Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

DIGGERS AT THE WELL STUDIES O N T H E T E X T S OF T H E DESERT OF J U D A H EDITED BY F. GARCIA MARTINEZ A. S. VAN ...

Author: Takamitsu Muraoka | John F. Elwolde

40 downloads 1038 Views 15MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

STUDIES O N T H E T E X T S OF T H E DESERT OF J U D A H EDITED BY

F. GARCIA MARTINEZ A. S. VAN DER WOUDE ASSOCIATE EDITOR

P.W. FLINT

VOLUME XXXVI

'‫׳‬68‫'י‬

DIGGERS AT THE WELL Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sir a

E D I T E D BY

T. MURAOKA &J.F. ELWOLDE

BRILL LEIDEN · BOSTON · KÖLN 2000

T h i s book is printed on acid-free p a p e r .

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Diggers at the well : proceedings of a T h i r d International Symposium on the H e b r e w of the D e a d Sea Scrolls a n d Ben Sira ; [held in O c t o b e r 1999 at Ben-Gurion-University of the Negev] / ed. by T . M u r a o k a a n d J . F. Elwolde. - Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill, 2000 ( S t u d i e s o n t h e texts of tile d e s e r t o f J u d a h ; V o l . 36) ISBN 90-04-12002-5

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a is also available

ISSN ISBN

0169-9962 90 0 4 12002 5

© Copyright 2000 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be. reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations M.F.J. Baasten, Existential Clauses in Qumran Hebrew M. Bar-Asher, A few remarks on Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic in Qumran Hebrew J. Blau, A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls A. Borg, Some Observations on the ‫ יום השטי‬Syndrome in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls C. Cohen, A Philological Réévaluation of some Significant DSS Variants of the MT in Isa 1 -5 H. Dihi, Non-biblical Verbal Usages in the Book of Ben Sira J.F. Elwolde, rwqmh in the Damascus Document and Ps 139:15 M. Eskhult, Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew S.E. Fassberg, The Syntax of the Biblical Documents from the Judean Desert as Reflected in a Comparison of Multiple Copies of Biblical Texts A. Hurvitz, Was QH a "Spoken" Language? On some Recent Views and Positions: Comments J. Joosten, The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Qumran and the Septuagint

v jj

ix 1 12 20 26 40 56 65 84

94 110 115

TABLE OF CONTENTS

P.-I. Kirtchuk, Some Cognitive and Typological Semantic Remarks on the Language of 4QMMT M. Kister, Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls J. Kugel, Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period S. Moragt, On Some Concepts in the World of Qumran: Polysemy and Semantic Development T. Muraoka, An Approach to the Morphosyntax and Syntax of Qumran Hebrew W.T. van Peursen, Conditional sentences with • ‫ א‬in the Protasis in Qumran Hebrew E. Qimron, The Nature of DSS Hebrew and its Relation to BH and MH W.M. Hebrew Schniedewind, Linguistic Ideology in Qumran

245

M.S. Smith, The Infinitive Absolute as Predicative Verb in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey

256

131 137 166 178 193 215 232

INDICES

Index Index Index Index

of of of of

Texts Subjects Semitic Words and Phrases Greek and Latin Words

WORKS CITED

269 271 273 274 276

PREFACE The undersigned have the pleasure of presenting the proceedings of a research workshop sponsored by the Israel Science Foundation under the theme of "The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and its Relationship to other Contemporaneous Hebrew Dialects," held in October 1999 at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, if not exactly within the earshot of those ancient scholars and scribes who penned and copied the scrolls, a most appropriate location for such a gathering which may have caused those sages to turn in their graves, whether smiling or frowning. The symposium was organised jointly by Profs. E. Qimron, D. Sivan, both of Beer-Sheva, and Prof. T. Muraoka of Leiden, who were pleased to note that it was attended by significantly more scholars, whether reading a paper or not, than at the second symposium held in Leiden two years earlier. One of the contributors to this volume, who was to present the opening lecture, was taken away from us shortly before the symposium. Fortunately, the manuscript was ready at his departure and read by his widow, Mrs Shoshana Morag. This volume is dedicated to his memory out of profound respect for his scholarship. There were some papers read at the symposium but not included in this volume: Sh. Elkayam, "The gender of the noun in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls," M.Z. Kaddari, "The syntax of-‫ ט‬in 4QMMT" M. Morgenstern, "Biblical Hebrew in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some philological notes on the semantic development 'to reveal' > 'to strengthen'," Y. Neuman, "On the linguistic variants in DJD XV," D.W. Parry, "The significance of the unique readings of 4QSanf." The organisers wish to express their profound appreciation of the most generous financial assistance provided by the Israel Science Foundation and the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, which made it possible to bring so many leading and able scholars together from various parts of the world for an intense and stimulating scholarly discussion. The editors are also grateful to Dr S.E. Fassberg for help with the preparation of tne manuscript of Prof. Morag ‫ ;ז״ל‬to Prof. A.S. van der

Woude and Prof. F. Garcia Martinez for readily accepting this volume for inclusion in the series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah and its publisher, Brill of Leiden. Dr Wido van Peursen has also put us in debt with initial processing of some of the manuscripts included in this volume and the making of a unified bibliography out of bibliographies submitted by each of the contributors. 12 June 2000 T. Muraoka (Leiden) J.F. Elwolde (Oxford).

ABBREVIATIONS abs. BDB ΒH BH BHS CBH CH est. DCH DJD DSS DSSSE GKC

HAL HALOT IA impf. impv. inf. KB

absolute Brown, F., S.R. Driver, and Ch.A. Briggs. 1907. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon). Biblical Hebrew Biblia Hebraica Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Classical Biblical Hebrew Classical Hebrew construct D.J. A. Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vols. 1-4 (Executive ed. J.F. Elwolde; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993-) Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (Oxford: Clarendon) Dead Sea Scrolls F. Garcia Martinez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Study Edition. 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1998) Gesenius'Hebrew Grammar as edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch. Second English ed. revised in accordance with the twenty-eighth German edition by A.E. Cowley (Clarendon, 1910) Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner (et al.), Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum alten Testament, 6 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1967-95) Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner (et al.), tr. and ed. M.E.J. Richardson, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994-2000) infinitive absolute imperfect imperative infinitive Koehler Baumgartner

LB Η MH MT NEB NJPSV pf. ptc. PTSDSSP

QH RH SBH

Late Biblical Hebrew Mishnaic Hebrew Masoretic Text New English Bible The New Jewish Publication Society Version perfect participle Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project, ed. J.H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Lousville: Westminster John Knox, 1994-) Qumran Hebrew Rabbinic Hebrew Standard Biblical Hebrew

EXISTENTIAL CLAUSES IN QUMRAN HEBREW* Martin F.J. Baasten (Leiden) Existential clauses are a specific type of clauses, which either indicate the mere fact that the subject exists, or, in combination with a locative or a possessive predicate, the fact that the subject finds itself in a certain place or belongs to something. They deserve to be studied as a separate class of clauses. Obviously, it is possible in Classical Hebrew to form an existential clause merely by juxtaposing a subject and a prepositional phrase,1 or by using a form of the verb ‫' היה‬to be'. The object of the present study, however, is the clause type in which an explicit existential element is present, i.e., the existential marker ‫ יש‬or its negative counterpart 2.‫ אין‬An attempt will be made to classify and describe the various patterns attested in the corpus3 and subsequently provide some general observations.4 I: Nominal clauses with ‫ים‬ In the entire corpus of Qumran, the use of ‫ יש‬is relatively rare (total 17 cases, as against 106 times ‫)אין‬. This situation, which is comparable with Biblical Hebrew, is most probably due to the fact that the existence of the subject can also be expressed merely by means of a locative or possessive prepositional phrase (as is I should like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Qimron, Prof. Sivan, and Prof. Muraoka for inviting me to deliver a paper at the Beer Sheva conference. I also thank the participants of the conference for many valuable comments on this paper. Note the following abbreviations: NP 'noun phrase', PP 'prepositional phrase', / 'indefinite', II separates an extraposed element from the rest of the sentence, I separates a group of words from the clause at issue. 1 For a study of such clauses in Qumran Hebrew, see Baasten (1999). Excluded from this study are clauses in which ‫ יש‬or ‫ אין‬appears in combination with a participle or an infinitive. 3 The corpus investigated for this study consists of all non-biblical Hebrew texts from Qumran. 4 For a classification and interpretation of patterns with ‫ יש‬and ‫ אין‬in Biblical Hebrew, see Muraoka (1985:77-82, 99-111 [Excursus 1 and 2]). On the use of ‫ אין‬in Ben Sira, see Van Peursen (1999). A complete classification of patterns in Mishnaic Hebrew can be found in Azar (1995:84-91, § 3.2).

often the case in Qumran Hebrew), whereas an existential clause cannot be negated without ‫אין‬. Moreover,‫ אין‬is used, alongside ‫לא‬, to negate nominal clauses.5 1 )yēš NPi The first pattern attested with ‫ יש‬consists of this existential particle followed by a simple indefinite noun. The pattern happens to be attested only in interrogative sentences: 1Q27 (1QMyst) 1 i 10 ‫ היש שפה ולשון מחזקת בה‬,is there a language or a tongue that upholds it?';6 3Q381 76-77:13 ‫' היש בינה תלמהו‬is there understanding (that) you may learn...?'7 2)yēš NPi PP

In the second pattern attested in the Qumran corpus, the indefinite noun phrase is followed by an adverbial phrase. The examples are mostly found in poetry and often of the same type. They are clearly stereotypical expressions; all are introduced by the conjunction ‫כי‬, whereas the adverbial phrase indicates possession: 1QH 3:20-21 ‫וארעה ו כיא יש מקוה לאשר יצרתה מעפר לסור עולם‬ 'And I know I that there is hope for him whom Thou didst fashion from the dust unto an eternal foundation'.8 Because the text is reconstructed, it is not certain whether lQSa 2:9 ‫' ואם יש דבנר לאחד מ[אלה לדבר אל עצת הקודש‬but if one of these has a matter to say to the council of holiness ...' belongs in this section.9 A double duty of both ‫ כי‬and ‫ יש‬is perhaps attested in 1QH 9:14 ‫' ואדעה כ ה יש מקוה בןחןםדיכה ותוחלה ברוב כוחכה‬and I know that there is hope in Thy grace and (that there is) expectation in Thy great power'. There is a single case in which ‫ יש‬is used in combination with a formally definite noun phrase, although the pattern is the same as the one described in this section: 4Q266 6 i 7-8 ‫כי כעשב‬ 5

Van Peursen (1999:223-225); Swiggers (1991). Compare 4Q299 1:2-3 [‫היש שפה ולשן ]מחזקת בה‬, which was restored after 1Q27 (1QMyst) 1 i 10. 7 This pattern is identical with nr. 3 described by Muraoka (1985:100). 8 Compare IChr 29:15 ‫ואין מקוה‬. Other examples of 1:‫ י שמקוה‬Q H 6:6, 9:14. For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:101, nr. 25. 6

9

This is preferable to Charlesworth's translation (Charlesworth & Stuckenbruck 1994:117) 'but if there is [one of] these [(who) has a mat]ter to say to the Council', in which ‫ יש‬appears to be taken to refer to ‫אחר מאלה‬ instead of to ‫ דבר‬.

‫® הרחש שחתו‬π ‫' הוא ו אשר‬for it is like grass I that has a/the worm under it'. 3)yēš PP NPi In the third pattern, we see that the adverbial element precedes the noun phrase. The adverbial element is either a locative PP or ‫ את‬with possessive value (see below, Hid): 1QS 6:131'‫ יש אתי דבר לדבר לרבים‬have something to say to the Many'; 1QS 6:12 ‫' כול איש ו אשר יש אתו דבר לדבר לרבים‬any man I who has something to say to the Many'; 11QT 52:16-17 ‫' וכול הבהמה הטהורה ו אשר יש בה מום‬and any pure beast I in which there is a blemish';10 There does not seem to be a functional opposition between pattern (2) yēš NPi PP and (3) yēš PP NPi (compare a similar remark with regard to ‫ אין‬below, [3])." 4)yēš PP In one case, the construction consists only of the existential element ‫ יש‬and a possessive prepositional phrase. This is due to the fact that the subject of the existence is coreferential with the antecedent of the relative clause: 11QT 58:3-4 ‫מכול ו אשר יש‬ ‫' לישראל‬everything I which Israel owns'. Several times we find relative clauses containing ‫ יש‬in combination with a locative prepositional phrase, where BH would probably omit it: 11QT 52:16-17 ‫' וכול הבהמה הטהורה אשר יש בה מום‬in which there is a blemish'; 4Q266 6 i 7-8 ‫' כי כעשב הוא ו אשר ח ש הרחש תחתו‬for it is like grass I that has the worm under it'; 11QT 58:3-4 ‫' מכול ו אשר יש לישראל‬everything I which Israel owns'.12 The addition of ‫ יש‬in such cases is due to Aramaic influence, as has been pointed out by Qimron.13 This phenomenon seems to be indicative of Late Biblical Hebrew, see, e.g. Jonah 4:11 ‫נינוה‬ ‫העיר הגדולה אשר יש בה הרבה משתים עשרה רבו אדם‬.14 Compare also 10

(10) Cf. 11QT 52:4 ‫יהיה בו מום פסח או עור או כול מום רע‬.

11

;‫רע‬

‫ ״‬For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka (1985:101, nrs. 22-23). 12 Compare a similar haya clause like CD 14:11 ‫ולכל דבר אשר יהיה לכל‬ ‫האדם לדבר‬. 13 14

Qimron (1995). Cf. also Talshir's (1996) remarks on this study. 1 am grateful to Prof. A. Hurvitz for pointing this out to me.

‫כול מום‬

1QS 6:13 ‫ יש אתי דבר לדבר לרבים‬Ί have something to say to the Many' with BH clauses such as Judg 3:19 ‫דבר סתר לי אליך המלך‬. II. Nominal clauses with ‫אין‬ As noted in the previous section, existential clauses with the negative element ‫ אין‬are far more frequent than those containing ‫יש‬. Consequently, many more different patterns are attested, which need to be distinguished. It will be shown below that all patterns can be neatly classified in relation to each other by having recourse to only two linguistic concepts: extraposition and ellipsis. 1) (wYēn NPi A typical and relatively frequent (22x) clause type with ‫))־(אין‬ followed by an indefinite NP occurs at the end of a long sentence or a whole paragraph, indicating the circumstance under which the events described take place or the end result of these events. 1QpHab 3:12 ‫' ואין שבעה‬... the Kittim, who trample the earth with their horses and beasts. They come from afar, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the peoples like an eagle, I and there is no satiety'; CD 20:14-15 ‫כאשר אמר אין מלך ואין שר ו ואין שופט ו]אי[ן מוכיח‬ ‫' בצדק‬as He has said: "There will be no king and no ruler" (Hos 3:4) I and no judge and none to reprove in righteousness'; 1QM 14:5 ‫' וקהל גויים אסף לכלה ו אין שארית‬He has gathered an assembly of nations for destruction I without any remnant'.15 2) (wYēn NPi PP The same construction may also be followed by a possessive or a locative PP (using various prepositions), an infinitive or another adverbial element. 1QM 1:6 ‫' ואין עוזר לו‬and there shall be no-one to help him';16 4QMa 13:7 ‫' ואין רוח ביניהמה‬and there will be no interval between them'; 4QJubd 2:24 ‫' ואין אמת אתם‬and there is no truth with them' (= Jub 21:21); 1QH 12:19 ‫' ואין צדיק עמכה‬there is none righteous with Thee;‫׳‬ 4Q379 22 i 5 ‫' ]אי[ן אלוה זולתו‬there is no God apart from 15

Note 4QM 3 8-10 1 3 !‫ואין] שארי[!־‬, with preceding waw. For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:103, nr. 3. 16

The participle is nominalized ('there will be no helper for him'), since the meaning is not 'he will not help him' (Duhaime [1995:97]: , there will be no rescue for it'). Compare also Dan 11:45 ‫ואין עוזר לו‬, Deut 22:27 ‫ואין מושיע לה‬, Dan 8 : 7 1,‫ ו ל א היה מציל לאילמידו‬Q M 14:11 ‫וריהם אין מציל‬

him17.‫׳‬ 2a) (wYēn 0 PP

The NP may be elided, i.e. w'én 0 PP, as is clear in the following examples: 1QH 7:32 ‫ ואין זולתכה‬,there is none besides Thee'; 4QpIsa3 5-6:12 ‫' ואין כמוה‬and there is none like it'.19 3) (w)3ēn PP NPi

Another main type of clauses is the one in which the adverbial element—be it possessive, locative, or other—precedes the noun phrase: 4Q374 2 ii 4 ‫[ שאריח ופליטה‬0‫' ואין ל]כ‬and [you] will have no surviving remnant'; 4Q25111:5 ‫' אשר אין לו גואל‬who has no-one to ransom (him)'; CD 9:14-15 ‫' וכן כל אבדה נמצאת ו ואץ לה בעלים‬and likewise, every lost thing that is found I but has no owner(s)';20 4Q405 23 i 10-11 ‫' ואין בהם דולג עלי חוק‬and there is none among them who omits a law'.21 It is difficult to detect a functional distinction between this clause type and the one in which the PP follows the NP. Compare, for instance, 4QpapJubh 2 i 53-54 ‫[' ]כי א[ין אתו רעה‬for there is n]0 evil with him' (= Jub 35:12) with 4QJubd 2:24 ‫' ואין אמת אתם‬and there is no truth with them' (= Jub 21:21). This complies exactly with an earlier conclusion drawn pertaining to the function of nominal clauses of the patterns NP-PP and PP-NP.22 It is possible to add another adverbial element to this pattern: 4Q410 1:5 ‫[ם‬1]‫' ואין לכה שמה של‬and there is no peace for you there';

17

For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:102-103, nrs. 4, 10, 25. Compare 4Q504 (4QDibHam a ) 2 ν 8-9 ‫כיא אתה אל חי לברכה ו ואין זולתכה‬ , for you alone are a living God I and there is none other than you'. Olson translates: 'For you (are) a living God, you yourself, and there is none other than you'. Wise, Ahegg, and Cook (1996:412): 'Surely, you alone are the living God; beside you is none other'. Vermes (1997:365): 'For Thou alone art a living God and there is none beside Thee'. 19 Allegro reads ‫כמוהו‬, but see Horgan (1979:82) ad 10c. Compare also 4Q381 76-77:14 ‫' ואין כמהו‬and there is none like him'. 18

20

Compare with CD 9:13 ‫אשר אין בעלים‬, see below, section (3a).

21

For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:104, nrs. 10, 25. See Baasten 1999:46, conclusion 2.

22

1QMyst 1 i 7 ‫' ואין שם לעח־[ אולת‬and folly shall never more be there'/ 3 3a) ‫ כ‬ēn 0 N P In the pattern discussed in section (3), the adverbial or possessive PP may also be elided, as is demonstrated by CD 9:13 ‫כל אשם‬ ‫' מושב ו אשר אין בעלים‬anything that is returned, that has no owner'. In this particular case the ellipsis is clear in view of the abovementioned CD 9:14-15 ‫ואין לה בעלים‬, in which the possessive element is overtly expressed. In general, however, it is impossible to decide whether the pattern is an elliptic form of (2) w'en NP PP, or of (3) w'en PP NP.24 4) ,en 0 PP In one case it is the NP itself that is elided, whereas the possessive PP is overtly expressed: 4Q159 1 ii 4 ‫' אשר אין לו‬who has nothing (to eat)'. A comparable case of ellipsis of the NP is clearly attested, with a form of ‫יש‬, in, e.g., Sir 14:11 ( A ) . ‫ל ך‬ ‫אם יש‬ 5) wen 0 0 In the Qumran corpus there are two cases attested in which we find a construction with ‫ אין‬whereas both the NP and the PP are elided, leaving only the existential element used absolutely. 4QMa 11116 ‫' ומיא ] [ל רע הרמה ביא ו ואין‬and who [ ] ... distress as compared with me? I There is none!'; 4Q511 (4QShirb) 18 ii 5 ‫ ]אם נבלות [ברברי ו ואין‬,Is there any foolishness in my words? I There is none.'25 6) Preceding PPs Another pattern that is attested with the negative existential ‫אין‬ is the one in which the prepositional phrase precedes the rest of the clause. On the basis of a study of the context of these clauses, we may safely conclude that the PP is in extraposition. Thus we are able to consider this particular pattern as derived from (2) 'en NP PP or from (3) ,en PP NP,26 in which the PP is placed in 23

Compare 4Q299 1:08. Cf. Muraoka 1985:102, nr. 4. 25 For the reconstruction of the first clause, compare 1QS 10:21-22 ‫ובליעל לוא אשמור בלבבי ולוא ישמע בפי נבלות‬. (I am grateful to Prof. Qimron for drawing my attention to this passage.) For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:102, nr. 1. 26 It is obviously impossibly to determine whether the underlying structure is (2) or (3). 24

extraposition: PP II 'en NP 0 or PP II 'en 0 NP. 1QM 14:11 ‫' לכול גבוריהם אין מציל‬for all their mighty men there is no deliverer'; 1QM 14:11 ‫' לקליהם אין מנוס‬and for their swift ones there is no refuge'27 1QH 9:17 ‫' שלחכמתכה אין מדה‬to Thy wisdom there is no measure'. In 1QM 14:11-12 the extraposition is made clear through the juxtaposition of a series of initial PPs: ‫לכול גבוריהם אין מציל‬ ‫ולקליהם אין מנוס ולנכבדיהם תטיב לבוז‬, which may be rendered periphrastically as 'as regards all their mighty men ..., and as regards their swift ones ..., and as regards their nobles ...'. The same applies to, e.g., 1QH 9:17 ‫ולכבודכה אין נמחיר חלחכמתכה אין מרה‬ ‫אין כנגדה‬ ‫]ולאמןתכה‬. It is to be noted that the prepositional phrase need not necessarily be possessive. Other adverbial elements may precede as well: 1QH 10:18 ‫[' ]ובלוא[ גערתכה איז מכשול‬without] Thy rebuke, there is no stumbling'.2 It should be borne in mind, however, that this initial PP does not replace the possessive PP. Theoretically, it is possible to have both elements in a single sentence (e.g., ‫ובלוא גערתכה אין לך‬ ‫)*מכשול‬, although no such examples are actually attested. 7) Preceding NPs The final pattern to be discussed here displays a construction in which the NP precedes the rest of the clause. Just like the examples from section (6), these clauses, too, may be derived from the patterns (2) 'en NP PP or (3) 'en PP NP, whereas this time it is the NP that is placed in extraposition: NP II 'en 0 PP or NP II 'en PP 0. 29 In this case, however, the context does not allow a definitive conclusion; the function of extraposition cannot be determined with certainty in the four instances quoted below, owing to a fragmented context.30 1QH 7:17 ‫' ומחסי בשר אין לי‬and I have no human refuge'; 4Q179 1 i 6 ‫' וניחוח אין בו‬and in it there is no pleasing (odour)'; 2

' The Princeton edition has a printing error‫ מנום‬here, but in note 203 it is mentioned that 4QM a 8-10 i 9 has ‫ ולקילתמה אץ מנוס‬, and for their swiftness there is no refuge'. 28 For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:104, nrs. 10, 25g-i. 29 The pattern NP W ē n is not attested in the Qumran corpus. 30 Note Isa 1:30 ‫מים אץ לה‬, which is rendered in lQIsa 3 2:4 ‫אץ מים לה‬, referred to by Carmignac (1974:408).

4Q179 1 ii 10 ‫' וחפץ אין בו‬and there is no delight in him';31 4Q267 6:3 ‫' ]א[שר זרעה אין בה‬a (field) which does not yield its seed'. Another type that might be classified under this section is an example of a preceding NP, which is resumed by means of a suffixed pronoun after which the adverbial element ‫ עוד‬is added: 1QMyst 1 i 5 ‫' וכול חומכי רזי פלא אינמה עוד‬and all those who rely on the mysteries of wonder will no longer exist'.32 A general conclusion drawn by Carmignac as regards the use of ‫ אין‬in Qumran Hebrew was that this language phase illustrates a clear tendency to put the noun as closely to ‫ אין‬as possible.33 He counted only eight examples in which ‫ אין‬is separated from the noun phrase it pertains to. Apart from the fact that we found more instances of such constructions in the Qumran corpus (16 in total), if we consider the NPs in the clauses described in the present section to stand in extraposition, these cannot be considered as clauses in which the extraposed NP stands close to the element ‫אין‬. In this regard it is worth noting that there are also cases in Qumran Hebrew where the element ‫ יש‬is separated from the noun it refers to, e.g. 1QS 6:13 34 .‫יש אתי דבר לדבר לרבים‬ III: Miscellaneous observations Ilia. Parallel constructions with ‫ ואין‬and ‫לאין‬ In view of the frequently-used pattern w'ên NP, which very often comes at the end of a long sentence or paragraph, indicating how the events decribed will take place (see above, [1] and [2]), it is striking to see how often a synonymous construction occurs, namely the pattern Vēn NP. Although syntactically of a totally different character—it is an adverbial phrase, not an existential clause—it serves exactly the same semantic function as its clausal counterpart. Compare 4Q374 2 ii 4 ‫ ואין אכם[ שארית ופליטה‬quoted above with the following examples: 1QS 4:14 ‫לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬ 'without remnant or survivor of them'35; CD 2:6-7 ‫לאין שארית‬ 31 The structure of 4Q179 1 1 6 and 1 ii 10, which are mentioned by Carmignac (1974:407-408), are not quite certain in view of the unclear context; it is not clear whether these passages indeed begin and end here. 32 Compare 4Q299 1:7 and 4Q300 3:6. 33 Carmignac (1974:411-412): 'Dans l'hébreu de Qumrân 'yn tend à se placer le plus près possible du terme qu'il affecte.' 34 Cf. also 1QS 6:12, 4Q381 76-77:9, 11QT 48:4-5, 49:15, 52:16-17. For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:102-108, nrs. 2, 4, 10, 25e-f. 35 But Qimron and Charlesworth (1994:17) translate: , (There will be) no

‫ופליטה למו‬. Note, however, the difference in word order with 4Q374 2 ii 4, which remains difficult to explain.36 The same feature is attested in Biblical Hebrew. Compare, e.g. Ps 104:25 ‫ואין מספר‬, Ps 147:5 ‫אין מספר‬, and 1 Chr 22:4‫לאין מספר‬. In 1QS 2:14-15 ‫ ונספתה רוחו הצמאה עם הרווה לאין סליחה‬the addition to Deut 29:18 ‫ למען ספות הרוה את־הצמאה‬reflects the popularity of l'en + NP in QH and in Late Biblical Hebrew, as was noted before in Qimron's grammars.37 Mb. Poetic alternation ‫אין‬/ ‫לא‬ Several times in Qumran Hebrew, we find the negative ‫ לא‬as the formal indication of non-existence, instead of ‫אין‬. It is significant that all these cases reflect a special stylistic feature occurring in poetry, in which there is a deliberate alternation between ‫ אין‬and ‫לא‬, both negators occurring in a fixed pattern: ,ēn NP wlö‫ כ‬NP, meaning 'there is no X nor any Y'. We can therefore conclude that ‫ לא‬is not used, in and by itself, as the indication of nonexistence, but merely in order to vary the style within a single utterance, when two similar expressions follow each other directly: 1QH 7:11 ‫' ואין פה לרוח הוות ולא מענה לשון לכול ]קני אשמה‬but the spirit of disaster has no mouth and all sons of guilt have no answer of the tongue'; 1QH 4:20-21 ‫' כי אין הולל בכול מעשיך ולא רמיה ]ב[מזמת לבכה‬for there is no falsehood in all Thy works and there is no guile in the design of Thy heart'; 1QH 8:34 ‫' ואין לשלוח פעם ולא מצעד לקול רגלי‬and there is no taking a step and (there is) no step to the sound of my feet';38 11Q14 1 ii 11-12 ‫' ואין משכלה בארצכם ולוא מוחלה‬and none will miscarry in your land, and none be sick'.39 An apparent exception to the rule formulated above would be 1QH 11:22 ‫עד כלות עולה מאין רשע[ה ואין נגע להחלות‬, but the reading of the first of the two clauses is fairly uncertain. Even so, it is possible to find a repetition of ,ēn: CD 20:14-15 ‫כאשר‬ ‫' אמר אין מלך ואין שר ו ואין שופט ונאקן מוכיח בצדק‬as He has said: "There will be no king and no ruler" (Hos 3:4) I and no judge

remnant nor rescue for them'. 36 On this latter point, see section II, (3). 37 Qimron (1976:289, 1986:77, § 400.09). Qimron also refers to Hurvitz (1972:39) and BDB 35a. 38

,

A different case is 1QH 6:27-28 ‫דלתי מנן ו לאין מבוא ובריחי עוז ללוא ׳שוברו‬ protecting doors with no entry'. On this phenomenon, see Muraoka 1995:55-73. 39

Cf. the parallel in 4Q285 1.

and none to reprove in righteousness'.40 It is significant to note that the use of ‫ לא‬to indicate nonexistence as an alternation is also attested in Biblical Hebrew, e.g. 2 Sam 20:1 ‫( אץ לנו חלק בדוד ולא נחלה לנו בבן ישי‬solemn speech),41 and Mishnaic Hebrew. The alternation is clearly illustrated in the Mishnah, e.g., ‫אין גט אחר גט ולא מאמר אחר מאמר ולא‬ ‫( בעילה אחר בעילה ולא חליצה אחר חליצה‬m. Yeb. 5.1).42 In the Mishnah, however, the construction is obviously not confined to poetry or solemn speech.43 Although in Ben Sira ‫ לא‬is sometimes used to indicate non-existence,44 the feature of deliberate stylistic alternation between ‫ אין‬and ‫ לא‬seems to be unattested in that book. IIIc. Adnominal uses Another feature of negative existential clauses to be noted is their use as a modifier of a noun, as in 1QH 5:34 ‫דמעות אין כלה‬ 'tears without end', in which the existential clause functions as an adnominal modifier. An alternative explanation might be to analyse such cases as asyndetic relative clauses, in which also a PP is elided. The above-quoted example might then be read as ‫*דמעות אשר אין כלה להן‬. Compare also 1QH 6:31 ‫' מרחב אין קץ‬endless space'.4S The pattern is already attested in BH, e.g., Jer. 2:32 ‫ימים אין מספר‬. The same construction is attested with ‫ לאין‬instead of :‫אין‬ 1QH 5:36-37 ‫ כי נאסרתי בעבותים לאין נתק‬and 1QH 8:17 ‫ימים לאין‬ ‫ ]חנקר‬,seas without end'; 1QH 6:27-28 ‫דלתי מגן לאין מבוא‬. Illd. Alternatives for possessive ‫ל‬ In several cases, the possessive PP is not expressed by means of the preposition ‫ל‬, but by means of 4.‫את‬QpapJubh2 i 53-54 [‫[' ]כי א[ין אחו רעה ]כי אם טוב‬for there is n]o evil with him' (= Jub 35:12).46 4QJubd 2:24 ‫ ואין אמת אתם‬,and there is no truth with 40

Compare Hos 3

:

4

.

‫ם‬

‫י‬

‫פ‬

‫ר‬

‫ת‬

‫ו‬

41

Compare also Job 28:14 ‫תהום אמר לא בי היא וים אמר אין עמדי‬. Cf. JoiionMuraoka 1993, § 160c. 42

Azar 1995:173. Closely related to the alternation of ‫לאין‬/‫ ואין‬and the poetic alternation 18‫לא‬/‫ אץ‬the stylistic phenomenon of'negative parallelism', see Cohen (1988). 43

44

See the discussion in Van Peursen (1999:226). Sometimes the PP is overtly expressed: 1QH 8:27 ‫' ]אבי[ון אין מעוז לו‬a poor man who has no refuge' (thus Licht; most translations, however, read '1 have no refuge' (= ‫)לי‬. For these cases, see Joüon-Muraoka 1993, § 169 ο, oa. 45

46

The reconstruction seems fairly certain in view of the Ethiopie

'•3sma

them' (= Jub 21:21); 1QS 6:131'‫יש אתו דבר לדבר לרבים‬ have something to say to the M a n y 1;‫׳‬QS6:12 ‫וכול איש אשר יש אתו‬ ‫' דבר לדבר לרבים‬any man who has something to say to the Many'47. Illustrative of the possessive semantic value of ‫ את‬is the parallel clause, in the same context, CD 14:11 ‫ולכל דבר אשר יהיה לכל‬ ‫האדם לדבר‬. Some cases of locative PPs with ‫ ב‬come very close to posses-sive ‫ ל‬semantically, but there is no compelling reason not to interpret them as purely locative PPs, e.g., 4Q88 10:9-10 ‫' כי אין בקרבך בליעל‬for no longer is Belial in your midst'; CD 5:17 ‫' מאשר אין בהם בינה‬because there is no understanding in them'; 4Q267 6:3 ‫' ]א[שר זרעה אין בה‬a (field) which does not yield its seed'; 4Q381 76-77:9 ‫' אם יש בכם כה להשיבנו‬do you have strength to answer him?' Ille. Various aspects The locative ‫ ב‬seems to be omitted in 4Q416 2 ii 16 ‫לאשר אין‬ ‫' כוחכה ו אל תגע פן תכשל והרפתכה תרבה מאדה‬do not reach for I what is beyond the range of your power, I lest you stumble, and your disgrace becomes exceedingly great', where one might have expected ‫ בכוהכה‬instead of ‫כוחכה‬. On the other hand, we do find the preposition ‫ ב‬in 1QH 9:16-17 ‫' וכגבורותיכה אין בכוח‬yet there is no power to compare with Thy might' and 1QH 10:10‫ואין עמך בכוח‬. A predicative use of a construction with ‫ לאין‬is attested in 1QH 5:20-21 ‫' כי גבורתכה ]לאין מספר[ וכבודכה לאין מדה‬... and Thy glory is without measure' The use of ‫ אל‬in the sense of 'let there not be', is possibly found in 4Q416 2 ii 9 ‫אם עבודתו יפקוד לכה] אל מנוח בנפשכה וא[ל‬ ‫' ]תנומה לעיניכה עד עשותכה ]מצותיו‬if he imposes his service on you, let there be no rest in your soul, and no sleep for you eyes, until you have performed his commandments'.48 Such a use of ‫ אל‬is already attested in the Bible, e.g. 2 Sam 1:21 ‫אל טל ואל‬ ‫מטר עליכם‬.

,

albo '•3kaya I za'snbala hiruf, and the Latin quia non est cum illo malignitas (note the cum illo). 47 Cf 4QS b 6.3 [ . . . . [ ‫א ת ו‬ ‫וכול[ איש אשד ישן‬ 48

The reconstruction is after 4Q418 8:9-10. The reading that is followed here is that of Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar (1998), not that of Wacholder-Ahegg (1992). Vermes' (1997) translation coincides with this, whereas Wise-AbeggCook (1996) translate differently.

A FEW REMARKS ON MISHNAIC HEBREW AND ARAMAIC IN QUMRAN HEBREW Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem) In my remarks here it is my intent to make several short observations on the affinity of Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic to Qumran Hebrew. (A) More than I wish to learn about Qumran Hebrew from Aramaic and Hebrew, I wish to accomplish the opposite and learn from Qumran Hebrew about grammatical phenomena in Mishnaic Hebrew. (B) As for Aramaic, it is not my intention here to analyse any phenomenon in Aramaic, but rather to present a hypothesis regarding the source of several of the Aramaic elements which we find in the Hebrew texts from Qumran. A. Mishnaic Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew To my mind a major contribution of Qumran Hebrew to the study of Mishnaic Hebrew inheres in the light QH sheds on linguistic phenomena found in MH that are sometimes suspected as late or even as mediaeval scribal innovations. Evidence from Qumran Hebrew enables us to identify these linguistic phenomena as authentic representatives of a living Hebrew in use at Qumran. I would like to cite two different examples. The first one deals with a linguistic detail that exemplifies a more widespread phenomenon and the second with an entire grammatical noun pattern. The existence of these linguistic details in Mishnaic Hebrew is beyond doubt and the Qumran material simply adds historical depth to it. Example 1 In Biblical Hebrew the verbal root q-r-c (‫י‬/‫ )קרע‬is attested only in pä'al and nifal, both in the consonantal and vocalized text, e.g. ‫( הנני קרע את הממלכה מיד שלמה‬I Kgs 11:31), ‫קתעי בגדים‬ (Isa 36:22), ‫( וקרע אותו מן הבגד‬Lev 13:56);‫והמזבח נקרע וישפך הדשן‬ (I Kgs 13:5),‫( לא יקרע‬Exod 28:32; 39:23). No cases of this root are attested in pi"el, pu "al or hi pa ccel in spite of the suggestion in the editions of KB to correct a verse in Proverbs and to discover a hitpa "el form in it as a result of this correction. I refer to Prov 27:9:‫שמן וקטרת ישמח לב ימתק רעהו‬ ‫מעצת נפש‬. The 1953 edition of KB (p. 857) suggests reading the

second part of the verse as: ‫ ימתקךעה עצבת נ?ש‬and in the latest edition from 1983 (p. 1070)1 this suggestion is repeated with a slight change ‫ומתקו־עה מעצבת נ?ש‬. The second possibility is more ingenious than the first, but still all in all introduces into the biblical text a reading and grammatical form that is completely foreign to it. On the other hand, in Mishnaic Hebrew, besides numerous examples of the usual forms in pâcal and nifal, we also find examples of pi"el, pu"al (participle)2 or nitpa"al, e.g. ‫מקרע את‬ ‫( כסותו‬t. Ter. 1:3), ‫לבש שתי כותנות ושתי מכנסים ושני אבנטים או שהיו‬ ‫( מקורעין‬í. Men. 1:8), ‫( נתקרע הגט‬t. Git. 7:6). This is a well-known development in Mishnaic as against Biblical Hebrew, as Z. Ben-Hayyim clearly demonstrated many years ago: many verbs, both transitive and intransitive that were used in Biblical Hebrew in pa'al and nif'al pass into pi "el, pu"al (participle) and nipac ο shift did not apply. 11 The spelling without waw after gimmel demonstrates that the form follows the pa'lân pattern and not the po'lân pattern, as in Qumran o/u short or long vowels are usually written with a waw. Even though the word ‫תועבות‬ is written here without a waw, an ancient literary text was apparently of influence here, possibly the spelling of the Massoretic text of the Bible. There we find ‫ תועבות‬often (for example in Gen 47:32) but also ‫ תעבות‬rarely (5x; for example in Ezra 9:1).

2. 4Q389 8 [olim 1] II 7-9: ‫והפרו את הברית אשר כרתי עם‬ ‫אברהןם[ וע!ם י[צחק ועם ]יעקב בימים ההמה י[קום מלך לגוים גרפן נוע[שה‬ ‫רעות‬ These witnesses of the gadfān form precede by centuries the examples from the Jerusalem Talmud cited by Gross in his book: ‫ הגורפנים‬,‫ הגורפנין‬,‫ הגרפנין‬etc.12 What is significant for our discussion is the occurrence of the noun gadfān 'blasphemer', derived from giddef, which follows the pattern of pa'lân like sarvān / gazlan / daršān13 etc. This example of gadfān argues for the early origin of the Mishnaic Hebrew pa'lân form, hitherto believed to be late. This new evidence from Qumran indicates that the antecedents of this noun pattern lie in the Second Temple period, centuries before the redaction of the Mishna. The Qumran witness obviates the need to seek the origins of this phenomenon in Babylonian influence. The example of ‫[ גרפן‬gadfān] (2x) found in Qumran also strengthens the reliability of the biblical vocalization ‫רחמניות‬ (Lam 4:10), as ‫ רחמנית‬is the feminine form of ‫( רחמן‬in the pa'lân noun pattern).14 More remains to be said regarding this noun pattern and its usage. B. Aramaic at Qumran Having given examples of how Qumran Hebrew can elucidate the origins of Mishnaic Hebrew forms, I now come to some observations on Aramaic at Qumran. With the early discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls came the discovery of Aramaic works; including such important Aramaic texts as the Genesis Apocryphon and the Targum to Job. Moreover, eminent scholars have shown that even Hebrew works composed or transmitted at Qumran display varying degrees of affinity to Aramaic.15 Nonetheless, I would like to suggest that a distinction be drawn between the elements shared by Qumran Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew on the one hand, and the Aramaic elements found in Qumran Hebrew on the other. The Hebrew elements 12

Cf. Gross 1993:82. The Ben Yehuda dictionary presents only the ‫גלפן‬ form without waw after the gimmel. 13 Like other scholars, I see no reason to make a distinction between forms pertaining to the pa' al verbal-stem and different forms pertaining to other verbal-stems, in contrast to what was maintained by B. Z. Gross (see note 8 above). 14 15

Cf. Gross 1993:97-98,258. Cf. Kutscher 1974:187-215.

from MH now attested at Qumran certainly belonged to a living dialect or perhaps dialects of Hebrew. We must inquire, however, if this also holds for the origins of the Aramaic elements at Qumran. Were they, like Mishnaic Hebrew elements, part of a living spoken dialect, or should we perhaps explore the possibility that Qumran Hebrew possesses affinities to written Aramaic literature? It is my intention to present here a tentative hypothesis. I would like to suggest that we consider the second possibility, namely, that the Hebrew authors at Qumran, and perhaps their predecessors in Jerusalem, drew Aramaic elements from written sources, taking literary inspiration from Aramaic biblical targumim or from related works, such as the Genesis Apocryphon. By targumim I mean Aramaic targumic works dated earlier than what is usually referred to as the "targum literature", whose classic representatives are the second century C. E. works, Onqelos to the Pentateuch and Jonathan to Prophets, as well as later targumim such as the Targum Neofiti, and the Fragmentary Targum, which themselves contain earlier material. What I am arguing here is that an earlier targum literature, which was used by the Qumran community, preceded these classic works. While the extant Aramaic targumim corpus from Qumran is extremely limited, consisting solely of the Targum to Job and some fragments from the Targum to Leviticus, I believe that their very presence suffices to allow us to conjecture that the entire biblical corpus or a large part of it was extant in Aramaic at Qumran. Certainly I know of no evidence to the contrary. As texts that were read and studied alongside the Hebrew original, these targumim could well have been the source for Aramaic linguistic variants, variants readily understood by the Qumran authors. I see no reason why the Qumranites should not have utilized words or phrases from this presumed Aramaic corpus. I would now like to cite two examples, which I believe substantiate this hypothesis, both taken from texts already published. Example 1 A text published by Devorah Dimant in the Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume16 contains a citation from Nah 3:8-10. The relevant lines of the text, 4Q385-6 II11. 6-7, read as follows (vv. 9-10):‫כוש מצר]ים עצמה[ אין קץ לבריה]יך[ לוב בסעדך והיא בגולה תל‬.17 16 17

Dimant 1994. Dimant 1994:32.

The similarities to MT are readily apparent: ‫כוש עצמה ומצרים ואין‬ ‫" קצה פוט ולובים היו בעזרתך גם היא לגלה הלכה בשבי‬Ethiopia and Egypt were your strength, and it was infinite; Put and Lubim were your helpers. Yet she was carried away, she went into captivity."18 The most striking difference, and the one relevant to my thesis, is the Qumran text's use of ‫ בסעדך‬for MT's ‫בעזרתך‬. On what basis can we surmise that this Qumran author, who cited Nahum, substituted an Aramaic word for a Hebrew one? It seems improbable that it was his intent here to replace an incomprehensible Hebrew word with a more accessible Aramaic one. Rather, I would like to explain differently what may have happened. It seems to me more likely that the writer of the Hebrew text at Qumran, who I propose was evidently conversant with an Aramaic targum to Nahum, inserted the Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew ‫ בעזרתך‬under its subliminal influence. Like the second-century witness to Nah 3:9 from Targum Jonathan: ‫ולובאי הוו בסעדיך‬, I conjecture that the Qumran author, who cited this verse, was familiar with a similar reading found in some early targum to Nahum. To my mind, this conjectural assumption of the existence of a corresponding Aramaic targum perhaps better explains the interpolation of an Aramaic word in the Hebrew text than the surmise that it was a loanword from spoken Aramaic.19 Example 2 This brings us to our second example: In the Pseudo-Ezekiel text published by Devora Dimant just a few months ago, we find the following clause:4)‫ כ א ש ר יאמרו היה השלום והשדך‬Q 3 8 6 II, 7). In her article, Dimant first publishes the text in its entirety, noting in the linguistic discussion that follows that this is the sole known occurrence of the noun ‫ השרך‬in a Qumran text. Following a comment on this word's Aramaic origins, Dimant cites non-Qumran witnesses, including a piyyut by Yannai in which ‫ שדך‬is paired with ‫שקט‬: ‫שדך לעמילים שקט לאבילים‬, noting in 18

The English translation is taken from the old translation of the Jewish Publication Society. 1 Prof. M. Kister directed my attention to a fragmentary text from Qumran published in DJD XIX (1995), pp. 198, in which the expression 4) ‫ ע ם החביב‬Q 4 6 2 ) appeared. Kister correctly pointed out that in the Targum Onqelos (and likewise in the Targum Neofiti, the Fragmentary Targum and Targum Psuedo-Jonathan), the expression ‫( לעם סנלה‬Deut 7:7; 14:2; 26:18) is translated ‫לעם חביב‬. Is it possible that the usage of this expression in Qumran derives from an ancient Aramaic translation of the Book of Deuteronomy? 20

Dimant 1998:512,517-518.

addition that the Aramaic targumim, Jonathan in particular, use Aramaic ‫י‬/‫ שדך‬to translate the Hebrew root ‫שקט‬. For example, Jonathan translates ‫( ושלוח השקט‬Ezek 16:49) as ‫ושליוא ושדוכיא‬ (variant: ‫ )ושירוכיא‬and ‫( ותשקט הארץ‬Judg 3:11, 3:30, 5:31, 8:28) is consistently translated into Aramaic as ‫ושדוכת ארעא‬. Dimant also notes the occurrence of the phrase ‫ שודכה ושלמה‬in an AramaicPalestinian piyyut published by M. Sokoloff and J. Yahalom.21 In addition, Dimant notes that the expression ‫ השלום והשק־‬found in Pseudo-Ezekiel has a Hebrew parallel at Qumran:‫שלום והשסט‬ 4)Q 418, 55 7) which is similar to the biblical1)‫ שרום ושקט‬Chr 22:9). Essentially, both the Hebrew ‫חשקט‬/^‫ שקפ‬and the Aramaic ‫שרך‬ appear in the Qumran lexicon. It appears that whereas the former derive from the biblical corpus, the latter perhaps comes from the Aramaic targumic corpus. We should note, however, that in the course of its absorption the Aramaic word assumed a Hebrew form marked by the Hebrew definite article: not ‫ שורכא‬but ‫השרך‬. Nor do we find any evidence at Qumran for the Hebrew verbs ‫שתק‬, ‫נשתתק‬, or the ‫שתיקה‬, known from LBH (e.g., Jon 1:11) and Mishnaic Hebrew. To sum up my venture into the realm of conjecture: it has been long recognized that the Qumran sectarians mainly derived their words and idioms from Biblical Hebrew, using these elements to express their historical and ideological interpretation, and even more so to meet the needs of current linguistic usage. The biblical corpus undeniably served as the Qumranites' main literary pool. What I have suggested here is that alongside this Hebrew corpus there existed a literary Aramaic corpus, which was more randomly utilized, perhaps only involuntarily. Naturally, we must also recall that the Qumranites authored independent works, that their corpus of independent literary creations witnesses linguistic innovations that gave written expression to their language and concepts, but this is not our topic. I would like to take the conjecture I have presented a step further. If it could somehow be better substantiated, this hypothesis would then document an early stage, as early as the Second Temple period, during which Hebrew writers drew upon Aramaic targumim, centuries before the crystallization and redaction of tannaitic literature. Regarding the affinity of tannaitic literature 21

Cf. Sokoloff-Yahalom 1999:280 (poem 50). Dimant mentions also the phrase ‫( טלמה וטודכה‬with the two nouns transposed) from poem 49, but there is no such phrase in this poem in the above-mentioned edition. The index of the book référés us only to poem 50.

to the Aramaic targumim, there is no dispute, as M. I. Kahana's recent work on the mekhiltot has definitively shown. He notes, for example, the substitution of the Aramaic ‫ ארנונה‬for the Hebrew place name22 ‫ארנון‬. Of special relevance to our discussion is Kahana's observation regarding the interpolation of the expression ‫ נסין וגבורן‬from the Aramaic targum into the text of the mekhilta:23 "Given the affinity between the derashot in the mekhilta and the Aramaic targumim, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Geniza fragments here contain an expression penned by the redactors of the mekhilta."2* Menachem Kahana cites a fine example pertaining to a midrash on the verse ‫והיה כאשר ירים משה‬ ‫( ידו וגבר ישראל וכאשר יניח ידו וגבר עמלק‬Exod 17:11) in the Parasha (portion) "Amaleq". He demonstrates the close connection between this midrash and the biblical targumim of the verse.25 I argue here that, if my hypothesis be correct, a similar process occurred during the Second Temple Period, in Qumran literature, long before the crystalization of tannaitic literature. I would like to comment on the potentially strong influence of a coexisting source and translation, which creates a strong link in the user's mind, and leaves its impression on both written and spoken expression. This, in my opinion, underlies the appearance of locutions of the ‫ באש ישרף ובנורא יתוקד‬type in the speech of Arabic-speaking Jews. Any individual making constant use of a Hebrew original and its translation may draw equally upon either or both, as in the case of this expression, which derives from Lev 7:17 ‫ באש יטך ף‬and its Aramaic targum (Onqelos 26 .(‫בנוךא יתוקד‬ Perhaps the embryonic form of this phenomenon in the history of Hebrew literature should be sought at Qumran. Summary The two examples pertaining to Mishnaic Hebrew are derived from solid facts and the explanations we offer here have strong and substantial supporting evidence. The two examples pertaining to Aramaic are likewise solid but the explanations we offer remain hypothetical and only further data can confirm our thesis. Future findings could substantiate the hypothesis I have presented here. 22

Cf. Kahana i999:86. Idem 75-76. 24 Idem 76. 25 Idem 255-257 26 See Bar-Asher 1999a: 153-154. 23

A CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Joshua Blau (Jerusalem) According to the prevailing view, the main current of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (except for the Copper Scroll and Miqsat Ma'ase Hattöra) reflects basically the latest stage of biblical (literary) language, exposed to the influence of the spoken vernaculars, viz. Aramaic and some sort of Middle Hebrew, which later crystallized as Mishnaic Hebrew. It is this view that I want to defend against claims to the contrary. Recently, it has been claimed that some features of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls that deviate from biblical Hebrew are best interpreted as reflecting the grammatical structure of a living tongue.1 I shall deal first with the general framework of this claim, to analyse later some of the more conspicuous items adduced as proofs for the reflection of a living language in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In our view one has to take into consideration, when analysing the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scolls, its very complex history, exhibiting various traditions, genres, fashions, scribal schools, and personal inclinations. Therefore, even conspicuous differences in orthography and morphology can not automatically be ascribed to changes in the spoken language. One must not forget that even dead languages, only used in literature, change. Accordingly, I would not jump to conclusions because of exceptional features occurring in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and attribute them to the impact of unknown Hebrew dialects. Pending further material, I would rather consider it prudent to regard them as being due to scribal schools, fashions, personal inclinations, genres, etc. In order to overcome the difficulties of properly assessing the linguistic status of the Dead Sea Scrolls, stemming from a "dark" period of which we know comparatively little, it seems ' See especially the late S. Morag's stimulating paper, Morag 1988, in which he adduces eleven (l-10b) features which he believes to attest to the spoken language of the authors of the scrolls. In his contribution to the present volume, E. Qimron, one of the foremost scholars dealing with Qumran Hebrew, has followed suit.

appropriate to compare languages that are better known than Qumran Hebrew and therefore faciliate a more accurate analysis of the linguistic facts, without being obliged to depend every so often on sheer guesswork. If this comparison is carried out with due prudence, it may indeed protect us against errors. It seems expedient to analyse Qumran Hebrew in the light of the language of various mediaeval Middle Arabic texts. Since, as a rule, the historical and linguistic background of these texts is quite well known, they may be used as an important corrective of our attitude towards the Dead Sea Scrolls. Middle Arabic texts are not composed in (post-)classical Arabic proper, but contain many deviations from the classical language and represent ever-changing varieties of rather free alternation of (post‫)־‬ classical, vulgar (Neo-Arabic) and pseudo-correct elements. Accordingly, Middle Arabic constitutes a whole range of styles with indefinitely varied mixtures, starting from (post-)classical Arabic with only slight Neo-Arabic admixture, through semiclassical Neo-Arabic, till some kind of classicized Neo-Arabic. Yet even in texts written in (post-)classical Arabic with NeoArabic admixture, in which, of course, the non-classical features are much more limited, these deviations do not come short of the number of non-biblical forms attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Neo-Arabic elements attested in the Middle Arabic texts reflect, to be sure, a living language, yet many deviations from classical Arabic proper exhibit changes that affected a language no longer spoken, yet still used as a literary device, and depend on various traditions, genres, fashions, scribal schools, and personal inclinations. Thus, e.g., Saadia Gaon (882-942), in his classic JudaeoArabic Middle Arabic translation of the Pentateuch, uses in the function of an indeterminate direct object the pattern fa'älilan instead of the classical Arabic fa'alila. This feature does not, of course, reflect spoken language, since case endings had disappeared in it. Saadia, who was well versed in (post-)classical Arabic—his translation of the Pentateuch, in its original form, was written in a more or less faultless [post-]classical language, almost without deviations—knew, no doubt, that fa'alila terminates without tanwīn, yet, for some unknown reason, he deemed it necessary to mark the accusative (although, at the same time, he refrained from marking nouns terminating in tā marbūta). Since we know for sure that fa'älilan does not represent a living feature but is part and parcel of Saadia's personal style and of his school, why should we feel ourselves compelled to consider parallel linguistic deviations attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls to

represent a living tongue, not known from other sources, and attempt to reconstruct a ghost language from these deviations?! Rather than to invent a non-existent dialect, it is much simpler and much more convincing to attribute most of the linguistic features absent from biblical Hebrew occurring in Qumran Hebrew to changes that arose in the literary language of the Dead Sea Scrolls owing to scribal schools, fashions, personal inclinations, genres, etc., just as it happened in Middle Arabic texts. The principle of Occam's razor of making the fewest possible assumptions obliges us to regard these deviations as changes characteristic of literary languages, rather than to posit the existence of unknown spoken tongues. I do not deny the possibility that living features of spoken Hebrew could have penetrated the Dead Sea Scrolls, just as living features of spoken Arabic dialects found their way into Middle Arabic texts, and that some of the deviations from biblical Hebrew represent the impact of spoken Hebrew and Aramaic. Yet, in my opinion, it is preposterous to collect all the deviations and to reconstruct from them a putative spoken dialect. As stated, the simplest explanation of all the linguistic facts known to us remains that Qumran Hebrew reflects basically the latest stage of artificial (literary) biblical language, exposed, to some extent, to the influence of the spoken vernaculars, viz. Aramaic and some sort of Middle Hebrew, which later crystallized as Mishnaic Hebrew, but also representing various traditions, genres, fashions, scribal schools, and personal inclinations, which introduced changes into the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, just as they modified Middle Arabic by using, e.g., an artificial literary feature like accusatival fa'älilan. Though some of the deviations of Qumran Hebrew from biblical language may be due to the influence of the spoken vernacular (some sort of predecessor of Mishnaic Hebrew, Aramaic; just as some nonclassical features of Middle Arabic exhibit vulgar traits), many are literary forms, characteristic of literary languages, even if they are not used in speech. So far we have attempted to show that the Dead Sea Scrolls basically represent the latest stage of artificial (literary) biblical language, with changes caused by the spoken dialects and by internal development, as it occurs in languages used in writing, even if not spoken. Now we shall, in order to complete our analysis, take a glance at some items allegedly reflecting the grammatical structure of the putative living dialect claimed to be one of the sources of Qumran Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls use the ‫מה‬- ending in the pronouns of the second and third persons plural and in the perfect second

person plural suffix. 2 One must not exclude the possibility that in the dialect spoken by the members of the Qumran sect the ‫מה‬suffix was used. Yet it is equally possible that these forms reflect a literary tradition that uses long forms. As well known, in biblical Hebrew, too, e.g. ‫המה‬/‫הם‬, ‫אתנה‬/‫ אתן‬alternate and ‫ הנה‬is the only form, and in the Samaritan tradition pronouns spelt without this ending are read with it. The fact that the long suffixes are not attested after long - ‫י‬/ ‫ ו־‬does by no means prove that this feature belonged to the spoken language. 3 In certain Middle Arabic Christian texts from the first millennium4 in which in the imperfect the long forms terminating in -n prevail (i.e. - úrí), the tendency obtains to use the short (η-less) forms of the imperfect terminating in -ū when preceded by another verbal form (perfect/subjunctive /jussive) ending in -ū. Since such subjunctive/jussive forms were no longer alive in these texts, one has to consider this alternation of -n and -/7-less forms to be a literary feature. The same may apply to the absence of the - ‫ ה‬ending after - ‫ו‬/ -‫י‬. In Qumran Hebrew, independent pronouns of the third person singular are characterized by the doublet5.‫הואה‬/‫הוא‬,‫היאה‬/‫ היא‬Though this could be interpreted as a living feature, 6 they may well reflect, for instance, orthographical analogy with the plural ‫המה‬/‫הם‬. Another pronominal feature of Qumran Hebrew is the use of ‫הו‬- 'his, him' after - 7 .‫ י‬Nothing compels us to regard these forms as reflecting a living feature. In ancient phonetic Judaeo-Arabic spelling m- 'his, him' prevails when not preceded by a long vowel or a diphthong. This form, originally, was, to be sure, a living feature, but it was used later also in texts in which the final -h has been elided (as proven by its rhyming with final ‫ו‬-), thus demonstrating how complicated such features may be. Other features are attested also in Mishnaic Hebrew, 9 e.g., yiflü in context as well,10‫היה פועל‬," and, accordingly, are not relevant to the theory that the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect a Hebrew dialect different from what later became Mishnaic Hebrew. Some 2 3 4 5

See Morag 1988, feature 9. As claimed by Morag 1988:159. See Blau 1966-67:265, §171.2.3, especially note 8.

See Morag 1988, feature 7. As claimed by Morag 1988:157. 7 See Morag 1988, feature 8. 8 As claimed by Morag 1988:157-58. 9 Noted by Morag 1988:155, 160. 10 See Morag 1988 feature 5. 11 See Morag 1988, feature 10a. 6

features (like ‫ )היה פועל‬are attested in biblical Hebrew, some often, some, to be sure, rarely, some in early texts, some in later ones, and, accordingly, their use in the Dead Sea Scrolls may well be due to the impact of biblical Hebrew, owing to their archaizing tendency, such as the use of 2‫ יאשר‬and of 13.‫ ואפעלה‬As to ‫יפועלהו‬, representing a special pattern of the imperfect qal preceding a pronominal suffix, it has to be treated15 together with the parallel imperative and infinitive forms, which have in biblical Hebrew a similar syllable structure. It stands to reason that the imperfect forms arose through analogy with the parallel imperative and infinitive. Yet such analogy need by no means be part and parcel of a spoken language, since such analogical formations occur in literary languages as well, not used in speech. Cf. e.g. Middle Arabic ‫נ‬uqila 'it was said', for classical qîla, formed by analogy with ordinary passive forms like kutiba, even in texts in which the internal passive has disappeared. Accordingly, this analogical formation has to be interpreted as a literary one, and the same may well be the case of Qumranic ‫יפועלהו‬. An Aramaic feature is the dissimilation of a doubled consonant into n+consonant,16 which, since it may reflect Aramaic influence, cannot be adduced as proof for a special spoken dialect of the members of the sect. The spelling ‫ בנו‬for biblical 7'‫ בניו‬and the fact that one form may be mistaken for the other prove that they were pronounced alike with final ö, and this form may, indeed, be a feature characteristic of the spoken dialect of the members of the sect of Qumran. Yet one feature does not suffice for establishing a separate dialect, and the contraction of the diphthong in ‫ בניו‬is merely the continuation of the contraction of aw to ö, e.g. in ‫ בנו‬attested in biblical Hebrew. The analysis of the various items in which Qumran Hebrew differs from biblical Hebrew has demonstrated that no proof exists that they reflect a spoken Hebrew dialect used by the 12

See Morag 1988, feature 1. See Morag 1988, feature 4. This feature might have arisen through the analogy of the short imperfect. The short imperfect was used in the second and third persons singular both as jussive and after "conversive" wa, whereas the long imperfect was used in the first person as jussive (cohortative) only. Accordingly, by the analogy of the short imperfect, the long imperfect was transferred to the "conversive" wa as well. This feature, though occurring in early books as well, is characteristic of late biblical Hebrew. 13

14 15 16 17

See Morag 1988, feature 6. As rightly stressed by Qimron 1986:50-55. See Morag 1988, feature 3. See Morag 1988, feature 2.

members of the Qumran sect. Comparison with Middle Arabic texts shows that these deviations may as well be due to changes that occur in literary texts written in a literary language, no longer spoken, owing to various traditions, genres,1 fashions, scribal schools, and personal inclinations. Accordingly, there is no justification in abandoning the prevailing view, which explains in the simplest and the most convincing way all the details, that the main current of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls reflects basically the latest stage of biblical (literary) language, exposed to the influence of the spoken vernaculars, viz. Aramaic and some sort of Middle Hebrew, which later crystallized as Mishnaic Hebrew.

18

Against this background, I am inclined to reject E. Qimron's proposal (Qimron 1994:107-8) that the greater similarity of Miqsat Miase Ha-Torah to the Hebrew spoken in Qumran is due to the fact that it was one of the earliest works of the sect, written before it adopted a biblicising jargon. It is much simpler to attribute this discrepancy to the different genre to which Miqsat Mi ase Ha-Torah belongs.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE ‫ יום הטשי‬SYNDROME IN THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS* Alexander Borg (Beer-Sheva) 1. The Problem Several Hebrew texts transmitted in the DSS display a special noun phrase structure, also familiar from the Bible and the Mishnah, showing the constituents [noun + definite article + adjective]. The following passage from 4QC0mmGenA [4Q252] 1:8-12 including five instances of this construction exemplifies its most common functional role in the DSS: that of encoding temporal expressions: ‫ בחודש השביעי בשלושה בשבת ובסוף חמשים ומאת יום חסרו‬... ‫המים שני ימים יום חרביעי ויום החמישי ויום הששי נחה התבה על‬ ‫ באחד בו יום רביעי לשבת נראו ראשי ההרים‬... ‫הרי הוררט‬ From the perspective of normative Hebrew syntax, a striking formal trait calling for comment in nominal structures of this kind is the fact that whereas the adjective and the noun agree in gender and number, they differ in definiteness marking, the former being undefined and the latter defined. Commenting on this grammatical construction with specific reference to the DSS, G.R. Driver (1965:436) presented this feature as the outcome of optional deletion of the article: "The article which ought to be prefixed to a noun qualified by an attribute which itself takes the article, may be omitted ..." A similar view has recently been advanced in J. Blau (1999:344-45). I will here try to show that an analysis of this structure that restricts its ambit to surface distribution of the initial definite article fails to recognize the relative grammatical complexity entailed in this construction or to throw light on its historical development. Oddly, though specialists in Hebrew syntax have time and again discussed noun phrases displaying this structure in the * I thank my colleagues, Prof. Elisha Qimron, Dr. Roni Henkin, Prof. Pablo-Isaac Kirtchuk, and to the editors of this volume for their constructive suggestions on the topic of this paper, and Mr. Amnon Shapira for bibliographical aid. Needless to say, any remaining faults of fact or interpretation are my own responsibility.

Bible and the Mishnah,1 there has emerged as yet no systematic treatment identifying the nature and function of this intriguing grammatical trait and presenting a convincing alternative to the commonly held opinion harking back—in the modern period, at least—to Mayer Lambert's short study of 1895 designating this grammatical template as a species of construct state (cf. Brockelmann 1956:60a). Since attempts at bringing noun phrases of this type in Semitic grammar within the explanatory domain of status constructus were already commonplace in mediaeval Arabic grammar, where well-known instances of the same construction like dāru 1-āxira, salätu Ι-úlā, jānibu 1-garbiyyi, yawma s-sâbi'i, etc. were deemed cases of idāfatu 1-mawsúfi ilä s-sifah 'the annexation of a noun to its attribute' (Wright 2.232-233, Ibn Ya'is, ch. 121), a fresh examination of this unsolved problem in Hebrew grammar from a broader analytic and comparative standpoint would seem to be timely and useful. In the present paper, I shall review this Hebrew construction from the perspective of Arabic within the theoretical framework I elaborated for its analysis in Borg 1989. First of all, it must be stressed that, notwithstanding its obvious surface resemblance to status constructus, the structural matrix underlying expressions like biblical ‫ הששי‬ci‫( ׳‬Gen 1:31; Lev 19:6) and mishnaic ‫( כנסת הגדולה‬m. Abot 1.1) is obviously something else since an attribute, not a noun, occurs in final position. The restricted occurrence of noun phrases of this kind in Hebrew texts, their semantically well-defined class properties and, of course, their display of initial zero in lieu of the expected definite article suggest that they stand outside the realm of ordinary Hebrew syntax and invite analytical treatment as a morpholexical class of nominal compounds showing implicit component merger despite overt retention of internal word boundaries delimiting their constituents. The Hebrew morphosyntactic template [noun + article + adjective], which I shall here designate as a 'pseudo-construct,' is formally comparable to nominal compounding in the IndoGermanic languages.2 Of particular relevance to the typology of 1

Note especially S.R. Driver ( 1 8 9 2 : 2 8 I f f . ) , Lambert (1895), Brockelmann (1913:209), Segal (1927:180), Sperber (1966:602-603), Sarfatti (1980, 1984, 1989), Levi (1987:116-21), and Birnbaum (1998). In Arabic, too, the modern discussion of this feature has had a long history: Ewald (1831:33), Wright (1896-98:2.232), Fück (1951:114), Blau (1965:107), Wild (1973:57), and Borg (1989). 2

Typological comparisons between Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages, for instance, in the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767s 1835),

Semitic pseudo-constructs here are descriptive lexicalized noun phrases yielding onomastic reflexes, such as placenames. Observe, for instance, the fusional process entailed in toponyms like German Schwarzwald and English Whitfield, which plausibly hark back historically to descriptive noun phrases composed of a definite substantive and a qualifying adjective. Component merger via loss of the internal word boundary has here eliminated sublexical complexity; thus both the definiteness marker (the article) and morphological apparatus (the case ending on the adjective in German) have been deleted in the fusional process. In Hebrew, the textual transmission of these pseudo-constructs only rarely formalizes this fusional process by adopting the construct state variant (where available) of the first component: ‫( הר הגדול‬Zech 4:7), ‫( יין הטוב‬Cant 7:10),‫ שלה הלבן‬lit. 'the white field' = the cornfield (m. Shebi. 2.1 ),‫( ואת־״כל־בית הגדול‬Jer 52:13). Thus, for instance, the citation form ‫' הצר‬courtyard' has the construct form ‫חצר‬, which, however, does not materialize in collocations from the biblical text cited here (see examples below). It is symptomatic of the importance traditionally assigned to morphological marking in syntactic analysis of Semitic languages that, outside cases of intrinsically definite nouns that appear without article, such as those referring to unique objects: ‫עשה‬ ‫( שמים וארץ‬4QN0nCanPs [4Q381] 1:3),4)‫ ל כ ו ל קצי עולם‬Q 4 1 9 f8 ii 6 ) , 4 ) ‫ ב כ ו ל קצי עולם‬Q 4 2 7 f 7 ii 4), attributi indefiniteness to nominal constituents in Hebrew sentences is ordinarily assumed to correlate closely with presence vs. absence of the definite article, respectively (cf. Müller 1991, passim). Interestingly, what grammatically individuates cases of the pseudo-construct in Hebrew is absence of the initial definite article. As in my previous study of the pseudo-construct in Maltese and Arabic (Borg 1989), I shall here treat definiteness as a gradient feature correlating with the givenness continuum. Thus, for instance, the expressions ‫( הכהן הגדול‬DSS) and ‫כהן גדול‬, meaning 'the High Priest' (GKC § 127 a) are, in formal terms, both definite; the latter term would seem to occupy a semantically higher position than the first in a givenness hierarchy—being overtly marked by further deletion of the medial article as a complete lexicalization of this salient cultural concept in ancient Hebrew religion, and becoming in the process virtually akin to a proper noun, as in the following mishnaic passage: ‫' שבעת זימים קךם יום הכפורים מפרישין כהן גדול מביתו‬Seven days traditionally highlight the phenomenon of word-compounding in the former as a salient differential factor vis-à-vis Semitic.

before the Day of Atonement they separated the High Priest from his own house ...‫( י‬m. Yoma 1.1) It will be suggested below that the deletion of each of the two definite articles in pseudo-constructs marks different diachronic stages in the progressive lexicalization process, and they will here be discussed separately. In Borg 1989:64 I noted for closely analogous constructions in Maltese and Arabic that, synchronically speaking, the structural effect of initial zero here is to render the affected noun phrases syntactically opaque by obscuring the nature of the [head — modifier] relationship obtaining between the main lexical constituents; the resulting degrammaticalization of these descriptive names culminated in lexicalization and component merger, such that these phrases were no longer generated anew at every occurrence. Significantly, several pseudo-constructs in Hebrew and Arabic encode nominal expressions that clearly rank high in a definiteness hierarchy; thus some of these descriptive noun phrases are, formally speaking, proper nouns, e.g., the toponyms: ‫בור הגדול‬ 1) Sam 19:22),1)‫הצר הגדולה‬ Kgs 7:12), Classical Arabic baytu 1-muqaddasi 'the Holy Temple' (Jerusalem; Wright 2.232-33),3 and contemporary vernacular Arabic bāb ij-jdld 'New Gate' (Jerusalem dialect). Thus on the basis of striking parallels in form and meaning obtaining in instances of this construction in Hebrew and Arabic, it is reasonable to suggest that its formal function in both languages is to generate lexicalizations for certain concepts enjoying cultural salience and wide currency in everyday discourse; their semantic domains will be defined in Section 2. Interestingly, the notion that familiar concepts rank high in a givenness hierarchy was applied to Hebrew in S.R. Driver (1882:281), who noted that the structure designated here as a pseudo-construct "... appears to have arisen in connexion with familiar words, which were felt to be sufficiently definite in themselves, without the addition of the article,..." Whereas the term pseudo-construct adopted here for nominal constructions in expressions like Hebrew:‫( יום הטבעי‬Exod 12:15), ‫( שער העליון‬Ezek 9:2) and Arabic ‫י‬amnawwal 'the year before last' < *Cām il-awwal (lit. 'year the first'), etc. underscores the ‫י‬

The onomastic function of the Hebrew pseudo-construct here présumably is based on the analogy of cases of status constructus generating names, e.g., the homilectical personal names in the DSS studied in Fröhlich (1999:2978):‫' מורה הצדק‬the Righteous Teacher' (298),‫' איש הכזב‬the Liar' (298) etc.

formal similarity of the structure under review with genuine smichut, nonetheless, certain differences between real constructs and pseudo-constructs in Ancient Hebrew should be noted: (a) in contrast with cases of real construct state, the lexical components of pseudo-constructs in the Bible, the Mishnah, and the DSS tend to recur (cf. Levi 1987:118a); thus pseudo-constructs represent a relatively closed list and, as will be shown below, their expressive function is accordingly restricted; (b) several noun phrases of the form [noun + article + adjective] are potentially ambiguous in that the final term can be read both as an adjective and as a noun:‫' צום הרביעי‬the fast of the fourth month,'‫' צום החמישי‬the fast of the fifth month,' ‫' צום השביעי‬the fast of the seventh month,'‫' צום העשירי‬the fast of the tenth month' (Zech 8:19); reference to exegetical commentary reveals that these expressions were processed as instances of smichut. Nevertheless, the perception of the pseudo-construct as formally derivative of status constructus is probably a falsification of its actual historical evolution. Pennacchietti (1968:77) suggested that constructions built on this template continue a linguistic usage antedating the rule requiring definiteness concord between nouns and qualifying adjectives; thus, Arabic *maliku t-tayyibu—to use Pennacchietti's example—may well have chronologically preceded the longer form al-maliku t-tayyibu. Of particular interest here are certain formally deviant biblical Hebrew expressions where the feminine ending on the noun implements close juncture between the lexical constituents: ‫' בשנת התשיעית‬in the ninth year,' (2 Kgs 17:6), ‫נת הךביעית‬0‫( ב‬Jer 46:2) 'in the fourth year,' ‫( שנת השביעית‬Ezra 7:8) 'the seventh year,' etc. This trait is an overt manifestation of the aforementioned loss of sublexical complexity conducive to morpholexical fusion. A virtually identical structure exists in many Arabic vernaculars: Syrian Arabic sint 31-jēy (Behnstedt 1997: Map 304), Palestinian sant ij-jāy (~ es-sane j-jāyé) 'next year' (Bauer 1957:165), Algerian Arabic lilt es-s'ida 'nuit heureuse' (Marçais 1956:416). As in the aforecited Hebrew examples, the feminine ending on the first term fulfils a fusional role and, significantly, the expected feminine ending on Arabic jāy ~ jēy has been deleted presumably because gender concord becomes redundant in the wake of com-ponent merger. If the early origin of the template [noun + article + adjective] (e.g., *bayit ha-gädöl) within Semitic, mooted above, corresponds to historical reality, its emergence as a lexicalizing device in Hebrew and other Semitic languages implies an internal diachronic shift in their syntactic grammars. At some point in

the prehistory of Hebrew, the initial article was introduced ushering in the evolutionary stage at which definiteness concord between nouns and their qualifying adjectives became a syntactic norm (> *ha-bayit ha-gädöl). As a result, the pseudo-construct, a relic from an earlier stage, underwent metanalysis as a lexicalizing device on the imperfect analogy of the construct state. This 'parasitical' relationship with status constructus— deriving from the fact that the final term in this construction can sometimes be interpreted both as an attribute and as a noun (cf. Wild 1973:58)—presupposes yet another historical change affecting Hebrew possessive constructions. Intended here is a syntactic shift from the construct state genitive to the analytic genitive (with šel) as the favoured option in such constructions; this had the effect of impinging on the erstwhile syntactic function of the pseudo-construct, rendering it in part a morpholexical template. In the DSS, this well-known diachronic shift in late Hebrew is well reflected in the language of the Copper Scroll, which displays a relatively high frequency of the analytic genitive with šel (Milik 1962:232). The analytic genitive was to become extremely com-mon in Mishnaic Hebrew (Segal 1927:43) and Aramaic.4 2. Semantic aspects of Hebrew pseudo-constructs The Hebrew pseudo-construct in biblical and mishnaic texts is ordinarily presented as a formal exception to the general syntactic rule requiring grammatical concord in gender, number, and definiteness between a noun and its qualifying adjective. In consequence of this normative stance, the grammatical status of pseudoconstructs tends to be obscured by the circumstance that the initial article is often gratuitously inserted in the Biblical text particularly by vocalizing the prepositions b-, k-, and 1- with patah, which Barr (1989:305-306), echoing Mayer Lambert (1895) and Sperber (1966:603), regards as a Massoretic intervention that does not necessarily imply the article. The detailed survey of vowelling norms relating to these prepositions in the language of the Mishnah undertaken in Birnbaum (1998) reached the same conclusion. In Arabic, the propensity to 'correct' in literary texts pseudo4

Many contemporary Neo-Aramaic languages have pursued this evolutionary path to its logical extreme and have completely phased out the construct state as a synchronic productive process retaining purely residual lexicalized traces of it: e.g., Turoyo barnoso'human being 1 (Jastrow 1985:191).

constructs originating in vernacular usage is well attested in the classical language. A striking example of this diglossic variation in modern usage is the toponym (a1-)Dār al-Baydä ' (Casablanca) cited in Encyclopedia of Islam (11:116) with an optional initial article. Having proposed here that pseudo-constructs are in effect word-compounds, I shall now specify the semantic classes in Hebrew and Arabic fed by this construction. The close formal parallels between these two languages emerging from this comparison strongly suggest that the pseudo-construct in Hebrew and Arabic was inherited from earlier forms of Semitic,5 and that, consequently, the Arabic data can potentially throw light on the nature and function of the Hebrew construction. An examination of pseudo-constructs that have survived corrective editorial interventions in the Bible and the Mishnah yields nominal structures of three main semantic types; these indicate (i) spatial orientation (e.g., place-names), (ii) temporal orientation (dates, names of festivities), and (iii) certain technical concepts relating mostly to religious realia and to the sphere of material culture. I shall here exemplify these three classes in turn providing parallel documentation from Arabic. A. The following biblical and mishnaic pseudo-constructs indicate spatial designations: 4 0 : 3 1 ) ; ‫ ( הרים הגבהים‬P s 1 0 4 : 1 8 ) ; ‫ ( שער ה ר א ש ו ן‬Z e c h 1 4 : 1 0 ) ; ‫( גבעות הגבהות‬Jer 17:2);‫( מבוא השלישי‬Jer 38:14); ‫( הר־הגדול‬Zech 4 : 7 ) ; 1 ) ‫בור'הגדול־‬ S a m 19:22); ‫( ג_דר ה ר ה ר ה‬Ps 6 2 : 4 ) ; ‫ה ב א‬ Peah 1.1); ‫ מ ז ב ח החצון‬, ‫( מזבח ה פ נ י מ י‬m. Yoma 5.5); ‫( כ כ ר השני‬m. Sot 5.2). 6

In Arabic, the Quranic expressions masjid al-aqsä 'the further mosque' and sidrat a1-muntahā 'the outermost Lotus Tree' (53:14) are highly pertinent here. Modern Arabic parallels built on this morphosyntactic matrix include literally hundreds of place-names. A particularly rich modern source for toponyms built on this structure is Muhammad Ramzi's Fihris a1-qāmūs al-jugrafiyy fi Ί-bilād al-misriyyah (Cairo, 1968), where the author perceptively recognizes the formal distinction between the popular rendering of Egyptian toponyms on this template without the initial article and the classicizing form with the article: 5 6

Cf. also Punic ‫' ים הארבעי‬der vierte Tag' (Friedrich 1951:140).

The mishnaic text used for this study is the facsimile edition of the Kaufman Codex (Heidelberg, 1929).

Arabic toponyms—Egypt: (Ramzi 1968): (al-)Kawm as-Sagir 'the Small Hill'; (al-)Kawm at-Tawil 'the Tall Hill' (368); {ai-)Saylah aš-Šarqiyyah 'the Eastern Stream'; (al-)Saylah al-Garbiyyah 'the Western Stream' (254). Numerous historical and contemporary examples are attested for other parts of the Arabic-speaking world: Lebanese: Hārit il-Jdidi 'Neuer Weiler'; Hārit il-Wasta 'Mittlerer Weiler,' ' Ayη il-Halwi 'Süsse Quelle,' Burj iš-Šmā1i 'Nördlicher Turm' (Wild 1973: 295); Maltese: Hajret il-Kbira 'the Big Stone' (Wettinger 1976:8); Spanish Arabic: Guadalquivir < *Wäd alKafrir ['the Big Valley' A.B.], Guadalasuar < Wad al-Aswad ['the Black Valley' A.B.] (Corriente 1977:127); Palestinian: Wādi 'Aqbet el-Beda 'Tal des Weissen Abstieges' (Dalman 1930:238, 62); Quds eš-Šenf 'Name der Stadt Jerusalem'; 'En el-Beda 'die weisse Quelle' (Bauer 1913:106). It is worth noting here that some of these expressions exemplify a common feature of pseudo-constructs: the tendency to select adjectives indicating pairs of opposites ('big - small,' 'high low,' 'east - west,' etc.), items in a numerical series (days, months, years), the cardinal directions, etc., which by reason of their closed classes yield an enhanced semantic individuation of the resulting pseudo-constructs.7 B. The second class of Hebrew pseudo-constructs noted above comprises terms indicating time orientation, for instance, expressions specifying days, months, years, and other temporal landmarks, such as religious festivities. As already noted, pseudoconstructs in the DSS fall predominantly into this class:

‫( הריאשון‬4Q252 1 i 2 2 ) ; 4 )

‫ ב ח ו ד ש השלישי‬Q 2 7 5 f3

Temporal pseudo-constructs in the DSS are often preceded by a preposition; given the secondary origin of the vowellings of this particle in the Massoretic text, all the examples cited from the DSS stand a good chance of being genuine pseudo-constructs. Parallel expressions are also very common in the Bible: ‫( מיום הראשון עד־יום השבעי‬Exod 12:15);‫( עד־יום השביעי‬Exod 20.10); 7

Several Arabic examples of this type are cited in Blanc (1964:127) for Baghdadi, and in Cowell (1964:462) and Grotzfeld (1965:93) for the Damascus dialect of Syrian Arabic; note also Sinai Arabic sayyâl al-gibliy ['the southern slope' A.B.] vs. sayyâl al-garbiy ['the western slope' A.B.] cited in Stewart (1990:173).

‫( עד־יום השלישי‬Lev 19.6);‫( מיום השמיני‬Lev 22:27);‫הוא חז־ש התשיעי‬ (Ezra 10:9). In the DSS, time expressions of this kind can also occur with the initial article, here reflecting the afore-mentioned amenability of pseudo-constructs to re-analysis as syntactic structures: ‫רו[ש‬ ‫( נהןחודש הששי‬4Q325 2:4);4)‫ ה ש נ ה הרישונה‬Q 3 2 0 4 iii 1). It is conceivable, however, that time expressions with initial hddeš preceded by a preposition here retained the initial article in the DSS, as they do in the biblical text.8 It has already been observed that Hebrew temporal pseudoconstructs lend themselves to further formal reduction via deletion of the medial article. Thus in the biblical designations of daynames occurring in the creation narrative (Gen 1 -2) short forms are used for the first five days and long forms for the last two: ‫( יום אהד‬1:5),‫( יום שני‬1:8),‫( יום שלישי‬1:14),‫( יום רביעי‬1:19),‫יום חמישי‬ (1:23),‫( יום הששי‬1:31),‫( יום השביעי‬2:2). Barr (1989:332) recognized the pristine character of the longer forms here. For reasons already noted above, I shall here take the view that forms lacking the medial article, like yöm šeni/ š1iši, etc, are nevertheless positively marked for definiteness in Ancient Hebrew. Biblical translations often reflect uncertainty as to the nature and function (if any) of the formal contrast between zero definiteness-marking and incidence of the initial definite article in these expressions. Some Bible translations into European languages attempt to convey in the target language the formal distinction between these two constructions and assume the shorter forms to be indefinite: ein Tag, zweiter Tag,... fünfter Tag, der sechste Tag, am siebten Tage (Die Heilige Schrift, Zürich 1960). This perception probably derives from the following paraphrases of the Hebrew expressions in GKC § 126w: '‫יום הששיי‬, the sixth day (properly a day namely the sixth‫׳‬, but ‫ יום שני‬a second day, Gn l8)." With greater perceptiveness, the redactors of the King James Version adopted a standard form with the definite article throughout the series (the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day). The Standard Revised Version, however, substituted the indefinite article here (a fourth day, a fifth day, a sixth day, etc.) but, significantly, the New Revised Standard Version has reverted to the older translation. The Jerusalem Bible (1968) also shows the definite article here. 8

I am indebted to Prof. Qimron for alerting me to the pitfall of overgeneralisation in this specific connection.

In his rendition of Genesis for The Anchor Bible (1962), E.A. Speiser resorted to an alternative solution neutralizing overt definiteness marking altogether: first day, second day, third day, etc. The inadequacy of translation equivalents arising from crosslinguistic anisomorphy in the distribution and overt implementation of givenness within specific lexical classes (e.g., weekdays) is striking here.9 Parallel examples of Arabic temporal pseudo-constructs are widely attested in both literary and vernacular registers: Literary Arabic: rafrfu 1-awwali 'the First R.'; yawma s-sābfi 'on the seventh day' (Wright 2.232-233B); salât al-wustä 'the middle prayer' (Hopkins 1984:182); Spanish Arabic: hayé al akira 'the hereafter,' fi yawm athelithi 'on the third day' (Corriente 1977:123); Iraqi Arabic: c1d eZ-èefrir 'the Great Feast (Feast of the Sacrifice)' (Blanc 1964); šahr ejjāy 'next month'; sint I-rnādye (Behnstedt 1997: Map 303); Lebanese: hadd ej-jdid 'Le Nouveau Dimanche' (Feghali 1938:314); 1ašiyyet 31-mādye 'la dernière soirée'; sent el-wasle 'l'année prochaine' (Feghali 1928:136); Aleppo: pnft zlhazine 'la semaine sainte' (Barthélemy 1935-54:113); Palestinian: camlawwal ~ camnawwal 'vergangenes Jahr'; yā yöm il-aswad ' 0 schwarzer Tag' (Bauer 1903:296). C. The third class of pseudo-constructs attested in biblical and mishnaic Hebrew comprises religious technical terms or stock phrases and designations for items of material culture: ‫( טם המפרש שם המיוחד‬Nager 1881); ‫ החזקה‬τ (Kaddari 1959:14); Sam 12:23); 1) ‫רוח הרעה‬ Sam 16:23);1)‫בדרך הטובה והיטרה‬ ‫( פרת הטבת‬Gen 41:26); ‫( פטיט החזק‬a rabbi learned in the Torah), ‫' עמוד הימיני‬the right pillar' t. Ber. 28); ‫( דם הירוק‬m. Ed. 5.6); ‫( שלה הלבן‬lit.: 'the white field' = the cornfield; m. Sheb. 2.1); 1) ‫ אבל הגדולה‬Sam 6:18); ‫( אתרוג הגזול‬m. Suk. 3.5);‫יין הטוב‬. (Cant 7:10); ‫( קנה הטוב‬Jer 6:20); ‫' עדשים המצריות‬Egyptian lentils' (m. Maas. 5.8);‫חמץ האדומי‬,‫( זיתום המצרי‬m. Pes. 3.1). In several varieties of vernacular Arabic, here exemplified by Lebanese, the pseudo-construct also encodes concepts of high frequency in ordinary discourse, clichés associated with the genre of popular wisdom, and common items of material culture: 9

In fact, none of these translations sound natural in English prose. An attempt to surmount this drawback was made in the Tyndale Bible (1996), where the Hebrew designations for day-names have been paraphrased by whole sentences:: "Together these made up one day This happened on the second day. ... This all happened on the third day, " etc.

Kfār , Abīda (Feghali 1938): bīr el-färeg (155), hayt el-wàte (93), ard el-bayda 'la terre argileuse' (68), tābeq el-fïiqâni 'l'étage supérieur' (149 ),Id el-farg a 'une maine vide' (84), girš el-abyad 1-yawm el-aswed 'la piastre blanche est pour le jour noir' (88); c yün es-sùd 'des yeux noirs' (302); djàjt el-gr'1be 'une poule étrangère' (701). The tendency of grammatical works on Arabie to cite such expressions in isolation naturally obscures the potential agency of textual conditioning in the distribution of pseudo-constructs. In his remarks on this construction in the Arabic dialect of Kfar 'Abida, Feghali (1919:296) observed: Comme dans la plupart des dialectes arabes modernes et principalement dans les dialectes syriens ..., la mise à Γ «état construit» du qualificatif après le substantif est un procédé habituel et très courant dans notre parler; ex.: ktāb-e1-kbīr «le grand livre», but fails to specify whether this construction can be synchronically generated in a manner analogous, say, to Germanic nominal compounds. Interestingly, the folk-tales in Anatolian Arabic published in Socin ( 1882) display clear instances of pseudo-constructs generated by the story-line, which can therefore be interpreted as cases of anaphoric definiteness-marking as opposed to mere retention of historical compounds: ta'leb elyehüdi 'der jüdische Fuchs,' ta'leb ennusràni 'der christliche Fuchs' (Socin 1882:5).10 If this perception is correct, such expressions yield valuable evidence for the synchronic productivity of the grammatical trait under study. In Biblical Hebrew, too, possible cases of anaphoric definiteness indicated by a pseudo-construct occur in Genesis (41:26), where the grammatically defined expression ‫פרת הטבת‬ 'the beautiful cows' refers back to ‫' טבע פרות בריאות‬seven fat cows' (41:18). Similarly, in the narrative of 2 Sam 12:1-6, the syntagm ‫( איט דזעטיר‬v. 4) refers back to an antecedent mentioned twice previously (vv. 1-2): ‫ לעטיר היה צאן‬:‫טני אנטים היו בעיר אחת אהד עטיר ואחר ךאט‬ ... ‫ ויבא הלך לאיט העטיר‬...‫ובקרי‬ 3. Full lexicalization of historical pseudo-constructs We have already noted that many Hebrew and Arabic pseudoconstructs survive in an ill-defined no-man's land poised between l()

The pseudo-construct appears to function as a syntactic definiteness marker in the Arabic dialect of the Alawis in Southern Turkey: 'arabāy 1-xadra 'a green cae,' but 'arabâyt il-xadra 'the green car' (Prochazka 2000:222).

syntax and lexicon where their syntactic opacity and semantic transparency render them prone to re-analysis as syntactic structures via insertion of the initial definite article. In effect, this means that pseudo-constructs tend to shift backwards and forwards across the boundary between syntax and lexicon. Some expressions, however, undergo a further formal change in the direction of component merger which ultimately confirms their member status in the lexical component of the language. Loss of sublexical complexity here entails deletion of the medial article, a process that seems to bar the pseudo-construct's way back into the syntactic component. A striking example of this process is the aforementioned mishnaic term köhen gädöl 'the High Priest' (Segal 1927:180; cf. also 4Q348 13) < *(ha)-köhen ha-gädöl. Loss of the article in the shorter forms of day-names, such as4)‫ י ו ם רביעי‬Q 3 2 0 4 vi 1),4)‫ ב א ח ד בו יום רביעי בשבת‬Q 2 5 2 frg 1:11), can also be functionally motivated in this manner. The following Arabic terms exemplify this process in the toponymie domain: Bāb Šarqì (Syria, Ibn Jubayr, 254), Tall Abyad, Tall Aswad (Iraq; Wallis Budge 1920:243, 394 fn. 1), Jabal (al-)Akhdar (Oman: Coon 1958, passim), Dar Bida (Casablanca) (=> [darbida] ~ [dalbida]; Informant). 4. Synopsis and conclusion Pseudo-constructs are relatively marginal in the DSS; they occur with sufficient frequency, however, to warrant systematic treatment. Though also relatively uncommon in the biblical text, their manifestations there are thematically more varied and yield a fuller picture of their semantic function in Ancient Hebrew. In the Mishnah, pseudo-constructs are very well attested, rendering possible a systematic description of this intriguing construction as well as comparison with Arabic in the light of the comments in Brockelmann (1913:209). The comparative value of Arabic here is considerable, since occurrences of this construction span its entire history from the language of the papyri, e.g., mikyalat kammūn al-abyad 'measure of white cumin' (Hopkins 1984:182) through Middle Arabic (Blau 1965:107; 1960-67:359 § 239.1) to present-day spoken usage in many Arabic vernaculars (Borg 1989, passim).11 " The pseudo-construct is quite productive in Modern Hebrew, where it also implements a lexicalization process: ‫' ים התיכון‬the Mediterranean,' ‫ועד‬ ‫' הפועל‬a working committee,' etc. Despite its occurrence in Hebrew belles lettres as a conscious archaizing stylistic trait: ‫' ווידוי הנדול‬The Great Confession' (title of a book by Moshe Leib Lilienblum, Vienna, 1876); ‫ים הנדול‬ (Moshe Shamir, in 1973:22,‫ ) מ ל ך בשרודם‬,

it tends

Most studies of definiteness in Hebrew draw formal parallels between the pseudo-construct and status constructus. Nevertheless, the pseudo-construct appears to have evolved independently of the construct state and plausibly harks back to a historical stage antedating the rule of definiteness concord between nouns and adjectives. In purely synchronic terms, the standard options for encoding [noun + adjective] phrases are ordinarily the following (here exemplified by means of the Biblical Hebrew equivalent for 'innocent blood' in Deuteronomy): (a) Ν (indef.) + A ( i n d e f . ) : 2 1 : 8 ) ‫; ) ד ם נקי‬ (b) N (def.) -t- A ( d e f . ) : 2 1 : 9 ) ‫; ) ה ד ם הנקי‬ ‫)ךם־הנק‬, (c) N (indef.) + A ( d e f . ) : ; 1 9 : 1 3 ) where the pseudo-construct status of (c) is explicitly encoded by the short vowel [a] (patah) as opposed to the long vowel (qames) of the citation form. As has been suggested above, the fusional process affecting the constituents of pseudo-constructs can sometimes go one stage further via deletion of the medial article as in (a). Since both long and short vocalic nuclei seem to be admissible in the first term, it is not possible to expatiate on the extent of phonological fusion concomitant with lexicalization attained in such collocations. Presented as an evolutionary process, the putative historical development postulated for the pseudo-construct in the foregoing study can be schematically presented as follows: Stage I : [noun + [def. article + adj.]] Stage Π : [[article + noun] + [article + adj.]] ~ [noun + [article +adj.]] Stage HI : [[article + noun] + [article + adj.]] ~ [noun + [def. article + adj.]] ~ [noun + adj.] Fusional processes in the Semitic lexicon have not attracted a great deal of attention among linguists and philologists.12 In his critical stance on the mediaeval Arabic grammarians' efforts at explaining the pseudo-construct as a case of idāfa, Feghali (1928:135) remarked insightfully: ... on doit reconnaître tout simplement qu'il s'agit de ces nombreux emplois dialectaux répandus de bonne heure sur tout le domaine de l'arabe, emplois dont la langue classique ellemême, définitivement fixée aux premiers siècles de l'islamisme, purists (Rosén 1977:191). 13

A notable exception here is the insightful remark of Wright (1971:257) on the neutralization of case-marking in the paradigm of the Classical Arabic numerals from eleven to nineteen.

n'a pu complètement se défaire, parce qu'ils s'étaient déjà introduits dans les écrits anciens, dans le Qorân lui-même. Interestingly, the mediaeval Arabie grammarians were familiar with the notion of word-compounds, in their terminology, murakkabāt. they used this concept, for instance, in order to account for the neutralization of case-marking in compound numerals from eleven to nineteen (ma rukkiba min al-aedäd min ahada 'ašara ilä tis'ata 'ašara) which were treated as lexically conjoined, i.e., 'two nouns made one.' The distinction made between idāfa (construct state) and tarkib (compounding) by Ibn Ya'is (ch. 318) in his commentary on Zamaxsari's Mufassal (ch. 215) was that the former, e.g., dirhamu Zaydin, require case-marking of the constituents, whereas synthetic compounds like xamsata cašara, hadramawt, do not.13 Nevertheless, though the option of explaining pseudoconstructs as nominal compounds was theoretically available to the mediaeval Arab grammarians, they preferred to classify them as constructs and, as in the aforecited case of baytu l-muqaddasi, the attribute is assigned genitive case-marking. This mediaeval perception of pseudo-constructs as a type of construct phrase has been integrated into the Hebrew grammatical tradition as represented in most if not all modern treatments of the language. There is a rich and sophisticated literature on the topic of definiteness in Ancient Hebrew which I have not discussed here since much of it deals with definiteness marking of simplex nouns. In this study, I have focused on one type of Hebrew noun phrase, the pseudo-construct. If correct, the present analysis warrants for this construction a more prominent place in descriptive accounts of Semitic word-formation and morphosyntax.14

13

The distinction between the two is brought out in the following passage: "... ida qulta qabadtu dirhama zaydin kāna 1-qabdu wāqfan bid-dirhami duna zaydin wa ida qulta qabadtu itnay Cašara dirhaman fa 1-qabdu wâqf un bi-1itnayni wa-ISašarati ma'an." (Šarh al-Mufassal, ch. 318). As far as Hebrew is concerned, some attention has recently been given to blends in the contemporary language (Berman 1989), and their existence in older forms of Semitic: Phoenician Melqart (Lipinsky 1997:228), Neo-Aramaic husabo 'Sunday' (Jastrow 1985).

A PHILOLOGICAL REEVALUATION OF SOME SIGNIFICANT DSS VARIANTS OF THE MT IN ISA 1-5 Chaim Cohen (Beer-Sheva) I INTRODUCTION As the current millennium draws to a close, never have biblical scholars been in a better position to reevaluate the textual evidence provided by the more than two hundred Dead Sea biblical scrolls that were discovered at Qumran, Wadi Murabba'at, Nahal Hever, Wadi Sdeir and Masada? In fact, Peter W. Flint has categorically stated in a recent article that "by the year 2000 all the biblical scrolls will have been published or be in press" (Flint 1999:4). Only recently has a comprehensive updated seventeen page "Index of Passages in the Biblical Scrolls" been published by Eugene Ulrich (Ulrich 1999a:649-665). It is hard to imagine a more important tool for the biblical scholar attempting to evaluate the textual evidence provided by the Dead Sea biblical scrolls with respect to a particular verse. In his recent article, Flint reviews several different ongoing projects or books "that seek to make comprehensive use of the biblical scrolls" (Flint 1999:5). These include Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ΒHQ, which is intended to replace Β HS), The Hebrew University Bible (HUB, which for the first time also includes rabbinic citations), The Oxford Hebrew Bible (OHB, which is the first eclectic edition of the Hebrew Bible, i.e. not using the MT as the base text) and The Qumran Bible (QB, which is a one-volume eclectic Hebrew and Aramaic edition of all the biblical scrolls found at Qumran with all variants listed in the apparatus) [Flint 1999:4-7; for HUB and BHQ, see now esp. Sanders 1999:518-526]. Thus, it should now be clear to all that the time has come to begin philologically reevaluating the individual variants of the 1

According to James C. VanderKam, 202 biblical scrolls were found at Qumran (including the seven copies of Greek biblical scrolls; this represents about 22% of the approximately 900 scrolls in all found at Qumran) and 19 other biblical scrolls were discovered at other sites in the Judaean Desert. See VanderKam 1994:30-31; and see most recently Flint 1999:3-4 and nn. 2-3.

MT from the Dead Sea biblical scrolls. It is not enough simply to catalogue each variant (or group of variants within a given scroll) as reflecting a particular tradition (e.g. Emanuel Tov's five suggested text-groups: "Texts Written in the Qumran Practice"; "Proto-Masoretic Texts"; "Pre-Samaritan Texts"; "Texts Close to the Presumed Hebrew Source of LXX"; "NonAligned Texts" in Τον 1992:114-117; and most recently Τον 1997b:51-58; see also Ulrich 1999b:79-100). These variants are most significant for biblical textual research if they further our understanding of the development and original meaning of the biblical text by providing textual witness in individual cases of words, phrases or parts of verses for bona fide alternative traditions to the MT, superior to, inferior to or equal in quality to the Masoretic reading. Obviously, inadvertent scribal errors or intentional emendations (for whatever reason) in these scrolls do not qualify as reflecting bona fide alternative traditions to the MT. Each variant must be examined separately and philologically evaluated according to both the immediate and wider contexts of the verse in question and other occurrences of the word or phrase being discussed both in BH and, if necessary, in the other Semitic languages as well. Determination of the more original reading will often be according to the principle of lectio difficilior melior, but only upon condition that neither version is deemed incompatible with its context (whether or not as a result of discernible scribal error; contrast the formulation of Ε. Τον in Τον 1997a:226-228). That DSS scholars putting out editions of the biblical scrolls have often refrained from such philological analysis may be demonstrated by the following, albeit somewhat extreme, case. In his technical edition of 1 lQPs3 (DJD IV), James A. Sanders accurately transcribes the Hebrew text of Ps 148:1-12 (without translation) and provides brief explanatory notes regarding the usually minor textual variants in verses 1, 4, 5, 11 (Sanders 1965:23). In his more popular edition, however, he does in fact translate the text of 1 lQPs\ rendering Ps 148:8 as follows: "fire and hail, snow and f[r0st, stormy wind] fulfilling his command!" (Sanders 1967:36-37). The Hebrew text of this verse in the MT and in 1 lQPs? is as follows (Sanders 1965:23; 1967:36): MT:‫אש ובו־ד שלג וקיטור רוח סערה עשה ךבו־ו‬ ]‫אש וברר שלג רק‬ 11QPsa:‫[ עושה דברו‬ Sanders's translation "frost" in this verse is based on the often cited textual emendation in this verse of ‫" וקיטור‬and smoke" to ‫" !קרח‬and frost," according to the LXX rendering κρύσταλλος‫־‬ "ice" (see e.g. HALOT, 1096 and almost all English translations

of the Bible, e.g. RSV, NRSV, NEB·, contrast NJPSV: "and smoke") which also translates ‫ קרח‬, e.g. in Ps 147:17.2 Sanders's translation "and f[r0st]" for [ ]‫ רק‬in llQPs 3 , however, without any additional comment, gives the clear impression (especially to the non-specialist) that he is claiming that llQPs 3 provides support for the LXX reading. Such support, of course, is not provided since in Ps 148:8 both the MT ‫ וקיטור‬and the LXX's reconstructed Vorlage ‫ וקרח‬each begins with the letters ‫רק‬, the only letters of this word preserved in llQPs 3 . Therefore, as M. Dahood noted long ago, "To the exasperation of textual critics, llQPs 3 breaks off after q" (Dahood 1970:354). As opposed to Dahood's own attempt there to avoid emending the MT by finding a reference to theophany, thereby retaining the translation "and smoke" (despite the clear contextual evidence to the contrary), note the following comment by L.C. Allen, which is right on the mark: "Hebrew ‫ קיטור‬normally means 'smoke.' Here it appears to mean 'mist' in this catalogue of wintry weather conditions. Gunkel (Die Psalmen, 619) compared Jewish Aramaic ‫קטרא‬ 'smoke, mist.'..." (Allen 1983:312). The key evidence conclusively to resolve this matter (which as far as I know has never been previously suggested) is the usage of Akk. qutru, the regular term for "smoke" (CAD, Q, 326-327), the Akkadian equivalent of both Β H ‫ עשן‬and its poetic Β-word 3.‫ קיטור‬In a few Akkadian texts, qutru clearly has the meaning "fog" as a weather phenomenon and this is thus its second accepted meaning (CAD, Q, 327: meaning 2). Furthermore, the rationale underlying this semantic development ("smoke" > "fog") is also textually supported, for example, by the simile in the Neo-Assyrian annals of qutru "smoke" rising from burning houses / cities on the ground and covering the heavens kima imbari (kabti) "like a (dense) fog" (TCL 3, 261 [Sargon II]; OIP 2, 40:76-81 [Sennacherib]; cf. CAD, Q, 326; for other examples in Akk. literature, cf. CAD, I/J, 107-108) and by the common usage of the primary verb qatāru "to rise, billow" (said otherwise mainly of smoke and incense) in the phrase imbaru iqtur "a fog rolled in" (see the many examples in CAD, I/J, p. 107; Q, 166) and once in the causative šuqtur imbari "to make the fog billow" (Enuma elish V:51; cf. CAD, Q,168). Thus, MT ‫ וקיטור‬should be translated "and fog" in Ps 148:8 and there is absolutely no Hebrew textual evidence for any variant of this word from the DSS (Ps 148 is not extant in any of the other Psalms scrolls) [for the Β H technical 2

C f . the usage of ‫ קרח‬in Gen 31:40 and Jer 36:30.

3

C p . Gen 19:28 and Exod 19:18 and see in general Cohen 1997:32-33,

term for "fog" ‫ערפל‬, meaning originally "darkness," see Cohen 1995:7-12]. One classic example of a significant DSS biblical variant, which after philological evaluation proves to be an undoubtedly superior text to that of the MT, is the case of 1 Sam 1:24, where the MT reading is ‫" בפרים שלשה‬along with three bulls" (cf. e.g. Gen 32:16) vs. the 4QSam3 reading ‫" ]בפר בן[ בקר משלש‬along with a three-year-old bull" (cf. Gen 15:9) [for this example, cf. especially Τον 1992:254; Τον 1997b:62; Τον 1997a: 118-119]. While both readings are equally plausible according to the immediate context (i.e. verse 24), it is the wider context in verse 25 which proves that only a single bull is possible: ‫וישחטו את־הפר‬ "and they slaughtered the bull" (there is no extant textual variant of these words in verse 25). While it is true that a similar reading (‫ )בפר משלש‬had already been reconstructed long ago as the Vorlage of the LXX in this instance (cf. e.g. BHS), it must be emphasized that there is a big difference in degree of reliability between the Hebrew textual evidence from a biblical scroll dating some two thousand years ago and the reconstructed Vorlage of the LXX. Biblical scholars are now also in the position of often having to check more than one Dead Sea biblical scroll when working on a particular verse. With respect to Isa 1-5, for example, besides lQIsa3, Ulrich lists seven additional Isaiah scrolls which preserve portions of those chapters (4QIsaa b,e‫׳‬fJ; Murlsa; pap4QIsaP). Of the 194 distinct significant differences (see the appendix below) which I found when comparing the MT of Isa 1-5 with the text found in the aforementioned eight Isaiah scrolls, there were some 28 cases in which one of the other scrolls was in agreement with the MT against lQIsa 3 and five cases in which one of the other scrolls was in agreement with lQIsa3 against the MT. Thus, in about 17% of the cases, there were two witnesses in favour of one reading and one witness in favour of the other. This of course brings to mind the famous rabbinic report concerning the three Torah scrolls that were found in the Temple Court: ‫שלושה‬ ‫ספרים)נ(מצאו בעזרה‬.4 With respect to each of the three variant readings discussed, the report states ‫" וקיימו שנים וביטלו אחר‬they adopted the two and discarded the one" or ‫ביטלו את האחד וקיימו‬ ‫" את השנים‬they discarded the one and adopted the two". In other words, in such cases "the majority rules". Now it must be emphasized that in modern textual research this rule does not apply. Just as Talmon (at the end of his aforementioned article) labels the rabbinic majority of two vs. one "a fortuitous majority" 4

See Talmon 1962a: 14-27 for complete discussion of all four rabbinic sources.

(i.e. giving expedient legal sanction to an existing situation), so modern scholars must deal with each textual variant separately, relating to such majorities of two vs. one as merely the result of accidental discovery and basing their decision as to the preferred reading on purely philological grounds. It is noteworthy that, were this principle of majority rule to be enforced by modern scholars, the philologically based decisions regarding two of the most significant textual variants in lQIsa 3 would have to be overturned. In Isa 11:6, the famous superior lQIsa 3 reading ‫ימרו‬ ‫)*)>ימראו‬meaning "they will graze, feed" (as opposed to MT ‫" ומריא‬and a failing"—cf. e.g. Greenberg 1956:164, n. 51; Talmon 1962b:6970‫ ;־‬Brownlee 1964:217-218; Hoegenhaven 1984:23), clearly the lectio difficilior and the better text stylistically according to the two parallel clauses, would have to be "discarded" because of the reading of this verse in 4QIsa° (cf. Skehan and Ulrich 1997:52), which agrees with the MT. In Isa 51:9, the lQIsa3 inferior reading ‫" המוחצת‬who smites" (as opposed to MT ‫" המחצבת‬who strikes"—cf. esp. Kutscher 1959:25-26, 192-193; Kutscher 1965:87; and for the Ug. parallelism tmths // thtsb "she smites // she strikes," cf. e.g. KTlß 1.3:11:5-7 and Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 1996:201), clearly the less preferred reading in the light of the aforementioned Ug. parallelism (the MT reading is surely the lectio difficile, would have to be "adopted" because of the reading ‫ ]המוח[ צת‬in this verse in 4QIsa° (cf. Skehan and Ulrich 1997:67) in agreement with lQIsa3.5 Finally, it should be emphasized that not only must each textual variant be evaluated separately, but scholars must also not allow themselves to be influenced unduly by any preconceived notions with regard to the nature of their textual sources (e.g. the attitude of H. M. Orlinsky towards lQIsa3 as aptly summarized by Hoegenhaven 1984:18-19). As correctly stated by S. Talmon (1962b: 118) with respect to lQIsa3: "Even should the scroll ultimately be judged to be inferior to the MT, this does not rule out the possibility that in many individual instances it has preserved readings superior in sense to those of MT, and textually more original than their parallels in MT." Thus whereas J. Trebolle Barrera (1998:288) has recently listed a mere dozen verses in 5

Note that BHS, p. 756, n. 9a, emends the MT torKnbn, citing lQIsa" and Job 26:12 where ‫ מחץ‬is parallel with ‫ חלל‬in the same context as in Isa 51:9. This, however, does not take into consideration the aforementioned Ugaritic parallelism, which demonstrates also in the same context that ‫ מחץ‬is parallel with ‫חצב‬. Therefore, both ‫ מחץ‬and ‫ חצב‬fit this context, but ‫םךז^בת‬ (derived from ‫י‬/‫ )חצב‬is the preferred reading because of the principle of lectio difficilior melior, a point already emphasied by Greenfield (1958:227, n. 16).

the 66 chapters of Isaiah where the lQIsa 3 variants "may be preferable to the MT", I will attempt to demonstrate that fifteen such cases exist in Isa 1-5 alone (see the next section). II FIFTEEN SIGNIFICANT DSS VARIANTS IN Isa 1-5 WHICH ARE PREFERABLE TO THE MT Out of a total of 194 distinct significant differences (i.e. all differences except those due to the general tendency towards more plene spellings in DSS orthography) which I found when comparing the MT of Isa 1-5 with those chapters in lQIsa3, 4QIsa abefj , Murlsa and pap4QIsaP, there were 31 distinct significant variants (i.e. DSS variants which provide evidence for a reading significantly different from the MT). Such significant variants do not include such differences as orthographical and phonological distinctions, different morphological verbal and non-verbal forms (including Aramaic forms) which are semantically equivalent, addition or deletion of prefixed ,‫ב‬, ‫ה‬, ‫ו‬ ‫כ‬, ‫ל‬, ‫( מ‬unless the meaning was changed significantly), pausal forms, different word order without change in meaning and clear scribal errors. Of the 31 significant variants in comparison with the MT, 15 may be considered superior readings (see below), 11 may be considered inferior readings (lQIsa 3 1:18 [ 3 : 1 1 ;[‫כשני‬ ‫;]ישוב לרא‬3:22][om. 4) [‫והמטפחות‬QIsab almost identical with MT}; 3:25 [‫( וגבוריך‬prima manus)]; 4:2 [ ; [ ‫ו י ה ו ד ה‬ 5:2 [‫ ;]ויסקולהו‬5:13 [‫ ;]וכבודי‬5:17 [‫ ;]כבושים‬5:24 [‫( ואש לוהבת‬two variants)], 4 may be considered equally likely or unlikely (lQIsa 3 3:24 [om. ‫ ;]יהיה‬5:29 [‫( כלביא ישאג וככפירים ינהם‬three variants)]), and in one case MT and lQIsa3 have a common superior reading to that of 4QIsaf (1:18 [‫)]כתולעת‬. The table below provides a synopsis of the 15 superior DSS variants in Isa 1-5. A separate discussion for each superior variant then follows the table, detailing all major Β H textual evidence leading to this evaluation in each case. The basic bibliography used for this research included Parry and Qimron 1999 (the latest edition of lQIsa3); Skehan and Ulrich 1997 (official editions of 4QIsa abe fJ and pap4QIsap); Milik 1961 (official edition of Murlsa); Kutscher 1959 (the most important research on the language of lQIsa3 and the comparison with BH)\ Goshen-Gottstein 1995 (the HUB edition of the Book of Isaiah); BHS. The evidence from the biblical versions (LXX, Targum etc.) was considered only secondarily (i.e. in support of one of the Hebrew readings).

The Fifteen Superior DSS Variants in Isa 1-5 (all from 1QIsá1) lQIsa3 ‫ושממו עליה‬ ‫ידיכמה דמים מלאו‬ ‫אצבעותיכם בעאון‬ 3.-4. 1:31 ‫ ופעלו‬.. ‫ ופעלכם החסן‬.. ‫החסנכם‬ 5. 2:9-10 :‫ ואל־תשא להם‬not included in ‫בוא י בצור והטמן בעפר‬ text ‫מפני פחד ה' ומהדר גאנו‬ MT 1.1:7 ‫ושממה‬ τ τ 2. 1:15 ‫ידיכם ךמ י ם מלאו‬

6. 2:11 ‫שפל‬ 7. 2:18 ‫חלף‬: 8. 2:20‫אשרעשולו‬ 9. 2:20 ‫לחפר פרות‬ 10. 3:16 ‫וברגליהם‬ 11.3:24 ‫כי־תחת יפי‬ 12.5:6 ‫יזמר‬ ‫בתה לא‬ ·· Τ ‫־‬ TT 13. 5:8 ‫והושבתם‬ 14. 5:10 ‫בת אחת‬ 15. 5:28 ‫כצר‬

Other MSS ‫( ושממה‬Murlsa) ‫ידיכם דמים מלאו‬ (4QIsaf) [ 4 )[‫ ה [חם]ן‬Q I s a f ) ‫ולא ] []פ[ ח י‬ ‫י]ה[וה ומהדר גאונו‬ (4QIsab) [ ]‫ולא ]ת[ שא‬ [ ]‫ביא‬ (4QIsa")

‫תשפלנה‬ ‫יחלופו‬ ‫אשר ]עשו לו אצ[בעותיו‬ ‫לחפרפרים‬ ‫וברגליהנה‬ ‫כי תחת יפי בשת‬ ‫בתה ולוא יזמר‬ ‫ויש>ב אל־‬ÌQIsa 3 ) ‫ תשפלנה( ושח רום אנשים‬:1QIsaa) ‫עיני גבהות אךם שפל‬ ‫ י‬:‫ונשגב ה' לבדו ביום ההוא‬ As regards verses 9-10, the shorter reading of lQIsa 3 (‫)וישח אז־ם וישפל איש ו‬, which then is continued with verse 11 is much smoother than the MT. Verse 10 occurs again in a similar form in verse 19 and 21 where the overall context seems much more appropriate. There is no apparent scribal error in lQIsa3 to explain a scribal omission of the major part of verses 9-10. Verses 10 and 19 are identical after the word ‫ )ב(עפר‬until the word ‫( גאנו‬cf. verse 21). As regards the variant in verse 11, lQIsa3 is clearly the preferred text both grammatically and stylistically in the light of 5:15-16. Since there are two cases of ‫ ושפל‬in verses 12 and 17 (this latter verse is particularly close to verse 11), it would seem that this may be the source of the MT scribal error. Resultant translation: "But man shall be humbled, and mortal brought low. Man's haughty look shall be lowered, and mortal pride shall be humbled. For none but the Lord shall be exalted on that day". no. 7. Isa 2:18 (‫ יחלופו‬:lQIsa 3 ) ‫חלף‬: ‫והאלילים כליל‬ lQIsa3 is, grammatically, clearly the preferred text. The scribal error in MT is probably due to haplography of the final ‫( ו‬with the first letter of the first word of the next verse,‫)ובאו‬. Resultant translation: "As for the idols, they will completely vanish".

nos. 8.-9. Isa 2:20 ‫ביום ההוא ישליך האז־ם את אלילי כספו ואת אלילי זהבו‬ ‫ אשר ]עשו לו אצ[בעותיו( להשתהות‬:ÌQIsa 3 )‫אשר עשו־לו‬ ‫ להפרפרים( ולעטלפים‬:1QIsa3) ‫'להפר פרות‬ The MT reading in the third clause (‫ )אשר עשו לו להשתהות‬could, syntactically, only be understood in the present context as referring to the idols being made for man by someone else (cf. e.g. Ibn Ezra), which contradicts 2:8 (cf. 17:8). The real proof of the superiority of lQIsa 3 in this case is Isa 31:7 (together with the classic parallelism of ‫ ירים‬// ‫" אצבעות‬hands // fingers" [cf. no. 1 above]): ‫כי ביום ההוא ימאסון איש אלילי כספו ואלילי זהבו אשר עשו לכם‬ ‫" י ר י כם חטא‬For on that day everyone will reject his idols of silver and his idols of gold, which your hands have sinfully fashioned for you". Note already the pre-DSS comment in Gray 1912:60 (on the word ‫ עשו‬in Isa 2:20): ‫ עשו ״‬... Either ‫ ידיו‬has dropped out (cp. 31:7) or the verb was sing. - ‫ עשה‬...". Gray's comment clearly anticipated the first lQIsa 3 variant in this verse listed above. Its only shortcoming was a failure to mention the alternative possibility that the missing word could also have been ‫אצבעותיו‬ "his fingers" (based on the aforementioned parallelism of/ ‫ירים‬ ‫" אצבעות‬hands // fingers"). The second lQIsa 3 variant in this verse is a classic example of a superior DSS variant. Read as one word either ‫ לחפרפרים‬or ‫לחפרפרות‬, which by context must refer to an animal which was worshipped (similar in meaning to ‫" לעטלפים‬to the bats") and cf. already Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radaq and now virtually all modern scholars (e.g. Wildberger 1991:101102, 120). Resultant translation: "On that day, each man will throw away to the flying foxes (?) and to the bats his idols of silver and his idols of gold, which his fingers have fashioned for him to worship". no. 10. Isa 3:16 ‫ףאמר ה' יען כי גבהו בנות ציון ותלכנה נטויות גרון ומשקרות עינים‬ ‫ וברגליהנה( תעכסנה‬:1"QIsa3) ‫הלוך וטפף תלכנה וברגליהם‬ lQIsa3 is clearly the grammatically preferred text. In Isa 3:16-17, the 3mp pronominal suffix appended to ‫ וברגליהם‬is the only grammatical error in the MT text. Resultant translation: "The Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are so haughty, walking with outstretched throats and with enticing (?) eyes, walking with pitter-patter (?) and making

a tinkling sound (?) with their feet". no. 11. Isa 3:24 ‫והיה תחת ^שם מק יהיה ותחת חגוו־ה נקפה ותחת מעשה מקשה קרחה‬ ‫ בשת( ״‬+ :ÍQIsa 8 )‫!תחת פתיניל מחגו־ת שק כיי תחת ; פי‬ The MT reading could only be accepted if ‫ כי‬were taken as an elsewhere unattested form of ‫" כויה‬burn" (cf. already t. Shab. 62b and Radaq; BOB, 465; HÀLOT, 470; DCH IV, 391, 601; Kutscher 1959:428 [contrast Loretz 1976:448]). This solution is semantically unacceptable for the following reasons. A. The terms ‫( כרה‬Exod 21:25) and ‫( מכוח‬Lev 13:24-28), both meaning "burn", are never used abstractly in BH as signifying something unattractive, but rather as referring to a physical injury or skin inflammation. B. All the positive technical terms in 3:24 refer to female adornment (perfume, clothing, hairpiece), to which a term meaning "burn" can hardly be taken as the opposite. C. The order ב 'ruler' (if this is a true reflection of the semantic facts); similarly,‫' טבט‬staff' > 'sceptre' > (perhaps via merger with ‫' )טפט‬ruler' (Gen 49:10; cf. LXX). 21

22

See Appendix 3. I suggest that at llQPs" 20:5, ‫ לוא נכחד עצבי ממכה אטר עטיתי בסתר‬be interpreted as 'my thoughts, which I enacted in secret, were not hidden from you', (1) retaining the final hireq on ‫ עטיתי‬rather than interpreting the form as 23

in sectarian composition at 4QEf [4Q270] 7 i 14.24 I would venture further that the expression ‫כי אין לאמשת רוקמה‬ ‫ בתוך‬unconsciously echoes not only the collocational patterning found at Ps 139:15, ‫!קמתי בתחתיות‬, but also the usage at Ezek 17:3, ‫אשר־לו הרקמה‬. Nebuchadrezzar had ‫רקמה‬, the ladies of Qumran did not. Even if the Scrolls do not describe a celibate community, women members in some sense 'didn't count.' A murmurer against the mothers is fined for (just) ten days, for mothers have no 'essential being,' 'authority,' or 'status' in the midst of the community, that is to say, they 'count for nothing' or 'have no (intrinsic) right to be' there.25 second person with suffix, for it makes sense that what is hidden from you is something that I have done, not something that you yourself have done, and (2) interpreting ‫ עצבי‬not as the hapax ‫' עצב‬vessel, shape', but as the common ‫' )עצבי( עצב‬idol,' used here, I would argue, in the sense of ‫ בלול‬at 1QH 4:15,19; 1QS 2:11, etc., namely 'bad thought, false conception.' Probably this is the same sense ‫ עצב‬had for the 1 lQPs a writer at v. 24 (LXX άνομία; see Allen 1983:253, on MT ‫עצב‬, and Tournay 1966:261, cited by Allen), where the 'two ways' of earlier cultic practice (see Würthwein 1957:173-74) now reflect Qumran dualism. The singular verb is unproblematic as it precedes the subject; otherwise, the noun would need to be pointed as an elsewhere unattested singular: *‫עצבי‬. In any case, I would suggest that the following ‫ רוקמתי בארץ תחתיות‬be interpreted as '(when) my essential being/nature was in the depths of the earth' (perhaps reflecting the common Scrolls, especially Hodayot, motif of humankind as mere dust), with ‫ רוקמתי‬or ‫ רוקמתי‬being understood as equivalent toirrrôaTaais‫־‬, or, better, that the Septuagint and the DSS writers shared an interpretation of this Hebrew sequence. (Abegg, Flint, & Ulrich (1999:574-75) translate ‫ עצבי‬in verse 15 as "my pain", and ‫דרך עצב‬ in verse 24 as "offensive way," the latter meaning presumably derived, as in BDB, 780b, from the former, and render both ‫ עטיתי‬and ‫ רוקמתי‬in verse 15 as passives (cf. note 12, above: "My pain is not hidden from you, by whom I was made in secret, intricately woven together in the depths of the earth.") 24

Why writers not far distant in time from the sectarians apparently understood the form at Ps 139:15 quite differently, in connection with foetal development (as evidenced by the mishnaic and later tannaitic use of \ ‫ ר ק ם‬, in Pi1 el, Pifal, and Hi fit, cf. note 18, above) we shall not attempt to answer here. 25

It has been claimed that the 'fathers' and 'mothers' in our text represent honorific titles, although the evidence from 4QRitMar [4Q502] that Schuller (1994:122-23) adduces for parallel male-female honorifics is weak (with the possible exception o f M u p t [‫ בסוד זקני]ם‬at 4QRitMar [4Q502] 24:4). Even if 'mothers' does constitute a term of respect, it does not imply full membership. Were it to do so, which is the route that Schuller attempts to pursue, there would seem to be a contradiction between membership and lack of rwqmh. Davies & Taylor (1996:229) make the point, contra Schuller, that "[t]he presence of women ... in the congregation of lQSa does not necessarily

Appendix 1. Other approaches ίο rwqmh This appendix presents earlier translations and discussions of the form rwqmh in this text and in two other Scrolls texts published in the 1990s, before signalling some alternatives to my proposals, made at the Beer-Sheva meeting. Translations of rwqmh and the immediately preceding text include the following: "for the mothers have no such esteem within [the congregation" (Cook 1996:73); "denn den Miitt[er]n geziemt keine Einordnung (rwqmh)" (Maier 1995:229); "Wohl von rqm abgeleiteter terminus technicus für eine feste Anordnung" (ibid., n. 345); "For the Mothers have no distinction (rwqmh?) within [the congregation" (Vermes 1995:116); "because for mothers there is no mingling (?) in the midst of the [the congregation" (Garcia Martinez 1994:66) (However, this translation of the Spanish original [Garcia Martinez 1993:114] is at least misleading: mezcla is a straightforward noun, not a gerundive, etc., meaning 'mixture,' presumably in reference to 'mixed cloth' or 'embroidery,' i.e. to biblical ‫רקמה‬. Also, the Spanish original has the article before 'mothers' ["las madres"], which should have been retained in translation). The official edition has "authoritative status (?)" (Baumgarten 1996:164). "The translation of ‫ רוקמה‬is suggested by the context. In 4QShirShabb and HQShirShabb the word is used for embroiimply 'full' membership." Davies & Taylor also stress (ibid., 225) that the status of women in the yahad is not necessarily the same as the status they have (or do not have) in the'edah. It is this latter organization that is represented both in lQSa and, overwhelmingly in CD and 4QD: yahad in the sense required is only found at 4QDC [4Q270] 3 iii 19 + 4QD f [4Q271] 2:7,‫( ממשפטי היחד‬Baumgarten 1996:151, 173), although the presence of yahad in a text (4QD C ) in which cedah is clearly attested at least three times tends to go against the division between the two entities that Davies & Taylor emphasize. In MS Β of CD itself, at CD 20:1, 14, 32,‫ היחיד‬is usually understood not as ‫' ה;חיד‬the unique one' but as ‫' היחד‬the community.' Davies (1982:179), defends this interpretation primarily because of the usage at 20:32, where ‫ אנשי היחיר׳‬seems to mean 'men of the community'" (thus even Schwartz [1995:37], who interprets as "unique" in the other two passages; ‫ היחיד‬is explicitly altered to ‫ היחד‬on each occasion by Qimron [1992] 47-49; Rabin [1958:36-43] gives both possibilities throughout). However, as Davies argues (ibid., 175), the use of the term ‫ יחד‬in CD 20 is but one of the features indicating that "the community behind all the material in this section is a different one from that which produced the rest of the Admonition" and "is to be attributed to the Qumran community" (ibid., 173), which, therefore, represents "a splinter-group" (ibid., 176; cf. 175). See as well Davies 1995:140.

dered figures, and in 4Q405 the phrase ‫ רוקמת כבוד‬occurs, but there is no apparent etymological connection with the sense required here" (ibid., 166). "That women had some form of corporate status within the community may be inferred from the mention of an order of 'Sisters',‫אחיות‬, in 4Q502. If the Sisters had some relationship with the Mothers we do not know, but the latter were ostensibly expected to be treated with deference. Failure to do so was a punishable offence, although not with the severe penalty of expulsion which was applied in the case of the Fathers. The differentiation is explained as due to the Mothers not having ‫רוקמה‬, a term which elsewhere means 'embroidery', but here apparently signifies authoritative status within the community. It thus appears that the penal code, which in the Community Rule seems to reflect the discipline of an all male order, was capable of being also applied to a society in which both men and women took part in communal life" (ibid., 8). In the concordance to Baumgarten's edition, the form is listed under the lemma ‫( ךקמה‬ibid., 232), analogous to ‫' חכמה‬wisdom' (cf. Appendix 2, below). Wacholder, Abegg, & Bowley (1996: 330b) list our word under the lemma "mixing, embroidered cloth (?). n. ‫רוקמה‬," along with the same form, ‫רוקמה‬, at 4QNarrC [4Q462] 1:5 (Wacholder & Abegg 1995:350/Smith 1995:198, both of which read:]‫ים רוקמה הלכנו כי לוקח‬°[). Smith (1995:199) notes ‫ ריקמה‬as another possible reading and renders (ibid., 200): "With embroidered robe we went for taking." Contrast Garcia Martinez 1994:226: "we were emptyhanded; for, to seize" (where "were" represents a misunderstanding of the Spanish original, 1993:279, "fuimos," which, in view of the underlying Hebrew, clearly means 'went,' fuimos being the past of both somos 'we are' and vamos 'we go'); Cook 1996:401: "to Rekem we went, for [...] was taken"). Smith 1995:201-202 has an extended note on rwqmh, rich in ideas and bibliography (the latter omitted here)— "One interpretation of ‫ רוקמה‬is to identify it with ‫ ריקמה‬in 1QM V 6, 9, 14; VII 10; 4Q179 1 ii 12, where the word refers to embroidery ... In the description of Jerusalem as the bride of YHWH in Ezekiel 16, Jerusalem wears a robe called ‫[ רקמה‬vowels supplied] (vv 10, 13 and 18). 4QpIsaa 7-10 iii 24 connects the ‫ צמח דויד‬with 'a throne of glory, a crown of holiness and embroidered garments (‫ ')בגדי ריקממיק‬... Themes appropriate to Jerusalem and the restoration of Israel appear later in this fragment, and it would be possible to view ‫ רוקמה‬in this light."

"If ‫ ריקמה‬were the correct reading, a possible allusion to or play on Exod. 3:21 might be involved. The biblical verse contains *‫ רקם‬and *‫הלך‬: ‫[ והיה כי תלכון לא תלכו ריקם‬vowels and paragogic nun supplied]. Accordingly one might translate ‫ רוקמה הלכנו‬in line 5: 'empty-handed we went'. The form ‫ ריקמה‬consists of three elements: (1) the adjectival base, *rêq (spelled rîq without sufformatives throng idea one stage further. Chajes (1908:73) defends MT on the basis of Akkadian cognates: "And after Benjamin are the nobles of Judah in their multitude [bahamnām], which it appears is the sense of rgmtm, which I connect with rgm in Assyrian, meaning 'to call out,' and from this, ragmu, a noun, 'noisy multitude' [hamn š&n], for Judah was the most numerous [tribe]. If so, there is no need to emend to ‫ ךגשחם‬...; in Jerome in purpura sua emends to ‫ברקמתם‬, that is to say, 'in their precious garments'" (my translation). Buttenwieser (1938:30-31) has the eccentric "The chieftains of Judah in ecstasies", commenting that "for rigmathām ... the original reading ... has been preserved by the Greek". However, I can find no justification for such a statement in any Greek text and can only assume that Buttenwieser's interpretation is based on a slip of the eye, which has transposed LXX ev έκστάσει from the preceding clause, describing Benjamin (MT ‫ח־ם‬, which Buttenwieser actually translates: "That treads down the enemy") to the next one, describing Judah. The rendering of Dahood (1968:149) is equally curious in that it does not take into account the common Ugaritic verb rgm here but instead, as at least one targum, relates ‫ רגמתם‬to ‫' ארגמן‬purple': "in double file. A doubtful version of much contested rgmtm, which I parse as a feminine dual like Ugar. thmtm. Juxta Hebraeos translates it in purpura sua, 'in their purple robes,' a version that merits consideration in view of the Northwest Semitic evidence for nouns appearing with or without prothetic aleph ... Thus in addition to 'argāmān Ugar. agrmn, there may have been a feminine doublet *rgmt" (cf. Grill [1883:165], who gives a list of earlier scholars who link ‫ רגמתם‬and ‫)ארגמן‬. In view of Dahood's comments, Anderson (1972:496) may be wrong to equate Jerome's in purpura sua with the Hebrew MS reading ‫דקמתם‬, although here Anderson follows in the steps of, inter alios, Delitzsch and Chajes (see above); Tur-Sinai (in Ben Yehuda 1959:6430b), thinks Jerome had either ‫ רקמתם‬or ‫או־גמנם‬ in mind. It is perhaps of note that in Exodus ‫ ארגמן‬is five times defined, along with other materials, as ‫( מעשה רקם‬Exod 26:36; 27:16; 36:37; 38:18; 39:29; see also Exod 35:35; 38:23; Ezek 27:7, and especially Ezek 27:16: ‫( ארגמן ורקמה‬see below, on Tur-Sinai). Anderson also says that our word "is possibly

associated with the Ugaritic rgm ('to speak')" and mentions A. Johnson's emendation to ‫" רגם תם‬honest-spoken". Like Dahood, Seybold (1996:262), who bases his note to verse 28 on HALAT, fails to mention the Ugaritic evidence: "‫ רגמתם‬unsichere Bedeutung: entweder von ‫ רגם‬,Steinhaufen' (‫״‬Haufe") oder von akk. rigmu ,Ruf', ,Geschrei' (‫״‬Menge") abzuleiten." Tur-Sinai (in Ben Yehuda 1959:6430b) suggests that ηγεμόνες‫ ־‬αυτών (and its semantic parallels in other versions) was arrived at by interpreting ‫ רגמתם‬as a contracted representation of the Greek words. He also reports (ibid.) Abraham ibn Ezra's understanding of the word as 'their princes,' on the basis of the name ‫ רגם מלך‬at Zech 7:2. In the way of identification with Akkadian rigmu, Tur-Sinai introduces an obstacle of phonetic correspondence (the Akkadian word would be matched by Hebrew ‫' רעם‬thunder') before suggesting yet another emendation, this time to ‫גמרתם‬, meaning 'all of them.' Segal (1927: § 59) claims that "‫ ג‬interchanges with ‫"ג = ק‬, but gives little supporting evidence. The nearest parallel I have noticed to the case I have discussed is ‫ כרקב‬and ‫ כרגב‬in, respectively, the Β and Masada MSS of Sir 43:20 (the sense intended seems to be closer to ‫' כ ת ב‬like a clot' than to ‫כרקב‬ 'like rottenness'). Less striking is ‫( חוג‬Sir 43:12 [M]) for ‫חוק‬ 'circle' in MS B; cf. ‫' בחוקו חוג‬when he described a circle,' at Prov 8:27 (as against ‫' בחוקו‬when he gathered [the earth's foundations]' at v. 29). Other examples of the interchange that I have encountered include ‫( קפח‬m. Bek 7:6) for ‫' גבח‬bald' and ‫( שגךא‬targums) for ‫' שקד‬almond.' Early travellers attempted to explain the name Qumran as biblical Gomorrah. With regard to the latter form, note Segert 1995:73-74: "Die Postvelar /g/ wurde in der Septuaginta mit g- am Wortanfang ... und mit k anderswo angedeutet," citing βαλάκ (Gen 36:32 111 Chron 1:43) andßaXetc (1 Chron 5:8) for MT ‫ בלע‬as examples. Within Romance vocabulary, compare duke and doge, bark and barge, etc., and between Semitic and Romance, misjad and mezquita 'mosque', jamal and camel, etc. Instances of kaf-gimel interchange may include the hapax ‫ סכר‬in the Pi'el at Isa 19:4 for ‫ סגר‬Hifil 'hand over' elsewhere, and in the Nifal at Gen 8:2 and Ps 63:12 for ‫ סגר‬Nif'al 'be closed' elsewhere, ‫' נסך‬weave' for Arabic nasaja, ‫ גפר‬and ‫ כפר‬in Gen 6:14 (cf. Hitzig, at the beginning of this note), etc. Qof-kaf interchange is found in, e.g., ‫ וקובע‬at Ezek 23:24 for ‫ וכובע‬at 27:10 and 38:5. Assimilation of voiceless qof to voiced mem could explain why the LXX translators and Scrolls scribes heard a gimel rather than a qof (compare Sir 43:20), although, on the other hand, the presence of a back vowel u in

Qumran phonology should have tended to favour retention of uvular qof rather than velar gimel. From the Scrolls, Mansoor (1958:51-52) notes the lQIsa 3 reading ‫ אמרי‬for MT ‫' אכזרי‬cruel,' at Isa 13:9 (although the form with kaf is found twice in the Scrolls and four times in Ben Sira),‫ תנכח‬at lQSb 5:27 for biblical ‫' תנגח‬you will gore,' and ‫ רוכנים‬a 11QS 11:1 for ‫' רוגנים‬murmurers' at Isa 29:24 (a particularly interesting parallel to ‫רקמה‬/‫מה‬:!‫)!־־‬, as well as Samaritan ‫גלי‬/‫' כלי‬an exile,' and ‫ עף‬for Hebrew ‫כנף‬ 'wing.' Wallenstein (1957:210), referred to by Mansoor, also argues that at 1QH 8:23-24 the form ‫ פלגיו‬in fact represents ‫פלכיו‬ "its surrounding portion of ground," claiming that "[t]he interchange of gimel and kaph is not... uncommon ... in Palestinian Aramaic," citing Dalman 1927:99. In fact, Dalman notes not only ‫פגר‬/‫' פכר‬pull down,' ‫גיף‬/‫' כיף‬riverbank, shore,' ‫גזיב‬/‫כזיב‬ 'Chezib' (these two pairs also in Mansoor 1958:51-52) but also ‫גוררינון‬/‫' קורריינא‬Gordianus,'‫פסג‬/‫' פסק‬divide' (as well as ‫גרר‬/‫ערר‬ ‫כובעץ‬/‫קובעין‬,^«{), 'helmets' and ‫טכים‬/‫' טקיס‬put in order', and, strikingly, ‫גחך‬/‫' חוך‬laugh,' with which one might compare the Palestinian pronunciation of al-Quds as al-'Uds, with glottal for uvular plosive). Tur-Sinai (in Ben Yehuda 1959:6734a) suggested that the verb ‫ ךהןם‬and noun (formally participial) ‫ רקם‬are derived from the Hittite loanword ‫ ;או־גמן‬in Torczyner 1941:19-23, he not only argued for this etymological link but also claimed that the words represent a semantic shift from 'richly-coloured material' to 'tribute (originally consisting of such material).' However, the argument depends on the derivation of the Hebrew terms from Hittite arkamma(n) 'tribute,' which Rabin (1963:116-18) contended is less likely than a Mediterranean origin (in which any feature corresponding to 'tribute' is missing; conversely, the meaning 'purple' is not attested in Hittite); it has also been argued that one of the pieces of evidence in Tur-Sinai's thesis, namely Ugaritic argmn, has nothing to do with 'tribute' or 'purple' but rather means 'demand for payment, account,' on the basis of Akkadian parallels of ‫ג‬/‫( רגם‬see Wagner 1966:28-29). Tur-Sinai (in Ben Yehuda 1959:6430b), also, despite the phonetic difficulty (see above), suggests a connection of ‫י‬7‫' רגן‬complain' with ‫ רגם‬in Ugaritic, 'speak' (in Akkadian 'complain,' Arabic 'curse,' etc.), and Rabin (1963:135 n. 8) mentions ‫ רגמה‬at Ps 68:28 as a possible reflex 0 ^ ‫' ר ג ם‬speak (against)' in his discussion (ibid., 134-36) of the relationship of the various Semitic realizations of the root to Hittite tarkummāi 'announce, explain, translate.' One might also relate to the meaning we propose the royal name ‫ רקם‬at Num 31:8 (and elsewhere), apparently contra Brenner (1982:150),

who presents the name in the context of her argument (based on cognate languages as well as the biblical and post-biblical usages) that the basic semantic feature of Von is "multi-coloured"; as well as the Phoenician name rgmn in a Cypriot inscription, contra Rabin (1963:118), who suggests the rendering "Ginger"!

VERBAL SYNTAX IN LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW* Mats Eskhult (Uppsala) The problem posed for this article is: does verbal syntax in the later biblical writings differ from classical usage? The corpus under investigation is taken from the historical narrative prose, viz. Chronicles' non-parallel parts, Nehemiah's memoirs (Neh 1:1-7:5; 12:27-13:31 )and the Book of Esther. Linguistic features of verbal syntax, peculiar to the corpus, will be pointed out and supported with examples. These characteristics will be compared with the usage encountered in Samuel - Kings.1 Whenever possible the relative lateness of a feature will be corroborated by putting the expression in Chronicles in contrast to that in the Vorlage. In order not to focus on mere idiosyncrasies, features that are shared by—if possible—all samples will be looked for. Though the corpus is rather small for this kind of analysis, there are,at least three writers involved, which will ensure that the findings are to some degree typical. The finite verb (a) Narration. The decline of wayyiqtol in our corpus is significant, but it is still the normal narrative form, and there is no indication that it declines in usage in favour of tfqatal.2 In contrast, vfqatal is used in comparatively few instances in narration, e.g. Neh 13:1:‫ביום ההוא נקו־א בספר משה באןני העם ונמצא‬ ‫" כתוב בו‬On that day the book of Moses was read in the people's earshot and there was found written in it"3—a remarkable I wish to thank Prof. Muraoka for providing me with additional references since the paper was read. Regrettably, Dr Van Peursen's dissertation (1999) reached me too late to be taken into account. 1 This means that Samuel - Kings, though mutually not veiy homogenous, represent "classical" usage. When necessary, references to other books will be given, and then, especially concerning later usage, to Ezra and Nehemiah's non-memoir portions. 2

Per thousand words, the figures are in Esther, 32.52; in Nehemiah, 29.55; and in 2 Chronicles, 46.13, to be considered against the proportions in Samuel-Kings: 1 Sam 63.01; 2 Sam 61.24; 1 Kgs 51.34; 2 Kgs 64.36. Also, wayyiqtol is remarkably frequent in 2 Chr 14: 2-14; 20:1-30; 29:20-24. 3 The other instances are: Neh 12:39; 13:30; Esth 8:15; 9:23, 24, 25,

observation in view of the frequency of narrative Wqatal in 2 Kgs 23, and the fact that it takes over the function of wayyiqtol in Rabbinic Hebrew.4 The yiqtol form is avoided for the past, which entails that the construction 'az yiqtol—e.g. 1 Kgs 3:16 ‫תבאנה שתים נשים זנות‬ ‫— אז‬is retained solely in two parallel passages.5 There are no occurrences of ,az plus verb in the Nehemiah memoirs and Esther. In circumstantial clauses yiqtol is sparsely used in the Bible in general, and the instances in our corpus are rare: 1 Chr 11:8 ‫( ויואב יהיה אודשאר העיר‬he fortified all around) "while Joab repaired the rest of the city", and Esth 4:3 ‫שק וא?ר יצע לרבים‬ (there was a great mourning) "many put on sackcloth and ashes", as well as the three circumstantial welö}yiqtol, Esth 1:19 = 9:27; 3:2.6 Past habitual yiqtol is not out of fashion, as can be gathered from 1 Chr 12:23; 23:14; 2 Chr 25:14 (bis)·, and especially interesting are the examples of an obligative-habitual character, viz., 1 Chr 9:24 ‫" לארבע רוחות יהיו השערים‬The gatekeepers were to be on the four sides", and 1 Chr 9:27, 28 (bis); 2 Chr 4:6;‫ד‬ 31:18. This usage is also found in Esther: 2:12 ‫כי כן‬ ‫" ימלאו ימי מרוקיהן‬for the days of their beautification were to be completed as follows", see also 2:13, 14. 27; 1 Chr 22:18 ("oral narrative"): 23:1; 2 Chr 3:7; 15:6 ("oral narrative"); 31:21; 33:14, 19 (plus Ezra 3:10; 6:22; 8:30, 36; 9:2). 4 Cf. 2 Kgs 23:4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15. Verheij (1990:97) writes on c w qatal in narration: "W-qatal is almost lacking in Chronicles, especially in the non-synoptic texts. There is no sign of an increase, so the figures provide no indication for the W-qatal taking over from Wa-yiqtol, as supposed by Driver and Kropat." A single counter-example would be 2 Kgs 23:6 ‫ וירק‬vs. 2 Chr 34:4 .‫סבר ןה!־ק‬ 2 5 Chr 5:2 [1 Kgs 8:1]; 2 Chr 21:10 [2 Kgs 8:22], Otherwise ,az qatal is used, both in the parallels—1 Chr 20:4 [2 Sam 21:18]; 2 Chr 6:1 [1 Kgs 8:12]; 2 Chr 8:12 [1 Kgs 9:24]; 2 Chr 8:17 [1 Kgs 9:26], and in the non-parallels: 1 Chr 15:2; 16:7; 2 Chr 24:17. For ,az yiqtol in Samuel - Kings, cf. 1 Kgs 8:1; 9:11; 11:7; 16:21; 2 Kgs 8:22; 12:18; 15:16; 16:5. 6

Cf. 1 Sam 1:5, 7; 27:9; 2 Sam 15:37; 1 Kgs 1:1. In the affirmative, yiqtol is met with twice in the parallells, 2 Chr 4:2 [1 Kgs 7:22]; 9:15 [1 Kgs 10:16]. Perhaps influenced by an underlying source is 2 Chr 24:11 (quater) cf. 2 Kgs 12:11, which lacks the yiqtol forms. Compare also in the non-memoir portion of Nehemiah, 9:27, 28, which may be influenced by Judg 2:16 (3:9, 1 5 \ 7

In defining parallel parts, guidance has been taken from Vannutelli (1931-34), under comparison with Polzin (1976:27-28), which is based on Bendavid's Parallels in the Bible, Jerusalem 1972). Deviations from Polzin are printed in italics.

Also, there is a tendency towards indirect speech, which generally means that the finite verb in corresponding direct speech is replaced by an infinitival construction (see below). At times, however, the clause in indirect speech is introduced by a particle, followed by modal yiqtol. Thus, Esth 2:10: ‫כי מו־דכי צרה עליה אשר לא־תגיד‬ "for Mordecai had instructed her that she should not tell".8 The other instances are to be found in Nehemiah, 9 except 1 Chr 21:18, where we have a significant substitution, and uniquely ki instead of ,ašcer. (Gad was told) ‫לאבזר לח־יד כי יעלה ח־יד להקים מזבח‬ "to tell David that David should go up and erect an altar", where 2 Sam 24:18 has ‫" ויאמר ליו עלה הקם ליהוה מזבח‬and (Gad) said to him: 'Go up, erect an altar to the Lord'". 10 Sometimes, the falling away of the clause in direct speech causes the original inquit-verb to be followed by wayyiqtol. For this phenomenon, we may compare the two expressions: 2 Sam 18:23 ‫" ויאמר א רוץ ויו־ץ‬he said 'run!', and he ran",11 as against 1 Chr 14:12 ‫" ויאמר דויד וישרפו באש‬David ordered and they were burned with fire". See also 1 Chr 21:17; 2 Chr 24:8, Neh 13:9, 19. (b) Discourse. In discourse, the corpus under review shows only few cases where qatal is not used for the past: possible instances of prediction (2 Chr 12:5, 2 Chr 20:37) are probably to be analysed as ordinary perfects; and as to qatal in performative function, the three nätatti (1 Chr 21:23; 29:3; 2 Chr 2:9) seem formulaic, when compared with clear performatives in Samuel - Kings (1 Sam 2:16; 3:14; 15:11; 2 Sam 13:28; 16:4; 17:11; 19:8,30; 24:33). Rather, it is to be noticed that ‫" הנה נתתי לך לב חכם‬Lo, I give you a wise heart", 1 Kgs 3:12, becomes ‫" החכמה והמךע נתון לך‬wisdom and knowledge have been given to you," 2 Chr 1.12. In several positions the perfect consecutive (weqatalti) is by 8

Without particle, Esth 6:5 ‫יבוא‬, ‫" ויאמר ה מ ל ך‬The king said that he should come in". There are two probable instances of ''seer plus yiqtol for commands: Neh 2:5; 2 Chr 2:13, cf. Qimron 1986:77. 9

Within the memoirs: 2:7, 8; 4:6; 7:3; 13:19, 22; in the non-memoir portion: 7:65; 8:14, 15. 1(1 See further, Verheij 1990:68, note 1, and the references adduced there. Another example is Ps 96:10 vs. 1 Chr 16:31. 11

For other instances, see 1 Kgs 18:34; 20:37; 2 Kgs 2:17; 4:15; 9:21, 33; 10:14; 13:18.

no means uncommon in Esther and the Nehemiah memoirs—there are eight and twelve instances respectively, some even in quick succession, or in the apodosis after a condition, but none after Sam 7:5).12 an imperative, as in2)‫לך ואמךת‬ In the non-parallel parts of Chronicles, however, weqataltiis pretty rare.13 In some prayers, prophetic oracles, and other speeches, the use of weqatalti may even be due to earlier sources;14 also, some occurrences that lack exact parallel in Samuel - Kings are probably variants (perhaps existing already in the Chronicler's time), or they may depend on underlying sources.15 In contrast, weqatalti is substituted in some parallel passages, e.g,. ‫" ופקדו את־העם !דעתי‬register the people that I may know", 2 Sam 24:2, becomes 1,‫ןאךעה‬.. ‫ ספרואת־ישראל‬Chr 21:2.16 The decrease of weqatalti in the non-parallels is particularly significant in the apodosis after a yiqtol or an imperative.17 In conditions classical usage has weqatalti in the apodosis after an , im-clause; thus, 1 Sam 3:9 runs ‫" אם־יקךא אליך ואמךת‬if he calls 12

The occurrences of wcqataltf in Esther and the Nehemiah memoirs (ire are: Esth 1:20; 2:14; 4:11 rrm ... 6:9;‫לבד מאשריושיט־לו‬ double‫ ;איככה אוכל וראיתי‬Neh l:8b-9 (quater, but cf. Deut 30:1-2); 2:18, 20; 3:35 4:5;‫אכדיעלה שועלופרץ‬ (bis)•, 4:16; 5:8; 6:3, 11,13. 13

Verheij, 1990:98, calculates the percentage of qatal with preposed wc in discourse at 4.5 in the non-synoptic portions of Chronicles, as against 9.1 in Samuel and 10.8 in Kings. 14 Cf. 1 Chr 4:10 (très); 15:12; 22:9, 10, 11; 2 Chr 12:7; 13:9; 19:3, 10 (bis)·, 20:16. It is likely that the Chronicler used the same method when editing material from sources that have not survived, as when editing material from sources that have survived and can be checked in our Samuel - Kings, cf. Japhet, S., "Chronicles" in Encyclopedia Judaica. 15 C See further 1 Chr 17:11 (w hāyā) [2 Sam 7:12]; 1 Chr 17:17 [2 Sam 7:19]; 2 Chr 1:8 [1 Kgs 3:7]; 2 Chr 7:20 [1 Kgs 9:7]; 2 Chr 12:11 [1 Kgs 14:28]; 2 Chr 18:33 [1 Kgs 22:34], 16

Thus w'qatal is rendered by wcyiqtol in 2 Chr 7:20 [vs. 1 Kgs 9:7], in 2 Chr 18:14 [vs. 1 Kgs 22:15], but in 1 Chr 17:11 [vs. 2 Sam 7:12] it is rendered by f + infest 17

The few examples are IChr 4:10 (très, after yiqtol); 14:10 (after impv), 15:12 (after impv); 22:9f. (after yiqtol), 11 (bis, after jussive); 28:7f. (afteryiqtol); 2 Chr 7:19 (after yiqtol); 12:7 (after yiqtol); 19:10 (after isolated topic]; 32:4 (after yiqtol). —Compare, by contrast, Samuel - Kings, and more precisely wcqatalti \n immediate continuation after an imperative: 1 Sam 15:3; 18; 16:5; 22:5, 23:2; 2 Sam 14:30; 19:11; and after a yiqtol·. 1 Sam 6:3; 8:11, 14, 15, 16, 16:3; 17:32; 19:3; 23:2; 26:10; 29:8; 2 Sam 13:5; 15:4; 1 Kgs 6:12; 8:46; 9:8; 11:37; 18:12; 20:39; 22:22; 2 Kgs 20:18.

you, you shall say";18 but this is seldom the case in the non-parallel parts of Chronicles.19 Accordingly, 2 Chr 15:2‫ןאם־תךךשהו ימצא ל?ם‬ "if you seek him, he will let himself be found by you", with yimmāsē instead of nimsā ' (cf. Jer 29:13-14!).20 As far as the finite verb forms are concerned, there is a preference for object suffixes to 'efwith suffix. Considering the possibility of correct grammatical choice, the Nehemiah memoirs have eight cases of 'eiwith suffix, and 24 of verbal suffix. Esther has four instances of 'eiwith suffix, and eight of verbal suffix. There are 14 instances of ,et with suffix in the non-parallel parts of Chronicles, but ten times as many cases of verbal suffix.21 The Participle In contrast to classical usage, the corpus yields evidence of a decided increase in the use of the participle as predicate; it may be descriptive or modal, replacing yiqtol; or narrative, replacing qatal or wayyiqtol. In a number of cases, thus, it is likely that classical style would have used a finite form: note especially Neh 13:17: ‫אתם עשים ומחללים את־יום השבת‬ ‫" מה־הדבר הרע הןה‬what is this evil thing you are doing, by profaning the sabbath day?", as compared with Gen 31:26: ‫מה עשית ותעב את־לבבי‬. "What have you done by deceiving me?" Other striking instances are 2 Chr 9:14; 17:11; Neh 3:34; 4:10, 17; 6:17; 13:24; Esth 2:20; 8:17b; 9:3. This tendency may possibly lie behind the fact that 1 Kgs 22:8 ‫( כי לא־יתנבא עלי טוב‬I hate him) "for he does not prophesy good to me" is rendered ‫ כי־איננו מתנבא עלי לטובה‬in 2 Chr 18:7.22 18

Cf. 1 Sam 1:11; 2:25; 12:14f.; 14:10; 17:9; 20:6, 10; 2 Sam 10:11; 11:20; 15:8,25; 1 Kgs 1:52; 6:12; 11:38; 20:39; 2 Kgs 7:4. The only exception found is 1 Sam 12:25, which has an emphasized preposed subject. To the best of my knowledge, the only examples of weqatal in the apodosis after an 'im-clause in the non-parallels are 1 Chr 4:10; 2 Chr 7:19-20; 1 Chr 28:7 ('im clause after main clause). 20

See further 1 Chr 22:13 ('im clause after main clause); 28:9; 2 Chr 15:2; 20:9; 28:9; 30:9 ('im clause after main clause); Esth 4:14; Neh 1:9; 13:21; cf. also the phrase ‫ ואם ע ל המלך טוב‬plus yiqtol, Esth 1:19; 3:9; 5:4, 8; 7:3; 8:5; 9:13; Neh 2:5,7. 21 Instances of 'et with suffix in the non-parallels: 1 Chr 6:50, 8:8; 2 Chr 3:10, 8:2; 12:5; 13:11; 19:10; 20:16, 24:25; 27:9, 28:23; 32:11 (bis) 14. Polzin, 1976:28-31, counts 141 cases in the non-parallels. In comparison, Samuel - Kings have some 685 instances of 'et with suffix and some 725 of verbal suffixes. 22

Similarly, 2 Sam 7:29,‫ לעולם‬.. ‫יברך‬, is rendered ‫ מברך לעולם‬in 1 Chr

Moreover, the participle, when construed with hāyā, turns into a periphrastic form, expressing cursivity, e.g. 2 Chr 20:25 ‫" ויהיו זימים שלושה בחים את־השלל כי רב־הוא‬three days long they were taking spoils, because there was so much". See also the following significant examples 1 Chr 6:17; 2 Chr 24:14; 30:10 (très); 36:16 (très); Neh 1:4 (bis); 2:13; 3:26; 6:14,19 (bis); 13:5, 22; Esth 1:22 (bis); 2:7, 15; 6:1; 9:21; 27—although the cursive character is sometimes neutralized.23 Now, this usage exists in Samuel - Kings, too, e.g. 1 Sam 2:11 ‫" והנער היה משרת את־יהוה‬and the boy was serving the Lord".24 But in several of these passages, what seems to be wayhi in a periphrastic construction is actually an introductory wayhi, e.g. 1 Sam 7:10 ‫[" ויהי שמואל מעלה העולה ופלשתים כגשר‬it came about that] when S. was offering the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near".25 Often the construction is passive or stative, the hāyā having more the function of a copula, e.g. 2 Sam 7:16 ‫" ככאך יהיה נכון‬your throne shall be established".26 The inclination for the active periphrastic form may be observed in 2 Chr 24:12: ‫" ויהיו שכו־ים חצבים‬they hired masons", where the Vorlage has ‫" ויוציאהו לחו־שי העץ‬and they paid it out to the carpenters", 2 Kgs 12:12. Also, there is once a switch from passive to active, so that 1,‫ והמלך היה מעמדבמרכבה‬Kgs 22:35, is 18:34.27 17:27. Though not strictly parallel, compare also 2,‫יסית‬Kgs 18:32 vs. ,‫מסית‬ 2 Chr 32:11. — A s for narration, 2 Sam 6:12 ‫" וילך דור ויעל את־ארון האלהים‬D. went and brought up the ark of G o d " corresponds to ‫ויהי דויד וזקני‬ ‫ ההלכים להעלות‬.. ‫ ישראל‬1 Chr 15:25 "D. and the elders of Israel went to bring", cf. BHK ad loc. In addition, the two narrative ‫ וירשו‬and 11‫תגע‬Kgs 6:27 are rendered as descriptive ‫ פרשים‬and ‫ מגעת‬in 2 Chr 3:13, 11. 23

E.g. Neh 2:15 ‫ ואהי שבר‬... ‫" ואהי עלה‬I went up... and inspected". See Eskhult 1990:113-114. 24

Cf. 2 Sam 7:6; 1 Kgs 5:1; 2 Kgs 9:14. It is common in 2 Kgs 17 (17:25,28,29, 32, 33,41). 25 Cf. 1 Sam 11:11 ; 23:26; 1 Kgs 13:20; 20:39; 2 Kgs 2:11 ; 6:5, 26; 8:5; 13:21 and perhaps also 1 Kgs 5:24; 20:40 (for a discussion, see König 1899:267). 26 For hyh with näkön, cf. 2 Sam 7:26; 1 Kgs 2:45. Other cases of a not fully active periphrastic construction are 2 Sam 10:5 ( 1 8 : 8;(‫נכלמים‬.. ‫ נפצת‬..‫ ;)ותהי‬19:10 (‫ נדון‬..‫ ;)ויהי‬1) Kgs 10:3 ( 2;(‫נעלם‬ Kgs 4:1 ( . ( ‫א‬ ‫ר‬ ‫י‬ 27

By addition of hāyā, the clause 1 ‫ים פךשים כנפים‬ enlarged into 2 ‫ ויהיו הכרובים פךשים כנפים‬Chr 5:8. ‫ ויהיו ה כ ך כ י ם פרשי כנפים למעלה‬we have a construct relationship, cf. Exod 25:20 and Gen 3:5; 4:2, 17; 21:20. For Qumran Hebrew, cf. Qimron 1986:70.

Infinitives The infinitive absolute for command is totally avoided. Thus, Sam 24:12, is changed to 1,‫לךוךבךת‬ 2,‫ה א ךודברת‬ Also, striking in the non-parallels is the sparse use of the inf. abs. in paronomasia of the type: inf. abs. immediately followed by finite verb: there are five cases—1 Chr 4:10; 21:17; 2 Chr 28:19; Esth 4:14; 6:13, as against 152 in Samuel - Kings. Avoidance of inf. abs. in this function, too, may be observed in substitutions that are obviously meant to preserve the rhythm of the Vorlage: 2 Chr 6:2 ‫[ ואני בניתי‬vs. 1 Kgs 8:13 ‫ ]בנה בניתי‬and 2 A counter-example Chr 25:19‫[ הנה הכית‬vs. 2 Kgs 14:1029.[‫הכההכית‬ would be Í Chr 21:17 vs. 2 Sam 24:17 (but cf. 4QSanf). Remarkably, the corpus shows a slight advance in the use of the inf. abs. replacing a finite verb, e.g. Esth 3:13 ‫ונטלוה ספךים‬ "letters were sent".30 To be noticed is the fequency of the infinitive construct as object infinitive after ,āmar, often taking the place of the finite verb in corresponding direct speech in classical usage, as is the case in 1 Chr 13:4 ‫" ויאמרו כל־הקהל לעשות כן‬all the assembly said to do so".31 The usage is frequent in Esther, but, in fact, avoided by Nehemiah who, as stated above, uses ,asœr plus modal yiqtol instead. Significant for the Chronicler is the replacement of direct speech by infinitival constructions, e.g. 2 Sam 24:1 ‫ואת־יהודה‬ ‫את־ישראל‬ ‫לך מנה‬ ‫בהם ·־לאמר‬ ‫את־דוד‬ ‫ויסת‬ τ : V: - ‫ ד‬: ‫י‬ ·.· ‫·· ן‬ ν τ ·τ ν Τ"he incited David against them saying: 'Go, number Israel'", vs. ‫ ויסת את־דויד למנות את־ישראל‬Chr 21 ·· τ : · ·τ ν τ‫ ־‬1 28

Similarity, 2 Kgs 11:15 ‫ המת‬becomes ‫ יומת‬in 2 Chr 23:14. Despite the scanty presence in Samuel - Kings (2 Sam 24:12, 2 Kgs 3:16; 4:43; 5:10; 11:15), inf. abs. for command is not that uncommon in the Bible; Goddard (1943:60-61) counts some forty instances in all. 29

Without this preservation of rhythm: 2 Chr 7:19 ‫ואם־תשובון אתם ועזבתם‬ "but if you turn away and forsake my statutes", [vs. 1 Kgs 9:6 ‫ולא תשמרו‬ ‫אם־שיובתשמן‬...]and 1 Chr 14:10‫עלה ונתתים‬... ‫[ ו?תתם‬vs. 2 Sam 5:19 ‫כי־נהן אתן‬ ‫ ע ל ה‬..‫)התתנם‬. Actually, there are a few instances of inf. abs. in a paronomastic construction in the parallel parts: 1 Chr 21:24; 2 Chr 18:27; 32:13. 30 See also: 1 Chr 5:20; 15:22; 16:36, 2 Chr 28:19; 31:10; Neh 7:3; Esth 2:3; 6:9; 8:8; 9:1, 6, 12, 16 (très), 17 (bis), 18 (bis)• and in addition, Neh 8:8; 9:8, 13. As can be seen, however, Esther ch. 9 is clearly overreported. 31 See also: 1 Chr 15:2, 16; 21:17\ 22:2; 27:23; 2 Chr 1:18; 13:8; 14:3; 28:10, 13; 29:21; 31:4; 11; plus Neh 8:1; 9:15, 23. Occurences in Esther are: 1:11, 17; 4:5, 7, 13, 15; 6:1, 4; 9:14. For QH, cf. Qimron 1986:79. 32 See also 2 Sam 7:27 vs. 1 Chr 17:25; 1 Kgs 8:29 vs. 2 Chr 6:20; and 2 Kgs 16:7 vs. 1 Chr 21:18 (with both modal yiqtol and inf. est.). A counter

The final infinitive has a tendency to combine some other meaning with that of purpose, thus occasionally substituting for a finite form: Esth 7:8 ‫" הגם לכבוש את־המלכה‬will he even assault the Queen?"; 1 Chr 10:13 ‫" וגם־לשאיול באוב‬also, he asked counsel of a medium".33 In fact, there are several cases in the parallel parts of Chronicles, where a final inf. est. corresponds to a finite (non inquit-)verb in the Vorlage, e.g. 2 Sam 7:12 ‫" כי ימלאו זימיך ןשכבת את־אבתיך‬When your days are complete and you lie with your fathers", as against 1 Chr 17:11 ‫ימיך ללכת עם־אבתיך‬,‫והיה כי־מלאו‬. An infinitive with Ie often stands as predicate in an impersonal expression (often with yēš, ,ēn or /")35‫ י‬conveying the idea of general (im)possibility or obligation, e.g. the well-known ‫אין לבוא‬ "it was forbiden to enter", Esth 4:2. In Samuel - Kings, the similar construction is not modal, e.g. 1 Sam 9:7 ‫ותשוךה איךלהביא‬ "and there is no gift to bring"37 Introductory wayhi In contrast to the ubiquitous introductory wayhi in Samuel Kings, e.g. 1 Sam 1:4 ‫( ויהי היום ויזבח‬there are 30 such instances in 1 Samuel38), the non-parallel parts of Chronicles show comparaexample is 2 Sam 24:21 vs. 1 Chr 21:22 . 33 Cf. Esth 1:17; Neh 12:27; 2 Chr 36:19. For QH, cf. Qimron 1986:69-72. 34

See further 2 Sam 5:11 (sent messengers)‫ ויבנו‬and compare with 1 Chr 14:1 (sent messengers) 2;‫לבנות‬Sam 6:6 (put out, seil, his hand) ‫ויאחז‬, and compare with 1 Chr 13:9 (put out his h a n d ) 2;‫לאחז‬Sam 6:12 (David went)‫ויעל‬, and compare with 1 Chr 15:25 2;‫להעלות‬Sam 7:29 ‫הואל וברך‬, and compare with 1 Chr 17:27 2;‫הואלתלברך‬ Kgs 12:6 (the priest shall t seil the money)‫יחזקו‬, and compare with 2 Chr 24:5 (collect money) 1 ;‫לחזק‬ Kgs 22:49 made,‫[ עשה‬Qr] ships, and compare with 2 Chr 20:36 (joined him) ‫—לעשות‬changes that are are clearly grammatically / stylistically motivated. In some cases the relationship is reversed, but only once when the switch is grammatical, viz., 2 Chr 6:40 [vs. 1 Kgs 8:52]. See Kieviet 1997:45-73. 35

Cf. Qimron, 1986:71 note 9, against Brockelmann 1956, § 15g. On 'ēn+ inf in LBH, see Hurvitz 1999. 36 Cf. 1 Chr 5:1[/!; 9:25; 15:2 [/‫( ]׳‬replaces direct speech); 22:5; 23:4, 26 ['ēn]; 2 Chr 8:13; 12:12 [ 7 1 4 : 1 0;[‫[׳‬,ēn]; 20:6 ['ēn]; 22:9; 25:8 [yēš]; 35:15 ['ēn]; Esth 3:8 [ 'ēn]; 4:2 ['ēn]; 8:8 [ 'ēn]; plus three instances of mah Ia'a'söt: Esth 1:15; 6:6; 2 Chr 25:9 37 Cf. 1 Sam 14:6; 2 Kgs 4:13; 19:3, or, if modal, not impersonal, 2 Sam 21:4. 38 1 Sam 1:20; 3:2-4; 4:5, 18; 5:9; 7:2, 10; 8:1; 9:26; 10:11; 11:11; 14:1, 19; 16:6; 18:1, 6, 10, 30; 20:24, 27, 35; 24:2, 6, 17; 25:37, 38; 28:1; 30:1,

tively few instances—about a dozen in all.39 Also, wayhi is replaced in several passages where Kings preserves it, e.g. ‫" ויהי בכלות שלמה להתפלל‬when Solomon had finished praying", 1 Kgs 8:54, becomes 2,‫פלל‬ 4 Chr 7:1. In Esther and the Nehemiah memoirs introductory wayhi is somewhat more common: it occurs 17 times41 and is followed by wayyiqtol,42 whereas the instances in non-parallel parts of Chronicles have either a temporal infinitive or an adverb in the protasis followed by wayyiqtol or qatal in the apodosis. 43 Consequently, the low rate of introductory wayhi in our corpus means that it is dropped in a number of possible cases. In fact, there are a score of cases of the ütfqotl pattern in the nonparallels, for instance, 2 Chr 12:12 ‫" ובהכנעיו שב ממנו אף־יהוה‬when he humbled himself, the anger of the Lord turned away'5.44 Esther proffers seven such cases,45 by contrast, Samuel - Kings only three, viz., 1 Sam 17:55, 57; 2 Sam 14:26.46 Summary This study has shown some significant and chronologically conditioned differences between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew. In the corpus under review, it may be concluded that there is a decrease of wayyiqtol, but no corresponding increase of weqatal in comparison with the occurrence in classical usage. 25; 31:8; only 13:10; 18:19; 23:6 deviate from the wayhi—wayyiqtol

pattern.

39

2 Chr 5:11, 13; 12:1; 13:15; 20:1; 21:19; 22:8; 24:4,23; 25:14, 16. See also 2 Chr 7:11 [1 Kgs 9:1]; 2 Chr 34:8 [2 Kgs 22:3], 41 Esth 1:1; 2:8; 3:4; 5:1; 5:2; Neh 1:1, 4; 2:1; 3:33; 4:1, 6, 9, 10; 6:1, 16; 7:1; 13:3, 9 (never in the non-memoir portions) 42 Except Neh 1:4; 4:10; Esth 5:2. Noteworthy is the use of ka*sœrand 'ad *sœr as temporal particles in the Neh. memoirs: 3:33; 4:1, 6, 9; 5:6; 6:1, 3, 16; 7:1; 13:19; and 2:7; 4:5, respectively. 43 Chr 13:15 has w e -subj—qatal in the connective clause, and 2 Chr 5:11, 13 are ellipses. 44 See further: 1 Chr 5:1; 21:15-, 2 Chr 5:13; 7:1; 12:7, 12; 15:8; 16:8; 20:20, 23; 22:7; 24:14, 22, 25; 26:19; 29:29; 31:1, 5; 33:12; 34:14, all but three (2 Chr 5:13; 7:1; 24:11) with an asyndetic qatal in the apodosis. For Qumran Hebrew, cf. Qimron 1986:72-73. 40

45 46

1:5; 2:8, 12,15, 19; 5:9; 9:25; of these, two are elliptical, one embedded.

To be sure, bc/ke + infest without waw is common in both our corpus and Samuel - Kings. The difference is thus not in the use of b° or ke plus infinitive, but rather the proclitic waw.

The construction Jāz yiqtol is not employed, and descriptive yiqtol has lost ground significantly in comparison with the classical idiom, whereas the use of yiqtol in modal clauses is favoured. In opposition to classical usage, qatal is confined to the past and weqatalti has generally lost ground, especially in the apodosis after a condition. In contradistinction to classical usage, it is not used after imperatives. There is a significant increase in the use of the participle as predicate, particularly in the periphrastic form with hāyā. In comparison with classical usage, the inf. abs. has receded, except for its employment as the equivalent of a finite from, whereas the inf. est. shows a significant growth, partly as object of an inquit-verb, partly as "final" infinitive, corresponding to a finite form in classical usage, and partly in the form of the useful predicate infinitive clause. Striking is the falling away of introductory wayhi, and the subsequent formation of a single sentence, characterised by waw plus temporal infinitive follwed by qatal, instead of the wayhi —wayyiqtol pattern.

THE SYNTAX OF THE BIBLICAL DOCUMENTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT AS REFLECTED IN A COMPARISON OF MULTIPLE COPIES OF BIBLICAL TEXTS S.E. Fassberg (Jerusalem) A. Salient features of the morphosyntax and syntax in the Hebrew documents from Qumran have attracted the attention of scholars since the publication of the first scrolls (lQIsa 3 , 1QS, 1QM) in the 1950's. The first general treatment of syntactic phenomena in the scrolls, albeit concise, which included both biblical and non-bibical manuscripts, was that of M. Goshen-Gottstein in his 1958 survey in Scripta Hierosolymitana.' Goshen-Gottstein referred to all scrolls published to that date and he touched on the use of tenses, the waw consecutive, the "pseudo-cohortative", infinitives, the use of ‫אשר‬, and the tendency to add the nota accusativim as opposed to the Masoretic text (which he termed a "syntactic smoothing tendency"). The publication in 1959 of E.Y. Kutscher's The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll marked a turning point in the history of the study of Qumran Hebrew. Although Kutscher did not concentrate on morphosyntax and syntax, he did, nonetheless, deal with them to a limited extent. In addition, Kutscher contributed a few remarks on syntax in his survey of the language of the scrolls in the Encyclopaedia Judaica2 and in his posthumous A History of the Hebrew Language.3 A more recent analysis of syntactic topics can be found in E. Qimron's chapter on syntax in his English grammar of the Dead Sea Scrolls from 1986,4 where he discusses periphrastic tenses, the temporal syntagms ‫ בקטלו‬and ‫עם קטול‬, pronominal direct objects, doubly marked plurals of attributive constructs, word order where an object precedes an infinitive, collective nouns, and the syntax of numbers. The most recent summary of outstanding syntactic points in the Dead Sea Scrolls can be found in the sketch presented by A. Sàenz-Badillos 1

Goshen-Gottstein 1958:124-125, 128-130. Kutscher 1972, 16:1587-1588. 3 Kutscher 1982:99-100. 4 Qimron 1986:70-86. 2

in his A History of the Hebrew Language.5 T. Muraoka's contribution to this volume concentrates on the syntax of biblical texts and it is the first study to do so since Kutscher's detailed analysis of lQIsa 3 . Kutscher analyzed the deviations from the Masoretic text, highlighting linguistic phenomena that were paralleled in Late Biblical Hebrew, Tannaitic Hebrew, Samaritan Hebrew, and also Palestinian Aramaic dialects; Muraoka has done the same with the subsequently published biblical texts, supplementing the picture Kutscher drew of lQIsa3, in many cases corroborating Kutscher's analyses, in some cases demonstrating that lQIsa2 differs in some points from other biblical manuscripts, e.g., in the case of the nun paragogicum. The phenomena Muraoka discusses have been noted in some of the non-biblical documents. By and large, the biblical documents published since Kutscher's description of lQIsa 3 have not drawn much attention for two reasons: 1) many of the biblical fragments, particularly those from Cave Four at Qumran, have only recently been published; 2) the biblical documents, on the whole, parallel the Masoretic text.6 Because of the similarity to the Masoretic text, it was felt by grammarians that, because the scribes were following an earlier text, the manuscripts were less likely to contain authentic Qumran features. Thus it happened that the sectarian, non-biblical documents have until now been better investigated; see, e.g., the studies on the syntax of 1QS by E.J. Revell, T. Leahy, and Y. Thorion.7 In following Professor Muraoka's lead in investigating the syntax of biblical manuscripts, I propose to focus on biblical texts of which multiple copies exist at Qumran in order to see if, in addition to the obvious orthographic differences that exist between the manuscripts, there are also syntactic ones, and if so, what kind. Such an examination is of interest not only in and of itself, but also in the light of the advances made during the last fifty years in biblical textual criticism. The discoveries in the Judean Desert have revolutionized the manuscript evidence for the textual development of the Hebrew Bible. Gone are the 5 6 7 8

Sáenz-Badi110s 1994:144-146. Approximately 60% according to Τον 1993:115. Leahy 1960; Revell 1962, 1964; Thorion 1981. For the most recent assessment, see Ulrich 1998.

days when the Masoretic text was the sole pre-mediaeval Hebrew text. Today, in the light of the multiple copies of most of the books found at Qumran, it is apparent that different text types of the pre-mediaeval Hebrew Bible circulated in Palestine: some manuscripts reveal a striking textual similarity to the Samaritan Pentateuch (e.g., 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb), others appear to be close to the underlying Hebrew text of the Septuagint (4QDeutq, 4QSam3, 4QJer bd ), some are similar to the Masoretic text (e.g., 1QIsab, 4QJer30, 4QEzra), and yet others show features of more than one of the above (4QDeuf c h, 4QIsac, 4QDan3).9 Moreover, some manuscripts are set apart from others by scribal marks and orthographic practices that are known only from Qumran ("Qumran practice" according to Τον, e.g., lQIsa3, 4QSam c , 4QIsac).10 The plurality and fluidity of texts bear on the discussion of the language, for the underlying assumption of Kutscher and others in comparing and contrasting the Masoretic text with lQIsa3 and other biblical manuscripts has been that the Qumran biblical texts are essentially Masoretic-like consonantal texts that have been linguistically modernized. And so, in addition to investigating the nature of the syntactic differences between the manuscripts, it is only natural to ask if the biblical manuscripts (some of which were undoubtedly copied elsewhere and brought to Qumran) reflect different Hebrew dialects. Recently, E. Ulrich has argued that the differences in text between the manuscripts reflect different stages in the recension of the text"; this textual view is similar to Kutscher's linguistic view that the differences between the copies are to be ascribed to chronology. A word of caution is required: in most cases the multiple copies of books do not overlap, or only slightly, and the evidence is piecemeal. I have also included examples in which an erasure or correction in one manuscript would seem to testify to two different traditions. B. I present the evidence in order of frequency of overlapping passages containing syntactic differences according to book: 9

Τον 1992:114-177; but see also Ulrich 1998:84, who prefers a different system of classifying the texts. 10 Τον 1986. ‫״‬Ulrich 1998. 12

I have not included differences of waw conjunctive marking syndeton vs. asyndeton. But see below in the summary for a discussion of the

Book of Isaiah The Book of Isaiah is attested in two scrolls from Cave 1 and eighteen scrolls from Cave 4. Differences between the first two Isaiah scrolls published, lQIsa3 and lQIsa\ were already noted in the mid-1950's by S. Loewinger13 and E.L. Sukenik,14 though neither discussed the variants. The following syntactic and morphosyntactic differences show up:

word order 38:19 ‫ חי הוא יוהך היום כמוני‬, nlQIsaôrn ‫ חי הוא יוהכה כמוני‬T11QIsa3 (also MT) 57:18 1 ‫ומים לוא ולאבליו‬ ‫ ולאןבליו‬1QIsab (‫ ואשלם נחמים לו ולאבליו‬MT) collective concord 26:2] 1 ‫ויבאו‬QIsa b ; ‫ ויבוא גוי צהיק‬lQIsa 3 (also MT) 60:5 1 ‫ ח י ל גוים יבוא לך‬Q I s a b ; ‫ חיל גואים יבואו לך‬lQ active verb alternates with passive verb 26:1 1 ‫ב י ו ם ההוא ישיר השיר הזואת‬ 4QIsac (also MT) 53:8 1 ‫ מ ע צ ר ממשפט לקחו‬Q I s a b ; ' 7 lengthened imperfect18 alternates with regular imperfect 5:19 ! 4]‫ ותקרבה ותבאעצת‬... ‫ ו ח ח י ש ה‬Q ‫ ותבואה עצת קדוש ישראל‬1QIsaa ( ‫ותקרב ותבואה עצת קדוש‬...‫ימהר יחישה‬ ‫ ישראל‬MT) 41:9 1 ‫ואו*רה לכה‬QIsa 3 ; 4 ‫ ו א מ ר לך‬Q I s a b (also M 1 43:4 1 ‫ואתנה אדם תחתיך‬QIsa b ; ‫ תחתיך‬MT) 4]‫ואכל‬QIsab(‫ואכל‬ 44:19 1 ‫ואצלה בשר ואוכלה‬QIsa 3 ; c 55:3 ] 4 ‫ואכרותה‬QIsa ; ‫ [ה לכם ברית עולם‬lQIsa^ (also MT); ‫ת‬ ‫ לכמה ברית עולם‬1QIsa3 57:18 1 ‫ואשלמה נחמים לו‬QIsa b ; phenomenon. 13 Loewinger 1954. 14 Sukenik 1956-57:28-30. 15 The scribe has added the indefinite object before the direct object and turned ‫ לו ולאבליו‬into apposed objects. 16

One could also explain the plural verb as the result of attraction to ‫נואים‬. On this feature see now also Young 1999. 17

‫ לוקח‬could be analyzed as either the Qa\ internal passive perfect or as the Qal active participle. All the examples save one (1QIsa" 43:4) occur with waw conjunctive. 19 Parry and Qimron 1999:73 read ‫אתן אדם‬.

‫ נחמים לו‬MT) 63:5 1 ‫ואביטה ואין איש‬QIsa b ;‫ ואביט ואין עוזר‬lQIsa 3 (a simple tense20 alternates with waw consecutive + verb 5 : 6 4 ‫יעלה שמיר ושית‬QpIsa b ;‫ ועלה שמיר ושית‬lQI 4 ‫שמו פלא‬ 9:5 1 ‫וקרא שמו פלא‬QIsa 3 ; 17:13 1 ‫ו ונס ממרחק וררפ‬ (‫ ישאון וגער בו ונם ממרחק ורדף‬MT) 39:7 1 ‫ י ק ה ו ויהיו סריסים‬Q I s a 3 ; [ 4 11:7 1 ‫ורבצו ילדיהן‬ ‫ ירבצו ילריהן וכל תב!ן‬4QIsac (also MT)21 imperfect alternates with perfect 11:9 4 ‫את כבוד ה׳‬ ‫ את ה׳‬1QIsa3 (‫ כי מלאה הארץ דעה את ה׳‬MT) 25:12 1 ‫ ה ש ח ה השפיל יגיע לארץ‬Q I s a 3 ; (also MT) 49:7 1 ‫ מ ל כ י ם יראו יקומו‬Q I s a b ; 1 MT) finite verb alternates with infinitive absolute 59:4 1 23 3 ‫ ודבר שו הרוה עמל והולידו און‬1QIsa ( ‫בטוח על־תהו ודבר־שוא הרו עמל‬ ‫ והוליד און‬MT) infinitive construct with -‫ל‬ 4 11:9 ‫ה׳‬ ‫ את ה׳‬1QIsa3 (‫ מלאה הארץ דעה את ה׳‬MT) 23:11 4 ‫נ[טה עד הים להרגיז ממלכות‬QIsa 1QIsa3,25 4QIsa3 (‫ הרגיז‬MT) subordinator + perfect alternates with waw consecutive + verb 39:1 4 ‫ כ י שמע כי ה א ח‬Q I s a b ; ‫ וישמע כי ח ל ה‬lQIsa 3b (als 20

With or without a waw conjunctive. Note that in this example MT has a simple tense but lQIsa" has the waw consecutive. 22 M. Kister suggests the influence of the verse ‫כי תמלא הארץ לדעת את‬ ‫( כבוד ה׳‬Hab 3:14) and a conflation of the perfect and imperfect in the form ‫תמלאה‬. 21

23

This orthography would appear to reflect a conflation of the infinitive absolute ‫ הרו‬and the perfect .‫הרו‬ 24 ‫ דעה‬can function as an infinitive with prefixed -‫ ל‬in MT: ‫ותתצב אהתו‬ ‫( מרחק לרעה מה יעסה לו‬Exod 2:4). M. Kister suggests the influence of ‫ לדעת‬in Hab 3:14. See n. 22 above. 25

On the basis of the MT it may be best to take ‫ הרגיז‬as a perfect, though it is possible to interpret it as an infinitive construct, which is what happened in 4QIsa c . 26

C

f

.

2

‫כי שמע כי חלה‬

Kgs 20:12.

definite article 3:20-21 ‫ ובתי הנפש והלחשים והטבעות ונזמי‬27‫והפארים והצעדות וקשרים‬ ‫האפ‬1£)1833;] ‫ וה[צעדות והקשרים‬4QIsab ( ‫הפארים והצעדות והקשרים ובתי‬ ‫ הנפש והלחשים הטבעות ונזמי האף‬MT) 22:24 1 1 Q I s a b , 4 ‫ל כלי הקטן מכלי האגנות‬ 23:12 1 ‫ המעשקה בתואת‬4QIsa3 (also MT)28 he locale ‫ה‬ 10:28 4 ‫ ב א אל עית‬Q p I s a 3 ; 1 ‫ ב א על עית‬Q 22:18 [ 4 ‫ם תנמות ושם מרכבות כ ב ת ך‬ M T ) ; 4]‫ ו ש מ ה מרכבותכבודן‬Q I s a 3 ‫ אל‬alternates with ‫על‬ 4

10:28 ‫ ב א אל עית‬Q p I s a

3

; 1

‫ר‬

‫ל עית‬

Book of Psalms The Psalter is the best attested of biblical manuscripts.29 There are eight scrolls from Cave 1, twenty-three scrolls from Cave 4, five scrolls from Cave 11, two scrolls from Masada, one scroll from Nahal Hever, and seven other related scrolls that contain passages from the Psalter. lengthened imperfect alternates with regular imperfect 119:15 ] 4 ‫ ב פ ק ו ד י ך אשיח ואביט‬Q P s h ; 3 ‫ אורחותיכה‬1 lQPs (also MT) 119:18 4 ‫ ג ל עיני אביט נפלאתת‬Q P s h ; ‫אות מתורותיכה‬ 3 1 lQPs (also MT) definite article 4 ‫כי י־ארץ‬ 102:16 4 ‫וכל מלכי ארץ‬QPs b ; 3 0 ‫ מלכי הארץ‬MT) 104:2-3 ‫עטי נוטף[ שמים כיריעה ]אור כש[למה מקרה ]במי[ם עלניקתו השם‬ ‫ רכבו מהלך ]על[ כנפי רוח‬4QPsd; 4 ‫ ה מ ה ל ך‬Q P s 1 , 11QPs3 ( ‫כשלמה נוטה שמים כיריעה המקרה במים עליותיו השם עבים רכובו‬ ‫ המהלך על כנפי רוח‬MT) 104:35 11 ‫ כאשר יתמו חוטאים מארץ‬QPs3 Z/

It is possible to interpret this orthography as reflecting a realization of [vaqqišurim]: the vowel of the definite article is preserved but the intervocalic he is elided. 28

The definite article expresses the vocative in this example. Cf. also ‫ ועתה מלכים השכילו‬Ps 2:10, where the noun ‫ מלכים‬is in the vocative case but is not so marked by the definite article. For details see Flint 1997. 30 Cf.‫ יתיצבו מלכי ארץ‬Ps 2:2 in the MT.

4QPsd (‫ יחמו חטאים מן הארץ‬MT) ‫ כ_י‬alternates with ‫כאשר‬

4 104:35 ‫[ם מן האר־נץ‬ 11QPsa3 (‫ יתמו חטאים מן הארץ‬MT) nota accusativi 105:37 4 ‫ ו י ו צ א עמנו‬Q P s e ; ! 1 1[‫ ו י ו צ א א[תעמו‬Q MT) 145:15 11 ‫ ו א ת ה נתן להמה אוכלמה‬Q P s a 3 ; 3 1 lQPsa correction (‫ ואתה נותן להם את אכלם בעתו‬MT) omission of !‫ כ‬introducing subordinate clause 119:111 1 ‫המה‬ ‫ נחלתי עהוותיכה לעולם ששון לבי המה‬11QPsa ( ‫נחלתי עדותיך לעולם כי‬ ‫ ששון לבי המה‬MT) Book of Exodus The Book of Exodus is attested in one scroll from Cave 1, three scrolls from Cave 2, sixteen scrolls from Cave 4, and one scroll from Wadi Murabba'at. -‫ ל‬alternates with ‫אל‬ 4

Exod3 (also MT)

3:14 ‫כה[ ואמר אל בני ישראל‬Q

‫ אל‬alternates with ‫על‬ 4

18:23 ‫מקו]מו‬.‫ה]זה[ אל‬.‫הע[מ‬Qpale ‫עלן‬.‫ הזה‬4Qpa1e0Gen-Ex0d ( ‫ויכלת עמד וגם כל העם הזה על מקמו יבא‬ ‫ בשלום‬MT) he locale 27:9 4 [‫תימנה‬.‫נגבה‬.‫לפאת‬.‫המ]שכ[ן‬.‫חצר‬.‫ת‬ 4 ‫תימנה‬.‫נג[ב‬QpaleoExod m (‫את חצר המשכן לפאת נגב תימנה‬ 1

Book of Genesis The Book of Genesis is attested in one scroll from Caves 1, 2, 6, and 8, sixteen scrolls from Cave 4, and one scroll from Wadi Sdeir. shortened imperfect alternates with regular imperfect 1 : 2 2 4 ‫ ו ה ע ו ף ירבה סארץ‬Q G e n Book of Leviticus The Book of Leviticus is attested in one scroll from Caves 1,2, and 6, nine scrolls from Cave 4, two scrolls from Cave 11, and two scrolls from Masada.

g

he locale 17:3 Lev (also MT)

4

‫ י שח[ט מחוצה למחנה‬QLev d ;‫ל]מחנה‬.‫מחוצ‬.‫ר\שחט‬

Book of Jonah The Book of Jonah is attested in three scrolls from Cave 4 and one scroll from Wadi Murabba'at. he locale Jon 1:3 ‫ לבוא עמ[הם תרשיש‬4(^(118;‫ לבוא[ עמהם תרשישה‬MurXn (also MT) C. Almost all of the syntactic phenomena attested above were noted by Kutscher in his comparison of lQIsa 3 with the MT, and many of the deviations from the MT were shown to be features that were frequent in post-classical Biblical Hebrew. Some of the deviations are to be found occasionally in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Muraoka also discusses several of these phenomena in his contribution to this volume. I will add a few remarks concerning these features: 1) word order:31 There are not enough examples to draw any conclusions about the change in word order. 2) collective concord:32 The use of plural forms with collective nouns is a salient feature of other Dead Sea Scrolls, Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew.33 3) active verbs for passive verbs:34 The replacement of passive verbs by 3 pi. active verbs is well known in Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. The replacement of the passive by a 3 m.s. active verb is known from Classical Biblical Hebrew.3 4) lengthened imperfect:36 The increased use of the 1st person lengthened imperfect, particularly with the waw consecutive, is attested in Late Biblical Hebrew, and is the rule in Samaritan Hebrew (where there is no difference in the Pentateuch between the realization of the waw consecutive and the waw conjunctive).37 Recently, Qimron has shown that, on the whole, the lengthened form is used initially in a clause in the Dead Sea Scrolls (and 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

See Kutscher 1974:430, 563-564. Kutscher 1974:394-401; Qimron 1986:83-84. Bendavid 1971:70; Polzin 1976:40-42. Kutscher 1974:401-403. See also Kropat 1909:7. Joüon-Muraoka 1991:577-578. Kutscher 1974:326-328; Qimron 1986:44. Ben-Hayyim 2000:174-175.

thus following any waw, be it consecutive or conjunctive) and the regular form is used non-initially.38 5) regular imperfect for jussive:39 The distinction in use between the regular imperfect and jussive was neutralized to a certain extent in Late Biblical Hebrew and completely in Mishnaic Hebrew, with the exception of the verbs ‫ היה‬and 40.‫ היה‬Qimron argues that, like the lengthened imperfect, the jussive and regular imperfect form a complementary paradigm in the Dead Sea Scrolls: the jussive occurs initially and the regular imperfect occurs non-initially.41 6) alternation between simple tense and waw consecutive + verb:42 The breakdown of the tense system with waw consecutive forms is apparent in Late Biblical Hebrew and the collapse of the system is complete in Mishnaic Hebrew. Note that in both the oral tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the Hexapla there is no difference between waw consecutive and waw conjunctive.43 7) alternation in simple tenses:44 This alternation occurs in poetic passages. See below in the summary. 8) finite forms in place of the infinitive absolute:45 Qimron notes that infinitive absolutes are rare in the Dead Sea Scrolls,46 and the absence of this form is representative of Late Biblical Hebrew, the oral tradition of Samaritan Hebrew, and Mishnaic Hebrew.47 9) infinitive construct with -48:‫ ל‬There is limited evidence of -‫ל‬ becoming an essential part of the infinitive construct for expressing purpose in Late Biblical Hebrew and in Ben Sira.49 38

Qimron 1997a, 1998. Qimron believes that traces of this distribution are also evident in Biblical Hebrew. 39

Kutscher 1974:328-330.

40

See Segal 1927:95. Qimron 1998:34.

41 42

Kutscher 1974:350-358; Goshen-Gottstein 1958:129. On the use of the waw consecutive in non-biblical texts from the Judean Desert, see Smith 1991a. 43

Ben-Hayyim 2000:102. There are traces of differences in the vowels of the verbs in Samaritan Hebrew, however. See pp. 172-173. 44 Kutscher 1974:352-356. 45

Kutscher 1974:346-348. See also the contribution by M. Smith in this volume. 46

Qimron 1986:47.

47

Ben-Hayyim 2000:206.

48

Kutscher 1974:346-348; Qimron 1986:47.

49

Bendavid 1971:496 (‫ בעבור להודיע‬Ben Sira 38:5;

1 ‫בעבור לחקר‬

In Mishnaic Hebrew -‫ ל‬has become part of the infinitive construct.50 10) he locale:51 Final -ā indicates direction in Classical Hebrew, though it is argued that there are examples of it indicating place,52 particularly with the adverb 53.‫ שמה‬The he locale is not a feature of Tannaitic Hebrew, but it is attested in Tannaitic Hebrew in ‫ חוצה‬The he is attested frequently in the D the syntagm - 5 4 . ‫ל‬ Sea Scrolls without locative meaning.55 In the oral tradition of the Samaritan Pentateuch one finds samma as against both ‫שם‬ and ‫ שמה‬in manuscripts, as well as final —a on some nouns; the suffix no longer expresses direction.56 11) nota accusative There is a slight tendency to find ‫ את‬added in the Dead Sea Scrolls before determined objects, though there are also cases where ‫ את‬is absent, as there are in Classical Hebrew. ‫ את‬is obligatory in Tannaitic Hebrew when preceding an object determined by the definite article,58 though there are some welldefined exceptions.59 12)‫ אל‬alternates with 60:‫ על‬Kutscher ascribed most of the examples of ‫ אל‬for ‫ על‬in lQIsa 3 to the weakening of the gutturals, but noted that ‫ על‬also occurs in place of ‫ אל‬in the same manuscript. In Biblical Hebrew the two prepositions sometimes appear to be interchangeable, and it appears that the semantic fields of the two partially overlapped; examples of ‫ על‬for ‫ אל‬in the later books of the Hebrew Bible are generally attributed to Aramaic 19:3=

2 ‫בעבור חקור‬

Sam 10:3).

50

Bendavid 1971:496. Kutscher 1974:413-414. Meek 1940 correctly points out that he terminative would be a more apt name. 51

52

See, e.g., Joiion-Muraoka 1991:278-280. Meek 1940, on the other hand, denies such examples indicate place. 53

Brown-Driver-Briggs 1907:1027a. Meek 1940:232-233 believes that in the case of ‫ שמה‬marking place and not direction, the ending is not the he locale but rather a remnant of a deictic ending *-at attested in other Semitic languages (Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician). 54

Segal 1927:143. The idiom -‫ מחוצה ל‬occurs already in Ezek 40:40,44.

55

Qimron 1986:69. Ben-Hayyim 2000:326-327.

56 57

Goshen-Gottstein 1958:130; Kutscher 1974:412-413. Bendavid 1971:635-636. 59 Azar 1995:60-62. 58

60

Kutscher 1974:404,410,507. BDB 41a. BDB also suggest that copyists are responsible for some of the fluctuation. 61

influence.62 13) -‫ ל‬for 63:‫ אל‬In lQIsa 3 -‫ ל‬alternates with Masoretic ‫אל‬. -‫ל‬ fluctuates with ‫ אל‬in Biblical Hebrew.64 ‫ אל‬is usually replaced by -‫ ל‬in Tannaitic Hebrew.65 14) definite article:66 The addition and omission of the definite article with regard to the norm in the MT has been noted by Goshen-Gottstein67 and discussed by Leahy.68 15‫ כי ו‬and ‫כאשר‬: Both particles may introduce temporal clauses with the perfect in Biblical Hebrew, though ‫ כאשר‬is more common. Temporal clauses in Tannaitic Hebrew are introduced by the Tannaitic equivalent of ‫כאשר‬:-‫כש‬. D.

Similar variations between other biblical scrolls (and biblical quotations embedded in non-biblical texts) and the Masoretic text can be found. The following representative examples all occur in manuscripts published after Kutscher's detailed analysis of lQIsa 3 , e.g.:

word order Exod 40:12 4 ‫את אהרן ואת בניו הקרב‬QExo ‫ ואת בניו‬MT lengthened imperfect alternates with simple imperfect Exod 3:17 4 ‫אתכ[ם מעני מצרים‬ ‫ מעני מצרים‬MT Deut 9:17 ] 4 ‫ואתפ[שה בשני‬QRew0rked Pentateuchb; ‫ הלהת‬MT alternation in simple tenses Isa 5:12 4 ‫ואת פעל ה׳ לא הביטו‬QpIsa b ( ‫ ואת פעל ה׳ לא יביטו‬MT Jer 8:7 ] 4 ‫חעגור ישמרו את‬QJer a ;‫גר שמרו את עת באנה‬ alternation between simple tense and waw consecutive + verb Gen 1:14 4 ‫יהיו לאתות ולמערים‬ 52

BDB 757a Kutscher 1974:404. 64 Bendavid 1971:29-30. 53

65

Segal 1927:142. Kutscher 1974:411-412. 67 Goshen Gottstein 1958:130. 68 Leahy 1960:151-152. 69 The use of ‫ כי‬introducing temporal clauses is rare in the Dead Sea Scrolls. See Qimron and Strugnell 1994:78-79. 66

‫‪105‬‬

‫‪F A S S B E R G : SYNTAX OF M U L T I P L E D S S BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS‬‬

‫‪ MT‬לאתת ולמועדים‬ ‫‪Gen 41:30‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫י רעב ; ‪QGen J‬ויקמו ]שבע שני[ רעב‬ ‫‪Exod 17:4‬‬ ‫‪ Q R e w 0 r k e d Pentateuch0‬ע ו ד מעט ויסוקלוני ‪4‬‬ ‫‪ MT‬וסקלני‬ ‫‪Exod 40:12‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪QExo‬את אהרן ואת בניו תקרב‬ ‫‪ MT‬ואת בניו‬ ‫‪waw consecutive + verb in place of imperative‬‬ ‫‪Num 20:26‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫את אהרון את בגדיו‬ ‫‪ MT‬את בגדיו‬ ‫ל‪infinitive construct with -‬‬ ‫™‪Deut 8:2‬‬ ‫] ‪4‬‬ ‫ת את אשר בלבבך‬ ‫‪ MT‬לדעת את אשר בלבבך‬ ‫‪he locale‬‬ ‫‪Gen 48:7‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫ה ארץ לבוא אפרתה‬ ‫‪ MT‬לבא אפרתה‬ ‫‪Exod 9:8‬‬ ‫וזרקו משה השמימה;‪QpaleoExodm‬ה]ש[מימ‪.‬לעיני‪.‬פרעה‪4].‬‬ ‫‪ MT‬לעיני פרעה‬ ‫וינתן את השלחן אל א]הל מועד על י ח ך המשכן צפון מחוץ ‪Exod 40:22‬‬ ‫ויתן את השלחן באהל מועד על ירך המשכן צפנה ;‪ 4QExod-Lev‬לפרכת‬ ‫‪ MT‬מחוץ לפרכת‬ ‫[ ‪Num 13:22‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫ו ש מ ה אחימן ]ששי חתולנמי‬ ‫‪MT‬‬ ‫‪Deut 1:37‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪ M‬גם אתה לא תבא שם; ‪QDeut h‬ל[א תבוא שמה‬ ‫‪Judg 21:19‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫מזרחה השמש ; ‪QJudg b‬מ[זרח ה!שמ[ש‬ ‫‪ MT‬למסלד‬ ‫‪Jer 13:5‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫אטמנהו בפרת;*‪QJe1‬ואלך ואטמנהו בפרתה‬ ‫] ‪Jer 20:4‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫ם בבלה והכם ב ח ר ב ; ‪ Q J e f‬ח ה ג ל ם בבל והכם‬ ‫‪nota accusativi‬‬ ‫‪ MT‬ויניחהו במשמר ;‪ llQpaleoLev‬ויניחו‪.‬אתו‪.‬במשמר‪Lev 24:12‬‬ ‫ונתתי ;‪ llQpaleoLev‬ונתתי‪.‬שמיכמ‪.‬כברזל‪.‬ואת‪.‬ארצכמ‪.‬כנחה ‪Lev 26:19‬‬ ‫‪ MT‬את שמיכם כברזל ואת ארצכם כנחשה‬ ‫] ‪Lev 27:19‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪Qpa1e0L‬ויסף‪.‬את‪.‬חמשית‪.‬כםפ‬ ‫‪ MT‬עליו וקם לו‬ ‫אל ‪ alternates with‬ל‪-‬‬ ‫( ‪Exod 10:24‬‬ ‫?‬ ‫ויקרא ; ‪ Q p a l e o E x o d m‬פ ר ע הלמשה‪.‬ולאהרון‪.‬ויאמתו]‪4‬‬ ‫‪ MT‬פרעה אל משה ויאמר‬ ‫] ‪1 Kgs 8:6‬‬ ‫] ‪4‬‬ ‫דש‬ ‫‪70‬‬

‫‪Contrary to what is expected, it is the form in the Dead Sea Scrolls‬‬ ‫ל‪that occurs without -.‬‬ ‫‪71‬‬

‫כברת ארץ ‪ (Gen 35:16) as opposed to‬כברת הארץ ‪C. Cohen points out‬‬ ‫‪ is not merely a mistake‬כברתה ארץ ‪(Gen 48:7; 2 Kgs 5:19) and questions if‬‬ ‫‪.‬כברת הארץ ‪for‬‬

‫ את ארון ברית ה׳ אל מקומו אל דביר הבית אל קדש הקדשים‬MT (also 2 Chr 5:7) definite article Exod 14:27 ] 4 ‫לפנ[ות בקר‬QExod g ;‫ לפנות הבקר‬MT Lev 2:11 ] 4 ‫ כ ל מנחה אשר תקריבו ל‬Q L e v b MT

Note also the following differences in text and syntax between 4QEx0d-Lev* and the MT, in which the syntagms of 4QExod‫־‬Levf that deviate from the MT are all valid Classical Biblical Hebrew syntagms: Exod 40:10 ‫ את המזבח‬73‫ומשחת את מזבח הע]לה ואת כל כליו[ וקרש‬ 4QEx0d-Lev5;‫ ומשחת את מזבח העלה ואת כל כליו וקדשת את המזבח‬MT Exod 40:14 4 ‫ ואת בניו תקריב והלבשת אתם כתנת‬MT Exod 40:17 4 ‫חרש הוקם את המשכן‬ ‫ הוקם המשכן‬MT. E. Summary The picture that emerges from a comparison of syntactic features in multiple copies of biblical books is clear: in the case of many variants, one syntagm or form is well attested in Classical Hebrew whereas the second is well known from post-classical Biblical Hebrew, namely Late Biblical Hebrew, Tannaitic Hebrew, or Samaritan Hebrew. Variants that appear to be late are collective nouns construed as plurals, active verbs replacing passive ones, the increased use of the lengthened imperfect, replacement of waw consecutive by simple tenses, he locale marking place, finite forms in place of the infinitive absolute, the infinitive construct with -‫ל‬, the replacement of the preposition ‫ אל‬by -‫ל‬. Although some of these features are attested in Classical Biblical Hebrew, they are hallmarks of post-classical Biblical Hebrew, as argued by Kutscher and now also by Muraoka. The syntactic differences do not line up according to the text types that have been proposed on the basis of textual criticism74 72

Nouns in construct to ‫ כ ל‬occur both with and without the definite article in Biblical Hebrew. See Brown-Driver-Briggs 1907:481b. 73

The editor of this fragment suggests this is an infinitive absolute, but an imperative is also possible. 74 The difference in text between 4QExod-Lev f (see above) and the MT leads to different syntactical features, but not necessarily "early" syntax vs.

(i.e., "proto-Masoretie," "proto-Samaritan," "aligned with the Septuagint," "unaligned"). The evidence does not suggest in any way that the different text types reflect different dialects of Hebrew. A comparison of multiple copies of a biblical book, e.g., the copies of Isaiah, reveals that late features can be found in all of the manuscripts (not necessarily the same feature in each manuscript), yet all manuscripts also show some classical features, and so no one manuscript can be labelled syntactically early or syntactically late; rather each manuscript is syntactically mixed. For example, in lQIsab, which is described by text critics as proto-Masoretic, we find, when comparing it with other Isaiah manuscripts and the Masoretic text, the following late features: a collective noun takes a plural verb, an active verb occurs in place of a passive verb, a finite verb occurs instead of an infinitive absolute, he locale indicates place; however, we also find classical features in the manuscript. Two explanations for this mixing of features come to mind: 1) the text was composed at a late date with deliberate classicisms added—a position that cannot be taken seriously with regard to most biblical texts; and 2) an earlier text has been reworked linguistically by scribes, who, consciously or unconsciously, were inconsistent in adapting the older literary language to the Hebrew of the period in which they lived. The paléographie dating of the hand of the scribe, of course, is not an indication of the linguistic age of the Hebrew in the manuscript.75 In many respects the random mixing of different syntactic features parallels the situation in mediaeval biblical manuscripts as reflected in the collections of variants by Kennicott76 and de Rossi,77 where it is clear that some secondary readings were created according to the Sprachgefühl of the mediaeval copyist78—if the copyist felt that the language of the text required a certain form based on his understanding of biblical grammar, or based on similar passages "late" syntax. From the little that is preserved of the "proto-Samaritan" manuscripts 4QpaleoExod m and 4QNum b one does not see features that are unattested in other text types. 75

For example, Cross 1961:138 dates the script of lQIsa" to 125-100 B CE and lQIsa*‫ ־‬to 50-25 BCE. Yet, 4QIsa c , which is dated to the middle third of the 1st century CE (DJD 15:46), has older-looking features and agrees with the MT against lQIsa 3 and lQIsa b in several of the variants. 76 Kennicott 1776-1789. 77 de Rossi 1784-1788. 78 See, e.g., the remarks of Goshen-Gottstein 1967:52 ("secondary scribal changes, parallelisms, normalizations, harmonizations or free associations"); Τον 1992:35-39.

in the Bible, he emended the text. This is just as true for the scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is particularly noticeable in the case of additions or omissions in poetry of the waw conjunctive, the definite article, or the nota accusativi. In poetic passages in the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, one cannot be certain which is the older, more classical syntagm - that with the waw conjunctive, the definite article,79 and the nota accusativi, or that without. Here one must disagree with those scholars, who, because of the relative infrequency of these particles in early biblical poetry (and their absence in Ugaritic), view all occurrences of the particles as late additions. One should also be wary of trying to determine which of two alternating verb forms (perfect or imperfect) in multiple copies of texts is original and which is late, since verbal tenses fluctuate considerably already in archaic poetry (and in Ugaritic).81 In closing, the "syntactic smoothing tendencies," to use GoshenGottstein's term, of the scribes who copied the biblical manuscripts manifest themselves in the modernization of syntactic features: 79

The vowel of the definite article may have been realized but the intervocalic he elided. There are examples of the he elided after the taw of the nota accusativi ‫י‬t in the Bar Kosiba letters, reflecting a pronunciation something like [eta] (possibly with progressive assimilation of the he - [etta], or even without the initial vowel - [ta]):‫ ]את הכבלים =[ הכבלים‬Mur 43:5; ‫תשבת‬ ‫]]=את השבת‬Mur 44:6; ‫ ]את המקום =[ תמקום‬Mur 44:7;‫ ]את ההטין =[ תחטין‬Mur 44:9. Kutscher 1962:18-19; Naveh 1992:109-110. 80

This is particularly true of W. F. Albright and his school. See, e.g., Cross-Freedman 1974:28-29; Freedman 1980:1-22, especially 2-4; Andersen - Forbes 1983; McCarter 1986:56-57 (who, under "Prosaizing," lists the insertion of copulatives, ,t, and the article). These scholars are unduly influenced by the usual absence of the conjunction in Ugaritic epics (though there are examples of w- before verbs [wy-n, wfn]) and the fact that there is neither a direct object marker nor a definite article in Ugaritic (which reflects an early stage of Northwest Semitic). See also Goshen-Gottstein 1958:129 n. 200: "waws are omitted and added in our versions and witnesses to such a degree that almost anything can be proved or disproved ... The problem is even more complicated owing to the use of waw in Mishnaic Hebrew."

81

See Held 1962. There are clear examples o f y q t l (preterite) fluctuating not only with qtl (perfect), but also yqtl (imperfect) in Ugaritic. See Sivan 1997:107-108 and also Cross 1973:115 n. 13: "The vocalization of préfixai verb forms in the perfect sense, or better, for historical narration, is here puzzling. Apparently yaqtul and yaqtulu can be placed in "impressionistic" parallelism, quite as qatal and yaqtul are placed in parallel. We should expect yaqtul, not yaqtulu/a."

in the case of multiple copies of biblical texts we see that some copyists modernize more and some modernize less, yet none modernize completely and systematically.

WAS QH A "SPOKEN" LANGUAGE? ON SOME RECENT VIEWS AND POSITIONS: COMMENTS Avi Hurvitz (Jerusalem) A One of E. Qimron's remarkable contributions to on-going DSS research is the steadily growing recognition that the linguistic profile of QH cannot be defined merely in terms of a literary— written—language. Obviously, some of its unique features may well be regarded as survivals from an extinct living—spoken— dialect, circulating during the days of the scribes who produced the DSS. One of the best examples that have been adduced in this regard is the peculiar Qumran independent pronoun ‫=( הואה‬ *hü'ah), which is unknown in any other existing tradition of Hebrew and which, in the light of comparative data from other Semitic languages, seems to go back to remote antiquity.1 However, the crucial problem for the present discussion is not whether this or another linguistic form may be labeled "spoken" rather than "literary." Granted that QH does present traits indicative of a Hebrew vernacular which was current at the beginning of the common era, the issue at stake is whether Qimron's overall perception of QH is sufficiently firm to sustain his view that "it is the Scrolls that best represents the spoken Hebrew of that time and place".2 It would appear that this thesis, as Qimron formulates it, leaves us with some questions which require further consideration. I would like to raise some of these here before him and the other participants in this session. Β On more than one occasion Qimron (2000:232, 233, 235, 237) emphasizes that the arguments supporting the thesis according to which QH is to be seen as a spoken language derive their validity from grammatical considerations. At the 1 2

Cf. Morag 1954.

So in his oral presentation at the symposium in Beersheva and in the printed Abstracts circulated at the time. I am pleased to see that, in the final version of his lecture, as published in the present volume (pp. 232-44), he has replaced the word "represent" by "reflect." This subtle modification in wording narrows, of course, the gap between our positions.

same time, however, he admits (2000:232, 233) that nongrammatical (particularly lexical) features of QH may well reflect literary influences. How, then, are we to reconcile these conflicting linguistic testimonies, stemming from the two different perspectives of grammar and lexicon, if we wish to define the linguistic profile of QH as a whole—in its three divisions of Grammar, Lexicon, and Syntax? In principle, one of the following alternatives is possible: (1) The "literary" option, rejecting the "non-literary" one; (2) The "non-literary" option, rejecting the "literary" one; (3) Acknowledging that both "literary" and "non-literary" components are present in QH and, consequently, that it is a blend of both. Since its beginnings, the prevailing concept of linguistic research on the Scrolls has viewed QH basically in terms of "the written/literary option" (Kutscher; Bendavid; Rabin; Ginsberg; Greenfield); Qimron, for his part, favours specifically "the spoken /non-literary option." It is only to be expected, therefore, that neither of these approaches, if stretched to extremes, is likely to provide us with a balanced verdict, accounting for the entire linguistic spectrum manifested in QH. Inevitably, maximizing the virtues of one aspect of the evidence often results in minimizing the merits of the others. The following comments are meant to point out briefly some of the difficulties inherent in Qimron's hypothesis. C (1) Since the term "(ad)mixture" (Qimron 2000:232, 238) is often associated with notions like "artificiality," "imitation," or "mannerism," all of which may evoke decidedly negative connotations, one may propose that we drop it altogether from our discussion. Nonetheless, even if we prefer to talk in terms of a "blend,"3 or a^'amalgam," 4 etc., this does not change the basic fact that QH is not a monolithic linguistic entity—neither "spoken" nor "literary"—but, rather, a composite language. Among its distinguishable components, already noted in the linguistic literature, we may mention Aramaic vs. Hebrew, Classical (or Standard) BH vs. Late BH, BH vs. MH (or "Proto-MH"); and, of course, "literary" vs. "spoken" modes of expression.5 In other 3 4 5

M o r a g 1996:152. Kister, in this volume.

Cf. Q i m r o n ' s own wording (2000:232) in this regard: "I am not denying that DSS Hebrew could have been influenced by an unknown early

words, regardless of one's attitude towards the merits of "mixture," which is only a formal classifying label, QH is a multifaceted, multilayered, not one-dimensional language, embracing literary and non-literary components alike. This means, of course, that there is no justification for categorically rejecting the position which seeks to define QH at large in its various manifestations, in terms of a linguistic "mixture"; be it "a mixture of BH, MH, and Aramaic" or "a mixture of the spoken and written languages of the Jews" (Qimron 2000:232). (2) In the light of the multilingual environment prevailing in Palestine at the beginning of the common era,6 there is no need to indulge in speculations over whether or not it was specifically (Proto-)MH or any other particular Hebrew dialect which served as the spoken vernacular of the time. Obviously, there must have been more than one vernacular that could have fulfilled this function in Jerusalem (and its vicinity) as well. Since the linguistic sources at our disposal do not allow us safely to identify and accurately to delineate the chronological and geographical boundaries of such dialects, it is preferable to avoid stretching the available data beyond their capabilities. In any event, even if we endorse Qimron's theory that MH must be denied the status widely assigned to it as the common spoken medium of Second Temple Jewry, it by no means follows that QH is the most appropriate candidate to occupy this position. The nature and function of QH must be determined on its own premises, regardless of MH. (3) Finally, due attention must be given to a recent article by Prof. J. Blau, which adds a whole new dimension to the problem here examined. In this article7 as well as in his contribution to the present volume Blau introduces comparable material from literary Arabic texts, which may offer an external, independent phenomenological caution. Blau points out that we may observe in these texts "literary developments and stylistic tendencies manifested within schools of scribes, indicating that changes in language are not necessarily indicative of changes in the spoken language; they may well reflect literary fashions and traditions type of MH. Of course, it w a s influenced by Aramaic and by biblical literature. Such influence is typical of most languages (especially as regards literary works)." 6

Cf. Fitzmyer 1979:29-56; Rabin 1976.

7

Blau 1997.

of scribal schools."8 Since these "literary developments" are to be found in the realm of morphology—the "stronghold" of Qimron's line of argumentation—it would seem that the validity of "the spoken/non-literary option," advocated for QH, is less compelling than may appear on first sight. D There is no question that QH preserves imprints of a spoken language which deviates—or departs9—in some major respects from the accepted tradition of BH. The existence of such spoken elements, however, by no means implies that QH—as a whole —should be defined in terms of a spoken language.10 Indeed, in various regards it does represent, even according to Qimron (cf. above, n. 4), linguistic perspectives which are clearly literary in nature. This means, as already indicated, that we are dealing here with a composite language, whose "filters" secured for future generations all kinds of linguistic ingredients—biblical and extra-biblical, Jerusalemite and peripheral, written (standard) as well as spoken (non-standard). It is not always possible to draw clear lines between these distinct components; yet, they are all present, in one way or another, in the language of the Scrolls. The full implications of this linguistic diversity underlying QH do not find clear expression in Qimron's presentation. On the one hand, the heading of § 4 speaks of the possibility "that DSS Grammar Reflects a Spoken Dialect" (Qimron 2000:237); on the other, in the actual discussion which follows, we read "that DSS Hebrew reflects the spoken language of the scrolls' scribes" (p. 237 [italics added in both quotes]). Now, this equation between "DSS Hebrew" and "DSS grammar" suggests to the reader that the two terms are either interchangeable synonyms or, if not, that they represent two distinct pieces of linguistic evidence (grammatical and non-grammatical), which—separately and equally—substantiate Qimron's thesis that QH was "a naturally spoken Hebrew." It goes without saying that both of g

Pp. 24-25 (and similarly also pp. 26, 30, 32). Note that a similar concept may already be found—in regard to MH—in Sarfatti 1983 ("the evolving tradition of MH from one written transmission to another is indicative of a certain vitality"; "there are ... modifications which reflect a natural development, similar to that of a living/spoken language" [p. 457 (italics added)). 9 Cf. Hurvitz 1997:85-86. 10 Qimron refers to "DSS Hebrew" explicitly in terms of "a naturally spoken Hebrew" (2000:233).

these options are incompatible with Qimron's own ground-rule, requiring that the evidence gained from grammatical and nongrammatical materials be strictly distinguished, since it is exclusively (Qimron 2000:233) "the morphology" (i.e., grammar) of QH—not its "words and phrases" (i.e., lexicon)—which has a say in the present debate. Qimron's non-discriminating equation between the two terms noted above seeks, evidently, to extend the validity of his supposition, initially restricted to the specific realm of "DSS grammar," to the entire spectrum of "DSS Hebrew." It is, therefore, difficult to sustain, since it is inconsistent with the philological principles set out by Qimron himself elsewhere in his presentation (cf. above, p. 112). Ε Any attempt to classify QH specifically as "spoken" is incompatible with the overall linguistic nature of the Hebrew Scrolls, in much the same way that this label is not applicable to the Aramaic Scrolls—whose linguistic profile similarly manifests a mixture of both "written" and "spoken" components.11 This state of affairs was adequately summed up by Prof. S. Morag, who was extremely sensitive to the "spoken" vibrations echoing in the Scrolls. I would, therefore, like to conclude this presentation with a quotation from the work of Morag, whose participation in our conference was sadly prevented by his untimely death: "It is not the spoken language of Qumran which emerges in the literature of the Scrolls. Features of this language may be recognized in the texts; the texts themselves, as we have seen, are literary. It is through the diversified literary expression that the substructure of a spoken language of the members of the sect is discernible.

" Cf. most recently Morgenstern 1999. Having indicated the existence in Qumran Aramaic (as well as in Nabataean) of elements which belong to "the vernacular," he writes: "That is not to say that the Aramaic of the Qumran scrolls or of the Nabataean inscriptions is to be regarded as reflecting the spoken language of the time; rather, that... elements of the later dialects penetrated the written language" (p. 140*). Note that attempts to distinguish between"literary" and "spoken" Aramaic during the period of the DSS are severely criticized in Fitzmyer 1979:72-74. Fitzmyer describes some of these attempts as "speculative assumptions" (p. 73) and emphasizes that, in principle, we do not possess sufficient means to pass judgment on this issue. 12

Morag 1995b: 114-15 (italics added).

THE KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF HEBREW IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD QUMRAN AND THE SEPTUAGINT Jan Joosten (Strasbourg) To anyone studying the history of the Hebrew language, the Dead Sea Scrolls are a godsend. Here are extensive Hebrew writings, in manuscripts not much later than the texts themselves, dating from the exact period—between the Bible and the Mishnah —for which attestation of Hebrew had almost entirely been lacking. The significance of this find for the entire early history of the language cannot be exaggerated. And yet, precisely because Qumran Hebrew comes from a hitherto largely uncharted period there is a problem. However close the links with earlier and later phases of the language might be, within its own epoch Qumran Hebrew is rather isolated. Is Qumran Hebrew—the language of the main sectarian writings— representative of the Hebrew of its time, or is it a freak, the very peculiar idiom of a very peculiar group of people? An answer to this and many other questions involving the "linguistic background" of QH cannot be given solely from a comparison with earlier and later stages of the language. Nor can it be arrived at from QH itself, even though the linguistic diversity of the texts does provide a certain perspective. Fortunately, the isolation of QH is not complete.1 Late Biblical Hebrew affords comparative material, as does the Hebrew of Ben Sira insofar as we can be certain of its authenticity; Hebrew inscriptions from the Hellenistic period, too, are important, in spite of their extreme scarcity.2 Another potential source of linguistic information is the Septuagint. The Greek version is more or less contemporary with the Qumran writings.3 And although the version was for the greater part made in Egypt, the knowledge of Hebrew underlying it came from the land of Israel, as is suggested both by legend and by common sense. When it comes to studying the ' Cf. Kutscher 1974: in particular 15-16; Rabin 1958:144-61. For a survey of the epigraphic material cf. Naveh 1992. 3 For the dating of the Septuagint, cf. the review of the evidence in Dorival 1988:39-111.

linguistic background of QH, the relevance of the Septuagint cannot be gainsaid, as has been well recognized since the beginning of research into the language of the Scrolls.4 The actual use of the Septuagint in this perspective has nevertheless been sporadic at best. Whereas textual and exegetical agreements between the Scrolls and the Septuagint have been studied extensively, linguistic agreements remain the stuff of footnotes. No systematic study of the relation between QH and the Hebrew of the Greek translators seems to have been undertaken. The present paper will not presume to fill this gap, but merely ask a few preliminary questions and indicate some promising avenues for future research. For reasons of space, the discussion will be limited to the lexical domain.5 1. Recovering the translators' knowledge of Hebrew To the non-initiated, the idea of using a Greek text in linguistic research on Hebrew may sound far-fetched. And even to the specialist, the proposition is daunting. The fact that the Septuagint is a translation of a known Hebrew text means that it does hold much information on the translators' knowledge of Hebrew. But recovering that knowledge is possible only in certain cases. 1.1. The problem of using a version In his analysis of the work of scholars such as D. Winton Thomas and G.R. Driver, who had shown much confidence in the Septuagint as a source of linguistic information on Biblical Hebrew, James Barr pointed out a number of caveats to be observed in trying to prise philological information from the versions:6 a) we do not always know the Hebrew text from which the 4

Kutscher, in his study of the language of the Isaiah Scroll (Kutscher 1974:74-77), refers to the Septuagint as a 'linguistically parallel text'. With regard to grammar, too, the Septuagint sometimes gives evidence of Late Hebrew influence. For instance, the translators seem to have ignored the precise value of the locative he, and they often mechanically translate the yiqtol tense as a future: two phenomena that go hand in hand with what can be observed in post-classical Hebrew including QH. There are even some phonological phenomena—e.g. the weakening of the laryngeals, the confusion of final mem and nun—that transpire more or less clearly from the Greek text. Such grammatical items have been noted in passing by several scholars, but no systematic research has been done on them from a linguistic point of view. Although they merit closer study, we will leave them aside for the time being. 6

Barr 1968:238-272.

version was made; b) the original text of the version, in our case the Greek text of the Septuagint, cannot always be reconstructed with certainty; c) the methods of translation of the ancients were at times imprecise: the translators let themselves be guided by the context, or by parallel texts; they had certain favourite words, and tended to etymologize or rewrite a passage more or less freely. In the light of these considerations, Barr criticized a number of lexical identifications based on a Septuagint rendering. For instance, the translation of ‫ יעטה‬in Ps 84:7 as δώσει "he shall give" could have been arrived at from the context: Ps 84:7 ‫" גם ברכות יעטה מורה‬The early rain also covers it with pools."7 Ps 83:7 και γαρ ευλογίας‫ ־‬δώσει δ νομοθετών "For there the law-giver will grant blessings."8 The rendering does not show that the translator knew a Hebrew verb ‫ עטה‬or ‫העטה‬, "to give", cognate with Arabic ‫נ‬a'ti. Consequently, Barr tended to be more pessimistic as to the translators' knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. On the whole, the probability of retracing forgotten meanings of Hebrew words by means of the Septuagint is rather low. Later research in this domain has in the main supported this view: many archaic or rare words appear to have been totally unknown to the Greek translators.9 The Septuagint is a rather unlikely source for authentic linguistic information on archaic Hebrew. The case is somewhat different, however, when one looks to the Septuagint not for early but for late Hebrew elements. 1.2. Post-biblical Hebrew in the Septuagint The debate between Barr and some earlier scholars bore on how much Hebrew the translators could have known. A different problem, hardly addressed in that debate, is what kind of Hebrew they knew.10 Already in 1841 Z. Frankel had pointed out that the Septuagint translators sometimes base their understanding of the biblical text on post-biblical Hebrew." His observation was

7

English translations of the MT follow the RSV except where it has been changed in view of the point at issue. g

English translations of the Septuagint loosely follow Brenton's rendering (Brenton 1851). 9 Cf., e.g., Τον 1984:53-70 10 B u t c f . Barr 1968:259-61. 11 Cf. Frankel 1841:201-203.

confirmed by other Septuagint scholars such as A. Kaminka,12 J. Fischer,13 J. ZieglerΓ I. L. Seeligmann, 15 and Ε. Τον,16 and Semitists such as J. Blau and J. Margain.17 This claim is of obvious relevance to our topic and merits to be pursued further. First, a word of caution is in order. Many of the examples proposed by the aforementioned scholars are questionable. Very often the claim involves an adjustment of the consonants of the MT in order to arrive at the late Hebrew element postulated. Thus in Gen 47:12, the translation of ‫" לפי הטף‬according to the (number of) children" with κατά σώμα "according to (the number of) persons", is said to result from a misreading of the word ‫ הטף‬as Mishnaic ‫" גוף‬body".18 Such text-critical speculations clearly do not provide a secure foundation for linguistic research. With other proposals, the presumed late Hebrew etymon turns out not to be attested with the precise meaning reflected in the Greek,19 or involves too subtle a divergence from biblical usage to be considered convincing. In response to such problems of method, I have, in an earlier publication, proposed a few common-sense criteria allowing one to argue that a late Hebrew element is at the back of a given Greek equivalent:20 a) the late Hebrew element invoked should correspond exactly to what is written in the Massoretic Text (at least with regard to the consonants);21 b) the meaning of that late Hebrew element should correspond exactly to the meaning of the Greek equivalent in question; c) the latter meaning should be quite distinct from the meaning of the Biblical Hebrew element occurring in the MT. 12

Cf. Cf. 14 Cf. 15 Cf. 13

Kaminka 1928:38-42. Fischer 1930:9-10. Ziegler 1934:99, 195. Seeligmann 1948:49-50; idem, 1990:169-232, in particular 203-209.

16

Cf. Τον 19973:172, η. 24; idem, 1988:161-188 (170). Cf. Blau 1956:98-100; Margain 1996:191-197. 18 See Margain 1996:192-93. 17

19

Thus Frankel (1841:203) takes κύρτο? in 3 Kgds 20:11 to reflect Mishnaic ‫( חנר‬for the MT's ‫" חוגר‬the one who girds"); but whereas the Greek word means "humpback" the Mishnaic one means "lame": the meanings are close but not identical. 20

J. Joosten, 'On the LXX Translators' Knowledge of Hebrew' forthcoming in the acts of the Oslo conference of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (to be edited by B. Taylor). 21 Or, if it is available, to a non-Massoretic Hebrew text.

Let us consider an example: Hos 12:12 ‫" גם מזבחותם כגלים על תלמי שדי‬... their altars also shall be like stone heaps on the furrows of the fields" «ai τά θυσιαστήρια αύτών ώ? χελώναι έπΐ χέρσον άγρου "and their altars are like tortoises on the barren land of the field." Instead of BH ‫גל‬, "heap of stones", the translator appears to have identified the word as ‫" גל‬tortoise", attested in rabbinic literature.22 Now it is certainly possible to call this claim into question. One cannot be certain that the Vorlage of the Septuagint was identical with the MT. Nor can one take the Septuagint text at face value: perhaps the Greek text is the result of a later corruption.23 Alternatively, the rendering may be due to the technique of the translator: the remarkable equivalent may be meant figuratively and thus correspond to the Hebrew.24 Nevertheless, the fact that (a) a post-biblical Hebrew word ‫ גל‬is attested with (b) exactly the meaning reflected by the Greek, which (c) is quite different from the meaning of biblical ‫ גל‬makes the claim of late Hebrew influence on the translator a very strong one. In comparison to those searching for authentic linguistic information, scholars investigating late Hebrew influence on the Greek translators find themselves in a more favourable situation, for at least two reasons. A translation based on late Hebrew will often, as in the example of Hos 12:12, sit somewhat oddly in the context. Where contextual exegesis can be ruled out, the hypothesis of linguistic interference becomes much stronger. Secondly, unlike postulated "forgotten meanings", late Hebrew elements are actually found in Hebrew texts. 1.2.1 Cases involving rabbinic Hebrew Usually, the case for post-Biblical Hebrew influence in the LXX has been based on rabbinic Hebrew. Thus Frankel explains the rendering of ‫" מכמר‬net" as ήμίεφθον "half-boiled" in Isa 51:20 from rabbinic ‫" כמר‬to heat fruit by underground storage or 22

The word is known also from Syriac, and is actually the one used in the Syrohexaplar version of Hos 12:12. 23

Ziegler, in the Göttingen edition of the Septuagint of Hosea, signals, but does not adopt, the conjectural emendation κολωναι "hills, mounds"; χεΧωναι., however, is supported by the entire manuscript tradition. 24 Following Jerome, this is the opinion of many Septuagint scholars today. Some recent dictionaries of the Septuagint do not even indicate the primary lexical meaning ofχελώι/η, cf. Muraoka 1993:249, "arched protrusion over the ground"; Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie 1996:515, "hillock, mound".

exposure to the sun" (Jastrow). Isa 51:20 ‫" בניך עלפו שכבו בראש כל חוצות כתוא סכמו־‬Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of every street like an antelope in a net." 01 υιοί σου οί άπορούμενοι οί καθεύδοντε? έπ' άκρου πάση? εξόδου ώ? σευτλίον ήμίεφθον "your sons who are at a loss, who lie down at the head of every street like a half-boiled beet." Cases involving RH, where the source influencing the Greek equivalent is not attested in Β Η at all, are indeed the easiest to identify. Another example may be noted in passing. In Ezek 13:18,20‫כסתות‬, probably meaning "bands" or the like, is translated προσκεφάλαια "pillows", after RH ‫כסת‬. With renderings like these, the evidence of the Septuagint suggests that the lexemes in question, although attested only much later in Hebrew sources, were already in circulation when the version was made.‫" כמר‬to heat", ‫" כסת‬pillow", and ‫" גל‬tortoise", are not attested in pre-Mishnaic texts, and yet they were known to the Septuagint translators. Now it may be that these words were always part of mainstream Hebrew and that their lack of attestation in earlier sources is due to accident. Perhaps, however, we may instead suspect that at least some of these words belonged to a spoken dialect considered unfit for literary purposes. If Mishnaic Hebrew is an avatar of a spoken variety of Hebrew (an early non-Jerusalemite dialect?), the "Mishnaisms" of the Septuagint may be reflexes of this spoken Hebrew of the Hellenistic period.26 A suggestive example in this connection is the rendering of ‫ נפרשות‬in Ezek 34:12 as διακεχωρισμένων "separated, set apart": Ezek 34:12 ‫כבקרת רעה עדרו ביום היותו בתוך צאנו נפרשות כן‬ ‫" אבקר את צאני‬As a shepherd seeks out his flock when some of his sheep have been scattered abroad (?)..."2‫ד‬ ώσπερ £ητεΐ ό ποιμήν τό ποίμνιον αυτοί) έν ήμερα όταν η γνόφος καΐ νεφέλη εν μέσω προβάτων διακεχωρισμένων .. "as a shepherd seeks out his flock on a day when there is darkness and clouds in the midst of his sheep that have been separated.." 25

‫״‬

Cf. Blau 1956:97, "... dass die Ubersetzer ... das Bibelhebräisch auf Grund des in ihrem Munde gelaüfigen Mittelhebräisch (und JüdischAramäisch) verstanden haben." 26 This is stated as a matter of course by Rabin 1958:145-46. Unfortunately, Rabin provided not one single example of this phenomenon. 2 ' The MT is difficult and should perhaps be corrected to read ‫נפרשות‬, cf. Ezek 17:21; Zech 2:10.

As was noted by Seeligmann (1990:209), what underlies this rendering is the root ‫פרש‬, "to separate oneself‫׳‬, not found in BH, but at home in RH.28 An interesting attestation of the root has turned up in 4QMMT: 4QMMT C 7 [‫" [פרשנו מרב הע]ם‬we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people" As is pointed out by Qimron, the use of this verb in this passage is striking because it does not correspond to the habitual way in which the Qumran texts express the idea in question. The normal root expressing the separation of the sect from the evil generation is BH ‫בדל‬. This would appear to be a case where an element from spoken Hebrew was used, for some reason or another, in a written text.29 The implication is that the translator of Ezek 34:12, too, mistook an element of spoken Hebrew for classical Hebrew. 1.2.2 Cases involving Late Biblical Hebrew There are no reasons of principle to limit this type of research to cases involving RH. Several Late Hebrew elements at the back of Septuagint renderings are attested already in Late Biblical Hebrew. For example, classical ‫" סוף‬reed" is translated έσχατος‫״‬, "extreme" in Jonah 2:6 (and 1 Kgs 9:26) after late Hebrew ‫סוף‬ "end, extremity", attested from LBH onward: Jonah 2:6 ‫" תהום יסבבני סוף חבוש לראשי‬The deep was round about me; weeds were wrapped about my head" άβυσσος έκύκλωσέν με έσχάτη, εδυ ή κεφαλή μου (εις σχισμάς όρεων) "The deepest abyss has surrounded me, my head has sunk into the precipices of the mountains." And classical ‫" אי‬not" is rendered ούαί "woe" in 1 Sam 4:21, after LBH and later Hebrew ‫" אי‬woe": 1 Sam 4:21 ‫" ותקרא לנער אי כבוד‬And she named the child Gone-is-the-glory. " και άκάλεσεν τό παιδάριον Ούαί βαρχαβωθ "And she called the child Woe-barchaboth." Although both ‫" סוף‬end" and ‫" אי‬woe" are attested in the Bible, cases like these should not be explained as illustrating simply the confusion of homonyms. There is a consistent tendency on the part of the translators to follow LBH elements as against archaic or classical ones. Since the period of LBH overlaps the period during which the Septuagint was made, this is not 28

Cf. Qimron 1994:99.

29

Alternatively, Qimron suggests that the word used in 4 Q M M T may reflect the terminology of the opponents of the Qumran sect.

surprising. Manifestly, the general process underlying these cases is the same as with the RH elements considered above: the translators were reading BH in the light of contemporary usage— spoken (as reflected by elements attested only in RH) or written (as reflected by elements attested in LBH). The mechanism leading to the Septuagint's translation appears to be one of unconscious assimilation to contemporary Hebrew. What we have is a peculiar case of linguistic interference: the phenomenon whereby a bilingual speaker of languages A and Β inadvertently uses in language A a phonetic, morphological, lexical or syntactic element belonging to language B.3 The interference occurring in the Septuagint happens not between distinct languages, but between distinct varieties of the same language; moreover, it cannot be observed directly but only in the translation of the elements in question into a third language, Greek. Still, the technical term does describe the process tolerably well. Relatively immaterial is whether the source of interference is a later homonym unrelated to the Classical element, as in some of the above examples, or whether it is etymologically the same word which acquired a new meaning, as in some of the examples to be discussed below. The basic process is the same: whereas translating an old text written in an archaic form of the language, the translators at times identify elements of that text in the light of a later stage of the language. Two états de langue are confused, which leads to a mistaken understanding of the text. 2. Septuagint renderings and Qumran Hebrew If elements attested in RH and in LBH interfere with the translators' lexical identifications, it is not surprising that we should note points of contact with QH as well. In fact, such points of contact are quite numerous. So let us review a number of cases illustrating the proximity between the Hebrew of the Septuagint translators and the Hebrew of the Scrolls. 2.1. Old linguistic traditions reflected in the LXX and in QH A particular type of agreement between QH and the Septuagint occurs when an arcane piece of authentic linguistic information is reflected by both. In spite of what was said above (section 30

Interference, as opposed to linguistic borrowing, is accidental and usually happens unconsciously (as, e.g., when a Frenchman says: "I am going ai school" under the influence of French à).

1.1.), this remains a theoretical possibility not to be ruled out on a priori grounds. A rather persuasive example that is perhaps not too well known is the original meaning of the word ‫מסרת‬. In the Bible, this word occurs only in Ezek 20:37, where it is pointed as if derived from the root ‫" אסר‬to bind".31 Since the aleph is not written, however, a derivation from the root ‫ מסר‬is perhaps to be preferred. As Z. Ben-Hayyim was able to show from Samaritan Aramaic, the basic meaning of the root ‫ מסר‬is "to count, to muster".32 This would indicate a meaning like "set number" for ‫מסרת‬, a meaning which fits the context: Ezek 20:37 ‫והעברתי אתכם תחת השבט והבאתי אתכם במסרת הברית‬ "I will make you pass under the rod,33 and will bring you into the 'set number' (?) of the covenant."34 Possible support for this definition comes from the QH word ‫מסרת‬, "military unit", perhaps implying a set number of soldiers.35 Further corroboration is given by the Greek version of Ezek 20.37, where the word ‫ מסרת‬is translated αριθμός‫־‬, "number".36 Arguably this is a case where the meaning of an old Hebrew word was still correctly known in Hellenistic times, as attested in different ways by the War Scroll and by the Septuagint of Ezekiel. This type of overlap between the Hebrew knowledge of the translators and the information gleaned from QH usage has attracted some attention. Really convincing cases are rather rare, however.37 And in any event, this is not the most typical way the Greek version and the Qumran scrolls illuminate each other. 31

Cf.‫( הסורים‬for ‫ ) האסורים‬in Qoh 4:14.

32

Ben-Hayyim 1958b:200-14, in particular 212-14 (with references to earlier literature). 33

As is indicated in the commentaries, this expression seems to derive from pastoral life where sheep are made to pass under a rod in order to be counted. The word for "covenant" is not read in the Old Greek translation of this passage and is taken by many modern exeges as a dittography ( cf.‫וברותי‬ "and I will purge" in verse 38). 35

See 1QM III 3, 13; 4QShirShabbF (4Q405) 23 ii 13 (and cf., perhaps, 1QS X 4). I am grateful to Dr Elwolde for additional references: 1QM III 3; 4QShirShabbF (4Q405) 23 ii 13. 36

Note also that the Septuagint translates ‫ וימסרו‬in Num 31:5 και έξηρίθμησαν "and they numbered". 37

For some possible examples, cf. Qimron 1995a:295-329, in particular 307,310, 329.

2.2. Post-biblical usage reflected in the Septuagint and in QH Much more frequently, the Septuagint's renderings reflect postbiblical usage attested also in the Qumran Scrolls. The literary Hebrew known and used in the Hellenistic period, though modelled on the Bible, was not identical with the Hebrew of the biblical writers. Although the classical language was generally mastered well enough, specific words and expressions no longer meant what they had meant to the ancients. Both the Septuagint and QH give testimony to this shift and, what is more, their testimonies often concur. 2.2.1. Later homonyms Let us first review a few cases where the translators' work has suffered from interference by post-classical homonyms attested in QH. The case of the root ‫ פרש‬was noted above. Another example is the rendering of ‫" כליל‬entire, whole" by στέφανο? "crown" in Ezek 28:12: Ezek 28:12 ‫" אתה חותם תכנית מלא חכמה וכליל יפי‬You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty." Συ άποσφράγισμα όμοιώσεω? και στέφανος κάλλους "You are a seal of resemblance and crown of beauty". The translator let himself be influenced by the post-biblical word ‫" כליל‬crown", attested in QH (and Ben Sira). An additional point of interest in this case is that the latter word is not found in (early) RH. A rather different instance is the confusion of Hebrew ‫דכא‬ "to crush" with its Aramaic homonym meaning "to purify": Isa 53:10 ‫" ויהוה חפץ רכאו החלי‬Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him, he made him sick." και κύριος‫ ־‬βούλεται καθαρίσαι αύτόν ττ\ς πληγή? "And the Lord wants to purify him of his affliction." Although ‫דכא‬/‫" דכד‬to purify" is not, and probably never was, a Hebrew word, the translator obviously thought that it could be one. Or perhaps he knew it was a foreign word but estimated that it might be used in a Hebrew text. At least one Qumran author manifests a similar attitude towards this Aramaic root, as is shown by the occurrence of ‫" דוכי‬purity" in 1QS 3:9; cf. Muraoka 1998:55-56. A full analysis of cases like these will have to take account of the vety fine distinctions, made in the literature on "languages in contact", between loanwords, cultural loans, foreign words, etc.38 But whatever the precise processes lying behind each usage, 38

Cf. Deroy 1956.

they appear to have affected the Qumran writers and the Septuagint translators in more or less the same way. Several other cases may be noted. The word ‫" דמים‬price" seems to underlie the Greek rendering of ‫" דמים‬blood" in Isa 9:4: Isa 9:4 ‫" ושמלה מגוללה בדמים‬... and a garment rolled in blood II

και ίμάτιον μετά καταλλαγηδ‫ ״‬άττοτείσουσιν "and they shall pay for a garment with a profit.." The word occurs in QH just once, in a fragmentary text, 1Q27 1 II 8, and a form that is problematic (‫)דמי‬. If we accept the attestation, another question arises: is this, like ‫דוכי‬, an Aramaic word used in a Hebrew text, or is it the first attestation of a genuine loanword? The distinction is probably impossible to make. Note, finally, the term ‫" הגד‬lame" underlying the rendering of ‫ )?( יחגרו‬in Ps 18:46:39 Ps 18:46 ‫" בני נכר יבלו ויחרגו ממסגרותיהם‬Foreigners lost heart, and came trembling out of their fastnesses." Ps 17:46 υιοί αλλότριοι έπαλαιώθησαν και έχώλαναν από των τρίβων αύτών "The strange children waxed old, and fell away from their paths through lameness". The root ‫" חגר‬to be lame", occurs in 4QDa 17 18. 2.2.2. Semantic developments In other instances, the interference is not due to a later homonym but to a new meaning that came to be attached to a word attested in BH. The divergence between classical and post-classical Hebrew reflected in the Greek version and in the Scrolls is due to semantic development. A good example is provided by the verb ‫נשא‬. Whereas in classical Hebrew this verb means basically "to lift up, to carry", in post-classical Hebrew it takes over—perhaps under Aramaic influence—certain functions of the verb ‫" לקח‬to take".40 The development set in with the late books of the Bible and can be observed in QH, too.41 This semantic development underlies Septuagint renderings of ‫ נשא‬such as λαμβάνω "to take" and

34

The MT of Ps 18:46 reads the verb ‫ ח ת‬, but the parallel in 2 Sam 22:46 reads ‫ויחגרו‬. The Septuagint rendering in Psalms appears to correspond to the latter form. 40

The shift can clearly be observed in the correspondence of Late Biblical and post-Biblical ‫ נשא אטה‬to Classical ‫לקח אטה‬, cf. Driver 1897:455. 41

Cf. Qimron 1986:93.

δέχομαι "to receive".42 An illustrative example is the following: Hos 4:8 ‫" חטאת עמי יאכלו ואל עונם ישאו נפשו‬They feed on the sin of my people; they are greedy for their iniquity (RSV)." άμαρτίας‫ ־‬Χαου μου φάγονται καΐ έν ται? άδικίαι? αυτών λήμψονται. ιάς ψυχάς αύτών "They will eat the sins of my people and in their injustice they will take their souls". Instead of the Β Η expression ‫נשא נפשו אל‬, "to desire", the translator made out the post-biblical expression '‫" נשא נפש פ‬to kill someone". The latter expression is not attested in the Bible,43 where '‫ לקח נפש פ‬is found instead, but it does occur in the Temple Scroll: 11Q19 lix 19 ‫" והושעתיהו מיד שונאיו ומיד מבקשי נפשו לשאתה‬And I shall free him from the hand of those who hate him and from the hand of those who seek his life in order to destroy it." The semantic development of the verb ‫ נשא‬affects the author of the Temple Scroll and the translator of Hosea in similar ways. Both in the Temple Scroll and in the Septuagint, the attribution of the meaning "to take" to the verb ‫ נשא‬seems to be accidental. The author of the Scroll did not mean to use post-biblical Hebrew, and the translator of Hosea was merely trying to make sense of a difficult text. Post-biblical and biblical usage were confused inadvertently. And this happened in the same manner in QH and in the Hebrew of the translators. Other cases of diachronic development affecting both QH and the translators' Hebrew are ‫" איזה‬which" instead of classical "where";44 ‫" עמר‬to rise" instead of classical "to stand";45 ‫רצון‬ "will, desire" instead of classical "goodwill, favour";46 and ‫קץ‬ "period, time" instead of classical "end".47 A special case is the term ‫גר‬. The meaning of this word changed owing to a development in Jewish culture or religion. In the Bible, the word ‫ גר‬always means "resident alien" or the like.48 This biblical use stems from a period when religious conversion was unheard of. After the exile, however, with 42

Both of these equivalents are surprisingly frequent, as a glance at the concordance will tell. 44

Except perhaps in the difficult verse 2 Sam 14114. E.g. in the LXX, 1 Kgs 13:12 (3 Kgds 13:12); in QH 4QDC [4Q268] I

2. 45

E.g. in the LXX, Prov 29:4; for QH, cf. Qimron 1986:94. E.g. in the LXX, Ps 30:5; for QH, cf. Qimron 1986:95. 47 E.g. in the LXX, Gen 6:13; for QH, cf. Qimron 1986:95. 48 This view is to be upheld in the face of much scholarly contestation, cf. Joosten 1996:54-73. 46

religious identity gaining in importance, conversion to Judaism came to be envisaged. By a complicated process only partially retraceable in the texts, the word ‫ גר‬now took on the meaning of "convert to the Jewish faith, proselyte". This meaning is unattested in LBH, but it surfaces both in the Septuagint49 and in QH.50 2.2.3. Pseudo-classicism In certain cases, the meaning of a word or expression changed not because of natural development of the language but through re-use of an archaic expression. In the Hellenistic period, when most of the Bible was already regarded as a sacred text, some expressions were no longer correctly understood. They would still be used, however, in a sense arrived at through learned interpretation.51 Sometimes this sense turns up both in QH and in the Septuagint. A good example is the word ‫מעוז‬. In BH, this word usually means "refuge", being derived from the root ‫" עוז‬to take refuge". The meaning "refuge" still seems to obtain in some of the occurrences of the word in QH, e.g.: 1QH 18:23 (Suk. 10:23) ‫" ויצר בשר לא שמתה לי מעוז‬nor have you placed a creature of flesh as my refuge" In other passages, however, the word clearly means "strength", e.g.: 1QH 16:23-24 (Suk. 8:23-24)‫" ובעת חום יעצור מעוז‬and in the time of heat it retains its vitality." Here ‫ מעוז‬is simply a synonym of ‫כוח‬, and ‫ עצר מעוז‬means the same as ‫ עצר כוח‬in 1QH 18:11 (Suk. 10 11). Perhaps we might say that to the author of the Hodayoth ‫ מעוז‬derives not from ‫עוז‬ "to take refuge", but from ‫" עזז‬to be strong". Possibly, he saw the meaning "refuge" as an extension of the basic meaning "strength". Now this interpretation is not peculiar to the Hodayoth. In the Septuagint, the word ‫ מעוז‬is rendered several times as δύναμις "might", ισχύς‫" ־‬strength".52 E.g.: Ezek 24:25 ‫" ביום קחתי מהם את מעזם‬when I take from them their stronghold..." έν τη ήμερα όταν λαμβάνω τήν ίσχύν παρ' αύτών "on the day when I take their strength away from them ..." The agreement of QH and the Septuagint tends to indicate 49

Cf. Cf. 51 Cf. 52 Cf. 50

Kuhn 1959:730-42. Ramirez Kidd 1999:67. Joosten 1999:146-159. Neh 8:10; Isa 23:4, 11.

that the word ‫מעוז‬, although known and in active use, had received a lexical definition diverging from the classical one. The basis of the re-interpretation in this case was etymology. A similar example is the use of the word ‫" שחת‬pit" in the meaning "perdition", after the root ‫שחת‬. The usage occurs in 1QS, and is confirmed by Greek renderings such as απώλεια, "perdition", and διαφθορά, "corruption", and the like.53 Again, the change of meaning is due not to semantic evolution but to etymological re-interpretation. In other cases, the interpretation was arrived at through contextual determination. A possible example is the use of the term ‫שאר‬, lit. "flesh", as a designation of a close parent, e.g.: CD 5:11 ‫" ואם תגלה בת האח את ערות אחי אביה והיא שאר‬If the brother's daughter uncovers the nakedness of her father's brother, she is she'er (i.e. a close blood relation)." This usage is of course to be connected with Lev 18, 20 and 21 where the word ‫ שאר‬occurs.54 However, whereas in Leviticus the term functions as a metaphor, the Damascus document seems to use it as a technical, halachic, term.55 The latter usage is well known to the Septuagint translators, who render all the occurrences of ‫ שאר‬in Leviticus (and in Num 27:11) with οικείο? "near kinsman", or οίκειότη? "near kin". E.g: Lev 20:19 ‫וערות אחות אמך ואחות אביך לא תגלה כי את שארו הערה‬ "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's own flesh." ... την γάρ οίκειότητα άπεκάλυφεν "for he has uncovered his near kin ". One could say that the translator decoded a figure of speech. The reason for this is not his lack of sensitivity to Hebrew style, but the fact that the word ‫ שאר‬has acquired a new meaning. A similar example is BH ‫" תירוש‬grape"56 taken in the sense of "wine" as reflected both in the Greek rendering olvo? "wine", and in QH usage.57 2.3. Differences between QH and the Hebrew of the translators The enumeration of these agreements should not let us lose sight 53

Cf. Wernberg-M0l1er 1957br81.

54

Cf. also Num 27:11. The same meaning seems to attach to the term in Sir 41:21 (M), where the Greek version renders as in Leviticus and Numbers. 55

56

Cf. Naeh and Weitzman 1994:115-20. See also the remarks on the expression ‫ פי שנים‬in Joosten 1999 154-55: 155, n. 38. 51

of the fact that many differences exist between the Hebrew of Qumran and the Hebrew of the Greek translators. Numerous Hebrew expressions peculiar to the Scrolls find no echo in the Septuagint, and vice versa. Also, there are many differences in detail, such as the interpretation of given verses and the explanation of single words. Moreover, the agreements that do occur, such as the ones singled out above, often extend to single books of the Septuagint only, or to single Qumran writings only. The Hebrew of the translators is no more homogeneous than that of the Qumran authors. Of particular significance is the fact that the sectarian vocabulary of the the Qumran texts seems to be unknown to the Greek translators. Thus the typically Qumranic conception of ‫ בליעל‬as a demonic being has left no trace in the Septuagint. The Hebrew word ‫ יחד‬is never rendered by words meaning "community" or the like, even in texts where such a rendering would be possible. The expression ‫ המורה לצדקה‬in Joel 2:23 is translated τά βρώματα elç δικαιοσύνη ν "food for justice".58 Such differences, which could be multiplied, tend to show that there is no direct connection between Qumran and the Septuagint translators.59 This indicates that the agreements that do exist, such as the ones discussed above, reflect linguistic phenomena that were widespread at the time. Qumran and the Septuagint are independent witnesses to the knowledge and use of Hebrew during the Hellenistic period. 3. Conclusions The present investigation, the first of its kind, is necessarily tentative and exploratory. Nevertheless, the similarities illustrated above are striking enough, in regard to both quantity and quality, to be thought significant. What the evidence suggests is that the Qumran writers and the Septuagint translators tap into the same "reservoir" of linguistic knowledge. The contents of this reservoir are rather heterogeneous: BH elements transmitted by an authentic tradition, elements that have undergone a semantic development, BH words or expressions that were re-interpreted, features of LBH, items due to Aramaic influence, elements of spoken Hebrew dialects, etc. Languages evolve in unpredictable ways. What is important is that we can 58

Cf. Harl e t a l . 1999:67. In a recent study, Philonenko (1999:145-55) has suggested some sort of connection between the Qumran Essenes and the Septuagint. 59

observe how QH and the Septuagint reflect one body of linguistic knowledge as it existed in the Hellenistic period. The practical consequence is that our two corpora may be used to illuminate each other. Many Septuagint renderings will be better understood in the light of QH usage. And expressions occurring in QH, particularly where they differ in some way from BH usage, may be more accurately interpreted by the help of the Septuagint. Thus an approach through the Septuagint will assist one in taking QH out of its relative isolation. Although QH will always remain unique, many of its characteristic features appear to have been widespread in the Hellenistic period.

SOME COGNITIVE AND TYPOLOGICAL SEMANTIC REMARKS ON THE LANGUAGE OF 4QMMI* Pablo-Isaac Kirtchuk (Beer-Sheva) The contribution of a general linguist to the study of the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls may be of some utility inasmuch as it consists in the introduction of a linguistic element into a debate that is primarily philological. Therefore our intention in commenting on Menahem Kister's instructive lecture1 is to show that considerations of typological and cognitive semantics can prove useful in this context. Now, whereas in comparative linguistics we have much to learn from a comparison of the element under analysis with cognates from languages of the same family, in typological and cognitive linguistics the value of the analysis increases inasmuch as we deal with languages that are remote and different from the one under analysis. ‫ר‬.‫א‬.‫ כ‬in Pesher Nahum and its relationship to other layers of Hebrew There is a well-known process by which the prima facie physical sense of a word gets an abstract one. In that case, 'being ugly' can refer to a moral quality, in which case the transitive use of the verb, or should we say the augmentation of its valency2, implies the attribution of guilt or moral fault to the person to whom it is attributed. As a matter of fact, this affects not only the negative pole of the opposition—let us say of beauty and the lack of it—but the whole scale going from beautiful, fair and so on to ugly, graceless and so forth. As for ‫ ר‬.‫ פ א‬, it has primarily a physical sense and is so used in MH but it has also a moral one as in, on one hand: ‫ בא אדם שהיה מכוער ביותר ואמר‬.‫הלבישה שבעה חלוקים והוציאה למוכרה‬ ‫לו הראני את יפיה‬ "He dressed her with gowns and put her out to be sold. A man 1

Indeed these remarks have been inspired by M. Kister's lecture. We will therefore follow the order chosen by him in commenting on some points he has dealt with. 2

Our approach of actancy and valency (in other words, the relationship between the verb and its complements) is that of L. Tesnière (1959) and the bulk of work done in the field since that seminal date.

came who was very ugly and told him: show me her beauty" (b. Git 58a) and on the other hand ‫ראו כמה מקולקלין מעשיו וכמה מכוערין דרכיו‬ "See how crooked are his deeds and how ugly his ways" (b. Yoma 86a) In MH, both ‫ נאה‬and ‫ יפה‬are used to denote moral qualities or deeds, as in ‫פתח רבי יהודה ואמר כמה נאים מעשיהן של אומה זו‬ , Rabbi Yehuda started and said: 'How beautiful are this nation's deeds" (b. Shab. 33b) and their antonym is ‫לגנות‬, which again displays not only the moral sense it has in Contemporary Hebrew but first of all the physical one, as in ‫ בחורים שהיו מגנין את החמה ביפין‬,‫ בישראל‬,‫היו בהן‬ "There were lads, among the people of Israel, whose beauty made the sun seem ugly" (b. Sanh. 92b) The very definition by Ben Yehuda of the verb ‫ לגנות‬is ‫ לא יפה‬,‫" אמר שזה לא טוב לא נאה‬To say that it is not good, not nice, not beautiful..." The metaphor is so powerful that even in the definition of a verb that is declarative by essence and refers to moral quality the epithets used are primarily physical: ‫ נאה‬, ‫( יפה‬nice, beautiful). M. Kister is right to mention in this respect lat. foedus, and one could recall the τό καλόν έστι τό αγαθόν of the Greek, in which moral quality is compared to physical beauty. That holds true for many languages since it seems to be what we should call a Metaphorical Universal. That is why we are not sure that even when studying ancient written documents as the DSS we should content ourselves with a philological analysis, even one that includes such closely related languages as MH and Aramaic. For those documents are linguistic corpora and as such reflect linguistic processes and properties. What we mean is, and we will see it through other examples as well, that when dealing with what we call Cognitive Metaphorisation, philological and even linguistic diachronic analyses can call upon a complement of analysis from other viewpoints. If the metaphorical sense of a lexeme is attested alongside the non-metaphorical one in the same corpus or in corpora of the same period, it is positive evidence of such use, but if it is not attested, that is no evidence that such a use did not exist. What may change is the grammatical category in which the root is attested, and there, indeed, nothing but philology can furnish diachronic linguistics with the elements necessary in order to discern at which moment a given root

yields a verb, for example, or a noun of action, and the like. In this respect one should recall the use, in sub-standard CH, of the verb ‫ללכלך על‬, namely 'to spread dirt upon' in a sense which is very close to that 0 ^ . ‫ א‬. ‫ כ‬in Pesher Nahum. Here, too, physical dirt becomes moral fault, just as in Pesher Nahum physical ugliness becomes moral guilt. Syntax, more specifically the preposition, is slightly different as compared with the standard use of the verb in its non-metaphorical sense, and yet it is the very same verb. And note that if a literary corpus of CH texts were to be analy zed some centuries from now, that verb with its specific syntax and metaphorical meaning would not be attested. E'ppur si muove. ‫ השלים‬in Hebrew and in Aramaic Here one must bear in mind the semantic shift attested in Latin which affects the root pac- in such a way that it yields both the verb pac-are (hence Fr. payer, Eng. pay) and the noun pac-s (pax). It is therefore not certain that one should suppose a diachronic process from the sense of ‫ השלים‬to deliver to that of to pay. It is quite plausible that, in this case, too, the currency of exchange may well be either a person, in which case the verb means to deliver, or money, in which case it means to pay. In both cases the goal of the delivery is to appease or to make peace, two terms derived from the very same root pac-, whose senses correspond narrowly to those of the root /š1m/ in Semitic from which is derived ‫השלים‬. Therefore a diachronic or diatopic, namely dialectal analysis, seems unnecessary in this context. ‫ עיר‬in 4Q215 Testament ofNaphtali This is nota semantic shift but rather a quantitative one. Here again we must not content ourselves with a statement that at the period considered a certain ambiguity reigned concerning the intension of the terms denoting geographic units. An explanation of the facts is required and, in our opinion, the shift under analysis would result from the 'politically correct' usage of the time, by which, within the same semantic field, a small unity is named by a term which was originally meant to denote a more prestigious one. The DSS language as a contribution to the interpretation of BH ‫ סלע‬,‫גבורה‬ Here also two commentaries of typological semantics have to be made which agree with the explanation proposed by M.

Kister. Concerning ‫סלע‬, it is clear that by way of metonymy the rock upon which is founded a citadel comes to denote the citadel itself. This also is a very general cognitive process (pars pro toto). Thus, the Dictionnaire de l'Ancienne Langue Française by Frédéric Godefroy gives under roche: "château fort bâti sur une roche". In Indo-European in general we have a similar kind of metonymy for berg//borg - bourg/burg/pur, etc., and in Arabic qala'a means both 'stone' and 'citadel'. Once again, it is not sure that diachrony is of any use here, since this kind of semantic process is inherent to the cognitive nature of language. In other words, even if the métonymie meaning is not attested in BH, we cannot infer that it was not in use. As far as ‫ גבורה‬is concerned, let us reinforce M. Kister's analysis by recalling the semantic process by which Latin vir , man', vis 'manly force, masculinity' eventually yield virtus which becomes the term denoting 'moral/spiritual power' par excellence. As a matter of fact, many of its Indo-European cognates, for example English grow, mean something like vital force (that is what we find, e.g., in Latin prima-vera). Now in the languages derived from Latin or those which borrowed the term from them, viz. Eng. virtue, it is the exact counterpart, in the moral or mental domain, of physical strength3. It is therefore quite understandable that one and the same root ‫ גבר‬should denote physical power and its mental corollary wisdom. In CH, the greeting (‫ חזק וברוך‬litt, strong and blessed) does not extol the addressee's physical strength but his intellectual aptitude: perhaps the best example of a merger of both sub-senses, physical and mental, is to be found in the rabbinic dictum ‫' איזהו גבורז הכובש את יצרו‬Who is mighty? He who conquers his instinct". In modern French it is quite common to say of an expert outstandingly competent in his field 'il est très fort'. Fort denotes here a mental quality, not a physical one. 'praise'‫טבח‬ The apparent problem posed by the translation of Isa 45:23 ‫ כי לי תכרע כל ברך תשבע כל לשון‬by the Septuagint as έξομολογή3

f

‫ ־‬Those familiar with the Nostratic hypothesis, which we do not ourselves reject, will see what we mean if we dare say that at that level of genetic relationship both Semitic /g.b.r./ and Indo-European /g h re-/ may very well represent one and the same root. Yet, here again, one should take care not to attribute diachronic or diatopic explanations of a narrow order to semantic processes that are rather of a cognitive nature.

σ6ται, corroborated by 4Q215a, 7-8, is solved by Lowenstamm (apud Kister) by a supposed weakening of the laryngeals and as an effect of exegetical considerations. However, in our opinion this is a false problem all together, both on phonological and on semantic grounds. Phonologically speaking, ‫ שבע‬is akin to ‫שבח‬ , praise', the only difference residing in the position of the vocal cords during the articulation of the pharyngal. As a matter of fact, those are variants of one and the same root, and the slight difference may be due either to a relatively late semantic differentiation or to dialectal factors. Our analysis is confirmed by typological semantic considerations : Eng. ,swear', Fr. 'jurer' and the like mean both 'to take an oath' and 'to curse'. Both senses are closely related, since they contain an irrational component which may be expressed by magic or ritual formulae. Now as we have seen before concerning beauty and ugliness, 'curse' and 'praise' constitute the two poles of one and the same continuum meaning 'to formulate a subjective appreciation of somebody, either in a laudatory or in a deprecatory way'. Therefore we can say that in Hebrew one and the same basic root means 'to take an oath' (when it adopts the form ‫ )שבע‬and 'to formulate a subjective appreciation of somebody in a laudatory way' (when it adopts the form ‫)שבח‬. Therefore M. Kister's contention that God's praise found in Joshua's apocryphon 4Q175 is derived from ‫ וישבע‬in Josh 6:26 seems even more accurate than he thought. ‫בין‬/‫שמע‬ Both Biblical and Ugaritic literature display this parallelism. It is our contention, on cognitive grounds, that the primary meaning of ‫ בין‬is 'to see', hence its use alongside with ‫שמע‬, another verb denoting a sensory activity. Indeed, this is an implication of the "concrete > abstract" cline we mentioned beforehand: when a verb has a concrete, sensual, physical meaning and also an abstract, intellectual, mental one, the latter is always metaphorical and secondary as compared with the first even if it is attested more abundantly. As a matter of fact, the reflexive form of the verb preserves its primary meaning. This explains also the use of ‫ בין‬as a synonym of ‫שכל‬, which also means primarily "to observe, look, see, contemplate, perceive" as in ‫ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה הוא לעיניים ונחמד העץ להשכיל‬ "And the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and that it was desirable for the eyes and that it was a pleasure to look at" (Gen 3:6) and in ‫לו חכמו ישכילו זאת יבינו לאחריתם‬

"If they were wise they would see it, they would perceive their end" (Deut 32:29) The Aramaic form ‫ סכל‬is also there to prove it. Here, if the DSS can be of some value to the understanding of the primary visual meaning of ‫' בין‬to see', typological and cognitive considérations of general linguistics demonstrate it altogether. CONCLUSION It is undoubtedly true that while making philological analyses one should bear in mind both diachronic and diatopic, namely dialectal factors. However, bringing those factors into account is recognizing that the corpus considered represents an instance of a language, and so we would like to restrain slightly M. Kister's proverbial prudence. The relationship between language and its manifestations may be compared to that of a circle and a polygon ever increasing its number of sides. As is well known, a polygon with an infinite number of sides would equal a circle; likewise, an infinite number of corpora, both of spoken and written language, would equal language itself. But we have access only to the corpora, and that holds true even for the words we are writing now. Analyzing contemporary spoken Hebrew, for instance, cannot be made otherwise than by corpora, and conversely, an analysis of a fairly large number of corpora would give us a good knowledge of the linguistic structure of Contemporary Hebrew. In that sense, a thorough analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls would probably yield a good approximation of the linguistic structure of the language they are written in and not only of those corpora as such. In the particular context of DSS Hebrew, we should carefully consider the influences exerted on it by Aramaic, MH and presumably the Hebrew spoken in Jerusalem at the time. Still, we should recall that while dealing with semantics and lexicology, there are processes of cognitive nature that do not affect any particular dialect or language at a particular stage of it, but are inherent to the pragmatic use of language as a tool for communication as well as for structuring of the world. From the viewpoint of general linguistics, it is felicitous that those cognitive processes should be attested in language along all of its history from the oldest layers, and in documents as specific as those we are dealing with here.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Menahem Kister (Jerusalem) In Memory of my teacher, Prof. J.C. Greenfield

A small Qumran fragment published recently includes additional visions of Ezekiel (4Q386 fr. 1 col. 2).1 Naturally this text has some biblical flavour, but it also includes (within 9 lines) the non-CBH expressions ‫המן‬, ‫נצפה‬,‫תזיז‬, ‫בכן שלום ושדך‬. The word ‫המן‬ has been identified by M. Bar-Asher as the preposition attested in MH with pronoun suffixes (e.g.,‫ הימנו‬etc.).2 The plant name ‫ נצפה‬is found in MH and in Syriac; the word ‫( שרך‬and also the combination ‫ )שלום ושדך‬is attested in Aramaic, and seems to be borrowed from this language; the word ‫ תזיז‬is otherwise unknown (tentatively explained as denoting a wasp),3 and ‫ בכן‬is attested in LBH and in Aramaic. 4 In a fragment of another work we find the expression [ 4 ) ‫ ע ם החביב יעקנוב‬Q 4 6 2 fr ‫ עם סגולה‬is rendered by Targum Onkelos ‫( עם חביב‬Deut 7:6, 14:2, 26:18), and it seems that this fragment used the same expression, although it is not easy to explain the syntax of the expression 6 .‫ עם החביב‬In a halakhic text (4Q265 fr. 6, 7) we read ‫ושלח לו את‬ 7 ‫בגדו‬. Since the verb ‫ שלח‬means in Aramaic "to undress, take off, 1

Dimant 1998:511-28. Most of the words mentioned below have been thoroughly discussed by the editor. 2

Bar-Asher 1990:75. See Dimant's note and Bar-Asher 1998:265. 4 For another striking Aramaism (‫ )בעקר‬in the same work see Qimron 1991b:649-650. 5 S m i t h 1995:198. 6 A possible explanation is that ‫העם החביב = עם החביב‬, the he omitted in writing because of the weakening of the gutturals. The word ‫ החביב‬would be perceived as a modifier, as in the Aramaic expression ‫עם חביב‬. I owe this explanation to Prof. Qimron. However, the people of Israel are rarely called in this layer of Hebrew ‫יעקב‬, and therefore it is not impossible that the author of this work, aware of the Aramaic term, changed the status of ‫ חביב‬to genitive (‫)סומך‬, an epithet of Jacob rather than of the people. 3

7

Baumgarten 1999:69. Baumgarten reads ‫ ישלח‬and translates "let him cast his garment to him". Elsewhere Baumgarten cited this passage, reading

strip off clothes",8 a plausible translation would be: "let him (the rescuer) take off his garment for him (i.e., for the rescued)". The word ‫"( אנו‬we"), known so well from MH, occurs several times in the scrolls. The first occurrence of the well-attested MH word ‫עכשו‬, in itself probably a caique of Aramaic, 10 is in a Qumran fragment (4Q225fir.2, 2:7)." The word ‫שימה‬, the cognate of Aramaic ‫"( סימתא‬treasure"),12 is used not only in Ben Sira (41:14 M and Bmg; 40:18 Bmg), but also in Hebrew Tobit ( 4 ‫ ש י מ ה טובה‬Q 2 0 0 fr. 2, 9 [= 4:9]).1? Below I am goin that the words4)‫ מ ל ו ש‬Q 4 3 9 fr. 1 1:2) and4)‫ ע ו ר‬Q 4 3 3 fr. 1, 3), rare or undocumented in Hebrew, are to be explained according to Aramaic usage. Some expressions employed in rabbinic literature are now known to us from the Qumran fragments; for instance,4)‫ ל ש ו ן הקודש‬Q 4 6 4 fr. 3 1:8)14 and4)‫ ח ס ד י ם טבים‬Q 1 8 5 fr. 1-2 2:1).15 The expression ‫"( לצעור על אחד מכול דבריו‬to transgress any of His words"; 1QS 3:11, cf. 1:13)16 is cognate with MH ‫ פסעת על דת‬in the same sense (Gen. Rab. 98:4 [ed. Albeck, p. 1253]) and to Syriac ‫פסע על פוקדנא‬,17 ‫ פסע‬being the root that often replaces BH ‫ צעד‬in MH.18 Should we assume that the expression in Qumran is a "biblicized" form of the expression in MH, or rather that both roots received the same semantic colouring in QH and MH?19 We also find in the Scrolls the ‫ ושלח‬and translating it "let him extend his garment to him" (1996:162). The reading ‫ ושלח‬is syntactically preferable. * Jastrow 1903:1580; Sokoloff 1990:552. See Qimron 1988:58 (§ 321.14). The word is first attested in the ketiv of Jer 42:6. 10 Ben-Hayyim 1953:95; Yalon 1971:144. 11 VanderKam 1994:149. 9

12

Jastrow 1903:980; Sokoloff 1990:375; Payne Smith 1901:2563-2564.

13

Fitzmyer 1995:65. Fitzmyer's translation, "a good deposit", should be corrected accordingly. 14

Stone and Eshel 1992:248, 253.

15

Allegro 1968:85. Discussion of the expression ‫ חסדים טובים‬in Jewish prayer see Yalon 1971:337-341; Goldin 1991:659-661. The occurrence at Qumran excludes the interpretation suggested by Goldziher (1934:117-119), followed by L. Ginzberg (1961:181). Does the word ‫ טבים‬in 4Q185 represent defective orthography (Strugnell 1970:269) or Aramaic influence? 16

See also 4Q185 2:4 (Allegro 1968:85). Aphrahat, Demonstrationes (ed. W. Wright; London, 1869), p. *448. 18 Bendavid 1967:360. Cf. also the Targum to 2 Sam 22:37 and to Jer 10:23, where ‫ צעד‬is rendered by .‫פסעתא‬ 17

19

Weinfeld 1983:195-200. Weinfeld does not discuss the expressions

unique expression4)‫ ו י ח ת כ ו ימיהם מאה ועשרים שנה עד קץ מי מבול‬Q 252 1:2 instead of ‫[ והיו ימיו מאה ועשרים שנה‬Gen 6:3]),20 meaning "and their days were rationed to a hundred and twenty years until the period of the flood".21 The word ‫חתך‬, equivalent in this case to MH22,‫ קצב‬is documented in this sense in Paytanic Hebrew: 23 ,‫( החותך חיים לכל חי‬cf. in a mediaeval text [tenth century?]: ‫כי‬ ‫הבורא חתך קץ לדור המבול ומנה והיו ימיו מאה ועשרים שנה בקצב‬ ‫)וקצוה‬.24 These random examples from recent publications are a good illustration of the Hebrew vocabulary of the fragments preserved at Qumran, consisting of words known from various layers of Hebrew and from Aramaic. In this article I shall try to consider some general issues, such as the problem of the relationship of the vocabulary of the Dead Sea Scrolls to words attested in CBH, LBH or MH, to deal with the problem of Hebrew words and their relation to their Aramaic cognates, and to scrutinize the significance of words borrowed from the Bible and of biblical paraphrases. Finally, I shall try to illustrate the effect of style and literary evolution on the changing meaning of words or on the creation of expressions of multiple meanings. mentioned above. See also Yalon 1967:77. 23 Brooke 1996:193. 21 Brooke compares Dan 9:24 (1996:197) and translates: "and their days were determined at one hundred and twenty years until the time/end of (the) waters of (the) flood". My understanding of the verb is somewhat different. 22 Cf. (in relation to Gen 6:3): ‫וכבר קצבת לו ימיו ׳והיו ימיו מאה ועשרים טנה׳‬ (Midrash ha-Gadol on Deut 34:7; ed. S. Fisch, Jerusalem 1975, p. 787). See also Gen. Rab. 26:6, ed. Theodor - Albeck, p. 251 and variae lectiones). 23

In the Palestinian piyyut to the Day of Atonement, ‫האוחז ביד מידת משפט‬ (see Goldschmidt 1970:225). Similarly in the poetic piece Nethanne Toqef. ‫( ותחתוך קצבה ל כ ל בריותיך‬Goldschmidt 1970:170). 24 Rosenthal 1948:*40 and commentary, *57. For the background of this work see Fleischer 1967: Hebrew Section, *l-*23; Fleischer 1980:183-190. The expression ‫ יחתכו ימיהם‬in 4Q252 is not identical with the seemingly identical expression [ 4 )[‫ ה נ נ י [ נודד את הימים ואתהשני]ם‬Q 3 8 5 cut short the days" (Kister and Qimron 1992:601). Compare in Paytanic Hebrew: ‫( ודלג חשבון וחתך הקץ‬Phinehas, Mishmaroth, 1:8 [Zulay 1939:138]); ‫( חתוך קץ שעבוד עניתה‬Shim c on bar Megas 14:1:8 [Yahalom 1984:150]); compare, in the same piyyut, ‫אז ראוים לארבע מאה שנה ]ב— חת[ך קץ למאתים ועשר‬ ‫)שנה‬. Both Phinehas and Shim'on allude to the midrash recorded in Cant. Rab. 1:8.1 am grateful to the staff of the Historical Dictionary by the Academy of the Hebrew Language for helping me in using the concordance of pre-1000 Hebrew sources, from which I drew the references quoted in this note.

L The relation of the Hebrew vocabulary of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the vocabulary of other layers of the Hebrew language, and especially of MH, has been a central issue in Qumran scholarship since the publication of the first scrolls. The classification of Qumran vocabulary into words attested in CBH, LBH or MH or words otherwise unattested in Hebrew is rather problematic for many reasons (as recently noted by Qimron), as can be demonstrated by the following two illustrations. 1. The root ‫ כאר‬is well-attested in MH (in the forms ,‫כאר‬ ‫ )כער‬and it occurs twice in the Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira from the Genizah ( 1 3 : 2 2,11:2;‫מכוערין‬,‫מ כ ו ע ר‬ 'to be ugly' among "words mainly attested in the DSS and in the Tannaitic and Amoraic literature".26 Recently, David Flusser maintained that the root ‫" כאר‬ugly" occurs twice in the Bible: in Ps 22:17 and in Nah 3:6.27 Ps 22:17 reads, according to MT: ‫כי סבבוני כלבים עדת מרעים הקיפוני כארי ידי ורגלי‬. Some Hebrew manuscripts read ‫ כארו‬instead of ‫כארי‬, and a midrash is based on this reading.28 Flusser argued that the original reading is ‫ כארו‬in the sense of "mar with wounds", and pointed out a similar semantic shift in the Latin foedo. While Flusser's argument from Nah 3:6 (preferring the reading of Pesher Nahum and the Targum ‫ושמתיך‬ ‫ כאורה‬to ‫ ושמתיך כראי‬of MT and the Septuagint) is questionable,29 25

Qimron 1994:106-107.

26

Qimron 1986:98, 100. Flusser 1993:403-404.

27

28

Other mediaeval Hebrew manuscripts read ‫כרו‬, a reading reflected also in the Septuagint. A manuscript from either Nahal Hever or Wadi Seial reads ‫( כ א ת‬P. Flint 1997:88): I thank Mr M. Morgenstern for drawing my attention to this detail. The following midrash is based on the readings ‫כ א ת‬ and ‫כרו‬: ‫ ר׳‬... ‫ עשו לי כשפים שיעשו ידיי ורגליי כאורות לפני אחשורוש‬:‫ר׳ יהודה אמר‬ ‫ הוכרו ידי ורגלי לנצי אהשורוש‬:‫( נהמיה אמר‬Midrash Psalms ad 10c., ed. S. Buber, p. 194). Basically, the forms ‫כרו‬, ‫ כארי‬are textual variants that emerged due to graphic or phonetic similarity, but I cannot exclude the possibility that the preference for the reading ‫ כארי‬in MT has to do with the Christian argument that this verse is a strong prooftext for the cruciflction of Jesus (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 97). 29 Lieberman 1968:98. 30 Both the Targum and Pesher Nahum apparently reflect both readings (‫ כאורה‬and ‫)כראי‬. In the Targum the Hebrew words ‫ ושמתיך כראי‬are rendered ‫ ;ואשתך מכערא לעינו כ ל חזך‬the words ‫ כ ל חזך‬probably reflect the reading ‫כראי‬

his textual and semantic interpretation of Ps 22:17 seems more probable than all other suggestions. The biblical text of Nah 3:6-7 is explained in Pesher Nahum with the following words: ‫פשרו על דורשי החלקות אשר באחרית הקץ יגלו מעשיהם הרעים לכול‬ ‫ישראל ורבים יבינו בעוונם ושנאום וכארום על זדון אשמתם ובהגלות כבוד‬ ‫ ידורו פתאי אפרים מתוך קהלם ועזבו את מתעיהם ונלוו על ישראל‬30‫יהודה‬. It should be noted that the word ‫ כאר‬in the phrase ‫וכארום על‬ ‫ זדון אשמתם‬fits the prevalent meaning of the verb ‫ כאר‬in Syriac "to reproach, put to shame, despise" better than the meaning of this root attested in MH, and should perhaps be translated: "Many will understand their iniquity and put them to shame for their malicious guilt". The semantic shift is understandable (cf. also Latin foedus). What looked like a clear case of a word attested in Mishnaic Hebrew, then, is more complicated: the root is attested already in the Bible (perhaps CBH) and its exact meaning may be closer to that in Aramaic.31 2. Another illustration for a similar dilemma is provided by the word ‫" השלים‬to deliver, to hand over".32 The word is found in the Temple Scroll: ‫כי יהיה איש רכיל בעמו ומשלים את עמו לגוי נכר‬ ‫( ועושה רעה בעמו‬11QT 64:7). The meaning "deliver" is known from Aramaic and MH, and occurs in the classical piyyutim.?~ This word may well be attested in the Bible. According to MT, Kgs 6:11), the king of Aram asks:2)‫מי משלנו אל־מלך ישראל‬ whereas the Septuagint reads: TLS‫ ־‬προδίδωσί,ν με βασιλεΐ 1 σραηλ. It is very plausible, as has been already suggested, that the Septuagint reflects a superior reading:‫מי משלמני אל־מלך ישראל‬ "who delivers me to the king of Israel?"34 However, the word should not necessarily be classified as CBH, since it could well be a deliberate Aramaism put into the mouth of the king of (thus Weiss 1981:214). The words ‫ בהנלות כבור יהודה‬in the pesher may also to be based on the reading ‫כראי‬: the verb ‫ ראה‬is often rendered ‫ אתגלי‬in the Targums (albeit with reference to God). 1

It should be emphasized that the root ‫ כער‬/ ‫ כאר‬is rather common in MH. The lack of evidence for the meaning attested in Pesher Nahum is therefore remarkable. 32 Cf. Qimron 1980:258; 1986:104. 33 Yadin 1971:390; Urbach 1971:392. As noted by Qimron (1980:258), the word occurs in amoraic sources more than in tannaitic ones. 34 This is certainly the best suggestion, for which see N.H. Tur-Sinai, apud E. Ben Yehuda, Thesaurus totius Hebraitatis, s.v. ‫( שלם‬Jerusalem, 1959), p. 7182 n. 2. The reading of the Septuagint explains the use of the preposition ‫אל‬, which is awkward according to MT.

Aram in the biblical passage.35 Finally, a semantic consideration should be mentioned: the piel of the root ‫שלם‬, current in biblical Hebrew in the sense of "to pay", is clearly derived from the basic meaning "to deliver". However, this observation concerning the semantic development of the Semitic root does not indicate when, if ever, the root had such a meaning in Hebrew. Is "deliver" an old meaning of the Hebrew root ‫ שלם‬attested in the Bible, in the Temple Scroll and in MH, or is it rather an Aramaism in one or more of these layers, and, consequently, does the occurrence of this word imply continuity between the different layers of the Hebrew language? One of the most important texts found in Qumran is 4QMMT.36 The style and language of this text are unique, but comparison with 4Q386 noted above (p. 121) is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of many post-biblical and Aramaic words even in a "biblicized" text. The style of 4QMMT is influenced by its literary genre: unlike 4Q386 it is a letter (sent to a person outside the sect) rather than a prophecy or a literary work. MMT's vocabulary was closely scrutinized by Qimron. He classifies the Hebrew words of MMT into the following categories: "Classical Biblical Hebrew elements", "post-exilic elements", "usages not found before MH", "new words or expressions". Qimron noted throughout his discussion several words and usages that have their affinities with Aramaic (‫[ בגלל ש‬Β:79]; ‫[ מדע‬C:28]; ‫מקצת‬ [Β: 1 ];‫[ ראוי‬Β: 17: Aramaic ‫[ מעת ש ;]חזי‬B:66j; ‫[ שלם‬A:20]; ‫קבל‬ [B:57]; ‫ היה‬+ participle [C:24, 26]; ‫[ עשה זנות‬B:75], to which one may add:‫( בקש ש‬C:28);‫( חוץ מן‬B:31; Aramaic ‫ ;)לבר מן‬and perhaps others.37 The most obvious Aramaism in MMT is ‫( בשל ש‬Β :12, 16, C:30; Aramaic ‫ ;בדיל ד‬totally absent from MH). Also remarkable is the usage ‫( שלא‬B:53), ‫ בשכתוב‬/ ‫ משכתוב‬rather than ‫ מי שלא‬and ‫ממה שכתוב‬, (‫ ככתוב )כמה שכתוב‬in MH, with a clear affinity with the usage of Aramaic ‫ד‬. Most of the affinities with MH are attested in Aramaic or may be interpreted as Aramaic caiques38 (e.g., ‫[ מלבוא‬C:8]; ‫[ אף‬Β: 13]; ‫[ נזהר‬B:50];‫[ פרש מן‬C:7]; ‫[ סומה‬B:49]; ‫[ שהם באים‬B:39]). It seems that a vast majority of the words classified by Qimron as "attested in CBH" occurs in 35

Thus Tur-Sinai, ibid. See Hurvitz 1996:87.

36

Qimron and Strugnell:1994. The following paragraph is a summary of the analysis of the language of MMT suggested by me elsewhere (Kister 1999b:355-359. 37

Kister 1999b:357, nn. 186-188.

38

For caiques of Aramaic in Hebrew see Kutscher 1977:394*-406*, especially 401 *-404* (Hebrew section).

paraphrastic quotations of biblical verses (‫[ אחרית‬C: 14]; ‫אשר‬ [B:32]; ‫[ ברר‬B:65]; ‫[ בוא השמש‬B:72]; ‫[ בחר‬B:61];‫[ השיא ערן‬B:13, 27];‫[ והיא ]= והיה[ כי‬C:13]; ‫[ עץ‬B:62]; ‫[ צרוע‬B:64, 68]; ‫ראשית‬ [B:63]; ‫[ תועבה‬C:6-7]; and also ‫[ נחשב לצדקה‬Ps 106:31], ‫קדמניות‬ [C: 12] and perhaps ‫[ חוק ומשפט‬B:52]). Other words assigned by Qimron to this category are theological terms (‫[ עת‬C:30]; ‫תורה‬ [C:24];‫[ בליעל‬C : 22] ;Y9 ‫[ התבונן‬C:23]r or attested also in Aramaic41 (including words like ‫[ אנחנו‬C:20; Aramaic texts from Qumran: ‫[ שמש ;]אנחנא‬B:15]; ‫[ ערמה‬C:28]; ‫ =[ לקח‬to marry, B:40]; ‫התבונן‬ [C:23]).42 Elimination of these words from Qimron's list leaves us with very few words representing CBH: ‫( אלה‬B:l, 15; C 5, 8, 14, 28),‫( כי‬Β: 16),‫( עשתי עשרי‬A:iii:2—in the calendar!).43 Few words and expressions, mostly halakhic terms, are found only in MH (‫[ ארץ ישראל‬B:57-58];‫[ טהרת הקודש‬B:23];‫[ מוצקות‬B:55]; ‫פרת‬ ‫[ החטאת‬B:13];‫[ תערובת‬B:48,50]; ‫[ לחה‬B157-58]44). I do not contend that all the words that have affinities with Aramaic are Aramaisms, but it may be worthwhile to note that the vocabulary of MMT is, on the whole, very close to Aramaic. The use of ‫( אנחנו‬BH) rather than ‫( אנו‬MH) or of ‫ שמש‬rather than ‫ חמה‬is not necessarily a preference for Biblical Hebrew; it can be explained by the cognate words in Aramaic.45 A Hebrew letter from the end of the Second Temple period (written in a "non-biblicized" style) uses 46,‫ אנחנו‬and the Aramaic influence on its opening formula is evident from a parallel letter in Aramaic.47 Such a heavy influence of Aramaic and affinity with Aramaic is by no means surprising, but it implies that classification of Hebrew words at Qumran according to the layers of Hebrew in which they occur may blur 39

Kister 1999b:352-354. The word refers to religious meditation; cf. also Kister 1999b:357 n. 183 (c). 40

41

ה‬C:29) is a theological term that has an Aramaic equivalent in the Prayer of Levi (א‬...]; Stone and Greenfield 1993:247-266.) See also Kister 1999b:352-353. 42

For the last two words see Kister 1999b:356-357, n. 183 (b), (d). Even the usage of ‫ ש‬and ‫ כי‬in MMT, which is different from the usage in MH, as noted by Qimron (1994:74-75) is reminiscent of the usage of ‫ד‬ and ‫ ארו‬in Aramaic. 43

44

11QT 49:12; 4Q274 fr. 3 2:5 (Baumgarten 1999:107), 4Q277 fr. 1 2:5 (ibid., p. 116). 45

For ‫ אנחנו‬see Qimron 1994:106.

46

‫( ולא אנחנו התחלנו לכתוב לכם‬Midrash ha-Gadol on Deut 26:13; probably from the lost Mekhilta to Deuteronomy). 47

See t. Sanh. 2.6.

the relation to, and influence of, Aramaic. An assumption that a word attested in QH (or LBH) and also in both MH and Aramaic is necessarily closer to MH, or to a Hebrew dialect close to MH48 (rather than an Aramaic influence in one of the Hebrew layers or in both), is questionable. For instance, the occurrence of the verb ‫ התארמלה‬in QH (4Q271 fr. 3, 12)49 and the noun ‫ ארמלותך‬in a biblical quotation in a Qumran text (4Q176 fr. 8-11, 6)50 might indicate that the root was current in Hebrew since the Second Temple period, including the tannaitic period51; but it is no less plausible to argue for Aramaic influence on different layers of Hebrew, first on QH and then on MH (or on MH manuscripts). Certainly, the texts discovered at Qumran shed new light on MH. On the other hand, MH helps us to gain a better understanding of Qumran texts and their ancient renderings. To give one example, in the Testament of Naphtali preserved at Qumran we read: [‫בשם העיר אשר נשבה אל]יה‬, whereas the Greek T. Naph. has έν ονόματι της‫ ־‬κώμης‫ ־‬èv ή ήχμαλωτεύθη (1:11). The Hebrew word ‫ עיר‬is rendered by Greek κώμη.52 The explanation for this rendering is that in MH ‫ עיר‬normally denotes a village rather than a city. The rabbis were well-aware of this shift of meaning,53 and R. Levi states: "‫[ שרה‬in the Bible] means ‫[ עיר‬in MH], ‫עיר‬ [in the Bible] means ‫[ מרינה‬in MH], ‫[ מרינה‬in the Bible] means ‫[ אפרכיה‬in MH]" (Esth. Rab. on Esther LI). 54 The translator of the T. Naph. into Greek understood the Hebrew word according to its meaning in MH. Can we be sure whether the author of the T. Naph. meant ‫ עיר‬to be a city or a village? 48

See Qimron 1994:106-108. Baumgarten 1998:175. 50 Allegro 1968:62. This text has not been discussed in the present context. 51 Thus Bar-Asher 1986:4, 6. 52 Stone 1996:20-36, especially 30-31. Stone concludes his discussion: "[T]his analysis leaves us without an explanation of the origin of κώμη in the Greek TPN [= Greek Testament of Naphtali]. Since some indications have already emerged that this section of TPN was reworked in Greek, this problem is less difficult..." (ibid, p. 31). 49

53

Compare also the rendering of MT ‫ עיר‬in the Peshitta by either ‫קריתא‬ or ‫ ;מדינתא‬see Weitzman 1999:169-171. 54

As noted by Kutscher (Kutscher 1961:19-21). Needless to say, this explanation only strengthens Stone's analysis concerning the dependence of the mediaeval Bereshit Rabbati on the Hebrew original of the Testament of Naphtali (above, n. 52).

MH often provides explanations for otherwise unknown words in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which sometimes happen to be key-words for the understanding of the entire work in which they appear. For instance, the word ‫ מזור‬occurs in pieces of the same work, in a very fragmentary context: ‫י[הוה אלהינ]ו ל[פי ]חרב‬ ‫ק[לעי המזור עם קשתות ולא‬ ‫מ[לחמה לחפש ערי מבצרים ולחריר‬ 55 (2Q22 1:1-3) )]‫ריב‬ )* ‫כל עבריו את עוג‬ ] ‫אמות וחצי רמו ושתים‬ ‫מגן כמגדל הקל ברגל] יו‬ p ‫ולוא שניתי כ׳ שברו יהוה אלהינו‬ ‫ועשיתי קלעי מזור ע]ם קשתות ולוא‬ ‫כי ] מ[להמה לתפש ערי מבצרים ולחריד‬ (4Q373 fr. 1-2T-8)56 ‫יש[ראל כי נשבר לפניו‬ ‫[ראשו באבן המז]ור‬ (4Q372fr. 2:12-13) Baillet and Schuller translated ‫קלעי המזור‬: "les frondes meurtières", "deadly slings". But comparison with MH reveals that its meaning here is "a catapult". The word occurs in the description of the siege of Jerusalem in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Version Β (chapter 7). 7 ‫ עשה לו קשת של זיר ונתן בתוכה‬... ‫וכשבא אספסינוס והקיף על ירושלם‬ ‫ראש חזיר והיו מפקיעין במיכני ויורדין ער שעלתה וישבה על האברים שעל‬ ‫גבי המזבח וטמאתו‬ ‫ קשת של זיר‬is a part of the μηχανή, i.e., of the catapult which throws the pig's head. Etymologically this word is probably related to the root ‫יר‬/‫ זו‬in Hebrew, meaning "to twist",58 and perhaps to the Arabic word zawrâ ("a [bent] bow"),59 with which one may compare (at least linguistically) the catapult called 55

Baillet 1962:81-82.

56

Schuller 1992:515-530. Schechter 1887:20. See the text with variae lectiones in Kister 1998:494.

57

58

The noun zēr is derived from this meaning of the root; the noun zār may also be related to it (compare zāra in Arabic). 59 See Ben Yehuda (1959:1327), s.v.‫זיר‬.

‫ניחם‬

tormentum in Latin.60 Baillet thought that this word described David's battle with Goliath, whereas according to Talmon this is an apocryphon of Moses, relating his battle with Og.61 Schuller did not exclude any of these explanations. However, if ‫קלעי‬ ‫ המזור עם קשתות‬are the same as ‫קשת של זיר‬, denoting a catapult used "to capture fortified cities", and [‫ אבן המז]ור‬is a stone thrown by such a catapult, the possibility that the text refers to Moses' fight with Og, at which he needed to throw catapult stones (because of Og's huge size), gains much support. The word ‫ מזור‬is a key-word for the interpretation of the whole work.

IL Another important factor for the lexicography of the Dead Sea Scrolls is its relation to Biblical Hebrew. Sometimes the usage at Qumran is valuable for a better interpretation of a biblical verse. Thus, it has been shown by Qimron that4)‫ ס ל ע ציון‬Q 5 2 2 fr. 9 2:4)62 replaces the biblical 2) ‫מצרת ציון‬ Sam 5:7).63 Could ‫ סלע‬mean "citadel" also in the Bible, in phrases like2)‫ה׳ סלעי ומצרתי‬ Sam 22:2);‫סלעי ומצודתי אתה‬ 64 (Ps 31:4; 7L3)? In an Aramaic fragment of the Testament of Levi from Qumran we read65: [‫]אחויני? מרי רוח קודשא עטה ה[כמה ומנדע וגבורה ]הב לי‬ rendered by the Greek T. Levi of Athos Monastery: δειχθήτω μοι, δέσποτα, τό πνεύμα τό αγιον, και βουλήν και σοφίαν και γνώσιν και ίσχύν δός‫ ־‬μοι. The same terms are also found in a hymn to wisdom in the Book of Baruch, which was probably composed in Hebrew: μάθε που έστιν φρόνησις‫־‬, που έστιν ισχύς‫״‬, που έστιν σύνεσις‫ ״‬του γνώναι άμα (Bar 3:14). The usage of the word ‫ גבורה‬in these passages continues that of wisdom literature: ‫( לי עצה ותושיה אני בינה לי גבורה‬Prov 8:14); ‫( עמו חכמה וגבורה לו עצה ותבונה‬Job 12:13),66 and should be especially 60 61

Saldarini 1975:66, n. 5. Talmon 1989:262-264.

62

Puech 1998:55 (Puech's interpretation is quite different). Qimron 1994:503-508, especially 505. 64 The Qumran work definitely does not allude to these biblical verses, and I do not see any reason why the writer would refrain from the biblical usage unless ‫ סלע‬was a natural choice for "citadel". 63

65

The reconstruction according to Stone and Greenfield 1993:247-266, especially 257. 66

But compare:‫( טובה חכמה מגבורה‬Eccl 9:16), where ‫ חכמה‬stands in contrast

compared with ‫ונחה עליו רוח ה׳ רוח חכמה ובינה רוח עצה וגבורה רוח‬ ‫( דעת ויראת ה׳‬Isa 11:2).6‫ ל‬In these passages, ‫ גבורה‬is synonymous with ‫דעת‬, ‫עצה‬, ‫בינה‬, ‫חכמה‬, i.e., wisdom. Biblical commentaries and dictionaries have rendered ‫ גבורה‬in these passages as "might", a meaning that does not fit too well some of the biblical verses, and even less the phrases of Baruch and the T. Levi. The best way to explain these passages is to assume that ‫ גבורה‬does not mean in these verses "strength, might", but is a synonym of 'wisdom', a particularly male characteristic according to concepts of antiquity. Admittedly, in these cases, as in many others, it could be argued that the Qumran usage reflects an ancient interpretation of biblical verses rather than a free Hebrew usage, quite independent of the Bible. The problem can be illustrated by three examples. 1. A fragment of the Book of Noah describes the illumination of Lamech's house when Noah was born: ]‫וכאשר ראה למך את‬ ‫( [ את חדרי הבית כחדודי השמש‬1Q19 fr. 3,4-5). 69 Qimron has demonstrated that the expression ‫" חדורי השמש‬rays of the sun, brightness of the sun" corresponds to ‫ חדורי חרש‬at Job 41:22 ( ‫תחתיו חדורי‬ ‫)חרש ירפד חרוץ עלי טיט‬.70 Qimron contends: "I believe that ‫חדורי‬ ‫ חרש‬and ‫ חדורי שמש‬are variants of the same expression meaning 'rays of the sun' [= ‫ ]חרם‬... The passage from the Book of Noah shows no literary dependence on the one in Job. It demonstrates, however, that the other sources ... which are related to the passage in Job may well reflect the correct meaning of the expression". However, the following considerations should be taken into account: (1) Throughout the Bible ‫ חרש‬means "clay", whereas ‫ חרם‬means "sun". Although interchange between samekh and sin is not unlikely, according to biblical orthography, the meaning "clay" is preferable. (2) More important, perhaps, is a striking parallel to Job's description of Leviathan in Aelian's description of the crocodile, a parallel that has been noted by several to ‫"( גבורה‬strength"). Cf. also 2 Kgs 18:20. 67

It has been suggested that the terms in the Aramaic Testament of Levi are derived from Isa 11:2. (Stone and Greenfield [above, n. 65, p. 261). This is unlikely, since the same pattern occurs also in the Book of Baruch, as shown above, and the contents of both texts are not related to the Isaiah passage. ‫ = נבר‬male; compare Greek άρ^τή and Arabic 69

Milik 1955:85. Qimron 19953:295-329, especially 302-307. 71 Qimron 1995a:305. 70

muruwwa.

commentators of Job.72 Aelian (second century CE) writes: "Its back and its tail are impenetratable, for it is fortified and, so to say, armed with scaly plates which resemble hard earthenware or shells."73 Thus, the original meaning of ‫ חדורי חרש‬seems to be "sharp potsherds", referring to Leviathan's scales. The words ‫ חדודי חרש‬in Job 41:22 were interpreted in tannaitic sources as meaning "fin": ‫׳גאות אפיקי מגינים׳ אלו קשקשין שלו ׳תחתיו‬ ‫( חדודי חרש׳ אלו סנפירין שלו‬f. Hui. 3.27 = Sifra Shemini parasha 3:5 [ed. A.H. Weiss, 49d] = b. Hui. 67b).74 This interpretation underlies an aggadic source cited in an ancient piyyut of Qalir. The piyyut reads: ‫" תחתיו חדורי חרש סנפיריו מכהה גלגל חרם‬his fins dim the disk of the sun".75 The wording of an aggada appended to Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana,76 ‫"פופסים הרוחות שלו מכהות גלגל חמה‬ (perhaps emend to: ‫)חדורות שלו‬, should be interpreted similarly: ‫ חדורי‬was understood here as meaning "fins", whereas ‫ חרש‬was equated with ‫ חרם‬and interpreted "sun".78 It seems to me that the expression ‫ חדורי השמש‬found at Qumran is derived from Job 41:22. The understanding ‫" = חדורי‬rays" owes its emergence to an interpre-tation of the biblical text rather than to linguistic factors. The first step towards the interpretation reflected at Qumran is the rendering of ‫ חרוץ‬in the second stich as "gold" (thus already the Septuagint) , hence the interpretation of ‫ חדודי חרש‬as 72

Hirzel 1852:258; Gordis 1978:471, 489 Aelian, On Animals, X, 24 (trans. A.F. Scholfield 1959:316-317). Note the similarity in the descriptions of Job and Aelian; however, according to Aelian (in the preceding sentence) one of the most effective ways of wounding the crocodile is to strike it in the belly, whereas according to Job the Leviathan has scales even on its belly. 74 See Rashi's commentary to b. Hul. 67b: ‫׳תחתיו חדודי חרט׳ חידודים ט ל‬ ‫ ׳אלו סנפירים׳ טחדודים ומחתכין כחרסין ובהן הוא בוקע את המים בחורן סלא‬.‫חרטים‬ .‫יעכבוהו בפריחתו‬ 71

75

Schirmann 1970:48. The reading ‫ גלגל טסט‬in Qimron's article (Qimron 1995a:304) is a lapse. 7ft A late addition to Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana (ed. B. Mandelbaum, p. 455). The name ‫ פנחס הכהן בן חמא‬, the tradent of our aggada, is used only in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu literature and in Midrash Tehillim, and the wording seems rather late, but the antiquity of the aggada (if not necessarily of the midrashic source!) is proven by the piyyut which made use of a similar source. 77 See Lieberman's emendation (1962:476) in Mandelbaum's edition of Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana; his interpretation of the word ‫ פופסים‬is not conclusive. 78

Qimron (1995:304) quotes the two latter sources as reflecting the interpretation "rays" for the word ‫ חדורי‬in Job 41:22. 79 Similarly also the Targum ad loc., and see also Tanhuma, Nisavim 4.

something shining, which was naturally combined with ‫" חרם‬sun" (Qalir, late midrash). As has been demonstrated by Qimron, the understanding of ‫ חרורי‬as "rays"(‫ חדורי חרש‬meaning the sun's rays) is known from Rashi's interpretation of Job 41:22 in the name of his teacher: "The plain sense of the text ‫ תחתיו חדורי חרש‬is, according to my master,80 'in his place there are rays of sun'"),81 an interpretation further developed semantically in Pseudo-Rashi (perhaps Rashbam)82 on Job 41:22.83 In contrast to Qimron, it must be stressed that, as far as I know, such an understanding of ‫ חדורי‬is not found in earlier interpretations of, or allusions to, Job 41:22.84 It is difficult to decide whether the mediaeval commentators drew upon an unknown ancient tradition, or if the similarity to the interpretation of 1Q19 is a result of independent interpretation of the biblical verse. 2. The biblical verse ‫כי יהיה בך איש אשר לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילח‬ (Deut 23:11) is paraphrased in the Temple Scroll by ‫ואיש כי יהיה‬ ‫( לו מקרה לילה‬11QT 45:7). It has been shown by Qimron85 that "in the Temple Scroll [...] the expression ‫ מקרה לילה‬occurs with the mem as the preformative of the miqtal pattern" in the sense of "nocturnal emission". Qimron notes that this understanding of the word ‫ מקרה‬is not in line with the analysis reflected by the Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Targums, the Tiberian and the Samaritan vocalization, according to which the word is composed of the preposition min followed by the noun gäre.86 On the other 80

The reading ‫לשון מורי‬, found in seven manuscripts of Rashi, seems to be original.

81

Rashi's commentary on b. Hul. 76b: ‫( במקומו = תחתיו‬cf. Exod 16:29), ‫זהרורי = חדורי‬,‫שמש = חרש‬. 82 Shoshana 1999:64-66. 83 "In his resting place (‫ )במקום חניתו‬there are rays of sun (‫)זהרורי שמש‬, for the fins of his belly beneath him (‫ )סנפירים אשר תחתיו בבטנו‬shine like the sun. ‫ חדורי‬like ‫( חרב חדה‬a sharp sword) that is keen and bright and gleaming, hence the rays are called ‫חדודי‬. ‫ חרש‬means sun ..." (Shoshana 1999:271; see Qimron 1995a:303. On the whole, Qimron follows the semantic explanation provided by Pseudo-Rashi). Note the combination of Rashi's interpretation (‫" תחתיו‬in his place",‫" חדודי‬rays") with another one (‫" חדורי‬fins",‫" תחתיו‬beneath him"). See also the commentary of Rashi's disciple (Shoshana 1999:271). 84

Note, however, Qimron's interesting references to Massekhet Hekhalot, ch. 5 (Jellinek 1855:43; Qimron 1995a:306). However, it is still questionable whether the original reading in this text was really .‫חדורי‬ 85

Qimron 1995a:298-300. For the data see Qimron 1995a:298. We may conclude from the evidence of these ancient translations that the Tiberian vocalization ‫מקרה‬ 86

hand, the understanding of the Temple Scroll matches Saul's words concerning David1)‫ מקרה הוא בלתי טהור הוא כי לא טהור‬Sam 20:26). Qimron suggests that the biblical word miqre in Samuel and Deuteronomy is a verbal noun, meaning "nocturnal emission".87 However, it is awkward to interpret ‫ מקרה‬as a verbal noun both in Deuteronomy (where such an abstract expression cannot be attached to ‫ )אשר לא יהיה טהור‬and in Samuel (where ‫ מקרה הוא‬seems to be parallel to ‫בלתי טהור הוא‬, in which the word ‫ הוא‬clearly refers to David). In the biblical verses it seems much more preferable to take ‫ מקרה‬as referring to the person who emitted semen (perhaps to be vocalized as a [passive?] participle).88 The verse in Deuteronomy would then be translated: "If there is among you any man who is not clean, having emitted semen by night", and the verse in Samuel: "He (i.e., David) emitted semen and he is unclean and not yet cleansed". The earliest interpretations of the biblical verses regarded this word either as identical with the well-known miqre (MT and all the versions for Samuel, 11QT for Deuteronomy) or as composed from min and qere, the latter word taken as a noun, equivalent to MH ‫( קרי‬MT and all the versions for Deuteronomy). It should be noted that the syntactical structure of MT was changed in a similar manner both in the Temple Scroll and in the Targum to Samuel: 11 89

‫מקרה לילה‬ ‫ עירוע הוה ליה‬:Targum

‫ ו א י ש ך יהיה לו‬Q T 45:7 ‫ מקרה לילה‬... ‫כי יהיה בך איש‬ 1:

‫ מ ק ר ה הוא‬S a m 20:26

If the preceding analysis is correct, the reading in the Temple Scroll is no more than an ancient witness to the interpretation of a biblical word, and does not help us in determining the original meaning in the Bible, as maintained by Qimron.90 On the other hand, it is illuminating to observe the continuity of exegetical tradition, which is in this case also the tradition of pronunciation (where the reading of 11QT is the exception).91 3. As has been shown, the word ‫ רשף‬in the Bible has mythical with a dagesh in the Qof is not for phonetic reasons, but due to the interpretation given to this word. 87

Qimron 19953:299-300.

88

Cf. MH ‫נקרה‬, ‫הוקרה‬, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic ‫( איקרי‬probably denominative verbs of .(‫קרי‬ 89 According to Sperber 1959: II 26. 90 C f . also Morag 1996:153. 91 The reading of 11QT in Deuteronomy could have emerged by analogy with Samuel.

connotations;92 the Phoenician god ‫ רשף‬is a dangerous deity, shooting arrows of consuming fire and plague. Resheph brings destruction by plague according to Deut 32:24 and Hab 3:5, and is parallel to dever also in Ps 78:4893 and it personifies the consuming and potentially destructive heat of love (together with ‫ מות‬and ‫ ;שאול‬Cant 8:6). In the expression ‫( רשפי קשת‬Ps 76:4), the arrows of the enemy are compared with Resheph's arrows.94 The Septuagint seems to indicate that the meaning of ‫ רשף‬was not known in a very early time:95 the word ‫ רשף‬is rendered in it by various words, each of them chosen to fit the context of the biblical verse translated. The rendering of ‫ לחומי רשף‬in Deut 32:24 as 3ρώσει όρνέων seems to be a guess on the basis of the context and perhaps also on the basis of Job 5:7, whence one could learn that ‫ בני רשף‬fly.97 Targum Onkelos similarly renders ‫ רשף‬in Deut 32:24 by ‫עופא‬, and this understanding is consistent in Symmachus and Aquila (as far as they are known to us) and found in midrashic literature.98 This rendering occurs in the Peshitta to Hab 3:5 (r^‫־‬1‫ )\״‬and to Job 5:7 J ^ ) , and it 92

See the thorough and illuminating elucidation by Loewenstamm (1976:437-441). See also Fulco 1976: Rummel 1981:413-415. 93 The emendation of ‫( ברד‬MT) to ‫( דבר‬Symmachus and one mediaeval manuscript) is almost certainly correct. See Loewenstamm 1992:80-81. 94 The text and sense of Job 5:7 are not clear enough, but it seems that this verse may also reflect the destructive force of Resheph. The relation of these verses to the deity Resheph is clear, although it is difficult to know in many of them whether ‫ רשף‬is a real heavenly figure or the poet is using mythical figurative language for literary purposes. 95 Loewenstamm 1976:438. The words ršp sprm in the Karatepe inscription seem not to be related to this rendering. See Fulco 1976:46. I am not aware of any positive evidence relating the deity Resheph to birds. The Septuagint to Job 5:7 (νεοσσοί γυπός‫" ־‬young vultures") is a more specific variant of this basic interpretation. 98

"When he slaughtered it (i.e., the creature, ‫ בעירם‬Ps 78:14) he would take its flesh on his ahoulder and the bird would descend on his shoulder and eat it, as it is stated: ‫( ומקניהם לרשפים‬ib.), just as it is stated ‫ובני רשף ינביהו עוף‬ (Job 5:7) (Midrash Tehillim 78:14 [ed. Buber, p. 354]), and the Egyptian would bring a knife and slaughter it and the bird would swoop down on it from above and eat it, for it is stated ‫( ויסנר לברד בעירם ומקניהם לרשפים‬Ps 78:48) and what are the ‫ ?רשפים‬They are birds, as it is stated ‫ובני רשף יגביהו עוף‬ (Job 5.7) (Ex. Rab. 12:4 [ed. Shinan, p. 250]). Although the Septuagint renders ‫ רשפים‬in this verse by πυρ, Aquila and Symmachus undderstood it as meaning "birds" (Aquila: π ε τ ε ι ν ό ς , Symmachus: οιωνό?)· 99 Unlike the Septuagint ad 10c. 100 Contrast Weitzman 1999:23.

underlies the Peshitta translation to Deut 32:24: ^·t^àu ^curí‫׳‬ r^t.^Xn rC1x14 ^απΑ âXà1ÌJ0 ("they will be worn out in hunger, and evil spirits will be delivered to them, and to birds I will deliver them"). It is clear that the tradition upon which the Peshitta is based is similar to Onkelos: ‫ קטב‬was t à e n as meaning "evil spirit'*'9 and ‫ רשף‬as meaning "birds". In the Peshitta to Deut 32:24, in its present textual state, the Syriac equivalents of these two words were transposed.100 The Septuagint rendering of ‫ רשף‬as "bird" is thus the first evidence for a longlasting and dominant exegetical tradition. In other verses, the word ‫ רשף‬is rendered differently in the Septuagint: πυρ (Ps 76:4); περίπτερα (Cant 8:6); κράτη (Ps 76:4). Most remarkable for the contextual interpretation is the Septuagint to Hab 3:5, where the Hebrew text ‫ לפניו ילך דבר ויצא רשף לרגליו‬is translated προ προσώπου αύτου πορεύσεται λόγος‫ ־‬και έξελεύσεται, εν πεδίλοις01 ‫־‬ πόδες‫ ־‬αύτου.102 The root ‫ רשף‬occurs twice in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira. A) [‫( בעדת רשעים רשפה להבה ובגוי חנף נצתה ]חמה‬Sir 16:6).103 The verb ‫ רשף‬apparently has overtones of the mythological and biblical usage: God's destructive fire (rather than a concrete burning of fire)104 is a remnant of the ancient depiction of the deity Resheph.105 B) ‫ שלגו וכארבה ישכן רדתו‬10^‫( כרשף יפרד‬Sir 43:17). In the Greek translation of the Book of Ben Sira, made by Ben Sira's grandson, ‫ רשף‬is rendered πετεινό ("birds"), following the exegetical tradition first documented in the Septuagint at Deut 32:24.107 101

A similar understanding (‫ )תוקף קשת‬is found in an addition to Midrash Tehillim 76:4 (ed. Buber, p. 342 and n. 21).

102

This seems to be the original text, although many manuscripts of the Septuagint have different readings. (See Ziegler 1943:269; compare also Harl et al. 1999:289-290). For the general character of the Septuagint to the Minor Prophets as a translation, see Joosten's statement: "Apart from the at times striking divergences due—as it seems to us—to misreading or erroneous analysis of the Hebrew, LXX Hosea engages in contextual analysis" (Joosten 1998:62-85). 103 According to MS B; Bmarg: .‫יוקדת אט‬ 104

Thus Smend 1906a: 146. Other commentators on Ben Sira (e.g., Segal 1972:99; Skehan and Di Leila 1987:273) try to identify those afflicted by fire. Contrast Loewenstamm 1976:438. Note G o d ' s destructive fire and arrows in Deut 32:22-23, which are reminiscent of Resheph (mentioned in 32:24). 106 Thus the Masada MS. MS Β reads ‫ יניף‬rather than .‫יפרח‬ 107

The Greek translation of Ben Sira does not use the same word for "birds" as Deut 32:24.

Probably, however, according to Ben S ira's own interpretation ‫ רשף‬in Deut 32:24 denotes "locust" and 43:17a should be translated "His snow flakes fly as locusts." Targum Neofiti rendered ‫לחומי‬ ‫ רשף‬in this verse by ‫אכילי גוב‬, "eaten by locust", and this translation easily explains Ben Sira's original intention. Targum Neofiti enables us to interpret Sir 43:17 in a way which fits both the lexical data and the context of this verse, which itself supplies us with a precious piece of evidence for the antiquity (second century BCE) of the interpretation recorded in the Targum. It is clear that the usage of ‫ רשף‬in this verse diverges remarkably from the biblical usage1 and that it is based on a mere guess concerning the context of Deut 32:24.109 The word ‫ רשף‬occurs in a newly-published fragment of the Book of Jubilees [‫ונרצית לפני יהו[ה אל עליון והייה משמתה ־]־־־ למען‬ ‫( תשמר מכול רע ולהצ[ילך ]מ[כול רשף‬4Q219 ii 20-22; Jub 21:20)."® ‫ רשף‬may be rendered here as a generic name for "demon".111 The demonic nature of ‫ רשפים‬is clear also in another fragment from Qumran (4Q525 fr. 15)'12 describing the underworld, which seems to allude both to Job 5:7 (‫ )ובני רשף יגביהו עוף‬and to Isa 14:29 (‫)כי משרש נחש יצא צפע ופריו שרף מעופף‬, identifying ‫ רשף‬with 108

One could hypothesize that the verb rashaf was created at an earlier date. This hypothesis would easily account for the strange fact that one author (Ben Sira) uses a biblical word (or, more precisely, a noun and a denominative verb) in entirely different meanings. Although this may be the case, it should be remembered that it is mere conjecture motivated by the desire for a coherent usage. 109

As far as I know, no specific relationship between the deity Resheph and locusts is documented. See, however, Fulco 1976:44. The interpretation of the Ugaritic ršp hgb seems dubious. See also del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 1996:174. I am grateful to Mr. Nathan Ford for the last reference. 110 VanderKam 1994:47 (text), 51-52 (notes) 111 Cf. the rendering of ‫( רשף‬Hab 3:5) by diabolus in the Vulgate. Compare also the phrase ‫ כול שטן‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Stone and Greenfield 1993:263). With the content of this verse compare, for instance: "Observe the Lord's commandments and keep his Law, avoid wrath and hate lying, in order that the Lord may dwell among you and Beliar may flee from you" (Τ. Dan 5:1). Beliar is the equivalent for ‫ רשף‬in the passage from the Book of Jubilees. The Ethiopie translation rendered this word "death, pestilence" (VanderKam 1994:52). It was probably the translator of Jubilees into Greek who determined the meaning of the Hebrew ‫ רשף‬in his Vorlage, according to his own understanding of the word (which differs from the interpretations found in the versions of the Hebrew Bible). The Greek text was probably faithfully translated into Ethiopie. However, the meaning "pestilence" seems less appropriate than "demon" in Jub. 21:20. 112

4Q525 fr. 15; see Puech 1998:151-153

1 1 4

] ‫ב ע ל י ו ] ת י ו‬ ] ‫[בו יתיצבו אדרות נצח וחמת תנינים‬ ] ‫[ צפע ובו יעופפו רשפ] י[ מות במבואו תצע‬ ‫[סודו להבי גופרית ומכונתו א]ש‬-] ‫[ישך‬ The demonic nature of ‫ רשף‬can be seen as a continuation of the Ancient Near Eastern and biblical usage,115 but it can also be derived from a contextual interpretation of one or more of the biblical verses when the original meaning was forgotten, and it could only be inferred from the context of the verses as in the midrash: ‫ ואין ׳רשף׳ אלא מזיקין שנאמר ׳מזי רעב‬... ‫׳ובני רשף יגביהו עוף׳‬ ‫( ולחומי רשף וקטב מרירי׳‬b. Ber. 5a).11 The dilemma in this case is not only linguistic but cultural. The broader issue is whether "mythical" features in the literature of the Second Temple period (and in talmudic literature) that have affinities with Ancient Near Eastern cultures are directly derived from these cultures, or are mainly the product of biblical interpretation.117 The Septuagint, Ben Sira, the Book of Jubilees and a fragment of an otherwise unknown work,118 when compared with the 113

A similar identification of ‫ רשף‬and ‫ שרף‬is found in mediaeval piyyut: the Seraphim are also named there ‫( רשפי רומה‬see Ben Yehuda [1959:6761a], s.v. ‫ ;רשף‬additional material is found in the concordance of the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language of the Academy of the Hebrew Language). This indicates how easily the two words can be identified by Hebrew writers of different ages. The Syriac root ršaf "to crawl, creep (as a snake)", raššafa "a reptile" (Payne Smith 1901:3991) is hitherto unknown in Hebrew or other Aramaic dialects. 114

Puech's reconstruction [‫ בעליו]ן‬is less likely.

115

Compare Beelzeboul in Matt 10:25 and parallels, the remnant of an ancient Phoenician-Palestinian deity. 116

The proof text f r o m Deut 32:24 is based on the solid exegetical tradition that ‫ קטב מרירי‬denotes "dem0n(s)" (‫ רוחין בישין‬according to Targum Onkelos and Targum Neofiti), and on the basis of the proximity of the two words it is suggested that this is also the meaning of ‫( רשף‬but ‫ רשף‬in Deuteronomy w a s rather interpreted by the Septuagint and Targum Onkelos as meaning "bird" and by Targum Neofiti as meaning "locust"). The midrashic interpre-tation of ‫ בני רשף‬as demons is reflected in the one version of the Targum of Job 5:7 (two other versions of the Targum translate it as meaning "fire"; see Stec 1994:35*). The rendering of Deut 32:24 in Targum PseudoJonathan requires a separate discussion. 117

For a discussion of one aspect of the question see Boyarin 1990:93-104. A third occurrence of ‫ רשף‬in a sapiential text from Qumran is too fragmentary to give a clear indication of the meaning attributed to this word, but it seems unlikely that its meaning there is demonic. The text reads: 4) ‫ ו ה י י ת ה למאכל שן ולחומי רשף‬Q 4 1 8 fr. 127, 3; Strugnell and Harrington 118

targumim and rabbinic literature, reveal a variety of interpretations of the word ‫ רשף‬already at a very early period. It can easily be argued that this word is borrowed in the Hebrew of the Second Temple period from BH, according to prevalent interpretation of biblical verses. The continuity of the exegetical traditions can be demonstrated, but the continuity of meaning of the word ‫רשף‬ from the biblical period to the post-biblical era can hardly be established. As we have just seen in the case of Ben Sira, allusions to biblical verses, arguably the most dominant feature of the style of the Dead Sea Scrolls and cognate literature, can reveal ancient, sometimes unknown, interpretations of biblical words and verses. A rare biblical word used in the Scrolls often functions as an allusion, and therefore is the clue to the interpretation given at Qumran to an entire verse." 9 On the other hand, a precise understanding of such a word in the Qumran context is possible only when the interpretation given at Qumran to the verse is reconstructed. Two illustrations out of a legion will suffice. It has been noted that the midrash of the name Kohath (Levi's son) in the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Genizah,[‫וקרא[תי‬ ‫ די לה ]תהו[ה כנשת כל ]עמא וד[י לה תהוה כהנותא‬,[‫שמה ]קהת והזית‬ ‫רבתא ]לכל יש[ראל‬, is an allusion to the phrase ‫( ולו יקהת עמים‬Gen 49:10; the blessing of Judah), and is related to an anonymous interpretation of this verse in the midrash:120 ‫מי שאומות העולם‬ ‫( מתקהלים אליו‬Tanhuma Wa-Yehi 10 = [Ps.]-Gen. Rab. 99:8, ed. Albeck, p. 1280), and to Aquila's translation of this verse,121 to 1999:357). The editors comment on the text: ‫ ולחומי רשף׳‬is a quotation ... of Deut 32:24 ... To what ‫ רטף‬alluded in order to be a parallel with ‫ מאכל שן‬is not clear ... The Greek version of Deuteronomy loc. cit, which makes a contrast between ravenous beasts and devouring 'birds' ... perhaps explains its occurrence and meaning here" (p. 359). It should be noted that we have here a unique understanding of ‫ לחומי רשף‬in Deut 32:24 as composed of the preposition /e and a word ‫חומי‬. Note the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch ‫ מזה רעב‬and the Samaritan interpretation of the first word as composed of the preposition min and the pronoun ze. Could this be the reading of the author of our text ‫( מזה רעב )ו(לחומי רשף‬min... /e)? (However, the Samaritan Pentateuch has a different reading and interpretation of 1 ^ . ( ‫ר ש ף‬ ‫ולחומי‬ 119

120

Kister 1992:27-39.

As noted by Albeck in his edition of Genesis Rabbah (p. 1276), this section found in the printed editions of Genesis Rabbah is a version of Midrash Tanhuma. 121 Levi 1907:173; Greenfield and Stone 1979:223-224; Puech 1991:52; Schorsch 1997:76-84. Greenfield and Stone also noted the word ‫ כנסת‬in a pesher to this verse (4Q252 5:6, recently published in Brooke 1996:205); the

which one may add a version of Targum Onkelos, ‫ולה‬ ‫יתכנשון עממין‬122 and a version of the Samaritan Targum, ‫ולידה‬ ‫יתכנשוןעמים )אומין‬.123)The Aramaic T. Levi attests to the antiquity of the interpretation (recorded only in late rabbinic sources) of the obscure biblical word ‫ יקהת‬related (at least in meaning) to the root ‫קהל‬. One may ask, however, on what exegetical grounds a verse concerning Judah's descendants could be applied to Levi's.124 It seems that Gen 49:10 was interpreted as meaning that Judah's ruling position (‫)לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומהקק מבין רגליו‬ will last only until the time in which it will be transferred to priests (or a priest?) of Kohathite descent.125 According to the interpretation that can be inferred from the biblical allusion, the phrase ‫( עד כי יבא שילה ולו יקהת עמים‬Gen 49:10c-d) does not refer to Judah's descendants but rather to the cessation of their authority.126 Another example is the word ‫חלכאים‬. The word is used at Qumran in the sense of "wicked people", especially applied to context there, however, is too fragmentary to draw any definite conclusions. 122

This version is mentioned by R. Isaac Abrabanel: ‫זו גם כן כוונת אונקלוס‬ ‫( יער דאתי משיהא וליה יתכנשון עממיזל‬emend to ‫( שתרגום)שתרגם‬ad Gen 49:8). This version is not recorded in Sperber's edition. 123 Tal 1980:212 (variae lectiones); see Levi 1907:173; Schorsch 1997:78-

80. 124

According to Greenfield and Stone (1979) "the royal blessing of Judah is ... transferred to Kohath, the founder of the High Priestly line" because in the Aramaic T. Levi "Judah plays no role" and "royal terminology is consistently applied to Levi" (pp. 224, 219). See also Stone 1999:134-135. This illuminating study of the tendency of this work does not solve the exegetical problem of how Gen 49:10 was interpreted by its author and why he chose to allude to it at this place. 125

The key words for this interpretation are, of course,‫( ער כי‬interpreted as applying to the cessation of Judah's dynasty and its replacement by priest[s]). The v/ords ‫ די לה תהוה כהוותא רבתא‬may be an allusion to ‫עד כי יבא שילה‬, namely ‫שילד = די לה תהוה‬, the last word interpreted in the sense of ‫ שלו‬, of his'; cf. for a very similar understanding and translation technique in Onkelos and Neofiti: ‫ ;עד דייתי משיהא רריליה היא מלכותא‬the antiquity of these targumim is proven by 4Q252 5:4, most recently published by Brooke (1996:205): ‫כי לו ולזרעו נתנה‬ ‫ברית מלכות עמו עד דורות עולם‬. 126 Does this refer to the eschatological period, or rather to a historical period (note the prohibition on anointing priests as kings, which is derived, according t o y . Sot. 8.3 [22c], from Gen 49:10a)? For priests as kings in the Aramaic T. Levi see above, n. 124. The Aramaic T. Levi and this midrash reflect conflicting attitudes, both based on the same biblical verse. The midrash may well reflect a negative attitude towards the Hasmonean dynasty.

‫דורשי החלקות‬, the Pharisees (4Q501:4-5).127 It is evident from 1QH 3:26 (in which Ps 10:9-10 and Isa 19:8 are combined) that the word ‫ חלכאים‬is borrowed from Ps 10:9-10:(9)‫יארב במסתר כאריה‬ ‫( ישח‬Q: ‫( ורכה )ידכה‬10):‫בסכה יארב לחטוף עני יחטף עני במשכו ברשתו‬ (Q: ‫ונפל בעצומיו חלכאים )חיל כאים‬. Semantic or etymological solutions to the riddle of this peculiar Qumran usage128 are apt to be wrong, and the clue must be in the realm of the interpretation (or text) of the biblical verse. One may hypothesize, for example, that Ps 10:10 (or Ps 10:9c-10) was interpreted as saying that the wicked will eventually fall into the snares of the righteous poor129 (see especially 1QH 5:7-8!).130 Some Qumran texts allude to biblical verses by paraphrase. Such paraphrases yield information concerning the ancient interpretation of these verses. 1.1)‫ ג ב ו ל סמוך לשמור אמונים‬Q S 10:25). The word ‫ גבול‬is not gevul, "border, boundary".131 It is rather the word gibbul, derived from the verb gibbel ("to knead, form [clay]," and hence "to create [human beings]), and ‫ גבול סמוך‬is a clear synonym of the biblically derived expression ‫יצר סמוך‬, which comes from Isa 26:2-3 ( ‫ יצר סמוך תצר שלום‬:‫פתחו שערים ויבא גוי צדיק שמר אמנים‬ ‫)שלום כי בך בטוח‬.132 In Syriac, the Hebrew root ‫ יצר‬is rendered by 133 ,‫ גבל‬and the two roots occur in parallelism in the Qumran scrolls ( 1 ] ‫ י צ ר החמר ומגבל המים‬Q H 1:2 1]QS 11:21]). A non-biblical word (‫ )גבול‬replaced a biblical one (‫ )יצר‬in an evident biblical allusion to Isa 26:3. 2. Moshe Weinfeld has suggested that the latter part of the sentence1)‫ ו כ ל הנדבים לאמתו יביאו כול דעתם וכוחם והונם ביחד אל‬Q S 127

Baillet 1982:79. Elsewhere, I have commented on the content of this fragment (Kister 1999b:331). 128 Licht 1957:85; Yalon 1967:37 (the relevance of Midrash Tehillim is questionable, and the piyyut takes ‫ חלכאים‬as a positive attribute); Wallenstein 1954:213-214. 129

The word ‫ עני‬in verse 9c would be interpreted as the subject (rather than as an object), and the words ‫ ירכה ישח‬would be related to it (interpreted as applying to the humility of the poor). 130

!

The word ‫( חלכה‬Ps 10:8, 14) was not interpreted as the singular of ‫חלכאים‬, but this is not unique to Qumran (see, e.g., Saadia's interpretation of verse 14 [Saadia Gaon, ed. Kafih 1966:68; Arabic and Hebrew]). 131 Vermes 1998:114; Charlesworth (ed.) 1994:47. The renderings "wall" (Wernberg-M0l1er 1957b:38), "fence" (Garcia Martinez 1994:17), "ferme" (Dupont-Sommer 1987:42) are very free. 132

The expression ‫ יצר סמוך‬is current in the Hodayot and in 1QS (1QH 1:35, 2:9, 2:36 and especially 1QH 18: 13; 1QS 4:5, 8:3). 133 Greenfield 1960:155-162.

1:11-12; cf. also CD 13:11) is based on ‫בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך‬ ‫( ובכל מאדך‬Deut 6:5): ‫ דעת‬paraphrasing the biblical ‫לב‬134; ‫ כוח‬and ‫ הון‬paraphrasing the biblical ‫מאד‬. Weinfeld has demonstrated that there was an ancient exegetical tradition interpreting these words, and especially Deut 6:5, along these lines.135 It should also be noted that a late midrash reads136: ‫׳ובכל מאדך בכל כוחך‬ ‫ובכל הונך‬. Menahem Kahana has suggested that this passage might be derived from the newly-discovered tannaitic midrash Sifre Zuta to Deuteronomy, and has noted the usage of the biblical word 37'.‫ הון‬This text, especially if it is tannaitic, supports Weinfeld's suggestion, whereas the Qumran parallel might explain the wording of the midrash. 3. In a wisdom text from Qumran we read ‫ועתה מבין שמעה לי‬ ‫( ושים לבכה לא]מרי פי‬4]Q525 fr. 14 ii 18).'38 The wording is clearly modelled on the biblical formula ‫( ועתה בנים שמעו לי‬Prov. 5:7; 7:24; 8:32). The word ‫ בנים‬of the biblical formula was replaced in the wisdom text from Qumran by ‫מבין‬, probably because the author of this work perceived the word ‫ בנים‬in the biblical formula not as "sons", but as "wise ones", that is, the qal participle form (cf. Jer 49:7, esp. LXX and Peshitta), which he changed to a hifil form: ‫( מבינים‬cf. Jer 49:7 ‫" אברה עצה מבנים נסרחה חכמתם‬Has counsel vanished from the prudent? Has their wisdom gone stale?"). 4. In Isa 45:23 we read:‫כי לי תכרע כל ברך תשבע כל לשון‬. The verb ‫ תשבע‬is rendered in the Septuagint by έξομοΧογησεται ("shall praise"). This rendering owes much to the context and to the similarity in pronunciation between the roots ‫ שבע‬and ‫שבח‬. Loewenstamm concludes: "The combined effect of exegetical considerations and the weakening of the laryngeals ... has been to create a new meaning of the verb nishba ':'praise'". 139 Further 134

Or might ‫ דעת‬replace ‫לב ונפט‬, a well-attested collocation in the Qumran writings? 135

Weinfeld 1982:37-41.

136

Mann and Sonne 1966: * 111.

137

The fragments of this tannaitic midrash will be published by Prof. Kahana, its discoverer. I am grateful to him for letting me read through the manuscript of his book. 138 Puech 1998:146. 139 Loewenstamm 1992:220-221 ("Excursus IV: The Verb pasah"). Seeligmann pointed out several passages in which the Septuagint's rendering can be explained by the weakening of the gutturals, especially 'ayin and het (Seeligmann 1961:201, n. 2). In the enlarged Hebrew version of his article he quoted also Isa 45:23; see Seeligmann 1992:320, n. 2. For a totally different approach see Goshen-Gottstein 1963:156-158. Loewenstamm's suggestion

evidence for the tradition of the Septuagint may be found in a fragment from Qumran: [‫ע[ ד עולמי עד כול לש] ו[ ן תברכנו וכול אנש‬ ‫( ישתחוו לו‬4Q215a, 7-8).140 In my opinion this sentence is based on our biblical verse, and ‫ תברכנו‬is the equivalent of biblical ‫תשבע‬, quite similarly to the Septuagint. If indeed the meaning "praise" was attributed to the root ‫ שבע‬in Isa 45:23, this may enable us to understand another passage. Josh 6:26 reads: ‫וישבע‬ ‫יהושע בעת ההיא לאמר ארור האיש לפני ה׳ אשר יקום ובנה את העיר הזאת‬ ‫את יריחו בבכרו ייסדנה ובצעירו יציב דלתיה‬. Joshua's words were interpreted as a prophecy rather than a curse in the Bible (1 Kgs 16:34), followed by an apocryphon of Joshua (4Q175, 21-30),f41 whose author interpreted it as related to his own time: ‫בעת אשר‬ ‫ אנה ארור‬... ‫' ויאמר ארור היש‬42‫כלה ישוע להלל ולהודות בתהלותיהו‬ ‫' בליעל עומד‬43איש‬. I contend that Joshua's praise of God at this point is derived from the word ‫ וישבע‬in Josh 6:26, interpreted as ‫וישבח‬. Ill Vocabulary, style, literary features and theology are combined in the following example. As has been noted, four passages in the Scrolls have much in common, as will be illustrated by the following table (the numbers indicate the sequence of phrases in each passage):

reconciles the two approaches. 140 Chazon and Stone 1999:124-125. 141 Allegro 1968:58. For the interpretation of this text and its relation to Joshua's prophecy see Newsom 1996:280-281, and see also Qimron 1994:506507, n. 13. Whatever the reading may be, the translation "cursed be the man of Belial" is unlikely; see Qimron, ibid. 142 Reminiscent of .‫בעת ההיא‬ 143 Note the deviation from the wording of MT (‫)ארור האיש‬.

‫‪A‬‬ ‫‪1QH 6:22-30‬‬

‫‪Β‬‬ ‫‪1QH 7:4-11‬‬

‫‪C‬‬ ‫‪1QS 11:4-8‬‬

‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪1QS 8:5-8‬‬

‫‪ . 1‬וירועו כול אושי‬ ‫מבניתי ועצמי יתפרדו‬ ‫כמלח באוניה בזעף וחכמי עלו‬ ‫כאוניה בזעף חרישית‬ ‫ימים‬ ‫‪..‬משבריהם עלי המו ויהם לבי לכלה‬ ‫‪..‬רוח עועיים ]לאין[ ורוח עועיים תבלעני‬ ‫דממה ‪ ..‬ונ]פשי תניע[ מהוות פשעם‬ ‫עד‬ ‫אורכה אדוני ‪..‬‬ ‫שערי מות‬ ‫ואהיה כבא בעיר מצור‬ ‫‪ .3‬ותשימני כמגדל עוז ‪ .1‬בסלע עוז‬ ‫ונעוז‬ ‫בחומה נשגבה‬ ‫בחומה נשגבה‬ ‫‪ .2‬היאה חומת הבחן‬ ‫ואש]ען ב[ אמיתכו־ד׳‬ ‫‪ .3‬כיא אמת אל היאה‬ ‫אלי‬ ‫סלע פעמי‬ ‫כי אתה תשים סוד על ותכן על סלע מבניתי ‪.1‬בסלע עוז דרך פעמי‬ ‫ואושי עולם לסודי‬ ‫סלע‬ ‫וכפיס על קו משפט‬ ‫ומשקלת א] מת ל‪[-‬ות וכול קירותי‬ ‫‪.3‬כיא אמת א ל היאה‬ ‫סלע‬ ‫אבני‬

‫ב ו ח ן לבני] ת[‬

‫‪.2‬היאה‬

‫לחומת‬

‫בחי‬

‫‪.4‬‬

‫פעמי‪..‬‬

‫ו ע ם בני ש מ י ם ח ב ר‬

‫חומת הבוחן‬

‫יחד וסוד‬

‫עוז‪'4,‬‬ ‫סודם לעצת‬ ‫מבנית קודש למטעת‬ ‫)‪ .1‬למטעת עולם בית‬ ‫עולם‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫ללוא תתזעזע ‪..‬‬ ‫ללוא תזדעזע ' ואתה ‪ .2‬מפני כול לוא‬ ‫‪,4‬‬ ‫אלי נחתו לעפים לעצת *יזדעזע'‬ ‫קודש‬ ‫‪ .2‬ותחזקני לפני‬ ‫מלחמות רשעה ‪..‬‬ ‫‪..‬תום כול ח ] ‪[ -‬‬ ‫מלחמות רשעה ‪..‬‬ ‫וכל בני‬ ‫ולא מענה לשון ל כ ל‬ ‫אשמה לא יהיו עוד ]ב [ני אשמה‬

‫תזדעזע‪.‬‬

‫פנת יקר‬ ‫קודש לישראל‪(..‬‬ ‫בל יזדעזעו‬ ‫>י‪0‬ודותיהו< ובל‬ ‫יחישו ממקומי ‪' 4‬‬

‫‪Delcor's reconstruction (1962:180).‬‬ ‫‪Delcor's reconstruction (1962:181).‬‬ ‫‪, altered to‬תרזעזע ‪First written‬‬

‫‪144‬‬

‫‪145‬‬ ‫‪146‬‬

‫‪147‬‬

‫‪ (cf. A) the consonants‬יתזעזע ‪. In the form‬יזד עזרע ‪The text of 1QS reads‬‬ ‫‪ (cf. Β, and η. 146), but a‬יזדעזע ‪ are duplicated. This form was corrected to‬זע‬ ‫‪ this time!) should be retained; hence‬זדע ‪scribe felt that the duplication (of‬‬ ‫‪. This form was copied with a slight corruption in 1QS‬יזדעזדע ‪the form‬‬ ‫‪).‬יזד עזרע > *יזדעזרע> *יזדעזדע(‬ ‫‪An interlinear addition in 1QS.‬‬

‫‪148‬‬

A preliminary note should be made. The words ‫ אורכה אדוני‬at 1QH 7:6 (end of B, no. 1) is a formulaic sign in the Hodayotfor the beginning of a new hymn. However, the very close similarity between A and Β argues for a connection between the apparently separate units 7:1-5 and 7:6-25. The difficulty in the translation of ‫ רוח עועיים‬is a good example for the problems posed by a work like the Hodayot The expression comes from Isa 19:14 ( ‫ה׳ מסך בקרבה רוח עועים והתעו את מצרים בכל‬ ‫)מעשהו כהתעות שכור בקיאו‬.149 This verse is combined in both passages of the Hodayot (A and B) with Ps 107:18, 25-29 (differently in A and in B):... ‫ יעמד רוח סערה ותרומם גליו‬... ‫ויגיעו עד שערי מות‬ ‫ יקם סערה לדממה‬... ‫יחוגו וינועו כשכור וכל חכמתם תתבלע‬. The combination is not artificial: it is motivated by the similarity of expressions in the two biblical passages. Note that the words ‫( ורוח עועיים תבלעני‬Β) are inspired by ‫( וכל חכמתם תתבלע‬Ps 107:27). The word ‫ רוח‬in Isa 19:14 can hardly be explained as "wind", whereas this sense is clear in Ps 107:25. Merging the two verses created an expression in which ‫ רוח עועיים‬has both the meaning of "misleading spirit",150 and "wind". The expression in the Hodayot combines (thanks to the ambiguity of the word ‫ רוח‬in Hebrew) the physical metaphor and the theological content. Thus the same expression can be employed in A as referring to the sea and in Β as referring to the poet's troubled heart. The translation "whirlwind," employed by many translators in both passages, is an oversimplified solution. Any attempt to deduce the meaning of this expression merely through etymological considerations1 (rather than exegetical and literary tools) is inadequate. In both A and Β there is a shift from ship imagery (based mainly on Ps 107) to wall imagery, based on Isa 28:16 ( ‫הנני יסד‬ ‫)בציון אבן אבן בחן פנת יקרת מוסד מוסר המאמין לא יחיש‬. As has been noted, this biblical passage influenced all the Qumran texts recorded in this table (and other texts from Qumran).152 The verb ‫ הזרעזע‬is recorded four times in these passages,153 but all the passages are related to one another literarily and stylistically. Moreover, the verb happens to occur, as has been noted, in the Targum to the verse mentioned above, Isa 28:16, in which MT 149

Thus lQIsa 2 (Parry and Qimron 1999:31).

150

Or, perhaps, rather: "spirit of misleading (evil) forces", if ‫ והתעו‬in Isa 19:14 refers to ‫( עועיים‬rather than to the princes of Egypt mentioned in Isa 19:13). Such a reading would fit Qumran theology well. 151

See Wallenstein 1957:212. 1QS 5:5-6, 9:3-4. 153 To be sure, the roots ‫זעזע‬, ‫ זרע‬occur in BH. 152

‫ יחיש‬is rendered ‫יזדעזעון‬. The verb ‫ יזדעזע‬substitutes for a biblical word that may have sounded too vague or too archaic to be used. This is another example of an allusion to a biblical verse by paraphrase (see pp. 157-59).154 Similarly, ‫"( סוד‬foundation") is used in these passages instead of the biblical word ‫( מוסד‬which is employed in 1QS 5:5), perhaps because of the same reason.155 Another stylistic feature may be labelled "telescoping": it is a contraction of two distinct elements into one unit (the construct state is often employed for this literary device). The vague expression that is the result of this device is often hardly decipherable without acquaintance with the elements of which it is composed. This stylistic feature is quite common in the Scrolls. For instance, the word ‫ משפט‬in the sentence ‫ותרומת שפתים למשפט‬ ‫( בניחוח צדק‬1QS 9:4-5), almost unintelligible in its present context, must be understood as telescoping a passage like 1QS 8:6, where the phrase ‫ עדי אמת למשפט‬occurs in the midst of a passage dealing with the sect's power of atonement.156 In the passages compared above one may note the follwoing. (1) The expression ‫חומת הבחן‬ (Β and D) may well be the product of telescoping the wall metaphor (cf. A and B) and the expression ‫( אבן בחן‬Isa 28:16, A). (2) The wall imagery in A and Β follows the wording of Prov 18:10-11 (‫ הון עשיר קרית עזו‬:‫מגדל עז שם ה׳ בו ירוץ צדיק ונשגב‬ ‫)ובחומה נשגבה במשכיתו‬. The third word of verse 10 was probably read sam rather than MT šem, hence ‫ ותשימני כמגרל עוז‬in B (cf. also 1QSb 5:23!). What is a clear allusion in Β to Prov 18:10-11 is deliberately changed in A, where the emphasis is on the strength and stability of the community rather than on those of any individual. Thus ‫( מגדל עוז בחומה נשגבה‬Β) became ‫נעת בחומה נשגבה‬ (A). The word ‫ נעוז‬is a neologism, which was created by the combination of the biblical formula of Β and the passive sense required in the context of A. It seems likely that ‫ סלע עוז‬in C is a combination of the ‫ סלע‬mentioned in A and Β and ‫ עוז‬of Β (+A) 154

In D the word ‫ יחיטו‬is also used, after it has been explained by ‫יזדעזעו‬. For the significance of the interpretation in the targumim and in the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical lexicography, see Qimron 1995a:326-328. 155

It seems plausible (although perhaps less evident) that the phrase 1) ‫ ו ה א י ט אסר תזוע רוחו מיסוד היחד‬Q S 7:18), in which both the verb ‫ זרע‬and the noun ‫ יסוד‬occur (as in Isa 28:16 and in D), may also allude to this biblical verse. For other suggestions see Alexander and Vermes 1998:186; WernbergM0l1er 1957b: 119 n. 38. Note also4)‫ י ט ו ד עם‬Q 2 6 6 fr. 5, 2:9). The phrase is derived from ‫( סוד עם‬Ezek 13:9; see also CD 19:35), interpreted here as "foundation" (compare Baumgarten 1996:50; idem 1992:507-509). ‫בדעת כולם לברית מטפט ולקריב ריח ניחוח‬.

(6:2). (3) In the sentence1)‫ ו י ר ו ע ו אושי קיר כאוניה על פני מים‬Q H 3:12-13) the puzzling expression ‫"( אושי קיר‬the wall foundations") is a product of telescoping passages like ... ‫ויתעו כול אושי מבניתי‬ ‫ ואושי עולם לסורי וכול קירותי לחומת בוחן‬in Β, and shares with A and Β the juxtaposition of ship and wall imagery. It should be borne in mind that this imagery has quite different significance in 1QH 3:13 (cosmic foundations) from that in Β (the human body).157 It might perhaps be suggested that these passages elaborate on earlier material. The meaning of passages so similar in wording as A and Β is remarkably different. Β definitely describes the difficulties and forbearance of the individual, whereas A seems to attach more importance to the community.158 In C and D159 the temple imagery is added to the wall imagery of A and B.160 In C the metaphor of the rock as a solid place on which the foundation is built (A) is converted to a quite distinct metaphor: the rock as a stable standing place for a human being ( 1 6 1 . ( ‫פ ע מ י‬ Clearly, the words ‫ וירועו כל אושי מבניתי‬at the beginning of Β are related ‫ ו ד מ‬0 ‫ותכן על סלע מבניתי ואושי עולם ל‬. However, the expression ‫ אושי מבניתי‬refers to the individual (perhaps to the body), and not to the sect as a building (as does the ostensibly similar expression ‫ סוד מבנית קודש‬in C). The least we can say is that in Β there is an interplay between two different usages of ‫ מבנית‬and ‫" סוד‬body, essence".162 A more daring view would be that the the wording of Β is derived from another context (more similar to A), and that it underwent a substantial change of content in B, 157

Licht notes: "Since no wall (‫ )קיר‬is mentioned, it is to be suggested that the expression ‫ אוטי קיר‬... was transferred from a literary source no longer preserved" (Licht 1957:81). The striking stylistic parallel to Β renders such a hypothesis superfluous, but Licht's remark demonstrates how awkward it is to interpret the wording of 1QH 3:13 in its context. 158

See above (on ‫ נעה‬/ ‫)סגרל וז‬. Note also the difference in the use of ‫מלחמות רטעדז‬: in A this expression signifies the eschatological war, whereas in Β it signifies the daily struggle of the individual with the wicked. 159 And also in 1QS 5:5-6, 9:3-4. 16(1 It should be emphasized that in A the only metaphor is ‫עיר מצור‬ (probably an allusion to Ps 31:22 ‫)ברוך ה׳ כי הפליא חסרו לי בעיר מצור‬. There is no hint that this city is Jerusalem, and no allusion to temple or atonement. The conclusion that in the Serekh passages two distinct metaphors were combined seems almost inevitable. 161

With‫ ותכן על סלע מבניתי‬compare Ps 40:3 ‫רקם על סלע רגלי כונן אטרי‬. The wording of Β might bridge A and C. Cf. also 1QH 3:37 - 4:3 ‫כי הייתה לי‬ ‫ ] — [ על סלע רגלי‬. . . ‫לחומת עוז‬. 162

C

f

.

1

)

‫ ומבנה החטאה‬... ‫ ס ו ד הערוה‬Q

where it refers specifically to the individual, or to his body (perhaps in a metaphorical sense, as in Ps 40:3).163 The word ‫סוד‬ occurs in 1QS 11:6-9 [= C] in the sense of "essence" (‫)סוד בשר‬, "assembly, community" (‫)חבר סודם‬. The word ‫ סוד‬in the phrase ‫( וסוד מבנית קודש למטעת עולם‬directly following the words ‫)חבר סודם‬ can be interpreted either as meaning "foundation" or "community". Such ambiguity in the word ‫ סוד‬is indicated by another source. It has been suggested that Jesus' statement to Peter έπΐ ταύτη τη πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου την έκκλησίαν και πύλαι αδου ού κατισχύσουσιν αύτη? (Matt 16:18) should be reconstructed ‫( אבנה סודי על הסלע הזה‬or, more freely: ‫אבנה סודי על‬ ‫)סלע‬,'64 the word ‫ סור‬being the equivalent of έκκλησία.165 The close similarity between Jesus' saying and A strongly supports this reconstruction, according to which the word ‫ סוד‬in a text similar to A acquired at a relatively early time the meaning "community". This hypothetical process is in complete harmony with the stylistic use in C. The juxtaposition of the expression πύλαι αδου (‫)שערי מות‬ to the building imagery in Jesus' saying should be emphasized. This expression clearly belongs in A (1QH 6:24) to the ship imagery (based on Ps 107:18). In Jesus' saying the expression is quite awkward;166 most plausibly it is the result of telescoping a passage similar to A.167 The shift of the rock metaphor from God in the Scrolls (see A and even more explicitly C) to Peter has an interesting parallel in the Scrolls. While in the four passages cited above the wall refers to the sect, in 1QH 3:37 it refers to God and in Β and in lQSb 5:23-24 the tower in this wall is the leader. This shows how easily the imagery can change its significance and function in the same sect and even in the same literary work. Evidently, the basic meaning of ‫ סוד‬in all these passages is 163

See above, n. 161. Cf. 4QHC (4Q429 fr. 4 2:7; Schuller 1999:192), which reads [‫כי אתה‬ ‫ תשים[ סודי‬instead of 1QH ‫כי אתה תשים סוד‬. See Schuller's comment on p. 193. 164

165

Betz, 1957:49-77. See Davies and Allison 1991:630-634. 167 Compare also 4Q437 with 1QH 6:24-26: 1QH 6:24-26 4Q437 fr. 2 1:11-13 ... ‫ונ]פשי תגיע[ ער שערי מות‬ ... ‫ומשאול העלית נפשי חיים‬ ‫ ואש] מחה ב[אמתכה אלי כי אתה תשי‬... ‫ ועל קו מש]פט[ שמחת ]את נפשי‬... ‫סוד על סלע וכפים על קו משפט ומשקל‬ ‫ובמשקל[ צדקה חיית את רוחי‬ [‫א] מת‬ Both texts are based on Isa 28:17, and both of them share also the motifs of deliverance from death and the joy (in being a member of the sect). 166

‫( יסוד‬foundation), since all these passages are based on ‫מוסד מוסד‬ of Isa 28:16, but expressions and formulae have their own history. While the preceding analysis certainly illustrates the stylistic and literary factors of the Qumran use of words and idioms, it might also raise the possibility that the Hodayot (and related works) made use of phrases and formulae derived from some older material and reshaped them to fit divergent contexts. The scrutiny of such a possibility is far beyond the scope of this article.

BIBLICAL APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA AND THE HEBREW OF THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD James Kugel (Boston) One potential source of information about the Hebrew language as it existed during the Second Temple period is particularly frustrating: I mean the corpus of writings known as the biblical apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. These texts, written in large measure in Hebrew between the third centuiy BCE and the end of the first century CE, would indeed provide a vast store of information concerning the nature and development of the Hebrew language during that period, save for one thing: the Hebrew originals have largely disappeared. Most of these texts survived thanks to having been translated in ancient times into other languages. Many of them were rendered first into Greek, and often from Greek into Latin, Ethiopie (that is, Gecez), Coptic, Old Church Slavonic, and other languages, in which form they have reached us. Trying to reconstruct the original Hebrew behind such translations or translations-of-translations is notoriously difficult. Nonetheless, sometimes something new can be glimpsed of the underlying original language of such texts—often with the aid of the Dead Sea Scrolls—and our understanding of a particular lexical item or grammatical usage can be enhanced.1 In the following I wish to examine two small instances of the potential interaction of the biblical apocrypha and pseudepigrapha with our knowledge of Hebrew in the Second Temple period. 1.‫תעודה‬ The word ‫ תעורה‬apparently had several different meanings in Second Temple times, including not only "testimony" (as in BH) but also, as seen in various Qumran texts, "appointed time" or "festival," "assembly," and perhaps others (Dobrowski 1971; Qimron 1986:115). In addition to these, however, the word may 1

One scholar who understood this at an early stage was Gedalyah Allon, who wrote an excellent article about the evidence for MH expressions underlying the Greek of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Allon 1941).

be seen to have played an important role—in yet another meaning —in the Book of Jubilees, a text composed, in my opinion, somewhere around the year 200 BCE and attested in various fragments of some fifteen different manuscripts at Qumran. Jubilees had, of course, been known in translation long before the discoveries at Qumran: some passages of it had been cited in patristic writings, and the complete text of the Ethiopie version of Jubilees was brought to Europe in the nineteenth century. (Shortly afterwards, a large portion of the book was found in a Latin palimpsest as well.) Nevertheless, the discovery at Qumran of a few highly fragmentary passages of the book in their original Hebrew has clarified a number of lexical items, including, prominently, the title of the book itself. For "Jubilees" is just one of the names by which this work was known in late antiquity. It was also called "The Little Genesis" and apparently "The Apocalypse [and/or "The Testament"] of Moses" as well. Since the publication of the Damascus Document (16:2-4) we have known that it was referred to in Hebrew by the name ‫ספר מחלקות‬ ‫העתים‬, The Book of the Divions of the Times. Now, this was not a total surprise, since ancient authors customarily use the first words of a work as its title, and Jubilees begins (as was clear from the surviving Ethiopie translation of the text) with the words "This is the account of the divisions of the times2 according to the law and the testimony etc. ..." (VanderKam and Milik 1991:249). So it now became clear that that was indeed the book's original title. But the matter did not quite end there; the last words cited from this Ethiopie title, "The book of the divisions of the times according to the law and the testimony," still required clarification. That was not possible until publication a few years ago of some scattered fragments of the first chapter of Jubilees, found in Cave 4 of Qumran. In these fragments, the phrase from the title "according to the law and the testimony" appears in its original Hebrew. (It was missing from the brief title mentioned in the Damascus Document.)3 Of course, "law" in this phrase turned out, predictably, to be the word ‫תורה‬, but "testimony" was not, as might have been supposed, ‫( עדות‬this is how the phrase was retroverted into Hebrew in, for example, the popular 2 3

The Ethiopie text here reads "division of the days."

Unfortunately, the first line of the book is still missing in Hebrew, and the part where ‫ תעודה‬should reappear in Jub. 1:4 is also missing; however, the same phrase appears again in Jub. 1:26, and this verse is indeed preserved in col. 4 of 4Q216; there can be little doubt that its wording in Hebrew here represents the same words as were used in the Hebrew of Jub 1:1.

Hebrew collection of pseudepigrapha edited by Abraham Kahana), but ‫תעודה‬. What is the difference between ‫ עדות‬and ‫ ?תעודה‬To begin with, the words ‫ תורה‬and ‫ תעודה‬are found paired together twice in the book of Isaiah (Isa 8:16 and 8:20). The pairing of these two words in Isaiah was hardly an incidental matter to the author of Jubilees·, indeed, their appearance there must have struck him as a potential goldmine. For while the word ‫ תורה‬in his day was a common designation of a specific literary work, the Pentateuch or "Torah of Moses,"4 there was no literary work referred to as the ‫תעודה‬. Yet if Isaiah referred to the ‫ תורה‬and the ‫ תעודה‬in one breath, this seemed to open the door to the claim that, in addition to the Torah, that is, the Pentateuch, there was another authoritative source of divine revelation, some book or document called by Isaiah the 5.‫ תעודה‬Since Isaiah had said (Isa 8:16) that this ‫תעודה‬ was to be "bound up" and sealed away, and since no one had ever read or quoted from such a document subsequently, the author of Jubilees now felt emboldened to write it, or at least to cite from it, himself. So that is what his book is really claiming to be in its opening sentence, a book that spells out the chronology and other details of events as related in the Torah, the Pentateuch itself, and in an otherwise unknown document, the Te'udah mentioned by Isaiah—that is,‫ספר מחלקות העתים לתורה ולתעורה‬. Indeed, the author of Jubilees sometimes refers to his own work itself as, we now know, ‫התעורה‬: Thus, at one point the angelic speaker of the book says that the people of Israel "will eat and be satisfied, and they will turn after other gods who will not save them from their troubles. And this ‫ תעודה‬will testify as a witness against them that they have forgotten all My commandments which I commanded you ..." {Jub. L8-9)6 Similarly, it seems altogether likely that the author of Jubilees used the word ‫ תעודה‬when he had the angel tell Moses, in 6:12, 'This testimony [i.e.,‫ ]תעודה‬has been written regarding you to 4

See, for example, Sir 24:23. On Jubilees' reckoning with the question of authority—including this allusion to Isa 8:16—see Najman 1998. 5

6

Here, clearly, the author of Jubilees is presenting his own text in terms reminiscent of of the song of Moses in Deut 32, which will "testify as a witness" against the Israelites after they sin (Deut 31:19, 21). What he means is that the people will never be able to claim that they did not know that they were transgressing when they abandoned the solar calendar and other things enjoined by the book of Jubilees, since, according to the book's words, all these things had been made known to Moses on Mt. Sinai and transmitted by him to the people of Israel.

keep it for all times, so that you may not at any time eat any blood of animals or birds throughout all the days of the earth." In giving his book this title, the author of Jubilees was thus able to make that verse in Isaiah sound as if the eighth-century prophet was in fact alluding to the Book of Jubilees, which presents itself as having been written down way back in the time of Moses. That Isaiah further specifies that the ‫ תעודה‬was to be bound up and sealed away was also of great value to the author of Jubilees, since that would explain why a text written back in the days of Moses should only have resurfaced in the second century BCE. But there is more than even this to the author's choice of a title. For, in addition to the other senses that the word ‫תעורה‬ apparently had in BH and the Hebrew of Qumran, it apparently had yet another nuance, one connected in particular to the biblical use of the verb ‫העיר‬, which means not only "testify" but also "warn" or "admonish." For the author of Jubilees, it seems, the word ‫ תעודה‬could thus be understood as meaning a solemn warning or admonition. Now, in a common notion well attested in Jubilees itself and in various Qumran texts and other writings of the Second Temple period, it was impossible for anyone, even God, to impose punishment for some violation unless and until the violator had been properly warned about the infraction, "Suchand-such a thing is forbidden and is punishable in such-and-such a fashion." Without this kind of warning, no actual sentence for wrongdoing could be passed (Kugel 1990:223-231). So, for example, the author of Jubilees states in regard to Reuben's sin with Bilhah: "Let no one say that Reuben was allowed to live and [had] forgiveness after he lay with his father's concubine [and was not killed in accordance with the Torah's own laws]. For the statute, the punishment and the law had not been completely revealed to everyone. But in your time [Moses,] it is like the law of appointed times and days, and an eternal law for everlasting generations." (Jub. 33:15-16) Precisely because such warning was a necessary precursor to enforcement and punishment, the author of Jubilees often goes to the trouble of inserting this or that act of admonition into the narrative even though the Pentateuch itself does not mention it. For example, Noah at one point admonishes his sons against certain sins: ‫ל׳‬ And he warned his sons to act justly and cover the shame of 7

That is, ‫ ;העיד‬the word is usually mistranslated here as "bore witness

their flesh and bless the One who created them and honour father and mother and each one love his neighbour and keep themselves from fornication and impurity and from all injustice. (/u57:20) It is in this sense of a solemn warning that the author of Jubilees refers to his own work as the ‫תעודה‬, and it is in this same sense that he refers frequently in the book to "the ‫ תעודה‬of the heavenly tablets" 8 —not the "witness" or "testimony" of the heavenly tablets, as the phrase is usually rendered, but the solemn warning contained in the tablets, the same warning that is being transmitted by the book of Jubilees itself. So here, a single word from the Qumran scrolls has revealed a great deal about the whole stance of the book of Jubilees. It turns out to be the ‫ ספר מחלקות העתים לתורה ולתעודה‬in the precise sense of being a recounting of the actual history of ancient times as it was communicated to Moses in the Pentateuch and in the solemn warning, the ‫תעודה‬, that was given to Moses on Mt Sinai, namely, the contents of the book of Jubilees itself. That warning spells out all the things that, for one reason or another, had been omitted from the Pentateuch: the nature of the proper calendar to be used by Israel and the catastrophes that will befall it if it fails to adhere to this calendar; the prohibition of inter-marriage and other forms of "fornication" omitted from the Pentateuch's own words; the detailed list of the various forms of work forbidden on the sabbath; the expansive notion of impurity,‫טומאה‬, found in Jubilees, and the evils that will follow if such impurity becomes entrenched in Israel; and so forth. Having received his solemn warning about these matters from an angel on Mount Sinai, Moses then wrote them down, along with the sacred history that framed them, in a separate book, one still known (the author would have us think) in the days of the prophet Isaiah but then "sealed up" for a time, until it could reemerge in the second century BCE. 2.‫אמר שירה‬ Another lexical item that might be worthy of investigation is a somewhat puzzling phrase known from early rabbinic sources, ‫אמר שירה‬. This phrase looks like it might mean, literally, to "say a song," but in context it always seems to mean something like to." 8

Jub 6:23, 38; 16:28, 23:32 and cf. 4:19, etc. This usage is in keeping with ‫ העיד‬in the sense of "warn" in 4:22, 6:38, etc. To be sure, the "‫ תעודה‬of the heavenly tablets" is not always a warning; see 30:19, 31:32, etc.

"sing praises [to God]." Thus, for example, in the prayer ‫רכון כל‬ ‫ העולמים‬attributed to R. Yohanan (in the latter half of the third century CE), ‫ וחייבים אנחנו לומר לפניך שירה‬... ‫לפיכך אנחנו חייבים להודות לך‬ ... ‫ אשרינו מה טוב חלקנו‬,‫בכל יום תמיד‬ We must thus exalt You ... and we must offer praise to You every day, "Happy are we, how sweet is our lot... " Similarly: ‫מיד פתחו כל האילנות פיהם ואמרו שירה ]שנאמר[ אז ירננו עצי היער‬ Whereupon all the trees opened their mouths and sang a song of praise [as it is said) "Then the trees of the forest exulted" [ 1 Chr 16:331 (y.Sanh. ch. 10 [29a]) .‫ בקשו לומר שירה‬,‫ בשעה שעלו ישראל מן הים‬,‫דרש ר' עקיבא‬ ‫שרת עליהם רוח הקודש ואמרו שירה‬ R. Aqiba expounded: When Israel had crossed the |Red| Sea, they wished to offer a song of praise. The holy spirit came upon them and they uttered a song. (t. Sot. 6.2) ... ‫ישראל אומרים שירה בכל שעה‬ Israel offers praise {to God| at every moment... (b. Hul. 91b) ‫ שלוש כיתות של מלאכי השרת אומרות שירה‬:‫אמר ר' חננאל אמר רב‬ ‫ ואחת אומרת קרוש הי‬,‫ ואחת אומרת קדוש‬,‫ אחת אומרת קדוש‬.‫בכל יום‬ .‫צבאות‬ R. Hananel said that Rab had said: Three groups of attending angels praise |God] every day. One group says "Holy," the second says "Holy," and the third says "Holy is the Lord of Hosts." (b. Hul. 91b) !‫מעשי ידי טובעים בים ואתם אומרים שירה‬ [God said to the angels:] "My creatures |the Egyptians] are drowning in the sea and you are singing?"9 (b. Tam. 32b) I have varied my translations of the expression ‫ אמר שירה‬to fit the different contexts, but it should be apparent that in all these cases the phrase refers to offering praise to God. Although the praise is apparently sung, I would hesitate to say that in each case a particular song is intended: as the fourth and fifth examples above suggest, any sort of singing—even singing a single word! —fits the definition of ‫אמר שירה‬. Now, what is interesting is that this phrase itself does not appear anywhere in biblical Hebrew. Usually, when the word ‫ שירה‬or ‫ שיר‬appears there, the verb accompanying it is the cognate ‫שיר‬: ‫אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל את‬ 9

See on this Heinemann 1974:175-80.

... ‫( השירה הזאת‬Exod 15:1) or... ‫( שירו לה־ שיר הרש‬Ps 96:1); and so forth. The expression ‫ אמר שירה‬or ‫ אמר שיר‬never occurs. Nor, for that matter, does ‫ אמר שירה‬appear at Qumran or in any other surviving Hebrew text written before the second century CE. Where did it come from? Let us begin by considering its component parts. It should be noted that ‫אמר‬, especially in MH, has a lexical range somewhat wider than "say" in English: it can often mean something more like "utter" or "proclaim" or even "recite"; in some contexts it even means "compose"(‫[ אלה עשרה בני אדם שאמרו ספר תהלים‬Mid. Ρ s 1:6]). So its use in the expression ‫אמר שירה‬, although unprecedented in BH, is really not all that odd in MH. However, the use of ‫ שירה‬in this same expression does seem to demand explanation. In BH (and in MH as well, apart from our expression)‫ שירה‬is a relatively rare word, far less common than ‫שיר‬. It apparently designated a particular type of song in BH, though the difference between a ‫ שיר‬and a ‫ שירה‬is far from clear.10 In any event, there is little need to point out that the more general meaning of ‫ שירה‬in modern Hebrew as "poetry" is altogether foreign to biblical Hebrew. Nor is ‫ שירה‬used in BH as a collective noun, as if it stood in the same relationship to ‫ שיר‬as, for example,‫ רגה‬usually stands to ‫דג‬. Indeed, in its discussion of collective nouns in BH, one Hebrew grammar asserts just the opposite, that ‫ שיר‬is "frequently collective" whereas ‫ שירה‬always refers to "a single song" (Cowley-Kautzsch-Gesenius 1910:394), and a glance at the biblical evidence will confirm this judgment. The same usage is followed at Qumran in the famous inventory of David's compositions in 11QP^: ‫ויהי כול השיר אשר דבר ששה‬ ‫וארבעים וארבע מאות‬, "the total of the songs [‫ שיר‬in the singular, as a collective! that he composed was four hundred and forty-six." So it is still ‫שיר‬, and not ‫שירה‬, that is the more common and general term. Why then do rabbinic texts say ‫ ?אמר שירה‬The reason is certainly not that BH ‫ שירה‬refers specifically to a cultic or holy song. True, the songs of praise of the Israelites at the Red Sea is called a ‫שירה‬, as well as David's, etc.; but there is also the ‫ שירת הזונה‬in Isa 23:15, and ‫( שירת דודי‬probably:‫)שירת דודים‬ in Isa 5:1. So ‫ שירה‬seems to include a range of different kinds of 10

A well-known rabbinic midrash asks why certain past victory songs are called ‫ טירה‬and not ‫ טיר‬and gives a homiletical answer (each past victory gave birth, like a female, to further events, that is, it was not a final victory, which can only be marked by a ‫ טיר‬in the masculine form). But the very fact that the question is asked, and that such an answer is offered, suggests that no clear distinction between the word ‫ טיר‬and ‫ טירה‬existed in the mind of the author of this midrash. See Kugel 1982.

songs or individual compositions. The matter might be clarified somewhat by a long-standing observation about a biblical manuscript from Qumran.11 Some years ago, E.Y. Kutscher noted in his study of the Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 (lQIsa 3 ) that the latter part of Isa 43:21 in the Masoretic text,‫"( עם זו יצרתי לי תהלתי יספרו‬The people I created for Myself, so that they recount my praise") appears in lQIsa 3 as ‫ ״( תהלתי יואמרו‬... so that they say my praise"). As Kutscher observed, this change seems to tell us something about the Hebrew of that day: ‫ אמר‬apparently struck someone at the time as a more appropriate verb than ‫ ספר‬to accompany the noun ‫( תהלה‬Kutscher 1959:166). Kutscher further noted there that ‫ תהלה‬is regularly translated into Aramaic as ‫תושבחה‬, where "it is usually joined to the verb ‫( "אמר‬Kutscher 1959:166). In a later discussion, Avi Hurvitz stated that although ‫ אמר תהלה‬is not found in the canonical books of the Jewish Bible, the expression does occur in a verse from the Hebrew text of Ben Sira: ‫" בפה חכם תאמר תהלה‬Let praise be said in the mouth of a sage" (Sir 15:10 [A]) (Hurvitz 1972:53). Here, then, are two rather similar expressions,‫ אמר שירה‬in various rabbinic texts and ‫ אמר תהלה‬in Ben Sira and lQIsa 3 . To these might be added a third, the hybrid ‫ אמר הימנון‬found in a few rabbinic texts:12 ‫משל לחבורה של זמרין שהיתה מבקשת לומר שבחו של מ ל ך הימנון‬ ...‫ וראויין לומר הימנון‬... ‫ כולכם זכאין‬:‫ אמר להם המלך‬13.‫למלך‬ This is comparable to a group of singers that sought to sing the praises of the king, a hymn to the king. The king said to them: You are all worthy ... and fit to sing a hymn ... {Mid. Ps 1:1) ‫ אלי אתם אומרים‬:‫ אמר להם‬.‫הלכו בני המדינה לומר הימנון למלך‬ ?‫הימנון‬ Some of the townspeople went to sing a hymn to the king. He said to them: Do you wish to sing a hymn to me? {Mid. Ps 2 [end]) It may be that behind the existence of all these rather unbiblical phrases (‫אמר שירה‬, ‫תהלה‬, and ‫ )הימנון‬stands a single explanation, the one hinted by Kutscher: they appear to be modeled on, or influenced by, the Aramaic ‫אמר תושבחה‬, to "utter praise." Since, as Kutscher pointed out,‫ אמר‬is indeed the verb regularly conjoined with ‫ תושבחה‬in Aramaic, the use of its cognate in an equivalent 11 12

I am grateful to Prof. Avi Hurvitz for bringing this to my attention.

My thanks to Prof. Menahem Kister for pointing out this expression. For further examples see Kohut 1882:3.216. 13 It is certainly noteworthy that this passage contains the internal gloss of ‫ אמר הימנון‬as ‫לומר שבחו‬.

Hebrew expression is hardly to be wondered at. Moreover,‫תהלה‬ and ‫ שירה‬might both reasonably translate ‫ הושבחה‬the word—as indeed the opposite was true. (In addition to Kutscher's observation about the equation of ‫ תהלה‬and ‫—תושבחה‬see, e.g., Targum Onqelos to Deut 26:19—it should be noted that nearly every instance of ‫ שירה‬in BH is rendered as ‫ הושבחה‬in Targum Onqelos, Targum Neophyti, and elsewhere.) As for ‫הימנון‬, it may have been perceived for a time as an elegant synonym for ‫ שירה‬or ‫תושבחה‬, one that (as in the examples cited) might be particularly suitable when speaking of a foreign king or royal court. In short, it seems that ancient Hebrew writers, influenced by the Aramaic ‫אמר הושבחה‬, created the Hebrew equivalents,‫אמר תהלה‬,‫אמר הימנון‬, and ‫אמר שירה‬, this last coming to predominate in rabbinic usage. To all this should be added one more thing: traces of these expressions may be found as well in the biblical apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (apart from the single use in Sir 15:10 [A] already noted by Hurvitz). For, although we have seen that the verb ‫אמר‬ in Hebrew has a fairly broad lexical range, it is nevertheless the case that most ancient translators consistently rendered it as λέγειν, dicere, and other words for "say" in European languages. Thus, when we find someone "saying a song" in the Greek, Latin, or other ancient translation of an originally Hebrew text from the apocrypha or pseudepigrapha, we may well be in the presence of ‫ אמר שירה‬or one of the other expressions seen above. One likely piece of evidence, it seems to me, is the repeated occurrence of the expression hymnum dicere in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo. This Latin text, generally thought to be one of the most "proto-rabbinic" works to be found among the biblical pseudepigrapha, is believed to go back, via an intermediate Greek translation, to a Hebrew original of the first century CE. In introducing its version of the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), this text reads: Tunc Debbora et Barach [!] filius Abino et omnis populus unanimiter hymnum dixerunt Domino in ilia die dicentes ... Then did Debbora and Barach the son of Abino and all the people together say a hymn to the Lord on that day, saying ... LAB 3 2 : 1 This sentence stands in Ps.-Philo's retelling as the equivalent of Judg 5:1, except that, instead of translating the MT ‫ ותשר‬in the expected way (et cantavit or—an equivalent term sometimes used by Ps.-Philo—hymnizavit), it reads hymnum dixerunt ..14 (This 14

On the strangeness of this expression in Latin (or its Greek equivalent) see VanderKam 1989:210η and Harrington 1985:372η.

formulation may be particularly significant since the song itself is universally known in rabbinic texts as ‫שירת דבור‬.) Precisely the same phrase, hymnum dicere, appears in two other places in two other places in Ps.-Philo. After reporting Moses' death, Ps.Philo asserts: Et in ilia die non est dictus hymnus militum pro recessu Moysi nee fuit talis dies ex eo quo fecit Dominus hominem super terram, nee erit talis adhuc in sempiternum, ut humilietur pro hominibus hymnus angelorum. A n d on that d a y the s o n g of the h e a v e n l y hosts w a s not s p o k e n b e c a u s e of the d e a t h of M o s e s , nor w a s there any d a y like it, f r o m the o n e in w h i c h G o d m a d e m e n on earth, nor will there be like it h e n c e f o r t h f o r e v e r , w h e n the s o n g of the a n g e l s w a s put a s i d e b e c a u s e of m e n . ( L A B 19:16)

Here again a song (hymnus) is "said"—or, rather not said (non est dictus). Indeed, the whole passage concerns what is called here hymnus angelorum, that is, the lexical item ‫שירת‬ ‫המלאכים‬, attested in rabbinic midrash: in fact, the idea of the angels ceasing their ‫ שירה‬because of something bad happening on earth is the same as that underlying the midrash of ‫מעשי ירי‬ ‫ טובעים בים ואתם אומרים שירה‬cited earlier. A final example in Ps.-Philo is David's song (2 Sam 22), which begins: A finibus terr(afe incipiam glorificate, et in dies saeculi dicam hymnum F r o m the e n d s of t h e e a r t h I w i l l b e g i n to p r a i s e , a n d I w i l l s p e a k m y s o n g f o r e v e r . ( L A B 59:4)

Once again, dicere hymnum may represent one of the Hebrew expressions studied above. A few further traces of this phrase may exist in the biblical pseudepigrapha. One occurs in the Greek Testament of Job 43:2, "And the spirit fell upon Eliphaz and he said a song and the other companions repeated after him, they and the men next to the altar. And Eliphaz said, etc." The location of this verse is important: it comes just after Eliphaz has been informed that his sacrifice has been accepted and God has forgiven him for his intemperate words. At that point, in Greek, the spirit falls upon Eliphaz και είπεν ϋμνον, that is, he offered words of thanks to God for his forgiveness. The Apocalypse of Abraham may also contain the same expression, appearing in Old Church Slavonic as glagolati pbsnu,

which probably represents Greek λέγειν ώδήν (or: ϋμνον). This expression appears in ApAbr 17:4 and 18:1. (Because of the absence of articles in Old Church Slavonic, it is impossible to determine here whether the text means pesnu in the sense of "say the [particular] song of praise," namely, the one in ApAbr 17:8-25, or simply "recite a song of praise," as ‫ אמר שירה‬means elsewhere.) The last passage comes from the book of Jubilees. There, after having paid his tithes and offered sacrifices, Jacob and his sons celebrate: "And he ate there along with his sons and the men in celebration for seven days, and he blessed and said a song to God who had freed him from all his troubles and had let him fulfill his vow" (in Latin: ... Et benedicebat et hymnum dicebat deo qui liberavit eum de omnibus tribulationibus eius et quoniam redidit votum suum [Jub 32:7]). It only remains to add a word about ‫ שירה‬in the expression ‫אמר שירה‬, which, as noted, seems to predominate in later texts. It may be that even before the rabbinic period, the word ‫ שירה‬had begun to be perceived less as a particular type of song and more as "song" in general, if not as the gerund, "singing." As possible evidence one might adduce Ben Sira's praise of King Solomon: How wise you grow in your youth, and brimmed with wisdom like the Nile, You covered the earth with your soul['s breadth] and gave honour with the height of song ( ‫ ב מ ר ו ם ש י ר ה‬c/7PM)(Sir 47:15 [MS Β])15 On the other hand, elsewhere it is ‫ שיר‬that Ben Sira uses in the general sense (Sir 35:3, 5; 40:21; 47:9, 17). Particularly instructive is the following: Like a seal in a setting of gold, so is the praise of God (‫ )שיר אל‬at a wine-gathering (Sir 35:5 [MS B]). This Hebrew phrase is glossed in a marginal note in the manuscript as ‫( שירת אל‬as if ‫ שיר‬were—whenever this gloss was introduced —no longer the proper, general term). Perhaps one final factor came into play. At an early stage of Israelite society, there was apparently no set convention of offering songs of thanks to God after one's prayer had been answered or 15

This phrase may be an allusion to the Song of Songs, attributed by tradition to Solomon; indeed the phrase ‫ במרום שירה‬may be a gloss of the name ‫שיר השירים‬, that is, the greatest or loftiest of songs.

after someone had been saved from danger. Thus, the Pentateuchal narrative does not present Abraham as offering thanks to God after the angelic intervention that saved his son Isaac, for example, or after Lot's safe return from captivity. Nor does Jacob offer a song of thanksgiving after his encounter with Esau in Genesis 33, nor does Joseph after his release from prison. Even the song sung by the Israelites at the Red Sea appears, on close inspection, less a song of thanksgiving than a victory song, similar to other victory songs known to us from the Ancient Near East. But at a certain point, songs of thanksgiving did become conventional. It is doubtless in respect to such a convention that an editor inserted the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2 as well as David's song in 2 Samuel 22; the biblical apociypha and pseudepigrapha likewise abound with songs of thanksgiving, such as the song of the three young men in Daniel 3 (in the Septuagint version) or Judith's song of thanksgiving (Jdt 16), or Tobit's (Tob 13). Somewhat later, the matter became stated policy: God's merciful acts of salvation cannot go unthanked. Thus, ‫ תהיו אומרים שירה‬,‫"( כשהקב״ה עושה לכם נסים‬When God performs miracles for you, offer praise," y. Pes. ch. 10 [37:4]). If the phrase ‫ אמר שירה‬came to be used in precisely such circumstances, perhaps it came in part on the strength of biblical models. For while there was no convention of offering songs of thanksgiving in earlier times, the Bible nonetheless contains a number of songs specifically designated ‫ שירה‬in this rarer, feminine, form, and most of these came to be construed as "songs of thanksgiving" (see in particular Weitzman 1997). Perhaps for that reason as well, rabbinic writers chose to designate this act of thanksgiving by the phrase ‫אמר שירה‬.

ON SOME CONCEPTS IN THE WORLD OF QUMRAN: POLYSEMY AND SEMANTIC DEVELOPMENT* Shelomo Morag (Jerusalem) As I conceive the function of an opening address my talk should not be a heavy scholarly piece. I shall try my best, although I realize that, as an emeritus, my discussion must attain some measure of adequate intrinsic merit. To achieve this in the domain of philology without becoming tedious is not an easy task. Qumran studies have gone from strength to strength. They have shed light, sometimes spotted with patches of darkness, on history and literature in the period of the Second Temple and in the first century of the Common Era. The documents disclose certain aspects of the life of a community that sought to create a way of life that for its members was the true Jewish way. Ideologically the community regarded its way of life as a proper continuation of the biblical tradition. This understanding is prominently apparent in the community's strong attachment to the Bible and its language and style. They adhered to pertinent patterns of the biblical text, in grammar and vocabulary, but also introduced a fair number of innovations. I shall devote my paper to a discussion of the conceptual framework of some terms that occupy an important position in the lexicon of Qumran and reflect significant features of the community's life. Our treatment will be mainly synchronic in approach, but occasionally we shall deal also with some historical aspects in the development of a concept. In this discussion I shall distinguish between ,key words' and 'evidence words',1 introduced by the French linguist G. Matoré. The concept 'key word' is well known: such a lexeme occupies an important place in the vocabulary, is employed quite frequently, and reflects significant ideas, attitudes and positions current in a society.2 'Evidence words' constitute a sub-division of the 'key words' * Professor Morag passed away suddenly on 4 September, 1999. His paper was read by his wife, Shoshana, who wishes to thank Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon, Prof. Moshe Bar-Asher and Dr Steven Fassberg for their assistance with the final version of this paper. ' Matoré 1951; the French terms are , mots-clef and 'mots-témoin'. 2

Ç»» ο rr Williame• 1 07A

category. They are more specific in their function, being lexical components that denote a linguistic use typical of a defined group of speakers. They are not attested in the speech or writings of other groups, or they express meanings differing from their accepted connotations. As 'key words' they bear witness to a certain significant line of thought or a pertinent feature in the life of the group's members. The significant aspect of an 'evidence word' is the explicit or implicit innovation in its use.3 ‫יחד‬, ‫צדק‬, ‫ברית‬, ‫חושך‬, ‫ אור‬are key words in Qumran Hebrew. They carry great significance in the outlook of the community. However, in comparison with their use in BH no substantial changes are attested in their use in QH. On the other hand, as we shall see, ‫יחד‬, ‫גורל‬, ‫הרבים‬, ‫ סרך‬are 'evidence words'. They definitely characterize the vocabulary used by the community, distinguish-ing it from that of other Jewish groups of the period. ‫יחד‬ Let us start with ‫יחד‬. Is this term in the meaning of 'community' completely new in the history of Hebrew? Is this an evidence word sharing a new way of conceiving the meaning of 'community', group or sect? Our answer is definitely positive. It is clearly a specific term of the Qumran community. The normal use of ‫ יחד‬in BH is, as is well known, as an adverb. It has, however, been proposed that the word also appears as a substantive in BH. Professor Shemaryahu Talmon suggested interpreting ‫ יחד‬in a few biblical passages as a noun with the meaning of'gathering', 'constitutional body'.4 He bases his interpretation primarily on Deut 33:5: ‫ויהי בישרון מלך בהתאסף ראשי עם‬ ‫יחד שבטי ישראל‬. Talmon takes the phrases ‫ שבטי ישראל‬and ‫ראשי עם‬ as referring to the 'leaders of the Israelite community'; in the collocation ‫יחד שבטי ישראל‬, ‫ יחד‬indicates 'the constitutional body formed by these elders'.5 Accordingly we should analyse the verse as implying the structure ‫בהתאסף ראשי עם )בהתאסף( יחר‬ ‫שבטי ישראל‬. This interpretation remains within the limit of possibility, but is not completely convincing although it provides a parallel structure of the half-verse in question: ‫ ראשי עם יחד‬// ‫שבטי ישראל‬. 3

For a discussion of these concepts in the language of Jeremiah see Morag 1975. 4

T a l m o n 1953. The JPS translation of the verse is 'Then He became King in Jerusalem, when the heads of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together'. 5

To my mind, another occurrence mentioned by Talmon is of more relevance. In 1 Chr 12:18 David addresses the men of Benjamin and Judah who come to his stronghold (‫)מצד‬, asking frankly what their intentions are: ‫אם לשלום באתם אלי לעזתי יהיה‬ ‫ ואם לרמותני לצרי בלא חמם בכפי ירא אלהי אבותינו‬,‫לי עליכם לבב ליחד‬ ‫ויוכח‬. What does the phrase ‫ יהיה לי עליכם לבב ליחד‬mean? Talmon's translation, 'my heart will be upon you for a covenant', is acceptable. The context definitely shows that the phrase, possibly idiomatic at the time, carries the notion of 'unity', or possibly of 'agreement'. We may suppose that the underlying structure of the phrase had originally been ‫להיות לבב יחד עם לבב‬ 'one heart with another'. Although the concept of a covenant is prominent at Qumran, we cannot deduce from this verse that BH uses ‫ יחר‬to denote a group of people sharing common ideas. It is quite clear that the term ‫ יחד‬as the main appellation for the Qumran community was not drawn from the biblical lexicon. The founders of the sect had evidently created this term regarding it to be most appropriate, since it echoed the sociologically most significant semantic features that they aspired to achieve in their communal life, namely: (a) togetherness; (b) separation from other groups; (c) singularity and uniqueness; (d) having a special quality, excellence. The last meaning inheres in ‫ מיחד‬in Mishnaic Hebrew: ‫מנחת‬ ‫הסלת שהיא מיהרת שבמנחות‬, that is, 'the best of the meal offerings' {m. Men. 13,1). In the Damascus Covenant the word ‫ יחיד‬occurs three times. Most scholars assume that ‫ יחד‬should be read in all three instances:6 CD 20:1 ‫)מיום( האסף מורה היחיד עד עמוד משיח מאהרן ומישראל‬ CD 20:14 ‫ומיום האסף יורה היחיד עד תם כל אנשי המלהמה‬ CD 20:32 ‫והתיסרו במשפטים הראשונים אשר נשפטו בם אנשי היחיד‬ ‫והאזינו לקול מורה צרק‬ The founder of the community was probably referred to as ‫ ;היחיד‬hence ‫ אנשי היחיד‬denotes his group of followers. 7 In the first stages of the history of the sect, when it had been finally decided to assume a regular name, the closeness in form and meaning between ‫ יחיד‬and ‫ יחד‬may have played a role. From the noun ‫ יחד‬the verb ‫ להיחד‬was derived: (1) 1QS 1:7 ‫ להיחר בעצת אל‬.. ‫ולהבי את כל הנדבים לעשות חוקי אל‬ 2) 1)QS 5:20 ‫וכיא יבוא בברית לעשות ככול החוקים האלה להיחד‬ 5

Thus Qimron in Broshi 1992. F. Garcia Martinez translates ‫ היחיד‬in CD 20:1 and 20:14 , the unique teacher' and the , unique one' in 20:30. See Garcia Martinez 1994. 7

‫לעדת קודש‬ 1(3)QS9:5-6 ‫בעת ההיאה יבדילו אנשי היחד בית קודש לאהרון להיחד‬ 1(4)QHa11:11 ‫להתקדש לכה מכול תועבות נרה ואשמת מעל להיחד‬ ‫נעם[ בני אמתך‬ The meaning of 8‫ להיחר‬is clear—'to be fully, spiritually and materially integrated into the community's way of life and united with it'. In the phrase ‫ קודש קורשים י להיחד קודש קודשים‬is to be taken adverbially, namely 'to be united in the highest degree of holiness'.9 The use of the pi'el stem of ‫ יחד‬possibly occurs in 1QS 3:7: ‫להביט באור החיים וברוח קדושה ליחד באמתו יטהר מכול עוונותו‬. ‫ליחר‬ may be interpreted here either as a noun or as a verb. The first possibility would yield for ‫ עוונותו‬... ‫ וברוח קדושה‬the translation 'in a spirit of holiness of community,10 in His (= God's) truth, he will be cleansed from all his sins'." Reading here the verb ‫ליחד‬, I would translate the phrase thus: 'and with a spirit of holiness he would follow the regulations and obligations of the community truthfully and thus become clean, all his sins being atoned'.12 In the passages quoted before we have encountered one of the numerous epithets of the sect: ‫עצת אל‬, for which we may quote 1QS 1:10 ‫ולאהוב כול בני אור איש כגורלו בעצת אל‬. In 1QS 3:6-7 we read ‫ יכופרו כל עוונותו‬.. ‫כיא ברוח עצת אמת אל‬.‫ עצת אמת אל‬clearly means 'those guided by the true instruction of God'.13 Among the epithets for the community we also find: ‫יחד אל‬ 1)QS 1:12; 2:22);1)‫ י ח ד קודש‬Q S 9:2);1)‫ י ח ר עולמים‬Q S 3:12); 1) ‫ י ח ד ברית עולם‬Q S 5:5) and similar structures. It may be assumed that the term ‫ יחד‬originally emerged as an abbreviation, with the omission of the second element in epithets like ‫יחד אל‬. x

The form may be regarded as a hitpa'al with the assimilation t > y, or as a special nifal form. Abegg 1998:343-344 reads in 1QS 1:8 ‫ להועץ‬and mentions ‫( להועץ‬CD 3:5). The photographs show that the forms are spelled ‫ להיחד‬and . ‫להיעץ‬ 9

Cf. 1QS 8:6 .‫בית קדוש לישראל יסוד קודש קודשים לאהרון‬

10

The lamed is a particle of possession; cf.‫( חלקת השדה לבעז‬Ruth 2:3).

‫ ״‬I consider this translation preferable to that of Garcia Martinez. 12

Both possibilities regarding ‫ ליחד‬either as a noun or as an adjunct are given by Licht, 1965:79. My translations are, however, somewhat different from his interpretation. 13

Cf. ‫ בעצתך תנחני‬Ps. 73:24—1QS 8:1 ‫בעצת היחד שנים עשר איש וכוהנים‬ ‫שלושה תמימים בכול הנגלה מכול התורה לעשות אמת וצרקה‬. Some scholars deduced from this passage that twelve members and three priests constituted the 'council of the community', but that the tasks that this 'council' is to perform are the ones the community as a whole is obliged to follow. Cf. also 1QS 8:6 ‫ובתכון העת בהיות אלה בישראל נכונה עצת היחד באמת למטעת עולם‬.

Of some interest are the epithets 1 .‫יחד רנה‬, 14:3-4 reads: ‫;וברכו שם כולם את אל ישראל ורוממו שמו ביחר שמחה‬ similarly 1QH 3:23 1 ;‫ ל ה ל ל שמחה ביחד תשה‬Q H ‫כול נהיה ועם ידעים ביחד רנה‬. How are we to analyse these phrases? Is ‫ ביחד‬an adverb or do we have here other epithets of the community, namely ‫יחד שמחה‬ and ‫ ?יחד רנה‬The first possibility creates a syntactical difficulty, because this understanding of the phrases would require ‫ברנה‬ (unless we regard ‫ רנה‬as being adverbial). Therefore, I would tend to regard the second possibility as more plausible: ‫יחד שמחה‬ 'a community of joy', ‫' יחד רנה‬a community of singing' (or of praying) are epithets of the Sect.14 These phrases from 1QM and 1QH remind us of Isa 52:8-9 ‫ פצחו‬... ‫קול צפיך נשאו קול יחדו ירננו‬ ‫רננו יחדו חרבות ירושלם‬.'5 The use of ‫ יחד‬to denote 'community' in general, not necessarily exclusively the Sect, is attested in4)‫ ל י ח ד רשעה‬Q 1 8 1 , frg. 1, col. 2, line 2) 'to a community of wickedness.' Needless to say, ‫ יחד רשעה‬stands in utmost opposition to ‫ יחד‬in its regular adverbial sense. The word ‫ יחד‬underwent an extension of its meaning. It serves in QH to denote also a group of people in general. This is rare, occurring only once, as far as I could ascertain: ‫ יחד רשעה‬in the sense of 'a group of evil people'. The expression is contained in a fragment of the 'Ages of Creation': 4Q181 1:1-2— ‫לאשמה ביחד עם ם]רי[ עמ]ו ו[להתג]ו[לל בחטאת בני אדם ולמשפטים‬ ‫גדולים ומחלים רעים בבשר לפי גבורות אל ולעומת רשעם לפי ט]ו[ )נד(אתם‬ ‫מסיר בני ]שמים[ וארץ ליחד רשעה‬.16 ‫ ליחר רשעה‬.. ‫ מסיר‬possibly refers to the leader of the adversaries who 'turns the sons of [heaven] and earth into a community of wickedness'. ‫ יחד‬underwent a certain extension of meaning, referring to the adversaries, when followed by the appropriate adjunct, such as .‫רשעה‬ ‫גורל‬ A typical case of QH 'key-words' polysemy is evident in the use of ‫גורל‬. The word has been carefully analysed and interpreted by 14

1QH 11:5-6 ‫וחתן בפי הודות ובלשוני ]תהי[לה ומול טפחי במכון רנה‬. ‫מכון רנה‬ place of singing' may be compared with ‫יחד רנה‬. The fact that in the phrase 1) ‫ ו ב י ש ו ע ת ו ארננה יחד‬Q S 10:17) there is an adverbial use of ‫ יחד‬does not con our viewing ‫ רנה‬in ‫ יחד רנה‬as an epithet. ,

15

And other biblical passages.

15

Charlesworth (ed.) 1995:212; cf. J.M. Allegro in DJD V:79.

the late Jacob Licht in his superb commentary on the Serakhim,17 and in a special study.18 We shall therefore mention only some connotations of the word which are of relevance for tracing its semantic developments. (a) ,decision, decree' The semantic link between the meanings 'lot, share' and 'decision, decree' is of course metonymical. It recalls the widespread custom of reaching a decision by lot-casting to determine what falls to a person or to a group.19 As Licht observed, at least with respect to the use of term ‫ סרך היחד‬in 1QS, QH distinguishes between the use of ‫ גורל‬with the verb ‫יצ״א‬, on the one hand, and with the verb ‫נפ״ל‬, on the other, whereas BH does not make this distinction. The former use denotes 'a decision taken by a public body'.20 Thus, e.g., 1QS 6:16 ‫וכאשר יצא הגורל על עצת הרבים יקרב או‬ ‫( ירחק‬also 16:22,29). The novice is examined by ‫הרבים‬, who then decide on his acceptance (the preceding phrase is: ‫ואחר בבואו‬ ‫)לעמוד לפני הרבים ונשאלו הכול על דבריו‬. Contrast the use of ‫ גורל‬with ‫ נפ״ל‬when the semantic subject is God and the meaning is that of 'lot': 1QH 3:28 ‫בנפול קו על משפט וגורל אף על נעזבים ומתך חמה על‬ ‫נעלמים וקץ־חרון לכול בליעל‬. (b) ‫ גורל‬connoting 'a group of people' (in the broadest sense of the word) The development of this meaning goes well with the Sect's doctrines of predestination and dualism. The ‫ יחד‬members regard their world as being broken up by predestination into two divisions, as if by divine lot-casting, a positive division and a negative one. By this divine lot-casting the members of each division are being bound together.‫ גורל אל‬is one of the epithets of the Sect. 1) ‫ א נ ש י גורל אל‬Q S 2:2) equals1)‫ י ח ד אל‬Q S 1:12; 2,22). It stands in absolute opposition to ‫ גורל בני חושך‬and ‫' גורל בליעל‬the community of (the) worthless' or 'wicked', as e.g. in 1QM 1:1-5 ‫ עת ישועה‬... ‫ראשית משלוח יד בני אור להחל בגורל בני חושך בחיל בליעל‬ ‫לעם אל וקץ ממשל לכול אנשי גורלו וכלת עולמים לכול גורל בליעל‬ (‫י‬a complete, everlasting destruction'). The use of ‫ גורל‬for 'community' is a 'keyword' in the vocabulary of Qumran. I would consider it an innovation, although one possible occurrence of this meaning in BH was pointed out 17 18

See n. 12. Licht 1956; for studies of ‫ גורל‬see also Amir 1957 and Rengstorf

1956. 19

For lot-casting in the Bible, see e.g.: Lindblom 1962.

20

Licht 1956:91.

by Jacob Licht21 in Ps 125:3 ‫כי לא ינוח שבט הרשע על גורל הצדיקים‬. According to Licht ‫ גורל הצדיקים‬defines 'the group of the righteous'. Syntactically this interpretation goes well. However, in Biblical Hebrew this sense of ‫ גורל‬is rare, whereas in the Qumran lexicon it is quite common, and is in accord with the doctrines of the Sect, as we have seen above. (c) Of special interest is a third meaning of ‫גורל‬, which possibly occurs in the War Scroll (1QM 1:12-15): ‫ שלושה גורלות יחזקו בני‬,‫וביום מלחמתם בכתיים יצנאו לשחשיר במלחמה‬ ‫אור לנגוף רשעה ושלושה יתאזרו חיל בליעל למשוב גורל ו!דג[לי הבנים יהיו‬ ‫להמם לבב וגבורת אל מאמצת ל]בב בני אור[ ובגורל השביעי יד אל הגרולה‬ ‫מכנעת ]בליעל וכחל מלאכי ממשלתו‬ I accept Yadin's interpretation of ‫ גורלות‬as 'battles'.22 It is perfectly fitting in the text which tells us about three battles or attacks thrown by the ‫ בני אור‬and three initiated by the ‫ בני חושך‬in order to reverse the situation of the battle and to cause the retreat of23.(‫גורל למשוב( בניאור‬ The decisive battle is the seventh.24 The meaning of 'battle' has apparently developed metonymically from the basic meaning of 'casting a lot'—in this case, for deciding whether or not to start a battle or an attack. For ‫ גורל‬in the context of 'a battle' may be compared: Judg 1:3 ‫עלה אתי בגורלי ונלחמה בכנעני והלכתי גם אני אתך בגורלך‬. To sum up the discussion of ‫גורל‬: there is some partial similarity between the semantic processes underlying the various connotations of the word in BH and in QH. The biblical usages of the term, which emerged metonymically and directly from the basic meaning are 'share', ,fate', 'territory', 'size of an area'.‫ גורל‬parallels in BH ‫חלק‬:‫( זה חלק שוסינו וגורל לבזזינו‬Isa 17:14); ‫ה׳ מנת חלקי וכוסי‬ ‫( אתה תומיך גורלי‬Ps 16:5) as well as ‫ גורל אחד וחבל אחר( חבל‬Josh 17:14) or ‫( נחלה‬Job 20:29; 27:12) and ‫( חבל נחלתו‬Deut 32:9).‫גורל‬ and ‫ חבל‬also occur in textual metonymy as in ‫לא יהיה לך משליך‬ ‫( חבל בגורל‬Mic 2:5). The use of ‫ חבל‬for 'part' is a secondary 21

Licht 1956.

22

See Yadin 1955:262. For the comparison of ‫ גורל‬to Greek μοίρα 'which also denotes secondary units of Army', see ibid., 9.174, η. 55. 23 For the use of ‫ מטוב‬in the War Scroll see Yadin 1955:87-88. 24

Garcia Martinez 1994 translates ‫ שלושה גורלוח‬as 'three lots'. Thus, ‫ במלחמה שלושה גורלות יחזקו בני אר לנגוף רשעה‬is translated , in the war the sons of light will be strongest during three lots in order to strike down wickedness'. I wonder whether the use of 'lot' for ‫ גורל‬is appropriate here. Rengstorf (1956:115) deals at some length with this passage and emphasizes the role of God in the war. But I have not found in his interpretation any definition of the meaning 0 ^ ‫ ג ו ר‬in this text.

metonymy from the basic meaning of , measuring cord'. As an 25 equivalent of biblical ‫חלק‬, QH uses ‫ גורל‬and .‫נחלה‬ In the various meanings of ‫ גורל‬in QH we observe extensions of the connotations of biblical ‫גורל‬, which are closely related to the usage of BH. We may assume that these developments also derive from the significance of the term in the conceptual world of the Sect for which ‫ גורל‬was definitely an ,evidence word". I would add in passing that the biblical use of ‫ חבל‬for ,group' (see above—‫)חבל נביאים‬, replaced by ‫ גורל‬of QH, carries the notion of 'binding together'. A propros of ‫ גורל‬in the meaning of 'group' and the biblical connection of ‫ גורל‬and ‫חבל‬, we may mention a similar semantic development of ‫תעורה‬. Once again, we encounter here polysemy. One meaning of the word which occurs rarely is ,assembly'.26 Thus, in a passage in the Rule of the Congregation ( ; ‫ה ע ר ה‬ 1Q 28a [1QSa], 1:25-26): ‫ואם תעודה תהיה לכול הקהל למשפט או‬ ‫לעצת יחד או לתעורת מלחמה וקדשום לשלושת ימים‬.27 For the semantic origin of ‫ תעודה‬as ,assembly', we must refer to a biblical form of the root ‫ ער ד‬in the pi'el stem/rru) ‫חבלי רשעים‬ (Ps 119:61).‫' = עודני‬bound me'.28 This under-standing of the verb is corroborated by the Septuagint'sττεριεπλάσκτ|σάι> μοι (118:61) 'entangled me'. Needless to say,‫' גורל‬group' and ‫' תעודה‬assembly' are conceptually associated with the prevailing sense of 'unity' of ‫יחד‬. We may mention in passing that the semantic field of 'togetherness', 'assembling', 'binding' contains the aspect of 'force', 'strength'. This comes to light when we compare derivatives from the Arabic root qwy with some derivatives from the Hebrew root ‫קו״י‬. In Arabic this aspect is prominent. In Hebrew, 'hope' and 'assembling' are the main connotations. However, Hebrew also furnishes a few instances in which the meanings 'binding' 25

Licht, 1956:93-94. Qimron,1986:115, gives the following meanings for 1) :‫ )תעודה‬, fixed time'; (2) , assembly'; (3) , destination'(?). He relates meaning (2) to ,‫מועד‬ ‫התועדות‬, ‫ערה‬. ‫תעורה‬, connoting , assembly', derived from the root ‫( עו״ד‬see the following discussion), unlike ‫ מועד‬and .‫התועדות‬ 26

27

‫ תעודת מלהמה‬may be understood as , a group of people gathered in order to be ready for fighting'. Garcia Martinez 1994:127, translates ‫תעודת‬ ‫ מלחמה‬, convocation of war'. 28

,

See Yalon 1967:26, 86. Derivatives of the root in the meaning of binding' are attested in post-biblical, non-Qumran Hebrew. 29 Read:.‫לחפץ‬ 30 ‫— ולטוהרה‬with a supralinear .‫ה‬ 31 Read:‫ויהיה‬.

‫סרך‬

‫‪ (Josh‬תקות חוט השני ‪ 'cord', as in‬תקוה ‪ appear, e.g.‬׳‪and 'strength‬‬ ‫כי יש ‪ (ibid., verse 21). In Job 14:7 we read:‬תקות השני ‪2:18), or‬‬ ‫‪ is most probably employed here‬תקוה ‪.‬לעץ תקוה אם יכרת ועוד יחליף‬ ‫‪in the meaning of ,strength'. Mishnaic Hebrew provides one such‬‬ ‫‪ (m. Neg. 11:8) 'bindings of flax'. The relation‬ארנין של פשתן‪case,‬‬ ‫‪ in the Mishnah we may‬און ‪to 'strength' is clear. With this use of‬‬ ‫‪compare Arabic quwwar meaning the strings that are twisted‬‬ ‫‪together to make a rope.‬‬ ‫הרבים‬ ‫‪This term is another 'key-word' in Qumran texts. Two well‬‬‫‪known consecutive passages in the Manual of Discipline are‬‬ ‫‪crucial for understanding its signification: the first pertains to‬‬ ‫‪the order of seating in the gathering of the community; the second‬‬ ‫‪states the conditions for obtaining full membership in the Sect:‬‬ ‫‪(a) 1QS 6:8-13‬‬ ‫וזה הסרך למושב הרבים איש בתכונו‪ .‬הכוהנים ישבו לרשונה והזקנים בשנית‬ ‫ושאר כול העם ישבו איש בתכונו‪ .‬וכן ישאלו למשפט ולכול עצה ודבר אשר‬ ‫יהיה לרבים להשיב איש את מדעו לעצת היחד‪ .‬אל ידבר איש בתוכ דברי‬ ‫רעהו טרם יכלה אחיהו לדבר‪ .‬וגם אל ידבר לפני תכונו הכתוב לפניו‪.‬‬ ‫האיש הנשאל ידבר בתרו‪ .‬ובמושב הרבים אל ידבר איש כול רבר אשר לוא‬ ‫להפצ‪ 29‬הרבים‪ ...‬וכול איש אשר יש אתו דבר לדבר לרבים‪ ,‬אשר לוא‬ ‫במעמד האיש השואל את עצת היחד‪ ,‬ועמד האיש על רגלוהי ואמר יש אתי‬ ‫דבר לדבר לרבים‪ .‬אם יומרו לו ידבר‪.‬‬ ‫‪(b)1QS 6:13-23‬‬ ‫וכולה מתנדב מישראל להוסיף על עצת היחד—ידורשהו האיש הפקיד‬ ‫ברואש הרבים לשכלו ולמעשיו‪ .‬ואם ישיג מוסר יביאהו בברית לשוב לאמת‬ ‫ולסור מכול עול‪ .‬ויבינהו בכול משפטי היחד‪ .‬ואחר בבואו לעמוד לפני‬ ‫הרבים ונשאלו הכול על דבריו‪ .‬וכאשר יצא הגורל על עצת הרבים יקרב או‬ ‫ירחק‪ .‬ובקורבו לעצת היחד—לוא יגע בטהרת הרבים עד אשר ידרושהו‬ ‫לרוחו ומעשו ער מולאת לו שנה תמימה‪ ,‬וגם הואה אל יתערב בהון הרבים‪.‬‬ ‫ובמולאת לו שנה בתוך היחר—ישאלו הרבים על דבריו לפי שכלו ומעשיו‬ ‫בתורה‪ .‬ואם יצא לו הגורל לקרוב לסוד היחר על פי הכוהנים ורוב אנשי‬ ‫בריתם—יקרבו גם את הונו ואת מלאכתו אל יד האיש המבקר‪ .‬על מלאכת‬ ‫הרבים וכתבו בחשבון בידו ועל הרבים לוא יוציאנו‪ .‬אל יגע במשקה‬ ‫הרבים עד מולאת לו שנה שנית בתוך אנשי היחד‪ .‬ובמולאת לו השנה השנית‬ ‫יפקודהו על פי הרבים‪ .‬ואם יצא לו הגורל לקרבו ליחד—יכתובהו בסרך‬ ‫תכונו בתוכ אחיו לתורה ולמשפט ולטוהר^ ולערב את הונו ויהי ‪31‬עצתו‬ ‫ליחד ומשפטו‪.‬‬ ‫‪? Numerous translations of Qumran texts‬הרבים ‪Who were‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫‪.'use as equivalents 'the Many',32 ,Congregation"33 or 'Community‬‬ ‫‪Wernberg-Möller 1957:30; Charlesworth 1994; Garcia Martínez1994.‬‬

‫‪32‬‬

‫‪Vermes 1979:81.‬‬

‫‪33‬‬

These translations are not satisfactory. Passage (b) proves that novices are not accorded full membership in the ‫ יחד‬until they have gone through a period of two years of probation and examinations. Before that they are not full-fledged members, and even then a decision must be taken whether or not to accept them as full members (see above, at the end of [b]). The fact that the General Assembly is called ‫ מושב הרבים‬in no way implies that ‫ הרבים‬refers to all members of the community, full ones as well as candidates. This is indicated by the order of seating which comprises ‫ הזקנים‬and ‫שאר בל העם‬, the latter phrase apparently referring to the candidates. I do not pretend to have exhausted the bibliography on the Qumran texts, and I am not certain I have seen all studies devoted to the meaning of ‫הרבים‬. However, I would especially mention the contributions of three papers to the discussion. The great master of Talmudic studies, Saul Lieberman, devoted a paper to this term.35 He compared the Qumran term ‫ רבים‬with the Pharisaic term 36,‫ חבורה‬which is found in Palestinian rabbinic sources (ibid., p. 199). The member of the ‫ חבורה‬assumed the obligation of strictly observing the laws of ritual cleanliness (ibid.) in the presence of the ‫חבורה‬: ‫ בפני חבורה‬0^‫' בפני>ה(רבי‬according to the Rabbis' (ibid., p. 203). There is evidently some similarity between the procedure to which the Pharisaic applicant was subjected, and the admission procedures which were incumbent on the candidate for full membership in the ‫יחד‬, and of which we know much more. Lieberman thus shed light on admission procedures practised at the time among various Jewish groups, which partially resemble practices at Qumran, but did not analyse linguistically the meaning of ‫ הרבים‬in the Qumran texts. I agree with Lieberman that the feature of having the status of learning is common to the ‫ חבורה‬and to ‫הרבים‬. To this we shall give attention later. Ralph Marcus37 concluded that ‫ הרבים‬is identical with ‫יחד‬, but does not offer a clarification of the term. An important study of the problem under review was presented by Jean Carmignac.38 Its first part is a protest against the prevailing translation of ‫ הרבים‬by 'les nombreux', 'the Many'. As far as I 34

Qimron 1986:104. Lieberman 1952. 36 Which he translates , societas'. 37 Marcus 1956. Charlesworth's translation of ‫ הגורל‬in ‫ ואם יצא לו הגורל‬as , lot' cannot be accepted. It obviously must be translated , decision'—'and if the (positive) decision was taken for him'. 35

38

Carmignac 1971.

know, this protest has not been heeded in Qumran research in the twenty-nine years that have passed since Carmignac's article was published. The tradition of translating ‫ הרבים‬by ,Many‫ ׳‬starts with S. Schechter's edition of the Damascus Covenant,39 followed by R. H. Charles.40 Carmignac records no less than fifteen translations of the word by 'the Many; die Vielen' etc, and mentions other translations as well, among them—H.E. del Medico's 'les rabbins'.41 Carmignac follows the view that takes ‫ רבים‬as the plural of ‫רבי‬. He also deals with the use of the title ‫ רבי‬in the New Testament (NT) where it occurs several times. For example, in Matt 23:7-10 Jesus says that the Pharisees love to have people use this title, but rejects this usage. In Matt 26:25 and 26:49 Judas addresses Jesus as rabbi.*2 Solomon Zeitlin fought vehemently against the authenticity of the employment of the term in the NT, considering it to be anachronistic, since the title had not been in use before the destruction of the Second Temple. To this point I shall refer again in a moment. But let me first present Carmignac's conclusion that ‫ רבים‬is the plural form of ‫רב‬ or ‫רבי‬. He offers the translations 'notables', coming quite close to the correct interpretation of the term: "[une personne] qui occupe une situation sociale importante ou bien une personne à laquelle sa situation confère une certaine autorité dans les affaires publiques' or 'dignitaires'. To my mind,‫ הרבים‬means ,the learned ones'. I referred before to the two major categories of membership in the ‫ יחד‬community— one of full members, viz. of those who had passed the two years' period of probation and examinations; the other, of candidates who were in the stage of learning and had yet to be examined. Full members were regarded as 'the learned ones'. ‫ הרבים‬is not identical with the plural of ‫ רב‬or ‫ רבי‬in Rabbinic Hebrew. In this stratum of Hebrew, ‫ רב‬never has the plural form ‫רבים‬. The plural is ‫רבות‬, when followed by a suffixed pronoun (‫רבותינו‬,‫)רבותי‬, and ‫ רבנים‬in midrashic Hebrew.43 Needless to say the plural ‫ רבים‬is common in mediaeval Hebrew. 39

Schechter 1910. Charles 1913. 41 Del Medico 1957:278-326, 534-589. 42 See also Mark 9:5; 10:51; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38, 49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8; 20:10. 43 The earliest evidence given in Ben Yehuda's Dictionary is from Genesis Rabbah. 40

Let me explain my interpretation of ‫הרבים‬. The features inherent in derivatives from the roots ‫רב״ב‬/‫ רב״ה‬include not only , greatness' but also 'growth', 'increase in knowledge', the latter particularly in late BH. Thus, in Dan 12:4 ‫ואתה דניאל סתם הדברים‬ ‫ ;והתם הספר עד עת קץ ישטטו רבים ותרבה הרעת‬possibly also in Dan 12:344.‫והמשכלים יזהרו כזהר הרקיע ומצדיקי הרבים ככוכבים לעולםוער‬ At this juncture we may mention Gen 21:20 ‫ויהי אלהים את‬ ‫הנער ויגדל וישב במדבר ויהי רבה קשת‬. Does ‫ ויהי רבה קשת‬mean that Ishmael 'became a bowman?'45 There is another way of understanding ‫רבה קשת‬, namely 'a young man (originally, 'a child who has grown up'), who excelled as a bowman'. Onqelos: ‫רביא קשתא‬ and Vulgate: juvenis sagittarius, understand ‫ רבה‬in this sense. There is also evidence for the use of ‫ רבה‬meaning 'young man' in the Mishnah. Saadia translates the phrase 46.‫ראמיא‬/‫ ראם‬In the Samaritan tradition of the reading of the Torah ‫ רבה‬is pronounced rabi47 This form may be regarded as a participle of the root ‫רב׳׳י‬, being the counterpart of Tiberian ‫רב״ה‬. The Samaritan tradition of Aramaic evidences the form râbbi.48 Also the meaning of this form is 'a young man', based on the notion of learning contained in the root. Furthermore, Samaritan Aramaic frequently combines ‫ רביה‬and ‫טליה‬, in the meaning of49.‫נערותלמיד‬ We thus have sufficient evidence for concluding that in Rabbinic as well as in Samaritan Hebrew the semantic features of growing and maturity, attaining experience, are evident in the twin roots ‫רב״ה‬/‫רב״ב‬. Syriac also lends support to this meaning.50 May we assume that the form ‫ רבי‬or also ‫ ךב י‬existed in Qumran Hebrew, which possesses several features identical or similar to Samaritan Hebrew?51 It was not employed as a title of a scholar, like ‫רבי‬/‫ רבי‬meaning 'my teacher', in Rabbinic Hebrew, but in the different meaning of 'a learned person (in the laws and 44

For the feature of growth of ‫רב״ב‬, ‫ רבבה‬Ezek. 16:7 is to be considered: ‫רבבה כצמח השדה נתתיך ותרבי ותגדלי‬. I would take ‫ רבבה‬to mean 'a grown-up girl'. This meaning fits quite well with the contents of the prophecy: the adopted infant became a mature young woman. The continuation of the verse speaks for i t s e l f : . ‫צ מ ח‬ 45

Thus the JPS translation. See the detailed discussion in Ben-Hayyim 1993:97-110. 47 Ben-Hayyim, 1993:98. 48 Ben-Hayyim 1993:99; for other readings in Samaritan Aramaic see Ben-Hayyim 1993:100. 49 Ben-Hayyim 1993:99. 50 Ben-Hayyim 1993:100. 51 Ben-Hayyim 1958. 46

‫ושערך‬

regulations of the Sect)' denoting, as said above, a member who had passed the two years of learning and training. In sum, the term ‫( הרבים‬perhaps pronounced ‫ )הרבים‬is another independent item of the Qumran vocabulary which clearly defines 'the learned ones,' viz. those members who successfully completed their probationary period. The term ‫ הרבים‬evidently was created in QH as an answer to the need to make a clear-cut distinction between various categories of membership. The assumption that the word ,many' occurs in some passages of the NT (e.g. in Mark 14:24: υπέρ πολλών 'for many'), as the designation of 'a group of believers (in general)', is untenable. This assumption derives from the conjectural interpretation of 'the many' in the NT. It rests upon rather slender foundations. However, even if we accept the above interpretation of 'the many' in the NT, at Qumran ‫ הרבים‬are not just 'a group of believers'.52 Let us now come back to the term ‫ רב‬and ‫ רבי‬in rabbinic literature. An excellent paper including a discussion of the history of the use of the epithets was published two years ago by Dr. Yochanan Breuer.53 He agrees with the prevalent view that the use of the epithets began only after the destruction of the Second Temple. He then discusses the reason for the use of ‫ רבי‬by Palestinian sages, and of ‫ רב‬by Babylonian sages, concluding that Babylonian ‫ רב‬originally was linguistically identical with 54 .‫רבי‬ Palestinian Breuer also deals with the occurrence of ‫ רבי‬in the NT, and with Zeitlin's argument that in the NT the epithet is anachronistic. He emphasizes the fact that in the NT the epithet is employed as

52

See VanderKam 1994. On p. 164 the author presents translations from Matt 26:27-28; Mark 14:23-24 and Luke 22:10 in which the word 'many' appears: "it is possible, though hardly certain, that Jesus referred to his disciples as 'many'." In all these passages the Greek text uses an equivalent of Hebrew ‫ רבים‬in its usual meaning. However, we can learn nothing from the quoted NT passages regarding Qumran ‫הרבים‬. VanderKam also says that stronger evidence is provided in Paul's second letter to the Corinthians 5:5-6 where we read ΰπό των‫ ׳‬πλειόνων‫׳‬, 'by the most of you'. But this passage is also not of any value for the case. Also Acts 15:30 και συναγαγόντε? τ ό πλήθο?, 'and he gathered the multitude') and the other NT passages that VanderKam quotes, shed absolutely no light on Qumran ‫הרבים‬. Even if we should accept his unproven statement that "the expression 'the many/majority' (is) a general term that became a special designation for entire groups of believers", in several New Testament passages the theory lacks foundation. 53 54

Breuer 1996. The reason is phonetic. Final i was dropped in Babylonian Aramaic.

a form of address, not as a title.55 A final note on ‫הרבים‬. In several passages of the Manual of Discipline the word ‫ רוב‬appears in a meaning identical with that of 156:‫הרבים‬QS5:2-3 ‫בני צדוק הכוהנים שומרי הברית ועל פי רוב אנשי‬ ‫ ;היחד‬1QS 6:19 ‫ואם יצא לו הגורל לקרוב לסוד היחר על פי הכוהנים ורוב‬ ‫אנשי בריתם‬. This is, of course, a simple use of the collective noun ‫ רוב‬for the plural from ‫( רבים‬cf. e.g. ‫חק‬, in the collective meaning of .(‫חקים‬ ‫סרך‬ We shall deal briefly with ‫סרך‬, which is both a 'keyword' and an 'evidence word', unknown from other sources in the majority of the meanings it possesses in QH. Some preliminary remarks, mostly etymological, are necessary for introducing the semantic discussion. In BH, derivatives of the root ‫ שרך‬are rare. They occur twice, disclosing two meanings, the second having emerged metaphorically from the first. The first one‫ ׳‬belongs to the semantic field of 'binding', 'holding together', attested by ‫( שרוך נעל‬Gen 14:23; ‫—שרוך נעליו‬Isa 5:27). The basic meaning of the root contains the semantic features of 'gluing, attaching or binding one thing to another', 'adherence'.57 The semantic stages of developments underlying the phrase ‫ משרכת דרכיה‬are clear: from the meaning of '(tying) a thong to bind foot wear' to that of 'twisting', and from this to the sense of 'perversion', 'distortion', 'deformation' (English 'twist' also includes these meanings). In post-biblical non-Qumran Hebrew, ‫ סרך‬is attested in the sense of 'attachment', ,following', 'imitation'. However, its use in this stratum of Hebrew is not very common. In QH we find a significant extension of the basic meaning of 'attachment'. The fundamental sense of the root may be defined as 'being/existing in a certain order'.58 The relation of this connotation to that of 'attachment' may have developed figuratively from an arrangement, or outline, of a set of elements 55

Breuer 1996:43 η. 20.

56

Thus Licht 1965:111. Qimr0n1986:112: ‫'—סרך‬to set in order'. As a noun—'order, array' (ibid.). There are certain differences between Qumran texts in the use of ‫סרך‬. For a detailed analysis o f j T ? and 0‫ ךך‬see Kaddari 1968:31, 128-131. 57

58

For associative semantic fields in Hebrew and Arabic see Morag

attached to one another, disclosing a regular and equal spacing between them. Of the numerous meanings of the word we shall mention only the following: a. a set of rules, statutes, relating to the Sect; b. a military unit; c. a list, a text. The root is also found in verb forms, e.g. ‫ואת ראשי הכוהנים‬ ‫( יסרוכו אחר כהן הראש‬1QM 2:1);‫ יסרוכו‬,(they) shall arrange (or place) [the head priests] in a certain order'. It is of interest to note that the Targum consistently translates ‫ שטרים‬as ‫( סרכין‬Deut 1:15 etc.). The connection to the notion of order is obvious. My purpose is not to present an exhaustive list of the meanings of ‫סרך‬, but only to touch upon another special trait of the Qumran lexicon, which also shows how the relation between associative fields works in semantics. Let me add that 'attachment' is closely associated with 'binding'. The latter is close to 'together-ness' as evidenced by the notion of 'group', attested by ‫'!חל‬, as well as by one of the meanings of ‫ גורל‬and of ‫תעודה‬. I might add that, as stated earlier, in BH the notions of 'binding' and 'force/strength' co-exist in derivates of the root ‫ קו״ה‬and in Mishnaic ‫' און‬binding', e.g. ‫( אונין של פשתן‬m. Neg. 11:8: 'bindings of flax') for which compare ‫' און‬strength'.59 Thus we observed some underlying ties among the Qumran concepts of 'group', with several words expressing this notion, and their semantic components, which indicate how the Sect regarded the intrinsic qualities of the term. Of course, we cannot say whether this association had been latent in QH. In conclusion: the lexemes of ‫ סרך‬as well as of the other terms of the Qumran lexicon that we have reviewed, and the meanings of which disclose specific semantic developments, definitely evidence a living language. They show that QH is an entity in itself, not an interim stage between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. QH plausibly goes back to the dialectal spread of the language in the period of the First Temple, or to an early stage of the emergence of the Hebrew dialects in the post-biblical period.60 ‫תם ולא נשלם‬ 59

Cf. Morag 1998, especially pp. 10-11. See Ε. Qimron's conclusion regarding the place of Qumran Hebrew in the history of the Hebrew language in Qimron 1998:41, n. 31. 60

AN APPROACH TO THE MORPHOSYNTAX AND SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW Takamitsu Muraoka (Leiden) The basic point of departure of my presentation is that one should be able to learn about the nature of Qumran Hebrew (henceforth: QH) by analysing cases where Qumran biblical texts1 differ and deviate from the standard biblical text, namely the MT. Our focus will be on a bundle of select morphosyntactic and syntactic features which have been identified as significant to varying degrees from our perspective. Although not every single departure from the MT is necessarily a reflection of the speech of the copyist in question or the état de langue of his time and linguistic milieu, we may have gained some significant insight into the nature of QH if we could identify some clear drift by analysing such deviations. Results of such an analysis, it is hoped, might be able to complement a picture obtained by studying non-biblical DSS texts as found, for instrance, in Qimron 1986 and Smith 1991. This is then following in the footsteps of the late E.Y. Kutscher, whose The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll [1Q Isa% 1974 [1959] represents a very careful and meticulous analysis and comparison of the two text-forms of the biblical book in question from a linguistic perspective. A similar approach was taken in Bendavid 1967-71, in which two major phases of Classical Hebrew were compared by setting linguistic forms in early rabbinic literature against their biblical sources and so doing succeeded in highlighting features of Rabbinic Hebrew which differed from Biblical Hebrew. Whereas Kutscher's book is bound to remain a very significant milestone for decades to come and a solid foundation on which one can build further, it is a fact that the past decade or so has witnessed an unparalleled pace of publication of Dead Sea Scrolls. One naturally wonders then whether the vast amount of Qumran biblical texts now newly made accessible modifies to any significant degree the picture of the linguistic situation as painted by Kutscher. Not only have we access to new biblical texts, but also Qimron, in conjunction with Parry, has recently published a We have studied the biblical fragments, the first forty chapters 0flQIsa\ commentaries on biblical books, so-called parabiblical texts, and 11Q19. 1

new transcription accompanied by a photograph of lQIsa 8 : Qimron - Parry 1999. Tens of readings about which Kutscher was not certain are now read with greater confidence as a result of new and more advanced technology and advances in Hebrew and Aramaic palaeography: his "ph."[‫ ]צי‬may now be reevaluated in such cases: e.g.,‫ תערוכו‬40:18 (330); 54:4 ‫( תחפורי‬ib.); 57:9 ‫( תשפולי‬ib.); 17:11 ‫( תשגשגשי‬not348)‫( )תשגשגישי‬331); 33:15 ‫ ה ו ל ) ו ( ך‬, namely the second Waw has been erased by the scribe himself). Let us begin by looking at the morphosyntax and syntax of the verb. [ 11 Infinitive construct Whereas the inf. est. is still very much alive in QH, its morphosyntax is undergoing subtle changes. The BH Qal inf. est., for instance, was often used in its bare form.2 But in MH it is invariably joined to a proclitic Lamed, as was already justly pointed out by Kutscher (1974:41) and Qimron (1986:47). 4Q252 i 18 ‫ = לוא[ יספה לשוב עוד‬Gen 8:12 .. ‫יספה שוב‬ 11Q19 lxvi 11 ‫ = לוא יוכל לשלחה‬Deut 22:29 3‫יוכל שלחה‬ 1 QIsaa 28:12 ‫ = לא אבו לשמוע‬MT4‫לא אבואשמוע‬ 1QDeuf 12.2 ‫ = תחכל לשתו‬MT Deut 14.245‫תוכלשאתו‬ This cohesion between the proclitic and the infinitive is observable also when another proclitic precedes. It has been further noted by Kutscher (1974:41, 346) that the BH use of the bare6 inf. est. and one with a preposition other than Lamed became obsolete in MH. What has not so far been sufficiently noticed is the use of prepositions other than Lamed together with a Lamed inf. est.7: 4Q160 frg 1:4 1 = ‫מ[להגיד את המשא‬ ‫המראה‬ 8 ‫מכסות‬ 4Q166 2.9 ‫ = מלכסות את] ערותה‬MT Hos 2:11 2

For a recent attempt to establish functional difference between the two syntagmas, see Jenni 1998. Dr Elwolde points out that some biblical manuscripts have the preposition here. 4

C f . also lQIsa 3 30:9. ‫י‬ Drawn to my attention by a student of mine, Mr Michael Malessa, who had noticed a mention of the example in Jenni 1998:61. 6 ‫ עריטילאי‬in the Hebrew original has been inadvertently dropped. 7

This syntagm has already been dealt with by Qimron (personal communication, 16.12.1999) in connection with 4 Q M M T C 8 ‫מלבוא‬: Qimron 1994:76. g An example to which Dr van Peursen has drawn my attention.

S

4Q176 frg 8-11:11 ‫ = נשבעתי מקצוף עליך עוד ומלכעור בך‬Isa 54:9 9 ‫מגער־בך‬ 4Q67:4 ‫ = מלמצן‬Is 58:13 ‫ממצוא‬. This morphological cohension of the inf. est. with the proclitic Lamed is, as is well known, also a feature of Aramaic. For the sake of completeness, let us also note lQIsa3 5:5 ‫ = ויהיה בער‬MT ‫והיה לבער‬. We also meet with an interesting verbal noun syntactically functioning as inf. est. with a proclitic Lamed: 4Q57 frg 6:6 ‫ = מלאה הארץ לרעה את כבוד יהוה‬Isa 11:9 (MT [om. 1 ,[‫כבוד‬QIsaa ‫דעה‬, without the proclitic). As a matter of fact the Hebrew of the MT already provides a forerunner of this development: Is 30:28 ‫' להנפה גוי• בנפת שוא‬to sift nations with a sieve of ..', for which lQIsaa reads ‫ לנפה‬with a weakened guttural h.10 [2] Infinitive absolute There is general consensus that the use of the inf. abs. was on rapid decline already in LBH, in particular its use as categorical imperative and in conjunction with a finite verb of the same lexeme such as ‫מות תמות‬." That it had not completely died out yet in QH is proven in a place where a finite verb in the biblical text is replaced by an inf. abs. 4Q56 frg 22:3 ‫ = ונטןעו כתמים האכול‬MT Isa 37:3012‫נטעו ״!אכלו‬ In the following case a verbal noun is replaced by an inf. abs.— 4Q57 frg 13:9 ‫ = ואסף אסוף‬MT Isa 24:22 ‫ואספו אספה‬. The following example is disputed. 19:22 ‫= ונגף יהוה את מצרים נגף ונרפו‬ Μ Τ ‫ונגף‬ lQIsa3 ‫ נגף ורפוא‬.. ‫יהוה‬ Kutscher (1974:172, 358) takes ‫ נרפו‬as pf.(‫נרפו‬, not ‫ נרפו‬a misprint on p. 172) on the ground that a word-final ο would be spelled ‫וא‬-, but see lQIsa 3 49:21 ‫ = איפו‬MT‫' איפה‬where?'. According to Kutscher (1974:358) the scribe took ‫ נגף‬as Nifal. But would a genuine passive Nifal be followed by the nota objecti? We would rather read ‫נגף נרפו‬, and note the following cases where an inf. abs. in the MT has been replaced by a finite verb— 9

T h e reading ‫ מלגעור‬is that of Strugnell (1970:232).

10

So also Kutscher 1974:506. The noun is in origin an Aramaic Hafel infinitive: Joiion - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: § 80 n. 11

See Kropat 1909:23-24. On the use of the inf. abs. in place of a finite verb in LBH, see Joiion - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: § 123 t-w. 12

The impv. of the second verb, supported by lQIsa" ad 10c. ‫זרעו וקצות‬ ‫ונטוע כרמים ואכולו‬, is Q, whereas Κ agrees with the 4Q text.

4Q58 XI frg 13 i 24 ‫ = ואכהו ואסתר ואקצף‬MT Isa 57:17 ‫ואכהו הסתר ואקצף‬ 1QIsa3 37:19 ‫ = ויתנו‬MT ‫ונתן‬ 1QIsaa 37:30 ‫ אכולו‬bis= MT ‫( אכול‬Q ‫ אכלו‬.. ‫)אכול‬. Γ31 The cohortative and the long imperative The cohortative, and its affiliated impv. with a morpheme /-ā/, are also thought to be on the way to extinction. This is particularly true of the prolonged impv. As regards the impv., we find it significant that there are four short imperatives where the MT has a lengthened impv.: 4Q76 ν 18 ‫ = הגד‬MT Jon 1:8 4;‫הגירה‬Q158frg 1-2:6 ‫ = הגי[ד‬MT 11;‫ספרה‬Q5D Gen 32:30 6;‫הגירה‬Q4xv 6 ‫ = ספר‬MT 2 Kgs 8:4 XXV 4 ‫ = הוצא‬MT Ps 142:8 ‫הוציאה‬. Unless one postulates a defective spelling,‫ הגד‬and ‫ הוצא‬are particularly noteworthy, for their stem vowel also differs from the long form. As against these examples (as well as countless examples where the long impv. appears in both MT and Qumran texts) we need to, in addition to those countless, bear in mind those cases where Qumran texts have a long impv. as against a short one in the MT, e.g., 11Q5 D viii 13 ‫ = זכורה‬MT Ps 119:49 4;‫זכר‬Q137i 56 ‫ = ע[ומודה‬MT Deut 5:28 (31) ‫ = שמעה ;עמד‬MT Deut 20:3 ‫שמע‬: there are six more examples of the same. Note also 4Q22 xvii 10 ‫ = תנה‬MT Exod 17:2 14.‫ תנו‬Kutscher (1974:328) was inclined to regard ‫ שמעה‬at lQIsa3 37:17 not as a genuine long impv., but as a clumsy spelling arising from the weakening of gutturals, but he would not of course be able to explain away a case such as ‫פשטה‬ 1 QIsaa 32:11 (= MTnciiög). In the light of the above-mentioned first group of deviations one would rather regard all seven cases of ‫ שמעה‬as genuine long imperatives. One may conclude then that the long impv. in QH was not yet quite extinct, though it had begun to move in that direction.1 On the cohortative, Qimron has expressed the view that in QH the long form of the first person is automatically chosen when it is attached to the conjunction Waw, whether inversive

'‫ י־‬l Q I s a " . ‫ו א ק צ ו פ ה‬

‫ואכהו ואהסתר‬

14

Some biblical manuscripts and the Samaritan Pentateuch also have ‫( תנה‬Elwolde). 15

On the morphosyntactic distinction between the long and ordinary impv., see Fassberg (1994:13-35), who concludes, inter alia, that the distinction has nothing to do with diachrony. Joosten (1998:156-57) regards the long impv. in QH (and LBH) as a trait of pseudo-classicism.

or conjunctive.16 In the non-biblical texts he has found only one exception: 11Q19 lix 7 ‫( ואסתיר‬a Waw conjunctive). Among biblical texts 11Q5 D xx 2 ‫ = ואומרה‬MT Ps 139:11 4 ;‫ואמר‬Q364 frg 26b i:17 ‫ = ואתפ[שה‬MT Deut 9:17 11;‫ואתפש‬Q19lxv 8 ‫ואקרבה‬ ‫ = אליה‬MT Deut 22:14 ‫ ואקרב אליה‬support his view. Let us note that these are all cases of Waw inversive. However, we also find a few cases of the short impf, with a Waw against the MT with a cohortative: 4Q60 frg 3.2 ‫ = ונו[ כה‬MT Isa 1:181)‫ונוכחה‬QIsa 3 ); 4Q60 frg 5.11 ‫ ואשיב‬.. ‫יר‬0[‫ = וא‬MT Isa l:25f. ‫ ואשיבה‬.. ‫ואסירה‬ 1)QIsa317(‫ואשיבה‬.. ‫ ; ו א ס י ר‬lQIsa 3 5:19 ‫ = ונדע‬MT ‫!נדעה‬. These happen to be all cases of conjunctive Waw. Qimron is of the opinion that the system of "conversive forms" of QH is almost identical with that of the BH cohortative-jussive forms. One might be inclined slightly to nuance this formulation in two respects. 1) The use of the cohortative with the Waw inversive within BH in the Tiberian tradition must have been a secondary development. The use of the jussive form in the same morphosyntactic environment goes back, as universally agreed, to the earlier preterital use of the short impf., and has nothing to do with its genuine jussive, namely volitive, use, whereas the cohortative was originally a volitive form and remained such for a long time in the period of Classical Hebrew. Its use with the Waw inversive can be only understood as an analogical extension of the apocopate form in the second and third persons masculine singular with the Waw inversive. Unlike in QH the use of the standard apocopate form in the first person alongside the cohortative form is far more securely anchored in BH. Thus ‫ ואהי‬occurs 13x as against 9 ‫ ו א ה י ה‬x . Furthermore, "In the Pentateuch very often in the Prophets, cases of this kind [i.e. the first person impf, with the Waw inversive with milra accent—T.M.] are written without mater lectionis, e.g. ‫ואקם‬, ‫ואקם‬. The preponderance of full spelling in these forms in late books suggests that in early BH the 1st person was no different from the other persons in this respect."18 2) Given these multiple functions of the cohortative one is not always certain whether QH still maintained some functional difference in the case of self-standing forms, namely without the proclitic conjunction Waw. Where the MT and its corresponding 16

Qimron 1986:44. The second verb, ‫והשיב‬, is best interpreted as an orthographic/phonetic variant of ‫ואשיב‬. So also Kutscher 1974:353, 505. 17

18

Cf. Talshir 1988:172-75.

QH text do not agree in the choice of the form, is it semantically significant? Or is it that QH authors or copyists selected the short form because the long form was becoming obsolete and that they selected the long form because it was somehow felt to belong to the right literary register? Both latter suppositions appear to find support in cases like the following. In 11Q5 xvi 14 ‫ אשיח‬corresponds to ‫ אשיחה‬of MT Ps 145:5, which is preceded by several long impfs. that are reproduced in the same Qumran fragment. At 1Q5 xviii 4 we have ‫ אשבית‬for the MT Deut 32:26 19 .‫ אשביתה‬On the other hand, at 11Q5 xxv 12 we have ‫ אשיחה‬for MT Ps 143:5 ‫ אשוחח‬where there is no other 1st pers. impf, form in the vicinity. Similarly, at 4Q44 II frg 5 ii 2 ‫ אשכיר[ה‬corresponds to MT Deut 32:42 ‫ אשכיר חצי מדם‬where any functional difference is unlikely as the corresponding verb in the second half of the preceding verb is not long, either in the MT or this Qumran text: ‫ ·למשנאי אשלם‬That both these factors played a role seems to be illustrated by a remarkable mixture of the two competing forms in the following case, and this time even with third person cohortatives: 4Q56 frg 3:5 ] ‫ ותקרבה ותבא‬.. ‫ = ו]י[חישה‬MT Isa 5:19 ‫ וט־עה‬.. ‫יחישה ·· !תקרב ותבואה‬,. lQIsa 3 went a step further with its ‫והקרבה‬, but has ‫יחיש‬. Having said that, one cannot totally preclude the possibility that Qumran Hebraists did retain some feel for the original volitive function of the cohortative. Note 4Q177 ii 8 ‫ עד אנה אשיתה‬for MT Ps 13:3 4;‫אשית‬Q137i 29 ‫ למה ]נם[ ותה‬for MT Deut 5:22 (25) 20 with 4; ‫נמות‬Q2238:3 ‫" למ]ה [יחר א]פך‬why, Ο Lord, should you be angry?" = MT Exod 32:11 2.‫ 'יחרה‬All three are questions which in BH are known to prefer the prefix conjugation: e.g., Gen 37:15 ‫מה־תבקש‬, answered by ‫את אחי אנכי מבקש‬. Another sort of long imperfect is one with the so-called Nun paragogicum attached: ‫ יקטלון‬instead of ‫יקטלו‬. This is another form which would disappear in MH. According to Qimron (1986:45), in the non-biblical texts the morpheme is always linked to biblical texts. By contrast, as far as the biblical texts are concerned, "in most cases they prefer the form ‫( ״ו‬even where MT has ‫)־ון‬, as do the late biblical books and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Yet occasionally they have ‫ ־ון‬instead of MT r . " In lQIsa 8 , according to Kutscher (1974:193), it shortens the long 19

Some biblical manuscripts and the Samaritan Pentateuch also have ‫( אשבית‬Elwolde). 20 Cf. LXX μή άποθάνωμεν.

21 22

The Samaritan Pentateuch also has ‫( יחר‬Elwolde). See Joiion - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: § 1 1 3 d.

MT form in ten cases23, and retains it in 16 cases. He has not found a single instance where the Qumran scroll uses a long form for its short equivalent in the MT.24 As regards the biblical texts I have studied the picture is significantly different from that in lQIsa":‫ יקטלון‬for ‫ יקטלו‬in MT—6x and ‫ יקטלו‬for ‫ יקטלון‬in MT—2x. QH ‫ = יקטלון‬MT ‫יקטלו‬ 11Q19 liv 13 ‫אחרי יהוה אלוהיכמה תלכון ואותו תעבודון ואותו תיראו‬ ‫ = ובקולו תשמעון ובו תדבקון‬MT Deut 13:5 ‫אחרי יהוה אלהיכם תלכו‬ ‫ואתו תיראו ואת מצותיו תשמרו ובקלו תשמעו ואתו תעבדו ובו תרבקון‬52 1Q4 ix 2‫ = תלכון‬MT Deut 13:5 ‫תלכו‬ 4Q135 i 9‫ = תלכון‬MT Deut 5:30 (33)‫תלכו‬ 4Q138 i 21 ‫ = תארכון‬MT Deut 11:9 ‫תאריכו‬ QH ‫ = יקטלו‬MT ‫יקטלון‬ 11Q191vi 11 ‫ = מידו‬MT Deut 17:13 ‫יזידון‬ 4Q139 ν 21 ‫ = תחיו‬MT Deut 5:30 (33)‫תחיון‬ Kutscher (1974:193) prefers to interpret the short forms in lQIsa 3replacing the long ones in MT as due to de-Aramaising,26 the copyist of the scroll Hebraising them in those ten cases. However, he is cautious not to rule out the possibility of archaism. One wonders how he would have interpreted the data outside of lQIsa2. The likelihood of archaism seems to me to become a more distinct option. [4] Prolepsis The phenomenon of prolepsis or anticipatory pronominal referencing is typical of MH27 and Aramaic, particularly Middle Aramaic and subsequent phases, though amply attested already 23

All in the second half of the book with a single exception (‫תאמרו‬ .(8:12 24 On a problematic ‫ תקראון‬Isa 41:22, see Kutscher 1974:193.

25

The Samaritan Pentateuch also has the paragogic Nun in the last two verbs (Elwolde). 26 Yalon (1967 [originally 1951 ]:58) had taken lQIsa" 29:9 ‫ שכרון‬to be an Aramaised verb, Qal 3pl., whereas Kutscher (1974:324) interprets it as a noun. 27 See Azar 1995:213. Sarfatti (1992:348) sees the origin of this frequent syntagm in MH in a clause like ‫( בקול טאתה סומע בו למד‬Mechilta, Pascha i 1), but here the sequence of the components is reversed, just as in 4Q364 frg 30:5 ‫ואת בניכם תצוום‬, which is a plus to MT Deut 11:8.

in Official Aramaic.28 We are concerned here with the proleptic conjunctive pronoun. This feature is attested already in BH, not only in LBH: e.g., Exod 2:6 ‫ ;ותו־אהו את הילד‬Josh 1:2 ‫להם לבני‬ ‫ישראל‬.29 In our corpus we have two clear examples: 4Q365 frg 12b iii 2 ‫ = כאשר צוהו יהוה את מושה‬MT Exod 39:1 .. 110;.. 19 lxvi 4 ‫ = מצאה האיש את האשה‬MT Deut 22:25 ‫ ימצא האיש את הנער‬. In our corpus one example has been found of a proleptic pronoun joined to a preposition: 4Q252 I 4 ‫ = בו ביום הזה‬MT Gen 7:11 3 .‫ ' ב י ו ם הזה‬What is striking here is the scarcity of examples to b found. [5‫ ן‬Impersonal constructions Kutscher (1974:401-3) has already touched on this question, highlighting the fact that the third person (masculine) singular passive verb form in MT32 appears in lQIsa3 in its corresponding third person masculine active plural form, which is especially frequent with the verb ‫ קרא‬as at lQIsa 3 1:26 ‫= יקראו לך עיר הצדק‬ ΜΤρ‫־‬τ»τ ‫יקרא לך עיר‬. This same phenomenon is attested in other Qumran biblical manuscripts: 4Q59 frg 21:3 ‫ =( עבדו בך‬lQIsa3 ad loc. ‫)עבדו בכה‬ = MT Isa 14:3 11 ;‫בך‬ ‫ה הקשה אשר עבד‬ 33 = MT Deut 17:4 .‫והכדלך‬ However, that this syntactic feature, which would disappear from MH, had not yet totally become obsolete can be seen where such a feature is retained as in lQIsa 3 53:5 [= MT] ‫נרפא לנו‬. BH knows another syntagm for the expression of impersonal subject, namely the third person masculine singular active, which has also been transformed into an active masculine plural form34, e.g. lQIsa3 53:9 ‫ = ויתנו את רשעים קברו‬MT 4;‫ויתן‬Q365frg 32:14 28

See Muraoka - Porten 1998: § 61 c(i), (ii), (x); 63. See also Dan 5:30 ‫בה ב ל י א א‬, which is not to be confused with ib. 3:6, 15; 4:30; 5:5 ‫ בה שעתה‬and ib. 3:7, 8; 4:33, Ezr 5:3 .‫בה זמנא‬ 29

See Joüon - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: § 146 e.

3(1

‫ מצאה‬is unlikely a phonetic/orthographic variant of ‫מצא‬: see line 7 ‫' בשדה מצאה‬he found her in the field.' 31

Mr M. Baasten, a student of mine, suggests another possible interprétation, namely ‫ בו‬as a reference to the second month mentioned before. A similar turn of phrase occurs later in the t e x t : . ‫ב ו‬ ‫באחד‬ 32

fa.

33 34

See Joüon - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: § 128 b-ba, 132 e-f, 150 j N, 152 The Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with 11Q19 (Elwolde). See J o ü o n - M u r a o k a 1991 [1993]: § 150 ;'N, 155 b N.

‫ = למקום ההואה קראו נחל אשכול‬MT Num 13:24 35.‫ קרא‬This active syntagm, however, appears to have been more resistant to the change. This is confirmed from an incomplete substitution at lQIsa 3 16:10 ‫ = לוא ירננו ולוא ירועע‬MT ‫לא יתן לא ילעע‬, and particularly where the impersonal passive singular corresponds to this active syntagm: lQIsa3 26:1 ‫ = ישיר‬MT ‫ ;יושר‬ib. 26:10 ‫= יחון רשע‬ MT.. 4;36‫יחן‬Q364frg 13a-b 8 ‫ = לא יקום‬MT Exod 21:21 ‫לא יקם‬. This syntagm has survived in MH: e.g., m. Bes. 1.4 ‫אין מוליכין‬ ‫ עומד ואומר‬.. ‫ לא יטל‬.. ‫את הסלם משובך לשובך אבל מטהו מחלון לחלון‬ where one sees both the sg. and pi. used side by side—,‫מוליכין‬ ‫מטהו‬, ‫יטל‬, ‫עומד‬, ‫אומר‬.37

[6] The definite article with a nomen regens Already in BH we meet with non-standard phrases such as Isa 36:8 2;‫ ה מ ל ךאשור‬K g s 23:17 8.‫ המזבח בית־אל‬Lema collected a large number of examples and classified them.39 35

Some biblical manuscripts and the Samaritan Pentateuch read like 4Q365 (Elwolde). 3ft The scribe possibly read the form as a defectively spelled active. Similar uncertainty obtains with another example mentioned by Kutscher (1974:402): lQIsa" 28:18 ‫ = וכפר את בריתכמה‬MT .‫וכפר בריתכם‬ 37 38 y)

See Segal 1936a:65-66. See Joiion - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: 1 140 c, König 1897: § 303 d.

A. Lemaire 1979-84:136-39. For our purpose, however, examples such as Num 21:14 ‫ הנחלים אתון‬and 2Kgs 16:17 ‫ הבקר הנחטת‬should be left out of consideration, since the first noun is in st. abs. Lemaire (139) is in favour of Brockelmann's idea (1908: § 247 b and 248) that some construct phrases are semantically equivalent to compound nouns. But one would then expect the article used only once, if at all, with the first component as in colloquial Modern Hebrew ‫הבית ספר‬. On the other hand, Lemaire's (139) suggestion that the article in a phrase like ‫ המלך אטור‬was possibly intended to underline the determinedness of the first noun is attractive, since the same anarthrous Hebrew phrase could possibly mean "a king of Assyria." This unique syntax appears to me to be an analogical development of a syntagm reflected as in ‫הבן הצעיר‬, for in both syntagms the second constituent modifies the first in one way or another. The syntagm, however, is then diametrically opposed to another non-standard one exemplified by Gen 1:31 ‫יום הטטי‬, on which see Joiion - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: § 138 b. Another related syntagm of doubly plural construct chain as in Deut 9:2 ‫ בני ענקים‬for ‫ בני ענק‬in the same verse may lend itself to similar explanation. Incidentally, this syntagm, quite common in MH and QH (Qimron 1986:74-75), is often said to be characteristic in BH of late books (Qimron 1986:74; Hurvitz 1972:38), but it is in fact attested quite often in early books of the OT: see examples in Joiion - Muraoka (1991 [1993]: § 136 o). Examples in our corpus are: 4Q463 frg 1:2 ‫בארצות אויביהמ]ה‬ = MT Lev 2 6 : 4 4 1;‫ ב א ר ץאיביהם‬Q I s a " 10:10 ‫ = ממלכות האלילים‬MT ‫ממלכת האליל‬

According to Azar (1995: § 6.2.1) the feature is to be found occasionally (‫ )לעתים‬in the prima manus of Codex Kaufmann of the Mishnah: e.g., Sheq. ‫ ;הייד הקדש‬Yom. 5.5 ‫המזבח הזהב‬. In our corpus we have found six certain examples where the underlying biblical text uses the standard syntagm, which is converted to the non-standard one where the definite article is used with the nomen regens . 4Q364 frg 17:3 ‫ = הארון העדות‬Exod 26:34 4Q365 frg 12b ii 4 ‫ = התולעת השני‬Exod 39:3 4Q37 X 12 .. ‫ = ה]ארץ הכנעני[החתי וה]אמורי‬Exod 13:5 ‫ארץ‬ ‫הכנעני‬40.. 4Q54 frg 6:11 1 = ‫שני הלחות האבנים‬ Kgs 8:9 4Q138 i 5‫ = האדון האדו]נים‬Deut 10:17 ‫אדני האדנים‬ 1QIsa3 8:2342.‫הארץנפתלי‬ 7]] The definite article with a proclitic preposition In BH, and especially in LBH, though not exclusively therein, we find the definite article inserted or retained between a proclitic preposition and the substantive, e.g. 2 Chr 10:7 43.‫ להעם‬The following examples from our corpus have come to our notice: 4Q67 2 ‫ = מהשבת‬MT Isa 58:13 ‫משבת‬ 4Q140 5 ‫ = להגר‬MT Exod 12:49 ‫לגר‬ 1 QIsaa 14:12.‫משמים =מהשמים‬ 8]] The verb complementation44 It is known that, where a direct object is a personal pronoun, LBH tends to prefer the synthetic structure.45 This is confirmed lQIsa 3 11:8 ‫ = מאורות צפעונים‬MT ‫מאורת צפעוני‬. See also Kutscher 1974:399 and Polzin 1976:42. For this whole issue, see a contribution in this volume by Prof. Borg. 40 Similarly a t 4 Q 1 3 0 1 3 = Exod 13:9; ib. i 8 = Exod 13:11. 41 Barrera (1995:177) adduces ‫ הלחות‬at 2 Chr 5:10, a parallel passage, which, however, is misleading since the Chronicle passage does not have !‫האבנים‬ 42

11Q19 lxv 9‫ אל הזקנים השער‬..‫ = והוציאו‬MT Deut 22:15 ‫ זקני העיר השערה‬..: in the light of the MT the noun ‫ השער‬is perhaps a local adjunct. 43

See Joüon - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: § 35 e, and see an exhaustive listing in DCH 2.480a-b. 44 See Muraoka 1997. 45 See Polzin 1976:28-31, Qimron 1978:97, Qimron 1986:75-77, and Muraoka 1997a:97-98. Segal's position (Segal 1927:95) that there is no difference between BH and MH in this regard has been rectified by C. Cohen (1983), according to whom the MH allows the analytic structure under welldefined morpho-phonological and syntagmatic conditions only and the

by the following examples, all from the Temple Scroll: 11Q19 liii 21 ‫ = הניאה‬MT Num 30:6 ‫הניא אביה אתה‬ 11Q19 liv 6 ‫ = אנוכי מצו)כ(ה‬MT Deut 13:164‫אנכי מצוהאתכם‬ 11Q19 lx 20‫ = אנכי מורישם‬MT Deut 18:12‫יהוה אלהיך מוריש אותם‬ 11Q19 lxii 16‫ = ילמדוכה‬MT Deut 20:18 ‫ילמדו אתכם‬ 11Q19 lxiv 3 ‫ = והוציאוהו‬MT Deut 21:19 ‫והוציאו אותו‬ 11Q19 lxvi 2 ‫ = סקלום‬MT Deut 22:2447‫סקלתםאתם‬ In the case of a nominal direct object our corpus shows an unmistakable preference for explicitly marking it by means of ‫את‬ 4Q364 17.. ‫ = ואת השלהן חתן‬MT Exod 26:35 .. ‫והשלהן תתן‬ 4Q365 frg 9b ii 4 ‫ = ולקחתה מן ]האיל[ את כול ה]ה[לב‬MT Exod 29:22 (no(‫אתכול‬ 4Q41 III 10‫ = ועשית את כל מלאכתך‬MT Deut 5:13 (no48(‫את‬ 11Q19 lxv 4 ‫ = לוא תקח את האם‬MT Deut 22:6 (no (‫את‬ 1QIsa3 28:18 ‫ = וכפר את בריתכמה‬MT ‫ןכפר בריתכם‬ There are 26 more examples of the same kind: 1Q1 iii 2 = Gen 22:14; 4Q365 frg 6a ii and 6c = MT Exod 15:26; 4Q31 I 6 = Deut 2:25; 4Q33 frg 32:1 = Deut 26:18; 4Q38a frg 5:7 = Deut 26:4; 4Q41 III 10 = Deut 5:12; 4Q47 IV frg 10:9 = Josh 7:17; 4Q129 i r 6 = Deut 5:11; 4Q137 i 19 = Deut 5:11; 4Q130 i 21 = Deut 11:14; 4Q11 fr 8:11 = Exod 10:3; 11Q5 D xiv 10 = Ps 135:3; lQIsa 3 2:4, 8:6,17, 14:4, 28:18, 36:16, 37:11, 48:20, 51:6,13, 52:9, 15, 55:11, 65:21, 66:4,6. Counter examples number only 9: 4Q177 ii 8 ‫ = תסת[יר פניכמה ממני‬MT Ps 13:2 ‫את פניך‬ 4Q38 frg 1:2‫ = ולש[ מור מצות]י‬MT Deut 5:29 (with ‫ ;)את‬likewise 11Q19 lv 13 = MT Deut 13:19; 11Q5 D ii 6 = Ps 148:1; 4Q11 fr 23:8 = Exod 23:9; 4Q22 xl 32 = Exod 34:13; 4Q45 fr 21:1 = Deut 15:8. synthetic syntagm is thus the unmarked one. Note 4Q35 frg 4:26 ^‫ = להראוו‬MT Deut 1:33 ‫לראתכם‬, on which see Cohen's observation that the 2nd pi. object preefers the analytic syntax (Cohen 1983:216). 46

11Q19 has ‫ אותכה‬above the line (Elwolde).

47

Qimron (1986:76) is puzzled by two exceptions in the Temple Scroll where the synthetic structure of the MT is replaced by the analytic one: 11Q19 XX 16, lxiii 10, both ‫אותמה‬. An influence of the Aramaic syntax? The author, however, is then not being consistent: see the third and six examples cited above. 48

Note that the orthography of this manuscript is in general full in comparison with the MT: Crawford 1995:118. The copyist could have chosen here to spell three words plene, though he did add the nota objecti.

Kutscher (1974:412-13) reports on the results of two pieces of small-scale research undertaken by two of his students, which display two diametrically opposed tendencies: the later the material, the more frequent the use of ‫את‬, but the Chronicler sometimes deletes it when his sources have it.49 He goes on to say: "the ‫ את‬becomes less common in Rab. Hebr.," without any substantiating statistics or examples.50 By contast, Azar (1995:6062) is quite clear: the basic rules of BH apply. He does, however, specify a number of conditions under which the expected particle is missing. Of the various prepositions linking an indirect object to its verb, it is to be noted that there is a marked tendency to replace ‫ אל‬by ‫ ל‬or occasionally by 51.‫ על‬The Aramaic, which makes only sparing use of ‫אל‬, must have played a role here.52 1QS 2.4 ‫ ישא פני חסריו לכה‬// MT Num 6:26 ‫ישא יהוה פניו אליך‬ 6Q4 XV 4 ‫ = בא על הארץ‬MT 2Kgs 8:1 ‫אל‬ 11Q5 D ν 9 ‫ = אלוהיכם עליכם‬MT Ps 129:8 ‫לא אמרו ברכת‬ ‫יהוה עליכם‬ 4Q130 i 8 ‫ = יבאך יהוה על הארץ הכנעני‬MT Exod 13:11 ‫אל‬ 1QIsa3 2:2 ‫ = נהרו עלוהי‬MT ‫אליו‬ 4Q72 xxii 9 ‫ = או[ליכם על נהל] י מי[ם‬MT Jer 31:8 ‫אל‬ 4Q72 xxii 14 ‫ = ונהרו על טוב יהוה‬MT Jer 31:11(‫(אל‬// ‫על‬ 1 QIsaa 22:11 ‫ = לוא הבטתמה על עושיה‬MT ‫אל עשיה‬ 4Q70 xiv 21 ‫ = ואמרו א]י[ש על רעהו‬MT Jer 22:8 ‫אל‬ 49

The translation here, "has a tendency to omit", should be corrected: the Hebrew original reads ‫עשוי להשמיט‬. Incidentally, even with the valuable service rendered by E. Qimron with his Indices and Corrections (Qimron 1979), Kutscher's monograph of fundamental importance is still in need of a thorough correction of its English translation. Another example is: "‫ את‬is extremely rare in the poetic portions of the Pentateuch and in the book of Samuel" (p. 412), where the second "in" must be deleted. It appears that in 13 cases the Chronicler deletes the particle from his sources, but adds it in six cases. To the passages mentioned by Kutscher (loc. cit.), the following, most of which have been supplied by a Ph.D. student of mine, Michael Malessa, ought to be added: 1 Chr 10:7 = 1 Sam 31:7, 2 Chr 3:17 = 1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 15:16 = 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Chr 23:6 = 2 Kgs 11:7; 2 Chr 3ìAbis = 2 Kgs 18:4Ws; 2 Chr 33:8 = 2 Kgs 21:8; 2 Chr 33:9 = 2 Kgs 21:9; 2 Chr 34:27 = 2 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 34:29 = 2 Kgs 23:1; 2 Chr 34:31 = 2 Kgs 23:3. 50 In Kasovsky's Mishnah concordance the particle, not including those with pronominal suffixes, takes up as many as 66 columns, which is quite substantial by any standard. 1 This is one of the conclusions reached also by Michael Malessa. 52

See Bendavid 1967-71: II 116, 369-70.

‫= לכו ‪ ..‬לגוי ‪lQIsa 3 18:2‬‬ ‫‪^M‬‬ ‫‪ ..‬אל‪ = MT ..‬שב לארצו ‪1QIsa* 37:7‬‬ ‫אלי ‪ = MX Ps 101:2‬תבוא לי ‪11Q5 A,B,C i 2‬‬ ‫אליו ‪ = MT Exod 13:14‬ואמרת לו ‪4Q130 i 11‬‬ ‫ויאמר אליו ‪ = MT Gen 32:28‬ויאמר לו ‪4Q158 frg 1-2:5‬‬ ‫אמר אלי ‪ = MT Ru. 2:21‬אמר לי ‪2Q16 iii 6‬‬ ‫= הגידה נא[ לי מה שמכה ‪4Q364 frg 5b ii 12:‬‬ ‫‪32:30‬‬ ‫הגידה נא שמך‬ ‫הגי[ד נא לי מ]ה ‪//4Q158 frg 1-2:6‬‬ ‫ויקרא פרעה אל משה ‪ = MT Exod 10:24‬למשה ‪4Q22 vii 32‬‬ ‫לוא תשמע אל דבר הנביא ההוא או לחולם החלום ‪11Q19 liv 10-11‬‬ ‫‪ ..‬אל דברי הנביא ההוא או אל חולם החלום ההוא ‪ = MT Deut 13:4‬ההואה‬ ‫כקרבכם ‪ = MT Deut 20:2‬כקרובכמה למלחמה ‪11Q19 lxi 14‬‬ ‫אל־המלחמה‬ ‫ירדו ‪ ..‬אל מקום ‪ = MT Ps 104:8 ..‬ולכ]ל מקום ‪2Q14 ii 2‬‬ ‫ויבאו ‪ ..‬אל ‪ = MT 1Kgs 8:6‬אל מקמו לדביר הבית ‪4Q54 frg 6:8‬‬ ‫מקומו אל דביר הבית‬ ‫‪The only counter examples are:‬‬ ‫‪ = MT Deut 5:24-(27) where‬יומר יהוה אלהינו אליכה ‪4Q135 i 5‬‬ ‫‪ is missing53‬אליך‬ ‫על ‪ = MT 18:23‬אל מקו]מו יבוא בשלום ‪4Q22 xix 5‬‬ ‫את ‪ = MT Josh 17:14‬וידברו בני]יו[‪0‬ף אל י]הו[שע ‪4Q48 frg 5:7‬‬ ‫אל(‬ ‫‪ (pc. mss.‬על‪ = MT‬לך בוא ‪ ..‬אל שבנא ‪1QIsa3 22:15‬‬ ‫ישוב לביתו ‪ = MT Deut 20:8‬ישוב אל ביתו ‪11Q19 62.3‬‬ ‫ונשאת המשל הזה על ‪ = MT Isa 14:4‬אל מלך בבל ‪4Q59 frg 21:4‬‬ ‫מלך בבל‬ ‫‪.‬על ‪ x[n = MT Isa 10:28‬אל עיות‪4Q57 frg 3-5:6‬‬ ‫‪ = pesher on MT Hab 1:10‬ובלעג ישחקו עליהם ‪Cf. 1QpHab 4.6‬‬ ‫‪.‬לכל מבצר ישחק‬ ‫‪Furthermore, there are seven verbs which take a direct object‬‬ ‫—‪in the MT, but an indirect object in our corpus‬‬ ‫זמרו יהוה ‪ = MT‬זמרו ליהור ‪lQIsa3 12:5‬‬ ‫ופרי‪ MT ...54‬י = על פרי בטן לוא ירחמו ‪1QIsa3 13:18‬‬ ‫קראתי ‪ = MT Exod 31:2‬קראתי בשם לבצלאל ‪4Q365 frg 10:3‬‬ ‫"בשם בצלאל‬ ‫עלה ראש הפסגה ‪ = MT Deut 3:27‬ע[לה על ראש הפסגה ‪4Q31II17‬‬ ‫עלי הלבנון ‪ = MT Jer 22:10‬עלי בלבנון ‪4Q72 XIII 6‬‬ ‫תעבדם ‪ = MT Deut 5:9‬תעבד [ל] הם ‪4Q42 frg 6-7:2‬‬ ‫‪53‬‬

‫‪Similarly at 4Q137 i 36.‬‬ ‫‪On the complementation of this Piel verb in the sense of "to have pity‬‬ ‫‪on," see Hurvitz 1972:107-9.‬‬ ‫‪54‬‬

‫‪55‬‬

‫‪The use of a direct object in this syntagm is attested as late as 1 Chr‬‬ ‫‪6:50 (//Josh 21:9).‬‬

56 1Q6 v-vi 4 ‫ = צרים על ה] עיר‬MT Judg 9:31 with ‫את‬ Cf. also 4Q76 IV 2 ‫ = נדברו יראי יהוה איש[ על רעהו‬MT Mal 3:16 with .‫את‬

91] The Heh locale If we focus on the adverb of place from lQIsa 3 is instructive. According the following statistics emerges— 1QIsa3 ‫שם‬ ‫שמה‬ ‫משמה‬ ‫שמה‬

‫שם‬, the picture emerging to Kutscher (1974:413), MT ‫שם‬ ‫שם‬ ‫משם‬ ‫שמה‬

13 9 2 75‫ד‬

Three things are to be noted. 1) lQIsa3 clearly favours the marked, long form. 2) When lQIsa 3 deviates from the MT, it is never from the long to the short form, but the other way round. 3) Including the two cases of ‫משם‬/‫משמה‬, of course, the long form has mostly lost its directional force, and the ending is that of locative adverbial, cf. the ubiquitous and typical Qumranic ‫מאורה‬/‫ מוארה‬for the MT ‫מאד‬. With other nouns or place-names, lQIsa\ where it departs from the MT, prefers the unmarked form, e.g. lQIsa 3 8:23 ‫ = ארץ זבולון והארץ נפתלי‬MT ‫ארצה זבלון וארצה נפתלי‬ 1QIsa3 28:6 ‫ = משיבי מלחמה שער‬M T . . ‫שערה‬ 1QIsa3 36:2 ‫ = ירושלים‬MT58‫ירושלמה‬ As regards the remainder of our corpus, the figures relating to those cases where a Qumran text shows ‫ שמה‬as against the MT‫ שם‬or vice versa are as follows:

56

One of the only two instances of ‫" צר את‬to besiege (a city)", the other example being in 1 Chr 20:1 (// 2 Sam 11:1 ‫)על‬. 58

Add xxii 18 bis. Cf. lQIsa" 43:14 ‫ = שלחתי בבבל‬MT ‫שלחתי בבלה‬.

MT QH 959 ‫שם‬ ‫שמה‬ 60 ‫שמה‬ ‫שם‬ Whereas the majority of deviations from the MT are in favour of the marked form, unlike in lQIsa3 there are also six deviations in the opposite direction. That the semantic consideration is not the decisive one is clear from examples such as 4Q11 frg 33:7 ‫ = וה[באות שם‬MT Exod 26:33 ‫ והבאת שמה‬and 11Q19 lx 14 ‫ = העומדים שמה‬MT Deut 18:7 with ‫שם‬. The preference of the unmarked form with ordinary substantives and place-names applies as in the case of lQIsa3: e.g., 4Q364 14:3 ‫ = על]ה אלי[ ההר‬MT Exod 24:12 ‫עלה אלי ההרה‬ (similarly at 4Q364 frg 26b,e ii 4 = Deut 10:1); 4Q56 frg 31 i 3 ‫ = שלחתי בבל‬MT Isa 43:14 4;‫ ש ל ח ת יבבלה‬Q 2 2 V 8 ‫= השמים‬ 9:8 ‫השמימה‬. See also 4Q364 frg ii 8 = MT Gen 28:6; 4Q364 19a-b 12 = Num 33:46; 4Q72 VII 11 = Jer 20:4; 4Q76 V 6 and 4Q82 frg 78:7 = Jon. 1:3; 4Q82 frg 38:2 = Joel 4:4; 11Q19 lvi 16 = Deut 17:16; 4Q138 i 8 = Deut 10:22. Cf. 4Q31 II 17f. ‫ = ים וצפנה תימנה ומזרחה‬MT Deut 3:27 ‫ימה‬ ‫וצפנה ותימנה ומזרחה‬. The counter-examples are: 4Q364 17:5 ‫ואת השלחן תתן על צלעו‬ ‫ = צפונה‬MT Ex 26:35 4;‫צפון‬Q11frg 35:5 ‫ = נגבה‬Exod 27:9 ;‫נגב‬ 4Q56 frg 25:10 ‫ = בב[לה‬MT Isa 39:6, 1QIsa3 ‫בבל‬. See also 4Q70 VIII i:5 ‫ = בפרתה‬Jer 13:5 ‫בפו־ת‬. For the purpose of diachronic evaluation of these data it is important to remember that the locative or directional morpheme has become almost obsolete in MH except in fossilised lexemes such as ‫ למטה‬and ‫למעלה‬. ‫ שמה‬and ‫ הנה‬have been replaced by ‫לשם‬ and ‫ לכאן‬respectively. In QH ‫ שמה‬is still attested some 25 times,61 whereas ‫ הנה‬occurs five times, but only in two fixed idioms: ‫ הנה והנה‬and ‫עד הנה‬, but never in a straightforward collocation as in Gen 15:16 ‫;־שובו הנה‬. The same holds for ‫ לחוץ‬as against ‫חוצה‬ 6

59

E.g., 4Q35 frg 4.29 ‫ = תבוא טמה‬MT Deut 1:37 ‫סם‬. Similarly 4Q57 frg 9 ii 17 = Isa 23:12 [= 1QIsa*]; 4Q365 frg 6a ii and 6c 11 = Exod 15:25; 4Q365 frg 32:11 = Num 13:22; 11Q19 lx 13 = Deut 18:6; 11Q19 lx 14 = Deut 18:7; 11Q19 lxiii 2 = Deut 21:4. See a1s0 4Q137 i 22 ‫ =מ[טמה‬Deut 5:14 4;‫מטם‬Q138126 = Deut 11:10. Note also 4Q158 frg 1-2:3 ‫וי]תר י[עק]וב ל[בדו טמה‬ where the local adverb is wanting in the MT Gen 32:25. 60

E.g., 4Q364 17:1 ‫ = הביא[תה טם‬MT Exod 26:33 with ‫טמה‬. See also 4Q60 frg 17:7 bis= Isa 22:18 [= 1QIsa1; 4Q40 frg 3:7 = Deut 3:21; 4Q11 fr 33:7 = Exod 26:33; 4Q22 xxiii 8 = Exod 22:13. 61 According to Charlesworth 1991. Examples are 1Q22 i 9 ‫עוברים‬ ‫ ;את ]הי[רדן טסה‬4Q174 frg 1:3 4;‫ ל ו א יבואטמה‬Q 1 5 9 ν 5 1:5 ‫ואץ לך טמה טל]ו[ם‬.

4;

or 62.‫ החוצה‬Note 4Q37 X 1 ‫ = לחוץ‬MT Exod 12:46 ‫חוצה‬. In BH the marked form occurs quite frequently from Gen onwards, whereas ‫ לחוץ‬is confined to Ezek 41:17, 42:2 and Ps 41:7. One may conclude then that, as far as the locative morpheme is concerned, QH was fast approaching the situation which would prevail in MH, though the morpheme was still an integral part of the langue of authors and copyists of the DSS. Γ101 Tenses The deviations in lQIsa3 vis-à-vis MT with respect to tenses have been closely studied by Kutscher (1974:328-30, 350-58). 1 ) Kutscher's data on Lamed-Heh verbs show that, when he deviates from the MT, the scribe of lQIsa 3 has a marked tendency to use the long pc. (prefix conjugation) forms instead of the corresponding short ones in the MT, 13 examples,63 as against only the one deviation in the other direction. This is more significant than the fact pointed out by Kutscher that, in contrast to Lamed-Heh verbs other than ‫ היה‬and ‫חיה‬, these latter two verbs show in lQIsa 3 "a relatively large number of instances of the lengthened form" (Kutscher 1974:329). For quite a few cases of MT long = lQIsa 3 long of these two verbs, which Kutscher does not even bother to cite exhaustively, are less significant than cases of deviation for our purpose of studying the general drift shown by the scribe of lQIsa3. The only relevant example in our corpus excluding lQIsa 3 that has come to our notice is 65 .‫תען‬ 11Q5 14.2 ‫ = תענה‬MT Ps 119:172 2) The other important conclusion drawn by Kutscher (1974:351-52) is that the scribe of lQIsa3 preferred the conjunctive Waw to the inversive Waw and tended to use the sc. (suffix conjugation) as a preterital tense and the pc. as a future tense. The preference for the Waw conjunctive is indeed evident in a large number of examples in our corpus outside of lQIsa3.66 In 62

‫ חוצה‬occurs in MH in combination with a following preposition as in -‫חוצה ל‬. Interestingly this composite syntagm is attested already in LBH: 2 Chr' 3 3 : 1 5 ‫ ;רשלן־ חוצה לעיר‬E z e k 4 0 : 4 0 ‫ ;מחוצה לעלה‬Ezek 4 0 : 4 4 ‫מחוצה לשער הפנימי‬. Note also 4Q394 frg 3-7 ii:IT [= 4QMMT Β 30] ‫צה[ למחנה‬Jim, and see Qimron's note at Qimron 1994: § 3.5.2.8. 63 64

E.g., lQIsa 3 5:2‫ ויעשה‬.. ‫ = ויבנא‬M T . ‫ ו י ע ש‬. . ‫ו י ב ן‬ 1QIsa" 37:362/ =]‫ ו י ך‬K g s

19:35] = MTrrçs.

65

This example shows that the point made by Kutscher, however, is important and provides an eloquent account of the variation at 11Q5 14.2-5 ‫ תחי‬. . ‫ ת ה י‬.. ‫ = תענה‬M T P s 119:172-75 .‫ תחי‬. . ‫ ת ה י‬. . ‫ת ע ן‬ 66

For many examples in lQIsa" of the deviation pattern (a), see Kutscher

11Q19 Smith (1991:59) has found as many as 43 unconverted imperfects as against 136 (read:8467) converted perfects. a) QH Waw + pc. = MT Waw inv. + sc.— 4Q365 frg 7 i 3‫ = עוד מעט ויסוקלוני‬MT Exod 17:4...‫וסקלני‬ 4Q78 frg 18:9 ‫ = וירעשו‬MT Joel 4:16 ‫ומירושלים ייתן‬ ‫רעשו שמים וארץ‬/! ‫קולו‬ ‫ ״‬4Q1621:1‫ = הסר פר[ ץ גדרו ויהי למרמס‬MT Isa 5:568. ‫והיה‬ 4Q72 xxii 7 ‫ = ואקבצם‬MT Jer 31:869‫וקבצתים‬.. ‫הנני מביא‬ 4Q175 3 {‫ = מי ינתן ויהיה לבבם זה להם} ה‬MT Deut 5:26 (29) ..70‫מי יתןוהיה‬ 11Q19 lxiv 6 ‫ = וימות‬MT Deut 21:21 ‫ומת‬ b) QH Waw + sc. = MT Waw inv. + pc.— 4Q365 frg 32:10 ‫ = ועלו‬MT Num 13:22 ‫ויעלו‬ 4Q37 III 6 ‫ = וחי‬MT Deut 5:23 (26)‫ ויחי‬... ‫שמע‬. The following cases, where a Waw inversive is absent in QH when the corresponding MT has one and the pc. is used as a future, are indicative of a measure of uneasiness over such a Waw on the part of DSS authors or scribes.71 c) QH 0 pc. = MT Waw inv. + sc.— 4Q30 frg 45 ii 2 ‫ = ירדפוך‬MT Deut 28:22 ‫ ורדפוך‬.. ‫יבכה‬ 4Q76 II 5 ‫ = יכסו‬MT Mal 2:16 ‫וכסה‬ 11Q191vi 10 ‫ = יומת‬MT Deut 17': 12 ‫ומת‬ 4Q56 frg 10-11:14 ‫ =[ יבושו‬lQIsa 3 ad 10c.] = MT Isa 19 9 ‫ובשו‬ d) QH 0 sc. = MT Waw inv. + pc.—no example.72 That the sc. and pc. are functioning as a pure preterital and 1974:357. See n. 72 below. The statistics provided by Abegg (1998:337-78) of various tense categories are difficult to assess on account of his failure to distinguish between the two kinds of Waw preceding a sc. form. Cf. 1QIsa d ad 1 0 c . : . ‫ל מ ר מ ס‬ ‫ ויהיה‬.. ‫ ויהיה‬.. ‫אסיר‬ 69

See further 4Q76 IV 4 = MT Mal 3:17; 4Q161 frg 2-4 8 = MT Isa 10:26; 4Q44 II frg 5 ii 8-11 = MT Deut 32:43. Kutscher (1974:357) lists at least 16 certain examples from lQIsa 3 . 70

Note that it is only here and 2 Sam 15:4 that this idiomatic phrase has ‫ יתן‬followed by the conjunction Waw and a sc. in the MT, whereas in Job 19:23 and 23:3 we have, as in our Qumran text, a pc. form following the Waw. ° 71

For quite a few examples of the deviation pattern (c) in 10Isa 3 see Kutscher 1974:357f. ' 72

Kutscher (1974:354) knows only one such example: lQIsa 3 12 2 ‫היהא‬ ‫ = לי לישועה‬MT ‫ ויהי לי לישועה‬..‫עזי‬.

future form respectively is abundantly clear in the following cases where the conjunction must be conjunctive. e) QH Waw + sc. = MT 0 sc.— 4Q57 frg 52:38 ‫ = ונשאר‬MT Isa 24:12 1=]‫ נ ש א ר‬Q I s a a f) QH Waw + pc. = MT 0 pc.— 4Q58 frg 5:21, 4Q47 frg 2 9 : 2 1=]‫ ו י ע מ ד ו‬Q I s a a ad 1 Isa 48:13 ‫יעמדו‬ 3) Nevertheless, that the inversive Waw was far from defunct is in no doubt, as has also clearly been demonstrated by Smith (199L59).73 This is evident in examples of the pc. with Waw and with preterital force, or those of the sc. with Waw and with non-preterital force, where the corresponding MT text has either a free-standing sc. or pc. form— 74 ‫התאזר‬ 11Q5 D 22:16 ‫ = ויתאזר‬MT Ps 93:1 11Q5 D 25:10‫ וישתומם‬.. ‫ = ותתעטף‬MT Ps 143:4 ‫ ישתומם‬.. ‫ותתעטף‬ 4Q57 frg 52:39 ‫ וצהלו‬.. ‫ = ישא]ו[ קולמ}ה{ ורננו‬MT Isa 24:14 [1QIsaa= MT ad loc.] ‫ צהלו‬.. ‫ יתו‬.. ‫ישאו קולם‬ 4Q57 frg 32:6 [= 1QĪsa3 ad loc.] ‫ = ו]נם‬MT Isa 51:11 75‫נסו‬ 4Q58 VIII frg 11 ii 19 ‫ = והאריך‬MT Isa 53:10 ‫[ יאריך‬ÍQIsa 3 ad loc. [‫ויארך‬ 4Q58 VIII frg. 11 ii 20 ‫ ושבע‬.. ‫ = יראה‬MT 53:11=]‫יראה ישבע‬ [‫ישבע‬ 1QIsa3 1QIsa3 30:23 ‫ ורעה‬.. ‫ = והיה דשן‬MT ‫ ירעה‬.. ‫ןהיה ךשן‬ One should also note the following cases where a conjunctive Waw in the MT corresponds to an inversive one in QH: 4Q365 frg 2:6 ‫ = השכם בבוקר והתיצבתה‬MT Exod 8:16 ‫ והתיצב‬.. ‫השכם‬, i.e. two coordinate imperatives 4Q171 frg 1-2 ii 15 ‫ = חרב פתחו רשעים וידרוכו קשתם‬MT Ps 37:14..‫ודרכו‬ 4Q57 frg 30:2 ‫ = הביאות[יהו וא]צליח‬MT Isa 48:15 ‫הביאתיו והצליח‬ 1]QIsa3 ‫]והצליחה‬ That authors and scribes of the DSS had begun to show a certain ambivalence towards the inversive Waw and that were not always absolutely certain about intricacies and subtleties of BH syntax in these matters is further shown where they initially follow the classical pattern with an inversive Waw and sub73

"Converted forms are prevalent in literary QL [= Qumran literature]." His figure of 136 converted perfects is somewhat inflated because it includes 52 cases of verbatim or near verbatim quotation from the biblical text. 74 75

Cf. LXX και περ1€ζώσατο. Many manuscripts have Waw.

sequently switch to a conjunctive Waw, and occasionally back again to a Waw inversive— 4Q175 5 ‫ ונתתי דברי בפיהו וידבר‬.. ‫ = נבי אקים‬MT Deut 18:18 .. ‫ ודבר‬..‫ונתתי‬ 1QIsaa 20:4f.‫ וחתו ויבושו‬.. ‫ = ינהג‬MT ‫ינהג ·· וחתו ובשו‬ 1QIsa3 27:6 ‫ ויציץ ויפרח ומלאו‬.. ‫ = י ישריש‬MT .‫יציץ‬, ‫ישרש ״‬ ‫ ומלאו‬.. ‫ופרח‬ 11Q19 1xi 15 ‫ ואמר‬.. ‫ = ונגש הכוהן וידבר‬MT Deut 20:2-3 ‫ןנגש‬ ‫הכהן ודבר ·· ואמר‬ That even one of the most accomplished of authors and scribes of the DSS tripped here is illustrated by a hyper-correction at 11Q19 lxii 4 ‫ = ויהי ככלות השופטים לדבר‬MT Deut 20:9 ‫והיה‬ ‫ככלת השטרים לדבר‬.‫ד‬6 To make the matter worse, he failed to notice that the next verb is ‫ = ופקרו‬MT, resulting in an impossible Hebrew. Up to this point the author or the scribe of the Temple Scroll adhered to the biblical text, with a single exception (the last example cited above): 11Q19 lxi 15 ‫ ואמר‬.. ‫ונגש הכוהן וידבר‬ = MT Deut 20:2-3 ‫ ;ונכש הכהן ודבר ·· ואמר‬ib. lxii 2f. ‫ויספו עוד‬ ‫השופ]טים[ ודברו אל העם ואמרו‬. Note also cases of awkward short pc. at 11Q19 xxiii 16-17 ‫ ויקטר הכול‬.. ‫ = יסירנה‬MT Lev 3:15f. 11;77‫ י ס י ת הוהקטיךם‬Q 1 9 lvi 8 ‫ = אשר לוא ישמע ויעש‬MT 11 ;‫ לבלתי שמע‬.. ‫ א ש ר יעשה‬Q 1 9 lix 16 ‫( ויארך ימים רבים‬no doubt a conjunctive Waw).78 Qimron would probably account for these last-mentioned striking forms with reference to his view that QH had its own distinct tense system, according to which the conjunction Waw, whether inversive or conjunctive, triggered the use of the cohortative form in the first person and the apocopate form in the second and third persons. I find it difficult, however, how to reconcile such a system with the system of standard BH, which latter, as shown earlier, authors or copyists of the DSS were reasonably familiar with. In other words, did the system of QH as perceived by Qimron know any functional opposition between1 )‫ ו י ה י‬Q 1 9 lxii 4) and the classical ‫והיה‬, what is found in the MT there and what the scribe or author could have retained? 76

It would be far-fetched to suggest that our author is sharing an isogloss attested to by a unique ‫ ויהי‬at 1 Kgs 14:5: on this highly problematic case, see Driver 1892:148f. 77

Supposing that a Hifil form is intended. Not ‫( ויקטיר‬pace Smith 1991a:48). 78

‫ וימת‬is most likely a defective spelling for a long pc. ‫ וימות‬with a conjunctive Waw in the light of the preceding ‫" ותליתמה‬and you shall hang." Note ‫ וימות‬at lines 6 and 11 in a similar syntactic context. For that matter, both ‫ יקטר‬and ‫ יארך‬could be defective spellings.

Summing up our survey of cases of discrepancy between the MT and direct quotations or allusions to it with respect to the inversive Waw and the two major tense forms, we would say that authors and scribes of the DSS were well acquainted with the rules of BH syntax and so were their reading public. However, there are indications that they themselves felt at times that by adhering to the BH rules they were going against the grain and they were most at ease with the rules that obtained in MH. Cases of mingling of converted and unconverted forms in close proximity could be best accounted for against this background rather than by supposing that QH represented, as far as the syntax of tenses is concerned, yet another dialect beside Classical BH and MH, following a set of well-established rules. From a wider diachronic perspective, I am not certain whether I can fully concur with the idea canvassed by Smith, who writes: ".. two usages of tenses co-existed from the period of the monarchy down to Qumran: one was more formal and literary, and the other approximated more closely to the spoken language. The use of tenses in speech eventually may have superseded the formal usage of converted forms." The use of unconverted forms, namely the sc. as a preterital tense and the pc. as a non-preterital tense, was an integral part of the system even in standard Classical BH, where these verb forms were used either as self-standing forms or as coordinated forms preceded by a conjunctive Waw or asyndetically. This happened not only in speech, but also in a refined literary or formal register. What does characterise the use of these unconverted forms in LBH or QH is a gradual disappearance of their highly specialised uses such as the pc. as either punctiliar preterite or frequentative-iterative-habitual preterite, the virtually total disappearance of the morphologically distinct jussive and cohortative, the so-called prophetic perfect, its performative or optative use and others. 79 [ 12] The conditional ‫כי‬ One of the multifaceted uses of the ubiquitous particle ‫ כי‬is that of introducing a conditional clause.80 It is probably in the interest of the maximum efficiency of communication that QH replaces occasionally such a ‫ כי‬with a particle designated for the 79

The question of tenses in conditional clauses is going to be treated by a former student of mine, Dr van Peursen. 80

The line between temporal and conditional is sometimes vague. We would apply the former term only when the particle introduces an event that actually took place as in the standard narrative ‫ויהי כי‬, e.g., Gen 6:1 ‫ויהי כי‬ ‫" החל האדם לרב‬now when mankind began to multiply."

purpose, namely .‫אם‬ 4Q158 frg 10-12:4 ‫ = אם יגנוב‬MT Exod 21:37 ‫כי יגנב‬ 11Q19 lxiv 8 ‫ = אם יקום‬MT Deut 13:281‫כייקום‬ That the author could tolerate the archaic use is clear from the sequel to the first example mentioned above: later at line 6 ‫ = וכי יבעה‬MT Exod 22:4 ‫כי יבער‬, line 8 ‫ = כיא יוזן‬MT Exod 22:6 82 .‫ כי יוזן‬Furthermore, outside of our corpus, in non-biblical Qumran documents we find a fair number of such a conditional 83 or conditional-temporal :‫כי‬ 1QS 6.4.. ‫והיה כיא יערוכו‬ 11Q19 lviii 3 ‫והיה כי ישמע המלך‬ 1QS 5.21.. ‫וכיא יבוא בברית‬ 1QS 10.2.. ‫כיא יפתח‬ 4Q251 3 i 2‫ו[ כי יריבון אנ]שים‬ 4Q375 1 5 . . ‫וכיא יקום ה׳שבט‬ 11Q19 xlv 7 ‫וא]יש[ כי יהיה לו מקרה לילה‬ 11Q19 xlix 5 ‫ואדם כי ימות‬ 11Q19110‫ואשה כי תהיה מלאה‬ 11Q19 lxiv 6-7 ‫כי יהיה איש רכיל בעמו‬. Note two cases where a conditional ‫ כי‬appears side by side with :‫אם‬ 4Q376 frg 1 iii 1 ‫ או כי ילכו‬.. ‫ יהיה‬.. ‫ואם‬ 4Q159 frg 2-4:8 .. ‫ ·אומר‬.. ‫ אם‬.. ‫כי יוצי‬.

81

Likewise 11Q19 liv 19 = MT Deut 13:7; ib. lv 2 = MT Deut 13:13; ib. lv 13 = MT Deut 13:19; ib. lv 15 = MT Deut 17:2; ib. lxi 7 = MT Deut 19:16, but ib. lxi 2‫ = ו כ י תואמר‬MT Deut 18:21 ‫ופי תאמר‬, similarly ib. lvi 12 = MT Deut 17:14; ib. lx 16 = MT Deut 20:10; ib. lxi 12 = MT Deut 20:1; ib. lxii 5 = MT Deut 20:10; ib. lxiii 10 = MT Deut 21:10; ib. 64:2 = MT Deut 21:12 and a few others in 11Q19. 82

At 4Q129 i r 13 Milik (1977:52 in DJD VI) wants to restore the text as ‫ כי מ]וסיפים‬in the light of MT Deut 5:22 (25) ‫אש יספים‬. The restoration, however, is objectionable, not only on account of the unlikely replacement of ‫ אם‬with ‫כי‬, but since there is no sufficient room to insert Deut 5:22 (25)b and 5:22 (25)a between restored word and the beginning of the following line. It is probably a case of parablepsis, and one should restore, on the basis of 5:22 (25)b, [.. .‫כי מ] י כול בסר אסר‬ 83

The examples have been culled from a listing in

DCH4:386b-387a.

[13] Conclusions It is hoped that this survey, limited in scope as it is, has shown that the method advocated here of studying discrepancies between the MT and the direct quotations from it, paraphrases of it or allusions to it is capable of throwing some valuable light on the nature of the Hebrew of the DSS, its relationship to other phases or dialects of the language, such as BH in general and LBH in particular, Mishnaic Hebrew and the Hebrew of Ben Sira. Our study has also indicated that the description of QH by Kutscher with reference to lQIsa a on the one hand and by Qimron with reference to non-biblical DSS on the other is at places in need of revision or supplementation. This study of twelve morphosyntactic or syntactic isoglosses seems to indicate that QH, in grosso modo, represents a phase of Hebrew between LBH and MH, though one cannot say that it is a direct linear development from LBH and would further develop into MH at every point and detail of the language. Though not a feature of morphosyntax or syntax, there is no way one can account for, to quote only one example, the pronuns ‫ הואה‬and ‫ היאה‬according to such a simple model of historical development. One must obviously allow for dialectal variations, idiolects, sociolects, variations to do with different registers and styles, as one does for any living, natural language. Scholars have already singled out some features unique to 4QMMT, the Copper Scroll, the Temple Scroll and so on. We have yet to discover whether one can identify signs of diachronic development within QH. This transition could only have been gradual, not abrupt. For the moment, it seems to me fair to state that the majority of authors and scribes of the DSS had acquired an admirable command of the grammar, vocabulary, style and idiomatics of the language of the Bible in all its phases and genres, they were quite often acquainted with forms, words, phrases and meanings which had not been preserved in the canonical Bible and the Massoretic form of it, and they often felt comfortable and competent enough to depart from the form of the traditional canonical scriptures. In some of these departures they betrayed unwittingly how their literary language had been moulded and forged, and in which directions it was heading. Amongst some features studied here we have observed that one of the forms was known to both BH and QH in non-biblical documents as well, but would not be used again in MH or replaced by a different form, for example, the inf. est. with Lamed, or the locative adverbial ‫ שמה‬replaced by ‫לשם‬.

CONDITIONAL SENTENCES WITH • ‫ א‬IN THE PROTASIS IN QUMRAN HEBREW Wido T. van Peursen (Leiden)* I: The use of qatal in the protasis of conditional clauses In BH, conditional clauses with introductory ‫ אם‬expressing a condition that is regarded as possible or real in the future usually take yiqtol in the protasis, occasionally qatal.] In MH qatal in the protasis of a conditional sentence is more frequent.2 Professor Qimron, in his The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, noticed that in QH, too, the use of qatal in the protasis of conditional sentences increases.3 The preference for qatal is especially manifest in such pairs as4 CD 9:6-7 ‫ בדבר‬11 ‫אם החריש לו מיום ליום ובחרון אפו בו דבר בו‬ ‫' מות ענה בו‬if he keeps silent about him from day to day and thereafter speaks to him in the heat of his anger [delete first ‫]בו‬, he testifies against himself concerning a capital matter',5 but Num 30:15 ‫ואם החריש יחריש לה אישה מיום אל יום « והקים את כל‬ ‫' נדריה‬but if her husband keeps silent to her from day to day, he shall establish all her vows'.6 * I am very grateful to Professor Qimron, Professor Sivan, and Professor Muraoka for inviting me to present a paper at the workshop, the proceedings of which are contained in the present volume. I am also grateful to Professor Muraoka for commenting on an earlier version of this article. My other contribution to the workshop, a response to Professor Muraoka's lecture, is appendixed to the present article. 1 Driver 1892:178; Joiion-Muraoka 1993:§ 167Λ, n. 1; Qimron 1986:84; Segal 1932:198. 2 Pérez Fernández 1997:126, 215; Mishor 1983:57-58. 3 Qimron 1986:84-85. Note also the relatively high frequency of qatal in Ben Sira: In the extant Hebrew text we find 14 cases of 'im qatal as against 28 cases of 'im yiqtol. 4

See also Qimron's examples from 11QT 66:4-5 (cf. Deut. 22:25) and 4Q158 7:10 (cf. Exod. 21:3). In many instances we follow the translation in Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar 1997-98. 5 Similarly 4Q270 (4QD C ) 6.3:19 [DJD 18, 158], For our translation compare Vermes 1997:168; differently Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar 199798:1.565, who consider ‫ בדבר מות‬as part of the protasis. The double vertical stroke marks the border between the protasis and the apodosis. 6

On the dependence of CD 9:6-7 on Num 30:15 see Thorion-Vardi

4Q161 2-4.2-3 [DJD 5, 12] « ‫אם הי]ה עמכה ישראל כחול הים‬ ‫' ]שאר ישוב בו כליון חרןוץ ושוטף צחקה‬even if [your people,] Israel, wer[e like the sand of the sea, only a remnant will return; extermination is decr]eed, but just[ice] will overflow', but Isa 10:22 ‫ שאר ישוב בו כליון‬11 ‫כי אם יהיה עמך ישראל כחול הים‬ ‫;חרוץ שוטף צרקה‬ 4Q266 6.2:2-3 [DJD 18, 55] ‫ואם ראתה נעו־[!־ והיאה לו ]בעת‬ ‫ והיאה אל תוכל קודש‬11 ‫' נרתה[ שבעת ימים‬and if she ag[ain] sees (blood), and it is not [‫[ ]לוא = לו‬at the time of her menstruation] of seven days, she shall not eat anything hallowed', but Lev 15:25 ‫' ואשה כי יזוב זוב רמה ימים רבים בלא עת בדתה רני‬and if a woman has an issue of her blood many days not at the time of her menstruation ...'.7 4Q266 6.2:12 [DJD 18, 55] [ 1 ] ‫ה‬ ‫ש‬ if he cannot afford [a lamb]', but Lev 12:8 ‫ואם לא תמצא ידה די שה‬. At first sight there is a counter-example in 11QT 53:19-20 ‫ כול נדריה‬11 ‫ואם הנא יאנה אביה אותה ביום שומעו‬ ‫' ואסריה אשר אסרה על נפשה לוא יקומו‬but if her father forbids [‫ ]?יניא‬her on the day when he hears her, all her vows and all her pledges with which she bound herself formally will not remain in force', which is based on Num 30:6 ‫ כל נדריה‬u ‫ואם הניא אביה אתה ביום שמעו‬ ‫ואסריה אשר אסרה על נפשה לא יקום‬, but here the use of yiqtol in the protasis in the Temple Scroll passage may be related to a textcritical issue, because in the Samaritan Pentateuch the protasis has an imperfect. Accordingly, it is possible that the scribe of the Temple Scroll took the imperfect from his biblical source, rather than that he replaced a perfect in his source by an imperfect.8 Since the use of the perfect in the protasis of conditional sentences is well attested in Aramaic,9 some scholars consider the increase of this use in post-biblical Hebrew as a result of Aramaic influence. It should be noted, however, that the distribution over the Aramaic dialects is uneven. Dr Folmer has demonstrated that the use of the perfect in the protasis is frequent 1985:86. 7

On the relation between the passage in 4Q266 and the Leviticus passage, see DJD 18, 56. For the apodosis in the Qumran passage see below, Section IV. s

It should also be noted that the verbal form as it is found in 11QT is likely to be emended anyway, and that instead of an emendation of ‫ יאנה‬to ‫יניא‬ an emendation to ‫( הניא‬changing only the order of the letters) is easily possible; cf. Yadin 1977:2.170. 9

Muraoka-Porten 1998:324-326; Folmer 1991, 1995:394-415.

in documents from the Achaemenid period, while in Old Aramaic, as well as in the Middle Aramaic dialects (Nabatean, Palmyrene, Qumran Aramaic) the imperfect prevails.10 The use of the perfect is also found in Syriac and Babylonian Aramaic." II: The infinitive in the protasis The protasis contains an infinitive in CD 16:12 ‫ יניאה‬11 ‫' אם לעבור ברית היא‬if it is to breach a covenant, he is to annul it'.12 4Q266 6.1:11-12 [DJD 18, 52] ‫ואם לו ליוסף מן החניות[ על‬ ‫ ]נרפא[ הנגע‬11 ‫המיתות והגיד נמלא נחם וינחה החיים עולה וי} ו{ רדת בו‬ 'but if 1iv[ing] (hairs) have not [‫ ]לוא = לו‬been added to the dead ones and the artery is full of blood, and the spirit of life goes up and down through it, the disease [is healed]'. and possibly also in the poorly preserved text in 4Q499 7:3 [DJD 7, 75] [‫' אם לש]מו[ע בקולכ]ה‬if he listens to your voice'. In an article on non-biblical usages of ‫אם‬, Dr Elwolde says that this use is peculiar and compares Job 9:27-28 ‫אם אמרי אשכחה שיחי‬ 'If I say, Let me forget my complaint'.13 The first example, that from CD 16:12, uses indeed 'the same construction' (but with -‫ )ל‬as Job 9:27 (Elwolde) if we interpret it as 'if it (the oath) violates the covenant', which would mean that ‫ אם לעבור‬in CD 16:12 can be rephrased with ‫ אם עברה‬or ‫אם תעבור‬, just as Job 9:27 ‫ אם אמרי‬can be rewritten with ‫ אם אמרתי‬or ‫אם אמר‬. However, we prefer to interpret ‫אם לעבור‬ in CD 16:12 as a predicative infinitive expressing direction or destination: 'if the oath is to breach the covenant'. This use of predicative ‫ לקטל‬is typical of LBH and QH.14 In this interpretation the constructions in both passages, although both containing an infinitive, are not the same. The second example, that from 4Q266, is difficult in its text and interpretation. The interpretation of the infinitive as expressing direction or destination is possible 10 11

12

Fol mer 1991, 1995:394-415. Nöldeke 1898:§ 258; Schlesinger 1928:275.

The feminine personal pronoun refers to the preceding ‫טבועה‬. Broshi's edition has ‫ הוא‬in place of ‫ היא‬with a footnote that both readings are equally possible. When reading ‫הוא‬, we can consider it as part of the apodosis. 4Q271 (4QE/) 4.2:12 has ‫ היא‬in this passage [DJD 18, 178]. 13 Elwolde 1992:222; cf. DCH 1.303. 14

Kropat 1909:24-25; Schoors 1992:183; Eskhult 1990:108; Qimron 1986:70-72; Qimron-Strugnell 1994:80; Leahy 1960:142; Kesterson 1984:233249; Thorion-Vardi 1985:80-81.

as well,15 though in our view less likely. The third example, that from 4Q499, is too fragmentary to allow firm conclusions. Ill: Verb forms used in the apodosis In SBH the apodosis takes vfqatalti 'if there are no pressing circumstances that push the verb from the beginning of the sentence'.16 Thus we find Judg 4:8 ‫אם תלכי עמי« והלכתי‬ ‫ואם לא תלכי עמי וו לא אלך‬ 'if you go with me, I will go, but if you don't go, I won't go', with vfqatalti in the first apodosis and yiqtol in the second, because the negative ‫ לא‬pushes the verb to the second position. Yiqtol in the first slot of the apodosis is not unattested, but it is less frequent. In the book of Exodus we find eighteen conditional sentences with weqatalti in the apodosis as against four cases with yiqtol in the first slot of the apodosis. In Deuteronomy initial yiqtol occurs only once (Deut 32:41), while Wqatalti is attested thirteen times.17 In LBH the use of yiqtol in the initial slot of the apodosis increases considerably, e.g. 1 Chr 28:9 ‫ יזניחך לעד‬11 ‫ ימצא לך ואם תעזבנו‬11 ‫' אם תדרשנו‬if you seek Him, He will be found by you, but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off for ever'. In the book of Chronicles weqatalti in the apodosis occurs only when it is found in the author's sources.19 In Ezra and Nehemiah we find X yiqtol in the apodosis five times, yiqtol in initial position six times, and weqatalti only once, in the Nehemiah Memoirs. In the book of Esther there are seven cases of yiqtol in the intial slot of the apodosis and two of yiqtol in non-initial position, while examples with weqatalti are absent. The book of Ben Sira, too, attests to a high number of yiqtols in initial position 15

Cf. DCH 1.303 'if it is to be increased (i.e. it has begun to increase)...'. Thorion-Vardi 1985:87; Joüon-Muraoka 1993:§ 176d; M u r a o k a 1997b:244. Similarly in the Hebrew epigraphic material (Arad 2:7). ' On the conditionial clauses in Exodus and Deuteronomy see further below, Section IV. 16

18

Kropat 1909:69-70; Rooker 1990:120-121. Unfortunately neither Kropat nor Rooker distinguish between cases of initial yiqtol and of non-initial yiqtol, which leads to the erroneous statement that a case like Esth 6:13 marks a departure from SBH usage (Rooker, ibid.·, see below, Section IV). 19

Kropat 1909:69. Initial yiqtol is attested four times, in 1 Chr 12:18, 1 Chr 13:2, and two times in 1 Chr 28:9, quoted.

of the apodosis, whereas the construction with weqatalti is very rare: yiqtol in initial position is attested fourteen times and in non-intial position it occurs ten times, whereas weqataltiis attested only twice.20 The tendency to use yiqtol in place of weqatalti in the first slot of the apodosis may be due to Aramaic influence.21 In QH tfqataltiis abundantly attested,22 e.g. 11QT 47:15-17 ‫ וטהר למקדשי‬11 ‫אם במקדשי תזבחוהו‬ ‫ וטהר לעריכמה‬11 ‫ואם בעבריכמה תזבחוהו‬ 'if you sacrifice it in My temple, it will be pure for My temple; if you sacrifice it in your cities, it will be pure for your cities'.23 The pattern with Xyiqtol occurs as well. The element preceding yiqtol may be 1. The negatives ‫ לא‬and ‫אל‬: CD 11:8-9 ‫ אל יוצא ממנה‬11 ‫' ואם בסוכה יהיה‬and if he is in a hut, he shall remove nothing from it'. 2. A personal pronoun (subject): CD 13:6 ‫ הוא יסגירנו‬11 ‫' ואם פתי הוא‬even if he is a simpleton, he shall intern him'. 3. A noun phrase (subject): 4Q491 1-3:12 [DJD 7, 13] ‫ שלוש‬11 ‫ואם אורב ישימו למערכת‬ ‫' מערכות אורבים יהינו מרחןוק‬if they lay an ambush for one line, three lines will be lying in ambush [at a dis]tance'. 4. A prepositional phrase: 1QS 11:13 ‫ ומשחת יחלץ נפשי‬11 ‫' ואם יפתח צרתי‬if my grief commences, He will free my soul from the pit'.24 In the cases of ‫ אל‬or ‫ לא‬preceding the verb it is clear that there are 'compelling reasons' to place the verb in non-initial postion, but in other cases this is doubtful. Thus the function of the personal pronoun sometimes remains unclear. Would, for example, in CD 13:6 SBH not prefer ‫ והסגירנו‬11 ‫?אם פתי הוא‬

20

See Van Peursen 1999a:316, 318. Rooker 1990:121; Kropat 1909:70. 22 Qimron 1978:171; Rooker 1990:122; Thorion-Vardi 1985:87; Kesterson 1984:152-153, 159-161. 23 In this passage from 11QT Yadin's edition (1977:2.144) has ‫ יטהר‬in place of the first ‫ !וטהר‬See Qimron 1978:171 and our comment below. The construction with wcqataltiis also attested in the Bar Kokhba documents, e.g. Mur 44:6 [DJD 2, 162], 21

24

On the waw before the prepositional phrase see below, Section IV.

There is, however, also quite a number of cases where the imperfect occurs in initial position. 1. With qatal in the protasis: 4Q274 1.1:5 [WA 3.79] ‫ תכבס בגדיה ורחצה‬11 ‫' ואם נגעה‬and if she does touch, she shall wash her clothes and bathe'. 4Q299 6.2:18 [DJD 20, 471 [...]‫ יוסיף ל‬11 ‫' ואם דש‬and if he threshed, he shall add to[.[‫״‬ 4Q525 14.2:14 [DJD 25,146] [...]‫ ינחלו‬11 ‫ואם נספיתה למנוחות עד‬ 'and when you are snatched away to eternal rest, they will inherit[...]'. 2. With yiqtol in the protasis: 1QS 6:13 ‫ ידבר‬11 ‫' אם יומרו לו‬if they tell him to, he should speak', 1QS 6:14-15 ‫' ואם ישיג מוסר וו יביאהו בברית‬if he suits the discipline, he shall introduce him into the covenant', lQSa 2:11-12 [DJD 1, 110] 11 ‫אם יו]לי[ד ]אל[ א]ת[ המשיח אתם‬ ‫' יבוא ]הכוהן[ רואש כול עדת ישראל‬if [God] begets the Messiah with them, [the] chief [priest] of all the congregation of Israel shall enter'.26 1QH 8:24 [‫ יהיה כעחץער בערבה‬11 ‫' ואם אשיב יד‬but if I remove my hand, it will be like the aca[cia in the desert]', 4Q525 10:6 [DJD 25, 139] ‫ יטיב לכה‬u ‫[' ]א[ם תטיב‬i]f you do good, He will do good to you'. 3. With a verb form in the protasis that is either a perfect or an imperfect: 1QS 6:18-19 ‫ יקר}י{בו‬11 (...) ‫ואם יצא לו הגורל לקרוב לסוד היחד‬ ‫' גם את הונו‬and if the lot results in him joining the Council of the Community (...), they shall bring also his wealth', 1QS 6:21-22 ‫ יכתובהו‬11 ‫' ואם יצא לו הגורל לקרבו ליחד‬and if the lot results in him joining the Community, they shall inscribe him'. 4. With a nominal clause in the protasis: lQSa 2:9 [DJD 1, 110] ‫אם יש דבנר לאחר מ[אלה לדבר אל עצת‬ ‫ ]י[דורש]והו [מפיהו‬11 ‫' הקודש‬and if [one of] these has [a wo]rd to speak to the Holy Council, they shall investigate it in private'.27 25

Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar 1997-98:2.660 read ‫ רעו‬instead of ‫'( רש‬and when his wickedness proceeds to [...]'). 26

But here the ‫אם‬-clause may also be connected to the preceding line, cf. Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar 1997-98:1.103. 27

DJD 1 has on p. 110 [1‫ ו[דורש]והו‬but on p. 117 [‫ ;]י[דורש]והו‬the former reading is also found in Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar 1997-98:1.102. However, the reading with initial yod is more likely because of the waw after the first root consonant.

4Q159 2-4:8 [DJD 5, 8] ‫ יואמר ובקרוה‬11 ‫[ קחתו אותה‬...!‫' אם ב‬if his taking her was by [...], let him say so and they shall examine her'.28 4Q265 7.1:7-8 [WA 3.75] ‫ואם נפש אדם היא אשר תפול אל‬ ‫ ישלח לו את בגדו להעלותו בו‬11 ‫' המים ]ביום [השבת‬but if it is a man who falls into the water [on] the Sabbath [day], he may pass to him his garment to lift him out therewith'. 5. With an infinitive in the protasis: CD 16:12 ‫ יניאה‬11 ‫' אם לעבור ברית היא‬if it is to breach a covenant, he is to annul it'.29 In 1978 Professor Qimron wrote an article 'New Readings in the Temple Scroll', in which he noticed the high frequency of the classical construction with weqatalti in QH as against that with yiqtol in the initial position of the apodosis. In the non-biblical Qumran scrolls he counted 32 weqatalti's as against two or three initial yiqtols. In the corpus we have investigated, including a number of texts that were published after the appearance of Qimron's article, the total number of yiqtols in initial position has risen form twelve to fourteen. Moreover, there is a palaeographical issue, namely it is quite often difficult to distinguish between waw and yod. In the Temple Scroll there are some cases where Yadin's edition had an initial yiqtol, but where Qimron preferred to read a perfect consecutive, like ‫יטהר‬/‫ וטהר‬in 11QT 47:16, quoted above. According to Qimron any form at the beginning of the apodosis of a conditional sentence which may be read either ‫ וקטל‬or ‫ יקטל‬should be read ‫וקטל‬, because of the consistency with which the classical construction is employed in QH.30 Now that we have discovered some eleven more and assured examples of yiqtol in the initial slot of the apodosis, it can be questioned whether we should still apply this rule to all uncertain readings of waw and yod in the Temple Scroll and in other manuscripts. If not, the number of possible cases of yiqtol in the initial slot of the apodosis becomes even higher. It should be noted, however, even then, that in QH, unlike in LBH, weqataltiin the first slot of the apodosis considerably outnumbers initial yiqtol. In addition to those cases where the apodosis has vfqatalti, X yiqtol, or initial yiqtol, there are some cases where the apodosis opens with vf yiqtol. 28

Thus DJD 5, p. 8; differently Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar 1997-98 1.311: 'if he says it at the [moment] of taking her, they shall examine her'. 29

30

Unless the personal pronoun belongs to the protasis, see above, footnote Qimron 1978:171.

1. With yiqtol in the protasis: 6 : 2 4 - 2 5 « ‫אם ימצא בם איש אשר ישקר בהון והואה יודע‬ 1Q S ‫' ויבדילהו מתוך טהרת רבים שנה אחת‬if there is found among them one who has lied knowingly concerning goods, he shall be excluded from the pure food of the Many for a year'.31 CD 19:2-4 ‫ ויתהלכו על‬1 ‫( בנים‬...) ‫( ולקחו נשים‬...)‫ואם מהנות ישבו‬ ‫' פי התורה‬and if they reside in the camps (...) and take wives (...), and beget children, they shall walk in accordance with the law'. 32 2. With a nominal clause in the protasis: CD 9:17-18 ‫ וידיעהו לעיניו‬11 ‫' אם דבר מות הוא‬if it is a capital matter, he shall report it in his presence'. Compare also those cases where the verb can be analysed either as we qatal tf or as weyiqtol: 11QT 58:15-16 ‫ ויצא עמו‬11 ‫מע(} א {ם יצא למלחמה על אויביו‬ ‫' חמישית העם‬and if he sallies out to war against his enemies, a fifth part of the people shall sally out with him', CD 13:3-4 ‫ואם אין הוא בחון בכל אלה ואיש מהלוים בחון באלה וו‬ ‫' ויצא הגורל‬and if there is not an expert in all these things, and one of the Levites is an expert in them, the lot falls...'. The use of tf yiqtol in the apodosis of a conditional sentence is against (S)BH practice. It is attested once in LBH, in 2 Chr 20:9 ‫ ותשמע‬11 ‫[ ונזעק אליך מצרתנו‬...) ‫' אם תבוא עלינו רעה‬if evil comes upon us (...) and we cry to you in our distress, You will hear'. 33 We agree with Kesterson that the examples with v/yiqtol in QH 'indicate that there was a certain instability' in the use of weqatalti in conditional sentences introduced by ‫אם‬. However, these deviations from SBH practice can be described not only in terms of 'w e yiqtol replacing weqataltf, but also as a use of the waw apodoseos in an environment where (S)BH does not take it (weyiqtol in place of yiqtol), which brings us to our discussion of the waw apodoseos. V: Use and non-use of the waw apodoseos According to Rooker, one of the differences between the conditional clauses in SBH and those in LBH is that in LBH the 31

The wcyiqtol in the apodosis is continued by wcqatalti. 32 Note the wcqatalti's in the protasis as against the wcyiqtol opening the apodosis. Contrast C D 7:7 ‫( והולידו בנים ו‬...) ‫( ולקחו נשים‬...)‫ואם מחנות ישבו‬ ‫ !והתהלכו‬For an extensive discussion of both passages in the Damascus Document, see Elwolde 2000:111-117. 33

Note also the use of the waw apodoseos 13:8 (2x) and 2 Sam 12:8 (cf. BDB 254a).

before the cohortative in Gen

apodosis tends to be asyndetic in contrast with the syndetic apodosis in SBH.34 However, this observation requires considerable modification, since in SBH syndesis is only the rule when the apodosis has a consecutive verb form. When a noun or negative opens the apodosis, the apodosis is asyndetic.35 Compare once again the example from Judg 4:8 (quoted above, Section III), with vf qatal ti in the first apodosis and X yiqtol (without waw) in the second one. When we look at the material in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy we find 60 conditional clauses, 31 of which have tfqatalti In the remaining 29 cases the first slot of the apodosis is occupied by another verb form eight times (an imperfect five times, an imperative twice, and a passive participle once) and by another element (noun or negative) 21 times. Of these 29 cases, there is only one example with waw apodoseos, namely in Exod 40:37 ‫ ולא יסעו‬11 ‫' ואם לא יעלה הענן‬and if the cloud was not lifted up, they would not set out'. In the light of this material it is wrong to consider an example like Esth 6:13 ‫ לא תוכל לו‬11 (...)‫' אם מזרע היהודים מרדכי‬if Mordecai is of the seed of the Jews (...) you will not prevail against him' as a deviation from SBH because of the absence of the waw apodoseos.1'6 The Chronicler uses the waw apodoseos several times before the subject (pronoun), e.g. 2 Chr 6:22-23 ‫ ואתה תשמע‬11 (...) ‫' אם יחטא‬if a man sins (...), You will listen',37 Kropat rightly observes that this is a deviation from SBH usage,38 but in some cases the waw apodoseos is already found in the Chronicler's sources.39 In QH there are many examples of vf qataltiin the apodosis. 34 35

Rooker 1990:120. Joiion-Muraoka 1993:§ 176d; Muraoka 1997b:244.

36

Rooker 1990:120. The use of yiqtol in the apodosis is not against SBH usage either, cf. above, footnote 19. 37

Further in 2 Chr 6:24-25 and (with ‫ )הן‬in 2 Chr. 7:13-14.

38

Kropat 1909:70: 'während also bei vorangestelltem Verb des Nachsatzes das apodotische ‫ ו‬vermieden wird, setzt die Chronik es konsequent bei vorangestelltem Subject des Nachsatzes (...) auch hier hat die Chronik das Gegenteil des in älterer Zeit üblichen Gebrauchs'. 39 Compare with the examples from 2 Chr 6:22-23, quoted above, 1 Kgs 8:32.

When another element precedes the verb, the apodosis has most often not a waw, as appears form the examples quoted above, but the waw apodoseos is found in the following cases: 1. With an imperfect in the first slot of the apodosis: At least three examples given above, in Section III. 2. With an imperative in the apodosis: 4Q418 81:15 [WA 2.103] [...] ‫ ודע‬11 ‫אם בחכמת ידים המשילכה‬ 'if He has given you authority over manual craft, know [...]'. 3. With a prepositional phrase in the first slot of the apodosis: 1QS 11:13 ‫' ואם יפתח צרתי« ומשחת יחלץ נפשי‬if my grief commences, He will free my soul from the pit'. 4. With the negative ‫ לוא‬in the first slot of the apodosis: 4Q266 10.2:1-2 [DJD 18, 74] !‫ ולו‬11 ‫ואם בדבר מות ינטור‬ ‫']י[שוב]עוד‬and if he bears resentment in a capital matter, he [shall] not return [any more]'. 5. With a personal pronoun in the first slot of the apodosis (compare the examples from Chronicles): CD 5:10-11 ‫ והיא שאר‬11 ‫' ואם תגלה בת האח את ערות אחי אביה‬and if a daughter of a brother uncovers the nakedness of the brother of her father, she is a blood relation',40 4Q266 6.2:2 [DJD 18, 55] ‫ואם ראתה ]עו[ד והיאה לו ]בעת‬ ‫ והיאה אל תוכל קודש‬11 ‫' נדתה[ שבעת ימים‬and if she ag[ain] sees (blood), and it is not [at the time of her menstruation] of seven days, she shall not eat anything hallowed'.41 Conclusion The conditional clause with ‫ אם‬in the protasis in QH differs from that in SBH in the following respects: 1. There is a relatively high number of conditional sentences with qatal in the protasis. The preference for qatal is especially manifest where it replaces yiqtol in a quotation from or allusion to a biblical passage. 2. Constructions with yiqtol or weyiqtol in the first slot of the apodosis occur a number of times. However, in QH, unlike in LBH, the cases of wcqataltistill outnumber those of initial yiqtol 40

But perhaps we should consider ‫ והיא שאר‬as a circumstantial clause, which would mean that the apodosis is missing or implied in the preceding ‫ ' ומשפט העריות לזכרים הוא כתוב וכהם הנסים‬a n d the law of the f o r b i d d e n intercourses is written for males but (applies) equally to females'. 41 Cf. DJD 18, p. 56: *‫והיאה‬, despite the waw, is to be taken as the apodosis'.

or weyiqtol. 3. Although the use and non-use of the waw apodoseos in general follows the rules of SBH, there is a small but not negligible number of cases with waw apodoseos where we would not expect it in SBH. APPENDIX: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA IN RELATION TO PROFESSOR MURAOKA'S LECTURE In his contribution to the present volume Professor Muraoka compares biblical Qumran scrolls and the Masoretic Text of the Bible, which results in some most interesting and valuable observations in the field of morphosyntax and syntax. In my reaction to this presentation the main focus will be on a comparison between the corpus investigated by Professor Muraoka and the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, the corpus I studied during my PhD research.42 [ 1 ] Infinitive construct with -‫ל‬ In his discussion of the proclitic lamed Professor Muraoka has mentioned the construction of the type ‫ מלהגיד‬instead of ‫מהגיד‬. In Ben Sira this construction is unattested. In other syntactical functions (subject, object) the infinitive occurs both with and without lamed.43 [2] Infinitive absolute In Ben Sira the infinitive absolute with the force of an imperative occurs only once, in 3:17 (C) ‫' בני את כל מלאכתיך בענוה הלוך‬my son, in all your affairs go humbly'. In this passage, where MS C has an infinitive absolute, MS A has ‫התהלך‬, which can be read as an imperative. It should be noted, however, that a number of times we find forms that can be analysed either as an imperative or as an infinitive such as that with three root consonants and a vowel letter waw between the second and the third consonants (44.(‫קטול‬ 42

My PhD research, entitled 'The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira', was carried out in the period 1995-1999 under the supervision of Professor Muraoka, and resulted in a successful thesis defence on 2 November 1999. 43

Van Peursen 1999a:219-220 (§ 14.5.1).

44

Van Peursen 1999a:249-250 (§ 15.5).

The construction with the infinitive absolute of the internal object, the type ‫מות תמות‬, is attested six times in Ben Sira, with a non-volitive imperfect four times, with an injunctive imperfect once, and with an imperative once.45 [3a] The qotla imperative In Ben Sira the long imperative is found once, in a passage that is textually doubtful, namely in 31 [34]: 15 (Btxt) ‫' ד ע ה ר ע ך כ נ פ ש ך‬recognise that your neighbour is like you'.46 Whereas the main text of MS Β has ‫דעה‬, the margin has ‫רעה‬ 'make friends'. The reading in the main text is the lectio facilior and is probably an adaptation to ‫' ד ע ש ר ע ך כ מ ו ך‬know that your neighbour is like you' in the following verse.47 [3b] Nun paragogicum Professor Muraoka discusses the complex distribution of ‫יקטלון‬ forms. In Ben Sira the nun paragogicum occurs only three times, twice in a passage that is clearly dependent on a verse from the Bible, namely in 30:19 (Bmg) in a gloss that has been added under the influence of Deut 4:28, and in 45:20[21] (B), an obvious parallel to Deut 18:1, and once in 51:24 (B), in the textually doubtful version of the concluding acrostic poem in chapter 51 in MS B. Accordingly, the situation in Ben Sira conforms with that in non-biblical Qumran Scrolls like the Temple Scroll in that the instances of ‫ יקטלון‬are rare and (except for the last, textually doubtful example) linked to biblical verses.48 [8] Verb complementation Professor Muraoka has demonstrated that there is a marked tendency to replace ‫ אל‬by -‫ ל‬or occasionally by 49.‫ על‬In Ben Sira this tendency is reflected in 14:10 (A) ‫' עין רע עין תעיט על להם‬an envious eye [delete second ‫ ]עין‬darts greedily to food'; where we find ‫ עיט‬+ ‫ על‬instead of ‫ אל‬as in 45

Non-volitive imperfect: 14:17 (A), 14:19 (A), 16:19 (A), 35[32]:23 (B); injunctive imperfect: 5:11 (C); imperative: 31:22 [34:21] (Bmg). See Professor Smith's article in the present volume and Van Peursen 1999a:247-248 (§ 15.3). 46 47 48 49

For this translation cf. Muraoka 1978. Van Peursen 19993:162-164 (§ 12.4). Van Peursen 1999a:87-88 (§ 6.9).

On the verb complementation in Qumran Hebrew see also Muraoka 1997.

1 Sam 14:32 (Q) ‫' ויעט העם אל השלל‬and the people darted greedily to the spoil'.50 A second example of ‫ על‬replacing ‫ אל‬is Sir 48:6 (B)‫(' המוריר מלכים על שחת‬Elijah) who brought down kings to the pit', where we find ‫( ירד‬hifil)-‫ו‬- ‫ על שחת‬as against BH ‫ ירד‬+ ‫ אל שחת‬as in Ps 30:10‫' בררתי אל שחת‬when I go down to the pit'.51 ‫ ירד‬+ ‫ על‬occurs in the Bible as well, but with a different meaning ('down upon' instead of 'down into'), e.g.52 Exod 19:20 ‫' וירד יהוה על הר סיני‬and the Lord descended on Mount Sinai'.53 A third example of ‫ על‬instead of ‫ אל‬is possibly 37:4 ([Bmg+]D) ‫' מרע אוהב מביט על שחת‬a friend who looks upon the pit is an evildoer'. In the Bible there are many instances of ‫ הביט‬+ ‫( אל‬or -54,(‫ ל‬as against only one example of ‫ הביט‬+ ‫על‬, namely Hab 2:15 ‫למען‬ ‫' הביט על מעוריהם‬to look on their nakedness'. More complicated is the government of the verbs ‫ שמע‬and ‫נגע‬. In Ben Sira the verb ‫ שמע‬takes the preposition -‫ ב‬two times (both in the expression ‫)שמע בקול וגי‬, -‫ ל‬twice, ‫ אל‬twice, and a direct object six times.55 All these constructions are found in the Bible, but -‫ ל‬is found mostly in late literature.56 Consequently, it seems safe to consider -‫ שמע ל‬as a LBH equivalent of ‫שמע אל‬, in which case also the two examples from Ben Sira of -‫ שמע ל‬attest 50

Dr Elwolde suggested to me that the rectional difference may correspond to a semantic one: in Sir 14:10 the movement is primarily vertical (a bird swooping down 'upon'), whereas in the biblical passages its is primarily horizontal (people rushing 'to'). 1

Compare also Job 33:24 ‫' פדעהו מרדת טחת‬spare him from going down to the pit' without preposition. 52 Cf. DCH 4.289a. 53

In this sense ‫ ירד‬+ ‫ על‬occurs in Sir 16:18 (A) ‫' ברדתו עליהם‬when He descends upon them', although this reading, which is not supported by the ancient versions, is suspect, for we never read in the Bible that God descends upon (or to) the heavens. The phrase quoted may have entered the text under the influence of Isa 63:19. 54 Even when the direction in which one looks is downwards; see, e.g., Isa 51:6 and further those cases where God looks down to the earth or its people in Isa 22:8,66:2; Hab 1:13; Ps 102:20. 55

- ‫ ב‬in 4:6 (A) and 48:20 ( B ) ; - ‫ ל‬in 4:15 (A) and 12:11 (A); ‫ אל‬in 16:24 (A) and 33:19 [30:27] (E); and a direct object in 16:5 (A+B), 35[32]:16 (B), 36:17[22] (Β), 41:15 (B+M), 51:11 (Β), 51:28 (Β). 56 BDB 1034a.

to the tendency to replace ‫ אל‬by -‫ל‬. With the verb ‫ נגע‬we find 51:6 ( B ) 1 ' ‫ות נפשי‬ to death'. In the Bible ‫ נגע‬governs the prepositions ‫ב־‬, ‫עד‬, and ‫אל‬, hence we could regard Ben Sira's -‫ נגע ל‬as an equivalent of biblical57.‫נגעאל‬ In Ben Sira there are also two counter-examples, where we find ‫ על‬in idioms that take ‫ אל‬in the Bible. The first is Sir 37:8 (B+D) ‫' למה זה אליו יפול‬why should it fall to his advantage', with ‫ נפל‬+ ‫ אל‬instead of Β Η ‫ נפל‬+ ‫ על‬as in Qoh 9:12 ‫' כשתפול עליהם פתאם‬when it [an evil time] falls suddenly upon them'. The second counter-example is 5:14 (A)‫' ואל לשונך אל תרגל‬do not slander with your tongue'.58 Compare in a similar context in the Bible Ps 15:3 ‫(' לא רגל על לשנו‬who) does not slander with his tongue . In addition to those cases where we find in Ben Sira ‫ על‬or -‫ל‬ instead of biblical ‫ אל‬and vice versa, there are other differences between BH and the Hebrew of Ben Sira in the use of ‫אל‬, ‫ על‬and -‫ל‬. Thus we find with the verb ‫' דבק‬cling, cleave' 11:34[33] (A)‫' לא תדבק לרשע‬you shall not cling to a godless man', whereas in BH ‫ דבק‬takes the prepositions -‫ ל‬and ‫ אל‬only when it has its literal meaning (e.g. a tongue cleaving to the roof of the mouth; Job 29:10); when it has a figurative meaning (e.g. people clinging to their king; 2 Sam 20:2) it governs -60.‫ב‬ The verb ‫' בוש‬to be ashamed' governs in BH ‫ מן‬before a noun indicating the reason of the shame.61 In Ben Sira it takes ‫על‬, ‫אל‬, and -‫ ל‬in this position. Thus we find ‫ על‬and sometimes ‫ אל‬in the two enumerations of things of which one should and one should not be ashamed in 41:14-42:8 (B+M), the so-called Instruction Concerning Shame;62 ‫ בוש‬+ ‫ אל‬occurs also in 4:20 9

SQ

‫ ו ת ג ע‬can also be interpreted as an intransitive hifil, and the hifil, unlike the qal, does take -‫ ל‬in the Bible. But since -‫ ה נ י ע ל‬is found especially in late texts, we can sill consider it as a late feature. 57

58

In MS A this clause comes after 4:28b, but it is a variant to 5:14, which in M S A reads ‫' ו ב ל ש ו נ ך א ל ת ר ג ל ר ע‬and do not slander a friend with your tongue'. 59 ‫ רגל‬pi. + ‫ אל‬occurs in the Bible as well (2 Sam 19:28), but with a different meaning. 60 61 62

For more details see BDB 179b, DCH 2.386a; cf. Muraoka 1997a:99. We find -‫ ב‬once, in Ps 69:7. ‫ אל‬occurs in 41:17a, 17b (B) and 42:1,2 (Bmg).

(A) and ‫ בוש‬+ -‫ ל‬in 4:22 (C). With the idiom ‫' נתן הוד‬to give splendour' we find -‫ ל‬in 45:7 (Bmg)‫(' )ייתן( לו הודו‬and He gave) him His splendour', as against BH ‫( נתן הוד על‬Ps 8:2, Dan 11:21,1 Chr 29:25).-‫נתן הוד ל‬ is found once in the Bible, with a different meaning, namely in Prov 5:9‫' פן תתן לאחרים הוהך‬lest you give your vigour to others'. The following table may serve as a summary of our observations thus far.63 4:11 (A)

‫העיד‬

‫ל־‬

4:15 (A) 12:11 (A)

‫שמע‬

-‫ל‬ -‫( ל‬mostly late),-,‫ב‬ ( a l s o - 0,‫ב‬,‫אל‬

5:14 (A)

‫ רגל‬piel

‫אל‬ ‫( על‬Ps 15:3;‫ אל‬with differrent sense in 2 Sam 19:28) -‫ל‬ -‫( ב‬-‫ל‬/‫ אל‬only with different meaning)

11:34[33] (A) ‫דבק‬ 14:10 (A) ‫העיט‬ 37:4 (Bmg+D)‫הביט‬ 37:8 (Β) ‫נפל‬ 41:14-42:8 ‫בוש‬ 45:7 (Bmg)

‫נתן הוד‬

48:6 (Β)

‫הוריד‬

51:6 (Β)

‫נגע‬

-‫ב‬

‫על‬ ‫( אל‬or-‫ על ;ל‬in Hab 2:15) ‫אל‬ ‫( על‬cf. Qoh 9:12) ‫על‬,‫אל‬,-‫( מן ל‬-‫ ב‬in Ps 69:7) (B+M) et al. -‫ל‬ ‫( על‬-‫ ל‬with different meaning in Prov 5:9) ‫על‬ ‫ אל( על‬only in different sense) -‫ל‬ -‫ב‬, ‫עד‬,‫( אל‬but hifil takes -‫)ל‬

When there is more than one Hebrew textual witness available, we see considerable fluctuation between ‫אל‬, -‫ל‬, ‫ על‬and other prepositions. Illustrative are the following examples, some of 63

The first column gives the reference from Ben Sira, the second the verb or expression concerned, the third the prepositions found in the Hebrew manuscripts, and the fourth the prepositions used in the Bible. Note also -‫ דמה ל‬in Sir 13:14[15] (A), 32[35]:8 (B) as in SBH, as against LBH ‫דמע אל‬. We do not include 13:11 ( A ) ‫( אל תבטח לחפט ע מ ו‬cf. Β H ‫ בטח‬+ -‫ב‬, ‫אל‬, ‫)על‬, because we prefer to read ‫ חפט‬as a construct infinitive ('do not venture to be [too] free with him') rather than a noun.

them already mentioned above.64 5:5

‫בטח‬

5:14

‫ רכל‬piel

7:24 16:1 30:17

‫האיר פנים‬ ‫שמח‬ ‫ירד‬

37:2

‫הגיע‬

37:4

‫הביט‬

41:19 45:7

‫הטה יר‬ ‫נתן הוד‬

A+C+Saadia‫אל‬, -‫ב‬,‫על‬,‫אל‬ Nissim - 6 5 ‫ב‬ A1 -‫ב‬, A2 (after ‫ אל( על‬different meaning) 4:28b)‫אל‬ ‫אל‬,‫ל‬,‫על‬, et al. A ‫אל‬, C ‫ל‬ -‫( ב‬often),-‫ל‬,‫על‬ A -‫ב‬, Β ‫על‬ 0, but also - 6 6 . Btxt 0; Bmg -67‫ל‬ Btxt+mg ‫על‬, ‫אל‬,‫ עד‬et al. Ό ‫ער‬ ‫ על( אל‬in Hab 2:15) Btxt ‫אל‬ Bmg+D = ‫על‬ B ‫אל‬, Μ ‫אל על‬,‫על‬,‫עד‬,‫ ב־‬et al. Btxt ‫על‬, Bmg ‫( על ל־‬once-‫ל‬ with different meaning)

[10] Tenses In Professor Muraoka's article we read: That authors and scribes of the DSS had begun to show a certain ambivalence towards the inversive Waw and were not always absolutely certain about intricacies and subtleties of BH syntax in these matters is further shown where they initially follow the classical pattern with an inversive Waw and subsequently switch to a conjunctive Waw, and occasionally back again to a Waw inversive'. To the patterns mentioned by Muraoka we can add68 a) the pattern temporal clause + qatal/yiqtol (instead of SBH ‫ויהי‬ + temporal clause + wayyiqtol or ‫ והיה‬+ temporal clause + v^qatalti), e.g. 1QM 3:10 ‫( יכתובו‬...) ‫' ובשובם מן המלחמה‬and when they return from the battle (...), they shall write'; b) the pattern ‫ והיה‬+ temporal clause + yiqtol (instead of + 64

Note further the variation in 37:7 Β ‫אל‬, D ‫על‬, and the variation in different passages in one manuscript like that between ‫ אל‬and ‫ על‬governed by ‫ בוס‬I N M S Β 41:14-42:8, between ‫ אל‬and ‫ על‬governed by ‫ בטח‬in MS A, 5:5, 8. 65

Cf. ‫ על‬in v. 8 (A). Saadia quoted according to ed. Harkavy 1891:177; Nissim according to ed. Obermann 1933:148. 66 E.g. 1 Sam 23:25 .‫וירד הסלע‬ 67

Btxt ‫ ;ולירד שאול‬Bmg .‫ולרר לטאול‬

68

Cf. Qimron 1986:73.

‫ל‬

‫היה‬

temporal clause + weqatalti) in 1QS 2:12-13 ‫והיה בשם} ו{ער את דברי הברית הזות יתברך בלבבו‬ 'and when he hears the words of this covenant, he will inwardly bless himself'.69 In Ben Sira we find a striking example of tfqatâlti following a time determination in 51:13 (Q) ‫' אני נער בטרם תעיתי ובקשתיה‬when I was young, before I erred, I sought her'.70 [12] The conditional ‫כי‬ Professor Muraoka has shown that in the biblical Qumran scrolls sometimes ‫ אם‬replaces ‫כי‬, but also that ‫ כי‬is still used a fair number of times in the non-biblical scrolls. In Ben Sira we find ‫ אם‬a considerable number of times, whereas conditional ‫ כי‬is attested only four times. This may indicate that Ben Sira strongly preferred ‫אם‬, but it is also possible that in some cases ‫ כי‬has been replaced by ‫ אם‬in the course of the textual transmission. Thus MS A has ‫ אם‬in 16:2 (A)‫' אל תבעבם אם אין אתם יראת ייי‬do not rejoice in them if they have not the fear of the Lord', where MS Β has ‫[ תשמח בם כי אין אתם יראת ייי‬..]. In this example A's ‫ אם‬has probably replaced the ambiguous ‫כי‬, which is found in B. ‫ כי‬is supported by the Syriac .‫ד‬ which indicates a causal interpretation of the particle. On the basis of the context, however, a conditional sense for ‫ כי‬is more plausible (cf. MS A and the Greek translation).71

69

Compare ‫ והתברך‬in Deut 29:18 ‫והיה בשמעו את דברי האלה הזאת‬. For more examples see the main article. 70 71

Van Peursen 1999a:142-143 (§ 10.3), 302 (§ 20.6).

Van Peursen 1999a:317 (§ 21.4.2). Note, however that A's ‫' תבעבם‬rejoice in them' is preferable to B's ‫תשמח בם‬, being the lectio difficilior. On the verb ‫' בוע‬rejoice', see Kister 1999a: 163.

THE NATURE OF DSS HEBREW AND ITS RELATION TO BH AND MH Elisha Qimron (Beer-Sheva) 1 Introduction In this lecture I re-address several crucial questions concerning the history of early Hebrew and argue that the prevailing view regarding the nature of DSS Hebrew as a mixture of BH, MH and Aramaic is misleading and misguided. These are some of the questions with which I will deal: 1. Which type of Hebrew was spoken in Jerusalem or in its vicinity at the end of the Second Temple period? 2. What is the relationship between DSS Hebrew and MH? 3. How can one determine that DSS Hebrew grammatically reflects a distinct spoken dialect? 4. Is DSS Hebrew simply an admixture of BH, MH and Aramaic? It is my contention that the grammar of the DSS reflects the Hebrew of the period spoken in Jerusalem or in its vicinity. This grammar differs markedly from either that of MH or that of Tiberian BH. It reflects the contemporaneous spoken Hebrew rather than an unknown phase of BH or a mixture of the spoken and written languages of the Jews. I am not denying that DSS Hebrew could have been influenced by an unknown early type of MH. Of course, it was influenced by Aramaic and by biblical literature. Such influence is typical of most languages (especially as regards literary works). What I am saying is that the grammar of DSS Hebrew is basically independent and distinct from that of the other phases of Hebrew. I refer to the prevailing view as unified, ignoring minor variations.1 Likewise, I have not referred to all the new approaches, 1

For a detailed description of the various views see, Qimron 1992b:350352; Steiner (1997:146) states: "The literature of the Qumran sectarians, despite its being preserved in ancient copies, is, in some ways, a more problematic source for reconstructing the history of Hebrew in ancient times. Most scholars believe that the language of this literature owes more to imitation of the Bible than to the Hebrew vernacular of the period."

some of which are similar to mine, e.g. that of Prof. Morag.2 I avoid minor details and discussions concerning particular words and phrases. I rather concentrate on the morphology, which is the essence of the language.3 Of course, only a few grammatical features can be discussed here, due to time constraints. 2. What Type of Hebrew Was Spoken at the End of the Second Temple Period? Most scholars believe that the colloquial during that period was an early type of MH4. In fact, before the discovery of the DSS there was no other candidate. The DSS were composed at the end of the Second Temple period by people who had initially lived in Jerusalem and then subsequently departed for the 'Wilderness of Jerusalem'. 5 Let me remind you that Kutscher had already found reasons to connect the language of lQIsa 3 with Jerusalem.6 Scholars certainly should have considered the likely possibility that it is the Scrolls that best reflect the spoken Hebrew of that time and place. This, however, did not happen. Rather scholars have adhered to their old views. The fact that DSS Hebrew differs markedly from MH clearly troubled these scholars. But instead of reconsidering the old view, they tried (desperately, it seems) to reconcile the new evidence with it, assuming that DSS Hebrew does not reflect a naturally spoken Hebrew, but is rather an imitation of BH by people who spoke a kind of MH7. This is surely misguided. If this were the case, one would have expected to find in such a language biblical phraseology and MH grammatical forms. Since the grammar of DSS Hebrew differs strikingly from that of MH, the possibility that the authors of the scrolls spoke any kind of MH should be rejected forthwith. Is it conceivable that one could totally avoid one's own native grammar? Admittedly, there are biblical phraseologies in DSS Hebrew, but its grammar is considerably different from that of MH, as I have indicated elsewhere.8 3. What is the Origin ofMH Later on, I shall argue that DSS Hebrew reflects in fact a spoken 2

Morag 1988. See Qimron 1992b:354-360. 4 See the quotations in Qimron 1992b:350, n. 5. 5 1QM i 3, see Qimron 1992a:287-294. 6 Kutscher 1959:65-70. 3

‫ך‬

8

Blau 1997 still holds this view, ignoring my arguments against it. Qimron 1991a, and Qimron 1992b.

dialect of late Second Temple period Jerusalem and its environs. Accordingly, we should re-examine the traditional view regarding the history of MH. Many scholars believe that MH was the Hebrew spoken during the Second Temple period, implying that it was also spoken in Jerusalem and its environs9. Is this true? Is there any epigraphically evidence for the use of MH in that time and place? The answer is clearly no. According to this prevailing view, MMT and the Copper Scroll are to be considered as the forerunners of MH. As for the former, I have elsewhere already indicated that the grammar of MMT is basically identical with that of the other DSS, revealing no features unique to MH. This is also the case with the Copper Scroll.10 Let me briefly mention seven grammatical features found in the Copper Scroll which are inconsistent with MH: 1. The Copper Scroll uses nun instead of mem in grammatical endings. The mem is found only occasionally, e.g. ‫ שתים‬alongside ‫ שתין‬or ‫ אצלם‬alongside ‫אצלן‬. At first glance this seems consistent with MH. A detailed comparison, however, indicates that the distribution of these final nasals in this scroll differs from those of MH according to the description of Shlomo Naeh." For example, in MH, ‫ שתים‬rather than ‫ שתין‬is the norm. One might perhaps argue that both MH and the Copper Scroll testify to the general neutralization of these nasal consonants in final position, and that this, at least, is a common feature. Yet this phenomenon is not an isogloss restricted to these two sources alone. 2. ‫ — של ה־‬even though ‫( של‬as well as ‫ )ש־‬is frequent in this scroll as in MH, this combination with the article is not found in the most reliable manuscripts of MH.12 Needless to say, ‫( של‬and •‫ )ש‬is found also in certain earlier Hebrew texts. 3. ‫' בבואך‬when you come' — This use of the infinitive is atypical of tannaitic MH. Although Mishor13 did adduce several examples of this construction in tannaitic MH, most of them have textual variants or are related to biblical passages. Mishor referred to the Copper Scroll as representing MH, but the form under discussion is rather inconsistent with MH. 4. ‫ — הכוהן הגדול‬In contrast to all other Hebrew sources MH 9

Talshir 1993 and Blau 1997 suggested that it was spoken elsewhere. Rabin 1972:358 believed that the Copper Scroll is identical with MH, and this is also implied by Mishor 1980, ignoring the contradictory evidence in Bendavid 1967:99. 10

11 12 13

Naeh 1993:369-392. See for example Yalon 1964:25, 189-193. Mishor 1980.

knows only the form ‫ כוהן גדול‬without the definite article. G. Sarfatti14 indicated that, on the coins issued by the Hasmoneans, the title of the high priest who issued these coins is in most cases ‫הכוהן הגדול‬, but there are also forms without the article in both components or in either one of them. The form ‫הכהן הגדול‬ also occurs on an Aramaic ossuary found near Jerusalem,15 and this is practically the only form used in the DSS and other literary sources of the period. Obviously, the form ‫ הכוהן הגדול‬is in regular use in the Second Temple period whereas the evidence for the MH usage is restricted. I do not imply that it is impossible that the MH form existed occasionally at that time and even in Jerusalem, but undoubtedly, the regular title was ‫הכוהן הגדול‬. The fact that it occurs on coins, on an ossuary inscription and in the Copper Scroll proves that this was a colloquial form. Anyway the Copper Scroll is inconsistent with MH as regards this type. Finally, note that combinations such as ,‫כוהן גדול‬, ‫כוהן הדיוט‬ ‫מעשר שני‬, ‫יום טוב‬, definite without having the definite article, are typical only of MH16. 5. ‫נגד‬. In the reliable sources of MH, only ‫ כנגד‬is used. 6. ‫ כסף ככרין מאה‬and ‫ אמות שש‬is according to Aramaic word order (and the noun is in the plural). It is also found in LBH, but not in MH.17 7. ‫' שאצל‬near'. This form is not found in MH, where ‫אצל‬ does not mean 'near' and is not followed by a place name as in BH. In MH, it rather means 'to' and is mostly followed by a personal object (or the like) and preceded by a verb of motion. I conclude that there is no solid evidence for the use of MH in Jerusalem and its vicinity in the Second Temple period. Let me add that even the later documents found in this region from the time of Bar Kokhva are written in a type of Hebrew that is quite different from literary MH, as noticed by Kutscher and others18. Why is there no epigraphic evidence of MH in the vicinity of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period? Can it be only coincidental? I believe that it is not. MH is basically the language of the Sages of Lod and nearby places rather than of Jerusalem and 14

Sarfatti 1995:75-87 But the form ‫ כהן גדול‬is also found on a legal document and on a bulla from the Second Temple period, see Eshel 1999:495-504. 16 See Sarfatti 1989:157-158. Precise evidence for the style of MH may be found in burial inscriptions at Beth She'arim. 17 Qimron 1986: § 400.20 15

,8

Kutscher 1962:20-21.

its environs.19 It became the literary language only several generations after the destruction of Jerusalem. It is inconceivable that a dialect of such peripheral places would have been used in Jerusalem before the Destruction. No wonder that the unique grammatical features of MH are missing from the documents of die Second Temple period at the time when the dialect of Jerusalem was dominant20. 3.1. Did Nehemiah Speak MH? Nehemiah was a member of the fifth generation following the exile. How could he speak Hebrew? But in fact he did. In Neh 13:23-25 he tells us that certain (assimilated) Jews did not speak Hebrew. This implies that most Jews did speak Hebrew.21 Naturally, one should assume that the Hebrew of the book attributed to Nehemiah (and written in the first person) would reflect the spoken language of Nehemiah. Yet, many scholars believe that the spoken Hebrew of Nehemiah was in fact closer to the language of Rabbi Akiva who lived some five hundred years later. This is their attitude to the other late biblical books which contain certain features known from MH.22 Yet, the typical morphological features of MH are not to be found in the late biblical books (nor in the later literature of the Second Temple period). Take, for example the new analogical infinitive forms of MH: ‫לטהר‬, ‫לשב‬, ‫לירש‬,‫לתן‬, and ‫לומר‬. Such forms are definitive markers of MH, since they are not found in BH or in any other Semitic language. If these MH forms were spoken by Nehemiah or by other Jews throughout the Second Temple period how could they not have left any imprint in the written texts?23 Why were the forms ‫לטהור‬, ‫לשבת‬,‫לרשת‬, ‫לתת‬, and ‫ לאמור‬always preferred in contradiction to the writers' own supposed grammar? Is it 19

See Talshir 1993, Blau 1997, Qimron 1997b. Precise epigraphical evidence of MH may however be found only in the burial inscriptions at Beth She'arim 20 Qimron 1991a. 21

Ben Yehuda in the introduction to his dictionary, pp. 110-112. Even Gesenius and Nöldeke admit that this is a clear piece of evidence that Hebrew was still spoken at that time (see the reference in Ben Yehuda, ibid). Kutscher (1959:8) misuses this evidence. 22 See, for example, Bendavid (1967:65), who cited Neh 9:29 ‫אטר יעטה‬ ‫אדם וחיה בהם‬, claiming that ‫ וחיה‬rather than CBH's ‫ וחי‬is a forerunner of MH. 23

Only two doubtful cases can be found in the DSS ("‫ לרד‬lQIsa 3 30:2 and 4 ‫ ל נ ג ו ע‬Q S a m c 14:10) and one in Ben Sira ( 3 0 : 1 7 can be explained as result of assimilation. Note that ‫ לגוע‬differs from both the MH counterpart and from the imperfect ‫)יגע‬.

‫ל י ר ד‬

conceivable that not even a single scribe among the hundreds of scribes in this period would use his own language? 4. Can One Prove that DSS Grammar Reflects a Spoken Dialect of the Second Temple Period? The fact that DSS Hebrew originated in a dialect different from that of e.g. (Tiberian) BH or MH was already indicated by Kutscher. Furthermore, Morag has argued convincingly that the special features of DSS Hebrew indicate that this was a living language.25 One may, however, explain some of the evidence adduced by him as reflecting either the pronunciation of the Aramaic of the time or biblical Hebrew features unknown from any other tradition of Β H (or the like).26 Can we prove beyond any reasonable doubt that DSS Hebrew reflects the spoken language of the Scrolls1 scribes? Studying the Imperfect verb forms in DSS Hebrew, I found that this complex system is most peculiar, and differs from that of BH or any other type of Hebrew. For example, the forms preceded by waw are always long in the first person (‫ואקטלה‬, ‫ )ואעשה‬and always short in the second and third persons (‫)ויעש‬. Furthermore, in the absence of preceding waw, ‫ אקטלה‬and ‫ יעש‬on the one hand, as opposed to ‫ אקטל‬er ‫ יקטל‬on the other hand, occur in complementary distribution: ‫ אקטלה‬and ‫ יעש‬are mostly used in initial position as if they were preceded by waw, whereas ‫ אקטל‬and ‫ יקטל‬are used in non-initial position.27 Since this special usage was common to many generations of scribes at Qumran, it cannot be considered is artificial, unnatural scribal convention. Had this complex system not been a reflection of the scribes' own grammar, it would have been far less consistent. Is it conceivable that such a complex system be maintained to such an extent unless it was spoken? Recently, J. Blau argued that the revival of ‫ ואקטלה‬does relate to the choice of the scribes.28 He did not, however, address the facts that I have emphasized above, namely that the use of the forms is regulated by morphosyntactical conditions. 4.1 How much Archaism can be Found in the DSS? Even those scholars who believe that the authors of the DSS imitate BH grammar would admit that this is not the case regarding 24

Kutscher 1959:70. Morag 1988. 26 Cf. also Blau 1997:30-31. 25

27 28

See Qimron 1998:31-43. Blau 1997.

lQIsa8. The scribe of this scroll uses his own orthography and language instead of those of the prophet.29 Explaining a given feature in lQIsa 3 as archaism would be contrary to the tendency of its scribe. Nevertheless, Kutscher and others did explain some features in lQIsa 3 as archaisms, for example the use of 30.‫ואקטלה‬ I explain the special grammatical forms in lQIsa 2 as reflecting the spoken language of the scribe and his readers. These forms are exactly the forms used in the independent works composed by the sectarians rather than MH. Thus we found ‫ הואה‬instead of ‫הוא‬, ‫ אתמה‬instead of ‫אתם‬, ‫ דברמה‬instead of ‫דברם‬, ‫ איכה‬instead of ‫איך‬, ‫ מואדה‬instead of ‫מאד‬, ‫ יכתובו‬instead of ‫יכתבו‬, ‫ כתובו‬instead of ‫כתבו‬, ‫ ואומרה‬instead of ‫ואמר‬. There are no typical MH forms in this scroll such as ‫לישב‬, ‫לומר‬, ‫נתפעל‬,‫אלו‬, ‫יהא‬,‫אינו \הו‬. May one seriously claim that the use of ‫ יהיה‬rather than ‫ יהא‬in DSS Hebrew is archaism? 5. Are DSS Hebrew and MH merely a Continuation of BH? It is self evident that spoken Hebrew from biblical times to tannaitic times was not uniform, but rather composed of different dialects, distinguished by both time and place. Some of these dialects may have been incorporated in the various traditions of Hebrew (both biblical and mishnaic). It is also agreed that Tiberian BH, DSS Hebrew, and Palestinian MH each reflect a particular Hebrew dialect. Keeping this in mind we shall have no trouble in explaining cases of inconsistency between grammatical development and time sequence. For example, the fact that DSS Hebrew contains many features that are earlier than their counterparts in Β H clearly demonstrates that the former cannot be described as a transitional phase. Specific examples may be found in my article written previously on this subject.31 5.1. Is DSS Hebrew a Mixture of BH, MH and Aramaic? From what has been indicated so far, and from the example that will be discussed later on, one sees that DSS Hebrew is an independent type of Hebrew. It may well have been influenced by other phases of Hebrew and by Aramaic, but obviously it is not an admixture of them. The moment one agrees that a given work written in the Second Temple period contains significant features of a spoken dialect that differ from the grammatical features of MH, he can no longer assume that MH was the 29

Kutscher 1959:14. Kutscher 1959:251-252. 31 For example Qimron 1992b:357. 30

spoken language of that work's author. Should it be assume that this author uses two types of spoken Hebrew? 6. Comparative Observations of Several Distinctive Features 6.1 The suffix -ka Ben Hayyim demonstrated that in all the vocalization traditions of BH, the suffix -ka maintains its original final vowel, though some particles have pausal forms without it:‫לך‬, ‫ בך‬,‫ אותך‬and in MH one finds forms such as ‫ דברך‬without final vowel and ‫דבריך‬ with original final vowel32. He explained the forms without final vowels in both MH and BH as Aramaisms. Steiner criticized this explanation, arguing that ‫לך‬, ‫פארך‬, ‫צוך‬, ‫ בך‬in BH are pausal apocopated forms and that the MH forms "reflect colloquial Hebrew usage of the tannaitic period, particularly since this distribution differs significantly from the distribution of ‫ך‬- in Aramaic." He then tried to reconcile his observation and the prevailing view by saying that "Aramaic influence may not have been the only cause of the increase in frequency of ‫ך‬: in MH, a second factor may have been the tendency of Β H pausal forms to spread into non-pausal position in M H " . 3 Finally, he attempted to explain the distribution of ‫יך^ך‬- i n MH as analogous to ‫; ה‬/‫־יה‬.. J. Blau argued that neither the interpretation of ‫ ;ך‬as Aramaism nor Steiner5s interpretation is decisive.34 The question whether Aramaic was a factor in the creation of ‫ ;ך‬is not relevant to my point. What is more significant is that the distribution of the forms in the Jewish vocalization traditions and those of MH is regulated by phonological and phonosyntactical conditions not found in Aramaic. The forms in Hebrew must have developed in each Hebrew phase independently of Aramaic. Let us examine what can be inferred from this form with respect to the relationship between BH, DSS Hebrew and MH. What was the form of this suffix in DSS Hebrew? According to those scrolls written plene the form is always -ka including ‫בכה‬,‫ לכה‬in pausal position. Typologically speaking, DSS Hebrew always uses the original forms whereas the other traditions know the later form as well. Pausal ‫ לכה‬in DSS Hebrew is earlier than ‫ לך‬in the vocalized traditions of BH. One may argue that pausal ‫ לכה‬in DSS Hebrew is a renewed form built by analogy of its contextual counterpart. 32 33 34

Ben-Hayyim 1954. Steiner 1979. Blau 1982:61-67.

This is, however, very unlikely for two reasons: first, there are no special pausal forms in DSS Hebrew, and second, the type of ‫( לכה‬pausal) is already found in the consonantal text of the Bible: ‫( אויתכה‬Exod 29:35). DSS Hebrew also retained the early penul-timate accentuation of the words terminating with this suffix as can be inferred from plene spelling such as ‫בעוזביכה‬ (inf. est. in context)35. This agrees with the tradition of the biblical scribes.36 In my opinion, the MH forms of the type ‫ ד ב ר ך‬could not have evolved from the Tiberian contextual forms (‫ )דברך‬nor from the Qumranic form ‫( דבריכה‬singular = pausal ‫)דברך‬. It rather evolved from ‫ דברך‬with 11 a between the base and the suffix as in Samaritan Hebrew. I disagree with Steiners claim that there is some historical connection between pausal ‫ך‬: in BH and the MH .38;‫ ך‬I conclude that these three phases of Hebrew differ from each other and one cannot delineate an historical development of the suffix according to time sequence. Rather the suffix was different in each of the Hebrew dialects; in one the suffix remained unchanged and in the others it was partly changed according to specific phonological or phonosyntactical conditions. Finally, let me discuss the possibilities concerning the form of this suffix in the Bar Kokhva documents. This suffix is always written —‫ ך‬whether in, e.g., ‫( דברך‬MH ‫ ) דברך‬or in2]‫ ל פ נ ך‬x ] (also ‫( )לפניך‬MH ‫)לפניך‬. Whether we take'this ‫ך‬- as reflecting a phonetic spelling or a defective spelling the rule would in any case be different from that of MH. Was ‫ לפנך‬pronounced ‫?לפנך‬ Or perhaps ‫ ?לפניך‬Similarly, was ‫ המך‬pronounced ‫ * ה מ ך‬or ‫? ה מ ך‬ Only according to the second possibility may the assimilation of the nun be easily explained. How was ‫ בבואך‬in the Copper Scroll pronounced? 6.2 Final i in the Second Person Feminine Singular Forms (,‫אתי‬ ‫־כי‬,‫) פעלתי‬ This Protosemitic final vowel was still used in early Hebrew texts. Yet, it was obsolete in the Jewish vocalization traditions. Surprisingly, the Samaritan Hebrew and DSS Hebrew still utilize it. The distribution of this type in Hebrew texts is inconsistent with time sequence. It occurs in early stories related to Northern 35 36 37 38

Qimron 1992d:89. Qimron 1992d. Ben-Hayyim 1997:169-174 and Qimron 1992d. Steiner 1979.

Israel, as well as in Ruth and Canticles, in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is not used in Esther. Then it reappears in the DSS and disappears again in MH. This chronological inconsistency in usage has led many scholars (including myself) to suppose that the use of this element in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the DSS, and Samaritan Hebrew should be considered an Aramaism. This supposition is, however, unlikely for the following reasons: 1. The regular form of this pronoun in the Aramaic of the Second Temple period is not ‫ אתי‬but .‫אנתי‬ 2. Systematic Aramaic influence is relatively rare in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.40 3. Why would MH reject this Aramaism? Note that in the Aramaic documents from the Bar Kokhva period one finds forms both with and without final i. The forms with final i should therefore be considered original Hebrew. Presumably, they were used in some Hebrew dialects in both First and Second Temple periods. The fact that in Ezekiel 16 only -‫( תי‬not -‫ כי‬and ‫ )אתי‬is used suggests that the dialects were not homogeneous in the use of all three forms. 6.3 ‫אתמה‬, ‫שמרתמה‬, ‫ארצכמה‬, ‫מלכיהמה‬ Such forms with a final vowel are found in DSS Hebrew and in Samaritan Hebrew, but not in Masoretic BH41 or MH, which have only forms without a final vowel. Typologically speaking, all these masculine forms are not original (the original forms end in u-u). The forms with final a are universally accepted as being patterned after their feminine counterparts. For example, *humu > *himma by analogy to hinna (and then both *hinna and *himma have developed in similar ways). This analogy appears to be very old, being found in all the traditions of Hebrew. Most probably, it occurred before the dropping of the final a in the feminine forms (note that ‫ הן‬never occurs in BH and ‫אתן‬ occurs but once). Accordingly, the forms with final vowel in the DSS should be considered typologically older than those of BH. Another consideration that favors this reconstruction is that, in DSS Hebrew, these plural feminine forms were replaced by the masculine ones (e.g. ‫ המה‬is both masculine and feminine). The analogy of the feminine could not have taken place at that time but rather during an earlier period when the feminine forms were in existence. 39

But see Muraoka and Porten 1998:44. On the Aramaisms in Jeremiah, see Morag 1974:315, n. 48. 1 See Qimron 1986.

40

Kutscher argues, however, that the forms under discussion are late analogical forms. He noticed that in the Bible the feminine forms are frequently written with final -‫ ה‬whereas the masculine are written without final -‫ה‬, which would indicate that the latter are devoid of final vowel. According to my approach, this argument is inconclusive, since DSS Hebrew is not necessarily a descendant of BH. Logically, Kutscher should also have said that forms such as ‫ הואה‬or ‫ מאדה‬in the DSS are new, since they do not occur in the biblical consonantal text. Furthermore, should not ‫ אתמה‬and ‫ הואה‬be treated the same? But even according to Kutscher's approach, this argument is both inconclusive and somewhat far-fetched. First of all, Kutscher admits that the form ‫( אליהמה‬Ezek 40:16) indicates that the analogy preceded the time of the Scrolls. Secondly, Wernberg-M0l1er may have found evidence for such forms with final -‫ ה‬in the Bible.42 Kutscher himself admits that two of Wernberg-M0l1er examples are plausible.43 Thirdly, how can one be sure that at least some of the biblical forms are not orthographically defective? In fact, this is the case according to the Samaritan oral tradition, which reads these forms as orthographically defective. Obviously, the Samaritan tradition is more reliable than the Jewish vocalization tradition as regards these forms. The former preserves the older forms independently of the consonantal text, whereas the latter suggests typologically later forms, adding nothing to the consonantal text and seemingly remaining completely dependent on it. One can argue that the Samaritan tradition reads the consonantal text according to the spoken Hebrew of the Second Temple period, but since the forms with final a are older it is equally possible that they were originally intended in the biblical consonantal text.44 6.4 ‫יכתובו‬,‫כתובו‬ These forms are structurally older than ‫ יכתבו‬and ‫ כתבו‬in the Tiberian vocalization tradition. They are in tandem with the Tiberian pausal forms ‫ יכתבו‬and ‫כתבו‬. Those scholars who believed that the forms in BH should in principle be considered older than those of DSS Hebrew, interpreted ‫ יכתובו‬and ‫ כתובו‬as analogical new forms, patterned according to the Tiberian pausal forms. 42

Wernberg-M0l1er 19573:44-49.

43

Kutscher 1959:494. Cf. also Ezek 20:29 .‫מה הבמה אשר אתם הבאים שם‬

44

Cf. Yalon 1967:21-22.

In previous studies, I argued that it is the DSS which preserved the older forms.45 These older forms are also to be found in the biblical consonantal text and in Greek and Latin transliterations.46 Similarly, J. Blau argues that forms such as yiktabu and ketabu in Samaritan Hebrew should also be considered as evolving directly from the early forms *yiktubu, *kutubu rather than from the Tiberian contextual forms ‫ יסתבר‬and 47.‫ כתבו‬Ben-Hayyim rejected Blau's reconstruction, claiming that if it were true, one would expect such forms as yiktubu, with pausal long u.48 He did not, however, give any example or reference documenting pausal lengthening in Samaritan Hebrew. Nor did he explain why pausal lengthening is at all relevant to the discussion of forms which also occur in non-pausal position. Is it really necessary to interpret all the evidence according to the late Tiberian tradition? Must the form ‫( מלוכי‬Judg 9:12) in the biblical consonantal text also be considered a late analogical form? Especially instructive is the form ‫ קטולה‬found in both the biblical consonantal text, in the Babylonian vocalization,4'' and in the DSS. This form indicates that the structure is not Aramaic (as Kutscher believed), there being no long imperative in Aramaic. Nor can it be an analogical form patterned after the pausal forms since lengthened imperative forms are very rare in pause.50 To sum up, the types ‫ יכתובו‬and ‫ כתובו‬in DSS Hebrew are older than ‫ יכתבו‬and ‫ כתבו‬in Tiberian BH and in MH. I believe that both ‫ יכתובו‬and ‫ יסתבו‬were in use in early Hebrew. Some dialects used the older type whereas others used the newer one. In a forthcoming article, I shall argue that forms such as ‫ יכתבו‬are not the basic forms in Tiberian BH, since they can not occur independently; the isolated independent form is ·‫יכתבו‬ 45

Qimron 1992d. Kutscher 1959:258. 47 Blau 1971:21 note 12; cf. also Yalon 1967:23. JÍÍ Ben-Hayyim 1977:39. The argument of Blau is evidently supported by Samaritan Hebrew oppositions such as tišmūn vs. tišmā'ù in which the former corresponds to Tiberian ‫*{ תסמעון‬tišm^ùrì) whereas the latter would not correspond to Tiberian ‫*( תסמעו‬tišmû) but to ‫תשמעו‬. Ben-Hayyim refers to this case which as he admits would contradict his view. He argues that as in e.g. tēšaIIā'11 (‫ )תסלחו‬the a is not original and must therefore reflect a shwa, likewise the a in tismä'ü also reflects a shwa (pp. 97-98). Yet the a occurs also in e.g. tēša1Ia (*‫ )תסלח‬where no shwa existed. Cf. also perf. forms such as šāmzPu, which cannot have evolved from *šarrfu. 49 Yeivin 1985:481. 50 See Fassberg 1994:13, n. 7. 46

7 Conclusion It seems self-evident that early spoken Hebrew was made up of many dialects. The preserved literature and its various traditions represent only a small fraction of these dialects. Tiberian Hebrew represents one (or more) of these dialects. Most probably, it does not reflect the dialect of Jerusalem. The Jerusalem dialect is most probably reflected both in the consonantal text of most of the biblical books and in the Hebrew of the DSS. The various dialects of Hebrew may have developed independently in similar ways, but some of them preserved old forms, which were replaced by later ones in other dialects. We can no longer interpret all the various evidence of Early Hebrew according to the assumption that the Tiberian tradition is the starting point, whereas Palestinian MH is the last stage. The Tiberian tradition should no longer be equated with "Biblical Hebrew". As with the other traditions, it should be looked upon as basically representing one of the many dialects. Finally, only texts written in the second Temple period can reflect the language of this period (as opposed to MH, which is the language of the later Rabbis who did not live in Jerusalem). Admittedly, most of the DSS are literaiy works, but their grammar should be considered as reflecting the spoken language of their scribes.

LINGUISTIC IDEOLOGY IN QUMRAN HEBREW William M. Schniedewind (Los Angeles) The place of Qumran Hebrew1 within the history of the Hebrew language is tied to the hotly debated linguistic question on the nature of language. Are languages intrinsic, closed systems, or are they a part of a larger system of culture and society? I am inclined to the position of the social and anthropological linguists. Namely, language is integrally tied to its role in society. I begin with the classic Saussurian linguistic premise that "language is a complex social fact" (Irvine, 1989:250). Consequently, the sectarian religious beliefs of the Qumran community would have influenced Qumran Hebrew.2 In a recent paper (Schniedewind 1999), I already argued that Qumran Hebrew is an "antilanguage." In other words, Qumran Hebrew is characterized by conscious choices that were intended to set the Qumran community and their language apart from others. If I am correct, then we can no longer simply explain the anomalies in Qumran grammar and orthography on the basis of historical grammar. The present paper elaborates upon the specific nature of Qumran's linguistic ideology and how it may have worked itself out in the linguistic code. The Qumran community patterned their language after what they perceived to be the very language of God used in the creation of the world. However, God's primordial language was not necessarily the language of the Hebrew Bible. Poetic linguistic register and its presumably archaic forms were a linguistic pattern for their language, although many Qumran forms are apparently pre-classical, pseudoclassicisms, or hyper-classicisms. I. Language and Linguistic Ideology Linguistic ideology takes on exaggerated importance among 1

I distinguish Qumran Hebrew from Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew. The former is the language of the sect and the texts it composed and copied (about 140 texts according to Τον). The latter is a much larger group, which would reflect more generally the Hebrew of the late Second Temple Period. Conceptual aspects of the special sectarian nature of the Qumran community as reflected by their lexicon were developed by the late Shelmo Morag in his paper for this conference.

groups that are "exclusive and sharply bounded" like the Qumran community. An anthropological analogy can illustrate this point. In Puritan England dissenting religious sects like the Quakers actually cultivated both oral and written idiosyncrasies (OrmsbyLennon, 1991; Smith, 1991). The Quakers' speech was most notably characterized by the use of "thee" and "thou" (which happens to compare nicely with the Qumran use of pronouns ‫ הואה‬and ‫ היאה‬for ‫ הוא‬and ‫)היא‬. The Quakers' linguistic choices were religiously motivated by their desire to cultivate a kind of "God-talk." Still, antilanguages find their reference point in the normative code, as the linguistic anthropologist Judith Irvine notes, the [antilanguage] code's origin in counter-societies is reflected in many aspects of their linguistic form, for instance in their elaboration of lexicon and metaphor relevant to their special activities and their attitudes toward the normative society .... Both functionally and formally it is derived from the normative code, just as its speakers define their social role in opposition to the normative society (1989:253). While Qumran Hebrew derives from the normative linguistic code, which was the vernacular spoken in Jerusalem by the opponents of the Qumran community, the privileged place of biblical literature in Qumran literature also points to a written or literary background to Qumran Hebrew that generated many of the peculiar forms found in Qumran literature. II. Language Ideology in the Qumran Community The ideological role of language at Qumran touched upon in my former article warrants further elaboration. Chaim Rabin (1958:146) has suggested that the Scrolls allude to vernacular Hebrew, which the community regarded as "another language" ( 1,‫לשוןאחרת‬QH2[10]:19; 4[12]:16), "a halting language" ( 1,‫א]ע[גשפה‬QH12:16), "a blasphemous language" (‫לשוןגדופים‬, CD 5:11-12; 1QS 4:11) and "an uncircumcised language" ( 1,‫ערולשפה‬QH2[10]:7, 18-19). The Qumran critique of vernacular Hebrew apparently reacted against the Oral Law, which, according to CD 5:11-12, was not fixed: ‫וגם את רוח קרשיהם טמאו ובלשון גרופים פתחו פה על חוקי ברית אל לאמר‬ ‫לא נכונו‬ Also they have corrupted their holy spirit, and with blasphemous language they have reviled the statutes of God's covenant, saying, "They are not fixed."

In the above text, the writer apparently refers to the way the Pharisees interpreted the law of intermarriage. The Damascus Document here cites Lev 18:13 emphasizing that "Moses said" (‫ומשה אמר‬, CD 5:8). Certainly, the legitimacy of the Oral Law was a hot topic in the late Second Temple period. The charge that language as reflected in a particular interpretation of the Torah was "not fixed" arises out of the Qumran doctrine of predestination, which apparently opposed the fluidity of the Oral Law.3 The Oral Torah implied an ongoing interpretative process that the Qumran community would not have been able to accept. This rigidity stems from the community's predestinarian views and extended to other areas of Qumran life and thought. Everything was fixed before creation itself. It applies, for instance, to liturgy at Qumran, which was fixed in contrast to the fluid liturgy of rabbinic Judaism (cf. m. Ber 4:4; b. Ber 29b; Talmon 1989). This issue also underlies code terminology applied to the sect's opponents —phrases like "those who move the boundary" (e.g., ‫ ;מסיגי הגבול‬CD 5:20; 19:15-16; also see 1:16) or "seekers of easy interpretations" (cf. ‫ ;דורשיהחלקות‬CD 1:18; 1QH 10:32). The Qumran ideology seems to be that both the Oral Law and its linguistic register—i.e., vernacular Hebrew—were blasphemous. Certainly, there is also a linguistic ideology that underlies the relationship between the Mishnah and its literary register. The intentional use of vernacular Hebrew in the Mishnah likewise arises out of the literary content, namely, Oral Law (cf. Schwartz 1995). Qumran Hebrew was evidently understood to be akin to the primordial language of creation. Jewish tradition holds that "the one language and one speech" referred to in Gen 11:1 was Hebrew (Rubin 1998; also see Janowitz 1993). The notion that Hebrew was the language of creation is already evident in the book of Jubilees (12:25-27), a text well attested among the Qumran manuscripts. Josephus (Ant. i, 4) and Philo of Alexandria (Quaestiones in Genesim i, 32) also suggest that the language of creation was Hebrew. And, a fragmentary new text from Qumran also seems to indicate that Hebrew was the pre-Babel language that remained only with Abraham (Eshel and Stone, 1992/1993). In this light, it may be helpful to revisit 1QH l[9]:27-29, •‫ ותש‬.‫ ותכן פרי שפתים בטרם היותם‬.‫אתה בראתה רוח בלשון ותדע דבריה‬ ‫ ותוצא קוים לחיהם ומבעי רוחות‬.‫דברים על קו ומבע רוח שפתים במרה‬ 3

Such a belief would lend more support to Schiffman's argument for the proto-Sadduccean origins of the Qumran community (Schiffman, 1994:83‫־‬ 89).

‫לחשבונם להודיע‬ (27) [[ ]] You created (28) spirit in language, and You know its words. You determined the fruit of the lips before they came about. You appointed words by archetype (29) and the utterance of the breath of the lips by calculation. You sent forth archetypes for their mysteries, and the utterances of spirits for their plan ... We see in this passage that a pattern for language was established at creation (i.e., ‫)אתהבראתה‬. Language follows an ordained pattern as we would expect, given the Qumran theology of predestination. Critical to this predetermined pattern for language is the relexicalization of the term Qav (‫ )קו‬discussed in my former article. In Qumran Hebrew Qav becomes the primordial pattern or archetype for language and speech. The translation of Qav as "pattern" would be sufficient, except that it is clear that the sectarian theology of predestination colors their use of the term. For example, in Qumran literature the Qav is engraved (‫" חקקתהלקו‬You engraved according to the Qav," 1QH 18[23]r11; cp. 1QpHab 7:13-14). Elsewhere in the Thanksgiving Hymns, Qav is paralleled with a "secret (‫ ")סוד‬etched in stone (1QH 6[14]:26). Qav is also a metaphorical source (‫ )מקור‬from which proper judgment derives (1QH 8[16]:21). The Community Rule speaks of the "law which is determined by the archetype of the ages" ( 1,‫ ח ו ק בקועתים‬Q S 10:26). The Teacher instructs accord to "the archetype of his justice" ( 1,‫ א ש א בקומשפטו‬Q S 10:9). Qumran community's particular relexicalization underscores the importance of a language ideology arising out of the sect's religious identity. Their language is just one of the many things determined by God at creation. The term Qav appears only a few times in the Hebrew Bible, but these texts nevertheless provide the framework for the Qumran development of the meaning of Qav. The connection between Qav and the language or words of God in creation is already clear inPsa 19:2-5: ‫השמים מספרים כבוד־אל ומעשה ידיו מגיד הרקיע יום ליום יביע אמר ולילה‬ ‫ללילה יחוה־דעת אין־אמר ואין דברים בלי נשמע קולם בכל־הארץ יצא קום‬ ‫ובקצה תבל מליהם‬ The heavens recount the glory of God, the sky proclaims the work of his hands. Day to day makes utterance, night to night utters knowledge. There is no utterance, there are no words, without their voice being heard. Their Qav carries throughout the earth, their words to the end of the world.

Psalm 19 ties the Qav with the creation, "the work of God's hands." A cluster of terms from 1QH l[9]:27-29 draw upon this psalm including ‫קו‬, ‫מבע‬/‫יביע‬, and ‫דברים‬. The Qumran use of the term Qav is even more heavily influenced by the most tantalizing and enigmatic occurrence of Qav in Isa 28:10-14: ‫כי צו לצו צו לצו קו לקו קו לקו זעיר שם זעיר שם‬ ::: ‫כי בלעגי שפה ובלשץ אחרת ידבר אלהם הזה‬ ‫קו לקו קו לקו זיר שם זיר שם למן'ילכו וכשלו אחור ונשברו ונוקשו ונלכדו‬ ‫והיה להם דבריהוה צו לצו צו לצו‬ ‫לכן שמעו דבר־יהוה אנשי לצון משלי העם הזה אשר בירושלם‬ For it is "babble after babble, gabble after gabble, a little here, a little there!" Truly, he speaks to that people with foreign speech and another language .... To them the word of the LORD is: "babble after babble, gabble after gabble, a little here, a little there." So they will march, but they shall fall backward, and be injured and snared and captured. Hear now the word of the LORD, you men of mockery, who govern that people in Jerusalem! In this passage Qav is the word of the LORD (‫ )דבר יהוה‬that those who babble in another language (‫ )לשון אחרת‬cannot understand. It is important to remember that the poet refers to other Israelites who spoke Hebrew, just as the Qumran sect also refers to other Jews in Jerusalem who spoke Hebrew. The expression "another" language certainly carries a pejorative undertone. This is suggested by the term "another" (‫)אחרת‬, which is elsewhere associated with "other gods" or the "other" woman in the sense of an adulterous relationship.^he poet adds a further pejorative sense to this other language by the pun using ‫לשון‬ "language" alongside ‫" לצון‬mockery" to refer to those who speak with another language. In verse 11 we read, "and in another language he speaks to this people" and in verse 14 he writes, "Hear now the word of the LORD, you men of mockery, who govern this people in Jerusalem." The latter text was undoubtedly particularly significant to the Qumran sect precisely because it was directed at those who governed in Jerusalem. The Qumran description of their adversaries as those who speak "another language" apparently derives from this passage. It is noteworthy that the Damascus Document also uses the term Tzav (‫ )צו‬from Isaiah 28 (CD 4:19), identifying the Tzav with the spouting of false teaching. Apparently, Qumranites interpreted Isa 28:10 in two parts, with Qav being the divine word and Tzav, false precepts. The use of this particular code terminology further underscores 4

The pejorative sense of the term ‫ אחרת‬was pointed out to me by Professor T. Muraoka.

the importance of Isaiah 28 to the Qumran linguistic ideology. As anthropological linguists have shown, orthography and script are also ideologically loaded (cf. Eira 1998). Emanuel Τον (1986, 1996, 1998, 1999) has argued that the orthography of Qumran Hebrew reflects a system which must be considered unique and peculiar to the Qumran community. The experimentation with paleo-Hebrew and cryptic scripts were also socially marked uses of script. It is noteworthy, for example, that the revival of palaeo-Hebrew script appears on Jewish coins of the Second Temple period reflecting nationalistic movements (cf. Hanson 1964). The use of cryptic scripts now appears to be much more extensive than initially thought with perhaps more than eighty fragmentary manuscripts including several copies of the Rule of the Community.5 One can only speculate concerning the rationale for cryptic script. It may have arisen from a rejection of the "foreign" Aramaic script or it may have been an attempt to recover the written alphabet from creation. In any case, the cryptic script socially marked off the community even more stringently than the Qumran scribal practice. It certainly reflects the highly charged linguistic ideology of the Qumran sect. The Temple Scroll can illustrate a Qumran language ideology and its implications for understanding Qumran Hebrew. The Temple Scroll recasts the voice of Torah so that the book frames itself as the direct speech of God. The Temple Scroll draws most heavily on the biblical book of Deuteronomy as it reframes the third person report of Moses' speech in Deuteronomy into the first person voice of God. The peculiar language of the Temple Scroll is likely influenced by the change in voice. It seems difficult to sustain the argument that linguistic register would be unrelated to the change in voice. Naturally, God's speech is different from human speech. The Temple Scroll apparently parallels the presumed linguistic code of God when it uses forms like ‫המה‬, ‫יקטולו‬, ‫" מאודה‬very," ‫" שמה‬there," and ‫אביהו‬/‫" אהיהו‬his father/ brother" (for BH ‫אביו‬/‫ )אחיו‬that could be described as pseudo-classicisms or hyper-classicisms. III. Linguistic Ideology and Grammatical Aspects of Qumran 5

See S. P f a n n ' s forthcoming article, "The Writings in Esoteric Script from Qumran," in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery— Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997(eds. Larry Schiffman, Emanuel Τον, and James C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). These manuscripts are being published for the DJD series by Pfann and are discussed in his dissertation at the Hebrew University (also see Pfann 1994).

Hebrew While it is clear both from internal evidence and anthropological linguistic analogy that the Qumran sect had a strong language ideology, it is still quite difficult to move from this observation to the assessment of individual grammatical features. The counterreality for the Qumran sect is its own identity as "the true root of Israel" and its linguistic ideology that understood their language as following a predetermined primordial pattern. We would expect the Qumran sect consciously and/or subconsciously to try to imitate this primordial language—the language God spoke during creation. Classicisms or pseudo-classicisms would therefore be particularly suspicious as reflecting linguistic ideology.6 The most telling attempt to reconstruct primordial language would be hyperclassicisms—namely, the use of pre-classical forms such as ‫אביהו‬ (MT Hebrew is ‫)אביו‬. A consistent principle, namely the addition of he, underlies many of the anomalous forms in Qumran Hebrew. Some of these forms may actually preserve dialectal variations, but linguistic ideology offers a more comprehensive explanation than historical grammar. In any case, we should not be misled into thinking that spelling only encodes phonology and morphology; as sociolinguistics has taught us, spelling is often ideologically motivated and expresses cultural ideologies especially among sectarian groups (see Trudgill, 1995:136-145; Eira 1998). Rather than attempting to posit a hitherto unknown dialect and appealing to separate historical grammatical explanation for each form, it seems better to look for an explanations that account for a whole group. It may turn out in the end that a few of these forms are actually derived from a hitherto unknown dialect; however, an ideologically motivated explanation can account for a whole group of forms. Since an antilanguage is marked by "conspicuous avoidance and violation of forms recognized as 'standard'" (Irvine 1989: 253), we need a precise understanding of the standard, both the vernacular and the literary standard, in order to accurately characterize the language of Qumran Hebrew. Unfortunately, we have a limited corpus by which to judge the standard. MMT and Ben Sira as well as Mishnaic Hebrew (although this is admittedly later) give us some basis to judge the standards, both vernacular and literary. To begin with, the recently published MMT does not fit the criteria for an antilanguage and may be taken as a point of departure for the vernacular of standard 6

On Pseudo-classicisms see Joosten (1999).

language (ef. Schniedewind 1999). MMT is a pseudo-letter, which includes a detailed legal discussion and was addressed from the community to the Jerusalem leadership—apparently before the Khirbet Qumran was settled. Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell have summarized the linguistic situation in MMT (1985, 1994). Two factors account for differences between MMT and Qumran Hebrew. First of all, MMT was apparently sent to the Jerusalem aristocracy with a view to a rapprochement; hence, it used more of the vernacular. Second, from the content of MMT it is apparent that it was composed before the group separated itself from Jerusalem and moved to Khirbet Qumran, even though the copies in the library of Qumran mostly post-date the breakaway from Jerusalem. Thus, MMT reflects a period in the group's history before the development of the antilanguage. The attempt at rapprochement in MMT would not have been conducive to the use of an antilanguage. Another useful criterion is linguistic inconsistency. The assumption is that if a form is standard in a language, then it is likely to be employed consistently. This is especially true of common words like pronouns and particles. Τον has documented some of the inconsistencies in Qumran scribal practice. It should be noted at this point that scribal corrections are toward Qumran scribal practice, not toward the standard. In studying scribal corrections, for example, Τον gives no examples of erasures of Qumran scribal practice (cf. Τον 1998). Normally inconsistencies in Qumran scribal practice are not corrected, but some superlinear scribal corrections were made so as to conform manuscripts toward Qumran scribal practice ( e . g . , 1,‫כיא‬QH7[15]:7, 4[12]:5, 11 ,‫הגליים‬QTa 12[20]:21, 4Q267 frag. 9 v, 5 ; 1,‫לכיל‬QH1[9]:15; 7 51:19). Inconsistency in grammatical forms and orthography should be regarded as arising from the difference between the vernacular standard and the linguistic register cultivated by the Qumran scribes. Most illustrative is the use of ‫ שמה‬and ‫ שם‬for "there" in 11QT and 1QS. 1QS uses ‫ שם‬three times and never uses ‫שמה‬. This is as we expect since the longer form is created by the addition of the directional he. Yet, 11QT regularly employs ‫שמה‬ 15) times) for the static "there" and uses ‫ שם‬only twice. The directional he is a feature that disappears in later Hebrew, including Qumran. In other words, 11QT takes an intermittent feature of the language of Deuteronomy (‫" שמה‬to there" with 7

1QpHab 4:6 is an interesting reading ‫{ {קו‬1}}‫ישוו‬, where the original copyist mistakenly adds the waw where the BH pausal form is actually ‫ישחקו‬, and consequently a later copyist corrects it (similarly note lQIs" xv, 9 [=19:5]).

directional he occurs 35 times out whereas ‫" שם‬there" occurs 47 times). 11QT makes ‫שמה‬, ostensibly the particle ‫ שם‬+ directional he, into the regular static form. Qimron (1986:69) describes these forms as using a "locative termination," but notes that it has no syntactical function. This explanation assumes that the best approach to the problem is from the perspective of historical grammar. It seems more likely that the longer form was specifically chosen by the author/copyist of 11QT because it was the longer spelling and therefore appears to be more archaic—that is, closer to primordial pattern of language. Another illustration may be gleaned from the forms ‫אקטלה‬ and ‫אקטול‬. Ostensibly, these are the cohortative and the les imperfect, respectively. The cohortative, however, disappears in later Hebrew including (for the most part) Qumran Hebrew (cf. Qimron 1986:44). How then shall we understand the intermittent use of the form ‫ אקטלה‬for the 1 cs indicative imperfect in Qumran Hebrew (e.g., 1QS 10:10, 12, 16; 1QpHab6:12; 1QH 7[15]: 13)? Obviously, there is a confusion between ‫ אקטלה‬and ‫ אקטול‬that results from the loss of the cohortative, but it is significant that the Qumran Hebrew frequently chooses to employ the final he form ‫אקטלה‬. This certainly seems to be on analogy with other forms that employ a final he in their spelling, unless one wishes to appeal to a hitherto unknown dialect of Hebrew. The analogical explanation would have its basis in language ideology, namely the apparent antiquity of longer forms. From this perspective, it would be quite irrelevant to the Qumran scribe that the he in ‫שמה‬ was morphological, whereas in ‫ קטלתה‬the he is supposedly a case of scriptio plena. However, if we accept the analogical argument for forms like ‫ אקטלה‬or ‫שמה‬, then we should consider it for a whole range of forms (e.g.,‫הואה‬, ‫)המה‬. Forms like the 3mp imperfect verbs,‫יקטולו‬, with the accent on the penultimate syllable, find parallels most frequently in biblical poetry. This results simply because such pausal forms appear only with verb final syntax found most regularly in biblical poetry. For example, I could find only four cases of the pausal form ‫ יקטלו( יקטולו‬in MT orthography) in the prose passages of the entire Pentatuech (out of a total of 333 Qal 3mp impf verbs).8 Such forms are, however, found regularly in poetic books like Psalms (e.g., 10:8; 18:46; 35:20, 26; 38:12; 56:7; 78:7; 83:6; 89:32; 94:3, 6; 102:27, 29; 104:9, 28; 105:45; 107:30; 126:5) or Isaiah (18 examples out of 222 Qal 3mp impf verbs) simply 8

The majority of these 333 verbs are weak verbs and could not take the pausal form ‫יקטולו‬. I only give the total number of verbs for statistical comparison.

because poetry has so many verb final constructions. In general, the freer syntax of poetry lent itself to more variability in verb final constructions and consequently, to the preservation of these apparently more archaic pausal forms. In addition, poetry has shorter lines than prose and consequently more pausal forms per line. Other pausal forms, like the 3mp pronoun pausal form, ‫המה‬, are also found more typically in poetiy. This may be illustrated by the fact that ‫ המה‬occurs 25 times in Psalms, but ‫ הם‬appears only 3 times; in contrast,‫ הם‬occurs 48 times in the narratives of the Book of Kings, but ‫ המה‬appears only 15 times. Thus, Qumran Hebrew regularly employs forms that are more typically poetic or pausal. Now we may ask: was there a hitherto unknown Hebrew dialect that preferred pausal forms or does their use reflect language ideology? We have no direct evidence so we can only make inferences from the data and the social context of late Second Temple Judaism. More difficult to assess are forms like ‫ המה‬and 11 .‫הואה‬QT3 is an exception in its relatively consistent use of these forms 0,‫הם‬times; 35,‫הוא‬times; 1,‫הראה‬time).9 More ( 1 5,‫המה‬times; typical is the inconsistency illustrated when we examine these forms in the larger sectarian scrolls from Cave 1 ( 2 3,‫הוא‬times; 25 ‫המה‬ times; 6 ‫ הם‬times).10 Inconsi 20,‫הואה‬times; found both within many scrolls and from sectarian scroll to scroll. Given this, we must suspect that the longer forms ‫הואה‬ and ‫ המה‬were peculiar to Qumran Hebrew and generated by the linguistic ideology of the sect. The Qumran scribes apparently recognized that long forms tended to represent the older stage of the language and attempted to restore the forms, even to the point of hyper-classicisms like ‫אביהו‬. Qumran Hebrew also merges separate forms like the static ‫" שם‬there" and the dynamic ‫" שמה‬to there" as well as the les imperfect indicative and cohortative and not surprisingly chose the longer form. There also seems to be a preference for pausal forms, which often do preserve earlier stages of the language. Given the language ideology which traced their speech patterns to the primordial language of creation, we must seriously question whether such longer forms are dialectal, or whether they were simply thought to be more archaic to the sectarians at Qumran. 9

MMT is slightly less consistent ( 5,‫הוא‬times; 2,‫הואה‬times; 3 ‫המה‬ times; 1 ‫ הם‬time). ‫ הוא‬appears in 4Q394 frg. 3-7ii:17, 4Q396 frg. 1-2 iii:3, 4, iv:3; 4Q398 frg. 11-13:4. ‫ ה מ ה‬, appears in 4Q396 frg. 1-2 iii: 10; 4Q397 frg. 6-13:8. Some of this variability may be accounted for by the different manuscripts and scribes, but there is also internal variability. 10

Statistics come from 1QS, 1QSa, lQSb, 1QM, 1QH, 1QpHab.

In sum, if language is an intregal part of society and not a closed system, then the Qumran sect's belief that the pattern of language was ordained from the very creation of the world must have shaped their linguistic choices." And this may provide the key to a whole range of different forms in Qumran Hebrew.

1

I wish to thank the participants of the workshop on Qumran Hebrew for their comments on my hypothesis, particularly Steve Fassberg, Victor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Jan Joosten, Takamitsu Muraoka, and Mark Smith. Their comments helped sharpen the written version of this paper.

THE INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE AS PREDICATIVE VERB IN BEN SIRA AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS: A PRELIMINARY SURVEY Mark S. Smith (New York) I. Introduction The infinitive absolute (henceforth IA) in pre-mishnaic Hebrew has received considerable attention from grammarians. Studies largely fall into three categories: general surveys (e. g., Fox 1984; Goddard 1950; Hammerschaimb 1963; Solà-Solé 1961); examination of a particular syntax (e. g., Chiera 1988; Goldenberg 1971; Hospers 1991; Huesman 1956; Muraoka 1985:83-92; Rubinstein 1952; Watts 1960); and investigation of a particular corpus, such as Ugaritic (Loewenstamm 1969; Sivan 1997:12325; see Gai 1982), Amarna Akkadian (Moran 1950; Rainey 1996:2.383-400) or Akkadian more generally (Tadmor 1985). Detailed studies of the BH infinitive absolute appeared in the nineteenth century (Philippi 1875; Rieder 1872; Sellin 1889) and early twentieth century (Davies 1918-19; Praetorius 1902), but it was the 1961 study of Solà-Solé which admirably surveyed not only biblical Hebrew, but also the Semitic languages more generally. Solà-Solé's book is now almost four decades old, and in the meantime the field has benefited from a number of developments. Clearly the most important development in recent years has been the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls (henceforth DSS). Furthermore, grammarians have begun to take greater interest in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira. Finally, grammatical analysis has become more refined in a number of respects. As a result of these developments, there has been some renewed interest in the IA, in both the scrolls and Ben Sira (especially by Carmignac 1986 and Qimron 1986, 1992). Despite these advances the present discussion has not benefited from a more systematic analysis of the IA in Hebrew. With so many DSS texts now in print the time seems ripe for more comprehensive studies. This essay is aimed to examine one category, namely the IA used as the main verb of clauses ("predicative IA") in Ben Sira (Carmignac 1986) and the non-biblical texts numbered among the DSS as well as the biblical evidence. This

analysis does not include the category sometimes called the "predicate liqtöF' (Kesterton 1984:216) or "predicative use of the infinitive" with 1- (Qimron 1986:70-72; cf. Rubinstein 1952). This category involves a specialized usage and stands outside the purview of this study. Instead, this essay addresses the IA as a main verb of clauses with a listing from biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew texts of Ben Sira and DSS. (In addition, further listings for IA as a modifier of other forms and as a verbal noun in Ben Sira and DSS are provided). It is my hope that such an approach will provide some insight into the development of the IA prior to the Mishnah. In particular, it would be desirable to test the standard developmental theory about the IA that the form is common in classical BH, rarer in post-exilic BH and unattested in MH. This view was expressed by Segal (1927:16566) and mentioned by Kutscher (1974:41, 269, 321, 322, 346-48) who noted in the Isaiah scroll the substitution of BH IA by finite verbal forms (he also noted the apparently counter-indicative ‫ הלוך‬in the scroll corresponding to MT Isa 57:2 ‫)הלך‬. More recently, Qimron (1992:358-59) has challenged this linear approach by noting instances of the IA continuing a finite verb in DSS. Following Qimron's lead, this discussion maps out the development of the various usages of the IA in order to gain greater precision about its development. Given the constraints of space, this presentation is largely restricted to presenting the corpus and posing some broad questions. At the outset such an undertaking inevitably entails a number of difficulties, both of identification and analysis. Clearly unpointed texts may sometimes admit of multiple interpretations. For example, The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary (Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973; henceforth HDHL) recognizes that some forms in Ben Sira may be parsed as either imperatives or IA (e. g., ‫ הלוך‬in 3:17, discussed on p. 128; ‫החריש‬ in 41:20, discussed on p. 149; ‫ ענה‬in 5:11, discussed on p. 245). Other possible IA include G-stem imperatives: ‫ נצור‬in 7:24, ‫זכור‬ in 14:12, 34[31]: 13 and 38:22 (cf. 4Q398 frags. 11-13:6 = 4QMMT C 23, and frags. 14-17 col. I 25 = 4QMMT C 25), ‫ שפוך‬in 33[36:]8,‫ פקוד‬in 33[36]:10, ‫ אסוף‬in 33[36]:12, ‫ אכול‬in 34[31]:16, ‫ שמור‬in 35[32]:23 and 37:8 (cf. many examples in DSS, e. g., 4Q219 (4QJubd), col. II, lines 11, 28, 4Q221 (4QJubf) frag. 1, lines 5, 6), ‫ שפוט‬in 11:6 [B]. Similar difficulties obtain in the cases of the D-stem form ‫ רחם‬in 36[33]: 18 and C-stem forms such as ‫[ השפיל‬A]/ ‫[ השפל‬G] in 7:17, ‫ הקדיש‬in 7:29, ‫ הכניע‬in 33[36]:9,‫ השבת‬in 33[36]:11, ‫ הצנע‬in 35[32]:3 (cf.‫ הקם‬in 36[33]:20).

To these cases, one might also add ‫ האריך‬in 30:22; HDHL (p. 97) identifies this form as an infinitive, but morphologically it is indistinguishable from the 3 m. sg. C-stem *qāta1. For the sake of erring on the side of caution, ambiguous unpointed forms such as these are not included (Carmignac 1986:256-57), but it is to be noted that these cases may be significant. To anticipate the discussion below, without such instances there would be no predicative IA in Ben Sira. The elliptical style of poetry may obscure the analysis of an I A. For example, does Prov 17:12 presuppose ‫ טוב‬or the like prior to the IA ‫( פגוש‬cf. ΙΑ + ‫ בל־טוב‬in Prov 24:23 and IA + ‫ לא־טוב‬in 25:27 and 28:21, although these do not involve comparison as in 17:12)? A similar ellipsis may underlie ‫ מוט מ־‬in Ben Sira 16:3 [A] final line = [B], penultimate line and in the prior line of Β (for text, see Beentjes 1997:144; cf.‫ טוב למת‬in 30:17). In considering the Β H verb, some scholars prefer to keep separate the forms from prose and poetic texts (e. g., Niccacci 1990) as well as narrative versus direct discourse. Examples in poetic books pose additional challenges. Finally, issues of genre or style need to be considered. The Biblical Evidence: Classifications for Predicative IA This section provides an initial effort at classification of predicative IA, divided between purported direct discourse and narrative; the former is further subdivided into indicative and volitive instances. PURPORTED DIRECT DISCOURSE Indicative Following indicative form in a protasis: Lev 25:14; Num 30:3. Protasis: Isa 42:20 (2x, in temporal clauses); Prov 12:7 (?), 25:4, 5. Following *qâtal: 1 Sam 2:28 (after 1 sg.), 22:13 (for 2 sg. *qâtal); Isa 37:19; Jer 4:18, 8:15 (1 pl.), 14:5, 19 (1 pl.), 31:2, 32:33 (1 sg.), 44:19b (1 pl.); Hos 10:4 (3 pl.); Mic 6:13 (1 sg.); Hab 3:13; Hag 1:6 (4x, 2p1.), 9; Zech 3:4; Ps 35:16; Job 15:35 (2x); Esth 8:8, 9:12; Eccles 8:9, 9:11; Dan 9:5, 11. Parallel to following *qâtal: Isa 42:22 (passive); Ps 17:5; cf. Jer 8:15, 14:19. Parallel to following *yiqtöl: Prov 15:22, Isa 58:7.

Used with *qâtal: Isa 42:24 (cf. infinitive construct12 constructions). Following *wëqâtal: Zech 12:10, Neh 9:8. Preceding *yiqtöl: Zech 14:12, Ps 17:5; Job 15:35 (2x), 40:2. See Jer 3:1 (parallel to *yiqtöl). Freestanding past time-frame: 2 Chron 31:10 (3x, continuous past). Following *wayyiqtol: Deut 3:6 (after 1 pi. form, or modifying it [?]). Following *yiqtöl: Josh 9:20; Jer 22:19 (2x), 32:44 (3x); Ezek 23:36; Ps 65:11 (2x); Job 15:3 (2x). Following participle: Isa 5:5 (2x), 59:4 (4x); Jer 7:9 (6x), 18 = 19:13; Ezek 1:14 (2x), cf. Gen 8:3, 5, 7; Hab 2:15; Job 26:9; cf. Neh 8:8. Preceding parallel participle: Prov 13:20 (ketib). Following coordinate IC: 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Jer 44:17, 18; Ezek 36:3 (?). Volitive For imperative: Gen 17:10 = Exod 12:48; 13:3, 20:813; Lev 2:6; Num 4:2, 22, 6:23,25:17; Deut 1:16,5:12, 16, 16:1,24:9, 25:17, 27:1,31:26; Josh 1:13, 6:3; 2 Sam 24:12; 2 Kgs 11:15; 19:29 = Isa 37:30 (preceding imperative); Isa 7:11 (2x), 14:31, 21:5 (4x, preceding imperative), 22:13 (2x); Jer 32:14, 35:2; Ezek 21:24 (2x), 31 (2x), 23:30, 46, 24:2, 5, 10 (2x); Amos 4:5; Nah 2:2; Zech 6:10; Neh 7:3. See also the Arad letters (A 1:2-4, etc., Gogel 1998:271). For other volitive usage: Lev 6:7 (prescription); Num 15:35 (prescription); Deut 14:21 (following 2 sg. volitive), 15:2 (prescription); 2 Kgs 4:43 (2x, jussive); Isa 58:6 (3x, parallel to *yiqtöl); Ezek 23:47 (following jussive *wëqâtal and preceding *yiqtöl jussive); Esth 2:3 (following *weyiqtol jussive14), 6:9 (following *yiqtöl jussive). NARRATIVE Following *yiqtöl: 1 Kgs 9:25; Jer 36:23. Following *wayyiqtol: Gen 41:43, 49; Exod 8:11; Judg 7:19; Jer 12

13

Henceforth IC.

In the light of this example, ‫ כבד‬may also be an IA, on which see Muraoka 1997b:243. 14 See Kutscher 1974:46.

37:21. Following *qâtal: Exod 36:7 (following ‫ ;)היתה דים‬Esth 3:13, 9:6, 16 (3x), 17 (2x), 18 (2x), 1 Chron 5:20, 2 Chron 28:19. Freestanding: 1 Chron 15:22 (cf. *wayyiqtöl in ν 17). Apodosis (past time-frame): Esth 9:1. Following participle (past time-frame): Esth 9:4. Following preposition: 1 Sam 1:9 (coordinated with preposition plus IC); 2 Kgs 13:17, 19 (‫)עד־כלה‬. Following IC: Exod 32:6. Many of the usages listed are so rare that it is difficult to draw general conclusions from them. However, the distribution involved with some of the better attested usages may suggest a few points. For this discussion there is space only for four general observations: 1. The predicative IA used as imperative is relatively rare in post-exilic BH. This point comports with Kutscher's observation (1974:82)15 that 1 Chron 21:10 uses the imperative ‫לך ןז־בךת‬ where 2 Sam 24:12 employs the I A , . ‫ו ד ב ך ת‬ ‫הלוך‬ 2. The IA used as volitives is conspicuous in Esther, as noted by commentators. Other sixth-century post-exilic works show this usage though rarely, suggesting a trailing off of this feature in the Persian period. Here we may note the lack of volitive predicative IA in the later corpora of Ben Sira and DSS (noted in the following sections). 3. The use of the IA in the environs of the participle appears to be attested largely in poetic contexts. From this distribution it might be concluded that this usage is a matter of literary license and style. The relationship of the participles and infinitives has long been the subject of scholarly discussion, at least since Sellin 1889 and as recently as Lipinski 1997; Wernberg-M0l1er (1959) is also of particular note. While this area would be the subject of another investigation, it may be observed that a number of Qere/Ketib readings vary between the participles and IA. For example, Josh 6:13 Ketib has the participle ‫הולך‬, whereas the Qere in the same verse attests to the IA ‫הלוך‬. The opposite obtains in Prov 13:20: the Ketib has the IA ‫הלוך‬, whereas the Qere vocalizes the form as the participle ‫הולך‬. To be noted in this connection is the form ‫ הלוך‬in lQIsa 3 corresponding to MT Isa 57:2 ‫( הלך‬Kutscher 1974:348). 15

So already Kropat 1909:23.

4. The general distribution in the biblical record favors viewing the predicative IA primarily as a feature of direct discourse. Furthermore, the examples attested in narrative do not appear in the oldest strata of Hebrew, and the number of post-exilic examples stands out. Accordingly, it might be argued that predicative IA originated—or at least was more prevalent—in direct discourse in the pre-exilic period and gradually made a greater impact on narrative. A more refined analysis of this question has been undertaken for northern Hebrew in an important article by Schniedewind and Sivan (1997:332). According to these authors, vernacular features of northern Hebrew include the infinitive absolute: Use of the infinitive absolute as an indicative. Examples Kgs 3:16),2)‫אכל והותר‬ Kgs 4:43) and ‫הלוך‬, ‫זישב‬ include2)‫עשה‬ 2) Kgs 5:10). This feature is known in the second millennium from Ugaritic and Amarna Canaanite; it is also preserved in Phoenician. It does not occur in either MH or Aramaic. Again, it is noteworthy that all the examples of the indicative use of the infinitive absolute occur in direct speech. In sum, the evidence suggests that this phenomenon may have been typical only of colloquial speech in Northern Hebrew. Unfortunately, no predicative IA forms appear in the epigraphic record for northern Hebrew. The epigraphic record for southern Hebrew attests to a handful of predicative IA forms, all in purported direct discourse. Epigraphic southern Hebrew also attests to IA as imperative: Arad 1:2,2:1, etc. (cf.‫ תן‬in 3:32,4:1, etc. noted by Garr 1985:18084). The form ‫ ואסם‬in the Mesad Hashavyahu (Yavneh-Yam) inscription, which appears in purported direct discourse, is sometimes taken as predicative IA serving as a consecutive verb (so Cross 1962 44 n. 43; cf. Gogel 1998:267 n. 30, 271), but it has been judged "doubtful" by Garr (1985:183-84; yet note Gogel's refutation of the attempt to take ‫ ואסם‬as a simple perfect with prefixed conjunctive waw). On the basis of these observations, it might be argued that the predicative IA became more extensive in Hebrew in the monarchic period, perhaps initially in direct discourse. In any event, the main point is that the predicative use of the IA in Β H might be said to stand out in purported direct discourse. Ben Sira Dividing the IA forms in Ben Sira16 according to three categories 16

No further evidence for IA is provided by manuscript F (Di Leila

used above produces the following distribution. (A number of verbal nouns as well as adverbials such as ‫ הרבה‬and ‫ היטיב‬identified by HDHL in Ben Sira are left out of the discussion.17) Verbal nouns 11:15 ‫והבין‬ A; 41:16 41:22d 1 4 ; 4 4 : 1 7 ‫כלה‬ Β (?18); 47:8 ‫הורות‬ Modifier IA: IA: 5:11 ‫ענה תענה‬ C; 1 14:19 A ; 1 6 : 1 9 ‫י ר ע ש ו‬ ‫בעש‬ A; 32:23 Predicative ΙΑ: 3:17 ‫הלוך‬ G. Some of the forms listed might be questioned. Moreover, Carmignac (1986:253) would read another IA following an imperative at 34:21 (Bmg) where HDHL reads two adjacent imperatives.19 In any case, two features are notable from the forms listed above: (1) the repetitive IA said to be on the decline in late BH shows up three times in Ben Sira; and (2) Ben Sira shows an overall lack of predicative I A, which is said to be more extensive in late BH (though this discrepancy may involve an issue of genre and style, i. e., the non-narrative poetic character of much of Ben Sira). DSS As noted above, the cumulative publication of DSS has altered the scope of grammatical analysis. In past decades analysis has tended to draw from selected documents. At this point far more material is available (represented, for example, by The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, edited by F. Garcia Martinez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar; henceforth DSSSE). Below is a listing of IA in the Hebrew texts published in DSSSE 1 and 2. Partially reconstructed forms are included (especially those with parallel texts either from DSS or BH); completely reconstructed forms are not.

1988). 17

I have omitted C-stem forms with defective orthography which may be IA (see van Peursen 1999a:246).

18

For issues with this form in DSS, see n. 10 below. HDHL reads ‫( קוה קוה‬so, too, van Peursen 1999a:248). My thanks go to Dr. W. van Peursen for this point and generally for consultation on the cognate infinitive forms in Ben Sira. See van Peursen 1999a:245-50 for further discussion. 19

Modifier LA 1QpHab 7:9 (quote of Hab 2 : 3 ) : . ‫בוא י ב ו א‬ 1QS 4:5 and 5:4 = 4Q256(4QSb), frag. 5, line 4 = 4Q258 (4QSd), frag, 1, col. I, line 3 and 1QS 8 : 2 : 0 £ ) ‫ל כ ת‬ ‫והצנע‬ Micah 6:8 *1QM 1:8 ( 2 x ) : . ‫ו א ו ר‬ ‫ הלוך‬... ‫יאירו‬ 1QM 18:10 (2x) (citation of Isaiah 2 9 : 1 4 ) : . ‫ו פ ל א‬ ‫להגות הגו‬ 1*QHa 1 9 : 2 1 : 2 ° . ( ? ) 4Q179 frag. 2, line 9:‫( בכו תבכה‬Lam 1:2). 4Q251 (4QHa1akhah A), frag. 4, line 2 (largely reconstructed based on a citation of Exod 21:19):.[‫ורפו[אירפא‬ 4*Q251 (4QHa1akhah A), frag. 6, line 2 : [ . ( ? ) [ ‫י מ ע י ] ט‬ 4Q252 (4Qc0mmGenA) col. I, line 11 (2x, quoting Gen 8:5): ‫והמים הי]ו[ הלוך והסור‬. 4Q254a (4Qc0mmGenD), frag. 3, lines 4 (quote from Gen 8:7) and 5 (based on a quote from Gen 8:7): .‫ ויצא יצוא‬.. ‫ויצא יצוא‬ 4Q256 5:4 = 4Q258 1:3 = 4Q298 3:5-6 = 4Q502 16:3 (partially reconstructed): ‫( והצנע לכת‬cf. Mic 6:8). *4Q383 1:1: [.. .‫בכו אב]כה‬ 4*Q418 69 II 1 3 : . ‫י א מ ר ו‬ ‫האמור‬ 4*Q424 1:9:‫הליז ילוז‬. CD-A 4:20:‫( הטף יטיפון‬modifying Mic 2:6). CD-Α 9:7-8:‫( הוכח תוכיח‬cf. Lev 19:17). 11Q19(11QT‫ )־‬2:10: [‫( שקץ תשק]צנו‬Deut 7:26). 11Q19(11Qr) 53:11:‫( דרוש ארורשנו‬Deut 23:22). 11Q19 (11QT) 55:6: ‫( הכה תכה‬Deut 13:16). 11Q19(11QT1) 64:11: {‫( קבור תקוברם}ה‬Deut 21:23). 11Q19(11QT‫ )־‬64:14: ‫( השב תשיבמה‬Deut 22:1). 11Q19 (11QT1) 65:4: ‫( שלח תשלח‬Deut 22:7). IA (verbal) nouns2i 1QS 4:6: ‫)?( וחבא‬. lQH*13:23:(?)‫ודגן ותלונה‬ 20

The form might be a noun. If so, it might refer to the book of "meditation," known a s i / x n ‫ ספר‬in lQSa 1:7. 21 Set aside are cases i n v o l v i n g r f e (e. g., 1QpHab 9:11; 1QpHab 12:5; 1QM 14:5 = 4Q491 (4QM a ) frags. 8-10, col. 1, line 3; 1QM 15:2; lQH a 14:3, 19, 32; 15:5; 16:32; 17:3; 25 [top]:8; 4Q372 3:10; 4Q378 3 I, line 7; 4Q381 frag. 24, line 3; 4Q381 frags. 33 + 35, line 8; 4Q381 frags. 76-77; 4Q427 1:2; 4Q491(4QM") frags. 1-3; 4Q491 (4QM a ) frags. 8-10, col. I, line 3; CD-A 1:5; 8:2; CD-B 19:14). Although most of these may be I A's (see BDB 478), a number of these could reflect the nominal form attested in late BH as ‫( כלה‬see Ezek 13:13; Dan 9:27; 2 Chron 12:12; BDB 478). My thanks go to Professor T. Muraoka for advice on this point.

lQH a 14:32 (?): .‫ואין פלט )?( ליצר אשמה‬ 4Q181 (4QAgesCreat) frag. 1, col. II, line 3 : . ‫כ ב ו ד ו‬ ‫והפלא‬ 4Q259 2:12: ‫( והתהלך‬DSSSE 2.530 reconstructs .(‫ולהתהלך‬ 4Q381 69:2: ‫והפלא מראשונה‬. Mas lk (MasShirShabb) 2:8:‫תהלי שבה‬. Maslk (MasShirShabb) 2 : 1 4 : . ‫ר נ ן‬ ‫תהלי‬ 4Q403 1 : 8 : . [ ‫ג ה ל‬ ‫תהל[י‬ 4Q418 5 5 : 4 : . ‫ד ר כ י נ ו‬ ‫ובטוח בכול‬ 4Q427 7, col. II, line 16:‫והפלא סליחות‬. Predicative ΙΑ 1QS 9:13: .‫ ולמוד‬.. ‫לעשות‬ 1QS 10:12 (?): ‫ וארצה כאשר‬..‫ הבחרה באשר יורני‬.. ‫ולאל אומר‬ ‫ישופטני‬... 1QHa 12:28: .‫הגברתה עמדי והפלא‬ 4Q177 (4QCatena3), col. 1 (frags. 5-6), line 2: ‫( אכול‬citing Isa 37:30). 4Q177 (4QCatena3), col. 1 (frags. 5-6), line 15: [‫ה[רוג בקר ושחוט‬ ‫( ]צואן א]כול‬Isa 22:13). 4Q200 (4QTobe hebr) frag. 2, line 2: .‫וסבול‬ 4Q200 (4QT0be hebr) frag. 4, line 3: .‫ ואמור‬..‫בא‬ .‫ונפוץ‬ 4Q200 (4QT0be hebr) frag. 5, line 2: .‫והרוק‬ 4Q200 (4QTobe hebr) frag. 5, line 4: 4Q200 (4QTobe hebr) frag. 6, line 4: .‫בכן דבר וכתוב‬ 4Q215 (4QTNaph) frags. 1-3, line 10: .‫ונתון לו את בלהה‬ 4Q398, frags. 14-17 col. II 2 (4QMMT C 2 6 ) : . ‫ל ו‬ 4Q512, frags. 21-22, line 1:‫( נתון את ]י[דו‬so Carmignac 1986:255; these fragments are not given in DSSSE). CD-A 8:5-6 = CD-B 19:18 (3x): .. ‫ונטור‬/‫ ונקום וניטור‬.. ‫ויתג]ו[ללו‬ ‫ושנוא‬. CD-A 10:16 (fquoting Deut 5:12): .‫שמור‬ 11Q13 2:3:.. ‫( שמוט כול בעל‬quoting Deut 15:2). 11Q19 (11QT*) 48:6:‫( כי מכור לנוכרי‬modelled on Deut 14:21). Types of Usage for Predicative Infinitive Absolute For imperative: CD-A 10:16 (quoting Deut 5:12); 11Q19 ( 11QT0) 48:6. Following *wayyiqtöl: CD-A 8:5-6 = CD-B 19:18 (3x; with defective orthography in the latter for ‫)שנא‬. Following *qâtal: 4Q398 frags. 14-17 col. II 2 = 4QMMT C 26; 4Q200 (4QT0be hebr) frag. 4, line 3; 4Q200 (4QTobe hebr) frag. 6, line 4. Narrative context (preceding verb unknown): 4Q200 (4QT0b6

hebr) frag. 1, col. II, line 2; 4Q200 (4QTobe hebr) frag. 5, lines 2, 4; 4Q215 (4QTNaph) frags. 1-3, line 10. Following IC: 1QS 9:13, 9:20 (2x).22 PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION

IA with cognate finite form construction Attested only once in the corpus of 1QS and CD, this distribution was taken by Kesterton (1984:217) as evidence of the usage's "virtual disappearance." (He takes the example in CD 4:20 as genuine, whereas the examples in CD 9:8-9 involve a biblical citation [the latter is not in the text of DSSSE 1.564)]; so does 4Q251 (4QHa1akhah A), frag.4, line 2, largely reconstructed based on citation of Exod 21:19.) However, given the cases in 1QM 1:8 (2x), 18:10 (2x), 1QH3 19:21(?), 4Q 179 frag. 2, line 9 and Ben Sira, Kesterton's conclusion is premature (though understandable given the limited corpus which he considers). Indeed, lQH a 19:21 (if correctly understood) involves IA modifying an IC (‫)הגות הגו‬, which would not imply the usage's retreat. Furthermore, the construction has been detected underlying the Vulgate of 4 Esdras (Medala 1992). By the same token, these cases may involve imitation of biblical style, consistent with the overwhelming preponderance of cases from biblical citations. IA Verbal Nouns With respect to this category, Kesterton (1984:217) regards the DSS instances as "so rare in Β H and so compatible with that of the verbal noun haqtel in MH, it seems likely that these [DSS] examples are transitional and foreshadow the later usage." If one were to set aside a number of the most common cases, the total would be significantly reduced. A transition away from verbal nouns, except for clichéd usage, may be reflected in the DSS material. Accordingly, Kutscher observed that the verbal noun in Isa 4:4 in the phrase ‫ בער‬mT^was changed by the scribe of lQIsa2 to ‫ורוח סער‬. Kutscher (1974:269) concluded that the "scribe was not acquainted with the infinitive in the absolute state". Yet caution in making conclusions is perhaps in order, as the same scribe retained the IA form in Isa 40:16 (as Kutscher 22

The main interpretive issue in 1QS 9:13, 20 surrounds the so-called *liqtl forms and not the IA as such. Kesterton (1984:215-16) claims *liqtl IA in 1QS 9:13-14, 16-17, yet he allows for the possibility that the forms in question are infinitive constructs. (These forms are translated as injunctive by DSSSE 1.93.)

was well aware). Despite such questions, a transition may be well underway. Predicative IA Based on his limited sample of 1QS and CD, Kesterton (1984:217) opined that "the infinitive absolute, which was to disappear from MH, is in retreat in QH [Qumran Hebrew]." A similar view was expressed as recently as 1986 by Qimron. Citing 1QM 1:8,4Q179 2:9 and 11QT 55:6, 56:14, 64:11, 14 and 65:4 as well as 4QMMT C28, Qimron (1986:47) states that "an authentic infinitive absolute is extremely rare." The 11QT examples appear in "passages linked to the Bible" and therefore would leave only the two examples. Given the parameters of his grammar (which excludes CD), Qimron does not list the three cases of predicative IA in CD 8:5-6 = CD-B 19:18. In 1994, Qimron noted an additional three examples in 4QT0b and another in 4QTNaph (Qimron and Strugnell 1994:81 n. 79). With the publication of the Tobit material, a total of five examples is evident. (A sixth instance may underlie 4Q200 (4QTobe) hebr frag. 6, line 4: [‫ )וא]מור‬It would appear then as the corpus grows, an increasing number of examples of predicative IA come to light. Accordingly, the older developmental scheme positing a decrease in IA requires at least some qualification or nuancing. Thus Qimron (1992:358-59) has more recently commented against the perception of the predicative IA as rare: "the use of the infinitive absolute as a predicate continuing a finite verb is typical of late BH and rare in classical BH. This implies that the infinitive absolute was in use when MH was spoken. Its predicative use is neither an imitation nor a literary invention." Qimron's conclusion is consistent with grammarians of BH who note that the IA follows a preceding finite form especially in the later books of the Bible.23 If the predicative IA were not so rare as Qimron's more recent comments suggest, then one might expect, or at least hope for, a broader range of texts manifesting the usage. Clearly the text of Tobit contains the greatest number, and its examples of predicative IA involve one basic usage, one well-known from biblical texts. Accordingly, one might think that the Tobit examples represented a stylistic echoing of classical biblical style; if correct, then one could exclude another four examples. The number of predicative IA counted toward the evidence for a separate dialect might be reduced one more by excluding 4QMMT C28 as another biblicizing instance. Of the remainder, half follow 23

See, however, JM § 123 x.

one syntactical pattern, namely following IC, whereas the other half follows a second pattern of following *wayyiqtöl (and all in a single context). Hence there is thus far a rather restricted number of cases and an even more restricted range of syntactical use compared with the biblical corpus. The single example of predica-tive IA from Ben Sira would only reinforce this impression. Similarly, some of the biblical scrolls (and biblical citations in non-biblical scrolls) show the substitution of finite verbal forms for predicative IA in the MT (for example, 1 QIsaa and lQIsa b at Isa 59:4 and 4QNumb at Num 20:26,A cf. 11QT 53:142s). In closing, it is difficult to offer a clear overall picture of the predicative IA in Ben Sira and DSS. Certainly some usages of the IA appear to be passing out of use. However, even if Segal's old developmental scheme for IA might be seen to apply to the predicative use of IA, it would be important to recognize that such a conclusion requires a considerable number of exclusions. On the other hand, the attestation of some forms, while noteworthy, may not constitute a linguistic trend, and the chronological gap between late BH and mishnaic Hebrew may allow some scholars to prescind from stronger conclusions one way or the other until further data becomes available. An analogous difficulty may be involved with the waw-consecutive: although it occurs in many DSS (Smith 1991a:35-63) and even in b. Qid. 66a (Kutscher 1974:351), the general lack of this form in a text such as 4QMMT would suggest that this feature is diminishing in the spoken dialect (Smith 1991a:58, 59; Smith 1991b). In the case of the predictive IA in a text likely to be reflective of the spoken language, the single example from 4QMMT (C 28-31) follows biblical usage as Qimron has noted (Qimron and Strugnell 1994:80). Similarly, no examples of predicative IA in 4QMMT show a departure from the biblical usage. Perhaps, then, the post-biblical developments of the waw-consecutive and the predicative IA were not very dissimilar, as Davies (1918-19:58) long ago deduced largely from the biblical evidence.

24

As observed by S. Fassberg in his contribution to this volume above. See also the discussion of the IA by T. Muraoka above. 25

My thanks go to J.F. Elwolde for drawing this example to my attention. For constructive criticisms of my presentation, I am grateful in particular to these scholars as well as E. Qimron, J. Joosten and W. van Peursen. Flaws in the essay, of course, remain my responsibility.

INDICES

INDEX OF TEXTS

Bible Gen 3:6 Gen 31:26 Gen 47:12 Gen 49:10 Lev 20:19 Deut 6:5 Deut 23:11 Deut 32:24 Deut 32:29 Deut 33:5

135 88 118 155 128 158 149 151 136 179

Josh 6:26 Judg 4:8 1 Sam 1:24 1 Sam 2 1 Sam 3:9 1 Sam 4:21 1 Sam 9:7 1 Sam 20:26 2 Sam 7:12 2 Sam 12:1-6 2 Sam 18:23 2 Sam 22 2 Sam 24:1 2 Sam 24:18 2 Sam 24:2 1 Kgs 3:12 1 Kgs 8:54 1 Kgs 9:26

135 218 43 177 87 121 91 150 91 36 86 177 90 86 87 86 92 121

Isa Isa Isa Isa Isa Isa Isa Isa Isa Isa

1:15 1:31 1:7 2:18 2:20 2:9-11 3:16 3:24 5:10 5:28

47 47 46 48 49 48 49 50 53 53

Isa 5:6 Isa 5:8 Isa 8:16 Isa 8:20 Isa 9:4 Isa 11:6 Isa 19:14 Isa 28:10-14 Isa 43:21 Isa 45:23 Isa 45:23 Isa 51:20 Isa 51:9 Isa 53:10 Ezek 13:18,20 Ezek 17:3 Ezek 20:37 Ezek 24:25 Ezek 28:12 Ezek 34:12 Hos 4:8 Hos 12:12 Jonah 2:6 Nah 3:6 Nah 3:8-10 Hab 3:5

50 52 168 168 125 44 161 249 173 158 134 119 44 124 120 71 123 127 124 120 126 119 121 140 16 151

Ps 10:9-10 Ps 18:46 Ps 19:2-5 Ps 22:17 Ps 45:15, Ps 68:28 Ps 84:7 Ps 107:18,25-29 Ps 139:15 Ps 148:8 Job 41:22 Esth 2:10 Esth 3:13 Esth 4:2 Esth 7:8 Neh 13:1 Neh 13:17

157 125 248 140 70 72 117 161 65 41 147 86 90 91 91 84 88

1 Chr 9:24 1 Chr 10:13 1 Chr 12:18 1 Chr 13:4 1 Chr 17:11 1 Chr 21:1 1 Chr 21:18 1 Chr 21:2 1 Chr 28:9 2Chr 1:12 2Chr 6:2 2Chr 7:1 2Chr 12:12 2Chr 15:2 2Chr 25:19

85 91 180 90 91 90 86 87 218 86 90 92 92 88 90

Matt 16:18

164

Mark 14:24

190

Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha Jdt 16 Sir 4:7 [A] Sir 15:10 [A] Sir 16:6 Sir 35:5 [ms B] Sir 35:5-6 [B] Sir 38:16 [B] Sir 40:19 [B] Sir 43:16-17 [B/M] Sir 43:17 Sir 47:15 [ms B] Jub 1:8-9 Jub 6:12 Jub 7:20 Jub 21:20 Jub 32:7 Jub 33:15-16 ApAbr 17:4 ApAbr 17:8-25 ApAbr 18:1 LAB 19:16 LAB 32:1 LAB 59:4

177 59 173 152 176 57 58 62 60 152 176 168 168 170 153 176 169 176 176 176 175 174 175

T. Naphtali 1:11

144

Dead Sea Scrolls 1Q19fr. 3,4-5 147 1QH 1 [9] :27-29 247,249 1QH 6:22-30 160 1QH 7:4-11 160 1QH 11:11 181 1QH 16:23-24 127 1QH 18:11 127 1QH 18:23 127 1QM 1:12-15 184 1QM 14:11-12 7 1QS 1:10 181 1QS 1:11-12 157 1QS 1:7 180 1QS 3:11 138 1QS 3:6-7 181 1QS 3:7 181 1QS 3:9 124 1QS 5:20 180 1QS 6:13-23 186 1QS 6:8-13 186 1QS 8:5-8 160 1QS 8:6 162 1QS 9:4-5 162 1QS 9:5-6 181 1QS 10:25 157 1QS 11:4-8 160 4Q181 1:1-2 182 4Q215a, 7-8 135, 159 4Q219ii 20-22 153 4Q225fr. 2, 2:7 138 4Q252 1:2 139 4Q265 fr. 6,7 137 4Q385-6 II11. 6-7 16 4Q386fr. 1 col. 2 137 4Q386 II, 7 17 4Q387a 2 [01im 3] II 7-9 14 4Q389 8 [01im 1] II, 7-9 15 4Q462fr. 1, 11 137 4Q522 fr. 9 2:4 146 4Q525fr. 14ii 18 158

4Q525 fr. 15 153 4QC0mmGenA [4Q252] 1:8-12

4QDa 1718 4QDe [4Q270] 7 i 14 4QMMTC7 11Q191ix 19 11QT 45:7 11QT 64:7 CD 5:11 CD 5:11-12 CD 20:1 CD 20:14 CD 20:32

26

125 65 121 126 149 141 128 246 180 180 180

-‫ ל‬for ‫אל‬ 100, 104, 105 active for passive 97, 101 ‫ אל‬for ‫על‬ 99-100, 103 alternation in simple tenses 102, 104 apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 166

antilanguage apodosis, verb forms in Aramaic at Qumran archaism in QH Ben Sira Book of Jubilees

Rabbinic literature m. Men. 13,1 t.Sot 6.2 t. Hul. 3.27 Trg. Onq. Deut 26:19 Gen. Rab. 98:4 Mid. Ps 1:1 Mid. Ps 1:6 Mid. Ps 2 [end] b. Git 58a b. Shab. 33b b. Tam. 32b b. Yoma 86a b. HuL 67b b. Hul 91b y. Pes. ch. 10 [37:4] y.Sanh. ch. 10 [29a]

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

180 171 148 174 138 173 172 173 132 132 171 132 148 171 177 171

245 218 15-19 237 251 167

cohortative and long impv.. 196 collective concord 97, 101 Copper Scroll 234 definite article 99, 104, 106 with nomen regens 201 with proclitic preposition 202 dissimilation of doubled consonant 24 DSS variants 45 evidence word existential clause

178 1-11

fa'âlila 21 fa'âlilan 21 finite forms for inf. abs. 98, 102 he locale.99-101, 103, 105, 206 imperfect for perfect 98 impersonal constructions....200 infinitive 90 infinitive in protasis 217 infinitive, final 91 inf. abs 90,195,225,256 Inf. est 194

inf. est. with -‫ל‬

98, 102, 105, 225

key word

consecutive + verb suf. i of 2f.sg suffix -ka

178

91 ‫ ל‬-‫ו‬- infinitive as predicate linguistic ideology 245 long impf 101 long impf, for regular impf...99 long impf, vs regular impf. ..97, 104 long impv 226 long suf. with -a 241 mem as suf MH, origin of Miqsat MaCašē Hattörä MMT 234,

234 233 20 251

telescoping tenses

regular impf, for jussive

90 88 199 26-39 242 215 86 102

Saadia Gaon 21 short impf, for regular impf 100 simple tense vs. consecutive tense 102, 104 simple tense vs. consecutive verb 98 spoken Hebrew ... 110, 233, 237 subordinating ‫ כי‬omitted 100 subordinator + pf. for waw

162 208, 230

verb complementation ....202-6, 226-30 waw apodoseos waw cons. + verb for impv. way yiqtol weqatal wiö' yiqtol, ‫הו‬- 'his, him' after -‫י‬ word order 97, 101, yiqtol, habitual

nota accusativi.... 100, 103, 105 nun as suf 234 nun paragogicum 226 paronomasia participle prolepsis pseudo-construct pseudo-pausal forms qatal in protasis qatal, performative

98 240 239

222 105 84 84 85 23 104 85

‫‪60‬‬

‫זעם‬

‫‪INDEX OF SEMITIC W O R D S‬‬ ‫‪AND PHRASES‬‬

‫‪187‬‬ ‫‪184‬‬ ‫‪125‬‬ ‫‪147‬‬ ‫‪147‬‬ ‫‪184‬‬ ‫‪138‬‬ ‫‪62‬‬ ‫‪139‬‬

‫חבורה‬ ‫חבל‬ ‫חגר‪/‬ץ‬ ‫חרורי השמש‬ ‫חדודי חרש‬ ‫חלק‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫חסדים טבים ‪1 7‬‬ ‫חשק‬ ‫חתך‬

‫‪179‬‬ ‫‪181‬‬ ‫‪182‬‬ ‫‪182‬‬ ‫‪182‬‬ ‫‪180‬‬ ‫‪132‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪156‬‬ ‫‪253‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫יחד‬ ‫יחד אל‬ ‫רנה‬ ‫יחד‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫יחד רשעה‬ ‫יחד שמחה‬ ‫יחיד‬ ‫יפה‬ ‫יפועלהו‬ ‫יקהת‬ ‫יקטולו‬ ‫יש ן‬

‫‪59‬‬ ‫‪121‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫‪25‬‬

‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪125‬‬ ‫‪138‬‬

‫לאין‬ ‫לקח‬ ‫לשון הקודש‬

‫‪145‬‬ ‫‪180‬‬ ‫‪119‬‬ ‫‪138‬‬ ‫‪123‬‬ ‫‪127‬‬ ‫‪149‬‬

‫מזור‬ ‫מיחד‬ ‫מכמר‬ ‫מלוש‬ ‫מסרת‬ ‫מעה‬ ‫מקרה‬

‫אי‬ ‫אין‬

‫‪8‬‬

‫ואין‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫אמר‬ ‫א מ ר הימנון‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪170‬‬

‫א מ ר שיר‬

‫‪173‬‬

‫אמר תהלה‬

‫‪173‬‬

‫אמר תושבחה‬

‫‪138, 235‬‬ ‫‪143‬‬

‫אנו‬ ‫אנחנו‬ ‫אקטלה‬

‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪234‬‬

‫בבואך‬

‫‪135‬‬ ‫‪137‬‬

‫בין‬

‫‪146‬‬ ‫‪134‬‬

‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪182‬‬

‫כאר‪/‬י‬ ‫‪131, 140‬‬ ‫כי‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫כאשר ‪ and‬כי‬ ‫‪104‬‬ ‫כאשר ‪ alternates with‬כי‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫‪, conditional‬כי‪12‬‬ ‫‪212‬‬ ‫כליל ‪1 2‬‬ ‫‪124‬‬ ‫כסת‬ ‫!‪20‬‬

‫אהב‬

‫ב ק‬ ‫‪133,‬‬

‫גבורה‬ ‫גבר‪/‬י‬

‫‪gadfān‬‬ ‫גורל‬

‫‪119‬‬ ‫‪126‬‬

‫גר‬

‫גל‬

‫‪124‬‬

‫דוכי‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫דכא‬

‫‪5‬‬

‫דמים‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫הואה‬

‫‪23‬‬

‫הוא‪/‬הואה‬

‫‪23‬‬

‫היא‪/‬היאה‬

‫‪23,‬‬ ‫‪234‬‬

‫‪254‬‬ ‫‪137‬‬ ‫‪169‬‬

‫‪hāyā + ρtc., periphrastic‬‬ ‫‪89‬‬ ‫הכוהן הגדול‬ ‫המה‬ ‫המן‬ ‫העיד‬

‫‪186‬‬

‫הרבים‬

‫‪133‬‬

‫השלים‬

‫‪58‬‬

‫זוב‪/‬ג‬

‫‪172‬‬ ‫‪175‬‬ ‫‪135‬‬ ‫‪234‬‬ ‫! ‪14‬‬ ‫‪137‬‬ ‫‪135‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪51‬‬ ‫‪128‬‬ ‫‪166,185‬‬ ‫‪158‬‬

‫שירה‬ ‫שירת דבור‬ ‫שכל‬ ‫של ה‪-‬‬ ‫השלים‪12‬‬ ‫שלום ושדך‪13‬‬ ‫שמע‬ ‫שקט‬ ‫תהו‪12‬‬ ‫תירוש‬ ‫תעודה‬ ‫תשבע‬

‫‪INDEX OF GREEK AND LATIN‬‬ ‫‪WORDS‬‬

‫‪123‬‬ ‫‪128‬‬ ‫‪127‬‬ ‫‪164‬‬ ‫‪132‬‬ ‫‪174‬‬ ‫‪175‬‬ ‫‪127‬‬ ‫‪144‬‬ ‫‪125‬‬ ‫‪128‬‬ ‫‪128‬‬ ‫‪128‬‬ ‫‪133‬‬ ‫‪124‬‬ ‫‪66‬‬ ‫‪134‬‬

‫‪13‬‬

‫‪132‬‬ ‫‪184‬‬ ‫‪162‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪125‬‬

‫נאה‬ ‫נחלה‬ ‫נעוז‬ ‫נפרשות‬ ‫נצפה‬ ‫נשא‬

‫‪162‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪121‬‬ ‫‪133, 146‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪191‬‬

‫סוד‬ ‫סוף‬ ‫סוף‬ ‫סלע‬ ‫בסעדך‬ ‫סרך‬

‫‪168‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪117‬‬ ‫‪144‬‬ ‫‪138‬‬ ‫‪181‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫־‪αριθμός‬‬ ‫‪διαφθορά‬‬ ‫־‪δύναμις‬‬ ‫‪εκκλησία‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪foedus‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪hymnum dicere‬‬ ‫‪hymnus angelorum‬‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫?‪ισχύ‬‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫‪κώμη‬‬ ‫‪λαμβάνω‬‬ ‫‪188‬‬ ‫־‪οίκαος‬‬ ‫‪188‬‬ ‫־‪οίκειότης‬‬ ‫‪61‬‬ ‫־‪οίνος‬‬ ‫‪65, 74‬‬ ‫‪pac‬‬‫־‪5 7 στέφανος‬‬ ‫‪150‬‬ ‫־‪ύπόστασις‬‬ ‫‪vir‬‬ ‫‪235‬‬ ‫‪128‬‬ ‫‪134‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪128‬‬ ‫‪128‬‬ ‫‪138‬‬ ‫‪172‬‬

‫עדות‬ ‫עור‬ ‫עטה‬ ‫עיר‬ ‫עכשו‬ ‫עצת אל‬ ‫ערק‪/‬יי‬ ‫‪pa'län‬‬ ‫‪po'lân‬‬ ‫קיטור‬ ‫‪Akk. qutru‬‬ ‫רב‬ ‫רבי‬ ‫רגז‬ ‫רוקמה‬ ‫רוקמת כבוד‬ ‫רשף‬ ‫שאצל‬ ‫שאר‬ ‫שבח‬ ‫שיי‬ ‫ט™‬ ‫שחת‬ ‫שימה‬ ‫שיר‬

WORKS

CITED

Abegg, M.G. 1996. "51. A liturgy of blessings and cursing: 4Q280, 4Q286-289," in: Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, & Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (London: HarperCollins) 286-89. Abegg, M.G. 1998. "The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls," in: P.W. Flint and J. C. Vanderkam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, vol. 1. (Leiden: Brill). Allegro, J.M. 1969. Qumran Cave 4 I: 4Q158-4Q186 (with the collaboration of A. A. Anderson; DJD 5). Allen, L.C. 1983. Psalms 101-150 (WBC 21; Waco, Texas: Word Books). Allon, G. 1941. "Rabbinic words in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," Tarbiz 12:268-74. Amir, J. 1957.‫המונח גורל‬, Beth Mikra 2:102 (Hebrew). Andersen, F.I. and A.D. Forbes. 1983. "'Prose particle' counts of the Hebrew Bible," in: C.L. Meyers and M. O'Connor, The Word of the Lord Shall go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns) 165-83. Anderson, A.A. 1972. The Book of Psalms (2 vols.; NCB; London: Oliphants [Marshall, Morgan & Scott]) Arndt & Gingrich, see Bauer. Azar, M. 1995. ‫( תחביר לשון המשנה‬The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew) (Jerusalem/Haifa: Academy of the Hebrew Language/University of Haifa). Baasten, M.F.J. 1999. "Nominal clauses with locative and possessive predicates in Qumran Hebrew," in: T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997 (Leiden: Brill) 25-52. Baethgen, F. 1904. Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt (HzAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht). Baillet, M. 1982. Qumran Cave 4 III: 4Q128-4Q157 (DJD 7). Baillet, M. J.T.Milik, and R. de Vaux. 1962. Les 'petites grottes' de Qumrân (DJD 3).

Bar-Asher, M. (ed.). 1998. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (ScrHier 37; Publications of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) (Jerusalem: Magnes). Bar-Asher, M. 1986. ‫היד של המשנה‬-‫( בירורים בלשניים בכתבי‬Linguistic Considerations on the Manuscripts of the Mishnah), Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 7,7:183-210. Bar-Asher, M. 1987. "The different traditions of Mishnaic Hebrew," 1-38 in Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian Studies presented to Thomas O. Lambdin (ed. D. Golomb; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, Indiana). Bar-Asher, M. 1990.‫ המן)= מן( בקטע מקומרן‬in a fragment from Qumran), Les 52:75. Bar-Asher, M. 1998.‫( תוספות‬Additions), Lei 61:265-67. Bar-Asher, M. 1999a.‫( מסורות ולשונות של יהודי צפון אפריקה‬Traditions and Languages of the Jews of North Africa) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute). Bar-Asher, M. 1999b. L'hébreu mishnìque & études linguistiques (Leuven-Paris: Peeters, 1999). Barnden, J.A. & K.J. Holyoak (eds). 1994. Analogy, Metaphor and Reminding. Advances in Connectionist and Neural Computation Theory, vol. 3, series editor: J.A. Branden (Norwood, New Jersey: Arlex Publication Corporation). Barr, J. 1968. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon). Barr, J. 1989. "'Determination' and the definite article in Biblical Hebrew,"JSS 34:307-35. Barthélémy, D. and J.T. Milik. 1955. Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1). Bauer, H. and P. Leander. 1927. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Halle: Niemeyer). Bauer, W. 1957. Λ Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (A translation and adaptation ... by W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich; London: Cambridge University Press). (Baumgarten, J.M. &) Schwartz, D.R. 1995. "Damascus Document (CD)," in PTSDSSP 2:4-57. Baumgarten, J.M. 1993. "The disqualifications of priests in 4Q fragments of the Damascus Document: a specimen of thr recovery of pre-rabbinic halakha," in: The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill).

Baumgarten, J.M. 1996. Qumran Cave 4 XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266-273) (DJD 18). Beentjes, P.C. 1997. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup 68; Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill). Ben Yehuda, E. 1909-59. ‫ מלון הלשון העבריה הישנה והחדשה‬Thesausrus totius Hebrairatis et veteris et recentiorirs (A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew) (Berlin: Schoneberg). Ben-Hayyim, Z. 1953. ‫ה במסורותיה של‬- ,‫ת‬- ,‫ך‬- ‫צורת הכינויים החבורים‬ ‫( הלשון העברית‬The Forms of the Suffixed Pronouns ‫ך‬-, ‫ת‬-, and ‫ה‬- in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language), in: ‫ספר אסף‬: Studies Presented to Professor Simcha 3Asaf(ed. U. Cassuto et al.; Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Quq). Ben-Hayyim, Z. 1954. Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language (Madrid-Barcelona: Instituto Arias Montano). Ben-Hayyim, Z. 1958a. ‫מסורת השומרונים וזיקתה למסורת הלשון של מגילות‬ ‫( ים המלח וללשון חז״ל‬The Samaritan tradition and its relation to the linguistic tradition of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Mishnaic Hebrew), Les. 22:234-45. Ben-Hayyim, Z. 1958b. "Traditions in the Hebrew language, with special reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls." Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ScrHier4:200-14. Ben-Hayyim, Z. 1973. ‫ קונקורדנציה וניתוח אוצר המלים‬,‫ המקור‬:‫ספר בן סירא‬, The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary) (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language). Ben-Hayyim, Z. 1977. ‫ מלי תורה על פי תעודות‬4 :‫עברית וארמית נוסח שומרון‬ ‫( שבכתב ועדות שבעל פה‬The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans 4. The Words of the Pentateuch) (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language). Ben-Hayyim, Z. 1993. "The gleaning of Ephraim", in: H. Ben-Shammai (ed.),‫( חקר עבר וערב מגשים ליהושע בלאו‬Hebrew and Arabic Studies in Honor of Joshua Blau) (Tel Aviv/Jerusalem: Tel Aviv University/The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew) 97-110 . Ben-Hayyim, Z. 2000. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions (transi, from Hebrew edition of 1977; Jerusalem: Magnes). Bendavid, Α. 1967-71. ‫( לשון מקרא ולשון חכמים‬Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Dvir). Berger, P.-R. 1970. "Ein unerklärtes Wort in dem Weinberglied Jesajas

(Jes 5:6)," ZAW 82:11617 ‫ ־‬. Berggrün, Ν. 1995.‫( עיונים בלשון העברית‬Studies in the Hebrew Language) (ed. Y. Heckelman) (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language) (Hebrew). Berman, R. 1989. "The role of blends in Modern Hebrew word-formation" in: P. Wexler, A. Borg, and S. Somekh (eds), Studia Linguistica et Orientalia Memoriae Haim Blanc Dedicata (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz) 45-61. Betz, O. 1957. "Felsenmann und Felsengemeinde: Eine Parallele zu Mt. 16:17-19 in den Qumranpsalmen," ZAW48:49-77. Beyer, K. 1984. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Birnbaum, G. 1998. "Studies in determination in Mishnaic Hebrew," in: Bar-Asher 1998:107-28. Blanc, H. 1964. Communal Dialects in Baghdad (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). Blau, J. 1956. "Zum Hebräisch der Übersetzer des AT," VT 6:98-100 Blau, J. 1966-67. A Grammar of Christian Arabic Based mainly on South Palestinian Texts from the First Millennium (3 vols; CSCO 27-29; Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO). Blau, J. 1972. "Marginalia Semitica I," IOS 1:1-35. Blau, J. 1982. "Remarks on the development of some pronominal suffixes in Hebrew," Hebrew Annual Review 6:61-67. Blau, J. 1996. ‫על קו הגבול בין לשון חכמים לארמית )על האפשרות של שאילות‬ ‫( יסוד דקדוקי מופשט‬On the Border between Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic [A Possible Abstract Grammatical Borrowing]), in Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages presented to Shelomo Morag (ed. M. Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute) 73-78. Blau, J. 1997.‫( הרהוריו של ערביסטן על השתלשלות עברית המקרא וסעיפיה‬The structure of Biblical and Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew in light of Arabic diglossia and Middle Arabic), Les 60:21-32. Blau, J. 1998. Review of Bar-Asher (ed.) 1998.1*5 61:343-47. Borg, A. 1985. Cypriot Arabic (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner). Borg, Α. 1989. "Some Maltese toponyms in historical and comparative perspective," in: P. Wexler, A. Borg, and S. Somekh (eds), Studia Linguistica et Orientalia Memoriae Haim Blanc Dedicata (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz) 62-85. Boyarin, D. 1990. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington and Indianopolis: Indiana University Press). Brenner, A. 1982. Colour Terms in the Old Testament (JSOTSup 21;

Sheffield: JSOT Press). Brenton, L.C.L. 1980. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (London: Samuel Bagster, 1851; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Breuer, Y. 1993. ‫העברית בתלמוד הבבלי על פי כתבי היד טל מסכת פסחים‬ (The Babylonian Talmudic Hebrew according to the manuscripts of Tractate Pesahim) (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem). Breuer, Y. 1996. "Rabbi is Greater than Rav, Rabban is Greater than Rabbi, The simple name is greater than Rabban," Tarbiz 66:41-59 (Hebrew). Briggs, Ch.A. and E.G. Briggs 1907. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark) Broch, J.P. 1879. Al-Mufassal, opus de re grammatica Arabicum, auctore Abu Ί-Qāsim Mahmūd Bin 'Omar Zamahfiario (Christianiae: Libraria P.T. Mallingii). Brockelmann, C. 1913. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Bd. 2 (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard). Brockelmann, C. 1956. Hebräische Syntax (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers). Brown, F., S.R. Driver, and Ch.A. Briggs. 1907. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon). [= BDB] Brownlee, W.H. 1964. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press). Brown, R.E. et al. 1988. A Preliminary Concordance to the Hebrew andAramic Fragments from Qumran Cave II-X (Göttingen). Buttenwieser, M. 1938. The Psalms, Chronologically Treated with a New Translation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; repr. New York: Ktav, 1969) Carmignac, J. 1971. "HRBYM: les ‫׳‬Nombreuex‫ ־‬ou les ‫׳‬Notables'?,‫״‬ RevQ 7:575-86. Carmignac, J. 1974. "L'emploi de la négation ‫ אין‬dans la Bible et à Qumran," RevQ 8:407-413. Carmignac, J. 1986. "L'infinitif absolu chez Ben Sira et à Qumran," RevQ 12:251-61. Chajes, S. 19082. Commentary on the Psalms (n.p.: A. Kahana) Charles, R.H. 1913. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon). Charlesworth, J.H. 1991 .Grahic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tübingen and Louisville: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] and Westminster John Knox).

Charlesworth, J.H. and L.T. Stuckenbruck. 1994. ‫״‬Rule of the Congregation (1QSa)," in PTSDSSP 1:108-17. Chazon, E.G., and M.E. Stone. 1999. "4QTime of righteousness (4Q215a, Olim 4QTNaphta1i): A preliminary publication of fragment 1 II," The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ 20; Leiden: Brill) 124-25. Chiera, G. 1988. "Su alcuni aspetti dell'infinito assoluto ebraico," Henoch 10:131-41. Clines, D.J.A. 1993-98. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vols. (Executive ed. J.F. Elwolde; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) [=DCH]. Cohen, C. 1983. "Expressing the pronominal object in Mishnaic Hebrew," Lei 47:208-18. Cohen, C. 1988. ‫התופעה של התקבולת השלילית והשלכותיה בחקר השירה‬ ‫( המקראית‬The phenomenon of negative parallelism and its ramifications for the study of biblical poetry," Beer Sheva 3:69-107. [Fschr. Moshe Held] Cohen, C. 1989. "The , Held Method‫ ׳‬for Comparative Semitic Philology," JANES 19:9-23. Cohen, C. 1995. "The basic meaning of the term ‫' עו־פל‬Darkness'," Hebrew Studies 36:7-12. Cohen, C. 1997. -‫חוק היבדלות הנחציים באכדית )חוק גירס( ומקומו בלקסיקו‬ ‫( גרפיה המקראית‬The law of dissimilation of emphatics in Akkadian (Geers' Law) and its ramifications for Biblical Hebrew lexicography), in Hebrew through the Ages - In Memory of Shoshanna Bahat (ed. M. Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language) 29-45. Cohen, C. and E. Qimron. 1992. "Modern biblical lexicography," Jewish Studies 32:69-77. Cook, E.M., 1996 "1. The Damascus Document"; "96. Meditation on Israel's history: 4Q462," in Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, & Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (London: Harper Collins) 49-74; 400-401. Cooke, G.A. 1936. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark) Coon, C.S. 1958. Caravan: The Story of the Middle East. (New York: Holt). Cornill, C.H. 1886. Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung). Corriente, F. 1977. Λ Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect

Bundle. (Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Arabe de Cultura). Corwin, R. 1909. The Verb and the Sentence in Chronicles Ezra and Nehemiah (PhD diss.,University of Chigago). Cowell, M.W. 1964. A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic. (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University). Crawford, S.W. 1995. Co-editor of Qumran Cave 4 · IX [DJD XIV], Cross, F.M. 1961. "The development of the Jewish scripts," in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. G.E. Wright; New York: Doubleday) 133-202. Cross, F.M. 1962. "Epigraphic notes on Hebrew documents of the eighth-sixth centuries B. C.: II. The Murabba'at papyrus and the letter found near Yabneh-Yam," BASOR 165:34-46. Cross, F.M. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Cross, F.M. and D.N. Freedman. 1974. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (SBLDS 21; Missoula: Scholars Press). Dahood, M.J. 1968. Psalms II: 51-100: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 17; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Dahood, M.J. 1970. Psalms III: 101-150: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 17A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Dahood, M.J. 1972. "Ugaritic-Hebrew parallel pairs," in Ras Shamra Parallelsl (ed. L.R. Fisher; Roma. Pontificium Institutum Biblicum) 71-382. Dalman, G. 21927. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch [und] aramäische Dialektproben. (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Davies, Ph.R. 1982. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the "Damascus Document" (JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Davies, Ph.R. 1995. "Who can join the 'Damascus Covenant'?," JJS 46:134-42. Davies, Ph.R. and J.E. Taylor. 1996. "On the testimony of women in lQSa [1:11]," DSD 3:223-35. Davies, T.W. 1918-19. "The infinitive, esp. the inf. abs. in Hebrew and its cognates," Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society·. 55-69. Davies, W.D. and D.C. Allison. 1991. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark). de Saussure, F. 1983. Course in General Linguistics (repr.; London: Duckworth).

Delcor, M. 1962. Les Hymnes de Qumran (Hodayot) (Paris: Letouzey et Ane). Deroy, L. 1956. L'emprunt linguistique (Paris) Deutsch, Ε. 1874. "On the Samaritan Pentateuch," in Literary Remains of the Late Emanuel Deutsch, With a Brief Memoir (London: John Murray) 404-39 Di Leila, A.A. 1988. "The newly discovered sixth manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza," Bib 69:226-38. Dimant, D. 1994.‫ מקומראן‬3 8 5 - 6 ‫ ק‬4 ‫י ב ק ט ע‬-‫ ח‬,‫( ציטטה מנחום ג‬A quotation from Nahum 3:8-10 in 4Q 385-6), in The Bible in the Light of Its Interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume (ed. S. Japhet; Jerusalem: Magnes) 31-37. Dimant, D. 1998. "4Q 386 ΙΙ-ΙΠ: A prophecy in Hellenistic kingdoms," RevQ 18:511-529. Dobrowski, B.M. 1971. "The meaning of the Qumran terms T-wdh and Mdh," RevQ 7:567-72. Dorival, G. 1988. In M. Harl, G. Dorival, O. Munnich, La bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf). Driver, G.R. 1954. "Ezekiel: Linguistic and textual problems," Bib 35:145-59 Driver, G.R. 1965. The Judaean Scrolls. The Problem and a Solution (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Driver, S. R. 3 1892 (1998). A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (repr. with an introductory essay by W.R. Garr; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Driver, S.R. 1897 (1972). An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith). Duhaime, J. 1995. "War Scroll," PTSDSSP 2:80-203. Dupont-Sommer, A. et al. 1987. La Bible: Ecrits Intertestamentaires (Paris: Gallimard). Eira, Ch. 1998. "Authority and Discourse: Towards a Model for Orthography Selection, " Written Language and Literacy 1 (1998) 171-224. Elgvin, T. et al. 1997. Qumran Cave 4 XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (DJD 20). Elwolde, J.F. 1990. "Non-biblical supplements to Classical Hebrew } im," VT40:221-23. Elwolde, J.F. 2000. "Distinguishing the linguistic and the exegetical: The biblical book of Numbers in the Damascus Document," DSD

7:1-25. Eshel, H. and M. Stone. 1992-93. "The holy language at the end of the days in light of a new fragment found at Qumran," Tarbiz 62:169-78. Eshel, H. 1999. "‫מספר הערות על כוהנים גדולים בסוף ימי הבית השני‬," Zion 64:495-504. Eskhult, M. 1990. Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose (SSU 12; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell). Even-Shoshan, A. 1980. ‫( המילון החדש‬The New Dictionary) (7 vols.; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer). Ewald, G.H.A. 1831-33. Grammatica Critica Linguae Arabicae.cum Brevi Metrorum Doctrina. Lipsiae. Fassberg, S.Ε. 1994. ‫( סוגיות בתחביר מקראי‬Studies in Biblical Syntax)(Jerusa1em: Magnes). Feghali, M. 1928. Syntaxe des parlers arabes actuels du Liban (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale). Feghali, M. 1938. Proverbes et dictons Syro-Libanais (Paris: Institut d'Ethnologie). Fischer, J. "In welcher Schrift lag das Buch Isaias den LXX vor?," (BZAW 56; Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1930). Fitzmyer, J.A. 1979. A Wandering Aramean. Collected Aramaic Essays (SBL.MS 25; Ann Arbor, MI: Scholars Press). Fleischer, E. 1967. ‫( לצביון ׳השאלות העתיקות׳ ולבעית זהות מחברן‬On the character of Ha-She'elot Ha-cAtiqot and on the question of the identity of their author), HUCA 38:1 *-23*. Fleischer, E. 1980.‫( לזיהוי מעתיק ׳השאלות העתיקות׳‬On the Identity of the Scribe of Ha-She'elot Ha-cAtiqot), Kiryat Sefer 55:183-90. Flint, P.W. 1997. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill). Flint, P.W. 1999. "The contribution of the Dead Sea biblical scrolls to biblical studies with the preliminary editions of 4QPsp and 4QPsr u," 750783:3-17. Flint, P.W. and E. Ulrich (eds). 1999. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: the Most Ancient Versions of the Books of the Bible. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Flusser, D. 1993. ‫ על כמה נוסחאות מקראיות בימי בית שני‬:‫׳שגיאות מי יביך‬ ("Who can understand his errors? [Ps. 19:13] On some biblical formulae in the Second Temple period), in: ‫מחקרי תלמוד‬: Talmudic Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Prof. E.S. Rosenthal (ed. M. Bar-Asher and D. Rosenthal; Jerusalem: Magnes) 403-404. Folmer, M.L. 1991. "Some remarks on the use of the finite verb form

in the protasis of conditional sentences in Aramaic texts from the Achaemenid period,‫ ״‬in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (eds K. Jongeling, L. Van Rompay, H. L. Murre-van den Berg; SSLL 17; Leiden: Brill) 56-78. Folmer, M.L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation (OLA 68; Leuven: Peeters). Fox, A.J. 1984. "The evolution of the Hebrew infinitive, form and function: A diachronic study with cross-linguistic implications" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles). Frankel, Ζ. 1841. Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel). Freedman, D.N. 1980. Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns). Freedman, H. 1910. The Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino). Friedrich, J. 1951. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik (Roma: Pontifical Biblical Institute). Fröhlich, I. 1999. "Qumran Names" in: D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill). Fulco, W.J. 1976. The Canaanite God Reshep (AOS 8; New Haven: American Oriental Society). Gai, A. 1982. "The reduction of the tense (and other categories) of the consequent verb in Northwest Semitic," Or 51:254-56. Garcia Martinez, F. 19932. Textos de Qumrán (Madrid: Editorial Trotta). Garcia Martinez, F. 1994. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, The Qumran Texts in English (Trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson; Leiden: Brill). Garcia Martinez, F. and E.J.C. Tigchelaar. 1997-98. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols; Leiden: Brill). Garr, W.R. 1985. A Dialect-Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000 to 586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania). Ginzberg, L. 1961. ‫( פירושים וחידושים בירושלמי‬A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud) IV (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America). Goddard, B.L. 1943. "The origin of the Hebrew infinitive absolute in the light of inifinitive uses in related languages and its use in the Old Testament" (PhD diss., Harvard University). Godefroy, F. 1880 (1969). Dictionnaire de VAncienne Langue Française (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion; repr., Kraus: Nede1n/

Lichtenstein). Gogel, S.L. 1998. A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBLRBS 23; Atlanta: Scholars). Goldenberg, G. 1971. "Tautological Infinitive," IOS 1:36-85. Goldenberg, G. 1998. Studies in Semitic Linguistics (Jerusalem: Magnes). Goldin, J. 1991.‫( שוב על גומל חסדים טובים‬Good kindness), Tarbiz 60:659-

61. Goldschmidt, D. 1970. ‫ ראש השנה‬:‫( מחזור לימים נוראים‬Mahzor for the Days of Awe: New Year) (Jerusalem: Koren). Goldziher, I. 1934. "Erklärung einer Stelle in der Tefilla," MGWJ 78:117-19. Gordis, R. 1978. The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America). Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 1958. "Linguistic structure and tradition in the Qumran documents," ScrHier 4:101-137. Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 1963. "Theory and practice of textual criticism: The text-critical use of the Septuagint," Textus 3:130-58. Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 1967. "Hebrew biblical manuscripts: their history and their place in the HUBP edition," Bib 48:243-90. Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. (ed.). 1995. The Book of Isaiah. The Hebrew University Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes). Graetz, H. 1883. Kritischer Commentar zu den Psalmen nebst Text und Uebersetzung (Breslau: S. Schottlaender). Gray, G.B. 1912. The Book of Isaiah I-XXVII {ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Greenberg, M.H. 1956. "The stabilization of the text of the Hebrew Bible reviewed in the light of the biblical materials from the Judean Desert." J AO S 76:157-67. Greenberg, M.H. 1997. Ezekiel 21-37 (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday). Greenfield, J.C. 1960. "The root 'GBL' in mishnaic Hebrew and in the hymnic literature from Qumran," RevQ 2:155-62. Greenfield, J.C., and M.E. Stone. 1979. "Remarks on the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Genizah," RB 86:223-24. Grill, J. 1883. Der achtundsechzigste Psalm. Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf seine alten Übersetzer und neueren Ausleger (Tübingen: Verlag der H. Laupp'sehen Buchhandlung). Gross, B.Z. 1993.‫( המשקלים פעלון ופעלן במקרא ובלשון חכמים‬The Nominal Patterns ‫ פעלון‬and ‫ פעלן‬in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew) (Jerusalem:

The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1993). Groß, W., H. Irsigler, and T. Seidl (eds). 1991. Text, Methode und Grammatik. Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag (St. Ottilien: Eos). Grotzfeld, H. 1965. Syrisch-Arabische Grammatik (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz). Hammershaimb, E. 1963. "On the so-called Infinitivus Absolutus in Hebrew," in: D.W. Thomas and W.D. McHardy (eds) Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday 20 August Ī962 (Oxford:Clarendon) 85-94. Hamp, V. et al. 1960. Die Heilige Schrift des alten und neuen Testamentes. (Zürich: Christiana). Hanson, R.S. 1989. "Paleo-Hebrew Scripts in the Hasmonean Age," BASOR 175:26-42. Harkavy, A. 1891. Saadia Gaon,‫ספר הגלוי‬: Leben und Werke des Saadjah Gaon (Said al-Fajjumi, 892-942), Rectors der Talmudischen Akademie in Sora (Studien und Mittheilungen der Kaiserlichen Öffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg 5,1; St. Petersburg). Harl, M. et al. 1999. Les douze prophètes (La Bible d Alexandrie 23.4-9; Paris: Cerf). Harrington, D.J. 1985. "Pseudo-Philo," in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (Darton, Longman & Todd: London) 297-378. Harris, C.L. 1994. "Back-propagation representation for the ruleanalogy continuum" in: Barnden 1994: 282-326. Heinemann, J. 1974. ‫ עיונים בהשתלשלות! של מסורות‬:‫אגדות ותולדותיהן‬ (Aggadah and its Development) (Jerusalem: Keter) Held, M. 1962 "The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) sequence of identical verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic," in: M. Ben-Horin et aL (eds), Studies and Essays in Honor of A. A. Neuman (Leiden: Brill) 281-90. Hempel, Ch. 1997. "The penal code reconsidered," in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (eds M. Bernstein, F. Garcia Martinez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill) 337-48. Hirzel, L. 1852. Hiob (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum AT; Leipzig: Hirzel). Hitzig, F. 1863. Die Psalmen. Uebersetzt und auslegt (Leipzig und Heidelberg: C.F. Winter'sehe Verlagshandlung) Hoegenhaven, J. 1984. "The First Isaiah scroll from Qumran (IQIsa)

and the Masoretic text. Some reflections with special regard to Isaiah 1-12." JSOT 28:17-35. Hölscher, G. 1924. Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch: eine lite rarkritische Untersuchung (Glessen: Alfred Töpelmann) Hopkins, S. 1984. Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic (Oxford: Clarendon). Horgan, M.P. 1979. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, DC; The Catholic Biblical Association of America). Hospers, J. H. 1991. "Some remarks about the so-called imperative use of the infinitive absolute (Infinitivus pro Imperativo) in Classical Hebrew," in: K. Jongeling et al. (eds), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (Leiden/New York/Copenhagen: Brill) 97-102. Huesman, J. 1956. "Finite uses of the infinitive absolute," Bib 37:271-84. Hurvitz, A. 1972. ‫( בין לשון ללשון‬The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Bialik). Hurvitz, A. 1983. "The Hebrew language in the Persian period," in The World History of the Jewish People, vol. 6 (ed. B. Mazar; Jerusalem) 210-223, 306-309. Hurvitz, A. 1991. ‫ עיוני לשון וסגנון‬.‫( שקיעי חכמה בספר תהלים‬Wisdom Language in Biblical Psalmody) (Jerusalem: Magnes). Hurvitz, A. 1996. ‫ סוגיית ה׳ארמאיזמים׳ במחקר‬- ‫עברית וארמית בתקופה המקרא‬ ‫( העברית המקראית‬Hebrew and Aramaic in the biblical period — The problem of "Aramaisms" in the linguistic research of the Hebrew Bible), in: Studies in Hebrew and Jewish Languages Presented to Shelomo Morag (ed. M. Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: Bialik) 79-94. Hurvitz, A. 1997. "The linguistic status of Ben Sira as a link between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical aspects" in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (ed. T. Muraoka and J F. Elwolde; STDJ 26; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Hurvitz, A. 1999. "Further comments on the linguistic profile of Ben Sira: Syntactic affinities with Late Biblical Hebrew," in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997(Leiden: Brill) 132-45. Irvine, J.T. 1989. "When talk isn't cheap: Language and political economy," American Ethnologist 16:248-267.

Jacquet, L. 1979. Les Psaumes et le coeur de l'homme: Etude textuelle, littéraire et doctrinale (3 vols.; Belgium: Duculot) Janowitz, N. 1993. "Re-creating Genesis: the metapragmatics of divine speech," in: J.A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 393405. Jastrow, M. 1903. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushlalmi and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica). Jastrow, 0. 3 1985. Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Midin im Tür 'Abdin (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). Jenni, E. 1998. "Vollverb und Hilfsverb mit Infinitiv-Ergänzung im Hebräischen," TAH 11:50-67. Joosten, J. 1996. People and Land in the Holiness Code. An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17-26 (SVT 67; Leiden: Brill, 1996 Joosten, J. 1998. "Exegesis in the Septuagint version of Hosea," in: Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel: Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting of The Society of Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap In Nederland en België, held at Oxford, 1997 (ed. J.C. de Moor; OTS 40; Leiden: Brill) 62-85. Joosten, J. 1999. "Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew," in: T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira. Proceedings of a Second Symposium Held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (Leiden: Brill) 146-59. Joiion, P. 1965. Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique (Rome: Biblical Pontifical Institute). Joiion, P. and T. Muraoka. 1991 [1993]. Λ Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 14/I-II; rev. ed.; 2 vols.; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico). Kaddari, M.Z. 1968. Semantic Fields in the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Jerusalem: The Shrine of the Book and Kiryath Sepher) (Hebrew). Kahana, M.I. 1999. The Two Mekhiltot on the Amalek Portion (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999). Kaminka, A. 1928. Studien zur Septuaginta an der Hand der Zwölf Kleinen Prophetenbücher (Schriften der Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums 33; Frankfurt a. M.: J. Kauffmann). Kasovsky, C.Y. 1957. Thesaurus Mishnae, 4 vols. (Massadah: TelAviv).

Kasowski, C. J. 1954. ‫( אוצר לשון התלמוד‬Thesaurus Talmudis, Concordantiae verborum) (Jerusalem: Ronald&Turim). (Keil, C.F. &) Delitzsch, F. 1980. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes. Vol. V: Psalms (Trans. James Martin; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans). Kekler, H. 21899. Die Psalmen (Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften 6.1; München: C.H. Beck'sehe Verlagsbuchhandlung). Kennicott, B. 1776-80. Vetus Testamentum hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon). Kesterson, J. C. 1984. "Tense usage and verbal syntax in selected Qumran documents" (Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America). Kieviet, P.J.A. 1997. "The infinitive construct in Late Biblical Hebrew: An investigation in the synoptic parts of Chronicles," DS-NELL 3:4573. Kirkpatrick, A.F. 1904. The Book of Psalms: Books II and III. Psalms XLII-LXXXIX (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kister, M. 1989-90. ‫( לפירושו של ספר בן סירא‬A contribution to the interpretation of Ben Sira) Tarbiz 59:303-78 Kister, M. 1992. "Biblical phrases and hidden biblical interpretations and pesharim," in: The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill) 27-39. Kister, M. 1998.‫( ביאורים באגדות החורבן באבות דרבי נתן‬Legends of the Destruction of the Second Temple in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan), Tarbiz 67:483-529. Kister, M. 1999a. "Some notes on biblical expressions and allusions and the lexicography of Ben Sira," in: T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (eds), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 7997 (STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 160-87. Kister, M. 1999b. ,‫ תאולוגיה‬,‫ הלכה‬:‫עיונים במגילת מקצת מעשי התורה ועולמה‬ ‫( לשון ולוח‬Studies in 4QMiqsat MaCaše ha-Torah and related texts: law, theology, language and calendar), Tarbiz 68:355-59. Kister, M. and E. Qimron. 1992. "Observations on 4Q Second Ezekiel," RevQ 15:595-602. Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner (et al.), 1967-95. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum alten Testament, 6 vols. (Leiden:

Brill). Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner (et al.), tr. and ed. M.E.J. Richardson. 1994-2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 4 vols. (Leiden: Brill). König, Ε. 1897. Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache (Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache 3; Leipzig: Hinrichs; repr. Olms, Hildesheim 1979). König, E. 1899. "Syntactische Excurse zum Alten Testament," ZAW 19:259-87. Korpel, M.C.A. 1988. "The literary genre of the dong of the vineyard (Isa. 5:1-7)," in W. van der Meer et al. (eds), The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 119-55. Kosovsky, M. 1979. ‫( אוצר לשון תלמוד ירושלמי‬Concordance to the Talmud Yerushalmi) (Jerusalem: Keter). Kropat, A. 1909. Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen (BZAW 16; Glessen: Töpelmann). Kugel, J. 1982. "Is there but one song?, " Bib 63, 329-50. Kugel, J. 1990. In Potiphar's House (San Francisco, HarperCollins) Kuhn, K.G. in TWNT VI:727-45. Kutscher E.Y. 1959. ‫הלשון והרקע הלשוני של מגילת ישעיהו השלמה ממגילות‬ ‫( ים המלח‬The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll) (Jerusalem: Magnes). Kutscher, E.Y. 1961. ‫( מילים ותולדותיהן‬Words and their History) (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher). Kutscher, E.Y. 1962.‫לשונן של האגרות העבריות והארמיות של בר כוסבא ובני‬ ‫ האיגרות העבריות‬:‫ מאמר שני‬.‫( דורו‬The language of the Hebrew and Aramaic letters of Bar Koseba and his contemporaries. Part 2: The Hebrew letters), Lei. 26:7-23. Kutscher, E.Y. 1965. Words and Their History (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher). Kutscher, E.Y. 1972. "Hebrew Language, The Dead Sea Scrolls," EncJud 16:1583-90. Kutscher, E.Y. 1974. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1Q Isa") (transi, from the Hebrew edition; STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill). Kutscher, E.Y. 1977. ‫( מחקרים בעברית ובארמית‬Hebrew and Aramaic Studies) (Jerusalem: Magnes). Kutscher, E.Y. 1982. A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. R.

Kutscher; Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes/Brill). Lakoff, G. "What is a Metaphor ?," in: Barnden 1994:203-58. Lambert, M. 1895. "Le mot yom suivi des nombres ordinaux," REJ 31:279-81. Lane, E.W. 1877. An Arabic-English Lexicon (London: Williams and Norgate). Leahy, Th. 1960. "Studies in the syntax of 1QS," 5^4:135-57. Lemaire, A. 1982. "Trois notes de grammaire phénicienne," GLECS 24-28:133-45. Levi, I. 1907. "Notes sur le texte araméen du Testament de Levi," REJ 54:166-80. Levi, J. 1987. Die Inkongruenz im biblischen Hebräisch (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). Licht, J. 1956. "The Term ‫ גורל‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Beth Mikra 1:90-99 (Hebrew). Licht, J. 1957. ‫( מגילת ההודיות‬The Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea) (Jerusalem: Bialik). Licht, J. 1965. ‫( מגילת הסרכים‬The Rule Scroll) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute). Lieberman, S. 1952. "The discipline in the so-called Manual of Discipline," JBL 71:199-206. Lieberman, S. 1968. "‫( "הוראות נשכחות‬Forgotten meanings), Les. 32:89102. Lilienblum, M.L. 1876. Viduy ha-Gadol. Vienna. Lindblom, J. 1962. "Lot-Casting in the Old Testament," VT 12:164-78. Lipinski, E. 1997. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. (OLA 80; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies). Loewenstamm, S.E. 1969. "Remarks on the Infinitive Absolute in Ugaritic and Phoenician," JANES 2/1:53 (with remarks by D. Marcus). Loewenstamm, S.E. 1976.‫( רשף‬Reshep), in: Encyclopedia Biblica Vol. 7 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute) 437-41. Loewenstamm, S.E. 1992. The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (tr. B. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Magnes). Loewenstamm, S.E. and Blau, J. 1957-68. ‫( אוצר לשון המקרא‬Thesaurus of the Llanguage of the Bible) (Jerusalem: The bible concordance press). (Hebrew) Loewinger, S. 1954. "The variants of DSI II," VT 4:155-63. Loretz, O. 1976. "Kj ‫־‬Brandmal' in Jes. 3,24?" UF 8:448. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie. 1992-96. Λ Greek-English Lexicon of

the Septuagint, 2 vols (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft). MacCormac, E.R. 1985. A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor (Cambridge Massachussets/London England: MIT Press). Maier, J. 1995. Die Qumran-Essener: die Texte vom Toten Meer; Band II: Die Texte der Höhle 4 (München/Basel: Ernst Reinhardt). Mann, J. and I. Sonne. 1966. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, vol. 2 (Cincinati: The Mann-Sonne Publication Committee). Mansoor, M. 1958. "Some linguistic aspects of the Qumran texts," JSS 3:40-54. Marcus, R. 1956. "Mebaqqer and Rabbim in the Manual of Discipline, vi. 11-13," JBL 75:298-307. Margain, J. 1996. "La Septante comme témoin de l'hébreu post-exilique et michnique," in: F. Briquel-Chatonnet, Mosaïque de langues mosaïque culturelle. Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient Ancien (Paris: J. Maisonneuve). Matoré, G. 1951 .Le vocabulaire et la société sous Louis Philippe. Lille. McCarter, P.K. 1986 Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress). Medala, S. 1992. "The original language of 4 Esdras," in: Z. J. Kapera (ed.), Inte rte stamental Essays in Honour of Jôzef Tadeusz Milik (Krakow: The Enigma Press) 313-26. Medico, H. E. del. 1957. L'énigme des manuscrits de la Mer Morte (Paris: Librarie Pion). Meek, J.T. 1940. "The Hebrew accusative of time and place," J AOS 60:224-33. Milik, J.T. 1961. In: Benoit, P., J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabbacât (DJD 2). Milik, J.T. 1962. "Le Rouleau de Cuivre provenant de la Grotte 3Q (3Q15)" in: Baillet, Milik, and de Vaux (DJD 3) 201-302. Mishor, M. 1980.‫על שימוש במקור הנטוי ושם הפעולה בלשון חז״ל‬, Les La'am 31:7-11, 104. Mishor, M. 1983. ‫( מערכת הזמנים בלשון התנאים‬The Tense System in Tannaitic Hebrew) (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem). Morag, S. 1954. "The independent pronouns of the third person masculine and feminine in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in: M.D.U. Cassuto Memorial Volume, Erlsr 3 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society ) 166-69. Morag, S. 1974. "On the historical validity of the vocalization of the

Hebrew Bible," JAOS 94:307-15. Morag, S. 1975. ‫( על 'מלות מפתחי וימלות עדותי בלשונו של ירמיהו‬On 'key words' and 'evidentiary words' in the language of Jeremiah), in: B.Z. Fischler and U. Oman (eds), Rosen Memorial Volume: Essays on the Teaching of Hebrew as an Additional Language (Jerusalem: Magnes) 64-73. Morag, S. 1988. "Qumran Habrew: Some typological observations," VT 38:148-64 Morag, S. 1995a. "The structure of semantic and associative fields in Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic," in: idem, 1995:225-32. Morag, S. 1995b. ‫( מחקרים בלשון המקרא‬Studies on Biblical Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes). Morag, S. 1996 "Some notes (Following Elisha Qimron's paper 'The biblical lexicon in the light of the Dead Sea scrolls'," DSD 3:152-156). Morag, S. 1998. ‫ דברי הפיוס—עיון לשוני‬:‫( המטפורה הגדולה של הושע‬The 'great metaphor' of Hosea (2:4-17): The appease-ment (2:1617)—Some linguistics notes), Tarbii 68:5-11. Moran, W.L. 1950. "The use of the Canaanite infinitive absolute as a finite verb in the Amarna letters from Byblos," JCS 4:155-65, 169-72. Moreshet, M.‫( לקסיקון הפועל שנתחדש בלשון התנאים‬A Lexicon of the New verbs in Tannaitic Hebrew) (Ramt-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1980) Morgenstern, M. 1999. "The history of the Aramaic dialects in the light of discoveries from the Judaean Desert: The case of Nabataean," in: F.M. Cross Volume, Erlsr 26 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society) 134*-142*. Müller, A.R. 1991. "Zu den Artikelfunktionen im Hebräischen," in: Groß et al., 1991:313-29. Muraoka, T. 1978. "A Syntactic problem in Lev. XIX. 18b," JSS 23:29197. Muraoka, T. 1985. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes/Brill). Muraoka, T. 1993. Λ Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Twelve Prophets) (Leuven: Peeters). Muraoka, T. 1995. "Notae Qumranicae philologicae (2)," AbrN 33:5573. Muraoka, T. 1997a. "Verb complementation in Qumran Hebrew," in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (ed. T. Muraoka and J F. Elwolde; STDJ 26; Leiden: Brill) 92-149.

Muraoka, T. 1997b."Notes on the use of Hebrew tenses in Exodus 19-24," in: Ellen van Wolde (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 242-49. Muraoka, T. 1998. "Notae Qumranicae philologicae (3)," AbrN 35:4764. Muraoka, T. and B. Porten. 1998. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (HO 32; Leiden: Brill). Naeh, S. 1993. "‫שתי סוגיות נדושות בלשון חז״ל‬," in: M. Bar-Asher and D. Rosenthal (eds), E.S. Rosenthal Memorial Volume (Jerusalem: Magnes) 369-92. Naeh, S. and M.P. Weitzman. 1994. "TĪR0Š—wine or grape? A case of meto-nymy," VT44:115-20. Nager, A. 1881. "Über schem ha-mephorasch," ZDMG 35:162-67. Najman, H. 1998 "Authoritative writing and interpretation: A study in the history of Scripture" (unpublished doctoral diss., Harvard, MA) Naveh, J. 1992. ‫ הכתובות הארמיות והעבריות מבתי הכנסת‬,‫על פסיפס ואבן‬ ‫( העתיקים‬On Sherd and Papyrus: Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods) (Jerusalem: Magnes). Newsom, C.A. 1985. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). Niccacci, A. 1990. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson (JSOTSup 86; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Nissim b. Jacob,‫חיבור הפה‬: Obermann, J., Studies in Islam and Judaism. The Arabic Original of Ibn Shâhîn 's Book of Comfort Known as the Hibbur Yaphê of R. Nissim b. Yacaqobh edited from the Unique Manuscript (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933). Nitzan, B. 1998. "287. 4QBerakh0tV‫ ־‬Qumran Cave 4; VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1 (DJD 11) 49-60. Nöldeke, Th. 2 1898 (1966). Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik (Leipzig 1898; repr. with additional materials: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Nötscher, F. 1951. "Entbehrliche Hapaxlegomena in Jesaia." VT 1:299302. Olmo Lete, G. del and Sanmartín, J. 1996. Diccionario de la Lengua Ugaritica. Vol. 1 (Barcelona: AUSA). Ormsby-Lennon, L. 1991. "From shibboleth to apocalypse: Quaker speechways during the Puritan Revolution," in: P. Burke and R. Porter (eds), Language, Self, and Society: A Social History of

Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 72-112 Ortony, A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1993). Osgood, Ch.E. "The cognitive dynamics of synesthesia and metaphor," in: Cognition and Figurative Language, Richard, P.H. and R.R. Hoffman (eds) (New Jersey: Erlbaum) 203-80. Parry, D.W. and E. Qimron. 1999. The Great Isaiah Scroll (IQIscf) (STDJ 32; Leiden: Brill). Payne Smith, R. 1879-1901. Thesaurus Syriacus (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon). Pennacchietti, F.A. 1968. Studi sui pronomi determinativi Semitici. (Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli). Pérez Fernández, M. 1997. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (transi, from Spanish by John F. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill). Peursen, W. Th. van. 1999a. "The verbal system in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira" (PhD diss., Leiden Universtiy). Peursen, W.Th. van. 1999b. "Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira" in: T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997 (Leiden: Brill) 223-43. Pfann, S. "The writings in esoteric script from Qumran," in: L. Schiffman, Ε. Τον, and James C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery—Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 7997 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, forthcoming). Pfann, S. 1994. "4Q298: The Maskîl's address to all sons of dawn," JQR 85:203-35. Philippi, F. 1875. "Ad Koch, Prof.: Der semitische Inf. Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchung," ZDMG 29:169-82. Philonenko, M. 1999. "La Bible des Septante," in Cahiers de la villa "Kérylos" 9:145-55. Polzin, R. 1977. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Late Biblical Prose (HSM 12; Missoula: Scholars Press). Praetorius, F. 1902. "Über den sogen. Inf. Abs. des Heb," ZDMG 56:546-50. Puech, É. 1991. "Le Testament de Qahat en Araméen de la grotte 4 (4QTQah)," RevQ 15:23-54. Puech, É. 1998. Qumran Grotte 4 XVID: Textes hébreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579) (DJD 25).

Qimron, E. 1976.‫( דקדוק הלשון העברית של מגילות מדבר יחודה‬A grammar of the Hebrew language of the Dead Sea Scrolls) (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Qimron, E. 1978. ‫״‬New readings in the Temple Scroll," IEJ 28:161-72. Qimron, E. 1979. E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1Q1sct). Indices and Corrections. Leiden: Brill. Qimron, E. 1980.‫( למילונה של מגילת המקדש‬The vocabulary of the Temple Scroll), Shnaton 4:239-62. Qimron, E. 1986. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Qimron, E. 1991a. ‫ עיון‬- ‫דקדוק לשון מגילות מדבר יהודה ודקדוק לשון חכמים‬ ‫מורפולוגי משווד‬, in: ‫( סוגיות בלשון חכמים‬ed. M. Bar-Asher, Jerusalem) 106-11.

Qimron, Ε. 1991b. ‫טקסטים חדשים מקומראן ותרומתם למילון העברית הקדומה‬ (New texts from Qumran and their contribution to the Hebrew lexicon), Tarbiz 60:649-50. Qimron, E. 1992a. "Celibacy in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the two kinds of sectarians," in: The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill) 287-94. Qimron, E. 1992b. "Observations on the history of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.-200 C.E.) in the light of the Dead Sea documents," in: D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (Brill/Magnes /Yad Ben-Zvi) 349-61. Qimron, E. 1992c. "The text of C E P in The Damascus Document Reconsidered (ed. Magen Broshi; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society) 9-49. Qimron, E. 1992d. ‫ההטעמה בעברית של מגילות מדבר יהודה‬, Hebrew Linguistics 33-35:79-92. Qimron, Ε. 1994. (522‫ק‬4)‫( על ׳קורות יהושע׳ מקומראן‬Concerning 'Joshua cycles' from Qumran), Tarbiz 63:503-508. Qimron, E. 1995a. "The Biblical Lexicon in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls" DSD 2:295-329. Qimron, E. 1995b. ‫ מבנה ארמי ״מאוחר״‬.‫שיש במקום פלוני = שבמקום פלוני‬ ‫בתעודות מימי בר כוכבא‬, Les 58:313-15. Qimron, Ε. 1996. The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions (with a bibliography by F. Garcia Martinez; Judean Desert Studies; Beer Sheva/Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of

the Negev Press/Israel Exploration Society). Qimron, E. 1997a. "A new approach to the use of the forms of theipmperfect without personal endings," 174-181 in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Proceedings of A Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995. STDJ 26. Ed. T. Muraoka & J. F. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill. Qimron, E. 1997b. ‫תרומת מגילות מדבר יהודה לחקר העברית הקדומה‬, Qadmoniot 30:82-86. Qimron, Ε. 1998. ‫( הצעה חדשה לפירוש צורות העתיד בעברית הקדומה‬A new approach toward interpreting the imperfect verbal forms in Early Hebrew)," Les. 61:31-43. Qimron, E. 1999 "The nature of DSS Hebrew and its relation to BH and MH," in Abstracts of a Symposium Held at Ben Gurion University, Oct. 10-15, 1999. Beer Sheba: Ben-Gurion University. Qimron, E. 2000. "The Nature of DSS Hebrew and its Relation to BH and MH," 232-44 in the present volume. Qimron, E. and J. Strugnell. 1985. "An unpublished halakhic letter from Qumran," in: Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, April 1984 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society) 400-407. Qimron, E. and J. Strugnell. 1994. Qumran Cave 4, V. Miqsat Ma'ase ha-Torah (DJD 10). Qimron, E. and J.H. Charlesworth. 1994. "Rule of the Community" in: PTSDSSP 1:1-51. Rabin, C. 1958. The Zadokite Documents Edited with a Translation and Notes (Second revised ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1958). Rabin, C. 1963. "Hittite words in Hebrew," Or 32:113-39. Rabin, C. 1972. ‫( הרקע ההיסטורי של העברית של קומראן‬The historical background of Qumran Hebrew), in: ‫( קובץ מאמרים בלושן חז״ל‬ed. M. Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: Academon) 1:355-382.[A Heb. translation of Rabin 1985.] Rabin, C. 1976 "Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century," in: The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern. CRINT. Philadelphia: Fortress) 2.1007-1039. Rabin, C. 1985. "The historical background of Qumran Hebrew," ScrHier 4:144-61. Rainey, A. 1996. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan, four vols. (HO I/XXV; Leiden: Brill). Ramirez K.J.E. 1999. Alterity and Indentity in Israel. The ‫ גר‬in the Old

Testament (BZAW 283; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Ramzi, M. 1968. Fihris al-qamus al-jugrafiyy lil-bilad al misriyya. Al-Qahira. Reider, A. 1872. Die Verbindung des Infinitivus Absolutus mit dem Verbum Finitium desselben Stammes im Hebräischen auf Grund Sämmtlicher im Alten Testament vorkommenden Stellen (Leipzig: Metzger & Wittig). Rengstorf, K.H. 1965. "‫( המושג "גורלי בכתבי ים המלח‬The concept 'GoraÏ in the Dead-Sea scrolls), Tarbiz 35:108-21. Revell, E.J. 1962. "The order of the elements in the verbal statement clause in I Q Sereq," RevQ 3:559-69. Revell, E.J. 1964. "Clause structure in the prose documents of Qumran Cave I," RevQ 5:3-22. Rooker, M.F. 1990. Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel (Sheffield: JSOT Press). Rosén, H. 1977. Yalqut ha-Lashon. Jerusalem. Rosenthal, J. 1948. ‫( שאלות עתיקות בתנ״ך‬Se'elot 'Atiqoton the Tanakh), HUCA 21:29*-91*. Rossi, J.B. de. 1784-1798 Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti Librorum (4 vols.; Parma: Bodoni) Rubin, M. 1998. "The language of creation or the primordial language: A case of cultural polemics in antiquity," 77549:306-33. Rubinstein, A. 1952. "A finite verb continued by an infinitive absolute in Biblical Hebrew," VT 2:362-67. Rummel, S. (ed.). 1981. Ras Shamra Parallels (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico). Sàenz-Badillos, Α. 1986. Menahem ben Saruq, Mahberet: Edic'wn critica e introducciôn (Granada: Universidad de Granada/Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca). Sàenz-Badillos, Α. 1987. Un diccionario hebreo de Provenza (Siglo XIII): Ediciôn del manuscrito Vaticano Ebr. 413 con Introducciôn (Granada: Universidad de Granada/Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca). Sàenz-Badillos, Α. 1993. A History of the Hebrew Language (trans, by J.F. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Sáenz-Badi110s, A. and J. Targarona B0rrás. 1988. Šému'el Ha-Nagid, Poemas. I: Desde el campo de batalla, Granada 1038-1056 (Autores hebreos de al-Andalus 1; Côrdoba: El Almendro). Sàenz-Badillos, A. and J. Targarona B0rrás. 1988. Gramâticos hebreos de al-Andalus (Siglos X-XII), Filologia y Biblia (Estudios de cultura

hebrea 6; Cordoba: El Almendro). Sáenz-Badi110s, A. and J. Targarona Borrâs. 1991. Literatura hebrea en la Espaha medieval (Madrid: Fundaciôn Amigos de Sefarad/ Universidad Nacional de Educaciôn a Distancia). Saldarini, A.J. 1975. The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (SJLA 11; Leiden: Brill). Sanders, J.A. 1965. The Psalms Scroll ofQumrân Cave 11 (DJD 4). Sanders, J.A. 1967. The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press). Sanders, J.A. 1999. "The Hebrew University Bible and Biblia Hebraica Quinta," JBL 118:518-26. Sarfatti, G.B. 1980. ‫על אודות היידוע של צירופי הסמיכות הכבולים בלשון‬ ‫( החכמים‬On the definiteness of the construct phrases in Rabbinic Hebrew), in: G.B. Sarfatti, P. Artzi, J.C. Greenfield, and M.Z. Kaddari (eds), Studies in Hebrew and Semitic Languages Dedicated to the Memory of Prof. E.Y. Kutscher (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press) 140-54. Sarfatti, G.B. 1983. "‫מסורת לשון חכמים — מסורת של "לשון ספרותית חיח‬ (The tradition of ΜΗ—a tradition of a living literary language), in: ‫( מחקרי לשון מוגשים לזאב בן־חיים בהגיעו לשיבה‬Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Professor Zeev Ben-Hayyim, ed. M. Bar-Asher et al.) (Jerusalem: Magnes) 451-58. Sarfatti, G.B. 1984. "L'uso dell'articolo determinativo in espressioni del tipo 'knesset hagedola," Annuario di studi ebraici 10:219-28. Sarfatti, G.B. 1989. ‫דרכי היידוע של צירוף שם עצם ושם תואר בלשון חכמים‬ (On the modes of determination of the syntagm [noun and adjective] in Rabbinic Hebrew), in: ‫מחקרים בלשון העברית ובספרות התלמודית‬ ‫( מוקדשים לזכרו של ד״ר מנחם מורשת‬Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han University Press) 153-68. Sarfatti, G.B. 1992. "Reflexive pronouns and pronouns of identity in Hebrew," Lei 56:341-52. Sarfatti, G.B. 1995."‫הכתובות של המטבעות העבריים מימי הבית השני‬," Te'uda 9:75-87. Schechter, S. 1887. Avot de-Rabbi Nathan. Wien. Schechter, S. 1910. Fragments of a Zadokite Work, Edited from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collected and Provided with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes. Documents of Jewish Sectaries, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Schiffman, L. 1994. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday).

Schirmann, H. 1970. "The battle between Behemoth and Leviathan according to an ancient Hebrew piyyut," Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities 3:48. Schlesinger, M. 1928. Satzlehre der aramäischen Sprache des babylonischen Talmuds (Leipzig: Verlag der Asia Major). Schniedewind, W.M. 1999. "Qumran Hebrew as an antilanguage," JBL 118:235-252. Schniedewind, W.M. and D. Sivan. 1997. "The Elijah-Elisha narratives: A test case for the northern dialect of Hebrew," JQR 87:303-37. Schoors, A. 1992. The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qoheleth (OLA 41; Leuven: Peeters). Schorsch, S. 1997. "Die hebräische Wurzel QHT," TAH 10:76-84. Schuller, Ε. 1992. "A preliminary study of 4Q373 and some related (?) fragments," in: The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill) 515-30. Schuller, Ε. 1994. "Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (eds M.O. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins, and D.G. Pardee; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; New York: The New York Academy of Sciences) 115-27. Schwartz, S. 1995. "Language, power and identity in Ancient Palestine," Past and Present 148: 3-47. Seeligmann, I.L. 1948. "The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. A Discussion of its Problems" (diss. Leiden University). Seeligmann, I.L. 1961. "Indication of editorial alterations and adaptations in the Masoretic text and the Septuagint," VT 11:201-21. Seeligmann, I.L. 1990. "Problems and perspectives in modern Septuagint research," Textus 15:169-232 (ET of an article originally published in Dutch in 1940). Seeligmann, I.L. 1992. ‫( מחקרים בספרות המקרא‬Studies in the Literature of the Bible) (Jerusalem: Magnes). Segal, M.H. 1927. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon). Segal, M.H. 1932.‫( בנית פסוקי התנאי בעברית המקראית והמשנית‬The structure of the conditional sentence in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew), Les. 4:191-211. Segal, M.H. 19352.‫( ספר בן סירא השלם‬The complete book of Ben Sira)

(Jerusalem: Bialik, 1953). Segal, M.H. 1936a. ‫( דקדוק לשון המשנה‬A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Dvir). Segal, M.H. 1936b. ‫( לשונו של בן סירא‬The language of Ben Sira), Les 7:100-118. Segert, S, 1975. Altaramäische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Chrestomathie und Glossar (Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie). Segert, S. 1995. "Bileam, der Sohn Beors," ZÄH 8:71-77. Sellin, E. 1889. Die verbal-nominale Dobbelnatur der hebräischen Participien und Infinitive und ihre darauf beruhende verschiedene Construktion (Leipzig: Ackerman & Glaser). Seybold, K. 1996. Die Psalmen (HzAT 1.15; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). Shoshana, A. 1999. ‫ פירושי דשי בנוסח חדש‬:‫ספר איוב מבית מדרשו של רשי‬ ‫ תלמיד רשי‬,‫ שניהם על פי מיטב כתבי היד‬,‫ רבינו תם‬,‫שלם ומתוקן‬...(The Book of Job with Commentaries of Rashi, Rabbenu Jacob b. Meir Tam, and a Disciple of Rashi) (Jerusalem: Ofeq Institute). Sivan, D. 1997. A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (HO 1/28; Leiden: Brill). Sivan, R. & E.A. Levenston. 21975. The Megiddo Modern Dictionary: Hebrew-English (Tel Aviv: Megiddo Publishing Co. Ltd.). Skehan, P.W. and A. di Leila. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday). Skehan, P.W. and E. Ulrich. 1997. "Isaiah," in: Eugene Ulrich et al. (eds), Qumran Cave 4. X: The Prophets (DJD 15) 7-143. Smend, R. 1906a. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch (Berlin: Reimer). Smend, R. 1906b. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt (Berlin: Reimer). Smith, M.S. 1991a. The Origins and Development of the Wawconsecutive. Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (HSS 39; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). Smith, M.S. 1991b "The Waw-consecutive at Qumran." ZAH 4/2:161-64. Smith, M.S. 1995. "4QNarrative C," Qumran Cave 4; XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Pari 2 (DJD 19) 195-209. Smith, N. 1991. "The uses of Hebrew in the English revolution," in: P. Burke and R. Porter (eds), Language, Self and Society: A Social History of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 51-71. Sokoloff, M. 1990. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press).

Solà-Solé, J. M. 1961. L'infinitif sémitique: Contribution à l'étude des formes et des fonctions des nom d'action and et des infinitifs sémitiques (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion). Sperber, A. 1959. The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill). Sperber, Α. 1966. A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Leiden: E.J.Brill). Stec, D.M. 1994. The Text of the Targum of Job (AGJU 20; Leiden: Brill). Steiner, R.C. 1979. "From Proto-Hebrew to Mishnaic Hebrew: The history of ‫ך‬- and ‫ה‬-," Hebrew Annual Review 3:157-74. Steiner, R.C.' 1997' "Ancient Hebrew," in: R. Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic Languages (New York: Routledge), pp. 145-73. Stone, M.E. 1996. "The geneology of Bilhah," DSD 3:20-36. Stone, M.E. 1999. "The axis of history at Qumran," in: Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E.G. Chazon and M. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill) 134-35. Stone, M.E. and E. Eshel. 1992. "An exposition on the patriarchs ( 4 Q 4 6 4 ) and Two Other Documents," Mus 105:243-64. Stone, M.E. and J.C. Greenfield. 1993. "The prayer of Levi," JBL 112:247-66. Strugnell, J. 1970 "Notes en marge du Volume V des «Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan»," RevQ 7:163-276. Sukenik, E.L. 1956-57. ‫אוצר המגילות הגנוזות שבידי האוניברסיטה העבריה‬. (The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). S Wiggers, P. 1991. "Nominal sentence negation in Biblical Hebrew: the grammatical status of ‫ "אין‬in: K. Jongeling, H.L. Murre-van den Berg, and L. Van Rompay (eds), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax. Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Leiden: Brill) 173-79. Tadmor, H. 1985. "Toward the early history of QATALU," JQR 76:51-54. Tal, A. 1980. ‫( התרגום השומרוני לתורה‬The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch), vol. 1 (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University). Talmon, Sh. 1953. "The sectarian ‫יהד‬: A biblical noun," VT3: 133-40. Talmon, Sh. 1962a. "The three scrolls of the law that were found in the temple court." Textus 2:14-27. Talmon, Sh. 1962b. "DSIa as a witness to ancient exegesis of the book of Isaiah." Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 1:62-72. Talmon, Sh. 1989. The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies

(Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes/Brill). Talshir, D. 1988. "A reinvestigation of the linguistic relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah," VT 38:165-93. Talshir, D. 1993. ‫ בית גידולה וגלגוליה‬- ‫ העברית בימי הבית השני‬in: M. BarAsher and D. Rosenthal (eds), A. S. Rosenthal Memorial Volume (Jerusalem: Magnes) 284-310. Talshir, D. 1996. "... ‫הערה למאמרו של אלישע קימרון"שיש במקום פלוני‬, Les 59:175-76. Tesnière, L. 1959. Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale (Paris: Kliencksieck). The Academy of the Hebrew Language. 1988. (The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language), Materials for the Dictionary; Series I: 200 B.C.E. - 300 C.E.; Guide and Indices to the Microfiche (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language). The Chambers Dictionary 1998. (Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap). Thorion, Y. 1981. "The use of prepositions in I Q Serek," RevQ 10:40533. Thorion-Vardi, T. 1985. "The use of the tenses in the Zadokite documents," RevQ 12:65-88. Tournay. R. 1966. "Recension de The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 par J.A. Sanders," RB 73:258-65. Τον, Ε. 1984. "Did the Septuagint translators always understand their Hebrew text?," in A. Pietersma, C. Cox (eds), De Septuaginta (Fs J. Wevers; Mississauga Ontario: Benben Publications) Τον, Ε. 1985. "The nature and background of harmonizations in biblical manuscripts." JSOT 31:3-29. Τον, Ε. 1986. "The orthography and language of the Hebrew scrolls found at Qumran and the origin of these scrolls," Textus 13:31-57. Τον, Ε. 1988. "The Septuagint," in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Assen & Maastricht: Van Gorcum). Τον, Ε. 1992. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress). Τον, Ε. 1996. "Scribal practices reflected in the documents from the Judean Desert and in the rabbinic literature: a comparative study, " in: M.V. Fox et al. (eds), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: a tribute to Menahem Haran (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 383-403. Τον, Ε. 19972a. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981).

Τον, Ε. 1997b.‫( המגילות המקראיות ממדבר יהודה‬The Biblical Scrolls from the Judaean Desert), in: On a Scroll of a Book (ed. Lea Mazor; Jerusalem. Magnes) 40-65. Τον, Ε. 1998. "Scribal practices reflected in the texts from the Judaean Desert," in: Flint, Peter W. and J.C. Vanderkam (eds), The Dead Sea scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill) 403-29. Τον, Ε. 1999. "Correction procedures in the texts from the Judean Desert, " in: D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (Leiden: Brill) 232-263. Trebolle Barrera, J. 1995. With E. Ulrich, F.M. Cross and others as eds of Qumran Cave 4· IX [DJD XIV]. Trebolle Barrera, J. 1998. The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible (Leiden: E. J. Brill). Trudgill, P. 3 1995. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society (New York: Penguin). Tur-Sinai (Torczyner), N.H. 1941. ‫בשולי מילונו של אליעזר בן יהודה‬, Les 13:15-27. Tur-Sinai (Torczyner), N.H., see Ben Yehuda. Tur-Sinai, N.H. 1954‫" ר‬The infinitive absolute in Hebrew," ‫הלשון והספר‬, vol. 1. (Jerusalem: Bialik.) 305-29 (Heb.). Tur-Sinai, N.H. 1967.‫( פשוטו של מקרא‬The Plain Meaning of the Biblical Text), vol. 3/1 (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher). Ulrich, Ε. 1998. "The Dead Sea scrolls and the biblical text," 79-100, The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. Vanderkam, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill). Ulrich, Ε. 1999a. "Appendix I: Index of passages in the biblical scrolls." in P.W. Flint and J.C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill) 649-65. Ulrich, Ε. 1999b. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text." in P.W. Flint and J.C. VanderKam (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill) 79-100. Urbach, E.E. 1971. ‫( השלמות ל׳השלים׳‬Additional notes concerning the verb hishlim [ 7,([‫השלים‬ar&240:392. VanderKam, J.C. 1989. The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511; Louvain, Peeters) VanderKam, J.C. 1994. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans). VanderKam, J.C. and J. T. Milik: 1991. "The first Jubilees manuscript

from Qumran Cave 4: a preliminary publication," JBL 110 (1991) 243-70 Varela Moreno, M.E. 1981. Tesubot de Yehudi Ben Šešet: Ediciôn, traduccián, y comentario (Granada: Universidad de Granada). Verheij, A.J.C. 1990. Verbs and Numbers. A Study of the Frequencies of the Hebrew Verbal Tense Forms in the Books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles (Assen: Van Gorcum). Vermes, G. 1979. In: The Dead Sea Scrolls (Tokyo: Kondansha). Vermes, G. 19954. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books). Vermes, G. 1997. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: The Penguin Press). Wacholder, B.Z., M.G. Abegg and J. Bowley. 1996. Fascicle Four, Concordance of Fascicles 1-3 (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society) Wacholder, B.Z., M.G. Abegg, and J. Bowley. 1991-95. A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four. Fascicles 1-3 (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society). [Fasc. 1-1991, 2-1992, 3-1995], Wagner, M. 1966. Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen Hebräisch (BZAW 96; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann). Wallenstein, M. 1954. "Some lexical material in the Judean scrolls," VT4:211-14. Wallenstein, M. 1957. "Some aspects of the vocabulary and morphology of the hymns of the Judaean scrolls," VT 7:209-13. Wallis Budge, E.A. 1920. By Nile and Tigris, 2 vols. London. Watkins, C. 1985. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots (Boston: Houghton Mifflin). Watts, J.D.W. 1960. "Infinitive absolute as imperative and the interpretation of Ex. 20:8," RevQ2.5Q. Watts, J.D.W. 1985. Isaiah 1-33 (WBC 24; Waco, Texas: Word Books). Weber, S.H. 1994. "A structured connectionist model of figurative adjective-noun combination," in: Barnden 1994: 259-81. Wechter, P. 1964. Ibn Barupn's Arabic Works on Hebrew Grammar and Lexicography (Philadelphia: The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning). Weinfeld, M. 1982. ‫וכול הנדבים לאמתו יביאו כול דעתם וכוחם והונם ביחד אל‬ (They should all bring their mind, all their strength and all their wealth into the community of God [1QS 1:12]), Tecuda 2:37-41.

Weinfeld, M. 1983. ‫ כבישה ומרמס רגל‬,‫( חילול‬Profanation, suppression, and the trampling of the foot), in: Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Professor Zeev Ben-Hayyim (ed. M. Bar-Asher et al.; Jerusalem: Magnes) 195-200. Weiser, Α. 1962. The Psalms: A Commentary (London: SCM Press). Weiss, R. 1981.‫ בחינות נוסח ולשון‬:‫( מחקרי מקרא‬Biblical Studies: Aspects of Text and Language) (Jerusalem: Magnes). Weitzman, M. 1999. The Syriae Version of the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Weitzman, S. 1997. Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel (Bloomington, IN, Indiana University) Wellhausen, J. 1895. The Book of Psalms: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text (Trans. J.D. Prince; SBOT 14; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung). Wernberg-M0l1er, P. 1957a. "Pronouns and suffixes in the scrolls and the Masoretic text," JBL 76:44-49. Wernberg-M0l1er, P. 1957b. The Manual of Discipline (STDJ 1; Leiden: Brill). Wernberg-M0l1er, P. 1959. "Observations on the Hebrew Participle," ZAWl 1:54-67. Wettinger, G. 1976. "Some Maltese medieval place-names of archeological interest," Atti del Colloquio Internazionale di Archeologia Medievale 1974 (Palermo): 155-278. Wiklander, Β. 1984. Prophecy as Literature - A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to Isaiah 2-4 (Stockholm: CWK Gleerup). Wild, S. 1973. Libanesische Ortsnamen: Tupologie und Deutung. (Wiesbaden: Steiner). Wildberger, Η. 1991. Isaiah 1-12 (Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress). Williams, R. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (Glasgow: Fontana). Wise, M., M. Abegg, and E. Cook. 1996. The Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Translation (London: HarperCollins). Wright, W. 31896-98. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Würthwein, E. 1957. "Erwägungen zu Psalm CXXXIX," VT 7:165-82. Yadin, Y. 1955. War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute) (Hebrew). Yadin, Y. 1962. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the

Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Yadin, Y. 1965.‫( מגילת בן סירא ממצדה‬The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada) (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Yadin, Y. 1971.‫( להשלים‬A peacemaker?), Tarbiz 40:390. Yadin, Y. 1977. ‫( מגילת־המקדש‬The Temple Scroll) (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University/Shrine of the Book). Yahalom, Y. 1984. ‫( פיוטי שמעון בר מגס‬Piyyutim of Shim'on bar Megas) (Jerusalem: Israel Academy for Sciences). Yalon, H. 1964. ‫( מבוא לניקוד המשנה‬Jerusalem: Bialik Institute). Yalon, H. 1967. ‫ מאמרים תשייט—תשי״ב‬.‫ דברי לשון‬.‫מגילות מדבר יהודה‬ (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Philological Essays [1949-1952]) (Jerusalem: The Shrine of the Book and Kiryath Sepher). Yalon, H. 1971 ‫( פרקי לשון‬Studies in the Hebrew Language) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute). Yeivin, I. 1985.‫( מסורת הלשון העברית המשתקפת בניקוד הבבלי‬The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization) (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language). Young, I. 1999. "cAm constructed as singular and plural in Hebrew biblical texts," ZAH 12:48-82. Ziegler, J. 1934. Untersuchungen zur Septuaginta des Buches Isaias (Münster i. W.: Aschendorff). Ziegler, J. 1943. Septuaginta: Duodecim prophetae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht). Zimmerli, W. 1969. Ezechiel. I. Teilband: Ezechiel 1-24 (ΒΚΑΤ 13.1; Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Zulay, M. 1939.‫( לתולדות הפיוט בארץ ישראל‬On the History of the piyyut in Palestine), Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem 5. Zurawel, T. 1984.‫( נטישת בניין קל בעברית נוסה שומרון‬The Qal conjugation in Samaritan Hebrew), Massorot 1:135-51.

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH 1. W e r n b e r g M011cr, P., The Manual of Discipline. Translated and Annotated, with an Introduction. 1957. ISBN 90 04 02195 7 2. Ploeg, J . van der., Le rouleau de la guerre. Traduit et annoté, avec une introduction. 1959. ISBN 90 04 02196 5 3. Mansoor, M., The Thanksgiving Hymns. Translated and Annotated with an Introduction. 1961. ISBN 90 04 02197 3 5. KofTmalm, E., Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wüste Juda. Recht und Praxis der jüdisehen Papyri des 1. und 2. J a h r h u n d e r t s n. Chr. samt Übertragung der Texte und Deutscher Übersetzung. 1968. ISBN 90 04 03148 0 6. K u t s c h e r , E . Y . , The Language and linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 Qlsa"). Transi, from the first (1959) Hebrew ed. With an obituary by H.B. Rosen. 1974. ISBN 90 04 04019 6 6a. K u t s c h e r , Ε . Y . , The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1 QIsaa). Indices a n d Corrections by E. Q i m r o n . Introduction by S. Morag. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05974 1 7. Jongeling, B., A Classified Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah, 1958-1969. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02200 7 8. Merrill, E.H., Qumran and Predestination. A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns. 1975. ISBN 90 04 042652 9. Garcia Martinez, F., Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Q u m r a n . 1992. ISBN 90 04 09586 1 10. Dimant, D. & U. R a p p a p o r t (eds.), The Dead Sea ScrolL·. Forty Years of Research. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09679 5 11. Trebolle Barrera, J . & L. Vegas M o n t a n e r (eds.), The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 1821 M a r c h 1991. 2 vols. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09771 6 set 12. Nitzan, B., Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry 1994. ISBN 90 04 09658 2 13. Steudel, Α., Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QM1drEschata Materielle Rekonstruktion, T e x t b e s t a n d , G a t t u n g und traditionsgcschichtlichc Einordnung des durch 4 Q 1 7 4 (‫״‬Florilcgium") und 4 Q J 7 7 (‫״‬Catena A") repräsentierten Werkes aus den Q u m r a n f u n d c n . 1994. ISBN 90 04 09763 5 14. Swanson, D.D., The. Temple Scroll and the Bible. T h e Methodology of 11QT. 1995. ISBN 90 04 09849 6 15. Brooke, G . J . (ed.), New Qumran Texts and Studies. Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International O r g a n i z a t i o n for Q u m r a n Studies, Paris 1992. W i t h F. Garcia Martinez. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10093 8 16. Dimant, D. & L.H. SchifTman, Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness. Papers on the Q u m r a n Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the H e b r e w University, Jerusalem, 1989-1990. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10225 6 17. Flint, P.W., The Dead Sea Psalms ScrolL· and the Book of Psalms. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10341 4 18. Lange, Α., Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche U r o r d n u n g und Prädestination in den T e x t f u n d e n von Qprnran. 1995. ISBN 90 04 10432 1 19. Garcia Martinez, F. & D.W. Parry, A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah 1970-95. Arranged by Author with Citation and Subject Indexes. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10588 3

20.

21. 22. 23.

25. 26.

27. 28.

29. 30.

31.

32. 33.

34.

35.

36.

Parry, D . W . & S . D . Rieks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea ScrolL·. Confcrcncc on the Texts from the J u d e a n Desert, Jcrusalcm, 30 April 1995. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10662 6 Metso, S., 771e Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10683 9 Herbert, E.D., Reconstructing Biblical Dead Sea ScrolLs. A New M e t h o d applied to the Reconstruction of 4 Q S a m 1 9 9 7.'‫־‬.ISBN 90 04 10684 7 Bernstein, M., F. Garcia Martinez & J . K a m p e n (eds.), Legal texts and Legal Issues. P r o c e e d i n g s of the S e c o n d M e e t i n g of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n for Q u m r a n S t u d i e s , C a m b r i d g e 1995. P u b l i s h e d in h o n o u r of J o s e p h M . Baumgartcn. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10829 7 Lcfkovits, J . K . , The Copper Scroll - 3QJ5: A Réévaluation. A n e w R e a d i n g , Translation, and C o m m e n t a r y . ISBN 90 04 10685 5 Muraoka, T . & J . F . Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira. Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10820 3 Falk, D.K.. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10817 3 Stone, M.E. & E.G. C h a z o n (eds.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the O r i o n C e n t e r for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls a n d Associated Literature, 12-14 May, 1996. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10939 0 Hempel, C. The Laivs of the Damascus Document. Sources, Tradition and Redaction. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11150 6 Parry, D.W. & E. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11155 7 C h a z o n , E.G. & M. Stone (eds.), Pseudepigraphic Perspectives. T h e Apocrypha and P s e u d e p i g r a p h a in Light of the D e a d Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 J a n u a r y , 1997. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11164 6 Parry, D.W. & E. Q i m r o n (eds.), The Great Isaiah Scroll (lQIsa0J. A New Edition. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11277 4 M u r a o k a , T . & J . F . Elwolde (eds.), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11553 6 Baumgartcn, J . M . & E.G. C h a z o n & A. Punnick (eds.), The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the O r i o n C e n t e r for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls a n d Associated Literature, 4-8 February, 1998. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11462 9 Falk, D.K., F. Garcia Martinez & E.M. Schüller, Sapiental, Liturgiealand Poetical Texts from Qumran. P r o c e e d i n g s of the T h i r d M e e t i n g of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Organization for Q u m r a n Studies, Oslo 1998. Published in M e m o r y of Maurice Baillet. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11684 2 M u r a o k a , T . & J.F. Elwolde (eds.), Diggers at the Well. Proceedings of a T h i r d International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. 2000. ISBN 90 04 12002 5

Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997 (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

New perspectives on old texts: proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9-11January, 2005 (Studies on the texts of the Desert of Judah; Vol. 88)

The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University 11-14 December 1995

The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (Studies of the Texts of The desert of Judah)

The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (2000-2006) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (2000-2006) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls : Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of ... on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Holistic Qumran: trans-disciplinary research of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, vol.87)

Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

4QInstruction : sagesse et eschatologie (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) (French Edition)

Qumran Cave 1 Revisited (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Wisdom Texts From Qumran (Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls)

The Self As Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13-17 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls : Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997 (Studies

The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Originality of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira in the Light of the Vocabulary and the Versions

Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997 (Studies of the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

New perspectives on old texts: proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9-11January, 2005 (Studies on the texts of the Desert of Judah; Vol. 88)

The New Damascus Document: The Midrash on the Eschatological Torah of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Reconstruction, Translation and Commentary (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University 11-14 December 1995

The Concept of Time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scholarly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (Studies of the Texts of The desert of Judah)

The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (2000-2006) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Orion Center Bibliography of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (2000-2006) (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls : Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of ... on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Holistic Qumran: trans-disciplinary research of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah, vol.87)

Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

4QInstruction : sagesse et eschatologie (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) (French Edition)

Qumran Cave 1 Revisited (Studies of the Texts of The Desert of Judah)

New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Wisdom Texts From Qumran (Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls)

The Self As Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13-17 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls : Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997 (Studies

The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)

The Originality of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira in the Light of the Vocabulary and the Versions

Recommend Documents