Chapter 13

Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the

Dead Sea Scrolls

Emanuel Tov

1 Different Types of Exegesis in the Scrolls

The first Scripture scrolls were discovered in Cave 1 seventy years ago and since
then they have not ceased to enrich Bible research. Merely some of the aspects
of that research were affected by the discovery of the scrolls, viz., the study of
the text and language, and its exegesis, while most literary-critical problems
remain untouched by the Judean Desert scrolls. Thus, the scrolls have no bear-
ing on the issue of the distinction between Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah, as they
are simply too late to be relevant to the history of the books before the third or
second century BCE.
We do not have the answers to many of the questions regarding the identity
and origin of the scrolls, but these questions are irrelevant for most issues relat-
ing to matters of text, language, and the exegesis of small details. In my estima-
tion, some fifteen percent of the Scripture texts were copied at Qumran,1 while
the remainder were taken there by the Qumran settlers. The complete corpus
reflects a multitude of approaches to the text. In addition to the Scripture texts,
the members of the community also imported a large group of Bible commen-
taries and rewritten Bible compositions; in addition, they penned several pe-
sharim at Qumran.
We are talking about a Qumran corpus that included 242 different Scripture
texts according to the latest count. This calculation includes tefillin and me-
zuzot that previously had been excluded from the counting. However, these
liturgical texts need to be included because they are as much biblical texts as
the fragmentary biblical scrolls that are included. We count fragments of 210–
212 biblical scrolls from Qumran together with twenty-five tefillin and seven
mezuzot.2 As far as we can tell, no attention was paid to the quality or character

1  This evaluation is based on my view that fifteen percent of the Scripture texts were copied
in the style of the Qumran Scribal Practice; see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 100–105.
2  See Emanuel Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2010).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004410732_015

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 225 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 226 Tov

of the texts when the scrolls were taken to the desert. The textual variety of the
Qumran corpus is thus a fact, and we have no choice but to assume that all
the different Scripture scrolls, including those that were produced at Qumran,
were recognized as authoritative. For the Qumran sectarians, authority ap-
plied to the content of the book, and differences in details were disregarded.3
Let us now try to view the scrolls as exponents of the interpretation pro-
cess of Scripture and not as witnesses to different texts. Almost all the Qumran
texts contain elements of exegesis that may be compared with the medieval
Masoretic Text (MT), and are then described as “variants.” Variants are not
inferior to MT; they reflect different readings, and since MT is taken as the
yardstick to which all texts are compared, these different readings are named
“variants.” The Qumran scrolls contain differing degrees of discrepancy from
MT, reflecting various levels of exegesis. I devised a graphical system for indi-
cating these variants using experimental color coding.4 When all the details in
a scroll agree with the consonants of MT, the content of the scroll is represent-
ed in black, as in the rare case of 4QGenb. Incidentally, the name of this scroll,
copy b of Genesis from Cave 4 at Q(umran), indicates that this scroll derives
from Qumran, but all the signs point to the likelihood that it derived from one
of the other Judean Desert sites.5
I distinguish between four areas or levels of exegesis, while some variants
reflect two types of variation simultaneously. The lowest level of exegesis, in
orthography (spelling), is indicated in green; a second level, pertaining to vari-
ants in language, is marked in blue; a third level, covering content differences,
appears in red; and a fourth level, pertaining to possibly literary differences,

3  Thus also Eugene Ulrich, “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism and Later Stages in the
Composition of the Bible,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 57: “It is the literary opus, and not the particular wording of
that opus, with which canon is concerned. Both in Judaism and in Christianity it is books,
not the textual form of the books, that are canonical.” See also John J. Collins, “Changing
Scripture,” in Changes in Scripture, ed. Hanne von Weisenberg et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011),
23–45 (29). George Brooke, “Authority and the Authoritativeness of Scripture: Some Clues
from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RevQ 25 (2012): 507–23 (520): “There can be multiple authorita-
tive forms of a composition, even a scriptural composition.” See further my own study “Were
Early Hebrew Scripture Texts Authoritative?,” in The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo
Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014, ed. Donald W. Parry, Stephen D.
Ricks, and Andrew C. Skinner, STDJ 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 128–43.
4  See my study “A Didactic Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Celebrating the Dead
Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection, ed. Peter W. Flint et al., EJL 30 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011;
Leiden: Brill, 2012), 173–98. Revised version: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3, VTSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 297–312
(“A Didactic and Gradual Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls”).
5  See James R. Davila, “2. 4QGenb,” in Genesis to Numbers, vol. 7 of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Eugene
Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross, DJD 12 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 31.

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 226 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls 227

is indicated with the color purple. All these colors are designated on the basis
of my own subjective analysis. I treated some fifteen sample texts in this way,
marking elements with different colors.
The indication of the variant elements using colors serves a didactic pur-
pose enabling us to obtain a good feeling of the nature of the scrolls. The use
of colors provides a good impression of the different changes inserted by each
scribe, although precision is impossible since it is sometimes difficult to dis-
tinguish between different options. The color coding does not take a position
regarding the priority of these differences (orthographic, linguistic, content,
and literary variants). The determining of such a priority is significant in con-
tent differences, and often the red elements point to secondary elements in a
scroll as in 1QIsaa (Appendix 3), but often these elements are both primary and
secondary, as in the case of 4QSama.6 Obviously, each case must be examined
separately, and scholars express different views.
The scrolls did not develop from a completely “black position,” indicating
the absence of exegesis, to one color, and then to several colors; however, if one
chooses to present them as having developed in this way, the different types of
scrolls can be illustrated clearly.
Very few fragments are completely black, as is 4QGenb. The lowest level
of interpretation is the filling in of matres lectiones, creating green patches,
as in the first preserved column of 4QpaleoExodm when compared with MT
(Appendix 1). It has a similar number of spelling differences when compared
with SP (Appendix 2) even though the scroll is close in character to that ver-
sion. The main differences between this column and MT and SP are thus in
spelling, while in other columns there are many differences in language and
content.
The amount of exegesis in orthography is minimal. In most cases, a scribe
filled in the orthography from defective to plene or, as in the case of 1QIsaa, to
super-plene (Appendix 3). However, there are more meaningful cases in the
analysis of spelling, for example, Isa 62:4 (col. I, line 14):

Isa 62:4aβ MT ‫אָמר עֹוד ְשׁ ָמ ָמה‬

ֵ ֵ‫אַר ֵצְך לֹא־י‬
ְ ‫וּל‬
ְ

And your land shall no more be called “Desolation”

1QIsaa ‫ =( ולארצך לוא יאמר עוד שוממה‬αʹσʹθʹΤ V)

And your land shall no more be called “Desolate”

6  See the analysis in Jason K. Driesbach, 4QSamuela and the Text of Samuel, VTSup 171 (Leiden:
Brill, 2016).

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 227 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 228 Tov

The difference between the two texts is in spelling and form. Both words
derived from an original form ‫שממה‬, which was interpreted in MT as the noun
‫ ְשׁ ָמ ָמה‬and in the scroll as the participle ‫שוממה‬ ָ . The understanding of the scroll
may be preferable, as it matches the participle in the parallel stich, ‫אָמר‬ ֵ ֵ‫לֹא־י‬
ָ ‫ ָלְך עֹוד ֲע‬, “Nevermore shall you be called ‘Forsaken.’” This understanding
‫זוּבה‬
is shared by many ancient witnesses: Aquila, Symmachus, kaige-Theodotion,
Targum, Vulgate; two of the words used in this verse, ‫שֹׁומ ָמה‬ ֵ and ‫עוּלה‬
ָ ‫ ְבּ‬, occur
also in 54:1 ‫עוּלה‬ ָ ‫י־שֹׁומ ָמה ִמ ְבּנֵ י ְב‬
ֵ ַ ‫ ִכּ‬.
ֵ‫י־ר ִבּים ְבּנ‬
The blue color points to linguistic differences, as in 4QGeng (Appendix 4).
In this scroll, we notice only a few differences from MT, but in other scrolls
there are many of this kind. All these are cases of linguistic exegesis that are
usually irrelevant to the content.

Gen 1:5 MT ‫יֹום‬

4QGeng ‫יומם‬

In this case, the noun ‫ יֹום‬has been replaced with ‫ יומם‬in the scroll. In classical
Hebrew, ‫ יומם‬serves as an adverb (“by day”) except for in MT Jer 33:20 (a late
passage, lacking in the LXX) and Neh 9:19.7 However, in Late Biblical Hebrew,
‫ יומם‬assumed the same meaning as ‫ יֹום‬as shown by this scroll, by SP in Gen
8:22, and by 4Q503 (4QpapPrQuot) where it occurs many times as ‫היומם אור‬
(e.g., frags. 1–6 iii 10).

Gen 1:14 MT ‫)יהי( … וְ ָהיוּ‬

4QGeng ‫)יהי( … ויהיו‬

MT starts v. 14 with a jussive form, ‫יהי‬, but continues with a we-qatal form;
instead, the scroll harmonizes with two jussive forms. Elsewhere, the divine
command likewise has a sequence of two jussive forms (1:6, 9, 26).
The Isaiah scroll has many more instances of linguistic exegesis. Some ex-
amples in the first eight verses are listed in Table 13.1.8

7  Possibly also Jer 15:9. Other cases are textually problematic: Num 9:21; Ezek 30:16.
8  In the next verses, see different word patterns in 1:9 ‫( כסודם‬cf. LXX ὡς Σοδομα) for MT ‫ִכּ ְסד ֹם‬
and ‫( לעומרה‬cf. LXX ὡς Γομορρα) for MT ‫ ; ַל ֲעמ ָֹרה‬Aramaic forms as in 1:8 ‫ ונתרת‬for MT ‫נֹות ָרה‬
ְ ְ‫ו‬
and 1:13 ‫ ועצרתה‬for MT ‫ ;וַ ֲע ָצ ָרה‬lengthened pronominal suffixes as in 1:15 ‫ ידיכמה‬for MT
‫יכם‬
ֶ ‫ ;יְ ֵד‬different verbal patterns as in 1:17 ‫ דרושו‬for MT ‫ ִדּ ְרשׁוּ‬.

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 228 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls 229

Table 13.1 Isa 1:1–8 Linguistic Differences between MT and 1QIsaa

2 MT 1QIsaa Remarks

1 ‫ישעיהו‬ ‫ישעיהו‬ Omission of ʿayin indicates the weakening of laryngeals

and pharyngeals. Supralinear letter added.
‫בימי‬ ‫ביומי‬ Addition of waw is probably due to Aramaic influence.
‫עזיהו‬ ‫עוזיה‬ Short theophoric names are more frequent in the Second
Temple period.
‫יחזקיהו‬ ‫יחזקיה‬ See the previous item.
2 ‫ארץ‬ ‫הארץ‬ Addition of the article.1
‫והם‬ ‫והמה‬ Lengthened pronouns typical of Late Biblical Hebrew.
7 ‫כמהפכת‬ ‫כמאפכת‬ The addition of an aleph is probably influenced by the
Aramaic root ‫ הפך =( אפך‬in Hebrew).
8 ‫ונותרה‬ ‫ֹונתרת‬ The variant probably reflects an Aramaic verbal form for
the 3rd per. fem. sing.

a See Eduard Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Q Isa),
STDJ 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 411–12.

Cases of content differences are colored in red. Usually such instances pertain
to exegesis, recognizable in large and small details, although the boundary be-
tween content exegesis and linguistic change is often difficult to determine.9
From the large body of content changes, I have selected a few meaningful
changes.

1 Sam 1:22 MT ‫ד־עֹולם‬

ָ ‫ =( וְ יָ ַשׁב ָשׁם ַע‬LXX)

He ⟨Samuel⟩ must stay there forever

4QSama + ‫ונת]תיהו נזיר עד עולם כול ימי[חייו‬+

+ … and I shall de]dicate him as a nazir all the days [of

his life

9  I regard the additions of the conjunctive waw as content differences since there is no clear
linguistic trend of added syndesis in LBH, although in the Isaiah scroll such a pattern is
recognizable; see Kutscher, Language, 414–29. For example:
   Isa 1:3  M T ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לֹא יָ ַדע ַע ִמּי לֹא ִה ְתבֹּונָ ן‬
   1QIsaa ‫ישראל לוא ידע ועמי לוא הת[ב]ונן‬

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 229 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 230 Tov

From v. 11, it is clear that Samuel was to be a nazir (thus also Sir 46:13 and m.
Nazir 9.5),10 and even more so from a plus in LXX in that verse (“and wine and
strong drink he shall not drink”), yet the actual term nazir is not used in the MT
and LXX ad loc. In the textual tradition of Samuel, the term thus occurs only in
4QSama as part of a long plus.11

1 Sam 2:14 MT ‫ =( כֹּל ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲע ֶלה ַה ַמּזְ ֵלג יִ ַקּח‬LXX)

whatever the fork brought up he would take

4QSama ‫[כו]ל אשר יעלה המזלג יקח אם [רע הוא ואם] טוב לבד מח[זה‬
‫התנופה ושו]ק הימין‬

[wha]tever the fork brought up, he would take, either

[bad or] good, in addition to the [waved br]east and the
right thi[gh]

4QSama expanded the description of the gifts to the priests based on the pre-
scriptions of Lev 7:30–34, thus increasing the sins of Eli’s sons. Scholars often
name this kind of change “nomistic,” based on the nomos, the law of the Torah,
especially in the wake of studies by Alexander Rofé.12

1 Sam 2:16 MT ‫ =( ַק ֵטּר יַ ְק ִטירוּן ַכּיֹּום ַה ֵח ֶלב‬LXX S V)

Let them ⟨the sons of Eli⟩ first burn the fat.

4QSama ]‫יקטר הכוהן כיום ̊ה[חלב‬

Let the priest first burn the [fat].

10  For the biblical background of the nazir, see Num 6:1–21; Judg 13:5, 7.
11  See Matityahu Tsevat, “Was Samuel a Nazirite?” in ‘Shaʿarei Talmon’: Studies in the Bible,
Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. M. Fishbane et
al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 199–204.
12  According to Alexander Rofé, “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (So-called 4QSama),” in
Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, ed.
Philippe Hugo and Adrian Schenker, VTSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 75–88, several addi-
tional readings in this scroll are midrashic (such as 2 Sam 24:16–17; a large addition before
1 Sam 11:1) causing him to rename this scroll as 4QMidrash Samuel. Thus also Alexander
Rofé, “4QMidrash Samuel?: Observations Concerning the Character of 4QSama,” Textus 19
(1998): 63–74; and Alexander Rofé, “A Scroll of Samuel or Midrash Samuel? The Transfer of
the Ark to Jerusalem according to 4Q51,” Meghillot V–VI (2007): 237–43 [Hebrew]. In Rofé’s
writing, nomistic changes are a subgroup of midrashic changes.

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 230 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls 231

In MT, the owner of the sacrifice makes a general statement about the burn-
ing of the fat by the sons of Eli, while 4QSama ascribes this action to the priest.
This change is probably made in accordance with Lev 7:31 (“The priest shall
turn the fat into smoke on the altar, but the breast shall belong to Aaron and
his sons.”).

Isa 7:25 MT ‫ָשׁ ִמיר וָ ָשׁיִת‬

thornbush and thistle

1QIsaa ‫ברזל שמיר ו̇ שי̇ ת‬

̇

iron
 thornbush and thistle (the interlinear addition is
written above ‫)שמיר‬

As far as I know, this is the only gloss in the true sense of the word in the bibli-
cal Dead Sea Scrolls, that is, a word explaining another word. In the spoken lan-
guage of the Second Temple period, ‫ שמיר‬had a secondary meaning of “iron,” to
which the glossator probably referred.13

Isa 1:15 MT ‫יְ ֵד ֶיכם ָדּ ִמים ָמ ֵלאוּ‬

1QIsaa ‫ידיכמה דמים מלאו אצבעותיכם בעאון‬

Cf. Isa 59:3 MT ‫ =( כי כפיכם נגאלו בדם אצבעותיכם בעון‬LXX)

For your hands are defiled with crime, and your fingers
with iniquity.

1QIsaa ‫כיא כפיכםה נגאלו בדם ואצבעותיכמה בעוון‬

The harmonizing addition in the scroll was influenced by Isa 59:3. See similar
additions in 1QIsaa: 34:4 (cf. Mic 1:4); 51:3 (cf. 35:10, 51:11); 51:6 (cf. 40:26); 52:12
(cf. 54:5).

13  See Saul Lieberman, “Forgotten Meanings,” Leshonenu 32 (1967–1968): 99–102 [Hebrew];
E. Qimron, “Textual Remarks on 1QIsa,” Textus 12 (1985): ‫[ נט–ס‬Hebrew].

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 231 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 232 Tov

Isa 1:18 MT ‫ִאם־יִ ְהיוּ ֲח ָט ֵא ֶיכם ַכּ ָשּׁנִ ים ַכּ ֶשּׁ ֶלג יַ ְל ִבּינוּ‬

NJPS Be your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white

1QIsaa ‫ =( אם יהיו חטאיכם כשני כשלג ילבינו‬LXX V S)

‫ ָשׁנִ ים‬is probably a hapax plural form of ,‫ ָשׁנִ י‬short for “scarlet (robes).” The sin-
gular form in the scroll may reflect an adaptation of the unusual plural form to
the more usual one in the singular. Similarly the LXX (ὡς φοινικοῦν), V, and S.14
Elements that differ from MT at the literary level are indicated with the
color purple, for example, 4QJosha (Appendix 5). This scroll adds an unknown
segment in lines 2–3, indicated as verse X of chapter 5 in the official edition
(5:X),15 but it could also be claimed that the beginning passages are presented
in a different sequence. Its various features, each of which is explained dif-
ferently, may point to literary features of that scroll that differ from MT. But
how should the data be presented? Seemingly the fragment presents us with
a different sequence of chapters 8 and 5 (thus Ulrich16); however, I suggested
that a segment from chapter 8 was inserted in chapters 4–5. Perhaps I should
color only the added element in purple; or perhaps I should color most of this
column in purple (Appendix 6). It seems to me that the fragment presents the
running text of chapters 4–5 into which the reading of the Torah in Josh 8:35
was interwoven by 4QJosha, while the pericope as a whole (8:30–35) remained
at its place elsewhere in the scroll (not preserved). The purpose of the change
in the context of crossing the Jordan was to stress the similarity between Moses
and Joshua.17
The importance of the color coding of the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments is
didactic. In this way, we can form a judgment on the nature of each and every
scroll, and not on the presumed development of the scrolls. Obviously I often
change my mind about the color coding, because such is the nature of the eval-
uation of ancient sources.

14  The singular form is also found in Sipre Deuteronomy §6 (15) MS ‫ ד‬and §28 (45) MS ‫ד‬
and additional sources mentioned in Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, The Hebrew University
Bible: The Book of Isaiah, The Hebrew University Bible Project (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995),
p. ‫ג‬. It is also possible that the scroll reflects the original reading (thus BHS).
15  Eugene Ulrich, “47. 4QJosha,” in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, vol. 9 of Qumran Cave
4, ed. Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 147.
16  Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible,
VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 47–65.
17  See my study “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the
LXX, and 4QJosha,” in The Book of Joshua, ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012),
65–85. Revised version: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism (2015), 132–53.

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 232 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls 233

We now start at the other end of the analysis, beginning with some general
thoughts about the exegetical procedure.

2 The Background of the Exegesis of the Scrolls

The processes of writing, interpretation, and rewriting have been an integral

part of the development of the biblical literature since the days of its creation.
These processes characterize all literatures that were created in antiquity.
Since we picture the beginning of several genres of the biblical literature as
oral compositions, the rewriting actually took place as rephrasing; creative
minds constantly rephrased earlier formulations. The biblical psalms were cre-
ated in such a process, and in rare cases we can reconstruct different oral stag-
es after they were committed to writing in different environments. 2 Samuel 22
and Psalm 18 reflect the same psalm that was committed to writing in two
different environments. The many synonymous words or forms in these two
psalms, more than in other parallel texts, are evidence of the process of oral
composition:

Psalm 18 2 Samuel 22

18:1 ‫וּמיַּ ד‬ ִ 22:1 ‫וּמ ַכּף‬ ִ

18:3 ‫ֵא ִלי‬ 22:3 ‫ֹלהי‬ ֵ ‫ֱא‬
18:5 ‫י־מוֶ ת‬ ָ ‫ֶח ְב ֵל‬ 22:5 ‫י־מוֶ ת‬ ָ ‫ִמ ְשׁ ְבּ ֵר‬
18:7 ‫ֲא ַשׁוֵּ ַע‬ 22:7 ‫ֶא ְק ָרא‬
18:8 ‫ָה ִרים‬ 22:8 ‫ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִם‬
18:16 ‫ַמיִ ם‬ 22:16 ‫יָם‬
18:21 ‫ְכּ ִצ ְד ִקי‬ 22:21 ‫ְכּ ִצ ְד ָק ִתי‬
18:24 ‫ִעמֹּו‬ 22:24 ‫לֹו‬
18:25 ‫ְכּ ִצ ְד ִקי‬ 22:25 ‫ְכּ ִצ ְד ָק ִתי‬
18:28 ‫ִכּי‬ 22:28 (‫(את‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬
18:32 ‫לֹוהּ‬ַ ‫ֱא‬ 22:32 ‫ֵאל‬
18:32b ‫זוּל ִתי‬ ָ 22:32 ‫ִמ ַבּ ְל ֲע ֵדי‬
18:33 ‫ַה ְמאַזְּ ֵרנִ י‬ 22:33 ‫ָמעוּזִּ י‬
18:38 ‫אַשּׂיגֵ ם‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬ 22:38 ‫אַשׁ ִמ ֵידם‬ ְ ָ‫ו‬
18:39 ‫וְ לֹא־יֻ ְכלוּ קוּם‬ 22:39 ‫וְ לֹא יְ קוּמוּן‬
18:43 ‫י־רוּח‬ַ ֵ‫ל־פּנ‬
ְ ‫ַע‬ 22:43 ‫אָרץ‬ ֶ
18:48 ‫וַ יַּ ְד ֵבּר‬ 22:48 ‫וּמֹוריד‬ ִ
18:49 ‫ְמ ַפ ְלּ ִטי‬ 22:49 ‫יאי‬ ִ ‫וּמֹוצ‬ ִ

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 233 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 234 Tov

Some of the differences between Psalms 14 and 53 should be regarded in

the same way; these two psalms were included in two different literary com-
plexes, the first and second books of Psalms, and subsequently were developed
in different ways. Some of the differences between the parallel psalms reflect
oral differences deriving from the compositional stage, while others reflect the
vicissitudes of the subsequent scribal activity.
In my view, some of the differences between the parallel psalms within MT
illustrate the types of differences between early formulations of the same com-
position. This pertains to the interchange of synonymous words that represent
early variations, such as shown above. The same types of variants are extant in
the biblical scrolls found at Qumran, relating not only to the psalmodic literature,
but also to other literary genres, narratives, law codes, prophetic experiences, etc.
When the compositions were committed to writing, early scribes felt free
to make the same changes that were made during the oral transmission stage.
Learned scribes took the liberty to deviate from the earlier text when inserting
large and small changes such as those mentioned above. The small changes
involved merely one or a few words. The larger changes involved large-scale
rewriting such as in the pre-Samaritan texts and the SP, the long version of
the MT of Jeremiah (as opposed to the short version of 4QJerb,d and the LXX),
and the midrashic rewriting reflected in the LXX of 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel
(as opposed to the other textual witnesses). Rewriting as a form of developing
Scripture is found in all textual branches of the Scripture text, including the
proto-MT. In the case of the latter text, this took place when that text was still
fluid, before it was frozen for the next generations as the proto-MT and later
MT, probably in the third pre-Christian century.
We now provide a few examples of large-scale exegesis in the Qumran
scrolls. Scrolls that are very close to MT reflect only a small amount of such
exegesis, while some scrolls that reflect a free approach towards the traditional
text contain much exegesis of this type.
The expanded Song of Miriam. The five scrolls that are named 4QReworked
Pentateucha–e probably contain the largest amount of content exegesis among
the Qumran biblical scrolls. They contain so much exegesis that it was even
doubted that they were biblical scrolls and therefore they were published ini-
tially as so-called reworked Bible compositions.18

18  4QRP started its life in the scholarly literature as 4QBiblical Paraphrase (so named by
John Strugnell); it was published as the nonbiblical 4QRewritten Pentateuch by Emanuel
Tov and Sidnie A. White: “364–367. 4QReworked Pentateuchb–e and 4QTemple?”
in Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, vol. 8 of Qumran Cave 4, ed. Harold Attridge et al., DJD 13
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 187–351, 459–63. 4QRP is now probably considered by most
scholars to be a deviating group of Scripture manuscripts. These texts, to be considered

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 234 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls 235

Scripture devotes only two verses to the Song of Miriam, which appears im-
mediately after the Song of Moses at the Sea:

Exod 15:20–21 MT ָ ‫ת־התֹּף ְבּיָ ָדהּ וַ ֵתּ ֶצאן‬ ַ ‫אַהר ֹן ֶא‬ ֲ ‫וַ ִתּ ַקּח ִמ ְריָם ַהנְּ ִביאָה ֲאחֹות‬
‫וַ ַתּ ַען ָל ֶהם ִמ ְריָם ִשׁירוּ ַליהוָ ה ִכּי־גָ אֹה גָּ אָה סוּס‬21 ‫וּב ְמחֹֹלת‬
ִ ‫אַח ֶריה ְבּ ֻת ִפּים‬
ֲ ‫ל־הנָּ ִשׁים‬
ַ ‫ָכ‬
‫וְ ר ְֹכבֹו ָר ָמה ַביָּ ם‬

Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took a timbrel in her hand,
and all the women went out after her in dance with timbrels. 21And
Miriam chanted for them: Sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed glori-
ously; Horse and driver He has hurled into the sea.

The words of v. 21 merely repeat the opening of the Song at the Sea with a small
change (Moses: “I will sing”; Miriam: “Sing!”), and it remains unclear what
Miriam actually sang. In any event, someone in antiquity thought it unfitting
that the Song of Miriam had no real content. The scribe of 4QRPc (4Q365) 6aii
and c (75–50 BCE), or his source, provided the only known description of such
a song. We do not know its full content, but there were at least seven lines of
text:

4QRPc (4Q365) 6aii and c lines 1–719

1. you despised (or: you plundered) [

2. for the triumph of [ ‫גאות‬
3. You are great, a savior [
4. the hope of the enemy perishes, and he is for[gotten] (or: has cea[sed]) [
5. they perished in the mighty waters, the enemy [ ‫במים אדירים‬
6. and he exalted her to their heights … you gave … ‫ורוממנה למרומם‬
7. wor]king a triumph va[cat ‫גאות‬
7. [the one who do]es gloriously [

as five different Scripture texts, present running biblical texts, while rearranging some
Torah pericopes (for example, the Sukkot laws of Num 29:32–30:1 and Deut 16:13–14 are
combined in 4QRPb [4Q364] 23a–b i.), inserting many small changes, and adding sev-
eral extensive exegetical additions. For the change of opinion on these texts, see my
study “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?),” in Authoritative Scriptures in
Ancient Judaism, ed. Mladen Popovic, JSJSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 73–91. Revised ver-
sion: Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism (2015), 45–59.
19  Translation (with a few adaptations) by George J. Brooke, “The Long-Lost Song of Miriam,”
BAR 20 (1994): 62–65. See also Ariel Feldman, “The Song of Miriam (4Q365 6a ii + 6c 1–7)
Revisited,” JBL 132 (2013): 905–11.

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 235 21/06/2019 16:37:14

 236 Tov

Several of the phrases of Miriam’s Song repeat words of the Song of Moses:
the root ‫ גאה‬in lines 2 and 7 is reminiscent of Exod 15:1, 7 and the phrase ‫במים‬
‫ אדירים‬in line 5 is reminiscent of v. 15 (“in mighty waters”). The song also con-
tains several elements of praise to God. It ends with these words “6and he ex-
alted her to their heights … you gave, 7wor]king a triumph.” Apparently the
female person mentioned is Miriam, and God elevates her from a lowly status
to one of triumph as in the reversal of the fate of the low, deprived, and poor in
the song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1–10). The interpretation of this detail is debated,
but the very existence of a song of Miriam renders its author as one of the first
feminists.
Harmonization is a major force behind the changes made to texts based
on the concept that God’s writings should be harmonious with one another.
Therefore, the differences between the two formulations of the Decalogue,
Exod 20 and Deut 5, are constantly harmonized. The main difference between
them pertains to the commandment of the Sabbath. In Exodus, the Sabbath
is given a universal argument (20:11 “For in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth …”), while Deuteronomy provides a social justification (5:14 “… so that
your male and female slave may rest as you do. 15Remember that you were a
slave in the land of Egypt …”).

Exod 20:11 MT 
‫ת־היָּ ם‬
ַ ‫אָרץ ֶא‬
ֶ ‫ת־ה‬
ָ ‫ת־ה ָשּׁ ַמיִם וְ ֶא‬
ַ ‫ת־יָמים ָע ָשׂה יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬
ִ ‫ִכּי ֵשׁ ֶשׁ‬
‫ל־כּן ֵבּ ַרְך יְ הוָ ה ֶאת־יֹום‬ ִ ‫ר־בּם וַ יָּ נַ ח ַבּיֹּום ַה ְשּׁ ִב‬
ֵ ‫יעי ַע‬ ָ ‫ל־א ֶשׁ‬ ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬
‫ַה ַשּׁ ָבּת וַ יְ ַק ְדּ ֵשׁהוּ‬

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and sea, and all
that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; therefore the
Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Deut 5:14b–15 MT ‫י־ע ֶבד ָהיִ ָית ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ ְל ַמ ַען יָ נוּ‬

ֶ ‫וְ זָ ַכ ְר ָתּ ִכּ‬15 ‫ִמ ְצ ַריִם וַ יּ ִֹצ ֲאָך יְ הוָ ה‬
‫וּבזְ ר ַֹע נְ טוּיָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ַח ַע ְב ְדָּך וַ ֲא ָמ ְתָך ָכּמֹוָך ֱא‬
ִ ‫ֹלהיָך ִמ ָשּׁם ְבּיָ ד ֲחזָ ָקה‬
‫ֹלהיָך ַל ֲעשֹׂות ֶאת־יֹום ַה ַשׁ ָבּת‬ֶ ‫ל־כּן ִצוְּ ָך יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬
ֵ ‫ַע‬

… so that your male and female slave may rest as you do. 15Remember
that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God freed you
from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the
Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

As a rule, the scribes of Exodus and Deuteronomy left these major differenc-
es between the two versions intact, but some did not, inserting harmonizing

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 236 21/06/2019 16:37:15

 Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls 237

changes. These changes usually involved the addition in Deuteronomy of the

argument for the Sabbath appearing in Exodus. In this way, 4QDeutn and LXXB
combined both reasons for the Sabbath observance, first that of Deuteronomy,
and subsequently that of Exodus. This harmonizing addition is understand-
able, since it is not easy to accept that Scripture should include two differ-
ent reasons for the Sabbath.20 A different harmonization is found in the Nash
Papyrus, 4QPhyl G, and 8QPhyl III, all of which display the version of the argu-
ment in Exodus instead of that in Deuteronomy.21

4QDeutn 5:14–15, Exod 20:11, Deut 5:1622

‫ בארץ מצרים‬/////// ‫) ‏וזכרתה כי עבד היית‬Deut 5:14( ‫‏כמוך‬2‫ ‏‬‎ ‫‏ ינוח עבדך ואמתך‬
‫על כן צוך יהוה‬‎‫‏‬‎4 ‫ חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬/////////////// ‫‏יהוה אלוהיך משם ביד‬‎3 ‫ויציאך‬
‫(‏כי ששת ימים עשה‬Deut 5:15) ‎‫‏לקדשו‬‎5 ‫ לשמור את יום השבת‬//////////// ‫אלוהיך‬
‫‏את הים וכול אשר בם וינוח ביום השביעי על כן ברך‬‎6 ‫יהוה את השמים ואת הארץ‬
‎… ‫כבד את אביך ואת אמך כאשר‬‎(Exod 20:11) ///// ‫‏את יום השבת לקדשו‬‎7 ‫יהוה‬
(Deut 5:16)

I now submit a different type of harmonizing change:

Exod 32:10 MT >

4QpaleoExodm SP add:

]‫ו[י]תפלל משה בעד א[הרון‬

̊ ‫להשמידֹו‬
̇ ‫או̊ [תך] לגוי גדול [ובאהרון התאנף יה]וה מאד‬

… of [you] a great nation. [And the Lo]rd[was angry with Aaron,] so

much (that He was ready) to destroy him; and Moses interce[de]d for
A[aron] (thus also LXX MSS 58–767 318)

In Exoda 32, after the Israelites commit the sin of the golden calf, God wish-
es to destroy them, while Moses intervenes on their behalf. In the middle of
that argument, 4QpaleoExodm and SP add a verse that has no equal in the
other texts. This additional verse was transferred in the Exodus scroll from the
parallel text in Deut 9:20 by way of harmonization. After all, Deuteronomy,
named ‫משנה תורה‬, “the repetition of the Law” in Jewish tradition, is supposed

20  See the analysis of Esther Eshel, “4QDeutn: A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic
Editing,” HUCA 62 (1991),” 117–54 (142–47).
21  See my study “The Palestinian Source of the Greek Translation of the Torah,” forthcoming.
22  /// indicates damage on the leather.

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 237 21/06/2019 16:37:15

 238 Tov

to repeat details mentioned in the earlier books, but since this detail was not
mentioned in Exodus, it was added in Exod 32 by these scribes. When now
reaching Deuteronomy, it cannot be claimed that Scripture introduces a new
element, since it was already found in this Exodus scroll.
On related matters, it must have been difficult for some readers that exactly
the same topic was dealt with in different places in the pentateuchal law codes,
sometimes in the same way and sometimes in a somewhat different fashion.
In order to overcome this difficulty, the Mishnah codified the different laws
in one coherent unit. On a much smaller scale, the scribes of some Qumran
scrolls juxtaposed different laws.
Thus the Sukkot laws, which appear separately in Num 29:32–30:1 and Deut
16:13–14, were combined exegetically by 4QRPd (4Q366) 4. In this case, one
does not know whether this fragment was placed in Numbers or Deuteronomy
in 4QRP, but that is not important as long as we realize that an attempt was
made to combine different texts.

4QRPd (4Q366) 4 i (Num 29:[32]38–30:1 followed by Deut 16:13–14)

‫ויאמר משה]אל בני ישראל ככל אשר‬30:1  vacat  ‫ [ולנכסיהם ולשלמיהם‬ .8
‫צוה יהוה‬
vac[at ‫ [את מש‬
‫ה‬ .9
‫ושמחת בחגך‬14 ‫[חג הסכות תעשה לך שבעת ימים באספך מגרנ]ך ומיקבך‬ .10
‫אתה ובנך‬

Num 29:38 [ … libations, or offerings of well-being. vacat Num 30:1So

Moses spoke] to the Israelites just as the Lord had com-
manded Moses.
Deut 16:13 [You shall hold the Feast of Booths for seven days after the
ingathering from your threshing flo]or and your vat. 14You
shall rejoice in your festival, with your son[

The process that started as inner-biblical exegesis continued in the biblical

scrolls such as those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Subsequently the
postbiblical compositions that retell the content of the Bible constantly apply
exegesis to the Scripture text. The stories of the Torah caught the imagination
of the listeners and readers, and the legal material, which formed the basis of
Jewish life, was constantly reinterpreted. When the Scripture collection was
conceived of as a single unit, readers and scribes also paid attention to incon-
gruities among the various books.
Major clusters of exegesis are thus contained in such compositions as
Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo, the Temple Scroll, 4QCommentary on Genesis A

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 238 21/06/2019 16:37:15

 Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls 239

(4Q252), and many additional Qumran scrolls. Remarkably, this type of exege-
sis, inserted in the form of the rewriting of Scripture text, is applied only to
texts that are based on what I name the popular Palestinian text of the Torah,
namely the base of the LXX and the pre-Samaritan texts, the SP, and a host of
Qumran texts, and not to the MT family.23
All types of exegetical traditions display the richness of the exegetical ac-
tivity; they illustrate the liberty taken by scribes and authors to expand and
change the biblical text. The biblical text was sacred, but this sacrosanctity did
not prevent its continuous development; on the contrary, it was the impetus
for its ongoing development as a very central and popular text.
In conclusion, in this brief study, I described how the scrolls enrich our un-
derstanding of the transmission and exegesis of the Bible. I hope that the ex-
perimental color coding of the categories of differences between the scrolls
and MT enhance an understanding of the individual scrolls, since defining an
issue goes half way toward finding a solution. The study of language, text, and
exegesis go hand in hand.

Bibliography

Brooke, George J. “The Long-Lost Song of Miriam.” BAR 20 (1994): 62–65.

Brooke, George J. “Authority and the Authoritativeness of Scripture: Some Clues from
the Dead Sea Scrolls.” RevQ 25 (2012): 507–23.
Collins, John J. “Changing Scripture.” Pages 23–45 in Changes in Scripture. Edited by
Hanne von Weisenberg et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.
Davila, James R. “2. 4QGenb.” Pages 31–38 in Genesis to Numbers, vol. 7 of Qumran Cave
4. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Driesbach, Jason K. 4QSamuela and the Text of Samuel. VTSup 171. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Eshel, Esther. “4QDeutn: A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing.” HUCA 62
(1991): 117–54.
Feldman, Ariel. “The Song of Miriam (4Q365 6a ii + 6c 1–7) Revisited.” JBL 132 (2013):
905–11.

23  See Emanuel Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special
Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran:
Collected Essays, TSAJ 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 57–70; Emanuel Tov, “The
Textual Base of the Biblical Quotations in Second Temple Compositions,” in Hā-’îsh
Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature
in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein, ed. Binyamin Y. Goldstein, Michael Segal, and George J.
Brooke, STDJ 122 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 280–302.

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 239 21/06/2019 16:37:15

 240 Tov

Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah. The
Hebrew University Bible Project. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995.
Kutscher, Eduard Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(1 Q Isa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Lieberman, Saul. “Forgotten Meanings.” Leshonenu 32 (1967–1968): 99–102 [Hebrew].
Qimron, Elisha. “Textual Remarks on 1QIsa.” Text 12 (1985): ‫[ נט–ס‬Hebrew].
Rofé, Alexander. “4QMidrash Samuel?: Observations Concerning the Character of
4QSama.” Text 19 (1998): 63–74.
Rofé, Alexander. “A Scroll of Samuel or Midrash Samuel? The Transfer of the Ark to
Jerusalem according to 4Q51.” Meghillot V–VI (2007): 237–43 [Hebrew].
Rofé, Alexander. “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (So-called 4QSama).” Pages 75–88 in
Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary
History. Edited by Philippe Hugo and Adrian Schenker. VTSup 132. Leiden: Brill,
2010.
Tov, Emanuel. “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special
Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch.” Pages 57–70 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible,
and Qumran: Collected Essays. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Tov, Emanuel. Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Tov, Emanuel. “A Didactic Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 173–98 in
Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by Peter W. Flint et
al. EJL 3. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011; Leiden: Brill, 2012. Revised version: “A Didactic
and Gradual Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 297–312 in Textual
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed., rev. and exp. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2012.
Tov, Emanuel. “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT,
the LXX, and 4QJosha.” Pages 65–85 in The Book of Joshua. Edited by Ed Noort. BETL
250. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Revised version: Pages 132–153 in Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3. VTSup 167. Leiden:
Brill, 2015.
Tov, Emanuel. “From 4QReworked Pentateuch to 4QPentateuch (?).” Pages 73–91 in
Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popovic. JSJSup 141.
Leiden: Brill, 2010. Revised version: Pages 45–59 in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3. VTSup 167. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Base of the Biblical Quotations in Second Temple
Compositions.” Pages 280–302 in Hā-’îsh Mōshe: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation
in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein. Edited
by Binyamin Y. Goldstein, Michael Segal, and George J. Brooke. STDJ 122. Leiden:
Brill, 2017.

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 240 21/06/2019 16:37:15

 Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls 241

Tov, Emanuel. “Were Early Hebrew Scripture Texts Authoritative?” Pages 128–43 in
The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea
Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014. Edited by Donald W. Parry, Stephen D. Ricks, and Andrew C.
Skinner. STDJ 120. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Tov, Emanuel. “The Palestinian Source of the Greek Translation of the Torah.”
Forthcoming.
Tov, Emanuel, and Sidnie A. White. “364–367. 4QReworked Pentateuchb–e and
4QTemple?” Pages 187–351, 459–63 in Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, vol. 8 of Qumran Cave
4. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.
Tsevat, Matityahu. “Was Samuel a Nazirite?” Pages 199–204 in ‘Shaʿarei Talmon’: Studies
in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon.
Edited by M. Fishbane et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Ulrich, Eugene. “47. 4QJosha.” Pages 143–52 in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, vol. 9
of Qumran Cave 4. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
Ulrich, Eugene. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism and Later Stages in the
Composition of the Bible.” Pages 51–78 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the
Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible.
VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Appendix 1

4QpaleoExodm (DJD 9) Col. 1 Exod 6:25–7:16 Compared with MT

top margin
‫ל]א ̇ש ̊ה ו̊ ̊ת[לד לו את פ]י̊ נחס‬
̊ [ 1
‫ומש ̊ה אשר‬ ̊ · ‫]הוא · אהרון‬26 [ 2
‫ישראל · מארץ · מצרים על‬ ̊ ]‫יהוה]להם · ̇הו̊ ̊צי̊ ̊או̇ · את בנ[י‬
̊ ‫[אמר‬ 3
‫הם המדברים · אל · פרעה · מלך מצרים · להוציא את · בני‬27 · ‫צבאו]תם‬ ̊ [ 4
‫ויהי · ביום דבר‬28 · ‫· הוא · משה · ואהרו ן‬ ‫[ישראל] · ממצרים‬ 5
‫ו‬29 ‫[יהוה]אל · משה · בארץ מצרים‬
6
‫[ידבר]י̊ הוה · אל · משה · לאמור · אני יהוה · דבר · אל · פרעה · מלך · מצרים‬ 7
‫ויאמר · משה · לפני · יהוה‬30 ‫ ך‬
‫[את כל א]שר · אני · דובר · אלי‬ 8
‫ויאומר‬7 1 : ‫ה‬
‫[הן אני] · ערל ̊שפתים · ואיך · ישמע · אלי · פרע‬ 9
‫[יהוה] אל · משה · ראה · נתתיך ·אלהי̊ ם · לפרעה · ואהרון אחיך · יהיה‬ 10
‫אחי̊ ך ידבר · אל‬ ̇ ‫את · כל · אשר· אצוך · ואהרון‬ ̇ · ‫ ̊א ̊תה · תדבר‬2 ]‫[נביאך‬ 11
‫[ו]אני · אקשה · את · לב · פרעה‬3 · ]‫ישר[אל‬ ̇ ̊‫ושלח]א ̊ת · בני‬
̊ ‫[פרעה‬ 12
‫ולא · ישמע‬4 · ‫מצ ̊רי̊ ם‬ ̊ · ‫מופתי̇ בא[ר]ץ‬
̊ ‫[וא]ת‬
̇ ‫א]תתי‬̊ ‫[והרביתי את‬ 13

225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 241 21/06/2019 16:37:15

 ‫‪242‬‬ ‫‪Tov‬‬

‫מ]צרים · ו[הוצ]אתי · את · צבאותי‬ ‫[ ] ‪[ ° °‬א]ת · ידי ב[ ̊‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫[ ] ̊מ ̊א ̊ר ̇ץ · מצרים· בשפטי̊ [ם] גדולים · ‪5‬וידעו‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫מצ ̊ר[ים]  ו‬ ‫יה]ו̊ ̊ה בנטתי · את · ידי · על · ̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫כא]שר‬
‫̊‬ ‫שה ו̊ ̊א[הר]ו̊ ן̊ [‬ ‫יש ̊ר ̊א ̊ל מתוכם · ‪6‬ויעש · ̇מ ̊‬ ‫ ] ‪̊ °‬‬ ‫[הוצאתי‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫· ‪7‬ומשה ̇בן̇ ̇שמונ̊ [ים שנה וא]הרון̊‬ ‫או]תם · כן · עש ו‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[צוה יהוה‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫ ]‬ ‫‪8‬ו‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫פרעה ‬
‫̇‬ ‫ב]רם · אל ·‬
‫בד[ ̇‬‫[ ] · שנה · ̊‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫אליכ ̊ם[‪̊ ] ‬פרעה‬ ‫̊‬ ‫לא ̊מור · ‪̊ 9‬כ[י ידבר] ·‬
‫א]הרון · ̊‬
‫מש]ה[ ̇‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫לפנ̇ י‬ ‫[ ] ‪̊ ] [ °‬מטך · ו̇ ̇השלך ̇‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫‪10‬ויבוא משה ואה]רון · לפני · פרעה‬ ‫[ ] ̊לתנין [ ‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫צוה[ ] · ̊א ̇ת מטהו · לפנ̊ [י]‬ ‫כן]כאשר · ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[ויעשו‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫ג]ם · [פרעה]‬ ‫ ו‬
‫בדי[‬ ‫)‪[ (11‬פרעה ולפ]נ̊ י · ̊ע ̊‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫בלהט]י̊ ̇הם‬ ‫[ ] ‪[ ° °‬וי]עשו · [ ‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫[כן ‪12‬וישל]יכו · איש · מטהו · ו[ ] מטה‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫כא]שר‬ ‫ויחזק[ ‬
‫̊‬ ‫[אהרון את] · מטותם · ‪13‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪v [a c a t‬‬ ‫ ו‬
‫‪14‬‬ ‫[דבר]יהוה [ ‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫הע]ם · ‪15‬לך · ̊אל‬ ‫אל[מ]שה [ ‬ ‫ידבר · יהוה · ̇‬ ‫‪29‬‬
‫הוא[ ] ‪] [ °‬‬ ‫פרעה בבוקר · והנה · ̊‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫אשר[ ]‬ ‫)‪ (16‬שפת · היאר · והמ[טה] · ̇‬ ‫‪31‬‬
‫יהוה [ ]‬ ‫‪32‬‬
‫‪bottom margin‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪Appendix 2‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪4QpaleoExodm (DJD 9) Col. 1 Exod 6:25–7:16 Compared with SP‬‬

‫‪top margin‬‬
‫ל]א ̇ש ̊ה ו̊ ̊ת[לד לו את פ]י̊ נחס‬
‫̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ומש ̊ה אשר‬
‫‪]26‬הוא · אהרון · ̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ישראל · מארץ · מצרים על‬ ‫̊‬ ‫יהוה]להם · ̇הו̊ ̊צי̊ ̊או̇ · את בנ[י]‬
‫̊‬ ‫[אמר‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫צבאו]תם · ‪27‬הם המדברים · אל · פרעה · מלך מצרים · להוציא את · בני‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫· ‪28‬ויהי · ביום דבר‬ ‫[ישראל] · ממצרים · הוא · משה · ואהרו ן‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫‪29‬ו‬ ‫[יהוה]אל · משה · בארץ מצרים‬
‫ ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫[ידבר]י̊ הוה · אל · משה · לאמור · אני יהוה · דבר · אל · פרעה · מלך · מצרים‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫‪30‬ויאמר · משה · לפני · יהוה‬ ‫ ך‬
‫[את כל א]שר · אני · דובר · אלי‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪7:1‬ויאומר‬ ‫ה‬
‫ ‬ ‫[הן אני] · ערל ̊שפתים · ואיך · ישמע · אלי · פרע‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫[יהוה] אל · משה · ראה · נתתיך ·אלהי̊ ם · לפרעה · ואהרון אחיך · יהיה‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫אחי̊ ך ידבר · אל‬
‫את · כל · אשר· אצוך · ואהרון ̇‬ ‫[נביאך] ‪̊ 2‬א ̊תה · תדבר · ̇‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ישר[אל] · ‪[3‬ו]אני · אקשה · את · לב · פרעה‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ושלח]א ̊ת · בני̊‬
‫̊‬ ‫[פרעה‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫מצ ̊רי̊ ם · ‪4‬ולא · ישמע‬ ‫מופתי̇ בא[ר]ץ · ̊‬‫̊‬ ‫[וא]ת‬
‫̇‬ ‫א]תתי‬‫[והרביתי את ̊‬ ‫‪13‬‬

‫‪225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 242‬‬ ‫‪21/06/2019 16:37:15‬‬

 ‫‪Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls‬‬ ‫‪243‬‬

‫מ]צרים · ו[הוצ]אתי · את · צבאותי‬ ‫[ ] ‪[ ° °‬א]ת · ידי ב[ ̊‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫[ ] ̊מ ̊א ̊ר ̇ץ · מצרים· בשפטי̊ [ם] גדולים · ‪5‬וידעו‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫ו‬ ‫מצ ̊ר[ים] ‬ ‫יה]ו̊ ̊ה בנטתי · את · ידי · על · ̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫כא]שר‬
‫̊‬ ‫שה ו̊ ̊א[הר]ו̊ ן̊ [‬ ‫יש ̊ר ̊א ̊ל מתוכם · ‪6‬ויעש · ̇מ ̊‬ ‫ ] ‪̊ °‬‬ ‫[הוצאתי‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫· ‪7‬ומשה ̇בן̇ ̇שמונ̊ [ים שנה וא]הרון̊‬ ‫או]תם · כן · עש ו‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[צוה יהוה‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫ ]‬ ‫[ ‪8‬ו‬ ‫פרעה ‬
‫̇‬ ‫ב]רם · אל ·‬
‫בד[ ̇‬ ‫[ ] · שנה · ̊‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫אליכ ̊ם[‪̊ ] ‬פרעה‬ ‫̊‬ ‫לא ̊מור · ‪̊ 9‬כ[י ידבר] ·‬ ‫א]הרון · ̊‬
‫מש]ה[ ̇‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫לפנ̇ י‬ ‫[ ] ‪̊ ] [ °‬מטך · ו̇ ̇השלך ̇‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫‪10‬ויבוא משה ואה]רון · לפני · פרעה‬ ‫[ ] ̊לתנין [ ‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫צוה[ ] · ̊א ̇ת מטהו · לפנ̊ [י]‬ ‫כן]כאשר · ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[ויעשו‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫ג]ם · [פרעה]‬ ‫בדי[ו ‬ ‫)‪[ (11‬פרעה ולפ]נ̊ י · ̊ע ̊‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫בלהט]י̊ ̇הם‬ ‫[ ] ‪[ ° °‬וי]עשו · [ ‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫[כן ‪12‬וישל]יכו · איש · מטהו · ו[ ] מטה‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫כא]שר‬ ‫ויחזק[ ‬
‫̊‬ ‫[אהרון את] · מטותם · ‪13‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫‪v [a c a t‬‬ ‫ ו‬
‫‪14‬‬ ‫[דבר]יהוה [ ‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫הע]ם · ‪15‬לך · ̊אל‬ ‫אל[מ]שה [ ‬ ‫ידבר · יהוה · ̇‬ ‫‪29‬‬
‫הוא[ ] ‪] [ °‬‬ ‫פרעה בבוקר · והנה · ̊‬ ‫‪30‬‬
‫אשר[ ]‬ ‫)‪ (16‬שפת · היאר · והמ[טה] · ̇‬ ‫‪31‬‬
‫יהוה [ ]‬ ‫‪32‬‬
‫‪bottom margin‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪Appendix 3‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪1QIsaa (DJD 32) Col. 1 Isa 1:1–26 Compared with MT‬‬

‫‪1‬חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ אשר חזה על יהודה וירושלם ביומי עוזיה‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫יותם אחז יחזקיה מלכי יהודה ‪2 vac‬שמעו שמים והאזיני הארץ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫כיא יהוה דבר בנים גדלתי ורוממת[י] והמה פשעו בי ‪3‬ידע שור קוניהו‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫וחמור אבוס בעליו ישראל לוא ידע ועמי לוא ̊ה ̊ת[ב]ו̊ נן ‪4‬הוי גוי חוטה‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫עם כבד עוון זרע מרעים בנים משחיתים עזבו את יהו̊ ̇ה נאצו את‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫עוד תוסיפו סרה כול ראוש לחולי‬ ‫קדוש ישראל נזרו אחור ‪5‬על מה תכו ̊‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫וחבורה ומכה טריה‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ו̇ כול לבב דוה ‪6‬מכפ רגל ועד רואש אין בו מתם פצע‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫לוא זרו ולוא חובשו ולוא רככה בשמן ‪7‬ארצכם שממה עריכם שרופות‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫אש אדמתכם לנגדכם זרים אוכלים אותה ושממו עליה כמאפכת ז̇ ̊רים‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪8‬ו̇ נתרת בת ציון כסוכה בכרם וכמלונה במקשה כעיר נצורה ‪9‬לולי יהוה‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫צבאות הותיר לנו שריד כמעט כסודם היינו לעומרה דמינו ‪vacat‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫עומרה ‪̊ 11‬ל ̇מה לי‬ ‫̇‬ ‫מעו̇ ̊ד ̊ב ̊ר יהוה קציני סודם ואזינו תו̇ ̊ר ̇ת אלוהינו עמ‬
‫‪̇ 10‬ש ̇‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫̇רוב זבחיכם יואמר יהוה שבעתי עולו̇ ת אילים וחלב מריאים ודמ‍‌‪‎‬‏‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫פרים וכבשים ועתודים לוא חפצתי ‪12‬כיא תבאו לראות פני ̇מי בקש זואת‬ ‫‪14‬‬

‫‪225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 243‬‬ ‫‪21/06/2019 16:37:16‬‬

 ‫‪244‬‬ ‫‪Tov‬‬

‫קטרת תועבה היא‬‫̇‬ ‫חצרי ‪13‬לוא תוסיפו להביא ̇מנחת שוא‬‫̊מידכם לרמוס ̇‬ ‫‪15‬‬
‫לי חודש ושבת קרא מקרא לוא אוכל און ועצרתה ‪14‬חודשיכם ומועדיכם‬ ‫‪16‬‬
‫שנאה נפשי היו עלי לטרח נלאיתי נשוא ‪15‬ובפרשכם כפיכם אעלים עיני‬ ‫‪17‬‬
‫מכם גמ כי הרבו תפלה אינני שומע ידיכמה דמים מלאו אצבעותיכם‬ ‫‪18‬‬
‫מנגד עיני חדלו הרע ‪17‬למדו‬‫̇‬ ‫בעאון ‪16‬רחצו והזכו והסירו רוע מעלליכם‬ ‫‪19‬‬
‫היטיב דרושו משפט אשרו חמוץ שפטו יאתום ריבו אלמנה‬ ‫‪20‬‬
‫‪18‬לכו נ̇ [א] ונוכחה יואמר יהוה אמ יהיו חטאיכם כשני כשלג ילבינו‬ ‫‪21‬‬
‫תאכ]ל[ו]‬
‫̇‬ ‫ארץ[‬
‫ידומו כתולע}ת{כצמר יהיו ‪19‬אמ תאבו ושמעתם טוב ̊ה ̊‬ ‫אמ ̇‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫‪20‬ו̊ אמ תמאנו ומריתם בחרב תאכלו כיא פי יהוה דבר ‪vac‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫צדק ילין̇ [בה ועתה]‬ ‫קריה נאמנה מלאתי משפט ̇‬ ‫‪21‬היכה הייתי לזונה ̊‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫שריכי ̇ס[וררים וחברי]‬
‫̇‬ ‫̇מ ̇רצחים ‪22‬כספך היו לסו̇ גים סבאך מהול במים ‪23‬‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫ישפ[טו וריב]‬
‫גנבים כולם אוהבי שוחד רודפי שלמונים יאתום לוא ̇‬ ‫‪26‬‬
‫אלמנה לוא יבוא אליהם ‪24‬לכן נאום האדון יהוה צבאות [אביר ישראל]‬ ‫‪27‬‬
‫ואצ[רף כבר]‬‫הוה אנחם מצריו̇ ואנקם מהאיבו ‪25‬והשיב ידי עליך ̊‬ ‫‪28‬‬
‫ואסיר כול בדיליך ‪26‬ואשיבה שופטיך כבראישונ̇ ̇ה[ויעציך]‬
‫̇‬ ‫סו̇ גיך‬ ‫‪29‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪Appendix 4‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪4QGeng (DJD 14) Gen 1:1–22 Compared with MT‬‬

‫‪Frg. 1 Gen 1:1–11‬‬

‫‪top margin‬‬
‫אש[ית ברא]אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ [‬ ‫בר ̇‬
‫‪̇ 1‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫תהו]ם ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים[‬
‫̊‬ ‫ע]ל[פמי‬ ‫‪3‬־‪̇ [2‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫וי]רא ̊א ̇להים את האור כי טוב ויבדל אלה[ים‬
‫‪̊ 4‬‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪5‬ויקרא ‪ v a c a t‬אלהים לאור יומם ולחשך קר[א‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪vacat‬‬ ‫יום אחד ‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מב[דיל‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪7‬אלהים את הרקיע ויבדיל בין המים אשר מתח[ת‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫מעל לרקיע ויהי כן ‪8‬ויקרא אלהים לרקיע ̊ש[מים‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪vacat‬‬ ‫יום שני ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫‪9‬ויאמר אלהים יקאו המים מתחת לשמים [‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫לי̇בשה ̊א[רץ‬
‫[ ] ו̇ י̇ ̊הי̊ ̊כן ‪10‬ויקרא ̊אלהים ̇‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫ויאמ[ר‬
‫[ ] כי טוב ‪̊ 11 vacat‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫?‪bottom margin‬‬

‫‪225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 244‬‬ ‫‪21/06/2019 16:37:16‬‬

 ‫‪Exegesis of the Bible Enriched by the Dead Sea Scrolls‬‬ ‫‪245‬‬

‫‪Frg. 2 Gen 1:13–22‬‬

‫ויהי ̇ב ̇קר י̇ ום ̇ש ̇לשי‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪14‬ויאמר אלהים יהי מארות ברקי̊ [ע‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫תות ולמעדים ̊ל[ימים ושנים ‪15‬‬ ‫לא ̇‬‫ובין הלילה ויהיו ̇‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ברקיע השמים להאיר על הארץ ויהי ̊כ[ן ‪16‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫ד]לים את המאור ̊ה[גדול‬ ‫הג[ ̇‬‫את שנ̇ י המארות ̇‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫הכוכב[ים ‪17‬‬
‫̊‬ ‫לממשל[ת]הלילה ואת‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[המ]אור הקטו̊ ן̊‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫]השמים ̊ל[האיר] על הארץ ‪18‬ולמשול ̇ב[יום‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫האו]ר ובין [החש]ך וירא ̊אלהים כי טוב [‪19‬‬ ‫ [‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪vacat‬‬ ‫רבי]עי ‬
‫̊‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫וע[וף‬
‫המים שרץ נפש היה ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫א]ל[הים ישרצו] ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[‪ 20‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫] ‪21‬ויברא אלהים את התנינים[‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪11‬‬
‫משת אשר שרצו המים ל[מיניהם‬ ‫] ̇ה ̊ר ̇‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪12‬‬
‫ויבר[ך‬
‫] אלהים כי טוב ‪̇ 22‬‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪13‬‬
‫בימי]ם והעוף י̇ ̊רבה ̇ב[ארץ‬ ‫̊ ‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪14‬‬
‫?‪bottom margin‬‬

‫‪Frg. 3 Gen 2:6–7 or 18–19‬‬

‫ויצר י[הוה‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪Appendix 5‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪4QJosha (DJD 14) Col. 1: Frgs. 1–2 Josh 8:34–35; 5:X, 2–7 Compared‬‬
‫‪with MT‬‬

‫‪top margin‬‬
‫שה[ את יה]ו̇ שוע אשר לא קרא יהשע נגד כל‬ ‫]ה ̊תורה ‪35‬לא היה דבר מכל ̇צוה ̇מ ̇‬ ‫[בספר ̇‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫והג[ר] ההולך בקרבם ‪5:X‬אחר אשר נתקו̇ [ ]‬ ‫הירד[ן ]ו̊ הנשים והטף ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[ישראל בעברו]את‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫הארון[ ]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫]ל[ ] ̊את ספר התורה אחר ̇כן [ ]ל‪ °‬נושאי‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ע]ש[ה לך חרבות צרים]‬‫בעת]ההיא אמר יהוה אליהש[ע ̇‬ ‫̊‬ ‫‪52‬‬
‫‪:‬‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫צ]ר[ים וימל את בני ישראל אל]‬‫י]השע ח[רבות ̊‬ ‫[ושוב מל את בני ישראל ‪5:3‬ויעש]ל[ו ̇‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ל[]ה ̊ע ̊ם ̊הי̊ ̊צ[א ממצרים הזכרים כל]‬
‫[גבעת הערלות ‪4‬וזה הדבר אשר מל יהושע כ] ̊‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪f.2‬‬
‫מצ ̇רי̇ ם ‪̇ 5‬כי̊ [מלים היו כל העם היצאים]‬
‫בצאתם]מ ̊‬
‫̊‬ ‫[אנשי המלחמה מתו במדבר בדרך‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ממצ[רים לא מלו ‪6‬כי ארבעים שנה הלכו]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫בצ]אתם‬
‫̊‬ ‫[וכל העם הילדים במדבר בדרך‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫המלח[מה היצאים ממצרים אשר לא שמעו]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫הגוי]אנ̇ ̇שי‬
‫̊‬ ‫[בני ישראל במדבר עד תם כל‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫לב]ל ̇תי ראות את ̊ה[ארץ אשר נשבע יהוה לאבותם]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[בקול יהוה אשר נשבע יהוה להם‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫]‬ ‫הק[ים ‬‫בני]הם ̊‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[לתת לנו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ‪7‬ואת‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫‪225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 245‬‬ ‫‪21/06/2019 16:37:16‬‬

 ‫‪246‬‬ ‫‪Tov‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪Appendix 6‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪4QJosha (DJD 14) Col. 1: Frgs. 1–2 Josh 8:34–35; 5:X, 2–7 Compared‬‬
‫‪with MT‬‬
‫)‪(with Indication of Sequence Differences‬‬

‫‪top margin‬‬
‫שה[את יה]ו̇ שוע אשר לא קרא יהשע נגד כל‬ ‫]ה ̊תורה ‪35‬לא היה דבר מכל ̇צוה ̇מ ̇‬ ‫[בספר ̇‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫והג[ר] ההולך בקרבם ‪5:X‬אחר אשר נתקו̇ [ ]‬ ‫הירד[ן ]ו̊ הנשים והטף ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[ישראל בעברו]את‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫הארון[ ]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[ ]ל[ ] ̊את ספר התורה אחר ̇כן [ ]ל‪ °‬נושאי‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ע]ש[ה לך חרבות צרים]‬‫בעת]ההיא אמר יהוה אליהש[ע ̇‬ ‫̊‬ ‫‪5:2‬‬ ‫[ ‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫צ]ר[ים וימל את בני ישראל אל]‬‫י]השע ח[רבות ̊‬ ‫[ושוב מל את בני ישראל ‪5:3‬ויעש]ל[ו ̇‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫ל[]ה ̊ע ̊ם ̊הי̊ ̊צ[א ממצרים הזכרים כל]‬
‫[גבעת הערלות ‪4‬וזה הדבר אשר מל יהושע כ] ̊‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪f.2‬‬
‫מצ ̇רי̇ ם ‪̇ 5‬כי̊ [מלים היו כל העם היצאים]‬
‫בצאתם]מ ̊‬
‫̊‬ ‫[אנשי המלחמה מתו במדבר בדרך‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫ממצ[רים לא מלו ‪6‬כי ארבעים שנה הלכו]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫בצ]אתם‬
‫̊‬ ‫[וכל העם הילדים במדבר בדרך‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫המלח[מה היצאים ממצרים אשר לא שמעו]‬ ‫̊‬ ‫הגוי]אנ̇ ̇שי‬
‫̊‬ ‫[בני ישראל במדבר עד תם כל‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫לב]ל ̇תי ראות את ̊ה[ארץ אשר נשבע יהוה לאבותם]‬ ‫̇‬ ‫[בקול יהוה אשר נשבע יהוה להם‬ ‫‪10‬‬
‫]‬ ‫הק[ים ‬‫בני]הם ̊‬ ‫̊‬ ‫[לתת לנו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ‪7‬ואת‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫‪225-246_Collins_14-Tov.indd 246‬‬ ‫‪21/06/2019 16:37:16‬‬