Subject: Re: Mic 1:2

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 07:36:25 -0400

In a message dated 96-04-10 18:48:19 EDT, you write:

>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

Sir, 
It helps a great deal.  Your efforts on my behalf are genuinely appreciated.

Yours,

Jim West