Reconstructing Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Method Applied to the Reconstruction of 4qsamᵃ (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) 9004106847, 9789004106840

Citation preview

RECONSTRUCTING BIBLICAL DEAD SEA SCROLLS

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH EDITED BY

F. GARctA MARTtNEZ A. s. VAN DER WOUDE

VOLUME XXII

RECONSTRUCTING BIBLICAL DEAD SEA SCROLLS A New Method Applied to the Reconstruction qf 4Q§am a

BY

EDWARD D. HERBERT

BRILL LEIDEN· NEW YORK . KÖLN

1997

This book has been printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Herbert, Edward D. Reconstructing biblical Dead Sea scroBs : a new method applied to the reconstruction of 4QSam a / by Edward D. Herbert. p. cm. - (Studies on the texts of the desert ofJudah, ISSN 0169-9962 ; v. 22) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004106847 (cloth: alk. paper) l. Bible. O.T. Samuel. Hebrew. Dead Sea scroBs (4QSam a) 2. Bible. O.T. Samuel, 2nd-Criticism, Textual. I. Title. n. Series. BSI325.2.H47 1997 222'.440446-dc21 96-50476 CIP Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnalune Herbert, Edward D.: Reconstructing biblical Dead Sea scroBs : a new method applied to the reconstruction of 4QSam a / by Edward D. Herbert. - Leiden; New York ; Köln: Brill, 1997 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah ; Vol. 22)

ISBN 90-04-10684-7

NE: GT ISSN 0169-9962 ISBN 90 04 10684 7 © Copyright 1997 by Koninklijke Brill NY, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication mtry be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in arry Jorm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items Jor internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fies are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 91 0 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subJect to change. PRINfED IN THE NETHERLANDS

In memory of my Jather George William Herbert (1925-1993)

CONTENTS

Prefaee .....................................................................................................................

XI

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... XIII Introduetion ........ .................................... ........... ..... ..... ............ ....... ................. ........

1

Chapter 1 A New Method for Reeonstrueting the Text of Biblieal Serolls ...... Existing Teehniques for Reeonstruetion ........................................................ Development 1: Letter Widths .................... ................... ................................ Calculating Average Letter Widths ......................................................... Using Data from a Different Seroll......................................................... Development 2: Vertieal dividers ................................................................... Development 3: Critieal Deviations ............................................................... Development 4: Margin Identifieation ......... ..... ....... ..... ....... .................. ....... Consistent Right-hand Seetion Widths ................................................... Paragraph Divisions................................... ..... .............. ........................... Development 5: Seribal Margin Poliey .......................................................... Development 6: Column Analysis ..................................................................

5 5 7 7 9 11 14 18 18 19 21 25

Chapter 2 Establishing Elements of the Method ................................................ Letter Widths .................................................................................................. Vertieal Dividers and Reeonstrueted Widths ................................................ Assessment of Different Measures of Spaee ............................................ What Kind of Average? ........................................................................... Colleeting Data from a Fragmentary Seroll ........................................... 4QSama and Doubly Adjusted Reeonstrueted Widths........................... Critieal Deviations .......................................................................................... Construetion of a Generally Applieable Table of Critieal Deviations ... Comparison with 'Correeted Letter Spaee' Method .............................. Comparison with 'Computer-Aided' Reeonstruetion Method............... Seribal Margin Poliey ........ ....................... .................... .................................. lQM ......................................................................................................... 1QIsaa ....................................................................................................... 11QTa ....................................................................................................... lQpHab ................................................................................................... lQS ........................................................................................................... Conelusion ........................................ .......... ..... .........................................

27 27 34 34 44 47 47 53 53 60 62 63 64 65 68 70 72 74

CONTENTS

VII

Chapter 3 Laying the Foundations for the Reeonstruetion of 4QSama •••••••••• Identifieation of Fragments .......................................................................... Average Letter Widths.................................................................................. Tab1e of Critiea1 Deviations ......................................................................... Orthography ... ............ .................... .... ................. ..... ................. ......... ..... ..... Paragraphing Po1iey ........................................................................... ............ Seribal Margin Po1iey ................................................................................... Co1umns ........................................................................................................

77 77 79 81 82 85 87 88

Chapter 4 Reeonstruetion and Analysis of 2 Samuel....................................... The Task of Reeonstruetion......................................................................... Reeonstruetion Tab1es and Deviation Lists .......................................... Transeribing the Extant Text ................................................................ Co1umn 31 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 32 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 33 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 34 ............. ..... .......... ......................................... ............................... Co1umn 35 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 36 ........ ...................... ..... ................................................................. Co1umn 37 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 38 .. ........... .... ........... ..... ........... ........................................ ........ ........ Co1umn 39 .............................. ...................................................................... Co1umn 40 ............................. ............................ ..... ...................................... Co1umn 41 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 42 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 43 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 44 ................................. ................................................................ ... Co1umn 45 .... ......... .............. .......... ... ... .... ....... .... ........ .... ... ............. ... ........... Co1umns 46-53 ............................................................................................. Co1umn 46 ................................ ....................................................... ............. Co1umn 47 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 48 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 49 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 50 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 51 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 52 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 53 .................................................................................................... Co1umn 54 ........... ....... ... ....... ... ... .................... ... ......................... ..... ... ..........

93 93 93 95 97 99 103 108 115 120 129 134 135 142 146 150 158 160 162 167 169 169 173 177 179 183 185 192 194

Cone1usion ............................................................................................................. 197 Appendix A

New Fragment Identifieations ....................................................... 201

Appendix B 4QSama Fragment Index........................................... .............. ..... 205

VIII

CONTENTS

Appendix C Seetion Seetion Seetion

Orthography ................ ... ............ ..... .............................................. 1: Verbs ............................................................................................ 2: Nouns, adjeetives and pronouns ................................................. 3: Other [orms .................................................................................

214 214 216 219

Appendix D

Deviations .......... ..................... ............. ....... ................. .... .............. 221

Appendix E

Fragmentjuxtapositions ................................................................ 247

Seleet Bibliography ................................................................................................ 275 Indexes Authors ................................... ......... ............ ..... ............................................. 283 Dead Sea Serolls ................ .................... ............................. .......................... 284 Seripture ...................... ............ .................. ..... ............ ....... ............................ 285

CONTENTS

IX

PREFACE

This book is a revised version of my Cambridge University Ph.D. dissertation. The largest changes have been made within the first chapter of the original dissertation, which has now been divided into two chapters. Changes have been made primarily in order to make the method easier to understand and apply. I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of individuals, whose support, advice and encouragement have been particularly valued. I am especially indebted to my supervisor, Dr. Graham Davies, for his constant interest, availability, and encouragement, together with his incisive critical comment, and his eye for detail. I have also appreciated the encouragement and high standards set by Professor Hugh Williamson, who supervised me for the initial two terms of my research. I am also grateful to Professors Emanuel Tov, Alexander Rofe, Robert Gordon and Florentino Garcia Martinez, and Drs George Brooke and Ian Wilson for reading and commenting on parts of the draft of either my PhD dissertation or of the revised text used for this book. Professor Tov has also been most encouraging in the latter stages of the project, and I am grateful to hirn for making available to me prepublication copies of two articles and for providing me with the text of parts of a paper which he had read recently in Oxford. I am grateful to Professor Frank Cross for his willingness for me to examine the fragments of 4QSama in Jerusalem and to use the official photographs in this publication, as well as for drawing to my attention the importance of the papyrus backing for identifying some 4QSama fragments. I also wish to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to hirn for his pioneering work of combing the extant Qumran fragments so thoroughly for those relating to 4QSama, and for accurately identifying so many tiny fragments-no mean feat without the aid of modern computer search facilities. For access to the fragments themselves in the Rockefeller Museum inJerusalem, I am grateful to Mrs. Ayala Sussmann of the Israel Antiquities Authority and to Professor Emanuel Tov. The Israel Antiquities Authority has also kindly allowed the use of their photographs, which have been cut-and-pasted to create the fragment juxtapositions on the plates at the back of this book. I have also appreciated the help given by the staff of the Rockefeller Museum ScroIls Laboratory, who assisted me during my period of study in the Rockefeller and carried out further specific checks for me after my visit. The study of the fragments inJerusalem was made possible by the generous support ofWolfson College, and ofthe Bethune-Baker and Hort funds of the University of Cambridge, and the photographs used in this volume have been provided through the generous support of Glasgow Bible College and the Hort Fund ofthe University ofCambridge. I have also appreciated the friendly and able assistance of Pim Rietbroek, Hans van der Meij and their team of editors at Brill in bringing this work to publication.

PREFACE

XI

I would also like to express my thanks to Tyndale House and its staff for the provision of a desk within such a good biblical studies library, and to my fellow research students for their friendship and valued interaction. Glasgow Bible College is also to be thanked for allowing me the opportunity and encouragement to carry out the revisions to the Ph.D. thesis necessary for this book. For computer assistance, I am indebted to Albert Miao and to Drs. Douglas de Lacey and Andrew Clarke. Most of all I would like to express my appreciation to my wife, Diana, for her constant support and patience, as my mind became ever more focused upon tiny fragments of ancient leather, and also to Joy and David. August 1996

XII

PREFACE

ABBREVIATIONS

llQTa lQH lQIsaa lQM 1QpHab lQS 4QSama 4QSamc

Temple Scroll (Qumran Cave 11), published in Yadin, 1983. Hodayot Scroll, published in Sukenik, 1955. Isaiaha Scroll (Qumran Cave 1), published in Burrows, 1950. War Scroll (Qumran Cave 1), published in Sukenik, .1955. Habakkuk pesher (Qumran Cave 1), published in Burrows, 1950. Serek ha- ra~ad Scroll (Qumran Cave 1), published in Burrows, 1951. Samuela Scroll (Cave 4). Samuelc Scroll (Cave 4), published in Ulrich, 1979. Aquila readings in the margins of LXX manuscripts, as presented a' in the second apparatus of Brooke-McLean. Symmachus readings in the margins of LXX manuscripts, as er' presented in the second apparatus of Brooke-McLean. 8' Theodotion readings in the margins of LXX manuscripts, as presented in the second apparatus of Brooke-McLean. 'OL AOL1TOL' readings in the margins ofLXX manuscripts, as presented in the second apparatus of Brooke-McLean. Armenian Version, as presented in the textual apparatus ofBrookeA McLean. Superscript letters are used according to the designations in Brooke-McLean. ACW Average Column Width. adj. adjusted. BASOR Bulletin qf the American Schools qf Oriential Research. BDB Brown, Driver and Briggs, 1906. BHS EIliger and Rudolph, 1984. BJRL Bulletin qf the John Rylands Library. Brooke-McLean Brooke, McLean and Thackeray, 1927. C Cross, 1953. C Sahidic Coptic Version, as presented in the textual apparatus of Brooke-McLean. Superscript letters are used according to the designations in Brooke-McLean. Septuagint text of Chronicles. CLXX Masoretic Text of Chronicles as presented in BHS. CMT column. col(s). definite article. def. art. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. DJD BartheIemy and Milik, 1955. DJDl Tov, 1990. DJD8

ABBREVIATIONS

XIII

DjD9 Driver DSS

E excl. exp. f GKC HR HSM HSS

HTR

Haroard Theological Review.

imperf. ICC

imperfect. International Critical Commentary.

JBL JJS

Journal Journal

cf Biblical Literature. cfJewish Studies.

jSOTSup jSPSup

journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series.

JTS L

Journal

cf Theological Studies.

PLXX PMT quad.

Old Latin Version, as presented in the textual apparatus of BrookeMcLean. Superscript letters are used according to the designations in Brooke-McLean. Liddell and Scott, 1968. Lust, Eynikel, and Hauspie, 1992. masculine. McCarter, 1984. millimetres. the Masoretic Text. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Old Testament Library. Palestine Archaeological Museum photographic plate number (the standard reference for most plates of Dead Sea Scroll fragments). plural. Septuagint text of Psalm 18. Masoretic Text of Psalm 18 as presented in BHS. quadrant.

RQ

Revue de Qymran.

s

singular. Syro-hexaplar, as presented in the textual apparatus of BrookeMcLean. Superscript letters are used according to the designations in Brooke-McLean.

LSj LEH m McCarter mm MT OBO OTL PAM

pI

S

XIV

Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson, 1992. Driver, 1913. Dead Sea Scroils. Ethiopic Version, as presented in the textual apparatus of BrookeMcLean. Superscript letters are used according to the designations in Brooke-McLean. excluding. expected. feminine. Kautzsch, 1910. Hatch and Redpath, 1897. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Harvard Semitic Studies.

ABBREVIATIONS

SB

vert. VTSup Wellhausen ZAW

The majority (non-Lucianic) Septuagint witness of Samuel, whose best representative is manuscript B. The Lucianic Septuagint witness of Samuel (manuscripts boc2e2). Septuagint text of Samuel. Masoretic Text of Samuel as presented in BHS. Syriac (Peshitta) text of Samuel, according to de Boer, 1978. Targum Gonathan) text of Samuel, according to Sperber, 1992. Latin Vulgate text of Samuel, according to Weber, 1983. suffix. Ulrich, 1978. Except where specified, this designates SS, SV, ST and those Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Syrohexaplaric and Old Latin manuscripts recorded in Brooke-McLean. vertical. Vetus Testamentum, Supplements. Wellhausen, 1871. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.

31B 31Blc/2a lab/c

Column 31, reconstruction table B. Sections 1c and 2a of column 31, reconstruction table B. Sections ab and c of line 1.

SL SLXX SMT SS ST SV suff Ulrich verslOns

ABBREVIATIONS

xv

INTRODUCTION

The diseovery of the Dead Sea Serolls from 1947 in a variety of eaves above the Dead Sea arguably represents the greatest arehaeologieal diseovery of all time, and eertainly so for the study of the Hebrew Bible. The biblieal serolls not only provide helpful readings relating to diffieult or disputed passages, but also provide an invaluable window on the textual diversity that existed around the turn of the era, a diversity that stands in marked eontrast to the substantial uniformity of the medieval Hebrew manuseript tradition. Regrettably, most biblieal seroIls found in theJudaean Desert are fragmentary.! Indeed, in many eases only one or two fragments have survived. 2 One of the most significant biblieal seroIls is 4QSama, ascroll 'inseribed in an elegant late Hasmonaean bookhand of circa 50 B.C.E.,g A number of darkened fragments of this seroll relating to 1 Sam 1-2 were diseovered within the floor of Qumran Cave 4 in September 1952. 4 Cross published these fragments in 1953,5 revealing that they agree with the Septuagint against the Masoretie Text at many points. Thus it became apparent that many of the differenees between the Masoretie Text and the Septuagint rest upon differenees between the various textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible. The stature of the Septuagint was thus enhanced, a partieularly signifieant move in a book such as Samuel where the Hebrew text is seen by many as having been particularly poorly preserved. 6 FoIlowing purehases of numerous fragments from the Ta'amireh tribesmen, a twelfth of Samuel is now extant and identified, spanning just over a third of the verses and 45 of the 54 chapters. 7 On the basis of these further aequisitions, Cross noted (1958, 140-42) that the seroll also shared readings with Chronicles. This suggested to him that the Chronicler had used as his Vorlage atext of Samuel more like that of 4QSama than Samuel MT, thus reducing the number of differenees between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles attributable to the Chronicler. Apart from six lines of a fragment narrating the eonfrontation between Nahash andJabesh Gilead, whieh Cross published (1980), and his 1953 publieation of 1 Sam 1-2 noted above, we are dependent for the seroll's readings 1QIsaa, 11 QPsa and, to some extent, 1Q}:sab are exceptions. For instance, there is only a single surviving fragment of Chronicles (Trebolle Barrera, 1992). 3 Cross (1980, 105). 4 For an account of Cross's recognition of the scroll's significance, see Shanks (1994, 123-4). 5 Cross (1953). 6 E.g. Thenius (1842, XXIIIft), Wellhausen (1871, 1ft) and Smith (1912, xxx); but note BartheIemy (1980) and Pisano (1984, 283-5) who reach more cautious conclusions. 7 Cross (1956, 11) claims 47 out of 57 co1umns are preserved. The difference between our views of the number of co1umns in 4QSama arises from within 1 Samuel. I

2

INTRODUCTION

upon the monographs ofUlrich (1978) and McKenzie (1985) and the commentaries of McCarter (1980, 1984). It was the relations hip of this scroH to Chronicles and the possibility which analysis of this relations hip offered for distinguishing the types of differences between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles which arose from the Chronicler and those which were present in his Vorlage which led me to 4QSam a . It became apparent, however, that although there is a clear relationship between this scroll and Chronicles, since there are a number of key points where these witnesses agree in secondary or corrupt readings, litde or no evidence had been provided conceming the direction of the relationship, namely whether the Chronicler had used a text similar to 4QSama as his Vorlage, or whether 4QSam a represented a text of Samuel which had been subsequendy assimilated to a greater or lesser degree towards Chronicles. Cross (1958, 141-2) and Lemke (1965,353,356-7) seemed to assume that demonstrating common readings was sufficient to indicate Chronicles' dependence upon 4QSama , while Ulrich alone sought to find evidence for this direction of relationship. Most of his evidence, however, can equally be explained by dependence of 4QSama upon Chronicles as vice versa. 8 At best, his evidence leads to a slighdy greater likelihood of Chronicles' dependence upon 4QSama , although other evidence, such as the apparent failure of the Chronicler to be aware of readings shared by Samuel MT and 4QSam a ,9 may point in the opposite direction. In order to resolve this matter, I developed a range of tests which together were intended to ascertain the direction of the relationship. The key tests involved statistical comparisons between 4QSama , Samuel MT, and the Septuagint of Samuel in sections where Chronicles is parallel and in sections where it is not, to see whether there were any signs that the presence of Chronicles influenced these relationships, as might be expected if 4QSama were the result of subsequent assimilation towards Chronicles. Statistical tests, however, by their nature, require a substantial volume of data if statistically significant results are to be obtained-in this case, both in the Chronicles-parallel and Chronicles not-parallel sections. This established the need to reconstruct the text of 4QSama with as great a thoroughness as possible. In seeking to reconstruct the text, it became evident that no clear method had been developed for reconstructing scroHs. Scholars had rather depended largely upon common sense and general scholarly judgment. If as many of the deviations of the scroll from Samuel MT as possible were to be identified, as was required for the proposed statistical tests, then it was important to develop a more scientific method, or battery of such tools. This need, as weH as the desire to reconstruct 4QSama , or at least to identify as many deviations from Samuel MT as possible, for use in my B U1rich (1978) ostensib1y presents his evidence in chapter 5, a1though most of it is in chapter 7. It is hoped at a 1ater juncture to pub1ish a discussion ofU1rich's evidence, together with the results ofmy statistital and other approaches for determining the direction of the relationship. 9 See Herbert (1994, 348).

2

INTRODUCTION

tests for the direction of the 4QSama /Chronicles relationship, have determined the nature and strategy of this study. The first stage (chapter 1 and 2) is, therefore, the development of a battery of tools to assist the scholar in the reconstruction of biblical Qumran scrolls, and is established largely from a study of five substantially extant scrolls. The method itself is presented in chapter 1, with the more detailed defence of certain of its key elements being undertaken in chapter 2. The separation of chapters 1 and 2 in this way is designed to help the reader to grasp the basic method itself before confronting the sometimes lengthy justifications of individual components. Arising from this, a range of analyses are carried out upon 4QSama (chapter 3) as a foundation for determining (chapter 4), as far as the evidence permits, the points where the scroll deviates from Samuel MT, and, in such cases, the support of the Septuagint and its sub-groups for 4QSama and Samuel MT.lO This is followed by the conclusion, in which the effectiveness of the proposed method for 4QSam a is reviewed, its wider application to other biblical scrolls considered, and the degree to which it can be applied to the reconstruction of non-biblical scrolls assessed. Appendices A-D provide lists of new fragment identifications, all fragment identifications, orthographic data, and deviations from the Masoretic Text respectively, and Appendix E provides a visual representation of the fragment juxtapositions within each column for 2 Samuel. Space limitations have required that only apart of the reconstruction of the scroll be presented here. The choice for this purpose of 2 Samuel arose from the fact that Chronicles is parallel to, and the Km 'YE recension of the Septuagint is present in, parts of 2 Samuel, while being absent from 1 Samuel, apart from the parallel of 1 Sam 31 to Chronicles (1 Chr 10). Since a key purpose of this work is to provide the data for the analysis of the relationships between the various textual witnesses, the study of 4QSama has generally avoided presuming any given relationships between the major witnesses or the superiority of any one tradition over others. Thus judgments have been avoided as to which LXX reading represents the Old Greek, whether any LXX manuscript tradition is textually related to 4QSama , or whether Chronicles is dependent upon a text related to 4QSama . In chapter 4, the terms 'plus' and 'minus' have been used to designate whether a witness has extra text or lacks some text that is present in SMT, without any connotation intended as to which is the more original or superior reading.

\0

Especially the Lucianic manuscripts, boc 2e 2.

INTRODUCTION

3

CHAPTER ONE

A NEW METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

Existing Techniques JOr Reconstruction There is not, as far as I am aware, any clear statement of method that explains in detail how scrolls should be reconstructed. It has, however, been possible to summarise the general method and types of tools that scholars have brought to bear on the task, through observing the types of arguments used by scholars in defending their reconstructions of certain disputed readings: 1. An assessment is made, in general terms, of the amount of space within a lacuna between fragments or between points immediately above each other on two consecutive lines of the same fragment. Amounts of text are gene rally measured in terms of numbers of characters, with such character counts being applied either to the size of the lacuna itself, I or to the whole line of which the lacuna is part in order to make the reconstruction of a line contain approximately the same number of characters as is present in the surrounding lines. 2 For a small lacuna, its size may occasionally be specified in terms of such statements as 'there is room only for one space, or one letter, or conceivably one letter and an unusually narrow space'.3 Comparisons with other columns are gene rally inappropriate, for column widths can vary materially within a scroll. In the case of 4QSama , column widths vary by up to 30% from the average. 2. Possible reconstructions are made based upon other texts of the biblical book under consideration such as the Masoretic Text, 4 other Qumran scrolls of that biblical book, 5 the Samaritan Pentateuch, 6 or the Septuagint, 7 or a subgroup of its manuscripts. 8 A choice is made of the reconstruction which appears to fit the available space, and which makes good sense in the context. Where alternative Ulrich (1979, 12) concerning lines 16-17, DJD9 (60), and DJD8 (88) concerning Mi 5:5 and 5:6. Ulrich (1989a, 10) discussing line 7, DJD9 (83, 89) discussing lines 3 and 30-31 respectively. 3 Cross (1953, 22). 4 E.g. DJD9 (105) concerning lines 26-28 (Ex 21:28). 5 E.g. Ulrich (1979, 15) concerning line 23 (2 Sam 15:2). 6 E.g. DJD9 (102) concerning lines 21-29 (Ex 20:19a). 7 See Cross (1953, 22-23) concerning line 15 of 4QSama column 2. B E.g. Ulrich (1978, 103, 106-7), concerning 2 Sam 13:32 and 13:39 respectively, where 4QSama is recon-structed in line with the reading of the Lucianic manuscripts (boc2e2). I

2

A NEW METHOn FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

5

reconstructions are possible based upon different witnesses, a preference is sometimes tentatively given to the witness which is more characteristically in agreement with the extant fragments of the scroll. 9 Reconstructions generally embrace the orthographie conventions apparent from the study of the extant fragments of the scroll, and, in the case of the Septuagint, should take cognisance of the problems of retroverting from the Creek text.

3. Where the parallel witnesses suggest no viable reconstructions, the demands of context and the possibility that biblical or non-biblical allusions may have been picked up are considered. 1O 4. Stegemann has developed a method based on the repeated patterns of holes or other marks of decay on each turn of the scroll that arose from the degradation of the scroll while rolled up.11 His method has been successfully used with a number of non-biblical scrolls to suggest the original length of the scroll, and the relative positions of certain fragments within it. 12 In other cases, including 4QSama, even where a reasonable amount of scroll has been preserved, such repeating patterns are at best unclear. 13 Whether this arises from such scrolls having been stored loosely wound so that they fell apart at an earlier stage in their degradation history, as seems likely, the result is that, for such scrolls, Stegemann's method provides no help. Of crucial importance in the above procedure is the degree to which one is able to assess accurately whether a suggested reconstruction can fit the available space. Two developments have appreciably improved the potential accuracy of estimates of the amounts of text that can fit into a lacuna. The first of these was proposed by Carol Newsom in her analysis of the Masada fragments of the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, where she states, 'For purposes of approximating space available for restorations, it is better to calculate corrected letter spaces (counting waw, yod, zqyin, and final nun, and the spaces between words as halfletters)'.14 The second is a computerassisted approach, detailed by Lange,15 and involves filling lacunae by copying actual extant characters from elsewhere in the scroll, in order to assess the viability of a proposed reconstruction. The benefits and problems arising from these methods, however, will be discussed below l6 only after the core method to be proposed in this study has been considered. It is this latter task that must now be addressed. The method shown below comprises six complementary developments in method, which E.g. Cross (1953, 20) concerning 1 Sam 2:3 in lines 20-21 of 4QSama column l. E.g. Cross (1953, 21-22) concerning line 4/5 of 4QSama column 2. 11 This is most fully developed in Stegemann (1990). 12 Examples include Stegemann (1971), Newsom (1985,259-64), Chazon (1991), Puech (1988 and 1992, 65-68). 13 Cf. similar problems regarding 8f.IevXIIgr discussed in Kraft (1990, 15-17). 14 Newsom (1985, 167). 15 Lange (1993), summarised in Lange (1994). 16 See pp. 60-63. 9

10

6

CHAPTER ONE

together significantly increase the scholar's ability to reconstruct the lacunae within biblical scrolls.

Development 1: Letter Widths Amounts of text to be reconstructed are generally measured by counting characters. Such character counts constitute an approximation for the space occupied by that reconstruction, but it is an approximation that takes no account of the varying widths of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In 1QIsaa, far example, the widths of the letters of the Hebrew 'square' script vary appreciably, so that the largest letter (tv) is over 2.5 times the size of aT and over 3.5 times the size of a final 1. Thus if a word or words contain a high proportion oftv's, il's, ~'s and finallJ's, it or they will occupy considerably more space than a corresponding series that contained the same number of characters but with a disproportionate number of1's, j's, T's, ",'s, final1's, final =-j's or spaces. This observation suggests that the first refinement should be the development of a measure of the amount of space that a reconstructed series of characters can be expected to occupy which takes ac count of the varying widths of the Hebrew letters that make up that series. The first stage towards this end is to calculate the average width of each letter of the alphabet within the scroll in question. On ce this has been achieved, a 'reconstructed width' is calculated for each proposed reconstruction, which is the sum of the average letter widths of the letters that comprise that reconstruction. Thus, for instance, the reconstructed width of the Hebrew word ",toll is the sum of the average letter widths for the toll, "' and the following space. Reconstructed widths represent the amount of space that the scribe would have used to write the series of characters if he had been writing each of the characters at their average width for the scroll. It is of course true that no scribe, even the most professional and regular hand, would have been completely consistent in the way he wrote individual characters. It should, however, be clear that an estimate of the space occupied by aseries of characters based upon the calculation of its reconstructed width represents a better approximation to the actual space occupied than one based merely upon numbers of characters. In reality a number of problems and complications arise in the calculation and use of both the average letter widths and the reconstructed widths of reconstructions, which require the method to be nuanced more carefully. Those relating to the calculation of average letter widths will be considered immediately below, while those concerning the calculation and use of reconstructed widths will be considered in subsequent sections of this chapter.

Calculating Average Letter Widths The calculation of reconstructed widths for a reconstruction depends upon having a list comprising an 'average letter width' for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This is generally obtained by measuring and averaging the widths of several instances of each letter that occur on extant unshrunk fragments of the scroll in question.

A NEW METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

7

A choice must be made as to the manner in which a letter width will be measured. Whatever choice is made, there will be some letters whose width is partially dependent upon which letter immediately precedes or follows it. Through experimentation, it has been found that the greatest consistency is obtained by measuring the width of each letter as the distance from the most right-hand point of the top third of the letter (the top of the , and the longer tails of some final forms being ignored for these purposes) to the same point at the beginning of the next letter. It is interesting to note that this approach for determining where a letter starts appears to be similar to the way in which some scribes, such as the one who copied I Q}\1, treat most letters at the beginning of a new line. In the case of the last letter of a word, the end of the letter is deemed to occur at the most left-hand point of that letter, with the inter-word space (which is treated as a character in its own right) beginning at that point. It is easier to measure accurately widths of letters if measurements are made on an enlarged photocopy of the fragments or on a microfiche image using 72x magnification, with the results being scaled back down afterwards. There are, however, three notable points where the above assumptions are too simplistic. First, in many cases where a J follows another letter, that preceding letter is wider when measured on the above basis than would have been the case if it had been followed by a different letter. Since, however, the J is a relatively infrequent letter, this rarely causes a material problem. Secondly, in some scrolls (such as 4QSam a), where certain letters (e.g. a ~) can be ligatured to the following letter, the width of those letters in such cases may be shorter than would have been the case if they had been followed by a non-ligatured letter. This has been found, however, not to make a sufficient difference to warrant any attempt being made to reduce its effect. FinaIly, since the width of a letter at the start or middle of a word includes the (small) gap between it and the following letter, but at the end of the word does not, the width of such a letter at the end of a word is often narrower than would be expected if it was in the middle of the word. This latter problem could be reduced if the width of the last letter of a word was designated as including, say, the first half millimetre of the inter-word space (the actual figure here would depend on the relevant scroIl's usual inter-letter space). In the current work no attempt has been made to apply such an adjustment, since such a failure to adjust will only tend to be significant where a seetion of text being 'measured' is relatively short (say, less than 10mrn), and even then only where either that seetion of text begins with aspace or it ends with the last letter of a word. An important factor which can make the calculation of the average width of each letter of the alphabet difficult is shrinkage. Many fragments have clearly suffered contraction, by as much as 40%,17 presumably due to the leather becoming moist at 17 Mur 88 (PAM 41.499) has been subject to more than 35% shrinkage in places, and 4Q29 I (PAM 42.419) has been subject to over 40% shrinkage in places. The greatest level of shrinkage in 4QSama is apparent on the left side of the darkened fragments in 2 Sam 5:6-10 (PAM 41.152), which are shrunk just over 25% relative to the light-coloured fragment that spans the same lines.

8

CHAPTER ONE

so me point in the scroll's history. This means that, when calculating average letter widths, care must be taken to choose fragments or parts of fragments that have undergone little or no shrinkage. In general this means using areas of scroll where there are no breaks, and where consecutive lines have remained consistently parallel to each other. In the case of scrolls with only a limited number of fragments, it may not be possible to choose sufficient unshrunk fragments to provide a reliable basis for calculating average letter widths. In such cases fragments are chosen which are as consistent as possible in terms of the degree of shrinkage that they have undergone, though without the need to be free from shrinkage, and average letter widths are then calculated from them. Where a fragment is used with a significantly higher or lower degree of shrinkage, the widths of letters on that fragment must be scaled up or down as appropriate to compensate. This can be achieved by comparing the widths of one or two letters which recur most frequently within the fragment with the widths of those letters within the main group of fragments. It is not necessary, however, to identify the degree of shrinkage to which the main group of fragments has been subject, since the effectiveness of the method proposed below, in reality, depends upon the widths of the letters of the alphabet relative to each other, rather than upon their absolute widths per se. In scrolls with a relatively small number of fragments, there may be some letters with only one or even no extant occurrences. Where only one occurrence of a letter is extant, the width of this one must be taken as the 'average width' for that letter (after adjusting for any shrinkage), although one has to recognise that such an average could represent a freak that is materially different from the scribe's norm for that letter. In cases where no occurrence of a given letter is extant, an 'average width' must be estimated, using another scroll that displays a generally similar script, and the resulting width scaled up or down depending upon whether frequently occurring letters in the scroll under investigation are sm aller or larger in the comparison scroll. Fortunately, letters that are infrequent within the extant fragments are usually those that are less common in general, so that the impact of having a less accurate measure of the average width of these letters is rarely significant.

Using Data from a Different Seroll For scrolls with very little surviving text, it may be appropriate to use the average letter widths of ascroll for whieh a greater amount has survived, such as one of the six serolls for whieh average letter widths have been given in Table 1 below. 18 The 'eomparison seroll' from whieh the average letter widths are to be drawn should be seleeted on the basis of the similarity of form between the seripts. Where the form is similar but the seript of the eomparison seroll is generally larger or smaller than that

18 For further details of the calculation of these data, see chapter 2, pp. 27-33, and chapter 3, pp. 79-80.

A NEW METHOn FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

9

~

:::l

, J

i1

n t!l :J

l

'; 0

Cl

0 l]

EJ

~ ~

r

,P tv

n Spaee Average Table 1

lQJsaa

llQ'P

lQM

1QpHab

lQS

4 QSama

2.73 2.65 2.13 2.52 3.21 1.65 1.49 3.04 3.30 1.95 2.10 1.78 1.59 2.75 3.20 1.53 1.03 2.91 2.37 2.08 1.57 2.79 2.43 3.04 2.25 3.75 2.62 1.53 2.22

2.86 2.38 2.73 2.78 3.12 1.29 1.47 3.09 3.43 1.47 2.02 2.41 2.10 2.58 2.48 1.80 1.36 3.13 2.97 1.84 1.86 3.27 2.39 3.15 2.33 3.55 2.68 1.47 2.18

3.28 2.20 1.64 2.25 2.64 1.46 1.05 2.40 2.79 1.52 1.86 2.79 2.08 2.21 2.76 1.38 1.21 3.07 2.87 1.63 2.51 2.71 2.61 3.48 2.11 3.40 2.41 1.12 1.96

3.17 2.49 2.35 3.15 3.80 1.97 1.88 3.25 4.13 2.11 2.35 3.15 2.88 2.97 3.67 1.64 1.22 4.03 3.42 2.38 2.54 3.42 2.73 3.98 2.70 4.34 3.01 2.55 2.82

2.96 2.52 2.16 2.47 2.87 1.47 1.32 2.89 2.77 1.69 2.21 2.01 1.67 2.63 2.41 1.54 1.39 2.94 2.52 2.21 1.60 2.90 1.96 3.19 2.29 3.59 2.45 1.55 2.12

2.35 2.09 1.88 2.19 2.53 1.23 1.20 2.30 3.01 1.49 1.81 1.97 1. 73 2.17 2.93 1.25 0.99 2.95 2.48 1.50 2.16 2.36 2.29 3.10 2.11 3.47 2.25 1.32 1.88

Average letter widths (millimetres) 10r six Qymran serolls usable as eomparison serolls

of the scroll being reconstructed, an overall scaling factor should be applied to the average letter widths to make them appropriate to the scroll being reconstructed. This can be achieved by comparing the widths of the most frequently recurring letters within the surviving fragments with the widths of those letters in the comparison seroll. Thus, for instanee, if the width of the chosen letters within the surviving fragments are on average 1.2 times the size of those within the eomparison seroll,

IO

CHAPTER ONE

then the average letter widths from the comparison sc roll should be multiplied by 1.2 to give average letter widths suitable for application to the scroll in question. It is not, however, essential that this scaling factor be precise, since the proposed method will be seen to be, in reality, based on the widths of letters and sequences of letters relative to each other, rather than on their absolute widths per se. It is significant to note that much of the predictive accuracy of the method is retained even where average letter widths are drawn from a different scroll (see pp. 59-60). The proposed method involves calculating, on the basis of the relevant average letter widths, the 'reconstructed width' rather than a character count of any proposed reconstruction, namely the sum of the average letter widths for the characters that make up the reconstruction. 19 The benefits gained from such an approach will become apparent in the next section, where the average letter widths calculated for five scrolls will form the basis of a method for evaluating whether a proposed reconstruction should be viewed as plausible or not. It is suggested that reconstructed widths should be used for all parts of any lines under consideration, even where some of its text may be extant, since this eliminates the need to assess the degree of shrinkage that may have occurred in the extant fragment or to take ac count of any significant differences in the size of scribal writing between columns. Development 2: Vertical Dividers The above method is enhanced by the use of vertical dividers, which involves the division of manuscript columns into narrower vertical sections, so that shorter widths of text can be compared with the corresponding sections in adjacent lines. This is achieved by constructing one or more 'vertical dividers'. These are verticallines that link points which are directly above each other on an extant fragment, and are illustrated in fig. 1 below. If more than one fragment includes text within a certain line or lines of a scroll, or the extant fragment is of a reasonable size horizontally, it is usually beneficial to construct several such vertical dividers, as was done in the above example. Reconstructed widths are then calculated, not just for complete lines, but for sections, which represent apart of a line that is bounded on both sides by a vertical divider, or by a vertical divider and the right margin. Fig. 1 presents three fragments from the middle of column 39 of 4QSama . Five vertical dividers have been drawn, which divide each line into six sections. If we begin by considering seetion e, reconstructed widths of the four relevant lines (4-7), reconstructing lacunae on the basis of MT, are highly consistent, varying between 20.9mm and 21. 7mm. Thus, in terms of space considerations, reconstruction of section e of each of these lines on the basis of MT is viable. Tuming now to sections c and d, which will here be considered together, reconstruction of lacunae on the basis

19

Spaces are cüunted as characters, für this purpüse.

A NEW METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

II

21

21

22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

26

26

27

27

28

28

29

29

30

30

31

31

32

32

33

33

34

34

36

36

37

37

Figure 1

Vertical Dividers usedfor Reconstruction of 2 Sam 11:2-8

of MT yields a high degree of consistency for three of the four relevant sections (5cd, 6cd and 8cd) with reconstructed widths varying between 39.4mm and 41.1 mm, but yields a reconstructed width of 48.2mm for 7cd. This difference from the reconstructed width of the comparable seetions makes it reasonably clear that 7cd reconstructed on the basis of MT is not consistent with 5cd, 6cd and 8cd reconstructed on the basis of MT. Thus, either 7cd or 5cd, 6cd and 8cd together deviate significantly from the text ofMT, and since 5cd, 6cd and 8cd are so similar, it is reasonably clear that 7cd indeed deviates from MT at this point. Note that there are some instances where a vertical divider, such as that between lOb and lOc, passes just outside an extant fragment. Where this occurs and it is possible to estimate with reasonable confidence the width of character(s) for which there is space, it is possible to include the section(s) that are bounded by that divider (such as section lOab) in the analysis of that line. Sections a and b, when examined together, present a similar situation to that found in sections cd. Reconstruction on the basis of MT yields reconstructed widths ofbetween 34.5mm and 36.8mm for sections ab for each oflines 5, 6, and 811, while that of 7ab is only 25.4mm. Again it appears that reconstructing 7ab

12

CHAPTER ONE

according to MT is inappropriate. In the case of both 7ab and 7cd, there are alternative reconstructions suggested by the versions which, when used, res tore 7ab and 7cd to consistency with the comparable sections of surrounding lines. In general, the narrower the sections are, the more sensitive the reconstruction can be to minor differences of reconstructed widths between competing options. There is, however, no point in adding further dividers unless this reduces the width of a section that completely encloses a lacuna, since the purpose of such dividers is to shed light on the text that originally resides in the lacunae. A key cause of variations in line widths in most Qumran texts is the fact that the left margins are not justified, but vary in position depending on where the final word in any given line happens to end. The procedure of creating vertical dividers and then analysing the resulting sections means that, apart from the left-hand section, reconstructed widths of sections are unaffected by this potential source of variation. F or ease of calculation, a letter which spans a vertical divider is initially counted as belonging wholly to the section in which the larger part of the letter resides. The impact of this approximation is reduced by positioning the vertical dividers so as to minimise the number of letters cut through the centre, as seen in the illustration above. It will be apparent, however, that there are occasions where the resulting approximation can be inappropriate. This is especially so where both a large letter (e.g. tv) has been bisected and the sections are relatively narrow. In such cases, the reconstructed width of this letter should be split between the relevant sections before comparing the section widths with those of corresponding sections of adjacentl nearby lines. The above method whereby the reconstructed width of most 'split' letters are allocated to one section, however, introduces a degree of approximation that reduces the accuracy of the method, and especially for the narrower section widths. Since the splitting of letter widths between sections in all cases would significandy increase the work required, it is proposed initially only to split the reconstructed widths where the largest letters are divided in half, as suggested above. Nevertheless, for individual sections whose reconstruction is particularly important or where calculation of the basic reconstructed width results in a deviation which raises some suspicion that the proposed reconstruction may be incorrect, it is proposed that an adjustment be made to the reconstructed width of the relevant section, where at least O.5mm of a split letter are in each section. For such a section, an 'adjusted reconstructed width' is calculated, which is obtained by measuring the width of letter that is within the section in which the character was not included, and subtracting this width [rom the reconstructed width of the section to which the character was allocated and adding it to the section to which it was not allocated. It is proposed, at this juncture, to compare the adjusted reconstructed width of the section in question with the average of the unadjusted reconstructed widths, since this reduces the number of sections for which the adjusted reconstructed width need be calculated. For the analysis of five substantially extant scrolls concerning the impact of alternative approaches to calcu-

A NEW METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

13

lating reconstructed widths, especially concerning the handling of letters 'split' by vertical dividers, see pp. 35-46. Analysis of 4QSama (pp. 47-53) included consideration ofwhether comparison of the adjusted reconstructed widths with the average of the adjusted reconstructed widths of the relevant sections, rather than with the average of the unadJusted reconstructed widths, significantly improved the accuracy of the method. This suggested that such a further fine-tuning of the method only contributes significantly to its predictive accuracy where both the section under consideration is shorter than around 12.5mm and the assessment of the validity or otherwise of a given reconstruction is reasonably finely balanced. Consequently, only where both the above conditions arise should the extra effort be expended to calculate the average of the adjusted reconstructed widths with which to compare the adjusted reconstructed width of the section under consideration. During the analysis of 4QSama , it was found that further adjusting reconstructed widths for split letters where less than O.5mm of the letter was in one section contributed very little to the predictive accuracy of the method (see p. 53).

Development 3: Critical Deviations In the illustration above, reconstruction on the basis of MT yielded a reconstructed width of48.2mm far 7cd, compared to 39.4mm, 39.5mm and 41.1mm for the three comparable sections. In the light of this, it was noted that 4QSama reasonably clearly deviated from MT in 7cd. It is not immediately clear, however, whether a reconstructed width for 7cd of, say, 45mm, or 43mm, would have been sufficiently different from that of 5cd, 6cd and 8cd to indicate the likelihood of such adeviation. Clearly where a section has a reconstructed width that differs from comparable sections by an amount that could reasonably be explained by the inevitable variations in the size and manner of writing used by the scribe, such a deviation should not be taken as an indication that the proposed reconstruction should be rejected. Thus it is important to assess whether adeviation of reconstructed widths is sm all enough to be caused by scribal inconsistency rather than by the inappropriateness of the reconstruction. In order to be able to make valid judgments in such situations, it is important to develop appropriate tools that take account of the degree of scribal inconsistency, so as to be able to identify those differences that are sufficiently great to suggest the inappropriateness of the proposed reconstruction. In particular, it is important now to consider how great a deviation from the average of corresponding sections is required before a given reconstruction should be rejected. In statistics, a 'null hypothesis' is proposed, in this case that the specified reconstruction fits the available space. The viability of this hypothesis is then tested. Such a hypothesis remains viable so long as the percentage deviation between its reconstructed width and the average reconstructed width of adjacent/nearby corresponding sections does not exceed a certain level. This critical level is calculated, on the basis of data from extant fragments, as that percentage deviation from the average of

14

CHAPTER ONE

corresponding sections that is exceeded on, say, only 5% of occasions. A reconstruction that yields a greater level of deviation from the average would be rejected as improbable, while a lesser deviation would not be disputed on the grounds of space considerations. Such a test based on the 5% 'significance level', however, causes one to reject 5% of perfectly valid reconstructions. In some situations, where it is important not to reject so many valid reconstructions, a lower significance level such as 1% is chosen. This corresponds to a higher percentage deviation from the average, and so reduces the number of valid reconstructions that will be rejected, but, of course, increases the number of invalid reconstructions that are not rejected. Within statistics, the most commonly used significance levels are 5% and 1%, depending upon how important it is to avoid rejecting a valid null hypothesis. It is proposed here to apply both of these significance levels, so that a deviation greater than that represented by a 5% significance level would be interpreted as raising 'substantial suspicion' of deviation, but, since this results in the rejection of 5% of valid reconstructions, 'reasonable confidence' that the reconstruction under consideration is incorrect should only be accepted where the deviation is greater than that represented by a 1% significance level. A table such as that constructed in Table 2 below can be constructed so that the deviations representing each significance level for each section size range can be read off Thus, for instance, using Table 2, and considering sections of, say, approximately 40mm width, 5% and 1% significance levels correspond to 8.1 % and 10.8% deviations respectively, so that deviations from the average of greater than 8.1 % would raise substantial suspicion, and greater than 10.8% reasonable confidence of deviation. These percentages are termed 'critical deviations' since they represent the percentage thresholds above which the deviation is seen as indicating substantial suspicion or reasonable confidence of the reconstruction under consideration being incorrect. Critical deviations may be expressed as percentage deviations, as here, or converted into millimetres where a specific reconstruction is being considered. Although, alm ost however great the deviation, we inevitably remain in the realm of probabilities, unless extant fragments are found which resolve the matter, such data can provide evidence of a convincing enough nature for many purposes. Where a seroll has much extant remains, it may be possible to generate a table of critical deviations for that seroll. In such instances, the procedure used to produce such a table for 4QSama may be used (see pp. 47 and 81-82). In cases where there is significantly less extant text than is the case for 4QSama , there will be insufficient data to enable a table of critical deviations to be produced adequately. In such situations, it is suggested that Table 2 (=Table 34) or Table 3 (=Table 37) below be used. These have been drawn up on the basis of the five substantially extant serolls that were analysed, with details of their construction being given in chapter 2 (pp. 53-58). Table 2 is appropriate for use where average letter widths for the scroll under investigation have been generated from data from that scroll, while Table 3 is appropriate where average letter widths from a comparison scroll have been used (see pp. 58-60 for details of Table 3's construction).

A NEW METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCT1NG THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

15

Critical deviations (%) Scction width (mm) 7.5-12.49 12.5-17.49 17.5-22.49 22.5-27.49 27.5-32.49 32.5-37.49 37.5-42.49 42.5-57.49 57.5-72.49 72.5-87.49 87.5-102.49 102.5-117.49 117.5-132.49 132.5-187.49

Table 2

5%

Significance levels 4% 3%

2%

1%

15.8 12.9 1l.3 1O.l 9.3 8.6 8.1 7.5 6.9 6.4 6.1 5.8 5.6 5.2

16.4 13.4 1l.7 10.5 9.6 8.9 8.4 7.8 7.1 6.6 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.4

18.6 15.2 13.3 1l.9 10.9 10.1 9.5 8.8 8.1 7.5 7.1 6.8 6.6 6.1

21.1 17.3 15.1 13.5 12.4 1l.5 10.8 10.0 9.1 8.5 8.1 7.7 7.5 7.0

17.2 14.1 12.3 1l.0 10.1 9.4 8.8 8.2 7.5 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.l 5.7

Table qf critical deviations Jor general use where average letter widths from the scroll under investigation have been used

When comparing a section with corresponding sections in neighbouring/nearby lines, it has been found to be appropriate (see pp. 45-46) to compare the reconstructed width of the section in question with the average of all the corresponding sections including that section, and such an approach has been assumed when drawing up the tables of critical deviations above. The use of the above tables of critical deviation can be illustrated by reference to the example on pp. 11-13, where 7cd (48.2mm reconstructed width) was being compared with 5cd, 6cd and 8cd (39.4mm, 39.5mm and 41.1 mm reconstructed widths respectively). In this case, the deviation between 48.2mm (the 7cd reconstructed width) and 42.1mm (the average of the reconstructed widths of the four seetions 5cd, 6cd, 8cd and 7cd) is 14.5%. eritica1 deviations wou1d be read from Tab1e 2 since reconstructed widths have been calcu1ated on the basis of average letter widths from 4QSama itself. 20 Thus 7cd's 14.5% deviation from the average is compared to the 10.8% critica1 deviation required to indicate reasonab1e confidence that the reconstruction is ab1e to fit the avai1ab1e space, and, since 7cd's deviation is higher than 10.8%, the reconstruction can be rejected with 'reasonable confidence.' If 7cd, however, had been only 45mm or 43mm, the average of the four sections wou1d have reduced to 41.3mm and 41.0mm 20 In reality, a table of 4QSama critical deviations would actually be used since critical deviation data spectific to 4QSama has been generated.

16

CHAPTER ONE

Critieal deviations (%) Signifieanee levels

Section width (mm)

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

7.5-12.49 12.5-17.49 17.5-22.49 22.5-27.49 27.5-32.49 32.5-37.49 37.5-42.49 42.5-57.49 57.5-72.49 72.5-87.49 87.5-102.49 102.5-117.49 117.5-132.49 132.5-187.49

17.4 14.2 12.4 11.1 10.2 9.5 8.9 8.3 7.6 7.0 6.7 6.4 6.2 5.7

18.0 14.7 12.9 11.6 10.6 9.8 9.2 8.6 7.9 7.3 6.9 6.6 6.4 5.9

18.9 15.5 13.5 12.1 11.1 10.3 9.7 9.0 8.2 7.6 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.2

20.5 16.7 14.6 13.1 12.0 11.1 10.5 9.7 8.9 8.3 7.8 7.5 7.3 6.7

23.2 19.0 16.6 14.9 13.6 12.6 11.9 11.0 10.0 9.4 8.9 8.5 8.3 7.7

Table 3

Table of eritieal deviations Jor general use Jor serolls where average letter widths from a eomparison seroll have been used

respectively, so that 7cd would then deviate from the average by 9.0% and 4.9% respectively. The latter case is insufficient even to raise substantial suspicion of deviation, since 4.9% is considerably lower than the 8.1 % required for this, while a 45mm reconstructed width for 7cd would raise substantial suspicion of deviating from MT, since 9.0% is higher than the required 8.1 %, but is inadequate to raise reasonable confidence of deviation since it is lower than the 10.8% deviation required for that. The proposed 5% and 1% significance levels are not intended to be used in an absolute way, but rather as a guide. Thus, in a situation where no alternative reconstructions other than the one under test seem to be realistically available, a situation that is only likely to arise where the lacuna is smalI, a higher deviation should be allowed than would be the case where there are two reconstructions competing, which are in other respects relatively equal in probability.21 It is hoped that this will reduce the number of valid reconstructions with unusually large or small writing widths which would otherwise be rejected. Other factors that may suggest that a higher deviation than normal should be required are the presence of extant text elsewhere in the line written more or less cramped than usual, which would open the possibility that the same may be the case in the section under consideration, and the probable presence of a ? in the reconstructed line immediately under a final C, thus 21

See analysis of 32A7a in chapter 4 below.

A NEW METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

17

suggesting that the scribe may have expanded or contracted the L;l and the letter preceding it in order to avoid its tail clashing with the bottom of the final 0. 22 The above method will be of greatest service if the conclusions that arise from it are drawn with care, indicating the degree of certainty and range of alternative solutions that are possible. In particular, it is important not to overstate the conclusions reached. Thus, for instance, the fact that space considerations may indicate that the only ancient version that can provide a viable reconstruction for a given lacuna is the LXX does not of necessity mean that the seroll actually was in line with LXX at that point, but merely that it may be.

Development 4: Margin Identification The positions of the right and left margins represent valuable data for reconstruction. The identification of the position of these margins and their subsequent use to ass ist in the task of reconstruction forms the fourth main development of method. Where the right margin can be pinpointed, it effectively creates a vertical divider that extends both above and below the limits of the fragment, and determines the position of the first letter of each line, except where a paragraph indent exists (see below). Where the left margin is extant, this helps to remove the uncertainty as to whether a particular line will be longer or shorter than the average. It is also clear that the presence of either margin determines the position of the other, so that the benefits of knowing the position of either can be wide ranging. The benefits gained from a knowledge ofthe margin position are sufficiently great (and will be repeatedly demonstrated with respect to 4QSama in chapter 4) that it is worth seeking to locate it relative to the extant fragments even where neither margin is actually extant. The means of achieving this will now be considered.

Consistent Right-hand Section Widths The primary means of identifying the position of non-extant margins arises from the fact that the amount of space occupied by text that lies between the right-hand divider of a fragment and the right margin should be the same for each line, except, of course, where a paragraph break occurs. Thus, the reconstructed widths of the corresponding right-hand sections should yield approximately equal reconstructed widths. This was the case for sections ab of lines 5-11 in fig. 1 above. 23 When seeking to identify the margin position, different potential positions are considered. Some of them can be eliminated on the basis that it is hard to find any degree of consistency in the reconstructed widths of the right-hand sections of the partially extant lines. 22 This is apparent in 4QSam a in I Sam 10: I 0, where '?:ln has been significantly expanded to avoid the '? touching the final 0 in the line above. 23 Sections 5a and 6a are shorter than sections 8a and 9a because shrinkage has occurred in seetions 5b and 6b to a significantly greater degree than in sections 8b and 9b.

18

CHAPTER ONE

In reality, if the right-hand fragment happens to lie reasonably dose to the right margin, then it is often (but by no means always) possible to fix the margins with reasonable confidence on the basis that uniformity of reconstructed widths of a short seetion is relatively unlikely to occur coincidentally for a number of consecutive lines. Even with narrow right-hand seetions, it is possible that the scroll may deviate from following the text or version to which it is generally dosest, as was the case for seetion 7ab in fig. 1 above. However, if the overwhelming majority of such seetions are consistent, with one or two lines being problematical, then the margin can often still be placed with confidence, especially where viable alternative reconstructions of the aberrant seetions would make them consistent with the majority. In fig. 1 above, the left margin was extant, but the consistency of seetion ab reconstructed widths would have enabled the margin to be located, even if the left margin had not been extant. Conversely, if the fragment(s) happen to lie nearer to the left margin, it is often not possible to specify the margin with any confidence, because the left margin is not regular enough to be reconstructed so confidendyas the right one, and because an increase in the width of the right-hand section increases both the potential absolute difference between the reconstructed width and the actual width of a given reconstruction of that section, and the range of possible reconstruction variants within that seetion. It is dear that such an approach to margin analysis is based on the assumption that words are not split between consecutive lines. This appears to be a valid assumption for all the scrolls written in the Hebrew square script, although not for the palaeo-Hebrew scroIls, where words frequendy straddle two lines. 24

Paragraph Divisions A second potential source of data that can assist in pinpointing the margins is the presence of vacats at the beginning, middle or end of a line. These, together with occasional complete blank lines in some scroIls, represent the primary means of indicating sense divisions. 25 A few scrolls appear to reflect a further level of division, sometimes approximating to the later verse divisions. 26

24 See DJD9 (19, 58, 132) and Freedman and Mathews (1985, 9). See also DJD9 (161) for a Greek manuscript with this featu!"e. 25 While some marginal markings, especially the paragraphos, may relate to the indication of sense divisions, these do not affect the space occupied by the text and so are not relevant to the task of text reconstruction. 26 These are apparent in 4QDana ,d (Pfann, 1993), 4QtgLev, where colons are extant as verse divisions (de Vaux and Mi1ik, 1977,86-89), and 8l:IevXIIgr (Revell, 1971; DJD8, 9). See also Oesch (1979, 201-2) who sees short gaps within the line (Kleinstspatien) of 1Qlsaa as representing a 1ess significant sense division than than those that introduce open or closed sections; this is recognised as uncertain in DJD9, 11).

A NEW METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

19

The Masoretic distinction between 'open' or major sense divisions (petuchot) marked by leaving the left part of a line or a whole line blank, and 'elosed' or sub ordinate sense divisions (setumot) marked by a vacat within a line or an indent at the beginning of a line seems to be broadly reflected in many Qumran scrolls (Tov, 1992, 50). The correlation, however, between the open and elosed units in the Masoretic Text and the major and minor sense breaks in the Qumran scrolls is only partial. 27 Consequently, the presence of a paragraph division in the MT can indicate no more than that there is a good chance of a sense division at the corresponding place in the Qumran scroll. Moreover, though there is more likely to be a sense division in the Qumran sc roll where there is a petucha in MT than where there is a setuma, the correlation is not suffieiently elose to suggest that the same type of sense division should be expected in the Qumran seroll as in MT. A paragraph division may thus be suggested, even where not extant, where a petucha or a setuma exists in MT, or where a natural break occurs in the literary eontext. Where either or both of these factors coineide with the most natural reconstruction(s) being too short to fill the available spaee, the prob ability of a paragraph division at that point is significantly increased. In order to understand the likelihood of a paragraph break at a given point in the text, and the alternative ways in whieh such a break could be indieated, it is important to seek a good understanding of the manner in which sense divisions are signified within the seroll. From the point of view of identifying the margin position, the most important aspeet of paragraphing knowledge is an understanding of whieh types of vacats are used within the seroll. Thus, for instance, if vacats at the beginning and in the middle of lines are always less than, say, 50mm and there appears, on the basis of space considerations, to be a vacat in the text considerably in excess of this, then it is likely that the vacat is at the end of a foreshortened line. This can be very important, especially if foreshortened lines and indents never oecur together representing the same paragraph division, since, if a foreshortened line ean be identified with confidence, the following verse will start a new line, a fact that usually suggests the approximate position of the margins (see reconstruction of 32A for such an instanee). More significantly, in ascroll such as 4QSama (see pp. 86-87 below), where mid-line vacats do not appear to be a regular part of its paragraphing system, any vacat can be assumed to be at the beginning or end of a line. In such a case, the presence of a paragraph break signifieantly limits the options for the margin positions, sinee either the preceding verse will end at or around the left margin or the following verse will start at the right margin. Where spaee considerations suggest a paragraph break, any implications for the position of the margin should be confirmed by other types of evidence, such as the relative uniformity of reconstructed widths of the right-hand seetion (see reeonstrue-

27

20

See especially the tables in Oesch (1979, 386-94, T4+-T37+).

CHAPTER ONE

tion of 31A for an examp1e of both types of evidence used together). In any case, the above tools should be combined with any other indications that may be available in order to identify the margin position with as much confidence as possible. Clearly, in scrolls where a relatively 1imited number of fragments have survived, there will be insufficient data to provide a clear knowledge of the precise paragraphing policy used. In such cases, the scholar must be open to the possibility of a range of sizes of vacats at the beginning, middle or end of a line as weIl as vacats spanning whole 1ines.

Development 5: Scribal Margin Policy In most Qumran texts the left margin is not justified, since the text extends on each line to a point that is dependent upon the different word widths in, and particularly at the end of, each line. When reconstructing a lacuna between extant fragments where this includes a non-extant left margin, the reconstruction will depend substantially upon the policy used by the scribe to decide when to write the next word on the current 1ine and when on a new line. It is, therefore, important to consider the types of margin policies which Qumran scribes appear to have used, and the application of the findings to the task of seraIl reconstruction. This represents the fifth development in the method. There is no way of knowing what, if any, specific criteria scribes used to decide whether to place a word at the end of one line or the beginning of the next. Nevertheless, through the analysis of five substantially extant scrolls in chapter 2 (pp. 63-76), a model has been constructed which accurately predicts actual scribal practice in a high proportion of cases. The suggested model is that scribes sought to mini mise the distance between the end of the last word of the line and a notionalleft margin, which may (as in 1QM and columns 45-62 of 11 QTa) or may not (as in 1QIsaa, co1umns 63-66 of 11 QTa, 1QS, and probably 1QpHab) coincide with the ruled margin. Thus, for examp1e, if a scribe completed one word 6mm before the notional left margin, he would only add the next word to that line if that word (including preceding space) would occupy less than 12mm. If it were any greater than 12mm, then its inclusion in that line would result in the distance between the notional left margin and the end of the line becoming greater than 6mm. While this has proved to be a reasonably effective predictor of actual scribal practice for the five seraIls, correcdy predicting it for between 95% and 99% of the lines examined, depending on the scroIl, there are some instances where actual scribal practice deviated from that predicted on the basis of the model. Over 60% of the deviations were sufficiendy small that the deviation could be eliminated by changing the position of the notional margin by 1.5mm or less. In order to increase the predictive accuracy of the model, it is suggested that such small deviations be disregarded, so that in such finely balanced situations one should

A NEW METHon FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

21

accept the possibility that the word in question could have been placed either at the end of the line or at the start of the next. In the analysis, it was also observed that some scribes appear at times to have been willing to allow adeviation from the model if this placed at the end of a line a minor sense break, such as might be represented by a comma in English translation, or if this avoided splitting a linked word pair, such as could be joined by maqqeph in MT. Such factors appear only to have exercised a limited influence, so that in every case where this occurred, moving the notional margin by 4mm was sufficient to eliminate the deviation. Consequently, where such factors apply, the deviation should only be counted where a greater movement of the notional margin than 4mm would be required to remove the deviation. The elimination of the above cases results in the predictive accuracy of this part of the method improving, so that the correct placement of a word at the end of a line is rejected in only 0.7% of cases, or less. Clearly, for scroIls where it has been possible to demonstrate that one or other of the above scribal exceptions does not apply, no allowance should be made for it in reconstruction. The proposed method for reconstructing the text at the left margin of a partly extant scroll is based on the model of scribal margin policy suggested above. Where an extant fragment is near the left margin but does not re ach it, so that it is not immediately clear whether a given reconstruction is consistent with the scribe's margin policy, a vertical divider is drawn near the left edge of the extant fragment, and the range of margin positions is calculated that is consistent with the proposed reconstruction. The stages by which this is achieved are noted below. While these procedures have been applied in the analysis of many columns of 4QSama, the results alone are generaIly given. However, for illustrative purposes, the workings for the reconstruction of the margins of column 31 have been given within the analysis of 31A in chapter 4. 1. For each line for which the left-hand vertical divider described above passes through the extant fragment, calculate the reconstructed width of the text between this divider and the end of the last word of the line according to the proposed reconstruction.

2. For these lines, calculate the reconstructed width of the last word (including preceding space), and place the minimum margin at halfthis distance before the end of the line, since if the notional margin were any further to the right the scribe could be expected to have placed this word on the following line. Thus, for example, if the proposed reconstruction yielded text after the vertical divider with a reconstructed width of 14.6mm, with the reconstructed width of the last word (including preceding space) being Bmm, the minimum margin would be IO.6mm (14.6mm less half of Bmm) to the left of the vertical divider.

22

CHAPTER ONE

3. Regarding these same lines, calculate the reconstructed width of the first word of the following line in the proposed reconstruction (including following space), and place the maximum margin at half of this reconstructed width beyond the end of the last word of the line under consideration, since, if the notional margin were any further to the left, the scribe could be expected to have placed the first word of the following line at the end of the preceding line. Thus in the example above, if the reconstructed width of the first word of the next line is l3mm, then the maximum margin is 21.1mm (14.6mm plus half of 13mm) to the left of the vertical divider. 4. Where the margin positions are unknown, stages 1-3 cannot be implemented as they stand. In such cases, reconstructed widths of fulllines are calculated from the text reconstructed between points directly above each other on two consecutive lines of the extant fragment. The minimum column width for each such line is then calculated as the reconstructed width of the line less half of the reconstructed width of the largest word in that line which could be adjacent to the left margin, and the maximum margin as the reconstructed width of the line plus half of the reconstructed width of the largest word in that line which could be adjacent to the right margin. 5. Repeat stages 1-4 for any other fragments in the column for which there is some way of relating the margin positions suggested by each fragment. The result of stages 1-5 will be aseries of minimum margin positions and aseries of maximum margin positions. 6. On the basis of the above, seek to find a range of possible positions for the notional margin with which all, or at least the overwhelming majority of lines are consistent. The greater the number of lines for which the minimum margin is as high as a certain level or the maximum margin as low as a certain level, the greater the degree of confidence that the actual notional margin did not transgress that limit. 7. Where a given line appears to be inconsistent with the minimum or maximum margin position deduced from the other lines, an attempt should be made to assess how possible it would be for adeviation to exist from the reconstruction initially proposed for that line. The higher the degree of consistency between other lines, the greater the deviation of this line and the more plausible the alternative reconstructions are seen to be, the greater is the confidence that can be held that the line in question indeed deviated from the initially proposed reconstruction. It should be emphasised that the method cannot establish any one reconstruction as correct, but merely assess whether its reconstructed width is consistent or not with those of the other lines within a column, or at least with other lines within apart of the column.

A NEW METHOn FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT OF BIBLICAL SCROLLS

23

8. Since it has been noted that scribal inconsistency can give rise to deviations of up to 1.5mm, but rarely to greater deviations, between the notional margin position and actual scribal practice on any one line, only deviations greater than 1.5mm should be considered as providing evidence adequate to challenge a proposed reconstruction. 9. Reconstructed widths have been suggested above as the basis for all the calculations, even where the text of part or all of a given section is extant, not only because, in most cases, the last word of the line in question and/or the first word of the next line will not be completely extant, but also because the possibility of shrinkage and variations of scribal writing between one part of the scroll and another suggests that reconstructed widths represent a more seeure basis than actual measured widths. The fact, however, that reconstructed widths represent an approximation of actual widths means that the further the left-hand vertical divider is from the left margin, the greater the potential difference between the actual width and reconstructed width of intervening text. In this respect, the lefthand section is similar to other sections, so that the degree of variation of reconstructed widths can be estimated using the table of critical deviations as for other sections. This is in addition to the inconsistency of the application of scribal margin policy considered above. 10. In scrolls where a substantial amount of text is extant, it may be possible to assess whether sense breaks or linked word pairs appear to have represented a significant biasing influence on scribal margin decisions. Where such bias es are apparent, or in scrolls for which an inadequate amount of text survives to resolve the matter, minor deviations [rom the usual scribal policy should be overlooked where such considerations might have given rise to adeviation from the model. Nevertheless, deviations of over 4mm should be considered significant even where such factors apply. 11. If care is taken not to place too much significance on minor deviations or upon those where sense breaks or linked word pairs could have influenced actual scribal practice, the prob

68.4 13.9 15.1 15.6

43.0 50.7 55.8

Reconstruction is particularly problematical here, since 4QSam a clearly deviates substantially from SMT and, although some extant phrases occur in CMT (1 Chr 19), it also deviates from CMT at many points. CMT-based reconstructions (used for lines 2-5, since the extant fragments are hard to correlate to SMT) for 2ab, 4a/b and 5a/b are mutually consistent and indicate an average section ab width around 6770mm, and the extant left margin ruling indicates a section d width of lOmm. Since the ACW has already been calculated as around 103-1 04mm, this indicates a section c width of around 23-27mm, or 22-28mm if a small allowance is made for variations in ACW between the top and bottom of a column. The lower end of this range will be seen below to be consistent with plausible reconstructions of each section c. 1: 4QSam a attests CMT (1 Chr 19:6)'s plus =,0) 1)) =,'?~. If 4QSama agrees with SMT in the last part of the bottom line of 38A and in 39A 1abc, which represents the top of the column and a direct continuation of 38A, the resulting 71.5mm reconstructed width for 1abc becomes too short compared with the average section abc width range of around 92-95mm. If, however, 4QSama were reconstructed on the basis of CMT, as suggested by the presence of =,'?~ =,0) 1)), a reconstructed width for 1abc of 86.8mm results, which still appears too short, unless ':JJ (6.2mm) were transferred from column 38. Alternatively, if verse 6 begins a new paragraph (against SMT and CMT), resulting in the transfer of ':JJ '~1" from column 38, reconstructed widths for 1abc of 87.4mm and 102.7mm result from reconstructing on the basis of SMT and CMT respectively, the former being compatible with average section widths up to 92.6mm. 2: 4QSama attests t:l'rD1~' J)1, which is present in CMT (1 Chr 19:6), but lacking in SMT and the versions ofSamuel. The right-hand fragment attests il).\J[O, which is present on ce in SMT and twice in CMT, but, since the SMT reference and the second CMT reference (1 Chr 19:6-7) occur later in the verse, 4QSama appears to follow CMT here too. Since this word is not present in SMT, and since it is not apparent what word or phrase in SMT it replaces, SMT-based reconstructions of 2ab and 2c are not really possible. Consequently, the reconstruction of 2ab is CMT-based, yielding a reconstructed width consistent with the CMT-based reconstructions of 4a/b and 5a/b. SLXX manuscripts attest a variety of alternatives for SMT's ~J'~ t:l1~ n~' J,n1 n'J t:l1~ n~, which, with the conceivable exception of

I36

CHAPTER FOUR

renderings ofo(,)n, for ::l(,)n" appear to be inner Creek corruptions and composite readings. Moreover, since 4QSama appears to agree with CMT rather than SMT elsewhere in lines 1-2, the SLXX readings are even less likely to be relevant. 2c clearly deviates from CMT, since the remains of the extant letter at the end of the word before ::l~' is probably a::l or a final 1, but clearly not a il (pace Ulrich, 152). The most natural explanation for this letter arises if ::lm, n'::l were present here. Thus, if 4QSama attested ::l,n, n'::l~', a reconstructed width of 23.0mm results, which is within the 22-28mm average section width range calculated above. If this is correct, 4QSama reflects a mixed text containing elements from both SMT and CMT. 3a: Since 4QSama follows CMT (1 Chr 19:6-7) at the end ofline 2 and in 3b, it is not obvious what an SMT-based reconstruction here would comprise. Consequendy, 3a has been reconstructed on the basis of CMT (1 Chr 19:7), which yields too short a reconstructed width. Thus 4QSama deviates from all witnesses. 3b/e: 4QSama ,s j~, :"j'?~ o[ agrees with CMT (1 Chr 19:7), against SMT/SLXX. 3e/d: Reconstructing 3c on the basis of SMT yields too great a reconstructed width (49.6mm). Reconstructing ::l't!ltv;[~' il~l'~ 1'?~ n~, partlyon the basis ofCMT (1 Chr 19:7) yields a reconstructed width of 33.5mm, which is also too great, while n~, ::l,t!ltv;[~ 1'?~ yields 21.9mm, which is consistent with an average section width of 22-28mm. In any case, 4QSama deviates from both SMT and CMT. The extant ::l,t!ltv;[~ ~acking in CMT) deviates from SMT's ::l't!l tv'~" with SLXX supporting 4QSam a ,s apparent assumption that this represents the name of an individual. 4a1b: The extant Jil 1~ ,~o~5 1'~.ii [ is part of a substantial plus, which is present in CMT (1 Chr 19:7), but not SMT. Reconstructing with CMT, the section 4a reconstructed width (50.7mm) is consistent Gust) with 2ab and 5a. McCarter (268) assurnes that 4QSama contained adesignation of the number of troops from Maacah and Tob, rightly noting on the grounds of space that, if this were the case, 4QSam a must have lacked CMT's ~::l"~ 'J~'? 'Jn', '~::l't This results in a reconstructed width of 49.3mm, which is slightly shorter than the CMT-based reconstruction, and thus slightly less consistent with 2ab and 5a. Moreover, the observation that such a partial lack of the text of CMT at this point is not reflected in any of the versions of Samuel or Chronicles militates against McCarter's reconstruction, although certainty is impossible. 4ed: The extant il as the first letter of a word requires that this word can neither be in the construct state, nor have a pronominal suffix. Moreover, the clear presence of the remains of a final Cl later in the line limits the options available. McCarter (268) suggests 0 [n'?il'? '~::l" Clil"llJil 1~, but Oil"llil is most unlikely, for the article and a suffix are hardly ever found together, and the resulting 4c reconstructed width would be 29.1mm (the final 0 is 9.5mm after the end of section c), which seems too great. The removal of the suffix also reduces the plausibility of the rest of this reconstruction since some form of suffix, adjective or parallel term is expected to designate more specifically from where the Ammonites gathered,

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

137

although Judg 20: 15 attests a parallel use of O"lm~, where it effectively means 'from their cities'. It is better to reconstruct either 0~"'~n1 0"'v]i1 1~ or more probably o[i1',~n~, 0"'v]i1 1~, yielding 4c reconstructed widths of 20.6mm and 22.8mm respectively. While a feminine suffIx would be expected in such a construction, a masculine suffIx can be used instead (GKC §1350), and is attested after 0',,Vi1 in the majority ofHebrew manuscripts inJosh 13:28. While the precise reconstruction remains uncertain, deviation from CMT (1 Chr 19:7) and SMT is dear. 39B: 2 Samuel10:18-19 (vertical margin position unknown)

Line 1 2 3

Line 1 2 3

Verse

SMT-based reconstrnction qf 2 Sam 10:18-19

18 18/19 19

[ J), n1t~~ ,V]:JrD O[,~~ ] [ ,~", OtV ]m~', i1)i1 [ '~J~ ,tV lJ'tV n~, O'tV,~ t']~~ 0' 'vJ'~' ] ']~'~tV " ~~ [,tV' 'J~~ ,mJ ') ,r,V"i1 ',J,V 0')~~i1 ~')] [

Verse

Reconstrncted widths qf 2 Sam 10:18-19 (mm)

18 18/19 19

26.0 27.1

76.7 77.9

1b/2a: While very little remains of the partly extant tV and

J at the start of this section, enough has been preserved to allow confidence, with Ulrich (251), concerning their identification. 4: The fragment is blank for the extant part of line 4, but this area is so heavily 'tarnished' that it is undear whether any extant characters would be visible. Consequently, it is uncertain whether 4QSama reflected the petucha of both SMT and CMT (1 Chr 19:19).

39C: 2 Samuel 11:2-12 (vertical margin positions known) The relative positioning on 43.123 of the four extant fragments relating to 2 Sam 11 :2-12 is manifestly wrong, since the second fragment from the right dearly attests the left margin. The juxtaposition of the fragments in the reconstruction below can be accepted with confidence. 2a-e: An SMT-based reconstruction (73.8mm) is too short compared with an average section width of 92-95mm. SLXX, however, suggests no plus es in the line. Since 4QSama seems to reflectJosephus in 4abc/d, it is tempting to see the same

138

CHAPTER FOUR

Line

1

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 11:2-12

2

7/8 8/9 9/10 10 10/11 11 11 11/12

l?nn'i[ ] iitv~n i [JJn ?ll~ n~n1' ntv~ ~", l?~n n'~ JJ ?ll ] i1~tvn~ n [~r ~,?n ,~~" ntv~? tv"", "" n?tv', ,~~ n~,~ n~,~ ] O'J~?~ 1P1' n?tv'1 ] ~~" '?J ~tv i[J 'nnn n"1~ n]~~[ Oll'?~ n~] [,]nn, n n':J[ ?~ ~']:Jm ntvipn~ ~' n[, n~ll ~J tv'], i;?~ ~,~n'l[ nnp',] [ ?]~ ,'i[1 n?tv']i n, n 'J'J~[ n]jii [ ,~~n, ,]",,? 'Jn1 n?tvni i1[tv~n] [ ",,] ?[~ n',,~ n] ~ ~~" nU?[tv', 'mn n',,~ n]~ '?~ nn?~[ ~~" ] 01?ID?' Olln 01 ?tv]? [, ~~" m?tv? "1' ]?~ tv'1 i [,]?~ n' ['1~ ~1~" ] [ [ rn" ln'~? " n',,~ ]? ~ "" ['1~~"]i ii [~n?~n ] [ ~Jtv" l?~n n~tv~ ,',n~ ~~m l?~n n' ~] 6 n',i~ [ ~~" T?J'] , J'[' ,n'~ ?~ '" ~,?, "j'~ "~ll ?,J n~ l]?[~n n'~ nnE) n',,~ ] ~1 ?n [ n"1~ ?~ "" ,~~', 1n'~ ?~ n',,~ ", ~? '1~~? "1'?] 11,~n "'1? ~ [ n"1~ '~~'1 ln'~ ?~ m,' ~? ll"~ ~~ nn~ l"~] 'J'~ ,,~ ll1 i [.... ~~1' 'J1~1 mJO~ O'~ID" n'1n'1 ?~'tv'1 ] Oll ~1Jtv?1.. n [1ntv?1 ?1J~? 'n'~ ?~ ~1~~ 'j~1 0'j1n n,tvn 'JE) ?ll ] ? ~ "1' '1 [~~'1 nm ,~,n n~ ntvll~ O~ ltvElJ 'n1 Tn 'ntv~]

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 11:2-12 (mm)

2

2

3 4 5 6 7

2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 6

8 9

7

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Line 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

I

10.0 10.9 13.7 12.5 12.0 9.1 8.4

2 2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 6 7 7/8 8/9 9/10

2.2

10

3.6

10/11 11 11 11/12

9.2 2.7 6.7 l.7

73.8 98.4 2l.3 2l.7 20.9 2l.0

20.6 2l.9 19.6

17.5 19.9 48.2 41.1

28.8 38.5 66.5 64.8 1l.5 1l.6 . 11.6 12.1

50.7 24.8 22.9

I

12.0 12.2

25.4 19.6 2l.4

I

15.4 14.8

34.5 35.3 98.2 86.7 73.9 (excl. i ...) 88.3 85.7

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

139

thing occurring here, for J osephus (VII, §130) adds KaT EKEL vo TllS' wpaS' and EV Tll aUTllS' OLKta, although it is questionable whether the first phrase reflects any Hebrew expression. 4abc/d: ]:J~" '?J ~tv; [) is reflected in Josephus (VII, §131), but not in any of the versions of Samuel. In Josephus, however, this information does not occur until David instructs Joab to send Uriah. The adjusted reconstructed width from the start of the extant n]rb~[ to the end of 4abc (34.4mm) is 9.5% shorter than the average of such subsections of lines 4-6, where 8% would usually be sufficient to raise substantial suspicion of deviation. The apparent lack of plausible explanation, however, suggests that no suspicion of deviation should be noted. 5d: 4QSam a lacks SMT's i1n~ot:lo, which is reflected in SLXX/!}a'8'. 5d/e: The first word of 5e is neither :l(')tvm (SMT /SB) nor l?m (suggested by SL's alTllA8Ev), since the third letter is quite incompatible with a tv or a ? The most likely identification of the near horizontalline somewhat above the tail of the n is a :l, which suggests ~':ln, (see Ulrich, 137, and [;). This reconstruction, though uncertain, is consistent with the average section e width. The verb alTEpxollaL is used to translate ~':l twice in Samuel, compared with the Qg1 of 1?i1 forty times. Thus, it is possible, but unlikely (pace Ulrich, 137) that SL's alTllA8Ev reflects ~':Jn1. 6c-e: 4QSama (and SB) invert the order of SMT's 'J)~ i11i1, which is followed by SL, !:. and 4. Ulrich (88) summarises this variation unit as '4Q=G M', but SL (and !:.4)'s support for SMT should be recognised, despite the fact that this results in an unusual alignment of witnesses. The presence of a i1 at the start of 6d suggests that 4QSam a also had the plus mi1 (with jb2cx9. This is reinforced by the reconstructed widths of 6c and 6d matching well with comparable lines if mi1 were present, but poorly if it were lacking (31.8mm for 6cd). The presence of mi1 has been treated as a separate variation unit from the change in the order of 'J)~ i11i1 since the alignments of witnesses are so different. 7ab: An SMT-based reconstruction is too short. AEYWV (SLXX) and dicens (SV) suggest 1'O~? Though AEYWV could have been added in the Greek tradition, since a verb of sending is not usually followed by a quotation, its presence within SB, which represents the relatively literal KaL YE recension at this point,24 suggests that it was present at least in the recensionist's Vorlage. Including 1'O~? increases the reconstructed width to 36.3mm, resolving the space problems, and can be accepted with confidence. 4QSama ,s masculine singular imperative form i1n?tzJ is an orthographic variant of SMT's n?tv. 7cd: An SMT-based reconstruction is too long, with SLXX supporting SMT. It is reasonably clear that 4QSama lacked 'nni1, with ELh(uid), reducing the reconstructed width to 38.3mm, thus resolving the space problems. 24 Thackeray (1907,262-3) and Barthelemy (1963,36) viewed the KaL'YE recension as starting at 2 Sam 11:1, and Shenkel (1968, 117-20) has shown that the start should be pushed back at least to 2 Sam 10: 1. Either way, SB in chapter 11 has been subject to the KaL 'YE recension.

140

CHAPTER FOUR

7f: McCarter sees insufficient space for ,'"

,~, and so reconstructs "'~ with SL and

L. There are, however, no grounds for seeing adeviation from SMT at this point,

since both are equally compatible with the scribal margin policy. McCarter may have based his assertion on the erroneous juxtaposition of the fragments in the photographs (see p. 139 above). 9a: Ulrich (186-7) reconstructs following SMT as in the above reconstruction table. He then adds that 'a tenuous possibility exists, however, that, since 4Q) final letter can also be C ofc["tv, ,o~,,], 4Qhad C"tv, 'o~" (with L OLj), perhaps having lost another phrase by haplography'. This 'tenuous possibility', however, can be safely discarded, not only because the letter in question is almost incompatible with a final c, but also because the resulting 12.4mm adjusted reconstructed width of 9a seems too short compared with 8a (15.4mm). 9b/cdef: TW OupELa of SBmajlSL more naturally reflects SMT's i1"'~' than 4QSam a ,s i1"'~ ]?~, although the high degree of uncertainty in this means that it is best to regard this Greek reading as probably indistinguishable. cx's rrpos Oupwv probably reflects 4QSam a ,s reading. 9cdefll Oab: An SMT-based reconstruction is too short, with the versions failing to suggest any pluses. There is some possibility, on the basis ofJosephus (VII, §132), that 4QSama may have included an instruction to eat some food/meat before the instruction to go down to his house, in anticipation of Uriah's reference to eating and drinking in verse 11. 10ab/cdef: McCarter (280) reads C"'i1 '~tm]:::l i1"'~, but the first letter of the word after i1"'~ is almost certainly a 0 (as in SMT), and clearly not a :::l (too tall for a :::l, and possessing a sloping base line). Consequendy, there is no reason to view 4QSam a as deviating from SMT. llcde/f: All SLXX manuscripts attest arrllYYELAav or aVllYYELAav, which superficially seem to support SMT's Hiphil ")" against 4QSam a ,s Hophal ')'1. In Samuel, SL renders SMT's eight occurrences of '~:'.1 three times by the 3rd plural aorist active and five times by the 3rd singular aorist passive, but likewise renders SMT's eight occurrences of 1'~:) (with subject impersonal) three times by the 3rd plural aorist active and five times by the 3rd singular aorist passive. Thus, SL is indistinguishable. SB most commonly translates both Hebrew forms using the 3rd singular aorist passive, only using the 3rd plural aorist elsewhere twice (2 Sam 10:5 and manuscripts Bya 2a*efmnsw in 1 Sam 23:25), each time corresponding to SMT's ")'1. Consequendy, since SB here has an aorist active, its Vorlage was probably 1'~'" a conclusion that is strengthened by the relatively literal translation technique of the KaLYE recension. 25 12abcde: McCarter (281) claims that space considerations suggest that 4QSama attested ,'" l'Oi1 ,~ with SL, against SMT (and SB)'s "",. Since, however, an

25

See especially Barthelemy (1963, 36-41, 48-80, 102).

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

141

SMT-based reconstruction yields a reconstructed width that is almost exactly the same as the average seetion width, McCarter's added l3.4mm seems improbable. 14abcd: The extant remains of the last word before ',::1.l.l, cannot be the remains of the::1 that would be required if 4QSama were following SMT, but most naturally appear to be a 1. Thus the shortage of text is best explained by extra (unspecified) element(s) at the end of the section. The definite article of1"~i1 at the end of line 13 demonstrates that it could not have been part of a construct phrase, as in SLXX (and SS). The versions provide no other possibilities for expansion.

Column 40 Taking average seetion a and b reconstructed widths for 40A to be 55-57mm and 27-28mm respectively, lines 2, 4 and 5 are compatible with ACWs of 102.5-l13mm, 101.5-ll6.5mm and 100-lllmm respectively, with lines 1 and 3 being compatible with ACWs of l17.5-l28.5mm and 78.5-91.5mm respectively. This suggests an ACW between 102.5mm and lilmm, with lines 1 and 3 deviating. 40C, 40D and 40E are compatible with this range, except that 40D 1 has a lower limit of 105mm, while 40Elb/2a, 40E2b/3a, 40E3b/4a and 40C2b/3a have upper limits of 96.5mm, 99.3mm, 103mm and lilmm respectively. The above suggest that the ACW is around 10 l-104mm, with inconsistency allowances making all but 40Al and 40A3 compatible with this range. A 102.5mm ACW results in 4QSama expanding the text of SMT by 10.9%, which is comparable with the expansiveness apparent in SLXX. The SLXX expansiveness is almost entirely explained by about 4.5 lines of extra text within 2 Sam 11 :22, which, if present in 4QSama , would indicate that 4QSama , in other respects, neither expanded nor contracted the text of SMT. The presence of this specific plus in 4QSama is, therefore, probable, and has been noted in the list of deviations.

40A: 2 Sam 11:(15)16-19(20) (vertical margin positions probable) Line 1 2 3 4 5 6

142

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 11:(15)16-19(20)

15/16 16/17 17 18/19 19/20 20

] [ '?~ i1"'~ n~ ln', ".l.li1 '?~ ::1~" J"iV::1 ' ii['J' n[~, iV '?; [n] n~ ,~n'?', ".l.l J i1 [ 'iV] 5~ ,~~" C [ 'tV [:J~ ':J .l.l,' 'iV~ C'P~i1 ] ]; nni1 fh,~ m n ,~" ", [, "::1.l.l~ C.l.li1 1~ '?~" ::1~" J [ ,,~~'? 1~'?~i1 nJ ~ ,~ ['i Ji1~n'?~i1 ' '?:J [ n~ ::1~" n'?iV" J [ n~n i1'?.l.ln C~ i1'i11 1 J'?6ii '?~ , [::':1]'? [ i1~n'?~i1 ',::1, '?,:J n~ 1n,'?:J:J J [ [ J' ['.l.li1 '?~ CniV):J .l.l"~ 1'? ,~~, 1'?~i1 J

CHAPTER FOUR

,::1,

"",? ,)"

Line 1

2 3 4 5 6

Verse 15/16 16/17 17 18/19 19/20 20

Reconstrncted widths if 2 Sam 11:(15)16-19(20) (mm) 65.1 23.5 1.5 25.2

26.6 27.8 27.5 49.2

54.8 55.8 55.5 56.2 58.3

The above reconstruction includes the previously unidentified fragment 43.124 B8, which clearly touches the main fragment. The consistency of section a reconstructed widths and the probable paragraph break at the end of verse 17 make the above margin position probable. ta: The extant remains ofthe last letter ofthe word before 'ii['], can only be n, ) or .l). Despite the fact that the extant remains appear to slope more than would be expected for the left-hand tail of an, it is appropriate to accept this as the most probable reading, due to the lack of plausible alternatives ending in ) or .l). Thus, SMT's setuma is almost certainly not represented in 4QSama . tbc: The last extant word is not compatible with SMT's ,,~tDJ, and, with Ulrich (137-8), is best reconstructed as ~"tDJ. This is possibly suggested by SL's lTEpLKa8Tj ] tbp:::l" ",,? ii'1'~ 1 [tll~ ii]'?' 1tll [~ '?'ii] n~ O';ii?~ ~')" ifh ? ~[ 1m] [ ']6ip" ii~1~ ptll:::l :::l:>tll' i [~]b" -; p" m~]', 11'J;1 1b:::l O'm?~ii 1~ 1 p" ] [ 'ii];' on? on,~ ii1:::l ~[,?]; ii:J[~ ~,?, r1] ~ii i6[ '~']pii? "?~ ,n':::l ['Jpr] ['1~~ ':>] 1?'ii n6 ':> ,? ,');1 [? ,',], [ ',:::l1' '~1'" '?'ii m~ ]" ;.b':::ltllii 0'; [:::l ] ['?'ii n]~ "?~ 1~~J ;i[:>]'~i[ ], J?,p:j[ l'~tll ~,?, "?~ 'J1:::l' 'n '?'ii m'ii:::l jjjii] [ ]'?'ii m[ ':> "']1 p'i[ o'tlln?n~ ,',:::l1' ':> ,'" ~1" ii1'1 iitlll"]

I46

CHAPTER FOUR

Line 1 2 3 4

5 6 7

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 12:14-19 (mm)

14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18 18 18/19

5.2 1l.4 1l.8 5.5 13.8 13.7

58.3 59.5 29.5 27.6 29.5 30.6 29.4

40.2 38.9 38.4 39.4

29.9 29.7

8.2 8.2 8.4 8.4 7.7

68.6 77.9 75.3

The above reconstruction incorporates the previously unidentified fragment 43.124 B6, which provides text for lines 1-5. The two main fragments of 4lA have been wrongly juxtaposed on 43.119, as indicated by the top of the column apparently being on different lines in the two fragments. The left fragment should be placed to the right of the other and dropped by one line. lb: BHS records 4QSama as reading 1J[.]'?, but they are reading a shadow as '" and ignore the clear rounded shoulder of the 1. Ulrich (138) and McCarter (296) read correctly. The extant remains of n~ are seen most clearly on 41.170, and are immediately preceded by a thick apparently horizontal mark, which reflects a crack rather than the presence of ink. i1Ii1' 1J1 n~ is supported only by the Coptic. led: 4QSama reads n~,' (Hopha~, while SLXX reflects SMT's o.g1. 2b: 4QSam a reads c';ii?~ in place of SMT's i1Ii1', and is supported by SL/ g, with SBmaj supporting SMT. 2ed: The remains of the last letter of 1[iLl~ is a 1 rather than a n, but the context suggests no possibility other than niLl~. The easiest explanation is that the scribe accidentally wrote 1iLl~ rather than niLl~, perhaps under the influence of 1iLl~ two words previous1y. Either way, 4QSam a deviates from SMT, with SLXX supporting SMT. 4QSama lacks SMT's iLlJ~'" which is reflected in SLXX. 3b: 4QSama reads C'i1I'?~i1 1~ in place of SMT's C'i1'?~i1 n~, which is supported by SLXX. SS and ST support 4QSam a . 3e: U1rich (100) reconstructs 4QSam a as reading ~]J' with SMT, while 43.124 B6 shows that it read ~]b'1. 3c1d: 43.124 B6 clarifies the text of 4QSama here, confirming the absence of both SMT (and SLXX)'s c,~ and SMT (and Axdpqtzefmsw)'s 1?1. In the latter case, SL supports 4QSam a , whi1e SBmaj lacks J~iLl" but reflects 1?1, thus deviating from both 4QSam a and SMT. 4QSam a has the plus piLlJ, and is supported by SBmajl SL, with Bya2Aa4(uid)E(uid) supporting SMT. 3e: McCarter's claim (297) that 4QSama attests ,J]"ip" in pi ace of1]6ip" in the above reconstruction (corresponding to SMT's '~p,,) is certainly false, not only because the extant vertical1ine of his "i reaches higher than would be expected for a 1, but

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

147

also because part of the hook of the , seems to be visible, and because traces of the bottom right corner of the following letter are visible too close to the foot of his i. 4h: 4QSama reads ",tII in place of SMT's and is supported by SL/i. SBmaj supports SMT. 4d: 4QSama s reading i1'~ has not been noted as adeviation from SMT's tII'~ since many Hebrew manuscripts agree with 4QSama . While SB and SL have understood tlr1(')tII as meaning 'with them', some uncertainty has been accepted in noting SLXX's support for SMT's tlt;'l~ against 4QSama ,s tlmtll, because, if SLXX's Vorlage was relatively defective in its orthography, no distinction would have been apparent in the Hebrew, and also because 'with' can occasionally be represented by ... mtll (once in 1-2 Samuel, but often in 1-2 Kings, see BDB 85b). 6d: 4QSam a reads ii[::lJ'tlli in place of SMT's l'tII1, with SLXX indistinguishable.

"'j),

41.8: 2 Samuel 12:30-13:6 (vertical margin positions known) The fifth left fragment of the fourth row of 43.680, that had previously not even been identified as belonging to 4QSama, contributes text to lines 7-10. 2ahe/d: 4QSam a reads r,n[~, in place of SMT's '~,n~" with SLXX reflecting SMT's plural. 5ah: The reconstructed width is 7% lower than the average section ab width of lines 5-10, providing substantial suspicion of deviation. SLXX suggests the possibility of 'tII~ i1t11,~ r1~' in place of i1~' (adding l8.2mm), though this yields too great an increase. The easiest solution, though speculative, is to see 4QSama having the plus i1t11,~ (10.5mm) alone. 7a: McCarter (315-16), on the basis of space considerations, reconstructs 4QSama as reading "J'j)~ in place of1'J~tII 'J'j)~ (saving 8.lmm). This is unlikely, however, since it makes the line incompatible with the ACW, which has already been calculated above primarily on the basis of 41A. The last letter of the word before '~Jrb, is not an j), since the remains of the verticalline at the base of the character are incompatible with such an identification. The solution to this problem is not at all clear. SLXX supports SMT here. 7h/e: 4QSama reads 1r1J,ii[' in pi ace of SMT's ~'J", and is supported by SLmajl ~(txt).

7e/d: 4QSama reads i1'j)~tD in pi ace of SMT's ilj)~tD, which is supported by SLXX. 8a: The SMT-based reconstruction has been adjusted by substituting 1m'il" for SMT's ~'J"1, since this same substitution is known to have been made in 7b/ c. McCarter (316) believes that space considerations suggest that 4QSama lacked SMT's tD'tII, with SL, but the reconstructed width before such adjustment is about the section a average, and afterwards would be too low (63.9mm). McCarter (316) also claims that " is extant in 4QSama , although it is unclear from which fragment he draws this information. Hahe: SLXX is unable to provide any substantial pluses to explain the shortfall of around 33mm. The extant remains on the right side of the extant fragment are

148

CHAPTER FOUR

Line

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 12:30-13:6

30 30/31 31 31 1

[ ]'??tb[, [ ] ri Ii [:I'

11

5

12 13

5/6 6

] Ctv', ~'~'i1 i1:1 itv~ Cl1i1 n~, ,~~ i1:1ii1 ~'~'i1 "l1i1] [ 1] i~z, [ 'j:l "11 ?,:;,? i1tvl1' p' P?~:I cn,~ ":l11i11 ?T':li1 n'iTJ~:I' ?T':li1 ] [ C'?tv", Cl1i1 ?,:;" "" :I,tv', ] fÖi1t~[']i i6[n i1~tv, i15:l' n,n~ ,'" 1:1 C'?tv:l~?' P 'in~ 'i1" ] ~'i1 ii?,n:l ':;' [ ,n,n~ ,~n ":111:1 n,?nni1? l'j~~? ,~" ,'" P l'j~~ ] i1' l1~tv 1:1 1nj,ii [' ,~]tb, [Z,i Pj~~?' i1~'~~ i1? n,tvl1? Pj~~ 'j'l1:1 ~?5:l" ] 1 ?6ii P ?, i1:;':;' [ i1n~] 11'., [~ ,? ,~~" ,~~ mn tv'~ 1m'i1" "" 'n~ ] 'n ~ ci?tv:l~ n,n ~[ i]6n n ~[ l'j~~ ,? ,~~" '? "Jn ~'?i1 ip:l:l ip:l:l ] 1n ,~,? 1':1 [~ ] ~ [:I] i ?n [n] tr [i l:1:;'tv~?11 :I:;'tv 1m'i1' ,? i~~" :li11~ 'j~ ] [ i1n]tv 11'[ cn? 'j':ln1 ~r"n~ ,~n ~j ~':ln "?~ m~~, ] [ ?n] n', f['j~~ :I:;'tv', i1"~ 'n?:;,~, i1~'~ ,tv~ 111~? i1'i:li1 n~ 'j'11? ] [ ] ,~n [~j ~':ln 1?~i1 ?~ l'j~~ i~~" ,n'~i? 1?~i1 ~':I" ]

Line

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 12:30-13:6 (mm)

1 2

3

4 5

6

1/2

7 8

2/3 3/4

9 10

1

2 3

4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12 13

4 4/5

30 30/31 31 31

1/2 2/3 3/4

4 4/5 5 5/6 6

i1'~~:1

3.5 4.4

110.9 115.8 50.3+para

2l.4 22.1 4.0 2.0 3.8 4.2 8.3 4.0

78.3 86.9

22.1

12.2

23.5 24.6 22.4

13.5 13.8 12.6

75.7 72.5 70.9 69.0 76.2 103.9 87.5

consistent with ~n of 'n,n~, as would be suggested by space considerations if 4QSam a were following SMT, though this identification is uncertain. 13abc: SLXX is unable to explain the shortfall of around 22mm.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

149

Column 42 42A: 2 Samuel 13:13-14:3 (vertical margin positions known Jor lines 7 to 29, and probable Jor lines 1 to 6 and 31 to 39) The above reconstruction includes previously unidentified fragments 43.124 D7, H9 and E2, which contribute text to lines 10-11, 12-14 and 38-39 respectively, and a fragment on 43.676 (fifth from left, sixth row), which was previously not even identified as belonging to 4QSama, and which contributes text to lines 38-39. Lines 12-14, for which much of each line is extant, and for which a striking consistency of reconstructed widths exist for each section, provide the best basis for calculating the ACW. The average seetion abcd width for these lines is 96.5mm, and, since the 1eft ru1ed margin is extant, the average section e reconstructed width can be measured as 9.5mm, yielding an ACW of around 106mm. There are a number of difficulties in reconstructing this column, particu1arly the relative positioning of the left, second left and third left fragments in the top row of 43.119 (hereinafter referred to as fragments a, band c respective1y), and the identification of the top four lines of fragment c. An alternative reconstruction of the top twelve lines of the column is presented in 42A* (below) based upon the relative positioning of fragments on 43.119, and corresponds to lines 1-9 of the main reconstruction table. Line numbers in the analysis, except where otherwise stated, refer to the main reconstruction table.

150

CHAPTER FOUR

Line Verse SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 13:13-14:3

1 2 3 4 5 6

13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16 17/18

7 8

18/19 19-21

9

21 22 22 23 23/24 24/25 25 25/26 26/27 28 28 28/29 29 29/30 30 31 31/32 32 32/33 33/34 34 34/35 35/36 36/37 37 37/38 39 1/2

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

2 2

2/3

iinil [, p [m', i1?'P~ .ImiV? i1~~ ~,?, 1~~ ':Jli:J~' ~? ';:' Ji?~ii [ ?~ ~:J ,~, ] ii~ ]:JiV i1 fr [?"J ';:' ,~~ i1?"J i1~:JiV 1':J~~ i1~:JiV"] jm~ ~;:, iV; [, mli];' ] ,~~ ,n [, ';:'? '~'P 1':J~~ i1? ,~~" i1~i1~ 'iV~ i1] :Ji1~i1 1~ fr ~ [:JiV 'iV] ~ i1? li'~iV? i1~~ ~,?, ':Jn?iV? '~li n'iVli 'iV~ mn~~ n~m i1?"Ji1 i1li'i1 n1'~ ?~ ,]? i1'?li' i1',n~ n?'i1 ?'li:J' i1~,ni1 '?li~ n~T n~ ~:J ,n?iV ,~~" ,miV~ "li:J n~ ~'P ]~i [n?'i1 ?li:J' f,ni1 ,miV~ i1n,~ ~~'" Cl'?'li~ n,?,mi1 1?~i1 n':J~ 1iV~?n P ';:' Cl'O:J n:Jn;:, [ i1li'P i1'?li 'iV~ Cl'O:Ji1 mn;:" i1iV~' ?li ':J~ ,~n npm i1 J',n~ 1,m~i1 i1'n~ Cl'?iV~~ i1'?~ ,~~" i1pliT' l'?i1 l?n, i1iV~' ?li i1,' Cl ]iVm i1m ,~,? 1~? n~ 'n'iVn ?~ ~'i1 Tn~ 'iV',ni1 'n,n~ i1nli' l~li i1'i1 Tn~ [ ?,:J] fl ~ li~iV [ ,'" 1?~i1' i1'n~ Cl'?iV~~ n'~ i1~~iV' ,~n ~iVn, [ ~'i1 ']i,;:, ~ ';:' ,~ ~,~ ':J ':J~ 1':J~~ m, n~ ~~li ~,?, ,~~ ,? ,n', i1?~i1 Cl"~ ]1i1 [ n~]Cl '?iV~[~ ~:JiV ':J ~,~ 'li' li'~? 1Ji:J~I~ [Clli Cl'?iV~~ ,~, ~,?, ] [ ,mn~ ,~n ]n~ mli [ 'iV~ ,~, ?li 1':J~~ ] C[li ] 'iV~ ,i~ [n ?li]jj Cli [?iV~~? Cl'rn]) [ i 'fr', Cl'~' ]Cl' nj [iV? 'i1" ] ,~~'" 1 ?~i1 ?~ Cl' [?]tb~~ ~,~ ',[ 1?~i1 ':J~ ?]b? Cl'?tb[~~] ~, p [', Cl":J~ ] 1?~i1 ,~~' [, ]i'~li ?~ "'~ li' 1? [~i1 ~]J 1?' l [']:Jj)? [c'ff'J ~:J mi1 ] [i1~]~ ~,?, ,~ '~:J" T?li ,; ~:J:J ~,?[, ,:J]?;:' 1? j[ ~:J ?~ ':J~ ?~ Cl'?iV~~?~ ] l?~ii ,? ,~~ [', jn~ 1':J~~ ~ [:J 1]?' [ ~,?, Cl']? [iV~~ ,~~" 'i1:J'~" n:J?? ] 1?~i1 ':J~? [,:J ] n~, 1':J~~ n~ [ ,n~ n?iV" m?iV~~ ,~ f':J" l~li 1?' i1~? ] ,,~~? "'li:J n~ Cl'?iV~~ i ~[', ]1[?]6[i1 i1ntli~;:, i1niV~ Cl'?iV~~ iVli" ] Clnno, P:J~~ n~ ':Jii Cl:J'? ~ 'n,6 [~, 1"~ 1':J~~ ~? :n~:J ~:J ,~, ] [ "j):J] iiVli" ?'n ':J~? ,'i1, 'pf [n Cl:Jn~ 'm~ ':J:J~ ';:' ~'?i1 ,~,'n ?~ , ]fl~ ?[.!i iV'~ '~:J'" 1]?[~i1 ':J~ ]? [,:J '~'P" m?iV~~ i11~ 'iV~:J 1':J~~? m]?iVj[~ ] i1;:'i1 ,,~~? ,'" ?~ i1~~ i1li'~iVm 1"~ i1~i1 W, , ]oi:J" "[']El [ [ ,n~ Cli1~ ,n':J ~,?, 1?~i1 ':J~ ?,:J n~ Cl] i?iV~~ [ 'li"P Cl'~~:J "'~li ?,;:" i1~'~ ~;:'iV" "'J~ n~ li'P" 1? ]6i1 Clip" [ ?,;:, n~ 'n~ ,~~' ?~ ,~~" ,'" 'n~ i1li~iV 1~ 1nm' ]ili" "'J~ [ O'?iV~~ ':J ?li ':J n~ ,,~? 1':J~~ ':J ,n'~i1 1]?~i1 ':J~ ?,:J Cl"li:Ji1 [ ,~? ?~ 1?~i1 ':J'~ CliV' ?~ i1nli' m,n~ ,~n n] ~ ifl[,]jj)[ Cl"~ i1~'iV ]iT'iT [ n,~', n~ ,,~'? 1':J~~ Cl~ ':J ,n~ l?~iT ], J:J [ ?,:J ,,~~? ':J]' [ 1"~ Cl';:,'?'i1 ~, Oli mm ~'" ':J'li n~ iTm~]fr 'li:J i1 ~ [iV" Cl,,?iV~~] [ ,~~ 1'?~i1 ':J~ mi1 1'?~i1 ?~ ln:J'iT' ,~~" ,i1iT ,~~ ,',n~ ] [ '~iV" ,~~ 1'?~i1 ':J~ mi11 ,~ ] 1'? ,m?;:, [:J 'i1', i1'i1 P l'~li ,~,;:, ] [ m?iV~~' ,~~ ,?,,) ]';:'~ ':J~ ",~ il [ ?,:J, 1'?~i1 0)' ,;:,~" o,?,p ] [ '?~~n', Cl'?'n f'] ~j "iV) 1'? [~ ,m'~li p ']~?n [?~ 1'?" n,~ ] [ Cl':JiV iV,,?iV CliV 'i1', ,,] iVJ 1'?" n, j [ O,,?iV~~' ]c'~'fr [ ?,:J ':J~ '?li ] [ n~ ';:' 1':J~~ '?li Cln:J ]':J O,,?iV [~~ '?~ n~]~? 1'?~ i1 n [" '?:Jn, ] [ i1li'pn ~~" n'?iV" Cl,,?iV~~ '?li 1]'? [~i1 ~'? ':J i1"]'~ P ~~ [,' li'" ] [ ~:J 'iV~,?, ~:J ''?~~ni1 i1''?~ ,~~" i1~:Jn ] i1iV~ 0 [tb~ np" ] n'?~~]n~ 0l'~'[ Cl'~' i1T i1iV]~I:J n"i1[' 1~iV '];:"on '?~ i[ '?~~ "J~ ] Cl"]:J'i1 n~ j[~,' CliV" i1Ti1 ,~,]) "'?~[ m~" 1]'?6ii '?~ n[~~, n~ '?li ] [ [ [ [

Jm~ ~

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

151

Line Verse 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

152

Reconstructed widths

13 13/1414/15 15/16 16 17/18 18/19 19-21 21 22 22 23 23/2424-/25 25 25/26 26/27 28 28 28/29 29 29/30 30 31 31/32 32 32/33 33/343434/35 35/36 36/37 37 37/38 39 1/2 2 2 2/3

oJ 2 Sam 13:13-14:3 (mm) 90.9 84-.2 86.3 139.4281.9 106.6 34-0.9 110.9

6.0 9.6 6.6

8.3 13.6 8.8

55.5 (23.1 ) 32.433.9 33.7 36.5 35.434-.6 35.2 32.6 33.7 4-3.0

6.7 13.9 8.47.0 10.9 9.7 7.9 9.6 7.3

25.2 26.424-.9 25.421.5*

I

18.0 16.5 16.3

39.8 39.421.9 20.9 18.7 4-3.6 4-0.0* 69.3 65.2 58.5 75.3 74-.6

16.8 17.5 16.9

102.2 (74.8) 110.9 105.8 26.439.8 28.0 27.5

77.2 75.3 63.6 83.493.4-

4-3.2 4-6.4-

58.7 34-.2 26.6 4-0.8

17.1 14.7

CHAPTER FOUR

18.7 19.5 18.8 4-7.0 59.5 74.8 29.8 38.8

30.0 30.427.0 27.7 36.5 37.6

19.6 17.5 17.8 17.2 18.0 17.7 19.2

42A *: Alternative reconstruction qf 2 Samuel 13: 13-21 (vertical margin position known Jor lines 8-12, and possible Jor lines 1 to 7) Of key importance in reconstructing the column is the observation that line 22 (line 25 based upon 42A*) is seen on the same fragment and the same line as 41BI, which, on the basis of an SMT-based reconstruction of the non-extant parts of the column (41A covers the first 7 lines), even allowing for a substantial paragraph foreshortening before 2 Sam 12:26 (petucha in SMT), is not later than line 21. The

Line

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10

11 12

Line

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10

11 12

Verse

Alternative SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 13:13-21

13/14 14/15 15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18 18/19 19/20 20 20/21 21

[ ~,~, l~~ 'Jl'J~' ~~ '~ ]i"~ii [ ?~ ~J ,~,] iin.iJ[' ~~,tD'~ t:l'~~Ji1 ,n~~] [ 1'J~~ i1~JtD"] i1n~ ~~ tD; [, ml'" ]m~ ~ p [Tn" i1~'P~ l"~tD~ i1~~] [ i1~i1~ ,tD~ i1] :Ji1~i1 1~ fr ~ [JtD ,tD~ ii~] JtD i1 fr '~ ,~~ i1~'" i1~JtD] [ n1n~~ n~m i1~"'i1 i1l',i1 m,~ ~~ ,~ ] ,~~ ,n [, ,~~ '~'p 1'J~~ i1~ ,~~];, [,~~" 'n1tD~ "l'J n~ ~'p" i1~ l"~tD~ i1~~ ~,]~, [ 'Jn~tD~ '~l' i1n'tDl' ,tD]~ [1 ~ '~ t:l'OEj mn~ i1'~l" i1',n~ n~'i1 ~'l'J' i1~,ni1 '~l'~ n~i n~ ~J ,n~]tb [ n~'i1 ~l'J' rmi1 'n1tD~ i1n,~ ~~'" t:l'~'l'~ m~,mi1 1~~i1 n'J~ 1tD~~]n [ i1l"P i1'~l' ,tD~ t:l'OEji1 mn~, i1tD~, ~l' 'Ej~ ,~n npn, i1 ]",n~ [ i1'n~ t:l'~tD~~ i1'~~ ,~~" i1pl'i1 l'~i1 l~n, i1tD~, ~l' i1,' t:l ]tDm [ 'n'tDn ~~ ~'i1 Tn~ 'tD',ni1 'mn~ i1nl" l~l' i1'i1 Tn~ 1'J'~ ]~i1 [ ~,~ ]nl~ l'~tD[ "" 1~~i11 i1'n~ t:l'~tD~~ n'~ i1~~tD, ,~n ~tDm i1m ,~,~ l~~ n~] [~'i1 ,] i,~ ~ ,~ ,~ u'~ '~ 'J~ 11J~~ m, n~ ~~l' ~,~, ,~~ ,~ ,n', i1~~i1 t:l"~'i1]

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 13:13-21 (alternative reconstruction) (mm)

13/14 14/15 15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18 18/19 19/20 20 20/21 21

[?",

45.4 35.3 40.4

19.3 23.8 27.2 72.2 8l.9

46.4 45.5 47.9 45.9 43.5

118.1 116.5 106.6 109.1 107.2 8.3 13.8

124.6 110.9

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

153

likelihood that 41 B 1 is around line 21 is strengthened by the non-extant bottom (ten) lines of column 41 having the right amount of space for an SMT-based reconstruction of 2 Sam 13:6-13, with fragments a, b, and c at the top of column 42. If 41 B 1 were actually on line 25, as the 42A* reconstruction requires, then 4QSama would have to have included about four BHS-equivalent lines of extra text to filliines 8-25 of column 41, and correspondingly lost about three such lines within the bottom six lines of the column. In the former block, SLXX has about 10% more lines than usual relative to BHS, which could explain ab out 1.5 lines of extra text, although even this is doubtful since it is represented by a number of small expansions rather than a single major one. There is much repetition of vocabulary within the second block, and it is possible to account for a possible loss of 3 BHS lines through a single case of homoioteleuton between the occurrences of(')'J'lJ'? :l:l'?n, in 2 Sam 13:6 and 13:8, with the text after loss still making reasonable sense. Since, however, both blocks are consistent with 41B 1 being line 21, or, if account is taken of the SLXX pluses in the former block, line 22, and since both blocks become simultaneously problematical if a higher line number is suggested, possible means by which it could remain line 21 or 22 should be sought. The transfer of fragments a and b from column 42 to column 41 can be discounted since this would require not only a plus relative to SMT of about 2 lines of text corresponding to the top 2 lines of fragment c, but also 9 lines of BHS (2 Sam 13:6-13) would need to fit into only four available lines. A more likely scenario assumes homoioarkton between tltDm of 2 Sam 13: 19 and :ltDn, of 2 Sam 13:20, which not only raises 41Bl from line 25 to line 23, but also resolves the apparent excess of text in lines 10-11 of 42A* (the extant remains of the bottom line of fragment c are consistent with either tl'1:l]'i1 or I'J'r:l]~i1). Even after this, however, 42A* leaves significant problems in both non-extant blocks of column 41. To this, a further problem should be added, that the adjusted reconstructed widths ofthe section between fragments a and b (as in 42A*) for lines 1, 2 and 3 are mutually inconsistent (19.3mm, 23.8mm and 26.2mm respectively), with no realistic way of making them consistent. Thus, despite the relative consistency of section a reconstructed widths in 42A*, an alternative margin position, as reflected in 42A, is suggested. This removes the noted inconsistency, and yields consistent section a reconstructed widths and equally good identifications for the extant characters of fragment c. This, however, requires a major loss of text between lines 3 and 5 of fragment c, which is most naturally explained by homoioteleuton between the occurrences of i1'1n~ n'?1i1 '?(')lJJ' (i1)~,ni1 in verses 17 and 18. Thus, two cases of parablepsis are proposed within the upper part of column 42, resolving the space problems in both non-extant blocks of column 41 (41 B 1 becomes line 22) and the inconsistent width of the section between fragments a and b. Though likely, this reconstruction is not certain. Nevertheless, whatever the solution, there are at least two major deviations from SMT (two cases of parablepsis, or one homoioteleuton, adeviation between fragments a and b, and deviations in each of the non-extant blocks in column 41), all

154

CHAPTER FOUR

without support from SLXX. These have been registered as two instances with reasonable confidence of deviation, on the basis of caution. The vertical margin position relating to the fragments of 2 Sam 13:36-14:3 is not certain, but, the position in the above reconstruction table yields a reasonable consistency of section a reconstructed widths, and approximately the right amount of SMT text to fill the gap between these fragments and the main block oftext (lines 8-29), as weIl as permitting the shortfall of text in 35cde to be explained by 4QSama having reflected SMT's setuma by a line foreshortening. The main alternative, which would involve moving the right margin one word to the right, though equally compatible with the latter two considerations, results in 36a and 37a becoming very hard to reconcile with one another. 2a, 3a and 4a: While consistent in 42A, the corresponding sections (lb, 2b and 3b) of 42A* are clearly mutually inconsistent, without obvious means of resolution. 5: The initial letter is the right shape for the shoulder of a '? with the gap between the diagonal and horizontal strokes visible. If the gap were a 'white area', which is unlikely, then it could be a tD, although even in the 42A* reconstruction, it could be the '? of 1]'? as a plus (with SLXX) before 1n'?tD. The extant remnants of the bottom line of fragment a are not clear enough to identify, although their apparent lack of compatibility with SMT's corresponding inter-word space and the start of i1l)ii1 provides reasonable confidence of deviation at this point. In any case, reasonable confidence of deviation from SMT also arises from space considerations (even greater certainty would exist if the general outline of 42A were certain). Reconstructing '?l) in place of SMT's n11~ '?~, as suggested by Ba2Acx(49, saving 9.2mm, is clearly inadequate. In 42A*, 5cde and 6cde are long enough to yield substantial suspicion and reasonable confidence of deviation respectively. 6: Homoioteleuton between the occurrences ofi1'in~ n'?1i1 '?(1)l):n (i1)~1ni1 in verses 17 and 18 reduces the reconstructed width to 116.5mm, which is compatible with ACWs down to 111.5mm before inconsistency allowances, and 104.2mm after, which does not raise substantial suspicion of deviation. In 42A*, space considerations cause at least substantial suspicion of deviation in both lines 6 and 7. 8abcd: Homoioarkton between t:ltDm of verse 19 and :J.tDn1 of verse 20, as suggested above, resolves the vast excess of text in this section, resulting in a reconstructed width of94.5mm. The 42A* reconstruction has at least 25mm too much text 27 in 10-11 abcd. SLXX attests no major deviations from SMT. 9: The extant characters at the end of the line make it clear that 4QSama contains the extra text of SLXX (Ulrich, 84-5). This has, therefore, been incorporated into the reconstruction. U1rich's claim, however, that 'When reconstructed after G, 4Q:s spacing falls perfectly into order' is incorrect, for the reconstructed width of 27 Or 75mm too little if 4QSama had an extra line here, although considerable problems in the recon-struction of the non-extant seetions of column 41 would result.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

155

110.9mm exceeds the average section abcd width (96.5mm) by easily enough to yield reasonable confidence of deviation. Ulrich's placement of ~'il (84) at the beginning of 4QSam a ,s line 10 is also unlikely, not only because 10ab already has sufficient text, but more especially because consistency of scribal margin policy would suggest its retention in line 9 (minimum margin of 7.8mm, compared with 9.5mm actual section width up to the extant ruled margin). 14d: 4QSama reads ;1:ll' ~~ in place of SMT's 11:ll' I:ll', and is supported by SL. SB supports SMT. 15ab: The adjusted reconstructed width (43.6mm) is 10.9% higher than the average for 12ab-16ab (39.3mm), and is just enough to indicate reasonable confidence of deviation. SL lacks oll, suggesting the absence of~:J (4.9mm), although the fact that SB's Oll follows the first [111, in contrast to SMT where ~:J follows the second negative, may mean that SL's lack could merely reflect the lack of~:J in its Hebrew Vorlage at the point where oll occurred in SB. 15d: 4QSama reads 1':l::J:J in place ofSMT's 1:l::J:J. SLXX's (KaTa)ßapuv8w[1EV almost certainly reflects the Qgl of 1:l::J, since passive forms of this verb never reflect the Hiphil, but frequendy the Qgl of this verb (active forms usually reflect the Hiphil, and sometimes the Qgl of 1:l::J). 4QSama reads i~El" in place of SMT's fiEl'" and is supported by SLXX/~. 16c: The adjusted reconstructed width (21.5mm) is 12.9% lower than the average 12c-16c reconstructed width, yielding substantial suspicion of deviation. SB's Km El [111 could suggest ~~,~, in place of SMT's ~~" which, if present in 4QSama , would reduce the shortfall to 7%, but more probably reflects SMT's ~'J (see Wellhausen, 188), as it does also in 2 Kings 5: 17. SL reads ana, which may suggest I:l~'~' (Klostermann, 1887, 188), which would add 2.9mm, resolving the problem. 16d: 4QSama lacks SMT's ':Jn~, which is reflected in SLXXIACEL, although some uncertainty has been noted regarding SL's support since it appears to reflect 'n~. 17abc: The adjusted reconstructed width (68.7mm), being 7.4% higher than the average for 12abc-16abc (excluding 15ab and 16c, which probably deviate from SMT), raises substantial suspicion of deviation. SLXX provides no possible solutions. It is likely that 4QSam a read i~El" in place of SMT's fiEl", both because SMT's reading is corrupt and because "~::l" is extant in 15d in place of SMT's fiEl".

18abc: SMT provides only 5.1mm for this section. The extant traces of 1 [?]6[il suggest that 4QSama attested SBmajlSL's plus (see Driver, 302), the resulting 65.2mm reconstructed width (compare average 12abc-16abc, excluding 15ab and 16c, of 64.0mm) confirming this. The reconstruction tab1e reflects this plus, since part of it is extant. 19d1e: 4QSama reads I:lnnm (Pole~ in place of SMT's I:ln~i11 (Hiphi~. It is unclear which of these readings SLXX's 8avaTwaaTE reflects, since 8avaTouv is the most common word used to render both forms in the LXX.

156

CHAPTER FOUR

20abc: Reasonable confidence of deviation is established since the 75.3mm SMTbased reconstructed width is 17.7% greater than the 64.0mm average section abc width already calculated. SL suggests the absence of tI:,'?iT (9.2mm), reducing the reconstructed width to a plausible 66.1 mm. 21abc: Reasonable confidence of deviation is established since the 74.6mm SMTbased reconstructed width is 16.6% greater than the 64.0mm average section abc width already calculated. SL suggests the possible absence of the second tn'?tV:::ltl: (15.1 mm), which would reduce the reconstructed width to 59.5mm, which seems too low. The presence of a pronominal suffix (thus D1~) or of an accusative pronoun (Or1(')tI:) to reflect SLXX's aUTOLS' make litde difference and add too much respectively to resolve this latter shortfall. 25abcde: 4QSam a reads ,',,:::l (probably reflected in SB) in pI ace of SMT's O"':::l, which is reflected in SL. 26a: 4QSam a reads ':J:::l '?,J in pI ace of SMT's ':J:::l, which is supported by SLXX. 27a: The absence ofiT~'tV resolves the clear excess oftext, and can be accepted with confidence, being suggested by 4QSama ,s iT'iT in place of SMT's iTr1'iT, by the apparent lack of alternative explanations, and by the plausible 29.lmm reconstructed width that results. SL/uIP-'u' also lack this element, but their support for 4QSama is doubtful, since they include Absalom's name (and aUTW as well in SLI alu') after TlV. 28bcde: An SMT-based reconstruction is compatible with ACWs ofup to 99.2mm, before inconsistency allowances, and l04.5mm after, which is sufficient to raise substantial suspicion of deviation, with SLXX suggesting no solutions. 32de: An SMT-based reconstruction is compatible with ACWs of up to 104mm, before inconsistency allowances, and 108.4mm after, which does not indicate any deviation. 33de: An SMT-based reconstruction of this section (even with the plus Y'tI::::l o'?'nl iTJll~ with SLXX, as required by the extant remains ofY']tI::J) is consistent with an average section width of up to 30mm, and thus with ACWs up to 96mm. Even after 1.5mm margin inconsistency allowance, this represents an 8.5mm (32%) shortfall in 33de. The further pluses ,'" (8.4mm) with Acxy, l'?~iT (9.7mm) with bc 2e 2deEL, or ,'" l'?~iT (18.lmm)28 with SBmajlo, each resolve the space problems well. All these SLXX traditions broadly agree in reflecting the two 4QSama pluses in this section. 35alb: 4QSama reads l'?~iT n[" in place of SMT's l'?~iT ",. SBmaj supports 4QSam a ,s reading, SBmin SMT's reading, and SL a composite reading. 35cde: The apparent shortfall of text is almost certainly due to a line foreshortening, reflecting SMT's setuma.

28

Consistent with ACWs of 106.5mm or above, before inconsistency allowances.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

157

37bcde: An SMT-based reconstruction of this seetion is consistent with ACWs no greater than 97mm before inconsistency allowances. Even after 1.5mm margin inconsistency allowance, this section is 9.6% too short, yielding reasonable confidence of deviation, with SLXX suggesting no solutions. 38d1e and 39d1e: The newly identified fragment from 43.676 reveals that either 38d is too short or 39d too long, with SLXX suggesting no solutions, despite some SLXX manuscripts varying the order of elements in 38d-39a. Since line 38 is consistent with seetion c reconstructed widths of at least 31.1mm, the likelihood that it is 38c that deviates is increased, perhaps by the inclusion of an adjective after i11ll]~:;', although inconsistency allowances and the possibility of non-parallel margins make this preference relatively weak.

Column 43 Since line 39 of column 42 is extant, the end of column 42 can be estimated as around the end of i1nOO~i1 of 2 Sam 14: 7. Since the next known column end is that of column 45 (at 2 Sam 16: 18), estimates must be generated for the intervening column divisions, both in order to allocate fragments to the right column, and to ascertain whether there may be any major plus es or minuses suggested by the evidence. Based upon ACWs for columns 43, 44 and 45 (see below) of 104mm, 104mm and 112mm respectively, and allowing for 2% orthographie expansion and an average of 2 lines of paragraph vacats per column, the three columns are estimated as containing approximately 45.5 lines, 45.5 lines and 49 lines of BHS respectively. These estimated 140 BHS lines compare closely with 139.5 actual BHS lines between 2 Sam 14: 7 and 16: 18, providing no evidence for large plus es or minus es in these columns, and suggesting that the approximate column divisions occur around early 2 Sam 14:32 and late 15:24. This leaves no significant doubt concerning to which column each of the extant fragments belong.

43A: 2 Samuel14:18-19 (vertical margin positions known) Line

1 2 3 4

5

158

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 14:18-19

18 18/19 19 19 19

[ ln,~ "~'1ll ':l:J~ 11ll~ 1:::l1 ':J~~ '1n:ln ~:J ,,~ 1~~" n'l"p ]f1i1 [ ",:;':::l ln~ :::l~" 1'i11"~i1 1~~" 1"~i1 ':J1~ ~:J 1:::l1' i11ll~i1 ]1~~n, [ 1'~i1" 1ll'~ !:l~ 1"~i1 ':J1~ 11llE):J 'n 1~~m i11ll~i1 i [l']n, n~T [!:l1ll ~'i11 ':J'~ ~'i1 :::l~" 11:::ll' ':l 1"~i1 ':J1~ 1:::l1 11ll~ "':l~ ]"~~1lli1"4 [ ]ln~~ 'E):::l

CHAPTER FOUR

Line

1 2 3 4

5

Verse 18 18/19 19 19 19

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 14:18-19 (mm) 100.5 107.2 96.1 113.4

This represents the only extant fragment within column 43. Lines 3, 1, 2 and 4 are compatible with ACWs no greater than 104.4mm, 106.2mm, 11O.Bmm and 116.6mm respectively and no less than 9l.0mm, 95.9mm, 103.1mm and 109.5mm respectively. These are apparently mutually incompatible, suggesting either an ACW around 104mm, with a plus in line 3, or around 11 Omm with minuses in lines 1 and 4. An ACW of around 104mm is, therefore, likely, although 110mm is also possible. 1: Only the initial il and a slight trace ofthe following letter are extant. Ulrich (1979, 12) identifies this as ]f1il with reasonable confidence. His conjecture, based on the text of 4QSamc , should be viewed as uncertain, although its likelihood is increased by the extant remains of the second letter looking unlike the I:i of l?l:iil that would be required if 4QSama had followed SMT closely throughout this line. Ulrich's reconstruction (used in the reconstruction table) yields a reconstructed line width of lOO.5mm, which is consistent with ACWs of no more than 105mm, which is compatible with the lower range calculated above. 4: SMT's ?'l:itZ.1i1?1 is adenominative Hiphil (GKC §53g) with quiescent ~ omitted (GKC §23fj preceded by a parallel denominative Hiphil (j'l:iil?). 4QSamc attests ?']~l:itDil?i rl:i'il? (Ulrich, 1979, 12), which represents a full spelling of these verbs. 4QSam a attests ]?~l:itDil?i, which probably represents the same verb (see GKC §53k), rather than a substantive, since the il has not elided. SLXX appears to have understood both verbs as substantives, a situation that could easily have arisen from a misunderstanding of 4QSama ,s text, but not easily from that of SMT. 5: 4QSama reads lnl:i~ in place of SMT's lnnEltD. SLXX's 8oUA.ll is indistinguishable since it represents the most frequent translation of both ilnEltD and ill:i~ in the books of Reigns, and is used in the chapter in question to translate both Hebrew words.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

159

Column 44 44A: 2 Samuel 15:1-6(7) (vertical margin positions known) Line

Verse

SMT-Based Reconstruction qf 2 Sam 15:1-6(7)

1

[

11

1 1/2 2 2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 6 6 7

Line

Verse

1

1 1/2 2 2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 6 6 7

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

[ [ [ [ [

[ [

tv'tI: tJ'tvOn 1 tJ]6io [1 iT::l:;"O tJ1'?tv::ltl: 1'? tv.v'1 p ',ntl:o 'iT'1 ] tv'tI: '?i [:;, iT'] iT1 1,iiT " '?17 ['0.1'1 tJ1'?tv::ltl: tJ':;,tviT1 1'j::l'? tJ'~' ] ]öi'?tv::ltl: 1'? tI: ip1 ~::ltvOiT [ ]? [tI: l'?OiT '?tI: tl:1::l'? ::l" 1'? iT'iT' ,tvtl: ] '?tI:,tv' ;~::ltv ., [n] ~O 'Otl:; [ iTntl: ".1' mo 'tI: 'Otl:1 ] .v01tv1 tJ'] m:;'j ; [ tJ'::l1~ l'::l' iTtI:, m'?tv::ltl: 1''?tI: 'Otl:1 l'::l.v ] tv'tI: '?1:;' tl:1]::l' , ['?]17 [1 r'tI:::l ~::l1tv 'jO'tv' '0 m'?tv::ltl: 'Otl:1 l'?OiT ntl:o 1'? rtl:] tv~~ [ ::l1'P::l iT'iT1 1'np'~iT1 ~::ltv01 ::l" 1'? iT'iT' ,tvtl: 1" ]ni[nn]tDiT'? ] '?b'? [ m]iT ,::l ,:;, [ tJ] i'?[tv::ltl: tv.v'1 1'?] !Ptvj[1 1'? p'TniT1 1" ntl: n'?tv1 ] ::l]? ntl: tJ1'?tv ::ltl: ::l [jj'i l'?OiT '?tI: ]~::ltD [O'? 1t1:1::l' ,tvtl: '?tI:,tv' ] '?tI:,tv' 'tvjtl: ] [ ] iT:;,'?tI: 1] '?6 G' '?tI: tJ1'?tv::ltl: 'Otl:'1 iT:Jtv tJ'.v::l,tI: rpo 'iT'1 ]

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 15:1-6(7) (mm) 2l.0 22.5 2l.7 22.5 22.9 24.7 20.0 19.6 20.4

8.6 8.2 7.9

80.7 78.7 79.6 56.9 73.8 97.1 8l.3 48.7 40.3

26.5 25.3 (2l.0) 77.9

The above reconstruction includes the second bottom right fragment on 43.678, which was previously not even identified as belonging to 4QSama • For lines 1-5, the striking consistency of labe, 2abc and 3abc reconstructed widths (and 4abc, when reconstructed on the basis of SL), indicate an average seetion width of 78-80mm. 2d contains a gap after tv'tI: that is long enough to show that this word represents the left margin. On the basis of this section (2d), it is clear that the average section width lies within the range l8-27mm, with ld and 3d suggesting that the

160

CHAPTER FOUR

upper limit be dropped to 26mm. An ACW range of 95-1 06mm is, therefore, suggested. At first sight, there is little consistency in section abc reconstructed widths for lines 6-11. Alternative reconstructions, however, are plausible (see analysis below) which result in reasonably consistent reconstructed widths of around 82-3mm, at least for lines 6-9, while it is not so easy to find alternative widths for which consistent reconstructions can be found. 8d (?1'I:,tD' is clearly the last word of the line) is consistent with average section widths of 15.2-25.8mm, while 7d (plate 42.276 shows traces of '?' pace Ulrich 1979, 9) raises the lower limit to 17.9mm, and 6d suggests its further increase to 20.4mm. Lines 6-11, therefore, are consistent with ACWs 100109mm, or 102-109mm if the indications from 6d are included. This presents a picture consistent with that deduced from lines 1 to 5, and suggests that the ACW was probably around 102-106mm. labe: Since a clear narrative break occurs at the start of2 Sam 15:1 (represented by a petucha in SMT), this verse probably begins at the start of a new line. Only if the previous verse had finished at the end of the previous line would verse 1 have been indented. Thus, the fact that an SMT-based reconstruction of this line beginning at the start of verse 1 yields a reconstructed width consistent with 2abc and 3abc is significant. Ulrich's reconstruction (1979, 9) on the basis of 4QSamc results in a similar reconstructed width (80.3mm), and is equally consistent with the available space. 2abe: 4QSam a reads 1,ii1 l' against SMT's 'l:'tDi1 1'1 1', which is supported by SLXX. 2d: 4QSama reads i1'Ji1' in place of SMT's W1, probably supported by SL, with SB supporting SMT. Ulrich (88) assurnes that SLXX's TTUS' uVllP supports 4QSama ,s tD'l'I: .,i [J in place of SMT's tD'l'I:i1 "'J, but it seems likely that even the Km 'YE recensionist, given the context, would have omitted the article if faced with tD'l'I:i1 in his Vorlage. 3abe/d: 4QSam a reads t!lEltD~i1 [ J'? [1'1: in place of SMT's t!lEltD~?, which is supported by SLXX, and l'I:ip, in place of SMT's I'I:'P'1, with the probable support of SL, with SB supporting SMT. 3d: 4QSam a reads Jci"tD~1'I: ,., in place of SMT's ""1'1: O'''tD~l'I:, and is supported by SBmajlSL. 4abe: The first extant letter is more naturally a , than a " although the latter is possible. Consequently, '~I'I:' has been reconstructed in both occurrences of SMT's ,/JtoI;'" following Ulrich (1979, 9), and consistent with l'I:ip' in line 3, although not certain enough to register as a deviation. The repeated use of iterative perfects suggests their repetition in the reconstructions oflines 5 and 6, with Ulrich (1979, 9). The plus tD'I'I:i11l:'" (18.7mm) as suggested by SL and 4QSamc , raises the reconstructed width to 75.6mm. SBmaj (excluding BMNijub 2a) reflects only tD'l'I:i1 as a plus, which is inadequate to explain the shortfall. 5abe: The reconstructed width is 5.0% shorter than the 77.7mm average labc-5abc

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

161

reconstructed width (reconstructing 4abc as suggested above), which is inadequate to raise substantial suspicion of deviation. The disparity is reduced if 4QSama read 1"~' in pI ace of SMT's l'~' (Ulrich, 1979, 9), as suggested by the sub sequent plural adjectives, many BHS manuscripts, and SLXX. 6abc: This is substantially longer than the equivalent sections for lines 7-11, presumably explaining Ulrich's transfer of r~ to the end of line 5. Such a transfer, however, only reduces the reconstructed width to 90.9mm, which is still too long. SLXX suggests no minuses, but the absence of t:J1tv'?~~ would be natural since he has already been designated as speaking, and since it reduces the reconstructed width to 82.0mm. 7ab: SL suggests the absence of 1 ~", which would reduce the 7ab reconstructed width to 73.lmm, and that of 7abc to 81.7mm. 9a: SLXX provides no solutions for the shortfall of text. Ulrich's reconstruction of ,?~,tv' 'tvj~ in place ofSMT's ,?~,tv', in line with the occurrence ofthis phrase in the same pI ace in line 10,29 provides a possible solution, increasing the reconstructed width of this section to 50.2mm, and that of 9abc to 83.4mm. Alternatively, reconstructing ~EltvOiT '?~ in place of SMT's ~EltvO'? on the basis of a similar change in line 3 would increase the reconstructed width to 46.5mm, which is possible, though lower than expected. 9b/c: Ulrich (1979, 9) and McCarter (354) continue the string of iterative verbs reconstructed in earlier verses (see discussion of 4abc above), thus reconstructing ~[j)];. Space considerations, however, favour ~[j)", as in SMT, since there is 5.5mm of space from the start of the 1 to the start of the ~, against reconstructed widths for j)'1 of 5.8mm and for m of 4.4mm, a conclusion supported by the noniterative sense suggested by the context. 11 ab: The extant '? and the faint letter traces immediately before it and slighdy after it are compatible with ... iT '?~, l'?OiT or iT::h~. The letter trace before the '? is, however, more naturally the remains of a 0 than an ~, although the obliteration of part of the ink at this point would allow it also to be compatible with an ~. The relative consistency with 7ab-9ab (discussed above) also favours l'?OiT, although certainty is not possible. Column 45

The SMT-based reconstructions ofthe lines of 45A-E are not mutually consistent, so that it is important to look at the overall picture in order to assess the most likely ACW. Lines 45Bl, 45B2, 45CI, 45Dlb/2a, 45A3 and 45A4 are compatible with ACWs no greater than 104.7mm, 111.2mm, 111.3mm, 112.4mm, 113.9mm and

29 The fact that these are precisely above each other in 4QSama means that there was a reasonable chance that the same was the case in 4QSam a ,s exemplar, thus facilitating this error.

162

CHAPTER FOUR

114.5mm respectively, while lines 45C2, 45A6, 45D4, 45E2, 45D2b/3a, 45D3b/4a and 45A5 are compatible with ACWs no less than 109.3mm, 111.8mm, 113.1mm, 113.6mm, 118.2mm, 118.2mm and 123.1mm respectively. From these data, it is reasonably clear that 45B 1 is too short and 45A5 too long. The number of significant deviations is minimised if the ACW is around 111-113mm, with 45D2b/3a and 45D3b/4a, therefore, also being slighdy too long, a suggestion supported by the observation that all those requiring ACWs above 114mm (45D2b/3a, 45D3b/4a and 45A5) can be reduced on the basis of SLXX. 45A: 2 Samuel 15:26-31 (vertical margin positions almost certain) Line 1

2 3 4

5 6 7

Line 1

2 3 4

5 6 7

Verse

SMT-based reconstmction if 2 Sam 15:26-31

26 27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30 31

[

[ [

Verse

Reconstmcted widths if 2 Sam 15:26-31 (mm)

26 27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30 31

[ [

[ [

1':I'1':l J :l1~ I[ ,tD~::J ,~ i1tD1" r1'a'n~1 C1~tD:l "1'i1 i1:l1tD i1n~ i1~1'i1 1i1 J1::Ji1 P1'~ ~~ 1[?ai1 ,a~'1 m':l1':l i1ai1ana '::J:I~ 1~' C::Jn~ C::J':I:l ':ltD Jin[':lJ~ p 1n:l1fr ['1 l:l:l 11'~ n~ ,n':l~1 P1'~ :ltD'1 ,~ ":li1~ ,:l, c::Ja1' Ja ~1 :l ['J,b [ ':l,ai1 1~ tD~'1 i1::J1:l1 i1~11' c'n'Ti1 i1~1'a:l i1~11' "1'1 CtD 1:ltD'1 J i1a'~ rb [1" C'i11~~i1 i11::J:l1 i11~1' 1~1'1 1tD~' tD'~ 1Eln 1n~ ,tD~ C1'i1 ~1::J1 r'Jn' Jl~ 1M [ ~1i11 '1Eln , J'1' ~ [1

(17.7) 88.8 87.7 86.4 105.2 96.9

15.4

J J J J J J J

26.9 20.4 18.9 20.5 24.4 20.3 (3.0)

Lines 1-3 of the above reconstruction include the top left fragment of 43.11 7, which Cross has implicidy, and Ulrich (89) and McCarter (415) explicidy, identified as 2 Sam 19:11-12. This identification involves misreading J:l1~[ as J:l'tD[, and yields at least three deviations from SMT. The identification suggested here, however, creates no deviations, and should be accepted with confidence. The apparent 65-70mm foreshortening in line lc-2b indicates that 4QSama represents SMT's setuma as a paragraph foreshortening (too great a shortfall for an indent). The resulting right margin position is confirmed by the relative consistency of the resulting seetion a reconstructed widths.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

163

4be: The extant ~ after ~':::l necessitates adeviation from SMT, and is best explained if 4QSam a read C~~.1'~ i:::l' in place of SMT's i:::l' C~~.1'~ (see GKC §1l5g-k). SL~supportsSMT.

5a: The adjusted reconstructed width (24.8mm) is 18.1% greater than the average 1a-6a reconstructed width (2l.0mm), easily establishing reasonable confidence of deviation. c'm?~ or mii' in place of C'm?~ii reduce the adjusted reconstructed width to 22.3mm and 17.8mm respectively, which deviate from the average (revised to include the new 5a) by 8.3% and 10.5% respectively. c'm?~ seems the most likely, although still problematical, reading. SBmaj/SL's TOU 8EOU could translate either C'm?~ii or c'm?~. 5a1be: 4QSama reads ii~'?rb ['i' in place of SMT's C?iV'i', with SL~ indistinguishable. 5be: An SMT-based reconstruction ofthis line is compatible with ACWs of 123mm or more, and yields reasonable confidence of deviation if the ACW is below 114.5mm. Bq lacks ii~':::l' ii?(').1', almost certainly resulting from inner-Greek homoioteleuton (EAaLWV - KAaLWV). SL appears to have read 1:::l" in place of this phrase, reducing the reconstructed width to 93.8mm, which is compatible with ACWs of at least Ill.7mm before inconsistency allowances. 6be-7a: This is appreciably too short, with S~ following SMT relatively closely, and is best explained by a paragraph indent in 7a (without SMT support). The compatibility of this solution with the proposed margin position provides further evidence for both this solution and the proposed margin. 7a1be: 4QSama reads ,]',,?[, in pI ace of SMT's ",,, and is supported by SL.

45B: 2 Samuel 15:37-16:1 (2) (vertical margin positions very likelyJ Line 1 2

3 4 Line 1 2

3 4

r64

rf 2

Verse

SMT-based reconstrnction

37/1

2

[ iV~iii 1~ ]tb.1'~ [ i:::l.1' ,'", C'? ] iV ['i'] ~ [,:::l' C'?iV:::l~' i'.1'ii "" [ Cii'?.1" C'] rb':::ln c'ii6 [n '~~i] in ~iP? [ niV:::l'E)~ i.1':1 ~:::l'~ mm ] 1;; " [:::l:l, r'P i1] E)'~' C[~p'~~ ii~~' cn? c'n~~ [ [ c'J';6[n ii ~:::l'~ i~~'i 1]? [ i1?~ i1~ ~:I'~ ?~ 1?~i1 i~~"

Verse

Reconstrncted widths

37/1 1 1 2

23.9 28.5 4.0

CHAPTER FOUR

rf 2 Sam

Sam 15:37-16:1 (2)

15:37-16:1 (2) (mm)

28.6 26.3 27.6 27.8

48.0 49.2 43.7 49.4

] ] ] J

The above reconstruction incorporates fragment 43.124 BI, which spans lines 14, and may have been identified by Cross (New American Bible, 1969). If the extant 1" in line 3, which clearly represents the last word on that line, is a paragraph foreshortening, then lc-2b and 2c-3b are too short, but line 4 is acceptable, whereas, ifr' is at the left margin, then an SMT-based reconstruction ofline 4 (SLXX follows SMT) would be too short, and the shortfall in lc-2b and 2c-3b would be increased. Thus, although the end of line 3 is not a natural point to have a paragraph break (though no less natural than the end of both 2 Sam 16:9 and 10 where SMT has setumot), the presence of a paragraph break at this point and the resultant margin position as shown above can be accepted with reasonable confidence. Icl2a: An SMT-based reconstruction is compatible with ACWs no greater than l06.2mm after margin inconsistency allowance, with critical deviations of 2.2mm and 2.6mm, yielding reasonable confidence of deviation. SLXX provides no solutions. 3a: The clear shortfall of text, for which 0i1'?l" is too wide to bring resolution by transfer from 2c, would be resolved if 4QSama read o'n~o, in place of i1~0' of seetion 3a, without versional support (though SL reflects o'n~o in 3b), yielding a reconstructed width of 47 .Bmm. 3b: The previously unidentified fragment 43.124 BI shows that 4QSama read i1El'~' in place of i1~0" supported by SBmaj, with Bhaz,g'Acx4r.Q reflecting SMT, SL Q'n~o, and em a composite reading. 4: The ? extant on 43.124 BI, coupled with the extant remains of 4c are sufficient to allow confidence conceming the identifications of the remnants of line 4.

45C: 2 Samuel 16:6-8 (vertical margin positions possible) Line

Verse

SMT-based reconstrnction qf 2 Sam 16:6-8

1 2 3

5/6 6/7 7/8

!

Line

Verse

Reconstrncted widths qf 2 Sam 16:6-8 (mm)

1 2 3

5/6 6/7 7/8

?", 1"1 l?Oi1 '1:ll' ?" n~, 1"1 n~ ]0;j:J [~:l ?PO" "pO' ~,~, ] tD'~ ~~ ~~ '''p:l 'l'OtD 'o~ i1" '?~]OtDO' [':J]; 0'0 [ 0"':l'i1 ?", 0l'i1 ] T? ] il :l'tbii ? [l"?:li1 tD'~' 0'01i1 ]

70.4 77.3

36.3 38.0 35.9

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

165

The above reconstruction is based solely upon the previously unidentified fragment 43.124 F4. The margin position above yields consistent reconstructed widths for section a, but is far from certain.

4SD: 2 Samuel 16: 10-13 (vertical margin positions likely) Line

1 2 3 4 5

Line

1 2 3 4 5

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 16:10-13

Verse 10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13

Verse 10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13

iTn'tvl' ,lma ,m~ J; ;0 [1 " l' [ J n~ tvp:Ja 'l'aa ~~, ,tv J~ 'J:J ii [JiT 1":J1' ?1~ ?~1 'tv':J~ ?~ "1' ,a~'1 p J [ [ iT1iT' iT~" '?1~ iT1iT' 1? , Ja~ ,~ ? ?P ['1 1? 1n'JiT 'J'a'iT P iTnl' '~ t')~1 'tvElJ J [ l":J 1'tvJ~1 "1' 1?J'1 iTTiT C1 'iT [in'?'?p nnn iT:J1~ '? iT1iT' :J'tviT1 'J11':J J J?? U' '1 1 1J? ~, 1nal'? ,iTiT 1'?~:J 1?1iT 'l'atv1

[

J

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 16:10-13 (mm) 42.3 53.2 54.7 49.9

68.1 67.4 69.3 56.1

4b/5a is slighdy too short, suggesting that 4QSama may have reflected SMT's setuma before 'l'atv1. Although this shortfall is insufficient to yield certainty conceming this paragraph division, it does suggest that 'l'Otv1 is probably located at the right margin or indented ab out 12mm from it, with an indent resulting in greater section a consistency. 2b/3a: This is compatible with ACWs no less than 118.2mm before inconsistency allowances, and 113.5mm after. Due to uncertainty conceming the precise ACW, and the expanded compatibility range that would arise if a different margin position were accepted, no deviation has been registered. SLXX may suggest the absence of'~ from '~ t')~1, since the only other instance of npOCJETL in SLXX reflects t')~ (see HR), but this is very uncertain. 3b/4a: This is compatible with ACWs no less than 118.2mm before inconsistency allowances, and 113.4mm after. Due to uncertainty concerning the precise ACW, no deviation should be registered. SL and Acx suggest the absence of iT1iT' in 3b, and SB the absence of iT1iT' in 4a, either of which would resolve the space problems.

166

CHAPTER FOUR

45E: 2 Samuel 16:17-18 (vertical margin positions known) Line Verse SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 16: 17-18 1 2 3 Line 1 2 3

17 17/18

[ ~i]? ii6l-' i1ri1 t1.1'i11 i1 [,i1' 1n:J 1tD~ '~ ~'? t1''?tD:J~ '?~ 'tD1n 1~~" 1.1'1 i1~ i1~'?i1

[ Verse 17 17/18

Reconstrncted widths

if 2 Sam

] ] ]

16:17-18 (mm)

117.4

The above SMT-based reconstruction is consistent with the ACW already calculated, and reveals no deviations from SMT. Columns 46-53 45E is clearly the bottom of a column, and 54A the top of a column, but there are no other extant column breaks between these points. 30 The table below represents an attempt to estimate the approximate positions of intervening column breaks. To this end, the number of BHS lines used for each column has been estimated based upon the most likely ACW or mid ACW range (see analysis of individual columns below for details of their calculation), an average of two lines of vacats per column arising from 4QSama paragraph breaks, an average 2% orthographie expansion in 4QSama , and the use of full-line equivalents where BHS is laid out stichometrically. 31 Account has also been taken of the actual number of BHS lines covered within the large blocks of extant text in columns 47 and 52, and of the extra four lines of 4QSama (approximately five BHS lines) probably occupied by paragraph breaks in column 53. The top of each column has been assumed to follow the 'initial estimated column base' of the previous column. Such calculations yielded an initial estimated base of 30 The two lines with vacats in 2 Sam 21: 15-1 7 have horizontal guide lines, and so cannot represent the top of a column. 31 The stichometric arrangement of BHS has been imposed artificially. Neither the masoretic manuscripts underlying BHS nor 4QSama arrange 2 Sam 22-23 stichometrically, although some other biblical passages are so presented at Qumran, especially the Psalms and Deut 32 (see Tüv, fürthcoming).

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

167

column 53 16.8 lines earlier than the extant base of that column, so that approximately 17 extra lines of text need to be included somewhere within column 46-53. The ratio of Brooke-McLean lines to BHS lines for these columns reveals no major irregularities that might help explain the discrepancy by reference to major plus es in SLXX. This led to a closer analysis of those fragments located between the initial estimated base of each column and the 'maximum column base' (16.8 lines later than the initial estimated column base 32) to see if ACW compatibility oflines within these fragments could indicate to which column they might belong. Of particular significance are 48B, 50C and 52C, which favour inclusion in columns 48, 50, and 52 respectively. This suggests that at least three, seven and nine lines of BHS should be fitted into columns 46-48, 46-50 and 46-52 respectively. Some flexibility exists to increase the ACWs of columns 46, 49 and 53 from the mid-ACW range to around 115mm, 116.5mm and, say, 125mm respectively, without causing more than one otherwise compatible line to become incompatible with the proposed ACW, allowing the inclusion of around 2.7 extra BHS lines to each of these. This leaves around 8. 7 lines to be fitted in, which have been spread reasonably evenly across the columns to generate a 'final estimated column base' for each column. Within the analyses, however, care will be taken not to presume uncritically to which column a given fragment belongs if it falls between the initial and final estimated column bases. Column

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Estimated ACW

109 107 111.5 110 119 101 107 119

Estimated BHS lines

47.5 47.5 48.6 48.0 51.9 44.1 45.8 51.9

Initial estimated column base 16:18 fixed 17:21 18:19 19:14 19:42 21: 1 22:5 23:9 24:7

Maximum column base

18: 2 18:28 19:23 20:6 21:9 22:26 23:18 24:16

Table 47 Estimated 4Q§ama column breaks

32

168

If an extra column were to be proposed, the discrepancy would be doubled.

CHAPTER FOUR

Final estimated column base 16:18 fixed 17:23 18:22 19:17 20:2 21:6 22:19 23:16 24:16 fixed

Column 46 The two lines in this column for which reconstructed widths can be calculated are compatible with ACWs of 102.9-115.7mm and 99.5-114.7mm respectively, suggesting an ACW range of 103-115mm, although the limited amount of data leaves uncertainty concerning this calculation. 47 A could weH belong within this column, although even if a 115mm ACW is assumed, this would require a further 1.2 lines of BHS text to have been lacking in column 46. 46A: 2 Samuel16:21-23 (vertical margin positions unknown)

Line I

2 3

Line I

2 3

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 16:21-23

21 21/22 22/23

[ n~ ntD~~J '~ '?~'tD' ? J,j llOtD n['~i1 ] [~,~" ))i1 '?ll J"i1i~i11 Cl ['J'?tDj~ '? [ ,t!l" ln~ ,tD~ ,?,~ ',' 'pTn1 T~~ ] [ n ] ~ il [, ,?~,tv J' ,?,~ 'J' ll'? [ "~~ 'tD)'?'El '?~ O''?tD~~ ]

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 16:21-23 (mm)

21 21/22 22/23

I'

50.0 33.2

15.1

59.3 73.9

The above reconstruction comprises two fragments identified by Cross and the middle fragment in the eighth row (5th right) of 43.676, which was previously not even identified as belonging to 4QSama . The vertical margin position is unknown. Column 47 The ACW is best calculated from 47CI-4, where the average section ab width is around 100-1 02mm, with section c around 5mm (the vertical ruled margin is visible), resulting in an ACW range of 105-107mm. This is consistent with 47C6-12 and 47B(lb/2a and 2b/3a), which are compatible with ACWs of 105.5-112.5mm and 106.4-113.2mm respectively, suggesting an ACW ofaround 106-107mm as the most probable. Although section c of45C12-17 is known (14.3mm; vertical margin ruling extant), the lack of any agreement in section ab reconstructed widths makes this of litde use for calculating ACWs.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

169

47A: 2 Samuel 17:23 (vertical margin positions unknown)

Line

1 2 Line

1 2

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction

23 23

I[,n'~ ,~ ,~"

Verse

Reconstructed widths

"'1)

[

rf 2 Sam 17:23

,~ 1n'~ ,~ l'" O,P"

"oni1

n~ ]tD~n 1;['

,~ ]p~ , [~p"

]I

mo', pJn', ]

rf 2 Sam 17:23 (mm)

23 23

93.7 30.4

The reconstructed width of 1b/2a is 124.1mm, and is compatible with ACWs no less than 1l6.8mm after margin inconsistency allowance, with critical deviations of 5.9mm and 9.5mm. Since this fragment could be within column 46, which could have an ACW of 115mm, no substantial suspicion of deviation arises. The only reduction suggested by more than one SLXX manuscript is da 2's lack of "'.IJ ,~ (14.0mm), which, although probably representing inner-Creek development, could have been independently reflected in 4QSama, as a result of paraphrase or homoioarkton. 47B: 2 Samuel 17:29 (18: 1) (vertical margin positions unknown)

Line 1 2 3

Line 1 2 3

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction

29 29 29/1

[1~~'] i1~6n

[ [

Verse

Reconstructed widths

29 29 29/1

,[

rf 2 Sam 17:29(18:1) ]

O.IJ i1 [ "D~ ';' ,,;,~, 'n~ ,tD~ O.IJ" "", 'tD'Ji1 'p:l n15JtD' ] Oi1']' [.\J OtD" 'n~ 'tD~ O.IJi1 n~ ,'" 'P5J" ':l'D:l ~D~' t'j'.IJ, ]

]:j~,

17.6 13.4

rf 2 Sam 1 7:29 (18: 1) (mm) 94.3 93.8

The above reconstruction is based solelyon the previously unidentified fragment 43.124 A2. Both lines are compatible with the ACW range calculated above (106-

I70

CHAPTER FOUR

107mm). Whi1e the bottom 1ine of 47B and the top 1ine of 47C may weIl be adjacent, the two reconstruction tab1es have not been combined since there is no direct evidence to indicate whether they actuaIly were adjacent. The identification of the extant? in 3c is probable, especially if 4QSama follows SMT, since there is no other available ? in SMT earlier in the line, and since the next ? is 20.7mm 1ater. 47C: 2 Samuel 18:2-11 (vertical margin positions known)

Line

Verse

1 2 3

2 2 2/3 3 3 3/4 4/5 5

4

5 6

7 8 9

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17

5/6 6/7

7/8 8 8/9 9 9/10 10/11 11

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 18:2-11

'n'i1 ~~n

['n~ ":J n'tD'?tDi11 :J~" 'n~ i1"i~ p 'tD':J~ ":J n'tD'?tD ] fn ~ [?] tl.lJi1 [iO~" tl:lO.lJ 'J~ tl' ~~~ ~,~' tl.lJi1 ?~ 1?0i1 iO~']'

]

':l :J? ,J? tl ['tD' ~? 'J'~n m,o' tl~, :J? 'J'?~ 'O'tD' ~? om ]6ij tl~ i'.lJO] ;J? i1'iitJ [ ':l :J'~ i1n.lJ' tl':l?~ i1itD.lJ ,JO:l ]i1n.lJ 1?]6i1[ ~]~tD [" i1tD.lJ~ tl:l'J'.lJ:J :J~" itD~ 1?0i1 tli1'?~ iO~" ]iT.lJ? :J~" n [~ 1]? [0i1 ,~" tl':l?~?' n,~o? ,~~' tl.lJi1 ?,:l, i.lJtDi1 " ], [~ ] tl'.lJO tD [ tl].iJii [?,:l, tl1?tD:J~? i.lJJ? '? ~~? i'O~? 'n~ n~, 'tD':J~ n~, ] n[~i] P[?] ii'tD~' tl.lJi1 ~~" tl,?tD:J~ i:J' ?.lJ tl'itDi1 ?,:l n~ 1?0i1 n'~:J ] [ ,] 5:l? ?~iib [, tl.lJ tltD ':l'J" tl'i:l~ i.lJ':J i10n?0i1 'i1n, ?~itD' ] [ ,] i1ni tl)'~ [ ] ~ [?~ tl'itD.lJ ~'i1i1 tl,':J i1?", i1:l'0i1 tltD 'i1n1 "" ',:J.lJ ] [ ],tD~ 0 0 .lJ]:J [ ?][':l~? i.lJ'i1 :Ji" ri~i1 ?,:l 'J:l ?.lJ n'~':lJ i10n?0i1 tltD ] [:::l:l'i ]~;i11 ., [", ',:J.lJ 'J:l? tl,?tD:J~ ~iP" ~'i1i1 tl,':::l :Jini1 i1?:l~ ] H':J ]?n'i i1 ?~:J [ 'tD~i pm', i1?"'i1 i1?~i1 l:J'tD nnn 'i:li1 ~':J" 'i:li1 ?.lJ ] ,,', tD' ~ ~, [" i:::l.lJ ,'nnn itD~ 'i:li1' ri~i1 1':::l, tl'OtDi1] tD'~? :J~" i [o~', i1?~:J ',?n tl1?tD:J~ n~ 'n'~i i1Ji1 iO~" :J~"?] [tl)';tD[on 1]?[ nn]?[ '?.lJ, i1~i~ tltD ,n':li1 ~? .lJ,'0, n'~i i1Ji11 ,? "'0i1 ] [ [

The above reconstruction uses the previously unidentified fragments 43.124 C7, which includes the right margin of lines 2-6, and 43.124 B2, which fits with the bottom ofthe fragments of2 Sam 18:2-7.43.113 C11, which probab1y provides the right margin of 1ines 9-10, has been excluded from the above reconstruction since this identification is not sufficiendy certain. Although no fragment spans 1ines 12-13, the two blocks shou1d probab1y be juxtaposed as above since the reconstructed width of 13a is approximately what one might anticipate, with the margins of both 1ines 1-12 and 13-17 being known. The extant vertical ruled margin of 13c-1 7c, which indicates an average section c width of 14.3mm, together with the ACW of 107-109mm calcu1ated on the basis of 47C14, suggests a section ab reconstructed width for lines 12-17 of around 93.5-95.5mm. The average reconstructed width of section ab of lines 6-12 is about 2mm wider (i.e.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

171

Line

Verse

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 2 2/3 3 3 3/4 4/5 5 5/6 6/7 7/8 8 8/9 9 9/10 10111 11

11

12 13 14

15 16 17

Reconstructed widths 8.5 9.5 7.0 4.6

if 2 Sam 18:2-11 (mm) 1Ol.8

9.7 10.7 15.1

5.9 4.4 9.1 6.7 2.7 8.8 7.9 17.2 16.4 13.1 14.8 15.7

1l.8 1l.9

91.1 94.7 70.5 90.0 87.0 103.6 108.1 97.3 105.0 10l.0 89.8 103.9 8l.4 92.0 96.8

102-104mm) than that for lines 1-4, since 6b and 7b is about 2mm wider than 3b and 4b. 4aJb: 4QSama reads O~ in place of SMT's O~ '~, which is supported by SLXX, and 1J'? tJ['tLl' in place of SMT's 1J''?~ 10'tLl" which is also supported by SLXX. It is to be expected that 1J'? O'tLl' would also take the place of the occurrence of 1J''?~ 10'tLl' within 4a (with SL/!J This would reduce the reconstructed width to 90.4mm, which is perfectly viable, although the excess of text before this change is inadequate to require this deviation. 5a: An SMT-based reconstruction is ab out 19mm too short. SB suggests no solutions, but SL reflects a longer text similar to i1itLll' ri~i1 1JOO ni~i1 i1i1l' 0; (,~) 0'E),?~.33 It is clear [rom the extant fragments that 4QSama lacked 0;, and if it agreed with SL apart from this, then the reconstructed width would increase by 19.5mm, which would resolve the space problem. 6aJb: The extant ]itl''? presumably represents a Qgl infinitive construct, against the Hiphil of the Kethib of BHS, but no deviation has been noted since many BHS manuscripts (and Qgre) also reflect the Qgl. The reconstruction of 6b is uncertain, although it is clear that 4QSam a deviates from SMT, without the support of SLXX. The tLl is definite, and is followed by a 0, E), or t!l. This limits the range of

33

172

Based on McCarter (400), whose suggestion, surprisingly, includes ni:l' rather than

CHAPTER FOUR

ni:ln.

possible reconstructions, ~Elrv', being possible because judging is often associated with the gates, and because it yields a reconstructed width that is consistent with that of 7b. It is reasonably clear that ~J~rv['" or its equivalent stood in place of SMT's '~l'" rather than being extra to it, not only because of space considerations in 6a, but also because, if '~l'" and ~Elrv', had been present together, then the subject (l'~i1) would more likely have been placed before ~Elrv'1. 8a: 4QSama reads t:l'l'~rv in place of SMT's 'l'~rv, with SLXX's aorist probably reflecting SMT. Ha: The extant remains indicate that 4QSama had the plus rv'~ after SMT's ~,~, and is supported by SLXX, although a translator could have included av8pwv even if faced with SMT's text. I3e: 4QSam a reads J~ii1' in place of SMT's t:l"rv:l~1, with SB supporting SMT and SL supporting 4QSama . I4ab: This section has a reconstructed width at least 8.4mm wider than the 93.595.5mm average section width identified above, raising reasonable confidence of deviation. SBmaj follows SMT reasonably closely. cxfi appear not to reflect l:l'rv (lO.lmm), which, if lacking in 4QSama , would resolve the problem. SL could suggest the absence of the definite articles in i1",Ji1 i1'~i1, which would save 5.lmm, but more probably represents an idiomatic translation ofthe Hebrew text with the articles, which itself is a Hebrew idiom (GKC §126q). In any case, this would not adequately resolve the problem, although it would reduce the reconstructed width sufficiently to avoid substantial suspicion of further deviation. I4e: 4QSama reads J'?n', in pi ace of SMT's 1n'1, and is supported by SLXX. I5ab: This section is at least 12.lmm shorter than the 93.5-95.5mm reconstructed width already identified above, yielding reasonable confidence of deviation, with SLXX suggesting no solutions. I5e: 4QSama lacks SMT's 1i1~, supported by SLXX. I7e: 4QSam a reads t:lJ~rv[~n in place of SMT's i11rvl', with Bazß'AcxnrQ supporting SMT, and SBmajlSL supporting 4QSam a . Column 48

48A2-5 provide the best basis for calculating the ACW because the reconstruction includes five fragments, with the margin position being known. Sections abcd are generally mutually consistent (except 3bc), with an average reconstructed width of 65.5mm. Section e for these lines is consistent with average section widths of 42.548.1mm, and thus with ACWs of 108.0-113.6mm. A7de, A8de and AlOe/lle are consistent with ACWs no greater than 112.7mm, 115.4mm and 110.3mm respectively, suggesting an ACW range of around 108.0-11 0.5mm. The initial estimated column base is within 48B, so that the column base must be raised by at least two lines or lowered by at least three. The general pressure to lower column bases within columns 46-53 makes it probable that 48B belongs within

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

173

co1umn 48. 48A1 b/2a can be reconstructed so as to become compatib1e with 48A3b/4a, and they are then compatib1e with ACWs over 110.5mm and 111.5mm respectively, which may suggest that the estimated ACW be raised to 111.5mm.

48A: 2 Samuel 19:6-12 (vertical margin positions known Jor lines 1-9, and possible Jor lines 10-12) The above reconstruction includes the previous1y unidentified fragments 43.124 Al, 43.113 C4, and 43.124 D6, which provide the right margin and text in lines 5-6 and 10-12 respectively, and the fragment on the second row (sixth from right) of 43.220, which also provides text for 1ines 5-6, and fits with the top right of the fragment of 2 Sam 19:9-10. Cross implicitly, and U1rich (89) and McCarter (415) more exp1icitly, identify the top 1eft fragment on 43.l17 as 2 Sam 19: 11-12. It is shown in the discussion of 2 Sam 15:26-31 above, however, that this fragment shou1d rather be identified as 2 Sam 15:26-27. There is no link between 1ines 1-9 and 10-12, the position of the margin for 1ines 1012 being set on the (uncertain) assumption that 4QSama agrees with SMT in 9de/ 10abcd. Such a margin position is, doubtfu1 since it 1eaves 11 abcd shorter than might be expected, a1though not sufficiently so to generate substantia1 suspicion of deviation. 1: This is compatib1e with ACWs no 1ess than 123.5mm after margin inconsistency allowance, with critica1 deviations of 6.6mm and 1O.6mm, yielding reasonab1e confidence of deviation. SB suggests the possibi1ity of1n(,)~ in p1ace of SMT's 1tV~:J n~, but this shou1d be rejected since what follows the extant n~ is almost certain1y

Line

Verse

SMT-based reconstrnction qf 2 Sam 19:6-12

1

6/7

2

7

3

7/8

[ 1'~:JtV n~ i1:li1~? TtVJ?'~ tV~:J' TtV:J tV~:J' 1'11I:J::n 1':JJ tV~:J n~' 0,'i1 1tVm] n~ [ 'n.1'" ':J O',J.1" o"tV 1? om mJi1 ':J 1'Ji1~ n~ ~':J ]tV?, [ ~~ mp i1n.1" 1':J'.1'J .:;] tV; f~ ':' 0; [no om ,:J?:J, 'n O,?] tVJ ~ ,? [ ':J 0] ';i1 [ tV'~ r?' o~ ~~" 1:J]'~ o~ ':l ['n]i1j[tv:J i11i1'::::1 ':l 1"]::::1.1' ::::1?[?.1' i]j" [ i1n.1' '.1' 1".1':JO 1'?.1' i1~J , tV]~ f!.{) [,i1 ?]bo 1? n [~T i1].1'" i1?'? G' l]n~ [ '.1'tVJ JtV" 1?0i1 mi1 "O~? ,,'Ji1 O.1'i1 ?,]:,?, , .1'tV:J[ JtV', l]?[Oi1 o'p"] [ 1":J O.1'i1 ?,:J 'i1', "?i1~? ]tb'~ oj ? ~,tV;; .. [ l?Oi1 ':J~? O.1'i1 ?,:J ~'J" ] [ ':J~?O ~'i11 ':J'::::1'~ ~po ':J?'~] ii [ , J'" 1 ?0i1 ,,6 [~? ?~,tv' '~::::1tv ?,:JJ] [ ,tV~ O,?tVJ~' m?tVJ~ ]".{)[o r':;]~i1 1[0 n'J i1n.1" o"ntV?~ ~po] [ 1?0i1 n~ J'tVi1?] O'tV [',no on~ i10? i1n.1" i1on?oJ no ,:J'?.1' I:JntVo] [ ?~ "J, "6]~? 0 [':Ji1,:Ji1 ,n'J~ ?~, P"~ ?~ n?tV "" l?om] [ 1?0]i1 n[~ J'tVi1? o':J"n~ mn i10? "O~? i1"i1' ':JpT]

4

8

5 6

8 9

7

9/10 10 10/11

8 9 10 11

12

174

11 12

12

CHAPTER FOUR

n'il;' I:, [

aspace, and, in any case, not a final 1. Both SB and SL lack one of the subsequent references to rvEl:J (7.5mm) in this line, but this seems inadequate. A number of possible homoioteleuta are also apparent. 3a: 4QSama reads in pI ace of SMT's toI;'. This has not been noted as a variant (pace Ulrich, 88), not only because toI;~, is an attested alternative form for ~, (e.g. 1 Sam 14:30), but also because many SMT manuscripts have 1'. McCarter (404) reconstructs 1'[1, presumably in place oftol;, ':J, but 43.124 Al makes such a reconstruction hard to correlate with the space available in 3a. 3bc: Comparison of 3a-c with 2abl c, 4a/bc and 5a-c yields reasonable confidence that 3b is around 8-1 Omm too wide. SLXX agrees with SMT reasonably closely, except for SL's lack of C1'i1 (9.5mm), which would fuHy resolve the problem. 4bcd/e: 4QSam a reads CtoI; ':J in place of SMT's ':J, and is supported by SLXX. 5b: 43.113 C4 makes it clear that 4QSama read l' rltol;T in place of SMT's rltol;T 1'. SLXX reflects the order of SMT. 6cde: This is compatible with ACWs no less than l13.7mm before inconsistency aHowances, and 107.4mm after, thus yielding no substantial suspicion of deviation. SLXX suggests no solutions. 7abc: 7abc's apparent shortfaH, although not enough to establish substantial suspicion of deviation, would be resolved if 4QSama read ':JEl in place of SMT's ':JEl?, as suggested by SB. 8de: 4QSama has the plus "1' after l'Oi1, and is supported by SLXX. 9abc: This section is 7.3% longer than the average abc reconstructed width for lines 5-9, yielding substantial suspicion of deviation. This is resolved by reading C"rlrv,Eli1 with the article, as suggested by SL.

l'

'.lJ

Line 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Verse 6/7 7 7/8 8 8 9 9/10 10 10/11 11 12 12

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 19:6-12 (mm) 13l.5 44.6

9.0 9.5

43.6 46.0 48.0

56.4

I

46.1

26.4

20.5 19.0

80.4 58.6 60.4 57.7 3l.2 25.3

20.7 19.6

45.0

10.7 11.1

19.2 19.7 42.1 38.3

45.8 80.7 75.8 79.3

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

175

IOe and 11 e: With the above vertical margin position, 11 e is compatible with ACWs no greater than 109.5mm. If, however, the margin position were changed, llell2abcd could become compatible with ACWs as high as 112.1mm, although this would reduce lOe/llabcd to being compatible with ACWs no greater than llO.3mm. In either case, the shortfall of lle or lOe is inadequate to raise any substantial suspicion of deviation.

48B: 2 Samuel 19:14-15(16) (vertical margin positions likely) Line

1

2 3 4

Line

1 2 3 4

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 19:14-15(16)

14 14 14/15 15/16

[ [ [ [

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 19:14-15(16) (mm)

14 14 14/15 15/16

] ,,6~ n~ [tba.v'?, ,tv]~, 0 ~ =,; [0" il;" O'i11'?~ ''? iltv.v' il;' iln~ "tv:n 'a~.v ~,'?ii ] n'?tb~, [ ,n~ tv'~;' m'il' tv'~ ,?,;, :J:!'? n~ ~" :J~" nnn o'a'il ,?,;, ':JEl'? il'iln ];1 iiilT" P"il '1' ~':J" l'?ail :J,tv', l',:J.v ,?,;" iln~ :J,tv l'?ail '?~

7.9 15.2 10.2

~:J~

] ] ] ]

94.1 125.0 106.1

The apparent vacat after n'?tb', (3b) suggests the above margin posItIOn as likely, although the vacat is not long enough to allow certainty. The above reconstruction suggests an average seetion b width between 5.6mm and 12.9mm laIb: The absence of the ~ of "a~n in SMT has been treated as an orthographie variant (see Driver, 122). 1b/2a: This is compatible with ACWs no greater than 106.5mm before inconsistency allowances, and 112.1mm after, and is thus insufficient to yield substantial suspicion of deviation. Nevertheless, the presence of the plus iln.v, after iln~, suggested by SLXX, and presumably lost by homoioteleuton in SMT, would increase 2a to 103.9mm, which is consistent with the estimated ACW and with 4a. 2b/3a: This is compatible with ACWs no less than 135.3mm after margin inconsistency allowance (132.7mm if a different margin position is chosen), with critical deviations of 6.8mm and lO.8mm, yielding reasonable confidence of deviation. Apart from manuscripts oa2 and h* which suggest the absence of ,?,;, o'a'il (18.0mm), and tv'~;' il"il' (2l. 7mm) respectively, SLXX suggests no significant minuses. The poor attestation for these variants, the inadequacy, particularly of

176

CHAPTER FOUR

the former, to resolve fuHy the space problems, and the fact that the latter is more likely a result of inner-Greek corruption suggest that these are unlikely to reflect 4QSam a ,s variant Vorlage. 3b: 4QSam a reads n,tb;, in place of SMT's ,n'tD't SLXX (except manuscript m) reflect a plural, but it is likely that the SLXX translator would have used a plural in this context, even if the verb in his Vorlage were singular.

Column 49 The five extant lines of 49A and 49B (excluding 49A2, which almost certainly refleets SMT's setuma) have widely differing reconstructed widths when reconstructed on the basis of SMT, so that it is not possible for more than two to be consistent with any one ACW. In fact 106.4mm-llO.Omm seems to represent the only ACW range for which two of these lines are mutuaHy compatible. This suggests, in conjunction with the observation that this represents a reasonably typical ACW in the surrounding columns, that I 06.5mm-ll Omm is the most likely ACW range, although if 3b/ 4a deviated from SMT, the upper limit could be increased to I 16.5mm. 49A: 2 Samuel 19:23-5 (vertical margin position known Jor lines 4-5, and very likely Jor lines 1-3) Line 1

2 3 4 5

Line 1

2 3 4 5

Verse

SMT-based reconstrnction qf 2 Sam 19:23-5

23/24 24 25 25 25

[,O~" ,~,tD'

[ [ ,.v l'Oi1 n~, [

Verse

Reconstrncted widths qf 2 Sam 19:23-5 (mm)

23/24 24 25 25

,.v l'O

[

Cl"i1 ,~ 'n.v,' ~"i1 ,~ ,~,tD':::l tD'~] na [i' ] l'Oi1 " .v:::ltD', n,on ~, '.vOtD ,~ l ],oii [ ] i1tD.v ~'" l'Oi1 n~,p' ", ,,~tD P ntD:::l ]'El6 [, ] Cl1'i1 10' O:::l~ ~, ,',:I:::l n~, 'OEltD i1tD.v ~'" Cli ]'i1 ':J~

,',]:1,

111. 7 65.4 76.1 105.2

25

The above reconstruction is based solely upon the previously unidentified fragments 43.113 D6 and 43.124 GI.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

177

2: 4QSam a 's apparent shortfall alm ost eertainly re fleets a paragraph foreshortening in line with SMT's setuma. 3: It is tempting to resolve the shortfall by shifting the fragment that yields text for the first three lines of the above reeonstruetion about 30mm to the right. This would, however, result in the paragraph break at the end of verse 24 being represented by both a foreshortening of line 2 and an indent at the start of line 3, and would make the apparent right margin eonsisteney in the above reeonstruetion eoineidental. SBmajlSL refleet the plus, 1=1 1nJ1i1' (l5.5mm), but this is insuffieient to explain the shortfall. 49B: 2 Samuel 19:27-29 (vertical margin positions unknown) Line

1 2 3 Line 1 2

3

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 19:27-29

27 28/29 29

[ l'~l' nOE) ':I 1"~i1 n~ 1"~1 i1'''l' ~:I'~1 ] ,;~ni1 [;., i1tv~n~ ] [ ':I TJ'l'~ ~1t!li1 i1tvl'1 tJ'i11"~i1 1~"~:1 1"~i1 'J'~1 1"~i1 'J'~ ] ,,~ ':]1j[l'~ "~"1 ] , ]S~ n['~ ]"[1:1 i1'i1 ~., ] [

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 19:27-29 (mm)

27 28/29 29

67.4 103.3

28.9 26.0 26.5

Ib/2a: This is eompatible with ACWs no greater than 99.5mm before ineonsisteney allowanees, and l06mm after, but, due to the uneertainty eoneerning the true ACW, no deviation has been registered. The probable explanation for the shortfall is a paragraph foreshortening or indent at the end of verse 27 (contra SMT). 2b/3a: This is eompatible with ACWs no less than 121.7mm before ineonsisteney allowanees, and 113.7mm after. Due to the uneertainty eoneerning the true ACW, no deviation has been registered. While many SLXX manuseripts vary signifieantly from SMT, none ofthem suggest any appropriate reduetions. If 1"~i1 'J'~(1) were omitted by homoioteleuton, this would be eonsistent with ACWs of 102.2ll8.3mm.

178

CHAPTER FOUR

Column 50

The minimum and maximum column width data for 50A are shown below:

Line

Reconstrncted Width (mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

118.6 125.2 104.1 121.2 114.2 104.1 114.5

Table 48 Estimation

Minimum ACW (mm) 115.1 117.2 98.8 114.6 108.6 97.5 108.5

Maximum ACW (mm) 122.8 128.2 106.6 125.5 118.3 108.1 120.7

rf the A CW based on 50A

These data suggest that the ACW is either around l18-ll9mm with extra text being required for lines 3 and 6, or around 108mm, with reductions in lines 1, 2 and 4, and possibly some expansion in line 3. Thus l18mm represents the most likely ACW, and is confirmed by the availability of expansions to lines 3 and 6, and by 50B 1b/2a and 50B2b/3a (50B almost certainly belongs to this column), which are consistent with ACWs no less than l15.5mm and l20.0mm respectively. The latter case may suggest the ACW range be increased to around ll9mm, although it could equally reflect non-parallel margins, as suggested by the apparent widening of section a of 50A as the scroll proceeds, and by the extant right margin of 50A2-4, which seems not to be vertical. The three extant lines of 50C are slightly too long for column 51 and cannot readily be shortened, while readily available adjustments to two of the lines make all three compatible with column 50. The third top left fragment of 43.117 has been implicitly identified by Cross as including 2 Sam 20:2 (Ulrich, 271, re cords it as 2 Sam 20:2-3). While the presence of'],n~[(~) and 'P:J[1 on consecutive lines provides strong evidence for this identification, the problems ofmatchingO]6[ ofline 1, ]fT11ii[' ofline 4, and ~ ofline 5 with suitable identifications in the context and the fact that an SMT-based reconstruction of line 2b-3a (72.lmm) is much too short, in a context where SLXX follows SMT reasonably closely, significantly undermines this confidence. Consequently, although Cross's identification remains plausible, it is too uncertain to use for identifying deviations from SMT.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

179

50A: 2 Samuel 20:9-14 (vertical margin positions known) Line 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Line 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

rf 2 Sam

Verse

SMT-based reconstrnction

9/10 10 10/11 11112 12 12/13 13/14 14·

1;6; [,' m]ni ptvJ'? ~tvO.t7 ] ipr~ [ "~ ,tv~ ~,n~ 'OtvJ] ~'? ~ tv [01" ~~" 'tv'~~1 ~~1'1 n'0'1 1'? mtv ]~1'?1 i1 [~,~ 1'1'0 l~tv" tb] Onil '?.t7 il~ 'il"1 ~~1' [ [ 'o~" ~~" ".t7JO 1']? I? '01' tv'~1 "']:J P .t7[~]tb ;,n ~ 1~" 1'n~ 01 ~~1;~ r~n [,tv~] '0 [ il'?OOil l,n~ O']:J '? 1'?1 [mo ] ~tbo 1[1'1 ~~" ',n~ 1'?tv'1 il,tvil ]i1'? O[Oil 1]6 ~tv [01' n~ ~O'1 o]im [ ,61' ' , tv' [~il] ~i'1 [ il'?OOil 10 m1il ,tv~, '01'1 1''?.t7 ~~il] '? il~' , tv~, ,j[~] ,''?.t7 " [ 't!l~tv '?1'~ '1~.t7'1 ",~ P .t7~tv ',n~ ~",,? ]~ 'in~ O.t7il '? [,]:) ,~j) ~" il:)]1'0 n [,~, il]? [~~ ,?~,tv'] [

Verse

Reconstrncted widths

9/10 10 10/11 11112 12 12/13 13/14 14

20:9-14

,?

",],,? '

rf 2 Sam

20:9-14 (mm)

44.3 52.2 34.4 32.3 27.5

,?"

18.6 19.3 65.9 76.5

37.6 35.1 33.7 34.7 30.2

15.9 16.4 16.6 14.0 15.7 14.8 14.6 16.1

20.8 20.2 19.4 21.6 21.5 23.4 23.4 23.7

The above reeonstruetion includes the previously unidentified fragments 43.124 F2, H8, A8, and EI, with A8 and E I fitting with the main fragments. 2b: 4QSama reads '?.t7 in plaee of '?~, and is supported by SL/ Aex, with SBmajl!/ supporting SMT. 3a: 4QSama reads 1~" in plaee of SMT's ~". While those SB manuseripts refleeting a singular (ByMglb 2dpqtz) suggest a singular Vorlage, those refleeting a plural (SBmajlSL/ ACE) may refleet a plural Vorlage, but eould equally have arisen as the more natural form to follow the dual subjeet. Consequently, some uneertainty eoneerning the support of these latter manuseripts has been indieated. 3de: This is eonsistent with ACWs no greater than 108.1 mm after margin ineonsisteney allowanee, with eritieal deviations of 2.8mm and 3.4mm, but the resulting reasonable eonfidenee has been redueed to substantial suspieion of deviation due to the slight uneertainty coneerning the ACW. SL's aUTW TW allEuua may refleet ~tvO.t7 '?.t7 (=@ or ~tvO.t7 '?.t7 1''?.t7. The former results in a 9.lmm inerease, whieh seems inadequate, whereas, the latter would add 17.3mm, whieh would fully resolve the problem.

180

CHAPTER FOUR

4b/c: 4QSama reads '1:l(1) in plaee of SMT's seeond itD~ '1:l(1), and is probably supported by SBmajlSL, with ahv/ ~ probably supporting SMT. 6cde: This is eompatible with ACWs no greater than 109.6mm after margin ineonsisteney allowanee, with eritieal deviations of 4.0mm and 5.9mm, yielding reasonable eonfidenee of deviation. A deviation here is eonfirmed by the ineonsisteney of the remains of the bottom line of 43.124 H8 with SMT's itD~;:,. SBmajl SL appear to refleet the plus W1 (8.lmm), whieh not only reduees the spaee problem (making 6de eompatible with ACWs up to l17.7mm hefore ineonsisteney allowanees), hut is also eonsistent with the extant remains of 43.124 H8 (thus itD~S] "fr[',), resulting in 6e and 6de reeonstrueted widths of 33.2mm and 40.8mm respeetively. 7a: 4QSama reads CI.lm ?[1]S in plaee of SMT's tD'~ ?;:" and is supported by SL, with SB supporting SMT.

SOB: 2 Samuel20:22-21:1 (vertical margin positions very likely) Line

1 2 3 4 5 6 Line 1

2 3 4 5 6

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 20:22-21:1

22/23 23/24 25/26

[ ?~itD' ~:J~i1 ?1;:' ?~ :J~1'1 1?1:li1 ?]~ CI"~tb [1i' :JtD :J~1'1 1'?i1~? tD'~ i',l'il ] [ i';:'T1:li1 11?'n~ p ~EltD1i1'1 01:li1 ?l) Cli1]~1 'n? Elfr [ ?l)1 'i;:'i1 ?l) l)1'1i1' P i1':J:J1 ] [ [

1'11?

1m;:,

i1'i1 'i~'i1 ~i'l) m,] CI':J m;:, "1 [n':J~1 P11~1 imo ~'tD1] CI':JtD ]tb?tD 1 '1 [1 '1:l':J :Jl)i 'i1'1 ] i11i1' ':JEl n] ~ 1 ['11 tDP:J'1 i1:JtD 'in~ i1:JtD] ] n' [:J ?~1 ?1~tD ?~ mi1' i1:l~'1 ]

[ [

Verse

22/23 23/24 25/26

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 20:22-21:1 (mm)

69.1 77.5 60.0 22.6 16.9

52.4 52.6 48.8 29.5 50.2 5l.5

The marked shortfalls oftext in 3b/4a and 5b/6a are resolved if 4QSama refleeted SMT's setumot at these points as a paragraph indent and a foreshortening respeetively. This requires the above right margin position, whieh is supported by the resulting eonsisteney of seetion a reeonstrueted widths. 3b: The above reeonstruetion of 3b would normally be eonsistent with an average

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

181

section width ofup to around 65mm, and thus with ACWs up to around 116mm, but if 4a began with a paragraph indent, then 3b would be compatible with ACWs up to around 12lmm 127 before the scribe might have considered the 3b shortfall to have been sufficient unambiguously to indicate a paragraph break. 4b/5a: An SMT-based reconstruction is far too short, with SLXX suggesting no major pluses. The extant ]~ , [ might, of course, relate to extra text after the SMT text reconstructed in line 5, but in either case, 4QSama reflects a substantial plus without SLXX support. 5b/6a: A paragraph foreshortening, reflecting SMT's setuma, explains the shortfall of text.

50G- 2 Samuel 21:4-6 (vertical margin positions possible)

Line

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 21:4-6

1

3 4

4 4/5 5/6 6

[ il~ '~~'1 ?~,tv':J ]n['] ~il? [ tv'~ 1J? 1'~1 1n':J 01'1 ?1~tv 01' :JilT1 :"jO~ ] [ 'tv~1 1J?~ ,]~~ tv' ~ [il l?~il ?~ 1'~~'1 o~? iltvl'~ 0"~1~ on~ ] [ O'tvJ~ ill':Jtv 15]? on nJ1 ? [~,tv' ?1:JJ ?1~:J :J~'nil~ 1J'~tvJ 1J? il~'] [ ] ~'1il' ,'n:J ?1~tv nl':JJ:J il1il'? 01Jl'P1il1 1'J:J~]

Line

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 21:4-6 (mm)

1

4 4/5 5/6 6

2

2 3 4

35.0 32.0 35.4

77.7 74.3 74.5 77.0

The above margin position results in the most consistent section I a-3a reconstructed widths, although other possibilities exist which yield reasonably consistent section a widths for lines 2-3. The vacat in line 4 presumably reflects a paragraph foreshortening (setuma in SMT). Ib/2a: This line is consistent with ACWs of 106.3-113.7mm before inconsistency allowances, and up to 120.9mm after, yielding no substantial suspicion of deviation. If 4QSama read ?~,tv' ?1~~ (with SBmajlSL) in place of SMT's ?~,tv':J, the reconstructed width would increase by 6.lmm. McCarter (438) views 4QSam a as attesting tv'~ in place of SMT's tv'~il, which is reflected in SLXX. The space on the 34 With a higher ACW, the scribe might have considered the 3b shortfall to have been sufficient by itself to indicate a paragraph break.

182

CHAPTER FOUR

leather before tv~~, however, appears to be 'whitened', so that it is unclear whether there was a preceding i1 or not. Indeed it is more likely that a i1 was present he re since, if it were lacking, we would expect to see the tail of the final 1 of the preceding word extending downwards from the whitened area. 2b/3a: This line is consistent with ACWs of 101.3-11O.6mm before inconsistency allowances, and up to 117.6mm after. Uncertainty, however, regarding the column to which 50C belongs suggests that no deviation should be noted. If 4QSama read 'j'~ll i1~) in place of SMT's ':l~), as suggested by McCarter (438), or better i1~) ':lrl1~, the reconstructed width would increase by 9.6mm and 9.7mm respectively. 3a/b: 4QSama reads a 2mpl perfeet with , consecutive in place of SMT's 3ms imperfect of 1m (Niphal in the Kethib, and Qgl passive in the Qgre). With regard to the' consecutive, SB supports SMT, and SL supports 4QSama, although there is so me uncertainty concerning whether the SLXX translator would have felt bound to reflect accurately its presence or absence. With regard to the verb itself, SBmaj/~ (and lld, though singular) reflect 4QSam a 's 2mpl, while Bhx (though active) reflect SMT's 3s form. The passive form of SL/4, though plural in conformity with the plural subject, almost certainly reflects SMT's form of the verb.

Column 51 The left ruled margin of 5lC is extant, with the three extant lines indicating ACWs of lOO.5mm, lOOmm and lOlmm respectively. This consistency is so striking that it provides confidence that the actual ACW is indeed around lOO-lOlmm, at least for this part of the column.

51A: 2 Samuel 21:8-9 (vertical margin position unknown)

Line

1 2 Line

1 2

Verse 8 9

Verse 8 9

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 21:8-9

I[

]1

~n~1nai1 ~~t,~ p ~~~'111~ i11~~ ,tv~ ~,~tv n~ ~)~a ]~b

nltv[an n~, tl~:lll~ ] ji1 1; [~ tl:Jn~' ]

[

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 21:8-9 (mm) 95.9

15.1 12.8

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

183

The above reeonstruetion is based solelyon the previously unidentified fragment 43.124 H3, and is eonsistent with SMT. While eonsistent with ACWs no less than 10 1.2mm, this is inadequate to raise any substantial suspieion of deviation, espeeially as it is not entirely eertain that this fragment does belong to eolumn 51. 51 B: 2 Samuel 21: 12 (vertical margin positions unknown)

Line 1 2

Line 1

2

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction of 2 Sam 21:12

12 12

]''?.lJ I I[[tJ]i':J tJ; ['ntv'?eJi1 tJtv m'?n ,tv~ ltv n':J :Jn,~ tJm~ ,:JJJ ,tv~ ,.lJ'?J tv':J' ]

Verse

Reconstructed widths of 2 Sam 21:12 (mm)

I:q

12 12

]

113.3

The above reeonstruction is based solelyon the previously unidentified fragment 43.113 A8. I b/2a: This is compatible with ACWs no less than 112.5mm after margin ineonsisteney allowanee, with eritieal deviations of 7.5mm and II.Omm, so that at least substantial suspicion of deviation arises. SLXX suggests no reduetions. 51 Co 2 Samuel 21: 15-16 (vertical margin positions known)

Line 1 2 3 4 5

184

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction of 2 Sam 21:15-16

[

[

15 15/16 16

CHAPTER FOUR

]

]

'~.lJ ,',:J.lJ [, "" '1" '?~1tv' nN tJ"ntv?eJ? i1~n?~ ",1) 'i1m ] fr [eJ1i1] ,,; '?;[:J ,tvN :J,J:J ,:Jtv', "" ~.lJ" tJ"ntv'?eJ nN ,~n'?', ] '~N" fri, n ["Jn N,m ntv,m ?ptv~ n'N~ tv,'?tv ,J'p '?ptv~, ]

Line

Verse

Reconstrncted widths qf 2 Sam 21:15-16 (mm)

1 2

3 4 5

15 15/16 16

14.2 13.7 35 16.6

85.0 84.4 85.4

The clear presence of horizontal guide lines in the top two (blank) lines shows that the blank lines are not a result of this fragment being at the top of the column. Line 2 almost certainly reflects a paragraph foreshortening, reflecting SMT's petucha. The apparent vacat at the end of line I does not appear to be the result of any paragraph foreshortening, and so is best accounted for by suggesting that the scribe may have chosen to write a long word (possibly c';n,?~) at the start of line 3 in order to avoid making line 2 too long. The true identity of the partially extant word in the last line is uncertain. 5a1b: 4QSama ,s apparent i1i,n makes even less sense than the other available options (see McCarter, 448), and seems to deviate from all witnesses.

Column 52 52B4-16 represent the best basis for calculating the ACW, with the other lines of 52B providing confirmatory evidence. Sections 4c, llc, 6c and 8c are compatible with average section widths no less than 54.6mm, 53.9mm, 53.6mm, and 52.3mm respectively, and sections lOc, 12c, 8c, 16c, and l5c with average section widths no greater than 51.6mm, 55.4mm, 57.9mm, 58.6mm and 58.8mm respectively. This strongly suggests that the average seetion width is around 54.6-55.4mm (ACW around 107-108mm) with lOc being too short, or possibly 54.6-57.7mm (ACW around 107-11Omm) if 12c is also too short. Lines 1-3 and 17-20 suggest an ACW around 105.8-1 06.9mm with 2bc and 3bc too long and 18bc too short, or around 102.9mm, with 2bc, 3bc and 17bc too long. In combination with the results from 52B4-16, the most likely ACW is around 107mm.

35

The supralinear ' (the middle ' of "'''':1) has not been included in this count.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

185

52A: 2 Samuel 22:24-26 (vertical margin positions quite like{y)

Line 1

2 Line 1 2

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 22:24-26

24-26 26

[ O.l) 1'J'.l) ,JJ? "1::l) 'np'~) '? ii1ii' ::liD'1 'J1.l)rJ ii'rJniD J~; 1[ 1? J10 ['rJn J [ O.l) Ji nnn ,pon J

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 22:24-26 (mm)

24-26 26

'0

98.2

5.61 18.1

8.8 8.9

Ib: The adjusted reconstructed width (c.5.6mm) is 18.2% lower than the average 1b/2b reconstructed width, which is sufficient to raise substantial suspicion of deviation, and is resolved if 4QSama read 1rJ.l) in place of SMT's 1?, with PMT (Ps 18:24), SL, manuscripts ia2, g, SS, SV and 2 BHS manuscripts, increasing the reconstructed width to 8.5mm. 2e: The final extant letter of this line has a right-hand vertical str9ke that is consiste nt with a" but not an .l), making it reasonably certain that 4QSama attested 0.l)1 with SLXX (and SS/SV). This variant has not, however, been registered as a deviation from SMT since many BHS manuscripts also share this reading. 52B: 2 Samuel 22:30-23:6 (vertical margin positions known) 2bc/3a: The section 3a reconstructed width is 18% greater than the section a average, with 2bc also too great, yielding reasonable confidence of deviation. The problem in 3a cannot be resolved by the mere transfer of an element to 2bc, since this would not only make 2bc even wider, but would also reduce the 3a reconstructed width too much (to 28.9mm). SLXX suggests no solutions. The most probable solution is that a shorter equivalent of".l)?::lrJ, such as ,::l?rJ, was present. If ,:::l'O was in p1ace of ".l)?:::l0 in both cases, the 3a and 2bc reconstructed widths would be reduced to 38.4mm and 80.2mm. This would resolve the problem regarding 3a, but still leaves 2bc 5.7mm too wide. Cross and Freedman (1953, 30), who seek to reconstruct the original behind Psalm 18 and 2 Sam 22, suggest that 'for stylistic reasons,' it did not include '), claiming support from 'the LXX and Vulgate of S' (although only BAxaz4CE of SLXX lack this). If lacking in 4QSama , this would remove a further 4.6mm. 3a1be: 4QSam a attests 'J,r~rJ, supported by SL and PMT (Ps 18:33), in place of SMT's 'r1.l)rJ. SB's 0 KpaTaLWV ('who strengthens me') seems to reflect neither (pace Ulrich, 109, who sees it as supporting SMT, cf McCarter, 459, who plausibly suggests that it might reflect 'm.l)rJ).

I86

CHAPTER FOUR

Line

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10 11

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20 21

Verse

SMT-based reconstrnction qf 2 Sam 22:30-23:6

29-31 31/32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38/39 40/41 41-43 43-44 44-46 46-48 48/49 49-51 51

[

1

1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5 6

[

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

C1'Dn ~~i1 "iV )~,~ 'm~~J ,,,) ] n']'~ ii [~J '~ '~iVi1] ,,~ 'D' mi1' '1.l7~JD ~~ 'D ,~ ,J C1'01ni1 ~,~~ ]~'i1 pD ii [En'~ i1,i1' mD~ ] ~,l;I' n,~'~~ ,,~), miVD ,~" C1'Dn ,n', ~'] 11 'j 'T~D ~~ U' 'j'i1'~~ ".l7~JD ] pD ,~ 1nn, 'n'.l7'T i1iV,m niVp nn ]5' i1Dn [?]6~ ", 'D~D ,j'D.l7' 'n,6 [J ] 'J'~ i1El"~ '~O'P ".l7D ~,],?,36 , '.l7~ J ['n], n 'jJ,n imT.l7' l.l7iV' ,~), nnn '~'El" 1'D'P' ~,~, C1~]nD~ C1n,~~ i,l;l J'iV~ ~,~, CI1'DiV~; '~jiVD ~".l7 ,~ i1nn 'J'~' 'jn] nn 'Dp .l7'~ m i1Dn~D~ ~'n ;5'T~n [, ] ~.l7 'El.l7~ C1pniV~' C1J.l7 ~'~]i i1;i1' ~~ .l7'iV' D P~[, '.l7iV' C1]n'D~t\ iV~'~ 'j'DiVn 'D,l;I 'J"D 'jt!l]~Eln, C1.l7P'~ n[,]~,n t!l't!l[~] n,~ 'jEl '~J' '~j 'jJ ,~ '.l7DiV' F~ ,l;I,] 6 iV~ 'j1J,l;I 'n,l;l,' ~~ C1.l7 CI"') ~~i1 '.l7iV' ,,~ 'm~~ CI"" ",~ l' ,] J, mi1' 'n C1n"ODD ,,)n' ~~ 'jDD"n 'DpD' 'J'~D '~'~'D' ']5nnn C1'D,l;I ,~ n'Dpj 1m ~")D 'DT~ 1DiV~' C1"')J i1,i1]' 1"~ 1:) ~,l;I 'j,~n[ C1'o]Dn iV'~D C1~'.l7 ,.l7 '.l7'T~' ", ],~ ;11'iVD'? , on i1iV'.l7; '~~D n.l7'iV' C1~j' 'iV' P ,'" C1~j C1'j],n~ii "" ":J1 i1~~' i11i1' m, ~~'iV' n"DT CI' ,l;Ij' Jp] Sr 'i1 [,~~ ] n'iVD ~~ C1;Pi1 'J)i1 ~iVD ~~'iV' ,,~ ,~ ~~'iV' 'm~~ ]'[D~ ']5 ;iV~ ~.l7 m~m 'J 'pJ iVDiV n'T' 'pJ ,,~~, C1'm~~ n~ ,,] ~iVD P[,,~] CI1~:J n"J '~ ~~ C1.l7 'n'J p ~~ '~ f'~D ~iV]1:' ,~ [DD i1)jD mJ.l7 ~~ ] n'D~' ~~ '~ fEln ~,~, '.l7iV' ~,~ ,~ i1"DiV]' "bj i1 [~",l;I ,~ C1iV C1~'.l7 ] ,~"

"'D'

,J,

,J,

~ ].l7'~ J,

[

]

5a: 4QSama reads imT.l7' in place of SMT's 1m.l7t Ulrich (140) shows that both SB (unaKOT) emu) and SL (TanELVwCJELS-) reflect derivatives of i1J.l7, and should thus be seen as supporting SMT against 4QSam a • PMT (Ps 18:36) also agrees with SMT in this respect. 5c: 4QSam a lacks 'jnnn, supported only by manuscript x. Ulrich (101-3) suggests that the supralinear ~~, reflected the insertion of an extra phrase, perhaps the doublet of SL. The character remains after ~~, are unclear, probably involving the tail of the ~ from the line below, possibly together with some shadow. Since it is unlikely that a scribe would have written a letter on top of the ~ from the line below, it is probable that no remains immediately after ~~, are extant. ~~, may have been written defectively, against the usual practice in 4QSama, to prevent such an overlapping. While 4QSama ,s agreement with SL is uncertain, SL is at least capable of explaining 4QSama ,s deviation. 6c: 4QSama lacks C1~~~' of SMT's C1~nD~' C1~~~1, in agreement with PMT (Ps 18:39),

36 Supralinear ]141'" is extant at this point.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

187

Line

1

2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Verse 29-31 31/32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38/39 40/41 41-43 43-44 44-46 46-48 48/49 49-51 51 1 1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5 6

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 22:30-23:6 (mm) 65.9 84.1 76.2 57.8 52.2 57.9 53.7 55.1 55.6 48.9 57.9 50.0 53.4 37.1 53.8 54.7

17.8 16.3 17.3 15.8 15.4 15.6 16.0 15.9 17.4 17.4 15.9 16.3 15.9 74.2 64.3 67.0 72.6

3l.0 36.7 42.4 37.4 36.1 35.5 37.5 34.4 33.7 33.7 36.6 35.4 34.7 38.0 9.2 36.1 34.5 33.6 36.5 38.6 3.3

SBmaj (manuscript Arefleets the longer text of SMT) and SL. The initial , of the verse is also ladung in SL/.4 and PMT, but is present in SB, although one cannot assurne that the presence or absence of the conjunction in SLXX necessarily reflects the translator's Vorlage (Ulrich, 109). 7a1b: The absence, in SMT, of the ~ of 'J'i~n" which is present in 4QSama and PMT(Ps 18:40), represents an orthographie variant, rather than a true deviation. 4QSam a attests l',~m in place of SMT's l",~n. Both appear to be Hiphil, but 4QSam a 's conjunction is reflected in SL/fzAE, although one cannot assume that a translator necessarily reflected his Vorlage accurately in this respect. Ba: 4QSama lacks the conjunction of SMT's cn'o~~" with PMT (Ps 18:41) and SL/ NfxAC. Bc/9a: 4QSama read n,~ 'JEl ['?l' in place of SMT's r'~, BHS incorrectiy re cords 4QSama as reading n,~ 'JEl[,?, for 'JEl represents the right margin and is dearly preceded by aspace. SB support SMT, while SL/PMT (Ps 18:43) support 4QSama , except for reading m, in place of 4QSam a 's n,~. Despite the m,/n,~ difference, Ulrich (104) correctiy sees 4QSama, PMT and SL reflecting one textual tradition in contrast to SMT ISB.

188

CHAPTER FOUR

9b: 4QSama lacks SMT's C1p'~. SB seems to reflect C1P'~, but not C1l'P'~, while AEavw (PLXX/SL) could reflect either C1l'P'~ ('stamp'; 'beat out') or C1P'~ ('make dust of; 'pulverise'), but not PMT (Ps 18:43)'s C1P"~ ('empty out') (Ulrich, 104),37 pace McCarter (461) who sees AEavw ('smooth'; 'pound in a mortar') as reflecting C1p(,),~. While the Vorlagen of PLXX and SL are, therefore, uncertain, it is clear that SB/SLIAEIPMT IPLXX agree with 4QSam a in attesting only one word here. lOb: 4QSama reads ':J,:ll' in place of SMT and PMT (Ps 18:44)'s ':J(,),:ll". SLXX's aorist and ACE probably reflect 4QSama, but some uncertainty shou1d be reflected. lObte: In 4QSama , verse 45b follows verse 44. Either verse 45a or 46a was lacking, yielding section IOc reconstructed widths of 48.9mm and 59.5mm (57.2mm if 4QSam a reads ,tvn:;,' with PMT (Ps 18:45)) respectively. While the former is 3mm too short, the absence of 46a fits weIl, whether ,tvn:;,' or ,tvn:;,n' is reconstructed, and therefore seems probable. Labelling SMT's verses 45a, 45b, 46a, and 46b as a, b, c, and d respectively, the following table shows the variety of sequencing of these cola in the main witnesses: PMT: bacd PLXX: bacd

SBmaj: bacd SBmin: abcd SL: ab 1ab 2d

SMT: abcd 4QSama : ba d

This suggests that the primary variations can be categorised according to whether ab are transposed, and whether c is lacking (see Ulrich, 110-11). Regarding the transposition of ab, 4QSama is supported by PMT IPLXX (Ps 18:45) and SBmaj, with SBmin (Bha2Ac) supporting SMT, and SL diverging from both. Regarding the absence of c, 4QSama stands alone, except for the probable support of SL. 38 The secondary nature of c may be suspected since it is not easy to ac count for its loss-its loss by homoioteleuton of ,:;':J ':J:l depends upon c preceding a, which does not occur in any witness. Nevertheless, only the absence of text has been noted as a deviation, since the result of 45a being absent is not sufficiently short to yield substantial suspicion of a further deviation from SMT. Ha: 4QSama reads ~., in pI ace of SMT's which is broadly supported by PMT (Ps 18:46; some PMT manuscripts transpose the ) and ,). Ulrich (110-11) shows that it is probable that SL's EAUTpw81laav EK 8EaiJ.wV aUTWV ('they were released from their bands') reflects 4QSama ,s Qn"ODD ",n' ~., ('they were ungirt [rom their bands'). Both U1rich (110-11) and McCarter (462) view SB's Kat aaAouaL v as reflecting SMT. While they are doubtless correct that SB reflects ,

"Jn'

",n'"

Briggs and Briggs (1906, 161) seems confident that AEUVW reflects Cp'~. SL's text is complex, with ab'ab 2d being the result of stripping away the minor doublets (see Ulrich, 110). 37

38

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

189

rather than ~'? (the point of variance between SMT and 4QSama ), it is not clear that SB reflects 1'Jn'1. 4QSama reads om,o~~ in place of SMT's On1'JO~~, which is supported by PMT (Ps 18:46)/SB, with SL supporting 4QSama . 12a: 4QSama reads 1m, which is probably a perfect since 4QSama usually spells Qgl singular participles plene, in place ofSMT's 1mi1. SB's 0 8l80us, and probably SL's os E8wKEV, support SMT against 4QSam a , pace Ulrich (132, 130) who sees SLXX as ambiguous, and McCarter (462) who sees SL as supporting 4QSama . McCarter's suggestion that 1nj was preceded by [,tll~] in 4QSama is improbable, since llc would then be consistent with ACWs no less than 115.4mm. 4QSama also reads "'~1 in place of SMT's "'1~1. Ulrich (91) sees SB and SL probably as supporting 4QSama here, but since SB's TIm8EUWV and SL's ETaTIELVWUE are from verbs which elsewhere translate neither " , or '" (HR), it is unlikely that they followed either SMT or 4QSama , aIthough SL could possibly reflect SMT. His claim that 'on a semantic basis they are closer to ",~' is unconvincing, since SL's TaTIELVWV ('humble' or 'cast down') seems considerably closer to "'1~ than ",~ (raising a slight possibility that SL could reflect SMT), while TIm8EUWV probably reflects 'O'~ (McCarter, 462), rather than "'1~ or ",~. His claim that 'UTIOTa~as PsG is positive evidence' should be rejected, even though " , (Qg~ is translated by UTIOTaUUW in Ps 144:2, since its translation of ':1"(1) (Hiphil: 'subdue') in Ps 47:4 indicates that there is no basis for viewing the Vorlage of PLXX (Ps 18:48) as anything other than PMT's ':1"1 (cf. Berry, 1993, 50). 13a: Space considerations and the presence of a dot at the top left of the character, which leaves inadequate space for the tail of a j, strongly suggest 'j,~n[, against McCarter's 'j,~5 [no Despite the presence of McCarter's form in Ps 140:2, the failure of the j to assimilate would be anomalous. SB's pUUTl (MNgva2: puum) probably reflects ,?~j, as Ulrich (112) argues, a conclusion also suggested by the observation that PLXX (Ps 18:49) = SB with PMT attesting 'j'?'~n, aIthough so me measure of uncertainty arises since pU0ll-m also translates '~j in the identical phrase in Ps 140:2, and since '~j can also mean 'to rescue'. SL's 8lETTlPTlUaS (b: 8lETTlPTlUE) almost certainly reflects '~j, as U1rich suggests. 14a: SB seems to reflect SMT's n1l'1tll" and SL 4QSama ,s nl'1tD', but since the plural could have been spelled defectively in SB's Vorlage, or a singular Hebrew form could have been understood as a defective plural, some uncertainty is introduced. 14c: The reconstructed width is about 18mm 1ess than the average seetion width. I5a marks the new paragraph with an indent, but it is possible that the scribe might have feit that the shortfall in 14c was inadequate to indicate unambiguously the paragraph break, so that no deviation can be assumed here. 16a: 4QSama reads '?~ O;Pi1 in place of SMT's '?l' Opi1. SL closely follows 4QSama , but SB deviates from both SMT and 4QSama . Ulrich (113-14) claims that 'KR [=SB] failed to understand M and in its literalism inserted into the OG text E1Tl (for '?l') before XPLaTOV, thus distorting the meaning', but this support is too conjectural for inclusion in our analysis.

190

CHAPTER FOUR

17bc/18a: 4QSam a reads '?tva in plaee of SMT's '?tv1a in 18a, and has been assumed to read thus in 17be as weH. SL's singular imperative probably re fleets 4QSama . '?tv1a/'?tva of 18a is variously refleeted in SB: 2pl aetive subjunetive in BNvyb 2, singular passive subjunetive in Maghinsa2, plural imperative in Ax, 2pl future aetive in m, and 3s future middle in the other minuseules. While the preeise interrelationship between these forms is not immediately obvious, they eould refleet '?tva (whieh may have been read as an imperative or as an infinitive eonstruet), but not as SMT's partieiple. 18bc/19a: 18be is eonsistent with ACWs no greater than 102.9mm before ineonsisteney allowanees, and I08.4mm after, whieh is insuffieient to indieate substantial suspieion of deviation. 19a/bc: 4QSam a appears to read ~tv],::) in plaee of SMT's ~tv" and is supported by SL, with SB probably supporting SMT. In any ease, it is clear that 4QSama deviates from SMT, sinee the first letter, whieh is most likely to be a~, is eertainly not a ,. 20bc/21a: The extant vacat before the first extant word ofthis line is long enough to suggest a paragraph indent (of about 30mm), although not long enough to make this eertain. Furthermore, spaee eonsiderations require either this or a substantial plus within 20be/21 a. SLXX suggests no signifieant pluses, beyond the plus ilW:l in SBmaj (excluding BANxa2), whieh would be inadequate. 52C: 2 Samuel 23:14-15 (vertical margin positions unknown)

Line 1

2 Line 1

2

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 23:14-15

il1~m

T~ CI"r1tv'?El :l~a1 il'1~a:l] TI~

14/15 15

If

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 23: 14-15 (mm)

14/15 15

Cln'? r1':l

[

':J] ptv [, 'a

]I

,a~', "" ]

73.1 32.1

No evidenee of deviation from SMT is apparent in these lines. They eould belong to eolumn 53, although eolumn width eonsiderations clearly favour eolumn 52.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

191

52D: 2 Sam 23:16 (vertical margin positions unknown)

Line

1 2 Line

1 2

Verse 16 16

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction 1[

[

of 2 Sam

23:16

?~ '~':::l" ,~rv', '.1'rv:::l ,rv~ on? n':::l '~:::lO 0'] ° li:::l~rv ["

on ]i n[rv]? [ ;':::l~

~,?,

]1 ",,]

Reconstructed widths of 2 Sam 23:16 (mm) 8l.8

16 16

32.0

No evidence of deviation from SMT is apparent in these lines. They could well belong to column 53. Column 53

Since the only extant line of 53B yields too narrow a reconstructed width to reflect a plausible column width, the ACW has been calculated solelyon the basis of 53A. As the left ruled margin is extant, an ACW of around 119mm is suggested ij 4QSama agrees with SMT in section 2a of 53A. Such an assumption is, of course, uncertain, although SLXX's general support for SMT here increases its probability. It is argued below that it is probable, on the basis of 2 Sam 23:38-39, that the seventeen setumot of 2 Sam 23:23-39 were reflected as paragraph breaks in 4QSama, increasing the number of 4QSama lines required forthis text by around four, although, if this were not the case, the overall problems concerning the reconstruction of columns 46-53 would be eased. 53A: 2 Samuel 23:21-22 (vertical margin positions known)

Line 1

2

192

Verse 21 21/22

CHAPTER FOUR

SMT-based reconstruction

of 2 Sam

"IO[ ;,rv,?rv:::l orv ,?, .1"";"

·1 o'ib

[~;,

23:21-22

P ,;,'J:::l ;,rv.1' ;,?~ ,n'Jn:::l

,m,;,',

',~o;,

]1]

Line 1

2

Verse

21 21/22

R.econstrncted widths qf 2 Sam 23:21-22 (mm)

3.7 I 9.8

116.5

No evidence of deviation from SMT is apparent. SLXX follows SMT reasonably closely, with the possible exception of SL, which could reflect 'll1~ or similar, in place of SMT's ll'~'i1" although this is more likelY an inner-Greek development.

53B: 2 Samuel 23:38-39 (vertical margin positions likely)

Line 1

2 Line 1

2

Verse

SMT-based reconstrnction qf 2 Sam 23:38-39

~1n~i1 :J ]1JI ; [1n~i1 ~1~ll

38 39

I~

Verse

Reconstrncted widths qf 2 Sam 23:38-39 (mm)

38 39

]t:l ~tD [1'tD ,,;, 'nni1

i1~11~

jl

17.3 38.4

This is based solely upon the previously unidentified fragment 43.113 E4. An SMTbased reconstruction of 1b/2a is considerably too short, with no pluses suggested by SLXX. Such a major shortfall is most naturally explained by a paragraph foreshortening, corresponding to SMT's setuma at the end of verse 38, although a variation in the ordering of the names in SMT is at least conceivable, and, since the end of verse 38 represents no greater sense break than those after the end of each of verses 25 to 37, it is likelY that the setumot of these verses were also reflected in 4QSama . The presence of a paragraph break at the beginning of verse 38 would indicate that verse 39 would begin a new line, hence the margin position in the above reconstruction. This ties in weIl with a paragraph indent (c.l 7.5mm) corresponding to the setuma at the end of verse 37. The presence of such an indent, moreover, indicates that the previous line was substantially fuH, which in turn would suggest that it contained at least verses 37a and 37b, and the intervening setuma. While such sequences oflogic are fraught with problems, the continuation of such reconstructions suggests that 4QSama would have required about fourteen lines for verses 23-39, where only ten would otherwise have been expected.

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

193

Column 54 54A: 2 Samuel 24:16-20 (vertical margin positions likely) Line 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Line 1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8

Verse

SMT-based reconstruction qf 2 Sam 24:16-20

16 16 16/17 17 17/18 18-20 20 20

[1':J'l' n~]';[1' ~]tV[';]1 'oi[J];i1 ~:J'[~ 1'1) O]l' '~1l' mii[' 1~1;l~1 1" ~'i1 i1nl' J, Ol'J] [ I;ll' i1]~it!l:J i ["1 ]1i'J i1~1I;ltV[ iJ]im 0 ['6tVi1] i'J1 r'~ i1[ rJ '~1l' i11i1' 1~1;l~ n~ ~"1] [n~ 1]n~'J mi1' .... I;l~ "1' ,~~ [']1 O'p tb [:J 0'0 ]Jn~ 0 i1; [:J~ I;ll' 0':Jpm1 "1' 1;l~'1 0'l;ltV1" ] [ 1tVl' ]ii~ i~ ~i1 iil;l~1 'nl',ii i1.b,i1 ') j [~1 'n~t!ln '):J~ i1:Ji1 '~~'1 Ol'J i1)~i1 1~1;l~i1] [ mi1'1;l Op] i1 i11;ll' '~~'1 ~1i1i1 tJ [1'J "1' I;l~ ,) ~1J'1 'J~ n'JJ1 'J 1" ~:J 'i1n] ~"1 ~:J'~]~ ptV'1 mi1' i11~ ,tV [~) ,) ,J,) "1' 1;ll"1 '01J'i1 ~:J'~ 1'1)J nJT~] [ [ 'l' "1' ~1J'1 ]tJ 't'bti tV, ~:J'~1 O'p tVJ [o'O)n~ 1'1;ll' 0"J1l' 1"Jl' n~1 11;l~i1 n~] [ 0' ]~J O';ptVJ 0 'O[)r!O 1"Jl' n~1 "1' n~ ~"1 ~:J'~ t!lJ'1 ~:J'~]

Verse

Reconstructed widths qf 2 Sam 24:16-20 (mm)

16 16 16/17 17 17/18 18-20 20 20

8.6 7.5 7.8 8.7

17.4 15.9 17.3 17.9 16. 20.0 27.0 79.4

33.1 34.6 33.3 33.1 32.5 32.7 33.2

24.3 24.8 24.7

52.8 50.9 58.8 75.3 78.8 76.9 76.0

The previously unidentified fragment 43.124 A6 neatly fits lines 1-4 of the main fragment. The margin position in the above reconstruction table yields the most consistent seetion ab reconstructed width, taking account of 4QSama ,s agreement with CMT at some points, with the most plausible alternative involving moving the right margin ab out 7mm to the right, although even this results in some decrease in consistency. Seetions Ide-4de have minimum widths between 21.4mm and 22.3mm, and maximum widths between 30.3mm and 33.3mm, establishing an average seetion width range of22.3-30.3mm. 7de, however, has a minimum margin of24.0mm, and 5de and 6de maximum margins of21.4mm and 23.0mm respectively. These are not mutually consistent, but are best explained by an average section width of around 23mm (and thus ACWs of around 132-134mm), with the 5de17de deviations being small compared with inconsistency allowances.

194

CHAPTER FOUR

lb: 4QSam a reads '~'l) in plaee of SMT's il'il, whieh is supported by Bha2Ax, with CMT (1 Chr 21:15) and SBmajl SL/ACEfollowing 4QSama . lc: 4QSam a reads ~:r1~ in plaee of SMT's i1:l1'~(il)/i1:l'1~ he re and in 7e, with SLXX following 4QSama , and CMT (1 Chr 21:15)'s P1~ deviating from both. Ic-3c: The text of 1 Chr 21: 16, whieh is ladung in SMT and its versions, is dearly refleeted in 4QSama ,39 and has eonsequendy been used to reeonstruet the lacunae. Nevertheless, there are some differenees between CMT (1 Chr 21:16; supported by CLXX) and 4QSama . First, 43.124 A6 demonstrates that 4QSama attested an extra word after ],i':l ending in , [. The primary possibilities are "', or ':l1m, resulting in seetion 2d reeonstrueted widths of 7.5mm and lO.3mm respeetively, of whieh the former is mueh more likely. Seeond, spaeeeonsiderations suggest a reduetion in 2e/3a relative to CMT's text, but if the margin were reloeated so as to plaee Q'~tV'1' at the end of 2e, 2e/3a would be eompatible with ACWs as low as l33.6mm, so that no deviation should be presumed. Third, 43.124 A6 reveals that 4QSam a attests il']~;~J,40 as an orthographie variant of SMT's il"~J. Fourth, Qil'JEl ~l), whieh in CMT follows Q'ptV:l Q'o~(i"l)~, preeedes it in 4QSama . Finally, 4QSam a reads Q'O~i"l~ in plaee of CMT's Q'O~~. 3c-4ab: The extant elements in 3e-e, eonfirmed by spaee eonsiderations in 4ab, show that 4QSam a broadly follows the text of 2 Sam 24: 17, against CMT (1 Chr 21:17). 4QSam a is thus seen to attest the parallel text ofboth CMT Oines 1-3) and SMT Oines 3-4). 4ab/c: 4QSam a ,s 'i"ll)1ii il~1il '~~[~ deviates from both SMT and CMT (1 Chr 21: 17), and is supported by SBmaj41/SL. CMT's 'i"ll)1ill)1il has gene rally been reeognised as a simple haplographie eorruption of 4QSama ,s reading,42 and should probably therefore be linked with the reading of 4QSama , against SMT. '~J~ is attested by 4QSam a and SMT, but laeking in CMT. 4e-5c: The extant text in 5e and spaee eonsiderations in 4e-5a demonstrate that 4QSam a broadly follows the text of SMT, against CMT (1 Chr 21:17-18). SMT's ,~ is laeking in 4QSama and SL/ av, but represented in SBmaj, with CMT deviating from both. 5de-6c: The extant text dearly shows that 4QSam a supported SMT in 6e. 5de is eompatible with average seetion de widths of up to 21.4mm before ineonsisteney allowanees, and 24.7mm after, so that no deviation should be registered. CMT (1 Chr 21: 18)'s deviations make litde differenee to the spaee required. SBmaj (ex-

39 Whether original (Cross, 1958, 141), secondary (Barthelemy, 1982, 327; Pisano, 1984, 113; cf. Rothstein-Hänel, 1927, xiv-xv), or a mixture (Dion, 1985). 40 Qjmron (1986, §200.17) gives other examples of the insertion of an ~ between two vowelletters at Qumran. 41 B*hf reflect shorter texts, thus deviating from SMT, CMT and 4QSama . 42 Cross (1958, 141), Shenkel (1969, 81), Japhet (1993, 384-5) et al., cf. Klostermann, 1887 (25960).

RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL

195

duding BAixa0-CE) and SL) suggests ~'::lJii ,~ in place of SMT's ,~, yielding a 6ab reconstructed width of 78.9mm, with n::lTO transferred to 5de. 6e-7e: ]~ptV" in 6c/de follows SMT, against CMT (1 Chr 21:20). l:l'o,no is assumed to precede l:l'ptV::l Oacking in SMT, CMT and SLXX) of 7ab/c, as in line 3 and presumably line 8. If 7ab is reconstructed on the basis of CMT (reading l~,oii l:l'~::lnno 'Ol) ,'J::l nl)::l'~' in place of SMT's "'l) l:l',::l'l) ",::ll) n~, l'Oii, with n~ transferred to 6de), a 7ab reconstructed width of 77.9mm results (75.5mm if 1,oii stands in place of CMT's l~'Oii), which is also possible. 7e/d: 4QSama follows CMT (1 Chr 21:20)'s plus l:l'~n tV, (p'~ in CMT) ~J'~', lacking in SMT and SLXX.136 7de-8ede: From 7de onwards, in both SMT and CMT, the encounter between David and Ornan occurs. In CMT (1 Chr 21:21) this begins with Ornan seeing David, whereas in SMT this is lacking, the meeting having already taken place in verse 20a. In 8ab, 4QSam a ,s reference to l:l'ptV::ll:l'o[,no] is repeated, presumably describing David (and his elders/servants/sons). 4QSam a is not based upon SMT's text here, since the only point at which a reference to the wearing of sackdoth could reasonably be expected would be following l'Oii 'J'~ ~::l l)"0, but this would make 8ab far too wide, would provide a singular rather than plural subject for the participle, and would leave the extant ]~::l hard to explain. If, however, 4QSama were broadly following CMT, the reference to l:l'ptV::ll:l'o[,no is readily explicable as an expansion of "" n~ ~'" to indude his entourage. The apparent space immediately following ..]~::l should probably be discounted, since it is possible that ]~::l could be immediately followed by a yod, although separated from the preceding ~ by a greater distance than would usually be expected, and since a singular makes poor sense following a plural participial phrase. The reconstruction in the table, which follows McCarter (507), represents a probable solution. In any case, 7c-8cde deviates from SMT (and SLXX) , with CMT in 7c, probably extending into 7de/8ab, and indudes pluses, without CMT or versional support. 43 Viewed as secondary by Japhet (1993, 385-6) and McCarter (507), but original by Rofe (1990, 117), with Ulrich (157-8).

196

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

In Chapters 1 and 2 a new method, or more aeeurately a new range of tools, was developed to plaee the reeonstruetion of biblieal seroils on a more seientifie basis, with Chapter 3 developing these tools with regard to 4QSama . This ineluded a eareful seareh of every mierofiehe plate for 4QSama fragments, whieh yielded eight firm identifieations of fragments whieh had previously not even been identified as 4QSama , and a elose eonsideration of the unidentified 4QSama fragments, mosdy plaeed by Cross on 43.113 and 43.124, whieh yielded a further 53 new ehapterl verse identifieations. 137 In Chapter 4, the extant text of every newly or previously identified fragment within 2 Samuel was earefuily reeorded, together with an assessment of the degree of eonfidenee attaehing to the reading of eaeh extant eharaeter, through a metieulous examination of the photographs, mierofiehes and original fragments. The proposed method, whieh enables inferenees to be drawn from the lacunae between or within extant fragments, was then applied to the data in order to identify those points where the seroil deviated from SMT. This resulted in the identifieation of 286 non-orthographie deviations from SMT (eatalogued in Appendix D), eompared with 185 valid deviations identified by Cross, Ulrieh, MeCarter and MeKenzie between them (see the last eolumn of Appendix D). 2 The 101 newly identified deviations represent a 55% inerease in the number of validly identified deviations for 2 Samuel, and is espeeiaily noteworthy eonsidering that Ulrieh (1989b, 216) believed that, in Ulrieh (1978), he had 'published ail the variants of the entire MS-at least all I eould find as of 1975, undoubtedly at least 95% of all the finaily deteeted variants'. 21 of these newly identified deviations arose from a eareful rereading of all the extant eharaeter remains, 14 from new fragment identifieations, and 66 from the applieation of the proposed method itself, although 9 of these should have been deteetable from spaee eonsiderations without the aid of the proposed method. Even if one only eonsidered the 57 newly identified deviations whieh arose from the applieation of the method, but whieh eould not have been so readily identified without it, the proposed methodologieal developments have stiil inereased the I It is hoped that some of the new computer search tools that are becoming available will enable further identifications to be made. 2 This excludes eighteen of their proposed deviations which were revealed within Chapter 3 to be inappropriate: ten (2 Sam 6:6,17; 11:8, 10; 12:17; 13:2,3; 15:6; 19:11112 and 22:34) shown to be certainly incorrect or improbable, four (2 Sam 6:5; 10:5; 11:6 and 21:5) to be unclear as to whether correct or not, and two (2 Sam 4:10; 15:2) as probab1y correct but with inadequate grounds to raise substantial suspicion of deviation, with two (2 Sam 3:27 and 19:7) being discounted since some BHS manuscripts share the 'variant' reading.

CONCLUSION

197

number of validly identified deviations by over 30%. Indeed, if one foeuses solely upon those deviations whieh have been identified using spaee eonsiderations, i.e. those whieh do not beeome instandy apparent on the basis of a eareful examination of the extant eharaeters alone, then the 57 new deviations (i.e. excluding the 9 deviations whieh should have been identifiable without the method) represent a 237% inerease over the 24 deviations that could have been readily identified on the basis of spaee eonsiderations without the method (only 15 of whieh were aetually previously identified). A eursory glanee through Appendix D reveals that the proportion of deviations whieh have been newly identified is greatest for those blocks whieh are most fragmentary. Nevertheless, even where the presenee of adeviation has already been aseertained without the aid of the proposed method, the applieation of the method has frequendy enabled the nature of the deviation to be more clearly speeified. This suggests that the benefits whieh arise from the use of the method are even greater than the 30% inerease in the number of deviations. The extra time and effort required for generating the data upon whieh the proposed method depends has, therefore, been seen to represent a very sound investment. Nevertheless, it may at times be possible to gain some of the benefits of the new method without applying all the more time-eonsuming preparations whieh have been oudined in this study, although such eeonomies will inevitably reduee the power of the method to some extent. Thus, average letter widths eould be based upon ascroll with similar seript, although it is wise to seek to make adjustments as far as possible on the basis of aetual unshrunk eharaeters of the seroll under investigation. Likewise, instead of a table of eritieal deviations showing maximum aeeeptable pereentage deviations of reeonstrueted widths eorresponding to different signifieanee levels based on the seroll in question, one eould use Tables 2 or 3, whieh have been derived from the analysis of five substantially extant Qumran serolls. Regarding seribal margin poliey and paragraphing poliey, one might assurne that the seribe was seeking to minimise the gap between the end of the last word of a line and a notional margin, without seeking to aseertain the relationship between this notional margin and the aetualleft-hand ruled margin. Similarly, one ean use the presenee of paragraph breaks to indieate probable margin positions, while allowing for the possibility of mid-line vacals as weIl as indents and foreshortenings. It should be emphasised, however, that the more thoroughly the method is prepared for and applied, the greater will be the number of deviations whieh should be identifiable, and the greater the degree of eonfidenee that eould be plaeed on those identifieations. The marked effeetiveness ofthe proposed method eannot, however, be aseribed to any individual eomponent part or parts of the method, for although it eomprises a range of new tools, most deviations have only been identifiable on the basis of a eombination of them. Thus, almost all ealculations have been made on the basis of reeonstrueted widths together with the use of vertieal dividers, and are interpreted on the basis of a table of eritieal deviations, and the overwhelming majority of eases

198

CONCLUSION

also involve at least so me tools relating to the margin, eoneerning either its loeation using paragraphing or seetion eonsisteney data, the nature of the seribe's margin poliey, or his degree of eonsisteney in applying it. A mueh smaller proportion of deviations have substantially drawn upon the various aspeets of eolumn analysis, with the probable variant in 2 Sam 11 :22 being based solely upon sueh eonsiderations. The list of deviations in Appendix D serves not merely to establish the effeetiveness of the proposed method, but farms a basis, particularly if extended to include 1 Samuel, by whieh the direetion of the relationship between CMT and 4QSama ean be assessed, the nature of the relationships of SLXX clarified, and the nature and starting point of the kaige reeension reeonsidered. 3 These latter applieations would also benefit from the extension of the analysis to include the testing of the seroIl's deviation from the Septuagint, the retroversion of whieh would, of eourse, need to be subjeet to appropriate eare and eaution. 4 While the proposed method has been seen to make a signifieant eontribution to the reeonstruetion of 4QSama , the question arises eoneerning the degree to whieh it ean be applied to other Qumran serolls. Here, it should be noted that 4QSama benefits from two features whieh have made the method peeuliarly effeetive. 5 First, a single level paragraphing system has been demonstrated, whieh has allowed paragraphing divisions to be used to help loeate margins. In other serolls far whieh a more eomplex paragraphing system operates, or for whieh insuffieient text is extant to enable an adequate judgment to be made, the positive eontribution from paragraphing divisions is redueed, although, vacats greater than about 40mm, ean be assumed to be a foreshortening in most serolls. Seeondly, and more importantly, mueh mare extant text from 4QSam a has survived than for many other serolls. Indeed, it is the best preserved biblieal seroll from Cave 4 (Cross, 1980, 105). For serolls with eonsiderably less surviving text, it may not be possible to ealculate average letter widths for some letters, to deduee orthographie features or the number of lines per eolumn, to eonfirm the seribal margin poliey, or to construet tables from whieh the eritieal deviations ean be read off for speeified signifieanee levels. In sueh eases, serolls with similar letter shapes and orthographie features should be seleeted as the basis for ealculating average letter widths ofless eommon letters (or even for most or aIlletters) and for estimating the orthographie eharaeter for features that are not extant in the seroll to be reeonstrueted. Mid-line breaks of various sizes, as weIl as indents and foreshortenings, should be aeeepted as possible methods of paragraph division. Although the position See Herbert (forthcoming) for a pre1iminary consideration of some of these re1ationships. See Tov (1981,73-250). 5 The presence of the papyrus baclcing assisted Cross in the initial identification of fragments, but has not contributed to the effectiveness of the method. 3

4

CONCLUSION

199

of the notional margin relative to the ruled margin would remain unknown, some consistency of margin policy, as noted for the five scrolls, can be assumed. The number oflines per column and the location of column breaks are also unlikely to be recoverable where few fragments are extant. Where dependence upon data from other scrolls (such as one of 'the five' or 4QSama ) is required, there will be a saving in the time required to generate the overall data for the serolI, but a corresponding reduction in the effectiveness and accuracy ofthe method. Thus, for instance, Table 3 critical deviations rather than those in Table 2 would need to be used when average letter widths from a comparison scroll have been used. Nevertheless, despite the drawbacks, the proposed method still represents a marked improvement upon the mere operation of unassisted scholarly judgment. The method itself has been developed with a view to reconstructing biblical scrolls. Thus the question arises as to the degree to which it can be applied to nonbiblical scrolls. In general, the scribal character of Qumran biblical scrolls is generally similar to that of the non-biblical scrolls, so that there should be no fundamental difference between the two, except for one factor--with biblical scrolls there are Hebrew (and Greek) texts with which the scroll can be compared, and by reference to which it can be reconstructed. There are, of course, some non-biblical texts for which multiple copies exist (e.g. Manual of Discipline, War SerolI, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Hodayot), so that the reconstruction of one scroll can utilise any extant or partly-extant text from another scroll in a way that is comparable with the use that can be made of the biblical text when reconstructing a biblical scroll.

200

CONCLUSION

APPENDIXA

NEW FRAGMENT IDENTIFICATIONS

The following tables provide the chapter/verse identifications of fragments on 43.113 and 43.124, and for those which were not even previously identified as belonging to 4QSama . Each table represents a different level of confidence in the identification, and only identifications within the first table (firm identifications) have been used in Chapter 4 for reconstructing 4QSama • In some cases, two or more possible identifications have been given, parentheses indicating identifications which are less probable.

J:

J oin with another extant fragment has been confirmed. G): Join with another extant fragment very likely, but not completely certain. C: Identified by Cross after the PAM photographs were taken. Parentheses are used where this is only probable. U: Identified by E.C. Ulrich. MK: Identified by S.L. McKenzie. Firm identifications:

PAM

fragment

43.113

Al A2 A3 A6 A8 BI B3 B5 B8 C4 CI0 D3 D6 Dll E4

Identification 1 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam

14:28 5:9-10 6:16 25:38-39 21:12 3:17 10:4-5 25:5-6 10:6-7(8) 19:8-9 14:28 6:7-8 19:25 30:26 23:38-39

Joined?

J

J

(J)

J

J J J

J

NEW FRAGMENT IDENTIFICATIONS

201

PAM 43.113

43.124

202

fragment F2 F5 F9 H1 Al A2 A4 A6 A7 A8 BI B2 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 C5 C6 C7 D3 D4 D6 D7 D8 EI E2 E7 E8 F1 F2 F4 F5 F7 F8 GI G4 G6 H3 H8

APPENDIX A

Identijication 2 Sam 12:1-3 1 Sam 15:30-31 1 Sam 25:27 2 Sam 3:(2)3-4(5) 2 Sam 19:6-8 2 Sam 17:29(18:1) 2 Sam 3:30-31(32) 2 Sam 24:16-17 2 Sam 3:37-39 2 Sam 20:12-13 2 Sam 16:1(2) 2 Sam 18:7-8 2 Sam 3:29-30 2 Sam 8:1 2 Sam 12:(14)15-17(18) 1 Sam 5:9(10) 2 Sam 11: 17-19 2 Sam 4:11-12 2 Sam 3:38-39(4:1) 2 Sam 18:(2)3(4) 1 Sam 8:9-10 2 Sam 3:(34)35(36) 2 Sam 19:11-12 2 Sam 13:22 2 Sam 4:11 2 Sam 20:12-13 2 Sam 14:2-3 2 Sam 1:12-13 1 Sam 14:30-31 2 Sam 3:30-31 2 Sam 20:10(11) 2 Sam 16:6-8 1 Sam 12:14-15(16) 2Sam5:11 2 Sam 6:8-9 2 Sam 19:23-25 1 Sam 8:11(12) 1 Sam 6:9 2 Sam 21:8-9 2 Sam 20:12

Joined?

(J)

J

J J

(C)

J

J J

(J)

J

(J)

J J J J

MK U

PAM 43.124 42.032 42.928 43.l57 43.220 43.676 43.678 43.680 44.194

fragment H9 bottom right left of mid mid left row 2, 6th right 2nd row, right row 6, 5th left row 8, 5th right row 8, right row 4, 5th left row 4, 4th right top right

Identijication 2 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam

Joined?

13:23(24) 10:10-11 1: 10-11 3:12-13 19:8-9 5:14-15 14:2-3 16:22 15:5-6 13:(3)4(5) 6:5-6(7) 8:10

J C JC JC

Very Likely identifications '(?)'

PAM

fragment

43.113

All C8 C9 C11 D1 E3 Cl E3 H2

43.124

I dentijication 2 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam

25:38-39 (1 Sam 17:36-37) 15:21 25:20 18:5-6 28:15 25:7 (25:2) 5:3-4 11:11 or Not 4QSama 17:51

Likely identifications '?' PAM 43.113

fragment AI0 E12

F7 Fll

Identijication 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam

6:11-12 (14:30-31; 17:19-20) 3:20 20:12 (1 Sam 19:3) 6:8

NEW FRAGMENT IDENTIFICATIONS

203

PAM 43.113

43.124

40.978 43.173 43.664

fragment G8 16 K4 F6 G2 G3 bottom right bot. R quad. row 5, 4th R

ldentification 2 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam

5:24-25 (1 Sam 9:22-23) 19:39 20:38 17:25 26:(9)10-11 19:11 24:21-23 28:(6)7(8) 15:13

Possible identijications ,??'

PAM 43.113

fragment D7 D14 EI

E2

43.124

42.268

204

E6 F6 FI0 G3 G4 G9 C2 Dl E6 H7 bottom right

APPENDIX A

ldentification 2 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam

11:16 12:8, 11; 15:1; 2 Sam 12:1 2:15 17:32-33,40-41 20:23; 2 Sam 11:27; 13:22 20:39-40; 28: 14-15 17:46; 21: 16 12:23 20:3 1:3; 4:4,11; 2 Sam 3:34 12:11; 2 Sam 11:21 19:23 24:23-24 6:19; 7:3; 2 Sam 19,18,19 14: 19-20; 21 :9(10)

APPENDIXB

4QSAMA FRAGMENT INDEX

The following table comprises every fragment with a firm, very likely, likely or possible chapter/verse identification, whether previously or newly identified. For each fragment, the table provides the reconstruction table in which it features (only firm identifications are used for reconstruction purposes), an indication of the degree of certainty for those identifications which are not firm, the status regarding previous identification, and details of all PAM plates on which it has been found.

Key to Appendix B: ~4Q

Cert'y

J: ffi:

(?):

?:

n· (+): +1++1+++: *1*+1*++: ident: C: XC: X: (C):

LC: (LC):

Not 4QSama Certainty of identification. Identification is firm where no ?'s in this column. Join with another identified fragment confirmed. Join with another identified fragment likely. Identification very likely, but not enough to use for reconstruction purposes. Identification likely. Identification possible, often with one or more other possibilities. Another possible identification has been noted, but the alternative is much less likely than this reference. Each plus represents the presence of another possible identification of more or less equal probability. Each plus represents a possible alternative identification, with one of these alternatives significandy more likely than this reference. Indication of whether previously identified. Identification by Cross, inferred from position on plate. As for C, but his identification believed to be erroneous. I have been unable to locate such a fragment. Fragment identified by Cross as belonging to 4QSama , but without identif)ring chapter and verse, i.e. placed on plate 43.113 or 43.124. Identified by Cross after the 43.107 -43.l25 series of photographs were taken. As (C), but recognised as 4QSama after the 43.107-43.125 series of photographs.

4QSAMA FRAGMENT INDEX

205

MC2111MC316: Identified in McCarter (1980), p. 211 and McCarter (1984), p. 316 respectively. Identified by McKenzie on p. 45 of his 1985 monograph. MK45: Identified by Ulrich on p. 84 of his 1978 monograph. U84: BibLicaL Reference

1 Sam 1:3 1:11-13 1:22-2:6 2:8-10 2:10 2:15 2:16-23 2:23-25 2:24-25 2:25-30 2:31-34 2:35-36 3: 1-3 3:18-20 4:4 4:9-12 4:11 5:3-4 5:8-10 5:9 5:9(10) 5:9-10 5:10-6:7 6:8 6:8-9 6:12-13 6:(16)17-18 6:17-18 6:19 6:20-7:1 7:3 7:10 8:9-10

206

APPENDIX B

Recon Table

lA 2A 2A 2A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 4A 5A

5B 5B 5B 5B 6A 6B 6C 6D 6D 7A

8A

Cert') ldent PAM PLate No.

Position on pLate dispLaying .fragment

Gther PAM PLates

??+++ (C) C C C C ?? (C) C C C C C C C C ??+++ (C) C ??+++ (C) (?)* (C) C C

G9 right, mid (R) main right co!. right, mid (L) right, bottom EI left, top - Ige sq. left, 2nd top mid - tiny left, mid (R) left, 3rd bottom left, 2nd bottom left, bottom left, mid (L) G9 right, top G9 Cl right, bottom middle, bottom B7 A2 left, top FII G6 left, 2nd top left, 2nd bottom left, bottom H7 right, top H7 new2 D3

41.763 C2 41.169; 41.7 66 40.971; 40.984; 41.169; 41. 766 41.169; 41.7 66 41.169; 41.766 42.510; 42.860 40.971; 40.984; 41.169; 41.766 40.971; 40.984; 41.169; 41.766 40.971; 40.984; 41.169; 41.766 41.169; 41.174 A4; 41.766 41.169; 41.766 41.169; 41.766 41.169; 41.766 41.169; 41.7 66 41.763 C2 40.967; 41.179; 41.279; 41.768 41.763 C2 42.510; 42.707 A6 41.1 79; 41.279; 41.768 41.179; 41.279; 41.768 42.046; 42.637 F1 42.008; 42.276 C2; 42.637 C2 41.1 79; 41.279; 41.768 41.763 EI3 41.763 B9; 41.174A8 41.174 B12; 41.768 41.174 B8; 41.768 41.768 42.913 41.148 A2; 41.179; 41.279; 41.768 42.913

J J

(C) (C) C ? (C) (C) C C C ??+++ (C) C ??+++ (C) ?*+ (C) J (C)

43.113 43.122 43.122 43.122 43.122 43.113 43.122 43.122 43.122 43.122 43.122 43.122 43.122 43.122 43.113 43.109 43.113 43.124 43.109 43.109 43.124 43.113 43.109 43.113 43.124 43.109 43.109 43.109 43.124 43.107 43.124 43.113 43.124

41.463; 42.043; 42.932

Biblical Riference

Recon Table

1 Sam 8:9-12 8:10 8:11(12) 8:13-20 9:6-7(8) 9:11-(12) 9:16-17(18) 9:16-21 9:22-23 9:22-24 10:3-5 10:4-5 10:5-6(7) 10:5-8 10:6-7(8) 10:7(8)-18 10:10-11 10:25-11:1(2) 11:7-10 11:11 or ~4Q 11:11-12 12:7-8 12:8 12: 11

Cert) Ident PAM Plate No.

8A 8A 8A 8A 8B 8C 9A 9A 9A 9B 9B 9B 9B 9B 9B 9B 10A lOB

C (C) C C C C C ?*

(C) C C

J

(C) C C

J

(C) C

C C

(C) C C ??+++ (C) llC ??+ (C) (?)

llA IIB

Position on plate displaying fragment

43.107 2nd right, top 44.194 top right 43.124 G4 43.107 2nd right, 2nd top 43.107 2nd right, 3rd top 43.107 2nd right, bottom 43.107 2nd left, top 43.107 left, top 43.113 G8 43.107 left, middle 43.107 left, bottom 43.113 B3 43.114 2nd right, top 43.114 right, top 43.113 B8 43.114 3rd right, top 42.032 bottom right 43.114 middle right 43.114 right, bottom 43.124 E3 43.114 left, top 43.114 left, 2nd top 43.113 Dl4 43.124 C2

Other PAM Plates

41.148 A3; 41.177; 41.768 43.423; 44.189 41.763 B6 41.177; 41.768 41.174 A9; 41.768 41.174 EI; 41.768 41.174 EI; 41.768 41.148 A5; 41.764 41.763 E2; 41.174 C7 41.764 41.177; 41.764 41.594; 42.276 C 10; 42.637 C 10 41.177; 41.174 A3; 41.764 41.764 42.032; 42.707 A8 41.177; 41.764; 42.030 40.610; 40.624; 42.038; 41.764 41.173;

41.177; 41.764 41.173; 41.764 42.762 41.764

41.763 D8; 41.174 A7

MC211

12: 11 12: 14-15(16) 12:14-16 12:17-18(19) 14:19-20 14:24-25 14:28 14:28 14:28-30 14:30-31 14:(31 )32-34 14:47-51 15: 1

??+++ (C) 43.113

lID IlD llE 13A 13B 13B 13B 13B 13C 14A

Dl4 (C) 43.124 F5 C 43.114 left, 2nd bottom C 43.114 left, bottom ?? 42.268 bottom right C 43.111 right, top J (C) 43.113 AI J (C) 43.113 CIO C 43.111 right, 2nd top 43.124 E8 (C) J C 43.111 right, 3rd top C 43.111 right, 4th top ??+++ (C) 43.113 Dl4

41.763 AI0; 41.174 BI 41.174 Cl; 41.764 41.173; 41.764 41.866 42.509; 42.637 E2 42.637 F2 42.042 41.173; 41.769 41.173; 41.763 A9 41.769 41.173; 41.374; 41.769

4QSAMA FRAGMENT INDEX

207

Biblical Reference

1 Sam 15:21 15:(24)25-32 15:(29)30-32 15:30-31 17:3-6 17:32-33 17:36-37 17:40-41 17:46 17:51 19:3 19:23 20:38 20:39-40 21:3 ?l

Cert) ldent PAM Piate No.

Position on plate dispiaying .fragment

(C) 43.113 C 43.111 C 43.111 (C) 43.113 C 43.111 ??+ (C) 43.113 (?)* (C) 43.113 ??+ (C) 43.113 ??+ (C) 43.113 (?) (C) 43.124 ?(+) (C) 43.113 ?? (C) 43.124 ? (C) 43.113 ??+ (C) 43.113 42.268 ?? XC 43.111 ??+ (C) 43.113 C 43.111 C 43.111 C 43.111 C 43.111

C8 right, bottom (R) right, bottom (L) F5 left, top E2 All E2 FlO H2 F7 Dl K4 F6 bottom right left, 2nd top FlO left, 3rd top left, 4th top left, 5th top left, 6th top

(?)

15A 15A 15A 16A

21:16 24:3-4 24:4-5 24:(8)-9 24:14-22

24A 24A 24B 24C

24:(21 )22-23 25:2 25:3-9 25:4-6 25:5-6 25:7 25:10-11 25:11-12 25:20 25:20-21 25:25-26(27) 25:27 25:38-39

C ?* (C) C 25A C 25A 25A (C) J (25A) ?(+) (C) C 25A C 25A (?) (C) 25B C 25B C 25C 25C (J) (C) (26A) (?)(+) (C)

1

208

Recon Table

24C

43.111 43.113 43.108 43.108 43.113 43.113 43.108 43.108 43.113 43.108 43.108 43.113 43.113

OtheT PAM Piates

41.173; 41.769 40.587; 41.174 B2; 41.769 41.763 D4; 41.174 C6 41.173; 41.769 41.763 B8 42.276 DlO; 42.637 DlO 41.763 B8 40.587; 41.763 E7; 41.174 D3 42.276 C4; 42.637 C4 41.763 D5 42.030; 42.707 A3 41.763 H4; 41.174 F6 41.763 B5 41.866 42.033; 42.927 40.587; 41.763 E7; 41.174 D3 41.173; 41.769 41.769 41.174 BIO; 41.769 41.592; 41.174 B6; 41.174 AI0; 41.769 left, bottom 41.769 41.763 B7; 41.174 C4 E3 41.173; 41.769 right, top 41.173; 41.769 2nd right, top 42.038; 42.707 A4 B5 41.763 B7; 41.174 C4 E3 42.051; 42.637 E3 right, 2nd top 2nd right, 2nd top 41.173; 41.769 C9 2nd right, 3rd top 41.173; 41.769 41.173; 41.769 right, 3rd top 41.763 D7 F9 42.276 DlO; 42.637 DlO All

Apparently identified by Cross as 1 Sam 21:9(10), but probably not 4QSama .

APPENDIX B

Biblical Riference

Recon Table

1 Sam 25:38-39

26A

25:39-40 26:(9) 10-11 26:10-12 26:21-23(24) 27:8-28:2(3) 28:(6)7(8) 28:14-15 28:15 28:22-25 30:25 30:26 30:27-31 2 Sam 1:2-4 1:1-2 1:4 1: 10-11 1:11-13 1:12-13 1:12-13 2:5-10 2:11-16 2:25-27 2:29-3:8 3: 1-4(5) 3:(2)3-4(5) 3:9-11 3:12-13 3: 17

26A

3:20 3:23-36(37) 3:26-4:4 3:29-30 3:30-31 3:30-31(32) 3:34

Gert) Ident PAM Plate No.

m ?

26B 27A 27B

(C) 43.113 A6 C (C) C C C

? ??+ (?)

(C) (C) 28A C (?)(++) (C) 30A J (C) 30A C 30B C ?*+ (C) ?? C 31A 31A XC (C) 31A 31A C 32A C 32A C 32B C 33A C 33A C 33A J (C) 33A C 33B LC 33C (C)

?

34A 34A 34A 34A 34A

Position on plate displaying .fragment

(C) C C (C) J (C) (C) ??+++ (C)

43.108 43.124 43.108 43.108 43.108 43.173 43.113 43.113 43.108 43.113 43.113 43.108 43.108 43.113 43.125 42.928 43.111 43.124 43.125 43.125 43.125 43.125 43.125 43.125 43.113 43.115 43.157 43.113

2nd right, 4th top G2 right, 2nd bottom right, bottom left, top bot right F6 Dl left, 2nd top new 2 Dll left, 3rd top left, bottom new 2 right, top left ofmid right, 5th top E7 right, 2nd top right, 3rd bottom right, 2nd bottom right, bottom middle - large left Hl right - large mid left BI

43.113 43.115 43.115 43.124 43.124 43.124 43.113

E12 right - large middle - large B4 Fl A4 G9

Other PAM Plates

41.460; 42.032; 42.276 D2; 42.637 D2 42.039; 42.268; 42.861 42.044; 42.276 E7; 42.637 E7 41.769 41.173; 41.769 41.173; 41.769 42.031 41.763 B5 42.036 41.769 42.049; 42.932 41.769 41.173; 41.769 41.174 A2; 41.771 42.035 41.769 41.763 A3; 41.148 Dl 42.276 BI; 42.637 BI 41.152; 41.592; 41.771 41.152; 41. 771 40.620; 41.771 40.624; 41.152; 41.771 41.152; 41.771 42.031; 42.276 A6; 42.637 A6 41.148 B2; 41.771 42.936 40.978; 42.005; 42.276 D8; 42.637 D8 41.763 B3; 41.148 D6 41.148 B2/C4; 41.172; 41. 771 40.988; 41.172; 41.592; 41. 771 42.008; 42.276 B9; 42.637 B8 41.763 A7; 41.148 D2 42.043; 42.276 A8; 42.637 A8 41.763 C2

4Q.SAMA FRAGMENT INDEX

209

Biblical Reference

Recon Tahle

2 Sam 3:(34)35(36) 3:37-39 3:38-39(4: 1) 3:38-4:1 4:9-5:2 4:11 4: 11-12 5:3-14

34A 34A 34A 34A 35A 35A 35A 35A

5:11

35A

Cert'y Ident PAM Plate No.

Position on plate displaying fragment

Other PAM Plates

(C) (C) (C)

D4 A7 C6 right, lower - sml left, top D8 C5 middle - large

41.866; 42.268 41.595; 42.276 A5; 42.637 A5 42.048; 42.913 41.148 C3; 41.771 41.172; 41.278; 41. 771 42.041; 42.913 41.454; 42.394; 42.559; 42.707 B8 40.988; 41.172; 41.771; 42.042; 42.276 A3; 42.637 A4 41.763 BI; 41.174 Dl

(j) (j)

J J

43.124 43.124 43.124 C 43.115 C 43.115 (C) 43.124 (C) 43.124 C 43.115

(C)

43.124 F7

MK45

5:(12)13-16 5:14-15 ? 5:24-25 6:2-3 (L) 6:2-3 (R) 6:4-8 6:(4)5-8 6:5-6(7) 6:6-7 6:7-8 6:8-9

35A 35A

J ?(+)

36A 36A 36A 36A 36A 36A 36A 36A

C 43.115 left, bot - light LC 43.220 2nd row, right C 43.115 left, bot - dark (C) 43.113 G8 C 43.116 2nd right, top C 43.116 right, top C 43.116 2nd top, 2nd R C 43.116 2nd top, 4th R 43.680 row 4, 4th R C 43.116 2nd top, 3rd R (C) 43.113 D3 (C) 43.124 F8

41.172; 41.771 42.499 41.172; 41.771 41.763 E2; 41.174 C7 40.615; 41.172; 41.770 41.172; 41. 770 41.770 41.770 42.056 42.038; 42.276 C6; 42.637 C6 41.763 B2; 41.174 B9

U84

210

6:8-9 6:11-12 6:12-16 6:16 6:17-18 7:(6)-7 7:(22)23-25 7:23-29

C 43.116 ?(++) (C) 43.113 C 43.116 36B 36B (C) 43.113 C 43.116 36B C 43.116 36C ? C 43.116 37A C 43.116 37A

8:1 8:2-4 8:5-7(8?) 8:(6)7-8 10:4-5

37A 37A 37A 37A 38A

APPENDIX B

36A

(C) C C C C

43.124 43.116 43.116 43.116 43.116

2nd top, right AI0 right, 3rd bottom A3 right, 2nd bottom right, bottom 2nd left, top left, top B5 2nd 2nd 2nd left,

left, 2nd top left, 3rd top left, 4th top bottom

41.148 C2; 41.770 42.276 D9; 42.637 D9 41.1 72; 41.278; 41.770 42.005; 42.276 C5; 42.637 C5 40.620; 41.1 72; 41.770 41.770 42.512; 42.637 E6 41. 770; 42.005; 42.276 BIO; 42.637 B9 42.008; 42.276 B6; 42.637 BIO 41.770 41.147; 41.178; 41.770 41.148 B3; 41.770

41.147; 41.770

Biblical Reference

Recon Table

Cert'y Ident PAM Plate No.

Position on plate displaying fragment

Other PAM Plates

39A

C

43.123

2nd right, top

41.153; 41.178; 41.770

10:6-7

39A

C

43.123

right, top

42.082; 42.511; 42.707 Al

10: 18-19 11 :2-6 11 :3-6(7)

39B

C C

43.123

right, 2nd top 2nd right, bottom

41.148 D4; 41. 770 41.148 A4; 41.770

11 :(3)4-12

39C

2 Sam 10:6

39C 39C ??

11: 16 11:(15)1619(20) 11:17-19

40A 40A

11 :21

(11C) ??+

C

43.l23 43.123

right, bottom

41.153; 41.178; 41.770

C

43.123

3rd right, bottom

41.153; 41.178; 41.770

D7

42.054

(C) 43.113 C

43.123 left, top

(C) 43.124 B8 (C) 43.124 C2

41.153; 41.178; 41.765 42.034; 42.276 Cl; 42.637 Cl 41.763 D8; 41.174 A7

MC211

12: 1 12: 1-3

??+++ (C) 43.113 40C (C) 43.113

Dl4 F2

41.763 E8; 41.174 B4

12:4-5 12:8-9

40D 40E

C C

43.123 43.123

2nd left, 2nd bot 2nd left, bottom

42.041; 42.559; 42.939 41.765

12: 13-14 12:14-19

40F 41A

C C

43.123 43.119

left, bottom right, top

41.765

12:(14)15-

41A

(C) 43.124 B6

17(18)

41.170; 41.765; 42.269; 42.637 E4 41.461; 42.033; 42.276 A4; 42.637 A3

40.971; 41.763 F8; 41.174 C2 (C) 43.l13 G3 41.170; 41.765 C 43.119 middle X MC 316 Cannot find any such fragment 43.680 row 4, 5th left 42.056; 42.941; 43.163 ??

12:23 12:30-13:6

41B

(13:4) 13:(3)4(5)

41B

13: 13-15( 16) 13:13-16

42A 42A

C C

43.119 43.119

left, top 2nd left, top

41.347; 41.765 42.276 Al; 42.637 Al

13:(15)18-20

42A

C

43.119

3rd left, top

41.765

13:21-29

42A 42A

C

43.119 left, 2nd top - Ige

13:22 13:23(24) 13:28-34 13:36-14:3

42A 42A 42A

14:2-3 14:2-3 14: 18-19 14:30-31

42A 42A 43A

15: 1-3

44A

(C) 43.124 D7 (C) 43.124 H9 C 43.l19 middle C 43.119 left, bottom 43.676 row 6, 5th left (C) 43.124 E2 C 43.l19 left, 2nd top - Ige ?*(+) (C) 43.113 AlO C 43.117 right, top

41.170; 41.765 41.464; 42.054; 42.707 B5 41.867; 42.276 B8; 42.637 B7 41.148 Cl; 41.170; 41.765 40.978; 41.170; 41.765; 42.046; 42.637 F3 42.032 41.170; 41.765 42.276 D9; 42.637 D9 41.765

4QSAMA FRAGMENT INDEX

211

Biblical Reference

2 Sam 15:4-6(7) 15:5-6 15:13 15:26-27 15:27-31 16:1 16:1(2) 16:6-8 16:11-13 16: 17-18 16:21-22 16:22 16:22 17:19-20 17:23 17:25 17:29(18:1) 18:(2)3(4) 18:2-7

Gert) ldent PAM Plate No.

Position on plate displaying fragment

Other PAM Plates

C 43.117 43.678 43.664 ? XC 43.117 45A 45A C 43.117 C 43.117 45B (C)? 43.124 45B (C) 43.124 45C C 43.117 45D C 43.117 45E 46A C 43.117 43.676 46A C 43.117 46A ?*(+) (C) 43.113 47A C 43.117 (C) 43.124 ? 47B (C) 43.124 47C (C) 43.124 47C C 43.117

right, 2nd top row 8, right row 5, 4th right 1eft, top right, 3rd top right, 4th top BI F4 right, 5th top right, bottom midd1e, top row 8, 5th right midd1e, 2nd top AlO midd1e, 3rd top R F6 A2 C7 midd1e, 4th top

41.890; 42.276 A2; 42.637 A2 42.044; 42.927 42.037; 42.940 41.184; 41.767 40.580; 41.184; 41.767 41.767 42.008; 42.276 B4; 42.637 B4 41.763 A8 40.579; 41.184; 41.767 41.184; 41.767

43.113 43.124 43.117 43.124 43.117 43.117 43.113

Cll B2 midd1e, 5th top Al midd1e, 6th top R midd1e, 6th top L C4

43.220 43.117 43.124 43.124 43.117 43.124 43.124 43.124 43.113 43.117

2nd row, 6th R middle, bottom G3 D6 1eft, 2nd top H7 H7 GI D6 middle, 3rd top L

44A 44A

18:5-6 18:7-8 18:9-11 19:6-8 19:7-8 19:7-9 19:8-9

(47C) 47C 47C 48A 48A 48A 48A

(?)

19:8-9 19:9-10 19:11 19:11-12 19: 14-15(16) 19:18 19:19 19:23-25

48A 48A

J

19:25 19:27-29

212

Recon Table

APPENDIX B

48A 48B

49A 49A 49B

J

(C) (C) C (C) C C (C)

(LC) C ?? (C) (C) C ??+++ (C) ??+++ (C) (C) (C) XC

42.033 41.767 42.276 D9; 42.637 D9 41.184; 41.767 41.763 C6; 41.174 B11 42.043; 42.276 A7; 42.637 A7 42.394; 42.559; 42.707 B7 41.278; 41.148 C5; 41.174 C5; 41.767 42.005; 42.276 B5; 42.637 B5 41.184; 41.767 42.446; 42.637 E5 41.184; 41.767 41.374; 41.767 41.454; 42.394; 42.559; 42.707 BI 43.113 new 3 41.184; 41.767 41.763 A4 42.603; 42.707 B4 41.767 42.913 42.913 41.763 B11; 41.174 F4 42.035; 42.928 41.184; 41.767

Biblical Riference

Recon Table

2 Sam 19:39 20:2-3 20:3 20:9-14 20: 10(11) 20:12 20:12 20:12 20:12-13 20:12-13 20:22-21:1 21:4-6 21:8-9 21:12 21: 15-16 22:11 or -4Q 22:24-26 22:30-23:6 23:14-15 23:16 23:21-22 23:32-33 or -4Q 23:38-39 24:16-17 24:16-20 24:21-23 24:23-24

Cert'y Ident PAM Piate No.

? ?? ?? 50A 50A 50A

?* 50A 50A 50A 50B 50C 51A 51B 51C

J J

? 52A 52B 52C 52D 53A

? 53B 54A 54A

J ? ??

(C) C (C) C (C) (C) (C) C (C) (C) C C (C) (C) C (C) C C C C C

43.113 43.117 43.113 43.117 43.124 43.124 43.113 43.117 43.124 43.124 43.117 43.117 43.124 43.113 43.117 43.113 43.120 43.120 43.120 43.120 43.120

43.113 43.113 43.124 43.120 40.978 (C) 43.124

(C) (C) (C) C

Position on piate dispiaying fragment

Oeher PAM Piates

16 left, 3rd top G4 left, 4th top, Ige F2 H8 F7 left, 4th top, sml A8 EI left, 3rd bottom left, 2nd bottom H3 A8 left, bottom DI0 right, top right, bottom left, 2nd top left, top left 2nd/3rd top

41.763 G6; 41.174 C8 41.174 Al; 41.763 Al 40.971; 41.763 F9; 41.174 C3 40.579; 41.148 Al; 41.184; 41.767 41.763 BIO; 41.174 B13 41.461; 42.042; 42.931 41.763 D5 42.043; 42.637 EI 41.286; 42.276 B3; 42.637 B3 42.041; 42.913 40.978; 41.148 BI; 41.767 41.767 42.008; 42.276 C7; 42.637 C7 42.005; 42.276 D4; 42.637 D4 41.200; 41.767 42.03342.927 41.278; 41.767 41.200; 41.767 42.043 40.599; 41.148 D5; 41.767 41.174 D12; 41.767

G5 E4 A6 left, large bottom right E6

41.763 D2 41.763 C3 41.775; 42.269; 42.707 A2 40.592; 41.200; 41.767 41.763 A6; 41.174 B3

4Q.SAMA FRAGMENT INDEX

213

APPENDIX C

ORTHOGRAPHY

All extant orthographie variations from SMT have been noted below, together with all other extant examples where no orthographie variation oeeurs but where it might have been eonsidered possible for a different spelling to have existed. Generally, this has meant reeording 4QSama ,s spellings of most words with long '0' or long 'I' vowels spelled defeetively in SMT. Where it might not otherwise be dear, a dot eorresponding to a ~ireq or ~olem has been plaeed below the syllable eontaining the potential spelling variant.

Key to Appendix C:

Bold referenee indieates that 4QSama orthography is at varianee with that of SMT. ltalic referenee indieates that the 4QSama word is different from or ladung in SMT. Parentheses indieate that the 4QSama reading is highly probable but not eertain. Double parentheses indieate a slightly higher degree of uneertainty.

Section 1: Verbs Imperftct a) 2nd and 3rd radieals strong 3ms plene: 1 Sam 1:11; 2 Sam 5:7; (10:4); 12:15 3ms defeetive: 1 Sam 2:9, 21, 21; 6:3; 2 Sam 12:16; 13:14, 25; 17:23; (22:40 sufi), (24:20) Sam (2:33) 1 3mpl plene: 1 Sam (28: 1); 2 Sam (2:32 sufi); 3:32; 22:46 3mpl defeetive: 1 Sam (2:29 - 2ms I-nun); 25:12 (3mpl I-nun); 2 Sam 2:16 Hiphil plene: (3mpi); 10:19 (3mpi); 13:25 (lpl); ((19:14 - 3ms)); 22:38 (ls+sufl), 41 (ls+sufl) 1 Sam 15:27 (3ms); 2 Sam 3:34 (3mpl I:)i0d); 11:5 (2[s 1Hiphil defeetive: nun); 18:10 (3ms I-nun); 22:34 (3ms+sufl) b) I-aleph '~~'/?~~': '~~'t

214

APPENDIX C

1 Sam 14:28; (24:14); 2 Sam 12:18 (ls) 1 Sam (9:18); (10:14); (14:29); 24:18; 2 Sam 2:14; 3:(8), 31, 33; (13:25); 14:18 (2ms); 21:16; 24:(17), 18

,a~"t

"a~': "a~'t

2 Sam (13:16 - 2ms), 24 2 Sam 5:8 1 Sam 6:3; (9:11); 11:1,(10)

b) I-yod Hiphil imperf defective (first radical): 2 Sam (3:34) ~,,,, plene: 2 Sam 6:9 c) Hollow verbs 3ms (without , 1 Sam 15:29; 2 Sam 3:33; (5:6); 14:2 (2fs); 22:38 (ls) consecutive) plene: 3ms (, consecutive) plene: 1 Sam (15:31); 28:23, (24 - 2ms); 2 Sam 3:(27); 6:7; 10:18; 11:17; 13:31; 14:2 (2fs) 1 Sam 10:14 (ls+paragogic i1); 2 Sam (3:35); 11:4 (2ms); ~,~', plene: 13:24 1 Sam (5:11) 3ms defective: 1 Sam (4:10); 11:11; 2 Sam (2:15); (12:17); (13:29) 3mpl plene: ,~j', defective: 1 Sam 11:1; (25:9); 2 Sam 6:6 2 Sam 2:32 Niphal plene: 2 Sam 12:14 Hophal plene: 1 Sam (6:3 - 2mpl) Hiphil plene: 2 Sam 12:19 defective: 2 Sam 6: 17 (3mpl) '~:;l" defective:

Peifect 2ms plene: 2ms defective: 2mpl without final i1: Hiphil of I:)Iod defective: Hiphil hollow plene:

1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam

Imperative ms with final i1: 1 Strong verb plene: I :)Iod plene:

2 Sam 11:6 2 Sam ((3:31 - mpl)) 2 Sam 7:29

Participles ms plene:

I

(24: 19), ((20)); 2 Sam 2:26; 3:24 (2:27) (4:9); 2 Sam 3: 17; 13:28; 21:6 (10:8 - Is) 10:27 (3mpl); 2 Sam 5:6 (3mpl+sufl); 16:8; 23: 1

1 Sam 1:23 (+def. art.); 2:18, (24), 24; 2 Sam 3:1, 1,25, 29, 31, 35; (11:3); 15:30; 22:51; 24:16

See GKC §48i.

ORTHOGRAPHY

215

ms defective: mpl plene: mpl defective: Hiphil I -nun plene: Passive plene:

Hiphil I-yod first radical plene: lrifinitive Construct Strong plene: defective:

1 Sam 1:12 2; 2 Sam (23:3) 1 Sam 6:21 (construct, I-yod); (10:5 - I-yod); 2 Sam (16:1) 2 Sam ((6:3)); 18:5 2 Sam 4:10 1 Sam (4:12 - mpl); 14:24 (ms); 2 Sam 2:5 (mpl); 6: 14 (ms); (16: 1 - mpl); 24: 16 (fs), (16 - fs) 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Sam 22:42

1 Sam 2:19 (III-n); 14:33; 2 Sam 11:11 3

III-He plene: III-He plene with suffix: Hiphil plene: ~,~ plene: defective: Other Hollow plene: Hiphil hollow plene:

2 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 1 Sam 1 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam 2 Sam

lrifinitive Absolute plene:

1 Sam 2:25; 28:1; 2 Sam ((18:3 - hollow))

,~~'?: ,,~~'?:

18:3

2:20 2:36; 6:2, (21); 27:12; 2 Sam 5:1; 6:9; 13:28 2:33; 10:8; 2 Sam (3:35); 6:2 (Hiphi~ 3:25; 8:7; 13:5, 36 (Piel); 22:38 2:29 10:5 (+sufI); 2 Sam 15:28 3:35 2:26 3:37; (12:18)

Seetion 2: Nouns, atijectives and pronouns Common Nouns and Atijectives - '0' Vowel 'n~: 1 Sam 1:26; 2 Sam 2:5 (+suff); 11: 11 '?i1~ defective: 1 Sam 4: 10; 2 Sam 7:23 (PI) plene: 1 Sam 16:22 tl'i1''?~(i1): 1 Sam 10:9; 2 Sam 3:35; 6:7; (7:23), 24, (26), 28; 12:15, 16 1 Sam 2:2 (+sufI); 5:(8), 10, 11; 6:3; 2 Sam 7:26 'i11'?~: 1 Sam (11:12); '~~i1 plene: 2 Sam (13:21)

2 It is not certain that a 3ms perfect was not intended, although the participle is most natural on account of the word order. Identifying defective participles is problematical since such spellings can, and probably should in many cases, be interpreted as perfects (e.g. 2 Sam 23:3). 3 :n:::ltzi'?, the final vowel of which is always pataIJ in MT. See 4Q160 fragment 7, line 4 (Allegro, 1968, 11) for identical form, and Qimron (1986, 50 §311.112) for discussion.

216

APPENDIX C

2 Sam 6:5 2 Sam (23:22) 1 Sam 5:9 (ms); 2 Sam 3:38 (ms) 1 Sam 2:17 (fs); 2 Sam (5:10) 1 Sam 2:20; 2 Sam 2:6; 14:19 1 Sam 6:1 2 Sam 3:27; 20: 10 1 Sam 2:16, 16,28 (?); 2 Sam 20:25 (PI) 2 Sam 6:2 2 Sam (16:1); (19:27) 2 Sam 5:7 (construct), 9 1 Sam 2:20; 6:2; (10:25) 2 Sam 8:8 !:J'niDnJ:::l defective: 2 Sam 3:34 2 Sam 15:3 1 Sam 10:3 1 Sam 5:9; (6:4) 1 Sam 8:17 1 Sam 5:9 1 Sam 2:16, (21); 10:3 2 Sam (21:1); [1 Sam 2:16tV?tV~] 1 Sam (2:24) 1 Sam 17:5 1 Sam 10:4 1 Sam 10:5 !:J'ElD:::l' defective: 2 Sam 6:5 1 Sam 2:21, 29; 8:16 (+sufI) 10:3, 4; 12:7 (+sufI); (17:4); 2 Sam 5:10, 13; 6:(5), 26; (13:4); 22:34 (+sufI), 46 (+suff), 48 "El~, 1"~, (!:J'):::l'~(i1), ~'?~i1, ~'?~i1, i1"~, !:J?',!;I, "J~, iD"p(i1), ?'P, ,mtV, !:J'?tV, and !:J'tV?tV plene as in SMT. i11'J~:::l defective: !:J',,:::l) plene: (i1Y""0') plene: (i1)?"'(i1) defective: n~i(i1) defective: !:J't4i:r1J plene: tV~hi1 defective: ]i1j(i1 /?) plene: !:J':::l"~i1 plene: ,,~n defective: i1'~~:::l defective: '~'p~(?) plene: ntVhJ plene: !:J'n1~J plene: !:J'?ll defective: (!:J)'?b,!;l defective: 1~~ defective: 1t!lP defective: (i1)tV?tV plene: (i1)tV?tV defective: i1,!;1,~tVi1 plene: l"iDi1 defective: n'Emn plene: t"]h plene: fpl endings plene:

Common Nouns and A{Hectives - ;) J>;)

z '"

0

~ .... ~ ....

t::I

laib

3:17

??? il'il

Seetion

3:29

3:27 3:28 3:28

3:23

p

1J::l~

9ab/cd ,?n'

10~"

'010

SB

SB/SL

tDOnil 1,1]

tDOnil

?1 [Ii'

1J::l~ ]01'

10 [~', ] ~ [,:j',

1i1'1i~

ilJ, [1::ln

1J:j[~

]lnn)?il ':;'

SBmajlSL

1il

omit elements

1'11 ?~

4QSama Reading

Column 34

1J::l~] 16~; [,

4QSama Reading

(SB/SL)

SB/SL

Support for SMT

SL

Support for SMT

1n ::ln

8cd/e

9cd

1J::l~

lnnEl? ':;'

1J

ilJil

,'n~

???

l?Oil ?~

cer- SMT Reading tainty

8ab

lab 3:23/24 lcdef 3:24 2ab 3:25 3ab 3ab 3:25 3:27 6ef 7e 3:27

Verse

1J::l~ 1::l1'

cer- SMT Reading tainty

34A: 2 Sam 3:23-4:4

Seetion

Verse

33B: 2 Sam 3:17

(SL)

(Bya')

cx

SB/SL

Support for 4QSama

SB

Support for 4QSama

SBla'I>SL

CI964, N, B, U96-7 N, B, U96-7

B, U126

mss/(a') =SB/SL

=SB/SL (SBmajlSL) several Heb

N, B, U82

First/key Publications

First/key Publications

B N, U13l, MClO9 U13l, MC109 B, MC109 N, B, U55-6, MClO9-l0

=SB/SL

divergent witnesses

divergent witnesses

t:l

~

~

t>l

-

"C

~

O'l

IV IV

?,~tD 1:::1 ?,~tD 1:::1

29abc/d

31d 31d 33c 33def! 34ab

4:2

4:3 4:3 4:4 4:4

??

18cd 18ef 20c 20ef 21ab 22cd 25c 26c/def 27ab/c

3:34 3:34 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:36 3:38/39 3:39 4:1

r1':::l

11'

i10'nJ i1'i1 ??

Cl'm~:::li1

m

?,m:::J m:::J:::l? Cllli1 ?:::J '? i1tDll' tDOtDi1 ~':::l 'JEl? ?:::J ,~ :::l'~ C1lli1

~'?

r1no~~?

SB/SL

Aa' SB/SL SB/SL (SB/SL) SB/SL AcxAa'9'

SB/SL

?,v

~:::l ,~? [

?:::J

SBmajlSL ByauAcxE

SBmaj/SL/9'

SB/SL

(SBmajlSL)1 few Heb mss

(SB/SL)I several Heb mss

Support for 4QSama

]:J r1tD:::l'ElO? Cl'r11:::li1 Cl [']nj 'i1', SB/SL

?~,tD

extra element

(SB/SL)

SB/SL

extra element omit elements ?,~tD ]]:J n [tD]:::l;ElO SB/SL

ä [lli1

?:::J'~

i1tDll' tDOtDi1

n[~S:::l?

?:JJ:::J

]~ Cl'pr:::l [ ~? Cl['r1]tDm:::l tD [']Ji1

1J:::l~

deviation '?'P

Cl'r1tDm'? ,tDJi1

r1':::l

[~~?,

:::l~"

r1':::l ?,]:, ?ll'

4QSama Reading

1J:::l~ ?~

a'a'

SB/SL

Support for SMT

'J1i1 m~ '?'P r1~

?~,

17cd/ef 18ab 18ab

":::l~

?~,

3:34 3:34 3:34

??

r1':::l ?:::J

cer- SMT Reading tainty

10ab 10ab 11d/e 15ef 16cd

ge

Seetion

3:29 3:29 3:30 3:32 3:33

3:29

Verse

=SB/SL SB/SL

SBmajlSL

(SB/SL)

=SB/SL SB/SL =SB/SL >Mha2e2* dlpqtefmsw

divergent witnesses

B, U128

(MC112) C 1958 143, N, B, U42-5 C l958 143, N , (B) , U42-5 MC124

MC111 U97

N, B, (U135) B, U131-2 B, U131-2, (MC1l1) U82-3 (B), U136

B, U126-7 U131 (MC11O) B, U131 B, U82

B, U82

First/key Publications

-....r

J,;) J,;)

0 Z VJ

....

:;....,

~

t::)

llabcd 14 16a 16a/b-f

16b-f

18bcd 18ef-19a

5:2 5:4-5 5:6 5:6

5:6

5:8 5:8

5:8 5:9

1gef 20bcd/ef

19a

4b 4c 7a 7bcd 7e 7elf 8a/bcd ge

4: 11 4:11 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 5:1

5:8

Section

Verse

??

??

*

???

? ???

(Q.ere:

'11 P"

,tl:JtD

'tl:JtD)

C1'1'lli1

ntl:' C1'nOEli1 ntl:'

ll)"

11 '0i1

11 '0i1

C1t1:'J

10tl:? notl:"

1J:JtI:

mp?

ntD:J tD'tI:

tDtl:1

tD'tI: ntl:

')1i1

cer- SMT Reading tainty

35A: 2 Sam 4:9 - 5:16

A(J' Bya 2Acxfhni SL

SB/SL (J' (SB)/SL/((J')

N

AEL SB/SL SBmajlACEL

SB/SL

Support for SMT

[p 1J:JtI:

(suffix)

(root)

]1'll i1J:J',

omit element

i1t1:JtD

CI ['noElJii

[ntl:' C1'1'] lli1 n~ [,

ll)'

'i1]n'oi1

'i1]n'oi1

'::)

extra elements omit 2 verses

1'Otl:?

1J

np?

ntD:J'ElO

tD; [tI:

extra element

tD'tI:

,i1i1 cn:

4QSama Reading

Column 35

>CMT, SB/SL >CMT >CMT/cx

>CMT >CMT

ByAcxanvl (SL) =SB/SL

>SB/SL

divergent witnesses

(SB/SL), >CMT =SB/SL SBmaj/(cxf!SLI CMT)

SB/SL/a' SBmajlELv

CMTIL SB/SL

SBmajlSL SBmaj/CMT

Bya 2Acx/SL

SB/SL SBmaj/SL

Support for 4QSama

U70-71

B, U136

U60-62 U66 MK43-4, (MCI35-6) (MK43-4), (MCI35-6) U83 U129

(MCI27) B, U42-5 N, B, U43 U98-99 B, U65-6

MC126

First/key Publications

t:)

?
-3

~ ......

t:I

15ab/c

16cd/17ab 17d 21ab/cd 23cd-24d

8:2

8:3/4 8:4 8:6 8:7 8:8

25c/d

110'1

14d

*

??? ??

il:::l1il

O'1:::l.IJ? 111?

~?~

'iln1

(SB/SL) CMT

SB/SL

il:::l1

large addition

O'1:::l.IJ 1'11?

:::l~]i ~?~

extra elements

']i'r'1

1]i01

r[1~?

extra element omit element

SB/SL CMT/SB/SL

il'il' ]11:::l11

CMT/SB/SL

O'?il~1

1'i1?~1

1'il' T1:::l11

il?11]S

omit element deviation

n1iD[.IJ?1

4QSam a Reading

il?11Jil

SB/SL

Support for SMT

O~? n1iD.IJ?1

8:2

??? ??

cer- SMT Reading tainty

il~1~

Section

2cd 2cd 3c 3d 7:25126 5abcd/6ab 7:28 9d 7:28 10ab 8:1 13abc 14c 8:2

7:23 7:23 7:23 7:24

Verse

37A: 2 Sam 7:22 - 8:8

Column 37

>CMT

>CMT

divergent witnesses

U67 U67 B, U71, 161-2

First/key Publications

>CMT =SB/SL a' SB/SL >CMT U159-60 (CMT) =SB/SL CMT ISB/SL B, U56-7 U56-7 CMT ISB/SLI L CMT B, U159 SB/SL N, B, U45-48 CMT B, U45-47 =SB/SL

CMT

SB/SLI!:f CMT

(CMT)/SB/SL CMT/SB/SL

Support for 4QSama

IV

ö

x

I

IV

(.>j

2a

10:5

labeid 2ab 2e

10:6 10:6 10:6 10:6 10:6 10:6 10:6 10:6 10:6 10:6

4ed

4ab/e

3a 3a-e 3e 3d

2e/d

Seetion

Verse

?

?

?

:11t:l tD'~

eer- SMT Reading tainty

eer- SMT Reading tainty

39A: 2 Sam 10:6-7

Seetion

Verse

38A: 2 Sam 10:4-5

SB/SL SB/SL

omit elements extra elements deviation

:J,t:ltD'~

SB/SL

deviation ]j~1 :')'?~ C [ ...

C'tD1~' :J~1

j[.......

deviation

:')O~ 1~~ :')'?~

4QSama Reading

Column 39

CMT

SB/SL

CMT

CMT

CMT CMT

Support for 4QSama

CMT/SB/SL

C'tDJ~ [i1

'? II

Support for 4QSama

4QSam a Reading

SB/SL SB/SL

SB/SL SB/SL SB/SL SB/SL

Support for SMT

Support for SMT

Column 38

CMT

(=CMT) CMT

CMT

CMT

divergent witnesses

divergent witnesses

U154-6 U152, (MC268) U 152, (MC268)

U152 U152 U152

U152-6 U152-6

First/key Publieations

U85

First/key Publieations

tl

vo vo

IV

'"

~

~

~

2abede

11 :2 11 :3 11 :4 11:4 11:5 11:5 11:6 11 :6 11:8 11 :8 11:10 11: 11

11: 16 11: 16

SB/SL/SV ELh(uid)

extra element omit element

14abed

""1

Ib Ib

Seetion

??

110W:::l

eer- SMT Reading tainty

]'1W:::l

omit material

SB/SL

4QSama Reading

Column 40

extra elements

1"]1

extra elements

SB

Support for SMT

SB/SL

SB/SL

Support for 4QSama

(ex)

SB

i11i1 ':;'1~~ [

SL/LA

i1'11~ ]'~

jb2ex~

[ i1]~;i

SB/SL

L

~1]:Jm

Support for 4QSama

SB SBmajlSL

nW1pm

extra elements ]:J~1' '7:;' ~W; [J

SB/SL SB/SL SB/SLI Lba'e'

(SB)

40A: 2 Sam 11:(15)16-19(20)

Verse

nW1pm

i11i1

i1'11~7

':;'~~

:::lwm

i1n~o~o

4QSama Reading

Support for SMT

11ede/f

? ??

?

eer- SMT Reading tainty

gedef! 1Oab ?

9b/edef

7ab 7ed

5d/e 6e/d 6d/e

5d

4be/d

Seetion

Verse

39C: 2 Sam 11:2-12

U87-8,93 MC280

N, U173 U137 U137

First/key Publieations

SL/§(uid)

divergent witnesses

=SL

U137-8

First/key Publieations

MC281

(=SBmaj/SL) -

(SL)

divergent witnesses

IV

c..>:l

ö

~

......

~

'tI t>l

?;

...j::.

Seetion

la-2a

12: 1

eer- SMT Reading tainty

Seetion

Ib led 2b 2ed 2ed/e 3b

Verse

12:14 12:14 12:15 12:15 12:15 12:16 '::1'~ n~

Cl'i1?~i1 n~

tlJJ~'1

ntlJ~

i11i1'

mi.l'

i11i1'

eer- SMT Reading tainty

41A: 2 Sam 12:14-19

Seetion

Verse

???

eer- SMT Reading tainty

40C: 2 Sam 12:1-3

11 :22

Verse

40B: 2 Sam 11:22 (no extantfragments)

i11i1' 1::11 n~[

SB/SLI ~va'(J'e' SB/SL SBmaj SB/SL SB/SL SB/SL

Cl'i11'?~i1 1i.l

1[tlJ~

D'iii'?~

ni.l1'

4QSama Reading

Column 41

deviation

4QSama Reading

large addition

4QSama Reading

Support for SMT

SBmaj

Support for SMT

Support for SMT

SL/g

C

Support for 4QSama

SLI gnybzGb 2)

Support for 4QSama

SB/SL

Support for 4QSama

divergent witnesses

divergent witnesses

divergent witnesses

B, U138 B, MC297

(B), U138 B, MC296 C1964, B, UI05

First/key Publieations

First/key Publieations

First/key Publieations

(,JI

vo

tV

'"

0 Z

......

~...... > ....,

t:l

il~i~

3d

4b 4d 6d

12:16

12: 17 12:17 12:18

Seetion

2abe/d 5ab 7a 7b/e 7e/d llabe 13abe

Verse

12:31 13: 1 13:3 13:3 13:3 13:5 13:6

~~,

? ?

illlOtD

~1:J"

??? lli ?

'~in~,

eer- SMT Reading tainty

41B: 2 Sam 12:30 - 13:6

T~'

Cln~

"'ll

1"

1" Cl~"

~~tD,

cm~

3e 3e/d

12:16 12:16

eer- SMT Reading tainty

Seetion

Verse

4QSama Reading

SB/SL SB/ez4CE SB/SL SB/SL SB/SL

SB/SL/CMT

Support for SMT

Bya 2Aa4(uid) E(uid) SBmaj (SB/SL)

LV

il'llOtD extra elements extra elements

1m,;; [,

JYir1 [~, extra element different element

4QSama Reading

;i[~J'~i[

Clm~

",~

il~i~ ptD~

SB/SL i['" Cli~r' Axdpqtzefmsw ~~tD'i [~Jb',

Support for SMT

SLmajl ~(txt)

Support for 4QSama

SL/i

SBmaj/SL

SL

Support for 4QSama

(SB/SL)

divergent witnesses

=SB/SL

SBmaj

divergent witnesses

C 1964, B, UI05-6 B, MC316

First/key Publieations

C1964, (UI00-10 1), MC297 C 1964, N, B, UI00-101 B, UI05 B, U129 MC297

First/key Publieations

IV

t:)

>
BMfgijruy a 2b 2 =SBmaj/SL =SB/SL

divergent witnesses

N?

First/key Pub1ieations

N, B, U88

First/key Pub1ieations

Ö

x

~

t%l

-

~

'"0""

IQ

lla 13c Hab 14c 15a 15c 17c

6a/b 8ab/c

??

??

?

tD'tI; lJ];tD[1.:In

Ba2gAcxnr.Q

i11tD.Il

extra element

]'?n'1

omit element

]~;i11

tD'tI; ~?tI;

lJ' 1'1.:ItD [

Cl ['tD' extra elements deviation

1J?

lJtI;

4QSama Reading

1ntl; tD'tI;

SB SBmaj/(SL)

SB/SL (SB/SL)

SB

SB/SL SBmaj/SL

Support for SMT

SB/SL SB/SL

ln '1

lJ1?tD:JtI;1

~?tI;

11'1.:ItD

j?1.:Ii1 11.:11"1

1J'?tI; 11.:1 'tD'

4a

4a/b

18:3 18:3 18:3 18:4 18:5 18:7 18:9 18:9 18:9 18:9 18:10 18: 11

5a

lJtI; 'J

Section

Verse

cer- SMT Reading tainty

47C: 2 Sam 18:2-11

Column 47

SBmajlSL

SB/SL

SL cxg

SB/SL

SL

E

Support for 4QSama

>cxa2gag

divergent witnesses

U139 N, U109

N, B, U88

UI08

B, U132

U107-8

First/key Publications

ö

.....

~

/Q

~

§

~

Seetion

2b/3a

3b

Verse

19:14/15

19:15

I?Oil

n~rl?

?? 1n?tD'1

eer- SMT Reading tainty

48B: 2 Sam 19:14-15(16)

???

???

SBmaj/SLI (oa 2h*)

Support for SMT

SB

(SB/SL) SB ay* SB/SL SB/SL

?? ??

1 3b 4be/d 5b 6ede 8de 9abe

19:617 19:7 19:8 19:8 19:9 19:10 19:10 ':;1

Support for SMT

eer- SMT Reading tainty

Seetion

Verse

48A: 2 Sam 19:6-12

n[~r

I? I?Oil

n?ib~1

omit elements

4QSama Reading

omit element

1'11

omit element

':;1

Cl~

omit elements omit element

4QSama Reading

Column 48

Support for 4QSama

SB/SL SL

SL SBmajlSL

Support for 4QSama

=SB/SL

divergent witnesses

divergent witnesses

First/key Publieations

U86

N, B, U86

First/key Publieations

t:l

~

~

IQ ~ IQ

3

19:25

Seetion

2b 3a

3de 4c 6cde 7a

Verse

20:10 20:10

20:11 20:11 20:13 20:13

?

??? '01

tD'~ '?~

1tD~

:"J11

tDoni1 '?~

cer- SMT Reading tainty

??

cer- SMT Reading tainty

50A: 2 Sam 20:9-14

Seetion

Verse

49A: 2 Sam 19:23-25 4QSam a Reading

AcxBha 2 SB

(ahv/~

Cl.!'i1 '? [1] S

extra element 'r::n extra element

SL/Acx (SBmaj/SL/ ACE) SL SBmaj/SL SBmaj/SL SL tDoni1 '?.!' SBmaj ByMglb 2dpqtz ;:l11

(SB)

Support for 4QSama

extra elements

Support for 4QSama

4QSama Reading

Support for SMT

Column 50

Bha2/(SBmaj/SL)

Support for SMT

Column 49

divergent witnesses

divergent witnesses

B, V132

B, V89, B, V89,93

First/key Publications

First/key Publications

(..)j

..j::>.

I.;)

~

ö

~

~

ö

4b/5a

21: 1

3a/b 3a/b

21:6 21:6

Seetion

5a/b

Verse

21:16 i1tZl1n

cer- SMT Reading tainty

1m' 1m'

cer- SMT Reading tainty

51G: 2 Sam 21:15-16

Seetion

Verse

?

cer- SMT Reading tainty

50G: 2 Sam 21:4-6

Seetion

Verse

50B: 2 Sam 20:22-21:1

Support for SMT

(SB 14) Bhx/SL/A

Support for SMT

SB/SL

Support for SMT

iiim[

4QSama Reading

Support for 4QSama

(SL) SBmajl {;(!D

C1nn:n (re. 1) C1nn:n (re. verb)

Golumn 51

Support for 4QSama

Support for 4QSama

4QSama Reading

extra elements

4QSama Reading

First/key Publications

U90 U90

First/key Publications

First/key Publications

SB/SL/a'a'e' -

divergent witnesses

divergent witnesses

divergent witnesses

tl

~

~

~

t'"

[mll]

SBmaj

6c 6c

7a/b 8a

8c/9a 9b

22:39 22:39

22:40 22:41

22:43 22:43

ClllP1~ ClP1~

r1~

Cln'1:l~~1

ll'1~n

Cl'~~(1)

Cl~n1:l~1 Cl'~~1

'~nnn

1mll1

'l1ll1:l

omit material

SB/SL

2bc/3a ?? 3a/bc 5a 5c ? 5c

22:31/32 22:33 22:36 22:37 22:37

n1~ '~El

SB

['?II omit element

Cl]n'1:l~~

ll1~m

(SBmaj)/PMT SBmaj

SB/SL/(4)PMT imTll1 SB/SL/PMT SB/PMT supralinear insertion (SB) omit initial 1 A

'nT~1:l

4QSama Reading

Support for SMT

Section cer- SMT Reading tainty

Verse

52B: 2 Sam 22:30-23:6

1";1

Ib

22:24

?

4QSama Reading

Support for SMT

Seetion cer- SMT Reading tainty

Verse

52A: 2 Sam 22:24-26

Column 52

(SL/4)/PMT SBmaj/SL/ PMT (SL/fz4ß) SL/NfxAC/ PMT SL/PMT SB/SL/AE/ PMT

SL

SL/PMT

Support for 4QSama

SL/ia2ß/SS/ SV/2 BHSmss

Support for 4QSama

(SB)

divergent witnesses

divergent witnesses

(B), UI04 N, B, UI04

B MC461

N, B, UI09 N, B, UI09

N, B, U109 N, B, U140 UlOl-3 UlOl-3

First/key Publications

First/key Publications

c...n

Kl ~

Oll

z

o

§

~

tJ

1'1101

1~'?'~n n1l11iV'

lIa lla l2a l2a

l3a

l4a l6a l8a 19a/bc

22:46 22:46 22:48 22:48

22:49

22:51 23:1 23:3 23:4 (SB/ fJ tliiV]1:)

'?iVO

tliiV1

'?tIi O;Pi1

nl11iV'

'~1~n[

'?iV10

(SB)/PMT

(SB)/PMT

11101

1m

onnooo

1J1n' tIi'?

omit material

'~1:Jl1

4QSama Reading

'?l1 Dpi1

1mi1

onnJOOO

1J1n'1

(SB) SB/PMT (SB/SL)/PMT

PMT Bha2Acx

lOb lOb/c

22:44 22:45/46 '~1:Jl1'

Support for SMT

Seetion cer- SMT Reading tainty

Verse

SL/L

(SB)/SL/~

(SL) SL

SL

(SL)/PMT SL

guid)~/PMT)

SB/SL/ACE (SBmaj/4ed

Support for 4QSama

SB

(SB/SL)/ PMT

(SL)

divergent witnesses

(B), Ulll-12, (MC462) Ul12-l3 N, B, Ul13-l4 Ul14

B, (UllO-ll) B, UllO-lI U132 N, B, U9l

B, U109-1l

First/key Publications

Kl

tl

>