Subject: Re: Mic 1:2

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:37:26 +0000

David Washburn wrote:

> Jim West wrote:
> > The MT of Micah 1:2b  has "wihi adonay YHWH" while the Qumran text has "YHWH
> > adonay yihyeh".
> > It seems that this variant could easily arise from one or the other scribe
> > misreading his "waw" for a "yod" and vice-versa.
> > 
> > IS this likely, in your opinion(s)?
> 
> Which Qumran text are you looking at?  Though actually I only know of 
> one, 1QpMic, published in DJD 1.  According to my records it pretty 
> much follows the MT and most of the variants cited are based on 
> proposed reconstructions.  Can you toss out a little more info?

Subsequent to this message it was clarified that we're talking 
about1QpMic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hope this helps.

All the best,
Rich Weis

*******************************************************************************
Richard D. Weis                                          [email-masked]
New Brunswick Theological Seminary        phone: 1-908-246-5591
17 Seminary Place                                       FAX: 1-908-937-8185
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA
*******************************************************************************