Great Isaiah Scroll Chapters 29:21 to 30:20 Translators Notes
Click on Image to Enlarge
The Great Qumran Isaiah Scroll
For the line by line translation of this pageclick here
This is almost a perfect page as far as text is concerned and there is only minimal fading of a few letters which however can still be easily read.
PARAGRAPHS AND SPATIUMS:
Paragraphs and spatiums correspond with current versification.
• Line 2 = (Chapters 29 vs.22) • Line 6 = (Chapters 30 vs.1) • Line 12 = (Chapters 30 vs.6) • Line 20 = (Chapters 30 vs.12) • Line 25 = (Chapters 30 vs.15)
There is only one spatium in
• Line 30 = (Chapters 30 vs.19)
ADDITIONS TO THE TEXT BY AN EDITOR:
Editorial marks set off verses (Chapters 29 vs.22) to (Chapters 29 vs.24) as a special section by marks in the right margin in lines 1 and 5.
(9th word.) Editor supplied a tau needed to complete a mistaken spelling omission.
(4th word.) A euphonic waw is added by editor. same word Aleph is appended on the end of this word to make certain that the “he” will be pronounced as if it has epenthetic pathah. The “he” is a 3fs suf on the verb “katav” (“write” and with the suf. it is “write it”) and it will be pronounced “katav-ha.” This is a good example of using aleph as a symbol of an open syllable and therefore as a semi vowel. The waw edited above the line is also a good example of waw being used as a semi vowel for any vowel sound, here it stands for a qamets or “a” sound See the introduction for use of waw as a semi vowel for any vowel sound.
(7th word.) A rare kind of correction: the offending letter is ink scratched out and the correction written above the error. The later editors rarely did this, if ever. thus this may be an attempt by the scribe to set his error right. Later editors left the text as found and put dots under wrong letters or just wrote the correction above with out changing the text (with exceptions of course.) Here the scribe misspelled “he-‘avon” (the evil). Perhaps he wrote a “he” and scratched it out and wrote “waw waw” above the word to correct it.
(2nd word.) a euphonic waw is added. This is discussed below under variations which see.
(3rd word.) “Adonay” is written above YHWH. M has ‘adonay.”
VARIATIONS IN Q FROM THE MASORETIC TEXT
(9th word.) (Chapters 30 vs.1) Q = “mimeniy” and M = “miniy”
(7th word.) Q = “hayah” (3ms) and M = “hayu” (3mpl)
(2nd and 3rd words.) (Chapters 30:5) scribal copy mistake in Q = “kolah bi’sh” and M = “kol ha-bi’sh” 8th word: Q added a final “he” to “le-‘azer” (to help).
(10th word.) Q = “to’iyl” and M = “le-ho’iyl.”
(6th word.) (Chapters 30 vs.6) Q has an extra word not found in M. It is either “ve-tsiyah” or more likely “yitsiyah” (a going out) referring to the exodus.
(Last 2 words.) a different reading: Q = “ve-‘e:yn mayim” (and there is no water) and M = “me:hem” (from them).
(4th word.) (Chapters 30 vs.40) Q = “yis’a” (3ms) and M – “yis’u” (3mpl).
(7th word.) Q = “cheylem” and M = “cheylehem.” Same word and form with a different spelling for the 3mpl suffix.. (Q = “m” and M = “hem”).
(8th word.) (Chapters 30 vs.7) Q = “la-ken” (therefore) but the scribe wrote a medial nun and an attempt was made by an editor to make the nun as a final letter. Hence the dark stroke in the word.
(Last word.) Q = “rahab-a-m” This is written as one word as though “rahab” has a 3mpl suf. However the reading requires that “hem” be a separate word or 3mpl pronoun “hem” and is the subject of the next word (sit). and M = “”rahab hem”
(4th word.) (Chapters 30 vs.8) Q has a superfluous “aleph” at the end of “katavh’a” (write it) This is a good example of adding aleph to show the he is a suffix and adds an extra sylable. Aramaic influence is also a probable reason. See introductory page on addition of Aleph to the end of words as an Aramaic “accent.” A waw is also edited above the line after kaph.
(4th word.) (Chapters 30 vs.10) a misspelling. There is a missing “he” in Q = “mataloth” and M = “mahetaloth;” both words are from the same root and refer to deceptions.
(5th word.) (Chapters 30 vs.11) Q = “tesuru” and M = “suru.”
(7th word.) misspelling. Q = “mahaskem” (“he”) and M = “ma’askem” (‘aleph”)
(1st word.) (Chapters 30 vs.12) a mistake and confused spelling. Q = “ve-ta’aloz” v. 2ms (with “ayin”) from ‘aloz, to exult and M = (no “ayin”) = “ve-naloz.” a niphal part. of loz = to turn aside or perverse
(7th word.) Q = a word with perhaps misspelling scratched out and the correct letters 2 waws edited above the word. It looks as though the letters scratched out are also 2 waws. Since this is not ordinarily done it may have been the original scribe. See above under Additions to the text.
(2nd word.) (Chapters 30 vs.14) Q = an omitted waw is added by an editor above the line to euphonically match the word as it is in M = “yachmol” (3ms). In Q it is “yachmelu” (3mpl) without the edited waw. But a transposition of (supposed) waw is also possible.
(Chapters 30 vs.14.) Q = “migbah” (final letter “he”) and M = “migba'” (final letter “aleph”). It bears repeating that the Q scribe often alternates aleph for he and he for aleph.
(8th word.) (Chapters 30 vs.16) Q = ” ‘el” to (aleph) and M = ” ‘al” upon (ayin).
(1st word.) (Chapters 30 vs.16) same as the last entry; Q = “ve-‘el” and M = “ve-‘al.”
(9th word.) (Chapters 30 vs.17) Q = “har” (mountain) and M = “ha-har” (the mountain).
(3rd word.) (Chapters 30 vs.18) Q= “le-chonekem” and M = “le-chanankem”
(1st word.) (Chapters 30 vs.19) Q = “tibki” and M = “tibkah.”