nili95 wrote:Thank you.
I seem to recall a midrash asserting that Mosheh is 'always' spelled defectively to indicate that he was not without defects. Perhaps I'm remembering it incorrectly. Or, perhaps the author was unaware of the existence of the alternate spelling. Emanuel Tov speaks of a 'pluriformity' of DSS texts including 'proto-Masoretic'. I wonder whether the manuscripts mentioned would be deemed to fall outside of that category.
A comparison I did of 2QExoda against the Masoretic Hebrew would definitely class it as a "proto-Masoretic" text.
There are a few differences, but most of these (91%) are the Cholem Male
included in words, plus more plene forms of words compared to the defective. Only four (1:12, 14; 11:3, 4) of the extant 39 verses (1:11-14; 7:1-4; 9:27-29; 11:3-7; 12:32-41; 21:18-20; 26:11 13; 30:21, 23-25; 32:32-34) contained extra words not seen in the Masoretic - however the added words to 1:12 are also evidenced in the LXX version, and the additions to 11:3 and 4 just serve to make things more explicit ("in the midst of" in 11:3 compared to "in", and "said to Pharaoh" in 11:4 compared to "said"). No verses had any words omitted.