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

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH EDITED B Y

F. GARCIA MARTINEZ A. S. VAN DER WOUDE

VOLUME XXVI

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University 11-14 December 1 9 9 5 EDITED BY

T. MURAOKA AND J.F. ELWOLDE

BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • KÖLN 1997

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufhahme The Hebrew o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira : prodeedings of a symposium held at Leiden University, 1 1 - 1 4 December 1995 / ed. by T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde. - Leiden ; New York ; Köln : Brill, 1997 (Studies on the texts of the desert of Judah ; Vol. 26) ISBN 90-04-10820-3 NE: Muraoka, Takamitsu [Hrsg.]; GT

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data is also available

ISSN 0169-9962 ISBN 90 04 10820 3

© Copyright 1997 by Koninklijke Brill, 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 Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

vii

Bibliographical Abbreviations

ix

M.FJ. Baasten, Nominal Clauses Containing a Personal Pronoun in Qumran Hebrew

1

J.F. Elwolde, Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah

17

S.E. Fassberg, On the Syntax of Dependent Clauses in Ben Sira

56

A. Hurvitz, The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects

72

9

M.Z. Kaddari, The Syntax of r> in the Language of Ben Sira

87

T. Muraoka, Verb Complementation in Qumran Hebrew

92

G.W. Nebe, Die hebräische Sprache der Nahal Hever Dokumente 5/6Hev 44-46

150

W.T. van Peursen, Periphrastic Tenses in Ben Sira

158

E. Qimron, A New Approach to the Use of Forms of the Imperfect Without Personal Endings

174

M.S. Smith, How To Write a Poem: The Case of Psalm 151A (HQPs 28.3-12)

182

Index of Texts Cited

209

a

PREFACE

The present volume includes papers presented at the first interna­ tional symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira held at Leiden University in December, 1995. Not only those who presented papers but also others who attended part or all of the whole programme, which lasted three days, were unanimous about the importance of the subject and the interest it represents for future research. The symposium could not have taken place without very gener­ ous financial support extended by the Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW) and by Leiden University (the Leids Universitair Fonds, the Research School CNWS, and the former Department of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ugaritic Languages and Cultures). The editors are grateful to the series editors, Professors A.S. van der Woude and F. Garcia Martinez, for agreeing to publish this volume, and to our con­ tributors for their patient and ready cooperation. November, 1996

T. Muraoka (Leiden) J. F. Elwolde (Sheffield)

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS AB = Anchor Bible AbrN = Abr-Nahrain AbrNSup = Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series ABR = Australian Biblical Review AJBI = Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute AOAT = Alter Orient and Altes Testament ATAT = Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament AUSS = Andrews University Seminary Studies BASOR = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bib = Biblica BDB = F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and CA. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lex­ icon of the Old Testament BN = Biblische Notizen BZ = Biblische Zeitschrift BZAW = Beihefte zur ZAW CahRB = Cahiers de la Revue biblique CBQ = Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS = Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph series CRAIBL = Comptes rendus de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres DJD = Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DSD = Dead Sea Discoveries EI = Eretz-Israel EstBib = Estudios biblicos ET = Expository Times GK = Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautsch, tr. A.E. Cowley H AR = Hebrew Annual Review HSM = Harvard Semitic Monographs HSS = Harvard Semitic Studies HTR - Harvard Theological Review HUCA = Hebrew Union College Annual ICC = International Critical Commentary IE] = Israel Exploration Journal JANES = Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society J AOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature JBLMon = Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series JJS = Journal of Jewish Studies JQR = Jewish Quarterly Review

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

x

JSJ = Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period JSOT = Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup = Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSS = Journal of Semitic Studies JTS - Journal of Theological Studies KB = L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros L S. - IfSonénu MEAH = Miscelânea de Estudios Arabes y Hebraicos MGWJ = Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums RHR = Revue de l'histoire des religions RQ = Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte RSO = Rivista degli studi orientali ScrHier = Scripta hierosolymitana SJOT = Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament STDJ = Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah SVT = Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VT = Vetus Testamentum ZAH = Zeitschrift für Althebraistik ZAW = Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft e

NOMINAL CLAUSES CONTAINING A PERSONAL PRONOUN IN QUMRAN HEBREW 1

Martin F.J. Baasten (Leiden)

I; Preliminary remarks. Three levels of linguistic description In order to describe the form and function of the nominal clause in a meaningful way, a distinction should be made between three levels of linguistic description: the grammatical, the logical and the psycholog­ ical level. 'Subject'and 'predicate' may be identified distinctly on all three levels; a constituent that is identified as the 'subject' on one level may very well be the 'predicate' on another and vice versa. We shall employ, therefore, different terms for 'subject' and 'predicate' on each level, as follows: (1) grammatical S and P

agreement in gender, number, and person; S is the more particular/definite con­ stituent: subject; P is the more universal/indefinite constituent: predicate; S is the contextually 'old' information or the point of departure of the utter­ ance: theme; P is the contextually 'new informa­ tion or the aim of the utterance: rheme. 2

(2) logical S and P

(3) psychological S and P

7

1

The present article is an expanded version of the paper presented at the Lei­ den Symposium. It forms part of my PhD research, on the nominal clause in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, at the Rijksuniversiteit, Leiden. I am grateful to my supervisor. Professor T. Muraoka, for granting me the oppor­ tunity to present a paper at this conference. Note the following abbreviations: DPr = demonstrative pronoun; Ex = extra­ position; Inf = infinitive; NC = nominal clause; NP = noun phrase; P = predi­ cate; PP = prepositional phrase; PPr = personal pronoun; Ptc = participle; Rh = rheme; S = subject; Th = theme. Since agreement between grammatical S and P is not a necessary feature of the nominal clause, we shall not use special terms for them in this study. 2

2

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

In verbal clauses, grammatical S and P can be distinguished on the basis of agreement in gender, number, and person. On the logical level, the distinction is made on the basis of the logical categories of particulars and universals—the more concrete, the more definite, of the two constituents is the logical subject, whereas the other is the logical predicate. On the psychological level, the subject is the contextually retrievable or 'old' information or the point of departure of the utterance, whereas the predicate is the 'new' information or the aim of the utterance; it contains what is being said about the psychological subject. We shall use the terms 'subject' (S) and 'predicate' (P) exclusively for the logical subject and predicate, whereas for the psychological level we employ the terms 'theme' and 'rheme' (Th and Rh respectively). It is rather unfortunate that in studies on the nominal clause in various kinds of Hebrew the terms 'subject' and 'predicate' are used indiscriminately for all three levels. Using the same terms for different levels of description, however, leads to endless terminological and conceptual confusion. Of this sort of unnecessary confusion I shall give two examples. 1. We often read that in clauses with one definite and one indefi­ nite constituent it is easy to identify S and P, whereas in a clause with two definite constituents this is very difficult and, as a consequence, we have to look at the context in order to determine which is S and which is P. This assertion is erroneous. If S and P are defined in terms of definiteness (i.e. on the logical level), then determining S and P in a clause with two constituents of equal definiteness is not diffi3

4

5

6

3

Although we would not claim the same precision in distinguishing various degrees of definiteness as intended by Andersen, Verbless Clause, table 3, p. 110, it seems clear that, for example, a PPr represents a higher degree of defi­ niteness than a construct noun made definite by a possessive suffix. The gen­ eral idea of degrees of definiteness was further developed by Keizer, Definite­

ness. 4

In case both core constituents provide contextually new information, it is generally still possible to determine Th as the point of departure and Rh as the aim of the utterance. For several other notions in this respect, cf. Chafe, 'Givenness', 25-55. For a general discussion of the notions 'subject' and 'predicate' at various levels of description, see Lyons, Introduction, 334-50; Lyons, Semantics, II, 46975, 500-11; Jespersen, Philosophy of Grammar, 145-56; Cohen, Phrase nominale, 22-46; Contini, Tipobgia, 11-20; Hoftijzer, 'Nominal clause', 487-88; Niccacci, 'Marked syntactical structures', 13-18,24-26; Michel, 'Probleme des Nominalsatzes', 216-220. To give only one example: Geller, 'Cleft sentences', 16, n. 8: 'the establish­ ment of "subject" and "predicate" in nominal clauses, especially when both are definite, is notoriously difficult and often arbitrary'. 5

6

3

BAASTEN: NOMINAL CLAUSES

cult, but simply impossible or irrelevant. However, as soon as the context is invoked in order to solve the problem, we should realise that one is talking about psychological S and P. On the psychological level, however, all clauses are equally difficult, regardless of the definiteness or indefiniteness of their constituents; one would always need the context in order to determine which constituent is the theme and which is the rheme. When the context of a certain clause is un­ clear or ambiguous, one would have to concede that it is not merely difficult, but actually impossible to identify Th and Rh. 2. Francis Andersen, who in his Verbless Clause strictly and consis­ tently applies logical categories in identifying S and P, mentions a clause like Gen 24.65 hu *ddni and identifies the pronoun as the sub­ ject (p. 40 and #19). It is misleading to claim that he was wrong in doing so because the context tells us to read hu *ddni (with prosodic 'stress' on the pronoun), so that the pronoun must be the 'predicate'. If more accurate terms were employed here, we would have to say that the context tells us that hu is the rheme. But that fact obviously does not contradict in any way Andersen's assertion that hu is the (logical) subject. The type of nominal clause at issue here is the one that contains an independent personal pronoun. The corpus investigated for this purpose consists of the Rule of the Community (1QS, 4QS "J), lQSa, lQSb, the Damascus Document (CD), lQpHab, the Temple Scroll, and 1QM. y

y

7

y

y

8

a

9

II: The simple nominal clause A: Clauses containing a pronoun and a definite noun phrase If the pronoun stands in combination with a definite noun phrase, the pronoun precedes, both in main clauses and in subordinate clauses. 10

7

An interpretation that in itself is quite likely, cf. Muraoka, Emphatic, 19, n. 48. Thus, e.g., Zewi, who defines her terms 'subject' and 'predicate' exclusively in a psychological sense, claims CNominal sentence', 148, n. 12): 'Andersen ... fails to recognize that independent pronouns might sometimes be predicates [read: rhemes, MB].... Andersen classifies these examples under the order of subject-predicate, while it should be predicate-subject [read: rheme-theme, MB]'. The text editions used for this purpose are the following: Rule of the Com­ munity, lQSa, and lQSb (Charlesworth et al. [eds.]. Dead Sea Scrolls), CD (Qimron, Text of CDC, 9-49), lQpHab (Nitzan, Scroll), 11QT (Qimron, Tem­ ple Scroll), 1QM (Yadin, Scroll). *° In the only two exceptions, a preceding NP that is formally definite may be 8

9

4

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

On the psychological level, the pronoun is mostly the theme. This type is especially frequent in exegetical contexts, where something that precedes in the text is clarified, as in 1QS 8.15 minn BTTTD nKVT ...mBJftrKDTB-ramsn[B]K, where the pronoun refers to the immedi­ ately preceding quotation of Isa 40.3 iJ'nbK*? n*?QD, with which it agrees in gender and number. This kind of exegetical remark is at­ tested in theBible as well, although not frequently, as a so-called par­ enthetical gloss, e.g. Gen 36.1 onK Kin wu rrrftfi n*?Ki 'and these are the generations of Esau—that is Edom'; 1 Kgs 6.38 H T O nnKn n x m ... rran r f o Town Ennn Kin n ? 3 'and in the eleventh year, in the month Bui—that is the eighth month—the house was finished...'. Similar instances of such an exegetical clause in our corpus are lQSa 1.3 fpKn nra IJED ? -[inn innn moo -IBK msy TBUK non; 1QS 3.18-19 *7ij;ni noKn rnrrn nan; 1QS 8.7; ]nnn nam nKvi. It is not surpris­ ing that this type of exegetical remark is widely used in pesharim or in pesher-like contexts: lQpHab 2.6 ... TORn'pnn'pntfnon (the refer­ ence is to lQpHab 2.5-6 cravi nnm6 cmjpnn]; CD 20.3 -jnn ma Kin "TO "[inn (referring to a disobedient member of the community in CD 20.2); CD 1.13... rvbv mnn rvn TB?K nun K'n (explaining CD 1.5 ] n n pp); CD 20.12 nennn n n n Kim (referring to CD 20.12 p a n izrp ne?K... n n n pOQl). Once we find a formally indefinite NP as predicate, but otherwise the exegetical clause is identical with the preceding ones: CD 1.13 " [ 1 1 n o Dn (referring back to the immediately preceding D H J U n~ltf). In some cases, the PPr may also be the Rh, as in 11QT 53.8 nnvrfra nrn rjK; 11QT 61.4 m m KI ? TBK nmn Kin (cf. Deut 18.22). Due to the limited context, it is not certain what the pronouns refer to in the following cases: 1QS 9.19nnnQ ?"]nnnni3Dn^nK n (cf. Licht, Megillat, ad loc); CD 8.2-3 (= 19.15) *7K npa' 12?K DVn Kin (cf. Davies, Damascus Covenant, 155ff.); CD 8.20 p "[inn ? r r o T *1QK *12?K n m n Kin m w r n ^ ^ ^ K i n ' n ] (cf. Davies, Damascus Covenant, 171-72). 11

12

1

13

14

4

t

,

1

considered to be semantically indefinite and hence belong under Section IIB: CD 5.9

-]QK I K B (cf. Lev 18.13 Kin -JOK

'D) and 11QT 26.9ron^npn ntttDn

(cf. 11QT 16.18 KTT^np DKOn); pace Andersen, Verbless, 33,46-47. It is not useful to speak of a lack of congruence between the grammatical S and the grammatical P here; the pronoun does not agree with its P, but—as expected—with its referent rfroo. The type is similar to the one mentioned in Muraoka, 'Pasuq', §1.2.1. On glosses in the Biblical text in general, see Tov, 'Glosses', 40-66, esp. 52-53, on dosses beginning with (w)hu\ " For Brownlee's reconstruction rvpnnD'pini?, cf. Nitzan, Scroll, ad loc. Thus Davies, Damascus Covenant, 176-77. Qimron, Text of CDC', ad loc, reads torn. The form rwim n n n is to be construed as definite; cf. CD 6.19 n n n n 1 1

1 2

1 4

BAASTEN: NOMINAL CLAUSES

5

The clause in lQpHab 10.3 BOODn rvn RTF TWE is ambiguous as to the syntactic status of the first NP. One might take it either as an extraposed element, but more likely it serves as an introductory heading that does not form part of the clause itself: Its interpretation: it is the house of judgment* . In subordinate clauses, the word order remains unchanged: the pronoun always precedes. But the context tells us that the pronoun is clearly the Rh. In our corpus only the conjunction O is attested with this type: lQpHab 3.2,13-14; 5.6; CD 10.16; 16.15 ... TDK Kin RO; lQpHab 9.7 O'Qtfn nrv non RO referring back to lQpHab 8.15 nrr D'Otf (= Hab 2.8); CD 12.15 onRnn BEXDO Rin 'D. This type is attested twice with a PP as P, but the pronoun is still the Rh: 1QM 12.7 *?R HDRI prD^jnnftmiranD^^ 10.1 wo KTin *7n:i *?R ranpn nnR. 15

16

17

19

B: Clauses containing a pronoun and an indefinite noun phrase In this type of clause, both word orders are attested. We find the pro­ noun both preceding the noun phrase (PPr-NP; S-P) as well as follow­ ing it (NP-PPr; P-S). On the psychological level, the two possibilities are attested as well (Th-Rh and Rh-Th). In instances of the order S-P, the pronouns are the theme (i.e. no specific prominence is attached to them): 1QM 1.11-12 m^ritf nRTn m i a uv b[iD (possibly also 1QM 1.5 "PK oifr nine?* ntfnKpm]; CD 5.17 mxv "OR QH (compare the underlying Deut 32.28 "ink ^ O rran rrfcH?, where the NP is clearly the Rh.). Subordinate clauses show the same word order S-P and Th-Rh: lQpHab 2.12-13 - Q * 6 non^n omaxi rrbp npn -IIBJR Dnwon by VKDB t r p n ; HQT 50.10-11 no r o i m Rin -WR D W I "TO; 1QM 1.10 o r nRin wo -pnn ^rb r f o rarhcb TRQ t> TIIT; 1QM 13.5 -jenn hun nan R O ; 1QM 15.9

1 5

The phrase piSrd also occurs before clauses that have an extraposed NP of themselves, e.g. lQpHab 12.7, see below, Section IIIA. This would indicate that the latter interpretation is more probable. On the stylistic features of pesharim in general, cf. Nitzan, Scroll, 81-89; Horgan, Pesharim, 239-44. This typical clause serves to introduce a verse that has just been explained, see Basser, 'Pesher hadava/, 389-405. See also Brownlee, Midrash, ad loc, 65; Horgan, Pesharim, 243, n. 55; Nitzan, Scroll, Introd., §7; Bernstein, 'Introduc­ tory formulas'. Qimron, Text of CDC, ad loc: a phonetic spelling for Dnn? 'their eating'. Garcia Martinez's translation ('you are a God, awesome in the splendour of your majesty ...'), taking the first two NPs as a clause, is less likely in view of the next clause mentioned here. A combination of Deut 23.15 *|jno mpn "f^nno -ptfa*"»o and Deut 7.21 ' " D 1 6

1 7 1 8

1 9

6

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 20

mrcnnnynQnKO. As expected, circumstantial clauses show the same order: CD 5.11 nKB KTT); CD 9.17 nnK Kim. In clauses of the order P-S, the pronoun is always the Th. This type is often found in imitations of biblical style, notably in the Tem­ ple Scroll. As in Biblical Hebrew, this type of clause often serves as a concluding remark at the end of a series of precepts or of a section: 11QT 15.12-13 mn"3sfrmm3nnne?KKvin ?i:>; 11QT 28.5-6 nnn&K mm*? Kin m m ; 11QT 16.18 Kin bnp nKon; l l Q T 48.7-3 mrrb nana e r a nODVrfrK; 11QT 50.7 Kin KDB; 11QT 66.14 K'n namn; CD 15.4 nay OK KinoraK. Subordinate clauses all show the same order P-S and Rh-Th, with various conjunctions: CD 11.6-7 wn m m o OK; CD 13.5 Kin TlQ OKI; CD 9.17 Kin m o nan OK; CD 9.20 Dn D'je? OKI; CD 9.21-22 On D'3QK3 DK; lQSa 2.10-11 Kirn] wisa K O ; 1QM 2.8-9 buna*? n«*n rrao raw K O ; 1QM 9.8 nan tr«nnp tra; CD 5.16 Kin rnra nv K ^ O ; CD 1.8-9 Dnwn 'a w m OnO'D'EK WQD* 2.1.12-13 omits D'BDK); 11QT 43.16 K i n B m p o (once elliptical: 11QT 43.12 2?np 'a TU> taw K1*?), 11QT 52.18-19 biaa n r a *a Kin; 11QT 50.18 non C K Q C D 'a; 11QT 52.4-5 b nan n a n n *a; 11QT 48.7 na^m^Kmn^nriKKrinpD^o; l l Q T 56.15 Kinna^nKKi^nwKnaiDWK. Our corpus contains some instances of PP as predicate: l l Q T 62.12-13 nonn^Knonvunnj;oKi^nc0K...Dn^ (= Deut 20.15); CD 3.18 n o m K'n xh*o. i

21

22

2 3

24

C: Clauses containing a verbal participle As for NCs with a verbal participle, it turns out that the normal, semantically unmarked, word order is PPr-Ptc, unless the Ptc itself is focalized. 25

2 0

The context is unclear in 1QM 15.1 non^D mppn ^ j i c ^ n i i c r\s J T H T I R ' D WM7] 'TOD, but the pronoun does not seem to be Rh. Similar cases: llQT 16.10 [nvr'B^mmsnnnwKTitfppiJ]; llQT 16.13-14 2 1

ronqrrDnRjDn. 2 2

The Ptc clearly functions as an adjective here. The meaning is not 'if they are being trusted' but 'if they are faithful'. The same goes for the Ptc I O T Q in the next clause (lQSa 2.10). On the function of passive Ptc Qal, Pu'al and Hof'al as adjectives, cf. Segal, Grammar, §§332-33. 4 Q D reads mrarf?in»] or mra»to[n»] after Isa 2711 w n m r m ^ t f p ' D . After Exod 29.34 Kin tDip »a vb. Pace Segal, Grammar, §341; Muraoka, 'Pasucf, 221-23, who already noted (p. 224) a great number of exceptions to the rule formulated by Bendavid, Leshon, §§494-95, 663, 666, 679. It seems that the law Bendavid thought to have discovered works only the other way round: the unmarked word order is PPr-Ptc, but particles that can have some sort of focalizing force—like 'D and DK—may require a reverse word order, on the condition that it is the Ptc that is being focalized. See also Muraoka, 'Pasucf, 224, n. 13-14, and his remark in 23

a

/

2 4 2 5

BAASTEN: NOMINAL CLAUSES

7

Passive participles actually should not be regarded as genuine participles, behaving instead like normal adjectives. The only class of NCs where the Ptc precedes without being focalized are of a very specific type: 1QS 2.5 n D n Q ü K ^ ü n ^ Q ^ D n n n K i n ^ l Q S 2.7 nanw» -[©TO D ' o m yvö nna - m « ; 1QS 2.7-« wùbw m rfrsKa nna 1QM 13.4 inoüK r n ü o a nam o w n nooüo naœnoa ^ y ^ a 13.5 onKDû nm rrnajj ' r o a non o i a w i ; 1QS 11.15-16 nmon nna nana*; a*? n r t . Andersen (Verbless Clause, 100-02) suggested

own; 1QM -pna

that these clauses might be precative. However, Muraoka has shown with convincing arguments that there is no reason to make such an assumption. If there is any element of wish in these utterances, it is due to the semantic value of the verbs involved, not to the syntactic structure of the clause. We reiterate that these participles function as normal adjectives and hence belong to the category described in Section IIB above. If an active Ptc precedes, it is clearly focalized: CD 5.6 D'KOtDO D31 ... nüKEnpon na a n ; CD 9 . l 2 T r « ^ w n i ? i v D « ; l l Q T 5 4 . 1 1 - 1 2 ' a ... run*? noana *om nraa (cf. Deut 13.4 mm no30 'a). As stated above, semantically unmarked clauses have the order S26

P: CD 12.15 [ D ^ r n on IV; l l Q T 48.11-12 nomno P R o n a i p nan a i p a *?aa; 11QT 51.19-21 nan*? o ' D ' p D i rmm nan*? a*mm o^nair nan mpo "roa ... non ?u»ya\ nnwby mnrorfr n r a r a na«onrrai m a s o ; l l Q T 61.15 vnw 4

... tranp nana bww (= Deut 20.3 nnnbûb nvn O'anp D P R ) . This neutral word order can also be seen whenever some element other than the Ptc is focalized or put into contrast and hence occupies the first slot: CD 8.14-15 (= 19.27-28 = Deut 9.5; 7.8) l a n n R ^ z n ^ n t t r a i 7 ^ 1 2 0 1 6 1

njnaejn m n o r a i -[mat* m inanaa ' a nbwn onan m nen ?; CD 5.12-13 na o n a n o an najnm; CD 3.1 Donnai on na; CD 5.9-10 r n n r n O D Ü O I wmn onai aina ron o n a 6 (the first NP is in extraposition, the PP is

contrastive); l l Q T 48.12 o n a i p nan nomna ^ m a o n ; l l Q T 60.20 nana'po D u m a om

n ^ n majrmn (cf. Deut 18.12).

27

The same applies to subordinate clauses: the pronouns precede in semantically unmarked clauses: CD 5.6-7 m i r a { D ' i V i a o on ]'K TOK v n r o na nro r r n a na m er« c n p f a naît m m n « n n nu c a a w i ; CD l 3 3 n ^ R t a a ] i n a R i n ] n * O R i ; l i Q T 31.9 n a ^ K nana O I D K new'Tiaa;

l l Q T 62.11 n a ^ j n u ' a i œ n i D K n a ' a n K ^ n K (cf. Deut 20.14 " j n p B R llQT 51.6-7nrn nna na ? T 3 0 n« im nana I K O Û ' R V T I ; i l Q T 52.19-20 nama na© Dia? ? B?npo'ai3« n»« n'i>; l l Q T 54.5-6 o n a n n ^ a

•f? j n ^ H ) ;

28

1

1

§4.6. 6

* Compare note 22 above. 2 7

Compare Joûon-Muraoka, Grammar, §154fe.

2 8

Similar cases: llQT 45.13,46.4,12,47.18,55.2,12,15-16,60.16,62.11-13.

8

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

ovn roixo 0 1 » n e ? K ; 1 1 Q T 60.12-13 Kin ne?K b*rw> biDQ nanw> - O T K O no&nj (= Deut 18.6); lQpHab 6.3-4 ommHfrDTOT non - R D H T T D B ; lQpHab 6.6-7 nw3 me? D'orn * T D bu... nb)v m wpbnn non ne?K ine?Q Circumstantial clauses that serve to provide background informa­ tion also display the same unmarked word order: CD 14.20; 1QS 6.25 jnvKim; 1QS 7.13-14 m e n a m ; CD 9.20-21 D ' T J J D a m on one? O K I nnK nan bv, l l Q T 52.5 rni6D nom; llQT 66.9 pinn p t> nnn Kvn. Obviously, the preceding pronoun can be the rheme as well. This is what happens with the conjunction O: l l Q T 51.7-8 pie?mn"]KO bwlOP^ym (= Num 35.34; similar l l Q T 45.14); l l Q T 61.14 013KO o n s o pKO na^jjon naoy (compare Deut 20.1). For clauses containing a Ptc and a PPr, we may conclude that in Qumran Hebrew a pronoun that precedes need not necessarily be the rheme; the normal, semantically unmarked word order is PPr-Ptc. Thus there is a marked difference from Biblical Hebrew, in which 'a personal pronoun tends to occupy the second slot when no promi­ nence is intended to be given to it' (Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §154fa, fd). 29

30

3 1

32

3: Tripartite nominal clauses Introduction The tripartite nominal clause is a NC that contains a third pronominal element, which is a form of the independent PPr Kin. In scholarly lit­ erature, several theories have been proposed analysing these tripartite nominal clauses in Biblical as well as in Mishnaic, Medieval and Modern Hebrew. As to the syntactic structure and the function of this type of clauses there is substantial disagreement among scholars. Some consider the pronominal element to be a genuine copula, whereas others attribute an emphatic force to it or consider the pro­ noun to be either the subject or the predicate of a simple, bipartite, nominal clause. To some extent, the decision whether to take the 33

34

2 9

Similarly llQT 55.13-14. In llQT 59.5-6, iaD^TP'MD»p^TQiD»n3WionQr?AT«NT!«TfcanQn% the subject pronoun itself is clearly put in contrast to 59.5 noma**. ^ 'While he is clad in rags'. On mo see Qimron, Hebrew, 112; Qimron, Diqduq, 302; Licht, Megillat, ad loc. The form nnn stands for nnto. The clause in 1QS 7.1, -pno TK nsonnmp nam, is unclear; cf. Licht, Megillat, ad loc. Tripartite NCs with the DPr as a third element are not attested in our cor­ pus. Cf. also Muraoka, 'Pasuq', §2.1.4. For a recent overview of tripartite NCs in Biblical Hebrew and the various 3 0

3 2

3 3

3 4

BÀASTEN: NOMINAL CLAUSES

9

pronoun as a copula and the two NPs as Th and Rh, or to see the structure as one involving extraposition, is arbitrary, especially when both NPs are definite. In the case of a well-known example, 11QT 53.6 Kin Din O (= Deut 12.23), both interpretations will work, regard­ less of which of the two NPs is considered to be the most 'prominent' in the context. A specific understanding of the context can never pre­ clude or necessarily imply a given syntactic structure, and vice-versa. Thus, should one feel that in this clause the NP 'the blood' is the Rh, we have the following options (bold typeface indicates the Rh): a) ki haddam hu> hannefeS (with hu> the copula); b) ki haddam hu> II hannefeS (with tail); c) ki haddam II hu> hannefeS (with extraposition). Should one interpret hannefeS as the Rh, still two possibilities remain: d) ki haddam hu'hannefeS (with hu> as copula); e) ki haddam \\hu> hannefeS (with extrapos.). Here we shall adopt the final approach and treat the tripartite NC as consisting of a bipartite NC with a third constituent in extraposi­ tion, which may either precede the clause or follow it as a 'tail' (rear extraposition). 35

A:Ex llTh(ppr>—Rh This pattern, in which both NPs are definite, is especially common in the pesharim and similar contexts where parts of a biblical verse are explained. In fact, this is exactly the same type of clause that we saw before (the 'parenthetical gloss,' see Section IIA above), but here it is preceded by an extraposed constituent. In Biblical Hebrew, too, such exegetical remarks may occur without an extraposed constituent if the noun phrase that is to be explained immediately precedes (as in Gen 36.1, below), whereas we usually do find such a constituent in extra­ position—as a so-called 'second citation'—if the noun phrase that is to be explained does not immediately precede (as in Gen 36.8). Com­ pare: DllK RVT rrrfTin n^Kl 'and these are the generations of Esau— that is Edom' (Gen 36.1) and o r m Kin WV TOT nna IBM) s e n 'and Esau

interpretations of them, see Geller, 'Cleft sentences', 15-33. See also the con­ venient list of tripartite NCs in Biblical Hebrew by Sappan, Yihud, 92-111. For the tripartite NC in Mishnaic Hebrew, see Kaddari, 'Tafqid', 248-63; Azar, Tahbir, 79-31, 82-84. On the syntax of the pronoun in NCs in Mishnaic He­ brew in general, see Kaddari, 'Kinnuy', 263-68. A typical example of such a tail can be found in Jespersen, Philosophy, 24: lie's a great scoundrel, that husband of hers.' In fact, this is exactly the inter­ pretation that Driver intended with his 'anticipatory pronoun' in cases like Ps 44.5, '^Q nnK—although he interpreted the pronoun as anticipating the 'predicate' (Tenses, §200, pp. 271-72)—or Cant 6.9, w wnnriK, in which case, according to Driver, the pronoun is found before the 'subject'. 3 5

10

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

dwelt in Seir—Esau, that is Edom' (Gen 36.8). Thus, in the Damascus document, a citation of Num 21.18 in CD 6.3-5, p p i n o a D i n ' n n : n n a one? rrnsn naa, is followed by CD 6.4-7, nmnn a r m ron p p i n o m . . . " a m r *att? on r m s i m nmnn ten m a n . The

noun that is to be explained is put in extraposition in order to bring it into the mind of the reader or listener—the so-called 'second citation/ Note that these items are not merely a repetition of the biblical lemma, since their form is different ClRan,rmBin, ppinon as against I K a , n n s n , p p i n o ) ; they are clearly the extraposed element of the 36

following explanatory clause. Identical cases are lQpHab 12.4-5 i

nmnnnBwnmmn«iBnQnrriQnam (explaining Hab 2.17...p]a ?OQn m o r a -ran); lQpHab 12.7... TORD^rr ton n n p n V H D B (on Hab 2.17

n n p p R O Q m , with introductory heading 'Its interpretation: . . / ) ; CD 7.16-17 bnpn Kin -pan (explaining Amos 5.26 o p a ^ D m a p ) . In two instances, the extraposed NP does not resume part of a biblical text, 37

but another NP that precedes: CD 4.17 main w n miraton (explains 8 preceding CD AASbvbnmiwnnm'yD)? CD 4.19-20 *]*DD Kin i s n ... (referring back to is n r m la^n p m ^a). 3 9

As is clear from cases like CD 8.10-11 (= 19.22) o m a T l Kin 03»1 (explaining Deut 32.33 n p « D^ns ©Km o r ' o r s n n o q ) , the pronoun mostly agrees in gender and number with the preceding extraposed element, with which it is coreferential—and not with its predicate (as in 1QS 8.14 nmnn e m o n ^ n , see Section IIA above). Due to attraction, however, the pronoun may occasionally agree with its predicate, as in lQpHab 12.9 nmm nv non p K 00m (explaining Hab 2.17 p K ~ o o r n ) . In two instances only do we find an indefinite constituent as the 40

3 6

In later Bible commentaries, mere repetition of a biblical lemma is fairly common, as in Rashi on Gen 6.2 'The sons of God: the sons of the princes and the judges'. Here the lemma is neither a part of the clause nor in extraposition, but serves as an introductory heading. Identical instances, in which the noun in extraposition resumes part of a preceding biblical quotation, are: CD 4.2-3, 4.3?, 4.3^4, 7.17-18, 7.18-19, 7.20, 8.10 (= 19.22-23), 8.10-11 (= 19.23), 8.11-12 (= 19.23-24). These words in turn are the interpretation of the cited Isa 24.17 nnQTina f içn nsi. The clause is followed by two simple NCs: jmnriron 3 7

3 8

3 9

Although *]*ûD is formally indefinite, it may be construed as semantically definite, since the reference is clearly to nranrpûQ (e.g. lQpHab 10.9; without article in CD 8:13 ). An exact parallel in BH is mentioned in Khan, Studies, 72: Lev 25.33, DnmKKinD'-frrp-unnn'D, where Dmna is Rh. The clause in lQpHab 12.4-5, rrnnn rrcna rrnrp wis non moram (explanation of Hab 2.17 mora -ran... ]v±> oon), remains doubtful as to agreement, since non is also used for feminine referents, cf. Qimron, Hebrew, §321.16. 4 0

BAASTEN: NOMINAL CLAUSES

11

second NP, in both cases a verbal participle: CD 4.19-21 p n n ^13 orontrraorvaon... is nm*iD*?n nra**; CD 16.2-4 j m j f r onnsp ernsn DmrninaDaiDrr^aT ? crran mp^nc nao*?j> pnpno Kin nan n*?K *?DQ buna* (the extraposed element is separated from the clause by nan). 41

42

1

B: Ex llRh(pp )—Th r

There are three cases that might belong in this category, i.e. a NP in extraposition, followed by a NC that consists of a pronoun which is the Rh and a definite NP. In all three cases, however, the context does not allow us to make a decision as to the syntactic structure of the clause and the identification of Th and Rh. At first sight, both in CD 7.15-16, -finn roio on nmnn n a o , and in CD 19.9, "ai> on m a onoKDm ] K 2 * n , the last NP seems to contain the old information—thus explain­ ing the contrastive emphasis that makes the pronoun the rheme and the last NP the theme—but the context is unclear. Also the context of 1QS 11.4-5, 'QtfD vbo nwn nDK WO, is not unequivocal. In view of the preceding 1QS 11.4 , 'QtfD " p n rii? vbon, one might take 'BUD xho as the old information, but the argument is by no means conclusive. 43

4 1

Pace Geller, 'Cleft sentences', 15, n. 5. This is in line with our conclusion re­ garding the order PPr-Ptc, see Section IIC above. Lohse, Texte aus Qumran, 75, takes ... -KDnprn'TD as a complete NC: 'Die Erbauer der Mauer, das sind die, die hinter "Zaw" hergehen .... Sie sind durch zweierlei gefangen', but most other translations (Garcia Martinez, Gar­ cia Martinez and Van der Woude, Rabin, Knibb, Vermes) interpret the words between DCDQn3on ... i s n n R as an interpolation. The clause in CD 7.15 seems to explain Amos 5.26, UDSbo mso, which would indicate that minn n a o is the Rh, but the clause is followed by "10R "KDto rfrESinnnrDTonn'mD'pm (= MT Amos 9.11 rf?DrrTnrDonKD p« which might indicate that "pan roio is the Rh). Moreover, two lines below we have CD 7.17-18, ...TWDW3ttnB0DnDHafaCT]VDi, where D w a s v B O is the Rh. The clause in 19.9 is preceded by Zee 13.7, ]R:$n nr^iom, which would indicate that TITH nnoiün is the Rh, but ]R*n "as? refers to Zee 11.11, 'nfc onoon ]R2ffi wp, which does not occur in the text. Remarkably, both clauses are found in the parallel parts of the Damascus document, but the former appears only in MS A, whilst the latter can only be found in MS B. On the difficult question of the textual history of these pas­ sages, cf. Davies, Damascus Covenant, 143-72; Strickert, 'Damascus Docu­ ment', 327-49; Brooke, 'Amos-Numbers Midrash', 397-404; Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 302-309; von der Osten-Sacken, 'Bücher der Tora', 423-33; Murphy OConnor, 'Literary analysis', 210-232; Murphy O'Connor, 'Original text of CIX, 379-36; White, 'Comparison of the "A" and "B" manuscripts', 537-53. Interestingly, Goshen-Gottstein ('Hebrew syntax', 100-106) found a similar clause in Isaiah, Isa 9.13-14, with the same structure and which he also &

1

,

4 3

,

/

n

identified as a gloss: titan Kin D'xrtwri p r nm a? ]1D&) HQD zun ü t a ^ - r ö ' Q "rrp!3

a^R^TJ^TrytaR'?^ Here, indeed, the NPs w n n and formation.

contain the old in­

12

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

C: Rh-Th(ppr) II Ex The third type of tripartite NC consists of a simple clause of which the first constituent is an indefinite NP as P and a pronoun as S, followed by an extraposed element. In our corpus, there is only one clear in­ stance of this type, viz. 11QT 60.19-20 n*7K notf bio ^b nan namn *a (compare 11QT 52.4-5 ^b non natfin o ) . 4 4

To this same type belong clauses with an initial interrogative ele­ ment. The simple NC has the order rheme-theme, and again the last NP is in apposition. This type is only attested in poetry. In its pure form it does not occur in our corpus, but it is found, for example, in 1QH 15(7)32-33 p ^ n n ] -[K^Q iwaaa p a r i n g bin bmn inn B P * Kin noi.

An interjection is inserted after the interrogative pronoun, as in 1QS 1

11.20 naK*?B ' B r a n D I K p nam *]K n a i .

45

D:ExllRh—Th(pp ) r

The last type of tripartite NCs only differs from the previous one in the position of the extraposed element. As in the previous examples, the bipartite NC has an indefinite NP as predicate followed by a subject pronoun. Our corpus contains only one clear instance of this type, viz. CD 9.2-4,1DT31 Kin Dpi].. .nOK m a n {'Kao} EPK bo\ where the 46

extraposed element has a very long relative clause. Other similarlooking cases, where an Inf is involved, are not certain, for example CD 9.1, Kin iron*? D'ian 'pina O ~ I K Q D I K D ' * T P * I B ? K {uir\) bo (cf. Lev 27.29), and 1QS 7.16,onKDnHinn » ? ?'Dn-] ? D anattrHi, where the pronoun should probably be regarded as the grammatical object of the infinitive in view of parallel constructions like 1QS 5.17-18, 7ia K O nnb nEK *?ia P K I Q P I K bnnnb m n a a lacon: K I * ? I B K , and 1QS 7.17, inn'TBP. Finally, one parallel example may be included here, all

l

,

,

,

,

4 7

4 4

The fact that in our clause the Qumran scribe intentionally avoided using the divine name that is present in the underlying Deut 18.12, nto"*?3 naifiTPD, obviously does not imply that the result in Qumran He­ brew should be grammatically awkward. Of exactly the same type is 1QH 20(12).31 TED 30 inoK noi. Although most commentators assume the interjection to be a closer parallel would be BH KiQK. In Biblical Hebrew, *)K is never used in this way (2 Kgs 2.14, Rin~*|R, is probably corrupt [LXX a/W* 'reservoir' (1:4). List 5D: Words not attested in MT but found both in Ben Sira and at Murabba at Attested in Jastrow: nn 'to enjoy (1:1). List 5E: Words not attested in MT but found in both the Genizah Psalms and in General Qumran literature Attested in Jastrow: i r r (hitpa el) "be united, be especially addressed' (9 [1:8]) V, HErnp 'sanctity' (4 [3:1]). List 5F: Words not attested in MT but found in both 4QMMT and in General Qumran literature Not attested in Jastrow: mm 'fornication' (3 [1:2]) V; attested in Jastrow: T liandle' (2) V. List 5G: Words not attested in MT but found in both General Qumran literature and the Copper Scroll Attested in Jastrow: JJSDK 'middle' ([2:1]) Greek, 'contribution' (1:15) V, - o n 'terrace' (4 [3:1]) V. 7

c

7

c

38

39

40

3 7

Mur 45.7, but the interpretation of the form as RJQT is uncertain. Genizah Psalm 4.12 reads "im^o '00 obo lmnn, apparently 'may you, O my king, be the object of special address from the mouth of all your minis­ ters', unless the sense of the verb is 'may your unity be declared', as sug­ gested by my colleague, Dr David Stec (see note 14), or 'may your uniqueness be declared'. In any case, the sense is quite different from that found in the Qumran passages of 1QS, lQSa, and 1QH, where lrrnn, in all but one text fol­ lowed by a preposition, means T^e united (to, in, with)'. The taw is elided on each occasion. This is really an example of an extended meaning, or a lexicalized meta­ phor. In general, I have avoided registering this kind of item as a 'new word', unlike Professor Qimron in the vocabulary lists of his The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), and of DJD, X, from which this example is drawn. For SOI, see the discussion and bibliography in Francisco Jimenez, 'Los t£rminos mti y mo en el Rollo de Cobre (3Q15)', forthcoming in MEAH 45 (19%). For the Copper Scroll reading, at 2.3, is contested, with others preferring 13H (for T i n ) 'inner sanctuary (see Section II, Lists 6A-C, 2). However, Al

3 8

3 9

4 0

7

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

27

List 5H: Words not attested in MT but found both in 4QMMT and at Murabba at Attested in Jastrow: * n 'so that' (4 [3:1]) V. List 51: Words not attested in MT but found both in General Qumran literature and at Murabba at and Nahal Hever Attested in Jastrow: DT 'zuz' (3 [1:2]). c

l

c

List 6A: Words attested in MT that occur with equal or greater frequency in the non-biblical corpora Names of persons and places: OIK (9:1:8), (1:0:0:1), MllK (1:0:0:1), •j'TDnrm (17:0:0:18), in' ?** (2:0:0:2), np]TOK (2:0:0:2), 3P]»Pfa< (17:0:0:21), pib* (7:0:0:9), ? n t f » (1:0:0:1), DOK (1:0:0:1), IOK (1:0:0:1), m a (1:0:0:1), ' j t a (1:0:0:5), m r a (1:0:0:1), ' 3 3 (2:0:0:2), (1:0:0:1), n m a (1:0:0:1), TO (1:0:0:1), ^ n m (2:0:4), n a (1:0:0:1), Dm (1:0:0:1), PRTO (5:0:0:8), P F ^ / v b l / n b l (7:0:1:6), PF«mn (3:0:0:16), 1PPT (10:0:0:11); other words (ordered by frequency at Qumran): b\* 1

'God' (240:64:501:2), DDK 'truth' (127:7:204), run 'knowledge' (90:6:130), TIK 'light' (115:7:116), m m 'might' (61:13:101), nnK 'after' (96:9:87:1), niK 'sign' (79:6:84:1), nQE?K 'guilt' (19:0:78), 'lot' (77:3:78), 'worthlessness' (27:1:77), n m 'understanding' (37:1:76), ]in 'wealth' (26:5:67), ^in 'be separate' (42:2:50), TO 1>e mighty' (24:5:45), « 1 3 'create' (48:11:38), ]DK 'amen' (30:0:35:1), T r a 'elect' (13:1:35), TO 'honour' (31:3:34), run 'knowledge' (5:1:32), 'battalion' (14:0:26), BTUP]R 'person' (42:19:25), TO 'inner sanctuary (16:2:23), mn 'destruction' (13:0:21), Tin 'splendour' (24:10:20), m p p 'interval' (2:0:19), ^moa 'recompense' (19:1:18), UK 'we' (1:0:17), n [ « ] n a 'creation' (1:0:16), m i n 'thanksgiving' (1:1:15), rmpp 'entrance' (1:0:13), rru t>ody' (13:7:13), mar 'prostitution' (9:2:12), DtfT 0>e indignant' (12:3:11), npn 'to seek' (7:1:9), 'to abhor' (10:1:9), HDQl 'whisper' (3:0:9), ]V7T/]TIT 'presumptuousness' (11:11:9), []P"nK 'abaddon' (6:0:8), nmtt 'sighing (11:4:8), ]en 'be fat' (9:4:8), ^[1]3T 'dwelling place' (5:0:8), miK 'light' (3:0:7), jnr 'to tremble' (3:3:7), J ^ K / p i K / p O K 'might' (1:1:6), 1 1 3 'to separate' (3:0:8), 'adult' (1:0:5), ] m I 'testing' (2:0:5), m 'stump' (3:0:5), HT7 'wax' (4:0:5), mn 'to honour' (6:5:5), b n : 'tassel' (2:0:4), mi 'olive' (1:1:4), mot 'song' (4:0:4), pt 'fetter' (4:0:4), smm 'arm' (2:0:3), j m II 'fortress' (2:0:3), 'rejoicing' (2:0:3), en a 'to churn' (3:0:3), ]P]n 'judge' (2:0:3), 7

7

41

7

Wolters (The Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew , RQ 14 [1989-90], 483-95), finds l j i i not only at 2.3, but also, reconstructed, at 11.16, where Milik read pripi 'dwelling place', which would, if correct, be another common RH word attested for the first time in the Copper Scroll. The biblical statistic is 6 if the forms with unvocalized initial alef at Jer 40.1 and 4 (otherwise assumed to represent a by-form, pm) are included. 4 1

28

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

pPlT/npt 'flaming arrow' (3:1:3), *pt 'to raise' (2:0:3), ]P]DK 'faithful' 42

(3:1:2), rHDK 'agreement' (2:0:2), mnm 'pride' (2:0:2), nm 'to glide' (1:0:2), TH 'to dwell' (1:4:2), m m 'thistles' (2:0:2), mp]T 'brightness' (2:0:2), HQ^T 'raging' (3:1:2), TTK 1>e majestic (4:3:1), m 'owl' (1:0:1), 03« 'to compel' (1:1:1), *]P]0B0K 'rabble' (1:0:1), p 'mud' (1:0:1), bvc/bn 'defilement' (1:0:1), ma 'wall' (14:1:1:19), b»l 'abhorrence' (1:0:1), TU T>e bare' (1:0:1), m : 'gerah' (5:0:1:10), jan languishing' (1:0:1), 0H/0VT 'threshing' (1:0:1), jpron 'likeness' (1:1:1), - p n 'steps' (1:0:1), SWT 'to bark' (1:0:1), TOT'sweat' (1:0:1), 'cow' (1:1:0), 7

43

]DP]K '(appropriate) occasion' (1:1:0), nBfc Tiappiness' (1:1:0), rPD3

'weeping' (1:0:0:1), upn 'half-shekel' (2:0:0:2), nm 'be healed' (1:1:0), Dm 'to astonish' (1:0:0:1), rrn 1>e ill' (1:0:0:1), "JV7 'to crush' (1:1:0), XTl 'to weep' (2:2:0), 'BPH 'blemish' (1:1:0), *?nn 'to mock' (2:2:0), nonn 'ruin' (1:1:0), -DT 'endowment' (1:2:0), m i 'be bright' (1:2:0), ")p]QT 44

'pruning' (liftOrl) , n/*OT 'abhorrence' (1:2:0).

Lis* 6B: Words attested in MT that occur with equal or greater frequency only at Murabba'at and Nahal Hever bbn Tiillel' (2:0:4), m 'son' (4:0:39:4), nbl 'to hang down' (1:0:1), ]PJ3T '(set) time' (4:2:5). 45

List 6C: Words attested in MT that occur with equal or greater frequency only in 4QMMT -1*71 'child' (1:0:2). Table 1: Size of the four corpora in relation to the pre-mishnaic corpus as a whole, as measured by the frequency of words (tokens) beginning with alef to zayin (excluding waw)

4 2

Letter

Total

Bible

Si

Q

In

Alef

71585

61883

1422

7768

512

%Total

100

86

2

11 (13)

1

Bet

21441

17977

396

2522

546

%Total

100

84

2

12 (14)

3

Gimel

7107

5638

202

1104

%Total

100

79

3

16(20)

a

163 2

CD 1.15 and 4QH [4Q427] 7.2.8; the more general term nm, lieight, pride' occurs six times at Qumran (17:1:6:1). The Qumran instance is merely the lQpHab quotation of Hab 2.7. See note 8. One of the five is from a 'General Qumran' text. At Si 43.7, JOT is not found in the Masada version. In the Bible, the noun, like its corresponding verb, is restricted to late books (Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes). 4 3

4 4

4 5

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

29

Dalet

8201

6736

200

1225

40

%Total

100

82

2

15 (18)

1

He

13083

10820

222

1978

63

%Total

100

83

2

15 (18)

1

Zayin

5704

4656

176

817

55

%Total

100

82

3

14(18)

1

Total

127121

107710

2618

15414

1379

%Total

100

85

2

12 (14)

1

%Ave

100

83

2

14 (17)

2

Notes to Table 1 The figures for Bet and He exclude the preposition -3 and the article and interrogative -n. The bracketed number in the Q column (see the Key below) represents the Qumran figure as a percentage of the figure for the Bible. Table 2: Vocabulary found in each corpus as a proportion of pre-mishnaic vocabulary as a whole Alef 851

Bet 513

Gimel 371

Dalet 289

He 205

Zayin 215

Total 2444

Si

159

70

57

47

35

52

420

%

19

14

15

16

17

24

17

Q

251

118

100

110

64

91

734

%

29

23

27

38

31

42

30

In

121

51

37

18

18

21

266

%

14

10

10

6

9

10

11

Entries

Table 3: Proportion of vocabulary unique to each non-biblical corpus Alef

Bet

Gimel

Dalet

He

Zayin

SiU/Si

2/159

3/70

9/57

2/47

1/35

7/52

24/420

%Si

1

4

16

4

5

13

6

%A11

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

QU/Q

16/251

11/118

10/100

19/110

19/64

16/91

91/734

Total

%Q

6

9

10

17

30

18

12

%A11

2

2

3

7

9

7

4

InU/In

41/121

21/51

15/37

11/18

6/18

5/21

99/266

%In

34

41

40

61

30

24

37

%A11

5

4

4

3

3

2

4

30

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

Table 4: For Dead Sea Scrolls only, proportion of unique to shared vocabulary, excluding hapax legomena and proper nouns Alef

Bet

Gimel

Dalet

He

Zayin

Total

QU/QS

7/215

1/101

2/85

3/88

6/48

1/78

20/61

%

3

1

2

3

13

1

3

Key to Tables 1-4 All: all the entries in the dictionary for any given letter of the alpha­ bet; Entries: as All; HapPN: Number of hapax legomena and/or proper nouns within unique vocabulary (see U); In: inscriptions; Q: Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran, Murabba at, Nahal Hever); S: vocabulary shared by a given corpus with the Bible and/or another non-biblical corpus (e.g. QS: vocabulary attested in the Scrolls and elsewhere); Si: Ben Sira; U: vocabulary unique to a given corpus (e.g. QU: vocabulary only at­ tested in the Scrolls); % All: unique vocabulary (see U) as a percentage of the entire pre-mishnaic lexicon; %Ave.: Average of the percentages for each letter under %Total; %Q (%Si, %I): unique vocabulary (see U) as a percentage of all the vocabulary found in the Scrolls (Ben Sira, in­ scriptions); %Total: running words (tokens) in each corpus as a per­ centage of the total number of running words in the pre-mishnaic corpus as a whole. c

Section II: Observations List 3: Words found only in Ben Sira Additional rabbinic vocabulary in Ben Sira includes nra 'different' (42.24 [B], but perhaps emend era*? to D?J(D 'pair'), nan 'wonder (three times, or four if 11.13 is not regarded as a verb), and !3"n 'guilty' (8.5). Si 51.23 exhibits the earliest known use of the expression EniQ DO 'house of study' and Ben Sira also evidences two new adverbial phrases: nr O 'therefore' at 34.13 (followed by p bv 'therefore' in the next verse) and nv*2 'by which?' at 30.40. The latter expression is quite common in the Mishnah but unattested in the Scrolls. Ben Sira also seems to be developing an asyndetic form of object clause. Thus, for example, in addition to BH O TDT 'remember that', which itself occurs remarkably often in Ben Sira, Ben Sira also has, at 8.7, O'SOKJ llbD "DT 'remember (that) all of us are to be gathered' (with non-asyndetic parallel at 8.5), and, in the Masada manuscript of 41.3, jnrmi ]1Qip IDT 'remember (that) first and last are with you' 7

46

C

nrn, without prefix, is found twice in the Scrolls, at 4QD [4Q268] 1.2.

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

31

47

(Genizah MS B has a non-asyndetic variant). "1133 (44.3) and 'la (10.9) appear to be variants of the well-known nouns miaa 'might' and mi} 'body', both of which are also attested in Ben Sira; alternatively, perhaps we should read 0"pi3 'in their being strong' (i.e. an infinitive construct of the verb "na) and i'l? liis body (i.e. a suffixed form of I ? ) . At 38.16, there seems to be a new noun, meaning 'death', derived from the biblical verb JTfl 'expire', attested in the margin as in^ (DJnn) and in the main text as njna (DnmiQ). Possibly the strange form V1T at 11.34 is a by-form of "IT 'stranger . Si 30.18 provides us with our only example of the singular form of D'^a 'idols'. Ben Sira (34.21) provides a link in a chain that connects the use of 0]« 'to compel' in the late book of Esther, through CD, to the rabbinic literature, and evidences the first usage of the noun 'compulsion' (20.4). However, in respect of the frequent use in Ben Sira, and at Qumran, of mn 'body', it is striking that it is this word, found at 1 Sam 31.12, that is continued, and not the presumably later form, HQU, attested at the parallel text, 1 Chr 10.12 (even though an unmarked form, rpl, is common in RH and Aramaic). The noun m/TOR 'reservoir' occurs in Ben Sira and in the Copper Scroll, but not in the Bible. It does, however, appear (with 1, not') in the Mesha inscription of around 835 BC (written, strictly speaking, in Moabite rather than Hebrew), as well as, possibly, in the seventhcentury Tel Siran bottle inscription (Ammonite), and might, therefore, be regarded as a 'hibernating' word, which lay dormant—or at least unattested in written sources—for over half a millennium and then gained a new lease of life. The typically rabbinic form of the feminine singular demonstra­ tive, IT, is now found not only on a Beth-Shearim tomb (in an appar­ ently pseudo-etymological spelling, with alef), but also, apparently, in Ben Sira, where, at 35.23, the evidence suggests that the text should be read as HT TWW, not rn nww (as in the Academy of the Hebrew Lan­ guage's edition and that of Segal). An interesting grammatical fea48

7

49

50

4 7

Of course, as Professor Muraoka has suggested to me, it is also possible to analyse each of these sequences as a combination of two independent sen­ tences. The alternative interpretations were brought to my attention at the Sympo­ sium by Professor Kaddari. Est 1.8, a Qal active participle, CD 16.13, a Qal passive participle, used ver­ bally; at 1QS 7.12, because of the spelling with sin/shin (not samekh) it is uncer­ tain whether the form should be understood as Qal passive of the same verb or of T>e weak' (well-attested in the Scrolls). Mosheh Zevi Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem (Second ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik 4 8

4 9

5 0

32

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

ture of Ben Sira is that PHT (4 times) and nr (21 times) are never em­ ployed attributively. The case of n t and PIKT would appear to be an example of Ben Sira's use of allomorphs of a particular vocable, to which we may add the further example of -CD and ~)CDK. -CD occurs at least 16 times in Ben Sira as relative or conjunction and ""ICDK 57 times, a proportion (28%) broadly in line with, say, Jonah (3:12). Of particular significance in Ben Sira are those passages demon­ strating manuscript variation between the two forms: 16.17,34.15, and 44.9, where the Masada manuscript has -CD. The same allomorphy (as we prefer to regard it, rather than dialect interference) is attested in variant manuscripts of the Damascus Covenant. The frequency of -CD in Ben Sira is striking in view of the tendency of mediaeval copyists to make the text conform to biblical norms. Neutralization of voiced and voiceless bilabials (note the exam­ ples from Arad ost. 24 cited at the end of note 8 as well as ^JO/^tfS 'do' in the Bible) may lie behind the apparent development of a noun (Si 7.6) not in the biblical meaning of 'unjust gain' but as a byform of VXE bruise', hence 'blemish'; the associated verb would then seem to mean 'impute blemish', hence, in the Qal participle (Si 11.2930), 'slanderer', rather than biblical 'extortionist'. 51

52

53

Institute, 1958). The relative particle IT also had a lease of life beyond BH, de­ spite the evidence of lQIsa at 42.24 and 43.21 and lQpHab 4.9,13 (where HT is read for MT IT), as is now evidenced by the use of IT in an original, non-quotational, context at 4QapPs [4Q380] 44.2 (as well as twice in biblical quota­ tions). The alternation of the two forms in Jonah is most strikingly evidenced at 4.7-8. For the frequency of - 0 in Ben Sira, I rely on the data provided by Dr Fassberg at the Symposium; the data are not registered in the concordance of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. The ratio of - 0 to is usually either much more even or much more extreme. For example, in Psalms 135,144, and 146, - 0 occurs seven times and six and in Ecclesiastes the ratio is HZ? 70 to "KDK 89; on the other hand, 4QMMT and Song are very similar in that each employs - 0 frequently (32 times in Song, 46 in 4QMMT) but uses on just one occasion; Psalms 122-24, 129, 133, and 136-37, in which - 0 is found 14 times do not use im* at all. For a non-grammatical example, see 42.15, where M, supported by Syriac, has n a w v n r n n n 'and that which I have beheld I shall repeat', but B matches the text to that of Job 15.17, which has 'declare' instead of 'repeat'. A related change is represented by D'Q , apparently for ya* 'right hand', at 33.7, which is perhaps due to morphological or phonological influence of the language of the host community in which the scribe worked, or, alternatively, to pseudo-correction in the light of the confusion of word-final mem and nun in post-Biblical Hebrew. E.Y. Kutscher (A History of the Hebrew Language [ed. a

a

5 1

5 2

5 3

1

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

33

An interesting contrast with BH phraseology might be found at Si 50.24, where, if PHD* tib is a relative clause, 'which he will not cut for him', with n n n 'covenant as antecedent, then n m i JTD would mean not as in the Bible 'make a covenant' (this is expressed in the same verse by D'pn, literally 'establish a covenant', which is Ben Sira's preferred form of expression at 45.24 as well) but 'abrogate a covenant'. If this analysis is correct (in other words, if "KDK is not here a final conjunction, 'so that'), then it is a striking example of idiolectal loss of figurative meaning, presumably because of a perceptual 7

by R. Kutscher; Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes Press/EJ. Brill, 1982], pp. 121-22) pointed out that early rabbinic manuscripts frequently employ nun for mem at the end of a word other than one terminating in the plural marker -im, for ex­ ample ]TR for DTK Tiuman being', a process that Kutscher traced back to Nehemiah for wf^D); from the Scrolls, we may also add the names D'Q'n and DHQ, the former also being well-known from the Samaritan Pentateuch. Orthographic (and phonetic) variants from Ben Sira include "ip]n ("in), used three times for biblical iKh 'form, beauty, and, in the Masada text of 42.4, D'tfO (LT3TQ)forbiblical D'tfKQ 'scales'. The same spelling, without alef but with waw as vowel letter, is also found at lQIsa (40.12,15), and is frequently paralleled elsewhere in the Isaiah Scroll (for example, 'rvsQ] for TW^Q] at 65.1), although the scribe was apparently aware of the usefulness of an etymological spelling that retained alef, as indicated by the form "oonnw at 61.6 (for n r n n [pausal] 'you will boast' in MT); however 4Q448 2.1 has a form without alef, IQ'nK T shall boast'. In such instances, we should be aware that it is not always sim­ ply the omission of silent alef that is at issue but also the replacement of 'consonantal' alef by yod, especially in those traditions of Hebrew, notably Babylonian, where in syllable-inital position yod hireq itself was reduced to an 'i' vowel. This shift could, of course, have a significant effect on interpreta­ tion; for example, six and a half-centuries after Menahem ben Saruq discussed the "Jp^VlpS^ variant at Isa 27.3 (under the entry "im) the great Masoretic commentator J.S. Norzi was still at work on the same passage; in our own day, we might compare the apparatus of BHS at Hos 8.13, where an emenda­ tion from the first form to the second is recommended, and at Isa 10.12, where the emendation is, with the LXX, in the other direction (this text along with others representative of the phenomenon is mentioned in GK's note to §47b). For the realization in the mishnaic period of the glottal stop as zero at word boundaries, the rabbinic literature points out a number of striking examples, often involving the object marker, in which a blasphemous reading could be obtained if care was not taken to enunciate alef and its associated vowel, for example no DD'rfPK for noKDD'n^K and *pn for*)»rnn (see Werner Weinberg 'Observations About the Pronunciation of Hebrew in Rabbinic Sources', in Essays on Hebrew [ed. Paul Citrin; South Florida Studies in the History of Ju­ daism, 46; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993], pp. 75-99, especially pp. 87-92). 3

34

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

mismatch between the idiomatic and analytical meanings of the collo­ cation. That this breakdown in interpretation was not more wide­ spread is indicated by the continuation of n n n HID in its idiomatic sense in the DSS, at CD 15.8, 4QDibHam 3.2.13, 11QT 2.4 and 12, and, strikingly, 1QM 13.7, where m a PTD is used in synonymous par­ a

allelism with n n n D ' p n .

5 4

List 4C: Words found only in General Qumran literature a

A further example of an RH word in the Scrolls is IpV at 4QpsEzek [4Q385] 4.8, [HjnpjnnT; here, apparently, npv literally 'root' is to be compared with Arabic asl in the same meaning, and its Hebrew reflex ^ R 'beside'; hence: 'this was beside this'. Although the word "iptf is common in rabbinic literature, this particular construction, like -C0 tjecause' at 4QMMT B 79, was not continued there (the latter de­ spite the RH preference for conjunctions with -B). We should also note here that the General Qumran literature (and possibly 4QMMT) provides a link between late biblical and rabbinic writings in their use of Kin HT (cf. RH in?) 'this is', found at Qoh 1.17, Est 7.5,1 Chr 22.1,4QMMT C 21, and 4QCryptic [4Q186] 1.2.8. Despite the lack of Greek and Latin loanwords in General Qum­ ran literature, we occasionally find a loan-translation, that is a He­ brew word or phrase used in the sense of its foreign counterpart. For example, in the War Scroll, bl^Q 'tower' apparently refers to a kind of battle formation (probably equivalent to the testudo or 'tortoise' of the Romans) and seems to reflect a similar military usage of Greek purgos and Latin turris (both also meaning, literally, 'tower ). Although the impact of Aramaic is as obvious throughout the Scrolls as it is in rabbinic literature, it appears to be less striking in re­ spect of the lexicon. Notable examples of loanwords from, or through, Aramaic include n 'secret (also in Ben Sira and frequently attested in the Aramaic of Daniel) and ~p0 'rule, rule-book', n originates from Persian, as does, for example, ""[EHR 'post , at 11QT 41.16. Perhaps, 55

56

7

7

7

5 4

57

Note, though, that at CD 20.12 (which, unlike 15.8, is part of the 'Admonit­ ion' rather than the 'Laws') the verb used in connection with both m a and its near-synonym HDQR is D$>, whereas at Neh 11.23 m a is used with the second noun. As proposed by Professor Qimron at the Symposium and elsewhere. Where, however. Professor Qimron pointed out at the Symposium (as in D/D X), rpn HT 'this was' may be a better reading. Professor Nebe argues for a différent meaning, 'measure(ment)', with "|BnR as an earlier form of the Arabic (and, thence, mediaeval Hebrew) word, han-

5 5

5 6

5 7

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

35

though, because of a deliberate effort to avoid gentile, or possibly just non-biblical, influences, the number of loanwords is remarkably small in the Scrolls. Thus, while, as we have indicated, the War Scroll adapts existing Hebrew terms denoting weapons, battle formations, etc. to Greek or Latin usage (and also generates new forms, as with p-)T 'javelin' [1QM 6.2, 2, 3,151), it does not employ any actual Greek or Latin loanwords for this purpose, and in this respect provides a significant contrast to rabbinic literature. 58

List 6A: Words attested in MT that occur with equal or greater frequency in the non-biblical corpora 1: The influence of ideology The Qumran statistics for (501) are boosted by over fifty occur­ rences in the Scrolls (as against five in the Bible) of the plural D T]K as constituting an assembly of angels as well as numerous new or almost new collocations such as btOKT 'God of Israel' (over 40 times, just once in the Bible), n n n 'covenant', *]K 'anger , and m i m 'strength' of God (each around ten times). The figure for Tifc Tight' (116) is accounted for in part by the frequent use of Tighf as a symbol of righteousness at Qumran, notably in the expression TlR '312 (14 times), but also in such phrases as "nan rP3 'the house of lighf (twice in 4QCryptic [4Q186]), ~m bin (and variants) lot of light' (six times, if reconstructions accepted), IIK ntfiz? 'gates of light' (three times in 4QPrQuot [4Q503]), etc. The frequent use of the noun T r a 'elect' (35) and the verb bl2 "be separate' (50) derives from the exclusivist nature of the Qumran ideologues, as does that of bvb^, apparently as ,4

59

7

60

dasa 'geometry'. The origin is still Persian, of course: «Mass, Abmes­ sung» in 11 Q Tempelrolle XLI, 16', RQ11 (1982-84), 391-99. Johann Maier makes a similar point with regard to the technical vocabulary of the Temple Scroll (The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation, and Com­ mentary [JSOTSup, 34; Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1985], p. 2). A meaning frequently expressed in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice by DTrpj^R, even though D'Hpi?** is much less frequent than ^R at Qumran, not only in absolute terms (213:501) but also, and more strikingly, in relation to the frequency of the two words in the Bible C*K 240:501; DVipfai 2603:213). Note the Samaritan-style form rvra for w r o at 4QpIsa [4Q164] 1.3; the use of 1- for v- is well-attested in lQIsa and in the Qumran material generally (see Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 59, and is even found in the Copper Scroll (see Yohanan Thorion, 'Beiträge zur Erforschung der Sprache der Kupfer-Rolle', RQ 12 (1985-87), pp. 163-76 (165). 5 8

5 9

4

6 0

d

a

36

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

the name of a person or place (like [ ] ] 1 1 3 R ) that governs anyone outside the group. Given this group's concern about the ownership of members' wealth, it is not surprising that prr occurs so frequently: note that 14 of the 67 occurrences are in CD and 22 in 1QS. Just as all the biblical occurrences of the military term 'battalion' (if we discount Cant 2.4) are found in Numbers 1-2,10, so at Qumran the same word is found mainly in the War Scroll. 2: Semantic developments The high figure for rnfc 'sign' is mainly due to the calendrical work 4QOtot [4Q319], where it occurs around 100 times if reconstructions are included. Moreover, if Eisenman and Wise's interpretation is ac­ cepted, 4QOtot evidences a new usage of mfc, in the sense of 'con­ cordant year', that is a year at the beginning of which the sun and moon are perfectly aligned. fflR also occurs 24 times, mostly in 1QM, in the sense of 'standard, ensign', a meaning attested just three times in the Bible. Similarly, most of the Qumran instances of n « n a are found in another calendrical sequence, 4QMishmarotC [4Q322-24] and represent a more obviously nomen actionis sense of 'arrival (of priestly course)', as against 'doorway, entrance' in Ezekiel and the Copper Scroll. The common RH sense of 'sexual intercourse' is absent. The extra Qumran use of not* (204 times), like that of niK light', probably reflects the emblematic status of 'truth' at Qumran, and 61

62

63

64

6 1

A point also made by Dr Fassberg in his review (see note 3). On a smaller scale, all the uses of 'stump' are found in 1QH 8. The high frequency of rmn 'thanksgiving (song)', always in the plural, is understandable given the large amount of hymnic literature at Qumran. The dominance of the liturgical genre at Qumran is responsible for the high frequency of other words such as Tin 'splendour' and 'inner sanctuary', both of which are particularly common in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, ]QK, which is surprisingly ab­ sent from ShirShabb, and *?PPT '(divine) dwelling place'. At CD 13.20, 3CD 10 appears to have the nomen actionis sense of 'session' (rather than 'dwelling place'): rmnon 22no ' of the meeting of the camps' (Rabin, Zadofcite Documents, p. 66). One wonders whether the predominance of this idiomatic sense has helped trigger the development of a further, neutral, abstract noun, mfcon, attested three times in the tannaitic midrashim (e.g. Sifre Numbers 104.1: nrtB mTr»rm a 7D0 ff™ 33YDfT 'the passage distinguishes this entering from every other entering [found] in the Bible'). Similar remarks apply to 7\?2 'understanding' (although 19 of its 76 occur­ rences are in contexts too fragmentary to analyse) and to run and run Tcnowledge', although in the last case the impact on the statistics is not only 6 2

6 3

,

6 4

l

,

i

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

37

there is a noticeable quantity of new collocations that apparently em­ ploy nDK in the sense of 'truth', rather than 'reliability', which seems to be the more common meaning in the pre-mishnaic corpus as a whole. Thus, for example,TOR'33 'sons of truth' (21 times, if restora­ tions, especially in 1QH, are included),TORrrn (and variants) spirit of truth' (8 times), now t^DTl 'secrets of wonder and truth' (1QS 9.18), nDtcrrno 'the measure of truth' (1QS 8.4),nDK3pn 'measure according to truth' (4Q181 2.8; 4Q416 6.6) and nDKn 3 3 0 lie down with the truth' (4Q41610.2.8). Sometimes the increased use of a form at Qumran coincides with a new, or extended, usage. For example, J n i T K 'arm' in the Temple Scroll refers specifically to the 'foreleg' of a sacrificial animal, a usage previously associated, albeit rarely, with the more common by-form jrriT; similarly, 'ma Tot' commonly refers in the Scrolls to a 'group' of people attached to light, darkness, etc., a sense not attested in the Bible, and fp 'end' takes on the meaning of 'time'. The name i p p i is used at 4QMMT C 10 in reference to the book 65

66

67

of Psalms, or the Writings as a whole (0'irapn Tiarapi ne?iQ noon

ppvm), while ] print* is applied widely at Qumran to the priestly community, as descendants of Aaron. This appears to be a parallel semantic development to the use, first found in Ezra-Nehemiah, of 'Israel' in reference to the 'laity', that is, anyone who is not a ]HD 'priest' or ' I ? 'Levite', a distinction also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and beyond. A related new DSS usage is that of '13 in the sense of an individual 'gentile' rather than a gentile 'nation' (the former sense is especially prominent when H is the subject of particular verbs, for ex­ ample, rat 'sacrifice' at CD 12.9,4QMMT B 8, and 11QT 51.20). A striking example of semantic development at Qumran is seen in 4

due to the Qumran ethos, but also to the widespread use (some ten times) of the hymnic title 'god of knowledge(s)', first found at 1 Sam 2.3. Note that neither ron nor run is clearly attested in the War Scroll and that whereas run does not occur at all in Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, run is attested there some forty times. The ideological status of truth and light found at Qumran is also reflected in the fourth gospel. See Geoffrey Parrinder, 'Only One Way? (John 14:6)', ET 107 (1995-96), 78-79. Num 6.19 and Deut 18.3; however, srm also occurs at Qumran in its more general sense; indeed, at HQPs 15.14, m of Ps 136.12 is found as srm, ex­ emplifying a wider phenomenon (see Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 39). ° As in the following clauses from the Damascus Covenant (6.10; 7.21): JWin yp bD2 rraa 'pnriTh 'to wander by means of them through all the time of the wicked one'; ywvnn rmpai yp2 icfra i f * 'these escaped at the first time of visitation'. 6 5

6 6

a

7

38

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIR A

the noun D'jpp, which perhaps literally means interval' and occurs twice in the Bible (1 Sam 17.4,23) in the construction D'janrS?^, lit­ erally 'the man of the interval', in reference to Goliath as the Philistine champion who dares to go out into the 'interval' or space between his army and that of Saul. At Qumran, the word occurs nineteen times, all but one of them in the War Scroll, where, in the form D'jppn 'ODK 'men of the interval', it appears to have become a technical term for 'skirmishers', or those soldiers who start a pin-prick attack before the battle force as a whole moves forward. In the War Scroll, they are also organized behind 'banners of the interval', they fight along a 'battleline of the interval', and some of them become 'casualties of the interval'. Evidence of the vitality at Qumran of this rare biblical word is also provided by its use in a non-military context in the Hodayot (6.13): D^nn pbo 'interpreter of the interval', apparently in the sense of 'intermediary'. The Scrolls occasionally evidence three related processes, which we may loosely label, 'sanctification', 'demonization', and 'seculariz­ ation'. For example, the widespread employment at Qumran of nT)3J 'strength' appears to reflect an increased tendency (in relation to the Bible) to use it as a specifically divine attribute. The same is true of Ben Sira, although in the Masada version of 43.25 Rahab is also en­ dowed with rTTOJ. The verb is also common in the Scrolls, espe­ cially in the HifHl, in which binyan it occurs eleven times in 1QH with God as subject. The biblical usage of HDQl 'whisper, hush' in the context of supernatural visitation (1 Kgs 19.12; Job 4.16) presumably underlies the frequent use in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice of nnoi as a feature of the divine presence. The rare noun rtfQK 'agree­ ment' (Neh 10.1; 11.23) has a more clearly 'covenantal' significance at CD 20.12 (where it appears in parallel with m n ) and lQpHab 8.2 (un­ less 'faithfulness' is to be read here). Whereas the foregoing examples represent 'sanctification', an in­ stance of 'secularization' might be found at 3Q15 2.3 (not, of course, part of 'General Qumran' literature), where, if it is the correct reading, 101 would appear to mean not 'inner sanctuary' but 'chamber (of cave)'. 'Demonization' means that *]ppDOK 'rabble' (a hapax at Num 11.4) 68

69

6 8

fop]K 'might', a hapax at Job 17.9, is also more common at Qumran, but with less apparent specialization. Sara Japhet (The Supposed Common Au­ thorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew', VT18 [1968], 330 -71) points out (p. 364) that within the 'LBH' corpus the root fan is only attested in Chronicles, so the Ben Sira and Qumran evidence would tend to support her late dating of Chronicles (relative to Ezra-Nehemiah). Also in the Hitpa<el. 6 9

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

39

no longer refers to unruly Israelites but to the masses who support the army of Belial (4QMidrEschat [4Q177 (olim 4QCat )] 7.5; 30.2 [if restored]). In the same way, another hapax, r?R 'owl' (Isa 13.21), is registered as a more obviously demonic being at 4QShir Maskil [4Q510] 1.5 and HQapPs 2.12 (if restored). Other words in the Scrolls and Ben Sira have undergone connotative changes across the range positive-neutral-negative. For example, the frequency of J n *7)Q:i at Qumran suggests that through colloca­ tional association the determined noun more clearly takes on the neg­ ative sense of 'retribution' rather than merely 'recompense'. On the other hand, the use of 'to abhor' at Qumran includes one instance (4Q413 1.2) of an apparently 'positive' context, abhorrence of evil, as against abhorrence of judgment, statute, law, or discipline in Leviticus, 11QT, and 1QS. A new abstract noun ']T (4Q418 8.11) appears to mean 'disgrace' rather than, more literally (presumably), 'fornication'. In the Masada manuscript of Si 42.10, we seem to find the same usage of the HifHl of m r known from Lev 12.2, namely 'conceive', but possibly with a negative connotation, 'fall pregnant'. The use of a hapax at Gen 30.20, in the margin of the B manuscript of Ben Sira at 36.24 and 40.29, suggests that the meaning of the word had become (or perhaps always was) much more general than the biblical context might suggest ('gift' rather than 'endowment'), mn, which is especially common in the Hodayot, seems to mean there 'wickedness' and 'distress, misfortune' rather than 'destruction', al­ though such distinctions are difficult to ascertain. In some instances, the greater frequency of a form at Qumran or in Ben Sira simply increases our 'encyclopaedic', rather than more strictly semantic, knowledge of a word. For example, the Qumran use of b^iy 'tassel, fringe' does little to increase our understanding of what a actually was, although the War Scroll (5.5, 8) does provide us with extra items, namely shield and spear, to add to the biblical list of garments and columns on which a ^ H J could be found. The use of T T D 'olive', a hapax, at Si 50.10 and in 4 Q D " [4Q266^67], suggests, in line with common sense, that the word was more common in biblical times than its sole occurrence at Isa 17.6 would indicate. Similarly, Si 38.25 provides an additional occurrence of the presumably quite common word 'cow', which is otherwise attested only at Ps 144.14. If the Psalms text is late, perhaps ^l^fc is better viewed as a b

a

a

a

70

a

7 0

b

Along with Si 34.16, 4QWiles [4Q184] 1.3 provides an additional example of the Nif^d of bvi at 2 Sam 1.21. In the Qumran passage the sense is apparent­ ly *be defiled', whereas in Ben Sira, and perhaps in David's lament over Saul and Jonathan, the meaning is, rather, T>e rejected'. Perhaps 'seem abhorrent' would be a good general gloss.

40

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

lexicalization of the adjective, 'tame, domesticated', rather than as a by-form or secondary development of *F?K 'cattle'. Sometimes, the post-biblical literature can give us insights into how semantic and lexical fields were developing. Thus, the frequency of biblical *rn 'dwell' (a hapax at Ps 84.11) in Ben Sira and at Qumran, and, of course, even more strikingly in rabbinic texts, is indicative of the increasing extension of this word into territory formerly held by The typically rabbinic form ]PPl 'judge', which occurs, perhaps surprisingly, twice in the Bible and, not surprisingly, twice in the Genizah Psalms, also makes an appearance at HQPs 24.6. Again, here, we may be justified in thinking of an ever-greater incursion into the semantic territory of CDSC0. The fourfold increase in the use of nQBK 'guilt, guilty deed' at Qumran as against the Bible is due partly to ideological preoccupations but also perhaps to the natural expansion of this term, which occurs in the Bible mainly in the late books of Ezra and Chronicles, into the territory of other words for sin. The relatively frequent use of the particle "inK 'afterwards' at Qumran is matched by a marked decrease in the use of n n K , which, however, is much more common in the Bible; strikingly, the figures for Ben Sira show an intermediate stage, with the figures for both forms roughly equal. Occasionally, an additional context of usage in the Scrolls or Ben Sira throws light on the meanings of rare biblical words. For exam­ ple, the frequency of ttPBM 'adult' at Qumran, mostly in 4QRitMar [4Q502], helps to confirm this sense at Isa 16.7, where the parallel in 7 1

a

72

7 1

a

The use of mn at 4QpGen [4Q252] 1.1.2 tends to support emendation of jn,

a hapax at Gen 6.3. 7 2

At Si 48.11, the reading -)C0K is difficult, and can only very tentatively be linked to the equally difficult im, a hapax at Gen 30.13.10H at 11QT 52.12 should probably be regarded as an infinitive construct of B?n 'thresh', rather than a form of biblical VPT, a hapax at Lev 26.5, which, in context, appears not to be a simple nomen actionis but rather to mean specifically 'season of thresh­ ing' (compare Jni 'seed', 'seed-time'). The context provided by the Scrolls (in 4Q412 and 4Q418) for the apparent use of another hapax, m 'glide' (Cant 7.10), is insufficient for semantic analysis. The references, Qumran and biblical, for jna in the sense of 'fortress', i.e. as a by-form of jra 'watchtower', at Isa 32.14, are simply a subset of those for jrra in the traditionally accepted sense of 'testing' (those who argue for the 'fortress' meaning would vocalize the form in Isaiah as jna). Whether the Qumran evidence justifies the new meaning is doubtful: while the addition at Qumran of noin 'wall o f as nomen regens to ]na (in addition to ]3R stone, at Isa 28.16 and 1QH 6.26) tells us little beyond the fact that even ]n5i was not a completely bound collocation (or 'idiom'), the use of '33 'sons o f as nomen regens (at 4QMyst [4Q299] 2.2.14) would seem to support the 'testing' interpretation. a

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

41

73

Jeremiah has O'BJR 'men'. The same scroll provides a further context for ]13Kl 'languishing', a hapax at Deut 28.65. 1QS 3.2 appears to provide a further instance of another biblical hapax, 'defile-ment', significantly there, as at Neh 13.29, in the plural, although spelled rather strangely without an alef. "J^n, a rare nomen actionis (as against the more common ro^n), in the extended sense of 'steps' or 'foot', is now attested at 4Q418 as well as at Job 39.6. The Nifal of « 1 3 'create', which occurs just ten times in the Bible, is very well represented in Ben Sira, where it occurs five times. The Manual of Discipline provides us with three examples of the Hitpa el of H3T 'be pure', previously attested only at Isa 1.16, and 1QS 9.9 gives us a further instance of the HifHl of "pi 'purify' to add to that of Job 9.30. ]QP]K (Prov 25.11) is also found at Si 50.27, in a similar context and, again, grammatically plural: although the exact meaning of the word in both cases is uncertain, it seems to be semantically related to the rabbinic sense of 'plan, method (of interpretation)'. In some instances, the Qumran and Ben Sira data are of interest not because they display semantic innovation but, on the contrary, because they witness to the persistence of collocational patterning. Thus, y3 'mud' at 1QH 7.2 collocates with bn 'foot' and m o 'sink', just as it does at Jer 38.22. Similarly, the collective noun mil 'thistles' is, as in the Bible, always found in the Scrolls in parallel with JTlp 'thorn', a n 'wax' is always found at Qumran (and in the early hymnic document, 6, from Murabba at), as in the Bible, preceded by -3 'as', and usually with the verb 0 0 Q in the Nif al, 'dissolve'. In both 4QapLam [4Q501] 6 and Ps 119.53, HD^T 'raging is the subject of TTTK 'seize'. TOT'sweat' is found in the phrase "|BK n^T at both Gen 3.19 and 4Q422 26.2. The Qumran use of ] H 3 K with as regens or rectum (btoW ']n3K) is presumably a lexicalization of the word pair at Prov 15.11 and 27.20 and Job 26.6. 74

c

c

c

b

7

75

76

7 3

This interpretation is strangely absent from The New Gesenius' (Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament [18. Auflage; 1. Lieferung: Alef-Gimel; ed. by Rudolf Meyer and Herbert Donner; Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1987]). But just once in the Scrolls (4QTNaph [4Q215] 4.8). In the Qal, the Scrolls have some interesting additional objects of time: morning, evening, and age. The same collocation has been restored at 1QH 5.30. Note that the by-form of the singular without final nun, which is the Qere at Prov 27.20, is also attested at 1QM 14.18. 7 4

7 5

7 6

42

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

3: Developments in derivational morphology (Lists 3,4C, 6A) Frequently, Ben Sira and the Scrolls evidence the use of verbs in parts of speech or in binyanim in which they are not found in the Bible. For example, Ben Sira (4.4) provides us with a Pulpal of biblical "pi 'crush', a hapax at Num 11.8—the Pulpal has the more 'figurative' sense of 'crushed (of soul)' (as against 'crushing manna'). The verb TU, previously only known, from Job 2.8, in the Hitpa el, 'scratch oneself, is now also attested in the Temple Scroll (49.12) in the Qal, 'scrape (door, floor, wall)'. Ben Sira and Qumran might also furnish a Hitpa el of the verb ]en 'be fat', with the Hitpa'eF meaning 'satisfy oneself. The additional Qumran usage of the verb 1p2 'seek' is due to its development of a Pi'el participle, apparently in the sense of 'overseer , found six times in the Damascus Covenant. Both Ben Sira and CD seem to provide the first attested Qal us­ ages of the verb Sin l^e culpable', common in rabbinic literature. Ben Sira also yields a participle of another hollow verb, G7Q *be ashamed', in the form 'decorous', although in later writings this was dropped in favour of ]^37 The verb mK, which is only used in the Nif al, 'groan', in the Bible, in Ben Sira is solely attested in the Hitpa el (three times), with no change of meaning. At Qumran, the verb is found in both binyanim, possibly as free variants (although the form Tim at 4Q416 4.5 could also be a previously unattested Qal). The Qal of a biblical hapax, T n n 'shine' (Dan 12.3), is attested, as a participle, in the Masada manuscript of Si 42.16. 'tremble', which occurs three times in the Bible, always in the Qal, is now attested three times in the HifHl in Ben Sira (in difficult texts, however), and four times in the Hitpa el, *be shaken', in 1QS and 1QH. The verb bn 'rejoice' occurs twice in the War Scroll in the HifHl, but in the same sense as the Qal: a transitive usage 'cause to rejoice' has been proposed at Si 40.26, but the Hebrew text is fragmentary. A Hof al of "pT l>e pure' has been reconstructed at 4QD [4Q266] 17.3.2, where the Genizah version reads a Qal The rare biblical verb *lpT 'raise' is found in the same sense at 4QapLam [4Q501J 4 (if restored) and 4Q521 2.2.8 and also, apparently, in a reflexive usage, 'raise c

c

7

7

8

c

c

79

80

c

c

a

b

7 7

With and without elision of the taw of the prefix. For mn, see above (p. 30) on 3"n, and below (note 97) on m/inn; for a more detailed analysis of tra, see the remarks by Wido van Peursen (p. 169). A point made by Professor Hurvitz at the Symposium and by Dr Fassberg in his review (see note 3); at 12.12, emendation to non *be amazed' has been suggested. The NifHil also occurs twice in the Deir Alla inscription (2.12). Here, B reads the near-synonym n[rT]T)?; a participial form, which, like THTD at 43.9 (B), is unattested in the Bible. 7 8

7 9

c

8 0

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH 7

43

a

oneself, arise , at 1QS 7.11 and 4QpsEzek [4Q385] 2.10, where the previously unattested imperfect forms may in fact be Nifal rather than Qal More certain, at Si 30.24, is the first use of the HifHl of ]pr *be old' in a transitive sense, '(cause to) age'. This fact tends to work against emendation at 8.16 of O'DpTQ 'of the elders' to DTpTQ 'growing old', the intransitive, biblical, usage. Genizah MS B has a previously unattested HifHl of the verb O.VT, apparently in the sense of 'make indignant', at 40.29 and 43.16, although M diverges in both instances. For the Qal of the verb TT3 'separate, select', the Scrolls not only provide us with further examples of the two biblical usages, namely, the plural passive participle D'THS used as noun 'selected wariors' (1 Chr 16.41; 11QT 57.8; 4QMidrEschat [4Q177 (olim 4QCat )] 9.3) and employed verbally (1 Chr 9.22; CD 10.4: m a n ]Q o n r a O'BHK m e w 'ten men selected from the congregation'), but also with examples of the Qal perfect and imperfect (11QT 57.5: V? im\ 'and he will select for himself; 11QT 57.8: T O ' 'whom he selects') and of the passive participle used predicatively (3QJub [3Q5] 2.2: D n n n vrr 'they will be selected'). In addition, the verb is attested for the first time in the Nif al, at 4QShirMaskil [4Q511] 35.3, (Dnzu 'chosen ones') and prob­ ably at 4Q424 3.5 Cinn $b 'which is not separated', apparently in reference to winnowed grain). Si 37.13 seems to give the first recorded usage of pah* (or pDK), used as an adjective in the singular 'faithful' (rather than, as in the Bible and Scrolls, nominalized and plural, 'faithful ones'). At 4QapPs [4Q381] 46.6, the verb nT3T appears to be an emphatic by-form of mr 'reject'. nan "be silent', at 4Q418 55.11, is either a by-form of UD1 in the same sense or simply an extended usage of HQ! 'cease' (Jer 14.17 and Lam 3.49). The apparent occurrence of nnrr 'heal' in the B manuscript of Ben Sira 43.18 ( n n r ; M reads run 'dazzle' (;rr), apparently a rare homonym, rather than a semantic development of run 'remove'), tends to support emendation of Qal to HifHl on the only occasion that the verb is found in the Bible (Hos 5.13). Conversely, the presence of a previously unattested HifHl of the verb VOl 'weep', in the sense 'shed tears' (with a person as subject) tends to work against emendation to Qal of the same verb at Isa 15.9 (from noni* 'land' to nyDnK 'I shall weep'); elsewhere, in the Bible and Ben Sira, the Qal is only used of the organ of weeping, i.e. the eye. b

c

b

a

81

b

New noun and adjective formations are also attested. Thus, the com8 1

Following Maurice Baillet in DJD, VII (Qumrdn Grotte 4, vol. Ill: 4Q4S24Q520 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982]), p. 237; however. Vermes (Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 284), and Garcia Martinez (Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, p. 374) both interpret as though from I 'cleanse'.

44

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

mon rabbinic adjective THT 'cautious' is found for the first time (four occurrences) in Ben Sira, although the verbal root is well-attested in the Bible; the new adjective p T n (Si 36.25) conforms to the same morphological pattern. The syntactic function of D'TJJT at Si 11.6, namely, as adjective used as noun, '(the power of) inferiors', would seem to point to an underlying form as a new by-form of "V&f, rather than as a new usage of the biblical noun with adverbial func­ tion, ni?T 'a little' (Isa 28.10, 13; Job 36.2). At Si 46.5, it is unclear whether the isolated form HEDfcO represents a new, feminine (because abstract?), form of the noun at Job 33.7 or a further usage of the underlying verb *pR at Prov 16.25. From Qumran, other instances of morphological development of biblical verbs include the nouns B"nQ 'exposition' and nODD 'assembly , which are occasionally found in the Scrolls and are com­ mon in rabbinic literature but are rare or unattested in the Bible. The noun 'meditation' is perhaps a Qumran form of the passive par­ ticiple of run, instead of the more normal 'Ul (found at 4Q417 2.1.16), meaning literally 'that which is meditated (upon)', or alternatively represents the infinitive absolute, [H]i^n, in a lexicalized sense of 'meditation'. Where the Scrolls clearly have the word ending in a yod or yod-alef, the most likely pronunciation was as a new noun. The development of abstract nouns from concretes is exemplified by rn^l 'poverty (twice at Si 10.31) and, possibly, ninoa (see note 22). rrfr'OIl 'recompense' at Si 3 7 . 1 1 has perhaps developed as a morphologically more transparent abstract than 'TIQJ and n^lQa, both also used by Ben Sira. Qumran and Ben Sira significantly prefer the regular abstract mar 'prostitution', or its by-form rraiT (see note 97), to the more common biblical abstract plural O ^ T , which is found at 82

83

7

84

85

86

8 2

At 35.22, manuscripts D and E have Tnj rrrj Tse careful', whereas B prefers the more biblical "lnjn. See Professor Hurvitz's paper 'Continuity and Innovation in Biblical He­ brew—the Case of "Semantic Change" in Post-exilic Writings', in Takamitsu Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics (AbrNSup, 4; Louvain: Peeters Press, 1995), pp. 1-10, for a presentation of the way in which the root a m , especially in the form of ema, develops a specifically literary application —(examination of) written texts—in the late books of the Bible and beyond. Compare yvbi at 4QTestimonia [4Q175] 11 for ETJ'J?'^ at Num 24.16 (where, however, 4QNum has n*?i) and m for "»n 'appropriate' in the A manuscript of 4QMMT B12 (where MS B has 'NO). The shorter form seems to reflect a phonetic tradition noted in GK §75v, which draws attention to Job 41.25 and 15.22 (Kt), that is also represented by the Samaritan tradition, which reads t>a at Num 24.16. 8 3

8 4

b

85

See E. Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 20.

8 6

B margin and D; B reads the verb bai 'repa/.

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

45

Qumran only in a biblical quotation, 4QpNah [4Q169] 3.2.7, where the pesher, in fact, alters the second DTD? of the biblical verse toiTDT. Four apparent nomina actionis first attested at Qumran are rcbn, in the sense of 'conduct (1QS 1.25 and 3.9), zedah 'presumption (1Q29 13.4; 14.1), m-lK 'curse (5Q16 1.3), and nDtfT 'curse' (4QTohD [4Q280] 4). O H 'cleanness' (1QS 3.9 and probably 4QRitPur [4Q512] 1.12.4) is derived from an Aramaizing by-form of HDT *be clean' (although the common rabbinic form JTOT 'right, merit' does not appear). p K , a hapax at 1QH frg 5.8, appears to be a contracted nomen actionis of ]3R 'sigh', and rrviiT (Si 43.8) is a new nomen actionis, but with extended meaning: 'brightness'; the biblical semantic equivalent "inp]T is not found in Ben Sira but is attested twice at Qumran. yvm 'glutton' in the margin of the B manuscript of Si 34.16 is a nomen agentis of m m a in the sense of 'throat' (Si 36.23, as against 'neck' in the Bible). In this light, perhaps Ben Sira's new form ]roa (4.29) should be regarded not as an adjective equivalent to naj lugh, proud', but as a nomen agentis, 'show-off, a syntactically acceptable interpretation. Whereas the verb njK 'bind, unbind' (5QRegle [5Q13] 2.7) may be, in Hebrew at least, a back formation from rnaK 1x)nd', the verb rfrl meaning l>e fitted with doors' (11QT 33.13) is denominative from xfr\ 'door'. The nominalization of infinitives is commonly encountered. Thus, p 'understanding' (4QShirShabb [4Q403] 1.1.37) is not so much a new word as a new use of the infinitive, 'to understand' (attested only once for certain in the Bible) as noun 'irn 'spirits of understand­ ing'). The same seems to be true of mnnion rra Tiouse of self-prostra­ tion' in the Damascus Covenant (11.22). In the War Scroll, ^ttn appears to be morphologically the HifHl infinitive of 'Pitt 'throw', hence ^'tpn, 'throwing', perhaps lexicalized in the sense of 'troop'. Similar remarks may be made concerning nnin 'doctrine' at 4QShirShabb [4Q400] 1.1.17 and rnin 'thanksgiving (song)' (a usage 7

87

7

7

88

89

d

90

a

8 7

Possibly it is the same word, in the more concrete sense of 'eruption', that occurs in the Siloam tunnel inscription (m?). Jacob Licht (The Thanksgiving Scroll [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957], p. 231) compares nr}K, the common tannaitic nomen actionis; Svend HolmNielsen (Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran [Aarhus: Universitetsforlag, 1960], p. 266) renders DT** as a verb with suffixed object. I am grateful to Professor Muraoka for pointing out to me that in Syriac nomina agentis in -an often function as attributive adjectives. See Annette Steudel, The houses of prostration: CD XI, 21-XII, 1—dupli­ cates of the temple', RQ 16 (1993-94), 49-68. Steudel also discusses briefly the different meanings of anpp r?a at CD 11.23 and 1QS 8.5 and 9.6. 8 8

8 9

9 0

46

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

presaged in Ben Sira, 47.8, and in the late biblical book of Nehemiah, 12.46). Strikingly, our corpus also provides characteristically rabbinic by-forms with an additional final n- : mmrr (with alef, the typically Babylonian form) at GnzPs 2.13,15, and n m n (with yod, the typically Palestinian form) at 4QM [4Q491] 11.1.16 and 4QM8 [4Q497] 6.1.3. f

a

Morphological developments of a more purely inflectional nature re­ late to noun number and gender. For example, as already noted, Ben Sira 30.18 provides us with our only example of the singular of U*7bl 'idols'; similarly, at Si 50.10, a biblical hapax, D n r u 'olives' (Isa 17.6), is found in the singular (but used collectively). At 1QM 3.11 and 4QShirShabb [4Q405] 20.2.13, the biblical singular n ^ : 'rejoicing' is found in the plural. Another hapax, I W Q 'creation' (Num 16.30), occurs in the plural at Qumran, in the sense of 'creatures'. At Qum­ ran, we also see the development of the plural form of TIR light' (found only once in the Bible, at Ps 136.7, in the sense of luminaries'), especially as nomen rectum (D'HK 12? 'prince of lights', DmK n n 'spirit of lights', etc.). Use of the by-form, miK also increases at Qumran, with a new dual formation especially striking (D'nilK TIK 'light of [two] lights' at 1QH 18.29). At Si 3.24 rmvm 'thoughts' provides a feminine plural to ircn 'his likeness' at Ps 17.12 (as well as an ex­ tended meaning); an alternative plural, nOTDl, is found at 1QM 6.13. Qumran also evidences a (suffixed) feminine plural of the noun 'guilt', as against the biblical masculine form Cra$$). In ShirShabb, we find attested the biblical (near) synonyms T Q T and rHQT 'song, melody', as well as at least three instances of a further by-form IDT or -IDT. Whereas CD 5.13 and Si 43.13 (Masada and Genizah B) concur with Isa 50.11 in employing the form mp'T 'flaming arrows', 1QH 1.12 and 1QM 6.3 follow Prov 26.18 in using D'pPlT, which is also found in the margin of Si 43.13. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that differently-formed plurals generally corresponded to semantic dis­ tinctions of the sort attested in rabbinic and mediaeval literature (e.g. D'EniQ 'midrashic texts', m e m o 'midrashic interpretations', ] ^ s n f

91

92

93

94

95

96

9 1

A third text, 1QH 11.23, involves reconstruction. In the singular, both the act and the product of creation are signified. Qum­ ran also knows the variant with yod for alef, nna, as found in the Samaritan text of Num 16.30. As pointed out by Dr Fassberg in his review (see note 3). MasShirShabb 2.22: nprvot; also in Genizah Psalm 2. 4QShirShabb [4Q405] 67.1: mot; 4QShirShabb [4Q400] 3.2.1 and 4QShir Shabb [4Q403] 1.1.40: RRRIDT. 1 Q T , attested thus in the construct singular and as '"TOT in the plural. 9 2

9 3 9 4 9 5

f

d

9 6

a

47

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH 'phylacteries', rrfrBP 'prayers').

1

9 7

See Miguel Perez Fernandez, La lengua de los Sabios (Vol. I: Morfosintaxis; Biblioteca Midrdsica, 13; Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1992), Unit 10.3, for these and other examples of gender-based semantic distinctions. I am cur­ rently preparing an English edition of this teaching grammar of Rabbinic He­ brew (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). I include below a number of developments in Ben Sira and the Scrolls of a morphophonological nature, which, although quite significant from the per­ spective of practical lexicography (in terms of cross-reference entries and morphological listings), have little semantic impact. Of course, it is sometimes uncertain whether morphology or lexis is at issue, for example, does the 4QQoh version of Qoh 6.5: nrm represent a different lexical form, corre­ sponding to RH, inf?] ninti 'it is better (for this one)', or rather a variant Qumran morphology for MT nm, apparently 'there is rest for this one (more than for this one)' (see J. Muilenberg, BASOR 135 [19541, 20-28)? The constructions ~)Q.yn*pn (apparently npfcn'pn/']?! 'waving of the omer', which occurs eleven times, mainly in the Temple Scroll in 4QMishmarotA-B [4Q320-21], and its variant iQ^nnQ^n (apparently noanns^u) at 11QT 18.10, seem to indicate a different development of the infinitives attes­ ted in the Bible: rpn (which also occurs in Ben Sira, at Qumran, and in tannaitic sources) and nsjrj (which, along with *|3n and ns'Drj also occurs in the Mishnah). Similarly, D^ap ?! 'burning of wood' (1QM 17.1) might indicate that the infinitive was vocalized pbl (or p^l) rather than, as in the Bible, pbl . In each of these cases, however, it is also possible that what we have is a completely new noun rather than a variant pronunciation or morphology of the infinitive. Qumran morphophonological patternings (mishaalim) that differ from those represented by the Tiberian tradition appear to lie behind the use of niHiT, apparently rait, for m\ 'licentiousness' (CD 7.1 and 8.5, where the paral­ lel text of 19.17 hasTOT,and 4QMMT B 75), piT, apparently ]liT, for ]fr? 'presumptuousness' (1QH frg 45.5; contrast ]HT at frg 3.15), pot, apparently ]iOT (4QApocJos [4Q371] 4), for ]Q\ 'time' (the form apparently also found four times at Murabba at and Nahal Hever), and, in 4QMMT, m n o and nRQB, ap­ parently rnnp and nw?t? (as in rabbinic texts) for biblical rnno 'purity and a

a

1

:

a

c

7

Other, well-known, examples of different patterns of word-formation, or of vocalization, at Qumran include nan for 1QH 'clay , ]0:pK for ]TQ:JK 'reed', and "pnn for nnrj 'pig', all in the Isaiah Scroll, and from other documents, nopn and n m ^ / n m ? (apparently ni ?) for Tiberian HDpl 'embroidery' and Zlrf? 'flame'). Phonetic spelling at Qumran yields orthographic variants of well-known words, such as 'prophet' (4QTestimonia [4Q175]) and ]TC 'flock' (4QMMT), where quiescent alef is no longer represented orthographically. Interchange of the voiceless and voiced laryngeals alef and he is found, for example, in TOR (4QTestimonia 23) for Masoretic TiTi 'behold', TNDna (lQIsa 42.14) for 'rwpon 1 7

1

1

a

48

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

Section III: Conclusions In respect of the Scrolls material, we are first struck by the small quantity of new vocabulary at Qumran, or, put another way, the high degree of continuity between the vocabulary of the Bible and that of have kept silent', and mnan (1QS 10.12) for rnrntj 1 will choose'; whereas the pharyngeal ayin drops out completely in the form nrtt (three times in lQIsa but nowhere else in the Scrolls) for nni? 'now', it replaces its voiceless coun­ terpart het in o W (lQIsa 37.30) for O'TO 'uncultivated crops', etc., a phe­ nomenon also found later, in rabbinic literature, for example mitf is (m. Ta'anit 3.8), for imn in 'he made a circle', and, the other way around, earlier, in Ben Sira, where at 37.19, we find ttnnn*** apparently for the more biblical riMin ** 'do not enjoy yourself. In the case of the place name D"nK, 'strengthening' of the glottal stop has led to the new form e m i n , not only in the Isaiah Scroll (37.38) but also at 4QpGen [4Q252] 1.1.10, where, mysteriously, Vermes (Dead Sea Scrolls in English, pp. 300-301) renders as Turarat, even though this reading was reject­ ed in a work cited by Vermes himself (Timothy H. Lim, 'Notes on 4Q252 fr. 1, cols, i-ii', JJS 44 [1993], 121-26). As Howard Jacobson ('4Q252: Addenda', JJS 44 [1993], 118-20) remarks, a form with initial he (cmn) is also found in the Samaritan Targum; Professor Muraoka has pointed out to me that the Genesis Apocryphon (10.12) has eman, apparently OKTin. Perhaps the forms n n , apparently for n n 'they became culpable', at CD 3.10, and pan forj^n 'desire', at 1QS 6.11 (see List 4C), are also to be explained as resulting from guttural weakening. Similarly, in lQIsa (and Chronicles) we find Damascus represented as pTOll rather than ptp^l. The 'classical' form, without resh, is found in the Damascus covenant (including 4Q wit­ nesses) whereas the Isaiah Scroll version is shared by the Genesis Apoc­ ryphon; one wonders whether the variation is another symptom of the prob­ lems the Qumran scribes had with the semi-guttural resh, as evidenced by its occasional omission and supra-linear insertion. See E. Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 26, and the paper of Francisco Jimenez (see note 40), in which the apparent weakness of resh at 3Q1511.5 and 11.10 is highlighted. In the Joshua Apocryphon (4Q522), we find the form rf^a (apparently n^a) for biblical rh\ (Josh 15.19; Judg 1.15). This is another example of contrast between Qumran and biblical forms of proper names, perhaps the bestknown instance of which is D"no (four times in the Isaiah Scroll and also in the Genesis Apocryphon) for MT Dip 'Sodom', which supports the authenticity of the traditions represented by the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch, both of which have a full vowel in the first syllable (Sodom/Sadem). The verb inn 'honour' is more frequent in Ben Sira and DSS than its ap­ parent by-form with alef for he (here the contrast in the Genizah B and Masada manuscripts of Si 43.11 is instructive), although the only binyan shared by the two verbs is the Nif'al. Similarly, the cognate noun, ITT, is more frequent than 11$, both in the Bible and at Qumran, where it is especially common in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. a

a

1

a

a

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

49

the Scrolls. Based on the number of word-tokens beginning with alef to zayin (Volumes I—III of the Sheffield Dictionary of Classical Hebrew), the Qumran corpus is just under an eighth (12%) of the entire premishnaic corpus or one seventh (14%) the size of the Bible (see Table 1), but evidences almost a third (30%) of the entire pre-mishnaic vo­ cabulary, that is, 734 words (Table 2), of which, once hapax legomena and proper nouns are excluded, only twenty (3%) are unique to the Scrolls (Table 4). Similar points could, of course, also be made regard­ ing Ben Sira and the inscriptions. On the face of it, then, from a lexical perspective, there is a good case to be made for regarding all four of our pre-mishnaic literary corpora as a single linguistic corpus. When the new words that do emerge in the post-biblical corpora are examined, we find that many of them are also found in rabbinic literature (and, of course, the great majority of the more common lex­ emes in the rabbinic corpus will also be known from the Bible). As perhaps we might have expected, then, the language of Ben Sira and Qumran faces two ways, both backwards, towards the language of the Bible, and forwards, towards the language of the Mishnah and beyond. Thus, we begin to see the outlines of a picture of an essen­ tially integrated biblical-intertestamental-rabbinic corpus, where each 'stage', defined in purely historical terms, rests heavily upon the im­ mediately preceding stage but is also, naturally, expanding the lexical resources of the language. Diagrammatically, this situation can be ex­ pressed in the shape of a V in which the Hebrew of ancient biblical poetry ('Archaic Hebrew') nestles in the base and the Hebrew of the tannaim CRabbinic Hebrew 1') straddles the top. In between these two extremes would be the Hebrew pertaining to the different datable lin­ guistic corpora that precede the top level: Mur, 3Q15, 'General Qum­ ran', 4QMMT, GnzPs, Si, 'LBH', and 'EBH'. In a sense, then, from a lexicological perspective, the Hebrew lan­ guage is periodizable, but, on the basis of our Qumran three percent, it is difficult to see how this can be more than a trivial statement, sim­ ply reflecting the fact that it is in the nature of human languages to develop their means of expression over time. And those who would try to periodize in a non-trivial way, that is to elevate the three per­ cent of difference into a 'Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls', as distinct from the 'Hebrew of the Bible', etc., will face Shylock's dilemma: how do you get to the pound of flesh (the three percent) without also spilling pints of blood (the vast bulk of 'the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls'), which is organically united to 'the Hebrew of the Bible' and to 'the Hebrew of the Mishnah', and in so doing disfiguring any de­ scription both of the 'Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls' and of the He­ brew language as a whole? We are faced here with an important issue of nomenclature and

50

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

method. There is nothing wrong in using a term like 'RH' if by that we mean nothing more than the Hebrew used in writings from the 'rabbinic period', which, in principle, need not be different from 'BH' (if, correspondingly, by 'BH' we mean nothing more than the Hebrew used in writings from 'the biblical period'). Problems arise, however, when the state of language thus de­ scribed as 'RH' is taken to imply some significant difference from He­ brew at any other stage of its natural development (and here I assume that 'RH' is a natural, not a contrived, form of language), because, as we have seen with 'Qumran Hebrew', the difference is nugatory, at least in respect of lexis. In fact, though, it is precisely into this error that many writers do fall. So, for example, if a word previously known only from rabbinic literature is found many centuries prior to the compilation of that lit­ erature (as indeed happens with many of the non-biblical words of Ben Sira and the Scrolls), instead of accepting that this works against the division of Hebrew into discrete stages, by pushing back the bor­ ders of 'Rabbinic Hebrew' ever nearer to its biblical origins, it is claimed instead, in effect, that Ben Sira sometimes employed RH vo­ cabulary. But this is surely to turn the matter on its head. Both Ben Sira and the rabbis were simply using the Hebrew words available to them at their respective times, of which the vast majority would have been in existence long before and very few (the three percent) novel to Ben Sira and the rabbis. 98

9 8

An example of standing things on their head, as described, is seen in Dr Fassberg's review of Volume I of the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (see note 3; pp. 356-57): Users of the dictionary must, however, bear in mind that docu­ ments from the first two centuries of the Common Era may contain features of Tannaitic (Mishnaic) Hebrew, since the date 200 CE marks the end of the Tannaitic period and the redaction of the Mishna.... It should also be noted that the language of Ben Sira, too, contains some features characteristic of Tannaitic Hebrew . Now, it it seems to me that here (and in his accompanying remarks) the reviewer defines a linguistic stage (Mishnaic Hebrew) by refer­ ence to a literary phenomenon (the production of the Mishnah). In itself this is methodologically harmless enough. But what is more dubious is the em­ ployment of this essentially literary definition for the purposes of linguistic chronology: e.g., p. 357: 'the documents from Nahal Hever and Wadi Murabba at evidence lexemes and forms that are clearly Mishnaic, and yet they appear in the dictionary without any indication that they are not "classical".' Here we see that even when the linguistic data have overtaken the essentially literary label of Mishnaic Hebrew, the term is still pressed into service, expanded at least two stages beyond its original significance (the He­ brew found in the Mishnah > the Hebrew found in the period during which the Mishnah was being redacted > the Hebrew of any documents found up to 7

c

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH /

51

/

The notion of R H as a linguistic rather than a literary concept, seems to me to be a terminological anachronism, nourished only by the lack of continuity that existed before 1947 in our sources of He­ brew literature between Bible and Mishnah. From the perspective of vocabulary, the overall lack of new words in the extra-biblical corpora and the overlap of what new material there is with words previously regarded as 'rabbinic' innovations, supports the notion of a constantly developing, seamless, Hebrew language. Or, to put it another way, had the Scrolls and the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira been avail­ able a millennium earlier and European Hebrew scholarship had been more linguistically than theologically based, so as not to look, on the whole, with interest at the Hebrew Bible but with disdain at the Mishnah and midrashim, the dominating linguistic unity among these diverse texts would probably have meant that 'RH', or a similar term, would have been employed only as a literary label (in the same way in which we might speak of the Hebrew of the Psalms), but without any linguistic import. Incidentally, in these criticisms, I find no fault with those who employ the UH' vocabulary of the Scrolls or Ben Sira as evidence that the language ascribed to the zugot and tannaim in the Mishnah actu­ ally reflects the Hebrew they spoke in the Hasmonaean and Roman periods. But that is a very different sort of argument, and one that does not necessarily imply that the early rabbis spoke 'Rabbinic' He­ brew (in preference to any other kinds of Hebrew doing the rounds at the time, if such a state of affairs is really imaginable). Having said that, on the whole, we can no more accurately correlate linguistic features of the Mishnah with the generations of scholars recorded there than we can assign the words of Joshua, David, and Manasseh, as recorded in the Bible as we have it, to the different historical peri­ ods in which these characters were active. To a large extent, neither Bible nor Mishnah can be diachronically unravelled. This leads us into the issue of 'LBH' ('Late Biblical Hebrew'). As before, if 'LBH' is nothing more than a terminological convenience for the Hebrew of the books written in the post-exilic period, it is innocu­ ous. And if it simply stands for the 'three percent' of new words in those writings, it is both innocuous and trivial (unless of course the proportion of new words to old is much greater than one in thirtythree, which I doubt). But if it stands for a discrete phase of the He/

99

four centuries before, so long as they contain words which were previously only known from the Mishnah), apparently merely to maintain the traditional divisions that scholarship from another age erected in the study of the He­ brew language. Professor David J. A. Clines, editor of the Sheffield Dictionary of Classical He9 9

52

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

brew language that is significantly different from preceding and suc­ ceeding phases, then, from a lexical perspective, it is unsound, given not only the vast discrepancy between what *LBH' inherited and what it Innovated' but also the fact that many of these innovations are later found in KH' (and if they are to be regarded as both 'LBH' and RtV, then why make a linguistic distinction between the two?). Indeed, the overlap of T B H ' and 'RH' as well as the emergence in the scholarly literature of 'transitional LBH' all tends to work against the notion of discrete levels of language (and if 'LBH', T^H', etc. do not refer to dis­ crete entities, then why should one want to use these terms at all as linguistic labels?) and in favour of the concept of an organically united language in a state of constant, but at any one time impercep­ tible, development. An additional methodological pitfall is created by the chronologi­ cal discrepancies between literature purporting to be from a particular period and the language employed for that literature in a work created, compiled, and redacted over two millennia. Thus, for exam­ ple, the use of pre-exilic vocabulary in a document that presents itself as a history of the early pre-exilic period does not mean that the work itself is pre-exilic (and even in a work of fiction, the use of such /

100

brew, makes the following point in a reply to a review of the Dictionary by Professor Francis I. Andersen: To take as an example, as between pre-exilic and postexilic Hebrew there is practically no semantic change whatsoever that Angel Saenz-Badillos can point to in his 50-page account of Hebrew in the period of the Second Temple (in a History of the Hebrew Language [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993]); he says changed from "indeed" to "but" and he mentions three examples of lexical specialization in Qumran Hebrew' (ABR 43 [1995], p. 73). ioo p example, in Numbers, terms for '(national) assembly , 'tribe', 'clan', 'shewbread', and *be genealogically registered' are not those used in clearly post-exilic books, rrpi} means '(physical) labour', as against '(religious) min­ istry' (post-exilic), and thirteen expressions for such concepts as 'pact', 'tax', 'muster troops', 'ordain as priest', 'specify by oracle', and 'couple (sexually)' have cognates in earlier Mesopotamian (Akkadian) literature (see Jacob Milgrom's JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication So­ ciety, 1990], pp. xxxii-iii). Somewhat comparable data have even been claimed, not altogether convincingly, in respect of works generally accepted as late such as Song (William F. Albright, 'Archaic Survivals in the Text of Canticles', in D. Winton Thomas and W.D. McHardy [eds.l, Hebrew and Sem­ itic Studies Presented to Godfrey Rolles Driver in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, 20 August 1962 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963], pp. 1-7), Ecclesiastes (Daniel C. Fredericks, Qoheleth's Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date [Ancient Near Eastern Text and Studies, 3; Lewiston, Edwin Mellen] (reviewed by Avi Hurvitz in Hebrew Studies 31 [1990], 144-54), and Chronicles 7

o r

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

53

terms could simply be intended as an attempt to add an archaic qual­ ity to the composition), but it does show how difficult it can be to de­ termine the date of major texts and how precarious is a linguistic chronology built on such dating (particularly when the dating of the texts has to some extent been motivated by the requirements of an as­ sumed linguistic chronology). And of course, even in those very few biblical writings for which a late date of composition is not disputed, in principle 'innovations' are but a subset of newly-appearing words, for the latter group can also include words which, although they were present in the lan­ guage, simply had not been registered in earlier literature, and we only need to think about how many words for basic things occur just once or twice in the Bible to realize that it is quite possible for a word which 'appears' late to have actually been around much earlier. Unless there is clear evidence that a word is loaned or that it belongs to a new morphological pattern (mishqal), then there is no incon­ testable proof that it is late. And, of course, even if we agree that a word appearing for the first time in Esther or Jonah might have only come into existence around the time those books were written, it exceeds the bounds of objectivity and evidence to argue that the word belongs to a form of Hebrew distinct from that represented by the mainstream language of the Bible. In both 'LBH' and 'RH', novel fea­ tures frequently represent no more than an increased usage of pre­ existing structures, or, where genuine innovation is attested, natural developments in the language. 101

102

(Wilfred G.E. Watson, 'Archaic Element's in the Language of Chronicles', Bib 53 [1972], 191-207). A point well made by Professor Edward Ullendorff in his recent review QJS 46 [1995], 283-92) of the Saenz-Badillos volume (see note 99). Referring to p. 123 of the book. Professor Ullendorff asks: '[C]an it be held that n » 0 'ship', ^on liurl', pnc 'to be silent', or ma 'to appoint' are necessarily indicative of Rabbinic Hebrew?—just because they occur rarely and in what are assumed to be late books?' (289) The position taken by Professor Ullendorff on the diachronic structure of Hebrew is consistent with his more general view that 'the limitations of size and subject matter of the canon of the Old Testament have inevitably prevented the entire resources of Hebrew being represented in that restricted corpus' (288). More than that, such features are rarely found in any regular fashion across the whole range of post-exilic works (the 'LBH' corpus), as demon­ strated, for example, by the striking divergences within the 'work of the Chronicler' (Japhet, 'Supposed Common Authorship'). And despite the ap­ parent persuasiveness of Robert Polzin's arguments (in Late Biblical Hebrew: Towards an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose [HSM, 12; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976], pp. 32-37) for the increased use of 'emphatic', nomina1 0 1

1 0 2

54

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

As a lexicographer, I freely admit that vocabulary is the least sig­ nificant aspect of language as a formal system. But I believe in this case, where lexicology is pushing back the borders of Tlabbinic He­ brew' ever nearer to its biblical origins, grammar is also trailing in the same direction. For example, for bv, we now have a swathe of texts— Murabba'at, 11QT, 4 Q J u b S [4Q422],4QpsEzek [ 4 Q 3 8 5 ] , 4QMMT, and Ben Sira—that help to link the use of bv in the Mishnah with its use in Jonah, Koheleth, and Song and force us to reappraise our perception of the form as 'typically rabbinic or of its use in the Bible as especially remarkable. Similar comments can be made concerning the relative particle - E , which is found at Murabba at, in the Copper Scroll, the Damascus Document, the Mishmarot sequence, 4QMMT, the Genizah Psalms, and Ben Sira, as well as in 'LBH' writings (where -0 is frequent and occurs in official registers such as that represented by 1 Chr 8.19) and 'Archaic Hebrew' (where -E is used sporadically). Thus, the value of the a

1 0 3

104

105

7

c

106

107

tive, PR as a characteristic structure of LBH, my own exhaustive study (The Use of >et in Non-Biblical Hebrew Texts', VT 44 [1994], 170-S2) of anomalous uses of the object-marker in the pre-mishnaic corpus, indicates not one in­ stance of this kind of irregularity in Esther (with the minor exception of 2.13), although the graphic form n» occurs there 118 times, or in Ezra (30 times) or in Jonah (14 times) or in Ruth (44 times) or in Lamentations (6 times) or in Song (27 times). Nor, of course, as Polzin admits, is it a significant feature of the Scrolls. The usage (and abusage) of nR in the post-exilic period would ap­ pear to have been a matter of authorial competence and taste (and of trans­ mission-history), without any lasting structural impact on the language. Re­ lated criticisms of Polzin in respect of 'nominative ntt' and other assumed LBH features are made by Gary A. Rendsburg in his 'Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of "P", JANES 12 (1980), 65-^80. 103 4Q2221.7 and 4Q385 1.9, where the apparent collocation of construct chain and ^0 phrase is striking: D1R "inKi im 'one of a calf and one of a man'. Three times, in the form -CD ^2 as final conjunction, 'so that'. Indeed, in BHS, the editor (W. Rudolph) was confident enough of the sta­ tus of to propose that it be read at 1 Chr 29.3 ( ?# 'my [temple]' for ^ID\ T have [a treasury]'). 106 4Q a [4Q266] 18.3.1; 18.4.2. The information about -0in 'General Qumran' literature is drawn from the Stegemann-Strugnell concordance (Hans-Peter Richter, 'A Preliminary Concordance to the Hebrew and Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Caves II—X' [5 vols., unpublished, printed in Gottingen, 1988, and distributed by Hartmut Stegemann on behalf of John Strugnell]), which records -e? as occurring nine times. Other texts include 4Q448 (an apocryphal psalm), and 4QUnid , where the form -era 'after' occurs. 3.1, which goes unregistered in the Academy of the Hebrew Language's microfiche concordance. Similarly, the Academy concordance registers none of the many instances of -0 in Ben Sira. 1 0 4

1 0 5

,l

D

d

1 0 7

ELWOLDE: FROM BIBLE TO MISHNAH

55

0 distinction as either an isogloss or a diachronic marker is diminished, with the evidence pointing to a context of preference for one or other allomorph rather than to differences based on period or area. This is indicated by the alternation of -0 and in Ben Sira and the Bible (see above, p. 32), as well as in 4QD [4Q266] 18.3.1 (-0) and the parallel text at CD 14.8 ("10K). The same kind of idiolectal alternation or allomorphy underlies 4QMMT's use of -*? tibv intro­ ducing a prohibition in contrast to lQS's use of the same construction but with TOR. 108

a

109

In the foregoing, I have refrained from involving myself in the issue of Hebrew dialects, which strikes me as even less amenable to empiri­ cal analysis than that of periodization. If I have been guilty of misrep­ resenting any of what proponents of the 'LBH' thesis actually do or believe, it is unintentional: my aim has been simply to question the methodological and empirical bases of periodization and to argue, implicitly, that at the end of the day, perhaps treating all pre-mishnaic texts in Hebrew as though they constituted a synchronic whole at least has the advantage of not distorting the underlying and statisti­ cally far more significant linguistic unity that is evidenced by these texts.

1 0 8

Although it still leaves unanswered the difficult question of why 4QMMT and the Murabba at material, which are so close in time but remote in subjectmatter, shun "KDK almost completely, but freely employ -0. But those who would want to point to this as an element in defence of the notion of a clean BH/RH divide, will themselves have to resolve the related difficulty of why the 'RH' document 4QMMT employs the 'BH' form i3mK ten times but com­ pletely eschews the 'RH' form 13« whereas the opposite phenomenon occurs in the 'non-RH' General Qumran literature, where 13« (once in the Bible, sev­ enteen times at Qumran) is preferred over T3ri3K (104 times in the Bible, eleven at Qumran). As a third, less persuasive, example to add to that of and -0, we also find the elided object-marker both at Murabba at (-n) and in 1QS (-TIK). c

1 0 9

c

*I should like to thank Anne Lee, Kate Dove Davis, Rosemarie Kossov, and Martin Harding, of the Dept. of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, and Dr Charlotte Hempel, of the Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham, for their help at various stages in the preparation of the published version of this article and of other contributions in the volume.

ON THE SYNTAX OF DEPENDENT CLAUSES IN BEN SIRA* S.E. Fassberg (Jerusalem)

Introduction The authenticity of the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira was the sub­ ject of much debate from the discovery of the first Ben Sira Genizah manuscripts in 1896 until the publication of the scrolls from Masada and Cave 11 at Qumran in 1965. The debate centred on the originality of the Hebrew text and its relationship to the Greek and Syriac ver­ sions. The language of the Genizah manuscripts was, of course, dis­ cussed, but drew less attention than did the question of the Urtext. Since the scrolls from Masada and the Qumran caves have become known, the debate has been settled in favour of the authenticity of the Hebrew manuscripts, though it is acknowledged that there are some corruptions in the mediaeval manuscripts, in which, it is also argued, there are retroversions from the Syriac. To this day, more than 30 years since the publication of the Ben Sira material from Masada and Qumran, the language of the Hebrew manuscripts has still not been treated systematically. In fact, the most recent and comprehensive analysis of the material is still the short sketch presented by M. H. Segal in his 1958 edition of Ben Sira. Segal, 1

2

3

4

*I would like to thank the participants of the Leiden Symposium on the He­ brew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira for their helpful comments on the oral version of this paper. Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Jerusalem, 1965); llQPs in J.A. Sanders, DJD, IV: The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (llQPs?) (Oxford, 1965), 79-85, plates 13-14. Note also the extremely fragmentary 2Q18 (2QSir) in M. Baillet, J.T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, DJD, III: Les 'petites grottes' de Qumrân (Ox­ ford, 1962), 75-77, plate 15. For bibliography on the discussions concerning the authenticity of the Genizah manuscripts, see P.W. Skehan & A. A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB, 39; New York, 1987), 54. See A.A. Di Leila, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study (The Hague, 1966), 106-47; Di Leila, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 57-59; M. Kister, 'A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira', Tarbiz 59 (1990), 304, n. 2 (Hebrew). M.H. Segal, Dton m*o p TOO (Second ed.; Jerusalem, 1958), 20-22. See also his earlier treatment, RTO p "ao irafr, V§. 7 (1937), 114-20. 1

2

3

4

3

FASSBERG: DEPENDENT CLAUSES

57

5

like others before him, thought that the language reflected the He­ brew of the Second Temple period, in which one finds the classical language along with innovations that are reminiscent of Tannaitic Hebrew. This century has witnessed three significant developments that have dramatically added to our knowledge of the Hebrew of the Sec­ ond Temple and tannaitic periods: 1) the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls; 2) the great strides made in analysing and de­ scribing Late Biblical Hebrew; 3) the revolution in the study of Tan­ naitic Hebrew that has resulted from the investigation of reliable manuscripts and oral traditions of Rabbinic Hebrew. In the light of these new developments, it is time to re-examine the Hebrew of the Ben Sira manuscripts and describe its language vis-4-vis other He­ brew corpora. To that end I have chosen to investigate one aspect of the language of Ben Sira that has received little attention, namely, syntax. This paper investigates the syntax of five types of dependent clauses in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira: conditional, relative, temporal, circumstantial, and purpose. The clauses are analysed synchronically and then compared with the data from Classical Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, Qumran Hebrew, and Tannaitic Hebrew. All He­ brew manuscripts of Ben Sira have been used. The readings follow 6

7

5

See the earlier conclusions of S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Cambridge, 1899), 34: '(1) that he was a conscious imitator; (2) that the classical portions in his work are due to his skilful manipulation of Biblical passages and patching them together; (3) that his composition shows already such traces of an artifical way of interpreting and using the contents of the Scriptures as are only to be found in post-Biblical writers; (4) that with all his skill and caution his language is full of later Hebrew expressions, even fur­ nishing us with criteria pointing to the highest development of the Rabbinic dialect'. Recently Kister has argued that Ben Sira was not a conscious, unsuc­ cessful imitator. He writes: 'Ben Sira's idiom is not to be considered an unsuc­ cessful attempt at imitating Biblical Hebrew. The language deliberately cho­ sen by Ben Sira is not the spoken language of his day, but a literary idiom— partly reflecting contemporary speech—for which we scarcely have any sources' (Kister [note 3], ii [English summary]). 'Qumran Hebrew' is a convenient term to describe the language of the doc­ uments from the Judaean Desert. It is well known, of course, that not all the documents reflect the same variety of Hebrew. For example, the language of 3Q15 ('Copper Scroll') and 4QMMT differs significantly from that of other Qumran documents. See, e.g., S. Morag, 'Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations', VT 38 (1988), 148-164; E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; Atlanta, 1986); 'Observations on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.-200 CE.) in the Light of the Dead Sea Documents', in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant & U. Rappaport; Jerusalem, 1992), 349-61; with J. Strugnell, DJD, X: Miqsat Ma'ase ha-Torah (Oxford, 1994), 65-108. The relevant differences between the Hebrew manuscripts will be noted. 6

7

58

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

the edition of Ben Sira prepared by the Academy of the Hebrew Lan­ guage (MSS A-E) and the additional manuscript (MS F) published by Di Leila. 8

9

A: Conditional clauses 1. The protases of real conditional clauses are usually introduced by DR. The apodoses are, on the whole, unmarked, e.g., r> 3 I T J J "uno norr D K D A (3.13[A]) DDnnn *n jnonn D K (6.32[A1)

mnn nnK m in poKn D K (15.15[A]) 7 * » i r r *?ron D K (37.12[B]). 2. The protasis is unmarked in imp 1*0*33 3.TIK rrap (6.7[A])

H3 ]DKT) *?K r w « n m u m ^« p> (7.26[A]) DTTIK no* -ft D'33 (7.231C1) D^KE TCH -ft m33 (7.24[A]). Note that in two examples a second protasis in the verse is introduced by Dfc: rrratfn K V TTORD R I -pry nRn -p rrann (7.22[A1) 7 T D 1 3 Q D R*7 DR nDl^n R S D 1 p ' T t f ? 30'H (12.2[A]).

3. Infrequently a waw introduces the apodosis: p o ^ K i n r a i w n (7.25[A]) n o i ^ n R S D I p n ^ 30*n (12.2[A]). There may be two additional examples. The first is nom *]3m om OTZ/? R3in D R (6.33[A1) if the intention of the Hebrew text is 'if you are willing to listen, then incline your ear—you will be instructed'; however, in the light of the Septuagint and Peshitta, it is may be that the apodosis of ^wb R3in D R has been deleted and om introduces a second protasis whose apo­ dosis is "lOin. A second possible example is 10

11

The versions of Ben Sira found in the Septuagint and the Peshitta will be noted when the Hebrew text is ambiguous. 8

The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary

(Jerusalem, 1973). A.A. Di Leila, The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza', Bib 69 (1988), 226-38. The manuscript was incorporated in the Academy of the Hebrew Language's 1988 microfiche edition of, and con­ cordance to, Ben Sira and the Qumran and tannaitic literature. Segal, R T O p "ISO (note 4), p. 0 0 , calls this 'imperative of condition' and compares with ynnranf> «m at Prov 22.10. One could also take as a wawconsecutive with the Perfect. 9

1 0

1 1

'Eotv aya.Kr\ar\$ GOV

aocpo dki -psa rrnp -J ? w dk * n (14.11 [A]) t BEnn J D naer o n n ] n dk D J I (34.18[B]) • O D D KTnrrb -|[afr ]n nma - ^ m -J ? J » B P ok mi (12.11[A]) 7© ^ "jt oro "^n nay "]n« ar ok (5.12[A]; 7© ^ -JT D1B ]H* OKI [C]) n n m * ona ]'« ok o a r a n *?k r © ok mi (16.2[A]) ITCOTI bnpb mr ok (34.3[B]) n ^ p ^ m o n D K i o ^ n n a r a ^ E D n o i K ] (4l.9[B]). 6. The protasis of a negative real condition is introduced by *b OK or 12

13

14

15

16

4

4

17

7 » J J J ^ ^ tyirC ^>i^ ^r + infinitive construct is attested in: nnra nne? ? i n t o n s (50.14,19[B]). 6. n# nj> + infinitive construct appears once in: SPEPP \*b nv iv (12.15[A]) (according to Segal, nj; is possibly a dittograph of nv). 7. njn + infinitive construct is found in 44

4

4

4

47

48

4 3

See M. Z. Kaddari, 'Construct Infinitive as Time Adverbial in Biblical He­ brew', Eretz-Israel 14 (1978), 133 (Hebrew). Is there a fourth example in ...^nDQtOjV^K^fcCip(46.5[B])? Segal, RTOpTDO (note 4), p. O'B, takes it as the feminine of the segholate *pç, but notes the Septuagint ev x© 9A,u|/ai amov e^Opotx; icoicXôGev, for which he sug­ gests the retroversion DEPR? or The Peshitta has a différent reading. Could one analyse HDOR as a feminine verbal noun similar to mnfc, HfcT, nfcttD? The consonantal text reflects the qâfôl noun pattern (^môdîm), which is at­ tested infrequently in Biblical Hebrew, but frequently in Tannaitic Hebrew. On the verbal use of qâtôl, see. M. Bar-Asher, 'Rare Forms in the Language of the Tannâlrri, W . 41 (1977), 95-102 (Hebrew). The vocalized text reflects the active participle ôm dim. Note the use of -D + infinitive construct alongside -3 + infinitive construct. Segal, KTO p -BO (note 4), p. Q. Cf. also nnavnwDtnocirrai (11.19[A]);naon[?Dp}=]Dpanj>:T) (5.7[C]). Can one also understand the following nouns as infinitive constructs: TSOO run -pty -vxn (30.32[E1); nnann*** ipso run (35.11[B])? 4 4

4 5

c

4 6

4 7

4 8

e

66

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

]vaattxffTOTD mm

rana w i p * ma (3.31 [A]) mips ae?n nrai nrao ? n o r a j v vm (4.3l[C]). In the examples with prefixed - 3 , the temporal meaning is borne by the preposition. In two examples, however, one finds a temporal clause introduced by Pin and an infinitive construct, without a prepo­ sition: irroQi 7i T O T -QDEQ im run (46.19[B]> prun npBtnj n ? ^ n r » ISDCBQ ^ irra run (40.51BJ). The frequency and use of ntf in temporal constructions in the language of Ben Sira is noteworthy. 1

49

50

4

51

52

Comparative remarks The temporal clauses evidenced in Ben Sira are all attested in other Hebrew corpora. Cf. b o p ? in Classical Biblical Hebrew, btop3 in Clas­ sical Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Qumran Hebrew, bup UV in Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew, "pop' ncotO and ^ O p ' D l o p ] in Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew, and perhaps ^Op' in a temporal sense in Classical Biblical Hebrew. The use of n r in temporal constructions is paralleled in bbp r\V (with the pre­ positions 0 " 7 D 3 and IV) in Classical Biblical Hebrew, im n r / n K Q 53

54

55

56

4 9

Kaddari, 'Construct Infinitive' (note 43), 132-33. Note also npr $b mora>'D "DT (9.12(A)), without the conjunction waw. The noun r\S seems to be a particularly favourite word of Ben Sira. It seems disproportionately frequent in this book compared with other temporal nouns. It occurs 38 times (excluding parallel passages in different manuscripts) as against, for example, 44 occurrences of Di\ In addition tora>+ infinitive construct, see also 'aap'ra?IV (§CI.6) and n» is bbp (§CII.6). As for ns + infinitive construct, the only other temporal noun in construct to an infinitive construct in Ben Sira is nv, and when it occurs, the specific meaning of the noun is apparent: DR *?R Q i t D nv is 1QR Dmo TTIRS D V D 'FT bD (40.1 [B]). Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls (note 6), 72-73; 'Observations' (note 6), 359; DJD, X (note 6), 81. Late usage (more than 15 times in DSS). See Qimron, Dead Sea Scrolls (note 6), 73-74. The particle 1©R occurs in relative clauses following adverbials indicating time, e.g., Dnsoo D T I R * ' im nrn ovn nR T D ? (Exod 13.3); I O R D » » ©on iisi yypiwin (Gen 45.6). See Gaenssle (note 21), 54-55. On the possibility that TOR introduces temporal clauses when there is no preceding time adverbial, see note 21, above. BDB, 773b, §2a 'usual time': ra«»n DR2* raft (Gen 24.11); Dmran(Gen 31.10); rrftra? (Job 39.1, 2). See also Tonn non ^\so^ (Dan 12.11); m o M i a i rran(Job 6.17). Kaddari, 'Construct Infinitive' (note 45), 133, also cites examples of *?bp raft: CDDBH R-Q raft (Josh 10.27); RXQ raft (Ps 32.6); mi RID ns is (Ps 105.19). 5 0 5 1

5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

5 6

FASSBERG: DEPENDENT CLAUSES

67

57

TDKTObaa/10K in Late Biblical Hebrew and 10K njn/KDK n#n ]Q in Qumran Hebrew, -0TODin Qumran Hebrew, TO in Tannaitic Hebrew, and ^Bp' r\vb as in archaic biblical poetry. Cf. also the Targumic Aramaic parallel -n jm:?. 58

59

60

61

62

D: Circumstantial clauses There are few certain examples of circumstantial clauses. In two of the following three passages, the circumstantial clause occurs with the principal clause in the same hemistich. 1. -1 + nominal clause (with participle) is found in: manas bv 3*3 mm vm T O D*nra "frapa (50.121B]). 2. -e?a + nominal clause: ]op roneo yano upai Trrnaaa win * p (30.12[B]). 3. -e? + nominal clause: inuro vano p n man m bv jnaa (30.121B]).

63

64

Comparative remarks 65

Circumstantial clauses introduced by waw are known from Biblical and Tannaitic Hebrew,- the construction with -©a is attested in Tan­ naitic Hebrew. The use of -0 at the beginning of a circumstantial clause appears to be unattested elsewhere, though it does seem to oc66

67

vraoR i o im ruJDi (2 Chr 25.27); roo -rot* r\v bD2 (Est 5.13); omn tfro ICDK nu (Qoh 8.9). See DJD, X (note 6), 94: rfo -RDR nra (4QTestim [4Q175] 1.21); opn 10« run (4QCatena [4Q177] 1.5); n v r i B K n u n p (CD 10.15); niwriM (11QT 33.2); UO0 "ran run (11QT 58.3) (E. Qimron, Textual Notes on the Temple Scroll', Tarbiz 53 [1983], 141 [Hebrew]). rairf?mDrow?(4QMMT B 66). nos—i?tD) TKSO ,ptf? wron I O Bro?(m. Orlah 1.2). cknDTonnW(Deut 32.35). Cf. -l ]Ttf in Lev 22.27 and Deut 32.35 in the Palestinian Targumim (Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg; Tg. Ps.-Jon. reads f?nn') in thy place ("['nnn) (contrast: Num 32.14 ... you have risen [onop] in place of [nnn] your fa­ thers; lKgs8.20: ... I have risen [DpW] in place of [nnn] my father ...). B: Hittl 40.19 Child and city establish (1TDSP) a name (DC?) (contrast: Deut 25.7 he refuses to establish [D'pn ?] a name [DC?] ... for his brother; Ruth 4.5 ... so as to perpetuate [D'pn ?] the name [DC?] of the deceased upon his estate). 1

1

80

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

Note also 37.26 ... his name (TOE?) abideth

(7071;)

in life eternal.

2: Biblical literature VlQtf, carrying the above-mentioned semantic connotations, is a dis­ tinctive characteristic of LBH. Its late nature is particularly striking in the following cases, where classical BH provides us with precise lin­ guistic contrasts for the specific collocations involved (i.e., in combi­ nations with -pO and 131 [Qal]; BSTO and boB [HifHl]). A: Qal Dan 8.23 ... then a king will arise ( 7 0 1 ? ' ) , impudent and versed in in­ trigue (contrast: Exod 1.8 A new king arose [Dpn] over Egypt...). Est 3.4 ... in order to see whether Mordecai's words 0"m) would prevail ( 7 7 0 1 > ' ) (contrast: Deut 19.15 A single witness may not validate a case [131] can be valid [Dip'] only on the testimony of two). B: Hittl 2Chrl9.5 He appointed (7D1?1) judges in the land ... (contrast: Judg2.16 ... the Lord raised up [Dpjl] judges who delivered them...). 2Chr33.19 ... he built shrines and installed ( 7 ' 0 1 V 7 ) sacred posts and im­ ages (contrast: Lev 26.1 ... you shall not make ... or set up [lQ'pn] ... carved images Judg 18.30 The Danites set up p}Q p }] the sculptured image ...). ,

r

HURVITZ: THE LINGUISTIC STATUS OF BEN SIRA

81

3: Dead Sea Scrolls Here, again, the lateness of VlQtf in the texts under consideration may readily be established through the 'linguistic contrast' provided by classical BH. A: Qal 4QFlor [4Q174] 13 (DJD, V, p. 53) ... he who will arise (770J;') to save (^enn*?) Israel

(contrast: Judg 10.1 After Abimelech, Tola ... arose [Opn] to deliver [swmnfr] Israel; Exod 2.17 ... Moses arose [Dpn] and came to their defence CD 7.19-20 ... as it is written [Num 24.17]: 'a sceptre shall rise (Dpi) forth from Israel'—the scepter is the Prince of all the congregation, and when it arises (77D107).... B: Hif'il h

4QJub [4Q223-24] 2.2.9-10 (DJD, XIII, p. 106) Even if he swears ( C T ' ) , he will not fulfill (T[D]V'\*t>)' (his oath) (contrast: Gen 26.3 ... I will give all... fulfilling [Tiapm] the oath that I swore to... Abraham; Num 30.15 ... her husband ... has upheld [D'pm] all the vows or obligations she has assumed ...; Jerll.5 In order to fulfill [D'pn] the oath which I swore to 19

1 9

This is E. Qimron's reading (I am grateful to him for his oral communica­ tion): TQPp], instead of T)OJ?p] adopted in DJD (the translation suggested there (p. 110) is: '[it] will not stand'). An examination of the photograph has con­ vinced me that the letter under discussion here is indeed yod rather than ivaw. Anyway, in either case there is no question about the root being ms and if Qimron's suggestion is not accepted, we simply have to transfer our example from the rubric of Hif'il ( = TOJP) to that of Qal (= nor).

82

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

your fathers...). 4QPsJos [4Q378] 11.2 ... he established his words ( m m TOVpi]) which he spoke (contrast: Deut 27.26 ... he who will not uphold the terms of [ n m riK D'p'] this teaching and observe them). a

20

21

4: Rabbinic literature Here, again, particularly instructive are those cases where a direct linguistic contrast' may be established; i.e., when the rabbinic sources resort to V~IDU, although their biblical models—often quoted in these passages verbatim—employ the classical Vop A: Qal m. Sotah 9.15 ... the elders shall rise up (77DIP) before the children (contrast: Lev 19.32 You shall rise [Dlpn] before the aged), 'for son spurns father, daughter rises up (nop) against moth­ er' [Mic 7.6]. m. Sanh 10.3 Neither of them shall stand (JHDW) in the judgement, for it is written [Ps 1.5], 'Therefore the wicked will not stand OQp?) in the judgement'. B: Hittl tos. Sanh 4.10 They do not appoint (J TDVQ) a king outside of the land (contrast: J

2 0

See C. Newsom, The "Psalms of Joshua" from Qumran Cave 4', JJS 39 (1988), 57-73.1 owe this reference to Dr J.F. Elwolde. Newsom correctly notes that the Qumran text exhibits 'the Late Biblical Hebrew substitution of TQtfn for D'pn' (p. 64); the biblical verse that she selects for illustrating this linguistic opposition is Deut 9.5. Prof. E. Tov has kindly informed me that the Qumran text is to appear in DJD, XXII; with his permission, the line discussed is quoted from the proofs. In J.H. Charlesworth's Graphic Concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tubingen, 1991): m m ToSpf?]. 2 1

HURVHZ: THE LINGUISTIC STATUS OF BEN SIRA

83

1 Kgs 14.14 ... the Lord will raise up [O'pm] a king over Israel), mek. Jethro to Exod 20,19 [16] ... the Israelites merited that prophets shall be raised (TDVrfy among them, as it is said [Deut 18.18], 'I will raise up D'pK) a prophet for them ...'—I was going to raise up (l DPnb) a prophet from among them in the future. J

PartC The post-classical linguistic profile of Ben Sira—vividly manifested by the isoglosses with LBH, QH, MH, and Aramaic—has been firmly es­ tablished and widely acknowledged in recent years. However, one should by no means assume that this conclusion is brand-new and that it has been conceived only lately by modern research. On the contrary, the late linguistic character of Ben Sira was repeatedly noted in the extensive scholarly literature published on theGenizah texts im­ mediately after their discovery—in the closing years of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth. The unfortunate de­ velopment here was that in subsequent years scholars showed much less interest in this specific facet of Hebrew; consequently, the whole issue of 'post-classical Hebrew'—whether in the Hebrew Bible or 22

23

2 2

Cf. Kutscher, History as well as the following studies: C. Rabin, The Histor­ ical Background of Qumran Hebrew', in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ScrHier 4; Jerusalem, 1958), 152; A. Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew, Vol. 1, 69, 7374, 91-92, 95-96; R. Sappan, 'A Lexicon of the Linguistic Innovations in the Hebrew Version of Ben Sira' (MA diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1968); A. Hurvitz, The Transition Period, 52-56; R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 4-6; M. Kister, 'A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira', Tarbiz 59 (1989-90), 303-78; A. S^enz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (Cam­ bridge, 1993), 116,127. See also note 18, above. Cf., for instance, S.R. Driver, 'Note', The Expositor, Fourth series, Vol. 1 (1890), 387-90, esp. 389; 'Glossary', xxxi-vi; S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Cambridge, 1899), 33-34 (Schechter's views on Ben Sira's stylistic borrowings from—and literary allusions to—canonical biblical writ­ ings [see especially pp. 13-25] require thorough revision; this matter, how­ ever, has no direct bearing on the question of Ben Sira's linguistic profile, which is our only concern here); D.Strauss, Sprachliche Studien; A.A. Bevan, The Wisdom of Ben-Sira', JTS 1 (1900), 137-38 (a review of Schechter and Taylor); I. Levi, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Semitic Study Se­ ries, 3; Leiden, 1904), xi-xii; R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Vol. 2 (Berlin, 1906), xxxviii-xlvi, especially xlii-xlvi; M.H. Segal, The Language of Ben Sira', L S. 7 (1936), 100-20 (Segal's approach to textual matters is decid­ edly in need of certain modifications; much of his linguistic analysis, how­ ever, has stood the test of time). 2 3

e

84

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 24

outside it—was largely neglected. It seems that this regrettable episode in the Forschungsgeschichte may be accounted for by two principal factors: first of all, the grave doubts about—and the deep disappointment with—the lack of methodological procedures and appropriate criteria in studying the diachronic aspects of BH (particularly notorious in this regard was, as is well known, the noncritical treatment of the so-called 'Aramaisms'); secondly, the en­ thusiasm accompanying the discovery of Ugaritic literature, which— naturally—attracted the main attention of wide scholarly circles to the early, rather than the late, strata of the Hebrew language. At any rate, it was only after the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the issue of post-classical Hebrew in general—and LBH in particular—was 'resurrected' and won renewed interest, to a large extent, no doubt, thanks to the monumental work of E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (lQIs?). The remarkable number of isoglosses common to the Scrolls and the late biblical books has more firmly established LBH as—typologically—an identifiable linguistic entity, reflecting—chronologically— the post-classical period. It was a natural further step to extend our 25

26

27

28

29

2 4

The tendency is made evident, inter alia, by the fact that the more recent commentaries on Ben Sira, in contrast to the old ones, generally do not include a section devoted specifically to the linguistic description of the com­ position. ^ Cf. A. Hurvitz, The Language of the Priestly Source and its Historical Set­ ting the Case for an Early Date', in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language (Jerusalem, 1983), 83. Cf., for instance, C. Rabin, 'Hebrew', in Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 6 (ed. T.A. Sebeok; The Hague/Paris, 1970), 323 (a critique of M. Wagner, Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentlichen Hebr&isch [BZAW 96; Berlin, 1966]). M.F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition, 30. The book was originally published in Hebrew (Jerusalem, 1959) and ap­ peared some years later in English (STDJ, 6a; Leiden, 1974). ^ Cf., for instance, the surveys in the following studies: A.Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew, Vol. 1, 60-94; E.Y. Kutscher, History, 81-85; J. Naveh and J.C. Greenheld, 'Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period', in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 1 (ed. W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge, 1984), 119-22; P. Jouon and T.Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Vol. 1 (rev. ed.; Rome, 1993), 9-12; A. Saenz-Badillos, History, 112-29; A. Hurvitz, 'Continuity and Innovation in Biblical Hebrew—the Case of "Semantic Change" in Post-Exilic Writings', in Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics (ed. T.Muraoka; AbrNSup, 4; Louvain 1995), 1-10. P. Davies's categorical denial of a diachronic factor oper­ ative in the formation of BH (In Search of 'Ancient Israel' [JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield, 1992] 102-105) is surrounded by too many question marks to be considered in this study. Above all, the critiques note that Davies's treatment of linguistic matters suffers severely from two deficiencies: (1) insufficient 2 6

2 7

2 8

HURVITZ: THE LINGUISTIC STATUS OF BEN SIRA

85

perspective by introducing into this late linguistic milieu the Hebrew of Ben Sira as well. 30

PartD The non-classical elements encountered in Ben Sira are, linguistically, not all of a piece. Some of them may be accounted for as simply free variations of standard phrases and expressions widely attested in classical biblical literature. Others may belong to the sapiential vo­ cabulary of wisdom literature—much of which is lost—or reflect the personal style ('idiolecf) of Ben Sira himself; and there are, of course, other linguistic peculiarities, whose exact interpretation escapes us and whose origin and background cannot be safely determined. All this inevitably defies any clear-cut chronological conclusions and, consequently, must be left out of the present discussion. In contrast, as we have already suggested, there is a considerable amount of linguistic material in the book of Ben Sira that does fall neatly under the heading of diachronic development and that is in­ dicative of the late biblical and post-biblical period. The non-classical elements included in this category represent, when viewed from the perspective of the classical language, deviations (or departures) from accepted standards of long-established modes of writing. They may be interpreted, therefore, either as signs of 'decay' and lack of suffi­ cient mastery in idiomatic usage of the time-honoured linguistic tra­ dition, or, vice-versa, as indicative of the innovatory—and creative— talent of later generations. Now, as a matter of fact, this question— 31

32

firsthand familiarity with the languages involved; (2) inadequate acquain­ tance with the rich repertoire of scholarly research published by Hebraists and Semitists over more than one hundred years. Cf. A.F. Rainey, 'Uncritical Criticism', JAOS 15 (1995), 101-102; I.W. Provan, 'Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel', JBL 114 (1995), 585-606. Note that Kutscher indeed refers in his book on the language of lQIsa to comparable material in Ben Sira (cf., for instance, p. 219 hQK/TQO] in the En­ glish edition). May I note at this point that two of our graduate students at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Ms V. Goldmacher and Mr H. Dihi, are cur­ rently writing a PhD dissertation and an MA thesis, respectively, on the lan­ guage of the Hebrew version of Ben Sira. I was extremely happy to learn that a student of Prof. T. Muraoka (Mr. W. Th. van Peursen), our host in this sym­ posium, has also chosen Ben Sira's Hebrew as a topic for his PhD thesis. ^ See, for instance, Ginsberg (above, n. 3); cf. also Torre/s view (above, n. 2). This position is strongly advocated in M. Kister's recent article 'A Contribu­ tion', esp. 304-307). 3 0

3 2

a

86

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

which was raised in the framework of a linguistic investigation—^has nothing to do with strictly linguistic arguments, since it involves such factors as personal taste and subjective preferences. In any event, we would like to emphasize here that for our purposes the decisive point is that both these positions—being, as they are, interpretative in nature—fully acknowledge that—on the factual level—the language of Ben Sira is replete with neologisms, which echo (or herald) the emergence of M H as a significant force on the literary scene. Therefore, whether one prefers to describe Ben Sira in terms of an '(artificial) imitator', or to praise him as a '(creative) virtuoso', the ba­ sic linguistic fact remains unchanged. In either case, the lexicon of Ben Sira must be regarded as an organic part of the post-classical phase of the language, at least in its literary form, a phase which—in our writ­ ten sources—marks the transition from BH to MH. 34

35

3 3

See the preceding note. The degree to which these or other peculiarities should be considered as signs of 'decay' and 'artificiality' or, rather, as marks of 'creativeness' and 'inventiveness' cannot be objectively measured and, therefore, defies a priori a definitive, conclusive, answer. Features that look 'original' to one person are not always evaluated as such by another; cf., for instance, the reservations ex­ pressed by Kister ('A Contribution', p. 307, n. 10) concerning the 'originality of the LBH items collected by D. Talshir, The Autonomic Status of Late Bibli­ cal Hebrew' (in Language Studies, Vols. 2-3 [A. Bendavid Jubilee Volume; ed. M. Bar-Asher; Jerusalem 1987], 161-72); by the same token, it must be said, Kister's own characterization of Ben Sira as 'innovative', 'creative' and 'original' (307) and as 'a linguistic virtuoso' (English summary, ii) may equally be challenged! Furthermore, tendencies to 'archaisms' (or 'imitations' of the classical tradition) on the one hand and 'neologisms' (or 'deviations' from it) on the other are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Bendavid, for in­ stance, has rightly noted that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls manifest, by and large, a marked 'loyalty (91) to the norms of classical BH; yet,on the same page he also credits them with the virtues of 'independence and cre­ ative power (further on [92], he says: The authors of the sect, in their biblical writing, were both conservative and independent'; this is also Kister's view [307] of the linguistic nature of Ben Sira). In contrast to terms like 'deca/ and 'imitation', which involve a consider­ able amount of judgement and evaluation, I see no reason to oppose the widely used term 'transitional/intermediate period', which is simply a neu­ tral descriptive designation (Talshir [TheAutonomic Status', 161] and Qimron ['Observations', 357, 360] object to it; Kister ['A Contribution', 310; En­ glish summary, ii] adopts it). Note that being 'original' does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the language—as manifested in the texts (cf. n. 8) under consideration—reflects, in various aspects, a transition from an earlier phase to a late one; in fact, any phase in the history of a language represents, in the final analysis, a transition from one linguistic stage to another! 3 4

7

7

7

3 5

THE SYNTAX OF *D IN THE LANGUAGE OF BEN SIRA Menahem Zevi Kaddari (Ramat-Gan)

I: o as a causal subordinator In the great majority of its occurrences in Ben Sira (82/109 or 75%),* O functions as a causal subordinator. It always introduces a clause (or sentence), and there is no example of subject-raising of the Biblical Hebrew (BH) kind represented by p R 3 m m O ajn (1 Kgs 8.37) or t m mo o man m&rfo* (Gen 1.4). Of the different types of causal subordination, the greatest num­ ber (in chapters consisting of wisdom maxims) consists of justifica­ tions of negative recommendations (mitigated prohibitions), and func­ tion, therefore, as links in the arguments expressed by admonitory spech acts, for example 1D0 -fr no jnn vb *D n ewn b\k IT *>iEb 'do no­ thing private [literally, 'secret'] in the presence of a stranger, because you do not know what use he will make of it [literally, 'what his end will produce']' (8.18 [A]). In chapters 50-51, we also find O clauses expressing the reason for a positive recommendation, as, for example, in Wto '"IBR D»n ™ ran* o a s m *nb bv jrrm r u m rbxo Trappy the man who occupies himself [literally, 'ponders'] these lessons [literally, 'in these'], who lays them to heart and grows wise! For fearing God means [literally, 'is'] life' (50.29 [B]). Sometimes, the main clause is a combination of negative and posi­ tive advice or is worded positively but conveys a negative connota­ tion, for example nan eruR rnpn *o rrm ^oon IKQ IKQ 'humble yourself to the uttermost [i.e. do not be conceited or arrogant], for the doom of the impious [literally, 'the hope of man'] is worms [literally, 'worm']' (7.17 [A]). 1

These figures exclude manuscript duplicates (i.e. where manuscripts A and B, for example, present exactly the same text) and include fifteen instances of citations of Psalms passages: M P D ^ y m (once, at 51.12 [B]) and n o n t f w ^ D (fourteen times, also at 51.12). The data are based on the concordance to the Hebrew text of Ben Sira in The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Lan­ guage's The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance, and an Analysis of the Vocabulary (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973).

88

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

On other occasions, there is no one explicit main clause, but in­ stead the whole discourse is to be regarded as the main clause, for ex­ ample pm anr man trai * D rram -pTra bpw p ]in V? B P * frw ennn *?n cranp D ] ? nx?p 'do not think [Segal adds 'evil'] of a rich man [lit­ erally, 'man who has wealth']. You may be sure he will outbid you [literally, lest your price will be weighed and you will be lost']. For money [literally, 'gold'] has been the ruin of many [literally, lias made many reckless'] and wealth has misled the minds of kings [lit­ erally, 'the heart of generous ones']' (8.2 [A]). *D may introduce a causal clause as part of a factual description, as we find in the chapters of Ben Sira that survey Israel's history, for example T i i p a n p o o m o D ' T I D * D Tin 'asfr iipmb jra nou inrm D H *?mttPO 'after him, Nathan came forward to be prophet in the reign of David [literally, 'to stand up before David']. For as the fat is separated from the sacrifice, so David was chosen out of all Israel' (47.1-2 [B]). In other instances, *D introduces a content clause (syntactically, it subordinates an object clause), especially following a verb of mental activity such as nDT 'remember', J J T 'know', n t n 'see', and nQR 'say : 'P'EXDOl D'nD BP ' D "IDT 'remember, there is one who both exalts and humbles'(7.11 [A]), q^jnrOTnBn^nnjOTO'nDp'Djn 'tell yourself [literally, Tcnow, be aware'] that you are making your way among pit­ falls, and you are walking on the battlements of the city' (Snaith; 9.13 [A]); H T I K S D T r a 'main *n»n p p o O D T J O un 'see for yourself how young [literally, 'small'] I was and I endured it and (finally) found it [i.e. wisdom]' (51.27 [B]); ^aw'nrwnDi risen'npjw's... IDKP 'do not say, What good can the future hold for me?' (11.23 [A]). 1

2

7

3

4

5

2

Mosheh £evi Segal, Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem (Second ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958). The sentence represents a continuation of a negative recommandation: r m 1DD n n 'never laugh at [literally, 'despise'] a man in his bitter hu­ miliation [literally, 'in bitterness of spirit']'. John Snaith (see the next note) adds a causal connector ('for') after "TDT, and this is also true of other sentences with IDT, at 8.5 (A) and 9.12 (A). The only IDT sentence without a negative main clause is at 14.11-12 (B): ^ifcWD$b "IIDT jtDin " | T D'OTT "|*? VP DRi naTDn»marf?iaT»n 'if you can afford it [literally, 'if you have'], do well for yourself [or, 'spoil yourself] and as you are able [literally, 'according to the power of your hand'], satisfy yourself. Remember there is no pleasure in Sheol and death is not to be postponed'. John G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus; or, The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, Commen­ tary (The Cambridge Bible Commentary; London: Cambridge University Press, 1974). However, in view of the lacuna, there might originally have been a verb 3

4

5

KADDARI: THE SYNTAX OF'D

89

II: Occasional usages ,

O can introduce a temporal clause, as in mnmK iQtzn cnp m p in 2n VttJj; 'D TPOT T 2 'and they set fire to the holy city and left its streets deserted [literally, 'desolated its streets'], as Jeremiah prophesied [literally, 'through Jeremiah'] when they mistreated him' (49.6-7 [B]). In the following example, the protasis of a conditional clause is introduced by 'D: pinp^^nQnTpm^Tr^QPip-T^inorQitnQ) 'who knows what are my righteous deeds, and what are the chances (of be­ ing rewarded) if I do [literally, 'create'] the law?' (Snaith: 'who is to declare his acts of justice or wait for his remote decree'; 16.22 [A]). After Kb 'not', O can, like R^K in Mishnaic Hebrew, introduce an adversative statement, as in ...nopno TO^jPia ?tf?*Duri 'see that I did not toil ['n^Dtf] for myself, but for all who sought../ (30.26 [E]). In the formula O BKP], O can introduce the first stage of an a for­ tiori argument of the type known as qal wahomer in Mishnaic Hebrew: 1

nr non rpv ne?po i n a o

p i n Disown

*p\* rnwa m

p

npr OR 'those six hundred thousand warriors marshalled in stubborn defiance. Even if only one [inK] man were obstinate, it would be a miracle [literally, 'it is amazing'] for him (let alone the many) to es­ cape punishmenf (16.10-11 [A]). Ben Sira's use of to introduce a comparative clause is uncertain, but is perhaps evidenced in just the one, following, text: *]"UQD TON mncr OJnn V3R 'to leave your father in the lurch [literally, 'whoever leaves a father'] is like blasphemy [literally, 'one who re­ viles'], and to provoke your mother's anger is to call down the Lord's curse' (Snaith; 3.16 [C]; A: bbpo n r m O'JDDlrat*nra TTQ O). Segal proposesthat here the -D of *p:iQD could be equivalent to in which case either is comparative or both 'D and O are used emphatically, a function they are known to have in BH. Finally, there are a few instances where O might be expected but is replaced by other connectors like ]D, as at 8.2 (A), or nob, as at 8.1 (A), or by zero, as at 7.16 (A). 6

Ill: Comparison with Biblical Hebrew Various functions of O that we have exemplified from Ben Sira are also attested in the Bible. We start with the uses outlined in section I. As a causal subordinator, Ben Sira's use of O introducing the justificaother than ~)DK in the main clause. See the relevant entries in my forthcoming dictionary of BH. 6

90

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

tion of negative advice is relatively less common in BH, where it is most typical in Proverbs, for example Prov 23.6-7: inon*?riRDn 7n'?R KVr p nttB TDD O ... yv 'do not eat of a stingy man's food ..., for he is like one keeping accounts' (see also Prov 23.10-11,20-21; 24.1-2, 15-16,19-20, Prov 24.1-22). The use of *D to introduce the reason for a positive recommenda­ tion is also documented in BH, for example Prov 23.26-27: *pb 13 run n^TrrpTQ^nmCD...'give your mind to me, my son for a harlot is a deep pit'. is also found in BH introducing a causal clause the 'main clause' of which is a whole section of the discourse that has preceded, as at Gen 20.18:" *D 'for the Lord has closed fast (every womb of the household of Abimelech)'. In BH, 'D's primary r61e is to introduce a causal clause within a factual description, for example Gen 26.7: * D ... n a t t e r H . . . IQK'l KYr rttOQ rm& 'he said for he was afraid to say for she was beautiful'. The use of *D to introduce a content clause (as object complement to verbs of speech or thought) is also regular in BH, as at Gen 21.30: npn ... o now') 'he replied,... You are to accept'. But there is no ex­ ample of an appositional clause in Ben Sira. Moving on to the uses listed in section II, we find that in BH as well is used in temporal clauses (e.g. Gen 4.12: "nun o 'when you work'), conditional clauses (e.g. Deut 7.17: IQKn O 'should you sayO, adversative clauses (e.g. Gen 24.3-4: ...*X1* M'0 ...nmnpnxb 'you will not take a wife ... but will go to my land'), and comparative clauses (e.g. Prov 30.33: Di * ] R yTO naan R*2TP rftn y*n * D 'as milk under pressure produces butter, so patience under pressure produces strife'). The use of O * ) K in an a fortiori argument is widespread in BH (where *]R has other functions too, including its primary role of in­ troducing the apodosis of a conditional or concessive clause), for ex­ ample 1 Kgs 8 . 2 7 : n r n r r a v D . . . D ' o c n n a n 'even the heavens how much less this house'. Syntactic functions associated with 'D that are found in BH but are not attested in Ben Sira include subject-raising, as noted in the opening to section I, or the use of as an emphatic adverb (a varia­ tion of emphatic O), 'indeed, certainly , with the possible exception of the usage at 3.16-17, noted in the penultimate paragraph of section II. The only substantivized *D clauses in Ben Sira are the content clauses (object clauses) illustrated in section I. With the exception of *D adl

L

7

7

7

The zvaw of fTO is waw apodosis; see Paul Jouon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols. Subsidia Biblica 14. 1-2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute; 1993), §176.

KADDARI: THE SYNTAX OF'D

91

verbial combinations of are also missing from Ben Sira. These in­ clude 'DH,»D IV,OK D,a*0, and pb... O. In conclusion, then, we find that there is no usage of 'D found in Ben Sira that is not also attested in the Bible, although the reverse is not true. However, the distribution of the various functions of in Ben Sira is very different from that found in BH, and seems to reflect the genre (wisdom literature and historical survey) and subject-matter of Ben Sira. In the syntax of O , the Hebrew of Ben Sira represents the living continuation of a literary language of a particular genre.

VERB COMPLEMENTATION IN QUMRAN HEBREW Takamitsu Muraoka (Leiden) J: Introduction 1. General Our general interest in the question of verb complementation has been indicated in our study of Qumran Aramaic with reference to the same morphosyntactic phenomenon. We are interested in the modes of linkage between a verb and its 'arguments'. A given verb may have up to four out of the following five distinct arguments: (1) subject, (2) direct object, (3) indirect object, (4) adverbial modifier, and (5) object complement. We are not aware of any verb which can take all these five arguments simultaneously: a verb which has an object comple­ ment can have only one type of object, with which latter the former constitutes a complex capable of being transformed into a nominal clause, e.g. 1QH 10.23: 1

r u » '5 nnae? \th> n r a

You have not made a creation of flesh my refuge. The subject as an argument of a verb does not interest us here. The distinction of direct versus indirect object may be said to be meaningful only in regard to verbs which are capable of taking both at the same time, such as ]ro, but for the purpose of the present study we would define them as follows: a direct object is an argument which may be linked to the verb by means of the so-called nota objecti, flR, whereas an indirect object is an argument which is explicitly and obligatorily marked by a member of a closed set of 'prepositions'. Formally speaking, one can distinguish between zero-comple­ mentation and prepositional complementation: uvb 7DR ? as against riQRn "mnb. In this respect, the nota objecti PR does not count as a pre­ position, for it is, as is well known, optional, whereas any other pre­ position, except when it links a participle with its complement, is obli­ gatory. Another distinction that needs to be made is that between the personal pronoun as verb complement and some other category of 2

i

1

i

Muraoka 1979a. See also Muraoka 1992. We shall investigate, inter alia, whether the preposition lamed can, in our corpus (see note 4), mark, in the Aramaic fashion, a direct object. 2

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

93

complement. In the former case, the complement, even when it ex­ hibits prepositional complementation, may be optionally attached di­ rectly to the verb as suffix (synthetic linkage: ^"lDB?) or stand detached from it but linked by means of a preposition (analytical linkage: TTO* "IDE? or *>bv notD). The primary distinction, namely that between zero-complementation and prepositional complementation, can be confidently made only when a complement is other than a personal pronoun and the verb in question is other than participial.

2. Direct object and indirect object 3

It is a well-known fact that certain verbs allow direct, synthetic link­ age, not only in a case such as 'TrtO, but also where a personal pro­ noun as an indirect object is involved: e.g. lQSb 3.26 rOQTpQ [ i r o n * 'he will give you [ ] your place'. Whether such a synthetically at­ tached pronoun is a direct or indirect object needs to be studied in the light of all the attested cases of the verb in question. To illustrate, let us look at a segment of our database with respect to # T H(ifil): 4

H: d rei suf < 1QH 1.29; 13.13 r o T Q D spivb (inf) + suf pers and 3 rei < 1QH 4.27 + 0

5

rot^'na'nirnn; 1QH 11.9 ronDR -non onjmn; > 1QH 7.27 'arurnn r o u t e * r o ; 1QH 10.4 i3i?mn [ronQ]K -non

+ b pers and 0 d rei < 1QH 4.28 roTD-ran D"nn bicb n r t

+ suf pers and 0 id rei < 1QH 11.16 not* -no ^nimn.

Although the examples are by no means plentiful, it is to be noted that among those attested there is not a single case of nR indi­ cating a person to whom something is communicated. On the other hand, BH, in addition to many cases of , proffers plenty

3

Jouon-Muraoka 1993: §125ba. The corpus of the present study is a result of a systematic investigation of 1QS (The Manual of Discipline) and related documents as published in Charlesworth 1994, and 1QH (The Thanksgiving Hymns) as covered in Lohse 1986. The symbol < signifies that the complement follows the verb, standing to the left of it (in the Hebrew writing). 4

5

94

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

of examples of and :

Exod 18.20 - r n n m nnb anvin; Ps 103.7 rmhTO-n-smv as against ' Gen 41.39 prt bo m - p a

1

rrn ** SPTEI

nn«;

Prov 1.23 ddpk n m w t i k . We may thus conclude that the verb j r r H in our corpus requires with any indirect object of person, and also that a synthetically at­ tached personal pronoun is datival in force, hence **b HPimn =

3. Essential complement and optional complement A general question which arises not only in respect of our corpus, but also in respect of many languages, a question which has been exten­ sively debated in general linguistics but not resolved so far, is that of how to distinguish between an argument which may be considered more essential, an object, whether direct or indirect, and an argument which may be regarded as optional, peripheral and dispensable, an adverbial modifier. Locatives can be particularly difficult here. Whereas one may safely regard mm ^DTQ in mm borm &nb\sn b\* mn nbb^nn as a non-essential adverbial adjunct, one can hardly dispense with a locative with verbs of motion, such as those found in: 7

1QS 10.10 b* n n a n mraK; 1QS 5.7 i m n psift Ran *td,

1QS l . l l b\* i r r a onm ditch o n m *td

4. Historical development A question specific to our corpus is that of diachrony: are there indi­ cations, notwithstanding the obvious links, whether conscious or un/sub-conscious, with BH, that our idiom testifies to some changes tak­ ing place in respect of verb complementation? Such a development may be attested by I?T H discussed above. Some other verbs of in8

6

The concordance in Habermann 1959 gives three more examples: CD 9.19 9.22 -parf? JPTP; 1.11 OTnnKnnrf? jrnn. For a useful introduction to this debate, see Matthews 1981:121-45. In addition to the likelihood discussed above that the verb i?T H in our cor­ pus requires b to indicate a person to whom communication is to be made, the use of 3 with verbs of knowledge, instruction and the like to mark a subnpacfriPTTT; 7

8

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

95

struction governed by the preposition bet preceding a noun denoting what is taught deserve some attention. First p : H: + 3rei 1QS 11.22 p * HQ nsjft + suf pers and 3 rei < 1QS 6.15 nrrn 'CDEXBD "ron inra* ; lQSa 1.5 noin'ûpcBQ^DnDran ? + 0 d pron dem < 1QH 1.37 n*7K ira' tf? o-clause < 1QH 17.21... o Tnran 4

tD: + n rei occurs five times, all in LBH: Neh 8.8, 12; Dan 1.17; 9.23; 10.11. is also confined to LBH: Dan 8.16; 11.33; 2 Chr 35.3; Job 6.24. Where a feature characteristic of our corpus is found to be typical of LBH, the certainty of diachronic development is enhanced. The verb teto H is comparable in this regard: 9

H: + 0 id rei and 0 pers > 1QS 4.22 " p i nran b^yart? D'DE no^m 'to instruct the perfect of way in heavenly wisdom' (inf) + suf pers 1QH 10.7; 12.33 ']rfoœn + suf pers and D rei < 1QS 9.18 fcte ' P Q Ubwnb (inf); lQSa 1.7 nnnn p p r a i n ^ o t t r ; 1QH 7.26 ranoteP3nte0n;

ject-matter or topic appears to be a hallmark of the language of our corpus. This is observed with verbs such as p H, tD, « m G, IJT G, H, ich> D, ISO D, mp G, ]n D, mfo D, byo H. Cf.alsoJenni 1992:252. 9

96

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 1QH 11.4 TOHf»'B?«3a tfraom; > 1QH 11.10 D r t e c n r o i ^ B t o

+ 0 pers and 3 rei < 1QS 11.1 npba m a n ^acorfr (inf) + 3rei A slightly different kind of diachrony is the opposition between < + suf> and . The question had already been raised by Kropat (1909: 35f.) in relation to the language of the Chronicler, and has been recently revisited by Polzin (1976: 28-31) and Qimron (1978: 97; 1986: 75-77). The language of our corpus appears to conform to the general pattern of Late Biblical Hebrew in that the syntagm is reso­ lutely resisted. As against tens of cases of we have found only three cases of the analytic structure. And it is significant that none of the three is a free variant, but each is morphosyntactically condi­ tioned: 1QS 5.18 urb im biD nro am bnnnb, where ub^ionb is precluded because it is followed by a co-object also marked by the nota objecti; 4Q159 frg ii-iv 8, nmR innp, where the infinitive, which has its own subject pronoun attached to it, cannot take another pronominal suffix; 1QH 14.21 Trm-|prrD (ditto). In this respect, the use of an independent personal pronoun is most striking at 1QS7.16: 12

13

TU?

RVTI D P R Q

nwn vbvb bvi -p* D'nnn ewi

Whoever goes about slandering among the community shall be sent away from among them and shall not return again. Equally noteworthy is that in the immediately following sentence, which also prescribes life excommunication, one finds a synthetic structure: map wb) imbw nrrn -no' by yb*

»'«m.

The only significant difference between the two is that in the first the

1 2

BH observes the same rule of syntax: see Jouon-Muraoka 1993: §125e (6). This case ought to have been mentioned by Qimron (1986:75, n. 30). According to Haneman (1980: 33), the inf. est. in MH no longer takes a pronominal suffix when the latter functions as the subject of the infinitive. Our example indicates then that the language of our corpus diverges from MH in this respect. Note also rDiso in the Temple Scroll to be mentioned be­ low (91), which is all the more striking in that it deviates from its biblical Vorlage EDnK rrao; on the other hand, Cohen (1983: 210-15) has established that one set of examples in MH of <TIK + suf> is morphologically conditioned, be­ ing largely confined to lamed-yod verbs. 1 3

98

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIR A

subject is indefinite. Cf. also 1QS 7.15: t r a i n mntDQ nm* nrc? irr^nam m j r a

-p*

e?ncn.

14

However, to what extent this is significant is not entirely clear in view of a contrast such as 1QS 8.21, i

nnbw... im nano era T D ,

and CD 9.1, OTT rran*?...

D T K *?3.

15

6. Semantic opposition between multiple modes of complementation Although due allowance must always be made for synonymity, at least an attempt should be made to see whether some opposition or other is intended between different syntagms or different-preposi­ tions governing a given verb. The highly frequent combination -3 «3 or its causative transform, -3 R'3n, is used in an almost technical sense of 'to join (a community, group)' as in: 1QS 1.16 nnvr-p03D'K3n, 1QS 8.20 tzmpn n s r a K3n T D , 1QS 6.5 [n3E?-np] reun '3irarn. I

The notion of entering is manifest. By contrast, the preposition lamed in 1QS5.7, nrrnrcttfrtGn'ro,

is about the direction or destination of movement. The last quoted phrase constitutes the subject of the following, which reads: trananon *7D wxh n n 3 3 t r a \

1 6

The verb 1 3 1 D may take one of three prepositions followed by a noun referring to a person, each with a distinct nuance: with *?K 'to address (a person or persons)', as in lQSa 2.9: 1 4

In view of these considerations, Lohse's (1986:28) restoration prom rbynb at 1QS 7.25 appears more plausible than that of Charlesworth (1994: 34) mfmb: there is a large gap at the end of the line. Note V7 in Egyptian Aramaic (6th/5th c. BCE), v±>o vr ]TD ^ 'nnn n n x o 'the garment which you brought for me (to) Seyene, I am wearing it', where however, the extraposed noun is determinate and the pronoun precedes the verb. The example from CD is mentioned by Qimron (1986: 76), also earlier by Licht (1965:165). Alternatively we may interpret these two clauses, viz. 1QS 7.16 and CD 9.1, as compound nominal clauses, thus making the pronoun their enclitic subject. Therefore the rendering by Vermes (1995: 76), 'Whoever approaches the Council of the Community shall enter the Covenant of God ...', is preferable to that of Charlesworth (1994: 21), 'everyone who enters into the Council of the community, shall enter into the covenant of God'. 1 5

1 6

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

99

with 3 'to speak (to somebody) in a hostile manner', as in 1QS 7.2: nora ... o'jrron p i n t o ; with P R I I 'to conduct oneself in a certain manner in the way of speech in relation to somebody , as in 1QS 7.5: orioavunriR I S T To speak to his fellow man deceitfully. pm G may be mediated by either 3 or b: the former signifies that one entity becomes very closely attached to another as in 1QS 2.15 mm nnnn n t > K bo in p a T All the curses of this covenant shall cleave to him, 1QS 1.5 3101MD boi p m ? (inf), 1QH 16.7 -[nnn no«3 pirn ?, whereas the latter signifies that something reaches something else, making contact with it, as in 1QH 5.31: pain i n g r a f t My tongue shall touch the palate. The bet is similar to that used in conjunction with verbs such as ptn H and JH3 G. There are of course cases where it escapes us what distinction is intended by the use of different constructions. As can be seen from the data in Section 1.4, above, the verb p n takes the preposition bet, but once we find a lamed: 7

4

4

1QS11.22 p * nanxxh. How would this differ from p ' H Q n s r a ? Similarly, how does 1QH 11.9, roriQK -nononimn, differ from 1QH 11.16, noK 110 'TUmn, 1QH 7.6, 'anrna^n raemp rrn, from 1QH 17.26, bv [HDJomp r m nmQ']n, 4Q285 frg iii col ii 4, \sxninbDinbovnb, from 1QS 9.20, R S C O T blD ubownb, 1QS 7.24, imn nxvb*nyzrwb, from 1QS 7.2,TTTVr nxv by -ni> aittT, and 1QS 5.13, empn mnen from 4Q258 frg i col i 7, BPprr] * S M K mnB ? I O T tf?? A verb which normally shows prepositional complementation may have the appearance of a verb of zero-complementation when found in a relative clause, because of ellipsis of the customary prepo­ sition: 1QS 1.4 O K Q im bo m \x\xab; 1QS 1.3 nrn T B R bo mntf?; 1QS 11.7 ... b* nra ia*b 'to those whom God chose'. 1

100 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA In lQSb 3.21, *?K 03 nn3 ne?K O^rran p n s >J3, we find a full form.

7. Aramaic influence The interaction between Hebrew and Aramaic, especially in LBH and QH, is a much discussed subject. One possible Aramaism is the use of the preposition lamed as a marker of a direct object replacing nK. Such was claimed by Licht (1965:96) regarding 1QS 4.6: run TinoRlpKam.

Cf. Charlesworth (1994:17) 'concealing the truth of the mysteries of knowledge'. Even Wernberg-Meller (1957:79), having accepted Milik's adverbial interpretation, 'faithfully , translates otherwise: 'con­ cealing the truth of the ...'.See also Clines (1993:329b): 'dependably . Our interpretation, 'to hide faithfully mysteries of knowledge', is largely due to the non-attestation elsewhere of the complex colloca­ tion nin *n DDK or D'n DDK, although a long construct chain is not for­ eign to the style of QH: e.g. 1QS 4.12, 7

7

nop] ^ m a y ^ R ,

something like 'the anger of the wrath of God of vengeance'. Nor is it right to quote 1QS 11.16: ixh ro'xh

1

nwnnb OIK n r a ? nrrcn neno nanoa pb opn.

The translation is not 'Raise up the son of your handmaid' (Garcia Martinez; sim. Lohse with 'richte den Sohn deiner Wahrheit auf), but 'Grant the son ... (and) the elect of mankind to stand before thee for­ ever'. Cf. Vermes (1995:88) and Licht (1965:235). In other words the ar­ gument is not accusatival, but datival, dat. commodi. A more likely example of lamed marking a direct object is 1QH 18. 14: nD'onn nrb nunb To proclaim to the poor the abundance of your mercies (Garcia Martinez 1994:359). Unlikely is Lohse (1986:175): 'den Demütigen zu verkündigen nach der Fülle deiner Barmherzigkeit', for which the biblical language would say nD'Qnn n r o (e.g. Ps 51.3; 69.17). Furthermore, if the text of the following line be correctly restored as o*7U? nnoüb o^aro n n 'Kp-rf?, 'according to eternal joy' would not convince, and this must also con­ tain a similar lamed. 17

8. Innovations 1 7

Similarly Vermes (1995: 235): 'that to the humble he might bring the glad tidings of Thy great mercy . 7

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

101

Notwithstanding the obvious continuity of the linguistic tradition vis4-vis BH, our writers also display a measure of creativity. This has been demonstrated above in connection with the syntagm -bnm. -3 *70ton, discussed above in a different context, also seems to belong here. In BH this verb in the sense of 'to teach, instrucf is not mediated by 3 , but by nK.

9. Participle Because of its partly nominal character, the participle warrants sepa­ rate discussion. Our survey suggests that the following categories and parameters are relevant to a meaningful description and classification of the data: 1. direct, i.e. J")K (including its zero-representation), or indirect complementation, i.e. by means of a preposition when a given verb is used in non-participial form; 2. the number of the participle, i.e. singular or plural; 3. the syntactic function within a clause, i.e. whether a given participle is functioning as a predicate in semi-verbal capacity (a 'third' tense beside the prefix and suffix conjugations) or as a noun. With reference to these parameters, the following observations may be made. A. Where a plural participle is nominalized or functioning as a modi­ fier of a preceding noun head, the relationship between such a par­ ticiple and the following complement may be formally (but not semantically) indistinguishable from that of a construct noun phrase: e.g., 1QS 2.6 wbini *>nbwn bo - r a . . . up: napia bo T H At the hand of all who execute vengeance ... at the hand of all who pay rewards'; 1QH 5 . 7 . . . omm p n *men a n n a nxu nmra mnK 18

1 8

This decision is not always easy. For instance, there is no scholarly consen­ sus as regards 1QH 5.36, TO DP3BD JHDQ V13

—is WTDD verbal with 'they' as the subject or does it introduce a noun phrase adjectivally modifying JflDQ'n?—and ib. 8.10, m arm jrra urai atom Kita imo nn* rvvob « n p p no I T - B O —where the first word, as Holm-Nielsen (1960:151) justly observes, can be an intransitively used Hif il, though we are not certain that "imo and nmn are Qal participles with i n as their shared object, for both can be Pual's. c

102 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA D'QTOby mo3Q *ftmB tran t r n Lions which break the bones of mighty men and drink the blood of warriors ... many fishermen who spread a net over the water; 1QS ll.l ]in 'jpoi ]in nrnoi #32** *>nbw noo von* People of the stick who point the finger and speak evil and are zealous for gaining wealth; 1QS 5.2,9 nnnn now OTTOA p r o *n The children of Zadok, the priests who observe the covenant; 1QH6.34 -fiiriD'K? Those who lie in dust (= B. This syntactic transformation of a verb phrase into a noun phrase is most evident when, as in the last example, a given verb in a non-par­ ticipial form would require indirect complementation, e.g., 1QS2.18 n n n n n a * T D All those who join the covenant (= n n 3 3 D'R3), 1QS 10.20,1QH 14.24 HDD'30*? 19

Towards those who turn away from transgression (= D'3e? 1QS 11.10 JDTI rfrm non -no The assembly of worms and those who walk in darkness (= Tenraro'Tn), 1QH 6.34 "IDtf'33110

Those who lie in dust' (= I B M ) . C. It is not clear why this rule is not consistently observed: 1QS 5.10 n w v r - p i 3 ooVinn bwn 'TOK ^130 From all those men of wickedness who walk in the way of in­ iquity; 1QS 8.21 -pn crara wobm empn rain van bo All those who join the holy council who walk along the path of perfection. D. The transformation in question is also apparent where the com­ plement is pronominalized and is synthetically attached to a par­ ticiple as in 1QH 6.27, nn*3*7D 'all those who enter it', 1QH 7.12, *7D 'all those who contend against me'. Though it is true that some of these verbs, K3 for instance, can, in BH, enter direct complementation, as in Ps 100.4, miHO 1K3, that does not seem to be an explanation for this development, but it is rather due to the half-nominal character of the participle. This accounts better for a hybrid structure as displayed in 20

21

1 9

See Jouon-Muraoka 1993: §121n.

2 0

Cf. 1QH 2.23 TBEtobD mn 'they assailed my soul'. Cf. also 1QH 8.28 ' J I W T O .

2 1

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

103

1QS 4.6,12 na 0*7in blD 'all those who walk in if; 1QH 4.21 naa ? -p-n O ^ n 'those who walk in accordance with your mind'; 1QH 9.22 *3 *3T0 'those who murmur against me'. That the syntagm is basically nominal is confirmed by the form of the pronominal suffix in cases like 1QH 4.20, 4

ra'TO

'SR^y

Against those who despise me... against all those who deride me, namely not TORB nor ra. E. When a verb enters into two or more synonymous, multiple com­ plementations, it is not possible to determine with certainty what the underlying complementation would be. In our corpus the verb 13V G 'to go against, transgress' may be joined to its complement either di­ rectly, e.g. 1QS8.22, iTOTorninD

TOP

or by means of bv, e.g. 1QH 12.24, nanan bv innsbwb. Hence the following cases are syntactically ambiguous: 1QS 5.7 pin n a w ' T D ;

1QS 5.14 ran n a w ' r o ; 1QH 4.26 na^s n a w * T D . 1

7

See also 1QS 9.17, - p n nma ? 'to those who choose (the) way . F. Determined singular nominalized participles display indirect com­ plementation: 1QS 2.12 nnaa Ran 'one who joins the covenant' (II 1QS 2.18 man

na Via);

1QS 9.2213 bvmb 'to the one who rules him'; 1QS 9.2313 11M1 'the one who lords it over him'; 1QH 6.25 TCSD "HO R33 HV7R 'I shall be like one who enters a city under siege'. G. In our corpus the participle is used only very rarely as a true verb. Its verbal character is made unmistakable on account of PR in: 1QS 1.19 inQR VDVO " T O D R T rruner bR nR cronaQ u^nbn;

1QS 2.1 *?R blViTORbo PR 0*3130; 1QS 1.21 ^ R m p n s n R o n s o o ;

1QS1.22 bvmp ^a mjrw nR onBoo. H. In the case of a masculine, plural participle, the absolute state end­ ing, 0'-, is employed where the participle is used, like a finite verb, as the predicate, as in 1QS 1.22: conn

Hon

*TD O'JPDBDI.

This interpretation is further supported by the parallelism with the preceding clause, 1QS 1.21: *7R mpns nR o n a o o o^mam.

104 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA Where a participle is used, however, as a modifier of, or part of a phrase modifying, a preceding noun head, either absolute or con­ struct state may be used; compare 1QS 5.9, a n n a >CMK a n ? ! wvm n n a n now crarron pwx *iah 4

with 1QS 5.2, nnvr vm* a n *B *?jn m a n 'noie? tranan prrx ^ a *B nnaaa'p'Tnon,

where n n a n 'p'tnD* might have been another possibility. In the remaining categories, namely m. sg., f. sg. and pi., no for­ mal distinction between abs. and est. st. is immediately apparent. The fluctuation and alternation mentioned above prevents us from deciding with confidence whether such a participle as we find in 1QH 2.26, WXV ntelfc CDKa, is regarded as construct or not. I. We do not find in our corpus a participle used as verb with a pro­ nominal direct object, which is perhaps purely accidental, for in 11QT, as Qimron (1986: 76) notes, we do come across forms such as 54.6 naraD (II Deut 13.1 D a n « m m ) and 60.20 DB?mo (II Deut 18.12 vniD DniK). It so happens that all cases of a participle with a personal pro­ noun in our corpus are substantivized with the latter synthetically suffixed to the former: e.g. 1QH 4.20: 22

-'nnbobv

...'^abv

Against those who despise me ... against all those who deride me. /. Every nominalized singular participle in our corpus is invariably determined by means of the definite article: 1QS2.12 n n a a a a n ; 1QS 8.21 empn roan Kan bo-, 1QS 6.25 TO T i n a a a , 1QS 5.7 nmn mvb Kan bo; 2 3

1QS 9.19 unb n t e n bon 'in all that is revealed to them'; 1QS 9.24 ia ntBOT bo 'everything that is done to him'. In view of this, it is possible that telQ at 1QH 10.8 is used verbally:

2 2

Without vocalisation there is no telling whether QH knew the distinction in the Tiberian tradition between and nn. Nor do I know whether our corpus attests to a form such as rQ'tip as in Ps 19.8 tiQjjnzptia. Whether one should vocalize at 1QS 6.25, "TOD TaaiOD 'like one who comes into a besieged city, is difficult to say, because in BH the preposition kaf tends to be vocalized with a shewa when the noun is further expanded. On the other hand, the lamed in ib. 9.22, ^^TDxb, ought to be pointed with a patati, which is confirmed by the parallel n m n n ^ ? there. At 1QS 7.9 one ought perhaps to vocalize npvb pi. Both Lohse and Habermann, however, vocalize the preposition with a shewa, though the parallel clause begins with 2 3

1

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

105

rroifa b r o bmy\ n n biob JTTKI joraDi -pa*) ne? nna mn You are the prince of gods... and rule every creature, not ' . . . a ruler of every creature . The only probable exception is a Qal or Niftd participle of m n , a key-term of Qumranic theology and cosmology. This inevitably leads to some interpretative ambiguities. Though in 1QS 9.26 m m pp cannot mean anything other than 'time to come', with m m thus an adjectival participle, authorities are divided regarding, for instance, 1QS 11.3, 7

mm

->m±> mm

[T]-Q

24

ncran imwtesm,

which could also be interpreted as an attributive participle: 'my eye beheld his wonders, and the light of my mind a mystery in the making'. However, no doubt can be entertained at 1QH 11.13, 25

To be renewed together with all that is going to come into existence, and 1QS 11.11, i r a * V O W I M nnn ' r o i "TO m m irwna

Through his decision everything comes into existence, and all that is extant he establishes with his calculation, where nnn is clearly a substantivized participle. This theological use also includes plural forms of mn Nif al: c

1QH 18.27 ±>2 nrnpn thw nvm

You engraved the events of eternity on the heart of...; CD 13.8 rhw rrrm Dmaafr nso'i

Ai\d he shall recount the events of eternity. 2 4

See, however, 1QS 11.18 n*n rarann rrnri *ro 'all that came into existence was at your pleasure'. Here one may suspect that the participle with the definite article is used, as in BH (see Jouon-Muraoka 1993: §121i), with the force of the suffix conjugation. Although QH possibly knows the use of stative verbs in the suffix conjugation with the translation value of the present tense, there are insufficient grounds for translating the mn here in this way—e.g. Vermes (1995: 88) 'all things come to pass by Thy will', Dupont-Sommer (1987:45) 'existe', as against Lohse (1986:43) 'geschah'. So Dupont-Sommer (1987: 43) le Mystère à venir' and Vermes (1995: 86) 'the mystery to come', as against Lohse (1986: 41) 'das Geheimfnis] des Gewordenen'. Garda Martinez (1994:17) 'the mystery of the future' (but Garcia Martinez [1994:399] translates the same phrase with 'the future mystery at 1Q27.3, 4, so Milik [1955: 103]), Licht (1965: 228) 'mpvi'rom', Charlesworth (1994: 47) 'the mystery of what shall occur'. Charlesworth translates the following poo tfro Kim with 'and is occurring. A support is at my right hand', which is implausible; this addition must as a whole constitute a nominal clause, parallel to 'ro' n^œa m i s a , which he does translate as a nominal clause: 'his strength is the staff (in) my right hand'. Charlesworth (1994:47, n. 289) refers to 1QS 3.15 in support of his interpretation of mm at ib. 11.4, but there, n"n3nnn ron unn ?Ra, it can be rendered '... exists and shall come into being' as against his 'all that is occurring and shall occur'. 2 5

7

1

,

l

106 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA That the definite article in this syntagm (with the exception of n n G and N) does not necessarily carry the usual defining function, but, rather, signals the use of the participle as verb may be seen in the jux­ taposition of a series of clauses prescribing various forms of punish­ ment for misconducts committed by community members: 1QS 7.15, &n> mew TOOT... fo^mo T m wxim One who puts out his left hand ... shall be punished for ten days, is preceded by, among others, 1QS 7.13, ... prv im E P K 'one who spits and followed by 1QS 7.17, ... yfr im BTKn 'one who grumbles See also 1QS 2.25,... tra ?OWDn *7D, and 1QS 8.19, 1

info *]OT3n blob 'to everyone who joins the community . 7

With plural participles no such neat picture is to be obtained: 1QS 5.6, nnfov anfoim... emp ? trananon bvb for all who volunteer for sanctity ... and join them, and lQSal.4, 1

onan'ronK

fo*np*>

They shall assemble all who come, as against lQSa 2.18 D'rao bDb 'to all those who understand'. K. In the following cases we have participles used as modifiers of a noun head: 1QS 6.6 m i m e n n e?n* 'a man who studies the Law';

1QS 9.23 pnb K3pottPKnvnb 'to be a man zealous for the law'; with a definite noun head: 1QS 6.12 i n n n s y m bman e?nci; 1QS 11.5 iDinv 2b nvib nrnsn fox; 1QH 14.8 piDiuv nbn ]rron '3V7K.

26

10. Use and non-use of n^

The question of use and non-use of the nota objecti where the com­ plement is a personal pronoun has been briefly discussed above. Where the complement is a noun or a proper noun, we are still far from a definitive description. Confronted by the following contrasting pairs, we can hardly do better than invoke one of the philologist's valued panaceas, viz. variation in style: 1QS 1.4 O K Q im bo m wxh vs. 1QS 1.3 nnn im * T D mnt6; 2 6

See Libni 1932 and Jouon-Muraoka 1993: §125e-ia; Muraoka 1985:150. The phenomenon described is not examined in Elwolde 1994 or Garr 1991.

107

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION 1QS 9.14 prrcn *n bipvb II 4Q259 frg i col iii 10 pixn '33 nK 'TipBfa; 1QS 9.17 m n n ray nn mob 1

II 4Q285 frg iii col ii 2 instf TIO ?;

1QS 5.22 vpin * T D na -npafr vs. 1QS 3.24 vpin *7D nps. One negative observation we can make is that, out of a total of 44 notae objecti (excluding the three cited in the last paragraph) found in our corpus, none precedes the verb. Furthermore, as many as 25 (57 %) mark the object of an infinitive. Compare 1QS 6.26, vwn 'BnKrmDta,

with 1QH 14.14 "pa n a ' $b. Such an infinitive does not appear to be motivated by the desire to mark the object unambiguously as such, for we have a mere three cases in which an infinitive is followed by both a nominal subject and a nominal object (1QS 5.24 irun m B P K

mvb;

1QS 6 . 9 m ^VTlb; and possibly 1QH 15.20 "[FTD rwi "[1133 m fro] run ?), and moreover there is only one case where anything else intervenes between the infinitive and its object marked by f)K 1

27

(1QS 8.13 mxm - p i m DB rroafr).

The nota objecti precedes a direct object which is determined to varying degrees and which can be either animate or inanimate. 28

11. Semantic and collocational factors Where a verb has distinct senses or enters distinct collocations, the question of its complementation needs to be looked at separately for each of those senses or collocations. For instance, it would be too me­ chanical to assign the preposition lamed the same complementational value of indirect object marker both when it follows the verb ]i"D in the common sense of 'to give to' and when it follows the same verb in a sequence such as that found at Gen 17.6, ynro T will make na­ tions of you'. Likewise one would distinguish between different senses of the G verb KE73 as illustrated by its collocation with D'3S, ]W, etc.

2 7

In the first two cases the presence of the intervening BPK is a function of its idiomatic use. For an attempt to establish a graduated scale of definiteness, see Andersen 1970:33,110.

2 8

108

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 29

II: Database 13K D:

+ suf rei 1QS 7.6 nntf? 'to cause damage to it' (inf) G:

3HK

+ 0 d rei < 1QS 1.3 TTT3 TBK bo mntf? (inO; 1QH 17.24 nrnn« im b*0 (rei cl); + id rei > 1QS 3.26... b\* 3HK nnK (ptc?) + 0 d pers est < 1QS1.9 TT« '33 *?3 3in«*P (inf) + suf 1QH 14.19 *)33HK; 14.26,15.10 H33H« ma D:

30

4

+ b rei > 1QS 10.19 'üD3 man Kib oan Jin ? tD: + 3 rei < 1QS 9.25 TO ¥cb im TIN

^133 n w rob

H: d rei suf < 1QS 2.3 D"n ^303 H33^ TN'; 1QH 3.3 ' 3 2 nrmncP3D nnn^n; 1QH 4.5 ronnsb '33 nnnnvi + 0 id rei < lQSb 4.27 0'31 '33T'Knb (inf); 1QH 4.27 D'3"l '3D rmwRn '3; + 0

> 1QH

9.26

nrn-ron -pnnD t i r o

+ 3 rei < 1QS 4.2 BPK 33*73 T'Knb (inf)

31

2 9

The following terns, abbreviations, and symbols are used: acc = accusative; cogn = cognate; comm = dative of advantage; est = construct; d = determined; dat = dative; dem pron = demonstrative pronoun; dir = direct; id = indetermined; ind = indirect; inf = infinitive; obj = object; obj compl = object complement; pass = passive; pers = person; ptc = participle; rei = of thing; rei cl = relative clause; sim = similarly; st = a noun determined by virtue of a determined noun in the status constructus; suf = suffix; vel = or; 0 = a zero complement; < = a complement to the left, i.e. following the verb; > = a complement to the right, i.e. preceding the verb; G = Qal, D = Ptel, H = Hif% N= M f al, L = Polel, tD = Hitva'el. ^BH,D: + 0 rei (e.g. Mic 7.1 'BQ3 nmK rraa); tD + rw (e.g. Amos 5.18 "> nv m D'won) and + b rei (e.g. Prov 23.3,6 vrmxxb w m ^ ) ; RH,D + b (e.g. b. Sanh 63a nirrfptf? TPR [so Codex Firenze] and b. AZ 53b c

tD + b (e.g. GenR 511> mm vrroa DK vnurb mura erf? DK). On the striking a at 1QS 4.2, cf. Ps 119.135 -pain mn"]'». IsTODunderstood? Or better perhaps is the verb intransitive as in Ez 43.2, and the prepositional phrase simply adverbial, locative.

3 1

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION ]1K

109

H: + b rei < 1QH 4.17

nyiarh T3'mn

rrm G: + suf pers 1QH 4.33 '3mm tD: + ]Dd rei suf 1QS 1.14 DHH^ID bUDO intone K V ? (inf) *?3K G: + ]Q and 0 id rei < 1QS 5.16 bo amn bov wb 'shall not eat anything from their property + suf 4Q159 frg i col ii 4 rrstew + rm d rei suf < 4Q514 frg i col i 6,9 UOlb rm t>3W + 3 rei > 1QH 3.30 towi non tzntQ; < 1QH 5.33 nmKorto rfom-) + 0 id rei < 1QH 2.26 D^I? PtalK em (ptc) H: + suf pers and p < 4Q153 frg ii col ii 3 jon nonp boo (inf)

nboxnb

]DK H: + b < 1QH 8.14 D"n -ypob yano *bn fDK D: +

id

rei

>

1QH

5.9

H P S O K P Q K

mo

TDK G: + 0 d rei suf < 1QS 10.10 rpin *pK G: + 0 id rei < 1QH 5.39 'B?Q3 -pK

H: + id rei (idiom) < 1QH 1.36 O'BK TDnicr

i n G: 1

+ 3 < 1QS 7.18 PQK3 T i n ? (inf); 1QS 7.23 irT3 imb

(inf)

brn H: + suf pers 1QS 2.16 run ? b& rfrim; 1QS 6.25 Q ' 3 n P T T D -ppo irfr-n'; 1QS 7.1,16,4Q258 frg iii col i 1 (+ ]Q) in^ism + P K suf pers et rei < 1QS 5.18 4

Dnb nem bo pro d p t k ^ 1 3 1 * 7 (inf)

+ id rei < 1QS 9.5 0Tip P'3 irrn 'TOK V ? H 3 + ... p < 1QH 7.12 wnb p'T* p 'a ^-an ? (inf) ,a2

4

3 2

Some (Wernberg-Moller, Garcia Martinez and Charlesworth) interpret the verb as Nif al and the following two noun phrases as subject, whereas Dupont-Sommer takes the verb as Hif'il and its plural as impersonal. c

110

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

Hpass.: + p < 1QS 7.3 D'ann nnno p WEU bv bmiD; 1QS 8.24 nnnon p bum N: + p < 1QS 5.1 b*ivn VDM nivo bionb (inf); 1QS 5.10 *?WlTOK"TOD 'nan'? (inf), sim. 1QS 9.20; 1QS 9.9 bwa bionb (inf) + -pro < 1QS 8.13 bwn vom aeno -pro Vrcr HQ

G: + a d rei loc < 1QS 1.16 i n n - p o a D'Kan (ptc); 1QS 2.12 n n a a Kan (ptc); 1QS 3.2 i m n ^ a ^ a « i b ) ] i n n m a n n i ? n (or: w a * with the preceding NP's as objects II 1QS 1.11); 1QS 5.8,20 n n a a aia'; 1QS 5.13 m a a aia' b&; 1QS 8.21 cmpn n s a a aan r o (ptc); 1QS 10.10 n n a a naiaK; lQSa 1.9 'rraaRia ? (inf), sim. lQSa 1.20; lQSa 2.4 nb* *?npa aia'; 1QH 3.22 nma aia ? (inf); 1QH 6.25 Tim T i n a a a (ptc); 1QH6.35 [ . . . n s a o a K i a ' b a ; 1QH 11.21 n a ^ a i a i a n + b < 1QS 5.7 nnn nxvh Kan *ro (ptc) + iv > 1QH 10.33 wan mnn nr 'nan] + 0 d rei st < 1QS 2.18 n n a n 'Ka ' T D (ptc est.) ,

,

,

l

1

4

33

H: + m d rei st < 1QS 1.7 o n n n bo m 'an*? (inf); lQSa 1.23 mvn bia m t w r t n K'an ? (inf) + 0 d rei suf and a < 1QS 1.11 b& i n n D]im omai anvi bia w + 0 d rei suf < 1QS 11.13 'BBCoa K ' a ' i n o n a + 0 d pers suf and 'JEfr > 1QH 7.29 na']Efr... K'an nanoa '3a *7D + *?u pers and 0 id rei < 1QS 6.1 nan r u n bv CB'K K ' a ' ' P K + suf pers and a < 1QS 6.15 n n a a intra'; 1QH 5.16 *p2*oa inanni; 4

34

3 5

3 3

This is apparently distinct from the following D'znnon *?ia wb n n a a Kia\ The translation by Vermes (1995: 76), 'Whoever approaches the Council of the Community shall enter the Covenant of God', is preferable to that of, e.g. Charlesworth (1994:21): 'everyone who enters into the Council of the com­ munity, shall enter into the covenant of God ...'. In other words, -*?Ria is more local than -a*oa followed by a word such as n n a . Cf. 1QS 6.16 TTTVT n2tfft lampa 'as he approaches the Council of the Community . The preposition is instrumental or causal as shown by the following npnsa 7

3 4

ttOBinoft. 3 5

The prepositional phrase here is most likely adverbial, 'concerning', rather than the Aramaizing 7tf of (personal) destination.

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

111

1QH 6.5 rnaempj rain 'airarn + a < 1QH 18.28 n n a a loan ? (inf) 4

nraG: 0 id pers < 1QH 5.20 en n r r a K ? 4

]na G: 4

+ id pers < 1QH 2.13 nDK pe?]K] p a ? (inf) nna G : + 0 (nem) 1QS 1.3 nna nem bo aina ?; l QS11.7... o n : b\* nna nem ? + a pers > 1QS 4.22 &obw m a ? nna oa o (focused obj.); 1QH 15.23 boo nrnna oa; < lQSbl.2aannan; lQSb 3.21 oa nna nem mman prrc *aa; + a rei < 1QS 10.12 t t p ne?Ka(nnnaa=)nnnan; 1QH 9.10 'CDQBQa nnnaro; 1QH 15.19 (rel cl) rmtw? nema n n a n + inf < 1QH 16.10 ' 2 D nan ? Tinna 3 6

4

4

1

4

P 4

+ a rei < 1QH 11.28 TTDTfi^bsn p n ? (inf); 1QS 4.22 p ^ n j n a D n e r p r f ? (inf), or + 0 id pers and a rei/to make upright ones have insight into the knowledge of../, cf. 5Q13 frg 1.9 j w » a p n ? (inf); 1QH 13.13 n ^ b i a a p n ? (inf) + b rei > 1QS 11.22 p ' no nxvb + suf pers and a rei < 1QS 6.15 nmn ^BDO boi mra*; lQSa 1.5 napro]Bra 'roa oran ? (inf) + 0 d pron dem < 1QH 1.37 n ?** i r a ' K ? o-clause < 1QH 17.21... 'a Tnran 4

4

4

4

4

tD: + a rei < 1QS 11.19 na^m^D] *roa jnann ? (inf); 1QH 7.32 -[K^EPewoapiann ? (inf) Xfa D(?): + suf pers 1QH 7.5 *]ifran nin G : + a pers 1QS 2.15 ia n i a * 4

4

3 8

BH uses both syntagms frequently: + 0 and + a. In QH the latter predomi­ nates, but cf. CD 2.15: rrcn -ron r* "nra ?. On a diachronic development, see above, under 1.4. The verb is most likely G, and its collocation with 3 is common in BH: e.g. Isa 42.25.

3 6

4

3 7 3 8

112 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA vpn N (pass?): 1QH 3.32 bwbn '*?m yratb wpan npaD: + bx pers < 1QS 6.12 D'ann bv npaon (ptc) + bv rei < 1QS 6.20 D O T roxbn by npaon ernn (ptc) + suf pers and id rei 4Q159 frg ii-iv 8 ni3QK3 n r p a (impv) ©pa D: + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 2.21 '003 TOpa

+ 0 rei < 1QH 16.6 fm Vplb (inf) m a G: + 0id pers < 1QS 3.17 eroa t n a nam; 1QH 4.38 uem p'ns n n t c n + 0 id pers > 1QH 15.17 nnma CPOTIl + 0 id rei < 1QH 3.25 -jenm ma mmn m a nrom; 1QH 1.13 p « nnma nna; 1QH 1.27 pefta rrn nnana nnK; 1QH 13.11 mennana ? (inf) + suf: 1QH 1.7,13.8 Dnma; 1QH 15.14 4

D: + m d pers et rei suf < 1QS 1.19 inoK *>vvn bu mi miner *?K n« D'anaa (ptc); 1QS 2.1 b\* 'rm TOK na o'anao (ptc)

+ m d rei st < lQSa 2.19 nn^n n'en m "pan + suf pers 1QS 2.2, lQSb 3.25 naana'; 1QS 9.26 uana'; 1QS 10.6 u a n a n (= -nana**), sim. 1QS 10.14,16; 1QH1.31;11.2 naiana' + 0 d pers suf < 1QS 9.26 WW "pa' 39

+ 0 d rei suf < 1QS 10.13 KIQe? "paK; 1QH 2.30 naoe? nana**; 1QH 11.6 naoe? nanaa Ton

H(!): 4

+ a rei < 1QS 6.5 nn^n r r a n a "pan ? (inf)

40

nna

D: 4

+ 0 d rei suf < onjn nna ? (inf) + 0 id rei < 1QS 4.20 na3 'ewo bo... b\* nna' H: 4

+ 0 d rei suf < 1QH 15.10 'ED nan ? (inf) n t a D:

+ 0 id pers (ind obj) and b (dir obj?)

3 9

41

So correctly in MSS B and D. The preposition seems basically to be instrumental. Should the HifHl be genuine, could it mean 'to officiate at the blessing ceremony'? See our discussion above under 1.7.

4 0

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

113

< 1QH 18.14 nzrann nrhu*w i r a ? (inf) 4

nna H(?): + suf pers lQSb 5.28 nDlïX + 0 d rei suf (rei cl) 1QH 1.34 nnnmn n&vmbEi bio + 0 id rei > 1QH 8.35 * E D n r n u n ]wb bn D: + 0 id rei < 1QH 6.15,7.19 nsa brrh (inf) H: + 0 id rei < 1QH 4.29 m t f » ^nan ? (inf) •TOG: + bv < 1QH 2.23 '003 ^ n a 'they assailed my soul' + 0 1QH 7.12 na * 7 D 'all those who contend against me' (ptc) ^ a G: + bo < 1QH 9.35 nrrfoo ^an n*?a 1

42

43

+

0

+

0

d rei suf < 1QH 1.21 ' r f r ' 3 D « nn^a, sim. 1QH 6.4; 18.19 'a'tfnn^a id rei < 1QH 18.4 iBv jm ^arn; 1QH 18.24 n s r

3*p n^am

N (pass):

+ b pers (ind obj)

< 1QS 5.9 prix mb naao n'paan b\2 (ptc); 1QH 5.12 fo TOW nt>an j p (inf)

D: + d rei suf < 1QH 12.34

*>ïb nrrtfl; 1QH 13.3 nr>T n n ^ a

*?ûa G: + 0 d rei suf > and < bv pers 1QS 2.1

vfov boi n o n 'ann ô>y ^ a is late for 'b bùi, e.g. Ps 103. 10,119.19, Jon 4.4);

1QH 9.30 fovnnba: bmG: + n id rei < 1QS 2.26 pns 'OSCOQ r u n m o n irasa n ^ a 45

aha G :

4 2

1

The author of our text would surely have read at Ps 94.21 p n s v & b s M A instead of the MT TTia;. occurs in BH with this verb in the sense of 'to rejoice' only at Zep 3.17; the usual preposition is 3. In the idiomatic collocation ]m RFRA the verb is in G , not D (so pointed by Habermann [1959:115 etc] and Lohse [1986:114, etc.]). 1QH 2.12 is by universal agreement manifestly based on Isa 57.20, where the MT, however, has a G form: W N Y . There is no reason why we should not follow Habermann (1959:116) in reading here also a G , W R A * instead of an H, Torna (so Lohse). 4 3

4 4

4 5

1

114

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 46

+ 0 id rei > 1QH 2.12 TttnTP D'Dl OB"! + by pers and 0 d rei suf < 1QH 8.15 OB&l 'btf w u Cf. 1QH 3.32 BDn clearly a G ptc. pan G: + 3 d rei < 1QS 1.5 31CD WW* biaa pianb (inf); 1QH 16.7 - p - Q DDK3 p i m b (inf) + a pers 1QS 2.15 in p a n + b > 1QH 5.31 pain 71b *jfifr 131 D: + bfc pers < 1QS 5.25 *]K3 Trmbtt 1 3 T bfc; lQSa 2.9 e m p n nsy ba nanb (inf) + a pers ('against'?) > 1QS 7.2 nana n a n . . . D'jman p nnaa + n« II pers < 1QS 7.5 run na n a T + 0 id rei < 1QS 6.11 nan * T D era n a T *?K; 1QS 7.9 baj n a n . . . n a T and b pers 1QS 6.12 D'anb nanb nan ina er (inf), sim. 1QS 6.13; > 1QH 12.32 mi b r nana HQ, sim. 1QH 12.32b + 0 id (?) rei > 1QH 1.23 jrro aba nana n o nnn N (pass): 4 7

1QH 4.9 ^QQinn] p

G: + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 5.13 'JIT ran

«an D: + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 5.17 IDS) HOT - p n G: + 0 d rei suf (idiom) < 1QH 6.30 inc?p m a : "[inn' enn G: + 0 d pers < 1QS 1.1 b\* vrrb (inf) + 0 d rei st < 1QS 8.24 ööüQn lünn + n» d rei suf < 1QS 5.20 Dimn nn lenm

4 6

This passage is not registered in Clines 1995:378. In the light of a contrast between ib. 10.7, nnnns 1**73 "Q"TR noi, and ib. 12.33,'QnnnnQDK^anaiKnoi, this ought to be translated 'what can I speak unless it has been made known?' In other words, Jni3, pace Lohse (1986:114), must be pointed as pf., inti. 1QH contains many unmistakable examples of *t>n with a perfect: e.g. 1.23 TDTO Kt>3,10.7 'rfoün mfa, 12.34 'a rrnbircra.Cf. our discussion in Muraoka 1996 (forthcoming) on 1QS 2.14. The preposition bet is no bet communicationis. We fail to comprehend what Mansoor (1961:101) meant by 'causal conjunctive'. Lohse's rendering, Wie soll ich reden, ohne daß es schon erkannt wäre?', is thus preferable to, e.g. Mansoor's (1961:101), What can I speak that is not foreknown?'. See also Qimron (1986: 77). This K*fa should not be confused with the same combination as in Lam 4.14, 4 7

where the preposition is required by the verb sition, *b, is an asyndetic relative clause.

and what follows the prepo­

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

115

+ suf pers 1QS 5.11 TTOTï; 1QS6.14 ïbowb ... irroilT 'should examine him with respect to his intellect/ sim. 1QS 6.17; 1QH 4.6 rrynrrm; 1QH 4.14,15 naianT; 1QH 4.16 naBnrfr (inf)

+ 0 id rei < 1QS 6.7 ÛQEQ mrù (inO, cf. 1QH 2.15 vmpfTn nzrnn *7ia (ptc) + a rei < 1QS 6.6 nmna ernn BTR (ptc) nanG: 4

+ 0 id rei < 1QH 11.21 ]W 'an man ? (cogn obj) (inf) mn G: 1

+ ^ pers < 1QH 5.31 'a ?

Dnn

G: + 0 id rei loc < 1QS 1.15 biMOm yw mbb (inf); 1QS 11.10 -jpm o ^ n (ptc) + a loc < 1QS 4.6 n a o ^ nTO(na = *?ana) (ptc); 1QS 4.11 -]enn o n n *roa na*?*? (inf); 1QS 4.12 (ptc); 1QS 5.10 nircnn - p n a n o ^ n n (ptc);

n a o^in

1

1QS 8.20 na TD ?» nœa D'osœQn;

1QS 8.21 - p n maria o'a'Tinn (ptc) + b < 1QS 8.13 i2inb robb (inf) + a bwi pers < 1QS 7.15 m i n a b*yi -f?'; > 1QS 7.16 ^an -p* crana D(?): + a < 1QS 8.18 - p n D'Qna -j'xfr (inf); 1QS 9.19 nnb n^aan *7Da... -prb (inf) tD: + a > 1QS 4.15 la'pnn' panna; 1QS 6.1 *obnxv n ^ a ; < 1QS 4.24 n a a n a *obnr\\ sim. 1QS 9.12; 1QH 17.24 bbn D:

+ 0 d rei suf < 1QH 1.30; 3.23 naDE bbrb (inf); 1QH12.3 xrxmnbhwn + suf pers 1QS 10.17 xhbn* L: + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 4.17 annota *7D rrana bbmb (inf) tL: + a < 1QH 4.12 onninoa bbmnnb (inf) non G: + bu pers > 1QH 2.16 IQn' *bv

"ro

116 -pn

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

G: + 0 id rei and b > 1QH 2.17 naa "n nmefr m o m i + p

48

< 1QS 7.18 nmn mo'D imi mm

HDT H: + 0 d rei suf < 1QS 9.9 DannI3tn R V ? IDT

G: + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 4.34 'nTQBR TH3T; 1QH 4.35 nDT TO n a i r a (inf)

H: + 0 id rei < 1QS 6.27nan1'OV DOT G: + 0 1QH 10.5 Dim HQ; and (enmity) < 1QH 4.10 bsfon fox 1QQT + b pers < 1QH 4.26 TD^ODID (ptc) HOT D(?): + a rei < 1QH 11.5 n a n o n a m o m 4 9

TOT

H: + suf pers 1QH 9.7 ^nmrn *b + 0 d rei suf > 1QH 9.11 nnmrn $b laVazn »n

ppTD: + p partitive (= 0 ) < 1QS 4.20 B P R 17 p p r + suf pers 1QH 6.8 opprrn RanD(?): + 0idrei 1QH 5.11 nnan nannn; 1QH 5.25 (rei cl) 'a nnan n a ; 1QH 9.24 naR Ranm nan D: + d pers and b < 1QS 11.8 nm nxvb omo nan 50

51

4 8

The verb cannot possibly mean 'to cast, throw' (so translated by some: Vermes 1987:169, Holm-Nielsen 1960:32, Garcia Martinez 1994:329). It rather means 'to transform, convert'; so Lohse (1986:117) Tcehrten'. This bold combination is unknown to BH. It may be understood as an ap­ plication of bet communicationis. It is followed in our passage by 4 9

nnmwnDmDi);

is common. Cf. our discussion on an alleged Aramaism, under 1.7 above. Most likely a D infinitive. The verb root occurs in D passive in BH (Job 24.4 m?rr). See also a D pass, ptc, D'Rmno, at 1QH 8.6, 18. Despite the palaeographic ambiguity, whether to read zvaw or yod, an impf., pace WernbergMoller (1957: 78f.), is unlikely at this point. nnme?

50

5 1

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

117

enn D:

+ 0 d rei st > lQSb 5.21 V? enrr nrrn

nnai

nrn G:

+ 01QH

2.15

H T O :

mn "ro (ptc)

pm G(?): + inf. < 1QS 3.1 mra^pm wb D: + suf pers 1QH 7.7 'jprnm + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 14.5 j p i n nnpm H: + a rei < 1QS 5.1 rra T B K bion p'rnn*? (inf); 1QS 5.3 n n a a t r p i n a n (ptc); 53 1QH 2.28 -jRnaa I D E M pmrn ; pers and > 1QS 9.14 p'înn ? run n n a a (inf); 52

4

1QH 4.36 iQtfoa np'Tnn

+ 0 id rei < lQSa 2.5,1QH 5.29 TOI» p'mn (inf) + bv pers < 1QH 15.11 D'an ^np'ïïiR

54

D:

+ 0 d rei suf < lQSa 1.17

pîTT;

1

lQSb 3.23 Tinapm ? (inf) + 0 id rei < 1QH 1.31 mn nnpm...

nm

tD: + a 1QH 4.39 n a n n a a npmn«; 1QH 16.7 rjenjp n n a prnnn ?; 1QH 18.9 nannaa prnno 4

aon G: + b pers < 1QH 17.22,23 -\b K I O T O (inf) rm D: + 0 id rei < 1QH 8.36 D'^ID mn nvnb (inf) n^n D:

+ 0 d rei < 1QH

5 2

16.11 - p s n^na

We prefer to take the verb as a defectively spelled Hif'il ptc, rather than Pi<el, as the verb in the sense required here is never used in BH in Pi'el. Or is it possibly a scribal error for D'pmno? Cf. 1QH 18.9nannaa prnno. On the meaning of pmnn 'to apply oneself to (some duty)', see Muraoka 1979b: 97-99. At 1QH 16.7 it is parallel with -apan. Rather than G: so pointed by Lohse (1986:118) and Habermann (1959:117). Garcia Martinez's (1994:330) Thou ... confirmed my soul in your covenant' is not impossible in the context. Holm-Nielsen (1960: 44), referring to Isa 56.4, optsforQal, but in the cited passage (and also vs. 6) we read Tinaa D'p'mo. The sense of the verb in this collocation ('to secure a position') is clearly different from that of -ap'trm 'to hold fast to, adhere to'.

5 3

5 4

118

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

^ H : + inf. < 1QS 9.10 ncrtf? 1*7nn; 4

4Q514 frg i col i 4,7 mno ? *?nn

+ 0 d rei suf < 1QS 11.13

'rasa ybrr> nnüQ

pbn D: + 0 id rei < 1QS 10.25 pin npbnK nan G:

+ bv pers < 1QH 2.25 Dmn

ian

]an G: + suf pers 1QS 2.3 a*nb\v nana r o a m ; 1QS 2.8 b\* r o a r r wb;

lQSb 2.22,24,25 naam'; lQSb 2.26,27 naaaTT; 1QH 14.25 'iran; 1QH 16.9 'aamn non G: + a > 1QH 9.28 n'on« naa

ppn Gpass.: + 0iQHl.24pipn ron l

+ 0 id rei > and a 1QH 18.27 ]±>2 n n p n tbw nvna ann H: 55

+ d rei st < lQSb 5.24 p R annn p n G:

+ 0 id rei < nircn CDS0Q pnrf? (inf) pnn G:

+ 0 id rei < 1QH 2.11 D'X? ipnrr era ? 1

aon

G: + + + +

inf. < 1QH 2.32 Dnnb lacan im jvat* rasa suf pers and (obj compl) < 1QH 4.9 naiR "bob 'aiarann 0 d rei > 1QH 4.13 laiCOTT bsrbl mQT 0 id rei > 1QH 5.26 l a r a r Da ? min nom 1

H: + suf pers 1QH 3.6 'jnvfflv [; sim. 1QH 4.8 Hpass.: 56

+ a < 1QS 5.11 i n n a a iac?nn wb

tD: + 01QH 10.5 acannRna + DJ? > 1QS 3.1 aranm wbjyiar ntf

7

5 5

7

The definite article was probably washed away (Charlesworth 1994:129, n. 37). Though a scribal error for in&ma or normn is not impossible, note Si 7.16:m> m a "pe?nn "a*. The difficult p n at 1QS 3.3, ZKDrrn' vcb D'O'an p a , may be an error for p w 'among the number o f or p may mean land, sort'.

5 6

5 7

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

119

N: + a < 1QS 5.18 i m a a raom + b > 1QH 18.26TO0TT3nD? 1

nnn H: 58

+ suf pers 1QH 2.34 'Jinnnn ïtb + jo < 1QH 7.8 n a n n a o nnnnn [K]*? D: 1

+ suf pers 1QS 4.21 emp r m a nno ? (inf); + ]Q 1QS 11.14 ÜT3Km»'3TnD'; 1QH 11.30 n a n p - n o ' r n û ; 1QH 16.12 'nnefr (inO + 0 id rei and jo > 1QH 3.21 an xmn nrnno mm rrn + 0 id pers and p < 1QH11.10 JJUDD a n » n r n n o . . . tD: 1

+ ]D > 1QH 6.8 HQORQ nnon ? (inf)

mo G: + 0 d rei st < 1QH 4.23 ^ o ' e n n r r *7D 'as nenaa nnno a b pO G: +

0

id rei > 1QH 2.29 HDErf? T 3 Q O

OTTO

*pü G: 0 id rei < 1QH 5.14 HT

OQ3IDnO'

H: + pers (ind obj) and 0 d rei suf < 1QS 11.15 ipnx btib rrmö (inf) + suf pers 1QH 2.20,31; 3.19,37; 4.5; 5.5; 7.6; 11.3,15 nam* 59

i r r G: +

0

d rei suf < 1QS 2.22 rra B P R 'aner

*7D

1

run ? (inf);

1QS 4.25 pœtfu tfTU« i n ' n a n ;

+ + + +

1QH 1.7 omMD nrWT; 1QH 4.32 TOI» *ro W T ; 1QH 6.12 nanQRDna'Tia i r r ; 1QH 7.16 nanay ns* n r w r ; 1QH 9.12 TiD'Tomm 0 d rei st < 1QS 5.11 n n n o n run ? (inf) 0 id rei < 1QH 7.13 nwvo n>r biD rmsrv nna d dem pron > 1QH 1.21 nanrao T W T n ?**; 1QH 5.3 n*?K Tuna (inf) PK d rei suf < 1QS 5.19 T i n a PR iirr Ri ?; 1QH 15.20 -jma nro -[maa na faa] run ? (inf) suf pers lQSa 1.10 nrun ? ncoK; 1QH 9.30 'anirp; 1QH 9.35 ']tfT; 1

4

1

1

+

5 8

1

To be pointed 'anhnn or such like, and not 'xpnnn (Habermann 1959:117; Lohse 1986:118). Cf. also Qimron 1976:198. Cf. Ps 107.8,15,21,31 DTK v±> vrwhBO) nor? rn\

5 9

120 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 1QH 12.11 ramsrv; 1QH 12.22 raw + a < 1QS 8.18 orey ban srv b\*f*> 1QH 9.9 n a n o i o w p + a clause < 1QS 10.16,1QH 3.20; 6.6; 9.14 ... ROnmR; 1QH 2.22,33 ... KO W *b. Also 1QH 4.30; 11.7; 14.12; 15.12,13,22,23,25; 16.4,10,11; 18 21. + TOR clause < 1QH 6.7... TORT)tf[T H: + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 1.29; 13.13 rDTQD WITlb (inf) + suf pers and a rei < 1QH 4.27 naR*?D 'Da 'JDimn; 1QH 11.9 nanaR n o a orumn; > 1QH 7.27 *3rumn naR^D T O ; 1QH 10.4 i ^ n n [nanajR -noa + b pers and 0 d rei < 1QH 4.28 naTmo:D"nn bab vnmb + suf pers and 0 id rei < 1QH 11.16TORn o 'rumn

61

62

TTP

N: 4

+ pers < 1QS 5.20 BHip mift HTH ? (inf) + or suf pers < 1QS 5.14 irnoaa inv nn" mb; and + a 1QH l l . l l ravoinp nu bitn... nmn ? (inf) 4

D: 1

4

+ b rei < 1QH 9.10 ronon ? Tfrrr; 1QH 11.31 naaio ? rbn* H: + inf < 1QH 7.18 pflV? ^ m R TO' H: 1

+ PR pers < 1QS 5.24 iron nR e?'R main ? (inf) + suf pers 1QS 5.26 urrav

The preposition a in this collocation, also found in Ps 31.8 and Job 35.15, is comparable with that in -a pan; see above. According to Jenni (1992: 252) such a bet comes under bet of 'geistiger Kontakt', in particular 'Aufmerksamkeit, Einsicht'. Though BH affords no example of -a jjmn, the preposition prefixed to a noun indicating the contents of knowledge, -airp, does occur once: Ps 31.8 nDBanrnarurr. Cf. Jenni 1992:252f. The preposition in our 1QH passage is hardly instrumen­ tal: does m m + acc. pers. mean 'to make someone a knowledgeable person, expert (]1ST)', as suggested by Vermes's (1995: 202) rendering, Thou hast given me knowledge through Thy marvellous mysteries'? ® The syntagm < spmn + b pers + acc. rei> is well attested in BH: e.g. Exod 18. 20 "pnn m dtp rarrro; Ps 103.7 rwcb vann sniv. 6 0

6 1

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION + + + +

63

121

4

0 id rei < 1QS 9.17 noa n j n rrain ? (inf) d rei suf > 1QS 10.11 n'3lK 3 pers < 1QH 9.23 n nprorr b pers and 0 d rei suf < 1QH 18.121311 "ion 64

n'Oirfr (inf)

by G: 1

-10'

+ inf. < 1QS 11.20 ... borfr blD* ' 0 G (or D): + 0 id rei < 1QS 3.25 newo bo 1 0 ' ]VFbV; 1QS

5.5

P D R

TOD

"10'*?

(inO

+ 0 d rei suf < lQSb 3.21 nDnbv 1 0 ' ; 1QH9.12 ' n n n r n o ' + suf pers 1QH 5.9 ' 3 P 1 0 ' *]0'

H: + ^ 1QH

15.22

N N P R A N NRFTUJBI

+ d rei and a resumptive pron suf > 1QS 11.11

- t o w r is a familiar BH collocation. The verb is foreign to RH.

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION TO* T r a o r a a r m n ' r a BTD D: 1

+ bv < 4Q159 frg ii-iv 9 Î T » BTO r t e D: + inf. < 1QS 6.10 IDnh VîTïR H ^ D ' + 0 id rei < 1QH 5.36 rra rrfo ? (inO; 1QH 8.31 i r a ntD^Gnf) 1

nam;

+ suf pers 1QS 3.17 nboby

1QH9.34 rh±om +

< 1QH 9.36 roncara 7D ? W » n l

l

tfDH: 1

+ 0 id pers < lQSa 1.21 trflJPDn ? (inf) TED D :

67

+ 0 d rei suf < 1QS 2.8 ymv 1EDb (inf) + 0 id rei < 1QH 4.37 ]TW TSDn + b pers (comm ?) < 1QS 5.6 o m a n o n bob T E D ? (inf) + b rei < 4Q159 frg i col ii 2 prra&B bob T E D + i r a pers vel rei (= peccati) < 1QS 8.6,10 p a n i r a I E D ? (inf); 4

4

?

(inf)

4

1QS

11.14

TTDTIJJ ^ D ira

w

+ bv rei (= peccati) < 1QS 9.4 D Q E K bv

1

TED ?

(inf)

Cf. Dpass.: 1QS 3.6 Trniru? ' T D n s r o ' ; 1QS3.8 inon i s r a n . niD H: + 0 i d p e r s < l Q H 4.20 HDTQTOKbo B[BEpn rTDn; 4 1QH 4.26 r e s nmi; *TO OSXOQD nnsn ? (inf) G: + n


1QS 3.3 ma ' a m ? û'a' - p i r n + a rei < 1QS 3.7D"nn niRa û'arfr (inf); 1QS11.19 na*n powa tran ? (inf); 1QH 10.20 na-naaa'D'ana (inf); >1QS11.3 rrro n a *>02b rnwi '3'i> ntran v m t t e a a ; 1QS 11.5 '3'i> ntron 0*711; t w r a 1

7 0

1

This must be a jussive. Lohse's and Habermann's pointing, nia , is dubious. Point na\ In the OT the verb combines with HDB in Qal, e.g. Isa 43.25; 44.22; Ps 51.3. II !Qß9.2D ...borfrynö. On the zero-linkage in BH, see Num 12.18; 23.21; Isa 64.8. Pace Charlesworth, the verb does not mean 'to consider' (similar Garcia Martmez: 'he regards darkness as paths to light'). We prefer Maier's 'und Finsternis schaut er für Wege des Lichtes' and Vermes's 'for seeking the ways of light he looks towards darkness'. 7 1

7 2

126 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 4

+ b\* rei < 1QH 4.11 DHOTI b\* O'an ? (inf) IH3H: + 0 id rei < 1QH 8.18 D'tOTO lira'

m G: + a < 1QS 5.13 empn vox* rnnoa nmb (inf), sim. 1QS 8.17; 1QS 6.16; 7.19 D'ann m n a a w K I ? ; 1QS 6.20 D'ann npüQa W X sim. 1QS 7.20; 1QH 11.21 'psiniOTI + b < 4Q258 frg i col i 7 B?npn] TOKmncfr I O T vb (II 1QS 5.13 ... m n o a ) H 'to bring into contact/: + suf and a < 4Q513 frg ii col ii 1 lOTipninTiDaDinn ? (inf) ttHDH: + suf pers 1QS 9.16 W>Tb (inf); 1QS 11.13 '3ü'3n; 1QH 12.23 Dnrai; 1QH 14.19 TXTM; 1QH 16.12 (inf); and b < 1QH 14.13 yumb varxi ai3 tD: + inf. < 1QS 5.1 aiB^D'aianon (ptc); 1QS 5.10 i i c n a -\bmbi... D'a-unon (ptc); 1QS 5.21; 6.13 + < 1QS 5.10 motf? in' D'ainon (ptc) m3 H: + suf pers and ]Q 1QH 4.8 '2nKD ' 3 T T T ai3 D: + 0 id rei < 1QH 8.13 V 1 D aai3' *?a TU H: + 0 d rei and a pers > 1QH 7.6 'anniD'annaümp nri; < and bv vers 1QH 17.26 -pai>?j; [TDjoTip rrn nrnsrcn + 0 id rei < 1QH 8.33 T fprft (inf); 1QH 8.22 T 'D'3na (inf) HT3G: + 0 id rei and bv < 1QS 4.21 nQK m i T ^ r m nra H: + suf pers 1QS 9.18 DTTinan? (inf) 4

1

7

3

1

**T3

H:

+ suf rei and b pers < 1QS 4.26 aio nvib B P R '3a ? j ? w i 1

7 3

1

Less probably, an H form of a doubtful root nn (pace Habermann [1959:118 'JJTTl Lohse H986:125] ' F T ) . a

n

d

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

127

+ suf pers and a rei < 1QS 11.7 owip toraoto^O); 1QH 17.15 DTKTiaaboitfrnïïb (inf) + suf pers (dir obj) and d rei (?; dir obj) < lQSb 3.28 [... j rven robnr 74

om D: 75

+ a pers < 1QS 10.21 o n o n oma wb + suf pers 1QH 9.13; 11.32 *3nom N: +

to 1QS 10.9 ram TOD y * r + 0 id rei < 1QS 6.1 ] Y U > V * ? ^ KBP; 4Q513 frg ii col ii 5 ]TU> KB73; lQSa 1.20 7VW KB?Q nKB?? (inf); 1QH 6.34 031KB73...; 1QH 10.25 nbv PB?*? ( = n K B ? ? ) (inf); 1QH JT1 '3D KB?K *b; 1QH 16.16 HDB NETO (ptc) + 3 rei < lQSb 4.23 Dnzmp Brra PKB?? (inf); > 1QH 9.4 KB?n H3'pn 'EHi; 1

4

1

1

7 9

14.19

80

81

7 7

So in BH: Ezek 24.8 npjDpfr In BH the prep. fomed used with this verb in Qal indicates the personal target of an act of vengeance as in Nah 1.22, i n s ? D p i , so also Ezek 25.12. This complementation occurs alongside that with mem as in 1 Sam 24.13,'xapai "|DQ'\ and sim. Num 31.2, TOlDnnwa. This is particularly prominent in Nifàh, e.g. Jer 46.10. On the other hand, in Josh 10.13, ^ np\ we find a zerocomplementation, which one may also identify in the above-mentioned 1 Sam 24.13. Thus the lamed complementation at 1QS 7.9 is unique: one could only refer to Jer 15.15, ' B T T O D p 3 H , where the verb is, however, a Ni/faZ. It appears then that the lamed at our 1QS passage is a plain dat. commodi. So Licht 1957:157 and Mansoor 1961:165. Is this a bet to introduce a direct object? Milik (1955: 126f.), whose translation, 'présider à la tête des saints', does not quite agree with what his footnote seems to be driving at, usefully mentions Si 11.13, where the preposition displays similar syntax in xtimnttf». On Num 11.18, DrnKÈDDn^nK Tato, also mentioned by Milik (1955:127), see Jenni 1992:273. This sentence division is more likely than that of Lohse (1986: 146), who construes 'fcriK with the preceding 'in* to make a construct phrase, '(çnR which is an unattested combination, the reverse sequence of which is attested. Licht (1957:143) appropriately refers to Job 7.13. The preposition bet here is categorized by Jenni (1992: 273) as Teilnahme am Lastentragen', though we may have here to do with ellipsis of ^Tp. 7 8

1

7 9 8 0

8 1

1

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

129

H: + suf pers and id rei < 1QS 5.14 HOOK ]TU> m?W ]B Test he should burden him with the penalty of guilt ( ? ) ' 82

303 H: + 0 id rei < 1QS 6.14 lOTQ per DK + suf pers 1QH 5.29 Dnsoa '3Wzn; 1QH 17.9 Dtron ]ra G :

+ suf pers 1QH 8.4 D^îu mpoa ^nnp + suf pers (ind obj) and 0 d rei (dir obj) < lQSb 3.26 ROQTPQ [ ] rosir + suf pers (dir obj) and b < 1QS 2.5 7\mb*7VT?P 1QH Z.lOtrajftwia + b pers < lQSb 3.5 7\zh p D'ppj;; 5Q13 frg 2.7 V? ]nn + b pers and 0 id rei < 1QH 11.27 nvi bDV piDi3vf? nnro + suf rei (dir obj) and b pers > 1QS 11.7 ubw nxrwb mm b\* nna umb + 0 d rei < 1QS 2.17 Utobw m i K -jinn ftTU p ; 1QH 4.26 TOOD DKITD ]NRN; 1QH 10.22 sœa bv '3OTQ nnn3 a ? + 0 id rei < 1QS 4.17 rhw nan* p i ; 1QS 4.18 n*7U> nvn*? PP p ; 1QH 9.10 TOiar 'En n3nn ]nrn; 1QH 11.4 n m n *aa p n + 0 id rei and *7 rei < 1QH 2.7 TiBD [*7n]^ PC? ? n3^Q p n + a rei < 1QH 3.35 DTipa 13PP + 0 rei and a (rei cl) 1QH 12.11; 13.19; 16.11 'a nnm im n n a ; 1QH 17.17 'a nnn3 nœa rnrrno; 1QH 14.8 n3'a [ n a i p r a ' p a p o n (ptc) 84

4

4

85

aao G:

+ suf pers 1QH 2.25 03iaao=) Diaao L: + suf pers 1QH 5.34 '3iaaT0' ] i n [TTIF3[R]

The locution is apparently based on Lev 22.16 nam p) DniK ttofcm. Cf. Deut 28.25; Jer 15.4; 24.9; 29.18; 34.17. mro, an error for '3nra? So Licht 1957:124. The idiomatic collocation bip p occurs three times in the OT with the preposition bet: Ps 46.7; 68.34; Jer 12.8. Cf. also Jenni (1992:96-99). 8 2

8 3 8 4 8 5

130 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA -DOG: + 0 id rei < 1QH 5.9 unvSD 'Q TUDm + ivn < 1QH 5.14 aroa? u n n r r a o N (pass): + -wa < 1QH 3.18 bw n n n 102 nne? *vbi r u c n

TO N: + nn«Q d pers < 1QS 2.16 *7K nrrKQ morra (inf)

-no G: 1

+ ] D < 1QS 1.15 inoK >pino mo*? H I ? (inf); 1QS 8.17 rroon ^lao mo'; 1QS 6.15 ' T W 'TOO mo ? (inf); 1QH 15.11 nrrc* - W R ^lao mo[ + 0 id rei < 1QS 3.10 "TiHDBTl ]'0' liob «I ? (inf) 4

4

H: + 0 d rei suf and ]Q < 1QS 9.20 bw brx l a m non wb nbo G: +

4

pers < 1QH 14.24OTD'3C0 ? rfaon (ptc)

TOO G: + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 2.7 TDQ] -poom + 0 pers (rei cl) 1QH 18.13 nnaoo um T 2 T + suf pers 1QH 7.6; 9.32 '3D300 ISO D: + na d rei est < 1QS 1.21 ^ r n p - r s n K o n a o o (ptc); 1QS 1.22 b*mr '33 rruny m o n o o o (ptc) + 0 d rei est > 1QS 10.23 o t o k bva\ *>2wb neon mpis + 0 d rei suf > 1QH 1.25 TlKön 2D3K noo' HQ!; < 1QH 12.30 n a n a a ^ a ISO ? (inf); 1QH 1.30,33; 3.23 rD'mtf?Efl 1EOb (inf); 1QH 10.20 rüTTIN »] maoR; 1QH 11.6 n a n a a mSOK; 1QH 13.11 nao*; 1QH 17.17 j m p T S nao ? (inf) + 0 id rei < 1QS 10.24 nooK rrern raun run + n rei < 1QH 11.28 nanon a n a naofa (inf) + (ind obj) and 0 d rei suf < 1QH 6.11 rDTntfts) D ^ n n n ? nao ? (inf) 86

4

1

4

87

4

8 6

4

4

Whether one takes the verb in the rare sense of 'to count exactl/ or such like (Ps 22.18), the interrogative can hardly be its direct object as translated by Vermes (1987:167), 'What shall a man say concerning his sin?', for which one would expect bo. Lohse's (1986:115) 'Wie soll ein Mensch seine Sünde auf­ zählen ...?' is to be preferred: see also Holm-Nielsen (1960:18). For this sense of the interrogative, see BDB, s.v., §2a. Such a force of it is also recognisable in the following two clauses both beginning with the same interrogative. Corrected in the manuscript from nnoR 'I shall conceal'. 8 7

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

+ b (ind

131

obj) and 0 id rei < 1QH 18.23 n r a ~wnb 100*? (inf)

nno

EK?): + suf rei and ]Q < 1QS 8.12 ntoo imncr to + suf pers 1QH 5.11 OIK *33 "TO ' X i i n o 88

+ na d rei st < 1QS 9.17 mmn raj; na naob (inf) II 4

+ 0 4Q285 frg iii col ii 2 may nno ? (inO + 0 id rei < 1QH 5.26 m*3 yvn mno H: + suf pers and ]Q 1QH 3.38 noiriQ ninno ' r v n o n + riK d rei (cogn obj) < lQSa 1.13 mOT NTOJJ DK TQJFR (inf) + suf pers lQSb 5.28 roraw; 1QH 16.18 Jinwb (inf) + 0 d pers st < 4Q159 frg ii-iv 2 D"i:n G: 7

+ 3 ('to join a covenantal community ) d rei st < 1QS 1.16 m a n rmv>; 1QS 1.18 n n n a D-QTU (inf); 1QS 1.20; 2.10, n n m o n n i O T (ptc); 1QS 2.19 -pou... sim. 1QS 2.21 + 0 ('to transgress') id rei < 1QS 5.7 pin n a w to) (ptc); 1QS 5.14 ran nrrwto) (ptc); 1QS 8.22 nana rnino n m HUSP" + to < 1QH 12.24 n a n a i to in2xb wb (inf) + suf rei 1QH 6.21 n n a w to H: + 0

TU>

id rei < 1QH 6.35 rpw

(ptc)

BIB

H: + to pers and 0 d rei st < lQSa 1.11 tninn niBEXBQ v t o TOT ? (inf) 1

90

1

Licht (1965: 196) holds that the text is dependent on Isa 29.15, n^nnp ?, with a defectively spelled H infinitive; cf. 4Q259 frg i col iii 14, Tnob. BH is consistent in the use of zero-complementation: both EBH (Josh 7.11 'nnn na) and LBH (e.g. 2 Chr 24.20 " nrao nt), whereas QH also displays an tocomplementation: 1QH 12.24 man by iwb Kt>. See s.v. lira. On this extremely difficult passage, see Licht (1965: 257) and Baumgarten (1957:266-69). Licht mentions Jer 6.10 as exemplifying the combination of the verb with bv. The clause cannot possibly mean 'to witness the precepts of the Torah' (so Charlesworth 1994: 113). Vermes's (1987: 101) 'when he calls to witness the judgements of the Law' has some justification, though in BH the object to be invoked is always personal (e.g. Isa 8.2) or heaven and earth (e.g. Deut 4.26) or just DHP (e.g. Jer 32.44). Perhaps in addition to emending bnpn 8 8

8 9

9 0

132

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

TUJ L:

+ 0 id rei < 1QH

9.3 nttp

T T U P

mi> G: +

< 1QH 8.36 non

mtf? (inf)

91

awG: b pers and 0 id rei < 1QS 9.22 ]in Tib rntxb (inf) + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 2.36 nanTQtf 3 i u / ? (inf); 1QH 9.11 TTipn n r a w vb; cf. 1QH 6.6 naon ar\v (ptc) + 0 id pers < 1QH 5.20 OTP nri3W tib + suf pers 1QH 5.5,6,12, '3mu>; 1QH 9.35 'JTQHJ n a ' t o 'OK + ]Q < 1QH 15.12 Tpm ^130 3 W (inf?) 92

pu> G:

+ 0 d rei < 1QH

8.22

vite p w f r

(inf)

nwG: 1

+

93

pers < 1QS 3.24 T I K '33 ' T D ? nw + 0 id r e i < 1QH 2.34 *3JJ B03 n m w + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 5.6 "n nneo nrarri; 1QH 7.23 '©03 nrnn> 94

9 5

nto H: 4

96

+ 0 id pers < 1QS 5.24 *foC0 ^ erR mton ? (inf); 1QH 5.22 ion *7W 1W ]TWDD niton*? (inf) + suf pers 1QH 3.19 oto; on ? 'arpton ]V73R toraa 4

nor H: + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 2.8 main 7ian 'QUO n o r m ; 1QH 9.12 *rrn nnioOT 'xfr + suf pers 1QH 7.19 nanno*? ^ m o r n ; 1QH 7.31 na'JBfr DTDOT ? (inf); 1QH 10.6 ^mOOT l

1

n:v G: + 3 'to testify against' < 4Q159 frg ii-iv 9 n 3 n3^ + b suf pers < 1QH 4.18 on ? m m 4

9 7

to topn\ vbv should be followed by to. Based on Isa 50.4 n:n nt* ITO?. If our author understood this hapax verb in the sense of 'to help', the lamed would be analogous to that of nw. The syntagm is analogous to ]Q 1 1 0 or is the ]D partitive, 'none of your statutes'? One expects nur or onn». The form could be a noun: This syntagm or that with ft* is firmly established in BH, e.g. Ps 10.14 Tru>n nnnRDin\ On the basis of these few examples one cannot with confidence speak of a possible lexico-semantic complementary distribution, namely *? pers and r)R rei: note a fluctuation in rrypTib nni? toiar n* I T w 'Q toi (Mekhilta on Exod 15.7, ed. LA. Rabin, p. 135). Rather than a Nipal infinitive. In BH the verb is never used with lamed. See our discussion above, under 1.4. 9 1

1

9 2

9 3

9 4

w

9 5

9 6

9 7

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

133

N: 4

+ m d suf < 1QS 6.25 ion ? rrjran m ymv: + 0 id rei < 1QS 7.2 nro* rro mm, sim. 1QS 6.27; 7 . 3 , 4 M S , 5, 6,8Ms, 13,14Ms, 15,16,18, 19; 9.1; 4Q159 frg ii-iv 9 D'3Q '30 TOJB* G: + 0

id rei < 1QH 8.23 TWO 1QH 10.11 T c u r r r a and + ]Q < 1QH 4.11 O'KDSD run npca

rain

D:

+ nK d rei suf < 1QS 6.22 wr m list? (inf) tD: + a rei < 1QS 6.170'ann p a a n s r r *?&; 1QS 7.24 irnncn T Q ^ anrrv; and + o r < 1QS 8.23 You; D I D w r a . . . a n w r to ? + o r < 1QS 9.8 rrann '273« pn o r D3in anrrv 1

-puG: + 0

d rei st < 1QS 6.4

4

'TDK ?

yfrnan IDWP

G: + 0 id rei < 1QS 1.5 VEMO) npn2fl nQK rmwfr (inf), sim. 1QS 8.2; 1QS 5.3 1TPTORutoxh (inf); 1QS 7.5 men near; 1QS 9.23 pan rmwft (inf)

+ nK d rei est < 1QS 9.13

pin m ntoxh (inf)

+ 0 d rei < 1QS 1.2 morn ai&n rrttHfr(inf); 1QS 1.7 i n ' r o rrtt?!^ (inf); 1QS 1.7 'pin mew) ? (inf); 1QS 5.12 nQ-ITATBWRRFAUN 'they treated the revealed things with insolence'; 1

99

9 8

All these are examples of a doubly transitive G-stem, as in 2 Chr 36.3: *)CD -oa nKQ prci in r * dan. The above-quoted example at 1QS 6.25 with ntt shows that these accusatives were felt to be genuine accusatives. On the striking reading rbm, see Wernberg-Moller 1957: 111 and Licht 1965:159. For the use of double accusative with this particular verb, compare Lev 22.16: na0R DniR *ofern. Incidentally, these QH examples demonstrate that, pace Konig (i897: §3271), there is no need to suppose that at 2 Chr 36.3 a 3 has been inadvertently dropped on account of a phonetically kindred 0. The zero-linkage is striking. Is it possibly a result of an occasional misuse of the object marker RM for the preposition nR 'with' (e.g. Josh 10.25 DNIKD'DrfaDnK)? Perhaps it is better to identify here a rare sense of the verb, 'to treat', as in Ezek 23.25, nana ^rrfc ten 'and they will treat you with wrath', and ib. 29, RNCFTN"|RRO ten 'and they will treat you with hatred', though in both cases the object is personal. 9 9

134

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 4

1QS 9.15 ibexbo mew ? (inf); lQSa 1.22... wrrnvrmsp; 1QH 10.12 rfra " T O rtnwv; 1QH 18.21 nba nrrow; TO ?; > 5Q13 frg 4.4 WSP rfrfc + 3 and 0 id rei < 1QS 5.12 DC ' DSXD 03 nTOfr (inf); 1QH 15.19 ufoniui&muinmxh (inO + jo (partitive) < 1QH 14.18 jnn 7DD rnTO TfraiVi] (inf) 4

100

l

N: + o pers < 1QS 9.24 in mown ^lo (ptc)

101

1RDD: + suf 1QH 13.17 TTIKBTI m o G: + 0 id rei and ]Q < 1QH 2.32 ]V3K e?D] p r i m a mp^n Tznn rrwm; + 0 d rei suf 1QH 2.35 D'TTK TO 'CBS] "IDPI; 1QH 3.19 niroo 'e?Q] nnno ins D: + 0 d rei suf and 3 rei < 1QS 4.2 bwvsxaanttbinEh 'to make his heart fear God's judgements' (inf) 102

+ 0 d rei suf < 1QH 1.16 onTOtfOn^O... + suf rei 1QH 1.18 nrrrcoc* biob n^sm 4

+ suf pers and ]Q < lQSb 1.7 ] *TOa rDO ?©' + id rei > 1QH 5.18 nno^S 0Q] + d rei suf < 1QH 9 . 3 3 O ^ S ? (inf) 4

naB D: + nK d rei est < 1QS 8.13 Rrwn y n m OB rrna ? (inf) 1

1 0 0

103

As in BH: e.g. Exod 12.12 and Ezek 16.41; but in 2 Chr 24.24 we find rtt 'with' (?), with which compare a rare use of nfc at Zee 7.9, vm nn era ios marm lom, instead of the usual Dtf in this idiom. 101 j interpretations of the preposition have been proposed: agent of a passive verb, so e.g. Lohse (1986: 35), 'durch ihn', Dupont-Sommer (1987: 38), 'par Lui', and person to whom something happens, e.g. Vermes (1987:75) and Charlesworth (1994: 43), 'all that befalls him'. The former seems to us rather unlikely, whereas for the latter one might cite Dan 9.13, 'a great disaster ... as it happened to Jerusalem (DfrznTD)'. It is, however, uncertain that such a usage can be applied to a neutral situation as in our 1QS passage. This fairly frequent BH verb is never linked to the object of fear by means of bet. The only case of some relevance known to us is Jer 51.46, ntfiora TRTD 'you will be scared of the rumour'. Isa 40.3, on which the text is based and which is actually quoted in the sew

1 0 2

1 0 3

o

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

+ 0 d rei 1QS 9.19 mnb

135

rrœTO(inf)

jrm

+ 0 d rei dem < 1QH 11.33 n*?K nnbvB nna rrca G: + bo pers and 0 d rei suf < 1QH 5.11 orrafovrca + 0 id rei < 1QH 7.21 na T2ßn i p a G: 104

+ 0 id rei < 1QS 2.6 r f o ronnK T>pa\1QH 14.24 D O T ]Tj> i p i a (ptc) + n« d rei suf < 1QS 5.22 vpin T D nR "npa ?; 1QS 5.23 ornraoi orrn n« m p i a rrrrfr (ptc) 1

+ 0 d rei suf < lQSb 3.2rapjDTip*7D TipD'; lQSb 3.24 vpin * T D n p a + suf pers 1QS 6.21 r m p a ' + inf. < lQSa 1.9 t r a ' w n p a i (ptc) m a H: 1

+ 0 id rei < 1QH 8.6TOman ? (inf); 1QH 8.10TO nnBQ (ptc)

:na G: + m d rei suf < 1QS 6.26 irra:; TO' PR Bind? (inf) nna H:

+ 0 id rei < 1QH 2.26

nan; 1QH 13.12 m p 'D'p nan ? (inf) 1

una

G: + 0 id rei 1QH 2.29 nbn Tobn fo îœna

105

ran

N (pass): 1QH 3.26 era ' 3 D b v . . . nvvn mtcfia * T D lenan nna

G: + 0 d rei < 1QS 10.2 insiR nna' + 0 d rei suf < 1QS 10.23 'a rrnaR; 1QS 11.3 m R nna; 1QS 11.15 roiTOa'pn^nmsn (ptc); 1QH 10.7; 12.33 'annnna; 106

quel, lacks the particle, and so does the quotation. On ronrro, see Jer 29.18. No exactly similar collocation is known to BH. One wonders, however, whether the verb is actually a Hif'il, for which we may quote Lev 26.16: 71*313 uybs Tnpsm 'and I will appoint terror against you'. 105 Possibly an asyndetic relative clause. 106 I Q G 1113^ ifl-B NNS DK, must be a case of incongruence in view of ib. 10.17, rns nrem; on the Nif'al of this verb, cf. Jer 1.14: runn nnsn JTDSD. Thus one should reject 'wenn er meine Bedrängnis löst' (Lohse) and 's'il fait déferler sur moi la détresse' (Dupont-Sommer). 1 0 4

1

136 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 1QH 15.16 TOBD r r a bo n n s b (inf); 1QH 8.21 OTipD nnnra; 1QH 11.31 n a c o nnnna inyirnm'po'? + 0 id rei < 1QH 5.26 ipe? ])vb innQ; > 1QH 5.33 ^aata nnnnQ a m o *?K nn«; 1QH 6.30 T E D rmsr; 1QH 12.13 n^i'DD^nnnniQ]; 1QH 18.12 mpormBm + 0 id rei and b pers < 1QH 2.18 o*rao " T O ? run -npo mris ? (inf) N (pass): 1QH 3.26 n r a 'ns *?a nnana (inf) piSH: + suf pers lQSb 4.22 napniP + 0 d rei suf > 1QH 9.9 pnsK naOEXBQ D: + inf. < 1QS 5.22 r\wvb nra im vpin ' T O + suf pers(?) 5Q13 frg 1.12 v m n ; and inf < 1QH 6.20 ...^jnrfrnms 1

4

+ bv pers and impf < 4Q159 frg ii-iv 3 + 0 (rei cl) < 1QH 15.18 n r n s nam bon + P K pers < 1QS 7.4 i n n n « . . . nrcr OT* H: + inf. < 1QS 4.5; 8.2 rahOTCT(inf., < Mi 6.8)

109

"Htt G: + aidrei 1QH 2.12 œnnn o'^zn rfrnp m i G: + a pers < 1QS 9.23 la n m n 'one who lords it over him' (ptc)

'im Geist der Gottlosigkeit' (Lohse), 'with a godless spirit' (Wernberg-Moller), 'par l'esprit d'impiété' (Dupont-Sommer), but cf. 'I shall have no enthusiasm for the wicked spirit' (Garda Martinez) and Licht (1965:219). A HifHl of HDP gives no satisfactory sense here. Qimron (1976: 220), however, so parses the form. None of the seven BH examples (once G) is accompanied by a complement. 1 1 4

1 1 5

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

139

*)-n D(?): + 0 id pers < 1QS 10.18 -Qa*]TTK 3103

un H: + 0 d rei suf < 1QS 10.15 T onK; 1QH 7.22,23 T2ftœ *7)3 bv 'Dp DTTÏI; 1QH 15.16 m a a n r a o m m + 0 id pers < 1QH 6.8 r m w m . . . rrno Tjœtfponn + 0 id rei < 1QH 6.34 p n TDnn; 1QH 11.12 [naimn*? ™ nncn \pbw] lab D T I O rufrin nsao Dnrfr (inf) L: + suf pers 1QH 11.15 naooriK Dm D: u

+ bv pers < 1QS 10.20 jm n-no biD bu orna wb * pm

G: + ]Dd rei < 1QS 1.4 m bDO pimfr (inf); pers 1QS 5 . 1 5 T » o p m '

+ ]Q id rei > 1QS 5.15 p m n npœ 131 ban (* Exod 23.7) D: + na suf < 1QH 14.21 v n K - p r n a "

7

an

G: + 0 id rei (cogn obj) < lQSa 1.13 userai a n a n ? (inf), sim. lQSa 1.20 4

+ 0 d rei (cogn obj) < 1QH 9.23 ' a n a n n tL: + nu pers < 1QS 9.16 nranTOKnv aannrfr (inf) non t D :

118

+ a pers > 1QS 7.6 n m m m i n a D R ; + a rei > 1QS 7.6 n m m nnvr ] v a D K

]n D: + 1 1 6

pers < 1QS 10.14 ib narra

119

For the lateness of this complementation in BH, which occurs only at Ps 103.13, see Hurvitz (1972:107-109). It is significant that this remarkable exception of nt* plus a suffix is due to the fact that the preceding infinitive is always suffixed, and that, the suffix being the subject of the infinitive, this was the only possible way of arranging the two pronominal elements. Dr Elwolde (Elwolde 1994: 172) refers to another example of the same kind in QH. On the meaning of the verb, see Licht 1965:162. Cf.Ps 95.1 ^naru. 1 1 7

1 1 8

1 1 9

140 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA + a rei > 1QS 10.17 nana Turrcra

120

run G: + a > 1QH 8.8 nir [rrn] * T D vrv vbv n a n rcn G: + a d rei > 1QS 4 . 1 . . . n s T rwrbbv *7Da; > 1QS 9.25 Tvrr m s ' T Q K bion; 1QH 9.10 'jrcoa; 1QH 15.18 n m s T D K ' r o a i^n tf? + 0 rei < 1QS 8.3 JTltf n*-) ? (inf); > 1QS 9.24 mrp la mown * T D 1

121

G: + 0 id rei < 1QH 16.10 p n s rrn nnoen H: 1

+ 0 pers < 1QS 5.7 pin n a w *7)a jrenn ? (inf); > 1QH 7.12 j w n n O D O Q ^ n a * ? T D + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 9.9 *3H njrcnK 2020 tD: + a > 1QH 8.9 laraon* oruflDoa TO L: 122

+ a rei > 1QS 10.16 nrroR v m a a a ; 1QH 11.5 nnmüK n a r r n a n ; < 1QH 9.7 n a n i s m TOM nmton D>0 G: + 0 d rei suf > 1QS 2.12 VKh CTBT 13Tir *7l0aQ;
1QS 4.22 -pn w a n ^aen ? C P O D '3a roam 'to instruct the perfect of way in heavenly wisdom' (inf) + suf pers 1QH 10.7; 12.33 '3ftoe?n + suf pers and a rei 4

123

< 1QS 9.18 vbQ'nnrhiyotf? (inf); 1 2 4

lQSa 1.7 n n a n pp-ina v r ^ a e r ; 1QH 7.26 n a r o a a ^rfoen; 1QH 11.4 natfraiMDa ^ a w r n ; > 1QH 11.10 orteejn natfpa m a + 0 pers and a rei < 1QS 11.1 np^aD^an bwanb (inf) + a rei < 1QS 11.18 naemp narcnQ 'roa b*yotf? (inf); 1QH 12.20 n a m *7iaa ^acanfr] (inf) + suf pers and 0 d rei st < 1QS 9.20 KXQ3n ' T D zhworf? (inf) II

1 2 3

A case of possible double direct object with this verb occurs in LBH, at Dan 9.22: n r a ^ a w f ? . Though the striking position of 1QS 4.22,Do 1QS 11.22 ion ano* n o ; and pers > 1QH 1.26 nob p-ren ODEO ^ bro a*er noi. + 0 d rei suf < 1QH 18.9 HOT 3BT) *?K; and ]D > 1QS 10.19 nbw *e?3RO 3 ' » « «1*7 «'B« 'I shall not turn my anger away from men of wickedness' + bv rei 1QS 6.4 rnne? ? mvm (inf) + 0 id rei < 1QH 8.13 emp *o nne?' *b 4

p n D: + 0 d rei suf > . . . pnb

DITD (inf) 1

+ 0 d rei ("TO) > 1QH 1.14 n p j c n ? n r a n Da ie?K "TO -]Qn G: + 2 > 1QH 2.21 r o n n m OQina (inf); 1QH 4.22 HDD 'DQTO (inf); 1QH 7.20 nanoia naionK DQn H: + 0 id rei < 1QS 4.20 Tlbw m i "7D Dnrfr (inf); 1QH 2.32 anubraonie?K e?S3 (inf. and rei cl); 1QH 3.29 rf? p? "TO Dnn^ (inf); 1QH 4.32 DTK '33*? "pi Dm ? (inf); 1QH 5.28; 8.31 rroonif? (inf) 1

3I?n D :

1 3 5

136

Is this also a case of Jenni's to communicationis? See above, s.v. pi. The verb is attested in classical texts only in D, N, and H, but appears in G only in the early mediaeval period: Ibn Gabirol, piyyut etc. (see Even-Shoshan [1966:1466a, s.v.]). However, if 2vr\Q at 1QS 4.5 be an Aramaizing infinitive, then it can be only G. Its use in N in BH is passive. Therefore an active G 1 3 6

MURAOKA: VERB COMPLEMENTATION

147

137

+ 0 id rei > 1QS 4.1 a m nnK; < lQST45nT3'W?a »awiD (inf. II .wan); lQS4.24riQ«am'pi; 1QH 14.26 rbw y n bo iwb (ini) + m < 1QH 14.10 ]TOK'ro D K aitfft (inO ,

138

+ suf 1QH 14.21 vosn* G: + nro* < 1QS 5.4 iaa*7 irm nwf? (inf) H: + suf pers 1QH 4.25 DOT")

2?an G: + id rei > 1QS 10.19 «narra wb nnœ Km TOTT "rai rmo nan r\m. But the parallelism with the immediately preceding isb m n rpntrbs "rom mafro HI? ^rfr DHR nm seems to go against such an interpretation, nm in both cases is rather a plain, direct object of the following verb, and therefore rmo must be a co-object of 1 3 7

v

1

MB. 1 3 8

On this Aramaizing infinitive, see Licht 1965:96, and cf. Qimron 1986:65.

148 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA i;l£ideaEJ.Brin)vl4-a6i DupontSommer, A. 19501 l a «R£gle» de la ccmmunauie de la nouveOe affiance, RHR138,5-21. —. 1967. In La Bible. Laras intafekmentires fed A. Duport&mmer and M FWknenkqp Paris Gaffimaaft3-52. Ehrikh, AR 190B-ia Randlosen zur hänabäen BOxL 7 vds Leipzig: JC Hnridis Hwdde^F. 1991 TteUsetf «inNnnHbia VT44 (199ft150«. —. 1993,1995. See Ones> D.J A1993,1995. EvenSho*ai\A19662r^ Freefanan,H 19®. ]erentfa Gcmmentoy. Soriano Books of the Bfole. London: SondnoRess Garcia Martinez; F. 1994. The Dead Sea Scrdb Trmshted. The Qumrm Texts in Ercgfefc (Engjih translation by W.GJE. Wafaon). leiden: £J. Brffl. Garr, WJR. 1991. Afledednesv Aspect and HbBcal «t' ZAH 4,119-34. Gesenkt W. and F. BuhL 1915. VHhebn Gesenius' hämisches und ommiisdies HmdcwrtobuchüberdG BeriinSpringer-VerizxjmTo^ Nfen80or,M1961. TheThankgfagHymns. Transport Amutitedwih an bdrodudion. Laden: EJ.BriD. Mather P.H 1981. Syntax. Gminidge Textbooks in lirguistks Cambridge: Cambridge University Ftess Milik, J.T. 1955. In Qumran Cox I (D. Bartrderny and J.T. rvfiGk; Dp, I; Oxford: OarerdonPteSEi 124-28 Nfaiaoka, T. 1979a. On Verb OompfementaiiGn in BWkal Hebrew', VT29,425-35 —. 1979b.ttbrewPWHcgkalNofce^, AJBI5,88-101 —. 1985. Emphatic VJbrds and Structures in BtbVai Hebrew. Jerusalem/Lekiere The M^nesRess/EJ-BrilL —. 1992 The Verbal Redkn in Qumran Aramaic;' in Studies in Qumran Aramaic fed T. Muracka; AbiNSup, 3199-118. —. 1995 ^fcteQumrank^ Nebe, G.-W. 1972. Tter Gebrauch der sqgenarmten 'rata acrusativf in DamadciBsdirift xv, 5-9 und 12, RQ 29,257^63. Wzrn, R. 197& Ute BMci Hdbreux Toward cn Histoid Typology (f BfoVai Hdbrew Prose 12 Missoula Scholars Press Qmnon, E 1976 A ChntmarcffaHebrew LM PhD diss, H±>rew University, Jen^ —. 1978. Thel^uagprftreTenpleScidr, Us. 42,83% —. \979.}r\TheDeadSmSaxJlk.Rep^ he Shrine cfihe Bock, Jerusdbn (Tokyo Kbdansha} —. 1986L TheHdmvcffoDeadSeaScrdBs. H9& 29. Atlanta: Schdars Press QmroaEandJSlri^ Oxfcrcfc Oxford University Ress Smith, MS 1991. The Origins and Devdcpmentcffo WwConsecutox. Northwest Semitic EvidencefromUgmttoQummn. Harvard Semitic Studies 39. Atlanta: Scholars ftess Stoning, J.F. 1949. The Tcrgum cf hauh Edited wiSt a Tnrisktion. Oxford: Oxford University Press Verrre* G. 1995. The Dead SeaScrottsin Engish. Fdjrthed London: Bsnguin Bocks Wembeig-Maifer, P. 1957. The Mcnud cf Discipline. Trandcted and Artnoktei wih an Intratudicn. Leiden: EJ. BrilL vanderWoude, AS 1994. In De Rotten van de Dcde Zee. Jngdad en in her Nederiands i£r^Dedl(EGaraa Kck/Lannoofc Yalca H 1967. Review of M Burrow SepherT8Q952), 6t74 (reprinted in Studies info Dead Sea Sadk PhOdogiai Essays [194&1952]; Jerusalem: Kryat Sepher) (Hebrew*

DIE HEBRÄISCHE SPRACHE DER NAH AL HEVER DOKUMENTE 5/6Hev 44-46 G.Wilhelm Nebe (Heidelberg) I ; Einleitung 1960 sind in den nördlichen Felsen des Nahal Hever in der soge­ nannten 'Briefhöhle' sechs Papyri aus der Zeit Bar Kosibas, der Zeit des zweiten jüdischen Aufstandes 132-135 nach Christus, gefunden worden. Es handelt sich bei diesen sechs Papyri vornehmlich um Pachtverträge. Zwei sind in aramäischer Sprache abgefaßt: 5/6Hev 42 (Photo: SHR 5184) und 5/6Hev 43 (Photo: SHR 5183.5183A), in K. Beyers Sammlung der Texte V 36 (ohne Edition des Textes) und V 37 (eine Pachtquittung). Sie datieren vom 1. und 15. Iyyar 132 nach Christus, also aus dem zweiten Monat der Ära Bar Kosibas, und sie stammen vermutlich aus dem Raum Engedi. Von den sechs Papyri sind drei in hebräischer Sprache abgefaßt. Beim sechsten Dokument, über das bisher sogut wie nichts bekannt ist, handelt es sich um eine Verkaufsurkunde in aramäischer Sprache: 5/6Hev 47 (Photo: SHR 5239ab). Im folgenden geht es um die drei hebräisch geschriebenen Pacht­ verträge dieses Fundes: 5/6Hev 44 (Photo: SHR 5181.5181 A) = K. Beyer h(ebräisch) V 38; 5/6Hev 45 (Photo: SHR 5182.5182A) = K. Beyer hV 39; 5/6Hev 46 (Photo: SHR 5177.5177A) = K. Beyer hV 40. Bisher ist über diese drei Papyri nur berichtet und weniges aus ihnen zitiert worden, ihre vollständige Veröffentlichung steht noch aus. Alle drei Dokumente sind von einunddemselben Schreiber in 1

2

3

4

1

Die Edition der Handschriften-Photos bei E. Tov (Ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993). SHR = Shrine of the Book Photographs, Jerusalem. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Ergänzungsband (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1994). Im folgenden abgekürzt als ATTME. Bei K. Beyer als V 83 gezählt, genauer wäre V 41. Ein Dokument hV 41 (K. Beyer, ATTME, 185) existiert nämlich nicht, soweit ich sehe. Ich werde sie zusammen mit weiteren aramäischen und hebräischen Doku­ menten aus der judäischen Wüste in Kürze vorlegen. Dort auch eine ausführ­ liche Darlegung und Besprechung der Sprache. Ein Wort zu meiner im fol­ genden gebotenen Transkription hebräischer und aramäischer Wörter. Sie ist 2

3

4

NEBE: 5 / 6 H e v 4 4 ^ 6

151

Engedi geschrieben in schöner Buchschrift, die nur bei wenigen Wörtern speziell am Ende der Verträge in Kanzleischrift übergeht. 5/6Hev 44 datiert vom 28. Marcheschwan (Oktober/November 134), und 5/6Hev 45 und 46 sind einige Tage später am 2. Kislew (November/Dezember 134) geschrieben. Diese drei Papyri gehören zusam­ men mit 4QMMT (4Q394-399) und der Kupferrolle (3Q15), den he­ bräischen Bar Kosiba Briefen und dem 1 owe you' Dokument vom Dezember 133 nach Christus aus der judäischen Wüste zum Textkor­ pus in protomischnischem Hebräisch. 5

II: Analyse 5/6Hev 44-46 sind äußerst wichtige Zeugen für das Hebräisch der er­ sten Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts nach Christus. Die Orthographie die­ ser Papyri hält sich im Rahmen der Schreibungen der aramäischen und hebräischen Handschriften vom Toten Meer vom 2. Jahrhundert vor bis 2. Jahrhundert nach Christus. Schreibung und Nichtschreibung von altem, unbetontem, langen -« zeigen, daß dies -ä offenbar nicht in allen Fällen gesprochen wurde. Das verwendete Vokabular geht deutlich über das biblische He­ bräisch hinaus. Es gibt ca. 140 verschiedene Wörter. Von 64 Nomina sind 41 auch biblisch-hebräisch (einschließlich spät-biblisch-hebräisch ]DT zemän 'Zeif, n r o Mab 'Schriftstück', *po söp 'Ende'), 23 sind nicht biblisch­ hebräisch (einschließlich der Lehnwörter ] n r * 7 denärin [< lat.]; nomos [griech.]; nT züz; ]l2?mü Marcheschwan; rnsmc? Sü/ötapüt 'Genos­ senschaff [< akkad.]). Von 26 Verben sind 21 auch biblisch-hebräisch (einschließlich spät-biblisch-hebräisch 02D 'sammeln'; 'heben') und 5 nicht biblisch-hebräisch. Es gibt biblische Wörter mit neuer Bedeutung wie >esär 'Ver­ pflichtung, Einschränkung' (Num 30 MT issär 'Enthaltungsgelübde'); ]QT zemän 'Saison'; pnnn hahztq 'in Besitz halten, besitzen'; nptn hezqä 'Besitzergreifung' (Dan 11.2 und öfters 'Mächtigwerden'); "lon haser 'weniger'; n a / ' 'ausschneiden (?)' oder 'sichern'; m n hödä 'rechtlich anerkennen'; ]Q "liT yeter men 'darüberhinaus, außerdem'; HDD nQli^ y

nicht identisch mit der Lautung bei den Masoreten, sie ist sprachwissen­ schaftlich erhoben und folgt den semitistischen Arbeiten von K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984), 1-153, und ATTME, 1-56. Am auffälligsten ist der postulierte Erhalt der kurzen Vokale in offener Silbe. Das T owe you'-Dokument ist veröffentlicht von M. Broschi und E. Qimron, EI 20 (1989), 256-61 (hebräisch) und JJS 45 (1994), 286ff. (englisch). Siehe auch K. Beyer, ATTME, 195f. (als hV 82). 5

152 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA \a- ommat kakä 'dementsprechend'; 10p qeSer 'Quittung'; H Q ü Sippä 'frei-, reinhalten'. Das Vokabular steht dem mischnischen Hebräisch nahe bei: nun 'Baum' (coli.); bpi daqal 'Dattelpalme'; np]*an habä'/yä 'Einbring­ en'; DT züz; nptn hezqä 'Besitzergreifung'; "Dn hakar 'pachten'; T o n hakür 'Pacht, -zins'; vbo sala 'Sela'; p7nQtf apar laban 'baumloses Land'; nVTB peröt 'Früchte'; o n a parnäs 'Verwalter'; bnp qabal 'Klage erheben'; D"p qayyäm 'verbindlich'; ' i m ra^üy 'üblich'; 'en raSSäy 'be­ rechtigt'; men raSüt 'Vollmacht, -sgebiet'; m n taba 'fordern'; te#f r 'Streit' (Ps 39:11 tigrä). Der größte Teil der 'neuen' Wörter und der mit 'neuen' Wortbe­ deutungen stammen aus dem Aramäischen oder sind durch das Ara­ mäische beeinflußt. Wörter mit der typischen hebräisch (sprich kanaanäisch)-aramäischen Lautopposition (< *d, % *z, *t) sind selten, nur der Hurname m i n n Hahhorot (< aramäisch m n , hebräisch c n n 'graben'—ein an­ derer Flurname in diesen Dokumenten ist msnn Hahhapur 'das Gegrabene'—und das neue Wort niüp 'Quittung', dem im aramäis­ chen Dokument 5/6Hev 43 = V 37 (K. Beyer) nnp entspricht. Auffällig ist die genaue Entsprechung hebräischer Termini mit dem Aramäischen, insbesondere in der Gesetzesterminologie: p*?n 1SI?n ha apar hallaban 'baumloses Land' II aramäisch-nabatäisch W m n w n K ar ä hewwärtä; n t O ra'üy 'üblich' II aramäisch nm haze; MDBlbv al napSö 'für sich selbst' II aramäisch ncöQ] bv al napSeh; ü l l O K ^ al 'esärö Sa 'mit der Verpflichtung, daß' II aramäischnabatäisch HmOK^I? al esäreh di; OTßn ]Q men rasönam 'aus ihrem freien Willen' II aramäisch ]inmm ]Q men ra ütohün; ü ~\b 'DK KTlü möde 'anllakä Sä die Homologie 'ich anerkenne dir, daß' II aramäisch H -p RTID möde >anä lakä dl Aramäisch sind die Wendungen: ma[K]ü memareh 'sein Sagen' und bv al napSeh 'für sich selbst', beide innerhalb des Abschnitts der Vertragsunterschriften. Auffällig ist aber auch der Reichtum der nicht vom Aramäischen beeinflußten hebräischen Sprache dieser Dokumente, insbesondere bei den deiktischen Pronomina. Im Singular: HT ze, IT zü 'dieser' (wenn dort nicht IT zö 'diese'); T*?n hallaz 'jener'; i T ^ n hallazö 'jene.' Im Plural: nbto >elle 'diese', ihbn hallalü 'diese' und erstmalig belegtes vbn hallazü 'jene'. Als Relativpronomen ist nur ü Sa, nicht lütt in Gebrauch, ein­ igemal nur deiktisch, normalerweise mit determiniertem, aber auch mit indeterminiertem, Bezugswort, bü Sal ist nicht immer deutlich vom folgenden Wort getrennt geschrieben, der Artikel n nach bv ist nicht an das b von^ü assimiliert. Verglichen mit andern hebräischen Texten der Zeit ist der Artikel n ha sehr häufig gebraucht, auch vor Flurnamen. Der Artikel verc

c

c

c

cc

y

c

c

c

c

c

y

c

c

NEBE: 5/6Hev 44-46

153

schwindet nach der Akkusativpartikel n wie gewöhnlich nach den Präpositionen 3, D, b. Wie im Aramäischen der Zeit ist die Präposition el nicht in Gebrauch. 'Zwischen' ist *3*3 bene- und rrti'n benö{- wie im Alt-He­ bräischen. ]Q 'von' assimiliert sein n nur gelegentlich an den folgen­ den Konsonanten, einmal vor dem Artikel -HD mehha-, sonst ist ]Q im­ mer wie im Aramäischen erhalten (13 mal). 1300 memmennü 'von ihm' steht neben hemmennü, das auch im mischnischen Hebräisch belegt ist. Einmal ist das b von iTOB3 bv at, ot, sondern n ist die Akkusativpartikel, proklitisch vor dem Bezugswort, der Anlautvokal von nfc ist wohl mit dem vor­ ausgehenden Wort verschmolzen. Der Artikel n ha ist an das voraus­ gehende t assimiliert (ebenso ibbn 'diese' mit n zu ibbn), das heißt wahrscheinlich -(>a)t- und -CaHha- > ta-. Syntaktisch auffällig ist, daß n in einer Kette von Nominativen beim letzten Glied steht wie b selten spät-biblisch-hebräisch und biblisch-aramäisch. Aramäisch ist die Konjunktion K^K (< en + lä) (Murabba ät auch nb\b) 'wenn nicht' anstelle von hebräisch DK An auffälligen Formen der Nominalbildung sind zu nennen das Hifil-Verbalabstrakt n n * o n habe'/yä, wenn nicht die aramäische Form haW\yä vorliegt, und der Plural von per-, m T B peröt 'Früchte', auch im Mischnischen und im Aramäischen der Zeit (5/6Hev 43: ]nö penn) bekannt. Einmal ist die aramäische Kardinalzahl "in had anstelle von inK 'ahad 'eins' gebraucht wie ganz selten biblisch-hebräisch. Wie im spät-biblischen Hebräisch steht die Kardinalzahl meist nach dem Gezählten vielleicht unter aramäischem Einfluß. Die Maskulin-Plural-Endung ist immer 0'- Am außer 3 mal j ' i n , 2 mal ]TIT und einmal p n i K . Der Genitiv ist durch den Status constructus oder durch b® Sal beim Nomen rectum ausgedrückt (zum Beispiel: ITtf^R bw pbü heleq Sal El azar 'der Teil des Eleazar') oder mit vorausgeschicktem Suffix am Nomen regens wie im Aramäischen und Mischnischen (zum y

6

c

3

7

y

y

6

c

c

M. Bar-Asher, Wonenu 55 (1991), 75, will in 4Q386,1, II, 4 pm ohne Suffix in der Bedeutung von ]Q lesen. Als Lesung liegt dort aber pnr (getrennt geschrieben) 'dieser von' näher. ' Siehe A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen (Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1909), 6, und R. Polzin, Late Biblical He­ brew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 67f.

154

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA c

Beispiel: JWOD b® T03TD pamäsö Sal Sem ön 'der Verwalter des Simeon'). Aramäisch ist auch das oben schon erwähnte ü TlOR bv, wo das Suffix dem folgenden Satz mit 'daß' vorausgeschickt ist. Vielleicht unter Einfluß des aramäischen Afel ist neben dem Hifil auch ein Ifil gebraucht wie selten im Mischnischen. Die paläographischen Daten zeigen eindeutig, daß hebräisch mn 'sein' und nicht aramäisch mn verwendet ist. Auffällig ist ein vermeintlich althebräisches Langimperfekt mit -n: ]vrrü Sa-yehyün 'daß sie sein werden'. Wahrscheinlich ist das finale -n durch aramäisch yehzvön beeinflußt. Ca. 20 Perfekte und Imperfekte sind gebraucht. Ein KonsekutivTempus ist nicht dabei. Zwei Perfekte sind verbunden bei ip^m i m rasü zvahalaqü 'auf eigenen Wunsch hin haben sie aufgeteilf, mehrere Imperfekte bei OT3DRi...rww...iTiTWD Sa ezro ... wa'ögejwa agge ... wa'eknos 'daß ich säe ... und ausschneide/sichere ... und sammle'. Auf der andern Seite drückt der Schreiber das Futur periphrastisch durch ein Partizip und ein Imperfekt von nvr aus wie im spät-biblischen und mischnischen Hebräisch und im Aramäischen (zum Beispiel: jmr n^nno Satehyezöre wakönes 'daß du säst und sammelst'. Soweit die bedeutendsten Erscheinungen des Hebräischen von 5/6Hev 44-46. y

c

y

c

III: Zusammenfassung Wie ist das Hebräisch dieser Dokumente 5/6Hev 44-46 zu beurteilen? Vokabular, Wortform und Wortsyntax zeigen eine besondere Nähe zum spät-biblischen und insonderheit zum mischnischen Hebräisch. Die Vielzahl der Aramaismen könnte zu dem Schluß führen, dies Hebräisch sei ein bloßes Kunstobjekt der Übersetzung. Dagegen sprechen aber der Reichtum und die Variationsbreite der Sprache ohne direkten aramäischen Einfluß, wie insbesondere bei den deiktischen Pronomina deutlich. Das neue Wort IVp, verwandt mit aramäisch inp 'Quittung', wie ich meine, kann keine etymologisch korrekte (*t > hebräisch ü, aramäisch n), künstliche Wortbildung sein. Sieht man einmal von der Kupferrolle (3Q15) und der hebräischen Bar Kosiba Korrespondenz ab, so repräsentieren 4QMiqsät Ma a£e hatTörä (4Q394-399) aus der Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts vor Christus und die Mischna (2. Jahrhundert nach Christus) eine hebräische Sprache der Halacha. Sie geben sich als eine Umgangssprache theologischer Schulen und theologischen Rechts. Die drei Dokumente c

8

8

Ich nenne das Hebräisch von 4QMMT protomischnisch, obwohl es dem biblischen (insbesondere dem späten) Hebräisch noch nahesteht: Konseku-

NEBE: 5/6Hev 44-46

155

5/6Hev 44-46 von 134 nach Christus repräsentieren eine hebräische Sprache der Verwaltung und des 'bürgerlichen' Rechts neben den Rechtssprachen der Zeit, aramäisch und griechisch. Bis jetzt können wir nichts Sicheres über die Ursprünge und die Verbreitung dieses Hebräisch der 'bürgerlichen' und theologischen Rechtssprache sagen. Der Ersatz des Gleitlautes durch Hamza (R) bei np]R3rr habe'ä/habeyä 'Ertrag' ist eine Erscheinung des judäischen Aramäisch der Zeit und weist in die Gegend, wo diese Dokumente erstellt sind. Das heißt aber nicht, daß diesem Hebräisch kein alter he­ bräischer Dialekt von außerhalb Judäas zugrundeliegen kann. HT, IT und ü weisen möglicherweise auf nordhebräische Ursprünge, n an­ stelle von nK in den ammonitischen Raum und auf das Punische. Ich scheue mich angesichts fehlender Zeugnisse für dieses Hebräisch im 5. bis 3. Jahrhundert vor Christus, das protomischnische wie das mischnische Hebräisch als die Umgangssprache der Zeit des zweiten Tempels zu erklären. Insbesondere deutsche Hebraisten pflegen das protomischnische und mischnische Hebräisch Zweige des Neuhebräischen zu nennen. Diese Bezeichnung ist angesichts des heutigen modernen Hebräisch nicht gerade glücklich. Deshalb schlage ich 'Mittelhebräisch 2' vor in Opposition zu 'Mittelhebräisch V für das spät-biblische und das Qumran-Hebräische. Obwohl wir über die Ursprünge, die Verbreitung und die genaue Einordnung des Hebräischen der Nahal Hever Dokumente noch nichts Sicheres und Endgültiges sagen können, so haben die Doku­ mente 5/6Hev 44-46 unser Wissen über das Hebräisch des 2. Jahr­ hunderts nach Christus doch ganz entschieden erweitert. 9

10

11

12

tivtemporal, bedingt durch biblische Zitate; Objektsuffixe am Verbum; Demonstrativa HT und if?**; die Akkusativpartikel ist nR; Gebrauch der Präpo­ sition die Präposition ]0 fast ausschließlich mit assimiliertem n. Siehe E. Qimron, DJD, X (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 65-108. Siehe E.A. Knauf, 'War "Biblisch-Hebräisch" eine Sprache?', ZAH 3 (1990), 23 (Sa nordhebräisch-israelitisch, nicht ammonitisch). Siehe vor allem die Ar­ beiten von G.A. Rendsburg wie The Galilean background of Mishnaic He­ brew', in L.I. Levine (Ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, 1992), 225-40. Vergleiche die Amman Zitadellen Inschrift, Zeile 5, und J. Friedrich und W. Röllig, Phönizisch-punische Grammatik (Rom: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1970), §121. So vor allem E. Qimron im Anschluß an E.Y. Kutscher, insbesondere E. Qimron, 'Observations on the History of Early Hebrew', in D. Dimant und U. Rappaport (Eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 349-61. Auch ich in meiner Arbeit, Text und Sprache der hebräischen Weisheitsschrift aus der Kairoer Geniza (Bern/Frankfurt: Lang, 1993), 29ff. 9

1 0

1 1

1 2

156

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 13

TV: 5/6Hev 44 (Transkription und Übersetzung) A: Text

1 3

Zur Transkription: " über einem mehrdeutigen Buchstabenrest; über V \ wenn beides zu lesen möglich ist; r 1 Emendation; [ ] Textlücke; < > versehentliche Auslassung; {} versehentliche Hinzufügung; ( ) Verdeutlichung der Übersetzung. Eine detaillierte Begründung meiner Lesungen und Übersetzungen erfolgt in meiner in Anmerkung 4 angezeigten Arbeit. Ich danke allen Teilnehmern am Leidener Symposium für ihre Fragen und Vorschläge. E. Qimrons Einwand gegen meine Konjektur von DTpm in Dnpin in Zeile 13,16 (auch in Zeile 20 hat der Schreiber ? und 1 verschrieben!) habe ich dankend angenommen.

NEBE: 5 / 6 H e v 44-46

157

B: Übersetzung (1) Am 28. Marcheschwan (Okt./Nov.) im Jahre drei des Simeon, des Sohnes des Kosiba, (2) des Fürsten Israels, in Engedi. Heute haben wunschgemäß freiwillig untereinander aufgeteilt (3) Eleazar, der Sohn des Eleazar, der Sohn des Hotta, und Eliezer, der Sohn des Samuel, (4) beide aus Engedi, und Tahenna, der Sohn des Simeon, und Elma, der Sohn des Juda, (5) beide aus Halluhit in Mahoz Eglten, wohnhaft in En- (6) gedi, die Grundstücke, die sie von Jonatan, dem Sohn des Mahanaym, dem Verwalter (7) des Simeon, des Sohnes des Kosiba, des Fürsten Israels, in Engedi gepachtet haben: Das Grundstück, (8) das genannt wird Hahhorot und Hammasukim, und ihre ganze (Nutzungs)vollmacht, und das Grundstück, (9) das genannt wird Hahhapur, und seine ganze (Nutzungs)vollmacht, Hassulam, und seine ganze (Nutzungs)vollmacht. (10) Und dies sind die Grundstücke, die zugefallen sind dem Teil des Eleazar, dem Sohn des Eleazar, (11) und dem des Eliezer, dem Sohn des Samuel: Das Grundstück, das genannt wird Hahhapur, und das Grundstück, (12) das genannt wird Hassulam, samt der weißen (= baumlosen) Erdscholle auf ihnen und allen Bäumen (13) auf ihnen gemäß dem für sie Üblichen und gemäß ihrer Besitzhaltung. Und dies ist das Grundstück, das zugefallen ist (14) dem Tahenna, dem Sohn des Simeon, und dem Elma, dem Sohn des Juda: Das Grundstück, das genannt wird (15) Hahhorot und Hammasukim, samt der weißen (= baumlosen) Erdscholle auf ihnen und allen (16) Bäumen gemäß dem für sie Üblichen und gemäß ihrer Besitzhaltung, mit der Verpflichtung darüber, daß (17) jene vier Männer die Pacht(summe) für jene Grundstücke bezahlen, (18) die sie von Jonatan, dem Sohn des Mahanaym, gepachtet haben: Eleazar, der Sohn des Eleazar, (19) <der Sohn> des Hotta, und Eliezer, der Sohn des Samuel, zahlen beide die Hälfte (20) jenes Silbers weniger sechzehn Denare, das sind (21) vier Sela, nur, und Tahenna, der Sohn des Simeon, und Elma, der Sohn (22) des Juda, zahlen beide die (andere) Hälfte jenes Silbers (23) und außerdem noch sechzehn Denare, das sind (24) vier Sela. Und diese Männer sind nicht (verfügungs)berechtigt, zu folgen (25) diesem [Schrift]stück gegen die Berechnung jener Einteilung die ganze Zeit, solange (26) [Jonatan] ihnen verpachtet hat. Und es ist verbindlich zu ihren Lasten und zwischen ihnen alles, was oben geschrieben ist. (27) Eleazar, der Sohn des Eleazar, zu Lasten von ihm selbst (verpflichtet sich). (28) Eliezer, der Sohn des Samuel, zu Lasten von ihm selbst (verpflichtet sich). Geschrieben hat Masabbala, der Sohn des Simeon, sein (Namen)sagen. (29) Tahenna, der Sohn des Simeon, zu Lasten von ihm selbst (verpflichtet sich). Geschrieben hat Sapun, der Sohn des Simeon, sein (Namen)sagen. (30) Elma, der Sohn des Juda, zu Lasten von ihm selbst (verpflichtet sich). Geschrieben hat Josef, der Sohn des Simeon, sein (Namen)sagen. (31) Juda, der Sohn des Josef, Zeuge. (32) Eleazar, der Sohn des Juda, Zeuge. (33) Simeon, der Sohn des Josef, Zeuge. Palalya, der Sohn des Buta, [Zeuge].

PERIPHRASTIC TENSES IN BEN SIRA

1

W. Th. van Peursen (Leiden)

I ; Introduction In any discussion of the language of Ben Sira (Sir), one of the main problems is the relationship of the Hebrew of Ben Sira to Biblical He­ brew (BH), Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) and Aramaic. One of the areas in which important changes occurred between BH and MH and in which similarities to Aramaic are evident, is that of the construction of a finite form of the verb m n combined with a participle. No agree­ ment, however, has been reached about whether the changes which can be noticed in Hebrew, should be ascribed to Aramaic influence. Before considering the occurrences of the periphrastic construc­ tion in Sir, we will have a brief look at the use of this construction in BH, MH and Aramaic. Special attention will be paid to the pe­ riphrastic imperative, which occurs at least once in Sir. 2

3

1

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Professor T. Muraoka for com­ menting on earlier versions of this article. The investigations were supported by the Foundation for Research in the Field of Philosophy and Theology (SFR, which is subsidized by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Re­ search (NWO). Other abbreviations: A, B, C, D, E, F, M, Q = MSS of Sir; Btxt = main text of M S B; Bmg = marginal readings of M S B; G = the Greek translation of Sir; S = the Syriac translation of Sir; BBS = "I^TK nirpn rrsrmpflp ,~npon ,R"PO p 1Q0 U*ban [The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary] (ed. Z. Ben Hayyim; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book, 1973 [this lacks MS F, which was incorporated in the Academy of the Hebrew Language's 1988 microfiche edition of, and concor­ dance to, Ben Sira and the Qumran and tannaitic literature]); LBH = Late Bib­ lical Hebrew; PC = prefix-conjugation; SC = suffix-conjugation. 5.11 (A) -inoorvn, but see also 5.10 (A, C) -[Toorrn, 5.11 (C) pzan'n, 13.9 (A) pirn rrn, 13.13 (A) T H T rrm, 31(34).22 (B) sua rrn, 32(35).22 (E, F) T H ? rrn and the prohibitive, the negative counterpart of the imperative, in 5.9 (C) mir vrn (cf. M S A mm ... mir rnnn *at). 2

3

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

159

II: Periphrastic tenses in Hebrew and Aramaic 41

1: Biblical Hebrew

In BH, the periphrastic construction serves primarily to denote dura­ tivity, particularly in the past, but also in the future. The perfect and imperfect forms of mn express the temporal sphere, whereas the par­ ticiple conveys durative aspect. The verb mn, therefore, is not only a copula, but also a time indicator, e.g., Job 1.14 rnennvn*)pnn 'the cows were ploughing'. In LBH, the number of periphrastic forms increases. Some schol­ ars relate this increase in the periphrastic construction to a broadening of its use. As in Aramaic, it is employed in a loose, free manner. It is no longer restricted to durative or iterative actions, but can also de­ note instantaneous or unique acts. Other scholars give a rather dif­ ferent picture: the increase in the periphrastic construction is not to be explained by a weakening of its original function, but by a reduction in other ways of expressing the same thing. To express durativity or iterativity, the older means were no longer felt sufficient. As a conse­ quence, the regular use of the periphrastic construction became a ne­ cessity. 5

6

7

4

R. Bartelmus, HYH. Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen »Allerwelts­ wortes« (ATAT, 17; St. Ottilien: EOS, 1982), 205-208; G. Bergsträsser, Hebräi­ sche Grammatik I (Leipzig: Vogel, 1918), 72-74; S.R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (Third ed.; Ox­ ford: Clarendon Press, 1892), 169-70; J.C.L. Gibson, Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax (Fourth ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 138; A. Gordon, The Development of the Participle in Biblical, Mishnaic, and Mod­ ern Hebrew , Afroasiatic Linguistics 8 (1982), 121-79 (141-45); J.C. Greenfield, The "Periphrastic Imperative" in Aramaic and Hebrew', IEJ 19 (1969), 199210 (209); P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rev. ed.; 2 vols.; Subsidia Biblica, 14.1-2; Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1993), §§121 e-f; 154m; E. König, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache (III: Historisch-komparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897); E. Sellin, Die verbal-nominale Doppelnatur der hebräischen Participien und Infini­ tive und ihre darauf beruhende verschiedene Construktion (Leipzig: Ackermann & Glaser, 1889), 35-36; B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §37.7.1. Related to the use of rrn to express clearly the temporal sphere is the notion 'at just that time...'; related to the durative aspect of the construction is its in­ choative use. See Waltke-O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §37.7.1b; Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, 73; cf. Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §121g. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, 73; P. Joüon, Grammaire de Vh&oreu büblique (Second ed.; Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1923), §121g; König, Syn­ tax, 132. Driver, Treatise, 170 ('the older forms are felt to be insufficient' to express durativity); M. H. Segal, 'Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical He7

5

6

7

160

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

Most scholars deny the presence of the periphrastic imperative in BH. In the doubtful examples of Exod 34.2 ]TM rrm and 19.15 vn, ]TM is probably a pure adjective ('ready') and in Ps 30.11 nn> m n , is a substantive ('helper'). 8

9

2: Qumran Hebrew

In Qumran Hebrew the periphrastic construction is well-attested. A few scrolls show a more frequent use of it, in particular the Temple Scroll, which has 29 occurrences of rrn + participle as against about 20 in the other non-biblical scrolls. 10

u

3: Mishnaic Hebrew

The verbal system employed in Mishnaic Hebrew differs radically from that of BH. In M.H. Segal's grammar, one still finds the view that the MH verbal system is primarily a tripartite tense-system, in which qatal, qotel, and yiqtol denote past, present, and future respec­ tively. E.Y. Kutscher and his school have put forward a rather dif12

brew and to Aramaic', JQR 20 (1908), 647-737 (698-99) (participle with rrn in MH, but also already in the Memoirs of Nehemiah, taking the place of the frequentative and iterative use of the old perfect consecutive and of the sim­ ple tenses); similarly Gordon, Development of the Participle', 22. Cf. JouonMuraoka, Grammar, §121g: 'On occasion the periphrastic construction appears superfluous, particularly in the later books, but a close look suggests that the real force of the construction is akin to that of the inchoative imperfect of Greek or the graphic historic present' (see also note 5). Joiion-Muraoka, Grammar, §121eN; cf. Greenfield, 'Periphrastic Imperative', 209. E. Qimron, n i m nmo m^ao bw nnni?n pto^n pnpn (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1976), 288; The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 70. Y. Yadin, ttnponrfran (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Insti­ tute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Shrine of the Book, 1977), 1.30; Qimron, vipanrfrin'TQnmh, L §. 42 (1978), 83-98 (96); for 4QMMT, see Qimron and J. Strugnell, Miqsat Ma'ase ha-Torah (DJD, 10; Ox­ ford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 79. A. Bendavid, D'DDn yuhi m p o ]Wb (Second ed.; 2 vols.; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1967-1971) 11.540-42; Gordon, 'Development of the Participle', 32-33; M.Z. Kaddari, nraon rxota nvr bus bs, in Post-Biblical Hebrew Syntax and Semantics: Studies in Diachronic Hebrew, 1 (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Han University Press, 1991), 290-304 (296,300-304 = Annual of the Bar-Ilan University 16-17 [1979], 112-25); M. Mishor, DWmp^aMMnrDTflD (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1983), 351-400; see also the following notes. M.H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), §§324-27. 8

9

1 0

e

1 1

1 2

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

161

13

ferent and more elaborate view: the perfect is employed only to de­ note past action; the participle indicates present or future action; the imperfect no longer denotes the future, but has turned into a modal form. The imperfect is mainly restricted to subordinate clauses; in main clauses it is chiefly used to indicate desire or command. Moreover, the imperfect has lost its function of conveying durative or iterative aspect in the past. To indicate repeated, usual, and concur­ rent action, periphrastic tenses with the auxiliary verb m n are used. They are frequently employed to denote an action that occurs as the background to another, shorter-lasting, action. The periphrastic con­ struction is mainly used for the past, but also for the future and the imperative. Sometimes, in order to emphasize the futurity of an act, b TnJJ is employed. Kutscher's view is nowadays accepted by many scholars, though it has been modified on certain points such as the non-modal use of the imperfect, the use of the perfect to describe a present state, and the performative function of the perfect. The function of m n in the periphrastic construction has changed, from a copula which is also a time indicator to an auxiliary. In BH, where m n served as copula and time reference clue, it is mainly found in order clearly to express past and future. In MH, where the function of m n + participle is primarily to indicate aspect, it is found in all tenses, including the imperative. The periphrastic imperative is wellknown in commands of general import: l^e doing' (constantly), com­ pare m. Abot 3.2 rTD^Q ^ HQ^en ^DDQ 'Tin 'pray for the peace of the ruling power' (regularly and habitually) with m. Ta anit 3.8 TWVll D'DBH T T T 0 ^ s n n bwnn 'Tin*? V? noWD 'once they said to Honi the Cir­ cle Drawer: pray that rain may come down'. 14

c

4: Aramaic The periphrastic construction of the perfect and imperfect of m n with the participle is common in all Aramaic dialects. It is mainly used to denote durative, iterative, or habitual action, but can also be used for an instantaneous or unique act, and in a good number of cases differE.Y. Kutscher, 'Hebrew Language, Mishnaic', Encyclopaedia Judaica 16 (Jer­ usalem: Keter, 1971), 1590-1607 (1600-1601); A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes/E.J. Brill, 1982), §218; S. Sharvit, tnorn ranra rnüon ]Vfrl, Studies in Hebrew and Semitic Languages Dedicated to the Memory of Prof Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher (ed. G.B. Sarfatti; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Univer­ sity Press, 1980), Hebrew section, 110-25 (111-12). See Mishor, EMDnraTJJD; Qimron, D r o n p ^ r n ' ^ n a n ' w LH. 55 (1991), 8996; cf. A. Säenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (translated by J.F. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 193-94. 1 3

1 4

162

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

ence in meaning from the non-periphrastic alternative cannot be rec­ ognized. The periphrastic imperative, however, is rare. It is not attested in Biblical Aramaic or Qumran Aramaic and is only rarely found in some of the Egyptian Aramaic documents. However, it is employed several times in the Hermopolis Letters and in Galilaean Aramaic and Christian Palestinian Aramaic. According to J.C. Greenfield these occurrences may be traces of a much wider use in Western Aramaic. 15

5: Aramaic influence on Hebrew? In Aramaic the periphrastic forms are extensively used, especially in the perfect, but also with other forms of the verb hwh. In MH we see a large increase in the number of periphrastic forms. The question arises of the r61e Aramaic actually played in the changes that occurred in Hebrew. Segal regarded the periphrastic construction as native to Hebrew and not borrowed from Aramaic. This view has also been defended by Gordon. Both scholars claim that Aramaic influence did not cause the increase in m n + participle, but at most accelerated it. It should be noted, however, that Segal, in his refutation of the the­ ory that MH was an artificial language, tried to minimize the extent of the Aramaic influence, a point on which he has been criticized by Kutscher. A different view is taken by Greenfield ('perhaps due to Aramaic influence'), and B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor ('probably the result of Aramaic influence', quoting P. Joiion). Kutscher warns against hasty conclusions: 'All these changes in MH almost exactly 16

17

18

19

20

21

1 5

Greenfield, 'Periphrastic Imperative', 200; T. Muraoka, 'Notes on the Syn­ tax of Biblical Aramaic', JSS 11 (1966), 151-67 (158-60); T. Muraoka and B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (forthcoming); H.B. Rosen, 'On the Use of Tenses in the Aramaic of Daniel', JSS 6 (1961), 183-203 (184). See Section II.l on the different opinions regarding LBH. M.H. Segal, 'Mishnaic Hebrew and ... Aramaic', 698-700. Gordon, T)evelopment of the Participle', 142. Kutscher, History, §1%. Greenfield, 'Periphrastic Imperative', 209. Waltke-O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §37.7.1c; Jouon, Grammaire, §121g (Joiion's remark quoted by Waltke-O'Connor has been omitted in JouonMuraoka, Grammar). It is clear that the question of Aramaic influence might be directly related to the interpretation of the periphrastic construction. Waltke and O'Connor and Jouon, who explain its increase in LBH as a conse­ quence of the weakening of its meaning, assume Aramaic influence, whereas for Segal, Gordon and Driver, who regard its increase as the result of an in­ ternal development in which other means to express durativity or iterativity are lost, there is no need to resort to external factors (Aramaic influence) to account for it. See Section II.l. 1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0 2 1

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

163

parallel Aramaic. Therefore, the simplest assumption would be that this too should be ascribed to Aramaic influence. But since Aramaic itself underwent far-reaching changes in this respect... we had best refrain from drawing conclusions'. The question of Aramaic influence is also relevant for the Book of Ben Sira. Even apart from the Aramaic influence on Hebrew in gen­ eral, we have to reckon with a strong Aramaic element in Ben Sira's Hebrew, which may be related to an Aramaizing tendency which is characteristic of all Wisdom literature. 22

23

Ill: Periphrastic tenses in Ben Sira When we turn to Ben Sira, the first step is to determine which forms can be regarded as periphrastic. Our point of departure will be the criterion of replaceability as it is laid down by R. Bartelmus in his study on the verb rrn. For Bartelmus, the criterion for establishing whether a construction of mn + participle is periphrastic is whether it could or could not be replaced by a non-periphrastic form of the same root. On the one hand this approach includes constructions with forms other than *POlp -participles, e.g., adjectives, on the other hand it excludes constructions where the noun, though in form a participle, does not allow for substitution by a construction without rrn. To this category belong substantivized participles and all passive participles. According to this criterion of replaceability, we can leave out of consideration constructions with the passive participle like 51.30 (B) "pl^D DE VP 'the name of the Lord be blessed' (a quotation of Ps 24

25

w

113.2), with a substantivized participle like 7.6 (A) beriD mrb e?pnn

'do not seek to become a ruler', and with a preposition like 12.11 (A) D rfraoD ft rrn *be as one who reveals a secret'. On the other hand, we may include in our discussion constructions with adjectives like 51.27 (B) *n»n ]Bp 'I was young', which has Ttftop (Gen 32.11) as its non-pe­ 26

riphrastic alternative. Applying this criterion, we can select the fol-

Kutscher, History, §218. A. Hurvitz, The Chronological Significance of "Aramaisms" in Biblical Hebrew' IE] 18 (1968), 234-40 (240); see also G.R. Driver, Hebrew Poetic Dic­ tion', SVT, 1 (1953), 26-39; I. Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (Forschungen zum Alten Textament, 5; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993), 83. Bartelmus, HYH (see note 4), 205. Bartelmus includes 'participles' of certain Stative verbs (verbal adjectives) as well. In our discussion below, we will also include other cases of rrn + ad­ jective that could have been replaced by a finite form of a stative verb. * In Gen 32.11 the SC of the stative verb p p has present meaning (1 am too insignificant for all the kindnesses'), whereas in Sir 51.27 the construction

2 2

2 3

2 4 2 5

6

164

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

lowing occurrences of periphrastic constructions in Sir: C A A C A A A B B E,F M(B) M, B Q B B

5.9 5.9 5.11 5.11 6.6 13.9 13.13 31(34).6 31(34).22 32(35).22 42.1 42.8 51.17 51.24 51.27

l

nriBi...rrnTrrnn ?K nnoQ rrn o m vrr pirn rrn

jrm* rrn Tnrnvr

nrrn röm n^nn ...nwas

Excluded from the following discussion is 31(34).22 (B) jrffifnvr l^e humble' (cf. m. Abot 6.1 jrms 'im), though it might be argued that, as far as can be discerned, rrn in our verse conveys the same meaning as the HifHl of NX in Mic 6.8 (MTOTtftt;Targum vm). If this is true, we may see n*n (periphrastic) and JJ32*m (nonperiphrastic) as two interchangeable alternatives. However, even if we were to make such a claim, it appears that in Ben Sira difference in meaning excluded the possibility of the non-periphrastic construction, for the meaning of Vixn in 16.25 (A) and 32(35).3 (B), 'act in a measured way , differs from that in Mic 6.8. A few forms mentioned in the list above cannot serve as a solid base for our description of Ben Sira's use of the periphrastic construction because of textual problems. On 5.9 (A) rmsi ... nvrn 7

28

29

with rrn has past meaning. It seems therefore that nvr functions as time-indi­ cator (see above in the discussion of BH) and that *n"n ]Dp does not meet our criterion of replaceability. Since there are already other (text-critical) reasons to exclude w n ]Bp from the discussion (see below), we can leave this problem aside. It should be noted, however, that a construction with the SC of rrn can also have present meaning, and that the SC of a stative verb can also have past meaning. Cf. Sir 31(34).6 (B) vncrm '(they) are numerous' and 1 Chr 5.23; 23.17131 'they were numerous'. B: on. R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt (Berlin: Reimer, 1906), 153. In this context, mention should be made of 49.10 (B), where the periphrastic construction can be restored in a damaged part of the manuscript. The extant Hebrew text is DP... IBDnoxi? vm and the reconstruction Dn[nnmnjia nno^i? Tin 'may their bones flourish where they lie' (see also G and S) is likely. Compare 2 7

2 8

2 9

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

165

and 5.11 (C) rrn, see the discussion of 5.9-11 below. The last two items in our list come from the MS B text of the acrostic poem in 51.13-30. This poem has been so poorly preserved in MS B that P.W. Skehan, A.A. Di Leila, M. Delcor, and others have assumed it to be a retroversion from Syriac: 51.24 (B) n vrn TKQ nans DDBBXI 30

51.27 (B)

n*nte«yi nn vnom 31

In 51.24, rpnn seems to be an addition which is not found in G or S. In 51.27,1 Tl"n is inserted under the influence of w n in the opening line of the poem (51.13) and should be omitted with G and S; instead of 'nTOJJ 'I stood', we should read 'n^Qtf 'I laboured' and ]0p is better taken temporally ('a short time' and not 'young', cf. Isa 5A7). Thus, we can reconstruct the following text: T t e t f p p O O D T i n u n n'nfc^DI nn 'see with your own eyes: I have laboured but a little in her and have found her'. 32

The relevance of the transmission of the Hebrew text of Sir for a description of the periphrastic construction in Sir can be illustrated by 32(35).21-22: B Toejn'jnnmoi ^nnoynzincnn^K B mg ...nnn B nnrn-pnnnKin o^Kn^n-aneon^K E Tnr nvr -[nnnazn D W I "pn... F TnînYi-jnnmcn trOTn^mannnn^ Whereas MSS E and F have the periphrastic construction Tnt n*n *be careful', B mg and B have nnrn, and B txt has l>e on your guard'. "Pnr n'n is also found in 13.13 (A), which is quoted by S. Schechter as an example of Ben Sira's 'failure' in his attempt to imitate biblical style. Compare Qoh 12.12 nnrn, Ezra 4.22 m p v m , m. Abot 33

1

1

2

1

2

1

34

the non-periphrastic form at Isa 66.14: ruman K K T D DD'mœun 'your bones will flourish like the grass'. M. Delcor, *Le texte hébreu du cantique de Siracide LI, 13 et ss. et les anciennes versions', Textus 6 (1968), 27-47 (46-47); P.W. Skehan and A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 576-77. M.H. Segal, tfron imo p nao (Second éd.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958), 362; Skehan-Di Leila, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 575. Segal, KTop-fiO,363; P.W. Skehan, The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13-30', HTR 64 (1971), 387-400 (398); Smend, Weisheit des Jésus Sirach, 509. The four cola in B are two parallel renderings of the same line, signalled as B andB . S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Portions of the Book Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Geniza (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899 [reprinted, Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1979]),

3 0

3 1

3 2

3 3

!

3 4

2

166

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

1.11 -inrn (but m. Abot 1.9 and elsewhere T n r n m ) . In 42.8 (B, M) we findnvrTiVYn.

We cannot establish the original text of our verse by weighting the textual witnesses, though a few things can be said about the manuscripts. It can be argued that MSS E and F are related in some way because of many, sometimes peculiar, readings they have in common against MS B . In a number of cases where E or F differ from Btxt, they agree with Bmg. As far as the relation of Btxt and Bmg is concerned, new light has been shed on the value of the marginal read­ ings of MS B by the discovery of the Masada Scroll. In a considerable number of cases the main text of MS B has more biblical language and the margin has Aramaic or mishnaic phraseology. Whereas earlier scholars like R. Smend regarded this as the indication of a recension that introduced Aramaic or more 'vulgar expressions, Bmg is now often supported by the Masada Scroll. A closer look at all the variants, however, yields a more complicated picture. Besides, in the lines un­ der discussion, Bmg has the more biblical expression and MSS E and F mishnaic phraseology. Accordingly, these general observations do not help us in establishing the original text here, even if we were to ignore the principle that it is methodologically unsound to evaluate individual variant readings only on the basis of a general assessment of the manuscripts. Another way in which one may try to solve the problem is by evaluating the variant readings themselves. If Schechter and others are right in regarding "inn as more classical and Tnr nvr as mishnaic, we can pose the question: did Ben Sira use the more classical biblical expression ""inn, which was altered by a copyist to the mishnaic (and Aramaic) Tnr mn, or did Ben Sira himself use the mishnaic phraseol­ ogy which was changed into the more biblical idiom? This question is relevant in quite a number of cases where a second rendering of the text is found in the margin, as a doublet in the main text or in another manuscript. For in not a few instances, two parallel renderings of the text have been transmitted: one in biblical style and another in mish­ naic or Aramaic language (see above on Btxt, Bmg and M). On these occurrences, there are two opposing views. According to one view, mishnaic and Aramaic phraseology entered the text in the process of 35

36

7

33. 3 5

P.C. Beentjes, 'A Closer Look at the Newly Discovered Sixth Hebrew Manuscript (MS F) of Ben Sira', EstBib 51 (1993), 171-86 (175); A.A. Di Leila, The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza', Bib 69 (1988) 226-38 (228). J. Marcus, 'A Fifth M S of Ben Sira', JQR n.s. 21 (1930-31), 223-40 (225).

3 6

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

167

37

textual transmission (thus, for example, Segal); according to the other view, the biblical style is secondary and entered the text as a re­ sult of a tendency to render the text in a more common, biblical, idiom (thus, for example, Y. Yadin). To a certain extent the latter view has been vindicated by the discovery of the Masada scroll. Rea­ soning in this way, one might be inclined to regard the mishnaic THT mn as original, but again nothing can be said with any certainty. What can be said, however, is that this passage shows the fluctuation between periphrastic and non-periphrastic constructions in the pro­ cess of textual transmission. We are touching here upon a question that requires further investigation. 38

39

The last case where the use of the periphrastic construction cannot be established with certainty is 51.17. B nKTrrinRHoW? naob'bn^rbv Q * / m n \m *>inbab *>b nrrn rftm The reading of nbv as participle is not certain since it can be interpret­ ed in different ways. The following proposals have been put forward. 1. nbv 'her yoke' (V bbv); this interpretation, which is also re­ flected in S, is the most appropriate for ms B, but does not fit the con­ text of Q. 2. rbv 'reason', as in MH (V bbv), 'and for me she has been a rea­ son that I give thanks to my teacher'. One may object, however, that on the other occasions in this section that we find qatal in the a-colon and >eqtol in the b-colon (14bc, 18cd, 19cd, 20ab), qatal expresses an event in the past, and 'eqtol the speaker's intention for the future, e.g., 14bc (Q): rBBrrrransiO "Tin m r o b nan 'she came to me in her beauty, and until the end I will seek her'. 3. rr^l (V b&) 'profit, advantage' (cf. Isa 48.17, where the HifHl of the verb is found alongside iftb pi. 'teach', as in our text). n*pjn, however, is not found elsewhere (nouns formed from the root by are n"?inn [e.g., 1QH 6.10] and nbvn (Sir 30.23 [B] and 41.14 [B, M]), and only the HifHl ofb& is attested. 4. G RCPORCOICRI 'progress' seems to reflect nb'V or n*bu from the root 40

41

3 7

M.H. Segal, fcO'Opant?, Us. 7 (1936), 100-20 (107-13); KTOpnoo, 20. Y. Yadin, rrnflao KTO p n^ao [The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada] (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965), 9. On 32(35).22, see further Beentjes, 'A Closer Look', 176-78, 183; Di Leila, The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript', 236; Segal, wro p ISO, 209; Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 294-95; Skehan-Di Leila, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 395. I. Rabinowitz, The Qumran Hebrew Original of Ben Sira's Concluding Acrostic on Wisdom', HUCA 42 (1971) 173-84 (177); Rabinowitz reads a plu­ ral: 'teachers'. Skehan, 'Acrostic Poem', 393; Skehan-Di Leila, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 574-75.

3 8

3 9

4 0

4 1

168 THE HEBREW OF THE DE AD SE A SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

1

43

5. n ?!?, participle of 'give suck'. This view is supported by the fact that the poem 51.13-30 deals with Wisdom personified as a beautiful woman and by Ben Sira's use of the image of Wisdom as mother, in 4.11 and 15.2, as someone who nourishes those who come to her, in 24.20-21, and as a lovely woman, in 4.11-19; 14.20-15.8; 24 and elsewhere. The objection that is used in BH and MH only in connection with animals is met by the use of *7)tf relating to human be­ ings in 1QH 7.21 and 9.36. However, if we accept this interpretation, it is not easy to decide whether the form should be taken as a partici­ ple ('nursing') or as a substantivized participle ('a nurse'; thus J.A. Sanders). u

In the remaining cases of the periphrastic construction the question arises as to what led Ben Sira to use it. It appears that stylistic factors are the most satisfactory explanation for the use of the periphrastic construction. In 13.9-10 and 6.6 the periphrastic construction may be used for the sake of variety. 13.9-10 (A) - p r p '-DI pirn rrn ana anp won p prnnn " T W prnnn p anpnn 13.13 (A) oon ' T O K nv -pnn bm T H I rrm noe?n It is hard to discern any difference in meaning between pYll mil 'keep your distance' in 13.9 and the second prnnn in the following verse. (The first prnnn, however, has almost passive sense.) One finds the Qal of p m in 7.2 (C) and 9.13 (A) (both imperatives) and also in Prov 19.7; 22.5. MS A has a Hifil at 7.2. Compare m. Abot 1.7 m p r o p m n 1ceep yourself far from an evil neighbour'. According to Di Leila, 13.9 is the opening line of the second stanza in the poem of 13.1-14.2. The concluding line of this stanza 45

46

4 2

T. Muraoka, 'Sir. 51:13-^30: An Erotic Hymn to Wisdom?', JSJ10 (1979) 16678 (171); Rabinowitz, The Qumran Hebrew Original', 177; contrast M. Delcor, *Le texte hébreu', 33. J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (HQPsf) (DJD, 4; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 82; The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (New York: Cornell University Press, 1967), 114-15,117; Delcor, 'Le texte hébreu', 33; C. Deutsch, The Sirach 51 Acrostic: Confession and Exhortation', ZA W94 (1982), 400-409 (402). Deutsch, The Sirach 51 Acrostic', 402; contrast Rabinowitz, The Qumran Hebrew Original', 177; Muraoka, 'Sir. 51:13-30', 170-71. Smend (Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, xlv) mentions pirn rnn as one of the expres­ sions which may point to Aramaic influence. Skehan-Di Leila, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 253; a différent position is taken by P.C. Beentjes ('How Can a Jug Be Friends with a Kettle? A Note on the Struc­ ture of Ben Sira Chapter 13', BZ 36 [1992], 87-93), but this does not affect our analysis of 13.9-10. 4 3

4 4

4 5

4 6

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

169

(13.13) also contains a periphrastic imperative in the a-colon. nDCBH l>e on your guard in this line stands in parallel to "IQBn in the concluding line of the preceding stanza (13.8); on mm mm see above (32(35).22). 7

ubv *>b\*w ]n T©en nm« n3m nix -pn P)*P«Q im -[mo bmn ran vm -pha *ran 13m 'be many (Qal) is found in MS A in 3.27 and 11.29. m m in 11.32 (A) can be either Qal or HifHl ('multiplies'). Ben Sira may have chosen the periphrastic construction for the sake of variety or in order to avoid the sequence 1ST ...mm. Also reasons of rhythm may have played a role. D'm v m has two stressed syllables, whereas mm has one. Lines 5-6 now has the pattern 4+4 / / 3 + 3 . Furthermore, we may say that v m does double duty (though not v m but m m is under­ stood in the b-colon). The periphrastic construction with n m is also found in 31(34).6 (B) 3HT ftun vn M l 'many are those who have been entrapped through gold' (see also note 26). A7

6.5-6 (A)

7

48

42.1 is another example of stylistic variation. Here, too, the periph­ rastic construction is followed by the non-periphrastic alternative and variation of the two constructions is used to mark the end and the be­ ginning of a stanza: 42.1 (B) VT bo T i n ]n Nsoi nata era n"m (M) mto'pjnjnKscn 001*30*13 n\m (B, M) Kern 0'3B won bm eron b& rib* by -[K 42.8 (B, M) m bo vEh irm* B T R I nQK3 mm rrvn Instead of 0*13 'ashamed' (reading of Yadin and others) BBS has 0 " 3 (cf. 26.15 [C] n p a ) ; ©'13 can best be regarded as a participle of 013 'to be ashamed' on the analogy of the strong verb, probably under Ara­ maic influence (cf. m. Abot 2.5 MS Kaufmann ]vran 'the shamefaced man'). As in 13.9-10, the periphrastic construction (013 n"m 'and you will be ashamed') is followed by the non-periphrastic alternative (013T) b\b 'do not be ashamed'). The non-periphrastic construction with 0 1 3 is found several other times in Sir. The perfect consecutive of 013 is found in Isa 19.9,20.5 and elsewhere. In the concordance of BBS, is categorized as an imperative (cf. Prov 3.4 OIKl DvfrK ' r 2 3 310 ^301 ]n K2SD1 'and you will find favour and success in the sight of God and man'), but a participle (connected to n"m) is possible as well. In the parallel line, 42.8, too, n"m of the a49

5

0

51

47

MsAt>KTB.

4 8

According to Skehan-Di Leila, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 68.

4 9

M has a lacuna where B has

5 0

M has a lacuna where B hastfttscw.

5 1

Yadin, Kmoprfrao, 22.

170

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

colon is understood in the b-colon. For the periphrastic construction with "IVTT (42.8), see above, on 32(35).22. The section 41.14-42.8 is called nennOTQ 'instruction concerning shame' (41.14). It is composed of two stanzas in 41.17-42.1d and 42.1e--8, preceded by an introduction (41.14-16). 42.1cd is the conclud­ ing line of the first stanza which stands in parallel to the concluding line of the following stanza in 42.8. Both verses have the perfect con­ secutive rvvn following the imperative (Bin 41.17) and prohibitive (2?inn *7R 42.1e) in the first line of both stanzas. The periphrastic con­ struction gives more weight to the concluding lines of both stanzas and intensifies the parallelism between them. The last example to be discussed is 5.9-11. -pan V P iron

-psnh* -poo nvi

nana ncan n n - p a m

pxnb i r a o nvr mn^n-rirnn **

bwbDb-pnbw

C

-pnn

nvp

1

TTOO

n J D 3 mvn my - p a m

-pan

bv

-poo

nvr

n m e n m o e n jdi nvr

Before discussing these verses, we have to solve some textual prob­ lems. It seems that especially in MS C the text has been altered to a more biblical form of language. Moreover, some scribal errors have slipped in. In 9a Vin is to be read with C; cf. vrn b* in 6.1 (A). In 9b MS C seems to be more original; in A " p i was meant as a correction of rfTQE 'stream', which may have entered the text from 4.26 (A: bm r t a E ^b TOOT) and replaced the Aramaic b^W 'way . However, in­ stead of taking the place of rfTQe? it replaced bob 'to every'. rniQl 'and turning' may have been written to smooth the text. In 10a, read with A (V added above the line) and G "pin bv 'in your knowledge'. Read in 10b with A, inK 'one' and VP tie', though n w cannot be ruled out. In 11a, A's nnQQ 'hurrying, swift' is preferable; C's 'prepared, ready' may have come from Ps 112.7-8 (]1D3 / / -poo; + n m t t ) . The bib­ lical p a n 'listen, give ear' (A) has replaced the 'mishnaic' ninoe? 'listening' (C; cf. m. Abot 5.12 ninoe? ? 1HQ); raiD does not fit the 52

7

53

1

5 2

See also A.A. Di Leila, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Histori­ cal Study (Studies in Classical Literature, 1; The Hague: Mouton, 1966), 23-24; H.P. Rüger, Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach: Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der kairoer Geniza (BZAW, 112; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1970), 38-39; Segal, tO'op-©o, 33-34; Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 50-51. Cf. Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 50: 'nxeii ist für pT\ b& gleichmacherisch gesetzt'.

5 3

m

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

171

context, which deals with listening to questions, not to good words or instruction. It may have been added under the influence of roiCD njriQE 'good news' in Prov 15.30 and 25.25. Read in l i b with A rrn 'in patience' (cf. Qoh 7.8); in C, the biblical mun mi? 'you shall surely an­ swer has taken the place of the mishnaic expression DJnQ 3'evi; cf. Aramaic 02T)£) 3Tin (Ezra 5.11; Dan 3.16). is a later addition from Job 42.8 niD3 *>b* o r r m Kb O 'you have not spoken what is right about me'. These observations yield the following reconstruction: b^m bob "pr\ bm n n bob n-m Tm ba 7

-pnn V P irwi ana nen n n -piai

"jron by -pao nvr njnoefr T I O D rpn

7

1. m i l 'winnowing refers to an iterative action as may be clear from n n bob 'to every wind'. In BH one finds the non-periphrastic imperative, prohibitive, and imperfect of n i T , but all of these forms usually refer to unique actions, e.g., Ezek 5.2 xvnb m m rPEbram 'scat­ ter a third to the wind'. The participle is found in Ruth 3.2 m r «m nan onOTn p a DK 'behold, he will be winnowing barley at the threshing floor . 2. ~pao 'steadfasf may be regarded as a passive participle that has become an adjective, compare 32(35).l (F) and 44.6 (M: TlD OQO 'sup­ ported with strength'; G and S apparently read '?QO 'supported [with]', but B has OQTO 'leaning [on]'), Isa 26.3, Ps 111.8,112.8). Since -pQO nvi does not meet the criterion of replaceability, it is not covered by our definition of the periphrastic construction. 3. The non-periphrastic construction with *ino pi. ('hurry, be swift') is found in 6.7 (A) in the apodosis of a conditional sentence: vbv rren ? nnon bm imp p e r n nma mp 'when you gain a friend, test him in the gaining and do not hurry to trust him'. The action referred to is not as general as in our verse, but is specific to a particular event, which is given in the protasis. This may account for the difference between 6.7 and 5.11 (but see the periphrastic construction in 13.9 [A], discussed above). In BH one finds the non-periphrastic prohibitive i n o n b\b with general application (Qoh 5.1). The imperative TlD occurs only in reference to unique actions (1 Sam 9.12 and elsewhere). In 5.9-11 we find both the imperative and the prohibitive of nvr con­ nected with a participle to indicate iterative action. Remarkably, three periphrastic forms are concentrated in one stanza. According to Di Leila, 5.1-6.4 is a 22-line structure that contains three poems. All the five forms of rpn are found in the middle poem (5.9-6.1), and four of them in the first stanza (5.9-12). It is reasonable, therefore, to assume 7

1

5 4

55

5 4

5 5

Ms A pernor p e n . Skehan-Di Leila, Wisdom of Ben Sim, 181.

172

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

that Ben Sira used the construction with mn as a literary device to mark off a stanza. This assumption gains support from the stylistic use of the periphrastic construction in 4.29-31: A

C 56

We cannot go into the textual problems of these verses. The di­ vergences between A and C do not affect our analysis of the pe­ riphrastic construction. The poem 4.20-31 contains thirteen pro­ hibitive forms and two imperatives. The last three ^CDpn b\b forms are formed with rrn, which may be regarded as a kind of climax. Admit­ tedly, none of these forms meets our criterion of the periphrastic con­ struction, but one should be aware that other constructions would have been possible, particularly in the last line, where the Yin bfc con­ struction is maintained while its subject has changed (third person feminine instead of second person masculine); cf. 31(34).12 (B) *?R nnan 'do not open' and 31(34).14, 18 (B) T D'toCOn^ 'do not stretch out your hand'. The stylistic use of constructions with rrn in 4.19-31 and 5.9-11 becomes even more prominent when we take into account the analy­ sis of 4.20-6.17 by P.C. Beentjes. According to Beentjes, we should re­ gard 4.20-6.17 as a literary unit, introduced by the explicit address *33 'my son' in 4.20, enclosed between two passages dealing explicitly with Wisdom (4.11-19 and 6.18-37), and unified by the large number of statements introduced by la with a PC form. In this analysis, the two passages in which mn predominates, 4.29-31 and 5.9-11, belong to the same literary unit. Moreover, they enclose the section 5.1-8, which also is characterized by the frequent use of one particular verb (TDK 'sayO. 57

TV: Conclusions From our survey of the occurrences of the periphrastic construction 5 6

See the discussion in Rüger, Text und Textform, 34-35; Segal, RTO p "BO, 2930; Skehan-Di Leila, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 177; Smend, Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, 46-47. P. C. Beentjes, 'Ben Sira 5,1-8: A Rhetorical and Literary Analysis', The Lit­ erary Analysis of Hebrew Texts. Papers read at a Symposium held at the Juda Palache Institute. University of Amsterdam (5 February 1990) (ed. E.G.L. Schrijver, N.A. van Uchelen and I.E. Zwiep; Publications of the Juda Palache Insti­ tute, 7; Amsterdam: Juda Palache Institute, 1992), 45-59 (49-53). 5 7

VAN PEURSEN: PERIPHRASTIC TENSES

173

we may draw the following conclusions. 1. Periphrastic and non-periphrastic constructions sometimes in­ terchange in the process of textual transmission (32(35).22; 51.24,27). 2. As far as the meaning is concerned, we see that, as in MH, rrn is more than a copula and time indicator. It also indicates durative or iterative aspect. A form like nnQQ rrn resembles the periphrastic im­ perative with a command of general import in MH: T>e hastening ha­ bitually/constantly . However, to express durative, iterative or habit­ ual aspect, the construction with nvr is not obligatory, and sometimes differences in meaning from the non-periphrastic construction are not recognizable (e.g., 13.9-10; 42.1). 3. Since it is not grammatically obligatory to use the periphrastic construction, other factors must be involved. It appears that mainly stylistic reasons account for Ben Sira's use of the construction. These reasons may be related to variation (6.6; 13.9-10; 42.1), rhythm (6.6) or parallelism (42.1, 8). The construction is used to mark the opening lines or concluding lines of a stanza (6.6; 13.9-10; 42.1, 8) and some­ times a stanza as a whole is marked off by the frequent use of n*n (5.9-11). 4. From this observation, a final remark should be made on the general character of Ben Sira's language. S. Schechter, M.H. Segal, D. Strauss and others have claimed that the mishnaic elements in Ben Sira's language are slips or mistakes made out of ignorance. To quote Schechter: 'But great as his acquaintance with the Scriptures was, and strained as his efforts were in imitating them, he failed in the end. For, as is the case with all imitators, in unguarded moments such phrases, idioms, particles and peculiar constructions escaped him as to furnish us with a sufficiently strong number of criteria, betraying the real char­ acter of the language of his time'. This assessment has been con­ tested by C. Rabin. According to Rabin, the strong mishnaic element is intentional, it reflects a change in stylistic taste towards the vernac­ ular Hebrew. The skilful and artistic way in which Ben Sira made use of the periphrastic construction supports Rabin's view. We cannot assume that in eight, nine or ten 'unguarded moments' the pe­ riphrastic construction 'escaped' the inattentive Ben Sira and entered the text against his will. Ben Sira used the periphrastic construction deliberately in order to embellish his book. 7

58

59

5 8

Schechter-Taylor, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 33 (italics mine); see further S. Fraenkel, 'Zur Sprache des hebräischen Sirach', MGWJ 43 (1899), 481^84; Segal R T O p "ISO, 13; D. Strauss, Sprachliche Studien in den hebräischen SirachFragmenten (Zürich: Schaufelberger, 1900). C. Rabin, The Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew', ScrHier 4 (1958), 144-61 (152). 5 9

A NEW APPROACH TO THE USE OF FORMS OF THE IMPERFECT WITHOUT PERSONAL ENDINGS E. Qimron (Beer Sheva)

J; The phenomenon and previous research In the Hebrew of the Bible (BH) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSSH) there are three types of imperfect verbal forms: normal (^Op'), lengthened (only in the first person: n'Pûp], n'Pûpt^n^ûpK'l), and shortened (in the second and third persons, in forms such as Dp], Dp],fair,Dp]*})-} the lengthened and shortened forms will henceforce be called 'special forms'. The Medieval Hebrew grammarians considered all these forms interchangeable (ignoring the function of shortened forms in Arabic). Gesenius was apparently the first to observe that the special forms represent the optative mood and that the waxv-consecutive necessitates shortened forms. Luzzatto also made the same observation independently of Gesenius. This view is still the predominant one in modern research, albeit with some added improvements, modifications, and restrictions (see below). It has been recognized that the original use of the forms became somewhat undermined, especially in Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), with, on the one hand, the special forms 2

3

4

1

In the Tiberian (and Babylonian) tradition, the shortened and imperfect forms have been preserved only in categories that have a vowel in the (closed) final syllable, be this an original long vowel or not. The text of the Bible itself, however, may indicate that shortened imperfect forms originally occurred in other categories as well. Examing the spelling of Pbf5/ Pbfpn in BH, 1 found that in the non-conversive and non-modal imperfect, the plene spelling is used in more than twenty percent of the occurrences, whereas in the conversive imperfect it is used in just half a percent (0.006) of occurrences. Modal ^ b p (after ^ or before tc) is always defective (26 times), ^ b p forms at the beginning of the clause are also spelt defectively 16 times against one case of *PitDp' (on the form of the imperfect in initial positions, see below, section IV). This difference in spelling can only be explained on the assumption that the vowel of the ultima in forms such as ? b p ' ] and ^ f ? ' ^ or t o ^ p ' was short and unaccentuated. See Esther Goldenberg, 'Hebrew Language, Medieval', Encyclopaedia ]udaka 16 (1971), 1607-42, p. 1620. W. Gesenius, Hebräische Grammatik (Halle, 1828), §36. See also H. Ewald, Hebräische Sprachlehre (Leipzig, 1842), 90-92. S.D. Luzzatto, Kxwnwn, Vol. II (Przemysl, 1888), 49-51. t

1

1

t

2

3

4

, t

QIMRON: FORMS OF THE IMPERFECT

175

sometimes used indicatively and, on the other, the regular forms used optatively. I am in complete agreement with what has been said about the original function of the various forms, which is demon­ strated both by Comparative Semitics and by the exclusive use of the particles bfc and with the special forms of the imperfect (and with the imperative). 1 will, however, claim that this original function was extensively undermined in BH, and that syntax instead often regu­ lates the use of BH verbal forms and, specifically, the position of the verb in the clause. 5

6

II: Method Since the use of the various forms changed during the history of an­ cient Hebrew, it is worth examining usage not only in the earliest sources, that is, in BH, but also in later stages of Hebrew, for example in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The rules underlying the use of the forms in the late phases might have already been partially operative in earlier periods. Thus, the study of the various functions of the forms in the Semitic languages, on the one hand, and in DSSH, on the other, may well elucidate the usage in BH. Every phase of Hebrew should be thoroughly studied without be­ ing prejudiced by the original function of a given form. The research should have an extensive basis, ideally comprising all the relevant texts. This last requirement could only be partially achieved in the present study. I have, however, made an extensive survey of the rele­ vant texts, to test the validity of the rules I propose. While there are exceptions in both BH and DSSH, a detailed description is beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, I am convinced that the material pre­ sented here is sufficient to indicate the validity of my thesis. 5

S.R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of Tenses in Hebrew and some other Syntactical Questions. (Third ed.; Oxford, 1892), §§170-75 (where the author cites the views of some leading grammarians); G. Bergstrasser, Hebraische Grammatik, Vol. II (Leipzig, 1929), §10, especially §10b and §101-p; H.M. Orlinsky, 'On the Cohortative and Jussive after an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical He­ brew', JQR 32 (1942), 273-77; E. Qimron, 'Consecutive and Conjunctive Im­ perfect: the Form of the Imperfect with Waw in Biblical Hebrew', JQR 77 (1987), 151-53; R.C. Steiner, The History of the Ancient Hebrew Modal System and Labov's Rule of Compensatory Structural Change', in Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov (2 vols.; ed. G.R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, and J. Baugh; Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1995). Very exceptionally with other verbal forms, e.g. wnnwn (Gen 40.14). See S.E. Fassberg, Studies in Biblical Syntax (Jerusalem, 1994), 36 (Hebrew). In DSSH as well, is always followed by the shortened imperfect (second and third persons). 6

176

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

III: The forms of the first person consecutive imperfect It has been noticed that in the imperfect with consecutive waw, some forms of the first person singular differ from second and third person singular forms in that the former are identical either with the normal forms (e.g. DlpKl vs. Op>1 or D'pKl vs. Dp' l) or with the lengthened im­ perfect HDlpKl (especially in LBH). Bergstrasser observed that this dis­ tinction is secondary and that originally there was no such different­ iation. He observed that the forms of the first person in ' b verbs are farKi etc., and that those of V'V are always spelt defectively in the Torah. It should be added that this distinction according to person is systematic in the Tiberian tradition, being found not only in V'tf verbs and in the HifHl fropRl) but also in ' D and e.g. -n.Kl (vs. rf\), -)QK1 (vs. ")Q«n), bDfcl (vs. *73K 1). All these forms of the first person consecutive imperfect are identical with those of the regular imper­ fect. A significant contribution to the subject has been made by David Talshir, who demonstrated that in LBH not only the first person sin­ gular of the imperfect with waw-consecutive can have the normal (as against lengthened) form, but also the first person plural, for exam­ ple TDOTl (Neh 4.3) and 31031 (Neh 4.9[Kt]). Let me add that this phe­ nomenon also occurs occasionally in the Samaritan oral tradition, in those verbs which still preserve shortened forms: wyal, wtal vs. welli, wnelli, zvyaba, wtaba vs. wa'bu, wna'bu wyaS, wtaS vs. wesH, zvneSsi 7

f

v

8

V

3

9

10

11

7 8

Bergstrasser (note 5), §5d. Ibid.; also in Moabite: Mesa* inscription lines 3,9; tnai, line 6; pin, line

9. 9

The Babylonian tradition is not absolutely consistent with the Tiberian in regard to the forms of the conversive imperfect. On the one hand, some first person forms are identical with second and first person forms (unlike Tib­ erian): fiR ) (vs. lltk), bbti, Gen 3.12 (in pause = MT ^iRj), On the other hand, some conversive imperfect forms in the second and third persons still preserve the original penultimate stress (unlike their Tiberian counterparts); see I. Yeiyin, *"?aan itpm nopnoon nnnan yafTn m o o (Jerusalem, 1986), 585. The form "fifti apparently preserves the original penultimate stress; the sere being unstressed has not been changed to patafr according to Thilippi's law' (see p. 93 of E. Qimron, mnpon nrnun n r a / n ^ wtrn, US. 59 [1986], 77-102). D. Talshir, rv^KTinn ronsan *?K npna -jainon i r o n ronsa rnnnsnn, Tarbiz, 56 (1987), 585-91. See Z. Ben-Hayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans, Vol. V (Jerusalem, 1977), 127-28. Ben-Hayyim did not realize that the variant forms are not free variants but forms used in comple­ mentary distribution (according to persons). See also p. 367 of my review (article) of this book in Kiryat Sefer 54 (1979). 5

1 0

1 1

QIMRON: FORMS OF THE IMPERFECT

177

wyere, wtere vs. wereH wyasab vs. wnesob Thus, this behaviour of the first person, strange as it may seem is a real feature of Hebrew prior to the period of the Mishnah, being at­ tested in a variety of traditions. Bergstrasser explains the use of the regular forms in the consecutive imperfect of the first person singular as being on the analogy of the modal system. One may, however, wonder why the regular rather than the lengthened forms are used. While BH uses both normal and lengthened imperfects in the first person consecutive or conjunctive imperfect, DSSH knows only the form rfropKl irrespective of whether the waw is conversive or con­ junctive. This feature can easily be explained as analogous to the modal system. The forms of the imperfect with waw in DSSH thus became identical with the early modal forms. According to the prevailing view, BH shortened forms are used in the second and third persons of the consecutive and modal imperfects. I have previously demonstrated that such shortened forms may also occur with conjunctive waw, as in DSSH. I considered my observa­ tion significant, claiming that it was an indispensable first step to­ wards a comprehensive morphosyntactical re-examination of the moods in BH. According to this observation shortened btop'') forms should not necessarily be given an optative nuance. Regrettably, scholars have not heeded my call for such a reappraisal and have in­ stead maintained the earlier misconceptions. Recognizing the influ­ ence of the modal forms of the imperfect on the non-modal ones is of great significance for the re-examination of the function of these forms. On the one hand, any discussion should not mix together the forms of the first person with those of the second and third persons. On the other hand, the forms should not necessarily be explained as having their original function. 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1 2

Bergstrasser (note 5), ibid. In fact, rfrCDpKi andrfaapEare also used and are most frequent in the late biblical books (see Talshir [note 10], 589-90). Talshir disagrees with Berg­ strasser about the development of the various forms of the first person. He suggests, for example, that the use of noipKi rather than Dipto should be re­ garded as the result of analogy with the modal system, and that, later, DipKl sometimes replaced noTpw. Exceptions are found in the biblical and apocryphal scrolls. See E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, 1986), 45-46. See my article mentioned in note 5. Ibid., 153. See, for example, B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, 1990), 564-79. 1 3

1 4

15

1 6

1 7

1 8

178 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA IV: Forms without waw As we have seen, the various forms in BH are often not used in their original function. Are they at a stage where they are becoming free variants or did each of them acquire a new function? The answer to this question may be found in DSSH, which represents a later devel­ opment in the use of these forms. Let me describe the rule in some of the major scrolls. a

In the second part of lQIsa , the form ntapK (and ntapKI) is used at the beginning of clauses while tapK is always used in non-initial positions, as the following examples show. In initial position: lQlsa 41.18-19 a

D T 2 Q r w p a -prm rmro onra? ta rrnnBtt tro neno ? row* 0*0 vivb naion now* ] i » pin 01m no© riK n m c n rrmt* n r r Trown nmn eniCQronraT D ' ^ K roarer 1 2 1 /7^tt«3K 1

a

lQIsa 43.13 In non-initial position: lQlsa 45.1-2 a

In both positions: lQlsa 42.14-16 a

a

lQIsa 46.4 a

lQIsa 66.9

c n i m "j^To^HEhnnoK

c r a t a ^ncn

rrfrTO npattntt Z ? H / 7 K otaJD 1 « T W I I K o n n / n n / w m r r nBwtvrrnmriyEfc n"*b rmro T » » Iflra7Koaiw>*TDI rnran -ntf? norrafr rowno n o w ... a^KD'oaro rmvteoK^K nrna ron DK TOR? 7^7K R V T I

']K

n

In the major sectarian Scrolls, the form ntapK (and ntapKl) is used initially, but also non-initially, though this is very rare. tapK is practi­ cally never used in initial position: 1QH 10.5-7 rrDmn ] n a nvnnb nai nnssn i o t a am no ^»p^Xeo)Krow ' r n o r n fcta prnnxnn 'a nnnns ata •mKnoi ^ n m r Kta ^ntacn ata 19

1 9

a

Exceptions are to be found in some biblical scrolls. Even lQIsa exceptionally uses 'xsp* rather than nboptt in initial position, e.g. D'BK (= MT) at 50.2.

QIMRON: FORMS OF THE IMPERFECT 1QH 9.8-14

1QS 10.9-26

179

nnmn '3 w i r o t f T i ion *sbxb mwtti /7nraK7... p'TwrrxBDcn wi nmnm by nanmjwmMvmbosn... ' B D E D S ...b/wnropBin I T O D bbm... "a* T O D ? vira ba\ nana mom n W r i D V «130 D J ? 1 B Q 2 7 Q Tp3 JtttttTlSB npiai ana t w o tun r m a a *7[K]( )73K me? ^ a ? ^bax D w o n i v m r p m I D K ... ' p i s nombvtT]... m r r a a /roflttoram ^ D E N Z P ncaaa n s n w n v T D K 3 /77ra7 urn... I D E ? :natf > T n'roo rra( )na ' T DnKonoai... t> rmwsnp aa©o /ircwvion 'wi nnTfiHKvrnaaai... jann ? .. .*n bo O S C B D i T a *a nsmnum bo bm iimb nwttwb i r r /TanKinjrnpai ... topttwb... na: ^ n K a i o a j n K V ? ... nbw vmw nwtt wb train ^ir^ai...Dmswb...Drnttwb\... 7 7 & K D^pn... nnDKrrmna... ' a a t a 7 7 / 3 2 ? K K V ? run 7[£jj(n)0KrrBnn rau>a... V I S E D n*>nm c r r a ipa pin npbm... awttnyi rarum 1

1

1

The rules govering the use of the forms in DSSH also operate in BH, in the first person but more especially in the second and third per­ sons. The following examples (some drawn from extensive sequences of texts) include synonymous optative expressions and the use of dif­ ferent forms in parallel: Judg 6.39 bo rrm p u n bo bm uiab nran but ann v r Ps 72.13 ! W 7 ' c r 3 r a K rrosxn ]vaw bi by om Gen 9.25-27 ... vmb rrmwiay i^y ]WD T T I K nam ]yo V H . . . mspbumb* n& Isa 47.3 yiEnn ,7K7nm -priv (lQlsa n ^ n ) Prov 3.28(Qr) / / 7 K nnQT awi -J ? -jW? 7 0 K T 7 Exod 20.19 n7DJ]D O V T ^ R 7 3 7 ' t>K7 20

a

1

2 0

For the first person, see Orlinsky (note 5), 273-75. Driver (note 5), 214-15, observes that usually the shortened form 'stands at the beginning of a clause'. He supposed 'that (e.g.) DBP was retained primarily as a reminiscence of the normal ... On the other hand, where the shorter form occurs, preceded by 1 (§84a), it must be admitted to be doubtful whether the punctuation repre­ sents a genuine tradition' (p. 215). Note that imperfect forms without wow in the second and third persons are rarely used in initial position in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Imperfect forms with waw are always short in the major nonbiblical scrolls . This is not the case with lQIsa . a

180

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 21

Note the forms in the blessing of Moses (Deut 33), (7) iTiTHTiffi nun... (6) vno v n . . . n i t o w (24)vm^1 ',7'... (ll)/72;nnVT7^D1 the blessing of Jacob (Gen 49), ^(Kt-n) ©m p v r . . . io# pryi, and in the Admonition (Deut 28): (21)-J3"pDT(13)nûQ*7 /7VXT7K*^J... (8)-[flB (36) "]n« " 7^7»... (25) o u n r o - n nrarai... (39) rawn *b p . . . (38) rrron ircnnm jtit / 7 ^ » "pnpa n&K nan... (40) 770/7 a*? pen ... (44)-2±>rnrmnxm mrb wrv « m . . . (43) - p ^ . Perhaps most instructive of all are the following equivalent wishes or requests: 1 Kgs 1.31,39 (ubsb) pnn t p vs. Neh2.3 rrrvrfaxfr-pan Ps 122.7 -pTOUtWTV vs. 1 Kgs 2.33 D - t e m r r . . . u n f a TIT ? 1 Chr 21.23 v?m men "]*PQn '3TH bhh vs. 2 Sam 10.12 w r a man rnwp *n Jer 42.5 ]DKTI DDK itf? 133 T P vs. Judg 11.10 TJTnrajra&rrrr'* 1 Kgs 10.9112 Chr 9.8 -]rD f r f a * " TP Ruth 2.19 " j r a "[TDD TP Prov 5.18 "|VQ "pTpD TP vs. Gen 27.33 rrrr-p-ami Deut 7.14 rrrm -p-a Admittedly, there are some exceptions to the rule (and even contradictory examples), such as: 2 Sam 14.17 ... nnmb -pan ' h r - q i ^k: n v r 4

1

2

,r

* p j p 77'-|Tfa* ) /y

(cf. 1 Sam 17.37 - p r HTP i p) Zep 3.17 nra iraroa œnrr nnora -]fa> BPBP Gen 1.22 p K 3 m ' *] w n (=4QGen , butTOTin 4QGenS) b

2 1

h

In 4QDeut 33.10-11 (see Julie A. Duncan, *New Readings for the "Blessings of Moses" from Qumran', JBL 114 [1995], 273-90), we finditfWBi... nop].... TP nsnnpiT. On the other hand, HQPs 119.172 uses the regular form in initial position: ran rather than MT pn. In 4QpGen [4Q254] 5.4: p v n . This is the only example in the Bible of w preceded by a normal imperfect, where a choice between special and normal forms is available. Cf. *ppR n» 'iTi in an inscription from Kuntillet «Ajrud (and other parallels), cited in S. Ahituv, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Jerusalem, 1992), 158 (Hebrew). a

5 2

2 3

2 4

c

QIMRON: FORMS OF THE IMPERFECT

181

Such exceptions indicate that this new system based on syntax was not yet fully developed in BH. Nevertheless, the overall arrange­ ment of the forms according to the position of the verb is clearly evi­ dent in BH. Keeping in mind that the forms with initial waw always stand at the beginning of clauses, the rule appears very inclusive and the exceptions are relatively insignificant. The special forms, thus, came to be employed typically in clause-initial position, whether or not they began with waw. One may say that morphologically the imperfect forms were constructed on the analogy of the modal system, and syntactically they were influenced by the consecutive imperfect, coming in initial position. This rule fully explains why in purpose clauses beginning with the verb the modal forms are used (...HDnKl'PKB), while in those beginning with a particle (JtfQ*?, ]S, the indicative forms are used. The dominance of the syntactic element (the use of the special forms in clause-initial position) indicates that the original modal sys­ tem had become very weakened and was on the verge of being re­ placed. The following preliminary observations follow from my anal­ ysis. 1. Every imperfect form could be used optatively. 2. The special forms are also used indicatively. 3. The use of the forms depends on their syntactical position. 4. The original usage is still consistently evident only after or before KJ. 5. The interpretation of BH in the light of DSSH has been benefi­ cial. Finally, I have to add that Mishnaic Hebrew exhibits a system which must have developed quite differently in early times. Even those who believe that the tenses in LBH or DSSH reflect the transi­ tion from LBH to Mishnaic Hebrew realize that the increase of ntapK forms in late BH and DSSH is inconsistent with this view. The fact that rrtapK acquires new functions in the Second Temple period makes any comparison with Mishnaic Hebrew untenable. 25

26

27

2 5

See Fassberg (note 6), 76-92. E.Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (lQIsa*) (Leiden, 1974), 326-27. Note that in Samaritan Hebrew, nbopw denotes the past (Z. Ben-Hayyim [note 11], 129-30).

2 6

2 7

HOW TO WRITE A POEM: THE CASE OF PSALM 151A (HQPs 28.3-12)* a

Mark S.Smith (Philadelphia)

J; Introduction 1

2

Psalm 151 is so numbered in Greek and Syriac psalters, and it is at­ tested in psalter texts in Old Latin, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. A Hebrew version of this text was unknown until the discovery of the Psalms Scroll in Cave 11 at Qumran. J.A. Sanders published the scroll first in 1963 in a preliminary edition and then in 1965 in the form of 3

* This paper represents two presentations made at the Leiden Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, held 11-14 December, 1995 at the Rijks Universiteit te Leiden. The discussion of the text of Psalm 151 in sections of I through IV of this essay was the basis for my workshop at the symposium, and section V, the appendix on superscriptions in HQPs , repre­ sents my lecture. Because of the closeness of subject matter in the two contri­ butions, I have combined them into a single paper for this volume. I wish to express very warm thanks to Professor T. Muraoka for the invitation to the Symposium, as well as appreciation for the improvements to my paper sug­ gested at the Symposium by Professor Muraoka and other participants; these are cited below. J. Magne, 'Les textes grec et syriaque du Psaume 151', RQ 8 (1975), 548-64; 'Le verset des trois pierres dans le tradition du Psaume 151', RQ 8 (1975), 565-91; R. Meyer, T)ie Septuaginta-Fassung von Psalm 151,1-5, als Ergebnis einer dogmatischer Korrectur', in Das ferne und nahe Wort (Fs. Leonard Rost; BZAW, 105; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967), 164-72; D.N. Wigtil, The Sequence of the Translations of the Apocryphal Psalm 151', RQ 11 (1983), 401^407. See W. Baars (ed.), 'Apocryphal Psalms', in The Old Testament in Syriac ac­ cording to the Peshitta Version edited by the Peshitta Institute, Part IV, fascicle 6 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1972), i-ix, 1-4; Magne, Textes'; 'Verset'; M. Noth, 'Die fünf syrisch überlieferten apocryphen Psalmen', ZAW 48 (1930), 4, 8, 11; H. Schneider, 'Biblische Oden im syrohexaplarischen Psalter', BW 40 (1959), 20205; P.W. Skehan, 'Again the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms', CBQ 38 (1976), 14358; H.H. Spoer, 'Psalm 151', ZAW28 (1908), 65-67; J. Strugnell, 'Notes on the Text and Transmission of the Apocryphal Psalms 151,154 (= Syr. II) and 155 (= Syr. III)', HTR 59 (1966), 258-72, 278-81; Wigtil, 'Sequence'. See S. Strelcyn, 'Le psaume 151 dans le tradition éthiopienne', JSS 23 (1978), 316-29; G. Viaud, 'Le Psaume 151 dans le liturgie copte', Bulletin de Vlnstitut Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire 67 (1969), 1-8. The first work contains a critical Ethiopic edition with translation and notes. a

1

2

3

a

SMITH: PSALM 151A (HQPs 28.3-12)

183

an editio princeps.* The final composition in this scroll was Psalm 151 (HQPs column 28, lines 3-14). A terminus ad quern of the third century has been generally accepted largely on the witness to the text in the LXX. However, dates of either the second or first century B.C. have been proposed for the Septuagintal psalter. Perhaps a better indicator of a second-century date (or earlier), this text displays none of the thematic traits specifically associated with Qumran community literature. Lines 3-14, attesting to two poems, offer a rare opportunity to witness the process of poetic composition in the Second Temple period. The psalm was regarded rightly by its editor as a sort of 'midrash' on the life of David in 1 Sam 16.1-13. This sort of composition is not altogether exceptional. Yet there is evidence, albeit scanty, for such a genre earlier than the Syriac Psalms 152-153. J. Strugnell points to the survival of such a piece in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 59.4. The second half of this composition includes many of the same themes found in Psalm 151 (the mention of shepherding; David's father and brothers; his anointing; the reference to 'messengers' as in LXX Psalm 151 but not HQPs 28; the prophet). The text also shows the technique of taking language from 1 Samuel. Pseudo-Philo 62.5 contains a line which J. Strugnell and D. Harrington compare with the opening of Ps 151: 'For I, the least among my brothers, was tending sheep'. Ben Sira 47.1-12's praise of David for his many exploits might be placed in the same or a similar subgenre. Ben Sira 47.4 compares well with the final verse in LXX and Syriac: 'As a youth he slew the giant and did away with the people's disgrace' (cf. 1 Sam 17.26). One of the methods of composition utilized in a

5

6

7

8

9

a

10

4

J.A. Sanders, Tsalm 151 in HQPss', ZA W75 (1963), 73-86; The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (DJD, IV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 53-64. * So F.M. Cross, 'David, Orpheus, and Psalm 151:3-4', BASOR 231 (1978), 6971. G. Dorival, M. Harl and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque: du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf/C.N.R.S., 1988), 91, 93, 97. O. Munnich prefers the earlier date based on a relative chronology of the LXX Psalter's influence on the translation of other LXX books. See Munnich, 'Etude lexicographique du Psautier des Septante' (2 vols.; these presentee pour le doctorat; Paris: Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1982), 1,19-53. See the summary of his views in Dorival, Harl and Munnich, La Bible grecque, 96, 111. For the grammatical basis of this argument, see A. Hurvitz, The Language and Date of Psalm 151 from Qumran', EI 8 (1967), 82-87 (Hebrew). Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 56. J. Strugnell, 'More Psalms of "David"', CBQ 27 (1965), 207-16. For a translation, see D. Harrington, Tseudo-Philo', in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 2; ed. J.H. Charlesworth; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 372. Strugnell, 'More Psalms', 215, n.6; Harrington, Tseudo-Philo', 375. 6

7

8 9

1 0

184

THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA

Psalm 151, namely using words and phrases from 1 Samuel 17, finds its closest analogue in Ben Sira 47.1-12. Whatever the precise relationship among these texts, they point to a number of late poetic texts devoted to developing the biblical biography of David, or in the case of the psalm texts, Davidic autobiography. While Sanders' view of Psalm as a 'midrash' has been generally accepted, the extent of the borrowing from these chapters has not been sufficiently noted. The dependence on 1 Samuel 15-18 (but especially 16-17) indicates how the process of composition incorpo11

12

1 1

c

On this point, see S. Talmon, Tisqah Be>emsa Pasuq and HQPs', Textus 5 (1966), 19. The secondary literature does not sufficiently address this point: P. Auffret, 'Structure littéraire et interprétation du Psaume 151 de la grotte 11 de Qumran', RQ 9 (1977), 163-88; J. Baumgarten, 'Perek Shirah, an Early Response to Psalm 151', RQ 9 (1978), 575-9; W.H. Brownlee, The HQ Counterpart to Psalm 151, 1-5', RQ 4 (1963), 379-88; J. Carmignac, 'La forme poétique du Psaume 151 de la grotte 11', RQ 4 (1963), 371-78; 'Précisions sur la forme du Psaume 151', RQ 5 (1965), 249-52; 'Nouvelles précisions sur le Psaume 151', RQ 8 (1975), 593-97; J.H. Charlesworth with J.A. Sanders, 'More Psalms of David', in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Vol. 1; ed. J.H. Charlesworth; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 609-15; F. Collela, 'II testo ebraica del Salmo', Rivista Biblica Italiana 14 (1966), 365-38; Cross, 'David'; A. Dupont-Sommer, 'Le Psaume CLI dans HQPs et le problème de son origine essénienne', Semitica 14 (1964), 25-62; R.Y. Ebied, 'A Triglot volume of the Epistle of the Laodiceans, Psalm 151 and other Biblical Materials', Bib 47 (1966), 243-54; F. Garda Martinez, 'Salmos apocrifos en Qumran', EstBib 40 (1982), 200-201; M. Haran, The Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151', JJS 39 (1988), 171-82; Hurvitz, 'Language and Date'; Magne, 'Orphisme, pythagorisme, essénisme dans le texte hébreu du Psaume 151?', RQ 8 (1975), 508-47; "'Seigneur de l'univers" ou David-Orphée? Defense de mon interprétation du Psaume 151', RQ 9 (1977), 189-96; R. Mancini, 'Note sul 151', RSO 65 (1991), 125-29; M. Philonenko, 'David humilié et simplex. L'interprétation essénienne d'un personnage biblique et son iconographie', CRAIBL Février 1978, 536-48; I. Rabinowitz, The Alleged Orphism of HQPss 28:3-12', ZAW 76 (1964), 193-200; Sanders, 'Psalm 151'; 'Responsum', ZAW 76 (1964), 200; Psalms Scroll; 'A Multivalent Text: Psalm 151:3-4 Revisited', H AR 8 (1984), 167-84; F. Sen, 'El Salmo 151 merece anadirse al Salterio como obra maestra', Separata de Cultura Biblica 29 (1972), 167-73; P.W. Skehan, The Apocryphal Psalm 151', CBQ 25 (1963), 407-409 = Israelite Wisdom Literature (CBQMS I; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1971), 64-66; 'Again', 143-47; Morton Smith, 'Psalm 151, David, Jesus and Orpheus', ZAW 92 (1980), 247-53; J. Starcky, 'Le psaume 151 de Septuaginte retrouvé à Qumran', Le Monde de la Bible 6 (1979), 8-10; B. Storfjell, The Chiastic Structure of Psalm 151', AUSS 25 (1987), 97106; S. Talmon, The World of Qumran From Within (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989), 244-72; B. Uffenheimer, 'Psalm 151 from Qumran', Molad 22 (1964), 6 9 81 (Hebrew); R. Weiss, Tsalm 151', Massa 15 May 1964 (Hebrew), 'Additions to the Subject of Psalm 151' Massa 29 January 1965 (Hebrew). The studies of Skehan on this text and others in HQPs deserve more consideration than they have received in recent discussions. 1 2

a

3

3

a

a

SMITH: PSALM 151A (HQPs 28.3-12)

185

rated phrases and words from this biblical book. By isolating the material drawn from 1 Samuel, it is possible to see how the author then added and arranged the material. This arrangement included some aspects of syntax, in particular verbal syntax. Hence, detailing the extensive borrowings provides a key to understanding the build­ ing process involved in the composition of this text. It may be no ac­ cident that the borrowings from 1 Samuel appear in the material shared by all the versions, but, as stressed by M. Haran and discussed below at greater length, the other material does not appear in the Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek and Syriac versions. Therefore, additions to the 1 Samuel material generally represent the compositional activity of the author of HQPs 28.3-14. (In turn, it would seem that the Greek and Syriac versions attest to a Hebrew Vorlage that like Ben Sira 47 stayed considerably closer to the lan­ guage borrowed from 1 Samuel 16-17.) Before proceeding, it is necessary to clarify the relationship be­ tween HQPs 28.3-14 and the other versions of Psalm 151. The dis­ crepancies between the extant Hebrew version and the shorter Greek and Syriac versions may in some cases provide an idea of how the redactor added to an older Hebrew version represented by these lat­ ter versions. Some of these discrepancies, in particular the LXX and Syriac counterparts to HQPs 7-8 and perhaps 9-10, are not helpful for this discussion, as they may contain haplographies in the Greek and Syriac versions rather than expansions on the part of the extant Hebrew version. However, some of the longer readings in HQPs 4, 5-6 and perhaps 10-12, compared with their LXX and Syriac counter­ parts, seem to represent expansions in the extant Hebrew version. Sanders regarded the difficult form of the LXX even in these cases as the result of internal reduction of an original to which the extant He­ brew version is a witness. This approach may suit the evident basis 13

a

a

14

a

15

a

16

1 3

Haran, Two Text-Forms ', 172-73. For the Greek, on which the Syriac is dependent, a glance at the parallels assembled in the older work by F. W. Mozley suggests this point. See Mozley, The Psalter of the Church: The Septuagint Psalms Compared with the Hebrew, with Various Notes (Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press, 1905), 190. The Syriac versions are directly dependent on the LXX (Strugnell, 'Notes', 261-65; Skehan, 'Again', 143-47). Strugnell disputes Sanders' claim that the Syriac superscription is closer to the extant Hebrew than LXX. The compli­ cated issues of the Greek and Syriac versions and their many variants are not treated here. Rather, these versions are discussed in tandem here in order to highlight the differences with the extant Hebrew version which is the focus of this discussion. So Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 59. See also Strugnell, 'Notes', 265. See below for further discussion. See below for further discussion. 1 4

1 5

1 6

186 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA a

for haplography in the LXX and Syriac counterparts to HQPs 7-8 and perhaps 9-10, but it hardly explains the whole-scale loss de­ manded by this approach for the very long plus in 5-6. Nor does it do justice to the extra material in either lines 11-12 or 1 3 - 1 4 . It seems more reasonable to admit textual problems on the side of the LXX and Syriac versions here, but it may not be a matter of a reduction of the massive sort envisioned by J. A. Sanders and J. Strugnell and accepted by J. Charles worth. Rather, the Greek and Syriac versions had a shorter Hebrew Vorlage which differed on a number of points from the extant Hebrew version. As M. Haran has argued, the Greek and Syriac versions are closer to the original Hebrew Vorlage that was inherited by the 'author' of the HQPsA text, which represents an expansive version relative to the Greek and Syriac treatment. (Given the process of com­ position under discussion, it may be more appropriate to label the author of the expanded extant Hebrew version an 'author-redactor' or the like.) Indeed, the extant Hebrew version seems to have inherited a single poem about David's life perhaps culminating in his defeat of Goliath (hence the allusion to this episode in the su­ perscriptions in the Greek and Syriac versions). Then the authorredactor made two poems out of his received material and provided each one with its own superscription; hence the reference to Goliath was perhaps taken from the first superscription as reflected in the Greek and Syriac versions and used in the second superscription of the Hebrew version. While the second poem is extant only in the very fragmentary lines 13-14 of HQPs 28, the Greek and Syriac versions are more extensive at this point. Furthermore, there is room for eight more lines at the bottom of column 28, more than enough room to 17

18

19

20

a

1 7

The plus in lines 13-14 is not addressed here. For now, see correctly Haran, Two Text-Forms'. Strugnell, 'Notes', 281; Charlesworth with Sanders, 'More Psalms', 612. In addition to the pluses in HQPs 28.3-12, the Greek and Syriac versions show a few differences which reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage, e.g., LXX 'angel' (from Hebrew ybo) for HQPs 28:8 'prophet' (see L. H. Silberman, Trophets/Angels: LXX and Qumran 151 and the Epistle to the Hebrews', in Standing Before God: Studies on Prayer in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays in Honor of John M. Oesterreicher [ed. A. Finkel and L. Frizzell; New York: Ktav, 1981)], 91-101) and LXX ev x© eXou© TTInb\* in Ben Sira 33.1 and 45.23 and ban PJTPK in 5QRegle I.2. The titles are paralleled also in Ben Sira 18.1-2 (cited below in section III). Most accept the yod reading, but they do not translate 'my deeds', a notable exception being Rabinowitz. Rather, they construe the final yod as the plural form in construct to the following divine title ('deeds of the King of All', or the like) as rendered above in section I. (Hurvitz considers both possibilities.) It should be noted that all renderings require some relative imbalance of lines. Finally, it should be noted that the Greek and Arabic versions understand T o n as an object 'for whatever their judgement is worth'. Another way to read this unit, which preserves the divine titles, is as follows. For who will tell and who can express "QT 'Ql TIP O And who will relate my deeds? nw>0 nfc "ISO' 'Ql rwn'ron p u t The Lord of All has seen, »MRirr 7Drr rrfra The God of All, he has heard pron Kim and he has listened. Though without parallel, the context might seem to favour 'my compositions' or 'my deeds', since the preceding context concerns David's deeds and words. Commentators perhaps overlook this possibility not only because of the lack of parallels, but because the idea of David's self-proclamation conflicts with preconceptions of 47

48

49

50

51

,

Psalm from Qumran', RQ 5 (1964-66), 228, n. 7. This view is, however, not ac­ cepted by a number of commentators, a notable exception being Cross CNotes', 70). Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 57. See E. Qimron, Times for Praising God: A Fragment of a Scroll from Qum­ ran', JQR 80 (1990), 341-47. This evidence meets part of Skehan's objections voiced in 'Again', 147. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB, 33; Garden City: Doubleday, 1992), 593. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Vol. I: Alef (ed. D.J.A. Clines; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 280. See P.W. Skehan and A. A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB, 39; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 278,295. Rabinowitz, 'Alleged Orphism', 1%. Strugnell,'Notes', 281. 4 5

4 6

4 7 4 8

4 9

5 0 5 1

194 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA David's humility. Yet it is arguable that this is the central point in the Hebrew version: David recounts his devotion in lines 3-7, which is why God rewards him in lines 7-12. This approach, as represented in the translation immediately above, has two problems, however. The length of the last line is conspicuous. Furthermore, the theology implied by the second line, which would have David praising himself rather than God, seems odd and lacks parallels. In contrast, the read­ ing offered by the line division and translation in section I incurs no such problems. The only point to note is the initial position of the *qatal form in the third poetic line; such syntax has parallels in the biblical corpus (e.g. Exod 15.9,10,13,14; Deut 32.5,26; Judg 5.7,19). The fifth unit seems the longest, running from line 8b through the end of line 10. The two bicola in lines 8b-9 offer no problems. The defective spelling of "inn for IKnn in line 9 is notable. It is likewise at­ tested in the HQPs 21.11 version of Ben Sira 51.14: m r a ft nan, liter­ ally 'she came to me in her beaut/. (Given the context, the last word in this clause may involve paranomasia with m r a , 'with torah'.) The major interpretive issue in this unit is whether to read line 10 as two or four lines. The parallelism here is open to either interpretation. There are two factors in favour of seeing only two poetic lines in line 10. The internal parallelism of the last poetic line in line 9 would per­ haps suggest the same in the case of line 10a. Moreover, the syntax of what is taken here as two lines is more properly speaking a single line from a grammatical point of view. There are two points which per­ haps suggest reading the unit as four lines. The addition of D'nftfc relative to LXX might imply an attempt to fill out the obviously short line. Furthermore, most of the other units in this poem seem to be double bicola, and the same may be the case here. The final unit of the first poem exhibits the double bicola struc­ ture as found clearly in most units of this poem and arguably for all the units. For the first line of the second poem Talmon reconstructs the la­ cuna TtftfDB], 'I [hearjd'. Sanders has read instead Tipjlio, which ad­ mittedly is less suitable. 52

53

a

54

55

5 2

For this two-fold division, see Sanders, Psalms Scroll, 56. See P. Jouon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax (Subsidia Biblica 14. II; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991) §155k (reference courtesy of Professor T. Muraoka). The form in or nn for iKn 'form, beauty occurs twice elsewhere in Ben Sira, in the Masada manuscript of 43.9 and 18 (Dr J.F. Elwolde, personal com­ munication). ^Talmon, Tisqah',20. 5 3

5 4

7

a

SMITH: PSALM 151A (HQPs 28.3-12)

195

IV: Sources for the poem's composition

The various phrases known from 1 Samuel 16-17, with some echoes from 15 as well, constituted the building blocks for the external edi­ fice of this text (marked in the translation as A, B, V and A'). (This is true not only of the first psalm attested here in lines 3 through 12, but also in the second psalm, the beginning of whose poem is preserved fragmentarily in lines 13-14.) The following list contains fourteen items from 1 Samuel 15-18 which served as building blocks for HQPs 28.3-12. a

a

HQPs 28

1 Samuel 15-18

3 (]0p)

16.11,17.14 (19j?n);

1.

small

2. 3.

he set me/him 3 pxren) shepherd to sheep 3 ( u c 6 n « n )

15.17 (|bj?)* 18.5 (TOftrj) 16.11 17.15 1

(TiHrriHn?); vn»i^); 4. 5. 6. 7.

lyre he sent (Samuel) to meet him handsome

8. 9.

tall in height the Lord did not choose 10. he sent

11.

4 CVSD)

8(n^) 9 omnp ?) 1

cf. 17.34 16.16,23 CTto») 16.1 (^tfptiK)

16.4 (inanpV)

9(n*ODn 'En mnn *EP)

17.42 (rmnbngp); 16.12 (D^nsr* 'tfnaiDi)

9 tonDTpnovori) I0(mrr nrattf?)

16.7 (inoip ppa) 16.8,9,10016

mm nra) 10 (rfwn)

16.12 (n^'l); cf. 15.18; 18.5 ... send and take 10 Oanpn rfazh) 16.11 (Hipirnfatf); cf. 17.31 take... and anoint 10-110anron...'3npn) 16.13 (ntfpn...nj?3) he anointed me/ 15.17 (^qijtan) 11 O A N R O N ) you 16.13 (ntpq ])Q2;n); anoint with oil ll (pra'arratan) cf. 18.14,16 T

12. 13. 14.

5 6

Cf. m

9

]Bp in Ben Sira 51:27 (B).

196 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA In addition to the material from 1 Samuel 15-18, four cases of bor­ rowings from other royal biblical passages may be noted. ,

15. my compositions

6fatfQ Ps45.2 WW} (Ben Sira 47.8 [B] 57

16. took from after the sheep

10-11 ]K12in "inKQ '3np'1 4

2 Sam 7.8 Jlfefij "TTKD... ^ W T j ? ?

58

4

17. anointed with holy oil 18. leader for his people

59

Ps 78.71 nijn ? iann nt>y nn$Q 11 BTipn pti'wmn Ps 89.21 rnrnpo voip ]oc?3 llTD^Ta" 1 Sam 13.14 "iOV'bv TJJ; cf. 1 Sam 8.16,10.1; 2 Sam 6.21,7.8, etc.

The net effect of these comparisons is noteworthy. It is evident that the two outer envelopes, lines 3-5 and 8-12, are constructed mainly from expressions found in 1 Samuel. The poem in the two outside envelopes uses material from 1 Samuel 15-18 (but mainly 1 6 17), and then the author-redactor filled in this construction with the material from his own hand. Many non-biblical and late expressions serve to complete the outer edifice of the poem and a small part of its inner structure as well. Ten such expressions in lines 3-5 and 8-12 appear in the follow­ ing order. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5-6.

5 7

,

1

6 0

W/ a« o(3) v n n n ^ Q (4) U>iD* in an expression of 'giving' honour (5) tiDn...noK*(5) ' r o n ] r m / / r o n r i b * (7-S) 61

62

,

63

Skehan, 'Apocryphal Psalm 151', 407. 2 Sam 7.8 refers back to 1 Samuel 16. Noted by Skehan, 'Apocryphal Psalm 151', 407. Haran (Two Text-Forms', 174) rightly regards the parallelism as innova­ tive on the part of the author-redactor, especially in view of the biblical wordpair, 'brother'//'sons of mother'. He considers it artificial, but the change over and against the standard biblical parallel word-pair may represent a su­ perior evocation of the theme of 1 Samuel 15-18. ™ See Haran, Two Text-Forms', 175. Cf. the BH idiom, ata I D K * (e.g. Pss 14 = 53.1; also Qoh 2.1, 3.17, etc. as noted by Rabinowitz, 'Alleged Orphism', 197). For the parallelism of divine titles, see Ps 114.7. So Sanders, Psalms Scroll,

5 8

5 9

6 0

6 2

6 3

197

a

SMITH: PSALM 151A (HQPs 28.3-12) 7. 8.

'ftlft^KTOB

(8-9)" n m o n *sn ninn *B» (9)

9. 10.

Dirtncrfipnao) TPmvcn (11-12).

These ten expressions do not occur in the Greek and Syriac versions, but only in the expanded Hebrew version, rightly emphasized by Haran. They show four strategies for completing lines. First, the author-redactor extends usage from material in the older version of the poem. So, for example, in line 4 draws on the more traditional use of this word attested in line 11 (written superlinearly). In a similar vein, D ' B * as a verb for giving honour in line 5 is perhaps an extension of this verb's more regular usage in line 11. Perhaps the expression Tinn '333 in 11-12 owes its first noun to *33 in line 3. Second, the poet used traditional biblical wordings (in addition to items noted above). So the construction of the parallel 3TU7 and -TCD in line 4 was completed in accord with this traditional word-pair known 65

in Gen 4.21, Ps 150.4, Job 21.12 and 30.31. Similarly, mcion 'fin mnn *B» in line 9 shows a modification of 1 Sam 17.42 (rwnQ H E P ) and 16.12 66

OfcODiBID'rynEP). T h e handsome hair of David's brothers is a trait borrowed from Absalom (2 Sam 14.26)'. Third, the poet used non-biblical and current religious language. This would seem to apply to 7Dn ] n K / / r o n nftfc in lines 7-8 (as noted above). Perhaps to be included here is the phrase, Tin3 '333, in 11-12 which may have sounded traditional to the poet. Fourth, the poet ventured new parallel expressions to match ma­ terial borrowed from 1 Samuel: for ^ITOIQ*? in line 8, 'ftlft in line 9; and, for onoip3D*rmin in line 9,DnOT3D'fim in line 10. Given these observations, the poet at times appears more adroit at using older ma­ terial than in coining original expressions or even in offering parallel expressions. A further observation, one perhaps even more conspicuous, may be derived from noting the distribution of the borrowings from 1 Samuel: the central section of the poem shows no comparable bor­ rowing. Here the 'midrash' ends, unveiling the main thematic point 67

l

l

57. Haran, Two Text-Forms', 176. It may be added that it is precisely many of these items which provided the linguistic basis for a post-exilic date. See Hurvitz, 'Language and Date'; Haran, Two Text-Forms', 172-73. Cf.Estherl.il. Skehan, 'Apocryphal Psalm 151', 407. 6 4 6 5

6 6

6 7

198 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA placed strategically in the middle. Before pursuing this point, it is necessary to study the poet's sources for this section as well, not only to discern this main point more clearly, but also to examine the poet's method of construction in the middle sections of his poem (marked in the translation as C and C ) . As noted above, *7Dn ym/Zbun nV?R in lines 7-8 constitute idioms current in the author-redactor's time. For form and content, other sources provided models. The form of the statement in lines 5-6 echoes biblical passages. Sanders cited Mic 6.12, Isa 44.23 and 55.12. The addition of the negative in line 6 seems to represent the author-redactor's modification. The negative form of this assertion relative to biblical models has been attributed to the in­ fluence of Orphism, but this view met with strong criticism and is not generally held now. In either case, David's claim in line 6 seems su­ perlative in comparison with the biblical examples. Regarding the question in line 7, Sanders compared Isa 40.12-13 as well as a number of passages in Ben Sira. Of these, Ben Sira 16.22 (manuscript B) is perhaps the most pertinent since like line 7, it juxta­ poses -tolJD* with an interrogative clause containing + the HifMl of 12*: T3-Pr ^np-re niDVO, 'my (?) righteous deeds, who can relate?'. The Greek text of Ben Sira 18.1-2,4 is also helpful, as it contains the same juxtaposition of question and statement about God known from HQPs 28.7. P.W. Skehan translates: The Eternal is the judge of all alike; Kupioq ^iovo

xf\<j xpioeax; acbxov oi dSeAxpoi \LOX> K O X O I \ieyaXoi 03 n r a n r r t f T j Kal o\>x E\)56KT[OEV ev auxoiq Kvpioq. If correct, it would suggest that the author-redactor of the Hebrew version transposed the second and third line of the tricolon to the next poetic unit in lines 11-12 (which he also expanded into a double colon). The author-redactor also added a second parallel line to the first line that was left, yielding a bicolon, and also added another bicolon inspired by the following bicolon about David's brothers. Relative to the bicolon in the Greek, the Hebrew version is greatly expanded and may accordingly be regarded as two bicola. In sum, the author of the extant Hebrew version regularized according to the scheme devised for the rest of the poem. 7. The last set of double bicola in lines 11-12 reflects the addition of a bicolon relative to the Greek and Syriac versions. In most of these units the double bicolon structure is clear and with­ out difficulty (A, C, C and A'). In some cases (B and B'), this struc­ ture, though grammatically more debatable, is defensible. The double bicola arrangement was hardly exceptional. Psalm 154 shows a very similar plan of double bicola. Each of its main five sections contains two sets of bicola, if allowance is made for two probable expansions and one possibly deliberate departure. The two apparent expansions are 'his glory to all the simple' in line 2 and the extra line in 17* ap­ parently not attested in 4Q488 col. A: '[raises a horn from Ja]cob, a judge [of the peoples from Israel]'. The deliberate departure appro­ priately appears at the centre of the poem which is dominated by four participial clauses dependent on a main clause. Second, the author-redactor permitted some variation in linelength. The shortest is the line 03 D*nV?K/mrr n r n W\b in line 10, which stood for a bicolon. The author-redactor also allowed two rather long lines to complete two of the double bicola in lines 8 and 9. Apparently too long for the line, in line 10 represents a case of 75

7 5

Morton Smith (Tsalm 151', 248,250) permits less variation than the authorredactor, and as a consequence resorts to bracketing several items from the poetic structure and offers one sizable emendation.

202 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 76

anacrusis, designed to resume the same verb in line 8 . Such usage is not exceptional; compare mm q n p in Ps 154 in llQPs* 18.15. The use of a resumptive phrase is likewise not uncommon; the opening of the thanksgiving, *Hjn mm *nmp, in Ps 155 in HQPs^ 24.17, resumes the language of the opening of the prayer, TrtOp mm, in HQPs 24.1. To judge from these two cases in Psalm 151, regularity of line-length was evidently subordinated to the scheme of double bicola in this text. Third, the double bicola were organized on the macro-level ac­ cording to the traditional plan of a chiastic structure. Such a model was not only available in the biblical corpus; it also informs the structure of Psalm 154 and perhaps the prayer section of Psalm 155. The chiastic plan of Psalm 151 is evident, especially in A and A' and C and C . The outer units, A and A', attest the verbs D'fa* and btin*. The nouns, brothers' and 'sheep/ initially used in A to refer to David's family and work, are extended in A' to describe his new royal capac­ ity. I would suspect as well verbal assonance between vrTP"U3 in A and ma in A\ The two inside units, C and C , use the phrase n m (and also the verb of this root), as well as the HifMl of the verb 133* (and here the verbal resonance with in line 5 may be noted). Some clever paranomasia may be suspected as well: 'totfO in the last line of second bicolon of C and .VQE* in the last line of the second bicolon of C ; and perhaps ambitiously (on my part or the poet's, I am unsure), ntn in the first line of the second bicolon in C may have evoked mn* in the context by ]Hl^m in the last line of C, but perhaps in conjunction with the poem's larger context, particularly nim in line 4. If correct, the paranomasia perhaps evokes the notion that as David was the good shepherd (njri*), Yahweh watched (HR")*) over him. This chiastic plan was not without its problems. The final verb in B seems to introduce the direct speech in C. The verbal contents of B and B' do not correspond. Furthermore, B contains one set of double bicola while B' has two. As a result, the chiastic plan is unevenly rep­ resented. It may be that the material for B*, which the author-redactor inherited, placed some constraints on his arrangement, or such in­ consistencies may have bothered the author of the poem less than modern critics. Thus far, all six sections of the poem suggest tradi­ tional building methods, including citation of biblical material, para­ phrase of biblical material and slight variations as well as a general adherence to biblical parallelism and macro-structure. The method of a

77

78

7 6

Skehan, 'Apocryphal Psalm 151', 407; Morton Smith, 'Psalm 151', 248,250. For this poetic plan here, see Storfjell, 'Chiastic Structure'. For criticisms of the proposal for a chiastic structure, see Auffret, 'Structure littéraire'. 7 7 7 8

a

SMITH: PSALM 151A (HQPs 28.3-12)

203

construction shows a general plan of double bicola, arranged accord­ ing to a traditional chiastic plan.

a

VI: Appendix, A syntactical taxonomy of the superscriptions in HQPs

The two superscriptions in the Hebrew version of Psalm 151 in HQPs 28.3 and 11 may be situated within the larger context of the corpus of superscriptions preserved in HQPs . This discussion may begin with a basic list of the evidence. a

a

Superscription 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 93.1 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

llQPs

rrbvan T O TIT*? rfrsn

rcbsan T B 1

1

-mi ?-nam man ? Tpir?rnppatf>nn

a

MT

frgCII frgEI.6 3.1 3.7 3.15 4.9 4.16 5.10 16.7 21.1 22.16

Ps 103.1 Ps 104.1 Ps 121.1 Ps 122.1 Ps 123.1 Ps 126.1 Ps 127.1 Ps 130.1 Ps 145.1 Ps 138.1 not in MT Ps

23.7 25.6 27.12 28.3 28.13

Ps 133.1 Ps 143.1 Ps 140.1 Psl51 Psl51

It may be noted that there are no superscriptions at 14.9 (no m ^ n as in MT Ps 135.1 ) or in the Apostrophe to Zion, the Hymn to Creator, or in Psalms 150 and 155. The attested superscriptions in the preceding list may be de­ scribed according to the following sigla: 79

80

7 9

The text of this psalm, including the superscription, has been subject to many changes. The form of m ^ n appears at the end of what corresponds to MT Ps 135.1 and the two parallel lines are also transposed relative to MT (cf. MTPs 113.1). At col 2.6, Tvbbn would be expected (cf. MT Ps 148.1), but the text reads

8 0

t?7n.

204 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA + app. est. impv. N N-app. PN prep.

syntactical relation (prepositional or construct) apposition construct imperative noun noun in apposition proper name preposition

Translation into such grammatical terms yields the following nine types: 1.

prep. + N(PN)

2. 3. 4.

prep. +N (PN) app. prep. + N N (est.) + N N (est.) + N + prep. + N (PN)

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

N (est.) + N + prep. + N (PN) + verb clause N + prep. + N(PN) prep. + N N app. prep. + N (PN) impv. app. prep. + N(PN) + Napp. impv.

TTft (frgCID/ •nrb (frg E col 16) n t e ' P T n ^ ] (3.15) rrbxm ~ra(3.l) -mrbrrbvan T B ? (3.7) mxbBh[ nbvan nno] (4.16)

81

D'nftK (28.13) -vrbrbEn (16.7) T r t TTQTQ (25.6) T r f ? TOTD UXlri? (27.12) ^ p T n ^ n n ^ n (28.3)

rrhhn (22.16). As expected, the preposition is always -% and the noun following it is always a person and usually a proper name. There are no free­ standing nouns (cf. MT Ps 98.1). Other differences may be more com­ plicated. First, the superscriptions never attest to a noun following -b + PN; this situation contrasts with plQTQ lynb (?) in 4QPs*or "liOTQ lyib * MT Psalms 101.1 and 110.1. Second, there are never two nouns for musical terms in apposition as in MT Ps 108.1. While these two sets of differences may be due only to the distribution of attested superscriptions, some other psalm scrolls occasionally add such material to their superscriptions. For example, TE? iTib in 4QPs l 1.2 corresponds to zero in MT Ps 33.1. Finally, the issue of whether m ^ n should be regarded as an imperative or a fossilized noun will be bracketed until the end of this discussion. These nine items may be classified according to four major syna

s

n

(

8 1

On the assumption that the standard reconstruction as given here is correct.

a

SMITH: PSALM 151A (HQPs 28.3-12)

205

tactical types. Type I:L + N la lb Ic Id

Syntactical Relation

L + PN v Trf? (frg C lH/l nb (frg E16) N + L + PN ivrb nbon (16.7); -nrb mora (25.6) L + N app. N + L + PN T r t TIDTD nxy£> (27.12) L + PN + L +N n^a ?T nfr](3.l5) t

H:N + N Ha III: impv. Ilia IV: variants IVa

IVb

,

N(cst) + N rrfa»n T B J (3.1) impv. rrhbn (22.16) N (est.) + N + prep. + N (PN) ivrb nrbssan -ra (3.7) nntwhl nbvan Tri] (4.16) N (est.) + N + prep. + N (PN) + verb clause Tpifrrripparfain

IVc

DVrf?KiraiTOQ2?Q(28.11) impv. app. prep. + N (PN) + N app. wp7>rh7vthn (28.3)

Category I involves plus noun. The simplest form of this type appears in la and is replicated in lb, Ic and Id. Ib merely adds a noun to the type reflected by la. Ic combines the form of la and Ib while Id is syntactically la + la. In the syntax exhibited by this first category more complex superscriptions are based on simpler ones. It may be noted further that all of the variant syntactical forms in this category are traditional. Ia is attested in many MT superscriptions (e.g. Psalms 25, 26, 27, 28, 35, 103, 138, 414) and in HQapPs . Ib occurs in MT (lllbniDTQ in Psalms 15, 23, 29, 141, 143, 145; llY?n*?sn in 17, 86; a

82

nbnb in 90) and in DSS (opn^an w*b nbnn) in 4Q381 24.4; rftnn TPinxfr in 4Q380 l.ii.8; cf. frrfrnn in 4Q380 4.2; and pnTWXbrftan 8 2

3

See E. Puech, 'HQPsAp : Un rituel d'exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction', RQ14 (1990), 377-408.

206 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA 83

nTOK^QTiKtonniTP in 4Q381 3 3 . 8 ) Ic is known in MT (Psalms 13,19,20,21,41,51,64,140,141) and DSS (e.g., non^DH [T70 mujcfr in 1QM 1.1). Id is found in MT Psalm 121. Category II appears only once in HQPs , but this type is well known from the MT Psalter (Psalms 120,123,125,126,128,129,130, 132, 134). To the best of my knowledge it does not appear in DSS. This is not, however, unexpected since rrfrtfDn T B belongs to a very specific group of Psalms. Yet it is perhaps worth noting that DSS show no attempt to imitate this category. Category III is attested in HQPs only once. It is strongly attested in biblical material. For example, MT has it in Psalms 145-150. According to L.M. Barré, the different distributions of TPftftn in MT, LXX and l l Q P s of Psalms 146-150 are not the result of scribal error. Rather, Barré argues that m ^ n serves as a conclusion formula in HQPs but as an introductory formula in LXX, while MT shows both usages, resulting in TVfthn functioning as an inclusion This term appears also once in the DSS, specifically 4Q448 col. A, line 1: rpV^n pflDTD. As the editors of that text note, this word is not used otherwise in Qumran community literature, and accordingly they argue that m ^ n is not sectarian. Category IV constitutes various combinations of categories I, II and III, and/or innovations relative to them. Syntactically type IVa combines types lb and Ha. As found with category I, the more complex syntactical form in IVa constitutes a combination of the simpler ones. IVa is traditional, known from MT (Psalms 122, 124, 127, 131, 133). Type IVb attested in HQPs 28.11 is syntactically the most complex superscription in the Cave 11 Psalms scroll. It may be broken down into two major parts. First, the construct using n^nn occurs three times in MT, twice with nouns (Prov 9.10; Qoh 10.13) as in IVb, and once with a verb (Hos 1.2). The sort of syntax reflected here, N (cons.) + N, is also attested in type II. Second, a verbal clause as found in IVb is exceptional for HQPs , but verbal clauses in psalmic superscriptions are known. What is exceptional relative to the biblical exa

a

a

a

85

86

a

a

8 3

For the superscriptions in 4Q380 and 381, see E. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection (HSS, 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 25-27. Barré, 'Halelû yah: A Broken Inclusio', CBQ 45 (1983), 195-200, esp. 198-99. E. Eshel, H Eshel, and A. Yardeni, 'A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and his Kingdom', IEJ 42 (1992), 199-229 (= Tarbiz 60 [1991], 295-327 [Hebrew]). Compare the use of the alleluia that closes the considerably later Odes of Solomon 3-42, evidently modelled on the biblical examples. Eshel, Eshel and Yardeni, 'Qumran Composition', 202. 8 4

8 5

8 6

a

SMITH: PSALM 151A (HQPs 28.3-12)

207

amples is the subordinating conjunction. Biblical superscriptions with temporal clauses use either -3 + infinitive construct (Psalms 3, 34,56, 57,59,60,63,142; so also 4Q381 33.8; cf. Psalm 18), (Psalm 18) or '5 (Psalm 102). In contrast, IVb employs -©Q* plus *qatal as found in Mishnaic Hebrew. Unlike all other types of syntax in the superscrip­ tions of HQPs , the verbal clause in IVb reflects an innovation. Based on contextual arguments, it may be further suggested that this super­ scription belongs to a stage of l l Q P s later than that of the other su­ perscriptions. Unlike all of the other superscriptions, this one seems to constitute a secondary development within the history of Psalm 151. Indeed, LXX entirely lacks this superscription, and its contents evidently drew on those of the first poem in HQPs 28 (line 8, pre­ sented in section II above). Furthermore, the use of this sort of super­ scription, namely spliced between two sections of biblical material, is known in DSS, specifically 4Q379 (4QPsalms of Joshua) 22.H.7 with reconstructions completed by 4Q175 (4QTestimonia): n o m 'mirrfrnro nppntn'Ti [snur nfrp run. In 4Q379 22.ii.7, this superscription appears between two biblical quotes (Deut 33.8-11 and Josh 6.26). Similarly, the superscription in IVb, namely the second superscription in the Hebrew version of Psalm 151 (HQPs 28.11), is positioned between what are presented as two psalms celebrating the life of David. The final superscription to be discussed is IVc. This superscrip­ tion begins with 7V>i?bn, a label not attested in any other version of this text. As noted above in the discussion of III, this word is not found in LXX and its presence here might be regarded as something of a mystery. If HQPs scroll were dependent on a Psalter which in­ cluded 150 psalms as in MT, LXX and Syriac, then this word here might be explained as an extension of the use of this word from the superscriptions in Psalms 146-150. While it seems unlikely that Psalm 151 was composed for or with the collection of Halleluyah psalms of 146-150 (J. Strugnell calling Psalm 151 'very unhalleluyahlike' ), this psalm was attached secondarily to Psalms 146-150, at which stage it probably received the designation of halleluyah. In syntactical terms IVc reflects the use of m ^ n attested in category III. Furthermore, if m^xr were to be regarded as a fossilized noun, then a

a

a

87

a

a

88

89

90

8 7

See C. Newsom, The "Psalms of Joshua" from Qumran Cave 4', JJS 39

(1988), 68-69; and J.M. Allegro, Qumrân Cave 4:1 (4Q158-4Q186) (DJD, V; Ox­ ford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 57-60, pl. XXI. For a comparable biblical use of the first verb, see Num 7.1. See Strugnell, 'Notes', 267; Haran, Two Text-Forms', 181. Strugnell, 'Notes', 267. 8 8

8 9

9 0

For further discussion, see Barré, 'Halelu yah?, 200 and n. 22.

208 THE HEBREW OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA IVc might be regarded as modeled in part on type lb (N + L + PN) and II (N est. + N). The rest of the superscription is based on tradi­ tional material (see 2 Sam 23.1; Ps 72.20). As this survey indicates, the superscriptions of H Q P s are almost entirely traditional, showing only one major innovation with type IVb (28.11). This view of the traditional character of these superscriptions may be illustrated further by comparing superscriptions in other DSS. There is a growing tendency in later stages of textual witnesses to the book of Psalms and in DSS to add references to fixed times, but HQPs shows no such development. Nor are there any superscrip­ tions indicating the psalms' purpose, apparently as in MT (Psalms 38, 60,70,88) and 1QH 5.12. There are no superscriptions beginning with 'words of ...' as in 4Q242 (4QPrNab ar), frgs 1-3, line 1 or 4Q504-506 (4QDibHam " ), frg 8 (reverse). In closing, HQPs seems to reflect the conventions of 'standard' psalms (later recognized in Jewish and Christian canons as 'biblical' psalms) with the exception of type IVb (col. 28.11) which apparently represents a secondary development internal to the history of this psalm. It is noted above that superscriptions are absent from all of the texts which do not appear in LXX Psalter. If superscriptions were markers of psalms deemed 'standard' (and later 'canonical'), then it might explain the distribution of superscriptions in this scroll. If this observation is correct, it would also indicate that Psalm 151 was con­ sidered 'standard'. (Whether or not this psalm was counted as the 151st psalm as opposed to the 150th is unknown.) If these supposi­ tions are correct, it would add a further argument for an ancient awareness of Psalm 151 as a 'standard' psalm, as reflected explicitly in the superscription to this psalm in LXX which calls it 'a genuine psalm of David' (6 yaAjioq i8i6ypa<po dpiGuoS). Perhaps for the textual tradition of the book of Psalms represented by HQPs , Psalm 151 was not 'outside the number', but was reckoned as the last psalm in the traditional, 'standard' Psalter as canonized later in Christian tradition. a

91

a

a