TRACKING CHANGES: A PROPOSAL FOR A LINGUISTICALLY SENSITIVE SCHEMA
FOR CATEGORIZING TEXTUAL VARIATION OF HEBREW BIBLE TEXTS IN LIGHT OF
VARIANT SCRIBAL PRACTICES AMONG THE JUDAEAN DESERT PSALMS
WITNESSES
by
DAVID J. SIGRIST
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
BIBLICAL STUDIES PROGRAM
We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard

____________________________________
Martin Abegg Jr., Ph.D.; Thesis Supervisor
____________________________________
Dirk Büchner, D.Litt.; Second Reader

TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY
May 2015
© David J. Sigrist

1

ABSTRACT
The Judaean Desert discoveries have revolutionized our understanding of the textual
development and transmission of the Hebrew Bible. Accordingly, after almost seventy years of
research, four theories of textual transmission have become predominant. Nevertheless, in recent
years the need to incorporate Second Temple scribal practices and historical linguistics into
current philological methods and text-critical approaches has come to the forefront.
This thesis proposes a linguistically sensitive schema for categorizing variation of Hebrew Bible
texts, which serves to incorporate historical linguistic insights alongside existing philological
models. Using such a schema this thesis presents three case studies from the Psalms to test
whether or not the identification of variant scribal practices, as discernible from computational
linguistics, can sufficiently explain the variation found among Judaean Desert psalms witnesses.
The conclusion affirms the validity and utility of such a schema and perspective for Hebrew
Bible textual studies.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Sigla and Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Statement of the Problem
1.2 Goal and Method

6
8

Chapter 2: Epistemological Issues
2.1 The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism
2.2 Determining Textual Affinity
2.3 Determining Textual Identity

10
11
14

Chapter 3: Survey of the Four Predominant Hebrew Bible Transmission Theories
3.1 The Local Texts Theory
3.2 The Multiple Pristine Texts Theory
3.3 The Non-Aligned Texts Theory
3.4 The Multiple Literary Editions Theory

21
24
28
31

Chapter 4: Identifying Variant Scribal Practices
4.1 Method for Identifying Variant Scribal Practices
4.2 Results of Computational Linguistic Reckoning

35
39

Chapter 5: Proposed Schema for Categorization of Textual Variation

48

Chapter 6: Case Studies in the Psalms
6.1 Basic Profile of Witnesses Cited
6.2 Rationale for Selected Psalms
6.3 Psalm 139 Case Study
6.4 Psalm 118 Case Study
6.5 Psalm 18 Case Study

55
58
59
81
93

Chapter 7: Conclusion
7.1 Summary Conclusion and Implications
7.2 Inquiries for Further Research

107
111

Appendix: Psalms Variants Referenced by BHS Versification

115

Works Consulted

185

3

SIGLA AND ABBREVIATIONS
[]
1°, 2°
ATTHB
BDB

space between fragments or where the surface of the manuscript is missing
first, second occurrence of a form in a given verse
Ronald Hendel, “Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible”
Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament
BHS
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
DCH
David Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew
DJD
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DSD
Dead Sea Discoveries
DSS
Dead Sea Scrolls
DSSB
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First
Time in English. Edited by Abegg, Martin Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich.
EBH
Early Biblical Hebrew
fem
Feminine
G
The Old Greek Text according to Rahlfs, Alfred, ed., Psalmi cum Odis.
GKC
Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar
HALOT Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament
HDSS
Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Kenn
Kennicott, Benjamin. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum Cum Variis Lectionibus
KJV
The King James Version
JBL
Journal of Biblical Literature
JHS
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
L
Leningrad Codex or B19A
LBH
Late Biblical Hebrew
LPIS
Martin Abegg, “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls”
LLBIS
E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll
(1QIsaa)
MH
Mishnaic Hebrew
masc
Masculine
ms(s)
Manuscript(s)
MT
Masoretic Text
NRSV
The New Revised Standard Version
pl
Plural
Reymond Eric Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and
Morphology
QH
Qumran Hebrew
QSP
Qumran Scribal Practice
S
Peshitta manuscript 7a1
SP
Samaritan Pentateuch
sg
Singular

4

T
TCHB
V
VT
WO

The Targum
Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
Weber, Robert, Roger Gryson, and Bonifatius Fischer, Biblia Sacra: iuxta
Vulgatam versionem
Vetus Testamentum
Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

5

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the Problem
Ever since the discovery and publication of the Judaean Desert manuscripts,1 there has been a
revolution in text-critical studies of the Hebrew Bible. Many scholars have undertaken to
develop theories and models that can best reconstruct the textual transmission and development
of the Hebrew Bible on the basis of this newfound data. This is because the DSS suggest that the
text of the Hebrew Bible is the result of scribal processes in which Vorlagen underwent relecture
or Fortschreibung,2 which resulted in 1) a blurring of traditional distinctions between textual
criticism (or so-called “lower criticism”) and literary criticism (or so-called “higher criticism”),
and 2) conceiving of the text during the Second Temple period as “fluid” instead of fixed. This
insight and subsequent paradigm shift of conceiving of a fixed text qua text to a fluid text qua
scribe was brought to light not only from philological comparison of variation between “biblical”
texts, but also investigation into the compositional and exegetical techniques of para-biblical
texts (or so-called rewritten Scripture) of the Second Temple period.3
By Judaean Desert manuscripts I am referring to all the manuscripts, commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, found
not only in the caves at and around Qumran, but also those from nearby sites in the Judaean desert. For a complete
list cf. Emanuel Tov, “A Categorized List of All the “Biblical Texts” Found in the Judaean Desert,” DSD 8/1 (2001),
67–84; Emanuel Tov, The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and An Introduction to the Discoveries of the
Judaean Desert Series (DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 27–114; and Emanuel Tov, Revised Lists of the
Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2010). For the sake of simplicity from here on I will refer to all these
documents simply as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) or the Qumran “biblical” and “non-biblical” corpora, unless
specified otherwise.
2
That is, exegetical or interpretive accretions produced during scribal transmission. Cf., e.g., Andrew D. Teeter “The
Hebrew Bible and/as Second Temple Literature: Methodological Reflections,” DSD 20/3 (2013), 349–377; and John
Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2006), 295.
3
For such treatments of the role of scribes in textual transmission, cf., e.g., Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and
Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 7–29; Eugene Ulrich,
1

6

This paradigm shift in recent years from text-critical analysis vis-à-vis text-types or
recensions to analysis vis-à-vis scribal practices has accordingly highlighted the need for a model
of philological comparison that takes into account variant scribal practices and historical
linguistic investigations of the Hebrew language in order to better describe this so-called textual
“fluidity” and better delineate the “controlled freedom of textual variation.”4 A prominent result
of such investigation has been Emanuel Tov’s proposed “Qumran Scribal Practice,” which was
developed from erudite research of Second Temple scribal culture and scrupulous analysis of
textual variation in terms of the linguistic categories of orthography, phonology, and
morphology.5 However, Tov’s proposed QSP has yet to be incorporated into a needed
linguistically sensitive schema for the praxis of philological comparison which both 1) takes into
account further linguistic categories, such as syntactical, lexical, and grammatical, and 2)
recognizes the distinct goals, methods, and conventions of variant scribal practices. Such insight
needs to be incorporated into philological comparison because despite the consensus of historical
linguists and textual critics, as Young and Rezetko point out: “Language scholars…commonly
work from the assumption that the MT provides detailed evidence of the linguistic forms used by
the original authors of biblical compositions.”6 A linguistically oriented approach will better
describe the so-called textual “fluidity” and delineate the “controlled freedom” of scribes by
“The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” in volume 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A
Comprehensive Assessment. 2 vols. (eds. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 79–100;
Michael Segal, “Between Bible and ‘Rewritten Bible’,” in Biblical Interpretation in Qumran (ed. Matthias Henze;
Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28; and Molly M. Zahn,
Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95;
Leiden: Brill, 2011).
4
Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook,” Qumran and the History of the Biblical
Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 326.
5
Cf. TCHB, 100–107.
6
Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach
(SBLANEM; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 71, (italics mine).

7

recognizing not only diachronic textual and literary factors in scribal transmission, but also
diachronic linguistic ones.

1.2 Goal and Method
The goal of this thesis is to propose a schema to be used for undertaking such an approach. Thus,
the proposed schema for philological comparison of textual variation will 1) include (and go
beyond) the linguistic categories of orthography, phonology, and morphology, and 2) provide a
theoretical framework which will serve well the purpose of recognizing and evaluating the goals,
methods, and conventions of variant scribal practices.
To be clear, this thesis will not address issues of if or how one can linguistically date
literary texts with a complex compositional and scribal history like the Hebrew Bible. Instead,
the scope of this thesis is to provide a tool, that is, the proposed schema, which will serve well
for furnishing data to answer linguistically focused text-critical inquiries, and to identify variant
scribal practices as a key factor for explaining textual variation.
To accomplish this goal, and in doing so establish the validity and utility of this schema
for Hebrew Bible text-critical studies, chapter two will first elucidate the epistemological
grounds for determining textual affinity and textual identity so as to furnish a posteriori
assessments which in turn lead to an explanation of the data (and not vice-versa). Chapter three
will briefly survey the four predominant Hebrew Bible transmission theories and highlight how
the recognition of variant scribal practices and use of historical linguistics are not yet adequately
invoked for explaining and describing both the homogeneity and heterogeneity exhibited by
manuscripts. Chapter four will propose the identification of three variant scribal practices or

8

approaches on the basis of computational linguistic grounds. Chapter five will present the
proposed schema for philological comparison of textual variation. Then chapter six will
empirically demonstrate the validity and utility of this schema and the identified variant practices
on the basis of three case studies from the psalms. These case studies will highlight not only the
utility for text-critical analyses, but also linguistic, and even exegetical analyses. Finally, the
conclusion will affirm the existence of variant scribal practices or approaches in the Qumran
“biblical” corpus and the utility of the proposed schema for describing and explaining its textual
variation.

9

CHAPTER TWO
EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES

This chapter will establish the epistemological grounds for determining textual affinity and
textual identity so as to provide a firm basis for conducting a posteriori assessments which serve
to explain data (and not the other way around). Such a basis is required for elucidating the
epistemological commitments of the four predominant transmission theories, and in turn, for the
proposed schema.
2.1 The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism
Before the DSS triggered a re-evaluation of textual transmission theories, an empirical impasse
had been reached between what may be called the camp of the Urtext theory, mainly associated
with Paul de Lagarde, and the camp of the Vulgärtexte theory, mainly associated with Paul
Kahle.7 Accordingly, text-critics spoke of the history of the biblical text in terms of text-types,
recensions, familial relations, and/or textual traditions. And so the predominant model divided
the transmission history text into three meta-witnesses, namely, the Masoretic Text (MT), the
Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the presumed Old Greek (or Septuagint) Vorlage (G Vorlage), as
reconstructed through retroversion, with all other witnesses subordinate to or dependent on these
three. Within this model the Torah was understood as having three recensions (MT, SP, and G
Vorlage), and the Prophets and Writings two (MT and G Vorlage).8 This model of a tri- and
bipartite division remained constant and normative in the midst of the occasional nuancing of
7
8

For a summary of both camps, cf. TCHB, 155–180.
Besides the SP of Joshua.

10

terms and descriptions until the advent of the DSS. Accordingly, few studies were carried out to
determine the relationship between the witnesses themselves.9
Today, however, in what may be called the post-Qumran era, the meta-witnesses of MT,
SP, and G Vorlage are conceived of as simply texts, and not by necessity text-types, recensions,
and/or textual traditions. This is because the Qumran “biblical” corpus has led scholars to
recognize that the various texts to which these three meta-witnesses bear witness were
interrelated in antiquity by a rather complex web of identical and divergent readings across a
broad continuum of divergence ranging from repetition to resignification as a result of scribal
processes.10 Thus the Qumran “biblical” manuscripts became the catalyst for developing
alternative models and transmission theories of the history of the biblical text, a catalyst that
began to take into account what we may call change in story, and then what we may call change
in language.11
We will now proceed to determine how such textual affinity among manuscripts may be
established.

2.2 Determining Textual Affinity
In order to speak properly of textual affinity,12 we must establish how textual relationships can be
For a fuller overview, cf. TCHB 155–161.
This reality is expressed in Talmon’s “kaleidoscope of textual traditions.” Cf. Frank Moore Cross and Talmon
Shemaryahu, Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975). For a
summary of the relevance these theories has played in the praxis of textual criticism, cf. Emanuel Tov, “The
Relevance of Textual Theories for the Praxis of Textual Criticism,” in volume 1 of A Teacher for All Generations:
Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (eds. Eric F. Mason et al; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of
Judaism 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 23–36.
11
For a text-critical approach which takes into account change in text, story, and language in light of the DSS data,
cf. Robert Rezetko, “The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges: Literary Formation, Textual Criticism, and
Historical Linguistics,” JHS 13 (2013).
12
By “textual affinity” I am referring to how variant texts are said to be related to one another.
9

10

11

determined in the first place. How does one conceive of a written text? How does one describe
both the homogeneity and heterogeneity between the texts of various manuscripts of a given
literary composition? For better or worse, the dominant philological tool has been the assessment
of Leitfehler or “indicative errors.”13 This term is associated with the 19th century classicist and
philologist Karl Lachmann.14 His approach presumes a familial framework that takes shared
indicative divergences from a textual ancestor to be the clearest evidence of textual affinity, and
then traces them along a textual family tree, thus producing manuscript stemmata.15 In contrast,
then, any readings that are not divergent from their textual ancestors, but instead shared, do not
indicate any particular textual affinity.16
So among a group of manuscripts of a given literary composition these Leitfehler
manifest themselves as shared variant readings, which one could consider to be innovations or
errors, either inadvertent or deliberate.17 Now, three aspects of such variation must be
considered.18 1) There are many kinds of inadvertent (typically labelled erroneous) scribal
Bruno Chiesa, “Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament,” in The Madrid Qumran
Congress: Proceedings to the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March, 1991 (eds.
Julio Trebolle Barrera et al; Studies on the Texts of the Judaean Desert 12; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 267.
14
For an introduction into Lachmann’s method, cf. Sebastiano Timpanaro, The Genesis of Lachmann’s Method (ed.
and tr. Glenn W. Most; Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 2005).
15
Timpanaro emphasizes that “only coincidence in error can indicate the kinship between two manuscripts,” The
Genesis of Lachmann’s Method, 89.
16
As Ronald Hendel points out, a useful analogy to this method is used in evolutionary biology in that the traits that
make a new genus or species are those which diverge from a shared ancestor. For example, humans share 96% of
their DNA with chimpanzees, but it is the 4% divergence that makes humans distinct. Additionally, it is this 4%
genetic divergence which helps us determine and classify relationships and distinctions among humans as well,
whether on an individual or a broader familial or tribal level. Accordingly, every individual human being has a
distinct DNA code whose divergence marks particular individuality, lineage, etc. So from the point of view of the
shared ancestor, DNA encoded divergences are akin to textual Leitfehler. Cf. ATTHB, 283.
17
This point is key for determining whether or not linguistic updating of a text is considered to be faithful
transmission or not, and for distinguishing erroneous variation from linguistic or substantial variation. The lack of
incorporating the variant goals, methods, and conventions of variant scribal practices into analyses of textual
variation is exemplified well by the ubiquitous use of the term “faithful” (as opposed to a term like slavish or
robotic) to describe the work of “mirror-copyist” scribes, and “unfaithful” to describe the work of “mixer” or
“translator” scribes. Cf. chapters 4 and 5 for definitions of these terms.
18
Cf. ATTHB, 284 for aspects 1 and 2.
13

12

variation, such as dittography, homoioteleuton, graphic confusion, parablepsis, etc., which
Goshen-Gottstein aptly calls the “law of scribes.”19 Such innovations or variants are not
considered distinctive enough to be Leitfehler since they tend to occur among scribes working in
divergent settings and circumstances. 2) A single Leitfehler, or perhaps even a few, may be too
narrow a basis for determining a solid textual affinity since it is possible for multiple
independent scribes to produce similar Leitfehler for a variety of reasons. 3) Such textual
relationships must be recognized as etic, and not emic.20 This is to say, the text-critic is an outside
(etic) observer who is thereby well-equipped — arguably even more than a manuscript’s original
scribe(s) — to determine what the specific variants are, where they occur, etc., which serves as
raw data for text-critical investigations. However, this etic knowledge, in and of itself, does not
equip the text-critic with emic knowledge, that is, insight into the reason or purpose the scribe(s)
produced such variation.21 Therefore, the only reliable basis for determining a solid textual
affinity is a collection of Leitfehler or shared textual pattern(s), whose scope for inquiries into
why such variation occurs is admittedly limited without a more robust theoretical framework.
And since the meta-witnesses (and therefore the manuscripts which bear such witness) share an
interrelated and complex relationship, determining the nature of such textual affinity is a worthy
and necessary goal.

Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition,” in
Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Talmon Shemaryahu; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1975), 74.
20
While normally invoked for epistemological purposes within studies in Cultural Anthropology, the distinction
between what is known as an outsider observer (etic) and what is known as an experiencer (emic) is apropos textual
criticism since it is quite a distinct (and indeed much more difficult) discipline to determine why variation occurs
than to identify and categorize it.
21
This is principally because the tools of investigation for such emic inquiries are much more varied since many
more factors are involved (e.g., socio-religious, linguistic, scribal culture, and literary).
19

13

We will now proceed in order to determine how texts with such varying affinity may be
identified as witnesses to specific literary compositions.

2.3 Determining Textual Identity
In order to speak properly of textual identity,22 we must address the epistemological
commitments which, consciously or not, underlie text-critical transmission theories and
theoretical frameworks, and from there serve to determine the categories used for identifying
variation.
First of all, we must admit that there are myriad possible ways of classifying most
datasets. This is because the development of any classification or category depends on one’s
criteria, and criteria are properly developed by carefully and prudently deciding what should be
included or excluded, and emphasized or ignored (especially since no set of criteria can be
absolutely exhaustive or comprehensive). Ideally useful criteria are both relevant to the
classifier’s goals and comparable among all the evidence. Then once the chosen criteria form
relevant and comparable categories, the data should ideally be sufficiently full so as to warrant
the strength of the conclusions and judgments made from it. Admittedly, even with the advent of
the Qumran corpus, the textual data available for determining the textual history of the Hebrew
Bible remains quite scarce. This explains the concurrent promulgation of varying transmission
theories and text-critical methodologies among capable scholars, which in turn highlights the call
for caution and humility in making conclusions regarding the data.

By “textual identity” I am referring to how variant texts are able to be identified as witnesses to the same literary
composition.
22

14

The epistemological commitments which hover, perhaps ominously, over issues of
determining criteria and identity are those of realist and nominalist perspectives.23 The following
is a brief overview of the issues surrounding the debate between realist and nominalist
perspectives, which will serve to elucidate how text-critics may speak of textual identity and
from there develop frameworks and models for categorizing textual variation.
At least since the time of Plato, realists have asserted that both particular (or concrete)
and universal (or abstract or general) entities exist, whereas nominalists have asserted that only
particular entities exist.24 A particular entity is said to be that which is known through empirical
sensory contact, whereas a universal entity is said to be that which is grasped only by the
intellect. So both realists and nominalists endeavour to categorize entities25 and explain
regularities in patterns.26 So in essence, both ask the question: How does X resemble Y? And if X
does resemble Y, it is because they are identical27 in some qualitative way.28
To accomplish this, realists assert that, for example, “dogness” is a universal entity, so
that a given poodle and a given terrier resemble each other by participating in the existence of
ATTHB, 287.
While the debate between realism and nominalism dates back at least to the time of Plato, the specific label
“nominalist” is generally attributed to what emerged out of medieval discussions with French theologian and
philosopher Roscelin of Compiègne. Cf. Stephen Arthur McGrade, The Cambridge Companion to Medieval
Philosophy (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 21–28; 196–207.
25
Such as red vs blue objects, horses vs oxen, etc.
26
Such as social behaviours, seasonal weather, etc.
27
Issues of resemblance are closely tied to issues of identity, as is shown below.
28
It may be helpful to distinguish between qualitative identity and numerical identity. Qualitative identity
determines identities between qualities, and numerical identity determines identities between particulars. Things
with qualitative identity share certain properties on a spectrum (that is, they may be less or more qualitatively
identical). For example, qualitative identity may determine that Socrates resembles Plato because they both share
properties of “wisdom,” or that Poodles resemble Terriers because they share properties of “dogness.” Numerical
identity, on the other hand, requires absolute qualitative identity so that it can only compare a thing with itself. Note
that the term “numerical identity” here supposes the view that numerical identity is the only identity relationship
with which one may properly number things. For more on types of identity, cf. Peter T. Geach, “Ontological
Relativity and Relative Identity”, in Logic and Ontology (ed. M. K. Munitz; New York: New York University Press,
1973).
23
24

15

“dogness.” Thus, in effect, universals are made primary, and particulars secondary. Nominalists,
however, assert that, for example, a poodle and a terrier might both participate in a cognitive
and/or linguistic construct that can be labelled “dogness,” which may be useful for categorizing
such particulars that share empirically perceived qualities, but that “dogness” does not exist in
and of itself as a real entity. Thus, in effect, particulars are made primary, and universals
secondary. Otherwise stated, in praxis realists endeavour to solve questions of qualitative
resemblance by positing the existence of two kinds of entities, namely, particulars and
universals, and asserting that particulars resemble each other because they participate in the same
universals. And from there universals may then participate in other “higher” universals, and so
on. Nominalists, on the other hand, endeavour to solve questions of qualitative resemblance by
delineating the qualities which enable particulars to participate in cognitive and/or linguistic
constructs. Otherwise stated, nominalists seek to identify what the particular properties are which
create the appearance of resemblance. So both approaches seek to answer questions of identity
and resemblance found in particulars.
In praxis, nearly all people tend to operate with a synthesis (indeed often a contradictory
one) of both epistemological commitments in different areas of their lives. The following
discussion highlights certain endemic difficulties which plague these commitments that are
relevant for providing a conceptual framework for determining textual identity.
We will first address difficulties endemic to nominalism. The first is how to explain the
apparent reality of resemblance. This is a difficulty because nominalists assert there are no real
resemblances since any type of resemblance is merely a cognitive and/or linguistic construct.
However, at least in the vast majority of cases, empirical investigation does not appear to decide

16

beforehand what the resemblances are going to be or where they are to be found. For example,
one does not decide that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius. One only decides the categories
used to determine temperature, namely, degrees on a scale. Another difficulty for nominalism is
that it cannot effectively explain the use of abstract reference, that is, when qualities which do
not exist in reality are the subject of discourse. For example, when someone says wisdom is a
virtue, they are not saying all wise people are virtuous since the sentence “wisdom is a virtue” is
about the universal of wisdom itself. And a third well-known difficulty for nominalism is
counting particulars. An infamous example of this is Geach’s puzzle of the 1001 cats, which is a
paradox pointed out already by the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus in the 3rd century BCE.29 The
puzzle goes as follows: Say that Tibbles is a cat on a mat and has 1,000 hairs, labeled h1, h2,
h3…and so on until h1000. Let c represent Tibbles, including all his 1,000 hairs, and let c1 then
represent all of Tibbles except for h1, and c2 be all of Tibbles except for h2, and so on until
c1000. Each one of those c’s is a cat. So instead of there being one cat on the mat, there are
1,001 cats on the mat. The paradox arises because the term “cat” is too vague for determining a
particular identity since it can be used to identify each one of the hair-cat combinations. So what
is true for counting cats holds true for counting any other particular we empirically observe, thus
making the criterion for counting particulars actually a paradox in nominalist frameworks.30 This
Cf. Peter T. Geach, Reference and Generality (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980).
In the late first century CE Plutarch illustrated a similar paradox: “τὸ δὲ πλοῖον ἐν ᾧ µετὰ τῶν ἠϊθέων ἔπλευσε καὶ
πάλιν ἐσώθη, τὴν τριακόντορον, ἄχρι τῶν Δηµητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως χρόνων διεφύλαττον οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰ µὲν
παλαιὰ τῶν ξύλων ὑφαιροῦντες, ἄλλα δὲ ἐµβάλλοντες ἰσχυρὰ καὶ συµπηγνύντες οὕτως ὥστε καὶ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις εἰς
τὸν αὐξόµενον λόγον ἀµφιδοξούµενον παράδειγµα τὸ πλοῖον εἶναι, τῶν µὲν ὡς τὸ αὐτό, τῶν δὲ ὡς οὐ τὸ αὐτὸ
διαµένοι λεγόντων.” (The Athenians carefully preserved the ship in which [Theseus] sailed with the youths and
safely returned, the thirty-oared ship, down to the time of Demetrios the Phalerian by taking the old timbers away
and putting in and constructing strong ones. Thus for the philosophers it became an paradigmatic matter for doubt
with regards to the growing question of what the ship was. Some saying it did, and others that it did not continue to
be the same [ship]).” Plut. Thes. 23.1, (translation mine).
Following this, the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented a variant of Plutarch’s puzzle which goes as
follows: “If the ship of Theseus were continually repaired by the replacing of all the old planks with new, then –
29
30

17

difficulty has also been described as the indeterminacy of particulars. If, for example, a
mountain is considered to be a particular entity, how does one determine precisely where it
begins, where it ends, and, let us say, an adjacent valley begins? With reference to text-critical
investigations of a particular manuscripts of a particular literary composition, if a scribe copies
his text letter for letter exactly, yet leaves out one given sentence or word, is the new manuscript
truly a copy of the same composition? To solve this difficulty many have proposed speaking of
natural versus conventional entities, with natural entities being those that truly exist in nature as
distinct entities, and conventional entities being those that only exist as cognitive or linguistic
constructs. Yet, this is not without its own difficulties.
We will now address difficulties endemic to realism. The first is how to justify its claim
to the existence of universals. Although Plato argued all particulars are shadows of universal
forms (ἰδέαι), he unfortunately did not provide any sound methodology or criteria for locating
either where this transcendent realm of universals might exist, beyond simply being in the aether
(αἰθέρι). Another difficulty for realism is also ironically one of its discernible strengths. On the
one hand, realism allows one to utilize effectively the subject-predicate structure of discourse
through which one is able to reference reality through language.31 However, related to the first
difficulty, how does one accurately determine whether or not a given subject sufficiently
according to the Athenian philosophers – the later ship would be numerically identical with the original. But if some
man had kept the old planks as they were taken out and were to assemble a ship of them, then this ship would, also,
without doubt be numerically identical with the original. And so there would be two ships, existing at the same time,
both of which would be numerically identical with the original. But this latter verdict is absurd.” Thomas Hobbes,
De Corpore Politico, Or, The Elements of Law Moral & Politick with Discourses upon Several Heads, as of the Law
of Nature, Oathes and Covenants, Several Kinds of Government: With the Changes and Revolutions of Them
(London: Printed by Tho. Roycroft for John Martin, 1652).
31
For example, if you assert that “Socrates is very wise,” according to the realist it can be true because the particular
of Socrates (subject) sufficiently exemplifies the universal of wisdom (predicate). For realist-minded text-critics, an
analogous structure allows one to say effectively that this witness or manuscript exemplifies a given text-type or
given composition.

18

corresponds to a certain particular, or whether or not a given predicate corresponds sufficiently
to a certain universal? In addition, if it is unclear to which universal a predicate corresponds, then
cognitive dissonance can easily ensue from identifying myriad universals.32 This difficulty has to
do with the issue of exemplification, that is, how does one determine the relationship that binds
particulars and universals?33 Furthermore, how is the relationship determined that binds
universals to higher ones, such as, “dogness” and “animalness,” or “redness” to “color,” and so
on? Also, ancillary to this is the question, if universals are perceived only by the intellect, how
can one resolve problems if one is unable to resolve mental disagreements?34 So whatever is
unable to be empirically deduced cannot be properly resolved without a satisfactory answer to
this difficulty.
Thus for the realist, terms like the “Hebrew Bible,” “Psalter,” or “Masoretic Text,” or
even simply “text” refer to abstract universals that exist beyond the physical evidence (namely,
manuscripts), whereas for the nominalist these terms only refer to qualitative properties of
empirically observable particulars. This explains why a realist-minded text-critic may observe a
textual dataset and then “discover” a family or stemma of related texts, whereas a nominalistminded one may observe the same dataset and instead “discover” certain shared traits or
phenomena among a certain collection of manuscripts. Interestingly, in text-critical work those
who practice these two general approaches have been labelled as “clumpers” (here corresponding

What is more, other logical paradoxes, such as Russell’s paradox, exclude the possibility of certain predicates
even exemplifying universals in the first place.
33
For example, if a Terrier is said to exemplify “dogness,” then how does a given Terrier participate in “dogness?”
34
For example, the sentence “Murder is wrong” must be mentally deduced (not empirically).
32

19

roughly to realists) and “splitters” (here corresponding roughly to nominalists).35 As is true for
many philosophical and metaphysical clashes, both approaches provide valid arguments and
furnish helpful insights, yet both are difficult to reconcile and synthesize in practice. Being
aware, though, of such tensions allows one to better comprehend the true causes of difficulty and
disagreement.
This discussion is not intended in any way to advance or solve the age-old realist/
nominalist debate. Rather it is intended to clarify the kinds of commitments required and
problems endemic to such approaches, which will serve to elucidate (while building on the
previous discussion of the DSS’ impact on Hebrew Bible textual criticism and issues concerning
determining textual affinity) the following survey of the four predominant transmission theories
of the Hebrew Bible.36

Note that Cross admitted to being a “clumper” in Frank Moore Cross, “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran
Studies,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Madrid 18–21 March, 1991 (eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992),
6–7.
36
There are, of course, other popular epistemologies such as trope theory (advocated by D. C. Williams),
universalism, a version of which Bertrand Russell defended (bundle theory), and facts. For an introduction to
contemporary epistemology cf. Matthias Steup, An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology (Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall, 1996); and Robert Audi, Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of
Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
35

20

CHAPTER THREE
SURVEY OF THE FOUR PREDOMINANT HEBREW BIBLE TRANSMISSION
THEORIES

As stated in chapter 1.2, this chapter will briefly survey the four predominant Hebrew Bible
transmission theories in order to demonstrate that the recognition of variant scribal practices and
use of historical linguistics have not been adequately utilized for addressing both the
homogeneity and heterogeneity among manuscripts. In doing so, each respective theory’s
methodology, epistemological underpinnings, weaknesses, and strengths, will also be
highlighted.
3.1 The Local Texts Theory
William F. Albright inaugurated the “post-Qumran era” of Hebrew Bible textual scholarship
with his programmatic call for a theory of “local textual recensions,”37 which was built directly
upon the already established tripartite model mentioned in chapter 2.1. According to his theory,
between roughly the fifth and first centuries BCE three text-types, the (proto-)MT, (proto-)SP,
and (proto-)G Vorlage, developed in isolation from each other in Babylonia, Palestine, and Egypt
respectively.38 As the theory goes, local texts first began to develop and subsequently diverge in
Babylonia and Palestine in the 5th century BCE. And then in the 3rd century the Palestinian text
was used as the base text for the Old Greek (or Septuagint) in Egypt, which subsequently
William F. Albright, “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible,” in Qumran and the History of the
Biblical Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 140–
146.
38
Cf. Frank Moore Cross, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text,” in
Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1975), 278–292.
37

21

developed in similar isolation with ad hoc characteristics. Then only around the first century
BCE these three local text types began to influence each other.39
Later Frank M. Cross expanded and refined this theory based on his research in preparing
the Qumran Cave 4 biblical manuscripts for publication.40 However, Cross differed from
Albright in that he described the various textual groupings as families instead of recensions.41 In
addition, Cross asserted that a reconstruction of the history of the biblical text in fact required
adherence to a theory of local texts in which the text-critic, conceiving of text qua text, sought to
“ferret out” inferior readings.42
Thus the local text theory is a realist approach since the relationship between textual
families (such as Babylonian, Egyptian, and Palestinian) are understood in terms of text-critical
and historical-geographical features, which are said to exist beyond the particular manuscript
evidence.
Despite its relative clarity, simplicity, and ability to reasonably overcome the realist

James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 133.
Cf. Frank Moore Cross, “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Text,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical
Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 306–320.
41
The reason was because recension tended to imply a systematic revision, such as the Jewish recensions of the
Septuagint, so that it was no longer more or less synonymous with text-type. Cross wrote: “Against Albright, we
should argue, however, that the local textual families in question are not properly called ‘recensions.’ They are the
product of natural growth or development in the process of scribal transmission, not of conscious or controlled
textual recension.” Frank Moore Cross, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical
Text,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon;
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 282.
42
Frank Moore Cross, “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Canonical Text,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea
Scrolls: The Hebrew Bible and Qumran. Proceedings of the Jubilee Celebration at Princeton Theological Seminary
(ed. James H. Charlesworth; Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000), 75. In order to do so, Cross stated that “[a]ny
reconstruction of the history of the biblical text before the establishment of the traditional text in the first century
A.D. must comprehend this evidence: the plurality of text-types, the limited number of distinct textual families, and
the homogeneity of each of these textual families over centuries of time. We are required by these data, it seems to
me, to recognize the existence of local texts which developed in the main centers of Jewish life in the Persian and
Hellenistic age.” Frank Moore Cross, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical
Text,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon;
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 282.
39
40

22

problem of justifying the existence of universal forms,43 the theory does warrant criticism. First
of all, a theory which builds on a tripartite division to begin with will by default privilege and
inevitably “discover” the MT, SP, and G text-types, thereby downplaying or ignoring the
complexity of the textual reality. Second, the characteristics of each textual family are quite
general, making it quite difficult to establish precise criteria for determining of which family a
given witness is a part. This is to be expected due to the problem of exemplification inherent in
realist models.44 Third, and along similar lines, the retroverted G Vorlage does not seem to reflect
any particularly Egyptian characteristics.45 Fourth, given the imprecise criteria, the process of
categorizing particular DSS witnesses as Babylonian, Palestinian, or Egyptian becomes quite
conjectural since all of them were found in situ in Palestine, and contain no extra-textual
evidence for being categorized as such. Fifth, there is little historical explanation for why each
text would develop in such stark isolation despite presumed contact between Jews during the
time periods referred to, especially between Egypt and Palestine. Sixth, this theory fails to
explain the remarkable similarities shared by all three text types.46 And seventh (and most
relevant for this study), this theory almost completely minimizes, if not outright ignores, the role
Universal forms here correspond by analogy to the existence of three distinct text-types.
In fact, Natalio Fernández Marcos has concluded in this regard: “The lack of links that would allow us to
reconstruct all the vicissitudes of the complex textual history, and its somewhat speculative nature, have caused this
hypothesis of local texts, followed in general by Cross’s disciples and the Harvard school, to be received cautiously
by others and even to be rejected.” Natalio Fernández Marco, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek
Version of the Bible (Boston: Brill, 2000), 74. Likewise, George Howard concludes in his criticism of Cross’s
methodology for isolating the “Egyptian” Hebrew text of Samuel-Kings: “[Cross] has no viable way to isolate the
so-called Egyptian Hebrew text of Samuel-kings.” George E. Howard, “Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism,” VT
21/4 (1971), 450.
45
Note the distinction between the supposed Septuagint Hebrew Vorlage (originating, allegedly, locally in Egypt)
and the Septuagint Greek itself unapologetically betraying Egyptian Greek tendencies. For some of the latter, Jan
Joosten. “Language as Symptom: Linguistic Clues as to the Social Background of the Seventy.” Textus 23 (2007).
46
Such as, e.g., how such similar texts could literarily develop independently from traditional source texts. This is
similar to Talmon’s critique of how the theory fails to explain the restricted plurality of text types. Shemaryahu
Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook,” Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds.
Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 321–400.
43
44

23

of the individual scribes in the production of text since the scribes are characterized as strict
copyists47 of a distinct locale, whose erroneous scribal work is to be “ferreted out” instead of
taken in account. Such is the terminology and language of text-critical scholarship which
conceives of text qua text, with only ad hoc consideration of the role of the scribe who produced
the text.
One may hold a more nuanced view of the Local Texts Theory which adjusts the
boundary conditions or the number of categories according to other text-critical and historicalgeographical factors. Plus, certainly more can be said to clarify Cross’ “plurality of text-types,
the limited number of distinct textual families, and the homogeneity of each of these textual
families.”48 And admittedly the theory works well for discerning clear relationships between
texts and explaining the diversity between related manuscripts of the same works, thus
overcoming the problem of explaining apparent resemblance which is endemic of nominalist
models. And it at least attempts to provide a historical reconstruction of the biblical text.
However, variant scribal practices and historical linguistics are not taken in account for
addressing the homogeneity and heterogeneity between manuscripts, which leads to a gross
simplification of the complexity of the textual situation.

3.2 The Multiple Pristine Texts Theory
Shemaryahu Talmon followed Paul Kahle’s proposition that there was no single Urtext, but

Cf. the “mirror” scribes of chapter 5.
Frank Moore Cross, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text,” in Qumran
and the History of the Biblical Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1975), 282.
47
48

24

rather a plurality of text types or Vulgärtexte which only subsequently became a unity. So
informed by the studies of H. L. Strack and V. Aptowitzer, Shemaryahu Talmon criticized the
Local Texts Theory by focusing on two of its central claims: 1) that there was a limited number
of textual families, and 2) that the growth and stability of the distinct textual families must be
explained by geographical factors. To these claims he proposed that: 1) there may have been a
great plurality of textual families which did not survive, and 2) the locus for these textual
families is to be found in distinct social groups who sought to preserve their sacred literature,
rather than the separation of geographical locales.49
Given the scarcity of evidence it is certainly possible that one or more such textual
families have not survived antiquity. However, any proper historical reconstruction should not
settle on what is possible, but on what is the most plausible, and ideally on what is observable.
And the fact is we do not have any evidence of additional textual families existing in antiquity,
nor, arguably, compelling extra-textual reasons indicating there were.50
In a certain way, Talmon’s Gruppentexte or “social groups” theory is more of a
modification of the Local Texts Theory than an entirely new one since it replaces geographical
locales with social groups. Accordingly, this theory, which emphasizes the socio-religious
“[O]ne is inclined to attribute [the limited number of textual families] to two factors: (a) historical vicissitudes
which caused other textual families to disappear: (b) the necessary socio-religious conditions for the preservation of
a text-tradition, namely its acceptance by a sociologically integrated and definable body… Contradictory as it may
sound, one is almost inclined to say that the question to be answered with regard to the history of the Old Testament
text does not arise from the extant ‘plurality of text-types’ but rather from the disappearance of other and more
numerous textual traditions.” Shemaryahu Talmon. “The Old Testament Text,” in Qumran and the History of the
Biblical Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 40.
Cf. also Shemaryahu, Talmon, “The Transmission History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Biblical
Manuscripts from Qumran and Other Sites in the Judean Desert,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their
Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress (eds. Lawrence Schiffman et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 2000), 40–50. For an overview of Kahle’s theory, cf. TCHB 156–7; 169-174; and for a discussion of Strack
and Aptowitzer’s work cf. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. The Book of Isaiah: Sample Edition with Introduction
(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965).
50
Note that this problem of counting particulars is endemic to nominalist models, as pointed out in chapter 2.3.
49

25

context, has much to commend it since such a context should play a key role in historically
reconstructing how religious texts developed among social groups, and in particular how alleged
textual families were preserved among the scribes of various religious communities. Indeed, this
insight opens a door for incorporating insight from our knowledge of scribal culture and
historical linguistics. Thus with such a perspective in mind Talmon rightly observes that the
(proto-)MT text-type was eventually preserved as a textus receptus in post-70 C.E. Jewish
communities, the Septuagint in Christian communities, and the Samaritan Pentateuch (naturally)
in the Samaritan community. Additionally, based on this insight Talmon conjectures that the
(proto-)MT text-type was the controlled or authorized version among the Jerusalem temple
scribes.51
Talmon’s theory greatly differs from the Local Texts Theory, though, in his idea of
“divergent pristine textual traditions.” Instead of presuming that divergent textual traditions stem
from a shared archetype text, he theorizes that they stem from divergent pristine textual
traditions.52 Now, defining what the divergent pristine textual traditions precisely are, which
groups produced them, and providing clear criteria for distinguishing them, is indeed
problematic.
Thus Talmon’s Multiple Pristine Texts theory is a nominalist approach since variants are
However, note that, e.g., the Chronicler, writing presumably in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period did not
use (proto-)MT texts (which may help explain the lack of Chronicles manuscripts [perhaps one] at Qumran despite
its great length)? So one must limit how far back one might push this conjecture. For more info cf. Eugene C.
Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature
(Leiden/Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 1999), 189–92; Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9 (Anchor Bible 12; New
York: Doubleday, 2004), 69–70; and also y. Ta‘an. 4.68a.
52
Cf. Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Old Testament Text,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds. Frank
Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 4; Shemaryahu Talmon, “The
Transmission History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran and Other
Sites in the Judean Desert, ” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the
Jerusalem Congress (eds. Lawrence Schiffman et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 46.
51

26

not categorized as “original,” “archetypical,” or “primary,” but instead each distinct reading has
its own irreducible individuality and status, which is ultimately rooted in the indeterminacy of
conventional entities. Accordingly, there is no root or apex to this family tree, just pristine
branches.
As suggested above, a noticeable problem with the pristine branches aspect of the theory
is that it projects aspects of the so-called “kaleidoscope of textual traditions” into the distant past
without providing any historical origin or relationship to the developmental stages of the biblical
books, even if such a kaleidoscope of traditions is plausible, or even likely at a level of, let us
say, oral transmission. Additionally, Flint and VanderKam have noted that Talmon’s approach
“downplays the existence of distinct groups or families of texts that have been identified,” which
is a criticism to be expected of nominalist models that have inherent difficulty explaining the
reality of resemblance.53 This also makes it difficult to argue cogently for group-specific textual
data or determine how a given group chose a text, whether by accident or otherwise.54
Another noticeable problem with Talmon’s theory is what may be called the “sociotextual” situation at Qumran where most of the evidence cited was found in situ. The Qumran
community was undoubtedly a sectarian social group with an intense literary focus. And if at
least most of the DSS were related to or produced by the community at and near Qumran (or the
Essenes in general, if we may say Qumran was home to a [proto-]Essene community at at least
some point), then it is problematic that we do not find any clear indication that this group
James VanderKam and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding
the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002), 146.
54
Cf. Eugene C. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,” in The Madrid
Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991
(eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; Studies on the Text of the Judaean Desert 11; Leiden: Brill,
1993), 27.
53

27

preferred one text-type over another.55
Despite these weaknesses, however, Talmon’s emphasis on the socio-religious situation
and scribal practices is invaluable, and should be a key component in any historically plausible
text-critical reconstruction, especially in blurring the modern post-printing press (or even postMasoretic) distinction between author and editor and copyist when it comes to ancient texts and
scribal practices. Note also that such insight helps overcome the nominalist problem of
explaining the use of abstract reference, here being the focus of socio-religious issues and the
product of individual scribes.

3.3 The Non-Aligned Texts Theory
Emanuel Tov’s prolific and erudite work on textual studies of the Hebrew Bible has arguably
created “a productive tension between the nominalist and realist perspectives, which in some
respects provides a synthesis of both perspectives.”56 This considerable strength, though, is also
an inherent weakness. This is because while Tov’s theories are continually refined and
analytically rich for the nominalist, they also tend to be inconsistent when viewed as a whole and
difficult to synthesize for the realist.
Tov has developed a classification schema of groups for the “Biblical Texts Found in the
Cf. Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54;
Leiden: Brill, 2004), 261–73. For a broader overview cf. Adam S. Van Der Woude, “Fifty Years of Qumran
Research,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After 50 Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (eds. Peter W. Flint and James C.
Vanderkam; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1–45. Note that Talmon states with regard to the Great Psalms Scroll that its
variations demonstrate that those at Qumran “freely adapted canonical texts to the particular requirement of their
community and their time.” Shemaryahu Talmon, “Between the Bible and Mishna,” in The World of Qumran from
Within (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989), 33. And note that this observation supports Michael Wise’s thesis in
Language and literacy in Roman Judaea: a Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2015) that Qumran was not a unified archive, but rather a collection of individual personal libraries. Therefore
the Essene theory is one I accept here only for the sake of argument.
56
ATTHB, 291
55

28

Judean Desert” according to their “textual character”: namely 1) 𝕸-like texts, 2) Pre-Samaritan
Texts, 3) Texts Close to the Presumed Hebrew Source of !, and 4) A Cluster of Non-Aligned
Texts.57 So in some ways Tov’s theory criticizes the Local Texts theory, while in other ways
revises it. He does so by advancing a nominalist critique of the Local Texts theory by
emphasizing that MT, SP, and G should be considered “just texts.”58
However, Tov does admit: “It so happens—and this is no coincidence—that many of the
Qumran texts are actually close to MT, a small number to SP, and a few to G, so that also post
factum the comparison with these texts is actually justified. But…there are other groups of texts
as well.”59 So it is not surprising that debate concerning the validity of this theory centres around
realist difficulties of justifying the existence of universals,60 and nominalist difficulties of
explaining apparent resemblance. This is manifest in the lack of explanation for how to explain
the alignment between texts of varying character, especially supposedly non-aligned ones.
Tov’s category of “Cluster of Non-Aligned Texts” has been especially criticized since it
appears to be a realist label applied to a nominalist set of texts. Bruno Chiesa has notably

TCHB, 107–109. Tov states on page 109 that the category of scrolls written in the QSP, which in previous editions
was included in his schema, “reflect different textual backgrounds, and not one common typology,” hence the reason
it is given as an appendix, and not in the main article. Tov’s classification departs from the Local Texts Theory by
abandoning the geographical labels and creating an additional “catch-all” category, namely “non-aligned texts.”
Also, Tov’s decision to relegate “scrolls written in the QSP” to an appendix, as opposed to the 2nd edition of TCHB,
is presumably in response to critiques when it was earlier grouped alongside the other four, thus forming a category
that was not comparable with the other four since manuscripts exhibiting Qumran scribal characteristics, of course,
also have varying textual affinities. Tov himself acknowledges this in TCHB 109–110. This is interestingly similar to
a distinction W. W. Greg has made in distinguishing “substantial” variants (here, textual affinity) from “accidental”
variants (here, scribal practice). Cf. Ronald Hendel, “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical
Edition,” VT 58 (2008), 343–44. For W. W. Greg’s work cf. Walter W. Greg, “The Rationale of the Copy Text,”
Studies in Biography 3 (1950–51), 19–36.
58
TCHB, 159.
59
Emanuel Tov, “Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (eds.
Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman; Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1995), 88.
60
Universals here being the various categories used for the textual characters of witnesses. Cf. chapter 2.3 for a
discussion of the difficulties endemic to both realist and nominalist models.
57

29

criticized such categorization and argued that Tov has thus departed from standard text critical
practice since every manuscript of a given composition is by definition related typologically, so
that it is not possible for a given manuscript to truly be “non-aligned.” Tov might agree with
such a criticism since he believes all the biblical manuscripts are descendants of earlier editions
which lead back to a text “that was finished at a literary level.”61 In fact, Tov asserts that one
cannot engage in the praxis of textual criticism without taking a position on whether or not there
was an “original text.”62 To this issue Hendel has insightfully noted that the term “non-aligned”
conflates several issues: “1) the (logically unwarranted) idea that a text of a work can lack
affinities with other texts of that work: 2) the absence of evidence for a text’s affinities: and 3) a
text with mixed affinities.”63 Tov’s “non-aligned” category seems to have been created to address
Hendel’s first issue, even though it is not possible to truly be non-aligned, as Chiesa observes. So
Hendel suggests that Tov’s category of “non-aligned” might be better replaced with two
categories, 1) “texts of unknown affiliation” and 2) “texts of mixed affiliation.”64
So Tov’s classification system is a mix of nominalist and realist approaches since on the
one hand textual relationships are understood in terms of text-critical features and idiosyncrasies
which are the result of variant scribes and scribal practices, whereas on the other hand some
individual texts are given their own independent status through a conventionalized
understanding, namely, the non-aligned category.

TCHB 167.
Emanuel Tov, “The Relevance of Textual Theories for the Praxis of Textual Criticism,” in A Teacher for All
Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (eds. Eric F. Mason, et al; Supplements to the Journal for the
Study of Judaism 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 30; and TCHB, 161–169.
63
ATTHB, 293. One example of a text with mixed affinities is a text copied from one grouping, and then later edited
according to the text of a different grouping (“horizontal transmission”).
64
ATTHB, 293.
61
62

30

Overall, Tov’s substantial work has paved the way for synthesizing the data in new ways.
For example, identifying texts which exhibit QSP is a fruitful endeavour as it opens a door for
bringing scribal activity to the forefront and introducing historical linguistics to text-critic
matters, at least at the level of orthography, phonology, and morphology. Also, Tov notably
provides an alternate way forward to advance a local texts theory which might serve to explain
the provenance of texts related to the G Vorlage.65 So while it is not brought to the forefront, Tov
at least introduces issues of scribal culture and historical linguistics into text-critical matters.

3.4 The Multiple Literary Editions Theory
The last theory to be surveyed is Eugene Ulrich’s theory of multiple literary editions.66 Ulrich
defines a “literary edition” as the finished literary product from which textual transmission
began.67 To be sure, multiple literary editions do play a role in other theories, such as Tov’s
comments about local texts regarding the G Vorlage above. But Ulrich has made multiple
Tov states: “[W]e should…draw attention to another aspect of the G which provides positive evidence for a theory
of local texts…. When analyzing differences between textual traditions, it is helpful to start from typologically
different textual traditions, e.g., the short text of the G of Jeremiah (also reflected in 4QJerb, d) and of the story of
David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17–18), chronological differences between the G and MT in 1–2 Kings, as well as
other elements which bear on the literary growth of the Hebrew Bible… It may be suggested that where such
disparities existed, geographical separation perpetuated in one center textual tradition that had become obsolete in
another or others.” Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor,
1981), 187. So even though there is no evidence for an Egyptian location for the development of texts related to the
G Vorlage, some form of local texts theory, Tov posits, may account for the preservation of variant editions. This
would be analogous to the relationship between language dialects where peripheral communities preserve old
features that were displaced in the central community, as Hendel notes in ATTHB, 294. Interestingly, Jan Joosten has
argued that the Pentateuchal G translators were “Jews of the Egyptian diaspora writing for a local Jewish audience”
since G contains colloquial Egyptian Greek with occasional doses of Egyptian Aramaic, which was characteristic of
non-elite Hellenistic Egyptian society. Jan Joosten, “Language as Symptom: Linguistic Clues as to the Social
Background of the Seventy,” Textus 23 (2007), 80. So the local identity of the translators might plausibly suggest
that their base texts were also local.
66
Though Ulrich has published extensively about his theory, he also succinctly lays out the fundamental
methodology and rationale in his multigraph, Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible:
Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Leiden/Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 1999).
67
Note that this is similar to Tov’s definition of an original or determinative text in TCHB, 167.
65

31

editions the “key to the history of the biblical text.”68 He posits that: “[T]he main lines in the
picture of the history of the biblical text were formed by the deliberate activity of a series of
creative scribes who produced the new or multiple literary editions of the books of the Bible….
The emergence of each fresh literary edition occasioned variant versions of the literature that
would coexist for some time. Variant text types were thus caused by revised literary editions.”69
He proposes sifting out “accidental”70 variants between texts which are not related to a
recensional pattern in order to distinguish between different literary editions so that one can
begin to understand and then reconstruct the biblical text’s history. So for this theory the major
axes, so to speak, for textual history are the editions of a given work since the complicated
compositional and editorial process of the Hebrew Bible made the text quite pluriform and
multilayered by the Second Temple period. Thus, interestingly, in certain ways Ulrich’s model
revives Albright’s idea of early recensions.71 So in such cases where there is no discernible
Eugene C. Ulrich, “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical Text,” in
Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the
Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April, 1995 (eds. Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks; Studies on the Texts of the
Judaean Desert 20; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 90.
69
Eugene C. Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related
Literature (Leiden/Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 1999), 107–108
70
To use W. W. Greg’s terminology, not Ulrich’s. Cf. Greg W. Walter, “The Rationale of the Copy Text,” Studies in
Biography 3 (1950-51): 19–36.
71
Karel van der Toorn provides such an example of discerning multiple literary editions of Deuteronomy and
Jeremiah based on comparison and analogy with known scribal practice of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, which
involved the production of multiple literary editions among a centralized scribal elite. Karel van der Toorn, Scribal
Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).
A relatively new discipline which may aid a text-critic who is cognizant of the long and complicated
editorial process behind the text of the Hebrew Bible is “genetic criticism.” Genetic criticism is a type of literary
criticism which is just as aware of textual uncertainty as textual criticism is. The term critique génétique was coined
by Louis Hay in 1979 in the title of a collection of essays called Essais de critique génétique. A genetic critic
focuses on the temporal dimension of writing so that a given work of literature is seen as part of an on-going literary
process instead of a pristine product. However, genetic criticism was developed with modern authors in mind, for
whom there is generally an abundance of textual, extra-textual, and biographical information available. Van Hulle
describes the situation as follows: “Since genetic criticism involves the analysis of manuscripts, typescripts,
notebooks, and other preparatory documents, this research is necessarily based on the material evidence of the
creative process. Traditional philology was most concerned with ancient and medieval manuscripts. The analysis of
scribal copies was part of a quest for an original. Whereas this urtext is usually lost and the author unknown, modern
manuscripts often suffer from an overabundance of authorial documents.” Dirk van Hulle. Textual Awareness: A
68

32

recensional pattern, Ulrich does say: “[O]ne can skip to the level of individual textual variants to
refine the interrelationship of preserved manuscripts.”72 Perhaps it is along similar lines that Tov
points out that while Ulrich’s theory “explains important aspects of the development of the
Hebrew Scriptures, it is not a textual theory, although it is often presented as such.”73 A
noticeable weakness, then, of Ulrich’s theory is that determining precisely what variants belong
to which literary edition can be problematic, which is a problem of exemplification endemic to
realist models.74
Thus Ulrich’s theory, insofar as it is a full textual theory, is a realist one since the texts
are understood as bearing witness to distinct literary editions which are to be discerned among
the manuscripts. For example, Ulrich describes the stemmatic or genealogical form of his system
in the following way: “[O]n an ideal stemma (which is different for each book), the main lines
would be drawn according to variant editions…while the secondary lines would be drawn
according to the pattern of individual variants between or within text families.”75
So Ulrich’s multiple literary editions theory makes an important contribution to textcritical transmission theories by clarifying that, when possible, we should determine the textual

Genetic Study of Late Manuscripts by Joyce, Proust, and Mann (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press,
2004), 7–8. So whereas in modern textual studies it is rather clear which edition a text is, for Hebrew Bible textual
studies it is anything but clear, especially since the critic deals almost entirely with anonymous fragments. So two
noticeable weakness of Ulrich’s theory in praxis is that it only allows for solid classification among manuscripts in
which sufficient text is preserved for determining which edition it is, and it does not pertain to works for which only
one edition is preserved or was produced.
72
Eugene C. Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related
Literature (Leiden/Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 1999), 114.
73
TCHB, 174.
74
This problem is also noted in James VanderKam and Peter W, Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their
Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: HarperCollins
Publishers, 2002), 146–147.
75
Eugene C. Ulrich, “Two Perspectives on Two Pentateuchal Manuscripts from Qumran,” in Emanuel: Studies in
Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (eds. S. M. Paul et al.; Leiden: Brill,
2003), 461.

33

affinity of manuscripts by their various literary editions.76 His theory most importantly highlights
the role of scribal attitudes and intentionality (both emic categories), since one should not always
assume that a certain scribe would not seek to intentionally alter or improve the text copied in
some fashion.77
Thus overall, each text-critical theory has at least some validity in explaining aspects of
the available data, and as such each contributes in some way to construct the history of the text.78
Cross’s Local Texts Theory, for example, characterizes the scribe as a strict copyist, reflecting
their local geographical Vorlage. Talmon’s Multiple Pristine Texts Theory characterizes the
scribe as a member reflective of a particular socio-religious group. Tov’s Non-Aligned Texts
Theory systematically analyzes scribal traits, and Ulrich’s Multiple Literary Editions Theory
factors in scribal recensional activity. However, the recognition of variant scribal practices or the
use of historical linguistics has not been adequately taken into account.

There are arguably 16 books for which there is some evidence of such multiple editions: Genesis, Exodus,
Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and
Daniel. Cf. Eugene C. Ulrich, “Two Perspectives on Two Pentateuchal Manuscripts from Qumran,” in Emanuel:
Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (eds.S. M. Paul et al.; Leiden:
Brill, 2003), 460. Cf. also THCB, 283–324. Note that the problem of determining whether or not multiple editions
can be discerned is akin to realist problem of justifying the existence of universals (cf. chapter 2.3).
77
Eugene C. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,” in The Madrid
Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991
Vol 1 (eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; Studies on the Text of the Judaean Desert 11; Leiden:
Brill, 1993), 27.
78
To this point Ulrich states: “Cross has focused on the origins or originating causes of the different text types —
how the different types came to be or were produced. Talmon has focused on the final stages — how we end up with
only three main texts or text-types. Tov has focused on the complexity of the textual witnesses in the manuscript
remains,” The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature
(Leiden/Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 1999), 82–83. One might in turn say that Ulrich has focused on the editions
— how we factor in and incorporate the on-going literary development of each book with its textual development.
76

34

CHAPTER FOUR
IDENTIFYING VARIANT SCRIBAL PRACTICES

Chapter three highlighted how the four predominant Hebrew Bible transmission theories lack a
robust recognition of variant scribal practices and use of historical linguistics to explain and
describe both the homogeneity and heterogeneity among manuscripts. This chapter will propose
the identification of three variant scribal practices for describing the homogeneity and
heterogeneity among Qumran “biblical” witnesses.
4.1 Method for Identifying Variant Scribal Practices
Akin to criteria for determining textual affinity and identity, the criteria for determining
scribal affinity and identity should ideally be scribal features which are both distinct and
persistent among particular groups of witnesses of particular compositions. Since this thesis tests
whether or not variant scribal practices as identified and classified through historical linguistic
categories can provide a sufficient framework for categorizing and explaining variation, the
Great Psalms Scroll (11QPsalmsa) will provide a basis for comparison vis-à-vis MT, as
exemplified by L.79 The Great Psalms Scroll was chosen as a basis of comparison not only
because it is by far the most substantial psalms witness, but also because its linguistic profile is
ostensibly distinct from L, and thus serves well as a linguistic contrast.
First, thirty-seven text-critical features which distinguish the Great Psalms Scroll from L
were identified. They are the following: 1) addition of the preposition -‫;ל‬f2) addition of the ‫את‬
Note that unless specified otherwise, variation will be described from the perspective of L as the lemma or
antecedent text, unless variations of MT are cited from Kenn’s collations. This is not meant to imply a priori that at
any given variation L preserved the “archetype” reading or anything of the sort. Cf. also chapter 2.3 for how to
determine a given manuscript’s textual identity.
79

35

direct object marker;80 3) addition of the definite article; 4) addition of the ‫ ו‬conjunction;81 5) lack
of direct object marker;82 6) lack of paragogic nun;83 7) lack of a final aleph;84 8) use of the long
prefix conjugation as opposed to MT;85 9) use of a cohortative form where MT has an indicative
form;86 10) lack of a cohortative form where MT has one; 11) alternation of the preposition ‫אל‬
for ‫;ל‬f12) alternation of the preposition ‫ ל‬for ‫;אל‬87 13) alternation of the preposition ‫ אל‬for ‫;על‬88
l

l

14) alternation of the preposition ‫ ל‬for ‫;על‬f15) use of a short imperative where MT is long;
16) use of a long imperative where MT is short;89 17) use of a finite verb where MT has an
infinitive absolute and finite verb;90 18) spelling of ‫;דויד‬f19) spelling of ‫;ירושלים‬f20) spelling of
‫;כול‬91f21) full spelling of ‫;לוא‬92 22) long spelling (‫תה‬-) of the second masculine singular qatal
f

f

form;93 23) long spelling (‫כה‬-) of the second masculine singular suffix;94 24) use of a locative
Cf. HDSS §400.08; Steven E. Fassberg, “The Syntax of the Biblical Documents from the Judaean Desert as
Reflected in a Comparison of the Multiple Copies of Biblical Texts,” Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third
International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of
Judah 36; Leiden: 2000), 103; LLBIS 412–13; and Muraoka, T. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of
Qumran Hebrew,” Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead
Sea Scrolls (eds. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwode; Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000),
203.
81
For a full analysis, cf. Jacobs, Jarod T. “A Comprehensive Analysis of the Conjunction Waw in the Biblical Dead
Sea Scrolls Variants and Their Implications,” MA Thesis. Trinity Western University, 2008.
82
Cf. HDSS §400.08
83
Cf. HDSS §310.127; LLBIS, 193; and Muraoka, T. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran
Hebrew,” 198–99.
84
Cf. HDSS §100.63
85
Cf. HDSS §300.3 and Muraoka, T. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 208.
86
Cf. HDSS, 116; Shelomo Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations,” VT 38/2 (1988), 154-55;
Muraoka, T. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 196–99, 203.
87
Cf. Muraoka, T. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 204.
88
Steven E. Fassberg, “The Syntax of the Biblical Documents from the Judaean Desert as Reflected in a
Comparison of the Multiple Copies of Biblical Texts,” Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International
Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36;
Leiden: 2000), 404, 410, and 507.
89
Cf. Muraoka, T. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 196.
90
Cf. Muraoka, T. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” 195.
91
Cf. HDSS §100.2; Reymond §3.2.
92
Cf. HDSS §100.5; LLBIS 167–168.
93
Cf. HDSS §100.7.
80

36

form where lacking in MT;95 25) use of ‫ יקטולו‬forms;96 26) use of the ‫ קטולו‬imperative form;97 27)
use of the ‫ קטולה‬imperative form;98 28) use of the ‫ קטולני‬imperative form;99 29) use of the ‫קוטלני‬
imperative form;100 30) use of yod for final heh; 31) use of samek for sin;101 32) use of sin for
samek;102 33) use of qatal for yiqtol; 34) use of yiqtol for qatal; 35) use of a preterit for qatal; 36)
use of yiqtol for the imperative; 37) use of yiqtol for the participle; and 38) use of wayyiqtol for
yiqtol.
Second, for each Qumran “biblical” ms with more than four hundred words extant (and
thus considered to be “substantial”), the number of occurrences of each linguistic phenomenon
was noted. Third, a calculation was made by dividing the number of words exhibiting these
linguistic features by the total number of extant words. And finally this quotient was further
divided by the quotient of the Great Psalms Scroll from the third step to produce a percentage
ranking which reflects linguistic affinity with the Great Psalms Scroll.103 So the higher the
ranking, the closer the scribal affinity to the Great Psalms Scroll, with the Great Psalms Scroll by
design ranking as 1.00. Thus this is a realist model which posits the existence of an ideal Qumran
witness based on affinity with the Great Psalms Scroll.
Since this is a realist model, its weaknesses is to be found in 1) claiming the existence of
universals, namely, the Great Psalms Scroll as an ideal Qumran witness, and 2) determining how
94

Cf. HDSS §100.7.
Cf. HDSS §340; Reymond §5.9.
96
Cf. HDSS §100.21.
97
Cf. HDSS §100.21.
98
Cf. HDSS §100.21.
99
Cf. HDSS §100.21.
100
Cf. HDSS §100.21.
101
Cf. HDSS §100.8; Reymond §4.1.
102
Cf. HDSS §100.8; Reymond §4.1.
103
The use of the term “ranking” is not meant to imply that the higher the ranking the “better” or “more reliable” the
witness is, or anything of the sort.
95

37

particular witnesses exemplify their universal witness.104 So admittedly, at this point such a
method is more of a sledge-hammer than a fine chisel. Specifically this is because, first of all,
substantial (that is, “real” or “true”) or erroneous variation is not taken into account.105 For
example, substantial variations such as the substitution of the divine name ‫ יהוה‬with ‫ אלוהים‬is not
taken into account.106 And the use of a final letter form in medial position107 or non-use of a final
letter in final position108 is not taken into account, even though they may only appear among a
certain group of witnesses.
Second, it is more of a sledgehammer than a chisel because para-textual features, such as
scrolls written with paleo-Hebrew letters instead of the square script, scrolls which use the
square script, yet write the divine name ‫ יהוה‬with paleo-Hebrew letters, and variant stichometric
arrangements or the lack thereof, are not taken into account. Third, other linguistic features
which are not found or quite rare in L that occur in other Qumran “biblical” witnesses, yet not in
the Great Psalms Scroll, are not taken into account. Fourth, the occurrences noted do not have
any qualitative value which takes into account how often a given linguistic feature does not
occur when it presumably could have. For example, how many times the full spelling of ‫ כול‬is
recorded without factoring in how many times ‫ כל‬is used overall. And all the linguistic features
noted are given the same weight, regardless of how ubiquitous they are or not, or how
noteworthy the linguistic variation is.
For now these shortcomings are recognized and accepted simply due to the scope and
104
105
106
107
108

Cf. chapter 2.3 for difficulties which are endemic to realist models.
Cf. chapter 5 for an explanation of substantial and erroneous variation.
Cf. 11QPsalmsa 23:14, 15 / Psa 144:3, 5.
Cf. 11QPsalmsa 4:12; 26:2 / Psa 126:3; 149:8 or 4QPsalmso f2:3 / Psa 116:7.
Cf. 11QPsalmsa 5:9 / Psa 129:8 or 4QPsalmsx f1:2, 8 / Psa 89:20, 31.

38

length of this work, just as even the most careful archaeological expeditions may involve the use
of shovels before chisels. See chapter 7.2 for anticipated solutions to these shortcomings. But
despite these shortcomings, the preliminary results of chapter 4.2 exhibit a noteworthy
correspondence, and thus warrant further investigation.
4.2 Results of Computational Linguistic Reckoning
Using the ranking system described in chapter 4.1, all the “substantial” Qumran “biblical”
witnesses (that is, those with more than 400 words) were accordingly ranked and listed from
lowest ranking to highest ranking. This produced the appearance of three distinct scribal
practices (which are explained below), as illustrated here:109

All'Substan;al'Qumran'Biblical'Witnesses'Ordered'by'Ranking'
1.2"

Translator

1"

Ranking'

0.8"

4Q83

0.6"

0.4"

Mixer
4Q41

Mirror

4Q82

0.2"

4Q76
0"

Manuscripts'from'Lowest'to'Highest'Ranking'

Ian Young and Robert Rezekto, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated
Approach (SBLANEM; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 33–40. Note that the author has borrowed the
category labels “mirror,” “mixer,” and “translator” from Young and Rezetko’s terminology here.
109

39

The step between 4Q76 (4Q Minor Prophetsa) and 4Q82 (4Q Minor Prophetsg) marks the
tentative boundary between “mirror” and “mixer” witnesses; and the sharp step between 4Q41
(4Q Deuteronomyn) and 4Q83 (4Q Psalmsa) marks the boundary between “mixer” and
“translator” witnesses. It is noteworthy, first of all, that this chart shows remarkable resemblance
to the prototypical s-curve of linguistic diffusion, which may prove to be a useful heuristic model
for determining what role diffusion may have played in the concurrent use of variant scribal
practices.110 Regardless, there is a noticeable correspondence between these three discernible
practices and what English language historical linguists have discovered in the textual production
and transmission of medieval English texts. In the process of seeking to localize and securely
date texts on the basis of “anchor texts” (which are typically documentary texts that can be
localized and securely dated based on extra-linguistic evidence, such as a colophon), they
discovered three distinct types of scribal practices or strategies. The following is how Young and
Rezetko describe these three archetype scribes:

- The copier, or mirror-copyist, who provides an exact copy of an earlier text (linguistic
conservation/retention)
- The translator, who completely translates a text into his own dialect (linguistic modernization/
updating)
- The mixer, who copies and translates during scribal work, thus creating a linguistically composite
text (linguistic mixing/contamination; Mischsprache [“mixed language”])111

In other words, the “translator” scribe completely updates the linguistic character of a given
text so that the text’s spelling, morphology, grammar, structure, and word choice is as clear and
Rogers defines diffusion as “the process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over
time among the members of a social system.” Cf. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free
Press, 2005), 5.
111
Ian Young and Robert Rezekto, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated
Approach (SBLANEM; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 33–40.
110

40

unambiguous as possible for their intended reader. In the case studies of chapter 6 this is
manifest in how the linguistic features which distinguish Qumran Hebrew from the Hebrew of
the MT are regularly found in the high ranking “translator” witnesses identified above, and in
how the “translator” scribes often attempted to clear up syntactically difficult passages (though,
arguably, often ineptly).
The “mixer” scribe makes only occasional linguistic updates when deemed necessary for
understandability, and thus produces a mixed language, which preserves linguistic elements from
different dialects. In the case studies of chapter 6 this is manifest (albeit with very scarce data) in
how sometimes the medium ranking “mixer” witnesses preserve linguistic features not found in
MT, but prominent in Qumran Hebrew, while also sometimes preserving linguistic features
which are not prominent in Qumran Hebrew, but are prominent in MT.
Lastly, the “mirror” scribe produces an exact letter-for-letter copy of a given text, even
retaining obsolete linguistic features. In the case studies of chapter 6 this is manifest in the low
ranking “mirror” witnesses that are virtual linguistic matches to MT, and so do not contain
linguistic features which distinguish Qumran Hebrew from the Hebrew of the MT.
It is essential to keep in mind that the ranking of scribal affinity given here is indicative of
scribal practice, and not necessarily “textual character,” as Tov, among others, has classified the
Qumran “biblical” witnesses.112 So the textual affinity identified is not necessarily indicative of a
particular so-called text-type, such as MT-like texts, Pre-Samaritan Texts, or Texts Close to the
Presumed Hebrew Source of G.

112

Cf. TCHB 107–110.

41

If these witnesses are compared according to their ranking and date, using the average of the
proposed dates of their official editions, the following is the result:113

Mirror

Mixer

Translator

All%Substan1al%Qumran%Biblical%Witnesses%Ordered%by%Date%and%Ranking%
%
150%

100%

50%

0%

Date%

0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1%

1.2%

!50%

!100%

!150%

!200%

!250%

Ranking%

First, it is noticeable and noteworthy that while the three distinct practices existed
concurrently during the late Second Temple period, the “mirror” group is by far the most
prominent, with many witnesses dating both before and after the other two groups. This suggests
that the “mixer” and “translator” practices may have developed around 100 BCE. And since
there are no “mixer” or “translator” witnesses after 50 CE, this may suggest that the destruction
of Qumran is a fitting terminus ad quem for those practices.

Note that for several mss, namely, Mur4, Mas1b, 4Q55, 4Q2, Mas1d, XHev/Se5, XQ1, XQ3, and XQ2 there is no
proposed date. However, since each one of these ranks below 0.10, putting them solidly in the “mirror” group, it
does not affect the groupings or conclusion made below.
113

42

Second, the “mirror” and “mixer” groups appear to have a more controlled linguistic
approach to copying than the “translator” group. This is because the difference between the
lowest and highest ranking witnesses in the “mirror” and “mixer” groups is about 0.20, whereas
the difference between the lowest and highest ranking “translator” witness is about 0.40. double
that of the other two.
Next we will list the three groups of witnesses by name, ranking, and content. First we
have the “mirror” witnesses. These are the mss ranking below 0.20. The group is comprised of
thirty five witnesses, and is by far the majority group.

“Mirror” Witnesses
Name

Ranking

Content

4Q76

0.14

Minor Prophets

XQ2

0.12

Phylactery of Deuteronomy

4Q59

0.10

Isaiah

4Q85

0.10

Psalms

4Q14

0.09

Exodus

4Q58

0.09

Isaiah

4Q35

0.09

Deuteronomy

4Q84

0.08

Psalms

4Q60

0.07

Isaiah

4Q33

0.07

Deuteronomy

4Q52

0.07

Samuel

4Q112

0.06

Daniel

4Q11

0.06

Genesis-Exodus

1Q8

0.06

Isaiah

4Q72

0.06

Jeremiah

43

4Q45

0.05

Deuteronomy

4Q70

0.05

Jeremiah

4Q1

0.05

Genesis-Exodus

XQ3

0.05

Phylactery

XQ1

0.05

Phylactery

4Q56

0.04

Isaiah

4Q22

0.04

Exodus

4Q23

0.04

Leviticus-Numbers

11Q1

0.03

Leviticus

4Q30

0.03

Deuteronomy

4Q24

0.03

Leviticus

XHev/Se5

0.03

Phylactery of Deuteronomy
and Exodus

8Q3

0.03

Phylactery of Deuteronomy
and Exodus

5/6Hev1b

0.02

Psalms

Mur88

0.02

Minor Prophets

Mas1d

0.01

Ezekiel

4Q2

0

Genesis

4Q55

0

Isaiah

Mas1b

0

Leviticus

Mur4

0

Phylactery of Deuteronomy
and Exodus

The next group of witnesses are those ranking from 0.21 to 0.41, and they are classified as
the “mixer” group. This group is comprised of ten mss and contains the first half of the
bifurcated Great Isaiah Scroll. The Great Isaiah Scroll has been bifurcated as if it were two
separate witnesses because the second half of the scroll is written in a noticeably distinct scribal

44

practice than the first half. This bifurcation was determined by treating the first of half of the
scroll as a separate witness from the second half.
“Mixer” Witnesses
Name

Ranking

Content

4Q41

0.41

Deuteronomy

4Q27

0.38

Numbers

1QIsaa (first half)

0.37

Isaiah

4Q51

0.35

Samuel

4Q57

0.35

Isaiah

4Q37

0.35

Deuteronomy

4Q78

0.33

Minor Prophets

4Q130

0.26

Phylactery of Deuteronomy
and Exodus

4Q13

0.22

Exodus

4Q82

0.21

Minor Prophets

The next group of witnesses are those ranking from 0.69 to 1.09, and they are classified as
the “translator” group. There are six witnesses in this group, including the second half of the
bifurcated Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). The shared content of Psalms and phylacteries of
Deuteronomy and Exodus is noticeable and may suggest these compositions were the most
popular books copied by the group(s) who used the “translator” scribal practice. This is further
suggested by the fact that even when the largest non-substantial scrolls (that is, those with less
than four hundred extant words) are listed by rank (see the “Non-Substantial High Ranking
Witnesses” chart below), mss of Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Exodus witnesses are featured

45

prominently as well.114 However, the shared content may be simply due to the fact that the
psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah are commonly occurring writings in the Qumran “biblical”
corpus. Although, the lack of Genesis and Leviticus (the third and sixth most commonly
occurring “biblical” books in the Qumran “biblical” corpus, respectively) could be telling.115
Also, one notes that the inclusion of phylacteries of Deuteronomy and Exodus in “translator,”
“mixer,” and “mirror” witnesses suggests that variant scribal practices explain the linguistic
difference, and not the content itself. Otherwise the linguistic differences might be explained by
the nature of the content.

“Translator” Witnesses
Name

Ranking

Content

4Q137

1.09

Phylactery of Deuteronomy

11Q5

1.00

Psalms + apocryphal
compositions

4Q128

0.89

Phylactery of Deuteronomy
and Exodus

4Q138

0.88

Phylactery of Deuteronomy

1QIsaa (second half)

0.72

Isaiah

4Q83

0.69

Psalms

Phylacteries and a mezuzah are included, in addition to the Great Psalms Scroll, since their content is textually
identical to the same compositions of the other Qumran “biblical” witnesses, namely, the proto-canonical psalms,
Deuteronomy, and Exodus.
115
For a list of the number of Qumran witnesses for each biblical book, cf. James VanderKam and Peter W. Flint,
The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and
Christianity (San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002), 147–150.
114

46

Non-Substantial High Ranking Witnesses
Name
Ranking

Content

4Q149

1.62

Mezuzah of Exodus

2Q11

1.48

Deuteronomy

4Q139

1.46

Phylactery of Deuteronomy

2Q14

1.43

Psalms

4Q98c

1.23

Psalms

4Q129

1.19

Phylactery of Deuteronomy
and Exodus

2Q12

1.17

Deuteronomy

4Q143

1.15

Phylactery of Deuteronomy

4Q116

1.06

Daniel

4Q38a

1.05

Deuteronomy

4Q140

1.01

Phylactery of Deuteronomy
and Exodus

4Q142

0.98

Phylactery of Deuteronomy

4Q90

0.84

Psalms

3Q3

0.82

Lamentations

4Q40

0.78

Deuteronomy

4Q98b

0.70

Psalms

4Q65

0.67

Isaiah

Chapter 5 will now present the proposed schema for classifying and evaluating witnesses
which fall into these three groups.

47

CHAPTER FIVE
PROPOSED SCHEMA FOR CATEGORIZATION OF TEXTUAL VARIATION

We will now build on the identification of the three “mirror,” “mixer,” and “translator” witnesses
identified in chapter 4 and present the following linguistically sensitive schema which takes such
linguistic insight into account for categorizing and explaining textual variation. The schema
consists first of three meta-categories, namely, “linguistic,” “substantive,” and “erroneous,”
which are to be conceptually distinguished on the basis of the fundamental à la Saussure
structuralist distinction of a given sign consisting of a signifier and a conceptual signified.116
Linguistic variation is considered to be a change in signifier, but not a change in what is
signified. In other words, a linguistic variation is an attempt to express the same meaning
(= conceptual signified), albeit with different words or inflections (= signifiers). Such variation
may be intentional or not. Although changes in, for example, syntax are less susceptible to
linguistic modification than changes in orthography, phonology, and morphology.117
To be clear, it is outside of the scope of this thesis to determine if and how diachronic
linguistic factors contributed to textual variation, or to speak to how literary texts with a complex
compositional and scribal history like the Hebrew Bible can or cannot be dated linguistically.
Rather, the scope of this thesis is twofold. First, this thesis seeks to present a tool (namely, the
schema) which can serve well for providing data to answer such linguistically focused inquiries.

For an English introduction to Saussure’s work, cf. his most influence work Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles
Bally, Albert Sechehaye, Albert Riedlinger, and Tullio De Mauro, Cours de linguistique gènèrale (Paris: Payot,
1995).
117
Cf. Ian Young, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (London: Equinox,
2008), 1:118 n. 12.
116

48

And second, this thesis seeks to implement this tool to order to identify a key factor which is
often overlooked in text-critical investigations, namely, variant scribal practices.118
Substantive variation, then, indicates “real” or “true” variation where a different meaning
is intended. It is by design considered to be an intentional change in both signifier and
conceptual signified. Erroneous variation, on the other hand, indicates by design an unintentional
change in signifier and conceptual signified. Erroneous variations are not only mechanical
errors,119 which inevitably result from scribal processes (such as the graphic confusion of letters
or homoioteleuton), but also cases in which scribes misunderstood the Vorlage text(s) from
which they were working. Such changes are labelled as “inept” and erroneous since the scribe
was not intending to change the meaning (= conceptual signified).120 So distinguishing whether
any particular variation is linguistic, substitutional, or erroneous is the admittedly complex, yet
necessary role of the informed text-critic.
Again, to be clear, it is outside the scope of this thesis to explore and identify how variant
scribal practices relate to textual alignment or affiliation. That is to say, this thesis does not seek
to determine, for example, how the “mirror” scribal practice relates or not to Tov’s MT-like, preSamaritan, or non-aligned texts, or texts close to the presumed Hebrew source of G. Nor does
this thesis seek to determine how variant scribal practices relate to Ulrich’s identification of
variant literary editions. Rather, the scope of this thesis is simply to provide a useful
Cf. chapter 1.2 for an explanation of the goal and method of this thesis.
That is, the “laws of scribes” errors that Moshe Goshen-Gottstein describes in “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts:
Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (eds. Frank
Moore Cross and Talmon Shemaryahu; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), 74.
120
Note that the label of erroneous is not meant to imply a moral judgement. This means that character fault should
not by necessity be applied to a scribe who may have unintentionally (that is, accidentally) produced a reading due
to ineptitude (or copied a reading produced due to an earlier scribe’s ineptitude), nor to a scribe or interpreter who
created meaning from such an “erroneous” reading. Cf. Psalm 139:14 in chapter 6 for a possible example of an
“inept” variation.
118
119

49

linguistically sensitive tool for undertaking such investigations.121
The following are the proposed subcategories of linguistic variation. For the sake of
illustration I will compare some samples of Hebrew Bible renderings into English from the King
James Version (KJV) with that of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). This is because
they are both relatively literal translations which take into account the best contemporary
scholarship, and represent distinct stages of the ever evolving English language. The variations to
be compared will be underlined so that it is clear to which word is being referred.
The first type of linguistic variation is orthographic, namely, changes due to differing
spelling conventions. An English example of this is the last word of Psalm 8:5 where the KJV
reads “honour,” whereas the NRSV reads “honor.” Such a spelling variation does not necessarily
reflect a variant pronunciation or use. A Hebrew example of an orthographical variation is ‫ לוא‬in
11QPsalmsf 20:3 versus ‫ ל ֹא‬in L Psa 139:12. Arguably, orthographical variation is not properly a
linguistic variation since it is only manifest in graphical representations of language, namely,
writing. However, since it is part of scribal work and finds noticeable correspondence between
the different groups of witnesses, it is included.
The second is phonological, namely, changes due to phonetic similarity or a different
pronunciation. Since English orthography is highly non-phonemic, such examples are rare.
However, an example is the British “aeroplane” versus the North American “airplane.” It is
phonological and not just orthographical because the variant spelling is caused by a need to
reflect a variant pronunciation. Another English example is the colloquial form “gangsta” versus
the standard form “gangster.” The variant orthography results from the need to reflect a variant
Cf. chapter 1.2 for an explanation of the goal and method of this thesis, chapter 4.2 for a few preliminary
comments, and chapter 7.2 for how the author envisions such an inquiry may be undertaken.
121

50

pronunciation. A Hebrew example of a phonological variation is ‫ וי ׄזעׄקו‬in 4QPsalmsf 3:19 versus
‫ ַו ִיְּצֲﬠקוּ‬in L Psa 107:28. This was caused by the phonetic similarity of ‫ ז‬and ‫ צ‬or different
pronunciations of the same word.
The third is morphological, namely, the use of a different morpheme to mark the same
grammatical or syntactical feature of a given word. An English example is the KJV’s ubiquitous
use of the third person singular “-eth” ending with present tense verbs versus the NRSV’s
ubiquitous use of the third person singular “-(e)s” ending with present tense verbs. For example,
Psalm 23:3a in the KJV reads: “He restoreth my soul,” whereas the NRSV reads “[H]e restores
my soul.” A Hebrew example of this is ‫ ישמורו‬in 11QPsalmsa 1:16 / versus ‫שְׁמרוּ‬
ְ ִ ‫ י‬in L Psa 105:45.
The fourth is syntactical, namely, change in sentence structure or syntax. An English
example of this is Psalm 9:12b where the KJV reads: “[H]e forgetteth not the cry of the humble,”
whereas the NRSV reads: “[H]e does not forget the cry of the afflicted.” Here the KJV does not
use the auxiliary “do(es)” to express negation, whereas the NRSV does. A Hebrew example of a
syntactical variation is ‫ ]ב[֯ר֯כ ׄנו אתׄכם‬in 4QPsalmsb f30ii+32i+33_34:17 versus ‫ ֵבּ ַרְכנוֶּכם‬in L Psa
118:26. Here L preserves an attached verbal suffix to express the object of ‫ברכנו‬, whereas
4QPsalmsb uses a direct marker marker with a suffix to express the object of ‫ברכנו‬.
The fifth is lexical, namely, change in lexeme. An English example of this is Psalm 42:3a
where the KJV reads: “My tears have been my meat day and night,” whereas the NRSV reads:
“My tears have been my food day and night.” Both are rendering the same Hebrew lexeme ‫ֶלֶחם‬
to refer to nutritional sustenance. The signifier “meat” elsewhere in the NRSV refers more
specifically to the flesh of animals, whereas in the KJV the signifier “meat” can refer to any type

51

of food. An example of this is ‫ גבורה‬in 11QPsalmsa 16:3 versus ‫ ָח ִיל‬in L Psa 118:16 to express
the meaning of “power.”122
And the sixth is grammatical, that is, change in grammatical category (or categories) such
as gender and number. Since English nouns do not typically have a grammatical (as opposed to
natural) gender, and English verbs have almost no conjugation, such examples are rare in
English. However, an English example is: “Look at that ship. She is a beauty,” versus “Look at
that ship. It is a beauty.” In the former sentence the ship is given a grammatical gender for
pragmatic purposes, whereas the second sentence follows standard English usage of giving a
neuter gender to inanimate objects. A Hebrew example of this is ‫ מוסד[ ֯י‬in 11QPsalmsc f9:2
(assuming the reconstruction is accurate) versus ‫ מוְֹסדוֹת‬in L Psa 18:16.
Now, as stated in chapter 2.3, there are “myriad possible ways of classifying most
datasets.” So admittedly one may consider grammatical variation to be a subset of lexical
variation. In the proposed schema the two are distinguished since it is a distinct factor which
caused ‫ גבורה‬to be used instead of ‫ חיל‬to express “power” versus the use of a masculine form of a
certain lexeme to be used instead of a feminine form in the above example.
The sub-categories of substantive variation, namely, substitutional, transpositional,
additional, and omissional, follow standard text-critical practice. They are noteworthy only in
contrast to the proposed meta-categories, which maintain a distinction between change in
signifier versus signified, and intentional versus unintentional change.123 The types of possible
Cf. Psalm 118:16 in chapter 6 for the analysis.
Note that with such a schema, the “faithfulness” of a given scribe’s work should be properly judged according to
the goals, methods, and conventions of their scribal practice so that “mirror” scribes are not by default the most
“faithful” transmitters of a given text. Instead, scribal faithfulness is to be seen, among other factors, in the lack of
erroneous readings. Admittedly, such a view of the “faithfulness” of scribes is not wholly new in text-critical
scholarship. Compare, e.g., how Würthwein describes “deliberate alterations” in his standard introduction: “Before
122
123

52

erroneous variations are manifold, and need not be delineated here, besides the “ineptitude” subcategory mentioned above. Below is the proposed schema:

1) Linguistic variation (change in signifier only, intentional and unintentional)
a) Orthographical
b) Phonological
c) Morphological
d) Syntactical
e) Lexical
f) Grammatical
2) Substantive variation (intentional change in signifier and signified)
a) Substitutional
b) Transpositional
c) Additional
d) Omissional
3) Erroneous (unintentional change in signifier and signified)
a) mechanical errors
b) ineptitude

One may certainly modify the sub-categories to fit data more adequately without
nullifying the schema’s utility. This is because the novelty of this following schema is to be seen
in the distinguishing these three meta-categories (“linguistic,” “substantive,” and “erroneous”),
and not in the sub-categories, for which a larger data sample and/or further linguistic research
may call for modification.124 Otherwise stated, the “linguistic,” “substantive,” and “erroneous”
the text of the Old Testament was officially established it was not regarded as unalterable. Accordingly we should
expect to find that those who were concerned with the transmission of the text would occasionally make deliberate,
fully intentional alterations in the text. In evaluating these alterations we must avoid thinking of them as
“corruptions.” They were made in good faith, with no intention of introducing a foreign element into the text, but
rather with the aim of restoring the true text and (from the copyist’ view) preventing misunderstanding.” Ernst
Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: an Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (tr. Rhodes Erroll F.; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 111, (italics mine).
124
Although the fact that linguistic categories beyond orthographical, phonological, and morphological are included
is fundamental. For an general introduction to historical linguistics, cf. Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics
(Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

53

meta-categories are fundamental to this thesis, whereas the specific sub-categories included are
not fundamental as is, and are thus subject to modification as further research is conducted.
Chapter 6 will now provide case studies in which the utility of this schema and the
validity of the identification of variant scribal practices are presented.

54

CHAPTER SIX
CASE STUDIES IN THE PSALMS

6.1 Basic Profile of Witnesses Cited
As stated in chapter 1.2, this chapter will empirically demonstrate the validity of the the
identification of variant scribal practices and the utility of the proposed schema for explaining
the variation found among Qumran “biblical” witnesses with three case studies from the psalms.
Based on the ranking system described in chapter 4, the following is a basic profile of the
witnesses cited for use in the case studies.125 Note that each witness is given with its
corresponding ranking between parentheses ( ).

“Translator” witnesses:
11QPsalmsc (0.53), 11QPsalmsb (0.62), and 11QPsalmsa (1.00)
11QPsalmsc and 11QPsalmsb are “biblical” mss written in prose format and dated to the first half
of the first century CE. 11QPsalmsc shares strong textual identity with 11QPsalmsa (the Great
Psalms Scroll) in that Psalm 141 is followed by 133 and 144, and it contains two apocryphal
psalms found only otherwise in the Great Psalms Scroll, namely, “Plea for Deliverance,” and
“Apostrophe to Zion.”
11QPsalmsa, better known as the Great Psalms Scroll, is by far the largest of the
“biblical” psalms witnesses, and is arguably a true scriptural Psalter, formed after the first part of
the Psalter stabilized (namely, Books 1–3). It preserves an ordering and arrangement strikingly
For a more in-depth description of the mss introduced and references to critical editions, cf. Peter W. Flint, The
Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997), 27–49.
125

55

different than the received Psalter, though generally preserving psalms from what came to be
Books 4 and 5 of the received Psalter.126 Ever since its publication by James Sanders, who argued
that it gave evidence for the existence of multiple scriptural Psalters in antiquity, each of which
had some kind of authoritative status among different groups during the Second Temple Period,
debate has continued as to its origin and status in the Qumran community. Most who accept
Sanders’ general premise claim that Books 1–3 (Psalms 1–89) were fixed before what came to
compose Books 4–5 (Psalms 90–150) was later added to form the so-called received Psalter.127
Those who have argued against such a thesis view the Great Psalms Scroll instead as a liturgical
re-working, similar to a Jewish prayer book or Christian hymnal or agenda, which included
For an introduction to the discussion, cf. Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms
(Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997), 13–36 and 135–236.
The following is the ordering and content of the Great Psalms Scroll: 101→102→103; 109 118→104→147→105→
146→148 [+120]→121→122→123→124→125→126→127→128→129→130→131→132→119→135→136
(with Catena)→118→145 (with subscript)→154 + Plea for Deliverance→139→137→138→Sirach 51→Apostrophe
to Zion→93→141→133→144→155→142→143→149→150→Hymn to the Creator→David’s Last
Words→David’s Compositions→140→134→151A→151B→blank column.
126

In summary, the proto-canonical psalms contained within the Great Psalms Scroll (11QPsalmsa) range from 101–
150, in addition to Psalm 151 (which is found in Greek and Syriac Psalters), Psalm 154–155 (which are found in
Syriac Psalters), canticles which are found in Sirach 51:13-30, 2 Sam 23:1-7, and several previously unknown
apocryphal prose and poetic compositions (a few of which are found in other DSS).
Cf. James A. Sanders, “Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (11QPsa),” The Harvard Theological Review 59/1 (1966):
83–94; James A. Sanders, “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon,” McCQ 21 (1968), 1–15; and James A.
Sanders, “The Qumran Scroll (11QPsa) Reviewed,” in On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A.
Nida (eds. M. Black and W. A. Smalley; The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1974), 79–99. Cf. Gerald G. Wilson, “The
Qumran Psalms Scroll [11QPsa] Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47/4 (1985):
626–29 for a summary of Sander’s view, which in essence is that the Qumran group left Jerusalem at a time when
Psalms 1–89 (Books 1–3 in the received Psalter) or possibly 1–100 (Psalm 101 is the first Psalm in 11QPsalmsa) had
already stabilized, and then the two developed independently from each other, with one group, presumably linked to
the Qumran community arranging 11QPsalmsa, and others what came to be Books 4 and 5 of the received Psalter
(books which share a common theme of Davidic restoration).
127

For an overview of work on the literary history and hermeneutical significance of the received Psalter ordering, cf.
Clinton J. McCann, The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1993); Matthias Millard,
Die Komposition des Psalters: ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994); and David C.
Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter an Eschatological Programme in the Books of Psalms (Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Sanders pointed out especially the strong Davidic emphasis, similarity between
proto-canonical psalms and apocryphal ones in contrast with the Hodayoth (which are never attributed to David and
differ considerably in style and vocabulary), and the absence of internal indicators which betray a late (Persian or
Hellenistic) date or sectarian origin.

56

mostly proto-canonical psalms.128 Regardless of its origin it is included among the witnesses to
the “biblical” psalms since the text contained therein exhibits textual identity with the protocanonical psalms cited.129

“Mixer” witnesses:
4QPsalmse (0.31) and 11QPsalmsd (0.35)
4QPsalmse is a “biblical” ms written in prose format dating to the early to mid first century CE,
and 11QPsalmsd is a “biblical” ms written in prose format and dated to the mid first century CE.
Now, in contrast to the “mirror” witnesses referenced below, it is significant that the “translator”
and “mixer” psalms witnesses are not stichometrically arranged, whereas the “mirror” psalms
witnesses are.130 This observation further supports the validity of the groupings identified in
chapter 4.

“Mirror” witnesses:
8QPsalms (0.00), 5/6HevPsalms (0.02), 4QPsalmsc (.10), and 4QPsalmsb (0.08)
8QPsalms is a stichometrically arranged “biblical” ms dating to the first century CE whose
fragments contain sections of Psalms 17 and 18. 5/6HevPsalms is a “biblical” ms
stichometrically arranged and dated to the first half of the first century CE. 4QPsalmsa is a

Among these are included Talmon, Goshen-Gottstein, and Skehan. For a summary of their views, cf. Cf. Gerald
G. Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll [11QPsa] Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate., Catholic Biblical Quarterly
47/4 (1985): 629–638.
129
Cf. chapter 2.3 for issues concerning determining textual identity.
130
For an analysis of the various stichographic arrangements within MT itself, cf. Shem Thomas Miller, “Innovation
And Convention: An Analysis Of Parallelism In Stichographic, Hymnic And Sapiential Poetry In The Dead Sea
Scrolls” (2012). Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 5042. (http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/5042).
128

57

“biblical” ms stichometrically arranged and dated to around 60 CE, and 4QPsalmsb is a
stichometrically written “biblical” ms dating to the second half of the first century BCE.

6.2 Rationale for Selected Psalms
Psalms 139, 118, and 18 were chosen for the case studies so as not only to compare psalms
which have attestation from multiple witnesses, but also to furnish the broadest comparison of
how scribes from the three identified scribal practices transmitted the biblical text in different
ways, thus highlighting the need to incorporate scribal practice and historical linguistics into
analyses and explanations of such textual variation. Psalm 139 was selected first in order to
furnish a stark comparison of textual transmission from a “translator” scribe (namely, that of the
Great Psalms Scroll) and MT. Psalm 118 was selected second in order to contrast, as much as
possible, how scribes from all three scribal groups transmitted the same psalm. And Psalm 18
was selected last to show how the “mirror” scribal practice, which is admittedly by far the most
common group among the witnesses, corresponds virtually exactly to the MT scribal practice, at
least linguistically speaking.
The purpose of these case studies is to answer the question: “Does the recognition of
variant scribal practices best serve to explain sufficiently the variation? And does the proposed
schema serve well as a tool to evaluate such variation?” To be clear, the evaluations contained
herein are therefore not meant to provide final text-critical decisions as to what may or may not
be archetypal or preferred readings. Instead they are meant to show that recognizing variant
scribal practices using the proposed schema serves well to explain the variation found among the
witnesses.

58

The comprehensive131 database used for identifying variation was produced by the author
from an exhaustive collation of all variation of the DSS from L, in addition to consulting the MT
collations noted in Kenn.132 In addition, all “non-biblical” Qumran compositions which appear to
quote or allude to a “biblical” psalm, and critical editions of the relevant ancient versions were
consulted.133 The “biblical” Hebrew data can be found in the appendix.
We will now proceed to the case studies which test the validity and utility of the proposed
schema for classifying and explaining textual variation.

6.3 Psalm 139 Case Study
This first case study compares MT and the Great Psalms Scroll, which is prototypical of the
“translator” scribe.134 So the question to be tested will be: “Do we observe systematic attempts on
the part of the scribe to update the linguistic character of the text so that the orthography,
phonology, morphology, grammar, structure, word choice and/or sense is as clear and
unambiguous as possible for their intended reader?” To the degree that the answer is yes, the
more we will expect to see manifest the linguistic features which distinguish Qumran Hebrew

Comprehensive in the sense that all textual variation, no matter how minor, is taken into account.
Benjamin Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum Cum Variis Lectionibus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1778–80).
133
Namely, Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis. 3rd ed.; Septuaginta; Vetus Testamentum Graecum 10 (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979); International Organization for the Study of the Old, Testament and Institute
Peshitta, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta version (Leiden: Brill, 1972); Frederick Field,
Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. sive Veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta
Tomus I–II (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875); Robert Weber, Roger Gryson, and Bonifatius Fischer, Biblia Sacra: iuxta
Vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007); and Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold, Biblical
Quotations and Allusions and Illusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature (eds. Vered Noam et al.; Journal of
Ancient Judaism Supplements 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001). Cf. “Sigla and Abbreviations” for the
sigla used for the versions in the case studies.
134
Cf. chapter 4.2 for a description of this proto-typical scribe.
131
132

59

(QH) from the Hebrew of the MT. Note that this includes attempts135 to disambiguate
syntactically difficult passages.
The study will begin at Psalm 139:8 since Psalm 139:1-7 is not extant in the Great Psalms
Scroll, or any other Qumran witness. Note that the overall purpose of these case studies is to
illustrate how recognizing variant scribal practices using the proposed schema serves well for
explaining and evaluating textual variation since linguistic variation can be identified as such. So
if certain linguistic and other distinct textual features persist in one proposed scribal practice over
another, this suggests that the groupings of chapter 4 are valid identifiers of scribal affinity, and
that the proposed schema is a useful tool for identifying them. A relatively literal translation of
the Great Psalms Scroll reading is also provided for each verse in italics.

Psalm 139:8
‫שּׁ֣אוֹל ִה ֶנּ ָֽךּ׃‬
ְ ‫שַׁמי ִם ָ ֣שׁם ֑אָָתּה ְואַ ִ ֖צּיָעה‬
ָ ֭ ‫ ִאם־ֶא ַ ֣סּק‬MT
‫ שאול הנכה‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:1
…in the grave, you are there.
The only variation, ‫הנכה‬, could be considered either orthographical or morphological. It is an
orthographical variation in the sense that ‫ הנך‬and ‫ חנכה‬are pronounced the same, yet spelled
differently. And it is a morphological variation in the sense that the ‫כה‬- suffix is part of a schema
which incorporates ‫ה‬-ָ with pronouns and verbal forms.136 Regardless, we will come to recognize
that this longer spelling of the second person masculine singular suffix is a ubiquitous feature of
“translator” witnesses and QH. Thus it is to be expected among “translator” witnesses in contrast

135
136

The word “attempts” is key since arguably many attempts of disambiguation were inept. Cf., e.g., Psalm 139:14.
For example, cases of the suffix ‫כמה‬- versus ‫כם‬- are morphological, not orthographical, variations.

60

to the shorter spelling (‫ך‬-) found ubiquitously in “mirror” witnesses and MT.137 To be sure,
among all the Qumran psalms witnesses there is never a long spelling in MT which has a
corresponding short spelling in any Qumran psalms witness.138 This is consistent with what
Abegg notes: “It has been argued that these data are explicable in terms of the existence of two
alternative paradigms arising from internal processes within Hebrew, comparable in some ways
to the situation in Samaritan Hebrew.”139 Accordingly, the ratio in “non-biblical” Qumran texts is
2582 long to 882 short (thus long about 66% of the time), and in L 38 long to 6879 short (thus
long about 0.6% of the time).

Psalm 139:9
‫שְׁכּ ֗נָה ְבּאֲַח ִ֥רית ָי ֽם׃‬
ְ ‫ ֶאָ֥שּׂא ַכנְֵפי־ ָ ֑שַׁחר ֶ֝א‬MT
‫ אשאה כנפי שחר אשכונה באחרית ים‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:1
I take the wings of the dawn. I dwell on the end of the sea.
The variations are both morphological. In both forms, ‫ אשאה‬and ‫אשכונה‬, the Great Psalms Scroll
preserves the longer so-called cohortative form to denote the indicative in the first person.140 This
is a prominent feature of QH.141 And as we will come to recognize, it is therefore to be expected
from a “translator” witness whose linguistic profile has been updated.142 And in the form ‫אשכונה‬
we see a ‫ יקטולו‬yiqtol form, which occurs in QH, though never in MT (except in pause, as in
Cf. HDSS §322.12 and Reymond §3.2 for a discussion of this morpheme.
The sole exception may be 5/6HevPsalms f13ii:8 / Psa 31:6, though Kenn attests to many MT mss with the
shorter ending.
139
LPIS, 33.
140
Accordingly, the versions do not support reading a cohortative force. G reads ἐὰν ἀναλάβοιµι (some mss ἐὰν
ἀναλάβω) “if were to take up,” S &%‫“ ܘܐܢ ܐܪ‬if I lift up,” VLXX and VHeb si ascendero “if I will have ascended,”
and T ‫“ אזקוף‬I will lift up.”
141
Cf. HDSS §310.122.
142
In the Great Psalms Scroll such a variation occurs also at 11QPsalmsa 8:11 / Psa 119:47; 6:8 / Psa 132:16; and
20:2 / Psa 139:11 [which is found below]). In one place, though (11QPsalmsa 16:14 / Psa 145:5), MT has the longer
form where the Great Psalms Scroll has the shorter yiqtol form (‫)אשיח‬.
137
138

61

‫שׁ֑כּוֹנוּ‬
ְ ִ ‫ י‬in Psa 102:29). Therefore it is also to be expected in a “translator” witness.143 So if one
were not aware of this linguistic feature found in witnesses of this scribal practice and/or did not
have a schema to identify it as linguistic and not substantive, one might assume that the variation
‫ אשאה‬was substantive (that is, a change in the conceptual signified).

Psalm 139:10
‫׃‬êֽ ‫ ַתנְ ֵ ֑חנִי ְֽות ֹאֲחֵז ֥נִי י ְִמי ֶנ‬ê֣‫שׁם י ְָד‬
ָ ֭ ‫ ַגּם־‬MT
‫ שם ידכה תנחני ותאחזני ימינכה‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:1-2
There you hand led me, and your right hand held me fast.
The first variation is one where MT and the ancient versions read ‫גם‬, and the Great Psalms Scroll
has no corresponding reading.144 In the Great Psalms Scroll this is most likely an erroneous
variation due to homoioteleuton with ‫ ים גם שם‬since the ancient versions appear to render it and
there is no apparent precedent in the scribal practice for omitting such a word in such a context.
The other two variations, ‫ ידכה‬and ‫ימינכה‬, are the expected longer second masculine singular
endings discussed above.145

Psalm 139:11
‫ י ְשׁוּ ֵ ֑פנִי ְ֝וַ֗לי ְָלה ֣אוֹר ַבֲּעֵדֽנִי׃‬ì‫שׁ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫־ ֣ח‬ì‫ ֭ ָוא ַֹמר אַ‬MT
‫ ואומרה אך חושך ישופני ולילה אז}}ו{{ר בעדי‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:2-3
And I said, indeed darkness sweeps over me, and night has girded {is girded} around me.

For a discussion of this feature cf. HDSS §200.27, §311.13; LPIS §3.12; LLBIS, 140-145 and 566-67; Reymond
§4.7; and Shelomo Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations,” VT 38/2 (1988), 155. Abegg notes
with Sáenz-Badillos that: “The orthography here clearly indicates a tradition at variance with the Tiberian but with
certain similarities to Samaritan Hebrew and to the Greek transcriptions. The phenomenon could be due, at least in
part to penultimate stress…” LPIS, 32.
144
Note that Kenn ms 117 reads an omission here as well, which most likely is also an erroneous mechanical error.
Corresponding to ‫ ַגּם‬G reads καὶ γάρ “and also,” S ‫“ ܘܐܦ‬and also,” VLXX etenim “for also,” VHeb etiam “also,” and
T ‫“ לחוד‬also.”
145
Cf. Psalm 139:8.
143

62

The first word ‫ ואומרה‬contains two variations. The first is the expected longer so-called
cohortative form in the first person singular discussed above,146 and the second is the
orthographical addition of a waw mater lectionis for an o-class vowel. While this certainly does
occur in MT, it is more consistently used in QH as the use of matres lectionis appears to have
increased from EBH to LBH, and beyond. Indeed, Abegg notes that: “The use of waw to indicate
a vowel increased noticeably from EBH to LBH, and became quite characteristic of QSP, with
80% of ‘non-biblical’ mss from Qumran incorporating it consistently as a vowel letter, and less
than 50% of “biblical” mss doing so.”147 Therefore it is to be expected from a “translator”
witness. The next variation, ‫חושך‬, is also the expected orthographical addition of a waw mater
lectionis for an o-class vowel.
The following word ‫ אז}}ו{{ר‬contains both an original and corrected reading, neither of
which corresponds to MT, which reads ‫“ אוֹר‬light”.148 The original reading presumably read a
passive participle (‫“ )אָזוּר‬and night (is) girded around me.” And the corrected reading
presumably read a Qal perfect (‫“ )אָזַר‬and night has girded around me.” Both are substantive
substitution variations which seem to address the difficulty of night becoming light.149 Another
possibility is that the corrector knew of the MT reading and supposed it to be a graphic error in
which the ‫ ז‬was mistaken forf‫ו‬. Nevertheless, either reading appears to solve a difficult reading,
which, as we will come to recognize, is to be expected from a “translator” scribe.
The last variation, ‫בעדי‬, appears to be morphological with a change from the obsolete or
Cf. Psalm 139:9
147 Cf. LPIS §1.1. Cf also HDSS §100.2 and LLBIS 126–148.
148
Cf. DJD 4, 41 where Sanders notes the erasure of ‫ ו‬after ‫ז‬. Note that most of the ancient versions support MT
here. That is, G reads φωτισµός “illumination,” S ‫“ ()*ܪ‬will illumine,” VLXX illuminatio “illumination,” and VHeb
lux “light.”
149
This is presumably why T reads ‫“ קביל‬darkened.”
146

63

rare form with the long first person singular suffix ‫ בעדני‬to the more common form with the short
first person singular suffixf‫בעדי‬.150 Indeed, the long form occurs only here in L or the Qumran
f

“biblical” and “non-biblical” corpora. As we will recognize, this tendency to make the linguistic
profile of texts clear and unambiguous is to be expected from a “translator” witness. As stated in
Psalm 139:9 above, here we see the need to incorporate a linguistic perspective into text-critical
discussions. A lack of this perspective can be seen in, for example, the textual commentator
Dahood’s work on this passage since he does not incorporate scribal practice or historical
linguistics into his discussion of why MT preserved this form. Instead he proposes that the use of
‫ בעדני‬over ‫ בעדי‬can be explained as a desire for assonance with ‫ ישופני‬in the previous verse.151

Psalm 139:12
‫שׁיָ֗כה ָכּאוֹ ָֽרה׃‬
ֵ ‫ ֭ ְוַלי ְָלה ַכּ֣יּוֹם י ָ ִ ֑איר ַ֝כֲּח‬ê‫ ִ֫מֶ֥מּ‬ì‫א־י ְַח ִ ֪שׁי‬ïֽ ì֮‫שׁ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫ ַגּם־ח‬MT
‫ גם חושך לוא יחשך ממכה ולילה כיום יאיר כחושך כאור‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:3-4
Even darkness is not too dark for you, and night is bright as the day. As is darkness so is light.
The first variation, ‫חושך‬, is the same orthographical addition of a waw mater lectionis for an oclass vowel discussed in Psalm 139:11 above, and is therefore expected. The second is the
orthographical variation of the negation particle ‫ לוא‬instead of ‫לא‬, which is more typical of QH
than the Hebrew of the MT.152 Thus it is to be expected from a “translator” witness.
The third variation, ‫יחשך‬, is an orthographical lack of a yod mater lectionis for an i-class
vowel (if indeed a Hiphil form is to be read). While this variation is not to be expected since such
an omission does not clarify meaning or disambiguate and is not typical of QH over the Hebrew
A similar variation, that is, a change from an obsolete or rare form to a more common one, occurs also in
11QPsalmsa fEii:3 / Psa 104:23 with a change from ‫ עדי‬to ‫עד‬. Also note that G appears to support MT in reading ἐν
τῇ τρυφῇ µου “in my delight,” since the most likely retroversion is ‫*ְבֵּעֶדנִּי‬.
151
Cf. Mitchell J. Dahood, Psalms 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 292.
152
Cf. HDSS §100.5. Reymond §3.5.
150

64

of the MT, it is not wholly unexpected. This is because in the Great Psalm Scroll (disregarding
the spellings of the proper nouns ‫ דויד‬and ‫ )ירושלים‬a yod mater lectionis for an i-class vowel is
used four or five times when it is not used in L, and not used two times when it is used in L,
including here.153 Thus the use of a yod mater lectionis for an i-class vowel seems to be relatively
fluid among the differing scribal practices. Alternatively, ‫ יחשך‬could be read as a Qal (ְ‫שׁך‬
ַ ‫)י ְַח‬,
which is arguably an easier reading than an “internal Hiphil.”154 The fourth variation, ‫ממכה‬, is the
expected longer second masculine singular ending.155
The fifth variation, ‫כחושך כאור‬, is a lexical156 change from the presumably rare or obsolete
forms ‫ חשיכה‬and ‫ אורה‬to the more common forms ‫ חושך‬andf‫אור‬, as occurred with ‫ בעדי‬in Psalm
139:11 above. Accordingly, ‫ חשיכה‬occurs 6x in L, whereas ‫ חושך‬occurs 80x in L. And ‫ אורה‬occurs
3x in L, whereas ‫ אור‬occurs 122x in L.157 So such a change to a more common form is not
unexpected in a “translator” witness.

Psalm 139:13
‫ ִֽכּי־ ֭אַָתּה ָק ִ ֣ניָת ִכְלי ֹ ָ ֑תי ְ֝תֻּסֵ֗כּנִי ְבּ ֶ ֣בֶטן ִאִֽמּי׃‬MT
‫ כי אתה קניתה כליותי תסוכני בבטן אמי‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:4-5
For it was you who formed my kidneys. You knit me together in the womb of my mother.
The use of a yod mater lectionis for an i-class vowel in 11QPsalmsa when lacking in MT include ‫ סיגים‬in 11:15 /
Psa 119:119, [ ‫ אוית]יה‬in 6:7 / Psa 132:14, ‫ נשי ׄ֯א]ים‬in 14:15 / Psa 135:7 (which, per Kenn, has MT mss support for
reading ‫)נשיאים‬,f‫ תרהיבני‬in 21:5 / Psa 138:3, and also ‫ יכתירו‬in 25:5 / Psa 142:8 (in which Kenn ms 43 reads ‫)ויכתיריך‬.
Accordingly, the lack of a yod mater lectionis for an i-class vowel in 11QPsalmsa when used in MT include only
here and ‫ והעבר‬in 15:15 / Psa 136:14. Cf. HDSS §100.32, Reymond §3.2, and LPIS, 26 for more information on the
use of yod as a mater lectionis in Qumran Hebrew.
154
Note that in the glosses from DCH “be dark,” HALOT “become dark,” and BDB “hide, conceal” this occurrence
with the Hiphil is the only entry cited for the gloss.
155
Cf. Psalm 139:8.
156
Or perhaps grammatical, if one views the two forms as grammatical variants of the same word (one being
masculine, the other feminine) instead of two distinct words from the same verbal root. Cf. chapter 5 for a
discussion of what constitutes a lexical and a grammatical variation.
157
Note also that G’s reading τὸ σκότος αὐτῆς...τὸ φῶς αὐτῆς “its darkness…its light,” and Symmachus’ reading
ὅµοιον τὸ σκότος καὶ τὸ φῶς αὐτῆς “like the darkness and its light” apparently also support L’s consonantal reading
since they are most likely retroverted as “‫כחשיכהּ כאורהּ‬.”
153

f

65

The first variation, ‫קניתה‬, is the longer second masculine singular ending, which is much more
typical of QH than the Hebrew of the MT.158 Thus it is expected. The second variation, ‫כליותי‬, is
the expected waw mater lectionis for an o-class vowel.159 The final variation, ‫תסוכני‬, is the use of
a waw mater lectionis for a u-class vowel, which again is more typical of QH than the Hebrew of
the MT, and particularly characteristic of the Great Psalms Scroll.160 Thus it is also expected.

Psalm 139:14
‫שׁי י ַֹ֥דַעת ְמ ֽא ֹד׃‬
ִ ֗ ‫ ְ֝ונְַפ‬ê‫ ַ ֤על ִ ֥כּי נוָֹר֗אוֹת ֫נְִפֵ֥ליִתי נְִפָל ִ ֥אים ַמֲע ֶ ֑שׂי‬ê֗‫ ֽאוְֹד‬MT
‫ אודכה על כי נורא אתה נפלא ֯ות נפלאים מעשיכה ונפשי ידעת מואדה‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:5-6
I praise you because you are awesome. Wonders of wonders are your works, and my soul knows
it very much.
The variations ‫ אודכה‬and ‫ מעשיכה‬display the expected longer second masculine singular suffix
discussed above.161 The second variation involves a substantive change from the MT reading
‫ נוָֹראוֹת נְִפֵליִתי‬to ‫נורא אתה נפלא ֯ות‬. We will first begin with the MT reading ‫ נוָֹראוֹת נְִפֵליִתי‬and assume
it represents the Vorlage of the Great Psalms Scroll scribe, seeing as, among other factors, it has
versional support.162 Concerning ‫ נוָֹראוֹת‬here, WO §10.2.2e and GKC §118.5b read an accusative
Cf. HDSS §310.11 where Qimron notes that such orthography is “very frequent” in Qumran Hebrew.
Cf. Psalm 139:11.
160
Cf. HDSS §100.2; Reymond §3.2; LLBIS, 126-148; and LPIS §1.1. Note that it is used 37x in 11QPsalmsa when
not used in MT, and omitted only once (in 11QPsalmsa 27:4 / Psa 140:3).
161
Cf. Psalm 139:8.
162
Rahlfs’s Old Greek supports the MT reading of ‫ נוָֹראוֹת‬in reading φοβερῶς ἐθαυµαστώθην “awesomely I have
been made wonderful,” citing Codex Sinaiticus, the Sahidic (vid. “as it seems”), and an Old Latin witness (LaG)
against the other witnesses (rel. “the others”), which read φοβερῶς ἐθαυµαστώθης “awesomely you have been made
wonderful.” Accordingly VLXX reads terribiliter magnificatus es “awesomely you are wonderful,” VHeb terribiliter
magnificasti “awesomely you have made wonderful,” S ‫ܬ‬20݂/‫ܪܬܐ ܕ‬.-‫ܬܕ‬. “the wonder(s) that you have done,”
and T ‫“ דחילן פרישית‬you have wonderfully done awesome things.”
158
159

Also note that many MT mss per Kenn preserve the root aleph of the root √‫ פלא‬and so read ‫נפלאתי‬. Concerning the
omission of aleph in mss such as L, Dahood notes: “[I]t is not necessary to supply an extra aleph with 11QPsa, since
the evidence quoted at Ps lx 11 proves that when the same consonant (especially aleph) ended one word and began
the next, it was often written but once;” Mitchell J. Dahood, Psalms 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 293.
Note also that the versional evidence does not support the Great Psalms Scroll reading.

66

participle of manner, rendering “fearfully” and “in a fearful” manner, respectively. Accordingly,
HALOT and BDB cite GKC to suggest an adverbial use here. DCH reads an adverbial use, but
also provides an emendation to ‫“ נוֵֹראָת‬you are feared.”163 Concerning ‫נְִפֵליִתי‬, BDB reads a
denominative Nifal “be extraordinary, wonderful.” HALOT reads “be unusual, wonderful,” and
DCH read “be wonderful.” Thus MT appears to read: “I praise you because awesomely I have
been made wonderful. Your works are wonderful, and my soul knows it very much.” So given
the suggestion of emendation above and the mere fact that the “translator” scribe saw the need to
undertake a substantive revision, MT admittedly preserves a difficult reading. And as we will
come to recognize, the “translator” scribe attempts to disambiguate syntactically difficult
passages in such cases.
Thus instead of ‫ נוָֹראוֹת‬the Great Psalms Scroll reads a singular Nifal participle ‫ נורא‬which
acts as the predicate for the following pronoun ‫אתה‬, referring to YHWH. So the Great Psalms
Scroll reads: “You are awesome.” This is close to the conjecture given in DCH (above). Then
instead of ‫ נְִפֵליִתי‬the Great Psalms Scroll reads ‫נפלא ֯ות‬, followed by ‫נפלאים מעשיכה‬. Here DCH
proposes reading the Great Psalms Scroll as “wonders of wonders are your creations,”
presumably viewing ‫ נפלא ֯ות‬as a substantive “wonderful things” in the construct state with the
following ‫נפלאים‬.164 Presumably ‫ נפלא ֯ות‬is a substantive in the construct state. Otherwise reading
f

an adjectival predicate would produce a grammatical difficulty since there would be a feminine
predicate corresponding to a masculine subject (‫)מעשיכה‬.
What explains the variation? This may be a case of an erroneous variation (that is,
unintentional change) caused by ineptitude (that is, a scribe’s failure to understand their
163
164

Cf. DCH √‫ ירא‬Nifal.
Cf. DCH √‫מעשה‬. Note also here DSSB simply reads “wondrous.”

67

Vorlage).165 This is to say, perhaps the scribe was not familiar with the relatively rare accusative
of manner usage of ‫ נוָֹראוֹת‬since in what is extant of the Qumran “biblical” and “non-biblical”
corpora and MT, there are no other such adverbial uses of ‫נוָֹראוֹת‬.166 And so the scribe first simply
f

produced an unambiguous reading ‫“ נורא אתה‬you are awesome.” Likewise regarding ‫ נפלא ֯ות‬for
‫( נְִפֵליִתי‬or possibly for the more graphically similar ‫נפלאתי‬, per other MT mss in Kenn), this may
also be a case of erroneous variation caused by ineptitude. Perhaps the scribe was not familiar
with the rare form ‫ נְִפֵליִתי‬since its only attestation in MT is here and it never occurs in what is
extant in the Qumran “biblical” and “non-biblical” corpora. And so the scribe instead produced
the unambiguous reading ‫“ נפלא ֯ות נפלאים מעשיכה‬wonders of wonders are your works.”167
Regardless of how the variation is explained, though, as expected the scribe attempted to produce
an unambiguous reading, even if it may appear to be inept.
Again, here we see the need to incorporate a linguistic perspective into text-critical
discussions since, for example, the textual commentator Hossfeld does not incorporate scribal
practice or historical linguistics into his discussions of this variant. Instead he acknowledges the
difficulties that interpreting the ‫ כי‬clause with the divine predicate (here ‫ )נורא אתה‬creates, gives
no explanation for why it occurs, and then refers the reader to Dahmen. Dahmen, in turn,
attributes the variant “at first glance” (auf den ersten Blick) to dittography and then affirms how
the grammatical difficulties concerning ‫( נפלא ֯ות‬presumably the difficulty of having a feminine
predicate refer to a masculine noun [‫ )]מעשיכה‬confirm the Great Psalms Scrolls’ secondary and
Cf. chapter 5.
The NRSV, among others, renders the other four occurrences (Isa 64:2; Psa 45:5; 65:6; and 106:22) of ‫ נוָֹראוֹת‬in
the Hebrew Bible as “awesome deeds.” Likewise the six occurrences of ‫ נוָֹראוֹת‬in the Qumran “non-biblical” corpus
(4Q266 f1a_b:6; 4Q286 f1ii:5; 4Q287 f3:1; 4Q491 f11i:8; 4Q504 f8R:3; and 4Q511 f35:5) do not appear to be
adverbial. For uses of the accusative of manner, cf. GKC §118.5 and WO §10.2.2.
167
Cf. DCH √‫מעשה‬.
165

166

68

dependent status to the MT reading.168
The last variation, ‫מואדה‬, is both orthographical with the waw mater lectionis, and
morphological with the addition of a long heh suffix. Note that ‫ מואדה‬occurs in the Qumran
“biblical” and “non-biblical” corpora, but never in MT. Thus it is a solid identifier of a variant
scribal practice from that which the MT corpora uses, and so it is to be expected from a
“translator” scribe. With regard to the morphological aspect of the variation, it appears that the
heh suffix has been added to the adverb ‫“ מאד‬very” to serve to disambiguate from reading the
noun ‫“ מאד‬power” with the result that it no longer has the syntactical function or force of
designating direction.169

Psalm 139:15
‫שׁר־ֻעֵ֥שּׂיִתי ַב ֵ ֑סֶּתר ֻ֝רַ֗קְּמִתּי ְֽבַּתְחִתּ֥יּוֹת ֽאֶָרץ׃‬
ֶ ‫א־נְִכַ֥חד ָעְצִ֗מי ִ֫מֶ֥מָּךּ ֲא‬ï MT
‫לוא נכחד עצבי ממכה אשר עשית ֯י בסתר רוקמתי בתחתיות ארץ‬fGreat Psalms Scroll 20:6-7
My idol has not been hidden from you, which I made in secret. I have been embroidered in the
depths of the earth.
The first variation, ‫לוא‬, is the expected orthographical waw mater lectionis for an o-class
vowel.170 The second variation, ‫עצבי‬, appears to be an erroneous graphical confusion of ‫ ב‬and ‫מ‬.171
f

The third variation, ‫ממכה‬, is the expected longer second masculine singular ending, here
occurring with a preposition.172
Cf. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Erich Zenger, Linda M. Maloney, and Klaus Baltzer, Psalms 3: a Commentary on
Psalms 101-150 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 536; and Ulrich Dahmen, Psalmen- Und Psalter-Rezeption Im
Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11Qpsa aus Qumran
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 205.
169
Cf. LPIS, 36; Reymond, §5.9; and HDSS §340. Note that among any Qumran “non-biblical” ms that references a
proto-canonical psalm, ‫ מאדה‬is spelled defectively only once (in 4Q177 f12_13i:3 / Psa 6:4).
170
Cf. Psalm 139:11 and Psalm 139:12.
171
Note that all the ancient versions appear to support the consonantal text of MT meaning “my bone” (G reads τὸ
ὀστοῦν µου, S 5-̈43, VLXX os meum, VHeb ossa mea, and T ‫)גרמי‬.
172
Cf. Psalm 139:8.
168

69

Though it is admittedly uncertain, ‫ עשית ֯י‬in the Great Psalms Scroll may be a Qal form,
and not a Pual form like MT, which appears to read: “My frame was not hidden from you when I
was made in secret.” This is because 1) besides ‫ עשית ֯י‬here, the Great Psalms Scroll preserves
four Pual forms,173 of which two contain a waw mater lectionis.174 In addition, the ancient
versions are split between active (G, S, and VLXX) and passive readings (Aquila, Symmachus,
VHeb, and T); and 2) an active Qal reading is arguably easier since it involves the much more
common relative use of the particle ‫“ אשר‬which I made” over the quite rare temporal use of ‫אשר‬
“when I was made” or concessive use “although I was made.”175 The last variation, ‫רוקמתי‬, is the
expected use of a waw mater lectionis for a u-class vowel.176

Psalm 139:16
‫א ֶא ָ ֣חד ָבֶּהֽם׃‬ï‫ ֻכָּ֪לּם י ִָ֫כֵּ֥תבוּ י ָ ִ ֥מים י ֻ ָ ֑צּרוּ ְו‬ê֮‫ ְוַעֽל־ִסְפְר‬ê‫ ָגְּל ִ ֤מי ׀ ָ֘ר֤אוּ ֵעי ֗נֶי‬MT
.‫ גלמי ראו עיניכה ועל ספריכה כולם יכתבו ימים יצרו ולו באח מהמה‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:7-9
Your eyes saw my unformed body; and in your books all of them were written, (namely), days
(for) its formation, and for it with a member from them.
The first and second variations, ‫ עיניכה‬and ‫ספריכה‬, contain the expected longer second masculine
singular ending.177 The second variation, ‫ספריכה‬, is a substantive substitutional variation in which
the plural form is used instead of the singular. In the Great Psalms Scroll (in comparison to L) a
noun is changed from singular to plural 23x, and from plural to singular 13x. Each individual
occurrence needs to be analyzed in detail before a discernible pattern or possible theological
motive might be identified. So for the scope of this thesis it may suffice to say tentatively that
They are 3:9 / Psa 122:3; 16:10 / Psa 145:3; 20:6 / Psa 139:15; 20:7 / Psa 139:15; and 20:8 / Psa 139:16.
Note that 20:8 / Psa 139:16 is addressed below.
175
Cf. DCH 4d which proposes “how or although,” here, and BDB 3 which proposes reading here “I who was
wrought in secret (= though I was wrought in secret).”
176
Cf. Psalm 139:13.
177
Cf. Psalm 139:8.
173
174

70

since singular to plural variations are found among Qumran psalms witnesses of varying scribal
practices, it is likely not a pattern to be identified with any particular scribal practice.178
The third variation, ‫כולם‬, is the use of a waw mater lectionis for a u-class vowel, which is
expected, especially with the word ‫כול‬.179 While not clearly a variation, the form ‫ יצרו‬might be
f

expected to contain a waw mater lectionis if it were to be read as a Pual, as it is in MT.180 Two
alternatives to the MT reading thus present themselves. One is to read a Qal qatal form “they
formed,” and the other is to read a noun + pronominal suffix “its formation.” The form one reads
depends on how the final clause of the verse is understood (see below).
The final clause in both the Great Psalms Scroll and MT has been considered a “troubled
text.”181 So we will consider briefly each variation before considering the clause as a whole.
Many MT mss (and the Kethib in L) read ‫ולא‬, whereas many MT mss (and the Qere in L), plus
the Great Psalms Scroll, read ‫ולו‬.182 So it may be an orthographical variation (two ways of writing
f

“not”) or a substitutional one (“and not” versus “and for it”). Next, MT (and all the ancient
versions)183 reads ‫“ אחד‬one,” whereas the Great Psalms Scroll reads a substitutional variation ‫באח‬
“with a member.”184 The last variation, ‫( מהמה‬versus ‫)ָבֶּהם‬, has the support of some MT mss and
Symmachus.185 While this could be an erroneous graphic confusion of ‫ ב‬and ‫מ‬, it could also be a
The following are the psalms witnesses in which singular to plural variations are found, with their ranking in ( ):
4Q Catena A (N/A) [note this is a Pesher], 4QPsalmsa (.68), 4QPsalmsb (.06), 4QPsalmsd (.34), 4QPsalmse (.32),
4QPsalmsh (.08) , 4QPsalmsk (.22), 4QPsalmsw (0), and 11QPsalmsc (.51).
179
Cf. Psalm 139:13.
180
Cf. the discussion concerning ‫ עשית ֯י‬in Psalm 139:15 above.
181
Cf. DSSB.
182
Cf. 2 Sam 18:12; 19:7; et alia for the same variation in the MT Qere and Kethib.
183
G reads καὶ οὐθεὶς ἐν αὐτοῖς “and no one among them,” S :(‫*ܘܢ ܐ‬9 876‫“ ܘ‬and no one among them,” VLXX et
nemo in eis “and no one among them,” VHeb et non est una in eis “and there is not one day among them,”, and T ‫ולית‬
‫“ בחד חד ביניהון‬but on a single day among them.”
184
Cf. √‫ אח‬in DCH 3 and HALOT 4 for the meaning “member” or “companion.”
185
Note that G, S, Theodotion, Aquila, VLXX, VHeb, and T, all appear to read -‫ב‬.
178

71

lexical variation due to issues of valency concerning the prepositionf-‫ב‬. 186 In addition, this
ff

variation preserves the so-called long suffix, which is found much more commonly in QH over
the Hebrew of the MT, and therefore is to be expected from a “translator” witness.187
Thus the final clause of the passage in the Great Psalms Scroll may read: “and for it with
a member from them.”188 The overall thought is that during each of the days in which the
different members of the speaker’s body were being formed, YHWH wrote each one down in his
books. Alternatively, this may be an erroneous variation of some type since the reading is not
very clear, as we would expect from an intentional change (that is, substantive) by a “translator”
scribe.189 If this variation is indeed deemed erroneous, this may suggest that erroneous variations
are more prone to occur in “translator” witnesses than in “mirror” witnesses, though more
investigation needs to be done using the proposed schema to form a solid conclusion. However,
if it is deemed to be an intentional or substantive variation, then the final clauses refer to the days
of the formation of the speaker’s body which were written in YHWH’s books instead of the days
of the speaker’s life that were written in YHWH’s book (MT).

Psalm 139:17
‫שׁיֶהֽם׃‬
ֵ ‫ ֵ ֑אל ֶ֥מה ָ֝עְצמוּ ָרא‬ê‫ ְוִ֗לי ַמה־יּ ְָק ֣רוּ ֵר ֶ ֣עי‬MT
‫ לי מה יקרו רעיך אל על מה עצמו ר^א^שיהם‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:9
And how precious to me are your thoughts, God. Why are the sums of them numerous?

186

Note that among substitutions of prepositions in the psalms witnesses, per Kenn collations only changes
involving -‫ ב‬have mixed MT readings. This suggests a certain degree of variation with at least certain uses of -‫ב‬
among MT witnesses.
187
Cf. HDSS §321.16, §322.18; and LPIS §3.241.
188
Cf. the DSSB “even for it with its corresponding member from them all.”
189
Cf. chapter 5 for the rationale and explanation of the schema’s terminology.

72

The first variation, ‫על‬, is perhaps more interesting than it initially appears. However one
categorizes the variation depends on how the syntax of the presumed Vorlage (that is, MT’s
reading) is understood. That is to say, is the second hemistich parallel in meaning to the first
hemistich (“In which way are your thoughts precious”), thus reading: “In which way (= ‫ )ֶמה‬is
their sum numerous?” Or does the second hemistich instead read “for what reason (= ‫ )ֶמה‬are
their sums numerous?”, perhaps in anticipation of the challenge presented in v. 18, as the Great
Psalms Scroll reads explicitly with ‫“( על מה‬for what reason”)?190
If the two hemistichs are seen as parallel in meaning (that is, “in which way… in which
way…”), then the Great Psalms Scroll preserves a substantive addition since the second
hemistich is asking a different kind of question. But if the two hemistichs are not seen as parallel
in syntax (that is, “In which way… For what reason…”), then the Great Psalms Scroll preserves
a linguistic syntactical variation which clarifies the ambiguous meaning of ‫ מה‬in the second
clause (that is, it clarifies that it means “for what reason” instead of “in which way”).
The second variation, ‫( רשיהם‬the uncorrected reading in the Great Psalms Scroll), is a
phonological one, resulting from a weakened guttural.191

Psalm 139:18
‫׃‬ìֽ‫ ֶ֭אְסְפֵּרם ֵמ֣חוֹל י ְִר֑בּוּן ֱ֝הִקי ֗צ ִֹתי ְועוֹ ִ ֥די ִעָמּ‬MT
‫ אספרם מחול ירבון הקיצותי ועוד עמכה‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:10
(If) I try to count them, they outnumber the sand. I came to the end — and still (I am) with you.
First of all, it is worthy to note that the paragogic nun in the Great Psalms Scroll (‫ )ירבון‬is not
omitted, as it frequently is, and so might be expected from a “translator” witness. Presumably it
Note that per Kenn MT mss here read ‫ומה‬.
Cf. HDSS §200.11; Reymond §4.3; LPIS §2.11. Note also that retaining the ‫ א‬may serve to clarify the semantic
root, so as not to read, e.g., ‫“ רש‬poor,” which would be expected from a “translator” scribe.
190
191

73

is frequently omitted from the Great Psalms Scroll because it was rare in contemporary speech
and/or writing, as it is rare in QH.192
The first variation, ‫הקיצותי‬, is the expected orthographical waw mater lectionis for an oclass vowel.193 The second variation, ‫ועוד‬, is either a substantive omission since there is no suffix,
or perhaps a linguistic syntactical variation in which a redundant suffix was omitted (redundant
since the first person context is clear from the preceding verb). A pronominal suffix is not
omitted in any other Qumran “biblical” witness, though, it is more common to see ‫ עוד‬written
without one. The last variation, ‫עמכה‬, is the expected longer second masculine singular ending,
here with a preposition.194

Psalm 139:19
‫ ִאם־ִתְּק ֖ט ֹל ֱא֥לוַֹהּ ׀ ָר ָ ֑שׁע ְואַנְֵ֥שׁי ָ֝דִ֗מים ֣סוּרוּ ֶמֽנִּי‬MT
‫ אם תקטול אלה רשע אנשי דמים סור מני‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:10-11
If you would slay, O God, the wicked, people of bloodshed. Turn from me…
The first variation, ‫תקטול‬, is the expected orthographical waw mater lectionis for an o-class
vowel.195 In contrast, the second variation, ‫אלה‬, is either an unexpected omission of a waw mater
lectionis for an o-class vowel (if L is considered the antecedent text),196 or there is no variation if
one of the many other MT mss (which also read ‫ )אלה‬is considered the antecedent text.197 The
third variation, ‫אנשי‬, is an omission of conjunctive waw. Either the antecedent text was that of
Cf. HDSS §310.127 where Qimron states that it is “practically unused.” However, this has showed itself to be an
overstatement, reflecting instead the Great Isaiah Scroll to a great degree, as Abegg notes in LPIS, 36. Note that 10
of the 16 additions are in the Torah, with 5 occurring in tefillin, and that among the Psalms witnesses a paragogic
nun is never added by Qumran mss when not present in MT, supporting the that statement that it was at least a rare
feature of Qumran Hebrew.
193
Cf. Psalm 139:11. Note that per Kenn, some MT mss ‫הקצתי‬, ‫הקצותי‬, and ‫הקיצותי‬.
194
Cf. Psalm 139:8.
195
Cf. Psalm 139:11.
196
Cf. DJD 4, 41.
197
Note that waw as a mater lectionis for an o-class vowel is omitted (in contrast to L) in the Great Psalms Scroll 5x,
and 4 (!) have MT mss support per Kenn (the sole exception being at 23:16 / Psa 144:6 for ‫ ברק‬versus ‫)ברוק‬.
192

74

Kenn mss 35 and 201, which also does not contain a conjunctive waw,198 or the waw was omitted
so as to more clearly express an appositional relationship between ‫ רשע‬and ‫( אנשי דמים‬see the
translation above and the analysis of ‫ סור‬below). Regardless, this substantiates what Abegg states
in LPIS §4.1: “[V]ariations in the use of waw give evidence to the scribal freedom exercised in
the late Second Temple period.”199
The last variation, ‫סור‬, is a substantive substitutional one in which a singular subject is
addressed instead of a group, as with the plural ‫ סוּרוּ‬in MT.200 What explains the variation?
Perhaps the “translator” scribe saw a plural imperative as problematic since in the first hemistich
and throughout the rest of the psalm the intended addressee is a single person, namely, YHWH.
And so the singular imperative was perhaps used to show unambiguously that YHWH is the
intended subject. So, assuming L is indeed the archetype reading, the scribe had perhaps first
omitted the conjunctive waw so as to make ‫אנשי דמים‬, “people of bloodshed,” more clearly
appositional to ‫רשע‬, “the wicked,” and thus formed a complete sentence (“If you would slay, O
God, the wicked, (namely), people of bloodshed”) so that the command ‫ סור‬could begin the next
thought. Ending the sentence here would also avoid the arguably clumsier beginning to Psalm
139:20 found in MT which begins with the relative ‫אשר‬.201 However, such a transitive use of the
f

Qal of ‫ סור‬instead of Hifil has no precedent.202 So here we most likely see simple scribal
Note that apparent versional support is mixed (G, Symmachus, VHeb contra VLXX, S, and T).
199
For more research into this phenomenon, cf. Jarod T. Jacobs. “A Comprehensive Analysis of the Conjunction
Waw in the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls Variants and Their Implications,” MA Thesis. Trinity Western University,
2008.
200
This is the only time in which the Great Psalms Scroll scribe shifts a verb from plural to singular. The sole
occurrence of a verb shifting from singular to plural in the Great Psalms Scroll is ‫ ישבחו‬in 11QPsalmsa 16:12 / Psa
145:4). Also note some MT mss per Kenn read a plural qatal form (‫)ָסרוּ‬, G, VLXX, and VHeb read a plural
imperative, and S and T apparently read a plural yiqtol.
201 Note how the NRSV, among others, resorts to using — to bridge the passages.
202
CD 10:9 (‫ )לסור את דעתם‬may be the sole exception, though perhaps there it should be read as a Hifil ‫ַלִסיר‬.
198

75

ineptitude, unless the Qal ‫ סור‬is possibly conceived as having a collective singular subject ‫רשע‬
“wicked,” thus rendering: “Depart from me, those who…”
It is also noteworthy that the form ‫ מני‬is retained in the Great Psalms Scroll, despite the
fact that some MT mss per Kenn give the more common form ‫ממני‬. Aramaic use may have
influenced this.

Psalm 139:20
‫׃‬ê‫ ִלְמזִ ָ ֑מּה נָ ֻ ֖שׂא ַל ָ ֣שְּׁוא ָע ֶֽרי‬ê‫ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ֭י ֹאְמֻר‬MT
‫ אשר יאמרוך למזמה נשאו לשוא עריך‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:11-12
those who mention you for a wicked scheme, (who) used your cities for deceit.
The first variation, ‫יאמרוך‬, is the expected use of a waw mater lectionis for a u-class vowel.203 The
second variation, ‫נשאו‬, is an orthographical variation in which the “translator” scribe uses the
more common and less ambiguous spelling, as is be expected from a “translator” scribe.204

Psalm 139:21
‫ ֶאְתקוָֹטֽט׃‬ê‫שׂ ָ֑נא ֝וִּבְתקוְֹמֶ֗מי‬
ְ ‫ י ְה ָ֥וה ׀ ֶא‬ê‫שׂנְ ֶ ֖אי‬
ַ ‫ ֲהֽלוֹא־ְמ‬MT
‫ הלוא משנאיכה יהוה אשנא וממתקוממיכה אתקוטט‬Great Psalms Scroll, 20, 12-13
Do I not hate your haters, YHWH? And those who rise up against you I loathe.
It is worth first noting the occurrence of the digraph ‫ לֹוא‬preceded by ‫ ֲה‬in MT. This pattern
frequently occurs in MT, and so is not unexpected.205 The first variation, ‫משנאיכה‬, is the expected

Cf. Psalm 139:13.
The textual commentator Kraus also proposes reading with the Great Psalm Scroll when he says: “The text is
distorted. First of all, ‫שׂׂא‬
ֻ ָ‫ נ‬could be thought of as an irregular spelling for ‫שׂאוּ‬
ְ ָ‫נ‬.” Psalms 60-150: a Commentary
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 511.
203
204

Note that GKC does not considers the Great Psalms Scroll to be erroneous here when it states in §23i:3: “An ‫ א‬is
sometimes added at the end of the word to a final û, î, or ô …. These examples, however, are not so much instances
of ‘Arabic orthography’, as early scribal errors, as in … and in ‫שׂוּא‬
ְ ָ‫ נ‬Psalm 139:20 for ‫שׂאוּ‬
ְ ָ‫נ‬.” It is also noteworthy
that per Kenn’s collations there is no (!) MT mss variation.
In L ‫ ֲהֽלוֹא‬occurs 148x whereas ‫ ֲהֽל ֹא‬occurs 124x. Compare this to how without the interrogative particle ‫ לוא‬occurs
191x in L versus ‫ לא‬which occurs 5188x in L.
205

76

longer second masculine singular ending, occurring here with a participle.206
The second variation in the Great Psalms Scroll, ‫וממתקוממיכה‬, presents an expected clear
and unambiguous reading (“and from those who rise against you”) with the long second
masculine singular ending on a Hithpolel participle from √‫קום‬, which is to be expected from a
translator witness. Now, besides the orthographic long second masculine singular ending, this
variation is two-fold. So each part will be treated separately.
First, the form ‫ מתקוממיכה‬is a lexical variation of ê‫ְתקוְֹמֶמי‬, if (assuming L is the antecedent
text contra many MT mss)207 MT is read as a form of the substantive ‫“( ְתּקוֵֹמם‬one who rises up”),
instead of a Hithpolel participle from √‫קום‬, as found in the Great Psalms Scroll (and other MT
mss).208 Second, regarding the preposition, if L is seen as the antecedent reading with the
preposition -‫ב‬, then there is a lexical variation here as well since the Great Psalms Scroll
preserves a -‫ מ‬preposition. Such a variation could have occurred due to issues of valency
involving -‫( ב‬cf. Psalm 139:16 above), or it admittedly could simply be an erroneous graphic
confusion of ‫ מ‬and ‫ב‬.209 As was noted for Psalm 139:14 above, the utility and necessity of the
f

proposed linguistically sensitive schema for identifying variant scribal practices is highlighted by
the fact that major textual commentators do not discuss scribal practices or historical linguistics
when commenting on this passage, and thus fail to address the complex textual data just referred
to above.210
Cf. Psalm 139:8.
Many MT mss per Kenn here read: mss ‫ובתקממך‬, mss ‫ובתקממיך‬, mss ‫ובמתקוממיך‬, ms ‫ובמתקממיך‬, and mss ‫ומתקוממיך‬.
208
Cf. ‫ ְתּקוֵֹמם‬DCH and HALOT.
209
Note that many MT mss per Kenn preserve -‫ מ‬as well.
210
Kraus makes no mention of scribal practice when he simply asserts that the emendation ‫“ וְּבִמְתקוֲֹטֶטיך‬would
certainly be correct.” Psalms 60-150: a Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 511. And neither does
Hossfeld mention scribal practice when he says: “11QPsa supports the understanding of the striking verb form
‫ תקוממיך‬in v. 21b as a Hitpael participle of ‫קום‬, “rise up,” “those who rise up/are incensed against you.” 11QPsa
206
207

77

Another variation which deserves mention is the fact that in the Great Psalms Scroll ‫יהוה‬
is written in paleo-Hebrew letters. Concerning the twenty-eight Qumran manuscripts that are
written in the square script, yet use paleo-Hebrew characters for divine names, Tov notes that
they all reflect the orthography and morphology of his proposed Qumran Scribal Practice (QSP).
And conversely, Tov notes that there are thirty-six manuscripts written in his proposed QSP
which “did not use a special system for the writing of the divine names with paleo-Hebrew
characters…or Tetrapuncta.” This indicates, as Tov remarks, that there were variant scribal
practices for writing divine names among Qumran scribes, and “possibly at different times.”211
Further investigation of these manuscripts using the present schema is required to see how it
might address the question of what variation was permitted within distinct scribal practices at
Qumran.

Psalm 139:22
‫שׂנֵא ִ ֑תים ְ֝לאוֹי ְִ֗בים ָ ֣היוּ יִֽל ׃‬
ְ ‫שׂנְ֣אָה‬
ִ ‫ ַתְּכ ִ ֣לית‬MT
‫ תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:14
With complete hatred I hate them. They have become my enemies.
There is no variation here, though it is perhaps worthy of note that L preserves the fuller spelling
with waw to indicate an o-class vowel in ‫ְלאוֹי ְִבים‬. In L the waw appears in 97x of 284 overall
occurrences of the word ‫א)ו(יב‬, with 37x of 74 occurrences located in the Psalms. So it is not
surprising that per Kenn other MT mss do not preserve the waw mater lectionis for an o-class
vowel and thus read ‫ לאיבים‬here.

replaces the preposition ‫ ב‬with ‫ מן‬and thus strengthens the petitioner's distancing of himself or herself. Hossfeld,
Frank-Lothar, Erich Zenger, Linda M. Maloney, and Klaus Baltzer, Psalms 3: a Commentary on Psalms 101-150
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 536.
211
Emanuel Tov. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Studies on
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature 54; Brill, 2004), 250–251.

78

Psalm 139:23
‫שְׂרַעָפּ ֽי׃‬
ַ ‫ ָחְק ֵ֣רנִי ֵ֭אל ְו ַ ֣דע ְלָב ִ ֑בי ְ֝בָּח ֗נֵנִי ְו ַ ֣דע‬MT
‫ חקרני אל ודע לבי בחנני ודע סרעפי‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:14-15
Search me, God, and know my heart. Test me, and know my disquieting thoughts.
The first variation, ‫לבי‬, is lexical because it preserves a synonym of the same root.212 In the
Qumran “non-biblical” Hebrew corpus ‫ לב‬unambiguously occurs 187x,213 whereas ‫לבב‬
unambiguously occurs 117x.214 Though tentative without a deeper analysis of what genre,
context, setting, etc., one form occurs over the other, this simple observation may suggest that ‫לב‬
was in the ascendency, with the “translator” witness here preserving the more common or
preferred choice.
The other variation, ‫סרעפי‬, is the phonological exchange of samek for sin.215 It is the only
occurrence of this phenomenon in the Great Psalms Scroll, and the reverse (in comparison to L)
occurs once in 11QPsalmsa 7:6 / Psa 119:20.216

Psalm 139:24
‫ עוָֹל ֽם׃‬ì‫־ ֥ע ֶֹצב ִ ֑בּי ֝וּנְֵ֗חנִי ְבּ ֶ ֣דֶר‬ì‫ וְּרֵ֗אה ִאם־ֶדֶּֽר‬MT
‫ וראה אם דרך עצב בי ונחני בדרך עולם‬Great Psalms Scroll 20:15-16
And see if there is any painful way in me. And lead me in the way of the age.
There is no apparent variation, though similar to the discussion in Psalm 139:15 above
concerning the use of a waw mater lectionis for Pual forms, one might expect to see a waw
mater lectionis for an o-class vowel if ‫ ע ֶֹצב‬were to be read. Therefore it is quite possible that the
Note that the reverse occurs in Psalm 143:4 (though there Kenn ms 219 does read ‫)לבי‬.
Ambiguous cases are: 1QHa 15:19; 18:25; fA7:1; 2Q18 f2:1; 4Q161 f7:1; 4Q161 f8_10:4; 4Q171 f3_10iv:24
(‫;)ל]ב[י‬f4Q223_224 f2ii:6; 4Q257 1:1; 4Q257 fA:2; 4Q257 fA:3; 4Q365 f6ai:6; 4Q374 f2ii:8; 4Q385a fDii:1; 4Q417
f5:1; 4Q418 f58:1; 4Q418 f148ii:6; 4Q422 3:7; 4Q427 f10:3; 4Q428 f10:8; 4Q436 f1ii:4; 4Q468a f1:2; 4Q481d
f2:2; 4Q491 f11ii:15 (2º); 4Q504 f18:2; and 4Q525 f18:4.
214
Ambiguous cases are: 1QM 1:14; 16:14; 1QHa 10:5; 1Q22 f1ii:4; 4Q184 f1:16; 4Q215a f1ii:8; 4Q257 5:7;
4Q398 f14_17i:7 (1º); 4Q444 f1_4i+5:3; 4Q506 f131_132:9; and 4Q511 f48_49+51:1. Also note that in 4Q365 f6ai:
6 the second ‫ ב‬was added.
215
Cf HDSS §200.15; Reymond §4.1.
216
Note that the tendency to use samek for sin occurs also in Mishnaic Hebrew, Michael G. Segal, Grammar of
Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927), 32.
212
213

79

Great Psalms Scroll should read ‫“( ֶעֶצב‬pain”) or ‫“( ָעָצב‬image”), both of which fit contextually
and grammatically.217

Conclusion
The purpose of this case study is to illustrate how the recognition of variant scribal practices best
serves to sufficiently explain the variation, and that the proposed schema serves well for
evaluating such features. This was prominently seen in how the Great Psalms Scroll, which is
proto-typical of “translator” witnesses, was identified as consistently preserving the following
linguistic variations (in contrast to MT): the long second person masculine singular suffix, the
‫ יקטולו‬yiqtol form, the more frequent use of a waw mater lectionis to indicate o-class and u-class
vowels, the use of the longer cohortative form in first person singular prefix verbs, the use of
more common forms over obsolete or rarer ones, and the form ‫מואדה‬.
No less important, this case study also illustrated how the Great Psalms Scroll, and by
implication “translator” witnesses in general, consistently preserved both less unambiguous
readings and (arguably) inept readings. This was especially true when MT preserved more
difficult constructions (for example, ‫ נוָֹר֗אוֹת ֫נְִפֵ֥ליִתי‬in Psalm 139:14). We will now proceed to a
case study of witnesses of Psalm 118.

217

Cf. DJD 4, 41 and T ‫“( דטעין‬of erring”).

80

6.4 Psalm 118 Case Study
This second case study again serves to illustrate how the recognition of variant scribal practices
best serves to sufficiently explain variation, and how the proposed schema serves well as a tool
to evaluate such variant scribal practices. This case study compares how at least one witness
from each proposed scribal group transmitted a single psalm, and so provides an opportunity to
illustrate (insofar as is possible given the sparse data) how the tendencies expected of each group
prove true. Again, if certain linguistic and other distinct textual features persist in one proposed
scribal practice over another, this suggests that the different groupings are valid identifiers of
scribal affinity, and that the proposed schema is a useful tool for identifying them.
For the sake of convenience, below are the witnesses of Psalm 118 with their ranking in
parenthesis ( ), and presented according to their proposed scribal group:
“Mirror” witness:
4QPsalmsb (.06)
“Mixer” witness:
4QPsalmse (.32)
“Translator” witnesses:
11QPsalmsb (0.63); Great Psalms Scroll (1.00)

Psalm 118:1
‫ הוֹדוּ ַליהָוה ִכּי־טוֹב ִכּי ְלעוָֹלם ַחְסדּוֹ׃‬MT
‫ הודו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬Great Psalms Scroll 16:1a
‫הודו ליהו[ה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬f4QPsalmsb f28ii_30i+31:7
‫הודו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעול[֯ם חסדו‬f11QPsalmsb f3:1
Give thanks to YHWH because he is good. For the age is his loyalty.
No variation occurs in this often repeated liturgical refrain, nor is any expected. However, in the
Great Psalms Scroll, the column begins with what is Psalm 118:1 in MT, and continues with

81

verses found in MT Psalm 118, though in a drastically different ordering. Thus we have a literary
variation and are at the point where the blurred boundary between text- and literary criticism lies,
as mentioned in chapter 1.1. It is beyond the scope of thesis to delve into such literary critical
variation in detail. Instead it may be sufficient to say that among the Qumran Psalms witnesses
such literary re-workings (assuming MT is the archetype) occur only among “translator”
witnesses. So this may be tentatively considered an expected attribute of “translator”
witnesses.218

Psalm 118:2-6
‫שָׂרֵאל ִכּי ְלעוָֹלם ַחְסדּוֹ׃ י ֹאְמרוּ־נָא ֵבית־אֲַהרןֹ ִכּי ְלעוָֹלם ַחְסדּוֹ׃ י ֹאְמרוּ־נָא י ְִרֵאי י ְהָוה ִכּי ְלעוָֹלם ַחְסדּוֹ׃ ִמן־ַהֵמַּצר‬
ְ ִ ‫י ֹאַמר־נָא י‬
‫שׂה ִלי אָָדם׃‬
ֶ ‫א ִאיָרא ַמה־יּ ֲַע‬ï ‫ ָקָראִתי יּ ָהּ ָענָנִי ַבֶמְּרָחב י ָהּ י ְהָוה ִלי‬MT
‫יאמר נא י[שראל כי לעולם חסדו ]יאמרו נא בית אהרן כי [ׄל]עו[ׄל֯ם ]חסדו יאמרו נא יראי יהוה כי לעולם חסדו מן‬
‫המצר קראתי יה ענני במרח[֯ב ֯י֯ה ]י[ׄהוה לי לא] אירא מ[ה י ׄׄעשה לי אדם‬f4QPsalmsb f28ii_30i+31:8-12
[Let I]srael [now say]: “For the age is his loyalty.” [Let the house of Aaron, now say:] “For
[the ag]e [is his loyalty.” Let fearers of YHWH now say: “For the age is his loyalty” From my
distress I called on Yah. ]Yah [answered me in the broad pla]ce. [Y]HWH is for me. [I will] not
[be afraid. Wh]at can man do to me?
There is no variation, nor is any expected between what is extant of this “mirror” witness,
4QPsalmsb, and MT. Admittedly, besides a possible ‫ כיא‬for ‫כי‬, ‫ לוא‬for ‫לא‬, or ‫ יאומרו‬for ‫יאמרו‬,
f

nothing would be expected from a “translator” witness, either.

Psalm 118:7
‫ י ְהָוה ִלי ְבּעזֹ ְָרי ַוֲאנִי ֶאְרֶאה ְבשׂנֹ ְאָי׃‬MT
‫יהוה לי בעזרי אני אראה ׄב֯ש ֯נׄאי‬f4QPsalmsb f28ii_30i+31:13
YHWH is for me among my helpers. As for me, I will look on my haters.
For further research, one may note that other literary re-workings in the Great Psalms Scroll, using BHS
versification, occur at the end of the Psalm 145 strophes (including the infamous ‫נ‬-strophe); Psa 35:2, 6; 133:3
(which is shared by 11QPsalmsb, another “translator” witness); 136:8; 146:9; 147:1; and 149:9; not to mention the
inclusion of so-called apocryphal compositions (some of which are found in Greek and Syriac Psalters), and various
transpositions of words.
218

82

Between this “mirror” witness and MT there is an omissional variation concerning a conjunctive
waw here with ‫אני‬. It does not have the apparent support of any ancient version or other MT mss
per Kenn’s collations. This supports Abegg’s observation in LPIS §4.1 concerning the scribal
freedom regarding conjunctive waw during the Second Temple period.219

Psalm 118:8
‫ ֗טוֹב ַלֲח֥סוֹת ַבּיה ָ֑וה ִ֝מְבּ ֗ט ַֹח ָבּאָָדֽם׃‬MT
‫טוב לבטח ביהוה מׄבטח בׄא]דם‬f4QPsalmsb f28ii_30i+31:14
‫ טוב לבטוח ביהוה מבטוח באדם‬Great Psalms Scroll 16:3-4
It is better to trust in YHWH than to trust in man.
The first variation, ‫לבטוח‬, from MT is interestingly shared between the Great Psalms Scroll and
4QPsalmsb, a “translator” and “mirror” witness respectively. If one reads the variation as a
synonym (that is, the use of a distinct signifier to express the same conceptual signified), it could
be a linguistic lexical variation made to specify what ‫ ַלֲחסוֹת‬originally signified, but did not at the
time of copying due to pragmatic or other factors. This would not be expected from a “mirror”
scribe, though, who does not linguistically update texts. And, in least in what is extant, there are
no other examples of such a lexical change elsewhere in “mirror” Psalms witnesses. So either it
is the archetype reading, or it is a substantive substitutional variation. The more likely option is
that ‫ לבטח‬is the archetype because all the ancient versions appear to support the Qumran reading
of “to trust,” showing it is not unique to Qumran.220 A likely explanation of L’s reading is that a
scribe looked ahead and erroneously copied the phrase ‫( טוב לחסות‬as found in the following
verse) twice, rather than supposing that a scribe replaced ‫ לחסות‬with ‫ לבטח‬to assimilate with the
Cf. the discussion in Psalm 139:19.
Accordingly, G reads πεποιθέναι “to trust,” S .=<‫ܬ‬8;6 “to trust,” VLXX confidere “to trust”, VHeb sperare “to
hope,” and T ‫“ למתרחצא‬to trust.”
219

220

83

following ‫מבטח‬, or something similar. The other variation is the expected waw mater lectionis for
an o-class vowel in a “translator” witness for both this first variation (‫ )לבטוח‬and the second
variation (‫)מבטוח‬.f221l

Psalm 118:9
‫ ֗טוֹב ַלֲח֥סוֹת ַבּיה ָ֑וה ִ֝מְבּ ֗ט ַֹח ִבּנְִדיִֽבים׃‬MT
‫ טוב לחסות ביהוה מבטוב בנדיבים טוב לבטוב ביהוה מבטוח באלף עם‬Great Psalms Scroll 16:4-5
‫טוב לחסות ביהוה מבט֯ח ֯ב]נדיבים‬f4QPsalmsb f28ii_30i+31:15
It is better to take refuge in YHWH than (in the good of / to trust in) princes. (It is better [to
trust?] in YHWH than to trust in a thousand people).
4QPsalmsb, a “mirror” witness, as expected matches MT exactly, even with the defective spelling
of the word ‫מבט֯ח‬, which has an o-class vowel. The Great Psalms Scroll, however, contains the
addition of another stich, which is not unexpected from a psalm that underwent literary
reworking.222
The first variation, ‫מבטוב‬, is either a substantive substitutional one or an erroneous one in
which the Great Psalms Scroll apparently reads “than in the good” instead of “than to trust in.”223
Graphically the difference is between reading ‫ח‬- (MT) and ‫וב‬- (Great Psalms Scroll). So an
erroneous graphic confusion is quite possible. Accordingly, the reason for a substitutional change
would be uncertain since 1) such changes are not persistent in what is extant of “translator”
witnesses (though it could be due to a stylistic desire to repeat ‫)טוב‬,f2) such a combination of
prepositions does not occur elsewhere in the Qumran “biblical” and “non-biblical” corpora.224

Cf. Psalm 139:11.
Cf. Psalm 118:1.
223
Cf. DJD 4, 37.
224
Note that while rare, the combination ‫ב‬f+ ‫ מ‬is used in the Mishnah (and Modern Hebrew) in set expressions, e.g.,
‫מבחוץ‬.
221
222

84

The second variation, ‫טוב לבטוב ביהוה מבטוח באלף עם‬, is parallel in structure and content to
the first part of the verse, and does not appear to be a harmonization from elsewhere, either from
the Hebrew Bible or the Qumran “non-biblical” corpus.225 However, ‫לבטוב‬, just as cited above for
‫מבטוב‬, appears to be an erroneous reading since 1) it is not expected that a “translator” witness
would preserve such a difficult reading “(to in the good?),” and 2) this combination of
prepositions -‫ ל‬and -‫ ב‬does not occur elsewhere in MT or the Qumran “biblical” and “nonbiblical” corpora. The likely explanation, then, is that the scribe wrote the first ‫טוב‬, and then as
he wrote the letters -‫לבטו‬, intending to finish with a ‫ ח‬in order to write the infinitive ‫לבטוח‬, he
accidentally wrote ‫לבטוב‬, having just written ‫ טוב‬before. Thus the addition was most likely
intended to read: “It is better to trust in YHWH than to trust in a thousand people.”

Psalm 118:10
‫שׁם י ְהָוה ִכּי ֲאִמיַלם׃‬
ֵ ‫ ָכּל־גּוֹי ִם ְסָבבוּנִי ְבּ‬MT
‫כל גוים סבבני בשם יה]וה כי אמילם‬f4QPsalmsb f28ii_30i+31:16
All nations have surrounded me. In the name of YH[WH surely I will cut them off].
The only variation, ‫סבבני‬, is a more defective reading in 4QPsalmsb in which the waw mater
lectionis for a u-class vowel is not used. Given the lack of such uses in MT and “mirror”
witnesses,226 it is not unexpected.227 In other words, since the use or non-use of a waw mater
lectionis is often quite variable among MT witnesses, it is not unexpected that it would be
variable in “mirror” witnesses as well, which appear to be a close linguistic match to MT.
In fact, the only other collocation of the lemmas ‫ אלף‬and ‫ עם‬in either corpus is in 11Q19 22:2 and 11Q20 5:23.
Although Kenn ms 235 contain the 4QPsalmsb reading.
227
Omitting a waw mater lectionis for a u-class vowel in comparison to L occurs two other times in 4QPsalmsb,
namely, 4QPsalmsb f5ii:15 / Psa 92:15 with ‫ ֯ינבון‬and the uncorrected reading in 4QPsalmsb f15iii+20_22:1 / Psa
103:2 with ‫גמליו‬. Admittedly, it also does occur once in the Great Psalms Scroll, a “translator” witness, at
11QPsalmsa 27:14 / Psa 140:3 with ׄ ‫יגׄרו‬.
225
226

85

Psalm 118:11
‫ַס֥בּוּנִי ַגם־ְסָב֑בוּנִי ְבֵּ֥שׁם ֝י ְהָ֗וה ִ ֣כּי ֲאִמיַל ֽם‬fMT
[] 4QPsalmsb f28ii_30i+31:16-17
…
This stich of MT is not preserved in 4QPsalmsb. Since we would not expect such a literary
variation from a “mirror” witness, it is most likely an erroneous omission caused by a
combination of homoioarchton with ‫ ַסבּוּנִי‬or homoioteleuton ‫ ֲאִמיַלם‬of the next verse.

Psalm 118:12
‫שׁם י ְהָוה ִכּי ֲאִמיַלם׃‬
ֵ ‫ ַסבּוּנִי ִכְדבוִֹרים דּ ֲֹעכוּ ְכֵּאשׁ קוִֹצים ְבּ‬MT
‫סבוני כדברים דעכו כאש קצים ב֯ש]ם יהוה[ כי אמילם‬f4QPsalmsb f28ii_30i+31:17-18
They have surrounded me like bees. They have gone out like a fire of thorns. In the na[me of
YHWH] I will cut them off.
The two variations, ‫ כדברים‬and ‫קצים‬, are not unexpected orthographical variations in which
4QPsalmsb preserves a more defective reading than MT by not using a waw mater lectionis to
indicate an o-class vowel.228 In fact, the variation only occurs elsewhere in 4QPsalmsb at f15ii
+18ii+19:16 / Psa 102:25 with ‫דרים‬.

Psalm 118:13-14
There is no extant Qumran reading for these verses.

Note that the base text of Kenn contains the defective MT reading ‫ כדברים‬here and Kenn mss contain the defective
reading ‫ קצים‬here. Cf. also Psalm 118:10.
228

86

Psalm 118:15
‫שׂה ָחי ִל׃‬
ָ ֹ ‫ קוֹל ִרנָּה ִוישׁוָּעה ְבּאֳָהֵלי ַצִדּיִקים י ְִמין י ְהָוה ע‬MT
‫ קול רנה וישועה באהלי צדיקים ימין יהוה עשה חיל‬Great Psalms Scroll 16:1b-2
‫ׄק]ול רנה וישועה באהלי צדיקים ימין יהוה ע[ׄשה חיל‬f11QPsalmsb f3:1-2
A sound of joyful shouting and victory is in the tents of the just ones. “The right hand of YHWH
works powerfully!”
There is no apparent variation among MT and the two “translator” witnesses. Nevertheless, it
deserves mention that here the Great Psalms Scroll, perhaps surprisingly, does not include a waw
mater lectionis to mark the o-class vowel in ‫שׂה‬
ָ ֹ ‫ע‬. This is perhaps surprising since, not including
this verse, the Great Psalms Scroll contains 62 extant active qal participles which have an o-class
vowel, of which 56 preserve a waw mater lectionis to mark the o-class vowel. Thus it occurs
90% of the time in the Great Psalms Scroll.229

Psalm 118:16
‫שׂה ָחי ִל׃‬
ָ ֹ ‫ י ְִמין י ְהָוה רוֵֹמָמה י ְִמין י ְהָוה ע‬MT
‫ ימין יהוה רוממה ימין יהוה עשתה גבורה‬Great Psalms Scroll 16:2-3
‫יׄמ]ין יהוה רוממה‬f11QPsalmsb f3:2
“The right hand of YHWH is lifted up! The hand of YHWH has acted mightily!”
In the two letters extant in 11QPsalmsb there is no variation expected or preserved. The Great
Psalms Scroll, though, preserves two variations. The first variation is a substitutional variation
where the Great Psalms Scroll reads a qatal form, ‫עשתה‬, instead of an active participle (‫שׂה‬
ָ ֹ ‫ ע‬in

The 6 cases which do not preserve one are:
11QPsalmsa fEii:1 / Psa 104:21 for the fragmentary ‫ש[֯א ֯ג]ים‬,
11QPsalmsa 15:1 / Psa 135:18 for ‫( בטח‬though this could be a qatal form),
11QPsalmsa 20:6 / Psa 139:14 for ‫ידעת‬,
11QPsalmsa 23:2 / Psa 141:7 for both ‫ פלח‬and ‫בקע‬,
11QPsalmsa 23:9 / Psa 133:2 for ‫( ירד‬though this could be a qatal form).
Note that the waw for ‫ נותן‬in 11QPsalmsa 17:6 / Psa 145:15 is a corrected reading from an original which did not
contain the waw (‫)נתן‬. Also, ‫ עשה‬in 11QPsalmsa is definitely an active participle and not a qatal form since the
subject (‫ )ימין‬is feminine. Cf. the third feminine singular qatal form ‫ עשתה‬in Psa 118:16.
229

87

MT). Note that all the versional evidence supports MT.230
The second is where the Great Psalms Scrolls reads ‫ גבורה‬instead of ‫חיל‬. It is either a
lexical variation or a substitutional one, depending on how one reads ‫ חיל‬in MT. That is to say, it
is lexical if one believes the same semantic or conceptual signified field is intended, and it is
substitutional if one believes a different semantic field or conceptual signified is intended. If
lexical, the idea would be that ‫ גבורה‬was used instead of ‫ חיל‬to express the less unambiguous
meaning of “act mightily” since ‫ חיל‬has a much broader semantic range than ‫גבורה‬.231
f

Psalm 118:17
There is no extant Qumran reading for this verse.

Psalm 118:18
‫א נְָתנָנִי׃‬ï ‫ י ַסּ ֹר י ְִסַּרנִּי יּ ָהּ ְוַלָמֶּות‬MT
‫יסור י ׄ֯סרני יה ולמות ]לא[ נתנני‬f4QPsalmsb f30ii+32i+33_34:7
Yah has surely disciplined me. But he has not give me over to death.
The only variation is the not unexpected use of a waw mater lectionis for an o-class vowel in a
“mirror” witness.232 However, since per Kenn many MT mss read ‫ יסור‬as well, it likely could
have been the scribe’s Vorlage as well.

LXX

Heb

Accordingly, G reads ἐποίησεν “has done,” S ‫ܬ‬$"݂! “has done,” V and V fecit “has done”, and T ‫“ עבדת‬has
done.”
231
Note that in the Hebrew Bible the collocation of ‫ עשה‬and ‫ גבורה‬are used only in 1–2 Kings to summarize the
mighty reign of a king; whereas, per DCH and HALOT, the collocation of ‫ עשה‬and ‫ חיל‬are used to signify not only
“act mightily,” but also, e.g., “gain/get wealth,” “prove oneself brave” and “wage war.”
232
Cf. Psalm 118:10.
230

88

Psalm 118:19
‫שֲׁעֵרי־ֶצֶדק אָב ֹא־ָבם אוֶֹדה י ָהּ׃‬
ַ ‫ ִפְּתחוּ־ִלי‬MT
‫פתחו לי שערי צדק אבואם אודה יה‬f4QPsalmsb f30ii+32i+33_34:8
Open for me the gates of justice that I may enter them and give thanks to Yah.
The variation here is perhaps an unexpected syntactical variation where MT preserves a yiqtol
verb following by -‫ ב‬+ personal suffix, and 4QPsalmsb preserves a yiqtol verb with a personal or
enclitic suffix attached. Such variation may indicate a valency issue with √‫בוא‬.233 Unfortunately
f

the parallel phrase in 118:20 is not extant in 4QPsalmsb for further comparison.234

Psalm 118:20
‫שַּׁער ַליהָוה ַצִדּיִקים י ָב ֹאוּ בוֹ׃‬
ַ ‫ זֶה־ַה‬MT
‫זה השער[ ל]יהוה צדיקים יבאו בו‬f4QPsalmsb f30ii+32i+33_34:
This is the gate to YHWH. The justice ones will enter through it.
With only one lamed extant, there is no variation, nor is any expected.

Psalm 118:21-22
There are no extant Qumran readings for these verses.

Psalm 118:23
‫ ֵמֵאת י ְהָוה ָהי ְָתה זּ ֹאת ִהיא נְִפָלאת ְבֵּעינֵינוּ׃‬MT
‫מאת יהוה הי]תה זאת היא נפלאת בעינינו‬f4QPsalmsb f30ii+32i+33_34:12
From YHWH [this h]as happened. [It has become wonderful in our eyes.]
There is no variation, nor is any to be expected.
Except in infinitive clauses, in biblical Hebrew the Qal of ‫ בוא‬very rarely takes a direct object (the only
exceptions being Ezek 32:11; Psa 35:8; 36:12; 44:18; 109:17; 119:41, 77; Job 15:21; 20:22; 22:21; Prov 2:19; 10:24;
11:27; and 28:22). Cf. also the valency discussions concerning -‫ ב‬in Psalm 139:16 and Psalm 139:21, and HDSS
§400.08 for a related discussion on the use of pronominal direct objects in Qumran Hebrew.
234
Note that Kenn mss 160 and 245 include a conjunctive waw here so as to form a weyiqtol verb (though
defectively spelled ‫)ואבא‬, which could be a syntactical variant to indicate a telic purpose.
233

89

Psalm 118:24
‫שְׂמָחה בוֹ׃‬
ְ ִ‫שׂה י ְהָוה נָגִיָלה ְונ‬
ָ ‫ זֶה־ַהיּוֹם ָע‬MT
ׄ
ׄ
‫ז֯ה] היום עשה י[֯הוה נגיל֯ה] ונשמחה בו‬f4QPsalmsb f30ii+32i+33_34:13
This [is the day] [Y]HWH [has made]. Let us rejoice [and be glad in it].
There is no variation, nor is any to be expected.

Psalm 118:25
‫שׁיָעה נָּא אָנָּא י ְהָוה ַהְצִליָחה נָּא׃‬
ִ ‫ אָנָּא י ְהָוה הוֹ‬MT
‫ ]אנא יהוה [הושיעה נא אנא יהוה ]הצליחה נ[֯א‬Great Psalms Scroll fEi:2
‫]אנא יהוה ה[ ֯ושיעה נא ]אנא [ ֯יהוה הצליחה נא‬f4QPsalmsb f30ii+32i+33_34:14-15
[Please, YHWH, s]ave now! Please, YHWH, rescue, now!
There is no variation, nor is any to be expected.

Psalm 118:26
‫שׁם י ְהָוה ֵבַּרְכנוֶּכם ִמֵבּית י ְהָוה׃‬
ֵ ‫ ַהָבּא ְבּ‬ì‫ ָבּרוּ‬MT
‫ בׄר ֯ו֯ך] ה[ב֯א ׄבשם יהוה ברכנוכם }}בשם{{ ]מבית [ ֯יהוה‬Great Psalms Scroll fEi:2-3
‫ב[רוך הבא בשם יהוה ]ב[֯ר֯כנׄו אתׄכם מבית יהוה‬f4QPsalmsb f30ii+32i+33_34:16-17
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of YHWH. We bless you {in the name of} from the
house of YHWH.
The first variation is the subsequently erased erroneous addition of ‫ בשם‬in the Great Psalms
Scroll. This was most likely due to harmonization with ‫ בשם‬in the first hemistich and its
presumed frequent spoken use. The second variation, ‫]ב[֯ר֯כנׄו אתׄכם‬, is a syntactical one in which
both MT and the Great Psalms Scroll preserve a pronominal suffix contra 4QPsalmsb. This seems
to suggests that the use or non-use of attached pronominal suffixes finds no correlation between
the variant scribal practices identified. And thus it is not an unexpected variation.

90

Psalm 118:27
‫ ֵאל י ְהָוה ַויּ ֶָאר ָלנוּ ִאְסרוּ־ַחג ַבֲּעב ִֹתים ַעד־ַקְרנוֹת ַהִמּזְֵבַּח׃‬MT
‫ אל יהוה ויאר לנו אסורי ׄ חג בעבותים ]עד קר[נות המזבח‬Great Psalms Scroll fEi:3-4
YHWH is God, and he has enlightened us. The bound ones of the festival are with branches [up
to the ho]rns of the altar.
The first variation, ׄ ‫אסורי‬, is a substitutional one in which the Great Psalms Scroll preserves a
passive plural masculine participle, and MT a plural masculine imperative of the same verbal
root. Thus the Great Psalms Scroll reads: “the bound ones of the festival are with branches,” with
“the bound ones” presumably referring to either animals for sacrifice (so DCH) or cords for the
altar (so HALOT).235 Given the tendency of “translator” witnesses to preserve clear and
unambiguous readings, this is expected since it seems more natural to speak of bound animals or
cords for a festival than “binding a festival.”236 The other variation, ‫בעבותים‬, is the expected
orthographical waw mater lectionis for an o-class vowel.237

Psalm 118:28
‫ַהי ֲארוְֹמֶמָךּ׃‬ï‫ ֵאִלי אַָתּה ְואוֶֹדָךּ ֱא‬MT
‫ אלי אתה ואודכה אלוהי ארוממכה‬Great Psalms Scroll fEi:4
You are my God that I will give you thanks. My God, I will exalt you.
The first and last variations, ‫ ואודכה‬and ‫ארוממכה‬, are the expected longer second masculine
singular endings,238 and the second variation, ‫אלוהי‬, is the expected waw mater lectionis
DCH, presumably assuming MT to be the lemma, states (with no explicit reference to the Great Psalms Scroll
reading) that a passive particle is “perhaps” the correct reading, which would read, “bound one,” i.e., sacrificial
victim. HALOT, in citing others, proposes that the phrase refers to “tightrope walking around the altar.” This, contra
DCH, corresponds to the DSSB which reads “The cords of the festival procession are with branches.” BDB simply
states that the MT reading here is “dubious.”
236
In both the Hebrew Bible and Qumran, “biblical” and “non-biblical,” corpora, this is a unique collocation of the
words ‫ אסר‬and ‫חג‬, though the ancient versions appear to support the MT reading since G reads συστήσασθε ἑορτὴν
“place together (lit.) a feast,” S @%‫?ܕ‬/2/ ‫ܪ‬.>‫“ ܘܐ‬bind (lit.) the festivals,” VLXX constituite diem sollemnem “place
together (lit.) a festive day,” VHeb frequentate sollemnitatem “observe a festivity,” and T ‫“ כפיתו טליא לניכסת חגא‬bind
the child for a festal sacrifice.”
237
Cf. Psalm 139:11.
238
Cf. Psalm 139:8.
235

91

orthographical waw for an o-class vowel.239 Also note that the spelling of ‫ אלוהים‬or ‫ אלוהי‬is a
fairly standard spelling convention in QH, and does not occur in the Psalms in MT. So it is
expected from a “translator” witness.

Psalm 118:29
‫ הוֹדוּ ַליהָוה ִכּי־טוֹב ִכּי ְלעוָֹלם ַחְסדּוֹ׃‬MT
‫ הודו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו הללו יה‬Great Psalms Scroll 16:6*240
‫הודו ליהוה כי טוב[ כי ]לעולם חסדו‬f4QPsalmsb f32ii:7
‫ליהוה כי [֯ט ֯וב כי ֯לע]ולם חסדו‬f4QPsalmse f14:1
Give thanks to YHWH because he is good. For the age is his loyalty. (Praise Yah).
There is no variation preserved or expected, except for the additional ‫ הללו יה‬found in the Great
Psalms Scroll. This is not unexpected given the literary reworking noted in Psalm 118:1 (see
above).241

Conclusion
The purpose of this case study is to illustrate how the recognition of variant scribal practices and
the proposed schema serve well for explaining and categorizing the textual variation found in
different ranking Qumran witnesses of the same psalm. For 4QPsalmsb, a “mirror” witness, this
was seen in how there is no substantive variation from L beyond the omission of a waw
conjunctive and use or non-use of a pronominal suffix, and no linguistic variation beyond the use
of waw as a mater lectionis for o-class vowels, all variations which are found elsewhere between

Cf. Psalm 139:11.
11QPsalmsa fEi:5 does not contain ‫הללו יה‬, which is another section which contains this same text. Cf. Psalm
118:1 above.
241
Note that G includes “Hallelujah” at the beginning of the following psalm.
239
240

92

MT witnesses. For 4QPsalmse, a “mixer” witness, and 11QPsalmsb, a “translator” witness, there
is unfortunately very little extant, and so no solid conclusions can be made from them. For the
Great Psalms Scroll, a “translator” witness, there is a not unexpected literary re-working, many
expected linguistic variations (namely, very frequent use of waw as a mater lectionis to mark oclass vowels and the long second person singular masculine suffix), an arguably lexical variation
resulting in a less ambiguous reading (cf. Psalm 118:16), and a substitutional variation resulting
in an arguably less ambiguous reading (cf. Psalm 118:27).
Thus we may say that this case study supports the utility and validity of the proposed
schema and identified scribal practices. We will now proceed to the final case study of witnesses
of Psalm 18.

6.5 Psalm 18 Case Study
This last case study serves to illustrate how the recognition of variant scribal practices
sufficiently explains variation and how the proposed schema serves well as an evaluation tool, in
particular to illustrate the close textual affinity of “mirror” witnesses with MT.242 There is also a
“mixer” and a “translator” witness extant for comparison.243 Again, for the sake of convenience,
the witnesses cited in this case study are given below:

Cf. chapter 2.2 for the epistemological issues surrounding how one determines textual affinity.
Cf. also 2 Sam 22 for an apparent doublet of this psalm. Note that a linguistic comparison in L between each
passage indicates that, at least with regard to the uncommon linguistic features of the two texts, they had very little
influence on each other since almost no uncommon forms overlap. Cf. Ian Young and Robert Rezetko, Historical
Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach (SBLANEM; Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2015), 413–421.
242
243

93

“Mirror” witnesses:
8QPsalms (.00), 5/6HevPsalms (.02), 4QPsalmsc (.05)
“Mixer” witness:
11QPsalmsd (.36)
“Translator” witness:
11QPsalmsc (.51)
Psalm 18:1
‫שֽׁאוּל׃‬
ָ ‫שּׁי ָ֣רה ַה ֑זּ ֹאת ְבּ֤יוֹם ִֽהִצּיל־י ְהָ֘וה אוֹ֥תוֹ ִמַ֥כּף ָכּל־ ֝א ֹי ְָ֗ביו וִּמַיּ ֥ד‬
ִ ‫ַלְמנַ ֵ ֤צַּח ׀ ְלֶ֥עֶבד י ְהָ֗וה ְלָ֫ד ִ֥וד ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ִדֶּ֨בּר ׀ ַליהָ֗וה ֶאת־ִ֭דְּבֵרי ַה‬
MT
‫וׄב ֯י]ום הציל יהוה אותו מכף כל איביו ומיד שאול‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:1
‫למנצח לעבד יהוה לדוי[ד אשׄר דבר ליהוׄה] את [ ֯דברי השירׄה] הזואת ביום הציל יהוה אותו מכ[ף כול אויביו ומיד‬
‫שאו]ל‬f11QPsalmsc f:8:8-9
[For the Director: of Davi]d [the servant of YHWH], who spoke to YHWH the words of [this]
song (and) [on the day when YHWH delivered him from the ha]nd of all his enemies and from
the hand of Sa[ul.
The variation in 4QPsalmsc, ‫וׄב ֯י]ום‬, is the addition of a conjunctive waw. This further suggests
that the inclusion or not of conjunctive waw was not strictly observed among the various scribal
practices, and so it is not unexpected.244 The first variation in 11QPsalmsc, ‫כול‬, is the expected
full orthography of ‫כול‬, using a waw mater lectionis for a u-class vowel.245 The second variation
in 11QPsalmsc, ‫אויביו‬, is an expected orthographical variation in which a waw mater lectionis is
used to indicate an o-class vowel.246

Psalm 18:2
‫ י ְה ָ֣וה ִחזְ ִֽקי׃‬ê֖‫ ַויּ ֹאַ֡מר ֶאְרָחְמ‬MT
‫ויאמר[ ארחׄמ֯ך] יהוה חזקי‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:1-2
‫ו[י ׄ]ו[אמר רח֯מ]תיכה יהוה חזקי‬f11QPsalmsc f8:9-10
And he said: (I will tenderly care / I have tenderly cared) for you, [YHWH, my strength.]
244
245
246

Cf. Psalm 118:7 and Psalm 139:19.
Cf. Psalm 139:13.
Cf. Psalm 139:11.

94

Though reconstructed and highly uncertain since it depends on how one reads the spacing
between the end of the previous verse and the first word of this verse, there is possible a
orthographical variation with ‫ ]ו[י ׄ]ו[אמר‬in 11QPsalmsc with the inclusion of the waw mater
lectionis for an o-class vowel.247
The other variation in 11QPsalmsc, ‫רח֯מ]תיכה‬, is a linguistic verbal shift from a yiqtol to
(most likely) a qatal form.248 Such a verbal shift occurs 11x in 1QIsaa, and once in each of the
following witnesses (with their ranking in parentheses): 1QIsaiahb (0.04), 1QPsalmsa (0.00),
4QNumbersb (0.36), 4QJoba (0.15), 4QQoha (0.49), 11QPsalmsa (1.00), and 11QPsalmsc (0.51). It
is outside the scope of thesis to analyze and evaluate when and why such verbal shifts occurs.
For now it suffices to say that based on the Psalms witnesses in which this occurs, it does not
appear to be limited or centered in any particular scribal practice. This variation here in
11QPsalmsc could also simply be substitutional.

Psalm 18:3
‫שַׂגִּֽבּי׃‬
ְ ‫שִׁ֗עי ִמ‬
ְ ִ ‫ י ְה ָ֤וה ׀ ַסְֽל ִ ֥עי וְּמצוָּדִ֗תי וְּמַ֫פְל ִ ֥טי ֵא ִ ֣לי צ ֭וִּרי ֶאֱֽחֶסה־֑בּוֹ ָמִֽגִנּ֥י ְו ֶֽקֶרן־ ֝י‬MT
‫יהוה סלעי ומ[֯צ ֯וׄדתי ומפׄלטי ]אלי צורי אחסה בו מגני וקרן י[֯שעי משגבי‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:2-3
‫יהוה סלע[ ֯י ומצ]ו[ׄדתי ומפלטי אלי צורי אחס]ה בו מגני וקרן ישעי משגבי‬f11QPsalmsc f8:10-11
[YHWH is] my [rock], my for[tr]ess, and my deliverer, my God, my rock. I will take refuge [in
him, my shield, and the horn of] my [sa]lvation, my stronghold.
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected in what is extant of the witnesses.

Cf. Psalm 139:11.
Note that this verse is not included in the MT doublet of 2 Sam 22:2, and no extant Qumran witness of 2 Sam
contains that passage for comparison.
247
248

95

Psalm 18:4
‫שַׁע׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ ְמֻהָלּל ֶאְק ָ֣רא י ְה ָ֑וה וִּמן־ ֝א ֹי ְַ֗בי ִאָוּ‬MT
‫מהלל אקרא יהוה ומן איבי או[שע‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:4
‫ׄמה]ו[לל אקראה יהוה ומאויבי א ֯ו]שע‬f11QPsalmsc f8:11
He who is to be praised I will call upon, (that is), YHWH. And from my enemies I will be saved.
In the two letters that are extant of 4QPsalmsc there is, unsurprisingly, no variation, nor is any
expected. The first word of 11QPsalmsc has the expected addition of waw for a u-class vowel.249
However, MT mss per Kenn also read ‫ מהולל‬and one ‫ומהלל‬. Note that previous editions of this
witness, including DJD 23, 57, contain the erroneous transcription ‫ׄמ֯ח]ו[לל‬, thus appearing to read
√‫“ חלל‬profane.” This thesis contains the corrected transcription based on new photos.250
The second variation in 11QPsalmsc, ‫אקראה‬, preserves the expected morphological
change in a “translator” witness to the longer so-called cohortative form to denote the indicative
in the first person.251
The last two variations occur in the word ‫ומאויבי‬. One is the expected use of a waw mater
lectionis for an o-class vowel.252 The other is the assimilation of ‫ נ‬with the preposition ‫מן‬. Since
many other MT mss per Kenn read ‫ומאיבי‬, it is clear that even in MT the assimilation or nonassimilation of ‫ נ‬was at least somewhat variable. Thus such a variation does appear to be highly
indicative of a particular scribal practice and so is not unexpected.253

Cf. Psalm 139:13.
250 New photos for 11QPsalmsc can be found here: http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/
manuscript/11Q7-1
251
Cf. Psalm 139:9.
252
Cf. Psalm 139:11, and note that per Kenn many MT mss read ‫מן אויבי‬.
253
Cf. HDSS §200.16 and Reymond §4.1. Note that regarding this phenomenon before nouns without the definite
article Qimron notes that 1) while the rules governing whether or not a nun is assimilated is the same in Qumran
Hebrew as it is in BH, the exceptions are more frequent with regard to ‫מן‬,f2) it properly should be described as
morphophonological since “there is no purely phonological basis for the non-assimilation,” and 3) it is apparently an
Aramaism.
249

96

Psalm 18:5
‫ ֲאָפ֥פוּנִי ֶחְבֵלי־ ָ ֑מֶות ְֽונֲַח ֵ ֖לי ְבִלַיַּ֣על י ְַבֲֽעֽתוּנִי׃‬MT
‫אפפוני חבלי מות ונחלי בליעל [ ֯יׄבעתוני‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:5
‫אפפוני חבלי מות ונחלי בליעל יב[עתוני‬f11QPsalmsc f8:12
[The cords of death have encompassed me, and torrents of worthlessness] terrify me.
There is no variation in what is extant of the Qumran witnesses, nor is any expected.

Psalm 18:6
‫שׁי ָמֶֽות׃‬
ֵ ‫שׁ֣אוֹל ְסָב֑בוּנִי ִ֝קְדּ֗מוּנִי ֣מוְֹק‬
ְ ‫ ֶחְב ֵ ֣לי‬MT
‫חבלי שאול סבבוני קדמוני [֯מוקשי ֯מות‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:6
‫חבלי שאול סבבוני ]קדמוני מוקשי מות‬f11QPsalmsc f8:12-13
‫חבלי שאול סבבוני[ ק]דמוני מוקשי מות‬f8QPsalms f8_10:1
‫חבלי שאול סבבוני קדמוני [מ ֯וׄקש ֯י ֯מ]ות‬f5/6HevPsalms f5:20
The chords of the grave have surround me. The snares of death have c[onfronted me].
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected since MT contains full orthography.

Psalm 18:7
‫שְׁוָעִ֗תי ְלָפ ָ֤ניו ׀ ָתּ֬בוֹא ְבאָזְ ָניֽ ו׃‬
ַ ‫שׁ ַ ֣מע ֵמֵהיָכ֣לוֹ קוֹ ִ ֑לי ְ֝ו‬
ְ ִ ‫שׁ ֵ֥וַּע י‬
ַ ֫ ‫ַ֪הי ֲא‬ï‫ ַבַּצּר־ ִ ֤לי ׀ ֶאְֽק ָ֣רא י ְהָו֮ה ְוֶאל־ֱא‬MT
ׄ‫בצר לי אקרא יהוה ואל [אלהי אשוע ]ישמע מהיכלו קולי ושועתי לפניו [֯תבוא באזני ׄו‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:7-8
‫ב[֯א ֯וזניו‬f‫בצר לי אק[֯רא יהוה ואל אלוהי אשו]ע ישמע מהיכלו קולי ושועתי לפניו תבוא‬f11QPsalmsc f8:13-14
‫ישמע מהיכלו קו[ל]י ושועתי לפניו תבוא באזניו‬f8QPsalms f8_10:3
‫בצר לי אקרא יהוה ואל אל[הי אשוע יׄש֯מ]ע מהיכלו קולי ושועתי לפניו תבוא באזניו‬f5/6HevPsalms f5:21-22
[In my distress I ca]ll on YHWH. I cry for help to my God. [He hears my voi]ce [from his temple.
My cry for help before him] reaches his ears.
Both variations are the expected orthographical use of a waw mater lectionis for an o-class vowel
in the “translator” witness, 11QPsalmsc. The first is with the form ‫אלוהי‬,254 and the second with
f

the form ‫ב[֯א ֯וזניו‬. Note that as mentioned for Psalm 18:4 above, previous editions of this witness

254

Cf. Psalm 139:11 and Psalm 118:28.

97

contained the erroneous transcription ‫בא]זניו‬, thus omitting the waw mater lectionis. However,
based on new photos this thesis contains the corrected transcription.255
Psalm 18:8
‫ ַוִתְּגַ֬עשׁ ַוִתְּרַ֨עשׁ ׀ ָה֗אֶָרץ וּמוְֹס ֵ ֣די ָה ִ֣רים י ְִר ָ ֑גּזוּ ַ֝ויּ ְִתָגּ ֲֽע֗שׁוּ ִכּי־ָ֥חָרה ֽלוֹ׃‬MT
‫ותגעש ותרעש הארץ ומוסדי הרים [ירגז ֯ו ]ויתגעשו כי חרה לו‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:9-10
‫ותגעש ותרעש] הארץ ומוסדות השמים ירגזו ויתגעשו[ כי חרה לו‬f11QPsalmsc f8:14-15
‫ותגעש ותרעש הארץ[ ומ]וסדי הרים ירגזו ויתגעשו כי חרה לו‬f8QPsalms f8_10:4-5
‫ותגע[ׄש ותרעש האר֯ץ ]ומוסדי הרים ירגזו ויתג[֯עשו ׄ כ ֯י חרה ל ֯ו‬f5/6HevPsalms f5:22-23
And the earth reels ands the rocks. And the fo[undations of the mountains shake and trem]ble
because he became angry.
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected in what little is extant. It is perhaps worthy of
note that the editor of 11QPsalmsc reconstructed ‫ ומוסדות השמים‬instead of ‫ומוסדי הרים‬. Such a
grammatical variation conjecture is said to be based on the spacing.256 In addition, ‫ מוסדות‬matches
the parallel phrase in MT 2 Sam 22:8.

Psalm 18:9
‫שׁן ׀ ְבּאַ֗פּוֹ ְוֵאשׁ־ִמ ִ ֥פּיו תּ ֹא ֵ ֑כל ֶ֝גָּחִ֗לים ָבֲּע ֥רוּ ִמֶמּֽנּוּ׃‬
ָ ֨ ‫ ָ֘ע ָ ֤לה ָע‬MT
‫עלה עשן ב[אפו ]ואש מפיו תאכל גחלים בערו ממנו‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:10-11
‫על]ה[ עשן] באפו ואש מפיו תואכל גחלים בערו ממנו‬f11QPsalmsc f8:15-16
‫עלה ]עשן באפו ואש מפיו תאכל[ גחלים] בערו ממנו‬f8QPsalms f8_10:5-6
‫עלה עשן באפו ואש מפיו [תאכל ]גחלים בערו ממנו‬f5/6HevPsalms f5:24-25
Smoke has risen [in] his nostrils. [And the fire of his mouth] consumes. Coals [have flames forth
from him.]
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected. It is, however, noteworthy that
5/6HevPsalms reads ‫ תאכל‬instead of ‫ תאוכל‬or ‫תואכל‬, and confirms the close textual affinity of
“mirror” witnesses with MT.
New photos for 11QPsalmsc can be found here: http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/
11Q7-1
256
Cf. DJD 23, 57–58 where the editor notes: “[MT] reads ‫מוסדי הרים‬, but that phrase is definitely too short for the
lacuna.” Cf. also the reconstruction of ‫ מוסד ֯י‬in 11QPsalmsc f9:1-3 for Psa 18:16 in DJD 23, 59–60.
255

98

Psalm 18:10
‫שַׁמי ִם ַויּ ֵ ַ֑רד ַ֝וֲעָרֶ֗פל ַ ֣תַּחת ַרְגָליֽ ו׃‬
ָ ֭ ‫ ַוֵיּ֣ט‬MT
ׄ‫ויט שמים וירד וערפל תח[ׄת ׄרגלי ׄו‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:12
‫וי[ט שמים וירד ועׄר]פל תחת רגליו‬f11QPsalmsc f8:16
‫ויט [ׄשמ]ים וירד וערפ[ל ת]חת רגליו‬f8QPsalms f11_13:1
‫ויט שמי[ם ֯ו ֯י֯רׄד ]וערפל תחת רגליו‬f5/6HevPsalms f5:25
And he] bowed the heavens and came down. Thick da[rk]ness was un[d]er his feet.
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected.

Psalm 18:11
‫ ַויּ ְִר ַ ֣כּב ַעל־ְ֭כּרוּב ַויּ ָ ֑ע ֹף ַ֝ו ֗יּ ֵֶדא ַעל־ַכּנְֵפי־ֽרוַּח׃‬MT
‫וירכב על כרוב ויעף וידא על [ׄכנפי רוח‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:13
‫וירכב על כרוב ויעוף וידא [֯על כנפי רוח‬f11QPsalmsc f8:17
‫וירכב על כרוב וי[ׄעף וי]ד[א ׄעל] כנפי רוח‬f8QPsalms f11_13:2
‫וירכב ע[ל כרוב וי֯ע֯ף ]וידא על כנפי רוח‬f5/6HevPsalms f5:26-27
[And he rode o]n a cherub and flew. And he sw[oo]ped on the wings of the wind.
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected. And, similar to Psalm 18:9 above, the
5/6HevPsalms and 8QPsalms reading of ‫ וי֯ע֯ף‬instead of ‫ ויעוף‬confirms the close textual affinity of
“mirror” witnesses with MT.

Psalm 18:12
‫שָׁח ִֽקים׃‬
ְ ‫שַׁכת־ַ֗֝מי ִם ָעֵ֥בי‬
ְ ‫ ׀ ִסְת֗רוֹ ְסִֽביבוָֹ֥תיו ֻסָכּ֑תוֹ ֶח‬ì‫שׁ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫שׁת ֨ח‬
ֶ ֤‫ ָי‬MT
ׄ
‫ישת חשך סתרו סביבותיו [סכתו ]חשכת מים עבי שחקים‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:14-15
‫ישת חושך סתרו סביבותיו סוכתו ח[שכות מים ]עבי שחקים‬f11QPsalmsc f8:18
‫יש]ת חש[ך סׄת]רו[ ס]בי[ׄבו]תיו סכתו[ ֯ח]שכת מי[ם ע]בי שחקים‬f8QPsalms f11_13:3-4
‫ישת חש[֯ך] ס[֯ת֯ר]ו [֯ס]ביבותיו סכתו חשכת מים עבי שחקים‬f5/6HevPsalms f5:27-28
He mak[es darkne[ss his] cover[ing] ar[ou]nd [him], his canopy (intensive) darkness of waters,
clo[uds of the skies.]
The only variation, ‫ ח[שכות‬in 11QPsalmsc, is a substitutional one in which the form for
“darkness” is made plural, assuming MT is the antecedent reading (note that it is not extant in the
other Qumran witnesses, and the parallel phrase in MT 2 Sam 22:12 instead reads ‫שַׁרת־ַמי ִם‬
ְ ‫ַח‬

99

(“strainer of water.”) Such a change appears to be either an intensive or abstract plural.257 In what
is otherwise extant of 11QPsalmsc, there is never a change from plural form to singular form,
though there are two other variations from a singular to plural form (in comparison to MT).258 It
is outside the scope of thesis to analyze and evaluation all such occurrences to see whether or not
they are typical of the “translator” witnesses.

Psalm 18:13
‫ ִמ ֗נּ ַֹגהּ ֫נְֶג ֥דּוֹ ָעָ֥ביו ָעְב ֑רוּ ָ֝בָּ֗רד ְוַג ֲֽחֵלי־ֵאֽשׁ׃‬MT
‫מנגה נגדו [֯עביו עברו ]ברד וגחלי אש‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:15-16
‫מנגה נגדו עביו עברו[ ב]רד וגח[֯ל]י אש‬f8QPsalms f11_13:4-5
‫מנגה נגדו עביו [֯ע֯ב]רו ברד וגחלי אש‬f5/6HevPsalms f5:28
[From the brightness before him] clouds have broken through, with ha[ilstones and bo]lt[s of
lightning].
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected.

Psalm 18:14
‫שַּׁ֨מי ִם ׀ ְי ֽהָ֗וה ֭ ְוֶעְליוֹן י ִ ֵ ֣תּן ק ֹ֑לוֹ ָ֝בָּ֗רד ְוַג ֲֽחֵלי־ֵאֽשׁ׃‬
ָ ‫ ַויּ ְַרֵ֬עם ַבּ‬MT
ׄ
‫בש[מים יהוה ]ועליון יתן קלו ברד וגח[ל]י[ אש‬f4QPsalmsc f3_4i:16-17
And] YHWH [thundered in the hea]vens. [And the Most High gives his voice with hailstones, and
bo]lt[s] of lightning.
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected from this “mirror” witness.

Cf. DSSB “[He made darkness his covering around him], his canopy thick clouds [in]tensely dark with water.”
This is also the only occurrence of the form in both the Hebrew Bible and Qumran “biblical” and “non-biblical”
corpora.
258
They are at 11QPsalmsc f10:3 / Psa 19:7 with ‫( מ[֯קצי‬though it could be just orthographical) and 11QPsalmsc
f10:4 / Psa 19:8 for ‫תור[ ֯ות‬. Cf. Psalm 139:19 concerning the variation ‫ סור‬for discussion of change of number in
11QPsalmsa with verbs.
257

100

Psalm 18:15
‫שׁ ַ ֣לח ִ֭חָצּיו ַוי ְִפי ֵ ֑צם וְּבָר ִ֥קים ָ֝רב ַוי ְֻהֵמּֽם׃‬
ְ ִ ‫ ַויּ‬MT
‫וישלח חציו ויפיצם ובר[֯ק ֯י]ם רב ויהמם‬f11QPsalmsc f9:1
[And he sent his arrows and scattered them. He has flashed forth li]ght[ning and routed them.
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected since only two letters are barely extant in
11QPsalmsc.

Psalm 18:16
‫׃‬êֽ ‫שַׁ֗מת ֣רוַּח אֶַפּ‬
ְ ִ‫ י ְה ָ֑וה ִ֝מנּ‬ê֣‫ ַוֵיָּ֤ר֨אוּ ׀ ֲא ִ ֥פיֵקי ַ֗מי ִם ַו ֽיּ ִָגּל֮וּ מוְֹס ֪דוֹת ֵ֫תֵּ֥בל ִמַגֲּע ָ֣רְת‬MT
‫ ויגלו מוׄס ֯ד ֯ו]ת תבל מגערתך יהוה[ מנשמת ֯ר]וח אפך‬4QPsalmsc f5:1-2
‫ ויראו אפיקי מים ויגלו מוסד[ ֯י תבל י ׄשל]ח יהוה מנשמת רוח אפך‬11QPsalmsc f9:1-3
And the channels of waters appeared.] And the foundations of the world were laid bare [from
your rebuke, YHWH,] (he will send) from the blast of the br[eath of your nostrils.]
The first variation from 11QPsalmsc, ‫מוסד[ ֯י‬, appears to be a grammatical one in which the more
common masculine form of the word is used instead of the less common feminine form.259 The
other variation in 11QPsalmsc, ‫י ׄשל]ח‬, is perhaps the result of an erroneous transposition of stichs
or a rephrasing of MT in Psa 18:16aγ-b.260 Another explanation would be an erroneous case of
dittography with ‫ ישלח‬in Psa 18:17 following. Regardless of the explanation for the variation, as
it stands the conjectured text reads: “YHWH will send from the blast of the breath of your
anger.”

Psalm 18:17
‫שׁנִי ִמַ֥מּי ִם ַרִֽבּים׃‬
ֵ ֗ ‫שׁ ַ ֣לח ִ֭מָמּרוֹם י ִָקּ ֵ ֑חנִי ֝י ְַֽמ‬
ְ ִ ‫ י‬MT
‫ישלח ממרום יקחני[ ימשנ ֯י] ממים רבים‬f4QPsalmsc f5:2-3
‫ישלח [ממׄרום וי֯ק֯ח]ני ימשני ממים רבים‬f11QPsalmsc f9:3

The feminine form occurs 5x in L, and the masculine form 8x in L. Among the “non-biblical” Qumran mss, the
feminine form occurs 1x, and the masculine form 20x. Regarding ‫ מוסד[ ֯י‬in DJD 23, 59 the editor notes: “Only the
bottom tip of the last letter remains. The trace seems to be vertical, which rules out ‫מוסדו[֯ת‬.” Note also that the
parallel phrase in 2 Sam 22:16 in L contains ‫מ ְֹסדוֹת‬.
260
Cf. the editor’s comments in DJD 23, 59.
259

101

‫ישל[֯ח ֯מ֯מ֯ר ֯ו]ם יקחני ימשני ממים רבים‬f5/6HevPsalms f6_7:4-5
[He sends] from on high (and) he took (takes) [me]. He draws me [from mighty waters.]
The variation in 11QPsalmsc, ‫וי֯ק֯ח]ני‬, is the not unexpected addition of a conjunctive waw.
Otherwise there is no other variation.

Psalm 18:18
‫ י ִַצּיֵ֗לנִי ֵמאיֹ ְ ִ ֥בי ָ ֑עז ֝וִּמשּׂנֹ ְ֗אַי ִֽכּי־אְָמ֥צוּ ִמֶמּֽנִּי׃‬MT
‫יצילני מאיבי עז[ ֯ו֯מ]שנאי כי אמצו ממני‬f4QPsalmsc f5:3-4
‫יציל[ ֯ני מאיבי עז ]ומשנאי כי אמצו ממני‬f5/6HevPsalms f6_7:5-6
[He deliv]ers me from strong enemies and from [my haters because they are too strong for me.]
Alternatively: “from my strong enemy”
There is no variation, nor is any variation expected.

Psalm 18:19-25
‫שׁ ָ ֣ען יִֽל ׃ ַויּוִֹציֵ֥אנִי ַלֶמְּר ָ ֑חב ֝י ְַחְלֵּ֗צנִי ִ֘כּי ָ֥חֵפ ֽץ ִֽבּי׃ י ְִגְמ ֵ ֣לנִי י ְה ָ֣וה ְכִּצְד ִ֑קי ְכּ ֥ב ֹר ֝י ַָ֗די י ָ ִ ֥שׁיב יִֽל ׃‬
ְ ‫י ְַקְדּ֥מוּנִי ְביוֹם־ֵאי ִ ֑די ַו ֽי ְִהי־י ְה ָ֖וה ְלִמ‬
‫שַׁתֵּ֗מּר ֵמֲעוִֹניֽ ׃‬
ְ ‫א־אָ ִ ֥סיר ֶמֽנִּי׃ ָוֱא ִ ֣הי ָת ִ ֣מים ִע֑מּוֹ ָ֝וֶא‬ï ‫שָׁפּ ָ ֣טיו ְלנְֶג ִ ֑דּי ְ֝וֻחקּ ָֹ֗תיו‬
ְ ‫ָהֽי׃ ִ ֣כּי ָכל־ִמ‬ï‫שְׁעִתּי ֵמֱא‬
ַ ֗ ‫א־ָ֝ר‬ïֽ‫שַׁמְרִתּי ַדְּר ֵ ֣כי י ְה ָ֑וה ְו‬
ָ ֭ ‫ִֽכּי־‬
‫שׁב־י ְה ָ֣וה ִ ֣לי ְכִצְד ִ֑קי ְכּ ֥ב ֹר ֝י ַָ֗די ְל ֶ֣נֶגד ֵעי ָניֽ ו׃‬
ֶ ֽ ‫ ַוָיּ‬MT
‫ויצי֯א ֯נ]י ל[֯מ֯רחב יחלצני כי חפץ בי ]יגמלני יהוה כצ[ ֯דקי כבר ידי ישיב לי‬. ‫יקדמוני [ביום אידי ]ויהי יהוה למש[ׄען לי‬
‫]כי שמרתי דרכי יהוה [ ֯ולא רשעתי מאלהי כי כל משפׄטי ׄו לנג ֯ד]י וחקתיו לא אסיר מ[ ֯ני ו֯א]ה[י תמים עמו ואשתמר‬
‫מעוני ]וישב יהוה [לי כצדק ֯י כבר ידי לנגד עיניו‬f5/6HevPsalms f6_7:6-10
They confront me] on the day of my disaster]. But YHWH has become] my [supp]ort. He brings
[me] out [into a] spacious space. He rescues me because he delights in me. [YHWH deals with
me according to] my [right]neousness, according to the cleanness of my hands he rewards me
[because I have kept YHWH’s ways.] And I have not wickedly departed from my God since all
his ordinances were before [me. And I do not turn his states away fro]m me. And I have [bee]n
blameless with him and have kept myself from guilt. [And YHWH rewarded] me according to my
righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands before his eyes.
The only variation is the not unexpected lack of a waw mater lectionis for an o-class vowel in
‫ ויצי֯א ֯נ]י‬in Psa 18:20. The following cases where one would expect variation from a “translator,”
or possibly “mixer” witness, are: ‫ בור‬instead of ‫ בר‬to mark the o-class vowel (2x) in Psa 18:21,
‫ לוא‬instead of ‫ לא‬to mark the o-class vowel in Psa 18:22, ‫ מאלוהי‬to mark the o-class vowel in

102

forms of Elohim in Psa 18:22, ‫ כול‬instead of ‫ כל‬in Psa 18:23, and ‫ ואשתמרה‬instead of ‫ ואשתמר‬in
Psa 18:24 to form a first person prefix verbal form.

Psalm 18:26-29
‫ִעם־ָח ִ ֥סיד ִתְּתַח ָ ֑סּד ִעם־ְגַּ֥בר ָ֝תִּ֗מים ִתַּתָּמּֽם׃ ִעם־נָָ֥בר ִתְּתָבּ ָ֑רר ְוִעם־ִ֝עֵ֗קּשׁ ִתְּתַפָּתּֽל׃ ִֽכּי־ ֭אַָתּה ַעם־ָע ִ ֣ני תוֹ ִ ֑שׁיַע ְוֵעי ַ֖ני ִם ָר֣מוֹת‬
‫שִֽׁכּי׃‬
ְ ‫ַ֗הי י ַ ִ ֥גּיַהּ ָח‬ï‫שִֽׁפּיל׃ ִֽכּי־ ֭אַָתּה ָתּ ִ ֣איר נֵ ִ֑רי י ְה ָ֥וה ֱ֝א‬
ְ ‫ ַתּ‬MT
‫תתחסד עם גבר תמי]ם תתמם עם נבר תתברר[ ועם עקש תתפתל כי] אתה עם עני תושיע ועינים[ רמות תשפיל כי‬
‫א֯ת]ה תאיר נרי יהוה אלהי יגיה ח[֯ש]כי‬f11QPsalmsd f3:1-4
‫עם חס[יד תתחסד עם גבר תמים תתמם ]עם נ[ׄבר תתבר֯ר וׄעׄם עקש תתפתל ]כי א[ׄתה עם עני ׄתושיע ועינ]י[֯ם רמות‬
‫תשפיל ]כי א[֯תה תאיר] נרי י[הו ׄה א]לה[י יגיה חש֯כ ֯י‬f5/6HevPsalms f6_7:12-15
With the fai]thful you show yourself to be faith. With the blameless you show yourself to be
blameless. [And with the p]ure you show yourself to be pure. And with the crooked [yo]u show
yourself to be crafty because it is you who save a humbled people. And the haughty ey[e]s you
lower because you light my [my lamp, Y]HWH. My G[od] brightens my darkness.
There is no variation in these several verses, which are the first to present any (relatively)
substantial amount of text from “mixer” witness, namely, 11QPsalmsd. This suggests a close
textual affinity of 11QPsalmsd and 5/6HevPsalms with MT. Although there are admittedly no
places extant among these Qumran witnesses for these verses where one would strongly expect a
variation from a higher ranking witness, except perhaps ‫ חושכי‬for ‫שִׁכּי‬
ְ ‫ ָח‬or ‫ כיא‬for ‫ ִכּי‬in Psa 18:29.

Psalm 18:30-31
‫שׁוּר׃ ָהֵא֮ל ָתּ ִ ֪מים ַ֫דְּר֥כּוֹ ִאְמ ַֽרת־י ְה ָ֥וה ְצרוּ ָ ֑פה ָמֵ֥גן ֗֝הוּא ְל ֤כ ֹל ׀ ַהח ִֹ֬סים ֽבּוֹ׃‬
ֽ ‫ַ֗הי ֲאַדֶלּג־‬ï‫ אָ ֻ֣רץ ְגּ ֑דוּד ֝וֵּבֽא‬ê‫ ִֽכּי־ְ֭ב‬MT
ׄ
‫כי[ בך ארץ גד]וד[ ובאלהי אדלג ש ֯ור האל תמים ֯ד]רכו[ אמרת יהוה צ]רו[פה מגן הוא ל֯כל החסי]ם‬
‫בו‬f5/6HevPsalms f6_7:15-17
[Because] with you I can advance against a tro[op], and with my God I can scale a wall. This
God, [his] w[ay] is blameless. The word of YHWH is r[efi]ned. He is a shield for all who take
refu[ge in him.]
There is no variation. And as stated above, this suggests the close textual affinity of
5/6HevPsalms with MT since there is no long suffix with the form ‫ בך‬in Psa 18:30, there isf‫ארץ‬

103

instead of ‫ ארוץ‬in Psa 18:30, there is ‫ ובאלהי‬and not ‫ ובאלוהי‬in Psa 18:30, there is ‫ אדלג‬instead of
‫ אדלגה‬in Psa 18:30, there isf‫ ל֯כל‬instead of ‫ לכול‬in Psa 18:31, and the pronoun ‫ הוא‬is used instead
of ‫ הואה‬in Psa 18:31.

Psalm 18:32-38
‫שׁ ֶ֣וּה ֭ ַרְגַלי ָכּאַיּ ָ֑לוֹת ְוַ֥על ָ֝בּמ ַֹ֗תי‬
ַ ‫ֵהֽינוּ׃ ָ֭הֵאל ַהְמאַזְּ ֵ֣רנִי ָ ֑חי ִל ַויּ ִ ֵ ֖תּן ָתּ ִ ֣מים ַדְּרִֽכּי׃ ְמ‬ï‫ִ ֤כּי ִ ֣מי ֱ֭אלוַֹהּ ִמַבְּלֲע ֵ ֣די י ְה ָ֑וה וּ ִ ֥מי ֗֝צוּר זוָּל ִ ֥תי ֱא‬
‫ ַתְרֵבּֽנִי׃ ַתְּר ִ ֣חיב‬ê֥‫ ִתְסָע ֵ ֑דנִי ְֽוַענְַוְת‬êְ֥‫ ִֽויִמינ‬ê‫שֶׁ֥ע‬
ְ ִ ‫שׁה זְרוֹע ָֹתֽי׃ ַוִתֶּתּן־ִל֮י ָמֵ֪גן ֫י‬
ָ ֗ ‫שׁת־ ֝נְחוּ‬
ֶ ‫י ֲַעִמיֵדֽנִי׃ ְמַל ֵ ֣מּד ֭ י ַָדי ַלִמְּלָח ָ ֑מה ְֽונֲִחָ֥תה ֶֽק‬
‫א־ ֝אָשׁוּב ַעד־ַכּלּוָֹתֽם׃‬ïֽ‫שּׂי ֵ ֑גם ְו‬
ִ ‫א ָ֝מֲע ֗דוּ ַקְרֻסָלּיֽ ׃ ֶאְר ֣דּוֹף ֭אוֹי ְַבי ְואַ‬ï֥‫ ַצֲע ִ ֣די ַתְח ָ ֑תּי ְו‬MT
‫֯ו֯מ]י צור זולתי אלהינו האל המאזרני חיל[ וי֯ת]ן תמים דרכי משוה רגלי כאילות[ ועׄל] במתי יעמידני מלמד ידי‬
‫למלחמה[ ונ֯ח]תה קשת נחושה זרועתי ותתן לי מגן ישעך[ וי]מינך תסעדני וענותך תרבני תרחיב צעדי תחתי ולא מעדו‬
‫קרסלי ארדוף אויבי ואשיגם ולא אשוב עד כלותם‬f4QPsalmsc f4ii:2-8
‫כי מי אלו֯ה מבל֯עדי יהוה ומי צור זול֯ת]י [ׄאלהי ׄ ֯נ]ו[ האל המא]זרני [חיל ויתן תמים דרכי משו ׄ֯ה] רגלי כאילות[ ועל‬
‫במותי יעׄמי ׄ]דני[ מלמד ידי ֯ל]מלחמה ונ[֯ח]תה קשת נחושה זרועתי ותתן [ל ֯י ֯מ ֯ג]ן ישעך וימינך תסעדני וענותך תרבני‬
‫תרחיב צעדי תחתי ולא מעדו קרסלי[ ארדוף אויבי ֯ו֯א]שי[גׄ֯ם ]ולא אשו[ׄב עד כלותם‬f5/6HevPsalms f6_7:17-24
For who is God besides YHWH? And who is a rock excep[t] o[ur] God? This God, who ar[ms
me] with strength and made my way blameless. He who makes [my feet like the deer]. And on
heights he plac[es me], he who trains my hands for [battle] so that [my arm can] be[nd a bronze
bow. And you gave] me the shie[ld of your salvation. And your right hand supports me. And your
condescension makes me great. You gave a wide place for my steps under me. And my ankles
have not buckled.] I pursue my enemies so that I ov[erta]ke them. [And I do not turn b]ack until
finishing them.
The only variation in what is extant of these several verses is the not unexpected addition in
5/6HevPsalms of a waw mater lectionis for an o-class vowel in ‫ במותי‬in Psa 18:34. In
5/6HevPsalms this occurrence is the only time a waw mater lectionis is added (in comparison to
L), while it is omitted twice (in comparison L).261 While 4QPsalmsc, a “mirror” witness, does
have extant text where linguistic variation might occur, 5/6HevPsalms shows itself to be a
linguistic match to MT, even exhibiting a plene spelling with ‫ֶאְרדּוֹף‬, which is not necessarily
expected.

They occur at 5/6HevPsalms f1iii+2:4 / Psa 10:9 for ‫ לחטף‬and 5/6HevPsalms f8_9:2 / Psa 22:6 for ‫בשו‬. Note that
other MT mss per Kenn preserve both the defective and full spellings here.
261

104

Psalm 18:39-41
‫שׂנְ֗אַי אְַצִמיֵתֽם׃‬
ַ ‫א־ֻיְ֣כלוּ ֑קוּם ֝י ְִפּ֗לוּ ַ ֣תַּחת ַרְגָליֽ ׃ ַוְתּאַזְּ ֵ֣רנִי ַ֭חי ִל ַלִמְּלָח ָ ֑מה ַתְּכ ִ֖ריַע ָק ַ ֣מי ַתְּחָתּֽי׃ ְֽואיֹ ְַ֗בי נָ ַ ֣תָתּה ִ ֣לּי ֑ע ֶֹרף ֝וְּמ‬ï‫ֶ֭אְמָחֵצם ְו‬
MT
‫אמׄח]צם ולא יכלו קום יפלו תחת רגלי[ ותאז֯ר]ני חיל למלחמה תכריע קמי תחתי[ ואיׄב]י נתתה לי ערף ומשנאי‬
‫אצמיתם‬f4QPsalmsc f4ii:9-11
‫ ֯י֯פ ֯ו]לו תחת רגלי ותאזרני חיל למלחמה תכריע קמי[ ת֯ח]תי ואויבי נתתה לי עורף ומשנאי אצמיתם‬f11QPsalmsd
f4:1-2
I stri[ke them down so that they are not able to rise.] They f[all beneath my feet.] And you gir[d
me with strength for battle. You make my adversaries sink] und[er me.] And [you make my]
enemies [turn their backs to me, and my haters I destroy.]
The only variation here, ‫ ֯י֯פ ֯ו]לו‬, is the ‫ יקטולו‬yiqtol form in 11QPsalmsd, a “mixer” witness. It is
noteworthy for determining what is expected in a “mixer” witness since this morpheme never
occurs outside of pause in MT.262 However, it should be stressed that such a reading is extremely
uncertain, as the transcription ‫ ֯י֯פ ֯ו]לו‬indicates.263

Psalm 18:42-43
‫שָׁחֵ֗קם ְכָּעָ֥פר ַעל־ְפּנֵי־ ֑רוַּח ְכּ ִ ֖טיט חוּ֣צוֹת ֲאִרי ֵֽקם׃‬
ְ ‫א ָע ָנ ֽם׃ ְֽוֶא‬ï֣‫שְׁוּ֥עוּ ְוֵאין־מוֹ ִ ֑שׁיַע ַעל־ ֝י ְהָ֗וה ְו‬
ַ ְ ‫ י‬MT
‫מ ֯ו]שיע על יהוה ולוא ענם‬f11QPsalmsd f4:2-3
‫ ישועו וא[ין מושיע על יהוה ולא ענם ]ואשחקם כע[פר על פני רוח כטיט חוצות‬5/6HevPsalms f6_7:26-28
‫אריקם‬
[They cry for help, but no]body saves. To YHWH, but he did not answer them. [And I beat them
fine like the d]ust on the face of the wind. Like mud in the streets I pour them out.
There is no variation. And once again, as stated above and expected from this case study, the
lack of variation where one might expect it from a high ranking witness, such as ‫ ולא‬instead of
‫ ולוא‬in Psa 18:43, suggests the close textual affinity of “mirror” witnesses and MT.

For a summary of the discussion concerning such verbal forms, cf. HDSS §200.27; §311.1; LLBIS, 140–145 and
566–67; and Shelomo Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations,” 155. Cf. also Psalm 139:9.
263
A new photo can be found at: http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-365364.
262

105

Conclusion
The purpose of this case study was to demonstrate how the recognition of variant scribal
practices provides a framework for explaining the variation and how the proposed schema serves
well as an evaluation tool, and in particular to illustrate the close textual affinity of “mirror”
witnesses with MT. Indeed, the “mirror” mss demonstrate close textual affinity with the relative
lack of use of waw as a mater lectionis for an o-class vowel, the total lack of the long second
masculine suffix form, and any other variation being the not unexpected use of conjunctive waw
(cf. 4QPsalmsc in Psalm 18:1).
Although there is unfortunately little extant of the “mixer” witness 11QPsalmsd, it did
produce the expected results of a higher ranking witness, with 11QPsalmsd’s only variation being
a ‫ יקטולו‬yiqtol form (cf. Psalm 18:39-41). And 11QPsalmsc, a “translator” witness, preserved the
expected linguistic variation, here being the frequent use of waw as a mater lectionis to mark an
o-class vowel, the use of the longer so-called cohortative form to denote the indicate in the first
person, and perhaps a preference for the more common grammatical form of a word (cf. Psalm
18:16).

106

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION

7.1 Summary Conclusion and Implications
The goal of this thesis was to propose a schema for philological comparison of textual variation
which would both 1) incorporate linguistic categories beyond orthography, phonology, and
morphology, and 2) provide a theoretical framework which would better serve the purpose of
recognizing and evaluating the particular goals, methods, and conventions of variant scribal
practices. This thesis has accomplished this goal by means of the aforementioned method,
namely, establishing the epistemological grounds for such an endeavour, surveying the four
predominant Hebrew Bible transmission theories to highlight the need for a such a schema,
identifying variant scribal practices, proposing such a linguistically sensitive schema, and
empirically verifying both the validity of the identified variant scribal practices and the utility of
the said schema. Thus this thesis has set forth a valid framework and useful tool for recognizing
and evaluating textual variation resulting from discernible variant scribal practices among
Qumran “biblical” witnesses, at least as far as the proto-canonical psalms are concerned.
The implication of this conclusion is that Hebrew Bible textual transmission in antiquity
was characterized by linguistically distinguishable variant scribal practices. This multispectral
approach, which engages text not simply qua text, but also qua language and scribe, will yield
not only more robust text-critical evaluations, but also linguistic and exegetical insight.
For the text-critic, the difference of language between different scribal practices must be
taken into account in order to properly assess the text-critical value of the Qumran “biblical”

107

corpus. For example, if a “translator” witness consistently exhibits a waw mater lectionis to mark
o-class vowels or a long second person masculine suffix ‫כה‬-, this is not likely to be attributed to
any archetypal reading. However, if such features are consistently exhibited among even
“mirror” witnesses, it is more likely to reflect an archetype reading. The same is true of any
orthographical convention (such as ‫ אלוהים‬in “translator” witnesses) or particular morpheme
(such as the long ‫ה‬-ָ suffix or ‫ יקטולו‬yiqtol forms in “translator” witnesses) which is more likely to
occur in one group over another.
Also, the use of conjunctive waw has shown itself to be very flexible, even among “mirror”
witnesses. This means that if witnesses of any type of scribal practice are not in agreement over
the particular use of conjunctive waw, it is especially difficult to determine where an archetype
text may or may not have contained it.
On a more complex level, when a “translator” witness like the Great Psalms Scroll
provides a less ambiguous reading for a difficult one, as in 11QPsalmsa 20:13 (‫ )וממתקוממיכה‬/ Psa
139:21 (ê‫ )וִּבְתקוְֹמֶמי‬in L, all things being equal, the easier reading is most likely to be attributed to
a scribal practice which sought to provide unambiguous meaning than to a variant Vorlage. And
although more data is needed to make a firm conclusion, the case studies suggest that
“translator” witnesses are much prone to have erroneous variation than “mirror” ones.
At times the recognition of variant scribal practices even yields exegetical insight. For
example, the addition of ‫ על‬in 11QPsalmsa 20:9 / Psa 139:19 showed that the scribe understood
the syntax (presuming MT does represent the antecedent text) in a certain way. Likewise, the use
of ‫ גבורה‬instead of ‫ חיל‬in 11QPsalmsa 16:3 / Psa 118:16 showed that the scribe understood a
certain meaning of ‫חיל‬.

108

In addition, the recognition of a variety of scribal practices supports Tov’s argument that
the stability of the MT text-type is not the result of a conscious process of standardization.264 This
is because the “mirror” witnesses, which bear strikingly close linguistic resemblance to MT, did
not show any noticeable development during throughout the late Second Temple period, as
chapter 4.2 graphically demonstrated. However, a deeper analysis of MT vis-à-vis the
prototypical “mirror” scribe from Qumran needs to be done to confirm solidly such a conclusion.
Regarding Ulrich’s doubt whether or not “the principles or practices of the scribes at
Qumran differed significantly from those of other contemporary Jewish scribes,”265 this thesis
suggests that Qumran scribal practices or principles indeed did differ significantly from their
other Jewish contemporaries since 1) there are no QSP texts among the zealot refuge caves, 2)
most of the Qumran “sectarian texts” are written in QSP, and 3) the “mirror” texts formed a
significant stream, even within the Qumran mss. Thus the QSP texts are confined to one corner
of the Qumran find and nowhere else. Although overall, the “mirror” group appears to have
preceded the “mixer” and “translator” groups and persisted after them, continuing into the refuge
caves. Thus the destruction of Qumran may form a terminus ad quem for the “mixer” and
“translator” scribal practices.
This thesis further implies that talk of textual “fluidity” must itself be less fluid as to
precisely what was fluid for whom and in which contexts. Does fluidity relate to the range of
manifest variation, which is in reality an amalgam of textual transmission and scribal practice? Is

Cf. TCHB 174–180.
Cf. Eugene C. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,” in The Madrid
Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991
(eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; Studies on the Text of the Judaean Desert 11; Leiden: Brill,
1993), 31.
264
265

109

fluidity the perceived ideology of scribal cultures? Accordingly, talk of scribal “faithfulness”
must be attuned to what different scribal goals, methods, and conventions were so that a “mirror”
scribal practice is not by default privileged as being superior to others. In terms of the schema,
witnesses which exhibit greater linguistic variation from the reconstructed archetype than others
should not be considered less faithful for this fact alone. Rather, witnesses which contain the
most amount of erroneous variation, regardless of linguistic variation, should be considered less
faithful. And by isolating substantive variation from linguistic and erroneous variation, this
schema provides a useful tool for procuring textual data for inquiries into the emic insight of why
a scribe would change the meaning at given places since the places where intentional changes in
meaning were made can be recognized as such (namely, where there is substantive variation).
A pressing desideratum in Hebrew Bible text-critical studies, according to Talmon, is
determining what were the precise scribal limits of “controlled freedom of textual variation” for
Jewish scribes in antiquity.266 The challenge of answering such a desideratum is summarized
well by the text-critic of Spanish literature Hernández Fernández-Ordóñez: “Unfortunately, we
still lack a theory of textual criticism that allows us to calculate the level of linguistic divergence
between the original and the copies that have transmitted it to us, or that allows us to specify
which grammatical aspects are more subject to variation and to quantify the level of possible
transformation at each level in comparison to the rest.”267 This author hopes that the use of this

Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook,” in Qumran and the History of the
Biblical Text (eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 326.
267
“Desgraciadamente todavía carecemos de una teoría de la crítica textual que nos permita calcular el grado de
divergencia lingüística entre el original y las copias que nos lo han transmitido, o que nos permita especificar qué
aspectos de la gramática están más sujetos a variación y cuantificar el grado de transformación posible en cada nivel
en comparación con los restantes.” Hernández I. Fernández-Ordóñez, “Transmisión manuscrita y transformación
‘discursiva’ de los textos,’ Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española (eds. J. J. de
Bustos Tovar and J. L. Girón Alconchel; Madrid: Arco/Libros, 2006), 11, (my translation).
266

110

schema and approach will serve well for producing cogent results to answer such a challenge for
text-critical studies of the Hebrew Bible, and for producing the most robust and comprehensive
theory, which our data allows, of the Hebrew Bible’s textual transmission.

7.2 Inquiries for Further Research
Of course, undertaking such an endeavour requires further research. To do so the author
envisions the following. First, the schema (with its subcategories modified as needed) must be
used to turn the “sledge-hammer” of chapter 4 into a fine chisel. This will mean overcoming the
shortcomings identified in chapter 4.1.
So first not only linguistic, but also all shared substantive and para-textual variation (such
as, for example, the use of paleo-Hebrew letters and specific stichometric arrangements) must be
taken into account so as to identify any and all such features of scribal affinity between groups of
manuscripts. To do this an exhaustion investigation of all the Qumran witnesses must take place;
and a linguistic profile must be produced for each witness. This will likely mean a modification
of the subcategories to reflect more precisely the textual situation. To be sure, as stated in chapter
4.2, the remarkable similarity between the prototypical s-curve of diffusion and the ranking of
the witnesses may prove to be a useful heuristic guide.
Then a qualitative value for each type of variation needs to be produced which takes into
account all the places where the variation could have occurred, but did not. And finally each
qualitative value must be properly weighed in a way which recognizes more significant features
as such. For example, if historical linguistic research confirms that syntactical changes involving
the decline in certain uses of weqatal forms reflects a more significant scribal affinity than, for

111

example, phonological variations of ‫ צ‬and ‫ז‬, then such syntactical variations should be give more
weight for identifying scribal affinity than such phonological ones. With regard to ancient
Hebrew syntax, further analysis with this schema of all the verbal shifts (such as occurrences of
qatal for yiqtol, or wayyiqtol for yiqtol) should prove especially fruitful.
Then further research must determine, with the epistemological considerations of chapter 2
in mind, whether it is ultimately more proper to conceive of a qualitative spectrum of scribal
practices (à la nominalism) or to conceive of distinct scribal practices (à la realism) among
distinct historical groups of scribes. In other words, were there specifically distinct ideologies
which certain scribes operated under, or do other factors explain the range of variation? With
regard to this question, and for better delineating the “mixer” witnesses from “mirror” and
“translator” ones, a detailed study using this schema of the difference types of variation present
between the two halves of the Great Isaiah Scroll should prove especially fruitful. This will also
aid in answering the historical inquiry: “Did the ‘mixer’ scribal practice develop subsequently to
the ‘mirror’ scribal practice, and the ‘translator’ subsequently to the ‘mixer’ or is there not a
linear connection between them?”
For example, there are 18 occurrences of a ‫ יקטולו‬yiqtol form in the first half of the Great
Isaiah Scroll (a “mixer” witness by bifurcation), and 47 occurrences in the second half (a
“translator” witness by bifurcation). Does this reflect a linguistic tendency in “mixer” scribal
practice versus “translator” scribal practice? Likewise, assuming for the sake of argument that L
represents the antecedent text, there are only 2 times where a so-called cohortative form is used
for the indicative yiqtol in the first half of the Great Isaiah Scroll, but 29 occurrences in the
second half. Does this mark a fuzzy, yet noticeable boundary line between “mixer” and

112

“translator” witnesses? Again, in the first half of the Great Isaiah Scroll “Jerusalem” is written
as ‫ירושלים‬f9x out of 24 (so 38% of the time), whereas in the second half of the Great Isaiah Scroll
Jerusalem is written as ‫ירושלים‬f25x out of 26 (so 96% of the time).268 Does this mark a fuzzy
boundary between “mixer” and “translator” witnesses?
Once all this is better determined and the fine chisel is adequately prepared, such an
approach must then be creatively and carefully incorporated into the four theories surveyed in
chapter 3 in other to produce the most robust and comprehensive theory which the limited data
allows for explaining the Hebrew Bible’s textual transmission. For example, do Cross’s
Egyptian, Palestinian, or Babylonian local text-types correspond to the prototypical “mirror,”
“mixer,” or “translator” scribes? Do the three prototypical scribes correspond to the beliefs and
practices of certain social groups à la Talmon? Is there any correspondence between the
identified scribal affinity of the Qumran witnesses and their “textual character” à la Tov? For
example, what percentage of Tov’s non-aligned texts are “translator” witnesses? What percentage
of pre-Samaritan and MT-like texts are “mirror” witnesses? And regarding Ulrich’s multiple
literary editions theory, do distinct literary editions exhibit different scribal practices? For
example, do witnesses to the shorter edition of Jeremiah reflect a different scribal affinity than
witnesses to the longer edition? Does the proposed schema serve well for sifting out the certain
types of variants so that one can better distinguish literary editions?
Broadly speaking, what will we discover when we view the text qua scribe, recognizing
that there is also a change in language and story occurring? A tidal wave is indeed washing over

268

Note that this includes an erasure at 1QIsaa 29:10, and a correction from ‫ ירושלמ‬to ‫ ירושלימ‬at 1QIsaa 50:19.

113

text-critical studies of the Hebrew Bible. The question is how far it will wash over current
shores, and what will be left in its wake.

114

APPENDIX
PSALMS VARIANTS REFERENCED BY BHS VERSIFICATION

The following is a table which provides all textual variations of the Qumran Psalms
witnesses vis-à-vis L in sequence according to BHS verse reference, and is categorized in the
following way: 1) L-verse reference, 2) the L reading versus (||) the variant reading, 3) Qumran
manuscript reference, 4) relevant MT variation readings from L (as gleaned from Kenn)269, and
5) other Qumran witnesses in agreement with L contra the variant cited.

L-Reference

L || Variation

Psalm 1:1

‫א‬ï֥ || ‫לוא‬f1º

Manuscript
Other Relevant Other DSS
Reference
MT Readings Supporting L
4Q174 f1_2i:14

Psalm 2:1

‫גויים || גוִֹי֑ם‬

4Q174 f1_2i:18

Psalm 2:3

|| ‫ׄמוסדרות]ימו‬
‫ֽמוְֹסרוֹ ֵ ֑תימוֹ‬

11Q7 f1_2:2

Psalm 2:4

‫אדוני || ֲאד ֗נֹ ָי‬

11Q7 f1_2:3

mss ‫יהוה‬, ms ‫אדני‬
‫יהוה‬, ms
(Aleppo) >

Psalm 2:6

11Q7 f1_2:4

ms ‫קודשי‬

Psalm 5:8

‫קודשי || ָקְדִֽשׁי‬
êֽ‫[ׄתכה || ְבּי ְִראֶָת‬

Psalm 5:8

êֽ ‫[ׄדׄרככה || ַדְּרֶכּ‬

4Q83 f1:1

Psalm 5:10

‫] || ִ ֤כּי ֵ֪אין‬°°°‫א‬

4Q83 f1:1

Psalm 5:11

‫שׁיֵ֨מם‬
ִ ‫ ֯ה֯אשימו || ַהֲֽא‬4Q83 f1:2

Psalm 5:12

4Q83 f1:3

Psalm 5:12

ì‫בכה || ָ֡ב‬
‫חׄס ֯י || ֪חוֵֹסי‬

Psalm 5:12

‫ׄב֯כה || ָ֡בך‬

4Q98b f1:4

Psalm 5:13

‫בצנה || ַ֝כִּצּ ֗נָּה‬

4Q83 f1:4

Psalm 6:2

ê֥‫בחמתכה || ַבֲּחָמְת‬

4Q83 f1:6

Psalm 6:3

‫חו ֯נ]ני || ָח ֵ֥נּנִי‬

11Q8 f1:1

269

11Q7

4Q98b f1:1

4Q98b

4Q98b f1:4

mss ‫חסי‬

ms ‫חניני‬

Note that cases of obvious scribal error in only one ms as a rule are not cited.

115

‫‪11Q8 f1:2‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 6:4‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f1:2‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 6:4‬‬

‫‪4Q177 f12_13i:‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4Q177 f12_13i:‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4Q177 f12_13i:‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4Q177 f12_13i:‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪11Q13 2:11‬‬
‫> ‪ms‬‬

‫מאדה || ְמ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 6:4‬‬

‫ועתה || ְוַאָ֥תּ‬

‫‪Psalm 6:4‬‬

‫חונני || שׁוּ ָ ֣בה‬

‫‪Psalm 6:5‬‬

‫> || י ְהָוה‬

‫‪Psalm 6:5‬‬

‫‪f1º‬אל || י ְהָו֮ה‬
‫ׄבׄכׄה || ָ ֑ב‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 7:9‬‬
‫‪Psalm 9:3‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f3:2‬‬

‫שׂיָת‬
‫עשי[תה || ָע ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 9:5‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f3:2‬‬

‫ושבתה || י ַָ֥שְׁבָתּ‬

‫‪Psalm 9:5‬‬

‫שפט ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f3:2‬‬

‫שפטתה || שׁוֵֹ֥פט‬

‫‪Psalm 9:5‬‬

‫‪,‬חננני יהוה חנני ‪ms‬‬
‫‪, ms‬חנני ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬חינני ‪, ms‬חוננני‬
‫‪, ms‬חניני ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬חננני חנני‬
‫חנננו‬

‫‪5/6Hev1b f1ii:‬‬
‫‪14‬‬

‫חנני || ָ ֽחנְ ֬נֵנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 9:14‬‬

‫‪5/6Hev1b f1ii:‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫‪5/6Hev1b f1iii‬‬
‫‪+2:4‬‬

‫֯א ֯גׄלה || ָ֝אִ֗גיָלה‬

‫‪Psalm 9:15‬‬

‫לחטף || ַלֲח֣טוֹף‬

‫‪Psalm 10:9‬‬

‫‪5/6Hev1b‬‬

‫‪4Q177 f5_6:7‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָ֫ד ִ֥וד‬

‫‪Psalm 11:1‬‬

‫‪11Q7, 5/6Hev1b‬‬

‫‪4Q177 f5_6:8‬‬

‫ויכינו || כּוֹנְ ֣נוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 11:2‬‬

‫‪11Q7, 5/6Hev1b‬‬

‫חיצם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q177 f5_6:8‬‬

‫חצים || ִח ָ ֣צּם‬

‫‪Psalm 11:2‬‬

‫‪11Q7, 5/6Hev1b‬‬

‫חיצם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q177 f5_6:8‬‬

‫חצים || ִח ָ ֣צּם‬

‫‪Psalm 11:2‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:2‬‬

‫יואמר || י ֹא ַ ֣מר‬

‫‪Psalm 12:6‬‬

‫‪ 11Q7 f4_7:3‬אל צדי[֯ק ֯ים אש ֯י]ת[‬
‫|| ָא ִ ֥שׁית‬

‫‪Psalm 12:6‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:3‬‬

‫טה[ורות || ְט ֫ה ֹ֥רוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 12:7‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:4‬‬

‫עיל || ַבֲּע ִ ֣ליל] [‬

‫‪Psalm 12:7‬‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f3:1‬‬

‫‪, mss‬לחטף ‪mss‬‬
‫יחטוף‬

‫יהוה[ ׄאשית‬
‫‪5/6Hev1b f4:3‬‬
‫טהורות ‪mss‬‬
‫‪5/6Hev1b f1iv‬‬
‫‪+3:7‬‬

‫‪116‬‬

‫מזוקק ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:4‬‬

‫מזו֯ק]ק || ְמזָֻ֗קּק‬
‫זׄה || ֣זוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 12:8‬‬

‫‪4Q177 f10_11:8‬‬

‫פניכה || ֶאת־ָפּ ֶ֣ני‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 13:2‬‬

‫‪4Q177 f10_11:8‬‬

‫אשיתה || ָא ִ ֪שׁית‬

‫‪Psalm 13:3‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:8‬‬

‫יואמר || י ֹא ַ ֣מר‬

‫‪Psalm 13:5‬‬

‫אויבי ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:8‬‬

‫אויב]י[ || איֹ ְ ִ ֣בי‬

‫‪Psalm 13:5‬‬

‫בישועתיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:9‬‬

‫בי[ש]ועת[כה ||‬
‫ִֽבּישׁוָּ֫עֶ֥ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 13:6‬‬

‫עלילות ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:11‬‬

‫עול֯ה || ֲעִליָ֗לה‬

‫‪Psalm 14:1‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:14‬‬

‫֯ש֯מ֯ה || ָ ֤שׁם‬

‫‪Psalm 14:5‬‬

‫לשונו ‪4Q525 f2ii+3:1 mss‬‬

‫לשונו || ְלשׁ ֗נֹ וֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 15:3‬‬

‫‪5/6Hev1b f4:3‬‬

‫ֽ‪ï‬א־ָר ֨גַל ׀ ַעל־ְלשׁ ֗נֹ וֹ‬
‫> ||‬

‫‪Psalm 15:3‬‬

‫‪4Q177 f14:2‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 16:3‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f1;2‬‬

‫כלית ֯י‪ִ || f‬כְליוָֹתֽי‬

‫‪Psalm 16:7‬‬

‫‪4Q177 f14:4‬‬

‫לתפלתי || ְתִפָלּ ִ ֑תי‬
‫מׄת]קוממים ||‬
‫ִ֝מִמְּתקוְֹמִ֗מים‬

‫‪Psalm 17:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 17:7‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:1‬‬

‫זׄה || ֣זוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 17:9‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:1‬‬

‫שׁ ֑דּוּנִי‬
‫דׄר֯ש]וני || ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 17:9‬‬

‫אשרוני ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:2‬‬

‫שֵּׁרינוּ‬
‫גרשוני || ַ֭א ֻ‬

‫‪Psalm 17:11‬‬

‫ישותו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:3‬‬

‫יושב || י ֵֹ֥שׁב‬

‫‪Psalm 17:12‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:4‬‬

‫פ[לט || ַפְּלָּ֥טה‬

‫‪Psalm 17:13‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:4‬‬

‫ח[רבכה || ַחְרֶבּֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 17:13‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:4‬‬

‫֯מ ֯י ֯ד]כה[ || י ְָד֨‪ê‬‬
‫בחייׄה]ם[ || ַבַּֽחיּ ִי֮ם‬

‫‪Psalm 17:14‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f4_7:4‬‬
‫‪11Q7, 5/6Hev1b‬‬

‫‪4Q85‬‬
‫ממתקומים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪8Q2 f1_6:4‬‬

‫חרביך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:5‬‬
‫‪, ms‬וצפונך ‪mss‬‬
‫וצפיונך‬

‫‪117‬‬

‫‪Psalm 17:14‬‬

‫‪ 11Q7 f8:5‬וצ֯פ]ונכ[ה || וְּצִפינְ‪ê‬‬
‫]]ֽוּ[]ְצפוּנְ֮‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 17:14‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:6‬‬

‫֯פניכה || ָפ ֶ֑ני‪]ê‬‬
‫וׄב ֯י]ום || ְבּ֤יוֹם‬

‫‪Psalm 17:15‬‬
‫‪Psalm 18:1‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:9‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 18:1‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:9‬‬

‫אויביו || איֹ ְָ֗ביו‬

‫‪Psalm 18:1‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f3_4i:1‬‬
‫‪, ms‬אויביו ‪mss‬‬
‫איבי‬

‫‪Psalm 12:7‬‬

‫‪ 11Q7 f8:9‬ו[י ׄ]ו[אמר[‪ַ ||f‬ויּ ֹאַ֡מר‬

‫‪Psalm 18:2‬‬

‫‪ 11Q7 f8:9‬רח֯מ]תיכה || ֶאְרָחְמ֖‪ê‬‬
‫ׄמ֯ח]ו[לל || ְ֭מֻהָלּל‬
‫‪11Q7 f8:11‬‬

‫‪Psalm 18:2‬‬
‫‪Psalm 18:4‬‬

‫אקראה || ֶאְק ָ֣רא‬

‫‪Psalm 18:4‬‬

‫ומאיבי ומן ‪mss‬‬
‫אויבי ‪, mss‬איבי‬

‫‪ 11Q7 f8:11‬ומאויבי || וִּמן־ ֝א ֹי ְַ֗בי‬

‫‪Psalm 18:4‬‬

‫ומאיבי ומן ‪mss‬‬
‫אויבי ‪, mss‬איבי‬

‫‪ 11Q7 f8:11‬ומאויבי || וִּמן־ ֝א ֹי ְַ֗בי‬

‫‪Psalm 18:4‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:13‬‬

‫אלוהי || ֱא‪ַ֪ï‬הי‬

‫‪Psalm 18:7‬‬

‫חשרת ‪ms‬‬
‫)‪(maybe‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:18‬‬

‫שַׁכת‬
‫חשכות || ֶח ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 18:12‬‬

‫‪, mss‬מסדת ‪ms‬‬
‫‪, mss‬מסדות‬
‫מוסדות‬

‫‪11Q7 f9:2‬‬

‫מוסד[ ֯י || מוְֹס ֪דוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 18:16‬‬

‫> ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f9:2‬‬

‫תבל י ׄשל]ח || ֵ֫תֵּ֥בל‬

‫‪Psalm 18:16‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f9:3‬‬

‫וי֯ק֯ח]ני || י ִָקּ ֵ ֑חנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 18:17‬‬

‫‪5/6Hev1b‬‬
‫‪f6_7:20‬‬
‫‪11Q8 f4:1‬‬

‫במותי || ָבּמ ַֹ֗תי‬

‫‪Psalm 18:34‬‬

‫֯י֯פ ֯ו]לו || ֝י ְִפּ֗לוּ‬
‫או ׄ֯ה]ל || ֥א ֶֹהל‬

‫‪Psalm 18:39‬‬
‫‪Psalm 19:5‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f10:3‬‬

‫מ[֯קצי || ִמְק ֵ ֤צה‬

‫‪Psalm 19:7‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f10:4‬‬

‫תור[ ֯ות || ֘תּוֹ ַ֤רת‬

‫‪Psalm 19:8‬‬

‫‪5/6Hev1b‬‬
‫‪f8_9:2‬‬
‫‪4Q88 f1_2:20‬‬

‫בשו || ֽבוֹשׁוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 22:6‬‬

‫עצ[ׄמתי || ַעְצ֫מוָֹ֥תי‬

‫‪Psalm 22:15‬‬

‫‪4Q88 f1_2:21‬‬

‫֯נ]מ[ש || ֝נֵָ֗מס‬

‫‪Psalm 22:15‬‬

‫‪4Q88 f1_2:22‬‬

‫ׄמדבש || ֻמְד ָ ֣בּק‬

‫‪Psalm 22:16‬‬

‫ ‪4Q88 f1_2:22‬‬‫‪4Q88 f1_2:23‬‬
‫‪4Q88 f1_2:23‬‬

‫ואל[ עפר || ְֽוַלֲעַפר‬

‫‪Psalm 22:16‬‬

‫שְׁפֵּתֽנִי‬
‫שופׄט || ִתּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 22:16‬‬

‫‪, ms‬מהולל ‪mss‬‬
‫ומהלל‬

‫‪11Q7 f8:11‬‬

‫‪8Q2 f11_13:4‬‬
‫֯ח]שכת‬
‫‪Q85‬מוׄס ֯ד ֯ו]ת ‪4‬‬
‫‪f5:1‬‬
‫‪4Q85 f5:1‬‬
‫‪[same‬‬
‫‪reconstructed‬‬
‫]‪order‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f10:2‬‬

‫בשו ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬עצמתי ‪mss‬‬
‫עצמת‬

‫‪118‬‬

‫‪, ms‬הקפוני ‪mss‬‬
‫הקפני‬

‫‪4Q88 f1_2:25‬‬

‫֯ה֯ק ֯י֯פ ֯נ ֯י || ִהִקּי֑פוּנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 22:17‬‬

‫‪, mss‬כאריה ‪ms‬‬
‫כרו ‪, mss‬כארו‬

‫‪4Q88 f1_2:25‬‬

‫֯כ֯ר]ו || ָ֝כֲּאִ֗רי‬

‫‪Psalm 22:17‬‬

‫‪, mss‬כאריה ‪ms‬‬
‫כרו ‪, mss‬כארו‬

‫‪5/6Hev1b‬‬
‫‪f8_9:12‬‬

‫כארו || ָ֝כֲּאִ֗רי‬

‫‪Psalm 22:17‬‬

‫‪5/6Hev1b‬‬
‫‪f8_9:12‬‬
‫‪11Q7 f11:3‬‬

‫ידיׄה || י ַָ֥די‬

‫‪Psalm 22:17‬‬

‫באמתכה || ַבֲאִמֶ֨תּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 25:5‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f11:3‬‬

‫ל֯מ]דני || ְֽוַלְמֵּ֗דנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 25:5‬‬

‫‪11Q7 f11:4‬‬

‫רחמיכה || ַרֲח ֶ ֣מי‪ê‬‬
‫ו[֯ה֯חי ׄני || ְוָח ֵנּ ֽנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 25:6‬‬

‫‪4Q98a f1_2i‬‬
‫‪+3_4:5‬‬
‫‪ 1QHa 10:32‬מקהלם || ְבַּמְקֵהִ֗לים‬

‫‪Psalm 26:12‬‬

‫‪1QHa 10:32‬‬

‫אברכה || ֲאָב ֵ֥ר‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 26:12‬‬

‫> ‪ms‬‬

‫‪1QHa 10:32‬‬

‫‪. Ken‬יהוה ‪mss‬‬
‫‪base text has‬‬
‫‪.‬יהוה‬

‫‪4Q98a f2ii:1‬‬

‫שמכה || י ְה ָו ֽה‬
‫י ׄ]הוה || ֲ֝אד ֗נֹ ָי‬

‫‪Psalm 26:12‬‬

‫‪4Q98a f2ii:2‬‬

‫לשחת || ֶ֫אל־ָ֥שַׁחת‬
‫וי ׄ]חנני || ְוָח ֵ֑נּנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 30:11‬‬

‫פדית ‪5/6Hev1b f13ii: mss‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪4Q83 f4i:3‬‬

‫פדית || ָפּ ִ ֖דיָתה‬

‫‪Psalm 31:6‬‬

‫עיניכ[ה || ֵ֫עי ֶ֥ני‪ê‬‬
‫אמנׄם || ֱ֭אמוּנִים‬

‫‪Psalm 31:23‬‬
‫‪Psalm 31:24‬‬
‫‪Psalm 31:24‬‬

‫וחונני ‪ms‬‬

‫וחונני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q98a f2ii:3‬‬

‫‪Psalm 26:11‬‬

‫‪Psalm 30:9‬‬

‫‪Psalm 30:10‬‬

‫אמנים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f4i:4‬‬

‫אמנים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f4i:4‬‬

‫אמנׄם || ֱ֭אמוּנִים‬

‫נוצר ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f4i:4‬‬

‫נ[ ֯וצר || נ ֹ ֵ ֣צר‬

‫‪Psalm 31:24‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:1‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 31:25‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:2‬‬

‫לדויד שיר || >‬
‫מזמור‬

‫‪Psalm 33:1‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:4‬‬

‫וכול || ְוָכל‬
‫ׄכול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 33:4‬‬
‫‪Psalm 33:6‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:5‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 33:6‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:5‬‬

‫כונס || כּ ֵנֹ ֣ס‬

‫‪Psalm 33:7‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f4i:8‬‬
‫כונס ‪mss‬‬

‫‪119‬‬

‫תהומות [ׄש֯ם‬
‫‪4Q98 1:6‬‬
‫ׄ‬
‫֯המים] נצבו‬
‫כמו [ ֯נו ׄד || ְתּהוֹֽמוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 33:7‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:6‬‬

‫יראו || ִייֽ ְר֣אוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 33:8‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f4i:9‬‬

‫ׄכ ֯ול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 33:8‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:6‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 33:8‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:7‬‬

‫והיה || ַוֶיִּ֑הי‬

‫‪Psalm 33:9‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:7‬‬

‫הפר || ֵה ִ ֥פיר‬

‫‪Psalm 33:10‬‬

‫מחשבת ‪mss‬‬

‫שׁ֥בוֹת‬
‫‪ 4Q98 1:7‬מחשבת || ַמְח ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 33:10‬‬

‫מחשבת ‪mss‬‬

‫שׁ֥בוֹת‬
‫‪ 4Q98 1:8‬מחש[בת || ַמְח ְ‬
‫ו ׄהי ׄה || י ְה ָ֣וה‬
‫‪4Q98 1:8‬‬

‫‪Psalm 33:11‬‬
‫‪Psalm 33:12‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:8‬‬

‫אלוהו || ֱא‪֑ ָ ï‬היו‬

‫‪Psalm 33:12‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:8‬‬

‫אלוהו || ֱא‪֑ ָ ï‬היו‬

‫‪Psalm 33:12‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:10‬‬

‫֯כ ֯ול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 33:14‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:10‬‬

‫תב[ל || ָהָאֶֽרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 33:14‬‬

‫‪4Q98 1:11‬‬

‫ברוב || ְבָּרב‬

‫‪Psalm 33:16‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f5:1‬‬

‫שָׁבָּֽרה‬
‫נשב[֯ר || נִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 34:21‬‬

‫‪4Q98 2:3‬‬
‫‪, ms‬שאה ‪mss‬‬
‫שואה‬

‫‪4Q98 2:3‬‬

‫תלכדהו || ִתְּלְכּ ֑דוֹ‬
‫ׄש]ואה || ְ֝בּשׁוָֹ֗אה‬

‫‪Psalm 35:8‬‬
‫‪Psalm 35:8‬‬

‫)נספו( *‪4Q98 2:7‬‬

‫נאספו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f6:2‬‬

‫֯נא֯סׄפו ׄ ‪ְֽ || ]°‬ונֱֶ֫אָ֥ספוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 35:15‬‬

‫)נספו( *‪4Q98 2:7‬‬

‫נאספו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f6:2‬‬

‫֯נא֯סׄפו ׄ ‪ְֽ || ]°‬ונֱֶ֫אָ֥ספוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 35:15‬‬

‫֯נא֯סׄפו ׄ ‪4Q83 f6:2‬‬

‫נאספו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q98 2:7‬‬

‫נספו || נֶֶאְס֬פוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 35:15‬‬

‫‪4Q98 2:7‬‬

‫תכים || ֭נִֵכים‬

‫‪Psalm 35:15‬‬

‫חרוק ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f6:3‬‬

‫חרקו || ָח ֖ר ֹק‬

‫‪Psalm 35:16‬‬

‫‪, ms‬שנמו ‪mss‬‬
‫שינימו ‪, ms‬שינמו‬

‫‪4Q83 f6:3‬‬

‫שׁ ֵנּיֽ מוֹ‬
‫שנים || ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 35:16‬‬

‫אדוני ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f6:3‬‬

‫ׄאדו ׄני || ֲאדנֹ ָ֮י‬

‫‪Psalm 35:17‬‬

‫אדוני ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f6:3‬‬

‫ׄאדני || ֲאדנֹ ָ֮י‬

‫‪Psalm 35:17‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f6:3‬‬

‫בק֯ה֯ל] || ְבָּק ָ ֣הל‬

‫‪Psalm 35:18‬‬

‫‪ 4Q83 f6:4‬א]הללכ[֯ה || ֲאַהְֽלֶל ָֽךּ‬

‫‪Psalm 35:18‬‬

‫‪, mss‬יראו ‪mss‬‬
‫ויראו‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬

‫ברוב ‪mss‬‬

‫אהלליך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪120‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f6:5‬‬

‫֯וׄאל || ְוַ֥על‬

‫‪Psalm 35:20‬‬

‫‪4Q98 2:10‬‬

‫יחשובן || י ֲַחשׁ ֹֽבוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 35:25‬‬

‫‪4Q98 2:10‬‬

‫יחשובן || י ֲַחשׁ ֹֽבוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 35:25‬‬

‫חפיצי ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f4ii:2‬‬

‫‪֯f2°‬ח֯פצי || ֶ֝הָחֵ֗פץ‬

‫‪Psalm 35:27‬‬

‫חפיצי ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f4ii:2‬‬

‫‪֯f2°‬ח֯פצי || ֶ֝הָחֵ֗פץ‬

‫‪Psalm 35:27‬‬

‫לדיד ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f4ii:3‬‬

‫למצוא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f4ii:4‬‬

‫לדוי ֯ד || ְלָד ִֽוד‬
‫למׄצוׄא || ִלְמ ֖צ ֹא‬

‫‪Psalm 36:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 36:3‬‬

‫‪ 4Q83 f4ii:5‬יתיעץ כוׄל || י ְִתי ֵַצּב‬
‫ַעל‬

‫‪Psalm 36:5‬‬

‫שּׁ ַ ֣מי ִם‬
‫‪ 4Q83 f4ii:6‬מהשמים || ְבַּה ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 36:6‬‬

‫‪ 4Q83 f4ii:7‬בה תושי֯ע || תוֹ ִ ֣שׁיַע‬

‫‪Psalm 36:7‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f5:2‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָדִ֨וד‬

‫‪Psalm 37:1‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f5:4‬‬

‫יבלון || י ִבּוֹֽלוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 37:2‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2i:17‬‬

‫ואל תחׄר ||‬
‫אַל־ִ֭תְּתַחר‬

‫‪Psalm 37:7‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2i:17‬‬

‫ואל תחׄר ||‬
‫אַל־ִ֭תְּתַחר‬

‫‪Psalm 37:7‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2ii:‬‬
‫‪1-2‬‬

‫ואל \ תחר ||‬
‫אַל־ִ֭תְּתַחר‬

‫‪Psalm 37:8‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2ii:‬‬
‫‪1-2‬‬

‫ואל \ תחר ||‬
‫אַל־ִ֭תְּתַחר‬

‫‪Psalm 37:8‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2ii:2‬‬

‫כיא || ִֽכּי‬

‫‪Psalm 37:9‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2ii:2‬‬

‫יכרתו || י ִָכֵּר֑תוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 37:9‬‬

‫‪, mss‬וקווי ‪mss‬‬
‫וקויי‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2ii:4‬‬

‫וקואי || ְוק ֵ֥וֹי‬

‫‪Psalm 37:9‬‬

‫ירשו ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2ii:4‬‬

‫ירשו || ִייֽ ְרשׁוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 37:9‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2ii:6‬‬

‫ואתבוננה ||‬
‫ְוִהְתבּוֹ ַ֖ננְָתּ‬

‫‪Psalm 37:10‬‬

‫ירשו ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2ii:8‬‬

‫ירשו || ִייֽ ְרשׁוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 37:10‬‬

‫רוב ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f1_2ii:8‬‬

‫רוב || ֥ר ֹב‬

‫‪Psalm 37:11‬‬

‫זומם ‪4Q171 f1_2ii:12 mss‬‬

‫זומם || ז ֹ ֵ ֣מם‬

‫‪Psalm 37:12‬‬

‫וחורק ‪4Q171 f1_2ii:12 mss‬‬

‫וחורק || ְוח ֵֹ֖רק‬

‫‪Psalm 37:12‬‬

‫יהוה ‪4Q171 f1_2ii:12 mss‬‬

‫]יה[ ֯ו֯ה || ֲאד ָ֥נֹ י‬

‫‪Psalm 37:13‬‬

‫בשמים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪Ken main text‬‬
‫יבולון ‪, mss‬יבלון‬

‫‪121‬‬

Psalm 37:13

‫כיא || ִֽכּי‬

4Q171 f1_2ii:12

Psalm 37:13

‫כיא || ִֽכּי‬

4Q171 f1_2ii:13

Psalm 37:13

‫בא || י ָ ֥ב ֹא‬

4Q171 f1_2ii:13 mss ‫בא‬

Psalm 37:14

‫וידרוכו || ְוָדְר֪כוּ‬

4Q171 f1_2ii:15

Psalm 37:14

‫וידרוכו || ְוָדְר֪כוּ‬

4Q171 f1_2ii:15

Psalm 37:14

‫לפיל || ְלַהִפּיל‬

4Q171 f1_2ii:15

Psalm 37:14

‫ולטבוה || ִלְט֗בוַֹח‬

4Q171 f1_2ii:16

Psalm 37:15

|| ‫וקשתותיהם‬
‫שּׁתוָֹ֗תם‬
ְ ‫ְוַק‬

4Q171 f1_2ii:16

Psalm 37:15

|| ‫וקשתותיהם‬
‫שּׁתוָֹ֗תם‬
ְ ‫ְוַק‬

4Q437 f2i:3

Psalm 37:17
Psalm 37:19

‫ אזרוע]ות[ || זְרוֹ֣עוֹת‬4Q171 f1_2ii:23
‫י[ׄבושו || י ֵב ֹשׁוּ‬
4Q171 f1_2ii:26 mss ‫יבושו‬

4Q85

Psalm 37:19

‫רעב || ְרָע֣בוֹן‬

4Q85

Psalm 37:20
Psalm 37:20
Psalm 37:20
Psalm 37:20

4Q171
f1+3_4iii:2
‫כיא || ִ ֤כּי‬
4Q171
f1+3_4iii:2
‫יובדו || י ֹאֵ֗בדוּ‬
4Q171
f1+3_4iii:3
‫ואוהבי || ְואיֹ ְ ֵ ֣בי‬
4Q171
f1+3_4iii:5a
‫ְואיֹ ְ ֵ ֣בי ֭ י ְהָוה ִכּי ַ֣קר‬
4Q171
‫ || ָכּ ִ֑רים‬f20aβ and f1+3_4iii:5a
bα >

Psalm 37:20

‫כורים || ָכּ ִ֑רים‬

Psalm 37:20

‫כעשן || ֶבָע ָ ֣שׁן‬

Psalm 37:20

‫כולו || ָכּ ֽלוּ‬

Psalm 37:21

‫א‬ï֣‫ולוא || ְו‬

Psalm 37:22

‫כיא || ִ ֣כּי‬

Psalm 37:22

‫מבורכ]ו || ְמב ָֹרָכיו‬

4Q171
f1+3_4iii:5a
4Q171
f1+3_4iii:7
4Q171
f1+3_4iii:7
4Q171
f1+3_4iii:8
4Q171
f1+3_4iii:9
4Q171
f1+3_4iii:9

122

mss ‫ואויבי‬

mss ‫כעשן‬

mss ‫מבורכיו‬

‫ומקולליו ‪mss‬‬
‫ומקולליו ‪mss‬‬

‫‪ 4Q171‬וׄמׄקלל]ו || וְּמֻקָלָּ֗ליו‬
‫‪f1+3_4iii:9‬‬
‫ׄ‬
‫ׄ‬
‫‪ 4Q171‬ומקולל]ו || וְּמֻקָלָּ֗ליו‬
‫‪f1+3_4iii:9‬‬

‫‪֯ 4Q171‬ב֯כ ֯ו֯ל ֯דרכו || ְוַדְר֥כּוֹ‬
‫‪f1+3_4iii:14‬‬
‫‪֯ 4Q171‬ב֯כ ֯ו֯ל ֯דרכו || ְוַדְר֥כּוֹ‬
‫‪f1+3_4iii:14‬‬
‫‪֯ 4Q171‬ב֯כ ֯ו֯ל ֯דרכו || ְוַדְר֥כּוֹ‬
‫‪f1+3_4iii:14‬‬
‫ׄ‬
‫כיא || ִֽכּי‬
‫‪4Q171‬‬
‫‪f1+3_4iii:14‬‬
‫כיא || ִֽכּי‬
‫‪4Q171‬‬
‫‪f1+3_4iii:15‬‬
‫וגם || ַגּם‬
‫‪4Q171‬‬
‫וגם ‪mss‬‬
‫‪f1+3_4iii:17‬‬
‫ולוא] || ְֽו‪ï‬א‬
‫‪4Q171‬‬
‫‪f1+3_4iii:17‬‬
‫שׁ ָ ֑מרוּ‬
‫נשמדו‪ ||f‬נִ ְ‬
‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫שְּׁפֽטוֹ‬
‫‪ 4Q171 f3_10iv:‬ובהשפטו || ְבִּה ָ‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫שְּׁפֽטוֹ‬
‫‪ 4Q171 f3_10iv:‬בהשפטו || ְבִּה ָ‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫שׁ ֬מ ֹר‬
‫ושמור || וּ ְ‬
‫ושמור ‪4Q171 f3_10iv: mss‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫ו]י[רוממכה ||‬
‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫ִֽוירוִֹמְמ‪ê‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪ׄ 4Q171 f3_10iv:‬מׄת֯ע]רה || וִּמְתָעֶ֗רה‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫אעבור || ַוַיּ ֲֽעב ֹר‬
‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫אעבור || ַוַיּ ֲֽעב ֹר‬
‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫על פ]ניו והנה ||‬
‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫ְוִה ֵ֣נּה‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫‪13‬‬

‫‪123‬‬

‫֯ולוא || ְו֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 37:22‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:22‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:23‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:23‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:23‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:24‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:24‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:25‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:25‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:28‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:33‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:33‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:34‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:34‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:35‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:36‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:36‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:36‬‬
‫‪Psalm 37:36‬‬

‫שִׁעים‬
‫ופושעים ‪ 4Q171 f3_10iv: mss‬ופושעים || ֽוּפ ֹ ְ‬
‫‪17‬‬
‫יחד || י ְַח ָ ֑דּו‬
‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪4Q83 f7_8:1‬‬

‫‪Psalm 37:38‬‬

‫וימלטם || ַו ֽי ְַ֫פְלֵּ֥טם‬

‫‪Psalm 37:40‬‬

‫ויפלט֯ם || י ְַפְלּ ֵ ֣טם‬

‫‪Psalm 37:40‬‬

‫ובח[ׄמתכׄה ||‬
‫ֽוַּבֲחָמְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 38:2‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f7_8:2‬‬

‫זׄעמכה || זְַע ֶ ֑מ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 38:4‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f7_8:3‬‬

‫֯ונׄמקו || ֭נַָמקּוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 38:6‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f7_8:3‬‬

‫֯ונׄמקו || ֭נַָמקּוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 38:6‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f7_8:4‬‬

‫נׄפגׄא‪ || ]°‬נְפוּ֣גוִֹתי‬

‫‪Psalm 38:9‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f7_8:5‬‬

‫ממכה || ִמְמּ֥‪ê‬‬
‫לוׄא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 38:10‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f7_8:5‬‬

‫נסתר || נְִסָתָּֽרה‬
‫מנ[גד ׄרעי || ְוֵרַ֗עי‬
‫ִמ ֶ֣נֶּגד‬

‫‪4Q83 f7_8:6‬‬

‫מנ[גד ׄרעי || ְוֵרַ֗עי‬
‫ִמ ֶ֣נֶּגד‬

‫‪Psalm 38:12‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f7_8:6‬‬

‫ומיו ֯ד]עי || נְִג ִ ֣עי‬
‫י ֲַע ֑מ ֹדוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 38:12‬‬

‫‪ 4Q83 f9ii:2‬אדני אתה תענני ||‬
‫ַאָ֥תּה ַ֝תֲע ֗נֶה ֲאד ָ֥נֹ י‬

‫‪Psalm 38:16‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:2‬‬

‫‪Psalm 38:16‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f7_8:5‬‬
‫‪4Q83 f7_8:6‬‬

‫ואתה תענה ‪mss‬‬
‫אדני‬

‫‪Psalm 37:38‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:2‬‬

‫‪Psalm 38:10‬‬
‫‪Psalm 38:10‬‬
‫‪Psalm 38:12‬‬

‫תענני || ַ֝תֲע ֗נֶה‬
‫כי אלׄהי ׄ || ֱא‪ָï‬הֽי ִֽכּי ‪Psalm 38:16-17‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:2‬‬

‫יגׄדילו || ִהְגִֽדּילוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 38:17‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:3‬‬

‫ומכאבי || וַּמְכאוֹ ִ ֖בי‬

‫‪Psalm 38:18‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:3‬‬

‫כה || ִֽכּי‬

‫‪Psalm 38:19‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:3‬‬

‫ׄעונתי || ֲעוִֹנ֥י‬

‫‪Psalm 38:19‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:3‬‬

‫מן ֯חׄטאותי ||‬
‫ֵמַֽחָטּאִֽתי‬

‫‪Psalm 38:19‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:3‬‬

‫֯חנם || ַחִיּ֣ים‬

‫‪Psalm 38:20‬‬

‫‪124‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:4‬‬

‫שֶׁקר‬
‫שׄקרי || ָ ֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 38:20‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:4‬‬

‫שְׁלּ ֵ ֣מי‬
‫משלימי || וְּמ ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 38:21‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:4‬‬

‫שְׁלּ ֵ ֣מי‬
‫משלימי || וְּמ ַ‬
‫רעה תחת טו ׄבה ||‬
‫ָרָעה ַ ֣תַּחת טוֹ ָ ֑בה‬

‫‪Psalm 38:21‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:4‬‬

‫תחת טו ׄבה || ָרָעה‬
‫ַ ֣תַּחת טוֹ ָ ֑בה‬

‫‪Psalm 38:21‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:4‬‬

‫שְׂט ֗נוּנִי‬
‫֯ישסני || ֝י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 38:21‬‬

‫‪ 4Q83 f9ii:4‬דבר || ְרדוִֹפי ] ָֽרְדִפי[‬

‫‪Psalm 38:21‬‬

‫תעזׄובני || ַתַּֽעזְֵ֥בנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 38:22‬‬

‫‪ 4Q83 f9ii:4‬אל֯ה]י || י ְה ָ֑וה ֱ֝א‪ַ֗ï‬הי‬

‫‪Psalm 38:22‬‬

‫שׁה‬
‫חישה || ֥חוּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 38:23‬‬

‫‪ 4Q83 f9ii:5‬לי לעזרתי || ְלֶעזְָר ִ ֑תי‬
‫‪ 1Q12 f2:3‬וזרוע[ׄכה || וּזְרוֲֹע‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 38:23‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:4‬‬

‫‪, ms‬ישטמני ‪ms‬‬
‫‪, mss‬ישטמוני‬
‫ישטנוני‬
‫‪, ms‬רדפי ‪mss‬‬
‫רדפו‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:4‬‬
‫‪4Q83 f9ii:5‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f11:2‬‬

‫מ]שנאינו ||‬
‫שׂנְֵ֥אינוּ‬
‫וְּמ ַ‬

‫‪1Q12 f1_4:6‬‬

‫֯באלו]הים[ ||‬
‫[ֵבּֽא‪ִï‬הים‬
‫ׄכצואןׄ || ְכּ ֣צ ֹאן‬

‫‪Psalm 44:9‬‬
‫‪Psalm 44:23‬‬

‫ולשוני || ְלשׁוֹ ֗נִי‬

‫‪Psalm 45:2‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f3_10iv:‬‬
‫‪26‬‬
‫‪ַ 11Q8 f8:1‬הֶמֶּֽל‪ || ì‬המלך אלף‬

‫‪Psalm 45:6‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f8:2‬‬

‫מישר || ִמי ֗שׁ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 45:7‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f8:2‬‬

‫מישור || ִמי ֗שׁ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 45:7‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f12:2‬‬

‫שׂ֗שׂוֹן‬
‫ששן || ָ‬
‫אלו֯הינו ׄ || ֱ֝א‪ֵ֗ï‬הינוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 45:8‬‬

‫‪4Q91 f1:4‬‬

‫מל֯כ]ים || ַ֭הְמָּלִכים‬
‫וחלו ׄ‪ְ || ]°‬וָחַ֥דל‬

‫‪Psalm 49:9‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f13_15i:‬‬
‫‪22‬‬

‫ולא || ֖‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 49:10‬‬

‫‪4Q91 f1:2‬‬
‫‪4Q91 f3_7:1‬‬
‫ולא ‪ms‬‬

‫‪Psalm 44:4‬‬
‫‪Psalm 44:8‬‬

‫‪1Q12 f5_6:1‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f13_15i:‬‬
‫[ ֯וחדל ‪22‬‬

‫‪Psalm 38:21‬‬

‫‪125‬‬

‫‪Psalm 48:2‬‬
‫‪Psalm 48:5‬‬

‫הרב ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f13_15i:‬‬
‫‪23‬‬
‫‪4Q91 f3_7:2‬‬

‫ימתו || י ָ֗מוּתוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 49:11‬‬

‫יו ׄ]אבדו || י ֹא ֵ ֑בדוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 49:11‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f13_15i:‬‬
‫‪25‬‬

‫משכנותם ||‬
‫שְׁכּנ ָֹתם‬
‫ִמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 49:12‬‬

‫‪4Q91 f3_7:3‬‬

‫֯משכנ ֯ו]תם ||‬
‫שְׁכּנ ָֹתם‬
‫[ִמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 49:12‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f13_15i:‬‬
‫‪26‬‬
‫‪4Q85‬‬
‫‪f15ii_16:26‬‬
‫‪4Q85‬‬
‫‪f15ii_16:27‬‬
‫‪4Q85‬‬
‫‪f15ii_16:32‬‬

‫יבין || י ָ ִ ֑לין‬

‫‪Psalm 49:13‬‬

‫֯איות || ∫היוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 50:21‬‬

‫֯ואעׄרך || ְוֶאֶֽעְר ָ ֣כה‬

‫‪Psalm 50:21‬‬

‫הרבה || ַהְרֵבּה[‬
‫]ֶהֶרב‬

‫‪Psalm 51:4‬‬

‫‪4Q91 f8:2‬‬

‫הרבה || ַהְרֵבּה[‬
‫]ֶהֶרב‬

‫‪Psalm 51:4‬‬

‫‪4Q85 f15iii‬‬
‫‪+17:26‬‬
‫‪4Q85 f15iii‬‬
‫‪+17:27‬‬
‫‪4Q85 f15iii‬‬
‫‪+17:31‬‬
‫‪4Q85 f15iii‬‬
‫‪+17:32‬‬
‫‪4Q83 f11_12:1‬‬

‫החיים || ַחִיּ֣ים‬

‫‪Psalm 52:7‬‬

‫עליו || ְוָעָ֥ליו‬

‫‪Psalm 52:8‬‬

‫ו֯אודך || אוְֹד֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 52:11‬‬

‫חסידך || ֲחִסיֶדֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 52:11‬‬

‫שׂה‬
‫[֯עו ׄׄש]ה || ֽע ֹ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 53:2‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f11_12:2‬‬

‫כול || ֻכּ֥לּוֹ‬
‫֯לו ׄא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 53:4‬‬
‫‪Psalm 53:5‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f11_12:3‬‬

‫קרא || ָק ָֽראוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 53:5‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f11_12:4‬‬

‫ביום ציון || ִמִצּיּוֹ֮ן‬

‫‪Psalm 53:7‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f11_12:4‬‬

‫ביום ציון || ִמִצּיּוֹ֮ן‬

‫‪Psalm 53:7‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f13:1‬‬

‫[‪°‬יום || ֥יוֹם‬

‫‪Psalm 56:4‬‬

‫‪1Q16 f1:1‬‬

‫ב[בורחו || ְבָּבְר֥חוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 57:1‬‬

‫‪1Q16 f1:1‬‬

‫מלפני || ִמְפּנֵי‬

‫‪Psalm 57:1‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f9:2‬‬

‫֯ירצון || י ְרוּ֣צוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 59:5‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f13:4‬‬

‫אמדדה || ֲאַמֵדּֽד‬

‫‪Psalm 60:8‬‬

‫הרב ‪mss‬‬

‫חסידך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f11_12:3‬‬

‫‪126‬‬

Psalm 66:16

‫שְׁמ֣עוּ‬
ִ || ‫ושמעו‬

4Q83 f14ii:28

Psalm 66:20

‫א‬ïֽ || ‫לוא‬

4Q83 f14ii:30

Psalm 66:20

‫מאותי || ֵמִאִֽתּי‬

4Q83 f14ii:31

Psalm 67:4

ê‫יודוכה || יוֹ ֗דוּ‬

4Q83 f14ii:33

Psalm 67:6

ê‫וידוכה || יוֹ ֖דוּ‬f1º

4Q83 f14ii:34

Psalm 67:6

ê‫וידוכה || יוֹ ֖דוּ‬f1º

4Q83 f14ii:34

Psalm 67:8

‫יברכוכה || י ְָבְרֵ֥כנוּ‬

4Q83 f14ii:35

Psalm 68:16

‫ִהים‬ï‫אלוהים || ֱ֭א‬

11Q8 f11:2

Psalm 68:16

‫ז]ה הר || ַהר‬f2°

11Q8 f11:2

Psalm 68:17

11Q8 f11:3

Psalm 68:27

‫ג[בנונים || ְב ֫נִֻנּ֥ים‬
‫ ִ ֑הים‬ï‫אלוׄהי ׄ]ם || ֱא‬

Psalm 68:31

‫גערׄת || ְגַּ֨ער‬

1Q16 f9_10:2

Psalm 69:1

‫לדויד || ְלָד ִֽוד‬

Psalm 69:3

‫בין || ִבּי ֵ֣ון‬

4Q83
f19ii_20:25
4Q83
f19ii_20:25

Psalm 69:3

‫אין || ְו ֵ ֣אין‬

Psalm 69:3

‫שׁ ֥בּ ֶֹלת‬
ִ ‫שבולת || ְו‬

Psalm 69:3

‫שׁ ֥בּ ֶֹלת‬
ִ ‫שבולת || ְו‬

Psalm 69:4

‫כליו || ָכּ֥לוּ‬

Psalm 69:4

‫שני || ֵעי ַ֑ני‬

Psalm 69:4

‫בחיל || ְ֝מי ֵַ֗חל‬

Psalm 69:4

|| ‫לאלהי יש]ראל‬
‫ָהֽי‬ï‫ֵלא‬

4Q83
f19ii_20:26

Psalm 69:5

‫שֲּׂע ֣רוֹת‬
ַ ‫משערי || ִמ‬

Psalm 69:5

‫שונאי || שׂנֹ ְַ֪אי‬

4Q83
f19ii_20:27
4Q83
f19ii_20:27

1Q16 f8:1

4Q83
f19ii_20:25
4Q83
f19ii_20:26
4Q83
f19ii_20:26
4Q83
f19ii_20:26
4Q83
f19ii_20:26
4Q83
f19ii_20:26

127

mss ‫ביין‬, mss
‫ביוון‬, ms ‫בוין‬

ms ‫מייחיל‬, mss
‫מייחל‬, mss ‫ִמיַחל‬
(dagesh with
Yod)

‫לוׄא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 69:5‬‬

‫ידעתה || י ַָדְעָתּ‬

‫‪Psalm 69:6‬‬

‫‪ 4Q83‬לוא לויתי || ְלִאַוְּל ִ ֑תּי‬
‫‪f19ii_20:28‬‬
‫שׁמוַֹ֗תי‬
‫‪ 4Q83‬ואשלׄמ ֯נ] || ְ֝וַא ְ‬
‫‪f19ii_20:28‬‬
‫י[֯בושו || ֘י ֵ ֤ב ֹשׁוּ‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:28‬‬
‫‪ 4Q83‬י[֯בושו || ֘י ֵ ֤ב ֹשׁוּ ִ֨בי‬
‫‪f19ii_20:28‬‬
‫קויכה || קֶוֹי֮‪ê‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:28‬‬
‫‪] 4Q83‬י[֯כלמו || י ִ ָ ֣כְּלמוּ ִ ֣בי‬
‫‪f19ii_20:29‬‬
‫מבקׄשיכׄה ||‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫ְמַבְק ֶ ֑שׁי‪ê‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:29‬‬

‫‪Psalm 69:6‬‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:27‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:28‬‬

‫ע[֯ליכה || ָעֶלי‪ê‬‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:29‬‬
‫מי זר || ֖מוּזָר‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:29‬‬
‫נכרי || ְ֝ונְָכִ֗רי‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:30‬‬
‫ואך || ָוֶאְב ֶ ֣כּה‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:30‬‬
‫ותהי || ָוֱא ִ ֖הי‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:31‬‬
‫‪] 4Q83‬י[שיחו || י ָ ִ ֣שׂיחוּ ִ֭בי‬
‫‪f19ii_20:31‬‬
‫‪ 4Q83‬ישבי שער בי || ִבי‬
‫שֵׁבי ָ ֑שַׁער‬
‫֣י ֹ ְ‬
‫‪f19ii_20:31‬‬
‫‪ 4Q83‬בי י ׄנגנׄו ׄ] || ֝וּנְִגי ֗נוֹת‬
‫)‪f19ii_20:31‬‬
‫‪ 4Q83‬בי י ׄנגׄנו ׄ] || ֝וּנְִגי ֗נוֹת‬
‫)‪f19ii_20:31‬‬
‫‪ 4Q83‬בי י ׄנגנׄו ׄ] || ֝וּנְִגי ֗נוֹת‬
‫)‪f19ii_20:31‬‬

‫‪128‬‬

‫‪Psalm 69:6‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:7‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:7‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:7‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:7‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:7‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:8‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:9‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:9‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:11‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:12‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:13‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:13‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:13‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:13‬‬
‫‪Psalm 69:13‬‬

‫למה || ְל֨‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 69:14‬‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:32‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:32‬‬

‫עתה || ֵ ֤עת‬

‫‪Psalm 69:14‬‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:32‬‬

‫חסדכה || ַחְס ֶ ֑דּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 69:14‬‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:32‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:33‬‬

‫שֶׁעֽ‪ê‬‬
‫ישעכה || י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 69:14‬‬

‫ו[֯א֯ל[‬
‫֯אטב֯ע]ה [ויקחני‬
‫גזלי ׄ] || ְואַל־ֶאְט ָ ֑בָּעה‬

‫‪Psalm 69:15‬‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:33‬‬

‫הצ[ילני || ִאנְָּצָ֥לה‬
‫‪f2°‬‬

‫‪Psalm 69:15‬‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:33‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:33‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:33‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:33‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:34‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:34‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:34‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:34‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:35‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:35‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:35‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:35‬‬
‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:35‬‬

‫מעמקי || וִּמַמֲּֽעַמֵקּי‬

‫‪Psalm 69:15‬‬

‫מעמקי || וִּמַמֲּֽעַמֵקּי‬

‫‪Psalm 69:15‬‬

‫שׁ ֣בּ ֶֹלת‬
‫שבולת || ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 69:16‬‬

‫ׄתטבעני || ִתְּבָל ֵ ֣ענִי‬

‫‪Psalm 69:16‬‬

‫פי || ִֽפּיָה‬

‫‪Psalm 69:16‬‬

‫ענני || ֲע ֵ֣ננִי ֭ י ְהָוה‬

‫‪Psalm 69:17‬‬

‫כטוב || ִכּי־֣טוֹב‬

‫‪Psalm 69:17‬‬

‫חסדכה || ַחְס ֶ ֑דּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 69:17‬‬

‫ׄאל || ְואַל‬

‫‪Psalm 69:18‬‬

‫פניכה || ָפּנֶי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 69:18‬‬

‫מעבדכה || ֵמַֽעְב ֶ ֑דּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 69:18‬‬

‫מה[֯רה || ַמֵ֥הר‬

‫‪Psalm 69:18‬‬

‫קרב || ָקְר ָ ֣בה‬

‫‪Psalm 69:19‬‬

‫‪129‬‬

‫על || ֶאל‬

‫‪Psalm 69:19‬‬

‫‪4Q83‬‬
‫‪f19ii_20:35‬‬
‫‪4Q83 f9ii:5‬‬

‫בכה || ְבּֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 71:1‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:6‬‬

‫הצילני || ַתִּצּיֵ֥לנִי‬
‫‪f1°‬‬

‫‪Psalm 71:2‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:6‬‬

‫תפלטני || ֽוְּתַפְלּ ֵ ֑טנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 71:2‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:6‬‬

‫אוזנכה || אָזְנְ֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 71:2‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:6‬‬

‫שׁיֵעֽנִי‬
‫הצילני || ְוהוֹ ִ‬
‫‪f2°‬‬

‫‪Psalm 71:2‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:6‬‬

‫שׁיֵעֽנִי‬
‫הצילני || ְוהוֹ ִ‬
‫‪f2°‬‬
‫לבי עׄדמ‪ָ || ]°‬ל֗בוֹא‬
‫ָתִּ֗מיד‬

‫‪Psalm 71:2‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:7‬‬

‫֯וחמו ׄץ || ְוחוֵֹמץ‬

‫‪Psalm 71:4‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:8‬‬

‫עלי ׄ֯כה || ָע ֶ ֤לי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 71:6‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:8‬‬

‫עוזי || גוֹ ִ ֑זי‬

‫‪Psalm 71:6‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:8‬‬

‫בכ֯ה || ְבּ֖‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 71:6‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:9‬‬

‫עוז || ֽע ֹז‬

‫‪Psalm 71:7‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:9‬‬

‫תהלתכה || ְתִּהָלּ ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 71:8‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:9‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬
‫כוׄחי || כּ ִֹ֗חי‬

‫‪Psalm 71:8‬‬
‫‪Psalm 71:9‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:10‬‬

‫֯איׄבי || אוֹי ְ ַ ֣בי‬

‫‪Psalm 71:10‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:11‬‬

‫לאמור || ֵ֭לאמ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 71:11‬‬

‫‪ 4Q83 f9ii:11‬תׄפ]שוהו || ְ֝וִתְפ֗שׂוּהוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 71:11‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:12‬‬

‫שׁה‬
‫חישה || ֽחִי ָ‬
‫שׁה‬
‫]]חוּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 71:12‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:12‬‬

‫יבושו || י ֵ ֣ב ֹשׁוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 71:13‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:12‬‬

‫ויכל]ו || י ְִכל֮וּ‬

‫‪Psalm 71:13‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:13‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 71:14‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f1:2‬‬

‫חימו֯ת] || ֵח ֣מ ֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 76:11‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f1:2‬‬

‫חימו֯ת] || ֵח ֣מ ֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 76:11‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f1:3‬‬

‫יבילו || יוֹ ִ ֥בילוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 76:12‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f1:1‬‬

‫רעמכה || ַרַעְמ֨‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 77:19‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:6‬‬

‫‪4Q83 f9ii:10‬‬

‫‪, mss‬יכלמו ‪mss‬‬
‫ויכלימו ‪, ms‬ויכלמו‬

‫‪130‬‬

‫‪Psalm 71:3‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f1:2‬‬

‫וש[֯ביליכה ||‬
‫שִׁביֶלי‪ê‬‬
‫וּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 77:20‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f1:3‬‬

‫מושה || מ ֶֹ֥שׁה‬

‫‪Psalm 77:21‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f1:5‬‬

‫אוזנכמה || ָ֝אזְנְֶ֗כם‬

‫‪Psalm 78:1‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f1:5‬‬

‫אוזנכמה || ָ֝אזְנְֶ֗כם‬

‫‪Psalm 78:1‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f12:5‬‬

‫שׁ ֵ֥קי‬
‫נוקשי || נוֹ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 78:9‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f2ii:1‬‬

‫ׄמשמ ֯נ]יהם ||‬
‫שַׁמנֵּי ֶ ֑הם‬
‫ְבִּמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 78:31‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f2ii:2‬‬

‫ולוא || ְוֽ‪ï‬א‬
‫[֯תו ׄׄף || ֑ת ֹף‬

‫‪Psalm 78:32‬‬
‫‪Psalm 81:3‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f13:2‬‬

‫[יעקו֯ב] || י ֲַע ֽק ֹב‬

‫‪Psalm 81:5‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f13:3‬‬

‫שׂ ַ ֖פת‬
‫שפות || ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 81:6‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f13:4‬‬

‫כפו || ַ֝כָּ֗פּיו‬

‫‪Psalm 81:7‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f13:5‬‬

‫֯חלצכה || ָוֲאַ֫חְלֶּ֥צָךּ]‬
‫וא]ח[ׄלצכה ||‬
‫ָוֲאַ֫חְלֶּ֥צָךּ‬

‫‪Psalm 81:8‬‬
‫‪Psalm 81:8‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 1:22‬‬

‫לי || יִֽל‬

‫‪Psalm 81:9‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 1:22‬‬

‫֯ק ֯ולי || יִֽל‬

‫‪Psalm 81:9‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 1:22‬‬

‫לי || יִֽל‬

‫‪Psalm 81:9‬‬

‫שִׁרי ֣רוּת‬
‫‪ Mas1e 1:26‬בשררות || ִבּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 81:13‬‬

‫‪Mas1e‬‬

‫‪11Q13 2:10‬‬

‫‪Mas1e‬‬

‫‪11Q13 2:10‬‬

‫אלוהים || ∫א‪ִ֗ï‬הים‬
‫‪f1º‬‬
‫[ׄבקורב || ְבּ ֶ֖קֶרב‬

‫‪Psalm 82:1‬‬

‫‪Mas1e‬‬

‫‪11Q13 2:10‬‬

‫אלוהים || ∫א‪ִ֗ï‬הים‬
‫‪f2º‬‬

‫‪Psalm 82:1‬‬

‫‪11Q13 2:10‬‬

‫שׁ ֽפּ ֹט‬
‫ישפוט || י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 82:1‬‬

‫‪11Q13 2:11‬‬

‫שְׁפּטוּ‬
‫ת[שפוטו || ִתּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 82:2‬‬

‫‪11Q13 2:11‬‬

‫עוול || ָ ֑עֶול‬

‫‪Psalm 82:2‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 2:15‬‬

‫כי֯א || ִֽכּי‬

‫‪Psalm 83:3‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 2:19‬‬

‫אׄלהי || אֳָה ֵ ֣לי‬

‫‪Psalm 83:7‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 2:20‬‬

‫עמון || ֭ ְוַעמּוֹן‬

‫‪Psalm 83:8‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 2:24‬‬

‫נדיבימו || נְִדיֵבמוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 83:12‬‬

‫‪, ms‬אזניכם ‪mss‬‬
‫ואזניכם‬
‫‪, ms‬נקשי ‪ms‬‬
‫נשקי ‪, mss‬נוקשי‬

‫‪4Q87 f3:2‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 1:20‬‬

‫‪Mas1e‬‬
‫‪Mas1e‬‬

‫ישפוט ‪mss‬‬

‫‪131‬‬

‫‪Psalm 82:1‬‬

‫לחסידך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 2:26‬‬

‫אלהים || ∫א‪ַ֗ï‬הי‬

‫‪Psalm 83:14‬‬

‫‪Mas1e 3:14‬‬

‫שׁי֑תוּהוּ‬
‫ישיתהו || י ְ ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 84:7‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f4:2‬‬

‫באמתכה || ַבֲּאִמ ֶ ֑תּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 86:11‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f14:2‬‬

‫אלוהי || ֱא‪ַï‬הי‬

‫‪Psalm 86:12‬‬

‫‪11Q8 f14:2-3‬‬

‫כי[ גדול ע]לי‬
‫ִֽכּי־ַ֭חְסְדּ‪ || ê‬חסדכה‬
‫ָגּ ֣דוֹל ָע ָ ֑לי‬

‫‪Psalm 86:13‬‬

‫‪֯ 11Q8 f14:4‬אל]ו[הים] || ֱא‪֤ ִ ï‬הים‬

‫‪Psalm 86:14‬‬

‫‪4Q381 f15:2‬‬

‫שׁיָעה‬
‫והושע || ְוהוֹ ֗ ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 86:16‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f5:3‬‬

‫נגדכה || נֶגְֶדּֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 88:2‬‬

‫‪4Q98c f1:1‬‬

‫[֯פניכה || ָפּ ֶ֣ני‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 88:15‬‬

‫‪4Q98c f1:2‬‬

‫֯אפורה || אָֽפוּנָה‬

‫‪Psalm 88:16‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:1-2‬‬

‫חרמתי ב[חר ||[‬
‫ִגּ֑בּוֹר‪ַ...‬ל ֲֽחִסיֶ֗די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬

‫‪ 4Q98g f1:1-2‬לב[֯חריכ…ג]בור[ ||‬
‫ִגּ֑בּוֹר‪ַ...‬ל ֲֽחִסיֶ֗די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬

‫‪ 4Q98g f1:1‬ל[֯ב֯חריכ || ַל ֲֽחִסיֶ֗די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:1‬‬

‫ת֯אמר || ַו ֗תּ ֹאֶמר‬

‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:1‬‬

‫שׁ ִ֣וּיִתי‬
‫שת || ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:1‬‬

‫עו]זר || ֵ֭עזֶר‬

‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:2‬‬

‫ב[חו || ָב֣חוּר‬
‫ב[חׄר || ָב֣חוּר‬

‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬
‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:2‬‬

‫מן ׄעמ || ֵמָעֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:2‬‬

‫מן ׄעמ || ֵמָעֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 89:20‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:2‬‬

‫מצת ֯י] || ָמָצאִתי‬

‫‪Psalm 89:21‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:3‬‬

‫מן שמן || ְבּ ֶ ֖שֶׁמן‬

‫‪Psalm 89:21‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:4‬‬

‫אש[֯ר }}שמן{{ ||‬
‫ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר‬

‫‪Psalm 89:22‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:4‬‬

‫אש[֯ר || ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר‬

‫‪Psalm 89:22‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:4‬‬

‫ידו || ֭ י ִָדי‬

‫‪Psalm 89:22‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:4‬‬

‫תכנכם || ִתּ֣כּוֹן ִע֑מּוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 89:22‬‬

‫‪This ms places v 4Q98g f1:5‬‬
‫‪26 after v 22,‬‬
‫‪and then v 23‬‬
‫‪follows‬‬

‫‪Psalm 89:23‬‬

‫‪4Q98g f1:2‬‬

‫‪132‬‬

Psalm 89:23

‫אואב || אוֵֹי֣ב‬

4Q98g f1:6

Psalm 89:23

‫אואב || אוֵֹי֣ב ֑בּוֹ‬

4Q98g f1:6

Psalm 89:23

‫על || ַעְוָ֗לה‬

4Q98g f1:6

Psalm 89:23

‫א י ְַע ֶנּ ֽנּוּ‬ï֣ || ‫לענוׄת‬

4Q98g f1:6

Psalm 89:23

‫א י ְַע ֶנּ ֽנּוּ‬ï֣ || ׄ ‫לענוׄתו‬

4Q98g f1:6

Psalm 89:24-25 ... || >
Psalm 89:26
‫יד || י ָ ֑דוֹ‬

4Q98g
4Q98g f1:5

Psalm 89:26

‫בנהר || ֽוַּבנְָּה ֥רוֹת‬

4Q98g f1:5

Psalm 89:26

‫בנהר || ֽוַּבנְָּה ֥רוֹת‬

4Q98g f1:5

Psalm 89:26

‫בנהרת || ֽוַּבנְָּה ֥רוֹת‬

4Q98g f1:5

Psalm 89:26

‫בנהרת || ֽוַּבנְָּה ֥רוֹת‬

4Q98g f1:5

Psalm 89:27

This ms places v 4Q98g f1:7
27 after v 23
and then vs 28
follows
‫את || ָ ֑אָתּה‬
4Q98g f1:7

Psalm 89:27
Psalm 89:27-8

‫ ֵ֝אִ֗לי ְו֣צוּר י ְשׁוָּעִֽתי אַף‬4Q98g f1:7
|| >

Psalm 89:28

‫֯א֯תנ || ֶאְתּ ֵ֑נהוּ‬

4Q98g f1:7

Psalm 89:28

‫֯א֯תננו || ֶאְתּ ֵ֑נהוּ‬

4Q98g f1:7

Psalm 89:31

4Q98g f1:8

Psalm 89:31

This ms has v
31 after v 28
‫ׄאׄמ || ִאם‬

Psalm 89:44

‫ ֯למלחמה || ַבִּמְּלָחָמֽה‬4Q87 f6_7:1

Psalm 89:44

4Q87 f6_7:2

Psalm 89:50

[ || ‫הקצ[֯רתה‬
ָ‫ִהְקַצְרתּ‬
‫א[ׄדוני || ֲאד ָנֹ ֑ י‬

Psalm 89:50

‫אדוני || ֲאדנֹ ָי‬

4Q87 f8:2

Psalm 89:52

êֽ‫שׁיֶח‬
ִ ‫ מ[֯שיחכה || ְמ‬4Q87 f8:4

Psalm 89:52

‫ י ְה ָ֥וה‬ì‫ || ָבּ ֖רוּ‬.‫ בר ֯ו֯ך‬4Q87 f8:4
‫ְ֝לעוָֹ֗לם ָ֘אֵ֥מן ׀ ְואֵָמֽן‬

Psalm 91:1

This ms has
Psalm 90 in a
different order
> || f‫( לדויד‬vid)

Psalm 91:1

4Q98g f1:8

4Q87 f8:1

11Q11 6:3

11Q11 6:3

133

‫אומר ‪mss‬‬
‫מח* אבטח ‪ms‬‬

‫האומר || א ַֹ֗מר‬

‫‪Psalm 91:2‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:4‬‬

‫‪ 11Q11 6:4‬מבטח ]אבטח[ בו ||‬
‫ֶאְבַטח־ֽבּוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 91:2‬‬

‫ה[ ֯ואה || ֣הוּא‬

‫‪Psalm 91:3‬‬

‫תשכון || ֶתְּח ֶ ֑סה‬
‫‪11Q11 6:6‬‬
‫‪ 11Q11 6:6‬חסׄד]ו ע[֯לי ׄך צנה ||‬
‫ִצ ָ֖נּה‬

‫‪Psalm 91:4‬‬
‫‪Psalm 91:4‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:6‬‬

‫וסוחר֯ה || ְֽוס ֵֹח ָ֣רה‬

‫‪Psalm 91:4‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:6‬‬

‫סלה‪> || f‬‬
‫לוׄא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 91:4‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:5‬‬

‫וסוחרה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:6‬‬
‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬
‫י[ ֯גש ‪4Q84‬‬
‫[֯תביט ‪4Q84‬‬

‫יפול ‪mss‬‬

‫‪Psalm 91:5‬‬

‫מקטב‬
‫‪11Q11 6:7-8‬‬
‫ׄ‬
‫ישוד] צ[הרים‬
‫מדבר] בא[פל יהלך‬
‫ָבּ ֣א ֶֹפל י ֲַה֑‪ִ ||ìï‬מֶדֶּבר‬
‫ָצֳה ָֽרי ִם ִ֝מֶ֗קֶּטב י ָ֥שׁוּד‬

‫‪Psalm 91:6‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:8‬‬

‫יפ]ו[ל || י ִ ֤פּ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 91:7‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:8‬‬

‫יגע || י ִָגּ ֽשׁ‬

‫‪Psalm 91:7‬‬

‫‪ 11Q11 6:8-9‬רק] תבי[ט בעיניך ||‬
‫ַרק ְבֵּעי ֶ֣ני‪ַ ê‬ת ִ ֑בּיט‬
‫ותרא[ׄה שלום [‬
‫‪11Q11 6:9‬‬
‫שֻׁלּ ַ ֖מת‬
‫רשע]ים || ְו ִ‬
‫שׁ ִ ֣עים ִתְּרֶאֽה‬
‫ְר ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 91:8‬‬
‫‪Psalm 91:8‬‬

‫שֻׁלּ ַ ֖מת‬
‫שלום || ְו ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 91:8‬‬

‫קר[את מח]סך‬
‫‪11Q11 6:9‬‬
‫‪[ -‬ת מחמדו] ||‬‫ִֽכּי־ַא ָ ֣תּה י ְה ָ֣וה ַמְח ִ ֑סי‬
‫ֶ֝עְל ֗יוֹן ַ ֣שְׂמָתּ ְמעוֹ ֶנ ֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 91:9‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:9‬‬

‫מחמדו] || ְמעוֹ ֶנ ֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 91:9‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:10‬‬

‫תרא]ה || ְתֻא ֶ֣נּה‬

‫‪Psalm 91:10‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:10‬‬

‫ו[לוא יגע ]נגע ||‬
‫ְו ֗נֶַגע ‪ï‬א־י ְִק ַ֥רב‬

‫‪Psalm 91:10‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:10‬‬

‫[לוא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 91:10‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:10‬‬

‫באה[ליך || ְבּאֳָהֶל ֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 91:10‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:11‬‬

‫בדרכי[ך ||‬
‫ְבָּכל־ְדָּרֶכ ֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 91:11‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:9‬‬

‫‪134‬‬

‫בדרכי[ך ||‬
‫ְבָּכל־ְדָּרֶכ ֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 91:11‬‬

‫‪11Q11 6:11‬‬

‫‪ 11Q11 2:11-12‬על[ פתן || ַעל־ ַ ֣שַׁחל‬
‫ָו ֶ ֣פֶתן‬

‫‪Psalm 91:13‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫תדרוך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q11 2:12‬‬

‫תד[רוך || ִתְּד ֑ר ֹ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 91:13‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫תרמוס ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q11 2:12‬‬

‫תרמו]ס || ִתְּר ֖מ ֹס‬

‫‪Psalm 91:13‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫‪11Q11 2:12‬‬

‫[ביהוה || ִ ֤כּי ִ ֣בי‬

‫‪Psalm 91:14‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫‪11Q11 2:12‬‬

‫שׁק‬
‫ח[שקתה || ָח ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 91:14‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫‪11Q11 2:12‬‬

‫> || …‬

‫‪11Q11 6:13‬‬

‫ויר[אך‪ְ ||f‬ואְַרֵ֗אהוּ‬

‫‪Psalm‬‬
‫‪91:14b-16a‬‬
‫‪Psalm 91:16‬‬

‫‪11Q11 2:14‬‬

‫ויע]נו אמן‪> ||f‬‬
‫אמן[ ׄסלה‬

‫‪Psalm 91:16‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f1iii+5i:11‬‬

‫במ[עשה || ְֽבַּמֲע ֵ ֖שׂי‬

‫‪Psalm 92:5‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f1iii+5i:11‬‬

‫ירנן || ֲאַר ֵנּןֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 92:5‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f1iii+5i:‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
‫‪1Q10 f2:1‬‬

‫ולא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 92:7‬‬

‫שַׁ֥מְענָה‬
‫שמעה || ִתּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 92:12‬‬

‫‪1Q10 f2:1‬‬

‫שַׁ֥מְענָה‬
‫שמעה || ִתּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 92:12‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f5ii:14‬‬

‫יפרח ֯ו || י ְַפ ִֽריחוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 92:14‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f5ii:15‬‬

‫֯ינבון || י ְנוּ֣בוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 92:15‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f5ii:15‬‬

‫בשיבה טובה] ||‬
‫שׂי ָ ֑בה‬
‫ְבּ ֵ‬
‫ו ׄהיו ׄ || י ְִהי ֽוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 92:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪This ms has‬‬
‫‪Psalm 92 in a‬‬
‫‪different order‬‬
‫הללויה || >‬

‫‪11Q5 22:16‬‬

‫ויתאזר || ִהְתַא ָ ֑זּר‬
‫ת[֯כןׄ || ִתּ֥כּוֹן‬

‫‪Psalm 93:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 22:17‬‬

‫טמוט || ִתּֽמּוֹט‬

‫‪Psalm 93:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 22:17‬‬

‫כסאכה || ִכְּסֲא֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 93:2‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f6:14‬‬

‫נוה || נֲַאָוה‬

‫‪Psalm 93:5‬‬

‫‪4Q94 f1_2:3‬‬

‫עדותיך || ֵעֽד ֶֹ֨תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 93:5‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f5ii:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 22:16‬‬
‫תכן ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 22:17‬‬

‫‪135‬‬

‫‪Psalm 92:15‬‬
‫‪Psalm 93:1‬‬

‫‪Psalm 93:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 93:1‬‬

Psalm 94:14

‫א‬ï ‫ׄכי לׄא] || ִ ֤כּי ׀‬

Psalm 94:14

‫א‬ï ‫ׄכי לוׄא] || ִ ֤כּי ׀‬

Psalm 94:14

‫[את עמו || ַע֑מּוֹ‬

Psalm 95:5

‫שׁת‬
ֶ ‫ו[יבשה || ְ֝וי ֶַ֗בּ‬

Psalm 99:1

pr. Psalm 135
4Q92 2:3
and other
composition(s).
|| ‫ ׄלׄד ֯ו]ד מזמור יהוה‬4Q92 2:3
‫י ְה ָ֣וה‬

Psalm 99:1

4Q84 f7ii+8ii
+9ii+10:9
4Q84 f7ii+8ii
+9ii+10:9
4Q84 f7ii+8ii
+9ii+10:9
4Q94 f3_4:2

Psalm 99:1

> || [‫לדוד מזמור‬
‫] יהוה‬

4Q98e f1:1

Psalm 99:5

‫רממו || ֽרוְֹמ֡מוּ‬

4Q92 2:5

Psalm 101:1

ê֖‫לכה || ְל‬

11Q5 fA_Ci:1

Psalm 101:2

‫לי || ֵא ָ ֑לי‬

11Q5 fA_Ci:2

Psalm 101:2

11Q5 fA_Ci:2

Psalm 101:7

‫בתום || ְבָּתם‬
‫א‬ïֽ || ‫לו ׄא‬

Psalm 101:8

‫כול || ָכּל‬

11Q5 fA_Ci:10

Psalm 101:8

‫ׄפ]וע[ל]י || ֥פּ ֲֹעֵלי‬

11Q5 fA_Ci:10

Psalm 102:1

‫יעטו]ף || י ֲַע ֑ט ֹף‬

11Q5 fA_Ci:11

Psalm 102:5

|| ‫לחמי מאכ[ל‬
‫ֵמֲא ֥כ ֹל ַלְחִֽמי‬

4Q84 f14:8

Psalm 102:16

‫ייראו || ְוִייֽ ְר֣אוּ‬

Psalm 102:16

‫ארץ || ָהָ֗אֶרץ‬

Psalm 102:16

‫הארץ || ָהָ֗אֶרץ‬

Psalm 102:16

êֽ‫כבודו || ְכּבוֶֹד‬

Psalm 102:17

‫בכבוד || ִבְּכבוֹֽדוֹ‬

Psalm 102:18

‫תולעת || ְתִּפ ַ ֣לּת‬

4Q84 f15i
+16_18i:13
4Q84 f15i
+16_18i:14
4Q84 f15i
+16_18i:14
4Q84 f15i
+16_18i:14
4Q84 f15i
+16_18i:16
11Q5 fCii:1

Psalm 102:18

‫א‬ïֽ‫ולוא || ְו‬

11Q5 fCii:1

11Q5 fA_Ci:8

136

‫‪4Q84 f15ii+18ii‬‬
‫‪+19:5‬‬
‫‪4Q84 f15ii+18ii‬‬
‫‪+19:6‬‬
‫‪11Q5 fCii:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫בירושלים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪4Q84‬‬

‫ממעון || ִמְמּ ֣רוֹם‬

‫‪Psalm 102:20‬‬

‫לארׄץ || ֶאל־ֶ֬אֶרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 102:20‬‬

‫האר]ץ || ֶ֬אֶרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 102:20‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fCii;5‬‬

‫שׁ ָ ִל ֽם‬
‫|| ִבּירוּ ָ‬
‫בירושלים‪f‬‬

‫‪Psalm 102:22‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fCii:6‬‬

‫כי ענה || ִע ָ֖נּה‬

‫‪Psalm 102:24‬‬

‫֯כחי || כּ ֹחוֹ ]כּ ִֹ֗חי[‬

‫‪Psalm 102:24‬‬

‫כחי ‪4Q84 f15ii+18ii mss‬‬
‫‪+19:13‬‬
‫‪ 4Q84 f15ii+18ii‬קצר ימי אמר אלי ||‬
‫‪ִ +19:14‬קַ֥צּר י ָָמֽי׃ א ַֹ֗מר ֵאִ֗לי‬

‫‪Psalm‬‬
‫‪102:24-25‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f15ii+18ii‬‬
‫‪+19:16‬‬
‫‪4Q84 f15ii+18ii‬‬
‫‪+19:16‬‬
‫‪11Q5 fCii:8‬‬
‫וסדת ‪ms‬‬

‫דרים || דּוֹ ִ֣רים‬

‫‪Psalm 102:25‬‬

‫שׁנוֹ ֶ ֽתי‪ê‬‬
‫שנתיך || ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 102:25‬‬

‫נוסדה || י ָ ַ ֑סְדָתּ‬

‫‪Psalm 102:26‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fCii:8‬‬

‫ומעשי || ֽוַּמֲע ֵ ֖שׂה‬

‫‪Psalm 102:26‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fCii:8‬‬

‫ידיכה || י ָ ֶ ֣די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 102:26‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fCii:9‬‬

‫וכולם || ֭ ְוֻכָלּם‬
‫וכלבוׄש || ַכְּלּ֖בוּשׁ‬

‫‪Psalm 102:27‬‬
‫‪Psalm 102:27‬‬

‫שׁנוֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬
‫‪ 11Q5 fCii:10‬ושנותיכה || וּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 102:28‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fCii:10‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 102:28‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fCii:11‬‬

‫[לׄדור || ְלָדִ֨וד‬

‫‪4Q84 f15iii‬‬
‫‪+20_22:1‬‬
‫‪4Q84 f15iii‬‬
‫‪+20_22:1‬‬
‫‪2Q14 f1:1‬‬

‫גמליו || ְגּמוָּליֽ ו‬

‫‪Psalm‬‬
‫‪102:29-103:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 103:2‬‬

‫גמוליו || ְגּמוָּליֽ ו‬

‫‪Psalm 103:2‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 103:2‬‬

‫הׄסו ׄלח || ַהסּ ֵֹ֥לַח‬

‫‪Psalm 103:3‬‬

‫עונך || ֲעוֹ ֵ֑נִכי‬

‫‪Psalm 103:3‬‬

‫הרופא || ָהר ֵֹ֗פא‬

‫‪Psalm 103:3‬‬

‫‪. ms‬מעשה ‪ms‬‬
‫ומעשי‬

‫‪11Q5 fCii:9‬‬

‫הרופא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f15iii‬‬
‫‪+20_22:15‬‬
‫‪4Q84 f15iii‬‬
‫‪+20_22:15‬‬
‫‪2Q14 f1:2‬‬

‫‪137‬‬

Psalm 103:3

‫ורפא || ָ֝הר ֵֹ֗פא‬

Psalm 103:3

‫ורפא || ָ֝הר ֵֹ֗פא‬

Psalm 103:3

‫ללכל || ְלָכל‬fv2°

Psalm 103:3

‫תחלויך || ַתֲּחֻלָאֽי ְִכי‬

Psalm 103:3

‫תחלויך || ַתֲּחֻלָאֽי ְִכי‬

Psalm 103:3
Psalm 103:3
Psalm 103:3
Psalm 103:4

4Q84 f15iii
+20_21i+22:16
4Q84 f15iii
+20_21i+22:16
4Q84 f15iii
+20_21i+22:16
4Q84 f15iii
+20_21i+22:16

4Q84 f15iii
+20_21i+22:16
‫ תחלויך || ַתֲּחֻלָאֽי ְִכי‬4Q84 f15iii
+20_21i+22:16
‫ תחלואיך || ַתֲּחֻלָאֽי ְִכי‬4Q84 f15iii
+20_21i+22:16
‫ תחלואיך || ַתֲּחֻלָאֽי ְִכי‬4Q84 f15iii
+20_21i+22:16
|| ‫המעט[רך‬
2Q14 f1:2
‫֝ ַֽהְמַעְטֵּ֗רִכי‬

Psalm 103:4

|| ‫המעטרך‬
‫֝ ַֽהְמַעְטֵּ֗רִכי‬

4Q84 f15iv
+21ii_24:2

Psalm 103:5

‫נעוריך || נְעוּ ָֽרי ְִכי‬

Psalm 103:6

‫לכול || ְלָכל‬

4Q84 f15iv
+21ii_24:4
2Q14 f1:3

Psalm 103:10

|| ‫כעונותינו‬
‫ַכֲעוֹנ ֵֹ֗תינוּ‬

2Q14 f1:5

Psalm 103:20

‫ברכו את || ָבֲּר֥כוּ‬

4Q84 f25ii:1

Psalm 103:20

‫גבורי || ִגּ ֣בּ ֵֹרי‬

4Q84 f25ii:2

Psalm 103:20

‫ דבריו || ְדָב ֑רוֹ‬1°

4Q84 f25ii:2

Psalm 103:20

‫ דבריו || ְדָּבֽרוֹ‬2°

4Q84 f25ii:3

Psalm 104:1
Psalm 104:1
Psalm 104:1
Psalm 104:1

pr. Psalm 147
pr. Psalm 118
pr. Psalm 118
> ||f‫לדויד‬

4Q86 2:11
4Q87 f14:2
11Q5 fEi:6
11Q5 fEi:6

4Q86

Psalm 104:1

4Q87 f14:2

4Q86

Psalm 104:1

> ||f‫]לדויד‬
‫ַהי‬ï‫אלהי[ׄם || ֱ֭א‬

Psalm 104:1

‫ַהי‬ï‫אלוהינו || ֱא‬

11Q5 fEi:7

Psalm 104:1

‫גדלתה || ָגּ ַ ֣דְלָתּ‬

11Q5 fEi:7

4Q86 2:11

138

‫‪11Q5 fEi:7‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמּ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 104:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEi:7‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמּ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 104:1‬‬

‫‪4Q86 2:12‬‬

‫שָׁתּ‬
‫תלבש || ָלָבֽ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:1‬‬

‫‪4Q86 2:12‬‬

‫עטי || ֽע ֶֹטה‬

‫‪Psalm 104:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫שְּׂל ָ ֑מה‬
‫‪ 4Q86 2:13‬כש[למה || ַכּ ַ‬
‫שַׁ֗מי ִם ַכּי ְִריָעֽה‬
‫נוֶֹ֥טה ֝ ָ‬
‫כש[למה נוׄט]י[‬
‫‪4Q86 2:13‬‬
‫שמים כיריעה ||‬
‫שַׁ֗מי ִם‬
‫שְּׂל ָ ֑מה נוֶֹ֥טה ֝ ָ‬
‫ַכּ ַ‬
‫ַכּי ְִריָעֽה‬

‫‪Psalm 104:2‬‬
‫‪Psalm 104:2‬‬

‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫מקרה || ַ֥הְמָק ֶֽרה‬

‫‪Psalm 104:3‬‬

‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫‪. ms‬עליתיו ‪mss‬‬
‫אליותיו‬

‫‪֯ 4Q86 2:13‬על]יו[תו || ‪ª‬עִל ֫יּוָֹ֥תיו‬

‫‪Psalm 104:3‬‬

‫‪4Q93, 11Q5‬‬

‫מהלך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q86 2:14‬‬

‫מהׄל֯ך || ֝ ַֽהְמַהֵ֗לּ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 104:3‬‬

‫עושה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q86 2:15‬‬

‫עשי || ע ֹ ֶ ֣שׂה‬

‫‪Psalm 104:4‬‬

‫עושה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q93 1:9‬‬

‫עשי || ע ֹ ֶ ֣שׂה‬

‫‪Psalm 104:4‬‬

‫‪4Q93 1:9‬‬

‫מלאכו || ַמְלאָ ָ ֣כיו‬

‫‪Psalm 104:4‬‬

‫שְׁרָ֗תיו‬
‫‪ 4Q93 1:10‬משירתו‪ְ֝ ||f‬מ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:4‬‬

‫‪4Q86, 4Q93‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEi:10‬‬

‫לוהטת || ‪ֵï‬הֽט‬

‫‪Psalm 104:4‬‬

‫)ישד( ‪4Q93‬‬

‫‪4Q86 2:1‬‬

‫יוסד || ָי ַֽסד‬

‫‪Psalm 104:5‬‬

‫‪4Q86‬‬

‫‪4Q93 1:11‬‬

‫ישד || ָי ַֽסד‬

‫‪Psalm 104:5‬‬

‫‪4Q93 1:12‬‬

‫לעל֯ם || עוָֹ֥לם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:5‬‬

‫‪4Q93 1:12‬‬

‫לעל֯ם || עוָֹ֥לם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:5‬‬

‫‪4Q86 2:16‬‬

‫> || עוָֹ֥לם‬
‫ולכו ׄ]ל || ֶאל‬

‫‪Psalm 104:5‬‬
‫‪Psalm 104:8‬‬

‫‪2Q14 f2:2‬‬

‫ולכו ׄ]ל || ֶאל‬

‫‪Psalm 104:8‬‬

‫‪2Q14 f2:2‬‬

‫ולכו ׄ]ל || ֶאל‬

‫‪Psalm 104:8‬‬

‫‪4Q86 3:2‬‬

‫֯י]סד[֯תה || י ַָ֬סְדָתּ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:8‬‬

‫‪4Q86 3:4‬‬

‫שׁ ֵ ֣לַּח‬
‫משלח || ַהְֽמ ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:10‬‬

‫‪4Q86 3:4‬‬

‫ההרים || ָ֝הִ֗רים‬
‫י ְַהֵלּֽכוּן || יׄהלכו‬

‫‪Psalm 104:10‬‬
‫‪Psalm 104:10‬‬

‫‪4Q86 3:5‬‬

‫חי ׄו ׄת || ָכּל־ַחי ְ֣תוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:11‬‬

‫‪4Q86 3:5‬‬

‫חי ׄו ׄת || ַחי ְ֣תוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:11‬‬

‫‪4Q86 2:13‬‬

‫‪4Q864‬‬
‫‪4Q86, 11Q5‬‬

‫משרתי ‪ms‬‬

‫לעולם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪2Q14 f2:2‬‬

‫‪4Q86 3:5‬‬

‫‪2Q14‬‬

‫‪139‬‬

‫שׂ ָ ֑די || את ה}}‪ׄ{{°‬א‬
‫‪ָ 4Q86 3:5‬‬

‫‪Psalm 104:11‬‬

‫‪4Q86 3:6‬‬

‫שְׁבּ ֖רוּ‬
‫֯י֯שכירו ׄ || י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:11‬‬

‫‪4Q86 3:13‬‬

‫לה֯צ]יא || ְל֥הוִֹציא‬

‫‪Psalm 104:14‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f15_16:1‬‬

‫תרמו֯ש || ִתְר ֗מ ֹשׂ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:20‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f15_16:1‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 104:20‬‬

‫‪4Q86 4:10‬‬

‫ויאספו || י ֵאֵָס֑פוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:22‬‬

‫‪4Q86 4:10‬‬

‫ויאספו || י ֵאֵָס֑פוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:22‬‬

‫‪4Q86 4:11‬‬

‫ירבצו || י ְִרָבּֽצוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:22‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f15_16:3‬‬

‫ויאספון || י ֵאֵָס֑פוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:22‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f15_16:3‬‬

‫מעונותי[֯ה֯ם ||‬
‫ְמעוֹנ ָֹ֗תם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:22‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:2‬‬

‫ויאספון || י ֵאֵָס֑פוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:22‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:2‬‬

‫מעונותיהם ||‬
‫ְ֝מעוֹנ ָֹ֗תם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:22‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:2‬‬

‫מעונותיהם ||‬
‫ְ֝מעוֹנ ָֹ֗תם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:22‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:3‬‬

‫לפועלו || ְלָפֳע֑לוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:23‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:3‬‬

‫ולעבודתו ||‬
‫ְֽוַלֲע ֖ב ָֹד֣תוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:23‬‬

‫‪4Q86‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:3‬‬

‫עד || ֲעֵדי‬

‫‪Psalm 104:23‬‬

‫)עשיתה( *‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪4Q86 4:15‬‬

‫נעשו || ָע ִ ֑שׂיָת‬

‫‪Psalm 104:24‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:4‬‬

‫כולם || ֻכָּלּם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:24‬‬

‫‪4Q86‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:4‬‬

‫בחוכה || ְבָּחְכ ָ ֣מה‬

‫‪Psalm 104:24‬‬

‫‪4Q86‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:4‬‬

‫בחוכמה || ְבָּחְכ ָ ֣מה‬

‫‪Psalm 104:24‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:4‬‬

‫עשיתה || ָע ִ ֑שׂיָת‬

‫‪Psalm 104:24‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:4‬‬

‫קנינכה || ִקנְי ָ ֶנ ֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 104:24‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:4‬‬

‫הים || ֶז֤ה ׀ ַהָיּ ֥ם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:25‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:5‬‬

‫שׁם‬
‫ש מ ה || ָ ֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:25‬‬

‫‪4Q86‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:5‬‬

‫רמש הרבה || ֭ ֶרֶמשׂ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:25‬‬

‫‪4Q86‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:5‬‬

‫למספר || ִמְס ָ ֑פּר‬

‫‪Psalm 104:25‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:6‬‬

‫גדולות || ְגּד ֹֽלוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 104:25‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:6‬‬

‫אוניות || ֳאנִ֣יּוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 104:26‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:6‬‬

‫יצרתה || י ַָ֥צְרָתּ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:26‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:7‬‬

‫כולם || ֻכָּלּם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:27‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫מעונותם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪140‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:7‬‬

‫אליכה || ֵא ֶ ֣לי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 104:27‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:7‬‬

‫שֵׂבּ ֑רוּן‬
‫ישברו || י ְ ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:27‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:7‬‬

‫לתת להם || ָל ֵ ֖תת‬

‫‪Psalm 104:27‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:7‬‬

‫אוכלם || אְָכ ָ ֣לם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:27‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:8‬‬

‫וילקטון || י ְִלק ֹ֑טוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:28‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:8‬‬

‫ידכה || ֝י ְָֽד֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 104:28‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:8‬‬

‫שְׂבּ֥עוּן‬
‫ישבעו || י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:28‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 fEii:8‬תוסף || ַתְּס ִ ֥תּיר ָפּנֶי‪֮ê‬‬
‫ִי ָֽבֵּ֫ה֥לוּן תּ ֹ ֵ ֣סף‬

‫‪Psalm 104:29‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:8‬‬

‫תוסף || תּ ֹ ֵ ֣סף‬

‫‪Psalm 104:29‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:8‬‬

‫רוחכה || ר ֭וָּחם‬

‫‪Psalm 104:29‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:8‬‬

‫ויגועו || י ְִגָו֑עוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:29‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:8‬‬

‫ויגועו || י ְִגָו֑עוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:29‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:8‬‬

‫ישובו || י ְשׁוּֽבוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:29‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:9‬‬

‫רוחכה || רוֲּח‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 104:30‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:9‬‬

‫ויבראון || י ִָבֵּר֑אוּן‬

‫‪Psalm 104:30‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:10‬‬

‫ויהי || י ְ ִ ֤הי‬

‫‪Psalm 104:31‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:11‬‬

‫אל הארץ || ָ֭לאֶָרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:32‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:11‬‬

‫שׁנוּ‬
‫ויעשו || ְֽוי ֱֶע ָ ֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:32‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:11‬‬

‫שׁנוּ‬
‫ויעשנו || ְֽוי ֱֶע ָ ֽ‬
‫ׄבעדי || ְבּעוִֹֽדי‬

‫‪Psalm 104:32‬‬
‫‪Psalm 104:33‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:12‬‬

‫לאלוהי || ֵלא‪֣ ַ ï‬הי‬

‫‪Psalm 104:33‬‬

‫‪4Q86 5:17‬‬

‫שׂי ִ ֑חי ָ֝אנ ִֹ֗כי‬
‫֯שיחי || ִ‬
‫שַׂ֥מח ַבּיה ָו ֽה‬
‫ֶא ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:34‬‬

‫‪4Q86 5:18‬‬

‫כי ית]מו || י ִ ַ ֤תּמּוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:35‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 fEii:13‬כאשר יתמו || י ִ ַ ֤תּמּוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:35‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:13‬‬

‫חוטאים || ַחָטִּ֨אים‬

‫‪Psalm 104:35‬‬

‫‪4Q86‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:13‬‬

‫מארץ || ִמן־ָהָ֡אֶרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:35‬‬

‫‪4Q86‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:13‬‬

‫מארץ || ִמן־ָהָ֡אֶרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:35‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEii:14‬‬

‫הללויה || ַהְֽללוּ־ָי ֽהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 104:35‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:8‬‬
‫‪11Q5 fEiii:8‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 147‬‬
‫הודו ליהוה כי טוב‬
‫כי] לעולם חסדו ||‬
‫הוֹ ֣דוּ ַ֭ליהָוה‬

‫‪Psalm 105:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 105:1‬‬

‫להם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q86 5:16‬‬
‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪4Q87‬‬
‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫‪141‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:10‬‬

‫בכול || ְבָּכל‬

‫‪Psalm 105:2‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f17+18i:5‬‬

‫שׁי י ְה ָו ֽה‬
‫[ׄלב || ְמַבְק ֬ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:3‬‬

‫ ‪11Q5 fEiii:10‬‬‫‪11Q5 fEiii:11‬‬

‫מבקש[ רצונו ||‬
‫שׁי י ְה ָו ֽה‬
‫ְמַבְק ֬ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:11‬‬

‫דרושו || ִדְּר֣שׁוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:11‬‬

‫ועוזו || ְוֻע ֑זּוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:12‬‬

‫מופתיו || מ ְֹפָ֗תיו‬

‫‪Psalm 105:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:13‬‬

‫עבוד{{ עבדיו ||‬
‫}}ַעְב ֑דּוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:13‬‬

‫עבוד{{ עבדיו ||‬
‫}}ַעְב ֑דּוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:13‬‬

‫עבדיו || ַעְב ֑דּוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:13‬‬

‫יעקוב || י ֲַע ֣ק ֹב‬

‫‪Psalm 105:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:13‬‬

‫בחירו || ְבִּחי ָֽריו‬

‫‪Psalm 105:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:13‬‬

‫כי הוא || ה ֭וּא‬

‫‪Psalm 105:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:13‬‬

‫֯י]הוה ובארץ[ ||‬
‫י ְה ָ֣וה ֱא‪֑ ֵ ï‬הינוּ‬
‫ְבָּכל־ָ֝הָ֗אֶרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:15‬‬

‫עם || ֶאת‬

‫‪Psalm 105:9‬‬

‫שׁ֖בוָּע֣תוֹ‬
‫‪ 11Q5 fEiii:15‬שבועתו || וּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:16‬‬

‫לאמור || ֵלא ֗מ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 105:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:16‬‬

‫לכם || ְל֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 105:11‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f19:1‬‬

‫י ׄ]עקוב || ְ֝וי ֲַע ֗ק ֹב‬

‫‪Psalm 105:23‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:1‬‬

‫שׂ ֣נ ֹא‬
‫לשנוא || ִל ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:25‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:2‬‬

‫אה[רון || אֲַה ֗ר ֹן‬

‫‪Psalm 105:26‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:3‬‬

‫שׁ‪ì‬‬
‫חושך || ח ֹ ֶ‬
‫דב[ׄרם || ְדָּבָריו[‬
‫]]ְדָּברוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:28‬‬
‫‪Psalm 105:28‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:4‬‬

‫שם || ָה ַ ֣פ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 105:29‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:5‬‬

‫שׁ ַ֣רץ‬
‫]ש[רצה || ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:30‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:6‬‬

‫בכול || ְבָּכל‬

‫‪Psalm 105:31‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f18ii‬‬
‫‪+20_24:1‬‬

‫ויו֯צא עמ]ו ||‬
‫֭ ַֽויּוִֹציֵאם‬

‫‪Psalm 105:37‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:10‬‬

‫|| ויוצא א[ת עמו[‬
‫֭ ַֽויּוִֹציֵאם‬

‫‪Psalm 105:37‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:4‬‬

‫‪, ms L‬דברו ‪mss‬‬
‫דברוו‬

‫‪142‬‬

‫קודשו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:10‬‬

‫|| ויוצא א[ת עמו[‬
‫֭ ַֽויּוִֹציֵאם‬

‫‪Psalm 105:37‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f18ii‬‬
‫‪+20_24:2‬‬

‫שׂ ַ ֣מח‬
‫שמחו || ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:38‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f18ii‬‬
‫‪+20_24:5‬‬

‫קוד]שו || ָקְד֑שׁוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:42‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:15‬‬

‫לתת ויתן || ַויּ ִ ֵ ֣תּן‬

‫‪Psalm 105:44‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:15‬‬

‫ויתן || ַויּ ִ ֵ ֣תּן‬

‫‪Psalm 105:44‬‬

‫‪11Q5 1:16‬‬

‫שְׁמ ֣רוּ‬
‫ישמורו || י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 105:45‬‬

‫‪] 4Q86 1:5‬ה[֯ל֯לויה || ַהְֽללוּ־ָי ֽהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 106:48‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬
‫נפש [רעׄב֯ה ]ונפש‬
‫ש[֯קׄקה || ֶ֣נֶפשׁ‬
‫שׁ ֵֹק ָ֑קה ְו ֶ֥נֶפשׁ ְ֝רֵעָבה‬

‫‪Psalm 107:4‬‬

‫‪4Q88 1:21‬‬
‫ ‪4Q88 2:7‬‬‫‪4Q88 2:8‬‬

‫וממצוקותיתם ‪mss‬‬
‫)‪(and variations‬‬

‫‪֯[ 4Q88 2:11‬הם ֯ה]מרו || ִהְמ ֥רוּ‬
‫ממצי ׄׄק]ותי[֯ה֯ם ||‬
‫‪4Q88 2:16‬‬
‫ִ֝מְמֻּצֽקוֵֹתיֶ֗הם‬

‫‪Psalm 107:9‬‬

‫‪Psalm 107:11‬‬
‫‪Psalm 107:13‬‬

‫‪4Q88 2:17‬‬

‫שׁיֵעֽם‬
‫וישיעם‪ ||f‬יוֹ ִ‬
‫ויוׄציאם || ֭י ֽוִֹציֵאם‬

‫‪Psalm 107:14‬‬

‫‪4Q88 2:17‬‬

‫שׁ‪ì‬‬
‫מחושך || ֵמ ֣ח ֹ ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:14‬‬

‫‪4Q88 2:19‬‬

‫ה]ודו || יוֹ ֣דוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:15‬‬

‫‪4Q88 2:19‬‬

‫חסידו || ַחְס ֑דּוֹ‬
‫שׁת‬
‫נחש[ׄה || נְ ֑ח ֹ ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:15‬‬
‫‪Psalm 107:16‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:10‬‬

‫באוניות || ָבֳּאנִ ֑יּוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 107:23‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:13‬‬

‫יודו || <‬

‫‪Psalm 107:24‬‬

‫נפלאותיו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:13‬‬

‫נפלא ֯ותו ||‬
‫ְ֝ונְִפְלאוָֹ֗תיו‬

‫‪Psalm 107:24‬‬

‫נפלאותיו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:13‬‬

‫נפלא ֯ותו ||‬
‫ְ֝ונְִפְלאוָֹ֗תיו‬

‫‪Psalm 107:24‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:15‬‬

‫גלים || ַגָּלּיֽ ו‬

‫‪Psalm 107:25‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:16‬‬

‫שׁם‬
‫ונפשם || ֝נְַפ ֗ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:26‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:17‬‬

‫ְבָּרָ֥עה || ]בה]ם‬

‫‪Psalm 107:26‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:17‬‬

‫ויחגו || י ָ֣חוֹגּוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:27‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:17‬‬

‫ויחגו || י ָ֣חוֹגּוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:27‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:17‬‬

‫ויחוגו || י ָ֣חוֹגּוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:27‬‬

‫‪4Q88 2:17‬‬

‫‪4Q88 2:21‬‬

‫‪143‬‬

‫‪Psalm 107:13‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:18‬‬

‫חוכמתם || ָחְכָמָ֗תם‬
‫ויׄזעׄקו || ַויּ ְִצֲע֣קוּ‬

‫ממצוקותיהם ‪mss‬‬
‫)‪(and variations‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:20‬‬

‫ממׄציקותיהם ||‬
‫ֽ֝וִּמְמּֽצוּק ֵֹתיֶ֗הם‬

‫‪Psalm 107:28‬‬

‫ממצוקותיהם ‪mss‬‬
‫)‪(and variations‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:20‬‬

‫ממׄציקותיהם ||‬
‫ֽ֝וִּמְמּֽצוּק ֵֹתיֶ֗הם‬

‫‪Psalm 107:28‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:21‬‬

‫וישיעם || יוִֹציֵאֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 107:28‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:21‬‬

‫וישיעם || יוִֹציֵאֽם‬
‫ויוׄפך || י ָ ֵ֣קם‬

‫‪Psalm 107:28‬‬
‫‪Psalm 107:29‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:21‬‬

‫ויוׄפך || י ָ ֵ֣קם‬

‫‪Psalm 107:29‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:21‬‬

‫שערה || ְ֭סָעָרה‬

‫‪Psalm 107:29‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:22‬‬

‫גלי ים || ַגֵּלּיֶהֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 107:29‬‬

‫שׁ ֑תּ ֹקוּ‬
‫שְׂמ֥חוּ ִֽכי־י ִ ְ‬
‫‪ַ || 4Q88 3:23‬ויּ ִ ְ‬
‫>‬

‫‪Psalm 107:30‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:13‬‬

‫ארץ || ְוֶ֥אֶרץ‬
‫למבוׄעי || ְלמ ָֹ֥צֵאי‬

‫‪Psalm 107:35‬‬
‫‪Psalm 107:35‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:14‬‬

‫שׁב‬
‫ויש֯ב || ַו֣יּוֹ ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:36‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:14‬‬

‫עם רב || ְרֵע ִ ֑בים‬

‫‪Psalm 107:36‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:15‬‬

‫ִ ֣עיר || ערי‬

‫‪Psalm 107:36‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:19‬‬

‫יׄמ]עטו || ַויּ ְִמֲע֥טוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:39‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:22‬‬

‫בעני || ֵמ֑עוֹנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 107:41‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:22‬‬

‫בעני || ֵמ֑עוֹנִי‬
‫|| עלו ׄ‪ °[ ]°‬כצ]אן‬
‫שׂם ַ֝כּ ֗צּ ֹאן‬
‫ַוָיּ ֥ ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 107:41‬‬
‫‪Psalm 107:41‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:25‬‬

‫קפץ || ָ֣קְפָצה‬

‫‪Psalm 107:42‬‬

‫‪4Q171 f13:4‬‬

‫אמדדה || ֲאַמֵדּֽד‬

‫‪Psalm 108:8‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f9:2‬‬

‫לדו[ ֯יד || ְלָד ִ֣וד‬

‫‪Psalm 109:1‬‬

‫‪4Q88 6:1‬‬

‫שְׂט ֗נוּנִי‬
‫יסטמוני || י ִ ְ‬
‫ַוֲאִנ֥י ְתִפָלּ ֽה‬

‫‪Psalm 109:4‬‬

‫‪4Q88 6:1‬‬

‫שְׂט ֗נוּנִי‬
‫יסטמוני || י ִ ְ‬
‫ַוֲאִנ֥י ְתִפָלּ ֽה‬

‫‪Psalm 109:4‬‬

‫‪4Q88 6:1‬‬

‫יסי]מו || ַו ֘יּ ָ ִ ֤שׂימוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 109:5‬‬

‫‪4Q88 6:1‬‬

‫יסי]מו || ַו ֘יּ ָ ִ ֤שׂימוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 109:5‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:19‬‬

‫‪4Q88 3:21‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:13‬‬

‫‪4Q88 4:23‬‬

‫‪144‬‬

‫‪Psalm 107:27‬‬
‫‪Psalm 107:28‬‬

‫‪4Q88 6:3‬‬

‫שָׂ֗טן‬
‫ושוׄט]ן || ְ֝ו ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 109:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fD:1‬‬

‫שׁ ֶ ֑מ‪ê‬‬
‫ש[מכה || ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 109:21‬‬

‫‪4Q88 7:5‬‬

‫שׁם‬
‫רושם || ר ֹא ָ ֽ‬
‫עוזרנׄ]י || ָעזְֵרנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 109:25‬‬

‫‪4Q88 7:6‬‬

‫אלוהי[ || ֱא‪֑ ָ ï‬הי‬
‫שׁי ֵ ֣ענִי ְכַחְסֶדּֽ‪ê‬‬
‫֭הוֹ ִ‬
‫ידכׄה || ָיְ֣ד‪ê‬‬

‫‪4Q88 7:6‬‬

‫זא[ׄת || ֑זּ ֹאת ַא ָ ֖תּה‬
‫שׂיָתֽהּ‬
‫י ְה ָ֣וה ֲע ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 109:27‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fD:6‬‬

‫זאת יהוה [ׄאתה ||‬
‫֑זּ ֹאת ַא ָ ֖תּה י ְה ָ֣וה‬

‫‪Psalm 109:27‬‬

‫‪4Q88 7:8‬‬

‫עבד֯כ]ה || ְֽוַעְבְדּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 109:28‬‬

‫‪4Q88 7:8‬‬

‫עבד֯כ]ה || ְֽוַעְבְדּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 109:28‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fD:7‬‬

‫ועבד[כה || ְֽוַעְבְדּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 109:28‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fD:9‬‬

‫עמד || ֭ י ֲַעמ ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 109:31‬‬

‫‪4Q98f 7:13‬‬

‫‪[reconstr.] +‬‬
‫‪Apostrophe to‬‬
‫‪Zion‬‬
‫‪pr. Psalm 103‬‬
‫ירא‪ || f‬י ָ ֵ֣רא ֶאת־י ְה ָ֑וה‬
‫יהוה‬
‫[ׄבמצ ֯ותו || ְבִּמְצוָֹ֗תיו‬

‫‪Psalm 109:31‬‬

‫‪Psalm 112:1‬‬

‫‪4Q98f f1_2:3‬‬

‫֯דב֯רו || ְדָּב ָ֣ריו‬

‫‪Psalm 112:5‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f25iv:1‬‬

‫הלל ֯ויה || ַ֥הְללוּ ֨י ָהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 113:1‬‬

‫‪4Q96 f1:1‬‬

‫֯ומלפני || ִ֝מִלְּפ ֗נֵי‬

‫‪Psalm 114:7‬‬

‫‪4Q96 f1:2‬‬

‫‪Psalm 114 and‬‬
‫‪115 are one‬‬
‫‪Psalm‬‬
‫‪f2°‬ולוא || ֫‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 115:1‬‬

‫‪Psalm 115:1‬‬

‫‪4Q96 f1:2‬‬

‫‪ 2°‬ולוא || ֫‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 115:1‬‬

‫‪4Q84 f26_27:9‬‬

‫איה || ַאיּ ֵה־ ֝ ֗נָא‬

‫‪Psalm 115:2‬‬

‫‪4Q96 f1:3‬‬

‫י[ ֯ו֯אמרו || י ֹאְמ ֣רוּ‬
‫עצבי ה[גו ׄי ׄי ׄם ||‬
‫‪֭ª‬עַצֵבּיֶהם‬

‫‪Psalm 115:2‬‬

‫‪4Q88 7:5‬‬

‫‪4Q88 7:6‬‬

‫…ואתא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q98f 25:11‬‬
‫‪4Q98f f1_2:1‬‬
‫‪4Q98f f1_2:1‬‬

‫‪4Q96 f1:2‬‬

‫‪4Q96 f1:4‬‬

‫‪145‬‬

‫‪Psalm 109:26‬‬
‫‪Psalm 109:26‬‬
‫‪Psalm 109:27‬‬

‫‪Psalm 112:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 112:1‬‬

‫‪Psalm 115:4‬‬

Psalm 115:15

‫שׂה‬
ֵ ֗ ֹ ‫ע[ו ׄׄשה || ע‬

4Q87 f13:1

Psalm 115:17

‫א‬ï֣ || ‫לוא‬

4Q87 f13:2

Psalm 115:17

‫מתים || ַ֭הֵמִּתים‬

4Q87 f13:2

Psalm 115:17

‫א‬ï֗‫[ולוא] || ְו‬

11Q8 f15:2

Psalm 116:5

‫ ֵ ֣הינוּ‬ï‫ ואלוהינו || ֵ֖וא‬4Q96 f2:2

Psalm 116:7

‫כיא || ִֽכּי‬

4Q96 f2:3

Psalm 116:7

‫גםל || ָגַּ֥מל‬

4Q96 f2:3

Psalm 116:8

‫את רגלי מדחי את‬
|| ‫עיני[ מדמעה‬
‫ֶאת־ֵעיִנ֥י ִמן־ִדְּמ ָ ֑עה‬
‫ֶאת־ַרְג ִ ֥לי ִמֶדִּֽחי‬

4Q96 f2:3 - 4

mss ‫ואת‬...

Psalm 116:8

‫מדמעה || ִמן־ִדְּמ ָ ֑עה‬

4Q96 f2:3 - 4

mss ‫מדמעה‬, mss
>8b
(homoioarchton)

Psalm 116:10

4Q96 f2:5

Psalm 116:19

This ms ends
this Psalm here
‫> || ַהְֽללוּ־ָי ֽהּ‬

Psalm 118:1
Psalm 118:7

pr. Psalm 136
‫אני || ַ֝וֲא ֗נִי‬

Psalm 118:8
Psalm 118:8

pr. v. 118:16
‫לבטח || ַלֲח֥סוֹת‬

Psalm 118:8

‫לבטוח || ַלֲח֥סוֹת‬

11Q5 16:1
4Q84 f28ii_30i
+31:13
11Q5 16:3
4Q84 f28ii_30i
+31:14
11Q5 16:3

Psalm 118:8

‫מבטוח || ִמְבּ ֗ט ַֹח‬

11Q5 16:4

Psalm 118:9

‫מבטוב || ִ֝מְבּ ֗ט ַֹח‬

11Q5 16:4

Psalm 118:9

‫טוב לבטוב ביהוה‬
‫|| מבטוח באלף עם‬

11Q5 16:5

Psalm 118:10

‫|| ְסָב֑בוּנִי‬f‫סבבני‬

Psalm 118:12
Psalm 118:12
Psalm 118:12
Psalm 118:15

4Q84 f28i:18

4Q84 f28ii_30i
+31:16
pr v. 10 (> v 11) 4Q84 f28ii_30i
+31:17
‫ כדברים || ִכְדבוִֹ֗רים‬4Q84 f28ii_30i
+31:17
‫קצים || קוֹ ִ ֑צים‬
4Q84 f28ii_30i
+31:17
pr. v 118:1
11Q5 16:1

146

4Q84

4Q84

4Q84
ms ‫סבבני‬

Psalm 118:15
Psalm 118:16

pr. v 118:1
‫שׂה‬
ָ ֹ ‫עשתה || ֣ע‬

11Q6 f3:1
11Q5 16:3

Psalm 118:16

‫גבורה || ָחֽי ִל‬

11Q5 16:3

Psalm 118:18

‫יסור || י ַ ֣סּ ֹר‬

4Q84 f30ii+32i
+33_34:7

Psalm 118:19

‫אבואם || ָאֽב ֹא־ָ֝בם‬

Psalm 118:20

‫לאל || ַליה ָ֑וה‬
[|| ‫ב[֯ר֯כנׄו אתׄכם‬
‫ֵ֝בּ ַֽרְכנוֶּ֗כם‬

4Q84 f30ii+32i
+33_34:8
4Q173 f5:4

Psalm 118:26

4Q84 f30ii+32i
+33_34:17

Psalm 118:26

[|| ‫ב[֯ר֯כׄנו אתׄכם‬
‫ֵ֝בּ ַֽרְכנוֶּ֗כם‬

Psalm 118:26

{{‫ ברכנוכם }}בשם‬11Q5 fEi:2
‫|| ֵבּ ַֽרְכנוֶּ֗כם‬

Psalm 118:26
Psalm 118:27

‫ ברכנוכם || ֵבּ ַֽרְכנוֶּ֗כם‬11Q5 fEi:2
‫אסורי ׄ || ִאְסרוּ‬
11Q5 fEi:3

Psalm 118:27

‫אסורי ׄ || ִאְסרוּ‬

Psalm 118:27

‫ בעבותים || ַבֲּעב ֹ ִ ֑תים‬11Q5 fEi:3

Psalm 118:28

‫ואודכה || ְואוֹ ֶ ֑דָךּ‬

11Q5 fEi:4

Psalm 118:28

‫ַ֗הי‬ï‫אלוהי || ֱ֝א‬

11Q5 fEi:4

Psalm 118:28

‫ ארוממכה || ֲארוְֹמֶמָֽךּ‬11Q5 fEi:4

Psalm 118:29

pr v. 9 + strophe 11Q5 16:5

11Q5 (noncatena), 4Q84?

Psalm 118:29

|| ‫חסדו הללו יה‬
‫ַחְסֽדּוֹ‬

11Q5 16:6

11Q5 (noncatena)

Psalm 119:1
Psalm 119:2

pr. Psalm 132
‫עת || ֵ֥לב‬

11Q5 6:11
11Q5 6:12

Psalm 119:2

‫שׁוּהוּ‬
ֽ ‫ ידורשוה || י ְִדְר‬11Q5 6:12

Psalm 119:4

‫את || ַ֭אָתּה‬

11Q5 6:12

Psalm 119:4

‫שׁ ֥מ ֹר‬
ְ ‫לשמ[ור || ִל‬

11Q5 6:14

Psalm 119:4

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

11Q5 6:14

Psalm 119:4

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

11Q5 6:14

Psalm 119:5

ê‫[מתכה || ֻחֶקּֽי‬

11Q5 6:15

Psalm 119:6

ê‫ מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹתֽי‬11Q5 6:16

4Q84 f30ii+32i
+33_34:17

4Q84*

11Q5 fEi:3

147

‫‪ 11Q5 6:16‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:6‬‬

‫‪4Q90 f1_2:13‬‬

‫שפרתי || ִס ַ ֑פְּרִתּי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:13‬‬

‫‪4Q90 f1_2:14‬‬

‫עדואתיך || ֵעְדוֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:14‬‬

‫‪ 4Q90 f1_2:15‬בפקודיך || ְבִּפֻקֶּ֥די‪ê‬‬
‫ׄאשיח || ָא ִ ֑שׂיָחה‬
‫‪4Q90 f1_2:15‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:15‬‬
‫‪Psalm 119:15‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 7:1‬בפקודיכה || ְבִּפֻקֶּ֥די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:15‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 7:1‬בפקודיכה || ְבִּפֻקֶּ֥די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:1‬‬

‫אורחותיכה ||‬
‫א ְֹרח ֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:1‬‬

‫אורחותיכה ||‬
‫א ְֹרח ֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:1‬‬

‫אורחותיכה ||‬
‫א ְֹרח ֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:15‬‬

‫‪, ms 4Q90, 11Q5‬בחוקותיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬בחוקתיך‬
‫‪, ms‬בחקותיך‬
‫חקותיך‬

‫‪] 1Q10 f14:1‬ב[֯חקתך || ְבֻּחקּ ֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:16‬‬

‫‪, ms 1Q10‬בחוקותיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬בחוקתיך‬
‫‪, ms‬בחקותיך‬
‫חקותיך‬

‫‪ 4Q90 f1_2:16‬בחוקותיך || ְבֻּחקּ ֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:16‬‬

‫‪, ms‬בחוקותיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬בחוקתיך‬
‫‪, ms‬בחקותיך‬
‫חקותיך‬

‫‪ 4Q90 f1_2:16‬בחוקותיך || ְבֻּחקּ ֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:16‬‬

‫‪, ms 1Q10‬בחוקותיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬בחוקתיך‬
‫‪, ms‬בחקותיך‬
‫חקותיך‬

‫‪ 11Q5 7:2‬בחוקיכה || ְבֻּחקּ ֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:16‬‬

‫‪, ms‬בחוקותיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬בחוקתיך‬
‫‪, ms‬בחקותיך‬
‫חקותיך‬

‫‪ 11Q5 7:2‬בחוקיכה || ְבֻּחקּ ֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:2‬‬

‫לוא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:16‬‬

‫דבריך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:2‬‬

‫דבריכה || ְדָּב ֶֽר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:16‬‬

‫גמול ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q90 f1_2:17‬‬

‫גמור || ְגּ ֖מ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:17‬‬

‫גמול ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q90 f1_2:17‬‬

‫גמור || ְגּ ֖מ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪148‬‬

‫ואחיה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q90 f1_2:17‬‬

‫ואחיה || ֶאְֽח ֗י ֶה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:17‬‬

‫‪1Q10‬‬

‫גמול ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:3‬‬

‫גמור || ְגּ ֖מ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:17‬‬

‫גמול ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:3‬‬

‫גמור || ְגּ ֖מ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:3‬‬

‫עבדכה || ַעְבְדּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:3‬‬

‫ואחיה || ֶאְֽח ֗י ֶה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:3‬‬

‫ואשמורה ||‬
‫שְׁמ ָ֥רה‬
‫ְוֶא ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:3‬‬

‫דבריכה || ְדָב ֶֽר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪4Q90 f1_2:18‬‬

‫֯אביט || ְוַא ִ ֑בּיָטה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:18‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪4Q90 f1_2:18‬‬

‫֯אביט || ְוַא ִ ֑בּיָטה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:18‬‬

‫‪, ms‬מתורתיך ‪mss‬‬
‫מתרתך‬

‫‪11Q5 7:4‬‬

‫מתורותיכה ||‬
‫ִמתּוָֹר ֶ ֽת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:18‬‬

‫‪, ms‬מתורתיך ‪mss‬‬
‫מתרתך‬

‫‪11Q5 7:4‬‬

‫מתורותיכה ||‬
‫ִמתּוָֹר ֶ ֽת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:18‬‬

‫‪4Q90 f1_2:19‬‬

‫אנוכי || אָנ ֹ ִ ֣כי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:19‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:5‬‬

‫אנוכי || אָנ ֹ ִ ֣כי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:19‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 7:5‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:19‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 7:5‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:19‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:6‬‬

‫גרשה || ָגְּר ָ ֣סה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:20‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:6‬‬

‫משפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפֶּ֥טי‪ê‬‬
‫ִמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:20‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:6‬‬

‫כול || ָכל‬
‫זידיׄם] || זֵ ִ ֣דים‬

‫‪Psalm 119:20‬‬
‫‪Psalm 119:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:7‬‬

‫גערתה || ָגַּעְרָתּ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:7‬‬

‫השוגים || ַהשּׁגֹ ִים‬

‫‪Psalm 119:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:7‬‬

‫ממצוותיכה ||‬
‫ִמִמְּצוֹ ֶ ֽתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:7‬‬

‫ממצוותיכה ||‬
‫ִמִמְּצוֹ ֶ ֽתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:8‬‬

‫גול || ַ ֣גּל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:22‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:8‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:22‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:8‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:22‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:9‬‬

‫עבדכה || ַעְבְדּ֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:23‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:9‬‬

‫בחוקיכה || ְבֻּחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:23‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:9‬‬

‫בחוקיכה || ְבֻּחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:23‬‬

‫‪1Q10‬‬

‫ואחיה ‪mss‬‬

‫דבריך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q90‬‬

‫‪4Q90 f1_2:21‬‬

‫‪149‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:10‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:24‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:10‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:24‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:10‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬
‫שָׁ֗עי‬
‫שֲׁע ֻ‬
‫שע֯ש ֯וׄע ֯י || ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:24‬‬
‫‪Psalm 119:24‬‬

‫פיקודך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:13‬‬

‫פקודכה || ִפּקּוֶּ֥די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:27‬‬

‫פיקודך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:13‬‬

‫פקודכה || ִפּקּוֶּ֥די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:27‬‬

‫פיקודך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:13‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפּקּוֶּ֥די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:27‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:13‬‬

‫בנפ[לאותיכה ||‬
‫ְבּנְִפְלאוֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:27‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:14‬‬

‫כדבר[֯כה || ִכְּדָב ֶֽר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:28‬‬

‫‪1Q10 f6_7:2‬‬

‫מ[צותך || ִמְצוֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:32‬‬

‫‪4Q89 f1i:1‬‬

‫העביר || ַהֲע ֵ ֣בר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:37‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:1‬‬

‫כדברכה || ִבְּדָרֶ֥כ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:37‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:1‬‬

‫כדברכה || ִבְּדָרֶ֥כ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:37‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:1‬‬

‫חונני || ַחֵיּנֽ ִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:37‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:2‬‬

‫לעבדכה || ְלַעְבְדּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:38‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:2‬‬

‫אמרתכה || ִאְמָר ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:38‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 8:2‬ליראתכה || ְלי ְִראֶָתֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:38‬‬

‫משפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפּ ֶ ֣טי‪ê‬‬
‫ִמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:39‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 8:4‬לפקודיכה || ְלִפֻקּ ֶ ֑די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:40‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:4‬‬

‫לפקודיכה ||‬
‫ְלִפֻקּ ֶ ֑די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:40‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:4‬‬

‫בצדקתכה ||‬
‫ְבִּצְדָקְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:40‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:4‬‬

‫חונני || ַחֵיּנֽ ִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:40‬‬

‫)ויבואוני( *‪, ms 11Q5‬ויבואוני ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ויבאוני ‪, ms‬ובאני‬
‫ויביאני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q89 f1i:6‬‬

‫ויביאני || ִֽויב ֹֻ֣אנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:41‬‬

‫‪, ms‬ויבואוני ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ויבאוני ‪, ms‬ובאני‬
‫ויביאני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:5‬‬

‫ויבואוני || ִֽויב ֹֻ֣אנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:41‬‬

‫‪, ms‬ויבואוני ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ויבאוני ‪, ms‬ובאני‬
‫ויביאני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:5‬‬

‫ויבואוני‪ִֽ || f‬ויב ֹֻ֣אנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:41‬‬

‫‪11Q5 7:10‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫‪,‬בדברכיך ‪mss‬‬
‫בדברך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬
‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫חייני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:3‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫‪150‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:5‬‬

‫חסד || ֲחָס ֶ ֣ד‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:41‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫חסדיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:5‬‬

‫תשועתכה ||‬
‫שׁוָּעְת֗‪ê‬‬
‫ְתּ ֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:41‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:5‬‬

‫כאמרתכה ||‬
‫ְכִּאְמָרֶתֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:41‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:6‬‬

‫וענה || ְוֶאֱֽע ֶ֣נה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:42‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:6‬‬

‫ואענה || ְוֶאֱֽע ֶ֣נה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:42‬‬

‫‪4Q89 f1i:7‬‬

‫חורפי || ח ְֹר ִ ֣פי‬
‫פקודיך נׄצרתי ||‬
‫ָבַטְחִתּי ִבְּדָב ֶֽר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:42‬‬
‫‪Psalm 119:42‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:6‬‬

‫חורפי || ח ְֹר ִ ֣פי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:42‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:6‬‬

‫בדברכה || ִבְּדָב ֶֽר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:42‬‬

‫‪4Q89 f1i:8‬‬

‫אמתך || ֱא ֶ ֣מת‬

‫‪Psalm 119:43‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:7‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:43‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:7‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:43‬‬

‫שָׁפּ ֶ ֣ט‪ê‬‬
‫‪ 11Q5 8:7‬לדבריכה || ְלִמ ְ‬
‫ׄתורתיׄך || תוָֹרְת֥‪ê‬‬
‫‪4Q89 f1ii_3:1‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:43‬‬

‫‪4Q89 f1i:7‬‬

‫בטחתי( *‪11Q5‬‬
‫)בדברכה‬
‫חורפי ‪mss‬‬
‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬
‫*‪1Q10, 11Q5‬‬

‫למשפטיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:44‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:8‬‬

‫ואשמורה ||‬
‫שְׁמ ָ֖רה‬
‫ְוֶא ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:44‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:8‬‬

‫תורתכה || תוָֹרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:44‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:8‬‬

‫ועד || ְלעוָֹ֥לם ָוֶעֽד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:44‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:8‬‬

‫ברחוביה || ָבְרָח ָ ֑בה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:45‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:8‬‬

‫ברחוביה || ָבְרָח ָ ֑בה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:45‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:9‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפֻקּ ֶ ֣די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:45‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:9‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפֻקּ ֶ ֣די‪ê‬‬
‫בעדוותי֯כׄה ||‬
‫ְבֵעד ֶֹתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:45‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:10‬‬

‫בעדוותי֯כׄה ||‬
‫ְבֵעד ֶֹתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:46‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:10‬‬

‫בעדוותי֯כׄה ||‬
‫ְבֵעד ֶֹתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:46‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:10‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:46‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:11‬‬

‫|| ואשתעשעה‬
‫שַׁתֲּֽעַ֥שׁע‬
‫ְוֶא ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:47‬‬

‫‪1Q10, 4Q89‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:10‬‬

‫‪151‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:46‬‬

‫מצוו]תיכה ||‬
‫ִמְצוֶֹתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:48‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:12‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 8:12‬ואשישה || ְוָא ִ ֥שׂיָחה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:48‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:12‬‬

‫בחוקיכה || ְבֻחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:48‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:12‬‬

‫בחוקיכה || ְבֻחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:48‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:13‬‬

‫זכורה || זְכ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:49‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:13‬‬

‫זכורה || זְכ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:49‬‬

‫‪11Q5 8:13‬‬

‫דבריכה || ָדָּ֥בר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:49‬‬

‫ואשיב ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:1‬‬

‫ואשיתה || ָוָא ִ ֥שׁיָבה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:59‬‬

‫ואשיב ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:1‬‬

‫ואשיבה || ָוָא ִ ֥שׁיָבה‬
‫בעדוותי֯כׄה ||‬
‫ְבֵעד ֶֹתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:59‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:1‬‬

‫בעדוותי֯כׄה ||‬
‫ְבֵעד ֶֹתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:59‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:1‬‬

‫בעדוותי֯כׄה ||‬
‫ְבֵעד ֶֹתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:59‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:2‬‬

‫ולוא || ְו֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:60‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:2‬‬

‫שׁ ֗מ ֹר‬
‫לשמור || ִל ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:60‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 9:2‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:60‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 9:2‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:60‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:3‬‬

‫עודוני || ִעְוּ ֻ֑דנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:61‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:3‬‬

‫תורתכה || ֽתּוָֹרְת֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:61‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:3‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:61‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:4‬‬

‫לכה || ָ ֑ל‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:62‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:4‬‬

‫צדקכה || ִצְד ֶֽק‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:62‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:5‬‬

‫לכול || ְלָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:63‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:5‬‬

‫יראוכה || י ְֵר֑אוּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:63‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 9:5‬ולשומרי || ֝וְּלשׁ ְֹמֵ֗רי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:63‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:5‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפּקּוֶּדֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:63‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:6‬‬

‫חסדכה || ַחְסְדּ֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:64‬‬

‫חוקיך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:6‬‬

‫חוקכה || ֻחֶ֥קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:64‬‬

‫חוקיך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:6‬‬

‫חוקכה || ֻחֶ֥קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:64‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:6‬‬

‫חוקכה || ֻחֶ֥קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:64‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:7‬‬

‫עשיתה || ָע ִ ֣שׂיָת‬

‫‪Psalm 119:65‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:1‬‬

‫‪152‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:59‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:7‬‬

‫עבדכה || ַעְבְדּ֑‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:65‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:7‬‬

‫כדברכה || ִכְּדָב ֶֽר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:65‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:8‬‬

‫במצוותיכה ||‬
‫ְבִמְצוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:66‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:8‬‬

‫במצוותיכה ||‬
‫ְבִמְצוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:66‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:9‬‬

‫שוגג || שׁגֹ ֵ ֑ ג‬

‫‪Psalm 119:67‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:9‬‬

‫אמרתכה || ִאְמָרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:67‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:10‬‬

‫אתה אדוני || ַאָ֥תּה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:68‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:10‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:68‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:10‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬
‫ב֯כו ׄל || ְבָּכל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:68‬‬
‫‪Psalm 119:69‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:11‬‬

‫אצורה || ֱא ֬צּ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:69‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:11‬‬

‫אצורה || ֱא ֬צּ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:69‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:11‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפּקּוֶּדֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:69‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 9:12‬תורתכ]ה[ || תּוָֹרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:70‬‬

‫‪, ms‬שעשועי ‪ms‬‬
‫שיעשעתי‬

‫‪11Q5 9:12‬‬

‫֯ש֯ע]ש[ועי ||‬
‫שְׁעִתּי‬
‫ִֽשֲׁע ָ ֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:70‬‬

‫‪, mss‬ענתי ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬עוניתי ‪, ms‬עיניתי‬
‫‪, ms‬עונתי ‪ms‬‬
‫עניתני‬

‫‪11Q5 9:13‬‬

‫עניתני || ֻע ֵ֑נּיִתי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:71‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:13‬‬

‫חוק[יכה || ֻחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:71‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:14‬‬

‫פיכה || ִ ֑פּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:72‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:14‬‬

‫[מאל֯ף‪ֵ ||f‬מאְַלֵ֗פי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:72‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 9:15‬מצותי[֯כ֯ה || ִמְצוֶֹתֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:73‬‬

‫ע[ותני || ִעְוּ֑תוּנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:78‬‬

‫‪ 1Q10 f11:2‬בפקדיך || ְבִּפקּוּ ֶ ֽדי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:78‬‬

‫‪1Q10 f11:3‬‬

‫עדותיך || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֽתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:79‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:1‬‬

‫כלתה || ָכּ֣לוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:82‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:1‬‬

‫לאמרתכה ||‬
‫ְלִאְמָר ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:82‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:1‬‬

‫לאמור || ֵלא ֗מ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:82‬‬

‫‪11Q5 9:11‬‬

‫מיאלפי ‪ms‬‬
‫‪, mss‬עותני ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬עיותונו‬
‫עותתני ‪, ms‬עויתני‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫‪1Q10 f11:2‬‬

‫‪153‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫שחת ‪ms‬‬

‫‪4Q89 f5:5‬‬

‫כנאד || ְכּ ֣נ ֹאד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:83‬‬

‫‪4Q89 f5:5‬‬

‫כנואד || ְכּ ֣נ ֹאד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:83‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:2‬‬

‫עשיתני || ָ֭הי ִיִתי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:83‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:2‬‬

‫כנאוד || ְכּ ֣נ ֹאד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:83‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:2‬‬

‫חסדכה || ֻ֝חֶ֗קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:83‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:3‬‬

‫עבדכה || ַעְב ֶ ֑דּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:84‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:3‬‬

‫ברודפי || ְבר ְֹד ַ ֣פי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:84‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:4‬‬

‫זידים || זֵ ִ ֣דים‬

‫‪Psalm 119:85‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:4‬‬

‫שׁי֑חוֹת‬
‫שחת || ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:85‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:4‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:85‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 10:4‬כתורתכה || ְכתוָֹרֶתֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:85‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:86‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 10:5‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:86‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 10:5‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:86‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:5‬‬

‫עוזרני‪ָ ||f‬עזְ ֵֽרנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:86‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:6‬‬

‫מארץ || ָב ָ ֑אֶרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:87‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:6‬‬

‫לוא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:87‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:6‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפֻקּוֶדֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:87‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:7‬‬

‫כחסדכה || ְכַּחְסְדּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:88‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:7‬‬

‫חונני || ַחֵיּ֑נִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:88‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:7‬‬

‫ואשמורה ||‬
‫שְׁמָ֗רה‬
‫ְ֝וֶא ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:88‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:7‬‬

‫עדוות || ֵע ֥דוּת‬

‫‪Psalm 119:88‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:7‬‬

‫פיכה || ִֽפּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:88‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:8‬‬

‫דברכה || ְדָּבְר֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:89‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:9‬‬

‫לדור || ְל ֣ד ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:90‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:9‬‬

‫ודור || ָוד ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:90‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 10:9‬אמונתכה || ֱאֽמוּנָ ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:90‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:9‬‬

‫כוננתה || כּוֹ ַ֥ננְָתּ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:90‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:10‬‬

‫למשפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפֶּטי‪ê‬‬
‫ְֽלִמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:91‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:10‬‬

‫הכול || ַה ֣כּ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:91‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:10‬‬

‫עבד ֯יכה || ֲעָבֶדֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:91‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:11‬‬

‫תורתכה || תוָֹרְת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:92‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:5‬‬

‫חייני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪154‬‬

‫‪4Q89‬‬

‫שעשועי ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:11‬‬

‫שׁ ָ ֑עי‬
‫שֲׁע ֻ‬
‫שעשועי || ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:92‬‬

‫‪, ms‬בעוניי ‪mss‬‬
‫בעוני‬

‫‪11Q5 10:11‬‬

‫בעווני || ְבָענְִייֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:92‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:12‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפּקּוּ ֶ ֑די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:93‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:12‬‬

‫במה || ָ֗בם‬

‫‪Psalm 119:93‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:13‬‬

‫לכה || ְֽל‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:94‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:13‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפקּוּ ֶ ֣די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:94‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:14‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:95‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:14‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:95‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:14‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:95‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:15‬‬

‫לכול || ְֽלָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:96‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 10:15‬מצותכ]ה[ || ִמְצָוְת֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:96‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:15‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:96‬‬

‫‪11Q5 10:15‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:96‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:1‬‬

‫דבריכה || ְדָב ֶ֑ר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:105‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:1‬‬

‫אור || ְ֝ו֗אוֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:105‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 11:1‬לנתיבותי || ִלנְִתיָבִֽתי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:105‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:2‬‬

‫שׁ ֗מ ֹר‬
‫לעשות || ִ֝ל ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:106‬‬

‫‪, mss‬משפטיך ‪ms‬‬
‫משפט‬

‫‪11Q5 11:2‬‬

‫שְׁפֵּ֥טי‬
‫משפטי || ִמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:106‬‬

‫‪, mss‬משפטיך ‪ms‬‬
‫משפט‬

‫‪11Q5 11:2‬‬

‫שְׁפֵּ֥טי‬
‫משפט || ִמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:106‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:2‬‬

‫צדקכה || ִצְד ֶֽק‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:106‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:3‬‬

‫נעויתי || נֲַע ֵ֥ניִתי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:107‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:3‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:107‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:3‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:107‬‬

‫‪, ms‬בדברכיך ‪mss‬‬
‫בדברך‬

‫‪11Q5 11:3‬‬

‫כאמרתכה חונני ||‬
‫ַחֵיּ ֥נִי ִכְדָב ֶֽר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:107‬‬

‫חייני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:3‬‬

‫חונני || ַחֵיּ ֥נִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:107‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 11:3‬כאמרתכה || ִכְדָב ֶֽר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:107‬‬

‫רצה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:4‬‬

‫רצה || ְרֵצה־ ָ֣נא‬

‫‪Psalm 119:108‬‬

‫משפטיך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:4‬‬

‫ממשפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפֶּ֥טי‪ê‬‬
‫ֽוִּמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:108‬‬

‫משפטיך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:4‬‬

‫ממשפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפֶּ֥טי‪ê‬‬
‫ֽוִּמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:108‬‬

‫דבריך ‪mss‬‬

‫נענתי ‪mss‬‬

‫‪155‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:4‬‬

‫ממשפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפֶּ֥טי‪ê‬‬
‫ֽוִּמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:108‬‬

‫משפטיך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:5‬‬

‫תורתכה || ְ֝וֽתוָֹרְת֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:109‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:5‬‬

‫תורתכה || ְ֝וֽתוָֹרְת֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:109‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:5‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:109‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:6‬‬

‫לי אני || ִ ֑לי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:110‬‬

‫‪, mss‬מפקודיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬ומפקדיך‬
‫‪, mss‬ומפיקודיך‬
‫ומפיקודך‬

‫‪11Q5 11:6‬‬

‫פקודיכה ||‬
‫֝וִּמִפּקּוֶּ֗די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:110‬‬

‫‪, mss‬מפקודיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬ומפקדיך‬
‫‪, mss‬ומפיקודיך‬
‫ומפיקודך‬

‫‪11Q5 11:6‬‬

‫פקודיכה ||‬
‫֝וִּמִפּקּוֶּ֗די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:110‬‬

‫‪, mss‬מפקודיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬ומפקדיך‬
‫‪, mss‬ומפיקודיך‬
‫ומפיקודך‬

‫‪11Q5 11:6‬‬

‫פקודיכה ||‬
‫֝וִּמִפּקּוֶּ֗די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:110‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:6‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:110‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 11:7‬עדוותיכה || ֵעְדוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:111‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 11:7‬עדוותיכה || ֵעְדוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:111‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 11:7‬עדוותיכה || ֵעְדוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:111‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:7‬‬

‫לעולם || ְלעוֹ ָ ֑לם ִֽכּי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:111‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:7‬‬

‫לעולם || ְלעוֹ ָ ֑לם‬

‫‪Psalm 119:111‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:8‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶ֗קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:112‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:8‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶ֗קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:112‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:9‬‬

‫תורתכה || ְֽותוָֹרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:113‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:9‬‬

‫תורתכה || ְֽותוָֹרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:113‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:10‬‬

‫לדבריכה || ִלְדָבְר֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:114‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:11‬‬

‫ואצורה || ְ֝וֶאְצָּ֗רה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:115‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:11‬‬

‫מצות || ִמְצ ֥וֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 119:115‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:11‬‬

‫אלוהי || ֱא‪ָï‬הֽי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:115‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:12‬‬

‫כאמרתכה ||‬
‫ְכִאְמָרְת֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:116‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:12‬‬

‫שְּׂב ִֽרי‬
‫ממשברי || ִמ ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:116‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:13‬‬

‫שׁ ָ ֖עה‬
‫ואשא || ְוֶא ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:117‬‬

‫לדבריך ‪ms‬‬

‫‪156‬‬

‫‪5Q5‬‬

‫בחוקיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:13‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ְבֻח ֶ ֣קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:117‬‬

‫‪5Q5‬‬

‫בחוקיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:13‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ְבֻח ֶ ֣קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:117‬‬

‫‪5Q5‬‬

‫בחוקיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:13‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ְבֻח ֶ ֣קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:117‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:14‬‬

‫סליתה || ָסִליָת‬

‫‪Psalm 119:118‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:14‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:118‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:14‬‬

‫מחוקיכה || ֵמֻח ֶ ֑קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:118‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:14‬‬

‫מחוקיכה || ֵמֻח ֶ ֑קּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:118‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:15‬‬

‫סיגים || ִסִ֗גים‬

‫‪Psalm 119:119‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:15‬‬

‫שַׁ֥בָּתּ‬
‫חשבתי || ִה ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:119‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:15‬‬

‫כול || ָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:119‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:15‬‬

‫על כן || ָ֝לֵ֗כן‬

‫‪Psalm 119:119‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 11:15‬אהבתי כול || אַָ֥הְבִתּי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:119‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:15‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֽתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:119‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:15‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֽתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:119‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:15‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֽתי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:119‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 11:16‬מפחד]כה || ִמַפְּחְדּ֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:120‬‬

‫‪11Q5 11:16‬‬

‫וממשפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפֶּ֥טי‪ê‬‬
‫ִמּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:120‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:1‬‬

‫פקודי כול ||‬
‫ָכּל־ִפּ֣קּוֵּדי ֣כ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:128‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:1‬‬

‫כול || ֣כ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:128‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:1‬‬

‫‪f2°‬כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:128‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:1‬‬

‫אורח || ֖א ַֹרח‬

‫‪Psalm 119:128‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:2‬‬

‫פלגי נפת || ְפָּל֥אוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 119:129‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 12:2‬עדוותיכה || ֵעְדוֹ ֶ ֑תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:129‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 12:2‬עדוותיכה || ֵעְדוֹ ֶ ֑תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:129‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 12:2‬עדוותיכה || ֵעְדוֹ ֶ ֑תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:129‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:3‬‬

‫דבריכה || ְדָּב ֶ֥רי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:130‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:3‬‬

‫והאר || י ִָ֗איר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:130‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:3‬‬

‫והאר || י ִָ֗איר‬

‫‪Psalm 119:130‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:3‬‬

‫פותאים || ְפָּתִייֽ ם‬

‫‪Psalm 119:130‬‬

‫שׁ ָ ֑אָפה‬
‫‪ 11Q5 12:4‬ואשאפה || ָוֶא ְ‬
‫ִ ֖כּי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:131‬‬

‫‪5Q5‬‬

‫ואשאפה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪157‬‬

‫‪, mss‬באמרתיך ‪ms‬‬
‫‪, ms‬כאמרתך‬
‫לאמרתך‬

‫‪11Q5 12:4‬‬

‫למצוותיכה ||‬
‫ְלִמְצוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:131‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:4‬‬

‫למצוותיכה ||‬
‫ְלִמְצוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:131‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:4‬‬

‫תאבתי || י ָָאְֽבִתּי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:131‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:5‬‬

‫וחונני || ְוָח ֵ֑נּנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:132‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:5‬‬

‫לאוהבי || ְלא ֲֹהֵ֥בי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:132‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:5‬‬

‫שֶׁמֽ‪ê‬‬
‫שמכה || ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:132‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:6‬‬

‫לאמרתכה ||‬
‫ְבִּאְמָר ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:133‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:6‬‬

‫לאמרתכה ||‬
‫ְבִּאְמָר ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:133‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:6‬‬

‫כול || ָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:133‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:7‬‬

‫ואשמורה ||‬
‫שְׁמָ֗רה‬
‫ְ֝וֶא ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:134‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:7‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפּקּוֶּדֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:134‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:8‬‬

‫פניכה || ָפּנֶי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:135‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:8‬‬

‫בעבדכה || ְבַּעְב ֶ ֑דּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:135‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:8‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:135‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:8‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:135‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:9‬‬

‫על כי || ַ֗֝על‬

‫‪Psalm 119:136‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:9‬‬

‫לוא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:136‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:9‬‬

‫תורתכה || תוָֹר ֶ ֽת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:136‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:10‬‬

‫שׁר‬
‫וישרים || ְ֝וי ָ ֗ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:137‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:10‬‬

‫משפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפּ ֶ ֽטי‪ê‬‬
‫ִמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:137‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:11‬‬

‫צויתה || ִצִוּיָת‬

‫‪Psalm 119:138‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:11‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֑תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:138‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:11‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֑תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:138‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:11‬‬

‫עדוותיכה || ֵעד ֹ ֶ ֑תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:138‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:11‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:138‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:11‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:138‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:11‬‬

‫דבריכה || ְדָב ֶ֣רי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:139‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:13‬‬

‫אמרתכה || ִאְמָרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:140‬‬

‫‪158‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:13‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֗א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:140‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:13‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֗א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:140‬‬

‫‪5Q5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:13‬‬

‫ועבכה || ְֽוַעְבְדּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:140‬‬

‫‪5Q5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:13‬‬

‫ועבדכה || ְֽוַעְבְדּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:140‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:14‬‬

‫אנוכי || אָנ ֹ ִ ֣כי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:141‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:14‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפֻּקֶּ֗די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:141‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:14‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפֻּקֶּ֗די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:141‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:14‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:141‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 12:15‬ו ׄת ]צ[דקות || ]‪[---‬‬
‫ִצְדָקְת֣‪֣ ֶ ê‬צֶדק‬

‫‪Psalm 119:142‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 12:15‬ו ׄת ]צ[דקות || ]‪[---‬‬
‫ִצְדָקְת֣‪֣ ֶ ê‬צֶדק‬

‫‪Psalm 119:142‬‬

‫‪11Q5 12:15‬‬

‫עולם || ְלעוֹ ָ ֑לם‬

‫‪Psalm 119:142‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:1‬‬

‫רודפי || ר ְֹד ֵ ֣פי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:150‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 13:1‬מתורתכה || ִמתּוָֹרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:150‬‬

‫וכול || ְֽוָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:151‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 13:2‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:151‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 13:2‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֶֹ֥תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:151‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 13:3‬מדעתכה || ֵמֵעד ֹ ֶ ֑תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:152‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:3‬‬

‫יסדתני || י ְַסְדָתּֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 119:152‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:4‬‬

‫עוניי || ָענְִי ֥י‬

‫‪Psalm 119:153‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 13:4‬וחלצני || ְוַחְלּ ֵ ֑צנִי ִכּי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:153‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:4‬‬

‫תורתכה || ֽתוָֹרְת֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:153‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:4‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:153‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:5‬‬

‫ריב || ִרי ָ ֣בה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:154‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:5‬‬

‫ריבה || ִרי ָ ֣בה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:154‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:5‬‬

‫לאמרתכה ||‬
‫ְלִאְמָרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:154‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:6‬‬

‫רחוק מרשעים ||‬
‫שׁ ִ ֣עים‬
‫ָר֣חוֹק ֵמְר ָ‬
‫י ְשׁוּ ָ ֑עה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:155‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:6‬‬

‫רחוק מרשעים‬
‫ישועה || ָר֣חוֹק‬
‫שׁ ִ ֣עים י ְשׁוּ ָ ֑עה‬
‫ֵמְר ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:155‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:6‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶקּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:155‬‬

‫‪5Q5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:2‬‬

‫‪159‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:6‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶקּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:155‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:6‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:155‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:7‬‬

‫רחמיכה || ַרֲח ֶ ֖מי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:156‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:7‬‬

‫כמשפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפֶּ֥טי‪ê‬‬
‫ְֽכִּמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:156‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:7‬‬

‫חונני || ַחֵיּנֽ ִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:156‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:8‬‬

‫רודפי || ר ְֹד ַ ֣פי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:157‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:8‬‬

‫מעדוותיכה ||‬
‫ֵמֵעְדוֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:157‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:8‬‬

‫מעדוותיכה ||‬
‫ֵמֵעְדוֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:157‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:8‬‬

‫מעדוותיכה ||‬
‫ֵמֵעְדוֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:157‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:8‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:157‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:9‬‬

‫בוגדים‪ || f‬בגֹ ְִדים‬

‫‪Psalm 119:158‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:9‬‬

‫אמרתכה || ִאְמָרְת֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:158‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:10‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:158‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:11‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפקּוּ ֶ ֣די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:159‬‬

‫בחסדך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 13:11‬כאמרתכה || ְֽכַּחְסְדּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:159‬‬

‫‪, ms‬חייני ‪mss‬‬
‫חיינו‬

‫‪11Q5 13:11‬‬

‫חונני || ַחֵיּנֽ ִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:159‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:12‬‬

‫רו ׄ]אש[ || ר ֹאשׁ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:160‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:12‬‬

‫דבריכה || ְדָּבְר֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:160‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:12‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:160‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:12‬‬

‫צדק || ִצְד ֶֽק‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:160‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:13‬‬

‫חנום || ִח ָ֑נּם‬

‫‪Psalm 119:161‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:13‬‬

‫ומדבריכה ||‬
‫וִּמְדָּבֶרי‪֝ ] ê‬וּ[]ִמ[‬
‫]]ְדָּבְר֗‪ê‬‬
‫֯אנׄוכי || אָנ ִֹֽכי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:161‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:162‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:14‬‬

‫אמרתכה || ִאְמָר ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:162‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:14‬‬

‫ממוצא || ְ֝כּמוֵֹ֗צא‬

‫‪Psalm 119:162‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:15‬‬

‫ותורתכה || תּוָֹרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:163‬‬

‫‪, ms‬חייני ‪mss‬‬
‫חנני ‪, mss‬חיינו‬

‫דבריך ‪ms‬‬

‫ומדברך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:14‬‬

‫‪, ms‬ותורתך ‪mss‬‬
‫תורתיך‬

‫‪160‬‬

‫ותורתכה || תּוָֹרְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:163‬‬

‫‪11Q5 13:15‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 13:16‬אה[ללכה || ִהַלְּל ִ ֑תּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:164‬‬

‫‪ 11Q6 f2:2‬אה[ללכה || ִהַלְּל ִ ֑תּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:164‬‬

‫תור]תכ[֯ה] ||‬
‫תוָֹר ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:165‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:1‬תהלה לכה || ְתִּה ָ ֑לּה‬

‫‪Psalm 119:171‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:1‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:171‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:1‬‬

‫חוקיכה || ֻחֶקּֽי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:171‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:2‬‬

‫תענה || ַ ֣תַּען‬

‫‪Psalm 119:172‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:2‬‬

‫אמרתכה || ִאְמָר ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:172‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:2‬‬

‫כול || ָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 119:172‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:2‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:172‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:2‬מצוותיכה || ִמְצוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:172‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:3‬‬

‫ידכה || י ְָד֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:173‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:3‬‬

‫לעוזרני || ְלָעזְ ֵ֑רנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:173‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:3‬‬

‫פקודיכה || ִפקּוּ ֶ ֣די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:173‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:4‬‬

‫לישועתכה ||‬
‫יִֽל שׁוָּעְת֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:174‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:4‬‬

‫תורתכה || ְ֝וֽתוָֹרְת֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:174‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:4‬‬

‫תורתכה || ְ֝וֽתוָֹרְת֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:174‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:4‬‬

‫שָׁעֽי‬
‫שֲׁע ֻ‬
‫שעשועי || ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:174‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:5‬ותהללכה || ֽוְּתַהְֽל ֶ ֑לָךּ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:175‬‬

‫‪, ms‬ומשפטיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬ומשפיטך‬
‫משפטיך‬

‫‪11Q5 14:5‬‬

‫ומשפטיכה ||‬
‫שָׁפֶּ֥ט‪ê‬‬
‫ֽוִּמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:175‬‬

‫‪, ms‬ומשפטיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬ומשפיטך‬
‫משפטיך‬

‫שָׁפֶּ֥ט‪ê‬‬
‫‪ 11Q5 14:5‬שפטיכה || ֽוִּמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:175‬‬

‫‪, ms‬ומשפטיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬ומשפיטך‬
‫משפטיך‬

‫שָׁפֶּ֥ט‪ê‬‬
‫‪ 11Q5 14:5‬שפטיכה || ֽוִּמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 119:175‬‬

‫‪, ms‬יעזרוני ‪mss‬‬
‫יעזריני ‪, ms‬יעזורני‬

‫‪11Q5 14:5‬‬

‫יעוזרני || י ֲַעזְ ֻֽרנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 119:175‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:6‬‬

‫אובד || א ֵֹבד‬

‫‪Psalm 119:176‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:6‬‬

‫עבדכה || ַעְב ֶ ֑דּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:176‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f2:3‬‬

‫לעוזריני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪161‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:6‬עדוותיכה || ִ֝מְצוֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:176‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:6‬עדוותיכה || ִ֝מְצוֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:176‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:6‬עדוותיכה || ִ֝מְצוֶֹ֗תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 119:176‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:6‬‬

‫לוא || ֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 119:176‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:20‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 148‬‬

‫‪Psalm 120:1‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f25:2‬‬

‫לנפ]שי || ָ ֣לּהּ נְַפ ִ ֑שׁי‬

‫‪Psalm 120:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:1‬‬

‫המעלות || ַל ַֽ֫מֲּע֥לוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 121:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:1‬‬

‫יבוא || י ָ ֥ב ֹא‬

‫‪Psalm 121:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:2‬‬

‫מם || ֵמ ִ ֣עם‬

‫‪Psalm 121:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:2‬‬

‫מעם || ֵמ ִ ֣עם‬

‫‪Psalm 121:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:2‬‬

‫שׂה‬
‫עושה || ע ֹ ֗ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 121:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:3‬‬

‫רג[לכה || ַרְג ֶ ֑ל‪[ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 121:3‬‬

‫ואל ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:3‬‬

‫‪ f2°‬ואל || אַל‬

‫‪Psalm 121:3‬‬

‫‪, mss‬שומריך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬שומרך‬
‫לשמרך ‪, ms‬שמריך‬

‫‪11Q5 3:3‬‬

‫שׁ ְֹמ ֶֽר‪ê‬‬
‫שומרכה || ֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 121:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:3‬‬

‫שׁ ְֹמ ֶֽר‪ê‬‬
‫שומרכה || ֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 121:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:3‬‬

‫לוא || ֽ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 121:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:3‬‬

‫‪ f2°‬ולוא || ְו֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 121:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:4‬‬

‫י[ׄשראל בלילה ||[‬
‫שָׂרֵאֽל‬
‫יִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 121:4‬‬

‫‪, mss‬שומריך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬שומרך‬
‫שמריך‬

‫‪11Q5 3:4‬‬

‫שומרכה || שׁ ְֹמ ֶ֑ר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 121:5‬‬

‫‪, mss‬שומריך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬שומרך‬
‫שמריך‬

‫‪11Q5 3:4‬‬

‫שומרכה || שׁ ְֹמ ֶ֑ר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 121:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:4‬‬

‫‪ || >f2°‬י ְה ָ֥וה‬

‫‪Psalm 121:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:4‬‬

‫צלכה || ִצְלּ֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 121:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:4‬‬

‫ימינכה || י ְִמי ֶנ ֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 121:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:5‬‬

‫לוא || ֽ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 121:6‬‬

‫שָׁמְר֥‪ê‬‬
‫‪ 11Q5 3:5‬ישומרכה || י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 121:7‬‬

‫שָׁמְר֥‪ê‬‬
‫‪ 11Q5 3:5‬ישומרכה || י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 121:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:5‬‬

‫מכו]ל || ִמָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 121:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:6‬‬

‫שׁ‪ê‬‬
‫נפשכה || נְַפ ֶ ֽ‬

‫‪Psalm 121:7‬‬

‫המעלות ‪mss‬‬

‫צילך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪162‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:6‬‬

‫> || ְי ֽהָ֗וה‬

‫‪Psalm 121:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:6‬‬

‫שָׁמר‬
‫ישמור || י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 121:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:6‬‬

‫צאתכה || ֵצאְת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 121:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:6‬‬

‫ובואכה || וּבוֹ ֶ ֑א‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 121:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:7‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָ֫ד ִ֥וד‬

‫‪Psalm 122:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:8‬‬

‫עומדות || ע ְֹמדוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 122:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:8‬‬
‫‪4Q522‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:9‬‬

‫רגלי || ַרְג ֵ ֑לינוּ‬
‫יר[ו ׄשלים ||‬
‫שׁ ָ ִל ֽם‬
‫]י ְרוּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:2‬‬
‫‪Psalm 122:2‬‬

‫‪4Q522‬‬

‫שׁ ַ֥ ִלם‬
‫‪ 11Q5 3:9‬ירושלים || י ְרוּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:3‬‬

‫‪4Q522‬‬

‫הבנוה ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:9‬‬

‫הבנוה || ַהְבּנוָּי֑ה‬

‫‪Psalm 122:3‬‬

‫‪4Q522‬‬

‫הבנוה ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:9‬‬

‫הבנויה || ַהְבּנוָּי֑ה‬

‫‪Psalm 122:3‬‬

‫לו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:9‬‬

‫לו || ָ֥לּהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:9‬‬

‫> || י ְַחָדּֽו‬

‫‪Psalm 122:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:9‬‬

‫שּׁם‬
‫שׁ ָ֨‬
‫שמה || ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:9‬‬

‫שּׁם‬
‫שׁ ָ֨‬
‫שמה || ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:10‬‬

‫עדת || ֵע ֣דוּת‬

‫‪Psalm 122:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:10‬‬

‫שָׂר ֵ ֑אל‬
‫ישראל || ְלי ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:10‬‬

‫להודות || ְלה ֹ ֗דוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 122:4‬‬

‫שם ‪4Q522 f22_26:3 ms‬‬

‫שָׁמּה‬
‫ש ם || ֨ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:11‬‬

‫‪f2°‬כסא || ִ֝כְּס֗אוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 122:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:11‬‬

‫שֲׁאלוּ‬
‫שאלו שא || ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:11‬‬

‫שֲׁאלוּ‬
‫שאלו || ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:6‬‬

‫אוהביך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:12‬‬

‫]א[והביך || א ֲֹהָבֽי ִ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 122:6‬‬

‫ושלוה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:12‬‬

‫שְׁלָ֗וה‬
‫ושלוה || ֝ ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:7‬‬

‫ושלוה ‪4Q522 f22_26:5 mss‬‬

‫שְׁלָ֗וה‬
‫]ש[֯ל]ו[ם || ֝ ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 122:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:12‬‬

‫ְבּאְַרְמנוָֹתֽי ִ‪|| ì‬‬
‫בארמונותיך‬

‫‪Psalm 122:7‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 3:13‬אדברה || ֲאַדְבָּרה־ ָ֖נּא‬

‫‪Psalm 122:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:13‬‬

‫אלו]הינו || ֱא‪֑ ֵ ï‬הינוּ‬
‫ׄטובה || ֣טוֹב‬

‫‪Psalm 122:9‬‬
‫‪Psalm 122:9‬‬

‫‪4Q522 f22_26:6‬‬

‫שלום || ֣טוֹב‬

‫‪Psalm 122:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:15‬‬

‫[דויד || >‬

‫‪Psalm 123:1‬‬

‫ישמור ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬ובאך ‪mss‬‬
‫ובאיך‬

‫‪4Q522‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:14‬‬
‫)טובה( ‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪163‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:15‬‬

‫למעלות || ַהַֽ֫מֲּע֥לוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 123:1‬‬

‫במעלות ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:15‬‬

‫א[ליכה || ֵאֶלי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 123:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:15‬‬

‫נׄ]את[י || נָ ָ ֣שׂאִתי‬

‫‪Psalm 123:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:15‬‬

‫נׄש]את[י || נָ ָ ֣שׂאִתי‬

‫‪Psalm 123:1‬‬

‫עיני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:15‬‬

‫עיני || ֶאת־ֵעי ַ֑ני‬

‫‪Psalm 123:1‬‬

‫‪, ms‬היושבי ‪mss‬‬
‫היושב )‪(133‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:15‬‬

‫שִׁ֗בי‬
‫היושב || ַ֝היּ ֹ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 123:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 3:16‬‬

‫הנ[֯ה ֯כ֯ע]י[ ֯נ ֯י ||‬
‫‪ְ 2°‬כֵּעי ֵ֣ני‬

‫‪Psalm 123:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:1‬‬

‫ואנחו || ַוֲא ַ֥נְחנוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 124:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:1‬‬

‫ואנחנו || ַוֲא ַ֥נְחנוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 124:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:1‬‬

‫עוזרנו || ֶ֭עזְֵרנוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 124:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:1‬‬

‫שׂה‬
‫עושה || ע ֹ ֗ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 124:8‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 4:3‬הבוטחים || ַהבּ ְֹט ִ ֥חים‬

‫‪Psalm 125:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:3‬‬

‫שלוא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 125:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:3‬‬

‫שלוא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 125:1‬‬

‫שִַׁ֗לם‬
‫‪ 11Q5 4:4‬ירושלים || ְי ֽרוּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 125:2‬‬

‫לו || ָ֥להּ‬

‫‪Psalm 125:2‬‬

‫יהוה || ֭ ַויהָוה‬
‫‪11Q5 4:4‬‬
‫‪ 4Q87 f26i:2‬לע[מו ׄ ׄסׄביב || ָס ִ ֣ביב‬
‫ְלַע֑מּוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 125:2‬‬
‫‪Psalm 125:2‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:3‬‬

‫‪f2°‬לו]א[ || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 125:3‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:4‬‬

‫ידם || י ְֵדיֶהֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:3‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:4‬‬

‫ידים || י ְֵדיֶהֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:6‬‬

‫‪f2°‬לו]א[ || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 125:3‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:5‬‬

‫בלב || ְבִּלבּוָֹתֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:7‬‬

‫בלב || ְבִּלבּוָֹתֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:7‬‬

‫> || ְוַהַמּ ִ ֤טּים‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:5‬‬

‫> || ְוַהַמּ ִ ֤טּים‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:5‬‬

‫והמטים || ְוַהַמּ ִ ֤טּים‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫עקלקלתם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:5‬‬

‫עקלקולים ||‬
‫ַעַֽקְלַקלּוָֹ֗תם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫עקלקלתם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:5‬‬

‫עקלקולים ||‬
‫ַעַֽקְלַקלּוָֹ֗תם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:4‬‬

‫‪4Q87 original‬‬

‫‪164‬‬

‫עקלקלתם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:5‬‬

‫עקלקולתים ||‬
‫ַעַֽקְלַקלּוָֹ֗תם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫עקלקלתם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:5‬‬

‫עקלקולתים ||‬
‫ַעַֽקְלַקלּוָֹ֗תם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫עקלקלתם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:7‬‬

‫עקלקולות ||‬
‫ַעַֽקְלַקלּוָֹ֗תם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫עקלקלתם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:7‬‬

‫עקלקולות ||‬
‫ַעַֽקְלַקלּוָֹ֗תם‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:8‬‬

‫את כול || ֶאת‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:5‬‬

‫פועלי || פּ ֲֹע ֵ ֣לי‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:8‬‬

‫פועלי || פּ ֲֹע ֵ ֣לי‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫האוין ‪, ms‬און ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:8‬‬

‫און || ָה ָ ֑אֶון‬

‫‪Psalm 125:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫שיר ‪ms >, ms‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:6‬‬

‫שׁיר ַהַֽ֫מֲּע֥לוֹת‬
‫> || ֗ ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 126:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫שיר ‪ms >, ms‬‬

‫שׁיר‬
‫‪ 4Q87 f26i:6‬שיר המעלות || ֗ ִ‬
‫ַהַֽ֫מֲּע֥לוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 126:1‬‬

‫‪, mss‬שבת ‪mss‬‬
‫שבית ‪, ms‬שבות‬

‫שׁי ַ ֣בת‬
‫שבות || ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 126:1‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 4:10‬כחלומים || ְכּח ְֹלִֽמים‬

‫‪Psalm 126:1‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:8‬‬

‫[֯בגויים || ַבגּוִֹי֑ם‬

‫‪Psalm 126:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:11‬‬

‫[֯בגויים || ַבגּוִֹי֑ם‬

‫‪Psalm 126:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪ 4Q87 f26i:8‬הגדיל || ִהְג ִ ֥דּיל ֝י ְהָ֗וה‬

‫‪Psalm 126:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫‪ 4Q87 f26i:8‬הגדיל יהוה || ִהְג ִ ֥דּיל‬
‫֝י ְהָ֗וה‬

‫‪Psalm 126:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:12‬‬

‫עםנו || ִעָ֗מּנוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 126:3‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:9‬‬

‫שבה || שׁוּ ָ ֣בה‬

‫‪Psalm 126:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:13‬‬

‫שׁבוֵּתנוּ‬
‫שבותינו || ְ‬
‫שִׁבי ֵ ֑תנוּ‬
‫]] ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 126:4‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:10‬‬

‫הזורעים || ַהזּ ְֹר ִ ֥עים‬

‫‪Psalm 126:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:13‬‬

‫הזורעים || ַהזּ ְֹר ִ ֥עים‬

‫‪Psalm 126:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:14‬‬

‫יקצורו || י ְִק ֽצ ֹרוּ‬
‫אלוׄמ]ותיו[ ||‬
‫ֲאֻלמּ ֹ ָ ֽתיו‬

‫‪Psalm 126:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:14‬‬

‫הלוך ילכו || ָ֘ה֤לוֹ‪ì‬‬
‫י ֵֵ֨ל‪ì‬‬

‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫כחולמים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪, mss‬שביתינו ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬שבותינו‬
‫‪, mss‬שביתונו‬
‫שביתנו‬

‫‪4Q87 f26i:6‬‬

‫‪1Q11 f1:1‬‬

‫‪165‬‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬
‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬

‫‪1Q11‬‬

‫ובכו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:14‬‬

‫ובכו || וָּבכ ֹ֮ה‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬

‫נושא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:14‬‬

‫‪f1°‬נושאי || נ ֵֹ֪שׂא‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬

‫נושא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:14‬‬

‫‪f1º‬נושאי || נ ֵֹ֪שׂא‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬

‫נושא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:15‬‬

‫שׂא‬
‫‪ 2°‬נושאי || ֝נ ֹ ֗ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬

‫נושא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:15‬‬

‫שׂא‬
‫‪f2º‬נושאי || ֝נ ֹ ֗ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬

‫נושא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪1Q11 f1:1‬‬

‫‪֯ 2º‬נושאי || נ ֵֹ֪שׂא‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬

‫נושא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪1Q11 f1:1‬‬

‫‪֯ f2º‬נושאי || נ ֵֹ֪שׂא‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:15‬‬

‫אלומותו || ֲאֻלמּ ָֹתֽיו‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 4:15‬אלומותו || ֲאֻלמּ ָֹתֽיו‬
‫שׁ֫‪֥ ï‬מ ֹה‬
‫‪[ 11Q5 4:16‬לשלומׄה || ִל ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 126:6‬‬
‫‪Psalm 127:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 4:16‬‬

‫לוא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 127:1‬‬

‫‪4Q173 f3:3‬‬

‫[ל ֯ו֯א || ֽ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 127:5‬‬

‫‪4Q173 f3:3‬‬

‫יבושו || י ֵ ֑ב ֹשׁוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 127:5‬‬

‫‪1Q11 f6:2‬‬

‫הפ]ריה || פּ ִֹריּ ָ֮ה‬

‫‪Psalm 128:3‬‬

‫‪1Q11 f6:3‬‬

‫שִׁת ֵ ֣לי‬
‫כשתי]לי || ִכּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 128:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:1‬‬

‫יברככה || י ְָבֶרְכ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 128:5‬‬

‫אדוני || י ְהָ֗וה‬
‫‪11Q5 5:1‬‬
‫שׁ ָ ִ֑לם‬
‫‪ 11Q5 5:2‬ירושל[י ׄם || י ְרוּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 128:5‬‬
‫‪Psalm 128:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:2‬‬

‫כול || ֗כּ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 128:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:2‬‬

‫חייכה || ַחֶיּיֽ ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 128:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:4‬‬

‫יואמר || י ֽ ֹאַמר‬

‫‪Psalm 129:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:4‬‬

‫רבות || ֭ ַרַבּת‬

‫‪Psalm 129:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:5‬‬

‫יכולו || ָי ְ֥כלוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 129:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:5‬‬

‫רשעים || ח ְֹר ִ ֑שׁים‬
‫ׄאדוני || י ְה ָ֥וה‬

‫‪Psalm 129:3‬‬
‫‪Psalm 129:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:6‬‬

‫יבושו || י ֵב ֹשׁוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 129:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:8‬‬

‫ו ׄחוצנו || ְוִחְצ ֥נוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 129:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:8‬‬

‫שלוא || ְו֤‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 129:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:8‬‬

‫שלוא || ְו֤‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 129:8‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 5:8‬העוברים || ָהע ְֹבִ֗רים‬
‫בׄד]רך ברכת ||‬
‫‪11Q5 5:9‬‬
‫ִבְּרַכּ ֽת‬

‫‪Psalm 129:8‬‬

‫‪1Q11‬‬

‫רבות ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:6‬‬

‫העוברים ‪mss‬‬
‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫‪166‬‬

‫‪Psalm 129:8‬‬

‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫‪, mss‬אלכם ‪ms‬‬
‫עליכם‬

‫‪11Q5 5:9‬‬

‫יהוה א[לוהיכמ ||‬
‫י ְה ָ֥וה ֲאֵלי ֶ ֑כם‬

‫‪Psalm 129:8‬‬

‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫‪, mss‬אלכם ‪ms‬‬
‫עליכם‬

‫‪11Q5 5:9‬‬

‫יהוה א[לוהיכמ ||‬
‫י ְה ָ֥וה ֲאֵלי ֶ ֑כם‬

‫‪Psalm 129:8‬‬

‫‪, mss‬אלכם ‪ms‬‬
‫עליכם‬

‫‪11Q5 5:9‬‬

‫עליכם || ֲאֵלי ֶ ֑כם‬

‫‪Psalm 129:8‬‬

‫‪4Q87‬‬

‫‪, mss‬אלכם ‪ms‬‬
‫עליכם‬

‫‪4Q173 f4:2f‬‬

‫עליכם || ֲאֵלי ֶ ֑כם‬

‫‪Psalm 129:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫שיר ‪ms >, mss‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f26ii:3‬‬

‫> || ַהַֽמֲּע֑לוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 130:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫שיר ‪ms >, mss‬‬

‫‪ 4Q87 f26ii:3‬שיר המ[ עול]ות[ ||‬
‫ַהַֽמֲּע֑לוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 130:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:10‬‬

‫המעלות אדוני ||‬
‫ַהַֽמֲּע֑לוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 130:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:11‬‬

‫|| ְקָרא ִ ֣תי‪ ê‬י ְה ָו ֽה‬
‫]קראתי‪[f‬‬

‫‪Psalm 130:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:11‬‬

‫תהי נא || ִתְּהֶי֣ינָה‬

‫‪Psalm 130:2‬‬

‫אזנך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:11‬‬

‫אוזנכה || ָ֭אזְנֶי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 130:2‬‬

‫אזנך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:11‬‬

‫אוזנכה || ָ֭אזְנֶי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 130:2‬‬

‫אזנך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:11‬‬

‫אוזנכה || ָ֭אזְנֶי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 130:2‬‬

‫‪, mss‬קשובות ‪mss‬‬
‫קשובת‬

‫‪11Q5 5:11‬‬

‫שּׁ֑בוֹת‬
‫קשובת || ַק ֻ‬

‫‪Psalm 130:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:11‬‬

‫לי‪> || f‬‬

‫‪Psalm 130:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:12‬‬

‫שָׁמר‬
‫תש[֯מור || ִתּ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 130:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:12‬‬

‫אדוני || ֲאד ֗נֹ ָי‬

‫‪Psalm 130:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:12‬‬

‫יעמוד || י ֲַע ֽמ ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 130:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:12‬‬

‫עמכה || ִעְמּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 130:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:13‬‬

‫לדברו || ְֽוִלְדָב ֥רוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 130:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:13‬‬

‫הוחילי ]נפשי ||‬
‫נְַפ ִ ֥שׁי‬
‫כׄש]ומרים ||‬
‫ִמשּׁ ְֹמ ִ֥רים‬

‫‪Psalm 130:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:14‬‬

‫ל[ׄבוקר || ַל ֗בּ ֶֹקר‬

‫‪Psalm 130:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:14‬‬

‫שומרים || שׁ ְֹמ ִ֥רים‬

‫‪Psalm 130:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:14‬‬

‫‪f2°‬לבוקר || ַל ֽבּ ֶֹקר‬

‫‪Psalm 130:6‬‬

‫‪, ms‬לדברו ‪ms‬‬
‫‪, mss‬ולדבריו‬
‫ולדברך‬

‫‪4Q87 f26ii:7‬‬

‫‪167‬‬

‫‪Psalm 130:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:15‬‬

‫הרב || ְוַהְר ֵ ֖בּה‬

‫‪Psalm 130:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:15‬‬

‫הרב || ְוַהְר ֵ ֖בּה‬

‫‪Psalm 130:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:15‬‬

‫פדה || ְפֽדוּת‬

‫‪Psalm 130:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 5:15‬‬

‫הוא || ֭ ְוהוּא‬

‫‪Psalm 130:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:1‬‬

‫למנוחתכה ||‬
‫ִלְמנוָּח ֶ ֑ת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:1‬‬

‫[֯ע ֯ו ֯ז֯כ֯ה || ֻעֶזּ ֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:1‬‬

‫֯ע ֯ו ֯ז֯כ֯ה || ֻעֶזּ ֽ‪]ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:1‬‬

‫כוהניכה || כּ ֲֹה ֶ֥ני‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:1‬‬

‫כוהניכה || כּ ֲֹה ֶ֥ני‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:9‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 6:1‬וחסידיכה || ַוֲחִסיֶ֥די‪ê‬‬
‫דויׄד || ָדּ ִ֣וד‬
‫‪11Q5 6:2‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:9‬‬
‫‪Psalm 132:10‬‬

‫עבדכה || ַעְב ֶ ֑דּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:10‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 6:2‬אל תשב }}‪|| {{°°°‬‬
‫שׁב‬
‫אַל־ָ֝תּ ֗ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 132:10‬‬

‫שׁב‬
‫‪ 11Q5 6:2‬אל תשב || אַל־ָ֝תּ ֗ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 132:10‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:2‬‬

‫שׁי ֶ ֽח‪ê‬‬
‫משיחכה || ְמ ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 132:10‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:3‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָדִ֡וד‬

‫‪Psalm 132:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:3‬‬

‫ממנה כי || ִ֫מֶ֥מּנָּה‬

‫‪Psalm 132:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:3‬‬

‫בטנכה || ִבְטנְ֑‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:4‬‬

‫על כסא‪ְ || f‬לִכֵסּא‬

‫‪Psalm 132:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:4‬‬

‫לכה || ָל ֽ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:4‬‬

‫בניכה || ָב ֨נֶי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:4‬‬

‫ועדוותי || ְוֵעד ֹ ִ ֥תי‬

‫‪Psalm 132:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:4‬‬

‫ועדוותי || ְוֵעד ֹ ִ ֥תי‬

‫‪Psalm 132:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:4‬‬

‫ועדוותי || ְוֵעד ֹ ִ ֥תי‬

‫‪Psalm 132:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:4‬‬

‫זה || ֗זוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 132:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:5‬‬

‫עודי || ֲעֵדי‬

‫‪Psalm 132:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:5‬‬

‫שׁ֗בוּ‬
‫יעלו || ֝י ֵ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 132:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:5‬‬

‫לכה || ָל ֽ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 132:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:6‬‬

‫זואת || ז ֹאת‬

‫‪Psalm 132:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:7‬‬

‫אוית]יה[ || ִאִוִּֽתיָה‬

‫‪Psalm 132:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:8‬‬

‫וכוהניה || ְֽוכ ֲֹהנֶיָה‬

‫‪Psalm 132:16‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 6:8‬א]לבי[֯שה || אְַל ִ ֣בּישׁ‬

‫‪Psalm 132:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:2‬‬

‫זה ‪ms‬‬

‫‪168‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:8‬‬

‫ירננו || ַר ֵ֥נּן י ְַר ֵנּ ֽנוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 132:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:9‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָד ִ֑וד‬

‫‪Psalm 132:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5 6:9‬‬

‫שׁת‬
‫בושת || ֑בּ ֹ ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 132:18‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:7‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 141‬‬

‫‪Psalm 133:1‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f7a_e:2‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 141‬‬

‫‪Psalm 133:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:7‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָ֫ד ִ֥וד‬

‫‪Psalm 133:1‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f7a_e:2‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָ֫ד ִ֥וד‬

‫‪Psalm 133:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:8‬‬

‫הרואש || ָה ֗ר ֹאשׁ‬

‫‪Psalm 133:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:9‬‬

‫יורד || י ֵֹ֗רד‬

‫‪Psalm 133:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:9‬‬

‫אהרון || אֲַה ֑ר ֹן‬

‫‪Psalm 133:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:9‬‬

‫מדיו || ִמדּוֹ ָ ֽתיו‬

‫‪Psalm 133:2‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f7a_e:3‬‬

‫הרואש] || ָה ֗ר ֹאשׁ‬

‫‪Psalm 133:2‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f7a_e:4‬‬

‫שׁיּ ֵֹ֗רד‬
‫שיורד || ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 133:2‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f7a_e:4‬‬

‫מדיו || ִמדּוֹ ָ ֽתיו‬

‫‪Psalm 133:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:10‬‬

‫שׁיּ ֵֹר֮ד‬
‫שיורד || ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 133:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:10‬‬

‫הר || ַהְר ֵ֪רי‬

‫‪Psalm 133:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:10‬‬

‫שׁם‬
‫ש מ ה || ֨ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 133:3‬‬

‫‪...‬וחיים ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:10‬‬

‫הברכה || ַהְבָּר ָ ֑כה‬
‫ַ֝ח ֗יּ ִים‬

‫‪Psalm 133:3‬‬

‫עולם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:11‬‬

‫עולם || ָהעוָֹל ֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 133:3‬‬

‫שיורד ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q6 f7a_e:4‬‬

‫שׁיּ ֵֹר֮ד‬
‫שיור]ד || ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 133:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:11‬‬

‫|| שלום על ישראל‬

‫‪Psalm 133:3‬‬

‫‪ || 11Q6 f7a_e:5‬שלום ע֯ל] ישראל‬

‫‪Psalm 133:3‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 140‬‬
‫‪11Q5 27:23‬‬
‫‪ 11Q5 28:1‬העומדים || ָהע ְֹמ ִ ֥דים‬

‫‪Psalm 134:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 134:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 28:1‬‬

‫ידיכם || י ְֵדֶ֥כם‬

‫‪Psalm 134:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 28:1‬‬

‫קודש || ֑ק ֶֹדשׁ‬

‫‪Psalm 134:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 28:2‬‬

‫את שם || ֶאת‬

‫‪Psalm 134:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 28:2‬‬

‫יברככה || י ְָבֶרְכ֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 134:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 28:2‬‬

‫שׂה‬
‫עושה || ע ֹ ֗ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 134:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:7‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 119‬‬

‫‪Psalm 135:1‬‬

‫הר ‪, ms‬הרי ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q6‬‬
‫‪11Q5‬‬

‫ידיכם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪169‬‬

‫עבדי יהוה ‪mss‬‬
‫הללו את שם יהוה‬
‫הללו יה‬

‫הללו עבדי יהוה‬
‫‪11Q5 14:7‬‬
‫הללו את שם יהוה‬
‫הללו יה || ַ֥הְללוּ ֨י ָהּ ׀‬
‫֭ ַֽהְללוּ ֶאת־ ֵ ֣שׁם י ְה ָ֑וה‬
‫֝ ַֽהְללוּ ַעְבֵ֥די י ְה ָו ֽה‬

‫‪Psalm 135:1‬‬

‫ורוממו יה || >‬

‫‪Psalm 135:2‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:8‬שעומדים || ֶ ֣שׁ ֽע ְֹמִדים‬

‫‪Psalm 135:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:9‬‬

‫אלוהינו || ֱא‪ֵï‬הֽינוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:9‬‬

‫ובתוכך || >‬
‫ירושלים‬

‫‪Psalm 135:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:10‬‬

‫את יהוה || ־י ָהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:10‬‬

‫יהוה || ־י ָהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:10‬‬

‫טוב || ֣טוֹב י ְה ָ֑וה‬

‫‪Psalm 135:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:10‬‬

‫שׁ֗מוֹ‬
‫שמו || ִ֝ל ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:10‬‬

‫יעקוב || י ֲַע ֗ק ֹב‬

‫‪Psalm 135:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:11‬‬

‫‪f1º‬לו || ֣לוֹ ָי֑הּ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:11‬‬

‫שָׂרֵ֗אל‬
‫וישראל || ֝י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:4‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:11‬לסגולה לו || ִלְסגָֻלּֽתוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:4‬‬

‫אני || ִ ֤כּי ֲא ִ ֣ני‬

‫‪Psalm 135:5‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:12‬ואלוהינו‪ַ֝ ||f‬וֲאד ֗נֹ ֵינוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:12‬‬

‫מכול | |ִמָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 135:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:12‬‬

‫אלוהים || ֱא‪ִֽï‬הים‬

‫‪Psalm 135:5‬‬

‫‪ 4Q92 1:1‬ובארץ לעשות יעשה‬
‫אין כי אין כיהוה‬
‫וא[ ֯י ֯ן ]שיעשה כמלך‬
‫אלהים || וָּב ָ ֑אֶרץ‬
‫ובאר[֯ץ ׄלעשות‬
‫‪4Q95 f1:1-2‬‬
‫ׄ‬
‫יעש]ה אין כי אין‬
‫כיהוה ואין שיעשה‬
‫כמלך אלוהים ||‬
‫וָּב ָ ֑אֶרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:6‬‬

‫‪Psalm 135:6‬‬

‫שׁר‬
‫אשר‪֤ || f‬כּ ֹל ֲא ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:6‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 14:13 - 14‬ובארץ לעשות יעשה‬
‫אין כיה אין כיהוה‬
‫ואין שיעשה כמלך‬
‫אלוהים || וָּב ָ ֑אֶרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:6‬‬

‫ובכול || ְוָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 135:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:11‬‬

‫‪4Q95, 11Q5‬‬

‫‪4Q92, 11Q5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:12‬‬
‫‪4Q92, 4Q95‬‬

‫ובכל ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:14‬‬

‫‪170‬‬

‫‪4Q95‬‬

‫ובכל ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:14‬‬

‫ובכול || ְוָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 135:6‬‬

‫נשיאים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:15‬‬

‫שִׂאי֮ם‬
‫נשי ׄ֯א]ים || נְ ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:7‬‬

‫מוציא ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 14:15‬‬

‫‪,‬מאצרתיו ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬מאצרותיו ‪mss‬‬
‫מאורתיו ‪mss‬‬

‫‪4Q92 1:2‬‬

‫מוציא || ֽמוֵֹצא‬
‫ׄמאצרתיו ||‬
‫[ֵמֽאוְֹצרוֹ ָ ֽתיו‬

‫‪Psalm 135:7‬‬

‫‪4Q92 1:3‬‬

‫מלכים || ְוָהַ֗רג‬
‫ְמָל ִ ֥כים‬

‫‪Psalm 135:10‬‬

‫‪4Q92 1:3‬‬

‫את סיחון || ְלִסי֤חוֹן‬

‫‪Psalm 135:11‬‬

‫‪4Q92 1:3‬‬

‫את סיחון || ְלִסי֤חוֹן‬

‫‪Psalm 135:11‬‬

‫‪4Q92 1:5‬‬

‫שׂה‬
‫מעשי || ַ֝מֲע ֗ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:1‬‬

‫ולוא || ְו֣‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 135:17‬‬

‫ואין ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:1‬‬

‫ואין || ַ֗אף ֵאין‬

‫‪Psalm 135:17‬‬

‫ואין ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:1‬‬

‫ואין || ַ֗אף ֵאין‬

‫‪Psalm 135:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:1‬‬

‫שׂי ֶ ֑הם‬
‫עושיהם || ע ֹ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:18‬‬

‫וכל ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:1‬‬

‫וכול || ֭כּ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 135:18‬‬

‫וכל ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:1‬‬

‫וכול || ֭כּ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 135:18‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:2‬‬

‫אהרון || אֲַה ֗ר ֹן‬

‫‪Psalm 135:19‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:4‬‬

‫יברככה || ָ֘בּ ֤רוּ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 135:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:4‬‬

‫שוכן || ֘שׁ ֹ ֵ ֤כן‬

‫‪Psalm 135:21‬‬

‫שִָׁ֗לם‬
‫‪ 11Q5 15:5‬ירושלים || ְי ֽרוּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 135:21‬‬

‫לאלוהי || ֵל ֽא‪֣ ֵ ï‬הי‬

‫‪Psalm 136:2‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 15:6‬האלוהים || ָהֱא‪֑ ִ ï‬הים‬

‫‪Psalm 136:2‬‬

‫לאדוני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:7‬‬

‫לאדון || ַלֲאד ֵנֹ ֣י‬

‫‪Psalm 136:3‬‬

‫לאדוני ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:7‬‬

‫לאדון || ַלֲאד ֵנֹ ֣י‬

‫‪Psalm 136:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:7‬‬

‫האדונים || ָהֲאדנֹ ִ ֑ ים‬

‫‪Psalm 136:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:7‬‬

‫לעולם || ְלע ֹ ָ ֣לם‬

‫‪Psalm 136:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:8‬‬

‫לעושה || ְל ֘ע ֹ ֵ ֤שׂה‬

‫‪Psalm 136:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:8‬‬

‫נפלאות || נְִפָל֣אוֹת‬
‫ְגּד ֹ֣לוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 136:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:8‬‬

‫לעושה || ְלע ֹ ֵ ֣שׂה‬

‫‪Psalm 136:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:9‬‬

‫לרוקע || ְלר ַֹ֣קע‬

‫‪Psalm 136:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:10‬‬

‫שׂה‬
‫לעושה || ְלע ֹ ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 136:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:10‬‬

‫מאורות || אוֹ ִ֣רים‬

‫‪Psalm 136:7‬‬

‫מעשי ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:6‬‬

‫‪171‬‬

‫‪Psalm 135:7‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 15:10 - 11‬ואת וירח כי לעולם‬
‫> || חסדו את‬

‫‪Psalm 136:8‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 15:10 - 11‬וירח כי לעולם חסדו‬
‫> || את‬

‫‪Psalm 136:8‬‬

‫לממשלות ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:11‬‬

‫לממשלות ||‬
‫ְלֶמְמ ֶ ֣שֶׁלת‬

‫‪Psalm 136:8‬‬

‫היום ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:11‬‬

‫יום || ַבּ ֑יּוֹם‬

‫‪Psalm 136:8‬‬

‫ואת הירח ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:12‬‬

‫ירח || ֶאת־ַהיּ ָ ֵ֣רַח‬

‫‪Psalm 136:9‬‬

‫ואת הירח ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:12‬‬

‫ירח || ֶאת־ַהיּ ָ ֵ֣רַח‬

‫‪Psalm 136:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:13‬‬

‫ויוציא || ַויּוֹ ֵ ֣צא‬

‫‪Psalm 136:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:14‬‬

‫ובאזרוע || וִּבזְ ֣רוַֹע‬

‫‪Psalm 136:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:15‬‬

‫לגוזר || ְלגזֹ ֵ ֣ר‬

‫‪Psalm 136:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:15‬‬

‫והעבר || ְוֶהֱע ִ ֣ביר‬

‫‪Psalm 136:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:16‬‬

‫פרעוה || ַפְּר ֣ע ֹה‬

‫‪Psalm 136:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 15:16‬‬

‫נער || ְו ֘נִ ֵ ֤ער‬

‫‪Psalm 136:15‬‬

‫‪4Q95 f2_3:2‬‬

‫נחל]ה || ְלנֲַח ָ ֑לה‬
‫[ׄל]נו || >‬

‫‪Psalm 136:21‬‬
‫‪Psalm 136:21‬‬

‫‪4Q95 f2_3:3‬‬

‫עמו || ַעְב ֑דּוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 136:22‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:17‬‬
‫‪11Q5 20:17‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 139‬‬
‫בבבל || ָבֶּ֗בל‬

‫‪Psalm 137:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 137:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:17‬‬

‫שְׁבנוּ‬
‫ישבו || י ָ ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 137:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:17‬‬

‫שְׁבנוּ‬
‫ישבנו || י ָ ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 137:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:1‬‬

‫עולליך || ע ָֹלַ֗לי ִ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 137:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:1‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָדִ֨וד‬

‫‪Psalm 138:1‬‬

‫אודך יהוה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 21:1 - 2‬אודכה יהוה || אוְֹד֥‪ê‬‬
‫‪1º‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:1‬‬

‫אודך יהוה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:1 - 2‬‬

‫אודכה יהוה ||‬
‫‪f1º‬אוְֹד֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:2‬‬

‫בכול || ְבָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 138:1‬‬

‫יהוה ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:2‬‬

‫נגד יהוה || ֶ֖נֶגד‬

‫‪Psalm 138:1‬‬

‫יהוה ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:2‬‬

‫נגד || ֶ֖נֶגד‬

‫‪Psalm 138:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:2‬‬

‫אלוהים || ֱא‪֣ ִ ï‬הים‬

‫‪Psalm 138:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:2‬‬

‫אזמרכה || ֲאזְַמּ ֶֽרָךּ‬

‫‪Psalm 138:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:3‬‬

‫שׁ֡‪ê‬‬
‫קודשכה || ָקְד ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 138:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:3‬‬

‫שׁ֡‪ê‬‬
‫קודשכה || ָקְד ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 138:2‬‬

‫‪4Q95 f2_3:2‬‬

‫‪172‬‬

‫ידיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:3‬‬

‫שֶׁ֗מ‪ê‬‬
‫שמכה || ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 138:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:3‬‬

‫חסדכה || ַחְסְדּ֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:3‬‬

‫אמתכה || ֲאִמ ֶ ֑תּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:4‬‬

‫הגדלתה || ִהְגַ֥דְּלָתּ‬

‫‪Psalm 138:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:4‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 138:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:4‬‬

‫שְׁמ֗‪ê‬‬
‫שמכה || ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 138:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:4‬‬

‫אמרתכה || ִאְמָר ֶ ֽת‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:5‬‬

‫תרהיבני || ַתְּרִה ֵ ֖בנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 138:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:5‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 138:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:6‬‬

‫פיכה || ִֽפי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:6‬‬

‫פיכ || ִֽפי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:8‬‬

‫בתוך || ְבּ ֶ֥קֶרב‬

‫‪Psalm 138:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:8‬‬

‫אויבי || איֹ ְַבי‬

‫‪Psalm 138:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:8‬‬

‫ידכה || י ָ ֶ ֑ד‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:9‬‬

‫ימינכה || י ְִמי ֶנ ֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:9‬‬

‫יגמור || י ְִג ֪מ ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 138:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:9‬‬

‫חסדכה || ַחְסְדּ֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 21:10‬‬

‫ידיכה || י ָ ֶ ֣די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 138:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 19:19‬‬

‫‪pr. Plea for‬‬
‫‪Deliverance‬‬
‫הנכה || ִה ֶנּ ָֽךּ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 139:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:1‬‬

‫אשאה || ֶאָ֥שּׂא‬

‫‪Psalm 139:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:1‬‬

‫שְׁכּ ֗נָה‬
‫אשכונה || ֶ֝א ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:1‬‬

‫שׁם‬
‫שם || ַגּם־ ֭ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:10‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:2‬‬

‫ידכה || י ְָד֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:10‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:2‬‬

‫ימינכה || י ְִמי ֶנ ֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:10‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:2‬‬

‫ואומרה || ֭ ָוא ַֹמר‬

‫‪Psalm 139:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:2‬‬

‫ואומרה || ֭ ָוא ַֹמר‬

‫‪Psalm 139:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:2‬‬

‫שׁ‪ì‬‬
‫חושך || ֣ח ֹ ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:3‬‬

‫אזור || ֣אוֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 139:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:3‬‬

‫אזר || ֣אוֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 139:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:3‬‬

‫בעדי || ַבֲּעֵדֽנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 139:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:3‬‬

‫שׁ֮‪ì‬‬
‫חושך || ח ֹ ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:3‬‬

‫לוא || ֽ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 139:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:1‬‬

‫שם ‪ms‬‬

‫‪173‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:3‬‬

‫יחשך || י ְַח ִ ֪שׁי‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:3‬‬

‫ממכה || ִ֫מֶ֥מּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:4‬‬

‫כחושך כאור ||‬
‫שׁיָ֗כה ָכּאוֹ ָֽרה‬
‫ַכֲּח ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:12‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:4‬‬

‫קניתה || ָק ִ ֣ניָת‬

‫‪Psalm 139:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:4‬‬

‫כליותי || ִכְלי ֹ ָ ֑תי‬

‫‪Psalm 139:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:4‬‬

‫תסוכני || ְתֻּסֵ֗כּנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 139:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:5‬‬

‫אודכה || ֽאוְֹד֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:14‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 20:5‬נורא אתה || נוָֹר֗אוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 139:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:5‬‬

‫נפלא ֯ות || ֫נְִפֵ֥ליִתי‬

‫‪Psalm 139:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:5‬‬

‫מעשיכה || ַמֲע ֶ ֑שׂי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:6‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 139:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:6‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 139:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:6‬‬

‫לוא || ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 139:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:6‬‬

‫עצבי || ָעְצִ֗מי‬

‫‪Psalm 139:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:6‬‬

‫ממכה || ִ֫מֶ֥מָּךּ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:7‬‬

‫רוקמתי || ֻרַ֗קְּמִתּי‬

‫‪Psalm 139:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:7‬‬

‫עיניכה || ֵעי ֗נֶי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:8‬‬

‫ספריכה || ִסְפְר֮‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:8‬‬

‫כולם || ֻכָּ֪לּם‬

‫‪Psalm 139:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:8‬‬

‫ולו || ְו‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 139:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:8‬‬

‫באח || ֶא ָ ֣חד‬

‫‪Psalm 139:16‬‬

‫מהם ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:9‬‬

‫מהמה || ָבֶּהֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 139:16‬‬

‫ומה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:9‬‬

‫על מה || ֶ֥מה‬

‫‪Psalm 139:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:9‬‬

‫שׁיֶהֽם‬
‫רשיהם || ָרא ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:17‬‬

‫שׁיֶהֽם‬
‫‪ 11Q5 20:9‬ראשיהם || ָרא ֵ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:17‬‬

‫‪, mss‬הקצותי ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬הקצתי‬
‫הקיצותי‬

‫‪11Q5 20:10‬‬

‫הקיצותי || ֱהִקי ֗צ ִֹתי‬

‫‪Psalm 139:18‬‬

‫ועדי ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:10‬‬

‫ועוד || ְועוֹ ִ ֥די‬

‫‪Psalm 139:18‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:10‬‬

‫עמכה || ִעָמּֽ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:18‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:11‬‬

‫תקטול || ִתְּק ֖ט ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 139:19‬‬

‫‪, mss‬כחשכה ‪mss‬‬
‫בחשכה‬

‫‪, mss‬נפלאתי ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬נפלתי‬
‫‪, ms‬נפלאתיך‬
‫נפליותי‬

‫ולו ‪mss‬‬

‫‪174‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:11‬‬

‫אלה‪ֱ || f‬א֥לוַֹהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:19‬‬

‫אלה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:11‬‬

‫אנשי || ְואַנְֵ֥שׁי‬

‫‪Psalm 139:19‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:11‬‬

‫סור || ֣סוּרוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:19‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:12‬‬

‫יאמרוך || י ֹאְמֻר‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:20‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:12‬‬

‫נשאו || נָ ֻ ֖שׂא‬

‫‪Psalm 139:20‬‬

‫שׂנְ ֶ ֖אי‪ê‬‬
‫‪ 11Q5 20:12‬משנאיכה || ְמ ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:21‬‬

‫‪,‬ובתקממך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ובתקממיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ובמתקוממיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ובמתקממיך ‪ms‬‬
‫ומתקוממיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:13‬‬

‫וממתקוממיכה ||‬
‫֝וִּבְתקוְֹמֶ֗מי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:21‬‬

‫‪,‬ובתקממך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ובתקממיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ובמתקוממיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ובמתקממיך ‪ms‬‬
‫ומתקוממיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:13‬‬

‫וממתקוממיכה ||‬
‫֝וִּבְתקוְֹמֶ֗מי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:21‬‬

‫‪,‬ובחקממך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ובחקממיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ובמחקוממיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪,‬ובמחקממיך ‪ms‬‬
‫ומחקוממיך ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:13‬‬

‫וממתקוממיכה ||‬
‫֝וִּבְתקוְֹמֶ֗מי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 139:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:15‬‬

‫לבי || ְלָב ִ ֑בי‬

‫‪Psalm 139:23‬‬

‫‪11Q5 20:15‬‬

‫שְׂרַעָפּ ֽי‬
‫סרעפי || ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 139:23‬‬

‫‪11Q5 27:12‬‬

‫‪pr. David's‬‬
‫‪Compositions‬‬
‫לדויד || ְלָד ִֽוד‬

‫‪Psalm 140:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 140:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 27:13‬‬

‫תצרני || ִתּנְְצ ֵֽרנִי‬

‫‪Psalm 140:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 27:13‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 140:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 27:14‬‬

‫היום || ֗֝יוֹם‬
‫יגׄרו ׄ || י ָ֥גוּרוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 140:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 27:14‬‬

‫עכביש || ַעְכ֑שׁוּב‬
‫שְׁמ ֵ֤רנִי‬
‫ׄשו ׄמרני || ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 140:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 22:20‬‬
‫‪11Q5 23:1‬‬

‫‪pr Psalm 93‬‬
‫רואש || ר ֹאשׁ‬

‫‪Psalm 141:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 141:5‬‬

‫‪,‬סרו ‪, mss‬סר ‪ms‬‬
‫סורי ‪ms‬‬

‫‪, ms‬סרעפי ‪mss‬‬
‫שרעפו‬

‫‪11Q5 27:12‬‬
‫‪, ms‬תצרני ‪mss‬‬
‫תנצרי ‪, ms‬תנצריני‬
‫היום ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 27:14‬‬
‫‪11Q5 27:15‬‬

‫‪175‬‬

‫‪Psalm 140:3‬‬
‫‪Psalm 140:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:1‬‬

‫רואשי || ר ֹא ִ ֑שׁי‬

‫‪Psalm 141:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:1‬‬

‫֯ותלפת ֯י || ֝וְּתִפָלִּ֗תי‬

‫‪Psalm 141:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:2‬‬

‫ברעותיהמה ||‬
‫ְבָּרעוֵֹתיֶהֽם‬

‫‪Psalm 141:5‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 23:2‬שופטיהם || שׁ ְֹפֵטי ֶ ֑הם‬

‫‪Psalm 141:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:3‬‬

‫נעימו || נֵָעֽמוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 141:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:3‬‬

‫נעמו || נֵָעֽמוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 141:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:3‬‬

‫עצמי || ֲ֝עָצֵ֗מינוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 141:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:4‬‬

‫שֽׁאוֹל‬
‫אשאול‪ְ || f‬‬

‫‪Psalm 141:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:4‬‬

‫אליכה || ֵאֶ֨לי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 141:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:4‬‬

‫אדוני || ֲאד ָנֹ ֣י‬

‫‪Psalm 141:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:5‬‬

‫שְׁמֵ֗רנִי‬
‫שמורני || ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 141:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:5‬‬

‫מיד || ִ ֣מיֵדי‬

‫‪Psalm 141:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:5‬‬

‫יקושו || ָיְ֣קשׁוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 141:9‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 23:5‬ומוקשות || וּמ ְֹק֗שׁוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 141:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:5‬‬

‫פועלי || ֣פּ ֲֹעֵלי‬

‫‪Psalm 141:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:6‬‬

‫יפולו || י ְִפּ֣לוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 141:10‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:6‬‬

‫אנוכי || אָנ ִֹ֗כי‬

‫‪Psalm 141:10‬‬

‫‪11Q6‬‬

‫אעבר ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:6‬‬

‫אעבר || ֶאֱעֽבוֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 141:10‬‬

‫‪11Q6‬‬

‫אעבר ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:6‬‬

‫אעבור || ֶאֱעֽבוֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 141:10‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 155‬‬
‫‪11Q5 24:20‬‬
‫)‪(Syriac Psalm 3‬‬
‫אביטה || ַה ֵ ֤בּיט‬
‫‪11Q5 25:1‬‬

‫‪Psalm 142:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 142:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:1‬‬

‫ואראה || וְּרֵא֮ה‬

‫‪Psalm 142:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:2‬‬

‫אליכה || ֵאֶ֗לי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 142:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:3‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 142:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:3‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֽא ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 142:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:4‬‬

‫מרודפי || ֵמר ְֹד ַ ֑פי‬

‫‪Psalm 142:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:4‬‬

‫הוצא || ֘הוֹ ִ ֤ציאָה‬

‫‪Psalm 142:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:5‬‬

‫שֶׁ֥מ‪ê‬‬
‫שמכה || ֫ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 142:8‬‬

‫‪, ms‬ויכתירוך ‪ms‬‬
‫יכתריו‬

‫‪11Q5 25:5‬‬

‫יכתירו || י ְַכ ִ ֣תּרוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 142:8‬‬

‫‪, ms‬ויכתירוך ‪ms‬‬
‫יכתריו‬

‫‪11Q5 25:5‬‬

‫יכתרו || י ְַכ ִ ֣תּרוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 142:8‬‬

‫ותפילתי ‪mss‬‬

‫עצמנו ‪mss‬‬

‫הבט ‪mss‬‬

‫‪176‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:5‬‬

‫תגמול || ִתְג ֣מ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 142:8‬‬

‫תגמול ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:6‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָ֫ד ִ֥וד‬

‫‪Psalm 143:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:6‬‬

‫שַׁ֬מע‬
‫שמעה || ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 143:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:7‬‬

‫באמונתכה ||‬
‫ֶבֱּאֻמנְָת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:7‬‬

‫באמונתכה ||‬
‫ֶבֱּאֻמנְָת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:7‬‬

‫בצדקתכה ||‬
‫ְבִּצְדָקֶתֽ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:8‬‬

‫עבדכה || ַעְב ֶ ֑דּ‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:8‬‬

‫לוא || ֽ‪ï‬א‬

‫‪Psalm 143:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:8‬‬

‫לפניכה || ְלָפ ֶ֣ני‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:8‬‬

‫כול || ָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 143:2‬‬

‫‪4Q97 f1_2:2‬‬

‫֯מ]חשכים[ ||‬
‫שִׁ֗כּים‬
‫ְבַמֲח ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 143:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:9‬‬

‫ירדוף || ָ֘ר ַ ֤דף‬

‫‪Psalm 143:3‬‬

‫דכה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:9‬‬

‫דכה || ִדּ ָ ֣כּא‬

‫‪Psalm 143:3‬‬

‫דכה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:9‬‬

‫דכא || ִדּ ָ ֣כּא‬

‫‪Psalm 143:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:10‬‬

‫כמיתי || ְכֵּמֵ֥תי‬

‫‪Psalm 143:3‬‬

‫שׁתּוֵֹ֥מם‬
‫‪ 11Q5 25:10‬וישתומם || י ִ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 143:4‬‬

‫לבבי ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:10‬‬

‫לבבי || ִלִֽבּי‬

‫‪Psalm 143:4‬‬

‫כל ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:11‬‬

‫בול || ְבָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 143:5‬‬

‫כל ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:11‬‬

‫בכול || ְבָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 143:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:11‬‬

‫פועלכה || ָפֳּע ֶ ֑ל‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:11‬‬

‫במעשי || ְֽבַּמֲע ֵ ֖שׂה‬

‫‪Psalm 143:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:11‬‬

‫ידיכה || י ָ ֶ ֣די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:12‬‬

‫אשיחה || ֲאשׂוֹ ֵ ֽחַח‬

‫‪Psalm 143:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:12‬‬

‫א]ליכ[ׄה || ֵא ֶ ֑לי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:6‬‬

‫בארץ ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:12‬‬

‫בארץ || ְכֶּאֶֽרץ‬

‫‪Psalm 143:6‬‬

‫‪, mss‬עפה ‪ms‬‬
‫עייפה‬

‫‪11Q5 25:12‬‬

‫יעפה || ֲעי ֵ ָ ֖פה‬

‫‪Psalm 143:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:12‬‬

‫עיפה || ֲעי ֵ ָ ֖פה‬

‫‪Psalm 143:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:12‬‬

‫לכה || ְל֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:6‬‬

‫במעשי ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬אשחח ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, ms‬אשחוחח‬
‫אשיחח‬

‫‪177‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:13‬‬

‫פניכה || ָפּ ֶ֣ני‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:14‬‬

‫בבוקר || ַב ֨בּ ֶֹקר‬

‫‪Psalm 143:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:14‬‬

‫חסדכה || ַחְסֶדּ֮‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 25:15‬‬

‫אליכה || ֵאֶלי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 143:8‬‬

‫)לדוד( > ‪mss‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 133‬‬
‫‪11Q5 23:12‬‬
‫‪pr. Psalm 133‬‬
‫‪11Q6 f7a_e:6‬‬
‫‪ 11Q5 23:12‬ברוך || ְלָדִ֨וד ׀ ָ֘בּ ֤רוּ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 144:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 144:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 144:1‬‬

‫)לדוד( > ‪mss‬‬

‫‪ 11Q6 f7a_e:6‬ברוך || ְלָדִ֨וד ׀ ָ֘בּ ֤רוּ‪ì‬‬

‫‪Psalm 144:1‬‬

‫‪11Q6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:12‬‬

‫המלד || ַהְֽמַל ֵ ֣מּד‬

‫‪Psalm 144:1‬‬

‫‪11Q6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:12‬‬

‫המלמד || ַהְֽמַל ֵ ֣מּד‬

‫‪Psalm 144:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:12‬‬

‫ואצבעותי ||‬
‫‪ֶ֝°‬אְצְבּעוַֹ֗תי‬

‫‪Psalm 144:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:13‬‬

‫ומפלט || ֽוְּמַפְלִ֫טי‬

‫‪Psalm 144:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:14‬‬

‫עמים‪ַ || f‬ע ִ ֣מּי‬

‫‪Psalm 144:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:14‬‬

‫אלוהים || ְי ֽהָ֗וה‬

‫‪Psalm 144:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:15‬‬

‫ותחושבהו ||‬
‫שֵּׁבֽהוּ‬
‫ַו ְֽתַּח ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 144:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:15‬‬

‫וימיו || ֝י ָָ֗מיו‬

‫‪Psalm 144:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:15‬‬

‫אלוהים || ֭ י ְהָוה‬

‫‪Psalm 144:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:16‬‬

‫שׁ ֶ ֣מי‪ê‬‬
‫שמיכה || ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 144:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:16‬‬

‫ורד || ְוֵת ֵ֑רד‬

‫‪Psalm 144:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:16‬‬

‫ברק || ְבּ ֣רוֹק‬
‫חצי ׄׄכׄה || ִחֶ֗צּי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 144:6‬‬
‫‪Psalm 144:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:17‬‬

‫ידי[ׄכה || י ֶָ֗די‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 144:7‬‬

‫שׁי ֲה ָ֥וה‬
‫‪ 11Q5 24:1‬אשר יהוה || ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 144:15‬‬

‫אלוהיו || ֱא‪ָï‬הֽיו‬

‫‪Psalm 144:15‬‬

‫‪pr Catena 11Q5 11Q5 16:7‬‬
‫תפלה || ְתִּהָ֗לּה‬
‫‪11Q5 16:7‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 145:1‬‬

‫לדויד || ְלָ֫ד ִ֥וד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:1‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 16:7‬ארוממכה || ֲארוִֹמְמ֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:1‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 16:7‬יהוה אלוהי || ֱאלוֹ ַ ֣הי‬

‫‪Psalm 145:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:7‬‬

‫אלוהי || ֱאלוֹ ַ ֣הי‬

‫‪Psalm 145:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:8‬‬

‫שְׁמ֗‪ê‬‬
‫שמכה || ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:1‬‬

‫‪,‬ואצבעותיי ‪ms‬‬
‫‪,‬ואצבעותי ‪mss‬‬
‫ואצבעתי ‪mss‬‬
‫עמים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 23:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 24:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:7‬‬

‫‪178‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:8 - 9‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:9‬‬

‫ברוך || ְבָּכל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:9‬‬

‫אברככה || ֲאָבֲר ֶ ֑כָךּ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:9‬‬

‫שְׁמ֗‪ê‬‬
‫שמכה || ִ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:2‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 16:10 - 9‬ברוך יהוה שמו ||‪>f‬‬
‫לעולם ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:10 - 9‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:2‬‬

‫ומהולל ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:10‬‬

‫והולל || וְּמֻה ָ ֣לּל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:3‬‬

‫ומהולל ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:10‬‬

‫ומהולל || וְּמֻה ָ ֣לּל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:10‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:10‬‬

‫מואדה || ְמ ֑א ֹד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:3‬‬

‫לגדולתו ‪mss‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 16:11‬לגדולתו || ְ֝וִלגְֻדָלּ֗תוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:3‬‬

‫לגדולתו ‪mss‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 16:11‬לגדולתו || ְ֝וִלגְֻדָלּ֗תוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:11‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:3‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:12‬‬

‫שׁ ַ ֣בּח‬
‫ישבחו || י ְ ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:12‬‬

‫מעשיכה || ַמֲע ֶ ֑שׂי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:12‬‬

‫וגבורתיכה ||‬
‫וְּג֖בוּר ֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:12 - 13‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:13‬‬

‫הודכה || הוֹ ֶ ֑ד‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:13‬‬

‫ידברו || ְוִדְב ֵ֖רי‬

‫‪Psalm 145:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:13‬‬

‫ונפלאותיכה ||‬
‫נְִפְלאוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:13‬‬

‫ונפלאותיכה ||‬
‫נְִפְלאוֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:14‬‬

‫אשיח‪ָ ||f‬אִֽשׂיָחה‬

‫‪Psalm 145:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:14‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:5‬‬

‫‪179‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:15‬‬

‫נוראותיכה ||‬
‫נוְֹרא ֹ ֶ ֣תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:15‬‬

‫יואמרו || י ֹא ֵ ֑מרוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:6‬‬

‫‪, mss‬וגדלתיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬וגדולתך‬
‫וגדולתיך‬

‫‪11Q5 16:15‬‬

‫וגדולתיכה ||‬
‫וּגְדוּ‪ֶº‬תי‪] ê‬וּ[‬
‫]]ְגדוָּלְּת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:6‬‬

‫‪, mss‬וגדלתיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬וגדולתך‬
‫וגדולתיך‬

‫‪11Q5 16:15‬‬

‫וגדולותיכה ||‬
‫וּגְדוּ‪ֶº‬תי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:6‬‬

‫‪, mss‬וגדלתיך ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬וגדולתך‬
‫וגדולתיך‬

‫‪11Q5 16:15‬‬

‫וגדולותיכה ||‬
‫וּגְדוּ‪ֶº‬תי‪] ê‬וּ[‬
‫]]ְגדוָּלְּת֥‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:6‬‬

‫אספרינה ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:15‬‬

‫אספר || ֲאַסְפּ ֶֽרנָּה‬

‫‪Psalm 145:6‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫‪11Q5 16:15 - 16‬‬
‫]וברוך ש[ׄמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 16:16‬‬

‫טובכה || טוְּב֣‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:1‬‬

‫וברוך שמו ||‪>f‬‬
‫לעולם ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:12‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 17:1‬מלכותכה || ַמְֽלכוְּת֗‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:1‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:1‬‬

‫עולמים || ֽע ָֹל ִ ֑מים‬

‫‪Psalm 145:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:1‬‬

‫וממשלתכה ||‬
‫שְׁלְתּ֗‪ê‬‬
‫וֶּמְֽמ ֶ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:2‬‬

‫בכול || ְבָּכל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:13‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 17:2 - 3‬נאמן אלוהים || >‬
‫בדבריו וחסיד בכול‬
‫מעשיו‬

‫‪Psalm 145:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:3 - 4‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:13‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:4‬‬

‫לכול || ְלָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:4‬‬

‫הנופלים || ַהנּ ְֹפ ִ ֑לים‬

‫‪Psalm 145:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:4‬‬

‫‪f2º‬לכול || ְלָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:5‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:14‬‬

‫נאמן יהוה בכל ‪ms‬‬
‫דברין וחסיד בכל‬
‫מעשיו‬

‫‪180‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:6‬‬

‫כול || כ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:6‬‬

‫אליכה || ֵא ֶ ֣לי‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫נתן ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:6‬‬

‫נתן || נֽוֵֹתן‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫נתן ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:6‬‬

‫נותן || נֽוֵֹתן‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫לכם ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:6‬‬

‫להמה || ָל ֶ ֖הם‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫> ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:6‬‬

‫> || ֶאת‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫> ‪ms‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:6‬‬

‫את || ֶאת‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:6‬‬

‫אוכלמה || אְָכ ָ ֣לם‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:6‬‬

‫אוכלמה || אְָכ ָ ֣לם‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:7 - 6‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:15‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:7‬‬

‫פותח אתה || פּוֵֹ֥תַח‬

‫‪Psalm 145:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:8‬‬

‫ידכה || י ָ ֶ ֑ד‪ê‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:8‬‬

‫לכול || ְלָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:8 - 9‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:9‬‬

‫בכול || ְבָּכל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:9‬‬

‫‪f2º‬בכול || ְבָּכל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:16‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:10‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:17‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:10‬‬

‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד || ְלָכל־ק ְֹר ָ ֑איו‬
‫ְל ֤כ ֹל ֲא ֶ ֖שׁר‬

‫‪Psalm 145:18‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:11‬‬

‫יקראוהו || י ְִקָרֻ֣אהוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:18‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:11‬‬

‫באמונה || ֶבֱאֶמֽת‬

‫‪Psalm 145:18‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:11‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:18‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:12‬‬

‫שְׁוָעָ֥תם‬
‫שועתמה || ַ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:19‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:13‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:19‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:14‬‬

‫‪f2º‬כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:20‬‬

‫‪181‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:14‬‬

‫יראיו || א ֲֹה ָ ֑ביו‬

‫‪Psalm 145:20‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:14‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:20‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:15‬‬

‫ברוך יהוה ||‪>f‬‬
‫וברוך שמו לעולם‬
‫ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:20‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:16‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:16‬‬

‫שׂר‬
‫בׄשׄר את || ָ֭בּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:16‬‬

‫קודשו || ָקְד֗שׁוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 145:21‬‬

‫ואנחנו נברך ‪11Q5 17:16 - 17 mss‬‬
‫יה מעתה ועד עולם‬
‫הללו יה‬

‫ברוך ||‪ְf‬לעוָֹ֥לם ָוֶעֽד‬
‫יהוה וברוך שמו‬
‫לעולם ועד‬

‫‪Psalm 145:21‬‬

‫‪11Q5 17:17‬‬

‫זואת לזכרון ||‪>f‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:21‬‬

‫‪֯ 11Q5 17:18‬ל][֯ל] ‪֯[ --‬ל] ‪[ -- ]-‬‬
‫|| ] ‪֯[ -[ --‬ל‬

‫‪Psalm 145:21‬‬

‫‪Short‬‬
‫?‪11Q5 17:18-20‬‬
‫‪composition‬‬
‫‪preceding Psalm‬‬
‫‪154‬‬
‫‪pr. Psalm 105‬‬
‫‪4Q87 f18ii‬‬
‫‪+20_24:8‬‬
‫‪pr. Psalm 105‬‬
‫?‪11Q5 17:17‬‬
‫‪ 4Q87 f18ii‬הללויה || ַהְֽללוּ־ ֡י ָהּ‬
‫‪+20_24:8‬‬
‫‪ || >f1°‬י ְה ָ֤וה‬
‫‪4Q521 f2ii+4:8‬‬

‫‪Psalm 145:21‬‬

‫‪Psalm 146:8‬‬

‫פוקח ‪4Q521 f2ii+4:8 mss‬‬

‫פוקח || ֘פּ ֵֹ֤קַח‬

‫‪Psalm 146:8‬‬

‫‪4Q521 f2ii+4:8‬‬

‫‪ || >f2°‬י ְהָוה‬

‫‪Psalm 146:8‬‬

‫זוקף ‪4Q521 f2ii+4:8 mss‬‬

‫זוקף || ז ֵֹ֣קף‬

‫‪Psalm 146:8‬‬

‫מיהוה כול ||‪>f‬‬
‫‪11Q5 2:2 - 4‬‬
‫הארץ ממנ]ו יגורו‬
‫כול יושבי תבל ‪[ --‬‬
‫בהודעו לכול מעשיו‬
‫ברא] ‪ [--‬גבורותיו‬

‫‪Psalm 146:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:4‬‬

‫ימלוך || י ְִמ֤‪ìï‬‬

‫‪Psalm 146:10‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:5‬‬

‫ודור || ָו ֗ד ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 146:10‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:5‬‬

‫הללויה || ַהְֽללוּ־ָי ֽהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 146:10‬‬

‫‪4Q86 1:6‬‬
‫‪11Q5 fEii:16‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 106‬‬
‫‪pr. Psalm 104‬‬

‫‪Psalm 147:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 147:1‬‬

‫בשר את ‪mss‬‬

‫‪182‬‬

‫‪Psalm 146:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 146:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 146:1‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 104‬‬

‫‪4Q87 f16ii:‬‬
‫‪10-11‬‬
‫‪] 4Q86 1:6‬הללו[ ֯יה || ַ֥הְללוּ ֨י ָהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 147:1‬‬

‫‪ 4Q86 1:6‬אלהינו || ֱא‪֑ ֵ ï‬הינוּ ִֽכּי‬

‫‪Psalm 147:1‬‬

‫֯נ֯א]וה זמרה[ ||‪>f‬‬
‫]אל[֯ה]י[נׄו‬
‫נאו֯ה נעים תהלׄה ||‬
‫נִָעים נָא ָ֥וה ְתִהָלּ ֽה‬

‫‪Psalm 147:1‬‬

‫‪4Q86 1:6 - 7‬‬
‫‪4Q86 1:7‬‬

‫‪Psalm 147:1‬‬

‫שׁ ַ ִ֣לם‬
‫‪ 11Q5 fEii:16‬ירושלים || י ְרוּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 147:2‬‬

‫‪4Q86 1:9‬‬

‫ל]ע[֯צבתם] ||‬
‫ְלַעְצּבוָֹתֽם‬
‫ו ׄחלב || ֵ֥חֶלב‬

‫‪Psalm 147:3‬‬
‫‪Psalm 147:14‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:6‬‬

‫חוקיו || ֻחָ֥קּיו‬

‫‪Psalm 147:19‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:7‬‬

‫משפטים ||‬
‫שָׁפּ ִ ֥טים‬
‫וִּמ ְ‬

‫‪Psalm 147:20‬‬

‫‪11Q5 fEiii:7‬‬

‫הודיעם || י ְָד֗עוּם‬

‫‪Psalm 147:20‬‬

‫‪[ 4Q86 2:10‬ה֯ללויה || ַהְֽללוּ־ָי ֽהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 147:20‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:5‬‬
‫‪11Q5 2:5‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 146‬‬
‫הללו[ ||‪ַ֥f‬הְללוּ ֨י ָהּ‬
‫]יה‬

‫‪Psalm 148:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 148:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:6‬‬

‫יהוה || ֶאת ֭־י ְהָוה‬

‫‪Psalm 148:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:6‬‬

‫שּׁ ַ ֑מי ִם‬
‫|| ִמן־ַה ָ‬
‫משמים‪f‬‬

‫‪Psalm 148:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:6‬‬

‫שּׁ ַ ֑מי ִם‬
‫|| ִמן־ַה ָ‬
‫משמים‪f‬‬

‫‪Psalm 148:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:7‬‬

‫כול || ָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 148:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:8‬‬

‫כול || ָכּל‬

‫‪Psalm 148:3‬‬

‫שָּׁמֽי ִם‬
‫‪ 11Q5 2:9‬מעל‪ֵ ||f‬מַ֬על ַה ָ‬
‫לשמים‬

‫‪Psalm 148:4‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:9‬‬

‫הללו || ֭ י ְַֽהְֽללוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 148:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:12‬‬

‫תהומות || ְתּה ֹֽמוֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 148:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:13‬‬

‫עושה || ע ָֹ֥שׂה‬
‫וכוׄל || ְוָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 148:8‬‬

‫‪4Q86 2:2‬‬
‫‪4Q86‬‬

‫‪Psalm 147:1‬‬

‫> ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:13‬‬

‫‪183‬‬

‫‪Psalm 148:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:14‬‬

‫וכול || ְוָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 148:10‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:15‬‬

‫וכול || ְוָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 148:11‬‬

‫‪11Q5 2:15‬‬

‫לאומים || ְלֻא ִ ֑מּים‬

‫‪Psalm 148:11‬‬

‫?‪11Q5 2:20‬‬
‫‪11Q5 26:1‬‬

‫‪pr. Psalm 143‬‬
‫בגויים || ַבּגּוִֹי֑ם‬

‫‪Psalm 149:1‬‬
‫‪Psalm 149:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:1‬‬

‫תוכחות || ֽתּוֵֹכ ֗ח ֹת‬

‫‪Psalm 149:7‬‬

‫בלאומים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:1‬‬

‫בלאומים ||‬
‫ַבּל־ֻאִֽמּים‬

‫‪Psalm 149:7‬‬

‫בלאומים ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:1‬‬

‫בלאומים ||‬
‫ַבּל־ֻאִֽמּים‬

‫‪Psalm 149:7‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:1‬‬

‫לאסור || ֶלְא ֣ס ֹר‬

‫‪Psalm 149:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:2‬‬

‫ונכבדיהםה ||‬
‫ְונְִכְבֵּדיֶ֗הם‬

‫‪Psalm 149:8‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:3‬‬

‫לכול || ְלָכל‬

‫‪Psalm 149:9‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:3‬‬

‫לבני ישראל עם‬
‫|| קודשו‬

‫‪Psalm 149:9‬‬

‫הללו אל ‪mss‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 26:4‬הללו אל || ַ֥הְללוּ ֨י ָהּ‬
‫׀ ַהְֽללוּ־ֵ֥אל‬

‫‪Psalm 150:1‬‬

‫הללו אל ‪mss‬‬

‫‪ Mas1f 2:16‬הללו אל || ַ֥הְללוּ ֨י ָהּ‬
‫׀ ַהְֽללוּ־ֵ֥אל‬

‫‪Psalm 150:1‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:4‬‬

‫בקודשו || ְבָּקְד֑שׁוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 150:1‬‬

‫עוזו ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:4‬‬

‫עוזו || ֻעזּֽוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 150:1‬‬

‫‪, mss‬בדברתין ‪mss‬‬
‫‪, mss‬בגבורותיו‬
‫בגבורותו‬

‫‪11Q5 26:4‬‬

‫בגבורותיו ||‬
‫ִבְגבוּר ֹ ָ ֑תיו‬

‫‪Psalm 150:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:5‬‬

‫כרוב || ְכּ ֣ר ֹב‬

‫‪Psalm 150:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:5‬‬

‫גודלו || ֻגְּדֽלוֹ‬

‫‪Psalm 150:2‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:5‬‬
‫שפר ‪ms‬‬

‫‪Mas1f 2:19‬‬

‫בתקוע || ְבּ ֵ ֣תַקע‬
‫שׄפ֯ר || שׁוֹ ָ ֑פר‬

‫‪Psalm 150:3‬‬
‫‪Psalm 150:3‬‬

‫בתוף ‪mss‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:6‬‬

‫בתוף || ְב ֣ת ֹף‬

‫‪Psalm 150:4‬‬

‫הללהו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪Mas1f 2:22‬‬

‫הללהו || ַהְֽל֥לוּהוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 150:5‬‬

‫הללהו ‪ms‬‬

‫‪Mas1f 2:23‬‬

‫הללהו || ַהְֽל֗לוּהוּ‬

‫‪Psalm 150:5‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:7‬‬

‫כול || ֣כּ ֹל‬

‫‪Psalm 150:6‬‬

‫‪11Q5 26:7‬‬

‫שָׁמה‬
‫הנשמות || ַ֭הנְּ ָ‬

‫‪Psalm 150:6‬‬

‫‪ 11Q5 26:8‬תהלליה || ְתַּהֵ֥לּל ֗י ָהּ‬

‫‪Psalm 150:6‬‬

‫לבני ישראל עם ‪ms‬‬
‫קרובו‬

‫‪184‬‬

Psalm 150:6

‫הללויה || ַהְֽללוּ־ָי ֽהּ‬

11Q5 26:8

Psalm 150:6

+ 6 or 7
compositions

11Q5 26:8

185

mss ‫הללויה‬

WORKS CONSULTED
Abegg, Martin G. Jr. “The Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Hebrew Syntax,” Pages
163–172 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection. Edited by K. S.
Baek, J. Duhaime, and Peter W. Flint. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.
_______. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Their Contribution to the Study of Hebrew and Aramaic,”
Pages 127–139 in volume 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea
Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. 2 vols. Edited by Emanuel
Tov, W. Weigold, and Armin Lange. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 140. Leiden:
Brill, 2011.
_______. “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Pages 325–358 in volume 1 of The Dead Sea
Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. 2 vols. Edited by Peter W. Flint
and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
_______. “The Linguistic Analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls: More than (Initially) Meets the
Eye,” Pages 48–68 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New
Approaches and Methods. Edited by M. L. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
_______. “Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls,” Pages 25–41 in Qumran Cave 1: The Isaiah
Scrolls: Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants. Edited by Peter W.
Flint and Eugene Ulrich. Discoveries of the Judaean Desert XXXII. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 2010.
Abegg, Martin G Jr., Peter W. Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest
Known Bible Translated for the First Time in English. San Francisco: Harper San
Francisco, 1999.
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint.” ZAW
99 (1987): 58–89.
Albright, W. F. “New Light on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 140–146 in
Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and
Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.
Amaru, Betsy Halpern. Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish
Literature. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994.
Aragon, Louis, and Louis Hay. Essais de Critique Génétique. Paris: Flammarion, 1979.

186

Audi, Robert. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Avigad, Nahman. “The Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Documents,” Pages
56–87 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958.
Baker, David W. “Further Examples of the Waw Explicativum.” VT 30 (1980), 129–136.
Bar-Asher, Moshe. “A Few Remarks on Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic in Qumran Hebrew,”
Pages 12–19 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on
the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John
F. Elwode. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Barr, James. “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.” Journal of Theological Studies 30/1 (1979): 212–
16.
_______. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament: with Additions and
Corrections. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987.
_______. The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible. The Schweich Lectures 1996.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Beegle, Dewey M. “Ligatures with Waw and Yodh in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Bulletin of
American Schools of Oriental Research 129 (1953), 11–14.
Benskin M. and M. Laing, “Translations and Mischsprachen in Middle English Manuscripts,” in
So meny people longages and tonges: Philological Essays in Scots and Mediaeval English
Presented to Angus McIntosh. ed. M. Benskin and M. L. Samuels; Edinburgh: The Middle
English Dialect Project, 1981, 55–106.
Bernstein, Moshe J. “Re-Arrangement, Anticipation and Harmonization as Exegetical Features
in the Genesis Apocryphon.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996), 37–57.
_______. “Rewritten Bible: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness.” Textus 22
(2005), 169–96.
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language
Structure and Use, Cambridge Approaches to Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998.

187

Birnbaum, Solomon A. “The Dates of the Cave Scrolls.” Bulletin of American Schools of
Oriential Research 115 (1951), 20–22.
_______. “How Old Are the Cave-Manuscripts? A Palaeographical Discussion.” VT 1 (1951),
91–109.
_______. The Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls and Palaeography. Bulletin of American Schools of
Oriental Research. New Haven, CT: American School of Oriental Research, 1952.
Blau, Joshua. “A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Pages 20–25 in
Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwode.
Leiden: Brill, 1999.
_______. “Remarks on the Development of Some Pronominal Suffixes in Hebrew.” Hebrew
Annual Review 6 (1982), 61–67.
Block, Yigal. “From Linguistics to Text-Criticism and Back. WAYYIQṬŌL Constructions with
Long Prefixed Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 48 (2007), 141–170.
Brooke, George J. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction Between Higher and
Lower Criticism,” Pages 26–42 in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the
Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003. Edited by Lloyd
Pietersen, William John Lyons, and Johnathan G. Campbell. Library of Second Temple
Studies 52. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
_______. “The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical
Variants?” Pages 85–100 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of
William Hugh Brownlee. Edited by Craig A. Evans and William F. Stinesspring. Sheffield:
Scholars Press, 1987.
_______. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. Old Testament Supplement
Series 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985.
_______. “The Rewritten law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the
Bible,” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and Judaean Desert
Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London; New Castle, DE:
The British Library: Oak Knoll Pres, 2002.
Brooke, George J. and Martínez, Florentino García. New Qumran Texts and Studies:
Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies,
Paris, 1992. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

188

Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: a Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1994.
Broyles, Craig C, and Craig A Evans. Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an
Interpretive Tradition. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997.
Bryant, John. The Fluid Text: a Theory of Revision and Editing for Book and Screen / John
Bryant. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002.
Burrows, Millar. “The Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental
Research 122 (1948), 16–24.
Carr, David McLain. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: a New Reconstruction. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2011.
_______. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford; New
York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Chiesa, Bruno. “Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old Testament.” Pages
257–72 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings to the International Congress on
the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and
Luis Vegas Montaner. Studies on the Texts of the Judaean Desert 12. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Chyutin, Michael. “The Redaction of the Qumranic and the Traditional Book of Psalms as a
Calendar.” Revue de Qumran 16, no. 3 (December 1, 1994): 367–95.
Clines, David J. A., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1993.
Cook Johann. “The Orthography of Some Verbal Forms in 1QIsa(a),” Pages 133–147 in New
Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International
Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and
George J. Brooke. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008.
Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran. 3rd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,
1995.

189

_______. “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Canonical Text,” Pages 93–104 in The
Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Volume 1: The Hebrew Bible and Qumran. Proceedings of
the Jubilee Celebration at Princeton Theological Seminary. 2 vols. Edited by James H.
Charlesworth. N. Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2000.
_______. “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text,” Pages
278–292 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Cross, Frank Moore,
and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.
_______. “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts.” Pages 306–320 in Qumran and the
History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Shemaryahu Talmon and Frank Moore Cross.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.
_______. “The Fixation of the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” From Epic to Canon: History and
Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
_______. “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of the Discoveries in the Judaean
Desert.” Harvard Theological Review, 57 (1964), 281–299.
_______. “New Directions in Dead Sea Scrolls Research: The Text Behind the Text of the
Hebrew Bible.” Biblical Research. 1 (1985), 12–25.
_______. “Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 31–55 in
The Critical Study of Sacred Texts. Berkeley, CA: Graduate Theological Union, 1979.
_______, “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies,” in of The Madrid Qumran
Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–
21 March, 1991. (2 vols. Edited by Luis Vegas Montaner and Julio Trebolle Barrera.
Leiden: Brill, 1992), 6–7.
_______. “The Stabilization of the Canon of the Hebrew Bible,” From Epic to Canon: History
and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
Dahmen, Ulrich. Psalmen- Und Psalter-Rezeption Im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion,
Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11Qpsa aus Qumran. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
Dahood, Mitchell J. Psalms 1: 1–50. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966.
Dahood, Mitchell J. Psalms 3. New York: Doubleday, 1970.

190

Davila, James R. “Orthography.” Pages 625–628 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford:
Oxford Universitry Press. 2000.
Debel, Hans. “Greek “Variant Literary Editions” to the Hebrew Bible?” Journal for the Study of
Judaism 41/2 (2010): 161–190.
Donceel, Robert, and P. Donceel-Voûte. “The Archaeology of Khirbet Qumran.” Methods of
Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. New York: New
York Academy of Sciences, 1994: 1–38.
Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York: Meridian
Books, 1956.
Ehrensvärd, Martin. “Why Biblical Texts Cannot be Dated Linguistically.” Hebrew Studies 47
(2006), 177–189.
Eldwolde, John F. “Distinguishing the Linguistic and Exegetical: the Biblical Book of Numbers
in the Damascus Document.” Dead Sea Discoveries 7/1 (2000); 1–25.
_______. “The Hodayot’s use of the Psalter: Text-critical Contributions (Book 3: Pss 73-89).”
Dead Sea Discoveries 17/2 (2010): 159–79.
Eskhult, Mats. “Relative ha-: A Late Biblical Hebrew Phenomenon,” Pages 47–56 in Hebrew in
the Second Temple Period. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 108. Leiden: Brill,
2013.
_______. “Traces of Linguistic Development in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 46 (2005),
353–370.
Eskhult, Mats, Jan Joosten and Jean-Sébastien Rey. “Some Aspects of the Verbal System in
Qumran Hebrew,” Pages 29–46 in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language
of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew
of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 73. Leiden,
Brill, 2008.
Everett, Rogers, M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 2005.
Fassberg, Steven E. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Language of Jewish Scripture,” Pages 129–
136 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Shani Tzoref, Kristen

191

De Troyer, Armin Lange, and Nóra Dávid. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 239. Göttingen, Vandenhoech & Ruprecht, 2011.
_______. “Dead Sea Scrolls: Linguistic Features.” Kahn, Geoffrey., ed. Encyclopedia of Hebrew
Language and Linguistics. Brill Online, 2013.
_______. “The Infinitive Absolute as Finite Verb and Standard Literary Hebrew of the Second
Temple,” Pages 47–60 in Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Langauge of the
Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium of the Dead Sea
Scrolls & Ben Sira Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. Studies on the Texts of
the Desert of Judah 73. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
_______. “The Syntax of the Biblical Documents from the Judaean Desert as Reflected in a
Comparison of the Multiple Copies of Biblical Texts,” Pages 94–109 in Diggers at the
Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Ben Sira. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: 2000.
Fernández Marcos, Natalio. “Rewritten Bible or Imitatio? The Vestments of the High-Priest.”
Pages 321–36 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint presented to
Eugene Ulrich. Boston: Brill, 2006.
_______. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Boston:
Brill, 2000.
Fernández-Ordóñez Hernández, I. “Transmisión manuscrita y transformación ‘discursiva’ de los
textos.” Pages 3033–45 in vol. 3 of Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la
Lengua Española. Edited by J. J. de Bustos Tovar and J. L. Girón Alconchel. 3 vols.
Madrid: Arco/Libros, 2006.
Field, Frederick. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. sive Veterum interpretum Graecorum in
totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta Tomus I–II. Oxford, Clarendon, 1875.
Flint, Peter W. “The Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Vetus Testamentum
48/4 (1998): 453–72.
_______. “The Contribution of the Cave 4 Psalms Scrolls to the Psalms Debate.” Dead Sea
Discoveries 5/3 (1998): 320–33.
_______. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997.

192

_______. “Variant readings and textual affiliation in the Hebrew University Isaiah scroll from
Cave One (1QIsab).” Pages 33–53 in Qumran Cave 1 Revisited. Leiden: Boston: Brill,
2010.
Flint, Peter W., and T’ae-hun Kim. The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Flint, Peter W, Patrick D Miller, Aaron Brunell, and Ryan Roberts. The Book of Psalms:
Composition and Reception. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005.
Fox, Michael V. “Editing Proverbs: The Challenge of the Oxford Hebrew Bible.” Journal of
Northwest Semitic Languages 32 (2006): 1-22.
_______.. “‘How The Peshitta of Proverbs Uses the Septuagint.’” Journal of Northwest Semitic
Languages 39 (2013) 37–52.
_______. “‘Text Criticism and Literary Criticism’ in Built by Wisdom, Established by
Understanding”: Essays in Honor of Adele Berlin. College Park, MD: University of
Maryland, 2013.
Freedman, David Noel. “The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: a Study in Orthography,”
Pages 196–211 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore
Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambrige, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1975.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. Genesius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E.
Cowley. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2006.
Ginsburg, Christian D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible.
New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1966.
Geach, Peter T., “Ontological Relativity and Relative Identity”, in M. K. Munitz, ed., Logic and
Ontology, New York: New York University Press, 1973.
_______. Reference and Generality. 3rd ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980.
Gooding, D. W. “An Appeal for a Stricker Terminology in the Textual Criticism of the Old
Testament.” Journal of Semitic Studies 21/1-2 (1976): 15–25.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe. The Book of Isaiah: Sample Edition with Introduction. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1965.

193

_______. “The Development of the Hebrew Text of the BibleΩ: Theories and Practice of Textual
Criticism.” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 2 (April 1, 1992): 204–13.
_______. “Editions of the Hebrew Bible - Past and Future.” Pages 221–42 in Shaʻarei Talmon.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
_______. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition.”
Pages 42–89 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross
and Talmon Shemaryahu. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.
_______. “The Textual Criticism of the Old TestamentΩ: Rise, Decline, Rebirth.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 102, no. 3 (September 1, 1983): 365–99.
_______. “Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint.”
Textus 3 (1963), 132.
Greg, Walter W. “The Rationale of the Copy Text,” Studies in Biography 3 (1950-51): 19–36.
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. The Powers of Philology: Dynamics of Textual Scholarship. Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press, 2003.
Hendel, Ronald. “Assessing the Text-Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 281–302 in
The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lim, Timothy H, and John J
Collins. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
_______. “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition.” Vetus Testamentum
58 (2008): 324–51.
_______. The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
Hale, Mark. Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Halliday, M. A. K. “Anti-Languages.” American Anthropologist 78/3 (1976), 570–584.
Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Hiebert, Robert J. V., Claude E Cox, Peter John Gentry, and Albert Pietersma. The Old Greek
Psalter Studies In Honour of Albert Pietersma. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

194

Hobbes, Thomas. De Corpore Politico, Or, The Elements of Law Moral & Politick with
Discourses upon Several Heads, as of the Law of Nature, Oathes and Covenants, Several
Kinds of Government: With the Changes and Revolutions of Them. London: Printed by
Tho. Roycroft for John Martin, 1652.
Holmstedt, Robert D. “Issues in the Linguistic Analysis of a Dead Language, with Particular
Reference to Ancient Hebrew.” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 6/11 (2006) http://
www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_61.pdf:
_______. “Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,” Pages 97–124 in Diachrony in Biblical
Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. Linguistic Studies in Ancient
West Semitic 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
_______. “The Nexus Between Text Criticism and Linguistics: A Case Study from Leviticus.”
JBL 132/3 (2013), 473–494.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, Erich Zenger, Linda M Maloney, and Klaus Baltzer. Psalms 3: a
Commentary on Psalms 101-150. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011.
Howard, George E. “Frank Cross and Recensional Criticism.” Vetus Testamentum 21/4 (1971),
440–50.
Hulle, Dirk van. Textual Awareness: A Genetic Study of Late Manuscripts by Joyce, Proust, and
Mann. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Hurvitz, Avi. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of “Aramaisms” in
Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible, Pages 24–37 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in
Chronology and Typology. Edited by Ian Young. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplements Series 369. London: T&T Clark, 2003.
_______. “The Historical Question for ‘Ancient Israel’ and the Linguistic Evidence of the
Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations.” Vetus Testamentum XLVII/3 (1997),
301–315.
_______. “The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Expersts’ Opinions, and
Inconclusive Arguments.” Hebrew Studies 47 (2006), 191–210.
_______. The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-exilic Hebrew and Its
Implications for the Dating of Psalms. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972.

195

Jacobs, Jarod T. “A Comprehensive Analysis of the Conjunction Waw in the Biblical Dead Sea
Scrolls Variants and Their Implications.” MA Thesis. Trinity Western University, 2008.
Johnson, William A. “Toward a Sociology of Reading in Classical Antiquity.” The American
Journal of Philology 121, no. 4 (December 1, 2000): 593–627.
Joosten, Jan. “The Distinction Between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in
Syntax.” Hebrew Studies 46 (2005), 327–39.
_______. “Imperative Clauses Containing a Temporal Phrase and the Study of Diachronic
Syntax in Ancient Hebrew.” Pages 117–132. in Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The
Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Contemporary Sources. Edited by Eibert
Tigchelaar and George Brook. Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah 108. Leiden:
Brill, 2013.
_______. “Language as Symptom: Linguistic Clues as to the Social Background of the Seventy.”
Textus 23 (2007).
Joüon, Paul and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated by T. Muraoka. 2 vols.
Subsidia Biblical 15. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2005.
Kahle, Paul. The Cairo Geniza. Oxford: Blackwell, 1959.
Kahn, Geoffrey. “Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Background of Masoretic Text.” Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Brill Online, 2013.
Kennicott, Benjamin. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum Cum Variis Lectionibus, 2 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon), 1778–80.
Kittel, Rudolf. Über die Notwendigkeit und Möglichkeit einer Neuen Ausgabe der Hebräischen
Bibel; Studien und Erwägungen. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1902.
Kim, Dong-Hyuk. Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability.
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 156. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
_______. “Free Orthography in a Stict Society: Reconsidering Tov’s “Qumran Orthography.”
Dead Sea Discovering 11/1 (2004): 72–81.
Klein, Ralph W. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: the Septuagint after Qumran.
Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1974.

196

Knohl, Israel. The Divine Symphony: the Bible’s Many Voices. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish
Publication Society, 2003.
Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles 1-9 Anchor Bible 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004.
Knowles, Melody D. “The Flexible Rhetoric of Retelling: the Choice of David in the Texts of the
Psalms.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67/2 (2005): 236–49.
Kooij, Arie van der. The Oracle of Tyre: the Septuagint of Isaiah XXIII as Version and Vision.
Boston, MA: Brill, 1998.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1-59: a Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.
_______. Psalms 60-150: a Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989.
Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Edited by Raphael Kutscher.
Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/Magnes Press, 1982.
_______. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). Studies on the
Texts of the Desert of Judah VI. Leiden: Brill, 1974.
Lange, Armin. “The Status of the Biblical Text in the Qumran Corpus and the Canonical
Process,” Pages 21–30 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert
Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The Oak Knoll &
British Library, 2002.
_______. “They Confirmed the Reading” (y. Ta‛an. 4.68a): The Textual Standardization of
Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period,” Pages 29–80 in From Qumran to Aleppo.
Edited by József Zsengellér, Matthias Weigold, and Armin Lange. Forschungen zur
Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Band 230. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.
_______. “From Literature to Scripture: the Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in
Light of the Qumran Library.” Pages 51–107 in One Scripture or Many? Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
_______. “Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library and the Hebrew Bible.” Dead
Sea Discoveries 13, no. 3 (January 1, 2006): 277–305.
Lange, Armin and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions and Illusions in Second
Temple Jewish Literature. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 5. Edited by Vered
Noam, Bernard M. Levinson, and Armin Lange. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2001.

197

Maas, Paul. Textkritik. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1950.
MacCarter, Peter Kyle. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible.
Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1986.
Mathews, K A. “The Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible.”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48/2 (1986): 171–207.
McCann, Clinton J. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press,
1993.
McGann, Jerome J. The Textual Condition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Merwe, Christo van der, “Recent Trends in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics. Some Inadequacies and
the Prospects of a More Comprehensive Theory of Language Use” Hebrew Studies 44
(2003): 225–242.
Millard, Matthias. Die Komposition des Psalters: ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz. Tübingen: J.
C. B. Mohr, 1994.
Miller, Shem Thomas, “Innovation And Convention: An Analysis Of Parallelism In
Stichographic, Hymnic And Sapiential Poetry In The Dead Sea Scrolls” (2012).
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 5042. (http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/
etd/5042)
Mitchell, David C. The Message of the Psalter an Eschatological Programme in the Books of
Psalms. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Mor, Uri. “Language Contact in Judea: How Much Aramaic Is There in the Hebrew Documents
from the Judean Desert?” Hebrew Studies 52 (2001), 211–220.
Morag, Shelomo, “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations.” Vetus Testamentum 38/2
(1988), 148–164.
Mulder, Martin Jan. “The Transmission of the Biblical Text,” Pages 87–136 in Mikra: Text,
Translation, Reading and Interpretaion of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and
Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publication, 2004.

198

Muraoka, T. “An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” Pages 193–
214 in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the
Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwode. Studies on the
Texts of the Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
_______. “Configuring the Text in Biblical Studies,” Pages 3–22 in volume 1 of A Teacher for
All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Edited by Eric F.
Mason, Samuel I. Thomas, Alison Schofield, and Eugene Ulrich. Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 96. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
_______. Seconding Sinai: the Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism.
Supplements for the Study of Judaism 77. Edited by John J. Collins. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Naudé, Jacobus A. “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change
and Diffusion,” Pages 189–214 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology.
Edited by Ian Young. Journal for the Studies of the Old Testament Supplement Series 369.
London: T&T Clark, 2003.
O’Connor, M. “Discourse Linguistics and the Study of the Hebrew Bible,” Congress Volume
Basel. Edited by A. Lemaire. Brill, 2001.
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Routledge,
1988.
Pavey, Emma L. The Structure of Language: An Introduction to Grammatical Analysis. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward a Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose.
Harvard Semitic Monography 12. Missoula, MT: Published by Scholars Press for the
Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976.
Qimron, Elisha. “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and its Relation to BH and MH,” Pages 232–244 in
Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. Studies on the Texts of the
Desert of Judah 36. Leiden: Brill, 200.
_______. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies, 29. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1986.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed., Psalmi cum Odis. 3rd ed.; Septuaginta; Vetus Testamentum Graecum 10;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.

199

Reymond, Eric D. Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature: 2014.
Rezetko, Robert. “The Qumran Scrolls of the Book of Judges: Literary Formation, Textual
Criticism, and Historical Linguistics.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13 (2013).
Roberts, Bleddyn J. The Old Testament Text and Versions, the Hebrew Text in Transmission and
the History of the Ancient Versions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951.
Sanders, James A. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1967.
_______. “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon,” McCQ 21 (1968), 1–15
_______. “The Hebrew University Bible and Biblia Hebraica Quinta.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 118, no. 3 (September 1, 1999): 518–26.
_______. “Pre-Masoretic Psalter texts.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27, no. 2 (Ap 1965): 114–23.
_______. “The Qumran Scroll (11QPsa) Reviewed,” in M. Black and W. A. Smalley, eds., On
Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida. The Hague and Paris:
Mouton, 1974, 79–99.
_______. The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). Discoveries in the Judean Desert of
Jordan. Vol. 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.
_______. “Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (11QPsa).” The Harvard Theological Review 5/1
(1966): 83–94.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Haun Saussy and Perry
Meisel. Translated by Baskin Wade. New York: Columbia Univeristy Press, 2011.
Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. Historia de la Lengua Hebrea. Sabadell: Estrada Vilarrasa, 1988.
Schams, Christine. Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 291. Edited by David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Schenker, Adrian. “Eine Neuausgabe der Biblia Hebraica,” ZAH 9 (1996).

200

Schmid, Konrad, and Linda Maloney. The Old Testament: A Literary History. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2012.
Schniedewind, William. M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel.
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
_______. “Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage.” JBL 118/2 (1999), 235–52.
_______. A Social History of Hebrew. Its Origins Through the Rabbinic Period. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2013.
Segal, Michael. “Between Bible and ‘Rewritten Bible’,” Pages 10–28 in Biblical Interpretation
in Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related
Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
_______. “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Materia Guidaica 12
(2007), 5–20.
_______. Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1927.
Seters, John Van. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Shillingsburg, Peter L. Resisting Texts: Authority and Submission in Constructions of Meaning.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.
Skehan, Patrick William. “The Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old
Testament,” Pages 264–277 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by
Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1975.
_______. “Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35, no. 2 (April 1, 1973):
195–205.
_______. Qumran and Old Testament Criticism.” Pages 163–82 in Qumrân: Sa piéte, sa
théologie et son milieu. Paris: Editions Duculot, 1978.
_______. “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” Pages 212–225 in Qumran and the
History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.

201

_______. “Qumran and the Present State of Old Testament Text Studies: the Masoretic Text.”
Journal of Biblical Literature 78/1 (1959): 21–25.
Smith. Mark S. “Converted and Unconverted Perfect and Imperfect Forms in the Literature of
Qumran.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 284 (1991), 1–16.
Steup, Matthias. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall, 1996.
Stuhlman, Daniel D. “A Variant Text from the Isaiah Scroll.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 25, no. 3
(July 1, 1997): 177–84.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the Bible in Light of Qumran
Manuscripts,” Pages 71–116 in The World of Qumran from Within. Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1989.
_______. “Between the Bible and Mishna,” Pages 11–52 in The World of Qumran from Within.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989.
_______. “The Crystallization of the ‘Canon of Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Light of Biblical
Scrolls from Qumran,” Pages 5–20 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the
Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by E. D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov: London: The
British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002.
_______. “The Community of the Renewed Covenant: Between Judaism and Christianity,”
Pages 3–26 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: the Notre Dame Symposium on
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.
_______. “The Old Testament Text.” Pages 1-41 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text.
Edited by Cross, Frank Moore, and Shemaryahu Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1975.
_______. “The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook,” Pages 321–400 in Qumran and
the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.
_______. “The Transmission History of the Text of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Biblical
Manuscripts from Qumran and Other Sites in the Judean Desert.” Pages 40–50 in The
Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem
Congress: Edited by Schiffman, Lawrence, Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam, and
Galen Marquis. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000.

202

Tanselle, G. Thomas. A Rationale of Textual Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1989.
_______. Textual Criticism and Scholarly Editing. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of
Virginia, 1990.
Teeter, Andrew D. “The Hebrew Bible and/as Second Temple Literature: Methodological
Reflections.” Dead Sea Discoveries 20/3 (2013), 349–377.
_______. “Scribes and Scribalism.” Pages 1201–1204 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early
Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Timpanaro, Sebastiano. The Genesis of Lachmann’s Method. Edited by Glenn W. Most.
Translated by Glenn W. Most. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Toorn, Karel van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2007.
Tov, Emanuel. “A Categorized List of All the “Biblical Texts” Found in the Judaean Desert.”
Dead Sea Discoveries 8/1 (2001), 67–84.
_______. “Criteria for Evaluating Textual Readings: The Limitations of Textual Rules.” The
Harvard Theological Review 75/4 (1982): 429–448.
_______. “The Dimensions of the Qumran Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 5/1 (1998): 69–91.
_______. “Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran.” Pages 85-102 in Time to Prepare the
Way in the Wilderness. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Leiden;
New York; Köln: Brill, 1995.
_______. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual
Criticism.” Journal of Jewish Scriptures 39 (1988), 5–37.
_______. “Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis.” Pages 281-312 in From 4QMMT
to Resurrection-Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émilie Puech. Edited by García
Martínez et al. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 61. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2006.

203

_______. “Letters of the Cryptic A Script and Paleo-Hebrew Letters Used as Scribal Marks in
Some Qumran Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 2/3 (1995): 330–39.
_______. “The Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture: Reflections in Light of the LXX and
4QReworked Pentateuch,” Pages 11–28 in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with
Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday.
Edited by Armin Lange, Matthias Weigold, and József Zsengellér. Forschungen zur
Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. 230 Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2009.
_______. “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts.” Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 31 (1985), 3–29.
_______. “The Nature of the Greek Texts from the Judean Desert.” Novum Testamentum 43/1
(2001): 1–11.
_______. “The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran and the
Origin of these Scrolls.” Textus 13 (1986), 31–57.
_______. “A Qumran Origin for the Masada Non-Biblical Texts?” Dead Sea Discoveries 7/1
(2000): 57–73.
_______. “The Relevance of Textual Theories for the Praxis of Textual Criticism,” Pages 23–36
in volume 1 of A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. 2
vols. Edited by Eric F. Mason, Samuel I. Thomas, Alison Schofield, and Eugene Ulrich.
Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
_______. “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the
Samaritan Pentateuch.” Dead Sea Discoveries 5/3 (1998): 334–54.
_______. Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
_______. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert.
Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
_______. “Scribal Practices Reflected in the Documents from the Judean Desert and in the
Rabbinic Literature: a Comparative Study.” Pages 383–403 in Texts, Temples, and
Traditions. Edited by Menahem Haran and Michael Fox. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996.
_______. “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of the Hebrew Scripture,” Pages
31–56 in Exploring the Origins of the Bible. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

204

_______. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem: Simor, 1981.
_______. The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and An Introduction to the Discoveries of
the Judaean Desert Series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002
_______. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
_______. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.
_______. “Textual Criticism: Old Testament.” Pages 393–412 in vol. 6. of Anchor Bible
Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
_______. The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries of
the Judaean Desert Series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002).
_______. “The Writing of Early Scrolls and the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture.” Dead
Sea Discoveries 13/3 (2006): 339–47.
Troxel, Ronald L. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: the Strategies of the
Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008.
Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants’ in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at
Qumran,” Pages 179–195 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean
Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British
Library and Oak Knoll Press in association with The Scriptorium: Center for Christian
Antiquities, 2002.
_______. “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures Found at Qumran,” Pages 51–66 in The
Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint and Tae Hun
Kim. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2001.
_______. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. Supplements to
Vetus Testamentum 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
_______. “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert: Index of Passages in the ‘Biblical
Texts’,” Pages 185–201 in The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction
to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Discoveries in
the Judaean Desert XXXIX. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002.

205

_______. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of
the Bible,” Pages 267–91 in Sha‛arai Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the
Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by Michael Fishbane,
Emanuel Tov, and Westen Fields. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
_______. “The Community of Israel and the Composition of the Scriptures.” Pages 327–343 in
The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James
A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. 327–342. Leiden: Brill,
1997.
_______. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” Pages 79–100 in volume 1 of The Dead
Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. 2 vols. Edited by Peter W.
Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
_______. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Related Literature. Leiden/Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 1999.
_______. “The Fundamental Importance of the Biblical Qumran Scrolls,” Pages 54–59 in The
Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Nóra Dávid, Armin Lange,
Kristen de Troyer, and Shani Tzoref. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
_______. “Horizons of Old Testament Textual Research at the Thirtieth Anniversary of Qumran
Cave 4.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46/4 (1984): 613–636.
_______. “Identification of a Scribe Active at Qumran 1QPsb – 4QIsac – 11QM,” Pages 201–
210 in ‫ מוגשים לדבורה דימנט‬.‫מחקרים נמגילות בדבר יהודה ה־ו‬. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and
Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Haifa University Press, 2007.
_______. “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century
Judaism,” Pages 145–161 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old
and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2010.
_______. “Multiple Literary Editions: Reflections toward a Theory of the History of the Biblical
Text.” Pages 78-105 in Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead
Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April, 1995.
Edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. Studies on the Texts of the Judaean
Desert 20. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
_______. “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon.” Pages 23–
41 in The Madrid Qumran Congress (2 vols.): Proceedings of the International Congress

206

on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991 Vol 1. Edited by Julio Trebolle
Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. Studies on the Text of the Judaean Desert 11. Leiden:
Brill, 1993.
_______. “Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament,” Pages 57–80 in The Biblical Canons.
Edited by Jean-Marie Auwers and H. J. de Jonge. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum
Theologicarum Lovaniensium 163. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2003.
_______. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” Pages 51–59 in The Dead Sea Scrolls:
Fifty Years after Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25,
1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. 2000:
Israel Exploration Society in Cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum,
2000.
_______. “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus,” Pages 85–108 in
Congress Volume Basel 2001. Edited by André Lemaire. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum 92. Brill, 2002.
_______. “Two Perspectives on Two Pentateuchal Manuscripts from Qumran.” Pages 454–64 in
Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel
Tov. Edited by S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W. Fields. Leiden: Brill,
2003.
Ulrich, Eugene C., Frank Moore Cross, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Peter W. Flint, Sarianna Metso,
Catherine M. Murphy, Curt Niccum, Patrick W. Skehan, Emanuel Tov, and Julio Trebolle
Barrera, eds. Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.
Vol. 16. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010.
VanderKam, James C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
_______. “Questions of Canon Viewed Through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Pages 91–109 in The
Canon Debate. Edited by James A. Sanders and Lee Martin McDonald. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2011.
_______. “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works,” Pages 41–
56 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by
Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The Oak Knoll Press & British Library,
2002.
VanderKam, James and Peter W, Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance
for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. San Francisco:
HarperCollins Publishers, 2002.

207

Van Der Woude, Adam S. “Fifty Years of Qumran Research.” Pages 1-45 in The Dead Sea
Scrolls After 50 Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, Vol 1. Edited by Peter W. Flint and
James C. Vanderkam. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
_______. “Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old
Testament.” Pages 151–169 in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: a
Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer and Florentino
García Martínez. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 2002.
Vermes, Gaza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. StPB. 2nd ed. Leiden:
Brill, 1973.
Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Weber, Robert, Roger Gryson, and Bonifatius Fischer, Biblia Sacra: iuxta Vulgatam versionem.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.
Weitzman, Michael. “The Peshitta Psalter and its Hebrew Vorlage.” Vetus Testamentum 35/3
(1985): 341–54.
Weitzman, Steve. “Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?” Journal of the
American Oriental Society 119/1 (1999), 35–45.
White Crawford, Sidnie. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008.
Williams, Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.
Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985.
_______. “Evidence of Editorial Division in the Hebrew Psalter.” Vetus Testamentum 34/3
(1984): 336–52.
_______. “Qumran and the Hebrew Psalter.” Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 8/5
(1985): 10–12.
_______. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter.” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 59/3 (1997): 448–64.
_______. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll [11QPsa] Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47/4 (1985): 624–42.

208

Wise, Michael Owen, Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: a Study of the Bar Kokhba
Documents. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.
Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament: an Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica.
Translated by Rhodes Erroll F. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Yadin, Yigael. “Another Fragment (E) of the Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa).”
Textus 5 (1966): 1-10.
Young, Ian. “Biblical Texts Cannot be Dated Linguistically.” Hebrew Studies 46 (2005), 341–
351.
_______. “Concluding Reflections,” Pages 312–317 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology
and Typology. Edited by Ian Young. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:
Supplement Series 369. London: T&T Clark, 2003.
_______. “The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: a
Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?” Dead Sea Discoveries 9/3 (2003): 364–
390.
Young, Ian and Robert Rezetko. Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an
Integrated Approach SBLANEM. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015.
Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvärd. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols.
London: Equinox, 2008.
Zahn, Molly M. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked
Pentateuch Manuscripts. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 95. Edited by
Florentino García Martínez. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
_______. “Rewritten Scripture,” Pages 323–336 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010.
Zer, Rafael. “Preparation of the Base Text of the Hebrew University Bible Where It Is Missing in
the Aleppo Codex.” Textus 25 (2010): 49-71 (English section).
Zevit, Ziony. “Linguistic Dating and Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew,” Pages 455–489 in
Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit.
Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbraus, 2012.

209

Zipor, Moshe A. “The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research.” Israel
Exploration Journal 34/1 (1984): 64–66.

210