I read the research on Lamentations with a certain sense of co-interest.

Gideon Kruger wants to please the patristics of textual criticism, Cross, Tov, Ulrich et al, but in my differing opinion from these Textcritical fathers of conventional TC, I would say his footnote 12 in the Lam 1:8 article holds more flesh than these father's opinion.
For me it is not a text that originally intended to be different than the MT consonantal text.

It is a degenerative scribal activity due to slips of the eye, ear, hand, tongue, memory.

The acoustical slip accounts for the omission of the he at the end of the Word.

The dictating reader was holding a manuscript with 2nd century QLev orthography so that the ye and waw are the same. Slip of the eye. See fig. 70 of J. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet 1987 at number 6.

The other words of the MT are there but this is a fragment and one has to assume them in.
Instead of polarizing thinking between QLam and the Masoretic Text  it is better to think towards each other and harmonize than divide.

Source: 
https://www.academia.edu/3611836/Lam_1_8_in_MT_and_4QLam4
이 게시물을...