Subject: tc-list Micah 5:1 in 4QXII(f)

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 13:49:08 -0500

Colleagues,

I am working on a course on Micah and have come across an interesting text
in one of the Qumran mss.  In 4QXII(f), Micah 5:1 reads:
<heb>"w'eth beth lehem 'ephratha ts'ir lehayoth be'alphey yehuda mimmek li
LO yatsa"</heb> ...  etc.  

It is this LO which strikes me as really remarkable. This LO is, of course,
absent from the MT, though it is present in a couple of Greek mss (B*, C).
The editor of the scroll fragment suggests that <gk>ek sou</gk> may derive
from <gk>ex ou</gk>.

Nevertheless, this reading, more ancient than MT, would hardly be left out
by post Christian scribes, would it?

Any comments would be very helpful.

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

[email-masked]

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 23:43:14 -0800 (PST)

> <heb>"w'eth beth lehem 'ephratha ts'ir lehayoth be'alphey yehuda mimmek li
Both the Vulgate and the LXX number this verse as Micah 5:2.

> The editor of the scroll fragment suggests that <gk>ek sou</gk> may derive
Interestingly enough, this suggestion looks particularly likely if the
scribe had been using the pre-Attic alphabet, in which modern <gk>x </gk>
was written <gk>ks</gk>.  But it is hard to imagine why the scribe
would have done this.

A more likely circumstance that would have encouraged this copying error
(ek sou for ex ou) could have been oral dictation, since breathing marks
were already usually not pronounced.
> by post Christian scribes, would it?

Are you asking about scribes copying the Hebrew version, or coyping
the LXX version?  In the LXX, reading ex ou in place of the usual
ek sou complicates the syntax a bit, but still leaves the pronoun
hOU most likely referring to the same precedent, namely the house of
Bethlehem (although it could then also be read as referring to the
tribe of Judah).

After all, I certainly would NOT count on the LXX translators to
conform to the schoolbook's rules of style for position of antecedent
and relative pronoun!

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 14:27:05 -0500 (EST)

One possibility that comes to mind is that LO is a variant form of LY that
has worked its way into the text, perhaps from the margin.  I couldn't
tell from the transliteration whether LO included a final aleph, but I
don't think the presence (or not) of the aleph affects the argument, since
the interchange of LOW and LO) is not uncommon.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
-------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <--------------