2:7
The quality of the Vienna Scroll image is poor, but there appears to be two vavs and watered. The HUC 956 and modern Torah scrolls have the same spelling. There is a possible yod to the left of the VS shin in the first word, but I will not count this instance as it is less then clear.
4:26
The VS contains a vav between the lamed and tav for circumcise. The HUC 956 and modern Torah scroll have the same spelling.
8:9
The VS contains a vav between the rosh and tav in courts. The HUC 956 and modern Torah scroll have the same spelling.
8:10
The VS contains a vav between the resh and mem in heaps (literally, heaps and heaps, and both heaps have an added vav). The HUC 956 and modern Torah scroll have the same spelling.
9:16
The VS contains a vav between the alef and tav in to show you. The HUC 956 and modern Torah scroll have the same spelling.
9:31
The VS contains a vav between the ayin and lamed in the phrase in bloom. The HUC 956 and modern Torah scroll have the same spelling.
9:31
The VS contains a vav between the lamed and tav in late. The HUC 956 and modern Torah scroll have the same spelling.
The VS contains a vav between the he and the lamed of they should go. Modern Torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
10:28
The VS contained a vav between he alef and tov of you see. Modern Torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
12:3
The VS contains a vav between the vet and the tov in fathers. Modern torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
12:13
The VS contains a yod between the lamed and kof in you. Modern Torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
12:15
The VS contains a vav between the shin and num in the first. Modern Torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
13:16
The VS contains a vav between the tzadi and tov in matzoth (unleavened bread, plural). Modern Torahs scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
13:13
The VS contains a vav between the mem and rosh of donkey. Modern Torahs scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
14:2
The VS replaces the hey with a het in and they encamp. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
14:2
The VS contains a vav between the peh and nun on Zaphon, a place name. Modern torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
14:9
The VS contains a vav between the peh and nun on Zaphon, a place name. Modern torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
15:9
The VS contains a yod instead of a vav between the yod and alef in enemies. Modern torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
15:11
The VS contains a yod between the lamed and mem in among the gods. Modern torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
15:13
The VS replaces the vav in to your habitation. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
15:17
The VS contains a yod between the vet and the alef in they bring them in. Modern Torahs scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
16:12
The VS contains a vav between the nun and tav in murmurings. Modern Torah scrolls do not have this letter. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
16:25
The VS has a yod where the modern Torah scrolls have a vav. There is no extant Kaifeng manuscript for this section.
18:12
The VS appears to have a dagesh in the lamed of bread. Dagesh is not found in modern Torah scrolls, and it is not found in HUC 958.
19:12
The VS contains a vav between the gimel and the ayin in or touch. This is not found in modern Torah scrolls, and it is not found in HUC 958
19:16
The VS contains a vav between the kaf and lamed in voice, and a vav between the shin and the peh in horn. HUC 958 contains a vav between the kof and lamed in kol, which appears to have been written after the word was written (and in a lighter hand). There is not a vav between the shin and peh in shofer. Modern Torahs have the short of defective spelling for both these words.
The VS contains a vav between the shin and the peh in horn. This is not found in modern Torah scrolls, and it is not found in HUC 958.
20:14
The VS contains a yod between the dalet and the mem in the lightning and a vav between th shin and the peh in horn. This is not found in modern Torah scrolls, and it is not found in HUC 958.
The VS contains a vav between the ayin and lamed in forever. This is not found in modern Torah scrolls, and it is not found in HUC 959.
21:25
21:30
The VS contains an additional yod (or perhaps a short vav) between the dalet and nun in redemption. This is not found in modern Torah scrolls, and it is not found in HUC 959.
21:30
The VS contains an additional vav between the bet and rosh in pit. This is not found in modern Torah scrolls, and it is not found in HUC 959.
There are a few interesting things about the first part of the Exodus in the Vienna Scroll compared to modern Torah and the Kaifeng Square Section Books (parshiot).
There are 14 instance of variants in the VS where a modern Torah and two Square Section books at HUC agree, but disagree with the VS.
There are 16 instances of variants between the VS and the modern Torah, but we do not have a Square Section extant.
There are 14 instances where the VS illustrates a plene, or full spelling of a Hebrew word, whereas the a modern scroll and the square sections have defective, shorter, spelling. The VS mostly uses vav for the full spelling, but sometimes yod.
For the cases where we only have VS, a modern scroll, and no Kaifeng Square book, is 11.
Overall, variants that can be scribal errors are low in the VS, numbering only 5.
There is an overall tendency in the Vienna Scroll of plene spelling, but it is not consistent. Occasionally full spellings are used, but certainly not in many or even the majority of instances. It is rare. How do we account for this?
Some, but by no means all examples of full spelling appear to be added after the word was written:
Did the scribe who wrote this add the vav later, or did someone come along and "correct" the text? Either way the scribe or scribes did not use extant books HUC 956 or 958, as those have defective spellings exclusively. Given the relative rarity of these spelling differences, it seems logical to exclude an errant scribe. Most of the letter were added. If the scribe was simply aware of how to use the yod or vav for vowels, why did they not do this even more?
The more obvious answer is that a corrector came along, and had a source for their corrections; that is, they were looking at a book as they corrected the Vienna Scroll. This explains the relative paucity of spelling "corrections."
Comments
Post a Comment