The following comes from:
Martin Heide and Joris Peters, Camels in the Biblical
World (History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 10; University Park,
Pa.: Eisenbrauns, 2021), 196-98:
The Book of Judges
The ancient texts of Judges exhibit a greater diversity than
the texts of Pentateuch. The texts of the LXX in the codices Vaticanus (fourth century
AD) and Alexandrinus (fifth century AD) are the result of two different textual
developments from an Old Greek version. They are edited separately in the
critical edition of Rahlfs and Hanhart (2006). Only part of the book of Judges
is preserved in Codex Sinaiticus, but In this passage cited here, it agrees
with Codex Vaticanus except for orthographic matters. Codex Alexandrinus
disagrees with the other two codices in minor substitutions of nouns and verbs,
which do not affect the general meaning of Judg 6:5 and its immediate context
(cf. table 4.1). For further details of the Septuagint’s transmission of Judg
6, see Lesemann (2016).
Three Hebrew manuscripts of the book of Judges that are known
from Qumran generally reflect the textual character of the early biblical texts
provided by the MT and the early translations (1Q6 [1QJudg], 4Q50 [4QJudgb],
and XJudg). However, fragment 4Q49 (4QJudga) “is independent from
any other known texttype, although it shares readings with the proto-Lucianic
text” (Trebolle Barrera 1995, 162; 1989, 239). This fragment, dated to 50-25
BC, may point to a different literary edition of Judg 6, wherein Jud 6:7-10 is
missing (TOV 2012, 313-14). Some scholars find a possibility “very attractive”
(Ausloos 2014, 270; cf. Rezetko 2013), while others think that the paragraph
was skipped erroneously (Fernández Marcos 2011, 67*; J. Sasson 2014, 6-7). Be
that as it may, the paragraph Judg 6:7-10 is written in preexilic Hebrew prose,
so that it is possible that both versions, with and without the paragraph,
existed side by side for some time (Hendel and Joosten 2018, 57-58).
At the end of 6:3, 4Q49 lacks ועלו עליו, “and they came up
against it” [i.e., the land], in agreement with the Latin Vulgate and the
Syriac Peshitta. Some scholars (e.g., Rezetko 2013, 38) suspect this phrase to
be a secondary addition, though. It is attested in the MT, the LXX, and the
Targum Jonathan. However, one of the basic principles of textual criticism is
to prefer the reading that explains best the origin of all later readings.
There was certainly no pressure for any scribe to introduce the phrase in question,
but there was reason enough to eliminate it, as it prima facie sounded repetitive
in the fact of the immediately preceding ועלה מדין ועמלק-קדם “and Midian and
Amalek and the sons of the east came up.” Therefore, it may be argued
that this phrase is the lectio difficilior and is more likely to be the
older reading than its omission. It reinforces the notion that the enemy and
its multitudes subdued the country, which is detailed later on in the
narrative.
In 6:4, the text omits בישראל “In Israel,” and the scribe or
a later corrector squeezed it in above the line. The text abbreviates the
conjunctions of the subsequent listing of ושה ושור וחמור “neither sheep, nor
ox, nor donkey” to שה שור וחמור “[neither] sheep, ox, nor donkey,” but it is difficult
to decide what was original and—suffice to say—the variants have no bearing on
the meaning or significance of camel terms.
Looking into the specific verse that mentions camels (Judg
6:5), 4Q49 omits וכמליהם “and their camels” at the expected location.
Nevertheless, 4Q49 sometimes agrees with the Lucianic tradition of the LXX (Trebolle
Barrera 1995, 162), so that the text attested in 4Q49 likely shifted the
reference to camels from the end of 6:5 (ולהם ולכמיהם אין מספר) to its
beginning (ואהליהם וגמליהם יבאו), in the same way as the Lucianic recension (Trebolle
Barrera 1989, 236-37; 1995, 163; Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich 1999, 208).
As table 4.1 demonstrates, the various readings provided by
the MT, 4Q49 and its supposed restitution by the LXX according to the Codices
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (fourth century AD), and by the later Lucainc recension
provide some rearrangements in phraseology and word-order, but do not imply any
substantial alternation of the contents regarding camels and their use. One
also notes that the reading provided by the MT in Judg 6:5 is the shorter and
the more difficult one. Its consonantal stratum was already known during the Second
Temple Period and can account for all the variations presented above. It seem
that especially the phrase ואהליהם יבאו “and their tent-dwellers came in” was
misunderstood and interpreted as “and their tents came in” (cf. the discussion in
§4.5). This misinterpretation in turn led to the rearrangement
of “camels” as displayed in table 4.1 to create a more natural meaning.
Further distant from the Hebrew text is the Old Latin of
Codex Lugdenensis, which simply skips in 6:5 the phrase και τας καμηλους αυτων ηγον from its proto-Lucianic LXX-Vorlage
(Robert 1900, 118): Quoniam ipsi et iumenta eorum ascendebant et ad
tabernacula sua adferbant . . . quorum non erat numerus.
