Wed Apr 10 22:17:26 1996

From majordom  Wed Apr 10 22:17:26 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA08414; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:17:26 +0500
Message-Id: <199604110116.TAA15697@wave.sheridan.wy.us>
Comments: Authenticated sender is 
From: "Dave Washburn" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:14:20 -7
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Mic 1:2
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Content-Length: 3055
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Richard Weis wrote:

> Here's a report on what is to be found in DJD 1:
> 
> The reading yhwh )dny yhyh exists only in fragmentary form in the ms. 
>  The first yod of the divine name is in a lacuna, as are the entirety 
> of )dny and the first three letters, i.e., yhy, of yhyh.  Thus apart 
> from the divine name most of the reading is a reconstruction.  There 
> is a problem in relying on this reconstruction since the surviving 
> letters of the divine name and the he from yhyh are on two entirely 
> separate, small fragments.  Moreover, there is nowhere a physical 
> join between the two fragments, and no intervening fragment to bridge 
> the gap.
> 
> The fragment containing the divine name has characters in a line below 
> it.  The only clear characters are the first two letters of a second 
> occurrence of the divine name.  This is a reasonable reading since 
> the letters are in archaic script.  The editor doubtless placed the 
> fragment based on a calculation of line length and a realization that 
>  using Mic 1:2-3 to reconstruct the text would fit the constraints.

> On the other fragment, the one containing the he from yhyh, there is 
> a following word, bkm.  Thus if the divine name in this ms is written 
> in archaic script, bkm probably does not follow the divine name, 
> making the reconstruction yhwh )dny yhyh bkm reasonable.

That makes sense.  BKM does follow yhwh in the MT, and the divine 
name occurs in verse 3, in about the right place to show up where 
you've described, based on a rough stichometry for the Cave 1 
scrolls.

> The difficulty comes in the weak link for the fragment containing the 
> divine name.  Since the divine name occurs nowhere else in the 
> extant fragments for 1QpMic, we do not know with certainty whether 
> the document used archaic script for the divine name or not.

Since it's possible to establish that it's also a Pesher 
(commentary), there may be no way to know if the apparent occurrence 
in archaic script is part of the biblical text or the commentary, 
either.

> What would I conclude about this variant?  Well, I can see where the 
> editors got their reconstruction, and they may have had some reason 
> for associating the fragment with 1QpMic that we are now unaware of.  
> Nevertheless, it seems a very weak basis for saying we even have a 
> variant.

It would be interesting to know whether anyone has done any more 
reconstructive work on this fragment since DJD1 was published.

> By the way, in this particular instance those with DJD 1 will want to 
> consult the plates.  There is good reason to disagree with the 
> editor's proposals about the boundaries of lacunae and the degrees of 
> certainty in reading damaged letters.

I found this to be true of the entire DJD corpus.  Of course, the 
fact that there *are* plates makes the series well worth dealing 
with.

> Hope this helps.

Definitely a keeper.  Thanks much!

Dave
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
"I've gone to find myself.  If I get back 
before I get back, please keep me here."

Back