Great Isaiah Scroll Chapters 28:02 to 28:24 Translators Notes


Click on Image to Enlarge

Column XXII

The Great Qumran Isaiah Scroll

For the line by line translation of this page click here

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Although this is the third and last page in a shorter section of the scroll it is in good condition with no blemishes on the page with one possible exception. Perhaps some slight repair is seen at the top and bottom of the seam and there is unravelling of the sutures that sewed it together in the center,–the holes of the needle actually being seen where the sutures are missing. There appears to be a blemish between the first and second words of line 3, but this may be an editors mistake and a yod maybe blurred in the 2nd word 3rd letter. It is also possible that this is a water mark. The rest of the letters and words on this page are clear and legible. There is a scribal or editor’s mark that may set off a section that begins with verse 9 on line 10 and ends with verse 15 on line 19.

Editors marks:

An unusual mark seen by some as “Chinese.”

The usual single horizontal stroke to mark the beginning of a section followed by the closing mark as seen after line 19 is different in this place between lines 9 and 10.

But rather than “Chinese” there is a simpler and probably more accurate explanation.

Between lines 9 and 10 there are two parallel horizontal marks, the top most of which crosses out the letter “pe.” Masoretic editors of the scriptures marked divisions in the text with a pe (open) or a samech (closed).

The M text has a samech here.

Did a Q editor consider this to be “petach” or open? and then cross out that editorial addition? and then make another horizontal stroke so that the cross-out would not be confused for a mistake only rather than a horizontal division of text mark?

The first letter of the corresponding line is also “pe” and it is possible that the scribe missed the marginal line and wrote pe and crossed it out then rewrote the letter in the proper place.

This seems likely even though the crossed out pe is larger than in the first word of line 9.

Some critics have suggested that this mark resembles a Chinese character but we think it is more likely explained as we have here as a crossing out of the pe and another mark to show the section division.

See other marks in the Introductory page.[1]see #othermarks


A digitally enlarged view fig 01

PARAGRAPHS AND SPATIUMS:

There are four paragraphs and two spatiums on this page.

Paragraphs begin on:

• Line 5 = (Chapter 28 vs.5)
• Line 10 = (Chapter 28 vs.9)
• Line 17 = (Chapter 28 vs.14)
• Line 31 = (Chapter 28 vs.23)

Spatiums are on:

• Line 7 = (Chapter 28 vs.7)
• Line 26 = (Chapter 28 vs.21)

VARIATIONS FROM THE MASORETIC TEXT IN Q:


(Line 02.)

(Last word.) Q = “g’ay” and M = “gey’ ” same as in line 30 of page 21.

Item 01

(Line 04.)

(1st word.) Q = “be-‘odnah” and M = “be-‘odah.”

Item 02

(Line 07.)

(3rd word.) Q = “sha’ar” and M = “sha’arah.”

Item 03

(Line 08.)

(1st word.) Q = a misspelling; aleph left out of “nabiy’ “

Item 04

(Line 10.)

(in the margin.) A symbol which some think is similar to a Chinese character is in the margin at this place. See above  fig 01

Item 05

(Line 11.)

(yod for waw.) A good example can be seen in this line of using yod for waw. Waw is the proper ending for words 3, 4 , 5 , and 6 in this line. They should be waw but are written yod. Since the next 4 words end in clearly written waw and the difference is distinct it is seen that the scribe ment to write yod where waw should be. This frequent and often unexplainable in the scroll. See the same in the last 7 words of line 14.

Item 06

(Line 13.)

(1st word.) Q = suffix “hemah” and M = “hem.”

(5th word.) Q = “le-ya’ayeph” and M = “le- ‘ayeph”

Item 07

(Line 19.)

(3rd word.) Q = “yabor” ayin missing and M = “ya’abor” (kithuv) or ” ‘abor” (qiriy).

Item 08

(Line 20.)

(4th word.) Q editor placed “adonay” above “YHWH” and M = “adonay YHWH.”

(6th word.) Q = mosad” and M = “yisad.”

Item 09

(Line 22.)

(5th word.) Q = mimachseh” and M = machseh.”

Item 10

(Line 23.)

(2nd word.) Q = “‘eth” accusative sign not in M.

(3rd word.) Q = suf “kemah” and M = “kem.”

Item 11

(Line 24.)

(5th word.) Q spells 3mpl pf of “hayah” as “ve-hayiytemah.”

Item 12

(Line 25.)

(1st word.) Q = suf “kemah” and M = “kem.”

(After the 7th word.) M = ‘ve-hayah” not in Q.

Item 13

(Line 26.)

(6th word.) Q = “mishtariyiym” and M = “hishtarea’ “

(Last word.) Q = “ve-ha-maskaskah” and M = “ve-ha-massekah.”

(The next word in M.) “tsarah” is not in Q.

Item 14

(Line 27.)

(1st word.) Q = beth (prep) and M = kaf (prep) on “hitkanes.”

(7th word.) Q = “be-’emeq” and M = “ke-’emeq.”

Item 15

(Line 29.)

(1st word.) Q = ” ‘atah” with aleph and M = ” ‘atah” with ayin. 6th word: Q = “mosreyteykem” and M = “mosreykem.”

Item 16

(Line 30.)

(3rd word.) Q = “me-‘eth YHWH” and M = “me-‘eth adonay YHWH”

Item 17

(Line 31.)

(1st word.)

Q = editor added a needed “he”as in M.

Item 18

Next “Q” scroll page Ch 28:24 to 29:21

Scroll Directory

Original Source: 28:02 to 28:24[2]Original Source: http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-22.htm

References

1 see #othermarks
2 Original Source: http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-22.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *