Sat Feb 10 20:26:14 1996

From majordom  Sat Feb 10 20:26:14 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00940; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 20:26:14 +0500
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 20:23:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew  Gross 
To: Mark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts 
Cc: ANE@mithra-orinst.uchicago.edu, tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Isa 13:16 in IQisa
In-Reply-To: <960208.154831.EST.LAROCCAP@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2224
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu


On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Mark and Beth LaRocca-Pitts wrote:

> I am doing a text-critical reading of Isa 13-14 and ran across a couple
> of interesting problems with the IQisa rendering of Isa 13:16. One
> problem is grammatical and the second is cultural(?). The gram. problem
> is as follows: in IQisa 13:16 there are two different third plural masc.
> pronominal suffixs. There is the expected -hm on 'ynyhm ("their eyes")
> and on btyhm ("their houses"). However, on two other words is an
> unexpected -hmh, where orthographically the mem is not final. This -hmh
> ending is seen on 'wlylyhmh ("their children") and on n$yhmh ("their
> wives"). How can this be explained? Have I missed something in my
> training, or more likely forgotten something?
 
Your best bet for getting a good answer to this question is to see what 
E. Y. Kutscher has to say in his volume _The Language and Linguistic 
Background of the Isaiah Scroll_ (Brill, 1974).  See especially pp.449f.

In evaluating Qumran variants from a text critical point of view, you 
should also see what Emanuel Tov has to say, _Textual Criticism of the 
Hebrew Bible_ (Fortress, 1993).

 
> The second problem is more cultural--I assume. In the MT of Isa 13:16 is
> the rather rare root $gl meaning "to violate, ravish" (BDB 993b); that
> is, "to rape." Because of its supposedly obscene meaning, the word is
> glossed with the Qr $kb, "to lie with" (and as found in Targum
> Jonathan). In IQisa, however, the word is smudged (?) out leaving only
> t---nh (cf. Scrolls from Qumran Cave I, J.C. Trever, plate XI). Is there
> evidence of a seemingly prudish tradition at Qumran? Or, am I reading
> too much into a "coincidental" smudge?

Kutscher does not mention this one in his list of erasures (p531f.).  
This tradition of glossing $gl with $kb occurs in other places (e.g. Ruth 
3:4, Jeremiah 3:2, Zechariah 14:2).  Have you checked to see if any of 
these passages were found among the Qumran scrolls?


> Thanks for the forum in which I can ask these questions.

Actually, the "hardcore" text critics are over on the Textual Criticism 
list, and so I have cross-posted my response there.  ;-)

> Mark A. LaRocca-Pitts
> laroccap@uga.cc.uga.edu



andrew gross

Back