[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion 4QMish(c) correction
I erred in quoting M. Wise as translating Mish(c) A.2.6 as
"Aristobulus rebels". Wise read:
)B HRQNWS MRD(
and rendered this: "Hyrcanus rebelled . . ."
This is an important point in Wise's discussion of this text, for
Wise argues from this for a pro-Aristobulus II tendenz for the text
(on the grounds that MRD is pejorative and was applied to Hyrcanus).
However it looks to me like this syntax has been mistakenly rendered.
In other lines the routine word order is V-S, with the verb followed
by the subject. Applying this pattern elsewhere to the above reading
one should read Hyrcanus at the end of a clause, then the start of a
new clause with someone else rebelling. The information in this is
that the rebel is someone other than Hyrcanus, and that it is
contemporary with Hyrcanus. The reconstructed correct reading
(when...) Hyrcanus, (X) rebelled . . .
The rebel would have been named in the lacuna following the verb.
Comparative examples from the same text:
A.2.4 . . . YSWD B'H $LM(tsade)YWN . . .
. . . foundation, came Shelamzion . . .
D.2.4 . . . HRG 'MLYWS . . .
. . . killed Aemilius . . .
Another broken one but with the same V-S word order illustration:
A.3.2 . . . HG)W'YM HRG $( . . .
( . . . the g)entiles, killed Sh( . . .
"Sh(--) killed . . ."
There are no comparative examples that Wise has rendered S-V similarly
to "Hyrcanus rebelled" . I hope readers on this list realize that in
discussing published texts it is routine to offer one's own
corrections, etc., while being grateful for the work that went into a
first publication. And on this important text, Michael Wise is the first,
and at this date, apparently still the only one who has published on
this text. For English translation the fragments (4Q322-324A) are in Wise,
Abegg, Cook _The Dead Sea Scrolls_, 1996. The fullest treatment
Wise has given these fragments, with Hebrew transcription, is in his book,
_Thunder in Gemini_, 1994. (An earlier article in the Wise et al
1994 publication of a New York Academy of Sciences conference in New
York in 1992 also discussed Mish(c); it is an earlier and
less-complete version of the article in _Thunder in Gemini_.) I hope
this is helpful--