי ‏‬Based on LXX’s reading, Kissane (following Oort202) proposes that ‫ם‬ the text read the sg. ‫ק‬ ‫ צדי ‏‬rather than ‫ם‬ ‫צדיקי ‏‬.203 But Tov rightly points out that ‫“ ַצ ִּד ִיקי ‏‬actually represents a singular form (‘the righteous’) with the addition ‫ם‬ of an enclitic mem.”204 5:24 ‫ וַ ֲח ַׁשׁש ֶל ׇה ׇבה‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫להב ֯ה‏‬ ֯ ‫ת | )וחשש‬ ‫ ואש לוהב ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ συγκαυθήσεται ὑπὸ φλογὸς LXX | και θερμη φλογος α′ σ′ θ′ Vulg • ‫ת‬ ‫ ְצ ׇבֹאו ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | > 4QpIsab ‫“(—וַ ֲח ַׁשׁש‏‬dried grass, foliage,” HALOT, 363). The simplest explanation for understanding the deviation between MT 4QIsab and 1QIsaa is that the 1QIsaa scribe erred by writing ‫ש‬ ‫ אש וא ‏‬in place of ‫ש‬ ‫( אש וחש ‏‬MT, 4QIsab), thus creating a dittogram. It is also possible that the scribe did not know the rare ‫חשש‏‬, and he thus substituted ‫ש‬ ‫ א ‏‬in its place; for this view, see Kutscher.205 See also 33:11, where the scribe wrote ‫ה‬ ‫ חשש ‏‬for MT’s ‫ׁש‬ ‫חׁש ‏‬. ‫“(— ֶל ׇה ׇבה‏‬flame,” HALOT, 520). The f. sg. noun ‫ה‬ ‫ להב ‏‬is attested five times in Isaiah (4:5; 5:24; 10:17; 43:2; 47:14), but only here does the 1QIsaa copyist write it in such a curious manner with an infixed wāw (‫)לוהבת‏‬. Qimron states that ‫( לוהבת‏‬which should be pronounced lôbet) is an example of a mispronounced hê. Consult his grammar for additional examples in DSS Hebrew.206 It is doubt‑ ful that the scribe intended ‫ת‬ ‫ לוהב ‏‬to be read as a f. pl. because he regularly wrote such plurals with a full orthography, i.e., ‫ת‬ ‫לוהבו ‏‬. 5:25

‫ל־ּכ‏ן‬ ֵ ‫ ַע‬MT 1QIsaa σ′ θ′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ ע ‏ל‬4QIsab | καὶ LXX • ‫ יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa Tg Syr Vulg | ‫באות‬ ‫ יהוה ̇צ[ ‏‬4QIsab LXX Tgmss • ‫יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬1 MT 4QpIsab LXX | ‫ ידי ‏ו‬1QIsaa orth or var? | > Tg • ‫ וַ ְּת ִה ‏י‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ותהי ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsaf (‫ו]תהיה‏‬ ֯ )•‫ה‬ ‫ּסּוח ‏‬ ‫ ַּכ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ כסח ‏‬4QpIsab • ‫ חּוֹצו ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ החוצו ‏‬4QpIsab • ‫יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬2 MT LXX | ‫ ידי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ל־ּכן‏‬ ֵ ‫— ַע‬MT and 1QIsaa read “therefore.” 4QIsab errs with ‫ ;ע ‏ל‬perhaps a copy‑ ist inadvertently omitted ‫כ ‏ן‬, especially since ‫ ע ‏ל‬generally stands independently of ‫כ‏ן‬.

202  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 95. 203  Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:63. 204  Tov, TCHB3, 337. 205  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 221, 240. 206  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 105.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

73

‫—יְ הוׇ ‏‬MT and 1QIsaa set forth ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יהו ‏‬, but 4QIsab has ‫באות‬ ‫ ̇צ[באות‏( יהוה ̇צ[ ‏‬signi‑ fies an interlinear correction), an assimilation of ‫ יהוה צבאות‏‬from the previous verse. See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. ‫ּסּוח ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫סּוחה‏(— ַּכ ׇ‬ ‫ ׇ‬, “rubbish,” HALOT, 745). The deviation between MT and 1QIsaa (‫ )כסוחה‏‬versus that of the pesher (‫ )כסחה‏‬may signify a textual variant, as Strugnell has proposed; but more likely the deviation is an orthographic one (so Horgan).207 ‫‏יׇ ֹדו‬2 … ‫יׇ ֹדו‬1‫—‏‏‬For MT’s ‫יׇ ֹדו … יׇ ֹדו‏‬, 1QIsaa has ‫( ידיו … ידיו‏‬for the first attestation of ‫ יד‏ו‬in this v., a single K manuscript reads ‫ = ידי‏ו‬1QIsaa [HUB–Isaiah]). The refrain “and again his hand is stretched out” is repeated five times in Isaiah’s writings (5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; 10:4; cf. 14:27). In three of the five occurrences, 1QIsaa begins the refrain with the conjunction and (i.e., ‫ ;ובכול‏‬see 9:11, 20; 10:4); in all five of the occurrences, 1QIsaa features ‫ ידי‏ו‬versus MT’s ‫יד‏ו‬. Compare also the phrase in 14:27, “and his hand is stretched out.” At first glance, 1QIsaa’s infixed yôd (‫ )ידיו‏‬indicates a pl., “his hands”; but based on the evidence of QH gram‑ mar and multiple examples in the DSS, ‫ ‑יו‏‬sometimes signifies a singular form.208 This understanding may also apply to other Isaianic passages where 1QIsaa reads ‫( ידיו‏‬e.g., 9:11, 16, 20; 10:4, 32; 11:15; 14:27; 34:17; 49:2; 56:2, etc.). Reymond also cites other examples from Isaiah of the suffix ‫ ‑י ‏ו‬in 1QIsaa versus ‫ ‑ ‏ו‬in MT: ‫ נַ ְפֹׁש ‏ו‬MT | ‫ נפשיו‏‬1QIsaa (29:8); ‫ ְּבֹנו‏‬MT (see also 2 Kgs 19:37) | ‫ בניו‏‬1QIsaa (37:38); ‫ ְּברֹאֹׁשו‏‬MT | ‫ ברואשי ‏ו‬1QIsaa (59:17).209 5:27 ‫ ׇעיֵ ף‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ יע ‏ף‬1QIsaa | οὐ πεινάσουσιν οὐδὲ κοπιάσουσιν LXX • ‫ ֹּב‏ו‬MT | > 1QIsaa • ‫ לֹא‏‬MT | ‫ ולוא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ נִ ְפ ַּתח‏‬MT | ‫ נפתחה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ נְ ׇע ׇליו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫נעלו‏‬ 4QIsab θ′ Tg Vulg ‫“(— ׇעיֵ ‏ף‬tired, exhausted,” HALOT, 820). MT and 4QIsab attest the adjective ‫ ;עי ‏ף‬1QIsaa has ‫יׇ ֵעף‏( יעף‏‬, “weary,” HALOT, 421), also an adjective but less com‑ monly attested (cf. Isa 40:29; 50:4). 1QIsaa’s copyist may have read ‫ יע ‏ף‬on his Vorlage, or, perhaps he erred by means of metathesis. Cf. also 28:12 ‫( ֶל ׇעיֵ ף‏‬MT) and ‫( ליעוף‏‬1QIsaa). 207  Horgan, Pesherim, 93. 208  See Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70, where Qimron states that the “form ‫ ‑י‏ו‬for the singular is quite frequently found in 1QIsaa,” 270. Consult also Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 144–46. For a contrasting view, see van der Kooij, “Review of Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II,” 114, who writes, “I am not sure whether the yod-waw spelling in this and other cases should be read as sg. suffix. There are similar cases in MT (e.g., Deut 21:7; 1 Sam 4:15; Isa 59:12) where a fem. sg. is used in the collective sense.” 209  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 146.

74

Chapter 2

‫—נִ ְפ ַּת ‏‬MT utilizes the nipʿal third m. sg. verb (‫)נִ ְפ ַּתח‏‬, in agreement with ‫ח‬ the m. sg. subject ‫ ֵאֹזור‏‬. 1QIsaa’s nipʿal third f. sg. verb (‫ )נפתחה‏‬is grammatically challenging. 5:28 ‫ ַּכ ַּצר‏‬MT | ‫ כצו ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX (ὡς στερεὰ πέτρα) ‫— ַּכ ַּצ ‏ר‬HALOT (1052) revocalizes MT to read “‫ ַכצֹר‏‬, with 1QIsa ‫כצו ‏ר‬.” However, Qimron has shown that the forms qall, qill, and qull interchange in DSS Hebrew. Thus in the present verse, “1QIsaa has ‫ צו ‏ר‬against MT ‫ ַּצר‏‬.”210 Other examples in Isaiah include ‫( מור‏‬1QIsaa) versus ‫( ַמר‏‬MT, 38:15) and ‫( ַׁשד‏ = שד‏‬1QIsaa) versus ‫( ׁשֹד‏‬MT, 13:6; 16:4; 22:4, etc.). 5:29 ‫ וְ ׇׁש ַא ‏ג‬MTket | ‫ יִ ְׁש ַא‏ג‬MTqere MTmss 1QIsaa 4QpapIsap | καὶ παρέστηκαν LXX • ‫ ַּכ ְּכ ִפ ִירי ‏‬MT 4QpapIsap (‫ם | ) ֯כ ֯כ[פירים‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ וככפירי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ יִ נְ הֹ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ ינה ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇׁש ַא ‏ג‬The divergent readings of ‫( וׁשא ‏ג‬MTket) and ‫( ישא ‏ג‬MTqere) perhaps came about by means of confusion of the graphical set wāw/yôd. With its qal impf. third m. sg., 1QIsaa agrees with MTqere; furthermore, several medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts (e.g., Codex Karlsruhe, 93 96 150, and KG; HUB– Isaiah) read ‫ישא ‏ג‬. Based on the impf. verbs in v. 29b (‫וְ יִ נְ הֹם‏‬, ‫אחז‏‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ וְ י‬and ‫)וְ יַ ְפ ִליט‏‬, the primary reading may have been ‫וישאג‏‬, although other challenges exist in the text.211 5:30 ‫ וְ יִ נְ הֹ ‏‬MT 4QpapIsap LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ינה ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ט‬ ‫ וְ נִ ַּב ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ט‬ ‫ והבי ‏‬4QpapIsap ‫—וְ נִ ַּב ‏‬In the great majority of instances in the HB, √‫ נבט‏‬is inflected in the ‫ט‬ hipʿil (= 4QpapIsap) rather than the piʿel (= MT 1QIsaa). The 4QpapIsap copyist possibly utilized the hipʿil in this passage because of the rarity of the piʿel.

Isaiah 6

6:1

‫ ֻעּזִ יׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עוזי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וׇ ֶא ְר ֶא ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ארא ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ִּכ ֵּס ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ כסא ‏ֹו‬1QIsaa ‫— ִּכ ֵּסא‏‬Two spaces exist between ‫א‬ ‫ כס ‏‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ ר ‏‬on 1QIsaa’s leather; addition‑

ally, magnification reveals a remnant of ink after the ʾālep, indicating a possible

210  See the full discussion in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 321–22. 211  See the views of Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 223.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

75

erasure or a fading of a letter. UF 2:100 propose that 1QIsaa’s reading is ‫כסאֹו‏‬, and PQ propose )‫( כסא(ֹו ‏‬with the parentheses signifying a deletion). ‫— ֻעּזִ יׇ הּו‏‬During the Second Temple era, theophoric names customarily fea‑ tured shorter forms, as found with 1QIsaa’s spelling of ‫עוזיה‏‬. See the comments at 1:1. ‫—וׇ ֶא ְר ֶא ‏‬The wāw consecutive attached to the impf. is required in order to ‫ה‬ obtain a suitable reading of the verse. If the Vorlage of 1QIsaa had the fuller orthography of the name Uzziah (‫)עזיהו‏‬, then a scribe probably lost the wāw by means of haplography, i.e., ‫‏עזיהו ואראה‬. 6:2

‫ ִמ ַּמ ַע ‏ל‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ממעל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֵׁשׁש ְּכנׇ ַפיִ ם ֵׁשׁש ְּכנׇ ַפיִ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ שש כנפי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ַּמ ַעל‏‬A simple statistical count of the “directional” or “locative” hê in MT

Isaiah reveals a total of twenty-three versus forty-five times in 1QIsaa; but a simple count does not disclose the complexities involved with the locative hê throughout MT or the Qumran biblical texts.212 With regard to the adverbial particle ‫“( ַמ ַע ‏ל‬above, upward”) in Isaiah, 1QIsaa always employs the hê, which indicates the adverbial ending a, whereas MT generally lacks it: MT ‫; ִמ ַּמ ַעל‏‬ 1QIsaa ‫( ממעלה‏‬see 6:2; 14:13; 45:8 [MT 1QIsab]); however, compare MT 4QIsab ‫ ; ְל ׇמ ְע ׇל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫( מעל ‏‬37:31), where both use the locative hê. Only once do MT and 1QIsaa agree, where the reading is ‫ה‬ ‫( למעל ‏‬8:21). On the form ‫ ממעלה‏‬and other instances of the adverbial hê, consult Qimron’s grammar.213 Kutscher observes that rabbinic Hebrew uses only the form ‫ה‬ ‫מעל ‏‬.214 For the hê on the adverbial ‫מואדה‏‬, see the comments at 16:6. ‫— ֵׁשׁש ְּכנׇ ַפיִ ם ֵׁשׁש ְּכנׇ ַפיִ ם‏‬The copyist of 1QIsaa wrote down ‫ם‬ ‫ שש כנפי ‏‬and then skipped the second ‫ם‬ ‫שש כנפי ‏‬, an example of haplography. MT’s duplicated ‫ש‬ ‫ש ‏‬ ‫ כנפים‬is grammatically distributive, i.e., each. 6:3

‫ וְ ׇק ׇר ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫א‬ ‫ וקראי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬MT LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ׇקֹדוׁש ׇקֹדוׁש ׇקֹדו ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ש‬ ‫ קדוש קדו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇק ׇרא … וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬The context pertains to the seraphs, which were introduced in v. 2. The first deviation in v. 3 pertains to MT’s qal pf. third m. sg. (‫)וְ ׇק ׇרא‏‬ 212  See, for example, the evidence set forth in Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 374–94; see also Joosten, “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,” 357; the hê locale marks place and not direction, Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 278–80. The Qumran scrolls occasionally use the hê without a directional intent, Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 69. 213  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 362–68. 214  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 391.

76

Chapter 2

versus 1QIsaa’s qal ptc. m. pl. (‫)וקראים‏‬. The second deviation is the verb ‫וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬, which is found in MT but lacking in 1QIsaa. The phrase under discussion ac‑ cording to MT reads, “And one called to another, and said.” This reading stands in contrast to that of 1QIsaa: “They called to each other.” MT seems to presume two seraphs, but the scrolls refer to more than two. Watts215 prefers the scroll’s reading, but Wildberger provides a convincing argument for MT’s ‫א‬ ‫וְ ׇק ׇר ‏‬.216 ‫— ׇקֹדוׁש ׇקֹדוׁש ׇקֹדוׁש‏‬The trisagion of MT LXX (versus the 1QIsaa’s disagion) corresponds to other scriptural liturgical settings (e.g., Jer 7:4; 22:29; Ezek 21:32; Rev 4:8). And as Stuhlman points out, the trisagion exists in the Talmud (see Hulin 91b) and several Aggadic Midrashim, including “Genesis Rabbah 52, Exodus Rabbah 15, Leviticus Rabbah 2 and 24, Deuteronomy Rabbah 2, Song of Songs Zutah 1, and fifteen other cases. There is no source of twice ‫ש‬ ‫קדו ‏‬.”217 There are two chief possible understandings for the scroll’s double attes‑ tation of ‫קדוש‏‬: (a) The scribe twice wrote ‫קדוש‏‬, omitting the third‫‏‬via hap‑ lography. (b) Notwithstanding the evidence in these Jewish writings for the trisagion, Stuhlman leaves open the possibility that the scroll’s disagion was based on “another textual tradition” and that the original text sets forth only one ‫קדוש‏‬.218 However, considering the overwhelming evidence that supports MT’s trisagion, and also recalling the fact that the scroll contains multiple ex‑ amples of haplography, MT has the primary reading; 1QIsaa is in error. 6:4 ‫ֹּקורא‏‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הקור ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּמ ֵל ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ נמל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹּקור ‏‬ ‫א‬ ֵ ‫— ַה‬1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ הקור ‏‬shows the typical orthography of the Qumran tradi‑ tion, in which the hê replaces the ālep of lāmed-ālep words.219 Although the scribe generally wrote √‫( קרא‏‬MT), he occasionally employed √‫( קרה‏‬see also 6:4; 22:20; 42:6; 45:3; 46:11; 48:13; 51:2; 54:5; 56:7; 59:4; 64:6). ‫—יִ ׇּמ ֵלא‏‬The verse in MT begins with a wāw consecutive (‫ )וַ ּיׇ נֻ עּו‏‬and continues with the nipʿal impf. ‫יִ ׇּמ ֵלא‏‬. 1QIsaa, however, sets forth either the nipʿal pf. or ptc. ‫נמל ‏‬. Whether or not either MT or 1QIsaa changed the verb (consciously or in‑ ‫א‬ advertently) is not easy to know. According to Rubinstein, ‫ נמלא‏‬is an example of a simplified reading.220

215  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 68. 216  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 249. 217  Stuhlman, “Variant Text from the Isaiah Scroll,” 182. 218  Ibid., 183. 219  For this phenomenon, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 88. 220  Rubinstein, “Formal Agreement of Parallel Clauses,” 319.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

77

6:5 ‫ֹאוי־ל ‏י‬ ִ MT 4QIsaf | ‫ אי֯ ל ‏י‬1QIsaa | Ὦ τάλας ἐγώ LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ ְט ֵמ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ טמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹאוי־ל ‏י‬ ִ —With regard to 1QIsaa’s ‫“( אי ל‏י = אי֯ לי‏‬woe is me”), the interjection ‫ א‏י‬is a substitute for ‫או‏י‬. Compare the similar forms ‫“( וְ ִאיֹל‏ו‬woe to him”) and ‫י־ל ‏ְך‬ ‫“( ִא ׇ‬woe to you”) in Eccl 4:10 and 10:16; see also ‫ אילי‏‬in JT Shebiʿith IV 35b and the lexical entries of ‫ אי‏‬in Sokoloff.221 The scroll’s reading ֹ‫“ אי‏‬is due to the influence of the later usage,” writes Kutscher.222 Elsewhere in Isaiah (i.e., 3:9, 11; and 24:16) MT and 1QIsaa both attest ‫או ‏י‬. A second theory regarding 1QIsaa’s ‫אי֯ לי‏‬: this may signify a “mechanical haplographic mistake,”223 which is unlikely given the usage of ‫ איל ‏י‬in MH and Eccl. ‫— ְט ֵמ ‏‬In this verse the copyist of 1QIsaa wrote ‫( טמה‏‬yet another instance of ‫א‬ an interchange of the ālep with the hê); but note that the copyist inscribed ‫א‬ ‫טמ ‏‬ (= MT) five words later. 6:7 ‫ ְׂש ׇפ ֶתיָך‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX α′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ש]פתים‏‬ ֯ 4QIsaf • ‫אתָך‏‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַח ׇּט‬MT | ‫וחטאותיך‏‬ 1QIsaa LXX ‫את ‏ָך‬ ְ ‫—וְ ַח ׇּט‬V. 7b of MT comprises a chiastic structure with two third-person verbs and two sg. nouns, each with an attached second m. sg. pronominal suf‑ fix: ‫אתָך ְּת ֻכ ׇּפ ‏ר‬ ְ ‫“( וְ ׇסר ֲעֹונֶ ָך וְ ַח ׇּט‬and your iniquity is removed, and your sin atoned for”). 1QIsaa (apparently?) has a pl. noun ‫“( וחטאותי ‏ך‬and your sins”); perhaps the copyist inadvertently assimilated the pl. from ‫ ְׂש ׇפ ֶתי ‏ָך‬, a word that is located in the first bicolon of v. 7. 6:8

‫ וׇ א ַֹמ ‏ר‬MT 4QIsaf | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואמר ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫מר‬ ‫ או ֯‏‬4QIsaa ‫—וׇ א ַֹמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa attests the lengthened impf. ‫ה‬ ‫ ;ואמר ‏‬for a discussion and ex‑

amples of the lengthened impf. (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning, see 1:25. 6:9

‫וְ ַא ‏ל‬1,2 MT LXX | ‫וע ‏ל‬1,2 1QIsaa • ‫ ְּורא ‏ּו‬MT LXX | ‫ רא ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫וְ ַא ‏ל‬1,2—The interchanges of the prepositions ‫ ֶא ‏ל‬and ‫ ַע ‏ל‬in MT and 1QIsaa are as follows: MT has ‫ ַע ‏ל‬, and 1QIsaa has ‫( א ‏ל‬10:20; 14:2; 30:16; 31:1; 37:9; 56:6); 221  Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 109; see also Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 99. 222  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 99. See also Sáenz-Badillos, History of the Hebrew Language, 124. 223  Roberts, First Isaiah, 90.

78

Chapter 2

MT has ‫א ‏ל‬, and 1QIsaa has ‫( ע ‏ל‬6:9 [bis]; 17:8; 22:5, 11; 36:7, 12; 46:7).224 The cause for such interchanges is controversial—they may be errors connected with phonology (see Abegg in UF 2:29) or instances of graphic similarity; or, accord‑ ing to some scholars, the interchange between prepositions ‫ ַא ‏ל‬and ‫ ַע ‏ל‬signifies a manifestation of LBH.225 Joüon and Muraoka provide this viewpoint, “This confusion doubtless comes from copyists who spoke Aramaic (where ‫ על‏‬has all the meanings of the preposition ‫אל‏‬, which is extremely rare in Aramaic), and who perhaps pronounced ‫ ע‏‬as a very weak sound.”226 Or, less likely, the interchange of ‫אל‏‬/‫ על‏‬is common in the biblical scrolls, and this may be an ex‑ ample of such an interchange. With regard to variants in Isa 6:9–10, Brownlee, supported by Høgenhaven,227 sets forth an argument that the scroll’s scribe deliberately emended the text.228 ‫— ְּורא ‏ּו‬Based on the parallelistic structure of v. 9b, one should read ‫ ראו‏‬with‑ out the wāw conjunction (= 1QIsaa), because ‫ רא ‏ו‬corresponds with ‫—שמע ‏ו‬both are qal pl. imperatives, and both begin a line of the bicolon. Rosenbloom pro‑ poses that MT’s “reading may be the result of a dittography,”229 i.e., ‫תבינו ורא ‏ו‬. 6:10 ‫ ַה ְׁש ֵמן‏‬MT LXX σ′ | ‫מ‬ ‫ הש ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּוב ׇאזְ נׇ י ‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ )ובאוזניו‏‬Syr(vid) Vulg | ‫[וב]אזנ ‏ו‬ 4QIsaf Tgmss | καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν LXX σ′ | και τοις ωσιν αυτων LXXms Tgmss | ‫ּובאּודנְ הֹו‏ן‬ Tg • ‫ יִ ְׁש ׇמע‏‬MT 4QIsaf σ′ Syr(vid) Vulg | ‫ ישמעו‏‬1QIsaa LXX Tg Vulgmss • ‫ ְּול ׇבֹב ‏ו‬MT σ′ | ‫ בלבבו‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ובלבב ‏ו‬4QIsaf MTmss | καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ LXX | ‫ּובל ְיבהֹו‏ן‬ ִ Tg ‫— ַה ְׁש ֵמן‏‬Some critics approach the reading in 1QIsaa (‫השמ‏‬, a hipʿil verb via √‫“ ׁשמם‏‬to be devastated, be desolated, to be appalled,” HALOT, 1563) versus MT (‫הׁשמן‏‬, a hipʿil verb via √‫“ ׁשמן‏‬to make fat,” HALOT, 1566) as a vario lectio.230 Kutscher, for one, suggests that “the scribe found it difficult to understand the verb ‫ שמן‏‬in conjunction with ‫לב‏‬, whereas ‫שמם‏‬, which is found over 100 times, was more intelligible to him.”231 Evans (following Brownlee232) sees the scroll’s

224  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 217. 225  Hornkohl, “Biblical Hebrew: Periodization,” 322; Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 93; Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 127–31, too, investigates ‫ א ‏ל‬and ‫ על‏‬interchang‑ es in several LBH texts and concludes that ‫ ע ‏ל‬is more prominent (ibid., 127). See also Hurvitz, Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew, 22. 226  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 485. 227  Høgenhaven, “First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran,” 34n44. 228  Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 186. 229  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 13. 230  See, for example, Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 187–88; Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 13–14; Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 54–56. 231  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 292. 232  Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 186–87.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

79

reading as a “deliberate scribal alteration,”233 reading ‫ השמ‏‬as a hipʿil impv. from √‫“ שמם‏‬make appalled.” Thus Evans translates: “Make the heart of his people appalled (at evil).” Evans summarizes that “the effect of these variants [in Isa 6:9–10] is to redirect the entire thrust of the Isaianic passage. The passage no longer proclaims a word of judgment aimed at promoting and intensify‑ ing spiritual obduracy; rather, its purpose is to warn and aid the elect [i.e., the Qumran community] in protecting themselves from evil.”234 There is another possibility that explains the deviation in 1QIsaa; perhaps the copyist of 1QIsaa made a simple error by failing to copy the final nûn. It is a fact that the copyist occasionally utilized a medial mêm in the final position, but in the majority of cases he wrote a final mêm. ‫—יִ ְׁש ׇמ ‏‬V. 10 consists of a chiasmus that frames the following anatomical ‫ע‬ parts—heart, ears, eyes, eyes, ears, and heart, with a verb accompanying each of the six parts. The first three verbs are hipʿil imperatives, and the next three are qal imperfects. In MT, all six verbs are put forward as sg. verbs. However, a copyist of 1QIsaa made a mistake by writing one of the verbs as a pl. (‫)ישמעו‏‬. At some point during the transmission of the text of Isaiah, the original read ‫( ישמע ובלבבו‏‬see discussion immediately below), but a copyist created an error by means of a dittogram, ‫ישמעו ובלבב ‏ו‬. A subsequent copyist either omitted the wāw conjunction via haplography or corrected the manuscript according to another manuscript tradition. ‫ּול ׇבֹב ‏ו‬ ְ —The Hebrew witnesses provide three different readings: ‫ּול ׇבֹבו‏‬ ְ (MT), ‫( בלבבו‏‬1QIsaa), and ‫( ובלבבו‏‬4QIsaf). 4QIsaf’s reading, with both the conjunctive wāw and the preposition bêt, corresponds to the pattern of the other compa‑ rable elements in the chiastic structure, namely, ‫ בעיניו‏‬and ‫ובאזניו‏‬, thus “lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart.” The preposition bêt of 1QIsaa, too, correlates with the bêt of ‫ בעיני‏ו‬and ‫באזני ‏ו‬. These correspondences may indicate primary readings or, alternatively, a harmonization with the surrounding text. See also the discussion immedi‑ ately above. 6:11 ‫ וׇ א ַֹמ ‏ר‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואמר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬1QIsaa | κύριε LXX ‫—וׇ א ַֹמ ‏ר‬For a discussion of the lengthened impf. on the scroll (‫)ואמרה‏‬, with the attached hê (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning, see 1:25. 233  Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 55. 234  Ibid., 56. See also Evans, “Text of Isaiah 6:9–10,” 416. In this article, Evans examines sev‑ eral traditions (1QIsaa, LXX, Targum, Peshiṭta, Old Latin, and Vulgate) but concludes that 1QIsaa “represents the most unusual textual modification.”

80

Chapter 2

‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬For the textual variants ‫( ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT) and ‫( יהוה‏‬1QIsaa), see the discus‑ sion of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. 6:12

‫זּוב ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇה ֲע ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עזוב ‏‬1QIsaa ‫זּוב ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫— ׇה ֲע ׇ‬In the context of this verse, the qal passive ptc. ‫ה‬ ‫ עזוב ‏‬works well

with the definite article (MT) or without it (1QIsaa). The hê may have dropped out of the Qumran scroll via haplography (i.e., ‫)ורבה העזובה‏‬, or it was added to MT by means of a dittogram. 6:13

‫ ֲא ֶׁשר ְּב ַׁש ֶּל ֶכ ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ אשר משלכ ‏‬1QIsaa | ὅταν ἐκπέσῃ LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇּב ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ במ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ק ֶֹד ‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ הקוד ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫ ַׁש ֶּל ֶכת‏(— ְּב ַׁש ֶּל ֶכת … ׇּבם‏‬, “the felling of a tree, or its fallen state,” HALOT, 1530). For centuries, the expression ‫ּה‬ ‫ ְּב ַׁש ֶּל ֶכת ַמ ֶּצ ֶבת ׇּבם זֶ ַרע ק ֶֹדׁש ַמ ַּצ ְב ׇּת ‏‬has been a per‑

plexity for text critics. 1QIsaa’s three textual variants do not solve the problem but add to the perplexity.235 To confuse matters with regard to 1QIsaa and its reading, there is a space of two to three characters between ‫ במה‏‬and ‫ת‬ ‫מצב ‏‬. For the hapax legomenon ‫ת‬ ‫שלכ ‏‬, MT has a noun with an attached preposi‑ tion. 1QIsaa has a textual variant (‫)משלכת‏‬, a hopʿal ptc. (“is thrown”), or a hipʿil ptc. (“throws”), or the 1QIsaa scribe added the preposition ‫ מ ‏ן‬to ‫ת‬ ‫שלכ ‏‬. For MT’s ‫“( ׇּבם‏‬in them”), the scroll reads ‫במה‏‬, which signifies “in them” (see 11:6, which also attests ‫במה‏‬, “in them”), “high place,” or the interrogative “how.”236 Iwry argues that both variants of 1QIsaa (‫ משלכת‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ )במ ‏‬are preferred over MT’s reading, and he translates the final clause of the verse as, “When flung down [‫ ]משלכת‏‬from the sacred column of a high place [‫]במה‏‬.”237 Moreover, Iwry emends the relative ‫ אש ‏ר‬to ‫ה‬ ‫“( אשר ‏‬Asherah”) to fit the context of the verse that deals with such themes as terebinth, oak, sacred column, and high place.238 Driver, too, prefers 1QIsaa’s variant ‫ה‬ ‫ אשר משלכת מצבת במ ‏‬in place of MT’s ‫ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬ ‫ ; ְּב ַׁש ֶּל ֶכת ַמ ֶּצ ֶבת ׇּבם‬he notes that occasionally the relative pronoun is appropri‑ ate before a ptc. For the scroll’s ‫ת‬ ‫משלכ ‏‬, Driver prefers to read a hopʿal; and he understands ‫ במה‏‬to mean “high place.” Thus he translates the verse: “If there be but a tenth part (of its people) in it, it shall turn and be [i.e., instead of 235  For a summary of the problems associated with Isa 6:13b, see Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:41–44; Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 186–87; Evans, “1QIsaiaha and the Absence of Prophetic Critique,” 537–42; and van der Kooij, “Stump or Stalk,” 17–26. 236  Cf. also Judg 16:5–6; Sawyer, “Qumran Reading of Isaiah 6.13,” 112. 237  Iwry, “Massēbāh and Bāmāh,” 225–32. 238  Ibid., 232; see also Brownlee, “Text of Isaiah VI 13 in the Light of DSIa,” 296–98.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

81

surviving it shall be] for burning like an oak or a terebinth which is cast away from the site of a high place.”239 In spite of the arguments of Iwry and Driver, 1QIsaa’s textual variant does not solve the problem of understanding the sec‑ ond half of v. 13. For support of MT’s reading, Worschech concludes, “We do not find any compelling evidence in favor of departing from the MT.”240 ‫—ק ֶֹדׁש‏‬MT expresses “holy seed” without the article, versus 1QIsaa, which reads “the holy seed” (‫)זרע הקודש‏‬. Compare Ezra 9:2, which also includes the article, ‫ׁש‬ ‫זֶ ַרע ַהּק ֶֹד ‏‬, although in a different context. LXX lacks the expression ‫זֶ ַרע‏‬ ‫ק ֶֹדׁש ַמ ַּצ ְב ׇּתּה‬, lost via homoioteleuton (‫ )מצבת … מצבתה‏‬at some point in the his‑ tory of transmission. BHS proposes omitting this sentence. Evans writes that “the insertion of the article ‫ ה‏‬has the effect of calling attention to the question of who is the ‘holy seed’, a question which was very important to the Qumran sectaries.… It is clear that the Qumran community identified itself as ‘the holy seed.’”241 Brownlee makes a case for an alteration of the text by a Qumran copyist. He summarizes concerning the divergences in v. 13, “Singly each one of these errors can be explained as accidental, but when viewed collectively they impress one as a deliberate reshaping of the text.”242 But contrast this view with Ulrich, who discusses possible sectarian variants and then summarizes, “Of all the thousand-plus Isaiah variants, in my view none should be classified as sectarian.”243 V. 13 presents many difficulties that have generated much discussion among text critics. For all three Hebrew divergences in v. 13, Watts, following Iwry,244 accepts the scroll’s readings. Additionally, Watts accepts Iwry’s emendation of ‫“( אׁשר ‏‬Asherah”) for the relative pronoun ‫אש ‏ר‬. Thus Watts’s translation: “Like ‫ה‬ the terebinth or like the oak of an asherah, cast down, (becomes) a monument of a high place—the seed of the holy (will be) its monument.”245 Notwithstanding the judgments of multiple, esteemed scholars, 1QIsaa does not adequately solve the diverse challenges that belong to v. 13.

239  Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 38. 240  Worschech, “Problem of Is 6:13,” 126–38. 241  Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 57; see also Evans, “1QIsaiaha and the Absence of Prophetic Critique,” 542, which constituted Evans’s helpful summary regarding 1QIsaa 6:13. 242  Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 186. 243  Ulrich, “Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants,’” 183. 244  Iwry, “Massēbāh and Bāmāh,” 230. 245  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 70.

82

Chapter 2

Isaiah 7

7:1 ‫ ֻעּזִ יׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עוזי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְר ַמ ְליׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ רומלי ‏‬1QIsaa | LXX (Ρομελιου) (cf. vv. 4, 5, 9) • ‫ יׇ כֹ ‏ל‬MT | ‫ יכל ‏ו‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 16:5 LXX Syr Vulg ‫— ֻעּזִ יׇ הּו … ְר ַמ ְליׇ הּו‏‬During the Second Temple era, theophoric names custom‑ arily featured shorter forms, ‫ ‑יה‏‬versus ‫‑יהו‏‬. 1QIsaa generally employs the short‑ er form, including the two names in this verse, i.e., ‫ רומליה‏‬and ‫עוזיה‏‬. Note that in vv. 1, 5, and 9 the scroll has ‫רומליה‏‬, but it has ‫ה‬ ‫ רמלי ‏‬in v. 4. 2 Kgs 15:25, 27, 30, 32, 37; 16:1, 5; and 2 Chr 28:6 read ‫רמליה ‏ו‬, which equals MT’s reading in 7:1. With regard to the scroll’s use of wāw in ‫רומליה‏‬, Kutscher surmises, “It is possible that under the influence of the ‫מ‬ ‫ ‏‬the Shwa was pronounced ‘o’ and was indicated by a waw.”246 Compare also Beegle, who writes that “LXX are virtually unanimous in support of the reading Romeliou, thus verifying DSIa.”247 ‫—יׇ כֹ ‏ל‬Both MT’s sg. verb ‫ יׇ כֹ ‏ל‬and 1QIsaa’s pl. ‫ יכל‏ו‬are grammatically conven‑ tional. A compound subject may take either a sg. or pl. verb. 1QIsaa is supported by 2 Kgs 16:5; before the discovery of the scrolls, Oort emends the Hebrew text of 7:1 to read ‫יכל ‏ו‬.248 NAB (409) prefers 1QIsaa LXX. 7:2 ‫ ׇּדוִ ד‏‬MT | ‫ דוי ‏ד‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ׇבֹבו ְּול ַב ‏ב‬MT LXX | ‫ לב ‏ב‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ַע ‏ר‬MT | ‫ היע ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫רּוח‬ ‫ַ‏‬ MT | ‫ הרוח‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇּדוִ ‏ד‬The proper name David occurs in MT Isaiah ten times, always written defectively (‫) ׇּדוִ ד‏‬. In contrast, 1QIsaa sets forth David eleven times (see the plus in 38:6), always spelled plene (‫)דויד‏‬. Kutscher explains that the plene spelling of David signifies “a later origin” and that such an orthography is a “convincing proof that the Scroll reflects a ‘modernized’ version of Isaiah.”249 ‫— ְל ׇבֹבו ְּול ַב ‏‬1QIsaa omitted one occurrence of ‫ לב ‏ב‬because of haplography. ‫ב‬ ‫—יַ ַער … ַ ‏‬The definite article is found less frequently in poetry than prose, ‫רּוח‬ but here the copyist of 1QIsaa attaches the article to both ‫ יע ‏ר‬and ‫רוח‏‬, appar‑ ently attempting to simplify the text. 7:3

‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1. 246  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 118; see also ibid., 497–98; and Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 180–81. 247  Beegle, “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll,” 28. 248  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 95. 249  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 94.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

83

7:4 ‫ ַא ‏ל‬MT | ‫ וא ‏ל‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ם | ׇה ֲע ֵׁשנִ י ‏‬ ‫ העושני ‏‬1QIsaa • > MT | ‫ כ‏י‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ְר ַמ ְליׇ ה ‏ּו‬ MT | ‫ רמליה‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫— ׇה ֲע ֵׁשנִ י ‏‬The adjective ‫“( ׇע ֵׁש‏ן‬smoking,” HALOT, 896) occurs only twice in ‫ם‬ the Bible, here in 7:4 and again in Exod 20:18. With regards to 7:4, MT reads the adjective ‫אּודים ׇה ֲע ֵׁשנִ ים ׇה ֵא ֶּלה‏( ׇה ֲע ֵׁשנִ ים‏‬ ִ ‫ ׇה‬, “these smoking logs”) versus 1QIsaa’s qal ptc. ‫ם‬ ‫העושני ‏‬. >—For this minor variant, MT lacks the particle ‫כי‏‬, which is found in both 1QIsaa and LXX (γὰρ). Van der Vorm-Croughs suggests that LXX’s reading “may be based on a Hebrew parent text differing from the MT and agreeing with 1QIsaa.”250 ‫— ְר ַמ ְליׇ ה ‏ּו‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫רמליה‏‬, see 7:1. 7:5

‫ה | ְר ַמ ְליׇ ה ‏ּו‬ ‫ רומלי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְר ַמ ְליׇ הּו‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫רומליה‏‬, see 7:1.

7:8

‫ ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂש ‏‬1,2 MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫דרמש ‏‬1,2 1QIsaa ‫— ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂש ‏‬The spelling of Damascus with the inclusion of the rêš (i.e., ‫)דרמשק‏‬ ‫ק‬

appears seven times in 1QIsaa (7:8 bis; 8:4; 10:9; 17:1 bis; 17:3); this spelling signi‑ fies LBH orthography;251 or possibly ‫ דרמשק‏‬was impacted by Aramaic.252 In MT, ‫ק‬ ‫ דרמש ‏‬occurs only in the Chronicler’s writings (see 1 Chr 18:5–6; 2 Chr 16:2; 24:23; 28:5, 23). 1QapGen attests Damascus twice and also spells it with the rêš (1Q20 22:5, 10; cf. also 4Q266 3iii:20). But CD’s occurrences of the name equal that of MT (‫ ;דמשק‏‬other than the before-mentioned Chronicler’s writings), a possible indication that a different scribal school copied CD versus 1QapGen.253 Hurvitz uses ‫ דרמשק‏‬as a test case to provide evidence of an LBH form, citing synoptic passages (Samuel and Chronicles), Genesis Apocryphon compared with MT Genesis, and three examples from rabbinic sources (M. Yadaim IV, 3; Tos. Ter. VII, 13; and Gen. Rabba 44). Hurvitz also notes that extra-Biblical

250  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 486. 251  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 94; Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 133; Wright, Linguistic Evidence, 132–3, 141–2; and Sáenz-Badillos, History of the Hebrew Language, 117, 134. 252  Mansoor, “Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts,” 43–44, provides a useful study of ‫ק‬ ‫ דמש ‏‬versus ‫ ;דרמשק‏‬for an up-to-date investigation of these forms, see Hurvitz, Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew, 94–97; and also, Hurvitz, “Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew,” 197–99. 253  See also Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 133.

84

Chapter 2

texts from the SBH period “(Egyptian, Akkadian, Old Aramaic) know—like Standard Biblical Hebrew—only the form ‫ק‬ ‫דמש ‏‬.”254 7:9 ‫ ְר ַמ ְליׇ הּו‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ רומלי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵת ׇא ֵמנ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫תאמינ ‏ו‬2 1QIsaa ‫— ְר ַמ ְליׇ הּו‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫רומליה‏‬, see 7:1. ‫אמן‏√(— ֵת ׇא ֵמנ ‏ּו‬, “basic mng. to be firm, trustworthy, safe,” HALOT, 63). Note the wordplay in MT, ‫לֹא ַת ֲא ִמינּו ִּכי לֹא ֵת ׇא ֵמנ ‏ּו‬. For MT’s ‫ ֵת ׇא ֵמנ‏ּו‬, 1QIsaa has ‫תאמינו‏‬, thus reading ‫ תאמינ ‏ו‬twice (i.e., ‫)לוא תאמינו כיא לוא תאמינ ‏ו‬. According to Qimron, the yôd of ‫ תאמינו‏‬represents the plene spelling of the vowel e. For this particular example and others, see Qimron’s grammar.255 On another note, rather than read ‫ תאמנו‏‬as √‫אמן‏‬, LXX has συνῆτε via √‫ת(א)בינ ‏ו = בין‏‬. 7:13 ‫ נׇ א‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ נ ‏‬1QIsaa 7:14

‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬MT | ‫ יהוה‏‬1QIsaa | κύριος LXX • ‫ הּוא‏‬MT | ‫ הוה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ׇק ׇראת‏‬MT LXX | ‫וקרא‏‬ 1QIsaa LXXS • ‫ ִע ׇּמנּו ֵא ‏ל‬MT | ‫ עמנוא ‏ל‬1QIsaa MTmss LXX (Εμμανουηλ) α′ σ′ ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬For the text variants ‫( ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT) and ‫( יהוה‏‬1QIsaa), see the brief discus‑ sion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. ‫—הּוא‏‬Qimron explains the variant ‫א‬ ‫( הּו ‏‬MT) versus ‫ה‬ ‫( הו ‏‬1QIsaa) by writing,

“The weakening of the gutturals sometimes brings about a succession of two vowels, which may produce a glide: … the 3rd person independent personal pronouns, though pronounced with glide huwa, hiya, preserved the histori‑ cal spellings ‫הואה‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫היא ‏‬.” Qimron further clarifies that the phonetic spellings ‫ הו ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ הי ‏‬are attested only in 1QIsaa.256 See also the deviation between the independent personal pronouns ‫א‬ ‫הּו ‏‬/‫( ִהיא‏‬MT) and ‫ה‬ ‫( הי ‏‬1QIsaa) at 30:33 and 36:21. ‫—וְ ׇק ׇרא ‏‬Two theories may explain 1QIsaa’s reading: (a) With its tāw ending, ‫ת‬ MT’s ‫ וְ ׇק ׇראת‏‬is a rare form for a qal third f. sg. pf. (cf. Deut 31:29, ‫ת‬ ‫)וְ ׇק ׇרא ‏‬. Perhaps a scribe of 1QIsaa failed to comprehend this form and wrote ‫וקרא‏‬. (b) The di‑ vergent text of 1QIsaa (reading ‫א‬ ‫ וקר ‏‬as a puʿal third m. sg. pf.), “his name will be called Immanuel,” draws on a formulaic expression where name becomes 254  Hurvitz, “Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew,” 200; see also 197–99. And consult Hurvitz’s arguments in Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew, 17–8, 22, 25, 37. 255  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 70, 224. 256  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 26. More recently, Reymond has developed and fine-tuned a study of the weakening of the gutturals; see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 71–77.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

85

the subject of the clause (see also Gen 11:9; 19:22; Isa 9:5; etc.). The Immanuel prophecy (7:14–17) is the first of three passages located in the same proxim‑ ity of Isaiah that comprises a naming procedure; the other two are located in Isa 8:3–7 and 9:3–7. All three passages attested in the scroll include similar formulae—‫( וקרא שמו‏‬7:14), ‫( קרא שמו‏‬8:3, but here the verb is a qal impv.), and ‫( וקרא שמ ‏ו‬9:5, reading ‫א‬ ‫ וקר ‏‬as a qal pf. third m. sg.). With this in mind, when copying ‫ וקרא שמ ‏ו‬in 7:14, the scroll’s scribe most likely assimilated the reading from 9:5 or (less plausibly) 8:3. Another possibility exists for 1QIsaa. The referent of ‫א‬ ‫ וקר ‏‬may be the Lord, who is referenced at the beginning of the verse, i.e., it is the Lord who will name the virgin’s son (reading ‫ וקרא‏‬as a qal third m. sg. pf.). This understanding of the text, however, is doubtful because ‫ ׇה ַע ְל ׇמה‏‬, according to BH grammatical standards, is the preferred referent. ‫— ִע ׇּמנּו ֵאל‏‬See also ‫ ִע ׇּמנּו ֵא ‏ל‬versus ‫ עמנוא ‏ל‬at 8:8, 10. Multiple medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts read ‫ עמנוא ‏ל‬in Isa 7:14; 8:8, 10 (see the respective verses in HUB–Isaiah). 7:16 ‫ ֵּת ׇעזֵ ב‏‬MT | ‫ תעזו ‏ב‬corrected to ‫ תעזב‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵּת ׇעזֵ ‏‬The copyist of 1QIsaa wrote ‫תעז ‏ב‬, then added the superscript wāw ‫ב‬ (‫)תעזוב‏‬, then deleted the yôd. 7:17

‫ ִיׇבי ‏‬MT | ‫ ויביא‏‬1QIsaa LXX (ἀλλὰ ἐπάξει) | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ יבו ‏‬CD A 4QDb • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְל ִמֹּיו ‏‬M 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫מיו ‏‬

CD A ‫— ִיׇבי ‏‬1QIsaa and LXX begin the verse with the wāw conjunction, “but/and/ ‫א‬ however the Lord will bring upon you.” Watts prefers MT’s “direct statement,” “The Lord (LXX = God) will bring upon you.”257 Contrary to Watts, Wildberger translates the verse beginning with “however.”258 CD twice (CD 7:11; 14:1) cites 7:17 but provides a free rendering of the text. 7:18 ‫ֹבור ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ַל ְּד ׇ‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ולדבור ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹבורה‏‬ ‫—וְ ַל ְּד ׇ‬Driver writes that “there is constant confusion of ‫א‬ ‫ ‏‬and ‫ ”ה‏‬in 1QIsaa and provides several examples (7:18; 22:6; 36:5; 37:32, 36; 38:14; 52:12; 58:4; and 59:1, 17). Driver also notes the interchange of ‫א‬ ‫ ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ‏‬in the following nouns: MT ‫ה‬ ‫ש ‏‬, 1QIsaa ‫א‬ ‫ ;ש ‏‬MT ‫א‬ ‫גב ‏‬, 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫ ;גב ‏‬MT ‫א‬ ‫גמ ‏‬, 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫ ;גבו ‏‬MT ‫א‬ ‫כס ‏‬, 257  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 105. 258  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 287.

86

Chapter 2

1QIsaa ‫ ;כסה‏‬and MT ‫קיא‏‬, 1QIsaa ‫ ;קיה‏‬also he shows deviations of ‫ א‏‬and ‫“ ה‏‬in the weak verbs (‫בכא‏‬, ‫בנא‏‬, ‫לוא‏‬, ‫מנא‏‬, ‫נטא‏‬, ‫עׂשא‏‬, ‫רצא‏‬, ‫ׁשוא‏‬, ‫ברה‏‬, ‫חטה‏‬, ‫טמה‏‬, ‫מצה‏‬, ‫גׂשה‏‬, ‫סבה‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫פל ‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫ ;)קר ‏‬some recall the corresponding Aramaic verbs, and others are analogous variations.”259 7:19 ‫ֹללים‏‬ ִ ‫ ַהּנַ ֲה‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ הנהליולי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹללים‏‬ ִ ‫ ּנַ ֲהֹלל‏— ַהּנַ ֲה‬is a hapax legomenon with an obscure meaning (“drinking place, watering place,” “type of shrub, thorny bush,” see HALOT, 676). 1QIsaa’s form (‫ )הנהליולים‏‬does not add to our understanding regarding this word. 30 93 96 150 (pm) are vocalized to read ‫הנהללים‏‬ ֻ (HUB–Isaiah). 7:20 ‫ ֶא ‏‬2 MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ את ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ֶאת‏‬2—1QIsaa errs by creating a dittography, ‫אתה הזק‏ן‬. 7:22 ‫ ׇּכל‏‬MT LXX | ‫ כו ‏ל‬is erased in 1QIsaa 7:23 ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה‏‬1 MT 1QIsab LXXLC π′ | > 1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ׇמֹקום‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX(vid) | ‫המקום‏‬ 1QIsaa ‫יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬1—Scholars are divided on this reading. √‫ היה‏‬appears four times in this ‫ה‬ verse of MT (cf. also 1QIsab), once as ‫ והיה‏‬and three times as ‫ה‬ ‫יהי ‏‬. Perhaps this repetition of √‫ היה‏‬created a dittograph of ‫ה‬ ‫ יהי ‏‬in MT. Compare the similar ‫והיה‏‬ ‫ ביום ההוא יהיה‬in 2:2; Mic 4:1; Zech 14:13. 1QIsaa, omitting the first occurrence of ‫יהיה‏‬, “may be correct, because one of the two in MT seems redundant,” writes Roberts.260 Reider, too, considers 1QIsaa’s reading to be primary.261 For a con‑ trary view, see Rosenbloom, who favors MT.262 7:24 ‫ ַּב ִח ִּצים ַּוב ֶּק ֶׁשת‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ובקש ̇ת‏‬ ̇ ]‫ )[ בחצים‬α′ | ‫ בחצים ובקשתות‏‬1QIsaa | LXX μετὰ βέλους καὶ τοξεύματος ‫— ַּוב ֶּק ֶׁש ‏‬In the phrase ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ַּב ִח ִּצים ַּוב ֶּק ֶׁשת יׇֹבוא ׇׁש ׇּמ ‏‬, the verb ‫א‬ ‫ יבו ‏‬may be trans‑ lated impersonally, i.e., without an explicit subject, “one will come there with 259  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 18–19. 260  Roberts, First Isaiah, 125. 261  Reider, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” 66. 262  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 15.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

87

arrows and a bow.” The sg. verb ‫א‬ ‫ יבו ‏‬presupposes a sg. bow (MT) if we are cor‑ rect in assuming that an archer in antiquity possessed one bow only. 1QIsaa’s pl. bows is incorrect; perhaps the copyist was influenced by the pl. arrows and so he wrote bows rather than bow. 7:25 ‫ ׇׁש ִמיר‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ ̇ברזלשמי ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ שמיר‏— ̇ברזלשמיר‏‬in the context of this verse denotes “thorn bush” (“perhaps a general term for a thorn-bush,” HALOT, 1562); in the Second Temple period ‫ שמיר‏‬also meant “iron,”263 and a 1QIsaa scribe wrote ‫“( ברז ‏ל‬iron,” HALOT, 155) above ‫ שמיר‏‬to explain the meaning of ‫( שמיר‏‬but incorrectly). According to Tov, this is the only example of a gloss in the Isaiah scroll, other than “the possibil‑ ity that glosses have been added by scribes to the running text itself.”264 Tov also refers to a supralinear correction in the Isaiah scroll that he calls a “border case” gloss, located at 36:11.265 See also the commentary at 36:11. ‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬For this reading, a 1QIsaa copyist first wrote ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫תהי ‏‬, then erased the tāw and inserted the yôd supralinearly.

Isaiah 8

8:1

‫ ְל ַמ ֵהר ׇׁש ׇלל ׇחׁש ַּב ‏ז‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ מהר שלל חוש ב ‏ז‬4QIsae ‫— ְל ַמ ֵהר ׇׁש ׇלל ׇחׁש ַּבז‏‬4QIsae sets forth two deviations: it lacks the lāmed at‑ tached to ‫מהר‏‬, and it reads the weak form of ‫ חוש‏‬in place of ‫חש‏‬, a phenomenon that exists in several QH texts.266 It is doubtful that ‫ש‬ ‫ חו ‏‬designates an impv., as

per Roberts’s understanding.267 8:2

‫ וְ ׇא ִע ׇיד ‏‬MT 4QIsae Vulg | ‫ והעד‏‬1QIsaa LXX Syr • ‫אּורּיׇ ה‏‬ ‫ה‬ ִ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אוריהו‏‬4QIsae • ‫ זְ ַכ ְריׇ הּו‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ זכרי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶיְב ֶר ְכיׇ ה‏ּו‬MT 4QIsae α′ σ′ θ′ Tgms | ‫ה‬ ‫ יברכי ‏‬1QIsaa Tg

Vulgms | Βαραχιου LXX Syr Vulg ‫עוד‏√(—וְ ׇא ִע ׇידה‏‬, “to call as witness,” HALOT, 795). Vv. 1–3 include an inter‑ change of subjects and verbs that may confuse the casual reader. In MT and 263  See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint, 201n44. 264  Tov, “Textual Base of the Corrections,” 305; see also see Tov, Greek and Hebrew Bible, 61. 265  Tov, “Textual Base of the Corrections,” 305. 266  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 220. 267  Roberts, First Isaiah, 128.

88

Chapter 2

4QIsae, the Lord speaks to his prophet and uses three verbal imperatives: take, write (v. 1), and call (v. 3). The prophet reacts to the Lord’s commands: “I sum‑ moned as witnesses” (‫וְ ׇא ִע ׇידה‏‬, v. 2) and “I went [to the prophetess]” (v. 3). 1QIsaa has a variant for ‫וְ ׇא ִע ׇידה‏‬, reading √‫ עוד‏‬as the impv. ‫והע ‏ד‬.268 1QIsaa, then, has the Lord uttering four imperatives: take, write (v. 1), summon as witnesses (v. 2), and call (v. 3). Either the Vorlage of 1QIsaa had the reading of ‫ והעד‏‬or the scribe of 1QIsaa became confused by the interchange of subjects and verbs in vv. 1–3 and changed ‫ ואעידה‏‬to ‫ והעד‏‬in order to make sense of the pericope. Although Rosenbloom favors the reading of 1QIsaa,269 the text of MT is wholly compre‑ hensible and is to be preferred.270 ‫—זְ ַכ ְריׇ הּו‏‬1QIsaa uses the shorter form of the Divine Name, ‫ה‬ ‫ ‑י ‏‬versus ‫‑יה‏ו‬. Note that a single manuscript of K plus a handful of rabbinic manuscripts that cite Isa 8:2 have the shorter form, ‫ה‬ ‫ = זכרי ‏‬1QIsaa (HUB–Isaiah, apparatus 2). See also the comments under ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו … ֻעּזִ יׇ הּו … יְ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬at 1:1. ‫— ֶיְב ֶר ְכיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the fuller theophoric name (MT, 4QIsae ‫ )יברכיהו‏‬versus the shorter form (1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫)יברכי ‏‬, see the discussion at 1:1. We also observe that for this verse 96 (pm) reads ‫ יברכיה‏‬and a single manuscript of K reads ‫ברכיהו‏‬ (HUB–Isaiah). LXX’s Βαραχιου (‫ )ברכיהו‏‬was likely impacted by Zech 1:1, 7. 8:3 ‫ ַהּנְ ִב ׇיאה‏‬MT 4QIsae | ‫ הנביא‏‬1QIsaa | τὴν προφῆτιν LXX • ‫ ֵא ַלי‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Vulg | > 4QIsae • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ׇח ‏‬MT 1QIsaa Tg(vid) Syr(vid) | ‫ש‬ ‫ חו ‏‬4QIsae LXX(vid) Vulg (orth or var?) ‫— ַהּנְ ִב ׇיא ‏‬With 1QIsaa’s m. sg. noun ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫“( הנבי ‏‬the prophet”) versus MT’s (plus 4QIsae LXX Syr Vulg) f. sg. noun ‫ה‬ ‫“( ַהּנְ ִב ׇיא ‏‬the prophetess”), one could argue that Isaiah approached a prophet after he had consulted with Uriah and Zechariah (v. 2), i.e., “and I came near the prophet”: ‫ואקרב אל הנביא‏‬. But such an interpre‑ tation makes little sense in the context, given the sequence of third f. sg. verbs that follows the phrase: ‫( וַ ַּת ַהר וַ ֵּת ֶלד‏‬not to mention that ‫ קרב‏‬often denotes sex‑ ual congress; i.e., Gen 20:4; Lev 18:6, 14, 19; 20:16; Deut 22:14). 1QIsaa would then read, “And I came near the prophet; and she conceived and she bore a son.” It is better to regard 1QIsaa’s reading as an error. Or, less likely, the scroll’s scribe misread vv. 1–3 and believed God was the subject of v. 3. In this last scenario, the scribe’s variant is based on a theological misunderstanding. 268  Similarly, Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 95, emended MT to read ‫ ;והעידה‏‬as does Mitchell, Isaiah. A Study of Chapters I.–XII, 191. See also Hitzig, Der Prophet Jesaja, 95. 269  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 16; see also Brockington, Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, 177. 270  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 332.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

89

8:4 ‫ ְקר ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ לקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇא ִבי וְ ִא ִּמ ‏י‬MT 4QIsae (‫וא]מי֯‏‬ ‫א‬ ֯ ‫ אביו ואמ ‏ו | )אבי‬1QIsaa | πατέρα ἢ μητέρα LXX • ‫ ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂשק‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ דרמש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְקר ֹ ‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫לקרא‏ו‬, ‫ ‑א‏ו‬marks an irregular spelling for the o vowel = ‫א‬ MT’s ‫ ְקרֹא‏‬. For this and other examples, consult Qimron’s grammar.271 Thus, the wāw of ‫ לקראו‏‬is not a third m. sg. suffix. Associated with this, in 1QIsaa, “the weakened ʾālep often (30×) changes po‑ sition with the following o or u vowel, acting then as a digraph rather than a consonant.”272 Instances of this phenomenon include the frequently attested ‫ מוא ‏ד‬for MT’s ‫א ‏ד‬ ֹ ‫ ְמ‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ נוא ‏‬for MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫נְ ֻא ‏‬. The weakened ʾālep may also explain 1QIsaa’s ‫ לקראו‏‬in the present verse as well as the following occurrences in the scroll: ‫ נאולו‏‬for MT’s ‫ֹנואלּו‏‬ ֲ (19:13), ‫ ימחוא‏‬for MT’s ‫( יִ ְמ ֲחאּו‏‬55:12), and ‫ תקרוא‏‬for MT’s ‫( ִּת ׇּק ֵרא ‏ּו‬61:6).273 For other instances (both nouns and verbs), where 1QIsaa has a preposition versus MT, see the discussion at 1:12. ‫— ׇא ִבי וְ ִא ִּמ‏י‬One K manuscript (HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫ = אביו ואמ ‏ו‬1QIsaa. ‫— ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂש ‏‬For a discussion of the orthographic variant of ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫דרמש ‏‬, see 7:8. 8:6 ‫ֹלח‏‬ ַ ‫ ַה ִּׁש‬MT Tg Syr | ‫ השולח‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ֹלה‏‬ ̇ ‫ השי‬4QIsae | τοῦ Σιλωαμ LXX • ‫ ְל ַאט‏‬MT 4QIsaf | ‫ לאוט‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶּובן‏‬MT 4QIsae 4QIsaf Tg(vid) | ‫ ואת בן‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְר ַמ ְליׇ הּו‏‬MT 4QIsae (‫ה | ) ̇ר ̇מ ֯ל[יהו‏‬ ‫ [רומ]ל[י] ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹלח‏‬ ַ ‫— ַה ִּׁש‬The Hebrew witnesses express three minor divergences: MT has ‫ֹלח‏‬ ַ ‫( ַה ִּׁש‬primary reading?), 1QIsaa either conveys an error of metathesis (‫)השולח‏‬ or demonstrates the so-called Canaanite Shift from /a/ to /o/,274 and 4QIsae exhibits an error where a copyist wrote a hê for a ḥêt (‫ ;השי ֹלה‏‬graphic similar‑ ity); or, a copyist wrote Shiloh (‫ ִׁשיֹלה‏‬, ‫) ִׁשיֹלו‏‬, a well-attested name in the Bible (approximately thirty times) instead of the rare Shiloah. For other instances of a Qumran scroll reading a hê for a ḥêt, see 3:24. ‫— ְל ַאט‏‬In this example, 1QIsaa (‫ )לאוט‏‬follows the quṭl pattern. For a brief dis‑ cussion together with bibliographic sources, see 3:24. ‫ּוב‏ן‬ ֶ —Versus MT 4QIsae 4QIsaf, 1QIsaa attests the ‫ת‬ ‫א ‏‬. For a discussion of the accusative marker, see 2:4. ‫— ְר ַמ ְליׇ ה ‏ּו‬In 1QIsaa, only the lāmed and hê of the proper name Remaliah re‑ main on the leather (‫)[רומ]ל[י]ה‏‬. For a discussion of the name Remaliah, see 7:1. 271  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 85. 272  Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 29. 273  For an additional study, see Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 29. 274  For a discussion and examples of the Canaanite Shift, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 180–81.

90

Chapter 2

8:7 ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬MT | ‫יהו̇ ̇ה}}‏‬ ̇ {{ ‫ אדוני‬1QIsaa | κύριος LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫צּומים וְ ׇה ַר ִּבי ‏‬ ִ ‫ ׇה ֲע‬MT | (‫וה[עצומים‏‬ ֯ ‫)הרבים‬ 4QIsaf • ‫ ֲא ִפ ׇיקי‏ו‬MT | ‫ אפיק‏ו‬4QpIsac • ‫ֹדותי‏ו‬ ‫ ּגְ ׇ‬MT | ‫ גדוותי‏ו‬1QIsaa | ‫[ג]דֹיות[י‏ו‬ ̇ 4QIsae orth? | τεῖχος ἱμῶν LXX ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬For textual variants regarding names of Deity, see the discussion and bibliography at 3:17. ‫צּומים וְ ׇה ַר ִּבים‏‬ ִ ‫— ׇה ֲע‬MT reads “mighty and many” versus 4QIsaf (‫‏‬ ‫הרבים‬ ‫וה[עצומים‬ ֯ ), which has “many and mighty.” Inasmuch as only a portion of the yôd and final mêm are visible on the leather of 4QIsae, either ‫העצומים‏‬ ‫ והרב]י֯ ̇ם‬or ‫ והרבים העצומ]י֯ ̇ם‬is possible. Unfortunately, a portion of the leather of column VII of 1QIsaa is missing (lower-right-hand side), making it impossible to know the reading of this scroll. For a discussion of other syntactically varie‑ gated readings in Isaiah, see also 1:30. ‫ֹדותי ‏ו‬ ‫גִ ְדיׇ ה‏(—ּגְ ׇ‬, “bank,” HALOT, 178). The Hebrew witnesses exhibit four forms: ‫( גדותיו‏‬MT Isaiah 8:7; see also Josh 3:15; 4:18; 1 Chr MTqere 12:16); ‫( גדוותי‏ו‬1QIsaa 8:7); ‫( [ג]די̇ ̇ות[י‏ו‬4QIsae 8:7); and ‫( גדיתי‏ו‬MTqere, see also 1 Chr 12:16). For ‫גדוותי‏ו‬, the long form ‫ ‑וות‏‬is one of the alternative forms for the f. pl. in QH.275‫‏‬In ad‑ dition to the example at hand, Reymond provides other instances of this phe‑ nomenon from the Dead Sea Scrolls, including ‫ ִחזׇ ֹיו ‏ן‬MT, ‫ חזוו ‏ן‬1QIsaa (22:1); ‫ְיִב ׇּכיּו ‏ן‬ MT, ‫ יבכוון‏‬1QIsaa (33:7); ‫ ַדֹּיות‏‬MT, ‫ דוות‏‬1QIsaa (34:15); and ‫ וַ ּיֶ ֱא ׇתיּון‏‬MT 1QIsab, ‫ואתיון‏‬ 1QIsaa (41:5).276 The LXX translator misread the Hebrew ‫ֹדותיו‏‬ ‫ ּגְ ׇ‬and likely read ‫( ּגׇ ֵדר‏‬ἐπὶ πᾶν τεῖχος ὑμῶν), reading a rêš in place of the wāw.277 8:8 ‫ ַצּוׇ א ‏ר‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsaf Syr Vulg | ‫ צער‏‬4QIsae | cf. LXX | ‫רּוׁשלם‏‬ ַ ְ‫ י‬Tg • ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsae | ‫ וה]יו‏‬4QpIsac • ‫ ְּכנׇ ׇפיו‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsae Syr Vulg | ‫ כנפו‏‬4QpIsac | > LXX • ‫ ִע ׇּמנּו ֵאל‏‬MT LXX (μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός) | ‫ עמנואל‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsae 4QIsaf εβρ′ (Εμμανουηλ) Tgms Syr Vulg | ‫ׂשר ֵא ‏ל‬ ‫ יִ ׇ‬Tg ‫— ַצּוׇ אר‏‬Against three Hebrew witnesses (MT 1QIsaa 4QIsaf ‫) ַצּוׇ א ‏ר‬, 4QIsae reads ‫( צע ‏ר‬Zoar?). Perhaps a scribe was impacted by 15:5 (‫ )צ ַֹער‏‬or this is an example of guttural unawareness. ‫— ִע ׇּמנּו ֵאל‏‬MT writes Immanuel (“God is with us”) as two words; 1QIsaa, 4QIsae, and 4QIsaf write it as one word (‫)עמנואל‏‬. See also ‫ עמנו א ‏ל‬at 7:14 and 8:10.

275  For cases of this long form in nonbiblical DSS texts, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 348–51. 276  As explained in ibid., 134–35. 277  Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 22–23.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

91

8:9 ‫ ר ֹע ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ דע‏ו‬4QIsae 4QIsaf LXX (γνῶτε) • ‫ ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 4QIsae | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִה ְת ַאּזְ רּו וׇ חֹּתּו ִה ְת ַאּזְ רּו וׇ חֹּתּו‏‬MT LXX γ′ | ‫ התאזרו וחות ‏ו‬1QIsaa 4QIsae(vid) (‫)התאז[רו‏‬ ‫—ר ֹעּו‏‬MT and 1QIsaa read ‫רעו‏‬, based on √‫“( רעע‏‬to do evil”), √‫“( רעה‏‬to be a friend”), or other verbal roots.278 4QIsaf and 4QIsae279 attests ‫דעו‏‬, which seems to have the support of LXX (γνῶτε). Based on LXX and on the parallelistic ar‑ rangement, some pre-Qumran critics prefer ‫דעו‏‬.280 So, too, Driver states that ‫“ רעו‏‬is an error” for ‫ דעו‏‬and affirms that ‫ דעו‏‬is an appropriate parallel to ‫וְ ַה ֲאזִ ינּו‏‬ “give ear.”281 Barthélemy,282 after suggesting that there are numerous interpre‑ tative possibilities, follows MT, as does Wildberger.283 Notwithstanding the various arguments for either reading, the primary reading is almost certainly MT’s ‫ר ֹעּו‏‬, which Wildberger translates as “Get yourselves close together.” ‫— ִה ְת ַאּזְ רּו וׇ חֹּת ‏ּו‬MT repeats the words ‫ ִה ְת ַאּזְ רּו וׇ חֹּת ‏ּו‬, reading “gird yourselves— and be terrified; gird yourselves—and be terrified.”284 1QIsaa presents a single occurrence of ‫התאזרו וחות‏ו‬, and a reconstruction of 4QIsae indicates that it follows 1QIsaa. Goshen-Gottstein’s apparatus shows that K omits ‫התאזרו וחות‏ו‬ (HUB–Isaiah). So is this an instance of dittography in MT or haplography in the Qumran witnesses? The repeated words ‫ ִה ְת ַאּזְ רּו וׇ חֹּתו‏‬encompass the sec‑ ond line of a parallelism, with the repetition signifying a rhetorical way to em‑ phasize the idea being presented. Thus MT LXX should be accepted. 8:10

‫ וְ ל ֹ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa γ′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ לא‏‬4QIsae LXX • ‫ ִע ׇּמנּו ֵאל‏‬MT εβρ′ α′ θ′ Tg (‫בסעדנא‏‬ ‫א‬ ‫ )אלהנא‬Vulg | ‫ עמנוא ‏ל‬1QIsaa 4QIsae Syr 8:11 ‫ ִּכי‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsae Tg Vulg | > 4QIsaf LXX Syr • ‫ ַהּיׇ ד‏‬MT | ‫ יד‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ יִ ְּס ֵרנִ י‏‬MT | ‫ יסירנו‏‬1QIsaa | ἀπειθοῦσι LXX ‫—וְ יִ ְּס ֵרנִ ‏י‬MT has the qal verb ‫וְ יִ ְּס ֵרנִ י‏‬, from √‫“( יסר‏‬to instruct,” HALOT, 418), and 1QIsaa reads a hipʿil verb ‫יסירנו‏‬, based on √‫“( סור‏‬to turn aside,” see HALOT, 278  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 349–50, reviews the scholarly literature and sets forth several pos‑ sible roots and meanings of MT’s ‫ר ֹעּו‏‬. 279  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:52, however, states that the first letter of the word under discussion of 4QIsae is unreadable, and the first letter of 4QIsaf can be either a rêš or dālet. I accept the reading of DJD XXXII. 280  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 53; Döderlein, Esaias, 36; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:100; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 85; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 87; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 95. 281  Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 40. 282  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:52–54. 283  See the discussion in Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 350–51. 284  This translation belongs to Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 349.

92

Chapter 2

747–48). Wildberger discusses the versions and determines that 1QIsaa has “the preferred reading.”285 I find his arguments to be well-founded and persuasive. Watts, too, proposes to read 1QIsaa.286 Van der Kooij argues a different point of view, summarizing, “The most natural conclusion is that 1QIsaa 8:11ff reflects the attempt of legitimating the Qumran community on the basis of this passage” and that the scribe of 1QIsaa attempted “to actualize the prophecies of Isaiah.”287 8:12 ‫אמרּו‏ן‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ת‬MT 4QIsae | ‫ תאמר ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫אמרּון‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫—ת‬With regard to the use of the paragogic nûn in Isaiah, in the major‑ ity of cases MT equals 1QIsaa.288 In slightly less than a dozen cases, however, MT has the paragogic nûn where 1QIsaa lacks it. The use of the paragogic nûn embodies the older form of Hebrew. The divergences between the Hebrew witnesses are: ‫אמרּו‏ן‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ת‬MT 4QIsae; ‫ תאמר‏ו‬1QIsaa (8:12); ‫ יְ ֻׁשבּו‏ן‬MT; ‫ ישוב‏ו‬1QIsaa (35:10); ‫אמרּו ‏ן‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ת‬MT 2 Kgs 19:6; ‫ תואמרו‏‬1QIsaa (37:6); ‫אמרּון‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ת‬MT 2 Kgs 19:10; ‫תומרו‏‬ 1QIsaa (37:10); ‫ יִ ְׁש ׇּכרּון‏‬MT; ‫ ישכרו‏‬1QIsaa (49:26); ‫ ִּת ְׁש ׇּכבּון‏‬MT ‫ תשכבו‏‬1QIsaa (50:11); ‫ יְ ׁשּובּו‏ן‬MT; ‫ ישובו‏‬1QIsaa (51:11); ‫ יַ ִּׂשיגּון‏‬MT 4QIsac (‫ישי]גון‏‬ ֯ ); ‫ ישיגו‏‬1QIsaa (51:11); ‫ יִ ְדרׁשּון‏‬1QIsab (‫י]דרשון‏‬ ֯ [); ‫ ידרוש ‏ו‬1QIsaa (58:2); and ‫ יֶ ְח ׇּפצּון‏‬MT 1QIsab; ‫ יחפצ ‏ו‬1QIsaa (58:2). Note also an instance where MT 1QIsaa lack the paragogic nûn (‫)יבשרו‏‬ versus 1QIsab, which has it (‫( )יבשרון‏‬60:6). 8:14 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT 4QIsal | ‫א‬ ‫ ויהי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬The reading of ‫ ויהיא‏‬belonging to 1QIsaa is confusing. There is no ref‑ ‫ה‬ erent for ‫א‬ ‫“( הי ‏‬she”) in the passage. Apparently the copyist miswrote ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬, and then he or a subsequent corrector wrote the superscripted yôd, thus attempt‑ ing to read some form of √‫היה‏‬, i.e., (‫ויהי‏)א‏‬, bringing the reading to some extent in line with the Masoretic convention. Most likely, however, 1QIsaa’s read‑ ing is another example of the late phenomenon of verbal form substitution: weQatal > weYiqtol, with an interchange of the hê and ālep.289 Note that 4QIsal equals the reading of MT. 285  Ibid., 355. 286  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 119; so, too, Brockington, Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, 177. 287  Van der Kooij, “Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Texts of Isaiah,” 208; see also 205–8; Wagner, “Identifying ‘Updated’ Prophecies in OG Isaiah: Isaiah 8:11–16 as a Test Case,” 251–69, responds to and broadens van der Kooij’s views. 288  For a comprehensive study of the paragogic nûn in classical Hebrew, see Hoftijzer, Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum. 289  This insight belongs to Richard W. Medina, personal correspondence, February 18, 2019.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

93

8:16 ‫ ֲחֹתו ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ וחתו ‏‬1QIsaa 8:17 > MT | ‫את‬ ‫ ‏‬1QIsaa For deviations dealing with the accusative marker, see the discussion at 2:4. 8:18 ‫ ִהּנֵ ה‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ אנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ֹמופ ִתי ‏‬ ְ ‫ּול‬ ְ ‫ ְלאֹֹתות‬MT LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫ לאות ולמופ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹמופ ִתים‏‬ ְ ‫ּול‬ ְ ‫— ְלאֹֹתות‬MT has pl. nouns (“for signs and for wonders”) versus the sg. nouns of 1QIsaa (“for a sign and a wonder”). The referent is pl. (“I and the children”), which makes MT more comprehensible, although Hebrew gram‑ mar also allows for the scroll’s rendition. 8:19 ‫ֹלהיו‏‬ ‫ ֱא ׇ‬MT | ‫ אלוה ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX θεὸν αὐτοῦ • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַה ַחּיִ י ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ חיי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹלהיו‏‬ ‫— ֱא ׇ‬In DSS Hebrew, the distinction of the pl. ‫‏‑י ‏ו‬and the sg. ‫ ‑ ‏ו‬sometimes became indistinct so that ‫ ‑ ‏ו‬occasionally represented the plural.290 If this is the case, then ‫ֹלהי‏ו = אלוה‏ו‬ ‫ ֱא ׇ‬. See also ‫ ובאלוה‏ו‬versus ‫אֹלהי‏ו‬ ‫ּוב ׇ‬ ֵ in v. 21. And compare similar deviations between MT and 1QIsaa in 28:26; 35:4; 38:20; and 58:2. 8:21 ‫ נִ ְק ֶׁשה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ונקש ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ִה ְת ַק ַּצ ‏ף‬MT | ‫ יתקצ ‏פ‬1QIsaa | λυπηθήσεσθε LXX • ‫אֹלהי ‏ו‬ ‫ּוב ׇ‬ ֵ MT εβρ′ α′ θ′ | ‫ ובאלוה ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ τὰ παταχρα LXX ‫ ִה ְת ַק ַּצף‏(—וְ ִה ְת ַק ַּצף‏‬, “fallen into a rage,” HALOT, 1124). During the LBH period, wāw conversives were “in retreat.” This explains 1QIsaa’s impf. (‫ )יתקצפ‏‬versus MT’s wāw conversive (‫)וְ ִה ְת ַק ַּצף‏‬.291 ‫אֹלהיו‏‬ ‫ּוב ׇ‬ ֵ —See commentary at 8:19. 8:22 ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‏‬MT | ‫ הארץ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫צּוקה‏‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ֵׁש ׇכה ְמעּוף ׇ‬MT | ‫צּוקה‏‬ ‫ וחשוכה מעיף ׇ‬1QIsaa | καὶ στενοχωρία καὶ σκότος, ἀπορία στενὴ LXX ‫— ְמעּוף‏‬The verse (and pericope?) is filled with difficult readings. Presumably MT’s ‫ ְמעּוף‏‬is a hapax legomenon, for which HALOT (611) suggests, “rd. ‫ ֵמ ִעיף‏‬, 290  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70. 291  See Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 72–73; see also the discussion of temporal clauses with the form ‫ ובקטל ‏ו‬in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 395–96; too, Wildberger observes, “One can see in the Qumran literature that the perfect consecutive is already dying out.” Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 377.

94

Chapter 2

‫עו ‏ף‬.” Driver292 pairs ‫ ְמעּוף‏‬with ‫ ְמנֻ ׇּדח‏‬of the previous verse and reads both words through the lens of Arabic roots, perceiving that ‫ מעו ‏ף‬means “to escape” and ‫ מנד ‏‬has the sense of “away from.” Driver’s readings remain conjecturable. ‫ח‬ 1QIsaa’s attestation of the hipʿil ptc.(?) ‫ מעיף‏‬does not assist in understanding the difficulties of the verse. See also ‫מּוע ‏ף‬ ‫ ׇ‬in the following verse. In place of MT’s ‫מועף‏‬, Kissane conjectures that the text once read ‫( מעופף‏‬via √‫)עוף‏‬, with the pê dropping off by way of haplography (with two attestations of pê).293 With regard to MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫חׁשכ ‏‬, 1QIsaa attests the Aramaic form ‫ה‬ ‫חשוכ ‏‬.294

8:23[9:1] ‫ ִּכי ל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ כיל ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ οὐκ LXX • ‫מּוע ‏ף‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫פ‬ ‫ מעופ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇה ִראֹׁשו ‏ן‬MT | ‫הרישו ‏ן‬ 1QIsaa orth? • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַא ְר ׇצ ‏‬MT | ‫ אר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ַא ְר ׇצ ‏‬MT | ‫ והאר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ִּכי ל ֹ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ כילו‏‬may be explained as follows: the scribe first wrote ‫( כ לו‏‬an ‫א‬ error); then he or a subsequent corrector added the yôd to read ‫כי‏‬. And inas‑ much as ‫ ל ‏ו‬in QH is a byform of ‫א‬ ‫לו ‏‬, thus ‫ = כי ל ‏ו‬MT’s ‫א‬ ‫כי לו ‏‬. ‫מּוע ‏ף‬ ‫“(— ׇ‬gleam, lustre,” HALOT, 558). The 1QIsaa copyist wrote ‫פ‬ ‫מעופ ‏‬, a polel m. sg. ptc. Participles in the HB rarely follow the negative particle ‫א‬ ‫( ל ‏‬see the discussion at 29:12). 1QIsaa’s ‫ מעופ ‏פ‬is inexplicable; it is doubtful that ‫ מעופ ‏פ‬in 14:29 and 30:6 impacted the copyist because the context of these two passages is so different from that of 8:23. More likely, the copyist had a lapse and wrote ‫ מעופפ‏‬instead of the graphically similar ‫מוע ‏ף‬. ‫—וְ ַא ְר ׇצ ‏‬With ‫ אר ‏ץ‬in the const. preceding the proper noun Naphtali, an ar‑ ‫ה‬ ticle attached to ‫ ארץ‏‬is grammatically unusual; i.e., 1QIsaa ‫ והארץ נפתלי‏‬versus MT ‫וְ ַא ְר ׇצה נַ ְפ ׇּת ִלי‏‬. Muraoka sets forth six examples in the Qumran biblical texts where MT has the usual form: in the Qumran scrolls “we have found six certain examples where the underlying biblical text uses the standard syntagm, which is converted to the non-standard one where the definite article is used with the nomen regens.”295

Isaiah 9

9:2[3]

‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MTket 1QIsaa (‫ | )לוא‏‬MTqere ‫ל ‏ו‬ ‫א‬ ‫— ַהֹּגוי לֹא‏‬It is sometimes impossible to know if 1QIsaa’s ‫א‬ ‫ לו ‏‬signifies “to him” or “no, not;” see the comments at 3:11. Multiple medieval Hebrew Bibles (93 150

292  Driver, “Isaianic Problems,” 46. 293  Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:63. 294  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 104. 295  Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 202.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

95

[pm], KR) read ‫ ל‏ו‬in this verse (HUB–Isaiah). Condamin, Kissane, Ginsburg, (and others) propose that the original reading of ‫ הגוי לא‏‬was ‫א‬ ‫ה = הגיל ‏‬ ‫“( הגיל ‏‬the rejoicing”); this word experienced an improper misdivision of words, and sub‑ sequently the wāw was incorrectly added.296 ‫ה‬ ‫ הגיל ‏‬fits the context and also cor‑ responds with ‫ ַה ִּׂש ְמ ׇחה‏‬in the parallelism: “You have increased the rejoicing, you have magnified the joy.” 9:3[4] ‫ ַה ִחּת ׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ֹת‬ ‫ ֹוהחת ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ הח]תות‏י‬4QIsac | διεσκέδασεν κύριος LXX • ‫ ִמ ְדיׇ ‏ן‬MT | ‫ מדי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (Μαδιαμ) ‫ם‬ ‫— ַה ִחּת ׇֹת‏‬Inexplicably, 4QIsac has a first common sg. suffix (‫)הח]תותי‏‬, versus the second m. sg. suffix attached to MT and 1QIsaa. ‫— ִמ ְדיׇ ן‏‬For the reading at hand, Watts proposes that the Greek (Μαδιαμ), sup‑ ported by the scroll (‫)מדים‏‬, signifies “the normal pronunciation for Midian.”297 An alternative theory: 1QIsaa’s reading is an instance of a hypercorrection.298 For a discussion of the mêm/nûn interchange, see the comments at 23:17. 9:5[6]

‫ וַ ְּת ִה‏י‬MT | ‫ ותהיי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַה ִּמ ְׂש ׇרה‏‬MT | ‫ המשורה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ּיִ ְק ׇרא‏‬MT 4QIsac | ‫וקרא‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ֲא ִב ַיעד‏‬MT | ‫ אבי ע ‏ד‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁשֹלו ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ השלו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַה ִּמ ְׂש ׇרה‏‬Qimron writes that “the noun ‫‘ משורה‏‬government’ 1QIsaa 9:5,6 for ‫ ִמ ְׂש ׇר ‏‬in the Bible and the DSS is derived from the root ‫ׂשו ‏ר‬. Cf. Hosea 8:4, 12:5.”299 ‫ה‬ That ‫ה‬ ‫ משור ‏‬is derived from √‫שרר‏‬, as per the suggestion of Driver,300 “is gram‑

matically unwarranted,” concludes Qimron.301 ‫—וַ ּיִ ְק ׇר ‏‬This is another case of a verbal form substitution, a typical feature ‫א‬ of QH: wayyiqtol > qatal. Fassberg explains 1QIsaa’s lack of the wāw consecu‑ tive (‫)וקרא‏‬: “The breakdown of the tense system with waw consecutive forms is apparent in Late Biblical Hebrew and the collapse of the system is complete in Mishnaic Hebrew.”302 Fassberg provides other examples where one of the Hebrew witnesses of Isaiah lacks the wāw consecutive (cf. 39:7). Another con‑ sideration: the Masoretes vocalized the verb ‫ וַ ּיִ ְק ׇרא‏‬as a qal; compare the two passives, ‫ יֻ ַּל ‏ד‬and ‫נִ ַּת‏ן‬, in the same verse. Without vowels, it is difficult to know 296  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 57; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:107; Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, 161; cf. Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 96, who emends the text to read ‫הגו ‏ל‬. 297  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 131. 298  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 66–67. 299  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 360. 300  Driver, “Three Notes,” 357. 301  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 314n172. 302  Fassberg, “Syntax of the Biblical Documents,” 102, see also 98.

96

Chapter 2

the intent of the copyist of 1QIsaa, who wrote ‫וקרא‏‬, but either a qal or a puʿal is possible. Compare also the divergent readings of √‫ קרא‏‬in MT versus 1QIsaa in 48:8; 58:12; 61:3; and 62:2. In each of these instances, MT has ‫( ק ׇֹרא‏‬puʿal pf. third m. sg.) and the scroll reads ‫( יקרא‏ו‬likely a qal but presented as an impersonal, without an explicit subject). 9:6[7]

‫ ְל ַמ ְר ֵּב ‏‬MTL | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ למ רב ‏‬1QIsaa (cf. MTA) • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַה ִּמ ְׂש ׇר ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ המשור ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ִּכ ֵּס ‏‬MT | ‫ כס ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ א ׇֹתּה ְּול ַס ֲע ׇד ‏‬MT | ‫ אותו ולסעד ‏ֹו‬1QIsaa ‫— ְל ַמ ְר ֵּבה‏‬Note that MTA attests ‫לם רבה‏‬, but multiple medieval Hebrew Bibles also read ‫ה‬ ‫( למרב ‏‬or ‫( )לםרבה‏‬HUB–Isaiah). The scroll’s ‫ה‬ ‫ למ רב ‏‬with the initial-

medial mêm in the final position signifies an early orthographic convention for monosyllabic words; the Masoretic reading of ‫ למרבה‏‬became the accepted or majority reading, eventually vocalized as ‫ ְל ַמ ְר ֵּבה‏‬.303 Oort emends the text (‫ )למרבה‏‬to read ‫ה‬ ‫רב ‏‬.304 ‫—א ׇֹתּה ְּול ַס ֲע ׇד ‏‬MT attests these two third f. sg. suffixes that hearken back ‫ּה‬ to “kingdom” (‫) ַמ ְמ ׇל ׇכה‏‬, a f. sg. noun: ‫ּה‬ ‫ א ׇֹת ‏‬and ‫ּה‬ ‫“( ְּול ַס ֲע ׇד ‏‬sustaining it,” via √‫סעד‏‬, “to support, to sustain,” HALOT, 761). In place of the third f. sg. suffixes of MT, 1QIsaa has third m. sg. suffixes (‫)אותו ולסעדֹו‏‬, “ordering it (‫ )אותו‏‬and establishing it (‫)ולסעדֹו‏‬.” It is difficult to determine the antecedent of these third m. sg. suf‑ fixes: David? ‫א‬ ‫( כס ‏‬1QIsaa ‫“( )כסה‏‬throne”)? Or, less likely, ‫“( ילד‏‬child”) in v. ? In any case, MT’s reading is primary. 9:7[8] ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬1QIsaa | κύριος LXX ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬For the textual deviations (‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT) and (‫ יהוה‏‬1QIsaa), see the dis‑ cussion of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. Note also here that Döderlein proposes reading ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬in place of ‫אדני‏‬.305 9:8[9] ‫ וְ יׇ ְדע ‏ּו‬MT LXX | ‫וירע ‏ו‬ ̇ 1QIsaa ‫—וְ יׇ ְדע ‏ּו‬The variants between MT (‫ )וידעו‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )וירעו‏‬most likely arose because of the confusion of the letters dālet/rêš in the Assyrian square script. For other instances of the dālet/rêš interchange in MT and 1QIsaa, see also

303  See the study of Siegel, “Orthographic Convention of 1QIsa,” 107–9. 304  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 96. 305  Döderlein, Esaias, 41.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

97

16:14; 17:6, 12; 22:5; 23:10; 27:2; 33:8; 41:19, etc.306 But it is also possible that the 1QIsaa scribe (or his Vorlage) intentionally rendered the verb ‫( וירעו‏‬via √‫)רעע‏‬, thus, “And all the people will do evil (‫)וירעו‏‬, even Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria, who say in pride and arrogance of heart.”307 There are also other possibilities; Kutscher reminds us that √‫“( ירע‏‬to trem‑ ble,” see 15:4) may have been the scroll’s intended meaning.308 And Kissane argues that Isa 9:8b (“even Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria”) is a gloss and that the scroll reads √‫“( רוע‏‬to cry out”). He thus contends that 1QIsaa cor‑ rectly reads, “And all the people cried out in pride and arrogance of heart, say‑ ing.” Kissane summarizes, “That this reading ‘cried out’ is not a mistake due to the carelessness of the Qumrân scribe, but embodies an independent textual tradition, is proved by the fact that it is supported by the Targum.”309 Whatever the case with the scroll, MT is supported by LXX Vulg and Syr. 9:9[10] ‫ ִׁש ְק ִמים‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ שוקמי[ ‏‬4QIsac ‫— ִׁש ְק ִמים‏‬This is a case of the interchange of noun patterns, a feature of QH: qitlat (‫ )ׁשקמה‏‬and qutlat (‫)שוקמה‏‬.310 9:10[11]

‫ ְר ִצי‏ן‬MT | ‫ רציא‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫— ְר ִצין‏‬For the proper noun Rezin, both MT Isaiah (7:1, 4, 8; 8:6; 9:10) and MT 2 Kings (2 Kgs 15:37; 16:5–6, 9) read ‫ ְר ִצי‏ן‬. For 7:1, 4, 8; and 8:6, 1QIsaa has ‫רצי‏ן‬, but at 9:10[11], 1QIsaa presents the peculiar ‫רציא‏ן‬. In the present verse, the translator(s) of LXX apparently read ‫ רצי ‏ן‬as ‫( הר ציו ‏ן‬ὄρος Σιων), i.e., “mount Zion.”

9:11[12] ‫ ְּב ׇכ ‏ל‬2 MT LXX Tg Vulg | ‫ ובכו ‏ל‬1QIsaa 4QIsac Syr(vid) • ‫ת‬ ‫ זֹא ‏‬MT | ‫ות‬ ‫ זו ̇ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬MT LXX | ‫ ידי ‏ו‬1QIsaa orth or var? ‫ ְּב ׇכל … יׇ ֹדו‏‬2—The refrain “For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still” is repeated five times in Isaiah’s writings (5:25; 9:11, 16, 20; 10:4; cf. 14:27). In three of the five occurrences, 1QIsaa begins the refrain with 306  For a treatment of interchanges of letters that are graphically similar, see Tov, TCHB3, 227–31. 307  Before the discovery of the Qumran collection, Döderlein, Esaias, 41, proposed the read‑ ing of ‫וירע ‏ו‬. 308  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 246. 309  Kissane, “Qumrân Text of Isaiah IX, 7–9,” 418. 310  See the details and discussion in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 320.

98

Chapter 2

the conjunction and (i.e., ‫ ובכול‏‬see 9:11, 20; 10:4); in all five of the occurrences, 1QIsaa features ‫ ידיו‏‬versus MT’s ‫יד‏ו‬. See also the discussion at 3:11 and 5:25. ‫—זֹאת‏‬By writing ‫זו ̇ות‏‬, a copyist of 1QIsaa misspelled the demonstrative. Tigchelaar explains, “The scribe wrote ‫ה‬ ‫ז ‏‬, then wrote a waw over the right side of he and taw over its left side, resulting in ‫ת‬ ‫זו ‏‬. The scribe then wrote a second waw above the first waw for clarification.”311 9:12[13] ‫ ַע ‏ד‬MT LXX | ‫ ע ‏ל‬1QIsaa 9:13[14] ‫ וְ ַאגְ ֹמו‏ן‬MT | ‫ ואגמ‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֹיו ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ביו ‏‬1QIsaa 4QpIsac LXX(vid) ‫—ֹיו ‏‬Both MT (‫ )ֹיום ֶא ׇחד‏‬and 1QIsaa 4QpIsac (‫ )ביום אחד‏‬present grammati‑ ‫ם‬ cally acceptable readings, and both expressions exist in the book of Isaiah. In Isaiah, ‫ ביום אחד‏‬is found in MT/1QIsaa in 10:17; 47:9; and 66:8, but ‫ יום אחד‏‬is attested only in MT in the verse under discussion. Either a copyist in the MT tradition accidently dropped the preposition bêt from the expression or the Qumran scrolls assimilated the bêt from other pericopes. 9:14[15] ‫ ּונְ ׂשּוא‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ונש ‏‬1QIsaa orth? 9:16[17]

‫ יִ ְׂש ַמ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ יחמו ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַא ְל ְמנ ׇֹתי‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ [ אל]מנות‏ו‬4QpIsac • ‫ יׇ ֹד‏ו‬MT ‫ח‬ LXX (ἡ χεὶρ) | ‫ ידי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ְׂש ַמח‏‬MT’s ‫יִ ְׂש ַמח‏‬, supported by LXX Vulg Syr Tg, provides a coherent par‑ allelism: “Therefore the Lord has no joy (‫ )יִ ְׂש ַמח‏‬over their young people, nei‑

ther has compassion on their orphans and widows.” Although note that several textual critics have proposed emending the text to read ‫ח‬ ‫“( יפס ‏‬to pass over”) rather than the attested ‫יִ ְׂש ַמח‏‬.312 Others point out that ‫ח‬ ‫ לֹא־יִ ְׂש ַמ ‏‬once meant “have no compassion” or “is not gracious” or had a similar meaning.313 1QIsaa’s variant of ‫ יחמו ‏ל‬via √‫“( חמל‏‬to have compassion,” HALOT, 328) may signify, ac‑ cording to Weingreen, a genuine variant. Weingreen prefers 1QIsaa because it 311  Tigchelaar, “Review of Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint.” 312  See, for example, Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 84; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 94; Lagarde, Kritische anmerkungen zum Buche Isaias, 19; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 96; and Marti, Buch Jesaja, 98. 313  See the comments by Rendsburg, “Qumran Hebrew (With a Trial Cut [1QS]),” 222; see the discussion in Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 221.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

99

fits the parallelistic structure; he is also supported by Burrows.314 1QIsaa thus reads, “Therefore the Lord has no compassion (‫ )יחמול‏‬over their young people, neither has mercy on their orphans and widows.” Tov holds a different view, proposing that 1QIsaa’s copyist changed the verb to parallel the corresponding verb.315 My own judgment on the matter is aligned with Tov’s. 1QIsaa’s variant of ‫ יחמול‏‬cannot be a lapsus calami because of graphically similar characters, although it is possible that the copyist assimilated his reading from Jer 13:14 or 21:7, where ‫ רחם‏‬and ‫ חמ ‏ל‬are corresponding verbs in poetic parallelisms. Or, perhaps the copyist borrowed √‫ חמל‏‬from ‫יחמול ‏ו‬, belonging to v. 18. 9:17[18] ‫ וַ ִּת ַּצת‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ת‬ ‫תצֹי ‏‬ ֹ ‫ ו‬4QpIsac ‫—וַ ִּת ַּצת‏‬Although MT and 1QIsaa have the qal form and 4QpIsac sets forth the hipʿil, Horgan submits that “the meaning is the same.”316 9:18[19] ‫ ְּב ֶע ְב ַרת‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ מעבר ‏‬1QIsaa | διὰ θυμὸν ὀργῆς LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ נֶ ְע ַּת ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ נתע ‏‬1QIsaa 4QpIsac ‫ | [נת]עם ‏‬συγκέκαυται LXX • ‫ ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa | ἡ γῆ ὄλη LXX • ‫ וַ יְ ִה‏י‬MT | ‫ויהי ‏ו‬ 1QIsaa ‫ ֶע ְב ׇרה‏(— ְּב ֶע ְב ַר ‏‬, “anger, rage,” HALOT, 782). In the expression ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ְּב ֶע ְב ַרת יְ הוׇ ‏‬, MT employs the preposition bêt versus 1QIsaa’s ‫)מעברת יהוה‏( ִמ‏ן‬. Elsewhere in the Bible ‫ה‬ ‫ עבר ‏‬is preceded by bêt (Hos 13:11; Pss 7:7; 90:9, etc.); but we recall that interchanges of the prepositions ‫ ‏ב‬/‫ ִמן‏‬occasionally occur in the HB without any difference in meaning.317 Compare also Isa 13:13, where both MT and 1QIsaa use the bêt in ‫ה‬ ‫בעברת יהו ‏‬, the exact expression under discussion. ‫“(—נֶ ְע ַּתם‏‬text uncertain,” HALOT, 904). MT attests ‫ם‬ ‫נֶ ְע ַּת ‏‬, a hapax legomenon (via √‫?עתם‏‬, but see the discussion in Watts318), versus 1QIsaa 4QpIsac, which have ‫נתעם‏‬. Metathesis of the tāw and ʿayin in the Qumran text resulted in an unintelligible reading.319 The unpronounced ʿayin may have caused the error, because the pronunciation of both ‫ם‬ ‫ נעת ‏‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ נתע ‏‬would have been com‑ parable. Or, as Horgan proposes, the reading of 1QIsaa 4QpIsac is a nithpael

314  Weingreen, Introduction to the Critical Study, 77; Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 27. 315  Tov, TCHB3, 242; Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 221, holds a view that is similar to Tov’s. 316  Horgan, Pesharim, 109. 317  See Fassberg, Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew, 129, paragraph 305. 318  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 141. 319  For a brief study of metathesis in the Hebrew witnesses of the HB, see Tov, TCHB3, 232–33.

100

Chapter 2

pf. third m. sg. via √‫“ עמם‏‬to be darkened/black.”320 Brooke writes that “the proposal of Horgan to take it in Qumran tradition as a nithpael from ʿmm is to be welcomed, since ‘to be black’ fits the context well.”321 So, too, Ibn Ezra connects ‫ נעתם‏‬to an Arabic word that means “dark.” Either root (‫ עתם‏‬or ‫)עמם‏‬ makes sense in the context. The fact that the two Qumran texts share the same reading indicates that the author of the pesher was in some way impacted by the Isaiah scroll or its Vorlage; or, perhaps the two texts shared a textual tradi‑ tion that belonged to the Qumran community. 9:19[20] ‫ ַעל‏‬MT | ‫ וע ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫ זְ ר ֹֹע‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ זרעי‏ו | )זרועו‏‬4QIsae | sg. LXX Syr Vulg • ‫א‬ ‫וְ ל ֹ ‏‬ ‫] ֯ב ֯ ‏‬ [ ֯ ֯‫ ולוא‬4QpIsac • ‫אכל‏ּו‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ י‬MT 4QIsae Tg (‫ ויאכ ‏ל | ) ְיִבזּון‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ׇׂש ֵבעּו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ת‬ LXX (φάγεται γὰρ) ‫—זְ ר ֹֹע ‏ו‬For the phrase “each will eat the flesh of his own arm (‫( ”)זְ ר ֹֹעו‏‬MT, 1QIsaa), some critics aver that ‫ זרע ‏ו‬does not fit the parallelistic setting,322 caus‑ ing them to propose emendations. By removing the zayin from ‫זרעו‏‬, then ‫רעו‏‬ (“his friend”) (see Wildberger323) sets forth a correspondence to ‫ ׇא ִחי‏ו‬in this abb’a’ chiasmus: “A No man will spare his brother (‫ ;) ׇא ִחיו‏‬B And he will snatch on the right hand, but be hungry; B and he will eat on the left hand, but will not be satisfied; A each will eat the flesh of his friend” (vv. 19b–20). Tg reads ‫ׇק ִר ֵיביה‏‬ (“relative”), which correlates to the Hebrew ‫“( ֵר ַע‏‬friend, companion”). Another possible emendation pertains to the vocalization of ‫זְ ר ֹֹעו‏‬. A revow‑ eling to ‫“( זַ ְרֹע ‏ו‬his seed”)324 also creates a parallel to ‫ ׇא ִחי ‏ו‬. For ‫ זֶ ַר ‏ע‬paired with ‫ח‬ ‫ ׇא ‏‬, see also Jer 7:15; 49:10 and Esth 10:3. Barthélemy’s suggestion that 4QIsae’s ‫זרעיו‏‬ refers to two arms of a person is unlikely.325 Rather, Qimron rightly points out that in DSS Hebrew the suffix ‫ ‑י ‏ו‬regularly marks the singular.326 ‫אכלּו‏‬ ֵ ֹ ‫—י‬In MT, v. 19 concludes with the verb ‫אכל‏ּו‬ ֵ ֹ ‫י‬, thus reading “each will eat (‫אכלּו‏‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ )י‬the flesh.” In 1QIsaa, ‫ ויאכל‏‬marks the beginning of v. 20 (cf. also the versions), as indicated by the wāw conjunction (otherwise the wāw of 1QIsaa makes no sense) as well as an extra space on the leather between ‫ זרועו‏‬and ‫ויאכ ‏ל‬. 320  See Horgan, Pesharim, 109. 321  Brooke, “Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries,” 93. 322  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 222, states that ‫זְ ר ֹֹעו‏‬, “his arm,” “neither makes any sense nor fits into the context.” 323  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 219, 222. 324  Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 5, proposed reading “his seed.” 325  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:70. 326  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

101

1QIsaa, then, reads, “Manasseh ate (‫ )ויאכל‏‬Ephraim, and Ephraim, Manasseh.” Perhaps the scribe supposed that the verbless clause “Manasseh, Ephraim, and Ephraim, Manasseh” required a verb to make the words intelligible, so he added the verb, at the same time adding the conjunctive wāw to ensure that the reader would know where to begin reading that passage. Or, alternatively, the scribe of 1QIsaa or its Vorlage added the wāw to ‫ ויאכל‏‬via dittography, i.e., ‫זרועו ויאכל‏‬. But MT’s reading is preferred. 9:20[21] ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ יחדיו‏‬4QpIsac • ‫ ְּב ׇכל‏‬MT 4QIsae LXX Tg Vulg | ‫ ובכול‏‬1QIsaa Syr • ‫יׇ ֹדו‏‬ MT LXX (ἡ χεὶρ) | ‫ ידי ‏ו‬1QIsaa orth or var?

Isaiah 10

10:1 ‫ ַהח ְֹק ִקים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ חוקקי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִח ְק ֵק ‏י‬MT | ‫ חוקק ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ַהח ְֹק ִקים‏‬MT has the definite article attached to the ptc., with the article serving in the role of a relative pronoun: “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees.” For ‫“( ֹהוי‏‬woe”) followed by a ptc. with the attached article, see 5:20; 29:15; 31:1. But the reading of 1QIsaa without the article (‫ )חוקקים‏‬is also possible. For ‫ ֹהוי‏‬followed by a ptc., but without the article, see 33:1; 45:9–10. For the vari‑ ants ‫( המחקקים‏‬R) and ‫ם‬ ‫( החקי ‏‬one manuscript of K), see HUB–Isaiah. ‫חקק‏√(— ִח ְק ֵק ‏י‬, “to enact, to decree,” HALOT, 347). MT reads a noun (cf. ‫ִח ְק ֵק ‏י‬ Judg 5:15) versus 1QIsaa’s ptc. (‫ ;חוקקי‏‬cf. ‫ֹחוק ֵק ‏י‬ ְ ‫ ְל‬Judg 5:9). Both readings are pos‑ sible, and both make obvious the alliteration. 10:4 ‫ ַא ִּסיר‏‬MT | ‫ אסו ‏ר‬1QIsaa | ἐπαγωγήν LXX • ‫ ְּב ׇכ ‏ל‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ ובכו ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬MT LXX (ἡ χεὶρ) | ‫ ידי ‏ו‬1QIsaa orth or var? ‫— ַא ִּסיר‏‬MT reads the noun ‫“( ַא ִּסי ‏ר‬prisoner”) versus 1QIsaa’s reading of either a qal passive ptc. ‫“( ׇאסּור‏‬bound”) or a noun ‫“( ֵאסּור‏‬bond”). Cf. also the vari‑ ant in 42:7, where MT and 4QIsah have ‫ ַא ִּסיר‏‬and 1QIsaa attests ‫אסור‏‬. But in these cases, 1QIsaa’s reading may signify a modernization rather than a textual variant.327

327  See the insights of Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 366–67.

102

Chapter 2

10:6 ‫ּול ִׂשיֹמ ‏ו‬ ְ MTket 4QIsae (‫ ולשומ‏ו | )?]מו‏‬MTqere | ‫ם‬ ‫ ולשו֯ ‏‬1QIsaa | τὰς πόλεις LXX (= ‫ם‬ ‫)?לערי ‏‬ ‫— ְּול ִׂשיֹמו‏‬The referent of the third m. sg. suffix attached to this qal inf. const. (√‫ )שים‏‬is ‫ גו ‏י‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ע ‏‬, both words belonging to the first bicolon of the verse. The suffix here is essential in order to make the reading intelligible. 1QIsaa lacks the suffix, thus presenting an inferior reading. With regard to √‫ שים‏‬versus √‫שום‏‬, see also 44:7. 10:9 ‫ ְכ ַד ֶּמ ֶׂשק‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ כדרמש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְכ ַד ֶּמ ֶׂש ‏‬For a discussion of the orthographic variant of ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫כדרמש ‏‬, see 7:8. 10:10 ‫ ׇה ֱא ִליל‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ האלילי ‏‬1QIsaa | ὀλολύξατε LXX (via √‫)ילל‏‬ ‫— ׇה ֱא ִליל‏‬The pl. reading of 1QIsaa (‫אלילים‏‬, “pagan gods, idols,” HALOT, 55–56) seems to be designed to agree with the other plurals of vv. 10–11, i.e., ‫ם‬ ‫ְּופ ִס ֵיל ֶיה ‏‬ (“and their graven images”) and ‫יה‬ ‫“( וְ ֶל ֱא ִל ֶיל ׇ‏‬and her idols”). See Rosenbloom, who holds that “MT is correct as it stands, for ‫ ׇה ֱא ִליל‏‬is the gentilic form, the city of idol-worship.”328 Mitchell, citing Amos 6:2, emends MT’s ‫ ׇה ֱא ִלי ‏ל‬to read ‫האל ‏‬, e.g., “these kingdoms.”329 Oort follows Mitchell.330 For the reading, ‫ה‬ ‫האליל‏‬/‫“( האלילים‏‬the idol[s]”), LXX misreads the root and renders it ὀλολύξατε = ‫ הילילו‏‬via √‫“ ילל‏‬to wail.” 10:12

‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ מעשֹוה‏י‬1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬Isa 10:5–19 sets forth a pericope that is labeled: Assyria: Instrument in

God’s Hand. However, vv. 12–19 constitute a subsection of that pericope, which subsection is marked off in MT with the temporal modifier ‫ה‬ ‫וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬, “but it will come to pass.” 1QIsaa errs with its lack of this form. ‫— ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ‏ּו‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa, see the com‑ mentary in 2:2. 10:13 ‫ ׇא ַמר‏‬MT LXX | ‫ יואמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וַ ֲע ִתיד ֵֹת ֶיה ‏‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ ועתודותיה ‏‬MTqere ‫— ׇא ַמר‏‬The textual variant pertains to a qal pf. (‫ ׇא ַמר‏‬MT) versus an impf. (‫ יואמר‏‬1QIsaa), both with √‫‏‬ ‫אמר‬. The verb in both Hebrew witnesses is 328  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 19. 329  Mitchell, Isaiah. A Study of Chapters I.–XII, 228; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 96. 330  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 96.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

103

syntactically located after the conjunction ‫כ‏י‬, which in this context serves to transition between the events of v. 12 and those of v. 13. 1QIsaa’s impf. verb per‑ haps originated by means of assimilation from the imperfects of v. 12. 10:15 ‫ ְמנִ יֹפו‏‬MT | ‫ מני פיו‏‬1QIsaa | ἄνευ τοῦ ἕλκοντος αὐτόν LXX • ‫ וְ ֶאת‏‬MT | ‫ את‏‬1QIsaa MTmss • ‫ ְמ ִר ׇימיו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ מרימ ‏ו‬MTmss LXX(vid) Syr Vulg 10:16 ‫ ׇה ׇאֹדון‏‬MT 1QIsaa | > MTmss LXX 10:20 ‫ ַעל‏‬2 MT LXX | ‫ א ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ַעל‏‬Multiple theories explain ‫א ‏ל‬/‫ על‏‬interchanges: “weakening of the gut‑ turals” during this time period, impact of Aramaic (BDB, 757), phonetic simi‑ larities, and graphic similarity.331 The ‫א ‏ל‬/‫ על‏‬interchanges in Isaiah include the following: 3:8 ‫ ֶאל‏‬MT | ‫ על‏‬1QIsaa; 10:20 ‫ ַעל‏‬2 MT | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa; 10:28 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אל‏‬4QpIsaa; 14:2 ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT 4QIsae | ‫ א ‏ל‬1QIsaa; 14:4 ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ א ‏ל‬4QIsae; 29:12 ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa; 30:16 ‫ ַעל … וְ ַעל‏‬MT 4QpIsac | ‫ אל … ואל‏‬1QIsaa; 31:1 ‫ ַעל‏‬3 MT | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa; 31:4 ‫ ׇע ׇליו‏‬MT | ‫ אליו‏‬1QIsaa; 37:9 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa; 38:21 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsab; 53:1 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab; 54:9 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אל‏‬4QTanḥ; 56:6 ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa; 65:6 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa; 65:7 ‫ ַעל‏‬MTket | ‫ אל‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa; 66:2 ‫ל־ּד ׇב ִרי‏‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬MT | ‫ לדברי‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ אל ̇ד ֯ב ̇רי‏‬1QIsab; 66:20 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫אל‏‬ 1QIsaa. ‫אל‏‬/‫ על‏‬interchanges also occur among various medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts of Isaiah, as shown in the third apparatus of Goshen-Gottstein (passim, HUB–Isaiah). 10:22

‫ יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ הי֯ [ ‏‬4QpIsaa • ‫ֹׁשוט ‏ף‬ ֵ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ושוט ‏ף‬4QpIsaa 10:23 ‫ יְ הוִ ה ְצ ׇבֹאות‏‬MT 1QIsaa | > MTmss LXX 10:24

‫ ַּב ֵּׁש ֶב ‏‬MT 4QpIsaa | ‫ט‬ ‫ט‬ ‫ משב ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּומ ֵּטה ‏ּו‬ ַ MT | ‫ ומט ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ַּב ֵּׁש ֶבט‏‬The variants ‫ בשבט‏‬and ‫ משבט‏‬present another instance of an in‑ terchange of the prepositions ‫ ‏ב‬/‫ ִמן‏‬, which occurs occasionally without any

331  See the investigation in Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 404, 410; Fassberg, “Syntax of the Biblical Documents,” 103–4.

104

Chapter 2

difference in meaning.332 Or, it is possible that the scroll borrowed the prep‑ osition ‫ מן‏‬from the same preposition that is attached to the previous word (‫)מאשור‏‬. 10:25 ‫ ַּת ְב ִל ׇיתם‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ תבלו֯ ת ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ תכלית ‏‬MTmss | τὴν βουλὴν αὐτῶν LXX (= ‫ם‬ ‫)?תבנית ‏‬ ‫— ַּת ְב ִל ׇיתם‏‬The meaning of ‫ ַּת ְב ִל ׇיתם‏‬is uncertain, but according to HALOT (1684), “The sbst. [‫ ] ַּת ְב ִל ׇיתם‏‬must have the sense of destruction” (but read HALOT’s entire discussion). 1QIsaa’s ‫ תבלו֯ תם‏‬indicates a wāw/yôd confusion? Or interchange? Or it is also possible that the scribe did not comprehend the hapax legomenon and conjectured that ‫ תבלו֯ תם‏‬was the correct form. 10:26 ‫ֹעורר‏‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ ויעי ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫ויע[י ‏ר‬ ֯ 4QpIsaa LXX(vid) ‫ֹעור ‏ר‬ ֵ ְ‫—ו‬This is another case of a verbal form substitution; MT has a polel pf. third m. sg. (√‫עור‏‬, “to set in motion > to swing,” HALOT, 802); 1QIsaa 4QpIsaa have a hipʿil impf. third m. sg. (also √‫עור‏‬, “to arouse, stir up”). The Isaiah scroll and pesher utilize the more common form (e.g., hipʿil), which is attested in the HB twice as often as the polel form. One would guess that the scroll has facili‑ tated the reading. For other divergences between MT and 1QIsaa with regard to √‫עור‏‬, see also 14:9; 15:5; 41:25; 50:4 (this variant pertains to the plus of the con‑ junctive wāw in 1QIsaa). For a discussion of deviations of pf. and impf. verbs in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. 10:27

‫ ַּבֹּיום ַההּו ‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ם‬ ‫א‬ ‫]ב[י]ֹו ‏‬ ֯ 4QIsac ‫— ַּבֹּיום ַההּוא‏‬4QIsac’s copyist failed to write ‫א‬ ‫ ההו ‏‬in the expression ‫א‬ ‫ביום ההו ‏‬. 10:28 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT 1QIsaa Tg | ‫ אל‏‬4QIsac 4QpIsaa LXX Syr Vulg • ‫ ַעּיַ ת‏‬MT Tg Vulg | ‫ עיתה‏‬1QIsaa 4QpIsaa (‫ת | )עיתה‏‬ ‫ ̇עיֹו ‏‬4QIsac | τὴν πόλιν Αγγαι LXX • ‫ יַ ְפ ִקי ‏ד‬MT | ‫ יפקו ‏ד‬1QIsaa | θήσει LXX ‫— ַעּיַ ‏‬MT and 1QIsaa provide an alternate orthography for the name of a ‫ת‬ city. ‫ עית‏‬signifies the older name, in contrast to ‫עיה‏‬, which appears later (see Neh 11:31 and 1 Chr 7:28). The 1QIsaa scribe first wrote ‫ה‬ ‫עי ‏‬, but the same or a subsequent scribe wrote an interlinear tāw, thus producing the reading of ‫ה‬ ‫עית ‏‬. With its reading of ‫ה‬ ‫עית ‏‬, the Isaiah pesher apparently conflated ‫ת‬ ‫ עי ‏‬with ‫ה‬ ‫עי ‏‬. Or there is another possibility—the hê of 1QIsaa and the pesher was the hê 332  See Fassberg, Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew, 129, paragraph 305.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

105

locale. If this was the case, then 1QIsaa erred by writing ‫ה‬ ‫ עי ‏‬but then corrected to ‫עיתה‏‬. For additional comments on the hê locale, see 6:2. 10:29 ‫ ׇע ְברּו‏‬MT | ‫ עבר‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַמ ְע ׇּב ׇרה‏‬MT 4QpIsaa | ‫ במעברה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇלנּו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫למו‏‬ 4QpIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇח ְר ׇד ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ חל[ת ‏‬4QpIsaa ‫— ׇע ְברּו‏‬The two Hebrew witnesses set forth a deviation for the verb √‫עבר‏‬. MT presents the qal pf. pl. ‫ ׇע ְבר ‏ּו‬, and 1QIsaa has the qal pf. sg. ‫עב ‏ר‬. The scroll has assimilated ‫ עבר‏‬from v. 28, which refers to the king of Assyria (compare other referents to the king in 10:12–13, 32). V. 29 is concerned with the king’s army, hence the pl. ‫ ׇע ְברּו‏‬. ‫“(— ַמ ְע ׇּב ׇרה‏‬passage, gorge,” HALOT, 609). In v. 28, both Hebrew witnesses uti‑ lize the preposition bêt after the verb ‫עב ‏ר‬, i.e., ‫עבר במגרו‏ן‬. But in v. 29, 1QIsaa has the preposition (‫)עבר במעברה‏‬, but MT lacks it (‫) ׇע ְברּו ַמ ְע ׇּב ׇרה‏‬. For this minor variant, it is impossible to settle on a primary reading, and the translation re‑ mains the same with either variant. ‫— ׇלנּו‏‬The reading of ‫ ׇלנ‏ּו‬, which is found in both MT and 1QIsaa, can reflect either “to us” or “they lodged” (via √‫)לין‏‬. 4QpIsaa attests ‫“( למ ‏ו‬for them”), which is an indication that the author of the pesher read ‫ לנ ‏ו‬as the preposition lāmed plus the pronominal suffix. He conceivably changed the suffix to ‫ ‑מ‏ו‬so that it would “agree with the 3rd pers. pl. verb form” that exists in the first line of the verse. This assumption has been posited by Horgan.333 In a short note, Muraoka proposes “to emend MT ‫ ׇלנ‏ּו‬at Isa 10.29 to ‫‘ ׇלֹמ‏ו‬to them’” in accordance with 4QpIsaa, thus translating, “Geba (served) them as the night’s lodging place.”334 ‫— ׇח ְר ׇדה‏‬Both MT and 1QIsaa have ‫ ׇח ְר ׇדה ׇה ׇר ׇמה‏‬, “Ramah trembles.” 4QpIsaa ex‑ hibits a variant, which Horgan reconstructs as ‫חל[תה‏‬, i.e., “[Ramah] becomes ill.”335 See also Habermann’s proposal that the pesher read ‫ה‬ ‫“ חל[חל ‏‬anguish.”336 10:30

‫ֹקול ‏ְך‬ ֵ MT 1QIsaa | ֹ ‫]קולכ‏י‬ ֯ 4QpIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַליְ ׇׁש ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ש‬ ‫ לי ‏‬1QIsaa α′ σ′ θ′ εβρ′ ‫ֹקול ‏ְך‬ ֵ —Horgan observes that “the form in 4QpIsaa [ֹ ‫ [‏] ֯קולכי‬preserves a vari‑

ant form of the 2nd pers. sing. fem. sf.”337 ‫— ַליְ ׇׁשה‏‬In the verse under discussion, MT has ‫ה‬ ‫( ַליְ ׇׁש ‏‬is ‫ה‬ ‫ ַליְ ׇׁש ‏‬an alternate spelling? Does it have the hê locale?); 1QIsaa attests ‫ש‬ ‫לי ‏‬. Laish appears seven 333  Horgan, Pesharim, 80. 334  Muraoka, “Who Lodged at Geba (Isaiah 10:29)?” 148–49. See also, Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 96, who emends MT’s ‫ ׇלנ ‏ּו‬to read ‫ם‬ ‫לה ‏‬. 335  Horgan, Pesharim, 80. 336  Ibid., 80. 337  Ibid., 80.

106

Chapter 2

times in MT, always as ‫ ליש‏‬except in Judg 18:7, where it has the hê locale (‫וַ ּיׇ בֹאּו‏‬ ‫ ׇליְ ׇׁשה‬, “and they came to Laish”; note that 2 Sam 3:15 MTket has ‫ לּוׁש‏‬but MTqere has ‫) ׇליִ ׁש‏‬. A single medieval Hebrew Bible manuscript (K, HUB–Isaiah) also at‑ tests ‫ש‬ ‫ לי ‏‬for this verse. The other two proper place names of the verse—‫ּגַ ִּלים‏‬ and ‫ת‬ ‫— ֲענׇ ֹתו ‏‬lack a hê locale. For additional comments on the hê locale, see 6:2. 10:31

‫ ַמ ְד ֵמנׇ ה‬MT 4QpIsaa Tg Vulg | ‫ה‬ ‫ מרמנ ‏‬1QIsaa Syr | Μαδεβηνα LXX ‫— ַמ ְד ֵמנׇ ‏‬UF read ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ;מרמנ ‏‬PQ read ‫ה‬ ‫מדמנ ‏‬. Tigchelaar writes that “reš seems

the correct reading.”338

10:32 ‫ יְ נ ֵֹפף‏‬MT | ‫ ינו ‏פ‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ ֹד‏ו‬MT 4QpIsaa LXX (τῇ χειρὶ) | ‫ ידי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ֵּבי ‏‬MTket Tg(vid) | ‫ת‬ ‫ ַּב ‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa 4QIsac 4QpIsaa LXX Syr Vulg ‫—יְ נ ֵֹפ ‏ף‬In the Bible, √‫ נוף‏‬occurs almost exclusively in the hipʿil, but here in Isaiah it is found as a polel in MT (‫ )יְ נ ֵֹפף‏‬and a qal in 1QIsaa (‫)ינופ‏‬. One may argue that the 1QIsaa scribe has simplified his text by producing a qal, but the fact re‑ mains that he did not modify most of the approximately two dozen polel verbs that occur in Isaiah. It is possible that the 1QIsaa scribe accidentally omitted the second pê; but Bahar discounts this theory and postulates that ‫ ינו ‏פ‬consti‑ tutes a wordplay with the toponym ‫ נ ‏ב‬in this verse.339 ‫— ֵּבי ‏‬MTket errs by attesting ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ֵּבי ‏‬rather than ‫ ַּבת‏‬, a simple clerical mistake. ‫ב ‏‬, found in 1QIsaa 4QIsab 4QpIsaa, is aligned with the MTqere reading.340 So, ‫ת‬ too, compare also ‫ הר בת ציו‏ן‬in 16:1. ‫—יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬For this reading, see the comments at 3:11 and 9:11. 10:34 ‫ וְ נִ ַּקף‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ונקפו‏‬4QpIsaa • ‫ ִס ְב ֵכי‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ס]ו̇ ̇בכי‏‬4QpIsaa • ‫ וְ ַה ְּל ׇבֹנון‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ולבנון‏‬4QpIsaa 10:34–11:1 Presumably utilizing a quotation formula (‫)[כאשר כתוב בספר ]ישעיהו הנביא‏‬, the author of 4QSefer ha-Milḥamah (4Q285) 7 1–3 (par. 11QSefer ha-Milḥamah 338  Tigchelaar, “Review of Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint.” 339  Bahar, “Two Forms of the Root nwp in Isaiah X 32,” 403–5. 340  Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, 448, writes that “Qere, Qa, Gk, Syr, Vulg are certainly correct when they read ‫ת‬ ‫( ַּב ‏‬daughter).” Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 88, and Döderlein, Esaias, 50, too, sup‑ ports the reading of daughter.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

107

[11Q14] 1 i 9–11) cited fourteen words from Isaiah. Note that portions of the quo‑ tation formula and the Isaianic quotation consist of reconstructed words.

Isaiah 11

11:3

‫ ׇאזְ נׇ י ‏ו‬MT | ‫ אוזנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫א‬ ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MTmss ‫— ׇאזְ נׇ יו‏‬The distinction between the suffixes ‫ ‑ו‏‬and ‫ ‑יו‏‬became indistinct in DSS Hebrew, as pointed out by Qimron;341 thus ‫אוזנ ‏ו = ׇאזְ נׇ י ‏ו‬.

11:4

‫ ְל ַענְ וֵ ‏י‬MT | ‫ לע ֹניֹי‏‬1QIsaa σ′ (πτωχους) | τοὺς ταπεινοὺς LXX • ‫ ׇא ֶרץ‏‬1,2 MT | ‫הארץ‏‬1,2‫‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ִּפי ‏ו‬MT | ‫ פיו יומת רש ‏ע‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ִיׇמי ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫ יומ ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ת‬ ‫ י ֹמֹו ‏‬4QIsac ‫— ְל ַענְ וֵ י‏‬At issue are the divergences ‫( ׇענׇ ו‏‬MT) and ‫( עני‏‬1QIsaa) found here in 11:4 as well as in 29:19 (‫ עני ֹים‏ | ֲענׇ וִ ים‏‬1QIsaa); 32:7 (‫ ֲענׇ וִ ים‏‬MTket | ‫ עניים‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa); and 58:7 (‫ם | וַ ֲענִ ּיִ ים‏‬ ‫ וענויי ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ עניי ‏‬1QIsab). Cf. also the sg. versus the pl. of ‫ענ‏י‬ in 26:6 (‫ עניים‏ | ׇענִ י‏‬1QIsaa). The synonymous words that are set forth in the re‑ spective parallelisms (‫ ַּד ִּלים‏‬in 11:4; ‫ ֶא ְבֹיו ‏ן‬in 32:7; and ‫ ׇר ֵע ‏ב‬in 58:7) proffer no assis‑

tance in understanding the variants. There exists no transparent explanation for the divergences in these verses, although one may argue that the deviations pertain to interchanges of the graphical set yôd/wāw. See also the commentary at 26:6. For the reading at hand (11:4), Condamin writes, “Avec Cheyne, Kittel, Duhm, etc., lire ‫עניי‏‬, les malheureux, au lieu de ‫ענו ‏י‬, les humbles.”342 ‫— ִּפיו‏‬1QIsaa has ‫יומת רשע‏‬, encircled with deletion dots. MT lacks the read‑ ing. The scribe assimilated these two words from the same expression that is found three words later. ‫— ִיׇמי ‏‬V. 4b features a chiastic passage, for which MT presents two corre‑ ‫ת‬ sponding hipʿil impf. verbs: “he will smite [‫]וְ ִה ׇּכה‏‬/his mouth//his lips/he will slay [‫] ִיׇמית‏‬.” 1QIsaa (‫ )יומת‏‬has a hopʿal impf. third m. sg., “[the wicked] will be killed”; and 4QIsac has a qal impf. third m. sg., “[the wicked] will die.” The de‑ viations of 1QIsaa and 4QIsac may have arisen owing to scribal carelessness or to the graphic similarity of the qal, hipʿil, and hopʿal forms.

341  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70. 342  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 90; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 97, writes that ‫ עני ‏י‬and ‫ענו ‏י‬ “are easily confounded.”

108

Chapter 2

11:5 ‫ וְ ׇה ֱאמּונׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ואמונ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇה ֱאמּונׇ ‏‬Kutscher states that the loss of the article in the scroll (‫)ואמונה‏‬ ‫ה‬ is indicative of the weakening of the gutturals during the late Second Temple period.343 This may well be the case. However, there may be other possibili‑ ties. Conceivably the scroll’s scribe omitted the article to align ‫ה‬ ‫ אמונ ‏‬with ‫ק‬ ‫צד ‏‬, which are synonymous counterparts in the parallelism. 11:6344 ‫ יִ ְר ׇּבץ‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ ירבצ ‏ו‬4QIsac • ‫א‬ ‫ּומ ִרי ‏‬ ְ MT 4QIsac Tg | ‫ ימר ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX (βοσκηθήσονται = ‫)ימרא ‏ו‬ ‫—יִ ְר ׇּבץ‏‬MT and 1QIsaa set forth the sg. verb (‫ ;)ירבץ‏‬4QIsac has the pl. (‫)ירבצו‏‬, perhaps as the result of dittography ‫ירבצו ועגל‏‬. ‫ּומ ִריא‏‬ ְ —See BH/BHS. The second bicolon of two in this verse features a tex‑ tual variant that impacts the parallelistic structure. MT (‫ּומ ִריא‏‬ ְ ), followed by 4QIsac Tg, read the noun (“fatted steer,” HALOT, 635). But some critics aver that “fatted steer,” a generic name of an animal being fattened for slaughter, does not fit the context of the two bicola wherein specific species are listed—wolf, lamb, leopard, kid, calf, and young lion. Nor does “fatted steer” have its parallel in the second line of the parallelism. Thus critics emend the text to read ‫ימרא ‏ו‬ (= LXX), ‫ =( ימרו‏‬1QIsaa), ‫יברא ‏ו‬, ‫ם‬ ‫רעי ‏‬, or ‫ ירע ‏ו‬in place of ‫ומריא‏‬.345 With the coming forth of the Qumran texts, such an emendation is no lon‑ ger necessary.346 1QIsaa (‫ימרו‏‬, via √‫מרא‏‬, “to feed on the fat of the land, graze,” HALOT, 630) provides a vario lectio that is graphically similar to that of MT. The difference between the variants may be explained by wāw/yôd confusion as well as elision of the ʾālep. Stylistically, the reading of 1QIsaa provides a par‑ allel to ‫נהג‏‬. The parallelism according to 1QIsaa, therefore, has the following corresponding elements: two young animals in the first part (“calf” and “young lion”) parallel a young person (“little child”) in the second; and the verbs ‫ימרו‏‬ 343  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 57, 412. 344  We note here that Pfann, “4Qpap cryptA Text,” DJD XXXVI, 682, labeled a small fragment (4Q250b) as “4Qpap cryptA Text Related to Isaiah 11.” Pfann established three possible connections to Isaiah—the text of 4Q250b is possibly a textual variant of 11:6–7 or a paraphrase of 11:6–7, or the “text may contain these words in close relation simply by coincidence.” 345  See Mitchell, Isaiah. A Study of Chapters, I.–XII, 246; and Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 221. Note also the emendation of MT’s ‫ ומריא יחד‏ו‬to ‫ד‬ ‫במרעה אח ‏‬, in Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 96. 346  See the comments of Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 217; and Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 123–24.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

109

and ‫ נה ‏ג‬have matching qualities. The unit reads: “The calf and the young lion will graze together, and a little child will lead them.”347 This parallelistic struc‑ ture signifies the primary reading. For a summary of textual critics who prefer the reading of 1QIsaa, see Cohen.348 See also Høgenhaven, who writes that the Great Isaiah Scroll “thus seems to have the lectio difficilior, and moreover, its reading appears to be sty‑ listically superior to that of MT, restoring four syntactically complete parts of the verse.”349 But Oswalt350 (and others) prefers MT’s reading. LXX Vulg Syr conflate the elements of MT and 1QIsaa, having both a noun and verb. 11:7 ‫ יִ ְר ְּבצּו‏‬MT 4QIsac LXXmss α′ θ′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ ורבצו‏‬1QIsaa | ἔσονται LXX • ‫ וְ ַא ְריֵ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ וארי‏‬4QIsac ‫רבץ‏√(—יִ ְר ְּבצּו‏‬, “to lie down, rest,” HALOT, 1181). V. 7a of MT and 4QIsac read ‫יִ ְר ְּבצ ‏ּו‬, versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ורבצ‏ו‬. ‫אריה‏—וְ ַא ְריֵ ה‏‬/‫ ארי‏‬are attested in MT Isaiah 11:7; 15:9; 21:8; 31:4; 35:9; 38:13; 65:25. Textual variants between MT and one of the Qumran Isaiah texts occur at 11:7; 15:9; 21:8; and 65:25 (see the comments at these respective verses). In the present passage, the divergences ‫ה‬ ‫ =( ארי ‏‬MT 1QIsaa) and ‫ =( אר‏י‬4QIsac) may indicate a preference of style. 11:8

‫ וְ ִׁש ֲע ַׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ וישעש ‏ע‬1QIsaa | LXX > • ‫ת‬ ‫ע‬ ‫אּור ‏‬ ַ ‫ ְמ‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ת‬ ‫ מאורו ‏‬1QIsaa | κοίτην LXX • ‫ ִצ ְפֹעונִ ‏י‬MT Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ם‬ ‫ צפעוני ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsac LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇה ׇד ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsab | ‫ יהד ‏‬4QIsac ‫ה‬ ‫—וְ ִׁש ֲע ַׁשע‏‬This is another case of a verbal form substitution, a late phenom‑ enon: weQatal > weYiqtol—MT has a pilpel pf. third m. sg. (‫ )וְ ִׁש ֲע ַׁשע‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s pilpel impf. third m. sg. (‫)וישעשע‏‬. For a discussion of deviations of pf.

and impf. verbs in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. ‫אּורת ִצ ְפֹעונִ י‏‬ ַ ‫ ִצ ְפֹעונִ י‏(— ְמ‬, “a poisonous snake, viper,” HALOT, 1050). In line two of the parallelism, MT has the sg. ‫אּורת ִצ ְפֹעונִ י‏‬ ַ ‫“( ְמ‬den of the viper”) ver‑ sus the double pl. of 1QIsaa ‫“( מאורות צפעונים‏‬dens? of the vipers”); 150 (pm) 347  For translation proposals, see Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:82. 348  Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 44. 349  Høgenhaven, “First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran,” 23. Roberts, First Isaiah, 178, too, supports 1QIsaa. See also Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 252. 350  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 277n6.

110

Chapter 2

(HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫ = מאורות‏‬1QIsaa. Qimron maintains that 1QIsaa’s ‫מאורות‏‬ ‫“( צפעונים‬doubly-marked plural of attributive constructs”) is a common feature

of DSS Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. He provides several examples from non‑ biblical texts and two additional cases from 1QIsaa (45:14; 59:5; see also 3:9).351 ‫הדה‏√(— ׇה ׇד ‏‬, “with ‫ יׇ ד‏‬to put out one’s hand,” HALOT, 239). The point at issue ‫ה‬ is the pf. ‫( ׇה ׇדה‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsab) versus the impf. ‫( יהדה‏‬4QIsac). This is likely a case of a verbal form substitution: qatal > yiqtol in 4QIsac (which is not an uncommon phenomenon in QH). Also possible, a copyist of 4QIsac may have added the yôd to ‫ יהדה‏‬under the influence of the previous word (‫)ידו‏‬, which also begins with yôd. 11:9

‫ל־ה ‏ר‬ ַ ‫ ְּב ׇכ‬MT 4QIsac (‫ )‏בכל] הר‬σ′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ בה ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇמ ְל ׇא ‏‬MT 4QIsac LXX Vulg | ‫ה‬ ‫ תמלא ‏‬1QIsaa Tg Syr • ‫ ֵּד ׇעה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ לדעה‏‬4QIsac • ‫ יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Syr Vulg | ‫ כבֹוד יהוה‏‬4QIsac Tg ‫— ׇמ ְל ׇא ‏‬The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )תמלאה‏‬is a hybrid verbal form,352 a confla‑ ‫ה‬ tion, possessing elements of a pf. f. sg. verb (MT ‫ )מלאה‏‬and also the impf. f. prefix (Syr ‫א‬ ‫ ;דתתמל ‏‬Tg ‫)תתמל‏י‬.353 See also the conflated/hybrid form in MT 63:3 (‫)אגאלתי‏‬. Inasmuch as the greater context (see 11:6–10) of this passage per‑

tains to a future, idyllic period when the wolf will dwell with the lamb, etc., the 1QIsaa scribe apparently attempted to change the qal pf. verb ‫ מלאה‏‬into a qal impf. ‫תמלאה‏‬, but in doing so he failed to delete the suffixed hê. Further evidence that the scribe was considering a future setting pertains to the fact that the first two verbs of v. 9 are imperfect (i.e., ‫ ירע ‏ו‬and ‫)יׁשחית ‏ו‬. For other ex‑ amples of possible hybrid forms in 1QIsaa, see the comments on ‫ה‬ ‫ עצרת ‏‬at 1:13. ‫— ֵּד ׇעה‏‬MT and 1QIsaa (‫ )דעה‏‬lack the proclitic lāmed, but 4QIsac features it (‫ ;)לדעה‏‬see the brief discussion in Muraoka.354 See also 23:11. ‫—יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT and 1QIsaa attest ‫יְ הוׇ ה‏‬, but 4QIsac sets forth ‫כבֹוד יהוה‏‬. Either the scribe of 4QIsac assimilated ‫ כבוד‏‬from the next verse (v. 10) or he utilized the common biblical expression ‫כבוד יהוה‏‬, which is found attested more than three dozen times in the HB and four times alone in Isaiah. 4QIsac’s ‫ה‬ ‫לדעה כבֹוד יהו ‏‬, in fact, may be a harmonization from Hab 2:14 (‫ת־ּכֹבוד יְ הוׇ ה‏‬ ְ ‫) ׇל ַד ַעת ֶא‬. 351  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 406–07. 352  For a study of possible hybrid forms in 1QIsaa, see Parry, “Artificial Forms in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa),” 83–96. 353  See Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 248. 354  Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 195. See also Fassberg, “Syntax of the Biblical Documents,” 98, 102–3.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

111

11:10 ‫ וְ ׇהיְ ׇת ‏‬MT 4QIsac LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ והי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇהיְ ׇתה‏‬1QIsaa read ‫והיה‏‬, then a scribe corrected it to ‫והיא‏‬. For deviations of √‫ היה‏‬between MT and 1QIsaa, see the comments at 5:1. 11:11 ‫ ֵׁשנִ ית‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ת‬ ‫ שא ‏‬4QpIsae | τοῦ δεῖξαι (= √‫ שנה‏‬III?) LXX ‫— ֵׁשנִ ית‏‬MT and 1QIsaa read ‫“( שנית‏‬second”), which some judge to be “redun‑ dant with ‫יוסיף‏‬.”355 After discussing possible emendations for both ‫ת‬ ‫ שני ‏‬and ‫יד ‏ו‬, Watts concludes, “The best suggestion is to compare with 49:22 and read ‫ְׂש ֵאת‏‬ qal inf constr from ‫‘ נׂשא‏‬to lift up.’”356 This is precisely the reading of 4QpIsae (a fact that Watts does not mention). Before the Qumran discoveries, Oort emended MT’s text to read ‫שאת‏‬.357 Notwithstanding this reading of 4QpIsae, MT and 1QIsaa possess the preferred text. 11:12 MT ‫ה | וְ נׇ ׇׂשא‏‬ ‫ ונש ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ֵמ ַא ְר ַּבע ַּכנְ ֹפו ‏‬MT 4QIsaa (‫ )] כנפות‏‬LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ מכנפו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ת‬ ‫— ֵמ ַא ְר ַּבע ַּכנְ ֹפות‏‬MT (together with LXX Tg Syr Vulg) reads “from the four cor‑ ners of the earth,” an expression also found in Ezek 7:2. 1QIsaa omitted ‫ארב ‏ע‬, thus reading “from the corners of the earth.” The mechanism that caused 1QIsaa’s error is unknown. With 4QIsaa’s fragmented ‫ת‬ ‫] כנפו ‏‬, which indicates that it lacked the attached mêm (i.e., ‫ת‬ ‫ מכנפו ‏‬1QIsaa), 4QIsaa presumably fol‑ lows MT. 11:14 ‫ וְ ׇעפּו‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Syr Vulg | ‫ ֹועפ ‏ף‬4QIsaa | ‫תח ְברּו‏ן‬ ַ ִ‫ וְ י‬Tg • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫פלשתיי ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ בֹּזּו‏‬MT LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ ובזזו‏‬1QIsaa | 4QIsae (‫)ובזו‏‬ ‫—וְ ׇעפ ‏ּו‬4QIsaa’s unique ‫ ֹועפף‏‬may be due to a misreading of the second wāw for the final pê.358 ‫— ְּפ ִל ְׁש ִּתים‏‬According to Kutscher, the pl. form ‫ פלשתיים‏‬belonging to 1QIsaa signifies an LBH form.359

355  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 177. 356  Ibid., 177. 357  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 96. 358  As suggested by Roberts, First Isaiah, 185. 359  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 99.

112

Chapter 2

‫—יׇ בֹּז ‏ּו‬MT places “together” (‫ )יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬with the second line of the first bicolon of v. 14, “together they will plunder the people.” With a wāw conjunction attached to ‫בזז ‏ו‬, 1QIsaa and 4QIsae read “to the west together, and.”

11:15 ‫ יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬MT LXX | ‫ ידיו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַּב ְעיׇ ם‏‬MT | ‫ בעיים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ רּוֹחו‏‬MT | ‫ רוח‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ְל ִׁש ְב ׇעה‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ לשבע ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ִה ְד ִרי ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ והדריכו֯‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇ ֹדו‏‬For this reading, see the comments at 3:11 and 9:11. ‫— ַּב ְעיׇ ‏‬The hapax legomenon ‫ עים‏‬is “with uncertain meaning” (HALOT, 817). ‫ם‬ For a summary of possible emendations for ‫בעים‏‬, consult Watts and Mitchell.360 See also Esther Eshel’s theory that ‫ בעים‏‬is a “toponym to be identified as the Euphrates,” thus reading the phrase in question, the Lord “will raise His hand over the Euphrates.”361 Ginsburg proposes that the primary reading may have been ‫ם‬ ‫)בעצם רוחו‏( בעצ ‏‬, “with his mighty wind” or “with the strength of his wind,” with an error resulting when a scribe misread the ṣādê for a yôd.362 For this reading see also BHS and HALOT (817). 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫( בעיי ‏‬K and 96 also read ‫[ בעיי ‏‬HUB–Isaiah]), which may be no more than an orthographic variant,363 ‫ם‬ does not assist in determining the meaning. ‫—רּוֹח ‏ו‬For the deviation of ‫( רוח‏ו‬MT) versus ‫ח‬ ‫( רו‏‬1QIsaa), Van der Vorm-Croughs364 points out that MT may have added the possessive pronoun wāw to ‫ח‬ ‫ רו ‏‬by means of dittography (‫ ;)רוחו והכהו‏‬or, contrariwise, 1QIsaa (or its Vorlage) lost the pronoun by way of haplography. An alternative explanation— 1QIsaa (and the LXX tradition) altered the text to agree with Exod 14:21, which also lacks the possessive pronoun (‫)ברוח קדים‏‬. A single manuscript of K (HUB– Isaiah) has ‫ = רוח‏‬1QIsaa. ‫—וְ ִה ְד ִריְך‏‬Van der Vorm-Croughs makes the point that perhaps 1QIsaa’s scribe and LXX’s translator “considered their Hebrew Vorlage, as reflected by the MT, elliptic,” and hence they (the scribe and translator) supplied the (respective) objects to the verb.365 ‫— ְל ִׁש ְב ׇע ‏‬UF 2:103 observes that the 1QIsaa copyist changed ‫ לשבעה‏‬to read ‫ה‬ ‫( לשבעת‏‬in the construct ‫ם‬ ‫)לשבעת נחלי ‏‬, writing a tāw over the hê.

360  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 178; Mitchell, Isaiah. A Study of Chapters I.–XII, 252. 361  Eshel, “Isaiah 11:15: A New Interpretation,” 45. 362  As per the proposal of Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, 294. 363  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 61–63, lists several words in 1QIsaa that present double yôds for the single consonantal yôd in MT. His list contains both verbs and nouns. 364  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 500. 365  Ibid., 487.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



113

Isaiah 12

12:1 ‫ יׇ ׁש ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ וש ‏ב‬1QIsaa LXX (καὶ ἀπέστρεψας) ‫ב‬ ‫—יׇ ׁשֹב‏‬In the context of the verse, the verb ‫ יׇ ׁש ֹ ‏ב‬in MT (√‫ׁשוב‏‬, qal impf. third m. sg. jussive) is challenging. Marti, as Gray points out, suggests reading ‫ׁשב‏‬,366 seeing the yôd as a dittograph; Gray proposes ‫ויׁשב‏‬, stating that “the theory that the text is sound and ‫ יׁשב‏‬a ‘poetically shortened’ form for ‫[ ויׁשב‏‬is] a theory that is precariously supported by reference to Hos 6:1 (note preceding ‫ )ו‏‬and Ps 18:12.”367 1QIsaa’s ‫ ושב‏‬is viable, although ‫ ויׁש ‏ב‬is preferable. 12:2

‫ ֵא ‏ל‬MT | ‫ אל א ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫ּה‬ ‫ וְ זִ ְמ ׇרת יׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ וזמרתי ‏ה‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ יְ ִה ‏י‬MT 4QIsae | ‫א‬ ‫ היה ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵא ‏ל‬1QIsaa’s doubling of ‫ א ‏ל‬may be translated “God, God,” a replication de‑

signed to emphasize this deific name in the statement “God, even God is my salvation.” This designation more or less corresponds with ‫ יה יהוה‏‬in the second half of the verse. Elsewhere, Isaiah duplicates the Divine Name (see 26:4; 38:11), which indicates that Divine Name duplications do exist in Isaiah’s text. If the primary reading indeed read “God, God,” then MT lost one ‫ אל‏‬via haplography. Or, ‫ אל אל‏‬may be translated “to God,” i.e., “toward the God of my salvation I will trust.”368 Van der Vorm-Crough compares 1QIsaa’s ‫ אל אל‏‬to the LXX, which has “I will trust in him” (ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ); but Van der Vorm-Crough is quick to point out that this agreement does not mean that 1QIsaa and the LXX shared the same Vorlage. Rather, the two versions are attempting to fill out a “seemingly elliptic Hebrew text.”369 Another possible explanation for 1QIsaa’s doubling of ‫ אל‏‬is a dittography. And Syr provides yet another possibility, reading ‫“( על‏‬upon God”) suggesting that the tradition of 1QIsaa may have read ‫ על א ‏ל‬instead of ‫אל א ‏ל‬. MT should be followed, thus reading, “Behold, God is my salvation.” ‫זִ ְמ ׇרה‏(—וְ זִ ְמ ׇרת יׇ ‏‬, “strength,” HALOT, 274). Gray370 writes that MT lost the ‫ּה‬ yôd on ‫ת‬ ‫( וזמר ‏‬which would correspond to ‫) ׇעּזִ ‏י‬, although MT’s ‫ּה‬ ‫ׇעּזִ י וְ זִ ְמ ׇרת יׇ ‏‬ ‫ יְ הוׇ ה‬call to mind those of Exod 15:2 and Ps 118:14 (‫)עזי וזמרת יה‏‬. But compare Barthélemy, who maintains that ‫ת‬ ‫ וזמר ‏‬is the primary reading.371 Evidently the 366  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 93, too, prefers ‫ב‬ ‫ש ‏‬. 367  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 231. 368  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 181. 369  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 487. 370  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 231; note also that Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 96, before the discovery of the scrolls, emended MT to read ‫( וזמרת‏י‬so, too, Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 1). 371  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:87–90.

114

Chapter 2

scribe of 1QIsaa first wrote ‫וזמרת ‏י‬, equaling Gray’s suggestion, but subsequently the same copyist or a subsequent corrector superscripted the hê, thus reading ‫ה‬ ‫וזמרתי ‏‬. In a short note Talmon takes another approach, arguing that MT’s ‫יׇ ּה‏‬ ‫ יְ הוׇ ה‬came about when a copyist first abbreviated the Divine Name to read ‫יה‏‬ and a subsequent scribe added the full name to the text, thus reading ‫יה יהוה‏‬. 1QIsaa first read ‫ה‬ ‫עוזי וזמרתי יהו ‏‬, but a second book hand added the hê between ‫ וזמרת‏י‬and ‫ה‬ ‫יהו ‏‬. The added hê “may have been inserted to square the DSIa text with MT, though using a different word-division. But more probably it repre‑ sents an abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton by the letter ‫ה‬ ‫ ‏‬which the reviser of DSIa found in his copy.”372 ‫—וַ יְ ִה‏י‬MT and 4QIsae read ‫ה‬ ‫ויהי לי ליׁשוע ‏‬, a form that is identical to Exod 15:2 and Ps 118:14 (‫ ;)ויהי לי ליׁשועה‏‬cf. also 2 Sam 10:11 (‫ )והיתה לי ליׁשועה‏‬and Ps 118:21 (‫)ותהי לי ליׁשועה‏‬. 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ היהא לי לישוע ‏‬is acceptable but not to be preferred. For the copyist of 1QIsaa employing the ʾālep for √‫היה‏‬, see also the commentary at 5:1. 12:4

‫ וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶּת ‏‬MT | ‫ ואמרתה‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsae (‫]ֹואמרת‏‬ ‫ם‬ ̇ ) LXX • ‫ ֹהודּו‏‬MT LXX (Ὑμνεῖτε) | ‫אודו‏‬

1QIsaa ‫—וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶּת ‏‬Isaiah 12 constitutes two “Songs of Salvation,” both introduced ‫ם‬ with similar statements, “And in that day you will say.” The first hymn (vv. 1–3) has been individualized. It opens with ‫א‬ ‫( וְ ׇא ַמ ְר ׇּת ַּבֹּיום ַההּו ‏‬note the qal pf. second m. sg. verb) and is filled with first-person sg. pronouns such as I (twice), me (twice), and my (four times). The second hymn (vv. 4–6) opens with ‫ם‬ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶּת ‏‬ ‫( ַּבֹּיום ַההּוא‬note the qal pf. second m. pl. verb) and is addressed to a pl. group, as evidenced by the repetition of pl. imperatives (‫ֹהודּו‏‬, ‫ ִק ְרא‏ּו‬, ‫ֹהודיע‏ּו‬ ִ , ‫ ַהזְ ִּכיר‏ּו‬, ‫)זַ ְּמרּו‏‬. At issue here is the pl. of MT (‫ )וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶּתם‏‬versus the sg. of 1QIsaa, 4QIsae (‫ֹואמרת‬ ̇ ]‫‏‬/‫)‏ואמרתה‬. Which reading correctly opens the second Song of Salvation? Kissane holds that MT is incorrect, with ‫ם‬ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶּת ‏‬, and follows LXX, ‫ת‬ ‫ואמר ‏‬.373 But it is likely that the two Qumran witnesses err with the sg. ‫ה‬ ‫ואמרת ‏‬, having assimilated the verb (‫ )ואמרתה‏‬that opens the first hymn of Isaiah 12. See also the commentary of ‫ וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬at 25:9. ‫—ֹהודּו‏‬There are nine hipʿil verbs (five imperatives [12:4; 23:1; 37:20; 51:4; 54:2], three pf. forms [42:14; 49:26; 59:14], and one inf. [64:6]) where 1QIsaa has

372  Talmon, “Case of Abbreviation Resulting in Double Readings,” 207. 373  Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:148.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

115

an ʾālep in place of the prefixed hê of MT.374 Compare also 43:8; 1QIsab ‫;אוציא‏‬ MT ‫א‬ ‫ֹהוצי ‏‬ ִ . These are cases where the hê was omitted (elision), as discussed in Qimron’s grammar.375 12:5 ‫ יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ ליהוה‏‬1QIsaa | τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου LXX • ‫ ְמיֻ ַּד ַעת‏‬MTket | ‫מּוד ַעת‏‬ ַ MTqere 4QIsaa Tg Syr | ‫ מודעות‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ הוׇ ‏‬According to Deist, 1QIsaa added the lāmed to the Tetragrammaton ‫ה‬ (‫ )ליהוה‏‬to simplify the text, making the preposition explicit.376 ‫— ְמיֻ ַּד ַע ‏‬MTket reads a puʿal f. sg. ptc. (‫ ;)מידעת‏‬MTqere and 4QIsaa have a ‫ת‬ hopʿal f. sg. ptc. (‫)מודעת‏‬. Either reading works well in the context, but Condamin prefers ‫מּוד ַעת‏‬ ַ .377 1QIsaa’s hopʿal f. pl. ptc. (‫ )מודעות‏‬is irregular and problematic with the f. sg. demonstrative adjective ‫ת‬ ‫זוא ‏‬. 12:6 ‫ֹיוׁש ֶבת‏‬ ֶ MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ ב ‏‬corrected to ‫ יושבת‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹיוׁש ֶב ‏‬ ‫ת‬ ֶ —For MT’s ‫ֹיוׁש ֶבת ִצֹּיו‏ן‬ ֶ , 1QIsaa’s prima manu reads the common expres‑ sion “daughter of Zion,” which is attested on a number of occasions in Isaiah (e.g., 1:8; 16:1; 37:22; 52:2; 62:11; cf. also ‫ בנות ציו‏ן‬in 3:16–17; 4:4). However, a sub‑ sequent corrector of the scroll crossed out ‫ת‬ ‫ ב ‏‬and wrote ‫ת‬ ‫יושב ‏‬, in agreement with MT (cf. ‫יׁשב ִצֹּיו‏ן‬ ֵ in 10:24 and Ps 9:12).

Isaiah 13

13:1

‫ ׇחזׇ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ חוז ‏‬1QIsaa orth or var? • ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇחזׇ ה‏‬MT attests a qal pf. third m. sg. verb, “which Isaiah the son of Amoz envisioned.” 1QIsaa has a qal m. sg. ptc. ‫ה‬ ‫( חוז ‏‬unless this is an orthographic de‑

viation), “which Isaiah the son of Amoz envisions.” The pf. verb fits the pattern for opening formulas (cf. 1:1; 2:1; Amos 1:1; Hab 1:1 [‫] ַה ַּמ ׇּׂשא ֲא ֶׁשר ׇחזׇ ה ֲח ַבּקּוק ַהּנׇ ִביא‏‬, etc.), thus MT’s reading should be maintained. ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1. 374  Abegg has addressed the issue of hê and ʾālep interchanges in QH, Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 327–28. 375  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 178–80; see also 178n68. 376  Deist, Towards the Text of the Old Testament, 46. 377  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 94.

116

Chapter 2

13:2 ‫ וְ יׇ בֹא ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsae α′ σ′ Tg Vulg | ‫א‬ ‫ יבו ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ יבא ‏ו‬4QIsaa Syr | > LXX ‫—וְ יׇ בֹאּו‏‬The antecedent of the verb ‫ ויבא ‏ו‬belonging to MT and 4QIsae (cf. also 4QIsaa ‫ )יבא‏ו‬is ‫ ׇל ֶהם‏‬: “Exalt the voice unto them (‫ … ) ׇל ֶהם‏‬that they may enter (‫ )וְ יׇ בֹאּו‏‬the gates.” The sg. verb of 1QIsaa (‫ )יבוא‏‬signifies an incorrect reading. There is no observable mechanism that explains 1QIsaa’s reading. 13:4 ‫ נֶ ֱא ׇס ִפים‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ם | )]נ֯ ̇אספים‏‬ ‫ נספי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְמ ַפ ֵּק ‏ד‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ מפקי ‏ד‬4QIsab ‫—נֶ ֱא ׇס ִפי ‏‬The loss of the sounds belonging to the gutturals ʾālep, hê, ḥêt, and ‫ם‬ ʿayin in a number of instances in the Isaiah scroll characterizes the diminish‑ ing of the sounds of the pharyngeals and laryngeals during the late Second Temple period, especially among the Jews who were influenced by the Greek language.378 The phoneme rêš, too, often shares features with this class of char‑ acters (of the nonlaryngeal/pharyngeal root consonants, rêš is dropped from words more than other consonants).379 In fact, in 1959 Kahle theorized that both laryngeals and pharyngeals had ceased to exist in many Jewish commu‑ nities, but centuries later such sounds had been reestablished as part of the Masoretic framework of the Bible.380 1QIsaa’s ‫ נספים‏‬serves as an example of where the ʾālep has dropped out.381 See also the example in 28:15. ‫— ְמ ַפ ֵּקד‏‬The piʿel of MT √‫ פקד‏‬occurs only here in 13:4 (MT 1QIsaa); with its attestation of ‫מפקיד‏‬, 4QIsab employs the more common hipʿil. 13:7 ‫ יׇ ַדיִ ‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsaa | ‫ ידי‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ִּת ְר ֶּפינׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ תרפיני ‏‬4QIsaa ‫—יׇ ַדיִ ם‏‬Both Hebrew and Aramaic texts from the Second Temple era experi‑ enced interchanges of pl. endings ‫ ‑ין‏‬and ‫‑ים‏‬. Qimron provides examples from nonbiblical Qumran texts and proposes that these interchanges “reflect the loss of the phonological distinction between m and n in final position. The exact nature of the resulting sound is a matter of dispute.”382 And Kutscher supplies instances from 1QIsaa.383 My own examples from 1QIsaa include the

378  See the study of Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic, 67–96. 379  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 26–27. 380  Kahle, Cairo Geniza, 164–71. 381  See Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 57; for other examples, see Muraoka, “Isaiah Scroll (iQIsaa),” 3. 382  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 27. 383  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 61, 91, 518.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

117

following: ‫ם‬ ‫( יׇ ַדיִ ‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsaa) versus ‫( ידי ‏ן‬1QIsaa) in Isaiah 13:7;384 ‫ם‬ ‫( ְל ִצּיִ י ‏‬MT 4QIsac) versus ‫( לציין‏‬1QIsaa) in Isaiah 23:13; ‫( ִׁש ְב ִעים‏‬MT) versus ‫( ̇שבעין‏‬1QIsaa) in Isaiah 23:17; ‫( ִמ ְדיׇ ן‏‬MT) versus ‫( מדים‏‬1QIsaa) in Isaiah 9:3 and 60:6. But contrast ‫ מדין‏‬versus ‫“( מדים‏‬garments”) in Judges 5:10, a form that may reflect a northern Israelian dialect.385 Joüon and Muraoka observe that the Aramaic ending ‫‑ין‏‬ occurs “very frequent[ly] in MH.”386 13:8 ‫ ְּפנֵ ּי‏‬MT 4QIsaa 4QIsab Tg Vulg | ‫ ופנ‏י‬1QIsaa | καὶ … μεταβαλοῦσιν (= ‫ )ופנ ‏ו‬LXX ‫— ְּפנֵ ‏ּי‬The LXX translator read a wāw instead of a yôd, thus reading ‫ופנ ‏ו‬. 13:9 ‫ ַא ְכזׇ ִרי‏‬MT | ‫ אגזר ‏י‬1QIsaa | ἀνίατος LXX • ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ אר ‏צ‬1QIsaa | τὴν οἰκουμένην ὅλην LXX • ‫יה‬ ‫ וְ ַח ׇּט ֶא ׇ ‏‬MT 4QIsaa 4QIsab Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ם‬ ‫ וחטאי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫“(— ַא ְכזׇ ִר ‏י‬cruel,” HALOT, 45–46). There are at least three possible explana‑ tions for the variation between MT’s ‫ ַא ְכזׇ ִר‏י‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫אגזרי‏‬: (a) Kutscher writes concerning ‫ אכזר‏י‬and ‫ אגזר‏י‬that “the voiced zayin caused the kāp to change the voiced gîmel (partial assimilation). [This] assimilation is regressive. Such assimilation is naturally very common.”387 Cf. also 64:8. (b) The graph‑ ic similarity between the gîmel and kāp encouraged this error in the scroll. (c) The copyist simply erred by misspelling ‫ ַא ְכזׇ ִר‏י‬, which occurs eight times in the HB and only here in Isaiah (but compare also ‫ ַא ְכזׇ ‏ר‬and ‫ת‬ ‫) ַא ְכזְ ִרּיּו ‏‬. ‫ ַח ׇּטא‏(—וְ ַח ׇּט ֶא ׇיה‏‬, “sinner,” HALOT, 306). Three Hebrew witnesses—MT, 4QIsaa, and 4QIsab—read ‫“( וְ ַח ׇּט ֶא ׇיה‏‬her/its sinners”), as opposed to 1QIsaa which has ‫וחטאים‏‬. The antecedent (or, in this case, the descendent) for the pronominal suffix ‫‑ה‬ ‫ ׇ‏‬is ‫“( ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬the land”); also possible is a grammatical de‑ scendent, located later in the pericope, in v. 19: “And Babylon, the glory of the kingdoms, the splendor and pride of the Chaldeans.” “Her sinners,” then, refers to Lady Babylon. Perhaps the 1QIsaa scribe failed to understand both the an‑ tecedent and the grammatical descendent and facilitated the text by writing ‫( וחטאי ‏‬cf. Ps 104:35, ‫ן־ה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫)יִ ַּתּמּו ַח ׇּט ִאים ִמ ׇ‬. Also possible, a copyist of the 1QIsaa tradition inadvertently misread the hê for a final mêm (graphic similarity).

384  In other Isaianic passages where MT has ‫ם‬ ‫( ידי ‏‬see 22:18; 33:21; 35:3; 45:9), 1QIsaa also reads ‫ידים‏‬. 385  See Hornkohl, “Biblical Hebrew: Periodization,” 318. 386  Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 271. 387  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 510–11; see also Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 112; and Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 29.

118

Chapter 2

13:10 ‫ יׇ ֵהּל ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ יאיר ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֹאוֹר ‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | + ‫ ]◦ לא‬4QIsaa ‫—יׇ ֵהּלּו‏‬MT ‫ יׇ ֵהּל‏ּו‬sets forth the difficult reading, because √‫“( הלל‏‬to flash forth light,” via √‫הלל‏‬, HALOT, 248) occurs only four times in the Bible (Isa 13:10; Job 29:3; 31:26; 41:10) and this verb does not exist in rabbinic Hebrew. The scribe of 1QIsaa replaced the rare ‫ יהלו‏‬with the common ‫“( יאיר ‏ו‬to give light, shine,” via √‫אור‏‬, HALOT, 24), thus updating the text to a common Biblical and rabbinic Hebrew root.388 Wildberger calls 1QIsaa’s ‫“ יאירו‏‬an explanatory gloss.”389 For the Hebrew readings at hand, it is not possible to determine the Vorlage of LXX and the versions. 13:13 ‫ֹקומּה‏‬ ‫ ִמ ְּמ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ה‬ ‫ ממקֹו ‏‬4QIsab ‫ֹקומ ‏‬ ‫ּה‬ ‫— ִמ ְּמ ׇ‬The scribe of 4QIsab (‫ )ממקֹוה‏‬misspelled ‫ה‬ ‫ ממקומ ‏‬by omitting the third mêm; or, alternatively, the scribe utilized √‫ קוה‏‬to produce the noun ‫מקוה‏‬ (“gathering, reservoir”). Cf. also MT Gen 1:9 (‫ ) ׇמֹקום‏‬versus 4QGenh (‫)מקוה‏‬. 13:14

‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ והי ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἔσονται οἱ καταλελειμμένοι LXX • ‫ח‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ֻמ ׇּד ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ח‬ ‫] ֯מנ֯ ד ‏‬

4QIsaa ‫— ֻמ ׇּד ‏‬MT and 1QIsaa attest ‫ח‬ ‫ח‬ ‫מד ‏‬, a hopʿal ptc. (“frightened off,” via √‫נדח‏‬, HALOT, 673); 4QIsaa sets forth ‫ח‬ ‫] ֯מנ֯ ד ‏‬, a puʿal ptc. (also via √‫)נדח‏‬. Both ‫ מדח‏‬and ‫ מנד ‏‬have similar translational values. 4QIsaa likely obtained its reading via ‫ח‬ assimilation from 8:22, where the same word is found. 13:16

‫ וְ ע ְֹל ֵל ֶיה ‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ ועילוליהמה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ַּׁשּסּו‏‬MT 4QIsaa Tg | ‫ ֹוישסו‏‬1QIsaa Syr | ‫ם‬ καὶ … προνομεύσουσιν LXX • ‫ ִּת ׇּׁשגַ ְלנׇ ה‏‬MTket 4QIsaa (‫תשג]ל[נה]‏‬ ֯ ) Syr Vulg | ‫ִּת ׇּׁש ַכ ְבנׇ ה‏‬

MTqere 1QIsaa Tg(vid) | ἕξουσιν LXX ‫ֹעולל‏—וְ ע ְֹל ֵל ֶיה ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ (“child,” HALOT, 798) and ‫ֹעול ‏ל‬ ‫“( ׇ‬child,” HALOT, 798) occur twenty times in MT but never as ‫( עילול‏‬1QIsaa). Kutscher writes, “There is no reason to consider [1QIsaa’s reading] a corruption…. It is rather a dialectical form.”390 ‫— ִּת ׇּׁשגַ ְלנׇ ה‏‬MT, 4QIsab read ‫“( ִּת ׇּׁשגַ ְלנׇ ה‏‬to be raped,” HALOT, 1415). 4QIsaa also apparently reads ‫תשג]ל[נה]‏‬ ֯ . MTqere and 1QIsaa attest ‫“( תשכבנה‏‬to be lain with,” HALOT, 1487–88), a euphemistic reading, because lie down does not necessarily 388  For this theory, see Tov, TCHB3, 256–57. 389  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 8. 390  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 381n3.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

119

imply force, versus ‫ ִּת ׇּׁשגַ ְלנׇ ה‏‬. According to b. Megillah 25b: “Our rabbis taught: wherever an indelicate expression is written in the Torah, we substitute a more polite one in reading. ‫ה‬ ‫תׁשגלנ ‏‬, ‘he shall enjoy (?) her,’ ‫יִ ׁשגלנה‏‬, ‘he shall lie with her.’”391 The same MTket/MTqere is found in Deut 28:30; Jer 3:2; Zech 14:2. The primary reading was likely ‫ה‬ ‫ ִּת ׇּׁשגַ ְלנׇ ‏‬. For a discussion of ‫ ִּת ׇּׁשגַ ְלנׇ ‏‬/‫ ִּת ׇּׁש ַכ ְבנׇ ה‏‬in light of other euphemistic expressions, see Ginsburg.392 ‫ה‬ 13:17 ‫ יַ ְחׁש ֹב ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ב‬ ‫ יחשו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יַ ְחׁש ֹבּו‏‬1QIsaa lacks the wāw suffix indicating a pl. verb, most likely lost through haplography—‫יחשבו וזהב‏‬. 13:18 ‫ ְּופ ִרי‏‬MT | ‫ ועל פר ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT | ‫ וע ‏ל‬1QIsaa MTmss ‫— ְּופ ִרי ֶב ֶטן‏‬Either MT’s reading of “the fruit of the womb” or 1QIsaa’s “on the fruit of the womb” is fitting for the tricolon of v. 18. While it is likely that the scroll borrowed ‫ על‏‬from the third line of the tricolon, it is not impossible that MT lost this preposition during its transmission history. A single medieval Hebrew Bible manuscript (K) reads ‫( ועל פרי‏‬HUB–Isaiah) = 1QIsaa. 13:19 ‫ ַמ ְמ ׇלֹכו ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ממלכ ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ממלכת ‏ו‬1QIsab • ‫ת‬ ‫ ִּת ְפ ֶא ֶר ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ תפרא ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ַּכ ְׂש ִּדי ‏‬ MT | ‫ כשדיים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּכ ַמ ְה ֵּפ ַכת‏‬MT | ‫כמא ̇פ ̇כת‏‬ ̇ 1QIsaa • ‫ ְסדֹם‏‬MT | ‫ סודם‏‬1QIsaa | Σοδομα LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ֲעמ ׇֹר ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עומר ‏‬1QIsaa | Γομορρα LXX ‫— ִּת ְפ ֶא ֶר ‏‬Metathesis of the ʾālep and rêš in 1QIsaa (‫ )תפראת‏‬resulted in an ‫ת‬ unintelligible reading. The unpronounced ʾālep may have caused the error be‑ cause the pronunciation of both ‫ת‬ ‫ ִּת ְפ ֶא ֶר ‏‬and ‫ת‬ ‫ תפרא ‏‬would have been similar. ‫— ַּכ ְׂש ִּדי ‏‬For gentilica, 1QIsaa regularly employs the LBH form ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ‑יי ‏‬versus MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫‑י ‏‬. ‫ פלשתים‏‬occurs three times in MT Isaiah (2:6; 9:11; 11:14). Once 1QIsaa attests this proper name with a single yôd—‫( פלשתים‏‬2:6) and once with a dou‑ ble yôd—‫( פלשתיים‏‬11:14), and the leather is damaged where the third attesta‑ tion would occur (9:11). According to Kutscher, the pl. form ‫ם‬ ‫ פלשתיי ‏‬belonging to 1QIsaa signifies an LBH form.393 For other examples of gentilica, see ‫ם‬ ‫ַּכ ְׂש ִּדי ‏‬

391  Cited in Tov, TCHB3, 63. 392  Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, 346. 393  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 99; see also 94.

120

Chapter 2

MT, ‫ם‬ ‫ כשדיי ‏‬1QIsaa (13:19; 43:14); ‫ם‬ ‫ ִּכ ִּתי ‏‬MT, ‫ם‬ ‫ כתיי ‏‬1QIsaa (23:1); ‫ם‬ ‫ ְס ַפ ְרוׇ יִ ‏‬MT, ‫ם‬ ‫וספריי ‏‬ 1QIsaa (37:13); and ‫ ִסינִ ים‏‬MT, ‫ם‬ ‫ סוניי ‏‬1QIsaa (49:12).394 ‫— ְּכ ַמ ְה ֵּפ ַכת‏‬See the comments at 1:7. ‫— ְסד ֹם … ֲעמ ׇֹר ‏‬See the comments at 1:9. ‫ה‬ 13:20 ‫ ׇׁשם‏‬1 MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ְר ִּבצ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ירביצ ‏ו‬1QIsaa sm ‫—יַ ְר ִּבצ ‏ּו‬The Masoretes correctly pointed ‫ יַ ְר ִּבצּו‏‬to reflect a hipʿil, but LXX (ἀναπαύσωνται), Vulg (requiescent), and Tg (‫ )יִ ׁשרֹון‏‬apparently read the verb as a qal. The scribe of 1QIsaa inserted a yôd (‫( )ירביצו‏‬see PQ) to ensure that the reader would accurately read a hipʿil, but cf. Watts,395 who maintains that the insertion is a wāw and not a yôd. 13:21 ‫שם‏‬ ּ 2 MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ̇שמ ‏‬1QIsaa 13:22 ‫ ִאּיִ ים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ אי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּב ֵה ְיכ ֵל‏י‬MT | ‫ בהיכל‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ עֹנֶ ‏ג‬MT | ‫ ענוג‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX (νοσσοποιήσουσιν) • ‫ וְ ׇקֹרוב‏‬MT | ‫ קרוב‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • > MT LXX(vid) | ‫ עוד‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּב ֵה ְיכ ֵלי עֹנֶ ג‏‬MT has ‫“( ְּב ֵה ְיכ ֵלי עֹנֶ ‏ג‬in palaces of pleasure”; ‫עֹנֶ ‏ג‬, “pleasure,” HALOT, 851). With only a consonantal framework to work with, 1QIsaa’s ‫בהיכלו‏‬ ‫ ענוגו‬is perplexing. Here are some possible readings: (a) If the two wāws that terminate ‫ היכ ‏ל‬and ‫ ענוג‏‬signify third m. sg. pronominal suffixes, then the read‑ ing is ‫“( ‏בהיכלו ענוגו‬in his palace of his pleasure”). (b) With regard to the word ‫בהיכל ‏ו‬: the scroll’s scribe attempted to create a smoother correspondence be‑ tween the two lines of the bicolon and thus borrowed the pronominal suffix from line 1 of the bicolon and included it in line 2, thus reading: ‫…‏‬ ‫באלמנותיו‬ ‫( ;בהיכלו‬c) The pronominal suffix of ‫ ענוגו‏‬signifies a primary reading, but the same suffix of ‫ בהיכלו‏‬represents an error on the part of the scroll’s copyist, when he misread the yôd (MT ‫ )בהיכל‏י‬and wrote a wāw. Thus the reading may have been ‫“( בהיכלי ענוג ‏ו‬in his palaces of pleasure”), which is consistent with “in his towers.” (d) With regard to 1QIsaa’s ‫ענוג‏ו‬: the second wāw is not a pronominal suffix; rather, it marks a pl. verb from √‫ענג‏‬, thus reading ‫ותנים בהיכלו ענוג ‏ו‬, “and jackals pleasure in its [their] palaces.” MT’s reading should be maintained. ‫—יִ ׇּמ ֵׁשכ ‏ּו‬1QIsaa has a plus of ‫עו ‏ד‬. Apparently the scribe integrated (inadver‑ tently?) the ‫ עוד‏‬from the next verse (14:1). 394  For a brief examination of proper names in MT versus 1QIsaa, see Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 39. 395  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 194.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



121

Isaiah 14

14:2 ‫ ַע ִּמי ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ עמים רבים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹקומם‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ל־מ ׇ‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬MT LXX | ‫אל אדמתם ואל מקוממ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ַעל‏‬MT 4QIsae LXX Tg Vulg | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa Syr • ‫ וְ ׇרדּו‏‬MT 4QIsac (‫ )ו֯ ̇רדֹו‏‬σ′ | ‫ ורדים‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ κυριευθήσονται LXX ‫— ַע ִּמי ‏‬1QIsaa has a plus of ‫רבים‏‬, reading ‫“( עמים רבים‏‬many peoples”). This ‫ם‬ plus, which lacks the support of other witnesses, is most likely an assimilation from MT Isaiah 2:3–4 or 17:12 (‫)עמים רבים‏‬. Duhm, Marti, and Ehrlich396 note the awkwardness of MT, and perhaps the scribe of 1QIsaa attempted for stylistic purposes to repair the text by adding many. Ehrlich reads ‫עמם‏‬, “with them,” rather than ‫ ַע ִּמים‏‬. The reading of MT, however, is entirely intelligible here, be‑ cause “peoples” is an example of pl. amplification. ‫ֹקומם‏‬ ‫ל־מ ׇ‬ ְ ‫— ֶא‬1QIsaa has a plus, ‫אל אדמתם ואל מקוממ‏‬. From whence came ‫ ?אל אדמתם‏‬The scroll’s scribe was possibly impacted by the double mani‑ festation of ‫ אדמה‏‬in the immediate context, first attested in v. 1 and then again later in v. 2. Or, 1QIsaa’s reading may be a conflation, based either on its Vorlage or another manuscript that read ‫אל אדמתם‏‬. A targumic witness has ‫לארעהון‏‬, which equals ‫אדמתם‏‬, and another targumic reading attests ‫לאתרהון‏‬, which corresponds to ‫מקוממ‏‬, thus showing a tradition existed for both ‫מקומם‏‬ and ‫אדמתם‏‬.397 This plus of 1QIsaa, together with an earlier plus in this verse (‫עמים רבים‬, see commentary above), serve to embroider Israel’s position of supremacy among the Gentiles and emphasizes the land in the context of Israel’s election or chosenness. ‫—ׁש ִֹבים … וְ ׇרד ‏ּו‬MT, with the support of 4QIsac, reads ‫ׁש ִֹבים … וְ ׇרדּו‏‬, a qal ptc. followed by a qal pf. 1QIsaa attests ‫ם‬ ‫שובי֯ ם … ורדי ‏‬, two qal participles. This scroll’s reading may be an example of contextual harmonizing, where the scribe al‑ tered the pf. verb so that it would correspond with the ptc. Or the scroll’s read‑ ing reflects the late fashion in Qumran Hebrew where √‫ היה‏‬is followed by one or more participles.398 In this instance, MT has the preferred reading, with √‫ היה‏‬governing only the ptc. ‫ׁשבים‏‬, and the qal pf. serving in the second gram‑ matical unit of the bicolon.

396  Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 116–17. 397   See the views of Talmon, “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” 155; and Goshen-Gottstein, “Die Jesaia-Rolle im Lichte von Peschitta und Targum,” 54. 398  See Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 70.

122

Chapter 2

14:3 ‫ ֻע ַּב ‏ד‬MT | ‫ עבד ‏ו‬1QIsaa 4QIsae | ἐδούλευσας αὐτοῖς LXX ‫— ֻע ַּבד‏‬MT Isaiah attests a passive qal in 14:3; 49:24; and 49:25, versus 1QIsaa which has, respectively, a qal pf., qal impf., and nipʿal impf.: 14:3 MT ‫( ֻע ַּבד‏‬pas‑ sive qal); 1QIsaa ‫( עבד‏ו‬qal pf.); 49:24 MT ‫ח‬ ‫( יֻ ַּק ‏‬passive qal); 1QIsaa ‫( יקח‏ו‬qal impf.); and 49:25 MT = ‫ח‬ ‫( יֻ ׇּק ‏‬passive qal); 1QIsaa ‫ח‬ ‫( ילק ‏‬nipʿal impf.). According to Kutscher, the passive qal “was on its way out during the time of BH and being replaced by the Nif‘al.”399 Furthermore, 1QIsaa has moderately fewer pas‑ sive forms than MT Isaiah (MT Isaiah nipʿal = 395; puʿal = 65; hopʿal = 33; 1QIsaa nipʿal = 372; puʿal = 58; hopʿal = 28). Similarly, in impersonal constructions it is somewhat common for the Qumran scrolls to replace MT’s passives with pl. active verbs. For a discussion of impersonal forms plus additional examples, see 1:26. 14:4 > MT 4QIsae | ‫ את‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ א ‏ל‬4QIsae • ‫ ֵאי ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ איכה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַמ ְד ֵה ׇב ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ מרהב ‏‬1QIsaa LXX σ′ Tg Syr ‫—א ‏‬For deviations dealing with the accusative marker, see the discussion ‫ת‬ at 2:4. ‫— ֵאיְך‏‬96 (pm) (HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫א ‏ך‬. For a discussion of the variants ‫ֵאי ‏ְך‬ and ‫איכה‏‬, see 1:21. ‫— ַמ ְד ֵה ׇבה‏‬Critics have sought several solutions400 to the hapax legomenon ‫ ַמ ְד ֵה ׇב ‏‬, which apparently finds no support in the versions. The primary solu‑ ‫ה‬ tions include: (a) ‫‏ ַמ ְד ֵה ׇבה‬is a substantive derived from the Aramaic √‫(‏דהב‬zayin/dālet inter‑ change) meaning “gold” or “golden thing,” i.e., “golden city,” a reference to Babylon’s wealth and affluence. This understanding is followed by Ibn Ezra. Also, 1QHa cites Isa 14:4 in 3:25 and 12:18, and both times read ‫‏מדהבה‬ (see translations in DJD).401 399  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 36; see also 42–43. Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 168: “The passive Qal … disappeared little by little from the linguistic consciousness of Hebrew for the phonetic reasons indicated and also because Nifal, having gradually assumed the passive meaning, had made it well-nigh redundant.” 400  See, for example, Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 124; Procksch, Jesaia I, 193; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 118; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 123; Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 253; plus others. See also the study of Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:96–100. The most extensive study of ‫ מדהבה‏‬is found in Zanella, “Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‏‬in the DSS,” 175–96. 401  See also the investigation of ‫ה‬ ‫ מדהב ‏‬in Qumran literature by Mizrahi, “Linguistic History of MDHBH,” 91–114.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

123

(b) Read a hipʿil ‫ ‏מרהיב‬or piʿel ‫“( ‏מרהב‬tyrant, stormer”), thus paralleling ‫‏נֹגֵ ׂש‬ (“oppressor”). This approach requires an alteration of the verb ‫‏ ׇׁש ְב ׇתה‬ (third f. sg.) to read ‫(‏ ׇׁש ַבת‬third m. sg.).402 (c) Some scholars have proposed that ‫‏מדהבה‬is a “ghost word.”403 In the con‑ text of the expression ghost word, Zanella writes, “In this regard, one may explain the use of ‫ ‏מדהבה‬in the DSS as a ‘pseudo-classicism,’ namely a word whose existence is solely due to the scribal culture.”404 Cohen iden‑ tifies the following as ghost words: ‫(‏מדהבה‬Isa 14:4) and ‫(‏כנלתך‬Isa 33:1); in both cases Cohen suggests following 1QIsaa’s readings. (d) A copyist of MT erred and copied dālet instead of rêš, and the original reading was ‫‏מרהבה‬. This conjecture, first proposed by J. D. Michaelis (1779) but followed by Ottley,405 Ziegler,406 Condamin,407 and others, suggests that LXX’s Vorlage read ‫(‏מרהבה‬or, at the very least, LXX’s trans‑ lator developed its reading contextually). This conjecture gained support from two sources: Aq read fames “indigence,” which hearkens back to a Vorlage of ‫‏מרעבה‬, reading a rêš and not dālet. 1QIsaa, with its reading of ‫(‏מרהבה‬via √‫)‏רהב‬, holds up this conjecture (cf. also Isa 3:5, which presents a parallel of ‫‏נגׂש‬and ‫)‏רהב‬. Skehan prefers the reading of the scroll “on the basis of the context and the LXX rendering; and in view of the seeming meaninglessness of the MT form, mrhbh.”408 Kutscher writes, “The Scr.’s reading is thus superior.”409 Both JPS and NAB prefer 1QIsaa LXX. And see also Mizrahi’s recent study of ‫‏מדהבה‬in view of MT, 1QIsaa, and nonbibli‑ cal Qumran texts.410 Mizrahi concludes that ‫‏מדהבה‬, signifies “an inadver‑ tent error that crept into the biblical text during its transmission.”411 In my judgment, 1QIsaa, with the support of LXX, Tg, and Syr, sets forth the primary reading. Cf. also the translations of JPS, NIV, and NRSV. For other possible instances of the dālet/rêš interchange in MT and 1QIsaa, see also 16:14; 17:6, 12; 22:5; 23:10; 27:2; 33:8; 40:20; 41:19; 42:13; 45:2; 47:8; 47:10; etc. 402  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 43, prefers this reading. 403  Zanella, “Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‏‬in the DSS,” 182–83; Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena, 107. 404  Zanella, “Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ מדהבה‏‬in the DSS,” 183. 405  Ottley, Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint, 2:176. 406  Ziegler, Untersuchungen, 200. 407  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 103–4. 408  Skehan, “Text of Isaias at Qumran,” 41–42. 409  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 261. Based on LXX, Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:170, prefers ‫מרהבה‏‬. 410  Mizrahi, “Linguistic History of MDHBH,” 91–114. 411  Ibid., 114.

124

Chapter 2

14:7 ‫ ִרּנׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ רונ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫“(— ִרּנׇ ‏‬cry of jubilation, rejoicing,” HALOT, 1246–47). In this example, 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ (‫ )רונה‏‬follows the quṭl pattern, versus MT’s qiṭl pattern (‫) ִרּנׇ ה‏‬. This is “typical” of QH, reports Mizrahi, who examines various attestations of √‫ רנן‏‬in both MT and nonbiblical Qumran texts.412 See also ‫ה‬ ‫ רונ ‏‬in 1QIsaa (versus MT) in 35:10; 44:23; 48:20; 49:13; 51:11; 54:1; and 55:12. For a brief discussion of the quṭl/qiṭl pat‑ tern, together with bibliographic sources, see the discussion of … ‫ַת ַחת … וְ ַת ַחת ‏‬ ‫ וְ ַת ַחת‬at 3:24. 14:8 ‫ ְל ׇבֹנון‏‬MT 4QpIsac | ‫ הלבנו‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇע ֵלינ ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ עלימ ‏ו‬4QpIsac | ‫ם‬ ‫על ̇יה ֯ ‏‬ ̇ 4QIsae ‫— ׇע ֵלינּו‏‬4QIsae reads ‫על ̇יה ֯ם‏‬ ̇ , and 4QpIsac has ‫—עלימו‏‬both are perplexing devi‑ ations against the majority of witnesses (‫)עלינו‏‬. Brooke understands the variant of 4QpIsac to be exegetical: “Though the interpretation of [4QpIsac] is badly damaged, the impression given is that the taunt against Babylon is a taunt against the community’s oppressors and the cypresses and cedars of Lebanon that rejoice at their own lack of oppression in Isaiah, rejoice in the commen‑ tary at the end of the oppression of the people and the land (Isa 14:6–7). The purpose of this exegetical alteration is to assert that not just the council … but the whole community is to be free from external persecution.”413 14:9 ‫ֹעור ‏ר‬ ֵ MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עֹו[ר]ר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֵה ִקי ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הקימ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹעורר … ֵה ִקי ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ … ‫— ׇרגְ זׇ ה‬The word ‫ ְׁשֹאו ‏ל‬usually requires f. verbs (Isa 5:14; 14:9; 38:18; Prov 27:20; but cf. the m. adjective in Job 26:6), but ‫ ְׁשֹאו ‏ל‬is sometimes m. in BH. In 14:9 ‫ ְׁשֹאול‏‬is the likely subject of all three verbs, although in MT the first is f. and the other two are evidently m.; in 1QIsaa all three verbs are f., ‫רגזה … עֹו[ר]רה … הקימה‏‬, which indicates another case of gender agreement or gender shift on the part of the scroll. The versions react differently to this apparent discrepancy of verbs. Kaiser reasons that since sheol “is feminine, ʿwrr and hqym should be regarded as infinitives.”414 The LXX translators ap‑ proached √‫ רגז‏‬with uncertainty. See the respective LXX readings of √‫ רגז‏‬in 13:13 and 14:3, 9, and 16. 412  Mizrahi, “Aspects of Poetic Stylization in Second Temple Hebrew,” 157. 413  Brooke, “Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries,” 88–89. 414  Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 28; so, too, Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 255; see BHS note 9.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

125

14:10 ‫ ֻּכ ׇּל ‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ )‏כ[ו]לם‬LXX | > 4QIsae ‫ם‬ ‫— ֻּכ ׇּלם‏‬4QIsae lacks ‫כלם‏‬, perhaps via haplography because of the twofold oc‑ currence of ‫ כל‏‬in the previous verse. 14:11

‫ ֶה ְמיַת נְ ׇב ֶלי ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ המות נבלת ‏ך‬1QIsaa ◦‫ ̇ה ֯מ[י] ֯ת נבלת‏‬4QIsae | ἡ πολλή σου εφροσὐνη LXX | εθανατωθη το πτωμα σου σ′ Vulg | ο θανατος κατερρησεν σε θ′ | Syr • ‫ּומ ַכ ֶּסי ‏ָך‬ ְ MT | ‫ ומכסך‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫ ֶה ְמיׇ ה‏(— ֶה ְמיַת נְ ׇב ֶלי ‏ָך‬, “sound [of the harp],” HALOT, 251). After reading ‫הור ‏ד‬ ַ ) in his Vorlage, the scribe of 1QIsaa misread ‫( שאול גאונך‬MT ‫הּורד ְׁשֹאול ּגְ ֹאונֶ ָך‏‬ the subsequent words ‫( ֶה ְמיַת נְ ׇב ֶלי ‏ָך‬MT ‫ת ; ֶה ְמיַת נְ ׇב ֶליך‏‬ ‫ ֶה ְמיַ ‏‬is a hapax legomenon) and copied the graphically similar ‫“( המות נבלתך‏‬the death of your corpse”).

Evidently the scribe reasoned that “the death” paralleled “brought down to Sheol.”415 Apparently the scribe first read √‫ מות‏‬and then altered ‫ נבלתך‏‬to accord with it. Sym, Theo. share similar readings to 1QIsaa, although Theo. (θανατος) evidently read the noun ‫ ַה ׇּמוֶ ת‏‬rather than the verb ‫המית‏‬. The reading of LXX = MT with the exception of ἡ πολλή (reading ‫ המית‏‬as ‫המו‏ן‬, i.e., “your abundant joy”). Tg more or less corresponds to MT. Syr conflates the text and reads the odd “your harp is dead” (‫)מת כנורך‏‬.416 ‫ּומ ַכ ֶּסיָך‏‬ ְ —(‫ ְמ ַכ ֶסה‏‬, “cover,” HALOT, 581). Based on several Hebrew manuscripts (before the discovery of the DSS), Gray proposes the sg. ‫מסכך‏‬, rather than the pl. ‫( ומכסי ‏ך‬MT).417 The sg. is attested in 1QIsaa, thus: ‫ה‬ ‫תחתיך יצע רמה ומכסך תולע ‏‬. 14:12 ‫ ֵאיְך‏‬MT | ‫היכה‏‬ ֯ 1QIsaa • ‫ ִמ ׇּׁש ַמיִ ם‏‬MT | ‫ מהשמים‏‬1QIsaa | ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ LXX • ‫ ֹּגויִ ם‏‬MT 4QIsae (‫ )ג]ו֯ י֯ ֯ם‏‬LXX σ′ | ‫ גו ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵאי ‏ְך‬For a discussion of the variants ‫ ֵאי ‏ְך‬and ‫היכה‬ ‫ ֯ ‏‬, see 1:21. ‫— ִמ ׇּׁש ַמיִ ‏‬In historical narratives, ‫שמים‏‬, when preceded by the preposition ‫מן‏‬, ‫ם‬ regularly includes the article; in poetry, ‫שמים‏‬, when preceded by the preposi‑ tion ‫מ‏ן‬, often lacks the article. In v. 12, MT lacks the article (‫) ִמ ׇּׁש ַמיִ ם‏‬, but 1QIsaa utilizes it (‫)מהשמים‏‬. Cf. 55:10 where both MT and 1QIsaa have the article. Note also that the inserted article between a noun and a proclitic preposition (e.g.,

415  Correspondingly, Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 44, notes, “‘Corpse’ is not used as a parallel term for ‫( גאו ‏ן‬splendor).” 416  See further, Talmon. “DSIa as a Witness to Ancient Exegesis,” 70–71; and see also Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 43. 417  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 255.

126

Chapter 2

‫ )מהשמי ‏‬is a feature that belongs chiefly but not exclusively in LBH.418 Cf. also ‫ם‬ 58:13: ‫ ִמ ַּׁש ׇּבת‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab | ‫ת‬ ‫ מהשב ‏‬4QIsan. ‫—ֹּגויִ ם‏‬Versus 1QIsaa’s sg. ‫גו‏י‬, one should read the pl. ‫ם‬ ‫גוי ‏‬, with the support of two Hebrew witnesses (MT and 4QIsae) and LXX. 14:13

‫ ִמ ַּמ ַע ‏ל‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ממעל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ֵא ֵׁש ‏ב‬MT | ‫אש ‏ב‬ ֯ 1QIsaa LXX ‫— ִמ ַּמ ַע ‏ל‬For the variants ‫ ִמ ַּמ ַע ‏ל‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ממעל ‏‬, see the discussion at 6:2.

14:16 ‫ ַמ ְרּגִ י ‏ז‬MT | ‫ המרגי ‏ז‬1QIsaa • ‫ הארץ‏ | ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ַמ ְר ִעי ‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ המרעי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַמ ְרּגִ יז … ַמ ְר ִעי ‏‬In v. 16a, MT features two hipʿil participles, ‫“( ַמ ְרּגִ יז‏‬to agitate, ‫ׁש‬ arouse,” HALOT, 1183) and ‫“( ַמ ְר ִעיׁש‏‬to cause to shudder, quake,” HALOT, 1272). 1QIsaa presents the same participles, but each with an attached article (‫‏המרגיז‬ ‫)… המרעיש‬. Both Hebrew witnesses set forth grammatically acceptable expres‑ sions, and the translational value for both are the same. 14:17 ‫ וְ ׇע ׇריו‏‬MT | ‫ ערי ‏ו‬1QIsaa 14:18 ‫ ֻּכ ׇּל ‏‬MT | > 1QIsaa LXX ‫ם‬ ‫— ֻּכ ׇּלם‏‬MT has the noun ‫ כ ‏ל‬plus the suffix (‫)כלם‏‬, where ‫ם‬ ‫ כל ‏‬serves a rhetori‑ cal function to emphasize a given point: “All the kings of the nations, all of them.” But compare Cheyne, Marti, and Procksch, who emend MT by omitting either ‫ כלם‏‬or ‫כ ‏ל‬.419 One could also argue that 1QIsaa lacks this noun by means of an error, conceivably caused by haplography, ‫ם‬ ‫כל מלכי גואים כל ‏‬. 14:19

‫ ִמ ִּק ְב ְר ‏ָך‬MT 4QIsae420 Vulg | ‫ מקובר ‏ך‬1QIsaa | ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν LXX • ‫ֹיור ֵד‏י‬ ְ MT | ‫יורד‏ו‬

1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ִּק ְב ְר ‏ָך‬1QIsaa’s ‫ מקובר ‏ך‬features an /o/ vowel, which may be “the result of assimilation to the following labial consonant /b/ by way of rounding.”421 For other examples of this phenomenon in 1QIsaa, see ‫( שובנא‏‬1QIsaa 36:3, 22; 37:2) 418  Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 202. 419  Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 125; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 126; and Procksch, Jesaia I, 199. 420  For the identification of this fragment, see Tigchelaar, “Notes on 4Q206/206a, 4Q203– 4Q204,” 198–99. 421  Mizrahi, “Linguistic History of MDHBH,” 97; see also Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 496–97.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

127

and ‫( צובים‏‬1QIsaa 66:20). Or, another theory: 1QIsaa (‫ )מקוברך‏‬follows the quṭl pattern. For a brief discussion together with bibliographic sources, see 3:24. The reading of LXX ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν (“in the mountains”) is possibly an assimila‑ tion from v. 13, where mountain is mentioned. ‫ֹיור ֵד ‏י‬ ְ —The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )יורדו‏‬is unintelligible and likely represents an error, perhaps created by the graphic similarity of the yôd and wāw. 14:20 ‫ ֵת ַח ‏ד‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ תח ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ִא ׇּת ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ אות ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT | ‫ יקרא‏ו‬1QIsaa | LXX μείνῃς ‫— ֵת ַחד‏‬The verb √‫“( יחד‏‬to be united,” HALOT, 405) is attested a handful of times in the Bible. Kutscher theorizes that the 1QIsaa scribe likely failed to comprehend the verb and rendered it as ‫( תחת‏‬from √‫נחת‏‬, hipʿil impf. sec‑ ond m. sg.),422 attested only nine times in the Bible but frequently found in Aramaic texts. But this theory is weakened by the fact that √‫ יחד‏‬is attested more than a dozen times in nonbiblical Qumran texts, such as 1QS (1:8; 3:6, etc.), 1QHa (19:17; 23:30), plus other texts. Rather, ‫ תח ‏ד‬and ‫ת‬ ‫ תח ‏‬are the same verb, and this is a case of substitution of similar consonants: “/t/ (voiceless) instead of /d/ (voiced),” explains Qimron. For this phenomenon together with additional examples, see Qimron’s grammar.423 LXX misinterpreted ‫ תח ‏ד‬and provided καθαρός = ‫( טה ‏ר‬pure), reading ṭêt for tāw, hê for ḥêt, and dālet for rêš, and then read ‫ם‬ ‫ ִא ׇּת ‏‬as σὺ (‫)אתה‏‬.424 ‫—יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬This is a case of conjugation substitution: MT nipʿal > 1QIsaa qal. ‫א‬ Both the nipʿal and the qal in this passage express the impersonal subject. The former is common in BH and the latter in QH. 14:21 ‫ּומ ְלא ‏ּו‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ ומל ‏ו‬1QIsaa 14:22 ‫ּוׁש ׇאר‏‬ ְ MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ ושארי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ נִ י‏ן‬MT LXX | ‫ ני‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫ּוׁש ׇאר‏‬ ְ —Apparently there is no difference in meaning between the noun ‫ְׁש ׇאר‏‬ and the denominative abstract noun ‫ת‬ ‫ ְׁש ֵא ִרי ‏‬.425 In the Bible, ‫ת‬ ‫ ְׁש ֵא ִרי ‏‬is more common, appearing more than twice as often as ‫ ְׁש ׇאר‏‬. Of the thirteen attesta‑ tions of ‫ ְׁש ׇאר‏‬and the six occurrences of ‫ ְׁש ֵא ִרית‏‬in Isaiah, only in this verse is 422  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 265. 423  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 112. 424  Compare also the view of Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 29. 425  See Clines, Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 444–45; and Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 47.

128

Chapter 2

there a deviation between MT and 1QIsaa (but compare orthographic variant ‫וׁשארית ‏ו‬ = MT and ‫ = ושרית ‏ו‬1QIsaa in 44:17). 14:23

‫ וְ ַׂש ְמ ִּת ׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ ושמת‏י‬1QIsaa | καὶ θήσω τὴν Βαβυλωνίαν ἔρημον LXX • ‫ֹמורׁש‏‬ ‫יה‬ ַ ‫ ְל‬MT | ‫ למי ֹר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִק ֹּפ ‏ד‬MT | ‫ קפ ‏ז‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ש‬ ‫י־מיִ ‏‬ ‫ וְ ַאגְ ֵמ ׇ‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ אגמי מי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫אתי ‏‬ ִ ‫אט‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵט‬ MT | ‫ וטאטאתי‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִק ֹּפד‏‬There are three possible understandings as to why MT reads ‫ִק ֹּפד‏‬ (“hedgehog,” HALOT, 1117) and 1QIsaa has ‫“( קפז‏‬snakes which live in trees, arrow

snake,” HALOT, 1118): (a) A scribe of either the 1QIsaa or MT tradition wrote ‫קפז‏‬/‫ קפד‏‬as the result of a dālet/zayin confusion. (b) The scribe of 1QIsaa, hav‑ ing a knowledge of Aramaic, substituted zayin for dālet (cf. the dālet/zayin in‑ terchange in 14:4, ‫דהב‏‬/‫)זהב‏‬. This is the opinion held by Kutscher, who writes, “Most probably, the Aramaic-speaking scribe who was undoubtedly familiar with the ‫ ד‏—‏ז‬substitution between Hebr. and Aram. (‫)דהב‏—זהב‏‬, took ‫קפו ‏ד‬ to =‫קפוז‏‬.”426 (c) The Vorlage of 1QIsaa had ‫( קפ ‏ז‬i.e., “tree snake”), and the scribe was simply copying the text before him. Cf. 34:15 where the scroll reads ‫קופ ‏ד‬ and MT reads ‫ ִקֹּפוז‏‬. ‫אתי ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ִ ‫אט‬ ֵ ‫יה … וְ ֵט‬ ‫—וְ ַׂש ְמ ִּת ׇ‬MT includes a third f. sg. suffix on two verbs, reading “I will make her/it … and I will sweep her/it” (‫אתיה‏‬ ִ ‫אט‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵט‬, a hapax legomenon, HALOT, 367). The antecedent of her/it is Lady Babylon, which is explicitly iden‑ tified in v. 22. The other possible antecedents—name (‫) ֵׁשם‏‬, remnant (‫ּוׁש ׇאר‏‬ ְ ), offspring (‫)וְ נִ ין‏‬, and posterity (‫—)וׇ נֶ ֶכד‏‬are m. sg. nouns. For an unknown reason, 1QIsaa omits the third f. sg. suffixes on both nouns: “I will make (‫ … )ושמתי‏‬I will sweep (‫)וטאטאתי‏‬.” It may be that the scribe failed to comprehend that Babylon served as the antecedent. With regard to ‫וְ ַׂש ְמ ִּת ׇיה‏‬, LXX is expansive with καὶ θήσω τὴν Βαβυλωνίαν ἔρημον. Note that LXX omitted Babylon in v. 22. It is possible that in vv. 22–23, LXX switched the proper noun with the pronoun αὐτῶν … Βαβυλωνίαν, so Ottley.427 14:24 ‫ ׇה ׇיׇתה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ תהי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫— ׇה ׇיׇת ‏‬Blenkinsopp prefers 1QIsaa (‫)תהיה‏‬. He writes, “MT has ‫ ׇה ׇתיׇ ה‏‬, past ‫ה‬ tense, which is possible but parallelism requires future, as 1QIsaa thyh and cf. LXX, Vulg, Tg.”428 But Rosenbloom favors MT, stating that its reading of ‫היתה‏‬

426  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 281–82. 427  Ottley, Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint, 2:180. 428  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 289.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

129

is “the prophetic perfect form.”429 However, either MT or 1QIsaa work well in the parallelism. MT’s reading conveys both the past and the future: “so has it come to pass … so will it stand.” 1QIsaa’s reading refers only to the future: “so will it come to pass … so will it stand.” 14:25 ‫ ֵמ ֲע ֵל ֶיה ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ מעליכמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִׁש ְכֹמ ‏ו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שכמכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִׁש ְכֹמו‏‬V. 25b forms a chiasmus: removed/his yoke//his burden/removed. Note that the verbs ‫ וְ ׇסר‏‬and ‫( יׇ סּור‏‬both √‫ )סור‏‬frame the chiasmus, with ‫“( ֻעֹּלו‏‬his yoke”) and ‫“( וְ ֻס ֳּבֹל‏ו‬his burden”) serving as pivotal units. One would expect the pronominal suffixes of the words ‫ם‬ ‫ ֵמ ֲע ֵל ֶיה ‏‬and ‫ ִׁש ְכֹמ ‏ו‬, belonging to MT, to harmo‑ nize, but they do not. 1QIsaa attempts to solve the problem of the suffixes by writing ‫ מעליכמה‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫( שכמכ ‏‬both second-person suffixes). The scroll may have been impacted by ‫ ׁשכמך‏‬and ‫( צוארך‏‬both second m. sg. suffixes), two words belonging to a similar reading in 10:27 (‫)יסור סבלו מעל ׁשכמך ועלו מעל צוארך‏‬. See BHS, which states LXXmss Tg Syr Vulg read pl. suffix ‫ם‬ ‫שכמ ‏‬, agreeing with ‫ ֵמ ֲע ֵל ֶיה ‏‬.430 ‫ם‬ 14:27 ‫ וְ יׇ ֹדו‏‬MT | ‫ וידי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬For this reading, see the comments at 3:11 and 9:11. 14:30

‫ יַ ֲהר ֹ ‏ג‬MT 4QpIsac ἀνελεῖ LXX | ‫ אהרו ‏ג‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ֵה ַמ ִּתי … יַ ֲהרֹג‏‬The seeming incongruity between ‫“( וְ ֵה ַמ ִּתי‏‬I will kill”)‫‏‬and ‫“( יַ ֲהרֹג‏‬he will slay”)‫‏‬in MT resulted in different reactions among the versions

and textual critics. Without the knowledge of the readings of the Qumran texts, several critics argued that ‫ יהרג‏‬should read ‫אהרג‏‬,431 a reading that is sup‑ ported by 1QIsaa. LXX and Tg convey third-person forms for both verbs, which encouraged Wildberger to prefer LXX: “It would be better to follow the Gk.”432 Syr has a passive “will be killed.” It appears that God is the subject of the first verb, but who or what is the sub‑ ject of the second verb? ‫“( ׇר ׇע ‏ב‬famine”)? ‫ֹעופף‏‬ ֵ ‫“( ׇׂש ׇרף ְמ‬flying serpent,” see v. 29)? Barthélemy considers “a flying serpent” to be the subject, i.e., “I [God] will

429  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 24. 430  Thus Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 3, emends the text to read ‫ם‬ ‫שכמ ‏‬. 431  Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 11; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:180; Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 110; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 125; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 94; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 131; and Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 97. 432  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 88.

130

Chapter 2

kill your root with famine, and he [a flying serpent] will slay your remnant.”433 A change of verbal positioning, such as is found in this verse, is not infrequent in Isaiah, and it adds shock value to the text. The reading of 1QIsaa is likely a contextual harmonization or facilitation designed to create an agreement of person between the two verbs. Roberts summarizes with, “The easier reading would be to follow 1QIsaa, but the more difficult reading of MT may be the more original.”434 For other viewpoints, see Driver and Oswalt.435 14:31 ‫ֹמוע ׇדיו‏‬ ‫ֹּבודד ְּב ׇ‬ ֵ ‫ ֵאין‬MT 4QIsao (‫ ואין מודד במודעיו‏ | )ואין] בודד בםידעיו‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν τοῦ εἶναι LXX ‫ֹמוע ׇדי ‏ו‬ ‫ֹּבודד ְּב ׇ‬ ֵ ‫— ֵאין‬For MT 4QIsao ‫ֹּבוד ‏ד‬ ֵ , 1QIsaa has ‫מודד‏‬. Kutscher prefers MT’s reading and offers an explanation for the variant in the Isaiah scroll: “Might we suppose that the beth became a mem under the influence of the mem of ‫”?מודעי ‏ו‬436 Or, associated with Kutscher’s suggestion, perhaps the mêm of ‫ מוד ‏ד‬originated through alliteration, with mêm/holam vowel/dālet of the following word (i.e., ‫)במודעיו‏‬. In any case, MT provides the primary reading. Another example of a variant pertaining to the mêm and bêt is found in 15:9. For MT’s ‫ֹמוע ׇדיו‏‬ ‫ ְּב ׇ‬, 1QIsaa has ‫מודע‏( במודעיו‏‬, “kinsman” via √‫ ;)ידע‏‬compare ‫בםידעיו‏‬, which is the reading of 4QIsao (see also Prov 7:4 and Ruth 2:1). Perhaps the Qumran scrolls read “kinsman,” based on “your root” and “your remnant” of v. 30b. Or a scroll belonging to the 1QIsaa tradition accidentally transposed the dālet and yôd to read ‫במודעי ‏ו‬. 14:32

‫ ּיַ ֲענֶ ‏‬MT | ‫ יענו‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי‏‬MT Tg Syr | ‫ מלכי‏‬1QIsaa LXX (βασιλεῖς) • ‫ׇּובּה‏‬ ‫ה‬ MT | ‫ ובו‏‬1QIsaa LXX (καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ) ‫—ּיַ ֲענֶ ‏‬The verbal forms in both MT and 1QIsaa express the impersonal sub‑ ‫ה‬ ject; in the expression ‫ּומה־ּיַ ֲענֶ ה‏‬ ַ , MT’s verb should be translated with a thirdperson impersonal subject, “and what will one answer.” 1QIsaa has the pl. ‫יענו‏‬,

translated as a pl. impersonal, “and what will they answer.” ‫— ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכ‏י‬For MT’s ‫“( ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי־ֹגוי‏‬messengers of a nation”) the Isaiah scroll at‑ tests ‫“( מלכי גו‏י‬kings of a nation”). Both readings are possible, but MT is more

433  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:109–10. 434  Roberts, First Isaiah, 220. 435  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 329. 436  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 253.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

131

feasible in the context.437 The Qumran scribe may have erred by writing ‫מלכי‏‬ because the ʾālep in ‫ מלאכי‏‬is silent, but LXX supports 1QIsaa’s reading with βασιλεῖς. Note that other texts confuse messengers with kings—2 Sam 11:1 ‫אכים‏‬ ִ ‫ ַה ַּמ ְל‬MTket; ‫ם‬ ‫ מלכי ‏‬MTqere (cf. also 1 Chr 20:1). Or, another possible explana‑ tion for the scroll’s error exists: the scribe assimilated the reading of ‫מלכי גוים‏‬ from 14:9, 18. ‫— ׇּוב ‏‬In Isaiah’s writings, the word Zion generally requires f. verbs (40:9; ‫ּה‬ 49:14; 52:1; 66:8) and f. pronominal suffixes (4:5; 52:7). With this in mind, MT’s ‫“( ׇּוב ‏‬and in her”) refers back to Zion, but the referent for 1QIsaa’s ‫“( ובו‏‬and in ‫ּה‬ him”) is the Lord; note that 96 (pm) (HUB–Isaiah) also attests ‫וב‏ו‬. Irwin sug‑ gests revocalizing MT to read ‫“( ובֹה‏‬and in him”), making the Lord the refer‑ ent.438 Note also that the verb √‫“( חסּה‏‬to trust, to take refuge”) often pertains to trusting the Lord (e.g., 2 Sam 22:3, 31; Isa 57:13; Nah 1:7; Zeph 3:12; Pss 2:12; 7:2). Following Wildberger,439 we read either ‫ וב ‏ו‬or ‫ה‬ ‫ובֹ ‏‬, “and in him.”

Isaiah 15

15:1 ‫ ְּב ֵליל‏‬1,2 MT | ‫בלילה‏‬1,2 1QIsaa 4QIsao | νυκτὸς1,2 LXX • ‫ ׇער‏‬MT | ‫עיר‏‬1 1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫נִ ְד ׇמ ‏‬1 MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ונדמ ‏‬1 1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ִקי ‏ר‬MT 4QIsao LXX (τὸ τεῖχος) | ‫עי ‏ר‬2 1QIsaa ‫( ְּב ֵלי ‏ל‬bis)—MT attests ‫בליל‏‬, a form that belongs almost exclusively to Hebrew poetry, but 1QIsaa facilitates the text by featuring the common form ‫בליל ‏‬. But cf. 21:11, where MT first reads ‫ ִמ ַּליְ ׇלה‏‬followed by ‫ ; ִמ ֵּליל‏‬in this same ‫ה‬ passage 1QIsaa has ‫ מליל‏‬both times. ‫ ׇער‏‬and ‫— ִקיר‏‬Do ‫ ׇער‏‬and ‫ ִקיר‏‬refer to “city” and “wall,” synecdoche for Moab’s cities and protective walls? Or are ‫ ׇע ‏ר‬and ‫ ִקי ‏ר‬proper names, Ar and Kir? For these two words, the Hebrew witnesses and the versions present a variety of readings (i.e., α′ σ′ = urbs, reading ‫ ; ִעיר‏‬LXX τεῖχος), as the apparatus indicates. ‫ ׇע ‏ר‬was problematic for translators elsewhere in the Bible (see Deut 2:9, 18, 29; Num 21:15), as was the place called ‫ֹמואב‏‬ ‫( ִעיר ׇ‬Num 22:36). To complicate mat‑ ters, a handful of medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts present variants (see HUB–Isaiah) for MT’s ‫ ׇער‏‬: ‫( עי ‏ר‬93 [pm] = 1QIsaa); ‫( קי ‏ר‬single manuscript of K); ‫( ע ‏ל‬K); and ‫( ע ‏ד‬KR).

437  Thus Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 87, translates, “What therefore shall one answer the mes‑ senger of the people?” 438  Irwin, “Exposition of Isaiah 14:28–32,” 83. 439  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 87.

132

Chapter 2

1QIsaa exhibits a variant; the scribe of 1QIsaa likely first changed ‫ ער‏‬to ‫עיר‏‬ earlier in 15:1; then, unaware that the Moabite ‫ קיר‏‬corresponds(?) with the Hebrew ‫עיר‏‬, he harmonized ‫ קיר‏‬to ‫עיר‏‬, thus reading ‫עיר מואב‏‬.440 Elsewhere ‫ִקיר‏‬ is named ‫ת‬ ‫יר־ח ֶר ֶׂש ‏‬ ֲ ‫( ִק‬2 Kgs 3:25; Isa 16:7) and ‫ׂש‬ ‫( ִקיר ׇח ֶר ‏‬Isa 16:11; Jer 48:31, 36). In both 16:7 and 11, 1QIsaa’s ‫ קי ‏ר‬equals that of MT. In 16:7 Aq. Sym produce the equivalent of ‫קיר‏‬, but LXX omits it. Tg reads ‫כרך‏‬. In 16:11 LXX, Sym Th read ‫קיר‏‬, and Tg again reads ‫כרך‏‬. Kutscher summarizes the readings of the witnesses for 15:1 (‫ ער‏‬and ‫)קיר‏‬: “In light of all this, the MT reading is preferable, though that of the Scr. is not to be ruled out.”441 After reviewing the various arguments, my views are aligned with Wildberger, who presents Ar-Moab and Kir-Moab in his translation.442 15:2 ‫ ֵמ ְיד ׇב ‏‬MT | ‫ מידבה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ יֵ ִליל‏‬MT | ‫ יליל‏‬1QIsaa orth or var? | ὀλολύζετε LXX • ‫א‬ ‫אׁשיו‏‬ ‫ ר ֹ ׇ‬MT | ‫ ראוש ‏ו‬1QIsaa | ‫ש‬ ‫ רא ‏‬MTmss LXX • ‫ ׇּכל‏‬MT | ‫ וכ ‏ל‬1QIsaa MTmss Tgmss Syr Vulgmss • ‫ה‬ ‫רּוע ‏‬ ‫ ּגְ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ גדוע ‏‬MTmss ‫— ֵמ ְיד ׇבא‏‬The difference between ‫א‬ ‫( ֵמ ְיד ׇב ‏‬MT) and ‫ה‬ ‫( מידב ‏‬1QIsaa) is ortho‑ graphic, based on an ʾālep/hê interchange. For other examples of such an inter‑ change, see 1:4; 6:4; 41:4; 42:5; 45:3, 7 (bis); etc. ‫ילל‏√(—יְ יֵ ִליל‏‬, “to howl,” HALOT, 413). The difference between MT (‫ )ייליל‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )יליל‏‬may be orthographic. The medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts set forth a variety of spellings (see HUB–Isaiah). Cf. also the comments for ‫יְ יֵ ִליל‏‬ in v. 3. See also Watts,443 who also compares readings in 65:14; Jer 48:31; and Hos 7:14. ‫אׁשיו‏‬ ‫—ר ֹ ׇ‬MT v. 2b sets forth a parallelism, wherein ‫אׁשי‏ו‬ ‫ ְּב ׇכל־ר ֹ ׇ‬corresponds with ‫“( ׇּכל־זׇ ׇקן‏‬on all their heads is baldness, every beard is cut off”). Scholars, in fact, have argued that the pl. heads of MT is acceptable; Blenkinsopp, for example, translates MT: “The hair of all heads is cut back, all beards are shaved off.”444 1QIsaa’s ‫ ראוש‏ו‬appears to present the sg. head in place of MT’s pl., but the distinction between the suffixes ‫ ‑‏ו‬and ‫ ‑יו‏‬became indistinct in DSS Hebrew, as pointed out by Qimron.445 Therefore, ‫אׁשיו‏ = ראוש ‏ו‬ ‫ר ֹ ׇ‬. For the bicolon in this verse, one may compare also Jer 48:37 (‫) ִּכי ׇכל־רֹאׁש ׇק ְר ׇחה וְ ׇכל־זׇ ׇקן ּגְ ֻר ׇעה‏‬. ‫רּוע ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫—ּגְ ׇ‬This is a case of dālet/rêš confusion, ‫ גרועה‏‬versus ‫ה‬ ‫גדוע ‏‬. ‫רּועה‏‬ ‫ ּגְ ׇ‬signi‑ fies the correct reading, “to shave, trim (beard)” (HALOT, 203). 440  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 117. 441  Ibid., 117. 442  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 104. 443  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 226. 444  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 296. 445  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

133

15:3 ‫ ְּבחּוצ ׇֹתי ‏ו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ בחוצותי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇחגְ ר‏ּו‬MT | ‫ חגור‏ו‬1QIsaa | περιζώσασθε LXX • ‫יְ יֵ ִלי ‏ל‬ MT | ‫ יהיליל‏‬1QIsaa | ὀλολύζετε LXX • ‫ י ֵֹר ‏ד‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ויר ‏ד‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫— ְּבחּוצ ׇֹתי ‏ו‬For the three expressions—‫“( ְּבחּוצ ׇֹתיו‏‬in its/his streets”), ‫יה‬ ‫ֹּגות ׇ‏‬ ֶ ַ‫ּג‬ (“on its/her housetops”), and ‫“( ִּוב ְרחֹב ֶֹת ׇיה‏‬and in its/her squares”)—MT utilizes a third m. sg. suffix for the first expression and third f. sg. suffixes for the sec‑ ond and third expressions. Gray writes that “the change of gender is rather due to textual corruption than to the fact that the masc. refers to the people, the fem. to the land of Moab.”446 1QIsaa uses third f. sg. suffixes for all three words. Unfortunately, the referent for these three words is not readily apparent, al‑ though Moab is likely. Moab takes both f. and m. verbs and suffixes, making a judgment regarding the original reading complicated, if not impossible. It is possible that MT erred, borrowing the third m. sg. suffix from ‫אׁשי‏ו‬ ‫( ר ֹ ׇ‬v. 2); or, perhaps the scroll harmonized its reading with other third f. sg. suffixes in the verse. Blenkinsopp sums up by writing, “There is considerable confusion in gender and number in this part of the poem.”447 ‫—יְ יֵ ִלי ‏ל‬The deviation between MT (‫ )יְ יֵ ִליל‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )יהיליל‏‬is orthographic (Goshen-Gottstein calls ‫ יהילי ‏ל‬a “Pseudo-Hafʿel”).448 The root letters are ‫ ילל‏‬for both words, and both have the same translational values. Note that in 52:5, MT sets forth ‫ יְ ֵה ִיליל‏ּו‬with the infixed hê, as it is found in 1QIsaa in the verse under discussion. For two textual divergences of √‫ ילל‏‬that exist between these two Hebrew witnesses, see 23:1 and 52:5. ‫— ׇחגְ ר ‏ּו‬MT attests ‫ ׇחגְ רּו‏‬, a qal perfect, versus 1QIsaa’s ‫חגורו‏‬, a qal imperative. 15:4 ‫ נַ ְפֹׁשו‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab | ]‫ ֹו[נפשו ‏‬4QpIsae • ‫ה‬ ‫ יׇ ְר ׇע ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יר ‏ע‬1QIsaa | γνώσεται LXX (via √‫)ידע‏‬ ‫—יׇ ְר ׇעה‏‬In Isaiah, when the noun ‫ׁש‬ ‫ נֶ ֶפ ‏‬is accompanied by a verb or adjective, that verb or adjective is generally f. (e.g., 29:8; 42:1; 51:23; 55:2–3; 61:10; 66:3). Here in v. 4, both MT and 1QIsab set forth a qal pf. f. verb (‫)ירעה‏‬, but 1QIsaa utilizes a qal pf. m. verb (‫)ירע‏‬. LXX (γνώσεται, “to know”) probably read √‫( ידע‏‬cf. 8:9 MT ‫ ;ר ֹע ‏ּו‬LXX γνῶτε).

446  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 281; Roberts, First Isaiah, 231, shares the same view as Gray. 447  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 294, 296. 448   Goshen-Gottstein, “Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents,” 114.

134

Chapter 2

15:5 ‫ ְּב ִר ֶיח ׇה‏‬MT | ‫ ברחוה‏‬1QIsaa | ἐν εαὐτῇ LXX • ‫ צ ַֹער‏‬MT | ‫ צעור‏‬1QIsaa | Σηγωρ LXX • ‫ּלּוחי ‏‬ ‫ת‬ ִ ‫ ַה‬MT 1QIsab (‫ הלוחות‏ | )הלחיֹת‏‬1QIsaa | Λουιθ LXX • ‫ יְ ע ֵֹערּו‏‬MT | ‫ יערו‏‬1QIsaa (1QIsaa first read ‫ערו‏‬, then corrected to ‫ | )יער ‏ו‬καὶ σεισμός LXX ‫ ׇב ִר ַח‏(— ְּב ִר ֶיח ׇה‏‬, “fugitive,” HALOT, 146). MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫“( ְּב ִר ֶיח ׇ‏‬her fugitive[s]”) hear‑ kens back to Moab. Gray sees the f. suffix as “strange.”449 Driver proposes ‫בריחו‏‬ (“his fugitive[s]”);450 if Driver is correct, then perhaps the word should have been vocalized as ‫בריחֹה‏‬, e.g., “his fugitives.” The meaning of 1QIsaa’s ‫ ברחוה‏‬is uncertain. Does it mean “they flee her,” “in his spirit,” or “her fugitive”? LXX (ἐν εαὐτῇ) may have read the Hebrew as ‫“( ברוחה‏‬in her”; lit. “in her spirit”). ‫ּלּוחית‏‬ ִ ‫— ַה‬For the place name Luhith, MT and 1QIsab attest ‫לוחית‏‬. LXX Vulg Syr Tg, too, reflect this reading. 1QIsaa, however, has ‫לוחות‏‬, which in all prob‑ ability is an error (writing the pl. of ‫לוח‏‬, which is doubtful? or misreading the wāw for yôd?). Compare also MTqere Jer 48:5 (‫ ) ַה ֻּלֹחות‏‬versus MTket (‫ּלּוחית‏‬ ִ ‫) ַה‬. ‫—צ ַֹער‏‬The proper name Zoar, attested ten times in MT, is always vocalized with the holam after the ṣādê. The orthography of 1QIsaa (‫ )צעור‏‬may reflect an error of metathesis, but more likely it may be evidence of an Aramaism.451 ‫—יְ ע ֵֹער ‏ּו‬The meaning of the verb ‫( יְ ע ֵֹער‏ּו‬a hapax legomenon) of MT is uncer‑ tain; Greenspahn calls √‫ עער‏‬a ghost root452 and writes that ‫“ עע ‏ר‬is phonological‑ ly dubious and has no known cognates. Emendations are to read ‫ יערר ‏ו‬or ‫יערער ‏ו‬ although the present text may be construed as having developed from either of these.”453 BDB (735) holds that ‫ יְ ע ֵ ֹֽער‏ּו‬should read ‫יְ ַע ְר ֵ ֽער‏ּו‬, which some scholars translate the words ‫ת־ׁש ֶבר יְ ע ֵ ֹֽער‏ּו‬ ֶ ‫ זַ ֲע ַק‬as, “rouse (i.e. raise?) a cry of destruction.” HALOT (803) follows BDB, submitting that ‫ יְ ע ֵ ֹֽער ‏ּו‬probably should read ‫יְ ַע ְר ֵ ֽער ‏ּו‬. Cf. Clines, ‫ יְ ע ֵֹער‏ּו‬is a pilpel impf. third m. pl. (√‫עור‏‬, “arouse, i.e., raise cry”).454 With regard to 1QIsaa, “originally ‫ שברו ער‏ו‬stood here; it was corrected to ‫ שבר יער‏ו‬by changing the ‫ ‏ו‬in a ‫‏י‬, and putting separating dots before it” (PQ, 27, note 12a–a). ‫ יער ‏ו‬is a qal impf. third m. pl., “to be awake, to stir” (HALOT, 802). 15:6 ‫ יֶ ֶר ‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ ירו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ אהי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יֶ ֶרק‏‬In the HB, ‫( יֶ ֶרק‏‬and ‫ וִ ַירק‏‬bis) is the common form, with an exception existing in Job 39:8 (‫)יׇ ֹרוק‏‬, which is the reading of 1QIsaa (‫)ירוק‏‬. ‫— ׇהיׇ ‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫אהיא‏‬, see the commentary at 5:1. ‫ה‬ 449  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 285. 450  Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 44. 451   Ben-Hayyim, Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language, discusses several possible Aramaisms, 89–90. 452  Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena, 178. See also the discussion in HALOT, 803. 453  Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena, 147; see also Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 4. 454  Clines, Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 316.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

135

15:7 ‫ ׇה ֲע ׇר ִבי ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ערבי‏‬1QIsaa | Ἄραβας LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ יִ ׇּׂשאּו ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ תישאום‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ישאם‏‬MTms | καὶ λήμψονται αὐτήν LXX ‫— ׇה ֲע ׇר ִבים‏‬MT and 1QIsab read ‫ם‬ ‫“( נַ ַחל ׇה ֲע ׇר ִבי ‏‬Brook of the Willows”). 1QIsaa has ‫“( נחל ערב‏י‬Brook of the Arabs”), an expression that approximates the read‑ ing of LXX (Ἄραβας). ‫—יִ ׇּׂשאּום‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫ תישאו ‏‬is an error. According to Kutscher, “The scribe changed the person by prefixing a taw, but neglected to omit the yod!”455 For examples of similar errors, see 1:13 (‫)עצרתה‏‬, 11:9 (‫)תמלאה‏‬, 21:2 (‫)היגד‏‬, and 48:11 (‫)איחל‏‬. Roberts sets forth another theory, that a scribe misread the final mêm of ‫( ערבים‏‬see previous entry) and wrote a tāw, and then attached it to the verb.456 15:9 ‫ ִדיֹמון‏‬1,2 MT 1QIsab | ‫דיבון‏‬1,2 1QIsaa Vulg | Ρεμμων1,2 LXX • ‫ ַא ְריֵ ה‏‬MT | ‫ ארוה‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ Αριηλ LXX • ‫ת‬ ‫ וְ ִל ְׁש ֵא ִרי ‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ת‬ ‫ לשארי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ִדיֹמון‏‬1,2—Commentators have proposed theories regarding the variants ‫ִדיֹמו ‏ן‬ (MT 1QIsab; note that 1QIsab is fragmented and only the first ‫ דימון‏‬is visible on the leather) and ‫( דיבו‏ן‬1QIsaa), which proper name occurs twice in the verse under discussion.457 Four of the theories are: (a) Dibon became Dimon via al‑ literation. ‫;מי דימון מלאו דם‬458 (b) Watts writes, “No Moabite city called Ribon or Dimon is known. So it would be easy to follow DSSIsa to substitute the wellknown town Dibon.”459 (c) Dibon became Dmn as a word-play on the word ‫ם‬ ‫ד‏‬ (“blood”): “For the waters of Dimon will be full of blood.” (d) Kennedy argues that the similarity of ‫ ‏ב‬and ‫מ‬ ‫ ‏‬in some ancient alphabets caused the confusion between ‫ דיבון‏‬and ‫ דימון‏‬in vv. 2 and 9.460 The reading of LXX (Ρεμμων) may have been caused by confusion of the graphical set dālet/rêš as the translator con‑ fronted the Hebrew text. ‫— ַא ְריֵ ‏‬For MT’s ‫“( ַא ְריֵ ה‏‬lion”), 1QIsaa has ‫“ ֻא ְרוׇ ה‏( ארוה‏‬stall”), or, more likely “I ‫ה‬ will water,” “I will inundate” (via √‫)רוה‏‬. Previous to the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, some textual critics had already conjectured that the text should read “I will inundate.”461 It is also possible that the scribe of 1QIsaa accidentally 455  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 156. 456  Roberts, First Isaiah, 232. 457  For a summary of the theories, see Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 22; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 101–2; and Orlinksy, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll–V,” 5–8, who argues passionately in favor of MT’s reading and concludes, “It is clear that MT ‫ דימו ‏ן‬is original,” 8. 458  See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 296, who prefers the reading of 1QIsaa. 459  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 227. 460  Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 44. 461  See Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:116–17.

136

Chapter 2

wrote wāw instead of yôd. The transliteration of LXX Αριηλ is probably based on 2 Sam 23:20, which associates Ariel with Moab (or the reading is an assimi‑ lation from 29:1, where ‫ ֲא ִר ֵיא ‏ל‬is attested).

Isaiah 16

16:1 ‫מׁש ‏ל‬ ֵ ‫ ַכר‬MT 1QIsab (‫ כרמשל‏ | )‏כר [משל‬1QIsaa | ὡς ἑρπετὰ ἐπὶ LXX • ‫ ִמ ֶּס ַלע‏‬MT LXX (πέτρα) | ‫ מסלה‏‬1QIsaa ‫ל־א ֶר ‏ץ‬ ֶ ‫מׁש‬ ֵ ‫— ַכר‬LXX experienced an improper word division, reading ‫ש‬ ‫כרמ ‏‬ ‫( לארץ‬ὡς ἑρπετὰ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν = “like creeping things on the land”), rather than ‫ַכר‏‬ ‫ל־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫מׁש‬ ֵ . So, too, 1QIsaa improperly reads the consonants, thus creating a fu‑ sion, ‫כרמשל אר ‏ץ‬. 2 Kgs 3:4 indirectly supports MT’s reading, with its statement of a king providing sheep as a tribute to another king. MT, supported by 1QIsab, possesses the primary reading “Send lambs to the ruler of the land.” ‫— ִמ ֶּס ַל ‏‬Sela in this verse may refer to a proper name of a site in Moab, ‫ע‬ which some lexica suggest is Petra; or Sela may signify a cliff (BDB, 700–701). Elsewhere in the Bible, ‫ סלע‏‬means “rock” or “cliff.” 1QIsaas’ ‫ סלה‏‬may be an al‑ ternate spelling found in the scribe’s Vorlage or known to the scribe; or more likely, ‫ סלה‏‬indicates a phonetic error.462 16:2 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ והי◦ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬The ink represented by the midline circlet of 1QIsaa’s ‫ והי◦א‏‬is inde‑ ‫ה‬ cipherable; UF 2:104 explain, “After the yôd the scribe made a vertical stroke (wāw or the right stroke of hê?) but then blotted it out.” For 1QIsaa’s ‫והי◦א‏‬, see the commentary at 5:1. 16:3 ‫ ׇה ִביאּו‏‬MTket | ‫ ׇה ִב ִיאי‏‬MTqere | ‫ הביו‏‬1QIsaa | πλείονα LXX • ‫ ֲעׂשּו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫עשי‏‬ MTmss ‫— ׇה ִביא ‏ּו‬MTqere (‫יאי‏‬ ִ ‫ ) ׇה ִב‬corresponds to the substantive ‫ה‬ ‫ ֵע ׇצ ‏‬. Most probably, the reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )הביו‏‬is a defective form of √‫ בוא‏‬caused by an error of hearing; the ʾālep’s weakening is common in various stages of Hebrew and Aramaic.463 Or perhaps (but less likely) ‫ הבי ‏ו‬is from √‫יהב‏‬, suggesting ‫הב ‏י‬, “give.” 462  See also Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 25; Abegg, in UF 2:30. 463  See Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 516; Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 29–30; Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 144.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

137

Compare ‫ה‬ ‫( יהב עצ ‏‬Judg 20:7; 2 Sam 16:20).464 See also the deviations ‫( באת‏‬MT) and ‫( בתה‏‬1QIsaa) in 37:29. 16:4 ‫ ַה ֵּמץ‏‬MT | ‫ המו ‏ץ‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַּתּמ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫מ‬ ‫ ת ‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ַה ֵּמץ‏‬MT’s ‫ ַה ֵּמ ‏ץ‬is a hapax legomenon, for which HALOT (619) proposes to read ‫“( חמוץ‏‬oppressor,” 619, 327). 1QIsaa’s ‫ המוץ‏‬apparently reads “chaff” (41:15; Hos 13:3; Zeph 2:2, etc.), but “chaff” does not fit the context (but compare Vulg, pulvis, meaning “dust”). It is possible that 1QIsaa’s Vorlage read ‫חמוץ‏‬. ‫— ַּתּמ ‏ּו‬Gray affirms that “in view of the singulars ‫ה‬ ‫כל ‏‬, ‫ס‬ ‫אפ ‏‬, the pl. ‫ תמ‏ו‬is suspicious,”465 and Watts has pointed out the nonagreement in MT between the subject ‫ס‬ ‫ ר ֵֹמ ‏‬and the verb ‫ ַּתּמ‏ּו‬.466 1QIsaa (‫ )תם‏‬presents the sg. form of the verb, which Wildberger states “is the same reading reflected in Gk, Syr, and Vulg.”467 16:5 ‫ ְּבא ֶֹהל‏‬MT | ‫ באוהו ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּבא ֶֹה ‏ל‬1QIsaa exhibits a double wāw mater in the present verse (‫ )באוהול‏‬as well as in 45:13 (‫ )בשוחוד‏‬and 59:6 (‫)ופועול‏‬. These double wāw mater nouns may exist because of Aramaic influence or because the second wāw follows a gut‑ tural, and gutturals were relatively weak during this time period.468 16:6

‫ ּגֵ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ גא ‏‬1QIsaa MTmss • ‫א ‏ד‬ ֹ ‫ ְמ‬MT | ‫ מוא ‏ד‬1QIsaa • ‫ ּגַ ֲאוׇ ֹת ‏ו‬MT | ‫ גאת ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—ּגֵ ‏‬The omission of the hê on ‫ גא‏‬is problematic (see Ibn Ezra and HALOT, ‫א‬ 168); perhaps ‫ גא מאד‏‬is “a dittograph of ‫גאון מואב‏‬,”469 writes Gray. Read instead ‫“( גאה‏‬arrogant,” HALOT, 168) with 1QIsaa and medieval Hebrew Bible manu‑ scripts (see HUB–Isaiah). Kutscher thus states, “The Scr.’s reading is thus to be considered superior.”470 For the reading ‫ה‬ ‫ גא ‏‬of 1QIsaa, cf. also Jer 48:29 (‫ׇׁש ַמ ְענּו‏‬ ‫ גא ‏‬as either ‫ה‬ ‫( ּגֵ ֶא ‏‬2:12; Jer 48:29; ‫ֹאון־ֹמואב ּגֵ ֶאה ְמאֹד‬ ‫ׇ‬ ְ‫)ג‬. In the HB, MT vocalizes ‫ה‬ Job 40:11–12) or ‫( ּגֵ ׇאה‏‬Prov 8:13).

464  See Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 290; Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 110. 465  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 291. 466  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 227. 467  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 111. 468  For these and other examples of a double wāw mater in nouns, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 183–85. 469  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 293. 470  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 369. So, too, Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 111, writes that the reading of 1QIsaa is “probably the original form.” And before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 4, proposed ‫ה‬ ‫ּגֵ ֶא ‏‬.

138

Chapter 2

‫א ‏ד‬ ֹ ‫— ְמ‬For the adverbial particle ‫( מואד‏‬with or without the adverbial ending a), 1QIsaa attests ‫מוא ‏ד‬, ‫ה‬ ‫מואד ‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫מאד ‏‬, and ‫ה‬ ‫מאוד ‏‬.471 All of these forms are devia‑ tions that do not impact translational values. ‫“(—ּגַ ֲאוׇ ֹתו‏‬arrogance,” HALOT, 168). 1QIsaa’s loss of the wāw in its reading of ‫ גאת‏ו‬may have originated because the wāw “in Hebrew (as well as in other Semitic languages) between two vowels is likely to become muted, so the re‑ sult would be gaato.”472 One may compare MT’s ‫( גאותו‏‬Deut 33:26) and ‫גאותך‏‬ (Deut 33:29) to respective Samaritan Pentateuch readings: ‫( גאתו‏‬Deut 33:26) and ‫( גאתך‏‬Deut 33:29). Or, the scribe of 1QIsaa erred by omitting the first wāw from the word.

16:6–7 ‫א־כן … ׇל ֵכן‏‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ל‬MT 1QIsab (‫א | )לא[‏‬ ‫ לכן … ולכן לו ‏‬1QIsaa | οὐχ οὕτως … οὐχ οὕτως LXX ‫א־כן … ׇל ֵכן‏‬ ֵ ֹ ‫—ל‬Although only [‫ לא ‏‬may be viewed on the leather, 1QIsab’s read‑ ing is apparently equivalent to that of MT (‫א־כן … ׇל ֵכן‏‬ ֵ ֹ ‫)ל‬. 1QIsaa has the variant ‫לכן … ולכן לו ‏‬. The scroll’s ‫ לכן‏‬for ‫ לא כ‏ן‬may be impacted by Aramaic; ‫א־כ‏ן‬ ‫א‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ל‬is pronounced ‫ ׇלא ֵכ ‏ן‬in Aramaic, hence ‫ ׇל ֵכ ‏ן‬. But note that the scribe correctly read ‫( לוא כ‏ן‬rather than ‫ )לכ‏ן‬in 10:7. It is also possible that the scribe accidentally wrote ‫לכן‏‬, an assimilation from ‫לכ‏ן‬, located two words away. 16:7 ‫ ֶּת ְהּג ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa | MTmss ‫יהג ‏ו‬ 16:8 ‫ ֻא ְמ ׇל ‏ל‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אמלל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫“(— ֻא ְמ ׇלל‏‬to wither, to dry out,” HALOT, 63). Owing to the syntactical arrange‑ ment as well as to issues of number,473 the sg. verb ‫( ֻא ְמ ׇל ‏ל‬pulal pf. third m. sg., via √‫ אמל‏‬MT) does not belong to the expression ‫כי ׁשדמות חׁשבו‏ן‬, as found in some translations (i.e., JPS, “For the fields of Heshbon languish”). Rather, this verb belongs to the noun ‫“( ּגֶ ֶפ‏ן‬For the fields of Heshbon, the vine of Sibmah withers”). Note also that ‫ ּגֶ ֶפן‏‬is a f. noun (see BDB, 172; see also Judg 9:12–13; Isa 24:7; 32:12; etc.), hence the form ‫ה‬ ‫( אמלל ‏‬pulal pf. third f. sg., via √‫ )אמל‏‬that is found in 1QIsaa. Cf. also ‫ ֻא ְמ ְל ׇלה־גׇ ֶפ‏ן‬in 24:7.

471  Regarding the variant spellings of ‫ד‬ ‫א‏‬ ֹ ‫ ְמ‬in the DSS, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 363; and Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 185–86. 472  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 369–70. 473  Here I refer to the discussion in Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 294.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

139

16:8–9 ‫ל־ּכן ֶא ְב ֶּכה‏‬ ֵ ‫יה נִ ְּטׁשּו ׇע ְברּו יׇם׃ ַע‬ ‫ֹחות ׇ‬ ֶ ‫יה ַעד־יַ ְעזֵ ר נׇ גׇ עּו ׇּתעּו ִמ ְד ׇּבר ְׁש ֻל‬ ‫רּוּק ׇ‬ ֶ ‫ַּב ֲע ֵלי ֹגויִ ם ׇה ְלמּו ְׂש‬ ‫ ִּב ְב ִכי יַ ְעזֵ ר ּגֶ ֶפן ִׂש ְב ׇמה‬MT 1QIsab LXX | > 1QIsaa 1QIsaa stands alone against two Hebrew witnesses (MT 1QIsab) and the ver‑ sions with its minus of a portion of vv. 8–9. A homoioteleuton exists in 1QIsaa,474 where the scribe’s eye skipped from ‫ שבמה‏‬to ‫שבמה‏‬. UF 2:90 write: “1QIsaa has simply lost through parablepsis text correctly preserved in the M and LXX traditions.” 16:9 ‫ ֲא ַרּיׇ וֶ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ ארזי ‏ך‬1QIsaa LXX (τὰ δένδρα σου) • ‫ ַע ‏ל‬2 MT | ‫ וע ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ֲא ַרּיׇ וֶ ‏ְך‬In the first bicolon of v. 9, MT’s ‫רוה‏√( ֲא ַרּיׇ וֶ ְך‏‬, “water thoroughly,” HALOT, 1195) parallels ‫ה‬ ‫בכה‏√( ֶא ְב ֶּכ ‏‬, “to weep,” HALOT, 129), although we ob‑ serve that the form ‫ אריוך‏‬is either irregular or an error (for ‫;)ארוי ‏ך‬475 so also Wildberger states that ‫“ אריו ‏ך‬is an impossible form.”476 1QIsaa’s ‫“( ארזי ‏ך‬your cedars”) is meaningless in this context. It is probable that the scribe erred by writing zayin in place of the graphically similar yôd or wāw; thus Wildberger proposes that ‫ ארזיך‏‬is a “corruption of ‫“( ”ארויך‏‬I will soak you”).477 LXX’s τὰ δένδρα σου probably originates from ‫אלון‏‬, reading rêš for lāmed, according to the theory set forth by Fischer.478 ‫ ַעל‏‬2—1QIsaa’s reading may be ‫( ועל‏‬PQ), ‫( לעל‏‬see UF 2:104), or perhaps an‑ other reading. 16:10 ‫ יְ ֻרּנׇ ‏ן‬MT | ‫ ירננ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ל ֹ ‏‬2 MT | ‫א‬ ‫ולו ‏‬2 1QIsaa LXX(vid) Tg Vulg ‫—יְ ֻרּנׇ ‏ן‬MT’s ‫( יְ ֻרּנׇ ‏ן‬puʿal impf. third m. sg. “someone exults,” HALOT, 1248) cor‑ responds with ‫( יְ ר ׇֹעע‏‬polal impf. third m. sg., “there is jubilation,” HALOT, 1207); both are impf. third m. sg., and both are passives. With 1QIsaa’s ‫( ירננו‏‬piʿel impf. third m. pl.), the bicolon lacks the same correspondence. 16:12 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ נִ ְל ׇא ‏‬MT LXX | ‫א‬ ‫ ב ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִמ ְק ׇּדֹׁש ‏ו‬MT | ‫ מקדשי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—נִ ְל ׇא ‏‬MT exhibits the verbs √‫“( נראה‏‬to see”), √‫“( לאה‏‬to be weary”), and ‫ה‬ √‫“( בוא‏‬to come”). 1QIsaa deviates from MT with its reading of the verbs √‫נראה‏‬, 474  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 392. 475  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 228. 476  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 112. See also Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 294. 477  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 112. 478  Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 32.

140

Chapter 2

√‫בוא‏‬, and a second occurrence of √‫ ;בוא‏‬thus the scroll sets forth √‫ בוא‏‬in place of MT’s √‫לאה‏‬. Multiple theories serve to explain the divergences: (a) The graphi‑ cally similar verbs ‫ נראה‏‬and ‫נלאה‏‬, separated only with the particle ‫כי‏‬, confused the 1QIsaa copyist and he accidentally omitted ‫נלאה‏‬. (b) The copyist attempted to substitute the common verb √‫ בוא‏‬for what the scribe conceived was a dif‑ ficult reading of ‫ ;נלאה‏‬cf. BHK, which suggests deleting the verb ‫נלאה‏‬. (c) The scribe harmonized the wording so that the first verb matches the second, i.e., “when Moab comes upon the high place, and comes to its temple to pray.” But with this change, the copyist failed to change the preposition ‫ ע ‏ל‬to ‫א ‏ל‬, which (preposition ‫ )א ‏ל‬is commonly collocated with the verb ‫א‬ ‫ב ‏‬. (d) Talmon pro‑ poses that the “words ‫ה‬ ‫ כי נרא ‏‬are simply a doublet of ‫ה‬ ‫כי נלא ‏‬. The replacement of the lamedh by resh, as a result of blurred pronunciation, gave rise to two readings which were combined by a redactor.”479 ‫— ִמ ְק ׇּדֹׁשו‏‬In MT, the nouns ‫“( ַה ׇּב ׇמה‏‬high place”) and ‫“( ִמ ְק ׇּדֹׁש ‏ו‬temple”) parallel each other. With the addition of a superscripted yôd (written in a secondary book hand?), it appears that 1QIsaa reads the pl. “his temples” (‫)מקדשיו‏‬. Thus Blenkinsopp submits that the scroll pluralized temples “perhaps for theological reasons.”480 However, Qimron rightly points out that in DSS Hebrew the suf‑ fix ‫ ‑יו‏‬regularly marks the singular; thus ‫ ִמ ְק ׇּדֹׁש‏ו = מקדשי‏ו‬.481 We observe that a single medieval Hebrew Bible manuscript (R) reads ‫מקדש‏‬, lacking a pronomi‑ nal suffix (HUB–Isaiah). 16:14

‫ ִמזְ ׇע ‏ר‬MT | ‫ מצזער‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֹלוא‏‬MT | ‫ ולוא‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ ַכ ִּביר‏‬MT | ‫ כבוד‏‬1QIsaa

LXX ‫“(— ִמזְ ׇער‏‬something small, trifling,” HALOT, 566). Of the two synonyms ‫מזער‏‬ and ‫“( מצער‏‬few in number,” HALOT, 624), ‫ מצער‏‬is apparently the older form. Both forms are rare and both feature a sibilant after the mêm. ‫ מזע ‏ר‬appears four times in the Bible, always in Isaiah (10:25; 16:14; 24:6; 29:17). In the verse under discussion, the 1QIsaa scribe first wrote ‫מצע ‏ר‬, and then he or a subse‑ quent copyist added a superscript zayin (and perhaps blotted out the ṣādê?; see UF 2:104), which placed the reading in agreement with the other attesta‑ tions of the word in Isaiah.

479  Talmon, “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” 162. 480  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 297. 481  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

141

‫“(— ַכ ִּביר‏‬strong, mighty,” HALOT, 458). 1QIsaa (or its Vorlage) errs with its ‫כבו ‏ד‬. Kutscher argues that the scribe was “apparently unfamiliar”482 with ‫כביר‏‬

because it is relatively rare in the Bible (found ten times), but the scribe cor‑ rectly copied ‫ם‬ ‫ כברי ‏‬in 28:2 (although note the spelling of ‫ם‬ ‫ כבירי ‏‬in MT 28:2). More likely this is a case of dālet/rêš confusion; or, alternatively, the scribe was influenced by ‫כבוד‏‬, located nine words previously. Note that the readings of LXX Tg approximate that of the scroll. Compare also the divergences ‫ַּכ ִּב ִירים‏‬ (MT) and ‫( כבדים‏‬1QIsaa) in 17:12.

Isaiah 17

17:1 ‫ ַּד ׇּמ ֶׂש ‏‬1,2 MT LXX | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫דרמש ‏‬1,2 1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ׇהיְ ׇת ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ והיי ‏‬1QIsaa , ‫ ַּד ׇּמ ֶׂשק‏‬1 2—For a discussion of the orthographic variant of ‫ק‬ ‫דרמש ‏‬, see 7:8. ‫—וְ ׇהיְ ׇתה‏‬MT sets forth ‫ה‬ ‫וְ ׇהיְ ׇת ‏‬, a qal pf. third f. sg. verb. As a rule, 1QIsaa has ‫ הייתה‏‬for the qal pf. third f. sg. verb of √‫היה‏‬, but here (and again in 19:17) the copyist wrote ‫ת‬ ‫( והיי ‏‬qal pf. second f. sg.). Qimron refers to ‫ת‬ ‫ היי ‏‬and states that it is an “irregular form.”483 In a private communication, Medina writes, “It seems that ‫ והיית‏‬is an irregular dialectal form of ‫ה‬ ‫הית ‏‬, qal pf 3rd person feminine singular.”484 17:2 ‫ ׇע ֵרי ֲער ֵֹער‏‬MT | ‫ ערי עורער ‏ו‬1QIsaa | εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα LXX (via √‫)?עדי עד‏‬ ‫— ֲער ֵֹער‏‬For this proper name, 1QIsaa reads ‫עורערו‏‬. Kutscher explains the ex‑ istence of the first wāw “as resulting from the assimilation of the hataf to ‘o’ after the ‫ ‏ר‬which however was not itself indicated”; he points out that there are several instances of this phenomenon in the books of Chronicles as well as in Aramaic.485 Apparently, LXX read the Hebrew (‫ ) ׇע ֵרי ֲער ֵֹער‏‬as ‫עדי עד ועד‏‬, a multiplied dālet/rêš confusion. In view of LXX, Oort, followed by Kissane, conjectures that the text read ‫עריה עדי עד‏‬.486

482  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 246. 483  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 192. 484  So stated R. W. Medina, February 18, 2019, personal communication. 485  Ibid., 114. 486  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 97; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:197. See also, Lagarde, Kritische anmerkungen zum Buche Isaias, 30.

142

Chapter 2

17:3 ‫ ִמ ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂש ‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ מדרמש ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְהי ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂש ‏‬For a discussion of the orthographic variant of ‫דרמשק‏‬, see 7:8. ‫ק‬ ‫—יִ ְהי ‏ּו‬The subject of ‫ה‬ ‫( יהי ‏‬1QIsaa) is “the remnant of Syria.” MT’s verb is pl. (‫)יִ ְהיּו‏‬, and its subject is either the children of Israel (“like the ‘glory’ [which] the Israelites have become”)487 or Ephraim and Syria (“as the glory of the children of Israel”) (see JPS). Wildberger, who holds that 1QIsaa reads ‫( יהוה‏‬Yahweh) in‑ stead of ‫יהיה‏‬, prefers the reading of MT.488 17:5 ‫ יִ ְקֹצור‏‬MT LXX | ‫ וקצי ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ְקֹצו ‏ר‬Different particulars may explain the minor difference of 1QIsaa (‫)וקציר‏‬: confusion of the graphical set wāw/yôd, or a scribe wrote the second ‫וקציר‏‬, an assimilation of the first ‫ קציר‏‬in the bicolon. There is another possible explanation for ‫וקצי ‏ר‬. The scribe may have been perplexed as to why the m. verb ‫ יִ ְקֹצו ‏ר‬was used with the f. noun ‫ֹרוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ז‬, so he altered the verb so that there would exist a “double subject.” Condamin, Buhl, and Marti conjecture to read the ptc. of √‫קצר‏‬.489 17:6

‫ ּגַ ְרּגְ ִרי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫גדגרי ‏‬ ̇ 1QIsaa • ‫יה‬ ‫ ִּב ְס ִע ֶפ ׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ בסעפ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫“(—ּגַ ְרּגְ ִרי ‏‬ripe olives,” HALOT, 201). The word ‫ ּגַ ְרּגְ ִרים‏‬is a biblical hapax lego‫ם‬ menon, but compare ‫גרגרי ֹם העוללת‏‬ ̇ ‫]עד ֯עשרה‬ [ (4Q267 f6:2). The dālet of ‫גדגרים‏‬ ̇

(1QIsaa) is an error, a result of dālet/rêš confusion. For other examples of dālet/ rêš confusion, see 9:8. ‫ ׇס ִעיף‏(— ִּב ְס ִע ֶפ ׇ ‏‬, “twig,” HALOT, 762). MT’s third f. sg. suffix apparently lacks a ‫יה‬ proper antecedent; the m. nouns ‫ת‬ ‫“ זַ יִ ‏‬olive tree,” ‫“ ׇא ִמי ‏ר‬bough,” and ‫ׁש‬ ‫“ רֹא ‏‬head, top” do not qualify. Oort, Gray, and other critics emend MT so that the hê of ‫ בסעפי ‏‬becomes the article of the following word, i.e., ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫בסעפי הפרי ‏‬.490 If his emendation is correct, then the words under discussion experienced a misdivi‑ sion of words during the history of the transmission of the Bible. 1QIsaa’s ‫בסעפי‏‬ ‫ פריה‬lends support to this emendation.491 It is also possible that a copyist of the 487  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 235. 488  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 158. 489  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 121. 490  See Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 300; Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:197; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 97; and Hitzig, Der Prophet Jesaja, 204. 491  According to Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 159, 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ בסעפי פרי ‏‬settles the text-critical argument regarding what the reading should be.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

143

MT tradition inadvertently assimilated a hê from another word in the immedi‑ ate context that terminates with a hê, i.e., ‫ה‬ ‫ארבעה חמשה בסעפיה פריה נאם יהו ‏‬. 17:7

‫ ע ֵֹׂשה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ עושוה‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—ע ֵֹׂשה ‏ּו‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa, see the com‑

mentary in 2:2.

17:8 ‫ ֶאל‏‬MT | ‫ ע ‏ל‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂש ‏‬LXX | ‫ מעשי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ ׇדי ‏ו‬MT LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬MT | ‫ אש ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ׇה ֲא ֵׁש ִרי ‏‬MT 4QIsab Tg | ‫ האשרי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (τὰ δένδρα αὐτῶν) Syr Vulg ‫ם‬ ‫— ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה יׇ ׇדיו‏‬V. 8 of MT includes three sets of synonymous expressions, in‑ cluding “the work of his hands” (‫) ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה יׇ ׇדיו‏‬, which corresponds to “which his fingers have made” (‫)וַ ֲא ֶׁשר ׇעׂשּו ֶא ְצ ְּבע ׇֹתיו‏‬. 1QIsaa deviates from MT and the ver‑ sions by reading ‫“( מעשי‏ו‬his works”) in place of ‫מעשה ידי‏ו‬. Perhaps a scribe inadvertently dropped ‫ י ‏ד‬during the copying process but retained the suffix ‫‑י ‏ו‬, adding it to ‫מעשה‏‬. Cf. 5:12 (‫ּומ ֲע ֵׂשה יׇ ׇדיו‏‬ ַ ), Ps 103:22 (‫) ַמ ֲע ׇׂשיו‏‬, etc. ‫—וְ ׇה ֲא ֵׁש ִרי ‏‬For ‫וְ ׇה ֲא ֵׁש ִרים וְ ׇה ַח ׇּמנִ ים‏‬, MT reads “both … and.” 1QIsaa lacks the first ‫ם‬ conjunctive wāw on the first of these two nouns, i.e., ‫ם‬ ‫האשרים והחמני ‏‬. 17:9 ‫זּובת‏‬ ַ ‫ ַּכ ֲע‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ כעזובו ‏‬1QIsaa LXX Syr ‫זּובת‏‬ ַ ‫— ַּכ ֲע‬The verse has its difficulties, which will not be discussed here be‑ yond the single variant between 1QIsaa and MT. According to Blenkinsopp,492 1QIsaa’s pl. ‫ת‬ ‫ כעזובו ‏‬is preferable to MT’s sg. ‫ת‬ ‫זּוב ‏‬ ַ ‫ ַּכ ֲע‬, although the reading of MT is fully acceptable. 17:10

‫ ׇׁש ַכ ַח ְ ‏‬MT 4QIsaa 4QIsab | ‫ שכחת‏י‬1QIsaa • MT ‫ תז֯ ֯רו ֹ֯ענ ‏ֹו | ִּתזְ ׇר ֶ ֽעּנ ‏ּו‬1QIsaa ‫ּת‬ ‫— ׇׁש ַכ ַח ְ ‏‬According to several scholars, the second f. sg. pf. suffix ‫ ‑תי‏‬is an ar‑ ‫ּת‬ chaic Hebrew form (see, for example, Judg 5:7), which became ‫ת‬ ‫ ‑ ‏‬in SBH. Does this mean, then, that 1QIsaa’s ‫ שכחתי‏‬here in 17:10 is a manifestation from archa‑

ic Hebrew? Kutscher explains, “When Aramaic influence started transforming SBH, this was one of the forms which it brought back, which had survived in Standard Aramaic. Thus it creates the ‘mirage’ of the reappearance of an ar‑ chaic form.”493 Such is the case with the Isaiah scroll. Aramaic has impacted

492  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 302. 493  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 39.

144

Chapter 2

1QIsaa, where the scroll’s scribe placed the suffixed yôd on the qal second f. sg. pf. verb (‫( )שכחתי‏‬see Abegg in UF 2:41).494 Elsewhere Abegg (see UF 2:31) explains that of the thirty instances of the second f. sg. pf. verbs in 1QIsaa, eighteen have an ending of ‫‑תי‏‬. This ending also occurs in 4QJerc 31:21 and in 1QIsab 47:7. In 1QIsaa, see, e.g., the following second f. sg. pf. verbs of 1QIsaa: ‫( עלית‏י‬22:1); ‫( הכבדתי‏‬47:6); ‫( שמתי‏‬47:6–7); ‫( זכרתי‏‬47:7); ‫( אמרתי‏‬47:10); ‫( יגעתי‏‬47:12, 15); ‫( וידעתי‏‬49:23); ‫( שתיתי‬51:17 bis); ‫ וינקתי‏‬and ‫( וידעתי‏‬60:16); and ‫( יגעתי‏‬62:8). See also 48:8, where the 1QIsaa scribe wrote ‫ שמעת‏י‬in place of MT’s ‫ּת‬ ‫ ׇׁש ַמ ְע ׇ‏‬. And compare the independent second f. sg. pronoun ‫ את‏‬versus ‫( אתי‏‬see 51:9, 10, 12). For additional examples of Aramaic readings in 1QIsaa, see 51:9. 17:11 ‫ ְּת ַׂשגְ ֵׂשגִ י‏‬MT | ‫ תשגֹשגש ‏י‬1QIsaa | ‫ תשתגשג‏י‬4QIsaa | πλανηθήσῃ LXX • ‫ ְּוכ ֵא ‏ב‬MT | ‫וכאו ‏ב‬ 1QIsaa | καὶ ὡς πατὴρ LXX (via √‫)וכאב‏‬ ‫— ְּת ַׂשגְ ֵׂשגִ י‏‬The root of the hapax legomenon ‫ ְּת ַׂשגְ ֵׂשגִ י‏‬is unknown, and the Hebrew witnesses present three forms in this verse: MT ‫ ְּת ַׂשגְ ֵׂשגִ י‏‬, a pilpel impf. second f. sg.; 1QIsaa ‫ ;תשגֹשגש ‏י‬and 4QIsaa ‫תשתגשג‏י‬, a hitpalpel impf. second f. sg. Cf. also 1QHa 16:10 ‫יתשגשג‏ו‬, also a hitpalpel (“to grow upwards,” HALOT, 1306). Perhaps 1QIsaa was influenced by the Aramaic ‫ש‬ ‫שג ‏‬,495 although the extra ‫ש‬ ‫‏‬ is atypical. Most critics propose √‫“( ׂשגג‏‬to grow, grow large”) (‫ ׂשגג‏‬is perhaps a byform of ‫‏‬496‫)ׂשגה‬, √‫“( ׂשוג‏‬fence in”), or √‫“( שגא‏‬to be large,” Ibn Ezra). HALOT (1306) has, “to cause to grow, cause to increase, rear (e.g. children).” For a sum‑ mary of the discussion of ‫ ְּת ַׂשגְ ֵׂשגִ י‏‬, see Watts and Wildberger.497 The versions provide various understandings of ‫תׂשגׂשג‏י‬. ‫— ְּוכ ֵא ‏‬UF 1:72 identifies the difference between ‫ ְּוכ ֵא ‏ב‬and ‫ וכאו ‏ב‬as ortho‑ ‫ב‬ graphic, which is the most likely appointment for these two words. Support for this orthographic assessment is in the Hodayot readings of ‫ וכאוב‏‬and ‫לכאו ‏ב‬ (see 1QHodayota 13:30; 16:29). In fact, this is another case of noun pattern sub‑ stitution that is typical of DSS Hebrew: ‫ ְכ ֵאב‏‬has the qitl pattern, and ‫ כאוב‏‬exists in the qutl/qatl pattern.498 But Kutscher provides an alternative position; he asks, “Was the word ‫ כאוב‏‬found in the scribe’s dialect (either Heb or Aram), but only by chance not used in any of the literary sources? Or did it perhaps come into being as a blend of ‫ ַמכאֹוב‏( מכאוב‏‬appears in the Pent. some fifteen times) + 494  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 25; see also the discussion, 188–90; but contrast Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 132, who assert that the ‫‑תי‏‬ ending is an ancient form. 495  See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 538. 496  See Clines, Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 433. 497  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 240; Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 160. 498  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 299.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

145

‫”?כאוב‏‬499 LXX misinterpreted ‫ וכא ‏ב‬and wrote καὶ ὡς πατὴρ. For other examples of possible hybrid forms in 1QIsaa, see the comments on ‫ עצרתה‏‬at 1:13. 17:12

‫ ַּכ ִּב ִירי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ כבדי ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ יִ ׇּׁשאּו‏ן‬MT LXX (ἠχήσει) | ‫ ושאו‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫— ַּכ ִּב ִירי ‏‬1QIsaa incorrectly reads ‫כבדים‏‬, an example of dālet/rêš confusion. ‫ם‬ Compare the variants ‫( ַכ ִּביר‏‬MT) and ‫( כבו ‏ד‬1QIsaa) at 16:14. ‫“(—יִ ׇּׁשאּון‏‬noise, roar,” HALOT, 1370). For MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ּוׁשֹאון ְל ֻא ִּמים … יִ ׇּׁשאּון ְל ֻא ִּמי ‏‬ ְ (vv. 12–13a), 1QIsaa has ‫ם‬ ‫ושאון לאומים … ושאון לאומי ‏‬. In other words, the scribe simply repeated the expression ‫ ושאון לאומים‏‬that is found earlier in the verse (thus an error). Or, it is also possible that the scribe erred via a wāw/yôd confu‑ sion, writing ‫ ושאו‏ן‬for ‫ישאו‏ן‬. 17:13

‫ וְ גׇ ַע ‏ר‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ ויגע ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ גׇ ַע ‏ר‬The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )ויגער‏‬is another case of verbal form substi‑

tution, a late development in view of the collapse of the consecutive forms: weQatal in the MT > weYiqtol in the scroll. Note that the reading of 4QIsab equals that of MT. For a discussion of deviations of pf. and impf. verbs in as‑ sociation with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. 17:14 ‫ ֵאינֶ ּנּו‏‬MT | ‫ ואיננ ‏ו‬1QIsaa 1QIsab LXX

Isaiah 18

18:1

‫ ִצ ְל ַצ ‏ל‬MT | ‫ צל צ ‏ל‬1QIsaa | πλοίων LXX ‫— ִצ ְל ַצ ‏ל‬The lexica provide several possible meanings for the noun ‫צלצל‏‬ (via √‫)?צלל‏‬: “whirring” [of insects’ wings]; “sailing boats,” “spear or harpoon”

(Job 40:31); “cricket or whirring locust” (Deut 28:42); to give shade; plus others.500 According to HALOT (1031): “meaning disputed,” possibly “the land of the winged cricket” or “the land of the whirring wings”; or “of the winged boats, meaning light ships.” Of these possible meanings, HALOT prefers “the winged

499  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 376. 500  See Clines, Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 380; see also the various possible meanings and exploration in Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 206–7; Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 316–17; and Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 45.

146

Chapter 2

boats.” The variant of 1QIsaa (‫ )צל צל‏‬may be an example of a diatomy or im‑ proper misdivision of the word; or ‫ צל צל‏‬may suggest a shadow or shade. Note also Dillmann’s lengthy discussion of ‫צלצל‏‬, where he divides the term into ‫צל‏‬ ‫צל‬, which would denote many shadows.501 Compare also umbra umbra in α′. 18:2

‫ ֶאל־ֹּגו ‏י‬MT | ‫ לגו‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ט‬ ‫ּוֹמור ‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ט‬ ‫ וממור ‏‬1QIsaa MTmss | καὶ ξένον LXX • ‫ו־ק‏ו‬ ‫ַק ׇ‬ MT | ‫ קוק ‏ו‬1QIsaa MTmss | ἀνέλπιστον LXX (via √‫ ׇּבזְ א ‏ּו • )?קוה‏‬MT | ‫ בזאי‏‬1QIsaa | νῦν LXX (via √‫)?(ב)אז‏‬ ‫ּוֹמור ‏‬ ‫ט‬ ‫“(— ׇ‬smooth or bare [skin],” HALOT, 635). Here MT reads ‫ט‬ ‫ּוֹמור ‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬versus ‫ו‬ 1QIsaa’s ‫וממ רט‏‬. MTmss also attest ‫ = וממורט‏‬1QIsaa (HUB–Isaiah). We note that

Horsley, before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, had emended MT to read ‫ממורט‏‬.502 Gray holds that ‫ּוֹמורט‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬is a hopʿal ptc. of √‫מרט‏‬, “with suppression of the preformative ‫מ‬ ‫”; ‏‬503 but the form is more likely a puʿal ptc.504 According to Waltke and O’Connor, MT’s form is a qal passive ptc. that is “pointed as if shortened from Pual mequttal,” and a “true Pual” ptc. for √‫ מרט‏‬is located in 1 Kings 7:45, set forth as ‫ ְממ ׇֹרט‏‬.505 Whether or not the proto-MT intended to read a qal passive ptc. or an apocopated form of the puʿal, it is difficult to say. The Isaiah scroll seems to manifest a puʿal. See also 18:7, where MT and 4QIsab have ‫ ומורט‏‬and 1QIsaa attests ‫ט‬ ‫וממר ‏‬. ‫ו־ק ‏ו‬ ‫— ַק ׇ‬Reading two words (MT) or one word (‫ קוקו‏‬1QIsaa). Both MT and 1QIsaa find support from an ancient tradition of MTket versus MTqere, for ac‑ cording to the Mp, “the Ketiv is one word and the Keri two words”506 (cf. also HUB–Isaiah). On the basis of two Arabic words, Wildberger instructs that ‫קוקו‏‬ means “sinewy muscle power.” LXX apparently read ‫ קו קו‏‬as √‫( קוה‏‬ἀνέλπιστον), and note also Vulg’s expectantem expectantem. Cf. also ‫ קו קו‏‬versus ‫ קוק ‏ו‬in v. 7. ‫— ׇּבזְ א ‏ּו‬KR (HUB–Isaiah) read ‫“( בזזו‬to plunder,” HALOT, 118). √‫“( בזא‏‬to wash away,” HALOT, 117) occurs twice in the Bible (a dislegomena), both times in Isaiah 18 (here and again in v. 7). On both occasions, MT reads ‫ ׇּבזְ א‏ּו‬, a qal pf. third common pl. verb. 4QIsab, which is not extant for v. 2, has the same read‑ ing as MT in v. 7. But 1QIsaa deviates with ‫בזא‏י‬, which is apparently a qal m. pl. ptc. in const. Although the scroll’s scribe generally wrote the wāw when writ‑ ing qal m. pl. participles, occasionally he did not (e.g., ‫[ משכ‏י‬5:18]; ‫[ פרש‏י‬19:8]; note the superscripted wāw in ‫[ יושבי‏‬23:2], plus more). It is also possible that 501  Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaia, 166–67. 502  See Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25. 503  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 317. 504  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 208. 505  Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 375; see n. 34. 506  See the discussion in Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, 218–19.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

147

‫ בזא‏י‬is the result of yôd/wāw confusion, but it is doubtful that such an error would have occurred twice with the same word. In any case, MT’s reading is preferred. It appears that the LXX translator did not comprehend the meaning of √‫בזא‏‬, for LXX reads νῦν, via ‫?)ב‏(א ‏ז‬

18:4

‫ֹקוט ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ֶא ְׁש ׇ‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ ֶא ְׁש ֳק ׇט ‏‬MTqere • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְּבחֹ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ ביו ‏‬MTmss LXX ‫ֹקוט ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫— ֶא ְׁש ׇ‬For a study of the Qumran Isaiah scrolls’ readings as they per‑

tain to MTket and MTqere, see Parry.507 For the qal first common sg. cohorta‑ tive, both spellings—‫ אׁשקוטה‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫—אׁשקט ‏‬are possible, although MTqere is by far the most common. For other examples of the form ‫ֹקוטה‏‬ ‫ ֶא ְׁש ׇ‬, see ‫ ֶא ְעֹלוזׇ ה‏‬in Hab 3:18, ‫ ֶא ְׁשּכֹנׇ ה‏‬in Ps 55:7, ‫ה‬ ‫ ֶא ְׁשמ ׇֹר ‏‬in Ps 59:10, and others. 18:5

‫ ּוב ֶֹס ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ובסו ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ ּג ֵֹמ ‏ל‬MT | ‫ גמו ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫—ּוב ֶֹסר ּג ֵֹמל‏‬For MT’s ‫ּוב ֶֹסר ּג ֵֹמ ‏ל‬, 1QIsaa reads the qutl pattern, ‫ובסור גמו ‏ל‬. These

qutl forms may be Aramaisms or alternate Hebrew forms.508

18:6 ‫ יֵ ׇעזְ ב ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ ועזב ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇה ִרי ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ ההרי ‏‬4QIsab | τοῦ οὐρανοῦ LXX • ‫ ְּול ֶב ֱה ַמת‏‬MT | ‫ ולבהמות‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ולבממת‏‬4QIsab • ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶרץ‏‬1 MT 4QIsab (‫[ה]ארץ‏‬ ̇ ) Tg | ‫ ארץ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ֶּב ֱה ַמ ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ בהמו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יֵ ׇעזְ בּו‏‬A single medieval Hebrew Bible manuscript (K, HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫ = ועזבו‏‬1QIsaa. ‫— ׇה ִרים‏‬The most reasonable explanation for the textual variant is a dittogra‑ phy (‫ההרים‏‬, 4QIsab) or haplography (hê dropped off of ‫הרים‏‬, MT 1QIsaa). Note that for the corresponding word in the parallelism, MT has the article (‫ ׇה ׇא ֶרץ‏‬, and 4QIsab likely has the article, ‫[ה]אר ‏ץ‬ ̇ ), but 1QIsaa lacks it (‫)ארץ‏‬. ‫— ְּול ֶב ֱה ַמ ‏‬In v. 6, MT produces four lines (two bicolons) with the ABAB pat‑ ‫ת‬ tern: ‫ט‬ ‫ ְל ֵעי ‏‬, ‫ ְּול ֶב ֱה ַמת‏‬, ‫ ׇה ַעיִ ט‏‬, and ‫ ֶּב ֱה ַמת‏‬. Here, evidently, Isaiah is using the figure of speech synecdoche, by expressing a part for the whole. 1QIsaa follows the same pattern but has the plurals ‫ת‬ ‫ ולבהמו ‏‬and ‫ת‬ ‫בהמו ‏‬. According to Rosenbloom, the Isaiah Scroll “is not consistent since ‫ לעיט‏‬and ‫ העיט‏‬are left in the singular. The MT makes good sense and is good poetry.”509

507  Parry, “1QIsaa and Ketib-Qere Readings of the Masoretic Type Texts,” 17–32. 508  See the study of Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 14. 509  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 29.

148

Chapter 2

18:7 ‫ ׇּב ֵע ‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫ בעתה‏ | )‏[בע]ת‬1QIsaa • ‫ּומ ַעם‏‬ ‫ת‬ ֵ … ‫ ַעם‬MT | ‫ מעמ … ומעם‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) Vulg(vid) | ‫ עם … מעם‏‬4QIsab • ‫ּוֹמורט‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ וממרט‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ τετιλμένου LXX • ‫ ִמן־הּוא‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ מהֹו ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ מ‏ן‬4QIsab • ‫ו־ק‏ו‬ ‫ ַק ׇ‬MT | ‫ קוק‏ו‬1QIsaa MTmss | ἐλπίζον LXX (via √‫ ׇּבזְ א‏ּו • )קוה‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ בזא‏י‬1QIsaa | LXX ἐν μέρει • ‫ ְצ ׇבֹאות‏‬2 MT 4QIsab LXX Tg Syr Vulg | > 1QIsaa ‫— ׇּב ֵעת‏‬With its reading of ‫א‬ ‫בעתה ההי ‏‬, 1QIsaa errs because the preposition bêt is never attached to the adverbial particle ‫ה‬ ‫ ;עת ‏‬furthermore, ‫ה‬ ‫ עת ‏‬is never modified by the pronoun ‫היא‏‬. The error may be a dittography, ‫בעתה ההיא‏‬. ‫ּומ ַעם‏‬ ֵ … ‫— ַעם‬The variant of the three Hebrew witnesses, MT (‫ּומ ַעם‏‬ ֵ … ‫) ַעם‬, 1QIsaa (‫)מעמ … ומעם‏‬, and 4QIsab (‫)עם … מעם‏‬, signifies a minor deviation. 4QIsab closely follows MT, minus the conjunctive wāw. 1QIsaa’s divergence may be the result of an assimilation of the preposition min from the second ‫ומע ‏‬, but note that LXX Vulg both attest a similar preposition. Or it may be that ‫ם‬ MT dropped the preposition via haplography, as per the suggestion of Oswalt: “There is no ‘from’ in the MT. Its presence in the next line suggests that it was originally here also but was dropped accidentally because of the plethora of ms in the two words ‫עם ממׁשך‏‬.”510 Based on Wildberger (and several critics: Oort, Dillmann, Marti, Feldmann, Procksch, Fohrer, and Kaiser),511 the primary reading is ‫( מעם … ומעם‏‬1QIsaa), “from a people … from a people.” For textual variants regarding the use of the preposition, see also the comments at 1:12 and 29:9. ‫ּוֹמור ‏‬ ‫ט‬ ‫— ׇ‬A handful of MTmss read ‫( וממורט‏‬HUB–Isaiah). For a discussion of this reading, see 18:2. ‫— ִמן־הּוא‏‬In the parallel verse (see v. 2), both MT and 1QIsaa attest ‫א‬ ‫;מן הו ‏‬ but here in v. 7, MT has ‫ ִמן־הּוא‏‬, 1QIsaa reads ‫מהֹוא‏‬, and 4QIsab has ‫( מן‏‬the text for 4QIsab is not extant at v. 2). ‫ה‬ ‫( מן והלא ‏‬4QIsab) is approximated by ‫ה‬ ‫ מהלא ‏‬in other texts (see ‫ מהלאה‏‬in Gen 35:21; Jer 22:19; Amos 5:27), but ‫ מן הוא‏‬is found only in 18:2, 7. ‫— ׇּבזְ אּו‏‬For a discussion of this reading, see 18:2. ‫ו־ק ‏ו‬ ‫— ַק ׇ‬Evidently, the LXX translator misread ‫ קו קו‏‬and translated ἐλπίζον (√‫“ קוה‏‬hope”). ‫ ְצ ׇבֹאות‏‬2—It is difficult to determine why 1QIsaa omitted ‫ת‬ ‫ צבאו ‏‬from the verse. 510  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 358n10. See also Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:135–37, who prefers the reading of 1QIsaa. 511   See the consideration in Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 209; ‫‏‬ ‫ מעם‬is also supported by Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 127; Dillmann, Der Prophet Jesaia, 168; and Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 97.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



149

Isaiah 19

19:2 ‫ וְ ִס ְכ ַס ְכ ִּת‏י‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ֹוסכת[י | )וסכסכתי‏‬ ̇ ‫ ‏‬4QIsab | καὶ επεγερθήσονται LXX • ‫ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‏‬ MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ם‬ ‫ ] ֯במצרי ‏‬4QIsab • ‫ ִעי ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ועי ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ִס ְכ ַס ְכ ִּת‏י‬Both MT and 1QIsaa share the same reading of ‫וְ ִס ְכ ַס ְכ ִּתי‏‬, a pilpel pf. first common sg. (via √‫סוך‏‬, “to provoke,” HALOT, 745). A copyist of 1QIsaa first wrote ‫וססכת‏י‬, but then he or a subsequent scribe added the superscript kāp, thus reading ‫וסכסכתי‏‬. 4QIsab attests ‫ֹוסכת[‏י‬ ̇ , a qal pf. first common sg. √‫“( סוך‏‬to provoke”). In 9:10, ‫( יְ ַס ְכ ֵסְך‏‬pilpel impf. third m. sg.) is attested in MT, 1QIsaa, and 4QIsab, with no variation among the three witnesses. 19:3 ‫ ׇה ֱא ִל ִילי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ אלילי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫— ׇה ֱא ִל ִילי ‏‬V. 3 of MT features a list of four items, all of which are preceded by ‫ם‬ the preposition ‫ ֶא ‏ל‬and which also include the article—‫ל־ה ִא ִּטים‏‬ ‫ל־ה ֱא ִל ִילים וְ ֶא ׇ‬ ‫ֶא ׇ‬ ‫ל־הּיִ ְּדעֹנִ ים‬ ַ ‫ל־האֹֹבות וְ ֶא‬ ‫וְ ֶא ׇ‬. 1QIsaa incorrectly omitted the article of ‫אלילים‏‬, perhaps because of haplography. LXX translated ‫ האלילים‏‬as τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν (‫אלהיהם‏‬, “their gods”). 19:5 ‫ יֶ ֱח ַרב‏‬MT | ‫ יחרו ‏ב‬corrected to ‫ יחרב‏‬1QIsaa ‫“(—יֶ ֱח ַר ‏‬to dry up,” HALOT, 349). For MT’s /a/ class vowel (‫ )יֶ ֱח ַרב‏‬versus ‫ב‬ 1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel (‫ יחרוב‏‬corrected to ‫)יחרב‏‬,512 see the discussion in 43:13. 19:6 ‫ וְ ֶה ֶאזְ נִ יחּו‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫ והזניחו‏ | )והאז֯ נ֯ [יחו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ נְ ׇהֹרות‏‬MT | ‫ הנהרות‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ׇּד ֲללּו‏‬ MT | ‫ ודללו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇק ֵמל ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ וקמל ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫זנח‏√(—וְ ֶה ֶאזְ נִ יחּו‏‬, “to become foul-smelling,” HALOT, 276). The hapax legomenon ‫וְ ֶה ֶאזְ נִ יחּו‏‬, attested in MT and 4QIsab, is an instance of ʾālep prostheticum,513 where a letter or syllable is attached to the beginning of a word. Or, according to HALOT (276) and Oswalt, MT’s verb is “a combination of Hebrew Hiphil and Aramaic Aphel.”514 Driver, too, sees MT’s reading as reflecting the work of “an Aramaizing copyist of the M.T.”515 1QIsaa reads ‫ והזניחו‏‬without the ʾālep, 512  For a brief study of correcting methods employed by the copyist(s) of 1QIsaa, see Tov, TCHB3, 203–4. 513  See Genenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 19m and 53g; cf. also Ibn Ezra. 514  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 364n6. 515  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 18.

150

Chapter 2

“which gives added support” to several pre-Qumran scholars who had argued that MT’s ‫“ וְ ֶה ֶאזְ נִ יח‏ּו‬was nothing but a copying mistake.”516 Thus HALOT (276) “read ‫ והזניח‏ו‬1QIsaa,” and Blenkinsopp, 1QIsaa “gives the correct reading.”517 Or, it is also plausible that the primary reading was either ‫ והזניחו‏‬or ‫ואזניח ‏ו‬.518 ‫— ׇּד ֲללּו‏‬For MT’s reading, the verb ‫ ׇּד ֲללּו‏‬may belong to the first or the second line of the bicolon; but with the attached conjunctive wāw, 1QIsaa places the verb ‫ ודלל ‏ו‬with the second line of the bicolon. 19:7 ‫ יִ ַיבׁש‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ יב ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ נִ ַּד ‏ף‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ ונד ‏ף‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ֵאינֶ ּנ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ואין ב‏ו‬ 1QIsaa | > LXX ‫—יִ ַיב ‏‬MT attests a qal impf. third m. sg. versus the qal pf. third m. sg. of ‫ׁש‬ 1QIsaa (‫)יבש‏‬. ‫—וְ ֵאינֶ ּנּו‏‬MT and 4QIsab attest ‫‏‬ ‫ואיננו‬, versus 1QIsaa, which has ‫‏‬ ‫ואין בו‬ (cf. Gen 37:24; Lev 13:31; Isa 1:6). 1QIsaa’s ‫ ואין בו‏‬cannot be the proper reading.519 19:8

‫ ַה ַּדּיׇ גִ י ‏‬MT 4QIsab LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ הדגי ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫א‬ ‫ ַציׇ ֵידי נּונַ ייׇ ‏‬Tg ‫— ַה ַּדּיׇ גִ י ‏‬MT and 4QIsab read “the fishers” (‫ ַה ַּדּיׇ גִ ים‏‬, HALOT, 219), an expres‑ ‫ם‬

sion that corresponds to “all who cast fish hook” in a synonymous parallelism. K attests ‫( הדוגים‏‬HUB–Isaiah), “fishermen” (see ‫ ַדוׇ ג‏‬, HALOT, 215; cf. Jer 16:16; Ezek 47:10). 1QIsaa apparently erred by writing ‫ם‬ ‫“( הדגי ‏‬the fish”), which does not fit the poetic structure. Either the scribe accidentally omitted the yôd of ‫ די ‏ג‬or, as Kutscher proposes, the scribe did not recognize ‫דיג‏‬, a word that ap‑ pears one other time in the Bible (Jer 16:16) and which is unknown in rabbinic Hebrew.520 Lange and Weigold agree: “The scribe of 1QIsaa or its Vorlage was so unacquainted with the noun ‫ די ‏ג‬that he changed the nominal form ‫ם‬ ‫ הדיגי ‏‬to the ptc. ‫ם‬ ‫הדגי ‏‬.”521

516  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 230. Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:214, too, conjectures that the text read ‫והזניח ‏ו‬. 517  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 313. 518  A suggestion made by Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 230. 519  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 231, agrees when he writes that ‫“ ואין ב ‏ו‬is hardly correct.” 520  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 370–71. 521  Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations and Allusions, 33; Geiger, “Dagim (1QIsaa 15:11): Fischer,” 453–56, too, reads the scroll’s word as a participle (see especially Geiger’s conclusion).

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

151

19:9 ‫ ּובׁש ‏ּו‬MT Tg Syr Vulgmss | ‫ יבוש‏ו‬1QIsaa 1QIsab Vulg | καὶ αἰσχύνη λήμψεται LXX • ‫ וְ א ְֹרגִ ים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ארגי ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ֹחור ‏י‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ חור ‏ו‬1QIsaa 4QIsab ‫—ּובׁשּו‏‬The different readings in the Hebrew witnesses may be due to two different textual traditions, proto-MT versus Qumran; or perhaps a scribe for either MT or the Qumran manuscripts misread the yôd for a wāw or vice versa. ‫ֹחורי‏‬ ‫— ׇ‬The variants in this passage are ‫ֹחור‏י‬ ‫( ׇ‬MT, cf. ‫ חור‏י‬1QIsab) and ‫חור‏ו‬ (1QIsaa 4QIsab)—the difference is a yôd versus a wāw. Several textual critics522 maintain that the reading should be ‫חור‏ו‬, which has the support of two of the three Qumran scrolls. ‫חור‏√( חור ‏ו‬, “to grow pale,” HALOT, 299) works best in the parallelism because it corresponds with ‫ּובׁש‏ּו‬. So, too, HALOT (299) instructs, “for ‫ֹחורי‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬rd. ‫ ׇחֵוֽרּו‏‬, 1QIsa ‫חורו‏‬.” Thus, following several critics, ‫ חורו‏‬is the preferred reading. 19:10 ‫ ׇׁשת ֶֹתיה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שותתי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫“(— ׇׁשת ֶֹתיה‏‬textual uncertainty,” possibly “her foundations,” HALOT, 1667). Two possibilities exist for understanding the consonantal framework of 1QIsaa: (a) ‫ה‬ ‫ שותתי ‏‬suggests that the copyist read “her drinkers,” e.g., the scribe pos‑ sibly read ‫ שכר‏‬as ‫“( ֵׁש ׇכר‏‬strong drink,” corresponding to LXX, τὸν ζῦθον = ‫; ֵׁש ׇכר‏‬ cf. also Syr) rather than ‫“( ֶׂש ֶכר‏‬wages” MT).523 Talmon cites the scroll’s ‫שותתיה‏‬ as an “ancient attempt of Jewish exegesis.”524 (b) Or, ‫ שותתיה‏‬sets forth “her weavers” (cf. LXX, διαζόμενοι), a reading that Barthélemy finds acceptable.525 1QIsaa’s ‫ שותתיה‏‬is an error. Wilberger sets forth the preferred reading of “wages” (= MT); “all who work for wages are most dejected.”526 19:11 ‫ ַח ְכ ֵמ‏י‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsab | ‫ חכמיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲח ׇכ ִמים‏‬MT 4QIsab LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫חמים‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ֶּבן‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsab | ‫ בנ‏י‬4QpIsac • ‫ ֲאנִ ‏י‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsab | ‫ אנו֯‏‬4QpIsac ‫— ַח ְכ ֵמי … ֲח ׇכ ִמי ‏‬Both of these two readings of MT are derived from ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫“( ׇח ׇכ ‏‬skill‑ ful, wise,” HALOT, 314). 1QIsaa sets forth two variants—‫—חמים … חכמיה‏‬which 522  Thus Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 228, 232, following a suggestion of Luzzatto, prefers the reading of the Qumran scrolls. See also Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:138–39; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 235; and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 313. 523  See also the discussion in Talmon, “DSIa as a Witness to the Ancient Exegesis,” 66–67; see also, Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 122–23. 524  Talmon, “DSIa as a Witness to the Ancient Exegesis,” 67. 525  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:139–41. 526  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 228.

152

Chapter 2

Pulikottil consider to be deliberate changes by the scroll’s scribe: “The scribe seems to have tried to rework certain statements about the foreign nations, or at least Egypt.”527 Pulikottil reads the second variant ‫ם‬ ‫ בן חמי ‏‬as “son of Ham” and connects it to readings in Qumran literature, i.e., 1QapGen 19:13, 1QM 2:13, and 6Q19 1.1, implying that the scribe drew from these Qumran readings to create ‫בן חמים‏‬.528 However, these Qumran texts attest ‫ם‬ ‫ בני ח ‏‬and not ‫בן חמים‏‬. Pulikottil fails to explain how the name Ham can be represented in the pl. (‫ חמים‏‬1QIsaa). Rather than look for an exegetical reading by 1QIsaa’s scribe, it is more likely that he simply erred by writing ‫ם‬ ‫ חמי ‏‬rather than ‫חכמים‏‬. As it is, col‑ umn XV (Isa 19) of 1QIsaa contains almost a dozen corrections and interlinear insertions, and it is probable that the deviation here signifies yet another error. The third f. sg. suffix attached to ‫( חכמ‏י‬i.e., ‫ה‬ ‫ חכמי ‏‬1QIsaa) suggests the trans‑ lation of “her wise men.” According to Dahood, the f. suffix of ‫ה‬ ‫“ חכמי ‏‬looks back to feminine [Zoan], just as the feminine suffix of v. 14 [‫ ] ְּב ִק ְר ׇּבּה‏‬has v. 13 [Zoan] … as its antecedent.” Dahood continues by stating that MT likely dropped the third f. sg. suffix ‑h via haplography.529 But Wildberger correctly holds to MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ ַח ְכ ֵמי … ֲח ׇכ ִמי ‏‬, “the wise [advisors] … son of the wise.”530 ‫— ֲאנִ י ֶּבן‏‬Three Hebrew witnesses—MT, 1QIsaa, 4QIsab—read ‫ם‬ ‫אני בן מלכי קד ‏‬ (“I am the son of ancient kings”). 4QpIsac, however, departs from this phrase with ‫“( אנו֯ בני מלכי קדם‏‬we are the sons of ancient kings”). The reading of ‫אנו֯‏‬, ac‑ cepted by both Strugnell and Horgan, is tentative because the third character may be a yôd; Allegro reads it as the sg. ‫אני֯‏‬. However, the sg. ‫ אנ‏י‬does not find agreement with the pl. ‫בנ‏י‬.531 The term ‫ אנ‏ו‬is rare in the Bible, attested only in the MTket of Jer 42:6 (MTqere is ‫)אנחנ ‏ו‬. Both ‫ אנ ‏ו‬and ‫ אנחנ ‏ו‬are used in QH. 19:12

‫ וְ יַ ּגִ ידּו נׇ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ויגידונ ‏‬1QIsaa 19:13 ‫ֹנואלּו‏‬ ֲ MT | ‫ נאול‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ נִ ְּׁשא‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ נשיֹא‏י‬1QIsaa | καὶ ὑψώθησαν LXX (via √‫)נׂשא‏‬ ‫ֹנואל ‏ּו‬ ֲ —MT has a nipʿal pf. verb (‫ֹנואלּו‏‬ ֲ , “to turn out to be a fool,” HALOT, 381) based on √‫יאל‏‬. With 1QIsaa’s ‫נאולו‏‬, it appears that a copyist either inadvertently transposed the ʾālep and the wāw, or he (unconsciously) combined the verb 527  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 157. 528  Ibid., 157 and n. 72. 529  Dahood, “Isaiah 19,11 ḥkmy and 1QIsa ḥkmyh,” 420. 530  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 228. 531  See the consideration of ‫ם‬ ‫ אנו֯ בני מלכי קד ‏‬in Horgan, Pesherim, 115.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

153

√‫ יאל‏‬with the noun ‫“( ֱאוִ י ‏ל‬fool”), thus creating a hybrid form; or most likely, the weakened ʾālep lost its consonantal value and changed its position with the o vowel, a situation that occurs a number of times in the scroll; see the brief dis‑ cussion at 8:4 under the entry “‫ ְקרֹא‏‬.” LXX’s ἐξέλιπον probably indicates reading ‫ נואל ‏ו‬as ‫נלא ‏ו‬, the nipʿal form of √‫“( לאה‏‬to be weary”).532 ‫“(—נִ ְּׁשא ‏ּו‬to entertain false hopes,” HALOT, 728); this verbal root (‫ )נׁשא‏‬occurs fourteen times in the Bible, always in the hipʿil (cf. also √‫ נׁשא‏‬in 36:14; 37:10 = hipʿil), with the exception of the verse under discussion, where in MT it is a nipʿal (‫)נִ ְּׁשאּו‏‬. Conceivably the scribe of 1QIsaa was unfamiliar with √‫ נׁשא‏‬in the nipʿal, and in two stages (the superscript yôd indicates the second stage) changed to ‫נשיֹא‏י‬. With his reading of ‫“( נשיֹא‏י‬princes/leaders of,” via ‫א‬ ‫נׇ ִׂשי ‏‬ “prince” or “leader”), the scribe was impacted by ‫שרי‏‬, (“princes of”), which is twice attested in the bicolon. Note also that the scribe likely read śîn rather than šîn (MT), an error also belonging to LXX (LXX misreads √‫ נׁשא‏‬and trans‑ lates καὶ ὑψώθησαν = √‫נׂשא‏‬, “to lift up”). 19:14 ‫ ׇמ ַסְך‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Syr Vulg | ‫ נס[ ‏ך‬4QIsab | ‫א‬ ‫ ְר ׇמ ‏‬Tg ‫— ׇמ ַס ‏ְך‬The variant here pertains to two graphically similar verbs, √‫ = מסך‏‬MT and 1QIsaa (“to mix,” HALOT, 605) versus √‫ = נסך‏‬4QIsab (“to pour,” HALOT, 703). Although many critics retain the reading of MT, Blenkinsopp translates v. 14a as “Yahveh has poured into them a spirit of confusion,” based on the following explanation: “We would expect [‫ ]נסך‏‬as in 29:10, a reading proposed here by Duhm (1892, 144) that has now turned up in 4QIsab.”533 Ibn Ezra writes that ‫ מס ‏ך‬equals ‫ נס ‏ך‬and explains that the two verbs have the identical connota‑ tions, “to mingle.” 19:15–16 The witnesses provide three different sense divisions, breaking up vv. 15–16 in three different ways, thus altering the meaning of the passage: (a) MT, 1QIsaa, and LXX present sense divisions at the end of v. 15 (as per the versification of MT); (b) 1QIsab places the division midway through v. 15 (before the relative ‫( ;)אש ‏ר‬c) 4QIsab places the division after ‫א‬ ‫“( ביום ההו ‏‬in that day”).534

532  See the study in Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 35. 533  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 313. 534  For the relevance of these sense divisions in this passage, see Ulrich, “Impressions and Intuition,” 280–81.

154

Chapter 2

19:16 ‫ ַההּו ‏‬MT | ‫ הוא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ׇח ַרד ׇּופ ַחד‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫ וחרדו ופחדו‏ | )‏וחרד [ו]פחד‬1QIsaa | ‫א‬ ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἐν τρόμῳ LXX • ‫ ֵמנִ י ‏ף‬MT | ‫ מהניף יד ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇע ׇלי ‏ו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עלי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַההּו ‏‬In the expression ‫‏ביום ההוא‬, 1QIsaa likely lost the article by means of ‫א‬ haplography.535 ‫ּופ ַח ‏ד‬ ‫—וְ ׇח ַרד ׇ‬MT 4QIsab attest two sg. verbs ‫ּופ ַח ‏ד‬ ‫ וְ ׇח ַרד ׇ‬versus 1QIsaa’s pl. ‫וחרד ‏ו‬ ‫ופחדו‬. But the singular works well in the passage. ‫“(— ֵמנִ יף‏‬to move to and fro, brandish,” HALOT, 682). 1QIsaa’s infixed hê in this hipʿ il ptc. (‫ מהניף‏‬via √‫ )נוף‏‬exhibits an Aramaic influence.536 Note that the superscripted hê is probably a secondary book hand. Compare also ‫ מהסיר‏‬in 3:1. The scroll’s plus of ‫ )מהניף ידו‏( ידו‏‬was borrowed from the earlier expression ‫תנופת י ‏ד‬, located in the same verse. ‫— ׇע ׇלי ‏ו‬For its third f. sg. pronominal suffix on ‫עליה‏‬, 1QIsaa’s scribe evidently understood ‫ם‬ ‫ מצרי ‏‬to denote the land Egypt rather than the Egyptians.537 19:17 ‫ וְ ׇהיְ ׇתה‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ והיית‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ׇחּגׇ א‏‬MT | ‫ לחוגה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲע ַצת‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ תנופת יד‏‬4QIsab ‫—וְ ׇהיְ ׇת ‏‬Generally, 1QIsaa has ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ היית ‏‬for the qal pf. third f. sg. verb of √‫היה‏‬, but here the scribe wrote ‫( והיית‏‬qal pf. second f. sg.). See the discussion at 17:1. ‫ ׇחּגׇ א‏(— ְל ׇחּגׇ ‏‬, “shame, confusion,” HALOT, 290). For MT’s ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ְל ׇחּגׇ ‏‬, a hapax legomenon, 1QIsaa has ‫ה‬ ‫לחוג ‏‬. MTmss (96 150 [pm] KG) read ‫( לחגה‏‬HUB–Isaiah). With regard to ‫לחגא‏‬, Gray writes that “the ending ‫א‬ ‫ ‏‬is an Aramaising equiva‑ lent of ‫ה‬ ‫ ‏‬.”538 ‫—תנופת יד‏‬This plus of 4QIsab that is part of the phrase ‫יהוה‏‬ ֯ ‫מפני תנופת יד‬ ‫מפני תנופת יד יהוה צבאו ‏‬, ‫ צבאות‬indicates an assimilation from the expression ‫ת‬ which belongs to v. 16. 19:18 ‫ ַה ֶה ֶרס‏‬MT | ‫ החרס‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsab MTmss σ′ Vulg | ασεδεκ LXX | ‫בית שמש דעתידא‏‬ ‫ למחרב‬Tg ‫— ַה ֶה ֶר ‏‬MT reads “the city of destruction,” and two Qumran scrolls attest ‫ס‬ “the city of the sun.” Based on the evidence, I maintain that “the city of the sun” constitutes the primary reading.

535  A suggestion made by Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 261. 536  See the discussion in Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 24–25; and Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 194. 537  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 261. 538  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 332.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

155

On the one hand, the divergences between the Qumran scrolls and MT may be represented by a simple copyist error, writing hê instead of ḥêt, or vice versa. For other examples of hê/ḥêt confusion, see Kutscher.539 On the other hand, critics have argued that a redactor/editor of MT made a tendentious change to the text, what McCarthy calls “a secondary dysphemism.”540 This textual change came about, according to one theory, to protect the legitimacy of the Jerusalem temple against a Jewish temple that was believed to have existed in Heliopolis.541 Several other theories exist that serve to explain the various textual variants.542 Textual support for the readings of the Qumran scrolls includes a number of Kennicott manuscripts,543 manuscripts belonging to the LXX traditions and the Vulgate (civitas Solis). LXX transliterates ασεδεκ from the Hebrew ‫צדק‏‬, per‑ haps impacted by Isa 1:26 (‫) ִעיר ַה ֶּצ ֶדק‏‬. LXX’s Vorlage may have read ‫עיר הצדק‏‬, “City of Righteousness,” or LXX’s translators transliterated the text “from a pious desire not to bring the name of any other place in competition or even in juxtaposition with the sacred city the metropolis of the Holy Land.”544 The reading of Tg provides a conflation—‫רתא בית שמש דעתידא למחרב‏‬ ‫ ַק ׇ‬Tg (“The City of Beth Shemesh, which is destined for destruction”). After an attentive discussion on the textual variants, Wildberger translates the text as “city of the sun.”545 Barthélemy546 and Kutscher547 support “city of the sun” as the original reading. NAB (411) accepts 1QIsaa’s reading. 19:19 ‫ ַליהוׇ ה‏‬1 MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ת‬ ‫צב[או ‏‬ ֯ ‫ ליהוה‬4QIsab Syrmss ‫ ַליהוׇ ה‏‬1—The reading of 4QIsab, with the plus of ‫צב[אות‏‬ ֯ , is an assimilation from vv. 18 and 20, where “LORD of hosts” is found. Cf. also 4QIsab 5:25. 19:20

‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ והיי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ח‬ ‫ וְ יִ ְׁש ַל ‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ח‬ ‫ ושל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וׇ ׇר ‏ב‬MT | ‫וירד‏‬

1QIsaa | κρίνων LXX ‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫והייה‏‬, see the commentary at 5:1. ‫ה‬

539  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 506. 540  McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 239. 541  Delcor, “Temple d’Onias en Égypte,” 188–205. 542  See, for example, Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 153; Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 333–37; Procksch, Jesaia I, 249; Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:159; Slotki, Isaiah, 91; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 130; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 1:233. 543  For a list, see McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 239. 544  Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, 406. 545  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 262. 546  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 280. 547  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 116.

156

Chapter 2

‫—וְ יִ ְׁש ַל ‏‬As opposed to the reading ‫( וְ יִ ְׁש ַלח‏‬MT 4QIsab), Wildberger (follow‑ ‫ח‬ ing Procksch) prefers ‫ח‬ ‫“( ושל ‏‬and he will send,” 1QIsaa).548 ‫ריב‏√(—וׇ ׇרב‏‬, “to strive, to quarrel,” HALOT, 1224). 1QIsaa deviates from MT with ‫וירד‏‬, “and he will go down.” But 1QIsaa’s reading may be a harmonization from Exod 3:8 (‫)וׇ ֵא ֵרד ְל ַה ִּציֹלו ִמּיַ ד ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‏‬, which also collocates √‫ ירד‏‬with √‫ נצל‏‬and includes Egypt in the context. 19:21 ‫ וְ ׇע ְבדּו‏‬MT | ‫ יעבד ‏ו‬1QIsaa 19:22 ‫ וְ ׇרֹפוא‏‬MT | ‫ ונרפ ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἰάσεται αὐτοὺς ἰάσει LXX ‫—וְ ׇרֹפוא‏‬For MT’s inf. abs. (‫)וְ ׇרֹפוא‏‬, 1QIsaa has a finite verb (‫ ;)ונרפו‏‬cf. other oc‑ currences where MT has an inf. versus 1QIsaa’s finite verb: 37:19 ‫ת‏ן‬ ֹ ‫( וְ נׇ‬MT) and ‫( ויתנו‏‬1QIsaa); 37:30 ‫( וְ ׇאֹכול‏‬MTket; but cf. ‫ וְ ִא ְכלּו‏‬MTqere 2 Kgs 19:29) and ‫ואכולו‏‬ (1QIsaa); and 57:17 ‫( ַה ְס ֵּתר‏‬MT) and ‫( ואסתר‏‬4QIsad).549 For 1QIsaa’s finite verb ‫ונרפ ‏ו‬, Wildberger suggests that the scribe lacked grammatical understanding that two infinitives could appear consecutively.550 However, compare the two successive infinitives in both MT and 1QIsaa Isaiah 14:9 (‫ )לקרת בואך‏‬and 21:5 (‫)אכול שתה‏‬. With regard to the infinitive absolute in 1QIsaa, Qimron provides evidence that “the relative non-usage of the infinitive absolute is typical of late BH, of Samaritan Hebrew and of 1QIsa, and culminates in MH.”551 Muraoka writes, “It is generally agreed that the infinitive absolute (inf. abs.) became obsolete in Mishnaic Hebrew…. The process had already begun in Late Biblical Hebrew … and it is a process continuing in QH.”552 Van Peursen has arrived at the same conclusion.553 And Polzin demonstrates that the infinitive absolute is com‑ paratively rare in Chronicles.554 A computerized search of infinitive absolutes 548  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 263. 549  With regard to the volatility of infinitives in 1QIsaa, see the conclusions of Solá Solé, “ten‑ dencia lingüística en el manuscrito de Isaías (DSIa) de Khirbet-Qumrân,” 70–71. 550  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 263. 551  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 47–8; see also Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 392–94. 552  Muraoka, “Aspects of the (Morpho)syntax of the Infinitive in Qumran Hebrew,” 80; see the study in Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 195–96. See also Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 145, “The inf. abs. is relatively rare in LBH … and in QH, and virtually extinct in MH.” And consult Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 121–3, 166–7. 553  Van Peursen, Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira, 277. 554  Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 43–4.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

157

in MT Isaiah and 1QIsaa reveal that there are eighty instances of infinitive ab‑ solutes in MT Isaiah and sixty-four in 1QIsaa. The percentage decrease in the scroll may indicate a tendency on the part of 1QIsaa’s copyist or his Vorlage to utilize the infinitive absolute less than its usage in SBH. See also the discussion in 59:4. 19:23 ‫ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsab (‫מ]צריֹם‏‬ ֯ ) LXX Tg Syr Vulg | > 1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‏‬In MT, 1QIsab, and 4QIsab, the verse attests ‫ם‬ ‫ממצרי ‏‬, ‫ם‬ ‫במצרי ‏‬, ‫ם‬ ‫ומצרי ‏‬, and ‫מצרים‏‬. The versions support these three Hebrew witnesses. 1QIsaa omits the fourth and final occurrence of ‫מצרים‏‬, which likely dropped off by means of haplography. Or, the copyist failed to write ‫ם‬ ‫ מצרי ‏‬as he transitioned from col. XV (final line) to col. XVI (top line).555

Isaiah 20

20:1 ‫ ַת ְר ׇּתן‏‬MT | ‫ תורת‏ן‬1QIsaa | Ταναθαν LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ וַ ּיִ ְל ְּכ ׇד ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ וילכוד ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַת ְר ׇּתן‏‬Most scholars accept without contest that ‫ תרת‏ן‬is an Akkadian loan‑ word (Akkadian > BH word), which means “field marshal”556 or “commander in chief” (HALOT, 1799). MT (‫ ) ַת ְר ׇּתן‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )תורתן‏‬have two forms, which may be explained as follows: (a) the scroll’s reading of tortân (or turtân?) may be the result of a linguistic transfer where the ‘a’ that precedes an ‘n’ changes to ‘o’;557 (b) both tartannu and turtannu exist in Akkadian.558 MT’s spelling may reflect tartannu, and 1QIsaa’s word may mirror turtannu. LXX’s irregular Ταναθαν points to the translator reading the rêš as a nûn.559 ‫—וַ ּיִ ְל ְּכ ׇדה‏‬Regarding the wāw mater in 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫וילכוד ‏‬: a large sample of qal impf. verbs with a suffix in the Qumran (both biblical and nonbiblical) texts feature a wāw mater after the first or the second root consonant. The his‑ tory and nature of these forms is complex, and an adequate summary can‑ not be presented in a simple paragraph or two. I therefore refer the reader to 555  As proposed by Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 392. 556  See Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 151–52; cf. also Beegle, “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll,” 28; and Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 169–70. 557  See Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 122, 496–97. 558  See Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 151. 559  For this viewpoint, see Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 34–35.

158

Chapter 2

Qimron’s grammar, which covers the material in several pages.560 Examples of the phenomenon under discussion in the Qumran Isaiah scrolls include: ‫ וַ ּיִ ְל ְּכ ׇד ‏‬MT; ‫ וילכודה‏‬1QIsaa (20:1); ‫ וְ ע ְֹטָך‏‬MT; ‫ יעוטך‏‬1QIsaa (22:17); ‫ יִ ְצנׇ ְפָך‏‬MT 4QIsaa ‫ה‬ 4QIsaf (‫ וצנפכה‏ ;)יצנֹופך‏‬1QIsaa (22:18); ‫אכ ֶלּנּו‏‬ ֲ ֹ ‫ ּת‬MT; ‫ תאכולנו‏‬1QIsaa (31:8); ‫יַ ַע ְב ֶרּנּו‏‬ MT; ‫ יעובורנה‏‬1QIsaa (35:8); ‫ וַ ּיִ ְת ְּפ ֵׂשם‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:13; ‫ ויתֹפושם‏‬1QIsaa (36:1); ‫וַ ּיִ ְפ ְר ֵׂשהּו‏‬ MT 2 Kgs 19:14; ‫ ויפרושה‏‬1QIsaa (37:14); ‫ ֶא ֶעזְ ֵבם‏‬MT; ‫ם‬ ‫ אעזוב ‏‬1QIsaa (41:17); ‫וְ יַ ְע ְר ֶכ ׇה‏‬ MT; ‫ ויעריכהה‏‬1QIsaa (44:7); ‫ יִ ְּצ ֵרהּו‏‬MT; ‫ ויצורהו‏‬1QIsaa (44:12); ‫אכ ֵלם‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫ י‬MT 1QIsab; ‫ יאכולם‏‬1QIsaa (50:9); ‫ יַ ַע ְבדּו ‏ְך‬MT 1QIsab; ‫ יעבודוכ ‏י‬1QIsaa (60:12); ‫אכ ֻלה ‏ּו‬ ְ ֹ ‫ י‬MT 1QIsab; ‫ יאכולוה‏י‬1QIsaa (62:9); and ‫ יִ זְ ְּכרּו ‏ָך‬MT; ‫ה‬ ‫ יזכורוכ ‏‬1QIsaa (64:4[5]). 20:2 ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬MT Tgms | ‫ ישעיה‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsab Tg • ‫ וְ נַ ַע ְלָך‏‬MT | ‫ ונעליך‏‬1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg • ‫ ַת ֲחֹל ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ תחלי ‏ץ‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1. ‫—וְ נַ ַע ְלָך‏‬The variant here pertains to a sg. (MT “sandal”) versus a pl. (1QIsaa “sandals”). But in the phrase ‫“( וְ נַ ַע ְלָך ַת ֲחֹלץ ֵמ ַעל ַרגְ ֶליָך‏‬and take off your sandal from your feet”), MT’s sg. “sandal” lacks agreement with the pl. ‫“( ַרגְ ֶלי ‏ָך‬your feet”). 1QIsaa, followed by LXX Vulg Syr, sets forth the primary reading (so Wildberger, Blenkinsopp, and others).561 Cf. also the variation between MT Exod 3:5 (‫ ) ַׁשל־נְ ׇע ֶליָך ֵמ ַעל ַרגְ ֶליָך‏‬and MT Josh 5:15 (‫) ַׁשל־נַ ַע ְלָך ֵמ ַעל ַרגְ ֶלָך‏‬. ‫— ַת ֲחֹלץ‏‬Whenever ‫“( נַ ַעל‏‬sandal”) is collocated with √‫חלץ‏‬, the qal verb is em‑ ployed (Deut 25:9–10; see also BDB, 322–23), as it is here in 20:2 with MT. 1QIsaa incorrectly has the hipʿil verb (‫)תחליץ‏‬, which means “to invigorate” (see 58:11). 20:3

‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1.

20:4 ‫ ּגׇ לּות‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ גול ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—ּגׇ לּות‏‬It is doubtful that 1QIsaa (‫ )גולת‏‬reads a defective f. pl. because ‫ה‬ ‫גול ‏‬ (“captivity”) never appears in the Bible in the pl. It is more likely that the 1QIsaa scribe erred by placing ‫ה‬ ‫ גול ‏‬in the const. form (‫ ;)גולת‏‬but here again, ‫ה‬ ‫ גול ‏‬never occurs in the const., although ‫ה‬ ‫ גול ‏‬occurs more than forty times in the Bible; or the scribe accidentally interchanged the wāw and lāmed, thus reading ‫ת‬ ‫גול ‏‬ in place of ‫גלות‏‬. 560  See especially, Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 193–220. See also Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 209–21. 561  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 285; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 321.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

159

20:5 ‫ ׇה ִא‏י‬MT | ‫ האי ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ וׇ בׁש ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ויבוש ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַמ ׇּב ׇט ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ מבטח ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἦσαν πεποιθότες LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ן־מ ְצ ַריִ ‏‬ ִ ‫ּומ‬ ִ MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ וממצרי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇה ִא‏י‬1QIsaa’s deviation of ‫ האי‏י‬with two yôds provides understanding to the “phonological environment” of this scroll. Qimron writes, “Since the spell‑ ing with the double yod can designate long i and e, it sometimes appears as a hypercorrection in words where we would expect one yod…. 1QIsa provides a convincing example: the word ‫ א‏י‬occurs once with double yod in the sg. ‫אי‏י‬ 20:6, while the pl. is spelled ‫ם‬ ‫ אי ‏‬66:19 with only one yod.”562 ‫—וׇ בׁש ‏ּו‬MT has a qal pf. versus 1QIsaa’s impf. (‫)ויבושו‏‬. For a discussion of de‑ viations of pf. and impf. verbs in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. ‫— ַמ ׇּב ׇט ‏‬Inasmuch as either MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ַמ ׇּבט‏( ַמ ׇּב ׇט ‏‬, “hope,” HALOT, 542) or 1QIsaa’s ‫ ִמ ְב ׇטח‏( מבטחם‏‬, “trust, reliance,” HALOT, 542) fits the parallelistic structure, and in view of the fact that neither ‫ט‬ ‫ מב ‏‬nor ‫ח‬ ‫ מבט ‏‬is paired with ‫ת‬ ‫ תפאר ‏‬elsewhere in the Bible, it is difficult to know which reading is primary. With regard to the versions, LXX Tg Syr seem to agree with the scroll, and Vulg apparently corresponds with MT. But given that ‫ מבטם‏‬and ‫ מבטחם‏‬are graphically similar, it is not likely that they represent a vario lectio. This accords with Weingreen, who states that a scribe of MT accidentally omitted the ḥêt from the word,563 and the Masoretes subsequently vocalized accordingly, thus reading ‫ ַמ ׇּב ׇטם‏‬. Rosenbloom, however, writes that the scroll “confuses the meaning”564 and Wildberger maintains that MT’s ‫ ַמ ׇּב ׇטם‏‬is “the original reading, following the lectio difficilior rule.”565 Based on Wildberger’s understanding, the preferred reading is MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ ַמ ׇּב ׇט ‏‬. 20:6 ‫ ִהּנֵ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ה‏ן‬4QIsaa • ‫ נַ ְסנ ‏ּו‬MT LXX | ‫ נסמ ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫ הן‏— ִהּנֵ ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ִהּנֵ ‏‬are presentative exclamations. In the Bible, ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬is ten times more common than ‫( ה‏ן‬approx. 1,060 occurrences of ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬versus 100 attesta‑ tions of ‫)הן‏‬, with ‫ הן‏‬found most often in the books of Job (thirty-two times) and Isaiah (twenty-seven times). There is no difference in meaning between the two presentatives.566 MT and 1QIsaa deviate with ‫ הן‏‬and ‫ הנה‏‬in the following verses: 23:13; 32:1; 38:17; 41:24, 29; 42:1; 44:11; 49:16, 21; 50:1–2, 9 bis, 11; 54:15–16 562  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 32. 563  Weingreen, Introduction to the Critical Study, 71–72; see also Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 321. 564  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 31. 565  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 285. 566  See Labuschagne, “Particles ‫ ֵה ‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ִהּנֵ ‏‬,” 1–14.

160

Chapter 2

(MTqere ‫ה‬ ‫ ;) ִהּנֵ ‏‬55:4–5; 56:3; 58:4; 59:1; 64:4, 8. With the exception of 38:17, MT reads ‫ ה ‏ן‬versus 1QIsaa, which has ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬. In 38:17, MT attests ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, and 1QIsaa reads ‫ה‏ן‬. These deviations may indicate (a) a different scribal school, (b) that the Vorlage of the scroll read ‫הנה‏‬, or (c) that the 1QIsaa scribe had a tendency to popularize ‫ ה‏ן‬to read ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬. ‫—נַ ְסנ ‏ּו‬MT and 1QIsaa produce two different verbal roots, √‫“( נוס‏‬to flee”) and √‫“( סמך‏‬to lean, support”), respectively. MT is supported by LXX; also, MT’s reading is strengthened by the fact that √‫ נוס‏‬is often collocated with ‫ם‬ ‫( ׇׁש ‏‬e.g., Gen 19:20; Exod 21:13; Num 35:6), an adverbial particle that follows the verb in both MT and 1QIsaa in the verse under discussion. √‫ סמך‏‬followed by ‫ם‬ ‫ׁש ‏‬ (1QIsaa) is unprecedented in the Bible and achieves an awkward reading. One of following three reasons serves to explain 1QIsaa’s reading: (a) It is pos‑ sible that the scroll’s scribe changed the verbal root to reflect his particular his‑ torical understanding regarding the pericope under discussion, the Conquest of Ethiopia and Egypt: Isaiah’s Dramatization (20:1–6). Thus Pulikottil has writ‑ ten, “The scribe wanted to make it clear that the people of the coastland did not flee to Egypt for help, which never happened; they only relied on the mili‑ tary assistance of Egypt.”567 (b) 1QIsaa incorporated ‫ סמ ‏ך√‏‬from 36:6, which is yet another text about Egypt, into the present passage. (c) It is more probable, owing to the graphic similarities of ‫ נסנ‏ו‬and ‫( נסמך‏‬both forms begin with nûn and sāmek, plus a ligatured nûn and wāw share the appearance of a mêm), that the scribe simply misread/miscopied the verb that was in his Vorlage. We bear in mind, furthermore, that all six biblical attestations of √‫ סמך‏‬in the nipʿal stem utilize the preposition ‫ ; ַע ‏ל‬here in 20:6, 1QIsaa lacks this preposition.

Isaiah 21

21:1

‫ ִמ ְד ַּבר יׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ דבר י ‏‬1QIsaa | τῆς ἐρήμου LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ֹנור ׇא ‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT LXX (φοβερὸν) Vulg | ‫נוראה‬ ‫ רחוק ‏‬corrected to ‫( ‏‬superscript) 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫— ִמ ְד ַּב ‏ר‬1QIsaa remains alone with ‫“( ּד ֶֹב ‏ר‬pasture”), ‫“( ׇּד ׇב ‏ר‬word”), or ‫ֶּד ֶב ‏ר‬

(“pestilence”), versus MT and the versions. Tg’s reading is in an interpretative context. It is possible that the scroll lost the mêm through haplography, ‫א‬ ‫מש ‏‬ ‫מדבר‬. It is also feasible that ‫ דבר ים‏‬in 1QIsaa once read ‫דברים‏‬, “words,” and the expression “got wrongly divided into the nonsensical ‘word of the sea,’ which in turn gave rise to ‘desert of the sea.’”568 567  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 132. 568  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 390n16; also, Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 301–2.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

161

‫ֹנור ׇא ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫“(— ׇ‬awesome, terrible,” HALOT, 433). The prima manu reading of 1QIsaa is ‫ה‬ ‫( רחוק ‏‬e.g., ‫ה‬ ‫)מארץ רחוק ‏‬. ‫ה‬ ‫“( מארץ רחוק ‏‬from a distant land”) is a moderately common expression in the HB, found nine times (including 39:3), which may have triggered the reading of the scroll. However, a scribe deleted this word (striking it with a horizontal line, see col. XVI, line 14), and an sm wrote ‫ נוראה‏‬above ‫‏רחוקה‬. 1QIsaa’s corrected reading of ‫ מארץ נוראה‏‬agrees with MT and LXX. 21:2 ‫ ֻהּגַ ד‏‬MT LXX | ‫ היג ‏ד‬1QIsaa • ‫צּור ‏י‬ ִ MT | ‫ ציר ‏י‬1QIsaa | καὶ οἱ πρέσβεις LXX ‫— ֻהּגַ ד‏‬MT has a hopʿal verb (‫ ) ֻהּגַ ד‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s hipʿil, notwithstanding the scribe wrongly placed the yôd before the gîmel rather than after (‫)היגד‏‬. The hopʿal, with its passive sense—“A harsh vision was declared (‫ ) ֻהּגַ ד‏‬unto me”— works better in the context. 1QIsaa’s hipʿil lacks a referent. ‫צּור ‏י‬ ִ —(“to encircle, lay siege to,” HALOT, 1015). 1QIsaa’s ‫ צירי‏‬poses a challenge because √‫( צור‏‬the reading of MT) does not occur in the hipʿil. Perhaps 1QIsaa’s scribe read √‫“( ציר‏‬to act as an envoy”), which broadly corresponds to LXX’s reading (“ambassador”).569 Or, when the scribe wrote ‫צי ‏ר‬, he was impacted by ‫צירי ‏‬, a word that is twice attested in the following passage (for this last sugges‑ ‫ם‬ tion, see Kutscher).570 21:4

‫ ׇּת ׇע ‏‬MT 4QIsaa | ‫ תועה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ׇב ִבי‏‬MT | ‫ ולבבי‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsaa • ‫ ִח ְׁש ִקי‏‬MT | ‫השקי‏‬ ‫ה‬

1QIsaa ‫— ׇּת ׇע ‏‬The variant pertains to a qal pf. (‫ ׇּת ׇעה‏‬MT, 4QIsaa) versus a qal ptc. ‫ה‬ (‫ תועה‏‬1QIsaa). The pf. verb is appropriate considering that in the immediate context (see vv. 2–3) the other verbs are also perfects. ‫— ְל ׇב ִב‏י‬The wāw conjunction of 1QIsaa 4QIsaa (‫ )ולבבי‏‬apparently served to place ‫ה‬ ‫( תוע ‏‬the first word of v. 4 under the Masoretic system) with v. 3b of 1QIsaa 4QIsaa.571 But placing ‫ה‬ ‫ תוע ‏‬with v. 3b disturbs the parallelistic structure of v. 4. ‫— ִח ְׁש ִק ‏י‬1QIsaa’s ‫השק‏י‬, with a hê instead of a ḥêt (‫ ִח ְׁש ִקי‏‬MT), is either a pho‑ nological error or a mishap based on the semblance of the two letters. For other instances where 1QIsaa reads hê in place of ḥêt, see 3:24.

569  See Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 87. For other examples of agreements in small details between the reconstructed Vorlage of the LXX and 1QIsaa, see ibid. 570  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 279. 571  See the translation in Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 256.

162

Chapter 2

21:5 (‫ה ) ַה ׇּצ ִפית‏‬ ‫ ׇצ ֹפ ‏‬MT | (‫ה )הצפית‏‬ ‫ צופ ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫— ׇצ ֹפה‏‬MT’s ‫ ׇצפֹה ַה ׇּצ ִפית‏‬is a hapax legomenon, probably from √‫צפה‏‬. Its mean‑ ing is uncertain, and scholars translate it in a variety of ways.572 HALOT (1045) presents two possible translations: “a. to arrange a row of tables” and “b. to spread out a cushion, or rugs, in preparation for a meal.” MT’s ‫ ׇצ ֹפה‏‬is a qal inf. abs., but 1QIsaa has a qal ptc. (‫)צופה‏‬, which is yet another instance where the scroll replaces the inf. abs. with another form. 21:6 ‫ יַ ּגִ י ‏ד‬MT LXX | ‫ ויגי ‏ד‬1QIsaa | ἀνάγγειλον LXX ‫—יַ ּגִ יד‏‬With only the consonantal framework at hand, it is impossible to know whether 1QIsaa’s ‫ ויגיד‏‬reads “and he will announce” or “and he announced.” Either way, the primary text in all probability read without the wāw, creating a volitional chain: “Go, set a watchman, let him announce.” Perhaps 1QIsaa’s reading is the result of a dittography, e.g., ‫‏ויגיד וראה‬. 21:7 ‫ ֶר ֶכב ֶצ ֶמד ׇ ּֽפ ׇר ִׁשים‏‬MT LXX Syr Vulg | ‫פרשים‏‬ ֯ ‫ רכב צמד איש‬1QIsaa | ‫צמיד איש‏‬ ̇ ‫רכב‬ ‫ו‬ ̇ ) | ‫ ר כב‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶר ֶכב‏‬3 ‫ ̇פ ̇רש[י]ם‬4QIsaa | ‫ ְר ַתך אנׁש ועמיה זוג‏‬Tg • ‫ ֶר ֶכב‏‬2 MT 4QIsaa (‫רכ[ב‏‬ MT | ‫ רוכב‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ִה ְק ִׁשי ‏ב‬MT | ‫ והקש ‏ב‬1QIsaa ‫“ צמד‏— ֶצ ֶמ ‏ד‬team” (HALOT, 1033) and ‫ׁש‬ ‫“ ׇּפ ׇר ‏‬horseman, horse” are collocated only twice in the Bible, in v. 7 and again in v. 9 of this chapter. For v. 7, MT at‑ tests ‫ ֶצ ֶמד ׇּפ ׇר ִׁשים‏‬, versus 1QIsaa and 1QIsaa, which read ‫( צמד איש פרשים‏‬but note 4QIsaa’s spelling of ‫צמיד‏‬ ̇ with the yôd). In v. 9, both MT and 1QIsaa have ‫איש צמד‏‬ ‫ ;פרשים‬v. 9a does not exist in 4QIsaa because the leather is too fragmented. A close examination of the parallelistic structure of MT for vv. 7–9 reveals that MT’s reading is correct. The passage pertains to a faithful watchman who an‑ nounces what he sees. According to MT: “And he saw chariots with teams of horses, riders on asses, and riders on camels” (v. 7); but the scene changes in v. 9: “And, behold, here comes a chariot with a man, and a team of horses.” For v. 7, both Qumran witnesses (and note the Targum’s agreement) incorrectly read ‫ איש‏‬after ‫צמ ‏ד‬, an assimilation from v. 9. ‫ ֶר ֶכ ‏‬3 … ‫ ֶר ֶכ ‏ב‬2—MT, 4QIsaa twice present the noun ‫ ֶר ֶכ ‏ב‬versus 1QIsaa’s two at‑ ‫ב‬ testations of the ptc. ‫( רוכב‏‬note the first attestation consists of a superscripted wāw, ‫רוכב‏‬, perhaps added by a second hand?). 1QIsaa’s scribe may have per‑ ceived a difficulty in pairing ‫( ֶר ֶכ ‏ב‬often meaning “chariot”?) with asses and 572  See Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 356.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

163

camels, and thus he changed the noun ‫ ֶר ֶכב‏‬to the ptc. ‫( רוכב‏‬meaning “riders, a riding company”).573 21:8 ‫ ַא ְריֵ ה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הרא ‏‬1QIsaa Syr | Ουριαν LXX | αριηλ θ′ ‫— ַא ְריֵ ‏‬The beginning of this verse in MT reads either “and he called, a lion” ‫ה‬ or “and a lion called.” The first of these two expressions makes better sense in the context of a sentinel watching for danger from his tower. But Gray (follow‑ ing a long line of critics574) states that “the word ‫ אריה‏‬is probably corrupt.”575 Some have argued that during the history of the transmission of this passage in the MT tradition, a copyist inadvertently transposed the rêš and ʾālep, thus reading ‫ה‬ ‫ארי ‏‬. Or, a copyist inadvertently wrote the ʾālep (from the preceding word) twice, thus reading ‫ויקרא אריה‏‬. MT is followed by Vulg Tg “lion,” but this word is set in an interpretative phrase (“The prophet said, the sound of armies coming with their standard of a lion”). LXX attempted to make sense of MT’s reading by transliterating the name Ourias (“and call Ourias to the watchtower”). In my judgment, based on the evidence, 1QIsaa has the primary reading with ‫ה‬ ‫“ הרא ‏‬the seer,” thus reading “And the seer cried.” Already, long before the Qumran scrolls’ discovery, Lowth (and others) had emended the text to read ‫ הרא ‏‬instead of ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ַא ְריֵ ‏‬.576 According to Weingreen, “the lion crying out is sheer nonsense…. The Qumran text has the correct word.”577 And Wildberger wrote that the scroll’s reading “has resulted in almost universal acceptance (Fohrer, Eichrodt, Young, Auvray, Schoors, Kaiser, et al.).”578 The reading of Syr approxi‑ mates that of the Qumran scroll, with “Then the watchman cried into my ears.” 21:9 ‫ ֶר ֶכ ‏‬MT | ‫ רוכב‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ּיַ ַען‏‬MT 4QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ ויעני‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִׁש ַּבר‏‬MT | ‫ב‬ ‫ שברו‏‬1QIsaa | pass LXX Tg Syr Vulg ‫— ֶר ֶכב‏‬MT reads ‫“( ֶר ֶכב‏‬chariot”) versus 1QIsaa, which has ‫רוכב‏‬, a qal m. sg. ptc. (“rider”). Both ‫ ֶר ֶכ ‏ב‬and ‫ רוכ ‏ב‬appear regularly in the Bible. However, MT’s reading—“here comes a chariot [with] a man”—is consistent with the greater 573  See ibid., 357. 574  See, for example, Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 122; Döderlein, Esaias, 91; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 153–54; Procksch, Jesaia I, 260; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 138; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 1:244. 575  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 355. 576  See Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25. See also Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:229. 577  Weingreen, Introduction to the Critical Study, 78. 578  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 306.

164

Chapter 2

context, while the expression of 1QIsaa seems to be superfluous: “here comes a rider, a man.” ‫—וַ ּיַ ַע‏ן‬1QIsaa’s (‫ )ויעני‏‬deviation from MT and 4QIsaa (‫ )ויען‏‬is likely ortho‑ graphic; see also MT ‫ה‬ ‫ ְׂש ֵד ‏‬versus 1QIsaa ‫( שד‏י‬36:2) and MT ‫ה‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂש ‏‬versus 1QIsaa ‫( מעשי‏‬60:21). ‫— ִׁש ַּב ‏ר‬Based on the pl. subject ‫וכל פסילי אלהיה‏‬, BHS plus a number of textual critics assert that a puʿal pl. of √‫( ׁשבר‏‬supported by 1QIsaa [‫ ]שברו‏‬and LXX)579 signifies the appropriate reading. Similarly, Oort proposes an emendation of ‫נשברו‏‬.580 21:10 ‫ ּגׇ ְרנִ י‏‬MT | ‫ גדר ‏י‬1QIsaa | καὶ οἱ ὀδυνώμενοι LXX ‫—ּגׇ ְרנִ י‏‬In MT, ‫“( ּגׇ ְרנִ י‏‬my threshing floor”) corresponds with ‫“( ְמ ֻד ׇׁש ִתי‏‬my threshing”) in the first bicolon of the verse. 1QIsaa’s ‫גׇ ֵדר( גדר‏י‬,‫“ ‏‬dry-stone wall,” HALOT, 181) does not match ‫ ְמ ֻד ׇׁש ִת‏י‬. Inasmuch as ‫ גדר‏י‬is graphically akin to ‫—גרנ‏י‬both begin and end with the same characters (gîmel and yôd), and the rêš and dālet are similar in appearance—‫ גדרי‏‬is an error. Therefore, read with JPS, “My threshing, the product of my threshing floor.” 21:11

‫ּדּומ ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ אדו ‏‬MTmss LXX (Ιδουμαίας) • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִמ ַּליְ ׇל ‏‬MT | ‫ מלי ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ַּליְ ׇל ‏‬V. 11b features, for rhetorical purposes, a duplication of the words: ‫ה‬ ‫ה־מ ֵּליל‏‬ ִ ‫ה־מ ַּליְ ׇלה ׁש ֵֹמר ַמ‬ ִ ‫ׁש ֵֹמר ַמ‬. Perhaps for reasons associated with poetic free‑

dom of expression, the author of these lines utilized two forms of the word night, ‫ לי ‏ל‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ליל ‏‬. ‫ה‬ ‫ ליל ‏‬is by far the more common form, as it is attested 227 times in the Bible, versus ‫ליל‏‬, which is found eight times (five times in Isaiah). For 1QIsaa’s duplicated expression ‫מלי ‏ל‬, it is unknown whether the scribe har‑ monized the text or was simplying copying the Vorlage. 21:12 ‫ ִּת ְב ׇעיּון‏‬MT | ‫ תבעו‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּב ׇעי ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ בע ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ִּת ְב ׇעיּון ְּב ׇעי ‏ּו‬The qal verbs ‫ ִּת ְב ׇעיּון ְּב ׇעיּו‏‬in MT, both based on √‫בעה‏‬, are ar‑ chaic forms because they retain the infixed yôd. 1QIsaa, also attesting qal verbs based on √‫בעה‏‬, sets forth the more common forms (‫)תבעון בעו‏‬, minus the in‑ fixed yods. For a discussion of archaic III—hê verbs, see Kutscher.581

579  See the summary in Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 271; and Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 306. 580  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 98. 581  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 324–26.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

165

21:13 ‫ ְּד ׇדנִ י ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ דודני ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּד ׇדנִ י ‏‬Two theories attempt to explain 1QIsaa’s ‫דודנים‏‬: (a) Kutscher propos‑ ‫ם‬ es that the scroll based its reading on a Midrashic text (see Bereshit Rabbah 37).582 (b) More likely, however, ‫ דודנים‏‬is the result of the so-called Canaanite Shift, from /a/ to /o/ (see Reymond’s discussion).583 21:14 ‫ ֵה ׇתיּו‏‬MT | ‫ האתי‏ו‬1QIsaa 4QIsaa • ‫ ְּב ַל ְחֹמ‏ו‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ בלח ‏‬1QIsaa LXX Vulg | [‫ וב ‏‬4QIsaa | ‫ ִמ ׇמא ְד ַאתּון ׇא ְכ ִלי‏ן‬Tg ‫— ֵה ׇתיּו‏‬The deviation between MT (‫ ) ֵה ׇתיּו‏‬and 1QIsaa, 4QIsaa (‫ )האתיו‏‬is ortho‑ graphic. All three witnesses employ √‫“( אתה‏‬to come, to bring”), although MT lacks the ʾālep. Cf. also ‫ ֵה ׇתיּו‏‬in Jer 12:9. See also the comments at 41:5. ‫— ְּב ַל ְחֹמו‏‬Based on LXX, Oort emended MT to read ‫ =( בלחם‏‬1QIsaa) decades before the Qumran discoveries.584 But the reading of MT (‫) ְּב ַל ְחֹמו‏‬, supported by 4QIsab, makes perfect sense in the passage and is to be preferred. With re‑ gard to 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫בלח ‏‬, a copyist plausibly wrote a form that would correspond with the suffixless ‫ם‬ ‫מי ‏‬, thus creating a parallel word pair. See also Wildberger’s conclusions regarding ‫ ְּב ַל ְחֹמ ‏ו‬.585 21:15 ‫ ֲח ׇרֹבו ‏‬MT 4QpIsae | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ הרבו ‏‬1QIsaa | τὸ πλῆθος LXX (via √‫ נׇ ׇדד‏ּו • )?רבב‏‬MT | ‫נד ‏ד‬ 1QIsaa 4QpIsae • ‫ ומפנ‏י‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ מפנ‏י‬4QpIsae • ‫ ּכ ֶֹב ‏ד‬MT | ‫ כבו ‏ד‬1QIsaa | τῶν πεπτωκότων LXX ‫— ֲח ׇרֹבו ‏‬MT reads ‫“( ֲח ׇרֹבות‏‬swords”) versus 1QIsaa’s ‫“( הרבות‏‬the many”; cf. ‫ת‬ also LXX), although it is probable that the scroll’s copyist created a mishap based on the graphically similar hê for ḥêt. For other hê for ḥêt exchanges in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 3:24. ‫—נׇ ׇדד ‏ּו‬MT has ‫“( נׇ ׇדדּו‏‬they have fled,” with they serving as the subject of the bicolon), versus 1QIsaa and 4QpIsae, which have ‫“( נדד‏‬he has fled”), using ‫נודד‏‬ (see v. 14b) as the subject. Either reading is grammatically correct. ‫—ּכ ֶֹב ‏ד‬MT reads “heaviness, vehemence” (HALOT, 456), referring to the heaviness of war (‫)ּכ ֶֹבד ִמ ְל ׇח ׇמה‏‬. With regard to 1QIsaa’s ‫—כבוד‏‬in QH, ‫כבוד‏‬

582  Ibid., 100. 583  For a discussion and examples of the Canaanite Shift, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 180–81. 584  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 98. 585  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 339–40.

166

Chapter 2

(“heaviness”) is the alternative spelling for the qutl pattern, which appears most often in construct phrases, like ‫כבוד אוז‏ן‬.586 21:16

‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬MT 4QIsaa | ‫ יהוה‏‬1QIsaa Tg | κύριος LXX • ‫ ׇׁשנׇ ה‏‬MT LXX | ‫ שלוש שנים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ׇכ ׇלה ׇּכל‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יכל ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ׇּכ ‏ל‬MT | > 1QIsaa LXX ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬For the divergences ‫( ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT) and ‫( יהוה‏‬1QIsaa), see the discussion of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. ‫— ׇׁשנׇ ה‏‬The issue at hand pertains to the number of years that constitute a

contract for a hired worker—MT 16:14 refers to three years (also 1QIsaa), but MT 21:16 refers to a single year (also LXX Vulg Syr). But 1QIsaa (cf. Tg) brings forward a variant in 21:16 by reading “three years.” Blenkinsopp and Kaiser pre‑ fer 1QIsaa (“within three years, the length of employment for a hired laborer”),587 but it is also possible that a scribe of 1QIsaa attempted to smooth out the per‑ ceived contradiction between 16:14 and 21:16 by changing the reading in v. 16 to “three years.” ‫— ׇּכ ‏ל‬Two circumstances may explain 1QIsaa’s lack of the noun ‫כ ‏ל‬: (a) It sig‑ nifies a haplography based on the preceding word, ‫‏וכלה כל‬. (b) One could argue that a copyist deleted ‫ כל‏‬based on 16:14 (‫ֹמואב‏‬ ‫) ְּב ׇׁשלׁש ׇׁשנִ ים ִּכ ְׁשנֵ י ׇׂש ִכיר וְ נִ ְק ׇלה ְּכֹבוד ׇ‬, a passage that contains similar language as 21:16 (‫ְּבֹעוד ׇׁשנׇ ה ִּכ ְׁשנֵ י ׇׂש ִכיר וְ ׇכ ׇלה ׇּכל־‏‬ ‫) ְּכֹבוד ֵק ׇדר‬, although 16:14 lacks ‫כ ‏ל‬. Of course, it is also possible that ‫ כ ‏ל‬signifies a plus in MT that came about by way of dittography.

Isaiah 22

22:1 ‫ ִחּזׇ ֹיו‏ן‬MT | ‫ חזוו ‏ן‬1QIsaa | Σιων LXX (via √‫ה־ּלְך‏ • )? ִצֹּיון‏‬ ‫ ַמ ׇ‬MT | ‫ מלכ ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ׇע ִלי ‏‬MT | ‫ עלית‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ִחּזׇ ֹיון‏‬For ‫ =( ִחּזׇ ֹיו ‏ן‬MT) versus ‫( חזוו ‏ן‬with its long f. pl. ending ‫ת‬ ‫‑וו ‏‬, 1QIsaa), see the comments at 8:7. ‫ה־ּל ‏ְך‬ ‫— ַמ ׇ‬With its ‫מלכ‏י‬, 1QIsaa does not separate the two words attested in MT (‫)מה לך‏‬. Cf. also ‫ם‬ ‫( ַמ ׇּל ֶכ ‏‬MT) and ‫ה‬ ‫( מלכמ ‏‬1QIsaa) in 3:15. Note also that ‫מלכ‏י‬ (1QIsaa) displays an Aramaic second f. sg. pronominal ending ‫ ‑כי‏‬versus the

586  For this phenomenon, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 331–33. 587  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 328; and Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 136nb.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

167

Hebrew suffix ‫( ‑ְך‏‬cf. Jer 11:15).588 See also ‫ מהלך‏‬in 22:16, and compare the pro‑ nominal ending ‫ ‑כי‏‬in 40:9 and 49:26. But compare Wildberger, who writes that 1QIsaa’s ‫ מלכ‏י‬signfies “my king” and then affirms that “MT is correct.”589 For additional discussions of Aramaic forms in 1QIsaa, see 17:10 and 51:9. ‫— ׇע ִלית‏‬Aramaic has impacted 1QIsaa with the suffixed yôd on the qal second f. sg. verb (‫)עליתי‏‬. See also the comments at 17:10. 22:3 ‫ ֻא ׇּסר ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אסור ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֻא ׇּסר ‏ּו‬MT sets forth a puʿal pf. common pl. verb, with ‫“( ְק ִצינַ יִ ְך‏‬your rulers”) as the subject. 1QIsaa has ‫ה‬ ‫אסור ‏‬, a qal passive ptc. f. sg., with the scroll’s scribe likely presuming that ‫ת‬ ‫“( ֶק ֶׁש ‏‬bow”) is the subject. Note that Oort proposes to emend MT’s ‫ ֻא ׇּסרּו‏‬to read ‫סר ‏ו‬.590 22:4

‫ ְׁשע ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ שועו‏‬1QIsaa | Ἄφετέ LXX • ‫ מני‏‬MT | ‫ ממני‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲא ׇמ ֵרר‏‬MT LXX | ‫ואמרר‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּת ִאיצּו‏‬MT | ‫ תוצֹו ‏ו‬1QIsaa | κατισχύσητε LXX ‫— ְׁשע ‏ּו‬MT’s ‫ ְׁשע‏ּו‬is based on √‫“( ׁשעה‏‬to gaze, look at,” HALOT, 1610); 1QIsaa’s ‫ שוע ‏ו‬is apparently derived from √‫“( ׁשוע‏‬to cry for help,” HALOT, 1444); or, this is a case of the misplacement of the ʿayin.591 Based on the expression ‫ ִמּנִ י‏‬/‫ ממני‏‬as

well as the context of the passage, MT has the preferred reading. ‫ ממני‏—מני‏‬is a common form in the Bible, occurring approximately 180 times. Contrast ‫ ממני‏‬with the abbreviated ‫( מני‏‬vocalized as ‫) ִמּנִ ‏י‬, which is found only in Isa 22:4; 30:1; 38:12; Pss 18:23; 65:4; 139:19; Job 16:6; 21:16; 22:18; and 30:10. For MT’s three occurrences of ‫ מנ‏י‬in Isaiah, 1QIsaa reads ‫ ממנ‏י‬in 22:4 and 30:1 but equals MT with its reading of ‫ מנ‏י‬in 38:12. The translational value of ‫ מנ‏י‬and ‫ ממנ‏י‬are the same, as indicated by Ibn Ezra in his commentary to 30:1. ‫— ׇּת ִאיצ ‏ּו‬MT attests the hipʿil verb ‫( ׇּת ִאיצּו‏‬via √‫אוץ‏‬, “to urge somebody,” HALOT, 23). 1QIsaa’s reading is uncertain; it may be ‫תוצֹוו‏‬, ‫תיצֹוו‏‬, or ‫( ת צֹוו‏‬with an erased yôd or wāw) after the tāw. With any of these three readings, it is difficult to determine what the scribe had in mind. In any case, 1QIsaa’s reading likely

588  See Abegg in UF 2:41; Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 79, calls the ending ‫ ‑כי‏‬a “‘mirage’ form since it occurs mainly in late poetry, and it is apparently an Aramaism.” 589  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 349. 590  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 98. 591  As per the suggestion of Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 106–7.

168

Chapter 2

pertains to either orthography or phonology and sets forth an example of a yôd or wāw replacing the ʾālep (‫ ׇּת ִאיצּו‏‬, MT).592 22:5 ‫ֹׁשוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ ִקר ו‬MT | ‫ קדש ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶא ‏ל‬MT | ‫ ע ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ִקר וְ ַ ‏‬For MT’s ‫ֹׁשוע‬ ‫ֹׁשוע‬ ‫ ִקר וְ ַ ‏‬, pre-Qumran scholars have generally opted ei‑ ther to translate ‫ֹׁשוע‬ ‫ ִקר וְ ַ‏‬as “a wall and cry” or to transliterate them as “Kir and Shoa.”593 HALOT (1128, 1444) translates ‫ ִקר וְ ֹׁשו ‏ע‬as “noise” and “cry for help, scream.”594 1QIsaa’s ‫ קדש ‏ו‬adds a level of complexity to the discussion. According to Weingreen, this is an example of graphic similarity: ‫קדשו‏ = קר וׁשוע‏‬. The ʿayin may have lost its guttural sound late in antiquity, and a scribe read the dālet for the rêš.595 Consequently, the same scribe or a subsequent copyist changed the preposition ‫ א ‏ל‬to ‫ ע ‏ל‬in order to make sense of the passage. Contrast Weingreen with Blenkinsopp, who prefers the reading of 1QIsaa. He writes that v. “5b [of MT] defies translation and has probably been seriously damaged in the trans‑ mission; the present translation depends on 1QIsaa (mqrqr qdšv ʿl hhr), which makes better though by no means perfect sense and of which MT (mqrqr qr všvʿ ʾl hhr) may represent a damaged version.”596 Blenkinsopp, therefore, trans‑ lates v. 5b, “with crying out for help to his holy place on the mountain.”597 Compare also the approaches of other textual critics who understand that the scroll’s scribe has a particular theological understanding of Jerusalem’s temple and its destruction. For example, Pulikottil discusses the variant and then concludes, “This reading indeed indicates that the scribe has understood the Temple as lacking something, whether as the result of physical destruction, or ritual uncleanness.”598 Based on the evidence, 1QIsa’s errs with ‫ ;קדש‏ו‬MT’s ‫ֹׁשוע‬ ‫ ִקר וְ ַ ‏‬is primary; and following both HALOT and Wildberger,599 one should translate ‫ֹׁשוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ ִקר ו‬rather than transliterate them.

592  See the study that pertains to the yôd replacing the ʾālep in certain Qumran texts in Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 124–27. 593  See, e.g., Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 112; Slotki, Isaiah, 100. 594  But see the complete discussion in HALOT, 1444. 595  Weingreen, Introduction to the Critical Study, 53. 596  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 332. 597  Ibid., 331. 598  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 143; see also van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, 83. 599  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 348, 350–51.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

169

22:6 ‫ וקי ‏ר‬MT | ‫ וקו ‏ר‬1QIsaa | καὶ συναγωγὴ LXX ‫—וקי ‏ר‬For MT’s proper name Kir, the scroll reads ‫וקו ‏ר‬. According to one the‑ ory, ‫ קור‏‬experienced a vowel shift, which shift is occasionally associated with proper names.600 22:7 ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ והי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וַ יְ ִה‏י‬MT’s converted impf. (versus 1QIsaa’s converted pf.) seems to better fit the pericope’s context and meaning, although there is no consensus among scholars regarding this point.601 For other possible wāw-consecutive deviations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 4:3, 5; 5:5 (bis); 11:8; 12:2; 20:5; 27:6; 33:12; 36:21; 39:7; 48:18; 56:4; 62:9; 65:8; and 66:12. 22:10 ‫ וַ ִּת ְתצּו‏‬MT | ‫ ותתוצ ‏ו‬1QIsaa | ὅτι καθείλοσαν LXX • ‫ ְל ַב ֵּצ ‏ר‬MT | ‫ לבצו ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫— ְל ַב ֵּצ ‏ר‬MT’s ‫ ְל ַב ֵּצ ‏ר‬is correctly vocalized to read a piʿel verb, which means “to make inaccessible” (HALOT, 148; see also Jer 51:53). The consonants of 1QIsaa’s ‫ לבצו ‏ר‬suggest a qal verb, which for √‫ בצר‏‬specifies “to gather grapes” or “to humble” (HALOT, 148). The immediate context of the passage pertains to Jerusalem’s inhabitants preparing for war by building up a weapons inventory, fortifying the walls, and preparing the water supply (see vv. 8–11). This context, therefore, supports the piʿel and not the qal verb. 22:11

‫ ַהחֹמ ַֹתיִ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ החומו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶא ‏ל‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ ע ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ַהחֹמ ַֹתיִ ‏‬MT exhibits a rare dual form (‫ ַהחֹמ ַֹתיִ ם‏‬, “two walls”; see also ‫ם‬ 2 Kgs 25:4; Jer 39:4; 52:7) versus the more common ‫“( החומות‏‬the walls”) found in 1QIsaa. The scroll likely has popularized its reading or ‫ם‬ ‫ החומותי ‏‬was unknown to him.

22:13 ‫ וְ ׇׁשֹתות‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ושת‏ו‬4QIsac | καὶ πιεῖν LXX • ‫ וְ ׇׁשֹת‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsac | ‫ה‬ ‫ֹושת ‏‬ 4QIsaa | καὶ πίωμεν LXX Tg Vulg

600  As proposed by Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 180–81. 601  See the examination in Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 410, especially n. 30.

170

Chapter 2

22:14 ‫ יְ ֻכ ַּפ ‏ר‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ם‬ ‫ יכפר לכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ֻכ ַּפ ‏ר‬The plus of 1QIsaa (‫ )לכם‏‬is not likely due to assimilation of the same personal pronoun located three words later because the first ‫ לכם‏‬is written de‑ fectively, while the second is plene (‫)לכמה‏‬. Rather, perhaps there exists two Hebrew textual traditions—one has the personal pronoun preceding ‫= העון‏‬ 1QIsaa LXX Syr; the other lacks it = MT Tg plus Yemenite textual traditions.602 It is also possible that one scribal hand wrote ‫ה‬ ‫ לכמ ‏‬and another wrote ‫( לכם‏‬note especially the shape and length of the kāp in both words), although there is no evidence of an erasure under either word. In the end, Wildberger advises “not to follow” the reading of 1QIsaa.603 22:15 ‫ ַע ‏ל‬1 MT | ‫א ‏ל‬2 1QIsaa 4QIsaf 22:16 ‫ה־ּלָך‏‬ ְ ‫ ַמ‬MT | ‫ מהל ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫ה־ּלָך‏‬ ְ ‫ה־ּלָך‏— ַמ‬ ְ ‫ ַמ‬in MT parallels ‫ ִמי ְל ‏ָך‬in the bicolon: “What is for you here? and who is for you here?” 1QIsaa’s ‫ מהל ‏ך‬is not a piʿel ptc. derived from √‫;הלך‏‬ rather, the scribe failed to properly divide the words. See also ‫ מלכ‏י‬in 22:1. 22:17

‫ ּגׇ ֶב ‏ר‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ גבו ‏ר‬1QIsab • ‫ וְ ע ְֹט ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ יעוט ‏ך‬1QIsaa | ‫ ויע[ט ‏ך‬1QIsab 4QIsaa (‫עטך‏‬ ̇ ֯‫)]ו֯ י‬ ‫—ּגׇ ֶב ‏ר‬MT and 1QIsaa read ‫גבר‏‬, but note that according to Gray, “the pointing ‫ּגִ ּבֹ ‏ר‬, strong man, is to be preferred to ‫( ּגֶ ֶב ‏ר‬MT).”604 ‫ ּגִ ּבֹ ‏ר‬is apparently the read‑ ing of 1QIsab (‫)גבור‏‬. ‫—וְ ע ְֹט ‏ָך‬Regarding the wāw mater in 1QIsaa’s ‫יעוטך‏‬, in contrast to the vowel

system of MT, see the comments at 20:1.

22:18 ‫ ׇצֹנוף יִ ְצנׇ ְפָך ְצנֵ ׇפה‏‬MT 4QIsaa | ‫ צניפ וצנפכה צנפה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ׇצֹנוף יצנֹופך צניפה‏‬4QIsaf • ‫ ׇׁש ׇּמה … וְ ׇׁש ׇּמה‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ש]מה תמות ושמה‏‬ ̇ ) 4QIsaa (‫]ושמה‏‬ ֯ 2) | ‫שם … ושם‏‬ 4QIsaf | καὶ ἐκεῖ … καὶ θήσει LXX ‫— ׇצֹנוף יִ ְצנׇ ְפָך ְצנֵ ׇפ ‏‬The reading of ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫— ׇצֹנוף יִ ְצנׇ ְפָך ְצנֵ ׇפ ‏‬set forth in MT, 4QIsaa, and 4QIsaf—features √‫ צנף‏‬three times, a rare root that is found only in this 602  See Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 245. 603  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 353. 604  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 382.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

171

verse and again in Lev 16:4 (see HALOT, 1039). 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ צניפ וצנפכה צנפ ‏‬in‑ dicates a misunderstanding of the text. Perhaps based on Lev 16:4 (‫ְּוב ִמ ְצנֶ ֶפת‏‬ ‫“( ִמ ְצנֶ ֶפ ‏‬turban?”), a scribe wrote ‫צני ‏פ‬ ‫) ַּבד יִ ְצנֹף‬, where √‫ צנף‏‬is collocated with ‫ת‬ (‫ ׇצנִ יף‏‬, evidently from the same root as ‫ת‬ ‫) ִמ ְצנֶ ֶפ ‏‬, which denotes some form of a headpiece. 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ וצנפכ ‏‬with the attached wāw remains a mystery. Perhaps the scribe misread the yôd and wrote wāw? With regard to the wāw mater in 4QIsaf’s ‫יצנֹופך‏‬, see the comments at 20:1. 22:19

‫ יֶ ֶה ְר ֶס ‏ָך‬MT LXXL | ‫ הרס ‏ך‬1QIsaa 4QIsaa | ‫ יהסיר ‏ך‬4QIsaf | > LXX | ‫ ְא ַמגְ ִרינׇ ‏ך‬Tg Syr Vulg ‫—יֶ ֶה ְר ֶס ‏ָך‬Four Hebrew texts exhibit three variants: ‫הרס‏√( יֶ ֶה ְר ֶסָך‏‬, qal impf. third m. sg., MT), ‫הרס‏√( הרסך‏‬, qal pf. third m. sg., 1QIsaa 4QIsaa), and ‫יהסירך‏‬ (√‫סור‏‬, hipʿil impf., 4QIsaf). According to Kutscher,605 ‫ הרס ‏ך‬was affected by the first word of the verse, ‫והדפתיך‏‬, both beginning with hê and sharing graphically similar letters. With regard to 4QIsaf’s ‫יהסיר ‏ך‬, the prefixed hê (‫ )יהסירך‏‬points to

an Aramaic influence. This is a rare example of Aramaic in a Qumran Isaiah text606 (other than the multiple examples of Aramaic influence in 1QIsaa). √‫ סור‏‬may be the result of a metathesis between rêš and sāmek607 (versus √‫)הרס‏‬ at some point in the transmission of the 4QIsaf text. 22:20 ‫אתי‏‬ ִ ‫ וְ ׇק ׇר‬MT 4QIsaa | ‫ וקרת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִח ְל ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ חלקי ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsaf ‫אתי‏‬ ִ ‫—וְ ׇק ׇר‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫וקרתי‏‬, see the comments at 6:4. ‫— ִח ְל ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the theophoric names ‫( חלקיה‏ו‬MT, 4QIsaa) and ‫ה‬ ‫( חלקי ‏‬1QIsaa, 4QIsaf), see the commentary at 1:1. 22:21 ‫ ֻּכ ׇּתנְ ֶּת ‏ָך‬MT | ‫כתנותך‬ ‫̇‏‬ 1QIsaa ‫— ֻּכ ׇּתנְ ֶּת ‏ָך‬For a discussion of 1QIsaa’s ‫כתנותך‬ ‫̇‏‬ , see Qimron’s grammar.608

22:24 ‫ ַה ׇּק ׇטן‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsaa 4QIsab | ‫ קט‏ן‬1QIsaa

605  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 352. 606  See additionally the views of Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 194. 607  Such is the suggestion of Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:159: “Due à la permutation accidentelle du ‘resh’ et du ‘samek’.” 608  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 60.

172

Chapter 2

22:25 ‫יְ הוׇ ‏‬1 MT 1QIsaa 4QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ אדני י֯ ֯הו֯ ֯ה‏‬4QIsaf • ‫ ׇּתמּוׁש‏‬MT 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ 1QIsab | ‫ תמי֯ ש‏‬4QIsaa | κινηθήσεται LXX

Isaiah 23

23:1 ‫ ֵה ִיליל ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsaa | ‫ איליל ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ִּכ ִּתי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ כתיי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫— ֵה ִילילּו‏‬Here, and in five other hipʿil imperatives, 1QIsaa replaces the hê with an ʾālep (see 12:4 for additional commentary). For additional notes on the forms ‫ יְ יֵ ִלי ‏ל‬and ‫יהילי ‏ל‬, see also 15:3. ‫— ִּכ ִּתים‏‬A single K manuscript (HUB–Isaiah) attests ‫ = כתיים‏‬1QIsaa. For a dis‑ cussion of variants that pertain to gentilica, see ‫ם‬ ‫ ַּכ ְׂש ִּדי ‏‬at 13:19. 23:1–2 ‫ ׇלֹמו ּד ֹּמּו‏‬MT 1QIsaa α′ σ′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ למֹודמֹו‏‬4QIsaa | τίνι ὅμοιοι γεγόνασιν (via √‫למי‏‬ ‫ )דמו‬LXX • ‫— ׇלֹמו ּד ֹּמ ‏ּו‬With regard to 4QIsaa’s ‫למֹודמו‏‬, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible explains: “The fact that 4QIsaa writes the two Hebrew words together (with no break) suggests that the scribe of 4QIsaa may have understood the text as evidenced in the LXX translation,”609 i.e., LXX probably misread the Hebrew with its read‑ ing of ‫למי דמו‏‬, “for whom is like/similar” (τίνι ὅμοιοι γεγόνασιν). 23:2

‫ ע ֵֹב ‏ר‬MT | ‫ עברו‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsaa | διαπερῶντες LXX • ‫ ִמ ְלאּוְך‏‬MT Tg Syr Vulg | ‫מלאכיך‏‬ 1QIsaa | ‫ מלאיֹך‏‬1QIsab | ‫מלאך‬ ‫֯‏‬ 4QIsaa | > LXX • ‫—ע ֵֹבר יׇ ם ִמ ְלאּוְך‏‬For this phrase in MT, JPS has the following translation:

“that pass over the sea, have replenished.” But as several critics—including Wildberger and Barthélemy—have indicated, MT’s ‫ ע ֵֹבר יׇם ִמ ְלאּוְך‏‬has its chal‑ lenges.610 Perhaps, as Weingreen611 explains, ‫ מלאו ‏ך‬is the result of haplography, when a copyist wrote one kāp instead of two (‫)מלאכיך‏‬. 1QIsaa, with support from 4QIsaa (see the readings in the apparatus), pres‑ ents two significant divergences: in place of MT’s ‫( ע ֵֹבר‏‬qal ptc. m. sg.), the scroll 609  Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 303n411; Ulrich provides additional details regarding the passage under discussion in Ulrich, “Impressions and Intuition,” 281–84. 610  See Wildberger’s analysis of both pre- and post-Qumran discovery critics, Isaiah 13–27, 404. 611  Weingreen, Introduction to the Critical Study, 59.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

173

has ‫( עבר‏ו‬qal pf. third common pl.); and instead of MT’s ‫( ִמ ְלאּו ‏ְך‬piʿel pf. third common pl. via √‫מלא‏‬, with pronominal suffix), the scroll reads ‫“( מלאכי ‏ך‬your messengers”). 1QIsaa’s ‫ עברו ים מלאכי ‏ך‬may be translated “whose messengers crossed the sea.” Based on the research of the CTAT committee, Barthélemy summarizes: “1QIsaa represents the original state of the text.”612 Compare also Oort, who (before the Qumran discovery) proposed the text read ‫מלאכיה‏‬.613 But contrast Rosenbloom,614 who writes that the scroll’s “‘thy messengers’ makes no sense as a substitute for the difficult ‫מלאו ‏ך‬.” Based on the research of Barthélemy, Wildberger, and others, 1QIsaa, with the support 4QIsaa, has the primary reading. 23:3 ‫ יְ ֹאור‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ יוא ‏ר‬4QIsaa | > LXX • ‫—יְ ֹאו ‏ר‬MT and 1QIsaa are in agreement. 4QIsaa has the perplexing ‫יוא ‏ר‬, which is found once in MT (‫יּואר‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬, “will be cursed,” see Num 22:6). “Will be cursed” makes no sense in 23:3; rather, it is probable that a copyist of the 4QIsaa tradition transposed the ʾālep and wāw, resulting in ‫יוא ‏ר‬. For LXX’s minus, van der Kooij suggests that it is owing to LXX’s “free rendering of vv. 2–3.”615 23:4 ‫ ׇא ַמר‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsaa Tg Syr | ‫ה‬ ‫ אמר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫— ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬The subject of ‫( אמר‏‬MT, 1QIsab, 4QIsaa) is ‫“( ים‏‬sea”). The subject of 1QIsaa’s f. ‫ה‬ ‫ אמר ‏‬is unknown (‫)? ִציֹדון‏‬. 23:6

‫ ִע ְבר ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsaa LXX | ‫ עובר ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫— ִע ְבר ‏ּו‬In MT, the impv. that commences line 1 of the bicolon (‫ ) ִע ְברּו‏‬balanc‑ es with the impv. that initiates line 2 (‫) ֵה ִילילּו‏‬. The qal m. pl. ptc.616 belonging to 1QIsaa (‫ )עוברי‏‬disrupts this balance.

612  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 398; see also Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:161–63; Dahood, “Textual Problems in Isaia,” 403–4. 613  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 98. 614  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 33. 615  Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 130. 616  The form ‫ עוברי‏‬of 1QIsaa may represent an Aramaic f. impv., suggests Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 194, 478, although one would expect such a form to be ‫עבורי‏‬.

174

Chapter 2

23:7 ‫ ַע ִּליזׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ העלוז ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּה‬ ‫ה | ַק ְד ׇמ ׇת ‏‬ ‫ קדמות ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫לּוה‬ ‫ י ִֹב ׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ובלי ‏‬1QIsaa | LXX ἢ παραδοθῆναι αὐτήν • ‫• מרחק‏ | ֵמ ׇרֹחוק‏‬ ‫— ַע ִּליזׇ ‏‬1QIsaa has the plus of the article on the adjective, perhaps emphasiz‑ ‫ה‬ ing “the exuberant [city].”617 Or, 1QIsaa borrowed from Zeph 2:15: ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇה ִעיר ׇה ַע ִּליזׇ ‏‬. ‫ ַק ְד ׇמה‏— ַק ְד ׇמ ׇת ‏‬, as vocalized, is found six times in the Bible. ‫ת‬ ‫ּה‬ ‫( קדמו ‏‬1QIsaa), vocalized as ‫ת‬ ‫)?( ַק ְדמּו ‏‬, is not attested in MT, although the suffix ‫ ‑ּות‏‬is com‑ mon for other words (i.e., ‫ת‬ ‫) ַמ ְלכּו ‏‬. According to Kutscher, the form ‫ קדמות‏‬was influenced by Aramaic dialects, which attest ‫ת‬ ‫קדמו ‏‬, ‫ת‬ ‫קדמיו ‏‬, and ‫ת‬ ‫קדימו ‏‬.618 It is also possible that the scroll sets forth the pl., similar to that of Ezek 36:11 (‫ֹמות ֶיכם‏‬ ֵ ‫) ְּכ ַק ְד‬. ‫—י ִֹב ׇ ‏‬MT’s verb is based on √‫“( יבל‏‬to bring,” HALOT, 383). The meaning of ‫לּוה‬ ‫( ובליה‏‬1QIsaa) is unknown; perhaps the scroll is in error, based on graphically similar letters. ‫— ֵמ ׇרֹחו ‏‬The variant between ‫ ֵמ ׇרֹחוק‏‬and ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫( מרח ‏‬1QIsaa) may be orthographic (although generally 1QIsaa attests the plene spelling, e.g., ‫ק‬ ‫ ;)רחו ‏‬or, ‫ מרחק‏‬should be read as a noun, vocalized as ‫ ֶּמ ְר ׇחק‏‬. 23:8 ‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ִט ׇיר ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ המעטר ‏‬1QIsaa | cf. LXX • ‫עטר‏√(— ַה ַּמ ֲע ִט ׇיר ‏‬, hipʿil, “to wear crowns, or to distribute crowns,” HALOT, ‫ה‬ 815). MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ִט ׇיר ‏‬is a hipʿil ptc.; 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ המעטר ‏‬is likely a puʿal or piʿel ptc.619 Note that K (HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫ה‬ ‫המעתיר ‏‬. Wildberger correctly selects the hipʿil and translates “the bestower of crowns.”620 LXX evidently misread ‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ִט ׇירה‏‬as ‫המעט ולה‏‬,‫‏‬reading a yôd for the wāw and a rêš for the lāmed.621 23:9 ‫ ּגְ ֹאון ׇּכ ‏ל‬MT | ‫ כול גאו‏ן‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫—ּגְ ֹאון ׇּכל‏‬The reading of 1QIsaa and LXX signals a syntactical variation that is not aligned with MT. Van der Kooij suggests that LXX’s Vorlage had a read‑ ing that was similar to that of the scroll; or, another possibility: both LXX and the scroll harmonized their words to correspond with the verse’s closing words ‫כול נכבדי אר ‏ץ‬, with the particle ‫ כול‏‬serving as the trigger.622 In any case, 617  For this suggestion, see Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 407. 618  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 383–84. 619  See ibid., 363. 620  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 404. 621  See the discussion of Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 39. 622  Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 136.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

175

Blenkinsopp623 (following BHS) prefers the scroll’s ordering of words (‫)כול גאון‏‬, thus reading “all pride and splendor.” Wildberger, on the other hand, opts for ‫ל־צ ִבי‏‬ ְ ‫( ׇּכ‬MT), “the ‘pride’ of all majesty.”624 For a discussion of syntactical varia‑ tions or inversions between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. 23:10

‫ ִע ְב ִר ‏י‬MT 4QIsac‫ )עבורי‏( ‏‬Syr Vulg | ‫ עבד ‏י‬1QIsaa LXX (ἐργάζου) Tg (‫• )גְ ַלא‏‬ ‫— ִע ְב ִרי‏‬MT and 4QIsac read “pass (‫ ) ִע ְב ִרי‏‬through your land,” a reading that apparently is consistent with two other verbs in the pericope (see ‫ ִע ְבר‏ּו‬in v. 6 and ‫ ֲעב ִֹר ‏י‬in v. 12). 1QIsaa and LXX have “cultivate (‫ )עבדי‏‬your land.” Blenkinsopp,

Childs, Kaiser, and Wildberger prefer 1QIsaa and LXX, and maintain that MT and 4QIsac experienced a “daleth/resh confusion.”625 So, too, Whitehouse and other critics, before the Qumran scrolls’ discovery, had emended the text to read ‫עבד ‏י‬.626 Blenkinsopp thus translates the passage, “Till your land, for there is no longer a harbor for the Tarshish ships.”627 Notwithstanding these judgments, van der Kooij (following Barthélemy628) writes that ‫“ עבדי ארצ ‏ך‬constitutes bad (classical) Hebrew, idiomatically speak‑ ing” because the usual expression is ‫עבד אדמה‏‬.629 A scriptural search, in fact, reveals that ‫ה‬ ‫ אדמ ‏‬is the object of ‫ עב ‏ד‬in Gen 4:2; Zech 13:5; and Prov 12:11 and 28:19. It is possible that 1QIsaa’s reading exists as a result of a dālet/rêš confu‑ sion (rather than MT and 4QIsac suffering from this error); or another pos‑ sibility, the dālet (of the expression ‫ )עבדי ארצ ‏ך‬was the result of the similar sounding ‫נכבדי ארץ‏‬, which appears at the end of v. 9. Tentatively, I accept the reading ‫ ִע ְב ִר ‏י‬, as attested in MT 4QIsac. A side comment: here in 23:10 and in several other readings, LXX equals that of 1QIsaa (e.g., 41:5; 45:2; 8; 50:2, 6; 53:11). For these readings, Ulrich writes: “The Hebrew biblical MSS from Qumran frequently show a Hebrew form which dif‑ fers from the MT but which had served as the basis for the OG translation. This is also the case with the OG of Isaiah.”630 623  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 341–42. 624  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 404; see also 408. 625  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 342; Childs, Isaiah, 164; and Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 16nc. See Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 408. 626  See Whitehouse, Isaiah, 1:263; Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 391; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 153; but contrast Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 93; and Box, Book of Isaiah, 109. 627  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 341. 628  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:167–69. 629  Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 138; see also n. 47. 630  Ulrich, “Light from 1QIsaa,” 200.

176

Chapter 2

23:11 ‫ ִה ְרּגִ י ‏ז‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsaa LXX Syr Vulg | ‫ להרגי‏ז‬4QIsac Tg • ‫ ַל ְׁש ִמ ‏ד‬MT | ‫להשמי ‏ד‬ 1QIsaa • ‫יה‬ ‫ ׇמ ֻעזְ נֶ ׇ ‏‬MT 4QIsac (‫ה | )[מעו]ז֯ נֹיה‏‬ ‫ מעוזי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫“(— ִה ְרּגִ י ‏ז‬to agitate, arouse,” HALOT, 1183). MT, 1QIsaa, and 4QIsaa attest a hipʿil pf. (‫ ;)הרגיז‏‬4QIsac has a hipʿil inf. const. (‫)להרגיז‏‬, perhaps affected631 by the hipʿil inf. ‫ )להשמיד‏( ַל ְׁש ִמ ‏ד‬in the second half of the verse. See also the discussion in 11:9. Both ‫ להרגי ‏ז‬and ‫ להשמי ‏ד‬signify the penultimate terms in the dual paral‑ lelisms of the verse. Apparently, either form (pf. or infinitive) fits the gram‑ matical structure. ‫— ַל ְׁש ִמ ‏ד‬The Masoretes vocalized ‫ ַל ְׁש ִמ ‏ד‬to read as a hipʿil, which vocaliza‑ tion is supported by 1QIsaa (‫)להשמיד‏‬. MTmss also attest ‫להשמיד‏‬, but some read ‫לשמי ‏ד‬, minus the hê (HUB–Isaiah). ‫— ׇמ ֻעזְ נֶ ׇ ‏‬The reading of ‫יה‬ ‫יה‬ ‫( ׇמ ֻעזְ נֶ ׇ‏‬MT and 4QIsac) with the inclusion of the nûn presents a challenge. Talmon632 makes a case for a hybrid in MT based on two words—‫ מעוז‏‬and ‫מעו‏ן‬. Both readings appear in passages with similar contexts (cf. Jer 16:19 with Ps 90:1, and cf. Ps 31:3 with Ps 71:3). Gray, followed by Wildberger, confirms that “the ‫ ‏נ‬is an error rather than a resolution of the reduplicated ‫‏ז‬.”633 Some critics write that 1QIsaa supplies the correct reading (‫מעוזיה‏‬, see also HALOT, 610), for which Watts writes that the scroll “omits the nun and makes good sense: ‘her fortresses.’”634 And already, before the dis‑ covery of the Qumran manuscripts, Knobel had emended MT to read ‫ה‬ ‫מעוזי ‏‬.635 Barthélemy, however, supports MT, in part because it is aligned with 4QIsac and because the reading of 1QIsaa signifies an orthographic variant.636 23:12 ‫ ֹעוד‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ עוז‏‬4QIsac • ‫ ַה ְמ ֻע ׇּׁש ׇקה‏‬MT 4QIsaa | ‫מעשקה‏‬ 1QIsaa | καὶ ἀδικεῖν LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ִּכ ִּתּיִ י ‏‬MTket 1QIsaa 4QIsac | ‫ם‬ ‫ כתי ‏‬MTqere • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁש ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬4QIsac • ‫—ֹעו ‏ד‬Three Hebrew witnesses (MT, 1QIsaa, and 4QIsaa) attest ‫עו ‏ד‬. 4QIsac departs from this reading with ‫“( עוז‏‬might, strength,” HALOT, 805). A copyist erred when he wrote zayin in place of dālet; perhaps he was impacted by ‫ וז‏‬of the following word, ‫לעלוז‏‬.

631  Or, as van der Kooij states, the reading of 4QIsac “is an adjustment to vs 11b,” Oracle of Tyre, 141. 632  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 255–56. 633  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 394; Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 409. 634  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 303; so, too, Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 342, prefers 1QIsaa’s reading. 635  See Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25. 636  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:171.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

177

‫— ַה ְמ ֻע ׇּׁש ׇק ‏‬The article is employed here as a vocative marker (MT, 4QIsaa). ‫ה‬ 1QIsaa lacks the article; compare Watts (following Wildberger), who supports 1QIsaa.637 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ מעשק ‏‬likely signifies a puʿal ptc.,638 but a piʿel ptc. (with an active force, cf. LXX, Tg) is also possible. ‫— ִּכ ִּתּיִ ים‏‬Chittim is found as ‫ם‬ ‫( כתי ‏‬e.g., Gen 10:4; Num 24:24; Isa 23:12 MTqere) and ‫ם‬ ‫( כתיי ‏‬e.g., Jer 2:10; Isa 23:12 = MTket 1QIsaa 4QIsac). Both Hebrew words may be transliterated to read Chittim. 23:13

‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַּכ ְׂש ִּדי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ כשדיי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְל ִצּיִ י ‏‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ לציי‏ן‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ֵה ִקימּו‏‬MT | ‫ הקימוה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ הקים‏‬MTmss • ‫ ְב ִחינׇ יו‏‬MTket | ‫ בחוניו‏‬MTqere | ‫בחיניה‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ֹנות ׇיה‏‬ ֶ ‫ ַא ְר ְמ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ארומנות‏י‬4QIsac • ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ְל ִצּיִ ים‏‬1QIsaa exhibits the Aramaic pl. ending ‫)לציין‏( ‑ין‏‬, here and again in v. 17 (‫) ̇שבעין‏‬. See also ‫ ידי‏ן‬in 13:7. ‫— ֵה ִקימ ‏ּו‬1QIsaa’s third f. sg. suffix (‫ )הקימוה‏‬is an error; perhaps the scribe in‑ advertently borrowed the hê of ‫הנה‏‬, ‫יסדה‏‬, ‫ארמנותיה‏‬, or ‫שמה‏‬, all located in the vicinity of ‫ה‬ ‫הקימו ‏‬. ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, for example, is located immediately above ‫ה‬ ‫ הקימו ‏‬in the column.639 See also the comments about ‫ ְב ִחינׇ י ‏ו‬, located immediately below. ‫ ׇבחֹון‏(— ְב ִחינׇ יו‏‬, “siege tower,” HALOT, 118). Both MTket (‫ ) ְב ִחינׇ יו‏‬and MTqere (‫ )בחוניו‏‬have the third m. sg. suffix versus the third f. sg. suffix of 1QIsaa (‫)בחיניה‏‬.

This f. suffix, explains van der Kooij, represents a harmonization with the word ‫ארמנותיה‏‬, located two words away.640 But contrast Wildberger, who writes that “when used in conjunction with ‫( ארמנותיה‏‬her palaces), the feminine suffix in Qa might also be correct.”641

23:14 ‫ ׇמ ֻעּזְ ֶכ‏ן‬MT LXX | ‫ מעוז ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫— ׇמ ֻעּזְ ֶכ‏ן‬MT’s pl. suffix ‫ ׇמֹעוז‏( ‑כן‏‬, “mountain stronghold, place of refuge,” HALOT, 610) apparently hearkens back to ‫“( ֳאנִ ֹּיות‏‬ships”); 1QIsaa’s sg. suffix ‫‑ך‏‬ (“your [singular] fortress”) seems to refer to Tarshish, thus Martin writes that “the proximity of the sg. noun, Tarshish”642 may have influenced the scroll’s scribe to use the sg. suffix. 637  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 303; Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 409. 638  See Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 139. 639  See also ibid., 558. 640  Van der Kooij, Oracle of Tyre, 155. 641  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 410. 642  Martin, Scribal Character, 2:602.

178

Chapter 2

23:15 ‫ ַההּו ‏‬MT 4QIsac (‫א | )ההוא‏‬ ‫א‬ ‫ הו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫וְ נִ ְׁש ַּכ ַחת צֹר ִׁש ְב ִעים ׇׁשנׇ ה ִּכ ֵימי ֶמ ֶלך ֶא ׇחד ִמ ֵּק ‏ץ‬ ‫ ִׁש ְב ִעים ׇׁשנׇ ה יִ ְהיֶ ה‬MT 4QIsac LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫ וְ נִ ְׁש ַּכ ַחת‏‬MT | ‫ ונשכחה‏‬4QIsac | καταλειφθήσεται LXX • ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ והי ‏‬4QIsac • ‫— ַההּו ‏‬1QIsaa omits the grammatically necessary article (‫)הוא‏‬. “Probably ‫א‬ haplography,” explains Watts.643 ‫—וְ נִ ְׁש ַּכ ַחת … יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬1QIsaa lost much of v. 15 by way of homoioteleuton, evi‑ ‫ה‬ dently triggered by the similarly looking words ‫ הוא … יהיה‏‬or more likely via ‫צר … לצ ‏ר‬.644 ‫—וְ נִ ְׁש ַּכ ַח ‏‬In the Bible, the nipʿal ptc. f. sg. is found with either a tāw or hê ‫ת‬ suffix, but in Isaiah the hê suffix is far more common (i.e., ‫ נֶ ֱא ׇמנׇ ה‏‬1:21, 26; ‫וְ נֶ ֱח ׇר ׇצה‏‬ 10:23; ‫ נַ ֲח ׇלה‏‬17:11; ‫ נִ ְב ׇע ׇרה‏‬19:11; ‫ֹנור ׇאה‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬21:1; etc., but cf. ‫ נֶ ְע ֶּד ֶרת‏‬59:15). In 23:15 MT at‑ tests ‫( וְ נִ ְׁש ַּכ ַחת‏‬versus 4QIsac ‫)ונשכחה‏‬, but in 23:16 MT has ‫ נִ ְׁש ׇּכ ׇחה‏‬for the same verb (4QIsac is not attested in v. 16). This minor variant sets forth a slight incon‑ sistency in MT but does not impact translational values. But note Gray’s ex‑ planation regarding ‫ת‬ ‫וְ נִ ְׁש ַּכ ַח ‏‬: “It is scarcely possible that this is a part[iciple] …; not only should a pf. with waw conv. naturally follow ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬, but if ‫ת‬ ‫ ונשכח ‏‬were a part. ‫ צ ‏ר‬should naturally precede it…. Unless ‫ה‬ ‫ ונשכח ‏‬should be read, it is a form like ‫ת‬ ‫( אזל ‏‬Dt. 32:36), preserving the original ‫ת‬ ‫ ‏‬of the fem.”645 ‫—יִ ְהיֶ ה‏‬For 4QIsac’s ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬, cf. v. 18. 23:17 ‫ ִׁש ְב ִעים‏‬MT | ‫ ̇שבעי‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּכ ‏ל‬MT LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫— ִׁש ְב ִעי ‏‬The suffixed nûn of 1QIsaa (‫) ̇שבעין‏‬, indicating a m. pl. ending, ‫ם‬ is indicative of an Aramaic influence in the scroll; or, as Qimron explains, “Interchanges between mem and nun in final position are very frequent in Hebrew and Aramaic sources from the Second Temple period onward. They reflect the loss of the phonological distinction between m and n in final posi‑ tion. The exact nature of the resulting sound is a matter of dispute.”646 See also the variants ‫( ִמ ְדיׇ ‏ן‬MT) and ‫ם‬ ‫( מדי ‏‬1QIsaa) at 9:3 and 60:6, and ‫ם‬ ‫( ְל ִצּיִ י ‏‬MT) versus ‫( לציי‏ן‬1QIsaa) in 23:13.

643  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 303. 644  See the discussion in Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 549; and Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 411. 645  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 396. 646  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 27; see also the updated Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 113–14.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

179

23:18 ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ והי ‏‬4QIsac • ‫—יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬For 4QIsac’s ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬, cf. v. 15.

Isaiah 24

24:1 ‫ יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa Tg | ‫ אדונ‏י‬4QIsac | κύριος LXX • ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ה‬ ‫ האדמ ‏‬1QIsaa | τὴν οἰκουμένην LXX • ‫— ׇה ׇא ֶרץ‏‬MT and 4QIsac set forth ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶרץ‏‬, versus 1QIsaa’s synonymous ‫האדמה‏‬. Two items support ‫האר ‏ץ‬: the pericope, consisting of 24:1–12, features ‫ אר ‏ץ‬eight times (but never ‫ה‬ ‫)אדמ ‏‬, and v. 3a (‫הבוק תבוק הארץ‏‬, “the earth is completely made empty”) rhetorically develops the reading of v. 1a (‫יהוה בוקק הארץ‏‬, “the LORD makes the earth empty”); i.e., both expressions collocate ‫ ארץ‏‬with √‫בקק‏‬. For other examples of synonymous substitutions in 1QIsaa, see Burrows.647 24:2 ‫נׁשא‏‬ ֶ ‫ּנׁשה ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ ַּכ‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ כנושה כאשר נש ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ [ כנושה כאשר נש ‏‬4QIsac • 24:4 ‫ ֻא ְמ ׇלל ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ אמל ‏ל‬1QIsaa 4QIsac • ‫אמל‏√(— ֻא ְמ ׇלל ‏ּו‬, “to dry out,” HALOT, 63). The subject of ‫ ֻא ְמ ׇללו‏‬/‫ אמלל‏‬is ei‑ ther ‫ ְמֹרום‏‬or ‫ם‬ ‫ ַע ‏‬. ‫ם‬ ‫ ַע ‏‬may take a pl. verb (‫ ֻא ְמ ׇללּו‏‬MT; cf. 9:1, 8) or a sg. (‫אמלל‏‬ 1QIsaa, 4QIsac), but ‫ם‬ ‫ ְמֹרו ‏‬requires a sg. verb. If ‫ם‬ ‫ מרו ‏‬is the subject, then 1QIsaa and 4QIsac have a suitable reading, as per the statements of Wildberger and Blenkinsopp.648 Van der Kooij points out that if ‫ם‬ ‫ מרום ע ‏‬has the “sense of peo‑ ple that are in a high position,” then the “plural reading is fitting.”649 24:5 ‫ ֹתורֹת‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ תור ‏‬4QIsac LXX • ‫—ֹתורֹת‏‬A single medieval Hebrew Bible manuscript reads ‫ = תורה‏‬4QIsac (see HUB–Isaiah). Although the sg. ‫( תורה‏‬4QIsac) corresponds with the sg. ‫ חק‏‬and ‫ ברית‏‬in this poetic verse, the pl. ‫( תורות‏‬MT, 1QIsaa) also fits, perhaps

647  Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 27. 648  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 470; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 350. 649  Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 148.

180

Chapter 2

as part of a rhetorical design. Also possible, a scribe of 4QIsac confused the hê and tāw. 24:6 ‫ ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬1 MT 4QIsac LXX Tg Syr Vulg | > 1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ּיֶ ְא ְׁשמ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsac LXX Syr Vulg | ‫ וישמ ‏ו‬1QIsaa Tg • ‫ ׇחר ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ חור ‏ו‬1QIsaa 4QIsac • ‫ ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬2 MT 1QIsaa | ]‫‏ ̇ה[ארץ‬4QIsac • ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‏‬1—1QIsaa, against all other witnesses, lacks ‫אר ‏ץ‬1, perhaps via haplogra‑ phy, ‫‏אלה אכלה ארץ‬. ‫—וַ ּיֶ ְא ְׁשמ ‏ּו‬1QIsaa’s ‫ וישמו‏‬may be derived from √‫“( ׁשמם‏‬to be desolate”),650 which corresponds with Tg’s ‫“( וְ ַצ ִדיאּו‏‬to be desolate”). “To be desolate” appro‑ priately corresponds with “a curse consumes the earth” in the passage. But it is more reasonable to consider that 1QIsaa’s ‫ וישמו‏‬is an orthographic deviation of ‫ויאשמ‏ו‬, which is attested in MT. MT (with 4QIsac LXX Syr Vulg) constitutes the primary reading. ‫— ׇחר ‏ּו‬MT’s ‫ ׇחר‏ּו‬may denote “to burn, to be angry” (a well-attested form, via √‫ )חרה‏‬or “diminish in number” (a hapax legomenon, also HALOT’s [351] preferred reading, also via √‫)חרה‏‬. The reading of ‫ חור‏ו‬that belongs to 1QIsaa, 4QIsac (via √‫חור‏‬, “to grow pale”?) is a hapax legomenon (in MT, √‫ חור‏‬is found only in 29:22). Kutscher maintains that the scribe of 1QIsaa did not recognize √‫חרה‏‬, and he utilized √‫ חור‏‬because it was known in both rabbinic Hebrew as well as Aramaic.651 Van der Kooij agrees with Kutscher that MT has a better reading, reasoning that ‫“( ׇחרּו‏‬diminish in number”) works well with the second half of the parallelism, e.g., ‫ונשאר אנוש מזע ‏ר‬.652 Based solely on the resultative configuration of the parallelism, MT has the more suitable reading; note that line 1 states that earth’s inhabitants have dwindled away, which results in the fact that there are “few men left.” 24:7

‫ גׇ ֶפ‏ן‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ גפן יצה ‏ר‬4QIsac • ‫—גׇ ֶפ‏ן‬4QIsac departs from all other witnesses with the plus of ‫“( יצה ‏ר‬oil”).

The scribe may have been impacted by Joel 1:10, which has similar terminol‑ ogy as 24:7 and includes the word ‫יצה ‏ר‬. But Mizrahi rejects the harmoniza‑ tion theory, arguing instead that ‫ש‬ ‫ תירו ‏‬and ‫ יצה ‏ר‬are often collocated together (sometimes with ‫ דגן‏‬and sometimes without)—“seen in this light, the near‑ by appearance of ‫ יצהר‏‬in a context that mentions ‫ תירוש‏‬and vice versa was 650  It is also possible to read ‫ ישמ ‏ו‬here (“they were desolated”), as discussed by Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 471. 651  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 234. 652  Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 148.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

181

expected, nay anticipated.”653 The primary reading is ‫( גׇ ֶפן‏‬minus ‫)יצהר‏‬, accord‑ ing to MT 1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr Vulg. 24:8

‫ ַע ִּליזִ י ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ עלוזי ‏‬4QIsac • ‫— ַע ִּליזִ י ‏‬The deviation here may be a textual variant or orthographic devia‑ ‫ם‬

tion; cf. 23:7 and 32:13.

24:9 ‫ ַיֵמר‏‬MT 4QIsac LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ וימ ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְלׁש ׇֹתי ‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa (‫לשותיה ‏ו | )לשותיו‏‬ 4QIsac • 24:12 ‫ נִ ְׁש ַאר‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXXOL Tg Vulg | ‫ ונשא ‏ר‬4QIsac LXX Syr • ‫ה‬ ‫ּוׁש ִאּיׇ ‏‬ ְ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ושוא ‏‬ 4QIsac • ‫ ׇׁש ַער‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ שער ‏‬4QIsac • ‫ּוׁש ִאּיׇ ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ְ —(‫ ְׁש ִאיׇ ה‏‬, “desolation,” HALOT, 1371, hapax legomenon). MT and 1QIsaa present ‫שאיה‏‬, a f. sg. noun from √‫שאה‏‬. 4QIsac deviates with the f. sg. noun ‫שואה‏‬, via √‫שוא‏‬. It is possible that 4QIsac assimilated its reading from 10:3 or 47:11, both of which attest ‫ה‬ ‫שוא ‏‬. ‫— ׇׁש ַער‏‬4QIsac includes a plus of the third f. sg. pronominal suffix (‫)שערה‏‬, reading “her gate,” with the pronoun hearkening back to “the city.” 24:13 ‫ ְּכנ ֶֹקף‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ כנקו ‏ף‬4QIsac • ‫— ְּכנ ֶֹק ‏ף‬Both MT and 1QIsaa feature a noun with the attached preposition (‫) ְּכנ ֶֹקף‏‬, versus 4QIsac’s inf. const., also with the preposition (‫)כנקוף‏‬. 24:14 ‫ יׇ ר ֹּנּו‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ ורננו‏ | )ירונו‏‬4QIsac | οἱ δὲ καταλειφθέντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εὐφρανθήσονται ἅμα LXX • ‫ ׇצ ֲהלּו‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX(vid) Tg Vulg | ‫ וצהלו‏‬4QIsac Syr • ‫ ִמּיׇ ם‏‬MT 1QIsaa‫‏‬ Tg(vid) Syr Vulg | ‫ מיום‏‬4QIsac | τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς θαλάσσης LXX; cf. θ′ • ‫—יִ ְׂשאּו … יׇ ר ֹּנּו … ׇצ ֲהלּו‏‬MT 1QIsaa set forth two impf. verbs followed by a pf. verb (‫ ;)יִ ְׂשאּו … יׇ ר ֹּנּו … ׇצ ֲהלּו‏‬4QIsac has an impf. followed by two pf. verbs (the second pf. has a plus of the conjunction wāw, e.g., ‫)ישא[ו] … ורננו … וצהלו‏‬. The cause of the two deviations is unknown, although wāw/yôd confusion may ex‑ plain ‫ ירנו‏‬versus ‫ורננ‏ו‬. A single medieval Hebrew Bible manuscript (K) reads ‫( ירננ ‏ו‬HUB–Isaiah). 653  Mizrahi, “Writing as Reading. Aspects of the Interpretive Transmission of Isaiah in Qumran,” 48; see also Mizrahi’s entire argument, 46–50.

182

Chapter 2

‫— ִמּיׇ ‏‬MT and 1QIsaa read “they cry out from the sea”; 4QIsac has “they cry ‫ם‬ out from the day” (‫)מיום‏‬, likely a graphic error. For ‫מים‏‬, LXX misreads this word and reads ‫מי ים‏‬, “the water of the sea” (τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς θαλάσσης). Cf. also 40:12. 24:15 ‫ ׇּב ֻא ִרי ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ בוארים באר ‏‬4QIsac | > LXX • ‫ ַּכ ְּבדּו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | [‫כבוד‬ ̇ ‫ ‏‬4QIsac LXX • ‫ ׇה ֻא ִרים‏(— ׇּב ֻא ִרי ‏‬, “region of light, East,” HALOT, 25). 4QIsac, against MT and ‫ם‬ 1QIsaa, produces the peculiar ‫ם‬ ‫בוארים באר ‏‬, perhaps an error of dittography based on ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇּב ֻא ִרי ‏‬. Or, 4QIsac reads “in the lights, in Aram [proper noun].” For the unusual spelling of ‫בוארים‏‬, see Reymond.654 Mizrahi presents multiple possible explanations for ‫בארים‏‬: (a) ‫ בארים‬is a conjecture (following Lowth) of reading ‫“( באיים‏‬in the coastlands”), which supposes a yôd/rêš interchange; (b) ‫ בארים‏‬is a “mutilated form of ‫ארץ‏‬, since it may serve as a poetic synonym of ‫”איי הים‏‬655 (see line 2 of the parallelistic structure); or (c) ‫ בארים‏‬is associated with “light(s),” an argument based on manifold factors, including Isaianic pas‑ sages that deal with “light(s)” (e.g., 60:1–2).656 Nonewithstanding these conjec‑ tures, it is best to read ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇּב ֻא ִרי ‏‬with MT 1QIsaa, e.g., “Therefore, in the region of light give glory to the LORD.” 24:19 ‫ ר ׇֹעה‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ רֹו ‏ע | ) ̇ר ֯עה‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫אר[ ‏ץ‬ ֯ 1QIsab • ‫—ר ׇֹעה‏‬Both MT and 1QIsaa attest ‫ה‬ ‫רע ‏‬, for which HALOT (1271) writes that ‫ ר ׇֹע ‏‬is a “textual error for ‫( ר ַֹע‏‬1QIsab ‫)רוע‏‬.” Correspondingly, Watts writes that a ‫ה‬ number of textual critics “had already guessed that ‫ ה‏‬was a dittograph for the following letter. ‫ ר ַֹע‏‬is a cognate inf abs.”657 Wildberger, too, supports the read‑ ing of 1QIsab.658 24:20

‫ ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ הארץ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹנוד ׇדה‏‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִה ְת‬MT | ‫ והתנודדא‏‬1QIsaa | ‫והתנוד ̇א[‏‬ ̇ 1QIsab orth? • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַּכ ְּמלּונׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ וכמלונ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ נׇ ְפ ׇל ‏‬MT | ‫ ונפ ‏ל‬1QIsaa •

654  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 54–55. 655  Mizrahi, “Writing as Reading: Aspects of the Interpretive Transmission of Isaiah in Qumran,” 53. 656  For these three views, consult Mizrahi, “Writing as Reading: Aspects of the Interpretive Transmission of Isaiah in Qumran,” 50–58. 657  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 324; so also Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 354; and Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 11. 658  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 493–94.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

183

‫— ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬Blenkinsopp prefers ‫הארץ‏‬, as per the reading of 1QIsaa; thus he trans‑ lates, “The earth reels like a drunkard.”659 For a discussion of the article and ‫אר ‏ץ‬, see 1:2. ‫—וְ נׇ ְפ ׇלה‏‬The verse contains f. verbs—‫ ׇּתנּוע‏‬, ‫ֹנוד ׇדה‏‬ ְ ‫וְ ִה ְת‬, ‫—ת ִֹסיף‏‬as well as f. suf‑ fixes (‫ ׇע ֶל ׇיה‏‬and ‫ּה‬ ‫) ִּפ ְׁש ׇע ‏‬. MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ נׇ ְפ ׇל ‏‬agrees with these f. forms, versus 1QIsaa’s ‫נפ ‏ל‬. Cf. also Amos 5:2: ‫ם‬ ‫א־ֹתוסיף קּו ‏‬ ִ ֹ ‫נׇ ְפ ׇלה ל‬.

24:22 ‫ וְ ֻא ְּספּו ֲא ֵס ׇפה ַא ִּסי ‏ר‬MT Tg Syr | ‫ אספו אספה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫אס[יר‬ ̇ ‫ ‏ואסף אסוף‬4QIsac | καὶ συνάξουσιν LXX • ‫—וְ ֻא ְּספּו ֲא ֵס ׇפה ַא ִּסיר‏‬This expression of MT varies in other ancient biblical texts. Minor divergences exist for ‫וְ ֻא ְּספּו‏‬, for which 1QIsaa has the pl. verb but lacks the conjunction; 4QIsac has the conjunction but attests a sg. verb. The major variant here pertains to ‫וְ ֻא ְּספּו ֲא ֵס ׇפה ַא ִּסי ‏ר‬, for which 1QIsaa reads ‫אספ‏ו‬ ‫אספה‬, thus lacking ‫ ַא ִּסי ‏ר‬. The reading of 4QIsac has all three elements that exist in MT but posts the inf. abs. ‫אסו ‏ף‬,660 rather than the noun ‫ה‬ ‫ ֲא ֵס ׇפ ‏‬of MT. Within the Greek texts, LXX provides an approximate equivalent of ‫ וְ ֻא ְּספ‏ּו‬but lacks a counterpart for ‫ ֲא ֵס ׇפה ַא ִּסי ‏ר‬. Both LXXLuc and LXXO attest ‫ה‬ ‫ אספ ‏‬but also omit ‫אסיר‏‬. Based on the lack of parallelistic correspondence in MT, Seeligmann has suggested that the words ‫ אספה אסי ‏ר‬are secondary and that ‫ אסי ‏ר‬represents a gloss of ‫ואספ‏ו‬, perhaps once reading ‫ואסר‏ו‬.661 Talmon, followed by Oswalt, concurs with Seeligmann’s suggestion but with a small modification, omitting ‫ אסי ‏ר‬but retaining ‫ה‬ ‫אספ ‏‬. The primary reading, then, as per the argument of Talmon et al., is ‫אספו אספה‏‬, following 1QIsaa, LXXLuc, and LXXO.662

Isaiah 25

25:1 ‫ ִׁש ְמָך‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ את שמכ ‏‬4QIsac • ‫ת‬ ‫ ֵעֹצו ‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX (βουλὴν) | ‫ת‬ ‫ אצי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫— ִׁש ְמ ‏ָך‬For deviations dealing with the accusative marker, see the discussion at 2:4. ‫— ֵעֹצו ‏‬The reading ‫ אצית‏‬belonging to 1QIsaa appears to be an error based ‫ת‬ on an ʿayin/ʾālep interchange (owing to homophony?) together with a wāw/ yôd substitution. 659  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 353. 660  See Muraoka’s comments, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 195. 661  Seeligmann, Septuagint Version, 63. 662  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 241; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 440n17. Talmon is also supported by Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 504.

184

Chapter 2

25:2 ‫ זׇ ִרי ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ זדי ‏‬MTmss LXX (cf. LXX vv. 4–5) • ‫—זׇ ִרי ‏‬Based on LXX, Condamin and others663 propose ‫ זדים‏‬in place of ‫זרים‏‬ ‫ם‬ (so also in v. 5). 25:7 ‫ ְּפנֵ י‏‬MT | ‫ פנ ‏ֹו‬1QIsaa • ‫— ְּפנֵ י‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ פנ‏ֹו‬is an error, a case of a wāw/yôd interchange. 25:9 ‫ וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬MT 4QIsac (‫ )[וא]מר‏‬Tg Vulg | ‫ת‬ ‫ ואמר ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐροῦσιν LXX Vulgmss • > MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ נִ ְׂש ְמ ׇח ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ ונשמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫—וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬An impersonal verb is required at this point in the text, and both the third m. sg. verb (‫ ואמר‏‬MT, 4QIsac, “and one will say”) and the second m. sg. verb (‫ ואמרת‏‬1QIsaa, “and you will say”) are acceptable (but ‫ ואמ ‏ר‬is a more common impersonal verbal form). Both formulaic expressions—‫וְ ׇא ַמר ַּבֹּיום‏‬ ‫—וְ ׇא ַמ ְר ׇּת ַּבֹּיום ַההּו ‏‬are featured elsewhere in the Bible (i.e., Deut 31:17; ‫ ַההּוא‬and ‫א‬ Isa 12:1). Compare also MT’s ‫ וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶּתם ַּבֹּיום ַההּוא‏‬in 12:4, where 1QIsaa has the divergent reading of ‫א‬ ‫ואמרתה ביום ההו ‏‬. ‫ֹלהינּו‏‬ ֵ ‫— ֱא‬1QIsaa adds ‫ יהוה‏‬before ‫אלוהינו‏‬, perhaps an assimilation of the Divine Name, which appears later in the verse. See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. ‫—וְ נִ ְׂש ְמ ׇחה‏‬MT has the cohortative ending on this verb as well as the verb immediately preceding it, ‫נׇ גִ ׇילה וְ נִ ְׂש ְמ ׇחה‏‬. 1QIsaa has the cohortative ending only on the first of the two verbs, ‫נגילה ונשמח‏‬. As Wildberger observes regarding the forms in this verse, “The Hebrew used in the Qumran texts no longer shows a sensitivity for modal differences.”664 25:10 ‫ ְּכ ִהּדּוׁש‏‬MT LXX | ‫ש‬ ‫ כחדו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּב ֵמ‏י‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ במ ‏ו‬MTqere • ‫— ְּכ ִהּדּו ‏‬MT’s √‫“( דוׁש‏‬to be trampled down,” HALOT, 218) fittingly succeeds ‫ׁש‬ ‫( וְ נׇ ֹדוׁש‏‬also √‫ )דוׁש‏‬in the verse; 1QIsaa’s ‫ש‬ ‫כחדו ‏‬, derived from √‫“( חדׁש‏‬to renew”), improperly follows ‫ׁש‬ ‫ונדו ‏‬. It is therefore evident that the scroll’s copyist erred by writing ḥêt in place of hê. ‫— ְּב ֵמ‏י‬MTqere’s ‫“( ְּבֹמו‏‬through, in,” HALOT, 137) constitutes a rare preposition found nine times (plus MTqere 25:10) in the Bible, only in Isaiah, Psalms, and Job. MTket and 1QIsaa put forward ‫“( ְּב ֵמ ‏י‬in waters of”); according to Williamson, 663  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 171; Döderlein, Esaias, 106; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 98. 664  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 536.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

185

‫ ְּב ֵמ‏י‬provides “excellent sense in the context, and should be preferred.”665 Also possible, the original reading may have been ‫“( במדמנה‏‬in the dunghill”), with ‫ במ‏י‬or ‫ במ ‏ו‬appearing via a dittography of the mêm.666

25:11 ‫ יְ ׇפ ֵר ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫יפרוש‬ ‫ׂש‬ ‫̇‏‬ 4QIsac • ‫—יְ ׇפ ֵר ‏‬Both the qal and piʿel forms of √‫ פרׂש‏‬are utilized in the Bible, with the ‫ׂש‬ meaning of “to spread out.” Qal is more frequent, which may explain 4QIsac’s ‫יפרוש‏‬ ̇ . 25:12 ‫ ֵה ַׁשח‏‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ השח ‏ה‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִהּגִ ַיע‏‬MT 4QIsac (‫ יגי ‏ע | )הגי֯ ֯ע‏‬1QIsaa • ‫— ֵה ַׁש ‏‬MT and 4QIsac render the correct reading of ‫( הׁשח‏‬hipʿil pf. third m. ‫ח‬ sg.), via √‫ׁשחח‏‬. Two possibilities may explain 1QIsaa’s ‫השח ‏ה‬: (a) The scribe inad‑ vertently created a dittography, i.e., ‫השחה השפי ‏ל‬. This possibility is highly im‑ probable given the fact that the superscripted hê is secondary. (b) More likely, the scribe confused √‫ ׁשחח‏‬with √‫ ׁשחה‏‬and thus wrote ‫)ׁשחה‏√( השחה‏‬. Cf. also the variant of ‫ח‬ ‫( הׁש ‏‬MT, 1QIsab, 4QIsab, 4QIsac) versus ‫ת‬ ‫( הש ‏‬1QIsaa) in 26:5. ‫— ִהּגִ ַיע‏‬In v. 12, MT and 4QIsac feature three pf. verbs, ‫ ֵה ַׁשח‏‬, ‫ ִה ְׁש ִּפיל‏‬, and ‫ ִהּגִ ַיע‏‬. 1QIsaa has two pf. verbs (‫ ֵה ַׁשח‏‬and ‫) ִה ְׁש ִּפי ‏ל‬, plus (inexplicably and in error) the impf. ‫יגיע‏‬. Watts explains that “MT apparently notes the completion of Moab’s degradation, where DSSIsa expects part of it to still be fulfilled.”667

Isaiah 26

26:1 ‫יּוׁשר‏‬ ַ MT 1QIsab (‫ )י]ו֯ ̇ש ֯ר‏‬4QIsac | ‫ ישיר‏‬1QIsaa | ᾄσονται LXX • ‫יר־הּזֶ ה‏‬ ַ ‫ ַה ִּׁש‬MT 4QIsac (‫ת | )השיר ֯ה[זה‏‬ ‫ השיר הזוא ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ת‬ ‫ השירה הזא ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ׇע ‏ז‬MT | ‫ עו ‏ז‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ֹחוֹמו ‏‬ ‫ חומותיה וחיל ‏‬4QIsac • ‫ וׇ ֵחל‬MT 1QIsaa LXX(sg) Syr(sg) Vulg(sg) | ‫ה‬ ‫יּוׁש ‏ר‬ ַ —MT, 1QIsab, and 4QIsac present a hopʿal impf. in the superscription to the song about a “Strong City” and the “Lofty City” (26:1–6). The superscription (v. 1a) reads, “In that day this song will be sung (‫יּוׁשר‏‬ ַ ) in the land of Judah.” Then follows the song, set forth in vv. 1b–6. Instead of a hopʿal imperfect, 1QIsaa at‑ tests the qal impf. ‫ישיר‏‬. This is another case of the interchange of verbal forms to indicate the impersonal subject: third-person impf. sg. in the passive (MT) 665  Williamson, “Sound, Sense and Language in Isaiah 24–27,” 7. 666  See Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 433–34. 667  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 334.

186

Chapter 2

> third-person impf. sg. in the active (1QIsaa). This follows the scroll’s tendency to employ active in place of passive forms. Or, another possibility: the copyist may have reproduced this qal verb based on the qal impf. (also a II-yôd verb) that is located in v. 1b, i.e., ‫ישית‏‬. It is difficult to know whether this was a con‑ scious decision of the copyist or simply a reflexive action. The reading of MT, 1QIsab, and 4QIsac better fits the context and the syntactical construction of the passage. ‫יר־הּזֶ ה‏‬ ַ ‫— ַה ִּׁש‬In the Bible, the m. sg. ‫( ִׁשיר‏‬seventy-five times including the pl. ‫ם‬ ‫ ) ִׁש ִרי ‏‬occurs far more than the f. sg. ‫ה‬ ‫( ִּׁש ׇיר ‏‬twelve times including the pl. ‫ ;) ִׁשיֹרו ‏‬however, the attached demonstrative changes the numbers in a sub‑ ‫ת‬ stantial manner: ‫יר־הּזֶ ה‏‬ ַ ‫ ַה ִּׁש‬is a hapax legomenon (occurring only here in 26:1), and ‫ה־הּזֹאת‏‬ ַ ‫ ַה ִּׁש ׇיר‬is attested ten times. In the passage under discussion, MT and 4QIsac read ‫“( הׁשיר הזה‏‬this song”); 1QIsab has ‫“( השירה הזאת‏‬this song”); and 1QIsaa (the form of the demonstrative is open to question) attests the awkward ‫השיר הזואת‏‬, evidently a conflation of the readings of MT and 1QIsab. According to van der Kooij, MT’s reading is the “more difficult one and hence the prefer‑ able one.”668 ‫— ׇע ‏ז‬The deviation here may signify an orthographic variant, but cf. Wildberger, who differentiates between ‫( ׇע ‏ז‬strong) and ‫( עוז‏‬strength), and then writes, “Based on the meter, the MT reading is preferable.”669 ‫—ֹחוֹמות וׇ ֵח ‏ל‬For MT and 1QIsaa’s ‫“( חומות וחל‏‬walls and rampart”), 4QIsac reads ‫ה‬ ‫“( חומותיה וחיל ‏‬her walls and her rampart”), with the f. pronominal suffix referring back to city. 26:2

‫ ְׁש ׇע ִרי ‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ שערי ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ יׇב ֹ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ויבא ‏ו‬1QIsab • ‫— ְׁש ׇע ִרים‏‬The antecedent of the pronominal suffix of ‫( שעריך‏‬1QIsaa) is not

easy to identify. If the suffix is f., then “your gates” hearkens back to city; but if the suffix is m., then your refers to God. ‫( ְׁש ׇע ִרים‏‬MT, 1QIsab) is the better reading. ‫—וְ יׇב ֹ ‏‬Two theories exist regarding 1QIsab’s ‫ויבאו‏‬: (a) The second wāw of ‫א‬ 1QIsab’s ‫ ויבאו‏‬does not mark the pl.; rather, the wāw serves to mark the /o/ vowel. As Reymond points out, in a few settings, it does not matter whether or not the wāw precedes ‫ ‑וא‏‬or follows ‫ ‑או‏‬the ālep.670 In other settings, however, it does matter where the wāw is written. (b) ‫ ויבאו‏‬is an example of collective

668  Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 144. 669  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 542. 670  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 52–53.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

187

concord. “The use of plural forms with collective nouns is a salient feature of other Dead Sea Scrolls, Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew.”671 26:3–4 ‫טּוח׃ ִּב ְטחּו‏‬ ַ ‫ ִּכי ְבָך ׇּב‬MT 1QIsab (‫ )[כי בך בטוח‏‬4QIsac (‫בכה[בט]ֹוח בטחו‏‬ ֯ ]) | ‫ה‬ ‫כי בכ ‏‬ ‫ בטחו‬1QIsaa • ‫טּוח׃ ִּב ְטח ‏ּו‬ ַ ‫— ִּכי ְבָך ׇּב‬Although 1QIsab and 4QIsac are fragmented, they evi‑ dently support MT. 1QIsaa clearly lacks ‫ ;בטוח‏‬perhaps the scribe read ‫ בטחו‏‬but not ‫בטוח‏‬, a haplography. 26:4 ‫ יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ א[דנ‏י‬4QIsab | ὁ θεὸς LXX • 26:5

‫ ֵה ַׁש ‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsab 4QIsac Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ת‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ הש ‏‬1QIsaa | ταπεινώσας κατήγαγες LXX • ‫ יַ ְׁש ִּפ ׇילּה‏‬MT | > 1QIsaa LXX Syr • ‫ ַעד … ַעד‏‬MT 4QIsac (‫עדי … עדי‏ | )[עד] … עד‏‬

1QIsaa • ‫— ֵה ַׁש ‏‬Four Hebrew witnesses—MT, 1QIsab, 4QIsab, and 4QIsac—read ‫ח‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ֵה ַׁש ‏‬ (via √‫)ׁשחח‏‬. 1QIsaa errs with ‫ת‬ ‫( הש ‏‬via √‫)ׁשית‏‬, when a scribe misread the ḥêt and wrote a tāw. LXX has a double translation. ‫—יַ ְׁש ִּפ ׇילּה‏‬MT’s ‫ּה‬ ‫“ ׁשפל‏√( יַ ְׁש ִּפ ֶילּנׇ ה יַ ְׁש ִּפ ׇיל ‏‬to bring low, overthrow,” HALOT, 1631) may indicate a rhetorical scheme that emphasizes the debasement of the lofty city; or MT’s reading may reflect a dittography, as Gray claims.672 1QIsaa’s sg. reading ‫ה‬ ‫ ישפילנ ‏‬may designate a haplography, as various scholars have noted,673 or even a genuine variant reading.674 The medieval HB manuscripts present both terms (‫)ישפילנה ישפילה‏‬, although 150 (pm) and K (HUB–Isaiah) read ‫ ישפילנה‏‬in place of ‫ישפילה‏‬, thus presenting an exact duplication—‫ישפילנה‏‬ ‫ישפילנה‬. In my judgment, MT has the preferred reading, setting forth the fol‑ lowing translation: “For he has humbled those who dwell on high, the lofty city, he lays it low, he lays it low, to the ground he casts it to the dust.” ‫— ַעד … ַע ‏ד‬For this preposition that is attested in MT and 4QIsac, 1QIsaa ap‑ parently has the older form, ‫עד ‏י‬.675 The translational value is the same for both

671  So explained Fassberg, “Syntax of the Biblical Documents,” 101, after citing ‫ ויבא‏ו‬in this verse as an example. 672  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 440. Or consider Talmon, “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” 177, who regards MT’s ‫ ישפילה‏‬to be a pleonasm. 673  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 469n7; Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 542–43, too, prefers MT’s reading. 674  See Talmon, “Synonymous Readings,” 338n10. 675  Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 215.

188

Chapter 2

‫ ַע ‏ד‬and ‫עד ‏י‬, although suffixed forms (‫ ׇע ֶדיָך‏‬, ‫יה‏‬ ‫ ׇע ֶד ׇ‬, ‫יכם‏‬ ֶ ‫וְ ׇע ֵד‬, etc.) of the preposition were built upon ‫עדי‏‬. For the reading ‫ עדי אר ‏ץ‬in 1QIsaa 26:5, compare Ps 147:6 (‫י־א ֶרץ‏‬ ‫) ֲע ֵד ׇ‬.

26:6 ‫ ׇרגֶ ל ַרגְ ֵלי‏‬MT | ‫ רגל ‏י‬1QIsaa LXX (πόδες) • ‫ ׇענִ ‏י‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ עניי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (πραέων) • ‫— ׇרגֶ ל ַרגְ ֵל ‏י‬Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, several scholars676 put forward arguments against MT’s ‫ ׇרגֶ ל ַרגְ ֵלי‏‬, claiming that one of the readings of ‫ רגל‏‬is a dittography, a gloss, or a conflation. Contrast the single attestation of ‫ רגל‏‬in 1QIsaa (‫ )רגלי‏‬and LXXc (πόδες); and one medieval HB manuscript (K) attests a single occurrence of ‫( רגל‏‬HUB–Isaiah), as do a couple of nonbibli‑ cal medieval rabbinic manuscripts (HUB–Isaiah, apparatus 2). Which reading is correct? Gray proposes that MT or its Vorlage experienced a dittography, although he points out that the omission of one ‫“ רגל‏‬would leave the rhythm irregular.”677 However, if one reads MT’s ‫ ׇרגֶ ל ַרגְ ֵלי‏‬as a compound subject, i.e., “The foot, even the feet of the poor, tramples it,” then the passage retains a rhe‑ torical quality. For similar reasons, Wildberger retains MT’s reading: “‫( רגל‏‬foot) conforms perfectly to the style of restating in order to make something more precise.”678 With this in mind, MT’s ‫ ׇרגֶ ל ַרגְ ֵל‏י‬is primary, and 1QIsaa’s attestation of ‫ רגל ‏י‬points toward a haplography. ‫— ׇענִ י‏‬In the context of this passage, either MT’s sg. ‫( ׇענִ ‏י‬e.g., “the [two] feet of a poor person”) or 1QIsaa’s pl. ‫ם‬ ‫( עניי ‏‬e.g., “the feet of [many] poor persons”) works well. Based on the pl. ‫ם‬ ‫ ַד ִּלי ‏‬, Gray prefers ‫ם‬ ‫עניי ‏‬, a suggestion made decades before the discovery of the scrolls.679 26:7 ‫יׁש ִרים‏‬ ‫ ֵמ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ‏מישי ֹ̇ר[ים‬4QIsac orth or var? • ‫ יׇ ׇׁשר‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫יש]ר‏ו‬ ̇ 4QIsac • ‫ ַצ ִּדיק‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ צד ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsac | τῶν εὐσεβῶν LXX Tg Syr • ‫ ְּת ַפ ֵּלס‏‬MT LXX (παρεσκευασμένη) | ‫ט‬ ‫ תפל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫—יׇ ׇׁש ‏ר‬MT and 1QIsaa both have the adjective ‫יׁשר‏‬, versus 4QIsac’s qal pf. pl. (‫יש]רו‏‬ ̇ ). ‫— ַצ ִּדי ‏‬MT has the two adjectives ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ ַל ַּצ ִּדיק … ַצ ִּדי ‏‬versus the adjective/noun combination ‫ לצדיק … צדק‏‬of 1QIsaa and 4QIsac. The reason for the deviation is undetermined, although the Qumran scrolls may have written ‫ מעגל צדק‏‬based on ‫ ְב ַמ ְעּגְ ֵלי ֶצ ֶדק‏‬in Ps 23:3. 676  See Marti, Buch Jesaja, 192; Box, Book of Isaiah, 119; Procksch, Jesaia I, 322; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 184; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 1:281. 677  As suggested by Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 440. 678  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 544. 679  Ibid., 440.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

189

‫— ְּת ַפ ֵּל ‏‬Here √‫( פלס‏‬MT) is collocated with ‫“( ַמ ְעּגַ ל‏‬firm path,” HALOT, 609; ‫ס‬ see also Prov 4:26); in Ps 78:50, √‫ פלס‏‬is also collocated with ‫“( נׇ ִתיב‏‬path”), a syn‑ onym of ‫ ַמ ְעּגַ ‏ל‬. MT’s reading is preferred over 1QIsaa’s awkward ‫ט‬ ‫תפל ‏‬, which is probably an error caused by the graphically comparable ṭêt and sāmek. 26:8

‫ ִקּוִ ינּו ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ קוינו‏‬1QIsaa LXX Tg Syr • ‫ּולזִ ְכ ְרָך‏‬ ְ MT 4QIsac LXX | ‫ ולתורתך‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ַּת ֲאוַ ת‏‬ MT 4QIsab | ‫ תאית‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ נׇ ֶפ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ֹנפֹש ‏י‬4QIsab • ‫— ִקּוִ ינּוָך‏‬For this textual deviation, MT has the second m. sg. suffix (‫) ִקּוִ ינּוָך‏‬, while 1QIsaa (‫ )קוינו‏‬lacks it. The multiple attestation of this suffix (‫ )‑ך‏‬in this

verse (four times in MT; three times in the scroll) can account for the devia‑ tion, i.e., haplography in the scroll or dittography in MT. But note that Lowth followed by Gray and other critics already (before the Qumran discoveries) propose reading ‫( קוינו‏‬1QIsaa);680 however, after weighing both options (MT versus 1QIsaa), it is my judgment that MT is primary. Note also that Wildberger prefers to remain with MT.681 ‫ּולזִ ְכ ְר ‏ָך‬ ְ —The variant here pertains to ‫( זֵ ֶכר‏‬MT, 4QIsac) versus ‫( תורה‏‬1QIsaa). In the Bible, ‫ ֵׁשם‏‬is paired with both ‫( זֵ ֶכר‏‬see Exod 3:15; Ps 135:13; Job 18:17; Prov 10:7) and ‫ֹּתורה‏‬ ‫( ׇ‬see Ps 119:55). So did the scribe of 1QIsaa draw his reading of ‫ תורה‏‬from Ps 119:55? Probably not; it is more likely that the scribe paired ‫ה‬ ‫תור ‏‬ with ‫ט‬ ‫ט ;משפ ‏‬ ‫ משפ ‏‬appears at the beginning of the verse. ‫ט‬ ‫ משפ ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ תור ‏‬are collocated some four dozen times in the Bible, including twice in Isaiah (42:4; 51:4). Therefore, 1QIsaa’s reading (in contrast with the text of MT 4QIsac LXX) is secondary. Compare also Chamberlain’s conclusion, that the Qumran sect altered Isaiah’s text for its own purposes.682 ‫( ַּת ֲאוׇ ה‏— ַּת ֲאוַ ‏‬MT, 4QIsab) in the const. form is common in the Bible; ‫תאית‏‬ ‫ת‬ (1QIsaa) is unknown in the HB and likely reflects a copyist’s blunder. ‫—נׇ ֶפ ‏‬4QIsab’s ‫( ֹנפֹש‏י‬versus ‫ש‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ נפ ‏‬of MT and 1QIsaa) is owing to the attesta‑ tion of the identical word ‫ נפש ‏י‬that precedes it, thus ‫נפשי נפש ‏י‬. 26:10 ‫ יֻ ַחן‏‬MT | ‫ יחון‏‬1QIsaa | πέπαυται γὰρ LXX • ‫ יְ ַעּוֵ ל‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫ יעיל‏ | )יעו[ל‏‬1QIsaa | οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ LXX • ‫—יֻ ַח‏ן‬MT’s ‫ יֻ ַחן‏‬translates “to be shewn compassion” (HALOT, 335). 1QIsaa presents the active verb ‫“( יחו‏ן‬to favor someone,” HALOT, 334). This reading presents yet another case where the scroll has employed an active form in 680  See ibid., 443; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 367; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 474n3. 681  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 552; so, too, Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:182–83 supports MT. 682  Chamberlain, “Functions of God as Messianic Titles,” 369.

190

Chapter 2

place of the passive to indicate the impersonal subject. The LXX translator (πέπαυται) evidently read ‫( ינח‏‬hopʿal), a metathesis of ḥêt and nûn.683 ‫—יְ ַעּוֵ ל‏‬The verb √‫“( עול‏‬to act unjustly,” HALOT, 797) occurs twice in the Bible, here and again in Ps 71:4. Both occurrences have been vocalized as piʿel verbs, but 1QIsaa wrongly attests a hipʿil (‫)יעיל‏‬. This may be because the scroll’s scribe did not know this verb, or the difference may be owing to a wāw/yôd diver‑ gence. For another possible explanation regarding √‫ עיל‏‬versus √‫עול‏‬, see the discussion under 33:7. 26:11 ‫ ׇר ׇמ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ רומ ‏‬4QIsab • ‫ יֶ ֱחז‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ויחז‏ו‬1QIsaa | γνόντες δὲ LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇע ‏‬MT | ‫ הע ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫— ׇר ׇמה‏‬Qimron refers to the interchange of qal forms, such as we have here—‫( ׇר ׇמה‏‬MT 1QIsaa) and ‫ה‬ ‫( רומ ‏‬4QIsab)—that occurs in QH.684 26:12 ‫ ִּת ְׁש ֹּפ ‏‬MT LXX θ′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ט‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ תשפו ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsab (‫• )תשפט‏‬ ‫— ִּת ְׁש ֹּפ ‏‬The difference between ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫( ִּת ְׁש ֹּפ ‏‬MT) and ‫ט‬ ‫( תשפו ‏‬1QIsaa, 4QIsab) may be due to homophony (i.e., an error connected with hearing); for other pos‑ sible examples of “apparent mistakes of hearing,” see Burrows.685 Both verbs may be acceptable in the context, but MT has the support of the versions; additionally, MT has the rarer verb, an indication that perhaps the Qumran Isaiah texts simplified the text with a more common form.686 Note also that in Zech 8:16 √‫ ׁשפט‏‬is collocated with ‫ׁשלום‏‬, which noun in the present verse fol‑ lows the verbs under discussion. 26:13 ‫ ְּב ׇעלּונּו‏‬MT 1QIsaa Tg Syr(vid) Vulg | ‫ בעלנו‏‬4QIsab | κτῆσαι ἡμᾶς LXX • ‫ נַ זְ ִּכיר‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ נזכור‏‬1QIsaa • 26:14 ‫ וַ ְּת ַא ֵּבד‏‬MT | ‫ ותאס ‏ר‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἦρας LXX • ‫—וַ ְּת ַא ֵּבד‏‬The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )ותאסר‏‬is incomprehensible: “and you im‑ prisoned (or ‘bound’)” (unless 1QIsaa has a Mishnaic Hebrew sense, “and you did forbid”). 1QIsaa’s error may have originated via the confusion of sāmek and 683  Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 42. 684  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 189. 685  Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 25. 686  A suggestion made by van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 148.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

191

bêt, as per the suggestion of Burrows.687 Not only is MT’s verb (‫ )וַ ְּת ַא ֵּבד‏‬compre‑ hensible (√‫)אבד‏‬, but √‫ אבד‏‬and ‫ זֵ ֶכ ‏ר‬are also collocated in Ps 9:7 (‫) ׇא ַבד זִ ְכ ׇרם ֵה ׇּמה‏‬ and Job 18:17 (‫י־א ֶרץ‏‬ ‫ֹרו־א ַבד ִמּנִ ׇ‬ ‫)זִ ְכ ׇ‬. MT has the primary reading. 26:16 ‫ ַל ַחׁש‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ לחש ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫מּוס ְר ‏ך‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ מוסרי ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫— ַל ַחׁש‏‬MT 4QIsab set forth a noun (‫ ;)לחש‏‬with its reading of ‫לחש‏ו‬, 1QIsaa reads either a pl. verb or a noun with a third m. sg. suffix.688 1QIsaa’s reading may be a harmonization with the verb ‫פקדו ‏ך‬, located three words earlier. ‫מּוס ְר ‏ָך‬ ‫— ׇ‬1QIsaa’s pl. noun ‫ מוסרי ‏ך‬is highly irregular because ‫ מוס ‏ר‬is recur‑ rently attested in the sg. 26:18 ‫ יְ ׁשּועֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ ישועת ‏ך‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ יִ ְּפל ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ יפול ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫—יְ ׁשּועֹת‏‬In reading ‫“( ישועת ‏ך‬your salvation”), 1QIsaa apparently has attempt‑ ed to link ‫ יׁשועה‏‬to ‫יהוה‏‬, which is located six words previously, thus reading “O Lord … your deliverance” (see also LXX). 26:19 ‫ יְ קּומּו‏ן‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫‏יקון‬4QIsab • ‫ ׇה ִקיצּו וְ ַרּנְ נ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ יקיצו וירננ ‏ו‬1QIsaa | ‫‏יקיצו֯ [וירננו‬ ̇ 4QIsab • ‫—יְ קּומּו‏ן‬With regard to 4QIsab’s ‫יקו‏ן‬,689 Eshel and Eshel propose that “it can perhaps be explained as a mistake due to homoioteleuton, skipping from the first waw to the second.”690 ‫— ׇה ִקיצּו וְ ַרּנְ נ ‏ּו‬The first bicolon of this verse in MT contains two impf. pl. verbs (‫ יִ ְחיּו‏‬and ‫)יְ קּומּו‏ן‬, which are followed by two pl. imperatives (‫ ׇה ִקיצּו‏‬and ‫)וְ ַרּנְ נ‏ּו‬. Thus Isaiah (as set forth in MT) created a double declarative—“Your dead will live (‫)יִ ְחיּו‏‬, my bodies will arise (‫—”)יְ קּומּון‏‬followed by the exclamation, “Awake (‫ ) ׇה ִקיצּו‏‬and sing (‫ )וְ ַרּנְ נּו‏‬for joy, O you who dwell in the dust!” 1QIsaa, too, pres‑ ents the two impf. pl. verbs but deviates from the two pl. imperatives, replacing them with two imperfects (‫ יקיצו‏‬and ‫)וירננו‏‬. Evidently, the scribe assimilated

687  Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 25. 688  See also Talmon, “DSIa as a Witness to Ancient Exegesis,” 71; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 483, 484n42. 689  For a discussion of newly identified fragments of 4QIsab, see Eshel and Eshel, “New Fragments from Qumran,” 134–35, 137–42. 690  Eshel and Eshel, “New Fragments from Qumran,” 141.

192

Chapter 2

the impf. forms of the first bicolon into the second bicolon.691 The critics are divided as to whether to support MT’s reading or that of 1QIsaa.692 26:20 ‫ ְּד ׇל ֶתי ‏ָך‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ דלת ‏ך‬MTqere • ‫ ֲח ִב‏י‬MT | ‫ חב‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ֲע ׇבו ‏ר‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ יעבר‏‬MTqere • ‫— ְּד ׇל ֶתי ‏ָך‬Watts prefers the pl. “your doors” (MTket 1QIsaa) versus the sg. “your door” (MTqere);693 “your doors” is compatible with the pl. “your rooms” (‫)בחדריך‏‬. MTmss attest both ‫ דלת ‏ך‬and ‫( דלתי ‏ך‬HUB–Isaiah). ‫— ֲח ִב‏י‬MT sets forth ‫ ֲח ִב‏י‬, a qal impv. f. sg. from √‫“( חבה‏‬to hide oneself,” HALOT, 285). Ibn Ezra writes that this impv. is f. because ‫ם‬ ‫ע ‏‬, the grammatical subject, is occasionally f. 1QIsaa presents ‫חבו‏‬, a qal impv. m. pf., also from √‫חבה‏‬. ‫ עם‏‬sometimes takes pl. verbs, which may explain ‫חב ‏ו‬. 26:21 ‫ ִהּנֵ ה‏‬MT LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫— ִהּנֵ ‏‬Did 1QIsaa omit ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬through haplography, ‫?הנה יהוה‏‬

Isaiah 27

27:1

‫ ׇּב ִר ַ ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ בור ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫— ׇּב ִר ַח‏‬MT has an adjective (“fugitive,” HALOT, 156) that modifies ‫נׇ ׇחׁש‏‬, thus ‫נׇ ׇחׁש ׇּב ִר ַח‏‬. Job 26:13 (‫ )נׇ ׇחׁש ׇּב ִר ַיח‏‬has the same expression as MT. 1QIsaa attests a qal ptc. (‫)נחש בורח‏‬. 27:2 ‫ ֶח ֶמד‏‬MT | ‫ חום ‏ר‬1QIsaa MTmss (‫ | )חמר‏‬καλός· ἐπιθύμημα LXX • ‫— ֶח ֶמד‏‬An interchange of the graphical set dālet/rêš explains this textual variant, ‫“( ֶח ֶמד‬loveliness, beauty,” HALOT, 325) and ‫“( חוםר‏‬wine,” HALOT, 330). However, both words are used elsewhere in the context of vineyards. Amos 5:11 attests ‫י־ח ֶמ ‏ד‬ ֶ ‫ ַּכ ְר ֵמ‬, and Deut 32:14 sets forth ‫ה־ח ֶמ ‏ר‬ ‫ם־ענׇ ב ִּת ְׁש ֶּת ׇ‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַד‬. LXX presents a doublet with its reading of καλός· ἐπιθύμημα. Before the Qumran discoveries, 691  For this view, see Van der Kooij, “Isaiah 24–27: Text-Critical Notes,” 15. 692  See Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:188; but compare Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 556, who states that MT’s impv. ‫ וְ ַרּנְ נ‏ּו‬is “impossible.” See also Bailey’s examination of 1QIsaa 26:19 versus MT in light of Dan 12:2, Bailey, “Intertextual Relationship of Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26:19,” 305–8. 693  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 339.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

193

Döderlein emended the text to read ‫חמר‏‬.694 But Wildberger prefers MT’s read‑ ing, “[On that day] vineyard of pleasure, sing about it!”695 ‫ ֶח ֶמד‏‬signifies the pre‑ ferred reading. 27:4 ‫ ׇׁש ִמי ‏ר‬MT | ‫ שימיר‏‬1QIsaa | φυλάσσειν LXX • ‫ ַׁשיִ ת‏‬MT | ‫ ושית‏‬1QIsaa MTmss α′ (cf. σ′) Tg Syr Vulg | καλαάμην ἐν ἀγρῴ LXX • ‫ ֲא ִצ ֶיתּנׇ ה ּיׇ ַח ‏ד‬MT | ‫ ואציתנה יחד‏ו‬1QIsaa | LXX τοίνυν διὰ τοῦτο ἐποίησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς πάντα, ὅσα συνεέταξεν κατακέκαυμαι • ‫— ׇׁש ִמי ‏ר‬With regard to 1QIsaa’s ‫שימי ‏ר‬, Kutscher points out that the 1QIsaa copyist made a simple error of dittography,696 i.e., ‫ת‬ ‫שימיר ושי ‏‬. The same or a subsequent scribe caught the error because on the leather of 1QIsaa one can discern cancellation dots above and below the first yôd of ‫שימיר‏‬. In an unre‑ lated situation, LXX apparently misread the Hebrew and translated ‫ ׁשמור‏‬as φυλάσσειν (“to guard”) instead of ‫“( ׇׁש ִמיר‏‬thorn”). ‫— ַׁשיִ ‏‬Regarding the wāw of 1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫“( ושי ‏‬thorns and briers”), Medina ob‑ serves that “most likely syndetic constructions are more regular in post-exilic texts.”697 ‫—יׇ ַחד‏‬This adverbial particle, set forth in MT, is attested in the Bible as ‫יחדו‏‬ and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, both meaning “together.” In the Isaiah Hebrew witnesses, the devia‑ tions are as follows: 27:4 ‫ ּיׇ ַח ‏ד‬MT | ‫ יחדו‏‬1QIsaa; 40:5 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 41:1 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ יחדי‏ו‬1QIsaa; 41:19 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫יחדי ֹ‏ֹו‬ ̇ 1QIsab; 41:20 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬MT | ‫יחדי‏ו‬ 1QIsaa 1QIsab; 41:23 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 42:14 ‫ יׇ ַחד‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 43:9 ‫יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬ MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab; 43:17 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 43:26 ‫ יׇ ַחד‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 44:11 ‫ יׇ ַח ‏ד‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 45:20 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ ואתיו‏‬1QIsaa; 45:21 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 46:2 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 48:13 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 50:8 ‫ ּיׇ ַחד‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa; 52:8 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa 1QIsab; 52:9 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa 1QIsab; 60:13 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab; 66:17 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa. In sum, of the twenty deviations set forth in this paragraph, MT attests ‫( יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬15×) and ‫ּיׇ ַחד‏‬ (5×); 1QIsaa has ‫( יחדו‏‬twice), ‫( יחדי‏ו‬17×), and the peculiar ‫( ואתיו‏‬once); 1QIsab prefers ‫ יחדיו‏‬but once has ‫ ;יחדו‏‬and the single occurrence of the adverb in the fragmented 4QIsab is ‫יחד ‏ו‬. Medina provides two possible reasons for the adverbial substitutions in the Isaiah scroll: “(1) ‫ יח ‏ד‬was replaced by ‫ יחד‏ו‬to create a linguistic differentiation. In Qumran Hebrew, ‫יחדו‏‬/‫ יחדיו‏‬is perceived as a classical term, with one possi‑ ble meaning; therefore, it was only used in biblical compositions. On the other 694  Döderlein, Esaias, 111. 695  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 581. 696  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 385. 697  So stated R. W. Medina, February 18, 2019, personal communication.

194

Chapter 2

hand, ‫ יח ‏ד‬underwent developments and adopted several uses and meanings. Therefore, it became the regular form in non-biblical compositions. (2) The substitution took place because ‫יחדיו‏‬/‫ יחדו‏‬is the most common term, unlike ‫יחד‏‬, to modify pairs of words. In this passage [27:4], the adverb qualifies a pair of verbs that are semantically complementary (‫)אפשעה בה ואציתנה יחדו‏‬.”698 27:6 ‫ יׇ ִציץ‏‬MT | ‫ ויצי ‏ץ‬1QIsaa • ‫ח‬ ‫ ׇּופ ַר ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ ויפר ‏‬1QIsaa • 27:7 ‫ ֲה ֻרגׇ יו‏‬MT | ‫ הורגי ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX Syr • ‫— ֲה ֻרגׇ יו‏‬This is another case of a participial pattern interchange (qatul > qotel), typical of QH and the scroll. According to a number of textual critics699 (plus BHK and BHS), the Qumran scroll (qal active ptc.) is the preferred read‑ ing versus MT’s qal passive ptc., which Gray calls “most improbable.”700 NAB (411) accepts 1QIsaa’s reading. And Williamson, based on his study of sounds (assonance, consonance, and alliteration) in Isaiah’s text, proposes accepting 1QIsaa’s reading on the basis of “the resulting assonance,” ‫ה ֹֻרגׇ יו ה ׇֹרג‏‬.701 27:9

‫ ַח ׇּטאֹת ‏ו‬MT | ‫ חטא ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫— ַח ׇּטאֹת ‏ו‬UF (UF 2:106) transcribes 1QIsaa to read ‫ ;חטאה‏‬PQ transcribe it as ‫חטאו‏‬. The wāw of ‫ חטא‏ו‬is written with a thicker and darker ink than the other

characters of the word, but clearly there remains a character (erasure?) under the wāw, which character has a horizontal stroke, reminiscent of a hê or tāw. In a footnote, PQ ask, “Is the ‫ ‏ו‬the result of correction from ‫ ה‏‬or from ‫ת‬ ‫”? ‏‬ If the scroll reads ‫ה‬ ‫“( חטא ‏‬her sin”), then the reading is grammatically incor‑ rect, because there is no antecedent for “her” in the passage under discussion. If the scroll reads ‫( חטא ‏ו‬qal pf. third common pl.), then the scroll is in error be‑ cause such a verb is clearly out of place in the passage. If the scroll reads ‫חטאו‏‬

698  I extend appreciation to Medina for providing me with his conclusions and translation in the quotation marks; personal correspondence, R. W. Medina, February 18, 2019; see also Medina’s article, “Adverbs ‫ד‬ ‫יח ‏‬, ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬and ‫ד‬ ‫ ביח ‏‬in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” (forthcoming). 699  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 589. Several scholars, including Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 191; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 199; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 99; and Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 17, conjectured that the text should read the active participle. 700  Gray, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 460; for a summary of critics, see Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 347. See also Roberts, First Isaiah, 336, who explains that the scroll’s active participle “agrees with the preceding active participle.” 701  Williamson, “Sound, Sense and Language in Isaiah 24–27,” 9.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

195

(“his sin,” i.e., the m. sg. noun ‫ ֵח ְטא‏‬plus the pronominal suffix), then the scroll’s reading is legitimate, an alternative form to MT’s ‫חטאת‏ו‬.702 27:10

‫ נׇ וֶ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫נהו֯ ֯ ‏‬ ̇ 4QIsaf • 27:12 ‫ ִמ ִּׁשּב ֶֹלת‏‬MT | ‫ משב ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫— ִמ ִּׁשּב ֶֹל ‏‬HALOT (1394), “the derivation of this [substantive ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ] ִׁשּב ֶֹל ‏‬is uncer‑ tain.” The reading of 1QIsaa (‫“ ׁש ֶֹבל‏ ;משבל‏‬skirt”?) makes no sense; a best guess is that the copyist simply failed to write the tāw. Cf. also ‫( ׁש ֶֹב ‏ל‬MT, 1QIsab, and 4QIsad) versus ‫( שולי ‏ך‬1QIsaa) in 47:2. 27:13 ‫ וְ ִה ְׁש ַּת ֲחוּו‏‬MT | ‫ והשתח ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫—וְ ִה ְׁש ַּת ֲחוּו‏‬The scroll omits a wāw (‫)והשתחו‏‬, “a case of haplography.”703

Isaiah 28

28:1 ‫ ּגֵ אּו ‏‬MT | ‫ גאו‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִׁשּכ ֵֹר‏י‬MT | ‫ שכור‏י‬1QIsaa | οἱ μισθωτοὶ LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ּגֵ י ‏‬MT | ‫גא‏י‬ 1QIsaa | τοῦ ὄρους LXX ‫—ּגֵ אּו ‏‬The issue pertains to MT’s ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ עטרת גאו ‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s ‫עטרת גאו‏ן‬. Both ‫( גאו ‏‬8× in HB) and ‫( גאו‏ן‬49× in HB) originate from √‫“( גאה‏‬to be high” and “to ‫ת‬ be arrogant,” HALOT, 168; see also ibid., 169). ‫ עטרת גאות‏‬is also attested in 28:3, where MT = 1QIsaa. ‫— ִׁשּכ ֵֹרי‏‬The LXX likely misread the Hebrew and translated οἱ μισθωτοὶ (= ‫)ׂשכור ‏י‬, cf. 7:20; 28:3. ‫—ּגֵ י ‏‬MT sets forth ‫ם‬ ‫א‬ ‫יא־ׁש ׇמנִ י ‏‬ ְ ֵ‫“( ּג‬rich valley,” HALOT, 188). But Ibn Ezra also observes that some commentators compare ‫א‬ ‫ גי ‏‬with ‫ גא‏‬of 16:6 (“arrogant,” HALOT, 168). This last reading (i.e., ‫א‬ ‫ )ג ‏‬is supported by 1QIsaa’s ‫( גא‏י‬construct pl. of ‫ ;)גא‏‬so too, the context sustains this reading, with ‫ גאי‏‬corresponding to ‫ גאו‏ן‬of v. 1a. See also van der Kooij and Roberts who support 1QIsaa, “proud ones.”704 It is also possible that the scroll’s copyist accidentally transposed the 702  See Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 132. 703  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 348. 704  Van der Kooij, “Review of Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II,” 115; Roberts, First Isaiah, 342.

196

Chapter 2

letters yôd and ʾālep, thus writing ‫גאי‏‬, although it is questionable whether or not a copyist would create this error here and again in v. 4, where the variants of ‫( ּגֵ יא‏‬MT) and ‫( גאי‏‬1QIsaa) also exist. In the end, it is difficult to know whether 1QIsaa’s ‫ גא‏י‬constitutes a genuine variant or is spelled defectively. 28:2 ‫ ׇחזׇ ק‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ בחז ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַלאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ליהו ‏‬1QIsaa | ὁ θυμὸς κυρίου LXX • ‫ח‬ ‫ ִהּנִ י ‏‬MT | ‫ והני ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ח‬ ‫— ַלאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬For the deviations ‫( ַלאד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT) and ‫( ליהוה‏‬1QIsaa), see the discussion of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. 28:4

‫ וְ ׇהיְ ׇת ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ והיית ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ רֹאׁש ּגֵ יא ְׁש ׇמנִ ים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ראש גאי שמני ‏‬1QIsaa | ἄκρου τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ ὑψηλοῦ LXX • ‫ּה‬ ‫ֹעוד ‏‬ ‫ ְּב ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ בעודנ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇהיְ ׇתה‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ והיית ‏‬is an orthographic variant. ‫—רֹאׁש ּגֵ יא ְׁש ׇמנִ י ‏‬For the variants of ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ‫( ּגֵ י ‏‬MT) and ‫( גא‏י‬1QIsaa), see the com‑

mentary at 28:1. ‫ֹעוד ‏‬ ‫ּה‬ ‫— ְּב ׇ‬Both MT (‫ֹעודה‏‬ ‫ ) ְּב ׇ‬and 1QIsaa (‫ בעודנה‏‬with an unetymological letter nûn) are legitimate morphological forms, with both having the same transla‑ tional value. 28:5 ‫ וְ ִל ְצ ִפ ַירת‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ ולצפירו ‏‬1QIsaa 28:6 ‫ ׇׁש ְע ׇרה‏‬MT | ‫ שע ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇׁש ְע ׇרה‏‬Qimron establishes that “in DSS Hebrew, there is no indication of the a [‫ ]‑ה‏‬of direction,” and sometimes this a is lacking in Qumran biblical texts, especially when the clause features a verb of motion.705 For example, ‫( ְמ ִׁש ֵיבי ִמ ְל ׇח ׇמה ׇׁש ְע ׇרה‏‬MT 28:6)‫‏‬versus ‫( משיבי מלחמה שע ‏ר‬1QIsaa 28:6). Other examples exist in 36:2 and 43:14; but contrast 39:6. 28:7

‫ וְ גַ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ג ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ וְ נׇ ִבי ‏‬MT | ‫ ונב‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ נׇ ִבי ‏‬1QIsaa’s deviation of ‫ ונבי‏‬is orthographic, an indication of a “tenden‑ ‫א‬

cy towards phonetic spelling.”706

705  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 403, see also 404–6. 706  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 18.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

197

28:8 ‫ ִקי ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ קי ‏‬1QIsaa 28:10

‫ ַצו ׇל ׇצו ַצו ׇל ׇצ ‏ו‬MT | ‫ צי לצי צי לצ ‏י‬1QIsaa | θλῖψιν ἐπὶ θλῖψιν προσδέχου LXX (via √‫)צר‏‬ ‫— ַצו ׇל ׇצו ַצו ׇל ׇצ ‏ו‬See the discussion in HALOT (1008–09). Before the discov‑

ery of the Qumran texts, critics scrutinized these words and came to a variety of conclusions, of which we cannot deal with here owing to space consider‑ ations.707 In this reading the 1QIsaa scribe misread the wāws for yôds (‫צי לצי צי‏‬ ‫)לצי‬. ‫צ‏י‬, meaning either “ship”, “desert animal”, or “demon” (see HALOT, 1020), makes no sense in the context. Kutscher provides another possible explana‑ tion for 1QIsaa’s ‫צי לצי צי לצי‏‬: “The exegesis ‫ צו‏‬from ‫‘( צואה‏‬command’) has been suggested; does ‫ צי‏‬then = ‫( צאי‏‬Qere ‫ )צי‏‬in Syr.?”708 MT’s reading is correct, per‑ haps basing ‫ צו‏‬on √‫צוה‏‬, i.e., “to command.” LXX apparently misread ‫ צ‏ו‬for ‫צ ‏ר‬ (θλῖψιν ἐπὶ θλῖψιν); LXX also misinterpreted ‫ ַקו ׇל ׇק ‏ו‬and read ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι via √‫“( קוה‏‬hope”). 28:12

‫ ֶל ׇעיֵ ‏ף‬MT | ‫ ליעו ‏ף‬1QIsaa | τῷ πεινῶντι LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ ׇאבּו ‏‬MT | ‫ אב ‏ו‬1QIsaa MTmss LXX • ‫ְׁשֹמו ‏ע‬ MT | ‫ לשמוע‏‬1QIsaa | ἀκούειν LXX ‫— ֶל ׇעיֵ ‏ף‬For the variants of ‫( ֶל ׇעיֵ ‏ף‬MT) and ‫( ליעוף‏‬1QIsaa), see the comments

at 5:27. ‫אבה‏√(— ׇאבּו ‏‬, “to want something,” HALOT, 3). The variant between the two ‫א‬ Hebrew witnesses is likely orthographic; the second ʾālep of MT is a yatir (su‑ perfluous) ʾālep (cf. Josh 10:24 ‫א‬ ‫) ֶה ׇה ְלכּו ‏‬.709 Ibn Ezra (of course, without knowl‑ edge of 1QIsaa) simply explains that ‫א‬ ‫אב ‏ו = אבו ‏‬. ‫— ְׁשֹמוע‏‬For the deviations of ‫( ְׁשֹמוע‏‬MT) and ‫( לשמוע‏‬1QIsaa), Muraoka ex‑ plains, “The BH Qal inf. cst., for instance, was often used in its bare form. But in MH it is invariably joined to a proclitic Lamed.”710 For other instances (both nouns and verbs), where 1QIsaa has a preposition versus MT, see the discussion at 1:12.

707  See, for example, Box, Book of Isaiah, 126; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 198; Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:223; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 179; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 1:245. 708  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 278. See the viewpoints of Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 16–17. 709  See Tov, TCHB3, 154n69, 262n44. 710  Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 194.

198

Chapter 2

28:13 ‫ ׇל ֶה ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ להמ ‏‬1QIsac • ‫ ַצו ׇלצו ַצו ׇל ׇצ‏ו‬MT | ‫ צי לצי צי לצ‏י‬1QIsaa | θλῖψις ἐπὶ θλῖψιν LXX ‫— ַצו ׇלצו ַצו ׇל ׇצ ‏ו‬For the variants of ‫( ַצו ׇלצו ַצו ׇל ׇצו‏‬MT) and ‫( צי לצי צי לצי‏‬1QIsaa), see commentary at 28:10. For LXX’s θλῖψις ἐπὶ θλῖψιν, see also 28:10. 28:14 ‫ ִׁש ְמעּו‏‬MT 4QIsac LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ שמ ‏ע‬1QIsaa ‫— ִׁש ְמעּו‏‬The pl. impv. ‫( ׁשמעו‏‬MT and 4QIsac) should be read because it agrees with the pl. subject (‫) ַאנְ ֵׁשי ׇלֹצון‏‬, “hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers.” The sg. ‫ שמ ‏‬of 1QIsaa is presumably an error. ‫ע‬ 28:15 ‫ ִׁשי ‏‬MTket | ‫ט‬ ‫ט‬ ‫ ׁשו ‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa | καταιγὶς LXX • ‫ ׇע ַב ‏ר‬MTket 1QIsab (‫יַ ֲעבֹ ‏ר | ) ̇ע ̇בר‏‬ MTqere | ‫ יבו ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַמ ְח ֵסנ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ מחסנ‏י‬1QIsaa | τὴν ἐλπίδα ἡμῶν LXX ‫— ִׁשי ‏‬Note that UF 2:147 read 1QIsaa as ‫ =( שיט‏‬MTket); PQ read it as ‫שוט‏‬ ‫ט‬ (= MTqere). Tigchelaar’s “Review” states that UF have the correct reading. Regardless of the scroll’s reading, ‫“( שוט‏‬outburst, sudden spate of water,” HALOT, 1441) makes better sense in the passage (as per Blenkinsopp and Wildberger).711 ‫—יַ ֲעבֹ ‏ר‬According to Kutscher, “the extreme weakening of the laryngeals and pharyngeals at the end of the Second Temple Period” occasionally caused the nonpronunciation of the guttural letters ʾālep and ʿayin in the language of the day, and this ultimately impacted the Isaiah scroll.712 ‫יבו ‏ר‬, with its loss of the ʿayin, serves as an example. Note that the reading of 1QIsaa (when read as ‫ )י[ע]בו ‏ר‬equals MTqere.713 See also ‫ נספים‏‬in 13:4, and cf. the loss of the ʿayin (v. MT) in 1QIsaa 5:4 and 48:14. 28:16 ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ה‏‬MT | ‫ אדוני יהוה‏‬1QIsaa | κυύριος LXX • ‫ יִ ַּסד‏‬MT | ‫ מיסד‏‬1QIsaa α′ σ′ θ′ (θεμελιῶν) | ‫ יוס ‏ד‬1QIsab | ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια LXX ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ה‏‬For a discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬from a textcritical perspective, see 3:17. ‫ הנני‏—יִ ַּסד‏‬immediately followed by a pf. verb (‫ ִהנְ נִ י יִ ַּסד‏‬MT) signifies a relatively rare construction in the HB (for examples, see Isa 28:16; Jer 44:26; 711  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 392; Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 30. 712  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 57; on the weakening of the gutturals in 1QIsaa and during the Qumran period, see additionally and more recently the discussion in Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 71–77. 713  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 30, states that the “Qere is no doubt correct here.”

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

199

Ezek 25:7); but ‫ הננ‏י‬immediately followed by a ptc. (‫ הנני מיסד‏‬1QIsaa [piʿel ptc.]; ‫ הנני יוס ‏ד‬1QIsab [qal ptc.]) is relatively common. Although MT has the lectio difficilior, some critics favor 1QIsaa714 or 1QIsab715 as the preferred reading. 28:17 ‫ ַמ ְח ֵסה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ממחס ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְׁשטֹפ ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ֹושטפ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫“(— ַמ ְח ֵס ‏‬refuge,” HALOT, 571). For MT’s ‫ ַמ ְח ֵסה‏‬, 1QIsaa presents an extra ‫ה‬ mêm (‫)ממחסה‏‬. This deviation may be no more than a simple dittography of the mêm in 1QIsaa, or it may indicate a haplography in MT. Or, another pos‑ sibility: the extra mêm in the scroll signifies the preposition min, thus reading ‫“( ממחס ‏‬from a refuge”). If this deviation is in fact a vario lectio, then the scroll ‫ה‬ has altered the meaning of the passage with its reading of “And hail will sweep lies from a refuge.” 28:18 > MT 1QIsab | ‫ת‬ ‫א ‏‬1 1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וִ ְהיִ ֶית ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ והייתמ ‏‬1QIsaa For a discussion of the nota accusativi, see 2:4. ‫—וִ ְהיִ ֶיתם‏‬1QIsaa regularly exhibits the longer qeṭaltemah form versus MT’s qeṭaltem form. Examples of the longer form, which belongs to the Qumran scribal practice, include ‫ה‬ ‫ והייתמ ‏‬versus MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫( ְהיִ ֶית ‏‬28:18) and ‫ה‬ ‫ שמעתמ ‏‬versus MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫( ְׁש ַמ ְע ֶּת ‏‬65:12).716 28:19 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ )]ו֯ הי֯ ה‏‬LXX (ἔσται) | > 1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬Versus MT and 1QIsab, 1QIsaa lacks the verb ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬. 28:20 ‫ ֵמ ִה ְׂש ׇּת ֵר ַ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ משתריי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (οὐ δυνάμεθα μάχεσθαι) • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ַה ַּמ ֵּס ׇכ ‏‬MT | ‫ והמסכסכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇצ ׇר ‏‬MT | > 1QIsaa • ‫ס‬ ‫ ְּכ ִה ְת ַּכּנֵ ‏‬MT | ‫ס‬ ‫ בהתכנ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵמ ִה ְׂש ׇּת ֵר ַ ‏‬MT attests ‫ ֵמ ִה ְׂש ׇּת ֵר ַע‏‬, a hitpaʿel inf. const. (“to spread, stretch ‫ע‬ oneself out,” HALOT, 1358) based on √‫ ׂשרע‏‬with the attached preposition ‫ ִמ‏ן‬. 1QIsaa’s ‫ משתריים‏‬presents a challenge. If the root letters are √‫( ׂשרה‏‬signifying a hitpaʿel ptc. m. pl.), then the meaning is either “to strive” or “to rule/to be a prince” (cf. ‫)ׂשרר‏‬. With either meaning, √‫ ׂשרה‏‬is incomprehensible in the con‑ text, although compare the reading of LXX, οὐ δυνάμεθα μάχεσθαι (via √‫)ׂשרה‏‬. More likely, the scribe failed to write the ʿayin, as he had done on other occa‑ sions (for possible examples, see the discussion of ‫[ ויעׂש‏‬5:4], ‫[ נאספים‏‬13:4], ‫ק ‏ר‬ 714  See Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 367. 715  See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 392; and Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 30. 716  Tov, Scribal Practices, 338; see also 339.

200

Chapter 2

‫[ וׁשוע‬22:5], and ‫[ יבו ‏ר‬28:15]). 1QIsaa, then, would read the hitpaʿel ptc. m. pl., ‫( משתר[ע]ים‏‬dropping the extra yôd). MT’s ‫ ֵמ ִה ְׂש ׇּת ֵר ַ ‏ע‬is superior because (a) the preposition ‫ ִמ‏ן‬is necessary to create the comparative; and (b) in this synony‑ mous parallelism the inf. const. ‫ ִה ְׂש ׇּת ֵר ַע‏‬corresponds with ‫ס‬ ‫ ִה ְת ַּכּנֵ ‏‬, also an inf. const. For another possible explanation regarding √‫ שרה‏‬versus √‫שרע‏‬, see the discussion under 33:7. ‫—וְ ַה ַּמ ֵּס ׇכה ׇצ ׇרה‏‬For this reading of MT, 1QIsaa has ‫ה‬ ‫והמסכסכ ‏‬. Kutscher’s sug‑ gestion that the scribe “probably ‘deciphered’ ‫ה‬ ‫ מסכסכ ‏‬instead of ‫ה‬ ‫”מסכה צר ‏‬ is certainly a possibility.717 Another prospect is that the copyist repeated the characters sāmek and kāp, e.g., ‫ה‬ ‫מסכסכ ‏‬, an example of dittography (as sug‑ gested by Burrows).718 ‫— ְּכ ִה ְת ַּכּנֵ ס‏‬The variant is minor, a preposition kāp (MT) versus a bêt (1QIsaa, ‫)בהתכנס‏‬. Either letter is appropriate for creating comparisons, as is the prepo‑ sition ‫ ִמ‏ן‬.719 The difference in reading is owing to the confusion of letters, kāp and bêt, during the transmission process.

28:21 ‫ ְכ ַהר‏‬MT | ‫ בה ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ק‬ ‫ ְּכ ֵע ֶמ ‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ בעמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ְכ ַהר‏‬/‫— ְּכ ֵע ֶמק‏‬The divergences of 1QIsaa (‫בהר‏‬/‫ )בעמק‏‬may have originated as the result of the confusion of the letters bêt and kāp. See also LXX’s ἐν τῇ φάραγγι Γαβαων. Or, alternatively, Pulikottil holds that the scroll’s scribe may have altered the preposition in order to avoid comparing the Lord (via similes) to common geographical features, such as a mountain or a valley, i.e., “For the Lord will rise up as Mount Perazim, he will be angry as the valley of Gibeon.”720 But this claim ignores the fact that multiple MTmss present ‫ בהר‏‬and ‫ק‬ ‫= בעמ ‏‬ 1QIsaa (HUB–Isaiah). MT may be read as follows: “For the Lord will rise up as [he did on] Mount Perazim, he will be angry as [in] the valley of Gibeon.” 28:22

‫ וְ ַע ׇּת ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ואת ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (καὶ ὑμεῖς) • ‫ם‬ ‫ֹמוס ֵר ֶיכ ‏‬ ְ MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ מוסרותיכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ‏‬ MT | ‫ יהוה‏‬1QIsaa MTmss LXX (κυρίου) Syr ‫—וְ ַע ׇּת ‏‬The pronoun ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫( ואת ‏‬1QIsaa, cf. also LXX)721 is a phonetic error or an error that pertains to the graphic similarity of the two words—‫ ועתה‏‬and ‫ואתה‏‬. ‫ וְ ַע ׇּתה‏‬better fits the context. Cf. similar errors in 41:8 and 64:7[8]. 717  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 378. 718  Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 19. 719  See Dahood, Psalms III, 397–98. 720  For this view, see Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 137. 721  See also Fischer’s explanation of LXX’s reading, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 45.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

201

‫ֹמוס ֵר ֶיכ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ְ —To clarify MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ֹמוס ֵר ֶיכ ‏‬ ְ , Ibn Ezra simply explains that ‫מוסריכם‏‬ = ‫מוסרותיכם‏‬. The reading ‫‏מוסר(ו)תיכם‬, which belongs to MTmss (HUB–Isaiah), lends support for Ibn Ezra’s viewpoint. Note that ‫ם‬ ‫ מוסרותיכ ‏‬is attested in 1QIsaa. Inasmuch as both forms are attested in the HB (see also m. pl. in 52:2 and f. pl. in Jer 5:5), it is difficult to determine the primary reading in this verse. ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ‏‬BHS supports 1QIsaa (‫)יהוה‏‬, as does Kaiser, but Wildberger fol‑ ‫ה‬ lows MT (‫) ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ה‏‬.722 See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫אדנ‏י‬ in 3:17. 28:24 ‫ יְ ַפ ַּתח‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ ופת ‏‬1QIsaa | προετοιμάσει LXX 28:25 ‫ּמן‏‬ ֹ ‫ וְ ַכ‬MT | ‫ וכימ‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ק‬ ‫ יִ זְ ר ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ וזר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ּגְ ֻב ׇלֹת ‏ו‬MT | ‫ גבולות ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ּמן‏‬ ֹ ‫—וְ ַכ‬The word ‫ּמ ‏ן‬ ֹ ‫“( ַּכ‬cummin,” HALOT, 481) occurs three times in the Bible, once in the present verse and twice in v. 27. 1QIsaa misspells the word in v. 25 (‫)כימן‏‬, but spells it as ‫ כמ‏ן‬twice in v. 27 (= MT and 4QIsak). Note that LXX’s κύμινον is a loanword from Hebrew.723 ‫—ּגְ ֻב ׇלֹת ‏ו‬The context allows for either the sg. “border” (MT) or pl. “borders” (1QIsaa LXX). A revocalization of MT, of course, can produce a pl. And note that 96 (pm) attests ‫( גבלותיה‏‬HUB–Isaiah). 28:26 ‫ וְ יִ ְּסֹרו‏‬MT | ‫ ויסרה‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹלהי‏ו‬ ‫ ֱא ׇ‬MT | ‫ אלוה‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹיורּנ‏ּו‬ ֶ MT | ‫ ויורנ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ εὐφρανθήσῃ LXX (via √‫)רנן‏‬ ‫—וְ יִ ְּסֹרו‏‬The suffix ‫ ‑הו‏‬is often attested in QH, as it is here in 1QIsaa (‫)ויסרהו‏‬,724 so that the translational value of MT (‫ )וְ יִ ְּסֹרו‏‬equals that of 1QIsaa (‫)ויסרהו‏‬. ‫ֹלהי ‏ו‬ ‫— ֱא ׇ‬See commentary at 8:19. ‫ֹיורּנ ‏ּו‬ ֶ —The LXX translator evidently misread √‫ ירה‏‬and reads √‫( רנן‏‬εὐφρανθήσῃ). 28:27

‫יּוד ‏‬ ‫ׁש‬ ַ MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ יד ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ש‬ ‫ ידו ‏‬4QIsak • ‫יּוּס ‏ב‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ב‬ ‫ יסו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫יּוד ‏‬ ‫ׁש‬ ַ —MT has a hopʿal imperfect (√‫דוׁש‏‬, “to be threshed,” HALOT, 218); 1QIsaa (‫ )ידש‏‬presumably attests a qal imperfect; and 4QIsak (‫ )ידוש‏‬sets forth either a qal impf. or passive ptc. All three—MT, 1QIsaa, and 4QIsak—stem from √‫דוׁש‏‬. 722  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 33. 723  See also Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament, 85, who argues that ‫ כמן‏‬origi‑ nates from the Sumerian GAMUN. 724  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 272.

202

Chapter 2

‫יּוּס ‏‬ ‫ב‬ ‫— ׇ‬The variants here pertain to the hopʿal impf. third m. sg. (or is it qal passive?) via √‫( סבב‏‬MT) versus the qal impf. third m. sg. via the same root (1QIsaa). This is another case of an interchange of verbal forms, passive (MT) > active (1QIsaa) to denote the impersonal subject. MT’s verb signifies the more uncommon reading (see HALOT, 740). 28:28

‫ ֶל ֶח ‏‬MT α′ Tg Syr | [‫‏ולחם‬4QIsak | > 1QIsaa | μετὰ ἄρτου LXX | panis autem Vulg • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇאֹדוׁש‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ הד ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ ֻד ֶּקּנ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ידיקנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶל ֶחם‏‬Against the other witnesses, 1QIsaa lacks the word ‫ם‬ ‫לח ‏‬, which opens

the verse. The passage’s context works better with this word, which should be retained. ‫(— ׇאֹדו ‏‬qal inf. abs., “by-form ‫ׁש‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫? אד ‏‬, ? > rd. ‫ֹּדוׁש‏‬,” HALOT, 218). Based on the context, most scholars maintain that the root letters of ‫( ׇאֹדוׁש‏‬a hapax legomenon) are ‫ׁש‬ ‫“( דו ‏‬to thresh, trample”), although BDB (190) leaves open the pos‑ sibility that the root letters are ‫ׁש‬ ‫אד ‏‬. The prefixed ʾālep does not indicate an impf., but rather, as Ibn Ezra has explained, the ʾālep is prosthetic, similar to ‫ אזרוע‏‬in Jer 32:21. 1QIsaa’s ‫ הדש‏‬may indicate no more than an interchange of the ālep with the hê. ‫—יְ ֻד ֶּקּנּו‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫( ידיקנו‏‬versus MT’s ‫ )יְ ֻד ֶּקּנּו‏‬is an instance of a morphologial phenomenon in the scroll: the interchange of the weak roots ‫דקק‏‬/‫( דוק‏‬both roots meaning “to crush”), which is typical of the Qumran tradition. For the example under discussion and other cases, see Qimron’s grammar.725 28:29 ‫ יׇ ׇצ ׇאה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫י]צא‏‬ ̇ 4QIsak • ‫ ִה ְפ ִליא‏‬MT α′ σ′ Vulg | ‫ הפלה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ הפיל‏‬4QIsak | τὰ τέρατα LXX | το θαυμασιον θ′| • ‫ ִהגְ ִּדיל‏‬MT | ‫ והגדי ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇ ׇצ ׇאה‏‬The f. sg. demonstrative adjective ‫ זאת‏‬refers to the f. sg. verb ‫יצאה‏‬ (MT, 1QIsaa), “this comes forth.” The manuscript of 4QIsak (‫י]צא‏‬ ̇ ) is probably in error, an instance of haplography, ‫‏יצאה הפיל‬. ‫— ִה ְפ ִלי ‏‬For ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫( ִה ְפ ִלי ‏‬MT) versus ‫ה‬ ‫( הפל ‏‬1QIsaa) or ‫( הפי ‏ל‬4QIsak), see the com‑ ments at 29:14.

725  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 355–60.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



203

Isaiah 29

29:1 ‫ ֲא ִר ֵיאל ֲא ִר ֵיאל‏‬MT | ‫ ארואל ארואל‏‬1QIsaa | πόλις Αριηλ LXX • ‫ ְספּו‏‬MT Syr Vulg | ‫ספי‏‬ 1QIsaa 4QIsak (‫ | )סופי ֹ‏‬συναγάγετε (via √‫ )אסף‏‬γενήματα LXX Tg (‫יׁשת‏‬ ַ ֵ‫ ְכנ‬via √‫)אסף‏‬ ‫— ֲא ִר ֵיאל ֲא ִר ֵיאל‏‬See Kutscher’s three theories regarding the variant of ‫ֲא ִר ֵיא ‏ל‬ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫( ֲא ִר‬MT) versus ‫( ארואל ארוא ‏ל‬1QIsaa),726 for which there are no clear solu‑ tions! MTms 96 omits the second attestation of ‫( אריא ‏ל‬HUB–Isaiah). ‫— ְספ ‏ּו‬MT has a qal impv. m. pl. (‫ ְספּו‏‬, via √‫יסף‏‬, “to add,” HALOT, 418), which probably speaks to the city’s inhabitants. 1QIsaa and 4QIsak attest a qal impv. f. sg. (‫ספי‏‬, also via √‫)יסף‏‬, which speaks to the city. The correct reading remains indeterminate. The translators of LXX may have misread √‫ יסף‏‬and read √‫אסף‏‬ (συναγάγετε). 29:2 ‫ ַל ֲא ִר ֵיאל‏‬MT | ‫ לארואל‏‬1QIsaa | Αριηλ LXX • ‫ וְ ׇהיְ ׇתה‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ו]תהיה‏ | )והייתה‏‬ ̇ 4QIsak | > LXX • ‫ ַּכ ֲא ִר ֵיא ‏ל‬MT | ‫ כארוא ‏ל‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫יא ‏ל‬ ֵ ‫יאל … ַּכ ֲא ִר‬ ֵ ‫— ַל ֲא ִר‬See the discussion above, 29:1. ‫—וְ ׇהיְ ׇת ‏‬The copyist of 1QIsaa generally wrote ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ היית ‏‬for both qal pf. second m. sg. and third f. sg. forms, so it is doubtful that ‫ והייתה‏‬reflects a variant; but note 4QIsak’s reading of ‫ה‬ ‫ו]תהי ‏‬ ̇ . 29:3 ‫ ַכּדּור‏‬MT 1QIsaa Syr Tg | ‫כדוד‬ ‫ ֯ ֯‏‬4QIsak MTmss LXX (ὡς Δαυιδ) • ‫ ֻמ ׇּצ ‏ב‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫מ]צ ̇ב ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֯ 1QIsab • ‫ת‬ ‫ ְמ ֻצר ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ מצודו ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ מצֹו ‏ר‬4QIsaf | πύργους LXX ‫— ַכּדּור‏‬Both MT and 1QIsaa have ‫“( כדור‏‬ball,” HALOT, 217), which translators for 29:3 have generally translated idiomatically as “round about” or similar. LXX reads ὡς Δαυιδ, which finds support from 4QIsak’s ‫כדוד‏‬ ֯ ֯ , but note that the second dālet is a questionable reading.727 Note also that Condamin, Cheyne, Marti, HALOT (217), and others, based on LXX, prefer ‫כדו ‏ד‬.728 Two possibilities arise: (a) With the reading ‫כדוד‬ ‫֯‏‬ ‫וחניתי‬, 4QIsak (and so, too, LXX?) was impacted by 29:1, where √‫ חנה‏‬also precedes ‫ ׇדוִ ד‏‬. This, therefore, would be a case of as‑ similation. (b) Or, as Blenkinsopp explains: “MT kaddûr (‘ball?’) is obscure and its adverbial use (‘round about her’) is unattested and improbable; frequent 726  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 97–98; see also Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 180–81. 727  Ulrich, et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4, X, 126, also reads dālet, but tentatively. 728  See Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 186; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 99; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 101.

204

Chapter 2

confusion between rêš and dālet suggests reading kedavid, ‘like David,’ as do LXX and 4QIsak.” Blenkinsopp thus translates the phrase, “I will encamp [like David] against you.”729 ‫ =( ַכּדּו ‏ר‬MT 1QIsaa Syr Tg) is comprehensible in the context and should be retained. Based on Wildberger’s arguments on the matter (but with a minor adjustment), read ‫ ַכּדּו ‏ר‬, “as an encircling.”730 Compare also JPS, NEB, NIV, and RSV (but contrast NRSV, “like David”). ‫— ֻמ ׇּצ ‏‬The Hebrew witnesses attest the adjective ‫“( ֻמ ׇּצ ‏ב‬siege-wall,” HALOT, ‫ב‬ 620) or the noun ‫ה‬ ‫מ]צ ̇ב ‏‬ ֯ (‫ ַמ ׇּצ ׇבה‏‬, “garrison,” HALOT, 620). ‫— ְמ ֻצר ֹ ‏‬MT and 1QIsaa attest readings that are graphically similar and that ‫ת‬ have synonymous meanings: MT has ‫“( ְמ ֻצרֹת‏‬fortified cities,” HALOT, 623), and 1QIsaa sets forth ‫“( מצודות‏‬mountain strongholds,” HALOT, 622). Inasmuch as both words work well in the context, it is not easy to settle on a primary read‑ ing. These two readings may point to a vario lectio, but it is more probable that a scribe of either Hebrew witness (or tradition, i.e., the proto-MT or 1QIsaa) misread his Vorlage and wrote a rêš in place of a dālet, or vice versa. Cf. also the variants ‫ ומצדתה‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ומצרת ‏‬in v. 7. Another possibility, set forth by Kutscher, is that the words ‫ה‬ ‫ מצר ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫“ מצד ‏‬changed places” between vv. 3 and 7.731 And we note here that Döderlein emends MT ‫ מצרת‏‬to read ‫ת‬ ‫מצד ‏‬.732 29:5 ‫ זׇ ׇריִ ְך‏‬MT | ‫ זדי ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫—זׇ ׇריִ ְך‏‬The readings of both MT (‫זׇ ׇריִ ְך‏‬, “your strangers”) and 1QIsaa ‫זֵ ד‏( זדיך‏‬, “insolent, presumptuous,” HALOT, 263) may fit the pericope’s setting, as vari‑ ous scholars have argued.733 Many critics, before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, conjectured that Isaiah’s text read ‫צרי ‏ך‬, ‫זדי ‏ך‬, ‫ם‬ ‫צדי ‏‬, or ‫צדי ‏ך‬.734 We note also that a single MTms (K, HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫ = זדיך‏‬1QIsaa. Given the graphic similarity of ‫ זריך‏‬and ‫זדיך‏‬, it is feasible that a copyist of either Hebrew tradition misread the text and wrote dālet in place of rêš, or vice versa. In my judgment, Oswalt’s argument on behalf of MT is valid; he states that “the emendation is

729  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 399. 730  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 65. 731  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 260. 732  Döderlein, Esaias, 121. 733  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 380; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 399; HALOT, 279; see also the exploration in Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 66. 734  See the discussions in Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 101; Döderlein, Esaias, 121; Snaith, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Isaiah, 29; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 186; and Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 207.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

205

not necessary since zr carries with it the idea of hostility (1:7; 25:2, 5; Ps 54:5 [Eng. 3]).”735 29:7 ‫יא ‏ל‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ִר‬MT LXX | ‫ ארואל‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּומצ ׇֹד ׇתה‏‬ ְ MT | ‫ ומצרתה‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ πάντες οἱ συνηγμένοι ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν LXX • ‫ וְ ַה ְּמ ִצ ִיקים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ והמצוקי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֲא ִר ֵיאל‏‬See the discussion above, 29:1. ‫ּומצ ׇֹד ׇתה‏‬ ְ —MT reads ‫ּומצ ׇֹד ׇתה‏‬ ְ (‫צּודה‏‬ ‫ ְמ ׇ‬, “mountain stronghold,” HALOT, 622), and 1QIsaa has ‫ה‬ ‫צּורה‏( ומצרת ‏‬ ‫ ְמ ׇ‬, “fortress,” HALOT, 623). Both readings fit the framework of the passage—a determination of the primary reading is unat‑ tainable. It is possible that these two readings indicate genuine variants, but inasmuch as they are graphically similar, with the difference being a dālet or rêš, it is more probable that a scribe of either Hebrew witnesses (MT or 1QIsaa) misread his Vorlage. See also the divergences of ‫ מצרת‏‬and ‫ מצודות‏‬in v. 3. LXX’s translator apparently misread the ṣādê for the ʿayin, thus reading ‫ה‬ ‫ומעדת ‏‬.736 29:8 ‫ נַ ְפֹׁשו‏‬MT | ‫ נפשי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ֹׁשוק ׇק ‏‬ ֵ MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שקי ֹק ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—נַ ְפֹׁשו‏‬1QIsaa does not read the pl. (“his souls,” from ‫ ;)נפשיו‏‬rather, based on the evidence regarding phonetic shifts in various Qumran texts, the suffixed ‫‑י ‏ו‬ of 1QIsaa is equivalent to ‫ ‑ֹו‬of MT. For a discussion with other examples of this shift, see 5:25. ‫ֹׁשוק ׇק ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֵ —MT features a qal participle f. sg., versus what may be a qal passive participle f. sg. in 1QIsaa. 29:9

‫ ִה ְׁש ַּת ַע ְׁשע ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ התשתעשעו‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ׇׁש ְכרּו‏‬MT | ‫ שכרון‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ יִ ן‏‬MT | ‫מיין‏‬ 1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ נע ‏ו‬MT | ‫ נעו ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ לֹא ֵׁש ׇכ ‏ר‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ ולשכ ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫— ִה ְׁש ַּת ַע ְׁשעּו‏‬MT’s ‫ ִה ְׁש ַּת ַע ְׁשע‏ּו‬is a hithpalpel, based on √‫( שעע‏‬see BDB, 1044). The scribe of 1QIsaa erred by writing the nonmetathesized ‫התשעשע ‏ו‬, and then

he or a subsequent copyist corrected the manuscript by writing the interlinear tāw (‫ )התשתעשעו‏‬but failed to erase the tav that follows the hê. It is possible that the scroll’s scribe who wrote ‫ התשעשעו‏‬was impacted by Aramaic dialects that set forth non-metathesized forms.737 ‫— ׇׁש ְכר ‏ּו‬1QIsaa’s ‫ שכרון‏‬may be a qal pf. third common pl. (MT) with a para‑ gogic nûn; or the scroll’s reading may be the noun ‫“( ִׁש ׇּכֹרון‏‬drunkenness”; see 735  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 525n4. 736  See the view of Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 46. 737  On nonmetathesized forms, see Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 55–56.

206

Chapter 2

Jer 13:13; Ezek 23:33; 39:19). Drunkenness is plausible in the verse, but MT’s ‫ׇׁש ְכר ‏ּו‬ works better because it corresponds with ‫ נׇ עּו‏‬in the parallelistic structure: “they are drunken (‫) ׇׁש ְכרּו‏‬, but not with wine; they tremble (‫)נׇ עּו‏‬, but not with strong drink.” ‫—יַ יִ ן‏‬MT lacks the preposition ‫ ִמ‏ן‬, 1QIsaa (equal to LXX) has it (‫)מיין‏‬. Van der Vorm-Croughs738 points out a few places where both 1QIsaa and the LXX pro‑ vided prepositions to the text, versus MT that lacks those same prepositions: see 9:14(13); 18:7; 29:9; 31:1; 37:38; 43:23; 45:18; 55:9; 57:15; and 62:5. See also the comments at 1:12. ‫נוע‏√(—נׇ ע ‏ּו‬, “to tremble,” HALOT, 681). For 1QIsaa’s ‫נעו‏ו‬, Qimron explains, “The quiescence of the gutturals sometimes brings about a succession of two vowels, which may produce a glide. This glide is indicated by additional waw or yod or omission of the guttural after waw or yod.”739 ‫—וְ לֹא ֵׁש ׇכר‏‬MT reads “and not intoxicating drink” (= ‫ ;)וְ לֹא ֵׁש ׇכר‏‬1QIsaa has “and to intoxicating drink” (‫)ולשכר‏‬. For other instances (both nouns and verbs), where 1QIsaa has a preposition versus MT, see the discussion at 1:12. 29:11 ‫ וַ ְּת ִהי‏‬MT | ‫ ותהיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַה ֵּס ֶפר‏‬MTket ‫ הספר‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ֵס ֶפר‏‬MTqere 4QpIsac • ‫וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬ MT | ‫ ויואמר‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וַ ְּת ִה‏י‬For a handful of wāw-consecutive impf. III-hê verbs, 1QIsaa has the plene form (‫ )ותהיה‏‬versus MT’s short form (‫)וַ ְּת ִהי‏‬. See 5:2 for other examples. ‫— ַה ֵּס ֶפ ‏ר‬Both BHK and BHS suggest that readers should accept the MTqere, i.e., without the article (‫) ֵס ֶפר‏‬. Note that the 1QIsaa copyist first wrote ‫ספר‏‬, but then the manuscript was corrected to ‫הספר‏‬. ‫—וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬MT has a qal pf. third m. sg. verb versus 1QIsaa’s qal impf. third m. sg. (‫)ויואמר‏‬. For a discussion of deviations of pf. and impf. verbs in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. 29:12 ‫ וְ נִ ַּתן‏‬MT 4QpIsac | ‫ ונתנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT | ‫ א ‏ל‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ יׇ ַד ‏ע‬MT | ‫ יוד ‏ע‬1QIsaa • ‫וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬ MT | ‫ ויואמר‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ נִ ַּת‏ן‬MT, supported by 4QpIsac, has a passive verb (“the book will be deliv‑ ered”), versus 1QIsaa’s impersonal pl. ‫ונתנו‏‬, “they deliver the book.” For a discus‑ sion of impersonal constructions, see also 1:26. ‫—יׇ ַדע‏‬The variants between MT and 1QIsaa pertain to the negative particle ‫ לא‏‬followed by a pf. verb (‫ יׇ ַדע‏‬MT) or ptc. (‫ יודע‏‬1QIsaa). In the Bible, ‫ לא‏‬followed 738  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 489. 739  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 132; see also 133.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

207

by a ptc. exists but only rarely (e.g., Gen 42:34; Exod 8:22; Deut 4:42; Josh 20:5; etc.). In MT Isaiah, ‫ לא‏‬followed by a ptc. exists only in 22:2 (‫ ;)וְ לֹא ֵמ ֵתי‏‬the same reading also exists in 1QIsaa. But the scroll features ‫א‬ ‫ ל ‏‬+ the ptc. three addition‑ al times—8:23 (‫ ;)כילו מעופפ‏‬29:12 (‫ ;)לוא יודע‏‬and 44:12 (‫)לוא שותה‏‬.740 In contrast to the configuration ‫א‬ ‫ ל ‏‬followed by a ptc., ‫א‬ ‫ ל ‏‬plus the pf. occurs regularly in the Bible, more than a thousand times in fact, and well over a hundred times in Isaiah. These rough statistics indicate that the scroll’s usage of the negative particle ‫ לא‏‬plus the ptc. is irregular. ‫—וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬MT has a qal pf. third m. sg. verb versus 1QIsaa’s qal impf. third m. sg. (‫)ויואמר‏‬. For a discussion of deviations of pf. and impf. verbs in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. 29:13 ‫ ִר ַחק‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ רחו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ְּת ִה‏י‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ותהי ‏‬1QIsaa | μάτην δὲ LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ יִ ְר ׇא ׇת ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ירא ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ִמ ְצוַ ת‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ כמצו ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐντάλματα LXX ‫— ִר ַחק‏‬In this verse the verbs ‫ׁש‬ ‫ נִ ּגַ ‏‬and ‫ק‬ ‫ ִר ַח ‏‬serve as antithetical elements; the adjective ‫( רחוק‏‬1QIsaa), however, does not have the same force in the parallel‑ ism “but their heart is far from me.” Although √‫ רחק‏‬is rare in the piʿel form, one cannot easily argue that the scribe did not know this form because he correctly copied the piʿel √‫ רחק‏‬in both 6:12 and 26:15. Perhaps the scribe’s error was inad‑ vertent; he saw ‫ רחק‏‬in his Vorlage but wrote the frequently attested ‫ׇרֹחוק‏( ׇרֹחוק‏‬ occurs about eighty-five times in the Bible). ‫—וַ ְּת ִה‏י‬For a handful of wāw-consecutive impf. III-hê verbs, 1QIsaa has the plene form (‫ )ותהיה‏‬versus MT’s short form (‫)וַ ְּת ִהי‏‬. See 5:2 for other examples. Note also LXX’s μάτην δὲ, where the translator evidently read ‫ ּתֹהּו‏‬instead of ‫ ְּת ִה‏י‬.741 ‫—יִ ְר ׇא ׇתם‏‬This verse has the pronominal suffixes on the words ‫ ְּב ִפיו‏‬, ‫ ִּוב ְׂש ׇפ ׇתי‏ו‬, and ‫וְ ִלֹּב‏ו‬, but then inexplicably has the pl. suffix on ‫ם‬ ‫יִ ְר ׇא ׇת ‏‬. 1QIsaa reads the same but lacks any suffix on the fourth word (‫)יראת‏‬. ‫—יִ ְר ׇא ׇתם … ִמ ְצוַ ת‏‬For MT’s ‫“( וַ ְּת ִהי יִ ְר ׇא ׇתם א ִֹתי ִמ ְצוַ ת ֲאנׇ ִׁשים‏‬and their fear of me has been a commandment of men,”), 1QIsaa reads ‫ותהיה יראת אותי כמצות‏‬ ‫“( אנשים‬and fear of me has been like a commandment [or, commandments] of men”). The plus of a kāp to ‫ מצות‏‬changes the meaning of the phrase and may serve the purpose of “guard[ing] against the interpretation that the fear of God

740  For a discussion together with examples of the phenomenon of ‫א‬ ‫ ל ‏‬+ the ptc., see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 378–79. 741  This is the suggestion of Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 46.

208

Chapter 2

might conceivably be the precept of men.”742 In any case, the kāp is probably secondary. 29:14 ‫ ִהנְ נִ י‏‬MT | ‫ הנה אנוכי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ַה ְפ ִליא‏‬MT | ‫ להפלה‏‬1QIsaa | τοῦ μεταθεῖναι (via √‫)?פלה‏‬ LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ ַה ְפ ֵלא וׇ ֶפ ֶל ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הפלה ופל ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ μεταθήσω αὐτοὺς LXX • ‫ת‬ ‫ ִּובינַ ‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ת‬ ‫ ובינו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִהנְ נִ ‏י‬Both ‫( ִהנְ נִ ‏י‬MT) and ‫( הנה אנוכ‏י‬1QIsaa) are acceptable forms, and both forms are attested in Isaiah, in both witnesses. For ‫הנה אנכי‏‬, see 8:18; 54:11; and 54:16 MTqere. For ‫הננ‏י‬, see 6:8; 13:17; 28:16; etc. ‫— ְל ַה ְפ ִליא … ַה ְפ ֵלא וׇ ֶפ ֶל ‏‬Kutscher refers to the “merging of ‫א‏‬″‫ ל‏‬and ‫י‏‬″‫ ל‏‬roots” ‫א‬ as a “late development,” a development that also exists in MH and in a num‑ ber of the Dead Sea Scrolls.743 Rendsburg argues, “In the spoken dialect, MH, the two verb classes merged.”744 Thus the examples below may be evidence that 1QIsaa knew MH. There exists a number of examples in Isaiah, where MT utilizes an ʾālep versus a hê in 1QIsaa. In Isaiah 29:14, three times 1QIsaa has ‫ )להפלה … הפלה ופלה‏( פלה‏‬in place of MT’s ‫פלא‏‬. Either the scroll is utilizing √‫“( פלה‏‬to be separate”) or the scroll’s copyist is substituting the hê for the ʾālep. Compare 9:5; 25:1, where MT reads ‫ = פלא‏‬1QIsaa; but in 28:29 MT reads ‫ פלא‏‬and the scroll has ‫ה‬ ‫פל ‏‬. See also LXX’s reading, where the translator apparently read ‫“( פל ‏‬to be separate”) rather than root ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫פל ‏‬. Other examples in Isaiah where the scroll utilizes a hê mater in place of MT Isaiah’s III-ʾālep verbs (e.g., √‫קרא‏‬, √‫חטא‏‬, √‫ )מלא‏‬include ‫א‬ ‫ ח ֵֹט ‏‬MT; ‫ חוטה‏‬1QIsaa (1:4), ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT; ‫ יקרה‏‬1QIsaa (54:5), ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵרא‏‬MT 1QIsab; ‫ יקרה‏‬1QIsaa (56:7), and ‫יְ ַמ ֵּלא‏‬ MT; ‫ ימלה‏‬1QIsaa (65:20). Occasionally the reverse is true; 1QIsaa has an ʾālep on III-hê verbs: ‫ וְ נִ ְלוׇ ה‏‬MT; ‫א‬ ‫ ונלו ‏‬1QIsaa (14:1), and ‫ה‬ ‫ ַה ֵּט ‏‬MT; 1QIsaa ‫א‬ ‫( הט ‏‬37:17).745 ‫— ִּובינַ ת‏‬MT has the sg., “and the understanding of.” 1QIsaa records the pl. ‫ובינו ‏‬, “and the understandings of,” but the pl. lacks alignment with the sg. verb ‫ת‬ (‫)תסתתר‏‬. MT’s reading works well as it is and is preferred by Wildberger.746 29:15

‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ ויה‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹיוד ֵענ ‏ּו‬ ‫ה‬ ְ MT | ‫ ידענ ‏ו‬1QIsaa 742  Rubinstein, “Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings,” 188. 743  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 98; see also 42–3. See also Sáenz-Badillos, History of the Hebrew Language, 124, 129. 744  Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew, 92; Joüon and Muraoka, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 201: “‫א‏‬″‫ ל‏‬verbs are quite often treated like ‫ה‏‬″‫ ל‏‬verbs, a process which, under quite likely Aramaic influence, is much farther advanced in MH.” 745  For these and other examples, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 189–90. 746  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 87.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

209

‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT (‫ )וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬reads “their works will be/are” versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ויהי‏‬, which ‫ה‬ reads “their works have been/are.” ‫ֹיוד ֵענּו‏‬ ְ —In a short bicolon, MT’s ptc. ‫ֹיוד ֵענו‏‬ ְ corresponds with the ptc. ‫ר ֵֹאנּו‏‬. 1QIsaa’s ‫ ידענו‏‬is likely a pf. verb (cf. the scroll’s spelling of the participles ‫יודע‏‬ in 29:11–12; ‫ יודע‏י‬in 51:7; ‫ יוד ‏ע‬in 53:3); note also that Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich understand the scroll’s reading to be a pf. verb.747 If the scroll’s verb is indeed a perfect, it does not correspond with the ptc. based on √‫ראה‏‬. 29:16 ‫ ַה ְפ ְּכ ֶכם‏‬MT | ‫מ‬ ‫ הפכ מכ ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ְּכח ֶֹמ ‏ר‬MT LXX cf. 1QS XI.22 | ‫מ‬ ‫ כח ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇא ַמר‏‬MT | ‫ חמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹיוצֹר ‏ו‬ ְ ‫ ְל‬MT | ‫ ליוצרי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ַה ְפ ְּכ ֶכ ‏‬1QIsaa’s deviation (‫—)הפכ מכמ‏‬the noun ‫ ֵה ֶפְך‏‬followed by the prep‑ ‫ם‬ osition ‫— ִמן‏‬is grammatically viable (cf. Ezek 16:34). It is possible, however, that a copyist of the 1QIsaa tradition misdivided the word ‫ם‬ ‫ הפככ ‏‬at one stage of the text’s transmission and a subsequent copyist added the preposition (thus resulting in ‫מ‬ ‫ )מכ ‏‬in order to make sense of the expression. ‫— ְּכח ֶֹמ ‏ר‬Conceivably, 1QIsaa reads “like the potter’s heat” (‫)כחמ היוצר‏‬, with heat referring to the potter’s baking furnace. More likely, however, the scribe of 1QIsaa failed to copy the rêš (‫כחמ‏‬, this helps explain the scroll’s medial mêm in the final position), as he also did in 36:2 (‫ ַאּׁשּור‏‬MT and 4QIsab; ‫ אש‏ו‬1QIsaa). Compare, furthermore, the number of other instances the rêš was written sec‑ ondarily in the superscript position in the scroll (see 19:6; 23:6; 39:8; 53:8; 63:8). This phenomenon has been observed by Milik and Kutscher, both of whom conclude that linguistically the rêš behaves similar to the gutturals, i.e., it lacks a solid pronunciation.748 ‫— ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬Scholars argue that both MT’s ‫ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫ חמ ‏ר‬suitably work in the passage. Watts prefers ‫חמר‏‬, stating that this “reading is aesthetic and makes better sense.” He, therefore, translates the parallelism: “As if the thing made should say to its maker, ‘He did not make me!’ Or a thing formed of clay to the one who forms it, ‘He does not understand!’”749 MT’s reading also fits the parallelism’s symmetrical elements, with ‫אמר‏‬ ַ ֹ ‫ י‬of line 1 corresponding to ‫ ׇא ַמר‏‬of line 2, thus “For, will the work say of him that made it, He made me not! Or will the thing formed say of him that formed it, He had no understanding!” 1QIsaa’s ‫ חמר‏‬may signify a genuine variant; but, in my judgment, ‫ חמר‏‬is an error for the 747  Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 313n531. 748  Milik, Dix ans de découvertes dans le désert de Juda, 205; and Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 237, 531. 749  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 388; Watts is followed by Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 407. Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 534n2, is also in agreement, writing that the scroll’s reading is “possibly better than MT.”

210

Chapter 2

graphically similar ‫אמ ‏ר‬, or the scroll’s scribe was influenced by ‫( כחמ ‏ר‬located earlier in the verse of MT; see the previous entry). Wernberg-Møller’s study of scriptural allusions in the Hodayot includes possible Isaianic allusions. One such example includes ‫ ויצר חמ ‏ר‬in Hodayot iii, 23–24, which agrees with 1QIsaa’s reading (in the present verse) versus MT’s ‫ויצר אמר‏‬. For this particular reading where 1QIsaa agrees with Hodayot iii, 23– 24, Wernberg-Møller suggests that “we have here a textual tradition peculiar to Qumran.”750 ‫ֹיוצֹר ‏ו‬ ְ ‫— ְל‬MT’s sg. ‫ֹיוצֹרו‏‬ ְ ‫“( ְל‬to its potter”) is symmetrical with its counterpart ‫“( ְלע ֵֹׂשהּו‏‬to its maker”), which is also sg., in the bicolon of v. 16b. 1QIsaa’s ‫ליוצריו‏‬ does not signify the plural (“to its potters”); rather, the suffixed ‫ ‑יו‏‬of 1QIsaa is equivalent to ‫ ‑ֹו‏‬of MT. For a discussion of this phenomenon, together with other examples, see 5:25. 29:18 ‫ּומא ֶֹפל‏‬ ֵ MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ומאפל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ּומא ֶֹפל‏‬ ֵ —Both ‫( א ֶֹפל‏‬m. sg. noun) and ‫( ֲא ֵפ ׇלה‏‬f. sg. noun) are attested in the HB, and both have the same translational value (“darkness,” HALOT, 79). In the verse under discussion, MT has ‫ א ֶֹפל‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s ‫אפלה‏‬. Elsewhere in Isaiah, only the f. form ‫ אפלה‏‬is found in both witnesses (see 8:22; 58:10; and 59:9, where MT ‫ ; ׇּב ֲא ֵפֹלות‏‬1QIsaa ‫)באפלה‏‬. That is to say, beyond MT’s ‫ א ֶֹפל‏‬in this verse, ‫ א ֶֹפל‏‬is not found elsewhere in Isaiah. See also the comments at 59:9. 29:19 ‫ ֲענׇ וִ ים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ עני ֹי ‏‬1QIsaa | LXX (πτωχοὶ) ‫— ֲענׇ וִ ים‏‬For the variants ‫ ׇענׇ ‏ו‬and ‫ ׇענִ ‏י‬, see the commentary at 11:4. 29:20

‫ ֵל ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ לי ‏ץ‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵל ‏ץ‬MT attests the noun ‫“( ֵל ‏ץ‬scoffer”) versus 1QIsaa’s ‫( לי ‏ץ‬infinitive? im‑ perative?). ‫ ֵלץ‏‬corresponds better with ‫ ׇע ִרי ‏ץ‬in the bicolon.

29:21

‫ ַבּתֹה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ בתה‏י‬1QIsaa | ἐν ἀδίκοις LXX ‫“( ּתֹהּו‏— ַבּתֹה ‏ּו‬emptiness, nothing,” HALOT, 1690) occurs eleven times in

Isaiah. In seven of the occurrences, MT equals 1QIsaa (24:10; 34:11; 40:23; 41:29; 44:9; 45:19; 59:4), but in four there are deviations: 29:21 (‫ בתהי‏ | ַבּתֹהּו‏‬1QIsaa);

750   Wernberg-Møller, “Contribution of the Hodayot to Biblical Textual Criticism,” 155. For other Isaianic allusions in the Hodayot, see ibid., passim (see especially 174).

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

211

40:17 (‫ ותהו ‏ו | וׇ תֹהּו‏‬1QIsaa); 45:18 (‫ לתה ‏ו | תֹהּו‏‬1QIsaa); and 49:4 (‫ה | ְלתֹהּו‏‬ ‫ לתו ‏‬1QIsaa). None of these four deviations indicate a genuine vario lectio; rather, these con‑ stitute examples of deviations in DSS Hebrew. On this, see Qimron’s grammar.751 It is also possible that some of 1QIsaa’s deviations have originated owing to phonological circumstances.752 29:23

‫ יַ ְק ִּדיׁש ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ יקדש ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יַ ְק ִּדיׁש ‏ּו‬MT features the hipʿil ‫ יַ ְק ִּדיׁשּו‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s piʿel ‫יקדשו‏‬. In the HB, √‫ קדש‏‬is attested in both the piʿel (about 70×) and the hipʿil (about 40×).

According to Kutscher, 1QIsaa’s piʿel form is aligned with MH’s attestations of this expression.753 For the collocation of √‫ קדש‏‬and ‫( שם‏‬i.e., sanctifying the name of the Lord), see also Ezek 36:23 (‫)וקדשתי את שמי הגדול‏‬.

Isaiah 30

30:1 ‫ ִמּנִ י‏‬MT | ‫ ממנ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמּנִ ‏י‬For the deviation of MT (‫ ) ִמּנִ י‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫)ממני‏‬, see commentary at 22:4. 30:3

‫ ִל ְכ ִל ׇּמ ‏‬MT LXX (ὄνειδος) | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ לכמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִל ְכ ִל ׇּמ ‏‬MT’s ‫ ִל ְכ ִל ׇּמה‏‬corresponds with ‫בׁשת‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֶ ‫ ְל‬in this parallelism. The scribe of 1QIsaa misspelled ‫ה‬ ‫לכמ ‏‬, perhaps impacted by ‫מ‬ ‫לכ ‏‬, which appears earlier in the verse.

30:4

‫ ׇהי ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇהיּו‏‬the subject of the verb ‫ ׇהיּו‏‬is ‫“( ׇׂש ׇריו‏‬his princes”). A copyist of 1QIsaa incorrectly wrote ‫היה‏‬, perhaps impacted by ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬, located ten words earlier.

751  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 90–91 and elsewhere. 752  For example, see Reymond’s examination of 1QIsaa’s ‫( ותהו‏ו‬40:17), Qumran Hebrew, 143–44. 753  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 97.

212

Chapter 2

30:5 ‫ ּכֹ ‏ל‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ כל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ִה ְב ִאי ‏‬MTket | ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ה ִֹבי ‏‬MTqere | ‫ש‬ ‫ בא ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ֵעזֶ ‏ר‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫לעזר ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ֹהועיל‏‬ ִ ‫ ְל‬MT 4QpIsac (‫ )ל[הועיל‏‬LXX(vid) | ‫ תועי ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫—ּכֹל ִה ְב ִאי ‏‬The ʾālep of ‫“( ִה ְב ִאיׁש‏‬to become hated,” HALOT, 107) is superflu‑ ‫ׁש‬ ous (as per the claim of Ibn Ezra) or an error. MTqere reads ‫ׁש‬ ‫( ה ִֹבי ‏‬via √‫“ בוׁש‏‬put to shame,” HALOT, 116), which is a suitable reading. For ‫ש‬ ‫כלה בא ‏‬, a copyist of 1QIsaa erred by misdividing the words—‫כל הבאיש‏‏‬/‫—כלה באש‬i.e., he placed the hê with ‫ כ ‏ל‬rather than the following word (but contrast Emerton, who pre‑ fers the reading of 1QIsaa).754 With regard to the verbal root, Kutscher proposes that “the scribe clearly took it as ‫באש‏‬, with which he was familiar from the Aramaic = ‘bad’.”755 MTmss present textual variants: ‫ש‬ ‫( הובי ‏‬93 96 150 [pm] mul‑ tiple KR) and ‫ש‬ ‫( הבי ‏‬K, HUB–Isaiah). ‫( ֶעזְ ׇרה‏— ְל ֵעזֶ ‏ר‬f. sg. noun) and ‫( ֵעזֶ ‏ר‬m. sg. noun) are more or less evenly com‑ mon in the Bible, and both have the same meaning. MT Isaiah attests ‫ ֶעזְ ׇרה‏‬four times in three passages (10:3; 20:6; 31:1–2) and ‫ ֵעזֶ ‏ר‬once (here in 30:5). 1QIsaa has ‫ עזרה‏‬in all of these same five passages, but note the variant ‫( ֻעּזִ ‏י‬MT) and ‫עזר‏י‬ (1QIsaa) in 49:5. 30:6 ‫ ׇצ ׇרה‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ צרה וצי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֵמ ֶה ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ואין מי ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐκεῖθεν LXX • ‫ יִ ְׂשא ‏ּו‬MT LXX | ‫א‬ ‫ יש ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֵח ֵיל ֶה ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ חיל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇצ ׇר ‏‬MT sets forth three nouns in a const. chain (‫צּוקה‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫) ְּב ֶא ֶרץ ׇצ ׇרה וְ ׇ‬, “in the land of anxiety and distress.” The verbs √‫ צרר‏‬and √‫ צוק‏‬are also paired in Ps 119:143. 1QIsaa has a fourth element (‫)בארץ צרה וציה וצוקה‏‬, reading “in the land of anxiety, dryness, and distress.” For the plus of 1QIsaa, either a scribe was impacted by the common expression ‫( בארץ ציה‏‬see Isa 41:18; 53:2; Jer 2:6; 51:43; etc.) and added ‫ה‬ ‫ צי ‏‬to the text, or this is an example of a dittography combined with graphic confusion of a yôd and rêš: ‫ה‬ ‫ה > צר ‏‬ ‫צי ‏‬. ‫— ֵמ ֶהם‏‬Kutscher writes, “The word ‫ם‬ ‫ מה ‏‬is difficult; The emendation ‫ם‬ ‫ נה ‏‬has been suggested. The Scr. also emended because of ‫ נג ‏ב‬etc. in the beginning of the verse, to ‘‫ואין מים‏‬.’”756 Based on the parallelism, Watts (following Cheyne,757 Marti,758 and others) prefers to read the emendation ‫ם‬ ‫“( נה ‏‬growling”);759 and 754  Reading 1QIsaa (‫ )כלה באש‏‬as “everyone will be ashamed,” Emerton, “Textual Problem in Isaiah XXX.5,” 127–28. 755  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 222. 756  Ibid., 256–57. 757  Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 102. 758  Marti, Buch Jesaja, 220. 759  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 393.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

213

Blenkinsopp revises ‫ם‬ ‫ מה ‏‬to read √‫“ המה‏‬to roar,” thus translating the text to read “roaring lion.”760 1QIsaa’s ‫ ואין מים‏‬accompanies the plus of ‫וציה‏‬, which occurs four words earlier in the passage. Both expressions are thematically connected. ‫—יִ ְׂשאּו‏‬MT has the pl. impersonal verb ‫“( יִ ְׂשאּו‏‬they will carry”) versus the sg. of 1QIsaa, ‫א‬ ‫“( יש ‏‬one will carry”). 30:7 ‫ ַר ַהב ֵהם‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ רהבה ‏‬1QIsaa | ὅτι Ματαία ἡ παράκλησις ὑμῶν αὕτη LXX 30:8 ‫ ׇכ ְת ׇבּה‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ כותבה ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ כתו] ‏ב‬4QIsac Tg Syr Vulg | LXX γράψον • ‫ם‬ ‫ ִא ׇּת ‏‬MT | ‫ אות ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ם‬ ‫— ׇכ ְת ׇב ‏‬1QIsaa’s suffix ‫ ‑הא‏‬is an atypical suffix (third f. sg.?) that may cor‑ ‫ּה‬ respond to ‫ ‑ׇּה‏‬of ‫ ׇכ ְת ׇבּה‏‬. Though severely fragmented, 4QIsac apparently lacks the object suffix, as do the versions. Cf. also ‫ בהא‏‬in 1QIsaa 34:10, 11; 62:4; 66:10, which corresponds to ‫ ׇּבּה‏‬in MT.761 30:9

‫ ְׁשֹמו ‏‬MT | ‫ לשמו ‏ע‬1QIsaa ‫ע‬ ‫— ְׁשֹמוע‏‬Both MT (‫ ) ְׁשֹמוע‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )לשמוע‏‬feature the qal inf. const.; the

translational value is likely the same for both. For other instances (both nouns and verbs), where 1QIsaa has a preposition versus MT, see the discussion at 1:12.

30:10 ‫ ַמ ֲה ַתֹּלות‏‬MT CD A 1:18 | ‫ת‬ ‫ מתלו ‏‬1QIsaa | ἑτέραν πλάνησιν LXX ‫ ַמ ֲה ַת ׇלה‏(— ַמ ֲה ַתֹּלו ‏‬, “deception,” HALOT, 554). Both MT’s ‫ ַמ ֲה ַתֹּלות‏‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫ מתלו ‏‬are uncommon words. BDB (1122) proposes that ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ַמ ֲה ַתֹּלו ‏‬carries the mean‑ ing of “deceptions” (from √‫תלל‏‬, “to deceive”), although it may also originate from √‫“( התל‏‬to mock”). A third but less likely possibility is √‫“( הלל‏‬to praise”).762 Each of the three roots could possibly work as a parallel with ‫חלקות‏‬. 1QIsaa’s ‫ מתלות‏‬does not assist in solving the challenges with ‫ת‬ ‫ ַמ ֲה ַתֹּלו ‏‬. Most likely, how‑ ever, the reading of 1QIsaa is nothing more than an example of the quiescence of the hê. For a discussion on the quiescence of hê, see 1:10.

760  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 412. 761  See the brief discussion in Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 160. 762  See the study of Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 394.

214

Chapter 2

30:11 ‫ סּור ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsac σ′ Vulg | ‫ תסיר‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἀποστρέψατε ἡμᾶς LXX • ‫ ִמּנֵ ‏י‬1,2 MT 4QIsac | ‫ מנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—סּור ‏ּו‬The impv. ‫ סּור ‏ּו‬of MT (via √‫ )סור‏‬is consistent with the impv. ‫ ַהּט ‏ּו‬in the bicolon, but 1QIsaa’s impf. ‫( תסירו‏‬also √‫ )סור‏‬does not so correspond. Perhaps the scroll’s scribe simply wrote an impf. for the imperative, or it is also conceiv‑ able that he created a dittograph of the tāw, i.e., ‫מתלות תסיר ‏ו‬. ‫ ִמּנֵ ‏י‬1,2—‫ מני‏‬is used in poetry (rarely) in place of ‫“ = ִמ ‏ן‬from” (BDB, 577). 1QIsaa has ‫ מנ‏ו‬both times, although the second attestation may read ‫( מני‏‬see PQ 49; UF). The most probable explanation for the deviations is a yôd/wāw confusion. See also the discussion in 46:3. 4QIsac’s second attestation of ‫ מנ‏י‬is uncertain, e.g., ‫מנ֯ [ ‏י‬. 30:12

‫ וְ נׇ ֹלו ‏ז‬MT | ‫ ותעלו ‏ז‬1QIsaa | καὶ ὅτι ἐγόγγυσας LXX ‫—וְ נׇ ֹלו ‏ז‬The nipʿal ptc. ‫לוז‏√( נלוז‏‬, “crookedness, cunning,” HALOT, 522) is at‑ tested in this verse and three times in Prov 2:15 (‫ ;)נלוזים‏‬3:32; and 14:2. A copyist of 1QIsaa either did not know ‫נלו ‏ז‬,763‫‏‬or he misread his Vorlage and wrote ‫ותעלו ‏ז‬ (√‫עלז‏‬, “to exult, triumph,” HALOT, 831). But ‫( תעלו‏ז‬a sg. form) does not corre‑ spond with the second-person pl. forms in the passage, i.e., … ‫ׇמ ׇא ְס ֶכם … וַ ִּת ְב ְטחּו ‏‬ ‫וַ ִּת ׇּׁש ֲענּו‬. For this reason, the scroll’s verb is faulty. Similarly, LXX misread ‫ נלו ‏ז‬and read ‫( נלו‏ן‬via √‫“ )לון‏‬to grumble” (καὶ ὅτι ἐγόγγυσας).

30:14 ‫מ ‏ל‬ ֹ ‫ יַ ְח‬MT | ‫ יחמול‏ו‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ וְ ַל ְחׂש ‏ף‬MT | ‫פ‬ ‫ ולחסו ‏‬1QIsaa | ἀποσυριεῖς LXX • ‫ ִמּגֶ ֶב ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ מגב ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ַל ְחׂשף‏‬The transcription is uncertain. Goshen Gottstein reads ‫ ;ולאסֹו ‏ף‬PQ have ‫ולחסו ‏פ‬, with a footnote that asks, “Was the ‫ח‬ ‫ ‏‬corrected to ‫א‬ ‫ ”? ‏‬UF 2:150 also have ‫ולחסו ‏ף‬. In addition to the uncertain transcription, it is plausible that 1QIsaa’s scribe wrote the incorrect sibilant (sāmek in place of śîn), thus result‑ ing in ‫ולחסופ‏‬. ‫— ִמּגֶ ֶבא‏‬MT reads ‫א‬ ‫“( ּגֶ ֶב ‏‬cistern,” HALOT, 170); 1QIsaa has ‫ה‬ ‫ּג ַֹבּה‏( גב ‏‬, ‫ּה‬ ‫ּגׇ ֵב ַ ‏‬, or ‫)?ּגׇ ב ַ ‏‬, which makes no sense in the context. More likely, 1QIsaa’s reading per‑ ‫ֹּה‬ tains to phonology. LXX may have read ‫( מים מגדא‏‬Aramaic) (ὕδωρ μικρόν), an interchange of bêt and dālet.764

763  As suggested by Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 149. 764  Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 47.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

215

30:15 ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa ‫ה | אדוני יהוה‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬4QpIsac | κύριος LXX • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ְקֹדו ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫קודש‏‬ 4QpIsac • ‫ה‬ ‫ׁשּוב ‏‬ ‫ ְּב ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ בשיב ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsac? | Ὅταν ἀποστραφεὶς LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ְּוב ִב ְט ׇח ‏‬ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ח‬ ‫ ובט ‏‬4QpIsac ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ‏‬For a text-critical perspective of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫אדני‏‬, ‫ה‬ see 3:17. ‫ׁשּוב ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫— ְּב ׇ‬In MT, the noun ‫ׁשּובה‏‬ ‫ׇ‬ is a hapax legomenon, possibly meaning “turning back” (via √‫ )ׁשוב‏‬or “to sit, sit still” (via √‫יׁשב‏‬, see HALOT, 1435). ‫ ִׁש ׇיבה‏‬is also found only once in MT, in Ps 126:1 (‫) ִׁש ַיבת ִצֹּיון‏‬. In the verse under discussion (30:15), both 1QIsaa and 4QIsac(?) set forth ‫ה‬ ‫ ִׁש ׇיב ‏‬. Either ‫ה‬ ‫“( ׁשוב ‏‬returning”) or ‫“( ִׁש ׇיבה‏‬repentance, restoration”) work well in the passage. Two possible rea‑ sons come to mind for the deviation: (a) MT or proto-MT miswrote a wāw in place of a yôd; or (b) more likely, the scribes of these two Qumran witnesses were unfamiliar with the noun ‫ה‬ ‫ ;ׁשוב ‏‬they in all probability knew ‫ה‬ ‫ׁשיב ‏‬, which is three times found in the Qumran nonbiblical texts: 4Q257 3:4; 4Q433a fl:3; and 4Q461 f1:10; furthermore, ‫ה‬ ‫ ׁשיב ‏‬is a form recurrent in rabbinic Hebrew.765 ‫— ְּוב ִב ְט ׇח ‏‬MT and 1QIsaa agree; both set forth ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫“( ובבטח ‏‬confidence,” HALOT, 121). The author of 4QpIsac wrote ‫ח‬ ‫“( ובט ‏‬security,” HALOT, 121), likely because ‫ ֶב ַטח‏‬is a relatively common word versus ‫ה‬ ‫ ִּב ְט ׇח ‏‬, which is a hapax legomenon. 30:16 ‫ ַעל … וְ ַעל‏‬MT 4QpIsac LXX | ‫ אל … וא ‏ל‬1QIsaa 30:17 ‫ ִמ ְּפנֵ ‏י‬MT 4QpIsac | ‫ ומפנ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ּגַ ֲע ַר ‏‬MT 4QpIsac | > 1QIsaa | φωνὴν LXX • ‫ׇה ׇה ‏ר‬ MT | ‫ הר‏‬1QIsaa 4QpIsac LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַהּגִ ְב ׇע ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ גבע ‏‬4QpIsac ‫—ּגַ ֲע ַר ‏‬In MT, ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫“( גער ‏‬rebuke,” HALOT, 200) appears twice in the first bico‑ lon of the verse; but in 1QIsaa, ‫ת‬ ‫ גער ‏‬emerges once only. This may be a case of haplography, caused by the double attestation of ‫מפני גערת‏‬. Compare also the emendation of three textual critics—Duhm, Marti, and Procksch766—who propose deleting the phrase ‫ה‬ ‫ מפני גערת חמש ‏‬from MT; with this in mind, there may be another interpretation beyond haplography that explains 1QIsaa’s omitting of ‫ת‬ ‫גער ‏‬.

765  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 385. 766  Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 221; Procksch, Jesaia I, 389.

216

Chapter 2

30:18 ‫ וְ ׇל ֵכ‏ן‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Syr | ‫ לכן‏‬4QpIsac • ‫ יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אדוני‏‬4QpIsac | θεὸς LXX • ‫ ַל ֲחנַ נְ ֶכם‏‬MT 4QpIsac (‫ לחונכם‏ | )לחנֹ[נכ]מה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ רּום‏‬MT | ‫ ירים‏‬1QIsaa | ὑψωθήσεται LXX ‫—יׇ רּו ‏‬The deviations here pertain to the qal ‫( יׇ רּום‏‬MT) or the hipʿil ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ירי ‏‬ (1QIsaa), with the difference being a wāw and yôd. MT, followed by LXX, is the preferred reading. ‫— ַל ֲחנַ נְ ֶכ ‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ לחונכ ‏‬is based on √‫ =( חנן‏‬MT); this inf. const. with its lāmed follows the pattern of a strong verb and is “a late Hebrew development,” explains Qimron.767 30:19

‫ירּוׁש ׇ ִל ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ִּב ׇ‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ובירושל ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ Ιερουσαλημ LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ לֹא ִת ְב ֶּכ ‏‬MT | ‫לוא תבכ‏ו‬ 1QIsaa | ἔκλαυσεν LXX • ‫ יׇ ְחנְ ָך‏‬MT | ‫ יחונך‏‬1QIsaa • > MT LXX | ‫ יהוה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ זַ ֲע ֶקָך‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ זועקכה‏‬4QpIsac • ‫ ְּכ ׇׁש ְמ ׇעֹת ‏ו‬MT | ‫ כשמועת ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ִת ְב ֶּכה‏‬Versus MT’s qal second m. sg. impf. ‫ ִת ְב ֶּכה‏‬, 1QIsaa sets forth a qal sec‑ ond m. pl. impf. (‫ ;)תבכו‏‬either a 1QIsaa copyist is using a pl. verb for a collective noun or, more likely, the copyist was impacted by the wāw of ‫בכ‏ו‬, located two words before ‫תבכ ‏ו‬, e.g., ‫בכו לוא תבכ ‏ו‬. >—After MT’s ‫“( ׇחֹנון יׇ ְחנְ ‏ָך‬surely he will show you favor”), 1QIsaa has ‫ה‬ ‫יהו ‏‬,

thus providing an explicit subject. This plus, however, is unnecessary because the subject is set forth in a straightforward manner in v. 18 in the expression ‫וְ ׇל ֵכן יְ ַח ֶּכה יְ הוׇ ה ַל ֲחנַ נְ ֶכם‏‬. See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫אדני‏‬ in 3:17. ‫— ְּכ ׇׁש ְמ ׇעֹת ‏ו‬MT attests the inf. const. with a prefixed preposition kāp, a suf‑ fixed pronominal suffix, and also the rare hê attached to the root letters; cf. also Deut 11:22 ‫ה‬ ‫ דבק‏√( ְּול ׇד ְב ׇק ‏‬+ hê). The scribe of 1QIsaa evidently misunderstood this uncommon form and wrote ‫כשמועת ‏ו‬, which features the f. sg. noun ‫ה‬ ‫מּוע ‏‬ ‫ ְׁש ׇ‬. LXX’s translator translated ἡνίκα εἶδεν (= ‫)כשעת ‏ו‬, via √‫“( ׁשעה‏‬to gaze”).768 30:20

‫ּומיִ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ַ MT | ‫ ומי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ׇּכנֵ ף‏‬MT | ‫ יכנפו‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ יכניף‏‬4QpIsac | ἐγγίσωσί σοι LXX • ‫ֹמוריָך‏‬ ֶ 1 MT | ‫ מוראי ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫ּומיִ ם‏‬ ַ —In MT’s ‫ּומיִ ם ׇל ַח ‏ץ‬ ַ (“water as a symbol of oppression [a siege] minimal survival rations,” HALOT, 527), ‫ם‬ ‫ מי ‏‬is not in the const. state, so supply ‫“( מ‏י‬the waters of”), as per the proposal of Ibn Ezra (followed also by other critics). Such is the form of 1QIsaa, ‫ומי לחץ‏‬. It is also possible that the absolute form ‫מים‏‬

767  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 214. 768  Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 47.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

217

and ‫ לחץ‏‬are purposefully linked together to form an apposition (cf. ‫ּומיִ ם ַל ַחץ‏‬ ַ , 1 Kgs 22:27 = 2 Chr 18:26). ‫—יִ ׇּכנֵ ‏ף‬The pl. verb of 1QIsaa (‫ )יכנפו‏‬agrees with the pl. subject (‫מוריך‏‬, “your teachers”), versus MT’s sg. ‫יִ ׇּכנֵ ף‏‬. But note that some translations prefer the sg. “your teacher” or “your Guide,”769 which would mean that MT’s sg. verb is grammatically appropriate. ‫ֹמורי ‏ך‬ ֶ 1—There are two chief explanations for 1QIsaa’s ‫מוראיך‏‬: (a) 1QIsaa oc‑ casionally features deviations that pertain to the existence or nonexistence of ʾālep in a particular word (see, for example, the comments regarding ‫ְּכ ַמ ְה ֵּפ ַכת‏‬ in 1:7; ‫ ֹּלו‏‬in 3:11; √‫ היה‏‬in 5:1; ‫ נֶ ֱא ׇס ִפים‏‬in 13:4; ‫ ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי‏‬in 14:32; ‫ ֵמ ְיד ׇבא‏‬in 15:2; etc.). For ‫ֹמוריָך‏‬ ֶ versus ‫מוראי ‏ך‬, there are no phonological differences. One may also compare MTket ‫ם‬ ‫ֹּמור ִאי ‏‬ ְ ‫ ַה‬and MTqere ‫ם‬ ‫ֹּמורי ‏‬ ִ ‫ ַה‬in 2 Sam 11:24. (b) It is also feasible that the two Hebrew witnesses exhibit two different verbal roots—MT = √‫ירה‏‬ and 1QIsaa = √‫( ירא‏‬i.e., ‫“ מוראי ‏ך‬your fear”). As Kutscher has suggested, “It is possible that because of the preceding ‫ ונתן לכם … לחם צ ‏ר‬the scribe thought the context dealt with a matter of ‫‘( מורא‏‬fear’).”770 Note also that evidently LXX misread ‫ֹמוריָך‏‬ ֶ and instead interpreted the root to be ‫ה‬ ‫( מר ‏‬πλανῶντές) twice in these verses. 30:21

‫ ַת ֲא ִמינ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ תיאמינ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ַת ֲא ִמינּו‏‬Modern textual critics aver that MT’s consonantal framework of ‫( תאמינ ‏ו‬via √‫אמן‏‬, “to be firm, trustworthy,” HALOT, 63) is in error (see UF); rather, the word should be formulated as ‫( תימינו‏‬via √‫ימן‏‬, “to keep [go] to the right,” HALOT, 416).771 1QIsaa, too, is in error with its hybrid form of ‫—תיאמינ ‏ו‬a combination of the incorrect ‫( תאמינ ‏ו‬was this form in the scribe’s Vorlage?) and ‫תימינו‏‬. Or, alternatively, 1QIsaa’s ‫ תיאמינו‏‬may include the digraph ‫‑יא‏‬, which is

also attested in other forms in Qumran texts.772

30:22 ‫את ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ִט ֵּמ‬MT LXXBS Vulg | ‫ם‬ ‫ וטמית ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐξαρεῖς LXX • ‫ ֲא ֻפ ַּדת‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫אפודו ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ַמ ֵּס ַכת‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ מסכו ‏‬1QIsaa

769  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 398. 770  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 254. 771  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 168, writes that the correct reading is ‫“ ;תימינ‏ו‬Such a reading is accepted by everyone and is supported now by Qa.” So, too, Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 20. 772  See Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 47, 51–61.

218

Chapter 2

30:23 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ יהי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (ἔσται) • ‫ה‬ ‫ יִ ְר ֶע ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ ז̇ רע ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ֶל ֶח ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsar | ‫ם‬ ‫ לח ‏‬4QpIsac • ‫ נִ ְר ׇח ‏ב‬MT | ‫ נרה ‏ב‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ְר ֶעה‏‬A 1QIsaa scribe corrected the first character, possible from wāw (or yôd?) to zayin (UF 2:107) but perhaps from zayin to wāw (PQ), ultimately read‑ ing ‫ז̇ רעה‏‬. In any case, the reading is in error, either due to yôd/zayin graphic similarity or impacted by ‫זרעך‏‬, which is located in the manuscript immedi‑ ately above the word under discussion (a case of a vertical appropriation; see col. XXV, line 5). ‫—נִ ְר ׇח ‏‬1QIsaa (‫ )נרהב‏‬errs with the confusion of the letters hê and ḥêt; also ‫ב‬ possible, a phonological error, or possibly the weakening of the pharyngeals.773 For other instances of hê for ḥêt exchanges in the scroll, see 3:24. 30:24

‫ ז ֶֹר ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ יזר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇח ִמי ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ חמ ‏ץ‬1QIsaa ‫זרה‏√(—ז ֶֹר ‏‬, “to scatter, spread,” HALOT, 280). Either MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫( ז ֶֹר ‏‬qal ptc.) or 1QIsaa’s ‫( יזרה‏‬qal impf.; impacted by the impf. verb ‫ )?יאכלו‏‬works grammati‑ cally in the passage, although some scholars prefer to vocalize and read ‫ זרה‏‬as

a puʿal pf.774

30:25 ‫ ְיִב ֵלי‏‬MT | ‫ יובל ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ְיִב ֵלי‏‬For MT’s ‫ ׇיׇבל‏( ְיִב ֵל‏י‬, “watercourse,” HALOT, 383; see Isa 30:25; 44:4; Ps 18:5; and Job 20:28), 1QIsaa attests ‫יּובל‏( יובלי‏‬ ַ , “water-course, canal,” HALOT, 398, a hapax legomenon in MT, see Jer 17:8), both in the present verse as well as in 44:4. For ‫יּובל‏‬ ַ , see also 1QHa 16:8, 11. 30:28

‫ יֶ ֱח ֶצ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ וחצ ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (καὶ διαιρεθήσεται) • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַל ֲהנׇ ׇפ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ לנפ ‏‬1QIsaa | ταράξαι LXX • ‫ ְל ׇחיֵ ‏י‬MT | ‫ לוחי‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—יֶ ֱח ֶצה‏‬The wāw of 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ וחצ ‏‬seems to disconnect the verb ‫ה‬ ‫ חצ ‏‬with the expression ‫ורוחו כנחל שוטף עד צואר‏‬, thus a wāw/yôd error? ‫“— ַל ֲהנׇ ׇפה‏‬The noun [‫ ] ֲהנׇ ׇפה‏‬is in origin an Aramaic Hafel infinite.”775 1QIsaa attests ‫ה‬ ‫לנפ ‏‬, with the weak hê dropping out. For a discussion on the quiescence of hê in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 1:10. ‫— ְל ׇחיֵ ‏י‬UF 2:74 list ‫ ְל ִחי‏( לוחיי‏‬, “jawbone,” HALOT, 525) in its orthographic table, an indication that the deviations ‫ ְל ׇחיֵ י‏‬and ‫ לוחיי‏‬may lack text-critical 773  Rendsburg, “Qumran Hebrew (With a Trial Cut [1QS]),” 221. 774  Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 399; followed by Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 419. 775  Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 195n10.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

219

significance. Textual critics, however, set forth another possibility. With its at‑ testation of ‫לוחי‏י‬, 1QIsaa appears to have a hybrid form, which combines the Hebrew ‫ ְל ִחי‏‬with the Aramaic )‫לּוע‏[‏לוע(א‬/‫לּועא‏‬ ‫“( ] ׇ‬jawbone, cheek”).776 See also the comments of Kutscher (following Driver),777 who sets forth that ‫ח‬ ‫לו ‏‬, at‑ tested in Aramaic, “is equivalent to ‫לו ‏ע‬.”778 Thus Kutscher explains, “Since the substitution ‫ ח‏— ‏ע‬appears in the Gal. Aram. dialect, the result was that heth was sometimes written in place of an original ʿayin, and in fact the parallels have ‫ לוע‏‬for the Gal. Aram.”779 30:29 ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ והי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ִה ְת ַק ֶּד ‏‬MT | ‫ התקדיש ‏ו‬1QIsaa | εἰς τὰ ἅγιά μου LXX 30:30 ‫ וְ ִה ְׁש ִמ ַיע‏‬MT LXX | ‫ השמיע השמי ‏ע‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ִה ְׁש ִמ ַיע‏‬1QIsaa’s duplication of ‫ השמי ‏ע‬serves no rhetorical purpose; rather, it is a dittography. 30:32

‫מּוס ׇד ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ מוסד ‏ו‬1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ מוסר ‏‬MTmss • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇּב ‏‬MTket 1QIsaa LXX(vid) | ‫ם‬ ‫ ב ‏‬MTqere

Tg Vulg ‫מּוס ׇד ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫— ׇ‬Scholars assert that the two Hebrew texts ‫ה‬ ‫מּוס ׇד ‏‬ ‫“( ׇ‬foundation wall,” MT) and ‫“( מוסד‏ו‬his/its foundation wall,” 1QIsaa) are unfitting in this passage. Based on MTmss (see BHS, HUB–Isaiah) and Syr, Oort, Wildberger, HALOT, and others emend the text to read ‫“( מוסרה‏‬its chastising”).780 Thus, the misreading was caused by dālet/rêš graphic similarity. 30:33 ‫ ׇּת ְפ ֶּת ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ תפת ‏‬1QIsaa | ἀπατηθήσῃ LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ הּו ‏‬MTket | ‫א‬ ‫ ִהי ‏‬MTqere | ‫ה‬ ‫ הי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫הּוכ‏ן‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT LXX | ‫ יוכ ‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ב‬ ‫ ֶה ְע ִמיק ִה ְר ִח ‏‬MT | ‫ הכיני והעמיקי הרחיב ‏י‬1QIsaa | φάραγγα βαθεῖαν LXX ‫— ׇּת ְפ ֶּתה‏‬MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇּת ְפ ֶּת ‏‬may refer to Tophet, a place name, although the usual spelling is ‫ת‬ ‫ּת ֶֹפ ‏‬.781 Or, ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇּת ְפ ֶּת ‏‬may signify “a burning place” (see BDB, 1075; HALOT, 1781), a meaning that fits the passage’s context (see v. 33b). ‫( תפתח‏‬1QIsaa) may 776  See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 621. 777  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 24. 778  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 250. 779  Ibid., 250. 780  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 100; Wildberger, Isaiah 28–38, 188; HALOT, 557; Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 21. 781  In point of fact, Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 196, proposed that the Hebrew read ‫ תפת‏‬instead of ‫תפתה‏‬.

220

Chapter 2

denote “an opening [place]” (via √‫)פתח‏‬, perhaps referring to the open area where the great bonfire would burn (“its pile was made deep and wide, with much fire and wood,” v. 33). More likely, however, the scroll’s copyist made a mistake, confusing the letters hê and ḥêt. ‫—הּו ‏‬For the deviation between ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫הּו ‏‬/‫ ִהיא‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הי ‏‬, see the comments at 7:14. ‫— ֶה ְע ִמיק ִה ְר ִחב‏‬MT’s subject for the two verbs ‫( ֶה ְע ִמיק ִה ְר ִח ‏ב‬each is a hipʿil pf. third m. sg.) is apparently the king: “he has made it deep and wide.” 1QIsaa has a variant, with three verbs: ‫( הכיני והעמיקי הרחיב ‏י‬each verb is a hipʿil impv. f. sg.): “prepare, and make deep, make wide.” 1QIsaa’s subject is unknown, and the source of ‫ הכינ‏י‬is unclear—borrowed from the previous word (‫?)יוכן‏‬

Isaiah 31

31:1

‫ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ‏‬MT | ‫ למצרים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ֶעזְ ׇרה‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | > 4QpIsac • ‫ ֶר ֶכב‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ם‬ ‫ הרכב‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַע ‏ל‬3 MT LXX | ‫ א ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ְצ ַריִ ‏‬For the preposition belonging to 1QIsaa and LXX, see the comments ‫ם‬

at 1:12 and 29:9. ‫ רכב‏— ֶר ֶכב‏‬with the article (‫ הרכב‏‬1QIsaa) does not fit the poetic scheme be‑ cause the corresponding word, ‫ם‬ ‫סוסי ‏‬, also lacks the article; furthermore, ‫רכ ‏ב‬ in Isaiah (with one exception, see 66:20, where the vocalization is likely incor‑ rect) does not have the article. 31:3 ‫רּוח‏‬ ַ MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ רי ‏‬1QIsaa | βοήθεια LXX • ‫ וְ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT LXX | ‫ יחד ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ַ ‏‬1QIsaa errs with ‫“( ריח‏‬odour, fragrance,” HALOT, 1226), perhaps a yôd/ ‫רּוח‬ wāw confusion; in addition, an erased ālep precedes the rêš of ‫ריח‏‬, perhaps a duplication of the ālep of ‫א‬ ‫ולו ‏‬, the word, which comes before ‫ריח‏‬. 31:4

‫ ַט ְרֹּפ ‏ו‬MT LXX | ‫ טרפי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇע ׇלי‏ו‬MT | ‫ אלי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ְמל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ מלא‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ל ֹ ‏‬2 MT | ‫לוא יחת‏‬2 1QIsaa ‫— ׇע ׇליו‏‬The 1QIsaa copyist first wrote ʿayin (‫ )עליו‏‬and then wrote an ālep over the ʿayin (‫)אליו‏‬. ‫— ְמל ֹ ‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫מלא ‏ו‬, ‫ ‑א ‏ו‬likely marks an irregular spelling for the o vowel = ‫א‬ MT’s ‫ ְמלֹא‏‬. For this and other examples (e.g., 8:4), consult Qimron’s grammar.782

782  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 85.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

221

‫— ַט ְרֹּפו‏‬In the Bible, the noun ‫“( ֶט ֶר ‏ף‬prey”) never occurs in the pl.—1QIsaa’s ‫ טרפי ‏ו‬is not a pl.; rather, DSS Hebrew regularly used ‫ ‑י ‏ו‬to signify the singular.783 For the other occurrence of ‫ טרף‏‬in Isaiah, see 5:29, where the scroll = MT. ‫ל ֹ ‏‬2—For MT’s ‫לֹא‏‬2, 1QIsaa incorrectly has ‫לוא יחת‏‬2, an example of dittogra‑ ‫א‬ phy, ‫ת‬ ‫לוא יחת … לוא יח ‏‬. A scribe crossed out the second ‫ת‬ ‫יח ‏‬, which brings the text into harmony with MT.

31:5 ‫ ְּכ ִצ ֳּפ ִרי ‏‬MT | ‫ כצפורים‏‬1QIsaa var or ortho? • ‫ ׇּפסֹח‏‬MT | ‫ ופסח‏‬1QIsaa LXX | • ‫וְ ִה ְמ ִליט‏‬ ‫ם‬ MT | ‫ והפליט‏‬1QIsaa | LXX καὶ σώσει ‫—וְ ִה ְמ ִליט‏‬Both the variants ‫( וְ ִה ְמ ִליט‏‬MT, “to rescue, bring away,” HALOT, 589) and ‫( והפליט‏‬1QIsaa, “to bring to safety,” HALOT, 931) fit the verse’s context, and both are paired with √‫נצל‏‬. So why the deviation in the verse under discussion? There are several possibilities: given that √‫ מלט‏‬and √‫ פלט‏‬are to some extent synonymous, a copyist of either MT or 1QIsaa accidentally changed the word as he copied the text to its synonymous counterpart; the fact that pê and mêm are graphically similar may have also caused the error. Or, the copyist of 1QIsaa erred via alliteration of the pê, e.g., ‫ופסח והפליט‏‬. There is yet another explana‑ tion for the variant: elsewhere in the HB, √‫ מלט‏‬and √‫ פלט‏‬are collocated with √‫ ;נצל‏‬for √‫ מלט‏‬and √‫נצל‏‬, see 2 Sam 19:10; Isa 20:6; 31:5; for √‫ פלט‏‬and √‫נצל‏‬, see Pss 18:49; 22:9; 71:2; 82:4; Isa 5:29. With this in mind, it is possible that a copy‑ ist of either Hebrew tradition was influenced by another biblical passage that pairs √‫ נצל‏‬with either √‫ מלט‏‬or √‫פלט‏‬. 31:6

‫ ׁשּוב ‏ּו‬MT LXX | ‫ שובי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַל ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬MT | ‫ לאשר לאש ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫—ׁשּוב ‏ּו‬1QIsaa’s ‫ שובי‏ו‬is probably an error. ‫— ַל ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬A copyist of 1QIsaa wrote ‫לאשר לאש ‏ר‬, a dittography.

31:7 ‫ ֵח ְטא‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ חטא ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫— ֵח ְטא‏‬The 1QIsaa scribe first wrote ‫ ;חטאה‏‬then he or a subsequent copyist corrected it to read ‫א‬ ‫חט ‏‬. 31:8 ‫אכ ֶלּנ ‏ּו‬ ֲ ֹ ‫ ּת‬MT 1QM (1Q33) XI 11–12 | ‫ תאכולנו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֹל ‏ו‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa | οὐκ LXX ‫אכ ֶלּנ ‏ּו‬ ֲ ֹ ‫—ּת‬In this I-ʾālep verb, MT’s commencing /o/ vowel is replaced with either an /a/ or /e/ vowel in 1QIsaa. For a discussion of I-ʾālep verbs in the 783  See the discussion in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70.

222

Chapter 2

DSS, see Reymond.784 See also the comments at 20:1 regarding the wāw mater following the second root letter. The author of 1QM introduces a quotation from Isa 31:8, using the formulaic qal infinitive, ‫לאמו ‏ר‬.785 The quotation con‑ sists of nine words, which are morphologically and syntactically equal to the Masoretic Text. ‫—ֹל ‏ו‬Although the attached wāw of 1QIsaa’s ‫ ולוא‏‬signifies a deviation from MT’s reading, the particle ‫א‬ ‫ לו ‏‬may or may not represent a genuine variant.786 But compare HUB–Isaiah, which shows that KR and Codex Petersburg Heb B 3 read ‫לא‏‬. It may be no more than an orthographic deviation (see the comments at 3:11), but cf. LXX’s οὐκ. However, if ‫ לוא‏‬is indeed a variant (meaning “no” or “not”), then MT has the preferred reading. As Kutscher explains, “The idea be‑ hind the reading ‫ לא‏‬is clear but ‫ לו‏‬fits in better with the beginning of the verse; since Assyria will fall by the sword (though not at the point of one wielded by mortal hands), the prophet could not have gone on to say that Assyria will ‘not’ (‫ )לא‏‬flee from the sword.”787 31:9 ‫ ִמּנֵ ס‏‬MT | ‫ס‬ ‫ מנו֯ ‏‬1QIsaa | ὁ δὲ φεύγων LXX ‫נֵ ס‏(— ִמּנֵ ס‏‬, “flag, standard,” HALOT, 701). The meaning of 1QIsaa’s reading (‫ )מנו֯ ס‏‬is uncertain (‫ ׇמֹנוס‏‬, “refuge”? “from fleeing”?). The LXX translator appar‑ ently read its Vorlage as √‫“( נוס‏‬to flee”), thus ὁ δὲ φεύγων.

Isaiah 32

32:1 ‫ ֵהן‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6.

784  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 200–01. 785  The author of 1QM cites five different scriptural passages in the section that present the Ritual Serekh Series (see 1QM 9:17–14:15). These include the following: 1QM 10:1–2 cites Deut 7:21–22; 1QM 10:2–5 cites Deut 20:2–5; 1QM 10:6–8 cites Num 10:9; 1QM 11:5–7 cites Num 24:17–19; and 1QM 11:11–12 cites Isa 31:8. Note that four of the five scriptural passages are from the Pentateuch, and the fifth is from Isaiah. 786  Note that Döderlein, Esaias, 134, based on the reading of LXX, proposed ‫א‬ ‫לו ‏‬. 787  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 249.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

223

32:2 ‫ ְּכ ַמ ֲח ֵב ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ כמחב ‏‬1QIsaa var or ortho? • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ֵס ֶתר זׇ ֶר ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ וסתרם זר ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ ְּב ׇצֹיו‏ן‬MT α′ σ′ | ‫ בציי‏ן‬1QIsaa | ἐν Σιων (via √‫ ) ִצֹּיון‏‬LXX θ′ • ‫ ְּכ ֵצ ‏ל‬MT | ‫בצ ‏ל‬ 1QIsaa | ὡς ποταμὸς (via √‫צּולה‏‬ ‫ ) ׇ‬LXX ‫—וְ ֵס ֶתר זׇ ֶרם‏‬The leather of 1QIsaa shows correction dots before the mêm of ‫וסתרם‏‬, thus “‫ וסתרם זרם‏‬were corrected to ‫( ”וסתר מזרם‏‬see PQ 53, note 10a–a). See also BHK and BHS. ‫ ׇצֹיון‏(— ְּב ׇצֹיון‏‬, “dry land,” HALOT, 1022). For 1QIsaa’s reading of ‫( בציין‏‬Kutscher incorrectly transcribes the scroll’s reading as ‫)בצייו‏‬788 note that on the leather there is a short, horizontal stroke above the nûn. The stroke’s meaning is un‑ known to us. Given the verse’s context, MT’s ‫“( ְּב ׇצֹיו‏ן‬in a dry land”) is preferred over 1QIsaa’s reading (“animals of the desert”?). It is likely, however, that the scroll exhibits a simple error, where the scroll’s scribe wrote a yôd for the wāw. The Greek translator apparently misunderstood his Vorlage ‫ בציון‏‬and read ‫ ִצֹּיון‏‬, “Zion” (ἐν Σιων). ‫— ְּכ ֵצ ‏ל‬Graphic similarity (bêt/kāp) explains 1QIsaa’s error of ‫בצ ‏ל‬. 32:3

‫ ִת ְׁש ֶעינׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ תשענ ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐσονται πεποιθότες (via √‫ )שען‏‬LXX ‫— ִת ְׁש ֶעינׇ ‏‬MTmss read ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ = תשענ ‏‬1QIsaa (HUB–Isaiah). The LXX translator ap‑ parently misread √‫ שעה‏‬and read √‫שען‏‬, “to lean” i.e., trust (πεποιθότες). 32:5

‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT | ‫ יקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX (εἴπωσιν) • ‫ יֵ ׇא ֵמ ‏ר‬MT 4QpIsae | ‫ יואמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa | εἴπωσιν ‫א‬

LXX ‫—יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT utilizes a nipʿal impf. sg. (‫יִ ׇּק ֵרא‏‬, “will be called”) versus 1QIsaa’s ‫א‬ qal impf. pl. (‫יקראו‏‬, “they will call”). This is another case of substitution of ver‑ bal forms (in 1QIsaa) to express the impersonal subject: passive > active, a late phenomenon. Although the scroll’s verb is grammatically acceptable, MT’s sg. corresponds better with the nipʿal sg. (‫ )יֵ ׇא ֵמר‏‬found in the second line of the bicolon. For a discussion of impersonal constructions, see also 1:26. 32:6

‫ יַ ֲע ֶׂש ‏‬MT | ‫ חוש ‏ב‬1QIsaa LXX (νοήσει) • ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ יְ הוׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | > 4QpIsae ‫—יַ ֲע ֶׂש ‏‬Based on the reading of LXX and other factors, a number of pre‫ה‬

Qumran scholars, including Box, Cheyne, Condamin, Duhm, Marti, Procksch,

788  Ibid., 278.

224

Chapter 2

Wade, and Whitehouse, emend MT to read ‫יַ ְחׁש ֹ ‏ב‬.789 This reading approximates 1QIsaa’s ‫חוש ‏ב‬. But Tov explains, “The agreement between the LXX and 1QIsaa probably resulted from independent common exegesis.”790 Note also that Tg sets forth a similar interpretation, as does 1QIsaa. After a careful review of the evidence, MT constitutes the primary reading, with the support of Talmon, Wildberger, and others.791 ‫—יְ הוׇ ‏‬Both MT and 1QIsaa attest the Divine Name; in 4QpIsae, a blank ‫ה‬ space exits where the Tetragrammaton is expected to appear. Horgan surmises, “Perhaps it was to be added later in Paleo-Hebrew script.”792 32:7 ‫ הּוא‏‬MT | ‫ והוא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲענׇ וִ ים‏‬MTket | ‫ עניים‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa • ‫ ֶא ְבֹיון‏‬MT | ‫ אביונים‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ֲענׇ וִ י ‏‬For the variants ‫ ׇענׇ ‏ו‬and ‫ ׇענִ ‏י‬, see the commentary at 11:4. ‫ם‬ ‫— ֶא ְבֹיו‏ן‬The pl. form of ‫ם‬ ‫( אביוני ‏‬1QIsaa) serves as an analogous counterpart to the pl. ‫ם‬ ‫ עניי ‏‬in the parallelism of this verse. Compare also the agreement of num‑ ber in the following: ‫ ֶא ְבֹיונִ ים‏‬//‫ ַד ִּלים‏‬in 14:30; ‫ ַל ׇּדל‏‬//‫ ׇל ֶא ְבֹיון‏‬in 25:4; ‫ ׇה ֲענִ ּיִ ים‏‬//‫וְ ׇה ֶא ְבֹיונִ ים‏‬ in 41:17; ‫ם‬ ‫ ֲענִ ּיִ י ‏‬//‫ ֶא ְבֹיונִ ים‏‬in Ps 12:6; ‫וְ ׇענִ ‏י‬//‫ וְ ֶא ְבֹיון‏‬Ps 35:10, plus several others; but con‑ trast ‫ ֶא ְבֹיו‏ן‬//‫ ֲענׇ וִ ים‏‬in Ps 9:19. In the verse under discussion, MT conceivably lost the pl. via haplography, e.g., ‫ט‬ ‫אביונים משפ ‏‬. 32:10

‫ ּב ְֹטֹחו ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ הבוטחו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּב ִל ‏י‬MT | ‫ ב ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּב ִל ‏י‬Kutscher writes “The MT reading is difficult. ‫ בלי‏‬meaning ‫ בל‏‬is found in the Bible thrice more; in Hos. ix 16 Qere ‫”!ב ‏ל‬793 Cf. also HALOT (133). Although a haplography in 1QIsaa remains a possibility; a dittography in MT (‫ )‏בלי יבוא‬is

also conceivable.

789  See Box, Book of Isaiah, 145; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 105; Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 199; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 235; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 234; Procksch, Jesaia I, 410; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 205; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 1:330. 790  Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 88. 791  See, for example, the arguments posed in Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:221–22; Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 232; Orlinsky, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, I,” 152–55; Talmon, “Observations on Variant Readings in the Isaiah Scroll,” 122–23. 792  Horgan, “Isaiah Pesher 1–6,” 104. 793  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 390.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

225

32:11 ‫ וְ ע ׇֹר ‏‬MT | ‫ י֯ ער‏ו‬1QIsaa | γυμναὶ γένεσθε LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ֹגור ‏‬ ‫ וַ ֲח ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ חגרנה וספדנ ‏‬1QIsaa | περιζώσασθε σάκκους LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֲח ׇל ׇציִ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ החלצי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫—וְ ע ׇֹרה‏‬MT’s impv. (via √‫ )ערר‏‬corresponds well with another impv. (‫ ְּפׁש ׇֹטה‏‬, via √‫)פׁשט‏‬, creating a brief but well-balanced bicolon: “strip, and make your‑ selves bare.” The impf. pl. verb of 1QIsaa (‫י֯ ערו‏‬, via √‫ ?ערר‏‬or √‫ )?ערה‏‬diminishes the force of the parallelism. ‫ֹגור ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫—וַ ֲח ׇ‬MT reads “gird [sackcloth] upon the loins” versus 1QIsaa, which has “gird [sackcloth] and lament (‫ )וספדנה‏‬upon the loins.” 1QIsaa is in error because a copyist oddly inserted “and lament.” This may be an instance where a scribe of 1QIsaa assimilated a word from a nearby context. In this case, the follow‑ ing verse (v. 12) provides √‫ספד‏‬.794 But there exists another possible basis for the scroll’s plus. Inasmuch as the words ‫ חג ‏ר‬and ‫ ספ ‏ד‬form a collocation (see 2 Sam 3:31; Jer 4:8; 49:3; Joel 1:13), it may be that the scribe juxtaposed these words based on his knowledge of these two roots turning up in pairs. 32:12 ‫ ֶח ֶמד‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ חמד ‏‬1QIsaa ‫“(— ֶח ֶמד‏‬loveliness, beauty,” HALOT, 325). Both the m. sg. noun ‫( חמד‏‬MT) and the f. sg. noun ‫ה‬ ‫( חמד ‏‬1QIsaa; ‫ה‬ ‫ ֶח ְמ ׇד ‏‬, “desirable things, precious things,” HALOT, 325) are attested in the Bible; but inasmuch as ‫ה‬ ‫( חמד ‏‬and not ‫ )חמ ‏ד‬is found in rabbinic Hebrew, Kutscher asserts that this is the reason that 1QIsaa utilized ‫חמד ‏‬.795 ‫ה‬ 32:13 ‫ ׇׁש ִמיר‏‬MT | ‫ ושמי ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) 32:14

‫ ֲע ׇד ִרי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ לעדרי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֲע ׇד ִרים‏‬When ‫“( מרעה‏‬pasture”) precedes ‫ בקר‏‬or ‫צאן‏‬, the lāmed is usually

employed to denote possession (i.e., Gen 47:4; 1 Chr 4:39, 41; Joel 1:18). Here in v. 14, 1QIsaa attests the lāmed preceding ‫עדרים‏‬, versus MT (“pasture of flocks”). It is difficult to determine the original reading. For other instances (both nouns and verbs), where 1QIsaa has a preposition versus MT, see the discussion at 1:12.

794  As pointed out by Skehan, “Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” 152n1. 795  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 375.

226

Chapter 2

32:15 ‫ וְ ַכ ְר ֶמ ‏ל‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ וְ ַה ַּכ ְר ֶמ ‏ל‬MTqere 32:17

‫ ׇׁשֹלו ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ לשלו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇׁשֹלום‏‬For 1QIsaa’s use of the attached preposition, see the comments

at 1:12.

32:19 ‫ ׇה ִעיר‏‬MT | ‫היע ‏ר‬2 1QIsaa | > LXX ‫— ׇה ִעי ‏ר‬With Wildberger,796 it is my judgment that MT’s ‫“( ׇה ִעי ‏ר‬the city”) is the primary reading, versus 1QIsaa’s ‫“( היע ‏ר‬the forest”). Two chief possibilities explain the error of 1QIsaa: (a) the scribe accidentally transposed the letters, changing ‫ העי ‏ר‬to read ‫ ;היע ‏ר‬or (b) the scribe assimilated ‫היע ‏ר‬, which is found three words earlier in the verse. 32:20

‫ ְמ ַׁש ְּל ֵח ‏י‬MT | ‫ ומשלח ‏י‬1QIsaa



Isaiah 33

33:1

‫ ַּכ ֲה ִת ְמ ‏ָך‬MT σ′ | ‫ כהתמכך‏‬1QIsaa | ἁλώσονται LXX • ‫ֹלתָך‏‬ ְ ְ‫ ַּכּנ‬MT | ‫ ככלותך‏‬1QIsaa | ὅταν κοπιάσῃς σ′ Tg Vulg | καὶ ὡς σὴς (via √‫ )כתולעת‏‬LXX • ‫ ְיִבּגְ ד ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ יבגוד ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ַּכ ֲה ִת ְמָך‏‬The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )כהתמכך‏‬is similar to MT’s ‫“( ַּכ ֲה ִת ְמ ‏ָך‬to come up to size, reach full measure, bring to an end,” HALOT, 1754, via √‫ ;)תמם‏‬the difference is the duplication of the kāp at the end of the word, i.e., ‫כהתמכך‏‬,

which duplication encouraged Kutscher to suggest the scroll experienced a dittography.797 ‫ֹלת ‏ָך‬ ְ ְ‫— ַּכּנ‬The reading of MT (‫ֹלתָך‏‬ ְ ְ‫) ַּכּנ‬, a hapax legomenon, poses challenges.798 McCarter asserts that a copyist of the MT tradition misread the kāp for a nûn, making MT unintelligible in the verse’s context.799 LXX (καὶ ὡς σὴς) likely read ‫“( כתולעת‏‬like a worm”), especially in light of the reading of MT 1QIsaa ‫ ִל ְב ֹּגד‏‬, 796  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 257. 797  Ibid., 257. 798  Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation, 78n28, shows that Syr, Tg, and Vulg all had difficulty with the hapax as well as the entire verse. 799  McCarter, Textual Criticism, 48.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

227

where LXX apparently misread ‫ ִל ְב ֹּגד‏‬and translated ἐπὶ ἱματίου = ‫לבּגֶ ד‏‬ ֶ (thus reading “and like a moth on a garment”). Before the discovery of the DSS, a number of critics emended MT to read ‫ככלתך‏‬/‫ =( ככלותך‏‬1QIsaa);800 and in recent decades, several modern scholars have argued that the reading of 1QIsaa (‫ככלותך‏‬, via √‫כלה‏‬, “to stop, come to an end,” HALOT, 476) is the preferred reading. Wildberger, for example, states that ‫ ככלותך‏‬provides an acceptable parallel with ‫ ; ַּכ ֲה ִת ְמ ‏ָך‬he thus provides this trans‑ lation: “when you are at an end (‫ … ) ַּכ ֲה ִת ְמָך‏‬when you have finished (‫)ככלותך‏‬.”801 And Cohen identifies both ‫( מדהבה‏‬Isa 14:4) and ‫( כנלתך‏‬Isa 33:1) as ghost words; in both cases Cohen accepts 1QIsaa’s readings.802 Based on these arguments, it is my view that 1QIsaa’s reading is primary and should be accepted. Note also that a single medieval HB manuscript of G reads ‫( ככלתך‏‬HUB–Isaiah). 33:2

‫ ֱהיֵ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ והי ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐγενήθη LXX • ‫ׁשּוע ֵתנ ‏ּו‬ ‫ יְ ׇ‬MT | ‫ הושעתנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ׁשּוע ֵתנּו‏‬ ‫—יְ ׇ‬In place of MT’s noun ‫יׁשועתנ‏ו‬, 1QIsaa presents a variant reading (a) with a hipʿil pf. verb ‫הושעתנ ‏ו‬: “you saved us in time of trouble.” This variant

lacks parallelistic harmony, because it pairs a verb with a noun. MT’s struc‑ ture is more artistic because it pairs two f. sg. nouns, ‫ֹרוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ ז‬and ‫ׁשּועה‏‬ ‫יְ ׇ‬. (b) It is also possible that 1QIsaa’s reading is a noun formed from the hipʿil infinitive.803 With regard to LXX’s reading of ‫ֹרוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ז‬, LXX read the correct root letters (‫)זרע‏‬ but deduced the incorrect vocalization, reading ‫“( זֶ ַר ‏ע‬seed”) in place of ‫ֹרוע‬ ‫זְ ַ ‏‬ (“arm”). 33:3 ‫ֹרומ ֻמ ֶתָך‏‬ ְ ‫ ֵמ‬MT | ‫ מדממת ‏ך‬1QIsaa | ‫ מרממתי ‏ך‬MTmss | ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου σου LXX ‫ֹרומ ֻמ ֶת ‏ָך‬ ְ ‫ֹרומ ֻמת‏(— ֵמ‬ ֵ , “text uncertain,” possibly “majesty, grandeur,” HALOT, 1206; or ‫ת‬ ‫ֹרוממּו ‏‬ ֵ “uplifting, arising,” BDB, 928). The issue here pertains to MT’s ‫ֹרומ ֻמ ֶת ‏ָך‬ ְ ‫ ֵמ‬versus 1QIsaa’s graphically similar ‫ ְד ׇמ ׇמה‏( מדממתך‏‬, “calm,” HALOT, 226, via √‫)דמם‏‬. It seems that an error is probably due to confusion between the rêš and dālet in either MT or 1QIsaa. Kutscher asserts, “The Scr.’s reading is preferable even though, in the light of the verse in Kings (in the Elijah epi‑ sode) the phrase may have been known.”804 Consider also, that the Barthélemy 800  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 100, had emended MT to read ‫ך‬ ‫ ככלת ‏‬before the dis‑ covery of the Qumran scrolls. See also the discussion in Döderlein, Esaias, 138; and the summary of Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 419. 801  See also Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 266. 802  Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena, 107. 803  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 23. 804  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 228.

228

Chapter 2

committee was divided as to whether to give prominence to the reading of MT or that of 1QIsaa.805 But I follow Wildberger, who argues that MT’s reading is primary and provides the translation, “when you raise yourself up the nations scatter.”806 33:4 ‫ ְּכ ַמ ַּׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ מש ‏‬1QIsaa | ὃν τρόπον ἐάν τις συναγάγῃ (via ‫ׁש‬ ‫ )קׁש ‏‬LXX • ‫ק‬ ‫ֹׁשוק ‏‬ ֵ MT | ‫ שק ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ק‬ ‫— ְּכ ַמ ַּׁשק‏‬LXX probably misinterpreted its Vorlage and read ‫ׁש‬ ‫( קׁש ‏‬συναγάγῃ), “to gather.” ‫ֹׁשוק ‏‬ ‫ק‬ ֵ —MT has a ptc. versus 1QIsaa’s pf. verb. LXX’s translator likely misread √‫ שקק‏‬to be √‫“( ׂשחק‏‬to play, mock”), thus translating ἐμπαίξουσιν ὑμῖν. 33:6

‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ יהי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ יְ ׁשּועֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ וישועו ‏‬1QIsaa | ἡ σωτηρία ἡμῶν LXX 33:7 ‫ ֶא ְר ֶא ׇּלם‏‬MT | ‫מ‬ ‫ ארא ל ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ אראלי ‏‬MTmss | cf. LXX • ‫ ׇצ ֲעק ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ זעק ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ְיִב ׇּכיּו ‏ן‬ MT | ‫ יבכוון‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶא ְר ֶא ׇּל ‏‬With regard to forms and meanings, the readings of both MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ ֶא ְר ֶא ׇּלם‏‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫ ארא לם‏‬present challenges for textual critics (for ‫ ֶא ְר ֶא ׇּלם‏‬, BDB, 72, has “wholly uncertain” and HALOT, 82, “angels,” “heroes,” “priests,” or “inhabitants of Jerusalem”). Scholars have set forth various conjectures for MT’s obscure ‫ ֶא ְר ֶא ׇּלם‏‬. Procksch divides the words ‫ אראלם צעקו‏‬to read ‫אראל מצ־‏‬ ‫עקו‬.807 Cheyne transliterates ‫ ֶא ְר ֶא ׇּלם‏‬to read “the Ariels.”808 Wade proposes that ‫ ֶא ְר ֶא ׇּלם‏‬refers to “lions of God,” a reference to the “men of Ariel” or the warriors of Jerusalem; he reconfigures ‫ ֶא ְר ֶא ׇּלם‏‬to read ‫אריאלים‏‬, meaning “valiant ones.”809 Slotki follows Wade.810 Some emend ‫ ֶא ְר ֶא ׇּלם‏‬, based on 2 Sam 23:20 (‫) ֲא ִר ֵאל‏‬, to read ‫“( אראלים‏‬warriors”). 1QIsaa’s ‫ ארא לם‏‬apparently signifies, “I will appear to them,” perhaps somewhat akin to Vulg’s videntes. To this point, however, there

805  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:227–28. 806  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 266, for Wildberger’s arguments on behalf of MT versus the scroll, see 266–67. 807  Procksch, Jesaia I, 419. 808  Cheyne, Prophecies of Isaiah, 190. 809  Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 211; compare the similar observations of Marti, Buch Jesaja, 238. 810  Slotki, Isaiah, 155.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

229

is no explanation that adequately explicates these readings, and there is no concensus among scholars.811 ‫— ׇצ ֲעק ‏ּו‬In the Bible, √‫ זעק‏‬and √‫ צעק‏‬have similar meanings (see HALOT, 277, 1042). Of the eleven occurrences of √‫זעק‏‬/√‫ צעק‏‬in Isaiah, the Qumran scroll has √‫ זעק‏‬ten times and √‫ צעק‏‬once. Compare and contrast this usage with MT Isaiah, which attests √‫ זעק‏‬six times and √‫ צעק‏‬five times (see 14:31; 15:4–5; 19:20; 26:17; 30:19; 33:7; 42:2; 46:7; 57:13; 65:14). Inasmuch as √‫ זעק‏‬is used more often in later biblical books (e.g., Nehemiah and 1 & 2 Chronicles),812 it is possible that the scroll’s copyist updated the vocabulary from √‫ צעק‏‬to √‫ זעק‏‬in certain pas‑ sages. The versions do not shed light on these readings. Similarly note the evidence of the Temple Scroll, which cites or paraphras‑ es Deuteronomy; the former (Temple Scroll) employs √‫זעק‏‬, and the later (Deuteronomy) has √‫( צעק‏‬see, especially, 11QTemple 66:2–3 // Deut 22:24 and 11QTemple 66:7–8 // Deut 22:27). So, too, the Tg Onq. attests ‫( ויזעקו בני ישרא ‏ל‬cf. Exod 14:10, which employs ‫)ויצעקו בני ישרא ‏ל‬. Or, another theory: Kutscher has shown that a few of 1QIsaa’s deviations are Hebrew words that are also prevalent forms in Aramaic. For example, 1QIsaa’s √‫ זעק‏‬reads in place of √‫( צעק‏‬the words under discussion), √‫ עיל‏‬in place of √‫עול‏‬, √‫ שרי‏‬in place of √‫שרע‏‬, and √‫ בחן‏‬in place of √‫בחר‏‬.813 Thus 1QIsaa may be substi‑ tuting √‫ זעק‏‬in the present verse because it is a common Aramaic form. ‫— ְיִב ׇּכיּו‏ן‬For the deviations of ‫( ְיִב ׇּכיּון‏‬MT) versus ‫( יבכוון‏‬1QIsaa), see the com‑ ments at 8:7. 33:8 ‫ ׇע ִרי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ עדי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇע ִרי ‏‬The divergences—‫ ערים‏‬versus ‫—עדים‏‬arose because of the confu‑ ‫ם‬ sion of letters dālet/rêš in the Assyrian square script. Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, several critics emended MT to read ‫עדים‏‬,814 which is the reading of 1QIsaa. ‫ עדים‏‬denotes either “witnesses” (‫ ֵעד‏‬, “witness,” HALOT, 788) or “contracts/promises” (‫ ׇעד‏‬, “contract, promise,” HALOT, 787). Wildberger, 811  See Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 277; Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 422; and Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 36, 283–84, for a summary of critics’ approaches. See also the views expressed in Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:231–33. For the LXX reading of ‫ם‬ ‫אראל ‏‬, see Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 175–76. 812  See the discussion and statistics in Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 137; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 233; Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 134–38; and Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 282. 813  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 223; see also 233, 272, 289, 313. 814  Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 242; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 238; Procksch, Jesaia I, 420; Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 24.

230

Chapter 2

Weingreen, Watts, Blenkinsopp, Oswalt, and others815 rightly argue on behalf of the reading of 1QIsaa because it both strengthens the parallelistic structure and is suitable in the passage’s context; e.g., “witnesses” or “contracts” serves as a better parallel to “covenant” than does “cities.” So, too, multiple translations— NEB, NIV, NRSV, RSV—accept the scroll’s reading (but contrast JPS). 33:9 ‫ ׇא ֶרץ‏‬MT | ‫ הארץ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ ֶה ְח ִּפיר‏‬MT | ‫ חפו֯ ר‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ נ ֵֹער‏‬MT | ‫ נוער‏‬1QIsaa | φανερὰ (via √‫ )נודע‏‬ἔσται LXX ‫— ֶה ְח ִּפי ‏ר‬MT sets forth the hipʿil ‫“( ֶה ְח ִּפי ‏ר‬to feel abashed,” HALOT, 341) versus 1QIsaa’s qal ‫“( חפו֯ ר‏‬to be ashamed,” HALOT, 340); the qal form of this verb is moderately more common in the HB than the hipʿil. 33:10

‫אמ ‏ר‬ ַ ֹ ‫ י‬MT | ‫ אמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ֹרומ ‏‬ ‫ ֵא ׇ‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ אתרומ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ֶאּנׇ ֵׂש ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ הנש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫אמ ‏ר‬ ַ ֹ ‫—י‬Three similar formulas (constituting √‫ אמר‏‬and ‫ )יהוה‏‬exist in Isaiah: ‫( יאמר יהו ‏‬5×), ‫( כה אמר יהוה‏‬29×), and ‫( אמר יהוה‏‬14×).816 In the present verse, ‫ה‬ MT reads ‫ יאמר יהוה‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫אמר יהו ‏‬. The primary reading is unknown. ‫ֹרומ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫— ֵא ׇ‬Both MT (‫ֹרומם‏‬ ‫ ) ֵא ׇ‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )אתרומם‏‬present an impf. first com‑ mon sg. hitpolel form of √‫“( רום‏‬to lift oneself up proudly,” HALOT, 1205). MT

lacks the tāw infix (but the word is vocalized to reflect this omitted character); the scroll has the tāw. Cf. MT Dan 11:36, where the tāw is present (‫ֹרומם‏‬ ֵ ‫)וְ יִ ְת‬. See also the hitpolel form in 54:14, where MT reads ‫ ִּתֹּכונׇ נִ ‏י‬and 1QIsaa has ‫תתכוננ‏י‬. ‫— ֶאּנׇ ֵׂשא‏‬MT produces first common sg. imperfects, ‫א‬ ‫ֹרומם … ֶאּנׇ ֵׂש ‏‬ ‫ ׇאקּום … ֵא ׇ‬. For the third of these three impf. verbs, 1QIsaa has the reading ‫א‬ ‫הנש ‏‬, which perhaps came about because of dittography, ‫‏עתה הנשא‬.

33:11 ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ חשש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֲח ַׁש ‏‬The word ‫“( ֲח ַׁשׁש‏‬dried grass, foliage,” HALOT, 363) is found only twice ‫ׁש‬ in the Bible, both times in Isaiah (5:24 and 33:11). On both occasions 1QIsaa sets forth a different reading (5:24 ‫ ואש‏‬and 33:11 ‫)חששה‏‬, thus prompting Kutscher to state that the copyist lacked knowledge regarding the meaning of ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‏‬.817 See also the comments in 5:24. For MT’s ‫ ֲח ַׁשׁש‏‬, LXX has αἰσθηθήσεσθε (“to perceive”),

815  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 278; Weingreen, Introduction to the Critical Study, 44; Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 423; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 439; and Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 594. 816  The counts of these formulas are approximate. 817  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 240.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

231

likely reading √‫“( מׁשׁש‏‬to feel”) instead of √‫( חשש‏‬reading a mêm in place of the ḥêt).818 33:12 ‫ וְ ׇהיּו‏‬MT | ‫ ויהי ‏ו‬1QIsaa 33:13

‫ ְּודע ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ידע ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ְּודע ‏ּו‬The scribe of 1QIsaa erred via a confusion of the letters yôd and wāw.

MT is correct819 with the impv. chain, “hear … and know,” versus 1QIsaa, which reads “hear … they will know.” But compare Oswalt, who prefers the reading of 1QIsaa and LXX.820 33:15

‫ וְ ד ֵֹב ‏ר‬MT | ‫ וידבר‏‬1QIsaa | λαλῶν LXX • ‫ ַּכ ׇּפיו‏‬MT | ‫ כפו֯‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַּבּׁש ַֹחד‏‬MT | ‫בשחוד‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ׇאזְ ֹנו‏‬MT | ‫ אוז̇ ני ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ע ֵֹצ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ יעצ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַּבּׁש ַֹח ‏ד‬For a brief discussion regarding the reading ‫( ַּבּׁש ַֹחד‏‬MT) versus ‫( בשחו ‏ד‬1QIsaa), see 5:23. ‫— ׇאזְ ֹנו … ַּכ ׇּפיו‏‬For the verse’s reference to three body parts—hands, ears, and hands—MT and 1QIsaa exhibit two deviations. MT has ‫“( ַּכ ׇּפי‏ו‬his hands,” ‫כ ‏ף‬, “the hollow, the flat of the hand,” HALOT, 492) versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ ;כפו֯‏‬MT has the ‫“( ׇאזְ ֹנ‏ו‬his ear”) versus 1QIsaa’s ‫אוז̇ ני‏ו‬. However, the distinction between the suffixes ‫ ‑ו‏‬and ‫ ‑יו‏‬became indistinct in DSS Hebrew,821 thus 1QIsaa’s two devi‑

ations = MT in meaning and significance. Both witnesses—MT and 1QIsaa— have ‫“( עיני ‏ו‬his eyes”).

33:17 ‫ ֶּת ֱחזֶ ינׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ תחזיו‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶּת ֱחזֶ ינׇ ‏‬MT reads a qal third f. pl. impf. (√‫חזה‏‬, “to see, behold,” HALOT, ‫ה‬ 301). The form of 1QIsaa (‫ )תחזיון‏‬is an “artificial archaic form (hybrid form),”822 writes Kutscher. Compare also the scroll’s reading of ‫ תקראון‏‬in 41:22, versus MT’s ‫ ִּת ְק ֶרינׇ ה‏‬. Elsewhere in the HB, MT has two such “artificial archaisms”: “and let thy widows trust (‫ ִּת ְב ׇטחּו‏‬, qal impf. third f. pl.) in me” (Jer 49:11; the Qumran texts 818  For this theory regarding LXX’s reading, see Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 50. 819  So, Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 279. 820  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 595; see also Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 25. 821  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70. 822  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 325.

232

Chapter 2

are not attested here) and “the bones (‫ ) ֲע ׇצֹמות‏‬came together (‫”)… וַ ִּת ְק ְרבּו‏‬ (Ezek 37:7).823 Kutscher asks, “Could these instances (in Jer and Ezek) in con‑ junction with those from the Scribe be taken to indicate that such improper ar‑ chaic forms were current in later Biblical Hebrew, which would free our scribe from responsibility for them?” But Kitscher concludes that these forms may be “relics of archaic forms” or “are an intrusion from a different dialect.”824 33:19 ‫ ִת ְר ֶאה‏‬MT | ‫ תירא ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹמוע‏‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ְּׁש‬MT | ‫ע‬ ‫ משמי ֹ ‏‬1QIsaa | ὥστε μὴ ἀκοῦσαι LXX ‫— ִת ְר ֶא ‏‬A 1QIsaa copyist wrote the pl. ‫“( תרא ‏ו‬you will see”), and then he or a ‫ה‬ subsequent copyist inserted a yôd above the rêš to read ‫“( תיראו‏‬you will fear”?). In view of the greater context (see especially vv. 17, 2), MT’s √‫ ראה‏‬is the pri‑ mary reading. 33:20 ‫ֹמוע ֵדנּו‏‬ ֲ MT | ‫ מועדינ ‏ו‬1QIsaa MTmss α′ σ′ θ′ Syr | τὸ σωτήριον ἡμῶν LXX • ‫ יְ ֵתד ׇֹתיו‏‬MT | ‫ יתדות ‏ו‬1QIsaa | οἱ πάσσαλοι τῆς σκηνῆς αὐτῆς LXX 33:21 ‫ נְ ׇה ִרים‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ נהרו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵּת ֶל ‏ְך‬MT LXX | ‫ תל ‏ב‬1QIsaa • ‫ט‬ ‫ ַׁשיִ ‏‬MT | ‫ט‬ ‫ ש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—נְ ׇה ִרי ‏‬MT utilizes ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ‑י ‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫‑ו ‏‬, which is more common in the HB and used “exclusively” in rabbinic Hebrew (as Kutscher points out).825 Thus the scroll’s scribe employed the form that was better known to him. The word may be a gloss, set forth to explain the word following (‫;)יְ א ִֹרים‏‬826 or, more like‑ ly, the reading may be a case of apposition.827 ‫— ֵּת ֶלְך‏‬With its reading of ‫תלב‏‬, 1QIsaa is in error (see UF), evidently caused by the threefold repetition of the bêt in the environment of the word under discussion, i.e., ‫‏בל תלב בו‬. ‫— ַׁשיִ ט‏‬Although MT’s m. sg. noun ‫ט‬ ‫“( ַׁשיִ ‏‬oar,” HALOT, 1478) is a hapax legomenon, it fits the grammatical pattern of 1 ‫“( ‏ ַציִ ד־‬hunting game, provision”), ‫“( ַּדיִ ׁש‏‬threshing”), and others. With its reading of ‫שט‏‬, 1QIsaa either attests a defective spelling of the noun ‫ט‬ ‫ ַׁשיִ ‏‬or a qal ptc. Compare also ‫ט‬ ‫( שו ‏‬MTmss, HUB–Isaiah).

823  Ibid., 325. 824  Ibid., 325. 825  Ibid., 388. 826  Driver, “Glosses in the Hebrew Text,” 137. 827  Tov, Greek and Hebrew Bible, 64–65; see also n. 30.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

233

33:22 ‫יְ הוׇ ‏‬2,3 MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ויהו ‏‬2,3 1QIsaa 4QIsac2 • ‫א‬ ‫ הּו ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ והו ‏‬1QIsaa 33:23

‫ ֵכ‏ן‬MT | ‫ כ‏י‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ׇּפ ְרׂש ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ פר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַמ ְר ֶּב ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ מרוב ‏‬1QIsaa

α′ σ′ ‫— ֵכ‏ן‬1QIsaa’s ‫ כ‏י‬signifies a challenge. Perhaps the scribe misread his master copy and wrote ‫ כ‏י‬in place of ‫( כ‏ן‬a bit of a stretch); or he utilized ‫כ‏י‬, with the meaning “indeed.” Either way, ‫‏( ֵכ‏ן‬3‫“ ֵּכן־‬base”) is the preferred reading. LXX’s translator (ἔκλινεν) apparently read ‫ כ‏ן‬as ‫( כ ‏ף‬via √‫)כפף‏‬, reading the final nûn as a final pê.828 ‫— ׇּפ ְרׂש ‏ּו‬The pl. verb of MT (‫ ) ׇּפ ְרׂשּו‏‬matches the other pl. verb (‫ )יְ ַחּזְ קּו‏‬of this bicolon belonging to v. 23a. 1QIsaa’s sg. ‫ש‬ ‫ פר ‏‬does not so correspond. ‫“(— ַמ ְר ֶּבה‏‬increase, multitude,” HALOT, 631). MT sets forth a hapax legomenon (but compare ‫ה‬ ‫ ְל ַמ ְר ֵב ‏‬, 9:6); 1QIsaa employs a word (‫ )מרובה‏‬that is “extreme‑ ly common in Rab. Hebr. Clearly, then, the common late form was substituted for the hapax legomenon found in the Bible.”829 33:24 ‫ ׇׁש ֵכן‏‬MT | ‫ שוכ‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫ ׇׁש ֵכן‏(— ׇׁש ֵכן‏‬, “resident, occupant,” HALOT, 1499–1500). This is another case of the interchange of patterns in QH: qatel (‫ ) ׇׁש ֵכן‏‬occasionally became qotel (‫)שוכן‏‬.830 Cf. ‫ם‬ ‫( ׇה ֲע ֵׁשנִ י ‏‬MT) and ‫ם‬ ‫( העושני ‏‬1QIsaa) in 7:4. 33:24 (col. XXVII) Precisely halfway through 1QIsaa’s fifty-four columns (at the end of col. XXVII) there exists a large vacat, which is equivalent to three lines of text (cf. the three lines of text at the bottom of col. XXVIII). This bisection thus divides the text of Isaiah into two parts: chapters 1–33 (cols. 1–27) and chapters 34–66 (cols. 28–54). Tov observes that the first half of the scroll was written by Scribe A and the second half by Scribe B. The two scribes exhib‑ it two different scribal procedures that pertain to orthography, morphology, scribal marks, interlinear and intercolumnal corrections, plus more. For a

828  See the analysis of Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 51. 829  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 318. 830  For a discussion of this phenomenon together with additional examples, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 187–89.

234

Chapter 2

discussion of this large vacat together with the practices of Scribes A and B, see Tov’s Scribal Practices.831

Isaiah 34

34:2 ‫ נְ ׇתנׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ונתנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ח‬ ‫ ַל ׇּט ַב ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ לטבו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַל ׇּט ַב ‏‬The verb √‫ טבח‏‬does not appear in MT Isaiah, but the m. sg. noun ‫ח‬ ‫“( טבח‏‬butchery,” HALOT, 368) occurs four times (34:2, 6; 53:7; 65:12). For three out of those four occurrences, 1QIsaa sets forth a deviation: in 34:2, 1QIsaa likely had a m. sg. noun, but a scribe added a supralinear wāw, changing the read‑ ing to a qal inf. const. (‫לטבוח‏‬, “to slaughter,” HALOT, 368); in 34:6 1QIsaa equals MT (‫ ;)וטבח‏‬in 53:7 1QIsaa and 1QIsab read a qal inf. const. (‫ ;)לטבוח‏‬and in 65:12 1QIsaa has a f. sg. noun? (‫לטבחה‏‬, “slaughtering,” HALOT, 368). It is evident that the scribe knew the m. sg. form because he wrote it in 34:6; but why his manu‑ script has deviations for the other three occurrences of the noun ‫ח‬ ‫ טב ‏‬remains unknown. 34:3

‫ ׇה ִרי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ההרי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇה ִרים‏‬Either MT (‫ ) ׇה ִרים‏‬lost the article via haplography or 1QIsaa (‫)ההרים‏‬

added it through dittography.

34:4 > MT LXX | ‫ והעמקים יתבקע‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ל־צ ׇבא ַה ׇּׁש ַמיִ ‏‬ ְ ‫ וְ נׇ ַמּקּו ׇּכ‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫וכול צבא השמי ‏‬ ‫ יפולו‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ִּכנְ בֹ ‏ל‬MT | ‫ כנוב ‏ל‬1QIsaa | πεσεῖται (via √‫ )נפל‏‬LXX • ‫ ִמּגֶ ֶפ‏ן‬MT | ‫ מגופ‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִמ ְּת ֵאנׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ מן תאנ ‏‬1QIsaa >—At issue is 1QIsaa’s plus of ‫והעמקים יתבקעו‏‬, which at first glance seems to serve as an appropriate parallel to ‫ם‬ ‫וְ נׇ ַמּסּו ׇה ִרים ִמ ׇּד ׇמ ‏‬, i.e., “the mountains will melt with their blood, the valleys will be split.” However, the plus of the scroll was likely derived from Mic 1:4 (‫)וְ ׇה ֲע ׇמ ִקים יִ ְת ַּב ׇּקעּו‏‬832 or from a source that is common to both the book of Micah and the Isaiah scroll or its Vorlage. In this passage MT has the primary reading, especially since it has the support of LXX and other witnesses.

831  Tov, Scribal Practices, 21; see also the bibliography in notes 36 and 37. 832  See the arguments of Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 184–85; and Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 313.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

235

‫ל־צ ׇבא ַה ׇּׁש ַמיִ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ְ ‫—וְ נׇ ַמּקּו ׇּכ‬Duhm argues that parts of MT 34:4 are perplexing.833 Perplexity is multiplied because LXX lacks the equivalent of ‫א‬ ‫ונמקו כל צב ‏‬ ‫השמים‬. To an extent, 1QIsaa (‫ )וכול צבא השמים יפולו‏‬supports MT, but with two chief differences: (a) the verbal roots are different: ‫ וְ נׇ ַמּק‏ּו‬MT (via √‫מקק‏‬, “to melt, dissolve,” HALOT, 629) versus ‫ יפולו‏‬in 1QIsaa (via √‫נפל‏‬, “to fall acciden‑ tally,” HALOT, 709); and (b) MT places its verb before the expression ‫ל־צ ׇבא‏‬ ְ ‫ׇּכ‬ ‫כול צב ‏‬ ‫ ַה ׇּׁש ַמיִ ם‬, but 1QIsaa has it after. A search of the somewhat common ‫א‬ ‫ השמים‬in the Bible (e.g., Deut 17:3; 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Kgs 17:6; 21:3; etc.) does little to solve the meaning of the verse under discussion. However, it is possible that 1QIsaa’s ‫ יפול‏ו‬was impacted by the graphically similar word that follows it, i.e., ‫יפולו ונגלו‏‬. ‫— ִּכנְ בֹל‏‬LXX twice misread the root ‫ נב ‏ל‬and translated ‫( נפ ‏ל‬πεσεῖται … ὡς πίπτει), reading a pê instead of a bêt. ‫— ִמּגֶ ֶפן‏‬In this example, 1QIsaa (‫ )מגופן‏‬follows the quṭl pattern. The meaning is probably the same as MT, e.g., “vine,” rather than the proper noun “Gophen.”834 For a brief discussion together with bibliographic sources, see 3:24. ‫— ִמ ְּת ֵאנׇ ‏‬Qimron describes the nonassimilation of the preposition ‫( מ‏ן‬as is ‫ה‬ the case here with 1QIsaa ‫ )מן תאנה‏‬as “morphophonological.” He then writes, “This phenomenon, which is … found in the biblical texts and in other contem‑ poraneous Hebrew sources is apparently an Aramaism.”835 See also ‫( ִמ ׇּבנִ ים‏‬MT) and ‫( ומן בנות‏‬1QIsaa) in 56:5 and ‫ם‬ ‫( ִמ ׇּׁש ַמיִ ‏‬MT) and ‫ם‬ ‫( מן השמי ‏‬1QIsaa) in 63:15. 34:5 ‫ ִרּוְ ׇתה‏‬MT LXX (ἐμεθύσθη) | ‫ה‬ ‫ תרא ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִרּוְ ׇת ‏‬MT presents the lectio difficilior ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫רוה‏√( ִרּוְ ׇת ‏‬, “to give to drink abun‑ dantly, water thoroughly,” HALOT, 1195), versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ראה‏√( תרא ‏‬, “to ap‑ pear, become visible,” HALOT, 1160; cf. also Tg’s reading of ‫) ִתתגְ ֵל‏י‬. It is possible that the scribe borrowed language from another passage, where ‫ ֶח ֶרב‏‬and √‫ראה‏‬ are collocated (i.e., Jer 14:13; Ezek 33:3, 6). Or, as Kutscher proposes, the scribe lacked knowledge regarding the meaning of the verb √‫רוה‏‬‎,836 although the scribe correctly wrote ‫ )רוה‏√( רותה‏‬two verses later (v. 7). But contrast several critics who favor the reading of 1QIsaa.837 Driver, based on the difficulty of MT 833  See the viewpoint in Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 223. 834  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 313, proposes that the scroll has the proper noun Gophen. Mansoor, “Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts,” 44, suggests that 1QIsaa’s ‫ גופ‏ן‬is impacted by Aramaic. 835  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 31; see also Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 214; and Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 11. 836  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 285. 837  See, for example, Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 313; and Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 5.

236

Chapter 2

as well as the reading of the Tg, states emphatically that “the Scroll’s reading can, indeed must, be accepted without hesitation.”838 Note also HALOT (1160), for MT “‫ ִרּוְ ׇתה‏‬rd. ‫ה‬ ‫ ֵת ׇר ֶא ‏‬.” But contrary to these critics, the reading of MT must be maintained. Based on a phrase in Jer 46:10 (‫)וְ ׇא ְכ ׇלה ֶח ֶרב וְ ׇׂש ְב ׇעה וְ ׇרוְ ׇתה ִמ ׇּד ׇמם‏‬, a reading that is similar to the one under discussion, one can argue for the primacy of MT; additionally, we observe also that MT has the support of LXX, Vulg, and Syr. 34:6 ‫ ִּכ ְלֹיות‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ כלאיו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִּכ ְלֹיו ‏‬MT reads ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫“( ִּכ ְלֹיו ‏‬kidneys,” HALOT, 479). As Qimron sets forth, 1QIsaa’s ‫ כלאיות‏‬is a construct form and the ʾālep is a glide,839 thus ‫ת‬ ‫ת = כלאיו ‏‬ ‫ ִּכ ְלֹיו ‏‬. 34:9 ‫ ּב ֵֹע ׇרה‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ ובער ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—ּב ֵֹע ׇר ‏‬In MT, ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ּב ֵֹע ׇר ‏‬terminates a sense unit (e.g., v. 9), but ‫ה‬ ‫ ובער ‏‬opens a sense unit (e.g., v. 10) in 1QIsaa (cf. also the verse divisions in LXX 34:9–10; see the structuring in UF 1:154). On five occasions in vv. 9–10, 1QIsaa employs the wāw where MT lacks it—attached to ‫ה‬ ‫ ובער ‏‬in v. 9 and connected to ‫ולוא‏‬, ‫ו֯ עלה‏‬, ‫ותחרב‏‬, and ‫ ואין‏‬in v. 10. The use of the conjunctive wāw in vv. 9–10 of the scroll indicates a different system of punctuation or sense divisions, thus conveying a meaning unlike MT. A careful analysis of these two Hebrew witnesses reveals several differences in meaning.840 34:10 ‫ לֹא‏‬MT | ‫ ולוא‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ִת ְכ ֶּבה‏‬MT | ‫ תכובה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ֲע ֶלה‏‬MT | ‫ ו֯ עלה‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ֶּת ֱח ׇרב‏‬MT LXX | ‫ ותחר ‏ב‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵאי‏ן‬MT LXX | ‫ ואי‏ן‬1QIsaa | ‫ ‏ו‬LXXms θ′ For the variants that pertain to the conjunction wāw, see the commentary under v. 9, immediately above. ‫— ִת ְכ ֶּב ‏‬Both MT’s qal impf. (‫ ) ִת ְכ ֶּבה‏‬and 1QIsaa’s puʿal impf. (‫ )תכובה‏‬fit the ‫ה‬ context.

838  Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 55; see also Watts, Isaiah 34– 66, 5. 839  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 350; see also n. 329. 840  Ulrich examines the sense divisions of these verses in Ulrich, “Impressions and Intuition,” 284–85.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

237

34:11 ‫ יִ ְׁש ְּכנ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ישכונ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ תֹה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ותה ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—תֹה ‏ּו‬MT’s ‫תֹהּו‏‬, minus the wāw, is primary; perhaps a scribe of 1QIsaa cre‑ ated a dittograph, i.e., ‫קו ותה ‏ו‬. 34:12

‫ ח ֶֹר ׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫יה‬ ‫ וחרי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ס‬ ‫ ׇא ֶפ ‏‬MT | ‫ס‬ ‫ כאפ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇא ֶפס‏‬1QIsaa first read ‫כאפס‏‬, but a copyist deleted the kāp on the leather

(with deletion dots).

34:13 ‫ ׇח ִציר‏‬MT | ‫ חצ ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX (αὐλή) ‫— ׇח ִצי ‏ר‬The deviation between ‫( חציר‏‬MT, “grass,” HALOT, 343–44) and ‫חצר‏‬ (1QIsaa, “permanent settlement, yard without walls,” HALOT, 345) may be or‑ thographic. More likely, however, the readings should be seen as variants (see DCH 3:295, “1QIsa ‫ חצר‏‬appar. ‫ ׇח ֵצ ‏ר‬court”). Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, Oort proposes an emendation of MT’s ‫ ׇח ִצי ‏ר‬to ‫חצ ‏ר‬.841 And Kutscher writes, “Since the parallel in the verse is ‫ נוה תנים‏‬it has been emended to ‫חצר‏‬. The Scr.’s reading is thus in accord with the suggested emendation. However, in xxxv 7 the Scr. reads ‫ = חציר‏‬MT, and there too the parallel has ‫נוה תנים‏‬, and the identical emendation is proposed.”842 Why the scroll reads in ‫ חצר‏‬in 34:13 and ‫ חצי ‏ר‬in 35:7 is unknown. 34:14 ‫ ִאּיִ ים‏‬MT | ‫ אייאמים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּומ ְצ ׇאה ׇלּה‏‬ ‫יעה ִּל ִילית ׇ‬ ‫ ִה ְרּגִ ׇ‬MT | ‫ירגיעו ליליות ומצאו להמה‏‬ 1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫— ִאּיִ י ‏‬Talmon proposes that ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫אייאמי ‏‬, the peculiar variant of 1QIsaa, is a hy‑ brid of ‫ איים‏‬and ‫ימם‏‬.843‫‏‬Clines offers another point of view when he explains that ‫ אייאמים‏‬is “perhaps conflation of ‫[ ִאי‏‬jackal] and ‫ ֵא ׇימה‏‬terror” (for other ex‑ amples of possible hybrid forms in 1QIsaa, see the comments on ‫ה‬ ‫ עצרת ‏‬in 1:13). ‫ּומ ְצ ׇאה ׇלּה‏‬ ‫יעה ִּל ִילית ׇ‬ ‫— ִה ְרּגִ ׇ‬MT presents an expression with sg. forms (‫יעה‏‬ ‫ִה ְרּגִ ׇ‬ ‫ּומ ְצ ׇאה ׇלה‬ ‫ ) ִּל ִילית ׇ‬versus 1QIsaa’s plurals (‫)ירגיעו ליליות ומצאו להמה‏‬. The scroll’s reading may be an assimilation of the plurals in v. 14a.

841  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 100. 842  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 237–38; Dillmann, too, emended the text to ‫ר‬ ‫חצ ‏‬, Der Prophet Jesaia, 305. 843  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 247.

238

Chapter 2

34:15 ‫ ִקֹּפו ‏ז‬MT | ‫ קופ ‏ד‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַא ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ אכ א ‏כ‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ַדֹּיו ‏‬MT | ‫ דוות‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִקֹּפוז‏‬Scholars have contended the meaning of MT’s ‫( ִקֹּפוז‏‬a hapax legomenon), arguing that it refers to an arrow snake, little owl, an unidentified snake, a bird, hedgehog, or another animal.844 1QIsaa’s ‫ קופ ‏ד‬is perplexing (cf. ‫ ִק ֹּפ ‏ד‬in Zeph 2:14), especially since in 14:23 MT reads ‫ ִק ֹּפ ‏ד‬and 1QIsaa has ‫קפ ‏ז‬, the exact opposite that exists here in 34:15. To confuse the matter, MTmss (HUB–Isaiah) have the reading of ‫( קפו ‏ד‬30, K), and a single manuscript (K) reads ‫ק(י)פו‏ן‬. See also the comments at 14:23. For the readings of both 14:23 and 34:15, the variant may have emerged owing to the graphic similarity of the dālet and zayin. Cf. also LXX’s reading of ἐχῖνος. ‫— ַא ‏ְך‬1QIsaa’s reading of ‫ אכ א ‏כ‬indicates a dittograph. ‫ ַדיׇ ה‏(— ַדֹּיו ‏‬, “unclean bird of prey frequenting ruins and deserted settle‑ ‫ת‬ ments,” HALOT, 220; cf. Deut 14:13). Both MT and 1QIsaa attest the f. pl., al‑ though the scroll has the long f. pl. ending ‫ת‬ ‫ ;‑וו ‏‬for other instances of this phenomenon, see the comments at 8:7. 34:16 ‫ ִּד ְרׁשּו‏‬MT | ‫ דרושו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַא ַחת ֵמ ֵהּנׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ ואחת‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ μία αὐτῶν LXX • ‫לֹא‏‬ ‫ ׇפ ׇקדּו‬MT | > 1QIsaa • ‫ ִפי‏‬MT | ‫ פיהו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ רּוֹחו‏‬MT | ‫ ורוחהו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ הּוא‏‬MT | ‫היאה‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ִק ְּב ׇצן‏‬MT | ֹ‫ם‬ ‫ קבצ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—לֹא ׇפ ׇקדּו‏‬The expression ‫ לֹא ׇפ ׇקד‏ּו‬is lacking in 1QIsaa, perhaps via haplog‑ raphy triggered by the double attestation of ‫א‬ ‫לו ‏‬. LXX attests ἐζήτησαν (= ‫)בק ‏ר‬, apparently reading bêt for pê and rêš for dālet. ‫— ִפ‏י‬The bicolon of v. 16b in MT reads ‫י־פי הּוא ִצּוׇ ה וְ רּוֹחו הּוא ִק ְּב ׇצן‏‬ ִ ‫“( ִּכ‬for my mouth it has commanded, and his Spirit it has gathered them”). With its reading of ‫ם‬ ‫כיא פיהו הוא צוה ורוחהו היאה קבצ ‏‬, 1QIsaa has three minor variants: (a) The scroll has ‫“( פיהו‏‬his mouth,” cf. KR, which also attest ‫ ;פיהו‏‬and 96 [pm] reads ‫ה‬ ‫פ ‏‬, HUB–Isaiah), which may be an assimilation of the same pronomi‑ nal suffix from ‫“( ורוחה‏ו‬his spirit”), located three words later in the bicolon; or ‫ פיהו‏‬signifies the primary reading, i.e., “his mouth … his spirit”;845 or, another theory: several textual critics846 have suggested that the Hebrew text (based on LXX) read ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬in place of ‫א‬ ‫הו ‏‬. This reading is feasible, especially now with 844  See the discussions in Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 253; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 220; Whitehouse, Isaiah, 1:346; and HALOT, 1118. 845  See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 449, who prefers this reading of 1QIsaa. Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 312, 317, discusses MT’s ‫ ִפי‏‬as well as textual variants and concludes by trans‑ lating the text as “For ‘Yahweh’s’ mouth has given the order.” 846  Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 168.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

239

1QIsaa in hand: perhaps ‫ פיהו‏‬once read ‫פי יהוה‏‬.847 (b) The scroll attests ‫היאה‏‬, a f. sg. pronoun that properly modifies the f. sg. noun ‫ח‬ ‫רו ‏‬,848 (c) 1QIsaa reads ֹ‫ם‬ ‫קבצ ‏‬ (with a m. pl. pronominal suffix) versus MT’s ‫( ִק ְּב ׇצ‏ן‬with a f. pl. suffix). If the pronominal suffix hearkens back to ‫“( ַדֹּיות‏‬vultures”), or ‫ ַדֹּיות‏‬and ‫( ִקֹּפוז‏‬both f. nouns), then MT’s f. pl. suffix is correct. ‫—הּו ‏‬According to Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, 1QIsaa has the correct indepen‑ ‫א‬ dent pronoun (‫)היאה‏‬.849 MT likely assimilated its third m. sg. pronoun from ‫הוא‏‬, located three words earlier in the passage. We note here that Döderlein emends the text to read ‫ יהוה‏‬in place of ‫הוא‏‬.850 ‫— ִק ְּב ׇצן‏‬MT (‫ ) ִק ְּב ׇצן‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫קבצם‏‬, a single manuscript of K also attests ‫[ קבצ ‏‬HUB, Isaiah]) present two different pronominal suffixes. If the ante‑ ‫ם‬ cedent of the verb is ‫ ִקֹּפוז‏‬and ‫( ַדֹּיות‏‬both f.), then ‫ ִק ְּב ׇצן‏‬is the correct reading. Compare ‫ ׇל ֶה‏ן‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇל ֶה ‏‬in v. 17. 34:17

‫ וְ יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬MT LXX | ‫ וידיו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִח ְּל ַק ׇּתה‏‬MT | ‫ חלקת‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇל ֶהם‏‬MT | ‫ להמנה‏‬1QIsaa |

βόσκεσθαι LXX ‫—וְ יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬The sg. f. verb ‫ ִח ְּל ַק ׇּתה‏‬agrees with the sg. ‫( וְ יׇ ֹדו‏‬MT); for 1QIsaa’s ‫וידיו‏‬, see 5:25. ‫— ׇל ֶה ‏‬With regard to 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫להמנ ‏‬: the mêm was erased (with an erasure dot under the mêm), and the nûn was added supralinearly. A copyist likely ex‑ ecuted this change so that the word under discussion would agree with ‫להנה‏‬, located four words earlier. LXX’s reading of βόσκεσθαι may reflect the transla‑ tor’s understanding of ‫( לחם‏‬see UF 1:155). 34:17b–35:2 Brownlee identifies ten gaps in the second half of 1QIsaa, which he presumes the copyist had planned to later inscribe. The first of the ten gaps is here, at 34:17 (column XXVIII, line 18). The other nine are XXX, 10 (37:4); XXXII, 14 (38:20); XXXIII, 14 (40:14); XXXIV, 15 (41:11); XXXVIII, 15 (45:8); XLII, 20 (51:6); XLIV, 15 (53:8); XLV, 17 (54:17); and LII, 23 (65:15).851 847  Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 27, wrote, “Probably ‫ה‬ ‫( יהו ‏‬abbreviated as ‫ ) ‏י‬fell out after the ‫ י‏‬of ‫פ ‏י‬.” 848  Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 322n640. 849  Ibid., 322n640. 850  Döderlein, Esaias, 145. 851  See the view of Brownlee, “Literary Significance of the Bisection of Isaiah,” 431–37; and Brownlee, “Manuscripts of Isaiah from which DSIa was Copied,” 16–21. See also Tov’s ex‑ amination of sense divisions in various biblical texts in Tov, “Background of the Sense Divisions,” 312–50. For another viewpoint, Longacre, “Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse,

240

Chapter 2

For 34:17b–35:2, the 1QIsaa copyist wrote v. 17a through to ‫ם‬ ‫ עד עול ‏‬but then omitted vv. 34:17b through 35:2. This omission is puzzling, especially owing to the fact that he left an entire line blank before 35:3 at the right-hand margin. A second scribe first wrote ‫ה‬ ‫ ירשו ‏‬above and to the left of ‫ם‬ ‫( עד עול ‏‬thus in the mar‑ gin to the left of the column) and then wrote the rest of the omitted text, creat‑ ing two lines of very small characters in the blank line that was left by the first scribe. Long before this omission in 1QIsaa, scholars had questioned whether or not vv. 17b–35:2 were secondary.852 Ulrich concludes that “a case can be made for seeing once again a two-stage insertion into the developing text of Isaiah.”853 So, too, UF 2:90 include 17b–35:2 in their table 9 under the head‑ ing “Insertions in M highlighted by 1QIsaa.” Altogether, the table sets forth eight “interpretive insertions in M that apparently had not yet entered the text when 1QIsaa and its source text were formed: 2:9b–10; 34:17–35:2; 37:5–7; 38:20b–22; 40:7 (or 7aβ–8a); 40:14b–16; and 63:3aβ–bα…. It should be noted that the OG agrees with 1QIsaa in not yet having the insertion that occurs in M at 40:7…. These seven major secondary additions indicate that M displays a later stage of textual development than that of 1QIsaa, even if the linguistic features of M did not undergo as much updating as those of 1QIsaa.”

Isaiah 35

35:2 ‫ ַה ְּל ׇבֹנון‏‬MT | ‫ לבנו‏ן‬1QIsaa 35:4

‫ֹלה ֶיכ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬MT | ‫ אלוהכמה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫יׇֹבוא‏‬1‫ ‏‬MT | ‫ יביא‏‬1QIsaa | ἀνταποδίδωσιν LXX • ‫יׇֹבוא‏‬2 MT LXX | ‫ יביא‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹלה ֶיכם‏‬ ֵ ‫— ֱא‬See commentary at 8:19. ‫‏‏‬1‫א‬ ‫ … יׇֹבו ‏‬2‫—יׇֹבוא‬MT features two qal verbs (“your God will come [‫ ]יבוא‏‬with vengeance, God will come [‫ ]יבוא‏‬with divine retribution”) versus the two hipʿil verbs of 1QIsaa (“your God will bring [‫ ]יביא‏‬vengeance, God will bring [‫]יביא‏‬

divine retribution”). The difference between the readings may be explained by

or Physical Defect?” 17–50, examines several of the gaps in Isaiah 34–66 and theorizes that 1QIsaa’s exemplar had “a damaged bottom edge” (see 17). See also the arguments and conclusions of Williamson, “Scribe and Scroll,” 329–42. 852  For a recent study of this matter, see Ulrich, “Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” 294–95. 853  Ibid., 295.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

241

a wāw/yôd interchange. Note that Blank emends the text to read ‫א‬ ‫ יבי ‏‬for both words.854 35:6

‫ ׇּב ֲע ׇר ׇב ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ בערבה ילכ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫— ׇּב ֲע ׇר ׇב ‏‬The plus of 1QIsaa, having no support from other witnesses, may ‫ה‬ be an attempt to fill out the parallelism, with ‫ ילכ‏ו‬corresponding to ‫נִ ְב ְקע‏ּו‬. Tov

attributes the plus of 1QIsaa to a possible scribal contextual change, “reflect‑ ing the scribes’ wishes to adapt the texts to their own understanding or to an exegetical tradition known to them.”855 Pulikottil points out that all nouns in this verse, except for ‫ם‬ ‫“( ּונְ ׇח ִלי ‏‬streams”), are “assigned specific verbs. The scroll sensed the lack of a verb in this last clause and supplied it, thus filling a con‑ ceptual void.”856 But Blenkinsopp prefers this plus of 1QIsaa and thus translates the bicolon as “Yes, water will burst forth in the desert, wadis flow (‫ )ילכו‏‬in the wilderness.”857 MT, followed by the versions, has the primary reading. 35:7 ‫ ִר ְב ׇצּה‏‬MT | ‫ רב ‏צ‬1QIsaa ‫— ִר ְב ׇצ ‏‬MT reads ‫ּה‬ ‫ּה‬ ‫ ֵר ֶבץ‏( ִר ְב ׇצ ‏‬, “resting place, bed,” HALOT, 1182); 1QIsaa lacks the third f. sg. suffix, which may have dropped off through haplography with the following ḥêt, e.g., ‫‏רבצה חציר‬. Inasmuch as ‫ה‬ ‫ רבצ ‏‬does not seem to fit the immediate context of the verse,858 Torrey emends the text to read ‫“( לבצה‏‬swamp”), thus corresponding to the ex‑ pressions pool and springs of water; furthermore, the terms reeds and rushes relate well to swamp.859 And note that Oort emends MT’s ‫ ִר ְב ׇצּה‏‬to read ‫רבצ ‏ו‬ ‫ ׇ‬.860 35:8 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ יהיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇׁשם‏‬MT | ‫ שמה שמה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַמ ְסלּול‏‬MT | ‫ מסולל‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וׇ ֶד ֶרְך וְ ֶד ֶרְך‏‬MT | ‫ ודר ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT | ‫ יקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ַע ְב ֶרּנ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יעובורנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫הּוא־לֹמ ‏ו‬ ‫ׇ‬ ְ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ הואה ולמ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇׁש ‏‬With its reading of ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫שמה שמ ‏‬, 1QIsaa has a dittography.

854  Blank, Introductions and Critical Notes, 28. 855  Tov, TCHB3, 241. 856  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 79. 857  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 455. 858  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 343–43, writes that the suffix of MT’s ‫“ ִר ְב ׇצה‏‬makes no sense.” See Wildberger’s full argument. 859  See Torrey, Second Isaiah, 298–99. 860  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 101.

242

Chapter 2

‫— ַמ ְסלּו ‏ל‬This hapax legomenon denotes “street, road” (HALOT, 606; see also DCH 5:361). 1QIsaa’s ‫ מסולל‏‬may denote an error of transposition of the lāmed and the wāw. ‫—וׇ ֶד ֶרְך וְ ֶד ֶר ‏ְך‬The repeated expression ‫ וׇ ֶד ֶרְך וְ ֶד ֶר ‏ְך‬may signify a rhetorical struc‑ ture to emphasize the way, i.e., “And a highway will be there, even a way, and it will be called The Way of Holiness.” If this is the case, then 1QIsaa suffered from a haplography. It is also possible that MT experienced a dittography;861 or, as Wildberger suggests, MT’s second ‫ ודרך‏‬is a gloss that serves to explain the rare ‫מסלו ‏ל‬.862 Blenkinsopp,863 too, prefers to omit the duplicated ‫ודר ‏ך‬. NAB (413) accepts 1QIsaa’s reading. Note that multiple MTmss (HUB–Isaiah) read a single instance of ‫ = ודר ‏ך‬1QIsaa. Unfortunately, at least in my view, the primary read‑ ing is indeterminate. ‫—יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT has the sg. impersonal, “it will be called,” versus the pl. impf. of ‫א‬ 1QIsaa, “they will call it.” For a discussion of impersonal forms plus additional examples, see 1:26. ‫—יַ ַע ְב ֶרּנ ‏ּו‬For MT’s /a/ class vowel (‫ )יַ ַע ְב ֶרּנּו‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel (‫)יעובורנה‏‬, see the discussion in 43:13. See also the comments at 20:1.

35:9 ‫ ׇׁשם‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַּב ‏ל‬MT 4QIsab | ‫א‬ ‫ בל לו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ל ֹ ‏‬2 MT 4QIsab | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִת ׇּמ ֵצא‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫א | )‏ ̇ת[מצא‬ ‫ ימצ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַּב ‏ל‬The double negative in 1QIsaa (‫)בל לוא‏‬, unknown in the HB, is the result of an error. The scribe first wrote ‫ב ‏ל‬, which is the primary reading, and then duplicated the ‫א‬ ‫ לו ‏‬from v. 8, vertically located on the line above on the scroll (see col. xxviii, line 25). The vertical borrowing explains why MT and 4QIsab lack the double negative. Other possibilities, however, exist. ‫א‬ ‫ בל לו ‏‬may be a conflated or double reading;864 at least one medieval HB manuscript (K) reads ‫ ל ‏‬rather than ‫( בל‏‬HUB–Isaiah). Or, another theory (but less likely): ‫ לוא‏‬may ‫א‬ be the primary reading and ‫ ב ‏ל‬a synonymous reading acquired from another text type.865 ‫— ִת ׇּמ ֵצ ‏‬MT’s phrase ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ַּבל־יַ ֲע ֶלּנׇ ה לֹא ִת ׇּמ ֵצ ‏‬, with its change from a m. to a f. verb, is perplexing. Perhaps the reading is intentional, setting forth the idea 861  Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:385, proposed that MT suffered from a dittography. 862  Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27, 343. See also, Talmon, “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” 168–69, who argues that MT’s ‫ וׇ ֶד ֶרְך וְ ֶד ֶרְך‏‬is an example of a double reading. 863  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 456. 864  Talmon, “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” 155. 865  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 242–43.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

243

of a vague “such and such,” e.g., “such will not come on it, and such will not be found,” with both genders being represented to emphasize the totality of what will not travel on The Way of Holiness. 1QIsaa’s two m. forms (‫בל לוא יעלנה ולוא‏‬ ‫ )ימצא‬may indicate the correct reading, and we note that K (HUB–Isaiah) at‑ tests ‫א‬ ‫ = ימצ ‏‬1QIsaa. But it is also possible that 1QIsaa’s ‫א‬ ‫ ימצ ‏‬is an assimilation of ‫יעלנה‏‬. 35:10 ‫ יְ ֻׁשבּון‏‬MT | ‫ ישוב ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ְּב ִרּנׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ברונ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ִּׂשיג ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישיגוב ‏‬corrected to ‫ ישיג ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ נׇ ס ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ס‬ ‫ ונ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ֻׁשבּון‏‬Here MT has the paragogic nûn (‫ )יְ ֻׁשבּון‏‬versus 1QIsaa (‫)ישובו‏‬. For a discussion of the paragogic nûn in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 8:12. ‫—וְ נׇ ס ‏ּו‬1QIsaa and LXX have the sg. form (here and in the parallel passage in 51:11), an indication that 1QIsaa’s Vorlage read the sg. MT’s pl. ‫וְ נׇ ס‏ּו‬, which is appropriate for the double subject (‫)יגון ואנחה‏‬, is also used in the parallel verse, 51:11.

Isaiah 36

36:1 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ חזקיה‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 18:13 • ‫ וַ ּיִ ְת ְּפ ֵׂשם‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:13 | ‫ויתֹפושם‏‬ 1QIsaa ‫— ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the theophoric names ‫( חזקיהו‏‬MT, 4QIsab) and ‫( חזקיה‏‬1QIsaa), see the commentary at 1:1. ‫—וַ ּיִ ְת ְּפ ֵׂשם‏‬Regarding the wāw mater in 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫ויתֹפוש ‏‬, in contrast to the vowel system of MT, see the comments at 20:1. 36:2 ‫ ַאּׁשּור‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫א]שור‏‬ ֯ ) LXX | ‫ אש‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ב־ׁש ֵק ‏‬ ‫ ַר ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ רבשק ‏‬4QIsab LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫רּוׁש ַל ְׇמ ‏‬ ‫ יְ ׇ‬MT | ‫ ירושלים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה‏ּו‬MT | ‫ חזקיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּכ ֵב ‏ד‬MT LXX 2 Kgs 18:17 | ‫ כבד מאודה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ְׂש ֵד ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:17 | ‫ שד ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ַאּׁשּור‏‬Here 1QIsaa made a mistake by omitting the rêš. For this phenome‑ non, see the comments in 29:16. Note that in the previous verse (36:1) the copy‑ ist spelled ‫ אשו ‏ר‬correctly. ‫רּוׁש ַל ְׇמה‏‬ ‫—יְ ׇ‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫ירושלי ‏‬, lacking the a (‫ )‑ה‏‬of direction, see the com‑ ments at 28:6. ‫— ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the theophoric names ‫( חזקיהו‏‬MT) and ‫( חזקיה‏‬1QIsaa), see the commentary at 1:1.

244

Chapter 2

‫— ׇּכ ֵב ‏ד‬MT (36:2), followed by the parallel passage in Kings (2 Kgs 18:17), de‑ scribes a “great army” (‫) ְּב ֵחיל ׇּכ ֵבד‏‬, referring to the Assyrian army that gathered against Jerusalem during the days of King Hezekiah. The Isaiah scroll adds the adverbial particle ‫ה‬ ‫ מאוד ‏‬to read “very great army,” likely an intertextual assimi‑ lation from 1 Kgs 10:2//2 Chr 9:1, which attests the phrase ‫בחיל כבד מאו ‏ד‬. ‫ֹכובס‏(— ְׂש ֵד ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֵ ‫ ְׂש ֵדה‬, “field on which fulled cloths are spread out in order to dry and bleach,” HALOT, 459). 1QIsaa reads ‫ס‬ ‫ שד‏י ;שדי כוב ‏‬is a singular noun (= ‫ה‬ ‫) ְׂש ֵד ‏‬, a form that is typical in DSS Hebrew. The yôd represents the e in the final position of lāmed-yôd verbs. For this and similar forms, consult Qimron.866 Note that in 7:3, both MT and 1QIsaa read ‫ס‬ ‫שדה כוב ‏‬.

36:3

‫ ִח ְל ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 18:18 | ‫ חלקיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ֶׁש ְבנׇ א‏‬MT | ‫ ושובנא‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ וְ ֶׁש ְבנׇ ה‏‬2 Kgs 18:18 |

καὶ Σομνας LXX | et Sobna Vulg ‫— ִח ְל ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the theophoric names ‫( חלקיהו‏‬MT) and ‫( חלקיה‏‬1QIsaa), see the commentary at 1:1. ‫—וְ ֶׁש ְבנׇ א‏‬For the /o/ vowel reading of ‫א‬ ‫ ושובנ ‏‬in 1QIsaa, see the comments in 14:19 as well as the bibliographic information in the footnotes. See also ‫שובנא‏‬ (1QIsaa 36:22; 37:2) and ‫ם‬ ‫( צובי ‏‬1QIsaa 66:20). 36:4 ‫ ִא ְמרּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:19 | ‫ אמור ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 18:19 LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫חזקיה מלך יהוד ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ּת‬ ‫ ׇּב ׇט ְח ׇ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:19 | ‫ אתה בטחתה ב ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬By adding the words ‫“( מלך יהודה‏‬the king of Judah”), the scroll’s scribe has harmonized the reading with 37:10, which has ‫חוזקיה מלכ יהודה‏‬. The same or a subsequent copyist cancelled the plus with cancellation dots written above the characters. For a second harmonization in 1QIsaa, also from 37:10, see the following entry (‫) ׇּב ׇט ְח ׇּת‏‬. For other harmonizations located in 1QIsaa chapters 36–39, see 1QIsaa 36:11 (bis), 14; 37:4; 38:6; and 39:2. See also Kutscher,867 who points out that 1QIsaa chapters 36–39 have some twenty pluses, which is

866  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 74–76. 867  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 546. Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 318–19, presents a summary of the harmonizations in LXX Isaiah 36–39 versus 1QIsaa 36–39: “Interestingly enough, none of 1QIsaa’s harmonising pluses in these chap‑ ters accord with those in LXX Isaiah. This indicates that the harmonisations in LXX Isaiah and the Scroll do not derive from a common Vorlage in which they were already present, but that they were rather carried out by the Qumran scribe and the LXX translator them‑ selves, who both applied contextual harmonisation to their texts, independently of each other,” 318.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

245

a much higher percentage of pluses than is found in other blocks of texts in 1QIsaa. ‫— ׇּב ׇט ְח ׇ ‏‬This word is set in the context of an imminent Assyrian invasion of ‫ּת‬ the kingdom of Judah, which was ruled by Hezekiah (see v. 4). 1QIsaa reads ‫אתה‏‬ ‫ את ‏‬and ‫ ב ‏ו‬that adds an emphatic force to the final phrase ‫בטחתה בו‬, a plus of ‫ה‬ of the verse, “What is this confidence in which you, even you, are trusting in it?” This amplification of the scroll was probably impacted by a similar expression that belongs to 37:10, ‫אתה בוטח ב ‏ו‬. 36:5 ‫ ׇא ַמ ְר ִּת‏י‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אמרת ‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 18:20 MTmss | > LXX ‫— ׇא ַמ ְר ִּת‏י‬Note that the reading of MT 2 Kgs 18:20 (‫ ) ׇא ַמ ְר ׇּת‏‬equals that of 1QIsaa. Either MT (‫ ) ׇא ַמ ְר ִּתי‏‬or 1QIsaa (‫ )אמרתה‏‬can be read to fit the context, al‑ though Watts states, “The 2d pers is correct. MT is wrong.”868 Before the discov‑ ery of the Qumran texts, Döderlein and Kissane had proposed an emendation of ‫ת‬ ‫אמר ‏‬.869 We note also that MTmss attest ‫ת‬ ‫( אמר ‏‬HUB–Isaiah). 36:7870

‫אמ ‏ר‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ת‬MT | ‫ תואמר‏ו‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 18:22 LXX • ‫ ֶא ‏ל‬MT 2 Kgs 18:22 | ‫ ע ‏ל‬1QIsaa LXX (ἐπὶ) • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:22 | ‫ חזקיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּת ְׁש ַּת ֲחוּו‏‬MT | ‫ תשתחוֹו בירושלים‏‬1QIsaa

2 Kgs 18:22 ‫אמ ‏ר‬ ַ ֹ ‫—ת‬Some critics hold that MT’s ‫אמר‏‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ת‬is incorrect; a scribe may have been impacted by the other second m. sg. verbal forms (e.g., ‫ ׇּב ׇט ְח ׇּת‏‬, ‫ ׇב ַט ְח ׇּת‏‬, ‫ ׇמ ַר ְד ׇּת‏‬, ‫ ) ׇב ַט ְח ׇּת‏‬that are located in vv. 4–6. However, in v. 7 “Rabshakeh” is addressing Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah, thus the pl. reading of ‫( תואמרו‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 18:22) is necessary, as per the proposal of Blenkinsopp.871 MTmss, including KG and Codex Petersburg Heb B 3 (HUB–Isaiah), read ‫תאמר‏ו‬. Others, like Wildberger, argue that MT holds the primary reading.872 ‫— ִּת ְׁש ַּת ֲחו ‏ּו‬1QIsaa has a plus of ‫ם‬ ‫ בירושלי ‏‬after ‫תשתחו‏ֹו‬, perhaps impacted by the same expression that occurs in 2 Kgs 18:22. The same or a subsequent scribe

868  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 20; so, too, Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 628. 869  Döderlein, Esaias, 147; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:404. 870  Van der Kooij, “Septuagint of Isaiah and the Hebrew Text of Isaiah 2:22 and 36:7,” 382–84, examines scholarly views regarding why the LXX has a “shorter form” of 36:7 than does MT and 1QIsaa. 871  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 467. 872  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 372. Person, Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions, 57, also argues that MT’s reading is original.

246

Chapter 2

placed cancellation dots over the characters of ‫בירושלים‏‬. Wildberger points out that the plus of ‫ם‬ ‫“ בירושלי ‏‬clashes with the preceding ‫ה‬ ‫( הז ‏‬this [altar]).”873 36:8 ‫ ִה ְת ׇע ֶרב נׇ א‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:23 | ‫א‬ ‫ התערבונ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִה ְת ׇע ֶר ‏‬At issue is the pl. impv. belonging to 1QIsaa (‫ )התערבונא‏‬versus ‫ב‬ MT’s sg. form (‫) ִה ְת ׇע ֶרב נׇ א‏‬. There are perplexing elements in the greater con‑ text of this pericope dealing with the invasion of Sennacherib because of the changes of grammatical number from sg. to pl. and vice versa (see especially vv. 4–9). 1QIsaa’s pl. impv. agrees in number with the plurals of v. 7, e.g., ‫ׇּב ׇט ְחנּו‏‬ and ‫ ; ִּת ְׁש ַּת ֲחו ‏ּו‬but MT’s sg. agrees with the sg. forms in v. 8 ‫( ְלָך‏‬bis) and v. 9 ‫ׇּת ִׁשי ‏ב‬ ‫… וַ ִּת ְב ַטח‬. 36:9

‫ וְ ֵאי ‏ְך‬MT 2 Kgs 18:24 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואיכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַע ְב ֵד‏י‬MT 2 Kgs 18:24 | ‫ מעבד‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ‏ָך‬MT 2 Kgs 18:24 | ‫ם‬ ‫ לכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ֵאיְך‏‬For a discussion of the variants ‫ וְ ֵאי ‏ְך‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ואיכ ‏‬, see 1:21. ‫— ַע ְב ֵד ‏י‬1QIsaa has the attached preposition mêm (‫)מעבדי‏‬, but MT (‫) ַע ְב ֵדי‏‬

lacks it. ‫— ְל ‏ָך‬As Person points out, the sg. ‫“ ְלָך‏‬is preferred” because the addressee is Hezekiah; the addressee of the pl. ‫ם‬ ‫ לכ ‏‬is Hezekiah’s three officials.874 36:10

‫ וְ ַה ְׁש ִח ׇית ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:25 | ‫ה‬ ‫ּה‬ ‫ להשחית ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ׁשחת‏(—וְ ַה ְׁש ִח ׇיתּה‏‬, “to ruin, to destroy,” HALOT, 1469–70). MT reads “‫ְל ַה ְׁש ִח ׇיתּה‏‬ ‫להשחית ‏‬, thus writing “‫להשחיתה‏‬ ‫יתּה‬ ‫ ;”… וְ ַה ְׁש ִח ׇ‬1QIsaa’s scribe simply duplicated ‫ה‬ ‫… להשחיתה‬.” 36:11 ‫אמר‏‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬MT 2 Kgs 18:26 | ‫ ויואמרו אלי ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ וְ ֶׁש ְבנׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ו‬ ‫ וש בנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ב־ׁש ֵק ‏‬ ‫ל־ר ׇ‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬MT 2 Kgs 18:26 | > 1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ֶאל‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:26 LXX | ‫מ‬ ‫ ע ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲע ׇב ֶדי ‏ָך‬MT 2 Kgs 18:26 | ‫ עבדיך עמנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ת‬ ‫הּודי ‏‬ ִ ְ‫ ֵא ֵלינּו י‬MT LXX 2 Kgs 18:26 (‫הּודית‏‬ ִ ְ‫ה | ) ִע ׇּמנּו י‬ ‫ את הדברים האל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇה ׇע ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:26 | ‫ האנשי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (τῶν ἀνθρῶπων) • ‫ ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬MT 2 Kgs 18:26 | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ היושבי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫אמ ‏ר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫—וַ ּי‬MT and 2 Kgs 18:26 use the sg. verb ‫אמ ‏ר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּי‬versus 1QIsaa’s pl. ‫;ויואמר‏ו‬ both verbal forms are grammatically acceptable. In addition, 1QIsaa attests

873  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 372. 874  Person, Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions, 59.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

247

‫ אלי ‏ו‬after the verb (cf. LXX), as opposed to ‫ב־ׁש ֵקה‏‬ ‫ל־ר ׇ‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬belonging to MT and 2 Kgs 18:26. ‫— ֶא ‏ל‬In the Bible, √‫ דבר‏‬followed by ‫“( ֶאל‏‬speak to”) is a much more common collocation than is √‫ דבר‏‬followed by ‫“( עם‏‬speak with”). In fact, √‫ דבר‏‬plus ‫עם‏‬ does not exist in MT Isaiah, but ‫ דבר אל‏‬does occur in MT 7:10; 8:5; 28:11; 32:6; and 36:11. The reading of 1QIsaa in this verse (‫)דבר עמ‏‬, although grammatically correct, is secondary. ‫ עמנו‏— ֲע ׇב ֶדי ‏ָך‬is a marginal adscription in 1QIsaa, following ‫עבדי ‏ך‬. There exist several possibilities for this marginal writing. It may be a variant for ‫עמ עבדי ‏ך‬ (the two words preceding ‫ עמנ‏ו‬in 1QIsaa); ‫ עמ עבדיך עמנ‏ו‬may be a “hypotheti‑ cal doublet,” “in which a presumed first stage has not been preserved.”875 ‫עמנו‏‬ may be a marginal correction for an expression that is lacking in the Qumran scroll but attested as ‫ אלינ‏ו‬in MT 36:11 (located after ‫ל־ּת ַד ֵּב ‏ר‬ ְ ‫ )וְ ַא‬and as ‫ עמנ‏ו‬in 2 Kgs 18:26, the parallel verse to Isa 36:11. In any case, Tov considers 1QIsaa’s ‫עמנו‏‬ to be a “border case” gloss; however, the only reading in this Isaiah scroll that he deems with certainty to be a gloss is located in 7:25.876 ‫הּודי ‏‬ ‫ת‬ ִ ְ‫— ֵא ֵלינּו י‬MT reads ‫הּודית‏‬ ִ ְ‫ל־ּת ַד ֵּבר ֵא ֵלינּו י‬ ְ ‫( וְ ַא‬cf. 2 Kgs 18:26, ‫ל־ּת ַד ֵּבר ִע ׇּמנּו‏‬ ְ ‫וְ ַא‬ ‫ואל תדבר את הדברים האל ‏‬. The scroll seems to be ap‑ ‫הּודית‬ ִ ְ‫ )י‬against 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ propriating the words ‫ה‬ ‫ את הדברים האל ‏‬from v. 12 (‫)לדבר את הדברים האלה‏‬, a harmonization. ‫— ׇה ׇע ‏‬The scroll’s ‫ )האנשים היושבים על החומה‏( האנשים‏‬is a consequence of a ‫ם‬ harmonization with v. 12 (‫)האנשים היושבים על החומה‏‬.877 ‫— ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬Both MT Isaiah and the parallel passage in 2 Kgs 18:26 read, ‫ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬ ‫“( היושבים על החומ ‏‬who are ‫ֹחומה‬ ‫ל־ה ׇ‬ ַ ‫“( ַע‬who are on the wall),” versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ sitting on the wall”). Evidently, the 1QIsaa copyist borrowed these exact words from the following verse.

36:12

‫ ַה ֶאל ֲאד ֹנֶ יָך וְ ֵא ֶלי ‏ָך‬MT 2 Kgs 18:27 (‫ה | ) ַה ַעל ֲאד ֹנֶ יָך וְ ֵא ֶליָך‏‬ ‫האליכמה ועל אדוניכמ ‏‬ 1QIsaa | Μὴ πρὸς τὸν κύριον ὑμῶν ἢ πρὸς ὑμᾶς LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַח ְר ֵא ֶיה ‏‬MTket 1QIsaa (‫)חריהמה‏‬ 2 Kgs 18:27 LXX | ‫ צואתם‏‬MTqere • ‫ ֵׁשינֵ ֶיהם‏‬MTket 1QIsaa (‫ )שיניהמה‏‬2 Kgs 18:27 | ‫מימי‏‬ ‫ רגליהם‬MTqere 2 Kgs 18:27qere ‫— ַה ֶאל ֲאד ֹנֶ יָך וְ ֵא ֶלי ‏ָך‬1QIsaa (‫ )האליכמה ועל אדוניכמה‏‬presents a different word

order than MT’s. For a discussion of syntactical inversions or variations be‑ tween MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. 875  Tov, TCHB3, 225. Talmon, “Conflate Readings (OT),” 171, suggests that ‫ עמנו‏‬is evidence of a conflated reading. 876  See Tov, “Textual Base of the Corrections,” 305. 877  See the discussion in Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 19.

248

Chapter 2

‫“( ֲח ׇר ִאים‏— ַח ְר ֵא ֶיה ‏‬excrement,” HALOT, 348–49; cf. 2 Kgs 18:27) belongs to the ‫ם‬ list of words in Megilla 25b that are considered to be indelicate expressions; ‫“ צ ׇֹאה‏( צואת ‏‬excrement,” HALOT, 992) is to be its euphemistic substitution. ‫ם‬ Hence the MTket/MTqere reading here. Both ‫ם‬ ‫ צואת ‏‬and ‫ם‬ ‫( חוריה ‏‬also ‫ם‬ ‫)אחריה ‏‬ are used in MTmss (HUB–Isaiah). ‫— ֵׁשינֵ ֶיה ‏‬The word ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫( ֵׁשינֵ ֶיה ‏‬MTket 1QIsaa, their “urine,” HALOT, 1479) is anoth‑ er instance (cf. 2 Kgs 18:27) of an indelicate expression (see Megilla 25b); ‫מימ‏י‬ ‫( רגליהם‬MTqere, “waters of their feet”) is the euphemistic substitution. MTmss (see HUB–Isaiah) set forth a variety of variants, including ‫( מימי שניהם‏‬KRG), ‫מי‏‬ ‫( מימיה שניה ‏‬93). ‫( שיניהם‬R), and ‫ם‬ 36:13 ‫ב־ׁש ֵקה‏‬ ‫ ַר ׇ‬MT 2 Kgs 18:28 | ‫ה‬ ‫ רב השק ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ב־ׁש ֵק ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫— ַר ׇ‬1QIsaa errs with its ‫ה‬ ‫“( רב השק ‏‬the Rabshakeh”?); elsewhere the scroll reads ‫( רב שקה‏‬see 36:2, 4, 11–12, 22; 37:4, 8). 36:14 ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:29 LXX | ‫ מלך אשור‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:29 | ‫יחזקיה‏‬ 1QIsaa ‫— ַה ֶּמ ֶל ‏ְך‬Versus MT Isaiah and the parallel 2 Kgs 18:29, 1QIsaa has the explica‑ tory ‫“( מלך אשו ‏ר‬the king of Assyria”), an assimilation (harmonization) from ‫ מלך אשור‏‬located three words earlier (in v. 13). ‫— ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬See the comments at 1:1. 36:15

‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 18:30 | ‫ה‬ ‫ חוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 18:30 LXX ‫— ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For this proper name, 1QIsaa (‫ )חוזקיה‏‬follows the quṭl pattern. For a

brief discussion together with bibliographic sources, see 3:24.

36:16 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 18:31 | ‫ חוזקיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‏‬MT | ‫ מלך‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 18:31 • ‫וְ ִא ְכלּו‏‬ MT 2 Kgs 18:31 | ‫ ואכולו‏‬1QIsaa •‫ >‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:31 | ‫את‏‬1‫ ‏‬1QIsaa • > MT 2 Kgs 18:31 | ‫את‏‬2‫ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—ּגַ ְפֹנו … ְּת ֵאנׇ ֹת ‏ו‬The text of 1QIsaa attests ‫ת‬ ‫ א ‏‬before each of these two words, where ‫ את‏‬possibly serves an emphatic purpose,878 although contrast Muraoka, who maintains that ‫ את‏‬lacks an emphatic aim.879 For other deviations in the scroll that pertain to the accusative marker, see the discussion at 2:4. 878  See MacDonald, “Particle ‫ת‬ ‫ א ‏‬in Classical Hebrew,” 264–75. 879  Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew, see especially his summary, 158.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

249

‫— ַה ֶּמ ֶל ‏ְך‬Cf. also ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‏‬versus ‫ מלך אשור‏‬in v. 14. NAB (413) accepts 1QIsaa’s reading.

36:17

‫ ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 2 Kgs 18:32 | ‫אל אר ‏ץ‬2‫ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶא ֶר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa’s plus of the preposition ‫( אל‏‬i.e., ‫ )אל ארץ‏‬appears to be a har‑ monization with ‫אל אר ‏ץ‬, which occurs earlier in the verse; but note that the scribe did not add ‫ אל‏‬to the third occurrence of ‫ ארץ‏‬in this verse. A second

explanation—the scroll’s scribe has assimilated a reading from a well-known verse in Deuteronomy, which includes the words “to a land of grain and wine” (‫ל־א ֶרץ ׇּדגׇ ן וְ ִתיֹרוׁש‏‬ ֶ ‫( ) ֶא‬Deut 33:28); thus the scribe added ‫אל‏‬, reading ‫אל ארץ דג‏ן‬ ‫ותירוש‬. 36:18 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ חוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ֶא ‏‬MT | > 1QIsaa ‫— ֶאת‏‬For a discussion regarding the nota accusativi, see the comments at 2:4.

36:19 ‫ ְס ַפ ְרוׇ יִ ם‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:34 | ‫ ̇ספרי ֹים‏‬1QIsaa LXX (Σεπφαριμ) • ‫ וְ ִכי ִה ִּצילּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:34 | ‫ וכיא ההצילו‏‬1QIsaa LXX (μὴ ἐδύναντο ῥύσασθαι) ‫— ְס ַפ ְרוׇ יִ ‏‬The proper name Sepharvaim appears in the Hebrew as ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ְס ַפ ְרוׇ יִ ‏‬ (MT, 2 Kgs 18:34), ‫ם‬ ‫( ספריי ‏‬1QIsaa), and once as ‫ם‬ ‫( ְס ׇפ ִרי ‏‬2 Kgs 17:31 MTket; but MTqere is ‫) ְס ַפ ְרוׇ יִ ם‏‬. Kutscher observes that the scroll’s scribe rarely utilized the double yôd in such words as ‫ם‬ ‫ידי ‏‬, ‫ם‬ ‫עיני ‏‬, ‫ם‬ ‫( שטי ‏‬but Kutscher rightly notes the ex‑ ception of ‫ משתריים‏‬in 28:20), but here the scribe writes Sepharvaim as ‫ם‬ ‫ספריי ‏‬. Kutscher summarizes by stating, “Hence it appears that the scribe altered the suffix ‫ם‬ ‫‑וי ‏‬, which was strange to him, to ‫ם‬ ‫ = יי ‏‬the suffix denoting relationship, like in ‫ם‬ ‫פלשתיי ‏‬.”880 For a discussion of Sepharvaim, see also Beegle.881 ‫— ִה ִּצילּו‏‬1QIsaa is in error with ‫ההציל‏ו‬. The scribe of 1QIsaa either accidently doubled the hê of ‫ ; ִה ִּצילּו‏‬or he assimilated the reading from the preceding verse, i.e., ‫ההציל‏ו‬. Or the reading exhibits characteristics of a doublet with the fol‑ lowing components: ‫ וכי־הציל ‏ו‬+ ‫ההציל ‏ו‬, showing double forms of interrogation, with ‫ כי‏‬serving as an interrogative particle.882 36:21 ‫ וַ ּיַ ֲח ִריׁש ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ והחריש ‏ו‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 18:36 (+ ‫ם‬ ‫א • ) ׇה ׇע ‏‬ ‫ ִהי ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:36 | ‫ה‬ ‫ הי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִהיא‏‬For the deviation between ‫א‬ ‫ ִהי ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הי ‏‬, see the comments at 7:14. 880  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 112. 881  Beegle, “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll,” 28. 882  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 245.

250

Chapter 2

‫—וַ ּיַ ֲח ִריׁש ‏ּו‬Versus MT’s ‫( וַ ּיַ ֲח ִריׁשּו‏‬hipʿil wāw consecutive via √‫חרש‏‬, “to keep, be silent,” HALOT, 358), both 1QIsaa and 2 Kgs 18:36 read ‫( והחריש‏ו‬hipʿil perfect); additionally, 2 Kgs 18:36 adds the subject ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇה ׇע ‏‬after ‫והחריש ‏ו‬.

36:22 ‫ ִח ְל ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ חלקיה‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 18:37 • ‫ וְ ֶׁש ְבנׇ א‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:37 | ‫ ושובנא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 18:37 | ‫ה‬ ‫ חוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִח ְל ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the theophoric names ‫ חלקיהו‏‬and ‫חזקיהו‏‬, see the commentary at 1:1. ‫—וְ ֶׁש ְבנׇ ‏‬For the /o/ vowel reading of ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ושובנ ‏‬in 1QIsaa, see the comments on ‫ קובר ‏ך‬in 14:19 as well as the bibliographic information in the footnote. See also ‫( שובנ ‏‬1QIsaa 36:3; 37:2) and ‫ם‬ ‫א‬ ‫( צובי ‏‬1QIsaa 66:20).

Isaiah 37

37:1 ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:1 LXX | ‫ חוזקיה המל ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫— ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬Both EBH and LBH present the syntactical positions, ‫ המל ‏ך‬+ king’s name and king’s name + ‫המלך‏‬, although there exist some patterns and tendencies in the different biblical books.883 Fassberg observes, “In the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, the Classical Biblical Hebrew word order with ‫ המלך‏‬preced‑ ing is the rule, though one does find … ‫( חוזקיה המל ‏ך‬1QIsaa 37:1) ‘King Hezekiah’ (cf. MT ‫)המלך חוזקיה‏ו‬.”884 For a discussion of syntactical inversions or varia‑ tions between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. 37:2 ‫ ֶׁש ְבנׇ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:2 | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ שובנ ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:2 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ֶׁש ְבנׇ ‏‬For the /o/ vowel reading of ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ושובנ ‏‬in 1QIsaa, see the comments on ‫ קובר ‏ך‬in 14:19 as well as the bibliographic information in the footnote. See also ‫( שובנ ‏‬1QIsaa 36:3, 22) and ‫ם‬ ‫א‬ ‫( צובי ‏‬1QIsaa 66:20). ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1.

883  The topic has created some controversy and varying viewpoints, but see Fassberg’s careful treatment together with his review of the literature, Fassberg, “Shifts in Word Order in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period,” 58–71; see also Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 2:103. 884  Fassberg, “Shifts in Word Order in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period,” 62. Qimron, too, makes the point that ‫ חוזקיה המלך‏‬does not follow the usual classical BH word order of the title and king’s name; see Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 439.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

251

37:3 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:3 | ‫ה‬ ‫ יחזקי ‏‬1QIsaa 37:4

‫ ַהּנִ ְמ ׇצ ׇא ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:4 | ‫ת‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ הנמצאים בעיר הזוא ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַהּנִ ְמ ׇצ ׇא ‏‬The 1QIsaa book hand—beginning with the final mêm (of 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ )הנמצאים‏‬and continuing through lines 10, 11a, and 11b—is written with small‑

er handwriting than what is typical in 1QIsaa. From whence came the source of 1QIsaa’s plus in the expression ‫ת‬ ‫ ?הנמצאים בעיר הזוא ‏‬Pulikottil885 has deter‑ mined that a scribe harmonized his text with a reading from Jer 21:7 (‫ַהּנִ ְׁש ׇא ִרים‏‬ ‫ ) ׇּב ִעיר ַהּזאת‬or Jer 38:4 (‫) ַהּנִ ְׁש ׇא ִרים ׇּב ִעיר ַהּזאת‏‬, although the context belonging to Isaiah and Jeremiah are dissimilar; additionally, Jeremiah utilizes √‫ שאר‏‬versus √‫ מצא‏‬used in Isaiah. More likely, a scribe borrowed ‫ בעיר הזואת‏‬from Isa 37:33– 34 (where ‫ העיר הזואת‏‬is twice found). Note that Watts prefers the reading of 1QIsaa and translates the passage “that is found in this city.”886 The reading of MT 2 Kgs 19:4 works well in the passage under discussion, so the plus of 1QIsaa is unnecessary. 37:4b–7 These verses constitute words that a 1QIsaa copyist (sm?) wrote on the leather in small letters so that he could fit them into a single line (col. III, line 11). Additionally, the copyist wrote the final three words of the passage in the mar‑ gin. Ulrich uses these verses as part of a larger argument that the book of Isaiah (similar to portions of other biblical books) “was continually augmented by large additions (such as oracles against nations) as well as small additions of one or several verses” and that “our extant evidence can now document these latter stages in the growth of the book.”887 37:5

‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:5 | ‫ה‬ ‫ יחוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:5 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1.

37:6 ‫ ֲא ֵל ֶיהם‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ להמ ‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:6 • ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:6 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫אמרּו‏ן‬ ְ ֹ‫ת‬ MT 2 Kgs 19:6 | ‫ תואמר ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1. 885  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 48. 886  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 31. 887  Ulrich, “Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books,” 266.

252

Chapter 2

‫אמרּון‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫—ת‬Here MT has the paragogic nûn (‫אמרּון‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫ )ת‬versus 1QIsaa (‫)תואמרו‏‬. For a discussion of the paragogic nûn in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 8:12. 37:7 ‫ ֹּבו רּוח‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:7 LXX | ‫א‬ ‫ רוח בו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ל־א ְרֹצ ‏ו‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬MT | ‫ לארצ ‏ו‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:7 ‫—ֹּבו רּו ‏‬The word order for MT (‫ )ֹּבו רּוח‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )רוח בוא‏‬is different. ‫ח‬ Note that the scribe often spelled ‫ בו‏‬with the ʾālep (cf. also ‫)לו‏ = לוא‏ ;כי‏ = כיא‏‬. For a discussion of syntactical inversions or variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. 37:9 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:9 • ‫ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמע‏‬MT | ‫ וישמע וישוב‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:9 (‫)וַ ּיׇ ׇׁשב‏‬ LXX • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:9 | ‫ה‬ ‫ יחוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַעל‏‬Both ‫( וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמע ַע ‏ל‬MT) and ‫( וישמע א ‏ל‬1QIsaa and 2 Kgs 19:9) are possible, although in the present context MT Isaiah has the preferred reading, “and he heard concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia.” ‫—וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמ ‏‬With its reading of ‫וישמע וישו ‏ב‬, 1QIsaa (or its Vorlage) exhibits a con‑ ‫ע‬ flate reading or “doublet,”888 drawing from both MT = ‫ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמ ‏ע‬and the parallel passage in 2 Kgs 19:9 = ‫וַ ּיׇ ׇׁשב‏‬.889 LXX is aligned with the Qumran scroll, an in‑ dication that both readings were perhaps drawn from the same text type. The variant between the three Hebrew witnesses (MT, 1QIsaa, and 2 Kgs) may have come about because the three sequential verbs—‫—וישמע וישוב וישלח‏‬all begin with wāw, yôd, šîn. Also possible, the 1QIsaa copyist borrowed ‫וישמע‏‬, which ex‑ ists at the beginning of the verse. 37:10 ‫אמרּון‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ת‬MT 2 Kgs 19:9 | ‫ תומר ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:9 | ‫ה‬ ‫ חוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫יַ ִּׁש ֲא ‏ָך‬ MT 2 Kgs 19:9 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישייכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫אמרּו‏ן‬ ְ ֹ ‫אמרּון‏—ת‬ ְ ֹ ‫( ת‬MT and 2 Kgs 19:10) and ‫( תומר‏ו‬1QIsaa) probably have the same meaning.‫‏‬Note also that MT has the paragogic nûn versus 1QIsaa. For a discussion of the paragogic nûn in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 8:12. ‫—יַ ִּׁש ֲאָך‏‬The variant between MT (‫ )יַ ִּׁש ֲאָך‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )ישייכה‏‬is probably owing to the phonetic glide that occurred with the weak ʾālep and its accom‑ panying vowel; thus ‫( ישא ‏ך‬correctly written, based on √‫נשא‏‬, “to cheat, deceive,”

888  Tov, TCHB3, 225; Talmon, “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” 155. 889  See the study of Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 107–8.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

253

HALOT, 728) became ‫ה‬ ‫ישייכ ‏‬. For a discussion of other similar deviations be‑ tween the scroll and MT, see Kutscher.890 37:11 > MT | ‫ את‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:9 For deviations dealing with the accusative marker, see the discussion at 2:4. 37:13 ‫ ְס ַפ ְרוׇ יִ ם‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:9 LXX (Σεπφαριμ) | ‫ם‬ ‫ וספריי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵהנַ ‏ע‬MT 2 Kgs 19:13 LXX (Αναγ) | ‫ ונ ‏ע‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ִעּוׇ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:9 | ‫ ועוה ושומרו‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫— ְס ַפ ְרוׇ יִ ‏‬For a discussion of variants that pertain to proper names, see ‫ַּכ ְׂש ִּדים‏‬ ‫ם‬ at 13:19. For a discussion of the proper name ‫ ְס ַפ ְרוׇ יִ ם‏‬, see 36:19. ‫— ֵהנַ ע‏‬For MT’s proper name ‫( ֵהנַ ‏ע‬Hena), scholars produce a number of con‑ jectures, suggesting that the text is possibly corrupt,891 that one city only and not two (Hena and Ivah) should exist in the verse,892 and that the cities Hena and Ivah are unknown (DCH 2:579: “Hena, perh. city in upper Mesopotamia, location unknown”).893 Note also, that Rahlfs’s apparatus discloses multiple divergences for this proper name in Greek manuscripts, thus adding to the un‑ certainty of the identification of the cities. 1QIsaa (‫ )ונע‏‬adds the wāw conjunc‑ tion plus misspells the word, probably because of the weakness of the hê; or, alternatively, 1QIsaa is presenting the proper name Vana (or, similarly). For a discussion on the quiescence of hê in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 1:10. ‫—וְ ִעּוׇ ‏‬37:11–13 refers to nations, kingdoms, and city-states that Assyria ‫ה‬ had destroyed, including Gozen, Haran, Rezeph, Telassar, Hamath, Arpad, Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah. At the end of the list of names of nations and citystates, 1QIsaa adds “and Samaria” (‫)ושומרון‏‬. Scholars generally agree that the invasion of Sennacherib into the kingdom of Judah (36:1–21) and Hezekiah’s reaction (36:22–37:20) occurred after Samaria’s destruction in 722 BCE. A 1QIsaa scribe therefore added “and Samaria” to the text with the intent of updating the list of kingdoms and city-states. But this addition is unnecessary because the list of names in vv. 11–13 was not meant to be comprehensive but representative. Samaria was not listed simply because Hezekiah would have already been painfully aware of its destruction, for Samaria was his northern

890  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 515–16; see also Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 126. 891  Marti, Buch Jesaja, 254. 892  Cheyne, Prophecies of Isaiah, 114. 893  Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 1:286.

254

Chapter 2

neighbor. It is also possible that 1QIsaa borrowed Samaria from 2 Kgs 18:34, a suggestion made by Person.894 37:14 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬1‫ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:14 | ‫ה‬ ‫חוזקי ‏‬1‫ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ּיִ ְק ׇר ֵאהּו‏‬MT | ‫מ‬ ‫ ויקרא ‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:14 • ‫ וַ ּיִ ְפ ְר ֵׂשה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:14 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ויפרוש ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬2‫ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:14 | ‫ה‬ ‫ חוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וַ ּיִ ְק ׇר ֵאהּו … וַ ּיִ ְפ ְר ֵׂשה ‏ּו‬The third m. sg. object suffixes of these two verbs, “and he read it … and he spread it,” do not match the m. pl. referent “the documents” (‫) ַה ְּס ׇפ ִרים‏‬. 1QIsaa solves half of the challenge by reading ‫ה‬ ‫“( ויקראמ … ויפרוש ‏‬and he read them … and he spread it”). A single MTms (K, HUB, Isaiah) attests ‫ = ויקרא ‏‬1QIsaa. It is possible that a word or phrase is missing from the verse; ‫ם‬ or, if the original text read the sg. ‫ הספר‏‬instead of ‫הספרים‏‬, then MT has the cor‑ rect reading with ‫וַ ּיִ ְק ׇר ֵאהּו … וַ ּיִ ְפ ְר ֵׂשה‏ו‬. For MT’s /a/ class vowel (‫ )וַ ּיִ ְפ ְר ֵׂשהּו‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel (‫)ויפרושה‏‬, see the discussion in 43:13. 37:15 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:15 | ‫ה‬ ‫ חוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa 37:17 ‫ּוׁש ׇמע‏‬ ְ MT 2 Kgs 19:16 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ושמע ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ּוׁש ׇמ ‏‬ ‫ע‬ ְ —1QIsaa exhibits the prolonged or long impv. (‫ )ושמעה‏‬versus MT’s short impv. (‫ּוׁש ׇמע‏‬ ְ ). Various biblical Qumran texts also set forth the long im‑ perative, although this form was moving toward extinction during the Qumran period.895 37:18 ‫ת־א ְר ׇצם‏‬ ַ ‫ וְ ֶא‬MT 2 Kgs 19:17 | > 1QIsaa ‫ת־א ְר ׇצם‏‬ ַ ‫—וְ ֶא‬The Hebrew texts present three variants: MT ‫ל־ה ֲא ׇרֹצות וְ ֶאת־‏‬ ‫ת־ּכ ׇ‬ ‫ֶא ׇ‬ ַ ‫ת־הֹּגויִ ם וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬. Both ‫ ארץ‏‬and ‫ ; ַא ְר ׇצם‬1QIsaa ‫ ;את כול הארצות‏‬and 2 Kgs 19:17 ‫ת־א ְר ׇצם‏‬ ‫ את‏‬may have triggered an error in the text: haplography in the Isaiah scroll or dittography in MT. Talmon makes a case for accepting the scroll (LXX 2 Kgs 19:17), considering ‫ם‬ ‫ת־א ְר ׇצ ‏‬ ַ ‫( ֶא‬MT Isaiah) and ‫ם‬ ‫ת־הֹּגויִ ‏‬ ַ ‫( ֶא‬MT 2 Kgs 19:17) to be expansions.896 Of note: before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, several

894  Person, Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions, 65. 895  See the discussion on the long imperatives in Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 196. 896  Talmon, “Case of Faulty Harmonization,” 206–8; see also Talmon, “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” 169–70.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

255

scholars, including Box and Procksch,897 emended MT Isaiah to read ‫ם‬ ‫ת־הֹּגויִ ‏‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ת־א ְר ׇצם‬ ַ ‫( וְ ֶא‬2 Kgs 19:17). 37:19 ‫תן‏‬ ֹ ‫ וְ נׇ‬MT | ‫ ויתנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa | ‫ וְ נׇ ְתנ ‏ּו‬2 Kgs 19:18 • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂש ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:18 | ‫ מעש ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫ת‏ן‬ ֹ ‫—וְ נׇ‬The three Hebrew witnesses provide three different forms: qal inf. abs. (‫תן‏‬ ֹ ‫ וְ נׇ‬MT), qal impf. third m. pl. (‫ ויתנו‏‬1QIsaa), and qal pf. third common pl. (‫ וְ נׇ ְתנּו‏‬2 Kgs 19:18). All three readings may be possible in the context. Rubenstein suggests that any of the three variants may exist because “the manuscript be‑ fore [the copyist] may be indistinct in the relevant place, a copyist may have before him or have knowledge of divergent readings or he may be writing a passage from memory.”898 For other examples where MT’s inf. was replaced in Qumran texts with a finite verb, see the discussion at 19:22. ‫— ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה‏‬The expression ‫“( מעׂשה ידי אדם‏‬the work of human hands”) is for‑ mulaic, appearing in Deut 4:28; 2 Kgs 19:18//Isa 37:19; Pss 115:4; 135:15; and 2 Chr 32:19. 1QIsaa’s ‫ מעשי‏‬is typical in QH. The yôd represents the e in the final position of lāmed-yôd verbs. For this and other similar forms, consult Qimron.899 37:20 ‫יענ ‏ּו‬ ֵ ‫ֹהוׁש‬ ִ MT 2 Kgs 19:19 | ‫ אושיענ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫יְ הוׇ ‏‬2‫ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ יהוה אלוהי ‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:19 | ὁ θεὸς LXX ‫ֹהוׁש ֵיענּו‏‬ ִ —1QIsaa’s ‫ אושיענ‏ו‬is an impv. (= ‫יענ‏ו‬ ֵ ‫ֹהוׁש‬ ִ ); the ālep replaced the hê for phonological reasons. For additional examples of this phenomenon, see Qimron’s grammar.900 ‫יְ הוׇ ‏‬2—The formulaic expressions ‫ יהוה לבד‏ו‬and ‫ יהוה לבד ‏ך‬are found in ‫ה‬ Exod 22:19; 1 Sam 7:4; Isa 2:11, 17; 37:20; and Neh 9:6 (cf. Ps 83:19), all minus the deific name ‫אלוהים‏‬. In the passage under discussion, MT reads ‫ יְ הוׇ ה ְל ַב ֶּדָך‏‬versus 1QIsaa // 2 Kgs 19:19, which have ‫ה‬ ‫יהוה אלוהים לבדכ ‏‬. The inclusion of ‫ם‬ ‫אלוהי ‏‬ here is unique. If MT’s reading is primary, then it is possible that 1QIsaa and 2 Kgs 19:19 were impacted (from a common tradition?) by ‫ יהוה אלוהינ‏ו‬at the beginning of the verse; but if 1QIsaa and 2 Kgs 19:19 have the primary reading, then MT may have altered the text to align its reading with the typical for‑ mula, i.e. ‫( יהוה לבד ‏ך‬minus ‫)אלוהים‏‬. Note that Blenkinsopp prefers the reading of 1QIsaa and 2 Kgs 19:19 (and cf. LXX) and translates v. 20b as “so that all the

897  Box, Book of Isaiah, 165; Procksch, Jesaia I, 451–52. 898  Rubinstein, “Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute,” 365. 899  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 74–76. 900  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 178n68.

256

Chapter 2

kingdoms of the earth may acknowledge that you alone, Yahveh, are God.”901 But Wildberger rightly argues that the MT Isaiah “text should be treated as original.”902 See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. 37:21 ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:20 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ל־חזְ ִקּיׇ ה‏ּו‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬MT 2 Kgs 19:20 | ‫ה‬ ‫על יחוזקי ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ֵא ַל‏י‬MT 2 Kgs 19:20 | ‫ אלי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַסנְ ֵח ִרי ‏ב‬MT 2 Kgs 19:20 (‫ ) ַסנְ ֵח ִרב‏‬LXX (Σενναχηριμ) | ‫ סרחרי ‏ב‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1. ‫— ֵא ַלי‏‬MT and 2 Kgs 19:20 have the Lord addressing Hezekiah directly: “Whereas you have prayed to me (‫) ֵא ַלי‏‬.” The Isaiah scroll’s slight deviation has Isaiah as the speaker: “Then Isaiah, the son of Amoz, sent to Hezekiah saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, which you have prayed to him (‫”’… )אליו‏‬ The scroll’s variant may signify a different tradition, or, more likely, a scribe erred in writing ‫ אלי ‏ו‬in place of ‫אל ‏י‬. With Wildberger, maintain MT 2 Kgs 19:20 as the primary reading.903 ‫— ַסנְ ֵח ִרי ‏‬1QIsaa’s orthography of the name ‫ סרחרי ‏ב‬found in this verse stands ‫ב‬ unique among other Hebrew texts in Isaiah, Kings, and Chronicles. Kutscher, following Milik,904 explains that its “form was apparently caused by the assimi‑ lation of ‫ ‏נ‬to ‫ ‏ר‬, perhaps under the influence of a popular etymology connecting it with ‫ש ‏ר‬.”905 Elsewhere in the Isaiah scroll (37:17, 21, 37), the scribe wrote the name as ‫( סנחרי ‏ב‬MT). 37:22

‫ רֹא ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:21 | ‫ה‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ראוש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—רֹאׁש‏‬The pronominal suffix is explicit in 1QIsaa (‫ראושה‏‬, “her head”) but implied in MT (‫רֹאׁש‏‬, “[her] head”). Both readings are grammatically feasible. 37:24 ‫אמר‏‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ּת‬MT 2 Kgs 19:23 | ‫ ותומ ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ וְ ֶא ְכר ֹ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:23 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואכרות ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַּכ ְר ִמֹּל ‏ו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:23 | ‫ כרמלי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ֶא ְכר ֹ ‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ואכרות ‏‬indicates either a cohortative or an impf. with a third f. sg. suffix. Given the passage’s syntax, the later reading is improbable. 901  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 464, 468. 902  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 411. 903  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 411. 904  Milik, Dix ans découvertes dans le désert de Juda, 206. 905  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 113.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

257

‫— ַּכ ְר ִמֹּל ‏ו‬The variant (‫ ַּכ ְר ִמֹּלו‏‬versus ‫ )כרמלי‏ו‬is yet another case where the scroll’s suffix ‫ )כרמליו‏( ‑יו‏‬has the same linguistic value as ‫ = ַּכ ְר ִמֹּלו‏( ‑ו‏‬MT). See the commentary at 5:25.

37:25 ‫ ַק ְר ִּתי‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:24 | ‫קראתי‏‬ ̇ 1QIsaa • ‫ ׇמיִ ם‏‬MT | ‫ מים זרים‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:24 • ‫ב‬ ‫וְ ַא ְח ִר ‏‬ MT 2 Kgs 19:24 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואחריב ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַק ְר ִּתי‏‬MT’s hapax legomenon ‫( ַק ְר ִּת‏י‬via √‫קור‏‬, “to dig [for water],” HALOT, 1090; cf. ‫ ) ׇמֹקור‏‬is proper in the context. 1QIsaa’s ‫ קראתי‏‬is not suitable and may signify an error or misreading of the text. Cf. also ‫את‏י‬ ִ ‫( וְ ׇק ׇר‬MT and 4QIsaa) and ‫( וקרת‏י‬1QIsaa) in 22:20. ‫— ׇמיִ ‏‬In my view, 1QIsaa and 2 Kgs 19:24 attest the primary reading of ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫מי ‏‬ ‫ זרים‬versus MT’s ‫ ׇמיִ ם‏‬. So, too, based on the 2 Kgs reading, several pre-Qumran textual scholars emended MT Isaiah to read ‫מים זרים‏‬.906 Wildberger also pre‑ fers ‫ם‬ ‫ מים זרי ‏‬and explains, “Commentators are in agreement that the K-text is correct”; Wildberger translates ‫ם‬ ‫ מים זרי ‏‬to read “foreign water.”907 If MT once held this reading, perhaps a scribe dropped ‫ זרים‏‬via haplography: ‫‏מים זרים‬. Contrast also a single manuscript of K, which attests ‫( מים רבים‏‬HUB–Isaiah). 37:26 ‫ וִ ַיצ ְר ִּת ׇיה‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:25 | ‫ה‬ ‫ יצרתי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫יה‬ ‫את ׇ ‏‬ ִ ‫ ֲה ֵב‬MT 2 Kgs 19:25 | ‫ה‬ ‫ הביאותי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ַה ְׁשֹאו ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:25 (‫ לשאוות‏ | ) ַל ְהֹׁשות‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ נִ ִּצים‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:25 | ‫נצורים‏‬ ‫ת‬ 1QIsaa LXX (ὀχυροῖς) ‫את ׇ ‏‬ ‫יה‬ ִ ‫— ֲה ֵב‬For ‫‏ו‬″‫ ע‏‬hipʿil pf. verbs, the nonbiblical Qumran scrolls feature “a separating vowel o before the afformative…. The universal presence of a sepa‑ rating vowel in the DSS explains why 1QIsa has forms with a separating vowel (in hifʿil and in qal as well).”908 Examples of separating vowels in 1QIsaa include the following: ‫( הביאותיה‏‬37:26) and ‫( תבֹואינה‏‬44:7; 47:9; 48:3). For MT’s ‫הבאתיה‏‬, LXX erred by writing ἐπέδειξα (= ‫)הראתיה‏‬, substituting a rêš for the bêt (graphic similarity). ‫— ְל ַה ְׁשֹאו ‏‬Ibn Ezra explains that ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫( להׁשאו ‏‬MT Isa) and ‫( להׁשות‏‬MT 2 Kgs) are the same, “since ‫א‬ ‫ ‏‬and ‫ ‏ו‬frequently interchange.” With regard to 1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫לשאוו ‏‬ (minus the hê), see the brief discussion on the quiescence of hê in 1QIsaa at 1:10; see also 57:15 and the discussion in Reymond.909 906  See especially Box, Book of Isaiah, 167; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 271; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 256; and Procksch, Jesaia I, 451. 907  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 408, 412. 908  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 56. 909  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 131–32.

258

Chapter 2

‫—נִ ִּצי ‏‬The reading belonging to MT and 2 Kgs 19:25 is ‫( נִ ִּצים‏‬via √‫נצה‏‬, “to ‫ם‬ fight,” HALOT, 715). 1QIsaa’s ‫ נצורים‏‬is likely based on √‫“( נצר‏‬to keep watch, watch over, keep from,” HALOT, 718); if so, then the scribe perhaps was inspired by ‫ כעיר נצור ‏‬in 1:8. But compare Blenkinsopp, who prefers the reading of the ‫ה‬ scroll and translates the final words of v. 26 as “that fortified cities are turned into heaps of rubble.”910 Syntactically, Blenkinsopp’s reading seems improb‑ able. Another possibility: a 1QIsaa copyist was impacted by the rêš in ‫ת‬ ‫בצורו ‏‬, located two words away, and wrote ‫ם‬ ‫ נצורי ‏‬in place of ‫ם‬ ‫נצי ‏‬. Regardless of the origin of the scroll’s deviation, the reading of MT and 2 Kgs 19:25 should be maintained. 37:27 ‫ ִק ְצ ֵרי‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:26 | ‫ קצרו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וׇ בׁשּו‏‬MT | ‫ וישבשו‏‬corrected to ‫ ויבשו‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:26 (‫ וִ ַירק‏ • )וַ ּיֵבׁשּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:26 | ‫ ירק‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּוׁש ֵד ׇמה‏‬ ְ MT | ‫ הנשדפ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ּוׁש ֵד ׇפה‏‬ ְ 2 Kgs 19:26 MTmss • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇק ׇמ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:26 | ‫מ‬ ‫ קדי ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫ ׇק ֵצר‏(— ִק ְצ ֵרי‏‬, “short, shortened,” HALOT, 1127). Both Kutscher911 and PQ tran‑ scribe the scroll’s reading as ‫קצר ‏ו‬, although the transcription could possibly be ‫( קצרי‏‬MT, 2 Kgs 19:26; UF have ‫ ;קצרי‏‬see Tigchelaar’s review: “With respect to form, one would prefer waw”). If the reading is indeed ‫( קצרו‏‬via √‫קצר‏‬, “to har‑ vest”), then a scribe either erred due to confusion of the graphical set wāw/yôd, or the context, e.g., ‫“( עש ‏ב‬grass”), ‫ה‬ ‫“( שד ‏‬field”), ‫א‬ ‫“( דש ‏‬grass”), and ‫“( חצי ‏ר‬grass”), encouraged him to write ‫קצרו‏‬, “they harvested.” MT 2 Kgs 19:26 set forth the preferable reading. ‫ּוׁש ֵד ׇמ ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ְ —The Hebrew witnesses exhibit three readings: MT attests ‫ה‬ ‫ּוׁש ֵד ׇמ ‏‬ ְ (‫ ְׁש ֵד ׇמה‏‬, “field, territory,” HALOT, 1423), and the parallel passage in 2 Kgs 19:26 reads ‫ּוׁש ֵד ׇפה‏‬ ְ (‫ ְׁש ֵד ׇפה‏‬, “scorching, heat,” HALOT, 1423); note that MTmss of Isaiah, too, read ‫( ושדפה‏‬HUB–Isaiah); and 1QIsaa has ‫( הנשדפ‏‬nipʿal m. sg. ptc. with the attached article; √‫ׁשדף‏‬, “scorch, blight,” BDB, 995). 1QIsaa, then, features a verb, versus the nouns ‫ּוׁש ֵד ׇפה‏‬ ְ and ‫ּוׁש ֵד ׇמה‏‬ ְ . The core difference between MT Isa 37:27 and 2 Kgs 19:26 is the interchange between the graphically similar pê and mêm. Many commentators maintain that 1QIsaa (√‫‏‬ ‫ )שדף‬has the preferred reading.912 According to Kutscher, “The Scr.’s reading is certainly more

910  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 464, 468. 911  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 318. 912  See also Iwry, “Qumrân Isaiah,” 28; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 467–68. Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 657; note 8 contains a helpful summary. Note also that some of the preQumran scholars emended MT variously to read ‫ם‬ ‫“( קדי ‏‬east wind”); see especially Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 272; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 256; Procksch, Jesaia I, 456; and Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 235.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

259

appropriate, and seems to be superior.”913 See also Wildberger, followed by Watts,914 who prefers the reading of 1QIsaa but minus the article, thus ‫נשדף‏‬ (nipʿal m. sg. ptc.) or ‫( ונשדף‏‬with the conjunction). HALOT (1423) follows 1QIsaa and thus translates “grass which withers on the roofs.” In my view, based on the statements of Wildberger and HALOT, 1QIsaa sets forth the primary reading. ‫— ׇק ׇמה‏‬MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇק ׇמ ‏‬is supported by the parallel 2 Kgs 19:26, which denotes “grain still on the stalk” (HALOT, 1107). 1QIsaa diverges with ‫קדימ‏‬, for which the scribe likely denoted ‫( ׇק ִדים‏‬so HALOT, 1068, cf. Hos 12:2; 13:15; Ps 78:26), which conveys the meaning of “east wind” (HALOT, 1068; see also DCH 8:270). ‫קדימ‏‬ has two characters that are common to ‫ה‬ ‫קמ ‏‬. With Wildberger, the translation of the term under discussion should be “east wind” (= 1QIsaa), “which ought to solve this long-standing problem.”915 37:28

‫ וְ ִׁש ְב ְּת ‏ָך‬MT 2 Kgs 19:27 LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ קומכה ושבתכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִה ְת ַרּגֶ זְ ‏ָך‬MT 2 Kgs 19:27 | ‫ הרגזכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫—קומכ ‏‬With its reading of ‫( קדימ קומכה‏‬the final word of v. 27 and the first ‫ה‬

word of v. 28), it appears that a dittography occurred in 1QIsaa. But other theo‑ ries exist for this reading: (a) a haplography transpired in MT when the copy‑ ist’s eyes skipped the word ‫ קדים‏‬and read the next word ‫ ;קומך‏‬or (b) 1QIsaa fills out the parallelism, so that the antonyms ‫ קומכה‏‬and ‫ ושבתכה‏‬correspond (just as the antonyms ‫ ובואכה‏‬and ‫ וצאתכה‏‬are compatible): “I know your rising up (‫ )קומכה‏‬and your sitting down (‫)ושבתכה‏‬, and your going out and your com‑ ing in.” ‫ה‬ ‫ קומכ ‏‬is lacking in MT Isa, 2 Kgs 19:27, and LXX. Inasmuch as ‫ה‬ ‫קומכ ‏‬ completes the parallelism, Wildberger argues on behalf of 1QIsaa’s reading. Wildberger also observes that the wāw that is attached to ‫“ וְ ִׁש ְב ְּת ‏ָך‬is indicative of the fact that the first item in this series has been lost.”916 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ קומכ ‏‬con‑ stitutes the preferred reading. ‫— ִה ְת ַרּגֶ זְ ‏ָך‬MT’s ‫התרגז‏‬, a hitpaʿel inf. const. (“to get worked up, be enraged,” HALOT, 1183) is supported by 2 Kgs 19:27–28. For 1QIsaa’s ‫( הרג‏ז‬a hipʿil inf. const.), compare Jer 50:34 (‫ ִה ְרּגִ יז‏‬, “to cause unrest to someone,” HALOT, 1183). In this context, the readings of both MT and the scroll are possible.

913  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 290. 914  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 413; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 41. 915  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 408, 413. 916  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 413.

260

Chapter 2

37:29 ‫ יַ ַען ִה ְת ַרּגֶ זְ ָך ֵא ַלי‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:28 | > 1QIsaa • ‫ ִּב ְׂש ׇפ ֶתי ‏ָך‬MT 4QIsab (‫)בשפתי[ך‏‬ 2 Kgs 19:28 | ‫ה‬ ‫ בשפאותיכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫את‬ ‫ ׇּב ׇ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:28 | ‫ה‬ ‫ בת ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יַ ַען ִה ְת ַרּגֶ זְ ָך ֵא ַלי‏‬Two choices present themselves: (a) 1QIsaa lost ‫יען התרגזך‏‬ ‫ אלי‬through haplography, triggered by the final word of the previous verse, i.e., ‫ ;אלי יען התרגזך אל ‏י‬or (b) MT possesses a dittography, ‫וְ ֵאת ִה ְת ַרּגֶ זְ ָך ֵא ׇלי יַ ַען ִה ְת ַרּגֶ זְ ָך‏‬ ‫( ֵא ַלי‬see vv. 28–29). For textual scholars who consider that MT’s ‫יַ ַען ִה ְת ַרּגֶ זְ ָך ֵא ַל‏י‬ should be dropped from the text, see Duhm.917 Consider also Blenkinsopp,918 who follows the scroll, which omits ‫יען התרגזך אלי‏‬. However, in my view, the expression ‫ =( יען התרגזך אל ‏י‬MT) is an essential component to the parallelistic structure, and it is a primary reading; further, the expression exists in the paral‑ lel passage, 2 Kgs 19:28. ‫— ִּב ְׂש ׇפ ֶתי ‏ָך‬Both MT and 4QIsab present the dual ‫ ְׂש ׇפ ַתיִ ם‏‬, which is attested approximately 100 times in the Bible. Far less common in Hebrew is the f. pl. ‫ בשפאותיכה‏‬of 1QIsaa, which is found seven times in MT (e.g., ‫ ; ִׂש ְפֹתות‏‬see Isa 59:3; Pss 45:3; 59:8; Cant 4:3, 11; 5:13; Eccl 10:12). The most likely explanation for the irregular ʾālep in 1QIsaa’s word is that the “earlier yodh or waw has shifted to an ʾālep in ‫שפאותיכה‏‬.”919 ‫— ׇּב ׇ ‏‬1QIsaa’s rendering of ‫ בתה‏‬is likely a “simple misspelling.”920 See also ‫את‬ the scroll’s ‫ הבי ‏ו‬versus MT’s ‫ הביא‏ו‬in 16:3. 37:30

‫ ׇאֹכו ‏ל‬MT 4QIsab (‫ ) ̇אכל‏‬2 Kgs 19:29 LXX | ‫ אכולו‏‬1QIsaa α′ σ′ θ′ • ‫ ׇׁש ִחיס‏‬MT | ‫שעיס‏‬ 1QIsaa | ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ׇס ִחי ‏‬2 Kgs 19:29 • ‫ וְ ִק ְצר ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:29 | ‫ וקצור ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ נִ ְטע ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsab (‫ )ונט]עו‏‬2 Kgs 19:29 LXX | ‫ ונטוע‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ׇאֹכול‏‬MTket (‫ )ו]אכול‏‬4QIsab | ‫ וְ ִא ְכלּו‏‬MTqere ‫ ואכולו‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:29 LXX(vid) • ‫ם‬ ‫ ִפ ְריׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 19:29 LXX(vid) | >

4QIsab ‫— ׇאֹכו ‏ל‬1QIsaa’s substitution of a qal pl. impv. (‫ )אכולו‏‬for the qal inf. abs. (‫ )אכול‏‬of MT, 4QIsab, and 2 Kgs 19:29 is explained by Qimron: “The relative non-usage of the infinitive absolute is typical of late BH, of Samaritan Hebrew and of 1QIsa, and culminates in MH.”921 For a discussion of this phenomenon, see 19:22.

917  Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 272. 918  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 467–68. 919  See the theory of Kutscher regarding the ʾālep of ‫ה‬ ‫ בשפאותיכ ‏‬in Language and Linguistic Background, 389; see also Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 133n272. 920  Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 328n716. 921  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 47–8; see also Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 392–94.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

261

‫— ׇׁש ִחי ‏‬According to Ibn Ezra, ‫( ׇׁש ִחיס‏‬MT Isa, a hapax legomenon) and ‫ׇס ִחיׁש‏‬ ‫ס‬ (MT 2 Kgs) have the same meaning (see also BDB, 695, 1006). HALOT (1460) proposes that ‫ ׇׁש ִחיס‏‬designates “self-seeded plants.” The variant ‫ס‬ ‫( שעי ‏‬1QIsaa), however, sets forth a different guttural with its reading of ʿayin for ḥêt, for which Elwolde explains that such a guttural replacement is “also found later, in rabbinic literature.”922 See also DCH 8:322, 517. For a discussion of deviations that pertain to sibilants, see 3:18. ‫—זִ ְרעּו וְ ִק ְצרּו וְ נִ ְטעּו … וְ ׇאֹכו ‏ל‬The string of four verbs in 37:30b—√‫‘( זרע‏‬sow’), √‫‘( קצר‏‬reap’), √‫‘( נטע‏‬plant’), and √‫‘( אכל‏‬eat’)—are presented differently in four Hebrew witnesses (MT [cf. MTket and MTqere], 1QIsaa, 4QIsab, and 2 Kgs 19:29), reading as either imperatives and/or inf. absolutes. On this, see the apparatus immediately above. Wildberger,923 followed by Watts,924 proposes that all four verbs be read as inf. absolutes, thus ‫זרוע וקצור ונטוע … ואכו ‏ל‬. The use of the imp. in place of the inf. abs. points to an LBH implementation. On this topic, see 19:22. ‫— ִפ ְריׇ ם‏‬Against three Hebrew witnesses (MT, 1QIsaa,‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 19:29) and LXX, 4QIsab omits ‫ם‬ ‫פרי ‏‬, which is an error. 37:31 ‫ וְ יׇ ְס ׇפה‏‬MT 4QIsab‫ויספ[ה‏( ‏‬ ̇ ) 2 Kgs 19:30 | ‫ ואספה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַהּנִ ְׁש ׇא ׇרה‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:30 LXX(vid) | ‫ והנמצא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ְל ׇמ ְע ׇל ‏‬MT 4QIsab‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 19:30 | ‫ה‬ ‫ מעל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ יׇ ְס ׇפה‏‬1QIsaa, supported by Syr, refers to the gathering (‫ )ואספה‏‬of the house of Judah’s escapees, in contrast to MT (4QIsab, 2 Kgs 19:30), which pertains to the house of Judah’s escapees again (‫ וְ יׇ ְס ׇפה‏‬via √‫ )יסף‏‬taking root. The differ‑ ences between the two verbs are a yôd or ʾālep. MT has the support of 4QIsab;‫‏‬ 2 Kgs 19:30, which should be maintained. ‫— ַהּנִ ְׁש ׇא ׇר ‏‬MT and 2 Kgs 19:30 set forth ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ַהּנִ ְׁש ׇא ׇר ‏‬, a f. sg. nipʿal ptc., via √‫ׁשאר‏‬. 1QIsaa has ‫והנמצא‏‬, a m. sg. nipʿal ptc. from √‫מצא‏‬. 1QIsaa’s variant (including the plus of the conjunction) is difficult to explain; perhaps the scribe was im‑ pacted by ‫ה‬ ‫ השארית הנמצא ‏‬in 37:4. Or, as Iwry has argued, 1QIsaa’s ‫א‬ ‫והנמצ ‏‬, a gloss-like revision that made its way into the scroll during the postexilic pe‑ riod, has the meaning of “‘one that is left over’, ‘a survivor’, ‘one in captivity’, ‘a refugee’, or as we should term it today, a ‘displaced person.’”925 MT maintains the primary reading. 922  For an example in Ta‘anit 3.8, see Elwolde, “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary,” 48. 923  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 414. 924  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 41. 925  Iwry, “‫—והנמצא‏‬A Striking Variant Reading in 1QIsa,” 42; see also Iwry’s entire argument, 34–43.

262

Chapter 2

‫— ְל ׇמ ְע ׇל ‏‬When ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ְל ׇמ ׇּט ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ְל ׇמ ְע ׇל ‏‬are collocated in a manner that serves to contrast above and beneath, as they are in this verse, both adverbial par‑ ticles (‫ ַמ ׇּטה‏‬and ‫ ) ַמ ַעל‏‬include the preposition lāmed (e.g., Deut 28:13; Jer 31:37; Ezek 1:27; 8:2; Eccl 3:21; but contrast Prov 15:24). Therefore, in the verse under discussion, ‫( ְל ׇמ ְע ׇלה‏‬MT, 4QIsab,‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 19:30) is preferred over ‫( מעלה‏‬1QIsaa). For the variants ‫ ְל ׇמ ְע ׇלה‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫מעל ‏‬, see also the discussion at 6:2. 37:32 ‫ירּוׁש ַלםִ‏‬ ‫ ִמ ׇ‬MT 4QIsab‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 19:31 LXX | ‫ מציון‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵמ ַהר ִצֹּיון‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:31 LXX | ‫ מירושלים‏‬1QIsaa In this verse, 1QIsaa has two deviations from the majority of witnesses—it transposes ‫“( מציון‏‬from Zion”) and ‫ם‬ ‫“( מירושלי ‏‬from Jerusalem”)926 and omits the word ‫“( הר‏‬mountain”). With these departures, a copyist or scribe has har‑ monized the verse to agree with 2:3: ‫ם‬ ‫כי מציון תצא תורה ודבר יהוה מירושל ‏‬. The great majority of other Isaianic passages that present Zion and Jerusalem with‑ in the same parallelistic pattern or within the same verse, too, consign Zion before Jerusalem (see 2:3; 4:3; 4:4; 10:12; 10:32; 24:23; 30:19; 31:9; 33:20; 37:22 = 2 Kgs 19:21; 40:9; 41:27; 52:1; 62:1; 64:10). This indicates that the scribe of 1QIsaa may have harmonized the verse under discussion according to these other pas‑ sages that first attest Zion followed by Jerusalem. An exception, beyond the one in MT 37:32, is 52:2, where Jerusalem precedes Zion. For other examples of harmonizations in this scroll, see Skehan.927 For the transposition of the words ‫ מציו‏ן‬and ‫ם‬ ‫מירושלי ‏‬, see further at 1:30. 37:33

‫א־ֹיורה ׇׁשם ֵחץ וְ לֹא־יְ ַק ְּד ֶמּנׇ ה ׇמגֵ ן וְ לֹא־יִ ְׁשּפְֹך ֳע ֶל ׇיה ס ְֹל ׇל ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וְ ל‬MT 2 Kgs 19:32 LXX | ‫ולוא‏‬ ‫ ישפוך עליהא סוללה ולוא ירא שמ חץ ולוא יקדמנה מגן‬1QIsaa

In the variant under discussion, MT presents three phrases that pertain to Assyrian military strategy: against Jerusalem, the Assyrians would not “shoot an arrow there, or come before it with a shield, or cast up a siege-mound against it.” 1QIsaa orders the three phrases differently: the Assyrians would “not cast up a siege-mound against it, or shoot an arrow there, or come before it with a shield.” It is a challenge to determine which witness has the original reading. Several other scriptural passages hint that the appropriate order of assaulting a city is to first cast up a siege-mound (2 Sam 20:15; 2 Kgs 25:1; Ezek 4:2; 17:17; Dan 11:15); such is the order of the scroll, and perhaps the scribe reorganized 926  Person, Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions, 69, writes that inasmuch as “transpo‑ sitions are characteristic” of 1QIsaa, then they are secondary readings. 927  Skehan, “Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” 152n1.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

263

the phrases according to his knowledge of these passages (via assimilation). Or, there is another possible explanation for the variant. The verse contains four instances of the negative particle ‫א‬ ‫( ל ‏‬or ‫א‬ ‫)ול ‏‬, and each is followed by an impf. verb prefixed with a yôd. Any of these four instances could have served as the mechanism that prompted a copyist of MT or 1QIsaa to create an error in the ordering of the three phrases under discussion. In my view, MT, with the support of 2 Kgs 19:32 and LXX, presents the primary reading. For a discussion of syntactical inversions or variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. 37:34 ‫ ׇּבּה‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:33 | ‫ה‬ ‫ בא ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ נְ ֻא ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:33 | ‫מ‬ ‫ נואו ‏‬1QIsaa 37:36 ‫ וַ ּיַ ֶּכ ‏‬MT | ‫ וי ‏ך‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 19:35 MTmss ‫ה‬ 37:38 ‫ ֵּבי ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:37 | ‫ בבית‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ַׂש ְר ֶא ֶצר‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:37 | ‫ ושראוצר‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֲא ׇר ׇרט‏‬ ‫ת‬ MT 2 Kgs 19:37 | ‫ הוררט‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ר־חּדֹן‏‬ ַ ‫ ֵא ַס‬MT 2 Kgs 19:37 | ‫ אסרחודן‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּבֹנו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:37 | ‫ בניו‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵּבי ‏‬Versus the reading of 1QIsaa with the preposition bêt (‫)בבית‏‬, MT lacks ‫ת‬ the preposition bêt, which, if secondary, likely dropped out via haplography. In 5:8, 1QIsaa lacked the preposition bêt (which also preceded the word house, as it does in the example here), also a loss because of haplography. Kutscher, with his commentary on these two readings (5:8 and 37:38), suggests that MT is to be preferred, despite the fact that in one instance the scroll has the bêt and the other instance lacks it.928 For 1QIsaa’s use of the attached preposition, see the comments at 1:12. For the agreement of the use of the preposition between 1QIsaa and LXX, see Van der Vorm-Croughs.929 ‫—וְ ַׂש ְר ֶא ֶצר‏‬Kutscher explains that the name Sharezer (MT 2 Kgs 19:37 ‫וְ ַׂש ְר ֶא ֶצ ‏ר‬, 1QIsaa ‫“ )ושראוצר‏‬stems from the Accadian Šarusur, the Scr.’s reading hence being better.”930 And before Kutscher, Beegle wrote, “It is clear that the scribe of DSIa employed a more ancient and accurate form of this name than did the MT.”931 But compare Reymond, who holds that ‫( ושראוצ ‏ר‬with its wāw mater) was a product of the Canaanite Shift.932 928  See Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 403. 929  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 489. 930  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 120. 931  Beegle, “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll,” 28; see also Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 162. 932  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 180–81.

264

Chapter 2

‫— ֲא ׇר ׇר ‏‬This form of the proper name Ararat is supported elsewhere in the ‫ט‬ Bible (see Gen 8:4; 2 Kgs 19:37; and Jer 51:27). 1QIsaa’s form (‫ )הוררט‏‬is unique among Hebrew witnesses, but compare ‫ט‬ ‫ הרר ‏‬in SP Gen 8:4. Three possibilities may explain 1QIsaa’s reading: (a) A simple ʾālep/hê interchange converted the reading from ‫ אררט‏‬to ‫ט‬ ‫ ;הורר ‏‬this is likely a phonological Aramaism where the vowel changes to o before a rêš.933 (b) The hê of ‫“( הר ‏י‬mountains of”), in the ex‑ pression ‫ט‬ ‫ הרי ארר ‏‬in Gen 8:4, impacted the reading of SP, which subsequently influenced the scroll.934 Beegle discusses the name Ararat and mentions the significance of the wāw in 1QIsaa’s ‫הוררט‏‬, concluding that “DSIa again goes back to an older form which reflects the Accadian Urartu”.935 (c) Reymond, following Kutscher, explains the possible existence of the wāw mater in ‫הוררט‏‬: “The development of an /o/ or /u/ vowel might have been triggered by sur‑ rounding consonants.”936 ‫— ְּבֹנ ‏ו‬Here 1QIsaa has the suffix ‫)בניו‏( ‑י‏ו‬. Based on the evidence regarding phonetic shifts in ancient Hebrew, the suffixed ‫ ‑ ‏ֹו‬of MT has the same linguistic value as ‫ ‑יו‏‬of 1QIsaa. See the commentary at 5:25.

Isaiah 38

38:1 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:1 | ‫ יחוזקיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:1 | ‫ ישעיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַצו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:1 | ‫ צוי‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1. ‫ ַצו‏— ַצו‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ַצּוֵ ‏‬, both piʿel m. sg. imperatives from √‫צוה‏‬, are found regularly in the Bible. 1QIsaa’s ‫ צוי‏‬is unique, although yôd and hê often interchange. 38:2 ‫ וַ ּיַ ֵּסב‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:2 | ‫ ויסו ‏ב‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יחוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa | > 2 Kgs 20:2 38:3 ‫ זְ ׇכר־נׇ א‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:3 | ‫ זכורנא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּוב ֵלב‏‬MT | ‫ ובלבב‏‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 20:3 • ‫ וַ ְּיֵבְך‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:3 | ‫ ויבכא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 20:3 | ‫ה‬ ‫ יחוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa

933  Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 10. See also Isa 49:17 and 66:20. 934  See the discussion in Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 102. 935  Beegle, “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll,” 29. 936  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 174–77.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

265

38:4 ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 20:4 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1. 38:5 ‫ה | ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬ ‫ יחוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וראיתי‏ | ׇר ִא ִית‏י‬1QIsaa LXX 38:6 ‫ ַהזֹאת‏‬MT LXX | ‫ הזואת למעני ולמען דויד עבד ‏י‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 20:6 ‫— ַהּזֹאת‏‬MT reads: “And I will defend this city.” MT is followed by LXX Vulg Syr Tg, but 1QIsaa and 2 Kgs 20:6 have a plus at the end of the verse, thus read‑ ing, “And I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of David my servant.” Apparently, the reading of 1QIsaa is a harmonization from 2 Kgs 20:6; or, anoth‑ er theory: both 1QIsaa and 2 Kgs 20:6 had a common source, such as 2 Kgs 19:34, which includes ‫ ְל ַמ ֲענִ י ְּול ַמ ַען ׇּדוִ ד ַע ְב ִּד‏י‬. But for the variant under discussion, we follow Wildberger, who omits the plus belonging to 1QIsaa 2 Kgs 20:6 in his translation.937 38:8 ‫ ְב ַמ ֲעֹלות‏‬1 MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ במעלות עלי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ַּב ֶּׁש ֶמ ‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ את השמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ְב ַמ ֲעֹלות‏‬1—The verse may lead to confusion because the second half contains many elements of the first half, such as the repetition of √‫שוב‏‬, ‫אשר‏‬, √‫ירד‏‬, and ‫ ;עש ‏ר‬more especially, there are in the verse multiple attestations of √‫עלה‏‬, i.e., ‫המעלו ‏‬, ‫( במעלות‏‬bis), and ‫( מעלות‏‬bis). In the context of this verse according to ‫ת‬ MT, ‫ת‬ ‫ ְב ַמ ֲעֹלו ‏‬1‫‏‬may refer to the stairs of the king’s palace or to the degrees of a sundial. The Isaiah scroll’s plus of ‫ עלית‏‬clarifies that ‫ במעלות‏‬refers to stairs: “the stairs of the upper room (‫עלית‏‬, HALOT, 832) of Ahaz.” Blenkinsopp and NAB (413) prefer 1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫עלי ‏‬.938 And ‫ת‬ ‫ עלי ‏‬likely dropped out of MT because of the multiple attestations of √‫עלה‏‬. Or, as an alternative but less likely explanation, the 1QIsaa scribe added ‫ת‬ ‫ עלי ‏‬to his text based on his knowledge of 2 Kgs 23:12, which refers to Ahaz’s upper chamber (‫ ;) ֲע ִלּיַ ת ׇא ׇחז‏‬or, 1QIsaa’s plus of ‫ עלית‏‬is the result of dittography, based on the multiple attestations of √‫ עלה‏‬in the verse. Van der Vorm-Croughs presents yet another explanation as to why both 1QIsaa and LXX have the plus: “Clearly, both [LXX and 1QIsaa] inserted a specifica‑ tion of ‫ת‬ ‫ מעלו ‏‬independently from each other with the purpose of making their

937  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 435; see also his comments on 437. 938  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 481.

266

Chapter 2

texts more explicit.”939 Despite these and other scholarly arguments regard‑ ing 1QIsaa versus MT, the primary reading still remains somewhat elusive. Thus Wildberger writes that 1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫“ עלי ‏‬appears to be a case of dittography, though the MT reading could just as easily be a case of haplography.”940 ‫— ַּב ֶּׁש ֶמ ‏‬The deviations ‫( ַּב ֶּׁש ֶמׁש‏‬MT) and ‫( את השמש‏‬1QIsaa) have prompted ‫ׁש‬ a number of discussions and divergent views.941 After a careful review of the arguments, I accept Wildberger’s viewpoint; he emends the text to read ‫השמש‏‬, minus the accusative marker ‫את‏‬, and translates ‫ יׇ ְר ׇדה ְב ַמ ֲעֹלות ׇא ׇחז ַּב ֶּׁש ֶמׁש‏‬as “the sun [the stair steps of Ahaz] has gone downward.”942 38:9

‫ ַּב ֲחֹלֹת ‏ו‬MT | ‫ בחוליותי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ַּב ֲחֹלֹת ‏ו‬The differences between ‫ ַּב ֲחֹלֹת ‏ו‬and ‫ בחוליותי ‏ו‬most likely have a basis

in orthography, thus UF 2:75 list these words in its orthographic table. If the readings are indeed spelling deviations, then both words may be designated qal inf. constructs; however, there exists another possibility—1QIsaa’s reading may be a pl. noun. If this is the case, the scroll’s reading is in error because the m. sg. noun ‫ ֳח ִל‏י‬does not exist in the f. pl. (cf. two m. pl. forms [‫ ]וׇ ֳח ׇליִ ם‏‬in Deut 28:59; 2 Chr 21:15) and also because the pl. does not fit the context that re‑ fers to Hezekiah’s sickness. ‫ בחוליותיו‏‬may be a conflation form based on two of the three final words in the verse: ‫ ;בחלתּומחליו‏‬that is to say, a scribe misread the qal inf. as a f. pl. and then added ‫ ‑י ‏ו‬from the final word, thus ‫בחוליותיו‏ > בחלתיו‏‬. 38:10 ‫ ַיׇמי‏‬MT | ‫ וימ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֻּפ ַּק ְד ִּת‏י‬MT | ‫ פקודת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶיֶת ‏ר‬MT LXX | ‫ ומ ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫יׇמ‏י‬ ַ —A copyist of 1QIsaa wrote ‫ וימ‏י‬but likely intended to write ‫יומ‏י‬, which is direct evidence of the influence of Aramaic in the scroll (see Abegg in UF 2:41). See also the comments in 1:1. ‫— ֻּפ ַּק ְד ִּת‏י‬Owing to the rarity of the puʿal form of √‫ פקד‏‬in the Bible (twice only, see Exod 38:21 and Isa 38:10) and the nonexistence of the puʿal in rabbinic Hebrew, it is likely that 1QIsaa’s copyist did not know the form attested in MT (‫ ;) ֻּפ ַּק ְד ִּתי‏‬the copyist, therefore, utilized the noun ‫( פקודה‏‬such is the theory that Kutscher presents).943 939  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 490. 940  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 437. 941  Including Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 50; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 1–39, 672; Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25; Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 226; and Iwry, “Qumrân Isaiah and the End of the Dial of Ahaz,” 27–33. 942  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 435–35. 943  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 322.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

267

‫יֶת ‏ר‬ ֶ —The reading of MT (followed by LXX Vulg Syr), “remainder of my years” (‫ֹנותי‏‬ ‫יֶתר ְׁש ׇ‬ ֶ ), corresponds with “half of my days” (‫יׇמי‏‬ ַ ‫) ִּב ְד ִמי‬. The words of 1QIsaa—“and bitter are my years” (‫—)ומר שנותי‏‬lack the same correspondence. Two possibilities explain the scroll’s variant: (a) a scribe assimilated ‫ מ ‏ר‬from v. 15, where ‫ מ ‏ר‬and ‫ שנותי‏‬are collocated (as they are in the verse under discus‑ sion), e.g., ‫ ;‏כול שנותי על מור נפשיא‬or (b) a scribe misread his Vorlage and read ‫ ומ ‏ר‬instead of ‫ית ‏ר‬, i.e., wāw for yôd and mêm for tāw. Either way, 1QIsaa is in error.

38:11 ‫ יׇ ּה יׇ ּה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ י ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬MTmss | τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַה ַחּיִ י ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫חיי ‏‬ 1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ל ֹ ‏‬2‫ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇ ּה יׇ ּה‏‬The reading constitutes an instance of a dittography in MT; or, a hap‑ lography in 1QIsaa. Watts prefers to read ‫יהוה‏‬.944 Indeed, ‫ יה יה‏‬may have origi‑ nally read ‫ה‬ ‫( יהו ‏‬an emendation proposed by Oort decades before the Qumran discoveries).945 Based on the metrical scheme of the passage, Wildberger as‑ serts that the sg. ‫ה‬ ‫ י ‏‬signifies the correct reading946 (a view that I embrace). Perhaps to avoid passages that pertain to an anthropopathic or anthropomor‑ phic God, or passages that portray humans seeing the Lord, the LXX translators on occasion altered the passage (e.g., Exod 4:24; 19:3; 24:10; Num 12:8; Isa 41:5).947 In 38:11, LXX added “the salvation,” i.e., “I shall never see the salvation of God,” versus MT, “I shall never see the Lord.” See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. 38:12 ‫ וְ נִ גְ ׇלה‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ יכל ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ ִק ַּפ ְד ִּת‏י‬MT | ‫ ספרת‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ נִ גְ ׇל ‏‬A scribe of 1QIsaa may have substituted √‫ כלה‏‬in place of ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫( ונגל ‏‬MT and 1QIsab) with the idea that √‫ כלה‏‬would serve as a parallel to √‫( חדל‏‬the final word of v. 11). Or, it is also possible that ‫ יכלה‏‬is an error, written instead of the graphically similar ‫ונגלה‏‬. Of the two variants—√‫ כלה‏‬and √‫—גלה‏‬the lastmentioned term is linked better to tent imagery and nomadic life; it, therefore, is likely the primary word. ‫— ִק ַּפ ְד ִּתי‏‬The meaning of ‫ ִק ַּפ ְד ִּתי‏‬, a hapax legomenon, is uncertain (see the discussion in DCH 7:274; cf. √‫קפד‏‬, “to roll up,” HALOT, 1117); the corresponding 944  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 55; already Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 1:418, and Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 227, had conjectured that the reading should be ‫ה‬ ‫יהו ‏‬. 945  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 101. 946  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 438. 947  Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 68; Tov, “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint,” 230.

268

Chapter 2

word in the parallelism is √‫“( בצע‏‬to cut off,” HALOT, 147–48). 1QIsaa attests the similar-appearing ‫ספרתי‏‬, which recurrently in Aramaic terminology has the sense of “to cut one’s hair” (‫)ספר‏‬, “barber” (‫)ספרא‏‬, and so forth.948 If 1QIsaa’s scribe was indeed impacted by Aramaic, then ‫ ספרת‏י‬may correspond with √‫בצע‏‬. Weiss theorizes that the 1QIsaa scribe viewed ‫ קפדתי‏‬on the manuscript, determined that it was an error, and then “substituted its synonym, ‫ספרת‏י‬, which was more commonly used in later Hebrew.”949 Wildberger argues for MT’s ‫ קפד‏‬but expresses that ‫ת‬ ‫ קפד ‏‬should be read (second person sg. form, “you have rolled”).950 But MT’s ‫ ִק ַּפ ְד ִּת‏י‬is acceptable— the first common sg. form corresponds with multiple first common sg. forms in vv. 10–14. 38:13 ‫ ִׁשּוִ ִיתי … ַּת ְׁש ִל ֵימנִ י‏‬MT 1QIsaa‫ ‏‬LXX | > 1QIsab ‫ימנִ ‏י‬ ֵ ‫יתי … ַּת ְׁש ִל‬ ִ ִ‫— ִׁשּו‬The two chief theories regarding 1QIsab’s exclusion of v. 13 are: (a) the loss exists because of homoioteleuton, triggered by ‫תשלימני …‏‬ ‫;תשלימני‬951 or (b) according to UF 2:220, v. 13 was “possibly added in the [MT] tradition.”952 MT 1QIsaa‫ ‏‬LXX present the primary reading, and 1QIsab’s minus is an error. 38:13 ‫ית‏י‬ ִ ִ‫ ִׁשּו‬MT | ‫ שפות‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ ַׁש ֵּב ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ישבו ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫ית‏י‬ ִ ִ‫— ִׁשּו‬Driver translates 1QIsaa’s ‫ שפותי‏‬as “I am racked with pain” (see also DCH 8:300–301) and holds that this reading “yields a preferable sense” over MT’s ‫ ִׁשּוִ ִיתי‏‬.953 But MT’s ‫ ִׁשּוִ ִית‏י‬, “to lie, lie down” (via √‫ ;ׁשוה‏‬see also the discus‑ sion in HALOT, 1438), is suitable in the passage’s context.954 38:14

‫ ׇעגּו ‏ר‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ עוגר‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫י]הוה‏‬ ֯ 1QIsab • ‫ ׇע ְׁש ׇקה‏‬MT 1QIsaa‫ה | )עושקה‏( ‏‬ ‫ חשק ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ׇע ְר ֵבנִ ‏י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ וערבנ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇעגּו ‏ר‬A dislegomena, ‫ ׇעגּור‏‬is found only in 38:14 and Jer 8:7 (where 4Q70 = MT Jer, ‫)עגו ‏ר‬. For ‫ ׇעגּו ‏ר‬, HALOT (784) writes, “etym. uncertain,” possibly “short-footed 948  Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 828. See also Driver, “Isaiah I–XXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 56. 949  Weiss, “Textual Notes,” 128. 950  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 439. 951  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 393; UF 1:220; Flint, “Non-Masoretic Variant Readings,” 109. 952   U F 1:220. 953  Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 56. 954  Barthélemy et al., too, support MT, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:267.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

269

thrush” or “wryneck.” 1QIsaa’s ‫ עוג ‏ר‬may signify another case of a pattern substi‑ tution: qatul > qotel, typical of QH and the scroll. ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬Flint examines instances where 1QIsab stands against MT.955 In the present reading, he observes that 1QIsab’s ‫י]הוה‏‬ ֯ has the support of LXX (πρὸς τὸν κύριον), versus MT and 1QIsaa, and observes that this is an infrequent occurrence.956 ‫— ׇע ְׁש ׇק ‏‬MT and 1QIsaa‫‏‬attest ‫ ׇ ֽע ְׁש ׇקה‏( )עושקה‏( ׇע ְׁש ׇקה‏‬, “oppression,” HALOT, ‫ה‬ 897) versus 1QIsab’s ‫“( חשקה‏‬love, desire”?). The origin of the reading of 1QIsab is unknown. Given the fact that three of the four consonants of ‫ה‬ ‫ חשק ‏‬are equal to ‫ה‬ ‫עׁשק ‏‬, and the beginning character of both words is a guttural, it is easy to conclude that a 1QIsab scribe erred by writing a graphically similar word, perhaps impacted by ‫ת‬ ‫חשק ‏‬, located three verses away (see v. 17); or, ‫ה‬ ‫ חשק ‏‬rep‑ resents a phonetic error. For another instance of a ḥêt replacing an ʿayin, see 54:11, where 1QIsaa reads ‫ה‬ ‫ סחור ‏‬for ‫ה‬ ‫ = סער ‏‬MT 4QIsad. 38:15 ‫ וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬MT 1QIsab (‫ואמ[ר‏‬ ̇ ) | ‫ ואומ ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִל‏י‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ לֹו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ וְ הּו ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫והיא ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇע ׇׂש ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ עשה לי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ֶא ַּד ֶּד ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אדוד ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַמ ‏ר‬MT | ‫ מו ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬MT opens the verse with “What can I say? He has spoken to me.” Watts writes, “The change of person has bothered interpreters. Tg read ‫ואימ ‏ר‬ ‘and I said’ and DSSIsa ‫ ואומ ‏ר‬moves in a similar fashion. BHS follows them.”957 See also Barré,958 who prefers to read ‫ = וְ א ַֹמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa. Of course, MT’s ‫ וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬may be “a question of pointing.”959 It is also possible that 1QIsaa assimilated the reading of the first common sg. impf. verb (‫ )אדבר‏‬immediately preceding the verb in question. Barthélemy follows MT.960 ‫— ִל ‏י‬The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )לוא‏‬may signify ‫( ל‏ו‬i.e., “to him”), but it is more likely ‫א‬ ‫( לי ‏‬i.e., “to me”). PQ employ a symbol that indicates the word may be either ‫ לוא‏‬or ‫א‬ ‫לי ‏‬. Note Oort’s emendation of MT’s ‫ ִל‏י‬to ‫ל ‏ו‬.961 ‫— ׇע ׇׂשה‏‬The 1QIsaa plus of ‫א‬ ‫“( לי ‏‬for me”) is a harmonization of ‫ל‏י‬, located three words earlier. The plus signifies a simple error, or perhaps the copyist was attempting to balance out the parallelistic structure. ‫— ֶא ַּד ֶּד ‏‬As vocalized, MT’s ‫ ֶא ַּד ֶּדה‏‬is a hitpaʿel impf. first common sg., from ‫ה‬ √‫“( דדה‏‬to walk,” HALOT, 214; “walk deliberately, at ease,” BDB, 186). 1QIsaa’s

955  Flint, “Variant Readings and Textual Affiliation,” 33–53. 956  Ibid., 42. 957  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 56. 958  Barré, “Restoring the ‘Lost’ Prayer in the Psalm of Hezekiah,” 398–99. 959  See Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 22. 960  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:271–72. 961  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 101.

270

Chapter 2

‫ אדוד ‏‬may also be from √‫ דדה‏‬or from √‫“( נדד‏‬to flee,” HALOT, 672). Driver ‫ה‬ prefers the reading of 1QIsaa and translates ‫ה‬ ‫ אדוד ‏‬as “I wander to and fro.”962 Wildberger follows Begrich’s suggestion to emend the text to ‫“( אדך‏‬I will praise you”) and translates “I want to praise you all my years.”963 Notwithstanding these viewpoints, with Watts964 we should hold to MT’s reading. ‫— ַמ ‏ר‬Similar to this verse, the words ‫ׁש‬ ‫ נֶ ֶפ ‏‬and ‫ ַמ ‏ר‬are collocated in several other verses in the Bible (e.g., Judg 18:25; 1 Sam 1:10; 22:2; 2 Sam 17:8; Ezek 27:31; Job 3:20, etc.); thus ‫ מר נפׁשי‏‬is a relatively common expression. In the verse under discussion, 1QIsaa’s ‫א‬ ‫ מור נפשי ‏‬does not translate “myrrh of my soul;” rather, ‫ מור‏‬signifies another instance of the interchange of the qill, qull, and qall forms in QH.965 Cf., however, 38:17 (two verses away), where the scribe wrote ‫מר‏‬. 38:16

‫ יִ ְחי ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ֹוחי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּב ֶה‏ן‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ בהמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַחּיֵ ‏י‬MT | ‫ חי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫רּוח ‏י‬ ִ MT | ‫ רוח ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ְחיּו‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ֹוחי‏ו‬, with the conjunction wāw, artificially disjoins the words

in 16a. Perhaps the error is based on wāw/yôd confusion? ‫— ׇּב ֶה‏ן‬MT and 1QIsab attest the preposition bêt with a third f. pl. pronominal suffix (‫ ;)בהן‏‬1QIsaa deviates from this form with a third m. pl. suffix (‫)בהמה‏‬. This variant may signify an attempt of 1QIsaa to harmonize ‫ בהמה‏‬with ‫( עליהמה‏‬both forms possessing a third m. pl. suffix), which appears earlier in the verse. Or, alternatively, MT and 1QIsab erred with the third f. pl. suffix. ‫— ַחּיֵ י‏‬MT features the noun ‫ ; ַחּיֵ י‏‬1QIsaa submits the verb ‫חיו‏‬, almost certainly influenced by ‫ וחי ‏ו‬three words earlier. ‫רּוח ‏י‬ ִ —There are two simple explanations that account for 1QIsaa’s ‫רוח‏ו‬: an error pertaining to the similar appearing wāw/yôd or dittography of the wāw, e.g., ‫‏חיו רוחו‬. 38:17 ‫ ִהּנֵ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ה‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇמ ‏ר‬2‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ מאוד ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּב ִל ‏י‬MT | ‫ כל ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ִהּנֵ ‏‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה ‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫ ׇמר‏‬2—MT and 1QIsab, perhaps for emphasis, repeat the adjective ‫ַמר ִלי‏( ַמר‏‬ ‫) ׇמר‬. With its adverb ‫מאודה‏‬, 1QIsaa utilizes a more common approach toward 962  Driver, “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” 56. 963  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 435, 440–41. 964  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 56. 965  For this phenomenon, consult Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 321–22.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

271

intensifying the greatness of the bitterness (‫)מר ליא מאודה‏‬. Barré prefers ‫מאודה‏‬ of 1QIsaa, thus reading “(for) bitter indeed is my suffering!”966 Another pos‑ sibility is that a copyist of the 1QIsaa tradition erred by writing a dālet for the rêš, and a subsequent scribe wrote ‫מאודה‏‬. LXX lacks the phrase under discus‑ sion. But the repetition of ‫ ַמ ‏ר‬in MT (supported by 1QIsab) has a significant emphatic purpose and should be retained. ‫ בלי‏— ְּב ִל ‏י‬versus ‫( כלו‏‬1QIsaa) may simply indicate a confusion of the letters bêt and kāp. Or, note the following: MT reads ‫“( ִמ ַּׁש ַחת ְּב ִל‏י‬from the pit of destruc‑ tion”), as translated by Blenkinsopp.967 1QIsaa’s ‫ כלו‏‬may be derived from √‫כלה‏‬ (“to annihilate”), an apocopated form of ‫“( ִּכ ׇּלֹיו‏ן‬annihilation”)? Alternatively, ‫ כלו‏‬is a form of ‫א‬ ‫“( ְּכ ִלי ‏‬prison”). Barré prefers the reading of the scroll = ‫ת‬ ‫משח ‏‬ ‫ ;כלי‬he writes, “1QIsaa reads ‫‏י‬/‫ כלו‏‬for the MT’s ‫ ְּב ִל‏י‬.”968 Notwithstanding schol‑ arly opinions, 1QIsaa’s reading remains questionable. 38:18

‫ֹּתוד ‏ָך‬ ֶ MT 1QIsaa‫תוע ‏ך | )תודכה‏( ‏‬ ̇ 1QIsab • ‫ת‬ ‫ ׇמוֶ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ת‬ ‫ ולוא מו ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ל ֹ ‏‬2‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ולו ‏‬2‫ ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫— ׇמוֶ ת‏‬The issue here pertains to whether or not the bicolon of v. 18a should

have one or two negative particles. MT and 1QIsab have a single negative par‑ ticle, thus reading: “For Sheol cannot thank you, death praises you.” Since the second line of the bicolon lacks the negative particle ‫לא‏‬, does it lack a sym‑ metrical balance? Marti969 (and others) propose that the negative particle ‫לא‏‬ should be repeated after ‫ת‬ ‫מו ‏‬, thus reading “death cannot praise you.” 1QIsaa and LXX include the negative particle ‫א‬ ‫ ל ‏‬in v. 18a, thus the scroll has ‫ת‬ ‫ולוא מו ‏‬ ‫יהללכה‬. Two chief possibilities exist for the conflict between the four chief wit‑ nesses: (a) MT and 1QIsab attest ‫ לא‏‬twice in this verse (see also v. 18b) and probably omitted the third via haplography; or (b) 1QIsaa and LXX added the negative particle in an attempt to harmonize the bicolon, so that line 1 agrees with line 2. Of course, “it is also conceivable,” writes Van der Vorm-Croughs, “that this negation was already present in their [1QIsaa and LXX] Hebrew par‑ ent texts.”970 In my judgment, the two negatives creates a more fitting correspondence in the passage. So, too, the JPS translation presents both negatives: “For the nether-world cannot praise Thee, death cannot celebrate Thee.” And also 966  Barré, “Restoring the ‘Lost’ Prayer in the Psalm of Hezekiah,” 398. 967  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 480. 968  Barré, “Restoring the ‘Lost’ Prayer in the Psalm of Hezekiah,” 399. 969  Marti, Buch Jesaja, 264. 970  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 490.

272

Chapter 2

Wildberger: “For the realm of the dead does not praise you, death does not praise you.”971 38:19 ‫ ׇּכֹמונִ י ַהֹּיו ‏‬MT 1QIsaa‫ ‏‬LXX(vid) | ‫‏ה[י]ֹום כמוני‬1QIsab • ‫ֹיוד ַיע‏‬ ‫ם‬ ִ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ יודע‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ֶאל‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ אל ‏‬1QIsab For the various corrections in 1QIsaa 38:19–20, see UF 2:159. ‫— ׇּכֹמונִ י ַהֹּיום‏‬MT and 1QIsaa have a different word order than does 1QIsab (‫)ה[י]ֹום כמוני‏‬. For a discussion of syntactical inversions or variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. ‫— ֶא ‏ל‬There exists three Hebrew variants—as it is vocalized, MT reads “to, toward,” and 1QIsaa follows MT with this reading; 1QIsab reads the demonstra‑ tive ‫ה‬ ‫אל ‏‬, and the repeated block of words in v. 20 of 1QIsaa reads ‫“( אלוה‏‬God”). Of course, ‫ אל‏‬could be an apocopated form of the demonstrative ‫ ;אלה‏‬and ‫אלה‏‬ may be a defective form of ‫אלוה‏‬. 38:20 ‫ֹהוׁש ֵיענִ י‏‬ ִ ‫ ְל‬MT 1QIsab (‫ | )להשיעני‏‬+ ‫חי חי יודך כמוני היום אב לבנים יהודיע אלוה אמת ‏ך‬ ‫ יהוה להושיעני‬1QIsaa | σωσον με σ′ Vulg Syr ‫ֹהוׁש ֵיענִ י‏‬ ִ ‫— ְל‬At first glance, it appears as if the copyist of 1QIsaa has created a simple dittography, repeating a block of words from v. 19. But the 1QIsaa variant readings in the repeated line suggest otherwise because simple dittographies generally consist of exact duplications of words, including an equivalent or‑ thographic approach. The repeated line in v. 20 has the following deviations: it lacks the pronoun ‫הוא‏‬, it reads the defective ‫ יוד ‏ך‬rather than the plene ‫יודכה‏‬, it features ‫ יהודי ‏ע‬in place of ‫יודיע‏‬, it has ‫ אלוה‏‬rather than ‫אל‏‬, and it presents ‫אמתך‏‬ instead of ‫אמתכה‏‬. It seems, then, that at one stage a copyist created a dittogra‑ phy of a block of words from v. 19; then, at a later stage a second copyist altered elements of the text based on a second text type to create the orthographic and lectio variants that now exist in v. 20. 38:21–22 MT 1QIsab LXX | > 1QIsaa pm but exists sm The scribal activity of 1QIsaa in vv. 21–22 is summarized as follows: “The orig‑ inal scribe stopped after the opening words of verse 20; then a second scribe in‑ serted additional text: a repetition of verse 19 and the beginning of 20, plus the rest of 20. Yet a third scribe added the two odd sentences in 21–22, which occur in 2 Kings 20, after verse 39. The resulting text (without the repetition) agrees 971  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 436.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

273

with the text transmitted by the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.”972 Ulrich, too, examines these passages in MT in view of 1QIsaa and presents this helpful summary: “Verse 20 is the traditional conclusion of Hezekiah’s prayer. Vv. 21–22 seem ‘cut and pasted’ here, and a glance at the logical order of 2 Kgs 20:1–10 will make clear that vv. 21–22 are out of place here in the Isaiah text…. At any rate, to the text penned by the scribe of 1QIsaa there are two subsequent additions which supplement the text and attempt to bring it into conformity with the secondarily expanded tradition inherited in the MT.”973 38:21 ‫ יִ ְׂשאּו‏‬MT 1QIsab‫ ‏‬LXX | > 1QIsaa | ‫ ְקח‏ּו‬2 Kgs 20:7 • ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT 1QIsaa‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 20:7 | ‫א ‏ל‬ 1QIsab ‫—יִ ְׂשא ‏ּו‬Against two other Hebrew witnesses (MT 1QIsab) and LXX, 1QIsaa lacks the verb ‫ישאו‏‬, which is essential to the sentence’s structure. Perhaps a scribe of the 1QIsaa tradition dropped the verb via haplography, e.g., ‫ישעיה‏ו‬ ‫ישאו‬. Note also ‫ ְקח ‏ּו‬,‫‏‬which belongs to 2 Kgs 20:7. 38:22

‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab 2 Kgs 20:8 | ‫ה‬ ‫ חזקי ‏‬1QIsaa



Isaiah 39

39:1 ‫ ַה ִהוא‏‬MT | ‫ ההיא‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab 4QIsab 2 Kgs 20:12 • ‫ ְמר ַֹדך‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab | ‫אדְך‏‬ ַ ֹ ‫ְּבר‬ 2 Kgs 20:12 • ‫ ַּב ְל ֲא ׇד‏ן‬1,2‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsab‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 20:12 | ‫בלאדו‏ן‬1,2‫ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יחוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמע‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab | ‫ כי שמע‏‬4QIsab 2 Kgs 20:12 LXX Tg Syr ‫ה‬ Vulg • ‫ וַ ּיֶ ֱחזׇ ק‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ ויחי ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἀνέστη LXX ‫— ְמר ַֹדך‏‬The divergences ‫( ְמר ַֹד ‏ך‬Merodach = MT, 1QIsaa, 1QIsab) and ‫אד ‏ְך‬ ַ ֹ ‫ְּבר‬ (Berodach = 2 Kgs 20:12) may exist because of the confusion of the letters bêt/ mêm in the Assyrian square script.974 Merodach is the preferred reading.975 972  Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 331; see also the discussion in Stromberg, “Role of Redaction Criticism,” 155–89; Tov, TCHB3, 340–42; Talmon, “Textual Study of the Bible,” 330–32. 973  Ulrich, “Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” 298–99; see also Flint’s sum‑ mary, in Flint, “Book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 238; and UF 2:90–91, where they list several secondary insertions in M that are highlighted by the Great Isaiah Scroll. 974  Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 44, catalogs a handful of examples of bêt/mêm interchanges in the Bible due to their similarity in some Semitic scripts. See also Isa 15:2, 9. 975  “Since the name is Marduk-apla-iddin(a) in Akkadian, the reading in Isaiah is likely more original,” Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 468.

274

Chapter 2

‫—וַ ּיֶ ְׁש ַמע‏‬Kennedy attributes the variant ‫( וישמ ‏ע‬MT, 1QIsaa, 1QIsab) versus ‫כ‏י‬ ‫( שמע‬4QIsab 2 Kgs 20:12) in this verse to the resemblance of the wāw and kāp in some ancient scripts;976 thus ‫ כי‏‬was read for ‫ ‑ו ‏י‬or vice versa. ‫—וַ ּיִ ֱחזׇ ק‏‬The Hebrew witnesses exhibit three divergences for the final word of v. 1 (see underlined word): (a) MT and 1QIsab, ‫( ;‏וישמע כי חלה ויחזק‬b) 2 Kgs 20:12, ‫( ;‏ ִּכי ׇׁש ַמע ִּכי ׇח ׇלה ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‬c) 1QIsaa, ‫‏וישמע כיא חלה ויחיה‬. The readings of MT/1QIsab (‫ )ויחזק‏‬and 2 Kgs 20:12 (‫ )חזקיהו‏‬pertain to √‫חזק‏‬, but MT/1QIsab present a

verb and 2 Kgs 20:12 has a proper name. Both readings fit the context, but if Hezekiah’s Psalm (38:9–22) is framed in its proper place within Isa 36–39, then the king had already been restored to health in 38:9. MT Isaiah 39:1 refers to this restoration to health, which is an indication that MT Isaiah provides the primary reading. 1QIsaa’s √‫ חיה‏‬is likely an assimilation of √‫חיה‏‬, which is at‑ tested five times in Isa 38 (see vv. 38:1, 9, 16 [bis], and 21) in connection with Hezekiah and his illness. Or, as Klein asserts, “MT contains the rarer form; a more common vocable has been inserted in the Qumran text [1QIsaa].”977 39:2 ‫ וַ ּיִ ְׂש ַמח‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab LXX | ‫ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמ ‏ע‬2 Kgs 20:13 • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬1‫ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:13 | ‫יחוזקיה‏‬ 1QIsaa • > MT LXX | ‫ כו ‏ל‬1QIsaa 2 Kgs 20:13 • ‫ה‬ ‫ת‏‬ ֹ ֹ‫ נְ כ‬MTket 2 Kgs 20:13 LXX (νεχωθα) | ‫ נכת ‏ו‬MTqere | ‫ נכתי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬2 MT 2 Kgs 20:13 | ‫ה‬ ‫ יחוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶמ ְמ ַׁש ְלֹּת‏ו‬MT 2 Kgs 20:13 | ‫ ממלכת ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—וַ ּיִ ְׂש ַמ ‏‬Kennedy provides four examples of interchanges between the gut‑ ‫ח‬ turals ʿayin and ḥêt in the HB (e.g., for ‫[ זר ‏ע‬see Ps 97:11] read ‫ח‬ ‫זר ‏‬, which equals LXX); one of Kennedy’s examples pertains to the verbs ‫ וַ ּיִ ְׂש ַמח‏‬and ‫ וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַמע‏‬in the parallel passages Isa 39:2 and 2 Kgs 20:13.978 For this particular reading, both extant Qumran passages agree with MT Isaiah 39:2. ‫ח‬ ‫ =( וַ ּיִ ְׂש ַמ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab LXX) comprises the primary reading. ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬1/‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬2—For ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬1‫( ‏‬MT and 2 Kgs 20:13) and ‫( יחוזקיה‏‬1QIsaa), see the comments in 1:1. ‫ ֶא ‏‬1—In this verse, MT reads ‫ל־ּבית‏‬ ‫ת‬ ֵ ‫ת־ּבית … וְ ֵאת ׇּכ‬ ֵ ‫ ; ֶא‬1QIsaa attests ‫את כול‏‬ ֵ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ‫ ֶא ׇ‬. The ‫ ;בית … ואת כול בית‬and the parallel in 2 Kgs 20:13 has ‫ל־ּבית … וְ ֵאת ֵּבית‏‬ plus or minus of the particle ‫ כל‏‬in these texts probably occurred because of assimilation, haplography, or dittography. In the instance of 1QIsaa’s double attestation of ‫כו ‏ל‬, vertical dittography is a potential candidate, because one ‫את‏‬ ‫ כול‬is written exactly above/below the other (see plate XXXII, lines 17–18). Or, 976  Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 67. 977  Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament, 83. 978  Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 22.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

275

1QIsaa harmonized ‫ כול‏‬from a parallel text in 2 Kgs 20:13. Blenkinsopp979 favors the use of both attestations of ‫כול‏‬, equal the reading of 1QIsaa; but Wildberger avows that ‫ כול‏‬is a secondary plus, which is often added “in the process of the transmission of the OT texts,”980 and it should be omitted. ‫תה‏‬ ֹ ֹ‫תה‏(—נְ כ‬ ֹ ֹ‫ ֵּבית נְ כ‬, “treasure-house,” HALOT, 700). The difference between ‫ת‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֹ ֹ‫( נְ כ‬MTket 2 Kgs 20:13, ‫ה‬ ‫ת‏‬ ֹ ֹ‫ נְ כ‬is a hapax legomenon found in a parallel passage) and ‫( נכתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa) may be explained by a mechanical error, where a copyist be‑ longing to either the MT or 1QIsaa tradition read ‫ה‬ ‫ ‏‬for ‫ י ‏ו‬or vice versa. Another possibility: the Qumran scribe added the suffix ‫ )בית נכתיו‏( ‑י ‏ו‬into a pl. based on the word ‫)בית כליו‏( כליו‏‬. This possibility is further supported by the fact that on the leather, ‫( את כול בית נכתי‏ו‬col. XXXII, line 17) was copied exactly above ‫ת‬ ‫וא ‏‬ ‫( כול בית כליו‬col. XXXII, line 18), and both of these phrases are located at the beginning at the right-hand margin. With regard to ‫תה‏‬ ֹ ֹ‫( נְ כ‬MTket 2 Kgs 20:13) versus ‫( נכת‏ו‬MTqere), the Qumran scroll supports MTqere. Mankowsky writes, “The identification of (‫תה‏‬ ֹ ֹ‫ )נְ כ‬with Akkadian (bit) nakkamti was adduced by Delitzsch and Nöldeke and has not been seriously challenged. The LXX trans‑ literation of νεχωθα gives rough corroboration of the MT pointing over against the reading of 1QIsa, but it also raises phonological difficulties.”981 ‫— ֶמ ְמ ַׁש ְלֹּת ‏ו‬In the present passage, MT Isaiah and 2 Kgs 20:13 attest ‫ֶמ ְמ ַׁש ְלֹּתו‏‬ versus ‫ ממלכת‏ו‬belonging to 1QIsaa. Rezetko and Young’s study of the nouns ‫מלכות‏‬, ‫ממשלה‏‬, and ‫ ממלכה‏‬indicate that these forms have a complex history, in both biblical and nonbiblical texts.982 With regard to ‫ ממשלה‏‬and ‫ממלכה‏‬, Tov provides a reasonable conclusion when he wrote that they are synonymous readings or “interchangeable words [that] entered the manuscript tradition at all stages of the transmission, both consciously and unconsciously.”983 39:3 ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬MT 1QIsab‫ ‏‬4QIsab‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 20:14 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישעי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה‏ּו‬1,2‫ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:14 | ‫ יחוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵא ַל ‏י‬MT 1QIsaa | > 2 Kgs 20:14 ‫ה‬ ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1.

979  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 486–87. 980  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 469. 981  Mankowsky, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 101. 982  Rezetko and Young’s study is comprehensive; see Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, 329–50. 983  Tov, TCHB3, 257; see also Talmon, “Synonymous Readings,” 335–83.

276

Chapter 2

39:4 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab (‫ ) ֯ח[זקיהו‏‬2 Kgs 20:15 | ‫ה‬ ‫ יחוזקי ‏‬1QIsaa 39:5

‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 20:16 | ‫ ישעיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:16 | ‫ יחוזקיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְצ ׇבֹאו ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | > 2 Kgs 20:16 ‫ת‬ ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1.

39:6 ‫ וְ נִ ׇּׂשא‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫()ו֯ נ֯ ֯ש ֯א‏‬vid) 2 Kgs 20:17 | ‫ ונשאו‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ׇּב ֶבל‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫בב]לה‏‬ ֯ 4QIsab 2 Kgs 20:17 • ‫ ׇּב ֶב ‏ל‬MT 2 Kgs 20:17 | ‫ יבואו בב ‏ל‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 20:17 | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ נִ ׇּׂש ‏‬MT and 1QIsab make use of the sg. verb ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ וְ נִ ׇּׂש ‏‬in agreement with the sg. subject ‫ ׇּכ ‏ל‬. 1QIsaa (and LXX) has the pl. verb ‫ונשאו‏‬, likely as a harmonization with the pl. verb ‫אצר ‏ו‬, which is located in the next clause. ‫— ׇּב ֶב ‏ל‬1QIsaa and LXX include the plus of a pl. verb, “they will come” (‫)יבואו‏‬, which is lacking in the other witnesses. Was the 1QIsaa’s scribe influenced by 2 Kgs 20:14? Note that the context of 2 Kgs 20:14 pertains to the present verse (39:6), and twice √‫ בוא‏‬is utilized: Isaiah inquires of Hezekiah, ‫‏ ׇמה ׇא ְמרּו ׇה ֲאנׇ ִׁשים‬ ‫אמר ִחזְ ִקּיׇ הּו ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ְר ׇ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ּומ ַאיִ ן יׇ בֹאּו ֵא ֶליָך וַ ּי‬ ֵ ‫ ׇה ֵא ֶּלה‬. ‫ֹחוקה ׇּבאּו ִמ ׇּב ֶבל‬ 39:7 ‫ ִמ ְּמָך‏‬MT 4QIsab‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 20:18 | ‫ה‬ ‫ ממעיכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ׇּקח ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsab | ‫ח‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ‏‬MTket 2 Kgs 20:18 | ‫ יִ ׇּקח ‏ּו‬MTqere 2 Kgs 20:18 • ‫ וְ ׇהי ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsab 2 Kgs 20:18 | ‫ ויהי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ְּמָך‏‬MT, 4QIsab, and the parallel 2 Kgs 20:18 read ‫יצאו ממ ‏ך‬, “they went out from you.” 1QIsaa has ‫ה‬ ‫( יצאו ממעיכ ‏‬via ‫ה‬ ‫ ֵמ ֶע ‏‬, “that part of the body through which people come into existence,” HALOT, 609). A scribe of 1QIsaa may have been impacted by one of the following three passages that collocate √‫ יצא‏‬and ‫ ֵמ ֶעה‏‬: Gen 15:4 (‫ ;)יֵ ֵצא ִמ ֵּמ ֶעיָך‏‬2 Sam 7:12 (‫ ;)יֵ ֵצא ִמ ֵּמ ֶעיָך‏‬or 2 Sam 16:11 (‫)יׇ ׇצא ִמ ֵּמ ַעי‏‬. It is also possible that a scribe misread ‫ ממ ‏ך‬and accidentally wrote the graphically (and phonologically) similar ‫ה‬ ‫ממעיכ ‏‬. Either way, the scroll’s reading is second‑ ary, so Wildberger,984 followed by Watts.985 LXX lacks the equivalent of ‫ ִמ ְּמָך‏‬or ‫ממעיכה‏‬, perhaps via haplography ‫?אשר … אש ‏ר‬ ‫—וְ ׇהי ‏ּו‬Three Hebrew witnesses (MT, 4QIsab, 2 Kgs 20:18) read the pf. verb with the wāw consecutive, versus the impf. of 1QIsaa with the wāw conjunc‑ tion (‫)ויהיו‏‬. The substitution of weQatal (MT, 4QIsab, 2 Kgs 20:18) for weYiqtol (1QIsaa) is late and a typical phenomenon of QH. But here it is also possible 984  Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, 469. 985  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 64.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

277

that 1QIsaa harmonized ‫ ויהיו‏‬to agree with the other impf. verbs of the verse: ‫יצאו … תוליד יקחו ויהיו‏‬. We note here that LXX suffered from a haplography ‫אשר‏‬ ‫… אשר‬, thus omitting a clause from the Hebrew. 39:8 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 20:19 | ‫ יחוזקיהו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬MT 4QIsab‫ ‏‬2 Kgs 20:19 | ‫ישעיה‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ִּכי יִ ְהיֶ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ ֲהֹלוא ִא ‏‬2 Kgs 20:19 • > MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬2 Kgs 20:19 ‫—יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ ה ‏ּו‬For the variant spelling of this proper name, see the comments at 1:1.

Isaiah 40

40:2 ‫ ׇמ ְל ׇאה‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ מל ‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ׇמ ְל ׇאה‏‬The noun ‫א‬ ‫ צב ‏‬takes either a m. sg. or f. sg. verb (see BDB, 838), thus either ‫ ׇמ ְל ׇאה‏‬or ‫א‬ ‫ מל ‏‬is grammatically acceptable. 40:3 ‫ יַ ְּׁשרּו‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsab‫ )ישרו‏( ‏‬LXX cf. 1QS VIII.14 4QTanḥ I 18 | ‫ וישר ‏ו‬1QIsaa On the importance of 40:3 to the Qumran community, see Brooke, Charlesworth, and Dimant,986 together with their respective bibliographic re‑ sources. Using a quotation formula (‫)כאשר כתוב‏‬, the author of 1QS VIII, 14 cites 40:3 without deviation from a text that equals MT, but note that 1QS has four dots to represent the Tetragrammaton. The substitution of four dots for the Tetragrammaton is also located in 4QTest and 4QTanḥ. 40:4

‫ ּגֶ י ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ג‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫א‬ ‫ וְ ׇה ְר ׇכ ִסי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ והרוכסי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—ּגֶ י ‏‬UF leaves ‫ ּגֶ יא‏‬and ‫ גי‏‬open to question, “orth or morph?” (UF 1:159). Cf. ‫א‬ also ‫ גי‏‬in Deut 34:6 and Josh 15:8. ‫—וְ ׇה ְר ׇכ ִסי ‏‬MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ׇה ְר ׇכ ִסי ‏‬is a hapax legomenon. According to HALOT (1238):

“The exact meaning of the Heb. [substantive] is uncertain, suggestions in‑ clude: –a. layered boulders, or joined mountain ridges, a saddle (Gesenius–B.; cf. König Wb.); and –b. hilly, uneven terrain (KBL and Elliger BK 11/1:19 ‫ ;)רכס‏‬although the connection between these meanings is questionable the 986  Brooke, “Isaiah 40:3 and the Wilderness Community,” 117–32; Charlesworth, “Intertextuality: Isaiah 40:3 and the Serek ha-Yahad,” 197–224; and Dimant, “Not Exile in the Desert but Exile in Spirit,” 455–64.

278

Chapter 2

second seems to be preferable, contrasting uneven terrain with ‫ה‬ ‫ ִב ְק ׇע ‏‬.” 1QIsaa’s ‫והרוכסי ‏‬, too, is a hapax legomenon but not unlike ‫ ֵמ ֻר ְכ ֵס‏י‬in Ps 31:21.987 ‫ם‬ 40:5 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. 40:6 ‫ וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואומר ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (καὶ εἶπα) • ‫ ַח ְסֹּד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ חסדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa | δόξα ἀνθρώπου LXX ‫—וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬The immediate context of this verse is confusing because of the un‑ identified speakers. The author of this pericope clearly designates God’s voice in v. 1 but then introduces an anonymous “voice” (‫ )קול‏‬in vv. 2 and 6, which “voice” may or may not refer to the same speaker. The point at issue for the present verse pertains to the variants ‫ וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ואומר ‏‬. MT reads, “A voice said, Call out! And he said (‫)וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬, What will I call out?” versus 1QIsaa, which has “A voice said, Call out! And I (‫ )ואומרה‏‬said, What will I call out?” Textual critics are divided—some select MT’s ‫;וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬988 but several critics maintain that 1QIsaa’s ‫( ואומרה‏‬with the support of LXX) is preferable989 (such is my position). For the verb in question, it is possible that the Masoretes incorrectly vocalized it, creating the configuration ‫“( וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬and he said”) rather than ‫“( וׇ א ַֹמ ‏ר‬and I said”). ‫— ַח ְסֹּדו‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫חסדי‏ו‬, see the comments at 5:25. 40:7 ‫ ׇא ֵכן‏‬MT | ‫ הכ‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇא ֵכ‏ן‬1QIsaa replaces MT’s adverbial particle ‫“( ׇא ֵכן‏‬surely, however”) with the Aramaic adverb ‫“( הכן‏‬in this manner, thus, such, so”).990 Or, alternatively, 1QIsaa’s reading is an error of hearing.991 987  As pointed out by Ravenna, “Is. 40, 4 e Ps. 31, 21,” 69–70. 988  See also the arguments of Childs, Isaiah, 294na; cf. also Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:278–79. 989  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 78; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 44; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 31; and McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 15. Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 133, explains that “the LXX reading of this verb as a first-person singular imperfect … is preferable…. According to this vocaliza‑ tion, it is the prophet who responds to the heavenly call querulously.” Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 173. See also the pre-Qumran discovery emendation from ‫ ואמר‏‬to ‫( ואומר‏‬first common sg.) in Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 101. 990  See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 382. 991  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 19.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

279

40:7–8 ‫ֹלהינּו‏‬ ֵ ‫ר־א‬ ֱ ‫רּוח יְ הוׇ ה נׇ ְׁש ׇבה ֹּבו ׇא ֵכן ׇח ִציר ׇה ׇעם ֵיׇבׁש ׇח ִציר נׇ ֵבל ִציץ ְּוד ַב‬ ַ ‫ ִּכי‬MT | ‫כי רוח יייי‏‬ ‫ נשבה בוא הכן חציר העם יבש חציל נבל ציצ ודבר אלוהינ‬1QIsaa LXX Are the superscripted words of 1QIsaa—‫כי רוח יהוה נשבה בו אכן חציר העם‏‬ ‫( יבש חציר נבל ציץ ודבר אלהינו‬see vv. 7–8)—primary or secondary?992 In point of fact, 1QIsaa’s omission constitutes an error; to be sure, one group of scholars argue that a homoiarcton or homoioteleuton in 1QIsaa was caused by identical words (‫)יבש חציר נבל ציץ‏‬, which begin vv. 7 and 8.993 Subsequently, according to an argument, a later copyist of 1QIsaa added the words (but with two vari‑ ants from MT) at the end of the line and along the margin. LXX independently has the same omission, writes Tov.994 Other scholars propose that all or a por‑ tion of these words (in vv. 7–8) constitute a gloss, e.g., see Baltzer.995 Certainly “at least part of v. 7 (‘Surely the grass is the people’) is widely considered a supplementary gloss,” writes Ulrich.996 For a discussion of these verses, see ibid.997 See also UF 2:90–91, which lists several “insertions in M highlighted by 1QIsaa.” For the Tetrapuncta (four dots), see 42:6. With regard to the debate as to whether a 1QIsaa reader wrote ‫ חציר‏‬or ‫הציר‏‬, see the argument of Justnes.998 40:8 ‫ ׇח ִציר‏‬MT | ‫ חצי ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇח ִצי ‏ר‬Scholars are divided as to whether a 1QIsaa copyist wrote ‫ חצי ‏ל‬or ‫הצי ‏ל‬ (see col. XXXIII, line 7).999 In any case, 1QIsaa’s reading is an error (UF 2:160). 40:9 ‫ ׇלְך‏‬MT | ‫ לכ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ אמור ‏י | ִא ְמ ִר ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ֹלה ֶיכ ‏‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אלוהֹהכמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇל ‏ְך‬1QIsaa (‫ )לכי‏‬displays an Aramaic second f. sg. pronominal ending ‫‑כי‏‬ here and again in 49:26 (‫)וגואלכי‏‬. See also ‫ מלכ‏י‬in 22:1. ‫ֹלה ֶיכם‏‬ ֵ ‫— ֱא‬The 1QIsaa copyist produced a spelling error, writing either ‫ =( אלוהֹהכמ ‏‬PQ) or perhaps a meaningless downward stroke (creating an in‑ ‫ה‬ complete word) (see note in UF 2:110; UF thus transcribe ‫)אלוה◦יכמה‏‬. 992  Justnes, “Hand of the Corrector in 1QIsaa,” 205–10, calls into question the scholarly claim that the scribe of 1QS wrote the superscripted words in 40:7–8. 993  Koole, Isaiah, 67, states that “omission can be explained by aberratio oculi” and lists sev‑ eral scholars who hold that MT’s “stich should be maintained,” 68. 994  So Tov, TCHB3, 223. 995  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 57–58. 996  Ulrich, “Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” 301. 997  Ibid., 299–301. See also, Ulrich, “Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books,” 266–67. 998  Justnes, “Hand of the Corrector in 1QIsaa,” 207–10. 999  Ibid., 208.

280

Chapter 2

40:10 ‫ ְּב ׇחזׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ בחוז ‏‬1QIsaa orth or var? LXX • ‫ ְּופ ֻע ׇּלֹת ‏ו‬MT LXX | ‫ ופעלתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּב ׇחזׇ ק‏‬MT’s ‫ק‬ ‫( ְּב ׇחזׇ ‏‬vocalized as the adjective ‫ק‬ ‫ ) ׇחזׇ ‏‬is found only here (an in‑ stance of the bêt essentiae?). Slightly more common is the vocalized noun ‫ְּבחֹזֶ ק‏‬ (see Exod 13:3, 14, 16; Amos 6:13), which BHK (1913) and a number of scholars prefer.1000 1QIsaa’s ‫ק‬ ‫ בחוז ‏‬is a case of noun substitution: qatal > qutl.1001 ‫— ְּופ ֻע ׇּלֹתו‏‬1QIsaa expresses ‫ ְפ ֻע ׇלה‏( ופעלתיו‏‬, “reward,” see HALOT, 951; cf. Tg ‫עֹוב ֵדיהֹו‏ן‬ ‫) ׇ‬, but the suffix ‫ ‑י ‏ו‬regularly designates the sg. in DSS Hebrew, as Qimron points out.1002 40:11

‫ ְט ׇל ִאי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ טלי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ׇעֹלו ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ עולו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ׇט ֶלה‏(— ְט ׇל ִאים‏‬, “lamb,” HALOT, 375). 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫ טלי ‏‬reflects the qatil pattern versus the qatal pattern of ‫ם‬ ‫ =( טלאי ‏‬MT).1003 ‫— ׇעֹלות‏‬MT sets forth the qal f. pl. ptc. (from √‫עול‏‬, “to nurse”), a form that is also found in Gen 33:13; 1 Sam 6:7, 10; and Ps 78:71. 1QIsaa’s deviation of ‫עולות‏‬

may indicate an orthographic variant; or, as Kutscher puts forward, “The scribe did not recognize the word [in MT] at all, and took it to be from the root ‫‘( עו ‏ל‬infant’), ‫ה‬ ‫‘( עול ‏‬young girl’ in Rab. Hebr.).”1004 But contrast Ibn Ezra, who states that ‫ת‬ ‫“ עלו ‏‬is derived from ‫ה‬ ‫על ‏‬, ‘to go up,’” which indicates that the consonantal value of the word under discussion would be ‫ת‬ ‫עולו ‏‬, the precise reading of 1QIsaa. In my judgment, MT sets forth the best correspondence in the parallelism. 40:12

‫ ַמיִ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ מי ים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַּבּזֶ ֶרת‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ בזרתו‏‬1QIsaa Syr • ‫ וְ ׇׁש ַקל‏‬MT ‫ם‬ 1QIsaa | ‫ שקל‏‬4QpIsae • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְּבמֹאזְ נׇ יִ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ במוזני ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַמיִ ם‏‬The variant here pertains to a possible fusion of two words, reading “waters” (‫ מים‏‬MT) or the diatomy, “waters of the sea” (‫ מי ים‏‬1QIsaa).1005 Tov holds that “the reading of 1QIsaa is preferable because of the parallel hemis‑ tich ‘and gauged the skies with a span.’”1006 The Goshen-Gottstein apparatus

1000  See Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 101; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 86; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 45; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 60. 1001  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 298–99. 1002  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70. 1003  Qimron, Grammar of Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 301–2; see also 302n92. 1004  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 381. 1005  Tov, TCHB3, 234–36, presents this example in 40:12 and other examples of word division variants in the HB. 1006  Tov, TCHB3, 235. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 20, too, prefers the scroll’s reading; see also Bonnard, Second Isaïe, 95. Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 219–20, with a slight reservation, determines 1QIsaa to be the original reading.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

281

sets forth nonbiblical rabbinic texts that indicate a reading of ‫( מי ים‏‬see HUB– Isaiah, apparatus 2). But contrast Orlinsky, who emphatically states that “‫ מי ים‏‬is only an errone‑ ous reading.”1007 And on the grounds that the poet intended assonance to be read (“‫ מים ושמים‏‬in MT is surely intentional”), Baltzer holds that MT’s reading is primary.1008 With Tov and others, 1QIsaa has the primary reading. As a side note, cf. also 24:14, where LXX has the equivalent of ‫ם‬ ‫מי י ‏‬, “the water of the sea” (τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς θαλάσσης). ‫— ַּבּזֶ ֶרת‏‬MT attests ‫ּזֶ ֶרת‏( ַּבּזֶ ֶרת‏‬, “span [of the hand] as a measure,” HALOT, 283) versus 1QIsaa’s “with his span” (‫)בזרתו‏‬. It is unknown whether or not the suffix “his” is original or whether a copyist added it via assimilation from the cor‑ responding “in the hollow of his hands” (‫)בׁשעלו‏‬. Rosenbloom prefers 1QIsaa’s reading because “‫ בזרתו‏‬is in parallel with ‫”בשועלו‏‬1009 versus Koole, who rejects the suffix.1010 Assimilation is the more likely situation because of the scroll’s copyist’s tendency to harmonize the text. ‫“(— ְּבמֹאזְ נׇ יִ ‏‬the two pans of a balance, balances,” HALOT, 539). 1QIsaa’s alter‑ ‫ם‬ nate reading of ‫( במוזנים‏‬cf. also ‫ מזנים‏‬in v. 15) is most likely an orthographic de‑ viation, although some scholars have proposed a derivation from √‫זנה‏‬, √‫זון‏‬, or √‫ ;יזן‏‬see Watts for a brief discussion of these possibilities.1011 Reymond writes concerning ‫ם‬ ‫ במוזני ‏‬that “the absence of aleph … might reflect the fact that aleph was perceived as quiescent …, might reflect Aramaic influence (where the word does not bear an aleph typically), and/or reflect an etymologically re‑ liable form.”1012 Driver proposes that 1QIsaa’s ‫ מזנים‏‬in 40:15 provides “the origi‑ nal form of a word” based on “the Arab. wazana ‘weighed.’” Further, this form is “distinct from ‫ ”מזנים‏‬in 40:15.1013 40:13 ‫ וְ ִאיׁש ֲע ׇצֹת ‏ו‬MT | ‫ ִאיש ועצת ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫יעּנ ‏ּו‬ ֶ ‫ֹיוד‬ ִ MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יודיענ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ִאיׁש ֲע ׇצֹתו‏‬In 1QIsaa a copyist left out ‫ׁש‬ ‫ אי ‏‬and placed the wāw before the next word; subsequently he added the missing word interlinearly and then cancelled out the wāw with a dot.

1007  Orlinsky, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, VI,” 91. 1008  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 60. 1009  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 48; so too, North, Second Isaiah, 81, writes that the scroll may be correct, “though the sense is clear without the suffix.” 1010  Koole, Isaiah, 88. 1011  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 87. Koole, Isaiah, 90, for one, states unequivocally that the root is ‫יזן‏‬ writes, and 1QIsaa has the “correct spelling without ‫א‬ ‫ ‏‬.” 1012  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 84–85. 1013  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 20; see also n. 7.

282

Chapter 2

‫יעּנ ‏ּו‬ ֶ ‫ֹיוד‬ ִ —The point at issue is MT’s m. sg. suffix (‫יעּנּו‏‬ ֶ ‫ֹיוד‬ ִ ) versus 1QIsaa’s f. sg. suffix (‫ ;)יודיענה‏‬what is the antecedent for each reading? MT’s antecedent is likely ‫ה‬ ‫“( רוח יהו ‏‬Generally ‫רּוח‬ ‫ ַ ‏‬is fem.; only seldom is it masc.,” HALOT, 1197). 1QIsaa’s may be either ‫ה‬ ‫ רוח יהו ‏‬or ‫ה‬ ‫עצ ‏‬. MT’s reading should be accepted as primary, based on JPS, NEB, NIV, and NRSV.

40:15

‫ מֹאזְ נַ יִ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ מזני ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ֹּטו ‏ל‬MT | ‫ ֹויטו ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫—מֹאזְ נַ יִ ‏‬See the discussion at 40:13. ‫ם‬ ‫—יִ ֹּטול‏‬The wāw conjunction deviation is minor; Condamin conjectures that the text read the pl. ‫יטולו‏‬.1014 40:17 ‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶפס‏‬MT | ‫ס‬ ‫ וכאפ ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ εἰς οὐθὲν LXX • ‫ וׇ תֹה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ותהו ‏ו‬1QIsaa likely orth ‫— ֵמ ֶא ֶפ ‏‬Between ‫( ֵמ ֶא ֶפס‏‬MT) and ‫( וכאפס‏‬1QIsaa), MT has the lectio difficilior, ‫ס‬ which encourages some scholars to prefer it.1015 If MT is primary, then mul‑ tiple explanations account for 1QIsaa’s reading: the kāp is an assimilation from 41:12, which attests ‫ ;וכאפס‏‬a 1QIsaa scribe assimilated the kāp from ‫כאין‏‬, locat‑ ed two words earlier; or a 1QIsaa copyist facilitated the text and changed the mêm to a kāp. Others prefer 1QIsaa; in fact, before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, Köhler, following Delitzsch, proposed the kāp in place of the mêm.1016 McKenzie, Paul, North, and others choose the reading of 1QIsaa.1017 Barthélemy et al. rightly retain MT as the primary reading. ‫—וׇ תֹהּו‏‬For the deviation between MT and 1QIsaa, see the commentary on 29:21. 40:18 ‫ ְּת ַד ְּמיּו‏ן‬MT LXX | ‫ תדמיונ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַּת ַע ְרכּו ֹל ‏ו‬MT LXX | ‫ תערוכו ל ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּת ַד ְּמיּון … ֹל ‏ו‬MT’s reading has God as the direct object: “To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?” In 1QIsaa (‫תדמיוני …‏‬ ‫ )לי‬God is the spokesman, speaking in first person: “To whom will you compare me, God? What image will you compare to me?” 1QIsaa is in error; a scribe may have misread the wāw of ‫ ל‏ו‬as a yôd (‫ )לי‏‬and then adjusted ‫ תדמיו‏ן‬to read ‫ ;תדמיונ‏י‬or, as Paul claims, this is an example of the scribe borrowing forms from 1014  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 243. 1015  See Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 284; Baltzer, DeuteroIsaiah, 60. 1016  Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 8. 1017  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 20, Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 143; North, Second Isaiah, 81.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

283

a parallel example, in this case, assimilation from v. 25 of the same chapter (‫ל־מי ְת ַד ְּמיּונִ י‏‬ ִ ‫)וְ ֶא‬, “To whom will you liken Me?” and also 46:5, “To whom can you compare Me?”1018 40:19 ‫ נׇ ַסְך‏‬MT | ‫ ויעשה מסך‏‬1QIsaa | ἐποίησεν LXX • ‫ יְ ַר ְּק ֶעּנ‏ּו‬MT 5QIsa (‫וירקענ‏ו | )ירקע[נו‏‬ 1QIsaa ‫—נׇ ַס ‏ְך‬MT sets forth the verb ‫נסך‏‬, which means “to pour … pour out” (HALOT, 703) water, wine, drink offering, or a libation. More rarely √‫ נסך‏‬denotes “to pour, make a cast statue” (HALOT, 703; see 40:19; 44:10). With these definitions in mind, Kutscher asks regardings 1QIsaa’s peculiar ‫ויעשה מסך‏‬: “Might the scribe have ‘created’ the novel verb … ‫ מסך ‏‬under the influence of the word ‫ה‬ ‫ מסכ ‏‬on the one hand, and the desire to avoid the root ‫ נס ‏ך‬in its rare connotation? … Might we hypothesize that the Scr.’s copyist, not understanding the meaning of ‫מסך‏—נסך‏‬, added ‫ ויעשה‏‬in accord with the Sept.(?!)?”1019 We note that for MT’s √‫ נסך‏‬in 44:10, there is no deviation in 1QIsaa. 40:20 ‫ יִ ְר ַקב‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ ירב ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְיִב ׇח ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ובח ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַיְב ֶּקׁש־ֹל ‏ו‬MT | ‫ ובשקל ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ְל ׇה ִכי ‏ן‬ MT | ‫ להוכין‏‬1QIsaa ‫רבק‏√(—יִ ְר ַקב‏‬, “to rot, to moulder,” HALOT, 1287). The 1QIsaa copyist who wrote ‫ק‬ ‫ ידב ‏‬created two errors: a dālet/rêš confusion (see PQ 67, note 19a, “The ‫ ‏ר‬was perhaps corrected from ‫ )” ‏ד‬and a transposition of letters, writing bêt/qôp rather than qôp/bêt. The same or a subsequent scribe corrected the dālet to read rêš but failed to repair the transposition of letters. But compare Mansoor, who argues that the textual variant is an instance of metathesis, similar to ‫“( שמל ‏‬garment”) and ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫( שלמ ‏‬both forms exist in MT).1020 In association with these errors of 1QIsaa, we note that a single medieval HB manuscript (K, HUB– Isaiah) reads ‫( יקר ‏ב‬transposition of the qôp and rêš?). See also the entry below (40:20) regarding MT’s ‫ ַיְב ֶּקׁש־ֹל‏ו‬versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ובשקל‏ו‬. ‫— ְיִב ׇחר‏‬1QIsaa’s reading has the support of a medieval HB manuscript (150 [pm]), which also reads ‫( ובח ‏ר‬HUB–Isaiah). ‫— ַיְב ֶּקׁש־ֹל ‏ו‬An 1QIsaa copyist wrote ‫ ובשקל‏ו‬as one word (note the qôp/lāmed ligature on the leather); he also transposed the letters šîn and qôp, creating ‫ בשק‏‬instead of ‫ש‬ ‫בק ‏‬, a simple mechanical error. Cf. also the transposition in the entry above (40:20) dealing with ‫יִ ְר ַקב‏‬. 1018  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 144; see also Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 325. 1019  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 259. 1020  Mansoor, “Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts,” 51.

284

Chapter 2

40:21 ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ אר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa 40:24

‫ ׁש ֵֹר ‏‬MT 4QIsab LXX | ‫ שרשו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ גַ ם‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ גמ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ נׇ ַׁשף‏‬MT ‫ׁש‬ 4QIsab | ‫ נעשפ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—ׁש ֵֹר ‏‬V. 24a features a tricolon, with each line beginning with ‫אף בל‏‬. A vari‑ ‫ׁש‬ ant exists in line three of the tricolon, where MT and 4QIsab attest ‫ש‬ ‫“( שר ‏‬to take root,” HALOT, 1659), a poel pf. third m. sg, but 1QIsaa has the pl. ‫שרשו‏‬, which does not agree with the sg. subject ‫ּגֵ זַ ‏ע‬. 1QIsaa’s copyist inadvertently pluralized the verb, thus harmonizing it with the first two verbs of the tricolon,

‫ נטע ‏ו‬and ‫זרע ‏ו‬. ‫נשף‏√(—נׇ ַׁש ‏ף‬, “to blow upon,” HALOT, 730). A scribe of 1QIsaa first wrote ‫עש‏ו‬ and then corrected it to read ‫( נעש ‏פ‬the scribe wrote a large medial pê over the

wāw and added the interlinear nûn; see col. XXXIII, line 23).‫‏‬Except for the ʿayin, which the scribe did not cancel out, ‫ נעשפ‏‬reflects the reading of MT and 4QIsab (see PQ 67, note 23a). 40:25 ‫ וְ ֶאל‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְת ַד ְּמיּונִ י‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ תדמינני‏‬4QIsab • ‫ וְ ֶא ְׁשוֶ ה‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ ואשו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫א‬ ‫— ְת ַד ְּמיּונִ י‏‬Does 4QIsab’s double nûn (‫ )תדמינני‏‬signify a paragogic nûn plus the suffix? Cf. MT ‫ תדמיו‏ן‬40:18; note that 4QIsab is fragmented and does not attest 40:18. ‫—וְ ֶא ְׁשוֶ ה‏‬The LXX translator apparently misread the Hebrew root and read √‫( נׂשּא‏‬καὶ ὑψωθήσομαι). 40:26 ‫ וְ ַא ִּמיץ‏‬MT | ‫ ואמ ‏ץ‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ֹח‬ ‫ ּכ ַ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ כוח ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ִאי ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ש‬ ‫ ואי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ַא ִּמי ‏ץ‬The Masoretes vocalized this word to read the adjective “strong” (HALOT, 63), which produced a questionable reading. 1QIsaa (without the vo‑ calization we cannot be certain) may have a noun (‫א ֶֹמץ‏‬, “strength,” HALOT, 65) or verb (√‫)אמץ‏‬. After viewing the evidence, some propose that MT is in error (see UF 2:161 and BHS).1021 Too, Graetz, emends the text to read ‫ ואמץ‏‬before the unearthing of 1QIsaa.1022 And NAB (414) accepts 1QIsaa’s reading. ‫—ּכ ַֹח‏‬1QIsaa‫‏‬makes explicit (‫כוחו‏‬, “his strength”) what is implicit in MT (‫ּכ ַֹח‏‬, “strength”). Decades before the Qumran discoveries, Oort emended the text to 1021  North, Second Isaiah, 83. 1022  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

285

read ‫כחו‏‬.1023 So, too, North1024 follows the scroll; but ‫ כוח ‏ו‬does not properly cor‑ respond with ‫( ֹאונִ ים‏‬which lacks a suffix). Therefore, MT and LXX feature the primary reading; the 1QIsaa‫‏‬scribe likely facilitated the text. 40:28 ‫ ְקֹצות‏‬MT | ‫ קצוות‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ַיעף וְ לֹא יִ יגׇ ‏ע‬MT | ‫ יעף ולוא יג ‏ע‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵאי ‏ן‬MT | ‫ ואי ‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִל ְתבּונׇ ֹתו‏‬MT LXX | ‫ לתבונתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ְקֹצות‏‬The long form ‫ת‬ ‫ קצוות‏( ‑וו ‏‬1QIsaa) is one of the alternative forms for the f. pl. in QH;1025 cf. also ‫ֹדותי ‏ו‬ ‫( ּגְ ׇ‬MT) and ‫( גדוותי ‏ו‬1QIsaa) in 8:7. ‫—יִ ַיעף וְ לֹא יִ יגׇ ע‏‬The deviations here pertain to orthography, MT’s ‫יִ ַיעף וְ לֹא יִ יגׇ ע‏‬ versus 1QIsaa’s defective spelling:1026 ‫( יעף ולוא יגע‏‬compare ‫ ייגעו‏‬in 1QIsaa 40:31). ‫— ִל ְתבּונׇ ֹת ‏ו‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫ לתבונתיו‏‬with its suffix ‫‑י ‏ו‬, see the comments at 5:25. 40:29 ‫ נ ֵֹתן‏‬MT | ‫ הנות‏ן‬1QIsaa 40:30

‫ יִ ׇּכ ֵׁשל ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ יכשול ‏ו‬1QIsaa

40:31 ‫ יַ ֲעלּו‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ ויעל ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ׇיעפ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ יעופ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫יעפ ‏ּו‬ ‫—יִ ׇ‬1QIsaa’s ‫ יעופו‏‬and MT’s ‫יעפּו‏‬ ‫ יִ ׇ‬have the same meaning (√‫יעף‏‬, “to grow weary,” HALOT, 421). However, this is an instance of a morphologial phenom‑ enon in the scroll: the interchange of weak roots ‫יעף‏‬/‫עוף‏‬, which is typical of the Qumran tradition. For the example under discussion and others, see Qimron’s grammar.1027

Isaiah 41

41:1 ‫ יִ ּגְ ׁשּו‏‬MT | ‫ יגוש ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ּגְ ׁש ‏ּו‬For MT’s ‫ יִ ּגְ ׁש ‏ּו‬versus 1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel (‫)יגושו‏‬, see the discussion in 43:13. 1023  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 102. 1024  North, Second Isaiah, 83; see also Bonnard, Second Isaïe, 96. 1025  For cases of this long form in nonbiblical DSS texts, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 348–51. 1026  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 124–25. 1027  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 355–60.

286

Chapter 2

‫—יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. 41:2 ‫ יִ ְק ׇר ֵאהּו‏‬MT LXX | ‫ ויקראה ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ַרגְ ֹל ‏ו‬MT | ‫ לרגלי ‏ו‬1QIsaa | LXX • ‫יִ ֵּת‏ן‬1,2 MT | ‫וית‏ן‬1,2 1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ְר ְ ‏ּד‬MT | ‫ יורי ‏ד‬1QIsaa | ἐκστήσει (via √‫ )?יחריד‏‬LXX | • ‫ נִ ׇּד ‏ף‬MT | ‫ נוד ‏ף‬1QIsaa ‫— ְל ַרגְ ֹל ‏ו‬MT’s sg. “foot” may have a synecdochic signification. Or, as Paul clar‑ ifies, ‫ לרגל‏‬has the sense of “at every step.”1028 1QIsaa’s ‫לרגלי‏ו‬, with its suffix ‫‑י‏ו‬, signifies a sg. reading = MT.1029 But compare LXX’s pl., which is accepted by Watts.1030 ‫(—יַ ְר ְ ‏ּד‬via √‫רדד‏‬, “text [‫ ]יַ ְרד‏‬uncertain, for ‫ יַ ְר ְּד‏‬prp. ‫ יׇ ר ֹד …‏‬or ‫יׇ ַרד‏‬,” meaning “to drive back, subjugate, conquer,” HALOT, 1189). McKenzie calls MT’s ‫“ יַ ְר ‏ד‬an anomalous form” and prefers 1QIsaa’s ‫“( יורי ‏ד‬and subdues kings”);1031 Baltzar, too, prefers 1QIsaa, with the support of θ′.1032 But it is probable that 1QIsaa facil‑ itated the reading by replacing the rare √‫( רדד‏‬attested four times in MT, once in Isaiah) and utilized the common form √‫ירד‏‬. MT’s reading is to be preferred: “he subjugates kings.”1033 ‫—נִ ׇּד ‏ף‬MT attests a nipʿal ptc. (‫נִ ׇּדף‏‬, “to be scattered,” HALOT, 674) versus 1QIsaa’s qal ptc. (‫)נודף‏‬, from √‫“( נדף‏‬to drive away”). The nipʿal ptc. ‫ נִ ׇּדף‏‬is often used in symbolic expressions or clauses that include similes, metaphors, etc. (i.e., Lev 26:36; Isa 19:7; Job 13:25; Prov 21:6). The qal ptc. of √‫ נדף‏‬is not found in MT; it is located only here in the scroll’s reading. Retain MT as the primary reading. 41:3 ‫ יִ ְר ְּד ֵפם יַ ֲעֹבור‏‬MT | ‫ וירדפם ויעבו ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫א‬ ‫ יׇֹבו ‏‬MT | ‫ יבינ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇֹבו ‏‬Some critics argue that MT’s ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ יׇֹבו ‏‬is awkward and difficult in the con‑ text; too, pl. “feet” does not agree with the third m. sg. verb ‫א‬ ‫“( יׇֹבו ‏‬it/he will come”). The Isaiah scroll has the graphically similar ‫“( יבינו‏‬they will [not] understand”), which is also a difficult reading. Rubinstein, who deems that 1QIsaa is not primary,1034 proposes placing the scroll’s reading of “they will 1028  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 159. 1029  See the discussion together with additional examples in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 270–71. 1030  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 99. 1031  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 26. 1032  Baltzar, Deutero-Isaiah, 87. 1033  So too Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 99: “he beats down kings;” and compare also Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 76. 1034  Rubinstein, “Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings,” 193.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

287

not understand” at the beginning of the next verse: “They discern not who wrought or did this.”1035 But this requires reading ‫ מי‏‬as a relative pronoun, gen‑ erally a historically late grammatical practice for this interrogative pronoun. Barthélemy correctly explains that the scroll’s word is an assimilation of ex‑ pressions found in 43:10 and 44:18.1036 41:4

‫ ק ֵֹר ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ קור ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—ק ֵֹרא‏‬Where MT attests √‫קרא‏‬, 1QIsaa’s scribe generally wrote √‫ קרא‏‬with an ʾālep, but occasionally he spelled the verb as √‫קרה‏‬, as he does in this verse (and 6:4; 22:20; 42:6; 45:3; 46:11; 48:13; 51:2; 54:5; 56:7; 59:4; 64:6).

41:5 ‫ וְ יִ ׇירא ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ וירא‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ יֶ ֱח ׇרד‏ּו‬MT | ‫ יחד‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX (ἅμα) • ‫ וַ ּיֶ ֱא ׇתיּו‏ן‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ואתיו‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ יִ ׇיראּו‏‬MT presents √‫“( ירא‏‬to fear”); 1QIsaa’s ‫ וירא‏ו‬is likely derived from √‫ ;ירא‏‬if so, this is a case of a defective spelling of a pê-yôd impf. verb (but cf. ‫ וייראו‏‬in 1QIsaa 59:19). It is also possible that the scribe was influenced by √‫ראה‏‬, located two words earlier. ‫—יֶ ֱח ׇרד ‏ּו‬MT v. 5a consists of a synonymous parallelism: “The islands have seen and are afraid, the ends of the earth tremble” (‫יֶ ֱח ׇרדו‏‬, via √‫חרד‏‬, “to tremble,” HALOT, 350). In place of MT’s ‫יֶ ֱח ׇרד‏ּו‬, 1QIsaa has the variant ‫“( יחד‏ו‬together”), which spoils the parallelistic structure. For this reading, it is plausible that the scroll’s copyist failed to write the rêš, as a copyist did in 29:16 (MT ‫ ; ְּכח ֶֹמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫)כח ‏‬, 36:2 (MT ‫ ; ַאּׁשּור‏‬1QIsaa ‫)אש‏ו‬, and on other occasions (see the comments ‫מ‬ in 29:16). It is also possible that 1QIsaa assimilated ‫ יחד‏ו‬from v. 1, as Kutscher points out.1037 It may be also feasible that the scroll’s Vorlage read ‫“( יחדו‏‬to‑ gether”), which corresponds to LXX’s ἅμα. ‫“( אתה‏√—וַ ּיֶ ֱא ׇתיּון‏‬to come,” HALOT, 102) occurs twenty-one times in the Bible, ten of which are in Isaiah. Other than three orthographic deviations of √‫אתה‏‬ between MT and 1QIsaa (see 21:14; 41:23; 44:7), there exist three divergences between these two witnesses: 41:5 MT, 1QIsab ‫ ויאתיון‏‬versus 1QIsaa ‫ ;ואתיון‏‬41:25 MT ‫ ויאת‏‬versus 1QIsaa ‫ ;ויאתי‏ו‬and 45:11 MT ‫ת‬ ‫ האתיו ‏‬versus 1QIsaa ‫ת‬ ‫האותו ‏‬. The deviations probably exist because of phonological developments; see the com‑ ments at 8:7.

1035  Ibid., 194. 1036  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:287–88. 1037  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 241–42.

288

Chapter 2

41:6 ‫ּול ׇא ִחי ‏ו‬ ְ MT 1QIsab(vid) (‫ו]ל ̇א ֯חי֯ ו֯‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ לאחיה ‏ו‬1QIsaa 41:7

‫ ַּפ ִּטי ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ש‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ פלטי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹהולם‏‬ ֶ MT 1QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ אול ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ א ֵֹמר‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫[ומ]ר‏‬ ̇ ‫ יואמ ‏ר | ) ֯א‬1QIsaa ‫— ַּפ ִּטי ‏‬MT attests ‫“( ַּפ ִּטיׁש‏‬blacksmith’s hammer,” HALOT, 924) three times in ‫ׁש‬ Isaiah and twice in Jeremiah (23:29; 50:23). 1QIsaa’s spelling of ‫ש‬ ‫ פלטי ‏‬does not exist in the Bible. Is this an example of a doubled letter (ṭêt in ‫ ) ַּפ ִּטיׁש‏‬that “has been released by dissimilation”?1038 Or does ‫ש‬ ‫ פלטי ‏‬signify the original, from which ‫ ַּפ ִּטיׁש‏‬is derived, as suggested by Driver and Mansoor?1039 See also the

discussion in HALOT, 924. ‫—א ֵֹמר‏‬Both MT and 1QIsab set forth the qal ptc. m. sg. of √‫אמר‏‬. 1QIsaa’s ‫יואמר‏‬ may be an assimilation of ‫ יואמ ‏ר‬in v. 6; or, 1QIsaa’s scribe added the preforma‑ tive yôd to √‫ אמר‏‬to align it with the other verbs in vv. 6–7 that have the same preformative, e.g., ‫יעזורו‏‬, ‫יואמ ‏ר‬, ‫ק‬ ‫ויחז ‏‬, ‫ויחזקה ‏ו‬, and ‫ט‬ ‫ימו ‏‬. 41:8

‫ וְ ַא ׇּת ‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ̇ועת ‏‬1QIsab ‫—וְ ַא ׇּתה‏‬1QIsab’s form ‫ה‬ ‫ ̇ועת ‏‬is likely a phonetic error. Cf. equivalent errors in 28:22 and 64:7[8]. 41:9

‫ וׇ א ַֹמ ‏ר‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואומר ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וׇ א ַֹמ ‏ר‬For a brief discussion of the lengthened versus the regular impf.

forms, see 5:19. 41:11

‫ יִ ְהיּו ְכ ַאיִ ‏ן‬MT 1QIsab LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫אבד ‏ּו‬ ְ ֹ ‫ וְ י‬MT | ‫ יובדו כו ‏ל‬1QIsaa | ‫ ויבש ‏ו‬1QIsab ‫—יִ ְהיּו ְכ ַאיִ ן‏‬Against the reading of MT and 1QIsab, 1QIsaa omits ‫יהיו כאין‏‬, pos‑

sibly by means of haplography through the occurrence of the same expression (‫ )יהיו כאין‏‬found in v. 12. ‫אבדּו‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫—וְ י‬1QIsa’s deviation of ‫ יובדו כול‏‬likely originated from ‫( ויכלמו כול‏‬impf. pl. verb), which occurs earlier in the verse, an assimilation; but cf. LXX = 1QIsaa. 1QIsaa’s orthographic change to ‫( יובדו‏‬minus the ʾālep) points to a phonetic

1038  See the viewpoint in Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 99. 1039  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 21; Mansoor, “Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts,” 50.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

289

spelling.1040 1QIsab’s variant of ‫ויבשו‏‬, too, is an assimilation from ‫יבוש‏ו‬, which word is attested at the verse’s beginning. 41:12

‫ ְּת ַב ְק ֵׁשם וְ לֹא ִת ְמ ׇצ ֵאם ַאנְ ֵׁש ‏י‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ ואנש ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּת ַב ְק ֵׁשם וְ לֹא ִת ְמ ׇצ ֵאם ַאנְ ֵׁש ‏י‬Against the reading of MT, 1QIsab, and LXX, 1QIsaa lacks the words ‫תבקשם ולא תמצאם‏‬. For an inexplicable reason, the 1QIsaa copy‑

ist left an entire line blank (col. XXXIV, between lines 15 and 16); could this blank line have anything to do with these words lacking in 1QIsaa? A possibility exists; the three occurrences of ‫ אנשי‏‬in vv. 11–12 (cf. MT) may have contributed to 1QIsaa’s omitted ‫ם‬ ‫תבקשם ולא תמצא ‏‬. 41:14 ‫ ְמ ֵת‏י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ומיתי‏‬1QIsaa | LXX ὀλιγοστὸς • ‫ ֲעזַ ְר ִּתיְך‏‬MT | 1QIsaa ‫וְ ג ֲֹא ֵלְך‏ • עזרתיכה‏‬ MT | 1QIsaa ‫וגואלכה‏‬ ‫( מתי‏— ְמ ֵת‏י‬MT 1QIsab) and ‫( מית‏י‬1QIsaa) are orthographic variants. This is a case of the non-radical yôd representing the sound e, a phenomenon that is well attested in QH.1041 ‫— ֲעזַ ְר ִּתיְך … וְ ג ֲֹא ֵלְך … ַׂש ְמ ִּתי ‏ְך‬These three words in MT have f. sg. pronomi‑ nal suffixes; 1QIsaa features the following forms: ‫ה‬ ‫עזרתיכה … וגואלכה … שמתיכ ‏‬. In the scroll, the form ‫ה‬ ‫ ‑כ ‏‬generally signifies a m. sg. suffix, but according to Qimron, in QH “the second feminine suffixes, which originally terminated in i, are occasionally written with hê. These irregularities have been explained away as scribal errors.”1042 Other examples of this phenomenon are found in the following passages: 1QIsaa 57:6–9, 11 and tentatively 1QIsaa 14:29; 41:14; 51:13. 41:15 ‫ ַׂש ְמ ִּתיְך‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמתיכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַׂש ְמ ִּתי ‏ְך‬See the comments in v. 14, above. 41:16

‫ ִּב ְקֹדו ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ש‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ובקדו ‏‬1QIsaa| ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις LXX

1040  See Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 18, for additional examples. 1041  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 66–67. 1042  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 139.

290

Chapter 2

41:17 ‫ וְ ׇה ֶא ְבֹיונִ ים ְמ ַב ְק ִׁשים‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ם‬ ‫ האביונים המבקשי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ַּב ׇּצ ׇמ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ בצמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ֶא ֶעזְ ֵב ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ אעזוב ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇה ֶא ְבֹיונִ ים ְמ ַב ְק ִׁשי ‏‬MT’s opening words of v. 17 may be translated “The poor ‫ם‬ and the needy seek water”; 1QIsaa’s reading with the article attached to the ptc. is unnecessary (‫המבקשים‏‬, i.e., “the poor, the needy, those who seek water”). This small plus may be an example of assimilation, ‫‏העניים האביונים המבקשים‬. ‫— ֶא ֶעזְ ֵבם‏‬Regarding the wāw mater in 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫אעזוב ‏‬, in contrast to the vowel system of MT, see the comments at 20:1. 41:18

‫ ֶא ְפ ַּת ‏‬MT | ‫ אפתחה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ ַמ ְעיׇ ֹנו ‏‬MT | ‫ מעינים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇא ִׂשים ִמ ְד ׇּב ‏ר‬MT | ‫אשיםה‏‬ ‫ המדבר‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶא ְפ ַּת ‏‬For a discussion of the lengthened impf. on the scroll (‫)אפתחה‏‬, ‫ח‬

with the attached hê (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning, see 1:25. ‫— ַמ ְעיׇ ֹנו ‏‬Both the f. pl. noun ‫( ַמ ְעיׇ ֹנות‏‬MT) and m. pl. noun ‫( מעינים‏‬1QIsaa) are ‫ת‬ attested elsewhere in the Bible. Isaiah’s other pl. attestation of the noun ‫מעי‏ן‬ (see 12:3) is m. for both MT and 1QIsaa. ‫— ׇא ִׂשי ‏‬For a discussion of the lengthened impf. on the scroll (‫)אשיםה‏‬, ‫ם‬ with the attached hê (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning, see 1:25. 41:19 ‫ ֶא ֵּתן‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ אתנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇא ִׂשי ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אשימ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּת ְד ׇה ‏ר‬MT | ‫ תרה ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ּות ַאּׁשּו ‏ר‬ ְ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ותשו ‏ר‬1QIsab • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫יחדי ֹ‏ֹו‬ ̇ 1QIsab ‫— ֶא ֵּתן … ׇא ִׂשים‏‬For a discussion of the lengthened impf. on the scroll (‫אתנה‏‬ ‫)… אשימה‬, with the attached hê (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning, see 1:25. ‫— ִּת ְד ׇה ‏ר‬The word ‫ ִּת ְד ׇהר‏‬, a dislegomena (see also 60:13), refers to “the name of a tree growing in the Lebanon, most likely elm” (HALOT, 1688). On both occa‑ sions MT spells it ‫תדה ‏ר‬, but 1QIsaa attests ‫ תרה ‏ר‬in 41:19 and ‫ ותהרה ‏ר‬in 60:13. If the primary reading is ‫תדהר‏‬, then a scribe of 1QIsaa confused the letters rêš and dālet. Or, the scribe was not familiar with ‫ תדה ‏ר‬and wrote instead ‫תרה ‏ר‬. ‫—יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ֹ‏ֹו‬ ̇ , see the comments at 27:4. 41:20 ‫ וְ יׇ ִׂשימּו‏‬MT | ‫‏ויבינו וישימו‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐννοηθῶσιν LXX • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa 1QIsab ‫—וְ יׇ ִׂשימ ‏ּו‬MT lists four verbs: ‫יִ ְראּו וְ יֵ ְדעּו וְ יׇ ִׂשימּו וְ יַ ְׂש ִּכילּו‏‬. The interlinear reading of ‫ וישימ‏ו‬in 1QIsaa aligns with MT’s third verb, although a scribe of the scroll

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

291

eliminated this reading with deletion dots. Freedman and Van Ee explain 1QIsaa’s initial loss of ‫ וישימ‏ו‬by writing, “It is a double homoeoarcton, ‫א‬ ‫ ו ‏‬to ‫א‬ ‫ו ‏‬, or homoeoteleuton, ‫ ‏י‬to ‫‏י‬.”1043 1QIsaa has an additional element of ‫ויבינ‏ו‬, five verbs altogether when counting the interlinear word. Based on the reading of Syr (and perhaps also LXX), which corresponds with ‫ויבינ ‏ו‬, Talmon argues that 1QIsaa was faithful to its Vorlage.1044 Tg’s verb ‫יׁשוֹו‏ן‬ ַ ִ‫ = ו‬MT’s ‫וְ יׇ ִׂשימ‏ּו‬, but Tg adds the interpretative ‫חל ִתי ַעל ִל ְיבהֹו‏ן‬ ְ ‫יׇת ַד‬. ‫—יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. 41:22 ‫ ִּת ְק ֶרינׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ תקראו‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַא ֲח ִר ׇית‏ן‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ או אחרונו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִּת ְק ֶרינׇ ה‏‬Compare MTmss (96 150 [pm] KG, HUB–Isaiah) that read ‫תקראנה‏‬. Kutscher calls the Qumran scroll’s ‫ תקראון‏‬an “artificial archaic form”; so too, with 1QIsaa’s ‫ תחזיון‏‬in 33:17.1045 ‫ית‏ן‬ ‫— ַא ֲח ִר ׇ‬The variant between MT (‫יתן ֹאו ַה ׇּבֹאות‏‬ ‫ ) ַא ֲח ִר ׇ‬and 1QIsaa (‫או אחרונות‏‬ ‫ )או הבאות‬has generated discussions that the Qumran scroll’s reading signifies a change based on the belief system of the Qumran sectarians.1046 For an op‑ posing view, see Ulrich’s arguments,1047 followed by Brooke.1048 I concur with Ulrich on this matter. Also, 1QIsaa has a second conjunctive particle ‫א‏ו‬: one ‫ א‏ו‬precedes ‫ת‬ ‫אחרונו ‏‬, and one comes after, i.e., ‫או אחרונות או‏‬. Thus the plus of ‫ א ‏ו‬is an instance of an assimilation from the other ‫א ‏ו‬. With regard to the pl. form ‫ת‬ ‫( אחרונו ‏‬versus MT’s ‫ית‏ן‬ ‫) ַא ֲח ִר ׇ‬, the scribe was evidently impacted by ‫ הראישונות‏‬found in the same pas‑ sage (eight words before ‫)אחרונות‏‬, thus he wrote ‫ת‬ ‫הראישונות … אחרונו ‏‬. See also the discussion of the forms ‫ אחרות‏‬in 46:10 and ‫ אחרונה‏‬in 47:7. And note that a single medieval HB manuscript attests ‫( אחריתם‏‬HUB–Isaiah). 41:23

‫ וְ נִ ְׁש ׇּת ׇע ‏‬MT LXX (καὶ θαυμασόμεθα) | ‫ ונשמעה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ נִ ׇרא‏‬MTket | ‫ וְ נִ ְר ֶאה‏‬MTqere ‫ה‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ נִ ְׁש ׇּת ׇעה‏‬Both MT and 1QIsaa produce qal cohortatives but with different root letters, √‫( שתע‏‬MT, “to be afraid,” HALOT, 1671) and √‫( שמע‏‬1QIsaa, “to hear,” 1043  Freedman and Van Ee, “Scribal Interventions in 1QIsaiaha,” 798. 1044  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 236; see also Talmon, “Conflate Readings (OT),” 171. 1045  See Kutscher’s examination, Language and Linguistic Background, 325. 1046  Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, 95–96. 1047  Ulrich, “Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants,’” 184–85. 1048   Brooke, “On Isaiah at Qumran,” 76–77; Brooke, “Isaiah at Qumran: Updating W. H. Brownlee’s The Meaning,” 10–11.

292

Chapter 2

HALOT, 1571). Both roots are satisfactory in the context, but MT’s lectio difficilior is to be preferred. With its pairing of hearing and seeing, 1QIsaa supplies a recurring scriptural collocation, “that we may hear and see it together” (per‑ haps as an involuntary reflex to pair hearing and seeing together?). Or, also pos‑ sible, the scroll’s scribe misread the text and substituted tāw for mêm: ‫ה‬ ‫ונשתע ‏‬ > ‫נשמעה‏‬. ‫—וְ נִ ׇר ‏‬Baltzer1049 accepts the reading of MTqere (‫)וְ נִ ְר ֶאה‏‬, supported by ‫א‬ 1QIsaa (‫)ונראה‏‬. Barthélemy, too, produces an argument for following the read‑ ing of MTqere.1050 My own considered opinion on this reading is aligned with Barthélemy and his committee. Oswalt chooses MTket (understanding the root to be √‫ירא‏‬, “to fear”) based on the parallels that he perceives exist between 41:10 and 41:23.1051 ‫—יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. 41:24 ‫ ֵהן‏‬MT | ‫ הנה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּופ ׇע ְל ֶכם ֵמ ׇא ַפע‏‬MT | ‫ ופועלכמה‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ πόθεν (via √‫מאי ֹפה‏‬ ֵ ) ἡ ἐργασία ὑμῶν LXX ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ׇּופ ׇע ְל ֶכם ֵמ ׇא ַפע‏‬For the “absolute” hapax legomenon ‫“( ֶא ַפע‏‬something worth‑ less,” HALOT, 79), textual critics rightly propose an emendation of ‫“( ֶא ֶפס‏‬end, nothing, nothingness,” HALOT, 79).1052 ‫ ֶא ֶפס‏‬corresponds with ‫ ֵמ ַאיִ ‏ן‬in the par‑ allelistic structure: “Behold, you are nothing, and your work is nought.” The scribe of 1QIsaa omitted ‫מאפע‏‬, perhaps because the word was unknown to him.1053 LXX does not omit ‫ מאפ ‏ע‬but apparently reads instead either ‫ה‬ ‫מאי ֹפ ‏‬ ֵ or ‫“( ֵמ ַאיִ ‏ן‬from where” or “whence”). 41:25 ‫יֹרותי‏‬ ִ ‫ ַה ִע‬MT LXX | ‫ העירות‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ּיַ את‏‬MT | ‫ ויאתיו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְק ׇרא ִב ְׁש ִמי‏‬MT | ‫ויקרא‏‬ ‫ בשמו‬1QIsaa | κληθήσονται τῷ ὀνόματί μου LXX • ‫ וְ יׇבֹא‏‬MT | ‫ ויבואו‏‬1QIsaa LXX (ἐρχέσθωσαν) • ‫ יִ ְר ׇמס‏‬MT | ‫ס‬ ‫ וירמו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫יֹרות‏י‬ ִ ‫— ַה ִע‬MT correctly has ‫יֹרותי‏‬ ִ ‫ ַה ִע‬. 1QIsaa’s ‫ העירות‏‬probably signifies a pf. second m. sg. verb, although pf. second m. sg. forms in this scroll usually have 1049  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 115. 1050  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:292–93. 1051  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 97, 102. 1052  See Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 249; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 130; Childs, Isaiah, 315; Döderlein, Esaias, 177; Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 103; Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:23; Torrey, Second Isaiah, 318; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 266; and HALOT, 67. 1053  See the discussion in Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:294.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

293

a‫ה‬ ‫ ‑ת ‏‬suffix; or also possible, a copyist simply failed to write the yôd, indicating a pf. first common sg. form. ‫—וַ ּיַ א ‏‬Both ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫( וַ ּיַ א ‏‬MT) and ‫( ויאתי‏ו‬1QIsaa) are derived from √‫אתה‏‬, although 1QIsaa’s reading is inexplicable. See also the comments at 41:5. According to Fischer, LXX read MT’s ‫ת‬ ‫ ויא ‏‬as ‫ת‬ ‫וא ‏‬.1054 ‫—יִ ְק ׇרא ִב ְׁש ִמ‏י‬1QIsaa has a textual variant (‫)ויקרא בשמו‏‬, the difference being a wāw pronominal suffix versus a yôd. Watts accepts the scroll’s reading and translates, “He is called by his name.”1055 In the context of the passage, MT’s reading is more comprehensible; thus, Barthélemy contends that MT with its versional support should be accepted: “one who invokes my name.”1056 ‫—וְ יׇב ֹ ‏‬MT presents a sg. verb (‫ )וְ יׇבֹא‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s pl. (‫)ויבואו‏‬. The verse’s ‫א‬ context with sg. verbs supports MT’s reading, e.g., … ‫וְ יׇבֹא וַ ּיַ את … יִ ְק ׇרא ‏‬. BHS suggests an emendation of ‫ס‬ ‫“( ויב ‏‬and he treads”),1057 with the sāmek dropping out via haplography ‫ ;‏ויבס סגנים‬according to the theory, a later copyist added the ʾālep. Although √‫ בוס‏‬agreeably parallels √‫רמס‏‬, √‫ בוא‏‬serves the context well, especially since √‫ בוא‏‬and √‫ רמס‏‬are also used in Nah 3:14 (‫)ּב ִֹאי ַב ִּטיט וְ ִר ְמ ִסי ַבח ֶֹמר‏‬. 41:26 ‫ּומ ְּל ׇפנִ ים‏‬ ִ MT | ‫ מלפנים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫אמר‏‬ ַ ֹ ‫ וְ נ‬MT | ‫ ונאומרה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַצ ִּדיק‏‬MT | ‫ צדק‏‬1QIsaa LXX (ἀληθῆ ἐστιν) ‫— ַצ ִּדיק‏‬MT’s ‫ק‬ ‫ ַצ ִּדי ‏‬is an adjective; 1QIsaa features the noun ‫ק‬ ‫צד ‏‬. 41:27 ‫ ִהּנׇ ם‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנומ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִהּנׇ ‏‬The variant of 1QIsaa (‫‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ )הנומה‬has provoked various studies.1058 Guillaume, for example, reads ‫ה‬ ‫ הנומ ‏‬as a ptc. of a Semitic root unattested in BH, meaning “announcer” or “news bringer,” thus reading “behold, the news bringer.”1059 Despite the various studies and viewpoints, Qimron’s approach is the most plausible—occasionally the wāw in Qumran texts represents an a or e sound (= qametz, patah, or segol); thus the wāw of ‫ה‬ ‫ הנומ ‏‬is used instead of the qametz (‫) ִהּנׇ ם‏‬.1060 1054  Fischer, Buch Isaias, 55. 1055  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 110. 1056  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:295–96. 1057  See also Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 249. 1058  See for example, Gelston, “‘Behold the Speaker’: A Note on Isaiah 41:27,” 408; North, Second Isaiah, 104; Bonnard, Second Isaïe, 119; and Janzen, “Isaiah 41:27. Reading ‫ הנה הנומה‏‬in 1QIsaa and ‫ם‬ ‫ הנה הנ ‏‬in the Masoretic Text,” 597–607. 1059  Guillaume, “Some Readings in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah,” 40–41; Gelston, “‘Behold the Speaker’: A Note on Isaiah XLI, 27,” 408. 1060  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 39, also provides additional examples.

294

Chapter 2

41:28 ‫ וְ ֵא ֶר ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ וארא ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ֶא ְׁש ׇא ֵל ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ אשאל ‏‬1QIsaa 41:29 ‫ ֵהן‏‬MT | ‫ הנה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇאוֶ ן‏‬MT | ‫ אין‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶא ֶפס‏‬MT | ‫ ואפס‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ נִ ְס ֵּכ ֶיהם‏‬MT | ‫ נסכיהמה‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵהן‏‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ׇאוֶ ן‏‬The variants ‫( ׇאוֶ ן‏‬MT, “deception, nothingness,” HALOT, 22) and ‫אין‏‬ (1QIsaa, probably vocalized as ‫ ַאיִ ‏ן‬, “non-existence,” HALOT, 42) are graphically comparable—a yôd and wāw interchange? MT produces the more difficult reading, in part because only here (in the HB) is ‫ ׇאוֶ ‏ן‬paired with ‫ס‬ ‫ ֶא ֶפ ‏‬. Baltzer strictly upholds MT as the correct reading, thus translating v. 29a as “See, they are all evil, futile are their deeds.”1061 If MT has the correct reading, then the scroll’s copyist was impacted by ‫אי‏ן‬, which is twice attested in the previous verse (see the photo, plate XXXV, lines 7–8). Contra MT’s reading, some critics prefer reading ‫ =( ַאיִ ‏ן‬1QIsaa), e.g., Köhler and Blank emend MT to read ‫אי‏ן‬.1062 Kutscher, McKenzie, and Watts rightly favor the scroll;1063 “The Scr.’s reading is clearly superior,” writes Kutscher.1064 For other pairings of ‫ ֶא ֶפס‏‬and ‫( ַאיִ ן‏‬or ‫ ) ֵאין‏‬in poetic units, see Isa 34:12; 40:17; 45:6; 46:9; 47:10; and Prov 26:20. ‫—נִ ְס ֵּכ ֶיה ‏‬1QIsaa’s deviation of ‫( נסכיהמה‏‬with the yôd) is unusual in the Bible ‫ם‬ (but compare Deut 32:38, ‫ם‬ ‫נֶ ֶסְך‏ = נְ ִס ׇיכ ‏‬, “statue of cast metal,” HALOT, 703). Kutscher writes that “there seems to have been a tendency during this period to combine the pl. of the qtil pattern with the sing. of the segolate pattern,”1065 thus ‫ נס ‏ך‬became ‫ם‬ ‫ נסיכי ‏‬in the scroll.

Isaiah 42

42:1 ‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶא ְת ׇמ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אתמוכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ט‬ ‫ ִמ ְׁש ׇּפ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ ומשפט ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ִמ ְׁש ׇּפט‏‬In this Servant Song, 1QIsaa’s third m. sg. possessive pronoun (‫ )ומשפטו‏‬makes explicit that the judgment belongs to the servant, i.e., “He will 1061  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 115; see also Baltzer’s examination, 122. 1062  Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 14; Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66, n.p. 1063  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 34; followed by Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 113. 1064  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 218. 1065  Ibid., 379.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

295

bring his judgment to the nations.” But the possessive pronoun is unnecessary. In MT’s reading, the servant implicitly possesses the judgment: “He will bring judgment to the nations.” 42:2 ‫ יִ ְצ ַע ‏‬MT | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ יז̇ ע ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ְצ ַעק‏‬For a discussion of the variants √‫( צעק‏‬MT) and √‫( זעק‏‬1QIsaa), see the comments at 33:7. Note that MTmss also read ‫ יזעק‏‬in this verse (HUB–Isaiah). 42:3 ‫ יְ ַכ ֶּבּנׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יכב ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫—יְ ַכ ֶּבּנׇ ‏‬1QIsaa (‫ )יכבה‏‬lacks the suffix, thus presenting an appropriate corre‑ ‫ה‬ spondence to ‫ישבור‏‬. For this reason Watts accepts the scroll’s reading.1066 42:4 ‫ לֹא‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ ולוא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹתורֹתו‏‬ ‫ּול ׇ‬ ְ MT 4QIsah (‫ ולתורתיו‏ | )ולתרתו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫יְ יַ ֵחילּו‏‬ MT LXX (ἐλπιοῦσιν) | ‫ ינחיל ‏ו‬1QIsaa | ‫ יחיל ‏ו‬4QIsah ‫—יְ יַ ֵחילּו‏‬Three Hebrew witnesses present three different forms: MT has a piʿel form of √‫“( יחל‏‬to wait,” HALOT, 407); 1QIsaa has a hipʿil form of √‫“( נחל‏‬to give as an inheritance,” HALOT, 686); and 4QIsah has ‫יחיל ‏ו‬, from √‫“( חיל‏‬to be in labor … to writhe,” HALOT, 310). These variants intimate that the reading was uncertain to the Qumran scribes. Furthermore, twice MT Isaiah features √‫יחל‏‬, here in v. 4 and again in 51:5 (where MT has ‫ ;יְ יַ ֵחלּון‏‬1QIsaa has ‫)יוחילון‏‬. In both instances, 1QIsaa has a variant. Kutscher’s assessment that the scribe “was not familiar with the word [√‫”]יחל‏‬1067 is the likely reason for the error. ‫ֹתורֹתו‏‬ ‫ּול ׇ‬ ְ —According to Qimron’s research, the suffix ‫ ולתורתיו‏( ‑י‏ו‬1QIsaa) is used in DSS Hebrew to represent the singular;1068 thus the meaning of ‫ֹתורֹתו‏‬ ‫ּול ׇ‬ ְ and ‫ ולתורתיו‏‬is the same. 42:5 ‫ יְ הוׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ̇האלוהי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ֹּבור ‏‬ ֵ MT 4QIsaf(vid) (‫בר]א‏‬ ֯ )|‫ה‬ ‫ בור ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ יהוה אלהים‏—יְ הוׇ ה‏‬is a common formulaic expression in the Bible, but the phrases of the present verse, i.e., ‫ה‬ ‫( האל יהו ‏‬MT) and ‫ם‬ ‫( האל האלוהי ‏‬1QIsaa), are unusual (‫ האל יהוה‏‬is attested twice, in MT 42:5 and Ps 85:9). 1QIsaa’s reading may be explained as a dittography, i.e., ‫האל האלוהים‬. See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. 1066  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 113. 1067  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 265. 1068  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70.

296

Chapter 2

42:6 ‫ יְ הוׇ ‏‬MT 4QIsah | ‫…‏‬.. 1QIsaa | κύριος ὁ θεὸς LXX • ‫ק‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ַא ְחזֵ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואחזיק ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ׇע ‏‬ MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ עול ‏‬4QIsah ‫—יְ הוׇ ‏‬A copyist of 1QIsaa added dots supralinearly, which dots (Tetrapuncta) ‫ה‬ are substituted for ‫יהוה‏‬.1069 Unlike the Tetrapuncta of 40:7, five dots are vis‑ ible and unevenly presented. The fourth and fifth dots seem to be covering small, unidentifiable letters (see a magnified image of col. XXXV, line 15). Tov points out that “one of the spots of ink is a remnant of one of the letters of the Tetragrammaton in the square script which was written here initially, and then erased.”1070 Inasmuch as the first copyist clearly omitted the Tetragrammaton, the accident was likely owing to homoioteleuton, ‫יהוה קרתיכה‬.1071 Tov reports that there are a total of eight total instances of the Tetrapuncta in Qumran texts, all of which are “written in the Qumran scribal practice.”1072 See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. ‫— ׇעם‏‬Two Hebrew witnesses—MT and 1QIsaa—read ‫“( לברית עם‏‬for a cov‑ enant of the people”), a term found in the present verse and also in 49:8. 4QIsah deviates with ‫“( לברית עולם‏‬an everlasting covenant”), a common formulaic ex‑ pression first attested in Gen 9:16 but repeated in other scriptural passages, including Isa 24:5; 55:3; 61:8. The expression’s commonness may account for its existence in 4QIsah; did a copyist write it instinctively? Skehan writes that this reading of 4QIsah is “quite impossible.”1073 But note that K (HUB–Isaiah) also reads ‫ם‬ ‫עול ‏‬. MT and 1QIsaa provide the primary reading. 42:7 ‫ ַא ִּסי ‏ר‬MT 4QIsah | ‫ אסו ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ִמ ֵּבי ‏‬MT 4QIsah (‫ת | ) ֯מ[בית‏‬ ‫ ומבי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ַא ִּסי ‏ר‬MT and 4QIsah attest ‫“( ַא ִּסי ‏ר‬prisoner,” HALOT, 73) versus 1QIsaa’s qal passive ptc. ‫“( אסו ‏ר‬bound … captured,” HALOT, 75). The close resemblance of the wāw/yôd may account for 1QIsaa’s deviation. Cf. also 10:4, where MT has ‫ ַא ִּסי ‏ר‬and 1QIsaa attests ‫אסו ‏ר‬. 42:8 ‫ ְׁש ִמי‏‬MT 4QIsah LXX | ‫ ושמ‏י‬1QIsaa

1069  For Divine Name substitutions, see Parry, “Notes on Divine Name Avoidance in Scriptural Units of the Legal Texts of Qumran,” 437–49; see also the bibliography in this article. 1070  Tov, Scribal Practices, 206. 1071  Freedman and Van Ee, “Scribal Interventions in 1QIsaiaha,” 798. 1072  Tov, Scribal Practices, 206. For a discussion on the topic, together with a list of the eight instances of the Tetrapuncta in Qumran texts, see ibid. 1073  Skehan, “Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” 151.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

297

42:9 ‫ וַ ֲח ׇדֹׁשו ‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫ )‏וחד[ש]ו֯ ת‏‬4QIsah LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ והחדשו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וַ ֲח ׇדֹׁשו ‏‬1QIsaa, against three other Hebrew texts (MT, 4QIsab, and 4QIsah), ‫ת‬ attaches the article to ‫ת‬ ‫)והחדשות‏( חדשו ‏‬, a harmonization with ‫ת‬ ‫( הרישונו ‏‬MT ‫?)הראשנו ‏‬ ‫ת‬ 42:10

‫ ְּת ִה ׇּלֹת ‏ו‬MT 4QIsah | ‫ ותהלתו‏‬1QIsaa | ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ (via √‫ )תחלתו‏‬δοξάζετε τὸ ὄνομα

αὐτοῦ LXX •

42:11 ‫ יִ ְׂשאּו‏‬MT | ‫ ישא‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsah | εὐφράνθητι LXX • ‫ וְ ׇע ׇרי ‏ו‬MT LXX | ‫ עריו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֲח ֵצ ִרים‏‬ MT LXX | ‫וחצרים‏‬ ֯ | 1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ ר ֹּנ‏ּו‬MT LXX | ‫ וירונו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇה ִרים‏‬MT | ‫ הררים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְצוׇ ח ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ יצריח ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫—יִ ְׂשא ‏ּו‬MT’s pl. verb ‫ יִ ְׂשא‏ּו‬with its compound subject is grammatically ap‑ propriate: “Let the desert and its cities lift up” (i.e., lift up their voices?); the sg. verb ‫ישא‏‬, which is presented in 1QIsaa and 4QIsah, seems to have ‫ מדבר‏‬as the subject: “Let the desert lift up [its voice].” In place of MT’s ‫יׂשאו‏‬, Köhler pro‑ poses to read ‫ׂשוׂש‏√( יׂשוׂשו‏‬, “to rejoice,” HALOT, 1314), based on LXX.1074 ‫— ׇה ִרי ‏‬The absolute form ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫“( הררי ‏‬mountains”) does not occur in MT, and the const. form ‫( הרר‏י‬together with pronominal endings, e.g., ‫הרריה‬ ‫ׇ‏‬ , Deut 8:9) appears only about ten times (e.g., Num 23:7; Hab 3:6; Ps 36:7, etc.), generally in poetic texts (but never in MT Isaiah). But 1QIsaa twice attests the pl. absolute form ‫( הררים‏‬see also, 45:2). With regard to ‫ם‬ ‫הררי ‏‬, one may also compare ‫ם‬ ‫עממי ‏‬ (Neh 9:22), ‫( צללים‏‬Cant 2:17; 4:6), and ‫( תככים‏‬Prov 29:13). Kutscher, tentatively, proposes that the form ‫ הררים‏‬was influenced by Aramaic.1075 ‫—יִ ְצוׇ חּו‏‬MT’s verb (√‫צוח‏‬, “to shout loudly,” HALOT, 1011–12) is a hapax legomenon, and the verb of 1QIsaa (‫יצריחו‏‬, “to raise the battle-shout,” HALOT, 1055, via √‫ )צרח‏‬is twice attested (in addition to its attestation here in the Qumran scroll) in the HB (42:13; Zeph 1:14). Besides the passage at hand, nowhere else in the Bible is √‫ רנן‏‬paired with either MT’s √‫ צוח‏‬or 1QIsaa’s √‫צרח‏‬. The reading of the Qumran scroll may have originated because of the graphic similarity between the two verbs, the difference being the like-fashioned wāw and rêš (so suggested Kennedy, who emended the text to read ‫ יצרח ‏ו‬or ‫ יצריח ‏ו‬two decades

1074  Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 16. 1075  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 372.

298

Chapter 2

before the discovery of the scrolls);1076 another possibility, the scroll’s reading arose via assimilation from the same verbal root that appears two verses later, in v. 13 (‫)יצריח‏‬.1077 42:13 ‫ יׇ ִר ַיע‏‬MT LXX | ‫ יודי ‏ע‬1QIsaa • ‫יח‬ ‫ ַאף־יַ ְצ ִר ַ ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ אפיצרי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇ ִר ַיע‏‬MT’s ‫“( יׇ ִר ַיע‏‬to raise the war cry,” HALOT, 1206–07, via √‫ )רוע‏‬is paired with ‫“( יַ ְצ ִר ַיח‏‬to raise the battle-shout,” HALOT, 1055), forming a short but ef‑ fective bicolon. ‫יודיע‏‬, belonging to 1QIsaa, makes little sense in the context; a scroll’s copyist likely slipped up by writing a dālet instead of a rêš. Beyond the word deviation between the two Hebrew witnesses, Watts observes that “DSSIsa apparently divides the lines differently, drawing ‘fury’ from the line be‑ fore to serve as object.”1078 42:14 ‫ ֶה ֱח ֵׁש ִיתי‏‬MT | ‫ אחשית‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ֹעול ‏‬ ‫ ֵמ ׇ‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ אך מעול ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ק‬ ‫ ֶא ְת ַא ׇּפ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫אתאפק ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ֶאּׁש ֹם וְ ֶא ְׁש ַאף יׇ ַחד‏‬MT 4QIsag (‫ואשא[ף יחד‬ ֯ ‫ אשמה ואשופה יחדיו‏ | )‏אשם‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶה ֱח ֵׁש ִיתי‏‬The primary form was likely ‫ =( החשית ‏י‬MT, hipʿil perfect, first com‑ mon sg.), featuring the root ‫ה‬ ‫“( חׁש ‏‬to be silent,” HALOT, 361). There are two alternatives for the scroll’s reading: a) ‫ אחשיתי‏‬is an artificial form, combining the impf. preformative ʾālep together with the pf. sufformative ‫‑תי‏‬. A copyist of the scroll tradition may have assimilated the prefixed ʾālep from the five other impf. first common sg. verbs (‫ )אחריש אתאפק … אפעה אשם ואשאף‏‬that are at‑ tested in the verse. b) Or, more likely, the scroll’s copyist replaced the prefixed hê of the hipʿil with an ʾālep, for which see the comments at 12:4. ‫ֹעולם‏‬ ‫— ֵמ ׇ‬1QIsaa has a plus of the adverbial particle ‫א ‏ך‬, which is lacking in MT. Cf. also the deviations of this particle in 34:15 (‫ ַאְך‏‬MT | ‫ אכ א ‏כ‬1QIsaa) and 49:4 (‫ ׇא ֵכן‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ א ‏ך‬1QIsab). ‫— ֶאּׁש ֹם … ֶא ְת ַא ׇּפ ‏‬For the lengthened impf. on the scroll (‫)אתאפקה‏‬, see 1:25. ‫ק‬ ‫—יׇ ַח ‏ד‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יׇ ַחד‏‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4.

1076  “In Isa. 42/11 (at end) ‫ יִ ְצׇ ֽוחּו‏‬is clearly a mistranscription of ‫ יצרחו‏‬or ‫‘( יצריחו‏‬let them shout’); when either of these forms is substituted, it at once falls into line with ‫ יַ ְצ ִר ַיח‏‬in verse 13.” Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 70 (see also p. 69). 1077  See also Orlinsky’s discussion in favor of MT, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, II,” 154–56. 1078  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 125.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

299

42:15 ‫ ַא ֲח ִרי ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ אחריב ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַא ֲח ִריב‏‬For a discussion of the lengthened impf. on the scroll (‫)אחריבה‏‬, with the attached hê (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning, see 1:25. 42:16 ‫ֹהול ְכ ִּתי‏‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬MT | ‫והוליכתי‏‬ ̇ 1QIsaa • ‫לֹא‏‬1 MT | ‫ ולוא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇא ִׂשים‏‬MT | ‫ אשימה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַמ ְח ׇׁשְך‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ מהשוכי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇא ִׂשי ‏‬For a discussion of the lengthened impf. on the scroll (‫)אשימה‏‬, ‫ם‬ with the attached hê (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning, see 1:25. ‫“(— ַמ ְח ׇׁש ‏ְך‬dark place,” HALOT, 572). 1QIsaa deviates from this with ‫ם‬ ‫מהשוכי ‏‬, a confusion of the letters hê/ḥêt. The pl. of the scroll is an assimilation from the pl. of ‫ם‬ ‫ומעקשי ‏‬, the corresponding term in this bicolon. For other examples where 1QIsaa confuses the letters hê and ḥêt, see 3:24. 42:17 ‫ יֵבׁשּו‏‬MT | ‫ ובוש ‏ו‬1QIsaa 42:19 ‫ ִעּוֵ ‏ר‬MT | ‫ עוא ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ִעּוֵ ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ואעוא ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ִעּוֵ ר‏‬For Isaiah’s eleven attestations of ‫( ִעּוֵ ‏ר‬both sg. and pl. forms), 1QIsaa equals MT’s reading eight times. In 42:19, where MT has ‫ ִעּוֵ ר‏‬, ‫ ִעּוֵ ר‏‬, and ‫וְ ִעּוֵ ר‏‬, 1QIsaa attests ‫עור‏‬, ‫עואר‏‬, and ‫( ואעואר‏‬with the first ʾālep blotted out). In 43:8, 1QIsaa deviates with ‫עוא ‏ר‬. Why the ʾālep? “To safeguard against interpreting” the wāw as a vowel letter, writes Qimron.1079 42:20 ‫ ׇר ִא ׇית‏‬MTket 1QIsaa (‫ת | )ראיתה‏‬ ‫ ׇרֹאו ‏‬MTqere • ‫ֹקוח‬ ‫ ׇּפ ַ ‏‬MT | ‫ פתח ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇר ִא ׇית‏‬Baltzer and Oswalt maintain the correctness of MTket, which is sup‑ ported by 1QIsaa: “You have seen (‫ ) ׇר ִא ׇית‏‬much but do not regard (it).”1080 But MTqere (‫ ׇרֹאות‏‬, a qal inf. abs.), which corresponds with ‫ֹקוח‏‬ ַ ‫( ׇּפ‬also an inf. abs.), is

1079  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 95. 1080  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 148; also Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 128. NAB (414) also ac‑ cepts MTket 1QIsaa.

300

Chapter 2

likely the primary reading.1081 The difference between ‫ית‬ ‫ ׇר ִא ׇ ‏‬and ‫ ׇרֹאות‏‬is a wāw and yôd. ‫ פקח‏√— ׇּפ ַ ‏‬generally means “to open the eyes” (HALOT, 959), but in the pres‑ ‫ֹקוח‬ ent passage √‫ פקח‏‬signifies “to unstop the ears” (HALOT, 959). Notwithstanding this exceptional reading in MT, several scholars defend it.1082 Perhaps 1QIsaa facilitated the text with ‫פתח‏ו‬, a verbal form that regularly accompanies ears (see, e.g., 35:5; 48:8; 50:5; Ps 49:5). 42:21

‫ יַ גְ ִּדי ‏ל‬MT | ‫ ויגדל‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ וְ יַ ְא ִּדיר‏‬MT | ‫ ויאדרהה‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ εἶδον (via √‫ )ואראה‏‬LXX ‫אדר‏(—וְ יַ ְא ִּדי ‏ר‬, “to prove to be glorious,” HALOT, 16). 1QIsaa’s ‫ ויאדרהה‏‬features a third f. sg. pronominal suffix, which hearkens back to ‫“( תורה‏‬and he will prove it [the law] to be glorious”). LXX apparently misread the Hebrew root √‫ אדר‏‬and wrote καὶ εἶδον, ‫ה‬ ‫“( וארא ‏‬and I saw”).

42:22 ‫ ְּוב ׇב ֵּתי‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫ ובבי ‏‬4QIsag • ‫ה‬ ‫ ְמ ִׁש ׇּס ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ למשוס ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ למשס ‏‬MTmss ‫— ְּוב ׇב ֵּתי‏‬The reading ‫א‬ ‫( מבית כל ‏‬42:7) may have impacted 4QIsag’s sg. ‫ת‬ ‫ובבי ‏‬. ‫— ְמ ִׁש ׇּסה‏‬We have another case of the interchange of verbal roots: ‫ה‬ ‫משוס ‏‬ (1QIsaa) is derived from √‫שוס‏‬, and ‫ה‬ ‫( ְמ ִׁש ׇּס ‏‬MT) comes from √‫שסס‏‬.1083 Either MT’s preposition lāmed does double duty, serving both ‫ ׇל ַב ‏ז‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ְמ ִׁש ׇּס ‏‬, which is grammatically acceptable; or, as Watts puts forward, MT dropped the lāmed via haplography, ‫‏מציל למשסה‬.1084 1QIsaa attaches a lāmed on both ‫ לבז‏‬and ‫למשוסה‏‬, although it is evident that the lāmed attached to ‫ה‬ ‫ משוס ‏‬is secondary, written by a subsequent corrector. Note also that in v. 24 both Hebrew witnesses—MT and 1QIsaa—provide a lāmed on the word pairs ‫ה‬ ‫ֹׁשוס ‏‬ ֶ ‫ ִל ְמ‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ ְלבֹזְ זִ י ‏‬. 42:23

‫ יַ ֲאזִ י‏ן‬MT 4QIsag | ‫ ויאזי‏ן‬MT 1QIsaa • ‫ב‬ ‫ יַ ְק ִׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ ויקש ‏ב‬1QIsaa

1081  See also Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 126. 1082  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 276; “MT is preferable as the harder read‑ ing,” Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 128n62. 1083  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 359; see also Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 173–74. 1084  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 126.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

301

42:24 ‫ֹׁשוס ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֶ ‫ ִל ְמ‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ ִל ְמ ִׁש ׇּסה‏‬MTqere • ‫ זּו‏‬MT | ‫ זה‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsag • ‫ ׇהֹלוְך‏‬MT | ‫להלוך‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ֹתורֹת ‏ו‬ ‫ ְּב ׇ‬MT LXX | ‫ בתורתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ֹׁשוסה‏‬ ֶ ‫— ִל ְמ‬For ‫ה‬ ‫ֹׁשוס ‏‬ ֶ ‫ ְמ‬versus ‫ ְמ ִׁש ׇּסה‏‬, cf. also ‫ה‬ ‫( ְמ ִׁש ׇּס ‏‬MT) and ‫ה‬ ‫( למשוס ‏‬1QIsaa) in v. 22 and the comments there. ‫ זּו‏—ז ‏ּו‬is a relative particle attested fifteen times in the Bible, always in poetry (e.g., Exod 15:13, 16; Pss 9:16; 10:2; 12:8, etc.). The translation value of ‫ ז‏ּו‬is com‑ parable to that of the relative pronoun ‫אש ‏ר‬. For both occurrences of ‫ ז‏ּו‬in MT Isaiah (see 42:24; 43:21), 1QIsaa has the demonstrative pronoun ‫ה‬ ‫ז ‏‬. Additionally, 4QIsag (attested in 42:24 but not 43:21) also reads ‫ה‬ ‫ז ‏‬. Kutscher’s theory that the scribe of 1QIsaa did not know the meaning of ‫ ז‏ּו‬and therefore substituted the common ‫ה‬ ‫ ז ‏‬may have merit.1085 Note that 4QIsag also attests ‫ה‬ ‫ ז ‏‬in the passage under discussion. ‫— ׇהֹלו ‏ְך‬1QIsaa’s reading is rather peculiar, because 1QIsaa adds a preposition to an inf. abs., i.e., ‫( להלוך‏‬versus MT’s ‫) ׇהֹלוְך‏‬. This is likely an example where the scribe avoided parataxis. For other instances (both nouns and verbs), where 1QIsaa has a preposition versus MT, see the discussion at 1:12. 42:25 ‫ ֵח ׇמה‏‬MT 4QIsag | ‫ת‬ ‫ חמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וֶ ֱעזּו ‏ז‬MT | ‫ ועוז ‏ז‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵח ׇמה‏‬Three times MT has ‫( חמה אף‏‬see also 42:25; 66:15; Ezek 23:25), but never does it set forth ‫חמת א ‏ף‬, as 1QIsaa attests here in 42:25. Oort, Köhler, and Bonnard (“la fureur de sa colère”) emend MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ חמ ‏‬to read ‫חמת‏‬.1086 But contrast Orlinsky, who presents an argument in favor of MT’s reading.1087 Note that in 66:15, both MT and 1QIsaa attest ‫חמה אף‏‬. With regard to medieval HB manuscripts, 150 (pm) omits the term ‫חמה‬, and a single manuscript of K (HUB– Isaiah) attests ‫ת‬ ‫ = חמ ‏‬1QIsaa. ‫—וֶ ֱעזּוז‏‬MT’s ‫“( ֱעזּוז‏‬might, power,” HALOT, 808) is a rare noun that occurs three times in the Bible (42:25; Pss 78:4; 145:6). According to Qimron, 1QIsaa’s ‫ ; ֱעזּוז‏ = עוזז‏‬that is to say, 1QIsaa has a “variant orthography.” For various examples of such cases from the Isaiah scroll as well as nonbiblical DSS, see Qimron’s grammar.1088

1085  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 232. 1086  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 102; Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 18; Bonnard, Second Isaïe, 133. 1087  Orlinsky, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll III,” 152–54. 1088  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 327–28.

302

Chapter 2

Isaiah 43

43:1 ‫ ּב ַֹר ֲא ‏ָך‬MT 1QIsab (‫ה | )בוראך‏‬ ‫ בוראיכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ י ֶֹצ ְר ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ויוצריכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—ּב ַֹר ֲאָך … וְ י ֶֹצ ְרָך‏‬The supralinear yôd of 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ בוראיכ ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ויוצריכ ‏‬does not signify the pl. form; rather, these are special orthographic cases where the yôd replaces the shewa of the Tiberian tradition.1089 Compare Eccl 12:1 (‫ֹּבור ֶאיָך‏‬ ְ ) and 54:5 (‫) ִּכי ב ֲֹע ַליִ ְך ע ַֹׂשיִ ְך יְ הוׇ ה‏‬, but the yôd is likely serving as a vowel letter; see also 45:9, ‫יוצריו חרש את חורשי‏‬. 43:2 ‫ֹמו־אׁש‏‬ ֵ ‫ ְּב‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ש‬ ‫ [ב]מוא ‏‬1QIsab ‫ֹמו־א ‏‬ ‫ׁש‬ ֵ ‫— ְּב‬The deviation here is not a textual variant but rather a stylistic difference that pertains to the 1QIsab copyist’s writing two words together; for other examples of this, see 1QIsab 51:6 and 66:1. 43:3 ‫ ִּכי‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsag LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫ֹמוׁש ֶיע ‏ָך‬ ִ MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫גואלך‬ ‫ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫נׇ ַת ִּת‏י‬ MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ ונתת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇכ ְפ ְרָך ִמ ְצ ַריִ ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫]מצרים‏‬ ֯ ‫ )כפרך‬LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫מצרי ‏‬ ‫ּוס ׇב ‏‬ ְ MT 1QIsab 4QIsag | ‫ם‬ ‫ וסבאי ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ Σοήνην LXX ‫ כופרך‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫— ִּכי‏‬Against a host of witnesses—three of which are Hebrew (MT, 1QIsab, and 4QIsag)—1QIsaa lacks ‫כי‏‬, which opens the verse. Vertical haplography is likely the mechanism that caused the omission because on the leather scroll ‫ כי‏‬occurs immediately above where the missing ‫ כ‏י‬should have been written. Or, another theory: Oswalt suggests that 1QIsaa unwittingly dropped ‫ כ ‏י‬because the preceding character was a kāp, i.e., ‫בך כ‏י‬.1090 ‫יע ‏ָך‬ ֶ ‫ֹמוׁש‬ ִ —MT’s declarative list of deific names (‫ֹלהיָך ְקֹדוׁש יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵאל‏‬ ֶ ‫ִּכי ֲאנִ י יְ הוׇ ה ֱא‬ ‫יעָך‬ ֶ ‫ֹמוׁש‬ ִ ) reads differently in 1QIsaa, which lacks the final name together with its suffix (‫ֹמוׁש ֶיעָך‏‬ ִ ). In its place, the Qumran scroll has a variant, inserted supralin‑ early, reading ‫גואל ‏ך‬, “your Redeemer.” The insertion was written by a second hand, evidenced by a different book hand as well as the defective spelling of the suffix (‫ )‑ך‏‬versus the plene spelling of ‫ אלוהיכה‏‬located two words earlier. It is likely that the 1QIsaa copyist inadvertently erred by omitting ‫מושיעך‏‬, and later a scribe, influenced by the declarative lists in 49:26 and 60:16 (‫ֲאנִ י יְ הוׇ ה‏‬ ‫יעְך וְ ג ֲֹא ֵלְך ֲא ִביר יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֵ ‫ֹמוׁש‬ ִ ), added ‫גואל ‏ך‬. Or, if the scribe was not influenced by these declarative lists, he was impacted by ‫ה‬ ‫ גאלתיכ ‏‬of v. 1 (two verses earlier 1089  See the discussion and examples in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 68–69. 1090  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 135.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

303

than the one under discussion). Either way, the reading of MT 1QIsab LXX is primary. ‫— ׇכ ְפ ְרָך ִמ ְצ ַריִ ‏‬Both MT and 1QIsab agree with this word order versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ arrangement (‫)מצרים כופרך‏‬. For a discussion of syntactical inversions or varia‑ tions between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. ‫ּוס ׇב ‏‬ ‫א‬ ְ —1QIsaa sets forth the pl. ‫וסבאים‏‬, perhaps an assimilation of ‫סבאים‏‬ from 45:14. LXX read the bêt as a nûn, thus producing Σοήνην.1091 43:4 ‫ וְ ֶא ֵּתן‏‬MT | ‫ את‏ן‬1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואתנ ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇא ׇד ‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QTanḥ II 8 | ‫ם‬ ‫ האד ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ֶא ֵּת‏ן‬The Hebrew witnesses set forth three forms, all impf. verbs: regular form with the attached wāw (‫)וְ ֶא ֵּתן‏‬, regular form without the wāw (‫)אתן‏‬, and lengthened form with the wāw (‫)ואתנה‏‬. For a brief discussion of the length‑ ened versus the regular impf. forms, see 5:19. 43:6 ‫יא‏י‬ ִ ‫ ׇה ִב‬MT LXX | ‫ הביאו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇבנַ י‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ [ב]נֹיך‏‬1QIsab • ‫ֹנותי‏‬ ַ ‫ּוב‬ ְ MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ ובנתיך‏‬1QIsab • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִמ ְק ֵצ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ מקצו ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫יא‏י‬ ִ ‫— ׇה ִב‬MT (correctly) presents two f. sg. imperatives plus a negative im‑ perative, ‫ל־ּת ְכ ׇל ִאי ׇה ִב ִיאי‏‬ ִ ‫ ֵּתנִ י … ַא‬. The imperatives are expressed to the cardinal directions north and south, which are f. In place of ‫ ׇה ִב ִיאי‏‬, 1QIsaa has the m. pl. impv. ‫ ;הביאו‏‬the error may have emerged as a result of a yôd/wāw confusion. Also possible: 1QIsaa’s pl. “refers to both the north and south winds together.”1092 Compare Tg’s ‫ ֵאיתֹו‏‬. ‫ֹנותי‏‬ ַ ‫ּוב‬ ְ … ‫— ׇבנַ י‬Two Hebrew witnesses (MT and 1QIsaa) read “my sons … and my daughters,” but 1QIsab has “your sons … and your daughters.” It is likely that Isa 49:22 (‫ )בניך … ובנותיך‏‬influenced 1QIsab’s reading. ‫ ְק ֵצה‏(— ִמ ְק ֵצה‏‬, “edge, end, extremity,” HALOT, 1120–21). In Isaiah’s text, MT and 1QIsaa configure the forms as follows: ‫( קצה‏‬MT = 1QIsaa; see 5:26; 7:18; 13:5; 42:10); ‫ת‬ ‫( קצו ‏‬MT = 1QIsaa, but note orthographic differences in the scroll, e.g., ‫ קצות‏‬and ‫ת‬ ‫ ;קצוו ‏‬see 40:28; 41:5, 9). Note also that in four passages, 1QIsaa reads the pl. ‫קצוי הארץ‏( קצו‏י‬, “ends of the earth”) where MT has the sg. ‫ה‬ ‫( קצ ‏‬43:6; 48:20; 49:6; 62:11). 43:7 ‫ ַא ‏ף‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ וא ‏ף‬1QIsab

1091  See the viewpoint of Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 56. 1092  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 209.

304

Chapter 2

43:8 ‫ֹהוצי ‏‬ ‫א‬ ִ MT | ‫ הוציאו‏‬1QIsaa‫ ‏‬LXX(vid) | ‫ אוציא‏‬1QIsab | educ Vulg • ‫ ִעּוֵ ר‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ עואר‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ֵעינַ יִ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ עיני ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹהוציא‏‬ ִ —Kittel (see BH3) proposes that this text be emended to read ‫הוציאו‏‬ (the pl. versus MT’s sg.), and subsequently the Isaiah scroll is shown to pos‑ sess that reading. Westermann, Baltzer, and Bonnard also prefer the reading of 1QIsaa.1093 But contrast Oswalt, who determines not to emend MT and to ac‑ cept its reading as it is presented.1094 1QIsab’s ‫א‬ ‫אוצי ‏‬, wherein a copyist replaced the characteristic hê of the hipʿil with an ʾālep, is an occasional circumstance that also occurs in 1QIsaa (see 12:4). ‫— ִעּוֵ ‏ר‬For 1QIsaa’s deviation of ‫עוא ‏ר‬, see 42:19. 43:9 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ּגִ יד‏‬MT LXX | ‫ ויגידו‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ יגידו‏‬1QIsab • ‫ יַ ְׁש ִמ ֻיענּו‏‬MT | ‫ ישמיעו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ יִ ְׁש ְמע ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ וישמיע ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. ‫—יַ ּגִ יד‏‬MT’s sg. verb (‫ )יַ ּגִ יד‏‬followed by a pl. (‫ )יַ ְׁש ִמ ֻיענו‏‬may signify a conflation of two textual traditions, wherein one tradition sets forth two sg. verbs and the other has two plurals.1095 Another possibility—the Masoretes could have vocalized ‫ ישמיענ‏ו‬as a sg. rather than a pl. verb, i.e., the consonantal text puts forward two sg. verbs. Both 1QIsaa and 1QIsab attest the pl. ‫( יגידו‏‬1QIsaa also has the conjunction wāw); too, 1QIsaa has the pl. ‫( ישמיעו‏‬minus MT’s first common pl. suffix ‫)‑נ ‏ו‬, but 1QIsab at this point is indecipherable because of the leather’s disintegration. After discussing several possible readings, Oswalt proposes “to retain MT as the harder reading.”1096 But these variants require more study. ‫—יַ ְׁש ִמ ֻיענּו‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ישמיע ‏ו‬, without the suffix ‫‑נ ‏ו‬, seems to be a harmonization with ‫וישמיע ‏ו‬, which occurs later in the same verse. But compare North who opts for the reading of 1QIsaa and explains that MT’s suffix “is difficult to construe.”1097 ‫—וְ יִ ְׁש ְמע ‏ּו‬The variant here pertains to the qal verb ‫( וְ יִ ְׁש ְמע‏ּו‬MT, 1QIsab, “Let them hear”) versus the hipʿil ‫( וישמיעו‏‬1QIsaa, “let them announce”). MT 1QIsab have the primary reading; so, too, JPS, NIV, and NRSV follow MT’s read‑ ing: “Let them hear.” Watts,1098 too, follows MT: “Let them hear, and let them 1093  Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 119; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 161; Bonnard, Second Isaïe, 135. 1094  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 142. 1095  For this idea, see McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 52, who refers to personal notes of David Noel Freedman. 1096  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 143n23. 1097  North, Second Isaiah, 121. 1098  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 124.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

305

speak truth.” 1QIsaa errs with its hipʿil ‫ וישמיע ‏ו‬when a copyist duplicated ‫ישמיע ‏ו‬ (minus the wāw) from the exact form located four words earlier, thus ‫ישמיע‏ו‬ ‫יתנו עדיהמה ויצדקו וישמיעו‬. 43:10 ‫ וְ ַע ְב ִּד ‏י‬MT LXX | ‫ עבדי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ַא ֲח ַרי‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ו]א ̇חריו‏‬ ֯ 1QIsab • ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ היה‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ַא ֲח ַרי‏‬The reading ‫ואחרי‏‬, belonging to both MT and 1QIsaa, parallels ‫לפני‏‬, thus forming an analogous parallelism: “There was no god formed before me (‫)לפני‏‬, nor will there be after me (‫)ואחרי‏‬.” 1QIsab’s ‫ו]א ̇חריו‏‬ ֯ (“after him”) is an error. ‫—יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬MT and 1QIsab’s qal impf. ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ יהי ‏‬serves as a valid counterpart with the nipʿal pf. ‫ֹנוצר‏‬ ַ , thus reading “Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be (‫ )יהיה‏‬after me.” 1QIsaa’s qal pf. ‫ היה‏‬lacks the same impact: “Before me there was no God formed, neither was there (‫ )היה‏‬after me.”1099 43:12

‫ וְ ִה ְׁש ַמ ְע ִּת‏י‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ השמעת‏י‬1QIsab LXX • ‫ וַ ֲאנִ ‏י‬MT | ‫ אנ‏י‬1QIsaa

43:13

‫ ֶא ְפ ַע ‏ל‬MT 4QIsab (‫אפ]על‏‬ ̇ )|‫ה‬ ‫ אפעול ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶא ְפ ַע ‏ל‬MT features an /a/ class vowel (‫ ) ֶא ְפ ַעל‏‬versus either a /u/ or /o/ vowel of 1QIsaa (‫)אפעולה‏‬. Kutscher,1100 followed by Reymond,1101 suggests that

1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel arises from an Aramaic influence. Or, another theory: post-BH occasionally featured the phoneme o, represented by the wāw, locat‑ ed especially in qal impf. verbs.1102 Other possible examples in 1QIsaa include ‫ וְ ַת ְח ְּפר ‏ּו‬MT; ‫ ותחפורו‏‬1QIsaa (1:29); ‫ ִּתזְ ׇר ֶעּנּו‏‬MT; ‫ֹוענֹו‏‬ ֯ ‫ תז֯ ֯ר‬1QIsaa (17:10); ‫ יֶ ֱח ַרב‏‬MT; ‫ יחרוב‏‬corrected to ‫ יחרב‏‬1QIsaa (19:5); ‫ יַ ַע ְב ֶרּנּו‏‬MT; ‫ יעובורנה‏‬1QIsaa (35:8); ‫וַ ּיִ ְפ ְר ֵׂשהּו‏‬ MT; ‫ה‬ ‫ ויפרוש ‏‬1QIsaa (37:14); ‫ יִ ּגְ ׁש‏ּו‬MT; ‫ יגוש‏ו‬1QIsaa (41:1); ‫ יִ ְׁש ְּכב‏ּו‬MT; ‫ ישכוב‏ו‬1QIsaa (43:17); ‫ה‬ ‫ נַ ַע ְמ ׇד ‏‬MT; ‫ה‬ ‫ נעמוד ‏‬1QIsaa (50:8); ‫ם‬ ‫אכ ֵל ‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫ י‬MT; ‫ם‬ ‫ יֹואכול ‏‬1QIsaa (51:8); ‫ַת ְח ִּפ ִיר‏י‬ MT; ‫ תחפֹור‏י‬1QIsaa (54:4); ‫ ׇּוב ֲחר‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab; ‫ ויבחור‏ו‬1QIsaa (56:4); ‫ יִ ְׁש ְמר‏ּו‬MT; ‫ ישמור ‏ו‬1QIsaa (56:4); and ‫ וַ ַּת ְׁש ִּפ ִיל ‏י‬MT; ‫ותשפול ‏י‬ ̇ 1QIsaa (57:9). For a discussion of the lengthened impf. on the scroll (‫)אפעולה‏‬, with the attached hê (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning, see 1:25.

1099  See also the discussion in Orlinsky, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, I,” 157–60. 1100  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 341–42. 1101  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 197. 1102  See Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 187–88.

306

Chapter 2

43:14 ‫ ׇב ֶב ׇל ‏‬MT | ‫ בבב ‏ל‬1QIsaa | ‫ בב ‏ל‬4QIsab • ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ַכ ְׂש ִּדי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ וכשדיי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇב ֶב ׇלה‏‬Three Hebrew texts exhibit three variants—MT (‫“ ׇב ֶב ׇלה‏‬to Babylon”), 1QIsaa (‫“ בבבל‏‬against[?] Babylon”), and 4QIsab (‫“ בבל‏‬Babylon”). For 1QIsaa’s ‫בבב ‏ל‬, lacking the a (‫ )‑ה‏‬of direction, see the comments at 28:6. ‫—וְ ַכ ְׂש ִּדים‏‬For a discussion of divergences that pertain to gentilica, see ‫ַּכ ְׂש ִּדים‏‬ at 13:19. 43:17 ‫ ַחיִ ל‏‬MT | ‫ וחיל‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ִעּזּוז‏‬MT | ‫ ועוזוז‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְׁש ְּכבּו‏‬MT | ‫ ישכובו‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ִעּזּו ‏ז‬Four words in 1QIsaa have the quṭṭul/quṭṭāl pattern, versus the qiṭṭul pattern in the Tiberian tradition of MT: ‫ וְ ִעּזּו‏ז‬MT; ‫ ועוזוז‏‬1QIsaa (43:17); ‫ּדּופים‏‬ ִ ִ‫ְלג‬ MT; ‫ם‬ ‫( לגודפי ‏‬43:28); ‫ ִר ֻּק ׇחיִ ‏ְך‬MT ‫ רוקחי ‏ך‬1QIsaa (57:9); and ‫ּבּוציִ ‏ְך‬ ַ ‫ ִק‬MT; ‫קובצי ‏ך‬ 1QIsaa; ‫קבצי ‏ך‬ ֯ 4QIsad (57:13). Apparently, quṭṭul/quṭṭāl forms signal the older pattern.1103 ‫—יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. ‫—יִ ְׁש ְּכבּו‏‬For MT’s /a/ class vowel (‫ )יִ ְׁש ְּכבּו‏‬versus either a /u/ or /o/ vowel of 1QIsaa (‫)ישכובו‏‬, see the discussion in 43:13. 43:18

‫ ִּתזְ ְּכר ‏ּו‬MT LXX | ‫ תזכו ‏ר‬1QIsaa

43:19 ‫ ַע ׇּתה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ועת ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫עּוה‬ ‫ ֵת ׇד ׇ‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ תדע‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫יׁשֹמו‏ן‬ ִ ‫ ִּב‬MT | ‫בישומו‏ן‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ נְ ׇהֹרות‏‬MT LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫ נתיבו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵת ׇד ׇ ‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫תדע‏ו‬, without the suffix ‫ה‬ ‫עּוה‬ ‫‑ ‏‬, may be an assimilation from 40:21, which also reads ‫הלוא תדעו‏‬. Bonnard prefers the reading of MT.1104 ‫—נְ ׇהֹרות‏‬Scholars in 1950–1951 debated whether 1QIsaa read ‫ נתיבים‏‬or ‫נתיבות‏‬,1105 but ‫נְ ִת ׇיבה‏( נתיבות‏‬, “path,” HALOT, 732) is the reading that the copyist intended.1106 Graphically similar letters—hê and tāw; bêt and 1103  For commentary regarding the quṭṭul/quṭṭāl pattern in 1QIsaa, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 177–78. See also Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 327–28. 1104  Bonnard, Second Isaïe, 144. 1105  See Orlinsky, “Photography and Paleography,” 33–35; Rabinowitz, “Trever’s Taw and Orlinsky’s Argument,” 29; Trever, “Isaiah 43:19 According to the First Isaiah Scroll,” 13–16; and Trever, “Some Corrections Regarding Isaiah 43.19,” 26–27. 1106  See UF 1:164.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

307

rêš—differentiate the readings of MT (‫ )נהרות‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫)נתיבות‏‬. Driver pre‑ fers the reading of the scroll because it better fits the parallelistic scheme;1107 so also McKenzie, who translates, “Indeed, I lay a road in the steppe, and paths in the desert.”1108 But Kutscher, who chooses MT, writes, “What hap‑ pened here was that because of ‫במדבר דרך‏‬, he [the scribe] wrote the word which he found earlier—in v. 16—to be parallel to ‫ דרך …‏‬One might of course argue the reverse: that the combination in the MT reflects the phrase in the verse that follows: ‫בישמון נהרות‏‬.”1109 Oswalt’s argument follows similar reasoning.1110 Orlinsky discusses ‫ נהרות‏‬and ‫ נתיבות‏‬but concludes that ‫נתיבות‏‬ is not a “legitimate variant” and therefore should not be given the same sta‑ tus as ‫נהרות‏‬.1111 Barthélemy and his committee were divided between the reading of MT versus that of 1QIsaa.1112 43:20 ‫ נׇ ַת ִּתי‏‬MT | ‫ את‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫מ‏ן‬ ֹ ‫יׁשי‬ ִ ‫ ִּב‬MT 1QIsab (‫[י]שי֯ ֯מן֯‏‬ ֯ ‫() ̇ב‬vid) | ‫ בישומו‏ן‬1QIsaa • ‫ְב ִח ִיר‏י‬ MT | ‫ ובחירי‏‬1QIsaa Vulgmss ‫—נׇ ַת ִּת‏י‬This is another case of a verbal form interchange: perfect (‫ נׇ ַת ִּתי‏‬MT) > imperfect (‫ אתן‏‬1QIsaa). 43:21

‫ ז ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ז ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּת ִה ׇּל ִת‏י‬MT 4QIsag | ‫ ותהלת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ ַס ֵּפר‏ּו‬MT 4QIsag LXX (διηγεῖσθαι) | ‫ יואמרו‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ַס ֵּפר ‏ּו‬This verb, attested in MT 4QIsag, accompanies the noun ‫ תהלה‏‬on

four other occasions in the HB (Pss 9:15; 78:4; 79:13; 102:22). Never in the Bible, or in the nonbiblical Qumran texts for that matter, is the verb ‫ יואמרו‏‬directly collocated with ‫תהלה‏‬, except here in 1QIsaa. It would seem that the scribe of the Qumran scroll experienced a lapse and wrote the incredibly common verb ‫אמ ‏ר‬. Kutscher attributes 1QIsaa’s reading to be under the influence of the Aramaic, where ‫א‬ ‫( תשבח ‏‬Hebrew ‫ )תהלה‏‬is indeed collocated with ‫;אמ ‏ר‬1113 Kutscher is supported with additional examples by Kugel.1114 But contrast Talmon’s view that the readings are synonymous, “which may have originated when the text 1107  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 28. 1108  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 55; see also Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 217. 1109  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 267. 1110  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 151. 1111  Orlinsky, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, I,” 160–64. 1112  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:318–19. 1113  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 219. 1114  Kugel, “Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” 173.

308

Chapter 2

of the book of Isaiah came into existence and persisted separately in the MT and in 1QIsaa…. It is impossible to determine which of the two is the earlier or is to be preferred. Two textual traditions of equal value have been preserved for us.”1115 43:23 ‫יאת‏‬ ‫ ֵה ֵב ׇ‬MT 4QIsag (‫ הביאותה‏ | )[הב]יֹאת‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫‏]ה ֯בי֯ ̇אֹות‬ ֯ )(vid) • ‫ֹֹלתיָך‏‬ ֶ ‫ ע‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsag (‫עולו֯ ̇תי ֹ֯ך‏‬ ֯ )(vid) | ‫ לעולה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ּוזְ ׇב ֶחיָך‏‬MT | ‫ ובזבחיכה‏‬1QIsaa | cf. ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις σου LXX • ‫ לֹא ֶה ֱע ַב ְד ִּתיָך ְּב ִמנְ ׇחה‏‬MT 4QIsag LXXmss | ‫ולוא עשיתה ליא‏‬ ‫ מנחה‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫יאת‏‬ ‫— ֵה ֵב ׇ‬The deviation of 1QIsaa and 1QIsab (‫הביאותה‏‬/‫]ה ֯בי֯ ̇אֹות‏‬ ֯ ), with the wāw before the suffix, is orthographic. The wāw is sometimes featured—in both MT and the Qumran scrolls—in the hipʿil pf. second m. sg. hollow verbs. See also 37:23 (‫)הרימותה‏‬, 41:25 (‫)העירות‏‬, and 43:24 (‫)הרויתני‏‬. ‫ֹֹלתי ‏ָך‬ ֶ ‫—ע‬Three Hebrew texts—MT, 1QIsab, and 4QIsag—set forth a pl. noun together with the pronominal suffix, i.e., ‫ֹֹלתי ‏ָך‬ ֶ ‫“( ע‬your burnt offerings”) versus 1QIsaa’s sg. noun minus the pronominal suffix, ‫ה‬ ‫“( לעול ‏‬for a burnt offering”). A scribe of 1QIsaa may have been impacted by the sg. ‫ה‬ ‫ ש ‏‬in the expression ‫ה‬ ‫ש‏‬ ‫לעולה‬. However, “your burnt offerings” is preferred because it corresponds with “your sacrifices” (‫)ּוזְ ׇב ֶחיָך‏‬. ‫—ּוזְ ׇב ֶחיָך‏‬MT attests the preposition bêt before ‫ ְּב ִמנְ ׇחה‏‬but not ‫ ;ּוזְ ׇב ֶחיָך‏‬1QIsaa has the opposite, the preposition bêt before ‫ ובזבחיכה‏‬but not ‫מנחה‏‬. Baltzer writes, “One would expect the preposition ‫[ ב‏‬with MT’s ‫]ּוזְ ׇב ֶחיָך‏‬, and it is in fact the reading in 1QIsaa (‫ ;ובזבחיכה‏‬cf. Syr.).”1116 According to Baltzer’s statement, one would also expect the scroll to have the bêt on the noun ‫מנחה‏‬. ‫—לֹא ֶה ֱע ַב ְד ִּתיָך ְּב ִמנְ ׇח ‏‬The collocation of √‫ עבד‏‬with ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ =( מנח ‏‬MT) occurs twice in the HB, both occurrences in Isaiah, in the present verse and in 19:21 (‫ועבדו‏‬ ‫ =( מנח ‏‬1QIsaa) is much more common, especially in ‫)זבח ומנחה‬. √‫ עשה‏‬with ‫ה‬ legal texts, e.g., Lev 2:8; Num 6:17; 15:6; Ezek 46:14. Conceivably, 1QIsaa’s attesta‑ tion of √‫ עשה‏‬in the passage under discussion may be due to the influence of such readings in legal texts. 43:24

‫ל ֹ ‏‬1 MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab | [‫ ֯ולו֯ ֯א ‏‬4QIsag • ‫ ַּב ֲעֹונ ֶֹתי ‏ָך‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫ בעונכ ‏‬1QIsaa

1115  Talmon, “Observations on Variant Readings in the Isaiah Scroll,” 126; see Talmon’s entire argument, 124–27. 1116  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 176; see also Oort’s proposal that MT read ‫ ;ובזבחיך‏‬Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 102.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

309

43:25 ‫ ְפ ׇׁש ֶעי ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ פשעכ ‏‬1QIsaa orth or var? • ‫ ֶאזְ ּכֹ ‏ר‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ אזכור עו ‏ד‬1QIsaa ‫— ְפ ׇׁש ֶעי ‏ָך‬In the synonymous parallelism of this verse, MT’s pl. ‫“( ְפ ׇׁש ֶעי ‏ָך‬your transgressions”) serves as a better corresponding element to ‫אתי ‏ָך‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“( וְ ַחּט‬your sins”) than does 1QIsaa’s sg. ‫ה‬ ‫“( פשעכ ‏‬your transgression”). ‫— ֶאזְ ּכֹ ‏ר‬Against MT and 1QIsab’s reading of ‫לא אזכ ‏ר‬, 1QIsaa has a plus of ‫עוד‏‬, thus reading the formulaic ‫לוא אזכור עו ‏ד‬. The fact that this formula (‫עוד‏‬ √‫ )לא זכר‏‬occurs a number of times in the Bible (e.g., 54:4; Jer 11:19; 23:36; 31:34; Ezek 23:27; Hos 2:19; Zech 13:2; Pss 83:5; 88:6; Job 24:20; and Prov 31:7) may have influenced the scribe of 1QIsaa. Jer 31:34 (‫אתם לֹא ֶאזְ ׇּכר־ֹעוד‏‬ ‫ּול ַח ׇּט ׇ‬ ְ ), especially, par‑ allels ‫וחטאתיכה לוא אזכור עו ‏ד‬, the text under discussion. 43:26 ‫ ַהזְ ִּכ ֵירנִ ‏י‬MT 1QIsab (‫ ) ֯הז֯ כי ֹ̇רני‏‬LXX(vid) | ‫ הזכירונ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ ַח ‏ד‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ַהזְ ִּכ ֵירנִ י‏‬Isa 43:22–28 consists of the Lord’s direct speech to Jacob/Israel (see v. 22); therefore, the pericope contains a number of second-person m. forms, both verbs (e.g., ‫את‏‬ ‫ ׇק ׇר ׇ‬, ‫יׇ גַ ְע ׇּת‏‬, ‫יאת‏‬ ‫ ֵה ֵב ׇ‬, etc.) and pronominal suffixes (e.g., ‫)‑ָך‏‬, which hearken back to Jacob/Israel. These verbs and suffixes are interchanged with first-person sg. forms (e.g., ‫‑ ִ ‏י‬, ‫‑ּת‏י‬ ִ , etc.) that refer to the Lord. In v. 26, 1QIsaa’s pl. ‫ הזכירוני‏‬does not fit the pattern of second-person m. forms (versus MT and 1QIsab’s ‫)הזכירני‏‬. Perhaps an inattentive scribe was influenced by the pl. cohortative ‫נשפטה‏‬, which follows ‫הזכירונ‏י‬. ‫—יׇ ַחד‏‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יׇ ַחד‏‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. 43:28 ‫ וַ ֲא ַח ֵּלל‏‬MT | ‫ ואחללה‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐμίαναν LXX • ‫ וְ ֶא ְּתנׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ ואתן‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּדּופים‏‬ ִ ִ‫ְלג‬ MT | ‫ לגודפים‏‬1QIsaa ‫ּדּופי ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ִ ִ‫— ְלג‬According to the evidence that Qimron sets forth, 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫= לגודפי ‏‬ MT’s ‫ּדּופים‏‬ ִ ִ‫( ְלג‬an orthographic variant). For various examples of such cases from the Isaiah scroll as well as nonbiblical DSS, see Qimron’s grammar.1117

Isaiah 44

44:2

‫ יַ ְעזְ ֶר ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ועוזרכ ‏‬1QIsaa | Ἔτι βοηθηθήσῃ LXX ‫—יַ ְעזְ ֶרָך‏‬The readings of both MT (‫יַ ְעזְ ֶרָך‏‬, qal imperfect) and 1QIsaa (‫ועוזרכה‏‬, qal ptc.) are possible in the context. Elsewhere in MT Isaiah, where ‫ יהוה‏‬and 1117  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 327–28.

310

Chapter 2

√‫ עזר‏‬are collocated, √‫ עזר‏‬occurs as ‫( ֹעוזֵ ‏ר‬31:3), ‫( ֲעזַ ְר ִּתי ‏ָך‬41:13), ‫( ֲעזַ ְר ִּתי ‏ְך‬41:14), ‫( ֲעזַ ְר ִּתי ‏ָך‬49:8), ‫( יַ ֲעזׇ ר‏‬50:7), and ‫( יַ ֲעזׇ ר‏‬50:9). In the verse under discussion, was MT’s ‫ יַ ְעזְ ֶרָך‏‬influenced by 50:9? Or, was 1QIsaa’s ‫ ועוזרכה‏‬a harmonization of the two qal participles that precede it in the verse, i.e., ‫ ?עושכה ויוצרכה‏‬Oswalt holds that 1QIsaa “is almost certainly an attempt to ease MT’s hard reading.”1118 44:3

‫אצ ‏‬2 MT LXX | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ כןאצ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫אצק‏‬2—The adverbial particle ‫“( כן‏‬thus … so,” HALOT, 482) is an exegetical

plus1119 in 1QIsaa that was inserted interlinearly, probably to assist in the flow of reading between two clauses in the verse. The particle combination ‫כי … כ‏ן‬ is used throughout the Bible; in Isaiah ‫ כי … כ‏ן‬is found in 31:4; 54:9; 55:9; 61:11; 63:14; and 66:13. Compare also the multiple ‫ כי … על כן‏‬combinations in the Bible. 44:4 ‫ וְ ׇצ ְמחּו ְּב ֵבין ׇח ִציר‏‬MT | ‫ יצמחו כבין ̇חציר‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἀνατελοῦσιν ὡσεὶ χόρτος ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος LXX • ‫ ְיִב ֵל ‏י‬MT | ‫ יובל ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇצ ְמחּו ְּב ֵבין ׇח ִציר‏‬1QIsaa exhibits two deviations from MT: (a) A qal impf. (‫ יצמחו‏‬1QIsaa) versus a qal pf. (‫ וְ ׇצ ְמחּו‏‬MT, hapax legomenon). The verbal forms of both 1QIsaa and MT are via √‫“( צמח‏‬to sprout,” HALOT, 1033). (b) The preposi‑ tion kāp (‫ כבין‏‬1QIsaa, hapax legomenon) versus a bêt (‫ ְּב ֵבין‏‬MT). Both deviations may signify nothing more than errors because of the graphical sets wāw/yôd and bêt/kāp. Compare also the findings of Barthélemy, which concludes that 1QIsaa facilitated the text.1120 Or, the readings between MT and the scroll may delineate genuine variants. With support from Akkadian, Arabic, and Aramaic, Allegro1121 proposes that ‫ בי‏ן‬is a tree’s name and thus reads “spring up like a green ben-tree.” This reading pairs ben-tree with willows in the parallelism. Paul, too, reads the text as, “And they shall sprout like a green tamarisk,”1122 reading ‫ כבין‏‬versus ‫ ְּב ֵבי‏ן‬. ‫— ְיִב ֵל ‏י‬For brief comments on ‫( ְיִב ֵל ‏י‬MT) and ‫( יובל ‏י‬1QIsaa), see 30:25.

1118  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 163n3. 1119  So states Tov, TCHB3, 260. 1120  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:322–24. 1121  Allegro, “Meaning of ‫ בי ‏ן‬in Isaiah XLIV, 4,” 154–56. 1122  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 227.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

311

44:5 ‫ יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ ידוה‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa, see the commen‑ tary in 2:2. 44:6 ‫ וְ ג ֲֹאֹלו‏‬MT LXX | ‫ וגואלי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ יְ הוׇ ה ְצ ׇבֹאו ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ יהוה צבאות שמ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ג ֲֹאֹל ‏ו‬According to Qimron’s research, the suffix ‫ וגואליו‏( ‑י‏ו‬1QIsaa) is used in DSS Hebrew to represent the singular;1123 thus the meaning of ‫ וְ ג ֲֹאֹלו‏‬and ‫ וגואליו‏‬is the same. ‫—יְ הוׇ ה ְצ ׇבֹאו ‏‬The plus belonging to 1QIsaa—(‫)שמו‏‬, “the Lord of hosts is his ‫ת‬ name”—may be an assimilation from other Isaianic passages that also set forth this same formula, e.g., ‫( יהוה צבאות שמו‏‬see 47:4; 48:2; 51:15; 54:5). 44:7 ‫ וְ יַ ְע ְר ֶכ ׇה ִלי‏‬MT | ‫ ויעריכהה לוא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּׂשּומי‏‬ ִ ‫ ִמ‬MT | ‫ משימו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ֲא ֶׁשר ׇּתבֹאנׇ ה‏‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ יואמר אשר תבֹואינה‏‬1QIsaa | πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν LXX ‫—וְ יַ ְע ְר ֶכ ׇה ִלי‏‬Note that the scroll’s ‫א‬ ‫ לו ‏‬means “to him”; see discussion at 3:11. For a discussion of the lengthened impf. on the scroll (‫)ויעריכהה‏‬, with the at‑ tached hê (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning, see 1:25. Regarding the wāw mater in 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ויעריכה ‏‬, in contrast to the vowel system of MT, see the comments at 20:1. ‫ּׂשּומי‏‬ ִ ‫— ִמ‬MT attests √‫ שום‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s √‫שים‏‬. Kutscher proposes that √‫שים‏‬ “has superseded the form ‫ שום‏‬entirely (under the influence of the imperf.).”1124 However, the reverse forms are set forth in 10:6: ‫( ְּול ִׂשיֹמ‏ו‬MTket 4QIsae), ‫ולשומ‏ו‬ (MTqere), and ‫ם‬ ‫( ולשו֯ ‏‬1QIsaa). For the readings in both 10:6 and 44:7, the diver‑ gences may exist because the wāw and yôd are graphically similar. ‫—וַ ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬Against the readings of MT and 4QIsac, 1QIsaa has the plus of ‫יואמ ‏ר‬, which precedes the relative pronoun ‫אשר‏‬. Barthélemy asserts that this plus was inserted for symmetrical purposes, to correlate with ‫ יגידו‏‬in the final clause of the verse.1125 ‫— ׇּתבֹאנׇ ‏‬The morphological difference between MT (‫ ) ׇּתבֹאנׇ ה‏‬and 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ (‫ )תבֹואינה‏‬is the separating vowel that is located before the afformative in the scroll. See the commentary at 37:26.

1123  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70. 1124  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 288. 1125  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:328.

312

Chapter 2

44:8 ‫ ִּת ְרה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ תירא ‏ו‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫— ִּת ְרה ‏ּו‬MT reads ‫ ִּת ְרה‏ּו‬, a hapax legomenon, via √‫ירּה‏‬, “to be paralysed with fear” (HALOT, 437). But according to Oswalt, “It is possible that MT is the re‑ sult of an error of hearing (mistaking soundless aleph for the all-but-soundless he).”1126 1QIsaa’s ‫ )ירא‏√( תיראו‏‬corresponds with √‫ פחד‏‬in the parallelism, thus prompting critics to read ‫( תרא ‏ו‬or similar), which is the scroll’s reading.1127 But Paul states that a scribe of 1QIsaa facilitated the text: MT’s verb “is derived from the root ‫יר‏י‬, which according to the cognate root in Arabic (wariha) denotes frozen with fear.”1128 44:9 ‫ י ְֹצ ֵרי‏‬MT | ‫ ויצ ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ֵה ׇּמ ‏‬MT | ‫המה‬ ‫ ‏‬1QIsaa | > MTmss • ‫ ַּוב ‏ל‬MT | ‫ ב ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫—י ְֹצ ֵר ‏י‬MT’s pl. ‫“( י ְֹצ ֵרי‏‬they who form”) is consistent with several other thirdperson pl. forms in the verse (e.g., ‫ם‬ ‫מּוד ֶיה ‏‬ ֵ ‫וַ ֲח‬, ‫ֹיועיל‏ּו‬ ִ ,‫ם‬ ‫וְ ֵע ֵד ֶיה ‏‬, ‫יִ ְרא‏ּו‬, ‫יֵ ְדע‏ּו‬, ‫ ;)יֵבׁש‏ּו‬but 1QIsaa’s sg. ‫“( ויצ ‏ר‬one who forms”) is incompatible. ‫— ֵה ׇּמ ‏‬This is an instance of extraordinary points (puncta extraordinaria), ‫ה‬ one of fifteen cases in MT, wherein certain letters have dots above them. The puncta extraordinaria signaled that the scribes had intended to erase the let‑ ters; in the case at hand the entire word was to be erased because it was a dittography of the preceding pronominal suffix, ‫ם‬ ‫וְ ֵע ֵד ֶיה ‏‬.1129 1QIsaa’s ‫ המה‏‬was a secondary addition, placed supralinearly but added in error. 44:11 ‫ ֵהן‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲח ֵב ׇרי‏ו‬MT | ‫ חוברי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ֲעמֹד‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ועמוד‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫יִ ְפ ֲחד‏ו‬ MT | ‫ ופחדו‏‬1QIsaa | ἐντραπήτωσαν LXX • ‫ יׇ ַח ‏ד‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ֲח ֵב ׇריו‏‬An alteration of MT’s vocalization of ‫“( ׇח ֵב ‏ר‬companion,” HALOT, 288) to ‫“( ַח ׇבר‏‬guildsman,” HALOT, 288; cf. Job 40:30) strengthens the parallel‑ ism: “Behold, all of his guildsmen (via ‫ ) ַח ׇבר‏‬will be ashamed, and craftsmen (‫)וְ ׇח ׇר ִׁשים‏‬, they are but men.” With 1QIsaa’s reading of ‫חוברי‏ו‬, one may ask if the scribe intended to read ‫ חוב ‏ר‬as a qal ptc. (“to ally oneself,” HALOT, 287) or 1126  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 170n25; also, according to Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 342, MT misspelled the word. 1127  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 267; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 302; McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 63; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 141; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 2:107. 1128  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 231. 1129  See Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition, 332; Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, 44–46.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

313

as a noun meaning “charm, spell, enchantment” (HALOT, 288; cf. Deut 18:11; Ps 58:6). In either case, MT’s reading corresponds better to the noun ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ׇח ׇר ‏‬in the bicolon of v. 11a. See also the discussion in Watts.1130 ‫—יׇ ַחד‏‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יׇ ַחד‏‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. 44:12 ‫ יִ ְּצ ֵרהּו‏‬MT | ‫ ויצורה ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇׁש ׇת ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שות ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ּיִ ׇיע ‏ף‬MT | ‫ ויוע ‏ף‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ְּצ ֵרה ‏ּו‬Regarding the wāw mater in 1QIsaa’s ‫ויצורהו‏‬, in contrast to the vowel system of MT, see the comments at 20:1. ‫— ׇׁש ׇתה‏‬The deviation here relates to the negative particle ‫א‬ ‫ ל ‏‬followed by a pf. verb (‫ ׇׁש ׇתה‏‬MT) or ptc. (‫ שותה‏‬1QIsaa). Elsewhere in Isaiah, the scroll deviates with ‫א‬ ‫ ל ‏‬+ the ptc. three additional times—8:23 (‫ ;)כילו מעופפ‬29:12 (‫;)לוא יודע‏‬ and 44:12 (‫)לוא שותה‏‬. See the discussion at 29:12. 44:13 ‫ נׇ ׇט ‏‬MT | ‫ נטה ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ יַ ֲע ֵׂשה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ועשה ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫—נׇ ׇטה‏‬The scribe of 1QIsaa added the third m. sg. pronominal suffix ‫ ‑הו‏‬to √‫( נטה‏‬versus MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫)נׇ ׇט ‏‬, thus aligning ‫ נטה‏ו‬with other verbs in the verse that feature the suffixed ‫( ‑הו‏‬i.e., ‫)יתארהו … יעשהו … יתארהו ויעשהו‏‬. This scribal ac‑ tion was likely inadvertent. It is also possible that the scribe read ‫ נטה‏ו‬on his Vorlage; cf. LXX’s ἔστησεν αὐτὸ. 44:15 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ והג ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַא ‏ף‬2 MT | ‫ א ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫והג ‏‬, based on the rare √‫“( הגה‏‬to expel … to remove,” HALOT, 237; see 27:8; Prov 25:4–5), is only faintly feasible in the context; more likely, the copyist misread his Vorlage and wrote a gîmel rather than a yôd, thus ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬ became ‫ה‬ ‫והג ‏‬. See also the commentary at 5:1. ‫ ַאף‏‬2—The variant pertains to MT’s particle ‫ ַא ‏ף‬versus 1QIsaa’s conjunction ‫או‏‬. Either word serves the passage, although the versions support MT. Why the deviation? One could argue that MT’s ‫ ַא ‏ף‬is a duplication of the same word earlier in the verse; more likely, 1QIsaa’s copyist misread ‫( ַא ‏ף‬was the horizontal stroke of the final pê illegible or faded?) and wrote ‫א ‏ו‬.

1130  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 141.

314

Chapter 2

44:16 ‫ ַעל ֶח ְצֹי ‏ו‬MT | ‫ ועל וחציו‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ LXX • ‫אכל יִ ְצ ֶלה ׇצ ִלי וְ יִ ְׂש ׇּבע ַאף־יׇ חֹם‏‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ י‬MT | ‫ ויאכל ועל גחליו ישב ויחם‏‬1QIsaa | ὀπτήσας ἐφαγεν καὶ ἐνεπλήσθ· καὶ θερμανθεὶς LXX • ‫ ׇר ִא ִיתי‏‬MT LXX | ‫ נג ‏ד‬1QIsaa ‫— ַעל ֶח ְצֹיו‏‬Freedman and Van Ee explain the deviation of 1QIsaa (‫ )ועל וחציו‏‬as “Homoeoarcton: ‫ ו‏‬to ‫ ‏ו‬, though the phrase is awkward with more than one ‫ ‏ו‬.”1131 ‫אכל יִ ְצ ֶלה ׇצ ִלי וְ יִ ְׂש ׇּבע ַאף־יׇ חֹ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ ֹ ‫—י‬1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫ ויאכל ועל גחליו ישב ויח ‏‬is quite differ‑ ent than that of MT. First of all, a minor deviation, 1QIsaa has a wāw before ‫ ;ויאכ ‏ל‬MT lacks the wāw (‫אכל‏‬ ֵ ֹ ‫)י‬. The minor deviation is followed by a greater variant: 1QIsaa has ‫“( ועל גחליו ישב‏‬and upon/against its burning charcoal he sits”) versus MT’s ‫“( יִ ְצ ֶלה ׇצ ִלי וְ יִ ְׂש ׇּב ‏ע‬he roasted roast and is satisfied”). A copyist of 1QIsaa experienced a series of errors. 1QIsaa’s ‫ גחליו ישב‏‬was derived from and is a corruption of MT’s ‫צלי וישב ‏ע‬, where six of the eight letters are common to each text (see underlining). Also, a 1QIsaa scribe borrowed ‫ גחלי‏ו‬from 44:19, which also attests ‫גחליו‏‬. There is yet another minor deviation, where the scroll has a wāw before ‫ם‬ ‫ )ויחם‏( יח ‏‬but MT lacks the wāw (‫)יׇ חֹם‏‬. For MT’s ‫אכל יִ ְצ ֶלה ׇצ ִל‏י‬ ֵ ֹ‫י‬ ‫וְ יִ ְׂש ׇּבע ַאף־יׇ חֹם‬, UF 2:166, providing no explanation, writes that MT is in error. For a different point of view, Watts writes that “DSSIsa preserves a very different text … keep MT.”1132 ‫ית‏י‬ ִ ‫— ׇר ִא‬Kutscher appropriately assesses that the scribe of 1QIsaa substituted ‫ נג ‏ד‬for ‫ ראית‏י‬because “the verb ‫ה‬ ‫ רא ‏‬was apparently felt by the scribe to be inap‑ propriate since the connotation here is ‘to feel’”1133 the fire rather than “to see” the fire. Furthermore, 1QIsaa was likely impacted by ‫( אור לשבת נגד‏ו‬see 47:14), which also features the words ‫ אור‏‬and ‫נג ‏ד‬. 44:17

‫ּוׁש ֵא ִריֹת ‏ו‬ ְ MT | ‫ ושריתו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇע ׇׂשה‏‬MT | ‫ יעשה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ִפ ְסֹלו‏‬MT | ‫ לבליו עצ‏‬1QIsaa | γλυπτὸν LXX • ‫ וְ יִ ְׁש ַּתחּו‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ וישתחו ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫— ׇע ׇׂש ‏‬A close examination of the leather of 1QIsaa reveals an erasure pre‑ ‫ה‬ ceding ‫ ;עשה‏‬two remnants of ink remain—a yôd(?) plus a short vertical resi‑

due of ink below the yôd. Because of the uncertainty of the ink remnants, UF 2:166 transcribe ‫יעשה‏‬, and PQ have ‫ה‬ ‫עש ‏‬. ‫— ְל ִפ ְסֹל ‏ו‬The meaning of the variant of 1QIsaa (‫‏‬ ‫ )לבליו עצ‬is unknown. Evidently, ‫ לבליו ע ‏צ‬is an assimilation of ‫ לבלוי ע ‏ץ‬from v. 19 (1QIsaa), where MT

1131  Freedman and Van Ee, “Scribal Interventions in 1QIsaiaha,” 795. 1132  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 142. For a discussion of LXX’s reading of Isaiah 44:14–19 in view of contextual harmonizations, see Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 320–21. 1133  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 263.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

315

has ‫ּבּול ֵעץ‏( ְלבּול ֵעץ‏‬, “wood block,” HALOT, 115). With regard to ‫( לבליו‏‬versus MT’s ‫ ְלבּול‏‬in v. 19), Qimron proposes that ‫ ‑י ‏ו‬signifies a contraction of the diphthong.1134 44:19

‫מ ‏ר‬ ֹ ‫ ֵלא‬MT | ‫ לאמור לאמור‏‬1QIsaa | ὅτι LXX • ‫ ֶא ְצ ֶלה‏‬MT | ‫ ואצלה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ א ֵֹכל‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ ואוכלה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ יִ ְתֹר‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ יתר‏ו‬4QIsab • ‫ה‬ ‫ֹתוע ׇב ‏‬ ֵ ‫ ְל‬MT 4QIsab LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫ לתועבו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְלבּו ‏ל‬MT | ‫ לבלו ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫מר‏‬ ֹ ‫— ֵלא‬1QIsaa’s twofold attestation ‫ לאמור לאמו ‏ר‬is a dittography. ‫—וְ א ֵֹכל‏‬For a brief discussion of the lengthened versus the regular impf.

forms, see 5:19. ‫— ְלבּו ‏ל‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫לבלוי‏‬, see Qimron’s proposal, set forth in 44:17. ‫ֹתוע ׇב ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֵ ‫— ְל‬The majority of texts have the sg. ‫ה‬ ‫ֹּתוע ׇב ‏‬ ֵ ; there is no easy explana‑ tion for 1QIsaa’s pl. ‫ת‬ ‫לתועבו ‏‬.

44:20 ‫ יַ ִּציל‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ יוכי ‏ל‬1QIsaa | δύναται ἐξελέσθαι LXX • ‫ת‬ ‫ ֶא ‏‬MT 4QIsab | > 1QIsaa • ‫ ֲהֹלוא‏‬MT 4QIsab οι λ′ | > 1QIsaa LXX (ὅτι Ψεῦδος) ‫—יַ ִּצי ‏ל‬Kutscher points out that the deviation of ‫( יוכי ‏ל‬1QIsaa) is the result of a “graphical” error based on ‫ ‏י‬+ ‫ ‏צ = ‏כ‬.1135 Perhaps the scribe thought he was see‑ ing a ligatured yôd-kāp and wrote ‫ יכי ‏ל‬instead of ‫יצי ‏ל‬. But this theory does not explain when or why the wāw was inserted into ‫יוכי ‏ל‬. Kutscher also shows that LXX’s δύναται ἐξελέσθαι is similar to the scroll’s reading but adds, “This does not necessarily mean, though, that the root ‫ יכל‏‬was found in the text [of LXX], since it was usually added, even though it was not present, vide viii 8; xx 6; xxviii 20; xxxvi 9, 19. It is strange, though, that this reading is given in the name of the Three as well (an error in the tradition?)!”1136 The most feasible theory is set forth in UF 2:166, wherein UF propose a haplography occurred in both MT and the scroll and LXX’s δύναται ἐξελέσθαι is based on ‫יוכל להצי ‏ל‬. ‫— ֶאת‏‬For a discussion of the nota accusativi, see 2:4. ‫— ֲהֹלוא‏‬The nine occurrences of the negative particle ‫ לוא‏‬in vv. 18–21 may have prompted the scribe of 1QIsaa to accidentally omit one in v. 20. 1QIsaa, LXX, and Vulg lack the interrogative factor that belongs to MT and 4QIsab (in‑ terrogative hê).

1134  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 34. 1135  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 242. 1136  Ibid., 242.

316

Chapter 2

44:21 ‫ וְ יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵא ‏ל‬MT 4QIsab LXX | ‫ ישרא ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵא ‏ל‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ וישרא ‏ל‬4QIsab • ‫ ִתּנׇ ֵׁשנִ י‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ תשאנ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ִתּנׇ ֵׁשנִ י‏‬The reading ‫תנשנ‏י‬, belonging to both MT and 4QIsab, is a hapax legomenon, likely via √‫( נׁשה‏‬HALOT, 729). The root sense means “to forget” in both Hebrew and Aramaic.1137 1QIsaa’s ‫ תשאני‏‬may originate from √‫“( נׂשא‏‬to lift, carry”) or √‫“( נׁשא‏‬to deceive”), although it is possible that 1QIsaa’s scribe in‑ tended √‫נׁשה‏‬. North is partial to √‫“( נׁשא‏‬to deceive”) and translates, “You must not play false with me, Israel.”1138 Not only does MT’s reading make sense, but v. 21 forms a textbook example of a chiasmus: A Remember these, B O Jacob and Israel, C for you are my servant, D I have formed you, C you are a servant to me, B O Israel, A you will not be forgotten by me (‫)תנׁשני‏‬. 44:22 ‫ ְּפ ׇׁש ֶעיָך‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsab LXX(vid) | ‫ה‬ ‫ פשעכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּפ ׇׁש ֶעיָך‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ פשעכ ‏‬may be a textual or orthographic variant. 44:23

‫ ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִרּנׇ ‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ רונ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִרּנׇ ‏‬For the forms ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ִרּנׇ ‏‬versus ‫ה‬ ‫רונ ‏‬, see the discussion at 14:7.

44:24

‫ ִמי ִא ִּת‏י‬MTket 1QIsaa (‫ )מיא אתי‏‬4QIsab | ‫ ֵמ ִא ִּת‏י‬MTqere Syr | τίς ἕτερος LXX ‫— ִמי ִא ִּת‏י‬Both ‫ ִמי ִא ִּת‏י‬and ‫ ֵמ ִא ִּת‏י‬correspond, more or less, with ‫ ְל ַב ִּד‏י‬in the

bicolon of v. 24b. Text critics are divided: Childs1139 and Watts1140 prefer the reading of MTqere, but Oswalt remains with MTket 1QIsaa,‫ ‏‬4QIsab.1141 The cor‑ rect reading, in my view, is indeterminate. LXX apparently has the equivalent of yôd/rêš and tāw/ḥêt interchange, thus reading ‫מי אח ‏ר‬, “who is another” (τίς ἕτερος). 44:25 ‫ יְ ַׂש ֵּכל‏‬MT | ‫ יסכ ‏ל‬1QIsaa 1QIsab 4QIsab LXX (μωρεύων) ‫—יְ ַׂש ֵּכל‏‬MT reads ‫ יְ ַׂש ֵּכ ‏ל‬versus ‫ =( יסכ ‏ל‬1QIsaa, 1QIsab, and 4QIsab), an example of a sibilant interchange. Some scholars maintain that ‫ יסכל‏‬signifies a Qumran 1137  See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 778–79. 1138  North, Second Isaiah, 45, 142. 1139  Childs, Isaiah, 348. 1140  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 151. 1141  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 189.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

317

alteration in order to avoid √‫ׂשכל‏‬, which is a freighted term among the Qumran sectarians. For arguments for and against this possible Qumran alteration, see Ulrich, followed by Brooke.1142 44:26 ‫ ַמ ְל ׇא ׇכיו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫מלא]כו֯‏‬ ֯ 4QIsab • ‫ּתּוׁש ‏ב‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ב‬ ‫ תש ‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab ‫ּתּוׁש ‏‬ ‫ב‬ ‫— ׇ‬At issue is MT’s hopʿal ‫ב‬ ‫ּתּוׁש ‏‬ ‫( ׇ‬via √‫ )ישב‏‬versus the qal ‫ב‬ ‫( תש ‏‬also via √‫ )ישב‏‬of 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. Inasmuch as √‫ ישב‏‬in the hopʿal is comparatively rare (see HALOT, 445), it is possible that a Qumran scribe eased the text to read the popular qal form (see also 5:8). MT’s passive corresponds with ‫ִּת ׇּבנֶ ינׇ ה‏‬ (nipʿal, i.e., also a passive) in the parallelism. 44:28 ‫ וְ ֵה ׇיכל ִּתּוׇ ֵסד‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫והיכל ת[ו]סד‏‬ ̇ ) | ‫ והיכליתי ֹס ‏ד‬1QIsaa | καὶ τὸν οἶκον τὸν ἅγιόν μου θεμελιώσω LXX ‫יכל ִּתּוׇ ֵס ‏ד‬ ‫—וְ ֵה ׇ‬1QIsaa’s variant of ‫והיכליתי ֹסד‏‬, with its small interlinear yôd, may indicate two different readings: (a) If the yôd belongs to the second word (e.g., ‫יתיס ‏ד‬, via √‫)?יסד‏‬, then the verb is a hitpaʿel; however, this reading is improbable because √‫“( יסד‏‬to found, to establish”) is not attested in the HB in the hitpaʿel. (b) If the yôd belongs to the first word (e.g., ‫)והיכל ‏י‬, then the text reads “and my temple” (cf. LXX). With this reading, Vorm-Coughs holds, “In both [1QIsaa and LXX] the possessive pronoun may have been added for explicitation.”1143

Isaiah 45

45:1 ‫ ְּד ׇל ַתיִ ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ דלתו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּד ׇל ַתיִ ‏‬Both the dual form of doors ‫( ְּד ׇל ַתיִ ם‏‬MT) and the pl. ‫( דלתות‏‬1QIsaa) ‫ם‬ are well attested in the HB. In this verse it is possible that a scribe of 1QIsaa harmonized his reading to agree with the pl. ‫ דלתות‏‬that belongs to v. 2. 45:2

‫דּורי ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ִ ‫ וַ ֲה‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ והררי ‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ )והרורים‏‬LXX (καὶ ὄρη) • ‫ֹאוׁש ‏ר‬ ִ MTket | ‫ֲאיַ ֵּׁש ‏ר‬ MTqere 1QIsab (‫ֹשר‏‬ ֯ ‫ יאוש ‏ר | )אי‬1QIsaa | ὁμαλιῶ LXX • ‫ ֲא ַׁש ֵּב ‏ר‬MT | ‫ אשבו ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫דּורי ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ִ ‫—וַ ֲה‬MT (‫דּורים‏‬ ִ ‫ )וַ ֲה‬versus 1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ ֲה ׇר ִרים‏ ;והררים‏‬, “mountainous

land,” HALOT, 239) constitutes a case of graphic similarity—dālet/rêš. The 1142  Ulrich, “Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants,’” 183–84; Brooke, “On Isaiah at Qumran,” 75–76. 1143  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 492.

318

Chapter 2

variant arose because of the confusion of letters in the Assyrian square script. Tov explains, “When ‫ והררים‏‬was corrupted by a daleth/resh interchange, a waw was added as an internal vowel letter giving the resulting word ‫ם‬ ‫( והדורי ‏‬MT) the appearance of a passive participle.”1144 Before the Qumran discoveries, Köhler emended the text to read ‫והררים‏‬.1145 With Tov, HALOT (239), and others, the primary reading is ‫ ֲה ׇר ִרים‏‬. ‫ֹאוׁשר‏‬ ִ —The Hebrew witnesses submit three readings: ‫ֹאוׁש ‏ר‬ ִ (√‫יׁשר‏‬, MTket, hipʿil impf. first common sg., “to level [mountains],” HALOT, 450); ‫( ֲאיַ ֵּׁש ‏ר‬MTqere, 1QIsab, piʿel impf. first common sg., “to smooth [way],” HALOT, 449); and ‫יאוש ‏ר‬ (1QIsaa, qal impf. third m. sg., “to stride,” HALOT, 97). Both verbal roots—√‫יׁשר‏‬ and √‫—אׁשר‏‬are feasible in the parallelistic structure as well as the context of the pericope. However, 1QIsaa’s prefixed yôd, indicating a third person, makes it an abnormal reading that does not fit the flow of first-person verbs in the pericope, where the Lord is speaking in first person, e.g., ‫כה אמר יהוה … החזקת‏י‬ ‫( … אפתח … אני … אלך … איׁשר … אׁשבר … אגדע … ונתתי … אני‬45:1–3). ‫— ֲא ַׁש ֵּב ‏ר‬Both ‫( ֲא ַׁש ֵּבר‏‬MT, piʿel imperfect, “to smash into fragments,” HALOT, 1404) and ‫( אשבור‏‬1QIsaa, qal imperfect, “to shatter, smash,” HALOT, 1402) work in the context; but if the poet intended a grammatical equivalence in the paral‑ lelism, then MT’s piʿel corresponds with the piʿel ‫ ֲאגַ ֵּד ַ ‏ע‬. 45:3 ‫ֹּקורא‏‬ ֵ ‫ ַה‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ הקור ‏‬1QIsaa 45:4 ‫ וְ יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵא ‏ל‬MT LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ ישרא ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּב ְׁש ֶמ ‏ָך‬MT 1QIsab (‫ובשמ‏ | ) ̇ב ֯ש[מך‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ֲא ַכּנְ ָך‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הכינכ ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ προσδέξομαί σε LXX ‫— ִּב ְׁש ֶמ ‏ָך‬MT and 1QIsab read, “I have called you by your name” (‫)בשמך‏‬. 1QIsaa’s ‫מ‬ ‫( ובש ‏‬minus the suffix ‫ )‑ ‏ך‬changes the meaning: “I have called you, and he has established you with a name (‫)ובשמ‏‬.”1146 ‫— ֲא ַכּנְ ָך‏‬The deviations that exist between MT and 1QIsaa are, respectively ‫( ֲא ַכּנְ ‏ָך‬via √‫כנה‏‬, “to give someone a name of honour,” HALOT, 483) and ‫הכינכה‏‬ (via √‫כון‏‬, “to prepare, make ready,” etc., HALOT, 465). Kutscher endeavors to “trace the growth of the Scr.’s reading. The copyist erred and wrote ‫הכנכה‏‬ 1144  Tov, TCHB3, 236; see also Tov’s valuable study of ‫דּורים‏‬ ִ ‫ וַ ֲה‬and textual variants in Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint, 196–98. Tov’s conclusions are supported by Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 197–98, and others. 1145  Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 26. But compare also the study of Southwood, “The Problematic haḏūrîm of Isaiah XLV 2,” 801–2. 1146  Translation belongs to Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 344.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

319

instead of ‫ה‬ ‫אכנכ ‏‬, apparently confusing the laryngeals…. When he or anoth‑ er emendator re-read the text, he took the root to be ‫כון‏‬, and added the yod superscript.”1147 Another viewpoint sustains Kutscher’s argument that MT has the primary reading, even though the scroll’s reading is feasible in the context. Many of the content words of v. 3 are also found in 44:5, a passage with similar themes; one may note that √‫ כנה‏‬is also used in 44:5. 45:5 ‫זּול ִתי‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ וזולת‏י‬1QIsab • ‫ ֵאי‏ן‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ואי‏ן‬2 1QIsaa 45:6 ‫ּומ ַּמ ֲע ׇר ׇבּה‏‬ ִ MT 1QIsab (‫וממערבה‏‬ ֯ ) σ′ θ′ | ‫ וממער ‏ב‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) 45:7 ‫ּוֹבורא‏‬ ֵ 1–2 MT 1QIsab (‫ובור]א‏‬ ̇ ) 4QIsac (‫ובור]א‏‬ ֯ )|‫ה‬ ‫ובור ‏‬1–2 1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁשֹלו ‏‬MT LXX (εἰρήνην) | ‫ טו ‏ב‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇׁשֹלום‏‬Against all other versions 1QIsaa stands alone with the variant ‫טו ‏ב‬, contrasting good with evil (‫) ̇עושה טוב ובורה רע‏‬. Rubinstein sees this as a theo‑ logical variant when he writes that it is “an affirmation of the doctrine of the sectaries of Qumran, who held that both good and evil are created by God and that the morally good or bad in human conduct is predetermined by Him.”1148 Rather than viewing this as a theological variant, we should see it as a con‑ textual change made by the 1QIsaa copyist,1149 who matched good with evil, a common formulaic scriptural correspondence (see Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; Isa 5:20; 7:15–16, etc.). 45:8

‫ ַה ְר ִעיפ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ הריע‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX (εὐφρανθήτω) • ‫ ִמ ַּמ ַע ‏ל‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ ממעל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ּזְ ל ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ ייז ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫ח־א ֶר ‏ץ‬ ֶ ‫ ִּת ְפ ַּת‬MT 1QIsab (‫תפת[ח‏‬ ̇ ) | ‫האמר לארץ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ וְ יִ ְפרּו‏‬MT | ‫ ויפרח‏‬1QIsaa • ‫אתיו‏‬ ִ ‫ יַ ַחד ֲאנִ י יְ הוׇ ה ְּב ׇר‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsac (‫)י]הו֯ [ה]‏‬

LXX | > 1QIsaa ‫— ַה ְר ִעיפ ‏ּו‬The deviations pertain to the comparatively rare √‫( רעף‏‬five times in the Bible, “to let drip, trickle,” HALOT, 1271) that belongs to MT and the more common √‫( רוע‏‬forty-four times, “to cry, cry out, shout,” HALOT, 1206) found in 1QIsaa. The scroll’s reading has some support from LXX (εὐφρανθήτω), although 1147  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 247. 1148  Rubinstein, “Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings,” 194. 1149  Tov, TCHB3, 242.

320

Chapter 2

the Vorlage of both the scroll’s scribe and LXX’s translator may have already had the reading of ‫הריע‏ו‬. Or, Ziegler’s proposal that LXX was impacted by a phrase from 44:23 (‫י־ע ׇׂשה יְ הוׇ ה ׇה ִריעּו ַּת ְח ִּתֹּיות ׇא ֶרץ‏‬ ‫ ) ׇרּנּו ׇׁש ַמיִ ם ִּכ ׇ‬may also apply to 1QIsaa.1150 It is also possible that the scroll’s scribe accidentally omitted the pê while writing ‫הרעיפ‏ו‬. As for MT’s reading, note that √‫ רעף‏‬is paired with ‫ נז ‏ל‬in Job 36:28, which equals the pairing in the present verse. ‫— ִמ ַּמ ַע ‏ל‬For the variants ‫ ִמ ַּמ ַע ‏ל‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ממעל ‏‬, see the discussion at 6:2. ‫—יִ ּזְ ל ‏ּו‬For 1QIsaa, we read ‫( ייז ‏ל‬UF 2:167; PQ = ‫)וֿ יזל‬. For the double yôds be‑ longing to ‫ייז ‏ל‬, see Reymond, who lists several verbs and nouns in 1QIsaa, which have double yôds for the single consonantal yôd in MT.1151 ‫ח־א ֶר ‏ץ‬ ֶ ‫— ִּת ְפ ַּת‬MT’s ‫ח־א ֶרץ וְ יִ ְפר ‏ּו‬ ֶ ‫ ִּת ְפ ַּת‬from 45:8 has caused great discussion and diverse emendations.1152 MT’s ‫ח־א ֶר ‏ץ‬ ֶ ‫ ִּת ְפ ַּת‬has a volitional force: “let the earth open.” Compare Num 16:32; 26:10; and Ps 106:17, which also collocate ‫ ארץ‏‬and √‫פתח‏‬. With ‫האמר לארץ‏‬, 1QIsaa deviates, thus reading “the one who says to the earth.” While both MT and 1QIsaa fit the poetic scheme, MT’s reading better fits the threefold sequence of jussives that belong to the passage. ‫—וְ יִ ְפר ‏ּו‬MT’s pl. verb ‫ ויפרו‏‬appears to be a challenge because of its sg. subject, but Kimhi solves this by explaining that ‫ה‬ ‫ ְּוצ ׇד ׇק ‏‬and ‫ יֶ ַׁש ‏ע‬signify a compound subject,1153 especially since they are connected with a wāw. But this explana‑ tion fails to comprehend the verb ‫תצמיח‏‬, which attends ‫צדקה‏‬. Some scholars propose emending ‫ ויפרו‏‬to read ‫ ויפר‏‬or ‫ויפרח‏‬.1154 1QIsaa’s ‫( ויפרח‏‬which Burrows calls an “attractive reading”),1155 also solves the challenge. ‫ ויפר ‏ו‬and ‫ח‬ ‫ ויפר ‏‬differ by a single character. ‫אתי ‏ו‬ ִ ‫—יַ ַחד ֲאנִ י יְ הוׇ ה ְּב ׇר‬MT, 1QIsab, and 4QIsac (reconstructed as ‫‏יחד אני י]הו֯ [ה‬ ]‫ )בראתיו‬terminate v. 8 with ‫יחד אני יהוה בראתי ‏ו‬. These three Hebrew witnesses are supported by LXX Vulg Syr Tg. But 1QIsaa lacks these words and is in error. Oddly, there is a blank space for about seventeen characters on the leather of 1QIsaa, exactly where these words should have been written (see col. XXXVIII, line 15). Kutscher suggests that the scroll’s Vorlage was illegible at this point, and therefore the scribe left the scroll blank.1156 1150  See the discussion in Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 286–87. 1151  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 61. 1152  See, for example, Volz, Jesaia II, 63; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 140; Muilenburg, “Book of Isaiah,” 525; Rahlfs, ed. Septuaginta, 628; and Ottley, Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint, 2:22. Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 26. 1153  As proposed by Kimhi, cited in Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 199. 1154  For the reading of ‫ח‬ ‫ויפר ‏‬, see Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66, n.p. 1155  Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” 30. A number of text critics hold that ‫ח‬ ‫ ויפר ‏‬is the primary reading; see the viewpoints of Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 199; and North, Second Isaiah, 151. 1156  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 219.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

321

45:9 ‫ י ְֹצֹר ‏ו‬MT | ‫ יוצריו‏‬1QIsaa | κατεσκεύασα LXX • ‫ ַח ְר ֵׂשי ֲא ׇד ׇמה‏‬MT | ‫ חורשי האדמה‏‬1QIsaa | ἀροτριάσει τὴν γῆν LXX • ‫אמר ח ֶֹמ ‏ר‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ֲהי‬MT 1QIsab LXX (μὴ ἐρεῖ ὁ πηλὸς) | ‫הוי האומ ‏ר‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ֵאין‏‬MT LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ אין אד ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—י ְֹצֹר ‏ו‬1QIsaa’s ‫יוצריו‏‬, with its suffix ‫‑יו‏‬, does not signal the plural; rather ‫יוצריו‏‬ = ‫י ְֹצֹר ‏ו‬.1157 ‫— ַח ְר ֵׂשי ֲא ׇד ׇמ ‏‬MT reads ‫“( ַח ְר ֵׂשי ֲא ׇד ׇמה‏‬potsherds of [the] earth”), which cor‑ ‫ה‬ rectly fits with three other content words in this verse—‫ֹיוצר‏‬ ֵ (“potter,” twice attested in this verse), ‫“( ֶח ֶרׂש‏‬potsherd,” HALOT, 357), and ‫“( ח ֶֹמר‏‬clay,” HALOT, 330). 1QIsaa reads ‫“( חורשי האדמה‏‬plowers of the earth”). Evidently ‫ חורשי‏‬is a qal ptc., thus reading a šîn(?) (via √‫ )?חרׁש‏‬rather than a śîn (‫ ֶח ֶרׂש‏‬MT). Perhaps the 1QIsaa scribe had a lapse when he read ‫ה‬ ‫ אדמ ‏‬and thought the text was about plowing the soil.1158 ‫אמר ח ֶֹמ ‏ר‬ ַ ֹ ‫— ֲהי‬MT and 1QIsab read “does the clay say?” 1QIsaa deviates with its ‫“( הוי האומ ‏ר‬woe to him who says”). The scroll’s copyist accidently copied the first two words of v. 10 (‫ )הוי האומר‏‬and wrote them in v. 9b. This error may be categorized as a form of dittography, perhaps caused by the duplication of ‫הוי‏‬, which begins vv. 9 and 10, or the duplication of √‫ אמר‏‬in the same verses. Another possibility: 1QIsaa harmonized ‫ הוי האומ ‏ר‬with ‫הוי ר ‏ב‬, found at the be‑ ginning of the verse.1159 ‫— ֵאי‏ן‬1QIsaa has a plus of ‫ם‬ ‫אד ‏‬, thus reading ‫ם‬ ‫אין אדם ידי ‏‬. The collocation of ‫ ׇא ׇדם‏‬and ‫ יׇ ד‏‬in the Bible is common but generally set forth as ‫ם‬ ‫ ידי אד ‏‬and never as ‫ם‬ ‫אדם ידי ‏‬. The scribe may have added ‫ם‬ ‫ אד ‏‬under the influence of ‫ה‬ ‫אדמ ‏‬, locat‑ ed eight words earlier, possibly a vertical dittography (see 1QIsaa col. XXXVIII, lines 15–16). 45:10 ‫ א ֵֹמ ‏ר‬MT | ‫ האומר‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ה]אומר‏‬ ֯ )(vid) | ὁ λέγων LXX • ‫ ְּת ִח ִילין‏‬MT | ‫[ת]חולין‏‬ 1QIsaa ‫—א ֵֹמ ‏ר‬For this woe oracle, MT reads ‫( ֹהוי א ֵֹמ ‏ר‬cf. Hab 2:19, ‫)ֹהוי א ֵֹמ ‏ר‬. Two Qumran scrolls—1QIsaa and 1QIsab—read similarly as MT but with the article attached to the ptc., thus ‫הוי האומר‏‬. LXX attests ὁ λέγων; perhaps a translator’s eye skipped one of the hês.1160

1157  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70. 1158  For this approach, see Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:338–39; see also Kutscher’s observations, Language and Linguistic Background, 238. 1159  As suggested by Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 65. 1160  See the opinion of Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 58.

322

Chapter 2

‫— ְּת ִח ִילי‏ן‬The difference between MT’s ‫“( ְּת ִח ִילין‏‬to be in labour,” HALOT, 310, via √‫ )חיל‏‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫ [ת]חולין‏‬may be no more than orthographic because of the interchangeability of the yôd and wāw for some hollow verbs.

45:11 ‫ וְ י ְֹצֹר ‏ו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יוצ ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ת‬ ‫ ׇהא ִֹתֹּיו ‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫ האותו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ י ְֹצֹרו‏‬MT opens the verse with ‫ה־א ַמר יְ הוׇ ה ְקֹדוׁש יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵאל וְ י ְֹצֹר ‏ו‬ ‫ ּֽכֹ ׇ‬, with an atnaḥ located at the end of the clause. In contrast, 1QIsaa presents ‫ =( קדוש ישראל‏‬MT) superscriptus by a second or third book hand1161 and then reads ‫יוצר האותות‏‬ (“the creator/maker of signs,” cf. HALOT, 428–29). The scroll, therefore, links ‫ יוצר‏‬with ‫ת‬ ‫האותו ‏‬, versus MT, which has a pause after ‫וְ י ְֹצֹר ‏ו‬. Van der Kooij1162 as‑ sociates ‫ יוצר האותות‏‬with 8:18 (regarding Isaiah and his children, who are “for signs and wonders,” ‫ם‬ ‫ֹמופ ִתי ‏‬ ְ ‫ּול‬ ְ ‫ ) ְלאֹֹתות‬and 1QH 7:21 (regarding “men of signs,” ‫)אנשי מופ ‏‬. Pulikottil1163 maintains that “maker of signs” relates to the Lord ‫ת‬ who bestows or uses signs as he conducts his divine work (7:11, 14; 20:3; 38:7; 55:13; 66:19). One may also venture to link 1QIsaa’s reading with 44:25 (‫מפר‏‬ ‫)אותות בדים‬, located a few verses away. Another possibility that is largely ig‑ nored pertains to the concept that ‫ האותות‏‬marks a simple error, where the scribe left out the yôd; then he or a subsequent scribe changed ‫ ויצרו‏‬to ‫יוצר‏‬, etc. ‫— ׇהא ִֹתֹּיות‏‬For this reading MT = 1QIsab, but 1QIsaa deviates with ‫האותות‏‬. For ‫האותות‏‬, see the comments immediately above. For √‫אתה‏‬, see also the com‑ ments at 41:5. 45:13 ‫ ְבׁש ַֹחד‏‬MT | ‫ בשוחו ‏ד‬1QIsaa ‫— ְבׁש ַֹחד‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ בשוחו ‏ד‬is irregular. Qimron explains, “In [Qumran] mor‑ phology … we can see the imprint of the weakening of the gutturals…. If the second consonant is guttural, the spelling ‫( קטול‏‬pronounced qotol) can also be found.”1164 For additional examples of double wāw mater nouns, see 16:5. 45:14

‫ּוס ׇב ִאי ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ְ MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ סבאי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִמ ׇּד ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ מדו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵא ַליִ ‏ְך‬1–2 MT | ‫ואליכ‏י‬1–2 1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְׁש ַּת ֲחּו ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ישתחוו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּב ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ בכ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ׇּדה‏‬The deviation pertains to ‫ה‬ ‫( ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמ ׇּד ‏‬MT) versus ‫ת‬ ‫( אנשי מדו ‏‬1QIsaa), for which compare the following three groupings in the HB: ‫( ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמ ׇּדה‏‬45:14); 1161  Martin, Scribal Character, 2:555, writes that this superscription was written by Scribe C. 1162  Van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, 89; Goldingay and Payne, too, see a con‑ nection between 8:18 and 1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫ ;האותו ‏‬see Isaiah 40–55, 39. 1163  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 157. 1164  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 25–26.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

323

‫( ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמֹּדו ‏‬Num 13:32; 1QIsaa 45:14); and ‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ ‫( ִאיׁש ִמ ׇּד ‏‬1 Chr 11:23; 20:6). All three expressions are translated “man/men of stature” (“postpositional: of un‑ usual measure, stature, large, tall,” HALOT, 548). 1QIsaa’s reading may signify a “doubly-marked plural of attributive constructs,”1165 which is a regular fea‑ ture in DSS and Mishnaic Hebrew (see also 3:9 and 59:5). Or, it is possible that 1QIsaa’s scribe borrowed ‫ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ִמֹּדות‏‬from Num 13:32. Also possible (but remote‑ ly), a copyist acquired ‫ת‬ ‫ ‑ו ‏‬from ‫צבאות‏‬, located immediately above ‫ מדות‏‬on the leather (see col. XXXVIII, lines 20–21). 45:16 ‫ ׇה ְלכּו‏‬MT | ‫ וילכו‏‬1QIsaa LXX (αὶ πορεύσονται) • ‫ ׇח ׇר ֵׁשי‏‬MT | ‫ חורשי‏‬1QIsaa | ἐγκαινίζεσθε (via √‫ ‏)חדׁשו‏‬LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ִצ ִירי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ צורי ‏‬1QIsaa νῆσοι (via √‫ ‏)איים‏‬LXX ‫— ׇח ׇר ֵׁש ‏י‬MT’s ‫ׁש‬ ‫“( ׇח ׇר ‏‬craftsman,” HALOT, 358) is a relatively common word, and the scribe of 1QIsaa most likely knew its meaning. But ‫ם‬ ‫“( ִצ ִירי ‏‬idols,” HALOT, 1024) is rare, found only here and in Ps 49:15 (‫ ;צירם‏‬but in this Psalm’s passage the qere is ‫“ = צּור‏‬rock”). Given the rarity of ‫צירים‏‬, 1QIsaa’s scribe probably did not know its meaning and therefore changed it to read ‫ם‬ ‫צּור‏( צורי ‏‬, “rock … boul‑ der,” etc., HALOT, 1016),1166 and then he changed ‫ ׇח ׇר ֵׁש‏י‬to ‫( חורש‏י‬i.e., a pl. noun in const. to a qal ptc., also in const.). It seems that LXX’s translator also strug‑ gled with ‫ם‬ ‫ ; ׇח ׇר ֵׁשי ִצ ִירי ‏‬for MT’s ‫ ׇח ׇר ֵׁש‏י‬, LXX apparently read ‫( חדׁש‏ו‬ἐγκαινίζεσθε), and for MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ ִצ ִירי ‏‬, LXX seemingly read ‫ם‬ ‫( איי ‏‬νῆσοι). ‫— ִצ ִירי ‏‬See the entry immediately above. ‫ם‬ 45:18 ‫ֹּבור ‏‬ ‫א‬ ֵ MT | ‫ בורה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ י ֵֹצר‏‬MT | ‫ ויוצר‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ע ׇֹׂשּה‏‬MT | ‫ ועשיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ הּוא‏‬MT | ‫ והואה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ תֹה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ לתה ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX (εἰς κενὸν) ‫—תֹה ‏ּו‬Either readings—MT (‫ )תֹהּו‏‬or 1QIsaa (‫—)לתהו‏‬serve the passage well. For other deviations of the word ‫ תה ‏ו‬in MT versus 1QIsaa, see the commentary on 29:21. For the preposition belonging to 1QIsaa and LXX, see the comments at 29:9. 45:20 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT LXX | ‫ ואתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬1QIsaa’s reading of the impv. ‫( ואתי‏ו‬via √‫אתה‏‬, “to come,” HALOT, 102) was likely influenced by the two previous words: ‫ ;ובואו התנגש‏ו‬both of these words are verbal imperatives, and both possess meanings that are similar to √‫אתה‏‬. But compare Muilenburg, who writes that 1QIsaa “improves the paral‑ lelism by reading the impv. verb ‘come’ (a synonym of the word in the previous 1165  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 406–07. 1166  As proposed by Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 239, 277.

324

Chapter 2

line).”1167 For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particle ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and 1QIsaa’s reading of ‫ואתי ‏ו‬, see also the comments at 27:4. 45:21 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַאיִ ‏ן‬MT LXX | ‫ואי‏ן‬2 1QIsaa ‫—יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. 45:22 ‫ וְ ִהּוׇ ְׁשעּו‏‬MT | ‫ והושיע ‏ו‬1QIsaa 45:23 ‫ ֶּב ֶרְך‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫בי ֹר ‏ך‬/‫ בֹורך‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּת ׇּׁש ַב ‏ע‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ ותשב ‏ע‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶּב ֶרְך‏‬1QIsaa may read either ‫ בֹורך‏‬or ‫( בי ֹרך‏‬see UF 2:168). If the reading is ‫בֹורך‏‬, then 1QIsaa follows the quṭl pattern, versus MT’s ‫ ֶּב ֶרְך‏‬. For a brief discus‑ sion together with bibliographic sources, see 3:24. 45:24 ‫ ִלי ׇא ַמר‏‬MT | ‫ ליא יאמר‏‬1QIsaa | λέγων LXX • ‫ יׇֹבוא וְ יֵבׁשּו‏‬MT | ‫ יבואו יבושו‏‬1QIsaa MTmss | ἥ ξουσιν, καὶ αἰσχυνθήσονται LXX ‫— ׇא ַמר‏‬In this verse, both ‫( ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬MT) and ‫( יאמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa) seem to present the impersonal “one will say.” The variation may be a misplaced yôd, i.e., haplogra‑ phy ‫ ‏לי אמר‬or dittography ‫‏לי יאמר‬. For MT’s ‫ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬, Condamin proposes reading either ‫אמ ‏ר‬ ַ ֹ ‫ י‬or, with Dillmann, ‫יֵ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬.1168 For ‫לי אמ ‏ר‬, Blank emends the text to read ‫ לאמר‏‬but with the instruction “place at beginning of verse.”1169 ‫—יׇֹבוא וְ יֵבׁש ‏ּו‬The difference between MT and 1QIsaa may be a misplaced wāw: ‫‏יבוא ויבושו‬or ‫‏יבואו יבושו‬in either MT or the scroll.1170 Watts favors MT: “When anyone comes to him, all those aroused against him will be shamed.”1171 Baltzer writes, “Following numerous manuscripts (1QIsaa, LXX, S, Vg), one should read the plur. ‫ יׇֹבואּו‏‬here instead of the sing. ‫יׇֹבוא‏‬.”1172 NAB (415) prefers the reading of 1QIsaa MTmss. Köhler writes, “‫ יבוא‏‬24 ist Dittographie des Anfangs von ‫יבושו‏‬.”1173

1167  Muilenburg, “Book of Isaiah,” 532. 1168  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 278. 1169  Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66, n.p. 1170  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 273, prefers the scroll’s reading: “The waw was omitted as a result of haplography.” 1171  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 160. 1172  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 248; so, too, other critics, including Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 278. 1173  Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 29.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



325

Isaiah 46

46:1 ‫ ק ֵֹר ‏‬MT | ‫ס‬ ‫ס‬ ‫ קר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ַל ְּב ֵה ׇמ ‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ה‬ ‫ לבהמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַמ ׇּׂשא ַל ֲעיֵ ׇפ ‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫ )משא [לעיפה]‏‬LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ משמועיהמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—ק ֵֹר ‏‬MT’s ‫ס‬ ‫ס‬ ‫ ק ֵֹר ‏‬is vocalized as a qal ptc.; 1QIsaa’s ‫ס‬ ‫ קר ‏‬is a qal pf. The scroll’s verb is harmonized with the first verb (also a perfect) in the four-word parallel‑ ism, thus reading ‫כרע בל קרס נב ‏ו‬.1174 ‫— ַמ ׇּׂשא ַל ֲעיֵ ׇפ ‏‬MT’s reading is supported by 4QIsab and LXX. 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ ִמ ְׁש ׇמע‏( משמועיהמה‏‬, “rumour,” HALOT, 649) makes no sense in the context. The best guess to explain 1QIsaa’s reading is that the Vorlage was unreadable at this point on the leather, and the scribe did his best to make sense of the writing. But there are other possibilities. Maybe the scribe simply erred, writing the somewhat graphically similar ‫ משמועיהמה‏‬in place of ‫משא לעיפה‏‬. Another theo‑ ry: Rubenstein examines 1QIsaa’s ‫ משמועיהמה‏‬and theorizes that it is somehow connected to ‫ם‬ ‫ ְל ַמ ְׁש ִמ ִיעי ‏‬in 1 Chr 16:42.1175 With regard to ‫ עי ‏ף‬versus ‫יע ‏ף‬, perhaps the scribe did not readily recognize the adjective ‫( עיף‏‬an improbable sugges‑ tion but something to consider)—both times in Isaiah where MT attests the adjective ‫עיף‏‬, 1QIsaa has ‫( יע ‏ף‬see 5:27; 28:12). But this may simply indicate that the scribe preferred ‫ יעף‏‬rather than ‫עי ‏ף‬. 46:2 ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ ְכל‏ו‬MT | ‫ יוכל‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇה ׇל ׇכ ‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫הל]כה‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ הלכ ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫—יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. ‫— ׇה ׇל ׇכה‏‬The subject of the sg. ‫( ׇה ׇל ׇכה‏‬MT and 4QIsab) is ‫נֶ ֶפׁש‏‬. A scribe of 1QIsaa wrote the pl. ‫הלכ ‏ו‬, most likely impacted by other plurals in the verse, ‫קרס ‏ו‬, ‫כרע ‏ו‬, and ‫יוכלו‏‬. 46:3

‫ ִׁש ְמע ‏ּו‬MT LXX | ‫ שמע‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַה ֲע ֻמ ִסים ִמּנִ ‏י‬MT | ‫ עומסים ממני‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַהּנְ ֻׂש ִאי ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ם | )הנשא[ים‏‬ ‫ ונושאי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמּנִ י‏‬The rare particle ‫“( מנ‏י‬from”) is attested only in Hebrew poetry (30:11 bis; 46:3 bis; 65:11; Mic 7:12; Ps 45:9; and Job 33:30). Of MT’s two instances of ‫מנ‏י‬ in 46:3, 1QIsaa attests ‫ ממנ‏י‬and then ‫ ;מנ‏י‬for this second attestation the scribe

1174  As pointed out by Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 276. 1175  Rubinstein, “Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings,” 196.

326

Chapter 2

first wrote ‫ממני‏‬, then he (or a subsequent scribe) erased the first mêm, thus reading ‫מני‏‬. Compare also the variants in 30:11. 46:4

‫ וְ ַע ‏ד‬MT | ‫ ע ‏ד‬1QIsaa • ‫וַ ֲאנִ ‏י‬2 MT | ‫ ואנוכ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ט‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמ ֵּל ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואמלט ‏‬1QIsaa ‫וַ ֲאנִ י‏‬2—see v. 9.

46:5 ‫ וְ ַת ְׁשוּו‏‬MT | ‫ ותשוי‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab | ἴδετε LXX • ‫ וְ נִ ְד ֶמה‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ואדמה‏‬1QIsaa | οἱ πλανώμενο LXX ‫ ַת ְׁשוּו‏(—וְ ַת ְׁשו ‏ּו‬, “to treat as being the same as, meaning to make like, compare with,” HALOT, 1437, via √‫)ׁשוה‏‬. Both Qumran scrolls—1QIsaa and 1QIsab—err with ‫ותשוי‏‬. There are four words in close proximity to ‫ ותשו ‏י‬that end in yôd, i.e., ‫‏למי תדמיוני ותשוי ותמׁשלוני‬. It is possible that a scribe (for either Qumran scroll) was impacted by the three words that end with yôd and inadvertently added a yôd to ‫ותשו‏י‬. For MT’s ‫ותׁשו‏ו‬, LXX has ἴδετε (“to see”) or ‫( ותׁשע‏ו‬via √‫ׁשעה‏‬, “to gaze”), apparently a phonological error. ‫—וְ נִ ְד ֶמ ‏‬Rosenbloom writes that 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫“ ואדמ ‏‬is excellent in place of the extremely difficult MT reading”1176 of ‫וְ נִ ְד ֶמה‏‬. But Paul’s translation demon‑ strates that MT’s reading is not only possible but signifies a comprehensible reading: “To whom can you liken Me or declare Me similar? To whom can you liken Me so that we are comparable?”1177 LXX’s οἱ πλανώμενο may reflect a read‑ ing of ‫ה‬ ‫( ונרמ ‏‬via √‫רמה‏‬, “to deceive”), reading a rêš in place of the dālet. 46:6

‫ ִמ ִּכי ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ בכיס‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְׂש ְּכרּו‏‬MT | ‫ ישכורו‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ וישכרו‏‬1QIsab LXX(vid) • ‫ס‬ ‫ וְ יַ ֲע ֵׂשהּו‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫וי]עשהו‏‬ ̇ ) | ‫ ויעשה‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ יִ ְסּגְ דּו‏‬MT | ‫ ויסגודו‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ויסגד[ו‏‬ ̇ ) LXX(vid) • ‫ יִ ְׁש ַּת ֲחּו ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ישתח ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ִּכי ‏‬The prepositions of MT (‫ ) ִמ ִּכיס‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )בכיס‏‬signal minor devia‑ ‫ס‬

tions. 1QIsaa’s preposition bêt is a harmonization with the parallelistic counter‑ part ‫ה‬ ‫בקנ ‏‬, located two words away. ‫—וְ יַ ֲע ֵׂשהּו‏‬Both MT and 1QIsab attached the pronominal suffix to the verb (‫)ויעשהו‏‬, thus reading the expression, “and he makes it a god.” 1QIsaa lacks the suffix (‫)ויעשה‏‬, reading “and he makes a god.” McKenzie prefers the reading of 1QIsaa,1178 but Oswalt follows MT and 1QIsab.1179 As for the LXX’s reading of 1176  Rosenbloom, Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll, 56. 1177  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 89. 1178  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 85. 1179  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 227.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

327

ἐποίησαν (‫)ויעשו‏‬, Van der Vorm-Croughs writes that the translator has harmo‑ nized the reading so that the subject is a pl. like those in the immediate area.1180 46:7 ‫ יִ ׇּׂש ֻאהּו‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ וישאוהי‏ | )ישא]הו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְס ְּב ֻלהּו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יסבלוהי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ יַ ּנִ ֻיחהּו‏‬MT | ‫ ויניחוהי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִיׇמיׁש‏‬MT | ‫ ימוש‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְצ ַעק‏‬MT | ‫ יזעק‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֵא ׇליו‏‬ MT 1QIsab | ‫ עליו‏‬1QIsaa ‫יחה‏ּו ;יִ ְס ְּב ֻלה‏ּו ;יִ ׇּׂש ֻאה ‏ּו‬ ֻ ִ‫—וְ יַ ּנ‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa (‫)ויניחוה‏י ;יסבלוה‏י ;וישאוהי‏‬, see the commentary in 2:2. ‫— ִיׇמי ‏‬The deviations between MT’s ‫ׁש‬ ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ִיׇמי ‏‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫ש‬ ‫ ימו ‏‬is a hipʿil ver‑ sus a qal form. The resemblance between the wāw and yôd may explain the deviations. ‫—יִ ְצ ַעק‏‬A single K manuscript (HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫ק‬ ‫ = יזע ‏‬1QIsaa. For a discus‑ sion of the variants √‫( צעק‏‬MT) and √‫( זעק‏‬1QIsaa), see the comments at 33:7. 46:8 ‫ זִ ְכרּו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ זכור ‏ו‬1QIsaa 46:9 ‫ זִ ְכרּו‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫זכר[ו‏‬ ̇ ) | ‫ זכור ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇאנ ִֹכ‏י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אנ‏י‬1QIsaa 4QIsac ‫— ׇאנ ִֹכי‏‬1QIsaa features the independent pronoun ‫ אני‏‬on seventy-seven occa‑ sions and ‫ אנוכ‏י‬twenty-eight times; contrast this with MT Isaiah, which has seventy-nine occurences of ‫ אנ‏י‬and twenty-six attestations of ‫אנוכי‏‬. Variants occur at 29:14 (‫ ִהנְ נִ י‏‬MT | ‫ הנה אנוכי‏‬1QIsaa); 46:4 (‫וַ ֲאנִ י‏‬2 MT | ‫ ואנוכי‏‬1QIsaa); 46:9 (‫ ׇאנ ִֹכי‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אני‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsac); and 56:3 (‫ ֲאנִ י‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אנוכי‏‬1QIsaa). Of the two pronouns, scholars submit that ‫ אנכי‏‬is the older form.1181 Kutscher points out that “the early and poetical sections of BH prefer ‫ ׇאנ ִֹכ ‏י‬, while in later BH ‫ ֲאנִ ‏י‬has displaced ‫ ׇאנ ִֹכ‏י‬almost entirely.” Furthermore, as Kutscher explains, the Chronicler’s parallels of 2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings substitutes ‫ ֲאנִ ‏י‬for ‫ ; ׇאנ ִֹכ ‏י‬and lastly, “not a trace of [‫ ] ׇאנ ִֹכי‏‬survived in MH.”1182 Here in 46:9 MT and 1QIsab employ ‫אנכי‏‬, and 1QIsaa and 4QIsac attest ‫אני‏‬. The Qumran nonbiblical texts regularly use ‫אנ‏י‬.1183

1180  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 505. 1181  For a brief study, see Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 126–27; Segal, Mišnaic Hebrew, 9. 1182  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 30. 1183  See also the examination of ‫ אני‏‬in Qumran nonbiblical texts in Abegg, “Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 330.

328

Chapter 2

46:10 ‫ ַא ֲח ִרי ‏‬MT | ‫ אחרות‏‬1QIsaa | ‫אחרית‏‬/‫ ?אחרות‏‬1QIsab | ‫אח]רונות‏‬ ‫ת‬ ֯ 4QIsac | τὰ ἔσχατα LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ֶא ֱע ֶׂש ‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsac LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ יעש ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַא ֲח ִרי ‏‬The noun ‫( אחרית‏‬MT 1QIsab) is regularly collocated with the noun ‫ת‬ ‫( ראׁשי ‏‬see Num 24:20; Deut 11:12; Job 8:7; 42:12; Eccl 7:8). The scribe of 1QIsaa ‫ת‬ erred when he wrote ‫ת‬ ‫אחרו ‏‬, possibly a yôd/wāw confusion. 1QIsab’s ‫אחרית‏‬ probably has a yôd, but it may be a wāw. See also the discussion of ‫ אחרונות‏‬in 41:22 and ‫ אחרונה‏‬in 47:7. ‫— ֶא ֱע ֶׂש ‏‬MT, together with the majority of witnesses, reads, “for I am God … ‫ה‬ my counsel will stand, and I will do (‫ ) ֶא ֱע ֶׂשה‏‬that which I desire” (vv. 9b–10). The variant of 1QIsaa has possible theological implications because it refers to a servant of God who will do his (God’s desire): “for I am God … my counsel will stand, and he will do (‫ )יעשה‏‬that which I desire.” Van der Kooij holds that this servant is Cyrus.1184 Watts writes that the reading of 1QIsaa is “no improvement on MT.”1185 Most likely, 1QIsaa erred with a dittography, ‫ה‬ ‫חפצי יעש ‏‬. 46:11

‫ ק ֵֹר ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ )קרא‏‬4QIsac (‫ה | )קורא‏‬ ‫א‬ ‫ קור ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲע ׇצֹת‏ו‬MTket 1QIsaa 4QIsad | ‫ עצת‏י‬MTqere 1QIsab LXX (βεβούλευμαι) • ‫ יׇ ַצ ְר ִּתי‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsac LXX(vid) | ‫יצרתיה‏‬

1QIsaa ‫— ֲע ׇצֹת ‏ו‬The deviation pertains to ‫( ֲע ׇצֹתו‏‬MTket 1QIsaa 4QIsad) and ‫עצתי‏‬ (MTqere 1QIsab); MTmss attest both forms (see HUB–Isaiah): ‫( עצת ‏ו‬30) and ‫עצת ‏י‬ (MTA; Codex Karlsruhe; 93 96 150; KG). Watts1186 holds that ‫עצתי‏‬, which cor‑ responds to the same expression in v. 10, better serves the sense of the passage; but Oswalt follows MTket (1QIsaa and 4QIsad), explaining, “The reference is to the subject of the participle, ‘he who calls … a man of his counsel.’”1187 ‫—יׇ ַצ ְר ִּתי‏‬With the addition of the third f. sg. suffix (i.e., ‫)יצרתיה‏‬, the scribe of 1QIsaa harmonizes the text: ‫ה‬ ‫אביאנה יצרתיה … אעשנ ‏‬. 46:13 ‫ ֵק ַר ְב ִּתי‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ ) ֯קרבת[י‏‬LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ קרוב ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫רבת‏י‬ ̇ ‫הק‬ ̇ 4QIsac • ‫א‬ ‫ל ֹ ‏‬1 MT 1QIsab | ‫ולו ‏‬1 1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫לֹא‏‬2 MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ולוא‏‬2 1QIsaa • ‫ וְ נׇ ַת ִּתי‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsac | ‫א‬ ‫ נתתי‏‬1QIsaa LXX (δέδωκα) σ′ Vulg • ‫ ְליִ ְׂש ׇר ֵא ‏ל‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsad (‫ )ל[ישראל‏‬LXX Tg | ‫ ולישרא ‏ל‬1QIsaa 4QIsac (‫ֹולישרא[ל‏‬ ̇ ) σ′ Syr Vulg 1184  Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, 91–92. 1185  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 165. 1186  Ibid., 165; Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 280, writes, “Lire avec qrê ‫עצת‏י‬.” Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 31, prefers reading MTqere. 1187  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 233.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

329

‫— ֵק ַר ְב ִּת‏י‬McKenzie prefers 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫קרוב‏‬, reading, “My deliverance is near” (reading ‫ צדק‏‬as “deliverance”), stating “the emendation gives a closer parallelism.”1188 Cf. also 56:1, which reads ‫כי קרובה ישועתי‏‬. Oswalt follows MT 1QIsab in his translation, “I have brought near my righteousness.”1189 Van der Kooij, too, prefers MT, holding that 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ קרוב ‏‬was borrowed from 56:1. Generally when ‫ק‬ ‫ √רח ‏‬and ‫ √קר ‏ב‬are paired together in poetic verse, both roots constitute verbs, rather than the adjective/verb (‫קרובה‏‬/‫ )תרחק‏‬combination found in 1QIsaa. Such a pairing of verbs in the present verse is precisely fol‑ lowed by MT 1QIsab. 4QIsac’s ‫רבתי‏‬ ̇ ‫הק‬ ̇ is the more common hipʿil form, versus the rarer piʿel.1190



Isaiah 47

47:1 ‫ ׇל ׇא ֶרץ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ על הארץ‏‬1QIsaa | εἰς τὸ σκότος LXX • ‫ יִ ְק ְרא‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫וקראו‏‬ 1QIsaa ‫— ׇל ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬The impv. ‫ ְׁש ִבי‏‬followed by the preposition lāmed (i.e., ‫י־ל ׇא ֶרץ‏‬ ‫ ְׁש ִב ׇ‬, “sit to the earth”), attested in MT and 1QIsab, is unusual; Watts calls it an anomaly.1191 One would expect to read ‫“( שבי על הארץ‏‬sit on the earth”), as per the reading of 1QIsaa. Additionally, “sit on the earth” corresponds nicely with “sit on the dust” (‫ ושבי על עפר‏‬MT, 1QIsaa, and 1QIsab), an expression found in line 1 of the synonymous parallelism. But the lāmed of ‫י־ל ׇא ֶרץ‏‬ ‫ ְׁש ִב ׇ‬may have a spatial sense: “The basic senses of l are spatial. The preposition may mark location in or at a point…. With verbs of motion l marks the object of the motion toward … and of motion to.”1192 Waltke and O’Connor cite 1 Kgs 2:19; Gen 4:7; and Isa 53:6 as examples. After reviewing the various arguments, it is apparent that both the lāmed and ‫ ע ‏ל‬are acceptable readings. For a discussion of variants dealing with ‫אר ‏ץ‬, see 1:2.

1188  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 86. 1189  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 233. Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 145. 1190  As pointed out by van der Kooij, ibid. 1191  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 169; Oswalt points out that this usage (impv. “sit” followed by preposi‑ tion lamed) “does not appear so in any other prophetic book,” Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40– 66, 239. 1192  Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 205.

330

Chapter 2

47:2 ‫ ֶח ְׂש ִּפ‏י‬MT | ‫ חשופי‏‬1QIsaa | ‫]חשבי‏‬ ̇ 4QIsad | ἀνακάλυψαι LXX • ‫ ׁש ֶֹבל‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsad | ‫ שוליך‏‬1QIsaa | τὰς πολιάς (via √‫הׂש ׇיבה‏‬ ֵ ?) LXX • ‫ ִע ְב ִר‏י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫עבור‏י‬ 1QIsaa ‫“( חשף‏√— ֶח ְׂש ִּפ‏י‬to bare,” HALOT, 359) in MT and 1QIsaa is intelligible in the context (paralleling √‫)גלה‏‬, versus 4QIsad’s √‫“( חשב‏‬to think, account”), which is incomprehensible in the present passage. An 4QIsad scribal error likely oc‑ curred owing to the graphic similarity of pê versus bêt. ‫—ׁש ֶֹב ‏ל‬The meaning of MT’s hapax legomenon ‫ ׁש ֶֹבל‏‬is uncertain (see the dis‑ cussion in HALOT, 1393–4). In the present context, it probably “means the train of a dress, the hem of a skirt” (HALOT, 1393). 1QIsaa attests ‫שולי ‏ך‬, a word that is more common in BH (eleven occurrences, cf. also Jer 13:26, where ‫ שולי ‏ך‬is used in a related context) and rabbinic Hebrew.1193 ‫ׁשּולים‏‬ ִ conveys the meaning of “seams” of a garment or robe or the “pubic region of a woman” (HALOT, 1442). For ‫ ׁש ֶֹב ‏ל‬or ‫שוליך‏‬, lectio difficilior praeferenda,1194 but compare Bonnard, who translates “les pans,” a preference for 1QIsaa.1195 For other examples of facilita‑ tion in 1QIsaa, see also 13:10, etc. The translator of LXX apparently did not know the meaning of ‫ ׁש ֶֹב ‏ל‬and read ‫ה‬ ‫הׂש ׇיב ‏‬ ֵ (“gray hair”) (τὰς πολιάς).1196 47:3 ‫ ִּתּגׇ ל‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ תגל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶא ְפּגַ ‏ע‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab | ‫ אפגי ‏ע‬4QIsad | παραδῶ LXX | ‫ וַ ְא ַׁשנֵ י ִדינִ יך ִמ ְבנֵ ‏י‬Tg | resistet mihi Vulg ‫— ֶא ְפּגַ ‏‬Three Hebrew witnesses attest the qal impf. ‫אפג ‏ע‬, versus 4QIsad’s ‫ע‬ hipʿil ‫אפגיע‏‬. Contrast 53:12, where MT and 1QIsab read ‫יפגיע‬ ‫ַ‏‬ versus 1QIsaa’s ‫יפגע‏‬. 47:5 ‫דּומם‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ דממ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְק ְרא ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ וקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ּגְ ֶב ֶר ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ גבור ‏‬1QIsaa ‫דּומ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫— ׇ‬MT features the adverb ‫ם‬ ‫דּומ ‏‬ ‫“( ׇ‬silently,” HALOT, 217). 1QIsaa has the noun ‫ה‬ ‫“( ְּד ׇמ ׇמ ‏‬calm,” HALOT, 226). Both forms—‫דּומם‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬and ‫ה‬ ‫—דממ ‏‬are equally rare, appearing three times each in MT. Either form fits within the context, and a critical judgment is difficult to make. ‫—ּגְ ֶב ֶר ‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ גבור ‏‬is puzzling. At first glance, ‫ת‬ ‫ גבור ‏‬appears to be the noun ‫בּורה‏‬ ‫“( ּגְ ׇ‬strength,” HALOT, 172) in const. form, i.e., ‫גבורת ממלכות‏‬: “the strength of 1193  Mansoor, “Massoretic Text in the Light of Qumran,” 314, points out that ‫ם‬ ‫ שולי ‏‬exists in Mishnaic Hebrew. 1194  For an overview of the subject of lectio difficilior praeferenda, see Tov, TCHB3, 275–77. 1195  Bonnard, Second Isaïe, 190. 1196  Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 59.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

331

kingdoms.” But ‫ת‬ ‫ גבור ‏‬also appears in v. 7 (where again MT has ‫ת‬ ‫)ּגְ ֶב ֶר ‏‬, and the const. form does not apply in that verse. Kutscher attempts to solve the chal‑ lenge by writing, “It therefore seems as though the scribe took it as the fem. form of ‫ ;גבו ‏ר‬it may perhaps not have been an ad hoc creation of our scribe from ‫גבור‏‬, but rather an actual form which merely by chance has not been used in any of the literature which has come down to us.”1197 Cf. also HALOT, 172. 47:6 ‫ ִח ַּל ְל ִּת‏י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ וחללתי‏‬1QIsaa | ἐμίανας LXX • ‫ ַׂש ְמ ְּת‏‬MT | ‫ שמתי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ִה ְכ ַּב ְד ְּת‏‬ MT 1QIsab | ‫ הכבדתי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א ‏ד‬ ֹ ‫ ְמ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ מואד ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַׂש ְמ ְ ‏‬For ‫ ַׂש ְמ ְּת‏‬and ‫שמת‏י‬, see the comments at 17:10. ‫ּת‬ ‫— ִה ְכ ַּב ְד ְּת‏‬For ‫ ִה ְכ ַּב ְד ְּת‏‬and ‫הכבדת‏י‬, see the comments at 17:10. ‫אד‏‬ ֹ ‫— ְמ‬For the locative termination on the adverbial ‫מואדה‏‬, see the com‑ ments at 16:6. 47:7 ‫ גְ ׇב ֶרת‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ גבור ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַע ‏ד‬MT | ‫ עו ‏ד‬1QIsaa • ‫ּת‬ ‫ ַׂש ְמ ְ ‏‬MT | ‫ שמת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִל ֵּב ‏ְך‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ לבכי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ זׇ ַכ ְר ְּת‏‬MT | ‫ זכרתי‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫ ַא ֲח ִר ׇיתּה‏‬MT | ‫ אחרונה‏‬1QIsaa | τὰ ἔσχατα LXX ‫—גְ ׇב ֶר ‏‬See the comments at v. 5. ‫ת‬ ‫— ַעד‏‬This is likely a case of an interchange between two nominal patterns: qill (‫ ַעד‏‬MT) versus qull (‫ עוד‏‬1QIsaa),1198 with both ‫ ַעד‏‬and ‫ עוד‏‬denoting “for‑ ever” (HALOT, 786). But note that McKenzie1199 prefers reading ‫ עו ‏ד‬as “still”; and Oswalt chooses to translate ‫ ַע ‏ד‬as “so that.”1200 ‫— ַׂש ְמ ְ ‏‬For ‫ ַׂש ְמ ְּת‏‬and ‫שמת‏י‬, see the comments at 17:10. ‫ּת‬ ‫—זׇ ַכ ְר ְּת‏‬For ‫ זׇ ַכ ְר ְּת‏‬and ‫( זכרתי‏‬the reading of 1QIsaa and 1QIsab; a rare instance where 1QIsab exhibits an Aramaism)1201 see the comments at 17:10. ‫— ַא ֲח ִר ׇית ‏‬MT’s form, the noun ‫ ַא ֲח ִרית‏‬, is preferable in the passage versus ‫ּה‬ 1QIsaa’s adjectival ‫אחרונה‏‬. See also the discussion of ‫ אחרונות‏‬in 41:22 and ‫אחרות‏‬ in 46:10.

1197  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 370. 1198  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 321. 1199  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 89. 1200  See also the discussion in Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 243–44. 1201  See also the Aramaic ending in 4QJerc 31:21.

332

Chapter 2

47:8 ‫ ֲע ִדינׇ ‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ עודנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּה‬ ‫ ִּב ְל ׇב ׇב ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ בלב ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ֵא ַד ‏ע‬MT 4QIsad (‫[אד]ע‏‬ ̇ ) LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ ארא ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ֲע ִדינׇ ה‏— ֲע ִדינׇ ‏‬is a hapax legomenon, perhaps unknown to 1QIsaa’s scribe ‫ה‬ who wrote ‫( עודנה‏‬cf. 1 Kgs 1:22) in its place. ‫— ֵא ַד ‏‬The roots ‫ ידע‏‬and ‫ ראה‏‬are paratactically connected in a number ‫ע‬ of passages (e.g., Deut 11:2; 1 Sam 25:17; 2 Sam 24:13; Jer 12:3, Eccl 6:5; cf. also Judg 2:7 MT [‫ ] ׇראּו‏‬versus LXX [ἔγνωσαν]); such examples of parataxis may have subconsciously prompted the scribe of 1QIsaa to substitute √‫ ראה‏‬for √‫ידע‏‬.1202 Or another possibility, the graphically similar dālet and rêš may have prompted the error, e.g., ‫ אדע‏‬became ‫אראה‏‬. MT, followed by all versions, is the primary reading. 47:9 ‫ וְ ׇתבֹאנׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ ותבואינ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫מ‏ן‬ ֹ ‫ וְ ַא ְל‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואלמנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲח ׇב ַריִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ חוברי ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫א ‏ד‬ ֹ ‫ ְמ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ מואד ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇתבֹאנׇ ‏‬The morphological difference between MT (‫ )וְ ׇתבֹאנׇ ה‏‬and 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ (‫ )ותבואינה‏‬is the separating vowel that is located before the afformative in the scroll. See the commentary at 37:26. ‫מ‏ן‬ ֹ ‫—וְ ַא ְל‬MT’s ‫מ‏ן‬ ֹ ‫“( ַא ְל‬widowhood,” HALOT, 58), a hapax legomenon, is prima‑ ry. The copyist of 1QIsaa attests the relatively common ‫“( אלמנה‏‬widow,” HALOT, 58), perhaps borrowing ‫ אלמנה‏‬from the previous verse. ‫שכול ואלמנה‏‬, at best, is an awkward reading. ‫— ֲח ׇב ַריִ ‏ְך‬Here, and again in v. 12, 1QIsaa has ‫ֹחובר‏‬ ֵ (see discussion in HALOT, 287, “to bewitch, to charm”; cf. also Deut 18:11 [11QT 60:18]; Ps 58:6) in place of MT’s ‫“( ֶח ֶב ‏ר‬charm, spell, enchantment,” HALOT, 288). The copyist was likely impacted by ‫חובר‏‬, a term commonly used in rabbinic Hebrew. However, in the synonymous parallelism set forth in v. 9b and again in v. 12a, MT’s ‫ ֶח ֶב ‏ר‬clearly corresponds better with ‫“( ֶּכ ֶׁש ‏ף‬sorcery,” HALOT, 503) than does the scroll’s ‫חוב ‏ר‬. ‫א ‏ד‬ ֹ ‫— ְמ‬For the locative termination on the adverbial ‫ה‬ ‫( מואד ‏‬1QIsaa), see the comments at 16:6. 47:10

‫ ְב ׇר ׇע ֵת ‏ְך‬MT LXX | ‫ בדעת ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫ּת‬ ‫ ׇא ַמ ְר ְ‏‬MT | ‫ אמרת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְב ִל ֵּב ‏ְך‬MT | ‫בלבב ‏ך‬

1QIsaa ‫— ְב ׇר ׇע ֵת ‏ְך‬One of three scribal activities may have caused the error ‫“( בדעתך‏‬in your knowledge”) that marks the reading of 1QIsaa: (a) confusion of the let‑ ters, dālet/rêš; (b) the scribe’s eye may have skipped five words ahead and read 1202  Talmon, “Synonymous Readings,” 341–42, deals with these matters.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

333

‫בדעת ‏ך‬, and consequently the scribe wrote ‫ בדעת ‏ך‬twice in the verse rather than once; or (c) he attempted to harmonize the reading of v. 10a with v. 10b, and twice wrote ‫בדעתך‏‬. This last view is held by Pulikottil.1203 ‫— ׇא ַמ ְר ְ ‏‬For ‫ ׇא ַמ ְר ְּת‏‬and ‫אמרת‏י‬, see the comments at 17:10. ‫ּת‬ ‫— ְב ִל ֵּבך‏‬MTmss 30 and K attest ‫ = בלבב ‏ך‬1QIsaa (HUB–Isaiah).

47:11

‫ ׇּוב ‏‬MT | ‫ ובאה‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ובא]ה‏‬ ‫א‬ ֯ )(vid) • ‫לֹא‏‬1 MT 1QIsab | ‫ולוא‏‬1 1QIsaa • ‫ הֹוׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ הויה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּה‬ ‫ ַּכ ְּפ ׇר ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ לכפר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ל ֹ ‏‬3 MT 1QIsab | ‫א‬ ‫ולו ‏‬2 1QIsaa ‫— ׇּובא‏‬MT has the qal pf. m. sg. ‫א‬ ‫ב ‏‬. Watts writes, “DSSIsa has a fem ‫ה‬ ‫ ובא ‏‬which

conforms with the subj.”1204 1QIsaa is supported by 1QIsab. However, compare Paul’s statement, “when the predicate precedes the subject, there is not nec‑ essarily agreement between the two.”1205 Note that MTmss K read ‫ ובא‏י‬and a single manuscript of K attests ‫ = ובאה‏‬1QIsaa (HUB–Isaiah). ‫—הֹוׇ ‏‬This word, meaning “disaster” (HALOT, 242) is found three times in ‫ה‬ the Bible (47:11 and Ezek 7:26 bis). 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ הוי ‏‬may be an alternative spelling of ‫ ;הוה‏‬or did the scribe intend ‫ה‬ ‫ הוי ‏‬to read “woe,” i.e., ‫ ?ֹהוי‏‬See also the variants ‫ הו ‏י‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ הו ‏‬in 1:24. 47:12

‫ ִע ְמ ִדי־נׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫עמד[י‏‬ ‫א‬ ֯ )|‫א‬ ‫ ועמודינ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַב ֲח ׇב ַריִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ בחוברי ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫ּת‬ ‫יׇ גַ ַע ְ ‏‬ MT | ‫ יגעתי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹרוצי‏‬ ִ ‫אּולי ַּת ֲע‬ ַ ‫ֹהועיל‬ ִ ‫ּתּוכ ִלי‬ ְ ‫אּולי‬ ַ MT 1QIsab (‫או]לי֯ ֯תֹוכלי הועיל א[ולי‏‬ ‫ ועד היו ‏‬1QIsaa ]‫ם | )תערוצי‬ ‫— ַב ֲח ׇב ַריִ ְך‏‬For the deviations ‫ ַב ֲח ׇב ַריִ ‏ְך‬and ‫בחוברי ‏ך‬, see the comments at v. 9. ‫—יׇ גַ ַע ְ ‏‬For ‫ּת‬ ‫ּת‬ ‫ יׇ גַ ַע ְ ‏‬and ‫יגעת‏י‬, see the comments at 17:10. ‫ֹרוצי‏‬ ִ ‫אּולי ַּת ֲע‬ ַ ‫ֹהועיל‬ ִ ‫ּתּוכ ִלי‬ ְ ‫אּולי‬ ַ —For the second bicolon of the verse, MT has ‫ֹרוצ ‏י‬ ִ ‫אּולי ַּת ֲע‬ ַ ‫ֹהועיל‬ ִ ‫ּתּוכ ִלי‬ ְ ‫אּולי‬ ַ ; note that the fragmented 1QIsab offers partial sup‑ port for MT: (‫)או]לי֯ ֯תֹוכלי הועיל א[ולי תערוצי]‏‬. 1QIsaa has the divergent ‫ועד היום‏‬

(“and until today”), which is difficult to explain. 1QIsaa’s reading may have been drawn from a number of texts, for ‫ם‬ ‫ עד היו ‏‬is frequently attested in the Bible; more specifically, either Jer 3:25 (‫ד־הֹּיום‏‬ ַ ‫עּורינּו וְ ַע‬ ֵ ְ‫ ) ִמּנ‬or 1 Sam 12:2 (‫ִמּנְ ֻע ַרי‏‬ ‫ד־הֹּיום ַהּזֶ ה‬ ַ ‫ ) ַע‬may have provided the inspiration for the scroll’s reading, as these verses pair the expression ‫ם‬ ‫ עד־היו ‏‬together with ‫ם‬ ‫נעורי ‏‬, similar to the scroll’s phraseology—‫מנעוריך ועד היום‏‬. One may also consider van der Kooij’s

1203  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 47. 1204  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 170; followed by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 348, and Flint, “Variant Readings and Textual Affiliation,” 45. 1205  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 299.

334

Chapter 2

proposal,1206 that the scribe of 1QIsaa is interpreting the text. Inasmuch as the pericope under discussion pertains to the destruction of Babylon (see specifi‑ cally 47:1–15), it may be that the scribe, who is copying the text in a world after Babylon’s destruction, is employing a common editorial expression. One may also consult Muilenburg’s views on the reading, where he writes, “It is possible that the lines omitted by the Dead Sea Scroll are a satirical gloss.”1207 .

47:13 ‫ נִ ְל ֵאית ְּבר ֹב ֲע ׇצ ׇתיִ ְך יַ ַע ְמדּו‏‬MT | ‫ כרוב עצתך יעמודו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇה ְברּו‏‬MTket | ‫ הברי‏‬MTqere | ‫ חוברי‏‬1QIsaa LXX (οἱ ἀστρολόγοι) • ‫ ׇׁש ַמיִ ם‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ השמים‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ַהחֹזִ ים‏‬MT LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ והחוזי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ בֹאּו ׇע ׇליִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יבוא עליהמ ‏‬1QIsaa | μέλλει ἐπὶ σὲ ἔρχεσθαι LXX • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ֲע ׇצ ׇתיִ ְך‏‬Ibn Ezra recognizes that this form is irregular because ‫ ֵע ׇצה‏‬in the pl. is always ‫( ֵעֹצות‏‬see Deut 32:28; Isa 25:1; Ps 13:3). 1QIsaa’s ‫ עצתך‏‬is the expected form. Several nonbiblical rabbinic texts read ‫( עצת ‏ך‬HUB–Isaiah, apparatus 2); additionally, MTmss attest ‫( עצת ‏ך‬96 [pm]; K) and ‫( עצבני ‏ך‬a single K manuscript) (HUB–Isaiah). ‫— ׇה ְבר ‏ּו‬The reading of MTket, a hapax legomenon, has caused considerable debate because of its form (qal pf. third pl.) and root (‫;)הבר‏‬1208 MTqere (‫)הברי‏‬ eases the dispute somewhat by providing a comprehensible form within the context; as Greenspahn explains, “There is no question that ‫ הברי שמים‏‬means ‘astrologers’; only its derivation has been uncertain.”1209 During the transmis‑ sion of the proto-MT, a copyist may have confused the letters of the root, writ‑ ing √‫ הבר‏‬in place of √‫חבר‏‬. But the same may be said of the variant attested in 1QIsaa (‫)חוברי‏‬, which may also signify a confusion of letters (hê/ḥêt). There is as well another prospect, that the 1QIsaa copyist assimilated a reading from the previous verse (see ‫ בחברי ‏ך‬in v. 12; see also v. 9) in order to avoid the difficult reading in MT. As for the articleless, absolute noun in the const. reading ‫הבר‏י‬ ‫ ׁשמים‬MT (or ‫ חוברי ׁשמים‏‬in 1QIsaa), 1QIsab has the article, a harmonization with the following noun that also features the article (‫)החזים‏‬. MTmss exhibit three variants: ‫( ה(ו)בר‏י‬Codex Petersburg Heb B 3; 30 93 96; KG), ‫( חבר‏ו‬Leningrad II Firk 9), and ‫( הוברו‏‬150; K) (HUB–Isaiah). ‫“—יׇ בֹאּו ׇע ׇליִ ְך‏‬Duhm proposed that the verb be emended from the pl. of MT to the sg. to which the versions may attest. 1QIsa agrees with the emendation.”1210 1206  Van der Kooij, Alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, 93. 1207  Muilenburg, “Book of Isaiah,” 550. 1208   See especially the views of Blau, “Hobere samajim,” 183–84. Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 33, supports MTket. 1209  Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena, 110. 1210  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 252n47.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

335

MT’s suffixed ‫( ‑ך‏‬second f. sg.) follows similar suffixed forms in v. 12 (‫ ַב ֲח ׇב ַריִ ְך‏‬, ‫ ְּכ ׇׁש ַפיִ ְך‏‬, ‫עּוריִ ְך‏‬ ‫ ) ִמּנְ ׇ‬as well as second f. sg. verbal forms (‫ ִע ְמ ִדי‏‬, ‫יׇ גַ ַע ְּת‏‬, ‫ּתּוכ ִלי‏‬ ְ , ‫ֹרוצי‏‬ ִ ‫) ַּת ֲע‬. It is therefore surprising to see 1QIsaa’s third m. pl. suffix ‫ה‬ ‫( ‑המ ‏‬i.e., ‫ה‬ ‫)עליהמ ‏‬. Inasmuch as the change of point of view (change of pronouns) occurs in v. 14 (the very next verse) to third m. pl. forms, the scroll’s scribe erred when he anticipated the next verse. 47:14 ‫ יַ ִּצילּו‏‬MT | ‫ הציל ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַל ְח ׇמ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫מ‬ ‫ לחומ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַל ְח ׇמ ‏‬Does ‫ ַל ְח ׇמם‏‬signify “their food” or “to warm”? If the later, then the ‫ם‬ vocalization of ‫ ַל ְח ׇמם‏‬is unusual, thus encouraging Torrey1211 to propose that the form is a qal inf. const. in the pattern of ‫( ִל ְׁש ַּכ ‏ב‬but contrast ‫ם‬ ‫ ְלחֹ ‏‬, Hag 1:6). Kutscher states that “The emendation identical with the Scr.’s reading has been suggested.”1212 Consequently, Baltzer1213 selects 1QIsaa’s reading of “to warm,” which he holds is a better fit in the context than does “their food.” After review‑ ing the evidence, the verse should read √‫“( חמם‏‬to be warm, to grow warm,” HALOT, 328), with 1QIsaa and MT (but revocalize MT). 47:15 ‫ יׇ גׇ ַע ְ ‏‬MT | ‫ יגעת‏י‬1QIsaa ‫ּת‬ ‫—יׇ גׇ ַע ְּת‏‬For ‫ּת‬ ‫ יׇ גַ ַע ְ ‏‬and ‫יגעת‏י‬, see the comments at 17:10.

Isaiah 48

48:3 ‫ יׇ ְצאּו‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יצא ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וַ ׇּתבֹאנׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ותבואינ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇ ְצא ‏ּו‬MT’s pl. ‫ יׇ ְצא‏ּו‬hearkens to ‫ת‬ ‫ ; ׇה ִראׁש ֹֹנו ‏‬the antecedent of 1QIsaa’s third f. sg. pf. ‫ יצאה‏‬remains obscure; or, perhaps 1QIsaa’s ending is an Aramaic form (see the discussion in 4:1). Compare also 4:1 (MT ‫ וְ ֶה ֱחזִ יק ‏ּו‬versus 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫)והחזיק ‏‬ and 48:15 (MT, 4QIsad ‫יח‬ ‫ וְ ִה ְצ ִל ַ ‏‬versus 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫ ;והצליח ‏‬contrast 4QIsac ‫ח‬ ‫)וא[צלי ‏‬. ‫—וַ ׇּתבֹאנׇ ה‏‬The morphological difference between MT (‫ )וַ ׇּתבֹאנׇ ה‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )ותבואינה‏‬is the separating vowel that is located before the afformative in the scroll. See the commentary at 37:26.

1211  Torrey, Second Isaiah, 372. 1212  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 374; see also, Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 25. 1213  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 275.

336

Chapter 2

48:4 ‫ ִמ ַּד ְע ִּת‏י‬MT | ‫ מאשר ידעת‏י‬1QIsaa LXX (γινώσκω ἐγὼ) • ‫ ׇע ְר ֶּפ ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עורפך ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ַּד ְע ִּת‏י‬In place of MT’s ‫ ִמ ַּד ְע ִּת‏י‬, 1QIsaa initially read ‫ ;מאשר ידעת‏י‬subse‑ quently a scribe wrote cancellation dots above the šîn and rêš of ‫ מאש ‏ר‬as well as the initial yôd of ‫ידעת‏י‬, which resulted in a reading that is similar to MT’s. ‫— ׇע ְר ֶּפ ‏ָך‬A copyist of 1QIsaa wrote a hê at the end of the line, immediately after writing ‫( עורפ ‏ך‬see col. XL, line 9). Tov provides examples of a certain category of “corrective additions” in 1QIsaa, where a hê (or other letters) were added to pronominal suffixes, even after the scribe had written a final kāp or mêm.1214 He presents twenty-five examples in 1QIsaa, e.g., ‫( עליהםה‏‬14:22), ‫( ארצםה‏‬34:7), ‫( אותםה‏‬41:16), and ‫ה‬ ‫( לבותם ‏‬44:18). Occasionally, the scribe added a hê after the final kāp, e.g., ‫ה‬ ‫( ימיך ‏‬38:5) and ‫ה‬ ‫( עורפך ‏‬48:4; note the small space after the final kāp). Tov summarizes by writing that the corrections “provide further support for establishing the assumption of a Qumran scribal practice since they always correct toward the full Qumran spelling and never away from it.”1215 48:5

‫ וׇ ַאּגִ י ‏ד‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואגיד ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּופ ְס ִל ‏י‬MT | ‫ פסל ‏י‬1QIsaa

48:6 ‫ ּונְ ֻצֹרות‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ת‬ ‫ ונוצ[רו ‏‬4QIsab • ‫א‬ ‫ וְ ל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ לו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ יְ ַד ְע ׇּת ‏‬MT | ‫ ידעת ‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫—ּונְ ֻצֹרו ‏‬MT 1QIsaa have a qal ptc.; apparently, 4QIsab has a qal passive ptc. ‫ת‬ ‫—יְ ַד ְע ׇּת ‏‬MT’s m. pl. pronominal suffix (‫ )יְ ַד ְע ׇּתם‏‬hearkens back to ‫ ֲח ׇדֹׁשות‏‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ּונְ ֻצֹרות‏‬, both f. pl. forms. The f. pl. suffix (‫ )ידעתן‏‬of 1QIsaa is grammatically ap‑ propriate, thus Dead Sea Scrolls Bible indicates, “Masculine (incorrectly) MT.”1216 48:7 ‫ וְ ל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ לו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְׁש ַמ ְע ׇּת ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ שמעתי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ ַד ְע ִּתי‏ן‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ידעתי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְׁש ַמ ְע ׇּת ‏‬With ‫( שמעתים‏‬qal pf. first common sg. with third m. pl. pronomi‑ ‫ם‬ nal suffix), the 1QIsaa scribe has inadvertently assimilated the qal pf. first com‑ mon sg. ending of ‫ידעתים‏‬, located four words away. MT maintains the correct reading.

1214  Tov, “Scribal Features of Two Qumran Scrolls,” 254–58. 1215  Tov, “Scribal Features of Two Qumran Scrolls,” 258. 1216  Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 349n1019.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

337

48:8 ‫ּגַ ‏‬1 MT 4QIsab LXX(vid) | ‫מ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ וג ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּת‬ ‫ ׇׁש ַמ ְע ׇ‏‬MT | ‫ שמעת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִפ ְּת ׇח ‏‬MT | ‫ פתחת‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּכי יׇ ַד ְע ִּת‏י‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ כיא ידעתי כי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ק ׇֹר ‏‬MT 4QIsad (‫ )[קר]א‏‬σ′ Syr | ‫ יקראו‏‬1QIsaa LXX (κληθήσῃ) Tg ‫— ׇׁש ַמ ְע ׇ ‏‬The scribe of 1QIsaa (‫ )שמעתי‏‬likely misread his Vorlage, reading a ‫ּת‬ qal pf. second f. sg. verb rather than a second m. sg. verb. For other examples of ‫( ‑תי‏‬pf. second f. sg.) in 1QIsaa, see the comments at 17:10. ‫— ִפ ְּת ׇח ‏‬Watts writes that “MT ‫‘ ִפ ְּת ׇחה‏‬she opened’ breaks the parallelism ‫ה‬ which is preserved by DSSIsa ‫‘ פתחת‏‬you opened,’” and therefore, the reading of 1QIsaa should be accepted;1217 cf. also Driver’s emendation1218 of MT to read ‫פתחת‏‬ = 1QIsaa. Presumably a scribe of the MT tradition wrote the graphically similar hê in place of tāw. ‫— ִּכי יׇ ַד ְע ִּתי‏‬Where MT attests ‫ ִּכי יׇ ַד ְע ִּת ‏י‬, 1QIsaa has ‫א‬ ‫כיא ידעתי כי ‏‬, with the second ‫ כיא‏‬serving as a dittograph of the first; or the second ‫א‬ ‫ כי ‏‬is a “hypercorrection.”1219 At some point in the history of the manuscript, a scribe wrote cancellation dots above the second ‫א‬ ‫כי ‏‬. ‫—ק ׇֹרא‏‬MT’s ‫א‬ ‫( ק ׇֹר ‏‬4QIsad ‫ )[קר]א‏‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫ יקרא‏ו‬put forward impersonal forms. For a brief discussion of the impersonal verbs, together with additional examples, see 1:26. 48:9 ‫ ֶא ֱח ׇט ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ אחטו ‏‬1QIsaa 48:10 ‫ ְּב ַח ְר ִּתי ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ בחנתיכ ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐξειλάμην δέ σε LXX ‫— ְּב ַח ְר ִּתיָך‏‬The difference between the deviations ‫( ְּב ַח ְר ִּתיָך‏‬MT, via √‫בחר‏‬, “to choose,” HALOT, 119) and ‫( בחנתיכה‏‬1QIsaa, via √‫בחן‏‬, “to test,” HALOT, 119) is a single letter, for which, one may attempt to conclude that a copyist from one or the other textual traditions may have misread the nûn or the rêš or vice versa; or, as Ibn Ezra points out, the two forms are synonymous. MTmss KR (HUB–Isaiah) attest ‫ = בחנתיך‏‬1QIsaa. In parallelistic structures, √‫ צרף‏‬is collo‑ cated with √‫ בחן‏‬in the following verses: Jer 9:6; Zech 13:9; Pss 17:3; 26:2; and 66:10. However, √‫ צרף‏‬is paired with √‫ בחר‏‬only in MT 48:10, the verse under discussion. Inasmuch as the reading of 1QIsaa in this verse attests √‫( בחן‏‬hence the usual juxtaposition of √‫ צרף‏‬and √‫)בחן‏‬, it is tempting to conclude that MT has the incorrect reading. According to McKenzie, √‫ בחן‏‬corresponds better 1217  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 175; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 281, follows Watts. 1218  See Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 26. 1219  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 264.

338

Chapter 2

with ‫ ְצ ַר ְפ ִּתי ‏ָך‬than does √‫( בחר‏‬cf. Prov 17:3), and he thus prefers 1QIsaa over MT.1220 And before the discovery of the scrolls, Oort proposed emending MT’s ‫בחרתי ‏ך‬ to read ‫( בחנתיך‏‬which equals 1QIsaa).1221 Note, however, that Watts supports MT because it is “the more difficult reading,”1222 a conclusion which is aligned with my own judgment. For another possible explanation regarding √‫ בחן‏‬ver‑ sus √‫בחר‏‬, see the discussion under 33:7. 48:11 ‫ ֵאיְך יֵ ׇח ‏ל‬MT Tg | ‫ איכה איחל‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsac (‫ )]אי ֹחל‏‬4QIsad (‫ )‏איך ׄאאיחל‬Tgmss Syr Vulg | τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα βεβηλοῦται LXX ‫— ֵאיְך‏‬For a discussion of the variants ‫ ֵאי ‏ְך‬and ‫ה‬ ‫איכ ‏‬, see 1:21. ‫—יֵ ׇחל‏‬At issue is a nipʿal impf. third m. sg. verb ‫“( יֵ ׇחל‏‬to be defiled,” HALOT, 319, via √‫ )ֵחלל‏‬that apparently lacks a subject, “how shall it be profaned?” i.e., what is the referent for the word it? The Septuagint attempts to interpret the expression by adding “my name” to the verse, thus reading “because my name is being profaned.” The inspiration for my name comes from v. 9, where “my name” (‫ ) ְׁש ִמי‏‬is attested. Further, LXX may have been influenced by the refrain of Ezek 20:9, 14, 22, which also combines ‫ שמי‏‬together with √‫חלל‏‬: “for the sake of my name (‫)שמי‏‬, that it should not be profaned (‫ )חלל‏‬in the eyes of the nations.” But note that MTmss also attest ‫( יחיל‏‬K) and ‫יחל‏‬ + ‫( שמי‏‬96) (HUB–Isaiah). Three Qumran scrolls (1QIsaa, 4QIsac, 4QIsad) set forth a nipʿal impf. first common sg. verb, “how shall I be profaned?” This reading, support‑ ed by Vulg Syr and Tgms, is preferred by Barthélemy1223 and the majority of the Barthélemy committee (who proposes that MT’s reading is a correction for theological purposes);1224 see also BHS. Oswalt and other scholars, how‑ ever, conclude that “MT seems more likely to be original.”1225 In my view, the three Qumran witnesses, together with three versions, present the primary reading.

1220  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 94. 1221  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 104. 1222  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 175; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 265, too, supports the reading of MT. 1223  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 3:130. 1224  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:354–55. See also McCarthy, Tiqqune Sopherim, 207–9. 1225  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 265n36. See also van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 149–50.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

339

48:12 ‫ ֵא ַל ‏י‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ אל ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַא ‏ף‬MT 1QIsaa Tg | ‫ם‬ ‫ ג ‏‬4QIsad ‫— ֵא ַלי‏‬MT’s ‫ שמע אלי‏‬is also attested in 46:3, 12; 48:12; 51:1, 7; 55:2, and other biblical passages; 1QIsaa’s ‫שמע אלה‏‬, unique in the Bible, is possible but not likely primary. The similar-appearing ‫ה‬ ‫ אל ‏‬and ‫ אל ‏י‬may account for the reading; or, alternatively, 1QIsaa borrowed ‫ה‬ ‫ אל ‏‬from v. 14, ‫ה‬ ‫מי בהם הגיד את אל ‏‬. ‫— ַא ‏ף‬Against MT and 1QIsaa, 4QIsad sets forth the more common particle ‫ם‬ ‫ג ‏‬. 48:13 ‫ יׇ ְס ׇדה‏‬MT LXX | ‫ יסד ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ וִ ִימינִ ‏י‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ ימינ‏י‬4QIsad LXXmss • ‫א‬ ‫ ק ֵֹר ‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ה‬ ‫ קור ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ַע ְמד‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ויעמוד‏ו‬1QIsaa 4QIsac (‫ )וי[עמודו‏‬4QIsad LXX • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇ ְס ׇדה‏‬In a synonymous parallelism, MT’s sg. ‫ יׇ ִדי יׇ ְס ׇדה‏‬corresponds with the sg. ‫( וִ ִימינִ י ִט ְּפ ׇחה‏‬see also LXX). A scribe of 1QIsaa probably read ‫ ידי‏‬as a pl. (“my hands”) and consequently wrote the pl. ‫יסדו‏‬. ‫—יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. 48:14 ‫ ִה ׇּק ְבצּו‏‬MT | ‫ יקבצ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֻכ ְּל ֶכ ‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ם‬ ‫ כול ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּוׁש ׇמע‏ּו‬ ֲ MT 4QIsad | ‫ וישמע ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִהּגִ יד‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ ויגיד‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲא ֵהֹבו יַ ֲע ֶׂשה ֶח ְפֹצו‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫אוהבי‏‬ ̇ ‫]א‬ ֯ ) | ἀγαπῶν σε ἐποίησα τὸ θέλημά σου LXX • MT ‫ וישה חפצי‬1QIsaa 4QIsac (‫והב[‏‬ 4QIsad | 1QIsaa • ‫ ּוזְ ר ֹֹע ‏ו‬MT | ‫ זרוע ‏ו‬1QIsaa | τοῦ ἆραι σπέρμα LXX ‫ּוׁש ׇמעּו‏‬ ֲ ‫— ִה ׇּק ְבצּו ֻכ ְּל ֶכם‬MT’s ‫ּוׁש ׇמעּו‏‬ ֲ ‫“( ִה ׇּק ְבצּו ֻכ ְּל ֶכם‬gather, all of you, and hear”) makes better sense in the context than does 1QIsaa’s ‫“( יקבצו כולם וישמעו‏‬let all of them gather and hear”). The words of 4QIsad (the leather is greatly damaged here) equal those of MT. 1QIsaa’s impf. verbs ‫ יקבצו … וישמעו‏‬may signify an assimilation of the impf. ‫ ויעמודו‏‬that is located two words earlier (see v. 13). ‫— ִהּגִ יד‏‬MTmss KR (HUB–Isaiah) read ‫ = יגי ‏ד‬1QIsaa (‫)ויגיד‏‬. ‫— ֲא ֵהֹבו‏‬Four Hebrew witnesses present two divergences: MT and 4QIsad read ‫“( אהב‏ו‬the Lord has loved him,” qal pf. with third m. sg. pronominal suf‑ fix) versus the reading of 1QIsaa (‫ ;אוהבי‏‬qal ptc. m. sg. with first common sg. pronominal suffix) and probably 4QIsac (‫והב[‏‬ ̇ ‫]א‬ ֯ ) (“the Lord is loving me).” The difference between the suffixes are yôd and wāw; the textual variant is likely owing to the graphic similarity of these two letters.1226 The reading of MT and 1226  For this concept, see Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:356–57.

340

Chapter 2

4QIsad better fits the context. Compare also the following entry: ‫ יַ ֲע ֶׂשה ֶח ְפֹצ ‏ו‬ver‑ sus ‫וישה חפצ ‏י‬. ‫—יַ ֲע ֶׂשה ֶח ְפֹצו … ּוזְ ר ֹֹעו‏‬MT v. 14b features a parallelism: “he will do his wish (‫ ֶח ְפֹצו‏‬, HALOT, 340) in Babylon, and his arm [on] the Chaldeans.” 1QIsaa has three deviations: a scribe errs with the spelling ‫ה‬ ‫( ויש ‏‬omitting the ʿayin; cf. the loss of the ʿayin [versus MT] in 1QIsaa 5:4 and 28:15); the scroll has the first common sg. suffix (‫ )חפצי‏‬versus MT’s third m. sg. suffix (‫ ;)חפצו‏‬and the scroll lacks the wāw conjunction that is attached to ‫זרוע ‏ו‬. For this last word, note that LXX reads ‫זֶ ַרע‏‬, “seed” (σπέρμα), instead of ‫ֹרוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫( ז‬arm); based on LXX and ‫ זַ ְר ֶעָך‏‬in v. 19, Condamin (following Duhm) prefers ‫ זֶ ַרע‏‬in the present reading,1227 but “arm” (= MT and 1QIsaa) better fits the context. 48:15 ‫אתיו‏‬ ִ ‫ ְק ׇר‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ קראתי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲה ִביא ִֹתיו‏‬MT 4QIsad [‫והביאותיהו‏ | ]הבאתיו‏‬ 1QIsaa 4QIsac (‫יח • )הביאות]י֯ הו‏‬ ‫ וְ ִה ְצ ִל ַ ‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ והצליחה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ וא[צליח‏‬4QIsac LXX • ‫ ַּד ְרֹּכו‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ ̇דרכוה‏י‬1QIsaa ‫אתי ‏ו‬ ִ ‫— ְק ׇר‬1QIsaa (‫ )קראתי‏‬may have dropped the third m. sg. pronominal suf‑ fix (wāw) by means of haplography, e.g., ‫ קראתיו והביאותיה ‏ו‬or ‫‏קראתיהו והביאותיהו‬. Or, another possibility: a scribe of 1QIsaa was impacted by ‫( דברתי‏‬which also lacks the suffix), located two words before ‫ ;קראת ‏י‬thus he wrote ‫‏דברתי אף קראתי‬. ‫—וְ ִה ְצ ִל ַ ‏‬The suffixal ending of 1QIsaa (‫ )והצליחה‏‬may be an Aramaic form ‫יח‬ (see the discussion in 4:1). Perhaps based on the reading of LXX, Oort emends MT to read ‫ח‬ ‫ואצל ‏‬, a term that evidently is similar to the reading of 4QIsac (‫)וא[צליח‏‬.1228 Compare also 4:1 (MT ‫ וְ ֶה ֱחזִ יק ‏ּו‬versus 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫ )והחזיק ‏‬and 48:3 (MT ‫ יׇ ְצאּו‏‬versus 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫)יצא ‏‬. ‫— ַּד ְרֹּכו‏‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa, see the com‑ mentary in 2:2. 48:16

‫ ִק ְרב ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ קרוב ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִׁש ְמע ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ושמע ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ֵמ ֵע ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ בע ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫— ֵמ ֵע ‏‬Two word pairs in this verse in MT feature the preposition min: ‫ׁש‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ֵמרֹא ‏‬ and ‫ ; ֵמ ֵעת‏‬1QIsaa provides a divergence with its second preposition with ‫מרוש‏‬ and ‫בעת‏‬. This deviation may be explained by the fact that the preposition bêt accompanies ‫( עת‏‬in the HB) far more often than does min. In other words, a scribe wrote the ordinary ‫ בעת‏‬instead of the infrequent ‫מעת‏‬. It is also possible,

following the suggestion of Rubinstein that the scribe altered the preposition

1227  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 293. 1228  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 104.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

341

to avoid the idea that God had a beginning (i.e., “from the time that it was I am there”).1229 48:17 ‫יכ ‏ָך‬ ֲ ‫ ַמ ְד ִר‬MT 4QIsad Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ה‬ ‫ הדריכ ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ מדרכי ‏ך‬1QIsab | τοῦ εὑρεῖν σε LXX • ‫ ֵּת ֵלְך‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsac (‫ )]תלך‏‬4QIsad (‫תל[ך‏‬ ̇ )|‫ה‬ ‫ אשר תלך ב ‏‬1QIsaa LXX As an important side note, Tov presents two tables that pertain to 1QIsab: Table 1 lists differences between 1QIsab and Codex Leningrad B19A + in 48:17– 49:15, and Table 2 sets forth categories of differences between 1QIsab and Codex Leningrad B19A + in the same Isaianic passage.1230 ‫— ַמ ְד ִר ֲיכָך‏‬In the bicolon of v. 17b, the participial form of MT (‫ ) ַמ ְד ִר ֲיכָך‏‬bal‑ ances well with the ptc. ‫ ְמ ַל ֶּמ ְדָך‏‬. 1QIsaa’s pf. form ‫ הדריכה‏‬lacks a proper harmo‑ nization. 1QIsab’s ‫ מדרכי ‏ך‬is likely an error, a case of a misplaced yôd. ‫— ֵּת ֵל ‏ְך‬MT’s ‫ ְּב ֶד ֶרְך ֵּת ֵלְך‏‬is expanded to ‫ בדרך אשר תלך בה‏‬in 1QIsaa. This ex‑ pansion, as Mansoor1231 points out, parallels a similar expression in Exod 18:20 of the Samaritan Pentateuch (‫)הדרך אשר ילכו בה‏‬, versus the reading of MT Exod 18:20 (‫)הדרך ילכו בה‏‬. The relative pronoun ‫ אש ‏ר‬is well attested in histori‑ cal narratives as well as legal texts, but it is less common in poetry. The plus of ‫ אש ‏ר‬and ‫ בה‏‬here in 48:17 is secondary (see also the plus in 1QIsaa 58:6). As for LXX also having the plus of the pronoun, Van der Vorm-Croughs notes, “It is possible that the [LXX] translator had a Vorlage in front of him that included a retrospective pronoun.”1232 48:18 ‫ לּו ‏‬MT Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ ולוא‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab 4QIsac LXX • ‫ֹות‏י‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ְל ִמ ְצ ׇ‬MT | ‫אל מצוותי‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ והי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹות‏י‬ ‫— ְל ִמ ְצ ׇ‬Occasionally the preposition lāmed (‫ֹותי‏‬ ‫ = ְל ִמ ְצ ׇ‬MT) interchanges with ‫ = אל מצוותי‏( א ‏ל‬1QIsaa). Tannaitic Hebrew generally employed the lāmed.1233 48:19 ‫ וְ ֶצ ֱא ׇצ ֵאי ֵמ ֶעיָך‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ וצאצאיכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ֶצ ֱא ׇצ ֵאי ֵמ ֶעיָך‏‬McKenzie writes, “MT reads superfluously ‘issue of the loins’; ‘loins’ is omitted in 1QIsaa.”1234 But Watts favors MT, noting that both LXX and 1229  Rubinstein, “Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings,” 189; see also, Rubinstein, “Formal Agreement of Parallel Clauses,” 321. 1230  Tov, TCHB3, 31–32. 1231  Mansoor, “Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts,” 41. 1232  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 108n25. 1233  Fassberg, “Syntax of the Biblical Documents,” 104. 1234  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 95.

342

Chapter 2

Vulg support it.1235 1QIsaa erred when it dropped ‫ה‬ ‫ מעיכ ‏‬via haplography, ‫ה‬ ‫זרעכ ‏‬ ‫וצאצאי מעיכה‬. Or, as Oswalt suggests, 1QIsaa’s error was possibly caused by the repeated yôd, ‫‏וצאצאי מעיכה‬.1236 Only a portion of 1QIsab’s wāw exists on the leather, making a determination of its reading impossible. 48:20

‫ ִרּנׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ רונ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַה ְׁש ִמיע‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ והשמיע‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫יאּוה‬ ‫ֹהוצ ׇ‏‬ ִ MT 1QIsab (‫הוצא[וה‏‬ ֯ ) 4QIsad LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ְק ֵצ ‏‬MT 4QIsad LXX | ‫ קצו‏י‬1QIsaa • > MT 1QIsab | ‫ את‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹהוצ ׇ ‏‬ ‫יאּוה‬ ִ —MT’s ‫יאּוה‏‬ ‫ֹהוצ ׇ‬ ִ has the support of 1QIsab, 4QIsad, and LXX. 1QIsaa lacks ‫הוציאוה‏‬, perhaps because of an error of the eye, i.e., two hipʿil pf. verbs in close proximity, ‫ה‬ ‫והשמיעו … הוציאו ‏‬. ‫— ְק ֵצ ‏‬For the variant ‫( קצה‏‬MT) versus ‫( קצוי‏‬1QIsaa), which exists in 43:6; ‫ה‬

48:20; 49:6; 62:11, see also the discussion in 43:6. ‫— ַע ְבֹּדו‏‬The accusative marker in 1QIsaa serves to clarify that ‫ עבדו‏‬rather than ‫ יהו ‏‬is the object of the verb ‫גאל‏‬. For other deviations dealing with the accusa‑ ‫ה‬ tive marker, see the discussion at 2:4.

48:21 ‫ֹהול ׇיכם‏‬ ִ MT 4QIsad | ‫ הוליכו‏‬1QIsaa LXXL | ἄξει αὐτούς LXX • ‫ ִהּזִ יל‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsad | ‫ הזיב‏‬1QIsaa Syr | ἐξάξει LXX | εξηγαγεν LXXL | ωχετευσεν γ′ ‫ֹהול ׇיכם‏‬ ִ —1QIsaa’s ‫“( הוליכו‏‬they led” or “he led him”) is inexplicable; perhaps the copyist was influenced by the wāw of ‫( צמא‏ו‬two words earlier) and sub­ sequently wrote ‫הוליכו‏‬. ‫— ִהּזִ י ‏ל‬The form ‫“( ִהּזִ י ‏ל‬to make water flow,” HALOT, 683, via √‫ ;נזל‏‬MT, 1QIsab, 4QIsad) signifies a hapax legomenon but so does the synonymous ‫“( הזיב‏‬to let flow,” HALOT, 266, via √‫ ;זוב‏‬1QIsaa). Evidently, a scribe of 1QIsaa borrowed √‫זוב‏‬ from ‫ויזובו‏‬, which occurs later in the same verse. 48:22 ‫ ֵאי‏ן‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ ואי‏ן‬1QIsaa

1235  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 176. 1236  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 279.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



343

Isaiah 49

49:1 ‫ ִאּיִ ים ֵא ַל ‏י‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab Tg(vid) (‫ימ ִרי‏‬ ְ ‫איי]ם‏ | )נְ גׇ ווׇ ן ְל ֵמ‬ ֯ [‫]אלי‬ ֯ 4QIsad LXX(vid) σ′ | ‫ > אל ‏י‬LXXC Syr Vulg • ‫ וְ ַה ְק ִׁשיב ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ הקשיב ‏ו‬1QIsaa 49:2 ‫ ְּכ ֶח ֶרב‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ ̇בחרב‏ | )כחרב‏‬1QIsab • ‫ יׇ ֹדו‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ ידיו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ֵחץ‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ לכחצ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ כח ‏ץ‬LXX Tg • ‫ ְּב ַא ְׁש ׇּפֹת ‏ו‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsad | ‫ באשפתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ְל ֵחץ … ְּכ ֶח ֶרב‏‬V. 2 comprises a synonymous parallelism that features the word pairs ‫ חר ‏ב‬and ‫ח ‏ץ‬. The Hebrew witnesses attach different prepositions to these words. For ‫חרב‏‬, MT and 1QIsaa (a secondary, superscripted character) attest a kāp, while 1QIsab has a bêt. MT and 4QIsad attach a lāmed to ‫ חץ‏‬versus 1QIsaa, which attached a kāp but replaced it with a lāmed. Note that 150 (pm) (HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫כח ‏ץ‬. ‫—יׇ ֹדו‏‬For this reading, see the comments at 3:11 and 9:11. ‫— ְּב ַא ְׁש ׇּפֹת ‏ו‬The suffix ‫ ‑י‏ו‬of 1QIsaa’s ‫ באשפתי‏ו‬likely marks the singular, = ‫ ְּב ַא ְׁש ׇּפֹתו‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsad.1237 49:3

‫ ֶא ְת ׇּפ ׇא ‏ר‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫הת[פא ‏ר‬ ̇ 1QIsab ‫— ֶא ְת ׇּפ ׇא ‏ר‬This is another case of the weakening of the gutturals; accordingly,

we have here the substitution of the ālep for the hê.1238

49:4 ‫ וַ ֲאנִ י‏‬MT 4QIsad LXX Tg Syr | ‫ אנ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְלתֹהּו וְ ֶה ֶבל‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ לתוה ולהבל‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇא ֵכן‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ א ‏ך‬1QIsab • ‫ ְּופ ֻע ׇּל ִת‏י‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ ופועלת‏י‬1QIsaa orth or var? ‫— ְלתֹהּו וְ ֶה ֶב ‏ל‬For the deviation between MT’s ‫ ְלתֹה‏ּו‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫לתו ‏‬, consult Qimron’s grammar.1239 See also the commentary on 29:21. With regard to the minor variant ‫( וְ ֶה ֶב ‏ל‬MT) versus ‫( ולהב ‏ל‬1QIsaa), it seems that ‫ ולהב ‏ל‬corresponds to ‫ק‬ ‫ ;לרי ‏‬the lāmed of ‫ והבל‏‬is implied. ‫— ְּופ ֻע ׇּל ִתי‏‬The difference between MT’s ‫( ְפ ֻע ׇּל ִתי‏‬also = 4QIsad) and 1QIsaa’s ‫ פועלת‏י‬may be the misplacement of the ʿayin (in the scroll).1240 Or, Reymond proposes that “the waw mater [of ‫ ]ופועלת‏י‬seems to indicate that the ʿayin was

1237  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70. 1238  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 46. 1239  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 90–91. 1240  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 106.

344

Chapter 2

no longer pronounced.”1241 Cf. also the readings of ‫( ְפ ֻע ׇּל ׇתם‏‬MT) and ‫פועלתםה‏‬ (1QIsaa) at 65:7. Additionally, there are at least four instances where the 1QIsaa scribe inadvertently omitted the ʿayin and then added it later as a superscript‑ ed character: ‫( ישעיהו‏‬1:1); ‫ם‬ ‫( בעיניה ‏‬5:21); ‫( ביעקו ‏ב‬9:7); and ‫( יעקו ‏ב‬17:4). 49:5 > MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ כ ‏‬1QIsab LXX • ‫ י ְֹצ ִר ‏י‬MA‫ )יוצרי‏( ‏‬1QIsab LXX | ‫ יוצר ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MTket 4QIsad σ′ θ′ Vulg | ‫ל ‏ו‬2 MTqere MTmss 1QIsaa LXX α′ • ‫ וְ ֶא ׇּכ ֵב ‏ד‬MT 1QIsab (‫ו]אכבד‏‬ ֯ )| ‫ ואכבד ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֻעּזִ ‏י‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ עזר ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫—י ְֹצ ִרי‏‬MT’s first-person sg. suffix (‫)יצרי‏‬, supported by 1QIsab, is consistent with other first-person forms in the verse (‫ואכבד‏‬, ‫ואלהי‏‬, ‫)עזי‏‬.1242 1QIsaa’s secondperson suffix (‫ )יוצרך‏‬may be an anticipation of the second-person forms of the next verse (i.e., ‫מהיותכה‏‬, ‫)ונתתי ‏ך‬. ‫—לֹא‏‬Note that MTmss (30 93 150; KRG, HUB–Isaiah) attest ‫ = ל ‏ו‬MTqere 1QIsaa. McKenzie and others1243 prefer ‫ לו‏‬so that “to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel should be gathered to him” forms a parallelism. So also, Ibn Ezra states that ‫ ל‏ו‬signifies the original reading.1244 The ‫א‬ ‫ל ‏‬/‫ לו‏‬confusion may have origi‑ nated via its homophonic nature, or by the fact that ‫ ל‏ו‬is twice attested in the verse. ‫— ֻעּזִ י‏‬MT and 1QIsab have “my refuge” (‫ ֻעּזִ י‏‬, “refuge, protection,” HALOT, 806) versus 1QIsaa, which reads “my help” (‫עזרי‏‬, “help, assistance,” HALOT, 811). To complicate the matter, both ‫ עֹ‏ז‬and ‫ ֵעזֶ ‏ר‬are associated with God in other bib‑ lical passages; furthermore, the names of king Uzziah are set forth as either ‫ ֻעּזִ יׇ ה‏ = ֻעּזִ יׇ הּו‏‬or ‫ ֲעזַ ְריׇ ה‏ = ֲעזַ ְריׇ הּו‏‬. Two chief possibilities exist that may explain the deviations: (a) On a number of occasions a scribe of 1QIsaa failed to write the rêš as he copied his text; see especially 29:16 and 36:2. What if a copyist of the Masoretic tradition failed to write the rêš? Such a question represents, at best, a weak argument. (b) More likely, a copyist of either the MT or 1QIsaa tradition misread his Vorlage and wrote either ‫ עז ‏י‬or ‫עזר ‏י‬. Certainly, the graphically simi‑ lar component of these two words cannot easily be dismissed. After reviewing the evidence, I determine that MT’s ‫ ֻעּזִ ‏י‬, which has the support of 1QIsab and LXX, is the preferred reading; so also JPS, NIV, NRSV, and RSV.

1241  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 90; see also the more comprehensive discussion in 178–79. See also the views of Ben-Hayyim, Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language, 89–90. 1242  For support of MT, see Bonnard, Second Isaïe, 215. 1243  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 103; so, too, Childs, Isaiah, 380; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 184; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 305; and Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 37. 1244  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 297, also prefers ‫ל ‏ו‬.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

345

49:6 ‫ נׇ ֵק ‏ל‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ הנק ‏ל‬1QIsab • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְל ׇה ִקי ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsad | ‫ להש]י֯ ‏ב‬1QIsab • … ‫יַ ֲעקֹב ‏‬ ‫ ישראל … יעקו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ּונְ ִצ ֵיר ‏י‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ ונצור ‏י‬MTqere ‫ יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵאל‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ב‬ 1QIsab • ‫ה‬ ‫ ְק ֵצ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ קצו ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇה ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אר ‏ץ‬1QIsab ‫—נׇ ֵק ‏ל‬Both MT and 1QIsaa present a declarative statement (‫)נקל‏‬, but 1QIsab apparently has the interrogative hê (‫)הנקל‏‬. Cf. Tg’s interrogative, ‫ ַהזְ ֵעי ‏ר‬. ‫— ְל ׇה ִקים‏‬Against MT,‫ ‏‬1QIsaa, and 4QIsad, 1QIsab attests ‫להש]י֯ ‏ב‬, probably du‑ plicating ‫ להשי ‏ב‬located later in the same verse. ‫—יַ ֲעקֹב … יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵאל‏‬MT reads “tribes of Jacob … Israel”; the scribe of 1QIsaa has a reversed order with “tribes of Israel … Jacob.” “Tribes of Jacob,” a hapax legomenon (but cf. 1 Kgs 18:31, ‫) ִׁש ְב ֵטי ְבנֵ י־יַ ֲעקֹ ‏ב‬, was changed (inadvertently?) by 1QIsaa or a textual antecedent to read the familiar “tribes of Israel.” The fact that the scroll’s reading of vv. 5–6 presents a chiastic order, “Jacob … Israel … Israel … Jacob,” should not persuade us to prefer 1QIsaa for stylistic reasons. Compare also the chiasmus of the words ‫ֹקוח‏‬ ַ ‫ ַמ ְל‬and ‫ ְׁש ִבי‏‬in MT 49:24–25, which chiasmus is lacking in 1QIsaa. For a discussion of syntactical inversions or vari‑ ations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. ‫—ּונְ ִצ ֵירי‏‬Two Hebrew witnesses (MTket and 1QIsaa) set forth the adjective ‫ ;ּונְ ִצ ֵיר ‏י‬two others (MTqere and 1QIsab) submit the qal passive ptc. ‫ ;ונצור‏י‬mul‑ tiple MTmss, too, attest ‫( ונצורי‏‬HUB–Isaiah). Watts1245 prefers the passive ptc. (as does Baltzer1246), thus translating “who have been protected.” ‫— ְק ֵצה‏‬In four passages, 1QIsaa reads the pl. ‫ קצו‏י‬where MT has the sg. ‫ה‬ ‫קצ ‏‬ (43:6; 48:20; 49:6; 62:11). See also the discussion in 43:6. 49:7 ‫ יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אדוני יהו ‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫ ּג ֵֹא ‏ל‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ גואלכ ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ִל ְבזֹה‏‬MT | ‫ לבזו ‏י‬1QIsaa 4QIsad • ‫ב‬ ‫ ִל ְמ ׇת ֵע ‏‬MT | ‫ למתעב ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְרא ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ רא ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫וׇ ׇקמ ‏ּו‬ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ י ֹקֹומ ‏ו‬1QIsab • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׂש ִרי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ושרי ‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ וְ יִ ְׁש ַּת ֲחּו ‏ּו • )ו֯ ֯ש[רים‏‬MT | ‫יהשתחו ‏ו‬ ̇ 1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ְּיִב ׇח ֶר ‏ָך‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ יבחרכ ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐξελεξάμην σε LXX ‫—יְ הוׇ ‏‬1QIsaa and 1QIsab attest ‫ אדוני‏‬where MT lacks it. Certainly ‫אדני יהוה‏‬ ‫ה‬ is formulaic in MT, and either the Qumran scrolls added ‫ אדוני‏‬in the passage under discussion (most likely) or MT omitted it. However, Flint examines the textual variant and concludes that, although the reading of the Qumran wit‑ nesses is plausible, MT’s reading is preferred.1247 Cf. also ‫ה‬ ‫ כה אמר אדניך יהו ‏‬in 51:22. See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17.

1245  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 184. 1246  Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 305. 1247  Flint, “Non-Masoretic Variant Readings,” 113.

346

Chapter 2

‫—ּג ֵֹא ‏ל‬In light of the pronominal suffix on ‫קדוש‏ו‬, attested in MT, 1QIsaa, and 4QIsad, the reading of MT and 1QIsab (‫גאל ישראל קדושו‏‬, “the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One”) make grammatical sense; but this is a case of mis‑ matched pronominal suffixes in 1QIsaa, which has the awkward ‫גואלכה ישראל‏‬ ‫“( קדושו‬your Redeemer, Israel, his Holy One”). Evidently, the scribe was swayed by the matching opening expression ‫ כוה אמר יהוה גואלכה‏‬that is found in both 44:24 and 48:17. ‫— ִל ְבזֹ ‏‬MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫( ִל ְבזֹ ‏‬qal inf. const., an unusual form for a III-hê verb) is a hapax legomenon. The reading of two Qumran texts—1QIsaa and 4QIsad—present ‫( לבזו ‏י‬qal passive ptc.); pre-Qumran scholars, Duhm and others, proposed emending ‫ה‬ ‫ ִל ְבזֹ ‏‬to read ‫לבזוי‏‬.1248 And Westermann supports ‫“( לבזו ‏י‬despised”) as does Watts.1249 For ‫בזו‏י‬, see also Jer 49:15; Obad 2; Ps 22:7; and Eccl 9:16 (‫)בזויה‏‬. But compare HALOT (117), which proposes that the text should read ‫ה‬ ‫ ְלנִ ְבזֶ ‏‬. For other approaches to MT’s reading, see van der Kooij and Köhler.1250 ‫— ִל ְמ ׇת ֵע ‏‬Both MT (‫ ) ִל ְמ ׇת ֵעב‏‬and 1QIsaa feature a piʿel ptc., but the scroll errs ‫ב‬ with a m. pl. because it does not accord with the sg. corresponding component ‫“( לבזוי נפש‏‬to one despised”) in the bicolon. MT’s sg. does demonstrate a de‑ gree of correspondence. Where did 1QIsaa or its Vorlage obtain the pl. form? Conceivably, the yôd of ‫ למתעב‏י‬is a dittograph from the following word, i.e., ‫‏למתעבי גוי‬. ‫—יִ ְראּו וׇ ׇקמּו ׇׂש ִרים וְ יִ ְׁש ַּת ֲחּוּו‏‬Three Hebrew witnesses exhibit three different readings: MT has ‫ ;יִ ְראּו וׇ ׇקמּו ׇׂש ִרים וְ יִ ְׁש ַּת ֲחּוּו‏‬1QIsaa reads ‫;ראו וקמו ושרים ̇יהשתחוו‏‬ and 1QIsab has ‫ם‬ ‫יראו י ֹקֹומו ו֯ ֯ש[רי ‏‬. Additionally, the wāw attached to ‫ם‬ ‫( שרי ‏‬1QIsaa and 1QIsab) may alter the subject: “kings will see and arise, and princes will bow down.”1251

49:8 ‫יתי ‏ָך‬ ִ ִ‫ ֲענ‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ה‬ ‫ אענכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲעזַ ְר ִּתי ‏ָך‬MT 1QIsab LXX(vid) | ‫ה‬ ‫ אעזרכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫יתיָך … ֲעזַ ְר ִּתי ‏ָך‬ ִ ִ‫— ֲענ‬MT attests two qal pf. first common sg. verbs versus 1QIsaa’s qal impf. first common sg. verbs. The deviation of 1QIsaa occurred when the scribe absorbed the features of two verbs belonging to the verse’s second bicolon—‫ ואצורכה‏‬and ‫—ואתנכה‏‬both of which are also qal first com‑ mon sg. impf. forms. 1248  Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 371; Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 26; Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66, n.p. 1249  Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 212; Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 184. 1250  Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 148–49; and Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 38. 1251  On the importance of the wāw (= ‫ם‬ ‫ )ושרי ‏‬in the Qumran scrolls, see Gelston, “Some Notes on Second Isaiah,” 523.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

347

49:9 ‫ ַל ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ולאש ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְּד ׇר ִכי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ כול הרי ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν LXX ‫— ְּד ׇר ִכי ‏‬Kutscher1252 posits that 1QIsaa substituted ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ כול הרי ‏‬for ‫ם‬ ‫ דרכי ‏‬for ex‑ egetical reasons, so that ‫ם‬ ‫“( הרי ‏‬mountains”) is synonymously consistent with ‫שפאים‏‬/‫ ְׁש ִפי‏( שפיים‏‬, “bare place, height,” BDB, 1046; see also the discussion in HALOT, 1628). But Driver sets forth an opposing view, proposing that the read‑ ing of the scroll better fits the parallelistic scheme.1253 But there is a yet an‑ other explanation for 1QIsaa’s ‫—הרים‏‬the scribe was influenced by v. 11, where ‫ )הרי‏( הרים‏‬is attested. With regard to the plus of ‫ כול‏‬in 1QIsaa, perhaps ‫ כול‏‬is a harmonization with ‫ ובכו ‏ל‬in the second line of the parallelism. 49:10 ‫ ׇׁש ׇרב‏‬MT LXX (καύσων) | ‫ שֹו ‏ב‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇׁש ׇרב‏‬The middle letter of 1QIsaa’s reading is difficult to ascertain; UF 2:172 transcribe ‫שֹוב‏‬, and PQ have ‫שר ֹ ‏ב‬. 49:11

‫ֹּלת‏י‬ ַ ‫ּומ ִס‬ ְ MT | ‫ ומס ומסלת‏י‬1QIsaa ‫ֹּלת‏י‬ ַ ‫ּומ ִס‬ ְ —The scribe wrote ‫ס‬ ‫( ומ ‏‬the first three letters of ‫ )ומסלת‏י‬at the end of line 10 but then wrote ‫ ומסלתי‏‬at the beginning of line 11. For other examples of

this phenomenon, see 2:4.

49:12 ‫ וְ ִהּנֵ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | > 4QIsad LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ּומּיׇ ם וְ ֵא ֶּל ‏‬ ִ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ ואלה מי] ‏‬4QIsad • ‫ם‬ ‫ִסינִ י ‏‬ MT | ‫ סוניים‏‬1QIsaa | Περσῶν LXX ‫— ִסינִ י ‏‬The point at issue pertains to the variants ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫( ִסינִ י ‏‬MT) versus ‫ם‬ ‫סוניי ‏‬ (1QIsaa). LXX handles the difficult word by writing Persians. Syr simply trans‑ literates the Hebrew (“Sinim”), an approach that is also common to modern translations. Vulg Tg both attest “land of the south,” perhaps free interpreta‑ tions. 1QIsaa’s reading of ‫ם‬ ‫ סוניי ‏‬possibly refers to Svenim, or Aswanites, peo‑ ple living in a city called Aswan (or Assuan), located on the Nile in southern Egypt. As Childs has written, “The suggested emendation to swnym, ‘Syrene’ or ‘Aswan,’ the southern frontier of Egypt, has received support from 1QIsa, which reads swnyym.”1254 But contrast HALOT (752): “a land from which the exiles will return home … corroborated by 1QIsa ‫סוניים‏‬.” Barthélemy proposes that MT’s 1252  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 230–31. 1253  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 28. 1254  Childs, Isaiah, 380.

348

Chapter 2

reading is the result of a graphical error;1255 it is possible that a copyist inadver‑ tently wrote the first yôd instead of a wāw, thus creating an unclear reading. For a discussion of variants that pertain to gentilica, see ‫ם‬ ‫ ַּכ ְׂש ִּדי ‏‬at 13:19. 49:13 ‫ יִ ְפ ְצחּו‏‬MTket LXX | ‫ ופצחו‏‬MTqere MTmss | ‫ פצחו‏‬1QIsaa 4QTanḥ II 16 • ‫ נִ ַחם‏‬MT LXX | ‫ מנחם‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ אלה[י ‏‬4QTanḥ II 16 ‫(—יִ ְפ ְצחּו‏‬qal form of √‫פצח‏‬, “to be cheerful, happy,” HALOT, 953). With its qal impv. ‫פצחו‏‬, 1QIsaa supports MTqere (‫)ופצחו‏‬, although the scroll lacks the wāw. ‫( פצח ‏ו‬with or without the wāw conjunction) is also the reading of several rab‑ binic texts (see HUB–Isaiah, apparatus 2) as well as several MTmss (30 [pm] 150; KRG; 96; KG, HUB–Isaiah); cf. also ‫ יפצח ‏ו‬in 96; G (HUB–Isaiah). ‫ופצח ‏ו‬/‫פצחו‏‬, in my judgment, is primary because it supports the two previous imperatives ‫ ׇרּנּו … וְ גִ ִילי‏‬, versus MTket’s impf. or jussive ‫יִ ְפ ְצחּו‏‬. Thus Watts1256 approves of the reading of MTqere and 1QIsaa, but compare Oswalt, who chooses the jussive and translates, “let the mountains break forth in shouts.”1257 ‫—נִ ַח ‏‬MT has ‫ ִּכי־נִ ַחם יְ הוׇ ה ַעֹּמו‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s ‫כיא מנחם יהוה עמו‏‬, where the ‫ם‬ difference is ‫( נִ ַחם‏‬piʿel perfect) and ‫( מנחם‏‬piʿel ptc.). Based on two other compa‑ rable expressions in Isaiah (where MT = 1QIsaa)—‫( ִּכי־נִ ַחם יְ הוׇ ה ִצֹּיון‏‬51:3) and ‫ִּכי ‏־‬ ‫ ]נח ‏‬is indeterminate. ‫( נִ ַחם יְ הוׇ ה ַעֹּמו‬52:9)—‫ נחם‏‬is the preferred form. 4QIsad’s ‫ם‬ 49:14 ‫ יְ הוׇ ה וַ אד ֹנׇ י‏‬MT LXX (κύριος, καὶ ὁ κύριος) | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואדוני•ואלוהי•יהו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ הוׇ ה וַ אד ֹנׇ י‏‬1QIsaa’s copyist writes •‫ •ואלוהי‏‬above ‫ ;ואדוני‏‬Oswalt theorizes that this superscript notation was “apparently a gloss to be certain that the word in the text was understood as a reference to God.”1258 See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. 4QIsad’s ]‫וא[דני ‏‬ ֯ ‫ יהוה‬is indeterminate. 49:15 ‫ ֶא ְׁש ׇּכ ֵחְך‏‬MT | ‫ אשכחכ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ֶא ְׁש ׇּכ ֵח ‏ְך‬Versus MT’s object suffix ‫‑ְך‏‬, 1QIsaa has the Aramaic ending ‫‑כ‏י‬. Compare also the pronominal suffix ‫ ‑כ‏י‬at 49:26; ‫ וְ ג ֲֹא ֵל ‏ְך‬MT; ‫ וגואלכ‏י‬1QIsaa. For other Aramaic forms in 1QIsaa, see the discussion in 17:10 and 51:9.

1255  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:361–62. 1256  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 185. So, too, Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 38, supports MTqere. 1257  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 297. 1258  Ibid., 301.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

349

49:16 ‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ הנה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַחּק ִֹתיְך‏‬MT | ‫ חוקותיך‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֹחומ ַֹתיִ ְך‏‬MT LXX | ‫ וחומותיך‏‬1QIsaa 4QTanḥ II 19 ‫— ֵהן‏‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ַחּק ִֹתיְך‏‬A 1QIsaa scribe wrote the noun ‫ ֻח ׇקה‏( חוקותיך‏‬, “statute,” HALOT, 347), which is a deviation of MT’s ‫חקק‏√( ַחּק ִֹתי ‏ְך‬, “to inscribe,” qal pf. first common sg., HALOT, 347). Kutscher explains 1QIsaa’s error, “The tendency in Rab. Hebr. seems to have been to conjugate geminate verbs in the same way as strong verbs…. Hence, the scribe apparently did not recognize it [i.e., ‫]חקתיך‏‬, and transformed it into the noun ‫חוקה‏‬, which is found in the Bible over one hun‑ dred times, even though it hardly fits the context.”1259 49:17 ‫ ׇּבנׇ יִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ בוני ‏ך‬1QIsaa LXX(οἰκοδομηθήσῃ) α′ Vulg • ‫ ְמ ׇה ְר ַסיִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ מהורסי ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇּבנׇ יִ ‏ְך‬At issue are two graphically similar readings, ‫( ׇּבנׇ יִ ‏ְך‬MT) versus ‫בוני ‏ך‬ (1QIsaa) (cf. LXX οἰκοδομηθήσῃ α′ Vulg). Note that Codex Petersburg Heb B 3 (HUB–Isaiah) attests ‫ = בוניך‏‬1QIsaa. Scholars argue for both readings,1260 i.e., “your sons” (MT; although MT could have also been vocalized as ‫ּבֹנַ יִ ‏ְך‬, “your builders”) or “your builders” (1QIsaa). Barthélemy, McKenzie, Oswalt, and Watts prefer the reading of 1QIsaa and the version, “your builders.”1261 See also scholarly emendations of MT to read ‫ בוני ‏ך‬before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls.1262 Flusser concludes, “It is therefore easy to trace a de‑ velopment from the DSIa text to our massoretic version, and consequently it seems to me to be highly probable that the DSIa text, which was also the text of the Greek translator, is the original one.”1263 Based on several factors, including the fact that the pericope deals with chil‑ dren who are returning (see 49:13–21), MT has the preferred reading; compare also Orlinsky followed by Kutscher and others1264 who maintain the viability of MT. 1259  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 321–22. 1260  Döderlein, Esaias, 209, for example, emended the text to read “your builders”; but Hitzig, Der Prophet Jesaja, 545, notes the deviations of the versions but prefers to remain with MT. For an examination of various primary and secondary sources, see Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 335–36. 1261  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:364–67; McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 110; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 301; and Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 185. 1262  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 301; see also Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 26. 1263  Flusser, “Text of Isaiah 49:17 in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 142. 1264  Orlinsky, “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, VII,” 4–8; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 225.

350

Chapter 2

‫— ְמ ׇה ְר ַסיִ ‏ְך‬MT’s ‫ ְמ ׇה ְר ַסיִ ‏ְך‬is vocalized to read a piʿel ptc. m. pl., “your overthrow‑ ers” (see HALOT, 257). 1QIsaa’s ‫ מהורסי ‏ך‬may be a qal ptc. m. pl. with an attached preposition mêm (serving as a comparative marker) or an irregularly written piʿel ptc. Or, according to Fassberg, the o in ‫ מהורסי ‏ך‬is a phonological Aramaism (cf. also Isa 37:38 and 66:20).1265 Watts prefers reading 1QIsaa as a qal with the preposition, thus translating “Your builders move faster than your destroyers.”1266 Contrast Oswalt, who remains with MT, thus providing the translation “your overthrowers.”1267

49:18 ‫ ְׂש ִאי‏‬MT | ‫ סא‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇל ‏ך‬MT | ‫ לכ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ְׂש ִא‏י‬MT’s ‫ ְׂש ִאי‏‬signifies the primary reading. ‫( סאיְ‏‬1QIsaa) is an error of ho‑ mophony, or the copyist was influence by the sāmek in the following word, i.e., ‫‏סאי סביב‬. 49:19 ‫ ֲה ִר ֻס ֵתיְך‏‬MT | ‫ הרוסת ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫— ֲה ִר ֻס ֵתי ‏ְך‬The expected vocalization of MT’s ‫ ֲה ִר ֻס ֵתיְך‏‬, a hapax legomenon, is ‫“( ֲה ִריסּות‏‬ruins,” HALOT, 256; cf. also ‫ ֲה ִר ׇיסה‏‬in Amos 9:11). 1QIsaa’s vocalization is difficult to determine—is it ‫הרוסה‏‬, a qal passive ptc. f. sg.? For a qal ptc. m. sg., see 1 Kgs 18:30 (‫) ֶה ׇהרּוס‏‬. 49:21 ‫סּורה‏‬ ‫ה וְ ׇ‬ ‫ ּג ׇֹל ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ וגולה וסר ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ֵא ֶּל ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫אל ‏‬1‫ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬ 1QIsaa | > LXX ‫סּור ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫—ּג ׇֹלה‏ וְ ׇ‬MT attests ‫סּורה‏‬ ‫ ;ּג ׇֹלה וְ ׇ‬1QIsaa reads ‫וגולה וסרה‏‬. With ‫וסרה‏‬, 1QIsaa may have a defectively written adjective, or perhaps the scribe intended a qal f. ptc., which would correspond with ‫ה‬ ‫וגול ‏‬. LXX lacks any form of ‫ה‬ ‫גלה וסור ‏‬, which have caused one or more text critics to speculate that ‫ גלה וסורה‏‬is a dittography of the previous word, ‫ה‬ ‫וגלמוד ‏‬.1268 But the fact that both Hebrew witnesses attest some form of ‫ה‬ ‫ה וסור ‏‬ ‫ גל ‏‬creates doubt that these two words constitute a dittography. ‫— ֵהן‏‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. 1265  Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 10. 1266  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 183; Torrey had already emended the text to read ‫מהורסי ‏ך‬, apparently reading “than your destroyers.” Torrey, Second Isaiah, 386. See Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 26. 1267  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 301. 1268  See the discussion in Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:368. See also Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66, n.p.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

351

49:22 ‫ ּכֹ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ כיא כו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַע ִּמי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫העמי ‏‬ 1QIsaa | τὰς νήσους LXX • ‫ ִּתּנׇ ֶׂשאנׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ תנשנ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—ּכֹ ‏‬1QIsaa has the plus of ‫כיא‏‬, thus reading “because thus says the Lord.” ‫ה‬ This reading is possible: (a) ‫ כ ‏י‬sometimes serves as a transitioning conjunction; it here transitions from v. 21 to v. 22; and (b) ‫ה‬ ‫ כי כה אמר יהו ‏‬is a relatively com‑ mon biblical expression (e.g., Josh 7:13; 1 Kgs 11:31; 17:14; etc.). The expression is also attested in Isaiah (e.g., 8:11; 18:4; 21:6; etc.). Which witness is correct? A scribe of MT may have dropped ‫ כ‏י‬by means of haplography, ‫ה‬ ‫כי כ ‏‬. More likely, a 1QIsaa scribe added it, either by means of dittography or assimilation from v. 25, where the expression ‫ה‬ ‫ כי כה אמר יהו ‏‬is also found. ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ה‏‬1QIsaa lacks ‫אדני‏‬. Is this a harmonization with v. 23, where only ‫ יהו ‏‬is attested? Or does ‫ אדני‏‬signify a plus in MT? Cf. LXX, which also lacks ‫ה‬ this divine title. See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫ אדני‏‬in 3:17. ‫— ַע ִּמים‏‬LXX’s τὰς νήσους is based on ‫( איים‏‬phonological error?) rather than MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ עמי ‏‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫העמי ‏‬. 49:23

‫ וְ ׇהי ‏ּו‬MT LXX | ‫ והו ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ּת‬ ‫ וְ יׇ ַד ַע ְ ‏‬MT | ‫ וידעת‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇהי ‏ּו‬MT attests √‫ ;היה‏‬1QIsaa has the interjection ‫( הו‏י‬cf. 55:1; Zech 2:10), or more likely, ‫ הוי‏‬is an error, an interchange of the yôd and wāw. ‫—וְ יׇ ַד ַע ְ ‏‬For ‫ וְ יׇ ַד ַע ְּת‏‬and ‫וידעת‏י‬, see the comments at 17:10. ‫ּת‬

49:24 ‫ ֲהיֻ ַּקח‏‬MT | ‫ היקח ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ִא ‏‬MT | ‫מ‬ ‫ א ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ק‬ ‫ ַצ ִּדי ‏‬MT | ‫ ערי ‏ץ‬1QIsaa | ἀδίκως LXX ‫— ֲהיֻ ַּקח‏‬This is a case of interchange of verbal forms to denote the imperson‑ al subject: passive > active. Both MT’s passive (‫ ֲהיֻ ַּקח‏‬, “[can prey] be taken”) and 1QIsaa’s pl. (‫היקחו‏‬, “[can they] take prey”) work well in the passage, although MT’s passive corresponds better with the nipʿal ‫ יִ ׇּמ ֵלט‏‬in the second half of the parallelism. For a brief discussion of the impersonal verbs, together with ad‑ ditional examples, see 1:26. ‫— ַצ ִּדי ‏‬In light of the context of vv. 24–25a (see below) and the graphic ‫ק‬ similarity of ‫ק‬ ‫צדי ‏‬/‫עריץ‏‬, many scholars1269 see MT as the corrupted reading. Thus Pulikottil writes, “It is highly likely that the MT form is a corruption.”1270

1269  Including McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 111; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 218; and Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 312n88. 1270  “Avec le parallélisme du v. 25 … lire ‫עריץ‏‬,” Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 302; Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 54n24.

352

Chapter 2

Furthermore, several scholars (previous to the discovery of the Qumran scrolls) emended MT to read ‫ערי ‏ץ‬,1271 which is the reading of 1QIsaa. Kutscher, however, leaves open the possibility that a scribe of 1QIsaa antici‑ pated ‫ עריץ‏‬in the following verse and wrote ‫ עריץ‏‬in v. 24.1272 Indeed, my re‑ search indicates that this remains probable, especially since an examination of the writing on the leather (see col. XVI) reveals that the first ‫( עריץ‏‬line 25) appears one line above and slightly to the left (only about six character spaces) of the second ‫( עריץ‏‬line 26); consequently, I hold that MT’s reading is primary. Childs suggests that 1QIsaa’s reading may be “either a textual corruption or a stylistic variation.”1273 49:25

‫ּומ ְל ַ ‏‬ ‫ֹקוח‬ ַ … ‫ ְׁש ִבי‬MT | ‫ מלקוח … ושובי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יֻ ׇּקח‏‬MT | ‫ ילקח‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ ִר ֵיבְך‏‬MT | ‫רוביך‏‬

1QIsaa ‫— ְׁש ִב‏י‬1QIsaa (‫ )ושובי‏‬follows the quṭl pattern. For a brief discussion together with bibliographic sources, see 3:24. See also immediately below for the syn‑ tactical variation of ‫ֹקוח‬ ‫ּומ ְל ַ ‏‬ ַ … ‫ ְׁש ִבי‬. ‫ּומ ְל ַ ‏‬ ‫ֹקוח‬ ַ … ‫— ְׁש ִבי‬According to Pulikottil,1274 v. 25, “being the continuation of v. 24, has some logical inconsistencies in the MT, which ignores the pairs ‫מלקוח‏‬/‫ גבור‏‬and ‫שבי‏‬/‫ גבור‏‬of v. 24 when it comes to v. 25 and pairs them up as ‫שב‏י‬/‫ גבור‏‬and ‫ח‬ ‫מלקו ‏‬/‫עריץ‏‬.” The scroll has a variant (‫עריץ‏‬, see commentary above, v. 24) for MT’s ‫ק‬ ‫ צדי ‏‬as well as a different word order in v. 25a for the content words ‫ח‬ ‫ מלקו ‏‬and ‫שב‏י‬. 1QIsaa presents a configuration, where the four lines form an a/b a/b pattern, i.e., spoil/warrior, captive/tyrant and spoil/warrior, captive/tyrant. To sum up Pulikottil’s judgment, “The scroll restores the original pairing.”1275 Other scholars disagree, including Oswalt, who expresses that 1QIsaa reversed the order (i.e., ‫ )מלקוח … ושובי‏‬in agreement with the order of the same two words in v. 24.1276 For a discussion of other syntactical inver‑ sions or variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. 1271  These include Box, Book of Isaiah, 248; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 145; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 376; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 2:137; Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 41; Torrey, Second Isaiah, 388; Volz, Jesaia II, 98; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 321; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 104; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 2:166. 1272  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 273–74. 1273  Childs, Isaiah, 390. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 191, too, prefers MT for the reading under discus‑ sion. See also Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 329. 1274  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 54. 1275  Ibid., 54. 1276  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 312.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

353

‫—יֻ ׇּק ‏‬The deviations (qal passive ‫ח‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ יֻ ׇּק ‏‬MT; nipʿal impf. ‫ח‬ ‫ ילק ‏‬1QIsaa) approxi‑ mate those in the previous verse (‫ יֻ ׇּקח‏‬MT; but note the pl. ‫ היקח ‏ו‬1QIsaa). Either MT’s qal passive ‫ יֻ ׇּקח‏‬or 1QIsaa’s nipʿal ties in well with the correlative nipʿal ‫יִ ׇּמ ֵל ‏‬. ‫ט‬ ‫—יְ ִר ֵיב ‏ְך‬MT’s ‫ב‬ ‫ וְ ֶאת־יְ ִר ֵיבְך ׇאנ ִֹכי ׇא ִרי ‏‬denotes a solid reading, but 1QIsaa’s ‫רוב ‏ך‬, later changed to ‫רובי ‏ך‬, is challenging. Did the scroll’s scribe intend a qal m. pl. ptc., “your opponent”?1277 Or did he intend ‫רוב‏י‬, rabbinic Hebrew for “youth, young man,”1278 thus paralleling ‫ ֵּבן‏‬in the parallelism? Most likely the editor had a qal ptc. in mind. Compare also a single manuscript of K (HUB–Isaiah), which reads ‫ריב ‏ך‬. 49:26 ‫ וְ ַה ֲא ַכ ְל ִּתי‏‬MT | ‫ ואוכלתי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְׁש ׇּכרּון‏‬MT | ‫ ישכרו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ג ֲֹא ֵלְך‏‬MT | ‫ וגואלכי‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ַה ֲא ַכ ְל ִּתי‏‬In 58:14, 1QIsaa and MT attest ‫והאכלתיך‏‬/‫והאכילכה‏‬, but in the pres‑ ent verse, the scroll features ‫ ואוכלת‏י‬versus MT’s ‫וְ ַה ֲא ַכ ְל ִּתי‏‬. Two phenomena ex‑ plain ‫( ואוכלת‏י‬via √‫)אכל‏‬: (a) the ālep replaced the hê (owing to the weakening of the gutturals); (b) ‫ ואוכלת‏י‬is patterned like a hipʿil pê–yôd first common sg. verb,1279 similar to ‫הופעת‏י‬. ‫—יִ ְׁש ׇּכרּון‏‬The difference between MT (‫ )יִ ְׁש ׇּכרּון‏‬and 1QIsaa (‫ )ישכרו‏‬is the para‑ gogic nûn. For a discussion of the paragogic nûn in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 8:12. ‫—וְ ג ֲֹא ֵל ‏ְך‬1QIsaa (‫ )וגואלכי‏‬displays an Aramaic second f. sg. pronominal end‑ ing ‫ ‑כ‏י‬here and again in 40:9 (‫)לכי‏‬.1280 See also ‫ מלכי‏‬in 22:1. For other Aramaic forms in 1QIsaa, see the commentaries at 17:10 and 51:9.

Isaiah 50

50:1

‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6.

1277  Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 354. 1278  Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1455. 1279  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 246n255. 1280  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 27.

354

Chapter 2

50:2 ‫ וְ ִא ‏‬MT | ‫מ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ א ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ה‏ן‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ִּת ְב ַא ‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ תיב ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (καὶ ξηρανθήσονται) ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ִּת ְב ַאׁש‏‬Diverse possible explanations shed light on the deviation between MT (‫ ִּת ְב ַאׁש‏‬, via √‫באׁש‏‬, “to stink,” HALOT, 107) and 1QIsaa (‫)תיבש‏‬: (a) The de‑ viations may pertain to orthography, where MT has a plene versus 1QIsaa’s de‑ fective spelling. There are many other examples where the scroll, for various reasons, lacks the ʾālep, e.g., see ‫ ְמ ַא ְּׁש ֶריָך‏‬MT versus ‫ משריך‏‬1QIsaa (3:12); ‫ּומ ִריא‏‬ ְ MT and 4QIsac versus ‫ ימרו‏‬1QIsaa (11:6); ‫ נֶ ֱא ׇס ִפים‏‬MT and 1QIsab versus ‫נספים‏‬ 1QIsaa (13:4); ‫ ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכ‏י‬MT versus ‫ מלכ‏י‬1QIsaa (14:32); ‫ ׇה ִביא‏ּו‬MTket (‫ ׇה ִב ִיאי‏‬MTqere) versus ‫ הבי ‏ו‬1QIsaa (16:3). (b) Based on LXX’s καὶ ξηρανθήσονται, several pre-Qumran scholars have emended MT to read ‫תיבש‏‬‎1281 (= 1QIsaa), which may be derived from √‫“( יבׁש‏‬be dry,” HALOT, 384). This would explain the absence of the ʾālep in ‫ש‬ ‫ תיב ‏‬as well as the presence of the yôd. Both MT (“their fish stink”) and 1QIsaa (“their fish dry up”) are possible in the context. But following Kutscher,1282 it is my view that the scroll’s scribe was impact‑ ed by the somewhat synonymous √‫( חרב‏‬hipʿil, “to cause to dry up, run dry,” HALOT, 349), which appears five words earlier (although this theory does not explain LXX’s reading). Moreover, MT’s ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ִּת ְב ַא ‏‬works well in the parallelism and should therefore be followed. 50:3 ‫ ַא ְל ִּביׁש‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אלביש ‏‬1QIsaa 50:4 ‫ יׇ ִעיר … יׇ ִעי ‏ר‬MT LXX | ‫ ויעיר … ויעי ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇ ִעיר … יׇ ִעיר‏‬With regard to 1QIsaa’s plus of two wāws (‫)ויעיר … ויעיר‏‬, Pulikottil proposes that the scribe “added the [first] waw” to clarify “the relationship of ‫ דבר‏‬with the rest of the verse by way of different punctuation.”1283 The second wāw is an epexegetical or explicative wāw designed to restate the first clause of the bicolon. While it is difficult to know which of the Hebrew witnesses has the 1281  See, for example, Box, Book of Isaiah, 249; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 146; Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 303; Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 41; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 333; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 2:170. Contrast Torrey, Second Isaiah, 391, who maintains that reading ‫ש‬ ‫ = תיב ‏‬LXX “seems inferior.” 1282  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 241. 1283  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 83.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

355

primary reading, the overall evidence points to the fact that the scribe of 1QIsaa utilized conjunctions more frequently than MT. 50:5 ‫ יְ הוִ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ אלוהי ‏‬1QIsaa 50:6

‫ ְלמ ְֹר ִטי ‏‬MT | ‫ למטלים‏‬1QIsaa | εἰς ῥαπίσματα LXX • ‫ ִה ְס ַּת ְר ִּת ‏י‬MT | ‫ הסירותי‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫ם‬

(ἀπέστρεψα) ‫— ְלמ ְֹר ִטים‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫ למטלי ‏‬is perplexing (from √‫טלל‏‬, “to cause to fall”?; √‫מטל‏‬, “to beat, to strike”? a causative from √‫)?נטל‏‬.1284 Inasmuch as the scroll’s reading of ‫ למטלים‏‬contains five of the six characters that belong to MT’s ‫( למרטים‏‬lāmed, medial mêm, ṭêt, yôd, and final mêm), the deviation may be the result of an unconscious error (the scribe was not paying attention), or perhaps the word was illegible on his Vorlage. Beyond the verse under discussion, √‫ מרט‏‬appears twice in Isaiah (18:2, 7) and on both occasions MT = 1QIsaa. LXX’s εἰς ῥαπίσματα seems to be based on the graphically similar ‫ם‬ ‫ לחבטי ‏‬rather than ‫ם‬ ‫למרטי ‏‬.1285 ‫— ִה ְס ַּת ְר ִּת‏י‬MT Isaiah attests √‫ סתר‏‬+ ‫ם‬ ‫ פני ‏‬in 8:17; 50:6; 54:8; 59:2; and 64:6. In these verses, 1QIsaa has the same reading (but note 1QIsaa’s superscript ‫ת‬ ‫ א ‏‬in 8:17), except for 50:6, where the scroll has ‫“( פני לוא הסירותי‏‬I did not turn aside my face”) in place of MT’s ‫“( ׇּפנַ י לֹא ִה ְס ַּת ְר ִּתי‏‬I did not hide my face”). Based on the scroll’s reading here (with the support of LXX), together with the fact that 2 Chr 30:9 employs the combination of √‫ סור‏‬+ ‫ם‬ ‫פני ‏‬, Kutscher suggests that, dur‑ ing the Second Temple period, there was “a tendency to substitute ‫ הסר פנים‏‬for ‫הסתר פנים‏‬.”1286 MT has the primary reading. 50:7 ‫ וׇ ֵא ַד ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ ואדע ‏‬1QIsaa 50:8 ‫ נַ ַע ְמ ׇדה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ נעמוד ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ּיׇ ַח ‏ד‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—נַ ַע ְמ ׇדה‏‬For MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ נַ ַע ְמ ׇד ‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel (‫)נעמודה‏‬, see the discussion in 43:13. ‫—ּיׇ ַח ‏ד‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ ּיׇ ַח ‏ד‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. 1284  Büttner, “Note on ‫ מטלים‬in the Great Isaiah Scroll (Isa 50:6),” 138; see also the findings of Guillaume, “Some Readings in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah,” 43. 1285  As per the claims of Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 61. 1286  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 268.

356

Chapter 2

50:9 ‫ ֵהן … ֵה‏ן‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנה … הנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫אכ ֵל ‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫ י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ יאכול ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵהן … ֵהן‏‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ הן‏‬and ‫הנה‏‬, see 20:6. ‫אכ ֵל ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ְ ֹ ‫—י‬Regarding the wāw mater in 1QIsaa’s ‫יאכולם‏‬, in contrast to the vowel system of MT, see the comments at 20:1. 50:10 ‫ יְ ֵר ‏‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ ירא ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇה ַל ‏ְך‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ הלכ ‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ם‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ֲח ֵׁש ִכי ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ חשוכי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יְ ֵרא … ׇה ַלְך‏‬The pl. forms of 1QIsaa (‫ )יראי … הלכו‏‬are inconsistent with the sg. ‫ח‬ ‫“( ְיִב ַט ‏‬let him trust”). 1QIsaa’s scribe apparently made the verbs pl. based on ‫“( בכם ‏‬among you” [pl.]). ‫ה‬ ‫— ֲח ֵׁש ִכים‏‬The deviation here pertains to ‫ם‬ ‫( חשכי ‏‬MT and 1QIsab) or ‫ם‬ ‫חשוכי ‏‬ (1QIsaa). Inasmuch as the noun ‫חׁש ‏ְך‬ ֶ (or ‫ה‬ ‫ ) ֲח ֵׁש ׇיכ ‏‬appears only in this verse in the pl., it is difficult to determine which reading was primary. 50:11 ‫ ֵהן‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ הנה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֻּכ ְּל ֶכם‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ כול ‏‬1QIsaa cf. CD A 5.13 • ‫ ְמ ַאּזְ ֵרי‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ומאזר ‏י‬1QIsab | κατισχύετε LXX (via √‫ ִּת ְׁש ׇּכבּו ‏ן • )?עזז‏‬MT | ‫תשכב ‏ו‬ 1QIsaa ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For commentary on the variants ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬and ‫ה‏ן‬, see 20:6. ‫— ֻּכ ְּל ֶכם‏‬MT and 1QIsab attest ‫כלכם‏‬, which is in line with other second pl. forms in the verse: ‫לכו‏‬, ‫בערתמה‏‬, ‫לכמה‏‬, and ‫תשכבו‏‬. 1QIsaa incorrectly deviates with ‫ם‬ ‫כול ‏‬, an apparent loss of the second kāp (‫ )כלכם‏‬by means of haplography. ‫— ִּת ְׁש ׇּכבּון‏‬Here MT has the paragogic nûn (‫ ) ִּת ְׁש ׇּכבּון‏‬versus 1QIsaa (‫)תשכבו‏‬. For a discussion of the paragogic nûn in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 8:12.

Isaiah 51

51:1 ‫ ֶאל … וְ ֶאל‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX (εἰς … καὶ εἰς) | ‫‏ע[ל … ו]על‬1QIsab 51:2 ‫אתיו‏‬ ִ ‫ ְק ׇר‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ קרתיהו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ֲא ׇב ְר ֵכהּו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ואפרהו‏‬1QIsaa | LXX (καὶ εὐλόγησα αὐτὸν καὶ ἠγάπησα αὐτὸν) ‫אתיו‏‬ ִ ‫— ְק ׇר‬For 1QIsaa’s reading of ‫קרתיה ‏ו‬, see the comments at 6:4. ‫—וַ ֲא ׇב ְר ֵכהּו‏‬Three factors may account for the textual variant: (a) The readings of ‫( ואברכה‏ו‬MT, 1QIsab) and ‫( ואפרהו‏‬1QIsaa) are graphically and

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

357

morphologically similar; the similarity of these structures may explain the divergences—a scribe of either MT or 1QIsaa erred during the transmission of their respective texts. (b) When the 1QIsaa scribe used √‫ פרה‏‬and √‫)ואפרהו וארבהו‏( רבה‏‬, he was influenced by the pairing of √‫ רבה‏‬and √‫ פרה‏‬in more than a dozen verses (e.g., Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4, etc.), including passages that set forth the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:20–21; 28:3–4; 35:11–12). Abraham, of course, is referred to in the passage under discussion (‫)הביטו אל אברהם אביכם‏‬. (c) MT attests √‫ ברך‏‬and √‫)וַ ֲא ׇב ְר ֵכהּו וְ ַא ְר ֵּבהּו‏( רבה‏‬, two roots that are collo‑ cated in a number of passages, including Gen 1:22, 28; 9:1; 17:20; 22:17; 26:24; 28:3; Deut 7:13; Ps 107:38; plus others. One could argue that a scribe from the Masoretic tradition was impacted by one or more of these scriptural passages. Both √‫ ברך‏‬and √‫ פרה‏‬fit the parallelistic structure, and arguments favor ei‑ ther textual tradition, e.g., Driver1287 prefers the scroll’s reading; Oswalt1288 sup‑ ports MT. But inasmuch as 1QIsab equals MT (and cf. LXX), ‫ וַ ֲא ׇב ְר ֵכה ‏ּו‬is likely the primary reading. 51:3

‫ יִ ׇּמ ֵצ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ימצאו‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ זִ ְמ ׇרה‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫זמרה נס יגון ואנחה‏‬ ‫א‬

1QIsaa ‫—יִ ׇּמ ֵצ ‏‬For the double subject ‫ששון ושמחה‏‬, 1QIsaa produces the pl. verb ‫א‬ ‫ימצא ‏ו‬. But Paul explains that the word pair ‫ ששון ושמחה‏‬produce a hendiadys, and therefore the sg. verb ‫( יִ ׇּמ ֵצא‏‬MT) is appropriate.1289 ‫—זִ ְמ ׇרה‏‬1QIsaa exhibits a plus of ‫נס יגון ואנחה‏‬, which is a harmonization, de‑ rived from either ‫ה‬ ‫( ונסו יגון ואנח ‏‬35:10) or ‫ה‬ ‫( נסו יגון ואנח ‏‬51:11). Isaiah 35:10 and 51:11 are parallel passages (almost word for word). Of the two passages—35:10 and 51:11—the latter is more likely the source for the scroll’s addition in the present passage (51:3), owing to its proximity (a few verses away). 51:4 ‫ ַה ְק ִׁשיבּו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אקשיב ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַע ִּמ‏י‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ ַע ִּמי ‏‬MTmss ‫— ַה ְק ִׁשיב ‏ּו‬1QIsaa’s reading is another example of the copyist writing the hê where MT (and 1QIsab) have an ālep. For other examples of this circumstance, see 12:4. But the copyist was inconsistent with this approach, and another pos‑ sibility in the present verse may explain the textual variant. Was ‫( ארגיע‏‬also a hipʿil) located immediately below ‫ אקשיבו‏‬in the scribe’s Vorlage? A count of the 1287  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 28. 1288  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 330. 1289  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 361.

358

Chapter 2

letters and spaces allows for this possibility. If so, the copyist may have appro‑ priated the ʾālep and attached it to ‫אקשיב ‏ו‬. 51:5 ‫ ּוזְ ר ַֹעי … זְ ר ִֹעי‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ וזרועו … זרוע‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵא ַל‏י‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫אלי‏ו‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ יְ יַ ֵחלּו‏ן‬MT | ‫ יוחילו‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫—ּוזְ ר ַֹעי … זְ ר ִֹעי‏‬Versus three first pronominal forms, “my arm,” “to me” and “my arm” (= MT 1QIsab), 1QIsaa has three pronominal deviations: “his arm” (‫)וזרועו‏‬, “to him” (‫ )אליו‏‬and “his arm” (‫)זרועו‏‬. The deviations may have arisen due to the graphic similarity of the yôd/wāw, although the difference between ‫ אלי‏‬and ‫ אליו‏‬required copying an additional letter. 51:6 ‫ ַל ׇּׁש ַמיִ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ שמי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ִמ ַּת ַח ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ מתחת ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫י־ׁש ַמיִ ם ֶּכ ׇע ׇׁשן נִ ְמ ׇלח ‏ּו‬ ‫ִּכ ׇ‬ ‫ וְ ׇה ׇא ֶרץ ַּכ ֶּבגֶ ד ִּת ְב ֶלה‬MT 1QIsab‫ )‏ ֯כי֯ ֯ש[מים כעשן נמלחו והארץ כבגד ת]בלה( ‏‬LXX cf. 1QM XV.10 | ‫ וראו מי ברא את אלה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹמו־כ‏ן‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ̇כמוכ‏ן‬1QIsab ‫— ִמ ַּת ַח ‏‬Versus MT and 1QIsab (‫) ִמ ַּת ַחת‏‬, the form of 1QIsaa (‫ )מתחתה‏‬features ‫ת‬ the adverbial ending a, which is occasionally attached to compound preposi‑ tional phrases and adverbs in QH.1290 See also the comments at 6:2; and note 1QIsaa’s adverb ‫ה‬ ‫ מואד ‏‬in 47:6, 9 and 52:13. ‫י־ׁש ַמיִ ם ֶּכ ׇע ׇׁשן נִ ְמ ׇלחּו וְ ׇה ׇא ֶרץ ַּכ ֶּבגֶ ד ִּת ְב ֶלה‏‬ ‫— ִּכ ׇ‬Against MT (which has support of 1QIsab‫ ‏‬and LXX), 1QIsaa lacks an entire bicolon, which reads, “for the heavens will scatter like rising smoke, and the earth will wear out like a garment.” In place of the missing bicolon, 1QIsaa reads ‫“( וראו מי ברא את אלה‏‬and see who created these”), a harmonization from 40:26, although v. 26 lacks the accusa‑ tive marker (‫)וראו מי ברא אלה‏‬. Ulrich rightly points out that the expansion in the scroll created a problem; the third f. sg. suffix attached to ‫ה‬ ‫ ויושבי ‏‬hearkens back to the earth (MT) and not the earth’s creator (1QIsaa). MT has the cor‑ rect antecedent, “the earth will wear out like a garment, and its inhabitants (‫יׁש ֶב ׇיה‏‬ ְ ְ‫)ו‬ …,” with “its” hearkening back to “earth.”1291 For two reasons, this harmonization was an intentional deed: (a) 51:6 and 40:26 are thematically connected because they include opening expressions that have common elements: ‫אּו־מֹרום ֵעינֵ ֶיכם‏‬ ‫( ְׂש ׇ‬40:26) and ‫יכם‏‬ ֶ ֵ‫ְׂשאּו ַל ׇּׁש ַמיִ ם ֵעינ‬ (51:6); and (b) “Having read the passage in the light of 40:26, the scribe omitted the ‫ ל‏‬so that both passages begin with similar expressions: ‫שאו שמים‏ = שאו מרום‬. This case illustrates the fact that harmonizations are not just blind attempts to

1290  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 362–65. 1291  Ulrich, “Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” 302–3.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

359

bring passages to agreement, but they are the result of the careful reading of the passage.”1292 ‫ֹמו־כ‏ן‬ ֵ ‫— ְּכ‬MT, 1QIsaa read ‫“( כמו כן‏‬in like manner”). With its reading of ‫ ̇כמוכן‏‬, 1QIsab probably intended ‫ כמו כ‏ן‬but with an improper division of words. But as Oswalt points out, “1QIsb has kmwkn, which has been interpreted as ‘like a locust’ (see BHS). This reading has been attractive to scholars because the MT construction, kemô-ken, ‘like this,’ does not occur elsewhere.”1293 Oswalt concludes his discussion by writing that ‫ ̇כמוכ‏ן‬is “highly suspect” and either signifies an orthographic variant or the copyist of 1QIsb wrote it to “make sense of … [a] corrupt text that precedes”1294 it. 51:7 ‫ּומּגִ ֻּדפ ׇֹתם‏‬ ִ MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ וממגדפות ‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫)וממגדפתם‏‬ ‫ּומּגִ ֻּדפ ׇֹת ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ִ —MT reads ‫ם‬ ‫ּומּגִ ֻּדפ ׇֹת ‏‬ ִ , a nonabsolute hapax legomenon from ‫ּדּופה‏‬ ‫ּגִ ׇ‬ (“abuse,” HALOT, 178) preceded by the preposition ‫ ִמ‏ן‬. 1QIsab attests ‫ם‬ ‫וממגדפת ‏‬, with the double mêm, which indicates a piʿel ptc. ‫( ְמגַ ֵּד ‏ף‬e.g., Num 15:30; Ps 44:17), also prefaced by the preposition ‫ ִמן‏‬. 1QIsaa apparently first read ‫ומגדפותם‏‬ (= MT), but a subsequent hand added a second mêm, thus reading ‫=( וממגדפותם‏‬ 1QIsab). Additionally, Barthélemy points out that it is “likely that the repetition of the mem in [the two Qumran scrolls] was an attempt to assimilate the rare form of MT to a more common form.”1295 Either reading is possible (MT or the scrolls), although the grammatically structured parallelism seems to favor MT’s noun (‫ּדּופה‏‬ ‫)ּגִ ׇ‬. 51:8 ‫אכ ֵלם‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫ י‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ יֹואכול ‏‬1QIsaa ‫אכ ֵל ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ְ ֹ ‫—י‬For MT’s /a/ class vowel (‫אכ ֵלם‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫ )י‬versus 1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel (‫)יֹואכולם‏‬, see the discussion in 43:13. 51:9 ‫ ַא ְ ‏‬MT | ‫ את‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ּת‬ ‫ ַה ַּמ ְח ֶצ ֶב ‏‬MT LXXC α′ σ′ θ′ Syr | ‫ת‬ ‫ המוחצ ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsac (‫המוח]צת‏‬ ̇ ) Vulg (percussisti) | > LXX • ‫ ַר ַה ‏ב‬MT 4QIsac (‫רה[ב‏‬ ̇ )|‫ב‬ ‫ רחו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ַּתּנִ י‏ן‬ MT | ‫ תנים‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫— ַא ְּת‏‬Although MT’s conventional form of the second f. sg. personal pro‑ noun is ‫ ַאת‏‬, a few occurrences appear as ‫ ַא ִּתי‏‬in ketib (see Judg 17:2; 1 Kgs 14:2; 1292  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 63. 1293  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 332n17. 1294  Ibid., 332n17. 1295  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 399.

360

Chapter 2

2 Kgs 4:16, 23; 8:1; Jer 4:30; Ezek 36:13), but in each case for ‫ ַא ִּתי‏‬the qere reads ‫ּת‬ ‫ ַא ְ ‏‬. 1QIsaa’s usual form of the second f. sg. personal pronoun is ‫את‏‬, but in 51:9, 10, 12 a copyist wrote ‫את‏י‬. Scholars debate whether 1QIsaa’s ‫ את‏י‬was acquired from Aramaic or whether it signifies a genuine archaic form.1296 Compare also other Aramaic forms in the scroll, including 1QIsaa’s qal pf. second f. sg. ending ‫‑ת‏י‬ (versus MT’s ‫‑ּת‏‬ ְ ) (for examples, see the commentary at 17:10); the object suffix ‫( ‑כי‏‬49:15; ‫ ֶא ְׁש ׇּכ ֵחְך‏‬MT; ‫ אשכחכי‏‬1QIsaa); the pronominal suffix ‫( ‑כי‏‬49:26; ‫וְ ג ֲֹא ֵלְך‏‬ MT; ‫ וגואלכי‏‬1QIsaa);1297 and the form ‫ מלכ‏י‬in 22:1. ‫— ַה ַּמ ְח ֶצ ֶבת‏‬MT’s reading is from √‫“( חצב‏‬cut in pieces,” HALOT, 342). ‫ת‬ ‫המוחצ ‏‬ of 1QIsaa and 4QIsac (but note that only the final two characters of 4QIsac are extant on the leather, reconstructed as ‫המוח]צת‏‬ ̇ ) is likely derived from √‫מחץ‏‬ (“to smash,” HALOT, 571). Tov proposes that ‫ת‬ ‫ מחצב ‏‬is constructed of two com‑ ponents (‫ המצבת‏‬+ ‫)החצבת‏‬.1298 Based on Job 26:12–13, which has a similar con‑ text as the verse under discussion and which also pairs the roots ‫ מחץ‏‬and ‫חל ‏ל‬, the two scrolls have an allowable reading (cf. BHS, p. 756n9a).1299 But based on a Ugaritic parallelism, which pairs “she smites // she strikes” (√‫ מחץ‏‬and √‫)חצב‏‬,1300 MT’s reading is entirely acceptable. Thus, while both MT and the scrolls’ vari‑ ants are appropriate, we follow MT based on the lectio difficilior melior prin‑ ciple (following Cohen’s argument).1301 LXX lacks the final phrase in the verse, possibly via haplography ‫א‬ ‫הלוא … הלו ‏‬. ‫— ַר ַה ‏‬The chief difference between the readings of MT (‫ ) ַר ַהב‏‬and 1QIsaa ‫ב‬ (‫ )רחוב‏‬is a hê versus a ḥêt, which suggests that this is a case of graphic similar‑ ity. MT’s reading makes better sense in the context (see HALOT, 1193). ‫— ַּתּנִ י‏ן‬The signification of ‫ ַּתּנִ י‏ן‬is unknown, although many scholars have set forth proposals for its meaning (including “sea-monster,” “sea-dragon,” “drag‑ on,” “serpent,” and “crocodile”; see HALOT, 1764). For 1QIsaa’s spelling of ‫ם‬ ‫תני ‏‬, see Ezek 29:3 and 32:2 and a Geniza fragment (G-B Eb 10, HUB–Isaiah). See also Isa 27:1, where both MT and 1QIsaa attest ‫תני‏ן‬. 1296  See the discussions in Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 260; Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 30, 104; Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 79; Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 15. 1297  According to Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 16, “the 2 fem sg. pronominal suffix ‫ ‑כ ‏י‬is preserved twenty-seven times in 1QIsaa as against 217 occurrences of ‫ך‬ ‫‑ ‏‬.” 1298  Tov, TCHB3, 226; see also HALOT, 342. 1299  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 308 (following Houbigant and others), prefers ‫המוחצת‏‬, which is the reading of 1QIsaa, 4QIsac. 1300   See the discussion in Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 44. 1301  Cohen, “Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants,” 44; see also n. 5. North, Second Isaiah, 211, writes that “there is no reason to alter MT.”

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

361

51:10

‫ ַא ְ ‏‬MT | ‫ את‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַמ ֲע ַמ ֵּק ‏י‬MT LXX | ‫ במעמק ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫ּת‬ ‫— ַאת‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫ את‏י‬for the second f. sg. independent pronoun, see the

comments in 51:9. ‫— ַמ ֲע ַמ ֵּק ‏י‬For ‫“ ַמ ֲע ַמ ֵּקי־יׇ ם‏‬depths of the sea,” read a single word, ‫ ַמ ֲע ַמ ִקים‏‬, “depths of water” (HALOT, 614). 1QIsaa has the preposition bêt (‫)במעמקי‏‬, which is lack‑ ing in MT. 51:11

‫ּופדּויֵ ‏י‬ ְ MT | ‫( ופזורי‏‬preceded by erasure ‫ )ופ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ λελυτρωμένοις LXX • ‫יְ ׁשּובּון‏‬ MT | ‫ ישוב‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ְּב ִרּנׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ברונ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ֹעול ‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ֹה‬ ‫ת]הי ̇‏‬ ֯ ‫עולם‬ 4QIsac • ‫ם‬ ‫אׁש ‏‬ ‫ ר ֹ ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ רואשיהמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ִּׂשיגּו‏ן‬MT 4QIsac (‫ישי]גון‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ ישיג‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ נׇ ס ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ס‬ ‫ ונ ‏‬1QIsaa | 4QIsac (?‫)ֹו[נס‏‬ ‫— ְּופדּויֵ י‏‬Verse 11 in 1QIsaa begins with an erasure, for which ‫ ו ‏פ‬is legible, al‑

though there appears to be a suspended wāw or the remains of a lāmed above the third character of the erasure (reading ‫ופול‏‬ ̇ ?). According to Talmon, 1QIsaa’s reading is “the lectio difficilior, with a fair claim at originality” that “may be deemed a synonymous reading of ‫ופדויי‏‬.”1302 So, too, HALOT (912) states that MT’s ‫ ְפדּויֵ‏י‬is “to be read as” ‫זּורי‏‬ ֵ ‫ = ְפ‬1QIsaa. However, Oswalt (and others) supports MT and translates the passage, “And the ran‑ somed of the Lord will return.”1303 One persuasive argument for accepting MT’s reading pertains to the fact that several scriptural passages collocate the Divine Name with √‫ פדה‏‬in ways that support (more or less) the reading in the verse under discussion (see Num 18:15; Deut 7:8; 9:26; 15:15; 21:8; see especially Isa 35:10 and 51:11; but compare also various entries in HALOT, 912). ‫יְ ׁשּובּון‏‬1/‫יַ ִּׂשיגּון‏‬2—MT has the paragogic nûn (‫ יְ ׁשּובּון‏‬bis) versus 1QIsaa (‫ישובו‏‬ bis). For a discussion of the paragogic nûn in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 8:12. ‫ֹעול ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫— ׇ‬Against MT 1QIsaa LXX, 4QIsac attests the plus of ‫ֹה‬ ‫ת]הי ̇ ‏‬ ֯ after ‫ם‬ ‫עול ‏‬. ‫—נׇ סּו‏‬For the deviations in the present verse (‫ נׇ סּו‏‬MT | ‫ ונס‏‬1QIsaa), compare the parallel passage in 35:10 (i.e., ‫ וְ נׇ ס ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ס‬ ‫ ונ ‏‬1QIsaa). 51:12

‫ ַא ְ ‏‬MT | ‫ את‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ּנׇ ֵת‏ן‬MT | ‫ נת‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫ּת‬ ‫— ַאת‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫ את‏י‬for the second f. sg. independent pronoun, see the comments in 51:9.

1302  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 237. 1303  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 339.

362

Chapter 2

51:13 ‫ וַ ִּת ְׁש ַּכ ‏‬MT 4QIsac (‫ ותשכח ‏י | )ות]שכח‏‬1QIsaa • > MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ א ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וַ ִּת ְׁש ַּכ ‏‬MT, 4QIsac set forth an impf. second m. sg. verb ‫ח‬ ‫ח‬ ‫( וַ ִּת ְׁש ַּכ ‏‬cf. also ‫ ותפח ‏ד‬in the same verse, attested in both MT and 1QIsaa), which possibly refers to Israel.1304 1QIsaa reads ‫ותשכח ‏י‬, a second f. sg. verbal form that continues the forms in v. 12, e.g., ‫ת‬ ‫ א ‏‬and ‫ותירא‏י‬. ‫—את‏‬The addition of the accusative marker in 1QIsaa is unnecessary here. For other deviations dealing with the accusative marker, see the discussion at 2:4. 51:14 ‫ צ ֶֹעה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ צר ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫—צ ֶֹע ‏‬For a discussion of √‫ =( צעה‏‬MT) and √‫ =( צרה‏‬1QIsaa), see HALOT ‫ה‬ (1040, 1054). The difference between the two Hebrew witnesses is one letter, evidently a case of graphic similarity. 51:15 ‫ וְ ׇאנ ִֹכי‏‬MT | ‫ אנוכ‏י‬1QIsaa | ὅτι ἐγὼ LXX 51:16

‫ וׇ ׇא ִׂשי ‏‬MT 4QIsab (‫ם | )]ו֯ אשם‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ אשי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) 51:17

‫ ׇׁש ִתית … ׇׁש ִתי ‏‬MT | ‫ שתיתי … שתית‏י‬1QIsaa ‫ת‬ ‫— ׇׁש ִתית … ׇׁש ִתית‏‬For the deviations between MT and 1QIsaa, see the com‑ ments at 17:10. 51:18

‫ ְמנַ ֵה ‏ל‬MT | ‫ מנח ‏ל‬1QIsaa | ὁ παρακαλῶν LXX (via √‫ה • )?נחם‏‬ ‫ ׇל ‏‬MT | ‫ ל ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫— ְמנַ ֵהל‏‬MT’s reading (‫ ) ְמנַ ֵהל‏‬is comprehensible in the passage (√‫נהל‏‬, “to es‑ cort, with care,” HALOT, 675). 1QIsaa errs with ‫מנחל‏‬, a matter of graphic confu‑

sion between hê and ḥêt. ‫— ׇלה‏‬MT’s third f. suffix attached to the preposition (‫ ) ׇלה‏‬matches other f. forms in the passage (‫יׇ ׇל ׇדה‏‬, ‫ּה‬ ‫ ְּביׇ ׇד ‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫)ּגִ ֵּד ׇל ‏‬. 1QIsaa’s incorrect ‫ ל ‏ך‬may signify a borrowing from ‫לכ‏י‬, located in the following verse.

1304  This suggestion is made by Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 344.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

363

51:19 ‫ ֵהּנׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ המ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ק ְֹרא ַֹתיִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ קראתכ ‏י‬1QIsaa | ἀντικείμενά σοι LXX • ‫ ׇל ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ לכ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֲאנַ ֲח ֵמ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ ינחמ ‏ך‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ֵהּנׇ ‏‬MT’s independent f. pl. pronoun ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ֵהּנׇ ‏‬refers to ‫ ; ְׁש ַּתיִ ם‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ המ ‏‬is in error; or, perhaps a copyist thought ‫ה‬ ‫ המ ‏‬refers back to ‫ם‬ ‫( בני ‏‬v. 18). ‫— ֲאנַ ֲח ֵמ ‏ְך‬In two parallel lines of this verse, MT features a third m. sg. verb and a first common sg. verb (‫)יׇ נּוד … ֲאנַ ֲח ֵמְך‏‬. 1QIsaa, however, has two third m. sg. verbs (‫)ינוד … ינחמך‏‬. It is possible that the 1QIsaa scribe harmonized the text to read two third m. sg. verbs; or, perhaps he was transmitting what he saw in his Vorlage? Barthélemy et al., based on other similar morphological structures in the Bible (e.g., Lam 2:13 and Nah 3:7), prefers MT’s reading, asserting it as the lectio difficilior. Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, several text critics emended MT to read ‫ינחמ ‏ך‬‎1305 = 1QIsaa. Kennedy, for example, argued that ‫ אנחמך‏‬should read ‫“ ינחמך‏‬in order to restore the meaning rightly conserved in the Septuagint.”1306 Recent scholars, including Watts, Westermann, and Childs,1307 also prefer the reading of 1QIsaa. And we note that a single MTms (K, HUB–Isaiah) also reads ‫ינחמ ‏ך‬. The context allows for the readings of either MT and 1QIsaa,1308 and selecting one over the other remains a challenge. Nonetheless, owing to the weight of the evidence, especially of K, LXX, and 1QIsaa, the primary reading is ‫ינחמ ‏ך‬. Cf. also the translations of NIV, NEB, NRSV, and RSV. 51:20

‫ ִמ ְכ ׇמ ‏ר‬MT | ‫ מוכמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa | ἡμίεφθον LXX ‫— ִמ ְכ ׇמ ‏ר‬In 19:8 both MT and 1QIsaa attest ‫ת‬ ‫מכמר ‏‬, meaning “fishing net” (HALOT, 580). But in the present verse, MT has ‫“( מכמ ‏ר‬fishing net, keep-net,” HALOT, 580) and 1QIsaa reads ‫מוכמר‏‬, for which Kutscher writes “The word is

unclear,” but tentatively, 1QIsaa’s reading = MT.1309

1305  These include Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 148; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 388; Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 11; Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:114; Torrey, Second Isaiah, 405; and Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 332; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 2:162; and Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66, n.p. 1306  Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 11; Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 313, held a similar point of view. 1307  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 209; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 239; Childs, Isaiah, 400. 1308  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:376. 1309  On the word ‫מוכמ ‏ר‬, see Kutscher’s discussion, Language and Linguistic Background, 157, 478, and 496.

364

Chapter 2

51:21 ‫ּוׁש ֻכ ַר ‏‬ ‫ת‬ ְ MT LXX | ‫ת‬ ‫ שכור ‏‬1QIsaa 51:22 ‫אֹלהיִ ְך‏‬ ַ ֵ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ אלוהי ‏ך‬1QIsaa 4QTanḥ II 20 • ‫ּה‬ ‫ֹּתות ‏‬ ‫ ִל ְׁש ׇ‬MT | ‫ לשתות ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ֹּתות ‏‬ ‫ּה‬ ‫— ִל ְׁש ׇ‬MT has a third f. sg. suffix versus the third m. sg. suffix of 1QIsaa (‫)לשתותו‏‬. The antecedent of the suffix (“to drink it”) is cup (‫)כוס‏‬, which in BH is a f. sg. noun. MT’s suffix, therefore, is grammatically accurate for this Isaianic passage. The scribe of 1QIsaa was impacted by rabbinic Hebrew, wherein cup is a m. noun.1310 51:23

‫ וְ ַׂש ְמ ִּת ׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ ושמתיה‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֹמוגַ יִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ מוגיך ומעני ‏ך‬1QIsaa LXX 4QTanḥ II 22 • ‫יה‬ ‫ ְלנַ ְפ ֵׁשְך‏‬MT | ‫ לנפשכ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְׁש ִח ‏י‬MT | ‫ שוח ‏י‬1QIsaa 4QTanḥ IV ‫—ֹמוגַ יִ ְך‏‬The plus of ‫ענה‏√( ומעניך‏‬, “to oppress, to humilate,” HALOT, 853) in 1QIsaa after ‫“( ֹמוגַ יִ ‏ְך‬to torment, to grieve,” HALOT, 385) is supported more or less

by LXX (τῶν ταπεινωσάντων σε). LXX’s reading persuaded several pre-Qumran scholars to emend MT to read approximately according to the Greek text.1311 1QIsaa’s ‫ מוגיך ומעניך‏‬may be a genuine varia lectio that dropped out of MT through haplography1312 because of the graphic similarity of the two words: ‫ מ‏—ני ‏ך‬and ‫ ;מ‏—גיך‏‬or the plus of ‫ ומעני ‏ך‬may have been “an interpretative gloss of the hap. leg. ‫מוגי ‏ך‬.”1313 If ‫ ומעני ‏ך‬is an explicatory plus, then perhaps a glossa‑ tor received inspiration from either the parallelism in Lam 3:33, which features the synonymous roots ‫ יגה‏‬and ‫ענה‏‬, or from the words ‫ בני מעניך‏‬in Isa 60:14. For the variants discussed here, follow JPS, NEB, NIV, NSRV, all of which accept MT as the primary reading.

1310  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 394. 1311  The scholars include Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 148; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 389; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 342; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 2:185. Some critics, however, maintain that LXX sets forth a nonoriginal plus; these include Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 332; and Volz, Jesaia II, 117. 1312  See the arguments in Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:377; and contrast Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 351n87, who writes that “MT is both shorter and harder.… MT seems preferable.” 1313  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 239.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



365

Isaiah 52

52:1 ‫ ֻעּזֵ ‏ְך‬MT LXX | ‫ עוז‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇבֹא‏‬MT LXX 4QTanḥ IV 3 | ‫ ויבוא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֹעוד‏‬MT LXX | > 1QIsaa ‫— ֻעּזֵ ְך‏‬In MT, the expression ‫עֹז‏( ֻעזֵ ְך‏‬, “might, strength,” HALOT, 805), with its second f. sg. pronominal suffix, corresponds to ‫ ִת ְפ ַא ְר ֵּתְך‏‬in the synonymous par‑ allelism of this verse. With its reading of ‫עוז‏‬, 1QIsaa lacks the suffix, possibly borrowing from the similarly phrased ‫( עורי עורי לבשי ע‏ז‬51:9). The copyist of 1QIsaa had a second disconnect in the same position on the line when he failed to write ‫ ציו‏ן‬in its proper place; subsequently, he or another copyist wrote ‫ציו‏ן‬ supralinearly above ‫לבשי‏‬. 52:2 ‫קּומי‏‬ ִ MT 4QIsab | ‫ וקומ‏י‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) Syr • ‫ ְּׁש ִב‏י‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ ושב‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִה ְת ַּפ ְּתח ‏ּו‬MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ ִה ְת ַּפ ְּת ִח ‏י‬MTqere LXX 4QTanḥ III 3 ‫— ִה ְת ַּפ ְּתח ‏ּו‬Both MTket and 1QIsaa read ‫ ;התפתחו‏‬but the f. sg. reading of MTqere (‫ ) ִה ְת ַּפ ְּת ִחי‏‬signifies the primary reading because it is directed to the “daughter of Zion” (‫)בת ציון‏‬, a f. noun. So, too, Köhler prefers MTqere.1314 52:4 ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ ‏י‬MT | > 1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י‏‬See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. 52:5 ‫ ִמי‏‬MTket | ‫ה‬ ‫ מ ‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa • ‫מׁשֹל‏ו‬ ְ MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ משלי‏ו‬MTqere • ‫ יְ ֵה ִיליל‏ּו‬MT | ‫ והולל ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ ὀλολύζετε LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫יְ הוׇ ‏‬2‫ ‏‬MT LXX | > 1QIsaa ‫— ִמי‏‬MTket has ‫י־ל ‏י‬ ִ ‫ ִמ‬versus MTqere 1QIsaa ‫ ;מה ל ‏י‬Watts prefers to read MTqere 1QIsaa.1315 ‫מׁשֹל ‏ו‬ ְ —MTket attests a m. sg. ptc. (‫מׁשֹלו‏‬ ְ ) versus a m. pl. ptc. in MTqere‫‏‬ (‫)משליו‏‬, both of which are likely derived from √‫“( מׁשל‏‬to rule,” HALOT, 647). 1QIsaa’s ‫ מׁשלו‏‬probably equals that of MTket, although it is possible that the intent of 1QIsaa’s scribe was √‫“( מׁשל‏‬to use a proverb”), as per the discussion in Barthélemy.1316 The evidence, however, indicates that √‫“( מׁשל‏‬to rule”) is the primary reading.

1314  Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 47. 1315  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 215. 1316  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:380–81.

366

Chapter 2

‫—יְ ֵה ִיליל ‏ּו‬MT’s ‫( יְ ֵה ִיליל‏ּו‬hipʿil impf. third m. pl. from √‫ילל‏‬, “to howl, lament,” HALOT, 413) has set in motion several scholarly discussions, ranging from emending the text, to deleting one or more words, to retaining MT as it stands.1317 1QIsaa’s ‫ והוללו‏‬may be a hipʿil impv. m. pl. (also from √‫ )ילל‏‬or a poel pf. from √‫הלל‏‬‎1318‫“(‏‬to make a mockery,” HALOT, 413, 249; cf. 1QIsaa 15:3; 44:25). Watts opts for 1QIsaa, reading √‫הלל‏‬, translating “Its rulers boasted.”1319 Greenwood proposes that MT’s ‫ משלו יהיליל‏ו‬was created “due to metathesis resulting from orthographic confusion” and that proto-MT read ‫משליו הילילו‏‬, meaning “its rulers have rejoiced.”1320 Notwithstanding the multiple discussions regarding 1QIsaa’s textual variant, MT’s reading best fits the context, wherein Egypt and Assyria have oppressed Israel. Therefore, “They that rule over them make them to wail” is the preferred reading. Note also that Barthélemy, followed by Oswalt, remains with MT,1321 as do the translators of JPS, NRSV, and RSV. In my view, MT has the primary reading. ‫יְ הוׇ ‏‬2—MT twice attests ‫ נְ ֻאם־יְ הוׇ ה‏‬in this verse; 1QIsaa has ‫ נואם יהוה‏‬for the ‫ה‬ first occurrence but reads ‫ם‬ ‫( נוא ‏‬minus the Tetragrammaton) for the second occurrence. A likely explanation for 1QIsaa’s error is haplography, e.g., ‫ה‬ ‫נואם יהו ‏‬ ‫… נואם יהוה‬.

52:6

‫ ׇל ֵכ‏ן‬2 MT | > 1QIsaa LXX ‫ ׇל ֵכן‏‬2—MT attests ‫ ׇל ֵכן‏‬twice in this verse (separated by three words); 1QIsaa

has it once. There are multiple explanations for the deviation: a dittography in MT; a haplography in 1QIsaa; or the stylistic approach of a copyist or scribe.1322 Condamin proposes, “Avec LXX et Vulg. supprimer le second ‫לכן‏‬.”1323 After con‑ sulting JPS, NEB, NIV, NRSV, and RSV, I accept MT as the primary reading.

1317  See, for example, Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 148; Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:116; Torrey, Second Isaiah, 407; Volz, Jesaia II, 127; and Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 334. 1318  Suggested by Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 358. 1319  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 214–15. 1320  Greenwood, “Case of Metathesis in Isaiah LII 5B?” 138–41. 1321  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:380–81; Oswalt, Isaiah, 40–66, 358. 1322  See Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:381–82. 1323  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 315.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

367

52:7 ‫ ּנׇ או ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa LXXmss α′ σ′ θ′ Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ה‬ ‫ נא]ו ‏‬4QIsab | ὥρα LXXed • ‫ְמ ַב ֵּׂש ‏ר‬ ‫ מבשר מבשר … משמי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ַמ ְׁש ִמ ַיע … ְמ ַב ֵּׂשר‬MT LXX | ‫ע‬ ‫— ְמ ַב ֵּׂשר ַמ ְׁש ִמ ַיע … ְמ ַב ֵּׂשר‏‬The rhetorical scheme of MT in v. 7 consists of the duplication of the elements ‫ ְמ ַב ֵּׂש ‏ר‬and ‫יע‬ ‫ ַמ ְׁש ִמ ַ ‏‬in an aba’b’ pattern: ‫יע‬ ‫ְמ ַב ֵּׂשר ַמ ְׁש ִמ ַ ‏‬ ‫… ְמ ַב ֵּׂשר … ַמ ְׁש ִמ ַיע‬. MT is supported by LXX (cf. also Rom 10:15, which cites Isa 52:7). 1QIsaa disrupts this pattern with an aab’b’ pattern: ‫מבשר מבשר …‏‬ ‫משמיע … משמיע‬. It is not immediately discernible why this pattern exists in the scroll. For a discussion of syntactical inversions or variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see also 1:30. 52:8 ‫ֹקול‏‬2‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ קולם‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫ ִצֹּיון‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ציון ברחמים‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫ֹקול‏‬2—MT, 1QIsab read “your watchmen/scouts (see HALOT, 1044) lift up the voice.” 1QIsaa has ‫קולם‏‬, “their voice” (cf. the Targum ‫) ׇק ְלהֹון‏‬. ‫—יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. ‫— ִצֹּיון‏‬MT, supported by 1QIsab, reads “when the Lord returns to Zion” versus 1QIsaa, which provides the words “when the Lord returns to Zion with com‑ passion (‫)ברחמים‏‬.” LXX supports 1QIsaa. Two possibilities for the variant are: ‫ ברחמי ‏‬dropped out of MT (although the mechanism for its omission is not ‫ם‬ readily apparent); or, the scroll’s plus (“with compassion”) may signify an as‑ similation from Zech 1:16, which has corresponding language: “I have returned to Jerusalem with compassion” (‫ירּוׁש ַלםִ ְּב ַר ֲח ִמים‏‬ ‫) ַׁש ְב ִּתי ִל ׇ‬.1324 Watts follows 1QIsaa and LXX.1325 Unless more evidence comes forward, the primary reading is indeterminate. 52:9

‫ ַרּנְ נ ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ רונה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדיו‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫ ּגׇ ַא ‏ל‬MT 1QIsab | ‫וגאל‏‬ 1QIsaa LXX • ‫‏>‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ת‬ ‫ א ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַרּנְ נ ‏ּו‬MT, 1QIsab feature two asyndetic imperatives: ‫“( פצחו רננו‏‬be cheer‑ ful, exult”) (√‫פצח‏‬, “be cheerful, happy,” HALOT, 953; √‫רנן‏‬, “exult,” HALOT, 1248). For 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫פצחו רונ ‏‬, the form ‫ה‬ ‫ רונ ‏‬is an instance of the qull/qill alternation;1326

see also 14:7; 35:10; 44:23; 48:20; 49:13; 51:11; 54:1; and 55:12.

1324  See Skehan, “Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” 152n1. 1325  Watts, Isaiah 34–66, 215. 1326  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 321–22.

368

Chapter 2

‫—יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. ‫—את‏‬For deviations dealing with the accusative marker, see the discussion

at 2:4.

52:10 ‫ֹרוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ ז‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab | ‫ע‬ ‫ אז̇ רו ‏‬4QIsac • ‫ ׇא ֶר ‏ץ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ האר ‏ץ‬1QIsaa ‫—זְ ַ ‏‬1QIsac’s prosthetic ʾālep, written supralinearly, may be an Aramaism.1327 ‫ֹרוע‬ Cf. ‫ וְ ֶה ֶאזְ נִ יח ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsab (19:6); ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ׇאֹדו ‏‬MT (28:28); Jer 32:21; and Job 31:22. 52:11 ‫ ִמ ׇּׁשם‏‬MT | ‫ משםה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇט ֵמא‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫[מ]א‏‬ ֯ ‫ בטמה‏ | ) ֯ט‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹּתוכּה‏‬ ‫ ְצאּו ִמ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | > 1QIsab ‫— ׇט ֵמ ‏‬In BH, the bêt and lāmed are sometimes utilized as prepositional ‫א‬ objects, i.e., they are used to designate the accusative.1328 Such is the case in 1QIsaa, which marks the accusative with the preposition bêt (‫בטמה אל תגעו‏‬, cf. the Targum ‫מס ַא ‏ב‬ ‫) ִב ׇ‬. In the Bible, with very few exceptions (see Gen 26:29; Ruth 2:9), the preposition bêt accompanies the verb ‫נגע‏‬. 1QIsaa’s usage suggests that a scribe has simplified the text by adding the bêt. For a brief examination of a final letter written in the middle of a word (i.e., the mêm of ‫)משםה‏‬, see Tov.1329 ‫ֹּתוכ ‏‬ ‫ּה‬ ‫— ְצאּו ִמ ׇ‬This verse has a relatively rare case where MT = 1QIsaa ≠ 1QIsab. Both MT and 1QIsaa include ‫“( צאו מתוכה‏‬go out from her midst”); 1QIsab omits this phrase, perhaps an error of the eye: ‫‏צאו משם טמא אל תגעו צאו מתוכה‬. MT and 1QIsaa present the preferable reading. 52:12 ‫ יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵאל‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | + ‫א‬ ‫ ישראל אלוהי כול הארץ יקר ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵא ‏ל‬The plus of 1QIsaa (‫)אלוהי כול הארץ יקרא‏‬, lacking in MT, 1QIsab, and LXX,‫‏‬disrupts the clearly presented parallelistic structure of the passage that belongs to both MT and 1QIsab (“for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rearguard”; “to form a rearguard,” HALOT, 74). 1QIsaa’s plus is a characteristic example of a harmonization; it was acquired literatim from 54:5 (‫)אלהי כל הארץ יקרא‏‬. For additional examples of harmonizations, see 1:15.

1327  See the views of Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 11. 1328  Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 221–22. 1329  Tov, TCHB3, 197.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

369

52:13 ‫ יׇ רּו ‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsac | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ וירו ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid)1330 • ‫ּה‬ ‫ וְ נִ ׇּׂשא וְ גׇ ַב ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫וגב ‏‬ ֹ ‫ ְמ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ מואד ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ונשא‬1QIsab • ‫א ‏ד‬ ‫—וְ נִ ׇּׂשא וְ גׇ ַב ‏‬For the word order, MT equals 1QIsaa, versus that of 1QIsab (‫וגבה‏‬ ‫ּה‬ ‫)ונשא‬. LXX does not help to determine the primary reading, because the Greek translator translated both Hebrew verbs with καὶ δοξασθήσεται (“and he shall be glorified”). For a discussion of syntactical inversions or variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. ‫אד‏‬ ֹ ‫— ְמ‬For the locative termination on the adverbial ‫מואדה‏‬, see the com‑ ments at 16:6. 52:14 ‫ ִמ ְׁש ַחת‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ משחת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ת ֲֹאֹר‏ו‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ ותר‏ו | )ותוארו‏‬1QIsab • ‫ם‬ ‫ׇא ׇד ‏‬ MT 1QIsab | ‫ האדם‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ְׁש ַח ‏‬The notorious variant of 1QIsaa (‫ )משחתי‏‬has caused much scholarly ‫ת‬ discussion.1331 1QIsaa may be translated to read “I anointed” (qal perf. first com‑ mon sg.), which is perhaps a harmonization of Ps 45:8 (‫) ְמ ׇׁש ֲחָך‏‬. As Reider points out, “I anointed his appearance” does not make sense; “Surely one anoints a person, not his appearance.”1332 Reider concludes that “the real explanation of [1QIsaa’s reading] is the fondness of the copyist for vowel letters,”1333 i.e., there is no real variant between MT and the scroll. Other scholars view the variant in 1QIsaa as an intentional change to reflect a Messianic understanding.1334 Rubenstein sees the reading of 1QIsaa as a “hoph‘al participle in the const. state with a yodh ending. Such a conclusion would link up with the reading ‫ ִמ ְׁש ַחת‏‬, which could hardly have been transmitted without the authority of one school or another of Eastern Massoretes. The conjecture that the original MT reading was a hophʿal participle would thereby gain in plausibility.”1335 If 1QIsaa’s reading is indeed a textual variant, then MT and 1QIsab present the primary reading. 1330  For the BHS error regarding LXX’s rendering of ‫ירום‏‬, see Hofius, “Zur SeptuagintaUbersetzung von Isa 52, 13b,” 107–10. 1331  See Brownlee’s summary, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 204–15; Brownlee, “Servant of the Lord in the Qumran Scrolls,” 8–15; see also Rubinstein, “Isaiah LII, 14—‫— ִמ ְׁש ַחת‏‬and the DSIa Variant,” 475–79; Guillaume, “Some Readings in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah,” 40–43; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 262; Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 387–90, and Urciuoli, “Suffering Messiah at Qumran?” 273–81. 1332  Reider, “On MsHTY in the Qumran Scrolls,” 27. 1333  Ibid., 27; see the debate between Reider and Brownlee, ibid., 27–28. 1334  See the brief discussion, together with bibliographic references, in Heskett, Messianism within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah, 289–90. 1335  Italics in original; Rubinstein, “Isaiah LII 14—‫— ִמ ְׁש ַחת‏‬and the DSIa Variant,” 479.

370

Chapter 2

‫( ּת ַֹאר‏—וְ ת ֲֹאֹר ‏ו‬MT), a noun of the quṭl pattern, is spelled as ‫תוא ‏ר‬, ‫תא ‏ר‬, ‫תאו ‏ר‬, ‫תור‏‬, and ‫ תר‏‬in the DSS.1336 In the present verse, the Qumran witnesses attest ‫( ותואר ‏ו‬1QIsaa) and ‫( ותר ‏ו‬1QIsab).

52:15 ‫ יִ ְק ְּפצּו‏‬MT | ‫ וקפצו‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר … וַ ֲא ֶׁשר‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫את אשר‏ | )אשר … ֹו[אשר‏‬ ‫ … ואת אשר‬1QIsaa ‫— ֲא ֶׁשר … וַ ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬For deviations dealing with the accusative marker (1QIsaa), see the discussion at 2:4.

Isaiah 53

53:1 ‫ ַעל‏‬MT | ‫ א ‏ל‬1QIsaa 1QIsab ‫— ַעל‏‬MT reads ‫ל־מ‏י‬ ִ ‫ ַע‬versus 1QIsaa and 1QIsab, which read ‫אל מ‏י‬. Both read‑ ings are possible in the verse. 53:2 ‫ ׇה ׇדר‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX(vid) | ‫ הדר ל ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ נִ ְר ֵאה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ונראנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ נֶ ְח ְמ ֵדה ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ונחמדנו‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ נִ ְר ֵאהּו … וְ נֶ ְח ְמ ֵדה ‏ּו‬For MT’s third m. sg. suffix ‫‑ה ‏ּו‬, 1QIsaa has the third m. sg. suffix ‫‑נ‏ו‬. In his grammar, Qimron provides several examples of this phenom‑ enon in DSS Hebrew after ‫ אקט ‏ל‬and ‫ נקט ‏ל‬verbs.1337 53:3 ‫ ִאיׁש‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ ואיש‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַמ ְכאֹֹבות‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ מכאבים‏ | )מכאובות‏‬1QIsab • ‫ידּוע‏‬ ַ ִ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ ויודע‏‬1QIsaa LXX (καὶ εἰδὼς) | ‫ וידע‏‬1QIsab • ‫ּוכ ַמ ְס ֵּתר‏‬ ְ MT 1QIsab | ‫וכמסתיר‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ נִ ְבזֶ ‏‬MT | ‫ ונבוזה ‏ו‬1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ ונבז ‏‬1QIsab ‫אב‏(— ַמ ְכאֹֹבו ‏‬ ‫ת‬ ֹ ‫ ַמ ְכ‬, “pain,” HALOT, 579). The f. pl. ‫( מכאבות‏‬MT 1QIsaa) is a hapax legomenon. The usual form of this noun (both sg. and pl.) is m. (e.g., Exod 3:7; Jer 30:15; 45:3; Ps 32:10, etc.), which is the reading of 1QIsab (‫)מכאבות‏‬. Compare a single MTms (R, HUB–Isaiah), which also attests ‫ם‬ ‫מכאבי ‏‬.

1336  For examples of ‫ר‬ ‫תוא ‏‬, ‫ר‬ ‫תא ‏‬, ‫ר‬ ‫תאו ‏‬, ‫ר‬ ‫תו ‏‬, and ‫ר‬ ‫ ת ‏‬in both biblical and nonbiblical DSS, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 187n124. 1337  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 273–74.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

371

‫ידּוע‬ ‫—וִ ַ ‏‬MT features a qal passive ptc. (‫ידּוע‏‬ ַ ִ‫)ו‬1338 versus 1QIsaa’s qal active ptc. (‫)ויודע‏‬. 1QIsab’s ‫ ויד ‏ע‬may be an active or passive ptc. (defective orthography) or a qal pf.1339 In terms of the rhetorical structure of the verse, the passive form corresponds best with the nipʿal ptc. ‫ נִ ְבזֶ ה‏‬that opens the passage (cf. also the second ‫ה‬ ‫ נִ ְבזֶ ‏‬in the same verse) and should be considered primary. And based on the lectio difficilior potior, Paul holds that MT has the primary read‑ ing.1340 Oswalt, however, maintains that the active ptc. (1QIsaa) is the preferred reading. He thus translates, “one who knows sickness.”1341 ‫ּוכ ַמ ְס ֵּת ‏ר‬ ְ —According to HALOT (608), the reading ‫ =( ַמ ְס ֵת‏ר‬MT, 1QIsab) should be read as ‫( ַמ ְס ִתי ‏ר‬hipʿil ptc. = 1QIsaa). The difference between MT, 1QIsab, and 1QIsaa is the infixed yôd. Note, too, that MTmss attest ‫( וכמסתי ‏ר‬30 93; K), ‫( ומסתי ‏ר‬96), and ‫( ובמסת ‏ר‬150; K; HUB–Isaiah). ‫—נִ ְבזֶ ‏‬For MT’s ‫נִ ְבזֶ ה‏‬, 1QIsab reads ‫( ונבזה‏‬with the wāw conjunction), and ‫ה‬ 1QIsaa submits ‫( ונבוזה‏ו‬also with the wāw conjunction plus the suffix ‫)‑ה‏ו‬. 1QIsaa’s ‫ נבוז‏‬is an instance of a morphologial phenomenon in the scroll: the interchange of the weak roots ‫בזה‏‬/‫( בוז‏‬both roots meaning “to despise”), which is typical of the Qumran tradition. For the example under discussion and other cases, see Qimron’s grammar.1342 With regard to 1QIsaa’s suffix ‫‑ה‏ו‬, the copyist inadvertently borrowed ‫ ‑הו‏‬from the verb that follows (‫ )חשבנוהו‏‬or from one or both of the previous verbs (‫ונחמדהו‏‬, ‫)ונראה ‏ו‬.

53:4 ‫ ֲח ַׁש ְבנֻ ה ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ חשבנוה‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ֻמ ֵּכ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ ומוכ ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫— ֲח ַׁש ְבנֻ ה ‏ּו‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa, see the com‑ mentary in 2:2. 53:5 ‫ ְמ ֻד ׇּכא‏‬MT | ‫ ומדוכא‏‬1QIsaa‫ ‏‬1QIsab (‫ )ומדכא‏‬LXX(vid) • ‫מּוסר‏‬ ַ MT 1QIsab LXX(vid) | ‫ ומוסר‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַּוב ֲח ֻב ׇרֹת ‏ו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ובחבורתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ַּוב ֲח ֻב ׇרֹתו‏‬In QH, the suffixes ‫ ‑‏ו‬and ‫ ‑י‏ו‬are occasionally interchangeable, therefore ‫( ובחבורתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa) = ‫( ַּוב ֲח ֻב ׇרֹת ‏ו‬MT 1QIsab).1343 1338  Sapp, “LXX, 1QIsa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53,” conducts a study of the textual variants of the Qumran Cave 1 Isaiah texts, LXX, and MT; see especially Sapp’s appendix A, 189–92. 1339  U F 1:200, explains, “The fuller spelling is found now in 1QIsab, now in M, in roughly equal measure. In general 1QIsab tends to spell the Qal participle with wāw, whereas M does not.” 1340  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 403. 1341  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 375; see also Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 347. 1342  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 355–60. 1343  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70.

372

Chapter 2

53:7 ‫ ִּפי ‏ו‬1,2‫ ‏‬MT | ‫פיהו‏‬1,2‫ ‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫פי]הו‏‬ ֯ … ‫ ַל ֶּט ַבח‏ • )פי ֹהו‬MT | ‫ לטבוח‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫ ְּוכ ׇר ֵחל‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫וכר[חל‏‬ ֯ ) LXX | ‫ כרח ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫ח‬ ‫יִ ְפ ַּת ‏‬2‫ ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ פת ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִּפי ‏ו‬The suffix ‫( ‑יהו‏‬e.g., ‫ ) ִּפיו‏‬is a feature of QH, used often in place of ‫( ‑יו‏‬e.g., ‫)פיהו‏‬.1344 ‫— ַל ֶּט ַב ‏‬MT has a m. sg. noun versus the qal inf. const. of both 1QIsaa and ‫ח‬ 1QIsab (cf., Jer 11:19, ‫ח‬ ‫יּובל ִל ְטֹבו ‏‬ ַ ‫)וַ ֲאנִ י ְּכ ֶכ ֶבׂש ַאּלּוף‬. For a discussion of this variant, see the comments at 34:2. 53:8 ‫ּומ ִּמ ְׁש ׇּפ ‏‬ ‫ט‬ ִ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ט‬ ‫ ממשפ ‏‬1QIsab LXX(vid) • ‫ח‬ ‫ ֻל ׇּק ‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ )לוקח‏‬LXX | ‫לקח ‏ו‬ 1QIsab • ‫ ַע ִּמ ‏י‬MT LXX | ‫ עמ ‏ֹו‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (?‫עמֹו‏‬/‫ )עמי ֹ‏‬4QIsad • ‫ נֶ גַ ‏ע‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsad (‫נגע‏‬ ֯ )|‫ע‬ ‫ נוג ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (ἤχθη) ‫— ֻל ׇּקח‏‬MT and 1QIsaa set forth the qal passive ‫ח‬ ‫ ֻל ׇּק ‏‬versus the qal pf. third pl. ‫ לקח ‏ו‬of 1QIsab, another case of an interchange of verbal forms to denote the impersonal subject: passive > active. Or, a less likely situation, the 1QIsab copy‑ ist may have duplicated the wāw attached to the following word, thus creating ‫‏לקחו ואת‬. ‫— ַע ִּמי‏‬MT attests ‫ ַע ִּמי‏‬. All three Qumran witnesses have questionable read‑ ings for the pronominal suffix (owing to the status of the ink on the leather); 1QIsaa and 4QIsad probably read ‫עמ‏ֹו‬, and 1QIsab has either ֹ ‫ עמי‏‬or ‫עמ‏ֹו‬.1345 The Qumran texts that do have the third m. sg. suffix may have been impacted by other third m. sg. suffixes in vv. 8–9, i.e., ‫דור ‏ו‬, ‫למו‏‬, ‫קבר ‏ו‬, ‫במתי ‏ו‬,‫‏‬and ‫בפיה ‏ו‬. 53:9 ‫ וַ ּיִ ֵּתן‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ ויתנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ δώσω LXX | και δωσει γ′ • ‫ת‬ ‫ וְ ֶא ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ וע ‏‬corrected to ‫ועת‬ ‫ ̇ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּבמ ׇֹתיו‏‬MT LXX (ἀντὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ) | ‫ בומתו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּב ִפיו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ בפיהו‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsad (‫)בפיה[ו‏‬ ‫—וַ ּיִ ֵּתן‏‬MT ‫“( וַ ּיִ ֵּתן‏‬and he gave”) may be translated as an impersonal or “virtual passive”1346 verb. In fact, Oswalt translates ‫ וַ ּיִ ֵּתן ֶאת ְר ׇׁש ִעים ִק ְבֹר ‏ו‬as “His grave was assigned with the wicked.”1347 With regard to impersonal constructions, 1QIsaa frequently replaces MT’s verb with active pl. forms. In the present verse, 1QIsaa has ‫“( ויתנ‏ו‬and they gave”). Other examples of the scroll’s active pl. forms exist in 14:3; 35:8; 48:8; 61:3; and 62:2, 12. See also the discussion in 1:26 together with references to Kutscher and Muraoka. 1344  On this topic, consult Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 272–73. 1345  See UF 1:175. 1346  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 390. 1347  Ibid., 390.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

373

‫—וְ ֶא ‏‬The 1QIsaa copyist first wrote ‫ם‬ ‫ת‬ ‫וע ‏‬, but then he or a subsequent copyist corrected ‫ם‬ ‫ וע ‏‬to read ‫ת‬ ‫וע ‏‬. Perhaps the copyist first intended ‫ם‬ ‫“( ִא ‏‬with,” a syn‑ onym with MT’s ‫) ֶאת‏‬, an error of phonology; but then a copyist corrected the mêm to the tāw, an attempt to align the reading with MT. ‫ ׇמוֶ ת‏(— ְּבמ ׇֹתיו‏‬, “death, dying,” HALOT, 563). 1QIsaa’s ‫ בומתו‏‬may denote “his high place” (via ‫ה‬ ‫) ׇּב ׇמ ‏‬,1348 or “his (burial) mound.”1349 Notwithstanding these possible denotations, it is within the bounds of possibility that a 1QIsaa copyist simply misplaced the wāw.1350 In my judgment, MT and LXX have the correct reading. ‫— ְּב ִפיו‏‬The suffix ‫( ‑יה ‏ו‬e.g., ‫ )בפיה ‏ו‬is a feature of QH, used often in place of ‫‑י ‏ו‬ (e.g., ‫) ְּב ִפיו‏‬.1351 53:10 ‫ ֶה ֱח ִלי‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ ויחללהו‏‬1QIsaa | τῆς πληγῆς LXX • ‫ יַ ֲא ִריְך‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫יאר[יך‏‬ ̇ )| ‫ ויארך‏‬1QIsaa | ‫והארי ‏ך‬ ֯ 4QIsad ‫— ֶה ֱח ִל ‏י‬Three Hebrew witnesses attest two different readings: ‫( החל‏י‬MT 4QIsad via √‫חלה‏‬, “to make sick,” HALOT, 317) and ‫( ויחללהו‏‬1QIsaa via √‫חלל‏‬, “to allow to be profaned,” HALOT, 319). Additionally, MTmss exhibit deviations: ‫( החל ‏ו‬150 and a single manuscript of K); ‫א‬ ‫( החלי ‏‬KR) (HUB–Isaiah). Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, several scholars examined ‫ החלי‏‬and provided arguments to emend or modify this reading or to accept it as is.1352 Perhaps the chief theory that explains 1QIsaa’s ‫ויחללה ‏ו‬: harmonization with ‫ מחול ‏ל‬in v. 5.1353 Retain MT and 4QIsad as the primary reading. ‫—יַ ֲא ִרי ‏ְך‬The Hebrew witnesses exhibit three forms: MT and 1QIsab have a hipʿil impf. (‫יאריך‏‬, via √‫ארך‏‬, “to make long,” HALOT, 88); 1QIsaa may have a rare qal form (‫ארך‏√ ;ויארך‏‬, “to … become long,” HALOT, 88; note that qal √‫ ארך‏‬oc‑ curs three times only in the Bible); or, more likely, ‫ ויאר ‏ך‬is a defective spelling of the hipʿil.1354 4QIsad attests a hipʿil pf. form (‫והאריך‏‬ ֯ ). Both 1QIsaa and 4QIsad 1348  Albright, “High Place in Ancient Palestine,” 244–46. 1349  See Barrick, “Rich Man from Arimathea (Matt 27:57–60) and 1QIsaa,” 237. See also Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:399. 1350  So expressed Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 390. 1351  On this topic, consult Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 272–73. 1352  See, for example, the various arguments and discussions in Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 150; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 402; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 351; Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:131; Volz, Jesaia II, 171; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 343; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 2:206. 1353  Regarding this theory, see Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 236; and Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:400–2. 1354  See Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 40.

374

Chapter 2

include the prefixed wāw. The form of MT, 1QIsab best fits the parallelistic structure. 53:11 ‫ יִ ְר ֶאה‏‬MT | ‫ יראה או ‏ר‬1QIsaa 1QIsab 4QIsad (‫ )או֯ [ר‏‬LXX • ‫ יִ ְׂש ׇּב ‏ע‬MT 1QIsab (‫יש[בע‏‬ ֯ )| ‫ וישב ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫]ֹושבע‬ ‫ע‬ ‫֯‏‬ 4QIsad | καὶ πλάσαι LXX • ‫ ְּב ַד ְעֹּת ‏ו‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ ובדעת ‏ו‬1QIsaa | τῇ συνέσει LXX • ‫ ַע ְב ִּד ‏י‬MT 1QIsab (‫]ע ̇בדי‏‬ ֯ ) 4QIsad | ‫ עבד ‏ו‬1QIsaa | εὖ δουλεύοντα LXX ‫—יִ ְר ֶאה‏‬In disagreement to the reading of MT, three Qumran witnesses plus LXX provide an object to the verse’s opening expression: “From the trouble of his soul, he will see light.” MT lacks the object light. Many scholars have evalu‑ ated this notorious variant and remain divided as to which reading is original.1355 Some scholars have submitted that ‫ אור‏‬signifies a Qumran sectarian variant, e.g., a deviation created by the Qumran community based on their use of light (i.e., “sons of light”) in various sectarian texts. But Ulrich argues against this point.1356 Oswalt writes that “the omission in MT may be explained as an error due to the presence of similar consonants in the word preceding.”1357 Barthélemy et al. carefully examined the evidence of this and two other divergences in vv. 11–121358 and wrote that “the four concurring textual forms … could not have stemmed from a single recensional activity aimed at creating a standard tex‑ tual type. Consequently, we concluded that it was more likely that MT had either suffered accidental alteration or was deliberately changed.”1359 But contrast Tov, who submits that the plus of the Qumran texts “may reflect a gnostic tendency”1360 that entered the text. Also, Seeligmann determines that ‫ יראה או ‏ר‬is a pre-gnostic reading that made its way to the Alexandrian Jews and that MT’s reading is to be preferred.1361 Koenig holds that a scribe

1355  Pre-Qumran scholars, too, have examined the variant between MT and G. Notable analy‑ ses include Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 151; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 404; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 351; Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:132; Volz, Jesaia II, 171; Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 344; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 2:207–8. 1356  Ulrich, “Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants,’” 184–85. 1357  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 399; see also the viewpoints of Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 411–12. 1358  See Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:403–7. 1359  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 399. So, too, Flint examines the textu‑ al witnesses in 53:11 and concludes that the Qumran witnesses—1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsad— are “preferable over ML,” Flint, “Non-Masoretic Variant Readings,” 111. 1360  Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 114. 1361  Seeligmann, “Isaiah 53,11 According to the Septuagint, 1QIsaiaha, and 1QIsaiahb,” 127–41.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

375

added ‫ אור‏‬through analogical interpretation from 9:1 (‫)ראו אור‏‬.1362 And van der Kooij examines the evidence of the readings and sums up that the original reading was “he will see and be satisfied.”1363 My own views are aligned with Tov’s mentioned above. ‫— ַע ְב ִּדי‏‬Three Hebrew texts—MT, 1QIsab, and 4QIsad—read “my servant” (‫ )עבדי‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s “his servant” (‫)עבדו‏‬. “My servant” better fits the context. Whence comes “his servant”? Likely through a harmonization with other third m. sg. suffixes and forms in the vicinity of the term under discussion, e.g., ‫דכא ‏ו‬, ‫( נפשו‏‬three times), ‫ה‬ ‫ירא ‏‬, ‫ביד ‏ו‬, ‫הוא יסב ‏ל‬, ‫דעת ‏ו‬, ‫ל ‏ו‬, ‫ק‬ ‫יחל ‏‬, ‫א‬ ‫והו ‏‬, and so forth. 53:12 ‫ ֵח ְטא‏‬MT | ‫ חטא‏י‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ )חטא]י‏‬4QIsad LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ּפׁש ִעי ‏‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַל‬MT σ′ | ‫ה‬ ‫ולפשעיהמ ‏‬ 1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ )ולפשעיהם‏‬4QIsad (‫ )ולפשעיה[ם‏‬LXX • ‫יע‬ ‫ יַ ְפּגִ ַ ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫יפגיע‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫יפג ‏ע‬ 1QIsaa ‫— ֵח ְט ‏‬Three Qumran scrolls (1QIsaa, 1QIsab, and 4QIsad) plus several ver‑ ‫א‬ sions attest the pl. ‫“( חטא‏י‬sins of”) where MT has the sg. ‫א‬ ‫ ֵח ְט ‏‬. Flint points out that the pl. ‫ חטא ‏י‬complements the pl. ‫ם‬ ‫ּפׁש ִעי ‏‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַל‬in the second half of the bicolon,1364 but Paul prefers the sg.1365 Kutscher points out that the Qumran scrolls’ double pl. (‫ )חטאי רבים‏‬is a feature of later Hebrew, such as 1 & 2 Chronicles, which sug‑ gests an updating of the text.1366 The arguments on both sides are valid, and the correct reading is difficult to determine. ‫ּפׁש ִעי ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ְ ‫—וְ ַל‬The Hebrew witnesses present two similarly formed pl. words from the same root (√‫ ;)פׁשע‏‬MT produces the qal ptc. ‫ם‬ ‫ּפׁש ִעי ‏‬ ְ ‫וְ ַל‬, and three Qumran scrolls (1QIsaa, 1QIsab, and 4QIsad) supply a noun, with a pronomi‑ nal suffix, ‫ה‬ ‫ולפשעיהמ ‏‬. One theory explains MT’s ‫ּפׁש ִעים‏‬ ְ ‫וְ ַל‬: an assimilation of ‫ּפׁש ִעים‏‬ ְ , located six verses earlier. Another supposition for MT: it signifies an

1362  Koenig, L’herméneutique analogique, 274–83; for his analogical interpretation in Isaiah’s text, Koenig deals with 1QIsaa 1:15; 14:2; 20:6; 26:8; 30:6; 34:4 + 51:6; 52:8; 53:11 (the verse under discussion) and 62:10 (see ibid., 218–89). Van der Kooij reviews Koenig’s analogi‑ cal approach, all the while adding additional insights; see van der Kooij, “Accident or Method? On ‘Analogical’ Interpretation in the Old Greek of Isaiah and in 1QIsa,” 366–76. 1363  Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 151. Consult also the arguments of van der Kooij, “Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Texts of Isaiah,” 199. 1364  Flint, “Variant Readings and Textual Affiliation,” 40. Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 399, too, opts for the pl. in his translation. 1365  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 414. 1366  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 399; see also the note in Jeremias, “Ein Anhalt für die Datierung der masoretischen Redaktion?” 289–90.

376

Chapter 2

abbreviation, e.g., ‫לפש ‏ע‬′‫ם‬.1367 Another speculation explains the Qumran texts’ reading of transgressions: a correspondence with ‫“( חטא‏י‬sins of”) located three words anteriorly. Barthélemy1368 considers the evidence and determines to support the readings of the Qumran texts and LXX. Flint supports Barthélemy’s view.1369 However, van der Kooij’s proposal1370 best explains the deviations be‑ tween MT and the Qumran scrolls—he submits that the original word was the defectively written ‫פשעם‏‬, and that ‫ פשעם‏‬serves to explain both MT’s ‫ּפׁש ִעים‏‬ ְ ‫וְ ַל‬ (the yôd would belong to a later stage of orthography) and the Qumran texts’ reading of ‫( ולפשעיהמה‏‬but with an earlier stage of orthography).

Isaiah 54

54:1

‫ל ֹ ‏‬1‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ולו ‏‬1‫ ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsad • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִרּנׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsad | ‫ה‬ ‫ רונ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫לֹא‏‬2 MT 4QIsad LXX | ‫א‬ ‫ולו ‏‬2 1QIsaa 54:2

‫ ַה ְר ִח ִיב‏י‬MT 1QIsab (‫הרחיב[י‏‬ ֯ ) 4QIsad LXX | ‫ ארחיב ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇא ֳה ֵל ‏ְך‬MT 4QIsad | ‫אהלכ ‏י‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ּטּו‏‬MT | ‫ יט ‏י‬1QIsaa LXX (πῆξον) • ‫ ַא ‏ל‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ וא ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫— ַה ְר ִח ִיבי‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ ארחיבי‏‬is irregular with its prefixed ʾālep and suffixed yôd,

but this reading may signify yet another example where 1QIsaa replaced the hê with an ʾālep in the hipʿil verbal system (see 12:4 for additional examples and for commentary). Or, there exists another possibility: the copyist was impacted by “your tent” (‫)אהלכי‏‬, which follows in two words. Both ‫ ארחיב‏י‬and ‫ אהלכי‏‬begin and close with the same characters. ‫—יַ ט ‏ּו‬MT presents a hipʿil impf. of the root ‫“( נטה‏‬to stretch out,” HALOT, 693). 1QIsaa’s unusual suffix on ‫ יט ‏י‬may be an example of variability of the graphical set wāw/yôd; or, another scenario, the scribe was impacted by the two verbal forms (two and three words away) (‫)תחשכי האריכי‏‬, which terminate with yôd. One may also consider Dahood’s conjecture that 1QIsaa, with its reading of ‫יט ‏י‬, is presenting a Yiphil imperfect.1371 Or, according to Paul, 1QIsaa’s ‫“ יטי‏‬conflates

1367  Driver, “Once Again Abbreviations,” 80. 1368  Barthélemy, et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:403–7. 1369  Flint, “Non-Masoretic Variant Readings,” 112. 1370  Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 152. 1371  Dahood, “Yiphil Imperative yaṭṭi in Isaiah 54:2,” 383–84.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

377

these two forms (‫ יטו‏‬and ‫)הט‏י‬.”1372 Condamin, following Duhm, Oort, and oth‑ ers, propose ‫ ַה ִּטי‏‬.1373 54:3 ‫ יִ ׇירׁש‏‬MT | ‫ יירש ‏ו‬1QIsaa 1QIsab ‫—‏יִ ׇירׁש‬The point at issue is MT’s sg. verb ‫ יִ ׇירׁש‏‬versus the pl. verb ‫יירשו‏‬, be‑ longing to 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. With ‫יירשו‏‬, 1QIsaa and 1QIsab seem to take ‫ם‬ ‫ֹּגויִ ‏‬ as the subject: “and the nations will take possession of your seed” (but this approach does not fit the context). Rather the Qumran texts are taking seed to be a collective pl., and seed governs the verbs in both lines of the bicolon: “your seed will take possession (‫ )יירשו‏‬of the nations, and will populate (‫)יושיבו‏‬ the desolate cities.” The pl. verb of line 1, therefore, corresponds with the pl. of line 2; a harmonization? 54:4 ‫ וְ ַאל‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ )ואל‏‬LXX(vid) | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ַת ְח ִּפ ִירי‏‬MT | ‫ תחפֹורי‏‬1QIsaa | ‫תחפר[י]‏‬ 1QIsab • ‫נּותיִ ְך‏‬ ַ ‫ ַא ְל ְמ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אלמנתך‏‬1QIsab | ‫ ארמלותך‏‬4QTanḥ III 6 • ‫ ִתזְ ְּכ ִרי‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ תזכורי‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַת ְח ִּפ ִיר ‏י‬For MT’s /a/ class vowel (‫ ) ַת ְח ִּפ ִירי‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel (‫)תחפֹורי‏‬, see the discussion in 43:13. 54:5

‫ ִּכי ב ֲֹע ַליִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ כיא בעלכי‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ כבעלך‏‬4QTanḥ III 6 | κύριος LXX • ‫ וְ ג ֲֹא ֵלְך‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ וגואלכ‏י | )וגואלך‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ וגאליכ‏י‬4QTanḥ III 7

54:6 ‫ ׇא ַמר‏‬MT LXX | ‫ אמר יהוה‏‬1QIsaa 4QTanḥ III 8 (‫ = ) · אלוהיך‏‬Tetragrammaton rep‑ resented by four dots ‫— ׇא ַמר‏‬MT has one attestation of the Tetragrammaton in v. 6; 1QIsaa has two. The Isaianic citation in 4QTanḥ also attests the Divine Name where the scroll has it, although it is represented by four dots. Both readings (one or two attes‑ tations of the Tetragrammaton) work in the passage, although it is likely that the Qumran texts drew upon the common formula “says the Lord your God” and inserted the second LORD into the passage. See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17.

1372  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 419. 1373  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 345; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 105; Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66, n.p.

378

Chapter 2

54:7 ‫ ְּב ֶרגַ ‏‬MT 4QIsac (‫בר]ג ֯ע‏‬ ‫ע‬ ֯ ) 4QIsad | ‫ ברוג ‏ע‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇקטֹ‏ן‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsac 4QIsad | ‫ קטנ ‏‬4QTanḥ III 9 ‫ה‬ ‫— ְּב ֶרגַ ‏‬1QIsaa (‫ )ברוגע‏‬apparently follows the quṭl pattern. For a brief discus‑ ‫ע‬ sion together with bibliographic sources, see 3:24. 54:8

‫ ֶרגַ ‏‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ רוג ‏ע‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּוב ֶח ֶס ‏ד‬MT LXX σ′ | ‫ ובחסד ‏י‬1QIsaa 4QIsac Syr 4QTanḥ ‫ע‬ III 10 • ‫ ִר ַח ְמ ִּתי ‏ְך‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ רחמתיכ ‏‬4QTanḥ • ‫ ּג ֲֹא ֵל ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ גואלכ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּוב ֶח ֶסד‏‬Versus MT’s reading, three Qumran texts—1QIsaa, 4QIsac, and 4QTanḥ—have the first common sg. pronominal suffix (“my”) attached to ‫ ֶח ֶס ‏ד‬, thus reading ‫ובחסדי‏‬. Oswalt observes that this suffix was likely apprehended (“a harmonization”) from ‫ וחסדי‏‬in v. 10.1374 54:9

‫י־מ‏י‬ ֵ ‫ ִּכ‬MT LXX (ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος) | ‫ כי ֹמי̇‏‬1QIsaa MTmss 4QTanḥ III 10 • ‫ֹעוד‏‬1‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | > 4QTanḥ • ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ א ‏ל‬4QTanḥ III 11 • > MT | ‫עו ‏ד‬2‫ ‏‬1QIsaa‫ ‏‬4QTanḥ

III 11 LXX ‫י־מי‏‬ ֵ ‫— ִּכ‬UF transcribe 1QIsaa as ◦‫( כי ֹמ ‏‬see note UF 2:116), versus PQ ‫כי ֹמי̇‏‬.‫ ‏‬The letters of the two textual variants—‫י־מי‏‬ ֵ ‫( ִּכ‬MT, “like the waters of”) and ‫כימי‏‬ (1QIsaa 4QTanḥ, “like the days of”)—are identical; only a space (the width of a character) differentiates them. Goshen-Gottstein’s apparatus sets forth several rabbinic texts that read ‫( כימי‏‬HUB–Isaiah, apparatus 2). Additionally, multi‑ ple MTmss also read ‫( כימי‏‬HUB–Isaiah). Both expressions—‫ כי מי‏‬and ‫—כימי‏‬ fit the parallelism, but one must choose between the duplication of the term waters (“like the waters of Noah … the waters of Noah”) or the employment of the words days and waters (“like the days of Noah … the waters of Noah”). Condamin, Döderlein, Kissane, and other critics conjectured that the Hebrew text read ‫כימי‏‬.1375 However, JPS, NEB, NIV, NRSV, and RSV prefer MT’s ‫י־מי‏‬ ֵ ‫ ִּכ‬, which is likely the primary reading. >—The adverbial particle ‫ עו ‏ד‬is twice attested in 1QIsaa (‫מי נוח עוד על הארץ‬ ‫ )כן נשבעתי מקצוף עליך עוד ומגעור בך‬but only once in MT. To complicate mat‑ ters, 4QTanḥ (citing 54:9) lacks the first ‫( עוד‏‬which both MT and 1QIsaa attest) but has the second ‫( עוד‏‬which 1QIsaa has but MT does not). 1QIsaa’s second ‫ עוד‏‬may either be the result of a dittography or an attempt to harmonize the text; as Van der Vorm-Croughs writes, “‫ עוד‏‬and ἐπὶ have perhaps been added in 1374  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 412. 1375  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 346; Döderlein, Esaias, 225; Kissane, Book of Isaiah, 2:195; Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 105.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

379

harmonization to the first part of the comparison where the first adverb ap‑ pears (even if this part is absent in the LXX).”1376 54:10 ‫מּוטנׇ ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֶ ‫ ְּת‬MT | ‫ תתמוטינה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ תתמוטטנה‏‬4QTanḥ III 12 • ‫ ֵמ ִא ֵּתְך‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ מאתיכי‏‬4QTanḥ ‫מּוטנׇ ה‏‬ ֶ ‫— ְּת‬MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫מּוטנׇ ‏‬ ֶ ‫ ְּת‬is a qal verb (√‫מוט‏‬, “to sway,” HALOT, 555); 1QIsaa’s is a hithpolel (cf. ‫ה‬ ‫ֹמוט ׇט ‏‬ ְ ‫ ִה ְת‬in 24:19). Oswalt puts forward that the scroll with its two tāws originated because of dittography, since the letter before the verb is also a tāw, e.g., ‫ה‬ ‫והגבעות תתמוטינ ‏‬.1377 54:11 ‫ ס ֲֹע ׇרה‏‬MT 4QIsad (‫ )]סֹע[רה‏‬α′ σ′ | ‫ה‬ ‫ סחור ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἀκατάστατος LXX | tempestate convulsa Vulg • ‫ וִ ַיס ְד ִּתי ‏ְך‬MT 4QpIsad | ‫תיך‬ ‫ ויסודו ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) ‫—ס ֲֹע ׇר ‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫( סחורה‏‬via √‫ )?סחר‏‬is an example of the ʿayin being replaced ‫ה‬ by the ḥêt, a phenomenon that is not uncommon in QH.1378 ‫יס ְד ִּתי ‏ְך‬ ַ ִ‫—ו‬MT (and 4QpIsad) features a qal verb (√‫יסד‏‬, “to found, establish,” HALOT, 417); the graphically similar ‫תיך‬ ‫( ויסודו ‏‬1QIsaa) reads “and your founda‑ tions.” Note that the copyist wrote ‫ ויסודו‏‬at the end of line 10 (plate XLV), ran out of space, and then wrote ‫ תי ‏ך‬above and slightly left of ‫ויסוד‏ו‬. MT’s paral‑ lelism, therefore, features two verbs (a hipʿil ptc. ‫ ַמ ְר ִּביץ‏‬followed by a qal pf., ‫)וִ ַיס ְד ִּתיְך‏‬, but 1QIsaa is structured with the same hipʿil ptc. followed by a noun ‫ויסודותיך‏‬. Köhler emends the text to read ‫ =( ויסדותיוך‏‬1QIsaa LXX[vid]),1379 but MT’s reading better fits the parallelism. 54:12

‫ ִׁש ְמׁש ַֹתיִ ‏ְך‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ כול שמשותיך‏‬4QpIsad • ‫ ֶא ְק ׇּדח‏‬MT | ‫ אוקדח‏‬1QIsaa • ‫בּולְך‏‬ ֵ ְ‫ ּג‬MT | ‫ גבוליך‏‬1QIsaa ‫“(— ֶא ְק ׇּד ‏‬a precious stone, beryl in a larger sense,” HALOT, 82). Apparently, ‫ח‬ 1QIsaa (‫ )אוקדח‏‬follows the quṭl pattern. Based on LXX (κρυστάλλου) Condamin conjectures that the Hebrew read ‫ח‬ ‫( ֶק ַר ‏‬cristal–crystal).1380 For a brief discus‑

sion of the quṭl pattern, together with bibliographic sources, see 3:24. ‫בּול ‏ְך‬ ֵ ְ‫—ּג‬In the verse’s triple synonymous parallelism, 1QIsaa has three pl. nouns, each with a second f. sg. pronominal suffix: ‫שמשותיך‏‬, ‫ושעריך‏‬, and ‫גבוליך‏‬. 1376  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 496. 1377  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 413. 1378  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 106. 1379  Köhler, Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55), 53. 1380  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 347.

380

Chapter 2

In MT, the first two nouns are pl., but the third is sg. (again, each with a second f. sg. pronoun): ‫ ִׁש ְמׁש ַֹתיִ ְך‏‬, ‫ּוׁש ׇע ַריִ ְך‏‬ ְ , and ‫בּולְך‏‬ ֵ ְ‫ּג‬. Did a copyist of the scroll tradition harmonize the text, thus reading three pl. nouns? Or, was an error made in the MT tradition, which caused the loss of the yôd? 54:13 ‫ וְ ַרב‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ורו ‏ב‬4QIsac • ‫ ׇּבנׇ יִ ‏ְך‬2‫ ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ בוניכ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ַרב‏‬The deviations constitute the interchange of noun patterns: qall (‫רב‏‬ MT 1QIsaa) versus qull (‫ רוב‏‬4QIsac),1381 with both ‫ ר ‏ב‬and ‫ רו ‏ב‬denoting “great.” ‫— ׇּבנׇ יִ ‏ְך‬The supralinear wāw in the reading of 1QIsaa ‫בוניכי‏‬, “your builders,” in‑ dicates that this text likely corresponds to a rabbinic tradition found in b. Ber. 64a that cites Isa 54:13 and then states, “Read not banayik, ‘thy children,’ but bonayikh, ‘thy builders.’”1382 Further, several critics, before the Qumran discov‑ ery, proposed that the text read “your builders” (based on the context of vv. 11– 12) rather than “your sons.”1383 But note that the supralinear wāw is indicative of a textual correction or afterthought; furthermore, as Oswalt points out, MT (“your children”) has the support of the versions and should be retained as the primary reading.1384 Too, the rhetorical structure of the bicolon in MT is such that “your children” envelopes the verse (cf. also the duplication of ‫ם‬ ‫אּוּמי ‏‬ ִ ‫ ְל‬in 55:4). The chief reason to support MT’s reading is as follows: in vv. 11–12, the Lord is the builder, not mortals. Therefore, “your builders” in v. 13 signifies a peculiar, secondary reading. 54:14 ‫ ִּתֹּכונׇ נִ ‏י‬MT | ‫ תתכוננ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫(— ִּתֹּכונׇ נִ י‏‬hithpolel, √‫כון‏‬, “to be firmly founded,” HALOT, 465). Both MT and 1QIsaa feature a hithpolel verb, but in MT the characteristic tāw has assimilated into the kāp. See also the comments at 33:10. 54:15 ‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ס‬ ‫ ֶא ֶפ ‏‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ס‬ ‫ אכ ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX Syr • ‫ֹאות‏י‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬MT | ‫מאת‏י‬ 1QIsaa 4QIsac • ‫ גׇ ר‏‬MT | ‫ יגר‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ֹּפול‏‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ יפולו‏‬1QIsaa | καταφεύξονται LXX ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6.

1381  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 321. 1382  See Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 257. 1383  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 347; Döderlein, Esaias, 226; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 411; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 151; and Marti, Buch Jesaja, 355. 1384  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 425.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

381

‫—אכ ‏‬The error of 1QIsaa (‫)אכס‏‬, versus MT and 4QIsac (‫)אפס‏‬, is the result of ‫ס‬ the semblance of kāp and pê. ‫ֹאות‏י‬ ִ ‫— ֵמ‬Versus MT’s ‫ֹאות‏י‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬, 1QIsaa and 4QIsac attest ‫ ;) ֵמ ִא ִּתי‏( מאת‏י‬note that 1QIsaa’s direct object with the pronominal suffix is written plene orthography, e.g., ‫( אות‏י‬37:6). UF 1:177 write concerning MT’s ‫ֹאותי‏‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬: “(err?).” So too, HALOT (79) conjectures that ‫ֹאות‏י‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬read ‫ = ֵמ ִא ִת‏י‬1QIsaa. 54:16 ‫ ֵהן‏‬MTket 4QIsac | ‫ הנה‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ַמ ֲע ֵׂשהּו‏‬MT cf. CD A 6.8 (‫| )למעשיהו‏‬ ‫ למעשֹוהי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ׇאנ ִֹכ‏י‬MT LXX(vid) | ‫ אנוכ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ְל ַמ ֲע ֵׂשהּו‏‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa, see the com‑ mentary in 2:2. 54:17 ‫קּום־א ׇּתְך ַל ִּמ ְׁש ׇּפט ַּת ְר ִׁש ִיעי‏‬ ִ ‫ל־לֹׁשון ׇּת‬ ‫ וְ ׇכ ׇ‬MT 4QIsac (‫‏וכול לשון ת[קום אתך למשפט‬ ‫ > | )תרשיעי‬1QIsaa | καὶ πᾶσα φωνὴ ἀναστήσεται ἐπὶ σὲ εἰς κρίσι· πάντας αὐτοὺς ἡττήσεις οἱ δὲ ἔνοχοί σου ἔσονται ἐν αὐτῇ LXX ‫יע‏י‬ ִ ‫קּום־א ׇּתְך ַל ִּמ ְׁש ׇּפט ַּת ְר ִׁש‬ ִ ‫ל־לֹׁשון ׇּת‬ ‫—וְ ׇכ ׇ‬For this expression, MT has the support of 4QIsac and LXX. 1QIsaa omits these words entirely, a loss likely triggered by haplography via ‫כול … וכו ‏ל‬. However, a mystery remains on the leather of 1QIsaa, col. XLV, line 17. Inexplicably, the 1QIsaa copyist wrote only ‫( יצלח‏‬the word that exists immediately before the missing expression) on line 17 and then left the remainder of line 17 blank. Then on line 18, the copyist continued the writing of v. 17, beginning with ‫זואת נחלת‏‬, etc. The blank on line 17 has ample space to write the missing words, which consists of about thirty letters and spaces. If 1QIsaa’s loss of the expression was not the result of haplography, it is possible that the words on the Vorlage were illegible, so the scribe left the line blank (except for ‫ח‬ ‫ )יצל ‏‬with the intent of returning to this portion of the text at a later date.

Isaiah 55

55:1 ‫ּולכּו ִׁש ְבר ‏ּו‬ ְ ‫ ִׁש ְברּו וֶ ֱאכלּו‬MT 4QIsac (‫]שב[ורו ואכלו ולכו שברו‏‬ ֯ ); ἀγοράσατε καὶ πίετε LXX | ‫ שבור ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ּולכּו ִׁש ְבר ‏ּו‬ ְ ‫— ִׁש ְברּו וֶ ֱאכלּו‬Based on the reading of LXX, pre-Qumran scholars presented diverse views regarding MT’s ‫ ִׁש ְברּו וֶ ֱאכלּו ְּולכּו ִׁש ְבר‏ּו‬. Principally, the scholars proposed deleting the words ‫ ְּולכּו ִׁש ְבר‏ּו‬, citing a possible dittography

382

Chapter 2

(of some sorts) of ‫ ִׁש ְברּו … ִׁש ְבר‏ּו‬.1385 While it is true that ‫ ְלכּו ִׁש ְברּו‏‬is repeated in the verse, the reading ‫ ְלכּו ִׁש ְברּו וֶ ֱאכלּו ְּולכּו ִׁש ְבר‏ּו‬is not likely a simple dittog‑ raphy because of the existence of ‫“( וֶ ֱאכלּו ְּולכ‏ּו‬and eat and go”). Contrariwise, it is more likely that 1QIsaa suffered a loss of text by means of a haplography, which was precipitated by the word ‫שבור ‏ו‬, e.g., ‫שבורו … שבור ‏ו‬. The evidence of 4QIsac remains uncertain (e.g., ‫]שב[ור ‏ו‬ ֯ ), but when this text is reconstructed via a count of spaces and letters, by all accounts it has the same reading as MT. 55:2 ‫ ִת ְׁש ְקלּו‏‬MT | ‫ תשקולו‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsac • ‫ ְל ׇׂש ְב ׇעה‏‬MT | ‫ שבעה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ׇׂש ְב ׇעה‏‬MT | ‫שבעה‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ֹמוע‏‬ ַ ‫ ׇׁש‬MT 1QIsab | ‫א‬ ‫ שמעו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ִא ְכל ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsac | ‫ ואכול ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇׂש ְב ׇעה‏(— ְל ׇׂש ְב ׇע ‏‬, “satiation,” HALOT, 1304). The parallelism of v. 2a features ‫ה‬ the corresponding phrases ‫ֹלוא־ל ֶחם‏‬ ֶ ‫ ְּב‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ְּבֹלוא ְל ׇׂש ְב ׇע ‏‬, each with a preposition bêt, negative particle, and noun. The noun of the second phrase (MT), how‑ ever, is prefixed with the preposition lāmed. 1QIsaa shares the same reading as MT but minus the preposition lāmed attached to ‫ה‬ ‫שבע ‏‬, a minor variant. ‫— ׇׁש ַ ‏‬The deviation between ‫( שמוע‏‬MT 1QIsab) and ‫( שמעוא‏‬1QIsaa) is or‑ ‫ֹמוע‬ thographic: the digraph ‫א‬ ‫‑ו ‏‬, which indicates the vowel û, is typical of QH.1386 55:3 ‫ ִׁש ְמעּו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ושמעו‏‬1QIsaa | ἐπακούσατέ μου LXX • ‫ּות ִחי‏‬ ְ MT 1QIsab 4QIsac ‫ה | ותח]י‏‬ ‫ ותחי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ֶא ְכ ְר ׇת ‏‬MT 1QIsab‫]ה‏( ‏‬ ֯ ) 4QIsac‫ת | )ואכרותה‏( ‏‬ ‫ ואכרו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּות ִחי‏‬ ְ —With the reading of ‫ותח‏י‬, MT, 1QIsab, and 4QIsac set forth a jussive force: “hear, and let your soul live (‫)ותחי‏‬.” 1QIsaa attests ‫ותחיה‏‬, although there is a blotch of ink that partially covers the second hê (see XLV, line 22). The exis‑ tence of the blotch is inexplicable—a crude erasure, perhaps? ‫—וְ ֶא ְכ ְר ׇת ‏‬MT 1QIsab‫ )] ֯ה‏( ‏‬and 4QIsac‫‏‬present a cohortative (“let me make [… ‫ה‬ a covenant]”) versus an impf. in 1QIsaa (“I will make [… a covenant]”). See also Fassberg’s comments in 5:19. 55:4 ‫ ֵהן‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ נְ ַת ִּתי ‏ו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ נתתיה ‏ו‬1QIsaa 4QIsac • ‫—נְ ַת ִּתי ‏ו‬The suffix ‫( ‑יהו‏‬e.g., ‫ )נתתיהו‏‬is a feature of QH, used often in place of ‫( ‑י ‏ו‬e.g., ‫)נְ ַת ִּתי ‏ו‬.1387 ‫— ֵהן‏‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. 1385  See, for example, Box, Book of Isaiah, 280; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 152; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 413; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 357; and Torrey, Second Isaiah, 428. See also Goshen-Gottstein, “Die Jesaia-Rolle im Lichte von Peschitta und Targum,” 63. 1386  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 86. 1387  On this topic, consult Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 272–73.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

383

55:5 ‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsac | ‫ הנה‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫לֹא‏‬2‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsac (‫[ו]א‏‬ ֯ ‫אשר‏ | ) ֯ל‬ 1QIsab • ‫ יְ ׇדעּוָך … יׇ רּוצּו‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ ידעכה … ירוץ‏ | )ידעוך … ֯יר[וצו‏‬1QIsaa | ‫[ל]א‬ ֯ ‫ידעֹוכה‏‬ … 4QIsac • ‫ׁש‬ ‫ וְ ִל ְקֹדו ‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ש | )ולקדוש‏‬ ‫ וקדו ‏‬1QIsab • ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫—יְ ׇדעּוך … יׇ רּוצּו‏‬MT together with 1QIsab read ‫ גו‏י‬as a collective pl. and thus presented pl. verbs: ‫ידעוך … ירוצ‏ו‬. 1QIsaa understood ‫ גו‏י‬to be a sg. noun and therefore submitted sg. verbs: ‫ידעכה … ירוץ‏‬. ‫—וְ ִל ְקֹדו ‏‬The final words of MT v. 5 (‫ֹלהיָך וְ ִל ְקֹדוׁש יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵאל ִּכי ֵפ ֲא ׇרְך‏‬ ‫ׁש‬ ֶ ‫) ְל ַמ ַען יְ הוׇ ה ֱא‬ are similar to a phrase in MT 60:9 (‫ֹלהיִ ְך וְ ִל ְקֹדוׁש יִ ְׂש ׇר ֵאל ִּכי ֵפ ֲא ׇרְך‏‬ ַ ‫) ְל ֵׁשם יְ הוׇ ה ֱא‬. For 55:5, 1QIsab has ‫ וקדוש‏‬in place of ‫ולקדוש‏‬. 1QIsaa first read ‫ =( וקדוש‏‬1QIsab), but a second hand changed the reading to ‫ש‬ ‫ =( ולקדו ‏‬MT). With regard to ‫ש‬ ‫ולקדו ‏‬, Barthélemy asks, “Is this reading original, or might it not rather have arisen from an assimilation to the parallel in 60:9, where it is more fitting?”1388 55:6 ‫ ִּד ְרׁשּו‏‬MT | ‫ דרוש‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּב ִה ׇּמ ְצֹאו‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab σ′ (οτε ευρισκεται) Vulg | ‫בהמ]צ ‏‬ ‫א‬ ̇ 4QIsac | καὶ ἐν τῷ εὑρίσκειν αὐτὸν LXX | ‫ ַעד ְד ַאתּון ַחיִ י ‏ן‬Tg • ‫ ְק ׇר ֻאה ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ קראוה‏י‬1QIsaa | [‫ קראו֯ ‏‬4QIsac • ‫— ְק ׇר ֻאהּו‏‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa, see the com‑ mentary in 2:2. 55:8 ‫ֹבות ֶיכם‏‬ ֵ ‫ֹבותי ַמ ְח ְׁש‬ ַ ‫ ַמ ְח ְׁש‬MT 1QIsaa LXX (αἱ βουλαί μου ὥσπερ αἱ βουλαὶ ὑμῶν) | ‫ ֯מ[חשבת]י֯ כם מחשבתי‏‬1QIsab • ‫ֹבות ֶיכם‏‬ ֵ ‫ֹבותי ַמ ְח ְׁש‬ ַ ‫— ַמ ְח ְׁש‬Both MT and 1QIsaa present a chiasmus of pronomi‑ nal suffixes: my, your, your, my, thus reading: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways.” Contrast this with 1QIsab’s ‫ם‬ ‫֯מ[חשבת]י֯ כ ‏‬ ‫מחשבתי‬, which presents an aba’b’ ordering of the suffixes: your, my, your, my: “For your thoughts are not my thoughts, nor are your ways my ways.” Compare also v. 9: “So my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” MT and 1QIsaa have the primary reading. 55:9

‫גׇ ְבה ‏ּו‬1‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ כגוב ‏‬1QIsaa | ὡς ἀπέχει LXX • ‫גׇ ְבה ‏ּו‬1—For the first attestation of ‫ גׇ ְבה‏ּו‬in MT, 1QIsaa attests ‫ה‬ ‫כגוב ‏‬, with the

preposition kāp, which serves as a comparative. Kutscher supports MT,1389 but

1388  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 400. 1389  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 320–21.

384

Chapter 2

some older critics prefer to read ‫“( ִּכי ִכגְ ב ַֹּה‏‬avec les versions et Ps. 103,11”).1390 The expression in Ps 103:11 (‫ל־ה ׇא ֶרץ‏‬ ‫ ) ִּכי ִכגְ ב ַֹּה ׇׁש ַמיִ ם ַע ׇ‬is similar to the opening words of 55:9. For the preposition belonging to 1QIsaa and LXX, see the comments at 29:9. With the plus of the preposition kāp in line 3, 1QIsaa has either facilitated the text (i.e., made the comparative explicit) or has experienced dittography: ‫‏כיא כגובה‬. Note also that the preposition kāp is lacking in the fifth line of the chiasmus, where “higher” appears the second time. 55:10

‫ ׇלא ֵֹכ ‏ל‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ לאכו ‏ל‬1QIsaa | εἰς βρῶσιν LXX • ‫— ׇלא ֵֹכל‏‬MT ‫( ׇלא ֵֹכ ‏ל‬and probably 1QIsab, ‫ )לאכ ‏ל‬submit a qal ptc. with the attached preposition lāmed: “to the eater.” 1QIsaa has a qal inf. const.: ‫לאכו ‏ל‬, “to eat” or “for eating.” LXX read its Vorlage as ‫“( לא ֶֹכ ‏ל‬for food”). The parallel‑

ism in MT forms a grammatical correspondence: noun (m. sg.), preposition lāmed, ptc. (m. sg.); this grammatical correspondence is lacking in 1QIsaa. But Oort emends MT to read ‫ לאכו ‏ל‬decades before the Qumran scrolls’ discovery.1391 However, it is possible that 1QIsaa’s copyist borrowed the expression ‫ולחם לאכו ‏ל‬ from Gen 28:20, which is vocalized as ‫ ֶל ֶחם ֶל ֱאכֹ ‏ל‬. 55:11

‫ ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬MT | ‫את אש ‏ר‬2 1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫— ֲא ֶׁשר‏‬The relative pronoun ‫ ֲא ֶׁש ‏ר‬, found three times in this verse, is once pre‑ ceded by ‫ ֶאת‏‬in MT but twice preceded by this accusative marker in 1QIsaa and

1QIsab. For commentary regarding variants of the accusative marker, see 2:4. 55:121392

‫ ֵת ֵצא ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ תצאו‏ן‬1QIsab • ‫ּתּובלּו‏ן‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ תלכ‏ו‬1QIsaa | διδαχθήσεσθε (‫ )תלמדו‏‬LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִרּנׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ רונ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְמ ֲחא ‏ּו‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ ימחו ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ימחי ‏ו‬1QIsab • ‫ּתּובלּו‏ן‬ ‫— ׇ‬Against ‫יבל‏√( תובלון‏‬, hopʿal, “to be brought,” HALOT, 383) belonging to MT and 1QIsab, 1QIsaa reads ‫הלך‏√( תלכ ‏ו‬, “to go, walk,” HALOT, 246). The fact that the roots ‫ הלך‏‬and ‫ יצאו‏‬are collocated about fifty-five times in the Bible may have influenced a copyist of the 1QIsaa tradition to substitute ‫( תלכו‏‬thus col‑ located with ‫תצא ‏ו‬, located three words earlier in the verse) for ‫תובלו‏ן‬.

1390  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 349. 1391  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 105. 1392  We note here that Tigchelaar, “Minuscula Qumranica I,” 646, identified a fragment from PAM 43.398 as belonging to 1QIsab 55:12–56:1; see also, Tigchelaar, “Publication of PAM 43.398 (IAA #202) Including New Fragments of 4Q269,” 269–70.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

385

‫מחא‏√(—יִ ְמ ֲחא ‏ּו‬ ְ , “to clap the hands,” HALOT, 567). For the reading of 1QIsaa (‫)ימחוא‏‬, the digraph ‫א‬ ‫א =( ‑ו ‏‬ ‫ )‑ ‏‬is orthographic and indicates the vowel û.1393 Cf. also ‫( ִּת ׇּק ֵרא ‏ּו‬MT) and ‫א‬ ‫ תקרו ‏‬in 61:6 (1QIsaa). See also the brief discussion at 8:4 under the entry “‫ ְקרֹא‏‬.”

55:13

‫ ַּת ַח ‏‬2‫ ‏‬MTket | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ וְ ַת ַח ‏‬MTqere MTmss 1QIsaa 1QIsab LXX • ‫ס‬ ‫ ֲה ַד ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ס‬ ‫אד ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ והי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ְל ֵׁשם ְלֹאו ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫מ‬ ‫ לאות ולש ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫— ְל ֵׁשם ְלֹאו ‏‬MT and 1QIsab present one word order of this expression, ver‑ ‫ת‬ sus that of 1QIsaa (‫)לאות ולשמ‏‬. For a discussion of syntactical inversions or variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30.

Isaiah 56

56:1 ‫ ּכֹ ‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ כיא כו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִׁש ְמר ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ שמור ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫—ּכֹ ‏‬1QIsaa’s plus of the conjunction ‫ כיא‏‬apparently serves as a connecting ‫ה‬ particle,1394 although three witnesses (MT, 1QIsab, and LXX) lack it. 56:2 ‫ ֵמ ַח ְּלֹלו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ מחללה‏‬1QIsaa | μὴ βεβηλοῦν LXX • ‫ יׇ ֹדו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ידיו‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫— ֵמ ַח ְּלֹל ‏ו‬MT and 1QIsab present a piʿel inf. with a m. sg. suffix (√‫חלל‏‬, “to pro‑ fane,” HALOT, 319); Ibn Ezra explains that the m. sg. suffix refers to ‫ ֹיום‏‬in the implied expression ‫ת‬ ‫ֹיום ַה ַּׁש ׇּב ‏‬. 1QIsaa’s f. sg. suffix (‫ )מחללה‏‬refers directly to the Sabbath. ‫—יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬For this reading, see the comments at 3:11 and 9:11. 56:3 ‫וְ ַאל‏‬1 MT 1QIsab | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ֶאל יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ על יהוה‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ֵהן‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ הנה‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ֲאנִ ‏י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אנוכ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫— ֶאל יְ הוׇ ה‏‬In MT, the phrase ‫ה‬ ‫ן־הּנֵ ׇכר ַהּנִ ְלוׇ ה ֶאל־יְ הוׇ ‏‬ ַ ‫ ֶּב‬is repeated in v. 6 as ‫ּובנֵ ‏י‬ ְ ‫ ַהּנֵ ׇכר ַהּנִ ְלוִ ים ַעל־יְ הוׇ ה‬. In this repeated phrase, note the deviation ‫( ֶאל־יְ הוׇ ה‏‬v. 3) versus ‫( ַעל־יְ הוׇ ה‏‬v. 6). However, in both of these phrases (vv. 3 and 6), 1QIsaa reads ‫ה‬ ‫ אל יהו ‏‬and 1QIsab has ‫ה‬ ‫על יהו ‏‬. The readings of all three witnesses— MT, 1QIsaa, and 1QIsab—are grammatically feasible. In the Bible, the verb √‫לוה‏‬ 1393  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 86. 1394  See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 130.

386

Chapter 2

(“to join oneself to,” HALOT, 522) is accompanied by the prepositions ‫( ִעם‏‬e.g., Ps 83:9), ‫( אל‏‬e.g., Gen 29:34; Jer 50:5; Zech 2:15), or ‫( על‏‬e.g., Num 18:2, 4; Isa 14:1; Esth 9:27; Dan 11:34). For each of these biblical passages, √‫ לוה‏‬is attested in the nipʿal form. ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ֲאנִ י‏‬For the forms ‫ אנ‏י‬and ‫אנוכ‏י‬, see the comments at 46:9. 56:4 ‫ יִ ְׁש ְמרּו‏‬MT | ‫ ישמור ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּוב ֲחר ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ויבחור ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫—יִ ְׁש ְמר ‏ּו‬For MT’s ‫ יִ ְׁש ְמר‏ּו‬versus 1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel (‫)ישמורו‏‬, see the dis‑ cussion in 43:13. ‫ּוב ֲחר ‏ּו‬ ‫— ׇ‬MT and 1QIsab present a qal pf. verb (‫ )ובחרו‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s qal impf. verb (‫)ויבחורו‏‬. It is possible that 1QIsaa experienced a form of a dittogram, a doubling of a wāw/yôd. Or, perhaps MT’s reading is “the result of an error of the eye … wāw and yôd were often all but indistinguishable from each other in the block script.”1395 For a discussion of deviations of pf. and impf. verbs in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. See also the discussion in 43:13. 56:5 ‫ּומ ׇּבֹנות‏‬ ִ MT 1QIsab (‫[ו]מבנות‏‬ ֯ )|‫ת‬ ‫ ומן בנו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֹל‏ו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫להמ ‏‬2 1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ּומ ׇּבֹנו ‏‬ ‫ת‬ ִ —The nonassimilation of ‫ מ‏ן‬in 1QIsaa (‫ ומן בנות‏‬versus ‫ת‬ ‫ )ומבנו ‏‬may signify an Aramaic influence.1396 Other examples of nonassimilation of ‫ מן‏‬in 1QIsaa are ‫ה‬ ‫( מן תאנ ‏‬versus ‫ה‬ ‫ ִמ ְּת ֵאנׇ ‏‬, 34:4) and ‫ם‬ ‫( מן השמי ‏‬versus ‫ם‬ ‫ ִמ ׇּׁש ַמיִ ‏‬, 63:15). ‫—ֹלו‏‬MT and 1QIsab present ‫( ל ‏ו‬a harmonization with ‫ ל ‏ו‬in v. 6?). Or, 1QIsaa’s ‫להמה‏‬2, identical to ‫להמה‏‬1 located at the beginning of the verse, may be a har‑ monization. Westermann1397 and Blenkinsopp1398 propose the pl. ‫ה‬ ‫ להמ ‏‬sup‑ ported by 1QIsaa and LXX, rather than ‫ ;לו‏‬this accords with Oort, who emended MT to read ‫ם‬ ‫ לה ‏‬decades before the discovery of the scrolls.1399 But according to Kimhi, the sg. ‫ ל ‏ו‬is “employed since [the address] is to each one of the eunuchs individually.”1400 And Barthélemy prefers MT as the more difficult reading.1401 1395  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 450. 1396  See Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 31; and Fassberg, “Nature and Extent of Aramaisms,” 11. 1397  Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 311. 1398  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 130; so too, McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 149, prefers 1QIsaa. 1399  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 105. 1400  Cited in Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 455. 1401  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:410.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

387

Oswalt reacts to Barthélemy by writing that MT’s reading “is so hard that it seems more likely to be an error, particularly if the original was ‫ ׇלֹמ‏ו‬, which in consonantal form (‫ )למו‏‬would be easy to confuse with ‫ם‬ ‫( לה ‏‬cf. BHS).”1402 In this passage, MT’s ‫ לו‏‬does not support its pl. ‫ ׇס ִר ִיסים‏‬or ‫ ; ׇל ֶהם‏‬therefore 1QIsaa, sup‑ ported by LXX(vid), probably has the primary reading. 56:6

‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת־ׁשם יְ הוׇ ה‏‬ ֵ ‫ּול ַא ֲה ׇבה ֶא‬ ְ ‫ ְל ׇׁש ְרֹתו‬MT 1QIsab LXX | > 1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּכל־ׁש ֵֹמר ַׁש ׇּבת‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ת‬ ‫ ולברך את שמ יהוה ושומרים את השב ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ πάντας τοὺς φυλασσομένους τὰ σάββατά μου LXX • ‫ ֵמ ַח ְּלֹלו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ מחללה‏‬1QIsaa | μὴ

βεβηλοῦν LXX • ‫ת־ׁשם יְ הוׇ ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֵ ‫ּול ַא ֲה ׇבה ֶא‬ ְ ‫— ְל ׇׁש ְרֹתו‬There are a number of textual variants in v. 6, MT versus 1QIsaa. 1QIsaa omits ‫ ; ְל ׇׁש ְרֹת‏ו‬1QIsaa reads ‫ ולבר ‏ך‬in place of ‫ה‬ ‫; ְּול ַא ֲה ׇב ‏‬ 1QIsaa has ‫ את שמ יהוה‏‬in a position that is different from MT; and 1QIsaa reads ‫ ושומרים את השב ‏‬versus MT’s ‫ ׇּכל־ׁש ֵֹמר ַׁש ׇּבת‏‬. Note that MT’s reading is support‑ ‫ת‬ ed by 1QIsab (and cf. LXX). With the omitting of ‫ ְל ׇׁש ְרֹתו‏‬and the change to ‫ולברך‏‬, Paul calls these altera‑ tions “tendentious ... since according to the Qumran sect, identified with the priestly house of Zadok, it was forbidden to permit the participation of nonLevites, let alone non-Israelites, in the cult. This ideology is explicitly expressed in the Florilegium (4Q174 3–4).”1403 Before Paul, Rubinstein brought forth similar arguments, also suggesting that 1QIsaa omitted ‫לשרת‏ו‬, thus effectively bringing 56:6 into alignment with the Isaianic teaching set forth in 14:1–2, e.g., Israel will make foreigners (‫ ) ַהּגֵ ר‏‬as “servants and handmaids.”1404 And Tov pre‑ fers MT’s reading, stating that “the reading of 1QIsaa follows the more frequent phrase (e.g. Ps 113:2), also occurring often in the Jewish liturgy.”1405 After a re‑ view of all the evidence, it is clear that the reading of 1QIsaa contains second‑ ary elements. 56:7 ‫ וְ זִ ְב ֵח ֶיהם‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsai Tgms Syr Vulg | ‫ וזבחיהמה יעל ‏ו‬1QIsaa Tgmss | καὶ αἱ θυσίαι αὐτῶν ἔσονται LXX | ‫דׁשיהֹון יִ ַתסקּו‏ן‬ ֵ ‫כסת ֻק‬ ַ ִ‫ וְ נ‬Tg • ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ יקר ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫—וְ זִ ְב ֵח ֶיהם‏‬MT reads ‫ל־מזְ ְּב ִח‏י‬ ִ ‫יהם ְל ׇרֹצון ַע‬ ֶ ‫ ;וְ זִ ְב ֵח‬1QIsaa has the plus of the verb ‫( יעלו‏‬thus, ‫)וזבחיהמה יעלו לרצון על מזבחי‏‬, possibly a harmonization with Isa 60:7 (‫( )יעלו על רצון מזבחי‏‬but cf. Tg ‫)יִ ַתסקּון‏‬. McKenzie prefers ‫יעלו‏‬, explaining that the 1402  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 450. 1403  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 65; see also 449–50. 1404  Rubinstein, “Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings,” 189–90. 1405  Tov, TCHB3, 242.

388

Chapter 2

Hebrew expression under discussion “is awkward without a verb.”1406 But MT, which has the support of two Qumran witnesses as well as multiple versions, retains the primary reading. ‫—יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬As Reymond states, “Most classes of [DSS] verbs have a morphology ‫א‬ identical to that found in the MT.”1407 There are, however, exceptions where the morphological value of the DSS diverge from MT. In the DSS, III-ʾālep verbs (e.g., √‫קרא‏‬, √‫חטא‏‬, √‫ )מלא‏‬are sometimes written with a hê mater. Examples in Isaiah include ‫ ח ֵֹטא‏‬MT; ‫ה‬ ‫ חוט ‏‬1QIsaa (1:4), ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT; ‫ה‬ ‫ יקר ‏‬1QIsaa (54:5), ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT 1QIsab; ‫ה‬ ‫ יקר ‏‬1QIsaa (56:7), ‫א‬ ‫ יְ ַמ ֵּל ‏‬MT; and ‫ ימלה‬1QIsaa (65:20). Sometimes the reverse is true; 1QIsaa has an ʾālep on III-hê verbs: ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ נִ ְלוׇ ‏‬MT; ‫ ונלוא‏‬1QIsaa (14:1), and ‫ה‬ ‫ ַה ֵּט ‏‬MT; 1QIsaa ‫א‬ ‫( הט ‏‬37:17).1408 56:8 ‫ ׇע ׇליו ְלנִ ְק ׇּב ׇציו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ לנקבצ ‏ו‬1QIsab | ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν συναγωγήν LXX • 56:9 ‫ ַחיְ ֹתו ׇׂש ׇדי … ַחיְ ֹתו‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ חיות שדה … חיות‏ | )חיתו שדי֯ … חייתו‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ׇּכל‏‬ MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ וכו ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫— ַחיְ ֹתו ׇׂש ׇדי … ַחיְ ֹתו‏‬According to Kutscher, MT’s ‫( ַחיְ ֹתו‏‬bis) and ‫“( ׇׂש ׇדי‏‬beast of the field”) in Isaiah 56:9 signify “archaic forms” in contrast with 1QIsaa’s ‫חיות‏‬ (bis) and ‫“( שדה‏‬a modernized form”).1409 For MT’s rare forms (“archaic case ending”),1410 see also ‫ ְּבֹנו ְבעֹ ‏ר‬, “the son of Beor,” in Numbers 24:15. Furthermore, note that the scroll reads the pl. beasts, which is in agreement with LXX. 56:10

‫ ׇצפ ‏ּו‬MTket | ‫ צ ׇֹפיו‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa (‫ )צופיו‏‬MTmss | ἴδετε LXX • > MT 1QIsab | ‫המה‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ הֹזִ ים‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ חוזים‏‬1QIsaa MTmss LXX (ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι) α′ σ′ Vulg (videntes vana) • ‫ א ֲֹה ֵב‏י‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ אוהבי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫— ׇצפּו‏‬MTket is vocalized to read as a qal verb (via √‫)צפה‏‬, although MTqere and 1QIsaa read ‫“( צ ׇֹפיו‏‬his watchmen”); note, too, that several MTmss attest ‫)צ(ו‏‬ ‫( פיו‬HUB–Isaiah). The difference between ‫ צפו‏‬and ‫ צפי ‏ו‬is a yôd (fundamentally

an orthographic deviation). Note that LXX (ἴδετε) reads the Hebrew as an im‑ perative: = ‫ ִצפּו‏‬. 1406  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 150. 1407  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 189. 1408  For these and other examples, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 189–90. 1409  Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 98. See also Rendsburg, “Qumran Hebrew (With a Trial Cut [1QS]),” 220. 1410  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 144.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

389

‫—הֹזִ ים … ׇלנּו ‏‬These two words from MT and 1QIsab are from √‫( הזה‏‬a hapax ‫ם‬ legomenon, meaning “to pant in its sleep [dog],” HALOT, 243; or “babbling,” or “drowsing”1411) and √‫“( נום‏‬to fall asleep, slumber,” HALOT, 680). The verse may be translated as “His watchmen are all blind, they are all without knowl‑ edge, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark, they are panting in their sleep, lying down, loving to slumber.” 1QIsaa renders the two words under discussion similarly—‫“( חוזים … לנואם‏‬seers”). The difference between the deviations may be explained by hê/ḥêt (‫הזים‏‬/‫ )חוזים‏‬confusion for the first word and an elision of the ʾālep (‫ ׇלנּום‏‬/‫ )לנואם‏‬for the second. Kutscher holds MT’s √‫ הזה‏‬to be primary;1412 and the reading of the scroll is a simplification, putting a popular word for a difficult term. Contrast Kutscher with Döderlein, who proposes reading ‫ם‬ ‫חזי ‏‬.1413 Or there may exist here two genuine variant readings. If the two words from the Qumran scroll are from √‫“( חזה‏‬to see, behold,” HALOT, 301) and √‫“( נאם‏‬utter a prophecy, speak as prophet,” BDB, 610; cf. ‫ וַ ּיִ נְ ֲאמ‏ּו‬in Jer 23:31; see also HALOT, 657), then the verse may be rendered “they are seers, lying down, loving to utter prophecy.” “Lying down” (‫ )שוכבים‏‬may be a reference to the prophets’ prac‑ tice of incubation. The rendering of this passage by 1QIsaa establishes that the watchmen who are blind are none other than the seers who utter prophecies. While it is difficult to know whether or not we have textual variants or two mishaps, it is my opinion that 1QIsaa presents two errors. 56:11

‫ ר ִֹעי ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ הרועי ‏‬1QIsaa | πονηροὶ LXX Tg Syr • ‫—ר ִֹעי ‏‬The three Hebrew witnesses, MT, 1QIsaa, and 1QIsab, followed by ‫ם‬ Vulg, attest “shepherds” via √‫רעה‏‬. With an article attached to shepherds (‫)הרועים‏‬, 1QIsaa has a minor variant. This article, together with the m. pl. ptc., corresponds (harmonizes?) to the pl. noun and article of line 1 of the bicolon, thus reading “the dogs … the shepherds.” Or, as Paul has written, the “initial heh of ‫ הר ִֹעים‏‬was omitted in the MT as the result of haplography.”1414 LXX Syr Tg have a divergent text, reading √‫“( רעע‏‬to be evil”) in place of the root ‫ה‬ ‫רע ‏‬. Even as evil fits the context quite nicely, it is likely incorrect.

1411  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 459. 1412  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 235. 1413  Döderlein, Esaias, 231. 1414  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 459.

390

Chapter 2

56:12 ‫ ֶא ְק ׇחה … וְ נִ ְס ְּב ׇאה‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ ונקח … ונסבה‏ | )אקח … ונסבאה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ויהי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֹיו ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ם | )[י]ו֯ ֯ם‏‬ ‫ היו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇמ ׇח ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ומח ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫— ֶא ְק ׇח ‏‬There are three Hebrew deviations MT ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ; ֶא ְק ׇח ‏‬1QIsab ‫ ;אקח‏‬and 1QIsaa ‫ח‬ ‫( ונק ‏‬cf. a single MTms [30, HUB–Isaiah] that reads ‫ה‬ ‫)נקח ‏‬. Some two decades before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, Kennedy pointed out that in “some old Semitic alphabets” the similarity of the form of the characters ‫ ‏‬and ‫ ‏נ‬sometimes caused confusion in the manuscript; therefore, Kennedy ‫א‬ proposed that MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ אקח ‏‬read ‫ה‬ ‫( נקח ‏‬which is the reading of 1QIsaa), “that this may harmonize with the succeeding plural form ‫נִ ְס ְּב ׇאה‏‬.”1415 Too, Oort emends MT to read ‫ה‬ ‫ונקח ‏‬.1416 Contrast Kennedy with Abegg, who proposes that “1QIsaa and MT probably reflect two early exegetical solutions to the harder text of 1QIsab. The fact that the scribe of 1QIsab normally lengthened first person im‑ perfects argues for the originality of its reading. It is also difficult to imagine how the first pl. would have developed from a first singular in this context.”1417 Barthélemy follows MT, contending that MT is supported by 1QIsab and also that 1QIsaa’s ‫ח‬ ‫ ונק ‏‬is an assimilation of ‫ה‬ ‫)ונסבאה‏( ונסב ‏‬, located two words later.1418 MT and 1QIsab present the primary reading.

Isaiah 57

57:1

‫ ַה ַּצ ִּדי ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ והצדי ‏‬1QIsaa | Ἴδετε ὡς ὁ δίκαιος LXX • ‫ ׇא ׇב ‏ד‬MT 1QIsab‫ ‏‬LXX | ‫ אובד‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶח ֶס ‏ד‬MT | ‫ החס ‏ד‬1QIsaa • 57:2 ‫ יׇֹבו ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ויבו ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫יבו]א‏ו‬ ֯ 1QIsab | ἔσται LXX • ‫ֹבותם‏‬ ‫ל־מ ְׁש ְּכ ׇ‬ ִ ‫ יׇ נּוחּו ַע‬MT 1QIsab (‫]משכבתם‏‬ ̇ ‫ וינוחו על משכבותיו‏ | )[ינוחו על‬1QIsaa | ἡ ταφὴ αὐτοῦ LXX • ‫ ה ֵֹלְך נְ כֹֹחו‏‬MT | ‫ הלוך נוכחה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ הולך נכח ‏‬1QIsab | ἦρται ἐκ τοῦ μέσου LXX • ‫—יׇֹבוא‏‬1QIsaa has the plus of the conjunction wāw; 1QIsab apparently read a pl. (‫יבו]או‏‬ ֯ ), perhaps a harmonization with the pl. verb ‫ינוחו‏‬, located two words away.

1415  Kennedy, Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament, 37. 1416  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 105. 1417  Abegg, “1QIsaa and 1QIsab: A Rematch,” 226. 1418  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:199.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

391

‫ֹבות ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ל־מ ְׁש ְּכ ׇ‬ ִ ‫—יׇ נּוחּו ַע‬1QIsaa has two minor deviations: the conjunction wāw attached to ‫ וינוח‏ו‬and the third m. sg. pronominal suffix on ‫( משכבותי‏ו‬versus the pl. suffix on MT and 1QIsab); compare a single MTms that reads ‫( משכב‏ו‬R, HUB–Isaiah). 57:3

‫ ִק ְרב ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ קרוב ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וַ ִּתזְ נֶ ‏‬MT | ‫ ותזנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫—וַ ִּתזְ נֶ ה‏‬Both MT and 1QIsaa feature qal verbs with √‫זנה‏‬, but MT’s verb (‫ )וַ ִּתזְ נֶ ה‏‬is sg. (corresponding to the sg., piʿel ptc. ‫ )מנא ‏ף‬and 1QIsaa’s pl. (‫)ותזנו‏‬.

57:4 ‫ ַעל‏‬2‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ וע ‏ל‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ יִ ְל ֵד ‏י‬MT | ‫ ילוד ‏י‬1QIsaa • 57:5 ‫ ְס ִע ֵפי‏‬MT | ‫ שעפ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫— ְס ִע ֵפ‏י‬In 2:21, both MT and 1QIsaa read ‫( ובסעפי‏‬1QIsaa is reconstructed ‫וב]סעפ‏י‬ ֯ ); but in the present verse MT attests the sāmek (‫ )סעפי‏‬and 1QIsaa has a śîn (‫)שעפי‏‬, a sibilant interchange. For a discussion of the deviations between sibilants, see the comments at 3:18. 57:6 ‫ ֶח ְל ֵקְך‏‬MT 4QIsai | ‫ חלקכה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵהם ֵהם‏‬MT 4QIsai (‫הם[ הם‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ שמה המה‏‬1QIsaa | ἐκείνη … οὗτός LXX • ‫ֹּגור ֵלְך‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ גורלכה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇׁש ַפ ְכ ְּת‏‬MT | ‫ שפכתה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֶה ֱע ִלית‏‬ MT | ‫ העליתה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫— ֵהם ֵה ‏‬The double independent pronoun belonging to MT and 4QIsai may ‫ם‬ serve rhetorical purposes—“they, even they.” For 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫שמה המ ‏‬, cf. Tg ‫ַא ‏ף‬ ‫ ַת ׇמן ִאנּון‬. ‫— ֶח ְל ֵק ‏ְך‬A major challenge to understanding the literary unit that deals with Israel’s gross wickedness (57:3–13a) is the change of point of view with regard to the grammatical forms with their various affixes. The unit begins with a sec‑ ond m. pl. pronoun in v. 3 (‫ )וְ ַא ֶּתם‏‬followed by a second m. pl. pronoun in the following verse. The three second m. pl. verb forms of v. 4 are in agreement with the pronouns, i.e., ‫ ִּת ְת ַעּנׇ גּו‏‬, ‫ ַּת ְר ִחיבּו‏‬, and ‫ ַּת ֲא ִריכּו‏‬. But then beginning in v. 6 there is a change of point of view, wherein the pericope’s author begins to uti‑ lize second f. sg. forms, such as ‫ ֶח ְל ֵק ‏ְך‬, ‫ֹּגור ֵל ‏ְך‬ ‫ ׇ‬, ‫ּת‬ ‫ ׇׁש ַפ ְכ ְ ‏‬, and ‫ת‬ ‫( ֶה ֱע ִלי ‏‬v. 6); ‫ּת‬ ‫ ַׂש ְמ ְ ‏‬, ‫ ִמ ְׁש ׇּכ ֵב ‏ְך‬, and ‫( ׇע ִלית‏‬v. 7); and so forth to the end of the pericope. To compound the challenge of the change of person, number, and gender in these verses, beginning with v. 6, 1QIsaa features the forms ‫חלקכה‏‬, ‫גורלכה‏‬, ‫שפכתה‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫העלית ‏‬, etc., with the suffix ‫ה‬ ‫‑כ ‏‬, which generally signals the second m.

392

Chapter 2

sg. But according to Qimron, in QH “the second feminine suffixes, which origi‑ nally terminated in i, are occasionally written with hê.”1419 Additionally, after 1QIsaa employs the suffixes ‫ה‬ ‫ ‑כ ‏‬or ‫ ‑תה‏‬on a number of occasions, the copyist then reverts back to using second f. sg. forms (e.g., ‫ )‑ ‏ך‬in agreement with MT. For additional cases of this phenomenon, see 41:14. 57:7 ‫ ִמ ְׁש ׇּכ ֵבְך‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ משכבכ ‏‬1QIsaa • For the deviation ‫ה‬ ‫‑כ ‏‬, see commentary above, v. 6. 57:8

‫ ַׂש ְמ ְּת זִ ְכֹרונֵ ‏ְך‬MT 4QIsai (‫זכ[רונך‏‬ ֯ ‫ה | )שמת‬ ‫ שמתה זכרונכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ּגִ ִּלי ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫גלית ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ַּת ֲע ִלי‏‬MT | ‫ ותעל ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ וַ ִּת ְכ ׇר ‏‬MT | ‫ ותכרות ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫—זִ ְכֹרונֵ ְך‏‬For the deviation ‫ה‬ ‫‑כ ‏‬, see commentary above, v. 6.

57:9 ‫ ִר ֻּק ׇחיִ ְך‏‬MT | ‫ רוקחי ‏ך‬1QIsaa | τοὺς μακρὰν ἀπὸ σοῦ LXX • ‫ וַ ַּת ְׁש ִּפ ִיל‏י‬MT | ‫̇ותשפול‏י‬ 1QIsaa | καὶ ἀπέστρεψας καὶ ἐταπεινώθης LXX • ‫ ִר ֻּקח‏(— ִר ֻּק ׇחיִ ‏ְך‬, “ointment,” HALOT, 1290). For brief comments on the quṭṭal pattern (‫ רוקחיך‏‬1QIsaa) versus the qiṭṭul pattern (‫ ִר ֻּק ׇחיִ ְך‏‬MT), see 43:17. LXX’s reading apparently is based on √‫ רחק‏‬rather than ‫ח‬ ‫רק ‏‬, a metathesis. ‫—וַ ַּת ְׁש ִּפ ִילי‏‬For MT’s ‫ וַ ַּת ְׁש ִּפ ִילי‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s /u/ or /o/ vowel (‫) ̇ותשפולי‏‬, see the discussion in 43:13. 57:10 ‫ ַּד ְר ֵּכְך‏‬MT | ‫ דרכי ‏ך‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ת‬ ‫ ׇמ ׇצא ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ מצ ‏‬1QIsaa • 57:11

‫ וַ ִּת ְיר ִא‏י‬MT 4QIsad LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ ותיראינ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ּת‬ ‫ זׇ ַכ ְר ְּת לֹא ַׂש ְמ ְ‏‬MT 4QIsad (‫ש]מת‬ ̇ ‫זכר ̇ת ֯ל[א‬ ̇ ‫ זכרתי ולוא שמתי‏ | )‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַׂש ְמ ְּת‏‬MT 4QIsad Tg Vulg | ‫שמתי אלה‏‬ 1QIsaa | με LXX Syr • ‫ ִל ֵּב ‏ְך‬MT 4QIsad | ‫ה‬ ‫ לבכ ‏‬1QIsaa | εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν οὐδὲ εἰς τὴν

καρδίαν σου LXXed • ‫—וַ ִּת ְיר ִא‏י‬1QIsa, without the support of other witnesses, has a plus of the first common sg. suffix ‫‏‑ני‬, thus reading ‫ותיראיני‏‬. It is difficult to know where the suffix came from, unless a scribe apprehended it from ‫( אנ‏י‬found in the same verse and again in v. 12), or from ‫ואותי‏‬, or ‫א‬ ‫( כי ‏‬a dittography of similar charac‑ ters: ‫)‏ותיראיני כיא‬. 1419  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 139.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

393

‫— ַׂש ְמ ְּת‏‬1QIsaa has the plus of ‫אלה‏‬, which is lacking in MT and 4QIsad. Thus 1QIsaa reads ‫ה‬ ‫ולוא שמתי אלה על לבכ ‏‬. Evidently, 1QIsaa borrowed the term ‫אלה‏‬ from a similar expression, located in 47:7: ‫לוא שמתי אלה על לבכ‏י‬. 57:12 ‫ ִצ ְד ׇק ֵתְך‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ צדק ‏ך‬4QIsad | τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου LXX Syr • ‫ֹיועילּו ‏ְך‬ ִ MT 4QIsad LXX Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ יועילוך קובצי ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹיועילּוְך‏‬ ִ —MT and 4QIsad’s ‫ ַמ ֲע ַׂשיִ ְך‏‬and ‫ ִצ ְד ׇק ֵתְך‏‬serve as the subject for the verb ‫ֹיועילּו ‏ְך‬ ִ . 4QIsaa’s ‫קובצי ‏ך‬, which is not attested in MT, 4QIsad, or the versions, supplies a new subject for the verb ‫יועילו ‏ך‬, changing the sense of the passage. So from whence comes ‫ קובציך‏‬in 1QIsaa? This plus is an assimilation from ‫ּבּוציִ ‏ְך‬ ַ ‫ ִק‬/‫ קובציך‏‬that exists three words later (in v. 13) in the Hebrew texts. 57:13

‫ּבּוציִ ‏ְך‬ ַ ‫ ִק‬MT Vulg | ‫ קובציך‏‬1QIsaa Syr | ‫קבציך‏‬ ֯ 4QIsad | ἐν τῇ θλίψει σου (‫)?בצוק(י)ך‏‬ LXX | ‫קרי ‏ך‬ ִ ‫עּוב ֵדי ִׁש‬ ‫ ׇ‬Tg • ‫ח‬ ‫ יִ ַּק ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ ויק ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ֹחוס ‏‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַה‬MT 4QIsad (‫ ‏)והחסה‏‬LXX | ‫ וחוס ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ּבּוציִ ‏ְך‬ ַ ‫— ִק‬For brief comments on the quṭṭul pattern (‫ קובציך‏‬1QIsaa) versus the qiṭṭul pattern (‫ּבּוציִ ְך‏‬ ַ ‫ ִק‬MT), see 43:17.

57:14 ‫ וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬MT σ′ | ‫ ויואמר‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐροῦσιν LXX | et dicam Vulg • ‫ סֹּלּו־סֹּלּו‏‬MT LXX | ‫ סולו סולו המסלה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫—וְ ׇא ַמר‏‬MT has a qal pf. third m. sg. verb in opposition to 1QIsaa’s qal impf. third m. sg. verb (‫)ויואמר‏‬, another case of a verbal form substitution, which is a late development: weQatal > weYiqtol. Also possible, the scroll borrowed the wāw-consecutive from ‫ש‬ ‫ויר ‏‬, located three words earlier. For a discussion of deviations of pf. and impf. verbs in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. ‫—סֹּלּו־סֹּל ‏ּו‬1QIsaa, without the support of the versions, has the plus of ‫המסלה‏‬ (‫ ְמ ִס ׇלה‏‬, “a track firmed with stones or fill,” HALOT, 606), thus reading ‫סולו סול‏ו‬ ‫ ;המסלה‬perhaps this plus in 1QIsaa is a harmonization from 62:10, which has the exact expression (‫)סולו סולו המסלה‏‬. 57:15 ‫ ׇמֹרום וְ ׇקֹדוׁש ֶא ְׁשֹּכו‏ן‬MT | ‫ במרום ובקודש ישכו‏ן‬1QIsaa | ‫ מרום וקדוש ישכ‏ן‬4QIsad | ὕψιστος ἐν ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενος LXX | in excelso et in sancto habitans Vulg • ‫ְל ַה ֲחֹיות‏‬ ̇ )|‫ת‬ ‫ לחיות … ולחיו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּול ַה ֲחֹיות‬ ְ … MT 4QIsad (‫להחיו]ת … ולהחיות‏‬ ‫— ׇמֹרום וְ ׇקֹדוׁש ֶא ְׁשֹּכו‏ן‬1QIsaa attaches the preposition bêt to the nouns ‫ם‬ ‫מרו ‏‬ and ‫קודש‏‬, thus indicating that these nouns serve as the accusative for the verb

394

Chapter 2

√‫“( שכן‏‬to settle … reside,” HALOT, 1497). MT lacks prepositional objects for these nouns, although the Masoretes correctly indicated with the use of the atnaḥ that the verb ‫ שכ‏ן‬functions with the nouns ‫ם‬ ‫ מרו ‏‬and ‫ש‬ ‫קוד ‏‬. For 1QIsaa’s use of the attached preposition, see also the comments at 1:12. MT and 4QIsad attest the adjective ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ׇקֹדו ‏‬versus the noun ‫ש‬ ‫ קוד ‏‬belonging to 1QIsaa. With regard to √‫שכן‏‬, MT has ‫ ֶא ְׁשֹּכון‏‬versus ‫ישכון‏‬, which belongs to 1QIsaa and 4QIsad. The multiple occurrences of first person sg. forms in the pericope (see especially vv. 13–18) supports MT’s ‫ ֶא ְׁשֹּכו‏ן‬. ‫— ְל ַה ֲחֹיות … ְּול ַה ֲחֹיות‏‬MT and 4QIsad attest two hipʿil infinitives from √‫חיה‏‬ (hipʿil, “to revive,” HALOT, 310), set forth as ‫ ְל ַה ֲחֹיות … ְּול ַה ֲחֹיות‏‬. 1QIsaa deviates from MT and 4QIsad by omitting the infixed hê that is characteristic of hipʿil infinitives, thus reading ‫לחיות … ולחיות‏‬. 1QIsaa’s scribe regularly omitted the hê in hipʿil infinitives that followed a preposition,1420 e.g., ‫ת‬ ‫ ְל ַה ְׁשֹאו ‏‬MT; ‫ת‬ ‫לשאוו ‏‬ 1QIsaa (37:26); ‫יע‬ ‫ ְל ַה ְׁש ִמ ַ ‏‬MT; ‫ לשמי ‏ע‬1QIsaa (58:4); cf. also ‫ק‬ ‫ ְל ַה ֲחזִ י ‏‬MT and ‫ק‬ ‫לאחזי ‏‬ 1QIsaa (64:6). For a discussion on the quiescence of hê in 1QIsaa, see the com‑ mentary at 1:10. 57:17 ‫ ַה ְס ֵּתר‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ואהסתר‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsad (‫ | )ואסתר‏‬καὶ ἀπέστρεψα τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ LXX | ‫ ַס ֵל ִיקית ְׁש ִכינְ ִתי ִמנְ הֹו‏ן‬Tg | abscondi Vulg (+ a te faciem meam Vulgmss) • ‫ וְ ֶא ְקצֹ ‏ף‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsad | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואקצופ ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐλυπήθη LXX | ‫ילתינּו ‏ן‬ ִ ‫לט‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַט‬ Tg • ‫ ִלֹּבו‏‬MT CD A 1.11 | ‫ לב‏י‬1QIsaa | αὐτοῦ LXX • ‫— ַה ְס ֵּת ‏ר‬Two Hebrew witnesses—MT and 1QIsab—read the hipʿil inf. abs. (‫הסתר‏‬, “to hide,” HALOT, 771); two other witnesses attest ‫( ואסת ‏ר‬4QIsad) and ‫( ואהסתר‏‬1QIsaa), although 1QIsaa includes an interposed hê. Opinions vary with regard to the basis of the hê. Driver states that it signifies a scribal correction (“by an Aramaizing copyist”) from ‫ אסת ‏ר‬to ‫הסת ‏ר‬.1421 Also possible, the scroll’s copyist conflated the hê of the hipʿil inf. with the preformative ʾālep from the two verbs, which precede (‫ )ואכהו‏‬and follow (‫ )ואקצופה‏‬the term under discus‑ sion. And Talmon writes that it is a case of “a fully developed doublet which may be observed in statu nascendi in MT. The underlying alternative variants then would be ‫ואסתר ואקצ‏)ו‏(פ‏)ה‏(—הסתר וקצ‏)ו‏( ‏ף‬.”1422 The primary reading was likely two inf. absolutes or two impf. first common sg.1423 For other examples where MT has an inf. versus a finite verb in 1QIsaa, see 19:22 ‫א‬ ‫( וְ ׇרֹפו ‏‬MT) and

1420  See Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 48. 1421  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 18. 1422  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 248. 1423  See the note of Rubinstein, “Isaiah LVII 17: ‫ הסתר ואקצ ‏ף‬and the DSIa Variant,” 200–1.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

395

‫( ונרפ ‏ו‬1QIsaa); 37:19 ‫תן‏‬ ֹ ‫( וְ נׇ‬MT) and ‫( ויתנו‏‬1QIsaa); 37:30 ‫( וְ ׇאֹכול‏‬MTket; but cf. ‫וְ ִא ְכלּו‏‬ MTqere 2 Kgs 19:29); and ‫( ואכול ‏ו‬1QIsaa).

57:18 ‫ ְּד ׇר ׇכיו‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX Syr Vulg | ‫ דרכ‏ו‬4QIsad orth or var? • ‫ וְ ַאנְ ֵחה‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | > 1QIsaa | καὶ παρεκάλεσα αὐτὸν LXX • ‫ וַ ֲא ַׁש ֵּלם נִ ֻח ִמים ֹלו‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫נחמי֯ ם‏‬ ̇ ‫ואשלמה‬ ‫ ואשלם לוא תנחומים לו ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἔδωκα αὐτῷ παράκλησιν ἀληθινήν LXX • ‫א | )לו‬ ‫—וְ ַאנְ ֵחהּו‏‬The reading is from √‫( נחה‏‬hipʿil, “to lead, conduct,” HALOT, 685). The scribe of 1QIsaa may have dropped the word through haplography because of the identical prefixation and suffixation of the preceding word: ‫‏וארפאהו‬ ‫ואנחהו‬. But compare MTms K, which also omits ‫( ואנחה‏ו‬HUB–Isaiah). The translator of LXX read √‫( נחם‏‬καὶ παρεκάλεσα αὐτὸν), impacted by ‫ם‬ ‫ נִ ֻח ִמי ‏‬two words later.1424 ‫—וַ ֲא ַׁש ֵּלם נִ ֻח ִמים ֹל ‏ו‬Versus MT and 1QIsab, 1QIsaa doubles the dative pronoun (‫)ואשלם לוא תנחומים לוא‏‬. As pertaining to the scrolls presenting ‫“( ל ‏ו‬to him”) as ‫“( לוא‏‬to him”), see the comments at 3:11. Note that LXX omits the dative object ‫וְ ַל ֲא ֵב ׇלי ‏ו‬. With regard to ‫ם‬ ‫נִ ֻח ִמי ‏‬, the reading of MT and 1QIsab, 1QIsaa modern‑ izes with ‫תנחומים‏‬, which is the same as the Mishnaic Hebrew form.1425 With regard to the lengthened impf. (‫ )ואשלמה‏‬versus the regular impf. (‫)ואשלם‏‬, see the comments at 5:19. 57:19 ‫ֹּבורא‏‬ ֵ MT 4QIsad (‫ה | )בורה‏‬ ‫ בבור ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ נּו ‏ב‬MTket 4QIsad | ‫ נִ י ‏ב‬MTqere 1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ׇׁשֹלום ׇׁשֹלום‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ ) ֯שלו֯ ֯ם[ ש]לו֯ ם‏‬LXX (εἰρήνην ἐπ᾽ εἰρήνην) Tg (‫ּוׁשל ׇמא‏‬ ‫ שלום‏ | ) ְׁש ׇל ׇמא … ׇ‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ַל ׇּקֹרוב‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab LXX | ‫ ולרקרוב‏‬4QIsad • ‫אתיו‏‬ ִ ‫ ְּור ׇפ‬MT | ‫ ורפתיה ‏ו‬1QIsaa | ‫ורפתי ‏ו‬ ̇ 4QIsad • ‫ֹּבור ‏‬ ‫א‬ ֵ —1QIsaa’s bêt attached to the qal ptc. ‫ה‬ ‫( בבור ‏‬MT ‫א‬ ‫ֹּבור ‏‬ ֵ ; 4QIsad ‫ה‬ ‫ )בור ‏‬is unprecedented, plausibly the result of a dittography. ‫— ׇׁשֹלום ׇׁשֹלו ‏‬1QIsaa, against several witnesses, attests a single instance of ‫ם‬ ‫שלו ‏‬. Inasmuch as the duplication of peace for rhetorical purposes is not un‑ ‫ם‬ known in the HB (e.g., Isa 26:3; 1 Chr 12:19; Jer 6:14; 8:11), it is likely that the second ‫ שלום‏‬was dropped via haplography. ‫—וְ ַל ׇּקֹרוב‏‬4QIsad’s peculiar ‫‏‬ ‫ולרקרוב‬, with the extra rêš, is the result of metathesis.1426 1424  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 253. 1425  Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, 1681; Sáenz-Badillos, History of the Hebrew Language, 135. 1426  For additional examples of metathesis in both biblical and nonbiblical Qumran texts, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 25.

396

Chapter 2

‫אתי ‏ו‬ ִ ‫— ְּור ׇפ‬During the history of the transmission of 1QIsaa (‫ )ורפתיהו‏‬and 4QIsad (‫) ̇ורפתיו‏‬, the ʾālep dropped out, likely because of its quiescent nature. With regard to the suffixes: the suffix ‫ ‑יהו‏‬is a feature of QH, used often in place of ‫‑יו‏‬.1427

57:20 ‫יּוכל וַ ּיִ גְ ְרׁשּו‏‬ ‫ נִ גְ ׇרׁש … ׇ‬MT 1QIsab (‫ )נ ֹ̇ר ֯ג[ש ?] … יוכל ויגר[שו‏‬4QIsad (‫נג]רש … יוכל‏‬ ̇ ‫ נגרשו … יוכלויתגרשו‏ | )ויגרשו‬1QIsaa | κλυδωνισθήσονται … δυνήσονται LXX • ‫ַה ְׁש ֵקט‏‬ MT 4QIsad | ‫ט‬ ‫ לאשקו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫יּוכל וַ ּיִ גְ ְרׁש ‏ּו‬ ‫גרׁש‏√(—נִ גְ ׇרׁש … ׇ‬, qal “to toss up”; nipʿal “to be churning”; hitpaʿel “to be churned with,” HALOT, 204). For 1QIsaa’s ‫יוכלויתגרשו‏‬, “the ‫ ו‏‬was added in the word-space, and belongs to the second word rather than the first” (PQ). With its pl. ‫ נגרש‏ו‬and hitpaʿel ‫יתגרש‏ו‬, 1QIsaa deviates from MT’s ‫יּוכ ‏ל‬ ‫נִ גְ ׇרׁש … ׇ‬ ‫וַ ּיִ גְ ְרׁשּו‬. Evidently the fragmented readings of 1QIsab and 4QIsad are aligned with MT. ‫— ַה ְׁש ֵק ‏‬1QIsaa has the plus of the preposition lāmed and a wāw, reading a ‫ט‬ qal inf. const. (‫ )לאשקוט‏‬in place of the hipʿil inf. abs. of MT and 4QIsad (‫) ַה ְׁש ֵקט‏‬. In addition, the scroll substitutes an ʾālep for the hê that belongs to both MT and 4QIsad. “The lamed [of ‫ ]לאשקוט‏‬is a result of correction” (PQ). For a dis‑ cussion on the quiescence of hê or the substitution of ʾālep for hê in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 1:10. As for the qal stem, perhaps the copyist is simply using the more common form—‫ שקט‏‬is attested forty-one times in the HB: thirty-one times as a qal and ten times as a hipʿil. Or, did the copyist inadvertently write the negative particle ‫ לא‏‬twice, once before the verb and once following, for ex‑ ample, ‫ ?‏לאשקוט לוא‬However, this would not explain the wāw in the infinitive. It is well known that Mishnaic Hebrew generally attaches the preposition lāmed to the inf. const. So, too, LBH tends to add the lāmed to the inf. const.1428 With these points in mind, Kutscher refers to “the marked tendency of the Scroll to add a ‫ ‏ל‬to infinitives.”1429 For other instances (both nouns and verbs), where 1QIsaa has a preposition versus MT, see the discussion at 1:12. 57:21 ‫ ֵאי‏ן‬MT | ‫ ואין‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹלהי‏‬ ַ ‫ ֱא‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫אלה[י‏‬ ̇ ) | ‫ יהוה‏‬MTmss; κύριος ὁ θεός LXX; ὁ θεός LXXmss •

1427  On this topic, consult Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 272–73. 1428  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 41; see also n. 1; see also Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 194–95. 1429  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 41.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



397

Isaiah 58

58:1 ‫ ַא ‏ל‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ וא ‏ל‬1QIsab LXX • ‫ֹּׁשופ ‏ר‬ ‫ ַּכ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫וכ[שופ ‏ר‬ ̇ 1QIsab • ‫ם‬ ‫ִּפ ְׁש ׇע ‏‬ MT 1QIsab | ‫ פשעיהםה‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫— ִּפ ְׁש ׇע ‏‬MT 1QIsab set forth a sg. noun ‫“( ֶפ ַׁשע‏‬crime,” HALOT, 981). 1QIsaa ‫ם‬ with the support of LXX has the pl. noun. Oswalt writes that MT’s sg. “is a hard‑ er reading and thus preferable.”1430 58:2 ‫ֹאות‏י‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬MT Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ אות‏י‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ )אתי‏‬4QIsad (‫ )אתי‏‬LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ ֹיום ֹיו ‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsad Tg | ‫ם‬ ‫ יום ויו ‏‬1QIsaa | ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας LXX • ‫ יִ ְדרׁשּו‏ן‬MT 1QIsab (‫[י]דרשון‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ ידרושו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹלהיו‏‬ ‫ ֱא ׇ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אלוהו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יֶ ְח ׇּפצּון‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יחפצו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫איש איש‏—ֹיום ֹיום‏‬, ‫ם‬ ‫יום יו ‏‬, and similar forms are common biblical expressions; 1QIsaa’s reading of ‫יום ויום‏‬, with the wāw conjunction, signifies a reading that belongs to late texts, including Mishnaic and Aramaic writings (see also ‫ם‬ ‫יום ויו ‏‬ in Esth 3:4 and SP Gen 39:10). For a discussion of X-‫ ו‏‬X forms, see Qimron.1431 ‫—יִ ְדרׁשּון‏‬Here MT has the paragogic nûn (‫ )יִ ְדרׁשּון‏‬versus 1QIsaa (‫)ידרושו‏‬. ‫ֹלהיו‏‬ ‫— ֱא ׇ‬See commentary at 8:19. ‫—יֶ ְח ׇּפצּו‏ן‬For a second time in this verse, MT attests the paragogic nûn (‫)יֶ ְח ׇּפצּון‏‬ versus 1QIsaa (‫)יחפצו‏‬. For a discussion of the paragogic nûn in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 8:12. 58:3

‫ נַ ְפ ֵׁשנ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ נפשותינ ‏ו‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ )נפשתינו‏‬LXX • ‫א‬ ‫וְ ל ֹ ‏‬2‫ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫א‬ ‫ ל ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ַע ְּצ ֵב ֶיכ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ עצבכ ‏‬1QIsab • ‫—נַ ְפ ֵׁשנּו‏‬MT reads ‫ ִעּנִ ינּו נַ ְפ ֵׁשנּו‏‬, a pl. verb with a sg. noun: “we have humiliated (‫ ִעּנִ ינּו‏‬, HALOT, 853) our soul.” 1QIsaa and 1QIsab have a pl. verb and pl. noun.

Van der Kooij asserts that the Qumran Isaiah texts have adapted their read‑ ing from pentateuchal texts that attest the pl. ‫נפשותינ‏ו‬,1432 but contrast Flint, who concludes that the Qumran witnesses likely present the primary reading.1433 Elsewhere in the Bible when ‫ נֶ ֶפׁש‏‬is collocated with √‫ענה‏‬, a pl. verb is used

1430  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 492. 1431  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 81–82; and more recently, Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 411–12. 1432  Van der Kooij, “Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew,” 147, cites specifically Lev 16:29, 31 and Num 29:7. 1433  Flint, “Non-Masoretic Variant Readings,” 112, concludes that the Qumran witnesses have the “preferable” reading.

398

Chapter 2

with a pl. noun (Lev 16:29, 31; 23:27, 32; Num 29:7) or a sg. verb is used with a sg. noun (Lev 23:29; Ps 35:13; Isa 58:10). With this evidence in view, the two Qumran texts, supported by LXX, have the primary reading. 58:4 ‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa | εἰ LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ּומ ׇּצ ‏‬ ַ MT | ‫ ולמצא‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ת • )ולמצה‏‬ ‫ְּול ַהֹּכו ‏‬ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ת‬ ‫ להכו ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ְּב ֶאגְ ר ֹ ‏ף‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ בגור ‏ף‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫א‬ ‫ול ‏‬ 1QIsab • ‫ ְל ַה ְׁש ִמ ַיע‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ לשמי ‏ע‬1QIsaa • ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫ ֶאגְ רֹף‏(— ְּב ֶאגְ רֹף‏‬, “fist,” HALOT, 11). For this form, QH attests two forms: ‫אגרו ‏ף‬ (4QDf 5 i 3) and ‫( בגור ‏ף‬1QIsaa, the passage under discussion). For the complexi‑ ties regarding ‫בגורף‏‬, see Qimron’s grammar.1434 ‫— ְל ַה ְׁש ִמ ַ ‏‬For a discussion of 1QIsaa hipʿil verbs (‫ )לשמיע‏‬being written with‑ ‫יע‬ out the characteristic hê, see 57:15. See also the discussion on the quiescence of hê in 1QIsaa, at 1:10. 58:5 ‫ ֹיום‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ויום‏‬1QIsab LXX • ‫מ ‏ן‬ ֹ ְ‫ ְּכ ַאג‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ כאוגמן‏‬1QIsaa | ὡς κρίκον LXX • ‫ רֹאֹׁשו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ראשך‏‬1QIsab | τὸν τράχηλόν σου LXX • ‫ וְ ַׂשק‏‬MT LXX | ‫ שק‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫א‬ ‫ ִּת ְק ׇר ‏‬MT 1QIsab Vulg | ‫ תקרא‏ו‬1QIsaa 4QIsad LXX Tg Syr • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ֹיו ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫יו ‏‬ 1QIsaa 1QIsab | > LXX • ‫— ִּת ְק ׇר ‏‬The sg. verb ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ תקר ‏‬of MT 1QIsab (“will you [‫ ]תקרא‏‬call this a fast?”) correlates with the sg. forms of vv. 7–12 (‫ ׇּת ִביא‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫ ִת ְר ֶא ‏‬, ‫וְ ִכ ִּסיֹת‏ו‬, ‫ם‬ ‫ ִת ְת ַע ׇּל ‏‬, etc.). The pl. verb ‫ תקרא‏ו‬of 1QIsaa and 4QIsad hearkens back to the pl. forms in vv. 1–4 (e.g., v. 4: ‫ ׇּתצּומ ‏ּו‬, ‫ ׇתצּומ ‏ּו‬, and ‫ם‬ ‫ֹקול ֶכ ‏‬ ְ ). But v. 5 signifies a transitional passage in this pericope (The Law of the Fast, 58:1–12), from the pl. forms in vv. 1–4 to individu‑ alized forms in vv. 7–12. In other words, the Lord speaks to the house of Jacob (see v. 1) in the first four verses; then the Lord personalizes his instruction to individuals (hence, the sg. verbs and pronouns in vv. 7–12). For these reasons, MT 1QIsab have the primary reading. 58:6 ‫ ֹצו ‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ הצום אש ‏ר‬1QIsaa Vulg • ‫ ַה ֵּת ‏ר‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ והת ‏ר‬1QIsaa | διάλυε ‫ם‬ LXX • ‫ וְ ַׁש ַּלח‏‬MT 1QIsaa Tg Syr | ‫ח‬ ‫ של ‏‬1QIsab 4QIsad LXX α′ Vulg • ‫—ֹצום‏‬1QIsaa includes the relative pronoun ‫( אש ‏ר‬see also 1QIsaa 48:17) and attaches the article to ‫ם‬ ‫צו ‏‬, thus reading “the fast which.” According to Deist,

1434  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 291–319, esp. 305n121.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

399

1QIsaa’s plus signifies an easing of the text in order “to mark the relative construction.”1435 58:7 ‫ וַ ֲענִ ּיִ י ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ וענויי ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ עניי ‏‬1QIsab | > Syr • ‫ וְ ִכ ִּסיֹת ‏ו‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫וכסיתו בג ‏ד‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ִת ְת ַע ׇּלם‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ תתע ‏ל‬1QIsaa | ὑπερόψῃ LXX • ‫—וַ ֲענִ ּיִ ים‏‬For the variants ‫ ׇענׇ ‏ו‬and ‫ ׇענִ ‏י‬, see the commentary at 11:4. ‫—וְ ִכ ִּסיֹתו‏‬Against all other textual witnesses, 1QIsaa adds ‫ ֶבגֶ ד‏( בגד‏‬, “garment, covering,” HALOT, 108), thus reading “when you see the naked, covering him with a garment (‫)תראה ערום וכסיתו בגד‏‬.” A copyist may have borrowed ‫ בג ‏ד‬from Ezek 18:7: “and the naked he will cover with a garment (‫)ועירם יכסה בגד‏‬.” MT 1QIsab LXX have the primary reading, minus ‫בג ‏ד‬. 58:8 ‫ וַ ֲא ֻר ׇכ ְתָך‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ ארוכתך‏ | )וארוכתכה‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ְּכֹבוד‏‬MT | ‫ וכבוד‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab LXX • 58:9

‫ ְּת ַׁשּוַ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ תשוי ֹ ‏ע‬1QIsab | ἔτι λαλοῦντός σου LXX • ‫ח‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ ְׁש ַל ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ח‬ ‫ושלו ‏‬

1QIsaa LXX (καὶ χειροτονίαν)(vid) • ‫— ְׁש ַל ‏‬The deviation of the qal inf. const. is strictly orthographic: ‫( ְׁש ַלח‏‬MT, ‫ח‬ 1QIsab) versus ‫( ושלוח‏‬1QIsaa). ‫“( ׁשוע‏√— ְּת ַׁשּוַ ע‏‬to call for help,” HALOT, 1443) occurs only in the piʿel in the HB, which is attested here in MT and 1QIsaa; 1QIsab’s hipʿil ‫ תשוי ֹ ‏ע‬may be the result of a wāw/yôd variability. 58:10 ‫ ַּכ ׇּצ ֳה ׇריִ ם‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ כצהורי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫— ַּכ ׇּצ ֳה ׇריִ ם‏‬Driver holds that 1QIsaa’s ‫צהורים‏‬, here and again in 59:10, “reflects the Aram. ‫א‬ ‫‘ צהור ‏‬brilliance.’”1436 Or, equally plausible, the infixed wāw of ‫צהורים‏‬ is none other than a wāw mater.1437

1435  Deist, Towards the Text of the Old Testament, 46–47. 1436  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 19–20. See also Ben-Hayyim, Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language, 89–90. 1437  For several examples of the wāw mater in Qumran texts, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 47–51.

400

Chapter 2

58:11 ‫ ְּב ַצ ְח ׇצֹחו ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫בצחצחת‏‬ ‫ת‬ ̇ )|‫ת‬ ‫ בצצחו ‏‬1QIsaa | καθάπερ ἐπιθυμεῖ LXX • ‫יַ ֲח ִלי ‏ץ‬ MT | ‫ יחליצו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יחלצ ‏ו‬1QIsab • ‫ ַצ ְח ׇצֹחות‏(— ְּב ַצ ְח ׇצֹחות‏‬, “arid regions,” HALOT, 1019). For the hapax legomenon ‫ =( ְּב ַצ ְח ׇצֹחות‏‬MT 1QIsab), 1QIsaa reads ‫ת‬ ‫בצצחו ‏‬. According to Reymond, the first ḥêt has been elided from the large scroll.1438 ‫—יַ ֲח ִליץ‏‬The Lord is the subject in MT: “He [the Lord] will make your bones strong” (third m. sg. hipʿil impf. ‫יַ ֲח ִליץ‏‬, “make strong,” HALOT, 322, via √‫)חלץ‏‬. In 1QIsab (nipʿal?) the subject is probably “your bones,” i.e., reading “your bones will become strong” or “strengthened.”1439 With ‫יחליצו‏‬, 1QIsaa seems to conflate the readings of MT (hipʿil) and 1QIsab (pl.). 58:12 ‫ וְ ק ׇֹר ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ וקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְמׁש ֵֹב ‏ב‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ משי ‏ב | )משובב‏‬1QIsab | τοὺς ἀνὰ ‫א‬ μέσον LXX • ‫—וְ ק ׇֹר ‏‬For a brief discussion of the impersonal verbs, together with addi‑ ‫א‬ tional examples, see 1:26. ‫— ְמׁש ֵֹב ‏‬MT 1QIsaa feature ‫ ְמׁש ֵֹבב‏‬/‫( משובב‏‬via √‫שוב‏‬, “to repair, restore what ‫ב‬ has been demolished,” HALOT, 1431); 1QIsab has a hipʿil ptc. ‫“( משיב‏‬to restore,” HALOT, 1433). 58:13 ‫ ִמ ַּׁש ׇּבת‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab | ‫ת‬ ‫ מהשב ‏‬4QIsan | ἀπὸ τῶν σαββάτων LXX • ‫ת‬ ‫ ֲעֹׂשו ‏‬MT 1QIsab Tg | ‫ת‬ ‫מעשו ‏‬1‫ ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsan (‫ )מעש[ות‏‬LXX Tgmss • ‫ ֲח ׇפ ֶצי ‏ָך‬MT 1QIsaa (‫)חפציכה‏‬ LXX | ‫ חפצ ‏ך‬1QIsab orth or var? θ′ Tg Syr Vulg • ‫את‬ ‫ וְ ׇק ׇר ׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ )וקראתה‏‬1QIsab | ‫ וקר ‏‬4QIsan • ‫ ִל ְקֹדוׁש‏‬MT Tg | ‫ ולקדוש‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ )ולקדוש‏‬4QIsan (‫ )ו֯ [לקדוש‏‬Tgms ‫ת‬ Syr • ‫ וְ ִכ ַּב ְדֹּתו‏‬MT 1QIsaa 1QIsab Syr Vulg | ‫ וכבתה‏‬4QIsan | > LXX • ‫ ְּד ׇר ֶכיָך‏‬MT 1QIsaa (‫ )דרכיכה‏‬4QIsan θ′ Vulg | ‫ דרכך‏‬1QIsab Tg Syr | τὸν πόδα σου LXX • ‫ ִמ ְּמֹצוא‏‬MT 1QIsab θ′ Tgmss | ‫ וממצוא‏‬1QIsaa Tg Vulg (et non invenitur) | ‫ מלמצ◦[‏‬4QIsan | οὐκ … ἐπ᾽ ἔργῳ LXX Syr • ‫— ֲעֹׂשו ‏‬Two Qumran Isaiah scrolls—1QIsaa and 4QIsan (cf. also LXX)—read ‫ת‬ ‫מעשו ‏‬/(‫)מעש[ות‏‬, versus ‫ עשות‏‬in MT and 1QIsab. A single MTms (K, HUB–Isaiah) ‫ת‬ also attests ‫ת‬ ‫מעשו ‏‬. Both readings are grammatically appropriate in the text. If MT and 1QIsab have the primary reading, then 1QIsaa and 4QIsan (or a parent text) may have appropriated the mêm from one or more of the following terms 1438  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 107. Reymond provides additional examples of the elision of the ḥêt (ibid.), although he admits that the quiescence of ḥêt is quite uncommon. 1439  Reading 1QIsab as a nipʿal; see Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 400–1 (“it seems clear that 1QIsab should be interpreted as a Niphal,” 400); see also the transla‑ tion of Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 174, 176.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

401

found in the verse: ‫ת‬ ‫משב ‏‬, ‫ת‬ ‫מעשו ‏‬2, and ‫א‬ ‫ממצו ‏‬. For 1QIsaa’s use of the preposi‑ tion attached to the inf. const., see the comments at 1:12. ‫— ֲח ׇפ ֶציָך‏‬MT and 1QIsaa have the pl. ‫ ֵח ֶפץ‏( ֲח ׇפ ֶציָך‏‬, “joy, delight,” or, for this verse, “matter, business,” HALOT, 340), an example of pl. amplification? 1QIsab simplifies with the sg. ‫חפצ ‏ך‬. V. 13b has the sg. ‫ חפצך‏‬in all Hebrew witnesses. ‫—וְ ׇק ׇר ׇ ‏‬For MT’s ‫את‬ ‫את‬ ‫וְ ׇק ׇר ׇ ‏‬, 4QIsan has ‫ת‬ ‫וקר ‏‬, with the quiescent ālep. ‫—וְ ִכ ַּב ְדֹּת ‏ו‬Against three Hebrew witnesses (MT, 1QIsaa, 1QIsab), 4QIsan reads ‫ ;וכבתה‏‬here the hê represents the vowel o, so that ‫ה‬ ‫ = וכבת ‏‬MT’s ‫וְ ִכ ַּב ְדֹּת‏ו‬.1440 ‫—וממצוא‏‬For the phenomenon of the double preposition in 4QIsan (‫)מלמצ◦[‏‬, which includes the proclitic lāmed, see Muraoka.1441 58:14 ‫ וְ ִה ְר ַּכ ְב ִּתיָך‏‬MT θ′ Syr Vulg | ‫ והרכיבכה‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫והרכיבך‏‬ ̇ ) 4QIsan (‫רכבך‏‬ ̇ ‫ו]ה‬ ̇ ) LXX (καὶ ἀναβιβάσει σε) Tg (‫ׁשרינׇ ך‏‬ ֵ ַ‫ֹמותי‏ • )וְ י‬ ֵ ‫ ׇּב‬MTket | ‫ ׇּב ֳמ ֵתי‏‬MTqere 1QIsab | ‫ בומתי‏‬1QIsaa | ἐπὶ τὰ ἀγαθὰ LXX • ‫ וְ ַה ֲא ַכ ְל ִּתיָך‏‬MT 1QIsab 4QIsan (‫והא]כלתיך‏‬ ֯ ) Vulg | ‫ והאכילכה‏‬1QIsaa LXX (ψωμιεῖ σε) Tg Syr • ‫—וְ ִה ְר ַּכ ְב ִּתיָך … וְ ַה ֲא ַכ ְל ִּתי ‏ָך‬MT puts forward two hipʿil first common sg. verbs in the following bicolon: “and I will cause you to ride (‫וְ ִה ְר ַּכ ְב ִּתיָך‏‬, HALOT, 1232–33, via √‫ … )רכב‏‬and I will feed you” (‫וְ ַה ֲא ַכ ְל ִּתיָך‏‬, HALOT, 47, √‫)אכל‏‬. 1QIsaa, perhaps impacted by the Divine Name, which immediately precedes this bicolon, sub‑ mits two hipʿil third m. sg. verbs: (“and he will cause you to ride [‫… ]והרכיבכה‏‬ he will feed you” [‫)]והאכילכה‏‬.1442 1QIsab and 4QIsan mix up the two verbs, first supplying a hipʿil third m. sg. verb (‫ והרכיבכה‏‬1QIsaa), followed by a hipʿil first common sg. verb (‫ והאכלתיך‏‬MT). As Barthélemy explicates, it is difficult to es‑ tablish the primary reading.1443

Isaiah 59

59:1 ‫ ֵהן‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ׇכ ְב ׇדה ׇאזְ ֹנ ‏ו‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ כבדו אוזני ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. ‫— ׇכ ְב ׇדה ׇאזְ ֹנו‏‬MT 1QIsab plus the versions have sg. forms ‫כבדה אזנ‏ו‬, (“his ear too heavy”); 1QIsaa has the pl. ‫“( כבדו אוזניו‏‬his ears too heavy”).

1440  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 89. 1441  See Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 194–95. 1442  Note that Burrows, “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript,” BASOR 113, 24, prefers the reading of 1QIsaa: “The third person fits the context better than the first.” 1443  See Barthélemy’s reasoning in Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 401.

402

Chapter 2

59:2 ‫ ִא ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | > 1QIsab • ‫ ְל ֵבי‏ן‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ובי‏ן‬1QIsab ‫ם‬ ‫— ְל ֵבין‏‬Isaiah 59:2 is the only biblical passage that presents the preposition lāmed between two occurrences of ‫ ֵּבין‏‬,1444 e.g., ‫( ֵּבינֵ ֶכם ְל ֵבין‏‬this is the reading of MT and 1QIsaa). The usual form in the Bible is the conjunction wāw between two occurrences of ‫ ֵּבי ‏ן‬, e.g., ‫( ֵּבין … ֵּובי ‏ן‬see Gen 1:4, 7, 14, 18; 3:15; 9:12, plus dozens of other examples). But in the present verse, 1QIsab uses this common form (‫בינכם ובין‏‬ ̇ ). In 5:3, the only other example of ‫ בין … ובי‏ן‬in Isaiah, MT = 1QIsaa (the other Qumran Isaianic texts are not attested for this passage). 59:3

‫רּו־ׁש ֶק ‏ר‬ ֶ ‫יכם ִּד ְּב‬ ֶ ‫ֹתות‬ ֵ ‫ ִׂש ְפ‬MT 1QIsab LXX | > 1QIsaa ‫רּו־ׁש ֶק ‏ר‬ ֶ ‫יכם ִּד ְּב‬ ֶ ‫ֹתות‬ ֵ ‫— ִׂש ְפ‬1QIsaa lost a line in the parallelistic structure via hap‑ lography, triggered when the scribe’s eyes skipped one pronominal suffix ‫ה‬ ‫‑כמ ‏‬ and read the next, i.e., ‫שפתותיכמה דברו שקר לשונכמה עולה תהגה‬. See also the discussion of ‫ ִּב ְׂש ׇפ ֶתיָך‏‬in 37:29.

59:4

‫ ק ֵֹר ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ה | )קורא‏‬ ‫א‬ ‫ קור ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹהוליד‏‬ ֵ ְ‫ ׇּבֹטוח … וְ ַד ֶּבר … ׇהֹרו … ו‬MT | ‫בטחו …‏‬ ‫ ודבר … הרוה … והולידו‬1QIsaa | ‫ בטחו … דברו … הרו … והולידו‏‬1QIsab LXX • ‫ ׇׁשוְ א‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ שו‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹהולי ‏ד‬ ֵ ְ‫ֹטוח … ו‬ ַ ‫— ׇּב‬After the atnaḥ, MT presents four inf. absolutes—‫ֹטוח …‏‬ ַ ‫ׇּב‬ ‫ֹהוליד‬ ֵ ְ‫וְ ַד ֶּבר … ׇהֹרו … ו‬. The fact that the use of inf. absolutes diminished in post‑

biblical Hebrew1445 may explain why 1QIsaa and 1QIsab replaced them with two (‫ בטחו‏‬and ‫ והולידו‏‬1QIsaa) or three (‫בטחו‏‬, ‫דברו‏‬, and ‫ והולידו‏‬1QIsab) finite ver‑ bal forms. Barthélemy designates this replacement of older to newer forms “syntactic modernization.”1446 This replacement may have taken place gradu‑ ally over the creation of multiple generations of copies of the text of Isaiah. ‫— ׇׁשוְ ‏‬The copyist of 1QIsaa dropped the ʾālep in ‫ש‏ו‬, another a case of the ‫א‬ quiescence of the ālep in the word-final position (see also 5:18).1447 Compare also Job 15:31.

1444  See also BDB 107. 1445  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 185; see also Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 346; and Fassberg, “Syntax of the Biblical Documents,” 102. 1446  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 401. 1447  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 99–102.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

403

59:5 ‫ ִצ ְפֹעונִ ‏י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ צפעונים‏‬1QIsaa LXX CD A 5.14 (par. 4QDa 3 ii 2) • ‫ ִּב ֵּקעּו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יבקעו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יֶ ֱאר ֹגּו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יירגו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶא ְפ ֶעה‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אפע‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִצ ְפֹעונִ י‏‬The Bible attests both the sg. ‫“( ִצ ְפֹעונִ י‏‬a poisonous snake, viper,” HALOT, 1050; e.g., MT Isaiah 11:8; 59:5; Prov 23:32) and pl. ‫“( צפעונים‏‬vipers,” e.g., Jer 8:17). Here in v. 5, MT 1QIsab‫‏‬read the sg. ‫ ִצ ְפֹעונִ י‏‬versus the pl. ‫ צפעונים‏‬in 1QIsaa and the versions. Compare also 11:8, where MT has ‫ ִצ ְפֹעונִ ‏י‬and 1QIsaa and 4QIsac have the pl. ‫ם‬ ‫צפעוני ‏‬. 1QIsaa’s double pl. nouns (‫ )בצי צפעונים‏‬are a charac‑ teristic that also exists in Mishnaic Hebrew1448 (cf. 3:9; 45:14). ‫— ִּב ֵּקע ‏ּו‬This variant pertains to the difference between a pf. (‫ ּבקעו‏‬MT, 1QIsab) and an impf. verb (‫ יבקעו‏‬1QIsaa). The corresponding verb in the bicolon— ‫—יארגו‏‬is impf. in all three Hebrew witnesses. One may argue that MT experi‑ enced a haplography, based on two adjacent yôds, i.e., ‫ ;‏צפעוני יבקעו‬or, one may also contend that a copyist of 1QIsaa harmonized the text so that the first verb of the passage reads an impf. equal to the impf. of the corresponding verb. The primary reading is difficult to determine. ‫— ֶא ְפ ֶעה‏‬MT and 1QIsab attest ‫“( אפעה‏‬snake,” HALOT, 79; see also 30:6 and Job 20:16 where ‫ ֶא ְפ ֶעה‏‬is found); 1QIsaa has ‫ ֶא ַפע‏( אפע‏‬, ‫ ׇא ַפע‏‬, “something worth‑ less,” HALOT, 79) in the present verse but ‫ אפעה‏‬in 30:6 (= ‫ אפעה‏‬MT). 1QIsaa errs in the present verse, perhaps impacted by the ʿayin of the previous word, e.g., ‫‏תבקע אפע‬. Or, alternatively, 1QIsaa simply misspelled ‫אפעה‏‬. See also the “echo” of 59:5 in the Qumran Hodoyot, wherein Rogland discusses the word ‫אפעה‏‬.1449 59:6

‫ יִ ְת ַּכּס ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab (‫יתכ[סו‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ יכס ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ ְת ַּכּסּו‏‬The sense of the hitpaʿel is required in this passage (‫ יִ ְת ַּכּסּו‏‬MT, 1QIsab, “to cover oneself,” HALOT, 488, √‫ ;)כסה‏‬perhaps 1QIsaa simplified by using the popular piʿel form—there are about 128 occurrences of piʿel √‫“( כסה‏‬to cover,”

HALOT, 488) in the Bible versus approximately nine attestations of hitpaʿel.1450

59:7 ‫ וׇ ֶׁש ֶבר‏‬MT LXX | ‫ס‬ ‫ ושבר וחמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ֹּלות ‏‬ ‫ ִּב ְמ ִס ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ במסלותיהמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וׇ ֶׁש ֶב ‏ר‬The scroll’s plus of ‫ ׇח ׇמס‏( וחמס‏‬, “violence, wrong,” HALOT, 329), lacking in MT LXX, is grouped with ‫ )ׁשדד‏√( שד‏‬and ‫ )ׁשבר‏√( ושב ‏ר‬in this verse. Pulikottil1451 1448  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 488. 1449  Rogland, “Eggs and Vipers in Isaiah 59 and the Qumran ‘Hodayot’,” 3–16. 1450  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 364–65. 1451  Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts, 70–71.

404

Chapter 2

suggests that the source of the scroll’s plus originated from Hab 1:3, where ‫ס‬ ‫חמ ‏‬ and ‫ שד‏‬are paired. While Pulikottil’s suggestion remains a possibility, a better candidate for the scroll’s additional word is 60:18, where all three words under discussion are grouped together: ‫ ׇח ׇמס‏‬, ‫ׁשֹד‏‬, ‫ ֶׁש ֶבר‏‬. It is possible that the scroll’s scribe considered 59:7 and 60:18 to be thematically linked together. The earlier passage deals with the “violence and destruction” that are in the paths of the wicked; the later passage pertains to the removal of “violence and destruction” from the land. A third possibility explains 1QIsaa’s plus of ‫ס‬ ‫ חמ ‏‬in 59:7: ‫ס‬ ‫ חמ ‏‬is also used in 59:6, and it is possible that the scribe of the scroll saw it in the line above and wrote it again in v. 7 (see 1QIsaa col. XLVIII, lines 17 and 19). ‫ֹּלות ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫— ִּב ְמ ִס ׇ‬For a brief discussion regarding the long suffix ‑oteyhem versus the short ending ‑otam, see 2:4. 59:8 ‫ֹלותם‏‬ ‫ ְּב ַמ ְעּגְ ׇ‬MT | ‫ במעגלותיהמה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫יהם‏‬ ֶ ‫יֹבות‬ ֵ ‫ נְ ִת‬MT LXX | ‫ נתיבותי המה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּד ֵֹרְך‏‬ MT | ‫ הדורך‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹלותם‏‬ ‫— ְּב ַמ ְעּגְ ׇ‬For a short treatment regarding the long suffix ‑oteyhem versus the short ending ‑otam, see 2:4. 59:9 ‫ ׇּב ֲא ֵפֹלות‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ באפל ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐν ἀωρίᾳ LXX ‫— ׇּב ֲא ֵפֹלות‏‬MT’s pl. ‫ת‬ ‫ ֲא ֵפ ׇלה‏( אפלו ‏‬, “darkness,” HALOT, 79) may indicate an in‑ stance of pl. amplification (what Blenkinsopp calls an “intensive pl[ural]”1452) utilized for rhetorical purposes; 1QIsaa’s sg. ‫ אפלה‏‬corresponds with the sg. ‫חושך‏‬ in the bicolon. For another variant pertaining to ‫אפלה‏‬, see the commentary at 29:18. 59:10 ‫נְ גַ ְׁש ׇׁשה‏‬1 MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ נגש ‏‬1QIsaa | ψηλαφήσουσιν LXX ‫נְ גַ ְׁש ׇׁשה‏‬1—Twice in this verse MT has ‫( נְ גַ ְׁש ׇׁשה‏‬a dislegomena, cohortative form, via √‫גׁשׁש‏‬, “to grope,” HALOT, 206); 1QIsaa first has ‫ש‬ ‫ נגש ‏‬and then ‫ה‬ ‫נגשש ‏‬. 59:11 ‫ וְ ַכֹּיונִ ים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ כיוני ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇה ֹג ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ הגו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫יׁשּוע ‏‬ ‫ ִל ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ולישוע ‏‬1QIsaa | σωτηρία LXX

1452  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 190.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

405

59:12 ‫ ׇענְ ׇת ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ענו ‏‬1QIsaa | ἀντέστησαν LXX ‫— ׇענְ ׇתה‏‬MT’s qal pf. third f. sg. verb does not agree in number with either the pl. subject ‫אותינּו‏‬ ֵ ֹ ‫“( וְ ַחּט‬our sins”) or the other pl. verb in the bicolon (‫) ַרּבּו‏‬. Blenkinsopp writes that 1QIsaa attests the pl. verb “correctly” with the pl. noun.1453 Oswalt, however, writes that “MT is preferred as the harder reading.”1454 59:13 ‫ ׇּפׁשֹע‏‬MT | ‫ פשוע‏ו‬1QIsaa | ἠσεβήσαμεν LXX • ‫ ַּד ֶּב ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ודבר‏ו‬1QIsaa | ἐλαλήσαμεν LXX • ‫ הֹֹרו וְ הֹֹגו‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ והגו ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐκύομεν καὶ ἐμελετήσαμεν LXX ‫— ׇּפׁש ֹע … ַּד ֶּב ‏ר‬MT lists a series of inf. absolutes in this verse: ‫ׇּפׁש ַֹע וְ ַכ ֵחׁש … וְ נׇ ֹסוג‏‬ ‫פשועו וכחש … ונסוג … ודברו … והגו ‏‬ ‫… ַּד ֶּבר … הֹֹרו וְ הֹֹגו‬. 1QIsaa mixes up the verbs: ‫א‬ and omits ‫( הרו‏‬see discussion immediately below). 1QIsaa’s pl. ‫ פשועו‏‬may be explained as a dittography (‫)‏פשועו וכחש‬, later corrected to read with a textual type similar to MT, i.e., ‫פשוע‏‬. The scroll’s ‫( פשעו … ודברו‏‬two plurals) is puzzling, especially in light of the use of multiple first common pl. forms in v. 12. For a discussion of 1QIsaa’s ‫פשוע‏ו‬, see further Rubinstein1455 and Kutscher.1456 ‫—הֹֹרו‏‬Textual critics have postulated that ‫הרהֹ‏√( הֹֹרו‏‬, “to be conceived,” HALOT, 256), extant in MT but lacking in 1QIsaa, was borrowed from 59:4, where similar themes are set forth. Although the versions support MT’s read‑ ing, based on √‫הרה‏‬, other critics, following Kimhi and Rashi, prefer to read ‫ הר ‏ו‬from √‫ירה‏‬: “to teach, instruct, throw, shoot.”1457 To accept this last sugges‑ tion, one would read the clause as “teaching and uttering lying words from the heart.” Notwithstanding this suggestion, the reading of MT is primary and the lectio difficilior praeferenda. The Qumran scroll likely dropped the word through haplography as a consequence of graphic similarity, ‫הרו והגו‏‬. Another scholarly point of view, however, proposes that ‫“ הֹֹרו‏‬entered the textual tradi‑ tion [of MT] due to dittography,”1458 e.g., ‫הרו והג ‏ו‬.

1453  Ibid., 190. 1454  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 517. 1455  Rubinstein, “Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute,” 366–67. 1456  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 508. 1457  See Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 253. 1458  Gzella, “So-Called Po’el-Forms in Isaiah and Elsewhere,” 75. Other textual critics who pro‑ pose that MT’s ‫ הרו והגו‏‬is a dittograph include Box, Book of Isaiah, 306: ‫ הרו‏‬is an “uncor‑ rected error”; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 158; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 443; and Marti, Buch Jesaja, 378.

406

Chapter 2

59:14 ‫ וְ ֻה ַּס ‏ג‬MT | ‫ ואסי ‏ג‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἀπεστήσαμεν LXX ‫—וְ ֻה ַּסג‏‬Occasionally, the 1QIsaa copyist changed the characteristic hê of the hipʿil form to ʾālep, thus reading ‫ואסי ‏ג‬. For other instances of this change, see 12:4. 59:15 ‫י־אין‏‬ ֵ ‫ ִּכ‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ ֯כ ֯אי‏ן‬4QIsae 59:16 ‫ וְ ִצ ְד ׇקֹתו‏‬MT | ‫ וצדקתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ τῇ ἐλεημοσύνῃ LXX 59:17 ‫ ְּברֹאֹׁש ‏ו‬MT | ‫ ברואשי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּברֹאֹׁש ‏ו‬The yôd in ‫( ברואשיו‏‬1QIsaa) signifies a contraction of the diphthong, with both ‫‏‑יו‏‬and ‫ ‑ ‏ו‬having the same phonological value.1459 For a commentary, see 5:25. 59:19 ‫ ְּכֹבוֹדו‏‬MT | ‫ כבודי ‏ו‬1QIsaa | τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἔνδοξον LXX 59:20

‫ ְל ִצֹּיו‏ן‬MT Tg | ‫ אל ציו‏ן‬1QIsaa | ἕνεκεν Σιων LXX ‫— ְל ִצֹּיו‏ן‬It is difficult to determine which preposition constituted the original reading—‫ ל‏‬or ‫אל‏‬. Although ‫ אל‏‬is frequently used with verbs of motion, such as √‫ בוא‏‬that opens this verse, the preposition lāmed also has an allative function.1460

LXX’s reading is interpretive: “And the one who delivers will come for Sion’s sake.” For other examples of the interchange of ‫ ‏ל‬and ‫ א ‏ל‬in the Hebrew wit‑ nesses, see 48:18 and 66:2. 59:21 ‫ֹאותם‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ את ‏‬1QIsaa MTmss • ‫רּוח‏י‬ ִ MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ ורוח‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇמּוׁש‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ש‬ ‫ ]י֯ ֯מ[ו] ‏‬1QIsab | ἐκλίπῃ LXX • ‫ ׇא ַמר יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX (εἶπεν γὰρ κύριος) | > 1QIsaa ‫ֹאות ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫— ׇ‬Blenkinsopp settles on 1QIsaa’s ‫ם‬ ‫“( את ‏‬with them”) versus MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ֹאות ‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬.1461

1459  See Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 33–34. 1460  See Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 205. 1461  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 200; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 526, too, prefer the read‑ ing of 1QIsaa, as does McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 170.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

407

‫— ׇא ַמר יְ הוׇ ‏‬1QIsaa, versus MT, 1QIsab, and the versions, lacks the second at‑ ‫ה‬ testation of ‫ אמר יהוה‏‬in v. 21. This minus was created, perhaps, through a scribal error. One possible explanation: 1QIsaa col. XLIX features the first attestation of ‫ה‬ ‫ אמר יהו ‏‬on line 4; the second attestation should have been written below that first (but a little to the left) on line 5. Perhaps the scribe’s eye read the first (line 4) and failed to write the second (line 5). Note here that Marti,1462 based on the metrical scheme of the verse, proposes that the second ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇא ַמר יְ הוׇ ‏‬in the verse under discussion is not a primary reading.

Isaiah 60

60:1 ‫ּוכֹבו ‏ד‬ ְ MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ כבו ‏ד‬1QIsaa 60:2 ‫ וַ ֲע ׇר ֶפל‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ והערפ ‏ל‬1QIsab ‫—וַ ֲע ׇר ֶפ ‏ל‬1QIsab’s article on ‫( והערפל‏‬MT, 1QIsaa lack the article) agrees with the article of ‫ החשך‏‬in the parallelistic structure, but perhaps a copyist of 1QIsab added the article.1463 60:3 ‫ ְלנֹגַ ּה‏‬MT | ‫ לנג ‏ד‬1QIsaa | τῇ λαμπρότητί σου LXX ‫— ְלנֹגַ ‏‬The reading ‫ ְלנֶ גֶ ד‏( לנג ‏ד‬, “opposite, in front of,” HALOT, 666) of 1QIsaa ‫ּה‬ is an error (but cf. Tg ‫) ׇל ֳק ֵבי ‏ל‬. The dālet is sizable compared to the copyist’s usual book hand (cf. the dālet of ‫ וכבוד‏ו‬on the same line), and the dālet’s thickness and unusual shape suggests that it was written over another letter. Conceivably, a scribe of 1QIsaa text miswrote a dālet for the hê, thus result‑ ing in ‫לנג ‏ד‬. Furthermore, 1QIsaa’s reading disturbs a classic chiastic structure, wherein MT’s ‫ּה‬ ‫נֹגַ ה‏( ְלנֹגַ ‏‬, “gleam, bright light,” HALOT, 667) corresponds with “shine” in the B and B’ lines. MT, therefore, structures the chiasmus as A Arise, B shine, C light is come, D glory, E LORD, F risen, G darkness, G’ darkness, F’ arise, E’ LORD, D’ glory, C’ come to your light, B’ brightness, A’ rising. 60:4 ‫ ֵּת ׇא ַמנׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ תנשינ ‏‬1QIsab LXX ‫— ֵּת ׇא ַמנׇ ה‏‬MT and 1QIsaa read ‫ה‬ ‫ל־צד ֵּת ׇא ַמנׇ ‏‬ ַ ‫( ַע‬via √‫‏‬2‫אמן־‬, “carried by a nurse,” BDB, 52; “to be looked after,” HALOT, 64). 1QIsab attests ‫ה‬ ‫על צד תאמנ ‏‬, via √‫נשא‏‬, 1462  Marti, Buch Jesaja, 380. 1463  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 532.

408

Chapter 2

“to be carried” (HALOT, 726); compare MTms K ‫ה‬ ‫( תנשאנ ‏‬a single manuscript) and R ‫ה‬ ‫( תמנ ‏‬HUB–Isaiah). But the reading of MT and 1QIsaa signifies the lectio difficilior, as √‫‏‬2‫ אמן־‬is attested only eight times in the Bible (e.g., Num 11:12; 2 Sam 4:4; 2 Kgs 10:1, 5, and so forth). 1QIsab, or the tradition behind it, has borrowed via harmonization an expression from 66:12 (cf. also 49:22), which reads “you will be carried on the side” (‫ל־צד ִּתּנׇ ֵׂשאּו‏‬ ַ ‫) ַע‬. For additional examples of harmonization, cf. 1:15. 60:5 ‫ וְ נׇ ַה ְר ְּת‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ונה ‏ר‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ ׇּופ ַח ‏ד‬MT 1QIsab | > 1QIsaa καὶ φοβηθήσῃ LXX • ‫ ׇע ַליִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ אלי ‏ך‬1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫ יׇ בֹא ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫א‬ ‫ יבו ‏‬1QIsab Vulg | καὶ ἥξουσίν LXX ‫נהר‏√(—וְ נׇ ַה ְר ְ ‏‬, “to shine, be radiant,” HALOT, 676). As vocalized, MT’s verb ‫ּת‬ ‫ =( וְ נׇ ַה ְר ְּת‏‬1QIsab ‫ )ונהרת‏‬requires a second f. sg. subject, and 1QIsaa’s verb ‫ונהר‏‬ necessitates a third m. sg. subject (‫)לבב‏‬. But the verbal structure in 1QIsaa cre‑ ates an unbalanced parallelism. MT, supported by 1QIsab, presents a balanced correspondence, with two verbs per line. ‫ּופ ַח ‏ד‬ ‫— ׇ‬It is difficult to determine why 1QIsaa omitted ‫ּופ ַחד‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬, versus the read‑ ing of MT, 1QIsab, and LXX. It is within the realms of possibility that a scribe’s eye skipped writing it because the following word has a similar appearance, e.g., ‫‏ופחד ורחב‬. ‫—יׇ בֹא ‏ּו‬Apparently the subject of MT and 1QIsaa is the pl. ‫ם‬ ‫גוי ‏‬, thus reading ‫ ;גוים יבאו‏‬and the subject of 1QIsab is the sg. ‫חי ‏ל‬, thus reading ‫יבוא …חיל ‏‬. 60:6

‫ ִמ ְדיׇ ‏ן‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ מדי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ֵע ׇיפ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ועיפ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ ִמ ְּׁש ׇב ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ משבאו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַיְב ֵּׂשר ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ יבשרו‏ן‬1QIsab ‫— ִמ ְדיׇ ‏ן‬For a discussion of the mêm/nûn (both in final position) interchange,

see the commentary at 9:3 and 23:17. ‫— ִמ ְּׁש ׇבא … וְ ֵע ׇיפה‏‬For these two proper names (Ephah and Sheba), 1QIsaa reads ‫ועיפו … משבאו‏‬, where the wāw mater is attested instead of the Tiberian qamets. For an analysis of this and similar vowel shifts, see Reymond.1464 ‫— ַיְב ֵּׂשרּו‏‬Versus the reading of MT and 1QIsaa (‫) ַיְב ֵּׂשרּו‏‬, 1QIsab has a verb with the paragogic nûn (‫)יבשרון‏‬. Cf. also the paragogic nûn in MT (‫ )יִ ְׁש ׇּכרּון‏‬versus the reading of 1QIsaa (‫( )ישכרו‏‬49:26).

1464  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 176.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

409

60:7 ‫ נְ ׇבֹיו ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ נבאו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ֲעל ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ויעל ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ל־רֹצו‏ן‬ ‫ ַע ׇ‬MT | ‫לרצון‏‬ ‫ על‬1QIsaa MTmss LXX Tg Syr | ‫ ֯רצו‏ן‬1QIsab ‫ל־רֹצו‏ן‬ ‫— ַע ׇ‬MT’s ‫ל־רֹצו‏ן‬ ‫ ַע ׇ‬, where the preposition ‫ ַע ‏ל‬precedes ‫ ׇרֹצו‏ן‬, is only at‑ tested here (60:7). In the great majority of occurrences, ‫ רצון‏‬is preceded by ei‑ ther the preposition lāmed (most common) or bêt, but compare ‫ רצון‏‬preceded by kāp in the books of Esther and Daniel. 1QIsaa has two prepositions, ‫לרצון על‏‬. According to Oswalt, “1QIsa is without question the easier reading, but MT is not so hard as to be impossible.”1465 For a discussion of other syntactical inver‑ sions or variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. Cf. also the wording and syntax in 56:7: ‫ל־מזְ ְּב ִחי‏‬ ִ ‫יהם ְל ׇרֹצון ַע‬ ֶ ‫יהם וְ זִ ְב ֵח‬ ֶ ‫ֹעוֹלת‬ ֵ . 60:8 ‫עּופינׇ ה‏‬ ֶ ‫ ְּת‬MT 1QIsab (‫ה | )תעפינה‏‬ ‫ תעופפנ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֶא ‏ל‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ע ‏ל‬1QIsab ‫עּופינׇ ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֶ ‫— ְּת‬MT and 1QIsab feature a qal impf. third f. pl. verb (√‫עוף‏‬, “to fly,” HALOT, 800), which in this passage is considered the lectio difficilior. 1QIsaa has a polel impf. third f. pl., which may be a harmonization with three other polel verbal forms with the same verbal root in Isaiah (6:2 ‫ֹעופ ‏ף‬ ֵ ְ‫י‬, 14:29 ‫ֹעופ ‏ף‬ ֵ ‫ ְמ‬, 30:6 ‫ֹעופ ‏ף‬ ֵ ‫) ְמ‬, thus facilitating the reading. Also possible, the double pê (in ‫)תעופפנה‏‬ signifies a dittography. 60:9 ‫ ׇבנַ יִ ְך‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ בנ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫“— ׇבנַ יִ ְך‏‬Your (second f. sg.) sons” (MT, 1QIsab) is consistent with several other second person f. pronominal forms in this pericope (60:1–22). 1QIsaa’s ‫( בנ‏י‬e.g., ‫)להביא בני מרחוק‏‬, which does not fit the context, likely assimilated the words from 43:6: ‫הביאו בני מרחוק‏‬, “bring my sons from afar.” 60:11

‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa

V. 11b in MT reads, “And your gates will be open continually, they will not be shut day and night.” 1QIsaa misdivides 11b with its attachment of the wāw to the negative particle ‫לוא‏‬, thus situating ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬with the next clause: “And your gates will be open continually, day and night. And they will not be shut …” MT’s reading is to be preferred, because it preserves the reading of the synonymous parallelism, giving it balance and maintaining its metrical features.

1465  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 534.

410

Chapter 2

60:12 ‫ יַ ַע ְבדּו ‏ְך‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יעבודוכ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—יַ ַע ְבדּוְך‏‬Regarding the wāw mater located between the second and third root letter in 1QIsaa’s ‫יעבודוכ‏י‬, in contrast to the vowel system of MT, see the comments at 20:1. 60:13

‫ ֵא ַליִ ‏ְך‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ נתן לך ואלי ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּת ְד ׇה ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ותהרה ‏ר‬1QIsaa | ‫תרה ‏ר‬ 1QIsab • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּדו‏‬MT | ‫ יחדי ‏ו‬1QIsaa 1QIsab ‫— ֵא ַליִ ְך‏‬This verse in MT and 1QIsab (supported by LXX, Vulg, Syr, Tg) opens

with “The glory of Lebanon is come to you,” but 1QIsaa has the following plus: “The glory of Lebanon is given to you, and to you will come …” This plus may be a harmonization of the reading in 35:2, which also has ‫ה‬ ‫כבוד הלבנון נתן ל ‏‬. ‫— ִּת ְד ׇהר‏‬For the deviations ‫( ִּת ְד ׇהר‏‬MT) and ‫( ותהרהר‏‬1QIsaa), see the com‑ ments at 41:19. ‫—יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4.

60:14 ‫ וְ ׇה ְלכּו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ֹואהלכו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּבנֵ י‏‬MT LXX | ‫כול בני‏‬1‫ ‏‬1QIsaa‫ ‏‬1QIsab • > MT | ‫מנעציך‏‬ ̇ 1 (erased) 1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇה ְלכּו‏‬Driver suggests that 1QIsaa’s ‫ ֹואהלכ‏ו‬signifies a scribal correction “by an Aramaizing copyist.”1466 ‫— ְּבנֵ י‏‬1QIsaa‫‏‬and 1QIsab attest ‫ כו ‏ל‬before ‫בני‏‬, but MT and the versions lack it. A Qumran scribe may have appropriated ‫ כו ‏ל‬from the second line of the bicolon; or another possibility: ‫ כל בנ‏י‬is a very common expression in the Bible, appearing some seventy-six times. Perhaps a scribe added ‫ כו ‏ל‬to the verse unconsciously. >—A scribe wrote ‫מנעצי ‏ך‬ ̇ 1‫‏‬on the manuscript, probably impacted by ‫מנאצי ‏ך‬ later in the verse, but he or a subsequent scribe crossed out ‫מנעציך‏‬ ̇ 1. 60:16 ‫ וְ יׇ נַ ְק ְ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ וינקת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ּת‬ ‫ וְ יׇ ַד ַע ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ וידעת‏י‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ יׇ נַ ְק ְּת … וְ יׇ ַד ַע ‏‬For the deviations between MT = 1QIsab versus 1QIsaa, see ‫ת‬ the comments at 17:10.

1466  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 18.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

411

60:18 ‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ולוא‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫בּוליִ ְך‏‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ִּבגְ ׇ‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫ בגבולך‏‬1QIsab • ‫וְ ׇק ׇראת‏‬ MT 1QIsab | ‫ וקראתה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ׁשּוע ‏‬ ‫ יְ ׇ‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ הישוע ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇק ׇראת‏‬UF 1:185 list ‫( וְ ׇק ׇראת‏‬MT 1QIsab) versus ‫( וקראתה‏‬1QIsaa) as a textual variant, but it is likely an orthographic variant (cf. 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫ ואמרת ‏‬6:9; ‫ה‬ ‫ונשאת ‏‬ 14:4; ‫שכבתה‏‬ ֯ 14:8, etc.). If 1QIsaa’s reading is indeed a textual variant, then the added hê came about as a dittograph: ‫וקראתה הישועה‏‬. ‫בּוליִ ְך‏‬ ‫— ִּבגְ ׇ‬MTms 93 (HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫ = בגבול ‏ך‬1QIsab. 60:19 ‫ ַהּיׇ ֵר ַ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ הירח בליל ‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ַהּיׇ ֵר ַ ‏‬Several theories serve to explain the minus of MT and 1QIsab versus ‫ח‬ the plus of 1QIsaa (‫)בלילה‏‬,1467 which has the support of LXX (νύκτα): (a) The plus ‫ בליל ‏‬of 1QIsaa, which fills out the synonymous parallelism (“by day” is paired ‫ה‬ with “by night”) is original. See Torrey, who emends MT to read ‫ה‬ ‫( בליל ‏‬before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls) based on the reading of LXX.1468 (b) A scribe of 1QIsaa (and/or LXX; or a common Vorlage) added ‫ה‬ ‫ בליל ‏‬to fill out the parallelism. (c) The fact that the words ‫ם‬ ‫ יו ‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ליל ‏‬are collocated in more than fifty verses of the HB may have influenced the scribe of 1QIsaa (or his Vorlage) to add ‫ה‬ ‫בליל ‏‬ to the parallelism. (d) Some argue that both ‫ה‬ ‫ בליל ‏‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ֹיומ ‏‬ ‫ ׇ‬are late additions.1469 Westermann, Blenkinsopp, and McKenzie prefer the scroll’s reading;1470 compare also NEB, NRSV, and RSV. Skinner and Volz, followed by Barthélemy, hold that MT is primary.1471 Based on the available evidence, the primary read‑ ing is indeterminate. 60:19–20 ‫ֹעולם‏‬ ‫ה־ּלְך ְלֹאור ׇ‬ ‫אֹלהיִ ְך ְל ִת ְפ ַא ְר ֵּתְך׃ לֹא־יׇֹבוא ֹעוד ִׁש ְמ ֵׁשְך וִ ֵיר ֵחְך לֹא יֵ ׇא ֵסף ִּכי יְ הוׇ ה יִ ְהיֶ ׇ‬ ַ ֵ‫ ו‬MT 1QIsaa (> ‫ )עו ‏ד‬LXX | > 1QIsab ‫ֹעולם‏‬ ‫אֹלהיִ ְך … ׇ‬ ַ ֵ‫—ו‬MT 1QIsaa agree with the reading of this verse. 1QIsab lacks a block of words, which Barthélemy explains is a “homeoteleuton of 15 words.”1472 The mechanism that precipitated this loss of words is ‫ם‬ ‫ֹעול ‏‬ ‫ֹעולם … ְלֹאור ׇ‬ ‫ ְלֹאור ׇ‬. 1467  For a discussion of this reading, see Burrows, Dead Sea Scrolls, 305; Clark, “Influence of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Modern Translations of Isaiah,” 129. 1468  Torrey, Second Isaiah, 452. 1469  Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 160; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 384. 1470  Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 355; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 205; McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 175. 1471  Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:183; Volz, Jesaia II, 243; and Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:420–21. 1472  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 396.

412

Chapter 2

60:20 ‫ ֹעו ‏ד‬MT | > 1QIsaa LXX ‫—ֹעוד‏‬There are three principal possibilities as to why 1QIsaa lacks the adver‑ bial particle ‫ֹעוד‏‬: (a) Perhaps it was also lacking in the Vorlage. (b) It is possible that 1QIsaa’s scribe dropped ‫ עו ‏ד‬to make the chiastic structure (see v. 20a) more symmetrical: A ‫‏לא יבוא עוד‬B ‫ שמש ‏ך‬B ‫ וירח ‏ך‬A ‫לא יאס ‏ף‬. (c) A most likely possibil‑ ity is vertical haplography—an ‫ עוד‏‬exists on the line above and to the right of the passage under discussion (see line 22, col. XLIX). Perhaps the copyist’s eye saw this ‫ עו ‏ד‬and omitted it on line 23. 60:21

‫ נֵ ֶצ ‏ר‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsam (‫נצ]ר‏‬ ֯ ) | > MTms 1QIsab | φυλάσσων LXX (via √‫ַמ ׇּטֹע ‏ו • )נצר‏‬ MTket | ‫ ַמ ׇּט ַעי‏‬MTqere MTmss | ‫ מטעי יהוה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ מטעיו‏‬1QIsab | τὸ φύτευμα LXX • > MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂש ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ מעש ‏י‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ יׇ ַד ‏י‬MT | ‫ידי ‏ו‬

1QIsaa 1QIsab | χειρῶν αὐτοῦ LXX ‫—נֵ ֶצר ַמ ׇּטֹע ‏ו‬The Hebrew texts present four readings: MTket has ‫“( נֵ ֶצר ַמ ׇּטֹע ‏ו‬the offshoot of his planting”; ‫“ נֵ ֶצ ‏ר‬sprout, offshoot,” HALOT, 718); MTqere (supported by MTmss, HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫“( נֵ ֶצר ַמ ׇּט ַע‏י‬the offshoot of my planting”); 1QIsab reads ‫“( מטעיו‏‬his plantings”); and 1QIsaa attests ‫“( נצר מטעי יהוה‏‬the offshoot of the plantings of the Lord”). Cheyne, Condamin, Duhm, and Marti emend the text to read ‫מטע יהוה‏‬,1473 which is similar to the reading of 1QIsaa. It is also possible that 1QIsaa’s reading may signify a harmonization with 61:3 (‫ַמ ַּטע‏‬ ‫יְ הוׇ ה‬, “the planting of the LORD”). With regard to LXX, a translator likely mis‑ read the Hebrew √‫ נצר‏‬and read a ptc. (‫נ ֵֹצר‏‬, φυλάσσων, “to guard”), thus reading “guarding their plant.”1474 Flint’s study of 1QIsab (‫ )מטעיו‏‬shows that the reading is supported by a single Masoretic manuscript, but his conclusion is that MTL has the “preferable”1475 reading. In my view, MTqere reading, ‫“( נֵ ֶצר ַמ ׇּט ַעי‬the off‑ shoot of my planting”), best fits the contextual setting of the parallelism. So too, see JPS, NEB, NIV, and NRSV. ‫— ַמ ֲע ֵׂש ‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ מעש‏י‬is a typical spelling of lāmed-yôd verbs, where the yôd ‫ה‬ represents the vowel e. Accordingly, the noun ‫ מעשי‏‬is in the singular.1476 ‫—יׇ ַדי‏‬MT’s first common sg. pronoun ‫ יׇ ַד‏י‬parallels the pronominal suffix at‑ tached to ‫ ַמ ׇּט ַעי‏‬. Likewise, the suffix ‫ ידי‏ו‬of 1QIsab (1QIsaa) parallels ‫מטעי‏ו‬, for 1473  Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 160; Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 353; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 453; and Marti, Buch Jesaja, 385. Cf. also Volz, Jesaia II, 243, who argues that 60:21b (‫נֵ ֶצר‏‬ ‫ ) ַמ ׇּטֹעו ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה יׇ ַדי ְל ִה ְת ׇּפ ֵ ֽאר‬is a gloss and not a primary reading. 1474  See also the discussion of Brayley, “Yahweh Is the Guardian of His Plantation,” 275–86. 1475  Flint, “Non-Masoretic Variant Readings,” 111; see also Flint, “Variant Readings and Textual Affiliation,” 38. 1476  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 74–77.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

413

which Barthélemy explains, this “would then be an assimilation of the first per‑ son suffix of ‫ יד‏י‬to the third person suffix of ‫מטע‏)י‏( ‏ו‬.”1477 Compare McKenzie, who prefers to read “his hands.”1478 In my judgment, MT’s reading is primary and corresponds with the conclusion of the previous entry, e.g., “the offshoot of my planting, the work of my hands.”

Isaiah 61

61:1 ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ה‏‬MT 4QIsam (‫ה | ) ֯א ֯ד[ני יהוה]‏‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (κυρίου) Vulg (Domini) | ‫ יה]וה אלהי ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ַל ֲחבׁש‏‬MT | ‫ ולחבוש‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ח־ֹקוח‏‬ ‫ם‬ ַ ‫ ְּפ ַק‬MT | ‫ פקחקוח‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫]פקחקח‏‬ ֯ ) MTmss | καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν LXX ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ‏‬Four Hebrew witnesses are extant here: MT plus three Qumran ‫ה‬ scrolls. The four present three different readings: ‫( ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ה‏‬MT, 4QIsam), ‫יהוה‏‬ (1QIsaa), and ‫( יה]וה אלהים‏‬1QIsab). Flint examines the evidence of these read‑ ings and points out that “most English translations” (including KJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, and JPS) translate the reading of MT; Flint, too, prefers MT.1479 See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17. ‫— ַל ֲחבׁש‏‬The conjunctive wāw of 1QIsaa (‫ )ולחבוש‏‬is secondary, introduced to the text as a connector to the two clauses. However, once ‫שלחני‏‬ ̇ was restored to the text of 1QIsaa (interlinearly), the wāw is exposed as a later element because it disrupts the reading. ‫ַ‏‬ ‫ח־ֹקוח‬ ‫— ְּפ ַק‬MT’s ‫ח־ֹקוח‏‬ ַ ‫“( ְּפ ַק‬opening, i.e. liberation [of prisoners …],” HALOT, 960), a hapax legomenon, caused difficulty to ancient scribes and translators and continues to challenge modern translators. 1QIsaa read it as a single word (‫)פקחקוח‏‬, as did 1QIsab (but lacking the wāw, ‫]פקחקח‏‬ ֯ ) and multiple MTmss (HUB–Isaiah). Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, Condamin pro‑ posed reading a single word (‫)פקחקוח‏‬.1480 LXX reads καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν (“and recovery of sight to the blind”), which was the translator’s understanding of ‫ח־ֹקוח‏‬ ַ ‫ ְּפ ַק‬. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar proposes a special qetaltal form, the duplication of the second and third radicals.1481 Other possible explanations: ‫ קוח‏‬is a dittogram of ‫ ;פקח‏‬and the verbal root √‫ פקח‏‬means “to open the eyes” (HALOT, 959). 1477  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 402. 1478  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 175. 1479  Flint, “Non-Masoretic Variant Readings,” 113. 1480  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 354. 1481  Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 234–35.

414

Chapter 2

61:2 ‫ וְ ֹיו ‏‬MT 4QIsab LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ יו ‏‬1QIsaa 61:3

‫ וְ ק ׇֹר ‏‬MT 4QIsam (‫וק]רא‏‬ ‫א‬ ֯ ) Vulgms | ‫ וקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa Tg | καὶ κληθήσονται LXX σ′ Vulg ‫—וְ ק ׇֹר ‏‬This is another case of the interchange of verbal forms to indicate ‫א‬

the impersonal subject: passive > active, a general tendency of the scroll. Thus MT has the sg. passive verb ‫ וְ ק ׇֹרא‏‬versus the active pl. of 1QIsaa ‫וקראו‏‬. For a dis‑ cussion of impersonal forms plus additional examples, see 1:26.

61:4 ‫ וׇ ֹדור‏‬MT LXX | ‫יקוממ ‏ו‬2 ‫ ודו ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫—וׇ ֹדור‏‬In both MT and 1QIsaa (cf. also the versions), the polel verb ‫יקוממו‏‬ exists in the second line of the first bicolon of the verse: ‫ֹקוממ ‏ּו‬ ֵ ְ‫ׁש ְֹמֹמות ִראׁש ֹנִ ים י‬ (“they will raise up [‫ ]יקוממו‏‬the devastated places of old”). However, 1QIsaa re‑ peats the same polel verb ‫ יקוממו‏‬in the second line of the second bicolon, a dittogram of the first attestation of this verb but also impacted by the repeated ‫שממות‏‬. Thus the scroll reads ‫“( שוממות דור ודור יקוממו‏‬they will raise up the dev‑ astated places of many generations”). MT, followed by the versions, is primary. 61:5 ‫ ִא ׇּכ ֵר ֶיכם‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ ֯אכרי ֹ֯ה ֯ ‏‬4QIsam ‫— ִא ׇּכ ֵר ֶיכ ‏‬The variant pertains to a second ms. pl. vs. third ms. pl. suffix. ‫ם‬ 61:6 ‫ ִּת ׇּק ֵראּו‏‬MT LXX | ‫א‬ ‫ תקרו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְמ ׇׁש ְר ֵת‏י‬MT LXX | ‫ ומשרת‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּת ְת ׇיַּמר‏ּו‬MT | ‫ תתיאמר ‏ו‬1QIsaa | θαυμασθήσεσθε LXX orth or var? ‫— ִּת ׇּק ֵרא ‏ּו‬For the reading of 1QIsaa (‫)ימחוא‏‬, the digraph ‫א‬ ‫א =( ‑ו ‏‬ ‫ )‑ ‏‬is ortho‑ graphic and indicates the vowel û.1482 ‫יַּמר ‏ּו‬ ‫— ִּת ְת ׇ‬MT has a hapax legomenon, for which the meaning is uncertain. Based on various theories, scholars propose that ‫ ִּת ְת ׇיַּמרּו‏‬originates from √‫‏‬2‫אמר־‬ (“to boast,” HALOT, 67), √‫“( ימר‏‬to act proudly”), √‫“( מרא‏‬they shall be fattened”), or √‫“( מור‏‬to change, exchange”).1483 So, too, there exists no adequate explana‑ tion for the reading of 1QIsaa (‫)תתיאמרו‏‬,1484 although it may be from √‫‏‬2‫אמר־‬ 1482  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 86. 1483  See the discussions in Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 544; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 568; and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 220. 1484  See Talmon’s arguments, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 247–48.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

415

(“to boast”).1485 Or, more simply, the ʾālep of 1QIsaa could be nothing more than an internal mater.1486 Cf. the reading ‫ יִ ְת ַא ְּמר ‏ּו‬in Ps 94:4. 61:7

‫ ֶח ְל ׇק ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ חלקכמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ְּב ַא ְר ׇצם ִמ ְׁשנֶ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ משנה בארצ ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐκ δευτέρας … τὴν γῆν LXX | > Syr • ‫ יִ ׇירׁש ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ תירש ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇל ֶה ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ לכמ ‏‬1QIsaa | ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς

αὐτῶν LXX ‫— ֶח ְל ׇקם … יִ ׇירׁשּו … ׇל ֶהם‏‬MT presents third-person pl. forms: “their portion … they will inherit … to them.” With its reading of ‫ה‬ ‫חלקכמה … תירשו … לכמ ‏‬, 1QIsaa has second-person pl. forms, “your portion … you will inherit … to you.” The forms of 1QIsaa agree with the suffix attached to ‫ה‬ ‫( בושתכמ ‏‬MT reads ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇּב ְׁש ְּת ֶכ ‏‬, an orthographic variant), i.e., “your shame.” See also the second m. pl. suffixal forms in 1QIsaa vv. 8–9, versus the third m. pl. suffixes in MT. In all of these forms in vv. 7–9, it seems evident that the scroll may have harmonized his text (so McKenzie1487); Oswalt also supports MT as the original text.1488 ‫— ְּב ַא ְר ׇצם ִמ ְׁשנֶ ‏‬The variant here pertains to a transposition of two words in ‫ה‬ MT versus 1QIsaa (‫)משנה בארצם‏‬. For a discussion of syntactical variations be‑ tween MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30.

61:8 ‫ ׂשנֵ א‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ושונ ‏‬1QIsaa‫ ‏‬LXX • ‫ גׇ זֵ ‏ל‬MT | ‫ גזו ‏ל‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְפ ֻע ׇּל ׇת ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫פעולתכ ‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ׇל ֶהם‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ לכמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ְפ ֻע ׇּל ׇת ‏‬In contrast to MT’s third m. pl. suffix, 1QIsaa has a second m. pl. ‫ם‬ suffix (‫)פעולתכם‏‬. See the comments in v. 7. ‫— ׇל ֶהם‏‬1QIsaa sets forth a second m. pl. pronominal suffix here (‫ )לכמה‏‬and twice in v. 9 (‫ זרעכמה‏‬and ‫)וצאצאיכמה‏‬, versus MT’s third m. pl. suffixes. See the comments in v. 7. 61:9 ‫ זַ ְר ׇעם‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ זרעכמ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ֶצ ֱא ׇצ ֵא ֶיה ‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ וצאצאיכמ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—זַ ְר ׇעם … וְ ֶצ ֱא ׇצ ֵא ֶיה ‏‬See the comments in v. 7. ‫ם‬

1485  As proposed by Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 568. 1486  For an examination on the use of internal mater ālep in Qumran texts, see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 43–47. 1487  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 180. 1488  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 568.

416

Chapter 2

61:10 ‫ ֹׂשו ‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ׂש‬ ‫ שי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יְ ַכ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ ככוה‏ן‬1QIsaa | > LXX ‫—יְ ַכ ֵהן‏‬MT has ‫כהן‏√( יְ ַכ ֵהן‏‬, “to act as a priest,” HALOT, 461); although this piʿel denominative verb occurs almost two dozen times in the Bible, it exists only here in Isaiah’s text. 1QIsaa has a noun with an attached preposition (‫)ככוהן‏‬, thus reading “like a priest.” A 1QIsaa scribe erred when he was affected by the previous word, which also begins with a kāp and ends with a nûn, thus he wrote ‫כחתן ככוה‏ן‬. MT’s reading is preferred because it corresponds with an‑ other impf. verb in the bicolon. 61:11

‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ‏‬MT | ‫מ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ יהוה אלוהי ‏‬1QIsaa | κύριος LXX ‫— ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ה‏‬1QIsaa attests ‫מ‬ ‫ יהוה אלוהי ‏‬in place of ‫ה‬ ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ‏‬, a harmonization with ‫ באלוהי‏‬from the previous verse. See also the discussion of the divine titles ‫ יהוה‏‬and ‫ אדנ‏י‬in 3:17.

Isaiah 62

62:1 ‫ לֹא‏‬MT LXX | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ֶא ֱח ֶׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ אחרי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְיִב ׇע ‏ר‬MT | ‫ תבע ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫—לֹא‏‬According to MT’s system of punctuation, 62:1 opens with, “For the sake of Zion, I will not keep silent.” 1QIsaa attaches a wāw to the first nega‑ tive particle (‫)ולוא‏‬, thus disrupting the flow of the reading known to MT. It is possible that the scroll or its Vorlage considered that the expression ‫למען ציו‏ן‬ belonged to the previous verse, which would then read, “all the nations for the sake of Zion” (italics added). Notwithstanding 1QIsaa’s method of dividing the text, MT’s reading is to be preferred because the expression “for the sake of Zion” parallels “for the sake of Jerusalem” in the first synonymous parallelism in 62:1. ‫— ֶא ֱח ֶׁש ‏‬Following the negative particle ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ל ‏‬in the first bicolon of v. 1 are vari‑ ant verbal roots: √‫“( חשה‏‬to be silent,” HALOT, 361) in MT and √‫“( חרש‏‬to keep, be silent,” HALOT, 357–58) in 1QIsaa. Kutscher1489 holds that a scribe of 1QIsaa modernized the reading from the relatively rare √‫( חשה‏‬sixteen occurrences in the HB) to the more popular √‫( חרש‏‬forty-seven occurrences in the HB); but this line of thought may be questioned because √‫ חשה‏‬was not modern‑ ized in other verses of 1QIsaa, i.e., 42:14; 57:11; 62:6; 64:11; and 65:6. More likely, as Talmon argues, the Qumran scroll “presumably perpetuated an established 1489  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 34, 239.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

417

reading.”1490 Also possible, a 1QIsaa scribe may have appropriated √‫ חרש‏‬where both √‫ חרש‏‬and √‫ חשה‏‬are paired in synonymous readings in two other paral‑ lelistic structures (see Isa 42:14; Ps 28:1). ‫— ְיִב ׇע ‏ר‬MT produces the third m. sg. qal impf. verb ‫ ְיִב ׇער‏‬, which hearkens back to the m. sg. noun ‫ ַל ִּפי ‏ד‬, thus reading “like a torch will burn” (‫) ְּכ ַל ִּפיד ְיִב ׇער‏‬. 1QIsaa has ‫תבע ‏ר‬, a third f. sg. qal form, with an unknown antecedent, most probably the f. noun ‫ה‬ ‫וישועת ‏‬, e.g., “her salvation will burn like a torch.” However, MT’s text best fits the parallelistic structure, thus reading “until her righteousness goes forth as a bright light, and her salvation as a burning torch.” 62:2 ‫ ִצ ְד ֵקְך‏‬MT | ‫ צדקכ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ וְ ק ׇֹר ‏‬MT | ‫ וקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa | καὶ καλέσει LXX ‫—וְ ק ׇֹרא‏‬Both MT (‫וְ ק ׇֹרא‏‬, puʿal pf. third m. sg. or qal passive) and 1QIsaa (‫וקראו‏‬, qal pf. third common pl.) exhibit impersonal constructions. The scroll regular‑ ly substitutes the pl. for the rarer form. See also the impersonal constructions in 62:4, where the scroll presents ‫ יקראו‏‬and MT has ‫( יִ ׇּק ֵרא‏‬cf. also 48:8; 58:12; 61:3; and 65:1 and the discussion in 1:26). 62:3 ‫ ְּוצֹנוף‏‬MTket‫ ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ְוצנִ י ‏ף‬MTqere • ‫ֹלהיִ ‏ְך‬ ‫ ֱא ׇ‬MT | ‫ אלוהיך ‏י‬1QIsaa 62:4

‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT | ‫ ולוא‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ׇלְך … ׇלְך‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ לכי … לכי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְׁש ׇמ ׇמה‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ שוממה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT | ‫ יקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּב ‏ְך‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ בכ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ְׁש ׇמ ׇמ ‏‬MT presents the f. noun ‫“( ְׁש ׇמ ׇמה‏‬devastation, waste,” BDB, 1031) ver‑ ‫ה‬ sus the f. ptc. ‫“( שוממה‏‬desolate one”1491) of 1QIsaa. 1QIsaa’s ptc. corresponds directly with ‫ה‬ ‫עזוב ‏‬, also a f. ptc. (qal passive). See also 54:1, where the two qal f. participles ‫ שוממה‏‬and ‫ בעולה‏‬are paired (MT and 1QIsaa); see also BHS

note. Although textual critics (before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls) had proposed to emend ‫ ְׁש ׇמ ׇמה‏‬to the participial ‫שוממה‏‬,1492 Barthélemy fol‑ lowed by Oswalt concurs with MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ ְׁש ׇמ ׇמ ‏‬in the present verse.1493 Following Barthélemy’s arguments, MT retains the primary reading.

1490  Talmon, “Observations on Variant Readings in the Isaiah Scroll,” 128. 1491  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 232, prefers the participial form and translates the parallelism as “Nevermore will you be called ‘the Forsaken One,’ never more will your land be called ‘the Desolate One.’” 1492  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 106. 1493  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:426; Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 576.

418

Chapter 2

‫—יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬For the impersonal forms ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫( יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT) and ‫( יקרא‏ו‬1QIsaa), see above, v. 62:2; see also 1:26. 62:5 ‫ ְיִב ַעל‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ כבעו ‏ל | )יבע[ל‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ְיִב ׇעלּו ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ יבעלוכ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫— ְיִב ַעל‏‬With its reading of ‫כבעול‏‬, 1QIsaa has two deviations versus ‫( ְיִב ַעל‏‬MT and 1QIsab ]‫—)יבע[ל‬the plus of the preposition kāp and the inf. const. ‫בעול‏‬ versus the impf. ‫יבעל‏‬. In MT and 1QIsab, the comparative force is implicit (a common factor in poetic texts), but 1QIsaa makes the comparative explicit. Van der Vorm-Croughs also raises the possibility of a haplography in MT, e.g., ‫;‏כי כבעל‬1494 but also possible, 1QIsaa experienced a dittography. 62:6 ‫ ׇּת ִמי ‏ד‬MT LXX | > 1QIsaa 1QIsab ‫— ׇּת ִמי ‏ד‬Although the adverbial term ‫ ׇּת ִמי ‏ד‬occurs 103 times in the Bible, it appears only in MT 62:6 with the negative particle ‫לֹא‏‬. Both Qumran Isaiah scrolls—1QIsaa and 1QIsab—lack ‫תמי ‏ד‬. Perhaps, as suggested by Barthélemy, 1QIsaa and 1QIsab deemed ‫ תמי ‏ד‬to be “superfluous”1495 after the words ‫ם‬ ‫כול היו ‏‬ ‫וכול הלילה‬. MT has the lectio difficilior. 62:7 ‫ ֹלו‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ לכ ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ם‬ ‫ ַעד־יְ ֹכונֵ ן וְ ַעד־יׇ ִׂשי ‏‬MT LXX (ἐὰν διορθώσῃ καὶ ποιήσῃ) | ‫ עד יכין ועד יכונן ועד ישי ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ̇‏ע[ד ישי]ם‬1QIsab ‫ם‬ ‫—ֹלו‏‬Both MT and 1QIsaa read ‫ ;ֹלו‏‬1QIsab’s ‫ לכם‏‬is likely an assimilation of ‫לכם‏‬, located four words earlier, the final word of the previous verse. ‫— ַעד־יְ ֹכונֵ ן וְ ַעד־יׇ ִׂשי ‏‬In this passage, 1QIsaa has a longer reading (‫עד יכין ועד‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫)יכונן ועד ישים‬, for which Freedman proposes in a private communication, which is articulated by Blenkinsopp: MT’s reading “is more easily explained by haplography (ʿd ykyn vʿd ykvnn), and the longer version [1QIsaa] fits the meter better.”1496 But in my judgment, the scribe inadvertently duplicated ‫ועד יכונ‏ן‬, but with a slight deviation; or the scribe of 1QIsaa conflated the readings of two manuscripts known to him, one reading the hipʿil (‫ ;יכין‏‬cf. 9:6; 14:21; 40:20) and the other a polel (‫ ;יכונן‏‬cf. 45:18; 51:13; 54:14). MT’s reading is complete as is: “Give no silence to him until he establishes, and until he makes Jerusalem a

1494  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 92–93; see also, Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40– 66, n.p. 1495  Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament, 402. 1496  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 238, “communication with D. N. Freedman.”

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

419

praise in the earth.” Note that “until he establishes” parallels “until he makes,” and “no silence” is an important correspondence to “praise.” 1QIsab lacks the reading of either MT (‫ ) ַעד־יְ ֹכונֵ ן‏‬or 1QIsaa (‫)עד יכין ועד יכונן‏‬. Flint examines the text and then suggests that 1QIsab’s shorter reading is a bet‑ ter text1497 than either MT or 1QIsaa, but see my comments in the previous paragraph. 62:8 ‫ֹרוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ּובז‬ ִ ‫ימיֹנו‬ ִ ‫ ִּב‬MT 1QIsaa LXX | ‫[י]מין‏‬ ֯ ‫ ̇ב‬1QIsab • ‫ת־ּדגׇ נֵ ְך ֹעוד‏‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬MT | ‫ עוד דגנ ‏ך‬1QIsaa | ‫ עוד ֯א ֯ת ֯דגנך‏‬1QIsab • ‫ ְלא ַֹיְביִ ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ לאובי ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ וְ ִא ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ )]ו֯ אם‏‬LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫א‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ּת‬ ‫ יׇ גַ ַע ְ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יגעת‏י‬1QIsaa ‫ֹרוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ּובז‬ ִ ‫ימיֹנו‬ ִ ‫— ִּב‬The witnesses and versions (i.e., MT 1QIsaa LXX) overwhelm‑ ingly support the reading of ‫ֹרוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ּובז‬ ִ ‫ימיֹנו‬ ִ ‫ ִּב‬, versus 1QIsab’s shorter reading of ‫[י]מין‬ ֯ ‫‏ב‬ ̇ (cf. a similar pattern in Ps 89:43). Furthermore, ‫ֹרוע‏‬ ַ ְ‫ּובז‬ ִ corresponds with ‫ימיֹנ ‏ו‬ ִ ‫ ִּב‬in the parallelistic structure. It is unknown why 1QIsab lacks ‫ע‬ ‫ובזרו ‏‬. ‫ת־ּדגׇ נֵ ְך ֹעוד‏‬ ְ ‫— ֶא‬1QIsab (‫ )עוד ֯א ֯ת ֯דגנך‏‬and MT (‫ת־ּדגׇ נֵ ְך ֹעוד‏‬ ְ ‫ ) ֶא‬set forth a different word order. 1QIsaa equals the reading of 1QIsab but without the particle ‫ת‬ ‫א‏‬ (for a discussion of the nota accusativi, see 2:4). For a discussion of syntactical inversions or variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. ‫—יׇ גַ ַע ְ ‏‬For 1QIsaa’s ‫יגעתי‏‬, see the comments at 17:10. ‫ּת‬ 62:9

‫ ִּכ‏י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ כיא אמ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (ἀλλ᾽ ἢ) • ‫ ְמ ַא ְס ׇפיו‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ מאספֹוהי‏‬1QIsaa | οἱ συνάγοντες LXX • ‫אכ ֻלה ‏ּו‬ ְ ֹ ‫ י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יאכולוה‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ִה ְלל ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ויהלל‏ו‬ 1QIsaa • > MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫מ‬ ‫ ש ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּומ ַק ְּב ׇציו‏‬ ְ MT | ‫ ומקבצו‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ οἱ συνάγοντες LXX • ‫ יִ ְׁש ֻּתה‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab (‫ ישתוה‏י | )י]שתהו‏‬1QIsaa | πίονται αὐτὰ LXX • ‫ ׇק ְד ִׁשי‏‬MT LXX | ‫ קודשי אמר אלוהי ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫— ִּכ‏י‬1QIsaa’s plus of ‫( אמ‏‬thus reading ‫ )כיא אמ‏‬was likely inserted so that ‫כיא‏‬

would be read as “but.”1498 ‫אכ ֻלה ‏ּו ; ְמ ַא ְס ׇפי ‏ו‬ ְ ֹ ‫—יִ ְׁש ֻּתה ‏ּו ;י‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa (‫)ישתוה‏י ;יאכולוה‏י ;מאספֹוהי‏‬, see the commentary in 2:2. ‫אכ ֻלהּו‏‬ ְ ֹ ‫—י‬Regarding the wāw mater located between the second and third root letter in 1QIsaa’s ‫יאכולוה‏י‬, in contrast to the vowel system of MT, see the comments at 20:1. ‫—וְ ִה ְללּו ֶאת־יְ הוׇ ‏‬The collocated words ‫ הלל‏‬and ‫ יהוה‏‬appear in various forms ‫ה‬ in the HB—with the accusative marker (‫ ַה ְללּו ֶאת־יְ הוׇ ה‏‬, Ps 117:1; 148:1; Jer 20:13, etc.); without the accusative marker (‫ ַה ְללּו יׇ ה‏‬, Ps 104:35; 106:48, etc.); with the 1497  Flint, “Variant Readings and Textual Affiliation,” 38. 1498  Thus explained Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 583.

420

Chapter 2

inclusion of ‫ת־ׁשם יְ הוׇ ה‏( ֵׁשם‏‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ְללּו ֶא‬, Ps 113:1, 3; 135:1, etc.); and where √‫ הלל‏‬appears as an imperative, cohortative, jussive pf. with the wāw prefix, or impf. with the wāw prefix. In the present verse, MT and 1QIsab read ‫ה‬ ‫“( וְ ִה ְללּו ֶאת־יְ הוׇ ‏‬praise the Lord”) versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫“( ויהללו את שמ יהו ‏‬praise the name of the Lord”). The expression ‫ה‬ ‫ שם יהו ‏‬is relatively common in the Bible, appearing dozens of times, including seven times in Isaiah (18:7; 24:15; 30:27; 48:1; 50:10; 56:6; and 59:19). Inasmuch as 1QIsaa stands alone, versus the readings of MT, 1QIsab, and LXX, its reading is a harmonization. Furthermore, MT and 1QIsab have a piʿel pf. (‫ )והללו‏‬in contrast with 1QIsaa’s piʿel impf. (‫)ויהללו‏‬. For a discussion of devia‑ tions of pf. and impf. verbs in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. ‫— ׇק ְד ִׁש ‏י‬1QIsaa’s plus of ‫ אמר אלוהיך‏‬is not supported by other witnesses. It is possible that the scribe appropriated ‫ אמר אלוהיך‏‬from Isa 40:1; 54:6; 57:21; or 66:9, where either ‫ אמר אלוהיך‏‬or ‫ם‬ ‫ אמר אלהיכ ‏‬is attested. 62:10 ‫ ִע ְברּו ִע ְברּו‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫עב]רו֯ עברו‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ עבור‏ו‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ַס ְּקל‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫סקול‏ו‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶב‏ן‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ אב‏ן‬1QIsab • ‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶב‏ן‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ מאבן הנג ‏ף‬1QIsaa • ‫ׇה ִרימ ‏ּו‬ ֯ ‫ )[הרימו‬LXX | ‫ם‬ ‫ אמורו בעמי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ל־ה ַע ִּמים‬ ‫ נֵ ס ַע ׇ‬MT 1QIsab (‫נ]ס על העמים‏‬ ‫— ִע ְברּו ִע ְבר ‏ּו‬Both MT and 1QIsab duplicate ‫( עברו‏‬perhaps for emphasis or other rhetorical reasons), versus 1QIsaa (see also LXX), which sets forth ‫עבור‏ו‬ once. Is this a dittography in MT and 1QIsab or a haplography in 1QIsaa and LXX, or is there another explanation for the variant? On a number of occasions, LXX renders a single word for MT’s duplication of identical or near-identical words (see, for example, 21:9; 21:11; 25:7; 26:3; 28:10, 13, 16; 29:1; 38:11, 19; 43:11; 48:11, 15; 57:6; 57:14; 62:10; etc.).1499 On a few occasions (other than the instance under discussion), 1QIsaa agrees with LXX versus MT’s duplication of identical or near-identical words; see, for example, 3:24; 14:18; 26:6; 38:11; and 55:1. ‫— ֵמ ֶא ֶב‏ן‬MT 1QIsab read ‫מאבן‏‬, but 1QIsaa has a plus with ‫ ֶא ֶבן נֶ גֶ ף‏( מאבן הנגף‏‬, “stumbling block,” HALOT, 669), which was likely assimilated from 8:14 (‫ולאבן‏‬ ‫)נגף‬. ‫ נג ‏ף‬is unnecessary in the present verse (62:10). ‫ל־ה ַע ִּמים‏‬ ‫— ׇה ִרימּו נֵ ס ַע ׇ‬All witnesses except for 1QIsaa are in agreement, read‑ ing “lift up a flag for the peoples.” 1QIsaa stands alone with “say among the 1499  Van der Vorm-Croughs, Old Greek of Isaiah, 196–200, provides dozens of examples of MT having repeated identical or near-identical words, where G translates a single word or expression. Van der Vorm-Croughs explains, “This might in some cases be due to an unin‑ tentional omission by the translator (or a Hebrew scribe), resulting from haplography or parablepsis,” or, “in most instances the translator has probably removed cases of geminatio deliberately, namely for stylistic reasons, since this kind of repetition may have been ‘overdone’ in his eyes.” Ibid., 196.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

421

people” (‫)אמורו בעמים‏‬. There is no easy explanation for the Qumran scroll’s variant reading. Brownlee’s claim1500 that a scribe borrowed phraseology from Ps 96:10 (“Say among the nations”) is weakened by the fact that this psalm at‑ tests ‫ם‬ ‫ בגוי ‏‬versus Isaiah’s ‫ם‬ ‫ ;בעמי ‏‬additionally, the context of Ps 96:10 is quite different from the passage under discussion. The expression of 1QIsaa more or less serves as a parallel to an expression in the following verse: ‫השמיעו אל קצוי הארץ‏‬, “proclaim to the ends of the earth.” Thus the scroll presents a new parallelism (vv. 10b–11a): “Say among the peo‑ ple, behold the Lord, proclaim to the ends of the earth, behold your salvation comes.” Corresponding elements include the pl. imperatives say and proclaim and the analogous prepositional phrases among the people and to the ends of the earth; further, Lord corresponds with salvation, both of which are intro‑ duced with behold. Notwithstanding this parallelism, the primary reading is attested in MT 1QIsab, supported by LXX. 62:11 ‫ ִה ְׁש ִמ ַ ‏‬MT 1QIsab‫ ‏‬LXX (ἐποίησεν ἀκουστὸν) | ‫ השמיע ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫יע‬ ‫ ְק ֵצ ‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ קצה‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִא ְמר ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אמור ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ּופ ֻע ׇּלֹת ‏ו‬ ְ MT 1QIsab | ‫ ופעלתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ִה ְׁש ִמ ַ ‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫ השמיעו‏‬may be a hipʿil pl. impv. (“proclaim”), hipʿil pl. pf. ‫יע‬ (“they proclaimed”), or a hipʿil pf. third m. sg. with a third m. sg. suffix (“pro‑ claim him”). Brownlee understands the verb to be the later and takes “him” to refer to the messianic servant: “Thereby the ‘him’ (of ‘summoned him’) be‑ comes the Messianic Servant of the Lord referred to explicitly in the address to Maiden Zion as ‘Salvation’. In both addresses there is the same proclamation of the Messianic deliverer.”1501 I do not hold to Brownlee’s supposition; more likely, the 1QIsaa scribe wrote ‫( השמיע ‏ו‬pl. imperative) when he was impacted by other pl. imperatives in the immediate context, e.g., ‫עבור‏ו‬, ‫פנ‏ו‬, ‫סול‏ו‬, ‫סול‏ו‬, ‫סקול‏ו‬, ‫אמורו‏‬, and ‫( אמור ‏ו‬see vv. 10–11). ‫— ְק ֵצ ‏‬In four passages, 1QIsaa reads the pl. ‫ קצו‏י‬where MT has the sg. ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫קצ ‏‬ (43:6; 48:20; 49:6; 62:11). See also the discussion in 43:6. 62:12 ‫ וְ ׇלְך‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ולכ‏י‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יקרא ‏ו‬1QIsaa | κληθήσῃ LXX ‫—יִ ׇּק ֵר ‏‬For a discussion of impersonal forms, plus to view additional exam‑ ‫א‬ ples, see 1:26.

1500  Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 200. 1501  Ibid., 201.

422

Chapter 2

Isaiah 63

63:1 ‫ ִּב ְצ ׇד ׇק ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ק‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ בצד ‏‬1QIsab | δικαιοσύνην LXX 63:2

‫ ְּבגַ ‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ בג ‏ד‬1QIsaa ‫ת‬ ‫גַ ת‏(— ְּבגַ ‏‬, “winepress,” HALOT, 206). Two possibilities serve to explain ‫ת‬ 1QIsaa’s error of ‫ בגד‏‬in place of ‫ת‬ ‫בג ‏‬, which belongs to both MT and 1QIsab: (a) a 1QIsaa scribe borrowed ‫ בג ‏ד‬from ‫ובגדי ‏ך‬, located two words away (see also ‫ם‬ ‫בגדי ‏‬, located in the previous verse); or (b) a scribe changed the tāw to dālet because “the voiced dālet at the end of a word sounded the same as a voiceless taw.”1502

63:3 ‫ּומ ַע ִּמים‏‬ ֵ MT 1QIsab (‫[ו]מעמים‏‬ ֯ ) LXX | ‫ ומעמי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫וְ ֶא ְד ְר ֵכם ְּב ַא ִּפי וְ ֶא ְר ְמ ֵסם ַּב ֲח ׇמ ִתי וְ יֵ ז‏‬ ‫ל־ּבגׇ ַדי‬ ְ ‫ נִ ְצ ׇחם ַע‬MT 1QIsab Syr Vulg | > 1QIsaa | καὶ κατεπάτησα αὐτοὺς ἐν θυμῷ καὶ κατέθλασα αὐτοὺς ὡς γῆν καὶ κατήγαγον τὸ αἷμα αὐτῶν εἰς γῆν LXX • ‫ ֶאגְ ׇא ְל ִּתי‏‬MT | ‫ גאלתי‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab | > LXX ‫ּומ ַע ִּמי ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ —1QIsaa’s ‫“( ומעמי‏‬and of my people”), according to Blenkinsopp, is “probably an intentional alteration due to the difficulty of accepting that YHVH would look to Gentiles for assistance.”1503 More likely, the scroll’s scribe inadvertently borrowed the yôd from other first common sg. suffixes in the same passage.1504 Note, however, that McKenzie chooses to read 1QIsaa, thus translating “there was not a man of my people with me.”1505 ‫ל־ּבגׇ ַד ‏י‬ ְ ‫—וְ ֶא ְד ְר ֵכם ְּב ַא ִּפי וְ ֶא ְר ְמ ֵסם ַּב ֲח ׇמ ִתי וְ יֵ ז נִ ְצ ׇחם ַע‬These words exist in MT and 1QIsab, but they are not found in 1QIsaa. Two divergent standpoints exist: (a) The minus in 1QIsaa is the result of a scribal mistake, a homoioteleuton based on the yôd ending of ‫ אתי‏‬and ‫בגדי‏‬. (b) Ulrich argues that “perhaps more per‑ suasive [than a homoioteleuton] is the set of facts that both the shorter text [1QIsaa] and the additional text [MT and 1QIsab] can each stand on its own as a complete verse; that they each have a consistent pattern distinct from the other; that the additional text is a close variant of v. 6 only a few verses later…. These factors weigh in favor of a secondary insertion into the MT tradition.”1506 1502  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 227. 1503  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 246. See also Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 66. 1504  See also the lengthy discussion in Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:431–32. 1505  McKenzie, Second Isaiah, 186. 1506  Ulrich, “Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah,” 304.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

423

However, against a multitude of ancient witnesses and modern translations, 1QIsaa stands alone with this minus and should be considered an error. ‫— ֶאגְ ׇא ְל ִּת‏י‬Two chief possibilities arise with the peculiar ‫( ֶאגְ ׇא ְל ִּת ‏י‬MT): it signi‑ fies an Aramaism, or, more likely, it represents a conflated reading,1507 taking on the elements of an impf. first common sg. verb (i.e., ‫ ;אגא ‏ל‬cf. in this verse ‫ וְ ֶא ְד ְר ֵכ ‏‬and ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ )וְ ֶא ְר ְמ ֵס ‏‬and a pf. first common sg. verb (i.e., ‫ ;גאלת‏י‬cf. in this verse, ‫) ׇּד ַר ְכ ִּתי‏‬. As Talmon writes, “We suggest to explain ‫ אגאלת‏י‬as a combination of the not extant ‫ אגאל‏‬with the alternative variant ‫ =( גאלתי‏‬Is-a, and Syr.: ‫)פלפלת‏‬.”1508 For possible examples of hybrid forms in 1QIsaa, see the comments on ‫ה‬ ‫עצרת ‏‬ in 1:13. 63:5 ‫ וְ ַא ִּביט‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואביט ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ עֹזֵ ‏ר‬MT 1QIsaa LXX (βοηθός) | ‫ש‬ ‫ אי ‏‬1QIsab • ‫ֹּתומ ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא ְׁש‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ואשתוממה‏‬1QIsab • ‫ֹסומְך‏‬ ֵ MT 1QIsab (‫ תומך‏ | )סו[מך‏‬1QIsaa | ἀντελαμβάνετο LXX ‫—וְ ַא ִּבי ‏‬With regard to the regular impf. (‫ )וְ ַא ִּביט‏‬versus the lengthened impf. ‫ט‬ (‫)ואביטה‏‬, see the comments at 5:19. ‫—עֹזֵ ‏ר‬For the expression ‫( ואביט ואין עוזר‏‬MT 1QIsaa), 1QIsab reads ‫ואביטה ואי ‏ן‬ ‫איש‬. For the reading of ‫ איש‏‬instead of ‫עוזר‏‬, it is possible that 1QIsab was influ‑ enced by the utterances in 59:16 ‫ש‬ ‫ וירא כי אין אי ‏‬or 41:28 ‫ש‬ ‫וארא ואין אי ‏‬. 63:6 ‫ וְ ׇאבּוס‏‬MT | ‫ ואבוסה‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab • ‫ וַ ֲא ַׁש ְּכ ֵרם‏‬MT | ‫ ואשכירםה‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫)ואשכירם‏‬ | > LXX • ‫ֹאורי ‏ד‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואוריד ‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫)וארידה‏‬ 63:9

‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MTket 1QIsaa (‫ ל ‏ו | )לוא‏‬MTqere MTmss • ‫ ְּב ַא ֲה ׇבֹת ‏ו‬MT | ‫ באהבתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ְּוב ֶח ְמ ׇלֹת ‏ו‬ ‫א‬ MT | ‫ ובחומלתיו‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ יְ נַ ְּט ֵלם וַ יְ נַ ְּׂש ֵאם‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫לם[ וינ]שאם‏‬ ֯ ‫וינ]ט‬ ֯ ) | ‫וינשאם וינטלמ‏‬

1QIsaa | καὶ ἀνέλαβεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ὕψωσεν αὐτοὺς LXX ‫—ל ֹ ‏‬1QIsaa’s ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ לו ‏‬may have signified “to him” (see the comments at 3:11) or “not”; therefore, we do not know with absolute certainty whether 1QIsaa sup‑ ports MTket or MTqere. ‫ּוב ֶח ְמ ׇלֹת ‏ו‬ ְ … ‫— ְּב ַא ֲה ׇבֹתו‬The ending ‫ ‑יו‏‬of 1QIsaa’s ‫ באהבתיו‏‬and ‫ ובחומלתיו‏‬signi‑ fies a contraction of the diphthong, with both ‫‏‑י ‏ו‬and ‫( ‑ ‏ו‬see MT’s reading) hav‑ ing the same phonological value and meaning.1509 For a commentary, see 5:25.

1507  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 564; Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66, n.p. 1508  Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 255. 1509  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70.

424

Chapter 2

‫—וַ יְ נַ ְּט ֵלם וַ יְ נַ ְּׂש ֵא ‏‬MT and 1QIsab share the same reading; 1QIsaa orders the ‫ם‬ two words differently (‫)וינשאם וינטלמ‏‬. For a discussion of syntactical variations between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. 63:10 ‫ ׇק ְדֹׁשו‏‬MT | ‫ קודשי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ הּו ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ והוא ‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ׇק ְדֹׁש ‏ו‬Based on the evidence of QH grammar and multiple examples in the DSS, ‫ ‑י ‏ו‬sometimes signifies a singular form;1510 thus 1QIsaa’s ‫ = קודשי‏ו‬MT’s ‫ ׇק ְדֹׁש ‏ו‬. 63:11

‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ֵל ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ המעל ‏‬1QIsaa MTmss LXX θ′ Syr ‫— ַה ַּמ ֲע ֵלם‏‬MT reads “who brought them up.” 1QIsaa lacks the suffix and reads ‫המעל ‏‬, “who brought up.” Before the discovery of the Qumran texts, Oort pro‑ ‫ה‬ poses the emendation of ‫ה‬ ‫המעל ‏‬.1511 The graphic similarity of hê and mêm may

explain the difference between the two Hebrew texts. Or, Paul writes that MT’s suffixed mêm may be the result of a dittography: ‫‏המעלם מים‬.1512 Oort’s emenda‑ tion, ‫ם‬ ‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ֵל ‏‬, constitutes the primary reading and is accepted by JPS, NEB, NIV, and NRSV. 63:12 ‫ֹמולי ‏ְך‬ ִ MT LXX | ‫ ומולי ‏ך‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּת ְפ ַא ְרֹּת ‏ו‬MT | ‫ תפארתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֹל ‏ו‬MT LXX cf. 1QM XI.14 | > 1QIsaa 63:13

‫ ַּב ְּתהֹֹמו ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ בתומו ‏‬1QIsaa | διὰ τῆς ἀβύσσου LXX ‫— ַּב ְּתהֹֹמו ‏‬The reading of 1QIsaa (‫ )בתומות‏‬equals that of MT, minus the hê. ‫ת‬

For a discussion on the quiescence of hê in 1QIsaa, see the commentary at 1:10.

63:14 ‫ ֵּכן‏‬MT LXX | ‫א‬ ‫ כי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ֵּכן‏‬The adverbial particle ‫( כ‏ן‬MT) fits the context better than does ‫א‬ ‫כי ‏‬ (1QIsaa).

1510  See Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 269–70, where Qimron states the “form ‫ ‑יו‏‬for the singular is quite frequently found in 1QIsaa,” 270. Consult also Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 144–46. 1511  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 107. 1512  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 574.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

425

63:15 ‫ ִמ ׇּׁש ַמיִ ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ מן השמי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ּוגְ בּור ֶֹת ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ וגבורתכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ׇּׁש ַמיִ ם‏‬For the nonassimilation of ‫ = מן השמים‏( מן‏‬1QIsaa), see the com‑ ments at 34:4 together with bibliographic resources in the footnote. ‫—ּוגְ בּור ֶֹת ‏ָך‬For f. plurals, 1QIsaa generally has the spelling ‫ת‬ ‫‑ו ‏‬, which indicates that the reading ‫ה‬ ‫ וגבורתכ ‏‬is probably a sg. Condamin, citing the versions, pre‑ fers the sg. (‫)וגבורתך‏‬, versus MT’s pl.1513 And we note, too, that the correspond‑ ing word in this bicolon is also a f. sg. word (i.e., ‫)קנאת ‏ך‬. See also the variant of ‫ גבור ‏‬in 3:25: ‫בּור ֵת ‏ְך‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ּוגְ ׇ‬MT LXX | ‫ וגבורותי ‏ך‬1QIsaa. 63:16 ‫ ִּכי ַא ְב ׇר ׇהם‏‬MT LXX | ‫ ואברהם‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ִּכ ׇירנּו‏‬MT | ‫ הכירנו‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ַא ׇּת ‏‬MT 1QIsab(vid) LXX | ‫ אתה‏ הואה‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַא ׇּתה‏‬1QIsaa, versus all other witnesses, adds the copula ‫ה‬ ‫ הוא ‏‬to create the expression ‫ה‬ ‫אתה הואה יהו ‏‬. ‫ה‬ ‫ אתה הוא יהו ‏‬appears in three passages in the HB (Jer 14:22; Neh 9:6–7) in contrast to ‫אתה יהוה‏‬, which appears more than three dozen times. The copyist may have added this pronoun for purposes of accen‑ tuation: “you are he, O Lord.” 63:17

‫ ַת ְת ֵענּו יְ הוׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫יה]ֹוה‏‬ ‫ה‬ ̇ ‫ )תתענו‬LXX | ‫ יהוה תתע ‏נ‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִׁש ְב ֵט‏י‬MT 1QIsab (‫ )שבט]י֯‏‬LXX | ‫ט‬ ‫ שב ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַת ְת ֵענּו יְ הוׇ ה‏‬1QIsab equals MT, versus 1QIsaa (‫)יהוה תתענ‏‬. For a discussion of

syntactical inversions between MT and 1QIsaa, see 1:30. ‫— ִׁש ְב ֵט ‏י‬Two Hebrew witnesses—MT and 1QIsab (supported by LXX, Vulg, Tg)—correctly read ‫“( ִׁש ְב ֵטי נַ ֲח ׇל ֶת‏ָך‬the tribes of your inheritance”) versus 1QIsaa’s ‫נחלתך‏‬ ̇ ‫“( שבט‬the tribe of your inheritance”). It is possible that 1QIsaa borrowed language from the following scriptural passages: Ps 74:2 ‫שבט נחלת ‏ך‬, Jer 10:16 ‫שבט נחלתו‏‬, or Jer 51:19 ‫ושבט נחלת ‏ו‬. 63:18 ‫ יׇ ְרׁשּו‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ יר ‏‬1QIsaa | κληρονομήσωμεν LXX ‫—יׇ ְרׁש ‏ּו‬Although MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫ יׇ ְרׁשּו ַע ‏‬can either read “people possessed” or “they possessed people,” Barthélemy prefers the second: “they (our enemies) pos‑ sessed your holy people.” Barthélemy also argues that 1QIsaa’s sg. ‫ ירש‏‬signifies a “facilitation syntaxique.”1514

1513  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 378. 1514  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:444–45.

426

Chapter 2

63:19[64:1] ‫ ׇהיִ ינ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ הֹוינ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ּת‬ ‫ יׇ ַר ְד ׇ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ה | )י֯ ֯ר[דת‏‬ ‫ וירדת ‏‬1QIsaa | τρόμος (via √‫ )?רעד‏‬λήμψεται LXX ‫—יׇ ַר ְד ׇּת‏‬A minor variant (conjunction wāw) differentiates MT and 1QIsab from 1QIsaa. LXX’s translator apparently read his Vorlage as √‫ רעד‏‬or ‫ ְר ֵתת‏ = ֶר ֶדת‏‬.1515

Isaiah 64

64:1[2] ‫ ֲה ׇמ ִסים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫עמוסי ‏‬ ̇ 1QIsaa | κηρὸς LXX • ‫ ְל ׇצ ֶרי ‏ָך‬MT | + ‫ה‬ ‫לצריכ ‏‬1 1QIsaa ‫— ֲה ׇמ ִסים‏‬For MT’s hapax legomenon ‫ם‬ ‫“( ֲה ׇמ ִסי‏‬brushwood,” HALOT, 251), 1QIsaa attests ‫ם‬ ‫עמוסי ‏‬ ̇ , which features a guttural exchange, substituting the ʿayin for the hê of ‫ם‬ ‫ ֲה ׇמ ִסי ‏‬. This exchange pertains to phonology and may not repre‑ sent a true variant. Note also that a single MTms (K, HUB–Isaiah) reads ‫חמסים‏‬. Or, according to Guillaume, a “reading which is indubitably right is ‫ם‬ ‫ עמסי ‏‬for the meaningless ‫ם‬ ‫ המסי ‏‬in MT. Whoever first thought of giving the meaning ‘brushwood’ to the word is now justified, for this is precisely what the Arabic ghamīs means.”1516 For the complications associated with the reading of LXX, see Fischer.1517 ‫ ַצר‏(— ְל ׇצ ֶרי ‏ָך‬, “enemy,” HALOT, 1052). 1QIsaa features a double attestation of the dative object ‫ה‬ ‫לצריכ ‏‬, versus MT. ‫ה‬ ‫ לצריכ ‏‬may have dropped out of MT, but more likely it appeared twice in 1QIsaa as a conflation, assimilation, or dittog‑ raphy. With regard to the verse’s parallelistic structure, the single attestation is preferred; in the first bicolon, the word pairs ‫ ִּכ ְקד ַֹח‏‬/‫ ִּת ְב ֶעה‏‬and ‫ ֵאׁש‏‬/‫ ֵאׁש‏‬are cor‑ responding units; in the second bicolon, ‫ ְל ׇצ ֶריָך‏‬/‫ ֹּגויִ ם‏‬parallel one another, as do ‫ ִׁש ְמ ‏ָך‬/‫ ִמ ׇּפנֶ יָך‏‬.1518 64:2[3]

‫ ל ֹ ‏‬MT | > 1QIsaa LXX ‫א‬

1515  Fischer argues for the reading of ‫ת‬ ‫ת = ֶר ֶד ‏‬ ‫ ְר ֵת ‏‬, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 66. 1516  Guillaume, “Some Readings in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah,” 42. See also the discussions in BDB 243, 770; DCH 2:572; and HALOT 251, 846–47. 1517  Fischer, “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” 66–67. 1518  See also Talmon, “Aspects of the Textual Transmission,” 246.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

427

64:3[4] ‫ֹעול ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ּומ ׇ‬ ֵ MT | ‫ מעולם‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ לֹא ֶה ֱאזִ ינּו‏‬MT | ‫ ולוא האזינו‏‬1QIsaa | > LXX • ‫ַעיִ ן לֹא‏‬ MT | ‫ ועין לוא‏‬1QIsaa | οὐδὲ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν LXX 64:4[5] ‫ יִ זְ ְּכרּוָך‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יזכורוכ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—יִ זְ ְּכרּו ‏ָך‬Regarding the wāw mater (located between the second and third root letter) in 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫יזכורוכ ‏‬, in contrast to the vowel system of MT, see the comments at 20:1. ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. 64:5[6] ‫ וַ ּנְ ִהי‏‬MT | ‫ ונהיה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּוכ ֶבגֶ ד‏‬MT LXXL Tg Syr Vulgms | ‫ כבגד‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsab LXX Vulg • ‫ וַ ּנׇ ֶבל‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ונבול ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ֲעֹונֵ נ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ועוונותינ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—וַ ֲעֹונֵ נ ‏ּו‬According to Paul (who cites Minhat Shay and Kimhi for support), MT’s text should read the pl. ‫ ; ֲעֹונֵ ינּו‏‬cf. 1QIsaa, which has ‫ועוונותינ ‏ו‬. 64:6[7] ‫ֹקורא‏‬ ֵ MT | ‫ קורה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְל ַה ֲחזִ יק‏‬MT | ‫ לאחזיק‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וַ ְּתמּוגֵ נּו‏‬MT | ‫ ותמגדנו‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ותמוגגנו‏‬MTmss | καὶ παρέδωκας ἡμᾶς (via √‫ )מגן‏‬LXX ‫— ְל ַה ֲחזִ יק‏‬For several examples of 1QIsaa hipʿil verbs (‫ )לאחזיק‏‬being written with an ʾālep instead of the characteristic hê, see the commentary at 12:4. ‫—וַ ְּתמּוגֵ נ ‏ּו‬MT’s ‫ וַ ְּתמּוגֵ נּו‏‬likely originates from √‫“( מוג‏‬to waver,” HALOT, 555; “to melt,” BDB, 556) or ‫“( מגן‏‬deliver up,” BDB, 171). 1QIsaa reads ‫ותמגדנו‏‬, which has an uncertain meaning. JPS follows √‫“ מוג‏‬made us melt”; RSV, NRSV, and NIV all translate √‫מגן‏‬, “to deliver” or similar. LXX reads καὶ παρέδωκας ἡμᾶς (“and have delivered us”) from the root ‫“( מג‏ן‬to hand over”). In my judgment, “to deliver” best fits the passage’s intent. 64:7[8] ‫ וְ ַע ׇּתה‏‬MT LXX | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואת ‏‬1QIsaa MTmss • ‫ ֲאנַ ְחנ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ואנחנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַהח ֶֹמ ‏ר‬MT 1QIsab (‫]החמר‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ חמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa • ‫ יׇ ְד ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ידיכ ‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫—וְ ַע ׇּתה‏‬Both MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ַע ׇּתה יְ הוׇ ‏‬and 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ ואתה יהו ‏‬are possible in the con‑ text; plus both expressions are formulaic. ‫ה‬ ‫ אתה יהו ‏‬appears more than three dozen times in the Bible, and ‫ עתה יהוה‏‬is manifest about fifteen times. In the present reading, MT has the support of the versions, but multiple MTmss (96; KRG, HUB–Isaiah) read ‫ = ואתה‏‬1QIsaa. Perhaps a copyist of either tradition— MT LXX or 1QIsaa MTmss—caused an error by interchanging the ʾālep and ʿayin

428

Chapter 2

(phonetic error?); or he wrote ‫אתה‏‬, based on two other attestations of ‫ אתה‏‬in the same verse. Cf. similar errors in 28:22 and 41:8. 64:8[9] ‫ ׇל ַעד‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ לע ‏‬1QIsaa LXX (ἐν καιρῷ) • ‫א‬ ‫ ֵהן ַה ֶּבט־נׇ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנה הבטנ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇל ַעד‏‬The phonetically similar dentals dālet and tāw probably triggered the variants ‫( ׇל ַע ‏ד‬MT) versus ‫( לעת‏‬1QIsaa). Cf. MT Jer 11:14 (‫ )בעד‏‬with LXX Jer 11:14 (ἐν καιρῷ = ‫ת‬ ‫)בע ‏‬. Kutscher provides examples of assimilation of consonants in Isaiah and elsewhere. Referring to ‫( ׇל ַעד‏‬MT) and ‫( לעת‏‬1QIsaa), he writes that “the dalet is assimilated to the following taw (total assimilation).”1519 See also 13:9. ‫— ֵה‏ן‬For a discussion of the presentative exclamations ‫ ה‏ן‬and ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬, see 20:6. 64:9[10] ‫ ִמ ְד ׇּבר‏‬2 MT | ‫ כמדב ‏ר‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ה‬ ‫ ְׁש ׇמ ׇמ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שוממ ‏‬1QIsaa | εἰς κατάραν LXX ‫ ִמ ְד ׇּב ‏ר‬2—In MT, none of the three objects (‫ ִמ ְד ׇּבר‏‬, ‫ ִמ ְד ׇּב ‏ר‬, and ‫ה‬ ‫ ) ְׁש ׇמ ׇמ ‏‬in the triple parallelism have the attached preposition kāp, thus reading “Your holy cities have become a wilderness; Zion is a wilderness; Jerusalem has become desolation.” 1QIsaa (see also LXX), however, has the plus of a kāp attached to the second ‫מדבר‏‬, thus reading ‫“( כמדבר‏‬Zion is as a wilderness”). The added kāp, serving as a simile, softens the direct statement of MT. With its three direct statements, MT has the primary reading. ‫— ְׁש ׇמ ׇמ ‏‬In a triple parallelism, MT features three objects, all nouns (‫ ִמ ְד ׇּבר‏‬, ‫ה‬ ‫ ִמ ְד ׇּבר‏‬, and ‫) ְׁש ׇמ ׇמה‏‬. In place of MT’s ‫ ְׁש ׇמ ׇמה‏‬, 1QIsaa has the ptc. ‫שוממה‏‬, which produces an irregular parallelism. LXX reads εἰς κατάραν, apparently from ‫ ְק ׇל ׇלה‏‬. 64:10[11] ‫ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬1 MT | ‫ הי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇהיׇ ‏‬2 MT | ‫ הי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ ׇהיׇ ‏‬1—For MT’s sg. ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇהיׇ ‏‬, 1QIsaa has the pl. ‫הי ‏ו‬. Conceivably, the scroll’s scribe employed ‫היו‏‬, with the double adjectives ‫ קודשנו‏‬and ‫ ותפארתנו‏‬serving as the subject, rather than the sg. ‫בית‏‬.1520 ‫ ׇהיׇ ‏‬2—Evidently the subject of MT’s sg. verb ‫ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬is ‫ ׇכל‏‬, and the subject of ‫ה‬ 1QIsaa’s pl. ‫ היו‏‬is ‫מחמודינ ‏ו‬. Oswalt considers MT to be the harder reading.1521

1519  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 511. 1520  As proposed by Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 397. 1521  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 628.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24



429

Isaiah 65

65:1 ‫ ׇׁש ׇאל ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ שאלונ‏י‬1QIsaa MTmss LXX Tg Syr • ‫את‏י‬ ִ ‫ נִ ְמ ֵצ‬MT | ‫נמצית‏י‬ ̇ 1QIsaa ‫— ׇׁש ׇאלּו‏‬1QIsaa v. 1a comprises a grammatically arranged parallelism, wherein the lexical, inflected, and orthographic forms of line 1 are exactly symmetri‑ cal to those of line 2 (‫נמציתי ללוא בקשוני‏‬ ̇ ‫)נדרשתי ללוא שאלוני‬. At some point during the transmission process, however, MT’s symmetrical counterparts experienced inflective and orthographic divergences. For example, compare the following orthographic variations: ‫א‬ ‫ ְלֹלו ‏‬versus ‫ ְללֹא‏‬and ‫ ׇׁש ׇאל‏ּו‬versus ‫ ִב ְק ֻׁשנִ י‏‬. Further, MT lacks the first common sg. verbal suffix (“suffix omitted by hap‑ lography in MT”1522) on the verb ‫ ׇׁש ׇאל‏ּו‬, as compared to ‫ ִב ְק ֻׁשנִ ‏י‬. Compare also pre-Qumran scholars who emend MT to read ‫ =( שאלונ‏י‬1QIsaa), based on the reading of the LXX and other versions; these include Box, Cheyne, Marti, Skinner, Volz, and Wade.1523 A contrary view, Driver writes that the scroll’s reading “is a logically desirable but not grammatically necessary correction.”1524 One may also argue that 1QIsaa borrowed ‫( ‑נ‏י‬for the reading ‫ )שאלונ‏י‬from ‫ בקשנ‏י‬in the second line of the parallelism in order to create a symmetrical reading. 65:2 ‫ֹסור ‏ר‬ ֵ MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ סור ‏‬1QIsaa | ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα LXX ‫ֹסור ‏ר‬ ֵ —Based on LXX (ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα),1525 Kittel (BH) recon‑ structs the Hebrew to read ‫ה‬ ‫סורר ומור ‏‬, “rebelling and revolting.” Romans 10:21, too, has the approximate reading of LXX. For 1QIsaa’s ‫סורה‏‬, Brownlee (follow‑ ing Kittel) holds that the scroll’s copyist read the first syllable of the first word, and then his eyes skipped to the second syllable of the next word (‫)ההולכים‏‬, thus writing ‫ה‬ ‫ סור ‏‬on the leather.1526

1522  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 267. 1523  Box, Book of Isaiah, 339; Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 163; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 401; Skinner, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 2:209; Volz,  Jesaia II, 279; and Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 406. 1524  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 24. 1525  Thus Ziegler (ibid.) proposes that the LXX translator read both ‫ =( מורה‏‬1QIsaa) and ‫סורר‏‬ (= M) in its Vorlage. 1526  Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 244.

430

Chapter 2

65:3 ‫ ז ְֹב ִחי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ המה זובחי ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ם‬ ‫ל־ה ְּל ֵבנִ י ‏‬ ַ ‫ּומ ַק ְּט ִרים ַע‬ ְ MT Tg Syr Vulg | ‫ם‬ ‫וינקו ידי ‏‬ ‫ על האבנים‬1QIsaa | καὶ θυμιῶσιν ἐπὶ ταῖς πλίνθοις τοῖς δαιμονίοις, ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν LXX ‫—ז ְֹב ִחי ‏‬In MT, the subject ‫ ׇה ׇעם‏‬is followed by three m. pl. participles ‫ם‬ (‫ ַה ַּמ ְכ ִע ִיסים‏‬, ‫ם‬ ‫ז ְֹב ִחי ‏‬, ‫ם‬ ‫ּומ ַק ְּט ִרי ‏‬ ְ ); 1QIsaa has the plus of ‫ה‬ ‫המ ‏‬, an explicit subject that is not needed in this verse. ‫ל־ה ְּל ֵבנִ י ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ַ ‫ּומ ַק ְּט ִרים ַע‬ ְ —This expression in MT, supported by Vulg, Syr, and Tg, reads “and make sacrifices upon flagstones” (‫ ְל ֵבנׇ ה‏‬, “flagstone, tile,” HALOT, 518). 1QIsaa lacks this MT reading and in its place has ‫ם‬ ‫וינקו ידים על האבני ‏‬, “clean (‫ וינקו‏‬via √‫ )נקה‏‬the hands upon the stones” “they suck (‫ וינקו‏‬via √‫ )ינק‏‬hands on the stones.”1527 Rubenstein1528 followed by Brownlee argues that 1QIsaa pre‑ serves “an original reading.”1529 Oswalt, however, disagrees and states that “the likelihood of this reading [1QIsaa] having been original is slight.”1530 Another deviation between the two Hebrew witnesses belongs to the expression—‫ על־הלבנים‏‬versus ‫ם‬ ‫על האבני ‏‬. The expressions are identical except for the lāmed (in MT) and the ʾālep (in 1QIsaa). It is difficult to determine how or why the divergences exist between the two. To complicate matters, LXX has a plus at the end of the verse: “to the demons, which do not exist.” The entire verse (65:3) is freighted with difficulties and requires additional research. 65:4 ‫צּורים‏‬ ִ ְ‫ּובּנ‬ ַ MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ובנצירי ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐν τοῖς σπηλαίοις LXX • ‫ ַה ֲחזִ י ‏ר‬MT | ‫החוזי ‏ר‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ק‬ ‫ ְּופ ַר ‏‬MTket | ‫ק‬ ‫ ומר ‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa LXX Tg Vulg • ‫ם‬ ‫ ְּכ ֵל ֶיה ‏‬MT LXX (+ πάντα, ditto?) | ‫ה‬ ‫ בכליהמ ‏‬1QIsaa Tg Vulg ‫— ְּופ ַר ‏‬The issue pertains to ‫“( מרק‏‬broth,” HALOT, 638) and ‫“( פרק‏‬rd. with Q ‫ק‬ and versions, ‫ְמ ַרק‏‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ ׇמ ַר ‏‬,” HALOT, 974). The reading ‫ק‬ ‫ ְּופ ַר ‏‬of MTket is a hapax legomenon. MTqere, supported by 1QIsaa, MTmss (MS New York ENA 346; 93 96: G, HUB–Isaiah), and the versions, read ‫ק‬ ‫ומר ‏‬.1531 Perhaps a copyist in the history of the Masoretic tradition wrote the graphically similar pê in place of the mêm. 1527  For this reading, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 271. Blenkinsopp examines the “puzzling” reading of 1QIsaa in light of various scholarly interpretations. Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 234–35, also reads ‫ וינק ‏ו‬to originate from √‫ינק‏‬. See also the translation of Tsevat, “Some Biblical Notes,” 109–10, which translation has a sexual tone. 1528  Rubinstein, “Notes on the Use of Tenses in the Variant Readings,” 94–95; Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 234. 1529  Brownlee, Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls, 235; Tsevat, “Some Biblical Notes,” 109–10, also reads 1QIsaa’s expression as having a sexual meaning that has been lost to the Masoretic tradition. 1530  Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 633n9. 1531  For a discussion of these textual variants, see Döderlein, Esaias, 258.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

431

‫— ַה ֲחזִ י ‏ר‬The three occurrences (see also 66:3, 17) of ‫ ַה ֲחזִ יר‏‬in MT Isaiah have the form of ‫“( ֲחזִ י ‏ר‬swine, boar,” HALOT, 302); but compare 1QIsaa’s ‫ חוזי ‏ר‬in the same three passages.1532 ‫— ְּכ ֵל ֶיה ‏‬MT reads ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫“( ְּכ ֵל ֶיה ‏‬their vessels”); 1QIsaa has the plus of the preposi‑ tion bêt, thus reading ‫“( בכליהמה‏‬in their vessels”). This plus, writes Barthélemy, signals a facilitation of the text,1533 but compare Blank, who proposed the emendation of ‫ם‬ ‫ בכליה ‏‬before the Qumran discoveries.1534 Here I follow Blank’s proposal.

65:5 ‫ ִּתּגַ ‏‬MT | ‫ תג ‏ע‬1QIsaa | ἐγγίσῃς LXX • ‫ ִּכ‏י‬MT LXX | > 1QIsaa ‫ׁש‬ ‫— ִּתּגַ ‏‬V. 5a sets forth a bicolon wherein the qal impv. ‫קרב‏√( ְק ַר ‏ב‬, “to come ‫ׁש‬ near”) corresponds‫‏‬with the qal impv. with the negative particle, ‫ל־ּתּגַ ׁש‏‬ ִ ‫נגׁש‏√( ַא‬, “to approach,” HALOT, 670). For the second verb in this bicolon, 1QIsaa diverges with ‫“ נגע‏√( תג ‏ע‬to touch”). Kutscher explains a basis for the scroll’s reading: “The context clearly indicates the connotation ‘touch’ which is the reason for the scribe’s substitution.”1535 More likely, however, the copyist simply erred when he wrote the graphically similar ‫תג ‏ע‬. The copyist correctly copied the tāw and gîmel and miswrote the ʿayin, which has an appearance that is not unlike that of šîn. ‫— ִּכ‏י‬1QIsaa lacks the particle ‫כי‏‬, due to haplography; the copyist wrote ‫ביא‏‬ rather than ‫א‬ ‫ביא כי ‏‬, which is attested in MT (‫)בי כי‏‬. 65:6 ‫ ַע ‏ל‬MT | ‫ א ‏ל‬1QIsaa LXX 65:7 ‫ ִק ְּטרּו‏‬MT | ]‫‏קטור[ו‬ ̇ 1QIsaa • ‫ ֶה ׇה ִרים‏‬MT | ‫ הרים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְפ ֻע ׇּל ׇתם‏‬MT | ‫ פועלתםה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַעל‏‬MTket | ‫ א ‏ל‬MTqere 1QIsaa LXX ‫— ְפ ֻע ׇּל ׇתם‏‬For the reading ‫ם‬ ‫( ְפ ֻע ׇּל ׇת ‏‬MT) versus ‫ה‬ ‫( פועלתם ‏‬1QIsaa), see the brief discussion of ‫( ְּופ ֻע ׇּל ִתי‏‬with the accompanying footnote) at 49:4.

1532  For a discussion of ‫ חוזיר‏‬and other similar forms in 1QIsaa, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 134–35. 1533  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:452–53. 1534  Blank, Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66, n.p. 1535  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 263.

432

Chapter 2

65:8 ‫ וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬MT | ‫ ויואמ ‏ר‬1QIsaa | καὶ ἐροῦσιν LXX • ‫יתה ‏ּו‬ ֵ ‫ ַּת ְׁש ִח‬MT LXX | ‫תשחיתוה‏י‬ ̇ 1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬For a discussion of deviations of MT’s pf. verb ‫ וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬and 1QIsaa’s impf. verb ‫ ויואמ ‏ר‬in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commen‑ tary at 4:5. ‫יתה ‏ּו‬ ֵ ‫— ַּת ְׁש ִח‬For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa, see the com‑ mentary in 2:2. ‫—וְ ׇא ַמ ‏ר‬MT attests a qal pf. verb as opposed to 1QIsaa’s qal impf. (‫)ויואמר‏‬. For a discussion of deviations of pf. and impf. verbs in association with the wāw-consecutive, see the commentary at 4:5. 65:9 ‫אתי‏‬ ִ ‫ֹהוצ‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ והוציתי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ֹיורׁש‏‬ ֵ MT | ‫ ירש‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ׁשּוה‏‬ ‫ וִ ֵיר ׇ‬MT | ‫ וירשוהי‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ יִ ְׁש ְּכנ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ישכונ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ֹיורׁש‏‬ ֵ —1QIsaa’s copyist generally utilizes a wāw when writing a ptc.; conse‑ quently, ‫ש‬ ‫ יר ‏‬in this verse may signify a qal pf. third m. sg., a deviation from MT’s participial form; MT’s reading better fits the context. ‫—וִ ֵיר ׇ ‏‬The variant between MT and 1QIsaa pertains to the pronominal suf‑ ‫ׁשּוה‬ fix. MT reads “my chosen will inherit her” versus the reading of 1QIsaa (‫)וירשוהי‏‬, “my chosen will inherit him.” The antecedent for the suffix is evidently mountain (‫) ׇה ׇרי‏‬, which is a m. noun. In this verse, ‫ ׇה ׇרי‏‬should have been vocalized in the sg., i.e., “my mountain,” which is a symbolic reference to the temple. For the variant third m. sg. suffixal ending in 1QIsaa, see the commentary in 2:2. 65:10 ‫ וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ והיא ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ִלנְ וֵ ‏‬MT | ‫ לנו‏י‬1QIsaa orth or var? LXX (ἐπαύλεις) • ‫ְל ֵר ֶב ‏ץ‬ MT | ‫ למרבצ‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ׇהיׇ ה‏‬The raised ʾālep in 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ והיא ‏‬signifies a medial mater (see Abegg in ‫א‬ UF 2:26); for ‫ה‬ ‫והי ‏‬, see also the commentary at 5:1. ‫— ִלנְ וֵ ‏‬In 27:10; 32:18; 33:20; 34:13; and 35:7, both MT and 1QIsaa attest ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫נׇ וֶ ה‏( נו ‏‬, “grazing place,” HALOT, 678) in the present verse; however, 1QIsaa reads ‫לנו‏י‬, concerning which Driver claims that ‫“ נו ‏י‬recalls the Aram. ‫נְ ויׇ‏‬, which is found as a place-name.”1536 ‫— ְל ֵר ֶבץ‏‬MT’s ‫“( ֵר ֶב ‏ץ‬resting place, bed,” HALOT, 1182) occurs four times in the Bible (Isa 35:7; 65:10; Jer 50:6; Prov 24:15). 1QIsaa’s ‫ ַמ ְר ֵבץ‏( מרב ‏צ‬, “resting place,” HALOT, 631) is found twice (Ezek 25:5; Zeph 2:15). The difference between the two readings may be a stylistic choice of a scribe or copyist. 1536  Driver, “Hebrew Scrolls,” 19.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

433

65:11 ‫ וְ ַה ְמ ַמ ְל ִאי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ וממלאי ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִמ ְמ ׇס ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ מסכ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ִמ ְמ ׇס ‏ְך‬The word ‫“( ִמ ְמ ׇסְך‏‬jug of mixed wine,” HALOT, 595–96) is a dislegomena, found only here and in Prov 23:30. 1QIsaa attests ‫מסכה‏‬, which denotes “cov‑ ering” (‫ ְמ ֻס ׇכה‏‬, HALOT, 605), “cast image,” or “libation” (‫ ַמ ֵס ׇכה‏‬, HALOT, 605). MT’s ‫“( ִמ ְמ ׇס ‏ְך‬jug of mixed wine”) works best with the verb ‫וְ ַ ֽה ְמ ַמ ְל ִאים‏‬. 65:12 ‫ ַל ֶּט ַב ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ לטבח ‏‬1QIsaa ‫— ַל ֶּט ַבח‏‬MT has a m. sg. noun in contrast to the f. sg. noun of 1QIsaa (‫)לטבחה‏‬. For a discussion of these deviations, see the comments at 34:2. 65:14 ‫ יׇ ר ֹּנּו‏‬MT | ‫ ירננ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִמּטּוב‏‬MT | ‫ בטו ‏ב‬1QIsaa • ‫ ִּת ְצ ֲעקּו‏‬MT | ‫ תזעק‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ִמ ְּכ ֵאב‏‬ MT | ‫ מכאוב‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ּומ ֵּׁש ֶב ‏ר‬ ִ MT | ‫ ומשברו‏ן‬1QIsaa ‫—יׇ ר ֹּנּו‏‬MT has the qal form of √‫“( רנן‏‬to rejoice,” HALOT, 1247–48; cf. Lev 9:24; Isa 24:14; Ps 35:27) versus 1QIsaa’s more common piʿel form of √‫“( רנן‏‬to exult,” HALOT, 1248). The conjugation shift from qal to piʿel is not exceptional in QR.1537 ‫— ִמּטּו ‏‬Both ‫( ִמּטּוב‏‬MT) and ‫( בטוב‏‬1QIsaa) are attested in the Bible; the differ‑ ‫ב‬ ence between these forms points to the stylistic concerns of the scribe. ‫— ִּת ְצ ֲעק ‏ּו‬For a discussion of the variants √‫( צעק‏‬MT) and √‫( זעק‏‬1QIsaa), see the comments at 33:7. ‫ּומ ֵּׁש ֶבר‏‏‬ ִ —MT attests ‫ ֶׁש ֶבר‏( ֵׁש ֶב ‏ר‬, ‫ ֵׁש ֶבר‏‬, “breaking, break,” HALOT, 1405), a form that is found about forty-one times in the Bible. 1QIsaa has the rarer ‫( שברון‏‬vo‑ calized as ‫ ִׁש ׇּבֹרון‏‬, “destruction,” HALOT, 1406), which occurs only in Jer 17:18 and Ezek 21:11 (and the present verse of 1QIsaa). MT’s ‫ ֵׁש ֶב ‏ר‬is more suitable with the term ‫רּוח‬ ‫( ַ ‏‬cf. Prov 15:5, ‫רּוח‬ ‫) ֶׁש ֶבר ְּב ַ ‏‬. 65:15–16

‫ וְ ַל ֲע ׇב ׇדיו יִ ְק ׇרא ֵׁשם ַא ֵחר ֲא ֶׁשר ַה ִּמ ְת ׇּב ֵרְך ׇּב ׇא ֶרץ יִ ְת ׇּב ֵר ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ע‬ ‫ והיה הנשב ‏‬vacat ‫̇ת ̇מי ‏ד‬

1QIsaa ‫—וְ ַל ֲע ׇב ׇדיו … יִ ְת ׇּב ֵר ‏ְך‬For 65:15b–16a, MT and 1QIsaa present divergent read‑ ings. MT reads ‫ וְ ַל ֲע ׇב ׇדיו יִ ְק ׇרא ֵׁשם ַא ֵחר ֲא ֶׁשר ַה ִּמ ְת ׇּב ֵרְך ׇּב ׇא ֶרץ יִ ְת ׇּב ֵרְך‏‬versus 1QIsaa’s ‫ והיה הנשב ‏‬vacat ‫ ̇ת ̇מיד‏‬. More specifically, col. LII, line 23 begins with ‫ ̇ת ̇מיד‏‬, then ‫ע‬ follows the vacat (which consists of about twenty-eight letters or spaces), and ‫ והיה הנשבע‏‬terminates the line. 1QIsaa’s text is in disarray; perhaps the copyist could not read his master copy and left the blank space on line 23. 1537  On this topic, see Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 230–31.

434

Chapter 2

65:18 ‫ ִׂשיׂשּו וְ גִ יל ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab (‫ שיש ֹוגי ‏ל | )‏שישו] וגילו‬1QIsaa | εὐφροσύνην καὶ ἀγαλλίαμα εὑρήσουσιν LXX ‫— ִׂשיׂשּו וְ גִ יל ‏ּו‬This is a case of pl. imperatives (‫ ִׂשיׂשּו וְ גִ ילּו‏‬MT 1QIsab) versus singulars (‫ שיש ֹוגיל‏‬1QIsaa). If the Lord’s servants/people serve as the subject of this verse (see “my servants,” “my chosen,” and “my people,” vv. 8–10, 13–14), then MT 1QIsab set forth the primary reading. It is possible that a scribe from the 1QIsaa tradition made the imperatives as singulars incorrectly based on the sg. nouns ‫ה‬ ‫ גיל ‏‬and ‫ש‬ ‫ משו ‏‬that are located at the end of the verse. As a side note, the 1QIsaa scribe inexplicably left the second half of line 28 (col. LII) open, with no characters, after the word ‫בורא‏‬. The open space does not coincide with a ‫ ס‏‬or ‫ ‏פ‬in MT. 65:20 ‫לֹא‏‬1 MT 1QIsab | ‫א‬ ‫ ולו ‏‬1QIsaa LXX(vid) • ‫ם‬ ‫ ִמ ׇּׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ משמ ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ ש ‏‬1QIsab • ‫עּו ‏ל‬ MT 1QIsab | ‫ עויל‏‬1QIsaa • ‫א‬ ‫ יְ ַמ ֵּל ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ ימל ‏‬1QIsa ‫— ִמ ׇּׁשם‏‬For MT’s ‫ם‬ ‫( ִמ ׇּׁש ‏‬cf. 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫)משמ ‏‬, Oort proposes the emendation of ‫שם‏‬,1538 the reading of 1QIsab. ‫ם‬ ‫ ש ‏‬better fits the context of the passage. ‫—עּול‏‬MT 1QIsab read ‫“( עּו ‏ל‬suckling,” HALOT, 797; cf. 49:15; Job 24:9 [read ‫עּו ‏ל‬ for ‫ ;)] ַע ‏ל‬1QIsaa reads ‫( עוי ‏ל‬i.e., ‫) ֲעוִ י ‏ל‬, meaning “boy” or “lad” (HALOT, 797). Both ‫ עּול‏‬and ‫ ֲעוִ י ‏ל‬work fittingly in the text, although the former term (‫עּול‏‬, “suckling”) provides a greater contrast to ‫ זׇ ֵק‏ן‬in the parallelism than does ‫ ֲעוִ י ‏ל‬. 65:21 > MT 1QIsab | ‫ את‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ ִּפ ְריׇ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ם‬ ‫ פריא ‏‬1QIsaa >—For deviations dealing with the accusative marker, see the discussion at 2:4. ‫— ִּפ ְריׇ ‏‬1QIsaa, with its internal ʾālep mater, is merely an orthographic de‑ ‫ם‬ viation from ‫ם‬ ‫ ִּפ ְריׇ ‏‬. For other examples of ʾālep serving as a mater in QH, see Reymond.1539 65:22 ‫ ׇה ֵעץ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫הע ֯ץ‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫ ע ‏צ‬1QIsaa | τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς LXX

1538  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 107. 1539  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 43–47.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

435

65:23 ‫רּוכ‏י‬ ֵ ‫ ְּב‬MT 1QIsab (‫ בר ‏ך | )ברכי‏‬1QIsaa LXX (ηὐλογημένον) ‫רּוכ‏י‬ ֵ ‫— ְּב‬MT and 1QIsab present a pl. qal passive ptc. (‫רּוכי‏‬ ֵ ‫ ) ְּב‬versus 1QIsaa’s sg. (‫)ברך‏‬. Note, however, that for qal passive participles, 1QIsaa’s copyist usually inserted a wāw between the second and third letters, thus reading ‫ברוך‏‬. 65:25 ‫ זְ ֵאב‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ז ‏ב‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ַא ְריֵ ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ ואר ‏י | )ו֯ ֯א ֯רי֯ ה‏‬1QIsaa ‫—וְ ַא ְריֵ ה‏‬For the variant here, see the comments at 11:7.

Isaiah 66

66:1

‫ וְ ֵאי־זֶ ה … ֵאי־זֶ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ואיזה … איז ‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab MTmss ‫—וְ ֵאי־זֶ ה … ֵאי־זֶ ‏‬Multiple MTmss (HUB–Isaiah) read ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ = ואיזה … איז ‏‬1QIsaa

1QIsab. The deviations here are not textual variants but stylistic differences. See the comments at 43:2. 66:2

‫ וַ ּיִ ְהי ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ והי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ ּונְ ֵכ ‏‬MT | ‫ ונכא‏י‬1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ ונכא ‏‬1QIsab | ‫א‬ ‫ ונכ ‏‬MTmss | καὶ ἡσύχιον LXX • ‫ וְ ׇח ֵרד‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ והחורד‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ל־ּד ׇב ִרי‏‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬MT | ‫ לדברי‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ אל ̇ד ֯ב ̇רי‏‬1QIsab ‫—וַ ּיִ ְהיּו‏‬Both MT and 1QIsab read an impf. verb (‫)ויהיו‏‬, versus 1QIsaa’s pf. (‫)והיו‏‬.

Kutscher proposes that 1QIsaa’s pf. is an assimilation of the previous verb, which is also a perfect.1540 Based on LXX, Condamin submits that the text read ‫ולי היו‏‬.1541 ‫נְ ֵכה‏(—ּונְ ֵכה‏‬, “broken,” HALOT, 698). 1QIsaa’s ‫( ונכא‏י‬versus MT’s ‫ה‬ ‫ )ּונְ ֵכ ‏‬is an in‑ stance of a morphologial phenomenon in the scroll: the interchange of the weak forms ‫ה‬ ‫נכ ‏‬/‫( נכא‏‬both meaning “broken”), which is typical of the Qumran tradition. For the example under discussion and other cases, see Qimron’s grammar.1542

1540  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 354. 1541  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 386. 1542  Qimron, Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 355–60.

436

Chapter 2

66:3 ‫ ַמ ֵּכ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ כמכ ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ֲחזִ י ‏ר‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ חוזי ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫— ַמ ֵּכ ‏‬V. 3 comprises five bicolons, with the first four bicolons containing ‫ה‬ comparisons between profane oblations/sacrifices and unlawful/unclean practices. In the first bicolon, 1QIsaa makes the comparison explicit by adding the preposition kāp to ‫ה‬ ‫מכ ‏‬, thus reading ‫“( כמכה‏‬like one who smites”). The reading of 1QIsaa is a secondary explication or, possibly, an easing of the text. Or, it is also possible that the kāp serves to introduce a simile, thus reading, “he who kills an ox is like (or, as) one who kills a man.”1543 ‫— ֲחזִ יר‏‬For the word ‫ ֲחזִ י ‏ר‬versus ‫חוזי ‏ר‬, see the discussion at 65:4. 66:4 ‫ּומגּור ׇֹתם‏‬ ְ MT | ‫ ובמגורותיהםה‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ו]במגרתם‏‬1QIsab | καὶ τὰς ἀμαρτίας LXX • > MT 1QIsab | ‫ את‏‬1QIsaa ‫ּומגּור ׇֹת ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ְ —In contrast to MT’s ‫ּומגּור ׇֹתם‏‬ ְ , 1QIsaa (‫ )ובמגורותיהםה‏‬features ortho‑ graphic differences as well as the addition of the preposition bêt. The 1QIsaa scribe probably determined that the verb ‫( בח ‏ר‬which prefers the preposition bêt) governed both the expressions ‫ בתעלוליהמה‏‬and ‫ובמגורותיהםה‏‬. This error was in all likelihood conducted more or less instinctively because had he care‑ fully considered the matter he would have discovered that ‫ ובמגורותיהםה‏‬be‑ longed to the verb ‫אביא‏‬, which verb does not require the bêt. Further confusion may have arisen because the first of the three bicolons in the verse constitutes a grammatical chiasmus—(independent) pronoun, verb, object, object, verb, (suffixed) pronoun (‫ּומגּור ׇֹתם ׇא ִביא ׇל ֶהם‏‬ ְ ‫ם־אנִ י ֶא ְב ַחר ְּב ַת ֲע ֻל ֵליהם‬ ֲ ַ‫)ּג‬. Note that 1QIsab (‫ )ו]במגרתם‏‬has the preposition bêt (equals 1QIsaa) and the suffix ‑otam (equals MT). For a brief discussion regarding the long suffix ‑oteyhem versus the short ending ‑otam, see 2:4. ‫—את‏‬For deviations dealing with the accusative marker, see the discussion at 2:4. 66:5 ‫ ְּד ׇבֹרו‏‬MT LXX | ‫ דברי ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ נִ ְר ֶא ‏‬MT | ‫יראה‬ ‫̇‏‬ 1QIsaa 66:6 ‫ ֵמ ִעיר‏‬MT LXX | ‫ בעי ‏ר‬1QIsaa

1543  For a brief examination of the reading ‫ה‬ ‫ מכ ‏‬with or without the kāp, see Gardner, “Isaiah 66:1–4: Condemnation of Temple and Sacrifice,” 517.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

437

66:7 ‫ וְ ִה ְמ ִל ׇיט ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ה | )ֹוהמלי[טה‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ המליט ‏‬1QIsaa | ἐξέφυγεν καὶ ἔτεκεν LXX ‫—וְ ִה ְמ ִל ׇיטה‏‬The wāw conjunction attached to ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ִה ְמ ִל ׇיט ‏‬in MT and 1QIsab spoils the flow of the synonymous parallelism. The reading of 1QIsaa minus the wāw is preferred. 66:8 ‫ ִמי‏‬2 MT 1QIsab | ‫ ומיא‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇר ׇאה‏‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ יראה‏‬1QIsaa • ‫יּוחל‏‬ ַ ‫ ֲה‬MT | ‫התחיל‏‬ 1QIsaa | ἦ ὤδινεν LXX ‫יּוח ‏ל‬ ַ ‫יִ וׇ ֵלד‏(— ֲה‬, “to be brought forth through labour-pains,” HALOT, 311, hopʿal impf. via √‫)חיל‏‬. Two scholarly opinions explain the textual variant between ‫יּוחל‏‬ ַ ‫( ֲה‬MT) and ‫( התחיל‏‬1QIsaa, HALOT, 310; qal impf. via √‫חיל‏‬, “to be in labor”): (a) MT’s hopʿal verb is a m. form, and yet the subject (‫ ) ֶא ֶרץ‏‬is f. For this rea‑ son, Blenkinsopp writes that 1QIsaa’s ‫( התחיל‏‬qal f.) may signify the primary reading.1544 (b) 1QIsaa borrowed the form ‫ תחיל‏‬from the previous verse.1545 66:9

‫ וְ ׇע ַצ ְר ִּת‏י‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ ואעצֹור ‏‬1QIsaa | καὶ στεῖραν ἐποίησα LXX

66:11

‫ ִמּזִ י ‏ז‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ממזו ‏ז‬1QIsaa | ἀπὸ εἰσόδου LXX ‫זִ יז‏(— ִמּזִ יז‏‬, “full breast,” HALOT, 268; “abundance, fullness,” BDB, 265). Versus MT 1QIsab (‫מזיז‏‬, a hapax legomenon), 1QIsaa has the double preposition ‫ ִמ‏ן‬, in all probability a dittogram. LXX apparently misread ‫ מזיז‏‬and produced ἀπὸ εἰσόδου (= ‫)ממזו ‏ז‬, reading a wāw in place of a yôd.

66:12 ‫ וִ ינַ ְק ֶּת ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ [ויונק]ו֯ תיהמ ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ִּתּנׇ ֵׂשא‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ תנשינ ‏‬1QIsaa LXX • ‫ ִּב ְר ַּכיִ ם‏‬MT | ‫ בורכים‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ְּת ׇׁש ֳע ׇׁשעּו‏‬MT | ‫ תשתעשעו‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫| ) ̇ת ֯ש ̇ת ֯ע ̇שעו‏‬ παρακληθήσονται LXX ‫— ִּב ְר ַּכיִ ‏‬1QIsaa (‫ )בורכים‏‬follows the quṭl pattern. For a brief discussion to‑ ‫ם‬ gether with bibliographic sources, see 3:24. ‫— ְּת ׇׁש ֳע ׇׁשעּו‏‬For √‫ׁשעע‏‬, MT sets forth the polpal (‫ ְּת ׇׁש ֳע ׇׁשעּו‏‬, “to be played with, rocked to and fro,” HALOT, 1613) and 1QIsaa, 1QIsab have the hitpalpel (‫תשתעשעו‏‬, “to take pleasure in, delight in,” HALOT, 1613). For the other occurrence of √‫ׁשעע‏‬ in the text of Isaiah, see 11:8, where MT has a pilpel pf. third m. sg. (‫ )וְ ִׁש ֲע ַׁשע‏‬ver‑ sus 1QIsaa’s pilpel impf. third m. sg. (‫)וישעשע‏‬. 1544  Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 303. 1545  Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 618.

438

Chapter 2

66:13 ‫ ְּתנֻ ׇחמ ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ תתנחמ ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ְּתנֻ ׇחמ ‏ּו‬There are two indications of QH here: (a) This is another example of a conjugation shift in QH: from puʿal to hitpaʿel. (b) MT’s puʿal ‫“( ְּתנֻ ׇחמ ‏ּו‬to be consoled,” HALOT, 689) here reads “you will be consoled in Jerusalem.” In LBH, the hitpaʿel sometimes had a passive meaning; thus 1QIsaa’s hitpaʿel ‫תתנחמ‏ו‬ may be translated “to be consoled,” which is similar to MT’s puʿal.1546 66:14 ‫ֹנוד ׇעה‏‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ע‬ ‫ ונוד ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ֹנוד ׇע ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ְ ְ‫—ו‬MT’s nipʿal third f. sg. ‫ה‬ ‫ֹנוד ׇע ‏‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬agrees with ‫ ;יַ ‏ד‬1QIsaa’s third m. sg. ‫ע‬ ‫ונוד ‏‬ may have lost the hê via haplography from the previous word, e.g., ‫תפרחנה‏‬ ‫ונודעה‬. 66:15 ‫ּסּופה‏‬ ‫ וְ ַכ ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ ובסופ ‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַאֹּפ ‏ו‬MT LXX | ‫ אפ ‏ו אפ ‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ גַ ֲע ׇרֹת ‏ו‬MT 1QIsab LXX | ‫ וגערתי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ּסּופ ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫—וְ ַכ ׇ‬The point at issue pertains to a deviation between the preposition kāp (“his chariots like a whirlwind [‫ּסּופה‏‬ ‫ ”]וְ ַכ ׇ‬MT) and bêt (“his chariots with a whirlwind [‫ ”]ובסופה‏‬1QIsaa). A scribe of either MT or 1QIsaa may have created an error based on the graphic similarity of bêt/kāp. It is also possible that the 1QIsaa scribe assimilated the bêt for ‫ה‬ ‫ ובסופ ‏‬from ‫ש‬ ‫( בא ‏‬v. 5), ‫ש‬ ‫בא ‏‬,‫‏‬or ‫( ובחרב ‏ו‬v. 6). However, based on a similar reading in Jer 4:13 (‫ֹבותיו‏‬ ‫ּסּופה ַמ ְר ְּכ ׇ‬ ‫)וְ ַכ ׇ‬, MT maintains the primary reading. ‫— ַאֹּפו‏‬A copyist of 1QIsaa created a dittography (‫ ;)אפו‏ אפו‏‬the first ‫ אפו‏‬appears at the end of the line and the other at the beginning of next line. Compare also the similarly positioned dittograph at 66:20. 66:16 ‫ נִ ְׁש ׇּפט‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫נש[פט]‏‬ ֯ )|‫ט‬ ‫ יבֹוא לשפו ‏‬1QIsaa | κριθήσεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ LXX • ‫ׇּב ׇׂש ‏ר‬ MT 1QIsab (‫ הבשר‏ | ) ֯ב[שר‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ַח ְל ֵלי יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ )חללי [יהו]ה‏‬LXX | ‫חלליֹו‏‬ 1QIsaa ‫—נִ ְׁש ׇּפ ‏‬In the expression ‫כי באש יהוה נשפט‏‬, MT and 1QIsab attest the nipʿal ‫ט‬ ptc. ‫ט‬ ‫“( נשפ ‏‬to enter into judgment, dispute,” HALOT, 1626, via √‫)שפט‏‬. Perhaps to facilitate the reading, 1QIsaa presents the more familiar expression ‫ש‬ ‫כיא בא ‏‬ ‫יהוה יבוא לשפוט‬. Compare Isa 66:15 (‫ ;)יְ הוׇ ה ׇּב ֵאׁש יׇֹבוא‏‬Ps 96:13 (‫יְ הוׇ ה ִּכי ׇבא ִּכי ׇבא‏‬ ‫)יְ הוׇ ה ִּכ ׇ‬. Another ‫ ;) ִל ְׁשּפֹט‬Ps 98:9 (‫ ;)יְ הוׇ ה ִּכי ׇבא ִל ְׁש ֹּפט‏‬and 1 Chr 16:33 (‫י־בא ִל ְׁשֹּפוט‏‬ 1546  Fassberg, Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew, 109–10, paragraph 255 (Hebrew).

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

439

workable postulation, the 1QIsaa copyist read ‫ כיא הנה יהוה באש יבוא‏‬in line 2 of col. LIV and then wrote ‫ט‬ ‫ כיא באש יהוה יבוא לשפו ‏‬in line 3. ‫— ַח ְל ֵלי יְ הוׇ ה‏‬MT and 1QIsab read “and the slain of the LORD (‫ )חללי יהוה‏‬shall be many” (‫ ׇח ׇלל‏‬, “slain,” HALOT, 320). 1QIsaa has a unique reading (an error!): “and his slain (‫ )חלליֹו‏‬shall be many.” 66:17 ‫ ֶא ׇחד‏‬MTket | ‫ת‬ ‫ אח ‏‬MTqere 1QIsaa 1QIsab (‫ > | )אח]ת‏‬LXX • ‫ ַה ֲחזִ י ‏ר‬MT 1QIsab (‫החז̇ י֯ [ר‏‬ ̇ ) | ‫ החוז̇ יר‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ וְ ַה ֶּׁש ֶק ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ והשקו ‏ץ‬1QIsaa • ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ יחדי‏ו‬1QIsaa • ‫יׇ ֻספ ‏ּו‬ MT | > 1QIsaa • ‫ם‬ ‫ נְ ֻא ‏‬MT | ‫אמר‬ ̇ 1QIsaa ‫— ֶא ׇח ‏ד‬Three Hebrew texts (MTqere, 1QIsaa, 1QIsab) read ‫ת‬ ‫ ;אח ‏‬one (MTket) attests ‫אחד‏‬. Scholars are divided with regard to which of the two words is pri‑ mary. The CTAT committee, for example, was divided as to whether to follow the reading of MTket or MTqere.1547 Flint tentatively suggests that MTket’s form of ‫ אחד‏‬may be a “product of later editing to supply a form that most readers would expect.”1548 ‫—יַ ְח ׇּד ‏ו‬For a discussion of the deviations of the adverbial particles ‫ יַ ְח ׇּד‏ו‬and ‫יחדי ‏ו‬, see the comments at 27:4. ‫— ַה ֲחזִ יר‏‬For ‫ ַה ֲחזִ י ‏ר‬versus ‫החוז̇ י ‏ר‬, see the discussion at 65:4. 66:18 ‫ ׇּב ׇא ‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫בא ֯ה‏‬ ‫ה‬ ֯ ) | ‫ בא ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫— ׇּב ׇא ‏‬Inasmuch as the subject of ‫ באה‏‬is open to question, scholars propose ‫ה‬ a variety of theories.1549 1QIsaa’s variant of ‫ בא‏ו‬does not add understanding to the problem. Two theories serve to explain 1QIsaa’s reading: (a) a copyist bor‑ rowed ‫ באו‏‬from a second verb (‫ )באו‏‬in the verse, or (b) ‫מעשיהמה ומחשבותיהמה‏‬ serves as the subject of ‫באו‏‬.1550 66:19 ‫ ֹאות‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אותות‏‬1QIsaa LXX (σημεῖα) • ‫מׁש ֵכי‏‬ ְ MT | [‫‏משוך‬ ̇ 1QIsaa | καὶ Μοσοχ LXX • ‫ ׇראּו‏‬MT | ‫ ראו ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫—ֹאות‏‬MT Isaiah uses the formulaic ‫ת‬ ‫“( ושמתי … או ‏‬I will set a sign”), which formula (‫אותות‏‬/‫ )שם … אות‬is used elsewhere in the Bible. MT, 1QIsab attest the sg. ‫( אות‏‬cf. Gen 4:15) versus the pl. ‫ אותות‏‬of 1QIsaa, LXX (cf. Exod 10:2; Ps 78:43; 1547  See Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:461–62. 1548  Flint, “Non-Masoretic Variant Readings,” 115. 1549  See for example, the deliberations in Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:462–64. 1550  For this second theory, see Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:463.

440

Chapter 2

Jer 32:20). The basic feature(s) of the sign(s) is not disclosed, although the pl. signs may refer to ‫“( השמים חדשים והארץ החדשה‏‬the new heavens and the new earth,” see v. 22). Otherwise, either the sg. or pl. works in the context, and it is difficult to determine the primary reading. If 1QIsaa sets forth the incorrect reading, perhaps the scribe was impacted by the pl. ‫( פליטים‏‬located three words away), but this does not explain how LXX also has the pl. So, too, 1QIsaa may have borrowed from the multiple plurals set forth in the next verse (see v. 20). ‫מׁש ֵכ‏י‬ ְ —MT has an active ptc. (‫מׁש ֵכי‏‬ ְ ), and 1QIsaa attests a passive ptc. (‫)משוך‏‬. Based on LXX (Μοσοχ “Meshech”) and Ezek 38:2 and 39:1 (‫) ֶמ ֶׁשְך‏‬, Condamin, following Cheyne,1551 Duhm, and Marti, conjectures that the Hebrew text in 66:19 read ‫ ֶמ ֶׁש ‏ְך‬.1552 ‫— ׇרא ‏ּו‬1QIsaa’s ‫ ראוו‏‬is the result of a phonetic glide. As Kutscher has ex‑ plained, “The glide is the wāw because of the u.”1553 66:20 ‫ ׇּכל‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫ כֹול כו ‏ל | ) ֯כ[ל‏‬1QIsaa • ‫ ׇּוב ֶר ֶכ ‏ב‬MT | ‫וברכבם‬ ‫̇‏‬ 1QIsaa • ‫ת‬ ‫ ַּוב ִּכ ְר ׇּכֹרו ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ ובכורכובות‏‬1QIsaa | μετὰ σκιαδίων LXX • ‫ ַעל‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אל‏‬1QIsaa LXX (εἰς) ‫— ׇּכל‏‬A copyist of 1QIsaa created a dittography: the first ‫ כול‏‬appears at the end of the line (on the leather), and the other at the beginning of the next line (see col. LIV, lines 9–10). Space considerations (‫ ) ֯כ[ל אחי]כם‏‬indicate that 1QIsab had only one attestation of ‫כול‏‬. For 1QIsaa’s duplication here at 66:20, compare also the similarly positioned dittograph at 1QIsaa 66:15. ‫— ַּוב ִּכ ְר ׇּכֹרו ‏‬The consonantal framework of ‫( ַּוב ִּכ ְר ׇּכֹרות‏‬MT 1QIsab, a hapax le‫ת‬ gomenon from ‫ה‬ ‫ ִּכ ְר ׇּכ ׇר ‏‬, meaning “dromedary?” BDB, 503) and ‫ת‬ ‫( ובכורכובו ‏‬1QIsaa) are similar; the chief difference is that 1QIsaa’s form features a second bêt in place of the second rêš of MT. The consonantal deviation may be explained as follows: (a) the bêt and rêš are visually similar (the chief difference pertains to the lower horizontal stroke of the bêt), i.e., the scribe wrote the bêt in place of the rêš; or (b) the scribe had ‫ וברכ ‏ב‬in mind (located three words earlier) and wrote ‫ת‬ ‫ובכורכובו ‏‬.1554 For 1QIsaa’s double wāw mater in ‫ת‬ ‫ובכורכובו ‏‬, note Reymond’s discussion regarding the “assimilation to consonants,” where he states, “The development of an /o/ or /u/ vowel might have been triggered by surrounding consonants.”1555 1551  Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 166. 1552  Condamin, Livre d’Isaïe, 389. 1553  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 516; see also the discussion in Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 131–34. 1554  Cf. Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 249. 1555  Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 174–77.

Textual Variants Verse by Verse—Isaiah 1:1–66:24

441

66:21 ‫ ֶא ַּק ‏‬MT | ‫א‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ח לי ‏‬ ‫ אק ‏‬1QIsaa LXX ‫— ֶא ַּק ‏‬Both 1QIsaa and LXX (ἐμοὶ) have the indirect object; 1QIsaa reads ‫א‬ ‫ח‬ ‫לי ‏‬ ‫אקח‏‬, “I will take for myself” (cf. Num 8:16). Perhaps 1QIsaa’s ‫ ל‏י‬is an explicatory plus that is already implicit in the text with the preformative ʾālep in ‫?אקח‏‬ 66:22 ‫ ַה ֳח ׇד ִׁשים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ חדשי ‏‬1QIsaa 66:23 ‫ ְּב ַׁש ַּבֹּתו‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫בשב ֯תו֯‏‬ ֯ )|‫ה‬ ‫ בשבת ‏‬1QIsaa 4QIsac (‫ | )ב]שבתה‏‬ἐκ σαββάτου LXX Vulg | ‫ ְב ַׁש ׇבא‏‬Tg • ‫ ׇּב ׇׂש ‏ר‬MT | ‫ הבש ‏ר‬1QIsaa 66:24 ‫ ׇּב ׇׂשר‏‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ הבש ‏ר‬1QIsaa

Appendix 1

Textual Affiliation of the Isaiah Scrolls Although determining the textual affiliations of Qumran Isaiah scrolls is freighted with challenges, scholars can, in the broadest of terms, determine textual affiliations for those scrolls that have sufficient content. The items in this appendix have been adapted from Tov, Scribal Practices, 332–33, 335.1 Abbreviations are as follows: MT (“scrolls belonging to the MT family”) LXX (“scrolls related to Vorlage of the LXX”) Independent (“scrolls unrelated exclusively” to MT or LXX; nonaligned)

Name 1QIsaa 1QIsab (1Q8) 4QIsaa (4Q55) 4QIsab (4Q56) 4QIsac (4Q57) 4QIsad (4Q58) 4QIsae (4Q59) 4QIsaf (4Q60) 4QIsag (4Q61) 4QIsah (4Q62) 4QIsai (4Q62a) 4QIsaj (4Q63) 4QIsak (4Q64) 4QIsal (4Q65) 4QIsam (4Q66) 4QIsan (4Q67) 4QIsao (4Q68) 4QpapIsap (4Q69)

MT

LXX

Independent yes

yes (cf. Flint)2 yes yes

yes yes

yes yes yes yes yes

yes yes yes yes yes

yes

yes? yes

yes

yes

yes

1  Compare also Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint, 64–70. 2  Cf. also the assessment of Flint, “Variant Readings and Textual Affiliation in the Hebrew University Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsab).”

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004412033_004

444

Appendix 1

(cont.)

Name

MT

4QIsaq (4Q69a) 4QIsar (4Q69b) 5QIsa (5Q3) MurIsa

yes

LXX

Independent

Appendix 2

Qumran Isaiah Scrolls and Ketib-Qere Readings of Masoretic-Type Texts This appendix of ketib-qere (KQ) readings1 records fifty-eight KQ2 cases from Masoretic-type texts of Isaiah, which are compared to 1QIsaa and other Qumran witnesses of Isaiah. In all instances, I compare only the consonantal text of the various Hebrew texts and not the vocalization that is attached to the ketib of Masoretic-type texts. Each of the readings may be placed into one of four groups: Group 1. 1QIsaa equals the ketib of Masoretic-type texts. This alignment of 1QIsaa with the ketib occurs in a total of twenty-five out of the fifty-eight KQ readings that are part of the book of Isaiah (see 3:16; 9:2; 10:33; 13:16; 15:3; 18:4; 23:12; 25:10; 26:20 [2×]; 29:11; 30:6; 30:32; 32:15; 36:12; 42:20; 42:24; 44:17; 44:24; 46:11; 49:6; 52:2, 5; 58:14; and 63:9). Group 2. 1QIsaa equals the qere of Masoretic-type texts. There are seventeen readings where 1QIsaa has the same consonantal text as the qere of either the Aleppo or Leningrad codices or other Masoretic manuscripts (see 3:8; 5:29; 9:6; 10:32; 12:5; 13:16; 28:15; 32:7; 41:23; 49:5; 52:5; 54:16; 55:13; 57:19; 60:21; 65:4; and 66:17). The significance of this statistic relates to the point that a number of qere readings that are located in the margins of Masoretic-type texts actually exist within columns (not the margins) of Isaiah scrolls that date to an earlier period. Stated differently, there are seventeen readings from the text of 1QIsaa that agree with marginal readings of Masoretic-type texts. This does not imply, of course, that the manuscript labeled “1QIsaa” was actually employed by Masoretes who created the KQ system. It does indicate, however, that one or more proto-Masoretic-type texts have readings that agree with qere readings of the Masoretic period. 1  For a study of ketib-qere readings in the Isaiah texts, see Parry, “1QIsaa and Ketib-Qere Readings of the Masoretic Type Texts,” 17–32; Rubinstein, “Kethib-Qere Problem in the Light of the Isaiah Scroll,” 127–33. 2  My list of fifty-eight KQ readings in the book of Isaiah are compiled from a variety of sources: Goshen-Gottstein’s HUB–Isaiah, the apparatuses of BHS and BHK, and the Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library, with its marked KQ readings, as organized by Westminster’s Bible. For Palestinian Biblical Manuscripts that include KQ notations, as compared with BHK, I also consulted Revell, Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents, 238–39, 241. Jacob Ben Chajim Ibn Adonijah’s Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, 47n20, holds that there are fiftyfive examples of KQ in the Rabbinic Bible of Jacob ben Chajim. My own count yields fiftyeight examples. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004412033_005

446

Appendix 2

Group 3. 1QIsaa does not equal either the ketib or the qere of Masoretic-type texts; there are fifteen readings where 1QIsaa has a different consonantal text than either the qere or the ketib (see 3:15; 10:6; 10:13; 16:3; 23:13; 28:15; 30:33; 36:12; 37:30; 39:2; 45:2; 47:13; 49:13; 56:10). Group 4. One Qumran Isaiah witness agrees with the ketib, and another Qumran Isaiah witness agrees with the qere. In seven passages, the Qumran scrolls give two different readings at the point of the KQ that belong to Masoretic-type manuscripts (see 12:5; 13:16; 37:30; 49:5; 57:19; 58:14; 60:21). It is my position that the majority of KQ variants of the book of Isaiah are not material variants that reflect a different Vorlage or textual tradition, such as we see with the manifold and diverse material variants that exist between Masoretic-type texts and those Qumran witnesses that we label as nonaligned texts, such as 4QDeutj,n, 4QJosha, 4QJudga, and 4QSama.3 Rather, they are analogical readings, variants that reveal different orthographic systems, or examples of archaic, dialectical, or phonological textual updating or clerical errors. In fact, beyond the qere perpetuum readings and three examples of euphemisms (13:16; 36:12 bis), the majority of variants between ketib and qere in the book of Isaiah differ from one another in one or two Hebrew letters, from the grouping ʾālep, hê, wāw, and yôd. The catalog presents abbreviations and symbols4 that serve the reader in interpreting the catalog’s data. The abbreviations are followed by a comprehensive register that includes scriptural references, the ketib, the qere, and a presentation of various Hebrew Bible manuscripts—Masoretic-type, Geniza, and Qumran Isaiah scrolls. The Masoretic-type and Geniza manuscripts (and fragments) all belong to the “‘masoretic period’ and date from not earlier than ca. 800 CE.”5

Abbreviations ‫א‬ ‫נ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫פ‬ ‫מ‬

Aleppo Codex, beginning of tenth century Ms New York, ENA 346 = JTS 232, Later Prophets, tenth century Codex Karlsruhe 3 (Reuchlinianus’), Prophets, written in 1105 Codex Petersburg Heb B 3, Latter Prophets, written in 916 Second (completed) Rabbinic Bible, Venice 1524–5

3  For particulars regarding these nonaligned texts, see Tov, TCHB3, 116. 4  I am indebted to Goshen-Gottstein, HUB–Isaiah, xliv, xlvii–xlviii, for the use of abbreviations and symbols pertaining to Masoretic-type texts. 5  Goshen-Gottstein, Text and Language in Bible and Qumran, xli.

Qumran Isaiah Scrolls and Ketib-Qere Readings ‫ש‬ ‫ש‬ ‫ק‬

30 93 96 150 G K R G-B G-P 4-‫ל‬ 8-‫ל‬ 18-‫ל‬ 19-‫ל‬ 20-‫ל‬ (mlt) PM; SM (sol) om

447

Ms Sasson 1053, tenth century (only in 45:2)—‫שבעים‬ Cairo Codex, Prophets, written in 895 Manuscripts collated fully (according to Kennicott’s numbering) Hebrew manuscripts collated by Ginsburg Hebrew manuscripts collated by Kennicott Hebrew manuscripts collated by Rossi Geniza text with Babylonian vocalization Geniza text with Palestinian vocalization Leningrad II Firk 124 Leningrad II Firk 225 Leningrad I Firk 59 Leningrad Codex B 19a, complete Bible, written in 1009 Leningrad II Firk 9 witnessed to by many mss First hand; second hand unique reading omits, omission

Isaiah 3:8 3:15

3:16

5:29 9:2

9:6

‫ ענ‏י‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫‏עיני‬qere 20-‫ ;ר‏ ;פ ל‏‬1QIsaa ‫‏מלכם‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬4QIsab ‫ מה לכ ‏‬qere ‫ ; ‏ל‬93 (pm) 96 150 (pm); KRG ‫ם‬ ‫‏מלכמה‬1QIsaa ‫‏נטוות‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫‏נטויות‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt) ‫‏נטיות‬30 (pm) ‫‏ושאג‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫( ‏ר ;ל ‏‬pm); 93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt); G-P e 30, 48; 1QIsaa ‫‏ישאג‬qere ‫א‬ ‫‏לא‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬96; ‫‏לוא‬1QIsaa ‫‏לו‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬93 150 (pm); KR (mlt)

KR om ‫ לם רבה‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫‏‬ ‫‏לםרבה‬ketib ‫ ; ‏ל‬93 150; 30 ‫‏למרבה‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬93 150; 96; KR (mlt); 1QIsaa

448

Appendix 2

(cont.)

Isaiah 10:6

10:13

10:32 10:33

12:5

13:16 15:3 16:3

16:3 18:4 23:12 23:13

‫‏ולשימו‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30; ‫ וליש]מ ‏ו‬4QIsae? ‫‏ולשומו‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ר‏ ;ל ‏‬93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt) ‫‏ולשום‬1QIsaa ‫ ועתידתיה ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬96; K ‫ ועתודתיהם‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬93 150; KG (mlt) ‫ ועתידותיהמה‏‬1QIsaa ‫ בי ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫ בת‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30 93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt); 1QIsaa; 4QIsac ‫ פאר ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ל ‏‬G; 1QIsaa ‫ פורה‏‬qere G; 93 (pm) 96 150 (pm); KRG (mlt) ‫ פאור ‏‬K ‫ה‬ ‫ פרה‏‬K ‫ מידע ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫ מודעת‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬96; KG (mlt); 30; 4QIsaa ‫ מודעות‏‬1QIsaa ‫ תשגלנ ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫‏תשג]ֹל[נה ;ל ‏‬4QIsaa ‫ תכבנ ‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬K; 1QIsaa ‫ כל ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬G 150; 1QIsaa ‫ כלו‏‬qere G; ‫ ; ‏ר‬93; KG ‫ הביא ‏ו‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫ הביאי‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬8-‫( ל‏‬pm) 18-‫( ל‏‬pm); 30 93 96; KRG (mlt) ‫ הבי ‏ו‬1QIsaa ‫ עש ‏ו‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ל ‏‬G (mlt) 1QIsaa ‫ עש ‏י‬qere G (mlt); 18-‫( ל‏‬sm); 30 93 96; KRG (mlt) ‫ אשקוטה‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬150; 1QIsaa ‫ אשקט ‏‬qere ‫ ; ‏ל‬30 93 96; KG (mlt) ‫ה‬ ‫ כתיי ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsaa; 4QIsac ‫ כתי ‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ;ר‏ ;ל ‏‬30 93 96 150; KG (mlt) ‫ בחיני ‏ו‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫ בחוניו‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬G-B 68; 93 96; KG (mlt); 18-‫ל‏‬ ‫ בחניו‏‬30; K ‫ בחימ ‏ו‬150 (pm) ‫ בחיני ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ה‬

Qumran Isaiah Scrolls and Ketib-Qere Readings

449

(cont.)

Isaiah 25:10

‫ במ‏י‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ במו‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( א‏ ;ל ‏‬pm) ‫ ; ‏ר )?( ‏נ‬93 96; KG (mlt)

26:20

‫ דלתי ‏ך‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬96; B-Eb 99; 1QIsaa ‫ דלת ‏ך‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30 93; KRG (mlt) ‫ יעבו ‏ר‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ יעבר‏‬qere ‫‏ל‬ ‫ט‬ ‫ שי ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫ שוט‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( א‏ ;ל ‏‬pm) 20-‫( ל‏‬pm) ‫( ‏נ‬pm?) ‫ ;ר ‏פ‬KG (mlt); 1QIsaa (yod corr.

26:20 28:15

28:15

29:11 30:6

30:32

30:33

32:7

150 (pm) om

to waw?)

‫ עב ‏ר‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsab ‫ יעב ‏ר‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( ל‏ ;ל ‏‬pm) ‫ ; ‏ר‬150; KG (mlt) ‫ עב(ו) ‏ר‬18-‫ ;ל‏‬K ‫( מזה עב ‏ר‬non voc) 30 ‫ יעמ ‏ד‬93 (sm) ‫ יבו ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫ הספ ‏ר‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬96; ‫ הספ ‏ר‬1QIsaa (hê is raised by sm) ‫ ספ ‏ר‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬4-‫( ל‏‬pm) ‫( ‏נ‬pm) ‫( ש ‏ר‬pm); 30 93 150 (pm); KG (mlt) ‫ עירי ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ עורים‏‬ketib 4-‫ ל‏‬18-‫( ל‏‬sm) ‫ק‬ ‫( מ ר ‏‬sm) ‫ עירים‏‬qere 4-‫ ל‏‬18-‫( ל‏‬sm) ‫ק‬ ‫( מ ר ‏‬sm) ‫ עורים‏‬K (mlt) ‫ יערים‏‬K (sol) ‫ עברים‏‬96 ‫ ב ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ב ‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬19-‫ ;ר פ ל‏‬150 (pm); KRG (mlt); G-B Kb 13 (‫בהם‏‬

Goshen-Gottstein error?)

‫ הו ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א ;ל ‏‬ ‫( ‏‬pm) ‫ הי ‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫( נ‏ ;ל ‏‬sm) ‫( ‏ר‬pm); 30 93 96 (sm); KG (mlt) ‫( ה ‏‬non voc) 96 (pm) om ‫ם‬ ‫ הי ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫ ענוי ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬96 ‫ עניי ‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬93; KG (mlt); 1QIsaa

‫‪450‬‬

‫‪Appendix 2‬‬

‫)‪(cont.‬‬

‫‪Isaiah‬‬ ‫א ‪ ketib‬וכרמ ‏ל‬ ‫‪; 1QIsaa‬ל ‏‬ ‫א ‪ qere‬והכרמ ‏ל‬ ‫)‪; 30 om 93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt‬ל ‏‬ ‫א ‪ ketib‬חראיה ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫ם ;‪ 93‬ל ‏‬ ‫‪ 150; K; 2 Kgs 18:27‬צ(ו)את ‏‬ ‫א ‪qere‬‏צואתם‬ ‫ם ;‪ketib 93‬‏חוריהם‬ ‫)‪ 96; K (mlt‬ח(ו)ריה ‏‬ ‫ם ;‪ 1QIsaa‬חריהמה‏‬ ‫‪ ketib 2 Kgs 18:27‬חריה ‏‬ ‫)‪ K (sol‬אחריהם‏‬ ‫‪ 1QIsaa; 2 Kgs 18:27‬א שיניהמה ‏ל ‪ ketib‬שיניה ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫א ‪ qere‬מימי רגליהם‏‬ ‫‪; 96 150 KG; 2 Kgs 18:27‬ל ‏‬ ‫ם ‪ qere‬מימי רגליה ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ‫‪ ketib 93‬מימיה שניה ‏‬ ‫)‪ 30 (non voc); KG (mlt‬שניהם‏‬ ‫)‪ qere KRG (mlt‬מימי שניהם‏‬ ‫‪ R‬מי שיניהם‏‬ ‫א ‪ ketib‬ואכו ‏ל‬ ‫‪; 4QIsab‬ל ‏‬ ‫א ‪ qere‬ואכלו‏‬ ‫‪; 93 96 150 (pm); KRG (mlt); 2 Kgs 19:29‬ל ‏‬ ‫‪ 1QIsaa‬ואכול ‏ו‬ ‫)‪ 30; K (mlt‬ואכל‏‬ ‫א ‪ ketib‬נכתה‏‬ ‫‪; 2 Kgs 20:13‬ל ‏‬ ‫א ‪ qere‬נכתו‏‬ ‫‪; 2 Kgs 20:13‬ל ‏‬ ‫)‪ 96 (pm‬נכונתה‏‬ ‫‪ 1QIsaa‬נכתי ‏ו‬ ‫א ‪ ketib‬ונר ‏‬ ‫א‬ ‫‪; 30‬ל ‏‬ ‫א ‪ qere‬ונראה‏‬ ‫‪; 93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt); 1QIsaa‬ל ‏‬ ‫א ‪ ketib‬ראי ‏‬ ‫ת‬ ‫‪; 1QIsaa‬ל ‏‬ ‫א ‪ qere‬ראו ‏‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ש )‪ (pm‬א‏ ;ל ‏‬ ‫‪ (pm); 93 150; KG (mlt); G-B Eb 51‬‏‬ ‫א ‪ ketib‬למשוס ‏‬ ‫ה‬ ‫‪; 1QIsaa‬ל ‏‬ ‫א ‪qere‬‏למשיסה‬ ‫)‪; K (mlt‬פ למש(י)סה‏ ;ל ‏‬ ‫‪; 1QIsaa‬א‏ ; ‏ל ‪ ketib‬יסגו ‏ד‬ ‫‏ל ‪ qere‬יסג ‏ד‬ ‫)‪ 30 (sm‬ויסגד‏‬ ‫‪ 1QIsaa‬מיא את‏י ;‪; KR (mlt); 4QIsab‬א‏ ; ‏ל ‪ ketib‬מי את‏י‬ ‫)‪ ; 30 93 150 (pm); K (mlt‬‏ל ‪ qere‬מאתי‏‬ ‫)‪ 96 (pm‬אתי‏‬

‫‪32:15‬‬ ‫‪36:12‬‬

‫‪36:12‬‬

‫‪37:30‬‬

‫‪39:2‬‬

‫‪41:23‬‬ ‫‪42:20‬‬ ‫‪42:24‬‬ ‫‪44:17‬‬

‫‪44:24‬‬

Qumran Isaiah Scrolls and Ketib-Qere Readings (cont.)

Isaiah 45:2

46:11 47:13

49:5 49:6 49:13

52:2 52:5 52:5 54:16 55:13 56:10

‫ אוש ‏ר‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ אוש[ר‏ ;ל ‏‬1QIsab ‫ איש ‏ר‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ש‏ ;ל ‏‬30 93 96 (sm) 150 (pm); KG (mlt) ‫ ארשך‏‬96 (pm) ‫ אשר‏‬K (sol) ‫ יאוש ‏ר‬1QIsaa ‫ עצת ‏ו‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30; 1QIsaa; 1QIsab; 4QIsad ‫ עצת‏י‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( א‏ ;ל ‏‬pm) ‫ ; ‏ר‬93 96 150; KG (mlt) ‫ הבר ‏ו‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬20-‫ל‏‬ ‫ הברי‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫ ;פ ה(ו)ברי‏‬30 93 96; KG (mlt) ‫ הובר ‏י‬1QIsaa ‫ חבר ‏ו‬20-‫ל‬ ‫ הוברו‏‬150; K ‫ לא‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬4QIsad ‫ לו‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30 93 150; KRG (mlt); 1QIsaa ‫ ונציר ‏י‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsaa; 1QIsab ‫ ונצורי‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( א‏ ;ל ‏‬pm) ‫ ; ‏פ‬30 93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt); G-B Eb 10 ‫ יפצח ‏ו‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬96; G ‫ ופצח ‏ו‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30 (pm) 150; KRG (mlt) ‫ פצחו‏‬KG; 1QIsaa ‫ חתפתח ‏ו‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30; 1QIsaa ‫ חתפתח ‏י‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( א‏ ;ל ‏‬pm) ‫( ‏ל‬pm?); 93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt) ‫ מי ל ‏י‬ketib ‫‏ל‬ ‫ מה לי‏‬qere ‫א ; ‏ל‬ ‫ ; ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ משל ‏ו‬ketib ‫ ;א‏ ; ‏ל‬1QIsaa ‫ משליו‏‬qere ‫‏ל‬ ‫ ה‏ן‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬4QIsac ‫ הנ ‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30 (pm) 93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt); 1QIsaa ‫ תח ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsab ‫ ותח ‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬93 96 150 (pm); KG (mlt); 1QIsaa; 1QIsab ‫ צפ ‏ו‬ketib ‫א ; ‏ל‬ ‫‏‬ ‫ צפיו‏‬qere ‫‏ל‬ ‫ ;צופו ר מ‏‬30 93 150; K (mlt); G-B A 43,1 ‫ צ(ו)פיו‏‬150 (pm); K (mlt); ‫‏צופיו‬1QIsaa

451

452

Appendix 2

(cont.)

Isaiah 57:19 58:14 60:21

62:3 63:9 65:4 65:7

66:17

‫ נו ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬4QIsad ‫ ני ‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ ; ‏פ ;ל ‏‬30 93 96 150 (sm); KG (mlt); 1QIsaa ‫ במות‏י‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ במת‏י‬qere ‫ ; ‏ל‬1QIsab ‫ מטע ‏ו‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫ מטעי‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( א‏ ;ל ‏‬pm) ‫ ; ‏פ‬30 93 96; K (mlt); ‫ה‬ ‫ מטעי והו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ מטעיו‏‬1QIsab ‫ וצנו ‏ף‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬1QIsaa; 1QIsab ‫ וצניף‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( א‏ ;ל ‏‬pm) ‫ ; ‏פ‬93 96 150; KG (mlt) ‫ ל ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30; ‫א‬ ‫ לו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ ל ‏ו‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬96 ‫ ופר ‏‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ק‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30 ‫ ומרק‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫ ; ‏נ ;ל ‏‬93 96; G; 1QIsaa ‫ ע ‏ל‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ל ‏‬ ‫ אל‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( ‏‬pm) ‫( שר ‏ל‬pm); 93 96; K (mlt) ‫ על‏‬or ‫ א ‏ל‬1QIsaa (ʿayin corrected to ʾālep?) ‫ אח ‏ד‬ketib ‫א‬ ‫ ;ל ‏‬30 ‫ אחת‏‬qere ‫א‬ ‫( נ‏ ;ל ‏‬sm) ‫( ‏פ‬sm); 96; KRG (mlt); 1QIsaa; 1QIsab ‫ אח ‏ר‬R (sol)

Appendix 3

“Absolute” Hapax Legomena in Isaiah This appendix1 presents “absolute”2 hapax legomena in the Masoretic Text of Isaiah and compares and contrasts them with the various Qumran Isaiah scrolls that attest these rare forms (i.e., 1QIsaa–b, 4QIsaa–d,f–g). The table is inclusive, setting forth absolute hapax legomena as determined by three scholars: Casanowicz, Cohen, and Greenspahn.3 The readings of the table are summarized as follows: Qumran Isaiah scrolls versus MT. There are eight Qumran Isaiah scrolls—1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsaa, 4QIsab, 4QIsac, 4QIsad, 4QIsaf, 4QIsag—represented in the table. 1QIsaa will be dealt with in the next paragraph. The hapax legomena readings of the other seven scrolls, with only a single exception (see Isa 3:18), are aligned with MT. However, inasmuch as these seven scrolls are substantially fragmented and do not attest the entire Isaianic text, they present a distorted view (more or less) for an analysis of hapax legomena in the entire text of Isaiah. 1QIsaa versus MT. The completeness of 1QIsaa presents a straightforward opportunity to evaluate its hapax legomena versus MT. Of the 108 instances of absolute hapax legomena, 1QIsaa is aligned with MT on eighty occasions; 1QIsaa is nonaligned with MT on thirty-two occasions, and there is one lacuna in the scroll at one point where MT has a hapax legomenon (see 5:13). The thirty-two textual variants have significance to the understanding of the textual history of Isaiah’s writings.

Isaiah

Scholars*

1:6 1:17 1:22 1:23

IC IC IC, HC, FG HC

MT

Qumran Isaiah Scrolls ‫זרו‬ ‫חמו ‏ץ‬ ‫מהול‬ ‫שלמנים‬

= 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa

1  This appendix is adapted from Parry, “Text-Critical Study of Hapax Legomena,” 307–30. 2  Greenspahn wrote that “absolute hapax legomena” are “those words which occur only once and are not related to any other forms,” and “non-absolute hapax legomena” are “words which occur once but are related to other attested forms,” Greenspahn, “Number and Distribution of Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew,” 10. 3  Casanowicz, “Hapax Legomena—Biblical Data,” 226–28; Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic; and Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004412033_006

454

Appendix 3

(cont.)

Isaiah

Scholars

MT

Qumran Isaiah Scrolls

2:16 2:20 3:16 3:16 3:18

HC HC IC, FG IC, HC IC, HC, FG

‫שכיות‬ ‫לחפר פרות‬ ‫ומשקרות‬ ‫וטפף‬ ‫והשביסים‬

3:19 3:24 5:2 5:6 5:7 5:13 5:25 7:19 8:16, 20 9:4 9:17 9:18 10:13 10:15 11:8 11:15 13:21 14:4 14:19 14:23 15:5 17:1 17:6 18:5 18:5 19:3 19:4 19:7 19:9

IC, HC IC, HC, FG IC, HC, FG IC, FG HC FG FG IC, HC, FG HC HC IC, HC, FG FG FG FG HC, FG IC, HC, FG IC, HC FG HC HC FG IC IC, HC IC, HC IC, HC, FG HC HC HC IC, HC

‫והרעלות‬ ‫פתיגיל‬ ‫ויעזקהו‬ ‫בתה‬ ‫משפח‬ ‫צחה‬ ‫כסוחה‬ ‫הבתות‬ ‫תעודה‬ ‫סאון סאן‬ ‫ויתאבכו‬ ‫נעתם‬ ‫שושתי‬ ‫המשור‬ ‫הדה‬ ‫בעים‬ ‫אחים‬ ‫מדהבה‬ ‫מטעני‬ ‫וטאטאתיה‬ ‫יעערו‬ ‫מעי‬ ‫גרגרים‬ ‫הזלזלים‬ ‫התז‬ ‫האטים‬ ‫וסכרתי‬ ‫ערות‬ ‫שריקות‬

= 1QIsaa ‫ לחפרפרים‬1QIsaa = 1QIsaa; 4QIsab ‫ וטופפ‬1QIsaa ‫ והשבישים‬1QIsaa; ‫והשבשים‬ 4QIsab = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫ למשפ ‏‬1QIsaa ‫ח‬ lacuna in 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫ מרהבה‬1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫ וטאטאתי‬1QIsaa ‫ ערו‬1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫גדגרי ‏‬ ‫ם‬ ̇ 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa; 4QIsab = 1QIsaa; 4QIsab = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa; 4QIsab = 1QIsaa

455

“ Absolute ” Hapax Legomena in Isaiah (cont.)

Isaiah

Scholars

19:10 19:14 19:17 22:5 22:18 22:24 24:6 27:4 27:8 27:9 28:10, 13 28:10, 13 28:25 28:28 29:21 30:6 30:24 30:30 32:4 33:1 33:19 33:20 34:14 34:15 36:12

IC FG HC, FG HC IC, HC IC, HC HC FG HC, FG IC, HC, FG HC HC IC, HC, FG FG FG IC, HC IC IC IC, FG IC, FG IC, FG IC, HC, FG IC, HC IC, HC, FG IC

37:30

HC, FG

38:12 38:21

HC HC

MT

Qumran Isaiah Scrolls ‫אגמי‬ ‫עועים‬ ‫לחגא‬ ‫מקרקר‬ ‫כדור‬ ‫והצפעות‬ ‫חרו‬ ‫אציתנה‬ ‫בסאסאה‬ ‫גר‬ ‫צו לצו‬ ‫קו לקו‬ ‫נסמן‬ ‫אדוש‬ ‫יקשון‬ ‫דבשת‬ ‫חמיץ‬ ‫נפץ‬ ‫עלגים‬ ‫כנלתך‬ ‫נועז‬ ‫יצען‬ ‫לילית‬ ‫קפוז‬ ‫ שיניהם‬MTk

= 2 Kgs 18:27 MTk; ‫ מימי רגליהם‬MTq = 2 Kgs 18:27 MTq ‫= שחיס ;סחיש‬ 2 Kgs

‫קפדתי‬ ‫וימרחו‬

= 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa (‫)לחוגה‬ = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa; 4QIsaa; 4QIsaf = 1QIsaa; 4QIsaa = 1QIsaa 4QIsac = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa; 4QIsaf ‫ צי לצי‬1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫ הדש‬1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫ ככלותך‬1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫ ליליות‬1QIsaa ‫ קופד‬1QIsaa 1QIsaa (‫)שיניהמה‬

‫ שעיס‬1QIsaa ‫ ספרתי‬1QIsaa = 1QIsaa; 1QIsab

456

Appendix 3

(cont.)

Isaiah

Scholars

39:2

HC

40:4 40:15 40:20 41:3 41:10 41:23 41:24 42:14 42:14 42:22 44:8 44:13 44:14 44:14 44:18 44:19 46:1, 2 46:8 47:2

MT

Qumran Isaiah Scrolls 2 Kgs 20:13 =

IC IC, HC HC HC HC HC IC, HC, FG HC IC IC IC, FG IC, HC IC, HC, FG IC, HC FG HC HC IC, HC IC

‫נכתה‬ ‫והרכסים‬ ‫כמר‬ ‫המסכן‬ ‫ארח‬ ‫תשתע‬ ‫ונשתעה‬ ‫מאפע‬ ‫אפעה‬ ‫אשם‬ ‫הפח‬ ‫תרהו‬ ‫בשרד‬ ‫תרזה‬ ‫ארן‬ ‫טח‬ ‫לבול‬ ‫קרסו ;קרס‬ ‫והתאששו‬ ‫שבל‬

‫ נכתיו‬1QIsaa

47:13

IC, HC, FG

‫ הברי‬MTq; ‫הברו‬

= 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa; 1QIsab = 1QIsaa; 1QIsab ‫ ונשמעה‬1QIsaa > 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫ אשמה‬1QIsaa; ‫ אשם‬4QIsag = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫ לבלוי‬1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa ‫ שוליך‬1QIsaa; ‫שבל‬ ̇ 1QIsab; 4QIsad ‫ חוברי‬1QIsaa

48:9 48:19 50:4 51:8 51:17, 22 54:8 54:12 55:13 56:10 56:10 57:20

IC, HC, FG HC IC, FG IC, HC, FG HC IC, FG IC, HC IC, HC, FG IC, HC, FG IC, HC, FG IC, HC, FG

‫אחטם‬ ‫כמעתיו‬ ‫לעות‬ ‫סס‬ ‫קבעת‬ ‫בשצף‬ ‫אקדח‬ ‫הסרפד‬ ‫לנבח‬ ‫הזים‬ ‫רפש‬

= 1QIsaa; 4QIsad = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa = 1QIsaa (‫)אוקדח‬ = 1QIsaa; ‫ הסרפד‬1QIsab = 1QIsaa; ‫ לנבח‬1QIsab ‫ חוזים‬1QIsaa; = 1QIsab = 1QIsaa; 1QIsab

MTk

457

“ Absolute ” Hapax Legomena in Isaiah (cont.)

Isaiah

Scholars

59:10 59:10 61:10 63:1 64:1 64:5 66:11 66:11 66:20

HC IC IC, FG HC IC, HC, FG IC, FG HC HC IC, HC

MT

Qumran Isaiah Scrolls ‫נגששה‬1 ‫ נגשש‬1QIsaa ‫באשמנים‬ = 1QIsaa ‫יעטני‬ = 1QIsaa ‫חמוץ‬ = 1QIsaa; 1QIsab ‫המסים‬ ‫עמוסים‬ ̇ 1QIsaa; ‫המ]סים‬ ̊ 1QIsab ‫עדים‬ = 1QIsaa ‫תמצו‬ = 1QIsaa ‫מזיז‬ ‫ ממזוז‬1QIsaa; ‫ מזיז‬1QIsab ‫ = ובכרכרות‬1QIsab; ‫ ובכורכובות‬1QIsaa

* FG = F. Greenspahn; IC = I. M. Casanowicz; HC = Harold R. Cohen

Appendix 4

Corpus-Based Examination of Linguistic Features in MT Isaiah Versus 1QIsaa The data1 is presented in the table as follows: Column 1 of the table presents linguistic features, including adjective, adverb, article, conjunction, directional–hê, interjection, interrogative, negative particle, and others. Column 2 sets forth the number of tokens of each of the linguistic features in MT Isaiah. Adjective, for example, has 721 tokens (i.e., attestations, occurrences) in MT Isaiah, adverb has 553 tokens, article has 774 tokens, and so forth. Column 3 sets forth the hits per thousand words in MT Isaiah. In this study, all texts have been normalized using a frequency per thousand (fpt) technique. Normalization converts the actual token count to a norm for purposes of comparison. The computerized tool that provides the fpt count is Accordance.2 Column 4 sets forth the number of tokens of each of the linguistic features in 1QIsaa. Adjective, for example, has 739 tokens; adverb has 558 tokens. And Column 5 sets forth the hits per thousand words in 1QIsaa.

Linguistic features

MT Isaiah # tokens

Frequency per 1000

1QIsaa # tokens

Frequency per 1000

adjective adverb adverb particle ‫‏נא‬ adverb ‫‏בל‬ article conjunction directional—hê interjection interrogative (several) negative particle

721 553 17 24 774 3,018 23 158 64 446

28.30 21.71 0.67 0.94 30.38 118.47 0.90 6.20 2.51 17.51

739 558 16 25 812 3,176 45 156 71 443

29.01 21.91 0.63 0.98 31.88 124.70 1.77 6.12 2.79 17.39

1  The data for Columns 2–5 was derived from Accordance 11, Version 11.1.2b1 (November 2015), copyright 2015, OakTree Software, Inc. 2  For the data here, see the previous note.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004412033_007

459

Corpus-Based Examination of Linguistic Features (cont.)

Linguistic features

MT Isaiah # tokens

Frequency per 1000

1QIsaa # tokens

Frequency per 1000

noun noun common noun common sg. noun common pl. noun dual noun proper name object marker paragogic–hê paragogic–nûn preposition pronominal suffix pronoun independent pronoun interrogative pronoun relative pronoun

7,797 6,542 4,846 1,566 130 1,255 223 4 39 2,896 2,642 384 294 90 173

306.06 256.80 190.23 61.47 5.10 49.26 8.75 0.16 1.53 113.68 103.71 15.07 11.54 3.53 6.79

7,735 6,438 4,772 1,533 130 1,297 241 10 28 2,915 2,611 385 297 88 173

303.69 252.77 187.36 60.19 5.10 50.92 9.46 0.39 1.10 114.45 102.51 15.12 11.66 3.46 6.79

Verbs

MT Isaiah

Frequency per 1000

1QIsaa

Frequency per 1000

verb perfect imperfect imperative infinitive absolute infinitive construct participle wāw consecutive qal nipʿal piʿel puʿal hipʿil hopʿal hitpaʿel

4,919 1,553 1,533 352 79 316 842 244 3,123 395 406 65 660 33 54

193.09 60.96 60.18 13.82 3.10 12.40 33.05 9.38 122.59 15.51 15.94 2.55 25.91 1.30 2.12

4,943 1,504 1,553 347 64 322 825 240 3,260 372 390 57 685 28 52

194.07 59.05 60.97 13.62 2.51 12.64 32.39 9.42 127.99 14.61 15.31 2.24 26.89 1.10 2.04

Appendix 5

Textual Variants in This Work Not Exhibited in DJD XXXII This chart lists textual variants that are not part of the two textual variant apparatuses of DJD XXXII:1 1QIsaa textual variants (119–93) and 1QIsab textual variants (235–53). The chart’s textual variants belong to two categories: 1) variants that are listed in DJD Tables 4–6, which tables present orthographic deviations.2 While most of the devia‑ tions in Tables 4–6 are indeed orthographic, a few in number may present a textual understanding that goes beyond orthography. In fact, for many of these particular deviations, one or more scholars have proposed that the variants are textual and not orthographic. And 2) variants that are not located either in DJD XXXII Tables 4–6 or in the two textual variant apparatuses. This table lists partial notes; for each entry in this appendix, see full explanatory comments for the same entry in the body of this volume. This appendix does not in‑ clude variants found in 2 Kings or in the following nonbiblical Qumran texts: Isaiah pesharim, CD, 1QS, War Scroll, and 4QTanḥumim. Note also that several of the variants deal with short versus long forms of theophoric names (see below 37:5, 6, 9–10, 14–15, 17, 19, 21).

Variants

Notes

1:3 ‫ קֹנֵ הּו‬MT | ‫ קוניהו‬1QIsaa. See DJD 32:2, See comments at 1:3. Table 6 3:12 ‫ נֹגְ ׇׂשיו‬MT | ‫ נגשו‬1QIsaa. See DJD 32:2, See comments at 3:12. Table 4 3:16 ‫ ְּוב ַרגְ ֵל ֶיהם‬MT | ‫ וברגליהנה‬1QIsaa 3 m. p. suffix (‫ ‑יהם‏‬MT) vs. 3 f. p. suffix (‫ ‑יהנה‏‬1QIsaa) 3:24 ‫ה‬ ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬MT | > 1QIsaa 1  D JD XXXII, Qumran Cave 1 II. The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 2: Introductions, Commentary and Textual Variants. 2  Specifically, Tables 4–6 are as follows: TABLE 4: Orthography Where M Is Longer Than lQ‑ Isaa; TABLE 5: Orthography Where lQIsaa and M Have Alternate Spellings; and TABLE 6: General Orthographic Forms.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004412033_008

Textual Variants in This Work Not Exhibited in DJD XXXII

461

(cont.)

Variants

Notes

5:17 ‫ם‬ ‫ ְכ ׇב ִׂשי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ כבושי ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6

‫“( ְכ ׇב ִׂשים‏‬lambs” MT) vs. ‫ם‬ ‫( כבושי ‏‬qal passive ptc., via √‫ כבש‏‬1QIsaa). Cf. LXX διηρπασμένοι. See Kutscher and Reymond.3 ‫“ ַׁשי‏‬gift”? (i.e., Isa 18:7; Pss 68:30; 76:12); or, copyist was impacted by yôd of previ‑ ous word (‫)בחבלי‏‬. But cf. 59:4, ‫א‬ ‫( שו ‏‬MT) vs. ‫( שו‏‬1QIsaa) See comments at 5:19.

5:18 ‫א‬ ‫ ַה ׇּׁשוְ ‏‬MT | ‫ הש ‏י‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 4

5:19 ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ‏ּו‬MT 4QIsab | ‫ מעשיה ‏ו‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 5:19 ‫ וְ נֵ ׇד ׇעה‏‬MT | ‫ ונד ‏ע‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 4 8:1 ‫ ְל ַמ ֵהר ׇׁש ׇלל ׇחׁש ַּב ‏ז‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫מה ‏ר‬ ‫ שלל חוש בז‬4QIsae 8:7 ‫צּומים וְ ׇה ַר ִּבים‏‬ ִ ‫ ׇה ֲע‬MT | (‫הרבים‏‬ ‫וה[עצומים‬ ֯ ) 4QIsaf 11:3 ‫ ׇאזְ נׇ י ‏ו‬MT | ‫ אוזנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa 11:8 ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇה ׇד ‏‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsab | ‫ה‬ ‫יהד ‏‬ 4QIsac 13:4 ‫ ְמ ַפ ֵּקד‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ מפקי ‏ד‬4QIsab 13:19 ‫ת‬ ‫ ַמ ְמ ׇלֹכו ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ ממלכ ‏‬1QIsaa | ‫ ממלכת ‏ו‬1QIsab See DJD 32:2, Table 4 ‫ תפרא ‏‬1QIsaa 13:19 ‫ת‬ ‫ ִּת ְפ ֶא ֶר ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ 13:19 ‫ת‬ ‫ ְּכ ַמ ְה ֵּפ ַכ ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫כמא ̇פ ̇כ ‏‬ ̇ 1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 5

cohortative ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ נֵ ׇד ׇע ‏‬vs. impf. ‫ונד ‏ע‬ ‫חו ‏‬ two deviations: (1) ‫ מה ‏ר‬vs. ‫( ; ְל ַמ ֵה ‏ר‬2) ‫ש‬ inf. or impv.? See Roberts.4 Or, is ‫ש‬ ‫חו ‏‬ ortho. variant? syntactic variegation See the comments at 11:3. qal pf. vs. qal impf. √‫—פקד‏‬piʿel vs. more common hipʿil 3 m. s. suffix on 1QIsab metathesis of ʾālep and rêš (‫)תפראת‏‬, an unintelligible reading 1QIsaa reads ‫( כמאפכת‏‬superscript ʾālep) in 1:7 and ‫כמא ̇פ ̇כת‏‬ ̇ in 13:19; scribe employed the alternate √‫אפך‏‬, which is well attested in Aramaic (see Sokoloff)5

3  See Kutscher, 247; and Reymond, 139–140. 4  Roberts, 128. 5  See Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 71; Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 156–57; see also Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 251.

462

Appendix 5

(cont.)

Variants

Notes

14:19 ‫ֹיור ֵד ‏י‬ ְ MT | ‫ יורד ‏ו‬1QIsaa

1QIsaa (‫ )יורדו‏‬is unintelligible; likely an error (e.g., graphic similarity of yôd and wāw) 1QIsaa (‫)צעור‏‬, an error of metath‑ esis? or, evidence of an Aramaism? (see Ben-Hayyim)6 See comments at 16:12. 1QIsaa scribe first wrote ‫מצע ‏ר‬, and then he or a subsequent copyist added a super‑ script zayin and perhaps blotted out the ṣādê? (see UF 2:104) sg. vs. pl. qal impf. third m. sg. vs. qal pf. third m. sg.

15:5 ‫ צ ַֹע ‏ר‬MT | þ‫ צעור‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 16:12 ‫ ִמ ְק ׇּדֹׁשו‏‬MT | ‫ מקדשי ‏ו‬1QIsaa 16:14 ‫ ִמזְ ׇער‏‬MT | ‫ מצזע ‏ר‬1QIsaa

18:6 ‫ת‬ ‫ ֶּב ֱה ַמ ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ בהמו ‏‬1QIsaa 19:7 ‫ יִ ַיבׁש‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ ‫ יב ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 4 19:9 ‫ וְ א ְֹרגִ ים‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ ארגי ‏‬1QIsab 19:10 ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇׁשת ֶֹתי ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שותתי ‏‬1QIsaa

19:13 ‫ֹנואלּו‏‬ ֲ MT | ‫ נאול ‏ו‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 5 19:16 ‫ ׇע ׇליו‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עלי ‏‬1QIsaa 21:4 ‫ ִח ְׁש ִק ‏י‬MT | ‫ השקי‬1QIsaa

conjunction wāw (a) 1QIsaa’s ‫ה‬ ‫ שותתי ‏‬suggests that the copy‑ ist read “her drinkers.” Did the scribe read ‫ שכ ‏ר‬as ‫“( ֵׁש ׇכ ‏ר‬strong drink”? Cf. LXX, τὸν ζῦθον = ‫ ; ֵׁש ׇכר‏‬Syr) rather than ‫“( ֶׂש ֶכ ‏ר‬wages” MT). (See Tov and Talmon).7 (b) Or, ‫ שותתי ‏‬sets forth “her weavers” (cf. LXX, ‫ה‬ διαζόμενοι), a reading that Barthélemy finds acceptable.8 See comments at 19:13. third m. sg. vs. third f. sg. suffix 1QIsaa’s hê instead of a ḥêt—phonological error or a mishap based on the semblance of the two letters?

6  Ben-Hayyim, Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language, discusses several possible Aramaisms, 89–90. 7  See also the discussion in Talmon, “DSIa as a Witness to the Ancient Exegesis,” 66–67; see also, Tov, Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint, 122–23. 8  Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:139–41.

Textual Variants in This Work Not Exhibited in DJD XXXII

463

(cont.)

Variants

Notes

21:7 ‫ ֶר ֶכ ‏ב‬2 MT 4QIsaa (‫רכ[ב‏‬ ̇ )|‫ב‬ ‫רוכ ‏‬ 1QIsaa 21:7 ‫ ֶר ֶכ ‏ב‬3 MT | ‫ רוכ ‏ב‬1QIsaa

‫ב‬ ‫“( ֶר ֶכ ‏‬chariot”) vs. ‫רוכ ‏ב‬, qal m. sg. ptc.

(“rider”) ‫“( ֶר ֶכב‏‬chariot”) vs. ‫רוכ ‏ב‬, qal m. sg. ptc. (“rider”) ‫“( ֶר ֶכב‏‬chariot”) vs. ‫רוכ ‏ב‬, qal m. sg. ptc. (“rider”) See comments at 21:12.

21:9 ‫ ֶר ֶכ ‏ב‬MT | ‫ רוכ ‏ב‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 21:12 ‫ ִּת ְב ׇעיּו‏ן‬MT | ‫ תבעו‏ן‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 4 21:12 ‫ ְּב ׇעיּו‏‬MT | ‫ בע ‏ו‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, See comments at 21:12. Table 4 21:15 ‫ת‬ ‫ ֲח ׇרֹבו ‏‬MT 4QpIsae | ‫ת‬ ‫ הרבו ‏‬1QIsaa ‫“( ֲח ׇרֹבות‏‬the swords”) versus ‫ת‬ ‫“( הרבו ‏‬the many”; cf. also LXX); 1QIsaa is likely a mishap based on the graphically similar hê for ḥêt. 22:16 ‫ה־ּל ‏ָך‬ ְ ‫ ַמ‬MT | ‫ מהל ‏ך‬1QIsaa ‫ה־ּל ‏ך‬ ְ ‫ ַמ‬parallels ‫ ִמי ְל ‏ָך‬in the bicolon. 1QIsaa’s ‫ מהלך‏‬is not a piʿel ptc. derived from √‫ ;הלך‏‬rather, the scribe failed to properly divide the words. 22:17 ‫ ּגׇ ֶב ‏ר‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ גבו ‏ר‬1QIsab noun ‫“( ּגׇ ֶבר‏‬man”) vs. adj. ‫“( גבור‏‬mighty”) 22:21 ‫ ֻּכ ׇּתנְ ֶּת ‏ָך‬MT | ‫כתנותך‬ ‫̇‏‬ 1QIsaa See DJD sg. vs. pl. 32:2, Table 6 4QIsaa’s perplexing ‫“( יוא ‏ר‬will be cursed”, 23:3 ‫ יְ ֹאו ‏ר‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ יוא ‏ר‬4QIsaa see Num 22:6) makes no sense here; it is likely a transposition of ʾālep and wāw. 23:7 ‫ּה‬ ‫ה | ַק ְד ׇמ ׇת ‏‬ ‫ קדמות ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD ‫ת‬ ‫( קדמו ‏‬1QIsaa), vocalized as ‫ת‬ ‫)?( ַק ְדמּו ‏‬, is 32:2, Table 6 not attested in MT, although the suffix ‫ת‬ ‫‑ּו ‏‬ is common for other words (i.e., ‫ת‬ ‫) ַמ ְלכּו ‏‬. According to Kutscher, the form ‫קדמות‏‬ was influenced by Aramaic dialects, which attest ‫ת‬ ‫קדמו ‏‬, ‫ת‬ ‫קדמיו ‏‬, and ‫ת‬ ‫קדימו ‏‬.9 It is also possible that the scroll sets forth the pl., similar to that of Ezek 36:11 (‫ֹמות ֶיכם‏‬ ֵ ‫) ְּכ ַק ְד‬.

9  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 383–84.

464

Appendix 5

(cont.)

Variants

Notes

23:7 ‫ק‬ ‫ק | ֵמ ׇרֹחו ‏‬ ‫ מרח ‏‬See DJD 32:2, Table 4

(a) an orthographic variant (although generally 1QIsaa attests plene spelling, e.g., ‫( ;)רחוק‏‬b) or, ‫ מרחק‏‬should be read as a noun, vocalized as ‫ק‬ ‫ ֶּמ ְר ׇח ‏‬. See comments at 24:6.

24:6 ‫ ׇחרּו‏‬MT | ‫ חור ‏ו‬1QIsaa 4QIsac See DJD 32:2, Table 6 24:13 ‫ ְּכנ ֶֹק ‏ף‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ כנקו ‏ף‬4QIsac 26:11 ‫ה‬ ‫ ׇר ׇמ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫ רומ ‏‬4QIsab 27:1 ‫ח‬ ‫ ׇּב ִר ַ ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ בור ‏‬1QIsaa 27:10 ‫ה‬ ‫ נׇ וֶ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ה‬ ‫נהו֯ ֯ ‏‬ ̇ 4QIsaf 28:5 ‫ת‬ ‫ וְ ִל ְצ ִפ ַיר ‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ ‫ ולצפירו ‏‬1QIsaa 28:25 ‫ ּגְ ֻב ׇלֹתו‏‬MT | ‫ גבולות ‏ו‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 29:8 ‫ֹׁשוק ׇקה‏‬ ֵ MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שקי ֹק ‏‬1QIsaa 29:20 ‫ ֵל ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ לי ‏ץ‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 30:14 ‫א‬ ‫ ִמּגֶ ֶב ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ מגב ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 5 30:23 ‫ נִ ְר ׇח ‏ב‬MT | ‫ נרה ‏ב‬1QIsaa

30:24 ‫ ׇח ִמי ‏ץ‬MT | ‫ חמ ‏ץ‬1QIsaa 30:28 ‫ ְל ׇחיֵ ‏י‬MT | ‫ לוחיי‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 30:29 ‫ה‬ ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ והי ‏‬1QIsaa 31:4 ‫ ׇע ׇלי ‏ו‬MT | ‫ אלי ‏ו‬1QIsaa

33:7 ‫ ׇצ ֲעקּו‏‬MT | ‫ זעק ‏ו‬1QIsaa

See comments at 24:13. ‫( רמה‏‬qal pf.) vs. ‫ה‬ ‫( רומ ‏‬qal impv., passive ptc., or ortho.?) adj. (‫ ׇּב ִרח‏‬, cf. Job 26:13) vs. qal ptc. (‫)בורח‏‬ hê of ‫נהו֯ ֯ה‏‬ ̇ is inexplicable sg. vs. pl. sg. vs. pl. qal ptc. f. sg. vs. a qal passive ptc. f. sg.? See comments at 29:20. See comments at 30:14. confusion of the letters hê and ḥêt, a phonological error, or weakening of the pharyngeals? See comments at 30:24. See comments at 30:28. qal pf. vs. impf. 1QIsaa copyist first wrote ʿayin (‫ )עליו‏‬and then wrote an ālep over the ʿayin (‫)אליו‏‬. ‫א ‏ל‬ and ‫ על‏‬interchanges may be errors con‑ nected with phonology, graphic similarity, or, impacted by Aramaic. Cf. also deviations of √‫ זעק‏‬and √‫ צעק‏‬in 42:2; 46:7; and 65:14.√‫ זעק‏‬is used more often in LBH (see Kutscher10 and Rooker11

10  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 233. 11  Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 134–38.

Textual Variants in This Work Not Exhibited in DJD XXXII

465

(cont.)

Variants

Notes

33:21 ‫ט‬ ‫ ַׁשיִ ‏‬MT | ‫ט‬ ‫ ש ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 4 33:24 ‫ ׇׁש ֵכ‏ן‬MT | ‫ שוכ‏ן‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 34:11 ‫ תֹה ‏ו‬MT | ‫ ותה ‏ו‬1QIsaa 34:12 ‫ ׇׁשם‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa 34:13 ‫ ׇח ִצי ‏ר‬MT | ‫ חצ ‏ר‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 4

See comments at 33:21. See comments at 33:24.

conjunction wāw adverbial particle with locative hê ‫“( ׇח ִצי ‏ר‬grass”) vs. ‫“( חצר‏‬court”); cf. pro‑ posed emendation to ‫( חצ ‏ר‬Oort, Dillmann, and Kutscher)12 34:15 ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa adverbial particle with locative hê 35:9 ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa adverbial particle with locative hê 36:2 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ חזקי ‏‬1QIsaa (also 36:7, during LBH period, theophoric names cus‑ 16, 18, 22; 37:10, 14 [bis], 15) tomarily featured shorter forms, ‫ ‑יה‏‬versus ‫( ‑יה ‏ו‬Qimron, et al.)13 36:2 ‫ ְׂש ֵדה‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:17 | ‫ שד ‏י‬1QIsaa pl. vs. sg. (cf. 7:3; 36:2) See DJD 32:2, Table 5 36:18 ‫ ֶאת‏‬MT | > 1QIsaa accusative marker 36:21 ‫א‬ ‫ ִהי ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:36 | ‫ה‬ ‫ הי ‏‬1QIsaa “weakening of the gutturals” (see Qimron See DJD 32:2, Table 5 and Reymond14); cf. 7:14; 30:33 36:22 ‫ וְ ֶׁש ְבנׇ א‏‬MT 2 Kgs 18:37 | ‫א‬ ‫ושובנ ‏‬ for the /o/ vowel reading of ‫ושובנא‏‬, 1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 cf. ‫ קובר ‏ך‬in 14:19. See also ‫א‬ ‫שובנ ‏‬ (1QIsaa 36:3; 37:2) and ‫ם‬ ‫צובי ‏‬ (1QIsaa 66:20) 37:5 ‫ ִחזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬MT 2 Kgs 19:5 | ‫ה‬ ‫יחוזקי ‏‬ short vs. long theophoric names; see 1QIsaa (also 37:9; 38:2–3, 5; 39:2–5, 8) entry 36:2. For discussion of the forms of Hezekiah, see Beegle15 and Weinberg.16 12  Oort, Textus Hebraici Emendationes, 100; Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 237–38; Dillmann, too, emended the text to ‫‏חצר‬, Der Prophet Jesaia, 305. 13  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 94: “The suffix ‫ ‏‑יה‬is the post-exilic parallel of the classical theophoric form ‫ ;”‏‑יהו‬for a brief examination of theophoric names in MT ver‑ sus 1QIsaa, see Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” 39; Kutscher, History of the Hebrew Language, 60–61, 94; Tov, TCHB3, 106; and Sáenz-Badillos, History of the Hebrew Language, 121, 134. 14  Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 26. More recently, Reymond has developed and fine-tuned a study of the weakening of the gutturals; see Reymond, Qumran Hebrew, 71–77. 15  Beegle, “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll,” 28–29. 16  Weinberg, “Some Problems of the Masorah on Isaiah,” 111–16.

466

Appendix 5

(cont.)

Variants

Notes

37:5 ‫ יְ ַׁש ְעיׇ הּו‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:5 | ‫ ישעיה‏‬1QIsaa (also 37:6, 21; 38:4; 39:5) 37:17 ‫ּוׁש ׇמע‏‬ ְ MT 2 Kgs 19:16 | ‫ה‬ ‫ושמע ‏‬ 1QIsaa 37:19 ‫ה‬ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵׂש ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:18 | ‫מעש ‏י‬ 1QIsaa ִ ‫ ֶא‬MT 2 Kgs 19:20 | ‫ע ‏ל‬ 37:21 ‫ל־חזְ ִקּיׇ ה ‏ּו‬ ‫ יחוזקיה‬1QIsaa

short vs. long theophoric name; see entry 36:2. long impv. (‫ )ושמעה‏‬vs. short impv. (‫ּוׁש ׇמע‏‬ ְ ), see Muraoka.17 sg. vs. pl.

37:34 ‫ּה‬ ‫ ׇּב ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:33 | ‫ה‬ ‫ בא ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 37:38 ‫ת‬ ‫ ֵּבי ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:37 | ‫ת‬ ‫ בבי ‏‬1QIsaa‫‏‬

‫ אל‏‬and ‫ ע ‏ל‬interchanges (see entry 31:4). Short vs. long theophoric name; see entry 36:2. ‫ ואכרותה‏‬indicates a cohortative or impf. with a third f. sg. suffix, “I will cut it.” Given the context, the later reading is improbable. ‫ה‬ ‫ ואחריב ‏‬indicates a cohortative or impf. with a third f. sg. suffix; the later reading is improbable. Kutscher18 and PQ transcribe the scroll’s reading as ‫ ;קצר ‏ו‬UF transcribe ‫קצר ‏י‬. If the reading is indeed ‫( קצרו‏‬via √‫קצר‏‬, “to harvest”), then a scribe either erred due to confusion of the graphical set wāw/ yôd or the context, e.g., ‫“( עשב‏‬grass”), ‫ה‬ ‫שד ‏‬ (“field”), ‫“( דשא‏‬grass”), and ‫“( חצי ‏ר‬grass”), encouraged him to write ‫קצר ‏ו‬, “they harvested.” 1QIsaa copyist was impacted by previous word, i.e., ‫ה‬ ‫בא בא ‏‬ ‫ ֵּבית‏‬vs. ‫ת‬ ‫ בבי ‏‬with the preposition bêt (‫)בבית‏‬

39:2 ‫ ֶמ ְמ ַׁש ְלֹּת ‏ו‬MT 2 Kgs 20:13 | ‫ממלכת ‏ו‬ 1QIsaa

‫ ממשלה‏‬and ‫ה‬ ‫ ממלכ ‏‬are synonymous; see Tov19

37:24 ‫ת‬ ‫ וְ ֶא ְכר ֹ ‏‬MT 2 Kgs 19:23 | ‫ה‬ ‫ואכרות ‏‬ 1QIsaa

37:25 ‫ וְ ַא ְח ִר ‏ב‬MT 2 Kgs 19:24 | ‫ה‬ ‫ואחריב ‏‬ 1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 37:27 ‫ ִק ְצ ֵר ‏י‬MT 2 Kgs 19:26 | ‫ קצר ‏ו‬1QIsaa

17  See the discussion on the long imperatives in Muraoka, “Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 196. 18  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 318. 19  Tov, TCHB3, 257; see also Talmon, “Synonymous Readings,” 335–83.

Textual Variants in This Work Not Exhibited in DJD XXXII

467

(cont.)

Variants

Notes

39:7 ‫ יִ ׇּקח ‏ּו‬MT 1QIsaa 4QIsab | ‫ח‬ ‫ יִ ׇּק ‏‬MTket 2 Kgs 20:18 | ‫ יִ ׇּקח ‏ּו‬MTqere 2 Kgs 20:18 ‫ עולו ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 40:11 ‫ ׇעֹלות‏‬MT | ‫ת‬ 32:2, Table 6

sg. vs. pl. verb

41:14 ‫ וְ ג ֲֹא ֵל ‏ְך‬MT | 1QIsaa ‫ה‬ ‫וגואלכ ‏‬ 41:15 ‫ ַׂש ְמ ִּתי ‏ְך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמתיכ ‏‬1QIsaa 41:19 ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇא ִׂשי ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ אשימ ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 41:24 ‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6

41:26 ‫ם‬ ‫ּומ ְּל ׇפנִ י ‏‬ ִ MT | ‫ מלפנים‬1QIsaa 41:29 ‫ ֵה‏ן‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 42:13 ‫יח‬ ‫ ַאף־יַ ְצ ִר ַ ‏‬MT | ‫ח‬ ‫ אפיצרי ‏‬1QIsaa 43:2 ‫ׁש‬ ‫ֹמו־א ‏‬ ֵ ‫ ְּב‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ש‬ ‫[ב]מוא ‏‬ 1QIsab 44:5 ‫ יׇ ֹד ‏ו‬MT | ‫ ידוה‏י‬1QIsaa

44:9 ‫ ַּוב ‏ל‬MT | ‫ ב ‏ל‬1QIsaa 44:11 ‫ ֲח ֵב ׇרי ‏ו‬MT | ‫ חוברי ‏ו‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 44:11 ‫ יַ ֲעמֹדּו‏‬MT | ‫ ועמוד ‏ו‬1QIsaa

vs. MT’s qal f. pl. ptc. √‫“ ׇעֹלות‏( עול‏‬young”), 1QIsaa has an ortho. variant, √‫“( עלה‏‬to go up”) or ‫“( עו ‏ל‬infant”); for this last form, see Kutscher.20 f. sg. vs. m. sg. pronominal suffix f. sg. vs. m. sg. pronominal suffix lengthened impf. on the scroll, with the at‑ tached hê (pseudo-cohortative) that lacks a cohortative meaning for presentative exclamations, 1QIsaa generally reads the more common ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬ vs. MT’s ‫ה‏ן‬, thus indicating (a) a different scribal school; (b) the Vorlage of the scroll read ‫ה‬ ‫ ;הנ ‏‬or (c) the 1QIsaa scribe had a tendency to popularize ‫ ה‏ן‬to read ‫ה‬ ‫הנ ‏‬. conjunction wāw see entry 41:24 improper division of words improper division of words or stylistic difference the suffixal ending ‫‑ה‏י‬, an Aramaic form, is used by the 1QIsaa scribe(s) on sixteen occasions (see Abegg in UF 2:41) conjunction wāw noun ‫ ׇח ֵבר‏‬vs. ‫חוברי ‏ו‬, a qal ptc. or a noun meaning “magician” (cf. Deut 18:11; Ps 58:6) qal pf. vs. impf.

20  Kutscher, Language and Linguistic Background, 381.

468

Appendix 5

(cont.)

Variants

Notes

44:26 ‫ּתּוׁש ‏ב‬ ‫ ׇ‬MT | ‫ב‬ ‫ תש ‏‬1QIsaa 1QIsab See DJD 32:2, Table 4 45:18 ‫ הּוא‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ והוא ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 ‫ ימו ‏‬1QIsaa 46:7 ‫ׁש‬ ‫ ִיׇמי ‏‬MT | ‫ש‬ 48:4 ‫ ׇע ְר ֶּפ ‏ָך‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ עורפך ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6

hopʿal ‫ּתּוׁשב‏‬ ‫( ׇ‬via √‫ )ישב‏‬vs. qal ‫ב‬ ‫( תש ‏‬also via √‫)ישב‏‬ morphological element indicates Qumran scribal practice (see Tov21) hipʿil (‫ ) ִיׇמיׁש‏‬vs. qal (‫)ימוש‏‬ inexplicably, 1QIsaa copyist wrote a hê at the end of the line, immediately after writ‑ ing ‫( עורפך‏‬see col. XL, line 9). conjunction wāw for ‫חרב‏‬, MT and 1QIsaa (a secondary, su‑ perscripted character) attest a kāp, while 1QIsab has a bêt. syntactical variation, transposition of words see entry 41:24

48:16 ‫ ִׁש ְמע ‏ּו‬MT | ‫ ושמע ‏ו‬1QIsaa 49:2 ‫ ְּכ ֶח ֶר ‏ב‬MT 1QIsaa (‫̇בחר ‏ב | )כחרב‏‬ 1QIsab 49:12 ‫ה‬ ‫ּומּיׇ ם וְ ֵא ֶּל ‏‬ ִ MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ואלה מי] ‏‬ 4QIsad 49:21 ‫ ֵהן‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 49:22 ‫ה‬ ‫ ֲאד ֹנׇ י יְ הוִ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬1QIsaa 49:22 ‫ם‬ ‫ ַע ִּמי ‏‬MT | ‫ם‬ ‫ העמי ‏‬1QIsaa 50:2 ‫ הן‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ הנ ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 ֵ ‫ ְּכ‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ̇כמוכ‏ן‬1QIsab 51:6 ‫ֹמו־כ‏ן‬ 51:22 ‫אֹלהיִ ‏ְך‬ ַ ֵ‫ ו‬MT | ‫ אלוהי ‏ך‬1QIsaa 51:23 > MT | + ‫ ומעני ‏ך‬1QIsaa

1QIsaa lacks ‫אדנ‏י‬, perhaps a harmoniza‑ tion with v. 23, where only ‫ה‬ ‫ יהו ‏‬is attested. article hê see entry 41:24 ‫“( כמו כן‏‬in like manner”) or ‫ ̇כמוכ‏ן‬, an im‑ proper division of words conjunction wāw a form of dittography in 1QIsaa (‫מוגיך‏‬ ‫ ;ומעניך‬because of the graphic similarity of the two words: ‫ מ‏—ניך‏‬and ‫ )מ‏—גי ‏ך‬or pos‑ sibly haplography in MT.22 Cf. LXX (τῶν ταπεινωσάντων σε).23

21  For an overview and evidence, see Tov, Scribal Practices, 337–43. 22  See the arguments in Barthélemy et al., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 2:377; and contrast Oswalt, Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 351n87, who writes that “MT is both shorter and harder.… MT seems preferable.” 23  The scholars include Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 148; Duhm, Buch Jesaia, 389; Marti, Buch Jesaja, 342; and Whitehouse, Isaiah, 2:185. Some critics, however, maintain that G sets forth a nonoriginal plus; these include Wade, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 332; and Volz, Jesaia II, 117.

Textual Variants in This Work Not Exhibited in DJD XXXII

469

(cont.)

Variants

Notes

52:4 ‫ם‬ ‫ ׇׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ שמ ‏‬1QIsaa 52:5 ‫מׁשֹל ‏ו‬ ְ MTket 1QIsaa | ‫ משלי ‏ו‬MTqere‫‏‬ 52:11 ‫ם‬ ‫ ִמ ׇּׁש ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ משם ‏‬1QIsaa ֹ ‫ ְמ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ מואד ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD 52:13 ‫א ‏ד‬ 32:2, Table 6 53:3 ‫ ְּוכ ַמ ְס ֵּת ‏ר‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ וכמסתי ‏ר‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 53:12 ‫ יַ ְפּגִ ַיע‏‬MT 1QIsab (‫יפגיע‏‬ ֯ ) | ‫יפג ‏ע‬ 1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 4 54:12 ‫בּול ‏ְך‬ ֵ ְ‫ ּג‬MT | ‫ גבולי ‏ך‬1QIsaa See DJD 32:2, Table 6 54:13 ‫ וְ ַר ‏ב‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ורו ‏ב‬4QIsac 55:2 ‫ֹמוע‬ ‫ ׇׁש ַ ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫א‬ ‫ שמעו ‏‬1QIsaa • See DJD 32:2, Table 6

adverbial particle with locative hê m. sg. ptc. (‫מׁשֹלו‏‬ ְ ) vs. m. pl. ptc. (‫)משליו‏‬ adverbial particle with locative hê locative termination on the adverbial ‫מואדה‏‬ noun ‫ מסת ‏ר‬vs. the hipʿil ptc. ‫מסתי ‏ר‬ hipʿil impf. vs. qal impf. (qal √‫ פגע‏‬is more common in BH) sg. vs. pl. noun adjective ‫ רב‏‬vs. noun ‫רו ‏ב‬ ‫ שמעו ‏‬consists of a dittography of the ‫א‬ previous word ‫‏שמעו שמעוא‬, with an ʾālep added at the end.

55:3 ‫ּות ִחי‏‬ ְ MT 1QIsab 4QIsac ‫ה | ותח] ‏י‬ ‫ ותחי ‏‬qal jussive vs. qal impf. For 1QIsaa’s ‫ותחיה‏‬, 1QIsaa an inexplicable blotch of ink partially covers the second hê (see XLV, line 22)—a crude erasure? 57:3 ‫ה‬ ‫ וַ ִּתזְ נֶ ‏‬MT | ‫ ותזנ ‏ו‬1QIsaa qal impf. sg. vs. qal impf. pl. 58:3 ‫ם‬ ‫ ַע ְּצ ֵב ֶיכ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ם‬ ‫ עצבכ ‏‬1QIsab pl. vs. sg. noun See DJD 32:2, Table 3 59:5 ‫ה‬ ‫ ֶא ְפ ֶע ‏‬MT 1QIsab | ‫ אפ ‏ע‬1QIsaa See ‫“( ֶא ְפ ֶע ‏‬viper”) vs. ‫“( אפ ‏ע‬nothing”); alter‑ ‫ה‬ DJD 32:2, Table 4 natively, 1QIsaa misspelled ‫ אפעה‏‬or was impacted by the ʿayin of the previous word, e.g., ‫‏תבקע אפע‬. 59:7 ‫ם‬ ‫ֹּלות ‏‬ ‫ ִּב ְמ ִס ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ במסלותיהמ ‏‬1QIsaa short ending ‑otam vs. long suffix ‑oteyhem. Cf. also 59:7 and 66:4 59:8 ‫ם‬ ‫ֹלות ‏‬ ‫ ְּב ַמ ְעּגְ ׇ‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ במעגלותיהמ ‏‬1QIsaa see entry 59:7 61:5 ‫ם‬ ‫ ִא ׇּכ ֵר ֶיכ ‏‬MT 1QIsaa | ‫ ֯אכרי ֹ֯ה ֯ם‬4QIsam second ms. pl. vs. third ms. pl. suffix 61:7 ‫ם‬ ‫ ֶח ְל ׇק ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ חלקכמ ‏‬1QIsaa See DJD third pl. suffix vs. second pl. suffix 32:2, Table 6 66:1 ‫ה‬ ‫ וְ ֵאי־זֶ ה … ֵאי־זֶ ‏‬MT | ‫ה‬ ‫ואיזה … איז ‏‬ deviations are not textual variants but 1QIsaa 1QIsab stylistic differences.

Selected Bibliography Abegg, Martin G. “1QIsaa and 1QIsab: A Rematch.” Pages 221–28 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Hampton Court, Herefordshire, 18–21 June 2000. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library and Oak Knoll, in Association with the Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 325–58 in vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Abegg, Martin G., Jr. “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls.” Pages 25–41 in Qumran Cave 1. Volume 2: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint. DJD 32. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010. Abegg, Martin G., Jr., Peter W. Flint, and Eugene C. Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time in English. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999. Albright, William F. “The High Place in Ancient Palestine.” Pages 242–58 in Volume du congrès pour l’étude de l’Ancien Testament: Strasbourg, 1956. Edited by P. A. H. de Boer. VTSup 4. Leiden: Brill, 1957. The Aleppo Codex. Jerusalem: Magnes / The Hebrew University, 1976. Allegro, John M. “Commentary on Isaiah (A–E).” Pages 11–30 and Pls. IV–IX in Qumran Cave 4. I (4Q158–4Q186). DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Allegro, John M. “Meaning of ‫‏בין‬in Isaiah XLIV, 4.” ZAW 63 (1951): 154–56. Bahar, Shlomo. “Two Forms of the Root nwp in Isaiah X 32.” VT 43 (1993): 403–5. Bailey, Daniel P. “The Intertextual Relationship of Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26:19: Evidence from Qumran and the Greek Versions.” Tyndale Bulletin 51 (2000): 305–8. Baillet, Maurice. “Commentaire d’Isaïe.” Pages 95–96 and Pl. XVIII, no. 4 in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Baltzer, Klaus. Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Barré, Michael L. “Restoring the ‘Lost’ Prayer in the Psalm of Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:16– 17b).” JBL 114 (1995): 385–99. Barrera, Julio T. The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Barrick, W. B. “The Rich Man from Arimathea (Matt 27:57–60) and 1QIsaa.” JBL 96 (1977): 235–39.

Selected Bibliography

471

Barthélemy, Dominique. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations. OBO 50.2. Fribourg: Éditiones Universitaires and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Barthélemy, Dominique. “Isaïe.” Pages 66–68 and plate XII in Qumran Cave I. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Józef T. Milik. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Barthélemy, Dominique. Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. Vol. 3 of Textual Criticism and the Translator. Translated by Sarah Lind. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Beegle, Dewey M. “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll.” BASOR 123 (Oct. 1951): 26–30. Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000. Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev. Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language. Madrid-Barcelona: Instituto Arias Montano, 1954. Biblia Hebraica. Edited by Rudolf Kittel. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905–1906. Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Adreian Schenker et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004–. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Blank, Sheldon H. Introductions and Critical Notes to the Portions of Isaiah 1–39. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, 1945. Blank, Sheldon H. Text Notes on Isaiah 40–66. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College, 1939. Blau, Joshua. “Hobere samajim (Jes XLVII 13) = Himmelsanbeter?” VT 7 (1957): 183–84. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1–39. Anchor Bible 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55. Anchor Bible 19a. New York: Doubleday, 2002. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 56–66. Anchor Bible 19b. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Bonnard, Pierre E. Le second Isaïe: son disciple et leurs éditeurs. Isaïe 40–66. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972. Box, G. H. The Book of Isaiah. New York: Macmillan, 1909. Brayley, I. “Yahweh Is the Guardian of His Plantation: A Note on Is. 60:21.” Bib 41 (1960): 275–86. Brock, Sebastian P., ed. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version, Part III Fasc. 1: Isaiah. Vetus Testamentum Syriace III:1. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Brockington, Leonard H. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament: The Readings Adopted by the Translators of the New English Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973. Brooke, George J. “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?” Pages 85–100 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. F. Stinespring. Scholars Press Homage Series 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Brooke, George J. Exegesis at Qumran. 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context. JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.

472

Selected Bibliography

Brooke, George J. “Isaiah 40:3 and the Wilderness Community.” Pages 117–32 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Brooke, George J. “Isaiah at Qumran: Updating W. H. Brownlee’s The Meaning of the Qumrân Scrolls for the Bible.” Occasional Papers, no. 46. Claremont, CA: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. 2004. Brooke, George J. “Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts.” Pages 609–32 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. 2 vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Brooke, George J. “On Isaiah at Qumran.” Pages 109–37 in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL. Edited by Claire M. McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull. SBL Symposium Series 27. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Brooke, George J. “The Qumran Pesharim and the Text of Isaiah in the Cave 4 Manuscripts.” Pages 304–20 in Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman. Edited by Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg. JSOTSup 333. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Brownlee, William H. “The Manuscripts of Isaiah from Which DSIa Was Copied.” BASOR 127 (1952): 16–21. Brownlee, William H. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. With Special Attention to the Book of Isaiah. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Brownlee, William H. “The Servant of the Lord in the Qumran Scrolls.” BASOR 132 (1953): 8–15; BASOR 135 (1954): 33–38. Brownlee, William H. “The Text of Isaiah VI 13 in the Light of DSIa.” VT 1 (1951): 296–98. Broyles, Craig C., and Craig A. Evans, eds. Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. 2 vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Burrows, M. The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. Vol. 1 of The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950–1951. Burrows, M. “Orthography, Morphology, and Syntax of the St. Mark’s Isaiah Manuscript.” JBL 68 (1949): 195–211. Burrows, M. “Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript.” BASOR 111 (Oct. 1948): 16–24; BASOR 113 (Feb. 1949): 24–32. Büttner, Cyrill von. “A Note on ‫ מטלים‬in the Great Isaiah Scroll (Isa 50:6).” RevQ 27 (2015): 137–45. Büttner, Cyrill von. “What Does ydw’ ḥly Mean? Notes on Isa 53,3.” Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 17 (2014): 65–78.

Selected Bibliography

473

Carmignac, Jean. “Six passages d’Isaïe éclairés par Qumran.” Pages 37–46 in Bibel und Qumran: Festschrift für Hans Bardtke. Edited by S. Wagner and Hans Bardtke. Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968. Casanowicz, I. M. “Hapax Legomena—Biblical Data.” Jewish Encyclopedia 6 (1904): 226–28. Chamberlain, John V. “The Functions of God as Messianic Titles in the Complete Qumran Isaiah Scroll.” VT 5 (1955): 366–72. Charlesworth, James H. “Intertextuality: Isaiah 40:3 and the Serek ha-Yahad.” Pages 197– 224 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Cheyne, Thomas K. The Prophecies of Isaiah. New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1884. Cheyne, Thomas K., and Paul Haupt. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Chilton, Bruce. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 11. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987. Chilton, Bruce. “Two in One: Renderings of the Book of Isaiah in Targum Jonathan.” Pages 547–62 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. 2 vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Clark, David J. “The Influence of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Modern Translations of Isaiah.” BT 35 (1984): 122–30. Clines, David J. A., ed. Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009. Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2012. Cohen, Chaim. “A Philological Reevaluation of Some Significant DSS Variants of the MT in Isa 1–5.” Pages 40–55 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Cohen, Harold R. Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978. Condamin, Albert. Le livre d’Isaïe: traduction critique avec notes et commentaires. Paris: Victor Lecoffre, 1905. Cook, Johann. “The Dichotomy of 1QIsaa.” Pages 7–24 in Intertestamental Essays in Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik. Edited by Zdzisław J. Kapera. Kraków: Enigma Press, 1992. Cook, Johann. “Orthographical Peculiarities in the Dead Sea Biblical Scrolls.” RevQ 14 (1989): 293–305.

474

Selected Bibliography

Cook, Johann. “The Orthography of Some Verbal Forms in 1QIsaa.” Pages 133–47 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Cross, Frank M. “Palaeography and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 379–402 (vol. 1) and Pls. 9–14 in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Cross, Frank M. et al., eds. Scrolls from Qumran Cave I: The Great Isaiah Scroll, the Order of the Community, the Pesher to Habakkuk. Jerusalem: Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Shrine of the Book, 1972. Dahood, Mitchell. “Isaiah 19,11 ḥkmy and 1QIsa ḥkmyh.” Bib 56 (1975): 420. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms III. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 17A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970. Dahood, Mitchell. “Textual Problems in Isaia.” CBQ 22 (1960): 400–409. Dahood, Mitchell. “Yiphil Imperative yaṭṭi in Isaiah 54:2.” Or 46 (1977): 383–84. Dalman, Gustaf. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1905. Deist, Ferdinand E. Towards the Text of the Old Testament. Translated by W. K. Winckler. Pretoria: DR Church Bookseller, 1981. Delcor, Mathias. “Le temple d’Onias en Égypte.” RB 75 (1968): 188–205. Díaz Esteban, Fernando. Sefer Okhlah we-Okhlah. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1975. Dillmann, August. Der Prophet Jesaia. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 5. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1890. Dimant, Devorah. “Not Exile in the Desert but Exile in Spirit: The Pesher of Isa 40:3 in the Rule of the Community and the History of the Scrolls Community.” Pages 455–64 in History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 90. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan). Vols. I–XL. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955–2010. Döderlein, Johann Christoph. Esaias: Ex Recensione Textus Hebraei. Monath, 1789. Driver, Godfrey R. “Glosses in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.” Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 1 (1957): 123–61. Driver, Godfrey R. “Hebrew Scrolls.” JTS 2 (1951): 17–29. Driver, Godfrey R. “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Linguistic and Textual Problems.” JTS 38 (1937): 36–50. Driver, Godfrey R. “Isaiah I–XXXIX: Textual and Linguistic Problems.” JSS 13 (1968): 36–57. Driver, Godfrey R. “Isaianic Problems.” Pages 43–57 in Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers: ein Dokument der internationalen Forschung zum 27. September 1966. Edited by Gernot Wiessner. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1967.

Selected Bibliography

475

Driver, Godfrey R. “Once Again Abbreviations.” Textus 4 (1964): 76–94. Driver, Godfrey R. “Three Notes.” VT 2 (1952): 356–57. Duhaime, Jean. “Les manuscrits de Qumrân dans trois traductions du livre d’Isaïe.” Pages 319–349 in Traduire la Bible hébraïque: de la Septante á la Nouvelle Bible Segond. Edited by R. David and M. Jinbachian. Sciences bibliques 15. Montréal: Médiaspaul, 2005. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaia. HKAT 3.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 5th ed. 1968. Elgvin, Torleif. “MS 1926/1, MS 1926/3. Uninscribed Fragments from 1QIsaa and 1QS.” Pages 309–312 in Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from The Schøyen Collection. Edited by Torleif Elgvin. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Ellenbogen, Maximilian. Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology. London: Luzac, 1962. Elwolde, John F. “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah.” Pages 17–55 in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University, 11–14 December 1995. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Emerton, John A. “A Textual Problem in Isaiah XXX. 5.” JTS 32 (1981): 125–28. Eshel, Esther. “Isaiah 11:15: A New Interpretation Based on the Genesis Apocryphon.” DSD 13 (2006): 38–45. Eshel, Esther, and Hanan Eshel. “New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf, 4Qlsab, 4Q226, 8QGen, and XQpapEnoch.” DSD 12 (2005): 134–57. Evans, Craig A. “1QIsaiaha and the Absence of Prophetic Critique at Qumran.” RevQ 11 (1984): 537–42. Evans, Craig A. “The Text of Isaiah 6:9–10.” ZAW 94 (1982): 415–18. Evans, Craig A. To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6:9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation. JSOTSup 64. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Die Jesaja-Rolle in Qumran: Älteste Handschriften und andere spannende Entdeckungen.” Bibel und Kirche 61 (2006): 227–30. Falk, Daniel K., Sarianna Metso, Donald W. Parry, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Fassberg, Steven E. An Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2019 (Hebrew). Fassberg, Steven E. “The Nature and Extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 7–24 in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke. STDJ 114. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Fassberg, Steven E. “Shifts in Word Order in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 58–71 in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea

476

Selected Bibliography

Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources. Edited by Steven E. Fassberg, et al. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Fassberg, Steven E. “The Syntax of the Biblical Documents from the Judean Desert as Reflected in a Comparison of Multiple Copies of Biblical Texts.” Pages 94–109 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Feldman, Ariel. “Review: Eugene Ulrich and Peter E. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls (DJD 32).” JSS 59 (2014): 223–25. Fischer, Johann. “In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?” ZAW 56 (1930): 1–98. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 7 (July 1961): 297–333. Flint, Peter W. “The Book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 229–51 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Hampton Court, Herefordshire, 18–21 June 2000. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press, in Association with the Scriptorium Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002. Flint, Peter W. “Interpretation of Scriptural Isaiah in the Qumran Scrolls: Quotations, Citations, Allusions, and the Form of the Scriptural Source Text.” Pages 389–406 in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Flint, Peter W. “Interpreting the Poetry of Isaiah at Qumran: Theme and Function in the Sectarian Scrolls.” Pages 161–95 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Flint, Peter W. “The Isaiah Scrolls from the Judean Desert.” Pages 481–89 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. 2 vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Flint, Peter W. “Non-Masoretic Variant Readings in the Hebrew University Isaiah Scroll (1QIsab) and the Text to Be Translated.” Pages 105–117 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem ( July 6–8, 2008). Edited by Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Shani Tzoref. STDJ 93. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Flint, Peter W. “Variant Readings and Textual Affiliation in the Hebrew University Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsab).” Pages 33–53 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts

Selected Bibliography

477

from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Sarianna Metso, Donald W. Parry, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Flint, Peter W, and Kyung S. Baek. “Photographing the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): Collections, Techniques, and DJD 32.” Pages 105–18 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek. EJL 30. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Flint, Peter W, and Nathaniel N. Dykstra. “Newly-Identified Fragments of 1QIsab.” JJS 60 (2009): 80–89. Flint, Peter W., and Eugene Ulrich. “The Variant Textual Readings in the Hebrew University Isaiah Scroll (1QIsab).” JJS 60 (Spring 2009): 60–79. Flusser, D. “The Text of Isaiah 49:17 in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Textus 2 (1962): 140–42. Freedman, David N. et al., eds. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Freedman, David N., and Joshua J. Van Ee. “Scribal Interventions in 1QIsaiaha.” Pages 787–799 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Chaim Cohen and Victor A. Hurowitz, et al. 2 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Gabrion, Hervé. “L’interprétation de l’ecriture dans la littérature de Qumrân.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 19 (1979): 779–849. Gardner, Anne E. “Isaiah 66:1–4: Condemnation of Temple and Sacrifice or Contrast between the Arrogant and the Humble?” RB 113 (2006): 506–28. Geiger, Gregor. “Dagim (1QIsaa 15:11): Fischer.” RevQ 95 (2010): 453–56. Gelston, Anthony. “‘Behold the Speaker’: A Note on Isaiah XLI 27.” VT 43 (1993): 405–8. Gelston, Anthony. “Some Notes on Second Isaiah.” VT 21 (1971): 517–27. Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. New York: Ktav, 1966. Ginsburg, Christian D. The Massorah. 4 vols. New York: Ktav, 1975. Ginsburg, Christian D, et al. Jacob Ben Chajim Ibn Adonijah’s Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible. New York: Ktav, [1867] 1968. Goldingay, John, and David Payne. Isaiah 40–55. Vol. II. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. The Book of Isaiah, Sample Edition with Introduction. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1965. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “Die Jesaia-Rolle im Lichte von Peschitta und Targum.” Bib 35 (1954): 51–71. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. The Hebrew University Bible. The Book of Isaiah. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Magnes, 1995. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents.” Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV, Jerusalem (1958): 101–37.

478

Selected Bibliography

Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. Text and Language in Bible and Qumran. Jerusalem: Orient Publishing House, 1960. Gray, George B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah (I–XXXIX). International Critical Commentary 18. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912. Greenspahn, Frederick E. Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of the Phenomenon and Its Treatment Since Antiquity with Special Reference to Verbal Forms. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Greenspahn, Frederick E. “The Number and Distribution of Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew.” VT 30 (Jan. 1980): 8–19. Greenspahn, Frederick E. “Words That Occur in the Bible Only Once—How Hard Are They to Translate?” BRev 1 (1985): 28–30. Greenwood, Kyle R. “A Case of Metathesis in Isaiah LII 5B?” VT 56 (2006): 138–41. Guillaume, Alfred. “Some Readings in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah.” JBL 76 (1957): 40–43. Gzella, Holger. “So-Called Po’el-Forms in Isaiah and Elsewhere.” Pages 63–81 in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by M. N. van der Meer, et al. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Heskett, Randall. Messianism within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Hitzig, Ferdinand. Der Prophet Jesaja. Heidelberg: C. F. Winter, 1833. Hofius, Otfried. “Zur Septuaginta-Übersetzung von Isa 52, 13b.” ZAW 104 (1992): 107–10. Hoftijzer, Jacob. The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum in Classical Hebrew. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 21. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985. Høgenhaven, Jesper. “The First Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsa) and the Massoretic Text. Some Reflections with Special Regard to Isaiah 1–12.” JSOT 28 (1984): 17–35. Høgenhaven, Jesper. “The Isaiah Scroll and the Composition of the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 151–58 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Høgenhaven, Jesper. “The Literary Character of 4QTanhumim.” DSD 14 (2007): 99–123. Holmstedt, Robert D. “Review: Ulrich, Eugene and Peter W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions; Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants.” JHebS 12 (2012). http://www.jhsonline.org/reviews_vol.html. Horgan, Maurya P. “Isaiah Pesher 1–6.” Pages 35–111 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Vol. 6B. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretation of Biblical Books. CBQMS 8. Washington, D.C., 1979, 86–93, 94–124, 260–61. Hornkohl, Aaron. “Biblical Hebrew: Periodization.” Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, volume I. A–F. (ed. Geoffrey Khan, et al. Leiden: Brill, 2013), 315–16.

Selected Bibliography

479

Huesman, John. “Finite Uses of the Infinitive Absolute.” Bib 37 (1956): 271–95. Hurvitz, Avi. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 20; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982. Hurvitz, Avi. “The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts’ Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments.” Hebrew Studies 47 (2006): 191–210. Hurvitz, Avi. The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and Its Implications for the Dating of Psalms. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972. [Hebrew]. Ibn Ezra, Abraham. The Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah. Vol. 1. Translated by M. Friedländer. London: Society of Hebrew Literature, 1873. Irwin, William A. “The Exposition of Isaiah 14:28–32.” AJSL 44 (1927–28): 73–87. Iwry, Samuel. “Massēbāh and Bāmāh in 1QIsaiahA 6 13.” JBL 76 (1957): 225–32. Iwry, Samuel. “The Qumrân Isaiah and the End of the Dial of Ahaz.” BASOR 147 (1957): 27–33. Iwry, Samuel. “‫—‏והנמצא‬A Striking Variant Reading in 1QIsa.” Textus 5 (1966): 34–43. Jacobs, Jarod T. “A Comprehensive Analysis of the Conjunction Waw in the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls: Variants and Their Implications,” master’s thesis, Trinity Western University, 2008. Jain, Eva. “Die materielle Rekonstruktion von 1QJesb (1Q8) und einge bisher nicht edierte Fragmente dieser Handschrift.” RevQ 20/79 (2002): 389–409. James, Forrest D. “A Critical Examination of the Text of Isaiah, Based on the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah (DSIa), the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint and the Isaiah Texts of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius.” PhD diss., Boston University, 1959. Janzen, Gerald J. “Isaiah 41:27: Reading ‫‏הנה הנומה‬in 1QIsaa and ‫‏הנה הנם‬in the Masoretic Text.” JBL 113 (1994): 597–607. Jarick, John. “Qumran Cave 1. II, The Isaiah Scrolls.” JSOT 36 (2012): 62. Jassen, Alex. “Re-Reading 4QPesher Isaiah A (4Q161): Forty Years after DJD V.” Pages 57–90 in The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Conference on Revising Texts from Cave Four, edited by George J. Brooke and Jesper Høgenhaven. STDJ 96. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Jastrow, Marcus. Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and the Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Jeremias, J. “Ein Anhalt für die Datierung der masoretischen Redaktion?” ZAW 67 (1955): 289–92. Joosten, Jan. “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 351–74 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

480

Selected Bibliography

Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblio, 1993. Justnes, Årstein. “The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) and Material Philology: Preliminary Observations and a Proposal.” Pages 103–27 in New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia. Edited by Markus Zehnder. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2014. Justnes, Årstein. “The Hand of the Corrector in 1QIsaa XXXIII 7 (Isa 40,7–8): Some Observations.” Semitica 57 (2015): 205–210. Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. 2nd ed. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1983. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 13–39. Translated by R. A. Wilson. London: SCM, 1980. Kautzsch, Emil, ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd ed. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Kennedy, James, and Nahum Levison. An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928. Kissane, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary, 2 vols. Dublin: Browne and Nolan Limited, 1941, 1943. Kissane, Edward J. “The Qumrân Text of Isaiah IX, 7–9.” Pages 413–18 (vol. 1) in Sacra Pagina: Miscellanea biblica: Congressus internationalis catholici de re biblica. Edited by J. Coppens, et al. Paris-Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1959. Klein, Ernest. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: University of Haifa, 1987. Klein, Ralph W. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Koenig, Jean. L’herméneutique analogique du Judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe. VTSup 33. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Koenig, Jean. “Réouverture du débat sur la première main rédactionnelle du rouleau ancien d’Isaïe de Qumrân (1 Q Isa) en 40, 7–8.” RevQ 11 (1983): 219–37. Köhler, Ludwig. Deuterojesaja ( Jesaja 40–55) stilkritisch untersucht. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 37. Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1923. Koole, Jan L. Isaiah, Part 3, Vol. 1: Part 3. Isaiah 40–48. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1997. Kugel, James. “Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 166–177 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Kutscher, Edward Y. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982.

Selected Bibliography

481

Kutscher, Edward Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Kutscher, Edward Y. Studies in Galilean Aramaic. Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern languages and Culture. Translated by Michael Sokoloff. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1976. Labuschagne, Casper J. “The Particles ‫ ֵ‏הן‬and ‫‏הּנֵ ה‬ ִ .” Pages 1–14 in Syntax and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Syntax and Biblical Exegesis. Edited by C. J. Labuschagne et al. (Oudtestamentische Studiën XVIII) (Leiden: Brill, 1973). Lagarde, Paul de. Kritische anmerkungen zum Buche Isaias. Erstes Stück: Semitica, Heft 1 (1878), 1–32. Göttingen: 1878. Lange, Armin. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lange, Armin. “‘Which Is Written in the Words of Isaiah, Son of Amoz, the Prophet’ (CD 7.10): Quotations of and Allusions to the Book of Isaiah in Qumran Literature.” Pages 275–87 in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich. Edited by Károly Dobos and Miklós Köszeghy. Hebrew Bible Monographs 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. Lange, Armin, and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Lehmann, O. H. “A Third Dead Sea Scroll of lsaiah.” JJS 4 (1953): 38–40. Loewinger, Samuel E. “Variants of DSI II.” VT 4 (1954): 155–63. Longacre, Drew. “Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaa’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34–66.” DSD 20 (2013): 17–50. Lust, Johan. “The Divine Titles ‫ ‏האדון‬and ‫ ‏אדני‬in Proto-Isaiah and Ezekiel.” Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by M. N. van der Meer et al., 131–49. Leiden: Brill, 2010. MacDonald, John. “The Particle ‫‏את‬in Classical Hebrew: Some New Data on Its Use with the Nominative.” VT 14 (1964): 264–75. Maori, Yeshayahu. “The Tradition of PISQĀ’ÔT in Ancient Hebrew MSS: The Isaiah Texts and Commentaries from Qumran.” Textus 10 (1982): 1–50. [Hebrew]; English abstract 134–35. Mankowski, Paul V. Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Mansoor, Menahem. “The Massoretic Text in the Light of Qumran.” Congress Volume Bonn 1962. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill, 1963, 305–21. Mansoor, Menahem. “Some Linguistic Aspects of the Qumran Texts.” JSS 3 (1958): 40–54. Marti, Karl. Das Buch Jesaja. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1900.

482

Selected Bibliography

Martin, Malachi. The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bibliothèque du Muséon 44–45. Louvain: Publications Universitaires, Institut Orientaliste, 1958. McCarter, P. Kyle. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Göttingen: Vandenboeck und Ruprecht, 1981. McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. Anchor Bible 20, ed. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968. Medina, Richard W. “The Adverbs ‫‏יחד‬, ‫ ‏יחדיו‬and ‫‏ביחד‬in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Leshonenu 82 (2019), forthcoming [in Hebrew]. Metso, Sarianna. “The Use of Old Testament Quotations in the Qumran Community Rule.” Pages 217–31 in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Milik, Józef T. Dix ans de découvertes dans le désert de Juda. Paris: Les editions du Cerf, 1957. Milik, Józef T. “Isaïe.” Page 173 and late XXXVI in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumrân. Edited by Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Milik, Józef T. “Isaïe.” Pages 79–80 and plate XXII in Les grottes de Murabba‘ât. Edited by P. Benoit, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux. DJD 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Mitchell, Hinckley G. Isaiah. A Study of Chapters I–XII. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1897. Mizrahi, Noam. “Aspects of Poetic Stylization in Second Temple Hebrew: A Linguistic Comparison of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice with Ancient Piyyuṭ.” Pages 147–63 in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources. Edited by Steven E. Fassberg et al. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Mizrahi, Noam. “The Linguistic History of MDHBH: From Textual Corruption to Lexical Innovation.” RevQ 26 (2013): 91–114. Mizrahi, Noam. “Writing as Reading. Aspects of the Interpretive Transmission of Isaiah in Qumran: 4QIsac (4Q57) for Isa 24,2.7.15 as a Case Study.” Pages 29–62 in Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Context of Intra- and Interreligious Debates. Edited by Florian Wilk and Peter Gemeinhardt. Volume280of BibliothecaEphemeridumTheologicarumLovaniensium.Leuven:Peeters, 2016. Moor, Johannes C. de. “Structure and Redaction: Isaiah 60,1–63,6.” Pages 325–46 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken. Edited by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Morrow, Francis J., Jr. “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran.” PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1973.

Selected Bibliography

483

Muilenburg, James. “The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66: Introduction and Exegesis.” Pages 381–773 in The Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 5 of 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1956. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 193–214 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “Aspects of the (Morpho)syntax of the Infinitive in Qumran Hebrew.” Pages 80–87 in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke. STDJ 114. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Muraoka, Takamitsu. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1985. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic. ANES Supp 38. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “Isaiah Scroll (iQIsaa).” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by Geoffrey Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “Who Lodged at Geba (Isaiah 10:29)?” VT 61 (2011): 148–49. Nagel, Peter. “The θεός and κύριος Terms in the Isaiah Text and Their Impact on the New Testament: Some Observations.” Pages 173–91 in Text-Critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint. Edited by Johann Cook and Hermann-Josef Stipp. VTSup 157. Leiden: Brill, 2012. North, Christopher R. The Second Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1964. Oort, H. Textus Hebraici Emendationes: Quibus in Vetere Testamento Neerlandice Vertendo. Leiden: Brill, 1900. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Photography and Paleography in the Textual Criticism of St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, 43:19.” BASOR 123 (1951): 33–35. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, I.” JBL 69 (1950): 149–66. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, II. Masoretic Yiṣwāḥū in 42:11.” JNES 11 (1952): 153–56. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, III.” JJS 2 (1951): 151–54. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, V.” IEJ 4 (1954): 5–8. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, VI.” HUCA 25 (1954): 85–92. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Studies in the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll, VII.” Tarbiz 24 (October 1954): 4–8. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39. New International Commentary of the Old Testament, ed. R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66. New International Commentary of the Old Testament, ed. R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Ottley, Richard R. The Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904–06.

484

Selected Bibliography

Parry, Donald W. “1QIsaa and Ketib-Qere Readings of the Masoretic Type Texts.” Pages 15–32 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana. STDJ 91. Edited by Daniel K. Falk, Sarianna Metso, Donald W. Parry, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Parry, Donald W. “Artificial Forms in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa).” Pages 15–32 in The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014. STDJ 120. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Parry, Donald W. “The Book of Isaiah in the War Scroll.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, Nov. 2015. Parry, Donald W. “The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa)—Handbook for Textual Variants.” Pages 247–66 in “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch. Edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson. Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation, 2017. Parry, Donald W. “Isaiah Scrolls.” Pages 776–778 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Parry, Donald W. “LXX Isaiah or Its Vorlage: Primary ‘Misreadings’ and Secondary Modifications.” Pages 151–68 in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Parry, Donald W. “Notes on Divine Name Avoidance in Scriptural Units of the Legal Texts of Qumran.” Pages 437–49 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, et al. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Parry, Donald W. “A Text-Critical Study of Hapax Legomena in MT Isaiah and the Qumran Isaiah Scrolls.” Pages 307–30 in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk, eds. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Parry, Donald W. “The Text of Isaiah in the Damascus Document.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, Nov. 2014. Parry, Donald W. “The ‘Word’ or the ‘Enemies’ of the Lord? Revisiting the Euphemism in 2 Sam 12:14.” Pages 367–78 in Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, edited by Shalom Paul et al. VTSup 94. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003. Parry, Donald W., and Elisha Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition. STDJ 32. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012.

Selected Bibliography

485

Penna, Angelo. “La Volgata e il Manoscritto 1QIs.” Bib 38 (1957): 381–95. Pérez Fernández, Miguel. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Person, Raymond F. The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 252. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Peters, Paul. “Varianten des Jesajarolle in der revidierten Lutherbible.” Lutheran Rundblick 22 (1974): 98–116. Pfann, S. J. “4Qpap cryptA Text Related to Isaiah 11.” Page 682 and plate XLVI in Qumran Cave 4. XXXVI: Cryptic Texts. DJD XXXVI. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. Harvard Semitic Monographs 12. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Porter, Stanley E., and Brook W. R. Pearson. “Isaiah through Greek Eyes: The Septuagint of Isaiah.” Pages 531–46 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. 2 vols. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Procksch, Otto. Jesaia I. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1930. Pulikottil, Paulson. Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran: The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Qimron, Elisha. A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 2018. Qimron, Elisha. Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Qimron, Elisha. “Indices and Corrections.” Pages 1–62 in The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). STDJ 6A. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Qimron, Elisha. “A New Approach to the Use of Forms of the Imperfect without Personal Endings.” Pages 174–81 in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11–14 December 1995. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Qimron, Elisha. “Textual Remarks on 1QIsa.” Textus 12 (1985): 258–63, s-fn. (Hebrew with English summary). Rabinowitz, Isaac. “Trever’s Taw and Orlinsky’s Argument.” BASOR 124 (1951): 29. Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935. Ravenna, Alfredo. “Is. 40, 4 e Ps. 31, 21.” RBlt 1 (1953): 69–70. Reider, Joseph. “The Dead Sea Scrolls.” JQR 41 (1951): 59–70. Reider, Joseph, and William Brownlee. “On MsHTY in the Qumran Scrolls.” BASOR 134 (1954): 27–28. Rendsburg, Gary A. Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1990. Rendsburg, Gary A. “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P.’” JANES 12 (1980): 65–80. Rendsburg, Gary A. “Qumran Hebrew (With a Trial Cut [1QS]).” Pages 217–46 in The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and

486

Selected Bibliography

Alumni. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani Tzoref. STDJ 89. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Revell, Ernest J. Biblical Texts with Palestinian Pointing and Their Accents. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. Reymond, Eric D. Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Rezetko, Robert, and Ian Young. Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Steps Toward an Integrated Approach. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Roberts, Jimmy J. M., and Peter Machinist. First Isaiah, A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Rogland, Max. “Eggs and Vipers in Isaiah 59 and the Qumran ‘Hodayot.’” RevQ 25 (2011): 3–16. Rooker, M. F. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel. JSOTSup, 90. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990. Rosenbloom, Joseph R. The Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll—A Literary Analysis. A Comparison with the Masoretic Text and the Biblia Hebraica. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970. Rubinstein, Arie. “A Finite Verb Continued by an Infinitive Absolute in Biblical Hebrew.” VT 2 (1952): 362–67. Rubinstein, Arie. “Formal Agreement of Parallel Clauses in the Isaiah Scroll.” VT 4 (1954): 316–21. Rubinstein, Arie. “Isaiah LII 14—‫— ִ‏מ ְׁש ַחת‬and the DSIa Variant.” Bib 35 (1954): 475–79. Rubinstein, Arie. “Isaiah LVII 17: ‫ ‏הסתר ואקצף‬and the DSIa Variant.” VT 4 (1954): 200–201. Rubinstein, Arie. “A Kethib-Qere Problem in the Light of the Isaiah Scroll.” JSS 4 (1959): 127–33. Rubinstein, Arie. “Notes on the Use of Tenses in the Variant Readings of the Isaiah Scroll.” VT 3 (1953): 92–95. Rubinstein, Arie. “Singularities in Consecutive-Tense Constructions in the Isaiah Scroll.” VT 5 (1955): 180–88. Rubinstein, Arie. “The Theological Aspect of Some Variant Readings in the Isaiah Scroll.” JJS 6 (1955): 187–200. Sáenz-Badillos, A. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by J. Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Sapp, David. “The LXX, 1QIsa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian Doctrine of Atonement.” Pages 170–92 in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Edited by W. H. Bellinger, Jr. and W. R. Farmer. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998. Sawyer, John. “The Qumran Reading of Isaiah 6.13.” ASTI 3 (1964): 111–13. Scanlin, Harold P. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1993.

Selected Bibliography

487

Seeligmann, Isaac L. “Isaiah 53,11 According to the Septuagint, 1QIsaiaha, and 1QIsaiahb.” Tarbiz 27 (1957–58): 127–41 [Hebrew]. Seeligmann, Isaac L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems. Leiden: Brill, 1948. Segal, M. H. Mišnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic: A Grammatical Study. Oxford: H. Hart, 1909. Siegel, Jonathan P. “An Orthographic Convention of 1QIsa and the Origin of Two Masoretic Anomalies.” Pages 99–100 of 1972 and 1973 Proceedings of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies. Edited by Harry M. Orlinsky. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974. Siegel, Jonathan P. “The Scribes of Qumran. Studies in the Early History of Jewish Scribal Customs, with Special Reference to the Qumran Biblical Scrolls and to the Tannaitic Traditions of Massekheth Soferim.” PhD diss., Brandeis University, 1971. Skehan, Patrick W. “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism.” Pages 148–60 in Volume du congrès international pour l’étude de l’Ancien Testament, Strasbourg 1956. Edited by G. W. Andersen et al. VTSup 4: Leiden: Brill, 1957. Skehan, Patrick W. “Some Textual Problems in Isaia.” CBQ 22 (1960): 47–55. Skehan, Patrick W. “The Text of Isaias at Qumran.” CBQ 17 (1955): 38–43. Skehan, Patrick W, and Eugene Ulrich. “Isaiah.” In Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets, edited by E. Ulrich et al., 7–143 and Pls. I–XXIII. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Skinner, John. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. London: Cambridge University Press, 1897. Slotki, Israel W. Isaiah. London: Soncino, 1949. Snaith, Norman H. Notes on the Hebrew Text of Isaiah: Chapters XVIII–XXXII. London: Epworth Press, 1945. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002. Sokoloff, Michael, and Joseph Diamond. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002. Solà Solé, J. M. “Una tendencia lingüística en el manuscrito de Isaías (DSIa) de Khirbet-Qumrán.” Sefarad 13 (1953): 61–71. Southwood, Charles H. “The Problematic haḏūrîm of Isaiah XLV 2.” VT 25 (1975): 801–2. Sperber, Alexander, ed. The Latter Prophets According to Targum Jonathan. Vol. 3 of The Bible in Aramaic, Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1962. Stenning, John F. The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford: Clarendon, 1949. Stromberg, Jacob. “The Role of Redaction Criticism in the Evaluation of a Textual Variant: Another Look at 1QIsaa XXXII 14 (38:21–22).” DSD 16 (2009): 155–89. Stuhlman, Daniel D. “A Variant Text from the Isaiah Scroll.” JBQ 25 (1997): 177–84. Sukenik, Eleazar L. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Edited by N. Avigad. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Magnes Press, 1955.

488

Selected Bibliography

Swanson, Dwight D. “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran.” Pages 191–212 in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches. Edited by H. G. M. Williamson and David G. Firth. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts.” Pages 226–63 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “A Case of Abbreviation Resulting in Double Readings.” VT 4 (1954): 206–8. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “A Case of Faulty Harmonization.” VT 5 (1955): 206–8. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Conflate Readings (OT).” Pages 170–73 in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith Crim et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text.” Textus 1 (1960): 144–84. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “DSIa as a Witness to Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah.” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 1 (1962): 62–72. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Observations on Variant Readings in the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa).” Pages 117–30 in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961): 335–83. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook.” Pages 321–400 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Tidwell, N. L. “M.T. Isa. 40, 10 (‫‏ּב ׇחזׇ ק‬ ְ ): An Approach to a Textual Problem Via Rhetorical Criticism.” Semitics 6 (1978): 15–27. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Minuscula Qumranica I.” RevQ 21 (2004): 643–48. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Notes on 4Q206/206a, 4Q203–4Q204, and Two Unpublished Fragments (4Q59?).” Meghillot 5–6 (2007): 187–99. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Publication of PAM 43.398 (IAA #202) Including New Fragments of 4Q269.” Pages 264–80 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Review of Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls, DJD XXXII,” by Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint. RBL 12 (2011) (http://www.bookreviews.org/ pdf/7919-8659.pdf). Torrey, Charles C. The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928. Tov, Emanuel. “The Background of the Sense Divisions in the Biblical Texts.” Pages 312–50 in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 2000.

Selected Bibliography

489

Tov, Emanuel. “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert: An Overview and Analysis of the Published Texts.” Pages 139–66 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Proceedings of the Conference Held at Hampton Court, Herefordshire, 18–21 June 2000. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library, 2002. Tov, Emanuel. The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Tov, Emanuel. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism.” JJS 39 (1988): 5–37. Tov, Emanuel. “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts.” JSOT 31 (1985): 3–29. Tov, Emanuel. “Scribal Features of Two Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 241–58 in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources. Edited by Steven E. Fassberg et al. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Tov, Emanuel. “Scribal Markings in the Texts from the Judean Desert.” Pages 41–77 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. STDJ 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 3rd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Tov, Emanuel. “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran.” Pages 491–511 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. 2 vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Base of the Corrections in the Biblical Texts Found at Qumran.” Pages 299–314 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and U. Rappaport. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3. VTSup 167. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Tov, Emanuel. “Theologically Motivated Exegesis Embedded in the Septuagint.” Pages 215–33 in Translation of Scripture, Proceedings of a Conference at the Annenberg Research Institute, May 15–16, 1989. JQRSup. Philadelphia, PA: Annenberg Research Institute, 1990. Trever, John C. “Isaiah 43:19 According to the First Isaiah Scroll.” BASOR 121 (1951): 13–16. Trever, John C. “Some Corrections Regarding Isaiah 43.19 in the Isaiah Scroll.” BASOR 126 (1952): 26–27. Troxel, Ronald. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

490

Selected Bibliography

Troxel, Ronald. “What’s in a Name? Contemporization and Toponyms in LXX-Isa.” Pages 327–44 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin Friebel, and Dennis Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “Some Biblical Notes.” HUCA 24 (1952–53): 107–14. Tur-Sinai, Naphtali H. “A Contribution to the Understanding of Isaiah i–xii.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961): 154–88. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants’ in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran.” Pages 179–95 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Hampton Court, Herefordshire, 18–21 June 2000. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press, in Association with the Scriptorium Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002. Ulrich, Eugene C. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Biblical Views: Insertions in the Great Isaiah Scroll.” BAR 37 (2011): 30, 68. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Developmental Composition of the Book of Isaiah: Light from 1QIsaa on Additions in the MT.” DSD 8 (2001): 288–305. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Identification of a Scribe Active at Qumran: 1QPsb-4QIsac-11QM.” Pages 201–10 in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls V–VI. A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant [Hebrew]. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Haifa University Press, 2007. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Impressions and Intuition: Sense Divisions in Ancient Manuscripts of Isaiah.” Pages 279–307 in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature. Edited by M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003. Ulrich, Eugene C. “An Index to the Contents of the Isaiah Manuscripts from the Judean Desert.” Pages 477–80 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. 2 vols. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Isaiah, Book of.” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 1:384–88. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Isaiah for the Hellenistic World: The Old Greek Translator of Isaiah.” Pages 119–33 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek. Early Judaism and Its Literature 30. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Light from 1QIsaa on the Translation Technique of the Old Greek Translator of Isaiah.” Pages 193–204 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Edited by Anssi

Selected Bibliography

491

Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Ulrich, Eugene C. “Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books.” Pages 263–74 in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich. Edited by Károly Daniel Dobos and Miklós Köszeghy. Hebrew Bible Monographs 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. Ulrich, Eugene C., Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Peter W. Flint, eds. Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions; Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants. DJD 32. Oxford: Clarendon, 2010. Ulrich, Eugene C., et al., eds. Qumran Cave 4, X: The Prophets. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Ulrich, Eugene C., and Patrick W. Skehan. “An Edition of 4QIsae, Including the Former 4QIsal.” RevQ 17 (1996): 23–36. Urciuoli, Emiliano Rubens. “A Suffering Messiah at Qumran? Some Observations on the Debate about 1QIsaa.” RevQ 24 (2009): 273–81. Van der Kooij, Arie. “1QIsaa col. VIII, 4–11 (Isa 8, 11–18): A Contextual Approach of Its Variants.” RevQ 13 (1988): 569–81. Van der Kooij, Arie. “Accident or Method? On ‘Analogical’ Interpretation in the Old Greek of Isaiah and in 1QIsa.” BO 43 (1986): 366–76. Van der Kooij, Arie. Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments. OBO 35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Van der Kooij, Arie. “Isaiah 24–27: Text-Critical Notes.” Studies in Isaiah 24–27. OTS 43 (2000): 13–15. Van der Kooij, Arie. “Isaiah in the Septuagint.” Pages 513–29 in vol. 2 of Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. 2 vols. VTSup 70. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Van der Kooij, Arie. “The Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Isaiah Texts: Some General Comments.” Pages 195–213 in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings. Edited by George J. Brooke and B. Lindars. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. Van der Kooij, Arie. The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah 23 as Version and Vision. VT Sup 71. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Van der Kooij, Arie. Review of Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint, “Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions; Part 2: Introduction, Commentary and Textual Variants. DJD 32.” DSD 22 (2015): 113–17. Van der Kooij, Arie. “The Septuagint of Isaiah and the Hebrew Text of Isaiah 2:22 and 36:7.” Pages 377–86 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. VTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

492

Selected Bibliography

Van der Kooij, Arie. “Stump or Stalk: Isaiah 6:13 in the Light of the Ancient Versions.” JNSL 40 (2014): 17–26. Van der Kooij, Arie. “The Text of Isaiah and Its Early Witnesses in Hebrew.” Pages 143–52 in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker. Edited by Yohanan A. P. Goldman, Arie van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis. VTSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Van der Kooij, Arie. “The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible Before and After the Qumran Discoveries.” Pages 167–77 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Hampton Court, Herefordshire, 18–21 June 2000. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library and Oak Knoll, in Association with the Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2002. Van der Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam. The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Van Peursen, Willem Th. “Guarded, Besieged or Devastated? Some Remarks on Isaiah 1:7–8, with Special Reference to 1QIsaa.” Dutch Studies 2 (1996): 101–9. Van Peursen, Willem Th. The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. Studies in Semitic Language and Linguistics, 41; Leiden: Brill, 2004. Vermes, Geza. “Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature.” Pages 56–67 in Scrolls, Scriptures and Early Christianity. Library of Second Temple Studies 56. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. Volz, Paul. Jesaia II: Ü bersetz und Erklärt. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 9 no. 2. Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1932. Wade, George W. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. London: Methuen, 1929. Wagner, J. Ross. “Identifying ‘Updated’ Prophecies in Old Greek (OG) Isaiah: Isaiah 8:11– 16 as a Test Case.” JBL 126 (2007): 251–69. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN. Eisenbrauns, 1993. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Word Biblical Commentary 24. Waco: Word, 1985. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34–66. Word Biblical Commentary 25. Waco: Word, 1987. Weinberg, Milton. “Some Problems of the Masorah on Isaiah.” Pages 111–19 in 1972 and 1973 Proceedings of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies. Edited by Harry M. Orlinsky. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974. Weingreen, Jacob. Introduction to the Critical Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Weiss, Raphael. “Textual Notes.” Textus 6 (1968): 127–31. Wernberg-Møller, Preben. “The Contribution of the Hodayot to Biblical Textual Criticism.” Textus 4 (1964): 133–75. Wernberg-Møller, Preben. “Studies in the Defective Spellings in the Isaiah-Scroll of St. Mark’s Monastery.” JSS 3 (1958): 244–64.

Selected Bibliography

493

Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by David M. G. Stalker from the German Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. Whitehouse, Owen C. Isaiah, I–XXXIX (vol. 1), XL–LXVI (vol. 2), of The New Century Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1905–9. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12. Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 13–27. Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 28–39. Continental Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “Dacaṯ in Isaiah LIII 11.” VT 28 (1978): 118–22. Williamson, Hugh G. M. Isaiah 1–5: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “Isaiah, Micah and Qumran.” Pages 203–11 in Semitic Studies in Honour of Edward Ullendorff. Edited by G. Khan. SSL 47. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “A Productive Textual Error in Isaiah 2:18–19.” Pages 377–88 in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman. Edited by Y. Amit et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “Review of Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls. Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions, Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants, by Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint.” JTS 63 (2012): 230–234. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “Scribe and Scroll: Revisiting the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran.” Pages 329–42 in Making a Difference: Essays on the Bible and Judaism in Honor of Tamara Cohn Eskenazi. Edited by David J. A. Clines, Kent H. Richards, and Jacob L. Wright. Hebrew Bible Monographs 49. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “Sound, Sense and Language in Isaiah 24–27.” JJS 46 (1995): 1–9. Worschech, Udo F. C. “The Problem of Isaiah 6:13.” AUSS 12 (1974): 126–38. Wright, Richard M. Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-Exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 419. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1995. Wyngaarden, Martin J. “The Servant of Jehovah in Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 1 (1958): 20–23. Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated by E. J. Revell. SBLMasS 5. Missoula, MT, 1980. Young, Ian. “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Masoretic Text: A Statistical Approach.” Pages 81–140 in Feasts and Fasts. A Festschrift in Honour of Alan David

494

Selected Bibliography

Crown. Edited by Marianne Dacy et al. Mandelbaum Studies in Judaica 11. Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, 2005. Young, Ian. “‘Loose’ Language in 1QIsaª.” Pages 89–112 in Keter Shem Tov: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Alan Crown. Edited by Shani Tzoref and Ian Young. Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts 20. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. London: Equinox, 2008. Zanella, Francesco. “Some Semantic Notes on the Lexeme ‫ ‏מדהבה‬in the DSS.” Pages 175–96 in Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Pierre Van Hecke. STDJ 114. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Isaias. 3rd ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, vol. XIV. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Ziegler, Joseph. Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias. ATA 12/3. Münster: Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934. Ziegler, Joseph. “Die Vorlage der Isaias-Septuaginta (LXX) und die erste Isaias-Rolle von Qumran (1QIsa).” JBL 78 (1959): 34–59. Reprinted in pages 90–115 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Zurro-Rodríguez, E. “Siete hápax en el libro de Isaías.” Estudios Biblicos 53 (1995): 525–35.

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Scripture Genesis 1:4, 7, 14, 18 402 1:9 118 1:22, 28 357 2:9, 17 319 3:5, 22 319 3:15 402 4:2 175 4:7 329 4:10 38 4:15 439 8:3 48 8:4 264 8:17 357 9:1, 7 357 9:12 402 9:16 296 10:4 177 11:9 85 15:4 276 17:20 357 17:20–21 357 19:20 160 19:22 85 20:4 88 22:17 357 26:24 357 26:29 368 28:3 357 28:3–4 357 28:20 384 29:34 386 31:37 46 33:13 280 35:11 357 35:11–12 357 35:21 148 37:24 150 39:10 397 42:34 207 47:4 225 47:27 357 48:4 357

Exodus 3:5 158 3:7 370 3:8 156 3:15 189 4:24 267 8:22 207 10:2 439 13:3, 14, 16 280 14:10 229 14:21 112 15:2 113, 114 15:13, 16 301 17:1 43 18:20 341 19:3 267 20:18 83 21:13 160 21:25 61 22:19 255 24:10 267 38:21 266 Leviticus 2:8 308 9:24 433 13:24–28 61 13:31 150 16:4 171 16:29, 31 397–98 18:6, 14, 19 88 20:16 88 23:27, 32 398 23:29 398 26:32–33 33 26:36 286 Numbers 6:17 308 8:16 441 10:9 222 11:12 408 12:8 267 13:32 323 15:6 308

496 Numbers (cont.) 15:30 359 16:32 320 18:2, 4 386 18:15 361 20:5 43 21:5 43 21:15 131 22:6 173, 463 22:36 131 23:7 297 24:15 388 24:17–19 222 24:20 328 24:22 67 24:24 177 26:10 320 29:7 397–98 35:6 160 Deuteronomy 2:9, 18, 29 131 4:28 255 4:42 207 7:8 361 7:13 357 7:21–22 222 8:9 297 8:15 43 9:26 361 11:2 332 11:12 328 11:22 216 14:13 238 15:15 361 17:3 235 18:11 313, 332, 467 20:2–5 222 21:7 73 21:8 361 22:14 88 22:24 229 22:27 229 25:9–10 158 28:13 262 28:30 119 28:42 145 28:59 266 31:17 184

Index of Ancient Sources 31:29 84 32:10 68 32:14 192 32:28 334 32:38 294 33:26 138 33:28 249 33:29 138 34:6 277 Joshua 3:15 90 4:18 90 5:15 158 7:13 351 10:24 197 15:8 277 20:5 207 Judges 2:7 332 5:7 143 5:9 101 5:15 101 9:12–13 138 9:16 55 16:5–6 80 17:2 359 18:7 106 18:25 270 20:7 137 1 Samuel 1:10 270 4:15 73 6:7, 10 280 7:4 255 12:2 333 22:2 270 25:17 332 2 Samuel 3:15 106 3:31 225 4:4 408 7:12 276 10:11 114 11:1 131 11:24 217

Index of Ancient Sources 12:14 14 16:11 276 16:20 137 17:8 270 19:10 221 20:11 114 20:15 262 22:3, 31 131 23:20 136, 228 24:13 332 1 Kings 1:22 332 2:19 329 5:5 54 9:10 48 10:2 244 11:31 351 14:2 359 17:14 351 18:30 350 18:31 345 20:10 48 22:19 235 22:27 217 2 Kings 3:4 136 3:25 132 4:16, 23 360 8:1 360 10:1, 5 408 15:25, 27, 30, 32, 37 82 15:37 97 16:1, 5 82 16:5 82 16:5–6, 9 97 17:6 235 17:31 249 18–20 3, 14 18:13 158, 243 18:17 243, 244, 465 18:18 244 18:19 244 18:20 245 18:22 245 18:23 246 18:24 39, 246 18:23–26 246

497 18:26 246–47 18:27 247–48, 450, 455 18:28 248 18:29 248 18:30 60, 248 18:31 47, 248 18:32 249 18:34 249, 254 18:36 249, 250, 465 18:37 250, 465 19:1 250 19:2 250 19:3 251 19:4 251 19:5 251, 465–66 19:6 92, 251 19:7 252 19:9 252–53 19:10 92, 252 19:11 47 19:13 35, 253 19:14 158, 254 19:15 254 19:16 254, 465–66 19:17 254–55 19:18 255, 466 19:19 255 19:20 256, 466 19:21 256, 262 19:23 256, 466 19:24 257, 466 19:25 35, 257, 258 19:26 258–59, 466 19:27 259 19:27–28 259 19:28 260 19:29 156, 260, 261, 395, 450 19:30 261, 262 19:31 262 19:32 262–63 19:33 263, 466 19:34 265 19:35 263 19:37 73, 263, 264, 466 20:1 264 20:1–10 273 20:2 264 20:3 264 20:4 265

498 2 Kings (cont.) 20:6 265 20:7 273 20:8 273 20:12 273, 274 20:13 274, 275, 450, 456, 466 20:14 275, 276 20:15 276 20:16 276 20:17 276, 465 20:18 276, 467 20:19 277 20:39 272 21:3 235 23:12 265 25:1 262 25:4 169 40:9 262 41:27 262 52:1 262 62:1 262 64:10 262 Isaiah passim Jeremiah 2:6 212 2:10 177 3:2 119 3:8 54 3:25 333 4:8 225 4:13 438 4:30 360 5:5 201 6:14 395 7:4 76 7:15 100 8:7 268 8:11 395 8:17 403 8:18 32 9:6 337 10:16 425 11:14 428 11:15 167 11:19 309, 372

Index of Ancient Sources 12:3 332 12:9 165 13:13 206 13:14 99 13:26 330 14:2 54 14:13 235 14:22 425 15:4 29 16:16 150 16:19 176 17:8 218 17:18 433 18:16 33 20:13 419 21:7 99, 251 21:12 63 22:19 148 22:29 76 23:6 54 23:31 389 23:36 309 31:20 68 31:34 309 31:37 262 32:20 440 32:21 368 38:4 251 38:6 43 39:4 169 42:6 152 44:26 198 48:5 134 48:29 137 48:31, 36 132 48:37 132 49:10 100 49:11 231 49:15 346 50:5 386 50:6 432 50:13 33 50:34 259 51:19 425 51:27 264 51:43 212 51:53 169 52:7 169

499

Index of Ancient Sources Ezekiel 1:4 63 1:27 262 3:18 37 4:2 262 7:2 111 7:26 40, 333 8:2 262 13:11, 13 63 16:34 209 17:8 66 17:17 262 18:7 399 20:9, 14, 22 338 21:11 433 21:32 76 22:18 40 23:25 301 23:27 309 23:33 206 25:5 432 25:7 199 27:31 270 29:3 360 32:2 360 33:3, 6 235 36:8 66 36:11 174, 463 36:13 360 36:23 211 37:7 232 38:2 440 39:1 440 39:19 206 45:14 69 46:14 308 47:10 150 Hosea 1:1 29 2:19 309 6:1 113 7:14 132 8:14 54 12:2 259 13:3 137 13:11 99 13:15 259

Joel 1:10 180 1:13 225 1:18 225 4:4, 7 56 Amos 1:1 115 5:2 183 5:11 192 5:16 41 5:27 148 6:2 102 6:13 280 9:11 350 Obadiah 1:15 56 2 346 Micah 1:4 16, 37, 234 4:1 45 4:1–3 3, 14 4:2 46 4:3 46, 47 7:12 325 Nahum 1:7 131 3:7 363 3:14 293 Habakkuk 1:1 115 1:3 404 2:14 110 2:19 321 3:6 297 3:18 147 Zephaniah 1:14 297 2:2 137 2:14 238 2:15 174, 432 3:12 131

500 Zechariah 1:1, 7 88 1:16 367 2:10 351 2:15 386 8:16 190 9:11 43 13:2 309 13:5 175 13:9 337 14:2 119 14:13 86 Psalms 2:12 131 7:2 131 7:7 99 9:7 191 9:12 115 9:15 307 9:16 301 9:19 224 10:2 301 12:6 224 12:8 301 13:3 334 17:3 337 18:5 218 18:12 113 18:23 167 18:49 221 22:7 346 22:9 218 23:3 188 26:2 337 28:4 56 31:3 176 31:21 278 35:10 224 35:13 398 35:27 433 36:7 297 38:9–22 274 44:17 359 45:3 260 45:8 369 45:9 325 49:5 300

Index of Ancient Sources 49:15 323 54:5 205 55:7 147 58:6 313, 332 59:8 260 59:10 147 65:4 167 66:10 337 68:30 70, 461 71:2 221 71:3 176 71:4 190 74:2 425 76:12 70, 461 78:4 301, 307 78:26 259 78:43 439 78:50 189 78:71 280 79:13 307 83:5 309 83:9 386 83:19 255 85:9 295 88:6 309 89:43 419 90:1 176 90:9 99 96:10 421 96:13 438 97:11 274 98:9 438 102:22 307 103:11 284 103:22 143 104:35 117, 419 106:17 320 106:48 419 107:25 63 107:38 357 107:40 68 115:4 255 116:12 45 117:1 419 118:14 113, 114 118:21 114 119:55 189 119:77, 174 68

501

Index of Ancient Sources 119:119 40 119:143 212 126:1 215 135:13 189 135:15 255 139:19 167 145:6 301 147:6 188 148:1 419 148:8 63 Job

3:20 270 6:7 32 8:7 328 9:33 46 11:17 71 12:24 68 13:25 286 15:31 402 16:6 167 18:17 189, 191 20:16 403 20:28 218 21:16 167 22:18 167 24:9 434 24:20 309 26:6 124 26:12–13 360 26:13 192, 464 29:3 118 30:10 167 31:22 368 31:26 118 33:30 325 36:28 320 39:8 134 40:11–12 137 40:30 312 40:31 145 41:10 118 42:12 328

Proverbs 1:20 38 2:15 214 3:32 214 4:26 189

7:4 130 7:22 58 8:13 137 8:30–31 68 10:7 189 12:11 175 12:14 56 14:2 214 15:5 433 15:24 262 17:3 338 21:6 286 23:30 69, 433 23:32 403 24:15 432 25:4 40 25:4–5 313 26:20 294 26:23 40 27:20 124 28:19 175 29:13 297 31:7 309 31:21 38 Ruth 2:1 130 2:9 368 4:4 42 Canticles 2:17 297 4:3, 11; 5:13 260 4:6 297 Ecclesiastes 3:21 262 4:10 77 6:5 332 7:8 328 9:16 346 10:12 260 10:16 77 12:1 302 Lamentations 1:22 32 2:13 363 3:33 364

502 Esther 3:4 397 9:27 386 10:3 100 Daniel 5:11 30 10:17 39 11:15 262 11:34 386 11:36 230 12:2 192 Ezra 9:2 81 Nehemiah 9:6 255 9:6–7 425 9:22 297 11:31 104 1 Chronicles 3:13 29 4:39 225 7:28 104 11:23 323 12:16 90 12:19 395 13:12 39 16:33 438 16:42 325 18:5–6 83 20:1 131 20:6 323 2 Chronicles 8:1 48 9:1 244 16:2 83 18:26 217 21:15 266 24:23 83 28:5, 23 83 28:6 82 29:18 29 30:9 355 32:19 255

Index of Ancient Sources Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert Qumran 1QIsaª passim 1QIsab 1, 2, 5, 9–10, 17, 21–22, 24–25, 31, 35, 42–43, 47, 75, 86, 90, 92, 103, 107, 115–117, 119, 126, 133–36, 138–39, 144–45, 151–53, 157–58, 170–73, 182–87, 193, 195, 198–99, 203, 208, 234, 267–77, 287–90, 298, 302–5, 307–9, 316–22, 325–35, 341–46, 354, 356–59, 367–77, 382–91, 394–403, 406–13, 417–27, 434–41, 443, 449, 451–453, 455–56, 460–61, 463, 467–69 4QGenh 118 4QSama 22, 446 4QIsaa–r 2, 9, 10, 24, 25, 64 4QIsaa 1, 17, 21, 24–25, 32, 48–50, 64, 77, 111, 115–18, 143–144, 158–59, 161–66, 169–73, 176–77, 257, 443, 448, 453, 455, 463 4QIsab 1, 17, 21, 24–25, 31, 38, 42, 46–51, 56–50, 71–73, 75, 106–7, 109–10, 116–18, 143, 145–58, 165, 171, 185, 187, 189–91, 193, 209, 242–43, 260–62, 273–77, 284, 295, 297, 305–6, 315–17, 324–25, 336–37, 362, 365, 367–68, 414, 427, 441, 443, 447, 450, 453–54, 461, 467 4QIsac 1, 9, 17, 21, 24–25, 31, 47, 60, 62, 65, 92, 95, 97, 104, 106–11, 117, 121, 169–70, 175–89, 198,

503

Index of Ancient Sources 213–15, 233, 311, 319–20, 327–29, 335, 338–41, 354, 359–62, 369, 378, 380–83, 403, 441, 443, 448, 451, 453, 455, 461, 464, 469 4QIsad 1, 17, 21, 26, 35, 40, 60, 62, 156, 195, 269, 306, 328, 330, 332, 335, 337–48, 372–76, 378–79, 392–98, 443, 451–53, 456, 468 4QIsae, f 25 4QIsae 1, 21, 24–26, 31, 43, 45, 46, 60, 87–92, 100, 101–03, 111–14, 116, 121–22, 124–26, 311, 406, 443, 448, 461 4QIsaf 1, 17, 21, 24–26, 35–43, 45, 60, 72, 77–79, 89–91, 158, 170–72, 195, 203, 295, 443, 453, 455, 461 4QIsag–r 24 4QIsag 1, 17, 21, 24, 26, 42, 298, 300–2, 307–8, 443, 453, 456 4QIsah 1, 21, 24, 26, 101, 295–97, 443 4QIsai 1, 21, 24, 26, 387, 391–92, 443 4QIsaj 1, 21, 24, 26, 29, 32, 443 4QIsak 1, 21, 24, 27, 201–4, 443 4QIsal 1, 21, 24, 27, 92, 443 4QIsam 1, 21, 24, 27, 412–14, 443, 469 4QIsan 1, 21, 24, 27, 126, 400–1, 443 4QIsao 1, 21, 24, 27, 130–31, 443 4QpapIsap 2, 21, 24, 27, 74, 443 4QIsaq 21, 24, 27, 444 4QIsar 21, 24, 27, 444 4QJerc 144, 331 5QIsa 2, 9, 10, 21, 28, 283, 444

Murabba‘at MurIsaiah

2, 9, 28, 32–34, 444

Non-Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert CD 2, 15, 83, 85, 213, 356, 381, 394, 403, 460 1QapGen 34, 83, 152 1QHodayota 127, 144, 218, 322 1QMilḥamah 2, 15, 152, 221–22, 358, 424, 460 1QS ix, 2, 15, 46, 52, 127, 209, 277, 279, 460 3QpIsa 29, 30 3QUnclassified Frgs. (3Q14) 34 4QpIsaa–e 2 4QpIsaa 46, 103–6 4QpIsab 66–67, 69–70, 72 4QpIsac 90, 98–99, 101, 103, 124, 129, 151, 212, 215–16, 218, 220 4QpIsad 379 4QpIsae 111, 165, 223, 280 4QTest 277 4QTanḥ 3, 15, 15, 55, 103, 277, 303, 348–49, 364–65, 377–78, 460 4QEnochg ar 39 4QJubf 34 4QpapSc 215 4QDa 83, 403 4QDb 85, 142 4QDf 398 4QSefer ha-Milḥamah 106 4QpapHodayotlike Text B 215 6QText Related to Genesis ar 152 11QSefer ha-Milḥamah 106 11QTemple 229

Index of Subjects ’ālep prostheticum, prosthetic 149, 202, 368 ’ālep for ʿayin 66, 116, 183, 198 abbreviated words 8, 114, 167, 376 Akkadian 84, 157, 263–64, 273, 275, 310 analogical interpretation 8, 14, 375, 446 apposition 56, 217, 232 Arabic words, roots 94, 100, 146, 310, 312, 426 Aramaic  copyist influenced by 22–23, 32, 78, 128, 149, 386, 394, 410 dialects of 35, 174, 205, 463 examples of 34–36, 45, 62, 86, 94, 117, 122, 127, 141, 166–67, 177, 180, 212, 214, 218–19, 278–79, 316, 340, 348, 353, 360, 397, 461, 467 influence of, on Hebrew language  6, 39, 53, 116 influence of, found in scrolls 7, 30, 83–84, 103, 136–38, 143–44, 154, 171, 178, 229, 266, 268, 281, 297, 305, 307, 335, 464 Aramaisms 59–60, 65, 134, 147, 235, 264, 331, 350, 368, 423, 462 archaism(s) 14, 41, 53, 143, 164, 231–32, 291, 360, 388, 446 assimilation from another passage/verse 50, 73, 103, 118, 121, 127, 136, 154–55, 162, 203, 244, 263, 282–83, 287–88, 298, 303, 306, 311, 314, 351, 367, 375, 383 of letters 117, 126, 148, 170, 237–38, 243, 256, 281, 290, 299, 413, 428, 440 of words (within same verse) 138, 141–42, 184, 248, 274, 288–89, 291, 339, 390, 393, 418, 426, 435

Canaanite Shift 89, 165, 263 chiasmus 77, 79, 100, 107, 129, 316, 345, 383–84, 407, 412, 436 cohortative(s) 38, 41–42, 53, 66, 71, 147, 184, 256, 291, 309, 382, 404, 420, 461, 466 pseudo-cohortative 41, 77, 79, 290, 299, 305, 311, 467 conjectural emendation(s) 8, 12, 16, 38, 50, 54, 67, 78, 80–82, 96, 98, 100, 102, 105, 108, 111–12, 126, 134, 142, 146, 163–65, 167, 175–76, 193, 204, 212, 215, 219, 223–4, 227–29, 237, 245, 257, 267, 270, 292–93, 239, 241, 245, 255, 266, 269, 284, 293–94, 297, 301, 304, 311, 318–20, 324, 329, 334–35, 337–38, 340, 346–47, 349, 352, 354, 363–64, 373, 379, 384, 386, 390, 412, 417, 424, 429, 431, 434, 465 conjunctive wāw 14, 24, 38, 65, 73, 79, 85, 100, 112, 161, 181, 206–07, 236, 355 diminished use of 63–4 LXX and the conjunction 32 wāw-consecutive 104, 169, 393, 432 correction procedures cancellation dots 57–58, 193, 244, 246, 336–37 correction/deletion 107, 223, 237, 239, 291 crossing out 115, 221, 410 erasure 16, 39, 51, 74–5, 86–7, 167, 170, 194, 205, 220, 239, 296, 312, 314, 326, 361, 382, 410, 469 extraordinary points (puncta extraordinaria) 312 parenthesis signs 75 separation dots 134 corrections 20–21, 41, 61, 194, 223, 272, 336, 338, 396, 429 biblical Hebrew. See Hebrew hypercorrection 95, 159, 337 borrowing letters and words from other texts  intercolumnal 16, 233, 247 37, 52, 99, 104, 119–20, 133, 154, 174, 177, interlinear 4, 16, 21, 73, 87, 152, 233, 380 220, 235, 242, 247, 251–52, 254, 282–83, scribal 49, 55, 56, 92, 94, 114–15, 300, 394, 314, 323, 329, 332, 339, 342, 362, 365, 410 371, 384, 393, 399, 405, 421–22, 425, 429, 437, 439–40. See also harmonizations. definite article hê 55, 81–82, 101, 108, 125, 174, 220, 458

Index of Subjects MT vs. 1QIsaa 31–32 vocative marker 177 digraph(s) 32, 57, 89, 217, 382, 385, 414 diphthong contraction 315, 406, 423 dittography 7, 20, 22, 43, 65, 78, 86, 91, 101, 108, 112–13, 147–48, 162, 166, 182, 185, 187–89, 193, 199, 200, 212, 219, 221, 224, 226, 230, 234, 241–42, 254, 259–60, 265–67, 270, 272, 274, 295, 312, 315, 321, 324, 328, 350–51, 366, 378–79, 381–82, 384, 392, 395, 405, 409, 418, 420, 424, 426, 438, 440, 468, 469 dittogram 37, 59, 72, 79–80, 386, 413–14, 437 dittograph 44, 137, 182, 214, 237–38, 337, 346, 411, 438, 440 vertical dittography 242, 274, 321 doublet(s) 51, 140, 192, 247, 249, 252, 394 dots, see correction procedures duplication of words  75, 187, 246, 313, 378, 420 as dittography 219, 321, 440 for rhetorical purposes 164, 367, 380, 395, 420 electronic resources 17–18 elision 108, 115, 389, 400 enclitic mem 38, 72 euphemism(s) 118–19, 248 exegetical elements 6–7, 22, 67, 124, 151–152, 224, 241, 310, 347, 390 facilitation of text, by scribe or copyist 35, 47, 55–56, 67, 104, 117, 130, 282, 285–86, 300, 310, 312, 330, 384, 409, 425, 431, 438 fulfillment interpretation 33 fusion, of words or letters 45, 136, 280 gentilica 102, 119–20, 172, 306, 348 glosses 37, 48, 64, 87, 97, 183, 188, 261, 247, 279, 334, 412 as explanation 118, 232, 242, 364, 348 graphic similarity 4, 6, 7, 22, 94, 97, 99, 107–8, 125, 140, 153, 159–60, 168, 171, 174, 182, 209, 235, 267, 269, 276, 286, 315, 325, 344, 347–48, 349, 355–56, 362, 379, 405, 431 ’ālep/hê 41, 85

505 ’ālep/nûn 390 ’ālep/‘ayin 78, 103, 200, 464 bêt/kāp 200, 223, 271, 310, 438 bêt/mêm 135, 273 bêt/sāmek 63, 190–91 bêt/pê 235, 330 bêt/rêš 257, 306, 440 gîmel/yôd 164, 313 gîmel/kāp 117 gîmel/nûn 364 dālet/zayin 128, 238 dālet/rêš 4, 96, 123, 127, 132, 135, 141–42, 145, 164, 168, 175, 192, 204–05, 219, 227, 229, 283, 317–18, 332 hê/ḥêt 60, 89, 155, 161, 165, 218, 299, 334, 360, 362, 389, 462–64 hê/mêm 117, 424 hê/tāw 180, 306, 337 wāw/zayin 218 wāw/yôd 74, 104, 107–08, 127, 134, 136, 139, 142, 145, 147, 151, 181, 183–84, 190, 214, 220, 231, 241, 258, 267, 270, 294, 303, 310–11, 327–28, 339, 351, 358, 376, 462, 466, 468 wāw/kāp 274 wāw/rêš 297 zayin/rêš 69 ḥêt/‘ayin 269 ṭêt/sāmek 189 yôd/zayin 218 yôd/rêš 212 mêm/pê 221, 258, 430 mêm/tāw 267, 292, 373 nûn final/pê final 233 ‘ayin/ṣādê 351 guttural letters ’ālep/hê interchange 41, 65, 77, 92, 115, 132, 202 ’ālep/‘ayin interchange 66, 183, 220, 427, 452 ‘ayin/ḥêt interchanges 261, 274, 379 interchanges 34, 275, 426 non-pronunciation 30, 90, 198, 209 replacement 66, 261 weakening 45, 56, 60, 84, 98, 103, 108, 116, 122, 137, 168, 206, 212, 322, 343, 353, 357, 465

506 hapax legomenon 6, 17, 52, 55, 58, 60, 67, 80, 86, 93, 99, 104, 112, 122–23, 125, 128, 134, 137, 142, 144, 149, 154, 162, 180–81, 186, 202, 215, 218, 226–27, 232–33, 238, 242, 257, 261, 267, 275, 277–78, 292, 297, 310, 312, 316, 330, 332, 334, 342, 345–46, 350, 359, 370, 389, 400, 413–14, 426, 430, 437, 440, 453–57 dislegomena 6, 146, 268, 290, 404, 433 trislegomena 6 haplography in 1QIsaa 45–6, 59, 68, 76, 80, 82, 91, 180, 187, 192, 195, 224, 238, 241–42, 254, 259–60, 267, 288, 340, 342, 356, 366, 381–82, 395, 402, 405, 431, 438 in 4QIsak 202 in 4QIsae 125 in LXX 276–77, 360 in MT 51, 91, 199, 224, 234, 257, 259, 266, 274, 293, 351, 389, 403, 418, 429, 468 as variant explanation 39, 45, 94, 112–13, 119, 125–26, 147–49, 152, 154, 157, 160, 166, 178, 188–89, 199, 215, 263, 271, 274, 293, 300, 315, 324, 418, 420 as scribal error 7, 20, 22, 75–6, 79, 172, 187, 257–73, 295 vertical 302, 412 harmonization(s) 7, 15, 20, 22, 32–33, 37, 51–52, 61, 65, 79, 110, 121, 130, 132–33, 140, 156, 174, 177, 180, 191, 221, 244, 247–49, 251, 262, 265, 269–271, 275–77, 297, 304, 310, 317, 321, 325–26, 328, 333–34, 341, 347, 351, 357–58, 363, 368–69, 373, 375, 377–79, 386–87, 390, 403, 408–10, 415–16, 420, 468. See also borrowing letters and words from other texts Hebrew Late Biblical (LBH) 23, 29, 30, 35, 39, 41–42, 47–48, 63, 71, 78, 83, 93, 95, 111, 119, 126, 156, 187, 250, 261, 396, 438, 464–65 Mishnaic (MH) 23, 30, 35, 63–4, 77, 95, 110, 117, 156, 197, 208, 211, 260, 327, 396, 403 Qumran (QH/DSS Hebrew) 32, 35–36, 41, 50, 53, 55, 59, 68–9, 71–4, 87, 90, 93–95, 97, 100, 107, 110, 115, 121, 124, 127,

Index of Subjects 132, 140, 144, 152, 156, 165, 190, 193–94, 196, 201, 211, 221, 231, 233, 244, 255, 269–70, 276, 280, 285, 289, 295, 311, 358, 370–73, 379, 382, 392, 396, 398, 424, 434, 438 Standard Biblical (SBH) 23, 36, 41, 47, 84, 143, 157, 250 homoiarcton 7, 279, 291, 314 homoioteleuton 7, 81, 139, 178, 191, 268, 279, 291, 296, 422 homophony 183, 190, 344, 350 hybrid forms 36, 39–40, 110, 145, 153, 176, 217, 219, 231, 237, 423 imperatives 37, 41, 53, 65, 78–9, 88, 114, 172, 191, 261, 264, 303, 323, 348, 367, 421, 434, 466 impersonal constructions 96, 206, 242, 324, 417 passive versus active forms 42–43, 122 subject 127, 130, 185, 190, 202, 223, 351, 372, 414 verb 184, 213, 337, 400 intertextual/contextual relationships 15–16 interchange, mêm/nûn (both in final position) 95, 116–17, 178 Isaiah Scrolls 21–28 1QIsaa 21–24 1QIsab 24 4QIsaa–r 24–25 4QIsaa 25 4QIsab 25 4QIsac 25 4QIsad 26 4QIsae 26 4QIsaf 26 4QIsag 26 4QIsah 26 4QIsai 26 4QIsaj 26 4QIsak 27 4QIsal 27 4QIsam 27 4QIsan 27 4QIsao 27 4QpapIsap 27 4QIsaq 27 4QIsar 27

Index of Subjects 5QIsa 28 corpus-based examination of linguistic features, MT vs 1QIsaa  458–59 fragmented scrolls 18 MurIsaiah 28 significance 3–5 textual affiliation 443–44 Isaianic citations in Qumran nonbiblical texts 14–15 issues and challenges 18–21 ketib/qere 14, 18, 359, 445–52 qere perpetuum 14, 44, 446 laryngeals. See pharyngeal and laryngeals lectio difficilior 33, 61, 109, 159, 235, 282, 292, 330, 360–61, 371, 405, 408–09, 418 lectio facilior 7, 36 lemmatization, subjective effort 18 lengthened form 71, 303 imperfect 41–42, 71, 77, 79, 288, 290, 298–99, 305, 311, 315, 390, 395, 423, 467 of independent and suffixed pronouns 53 ligatures 7, 160, 283, 315 linguistic analysis 15 locative/directional hê 75, 458 mater ʾālep 415, 432, 434 hê 208, 388 medial 432 wāw 137, 157, 170–71, 222, 243, 263–64, 290, 311, 313, 322, 343, 356, 399, 408, 410, 419, 427, 440 metathesis 7, 50, 54, 73, 89, 99, 119, 134, 171, 190, 283, 366, 392, 395, 461–62 misdivision of words  7, 22, 95, 142, 146 Mishnaic Hebrew. See Hebrew names, divine and titles 45, 57–58, 71, 53, 80, 84, 88, 96, 113–14, 166, 184, 196, 198, 201, 215–16, 224, 256, 267, 295–96, 345, 348, 351, 361, 365, 377, 413, 416 see also Tetragrammaton and Tetrapuncta names, proper 29, 54, 82, 89, 94, 97, 119, 131, 134, 135, 136, 141, 169, 235, 248, 249, 253, 264, 408, 459

507 names, theophoric 29, 75, 82, 88, 171, 243, 244, 250, 460, 465–66, 479 negative particles: ‫ ַאל‬, ‫בל‬, ‫ לֹא‬50, 67, 94, 206–7, 242, 263, 271, 313, 315, 382, 396, 409, 416, 418, 431, 458 nominal/verbal pattern substitutions qaṭl 60, 144 qiṭl 60, 124, 144 qatal 51, 59, 63, 92, 95, 109–10, 145, 276, 280, 393 qatil 280 quṭl 60, 71, 89, 124, 127, 144, 147, 166, 235, 248, 280, 324, 352, 370, 378–79, 437 quṭṭul 306, 393 qiṭṭul 306, 392–93 qill 74, 270, 331, 367 qull 74, 270, 331, 367 nota accusativi (sign of the accusative) 47, 266, 342, 358, 362, 384, 419 orthography 4, 6–7, 14, 24, 29, 54, 83, 96, 104, 144, 287, 302, 414, 446, 460 divergences 8, 13, 38, 55–56, 70, 73, 115, 132, 164–65, 180, 196, 288–89, 301, 303, 308–09, 359, 382, 415, 434, 436 plene versus defective 22, 72, 75, 82, 371, 381 versus textual variants 18, 112, 133–34, 174, 181, 186, 197, 218, 222, 237, 266, 280–81, 285, 316, 322, 366, 376, 385, 388, 399, 411 paleography 11–12 parablepsis 64, 139, 420 paragogic nûn 14, 92, 205, 243, 252, 284, 353, 356, 361, 397, 408, 459 parallelism(s) 78, 91, 98, 108–09, 129, 139, 147, 162, 165, 213, 237, 267, 310, 312, 318, 340, 347, 353–54, 363, 374, 379, 412, 421, 428 antithetical 207, 259, 305 balanced lines 4, 36, 50–51, 65, 69, 95, 99–100, 108, 132, 151, 159, 170, 176, 180, 206, 209, 224, 230, 234, 241, 260, 269, 280, 292, 307, 317, 323, 329–30, 337, 344, 351, 357, 382, 384, 407, 429, 434, 463 chiasmus, see also meter 37, 186, 267, 407, 409, 418

508 parallelism(s) (cont.) synonymous 107–08, 123, 125, 140, 150, 182, 200, 211, 227, 281, 287, 293, 309, 312, 329, 332, 339, 343, 365, 379, 409, 411, 416–17, 437 Ugaritic 37, 360 unbalanced lines 31, 161, 183, 225, 227, 368, 402, 408 parallel registers/texts 3, 14, 42–3, 45, 244, 247, 252, 258–59, 274–75 parataxis 36, 301, 332 pharyngeals and laryngeals 31–32, 34, 319 diminishing of 30, 56, 116, 198, 218, 464 indistinguishable 41 phonology 6, 14, 116, 134, 159, 168, 178, 211, 214, 217, 235, 275–76, 287, 350, 406, 423, 426, 464 phonological change(s) 39, 255, 264, 446 phonological error 60, 78, 161, 218, 326, 351, 373, 462, 464 plural amplification 38, 121, 401, 404 pluses (and additions) 7, 20, 22, 47, 49, 58, 64, 240, 244–45, 251, 273, 336, 411 presentative exclamations ‫ הן‬and ‫ הנה‬ 159–60 qere. See ketiv vs. qere quiescence of gutturals ālep 70–71, 281, 396, 401–02 ʿayin 30 hê 35, 213, 218, 253, 257, 394, 398, 424 ḥêt 400 Qumran Hebrew. See Hebrew Qumran scribal interventions 3, 8, 16, 22 Qumran scribal practice 40, 53, 199, 296, 336, 468 reconstructed texts 14 representative vs. comprehensive approach  19 scholarly quotations, removing from their context 19 scribal activity 8, 272 error(s) 6, 8, 20, 22, 56, 64, 71, 94, 107, 112, 131, 135, 139, 177, 207, 226, 227, 242, 249, 253, 268, 282, 289, 313, 326, 330, 332, 335, 402, 407–08, 422

Index of Subjects error vs error in Vorlage 20–21 intentional changes 7, 20–21, 241 interventions 8, 12, 16, 22, 49, 87 marks and notations 4, 6, 21, 233 marks/corrections 21, 49, 56, 233, 394, 410 procedures 233 school/milieu 8, 23, 37, 83, 123, 160, 233–34, 241, 467 scribal hands 8, 170 stylistic approaches and conventions 3, 6, 8–9 See also Qumran scribal practice Septuagint, issue of readings 19–20 sibilant(s) 140, 214 interchange 316, 391 variations 48, 58, 261 stylistic approaches/conventions 6, 8–9, 43, 109, 121, 302, 345, 352, 366, 420, 432–33, 435, 467, 469 superscripted words/letters 33, 57–8, 85, 140, 149, 153, 160, 209, 319, 348, 355, 461–62. See also supralinear insertions; suspended words supralinear insertions/corrections 7, 58, 87, 234, 302, 380 suspended words 41, 361 synonymous reading(s) 8, 107, 204, 221, 242, 275, 307, 337, 361, 364, 417 syntax/syntactical structures 39, 43, 174, 186, 250, 353, 409, 468 Tetragrammaton 25, 114–15, 224, 277, 296, 366, 377 Tetrapuncta 279, 296 text and sense divisions 6, 8, 16, 153, 236, 239 textual corruption 133, 352 textual variants  5–9 accidental errors 7 intentional changes 7–8 minor variants 13–14 not exhibited in DJD XXXII 460–69 synonymous readings 8 textual critics 11 pre-Qumran Isaianic 1 textual criticism 5, 7–8, 11, 16 definition 1 transcriptional text 12–13

509

Index of Subjects transposition(s) 22, 43, 130, 152, 163, 173, 195, 226, 242, 262, 283, 415, 463, 468 vario (varia) lectio 78, 108, 159, 199, 204, 211, 364 verbs/verbal forms active versus passive forms 42, 122, 185–86, 194, 201–202, 205–206, 336, 351, 371–72, 414 conjugation shift/substitution hipʿil > qal 39 hopʿal > qal 68 nipʿal > qal 42, 127 puʿal > hitpaʿel 438 qal > piʿel 433 hipʿil—substituting ’ālep for hê 114–15, 172, 255, 357, 376, 298, 353, 406 imperfect, lengthened 42, 55, 71 infinitive absolute 35, 50, 57, 66–67, 156, 162, 183, 202, 255, 260–61, 299, 301, 394, 396, 402, 405

infinitive construct 35–36, 66, 102, 176, 181, 199–200, 213, 216, 234, 259, 266, 335, 346, 372, 384, 396, 399, 401, 418 verbal form substitution qatul > qotel 194, 269 qatal > yiqtol 110 qatel > qotel 233 qatal > qutl 280 weQatal > weYiqtol 51, 59, 63, 92, 109, 145, 393 wayyiqtol > qatal 95 weak verbal roots 86–7, 202, 285, 371, 435 vocalization 4, 6, 21, 60 word pair(s) 165, 300, 340, 343, 357, 426 word division 114, 136, 280, 359, 467–68 word-word correspondences 13