A Syntax Of Qumran Hebrew (English and Hebrew Edition) [Bilingual ed.] 9789042940253, 9789042940260, 9042940255

This is the first, comprehensive description of the syntax of Qumran Hebrew, a language in which the Hebrew documents di

297 42 2MB

English Pages 387 [449] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright


Table of contents :
Recommend Papers

A Syntax Of Qumran Hebrew (English and Hebrew Edition) [Bilingual ed.]
 9789042940253, 9789042940260, 9042940255

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

T. Muraoka

A Syntax of Qumran Hebrew





A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-90-429-4025-3 eISBN 978-90-429-4026-0 D/2020/0602/77 © PEETERS, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission form the publisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM

Peeters, Warotstraat 50, B-3020 Herent

TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ................................................................................................................ XIX Introduction ............................................................................................................ XXI Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... xxxv Literature ................................................................................................................ XXXIX List of frequently used technical terms ................................................................. LVII PART I. MORPHOSYNTAX SECTION A — THE PRONOUN ................................................................................


§ 1 Personal pronouns ....................................................................................... a) First and second persons ........................................................................ aa) Principal use as the subject or predicate......................................... ab) Left out as the subject of a participle ............................................. ac) ‫ אני‬vs. ‫ אנכי‬....................................................................................... b) Third person pronouns............................................................................ c) Values of disjunctive personal pronouns with a finite verb .................. (i) Contrast or opposition ..................................................................... (ii) Third person ‫ הוא‬etc. with prominence-giving function ................ (iii) Self-consciousness........................................................................... (iv) Grammatical necessity .................................................................... (v) Confrontation................................................................................... d) Conjunctive pronouns ............................................................................. da) Conjunctive pronoun attached to verbs with non-accusative values db) Conjunctive pronoun added to numerals ........................................ e) Conjunctive pronoun added to infinitives .............................................. f) Resumptive function ............................................................................... g) Reflexive function: ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬+ conj. pronoun .............................................. h) Honorific substitutes ............................................................................... § 2 Disjunctive possessive pronouns ................................................................. § 3 Demonstrative pronouns .............................................................................. a) Basic nature ............................................................................................ b) Anaphoric function ................................................................................. c) Cataphoric function ................................................................................ d) Reciprocal value with repetition ............................................................ e) Substantival use ...................................................................................... f) Rhetorical ................................................................................................

3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10



g) ‫ אוֹתוֹ‬etc. ................................................................................................... h) ‫ ַה ָלּז‬etc. .................................................................................................... § 4 Relative pronounS: ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬and -‫ ֶשׁ‬.................................................................. a) General remarks ...................................................................................... b) Attributive function ................................................................................ c) Interrogative pronoun substituting ......................................................... d) -‫ ש‬used other than as relative pronoun .................................................. § 5 Interrogative pronouns ................................................................................. § 5a Indefinite pronouns ...................................................................................... a) ‫ ִאישׁ‬.......................................................................................................... aa) Distributive ...................................................................................... ab) Reciprocal ........................................................................................ b) ‫ ָדּ ָבר‬........................................................................................................... c) ‫אוּמה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬,‫ מאוּם‬............................................................................................

11 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14

SECTION B — THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE .....................................................


§ 6 Gender .......................................................................................................... a) Grammatical gender and natural sex...................................................... b) Grammatical significance ....................................................................... c) Neuter...................................................................................................... d) Ambiguous feminine adjectives ............................................................. e) Lands and cities ...................................................................................... f) Common gender ..................................................................................... § 7 Definite article.............................................................................................. a) Preliminary remarks ............................................................................... b) Anaphoric................................................................................................ ba) Specalised use in pesher documents ............................................... c) Generic .................................................................................................... d) Contextually determinate ........................................................................ e) Proper nouns ........................................................................................... f) Unique entity .......................................................................................... g) Added to the antecedent of a relative clause ......................................... h) Substituting for ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬or -‫ ֶשׁ‬..................................................................... i) Vocative .................................................................................................. j) ‫“ אחד‬one” as equivalent of an indefinite article ................................... k) Retained after proclitic prepositions ...................................................... l) Errors ...................................................................................................... § 8 Number ......................................................................................................... a) Collectively used singular nouns ........................................................... aa) Idiomatically singular...................................................................... b) Repetition of noun ..................................................................................

15 15 15 15 16 17 17 17 17 18 19 19 20 21 21 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 26 26



c) Plural of unquantifiable objects ............................................................ ca) Uncountable objects ........................................................................ cb) Abstract nouns ................................................................................. d) Plural of extension .................................................................................. e) Pluralia tantum ....................................................................................... f) Plural nomen rectum influenced by nomen regens ............................... fa) Plurality of construct phrase marked by nomen regens ................. fb) Plural of majesty ............................................................................. g) Dual......................................................................................................... h) Fractions.................................................................................................. § 9 Adjective ...................................................................................................... a) Standard usage ........................................................................................ b) Substantivised ......................................................................................... c) Comparative and superlative .................................................................. d) Adverbially used ..................................................................................... § 10 Adverb .......................................................................................................... a) Adverbial morphemes ‫ה‬-ָ and ‫ם‬-ָ    ........................................................... b) Substantivisation .................................................................................... c) Substantives adverbialised ...................................................................... d) Interrogative adverbs .............................................................................. § 11 Prepositions .................................................................................................. a) Monolexemic .......................................................................................... b) Compound prepositions .......................................................................... c) Pseudo-prepositions ................................................................................ d) Doubling as conjunctions ....................................................................... e) Prepositional phrase as predicate of a noun clause ............................... f) instead of ....................................

27 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 32 32 32 32 33 33 34 34 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 39 40 40

SECTION C — THE VERB ........................................................................................


§ 12 Binyans ......................................................................................................... a) General introduction ............................................................................... b) Suppletion ............................................................................................... c) Piel .......................................................................................................... 1) Factitive ........................................................................................... 2) Pluralising ........................................................................................ ca) D vs. tD ........................................................................................... d) Hifil ......................................................................................................... 1) Causative ......................................................................................... 2) Estimative-declarative ..................................................................... 3) Ingressive......................................................................................... 4) Pseudo-Hifil.....................................................................................

41 41 41 42 42 43 43 43 43 43 43 44



e) Nifal ........................................................................................................ 1) Passive ............................................................................................. 2) Passive of H .................................................................................... 3) Reflexive.......................................................................................... 4) Reciprocal ........................................................................................ 5) Tolerative......................................................................................... 6) Self-propelling ................................................................................. 7) Equivalent to ingressive tD?........................................................... f) Hitpael..................................................................................................... 1) Reflexive.......................................................................................... 2) Passive ............................................................................................. 3) Ingressive......................................................................................... 4) Iterative, habitual............................................................................. 5) Tolerative......................................................................................... 6) Simulating........................................................................................ g) Minor binyans ......................................................................................... 1) Polel ................................................................................................. 2) Hitpolel ............................................................................................ 3) Po’el................................................................................................. 4) Hitpalpel .......................................................................................... 5) Payel ................................................................................................ 6) Hištafel ............................................................................................ h) Internal passive ....................................................................................... 1) Gpass ............................................................................................... 2) Dpass ............................................................................................... 3) Hpass ............................................................................................... 4) Polel pass ......................................................................................... 5) Npass ............................................................................................... § 13 Tenses ........................................................................................................... a) General remarks ...................................................................................... b) Consecutio temporum ............................................................................. c) Tense value of nominal clauses ............................................................. § 14 Perfect or suffix conjugation ....................................................................... a) Only one simple preterite tense.............................................................. b) Performative Perfect ............................................................................... c) Stative verbs ........................................................................................... d) Pluperfect ................................................................................................ e) Prophetic Perfect..................................................................................... § 15 Imperfect or prefix conjugation ................................................................... a) Future ...................................................................................................... b) Preterite ................................................................................................... ba) Past, perfective aspect ..................................................................... bb) Past, imperfective aspect .................................................................

46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 48 48 49 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 53 53 53 53 55 55 55 55 55 56 57 57 58 59 59 59 60


c) Present..................................................................................................... ca) Atemporal ........................................................................................ d) Modal ...................................................................................................... da) Volitive ............................................................................................ daa) Jussive..................................................................................... dab) Permissive............................................................................... dac) Cohortative ............................................................................. dad) Cohortative in form only ........................................................ dae) Theoretical possibility ............................................................ daf) ........................................................................... dag) Putative modal value of < ‫ ו־‬- PC>......................................... dah) With paragogic Nun ............................................................... dai) Energic Nun in object pronoun suffixes ................................ daj) Long imperative ..................................................................... § 16 Vestiges of the inverted tenses .................................................................... a) way-yiqtol................................................................................................ b) w-qataltí .................................................................................................. ba) yiqtol - w-qataltí .............................................................................. bb) Inf. cst. - w-qataltí........................................................................... bba) Impv. - w-qataltí..................................................................... bbb) Jussive - w-qataltí .................................................................. bbc) NC - w-qataltí ........................................................................ bbd) Ptc. - w-qataltí ........................................................................ c) Interaction with the BH system.............................................................. d) Merely conjunctive Waw ....................................................................... e) Frequent shift .......................................................................................... f) Disintegration and collapse of the classical BH system ........................ § 17 Participle....................................................................................................... a) Preliminary observations ........................................................................ b) Actual present ......................................................................................... c) Historic present ....................................................................................... d) General truth, prevalent situation ........................................................... e) Assured future......................................................................................... f) Periphrastic tense .................................................................................... fa) ............................................................................... fb) .............................................................................. fba) Customary = common law ..................................................... fbb) Subject severed from ‫ היה‬....................................................... fc) .......................................................................... fd) ............................................................................. fe) Act. ptc. not preceding ‫ היה‬............................................................. g) Passive participle .................................................................................... h) Preterite value of articular participle......................................................

IX 62 63 63 63 64 65 65 66 69 70 72 72 73 74 75 75 77 78 78 79 79 79 80 80 82 83 85 90 90 92 93 93 93 94 95 96 97 99 99 99 100 100 102



i) Attributive ............................................................................................... j) Substantivised ......................................................................................... § 18 Infinitive ....................................................................................................... a) Nominalised verb .................................................................................... aa) Verbal noun = pseudo infinitive ..................................................... b) Complementing a verb ........................................................................... c) Absolute command or deontic modality ................................................ d) Subject of a nominal clause ................................................................... e) Final ........................................................................................................ f) Resultative .............................................................................................. g) Epexegetic............................................................................................... h) Object of a verb ...................................................................................... i) Complementing a substantive ................................................................ j) Prefixing of -‫ ל‬or not .............................................................................. k) Following a preposition other than ‫ ל־‬.................................................... l) Implicit subject ....................................................................................... m) Subject NP immediately following ........................................................ n) Inf. cst. substituting a finite verb? ......................................................... o) Infinitive absolute ................................................................................... oa) Substantivisation.............................................................................. ob) ‫ ַרב = ַה ְר ֵבּה‬........................................................................................ oc) Substituting a finite verb ................................................................. od) Paronomastic inf. abs. ..................................................................... oe) Absolute command.......................................................................... of) Some rare uses ................................................................................

102 104 105 105 106 107 108 110 112 112 113 115 115 117 119 121 122 122 123 125 126 127 128 129 129

PART II. SYNTAX SECTION A — NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED.................................................................


§ 19 By conjunctive pronouns ............................................................................. § 20 By interrogative pronouns ........................................................................... § 21 By nouns in the status constructus .............................................................. a) Ambiguity in syntactic hierarchy ........................................................... b) Logico-semantic relationships ................................................................ i) Possessive ........................................................................................ ii) Relational......................................................................................... iii) Appositive........................................................................................ iv) Origin, authorship............................................................................ v) Locational ........................................................................................ vα) Locational ............................................................................... vβ) Temporal................................................................................. vi) Condition .........................................................................................

133 133 133 134 134 135 135 135 136 136 136 137 137


viα) Experience ........................................................................... vii) Membership .................................................................................. viiα) Affiliation ............................................................................ viii) Partitive ........................................................................................ ix) Material ........................................................................................ x) Time-span ..................................................................................... xi) Inalienable part ............................................................................. xii) Topical .......................................................................................... xiii) Subjective ..................................................................................... xiv) Objective ...................................................................................... xv) Contents ........................................................................................ xvi) Purpose, benefit ............................................................................ xvii) Species .......................................................................................... xviii) Qualitative .................................................................................... xix) Pertinence ..................................................................................... xx) Property ........................................................................................ xxi) Means, method, instrument .......................................................... xxii) Quantity ........................................................................................ xxiii) Action ........................................................................................... xxiv) Engagement .................................................................................. xxv) Cause ............................................................................................ xxvi) Hard to classify cases................................................................... c) Immediate constituent hierarchy of complex construct phrases ............ ca) Concatenation of cst. noun phrases of diverse logico-semantic values ............................................................................................ d) Relative clause as B-term ....................................................................... e) Adjective in st. cst. ................................................................................. ea) B-term left out .............................................................................. eb) Passive ptc. in the cst. st. ............................................................. ec) Verb-like adjectives ..................................................................... f) Prepositional phrase as B-term............................................................... fa) ............................................................................. fb) ..................................................................... g) Multiple B-terms..................................................................................... h) Pluralisation of cst. phrases .................................................................... i) ...................................................................................... ia) ............................................................. j) ................................................................ k) Logico-semantic relationships and analytic structures .......................... l) Advantages and new potential of the analytic structures ...................... m) Identity in the grammatical state between the two terms ...................... § 22 By relative clauses ....................................................................................... § 23 By non-relative clauses introduced with ‫ אשׁר‬or -‫ שׁ‬...................................

XI 137 137 137 137 138 138 139 139 139 139 140 140 141 141 143 143 143 143 144 144 144 144 144 146 146 147 149 149 149 149 150 150 151 151 152 153 153 154 155 156 156 157



§ 24 By demonstrative pronouns ......................................................................... a) Before or after NP? ................................................................................ b) Determinate noun ................................................................................... c) Further expanded by an adjective .......................................................... d) NP with a conjunctive pronoun.............................................................. e) Added to a construct phrase ................................................................... f) Added to a proper noun.......................................................................... § 25 By adjectives ................................................................................................ a) Position of an attributive adjective......................................................... aa) Expanding a cst. phrase .................................................................. b) Added to a noun with a conjunctive pronoun........................................ c) Concord with an anarthrous noun head ................................................. d) Deletion of a noun phrase ...................................................................... § 26 By numerals ................................................................................................. a) Cardinal numerals preceding or following? .......................................... b) Numeral for “one” ................................................................................. c) Numeral for “two” mostly preceding .................................................... d) Cardinals “three” to “ten”..................................................................... da) “Eleven” to “nineteen” .................................................................. e) Structure of composite numerals above “twenty-one” ......................... ea) Syndetic or asyndetic? .................................................................... f) Numerals in st. abs. or st. cst.? .............................................................. fa) “Three” to “nine” .......................................................................... fb) “Two” ............................................................................................. fc) “Three” to “nine” with a determinate noun .................................. fd) Before a noun indicating a measure ............................................... fe) ‫ ֵמ ָאה‬.................................................................................................. ff) Determinate NP ............................................................................... g) .......................................................................... h) Substantivised cardinal numerals ........................................................... ha) Numbering cardinal numerals ......................................................... i) Adjective added ...................................................................................... j) Miscellaneous details .............................................................................. k) Ordinal numerals .................................................................................... § 27 By prepositional phrases .............................................................................. a) Attributively used ................................................................................... b) ‫ אשׁר‬or -‫ ש‬+ locative phrase ................................................................... ba) ‫של‬..................................................................................................... c) Expanding a substantivised participle .................................................... d) Substantivisation ..................................................................................... § 28 By ‫ כל‬............................................................................................................ a) Bare ‫ כל‬....................................................................................................

157 157 157 158 158 158 158 159 159 159 159 159 160 160 160 162 162 163 163 163 164 164 164 164 165 165 166 166 167 167 168 168 168 169 170 170 170 171 171 171 172 172



b) ............................................................................................... c) ‫כל = כל ה־‬............................................................................................... ca) ............................................................................ d) Categorical negation ............................................................................... e) Resumptively used .................................................................................. f) Other quantifying words ......................................................................... § 29 By nouns in apposition ................................................................................ a) Proper noun as one component .............................................................. b) NP2 = a disjunctive pronoun .................................................................. c) N1 = a noun of generic reference ........................................................... d) Multiple appositional terms .................................................................... e) Doubtful cases ........................................................................................ § 30 By infinitive or participle ............................................................................

172 173 174 174 175 175 176 176 177 177 178 178 179

SECTION B — VERB PHRASE EXPANDED..................................................................


§ 31 Verbal rection ............................................................................................... a) Preliminary remarks ............................................................................... b) Synthetic vs. analytic rection ................................................................. ba) Rection of action nouns .................................................................. c) Semantic and interpretive implications .................................................. d) ‫ את‬as direct object marker ..................................................................... da) ‫ ת־‬for ‫ את‬.......................................................................................... db) Situation in biblical manuscripts..................................................... e) Prepositional object ................................................................................ ea) ‫ ל־‬...................................................................................................... eaa) Other verbs with ‫ל־‬................................................................. eb) ‫ ב־‬...................................................................................................... ec) + ‫ על‬.................................................................................................. ed) Vacillation ....................................................................................... f) Syntactic ambiguity of object suffixes ................................................... fa) Synthetic vs. analytic diachronically viewed ................................. g) Double objects ........................................................................................ ga) Verbs taking two direct objects ...................................................... gaa) One of them as a directly attached conj. pron. .................... gab) Inf. cst. ................................................................................... gb) Direct object and indirect object ..................................................... gba) Causative transform of mono-transitive verbs ....................... h) Aramaism ................................................................................................ i) Verbs of physical movement .................................................................. j) Object complement ................................................................................. k) Passivisation............................................................................................

181 181 182 182 183 185 187 188 189 189 189 190 193 193 197 199 202 202 203 204 204 205 207 209 211 213



l) Clause of explanation ............................................................................. m) Clausal object ......................................................................................... n) Interrogative clause................................................................................. o) Cognate object ........................................................................................ p) Prolepsis of object .................................................................................. q) Infinitive and its object marking ............................................................ r) Participle and its object marking............................................................ s) Expanded by an inf. cst. ......................................................................... t) Subject complement ............................................................................... u) Paratactically through another verb........................................................ v) Expansion by adverbials ......................................................................... 1) Bare adverbials ................................................................................ 2) Prepositional phrases ....................................................................... 3) Bare nominals.................................................................................. 3a) He locale ................................................................................. 3b) Fem. adj. ................................................................................. 4) Subordinate clauses ......................................................................... 4a) Causal, ground ........................................................................ 4b) Modal, comparative ................................................................ 4c) Final ........................................................................................ 4d) Temporal................................................................................. 4e) Conditional ............................................................................. 5) Infinitive construct .......................................................................... 6) Introductory ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬or ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬..................................................................

213 214 215 215 216 216 218 223 224 225 225 225 226 226 228 228 228 228 229 230 231 231 232 232

SECTION C — OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES ................................................................


§ 32 Concord and discord .................................................................................... a) Preliminary remarks ............................................................................... b) Discord in gender ................................................................................... ba) Masculine as genus potius .............................................................. bb) Fluctuation in gender ...................................................................... bc) Constructio ad sensum .................................................................... bd) The predicate determining the gender of the subject ..................... be) Impersonal passive .......................................................................... c) Discord in number .................................................................................. ca) Dual ................................................................................................. cb) Attributively used cardinal numerals .............................................. cc) Numbering numerals ....................................................................... cd) Multiple coordinate terms ............................................................... ce) Collectively used singular nouns .................................................... cf) Distributive or reciprocal construction ........................................... cg) Constructio ad sensum ....................................................................

233 233 233 234 235 235 235 236 236 236 236 237 237 238 239 241


ch) ‫ כול‬.................................................................................................... ci) Hierarchy among coordinate terms ................................................. cj) Attraction to a nomen rectum ......................................................... d) Discord in determinateness .................................................................... e) Errors ...................................................................................................... ea) Gender discord ................................................................................ eb) Number discord ............................................................................... f) Aramaisms in 1QIsaa .............................................................................. g) Indeclinable............................................................................................. § 33 Word order: Nominal clause ....................................................................... a) Preliminary remarks ............................................................................... aa) Fronting for focus............................................................................ ab) Attraction in parallelism.................................................................. ac) Chiasmus ......................................................................................... ad) One-member clause ......................................................................... ada) Existential clauses .................................................................. b) Bipartite nominal clause

........................................................... ba) ........................................................................................ bb) ..................................................................................... bc) ...................................................................................... bd) ................................................................................. bda) ......................................................................... bdb) ........................................................................ be) .............................................................................. bf) ................................................................................. bg) .................................................................................... bh)

........................................................................................ bha) ........................................................................... bhb) ............................................................................ bi) ..................................................................................... bj) .................................................................................... c) Bipartite nominal clause ........................................................... ca) ........................................................................................ cb) ........................................................................................ cc) ....................................................................... cd) ..................................................................... d) Subject omitted ....................................................................................... da) In elliptical answers ........................................................................ db) In a relative clause .......................................................................... e) Tripartite nominal clause ........................................................................ ea) ..................................................................................... eaa) .....................................................................

XV 242 243 243 243 244 244 245 246 247 247 247 248 248 249 250 250 250 250 251 251 251 252 252 252 252 253 253 253 254 254 255 255 255 256 256 257 257 257 257 258 258 259




..................................................................................... ec) ..................................................................................... ed) Second constituent = dem. pron. .................................................... ee) Functional opposition?.................................................................... ef) Grammatical concord of disjunctive pronouns ............................... f) Existential, possessive or locative nominal clauses ............................... fa) Existential ........................................................................................ fb) Locative clause ................................................................................ fc) Possession ........................................................................................ fd) ‫היה‬: Bridge between NC and VC ................................................... fe) Where to position NP? ................................................................... ff) Morphosyntactic complementary opposition?................................ § 34 Word order: Verbal clause .......................................................................... a) Preliminary remarks ............................................................................... b) Verb in clause-final position .................................................................. ba) ..................................................................................... baa) Subject in clause-initial position ............................................ c) Object in clause-initial position ............................................................. d) Adverb in clause-initial position ............................................................ e) Pronoun enclisis or Pronominalregel..................................................... f) ................................................................................................ g) Subject omitted ....................................................................................... h) Object omitted ........................................................................................ i) Verb omitted ........................................................................................... § 35 Participial clause .......................................................................................... a) Preliminary remarks ............................................................................... b) Relation to normal verbal clause............................................................ ba) Object fronted.................................................................................. bb) Pronoun enclisis or Pronominalregel ............................................. c) Different from finite verb ....................................................................... ca) Indication of pronominal subject .................................................... caa) ............................................................. cab) ............................................................. cb) Functional, aspectual opposition ..................................................... cba) Fronted ptc. not precative ...................................................... cbb) Mutual sequence of Subject and ptc. .................................... cc) Emphasis: non-determinative ......................................................... d) Various sequences .................................................................................. da) .................................................................................... db) ..................................................................................... dc) .................................................................................... dd) .....................................................................................

259 260 261 262 262 263 263 266 267 267 267 267 269 269 270 271 272 272 273 274 275 276 276 277 277 277 278 278 278 278 278 279 280 281 282 283 283 283 283 284 284 284


§ 36 Extraposition ................................................................................................ § 37 Impersonal constructions ............................................................................. a) Third person masculine singular or plural ............................................. b) With a passive verb ................................................................................ § 38 Coordination ................................................................................................. a) Asyndetic or syndetic concatenation ...................................................... b) Asyndesis of two Impvs. ........................................................................ c) Repetition of -‫ ו‬or ‫או‬............................................................................... d) Nota obiecti ‫ את‬....................................................................................... e) Prepositions............................................................................................. f) Repetition of -‫ ו‬and prepositions alike ................................................... g) Logical hierarchy between concatenated terms ..................................... h) Disjunctive: “neither .. nor” .................................................................. ha) Disjunctive: “either .. or”............................................................... i) Apposition............................................................................................... j) Nomen rectum repeated .......................................................................... k) Definite article ........................................................................................ l) Composite numerals ............................................................................... m) Coordination with or without waw in bible manuscripts ...................... § 39 Circumstantial clause ................................................................................... § 40 Negation ....................................................................................................... a) ‫ לא‬and ‫ אל‬................................................................................................ b) ‫ לא‬as negator of Ptc. .............................................................................. c) ‫ אין‬............................................................................................................ d) ‫ לא‬or ‫ אל‬+ sg. abs. noun for categorical negation ................................. e) ‫ בלתי‬......................................................................................................... ea) ‫ לבלתי‬+ Impf. ................................................................................... f) ‫בל‬............................................................................................................. g) Categorical negation ............................................................................... h) Partial negation ....................................................................................... i) Negating of Inf. cst. ............................................................................... j) Two rare uses of ‫ לא‬................................................................................ k) ........................................................................................... ka) .................................................................................... l) ........................................................................................... m) ............................................................................... n) ............................................................................................ o) Scope....................................................................................................... p) Negation of predicatively used ptc. ...................................................... q) Negation of a prepositional, adverbial adjunct ...................................... r) ‫ מא‬............................................................................................................ s) Extraordinary variety in Hodayot...........................................................

XVII 284 287 288 290 291 291 292 292 292 293 295 295 296 296 297 298 298 298 298 300 301 301 302 302 305 305 306 307 307 307 308 308 309 309 309 310 312 312 313 313 314 314



§ 41 Conditional utterances.................................................................................. a) Basic structure ........................................................................................ b) Tenses in protasis and apodosis ............................................................. c) Apodosis introduced with ‫( ו־‬waw apodoseos) ...................................... d) Protasis introduced by which conjunction? ........................................... e) Conditional: past irrealis ....................................................................... f) Delayed protasis ..................................................................................... § 42 Direct speech ................................................................................................ a) Not formally marked .............................................................................. b) ‫ ש־‬introducing direct speech .................................................................. c) ‫ לאמר‬as a marker of direct speech ......................................................... d) Discours indirect libre? ......................................................................... e) Question and answer .............................................................................. § 43 Vocative and presentative ............................................................................ a) Vocative: determinate NP ...................................................................... b) Position of the vocative .......................................................................... c) Vocative referring to a preceding conj. pron. ....................................... d) Clause-initial presentatives ..................................................................... § 44 Relative clause ............................................................................................. a) Pronominal resumption of the antecedent.............................................. aa) No resumption ................................................................................. b) Antecedentless ........................................................................................ c) Non-restrictive relative clause ................................................................ d) Asyndetic ................................................................................................ e) Antecedent in the st. cst. ....................................................................... f) Antecedent not directly before the rel. pron. ......................................... g) ‫ שׁ־‬as relative pronoun ............................................................................ i) ‫ מי ש־‬and ‫מה ש־‬............................................................................... ii) Fluctuation with ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬...................................................................... h) Archaic ‫ זוּ‬and ‫ זֶ ה‬..................................................................................... § 45 Apodotic waw .............................................................................................. § 46 Passivisation ................................................................................................ a) Active to passive .................................................................................... b) Agens marking ........................................................................................

314 314 314 315 317 318 318 319 319 319 319 319 320 320 320 320 321 321 321 322 322 323 325 325 326 327 327 327 327 327 328 328 328 329

INDICES ...................................................................................................................


Qumran Hebrew texts .................................................................................. Biblical texts ................................................................................................ Subjects ........................................................................................................ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words ........................................................... Modern authors ............................................................................................

331 363 381 382 383


It is very gratifying to have come this far and to be able to present a comprehensive syntax of Qumran Hebrew. Since I set my foot on the campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem back in 1964, the languages of the ancient documents that came to light less than twenty years before in the land where those languages were alive in use nearly two thousand years before have not ceased to arouse within me intense interest. Out of my interests in the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament I managed to work on Greek on the side during the thirty-three years when I was fortunate to enough to hold an academic position at the University of Manchester, U.K., subsequently at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the University of Leiden, The Netherlands. Apart from a number of articles I had some reference works published, to wit a Septuagint lexicon, a Syntax of Septuagint Greek, and a Greek ~ Hebrew / Aramaic Index. On many an occasion I made use of data presented by Qumran biblical documents and also Greek documents discovered elsewhere in the Judaean Desert. Closer to the original languages of the Old Testament I had A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic (Leuven: Peeters, 2011) published. Needless to say, the Hebrew of these newly discovered documents was much closer to my heart. For many decades Prof. Elisha Qimron’s The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1986) has been a vade mecum for many scholars. Now with a recent publication of his magnum opus, A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2018), the world of Hebrew scholarship will be deeply indebted to its author for yet more decades. Prof. Qimron was uncommonly kind and friendly to e-mail to me its definitive computer file early last year and have its publisher send me a complimentary copy of the published monograph. In Prof. Qimron’s expanded grammar the syntax occupies about 20% of its pages. Every knowledgeable Hebraist would have no hesitation whatsoever to admit the important and original contributions he has made. On the other hand, many would also see that there are not a few matters relating to syntax, but have not been dealt with by him. This is one major justification for presenting herewith results of my engagement with the morphosyntax and syntax of Qumran Hebrew, as I have touched on more questions than Prof. Qimron has touched on. It is beyond me adequately to express how deeply I am indebted to my predecessors and contemporary fellow scholars – Hebraists, authors or editors of lexicons, compilers of concordances, editors of the documents which form the corpus of this present study, authors of monographs, commentaries, and articles. They are much too numerous to be listed here by name.



Since 1993, when the first edition of my Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint was published, Peeters of Leuven, Belgium, has published nine monographs of mine so far. This time again they have found it right to publish this volume. Mr Bert Verrept, a senior colleague of Mr Paul Peeters, and his staff have been most helpful with their technical and practical expertise during the production of this volume. This time I am profoundly indebted for their uncommon kindness in the course of indexation. When I started to work on this most essential component of this book, I nearly gave up, but they did not, persisting vigorously. Rev. Dr. Max Rogland of South Carolina has come again to my help, going over the draft manuscript and sparing me not a little shame which I would otherwise have suffered on account of my English. Last but not the least, I am ever indebted to Keiko, my wife. Since my retirement in 2003 she has suffered me labouring away in my study, my vineyard, from 9 a.m. till midnight six days every week unpaid. However, since our marriage in Jerusalem in 1965 she has been a full-time housewife and mother unpaid, looking after her spouse, who is hopelessly clumsy in practical matters. 7 May, 2019 Oegstgeest, The Netherlands.


1. Corpus The corpus for this syntax comprises i) all Hebrew documents originating in the eleven Qumran caves, including manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, and ii) the Hebrew documents discovered elsewhere in Judaea such as Massada, Naḥal Ḥever, and as far as Jericho. The Bet Amar papyrus of 140 CE is also included. (1) In quantitative terms, documents belonging to the first group account for the overwhelming majority. We are going to see that, in areas of morphosyntax and syntax, the Hebrew language represented by these documents is by no means uniform. One must, however, strike a balance between dissimilarities and similarities. Bar Kochba and Hebrew-speaking members of his group would have had little trouble in reading any of the sectarian documents nor would any sectarian have experienced serious difficulty in understanding Bar Kochba’s missives written in Hebrew. The controversial Copper Scroll (3Q15) is part of our corpus. Qimron (2018.50, n. 25) excludes it from his corpus on the ground that its Hebrew is so markedly different from that of the other scrolls, necessitating a separate treatment. We doubt that a grammar of the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, so the title of his grammar, can legitimately exclude a document originating in one of the caves. (2) The Hebrew of the remaining Qumran documents is far from uniform. One obvious example is MMT, ‫מקצת מעשי‬ ‫התורה‬, a document that has been granted an honourable place in Qimron’s Grammar. He also excludes Cairo genizah MSS of the Damascus Document (CD), as their text is, in Qimron’s view, distorted by their mediaeval copyists except in the syntax. Qimron does not examine the question whether or not the syntax of the genizah fragments has been left untouched by the scribes. (3)

1 Its editio princeps dates to 2009, when the publication of the series DJD was virtually complete, and Yardeni’s Textbook had come out in the year 2000. 2 See how Milik, who produced its editio princeps in DJD 3 (1962), viewed the language of this unique document: “hébreu populaire, parlé effectivement par les Juifs résidant en Judée, au sud-ouest de la Palestine, ainsi que dans la vallée du Jourdain … le monument d’un dialecte mishnique” (p. 222), thus not the author’s idiolect, but “une variété dialectale de l’hébreu parlé à l’époque romaine par les Juifs habitant la Palestine centrale et méridionale” (p. 227). 3 One is curious how he would account for a remarkable pattern of distribution in the document of the two alternative spellings of the pronoun for ‘they.’ The genizah text is consistent with ‫הם‬, 24 times, whereas the 4Q fragments, excepting uncertain readings, have ‫ המה‬5 times and ‫ הם‬twice, in both of the latter cases corresponding to ‫ הם‬in the genizah text: 12.15 (= 4Q266 9ii1) and 15.13 (= 4Q266 8i4).



2. Qumran Hebrew (1) The Hebrew represented by our corpus was thus in use in the mid South-East of Palestine and the Jordan Valley. Hence we understand ‘Qumran’ in a somewhat broad, and not strictly geographical sense. ‘Qumran Hebrew’ as used here is Hebrew of the Judaean Desert. (2) Texts which were not actually composed at their respective site of discovery were most likely copied and studied there. The form of Hebrew represented in them, therefore, can be said to have been the language of locations they come from, the langue of the people who used Hebrew there. Qimron would say that it represents their parole, for he (Qimron 2018.33) writes: “The Hebrew of the DSS [= Dead Sea Scrolls] is a Hebrew idiom of the Second Temple period from Jerusalem and its vicinity. It records the spoken language of that time.” (3) In the absence of tape recordings from that period we cannot of course be 100% sure how the people then spoke Hebrew. (4) More seriously, one should never forget that one did not write as one spoke, which is a very modern phenomenon, not only in Hebrew. This is quite different from saying that many writers, whether deliberately or unwittingly, sometimes allow their written language to become influenced to varying degrees and in various ways by the contemporary vernacular. (5) Fassberg (2008.59), inspired by the notion of “Standard Literary Aramaic,” first introduced by Greenberg, suggested “Standard Literary Hebrew” as the best characterisation of Qumran Hebrew, and we would follow in his steps. Apart from rare, dated documents such as Bar Kochba’s letters the absolute certainty in dating of the rest of the corpus is beyond our reach. Diverse factors play a role here: 1

A useful survey of discussions over the nature of Qumran Hebrew is found in Baasten 2006.2-8. Major discussions in the recent past include Hurvitz 2000, Morag 2000, Blau 2000, Qimron 2000, and Muraoka 2000a. A more recent, compact characterisation of Qumran Hebrew is to be found in Fassberg 2013. 2 The series, DJD, has published some non-Qumranic texts, not only Greek and Aramaic, but also Hebrew, e.g. in vols. 27 and 38. In our Aramaic grammar (2011), too, we used the label ‘Qumran Aramaic’ in this broad sense. The label ‘Qumran Hebrew’ is used by Holst (2008.25) as well in the way we use it. 3 One would not know whether deceased Qumranites turned in their graves, when Hurvitz (2000.114) spoke at an international symposium held not far from the Dead Sea, rejecting the theory of QH as a spoken idiom. On the same occasion Blau (2000.24f.) also expressed himself as negatively, a position which would subsequently be endorsed by Rendsburg (2010.232-34). Qimron (2000.244) specified this spoken language as that “of their scribes,” i.e. scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 4 As in Biblical Hebrew, we find two different spellings for ‘they’: ‫ הם‬and ‫המה‬. Qimron (2018.263, § D 1.6) notes ‫ המה‬statistically predominates in QH. But their frequency figures in Biblical Hebrew are ‫ המה‬272× vs. ‫ הם‬191×, and the longer form occurs 20 times in the Pentateuch. On ‫ הם‬Qimron writes: “Evidently one should take ‫ הם‬as defective spelling of hemma.” Would he claim that, in the Qumran community, ‫ הם‬in biblical texts was articulated /hémma/? In public recitation of biblical texts in a synagogue the Bible reader (‫ )בעל קורא‬would have adopted what appeared in his eyes (or: ears?) the genuine, authentic pronunciation. In Qumran biblical manuscripts there are hundreds of ‫הוא‬, ‫היא‬, and ‫הם‬. Did he pronounce them each time with an invisible, but audible /-a/ at the end? 5 A similar view was expressed already in 1988 by Morag (1988.150).



archaeological context, palaeography, literary criticism, and redaction history. The present author claims no expertise in any of these disciplines. Depending to a large extent on opinions of experts and editors of the texts in question, Webster (2002.358f.) indicates that the manuscripts of our texts are datable between 250 BCE and 135 CE. It is generally agreed that some documents are sectarian, namely authored in the Qumran community. A notable example is the so-called Community Rule (1QS), the magna carta of the community. The bulk of the text was among the documents published first back in 1950. Five years later the first volume of DJD contained two related 1Q fragments. Subsequently 4Q produced more fragments totalling twelve, published in 1998 as DJD vol. 26. Their editors, Alexander and Vermes, surmise the existence of at least four recensions of the document. (1) The above-mentioned post quem date of 250 BCE predates the widely assumed date of mid 2nd BCE century of founding of the Qumran community. We are thus looking at a phase stretching over about four centuries of post-biblical Hebrew. 3. Before and after Qumran Hebrew Whilst nobody questions the close affinity between Biblical Hebrew [= BH] and QH [= Qumran Hebrew], the precise nature of the affinity is still being hotly debated. There is hardly any document that does not show some or other typically BH feature which is virtually untraceable in nearly contemporary Mishnaic Hebrew [= MH]. To mention just a couple of examples, MMT, the Hebrew of which is said to be very close to MH, uses, albeit once only (MMT B 32), the relative pronoun ‫אשׁר‬, which has vanished from MH; the latter uses ‫ שׁ־‬instead, as does MMT many times over. (2) The use of the inversive tenses, also unknown to MH, is widespread. This is true not only of wayyiqtol, but also of w-qataltí, which latter turns up in MMT as often as three times. (3) The system of inversive tenses is still very much alive in Late Biblical Hebrew [= LBH] as well, though signs of gradual disintegration are recognisable in it and QH, as evidenced in the latter by not infrequent shifts between inversive and non-inversive tenses, shifts that often appear to us as arbitrary. (4) ‫שׁ־‬, with the exception of its rare occurrences in Early Biblical Hebrew [= EBH], expands its domain in LBH, but not pushing out ‫ אשׁר‬by any means. There is also attested in QH a feature which is typically LBH such as the infinitive absolute continuing an immediately preceding finite verb. (5) This was a twilight phenomenon, since the infinitive absolute is virtually unknown to MH. This syntactic feature, therefore, appears to have been felt to be somewhat quaint, which is most likely the reason for some copyists of biblical texts attempting on 1 2 3 4 5

In DJD 26.12. For details, see below at § 4 a. For details, see below at § 16 b. See below at § 16 e. For a discussion with examples, see below at § 18 oc.



occasions to replace such an infinitive with an equivalent finite form. One of the main conclusions drawn by Kutscher on the nature of the Hebrew language of the great Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa) was that, in the interest of his average readership, its scribe often popularised and modernised his model text, editing it to render it reader-friendly. (1) It appears that sometimes he himself was uncomfortable with certain linguistic features in his Vorlage and got confused, not knowing how to handle them. (2) None the less we would not say that these and quite a few other features of QH shared with BH are merely residues of a long since dead, artificial, written Hebrew (3) and evidences of authors and scribes doing their best to adorn their texts with occasional archaising and classicising traits. (4) Did the author of MMT, for instance, have any reason for showing off his proficiency in BH? The assumption of “Standard Literary Hebrew” would best account for these archaic, not archaising, features. These features were therefore part and parcel, an integral part of their langue. They were not just imitating and mimicking biblical texts they knew by heart. (5) At times they were inventive and creative, even slightly extending the BH model. Thus we find several instances of Qumran biblical manuscripts using an infinitive absolute substituting a finite form which the passage in question in the MT uses. (6) The Qal verb ‫ שׁוב‬is used in BH tens of times in conjunction with another verb to express that the same thing was done once again. In BH this ‫שׁוב‬ and a second verb to go with it are morphologically homogeneous, e.g. ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יָּ ֶלן ָשׁם‬ ‘and he stayed another night’ Jdg 19.7, (7) whilst the author of the Damascus Document writes: ‫‘ אם ישוב וניתפש‬if he gets caught again’ CD 9.19 and ‫ ושבו ויבגדו‬.. ‫באו בברית‬ ‫‘ ויסורו מבאר מים החיים‬they had joined the covenant .. but again betrayed and turned away from the fount of the living water’ CD 19.33. In BH we find no instance of the use of shift of tenses in this syntagm: in BH one would anticipate ‫יִתּ ֵפס =[ ויתפש‬ ָ ְ‫ ]ו‬and ‫]וּבגְ דוּ וְ ָסרוּ =[ ובגדו וסרו‬. ָ 1

See Kutscher 1974.77-89. This can be seen in a few examples of the infinitive absolute in the MT in the book of Isaiah adduced in § 18 oc, p. 127. 3 Morag characterises QH as “a living language” (2000.192). This is yet another distinct concept. A written language can be part of a living language. Unlike their mediaeval predecessors, European scholars of the nineteenth century who wrote their doctoral dissertation in Latin, we doubt, spoke it at home or in the corridors of their university on innocuous, mundane topics. 4 However, we would not go as far as to suggest that these authors and scribes, as they chatted away with a member of the community, actually uttered a sentence like ‫ויהי אתמול וישׁת כוהן הראשׁ יין הרבה‬. One wonders, given the position held by Qimron on the nature of QH as quoted above (p. XXII), what he would say on this hypothetical question. 5 Note how Mor (2015.370-75) characterises the language of his corpus, the second part of our corpus. It is close to Mishnaic Hebrew, though affiliated to a certain measure to other QH documents and BH. It was a living, developping language, not a mimicking of the classical model, in actual use in both speech and writing in Judaea. The language was inevitably under the influence of Aramaic, but not a crude mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. This is a significant conclusion, given the dating of the texts concerned, early second century CE. 6 See the examples adduced in § 18 oc, p. 127. 7 The guest had not yet left, but had been persuaded by the host at the gate, so the meaning is not ‘and he came back and stayed overnight.’ 2



Another feature of QH that was unknown prior to the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls, unknown not only in BH, but also in post-biblical Hebrew, was the length of the personal pronouns spelled ‫הואה‬, ‫היאה‬, and ‫אתמה‬. All three are in use in Classical Arabic, Ugaritic, and Akkadian, and had long been assumed to be Proto-Semitic. Whilst it is not totally impossible that an archaic form should all of a sudden emerge after a thousand or more years, these long forms in QH are puzzling all the same. An innovation by the analogy of BH forms such as ‫א ָ֫תּה‬, ַ ‫ ַא ֵ֫תּנָ ה‬and ‫ ֵ֫ה ָמּה‬is conceivable, (1) though one wonders why such a development had not taken place in the preceding millennium. Fassberg suggests that these remarkable forms as well other other longer forms were perceived by Qumran authors and scribes as “more formal, literary, and even archaic” and better suited for “ceremonious and festive recitation.” (2003.235). One slight difficulty with this view is that MMT also uses ‫ אתמה‬once, ‫ הואה‬and ‫ היאה‬quite a few times along with the standard, short ones. (2) Even ignoring these extraordinary, long pronouns, QH is not pure BH by any means, or even LBH. However, there are indications that QH is unlikely to be an immediate predecessor of MH. Some important traits of BH would disappear almost entirely, leaving no trace in MH. Just a few examples are the inversive tenses, the infinitive absolute (not only one particular detail of its use mentioned above), and the combination of the infinitive construct with a preposition as in BH ‫‘ ְבּ ִשׁ ְב ִתּי ַעל ַהגָּ ָמל‬as I sat on the camel.’ Against this background we can assess a position such as “QH is an entity in itself, not an interim stage between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew” (Morag 2000.192). One scholar went a step farther, claiming that QH is an anti-language reflecting the ideology of the Qumran community, namely its members sought to separate themselves (‫ל ִה ָבּ ֵדל‬,ְ cf. 1QS 5.10, for instance) not only in their religious beliefs and practices, but also in their language, making QH a Judaean Esperanto deliberately and artificially created, a view which has found hardly any supporter. (3) Here, too, one must beware of the other extreme, namely postulating a complete break between LBH and QH on one hand, and MH on the other. In some important and interesting aspects QH represents a phase of BH in transition, bridging the latter with MH. The innovation in the use of inversive tenses mentioned above (p. XXIV) is one such. Two others may be mentioned. Firstly, the syntagm ֲ with volitive, injunctive value, occurring a number of times in 1QS, is a harbinger of the syntagm < ‫—שׁ־‬Imperfect> ֶ so typical of MH. (4) Secondly, an analytic syntagm joining two noun phrases by means of ‫ ֶשׁל‬in lieu of the classic, synthetic, status constructus phrase, a structure as common in MH, is securely and not infrequently attested in documents of non-Qumranic provenience, but also in some Qumran documents, notably in 3Q15 and 1

So suggested also by Blau (2000.23). Should one invoke a distinction made by Deissmann (1923.198ff.) between Brief ‘private letter’ and Epistel ‘epistle of official character’? Was MMT meant to be an epistle? 3 Schniedewind (2000), another participant at the Beer-Sheva symposium, see above, p. XXII, n. 3. 4 For a discussion with examples, see below at § 15 daf. 2



a couple of others. (1) A highly innovative morphological trait typical of MH as illustrated with ‫ ֵל ֵשׁב‬for BH ‫ ָל ֶשׁ ֶבת‬is actually an amalgamation of the BH Imperfect with the preposition proclitically attached, a preposition which, already in BH, had virtually become an integral part of the infinitive construct, ultimately resulting in a combination such as ‫ מלכסות‬4Q166 2.9 (// ‫ ְל ַכסּוֹת‬Ho 2.11) (2). 4. Multilingual milieu It is common knowledge that, in the four centuries which concern us, Palestine was a multilingual society. At least in the domains of (morpho)syntax we have not been able to identify traces of Latin and Greek influencing QH. By contrast, Aramaic, a sister language of Hebrew, is universally agreed to have been a very significant factor in this milieu. The presence of Aramaic texts among the Qumran documents and those discovered elsewhere in the Judaean Desert is an incontrovertible proof that Aramaic was understood by members of the Qumran community, and some of them were competent enough to write in Aramaic and translate from Hebrew into Aramaic as evidenced by the 11Q Job Targum and the 4Q Leviticus Targum fragment. In the present work there will be many an occasion when the question of possible, likely or assured Aramaic influence comes up for discussion. (3) Here again, however, a warning need be sounded against assuming that the influence was in one direction. (4) This is not surprising in view of the culturally, religiously dominant status of Hebrew as ‫לשׁון‬ ‫ הקודשׁ‬in the Judaism. It is probably the case that, just as elsewhere in Palestine at the time, some were more comfortable with Hebrew than with Aramaic and with some others it was the other way round. (5) It was a situation of symbiosis of Hebrew and Aramaic as illustrated by the Bet Amar papyrus (6) and 5/6Ḥev 49. The nature and extent of such a symbiosis most probably differed between geographical locations and also among social strata. It is to be expected that such a contact comes to an expression in diverse domains of the structure of the languages concerned (7): not only loan words, 1

For a discussion with examples, see below at § 21 i, ia, j. For a discussion with more examples, see below at § 18 j. 3 Cf. Fassberg 2015. 4 Just to mention a couple of loan words, ‫‘ איש‬person’ and ‫‘ אל‬god.’ For further details, see Stadel 2008, id. 2010, and Muraoka 2011.281, and under ‘Aramaism’ in Index of Subjects of the present work. 5 Bar Kochba or his secretary probably belonged to the first group, for even a beginning student of any Aramaic dialect would not dream of writing ‫יושבין‬, see n. 7 below. 6 See Fassberg 2017.124f. 7 Thus it is misleading to minimise the extent of systemic influence of Aramaic on Hebrew, as Gzella (2007.94f.) does, who, in his study of the Hebrew of Bar Kochba letters, focuses on Aramaic words lying in certain semantic registers such as administration. One is not to ignore a morphological feature such as ‫ה‬- as in ‫‘ נפשה‬his soul, his own’ (§ 1 g), a widespread use of the masculine plural ‫ין‬- suffix. In ‫אתן יושביין‬ ‫ דאגין‬. . ‫ אכלין ושתין‬5/6Ḥev 49.3 the verbs are Hebrew—hence ‫ישב‬, and not ‫יתב‬, but their conjugation is largely (but not 100%) Aramaic. In view of the first verb spelled with a waw, we would vocalise the rest as ‫ ָדּ ֲאגִ ין‬.. ‫א ְכ ִלין ָשׁ ִתין‬, ָ admitting that ‫ ָשׁ ִתין‬is a Hebraising (!) form. To cap it all, the author uses impv. masc. pl. ‫ הוא‬from ‫ ֲהוָ א‬instead of ‫היו‬, a cardinal verb in the Hebrew lexicon. True, this is the case also in MH, 2



loan translations, but also orthography, phonemics, morphology, syntax, and meanings assigned to words and phrases and ways in which they are used. We are not talking here of pseudo Aramaisms or Aramaising features. (1) This considerable extent of Aramaic presence in QH is counterbalanced by the absence or extreme rarity of a feature highly characteristic of Aramaic (and MH). It concerns the so-called proleptic or anticipatory pronoun, attested already in LBH as in ‫‘ ִמ ָטּתו ֺ ֶשׁ ִלּ ְשֹׁלמֹה‬the couch of Solomon’ Ct 3.7. (2) 5. Morphosyntax and syntax We believe it sensible and at times necessary to distinguish between morphosyntax and syntax, though there are occasions when it is not easy to draw a sharp line between the two. As a result, some features are treated and analysed in both sections, though from different perspectives. Under morphosyntax we look at morphological categories such as singular and plural, for instance, as to their respective grammatical value and functions. For verbs, we shall describe, for instance, what values and functions can be assigned to various binyans and tenses. Under syntax, by contrast, we study questions such as how words are combined into phrases, clauses, and sentences. We are going to pay much attention to ways in which nouns and verbs combine and are expanded by means of other phrase or clause constituents. The questions of grammatical concord and word order are going to receive special attention. 6. Some methodological issues In undertaking a linguistic analysis and description of ancient texts we need be reasonably sure that the texts are as close as possible to the form written by their author(s) or copyist(s). Epigraphy and palaeography play a vital role here. Some texts are preserved in multiple copies, which often differ from one another. In such cases the discipline of textual criticism could help us establish what can be postulated as the original shape of the text in question. When a text, whether preserved in a single copy or multiple copies, has come down to us not in its entirety but as a single fragment or multiple fragments, even an experienced textual critic can and should be assisted by a competent, knowledgeable linguist. Otherwise the textual critic might end up restoring a linguistically impossible or implausible form or overdoing in his or her correction of a form that stands in a manuscript. We have consulted the texts published in their official edition in the DJD series and the editio princeps of the remaining texts, and Qimron’s three-volume edition (2010-14) and Yardeni’s edition of texts from outside of Segal 1927 § 212. Gzella (2007.102) discusses ‫‘ אהוה שלום‬Be well!’ M42 7, ‫ הוא שלום‬M44 8, M46 11, but not the above-mentioned ‫הוא‬. 1 For instance, ‫ למשוב‬1QS 3.1 is often said to be an Aramaism meaning ‘to return,’ but the contemporary Aramaic form should be ‫ל ְמ ָתב = למתב‬.ִ See below at § 18 b, p. 107, n. 1. 2 Some rare QH examples are mentioned below at § 21 j, k, and 31 p.



Qumran (2000) have served as our textual basis, although, on rare occasions, we have found it justifiable to take an exception to their reading. We now illustrate what this interface between epigraphy, orthography, phonology, morphology, (morpho)syntax, and lexicography looks like, and how they could enlighten and supplement one another. 1) How are we to analyse ‫ להרותם‬at ‫עשי שקר‬ ‫במע‬ ̇ ‫לוגיע רבים בעבודת שיֿ ו ולהרותם‬ 1QpHab 10.11. The first half is hardly problematic: ‘to tire many with vain works.’ It is agreed that the first word of each principal segment is an infinitive construct prefixed with ‫ל־‬. Exegetically, ‫ עבודת שיו‬and ‫ מעשי שקר‬look parallel to each other, which also suggests the preposition ‫ ב־‬prefixed to each phrase probably has more or less the same value, i.e. instrumental. The recognition of parallelism alone speaks against analysing ‫ להרותם‬as anomalous spelling for ‫‘ להורותם‬to instruct them.’ (1) Syntax does not favour what appears the most obvious reading, namely ‫רוֹתם‬ ָ ‫‘ הרה√ < ַל ֲה‬to conceive,’ for the 2 verb never governs ‫ ב־‬to indicate product. ( ) Such an analysis also disregards the parallelism, making ‫ם‬- the subject suffix; it is most likely that the referents indicated by the suffix pronoun are identical with ‫רבים‬, the object in the first clause. (3) Yalon’s (4) proposal to derive the form from √‫ הרר‬in the sense of ‘to harm, damage’ contradicts the spelling -‫ות‬-, which suggests a Lamed-He verb. He seeks support in the same root in Syriac, which, in Afel, but not in Peal, means ‘to harm.’ Horgan’s suggestion is to read the form as ‫וֹתם‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַה ְר‬from √‫‘ רוי‬to be sated.’ (5) Syntactically, the government of this verb with ‫ ב־‬is not attested in BH, not only in Hifil. However, note its synonym in parallelism at ‫רוֹרים ִה ְרוַ נִ י ַל ֲענָ ה‬ ִ ‫יענִ י ַב ְמּ‬ ַ ‫ ִה ְשׂ ִבּ‬Lam 3.15, and this synonym can also take a zero object as in ‫ יַ ְשׂ ִבּ ַענִ י ַמ ְמּר ִֹרים‬Job 9.18. In sum, this last proposal is not to be excluded out of hand: ‘to make them fed up with false works.’ (6) 2) When a status constructus chain consists of three or more terms, the analysis of syntactic hierarchy between them may prove difficult. E.g. ‫ מעשי רשע אשמתכה‬CD 2.16. Does the pronoun ‫כה‬- go with ‫ אשמה‬alone? Or with ‫ רשע אשמה‬or with ‫מעשי רשע‬ ‫ ?אשמה‬There also arises a morphological question which is an orthographical one as well. Is ‫ מעשי‬possibly singular as a non-standard spelling for ‫ ?מעשה‬However, if it is meant as plural, the phrase as a whole would be lexicographically and syntagmatically 1

Cf. WAC (121): “teaching them to do false deeds.” Horgan (2002.179, n. 97) mentions, in addition to “to saturate,” “to impregnate” as a possible analysis, presumably Hifil of √‫רוה‬. 3 In support of his analysis Qimron (I 254 f.n.) quotes ‫ הֹרוֹ וְ הֹגוֹ‬Is 59.13, which, however, is concluded with ‫י־שׁ ֶקר‬ ָ ‫מ ֵלּב ִדּ ְב ֵר‬. ִ DSP’s (350) “afin qu’ils conçussent en des [œu]vres de tromperie” is difficult. Just as difficult is Vermes’s (483) “to be pregnant with [works] of deceit.” 4 Yalon 1967 (originally 1951).69. 5 The letter waw can double for a root letter and a vowel letter as in ‫ ִמ ְצוֹת‬in lieu of ‫מ ְצוו ֺת‬, ִ where the former is the norm in BH. But note a longer spelling, very common in QH, e.g. ‫ מצוותי‬Is 48.18 1QIsaa for ‫וֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ְצ‬MT. 6 Brownlee (1979.171f.) reviews all these proposals, except that of Qimron not yet published in 1979. 2



akin to phrases such as ‫ מחשבות יצר אשמה‬CD 2.16 and ‫ פשעי אשמתם‬1QS 1.23. In these latter two their respective first constituent is plural and denotes concrete deeds as manifestations of a human disposition. 3) To take a few more examples: ‫ לא יעף כל חרוניֿ חמתו‬4Q434 1.6. ‫ חרוני‬would make for a case of number discord (1), unless we take ‫ יעף‬as Piel with factitive value, ‘He did not exhaust all the furies of His anger,’ and ‫ חרונו‬would make for two synonyms in apposition, ‘not His fury, His anger was totally exhausted.’ The verb ‫ יעף‬has been said to have to do with speed, not fatigue, though the two notions are affiliated: ‘He was not in a hurry to pour out His emotions of furious wrath.’ (2) But can ‫יעף‬, even if it could mean ‘to exhaust physically’, be used as Engl. I exhausted all my financial resources, i.e. ‘to use up’? ‫ו֗ ֗כ ֯תוב ו֗ היא כי יבו‬ Another example that has implications for number concord is ‫יבוא ֗עליך‬ ‫הקללא‬ ֗ ‫הב ֗רכה או‬ ֗ .. ‫ים ֗ה ֗א ֗לה‬ ‫כול הדברים‬ ‫‘ כו‬and it is written “and when these things befall you .. the blessing or the curse”’ MMT C 13, so Qimron II 210. The source text, Dt 30.1, reads ‫ ַה ְבּ ָר ָכה וְ ַה ְקּ ָל ָלה‬.. ‫יָ בֹאוּ‬. Here ‫ יבוא‬is a glaring case of number discord. Is it not possible to restore ‫ ?יביא‬Is Qimron’s choice of ‫ או‬as against -‫ ו‬in DJD 10.60 a desperate attempt to deal with this discord? (3) ‫ שברתה ושי‬4Q364 26ii21, Likewise, pace DJD 13.239, Qimron (III 110) restores ‫ושימ‬ saying that there is no place for ‫ ;ושמתמ‬the text is supposed to be reproducing ‫ִשׁ ַבּ ְר ָתּ‬ ‫ וְ ַשׂ ְמ ָתּם‬Dt 10.2. Even conceding, for the sake of argument, Qal passive here, one would expect ‫ שימו‬with ‫ ַה ֻלּחֹת‬as its subject. (4) If we take ‫ תלוי‬as Qal pass. masc. sg. in ‫‘ מקוללי אלוהים ואנשים תלוי על העץ‬those who are hanged on the tree are people cursed by God and men’ 11Q19 64.12 we would face a case of number discord in view of the masc. pl. ‫מקוללי‬, cf. § 32 eb. When we note, however, that the word-final /-yē/ where /y/ represents a root letter, hence   ֵ‫י‬- simplified from ‫  יֵ י‬-, ‫ תלוי‬can be analysed as ֵ‫ ְתּלוּי‬in lieu of ‫תּלוּיֵ י‬. In LBH ֵ‫ גּוֹי‬is found in Ezr 6.21, 2Ch 32.13, 17 as against ‫ גּוֹיֵ י‬elsewhere, e.g. Gn 18.18. Note also ‫ גּוֹיֵ ֶהם‬Gn 10.5, 20, 31 and always ‫ גּוֹיִם‬except ‫ גויים‬Gn 25.23K and Ps 79.10K. Thus in view of ‫יתמו כול גויי רשעה‬ ‘all the nations of wickedness will be finished’ 1QM 14.7 we would rather admit ֵ‫ גּוֹי‬at ‫‘ כלת אל בכול גוי הבל‬annihilation by God among all the nations of futility’ 1QM 4.12 and ‫ כלה לכול גוי רשעה‬1QM 15.2.

1 GMT (910) opt for this reading, but then their translation is debatable—“all the wrath of his anger did not tire.” 2 Kister (2004.29-31), who pleads for the meaning “to accelerate” in our passage, seeks support in the Arabic etymology: √wġf, which happens to signify both fatigue and high speed. 3 Qimron (DJD 10.61, n. 1) duly notes that one of the manuscripts (4Q397) suggests ‫ללה‬ ֗ ‫]ו[ה ֗ק‬, ֗ but does the other (4Q398) justify epigraphically Qimron’s new reading? In DJD 10.37 ‫וה[קללא‬ ֗ had been read. 4 If Qimron’s ‫‘ אין מקום‬there is no space’ is about an epigraphic difficulty, one could create an extra space by spelling ‫ שברת‬instead of ‫שברתה‬.



4) Is ‫כה כול בניכה‬ ‫ ונחלֺֹכה‬4Q525 14ii14, as reconstructed by Qimron (II 120), supposed to mean ‘and all your children will become your heirs’? However, unlike ‫ירשׁ‬, ‫ נחל‬Qal is unlikely to take a personal object in the sense of ‘to become so and so’s heir.’ (1) ̇ ‫ הואה חזון‬4Q417 1i16. The Qimron (II 148) reads ‫ וינחילה‬at ‫וינחילה לאנוש‬ ֯ ‫ההגי ווספר זכרון‬ editors of the document (DJD 34.163) read ֯‫וינחילו֯ נ֯ ו‬, translating it “And He /‫ )?(שוֿ ת‬gave it as an inheritance to Man / Enosh.” However, the -‫לו‬- indicates a plural form. ‫וינחילנו‬ is not innocuous, either, for a wayyiqtol form would better be spelled ‫וַ יַּ נְ ִח ֵילהוּ = וינחילהו‬. Qimron’s ‫ וינחילה‬is more likely, but an epigraphist need produce a couple of indisputable examples of a 3ms conjunctive pronoun spelled just with ה‬, and not with הו‬. Besides, however one might reconstruct this form, the use of the wayyiqtol form is problematic, seeing that it is not preceded by a preterite qatal. The context indicates a past action, but the syntax is rather loose. 5) Qimron (I 214 ad 1QS 2.6) objects to our reading ‫( ויפקיד‬2) and prefers to read ‫ויפקוד‬ on the ground that Hif. Impf. with the conjunction waw is spelled in QH without yod, see also Qimron 2018.163, C (3) Our 1QS passage has ‫‘ כלה‬annihilation’ as a penalty: ‫יד אחריכה כלה‬/‫ויפקו‬. In BH ‫ פקד‬Qal is rather common with a connotation of God’s unwelcome visit, and governs a zero object of person to be punished, also with ‫ ב־‬or ‫ על‬+ pers. once each, or a zero object of sin or ‫ על‬+ sin, but not a single instance is found of a penalty specified. (4) However, in the only H instance with this connotation we do find penalties mentioned: ‫ת־ה ַקּ ַדּ ַחת‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ַשּׁ ֶח ֶפת וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫יכם ֶבּ ָה ָלה ֶא‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִה ְפ ַק ְד ִתּי ֲע ֵל‬ Lv 26.16. Thus we have a case of interface between orthography, morphosyntax, and syntagmatics. We are inclined to believe that Qimron’s morphosyntactic rule is to be applied less rigidly. (5) Another instance of interaction between syntagmatics and lexicography is found at ‫ אחר אמת לא ירצה‬4Q424 1.9. Tanzer (DJD 36.340) postulates ‫ רצה‬as a homonym of ‫‘ רוץ‬to run’ on the ground that the syntagm רצה אחר‬to take pleasure in’ is unknown. is attested in BH a number of times, but in its literal sense, and never occurs with ‫ אחרי‬nor with ‫אחר‬. On the other hand ‫ דרשׁ אחר‬in an affiliated sense does occur once: ‫‘ ַא ַחר ָכּל־יָ רוֹק יִ ְדרוֹשׁ‬it seeks after every green fodder’ 1 In ‫ נוחליה‬4Q184 1.11 the suffix refers to the seductress featured in the document. However, just as wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs as an antithesis of a seducing harlot, here, too, “she” is a personification of the world-view diametrically opposed to that represented by the Qumran community; note ‫דרכי̇ עול‬ ̇ ‫‘ ֯הי̇ אה ראשית ̇כול‬she is at the forefront of all the paths of deviation’ line 8. 2 Muraoka 1996a.64. 3 In spite of our severely limited expertise in epigraphy the letter concerned looks to us more like yod than waw. Besides, Qimron (2018.166) admits three exceptions spelled with yod: ‫ואסתיר‬, ‫ואשליך‬, ‫ואגיד‬. True, all are in the first person, but is his theory of morphosyntactic, complementary distribution meant to govern also orthography? 4 Wernberg-Møller (1957.52) mentions CD 8.2, but there it is not a zero-object: ‫‘ לפוקדם לכלה‬to condemn them to annihilation.’ 5 For our earlier discussion on this particular example, including an enquiry into the variation between ‫ על‬+ pers. and ‫ אחרי‬+ pers., see Muraoka 1996.64f.



Jb 39.8. Note also ‫ רדף אחר מורה הצדק‬1QpHab 11.5; ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָר ַד ְפ ִתּי ַא ֲח ֵר‬Je 29.18 (obj. pers.); esp. ‫‘ וירדפו אחר כול שורשי בינה‬and they pursue all the roots of understanding’ 4Q418 55.9 and ‫‘ לרדוף אחרי דרכי֗ ֯כה‬and to seek Your ways’ 4Q436 1i6. 6) There should also be a place for stylistic, literary consideration. This applies, for ̇ ‫‘ אשרי דורשיה‬Blessed are those who seek instance, to ‫לב מרמה‬ ֯ ‫בבור כפים ולוא ישחרנה בל‬ it with pure hands and would not yearn after it with a deceitful heart’ 4Q525 2ii-3.2. We need to consider here a morphological aspect as to whether in QH ‫ דורשיה‬can be regarded as equal to ‫דּוֹר ָשׁהּ‬ ְ in standard Hebrew, a syntactic aspect as to possible number discord, and an epigraphical aspect as to whether or not ‫ ישחרנה‬is a scribal error for ‫ישהרוה‬. In addition, one need take into account the fact that the beatitude is preceded by two similar ones which are indisputably worded in the pl.—‫אשרי תומכי חוקיה ולוא‬ ̇ ‘Blessed are those who ‫ יתמוכו בדרכי עולה‬and ‫הגלים בה ולוא יביֿ עו בדרכי אולת‬ ̇ ‫אשרי‬ rejoice in her and do not burst out in ways of folly .. blessed are those who adhere to her laws and do not adhere to ways of iniquity’—and followed by one worded in the sg.—‫‘ אשרי אדם השי̇ ̇ג חוכמה ויתהלך בתורת עליון‬blessed is a person who attained wisdom and walked in the law of the Most High’ 4Q525 2ii+3.1. (1) 7. Uniformity and diversity Given the considerable diversity of literary genres or Gattungen represented by our corpus it is only to be expected that texts of our corpus display some measure of linguistic diversity. (2) We find here halachic documents, biblical commentaries, aggadic narrations, prophetic writings, regulations, biblical books rewritten, hymns, beatitudes, sapiential literature, legal documents, military instructions, biblical manuscripts coloured by contemporary linguistic developments, and so on. The extremely high frequency of the syntagm expressing permanent duties in the Temple Scroll (11Q19) must have to do with the permeating message of the document and the author’s theology and ethical position. The Hebrew language manifested in a particular document may stand out in respect of a certain linguistic feature in comparison with other documents of the the same literary genre. This is the case with Hodayot (1QHa); the mastery shown by its author of the very wide range of means of negation available in Biblical Hebrew is quite breathtaking (§ 40 s). Possible reflections of dialectal features have been mentioned from time to time. Members of the community behind these documents may have originated from different locations in Palestine and from different social strata. If there was some dialectal diversity, it was most likely minimal. (3) 1

See our discussion below at § 32 eb, p. 245, n. 5. This diversity in QH is well sketched with reference to the Waw consecutive in Smith 1991.59-63. 3 Not like the dialect I grew up in, which is quite distinct from standard Japanese. If I spoke it, my wife, raised in Tokyo, would barely comprehend 10% of what I tried to say. 2



At times the historical dimension need be taken into account. There are linguistic features which are markedly frequent in documents datable as relatively late. The relative pronoun ‫שׁ־‬, ‫שׁל‬, and the syntagm mentioned above belong to this category. The parameter of subject matter or genre can be important to linguistic analysis. The Copper Scroll (3Q15) is full of what gives the impression of being highly elliptic or half-formed clauses. The document may be compared to hand-written notes jotted down by a bursar of an Oxbridge college: ‘at X (location), Y (metal), Z (quantity)’ instead of ‘Behind the main gate to the the priests’ quarters is to be found pure gold weighting 80 shekels.’ In the Temple Scroll (11Q19) there appear what looks like instructions hastily jotted down by an architect for builders. People for whom these documents were meant would have had little difficulty in getting the message. It is like an arithmetical formula such as [6 × 5 = 30], which, in a fully fledged sentence, would be worded as [Six multiplied by five equals thirty]. It is nonsensical to attempt grammatically to analyse them as if they were standard nominal or verbal clauses. 8. Some practical matters 1) As in Qimron’s edition (2010-14), a number of typographical devices are retained, (1) showing the uncertainty of readings: outlined letters supplied on the basis of considerations of context, parallel texts, variant readings in the case of multiple copies, e.g. ‫ ;בראשׁי‬a horizontal stroke over a letter which could be read as another, e.g. ‫יֿ קרא‬, ‫אשׁית‬ which could be read as either Impf. ‫ יקרא‬or the conjunction waw prefixed to Pf., Ptc. or Impv. ‫וקרא‬. In our English translation all these devices are not reflected, except when we quote someone else’s translation, e.g. ‘and Isra(el).’ When we refer to Qimron’s three-volume edition, we use a simplified style like Qimron ‘II 45,’ i.e. Volume II, p. 45; the years of publication, 2010-14, are not added. 2) Quoted biblical texts are usually presented fully vocalised as in the MT, but not translated. Strictly speaking, when comparing Qumran biblical manuscripts with the MT, the latter should be analysed as unvocalised. 3) The referencing system accords with that in Abegg, Bowley, and Cook’s two volume concordance (2003) for the Qumran documents covered by it. 4) The names of the documents mostly follow the widely used style, thus 11Q19, not 11QT with a small number of exceptions such as MMT A instead of 4Q394, 1QS, 1QM, and CD.

1 We do not follow Qimron’s practice of adding commas and full stops. In .‫אל תיראום כיא אין המה‬ 1QM 17.4 as restored by Qimron (I 129) ‫ אין המה‬must be supposed to mean ‘they do not exist,’ but BH has ‫‘ ֵאינֶ נּוּ‬he is not there’ Gn 5.24, 42.13, not ‫ אין הוא‬or ‫הוא אין‬. Hence we would position the comma not after, but before ‫המה‬, and take the pronoun as in extraposition and construe it with the following clause, ‫לתהו ולבהו תשוקתם‬, see below at § 36 (2).



5) When quoting a text which is written over two or more consecutive lines, the number of the starting line only is given, e.g. 1QS 3.5, not 1QS 3.5-6 nor 1QS 3.5f. 6) The label ‘MH’ is being used in a broader sense, not only Hebrew of the Mishnah, but also Tannaitic and Amoraitic Hebrew. Finally, it is our sincere hope that this volume will have succeeded to some extent in accomplishing a task that Morag, nearly three decades ago, looked forward to. (1)


Morag 1988.159: “A detailed description of GQH [= General Qumran Hebrew] syntax is a task still awaiting accomplishment.”




AB = Anchor Bible AJBI = Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute AJSL = The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures ANES = Ancient Near Eastern Studies BASOR = Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bibl. = Biblica BO = Bibliotheca orientalis DJD = Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DSD = Dead Sea Discoveries Fschr. = Festschrift GLECS = Comptes Rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Études Chamito-Sémitiques Hamlet = M.F.J. Baasten and W.Th. van Peursen (eds), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his SixtyFifth Birthday. Leuven • Paris • Dudley, MA. HS = Hebrew Studies ICC = International Critical Commentary IEJ = Israel Exploration Journal IOS = Israel Oriental Studies JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature JJS = Journal of Jewish Studies JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNWSL = Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JQR = Jewish Quarterly Review JSS = Journal of Semitic Studies Lesh. = Leshonenu, ‫לשׁוננו‬ Megh. = Meghillot, ‫מגילות‬ Or = Orientalia QH, Ben Sira + 1997 = T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden University 11-14 December 1995. Leiden • New York • Köln. QH, Ben Sira + 1999 = T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University 15-17 December 1997. Leiden • Boston • Köln.



QH, Ben Sira + 2000 = T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds), Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston • Köln. QH, Ben Sira + 2008 = J. Joosten and J.-S. Rey (eds), Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston. QH, Ben Sira + 2013 = S.E. Fassberg, M. Bar-Asher and R.A. Clements (eds), Hebrew in the Second Temple Period — The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Contemporary Sources: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Fifth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston. QH, Ben Sira + 2015 = E. Tigchelaar and P. Van Hecke (eds) with the assistance of S. Bledsoe and P.B. Hartog, Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of a Sixth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston. QH, Ben Sira + 2018 = J. Joosten, D. Machiela and J.-S. Rey (eds), The Reconfiguration of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston. QH, Ben Sira + 2020(?) = S.E. Fassberg (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and Related Fields. Leiden • Boston. QH, Ben Sira + 2020a(?) = R. Holmstedt and D. Machiela (eds), Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and Related Fields, to be published in Dead Sea Discoveries 27. RB = Revue Biblique RdQ = Revue de Qumran RÉJ = Revue des Études Juives Tar. = Tarbiz, ‫תרביץ‬ VT = Vetus Testamentum ZAH = Zeitschrift für Althebraistik ZAW = Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft


= adjective = adverb = Arabic = Aramaic = prefixed to the name of a tractate of the Babylonian Talmud


BA BH BHS CBH cp d dem Diss., diss. DO dp du. EBH f fem. Fut. Impf. Impv. Inf. IO j KJer LBH LXX L

m Mas Ins MH ModH nd ni NP O P pace PC PCL Pesh. Pf. pl. prep


= Biblical Aramaic = Biblical Hebrew = Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 41970. Stuttgart = Classical Biblical Hebrew = conjunctive pronoun = determinate = demonstrative = Ph. D. dissertation = direct object = disjunctive pronoun = dual = Early Biblical Hebrew = feminine = feminine = Future = Imperfect = Imperative = Infinitive = indirect object = prefixed to the name of a tractate of the Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud = Ketef Jericho = Late Biblical Hebrew = the proto-Lucianic or Antiochaean version of the Septuagint. Quoted for Sm, Kg, and Ch from the edition by N. Fernández Marcos and J.R. Busto Saiz (Madrid, 1989, 1992, 1996). = prefixed to the name of a Mishnah tractate, e.g. mMeg. = tractate Megillah; masculine = Massada inscriptions (Yadin - Naveh - Meshorer 1989) = Mishnaic Hebrew = Modern Hebrew = determinate noun = indeterminate noun = noun phrase = object = predicate = Lat., in disagreement with, against = Prefix conjugation, = Impf. = long Prefix conjugation, i.e. indicative, not jussive or cohortative = Peshitta = Perfect = plural = preposition

XXXVIII Pres. Ptc. QH R RH S SBH SC sg. sim. subst. Syr. tg Trg. Trg J Trg N Trg O Vulg.


= Present (tense) = Participle = Qumran Hebrew = prefixed to the name of a midrash, e.g. RBer = Bereshit Rabba = Rabbinic Hebrew = subject = Standard Biblical Hebrew = Suffix conjugation, = Pf. = singular = similarly = substantive = Syriac = Targum = Targum = Targum Jonathan = Targum Neofiti = Targum Onkelos = Vulgate

OTHER SYMBOLS + √ > < // ‫וגו׳‬

following a reference or references, it means that the listing is not exhaustive root of a lexeme X > Y: X changes to Y X < Y: X developed from Y parallel to, corresponding with = ‫גוֹמר‬ ֵ ֽ‫‘ = ו‬etc.’, indicating that there follows a word or words not cited


ABEGG, M.G. 1998. “The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 325-58 in P.W. FLINT and J.C. VANDERKAM, The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. vol. 1. Leiden • Boston • Köln. — and J.E. BOWLEY and E.M. COOK. 2003. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. 2 vols. Leiden • Boston. ALEXANDER, P.S. 2003. “Literacy among Jews in Second Temple Palestine: Reflections on the evidence from Qumran,” pp. 3-24 in Hamlet. ANDERSEN, F.I. 1970. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch. Nashville • New York. — and A. DEAN FORBES. 2012. Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized. Winona Lake, IN. ARIEL, Ch. 2014. “‫על ארבע סותמות במגילות מדבר יהודה‬,” Lesh. 76.9-25. — and A. YUDITSKY. 2010. “‫שלוש קריאות חדשות בתעודות מדבר יהודה‬,” Lesh. 72.337-41. —, A. YUDITSKY, and E. QIMRON. 2015. “The Pesher on the Periods A-B (4Q180 - 4Q181): Editing, language, and interpretation,” Megh. 11-12.3-39 [in Heb.]. AVINERI, I. 21964. ‫יד הלשון‬. Tel Aviv. AZAR, M. 1995. ‫תחביר לשון המשנה‬. Jerusalem. BAASTEN, M.F.J. 1997. “Nominal clauses containing a personal pronoun in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 1-16 in QH, Ben Sira + 1997. —. 1999. “Nominal clauses with locative and possessive predicates in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 25-52 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. —. 2000. “Existential clauses in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 1-11 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. —. 2004. “Anticipatory pronominal agreement and Qumran Hebrew phraseology,” Miscelánea de estudios árabes y hebraicos: Sección de Hebreo 53.59-72. —. 2006. “The non-verbal clause in Qumran Hebrew,” diss. Leiden University. BAR-ASHER, M. 1998. “The studies of Mishnaic Hebrew grammar based on written sources: Achievements, problems, and tasks,” pp. 9-42 in M. BAR-ASHER and S. E. FASSBERG, Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew, Scripta Hierosolymitana xxxvii. Jerusalem. [An English version of his earlier paper, ‫ בעיותיו ותפקידיו‬,‫ הישגיו‬- ‫ )על־פי העדויות שבכתב( מחקר הדקדוק של לשון חז״ל‬1988]. —. 2002. “‫על כמה לשונות בעברית של קומראן‬,” Lesh. 64.7-31. —. 2003. “‫שני עניינות בעברית של קומראן׃ היבטים סינכרוניים ודיאכרוניים‬,” Megh. 1.167-83. —. 2003a. “On several linguistic features of Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 73-93 in Hamlet. —. 2004. “Grammatical and lexical phenomena in a Dead Sea scroll (4Q374),” Megh. 4.153-67. —. 2006. “‫מן הדקדוק ומן המילון בקטע מגילה מקומראן‬,” Megh. 4.153-267. —. 2010. “Qumran Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew,” Megh. 8-9.287-317. —. 2012. ‫ מחקרי לשון המקרא במגילות ים המלח ובארמית‬: ‫לשונות ראשונים‬. Jerusalem. [First published in Cathedra 132 (2009) 25-32]. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL, E.A. 2012. “Diachronic syntactic studies in Hebrew pronominal reciprocal constructions,” pp. 209-44 in C. MILLER-NAUDÉ and Z. ZEVIT, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN. BARDTKE, H. 1953. Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meer. Berlin. BARR, J. 1978. “Some notes on ben ‘between’ in Classical Hebrew,” JSS 23.1-22. —. 1989. “‘Determination’ and the definite article in Biblical Hebrew,” JSS 34.307-35.



BARTELMUS, R. 1982. HYH. Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen  »Allerweltswortes«. St. Ottilien. BARTHÉLEMY, D. 1953. “Redécouverte d’un chaînon manquant de l’histoire de la Septante,” RB 60.18-29. BAUER, H. and P. LEANDER. 1927. Grammatik des Biblisch-aramäischen. Halle. BDB = F. BROWN, S.R. DRIVER, and Ch.A. BRIGGS. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament etc. Oxford, 1907, and its subsequent reprints. BEENTJES, P.C. 1997. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Leiden • New York • Köln. BENDAVID, A. 21967-71. ‫לשון מקרא ולשון חכמים‬. Tel Aviv. ָ ,‫־ת‬ ָ ,‫צורת האכינויים החבורים ־ָך‬,” pp. 66-99 BEN-ḤAYYIM, Z. 1953. “‫וה במסורותיה של הלשון העברית‬ in U. CASSUTO (‫ קאסוטו‬.‫ ד‬.‫ )מ‬et al. (eds), ‫ קובץ מאמרי מחקר‬:‫ספר אסף‬. Jerusalem. —. 1958. “‫מסורת השומרונים וזיקתה למסורת הלשון של מגילות ים המלח וללשונ חז״ל‬,” Lesh. 22.223-45. —. 1958a. “Traditions in the Hebrew language with special reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4.200.214. —. 1977. ‫עברית וארמית נוסח שומרון‬, 5 vols. Jerusalem. —. 1987. “‫מן הדקדוק ומן המילון‬,” M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), Language Studies 2-3.99-109. —. 2000. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and other Jewish Traditions. Jerusalem • Winona Lake, IN. BEN YEHUDA, E. 1909-58. ‫מלּוֹן ַה ָלּשׁוֹן ָה ִע ְב ִרית הישנה והחדשה‬. ִ Jerusalem. BERGSTRÄSSER, G. 1918-29. Hebräische Grammatik. Leipzig. BEYER, K. 1994. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer … Ergänzungsband. Göttingen. BHS = Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart, 1968. BLAU, J. 1960. “‫עיונים בתחבירה של לשון המקרא‬,” pp. 143-48 in M. HARAN and B. LURIE (eds), ‫ מאמרים בחקר התנ״ך‬/ ‫ספר טור־סיני‬. Jerusalem. —. 1978. “‫כינויי הנסתר ב־נ׳ ובלעדיה בעברית המקרא‬,” pp. 125-31 in Eretz Israel 14 [Fschr. H.L. Ginsberg]. —. 1997. “‫הרהוריו של ערביסטן על השתלשות עברית המקרא וסעיפיה‬,” Lesh. 60.21-32. —. 2000. “A conservative view of the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 20-25 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. BORG, A. 2000. “Some observations on the ‫ יום הששי‬syndrome in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 26-39 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. BOWERS, J. 2001. “Predication,” pp. 299-333 in M. BALTIN and Ch. COLLINS (eds), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Malden, MS. BRIN, G. 1978. “‫הערוֹת לשוֹניוֹת למגילת המקדש‬,” Lesh. 43.20-28. BROCKELMANN, C. 1908. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. 2 vols. Berlin. BROSHI, M. 1994. “A Hebrew I.O.U. note from the second year of the Bar Kokhba revolt,” JJS 45.286-94. —. ed. 1992. The Damascus Document Reconsidered. Jerusalem. BROSHI, M. and E. QIMRON. 1986. “A house sale deed from Kefar baru from the time of Bar Kokhba,” IEJ 36.201-14. BROWNLEE, W.H. 1951. The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline. New Haven. —. 1979. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. Missoula, MT. BURGGRAAF, M. 1989. “Een onderzoek naar functie en gebruik van de infinitivus constructus voorafgegaan door de prepositie l in het klassieke Hebreeuws,” diss. Leiden.



BURKITT, F.C. 1903. “The Hebrew papyrus of the Ten Commandments,” JQR 15.392-408. BUTH, R. 1999. “Word order in the verbless clause: A generative-functional approach,” pp. 79108 in C.L. MILLER (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches. Winona Lake, IN. CALLAHAM, S.N. 2010. Modality and the Biblical Hebrew Infinitive Absolute. Wiesbaden. CARMIGNAC, J. 1966. “Un aramaïsme biblique et Qumrânien: L’infinitif placé après son complément d’objet,” RdQ 5.503-20. —. 1974. “L’emploi de la négation ‫ אין‬dans la Bible et à Qumrân,” RdQ 8.407-13. —. 1986. “L’infinitif absolu chez Ben Sira et à Qumrân,” RdQ 12.251-61. CASSUTO, U. 41965. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus [Heb.]. Jerusalem. CHARLES, R.H. 1913. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Vol. 2. Oxford. CHARLESWORTH, J.H. (ed.). 1994. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1. Tübingen • Louisville. [In some of the subsequent volumes, other scholars are given as co-editors.] —. 1995. Vol. 2. Tübingen • Louisville. —. 1997. Vol. 4a. Tübingen • Louisville. —. 1999. Vol. 4b. Tübingen • Louisville. —. 2002. Vol. 6b. Tübingen • Louisville. —. 2006. Vol. 3. Tübingen • Louisville. —. 2011. Vol. 7. Tübingen • Louisville. COHEN, C. 1983. “‫ כּינוּי׳ )אות־( בלשוֹן המשנה‬+ ‫”השמוּש בּכינוּי המוּשׂא הדבוּק לעוּמת השימוּש ׳את‬ Lesh. 47.208-18. COHEN, D. 1984. La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal en sémitique. Paris. COLLINS, J.J. 1993. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis. COOK, E.M. 2020?. “The Aramaic influence on Mishnaic Hebrew: Borrowing and interference?,” pp. ?? in QH, Ben Sira + 2020? DAVIES, Ph.R. 1983. The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document.” Sheffield. DCH = CLINES, D. (ed). 1993-2016. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 9 vols. Sheffield. DEISSMANN, A. 41923. Licht vom Osten. Tübingen. DELCOR, M. 1962. Les hymnes de Qumrân (Hodayot). Text hébreu, introduction, traduction, commentaire. Paris. DELITZSCH, F.J. 1866. Biblischer Commentar über den Prophet Jesaia. Leipzig. DE VRIES, S.J. 1965. “The syntax of tenses and interpretation in the Hodayoth,” RdQ 5.375414. DION, P.E. 1977. “The Hebrew particle ‫ את‬in the paraenetic part of the ‘Damascus Document’,” RdQ 9.197-212. DJD = Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 40 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955-2010. DORIVAL, G. 1994. La Bible d’Alexandrie: Les Nombres. Paris. DOUDNA, G.L. 2001. 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition. Sheffield. DRIVER, S.R. 31892. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and some other Syntactical Questions. Oxford. —. 31902. Deuteronomy [ICC]. Edinburgh. —. 21913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel etc. Oxford.



DSP = DUPONT-SOMMER, A. and M. PHILONENKO. 1987. La Bible: Écrits intertestamentaires. Paris. EHRENSVÄRD, M. 1999. “An unusual use of the definite article in Biblical and post-biblical Hebrew,” pp. 68-76 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. EHRLICH, A.B. 1908-14. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. 7 vols. Leipzig. EITAN, I. 1929. “Hebrew and Semitic particles. Comparative studies in Semitic philology,” AJSL 45.197-211. ELLIGER, K. 1953. Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer. Tübingen. ELWOLDE, J. 2003. “Interrogatives in the Hodayot: Some preliminary observations,” pp. 129-51 in Hamlet. EPSTEIN, J.N. 1931. “‫לציון עיזיהו‬,” Tar. 2.293f. ESHEL, H. and J. STRUGNELL. 2000. “Alphabetical acrostics in pre-Tannaitic Hebrew,” CBQ 62.44158. ESHEL, E., H. ESHEL and G. GEIGER. 2008. “Mur 174: A Hebrew I.O.U. document from Wadi Murabba‘at,” Liber Annuus 58.313-26. ESHEL, E., H. ESHEL and A. YARDENI. 2011. “A document from ‘Year 4 of the destruction of the house of Israel’,” DSD 18.1-28. ESKHULT, M. 1990. Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose. Uppsala. —. 2000. “Verbal syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew,” pp. 84-93 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. —. 2003. “Markers of text type in Biblical Hebrew from a diachronic perspective,” pp. 153-64 in Hamlet. —. 2008. “Some aspects of the verbal system in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 29-46 in QH, Ben Sira + 2008. —. 2013. “Relative ha-: a late Biblical Hebrew phenomenon?,” pp. 47-55 in QH, Ben Sira + 2013. —. 2018. “Tense forms and time frames in Qumran Hebrew prose and poetry,” pp. 16-29 in QH, Ben Sira + 2018. EVEN-SHOSHAN, A. 1965. ‫ה ִמּלּוֹן ֶה ָח ָדשׁ‬. ַ Jerusalem. FASSBERG, S.E. 1990. A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah. Atlanta, GA. —. 1994. ‫סוגיות בתחביר המקרא‬. Jerusalem. —. 1997. “On the syntax of dependent clauses in Ben Sira,” pp. 56-71 in QH, Ben Sira + 1997. —. 1999. “The lengthened imperative ‫ ָק ְט ָלה‬in Biblical Hebrew,” HS 40.7-13. —. 1999a. “On syntax and style in Ben Sira: word order,” pp. 117-31 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. —. 2000. “The syntax of the biblical documents from the Judean Desert as reflected in a comparison of multiple copies of biblical texts,” pp. 94-114 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. —. 2001. “The movement from Qal to Pi‘‘el in Hebrew and the disappearance of the Qal internal passive,” HS 42.243-55. —. 2003. “‫( ההעדפה לצורות מוארכות במגילות מדבר יהודה‬The preference for lengthened forms in Qumran Hebrew),” Megh. 1.227-40. —. 2008. “The infinitive absolute as finite verb and standard literary Hebrew of the Second Temple period,” pp. 47-60 in QH, Ben Sira + 2008. —. 2013. “Shifts in word order in the Hebrew of the Second Temple period,” pp. 57-71 in QH, Ben Sira + 2013. —. 2013a. “Dead Sea Scrolls: Linguistic features,” pp. 663-69 in G. KHAN (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Leiden • Boston.



—. 2015. “The nature and extent of Aramaisms in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 724 in QH, Ben Sira + 2015. —. 2017. ‘The Language of the Bet ῾Amar Papyrus in Light of Other Judean Desert Documents,’ pp. 113-28 in E.A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL and A. KOLLER (eds), Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew and Related Fields, Proceedings of the Yale Symposium on Mishnaic Hebrew, May 2014. Jerusalem. —. 2019. ‫מבוא לתחביר לשון המקרא‬. Jerusalem. FELDMAN, A. 2009. “A note on 4Q464a,” Megh. 7.299-304. FITZMYER, J.A. 2003. Tobit. Berlin • New York. FLORENTIN, M. 2000. “The distribution of short and long forms in Biblical Hebrew,” Lesh. 63.9-18. FOLMER, M.J. 2008. “The use and form of the nota objecti in Jewish Aramaic inscriptions,” pp. 131-58 in H. GZELLA and M.J. FOLMER (eds), Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting. Wiesbaden. FRIEDRICH, P.L.C. 1884. “Die hebräischen Conditionalsätze,” diss. Königsberg. GARR, W.R. 1991. “Affectedness, aspect, and Biblical ’et,” ZAH 4.119-34. —. 2006. “The paragogic nun in rhetorical perspective,” pp. 65-74 in S.E. FASSBERG and A. HURVITZ (eds), Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Winona Lake, IN. GEIGER, G. 2012. Das hebräische Partizip in den Texten aus der judäischen Wüste. Leiden • Boston. —. 2013. “The periphrastic clause in the language of the scrolls,” Megh. 10.201-18. —. 2014. “Constructions which precede the wayyiqṭōl chain in Biblical Hebrew,” pp. 91-108 in ISAKSSON and PERSSON. GESENIUS, W., 171915. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Leipzig. GINSBERG, H.L. 1961. Koheleth (‫)ק ֶֹה ֶלת‬. Jerusalem • Tel Aviv. GKC = W. GESENIUS and E. KAUTZSCH, Engl. ed. by A.E. COWLEY. 21910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford. GMT = GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. and E.J.C. TIGCHELAAR. 1997. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden. GOLDENBERG, G. 1983. “On Syriac sentence structure,” pp. 97-140 in M. SOKOLOFF (ed.), Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition. Ramat-Gan. GORDON, A. 1982. “The development of the participle in Biblical, Mishnaic, and Modern Hebrew,” Afroasiatic Linguistics 8iii.1-59. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, M.H. 1953. “Studies in the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JJS 4.104-07. —. 1954. “Die Jesaia-Rolle und das Problem der hebräischen Bibelhandschriften,” Bibl. 35.429-42. —. 1958. “Linguistic structure and tradition in the Qumran documents,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4.101-37. —. 1958a. “Die Qumran-Rollen und die hebräische Sprachwissenschaft,” RdQ 1.103-12. —. 1965. Text and Language in Bible and Qumran. Jerusalem • Tel Aviv. GREENFIELD, J.C. 1969. “The ‘periphrastic imperative’ in Aramaic and Hebrew,” IEJ 19.199-210. —. 1974. “Standard Literary Aramaic,” pp. 280-89 in A. CAQUOT and D. COHEN (eds), Actes du premier congrès international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitique. The Hague • Paris. GROSS, W. 1975. “Das nicht substantivierte Partizip als Prädikat im Relativsatz hebräischer Prosa,” JNWSL 4.23-47.



—. 1996. Die Satzteilfolge im Verbalsatz alttestamentlicher Prosa untersucht an den Büchern Dtn, Ri und 2Kön. Tübingen. —. 1999. “Is there really a compound nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew?,” pp. 19-49 in C.L. MILLER (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches. Winona Lake, IN. GUILBERT, P. 1961 in J. CARMIGNAC et P. GUILBERT, Les textes de Qumran traduits et annotés: La règle de la communauté, La règle de la guerre, Les hymnes. Paris. GZELLA, H. 2007. “Elemente systemischen Sprachkontaktes in den hebräischen Bar-KosibaBriefen,” pp. 93-107 in J. LUCHSINGER et al. (eds), «… der seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn!», Fschr. E. Jenni. Münster. —. 2007a. “The use of the participle in the Hebrew Bar-Kosiba-letters in the light of Aramaic,” DSD 14.90-98. —. 2010. “Emphasis or assertion? Remarks on the paronomastic infinitive in Hebrew,” BO 67.488-98. HABERMANN, A.M. (‫מ הברמן‬.‫)א‬. 1959. ‫( מגילות מדבר יהודה‬The Scrolls from the Judean Desert). Jerusalem. HALOT = L. KOEHLER and W. BAUMGARTNER, The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5 vols., translated from the German ed. (1967-76) and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. RICHARDSON. Leiden • New York • Köln, 1994-2000. Hamlet = M.F.J. BAASTEN and W.Th. VAN PEURSEN (eds), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Leuven • Paris • Dudley, MA. VAN HECKE, P. 2008. “Constituent order in existential clauses,” pp. 61-78 in QH, Ben Sira + 2008. —. 2013. “Constituent order in ‫היה‬-clauses in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 83-104 in QH, Ben Sira + 2013. HOFTIJZER, J. 1965. “Remarks concerning the use of the particle ’t in Classical Hebrew,” Oudtestamentische Studiën 14.1-99. —. 1973. “The nominal clause reconsidered,” VT 23.446-510. HOLMSTEDT, R.D. 2018. “Writing a descriptive grammar of the syntax and semantics of the War Scroll (1QM)—Laying the groundwork,” pp. 44-60 in QH, Ben Sira + 2018. HOLM-NIELSEN, S. 1960. Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. Aarhus. HOLST, S. 2008. Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll. Studia semitica Upsaliensia 25. Uppsala. HONEYMAN, A.M. 1951. “Isaiah I 16 ‫הזַּ כּוּ‬,” ִ VT 1.63-65. HORGAN, M.P. 2002 in CHARLESWORTH (ed.), vol. 6b. HORNKOHL, A. 2018. “Diachronic exceptions in the comparison of Tiberian and Qumran Hebrew: the preservation of early linguistic features in the Dead Sea Scrolls Biblical Hebrew,” pp. 61-92 in QH, Ben Sira + 2018. HURVITZ, A. 1972. ‫ לתולדות לשון המקרא בימי בית שני‬:‫( בין לשון ללשון‬The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms). Jerusalem. —. 1990. Rev. of D.C. FREDERICKS, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date (1988), HS 31.144-54. —. 1999. “Further comments on the linguistic profile of Ben Sira: syntactic affinities with Late Biblical Hebrew,” pp. 132-45 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999.



—. 2000. “Was QH a ‘spoken’ language? On some recent views and positions: Comments,” pp. 110-14 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. ISAKSSON, B. 1987. Studies in the Language of Qoheleth with Special Emphasis on the Verbal System. Uppsala. —. 2008. “Circumstantial qualifiers in Qumran Hebrew: Reflections on adjunct expressions in the Manual of Discipline,” pp. 79-91 in QH, Ben Sira + 2008. ISAKSSON and PERSSON = B. ISAKSSON and M. PERSSON (eds). 2014. Strategies of Clause Linking in Semitic Languages. Wiesbaden. —. 2014. “Archaic biblical Hebrew poetry: The linking of finite clauses,” pp. 109-41 in ISAKSSON and PERSSON. JASTROW, M. 1903. Dictionary of Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi, Midrashic Literature and Targumim. London • New York. JENNI, E. 1992. Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Bd. 1: Die Präposition Beth. Stuttgart • Berlin • Köln. —. 1994. Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Bd. 2: Die Präposition Kaph. Stuttgart • Berlin • Köln. —. 1998. “Vollverb und Hilfsverb mit Infinitiv-Ergänzung im Hebräischen,” ZAH 11.50-67. —. 1999. “Einleitung formeller und familiärer Rede im Alten Testament durch ’amr ’l- und ’mr l-,” pp. 17-33 in A. LOADER and H.V. KIEWELER (eds), Vielseitigkeit des Alten Testaments [Fschr. G. Sauer]. Frankfurt a. Main +. —. 2000. Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Bd. 3: Die Präposition Lamed. Stuttgart • Berlin • Köln. JENNI, H. 2007. “Die sogenannte nota accusativi im biblischen Hebräisch,” pp. 143-84 in J. LUCHSINGER et al. (eds), «… der seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn!», Fschr. E. Jenni. Münster. JM = P. JOÜON and T. MURAOKA. 22009. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome. JONGELING, B. 1962. “Le Rouleau de la guerre des manuscrits de Qumrân. Commentaire et traduction,” Ph. D. dissertation, Groningen. JOOSTEN, J. 1989. “The predicative participle in Biblical Hebrew,” ZAH 2.128-59. —. 1991. “The syntax of zeh Mošeh (Ex 32.1,23),” ZAW 103.412-15. —. 1999. “The lengthened imperative with accusative suffix in Biblical Hebrew,” ZAW 111.42326. —. 1999a. “Pseudo-classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 146-59 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. —. 2004. “‫חידושי לשון בעברית של התקופה ההלניסטית׃ עדות מגילות קומראן לצד עדות תרגום‬ ‫השבעים‬,” Megh. 2.151-55. —. 2006. “The disappearance of iterative WEQATAL in the Biblical Hebrew verbal system,” pp. 135-47 in S.E. FASSBERG and A. HURVITZ (eds), Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting. Jerusalem • Winona Lake, IN. —. 2008. “L’excédent massorétique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique,” pp. 93-108 in QH, Ben Sira + 2008. —. 2012. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: a New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. Jerusalem. —. 2013. “Imperative clauses containing a temporal phrase and the study of diachronic syntax in Ancient Hebrew,” pp. 117-31 in QH, Ben Sira + 2013. —. 2018. “Late Biblical Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew: a diachronic view,” pp. 93-103 in QH, Ben Sira + 2018.



JOÜON, P. 1923. La grammaire de l’hébreu biblique. Rome. JUZIK, D., R. SILMAN, and N.H. TORZYNER, 1939. “‫המוצדק השימוש ב„לא” לשלילת ההווה‬,” Lesh. 10.197-213. KADDARI, M.Z. 1985. “‫עיון בתחביר דיאכרוני׃ מלת השלילה אל‬,” pp. 197-210 in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), ‫ א‬,‫מחקרים בלשון‬. Jerusalem. —. 1988. “‫על תפקיד ה ’אוגד‘ הכינויי בלשון־החכמים‬,” pp. 15-30 in A. DOTAN (ed.), ‫מחקרים בעברית‬ ‫ ספר זיכרון לדב עירון‬:‫ובערבית‬. Tel Aviv. —. 1991. ‫( תחביר וסמאנטיקה בעברית שלאר המקרא‬Post-biblical Hebrew Syntax and Smantics: Studies in Diachronic Hebrew), 2 vols. Ramat-Gan. —. 2006. ‫ אוצר לשון המקרא מאל״ף עד תי״ו‬:‫( מילון העברית המקראית‬A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Alef-Taw). Ramat-Gan. KAZEN, Th. 2010. “4Q274 fragment 1 revisited – or Who touched whom? Further evidence for ideas of graded impurity and graded purifications,” DSD 17.53-87. KESTERSON, J.C. 1984. “Tense usage and verbal syntax in selected Qumran documents.” Diss. Catholic University of America. —. 1986. “Cohortative and short Imperfect forms in Serakim and Dam. Doc.,” RdQ 12.369-82. —. 1987. “A grammatical analysis of 1QS V, 8-17,” RdQ 12.571-73. —. 1988. “The indication of the genitive relationship in 1QS,” RdQ 13.513-24. KHAN, G. 1984. “Object markers and agreement pronouns in Semitic languages,” BSOAS 47.468500. —. 2006. “Some aspects of the copula in North West Semitic,” pp. 155-76 in S.E. FASSBERG and A. HURVITZ (eds), Biblical Hebrew in its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Winona Lake, IN. KIENAST, B. 2001. Historische semitische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden. KIEVIET, P.J.A. 1997. “The infinitive construct in Late Biblical Hebrew. An investigation in the synoptic parts of Chronicles,” Dutch Studies 3.45-73. —. 1999. “The infinitive construct combined with the particles ‫אין‬, ‫ישׁ‬, ‫ לא‬in the Hebrew Bible: Syntax and semantics,” Dutch Studies 4.5-26. KIM, Y.-K. 2009. The Function of Tautological Infinitive in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN. KISTER, M. 1999. “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‘aśe Ha-Torah and related texts: Law, theology, language, and calendar,” Tar. 68.317-71. –––. 2000. “Some observations on vocabulary and style in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 137-65 in T. MURAOKA and J.F. ELWOLDE (eds), Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston • Köln. —. 2001. “‫שלוש מילים מצפוני מגילות מדבר יהודה‬,” Lesh. 63.35-40. —. 2003. “A Qumranic parallel to 1Thess 4:4? Reading and interpretation of 4Q416 2 II 21,” DSD 10.365-70. —. 2004. “‫ח(׃ מילי מקרא ופרשנותן הקדומה‬-‫ ז‬,‫[ עששה מכעס עיני״ )תה׳ ו‬...] ‫”׳אשחה בכל לילה מטתי‬, Lesh. 67.27-44. —. 2004a. “‫”מילים וענייני לשון מצפוני מדבר יהודה‬, Lesh. 66.49-58. —. 2005. “4Q392 1 and the conception of light in Qumran ‘dualism,’” [Heb.] Megh. 3.125-42. —. 2007. “The development of the early recensions of the Damascus Document,” DSD 14.61-76. —. 2009. “‫ספרית החכמה בקומראן‬,” pp. 299-319 in M. KISTER (ed.), ‫ב‬-‫מבואות ומחקרים א‬. Jerusalem.



___ and E. QIMRON. 1991-92. “Observations on 4QSecond Ezekiel (4Q385 2-3),” RdQ 15.595602. KNIBB, M.A. 1987. The Qumran Community. Cambridge. —. 1992. “A note on 4Q372 and 390,” pp. 164-77 in GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ (ed.), Scripture and the Scrolls. Leiden +. —. 2000. “Joseph, Apocryphon of,” pp. 426f. in L.H. SCHIFFMAN and J.C. VANDERKAM (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford. KÖNIG, F.E. 1897. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache, Bd. III, Zweite Hälfte, 2. Teil. Leipzig. KOTZÉ, G.R. 2016. “Comments on the uses and meanings of ‫ אין‬in the Masoretic text of Hebrew Bible: Revisiting Vriezen,” HS 57.17-38. KRAJEWSKI, S. 2018. “An Explanation of the Plural Form of God’s Name,” Eidos 2.115-21. KROPAT, A. 1909. Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen. Gießen. KUHR, E. 1929. Die Ausdrucksmittel der konjunktionslosen Hypotaxe in der ältesten hebräischen Prosa. Leipzig. KUTSCHER, E.Y. 1961. “:‫ מאמר ראשון‬.‫לשונן של האיגרות העבריות והאראמיות של בר כוסבה ובני דורו‬ ‫האיגרות הארמיות‬,” Lesh. 25.117-33. —. 1961a. “‫ האיגרות‬:‫ מאמר ראשון‬.‫לשונן של האיגרות העבריות והאראמיות של בר כוסבה ובני דורו‬ ‫העבריות‬,” Lesh. 26.7-23. —. 1962. “‫מחקר דקדוק הארמית של התלמוד הבבלי‬,” Lesh. 26.149-83. —. 1974. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1Q Isaa). Leiden. [tr. of his ‫( הלשון והרקע הלשוני של מגילת ישעיהו השלמה ממגילות ים המלח‬Jerusalem, 1959)] —. 1977. Hebrew and Aramaic Studies [‫]מחקרים בעברית ובארמית‬, ed. Z. BEN-ḤAYYIM etc. Jerusalem. LAMBERT, M. 1903. “De l’emploi des suffixes pronominaux avec Noun et sans Noun au futur et à l’impératif,” RÉJ 46.178-83. —. 21946. Traité de grammaire hébraïque. Paris. LEAHY, T. 1960. “Studies in the syntax of 1QS,” Bibl. 41.135-57. LEANEY, A.R.C. 1966. The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. London. LEFKOVITS, J.K. 2000. The Copper Scroll 3Q15: A Reevaluation, A New Reading, Translation, and Commentary. Leiden • Boston • Köln. LEHMANN, R.G. 2014. “‘Since, while and whilst I am a poor man.’ The legacy of Diethelm Michel’s Nominal-clause syntax as applied to a wider field of 1st millennium BCE Northwest Semitic,” pp. 143-77 in ISAKSSON and PERSSON. LEMAIRE, A. 1982. “Trois notes de grammaire phénicienne,” GLECS 24-28.133-45. LERNER, J. 1988. “‫להתפתחוּת השימוּש בּ״את״ בּעברית המקרא‬,” Lesh. 52.81-93. LEVINSON, B.M. 2016. “Refining the Reconstruction of Col. 2 of the Temple Scroll (11QTa): The Turn to Digital Mapping and Historical Syntax,” DSD 23.1-26. LEVY, B.B. 1974. “The language of Neophyti 1: A descriptive and comparative grammar of the Palestinian Targum.” Diss. New York University. LICHT, J. (‫)יעקב ליכט‬. 1957. ‫מגילת ההודיות‬. Jerusalem. —. 1965. ‫מגילת הסרכים‬. Jerusalem. LIDDELL, H.G., R. SCOTT, H.S. JONES, and R. MCKENZIE. 1925-40. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford.



LOHSE, E. 41986. Die Texte aus Qumran: Hebräisch und Deutsch. Darmstadt. LUZZATTO, S.D. 1970 (originally published in 1896-97) ‫פירוש שד״ל ר׳ שמואל דוד לוזאטו על ספר‬ ‫ישעיהו‬. Ed. P. SCHLESINGER and M. CHOVAV. Tel Aviv. MACDONALD, J. 1975. “Some distinctive characteristics of Israelite spoken Hebrew,” BO 32.16274. MACHIELA, D. 2018. “The Hebrew of Tobit in 4Q200: a contextual reassessment,” pp. 104-22 in QH, Ben Sira + 2018. MCCARTER, P.K. 1980. I Samuel [AB 8]. Garden City, NY. MCCASLAND, S.V. 1958. “The Way,” JBL 77.222-30. MCFALL, L. 1982. The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System. Sheffield. ְ ‫ ִדּ ֶבּר ֶא‬und ‫את‬/‫ם‬ ֵ ‫ ִדּ ֶבּר ִע‬im Vergleich,” pp. 333-40 MALESSA, M. 2003. “Biblisch-hebräisch ‫ל־‬/‫ל‬ in Hamlet. —. 2004. “Zur Semantik des Verbs NTN G ‚Geben‘ mit der Präposition ’el statt l-,” Folia orientalia 40.337-43. —. 2006. Untersuchungen zur verbalen Valenz im biblischen Hebräisch. Assen. MANSOOR, M. 1961. The Thanksgiving Hymns. Leiden. MARTONE, C. 1995. La “Regola della comunità”: Edizione critica. Torino. MEDINA, R.W. 2013. “The syntax of dependent clauses in the War Scroll (1QMilḥamah) in comparison with other Hebrew corpora,” Or. 82.272-307. MEYER, R. 1973. “Bemerkungen zur syntaktischen Funktion der sogenannten Nota Accusativi,” pp. 137-42 in H. GESE and H.P. RÜGER (eds), Wort und Geschichte, Fschr. K. Elliger. Neukirchen-Vluyn. MICHEL, D. 2004. Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax. Teil 2: Der hebräische Nominalsatz. Neukirchen-Vluyn. MILIK, J.T. 1950. “Note sui manoscritti di ‘Ain Fesḫa,” Bibl. 31.204-25. —. 1951. “Manuale disciplinae,” Verbum domini 29.129-58. MISHOR, M. 1980. “‫[ על שימוש המקוֹר הנטוּי ושם־הפּעוּלה בּלשוֹן חז״ל‬On the use of the inflected infinitive and the verbal noun in Mishnaic Hebrew],” Leshonenu la‘am 31.11-7. —. 1983. “‫( מערכת הזמנים בלשון התנאים‬The tense system in Tannaitic Hebrew),” Ph. D. diss. Jerusalem. —. 1985. “‫שלוֹש הערוֹת מילוֹניוֹת‬,” Lesh. 50.122f. MMT = ‫ = מקצת מעשה התורה‬4Q 394-399, published in DJD 10 and quoted here from Qimron II 204-11. MONTANER, L.V. 1992. “Some features of the Hebrew verbal syntax in the Qumran Hodayot,” pp. 273-86 in J. TREBOLLE BARRERA and L. VEGAS MONTANER (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress. Leiden. —. 1994. “Quelques structures syntactiques des Hodayot parfait et imparfait non initiaux,” pp. 287-304 in G.J. BROOKE (ed.), New Qumran Texts and Studies. Leiden. MOR, U. (‫)אורי מור‬. 2008. “‫ אם לא‬,‫אילא‬,” Lesh. 70.167-84. —. 2009. “‫סדר המילים בשטרות ובאיגרות ממדבר יהודה‬,” Megh. 7.237-61. —. 2010. “Three questions and three answers regarding the Hebrew documents from Judaea between the first and second revolts,” Megh. 10.219-34. —. 2015. ‫ לשון התעודות העבריות ממדבר יהודה בין המרד הגדול למרד בר כוכבא‬:‫עברית יהודאית‬ (Judean Hebrew: The Language of the Hebrew Documents from Judea between the First and Second Revolts). Jerusalem.



—. 2015a. “One more look at the negation of the infinitive construct in Second Temple Hebrew,” VT 65.437-56. —. 2017. “Prepositional predicates with nominalized subjects in Classical Hebrew,” HS 58.2546. — and T. ZEWI. 2011. “‫המשפט השמני בשטרות ובאיגרות ממדבר יהודה‬,” Lesh. 73.129-38. —. 2015. “The nominal clause in the Hebrew legal documents and letters from the Judean desert,” pp. 65-79 in QH, Ben Sira + 2015. MORAG, Sh. 1988. “Qumran Hebrew: Some typological observations,” VT 38.148-64. —. 1996. “Language and style in Miqṣat ma‘aśe ha-torah – Did Moreh ha-ṣedeq write this document?,” Tar. 65.209-23. —. 1996a. “Some notes (following Elisha Qimron’s paper, ‘The Biblical lexicon in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls’),” DSD 3.152-56. —. 1996b. “‫ קווי מבנה ומהותם‬:‫לשונן של מגילות מדבר יהודה‬,” pp. 106-15 in ‫מחקרים בלשון המקרא‬. Jerusalem. MORESHET, M. 1976. “‫( הפעיל ללא הבדל מן הקל בלשון חז״ל בהשואה ללשון המקרא‬The Hif‘il in Mishnaic Hebrew as equivalent to the Qal),” ‫ בר־אילן‬13.249-81. —. 1981. “‫( משקל פולל התפולל בעברית של חז״ל ובניבי הארמית‬Polel / Hitpolel in Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic dialects),” ‫ בר־אילן‬18-19.248-69. MORGENSTERN, M. 1997. “Language and literature in the Second Temple period,” JJS 48.130-45. —. 2007. “The apostrophe to Zion – A philological and structural analysis,” DSD 14.178-98. MURAOKA, T. 1969. “Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew,” Ph. D. dissertation, Jerusalem. —. 1972. “Remarks on the syntax of some types of noun modifier in Syriac,” JNES 31.192-94. —. 1975. “On the nominal clause in the Old Syriac Gospels,” JSS 20.28-37. —. 1975a. “The nun energicum and the prefix conjugation in Biblical Hebrew,” AJBI 1.63-71. —. 1977. “The status constructus of adjectives in Biblical Hebrew,” VT 27.375-80. —. 1978. “A syntactic problem in Lev. xix. 18b,” JSS 23.291-97. —. 1985. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem • Leiden. —. 1989. “The nominal clause in Late Biblical Hebrew,” (in Japanese), pp. 318-38 in S. ARAI et al. (eds), The Message of the Bible: Ways of its Communication. Tokyo. —. 1990. “‫הפסוק השמני בלשון המקרא המאוחרת ובלשון חז״ל‬,” pp. 219-52 in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), ‫מחקרים בלשון ד‬. Jerusalem. —. 1991. “The Biblical Hebrew nominal clause with a prepositional phrase,” pp. 143-51 in K. JONGELING, H.L. MURRE - VAN DEN BERG, and L. VAN ROMPAY (eds), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax [Fschr. J. Hoftijzer]. Leiden +. —. 1992. “Biblical Hebrew philological notes (2),” pp. 43-54 in S. SHAKED et al. (eds), Studies in Semitic Linguistics in Honor of Joshua Blau, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 15. Jerusalem. —. 1992a. “The verbal rection in Qumran Aramaic,” pp. 99-118 in T. MURAOKA (ed.), Studies in Qumran Aramaic, Abr-Nahrain Supplement 3. Louvain. —. 1996. “Notae qumranicae philologicae (1),” RdQ 17.573-83. —. 1996a. “Notae qumranicae philologicae (2),” Abr-Nahrain 33.55-73. —. 1997. “Verb complementation in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 92-149 in QH, Ben Sira + 1997. —. 1998. Modern Hebrew for Biblical Scholars. Wiesbaden. —. 1999. “Notae qumranicae philologicae (3): The Community Rule (1QS): Column 3,” Abr-Nahrain 35.47-64.



—. 1999a. “The participle in Qumran Hebrew with special reference to its periphrastic use,” pp. 188-204 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. —. 1999b. “The tripartite nominal clause revisited,” pp. 187-213 in C.L. MILLER (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches. Winona Lake, IN. —. 2000. “An approach to the morphosyntax and syntax of Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 193-214 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. —. 2000a. “Hebrew,” cols. 340a-45b in L.H. SCHIFFMAN and J.C. VANDERKAM (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford. —. 2003. “The Community Rule (1QS): Column 4,” pp. 335-346 in S.M. PAUL et al. (eds), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Leiden. —. 2004. “Between linguistics and philology,” ANES 41.85-94. —. 2005. “Apports de la LXX dans notre compréhension de l’hébreu et du grec et de leur vocabulaire,” pp. 57-68 in J. JOOSTEN and Ph. LE MOIGNE, L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité. Paris. —. 2006. “Reflections on an important study on the nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew,” BO 63.447-67. —. 2007. “Some remarks on the syntax of doubly transitive verbs in Biblical Hebrew,” pp. 25057 in J. LUCHSINGER et al. (eds), «… der seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn!», Fschr. E. Jenni. Münster. —. 2008. “The morphosyntax of the construct phrase in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 125-32 in QH, Ben Sira + 2008. —. 2009. “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (4b) on the Community Rule,” pp. *115-25 in D. SIVAN, D. TALSHIR and C. COHEN (eds), Zaphenath-paneah, Linguistic Studies Presented to Elisha Qimron on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Beer Sheva. —. 2009a. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven • Paris • Walpole, MA. —. 2010. “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (4c) on the Community Rule (1QS),” pp. 291-309 in L.K. LO, N. TAN, and Y. ZHANG (eds), Crossing Textual Boundaries [Fschr. A.C.C. Lee]. Hong Kong. —. 2011. A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic. Leuven • Paris • Walpole, MA. —. 2012. “Philological notes on the David-Bathsheba story. II,” pp. 89-113 in G. BONNEY and R. VOCEMT (eds), Sophia - Paideia, Sapienza e educazione (Sir 1,27), Miscellanea di studi offerti in onore del prof. Don Mario Cimosa. Roma. —. 2015. “Aspects of the (morpho)syntax of the infinitive in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 80-87 in QH, Ben Sira + 2015. —. 2015a. “Nathan’s ominous and tragic prophecy becoming a reality: 2 Samuel 13:23-39,” pp. 166-83 in T.D. FINLAY and W. YARCHIN (eds), The Genre of Biblical Commentary, Fschr. J.E. Hartley. Eugene, OR. —. 2016. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek. Leuven. —. 2017. A Biblical Hebrew Reader with an Outline Grammar. Leuven. —. 2017a. “Dan 7:2 ‫‘ ִעם ֵל ְיליָ א‬by night’?,” VT 67.667-70. —. 2018. “Justification by faith: Paul and Qumran,” Bibl. 99.281-84. —. 2018a. “Linguistically significant variants in Qumran fragments of Psalms,” pp. 158-72 in QH, Ben Sira + 2018. —. 2018b. “Notae Qumranicae philologicae (5a) on the Community Rule,” Semitica et Classica 11.289-97. —. 2019. “The promised land in Hebrew,” ANES 56.311-13.



—. 2020(?). “Verbal rection in Qumran Hebrew,” in QH, Ben Sira + 2020(?). Jerusalem. —. 2020a(?). “How to interpret ‫ פשׁר‬in Qumran Hebrew?,” in QH, Ben Sira + 2020a(?). —. 2021(?). A Philological Commentary on the Community Rule and Related Documents. — and M. MALESSA. 2002. “A Deuteronomistic formula < ‫ שׁמר‬+ ‫>עשׂה‬,” VT 52.548-51. — and B. PORTEN. 22003. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. Leiden • Boston. MURRAY, D.F. 1999. “An unremarked rhetorical marker in Biblical Hebrew prose,” Hebrew Studies 40.33-56. MURTONEN, A. 1965. “A historico-philological survey of the main Dead Sea Scrolls and related documents,” Abr-Nahrain 4.56-95. —. 1968. “The prehistoric development of the Hebrew verbal system,” pp. 29-33 in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers, vol. II. Jerusalem. NAUDÉ, J.A. 1991. “Qumran Hebrew as a null subject language,” South African Journal of Linguistics 9.119-25. —. 1994. “The asymmetry of subject pronouns and subject nouns in Qumran Hebrew and cognates,” JNWSL 20.1.139-63. —. 1994a. “Towards a typology of Qumran Hebrew,” JNWSL 20.2.61-78. —. 2000. “Qumran Hebrew syntax in the perspective of a theory of language change and diffusion,” JNWSL 26.105-32. —. 2001. “The distribution of independent personal pronouns in Qumran Hebrew,” JNSL 27.2.91112. — and C.L. MILLER-NAUDÉ. 2015. “Syntactic features of ‫ כל‬in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 88-111 in QH, Ben Sira + 2015. NEBE, G.W. 1973. “Der Gebrauch der sogenannten ‘nota accusativi’ ‫ את‬in Damaskusschrift xv 5.9 und 12,” RdQ 8.257-63. —. 1997. “Die hebräische Sprache der Naḥal ḥever Dokumente: 5/6Ḥev 44-46,” pp. 150-57 in QH, Ben Sira + 1997. —. 2004. “Zu Stand und Aufgaben der philologischen Arbeit an den hebräischen Handschriften vom Toten Meer,” pp. 519-82 in A. DROST-ABGARJAN and J. TUBACH (eds), Sprache, Mythen, Mythizismen [Fschr. W. Belz]. Halle. NICCACCI, A. 1986. Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica. Jerusalem. —. 1987. “A neglected point of Hebrew syntax: Yiqtol and position in the sentence,” Liber annuus 37.7-19. —. 1993. “Simple nominal clause (SNC) or verbless clause in Biblical Hebrew prose,” ZAH 6.216-27. —. 1999. “Types and functions of the nominal sentence,” pp 215-48 in C.L. MILLER (ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches. Winona Lake, IN. —. 2014. “Background constructions in the main line in Biblical Hebrew,” pp. 179-89 in ISAKSSON and PERSSON. NITZAN, B. 1986. Pesher Habakkuk: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab) [‫מגילת‬ ‫]פשר חבקוק ממגילות מדבר יהודה‬. Jerusalem. NÖLDEKE, Th. (21898) 1966. Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik. Anhang .. bearbeitet von Anton Schall. Darmstadt. OHAD, C. 2013. The Verbal Tense System in Late BH Prose. Winona Lake, IN. PARDEE, D. et al. 1982. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters. Chico, CA. PARK, M. 2003. “Repetition and non-repetition of particles in Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls” [in Heb.] Diss. Hebrew University, Jerusalem.



PAT-EL, N. 2012. “Syntactic Aramaisms as a tool for the internal chronology,” pp. 245-63 in C.L. MILLER-NAUDÉ and Z. ZEVIT (eds), Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN. PENNER, K.M. 2015. The Verbal System of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leiden. PERETZ, Y. 1967. ‫ בעברית לכל תקופותיה‬:‫[ משפט הזיקה‬The Relative Clause]. Tel Aviv. —. 1968. “‫צמידות של שם פרטי ותואר כבוד‬,” pp. 129-33 in Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers, vol. II. Jerusalem. PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ, M. 1997, tr. J. ELWOLDE. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Leiden • New York • Köln. —. 1999. “4QMMT: Linguistic analysis of redactional forms related to Biblical and Rabbinic language,” pp. 205-22 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. VAN PEURSEN, W.Th. 1997. “Periphrastic tenses in Ben Sira,” pp. 158-73 in QH, Ben Sira + 1997. —. 1999. “Negation in the Hebrew of Ben Sira,” pp. 223-43 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. —. 2000. “Conditional sentences with ‫ אם‬in the protasis in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 215-31 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. —. 2004. The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. Leiden • Boston. –––. 2006. “Three approaches to the tripartite nominal clause in Classical Syriac,” pp. 157-73 in P.S.F. VAN KEULEN and W.Th. VAN PEURSEN, Corpus Linguistics and Textual History. Assen. VAN DER PLOEG, J. 1951. “Le rouleau d’Habacuc de la grotte de ‘Ain Fešḫa,” BO 8.2-11. —. 1951a. “La manuel de discipline des rouleaux de la Mer Morte,” BO 8.113-26. —. 1952. “Quelques traductions du ‘Manuel de discipline’ des manuscrits de la Mer Morte,” BO 9.127-33. —. 1959. Le Rouleau de la guerre. Leiden. POLAK, F.H. 2014. “The circumstantial clause as trigger: Syntax, discourse and plot structure in biblical narrative,” pp. 191-203 in ISAKSSON and PERSSON. POLZIN, R. 1976. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. Missoula, MT. POUILLY, J. 1976. La Règle de la communauté de Qumrân: Son évolution littéraire. Paris. PUECH, É. 1993. La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? Paris. QIMRON, E. 1976. ‫דקדוק הלשון העברית של מגילות מדבר יהודה‬. Diss. Hebrew University, Jerusalem. —. 1978. “New readings in the Temple Scroll,” IEJ 28.161-72. —. 1978a. “‫לשוֹנהּ של מגילת המקדש‬,” Lesh. 42.82-98. —. 1982. “‫ די בראש משפּט עיקרי בּעברית וּבארמית‬,-‫ ש‬,‫המלות אשר‬,” Lesh. 46.27-38. —. 1983. “‫מלת השלילה ַאל במקורותינו הקדימים‬,” pp. 473-82 in M. BAR-ASHER et al. (eds), ‫מחקרי‬ ‫לשון מוגשים לזאב בן־חיים בהגיעו לשיבה‬. Jerusalem. —. 1986. HDSS = The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Atlanta GA. —. 1987. “Consecutive and conjunctive Imperfect: the form of the Imperfect with Waw in Biblical Hebrew,” JQR 77.149-61. —. 1987a. “‫ קטלתוני‬and related forms in Hebrew,” JQR 78.49-55. —. 1988. “‫מקוֹרוֹ של בּניין נוּפעל‬,” Lesh. 52.178f. —. 1989. “A new reading in 1QH XV 15 and the root GYL in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RdQ 14.127f. —. 1991. “‫טקסטים חדשים מקומראן ותרומתם למילון העברית הקדומה‬,” Tar. 60.649-51. —. 1992. “‫ההטעמה בעברית של מגילות מדבר יהודה‬,” pp. 79-92 in Hebrew Linguistics 33-34-35 [Dedicated to Gad B. Sarfatti on his 75th Anniversary].



—. 1992a. “Observations on the history of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.-200 C.E.) in the light of the Dead Sea documents,” pp. 349-61 in D. DIMANT and U. RAPPAPORT (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Leiden +. —. 1995. “The biblical lexicon in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 2.295-329. —. 1996. The Temple Scroll. A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions. Bibliography by Florentino García Martínez. Beer Sheva • Jerusalem. —. 1997. “A new approach to the use of forms of the imperfect without personal endings,” pp. 174-81 in QH, Ben Sira + 1997. —. 1998. “‫הצעה חדשה לפירוש צורות העתיד בעברית הקדומה‬,” Lesh. 61.31-44. —. 1999. “‫לשיפור המהדורות של מגילות מדבר יהודה‬,” ‫ ארץ ישראל‬26.142-46. —. 2000. “The nature of DSS Hebrew and its relation to BH and MH,” pp. 232-44 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. —. 2003. “(‫לתקנת המהדורות של מגילות מדבר יהודה )א‬,” Megh. 1.135-45. —. 2003a. “Prayers for the festivals from Qumran: Reconstruction and philological observations,” pp. 382-93 in Hamlet. —. 2004. “(‫לתקנת המהדורות של מגילות מדבר יהודה )ב‬,” Megh. 2.79-89. —. 2005. “‫לתקנת המהדורות של מגילות מדבר יהודה )ג(׃ מגילת המקדש‬,” Megh. 3.239-44. —. 2006. “‫ ברכות‬:(‫לתקנת המהדורות של מגילות מדבר יהודה )ד‬,” Megh. 4.191-200. —. 2008. “The type ‫ וָ ֶא ְבנֶ ה‬in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scroll,” pp. 149-54 in QH, Ben Sira + 2008. —. 2009. “‫[ הלשון והרקע הלשוני של כתבי קומראן‬The language and linguistic background of the Qumran compositions],” pp. II 551-60 in M. KISTER (ed.), ‫ מבואות ומחקרים‬:‫מגילות קומראן‬ [The Qumran Scrolls and their World], 2 vols. Jerusalem. —. 2010. ‫מגילות מדבר יהודה׃ החיבורים העבריים‬. Vol. 1. Jerusalem. —. 2013. ‫מגילות מדבר יהודה׃ החיבורים העבריים‬. Vol. 2. Jerusalem. —. 2014. ‫מגילות מדבר יהודה׃ החיבורים העבריים‬. Vol. 3. Jerusalem. —. 2018. A Grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem. RABIN, Ch. 21958. The Zadokite Documents. Oxford. —. 1958a. “The historical background of Qumran Hebrew,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4.144-61. —. 1962. “The ancient versions and the indefinite subject,” Textus 2.60-76. RENDSBURG, G.A. 2010. “Qumran Hebrew (with a trial cut [1QS]),” pp. 217-46 in L.H. SCHIFFMAN and S. TZOREF (eds), The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60. Leiden. —. 2015. “The nature of Qumran Hebrew as revealed through Pesher Habakkuk,” pp. 132-59 in QH, Ben Sira + 2015. REVELL, E.J. 1962. “The order of elements in the verbal statement clause in I Q Sereq [sic!],” RdQ 3.559-69. —. 1964. “Clause structure in the prose documents of Qumran Cave I,” RdQ 5.3-22. —. 1988. “’Obed (Deut 26:5) and the function of the participle in MT,” Sefarad 48.197-205. —. 1988a. “First person Imperfect forms with Waw consecutive,” VT 38.419-26. —. 2002. “Logic of concord with collectives in Biblical Narrative,” Maarav 9.61-91. REY, J.-S. 2008. “Quelques particularités linguistiques communes à 4QInstruction et à Ben Sira,” in QH, Ben Sira + 2008. —. 2013. “On the prepositional object with bet in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 189-213 in QH, Ben Sira + 2013. —. 2015. “‘Dislocated negations’: Negative ‫ אל‬followed by a non-verbal constituent in Biblical, Ben Sira and Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 160-74 in QH, Ben Sira + 2015.



RIDZEWSKI, B. 1992. Neuhebräische Grammatik auf Grund der ältesten Handschriften und Inschriften. Frankfurt am Main +. ROFÉ, A. 2006. “Notes to Damascus Document 5:15 and 6:14,” Megh. 4.207-11. ROGLAND, M. 1999. “‫המתנדבים‬,” Abr-Nahrain 35.65-73. —. 2003. Alleged Non-past Uses of QATAL in Classical Hebrew. Assen. —. 2013. “Verb transitivity and ancient Hebrew ‫ מושׁ‬in Zechariah 3:9,” VT 63.497-98. RUBINSTEIN, A. 1953. “Notes on the use of the tenses in the variant readings of the Isaiah scroll,” VT 3.92-95. —. 1955. “Singularities in Consecutive-Tense Constructions in the Isaiah Scroll,” VT 5.180-88. —. 1956. “Conditional constructions in the Isaiah Scroll (DSIa),” VT 6.69-79. —. 1957. “Notes on some Syntactical Irregularities in Text B of the Zadokite Document,” VT 7.356-61. RUBINSTEIN, E. 1979. “Adjectival verbs in Biblical Hebrew,” IOS 9.55-76. SCHNIEDEWIND, W.M. “Linguistic ideology in Qumran Hebrew,” pp. 245-55 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000. SCHÖKEL, L.A. 1988. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Roma. SCHULLER, E.M. 1986. Non-canonical Psalms from the Qumran: A Pseudoepigraphic Collection [HSS 28]. Atlanta, GA. —. 1990. “4Q372: a text about Joseph,” RdQ 14.349-76. SCHWARZ, O.J.R. 1965. Der erste Teil der Damaskusschrift und das Alte Testament. Diest. SCRENOCK, J. 2011. “Word order in the War Scroll (1QM) and its implications for interpretation,” DSD 18.29-44. SEGAL, M.H. (‫)משה צבי סגל‬. 1936. ‫דקדוק לשון המשנה‬. Tel Aviv. —. 1958. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford. —. 1968. ‫ספרי שמואל‬. Jerusalem. SEGERT, S. 1953. “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde beim Toten Meer I,” Archiv Orientální 21 (1953) 218-39; II 22 (1954) 99-113, III 444-59, IV 23 (1955) 178-83, V 364-73, VI 575619. SELLIN, E. 1889. “Die verbal-nominale Doppelnatur der hebräischen Participien und Infinitive und ihre darauf beruhende verschiedene Construktion,” dissertation Leipzig. SHARVIT, S. 1980. “‫מערכת ה׳זמנים׳ בלשון המשנה‬,” pp. 110-25 in G.B. SARFATTI et al. (eds), Studies in Hebrew and Semitic Languages. Ramat-Gan. —. 1993. “‫תפוצת צורני הנקבה בבינוני במקרא ובמשנה‬,” pp. 597-606 in H. BEN-SHAMMAI (ed.), Hebrew and Arabic Studies in Honour of Joshua Blau. Jerusalem. SIEGISMUND, K. 2017. “Anterior weqatal in the Hebrew Bible and the Qumran documents,” HS 58.199-220. SMITH, M.S. 1991. The Origins and Development of the Waw-consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran. Atlanta, GA. —. 1991a. “Converted and unconverted Perfect and Imperfect forms in the literature of Qumran,” BASOR 284.1-16. —. 1991b. “The waw-consecutive at Qumran,” ZAH 4.161-64. —. 1999. “Grammatically speaking: the participle as a main verb of clauses (predicative participle) in direct discourse and in narrative in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew,” pp. 278-332 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. —. 2000. “The infinitive absolute as predicative verb in Ben Sira and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 256-67 in QH, Ben Sira + 2000.



SOKOLOFF, M. 1974. The Targum of Job from Qumran Cave XI. Ramat-Gan. —. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon. A translation from the Latin, correction, expansion, and update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon syriacum. Winona Lake, IN • Piscataway, NJ. SPEISER, E. 1955. “The durative Hithpa‘el: A tan form,” JAOS 75.118-21. SPERBER, A. 1943. “Hebrew Grammar: A new approach,” JBL 62.137-62. STADEL, Ch. 2008. Hebraismen in den aramäischen Texten vom Toten Meer. Heidelberg. —. 2010. “‫השפעת העברית על לשון המגילות הארמיות מקומראן וטיב המגע בין שתי השפות‬,” Megh. 89.393-407. STEUDEL, A. 2001. Die Texte aus Qumran: Hebräisch / Aramäisch und Deutsch. II. Darmstadt. STRUGNELL, J. 1970. “Notes en marge du volume V des «Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan»,” RdQ 7.163-276. TAL, A. 1998. “Observations on word formation in Samaritan Aramaic II: The ‫ ָקטוֹל‬pattern,” pp. 349-64 in M. BAR-ASHER and S.E. FASSBERG (eds), Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew. Jerusalem. —. 2000. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. 2 vols. Leiden • Boston • Köln. —. 2009. “‫מקומראן לשכם בנתיבים נעלמים‬,” Megh. 7.227-35. —. 2010. “‘‫’מאום כמו מאומה‬,” pp. 269-76 in E. CHAZAN and Z. LIVNAT (eds), ‫לשון חכמים והתחומין‬ ‫הנושקים לה‬. Ramat-Gan • Ashqelon. TALMON, Sh. 1999. Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-65: Final Reports. Jerusalem. TALSHIR, D. 1987. “‫התפתחות מערכת העתיד המהופך בזיקה אל המערכת המודאלית‬,” Tar. 56.585-91. —. 1988. “A reinvestigation of the linguistic relationship between Chronicles and EzraNehemiah,” VT 38.165-93. THORION, Y. 1981. “The use of prepositions in 1Q Serek,” RdQ 10.405-33. —. 1983. “Die Sprache der Tempelrolle und die Chronikbücher,” RdQ 11.423-26. —. 1985. “Die Syntax der Präposition B in der Qumranliteratur,” RdQ 12.17-63. THORION-VARDI, T. 1984. “Die adversativen Konjunktionen in der Qumran-Literatur,” RdQ 11.57177. —. 1985. “The use of the tenses in the Zadokite documents,” RdQ 12.65-88. TUR-SINAI, N.H. 1972. ‫ספר איוב‬. Jerusalem. VERMES, G. 1997. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London. VANDERKAM, J.C. 1977. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Missoula, MT. VOGT, E. 1971. Lexicon linguae aramaicae veteris testamenti documentis antiquis illustratum. Roma. WAC = WISE, M., M. ABEGG and E. COOK. 1996. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco. WACKERNAGEL, J., ed. by D. LANGSLOW. 2009. Lectures on the Syntax with Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and German. Oxford. WAGNER, A. 1997. Sprechakte und Sprechaktanalyse im Alten Testament. Berlin • New York. WALLENSTEIN, M. 1955-56. “A striking hymn from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Manchester 38.241-65. WALTKE, B.K. and M. O’CONNOR. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN. WEBSTER, B. 2002. “Chronological index of the texts from the Judaean Desert,” pp. 351-446 in DJD 39. WEITZMAN, S. 1996. “The shifting syntax of numerals in Biblical Hebrew: a reassessment,” JNES 55.177-85.



WERNBERG-MØLLER, P. 1953. “Notes on the Manual of Discipline (DSD) I 18, II 9, III 1-4, 9, VII 10-12, and XI 21-22,” VT 3.195-202. —. 1957. The Manual of Discipline: Translated and Annotated with an Introduction. Leiden. WESSELIUS, J.-W. 1999. “The language of the Hebrew Bible contrasted with the language of Ben Sira manuscripts and of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 338-45 in QH, Ben Sira + 1999. WEVERS, J.W. 1998. Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. Atlanta. WILLIAMSON, H.G.M. 2006. Isaiah 1-5 [ICC]. Edinburgh. WISE, M.O. 1990. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. Chicago, IL. —. 1993. “A note on 4Q196 (papTob ara) and Tobit I 22,” VT 43.566-70. YADIN, Y. 21957. ‫מגילת מלחמת בני אור בבני חושך‬. Jerusalem. —. 1962. Tr. by B. and Ch. RABIN, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Oxford. –––. 1965. The Ben Sira Scroll from Massada [‫]מגילת בן־סירא ממצדה‬. Jerusalem. YADIN, Y., J.C. GREENFIELD, A. YARDENI, and B.A. LEVINE. 2002. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri. Jerusalem. YADIN, Y., J. NAVEH, Y. MESHORER. 1989. Massada I. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-65: Final Reports. Jerusalem. YALON, H. 1964. An Introduction to the vocalisation of the Mishnah [‫]מבוא לניקוד המשנה‬. Jerusalem. —. 1967. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Philological Essays (1949-1952) [:‫מגילות מדבר יהודה‬ ‫]דברי לשון‬. Jerusalem. YARDENI, A. 2000. Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and Related Material. 2 vols. Jerusalem. YEIVIN, I. 1985. ‫( מסורת הלשון העברית המשתקפת בניקוד הבבלי‬The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization). Jerusalem. YUDITSKY, A. 2013. “The non-construct ‫הכל‬/‫ כל‬in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 259-68 in QH, Ben Sira + 2013. YUDITSKY, A. and E. HABER. 2017. “4Q commentary on Genesis: Notes on new readings,” Megh. 13.71-83. ZEWI, T. 1994. “The nominal sentence in Biblical Hebrew,” pp. 145-67 in G. GOLDENBERG and Sh. RAZ (eds), Semitic and Cushitic Studies. Wiesbaden. —. 1999. A Syntactical Study of Verbals Forms Affixed by -n(n) Endings in Classical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic. Münster. —. 2000. “Is there a tripartite nominal sentence in Biblical Hebrew?,” JNWSL 26.51-63. —. 2007. “‫המשפט השמני במגילות מדבר יהודה‬,” pp. 64-80 in ‫ שערי לשון‬I, A. MAMAN, S.E. FASSBERG and Y. BREUER (eds), Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages, Fschr. M. Bar Asher. Jerusalem. —. 2008. “Nominal clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JJS 59.273-91. —. 2008a. “‫משפטי תוכן בעברית‬,” Lesh. 70.627-57. —. 2013. “Content clauses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 289-98 in QH, Ben Sira + 2013. — and Y. RESHEF. 2009. “‫הבינוני הפועל והבעת הזמנים בעברית‬,” Lesh. 71.315-344. ZURAWEL, T. 1984. “‫ לבירירה של סוגיה בדקדוק ההיסטורי של‬:‫נטישת בנין קל בעברית נוסח שומרון‬ ‫”העברית‬, pp. 135-51 in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), Massorot I. Jerusalem.


adnominal: expanding or complementing a noun adverbal: expanding or complementing a verb agens, pl. agentes: Lat., the grammatical subject of a verb that indicates a person or a thing that executes an action analytic: a way in which multiple morphemes are phonetically and morphologically expressed as separate, self-standing entities. ⇒ synthetic. E.g. ‫‘ ְבּנִ י = ֵבּן ֶשׁ ִלּי‬a son of mine’; ‫יתי א ָֹתהּ‬ ִ ‫= ָר ִא‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫‘ ְר ִא‬I saw her.’ anaphora (Gk ἀναφορά): a construction which contains an anaphoric element // cataphora anaphoric: referring backwards to something or someone mentioned shortly before anarthrous: with no definite article attached ⇒ articular apodosis, -dotic (Gk ἀπόδοσις): a statement that follows an introductory statement, with particular reference to a clause that carries on a conditional clause ⇒ protasis argument: an entity which plays a role in an action expressed through a verb. E.g. ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫‘ ָבּ ִכ‬I wept’ is used as a mono-argument or one argument verb with the grammatical subject as its sole argument, whereas in ‫יתי א ָֹתם‬ ִ ‫‘ ָר ִא‬I saw them’ we have a bi-argument or two-argument verb. articular: the definite article attached ⇒ anarthrous asyndeton (Gk ἀσύνδετον), asyndetic: multiple terms of same syntactic status not explicitly joined by means of an appropriate conjunction, e.g. He was creative, inventive instead of He was creative and inventive ⇒ syndetic cataphora, cataphoric (Gk καταφορά): referring forwards to something or someone about to be mentioned ⇒ anaphora complementary distribution: two or more forms or constructions of kindred value are used in different environments under different conditions to complement or supplement one another, e.g. forms of the definite article differing in respect of gender, number, and case of the noun they are associated with concord: two or more constituents of a phrase or clause need to concord or agree with respect of grammatical categories, e.g. ‫‘ ַבּיִת טו ֺב‬good house’ vs. ‫‘ ָבּ ִתים טו ִֺבים‬good houses’ ⇒ discord conjunctive pronoun: a pronoun that is not directly attached to another word // disjunctive pronoun constructio ad sensum: Lat. ‘construction according to sense,’ the grammatical form of a word is sometimes selected against the rule of concord, e.g. ‫‘ ָתּעוּ כל ישׂראל‬all Israel went astray’ instead of ‫( ָתּ ָעה‬singular) deep structure: a linguistic expression can conceal a feature which is not apparent in its actual formulation or surface structure. E.g. in I found his speech superb the part his speech superb does not, as it stands, constitute a self-contained clause, though a latent clause can be identified deep down—his speech was superb. deictic, deixis (Gk δεῖξις): pointing to something or somebody physically or mentally. Demonstrative pronouns are deictic elements. descriptive: an approach to a grammatical analysis aimed at describing linguistic data as they are, not as they should be ⇒ prescriptive



diach-: diachrony, diachronic, a linguistic analysis aimed at tracing and describing a linguistic feature in its historical evolution ⇒ synchdiscord: ⇒ concord disjunctive: alternatives or choice, A or B; disjunctive pronouns in Hebrew and Aramaic are also called separate or independent pronouns as distinct from those directly attached to nouns, verbs, prepositions and the like, e.g. ’attem vs. lakem. dynamic: indicating a movement as in Come hither as against Sit here ⇒ static enclisis, enclitic: a phenomenon in which a word forms a closely knit phonetic and semantic unit with the immediately preceding word, e.g. Did’e know? for Did he know? ⇒ proclisis extraposed, extraposition: a constituent of a clause may be positioned outside of its linear sequence, e.g. a word which is a direct object of a verb inside a relative clause may be positioned ahead of the relative pronoun fientic: indicating a process or an action, not a static state ⇒ stative functional ⇒ pragmatic gentilic: word indicating an ethnic group genus potius: Latin meaning ‘stronger gender’ hypotaxis, hypotactic: logical relationships (e.g. purpose, condition, cause) between clause constituents or between clauses explicitly expressed by means of appropriate conjunctions or constructions ⇒ parataxis, paratactic IC: = immediate constituent, a constituent of a phrase or clause which is syntactically closest to the kernel or nucleus. E.g. This book sells well can be analysed at the highest level as + , immediate constituents at that level; at the next level and can be each analysed as + and + respectively, making This and book immediate constituents of and so on. langue // parole: Fr. parole is a language or an element of it in its actual use, even including errors, whereas langue is the form of a language perceived by the majority of its users as norm. marked, unmarked: a linguistic expression may carry a formal feature specifically expressing a certain value. In English sheep is unmarked for number, for it can refer to one sheep or more than one otherwise than the form books, which is marked for the pluratity as against book. monolexemic: consisting of one lexeme or word morphosyntax, morphosyntactic: study of values of inflectional categories and word classes neutralise, -sation: original distinction formally expressed may be erased object complement: a word or phrase that together with the grammatical object of a verb forms a clause of equation, e.g. He called the Sarah a slut, hence ‘Sarah is a slut’ ⇒ subject complement parataxis, paratactic: logical relationships (e.g. purpose, condition, cause) between clause constituents or between clauses not explicitly expressed by means of appropriate conjunctions or constructions, but only serially arranged by means of a coordinating conjunction such as and ⇒ hypotaxis, hypotactic periphrasis, -rastic: a construction in which a form of the verb ‫ ָהיָ ה‬combines with an active participle to indicate the imperfective aspect pragmatic: a linguistic form can carry a value other than its plain meaning such as emphasis, emotive connotations. This book is mine, when said with mine with a rising tone, is pragmatically marked for contrast, implying ‘this book is not yours,’ for instance. Also functional.



prescriptive: also called normative, an approach to a grammatical analysis aimed at discovering and formulating a set of rules showing how the language in question should be used ⇒ descriptive proclisis, -clitic: a phenomenon in which a word forms a closely knit phonetic and semantic unit with the immediately following word, e.g. a combination such as on it often pronounced as if it were onit ⇒ enclisis prolepsis (Gk πρόληψις), proleptic: a pronominal element normally refers to something mentioned earlier, but sometimes it can refer in advance to what is going to be mentioned. prolepsis is Greek, meaning ‘taking in advance.’ protasis: a clause stating a condition or hypothesis in a conditional clause ⇒ apodosis rection: government of a verb whereby the latter is complemented through a direct or indirect object or an adverbial expression rheme: part of a clause or a sentence which states or describes its theme resume, resumption, -tive: a pronoun may refer back to a constituent mentioned earlier, e.g. the book I mentioned to you yesterday, I bought it or ‫‘ ַה ָשּׂ ֶדה ֲא ֶשׁר ר ֵֹבץ בּוֺ גָּ ָמל‬the field which a camel is crouching in it,’ i.e. ‘the field in which a camel is crouching’ stative: indicating a static state, not a process or an action ⇒ fientive subject complement: a word or phrase that forms a clause of equation, however not as an immediate constituent, e.g. David came home exhausted, hence David was exhausted suppletion, -letive: a phenomenon in which elements which are semantically closely related are expressed by means of formally unrelated elements. E.g. ‫ ָשׁ ָתה‬Qal ‘to drink,’ is not used in causative Hifil, for which a different root is used, ‫שׁקה‬ ָ ‫‘ ִה‬to provide drink, irrigate.’ Nor is the latter used in Qal. synch-: synchrony, synchronic, a linguistic analysis aimed at describing a linguistic feature in a given corpus, a text or a body of texts how it is used therein without relating the feature to its ancestor forms in earlier phases of the language or in its subsequent development ⇒ diachsyntagm: a syntactic construction consisting mostly of more than one constituent syntagmatic(s): interface of syntax and lexicography whereby questions are examined such as “Does this verb govern one object only or two?”, “Do those objects indicate an animate or an inanimate referent?” synthetic ⇒ analytic tantum, Latin meaning ‘only’: sg. plurale tantum, pl. pluralia tantum ‘(noun or nouns) used in the plural only’ text linguistics, text-linguistic: a study of grammatical phenomena not focused on a clause or a sentence, but a whole discourse of which it is a part theme: a constituent of a clause or sentence which indicates a topic or subject matter about which something is said, largely equivalent to ‘subject’ ⇒ rheme





§ 1 PERSONAL PRONOUNS (1) a) First and second persons First and second person pronouns, whether disjunctive or conjunctive (2), refer to a speaker or speakers and a person or persons spoken to respectively. E.g. ‫אני יצר החמר‬ ‘I am a product of clay’ 1QHa 9.23; ‫‘ גליתה אוזני‬You opened my ears’ ib.; ‫אנו עם‬ ‫‘ קודשכה‬we are Your holy people’ 1QM 14.12; ‫‘ כול דורותינו‬all our generations’ 1QM 14.9; ‫‘ ארור אתה בכול מעשי רשע אשמתכה יתנכה אל זעוה‬cursed are you on account of all your blameworthy deeds of wickedness, and may God hand you over to terror’ 1QS 2.5; ‫‘ אתמה קרבים היום למלחמה על אויביכמה‬you are launching today the war against your enemies’ 1QM 10.3. aa) Principal use as the subject or predicate The principal use of the disjunctive personal pronouns is exemplified in ‫‘ ֗ה ֗כ ֗אנוש הם‬are they like humans?’ 4Q418 55.11 (as subject); ‫‘ הוא אשר אמר‬that is what He (meant) by saying’ CD 10.16, 4Q274 1i3, 1QpHab 3.2 (as predicate). ab) Left out as the subject of a participle This may occur in a relative clause as in ‫‘ יעקוב בן יהודה שיושב אבית משכו‬Jacob, son of Judah, who resides in Beit Mškw’ M42.4. See below at § 33 db. ac) ‫ אני‬vs. ‫אנכי‬ ‫ אנוכי‬is predominantly attested in 11Q19 with 22 attestations alongside ‫( אני‬6 times). (3) The predominance in QH of ‫ אני‬accords with the historical development in that the longer form is rare in LBH and ousted in MH (JM § 39 a). Its exclusive reference to God in 11Q19 may be a stylistic idiolect of its author / scribe, cf. ‫מנשה אנוכי אתכמה‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ ְמנַ ֶסּה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬Dt 13.4. Some ‘I am testing you’ 11Q19 54.12, rewriting ‫יכם ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ examples of ‫ אנכי‬with a human referent are 4Q223-224 2ii3 (Isaac) // ‫ אני‬ib. 5, back to On the longer variants, both disjunctive and conjunctive pronouns, esp. of the third person sg., ‫הואה‬ and ‫היאה‬, see Kutscher 1974.434-40, Muraoka 2000a.342, Rendsburg 2010.228-35, and Qimron 2018 § D 1.3.2, 1.5. 2 A pronoun is disjunctive, also called independent, when it is free-standing, hence it can be freely shifted within a clause. By contrast, a conjunctive pronoun is built into another lexeme and cannot stand alone, e.g. ‫‘ ְשׁ ִמי‬my name,’ ‫‘ ִלי‬to me,’ ‫יתנִ י‬ ָ ‫‘ ְר ִא‬you saw me.’ 3 Cf. Qimron 2018.259, § D 1.1. 1



‫ אנכי‬ib. 16 (Rebecca); ֗‫אנוכי‬ ֗ 11Q5 28.14, David speaking of himself (1). ‫ אני‬is also used with reference to God: e.g. ‫ אני יהוה אלוהיכה‬11Q19 53.8; ‫אה את‬ ֗ ‫ויאמר יהוה ֗אלי ֗אני ֗א ֗ר‬ ‫ בנ֗ י֗ ישראל וידעו כי אני יהוה‬4Q385 1ii3; ‫ וידעו כי אני יהוה‬4Q385 1ii1. b) Third person pronouns Despite their traditional label, third person pronouns often refer to impersonal referents as in ‫ הכוכב‘ הכוכב הוא דורש התורה‬refers to one who seeks after the law’ CD 7.18; ‫‘ המחזיקים בו‬those who adhere to it [= ‫ ’]בית נאמן‬CD 3.20. ‫ הוא‬may be used in the manner of ‫זאת‬, referring to what has been mentioned as a whole, not specifically to a m.s. substantive, e.g. ‫‘ הוא אשר אמר לרשת משכנות לוא לו‬that is what He meant by saying ‘to take possession of habitations that do not belong to him (= to them)’ 1QpHab 3.2, which is preceded by ‫‘ במישור ילכו לכות ולבוז את ערי הארץ‬they will advance to smite and plunder the cities of the land,’ an interpretation of ‫לרשת‬ ‫ משכנות לוא לו‬Hb 1.6. c) Values of disjunctive personal pronouns with a finite verb (2) (i) Contrast or opposition (3) E.g. ‫והיו אויביהמה שוממים במה והמה בארצות אויביהמה מתאנחים ומזעיקים מפני עול כבד‬ ‘and their enemies will remain stunned over them and they themselves, in the lands of their enemies, will be groaning and shrieking over a heavy yoke’ 11Q19 59.4; ‫ואנוכי‬ ‫(‘ אלך‬you stay here;) I shall go’ 4Q27 23-26.12 // ‫ וְ ֵא ְל ָכה‬Nu 23.3 MT. The other party to be contrasted may not be mentioned, so that the contrast is implicit, but is recoverable from the context: e.g. ‫‘ הואה יכלכלם בכול חפציהם והואה ברא אנוש לממשלת תבל‬it is He that provides them with all their needs and it was He who created the humankind to govern the earth’ 1QS 3.17; ‫‘ את אל משפט כול חי והואה ישלם לאיש גמולו‬with God (lies) judgement of every living being, and it is He [, nobody else], who is to requite every human his due’ 1QS 10.18; ֗‫יוכלו‬ ֯ ‫‘ המה ֗לו֯ א יוכ‬they [= angels] could not’ 1QHa 20.32, and ‘then how could a mere creature that is but dust and ashes?’ is implied; ‫והייתי להמה‬ Qimron (II 348) mentions ‫ אני‬as possible; David himself does use ‫ אנכי‬at 1Sm 17.45. The overwhelming majority of examples cited below are in verbal clauses with a sprinkling of nominal clauses in which a disjunctive pronoun is an essential ingredient, but it could bear a value borne in verbal clauses. We totally fail to grasp Mor (2015.268), who writes that in BH the first person pronoun appears with a finite verb in LBH only. Plenty of counter examples may be found in JM § 146 a. Pace Naudé 1994 and id. 1994a.63, QH is no null subject language. In ‫ כתבת‬the subject is there, built into the verb. It is totally different from Japanese, for instance, in which an exchange such as kaita? kaita = ‘Wrote?’—‘Wrote’ is 100% well formed; grammatical subjects can be supplied from the discourse context—‘Did you write?’—‘I wrote’ or ‘Did he write?’—‘He wrote’ or whoever. The important questions that should interest Hebraists here are what conditions the addition or non-addition of ‫ אתה‬and what functional differences possibly exist between the two structures. 3 The notion of exclusive identification, a notion originally proposed in our analysis of the nominal clause in Hebrew (Muraoka 1969.5f., id. 1985.7f., and JM § 154 ea), equally applies here. 1 2

THE PRONOUN — § 1 ac-c(iii)


‫‘ לאלוהים והמה יהיו לי לעם‬and I will become their God and they will become My people’ 11Q19 59.13, cf. Lv 26.12 and Je 30.22; ‫‘ ומשל בהמה כרצונו והמה לוא ימשולו בו‬and he will rule over them as he pleases, but they will not rule over him’ 11Q19 59.19; ‫בני חך‬ ‫אשל ֯ח מלאכים‬ ֗ ‫‘ אתי ואני‬My son, you stay with me; I shall send messengers’ 4Q200 4.6, where the contrast is implicit. A third person disjunctive pronoun as the second constituent of a tripartite nominal clause basically plays the same function in a verbal clause when the subject built into a verb is marked by the matching disjunctive pronoun as in ‫אתה הוא יהוה בחרתה‬ ‫‘ באבותינו‬it is You, o Lord, who chose our forefathers’ 4Q393 3.6. (1) Cf. ‫ַא ָתּה הוּא נָ קֹה‬ ‫‘ ִתּנָּ ֶקה‬Could you of all people get away unpunished?’ Je 49.12. The pronoun subject may be put up front when an element of surprise attaches to it, a surprise being a form of contrast or opposition: ‫‘ הואה ברא רוחות אור וחושך‬He created the spirits of light and darkness’ 1QS 3.25. The notion of God being the creator of the spirit of darkness could be astonishing. (2) An extraordinary case is present in ‫כל אדם אשר יחרים אדם מאדם בחוקי הגוים להמית הוא‬ ‘(In) every case of devotion (3) where a person pronounces devotion on a fellow person, he himself shall be put to death in accordance with the gentile regulations’ CD 9.1; whilst the inf. can be assigned a deontic modality (below § 18 c), ‫ הוא‬is odd, for one would rather expect ‫יומת הוא‬. Sim. ‫‘ איש ברבים ילך רכיל לשלח הואה מאתם‬should someone go round as a slanderer against the many, such shall be sent down away from them’ 1QS 7.16. (ii) Third person ‫ הוא‬etc. with prominence-giving function Following a subject NP: ‫‘ עצתכה היא תקום‬it is Your decision that is going to become ֯ ‫‘ ועד עולם הוא ירחם את ע‬but He will be merciful towards a reality’ 1QHa 12.14. At ֗‫עמו‬ His people for ever’ 4Q370 1ii6 the ever merciful character is underlined against the background of the human depravity. In ‫‘ אם פתי הוא הוא יסגירנו‬even he is a simpleton, it is he who shall lock him up’ CD 13.6 the official status of priest to be taken note of is underlined. (iii) Self-consciousness In ‫‘ אני אם אמוט‬should I totter’ 1QS 11.11, where not only the disjunctive pronoun is added to the verb, but it is also extraposed, even outside of the conditional clause; the poet’s awareness of his fallible nature, his closeness to his Creator, his humility and dependence on Him are manifest; ‫‘ אני עפר ואפר‬I am dust and ashes’ 1QHa 18.7, an ֗ ‫‘ אני מעפר‬I was taken from dust’ 1QHa 20.27; expression of diffidence, so also ‫לקחתי‬ a in ‫ ואני מה‬1QH 19.6, 23.24 an interrogative, which normally precedes, is delayed. 1

Rather than “You are the YHWH who chose our fathers” (DJD 29.55). A similar thought is expressed with a different syntactic structure at ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֶשׁר ָבּ ַח ְר ָתּ ְבּ ַא ְב ָרם‬ ִ ‫ ַא ָתּה־הוּא יְ הוָ ה ָה ֱא‬Neh 9.7, and cf. Delitzsch 1866 ad Is 37.16. 2 Cp. ‫ת־א ְב ָר ָהם‬ ַ ‫ֹלהים נִ ָסּה ֶא‬ ִ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ַא ַחר ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה וְ ָה ֱא‬Gn 22.1, where the author could have said ‫וַ יְ נַ ס‬ ‫האלהים את אברהם‬. Not only to the readers of this story, but also to the patriarch himself it could have been hard to swallow the idea of God testing Abraham in this manner. 3 Following the emendation proposed by Qimron (I 41) and reading ‫כל חרם‬.



In legal transactions the parties involved are self-conscious: in a document of lease ֗ ‫מרצו֗ נ֗ י ח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֯אני‬I willingly leased’ M24 E 5, cp.— ֗‫‘ אני ֗ק ֗בלן‬I am of agricultural land—‫חכרתיי‬ a recipient (of the money paid)’ M30 22, a document of sale; ‫חכרנו אני ואתה מן יהונתן‬ ‘we, I and you, leased from Y.’ 5/6Ḥev 45.10; ‫‘ תסלע הזוא אנמקבל המך‬this sela I hereby receive from you’ XḤev/Ṣe 49.7 (1). It is scarcely by chance that all the examples quoted here are ‫אני‬. We argued that this pronoun so frequent in the book of Ec and often dismissed as pleonastic is “an expression of the philosophical, meditating ego of Qoheleth.” (2) (iv) Grammatical necessity (3) When a NP is added as a subject complement, expanding the subject built into the verb, an appropriate disjunctive pronoun is a requisite component. Thus ‫המה מליצי כזב וחוזי‬ ‫‘ רמיה זממו עלי‬they plotted against me as deceptive interpreters and deceitful visionaries’ 1QHa 12.10; ‫‘ אתה אל תנאץ‬You, being God, will reject’ 1QHa 12.13; ‫המה נעלמים‬ ‫‘ זמות בליעל יחשובו‬they, as dissemblers, will devise Belial’s tactics’ 1QHa 12.14; ‫אתה‬ ‫‘ אל תענה להם‬You as God should answer them’ 1QHa 12.19 (4). In ‫‘ אל‬God’ in these cases there is no absolute necessity to see a vocative, ‘o God.’ Analogously when a subject or subjects coordinate with the one built into a finite verb is or are to be added as in ‫ומלכיה ֗ם כהניהם‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֯כאשר עשו הם‬as they, along with their kings and priests, had done’ 4Q385a 18i10; ‫‘ עזבו הם ואבותיהם‬they, as their forefathers, abandoned’ 4Q390 1.7. (5) Also in conjunction with additive ‫ גם‬or ‫אף‬, or exclusive ‫רק‬, e.g. ‫ויעשו גם הם את הרע‬ ‘and they also did the evil’ 4Q390 1.4; ‫רכתי‬ ֗ ‫‘ ואף אני ֗ברכ‬and I also blessed’ 4Q385 3.3; ‫‘ גם אני את שמכה אהבתי‬I in turn loved Your name’ 11Q5 19.11 (6); ‫ראתה‬ ‫אתה ֯ברא‬ ֗ ‫רק‬ a 7 ‘only You created’ 1QH 7.27. ( ) Mor (2015.270f.) argues that ‫ אנ‬of ‫ אנמקבל‬is proclitic, but a proclitic disjunctive personal pronoun is unheard of; Mor and we prefer Yardeni’s (2000.19) reading, and not that by Broshi and Qimron (1994.287), ‫אנ מקבל‬. An error for ‫ אני מקבל‬is more likely; this is not the only infelicity in this not too long document. 2 Muraoka 1985.49. Isaksson (1987.171) holds that “the pronoun is added in instances of greater importance, where the narrative halts for a moment to make a conclusion or to introduce a new thought.” One would like to know, however, why this particular pronoun is selected for that purpose. 3 On this matter in BH, see JM § 146 c 2) and 166 a. 4 Naudé (2001.100) adds two examples under the rubric of appositional noun phrase: ‫משכיל ידעתיכה‬ ֗ ‫אני‬ ‘I the instructor know You’ 1QHa 20.14; ‫‘ אנו עם קודשכה במעשי אמתכה נהללה שמכה‬we, Your holy people, will praise Your name, (making a mention of) Your deeds of truth’ 1QM 14.12. 5 These examples contradict Naudé’s (1994.143; 2001.95) position that a disjunctive, subject pronoun is always preverbal in QH. Another exception is also mentioned above under (iii), though we do not know if this text, 5/6Ḥev 45.10 belongs to his QH corpus. See also ‫‘ עשה אתה בי משפט‬Do justice to me!’ 4Q372 1.17, quoted below under vi). We (Muraoka 1985.48) noted that, in Ec, ‫ אני‬mostly follows a verb, e.g. ‫ִדּ ַבּ ְר ִתּי ֲאנִ י‬ ‫ם־ל ִבּי‬ ִ ‫ ִע‬Ec 1.16. Thus pace Naudé (2001.95) there is in QH no complementary distribution, i.e. a disjunctive pronoun preceding as against a nominal phrase as subject either preceding or following its predicative verb. 6 From the context the meaning cannot be “I also,” cf. ‫אתָך לֹא ָתמוּת‬ ְ ‫ גַּ ם־יְ הוָ ה ֶה ֱע ִביר ַח ָטּ‬2Sm 12.13, giving God’s response to David’s confession. 7 In a nominal clause or verbal clause with a predicative participle when its subject is pronominal, its deletion would result in a nonsensical utterance, and its use is not, pace Naudé (2001.99), due to the 1

THE PRONOUN — § 1 c(iii)-db


(v) Confrontation As against ‫יהם ִע ְקּשׁוּ ָל ֶהם‬ ֶ ‫יבוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ נְ ִת‬MT Is 59.8 a confrontation between the wicked and God is clearly visible in ‫ נתיבותי המה עקשו להמה‬1QIsaa; not necessarily hostile—‫עשה‬ ‫‘ אתה בי משפט‬Do justice to me!’ 4Q372 1.17, an earnest appeal to God. Irrespective of the question whether ‫ אף אנחנו כתבנו‬MMT C 26 differs from ֯‫כתבנ֯ ו‬ ‫אף כתב‬ ‫אנחנו‬, a v.l. in 4Q399 1i10, the pronoun is indicative of the polemic nature of the document in question. (1) In the overwhelming majority of the above-quoted examples we find pronouns fronted. We may conclude hence that the relative position of the subject pronoun has no implication for the history of Hebrew. d) Conjunctive pronouns As in BH, conjunctive pronouns are directly attached to the end of nouns, verbs, prepositions, and some special words, which last include ‫לבד‬, e.g. ‫אתה אל חי לבדכה‬ ‘You alone a living god’ 4Q504 1-2Rv8; ‫אין‬, e.g. ‫‘ אף אמי איננה מאמנת‬my mother does not believe, either’ 4Q200 4.4; ‫הנה‬, e.g. ‫להת ֗ק ֗ר ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫עומדים‬ ֗ ‫‘ אנו הננו‬we are here about to approach’ 4Q491 14-15.3. da) Conjunctive pronoun attached to verbs with non-accusative values: ‫להשיבני‬ ‘to answer Me’ 4Q381 76+77.9 (2). db) Conjunctive pronoun added to numerals Examples are ‫‘ להיות שניהמה כלי חמס‬for both of them to be instruments of violence’ 4Q175 1.25; ‫‘ לאלפיהם ולרבואותם‬to their thousands and their myriads’ 1QM 12.4. presence of ‫אף‬, ‫ גם‬or ‫ רק‬there. Thus in ‫‘ גם בתוך בתיהמה המה קוברים‬they bury (their dead) even inside of their houses’ 11Q19 48.12 is ‫ המה‬no less indispensable than in the preceding clause, ‫בכול מקום המה‬ ‫‘ קוברים את מתיהמה‬in any place they bury their dead.’ A few other examples adduced by Naudé are not textually reliable and in one case, the pronoun is the last word of the preceding clause—‫המה רק מערי‬ ‫( העמים‬11Q19 42.13)—and the rest is an adverbial adjunct introducing the next clause. 1 On the polemic nature of MMT, see DJD 10.115f. (§ 4.2.5). DJD 10.82 (§ 3.4.7) invokes Ginsberg (1961.29f.), who argues for the zero-value of ‫ אני‬in cases such as ִ‫ירוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ‫יתי ֶמ ֶלְך ַעל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִבּ‬ ִ ִ‫ֲאנִ י ק ֶֹה ֶלת ָהי‬ Ec 1.12 and ‫דוֹדי‬ ִ ‫ ַק ְמ ִתּי ֲאנִ י ִל ְפתּ ַֹח ְל‬Ct 5.5, regarding it as typical of a late vernacular, what we like to believe we quite extensively argued against in Muraoka 1969.33f. and id. 1985.48f., works not mentioned in DJD loc. cit. Besides, we are told in DJD loc. cit. that a preposed pronoun is emphatic, whereas a postposed one is not, though no evidence is presented. Qimron (2018.442) now sees no functional opposition between the two sequences. We fail, though, to grasp Qimron, who holds that the variant reading in MMT C 26 with the pronoun after the verb confirms Ginsberg’s position; wouldn’t the clause with the pronoun before the verb, so in DJD 10 and Qimron II 221, come from the same period? 2 On this question, see below at § 31 e, where more examples are discussed. The BH collocation ‫‘ ֵה ִשׁיב ָדּ ָבר‬to reply’ may take an ‫ ֵאת‬object with a personal referent as in ‫וַ יָּ ִשׁיבוּ‬ ‫אוֹתם ָדּ ָבר‬ ָ Nu 13.26. However, we would note a significant evolution in LBH as at ‫ם־הזֶּ ה ָדּ ָבר‬ ַ ‫ְל ָה ִשׁיב ָל ָע‬ 2Ch 10.6 // ‫ם־הזֶּ ה ָדּ ָבר‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ָע‬ ָ ‫ ְל ָה ִשׁיב ֶא‬1Kg 12.6, and without ‫ ָדּ ָבר‬at ‫ל־א ְס ֵתּר‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ָה ִשׁיב ֶא‬Est 4.13 and ‫ל־מ ְרדֳּ ָכי‬ ָ ‫ְל ָה ִשׁיב ֶא‬ 4.15. Hence ‫ ֲה ִשׁ ֵבנִ י ָדּ ָבר‬Gn 37.14 may be rephrased as ‫ה ֵשׁב א ִֹתי ָדּ ָבר‬, ָ but our ‫ להשיבני‬in 4Q381 is more likely = ‫ להשיב לי‬or ‫להשיב ֵא ַלי‬. We share the reservation indicated by Qimron (II 342) over the reading ‫להשיבנו‬ ‘to answer Him’ [= ‫]ל ֲה ִשׁ ֶיבנּוּ‬ ַ in DJD 11.155; we would not admit a case of analogy of very rare forms such as ָ‫ ְליַ ְסּ ֶרךּ‬Dt 4.36, ֶ‫ ְל ַק ְל ֶלךּ‬Dt 23.5, ָ‫ ַצ ְדּ ֶקךּ‬Jb 33.32, only three examples and all in Piel with 2ms pronoun.



e) Conjunctive pronoun added to infinitives A conjunctive pronoun is often found added to an infinitive: as subject—‫‘ לקרבו‬for him to join’ 1QS 6.22; as object—‫‘ לפוקדם לכלה‬visiting them with annihilation’ CD 8.2. For an extended discussion on the addition of pronouns to infinitives, see below at § 31 q. f) Resumptive function When a clause constituent is extraposed, it may subsequently be resumed by means of a conj. pron. as in ‫‘ האיש אשר ילון על יסוד היחד ישלחהו‬a man who grumbles over the authority of the community, one should excommunicate him’ 1QS 7.17. For more details, see below at § 36 (1). g) Reflexive function: ‫ נפשׁ‬+ conj. pronoun Hebrew has no reflexive pronoun as such. An ordinary pronoun, whether disjunctive ‫‘ וכנס לו ולביתו‬he may collect (food) or conjunctive, may be used for that purpose. E.g. ‫יתו‬ 1 for himself and his (own) family’ 4Q159 1ii4. ( ) Another possible device is ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬with an appropriate conjunctive pronoun. However, its only two certain examples we can identify in our corpus both occur in documents originating outside of Qumran: ‫אכנוס‬ ‫המ ֗ה פירות‬ ֗ ‫‘ לנפשי כל‬I shall gather for myself all those fruits’ 5/6Ḥev 46.6; ‫תהיה זורע‬ ‫‘ וכנס לנפשך כל‬you will be sowing and harvesting all for yourself’ 5/6Ḥev 45.16. (2) Among the cases mentioned by Clines (DCH V s.v. 9b) we do not find one in which ‫נפשך‬, for instance, means ‘nobody other than you.’ E.g. ‫אל תשפל נפשכה ֗לאשר לא ישוה‬ ‫ בכה‬4Q416 2ii15, where the translation with ‘your soul’ is fitting for the notion of self-degradation. ‫‘ יקם על נפשו בשבועת אסר‬he shall swear upon his life a binding oath’ 1QS 5.8 exemplifies many other cases in QH and BH alike where a solemn oath and commitment is involved. (3) A standing formula ‫ על נפשו‬or ‫ על נפשה‬used when one signs a contract probably belongs here as in ‫ספו֗ ן בן שמעון‬ ֗ ‫תחנה בן שמעון על נפשו כתב‬ 1 See also Qimron (2018.257, n. 1), who cites ֹֺ‫לכה למה תכבדכה ממנ‬ ֗ ‫‘ השמר‬Watch out for yourself in case you end up honouring yourself more than Him’ 1Q26 1.5. 2 Pace Mor (2015.310, § 5.19) the reflexivity is not expressed here by a conjunctive pronoun, but by its combination with ‫נפשׁ‬. The MH equivalent of ‫נפשׁ‬, namely ‫ע ֶצם‬, ֶ is not so used in QH. 3 Cf. a colloquial English expression, put your life on the line; ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬often does mean ‘life.’ Cf. our reservations expressed on the current view that ‫ נַ ְפ ִשׁי‬in BH, for instance, often signifies ‘myself,’ and on its implications for the lexical analysis of ψυχή in Biblical Greek, see Muraoka 2005.60-65. BDB, s.v. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬4b, states that, in 53 cases in BH, the majority of them , the word is reflexive in character. We find it significant that of a total of 31 references actually mentioned the LXX mostly uses ψυχή with or without a personal pronoun in the genitive, but never ἑαυτόν, ἑαυτοῖς etc., once even with σεαυτόν in parallelism—πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ καὶ φύλαξον τὴν ψυχήν σου σφόδρα < ‫ִה ָשּ ֶמר ְלָך‬ ‫וּשׁמֹר נַ ְפ ְשָׁך ְמאֹד‬ ְ Dt 4.9.

THE PRONOUN — § 1 e – 3 c


‫‘ מאמרו‬Tḥnh son of Simon; upon his life signed Spwn son of Simon at his verbal order’ 5/6Ḥev 44.29 (1). h) Honorific substitutes The familiar BH use of ‫ ֲאד ֹנִ י‬as a substitute for ‫ ַא ָתּה‬has been dropped in ‫יְ ַד ֵבּר ֲאד ֹנִ י‬ Dn 10.19 // ‫ דבר‬impv. 4Q112 15.18. QH, however, follows BH in its use of ‫ עבד‬and ‫ אמה‬in lieu of the first person pronoun by way of self-deprecation. E.g. ‫עבדך‬ ֗ ‫קודשך על‬ ֯ ‫ניפותה רוח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗ה‬You have spread Your holy spirit on Your servant [= me]’ 1QHa 4.38; ‫ בן אמתכה‬.. ‫‘ ֗לב עבדכה‬the heart of Your servant [= my heart] .. the son of Your handmaid [= my son]’ 1QS 11.16. (2) § 2 DISJUNCTIVE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS A conjunctive pronoun which is usually attached to the end of a noun is occasionally added to ‫ של־‬as in ‫ הבית שלי‬in lieu of ‫‘ ביתי‬my house,’ thus an analytic and not synthetic structure. For details, see below, § 21 ia. § 3 DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS a) Basic nature Demonstrative pronouns are used when a speaker or writer is focusing his or her attention on a particular person, thing or state of affairs. They are equivalent to Engl. this, these, that and those. One who or that which is being focused may be physically or mentally near to the speaker or writer [near deixis] or remote [far deixis], e.g. ‫‘ ביום ההוא‬on that day’ 4Q252 2.2. b) Anaphoric function E.g. ‫‘ בהיות אלה בישראל‬when these become a reality in ..’ 1QS 8.4, 12; ‫ביום ההואה‬ ‘on that day’ 1QM 18.5; ‫‘ בעת ההיאה‬at that time’ 1QS 9.5; ‫‘ הימים המה‬those days’ 1QpHab 2.6 (for ‫)ההמה‬. c) Cataphoric function Contrary to its anaphoric function, a demonstrative pronoun may be used to refer to someone or something about to be mentioned, pointing downwards, so to speak. Here ‘his life’ must be that of Tḥnh, probably illiterate. ‫ על‬in this context cannot have the value of dativus commodi, ‘on his behalf.’ Yardeni (2000.114) “translates” it with ‫לעצמו‬, but not ‫על עצמו‬. ‫ עצמו‬is ‘himself’ in MH. See also Pardee (1982.125f.) on ‫ על נפשה‬M42 10. 2 For more examples in both BH and QH, see Clines, DCH I s.v. ‫ ָא ָמה‬2 and VI s.v. ‫ ֶע ֶבד‬9. 1



E.g. ‫‘ זה הסרך‬the following is the rule’ 1QS 5.1; ‫‘ אלה דרכיהן בתבל‬the following are their ways in the world’ 1QS 4.2, fּ ollowed by a long list of moral codes, and then, summing up, it is said: ‫‘ אלה סודי רוח לבני אמת תבל‬the above are the spiritual foundations for the sons of truth in the world’ 1QS 4.6, where ‫ אלה‬carries anaphoric value. d) Reciprocal value with repetition ‫‘ מסרותם זה לזה‬their transfer from one to next’ 1QS 10.4; ‫‘ יום משפטו זה לזה‬each day ‫‘ מושליהם‬their rulers in accordance with its respective rule’ 1QS 10.7; ‫הם זזה אחר זה יבואו‬ will enter one after another’ 1QpHab 4.12; ‫‘ זה עם זה נעשו‬they were made together’ 4Q216 7.16; ‫‘ מובדלים זה מזה‬separated from one another’ 11Q19 35.11, sim. 11Q19 35.13, 11Q19 46.17, 11Q20 13.1; ‫‘ הניצל מזה יתפש בזה‬he who escapes one gets caught by the other’ CD 4.18. This applies to the plural ‫ אלה‬as in ‫לה ֗ריב אלה באלה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו֗ י֗ חלו‬they will begin to quarrel with one another’ 4Q390 2i6. On this use of the demonstrative pronouns, ‫זה‬, ‫זאת‬, and ‫אלה‬, see also below, § 32 cf. e) Substantival use The ‫זה‬-series can also be used as a self-standing word, not qualifying a substantive. ‫‘ זה הסרך‬the following is the rule’ 1QS 5.1; ‫‘ מידך היתה זאת‬this was from You’ 1QHa 6.38; ‫‘ זה להם האות‬this is the sign to them’ 4Q389 8ii5, where ‫ זה‬does not refer to any preceding masc. noun, but to the whole situation described there. (1) So are the other examples cited above at § c and d. See also ‫‘ אל יבוא בקהל אלה‬he shall not join the assembly of these (people)’ 1QSa 2.4 (2); ‫‘ באלה‬in these ways’ CD 7.5; ‫עשיתה כול‬ ‫‘ אלה‬You have made all these things’ 1QHa 18.14; ‫‘ הלז אחכרתי לך‬this I have leased to you’ 5/6Ḥev 45.13; ‫‘ לעומת הלז‬in view of this’ 5/6Ḥev 45.22; ‫)את הללו =( תללו‬ 5/6Ḥev 46.4, 9. Note a substantivised ‫‘ ְל ַה ָלּז‬to this (man)’ Dn 8.16 in LBH, similarly to ‫ הלז‬in these two Naḥal Ḥever texts. f) Rhetorical As in BH a demonstrative pronoun for near deixis may follow an interrogative word to reinforce the interrogative tone. E.g. ‫‘ מי זה אבד צדק או מי זה מלט בעולו‬Who on earth perished, though being righteous, or who on earth escaped in his wickedness?’ 11Q5 22.9. (3) ‫ הזה‬in ‫ הזה פרוש המשפטים‬4Q266 11.18 is anomalous; 4Q270 7ii12 there reads without ‫ ה‬for ‫הזה‬. As anomalous is ‫ זן‬in ‫‘ בכל זן‬in all this’ 4Q372 1.8, on which cf. Joosten 2004.152-54. 2 Milik (DJD 1.110, 117) postulates a scribal error for ‫‘ אל‬god.’ 3 ‫ מלט‬is to be emended to ‫ ;נמלט‬Qimron (II 353) suggests an ellipsis of ‫נפשו‬, referring to Am 2.15, where, however, ‫יְמ ֵלּט‬ ַ is later in the verse fully worded as ‫יְמ ֵלּט נַ ְפשׁוֹ‬. ַ At ‫יְמ ֵלּט‬ ַ Ps 33.17 one can also propose emending it to ‫יִמּ ֵלט‬. ָ For ‫יְמ ֵלּט‬ ַ Jb 20.20 Tur-Sinai (1972.191) proposes a homonym meaning ‘to stick, attach oneself.’ ‫ ימלט‬Si 16.13 is irrelevant, since it can be parsed as Nifal. On CD 7.21, see a thorough enquiry by Kister (2007, esp. 67-72), who comes down on either ‫ נמלטו‬or ‫ימלטו‬, both Nifal; Qimron (I 16) opts for ‫ימלטו‬ ֗ ‫י‬. 1

THE PRONOUN — § 3 c – 4 a


g) ‫ אוֹתוֹ‬etc. In RH the nota obiecti with an appropriate conj. pron. attached functions as equivalent to a demonstrative pronoun, thus ‫ וְ אוֹתוֹ ָה ִאישׁ‬,‫‘ אוֹתוֹ ַהיּוֹם‬that day and that man’ mAZ 1.3, also anarthrous ‫אוֹתהּ ָשׁ ָעה‬ ָ ‫‘ ְבּ‬at that moment’ mSanh. 3.4. (1) The same feature is reflected in ‫‘ אתמקום‬that place’ M22 2, though it should be spelled ‫אתו‬. h) ‫ הלז‬etc. These rare BH synonyms of ‫ זֶ ה‬etc., common in MH, occur in ‫)את העפר הלז =( ת עפר הלז‬ ‘this track of land’ M24 E 8; ‫‘ במקום הלז‬at this site’ 5/6Ḥev 46.7, cf. ‫ ַה ֶסּ ַלע ַה ָלּז‬Jdg 6.20; ‫‘ המחלקת הלז֗ ו‬that division’ 5/6Ḥev 44.25; ‫‘ תשבת הזו‬this Sabbath’ M44 6; ‫תסלע הזוא‬ ֗ ‘these (= ‫‘ )את הסלע הזוא‬this rock’ XḤev/Ṣe 49.7 (2). The pl. ‫ הלוו‬in ֗‫ארבעת האנשים הלו֗ ו‬ four persons’ 5/6Ḥev 44.17 is striking, but unlikely a scribal error (3), for the same form occurs immediately after in ‫‘ המקומות הלו֗ ו‬these sites.’ Note a rare form ‫‘ הכסף הלו֗ ז‬that silver’ 5/6Ḥev 44.20 // ‫ הכסף הלז‬5/6Ḥev 44.22. These forms do not occur in original ‫ לה‬4Q113 18ii6 Qumran texts, though they do turn up once in a biblical manuscript (‫הלז‬ Dn 8.16) and once more in a Masada biblical manuscript (‫הלזו‬ ֯ ‫הארץ ה‬ ֯ Mas1d 2.35 4 Ezk 36.35), agreeing with MT. ( ) § 4 RELATIVE PRONOUNS: ‫ אשׁר‬AND -‫שׁ‬ a) General remarks Whether one reads ‫ ש־‬or ‫ שה־‬there must be a relative clause in ‫הגבר שהתם העין‬ 4Q175 9 < ‫ ַהגֶּ ֶבר ְשׁ ֻתם ָה ָעיִ ן‬Nu 24.15. (5) In MMT the second alternant is spelled either On the usage in BH, see JM § 143 g. Pace Baasten (2006.37) this kind of clause cannot be analysed as an asyndetic cleft sentence. What would clauses like ‫נוּח ִתי‬ ָ ‫נוּ־לי וְ ֵאי־זֶ ה ָמקוֹם ְמ‬ ִ ‫ ֵאי־זֶ ה ַביִת ֲא ֶשׁר ִתּ ְב‬Is 66.1 look like when syndetically reworded? At the above-adduced 11Q5 22.9 a manuscript (4Q88 8.3, also called 4QPsf) uses an Aramaic equivalent ‫זנה‬. The editors (DJD 16.100) think it to be indicative of the author’s spoken Aramaic. For this accomplished poet to resort to such a colloquialism is somewhat unlikely. On the contrary, we would view it as a residue of an archaic or archaising form of Aramaic, see Muraoka 2011.4. 1 Cf. Segal 1958 § 417 and Azar 1995 § 6.6.3 (1). 2 In BH ‫ זוֹ‬occurs once as masculine: ‫‘ זו ֺ ַל ְעגָּ ם‬this is their derision’ Ho 7.16. In MH it is fem. as against masc. ‫זֶ ה‬. 3 What the editors of the text assume (Yadin et al. 2002.17). 4 Cf. Brockelmann 1908 I 317ff. and 321, and Eitan 1929.200f. In Aramaic the nominal head alone is marked as determined. Mor (2015.264) sees a measure of affinity here with this Aramaic pattern, in which the morpheme for determination is not duplicated. However, the Tiberian vocalisation /hall-/ suggests the perception that we have here the definite article. In Aramaic the demonstrative morpheme in question is /hā/. The substantivisation in ‫ ְל ַה ָלּז‬Dn 8.16 may be a precursor of a new development. Thus we also disagree with Ridzewski (1992.54), who writes: “‫‘ הלז‬jener’ und ‫הללו‬ ‘diese,’ die bereits den Artikel enthalten.” 5 Strugnell (1970.228) indicates both alternatives. -‫ שה‬is not attested in QH, though ‫ שא‬does occur. ‫ התם‬can be parsed as Pf. Hifil, but how could one analyse ‫ תם העין‬in the relative clause?



as a proclitic ‫ש־‬, ‫שא־‬, ‫ שי־‬or as an independent lexeme, ‫שא‬. (1) These are also used as subordinating conjunctions, see below § d, § 31 m. The predominance of ‫( ש־‬2) is a well-known feature typical of MMT, though it is ֗ ‫‘ ירושלים ֗היא‬Jerusalem is the once replaced with the classical ‫אשר‬: ‫המקום אשר בחר בו‬ place which He chose’ MMT B 32 // ‫ ֗היא המקו֗ ֯ם ֗שבחר בו‬ib. 60. It also occurs in other documents, e.g. ‫‘ שהוא עשרה‬which is the tenth’ 4Q324 1.6; ‫שנקרא‬ ֗ ‫שמכ‬ ֿ ‘Your name that is called’ 4Q448 3.5; ‫‘ ֗שלעלם‬perpetual’ M22 6; ‫‘ במחנ֗ ה שיושב בהרודיס‬in the ֯ ‫המעשים שא ֯אנ‬ ֗ ‫‘ ה‬the encampment which is stationed in Herodium’ M24 E 3; ‫נחנו—שא‬ matters which we’ MMT B 2; ‫ שאהיה בעלי‬.. ‫‘ שאהיה לך‬which you had .. who was my husband’ Bet Amar 5; ‫‘ שיבצפון—שי־‬which is in the north’ 3Q15 9.14; ‫שיבית הכרם‬ ‘which is in Beit ha-Kerem’ 3Q15 10.5 (3). (4) ‫ זו‬in ֯‫‘ ֗מ ֗ר ֗ש ֗ת זו טמננו֯ ֯לי‬out of the snare which they laid for me’ 4Q381 31.1 is unquestionably echoing a BH form, which in BH itself is confined to an archaic, elevated poetic layer as in ‫יאנִ י ֵמ ֶר ֶשׁת זוּ ָט ְמנוּ ִלי‬ ֵ ‫תּוֹצ‬ ִ Ps 31.5. In ‫הגברת‬ ֗ ‫‘ ארץ זו‬a land in which You acted (mightily?)’ 4Q381 44.2 we seem to have a free composition. See also below at § 44 h. b) Attributive function The principal function of relative pronouns is to introduce an attributive clause that expands a preceding noun as in ‫‘ כול איש אשר יש אתו דבר לדבר‬anybody that has something to raise (for a discussion)’ 1QS 6.12. For further details on their syntax, see below at § 22, 44. There are, however, relative clauses which lack an antecedent, e.g. ‫‘ את אשר שנא‬those whom He hated’ CD 2.13; ‫‘ אשר לא שמרו מצות אל‬those who did not observe God’s commandments’ CD 2.18. See also below, § 44 b. c) As in MH (5) an interrogative pronoun may serve as an antecedent of a generic ֗ ‫ירא ממשפטי התו‬ ֗ ‫‘ מי מהם שהיא‬whoever among relative clause as in ‫התורה היה מצוֿ ֗ל מצרוות‬ them feared the judgements of the law would be rescued out of distresses’ MMT C 23. (6) In -‫מי ש‬, however, we have a specific referent at .. ‫‘ פקדתי תמי֗ שיתן לך‬I have issued a directive to him who is going to give you ..’ M44 8, where the nota obiecti -‫ ת‬is to 1

Cf. Qimron in DJD 10.68f. (§, 10.95f. (§, and Bar Asher 2012.267f. On the general assessment of this particle in our corpus, see Muraoka 2000a.344a. 3 Milik (DJD 3.228, § 6b) postulates ‫ ְשׁ‬as the basic form, which, according to him, shifts to ‫ ֶשׁ‬in a closed syllable, and this is only rarely—the above-mentioned two instances—graphically differentiated. However, the particle -‫ שׁ‬takes a full vowel in BH and MH alike, the only exceptions being ‫ ְשׁהוּא‬Ec 2.22 and ‫ ְשׁ ֵהם‬Ec 3.18. Moreover, the consonant immediately following is geminated. Hence ‫ שׁבצפון‬is to be transliterated šebbiṣphon, and not šebṣephon. 4 On the position of -‫ ֶשׁ‬in BH in relation to ‫א ֶשׁר‬, ֲ see JM § 38. 5 See Segal 1958 § 422, e.g. ‫הוֹציאוּהוּ גוֹיִם‬ ִ ‫‘ ִמי ֶשׁ‬one whom gentiles took out’ mErub 4.1, ‫ָמה ֶשּׁ ָע ָשׂה ָעשׂוּי‬ ‘what he has done is done’ mBB 8.5. 6 This is distinct from a BH example such as ‫ֹלהיו ִעמּוֹ וְ יָ ַעל‬ ָ ‫ל־עמּוֹ יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ‫י־ב ֶכם ִמ ָכּ‬ ָ ‫ ִמ‬2Ch 36.23, where ‫מי‬ is an antecedentless relative clause, and see more examples mentioned in JM § 144 fa. 2

THE PRONOUN — § 4 a – 5a ab


be noted, cf. ‫‘ כמי שלא נפל גורלו בתוך למודי אל‬as one whose lot has not fallen among those taught of God’ CD 20.4. Our corpus does not attest -‫ מה ש‬in the sense of ‘that which.’ (1) d) -‫ש‬, just as ‫אשר‬, serves not only as a relative clause. E.g., introducing a content ‫חסרה כמלאה‬ ‫‘ אנחנו אומרים שכול עצם שחסרה‬we say that every bone, both deficient clause—‫כמלאה‬ and full’ MMT B 73. For further details, see below at § 31 m. See also § 15 daf.

§ 5 INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS (2) Needless to say, ‫ מי‬and ‫ מה‬are attested in plenty. ‘Which?’: gender neutral—‫‘ איזה תחלתו ואיזה סופו‬which is its beginning and which is its end?’ 4Q266 2i1, the only certain instances in QH. In BH this lexeme is found a mere two times and that in Ec. In MH there is a gender distinction, m ‫ איזה‬and f ‫איזו‬, e.g. ‫בוּע ְבּ ֵאיזוֹ ָשׁנָ ה‬ ַ ‫‘ ְבּ ֵאיזֶ ה ָשׁ‬in which week?, in which year?’ mSanh 5.1.

§ 5a INDEFINITE PRONOUNS a) ‫אישׁ‬: often with a negator—‫‘ אשר לוא ילך איש בשרירות לבו לתעות אחר לבבו‬so that nobody should walk in the stubbornness of his heart, wandering away after his desire’ 1QS 5.3. In ‫‘ לוא ישוב איש מאנשי היחד‬any of the community members shall not respond’ 1QS 5.15 we have an expanded, distinct syntagm, for, with the repetition of the pl. of ‫אישׁ‬, it is equivalent to ‫אחד מאנשי היחד‬. On categorical negation, see below at § 40 g. See also ‫‘ איש מכול הטמאים‬any one of those who are unclean’ 4Q274 1i3. Also ‫גבר‬: ‫ בטוב ארדף גבר‬1QS 10.18 // ‫לוא אשיב לאיש גמול רע‬, where women are unlikely to be exempt: ‘I shall not repay anyone for an evil deed, I shall pursue everyone with a good deed.’ aa) Distributive: ‫‘ לעמוד איש על מצודו‬for each man to stand at his position of defence’ CD 4.11; ‫‘ לוקחים איש את בת אחיהו‬they each marry his niece’ CD 5.7. ab) Reciprocal: ‫‘ מדעו את איש להשיב‬to answer one another’ 1QS 6.9; ‫לאהוב איש את‬ ‫‘ אחיהו‬to love one another’ CD 6.20, sim. CD 6.21, CD 7.2; ‫ל־א ִחיו‬ ָ ‫ ִאישׁ ֶא‬Ex 25.20 // ‫ אחד א‬4Q22 27.30f., the latter a late idiom, e.g. ‫ ֶא ָחד ְבּ ֶא ָחד יִ גַּ שׁוּ‬Jb 41.8 // ‫אל אחד‬ 1 ֗‫ משמנ֗ י֗ תי‬M30 26 probably means ‘after I have counted’ as in ‫‘ משמשחו נביא אלוהים‬after a prophet of God had anointed him’ 11Q5 28.13. In BH we find -‫ מה שׁ‬a number of times, all in Ec, e.g. ‫ה־שּׁ ָהיָ ה הוּא‬ ֶ ‫ַמ‬ ‫ה־שׁנַּ ֲע ָשׂה הוּא ֶשׁיֵּ ָע ֶשׂה‬ ֶ ‫וּמ‬ ַ ‫ ֶשׁיִּ ְהיֶ ה‬Ec 1.9. 2 For a lexicographical, syntactic analysis of some common interrogatives in 1QHa, see Elwolde 2003.



41.9 ‫ישׁ־בּ ָא ִחיהוּ יְ ֻד ָבּקוּ‬ ְ ‫יגזולו ; ִא‬ ֗ ֗‫עהו‬ ֗ ‫לרע‬ ֯ ‫אש ֯ר‬ ֗ ‫איש‬ ֯ ‫‘ אי‬they will each rob that which belongs to his neighbour’ 4Q390 2i9. Cf. also ‫‘ ו֯ י֗ ֯ד ֗ב ֗ר ֯עם ֗קהל ישראל פנים עם אל פנים‬and He spoke with the assembly of Israel face to face’ 4Q377 2ii6 (1); the reciprocal expression with ‫ פנים‬repeated is undoubtedly affiliated to ‫ל־פּנִ ים‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִד ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה ָפּנִ ים ֶא‬Ex 33.11. (2) b) ‫ָדּ ָבר‬ In BH the common word ‫ ָדּ ָבר‬is often used with a weakened sense of ‘something, anything.’ (3) So in QH, e.g. ‫‘ יזכיר דבר‬he mentions something’ 1QS 6.27. In categorical negation: intensified with ‫‘ אל ידבר איש כול דבר—כול‬none shall speak about anything whatsoever’ 1QS 6.11. A substantivised ‫ כול‬alone may be so used, e.g. ‫‘ מפני כול לוא יזדעזע‬it would not be shaken on account of anything’ 1QS 11.4 (4); ‫‘ לוא יעשה כול‬nothing will be achieved’ 1QS 11.17. c) ‫אוּמה‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬,‫מאוּם‬: always with a negator (5) — ‫‘ ולוא ידבק בידכה מאום מן החרם‬nothing of the devoted things shall cleave to your hand’ 11Q19 55.11 (6); ‫לוא יקח מידם כול‬ ‫‘ מאומה‬one shall not accept from them anything whatsoever’ 1QS 5.16; ‫אל ידור איש‬ ‫‘ למזבח מאום אנוס‬Let no one vow to the altar anything unlawfully acquired’ CD 16.13 (7).

The redundant ‫ עם‬is an inadvertent intrusion under the influence of the preceding ‫עם‬, which is of course in order. 2 Pace DJD 28.215 there is no justification for retaining both prepositions. 3 E.g. ‫יִפּ ֵלא ֵמיְ הוָ ה ָדּ ָבר‬ ָ ‫‘ ֲה‬Is there anything that is impossible to JHWH?’ Gn 18.14; ‫ל־תּ ֲעשׂוּ‬ ַ ‫ָל ֲאנָ ִשׁים ָה ֵאל ַא‬ ‫‘ ָד ָבר‬Do nothing to these men’ Gn 19.8. For more examples, see DCH II 400a. 4 ‫ יזדעזע‬corrected from ‫יזד עזרע‬. 5 This conditioning makes it, pace Charlesworth (1995.27), debatable to emend ‫ ויקדמום‬CD 8.4 to ‫וידבק‬ ‫מום‬. 6 Cited from Dt 13.18, where MT reads ‫וּמה‬ ָ ‫מ ֫א‬, ְ which is the sole BH form; for another instance of the short form, see CD 16.13 cited below. Tal (2010.273-76) informs us that in the mediaeval Samaritan poetic and exegetical documents ‫ מאום‬occurs tens of times, far more frequently than ‫מאומה‬. See also Tal 2009.233. Pace Qimron (2018.363, n. 18), this lexeme, whether in BH or in QH, is no adverbial; the only possibly adverbial instance is ‫ר־אנ ִֹכי שׁ ֵֹל ֲחָך‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ ‫אוּמה ֶא‬ ָ ‫ ִאישׁ ַאל־יֵ ַדע ְמ‬1Sm 21.3. 7 Note a predicative adjective added in ‫אוּמה ָרּע‬ ָ ‫ל־תּ ַעשׂ לוֹ ְמ‬ ַ ‫ ַא‬Je 39.12, on which cf. Joosten 2008.102f. 1



§ 6 GENDER a) Grammatical gender and natural sex The grammatical gender of substantives only rarely matches their natural gender. This happens with animate beings, e.g. masc. ‫‘ ָאב‬father’ vs. fem. ‫‘ ֵאם‬mother.’ As far as the Hebrew grammar is concerned, some animals are gender neutral, e.g. ‫‘ ָדּג‬fish’; ‫ ָדּגׇ ה‬does not denote a fish capable of producing a baby fish. There is no logic for ‫‘ ֶפּה‬mouth’ being masc. and ‫‘ ָלשׁוֹן‬tongue’ being fem. b) Grammatical significance The communicative value of this grammatical category is considerable. As we shall see below (§ 32 a), where the feature of concord is discussed, our knowledge of gender of substantives plays a decisive role in the correct selection of pronouns, adjectives, numerals, and verbs, which have separate forms depending on the gender. Thus ‫ָח ָכם‬ ‫ הוּא‬vs. ‫ח ָכ ָמה ִהיא‬. ֲ Though we translate ‫ הוּא‬and ‫ ִהיא‬with ‘he’ and ‘she’ respectively, what they mean is ‘that male person’ and ‘that female person.’ c) Neuter Though Hebrew, like every other Semitic language, has only two genders, the use of the feminine gender for abstract notions is well established: e.g. ‫‘ כול הנגלות‬all that is revealed’ 1QS 1.8; ‫ות‬ ‫והנ֯ ֗גלות‬ ֯ ‫נסתרות‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗ה‬things that are concealed ..’ 1Q34 1-2.8; ‫עשות‬ ‫‘ חדשה‬to do something new’ 1QS 4.25 (1); ‫‘ עמוקות‬profound matters’ 4Q266 2i5; ‫‘ קשות ממני‬circumstances too hard for me’ 11Q5 24.10; ‫‘ מידך היתה זאת‬this was from You’ 1QHa 6.38; ‫‘ קדמוניות‬ancient history’ 1Q27 1.3; ‫‘ מאז לוא נהיתה כמוהה‬from ancient times such has never occurred’ 1QM 18.10; with an inf. clause as subject—‫יְתה‬ ָ ‫לא ָה‬ ‫ת־א ְבנֵ ר‬ ַ ‫ ֵמ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ְל ָה ִמית ֶא‬2Sm 3.37 // ‫ היה‬4Q51. ‫ונחשבה לך לצדקה בעשותך הישר והטוב לפנו‬ ‘and such will be credited to you as righteousness when you practise that which is right and good in His presence’ MMT C 31 finds a remarkable parallel in ‫וְ ֶה ֱא ִמן ַבּיהוָ ה וַ יַּ ְח ְשׁ ֶב ָה‬ 1

Wernberg-Møller (1957.88, n. 85) appropriately refers to Is 43.19.



‫ לּוֹ ְצ ָד ָקה‬Gn 15.6 (1). Note the substitution of ‫ רע‬in ‫ת־א ִבי‬ ָ ‫ֶפּן ֶא ְר ֶאה ָב ָרע ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְמ ָצא ֶא‬ 2 Gn 44.34 with ‫ רעה‬in 4Q364 10.6 ( ). On the use of ‫ זֶ ה‬and masc. adjectives with neuter value, see § 3e, 9b. A gender-neutral pronoun can be impersonally used: ‫‘ ֗את אלה לוא י֯ ֗ע ֗ש ֗ה ֯א ֯ד ֯ם‬no man could perform these (things)’ 4Q511 30.6. A word of abstract reference such as ‫כל‬, when used on its own, can lead to ambiguity: ‘everybody’ or ‘everything.’ In ‫ בידו משפטי כול‬1QS 3.16 the reference is probably personal, since the suffix -‫ ם‬of ‫ יכלכלם‬in the following sentence, ‫והואה יכלכלם בכול‬ ‫חפציהם‬, is likely resuming ‫כול‬: ‘decisions concerning everybody are in His hand and He will sustain them with all their needs.’ (3) Note feminine participles such as ‫‘ לדעת הנסתרות‬to understand the matters that become concealed’ 1QS 5.11, sim. 4Q268 1.7; ‫‘ הנגלות‬the matters which become revealed’ 1QS 1.8, 5.12 (4); ‫‘ כול נהיות‬all that will happen’ 4Q268 1.8; ‫‘ הנפתלות‬devious things’ // ‫‘ נדות‬impurities’ 1QS 10.24; ‫‘ נפלאות‬marvels’ 1QHa 18.6, sim. 4Q434 1.1; ‫‘ נוראות‬awesome things’ 4Q504 8.3; ‫‘ תועות‬fallacies’ 4Q184 1.1; ‫כול הבאות על עמו‬ ‘all those things that are going to befall His people’ 1QpHab 2.10. However, Lamed-Yod verbs are morphologically ambiguous: ‫‘ כול הנגלה ממנה‬all that becomes revealed from it’ 1QS 5.9, sim. 1QS 8.1, for the participle can be either masc. or fem.; in ‫כול הויה ונהיה‬ 1QM 17.5 the immediately following ‫ כול נהיי עולמים‬implies that the former two participles can be masculine. See also ‫‘ כול הנמצא‬all that is found’ 1QS 9.20; ‫כול הנעשה בו‬ ‘all that is done to him’ 1QS 9.24. d) Ambiguous feminine adjectives Some feminine adjectives are used on their own and it is not always easy to say what their latent noun is. Thus ‫ בשלישית‬.. ‫‘ ברשונה‬firstly .. thirdly’ 1QS 2.20; ‫בריאשונה‬ ֗ ֗ ‫‘ השמו‬they devastated in the past’ 4Q174 1-2i5; ‫הכוהנים‬ 11Q19 15.18 (5); ‫בראישונה‬ ‫‘ ישבו לרשונה והזקנים בשנית‬the priests shall sit up front and then the elders’ 1QS 6.8; Cf. LXX .. καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. This is disambiguated by Paul as ἐλογίσθη τῷ Αβρααμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην Ro 4.9; ἡ πίστις is his own addition, for in vs. 3 he quotes the text as adduced above, and there he prefaces the quote with τί γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει;, whereas in vs. 9 he prefaces with λέγομεν γάρ ‘for our position, view is.’ Cf. καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην Ps 105.31, translating ‫ וַ ֵתּ ָח ֶשׁב לוֹ ִל ְצ ָד ָקה‬with Phinehas’s intervention as the subject. On the technical use of the verb ‫אמר‬ in halachic pronouncements, cf. also DJD 10.97, §, and Muraoka 2018. 2 Cf. the use of the fem. in a similar context at ‫אמר ֵא ָליו ֵמת ַהיֶּ ֶלד וְ ָע ָשׂה ָר ָעה‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ֵאיְך נ‬2Sm 12.18 with David’s servants apprehensive of their master possibly committing harakiri. See also ‫‘ לוא יקח איש את אחותו בת אביהו או בת אמו תועבה היא‬a man is not to take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter; it is an abomination’ 11Q15 66.14, where the selection of ‫ היא‬is not due to the natural gender of the victim, for seven lines earlier the same notion is expressed with ‫הדבר הזה‬ ‘this case’ (line 7); the selection of ‫ היא‬is probably due to the gender of ‫תועבה‬. Cf. our discussion at § 32 bd. 3 Cf. Martone 1995.143, n. 64. 4 In ‫‘ כול הויֿ ה ונהייה‬all that is in existence and that comes into existence’ 1QS 3.15 we would identify fem. forms, see Muraoka 1999.60. 5 Cf. BH examples such as ‫ל־ה ָעם ָבּ ַא ֲחר ֹנָ ה‬ ָ ‫‘ יָ ְדָך ִתּ ְהיֶ ה־בּוֹ ָב ִראשׁוֹנָ ה ַל ֲה ִמיתוֹ וְ יַ ד ָכּ‬your hand shall be first against him to put him to death and the hand of the people thereafter’ Dt 13.10. 1



adverbial—‫‘ שנית‬for a second time, once again’ 11Q19 49.20, 4Q221 4.1; ‫העולים‬ ‫‘ רישונה‬who return (to Israel) first, i.e. ahead of the majority of late returnees’ 4Q390 1.5. There is probably an ellipsis in ‫ מי רבה‬for ‫‘ מי תהום רבה‬the waters of the deep sea’ 4Q511 30.4. e) Lands and cities Names of lands and cities are often treated as feminine in gender, most probably due to the fem. gender of ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬and ‫עיר‬, ִ e.g. ‫אל‬ ֗ ‫אשר בהר היא בית‬ ֗ ‫‘ לוז א‬Luz, which is in the mountain—it is Bethel’ 1Q17 1.3. There is, however, no absolute consistency here. To take just one example, in BH ‫ ִמ ְצ ַריִם‬can be f. as in ‫ ָא ְב ָדה ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬Ex 10.7 or m. as in ‫ ֶא ֱע ֶשׂה ְבּ ִק ְרבּוֹ‬Ex 3.20; ‫יהוּדה נָ ָפל‬ ָ ִ‫רוּשׁ ַלםִ ו‬ ָ ְ‫ ִכּי ָכ ְשׁ ָלה י‬Is 3.8 // ‫ נפלה‬1QIsaa. In ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ‫נוּפת יַ ד־יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת ֲא ֶשׁר־הוּא ֵמנִ יף ָע ָליו‬ ַ ‫וּפ ַחד ִמ ְפּנֵ י ְתּ‬ ָ ‫ ַכּנָּ ִשׁים וְ ָח ַרד‬Is 19.16 ‫ מצרים‬is consistently treated as m. unlike in 1QIsaa, which reads ‫ עליה‬.. ‫ וחרדו ופחדו‬.. ‫יהיה‬, where the pl. verbs are construed with ‫ נשים‬as their subject and ‫ יהיה‬does not agree with ‫( עליה‬1). Cf. ‫‘ ונפל אשור‬Assyria will fall’ 1QM 1.6. f) Common gender As in BH, some substantives in QH are of common gender. E.g. ‫לוא תזבח לי שור ושה‬ ‫‘ ועז והמה מלאות‬you shall not offer sacrifice to Me a cattle or a lamb or a goat when they are pregnant’ 11Q19 52.5, where the f. ‫ מלאות‬is logical, but it is followed by ‫ שור ושה אותו ואת בנו‬line 6; ‫רחו֯ ֗ק ֗ה‬ ֯ ‫השדה‬ ֗ ‘the field is far away’ 4Q376 1iii3 (2). § 7 DEFINITE ARTICLE (3) a) Preliminary remarks (4) When one is dealing with unpointed texts, not to speak of the intricate set of allomorphs of the article—‫ה ִאישׁ‬, ָ ‫ ֶה ָח ָכם‬etc.—, one could not always absolutely be certain as to 1 Cf. Kutscher 1974.395. Note LXX: ἔσονται οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι .. αὐτοῖς, which shows another alternative concord open to ‫מצרים‬, namely m.pl., so also in BH as in ‫ל־יוֹסף‬ ֵ ‫ל־מ ְצ ַריִם ְלכוּ ֶא‬ ִ ‫אמר ַפּ ְרעֹה ְל ָכ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬Gn 41.55. 2 In RH ‫ שדה‬is usually of feminine gender, hence ‫‘ ָשׂ ֶדה ֶשׁ ֵאינָ הּ ְראוּיָ ה ִל ְהיוֹת ְשׂ ֵדה ֲא ֻחזָּ ה‬a field which was not such as might be a field of his possession’ mArach 7.5 and ‫‘ נִ ְס ַתּ ֲח ָפה ָשׂ ֶדָך‬your field was laid waste’ mKet 1.6. 3 Barr (1989) argues, often rather persuasively, that the definite article in BH has basically not much to do with ‘determination’ of the referent concerned, without, however, saying what he thinks it indicates. Just as one lexeme can denote two or more distinct notions, a grammatical feature, whether a morpheme, a syntagm or a syntactic feature should be capable of expressing two or more values or notions which do not have to be reduced to one over-arching value or notion. 4 At ‫ כסף מנח הרב‬3Q15 9.10 Milik (DJD 3.230) assigns elative force to the article: “une très grande quantité d’argent est déposée.” He mentions no other such instance either in QH or BH. The article is sometimes found added to an attributively used participle, though the nominal head is anarthrous as in ‫‘ כול דבר הנסתר‬every thing that is concealed’ 1QS 8.11. Without any epigraphical discussion Lefkovitz (2000.297) reads ‫הכסף מנ החרם‬.



whether the definite article is latent or not in a case such as ‫לקץ‬: is it ‫ ְל ֵקץ‬or ‫?ל ֵקּץ‬ ַ In the case of a construct phrase, does the article relate to the phrase as a whole or only to the nomen rectum? Thus, given the parallelism with ‫( איש‬anarthrous), the article in ‫ בני האדם‬1QIsaa 52.14 vs. ‫ ְבּנֵ י ָא ָדם‬MT must be construed with ‫ אדם‬alone, ‘some members of humankind,’ i.e. the generic article, see below at § c. When biblical texts in our QH corpus differ from the MT by way of absence or presence of the article, intriguing questions could arise. Kutscher (1974.411f.) noted that, in 60% of the variations between MT and 1QIsaa, the first consonant of a noun phrase concerned is guttural, and since the scribe of the Qumran scroll hardly pronounced gutturals, he was at a loss as to whether to write a single or two guttural consonants. However, among Kutscher’s own data the word ‫ ארץ‬is the most frequent with its 15 occurrences, out of which in 13 cases the scroll adds the article. This suggests that there is involved here more than Hebrew phonetics. We would not reject a phonetic explanation altogether, (1) but it might be an interesting exercise to try to see whether or not the two versions can represent different perspectives. Besides, our own analysis may require a broader perspective in evaluating specific variations. Thus, faced with ‫ כל ַה ִמּנְ ָחה‬Lv 2.11 MT // ‫ כל מנחה‬4Q24 1-7.32 we need remember that the syntagm does not necessarily mean ‘the whole ..,’ as also shown elsewhere in our corpus, e.g. ‫‘ כול ֗האב‬every green shoot’ 4Q265 7.14 and ‫כול הנפש‬ ‘every soul’ 11Q19 25.11; for more instances, see below at § 28 c. Finally, by adding ‫האיש ֗הישראלי‬ ֗ 4Q24 20ii+22-25.16 // ‫ ִאישׁ ַהיִּ ְשׂ ְר ֵא ִלי‬Lv 24.10 the the extra article at ‫שראלי‬ scribe presumably thought that the notorious case such as ‫יוֹם ַה ִשּׁ ִשּׁי‬, e.g. Gn 1.31, should not be applied here, not aware, however, that the preceding ‫שׂר ֵא ִלי‬ ְ ִ‫ ִאישׁ ַהיּ‬is anomalous. (2) b) Anaphoric One of the well-known functions of the article is to refer back to one who or that which has been mentioned earlier. E.g. ‫ת־האוֹר ִכּי־טוֹב‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫ֹלהים יְ ִהי אוֹר וַ יְ ִהי־אוֹר׃ וַ יַּ ְרא ֱא‬ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ Gn 1.3f. QH anarthrous: ‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ֶ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ַה ָדּם ְבּ ָכ‬Ex 7.21 // ‫ ויהי דם‬4Q14 1.17, which latter focuses on the nature of the plague, whereas MT underlines the prediction (‫[ ְל ָדם‬vs. 20] becoming a reality); ‫יוֹמם וְ ַעמּוּד ָה ֵאשׁ ָליְ ָלה ִל ְפנֵ י ָה ָעם‬ ָ ‫ לֹא־יָ ִמישׁ ַעמּוּד ֶה ָענָ ן‬Ex 13.22, almost identical with vs. 21 except the article // ‫ עמוד אש‬.. ‫ עמוד ענן‬4Q14 5.40, where MT is rewording the message in vs. 21 by focusing on the natural guides and adding the article to underline that the guides are the earlier mentioned instruments as God 1 To ‫ הרים‬1QIsaa for ‫ ְבּרֹאשׁ ֶה ָה ִרים‬Is 2.2 MT and 4QIsae Kutscher’s phonetic analysis might apply, for the prophet must be envisaging the high plateau of Jerusalem and its environs, a specific mountain range. 2 König (1897 § 334 o) is probably right: “falsche Nachahmung des Vorangehenden,” for the article in ‫ ֶבּן ַהיִּ ְשׂ ְר ֵא ִלית‬Lv 24.10 is anaphoric in value, referring back to ‫ן־א ָשּׁה ישׂראלית‬ ִ ‫ ֶבּ‬on the first mention of the woman in question.



guided the nation; ‫ ִהנֵּ ה ָה ָעם ַהיּ ֵֹצא ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַריִ ם‬Nu 22.11 // ‫ הנה עם יצא‬4Q27 20-22.4, where in MT the speaker is addressing God with reference to His people, whereas in 4Q27 Balaam is made to report to God for the first time. In a document typically belonging to the genre of rewritten Bible the author announces the approaching punitive disaster with ‫ מי מבול‬4Q252 1.2, which, however, is immediately followed with ‫ומי מבול היו‬ ‫על הארץ‬, where one could have anticipated ‫מי המבול‬. The author perhaps wants to underline not so much the fulfilment of the divine prediction as the nature of the disaster. (1) QH articular: MT ‫ן־הצֹּאן ָק ְר ָבּנוֹ ְלזֶ ַבח ְשׁ ָל ִמים ַליהוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ם־מ‬ ִ ‫ ִא‬Lv 3.6 // ‫הצאן קרבנו‬ ‫אם מן הצ‬ ‫ לזבח השלמים‬4Q26a 2.3, which latter underlines that, though a different animal ‫ים‬ is offered, it is still concerned with the peace offering mentioned in the statute in ְ ‫א־ה ַלְך ְכּ ַפ ַע‬ ָ ֹ ‫ וְ ל‬Nu 24.1 // ‫הנחשים‬ ֗ ‫ לקראת‬4Q27 17.13, vs. 1 (2); ‫ם־בּ ַפ ַעם ִל ְק ַראת נְ ָח ִשׁים‬ probably a reference back to Nu 23.23 in spite of some contextual difficulty—‫לא נַ ַחשׁ‬ ‫ביעקב‬. ba) A highly specialised anaphoric use is typical of the so-called pesher documents. An anarthrous NP in a biblical text about to be commented surfaces with the article attached in the commentary. E.g. ‫הלבנון הוא עצת היחד והבהמות המה פתאי יהודה‬ ‘Lebanon symbolises the council of the community and animals the simple folk of Judah’ 1QpHab 12.3, a commentary on ‫יתן‬ ַ ‫ ֲח ַמס ְל ָבנוֹן יְ ַכ ֶסּךָּ וְ שׁ ֹד ְבּ ֵהמוֹת יְ ִח‬Hb 2.17; ‫פשרו‬ ‫‘ הקריה היא ירושלם‬Interpreted, city refers to Jerusalem’ 1QpHab 12.7 < ‫מדמי קריה וחמס‬ ‫ארץ‬, slightly adapted from ‫ס־א ֶרץ ִק ְריָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ ְדּ ֵמי ָא ָדם וַ ֲח ַמ‬Hb 2.17 as quoted a few lines earlier. c) Generic The article may be used in mentioning a specimen and referring to the entire species: ‫‘ שלושת מיני הצדק‬three kinds of righteousness’ CD 4.16; ‫ ההון‬.. ‫‘ הזנות‬whoredom .. wealth’ CD 4.17 // ‫‘ בדרכי זנות ובהון רשעה‬in ways of whoredom and in ill-gotten wealth’ ַ ֵ‫נוֹע ֲע ֵצי־יַ ַער ִמ ְפּנ‬ ַ ‫ ְכּ‬Is 7.2, with which cp. 1QIsaa ‫ הרוח‬.. ‫ַשׂר ָשׁלוֹם ;היער‬ CD 8.5 (3); ‫י־רוּח‬ Is 9.5 // ‫ שר השלום‬1QIsaa; ‫‘ האדם‬humans’ 11Q19 49.16, as against household utensils and garments, cf. ‫ בן האדם‬1QS 11.20. In a list of ritually unclean reptiles: ‫החולד והעכבר‬ ‫‘ והצב למינו והלטאה והכח והחמט והתנשמת‬rat, jerboa ..’ 11Q19 50.20; ‫מה ֗החידה לכמה‬ ‫בינה‬ ֗ ‫וד ֗פי֯ ֗שור)ש(שי‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗ר‬What is a riddle to you, o those who pursue the roots of understanding?’ 4Q301 2b1. Substantives taking the generic article are all in the singular. The source text itself stresses that it was water, ‫!מים חיים‬, that would cause the catastrophe: ‫וַ ֲאנִ י ִהנְ נִ י‬ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ַמּבּוּל ַמיִ ם ַע‬ ַ ‫מ ִביא ֶא‬, ֵ ‫ מים‬in apposition, the first announcement (Gn 6.17), ‫ן־שׁשׁ ֵמאוֹת ָשׁנָ ה‬ ֵ ‫וְ נ ַֹח ֶבּ‬ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫וְ ַה ַמּבּוּל ָהיָ ה ַמיִ ם ַע‬, its realisation and ‫ מים‬still in apposition (ib. 7.6), and then the cst. phrase in ‫וַ יָּבֹא‬ ‫ל־ה ֵתּ ָבה ִמ ְפּנֵ י ֵמי ַה ַמּבּוּל‬ ַ ‫י־בנָ יו ִאתּוֹ ֶא‬ ָ ‫וּבנָ יו וְ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ וּנְ ֵשׁ‬ ָ ‫( נ ַֹח‬ib. 7.7). 2 Another 4Q fragment of Lv agrees with MT, reading ‫ זבח שלמים‬4Q28 1-7.39 in vs. 1. 3 Another case of inconsistency is mentioned by Leahy (1960.152): ‫‘ אנשי השחת‬men doomed for Sheol’ 1QS 9.16 // ‫ אנשי שחת‬ib. 9.22. Pace Qimron (I 18) CDb nor any CD manuscript reads ‫הרשעה‬. 1



But with substantivised adjectives the plural is also found, e.g. ‫הסומיים‬ ֗ ‘the blind’ MMT B 19, ‫‘ החרשים‬the deaf’ MMT B 52, ‫‘ הצרועים‬the lepers’ MMT B 64. (1) Another rare case with a personal referent is ‫‘ תואכלנו הטמא והטהור בכה‬the unclean and the clean among you shall eat it’ 11Q19 52.11, sim. 53.4. Note ‫ תחת הבשם מק‬Is 3.24 1QIsaa (MT ‫)בּ ֶֹשׂם‬, and followed by 3 other nouns with the same syntactic value, but all anarthrous; ‫ ָה ֱאמוּנָ ה‬.. ‫ ֶצ ֶדק‬Is 11.5 // ‫ אמונה‬.. ‫ צדק‬1QIsaa. d) Contextually determinate Though not mentioned before, someone or something may be assumed to be known to the reader or audience or the identity of the referent(s) may be inferred from the general context. This well-known BH syntactic feature (2) may be exemplified in ‫אמרו ֗המשל‬ ‫‘ והגידו ֗החידה‬they said a parable and told a riddle’ 4Q300 1aii-b1; ‫אני נותן תכבלים ברגלכם‬ ‘I put the chains on your leg’ M43 5. Note variations between the MT and its reflection ְ // in Qumran texts: ‫ ְל ֵעיט ָה ִרים‬Is 18.6, so also 1QIsaa, but followed by ‫וּל ֶב ֱה ַמת ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ַ ‫ָכּ‬ ‫ לעיט ההרים‬4Q56 10-13.1 (3); ‫ י ְֹשׁ ֵבי ֶא ֶרץ‬Is 24.6 // ‫( ֗הארץ‬4) ‫ יושבי‬4Q57 52.33; ‫ל־חיּו ֺת‬ Dn 8.4 // ‫ כל החיות‬4Q112 14.16; ‫ פרעש אחד‬1Sm 24.15 // ] ‫הפ ֯רעש‬ ֯ 4Q51; ‫ נְ ָהרוֹת‬Is 19.6 // ‫ הנהרות‬1QIsaa; ‫ ָעם‬Is 26.11 // ‫ העם‬1QIsaa; ‫ ָה ִרים‬Is 34.3 // ‫ ההרים‬1QIsaa; ‫ ִמ ְד ָבּר‬Is 41.18 // ‫ המדבר‬1QIsaa; ‫‘ ותליתמה אותו על העץ‬and you shall hang him’ 11Q19 64.8, sim. ib. 9, 10, where one could think of a certain local tree designated for the purpose, but the anarthrous ‫ עץ‬serving the same purpose at Dt 21.22 as well as the articular ‫ העץ‬for the improvised mode of execution at Josh 8.29 defy an explanation (5). Cases where a Qumran text leaves the article out are ‫ ְכּ ֶחזְ ַקת ַהיָּ ד‬Is 8.11 // ‫ יד‬1QIsaa; ‫ ָה ֵעץ‬Is 65.22 // ‫ עץ‬1QIsaa. In ‫ לפני זקני העיר ההיא ולקחו זקני העיר ההיא את האיש ההוא‬11Q19 65.13 // ‫ִל ְפנֵ י זִ ְקנֵ י‬ ‫ת־ה ִאישׁ‬ ָ ‫יר־ה ִהוא ֶא‬ ַ ‫ ָה ִעיר וְ ָל ְקחוּ זִ ְקנֵ י ָה ִע‬Dt 22.17f., ‫ העיר‬and ‫ האיש‬in the MT or the author’s Bible may have been felt to be not determinate enough. If the reading be correct, the articular ‫ האבנים‬is striking in ‫ובם על שני לוחות‬ ֯ ‫ו֯ י֯ ֯כ ֯תו‬ ‫‘ ֗האבנים‬and He wrote them on the two stone tablets’ 4Q135 1.1 vs. ‫ל־שׁנֵ י‬ ְ ‫וַ יִּ ְכ ְתּ ֵבם ַע‬ ‫ ֻלחֹת ֲא ָבנִ ים‬Dt 5.22(19) MT; in the biblical context the anarthrous ‘tablets’ is expected, whilst Israelites more than a millennium after the event could speak of ‘the’ stone tablets. We miss the article in ‫‘ ברית ראישונים‬the covenant with the forefathers’ CD 1.4; ‫‘ בקץ חרון‬at the time of the anger’ CD 1.5; ‫‘ בדור אחרון‬in the last generation’ CD 1.12, cf. ‫ הדור האחרון‬1QpHab 7.2. Cf. a vacillation in ‫וּמח ֶֹשְׁך ֵעינֵ י ִעוְ ִרים ִתּ ְר ֶאינָ ה‬ ֵ ‫וּמא ֶֹפל‬ ֵ ‫י־ס ֶפר‬ ֵ ‫יּוֹם־ההוּא ַה ֵח ְר ִשׁים ִדּ ְב ֵר‬ ַ ‫ וְ ָשׁ ְמעוּ ַב‬Is 29.18. See JM § 137 m-o. 3 For ‫ ְל ֶב ֱה ַמת‬MT 4Q56 reads ‫לבממת‬, which DJD 15.30 restores as ‫לבמתת‬, which, however, makes little sense. 4 Pace the editors the preceding ‫מת‬ ֯ ‫ כלב מ‬must be restored to ‫המת‬ ֯ ‫ הכלב המ‬by virtue of the parallelism. 5 Ehrensvärd (1999.69f.) does not account for this vacillation. On the other hand, could the article in ‫ ַה ַמּגִּ יד‬2Sm 15.13 imply the trusted, royal informer? 1 2



e) Proper nouns As in BH, (1) proper nouns may take the article. With place name: ‫ לבנון‬Is 14.8 // ‫ הלבנון‬1QIsaa; ‫ הלבנון‬MT Is 35.2 // ‫ לבנון‬1QIsaa, but 1QIsaa not consistent with ‫ השרון‬.. ‫ הכרמל‬following; ‫ נַ ַחל יַ בֹּק‬Dt 2.37 // ‫נחל היבוק‬ 4Q364 24.14 (2). With personal name: ‫ רב השקה‬Is 36.13 1QIsaa // ‫ב־שׁ ֶקה‬ ָ ‫ ַר‬MT, a case of uncertainty arising from a foreign name? We most probably have a scribal slip in ‫בני הצדוק‬ 1QS 9.14 (3), if ‘the sons of Zadok’ is meant; 4QSe reads ‫‘ בני ֗ה ֗צדק‬the sons of righteousness.’ f) Unique entity It is easy to understand that a noun referring to a unique entity should take the definite article. Thus ‫‘ ריח ניחוח לפני האלהים‬a pleasing fragrance before God’ 4Q220 5. (4) ‫‘ הו‬Let me know the appearance of God’ 4Q160 1.5 the article In ‫הודיעני את מראה האלהים‬ attached to the nomen rectum is meant for the construct phrase as a whole, as can be seen from the fluctuation in ‫‘ מושה איש האלוהים עם אלהים בענן‬Moses the man of God with God in the clouds’ 4Q377 2ii10. But in QH the articular form of this noun, ‫אלהים‬, is the exception rather than the rule. One should not explain this away as a case of poetic licence. Already BH shows the same fluctuation, though there the articular syntagm is not uncommon, e.g. ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ָה ֱא‬ ‫ת־עוֹן ֲע ָב ֶדיָך‬ ֲ ‫ ָמ ָצא ֶא‬Gn 44.16. (5) The most striking anarthrous use is exemplified in ‫יהוה‬ ‫ אלהים‬Gn 2.4 et passim, a combination which also occurs in QH, e.g. ‫֯כ ֯בוד יתן יהוה‬ ‫ אלהים‬4Q368 9.4. Similar is the situation with ‫אל‬, ֵ e.g. ‫‘ לדרוש אל ֗בכול ללב‬to seek God wholeheartedly’ 1QS 1.2; ‫‘ לא בחר אל בהם‬God did not choose them’ CD 2.7; ‫‘ אל אלים‬the god of gods’ 1QM 14.16+; ‫‘ אל עליון‬God Most High’ 1QHa 12.32, 4Q222 1.4, so already in Gn 14.18; ‫ עליון‬on its own in ‫‘ דעת עליון‬the knowledge of ..’ 4Q175 10 < Nu 24.16, but ‫העליון‬ 11Q5 27.12; ‫‘ מחזי שדי‬the vision(s) of Shaddai’ 4Q175 11 < Nu 24.16, never ‫ השׁדי‬in BH similarly to ‫יהוה‬, a trisgrammaton? In ‫פלאי֗ אל הנוראים‬ ֯ ֗‫‘ ֗רז֗ י‬the awesome mysteries of God’s wonders’ 4Q417 1.2 the article makes it plain that it is not about an occupant of a pagan pantheon. (6) However, ‫‘ אלוהיכה ֗אל קנא הוא‬your God is a jealous god’ 11Q19 2.12, just as its biblical source (Ex 20.4), does not belong here, for the clause 1

See JM § 137 b-d. Though without ‫ נחל‬preceding, ‫ היבק‬occurs at Jdg 11.13, 22. 3 Cf. a discussion ad loc. in Wernberg-Møller (1957.90-92) and Licht (1965.195). 4 The underlying biblical text reads: ‫ ריח ניחח ליהוה‬Lv 3.5. 5 The article in a case such as ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ יְ הוָ ה הוּא ָה ֱא‬Dt 4.35 is due to the identificatory nature of the nominal clause as is evident through what follows: ‫אין עוֹד ִמ ְל ַבדּוֹ‬, ֵ i.e. there is no other entity meriting the designation ‫אלהים‬. 6 On two other possible translations of the phrase, see below at § 21 c. 2



is descriptive. (1) Likewise ‫‘ הוא אל חי‬He is a living god’ 5Q10 1.4. Very few articular ֯ ‘Blessed be God’ 4Q504 3ii2; ‫הנא ֯מן‬ ֯ ‫‘ האל‬the faithful god’ examples are ‫ברו֯ ך האל‬ 4Q393 3.2. ‫ אל יהוה‬occurs also in QH, e.g. 4Q225 2ii10. The names of the yearly festivals are treated as determinate, e.g. ‫‘ חג הסוכות‬the festival of booths’ 11Q19 42.17, ‫‘ חג הבכורים‬.. of first-fruits’ ib. 43.7, ‫‘ הפסח‬the Passover’ 4Q320 4v10, ‫‘ חג השבועים‬.. of the weeks’ ib. 4iii5, ‫‘ חג המצות‬.. of unleavened bread’ 4Q326 1.3, ‫‘ יום הכפורים‬the day of atonement’ 1QpHab 11.7+. Only rarely anarthrous: ‫ חג מצות‬11Q19 17.11, ‫ חג בכורים‬ib. 19.9, ‫ יום כפורים‬ib. 25.11 (2), 1Q34 1-2.6. Some nouns which indicate key concepts in the theological outlook of the Qumran community are sometimes used anarthrously even where their referents are unique entities as if they were names. This is particularly true in 1QS. E.g. ‫דעתו וכוחו והונו לוא‬ ‫‘ יביאו בעצת יחד‬his knowledge and his strength and his assets shall not enter the council of the community’ 1QS 3.2; ‫‘ מדרש יחד‬an exposition by the community’ 1QS 6.24; ‫‘ עדת יחד‬the congregation of ..’ 4Q427 7ii9; ‫‘ מדע תורה‬knowledge of the Torah’ MMT C 28; ‫‘ בחירי דרך‬the elect for the way’ 1QS 9.17 (3); ‫‘ כול סוררי דרכ‬any of (those) deviants’ 1QS 10.21; ‫‘ סרי דרך‬deviants from the way’ CD 1.13; ‫ויעבורו ברית‬ ‘and they transgressed the covenant’ CD 1.20. In ‫‘ כול הבא לעצת היחד‬everyone who joins the council of ..’ 1QS 5.7 the article of ‫ היחד‬may have to be construed with the construct phrase as a whole. Likewise ‫‘ איש הלצון‬the man of scoffing’ CD 1.14, ‫אנשי‬ ‫ הלצון‬CD 20.11. The word ‫ תבל‬occurs tens of times in our corpus, and it is consistently anarthrous as in ‫‘ תבל‬the earth’ CD 2.12, just as in BH. One can safely postulate the same even where it is prefixed with a proclitic preposition as in ‫ בתבל‬1QS 4.2. Note also a collocation with ‫ כול‬as in ‫‘ כול תבל‬all the earth’ 11Q5 22.12. (4) Cf. ‫ ֶמ ְר ַח ֵקּי ָא ֶרץ‬Is 8.9 // ‫ הארץ‬1QIsaa, sim. Is 8.22. Likewise ‫‘ תהום‬the deep, the abyss’ 1QHa 11.32+. It stands to reason that ‫ כל תבל‬should mean ‘the entire earth’ 4Q475 5 // ‫ הארץ‬ib. 6. Here belong ‫ הארץ‬and ‫השׁמים‬: ‫‘ ביובל השביעי לחרבן הארץ‬in the seventh jubilee after ‫‘ עירי השמים‬the watchers of the heavens’ the devastation of the earth’ 4Q390 1.7 (5); ‫מים‬ 4Q266 2ii18. Note cases of ‫ הארץ‬1QIsaa // ‫ ארץ‬MT: ‫ ארץ‬Is 1.2 // ‫ הארץ‬1QIsaa preceded 1 On the distinction between ‘descriptive’ and ‘identificatory’ as applied to the nominal clause, see JM § 153 (pp. 526f.). The selection of the anarthrous form in ‫יכזֵּ ב‬ ַ ִ‫ לֹא ִאישׁ ֵאל ו‬Nu 23.19 is perhaps because Balaam is addressing Balak, a gentile. 2 Qimron (2003a.385): “Syntagms such as ‫ יום כפורים הוא‬11Q19 25.11 do not designate the name of the festival.” What do they designate then? 3 ‫ בחירי‬is based on ‫ירי‬ ‫ בחירי‬4QSe [= 4Q259 3.16] for ‫ ביחרי‬in 1QS 9.17; ‫‘ סוררי דרך‬those who deviate from the way’ 1QS 10.21. One is reminded of ἡ ὁδός as applied to the Christian movement in the early Church, e.g. Ac 9.2, 19.23. Cf. also McCasland 1958.225. 4 Mishor (1985.123) proposed to identify here ‫‘ ֶתּ ֶבל‬spice.’ Morgenstern (2007.191) assesses this proposal; for the correct bibliographical details, see our Bibliography under Mishor. 5 We doubt that the flood affected only the space which was in the view of Noah and his family, who were most likely aware that ‫ הארץ‬extended farther beyond the horizon visible to them.



by ‫ = שמים‬MT; sim. Is 11.4 1QIsaabis, 24.19 1QIsaa, 24.20, 52.10 1QIsaa, ‫בהמת הארץ‬ ‫ בהמת הארץ‬.. Is 18.6 MT // ‫ בהמות הארץ‬.. ‫ בהמות ארץ‬1QIsaa, sim. ‫ הארץ‬Is 40.21 MT // ‫ ארץ‬1QIsaa, 13.9, 44.23. In BH poetry these substantives are sometimes used anarthrously, e.g. ‫ֶא ֶרץ ָר ָע ָשׁה‬ ‫ם־ע ִבים נָ ְטפוּ ָמיִם‬ ָ ַ‫ם־שׁ ַמיִ ם נָ ָטפוּ גּ‬ ָ ַ‫ גּ‬Jdg 5.4. (1) So in ‫ הבורא ארץ‬1QM 10.12; .. ‫ארץ תצרח‬ ‫‘ מלחמת גבורי שמים‬the earth will roar .. the battle of heavenly warriors ..’ 1QHa 11.33-36, but // ‫‘ צבא השמים‬the heavenly host’; ‫‘ עשה שמים וארץ‬He made the heavens and the earth’ 4Q381 1.3 (2), cf. ‫ יְ הוָ ה ע ֵֹשׂה ָשׁ ַמיִם וָ ָא ֶרץ‬Ps 121.2; ‫ברום שמים תוכחתו ובכול מוסדי‬ ‫‘ ארץ משפט‬in the height(s) of the heavens is His reproach and in all the foundations of the earth (His) judgement’ 4Q511 10.12 // ‫הארצ‬ ֗ ‫ מוסדי‬4Q511 42.6. Not indicating a unique entity, ‫ חסד‬with the article is striking in ‫ורב החסד‬ ֯ ‫‘ ארוך אפים‬long-suffering and very kind’ 4Q511 52-59.1, because it is parallel to ‫ארוך אפים‬, followed by a series of divine attributes, all articular—‫ ֗מ ֗ל ֗ך‬.. ‫הצדק‬ ֗ ‫הטוהר ֗מקוי הכבוד גדול‬ ֯ ‫מקור‬ ‫מ‬ ֗ ‘the source of purity, the fountain of glory, the great one in justice .. the king ‫וד‬ ֗ ‫הכ ֯בו‬ of glory,’ though one could add par excellence each time, but even so the anarthrous ‫ ארוך אפים‬stands out. (3) One would not be surprised on finding the anarthrous ‫ארץ‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֗כל מוסדי‬all the foundations in an epic account of the primaeval flood at ‫ארץ‬ of the earth’ 4Q370 1i3, but followed by ‫‘ כל ארבות השמים‬all the windows of the sky.’ When the poet of Hodayot applies to himself a label of modesty ‫ יצר חמר‬and preceded by ‫אני‬, it is consistently articular: ‫ אני יצר החמר ומגבל המים‬1QHa 9.23, ‫‘ אני יצר החמר מה אני מגבל במים‬I a creature of clay, what am I? Something kneaded ‫‘ אני יצר החמר נשענתי על חסדיכה‬.. relied on Your mercies’ with water’ 1QHa 11.24; ‫סדיכה‬ 1QHa 22.12; ‫ ואני יצר החמר‬4Q428 20.2. Otherwise the article is absent as in ‫מה יצר‬ ‫‘ חמר להגדיל פלאות‬what is a product of clay to extol wonders?’ 1QHa 12.30; ‫ביצר‬ ‫‘ חמר הגברתה‬You have acted powerfully with a product of clay’ 1QHa 19.6; ‫תשובת‬ ‫‘ עפר ליצר חמר‬for a product of clay there is a return to dust’ 1QHa 20.29. Likewise 1QHa 20.35, 23.13. This is extended to other collocations: ‫ לב האבן‬.. ‫‘ אני‬I am a heart of stone’ 1QHa 21.12, ‫‘ אני יצר העפר‬I am a product of dust’ 1QHa 21.17 as against ‫‘ ותגל)ה( לב עפר‬and You uncovered the heart of dust’ 1QHa 21.10, ‫באוזן עפר‬ ‘in the ear(s) of dust’ 1QHa 21.13. See also 1QHa 21.25, 31, 34, 38, 25.31. With all these examples is to be compared ‫‘ הוא מבנה עפר ומגבל מים‬he is a thing fashioned from dust and kneaded in water’ 1QHa 5.31. Is the poet underlining his unique, personal relationship with the Divine? Or is he presenting himself as ‫ יצר חמר‬par excellence?


It is believed that the article is a development relatively late in the history of Hebrew, see JM § 137 f, n. 4. No wonder then that in poetry, even in Qumran poetic or poetically tinted documents, it is sometimes absent and seems not subject to more rigid rules applicable to prose. 2 Rather striking in view of ‫ֹלהים ֵאת ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם וְ ֵאת ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ִ ‫אשׁית ָבּ ָרא ֱא‬ ִ ‫ ְבּ ֵר‬Gn 1.1. 3 ‫ ַרב ַה ֶח ֶסד‬is unknown to BH, to which, however, ‫ ארך האפים‬is foreign.



g) Added to the antecedent of a relative clause The article may be prefixed to a nominal functioning as an antecedent of a following relative clause, which makes the antecedent determinate to a certain extent. E.g. ‫‘ האיש אשר ילון על יסוד היחד‬a man who grumbles over the authority of the community’ 1QS 7.17, likewise 1QS 7.4, 15, 18, apparently freely alternating with ‫איש אשר‬ as in ‫‘ איש אשר ירוק‬a man who spits’ 1QS 7.13; ‫לא נודע מי גנבו ממאד המחנה אשר גנב‬ ‫‘ בו‬it is not known who stole it from the property of a camp where the theft took place’ CD 9.11. h) Substituting for ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬or -‫ֶשׁ‬ This use of the article, well-established in BH (1), hardly occurs in QH. A possible instance may be identified in ‫אים במה‬ ֗ ‫והיוצ‬ ֗ ‫ערי֯ ֗ם הבאי֗ ם ֗ב ֗מה‬ ֯ ‫‘ השע‬the gates through which one enters and through which one exits’ 11Q19 36.7. Again as in BH, mostly in late books, (2) the article is once prefixed to a finite verb: ‫ממ ֯צו֗ ו֗ תיכה הנתתה להם‬ ֗ ‘from the commandments that You gave them’ 4Q382 104ii7. (3) i) Vocative The articular vocative is well known to BH, (4) e.g. ‫‘ המלך‬o King!’ 1Sm 17.55, but it is the exception in QH, e.g. ‫‘ לכה אתה אל הדעות‬o to You, the God of knowledge’ 1QHa 9.28. Hence the addition of the article is striking in ‫ איש החמדות‬4Q112 15.17 // ‫ישׁ־ח ֻמדו ֺת‬ ֲ ‫ ִא‬Dn 10.19, but the anarthrous vocative is abundantly attested (5), e.g. ‫שמעו‬ ‫‘ חכמים‬Hear, o wise men’ 1QHa 9.36, followed by another three examples; .. ‫קומה גבור‬ ‫ עושה חיל‬.. ‫‘ איש כבוד‬Arise, o mighty one, .. o man of honour, .. o one who does mighty works!’ 1QM 12.10; on the vocative ‫ גבור‬here, cp. ‫ גִּ בוֹר ֶה ָחיִ ל‬Jdg 6.12. j) ‫“ אחד‬one” as equivalent of an indefinite article This BH usage as in ‫‘ ִאישׁ ֶא ָחד‬a certain man’ 1Sm 1.1 appears to be unknown to QH, though ‫ ִאם־נֶ ֶפשׁ ַא ַחת ֶתּ ֱח ָטא ִב ְשׁגָ גָ ה‬Nu 15.27 is quoted verbatim at 4Q365 34.2. (6) 1

See JM § 145 d-f. An example is ‫ֹלהינוּ ַה ֵה ִרימוּ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך וְ י ֲֹע ָציו‬ ֵ ‫ית־א‬ ֱ ‫רוּמת ֵבּ‬ ַ ‫ ְתּ‬Ezr 8.25. For more examples, see JM § 145 d-e. 3 An example that escaped Eskhult (2013.54), but mentioned by Qimron II 65, where he appears to be retracting his earlier analysis of ‫‘ הנשבע לאברהם‬who swore to Abraham’ 4Q378 11.3 (DJD 10.95 [§]), parsing now the form concerned as a ptc., though still leaving his earlier analysis as a possibility (likewise id. 2018.427). In both BH and QH an articulated ptc. can refer to an action that took place prior to the moment of speech, see below at § 17 h. 4 See JM § 137 g (b). 5 More examples are cited below at § 43 a. 6 For more BH examples, see BDB s.v. ‫ ֶא ָחד‬3. Of the two QH instances mentioned in DCH 1.181a, 1c, ‫ אחד‬has been erased by the scribe at 4QTestim [= 4Q175] 1.23 and the numeral in ‫֗הנם עד שלוש פעמים על‬ ‫ מושב אחד‬retains its full force, ‘one who falls asleep three times at one session’ 1QS 7.11. 2



k) Retained after proclitic prepositions Especially in LBH we find a case such as ‫ ְל ָה ָעם‬2Ch 10.7 in lieu of ‫ ָל ָעם‬. (1) We find this phenomenon in ‫ מהשבת‬4Q67 2 = ‫ ִמ ַשּׁ ָבּת‬MT Is 58.13; ‫ להגר‬4Q140 1.5 = ‫ַלגֵּ ר‬ MT Ex 12.49; ‫ מהשמים‬Is 14.12 1QIsaa = MT ‫ ִמ ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬. (2) l) Errors Phylacteries are the last documents in which one could expect to encounter awful ֯ ֗‫האדן‬ ֗ 4Q138 1.5 blunders such as ‫ המצאותי‬4Q137 1.54 for ‫וֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ְצ‬Dt 5.29(26) MT; ‫הא ֗דו֗ נים‬ ֗ 4Q138 1.33 for ‫ ֵמ ֵר ִשׁית ַה ָשּׁנָ ה‬Dt 11.12 MT. for ‫ ֲאד ֹנֵ י ָה ֲאד ֹנִ ים‬Dt 10.17 MT; ‫הרשי ֯ית שנה‬

§ 8 NUMBER a) Collectively used singular nouns Though singular in form, a noun may actually be referring to more than one member of the species indicated by it, e.g. ‫צֹאן‬, or a group of individuals, ‫ ָק ָהל‬. (3) E.g. ‫פרי קודש‬ ‫‘ בלשוני‬fruits of holiness are in my tongue’ 1QS 10.22; ‫‘ מטף עד נשים‬from children to women’ 1QSa 1.4, cf. ‫ת־ה ָעם ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים וְ ַהנָּ ִשׁים וְ ַה ַטּף‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְק ֵהל ֶא‬Dt 31.12; ‫‘ זרעם‬their descendants’ CD 2.12; ‫ יושיבו‬.. ‫ זרעך גואים יירשו‬Is 54.3 1QIsaa, against which MT ‫יוֹשׁיבוּ‬ ִ .. ‫ יִ ַירשׁ‬is inconsistent (4); ‫ ִאי ַכ ְפתּו ֺר‬Je 47.4 > 2Q13 7-8.11 ‫ִמכֹּל ֶר ֶמשׂ ;איי כפתור‬ ‫‘ בחיה ובכל הרמש ;למי‬over animals and over all ‫ ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ְל ִמינֵ הוּ‬Ge 6.20 > 6Q1 1.9 ‫למיניהם‬ that crawls’ 4Q216 7.3; ‫‘ זכורם‬their males’ CD 3.7—this rare (4×) word in BH is also used collectively and always with a conj. pron., e.g. Ex 23.17, Dt 20.13; ‫גולת המדבר‬ ‘the exiles in the wilderness’ in apposition to ‫ בני לוי ובני יהודה ובני בנימין‬1QM 1.2 (5); ‫‘ בהנגף אויב‬when enemies are hit’ 1QM 3.2; ‫‘ מערכת האויב‬the enemy line’ 1QM 6.2; ‫‘ כול הרכב היוצאים‬all the mounts that go out’ 1QM 6.11. The collectively used sg. ‫ָדּגָ ה‬ Cf. Muraoka 2000.202. In DCH 2.480a-b, s.v. ‫ ַה‬we find an exhaustive list of BH references, but no instance is cited from non-biblical sources. 2 In the case of ‫מן‬, Qimron (2018.117, § B 5.3.2) focuses on the assimilation of its /n/, noting that the sequence -‫ מה‬in lieu of -‫ מן ה‬occurs only in 11Q19 and 4QMMT. As is evident from the BH data collected by Sperber (1943.140-43), the assimilated form -‫ מה‬is amply attested in older books, not confined to LBH. -‫ מה‬must have developed after ‫ מן‬became proclitic through the assimilation of /-n/—‫מ ַבּיִת > ִמן ַבּיִת‬, ִ then it joined -‫בּ‬, ְ -‫ל‬,ְ and -‫כּ‬, ְ when these latter allowed the definite article to stay on, unassimilated to these proclitic, monoliteral prepositions, thus triggering -‫מה‬, though the final /-n/ of ‫ מן‬is assimilated to the definite article, hence -‫ > ִמ‬-‫מ‬. ֵ 3 On the question of plural concord or constructio ad sensum as exemplified in ‫כול הרכב היוצאים‬ ‘all the mounts that go out’ 1QM 6.11 quoted below, see a more detailed treatment below at § 32 cg. 4 Pace Kutscher 1974.398 ‫ תזנו‬in ‫ זרע מנאף ותזנו‬Is 57.3 1QIsaa as against MT ‫ ִתּזְ נֶ ה‬has nothing to do with ‫ זֶ ַרע‬as a collective noun, for the subject of ‫ תזנו‬is ‫ ַא ֶתּם‬earlier in the verse. Besides, ‫ ִתּזְ נֶ ה‬is very questionable. 5 ‫גּוֹלה‬ ָ in the sense of ‘exiles’ is known from LBH, e.g. Est 2.6, possibly an abbreviation of ‫גוֹלה‬ ָ ‫בּנֵ י‬, ְ so Ezr 4.1+. 1



as in ‫ דגת הים‬1QpHab 6.2 is a legacy from BH. (1) In ‫ בבקריכה ובצואנכה‬11Q19 52.7 and ‫ מצואנכה ומבקריכה‬ib. 53.3 we find a collectively used sg. and a normal pl. next to each other. The pl. of ‫ בקר‬does not occur any more in QH, a form also rather rare in BH, too, with only three attestations, in one of which we find both animals given ֵ ‫ ְבּ‬Neh 10.37. In view of ‫‘ שאר ֗ה ֗אילן‬the rest of the trees’ in the pl., ‫כוֹרי ְב ָק ֵרינוּ וְ צֹאנֵ ינוּ‬ 5/6Ḥev 46.4 ‫ אילן‬in ‫ כל אילן‬5/6Ḥev 44.12, 15 may also mean ‘all trees.’ In view of the preceding ‫‘ תדקלים‬the date palms’ (pl.) 5/6Ḥev 46.4 ‫ תדקל ֗ה ֗טו֗ ֗ב‬ib. is possibly referring to the best among those date palms. Many of these substantives are not used in the plural at all, so ‫ זֶ ַר ִע‬in the sense of ‘posterity, descendants,’ ‫‘ ֶר ֶמשׂ‬creeping, crawling animals,’ ‫‘ עוֹף‬flying creatures’ as against ‫ ִצפּוֹר‬// pl. ‫פּוֹרים‬ ִ ‫צ‬. ִ Hence it is striking that a scribe should have decided to add a supralinear yod in ‫‘ שלליה וטפיה‬its booties and kids’ 4Q252 3.5. Both nouns, fairly frequent, are not used in the pl. in BH nor in QH. aa) Idiomatically singular A substantive as part of an idiomatic collocation may appear in the singular, even when it denotes something composed of two or more units: e.g. ‫‘ גלה אזן‬to disclose,’ even with more than one person—‫‘ אגלה אזנכם‬I shall uncover your ear(s)’ CD 2.2, sim. ֗‫ גלה אזנ֗ נ֗ ו‬4Q299 8.6; ‫ יִ גְ ֶלה אֹזֶ ן ֲאנָ ִשׁים‬Jb 33.16, so also Jb 36.10, 15 (2); ‫ית ְב ַרגְ ְלָך‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ֽשׁ ִק‬ Dt 11.10 // ‫ ברגליכה‬4Q38 2.10; ‫‘ ויפצו פה‬and they opened their mouth(s)’ 1QHa 15.24. A measure of flexibility appears to be tolerated: ‫אשׁם‬ ָ ֹ ‫עוֹלם ַעל־ר‬ ָ ‫ ִשׂ ְמ ַחת‬Is 51.11 // ‫ רואשיהמה‬1QIsaa, cf. ‫ ִענִּ ינוּ נַ ְפ ֵשׁנוּ‬Is 58.3 // ‫ נפשותינו‬1QIsaa; ‫‘ תענו בו את נפשותיכמה‬you shall mortify on it [= the day] your souls’ 11Q19 25.11 (< Lv 23.27); ‫מוֹע‬ ַ ‫א־כ ְב ָדה ָאזְ נוֹ ִמ ְשּׁ‬ ָ ֹ‫ל‬ ַ ֹ ‫ נְ ָתנַ נִ י ֲאד ֹנָ י ִבּ ֵידי ל‬La 1.14 // .. ‫ ביד‬.. 4Q111 3.5—in Is 59.1 // ‫ כבדו אוזניו‬1QIsaa; ‫א־אוּכל קוּם‬ this idiomatic combination the use of the sg. is the norm, hence ‫‘ ביד ֗ע ֗ריצי֗ ֗ם לא נ֗ ֗תנם‬into the power of the violent He did not deliver them’ 4Q434 1.5; Ps 125.3, 4Q87 26i4 ֶ ‫ יְ ֵד‬..) (3); ‫‘ ויכן לדרך רגלם‬and He set their foot (!) for ‫( ישלחו הצדיקים בעולתה ידים‬MT ‫יהם‬ the journey’ 4Q434 1.4, cf. ‫ וְ יָ ֵשׂם ְל ֶד ֶרְך ְפּ ָע ָמיו‬Ps 85.14. A plural or a dual may also be idiomatically used: Ps 35.16, 4Q83 6.3 ‫( חרקו שנים‬MT ֺ ‫)חר ֹק ִשׁ ֵנּמו‬ ָ (4). b) Repetition of noun (5) The notion of plurality is expressed by repeating a noun in close proximity. The form of such a repetition and its semantic value vary. Normally a noun is repeated in its sg. form. For BH data, see BDB s.v. ‫דּגָ ה‬.ָ By contrast, with ‫עיִ ן‬, ַ we find its dual used: ‫ גְּ לוּי ֵעינַ יִ ם‬Nu 24.4, 16 (LXX ἀποκεκαλλυμένοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ) and ‫‘ אגלה עיניכם‬I shall open your eyes’ CD 2.14. At ‫(‘ גלו עין‬his) eye(s) open’ 4Q175 11, a quote from Nu 24.16, the text appears to be amiss. On ‫ גלו‬for the expected ‫גלוי‬, cf. Qimron 2018.128, § B 8.4.1. 3 On this last example, see Muraoka 2018a.170. 4 See Muraoka 2018a.170. 5 Cf. Qimron 2018.411-13, § H 3.5. 1




Joined with the conjunction -‫ ו‬as in ‫ איש ואיש‬.. ‫‘ עת ועת‬every occasion .. every man’ 1QS 9.12; ‫‘ שמותם מפורשים בשמות לאיש ואיש‬their names being mentioned for each person separately’ 4Q177 1-4.11; ‫‘ לאיל ואיל‬to every ram’ 11Q19 24.7; ‫מעשי דור ודור‬ ‘deeds of every generation’ 4Q270 2ii21; ‫‘ יום ויום‬day by day’ Is 58.2 1QIsaa // MT ‫‘ פר ופר ;יום יום‬each bull’ 11Q19 34.12; reinforced with ‫‘ בכול יום ויום—כול‬on every single day’ 11Q19 17.12; ‫‘ כול מטה ומטה‬every single tribe’ 11Q19 22.12 (1). Formal similarity notwithstanding, a nuance different from that of every or each is intended in ‫‘ ידרשוכה בלב ולב‬they will seek You half-heartedly’ 1QHa 12.15, cf. ‫ֶא ֶבן‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ם־שׁנ‬ ְ ַ‫תּוֹע ַבת יְ הוָ ה גּ‬ ֲ ‫יפה‬ ָ ‫יפה וְ ֵא‬ ָ ‫ וָ ֶא ֶבן ֵא‬Pr 20.10, and similarly Dt 25.13f. An adverbial function of this feature is made explicit by prefixing an appropriate preposition to the second occurrence of the repeated noun as in ‫‘ שנה בשנ֗ ֗ה‬year in year out’ 11Q19 21.10, 22.14. (2) Intensification with a second noun in the pl.: ‫‘ לנצח נצחים‬for ages’ 1QHa 15.34; ‫עבד‬ ‫‘ עבדים‬a most miserable slave’ 4Q252 2.6.: ‫‘ קודש קודשים‬supreme holiness’ 1QS 8.5, 8. See also below at § 9 b, § 21 viii. c) Plural of unquantifiable objects What is denoted by some nouns is uncountable or unquantifiable. ca) Uncountable objects By virtue of their meaning some nouns denote entities that are not countable, though they may be quantifiable, thus many vs. much or few vs. little. Many abstract nouns belong here. ‫‘ יִ ְר ָאה‬fear, awe,’ for instance, occurs 44 times in BH, but never in the plural. Likewise ‫יְפי‬ ִ ‘beauty,’ ‫‘ א ֶֹרְך‬length,’ and many others. At ‫ ברוב דרכיך יגעת‬Is 57.10 1QIsaa many roads to be covered are envisaged, whereas MT ‫ דרכך‬probably has to do with the length of a journey to be undertaken; the selection of the plural form may also be due to the presence of ‫רוב‬, which often, albeit not always, forms a cst. phrase with a ֶ ‫ ר ֹב זִ ְב ֵח‬Is 1.11. (3) pl. noun as in ‫יכם‬ cb) Abstract nouns An abstract noun in the plural may be used to indicate a phenomenon concretely manifesting a quality denoted by the former. Thus ‫‘ ֶח ֶסד‬mercy’ > ‫‘ איש חסדים‬a man of mercies, i.e. one who performed many deeds of mercy’ MMT C 25; ‫והכוהנים מספרים‬ ‫‘ את צדקות אל במעשי גבורתום ומשמיעים כול חסדי רחמים על ישראל‬and the priests shall be recounting deeds of justice in what God did with His mighty acts and they shall be 1

A few more examples are mentioned by Qimron (2018.412f., § H 3.5.2) as typical of LBH and MH. Cf. also Hurvitz 1972.70-73 and Naudé - Miller-Naudé 2015.105-07. 2 An adjective may be repeated for the sake of intensification: ‫‘ טמא טמא‬utterly unclean’ 1QS 3.5. So in Lv 13.45, on which this passage of ours is based. So is an adverb repeated: ‫‘ מודה מודה‬very much indeed’ 1QHa 19.3, cf. ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ ַה ַמּיִ ם גָּ ְברוּ ְמאֹד ְמאֹד ַע‬Gn 7.19 and ‫ מאד מאד השפיל גאוה‬Si 7.17. 3 Pace Kutscher 1974.396 ‫ ִצ ַיריִ ְך‬in the immediately preceding clause is hardly an influencing factor. Cf. LXX ταῖς πολυοδίαις σου.



telling all deeds of mercy shown to Israel’ 1QS 1.21. So in BH, e.g. ‫ָקטֹנְ ִתּי ִמכֹּל ַה ֲח ָס ִדים‬ ‫ת־ע ְב ֶדָּך‬ ַ ‫ית ֶא‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ֱא ֶמת ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂ‬ ָ ‫וּמ ָכּ‬ ִ Gn 32.11. d) Plural of extension Some nouns, when used in the pl., denote the vast extent of the entity referred by them. E.g. ‫‘ אש מחשכים‬fire of vast darkness’ 1QS 4.13; ‫‘ במחשכי אבדונים‬in the dark corners of perdition’ 4Q491 8-10i15. Here belongs perhaps ‫‘ בתוליה‬the period when she was virgin’ 4Q269 9.6; ‫‘ ֗מן֗ נעוריו‬since his youth’ 4Q223-224 2i49, cf. ‫‘ ֶבּן־זְ ֻקנִ ים‬a son born (to Jacob) in old age’ Gn 37.3; ‫‘ דמים‬bloodshed’ 1QHa 15.6, probably a pool of blood being envisaged; ‫‘ מנוחות עד‬eternal rest’ 4Q525 14ii14, where the great extent is reinforced by ‫עד‬. The shift from sg. ‫‘ מבוא‬entrance, start’ to pl. ‫‘ מוצאי‬exit, end’ is difficult ‫‘ עם מבו‬with the entry of day and night and the to explain in ‫בוא יומם ולילה ומוצאי ערב ובוקר‬ exit of evening and morning’ 1QM 14.13 (1). Perhaps belong here ‫‘ אלוהי דעות‬omniscient ֯ ‫ים וואת‬ ‫את השמים‬ ‫ עשה יהוה א‬4Q149 1.5 // Ex 20.11 MT God’ 4Q510 1.2 and ‫ימים‬ ֯ ‫הארץ את ֯ה‬ (‫)הים‬. Does ‫‘ ארץ חמדות‬a land satisfying every desire’ 4Q374 2ii5 (2) belong here? ‫עולם‬ ‘a long stretch of time, eternity’ implies a feature of extension as in ‫‘ יחד ברית עולם‬the community of an everlasting covenant’ 1QS 5.5 and in many other collocations. The feature of extension may be intensified by pluralising the noun, e.g. ‫ברית יחד עולמים‬ ‘the covenant of an everlasting community’ 1QS 3.12. The notion of extension may account for the fact that ‫‘ אף‬anger’ is used in BH in the dual only when combined with cst. ‫( ֶא ֶרְך‬adj.) (3) or ‫( א ֶֹרְך‬subst.). In QH, however, ֗ ‘for God’s anger to be retracted’ this constraint has been lifted, hence ‫לשוב אפי ֗אלוהי֯ ם‬ 4 4Q511 35.1, and also perhaps in ‫‘ ) ( ֗א ֗פי חמה‬most intense fury’ ib. (5) e) Pluralia tantum One of the commonest pluralia tantum is ‫רחמים‬, always pl. in the sense of ‘mercy,’ even in conjunction with a word indicating a large quantity as in ‫‘ רוב רחמים‬abundance of ..’ 1QS 4.3 and ‫‘ רחמיך רבים‬your mercy is abundant’ 4Q372 1.19, cf. ‫ְכּר ֹב ַר ֲח ֶמיָך‬ 1 The selection of the pl. may be under the influence of ‫מוֹצ ֵאי־ב ֶֹקר וָ ֶע ֶרב‬ ָ Ps 65.9, where daily movements of the sun and the moon may be in view, but they not only finish, but also start the same process every day! 2 Obviously modelled on ‫ ֶא ֶרץ ֶח ְמ ָדּה‬in BH, but always in the sg.—Ps 106.24, Je 3.19, Zc 7.14. Bar-Asher (2006.153-59) prefers to read here ‫ח ְמדוּת‬, ֶ an abstract noun, whilst we see no absolute argument for throwing away as irrelevant the analogous syntagm in ‫ישׁ־ח ֻמדו ֺת‬ ֲ ‫ ִא‬Dn 10.19, cf. DJD 19.103. 3 No other cst. form of this adjective is known in BH. Some of our authors or scribes seem to have tripped here, writing ‫ ארוך אפים‬4Q511 52-59.1. ‫ ארך אפים‬4Q364 18.3 is a quote from ‫ ֶא ֶרְך ַא ַפּיִ ם‬Nu 14.18. On the morphological peculiarity of this cst. form, see JM § 96B e. We are most likely dealing with false analogy of a form such as ‫ גְּ דוֹל‬cst. of ‫גָּ דוֹל‬. 4 Qimron’s (II 325) contextual restoration; DJD 7.237 reads ‫לוהי֯ ֯ם‬ ֯ ‫אלו‬. Besides, ‫ אף‬and its synonym, ‫חמה‬, often appear in parallelism, but they do not form a cst. phrase with each other. 5 See ‫ שׁוּב ֵמ ֲחרוֹן ַא ֶפָּך‬Ex 32.12, which shows in BH the noun can be used in the sg. and combined with a synonym ‫חרו ֺן‬. ָ



Ps 51.3 and ‫ ַר ִבּים ַר ֲח ָמיו‬2Sm 24.14. Note that ‫‘ פנים‬face’ even shows singular concord in ‫‘ פניהם זה בעקר ז֗ ה‬their faces were next to one another’ 4Q385 6.8 as against the normal concord as in ‫‘ פני מסתרים מישראל‬My face is hidden from Israel’ 4Q387 2ii9. ֯ ‫‘ ידמה בתו֯ ֗ר‬its face might resemble in appearance’ Hence ‫ ידמה‬as reconstructed in ‫פניהא‬ 4Q525 2iii4 is reasonable. (1) As in BH (45×), ‫‘ גלולים‬idols’ is a plurale tantum in QH (10×). However, a contemporary writer, Ben Sira, does attest to the sg., ‫‘ תנופה מצגת לפני גלול‬an offering set before an idol’ Si 30.18. And of course, ‫ אלהים‬as a designation of the god of Israel. (2) Hence the sg. is all the more striking in ‫‘ אלוה הכול הוא שמע‬the God of all, He heard’ 11Q5 28.7 // ‫אדון הכול‬ ‫‘ ראה‬the Lord of all saw,’ cf. ‫ֹלהים וַ ֲאד ֹנֵ י ָה ֲאד ֹנִ ים‬ ִ ‫ֹלהי ָה ֱא‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬Dt 10.17. One knows of the use of the sg. ‫ֹלהּ‬ ַ ‫ ֱא‬in early BH poetry, e.g. ‫לוֹהּ ָע ָשׂהוּ‬ ַ ‫‘ וַ יִּ טֹּשׁ ֱא‬and he forsook the God who had made him’ Dt 32.15, ‫לוֹהּ‬ ַ ‫‘ שׁ ְֹכ ֵחי ֱא‬those who have forgotten God’ Ps 50.22. (3) The selection of the sg. ‫ אלוה‬is most fitting at ‫‘ אין אלוה ֯מ ֗בלעדיו‬there is no god beside Him’ 4Q377 2ii8. ‫‘ עושיו‬his Maker’ 1QS 9.26 is an extension of ‫ אלהים‬as a plural of majesty (4). ‫ אלים‬in ‫‘ אל אלים‬a god superior to (all that are called) gods’ 4Q510 1.2 must be a genuine plural. Also ‫‘ חיים‬life’ e.g. ‫מאות שנה לחיי נוח‬ ׄ ‫‘ באחת ושש‬in the year 601 in Noah’s life’ 4Q252 2.1; ‫‘ בכורים‬first-fruits’ e.g. ‫‘ לחם חבכורים‬the bread of the first-fruits’ 4Q251 9.6. Synchronically (5) ‫ ַמיִ ם‬and ‫ ָשׁ ַמיִם‬behave as pluraria tantum. ‫ בקריכה‬11Q19 52.7, a lexeme used once only (6) in BH in the pl.; see above § a. f) Plural nomen rectum influenced by nomen regens ‫‘ מחשכי אבדונים‬in the dark corners of perdition’ 4Q491 8-10i15 (7); ‫דרכי אורחותיך‬ Is 3.12 1QIsaa // MT ‫דּ ֶרְך‬,ֶ which could mean ‘route, course,’ so a route with interconִ where the scribe neglected to nected roads; ‫ בינות נבוניו‬Is 29.14 1QIsaa vs. ‫בּינַ ת נְ בֹנָ יו‬, adjust the number of the verb (‫ אנשי מידות ;)תסתתר‬Is 45.14 1QIsaa vs. ‫ ַאנְ ֵשׁי ִמ ָדּה‬MT, ֵ ‫בּ‬, ֵ but followed but note ‫ ֵבּית ִמדּוֹת‬Je 22.14; ‫ בצי צפעונים‬Is 59.5 1QIsaa for MT ‫יצי ִצ ְפעוֹנִ י‬ We take ‫ פניהא‬as the subject of ‫ידמה‬, hence not ‘the look of its face.’ ‫ תאר פנים‬as a construct phrase is scarcely known except once in bSanh 100a, where ‫ לתאר פנים‬seems to mean ‘for the sake of making your face look pretty.’ 2 Once applied to an alien god, Dagon, with the sg. congruence: Jdg 16.23, 24. 3 For more references, see BDB s.v. ‫ֹלהּ‬ ַ ‫ ֱא‬2. 4 Krajewski 2018 rejects the notion of the plural of majesty, though his alternative, philosophicaltheological explanation does not convince. 5 Diachronically, however, their traditional, penultimate accent shows that these are anomalous, if they are plural at all. Comparatively, Arb. /mā’u/ is fem. (!) sg. and Ethiopic /māy/, both with a long /ā/. So Arb. /samā’u/, also fem. sg. and Ethiopic /samāy/. 6 The only certain case is ‫ ְבּ ָק ֵרינוּ‬at Neh 10.37 // ‫צֹאנֵ ינוּ‬, whilst in our QH passage we have ‫ !צאנכה‬So also ‫ מצאנכה ומבקריכה‬11Q19 53.3. ‫ צואניכמה‬4Q158 7-9.7 as against its source text ‫ צֹאנְ ָך‬Ex 20.20 is likely due to the pl. coordinate terms ‫ שלמיכמה‬.. ‫ת־שׁ ָל ֶמיָך( עולותיכמה‬ ְ ‫ֹֹלתיָך וְ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫)את־ע‬. ֶ 7 The pl. ‫ אבדוני‬in ‫אבדוני שאול‬, which immediately follows, is likely to be influenced by the preceding ‫ ;אבדונים‬there is no logical reason for using the pl. form, ‫אבדוני‬. 1



by ‫ קורי עכביש‬as in MT, cf. ‫ מאורות צפעונים‬Is 11.8 1QIsaa // MT ‫אוּרת ִצ ְפעוֹנִ י‬ ַ ‫ממלכות ; ְמ‬ a ‫ האלילים‬1QIsa // MT ‫ ַמ ְמ ְלכֹת ָה ֱא ִליל‬10.10; ‫‘ אבני משכיות‬figured stones’ 11Q19 51.21; ‫ ימי השבתות‬11Q19 43.2 // ‫ימי הבכורים‬, in which latter ‫ בכורים‬is a genuine plural or plurale tantum, likewise ‫‘ ימי המועדים‬the days of the festivals’ 11Q19 43.15, where the text is not about one particular festival. Possibly ‫‘ ארורו עולמים‬eternally cursed ones’ 1QS 2.17, though ‫ עולם‬is very often used in the pl., e.g. ‫‘ שלום עולמים‬eternal peace’ 1QS 2.4, ‫‘ כלת עולמים‬eternal destruction’ 1QS 2.15. The standing BH phrase is inherited in ‫‘ שני לוחות ֗האבנים‬the two stone tablets’ 4Q135 1.1 < ‫ ְשׁנֵ י ֻלחֹת ֲא ָבנִ ים‬Dt 5.22 (19), but note also ‫ ֻלחֹת ָה ֶא ֶבן‬Ex 24.12. (1) fa) Plurality of construct phrase marked by nomen regens We encounter a striking mode of expression in ‫‘ וימול עורלות לבם‬and He cut the foreskins of their heart’ 4Q434 1.4, where each person, of course, had only one ‫ לב‬and one ‫עורלת לב‬, ַ but the plurality of people involved is marked by ‫עורלות‬. (2) fb) Plural of majesty QH continues the BH usage in that ‫אלהים‬, when referring to the God of Israel, concords in the singular, e.g. ‫‘ אלוהיכם הולך עמכם‬your God walks with you’ 1QM 10.4; ‫לדברים‬ ‫‘ אשר צוהו אלהים‬matters which God commanded him’ 4Q385a 18ia-b8; ‫האיר אלהים דעת‬ ֯ ‫‘ בינה‬God enlightened the knowledge of understanding’ 4Q511 18ii7. Hence it is not impossible to see a slight extension of this usage in ‫‘ לקול עשיהם מצות יוריהם‬the voice of their maker and the commandments of their teacher’ CD 3.8, taking ‫ עשיהם‬and ‫ מוריהם‬as plural in form, but given an instance such as ‫ נוהם‬in ‫‘ יִ ְהיֶ ה נְ וֵ ֶהם‬their pasture will be’ Ezk 34.14, where the noun is singular, the two CD forms in question may represent loose spelling of the sg. participles. (3) But such an analysis is impossible in ‫‘ עושוהי‬his Maker’ Is 17.7 1QIsaa with an Aramaising form for MT ‫ע ֵֹשׂהוּ‬, (4) likewise in ‫ ויוצריכה‬.. ‫ יהוה בוראיכה‬Is 43.1 (the ‫ י‬before ‫ כה‬written above the line) for MT ‫ וְ י ֶֹצ ְרָך‬.. ‫בּ ַֹר ֲאָך‬. This feature is extended even to a pagan god, not gods, at ‫ֹלהיו‬ ָ ‫נִ ְסר ְֹך ֱא‬ a 5 ‘Nisroch his god’ Is 37.38, so also in 1QIsa . ( ) ‫‘ בעליו‬its owner’ CD 9.11 is a BH legacy, e.g. ‫יוּמת‬ ָ ‫‘ ְבּ ָע ָליו‬its owner shall be put to death’ Ex 21.29, but ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫‘ ַלאד ֹנ‬her master’ Ex 21.4 6 has become ֗‫אדו֗ נ֗ ו‬ ֗ ‫ ֗לא‬4Q158 7-9.11 ( ). The pl. is mysterious at ‫אם ֗ב ֗ג ֗פיו בא בגפיו יצא‬ ‘if he came single, he shall leave single’ 4Q158 7-9.10; the source text reads ‫ְבּגַ פּוֹ‬ Ex 21.3. (7) The use of the pl. ‫ אלים‬in collocations such as ‫‘ עדת אלים‬the congregation Cf. JM § 136 m-o and a common MH expression such as ‫‘ ָבּ ֵתּי ְכּנֵ ִסיּו ֺת‬synagogues.’ Pace Fassberg (2019 § 116) there is no real difficulty in seeing two genuine plurals in ‫‘ עמי הארצות‬the peoples of the lands’ 1QM 10.9. 2 See the underlying biblical text: ִ‫רוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫הוּדה וְ י ְֹשׁ ֵבי י‬ ָ ְ‫ ִהמֹּלוּ ַליהוָֹ ה וְ ָה ִסרוּ ָע ְרלוֹת ְל ַב ְב ֶכם ִאישׁ י‬Je 4.4. DJD 29.275 refers to Jubilees 1.23f., where the Ethiopic version reads the sg., qwelfata lebbomu. 3 So thinks Qimron (2018.286, § D 2.6.6), too. 4 Cf. a discussion by Qimron 2018.277f., § D 5 The Peshitta is discriminate with /’alāhēh/, likewise Targum ‫עוּתיהּ‬ ֵ ‫ט‬. ָ 6 But the MT is not consistent with ‫אד ֹנִ י‬, ֲ though the reference is to a different master. 7 Qimron’s (2018.269f., § D 2.3.2) explanation is that the earlier morphophonemic opposition of ‫סוּסוֹ‬ ‘his horse’ ‫סוּסיו‬ ָ ‘his horses’ had been given up, both now pronounced /sūsō/. For our reservation over this 1



of God’ 1QM 1.10, ‫‘ גגבורי אלים‬God’s warriors’ 1QM 15.14 must be modelled on this standard use of ‫ אלהים‬as a reference to the God of Israel. In ‫רומה אל אלים‬, however, ‫ אלים‬must be genuinely plural: ‘Arise, o God of gods’ 1QM 14.16, sim. 4Q403 1ii26, 4Q405 14.3, and 4Q 510 1.2. Likewise ‫ אלהים‬as the nomen rectum in ‫אלהי אלהים‬, which, however, is unknown in the Bible; only twice we find ‫ אלהי האלהים‬as applied to the God of Israel at Dt 10.17 and Ps 136.2. By contrast, the articular ‫ האלים‬occurs in QH once only: ‫ בני האילים‬4Q381 15.6, probably referring to angelic beings. (1) g) Dual Unless indubitable evidences can be found, we may assume that some substantives, as in BH, retained dual forms, whether as semantically distinct from the plural, hence genuine dual, or doubling for the plural. We would assume then that ‫ אפים‬in ‫אורך‬ ‫‘ אפים‬patience’ 1QS 4.3, ‫ ארך אפים‬CD 2.4, and ‫‘ קוצר אפים‬impatience’ 1QS 6.26 was pronounced /’appáyim/. (2) Similarly ‫‘ שפול ידים‬slackness of hands’ 1QS 4.9, ‫עורון עינים‬ ‘blindness of eyes’ 1QS 4.11; ‫‘ משלח כפים‬what he put his hands on’ 1QS 9.23. In ‫חזק‬ ‫‘ מתנו‬the strength of his loins’ 1QSa 1.17 we would rather see an orthographic variant for ‫מתניו‬. (3) By contrast ‫ אוזניו‬in ‫ אוטם אוזניו‬Is 33.15 1QIsaa is most likely an alternative spelling for sg. ‫ ָאזְ נוֹ‬in MT. This collocation occurs also at Pr 21.13 and Ps 58.5 with sg. ‫אזן‬. (4) Apart from numerals ‫‘ מאתים פרשים‬two hundred horsemen’ 1QM 6.9 and ‫כאלפים באמה‬ ‘some two thousand cubits’ 1QM 7.7, cases of genuine dual are ‫‘ חזוק ידים‬strengthening of hands’ 1QS 10.26; ‫‘ טהור עינים‬pure of eyes’ 1QpHab 5.6; ‫‘ נמוגי ברכים‬enfeebled in knees’ 1QM 14.6; ‫נכאה ֗ר ֯ג ֗לי֯ ֗ם‬ ֗ ‘handicapped in feet’ 1QSa 2.5; ‫‘ שפתים‬lips’ 1QS 9.5; ‫אמתים‬ ‘two cubits’ 1QM 5.6 // ‫ שתים אמות‬4Q365a 2ii9, 10 and ‫‘ שנתים‬two years’ 4Q258 7.2. The beginning decline of the dual (5) is evidenced in ‫‘ שני י֗ ֗מי֗ ם‬two days’ 4Q180 5-6.3, CD 14.13; ‫‘ שתי שנים‬two years’ 1QS 7.19 // ‫ שנתים ימים‬1QS 7.21, 1QS 8.10, 1QS 8.25f. and ‫ שנתים‬1QS 9.1, so also at Gn 41.1 and three more times in BH alongside ‫שׁנָ ַתיִ ם‬, ְ e.g. Gn 11.10. Note also ‫ ְשׁ ַתּיִם ָשׁנִ ים‬2Kg 21.19. Cf. § 29e. The pseudo-dual of multiplicatives as in ‫‘ מזוקקי שבעתים‬those purified seven times over’ 4Q511 35.2 is possibly a false analogy of ‫‘ ַפּ ֲע ַמיִ ם‬twice.’ (6) analysis, see also Muraoka 2018a.161f. Otherwise, as they read Hebrew texts out of their library, members of the Qumran community must have experienced quite a struggle. Is this going to join the company of ‫ הואה‬and ‫ היאה‬unprecedented prior to QH and not a trace of it left in any subsequent tradition of Hebrew? 1 Cf. a discussion in DJD 11.104. It is curious that ‫ ֵאל ֵא ִלים‬Dn 11.36 and its Aramaic equivalent ‫ֱא ָלהּ‬ ‫ ֱא ָל ִהין‬Dn 2.47 should be put in the mouths of pagan rulers! 2 BH uses the du. form only in combination with adj. ‫ ֶא ֶרְך‬or subst. ‫א ֶֹרְך‬, otherwise sg., with which QH agrees except ‫ ארך אפך‬4Q461 4.3, unless ‫אפיך = אפך‬, a defectiva spelling. See also above at § d. 3 See p. 30, fn. 7. 4 On the use of ‫ אֹזֶ ן‬in the singular, see our discussion above, § aa. 5 See Kutscher (1974.388) on ‫ חומו֗ ת‬1QIsaa 22.11 for ‫ חֹמ ַֹתיִם‬MT, ‫ דלתות‬1QIsaa 45.1 for ‫ ְדּ ָל ַתיִם‬MT, and ‫ שפאותיכה‬1QIsaa 37.29 for ‫ ְשׂ ָפ ֶתיָך‬MT. 6 Cf. ‫ ַא ְר ַבּ ְע ָתּיִם‬2Sm 12.6, ‫ ִרבּ ַֹתיִ ם‬Ps 68.18, and JM § 100 o.



Si vera lectio, ‫ משכבי‬in ‫אל ֗אשה למשכבי זכר‬ ֯ ‫ לוא י֯ קרב‬1QSa 1.10 is rather strange: ‘he shall not approach a woman for sexual intercourse.’ The pl. form in ‫ֶאת־זָ ָכר לֹא‬ ‫ ִת ְשׁ ַכּב ִמ ְשׁ ְכּ ֵבי ִא ָשּׁה‬Lv 18.22, an injunction against sodomy’ does not apply here. (1) h) Fractions ‫‘ אמתים וחצי‬two cubits and a half’ 1QM 5.6; ‫‘ מעשר העם‬one tenth of the people’ 11Q19 58.5; ‫ אחד מן המאה‬.. ‫‘ אחד מאלף‬one thousandth .. one hundredth’ 11Q19 58.13. Note the use of an ordinal numeral in its f.s. form as in ‫‘ שלישית‬a third’ 4Q159 1ii+9.8; ‫‘ רביעית ההין‬a quarter of a hin’ 11Q19 18.6; ‫‘ חמישית אנשי המלחמה‬one fifth of the fighting troops’ 11Q19 58.7 // ‫( מעשר‬line 5); QH does not use ‫ עשירית‬as a fraction, whereas in BH it is used only to indicate a portion of ‫יפה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬as in ‫ ֲע ִשׂ ִירת ָה ֵא ָפה‬Lv 5.11, see also ‫יפה‬ ָ ‫ ֲע ִשׂ ִירת ַהח ֶֹמר ָה ֵא‬Ezk 45.11.

§ 9 ADJECTIVE a) Standard usage Attributive Indeterminate: ‫‘ עם רב‬a huge army’ 1QpHab 4.3; ‫‘ גוים רבים‬many nations’ 4Q387 2ii10; ‫‘ ארצות רבות‬many lands’ 1QpHab 6.8; determinate—‫‘ הכוהן הגדול‬the high priest’ 11Q19 15.15; ‫‘ אוצרו הטוב‬his goody treasure’ 11Q14 1ii8. Predicative ‫‘ טוב האור‬the light is good’ 4Q408 1+3.9; ‫‘ רבה קנאת אנוש‬man’s zeal is considerable’ 4Q418 8.12; ‫‘ רבים רחמיכה‬Your mercies are abundant’ 4Q481c 6. b) Substantivised Cases of substantivised adjectives are plenteous. E.g. Personal: ‫‘ להבין ישרים‬to help upright people gain understanding’ 1QS 4.22; ‫‘ כול חי‬every living being’ 1QS 4.26; ‫‘ רשעים‬wicked (people)’ 1QS 8.7; ‫‘ ברית ראשונים‬the covenant with the forefathers’ CD 1.4; ‫‘ עזרתה נפש עני ו֗ ֗רש מיד חזק ממנו‬You helped the soul of a humble and poor ‫‘ ע‬a poor person’ 4Q200 2.7 (= [ἀπὸ one against one stronger than he’ 1QHa 10.36; ‫עני‬ I παντὸς] πτωχοῦ To 4.7G ). Note ‫ הרבים‬as a technical term referring to the Qumran community: CD 13.7, 14.7, 12, 1QS 6.1+. Most likely personal: ‫‘ ויצדיקו רשע וירשיעו צדיק‬and they declared a wicked person righteous and declared a righteous person wicked’ CD 1.19, 4.7. (2) See Ibn Ezra ad loc., where the use of the plural (‫ )לשון רבים‬is so explained, but he justly does not go as far as to speak of the dual, though G ‫ ָשׁ ַכב‬is an act proper to males to be performed with a female, N ‫נִ ְשׁ ַכּב‬. 2 Application of ‫ ַצ ִדּיק‬to a non-personal entity only rarely occurs, e.g. ‫יקם‬ ִ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים ַצ ִדּ‬ ִ ‫ ֻח ִקּים‬Dt 4.8, ‫חוקים‬ ‫ צדיקים‬4Q369 1ii10. 1



Neuter: ‫‘ טמא בכול הונם‬impurity (attaches) to all their assets’ 1QS 5.20; ‫להבדיל בין‬ ‫‘ הטמא לטהור‬to distinguish between the impure and the pure’ CD 6.17; ‫בין טוב לרע‬ ‘between good and evil’ 4Q418 2+2a-c7; ‫‘ לעשות הטוב והישר לפניו‬to do what is good ֗ ‘to do what is evil in Your and upright in His presence’ 1QS 1.1 (1); ‫לעשות הרע בעיניךה‬ eyes’ 4Q504 5ii5; ‫‘ רקים‬vanities’ 1QS 10.24. The adjective in ‫‘ לרחוק מכול רע‬to keep away from every evil’ 1QS 1.4 can have a personal referent, but the parallelism in the following clause clinches the matter: ‫‘ לדבוק בכול מעשי טוב‬to keep to every good deed.’ Also at ‫ בית תמים ואמת‬1QS 8.9 note the parallelism with ‫אמת‬, so that ‫תמים‬ cannot have a personal referent. The same applies to ‫ תמים‬in the st. cst. at ‫בתמים דרך‬ ‘in the uprightness of conduct’ 1QS 8.10 (2), thus synonymous with ‫ תם דרך‬as in ‫ תום הדרך‬1QS 11.11. (3) See also below at § 21e. A f.sg. adjective also serves the same function when the referent is impersonal as in ‫על‬ ֗ ֗‫ועצת בלי‬ ֗ ‫והרחיק ממך מחשבת רעה‬ ‘and He will keep away from you thought of evil and design of Belial’ MMT C 29. (4) On the f.pl. adjectives with non-personal referents as in ‫‘ לברוא חדשות‬to create new things’ 1QHa 5.28, see above § 6 c. c) Comparative and superlative Though there is no inflection in respect of degree, comparative and superlative, the idea of comparative may be expressed as in ‫‘ מיין יערבו‬they could be more pleasant than wine’ 4Q372 3.5. An instance of the superlative degree is ‫מכל הימים‬ ‫‘ ֯ק ֗דוש הוא מ‬it is the holiest of the days’ 4Q218 1.2; ‫‘ קטן הייתי מן אחי וצעיר מבני אבי‬I was the smallest among my siblings and the youngest among my father’s sons’ 11Q5 28.3. Another approximation to the superlative is illustrated in ‫מלך מלכים‬ ֗ . . ‫‘ קדוש קדושים‬the holiest one .. the supreme king’ 4Q381 76+77.7; ‫‘ אל אלים‬the supreme God’ 4Q403 1ii9, ִ ‫ֹלהי ָה ֱא‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬Dt 10.17. cf. ‫ֹלהים וַ ֲאד ֹנֵ י ָה ֲאד ֹנִ ים‬ Stative verbs may be used in an analogous fashion, e.g. ‫‘ י֗ כבדו איש מרעהו‬one could carry more weight than another’ 4Q418 55.10. d) Adverbially used An adjective may be used with the value of an adverb. E.g. ‫בכל הולכי תמים תעבה נפשם‬ ‘their soul loathed all who walk upright’ CD 1.20, where ‫ תמים‬cannot be a predicative complement in view of the discord in number with ‫הולכי‬. The collocation, which also occurs in 4Q525 5.11 and with the verb in the singular as in ‫ ה ֵֹלְך ָתּ ִמים וּפ ֵֹעל ֶצ ֶדק‬Ps 15.2 In view of these two instances of the neuter ‫‘ טמא‬impurity’ Wernberg-Møller’s (1957.97) proposal to see here an unorthodox spelling for ‫)ט ְמ ָאה =( טמאה‬ ֻ would look unlikely. 2 Scarcely “among the perfect of the Way” (Charlesworth 1994.35); a m.sg. adjective is unlikely to refer to a group of persons bearing the character indicated by it. 3 Cf. Muraoka 1996a.56f. 4 The variant reading, ‫רע‬, in MS 4Q399, may indicate a personal referent, the evil one, in view of its parallel ‫בליעל‬, but ‫ רע‬1QHa 15.6 is parallel to ‫‘ רוע‬evilness,’ though Belial is round the corner. 1



and ‫הוֹלְך תמים‬ ֵ Pr 28.18 may be an extension of ‫ הלך בדרך תמים‬as in ‫תלך ְבּדרך תמים‬ Ps 101.6, and we seem to have an abbreviated version in ‫ הלכים ְבּתמים‬Ps 84.12, 1QS 9.6, 8. It then goes back to a substantivised adjective, see above § a. The participle can be in the st. abs. as in ‫הולכים תמים‬, following ‫ שומרי מצוותיו ומחזקי בר]י[ת‬1QSb 2.1f. BH often uses ‫ ַמ ֵהר‬adverbially in the sense of ‘speedily,’ what we also find in ‫ואבדתם‬ ‫‘ מהר‬and you will perish fast’ 4Q130 1.24 for ‫ ְמ ֵה ָרה‬Dt 11.17 MT. See ‫‘ נאמנה שמעתי‬I have dutifully listened’ 1QHa 20.15. (1)

§ 10 ADVERB (2) a) Adverbial morphemes ‫ה‬-ָ and ‫ם‬-ָ The first, unstressed BH morpheme with terminal, directional or spatial value has most likely survived in ‫לוא יבוא שמה‬ ֗ ‫‘ הבית אשר‬the house which he shall not enter’ 4Q174 1+2i3; ‫‘ השערים באים פנימה‬the gates project inwardly’ 11Q19 36.14; even in an otiose manner, (3) e.g. ‫ לפניםה באים‬.. ‫‘ יוצאים לחוץ‬protrude outwards .. extend inwards’ 11Q19 41.13 (4); ‫‘ תעשה פנימה נשכות‬you shall make storerooms inside’ 11Q19 41.17; ‫‘ לחוצה מזה‬outside of this’ 4Q365a 2ii9 // ‫ אל החוץ‬4Q365a 5i4; ‫‘ מוריד עד שאולה‬He brings down to Sheol’ 4Q200 6.6 (5); ‫‘ מרוגלת הנה והנה‬attached on either side’ 1QM 5.13; ‫‘ ככה יעשו‬thus they shall do’ 1QS 2.19; ‫‘ עד אנה‬till when?’ 4Q177 10-11.8; ‫ששים שנה‬ ֗ ‫‘ בן חודש‬from a month old and upward’ ‫‘ ומעלה‬sixty years and above’ CD 10.8 // ‫ולמ ֗ע ֗לה‬ 4Q365 27.4 < ‫ ֶבּן־ח ֶֹדשׁ וָ ָמ ְע ָלה‬Nu 3.28; ‫‘ ממעלה‬from above’ 1QIsaa 45.8 (‫ ִמ ַמּ ַעל‬MT); ‫‘ מעלה לכול תבל‬above the entire earth’ 11Q5 22.12; ‫למעלה ולמטה‬ ‫שב הדם למ‬ ֯ ‫‘ ש‬the blood returns upwards and downwards’ 4Q272 1i3; ‫יככה ישתלמו‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗אי‬How are they going to be recompensed?’ 4Q388 7.5 (6). Otiose against the underlying MT: ‫ושמה אחימן‬ 4Q27 3ii+5.13 // ‫ וְ ָשׁם‬Nu 13.22; ‫בבלה‬ ‫ בב‬4Q56 24-25.10 // ‫ ָבּ ֶבל‬.. ‫ נִ ָשּׂא‬Is 39.6, but ‫ִשׁ ַלּ ְח ִתּי ָב ֶב ָלה‬ 7 ‫מזרח השמ‬ ‫ מ‬4Q50 2-3.6 (8);ֽ Is 43.14 // ‫ בבל‬4Q56 31i3 ( ) and ‫ ִמזְ ְר ָחה ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ‬Jdg 21.19 // ‫שמש‬ On a facilitating, modernising change of ‫ ַר ַבּת‬Ps 129.2 to ‫ רבות‬11Q5 5.4, see Muraoka 2018a.163f. This conventional label might sound a little too restrictive when one is faced with a case such as ‫‘ לערים הרחוקות ממכה מאודה‬to the cities very far from you’ 11Q19 62.12, where ‫ מאודה‬is qualifying an adjective, ‫רחוק‬. Note also ‫אמו֗ ֗ת‬ ֗ ‫שב ֗ע‬ ֗ ‫היכל‬ ֗ ‫מקיר ֗ה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗ר ֯חו֯ ֗ק‬distanced from the wall of the temple seven cubits’ 11Q19 30.6, sim. 31.11, 46.15; ‫‘ לערים הרחוקות ממכה מאודה‬to the cities very far from you’ 11Q19 62.12; ‫‘ קרוב למקדשי דרך שלושת ימים‬near enough to My sanctuary to be reached in three days’ 11Q19 52.14. 3 A feature already attested in BH as in Gn 25.10 quoted above, see JM § 93 e. Hence this cannot be indicative of QH as “anti-language,” as claimed by Rendsburg 2010.236f. On the fluctuation between the two forms, see also Qimron 2018.363, n. 21. 4 Cf. ‫ימה וְ ַל ִחיצוֹן‬ ָ ִ‫‘ ִל ְפנ‬inwards and outwards’ 1Kg 6.30. 5 The scribe scratched out the final ‫ה‬, though there is a BH precedent: ‫אוֹלה‬ ָ ‫ יָ שׁוּבוּ ְר ָשׁ ִעים ִל ְשׁ‬Ps 9.18. 6 In two other copies of the document in question, pseudo-Ezekiel, the reading is ‫היכ ֗כה‬ ֗ (4Q385 2.3) and ‫(֜ הכה‬4Q386 1i2), on which latter cf. Qimron 2008.364, n. 26. In BH the position of the accent is unstable: ‫יכ ָכה‬ ָ֫ ‫ ֵא‬Ct 5.3 vs. ‫יכ ָ֫כה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬Est 8.6. 7 More BH examples of the morpheme added to place names may be found in JM § 93 d. 8 On the anomalous vocalisation ‫מזְ ְר ָחה‬, ִ cf. JM § 93 c. 1 2



‫ם־שׁם‬ ָ ַ‫ גּ‬Is 23.12 // .. ‫ שמה‬4Q57 9.17, cf. ‫בוֹדָך‬ ֶ ‫ ָשׁ ָמּה ָתמוּת וְ ָשׁ ָמּה ַמ ְר ְכּבוֹת ְכּ‬Is 22.18 // ‫ ושם‬.. ‫ שם‬4Q60 17.7; ‫ישחט מחוצה למחנה‬ ֯ ‫ ישח‬4Q26 4.3 // ‫ ִמחוּץ‬Lv 17.3 (1). Note also ‫עד‬ a ‫‘ ימימה‬for days on end’ 1QH 16.31, cf. ‫ימה‬ ָ ‫יָמ‬ ִ֫ ‫‘ ִמיָּ ִמים‬year in year out’ 1Sm 1.3. Otiose even with no value of directional, but merely locative and with ‫מן‬, a preposition of reverse meaning added: ‫‘ ויקום משמה‬and he will rise from there’ 4Q177 1-4.13 and ‫‘ יצאתה משמה‬you came out from there’ 4Q138 1.26, cf. ‫‘ ָשׁ ָמּה ֻק ַבּר ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬there A. was buried’ Gn 25.10; ‫ואצאו מחוצה למחנות‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו‬and they shall go out the camps’ 4Q491 1-3.9; ]‫‘ מביתה ליק‬from inside of ..’ 4Q405 15ii-16.6. At ‫חוצה למחנה הוא חוצה לירושלים‬ MMT B 30 the sufformative of ‫ חוצה‬is certainly otiose, but ‫ חוצה‬is not functioning as a substantive meaning ‘area outside (of ..),’ (2) but what is meant here is ‘‫חוצה למחנה‬ means ‫ ;’חוצה לירושלים‬the reconstructed text with ‫ הוא‬in between is to be accepted, and its function is to be compared with a case such as ‫‘ פשרו הקריה היא ירושלים‬its interpretation—‘the city is a reference to Jerusalem’ 1QpHab 12.7, see below at § 36 (10). Nor is every case of this sufformative in QH otiose, (3) as shown in cases such as ‫באים פנימה‬ ‘leading inwardly’ 11Q19 36.14 and ‫ תבוא שמה‬4Q35 2-4.29 (MT ‫ ָתּבֹא ָשׁם‬Dt 1.37). The use of this feature in QH is, in comparison with BH, rather modest. (4) No instance of ‫ארצה‬, ‫שמימה‬, ‫( ביתה‬5) is found in QH except in ‫ ימה‬and ‫ כברתה‬mentioned below. However, a figurative, non-locative, innovative use is indicative that the morpheme still retained some life: ‫‘ חוצה מן המשפט‬illegally’ 4Q270 7i12; ‫מצרי֗ ם ריקמה הלכנו‬ ֯ ‫‘ מצ‬we went to Egypt empty-handed’ 4Q462 5 (6). This vitality of the morpheme is shown by two forms unknown to BH: ‫ תחתה‬and ‫‘ מתחתה—סביבה‬underneath’ 1QIsaa 51.6 (MT ‫‘ ִמ ַתּ ַחת(; רוחות אלוהים סביבה למעון‬divine winds round about the residence of’ 4Q405 6.7, possibly also ]‫‘ להבת אש סביבה ֗ל‬a flame of fire round about (?)’ 4Q403 1ii9 and ‫‘ סביבה ֯מחוץ למחנות‬round about outside of the camps’ 4Q491 1-3.6. (7) The extension of this morpheme to ‫מאוד‬, peculiar to QH, is striking (8): e.g. ‫שמחי‬ ‫‘ מאדה‬Rejoice exceedingly’ 1QM 12.13, ‫ שמחי מואדה‬1QM 19.5; ‫הגברתה מודה מודה‬ ‘You have acted very powerfully indeed’ 1QHa 19.6; ‫‘ לערים הרחוקות ממכה מאודה‬to 1

Adduced by Qimron 2018.366. Pace DJD 10.75 (§ 3 Pace DJD 10.75 (§ 4 1QIsaa appears to be fond of ‫ ;שמה‬in 11 cases where it differs from MT, it is always in favour of ‫שמה‬, no instance being attested of MT ‫ > שמה‬1QIsaa ‫שם‬. For the references, see Kutscher 1974.413 and Muraoka 2000.206. 5 In ‫ ֗פלא מביתה ליק‬4Q405 15ii-16.6 the text is too fragmentary to analyse ‫ ביתה‬with certainty. See also Qimron 2018.366f., § 2.4. Qimron’s (2018.403) statement is in need of some modification, for it is not true to say “In DSS Hebrew, there is no indication of the a of direction.” 6 See a discussion by Bar-Asher (2002.7-15), who underlines the morphological duplication of this new lexeme unknown to BH. Note, however, ‫מצרים‬, and not ‫ ;מצרימה‬likewise in a phylactery, 4Q128 1.26 for ‫יְמה‬ ָ ‫ יָ ְרדוּ ֲאב ֶֹתיָך ִמ ְצ ָר‬Dt 10.22 MT. 7 Cf. Muraoka 2000.206-08, § [9]. Qimron (2018.368) mentions ‫ ליש‬1QIsaa 10.30 (// MT ‫)ליְ ָשׁה‬, ַ ֫ where the final vowel of the MT form cannot be an adverbial morpheme, for we have here a vocative; it might be either a scribal error or an unknown place name, cf. Kutscher 1971.107f. See also a discussion by Qimron (2018.366, 368). 8 Bar-Asher (2003a.74f.) holds that the morpheme /-a/ makes its adverbial nature transparent. 2



the cities very far from you’ 11Q19 62.12 < ‫ ְמאֹד‬. . Dt 20.15, et passim. Let us note here cases of this morpheme in QH biblical fragments against the MT: ‫ִכּ ְב ַרת ֶא ֶרץ‬ Gn 48.7 // ‫ כברתה ארץ‬4Q6 1.13; ‫ את ְפּ ַאת יָם‬Nu 35.5 // ‫ את פאת ימה‬4Q27 75-79.27, cf. // MT ‫‘ בא אל עיתה ;את פאת ֵק ְד ָמה‬he came to Aith’ 4Q161 1-6.21, ‫על עיתה‬ 1QIsaa 10.28 // ‫ ַעל ַעיִת‬MT; ‫ בפרתה‬4Q70 8i5 // ‫ ִבּ ְפ ָרת‬Je 13.5 MT. Note further examples of variation between QH biblical texts vis-à-vis their MT equivalent: ‫ בב‬4Q56 24-25.10, but ‫ִשׁ ַלּ ְח ִתּי ָב ֶב ָלה‬ MT ø vs. QH + ‫ ה‬locale: ‫ ָבּ ֶבל‬.. ‫ נִ ָשּׂא‬Is 39.6 // ‫בבלה‬ Is 43.14 // ‫ בבל‬4Q56 31i.3; ‫ם־שׁם‬ ָ ַ‫ גּ‬Is 23.12 // .. ‫ שמה‬4Q57 9.17; ‫ בא ָה ִעיר‬1Sm 21.1 // ‫מח‬ ‫ העירה‬4Q52; ‫ להביא גַ ת‬1Sm 27.11 // ‫ גתה‬4Q51; ‫ ויבאו ַמ ֲחנָ יִ ם‬2Sm 2.29 // ‫מחנימה‬ ‫ חבר‬4Q51; ִ‫רוּש ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫ י‬.. ‫ וַ יָּ ֶשׁב‬2Sm 15.29 // ‫ירושלימה‬ ֯ ‫ירו‬ 4Q51; ‫ ֶח ְברוֹן‬.. ‫ וַ יָּ ָשׁב‬2Sm 3.27 // ‫חברונה‬ ָ ‫ב־תּ‬ ֵ ֶ‫ נֶ ג‬Ex 27.9 // 4Q51; ‫ ִמ ַמּ ַעל‬Is 6.2, 14.13 // ‫ ממעלה‬1QIsaa, sim. Is 45.8 (1); ‫ימנָ ה‬ ‫ נגבה תימנה‬4Q11 35.5; ‫ ָצפוֹן‬.. ‫ימנָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ֵתּ‬Ex 26.35, 4Q11 30.10 // ‫ צפונה‬.. ‫תימנה‬ 4Q364 17.4; ‫ ָתּבֹא ָשׁם‬Dt 1.37 // ‫ תבוא שמה‬4Q35 2-4.29. ָ ‫ ַה ְשׁ ֵכּב‬2Sm 8.2 // QH ø vs. MT + ‫ ה‬locale: ‫יְמה‬ ָ ‫ גִּ ָתּ‬2Sm 4.3 // ‫ גתיים‬4Q51; ‫אוֹתם ַא ְר ָצה‬ ‫ארץ‬ ֯ ‫ א‬4Q51; ‫ ֵה ַקל ַא ְר ָצה זְ ֻבלוּן וְ ַא ְר ָצה נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬Is 8.23, where the He locale is difficult // ‫ ארץ זבולון והארץ נפתלי‬1QIsaa is no less difficult; ‫ ַה ָשּׁ ְע ָרה‬.. ‫הוֹציאוּ‬ ִ ְ‫‘ ו‬.. to the gate’ ‫השמ‬ ֯ 4Q22 5.8; ‫יָ נוּס‬ Dt 22.15 // ‫ השער‬11Q19 65.10; ‫יִמה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ָשּׁ ַמ‬Ex 9.8, 4Q1 37.2 // ‫מים‬ ‫ ָשׁ ָמּה‬Ex 21.13 // ‫ שם‬4Q22 23.8; ‫את ָשׁ ָמּה‬ ָ ‫ ֵה ֵב‬Ex 26.33 // ‫הבאות שם‬ ‫ ה‬4Q11 30.7, ָ Dt 3.27 // ‫ים וצפנה‬ 4Q11 30ii-34.7; ‫ ָצפֹנָ ה‬Ex 40.22 // ‫ צפון‬4Q17 2 ii20; ‫יָמּה וְ ָצפֹנָ ה‬ 4Q31 2.17; ‫ ֲע ֵלה ֵא ַלי ָה ָה ָרה‬Dt 10.1 // ‫ ֗ההר‬4Q364 14.3, ib. 26ii19; ‫ַא ָתּה ע ֵֹבר ָשׁ ָמּה‬ Dt 3.21 // ‫ שם‬4Q40 1-3.7; ‫ שם‬4Q522 22-25.3 < ‫ ָשׁ ָמּה יָ ְשׁבוּ‬Ps 122.5. As far as this locative morpheme is concerned, QH was fast approaching the situation which would prevail in MH, though the morpheme was still an integral part of the langue of authors and copyists of the DSS. (2) Supposing that ‫‘ עתה‬now,’ e.g. ‫‘ ועתה שמעק‬and now listen!’ CD 1.1 was accented in QH on the last syllable as in BH, we would set up a separate subgroup. (3) The stressed sufformative ָ-‫ ם‬is also legacy from BH: ‫‘ יומם ולילה‬day and night’ 1QS 6.6+; ‫‘ חנם תעבו֗ ד‬you shall work unpaid’ 4Q416 2ii17; ‫ ריקם‬.. ‫‘ תשלח ידכה‬.. send your hand .. empty’ 4Q418 96.4. On this alternation, cf. Kutscher 1974.391, though he does not mention ‫ מתחת‬/ ‫מתחתה‬. Cf. Muraoka 2000.206-08. 3 Brockelmann (1908 I 464 with n. 2) argues for the residue of an adverbial accusative. He puts this lexeme on the one hand and ‫ ַ֫א ְר ָצה‬and others on the other into the same basket, but nowadays the latter are believed to have a different history with the final ‫ ה‬as a consonant, no vowel letter; see JM § 93 c with n. 2 there. We hesitate to follow Qimron (2018.363, n. 18), who puts ‫ ְמ ֵה ָרה‬spelled ‫ ֯מהר‬at 4Q128 1.41 for ‫ ְמ ֵה ָרה‬MT Dt 11.72 into the same category as ‫מאומה‬, an indefinite pronoun (§ 5a c). This is probably an adverbially used fem. adjective, whereas BH ‫ מהר‬is distinct as shown by its vocalisation, ‫מ ֵהר‬, ַ not ‫ָמ ֵהר‬ or suchlike. ‫ ַמ ֵהר‬is probably an inf. abs., see below § 18 of. Qimron (2018.364 [§ G 2.2.4]) admits ‫ סביבה‬4Q491 1-3.6 as an adverb alongside the standard ‫ס ִביב‬, ָ but the context is rather poorly preserved; it could be ‫ס ִב ָיבהּ‬. ְ As ambiguous is ‫ להבת אש סביבה ֗ל‬4Q403 1ii9, on which see above § a and § 11 b. 1 2



b) Substantivisation Lexemes which are normally used as adverbs are occasionally found as functioning as ‫מהומ‬ ֗ ‘never-ending noise’ 4Q184 1.13 (1). substantives. E.g. ‫ומת תמי֯ ֯ד‬ In ‫‘ אנשי היחד‬men of the community’ 1QS 5.1, originally from adv. ‫‘ יַ ַחד‬together’; in ‫בוא יומם ולילה‬ ‫ עם מבו‬1QM 14.13 we see ‫יומם‬, originally ‫ יום‬adverbialised, now being used as a normal substantive, “during the daytime” as against “at night” > “the daytime,” cf. ‫ עם מבוא יום ולילה‬1QS 10.10. So also ‫‘ מוצא לילה ומבוא יומם‬departure of night-time and arrival of daytime’ 1QHa 20.10. The process of substantivisation is complete with the addition of the article as in ‫‘ ממשל או֗ ר היומם‬to control the light of daytime’ 4Q503 15-16.6, sim. ib. 1-3.10, 7-9.1. (2) c) Substantives adverbialised Some nouns, especially those with locative value, may be used as adverbs. E.g. ‫ללכת‬ ‫‘ ימין ושמאול‬to go right and left’ 1QS 1.15; ‫‘ לסור ימין ושמאול‬to turn off ..’ 1QS 3.10, cf. ‫‘ בבואך לסמול‬when you enter left’ 3Q15 10.5 and an ordinary substantive in the st. cst. and with a conj. pron. in ‫‘ לימין המערכה ולשמאולה‬to the right of the frontְ ‫לֹא ָאסוּר יָ ִמין‬ line and to its left’ 1QM 6.8. This feature is legacy from BH, e.g. ‫וּשׂמֹאול‬ Dt 2.27. Semantically ‫‘ סביב‬round about’ belongs here, e.g. ‫‘ מלינים סביב‬murmuring all round’ 1QHa 13.27 and ‫‘ סביב נכרתו צריך‬all around your enemies have been cut down’ 11Q5 22.10, so in BH, e.g. ‫ית ָע ָליו זֵ ר זָ ָהב ָס ִביב‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָע ִשׂ‬Ex 25.11. However, its origin from a substantive is not certain in spite of its substantival use as in ‫וַ ֶיִּבן ָה ִעיר ִמ ָסּ ִביב‬ ‫ד־ה ָסּ ִביב‬ ַ ‫ן־ה ִמּלּוֹא וְ ַע‬ ַ ‫ ִמ‬1Ch 11.8, where ‫ מסביב‬reminds us of a collocation such as ‫ִמ ָצּפוֹן‬ ‘to the north.’ Nouns with temporal value also belong here. E.g. ‫‘ איש דורש בתורה יומם ולילה‬a man who studies the Torah day and night’ 1QS 6.6 (‫ לילה‬// ‫ יומם‬marked as adverbial); ‫עם מבוא‬ ‫‘ יום ולילה‬with the arrival of day and night’ 1QS 10.10 (with a verbal noun) // ‫עם מ]בו[א‬ ‫ יומם ולילה‬1QM 14.13. In a BH poetic diction we sometimes meet with ‫ עו ָֺלם‬in lieu of ‫ ְלעו ָֺלם‬or ‫עד עו ָֺלם‬, ַ e.g. ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫עוֹלם ִל ְפנֵ י ֱא‬ ָ ‫ יֵ ֵשׁב‬Ps 61.8, ‫עוֹלם ָא ִשׁ ָירה‬ ָ ‫ ַח ְס ֵדי יְ הוָ ה‬Ps 89.2. A residue of this feature may be identified in ‫ יהוה ימלוך עולם ועד‬4Q365 6b3, interestingly with ‫יִמֹלְך ְלע ָֹלם וָ ֶעד‬ ְ ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬Ex 15.18 in the background. Note also ‫‘ נהיות עולם‬things which are happening all the time’ CD 13.8, 1QHa 5.29, 21.13; ‫‘ הוי עולמים ונהיית עד‬things that exist for ever and things which emerge constantly’ CD 2.10 (3). Here we may mention ‫‘ הויֿ א עולם משען ימיני‬one who exists for ever is the support of my right hand’ 1QS 11.4; ‫ הויא עולם‬also occurs in the next line and can be analogously interpreted, hence ‫= הויא‬ Qimron (II 127) refers to ‫‘ ֲא ֻר ַחת ָתּ ִמיד‬a life-long allowance’ Je 52.34. A process that had already started in LBH, e.g. ‫יוֹמם‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ‬Neh 9.9; see Joosten 2008.95-97, where a striking QH example, ‫ ויקרא אלהים לאור יומם‬4Q7 1.4 (Gn 1.4 rewritten!), is mentioned. 3 Qimron (I 7) analyses ‫ הוי‬as ‫הויי‬, i.e. pl. cst. and suggests emending ‫ נהיית‬to ‫נהיות‬, which, in theory, can be either abs. or cst. Cf. ‫‘ כול הויי עולמים‬all that exist for ages’ 4Q405 13.6; we fail to see how this could be translated “for all ages to come” (DJD 11.330). 1 2



‫הוֹיֶ א‬, and not = cst. ‫הוֹיֵ א‬. The phrase reminds one of ‫‘ וַ יִּ ָשּׁ ַבע ְבּ ֵחי ָהעו ָֺלם‬and he swore by the one who lives for ever’ Dn 12.7, where ‫ חי‬is vocalised as cst., and cf. ‫ְל ַחי ָע ְל ָמא‬ ‫ ַשׁ ְבּ ֵחת‬Dn 4.31 (1). d) Interrogative adverbs such as ‫‘ למה‬why?,’ ‫‘ מתי‬when?,’ ‫‘ איפה‬where?,’ ‫היכן‬ ‘where?,’ ‫‘ איך‬how?’ with its synonyms ‫( איכה‬2), ‫איככה‬, ‫היכה‬, ‫ היככה‬are all well attested.

§ 11 PREPOSITIONS a) Monolexemic There is nothing special to say about monolexemic, single prepositions in QH. However, the selection of the pl. form ‫ סביבות‬may have arisen from the perception that “round about” implies more than one space. (3) E.g. ‫‘ סביבות כול מחניהם‬round about all their encampments’ 1QM 7.7. This usage is already known to BH, e.g. ‫ ְס ִביבוֹת ַהיְ אֹר‬Ex 7.24. ֗ ‫סביבות‬ ֗ ‫‘ ערוה לוא יראה‬no nakedness shall be seen Also with a conj. pron., e.g. ‫יה ֗מה‬ round about them’ 4Q491 1-3.8; ‫‘ הגואים אשר סביבותי‬the nations who are round about me’ 11Q 56.13 (< Dt 17.14 MT). b) Compound prepositions As in BH, two or three prepositions are often attached to one another, forming a single lexeme, though not necessarily spelled as one lexeme, e.g. ‫‘ מאתם‬from among them’ 1QS 6.3; ‫‘ מאתך דרך כל חי‬the way of every living being originates with You’ 1QHa 7.35; ‫שמח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו֗ יצא מאתוה‬and he left his presence happy’ 4Q219 2.34; ‫‘ מבלעדיו‬without Him’ 1QS 11.10; ‫‘ לא נעדרו מלפניכה‬they were not missing from Your sight’ 1QHa 9.27; ‫לנגד‬ ‫‘ כול מעשיכה‬in the presence of all Your creatures’ 1QHa 9.35; ‫‘ להשמידם מעליה‬to destroy them from on it [= ‫ ’]ארץ‬4Q381 69.3; ‫( מעל לשמים‬MT ‫)מ ַעל ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬ ֵ Ps 148.4 11Q5 2.9; ‫‘ מתחת פנת האסטאן הדרומית‬underneath the southern corner of the portico’ 3Q15 11.2; ‫‘ אל בין המערכות‬to the space between the lines’ 1QM 7.14; ‫‘ מבין כול דגלי֗ ֯הם‬from among all their divisions’ 4Q405 20ii-22.14. In ‫‘ עד ממוחרת השבת השביעית‬till the day following the seventh sabbath’ 11Q19 18.12 -‫ מ‬is an integral part of ‫‘ ממחרת‬on the day following,’ thus not a second component of a compound preposition. By contrast, ‫ עד אל‬remedies a defective declension of ‫ עד‬in ‫‘ מאדם עד אליו‬from Adam up to him’ 4Q216 7.15. (4) 1 Bauer - Leander (1927 § 60 k) parse ‫ ַחי‬as cst., without offering why it has not been contracted to ‫חי‬, ֵ see ib. § 9 j-k. 2 ‫איכה‬ ֗ 4Q82 78ii-87.3 as restored in DJD 15.310 is reflected, as noted by Qimron (2018.364, n. 23), in Theodotion’s πῶς at Jon 2.5 for ‫ ַאְך‬MT. 3 Note the repetition of ‫ ָס ִביב‬in BH, albeit used adverbially, e.g. ‫ְוּדמוּת ְבּ ָק ִרים ַתּ ַחת לוֹ ָס ִביב ָס ִביב‬ 2Ch 3.4. 4 In BH this preposition with a conj. pron. is attested only in ‫ע ַדי‬, ָ ‫ע ֶדיָך‬, ָ and ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ע ֵד‬. ָ



As in BH, we encounter -‫סביב ל‬, e.g. ‫ביב לכיו֗ ֗ר‬ ֗ ‫תע ֗ל ֯ה ֗ס‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו֗ ֗עשיתה‬and you shall make a channel all round the laver’ 11Q19 32.12 and ‫‘ סביב לחוץ מחצר החיצונה‬round about the outside of the outer wall’ 11Q19 46.5. By virtue of its meaning, ‫‘ בין‬between, amongst’ is construed with two or more referents. It may be used as a simple, monolexemic preposition, e.g. ‫איבת עולם בין‬ ‫‘ מפלגותם‬eternal enmity between their divisions’ 1QS 4.17. Far more common is, however, the juxtaposition of two NPs to express the notion of between A and B. This is expressed in two patterns in Hebrew. 1) The commonest in QH is בין א ל‬, e.g. ‫‘ בין הטמא לטהור‬between the pure and the impure’ CD 6.17, ‫‘ בין֗ רוב למעט‬between much and little’ 4Q417 1i20, ֯‫לבנ֯ ו‬ ֗ ‫‘ ביין ֗אי֗ ש לרעהו֗ ובין אב‬between a person and his colleague, and between a father and his son’ 4Q377 1i6, ‫‘ בין התאו לתאו‬between chamber and ‫‘ עי‬his eyes are chamber’ CD 38.15; 2) בין א ובין ב‬, e.g. ‫עינ֗ י֗ ו֗ בין שחורות ובין ֯מנ֗ ֗מריות‬ ‫‘ א‬I establish between Me and between black and striped’ 4Q186 2i1; ‫אנ֗ וכי כורת ביני ובינך‬ you’ 4Q216 1.14. In BH the second pattern predominates with the ratio of 126 - 30. (1) Though the second component is not a preposition, we may bring here ‫‘ בעקר‬alongside,’ which has turned up for the first time in Hebrew: ‫‘ פניהם זה בעקר ז֗ ה‬their faces were next to one another’ 4Q385 6.8. (2) c) Pseudo-prepositions A noun, particularly that which indicates a body part, often combines with one of the standard prepositions, is used as a virtually new preposition, and the constituent nouns no longer fully bear a meaning which they would bear when used on their own. This is well known in BH: e.g. ‫ לפני עדים‬.. ‫‘ לפני הרבים‬before the assembly .. before witnesses’ 1QS 6.1; ‫ לפני֗ ֗כה‬4Q504 3.3 // ‫;נגדךה‬ ֗ ‫‘ על פי הכוהנים‬according to the opinion of the priests’ 1QS 6.19; ‫‘ על פי משפט בני צדוק‬in accordance with the judgement of the ֯ ‫‘ לפי מולואת לו‬when he has turned twenty years old’ sons of Z.’ 1QSa 1.2; ‫עש]רי[ם שנה‬ 1QSa 1.10; ‫מעשיך‬ ֯ ‫‘ נגלתה צדקתך לעיני כול‬Your righteousness has been revealed in the sight of all your creatures’ 1QHa 6.27; ‫‘ מקרב עדתם‬from inside of their congregation’ 4Q169 3-4ii5, and many more. ‫ לבלתי‬is a legacy from BH—‫‘ לבלתי שוב‬so that they would not fall back’ 1QS 10.11. d) Some prepositions double as conjunctions. E.g. ‫‘ למען יתפשו‬in order that they could be caught’ 1QHa 12.20 (3), also ‫‘ למען ידעו‬so that they may know’ 1QHa 12.33; ‫עד הם‬ 1

Barr 1978.3. The first pattern occurs 12 times in CBH, so 40%. The only instance in QH of the pattern closest to Engl. between A and B is ‫‘ ֗בין צדיק ורשע‬between the righteous and the evil’ CD 20.20. Qimron (2018.411) dismisses this as a misquote of ‫ ֵבּין ַצ ִדּיק ְל ָר ָשׁע‬Ma 3.18. LXX suggests, however, a possible textual variant: ἀνὰ μέσον δικαίου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον ἀνόμου, and note its sequel—καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ δουλεύοντος θεῷ καὶ τοῦ μὴ δουλεύοντος (ΜΤ ‫ֹלהים ַל ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא ֲע ָבדוֹ‬ ִ ‫)בּין ע ֵֹבד ֱא‬. ֵ Even-Shoshan (1965 s.v. ‫)בּין‬ ֵ mentions a rare example in RH: ‫רוֹעה וְ ַהזְּ ֵאב נִ ְב ַקע ַה ֶשּׂה‬ ֶ ‫‘ ֵבּין ָה‬the lamb became stuck between the shepherd and the wolf’ Tanch. ‫ וארא‬6. 2 See Qimron 1991.649-51, and cf. Tal 2000.660a. 3 In BH, too, ‫ למען‬can be used without ‫א ֶשׁר‬, ֲ e.g. ‫יטב ִלי‬ ַ ִ‫ ְל ַמ ַען י‬Gn 12.13.



‫‘ חיים‬when they are (still) alive’ CD 12.15. Cp. cases of ‫ למען‬as a preposition, e.g. ‫למען‬ ‫‘ אשמתם‬on account of their guilt’ 1QHa 13.27, ‫‘ למענכה‬for Your sake’ 1QHa 14.13, and ‫‘ למען הגבירכה‬in order for You to magnify Yourself’ 1QHa 13.17. At Ps 119.136 11Q5 12.10 ‫( על כי לוא שמרו תורתכה‬MT .. ‫)על לֹא‬ ַ we note the addition of ‫ כי‬in 11QPs, whereas the same preposition, though with concessive value, appears in 1QIsaa 53:9 ‫ =( על לוא חמס עשה‬MT). Two other places (Gn 31.20 and Jb 16.17), where ‫ ַעל‬functions as a conjunction, are not preserved in DSS. ‫ על כי‬also occurs twice more: Ps 139.14 11Q5 20.5 (= MT); Ml 2.14 4Q76 1.19 (= MT). e) A prepositional adjunct, as a rule, expands a noun phrase, a verb phrase or an adjective phrase as in ‫‘ משיח מאהרן‬a Messiah (descended) from Aaron’ CD 20.1, ‫וינגר כמים לבי‬ ‘and my heart was poured out like water’ 1QHa 16.33, and ‫קטן הייתי מן אחי וצעיר מבני‬ ‫‘ אבי‬I was the smallest among my siblings and the youngest among my father’s sons’ 11Q5 28.3. Furthermore, it can also function as a predicate of a nominal clause as in ‫‘ עם אביונים יד גבורתכה‬with the poor is Your mighty hand’ 1QM 13.13. However, occasionally we find a prepositional phrase that is not dependent on any clause constituent, e.g. ‫‘ אין כמוהו‬there is none like him’ 4Q161 5-6.12, ‫‘ לאהוב איש את אחיהו כמוהו‬for one to love his brother, one who is like him’ CD 6.20 (1). Here we have a shorthand for ‫איש‬ ‫כמוהו‬. Short of postulating a scribal error (‫ בוער‬for ‫( )בוערת‬2) we could so analyse ‫ויפרח‬ ֯‫בעצ ֯מי‬ ֯ ‫‘ כאש בוער עצור‬something like a fire grew, shut up in my bones’ 1QHa 16.31, where ‫ עצור בעצמי‬can be taken as a subject complement (§ 31 t) (3). f) After the preposition -‫כ‬, another preposition expected to follow may be omitted, e.g. ‫‘ כאלים יפחדו מהם‬they will fear them as (if they were) gods’ 4Q166 2.6, i.e. in lieu of ‫ כמאלים‬or ‫‘ ותעש להמה כפרעוה ;כאשר מאלים‬and may You do to them as (You did to) Pharaoh’ 1QM 11.9. (4) On conjunctions and presentatives in QH there is nothing special to be noted from the morphosyntactic perspective. We now move on to the most important and challenging part of speech, i.e. verb.

A variation on ‫ וְ ָא ַה ְב ָתּ ְל ֵר ֲעָך ָכּמוָֹך‬Lv 19.18, on a syntactic interpretation of which cf. Muraoka 1978. One could well analyse ‫ כמוהו‬as expanding ‫אחיהו‬, but not ‫לאהוב‬. The first two analyses come down more or less to the same thing, but quite distinct from the third. 2 Cf. DJD 40.224: “like burning fire.” Commentators justly mention ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ְב ִל ִבּי ְכּ ֵאשׁ בּ ֶֹע ֶרת ָע ֻצר ְבּ ַע ְצמ ָֹתי‬ Je 20.9, where ‫ ָהיָ ה‬appears to have ‫ ְדּ ַבר יהוה‬in vs. 8 as its subject. The same must apply to ‫ע ֻצר‬. ָ Has any commentator, however, noticed the fem. ‫ ?בּ ֶֹע ֶרת‬To invoke a mere two instances of masc. ‫ ֵאשׁ‬in BH, Je 48.45 and Ps 104.4, looks like a desperate remedy. 3 Licht (1957.138) identifies the subject of ‫ יפרח‬as ‫‘ כאיב‬pain,’ which, however, is at some distance away (line 28), and in between there are added at least two new substantives, both as grammatical subjects—‫ רוחי‬and ‫נפשי‬. Delcor (1962.210) rightly identifies Je 20.9 as the underlying biblical text, but there ‫ יפרח‬probably has ‘the word of JHWH’ (‫ )דבר יהוה‬as its subject, so no syntactic problem. 4 A BH example is ‫ל־תּ ְקשׁוּ ְל ַב ְב ֶכם ִכּ ְמ ִר ָיבה‬ ַ ‫‘ ַא‬Do not harden your heart as (you did at) Meribah’ Ps 95.8. More examples may be found in JM § 133 h. 1



§ 12 BINYANS (1) a) General introduction The conventional notion of ‘derived’ binyan notwithstanding, the value of a particular binyan of some verbs may need be analysed in relation to a binyan other than Qal. This naturally holds for internal passives. But there are also verbs, even of reasonable frequency, which do not occur in Qal, and it is not impossible that they were never used in Qal in Hebrew. E.g. √‫נכה‬, √‫שׁלך√ שׁכם‬, √‫שׁמד‬. Thus it is sensible to analyse ‫ נִ ְשׁ ַמד‬as passive ‫ ִה ְשׁ ִמיד‬than to derive it from a non-existent *‫;שׁ ַמד‬ ָ its internal passive 2 ‫ ֻה ְשׁ ַמד‬does not occur ( ). Again, is it linguistically productive to attempt to reduce ‫‘ ָמנָ ה‬to count’ and ‫ִמנָּ ה‬ ‘to appoint,’ for instance, to a single root? Is it not a fanciful exercise to adduce Engl. to recount in order to derive ‫ ִס ֶפּר‬from ‫‘ ָס ַפר‬to count’? At least from a synchronic perspective such an exercise is to be abandoned. Qal, Piel, and Hifil each have its own internal passive, which latter two will not be dealt with separately below. Since Nifal and Hitpael often compete with Piel passive (Pual) and Hifil passive (Hofal), the use of the internal passive is not very frequent, what also applies to BH. (3) There is still much that is obscure about the functions or values expressed by derived, non-G or Qal binyans. Even when we all know what a particular verb means, we might not know why such a sense is expressed in a particular binyan. E.g. D or Piel is agreed to have factitive or pluralising function with certain verbs. Why is such a common verb as ‫‘ ברך‬to bless’ used in D, and never in G? (4) b) Suppletion (5) As in BH, QH also knows of complementary distribution of binyan in the case of ‫ָשׁ ָתה‬ used only in G ‘to drink’ (6), but H ‫‘ ִה ְשׁ ָקה‬to give something as drink,’ e.g. ‫ישקום חומץ‬ 1

We are often going to use the following abbreviations: G = Qal, D = Piel, Dpassive = Pual, H = Hifil, Hpassive = Hofal, N = Nifal, tD = Hitpael. 2 It does occur in Modern Hebrew, but such is unattested in pre-Modern Hebrew. 3 Qimron (2018.183) says it is “quite rare.” His listing meant to be exhaustive, however, gives close on to 80 instances. Besides, he has not counted passive participles such as ‫‘ כתוב‬written.’ 4 Except in a common adoration addressed to the Divine as in ‫‘ ָבּרוְּך ַא ָתּה ֵא ִלי‬Blessed are You, o my God!’. 5 Cf. Qimron 2018.221f. 6 In BH and Si N ‘to be drunk’ also occurs: Lv 11.34, Si 34.28, 29.



‘they will give them sour wine to drink’ 1QHa 12.12. Unlike this pair of two distinct roots we find complementary distribution of two affiliated roots, √‫ יצב‬and √‫נצב‬. The former occurs in tD only, e.g. ‫‘ התיצבתי בגבול רשעה‬I have positioned myself in the domain of wickedness’ 1QHa 11.25; ‫‘ אלה יתיצבו‬these shall take up their positions’ 1QM 2.5; ‫‘ להתיצב במלחמה‬to take up his position in a battle’ 1QSa 1.21. Similarly to ‫התיצב‬, N ‫ נצב‬is intransitively used, but only in Ptc., (1) e.g. ‫המערכה‬ ‫‘ הנצבה למלחמת היום ההואה‬the line set for the battle of that day’ 4Q491 1+3.11. As a transitive verb it is used in H, e.g. ‫‘ חכמה ותושייה הציב לפניו‬He set wisdom and prudence in front of Him’ CD 2.3; ‫‘ יציבו לה חומה‬they will erect a wall for it’ 4Q379 22ii12. Another common verb root, ‫נגשׁ‬, as in BH, displays complementary distribution. Thus in G only Impf., e.g. ‫‘ יגש לריב‬he shall approach to arbitrate’ 1QSa 1.13, Impv. ‫‘ גשה‬Come near!’ 4Q234 1.3, and Inf. ‫‘ בגשתם למלחמה‬as they approach the battle’ 1QM 4.7, whereas for Pf. and Ptc. Nifal is used as in ‫‘ ונגש כוהן הרואש‬and the chief ֯ ‫‘ המערכו֯ ת הנגשות למלחמת‬the lines which priest shall approach’ 1QM 16.13 and ‫האו֯ יב‬ approach for a battle with the enemy’ 4Q491 1+3.14. A QH innovation is N inf. in ‫‘ בהנגשו‬when he approaches’ 4Q512 40-41.2. One may assume that, as in BH, the verb ‫ קוה‬displays an inflectional complementary distribution; there is no reason to think that its meaning in G differs from that in D. D is used in all categories other than Ptc. E.g. ‫‘ לכה קויתי‬I waited for You’ 11Q5 19.16 vs. ‫‘ קוי דעות‬those who wait for knowledge’ 4Q427 7i20. All participles, though not numerously attested, are substantivised. Cf. ‫‘ קואי יהוה‬those who wait for YHWH’ 4Q171 1-2ii4 (< Ps 37.9). Thus the partial restoration ‫(‘ מושיע ללקויך‬You) save those who ‫למ‬, cf. ‫ ָכּל־קוֶֹ יָך לֹא יֵ בֹשׁוּ‬Ps 25.3. wait for You’ 4Q381 44.3 is reasonable, and not ‫למקויך‬ c) Piel (2) 1) Factitive E.g. ‫‘ לפחד לבבו‬to make his heart fearful’ 1QS 4.2; ‫‘ לישר לפניו כול דרכי צדק‬to make all the ways of righteousness level before him’ 1QS 4.2; ‫‘ למלא פני תבל‬to fill the surface of the earth’ CD 2.11; ‫‘ שמח נפש עבדכה‬Gladden the soul of Your servant!’ 1QHa 19.33; ‫‘ מקי֗ ֗מי הברי֗ ת‬those who keep the covenant in place’ 11Q13 2.24 (3). The affinity between Hifil and factitive Piel is apparent in the variations such as ‫ ֵק ַר ְב ִתּי‬Is 46.13 // ‫ הקרבתי‬4Q57 27.39; ‫‘ לשכן שמכה שמה‬to cause Your name to settle there’ 4Q369 1ii1, ‫ לשכן שמי‬11Q19 60.13, ‫ אנוכי משכן את שמי‬11Q19 47.11 // ‫אשכין שמי‬ ‫ בה‬11Q19 45.12, ‫ אשכין שמי עליו‬11Q19 53.9 (4).

1 In BH we find it in Pf. quite often, e.g. ‫ ַמיִם נִ ְצּבוּ‬Ex 15.8. ‫ נצו֯ בים‬4Q384 20.4 is obscure; nowhere is the root attested in G. In Aramaic, however, we do come across ‫‘ למזרע ולמנצב‬to sow and to plant’ 5/6Ḥev 7.17. 2 On the diverse values of Piel in BH, see JM § 52 d. 3 Cf. Vermes 1997.502: “uphold,” not “establish,” what God does, unless the reference is to the new covenant in force in the Qumran community. 4 ‫ לשכין שמי‬11Q19 47.4, 56.5 also belongs here: ‫להשכין = לשכין‬, unless it is a plena spelling for ‫ל ַשׁ ֵכּן‬.ְ

THE VERB — § 12 b-d3


An example of factitive Dpassive is ‫ שוכבו‬Is 51.20 1QIsaa ‘they were made to spread lying’ from ‫ ָשׁ ַכב‬as a stative verb // MT ‫שׁ ְכבוּ‬. ָ (1) 2) Pluralising An action may be performed by or affect more than one entity or be repeated: ‫ַס ְקּלוּ‬ ‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶבן‬Is 62.10, a value apparently unknown to 1QIsaa G ‫‘ סקולו אבן‬pelt a stone(!)’ (2); ‫‘ מרחצים את הקרבים ואת הכרעים‬they wash the innards and paws’ 11Q19 34.10 (< ‫יִ ְר ַחץ‬ Lv 1.9); ‫ הממכרת גוים‬.. ‫‘ זונה‬a whore .. who trades with nations’ 4Q169 3-4ii7, where the D form in lieu of MT ‫ ַהמּ ֶֹכ ֶרת‬Na 3.4 might indicate more than a dialectal variant (3); ‫‘ רננו‬Keep raising a ringing cry’ 4Q510 1.8. ca) D vs. tD ‫יִת ַק ָלּס‬ ְ Hb 1.10 is twice converted to Pi.—‫ יֿ קלס‬1QpHab 3.1, ‫ וקלסו‬ib. 4. This accords a measure of credibility to ‫ ְל ַק ֵלּס‬Ezk 16.31, which is often emended to ‫ לקבץ‬in the light of, e.g. LXX συνάγουσα. (4) The tD here may have the value of simulation, ‘to act as a mocker,’ see below § f 6. d) Hifil (5) 1) Causative: ‘causative’ here does not necessarily imply compelling and coercion. Thus ‫‘ להבין ישרים בדעת עליון‬to help upright people attain understanding through knowledge of the Most High’ 1QS 4.22; ‫‘ משמיע‬announcing, communicating’ 4Q510 1.4; ‫עשות‬ ֗ ‫ולה‬ ֗ ‫לעשות‬ 6 ‫התורה‬ ֗ ‫‘ את כל‬to practise and help to practise the entire law’ 4Q470 1.7 ( ). 2) Estimative-declarative: ‫‘ ויצדיקו רשע וירשיעו צדיק‬and they declared the wicked righteous and declared the righteous wicked’ CD 1.19; ‫‘ ויטמאנו הכוהן‬and the priest declares him impure (‫’)ט ֵמא‬ ָ 11Q19 48.17. In ‫ יקדשו שמי‬Is 29.23 1QIsaa we probably have a defective spelling for ‫( יקדישו‬MT ‫)יַ ְק ִדּישׁוּ‬. 3) Ingressive Hifil may indicate entry into a state or condition: ‫‘ נכביד עליך‬we become a burden on you’ 2Sm 13.25 4Q51 // ‫ נִ ְכ ַבּד‬MT (7); ‫ עצמותיכה יחליצו‬Is 58.11 1QIsaa for MT ‫יַ ֲח ִליץ‬ with God as the subject, whereas the pl. form may not be explained away as wrongly The subject is ‫;בּנַ יִ ְך‬ ָ the verb does not appear to be carrying any sexual overtone here. A syntagmatic confusion is also to be seen in 1QIsab ‫ס ֯קלו אבן‬, ֯ for with this verb ‫ אבן‬is not used as a zero-object; it must be either ‫ באבן‬or ‫מאבן‬. 3 According to Qimron (2018.230, § C 3.4.1) the D form of this verb is common in Samaritan Hebrew. An index of passages in Ben-Ḥayyim (1977 IV 162f.) shows that the reading tradition in the Samaritan Pentateuch has plenty of instances of D ‫מכר‬, but not a single instance of G. See also Ben-Ḥayyim 2000.222f., § 2.15.5 and Fassberg 2001.245-47. Important to note is that in our corpus we find 4 instances clearly legible and analysable as G, e.g. ‫אל‬ ‫ ימכור‬CD 12.10 as against 8 equivocal cases analysable as D, e.g. ‫ אל ימכר‬CD 12.8. 4 3Q 1.1 ad loc. accords with MT: ‫לקלס‬. 5 Some Aramaising instances are attested, e.g. ‫‘ אחכרתי‬I have leased to you’ 5/6Ḥev 45.14 // ‫ החכרתי‬line 7. 6 On this striking use of H ‫עשׂה‬, see Bar-Asher 2003.176-80. 7 Cf. Muraoka 2015a.169. 1 2



influenced by the preceding pl. word, but represents an ingressive value “to become equipped, strong enough” with “your bones” as the subject rather than a factitive, causative value “to make strong enough” (1); possibly at ‫אמור להרויח לי מן הצרה‬ 4Q200 1i4 ‘Command so that I may be relieved from the distress’ 4Q200 1i4 (2). 4) Pseudo-Hifil Some verbs appear to be used indiscriminately in G as well as in H, when one cannot identify any specific H value to be assigned to them. ‫להגי֗ ֯ל עליו‬ ֗ ‘to rejoice over him’ 1QHa 7.28. Qimron (1989) holds that the verb is being used in the same sense as in Qal by analogy of verbs such as ‫שׂים‬, likewise in Impv. fp ‫ הגלנה‬1QM 12.13. (3) In BH we find ‫ ֵה ִריב‬only twice, apparently as synonymous with its Qal. (4) Then it would be unnecessary to take ‫לה ֗ריב אלה באלה‬ ֗ ‫ו֗ י֗ חלו‬ 4Q390 2i6 as meaning ‘and they will begin to set people against one another,’ but ‘they will begin to quarrel with one another.’ Note plain Qal forms: ‫‘ לריב ריב‬to engage in a dispute’ 1QSa 1.3; ‫‘ ריבה‬Argue!’ 4Q176 1-2i2. See also ‫ תיטיבי מני ֗א ֯מון‬4Q169 3-4iii8 < ‫יט ִבי ִמנֹּא ָאמוֹן‬ ְ ‫ ֵת‬Na 3.8, (5) where Qimron (II 285) suggests that ‫ מני‬can be a noun meaning ‘lot, portion,’ but is it not simpler to take it as a poetic equivalent of the preposiִ Another case is H ‫זנח‬, which in BH occurs in G and H alike as synonymous, tion ‫?מן‬ though interestingly enough its H is attested in Ch—1Ch 28.9, 2Ch 11.14, 29.19 and only in H. In QH the verb occurs four times (6), and always in H. It is unclear what is the difference from G in ‫‘ מסגירי הדלת‬those who close the door’ CD 6.12 // ‫ יסגור דלתי‬CD 6.13 and ‫ ויסגרו דלתי שחת‬1QHa 11.19. (7) 1

Thus contra Kutscher 1974.394f. The restoration ‫ לי‬we owe to Beyer (1994.136), accepted by Morgenstern (1997.138) and Qimron (II 243). Note the ingressive Hifil of the antonym, ‫צרר‬, in ‫ ְבּ ָה ֵצר לוֹ‬2Ch 28.22 (LXX: ἐν τῷ θλιβῆναι αὐτόν) and ‫ ְכּ ָה ֵצר לוֹ‬ib. 33.12 (LXX: ὡς ἐθλίβη). In both cases we see -‫ ל‬with the value of dativus incommodi and, though the LXX has an explicit subject, ‘he,’ the Hebrew inf. cst. is being impersonally used, what could apply to our 4Q200 example. However, the causative force may be intended as in MH, ‫הרוח להם מצרותיהם‬ ‘Relieve them from their troubles’ (rGn 75.13), but one also encounters ‫ הרויח‬with ingressive value, though with a personal subject as in ‫‘ אף החולין מרויחין‬also the sick are enjoying relief’ rGn 13.16. 3 Cf. DJD 40.107. As lying in the same lexical field one could also mention ‫שׂישׂ‬. Qimron (2018.186, § C 3.1.2) mentions ֗‫השי֗ ֗רו‬ ֗ ‘Sing!’ 4Q427 7i18, for which DJD 29.96 reads ֯‫השחו֯ ו‬, ֯ translating it “Worship!”(?). Qimron presumably has in mind a few BH examples in which this ubiquitous verb, ‫שׂים‬, ִ appears as a Hifil verb in the MT: ‫ וַ ֲה ִשׂמ ִֹתיהוּ‬Ezk 14.8, ‫ימי‬ ִ ‫ ָה ִשׂ‬ib. 21.21, and ‫ ֵמ ִשׂים‬Jb 4.20, on all of which scholars have cast doubt on their authenticity. The sole instance of Hofal, ‫יּוּשׂם‬ ַ ַ‫ ו‬Gn 24.33 Q, can be parsed as Qal passive. 4 BDB s.v. ‫ ִבּין‬brings ‫ל־פּ ֻעֹּלת יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ‫ לֹא ִיָבינוּ ֶא‬Ps 28.5 under Qal and ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ל־מ ֲע ֵשׂ‬ ַ ‫ל־כּ‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֵמּ ִבין ֶא‬Ps 33.15 justly under Hif., whilst the verb is given the same meaning. All the instances of Impf. brought under Qal there are morphologically equivocal. How should one parse ‫ יבן‬in ‫‘ ויבן אל אל מעשיהם‬and God considered their deeds’ CD 1.10? Though morphologically unambiguous, is ‫ להבין‬causative at ‫ותיים‬ ֗ ‫ להבין ֗כו֗ ֗ל ֗פ‬4Q418 221.2 and ‫ להבין פותאים‬1QHa 5.2? In ‫ ָה ִבינוּ ְפ ָתאיִ ם ָע ְר ָמה‬Pr 8.5 the verb is most likely mono-transitive, and not causative, with ‫ ְפ ָתאיִ ם‬as vocative, whilst it is causative in ‫ ֵמ ִבין ְפּ ָתיִ ים‬Ps 119.130. 5 Doudna 2001.515 reads ‫ תוטיבי‬with no comment, translating ‘will you do better,’ which cannot be right. 6 Qimron (I 67) reads ‫אל ֯ת ֯בש‬ ֗ ‫‘ א‬Don’t put to shame’ 1QHa 8.36 instead of ‫אל תזנח‬ ֯ ‫ א‬in DJD 40.109. 7 DCH 6.120b, s.v. ‫ סגר‬Hi. 6, assigns a sense ‘one who closes,’ specific to ptc. Our CD passage and a 4Q fragment of it are the only references for it. It is not immediately apparent why such a sense should be confined to a particular inflectional category, i.e. participle. 2

THE VERB — § 12 d3-d4


‫ מו‬4Q37 3.7, ‫מוסיפים אנחנו‬ ֯ ‫מו‬ Note also ‫ י ְֹס ִפים ֲאנַ ְחנוּ ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‬Dt 5.21(25) MT // ‫מוסיפים אנחנו‬ ‫ לשמוע‬4Q135 1.4, and ‫מוספים אנחנו לשמוע‬ ֗ 4Q137 1.30. Duncan (DJD 14.83) mentions Qimron (2008.243, § C 3.6.1) (1), who appears to follow the view that in LBH, QH, and MH Hifil begins to be used as a free variant of Qal with some verbs. (2) Qimron (2018.244) mentions ‫מוסיפים אנחנו לשמוע‬ ֯ ‫ מו‬4Q135 1.4 (3), which is a quote from ‫ י ְֹס ִפים ֲאנַ ְחנוּ ִל ְשׁמ ַֹע‬Dt 5.21(25) MT, whereas in QH in general this verb root, when used in the sense of ‘to do something again,’ is confined to H except, interestingly, in two cases in a commentary on Gn 8.12 and virtually as a quote from this text: ‫ ולוא יספה לשוב עוד‬4Q252 1.18; ‫יס ֯פה שוב עוד‬ ֯ ‫ ולוא‬ib. 20, which follows ‫ ולא יוסיפו עוד לתעות ה‬4Q169 3-4iii7; ‫ ויוסף לשלחה‬ib. 16 (with Hif.!). By contrast, see ‫הקהל‬ ‫ הוסיפו לברך את אל‬4Q286 7i8; ‫ אל יוסף לשוב אלי‬11Q5 24.12; ‫לוא תוסיף לשוב בדרך הזואת‬ ‫ עוד‬11Q19 56.18; ‫ לוא יוסיפו עוד לעשות כדבר הזה‬ib. 61.11. (4) Importantly, in the case of √‫ יסף‬it is used in Q and H indiscriminately quite often already in the Pentateuch, e.g. ‫שׁוּב־א ָליו עוֹד‬ ֵ ‫ לֹא־יָ ְס ָפה‬Gn 8.12 // ‫ת־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ָ ‫ לֹא־א ִֹסף ְל ַק ֵלּל עוֹד ֶא‬ib. 8.21. (5) ‫קוּעה‬ ָ ‫ ָתּמוּשׁ ַהיָּ ֵתד ַה ְתּ‬Is 22.25 // ‫ תמיש‬4Q55 11ii.25. However, this verb is transitively used even in Qal: ‫ץ־ה ִהיא‬ ַ ‫ת־עוֹן ָה ָא ֶר‬ ֲ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ִתּי ֶא‬ ַ Zc 3.9 (6), cf. ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫א־ת ִמישׁוּ ִמ ָשּׁם ַצוְּ אר ֵֹת‬ ָ ֹ‫ל‬ 7 Mi 2.3, transitive Hifil ( ). In neither BH nor QH there is any attestation of the verb unquestionably marked as H with a prefix morpheme -‫ ה‬or -‫מ‬, though there are attestations clearly marked as Q such as ‫‘ לֹא ָמשׁוּ‬they did not depart’ Nu 14.44. A case such as ‫יוֹמם‬ ָ ‫ לֹא־יָ ִמישׁ ַעמּוּד ֶה ָענָ ן‬Ex 13.22 is equivocal, for the subject can be God or the column of cloud. In ‫ אל ימש מאתם איש כוהן‬1QS 6.3 the very notion of ‘to get rid of a priest, deliberately to remove him’ sounds implausible; the form can represent ‫ָ֫י ֶמשׁ‬ ָ֫ ‘there should not be a priest absent.’ Likewise ‫ אל ימש איש כהן‬CD 13.2. (8) or ‫י ָמשׁ‬: Note also ‫ לֹא ֶא ְפגַּ ע ָא ָדם‬Is 47.3 // ‫ אפגיע‬4Q58 2.20. (9) In the case of √‫ בין‬BH uses it in both Q and H in the non-causative sense of ‘to comprehend.’ But all references for ‘to understand’ under Qal in BDB s. v. 2 are morphologically ambiguous (e.g. Impf.) and can be put under Hif. 1. 1 See also an extensive study by Moreshet 1976 in regard to MH. Qimron’s (2018.243f., § 3.6.1) position remains unchanged. 2 At ‫ נַ זְ ִכּיר ְשׁ ֶמָך‬Is 26.13 1QIsaa reads ‫נזכור‬. 3 See also ‫מוסיפים אנחנו‬ ‫ מו‬4Q37 3.7 and ‫מוספים אנחנו לשמוע‬ ֗ 4Q137 1.30. 4 Moreshet (1976.270) mentions a few MH examples of H where a biblical text with the same verb in Q is being commented on. 5 In origin, however, ‫הוֹסיף‬ ִ is not a genuine, but pseudo-Hifil form; JM § 75 f. Is ‫ תורישון‬4Q140 1.22 for ‫ ִתּ ָירשׁוּן‬Dt 5.33(30) MT a genuine case of extension or a mere scribal error? 6 Cf. ‫ ומשיתי‬4Q80 13.13. See Rogland 2013, where ‫ את‬is argued to be a preposition ‘with,’ hence ‘to depart with.’ Gesenius (1915 s.v.) mentions an Assyriological solution: mêšu ‘to overlook as a gracious gesture,’ so a third homonym beside I ‫ מושׁ‬or ‫‘ מישׁ‬to depart’ and II ‫‘ מושׁ‬to touch and feel after.’ 7 Gesenius (1915 s.v.) and Kaddari (2006.593b) admit both √‫ מושׁ‬and √‫מישׁ‬, hence not Hifil. Kaddari does not admit Hifil for this verb, whilst Gesenius admits an alternative analysis of ‫ ָת ִמישׁוּ‬Mi 2.3 as Hifil. 8 A few attestations in QH of the verb spelled with yod are ambiguous because of the insufficient context. Note, however, that among the 8 BH Impf. examples of the verb intransitively used we find one Ktiv ‫ תמישׁ‬for Qre ‫ ָתּמוּשׁ‬at ‫ לֹא־תמישׁ ָר ָעה ִמ ֵבּיתוֹ‬Pr 17.13. Kaddari (2006.593b) admits Qal only, giving ‫מושׁ‬ as well as ‫ מישׁ‬as the roots of the verb. 9 The verb here is an ancient crux, see e.g. Qimhi ad loc.



In the light of the massive evidence of BH, ‫ יורה‬as G ptc. in the sense of ‘teacher’ is an anomalous innovation on the part of the author of CD in ‫‘ מצות יוריהם‬the commandment(s) of their teacher’ CD 3.8, ‫‘ עד עמד יורה הצדק‬until the emergence of the teacher of righteousness’ CD 6.11, and ‫‘ מיום האסף יורה היחד‬from the day when the teacher of the community joined (his forefathers)’ CD 20.14( (1)). e) Nifal 1) Passive: e.g. ‫‘ נוסדו‬they were established’ CD 2.7; ‫‘ נשכבה‬she was made to have intercourse’ 4Q270 5.19 (2); ‫‘ ו֯ נ֗ ארותה‬and you become cursed’ 1Q26 1.6; ‫אדם מפאר‬ ‫‘ עליון ירצה כמגיש מנחה‬a person who glorifies the Most High will be accepted like one who presents an offering’ 11Q5 18.7, where ‫ ירצה‬could be Qal with God as the subject, whilst in ‫ ירצה בכפורי ניחוח לפני אל‬1QS 3.11 it cannot be anything other than N—‘he will be accepted by virtue of pleasing rites of atonement before God’ (3). 2) Passive of H: ‫‘ ויסגרו לחרב‬they were delivered to the sword’ CD 3.10, rather than Gpass, cf. ‫ נִ ָכּה‬2Sm 11.15 as equivalent to ‫;ה ָכּה‬ ֻ ‫‘ אל יאמן‬he is not to be believed in’ CD 10.2. 3) Reflexive: Inf.—‫‘ להבדל מבני השחת ולהנזר מהון הרשעה‬to dissociate oneself from the children of the pit and abstain from the ill-gotten mammon’ CD 6.14; Impv. ms ‫הנשא‬ ‘Lift up Yourself!’ 1QM 14.16 // Qal Impv. ‫‘ נשׁמר ;רומה‬to keep a watchful eye on oneself, to be on guard’—‫‘ ונשמרו מכול דבר טמאה‬and they shall be on guard against everything unclean’ 11Q19 58.17 (< ‫ וְ נִ ְשׁ ַמ ְר ָתּ ִמכֹּל ָדּ ָבר ָרע‬Dt 23.10) is to be compared with an active formulation as in ‫ל־רע‬ ָ ‫ יְ הוָ ה יִ ְשׁ ָמ ְרָך ִמ ָכּ‬Ps 121.7; the reflexive value is reinforced with ‫ לך‬in ‫‘ ׄהשמר לך פן תכרות ברית‬Take care not to make a covenant’ 4Q368 2.3; ‫נזהר‬ ‘to caution oneself,’ hence ‫‘ להזהר מכול תערו֯ בת‬to be careful about every form of mixture’ MMT B 50; ‫‘ להזהיר בדבר הזה‬to be careful about this matter’ ib. 12; Impv. fs ‫החלמי‬ ‘Take courage’ // ‫‘ אל תיראי‬Don’t be afraid’ 4Q222 1.2 (4). 4) Reciprocal: ‫‘ נדברו איש אל רעהו‬they talked to one another’ CD 20.17 (5); ‫בהשפטכה‬ ‫‘ בי‬when You deal with me as judge’ 1QHa 17.34; ‫‘ להלחם במלכי הצפון‬to battle with the kings of the north’ 1QM 1.4; ‫‘ ננו֗ עץ אל לבו‬He consulted His own mind [= He pondered]’ 4Q381 69.3. 1 ‫ היחד‬corrected from ‫( היחיד‬Qimron I 20); Qimron (op. cit.) provides ‫ מורה‬as a variant for ‫יורה‬, but we fail to see such a trace in the facsimile edition of the manuscript (Broshi 1992). 2 An example which could confer a measure of legitimacy on cases such as ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַכּב א ָֹתהּ‬Gn 34.2, cf. Driver 1913.298 ad 2Sm 13.14. Note ‫ ִתּ ָשׁ ַכּ ְבנָ ה‬Is 13.16 (Aquila: συγκοιτασθήσονται), Zc 14.2Q for ‫ ִתּ ָשּׁגַ ְלנָ ה‬K. At Is 13.16 we find ‫ תשכבנה‬in 1QIsaª for ‫ תשגלנה‬MT. 3 Licht (1965.80) mentions an active voice formulation at ‫ ְבּ ֵר ַיח נִ יח ַֹח ֶא ְר ֶצה ֶא ְת ֶכם‬Ezk 20.41. 4 Qimron (II 233 ad loc.) justly refers to ‫ החלימו את יעקוב‬Si 49.10 (LXX παρεκάλεσαν τὸν Ιακωβ). Here it is Jacob’s turn to encourage. 5 Charlesworth (1995.34) reads ‫נידברו‬, that is Nitpael, which can also have reciprocal value.

THE VERB — § 12 d4-e7


֗ ‫‘ כול‬all those who willingly come to me for examination’ 5) Tolerative: ‫יים לי‬ ֯ ‫הנדרשיי‬ a ֗ ‫‘ עין‬You did not mind appearing personally in our 1QH 12.25; ‫בעין נראי֗ תה בקרבנו‬ midst’ 4Q504 3.7. A BH example is ‫ ַה ִא ָדּר ֹשׁ ִא ָדּ ֵרשׁ ָל ֶהם‬Ezk 14.3. (1) So also ‫‘ ֵה ָא ְסרוּ‬Bear with confinement’ Gn 42.16; ֺ ‫‘ ְבּ ִהמּולוֹ ְבּ ַשׂר ָע ְר ָלתו‬when he consented to have the flesh of his foreskin circumcised’ Gn 17.24, and perhaps ‫‘ תזרע וי֗ לדה זכר‬she shall consent to insemination and bear a male child’ 4Q367 1.3 // ‫ ַתזְ ִר ַיע‬Lv 12.2 (2). 6) Self-propelling: ‫ ו֯ לא נסתר עמל‬.. ‫‘ נפתח לי מקור‬a fountain opened for me .. and toil did not vanish’ 1QHa 19.22, which differs from ‫ ופתחו שערי המללחמה‬1QM 16.4, ‘and they will open the gates for the battle’ (3); ‫‘ יהיו המים נשפכים‬the water shall pour’ 11Q19 32.14; ‫ תגלה‬.. ‫‘ האבן‬the stone will emerge’ 4Q376 1i1. 7) Equivalent to ingressive tD? (4): ‫‘ נזורו מבריתכה‬they became strangers (‫ )זָ ִרים‬to Your covenant’ 1QHa 12.20, cf. ‫‘ לא נזרו מעם‬they did not estrange themselves from the secular crowd’ CD 8.8 (5); ‫‘ הגיד נמלא ֯דם‬the artery filled up with blood’ 4Q266 6i12; ‫‘ אל תקל‬Do not become degraded’ 4Q416 2ii21 (6); ‫להבי כול הנדבים לעשות חוקי אל‬ ‫‘ בברית חסד‬to bring all those who become willing to practise God’s rules in the covenant of the community’ 1QS 1.7, cf. ‫‘ המתנדבים ביחד להקים את בריתו‬.. to consolidate His covenant’ 1QS 5.21 and ‫‘ המתנדבים לׂשוב מכול רע‬.. to part with everything evil’ 1QS 5.1, both with tD ‫( התנדב‬7). In the former case we might be having to do with tN, and the inf. clause can be construed with ‫להבי‬. A contact between N and tD with ingressive value (8) may be identified in ‫‘ הויה ונהייה‬it is in existence and it comes into existence’ 1QS 3.15, sim. ‫‘ כל הוי עולמים ונהיות‬all that exist for eternity and what are to emerge’ CD 2.9 (9); ‫‘ רז נהיה‬an emerging mystery’ 1QS 11.3, 1Q27 1i3 (10); ‫בעול‬ ֯‫נגעלו‬ ֗ ‘they became defiled [= ‫ ]נגאלו‬with perversion’ 4Q184 1.3 // ‫להתגאל בדם טמאתם‬ 1 The fact that this use of ‫ נדרשׁ‬in BH is confined to cases with God as the subject (Ezk 14.3, 20.3, 31, 36.37, Is 65.1) does not have to preclude our 1QHa case from this analysis. On the tolerative Nifal in BH, see JM § 51 c, and on the tolerative passive in Greek, Muraoka 2016 § 27 ba. 2 Qimron (III 131) mentions that the form is pronounced as N by the Samaritans. 3 Pace Duhaime in Charlesworth (1995.129): “the gates .. shall open,” which is an Anglicism. 4 ‫נִ ְשׁ ַכּח‬, though not attested in QH, may be so interpreted: ‘to fall into oblivion,’ and not ‘to be consigned to oblivion, to be deliberately erased out of one’s memory,’ cf. ‫‘ למען לא ישכח טובכם‬so that your kindness will not fall into oblivion’ Si 45.26 and ‫אבד ָל ַעד‬ ַ ֹ ‫]ענִ יִּ ים[ תּ‬ ֲ ‫ לֹא ָלנֶ ַצח יִ ָשּּׁ ַכח ֶא ְביוֹן ִתּ ְקוַ ת ֲענָ וִ ים‬Ps 9.19, where the parallelism between N ‫ יִ ָשּׁ ַכח‬and G ‫אבד‬ ַ ֹ ‫ תּ‬is noteworthy. 5 Parsing the verb as N of √‫‘ זור‬to be alien,’ spelled defectiva. However, ‫להנזר מהון הרשעה הטמא‬ CD 6.15 indicates N √‫ נזר‬also as lying in the same lexical field. 6 On the interpretation of this line, see Kister 2003. 7 Alexander and Vermes (DJD 26.10) explain the interchange in terms of the recensional history of the text, first four columns preferring N and the rest tD. 8 Cf. Sharvit 1980.119-22. 9 We follow Qimron (1992.13), who corrects ‫נהיית‬. In any event both ‫ הוי‬and ‫ נהיות‬must be participles. See also Ariel, Yuditsky and Qimron 2015.10f. 10 Pace GMT (66, 97): “the mystery of existence.” Cf. Milik (DJD 1.103): “le mystère futur.” Since the binyans are not a tense system, whether or not ‫ נהייה‬may refer to future events is of secondary importance. The analysis by the editors of 4Q418 (DJD 34.286) of ‫ כול נהיה עולם‬4Q418 69ii7 as “a future Nip‘al participle” and translated “all those who will endure forever” is misleading. Cf. German philosophers’



‘to become defiled with blood of their impurity’ 1QM 9.8, cf. ‫יכם נְ ג ֲֹאלוּ ַב ָדּם‬ ֶ ‫ִכּי ַכ ֵפּ‬ Is 59.3, and note ‫‘ ַאל ִתּ ְת ַחר‬Do not get angry’ Ps 37.8 quoted as ‫ אל תחר‬4Q171 1-2i25 and ib. 1-2ii1. Then in ‫ כול הנגלה ממנה לבני צדוק הכוהנים‬1QS 5.9 one may see an on-going revelation of the Mosaic law with the priests as eternal students never ceasing to discover fresh truths about the ancient law and its new applications, cf. ‫כול הנגלה עת‬ ֗ ‫מזה יודע‬ ‫‘ בעת‬.. from time to time’ 1QS 8.15 (1), likewise ‫ הנגלות‬1QS 1.9; ‫לכמה כי לוא‬ ‫‘ ישוב‬from this it will become known to you that it is not going to return’ 1Q27 1.8. Cf. ‫‘ כול הנמצא‬all that becomes discovered’ 1QS 9.20; ‫כול דבר הנסתר מישראל ונמצאו לאיש‬ ‘every matter that is concealed from Is. and has been found out by a person’ 1QS 8.11, where it is about what remained unintelligible to the general public, but now its meaning has become known to somebody. The same perspective can perhaps apply to the opposite process: ‫ לדעת הנסתרות‬1QS 5.11 may not be about enthusiastic, dedicated students, but unduly inquisitive ones demanding to know about matters which are withdrawn by their Rabbi, and overstepping into the kabbalistic domain. On the striking N verb as in ‫‘ נעוינו‬we have committed iniquities’ 1QS 1.24, see Muraoka 1996.580. All its attestations in QH, 12 in all, are N’s except the morphologically ambiguous imperfects: ‫ תעוינו‬4Q281a 1.2, unlikely N because of ‫נו‬-, and ‫יעוה‬ 4Q425 6.4, both in extremely fragmentary texts. Among these 12 instances ‫ נעוינו‬is the only one with a human subject, to which we could add ‫ תעוינו‬as a factitive (D) or causative (H) transform with ‘we’ as its effective subject. The rest have a human spirit, heart or way of life: e.g. ‫ רוח נעוה‬1QHa 5.32, ‫ נעוי לב‬1QHa 15.30, ‫ נעוי דרך‬4Q400 1i16 (2). ̇ ‫ נעוינו ֯פ ̇ש ̇ענ֗ ו֯ חט‬1QS 1.24, a well-established, traditional At ‫ואבו֗ תינו‬ ֯ ‫חטאנו הרשענו אנו וא‬ confession, the first verb must be synonymous with the following three. (3) In this formula of confession we find H ‫ העוה‬in CBH, 2Sm 24.17, 1Kg 8.47, Ps 9.5, and G ‫ עוה‬in LBH, so also in a high-priestly prayer offered on the day of atonement, (4) but not N ‫ נעוה‬anywhere. We venture to suggest adding to the Hebrew lexicon a hitherto unknown word as inherent in this ingressive Nifal verb: “we became ‫עוָּ יִ ים‬,” ַ cf. BH ‫ַח ָטּא‬ ‘sinful’ and MH ‫‘ ַחיָּב‬guilty.’ f) Hitpael 1) Reflexive: ‫‘ יתברך בלבבו‬he will congratulate himself’ 1QS 2.13, which is echoed in ‫ וְ ִה ְת ָבּ ֵרְך ִבּ ְל ָבבוֹ‬Dt 29.18, where ‫ בלבבו‬is to be noted, and the use of the volitive form, ‫ יהי‬in his following supplication, ‫לאמור שלום יהי לי‬, is appropriate here as against its sein und werden or esse et fieri. See also Brownlee 1951.54f. and Licht 1965.90, and note ‫“ נהיות עולם‬the events of eternity” (Rabin 1958.65) and Geiger (2012.388) on ‫היה‬. 1 Cf. Wernberg-Møller 1957.101, n. 5 ad 1QS 6.2: “the conception of the gradual revelation of halaka .. is one of the distinct characteristics of our [TM: the Qumran] community.” A translation such as “which has been revealed (or: was revealed long since)” is then questionable. See also Muraoka 1996.576 ad 1QS 1.8. 2 The last two can be rewritten as ‫ איש ֲא ֶשׁר רוחו נעוה‬and ‫איש ֲא ֶשׁר דרכו נעוה‬. See below at § 21 eb. 3 “We have perverted ourselves” (Wernberg-Møller 1957.23) and “We have strayed” (Vermes 1997.99) are a shade too opaque. 4 As mentioned by Licht (1965.67): ‫ עויתי פשעתי חטאתי אני ובני ביתי‬mYom 3.8.

THE VERB — § 12 e7-f2


biblical proof text, ‫שׁלו ֺם יִ ְהיֶ ה ִלי‬, ָ Dt 29.18, because the speaker is expressing his wishful thinking rather than conviction // plain passive in ‫שמכ‬ ֿ ‫‘ י֗ ֗תברך‬May Your name be blessed’ 4Q448 2.9; ‫‘ עם ישרים לוא יתחשב‬he shall not consider himself to be in the company of the upright’ 1QS 3.1 (1); ‫‘ בגוים לוא נתחשב‬we will not consider ourselves as part of the local peoples’ 4Q504 6.9 (2), sim. 1QS 3.4; ‫‘ תתעלף‬she enwraps herself’ 4Q184 1.12, cf. ‫ וַ ִתּ ְת ַע ָלּף‬Gn 38.14. ‫‘ להתנפל‬to prostrate oneself’ 1QHa 20.7 may be understood as reflexive of H ‫הפיל‬. At ‫כול הנפש אשר לוא תתענה‬ ‘every soul that would not mortify itself’ 11Q19 25.11 the author appears to be presenting his own view distinct from his biblical text, which reads ‫ ְת ֻענֶּ ה‬Lv 23.29, patently passive (3); vis-à-vis factitive D—‫‘ בהתקדשכה לו‬by consecrating yourself to Him’ 4Q418 81.4. 2) Passive (4): ‫בש ֯קים‬ ֯ ‫מתכסים ב‬ ֯ 4Q51 // om. 2Sm 24.16 MT, add. ‫ ְמ ֻכ ִסּים‬1Ch 21.16; ‫בגדים‬ ‫‘ ושקים ועורות יתכבסו‬garments and sacks and skins shall be washed’ 11Q19 49.16 // D ‫ יכבסו‬line 13. We find passive tD substituting Pual in ‫‘ היככה ישתלמו חסדם‬How are they going to be rewarded for their kindliness?’ 4Q385 2.3 (5); ‫‘ ישתלח‬he shall be sent down’ 4Q266 11.8, likewise ‫ המשתלח‬ib. 14. 1 Cf. Muraoka 1999.48f. Probably belongs here ‫‘ החשבו‬they numbered themselves’ 1QS 5.11, cf. Qimron 2018.184, n. 84. Hofal is not totally impossible, cf. ‫ אל תחשיבך‬μὴ προσλογίζου σεαυτόν Si 7.16. For ‫יחשיבוני‬ 1QHa 11.7 Qimron (I 72) proposes ‫יחשובוני‬. 2 Dependent on ‫יִת ַח ָשּׁב‬ ְ ‫וּבגּוֹיִ ם לֹא‬ ַ ‫ן־עם ְל ָב ָדד יִ ְשׁכֹּן‬ ָ ‫ ֶה‬Nu 23.9, where the people’s determination to keep to themselves is manifest. The N form clearly has passive value in ‫‘ לא יחשבו בסוד עם‬they shall not be considered as members of the people’s gathering’ CD 19.35; ‫נחשבו לפני֗ ֗כה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ככתהוו ו֯ ככאפס‬they were counted as non-existent and nothing before You’ 4Q504 1-2iii3. 3 Cf. Trg O: ‫יִת ַענֵּ ה‬ ְ and Pesh. tetmakkak. ‫ יתענו‬11Q19 37.7 is also dependent on Lv 23.29. The MT form is difficult; Ibn Ezra analyses it as impersonal, but the grammatical subject is explicitly mentioned. 4 On ‫ התקבלת‬Bet Amar 7 and 8, see Fassberg 2017.17f. The context renders ‘I received’ plausible; the active value of this tD verb is known to MH, attested interestingly enough in a text affiliated to our papyrus in terms of its subject matter: ‫‘ ִה ְת ַק ֵבּל גֵּ ט זֶ ה ְל ִא ְשׁ ִתּי‬Do accept this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife’ mGit 6.1, a tractate dealing with bills of divorce, ‫גִּ ִטּין‬. Note that ‫ התקבל‬here is parallel to ‫נָ ַטל < טֹל‬ ‘Take’—‫‘ טֹל ִלי גִ ִטּי‬Take my bill of divorce for me.’ In our papyrus text the verb, preceded by ‫= תיכול‬ ‫ את הכול‬as a direct object, cannot be analysed as passive; besides, the suffix ‫ת‬- also speaks against such an analysis. ‫‘ הם ניתפשים‬they get caught’ CD 4.20 most likely represents a rare plena spelling of the short /i/ vowel: ‘extremely rare’ (Qimron 2018.64, n. 27). No Semitic language has tN, see Kienast 2001.216, § 189.4. 5 In BH we find two examples of Pu. ‫ שׁלם‬with a personal subject, but no object: ‫וִ ֵירא ִמ ְצוָ ה הוּא יְ ֻשׁ ָלּם‬ Pr 13.13, see also Pr 11.31, and an impersonal ‫ יְ ֻשׁ ַלּם‬in ‫ת־טוֹבה ָר ָעה‬ ָ ‫ ַהיְ ֻשׁ ַלּם ַתּ ַח‬Je 18.20. Dimant (DJD 30.25) suggests an influence of Palestinian Aramaic, though we may be dealing with an inner-Hebrew development. However, in neither of the two examples mentioned by Dimant do we find a deed as the object: in one case the subject is personal (‫‘ רשיעיא עתידין לאשתלמא‬the wicked are destined to be penalised’ Is 42.19 TJ) and in the other a deed is the subject (‫‘ פירי עובדיהון ישתלמון‬the fruits of their deeds shall be punished’ Is 3.10). In Piel a person to be requited is, in BH, marked with either -‫ ל‬or ‫אל‬, but once we have a zero-object: ‫ְמ ַשׁ ֵלּם‬ ‫ל־יֶתר ע ֵֹשׂה גַ ֲאוָ ה‬ ֶ ‫‘ ַע‬He abundantly requites one who acts arrogantly’ Ps 31.24. According to Morgenstern (2007.189f.) the use of tD ‫ השתלם‬is typical of post-biblical Hebrew. Qimron (DJD 10.84, § speaks of the passive use of Hitpael as a late feature, for which he mentions ‫ ויתחשב לו צדקה‬4Q225 2i8, referring to the mention of the form by Milik (DJD 3.225), but the text there is now, including by Qimron himself (II 217), read ‫ות ֗ח ֗שב‬, ֗ thus N.



3) Ingressive of stative verbs or corresponding to an adjectival: .. ‫ ולוא יטהר‬.. ‫לוא יזכה‬ ‫ ולוא יטהר‬.. ‫‘ ולוא יתקדש‬he will not become clean .. and he will not become pure .. and he will not become holy .. and he will not become pure’ 1QS 3.4 (1); ‫בהתרומם גליהם‬ ‘as their waves soar high’ 1QHa 10.30; ‫‘ ויעבודו ויתקימו ויזעקו‬and they slaved, but they proved themselves to be resilient [= ‫‘ ַקיָּ ם‬still kicking, not quite dead yet’] and shouted’ 4Q462 1.12 (2); ‫ אתחזק‬.. ‫‘ מה ֯א ֯תחשב‬how could I become someone who counts, is respectable (‫)חשׁוּב‬ ָ .. muster power?’ 1QHa l8.7 (3); ‫‘ להתאחר‬to become too late, to miss’ 1QS 1.14 (4); ‫‘ לוא יתאוה‬he will not become attracted’ 1QS 9.25, cf. ‫לוא תאוה‬ ‫ נפשי‬1QS 10.19; ‫‘ המתאוים ליום ישעך‬those who become desirous of the day of Your salvation’ 11Q5 22.4; ‫‘ התארמלה‬she became widow’ 4Q271 3.12; ‫‘ יתקרבו לנחשיר‬they will draw near for a clash’ 1QM 1.10; ‫‘ ותתאנפ בם‬and You became incensed against them’ 4Q504 2ii7; ‫‘ להיחד בעצת אל‬to become united in the counsel of God’ 1QS 1.8 (5); ‫ תמלאה הארצ דעה‬1QIsaa 11.9 (MT ‫)מ ְל ָאה‬ ָ (6). (7) 4) Iterative, habitual (8): ‫‘ להתהלך לפניו תמים‬to walk impeccably before Him’ 1QS 1.8, sim. CD 2.15 (9). However, is there any difference in meaning or nuance intended in the use of the G form in ‫ )להלכת tD in MH, and ‫ ויתקימו‬is comparable to a well-known case such as ‫ וַ יִּ ְק ְראוּ‬.. ‫ וַ יָּ קוּמוּ‬Neh 9.3, where the people may not have got up from a seat. However, MH ‫נִ זְ ַדּ ֵקּן‬, ‫ נִ ְת ַמ ֵעט‬etc., quoted by Bar-Asher, do not mean ‘he was old,’ ‘it was scanty,’ but ‘he became old,’ ‘it decreased’ etc. 3 Qimron (I 87) thinks ‫ את‬has been corrected by a scribe to ‫אחשב‬, i.e. Nifal. Cf. ‫אם מתחשׁב הוא‬ mShev 8.11, which Even-Shoshan (1965, s.v. ‫ )חשב‬cites, defining the verb as meaning ‫נָ ַהג ֲח ִשׁיבוּת ְבּ ַע ְצמוֹ‬. 4 Qimron (2018.231) refers to an interesting, synonymous pair: ‫תאחר ֗מ ֗מו֗ ֗עדיהם‬ ֗ ‫דם ו֗ ֗ל ֯ה‬ ֗ ‫‘ אין֗ להתקד‬they are not to come too early nor to come later than their appointed times’ 4Q266 2i2 // ‫אין֯ לקדם ולאחר‬ ‫ממועדיהמה‬ ֯ 4Q268 1.4. 5 On the assimilation of /t/ with /y/ here, see Yalon 1967.76f., 80. In ‫ ליחד‬1QS 3.7 the weak guttural has become eliminated and ‫ להחיד‬1QHª 23.30 need be corrected to ‫להיחד‬. Qimron (2018.239, n. 243) would rather see here Nifal forms, quoting ‫ יִ יָּ ֶרה‬Ex 19(not 9).13 and ‫ וַ יִּ יָּ ֶחל‬Gn 8.10 (but MT ‫)וַ יָּ ֶחל‬. 6 Pace Kutscher (1971.355f.) it is not that the scribe changed MT’s Pf. to Impf. ‫תמלא‬, slipping in the process by leaving MT’s ‫ה‬- in. His ‫ תמלאה‬is an anomalous spelling for ‫התמלאה‬. Cf. ‫ָמ ְל ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ ָח ָמס‬ Gn 6.13, with which cp. TO ‫חטפין‬ ֵ ‫יאת ארעא‬ ַ ‫א ְת ְמ ִל‬, ִ P /’etmalyat ../, and LXX ἐπλήσθη ‘became full,’ not ‘was filled,’ cf. Muraoka 2009 s.v. πίμπλημι 4. 7 On the ingressive or inchoative value of Hitpael, see Muraoka 1998.xxviii-xxix. On ‫ יזכה‬in lieu of ‫יזדכה‬, see Bergsträsser 1918 § 19b, and cf. also Wernberg-Møller 1957.59, Qimron 1976.180, and Qimron 2018.239, § C 3.5.2 a 1. 8 Cf. Speiser 1955 and Waltke - O’Connor 1990 § 26.1.2. We do not, however, believe in the relevance here of the Akkadian tan stem as in /iptanarras/, in which tan is an infix with t following the first rootconsonant, and Akkadian possesses tG, tD, tŠ, and tN as well, of which tD is close in form to Hitpael in Hebrew. 9 Note that Qimḥi, in his ‫ ספר השרשים‬s.v. ‫ הלך‬tD, adduces ‫ ִה ְת ַה ֵלְּך ְל ָפנַ י וֶ ְהיֵ ה ָת ִמים‬Gn 17.1 and ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫ ִה ְת ַה ְלּכוּ ֲאבו ַֺתי ְל ָפנָ יו‬Gn 48.15, noting that it is all about ‫‘ התעסקות בעבודת השם יתברך‬occupying oneself in God’s service.’ 2

THE VERB — § 12 f3-g4


5) Tolerative: ‫‘ להתיסר‬to submit himself to discipline’ 1QS 3.6, sim. 1QS 9.10, cf. ‫יה‬ ָ ‫‘ ִה ְת ַענִּ י ַתּ ַחת יָ ֶד‬Bear with her overbearing attitude!’ Gn 16.9. 6) Simulating: ‫ נִ ָבּא‬1Sm 10.11 // ‫מת]נבא‬ ֯ ‘acting as a prophet’ 4Q51; ‫‘ בהתרשע‬when they acted as ‫ ְ’ר ָשׁ ִעים‬1QM 14.10; ‫‘ התקדש אל במשפטם‬God acted as a holy (god) in their judgement’ 1QM 17.2; ‫‘ אל תתעצלו להודיע עוזו‬Do not be sluggards in declaring His might’ 11Q5 18.2 (1); ‫‘ התחזק וחזק תמקום‬Take courage yourself and encourage those at (your) place’ M44 7. g) Minor binyans Though not frequent, variants on the binyans described above are attested. They are known to BH, and are mostly of hollow roots or geminate roots. 1) Polel (2): factitive—‫ מתתם‬2Sm 13.28 4Q51 // ‫ ֲה ִמ ֶתּם‬MT, where the affinity with Hifil is to be noted, so ‫עוֹרר‬ ֵ Is 10.26 // ‫ יעיר‬1QIsaª; ‫‘ רוממוהו‬Extol Him!’ 4Q511 10.8; ‫‘ יעורר‬He will arouse’ 1QHa 17.3; iterative—‫‘ ידולל פתן‬a viper might be moving about’ 4Q525 15-17.3; ‫רשפי מות‬ ֗ ‫‘ יעופפו‬deadly predators might be flying about’ 4Q525 15-17.5 (3); ‫‘ תעופפנה‬fly about’ Is 60.8 1QIsaª for MT ‫עוּפינָ ה‬ ֶ ‫‘ תשוחח נפשי בנפלאותיכה ; ְתּ‬my soul will a ponder on Your marvels’ 1QH 17.7. 2) Hitpolel (4): iterative—‫‘ להתרובב עם אנשי השחת‬to quarrel with the men of perdition’ 1QS 9.16; ‫‘ שני התגוררם‬the years of their sojourn (in exile)’ CD 4.5; ‫התגוללו בפשע‬ ‫‘ אנוש‬they wallowed in impiety of man’ CD 3.17; ‫במעשיהמ ֯ה‬ ֯ ‫‘ התבנן‬Consider their deeds’ MMT C 23. 3) Po’el: ‫ מחופף‬4Q35 11.15.5 // ‫ ח ֵֹפף ָע ָליו‬Dt 33.12 (5). 4) Hitpalpel: reflexive—Is 66.12 1QIsaª ‫‘ תשתעשעו‬you (6) will enjoy yourselves (or: themselves)’ // MT ‫‘ ְתּ ָשׁעֳ ָשׁעוּ‬you will be offered enjoyment’; ‫ תשתעשע נפשי‬1QHa 17.8; ֗ ‘they will be exterminated (or: meet with an end)’ passive or ingressive—‫יסתופפוו‬ 4Q525 14ii9 (7). Qimron (II 349) compares ‫ ַאל ֵתּ ָע ְצלוּ ָל ֶל ֶכת‬Jdg 18.9. Yuditsky and Haber (2017.74) read ‫מב ֯כרתו‬ ֯ ‫ראובן֗ חולל‬ ֯ ‫‘ ראו‬Reuben defiled some of his primogeniture’ 4Q254 3+8.11, though ‫ חלל‬in the sense of ‘to defile’ is not used but in the standard D. Cf. also Moreshet 1981, a study of the distribution in MH of this binyan and Hitpolel, but not dealing with their values. 3 On the meaning of ‫רשף‬, cf. Kister 2000.150-55. 4 See Moreshet 1981. 5 The verb root ‫ חפף‬is a hapax in BH. 6 The text of 1QIsaª is replete with difficulties: what are the referents of the suffix pronoun in ‫יונקו֯ תיהמה‬ ‫ תנשינה ?יונק‬in lieu of ‫ ִתּנָּ ֵשׂאוּ‬2mp MT agrees with ‫‘ יונקותיהמה‬their sucking baby-girls,’ which, however, cannot be the subject of ‫ תשתעשעו‬2mp in lieu of ‫‘ ְתּ ָשׁעֳ ָשׁעוּ‬you (mpl) will be fondled.’ ‫תשתעשעו‬ may be meant as passive. Note also the contrast between ‫ ְתּנֻ ָחמוּ‬Is 66.13 MT and ‫ תתנחמו‬1QIsaª. 7 So Qimron (II 121 ad loc.), i.e. < √‫ סוף‬rather than √‫ספף‬, though the former is not attested elsewhere in D or tD, whereas ‫‘ הסתופף‬to be waiting to be ushered in’ does occur at Ps 84.11 as a hapax, a sense which does not seem to fit the context here with ‫‘ משנאיכה‬your enemies’ as its subject. 1 2



5) Payel, very rare and probably an Aramaism: ‫‘ יסיבלו‬they will bear’ 4Q525 5.12. (1) 6) Hištafel This binyan is attested in Hebrew by only one root, √‫חוי‬. (2) Examples are Pf. ‫והשתחוו‬ ‘and they will prostrate themselves’ 1QM 12.14; Impf. ‫ ישתחוו‬4Q215a 1ii8; Inf. ‫להשת ֗חו֗ ות‬ ֗ 11Q19 39.6. h) Internal passive 1) Gpass (3): modelled on BH ‫‘ אשר לקח משם‬whence he was taken’ 1QHa 20.30 (4); ‫‘ מעפר לוקחתי‬I was taken from dust’ 1QHa 23.24 (5), cf. ‫ ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר ֻל ַקּח ִמ ָשּׁם‬Gn 3.23; ‫‘ ֯קו֯ ֗רצתי‬I was moulded’ 4Q511 28+29.4 (6); ‫אנשי֡ ם ֗פו֗ קד לכה‬ ֗ ‫‘ אם הון אנ‬if people’s property was deposited with you’ 4Q416 2iii3 (7). In the following cases biblical manuscripts use an alternative form instead of the internal G passive: ‫ד־בְּך‬ ָ ‫ָה ֲעב ָֹדה ַה ָקּ ָשׁה ֲא ֶשׁר ֻע ַבּ‬ Is 14.3 // ‫ עבדו בכה‬1QIsaª; ‫יוּשׁר ַה ִשּׁיר‬ ַ Is 26.1 // ‫ ישיר השיר‬1QIsaª (impersonal?), sim. ‫יֻ ַחן‬ ‫ ָר ָשׁע‬Is 26.10 // ‫ יחון‬1QIsaª; ֺ ‫ אשׁר יֻ ַלּד לו‬Gn 35.26 > ‫אשר ילדה לו‬ ‫ אש‬4Q1 5.8, partly because of the multiple antecedents? Note also ‫ נגנב‬4Q22 24.16. (8) 2) Dpass (9): ‫החרטמים מלמדי פשע‬ ֗ ‫‘ החר‬the magicians instructed in ungodliness’ 4Q300 1aii-b1; ‫צוית ֯ם‬ ֗ ‘you were ordered’ 4Q471a 1.1. 3) Hpass (10) ‫‘ והומת הנביא ההוא‬and that prophet shall be put to death’ 11Q19 61.2, where the alternation to the internal passive underlines the punitive character of the death, not due to a natural cause, cf. the underlying biblical text with ‫וּמת‬ ֵ Dt 18.20, sim. 11Q19 66.5. Likewise ‫ וויומתו‬11Q19 66.2 (< ‫ וָ ֵמתוּ‬Dt 22.24); ‫ יומת‬11Q19 64.9, following ‫( ימת‬line 8) and immediately followed by a mention of his executioners—‫והמה יתלו אותו )על( העץ‬ 1

Cf. a discussion by Kister 2004.27-29, who compares Syr. saybar. So recognised in HALOT I 296, but still listed as √‫ שׁחה‬in DCH VIII 316. See JM § 59 g. 3 On this internal passive in BH, see JM § 58. Additional, more or less certain examples are listed in Qimron 2018.183. ‫ יוצר‬in ‫ מה ישיב חמר ויוצר יד‬1QS 11.22 is unlikely to be a verb; for what would be syntactically related to ‫ ?יד‬It must be a substantive parallel to ‫חמר‬. 4 For ‫עפר אל אשר לקח משם‬ ֗ ‫ישו֗ ב‬ ֯ ‫ י‬one would rather expect ‫עפר אשר לקח משם‬ ֗ ‫ישו֗ ב אל‬ ֯ ‫י‬. 5 Pace Geiger (2012.443) we have here an indisputable instance of G passive. Qimron’s (I 90) restoration ‫לקחתי‬ ֗ ‫ מעפר‬1QHa 20.27 is justifiable pace DJD 40.251 ‫תני‬ ‫לקחתני‬, where the editors (p. 257) adduce a plene spelling ‫ לוקחתי‬1QHa 23.24, but at the same time they mention ‫ לקח‬cited above. 6 The form could be Dpass, but the verb is not attested in D, but only in G and N. 7 The sense ‘to deposit’ is attested for this verb only in Hifil. 8 ‫ גֻּ נַּ ב‬Ex 22.6 MT may have been analysed as a Qal passive. 9 Additional, more or less certain examples are listed in Qimron 2018.183. Morgenstern (2007.187) proposes parsing ‫ טהר‬as Dpass Pf. at ‫‘ טהר חמס מגוך‬violence has been purged from your midst,’ but ‫ ִט ֵהר‬in BH always takes a person or an object such as an altar to be cleansed and purified as its object, never a cause of the uncleanliness. At 1Sm 20.26 ‫ ָטהוֹר‬was apparently read as ‫ט ַֹהר‬ in LXX κεκαθάρισται, but with a person as its subject (!), and see also ‫ ֶא ֶרץ לֹא ְמט ָֹה ָרה‬Ezk 22.24. Hence an emendation ‫ טהרי‬D Impv. fs is as valid. 10 Additional, more or less certain examples are listed in Qimron 2018.183f. 2

THE VERB — § 12 g5 – 13 a


‘and they shall hang him on the tree,’ with the emphatic ‫ המה‬added. ‫הוראתי‬ ֗ is virtually equivalent to N ‫ נראתי‬at ‫הוראתי אל אברהם‬ ֗ ‘I appeared to Abraham’ 4Q158 4ii6, a phenomenon rather unusual; of the five instances of Hpass. ‫ ראה‬in BH, the grammatical subject of the verb in four of them is a person shown something, e.g. ‫ת־ה ִמּ ְשׁ ָכּן‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲה ֵקמ ָֹת ֶא‬ ‫ית ָבּ ָהר‬ ָ ‫ ְכּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּטוֹ ֲא ֶשׁר ָה ְר ֵא‬Ex 26.30, and once something shown, ‫ת־הכּ ֵֹהן‬ ַ ‫‘ וְ ָה ְר ָאה ֶא‬and it [= the affected part] should be shown to the priest’ Lv 13.49, and in every instance we are dealing with a form passive in meaning, too. 4) Polel pass: ‫‘ מעופף‬darkened’ Is 8.23 1QIsaª (1); ‫‘ כהן מבונן בספר ההגי‬a priest wellversed in the book of Hagi’ CD 13.2. (2) 5) Npass. (3) A rare example in QH is ‫ נודף‬1QIsaa 41.2 in MT ‫‘ ַקשׁ נִ ָדּף‬a wind-blown stubble,’ a standard N Ptc. What we have here is not phonetic, but morphological in nature. It is not a case of fluctuation between two vowels, /i/ and /u/, as is evident in the sole BH example ‫נוּלּדוּ‬ ְ 1Ch 3.5, 20.8, for the standard N form is ‫נוֹלדוּ‬, ְ not ‫נִ ְילדוּ‬. Namely, we have here a duplication of passive morphemes, i.e. the prefix /n-/ and the vowel sequence /u-a/ characteristic of the internal passive. Hence it is significant that the considerable number of examples adduced by Yalon (1964.152-59) are all Pf. or Ptc., which alone show the prefix /n-/.

§ 13 TENSES a) General remarks (4) Our basic understanding is that in QH the suffix conjugation (SC) qatal and the prefix conjugation (PC) yiqtol, when self-standing (5), mark past and non-past respectively with exception of a few yiqtols of durative, customary value with past reference; see 1 ‫מוּעף‬, ָ usually taken as a substantive meaning ‘darkness’ appears to have been understood as a Hpass Ptc. 2 Lohse (92) vocalises as Polel (active), ‫מבוֹנֵ ן‬, ְ but translates “bewandert ist.” According to Segal (1936.120, § 208) MH does not attest to the passive Polal, though elsewhere he (1927.83, § 181) mentions ‫[ ְמכוּנַ ן‬so pointed: TM] as a possible instance. In RH, however, we do find rare instances such as ‫מכונן‬ [= ‫]מכוֹנָ ן‬ ְ ‘tied fast’ Tos. Maksh 2.14 and ‫‘ נחש מכונן‬a snake determinedly positioned’ Mechil 14.13; for these two references I am indebted to Mr R.W. Medina of Jerusalem. ‫ ְמבו ֺנָ ן‬reminds us of ‫לוּמּד‬ ָ ‫ ְמ‬as in ‫‘ מלומדי מלחמה‬trained in warfare’ 1QM 6.12. 3 On two rare BH examples, see JM § 59 h with a list of modern researches on the subject. A few more possible examples are mentioned in Qimron 2018.184, 4. Pace Qimron loc. cit. and id. 1988, apart from ‫‘ נוֿ כנעים‬dejected’ 1QS 10.26, the above-mentioned ‫‘ נודף‬driven about’ as well as ‫‘ ו֗ נ֗ ו֗ ֗ק ֗פו‬and they will be cut down’ 4Q285 7.1 are not intransitive nor reflexive. Likewise ‫נוּלּדוּ‬ ְ ‘they were born’ 1Ch 3.5, 20.8. 4 A balanced, fair, and critical survey and assessment of diverse positions since Gesenius on this still controversial issue is offered by Holst (2008.25-77). 5 In our discussion on the Hebrew verbal system this epithet will refer to a form used absolutely as in ‫יָבוֹא ַהכּ ֵֹהן‬, ‫א יָבוֹא ַהכּ ֵֹהן‬ ֹ ‫ ל‬or with a conjunctive waw prefixed to it as in ‫אכל וְ נִ ְשׁ ֶתּה‬ ַ ֹ ‫היּוֹם נ‬. ַ See below p. 79, n. 8.



below at § bb. When an inversive w- is prefixed to them, their respective tense value is reversed: way-yiqtol with past value and w-qatal with non-past value. We shall see below that way-yiqtol may select a form explicitly marked as PCS [= short, apocopated PC], e.g. ‫‘ ויעש אל‬and God made’ 4Q370 1i7; ‫‘ ותעש‬and You made’ 1QpHab 5.12 (1). All this basically accords with what one knows of CBH as transmitted and vocalised by Tiberian Massoretes. Hence it is reasonable to assume that QH also distinguished between w-qataltí (with an inversive w-) and w-qatálti (with a conjunctive w-). (2) Thus our basic assumption is that the “tense” system of CBH as perceived by authors, copyists, and readers of QH documents, leaving the participle out for the moment, comprised six distinct forms: qatal, yiqtol, w-qataltí, way-yiqtol, w-qatálti, w-yiqtol; under yiqtol are included the jussive, whether explicitly marked or not, e.g. ‫‘ ֶיִבן‬May be build!’ vs. ‫‘ ְיִבנוּ‬May they build!,’ and the cohortative, also whether explicitly marked or not, e.g. ‫קוּמה‬ ָ ‫‘ ָא‬I would like to arise’ vs. ‫‘ ֶא ְבנֶ ה‬I would like to build.’ On the place of the participle in this system, see below at § 17 a. Here MT reads ‫!וַ ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂה‬ Holst (2008.36f.) and Waltke - O’Connor (1990.456) find the frequency statistics made by McFall (1982.186-88, Appendix I) interesting. McFall provides frequency counts for w-qatal, qatal, way-yiqtol, yiqtol, and w-yiqtol; w-qataltí and w-qatálti are assigned to the same class. Counting can start only after one has established a broadly acceptable scheme of morphosyntactic verb forms. That in very many cases there is no formal difference between, e.g. ‫‘ וְ ָע ָשׂה‬and he shall do’ (w-qataltí) and ‫‘ וְ ָע ָשׂה‬and he did’ (w-qatálti), is irrelevant to our morphosyntactic analysis, and it makes no linguistic sense to count as two occurrences of ‫ וְ ָר ָאה‬in ‫ל־אישׁ גִּ בּוֹר‬ ִ ‫יְמי ָשׁאוּל וְ ָר ָאה ָשׁאוּל ָכּ‬ ֵ ‫ל־פּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּים כֹּל‬ ְ ‫ וַ ְתּ ִהי ַה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה ֲחזָ ָקה ַע‬1Sm 14.52, where ‫ וְ ָר ָאה‬takes over the time reference (past) of ‫וַ ְתּ ִהי‬, hence to be analysed as a w-qatáltiּ form, and in ‫ֵלְך ַה ֲע ֵמד‬ ‫ ַה ְמ ַצ ֶפּה ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְר ֶאה יַ גִּ יד וְ ָר ָאה ֶר ֶכב ֶצ ֶמד ָפּ ָר ִשׁים‬Is 21.6f. in which latter case ‫ וְ ָר ָאה‬continues a non-past ‫יַ גִּ יד‬, hence analysable as a w-qataltí form. Because of this position of ours we definitely prefer, in syntagmatic formulae, the use of the 1s form when it is prefixed with w-, for the 3ms form, w-qatal, is equivocal. Both Holst (2008.37) and Waltke - O’Connor (1990.456) underline way-yiqtol as “the most frequent,” but the actual figures tell a different story: way-yiqtol (29%), yiqtol (28%), qatal (27%), w-qatal (13%), w-yiqtol (3%). The difference between the first three is totally trivial. In specific cases one’s decision whether a waw is conjunctive or inversive might be debatable. E.g., Qimron (2018.370) finds the conjunction in ‫ והפך‬odd, since CBH would formulate, so Qimron, the clause concerned as (‫ הפך )= ָה ַפְך‬.. ‫והנה‬. But it is perfectly acceptable to take the verb as the second of two SC verbs joined with a conjunctive waw, thus ‫ והפך מראה לדק צוהב‬.. ‫והנ֗ ֗א באה )= ָ֫ב ָאה( הרוח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו‬and behold, the spirit had entered .. and its [i.e. of the hair] appearance had changed to yellowish’ 4Q266 6i6, so pace Charlesworth (1995.67) “if the spirit has entered.” In another case mentioned by Qimron (loc. cit.) the conjunction of a conjunctive PC and an inverted SC is perfectly in order at ‫ וענה‬.. ‫ וידבר‬4Q266 11.8—the priest remonstrates, at which a deviant member concerned responds. Smith (1991a.2f.) mentions five criteria for distinguishing between the two kinds of waw, syntagmatic and context. He could have mentioned a morphological feature represented by a sequence such as ‫ויהי‬, the analysis of which, though not necessarily = ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬, could become more convincing in conjunction with Smith’s criteria. Note ‫ ו֗ יהי דן נ֗ ֗חש‬4Q254 5+6.4 < ‫י־דן נָ ָחשׁ‬ ָ ‫ יְ ִה‬.. ‫ ָדּן יָ ִדין ַעמּוֹ‬Gn 49.16f., so ‫ ויהי‬more likely = ‫יהי‬ ִ ִ‫ ו‬than = ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬, a conjunctive waw (LXX καὶ γενηθήτω) and ‫‘ ותעש להמה כפרעוה‬and may You do to them as (You did to) Pharaoh’ 1QM 11.9. Outside of Smith’s corpus, note ‫ ותהי לי תכחתך ֯לשמחת עלם‬.. ‫ונתהלל‬ ‘and we shall praise .. and may Your reproach turn for me an eternal joy!’ 4Q381 33ab+35.3, hence ‫וּת ִהי‬, ְ and ‫ותהי חרב ֗ב ֗מצרים‬ ֗ ‫חלחלה ֗בפוט‬ ֯ ‫ ותהי‬.. ‫אב ֗דן גוים‬ ֗ ‫‘ הנה בא יום‬behold, the day of perdition of the nations is coming .. and may anguish be among Libyans and may a sword come against Egyptians’ 4Q385b 1.3, hence ‫וּת ִהי‬ ְ (jussive) < ‫וּב ָאה ֶח ֶרב ְבּ ִמ ְצ ַריִם וְ ָהיְ ָתה ַח ְל ָח ָלה ְבּכוּשׁ‬ ָ ‫ יוֹם ָענָ ן ֵעת גּוֹיִ ם יִ ְהיֶ ה׃‬Ezk 30.3f. 1 2

THE VERB — § 13 a – 14 b


b) Consecutio temporum Where a finite verb of the principal clause is not in the present tense, a finite verb in its subordinate clause is not adjusted, and a nominal clause remains unchanged without a Pf. or Impf. form of ‫ היה‬being inserted, e.g. ‫‘ וידעו כי אשמים המה‬they came to know that they were guilty’ CD 1.8. The same holds for a circumstantial clause as at ‫ונפל אשור‬ ‫‘ ואין עוזר לו‬and Assyria will fall, but there will be none to come to his aid’ 1QM 1.6. c) Tense value of nominal clauses Nominal clauses other than those which have a participle as their predicate are by definition a-temporal. Whatever tense value is to be identified in a particular nominal clause largely depends on the general context. See, for instance, ‫אודכה אדוני כיא עינכה‬ ‫עלי֯ ֗ב ֗ש ֗פו֗ ל נפשי ותצילני מקנאת מליצי כזב‬ ֗ ‘I thank You, Lord, that Your eye (was) on me when I was depressed and (that) You rescued me ..’ 1QHa 10.33. That the nominal clause here is not a statement of universal truth is evident from the immediately following clause, ‫פדיתה נ֯ ֯פש אביון‬ ֯ ‫‘ ומעדת דורשי חלקות‬and from the group of those who seek smooth things You have delivered the soul of a poor one,’ for otherwise the waw of ‫ ותצילני‬could be conjunctive, ‘and You will rescue me ..’ The poet is reminiscing of what he once experienced.

§ 14 PERFECT OR SUFFIX CONJUGATION a) Only one simple preterite tense Unlike some languages, e.g. English, which has three morphologically distinct forms —I did / I have done / I had done—Hebrew must do with ‫ עשׂיתי‬alone. As an example of the pluperfect Thorion-Vardi (1985.70) mentions ‫‘ בטרם נוסדו ידע את מעשיהם‬before they were established, He had found out their deeds’ CD 2.7. (1) b) Performative Perfect The Perfect can indicate that a speaker or a writer is acting out what he is saying (‫ )אמרתי‬or writing (‫)כתבתי‬. (2) We may have an instance of this in ‫אף אנחנו כתבנו ̇אלי̇ ך‬ ‫‘ מקצת מעשי התורה‬we are hereby passing on to you in writing some of the precepts of the law’ MMT C 26. Whether this is the case or not is connected with another question, namely whether the document is a letter or an epistle. (3) If the former, it was written by A and sent to B, then ‫ כתבנו‬can be assigned performative value. 1

Many more examples are mentioned by Mor (2015.282f., § 5.9.2), though none of them is of the pattern w-qatal, which Siegismund (2017.207-17) does not find in QH, either. 2 On the situation in BH, see JM § 112 f. 3 On this distinction, cf. Deissmann 1923.194f.



The qatal in legal documents, e.g. documenting transactions of sale or lease, may be considered in this light. E.g. ‫‘ ֗מ ֗כ ֗רתי לך בכסף‬I hereby sell you for silver’ M30 20; ‫מרצוני חכרתי המך היום‬ ‫‘ ֗אנ֗ י מ‬I hereby willingly lease from you today’ M24 C 6. (1) c) Stative verbs These are exemplified in utterances indicating universally or permanently valid truths, e.g. ‫ שנא לנצח‬.. ‫ תעב‬.. ‫ ירצה לעד‬.. ‫‘ אהב אל‬God loves .. He would be pleased for eternity .. He detests .. He hates for ever’ 1QS 3.26-4.1. Note the intruding ‫ירצה‬. (2) See also ‫‘ אל אהב דעת‬God loves discernment’ CD 2.3; ‫לבחור את אשר רצה ולמאוס כאשר שנא‬ ‘to select one with whom He is pleased and reject one whom He dislikes’ CD 2.15 (3); ֗ ‫וביד‬ ֗ ‫הלוא כול העמים שנאו עול‬ ֗ ‘all the peoples hate wickedness, don’t they? ‫כולמה יתהלך‬ ֯ ‫נפש עבדך‬ Yet it is rampant at the hands of all of them’ 1Q27 1.8 (4). However, in ‫תעבה‬ ‫ כול מעשה עולה‬1QHa 8.28 the poet might be going on his past life-style, ‘the soul of Your servant detested every iniquitous deed,’ for he goes on to say ‫ואדעה כי לא יצדק‬ ‫‘ איש מבלעדיך‬and I have discovered that one cannot be righteous without You.’ (5) Note also ‫ לוא חזק למשוב חיו‬.. ‫‘ כיא געלה נפשו ביסורי דעת‬for his mind dislikes to be intellectually trained .. he is not firmly determined to repent of his way of life’ 1QS 2.26 (6), 1

More examples may be seen in Mor (2015.283-85, § 5.9.4). See Muraoka 2003.336. 3 More examples of stative verbs from CD are mentioned by Kesterson 1984.18-21. However, ‫אשר לא‬ ‫‘ מלאו ימיו‬he whose days have not been completed (yet)’ CD 10.1 does not belong here. ‫כול אשר לוא ידעו‬ ‫ את בריתו‬1QS 5.19 can be understood as ‘all those who have not come to know His covenant.’ 4 Earlier in the same document we read ‫ולוא ידעו רז נהיה ובקדמוניות לוא התבוננו ולוא ידעו מה אשר יבוא‬ ‫ עליהמה ונפשמה לוא מלטו מרז נהיה‬lines 3f. ‫מלטו‬, a fientive verb, suggests that ‫( ידעו‬2×) is to be assigned a preterite value: ‘they did not know the emerging mystery and did not comprehend the past history and did not know what was going to befall them and did not save their skin from the emerging mystery.’ Hence both GMT’s (67) “they do not know .. they will not save ..” and Vermes’s (389) “they know not .. nor do they save ..” are debatable. Cf. Caquot in DSP (459): “Ils n’ont pas connu .. ne se sont pas préservés ..”. 5 In ‫‘ את אשר שנא‬those whom He hated’ CD 2.13 the verb is preterite in view of what follows, ‫התעה‬ ‘He caused to stray’; the passage is about what God did in the patriarchal period. Thus pace Davies (1983.237): “those whom He hates He has allowed to go astray (or: allows to go astray).” 6 We propose emending ‫ חיו‬to ‫מחיו‬, and follow van der Ploeg (1952.128) and others in analysing ‫למשוב‬ as an Aramaising G inf. Such an Aramaic form is known, alongside the standard ‫ל ְמ ָשׁב = למשב‬,ִ see Dalman (1927.321), who mentions ‫ מקום‬Gn 31.35 Trg J // ‫ מיקום‬Ginsburger (1903.58) and Trg N, and Fassberg (1990.186) ‫‘ למצום‬to fast’; on data in Trg N, see Levy (1974.159), who, however, fails to mention ‫מיקום‬ Gn 31.35. We fail to see what the basis is for “emending” in DJD 26.75 “He has not] been steadfast [in] emending his life”; the editors prefer reading ‫למשיב‬. Wernberg-Møller (1957.58), considering our text here affiliated to non possunt reversionem bonam facere ut vivant 4Ezra 7.82, translates “he is unable to repent,” but where else do we find ‫ חזק‬meaning on its own ‘to be able’? We suggest that possunt renders ἰσχύουσι in the lost Greek version. The only surviving Semitic version, Pesh., is very close to the Vulgate: dlā’ mā’ṣyān d-nethafkān w-ne‘bdān ṭāvātā’ d-ḥāyyān bhēn. Ἰσχύω in Classical Greek and LXX Greek can, c. inf., mean ‘to be able,’ see Liddell, Scott et al. (1925-40), s.v. 2 b and Muraoka 2009a, s.v. 1 a ad finem, 2, and note especially ‫> ֵאין כּ ַֹח ַל ֲעמוֹד ַבּחוּץ‬ οὐκ ἰσχύομεν στῆναι αἴθριοι 1Es 9.11 // οὐκ ἔστιν δύναμις στῆναι ἔξω 2Es 10.13. 2

THE VERB — § 14 b-e


‫כול המואס לבוא בברית א‬ which elaborates the person’s negative attitude expressed as ‫אל‬ ‫‘ ללכת בשרירות לבו‬everyone that refuses to join God’s covenant, walking with stubborn attitude,’ what renders it unlikely that ‫ געלה‬and ‫ חזק‬bear preterite value. ‫ טהר‬in ‫אם‬ ‫‘ בעריכמה תזבחוהו וטהר‬if you sacrifice it in your cities, then it is clean’ 11Q19 47.16 cannot be a plain adjective ‫ ָטהוֹר‬spelled defectiva, for which one would need ‫ הוא‬as its grammatical subject and the conjunction of ‫ וטהר‬is apodotic, which is part of the syntagm w-qataltí. Hence what we have here is ‫וְ ָט ֵהר‬. Cp. ‫אם לוא יטהר כמשפט התורה‬ ‫ הזואת טמא הוא‬11Q19 50.7, and ‫וּמת‬ ֵ in ‫וּמת ָה ִאישׁ‬ ֵ .. ‫ת־הנַּ ַע ָר‬ ַ ‫יִמ ָצא ָה ִאישׁ ֶא‬ ְ ‫ם־בּ ָשּׂ ֶדה‬ ַ ‫‘ ִא‬if the man ran into the girl in the field .., then he shall die’ Dt 22.25 has been transformed to an unmistakable SC form in ‫ והומת‬11Q19 66.5. (1) d) Pluperfect In BH the value of Pluperfect or Past Perfect, he had done instead of he did or he has done is expressed through the syntagm /w - X - qatal way-yiqtol/, e.g. ‫‘ וְ ָר ֵחל ָל ְק ָחה‬Now ‫ונ‬ Rachel had taken’ Gn 31.34. (2) One wonders if such is the case in ‫ונחש מלך בני ֯עמון‬ ֯ ‫עי֯ ן ימין ונתן אין מושי‬ ‫הוא לחץ את בני גד ואת בני ראובן בחזקה ונקר להם ֯כול ע‬ ‫מושיע ליישראל ולוא‬ ‫הן‬ ‫עמון כול עין ימין וה‬ ‫נק ֯ר לו נחש מלך בני ע‬ ֯ ‫וא נ‬ ‫אשר לוא‬ ֯ ‫בעבר הירדן אש‬ ֯ ‫נשאר איש בבני ישראל אשר‬ ‫ שבעת אלפים איש נצלו מיד ֯בנ֯ י עמון ויבאו אל ייבש ֯גלעד‬4Q51 10a 6-8, a passage missing from the end of 1Sm 10 and the start of ib. 11 both from MT and LXX (both versions) (3): ‘and Nahash, the king of Ammonites, would put hard pressure on the descendants of Gad and the descendants of Ruben and would gouge everyone’s right eye out, but no rescuer would be provided for Israel and there was not left anyone among the children of Israel in the Trans Jordan whose right eye Nahash the king of Ammonites did not gouge out but behold seven thousand men escaped the power of Ammonites and they arrived at Yabesh Gilead.’ Perhaps we have here a series of circumstantial clauses in view of ‫נתן‬, which can be only a ptc., N ‫( נִ ָתּן‬4), then the preceding ‫ לחץ‬and ‫ נקר‬would also be that. e) Prophetic Perfect BH sometimes uses the Perfect to indicate what is yet to happen. (5) To the scribe of 1QIsaa, however, it was apparently felt alien. (6) Hence ‫ ָמ ְל ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ ֵדּ ָעה‬Is 11.9 > 1

See also Qimron 1978.171. For more examples, see JM § 118 d. 3 In his Greek or Hebrew text Josephus most probably had this addition at the end of 1Sm 10: ‘and if help was forthcoming (ἂν εἰ μὲν ἔλθοι βοήθεια), they would fight, but if that was hard to come by (ἄπορα), they would resign themselves’ (Antiq. 6.72). 4 With his translation “gouging out .. allowing Israel no deliverer,” McCarter (1980.198) presumably postulates ‫נ ֵֹתן‬. 5 See JM § 112 h. 6 For a discussion of other possible examples in Is, see Kutscher 1974.355f. General, exegetical issues also come into play. E.g. at ‫שׁוּעה ֲעזַ ְר ִתּיָך וְ ֶא ָצּ ְרָך וְ ֶא ֶתּנְ ָך ִל ְב ִרית ָעם‬ ָ ְ‫וּביוֹם י‬ ְ ‫יתיָך‬ ִ ִ‫ ְבּ ֵעת ָרצוֹן ֲענ‬Is 49.8 // 2



‫ תמלאה הארצ דעה‬1QIsaª (1); ‫ נָ ַת ִתּי‬Is 43.20 > ‫ אתן‬1QIsaª; ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬.. ‫ נִ ְב ְקעוּ‬.. ‫ וְ ָתר ֹן‬.. ‫יְ ַד ֵלּג‬ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ָשׁם‬.. ‫ ַה ָשּׁ ָרב ַל ֲאגַ ם‬.. Is 35.6-8 // . . ‫ יהיה שמה‬.. ‫ ילכו והיה השרב‬.. ‫ נבקעו‬.. ‫ ותרון‬.. ‫ידלג‬ 1 QIsaª, which is inconsistent. (2)

§ 15 IMPERFECT OR PREFIX CONJUGATION One of the major challenges surrounding the prefix conjugation is the ambiguity of its morphosyntax. This is due, on one hand, to the imperfection in its inflectional mechanism, and to the difficulty of establishing an inventory of values and notions expressed by it on the other. Other than Classical Arabic, which has at its disposal an almost impeccable inflectional system in respect of the grammatical person, gender, number, and three moods, Hebrew is incapable of unambiguously marking in form and differentiating the three moods, the jussive mood in particular. This, however, comes to unambiguous marking only in certain binyans on the one hand and in certain inflection classes on the other, and that only in part. On the values indicated by the three moods, there has not yet emerged any universal consensus. As a vague, catch-all rubric we often invoke ‘volitive,’ which is capable of comprising diverse modalities such as jussive, injunctive, deontic, desiderative, permissive etc. Thus ‫ ַאל יָבוֹא‬would be universally analysed as indicating the author’s or speaker’s negative wish: ‘I wish that he does not come,’ ‘he should not come,’ whereas ‫ לֹא יָבוֹא‬can mean ‘he is not expected to come,’ ‘he is not capable of coming,’ but also ‘he ought not to come,’ ‘we do not wish him to come’ and the like. Context can, of course, help, but not always. ‫יְ ִהי‬, if to be negated, can only take ‫אל‬, ַ but ‫ יִ ְהיוּ‬can be negated with either ‫ ַאל‬or ‫לֹא‬. It has been said from time to time that the position of the verb is of fundamental importance: a clause-initial PC is jussive. (3) In 1QS 2.7-10 translators see a series of jussives or optatives: ‫ ולוא יהיה לכה שלום‬.. ‫ ישא‬.. ‫ לוא יסלח‬.. ‫לוא יחונכה‬. They use the ‫ אעזרכה ואצורכה ואתנכה‬.. ‫ אענכה‬1QIsaª Luzzatto (1970.344) equates ‫ עניתיך‬to ‫אענך‬, whereas Winton Thomas, editing the book for BHS, proposes reading ‫וָ אצרך וָ אתנך‬. 1 An error for ‫תמלא‬. 2 Charlesworth (1995.13, n. 8) analyses ‫ עשה‬in ‫ אשר עשה בדור אחרון‬CD 1.12 as a prophetic past, as “is confirmed by a 4Q text,” but if he is referring to 4Q266 2i16, the text in Charlesworth (2006.12) reads ‫אח ֯רו֯ ן‬ ֯ ‫בדור א‬ ֯ ‫עשה‬, not ‫יעשה‬. On Is 11.9 and 43.20, see Kutscher (1974.42, 355), who thinks the prophetic Pf. was shunned. Given this extreme rarity of the prophetic Pf. one might better see a scribal error in ‫ עשה‬for ‫יעשה‬. Davies (1983.235) translates “what He had done,” making no mention of the possibility of prophetic Perfect (ib. 67-69). To postulate ‫ עשה‬as defectiva spelled for ‫ ע ֶֹשׂה = עושה‬with a ptc. indicating an assured, future action (§ 17 e) is unlikely, for that would require ‫ הוא‬as the subject. Cf. Schwarz 1965.76f. 3 So, for instance, Niccacci (1987.9), who argues that a clause-initial yiqtol is jussive in BH, though a jussive may also, we are told, be delayed as in ‫ת־בּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַא ָתּה ְתּ ַצוֶּ ה ֶא‬Ex 27.20 (cited and discussed on p. 10), whilst no account is taken of the well-known morphological opposition, in this case between ‫ ְתּ ַצוֶּ ה‬and ‫תּ ַצו‬. ְ Niccacci’s thesis, also advanced subsequently by Qimron (1997), does work reasonably well, though one ought to be aware of not a few counter examples, e.g. ‫‘ ֲהיֵ ֵרד ָשׁאוּל‬Saul might come down?’ 1Sm 23.11; ‫וּבתֹהוּ יְ ֵלל יְ ִשׁמֹן יְ ס ְֹב ֶבנְ הוּ יְבוֹנְ נֵ הוּ יִ ְצּ ֶרנְ הוּ ְכּ ִאישׁוֹן ֵעינוֹ‬ ְ ‫יִמ ָצ ֵאהוּ ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְד ָבּר‬ ְ Dt 32.10; ‫ָראוּ ִאיִּ ים וְ יִ ָיראוּ‬ Is 41.5.

THE VERB — § 14 e – 15 ba


modal “May there be peace with me!” or the subjunctive, e.g. Germ. “kein Friede werde dir zuteil” (Lohse 6) and Fr. “qu’il n’y ait pas pour toi (une parole) de paix” (DSP 12). But only a few lines further on we read ‫‘ שלום יהי לי‬Let me have peace’ 1QS 2.13, where again we find “May,” “Friede sei mit mir,” and “Que la paix soit à moi.” (1) The Hebrew text uses two different forms: ‫ יהיה‬vs. ‫יהי‬. The four PC forms in the curse pronounced by the Levites can be viewed as an expression of certainty, which would come over to the hearer as more threatening. Analogously the preceding ‫ ארור‬indicates that the person is already cursed, not that the Levites wish him to meet with such an end. That an Impf., not clause-initial, can be modal is clearly shown by the above-quoted ‫שלום יהי לי‬. (2) See also ‫כול באי הברית יענו ואמרו אחריהם אמן אמן ככה יעשו שנה בשנה‬ ‘all those who join the covenant shall respond, saying “Amen, Amen.” Thus they shall do every year’ 1QS 2.18; ‫‘ בצדקותו ימח פשעי‬with His acts of justice may He erase my iniquities!’ 1QS 11.3; ‫‘ שלום שידע יהי לך‬Greetings! It should be known to you’ M42 2. In BH we meet with quite a few instances, e.g. ‫ֹלהיָך יְ ִהי ִע ָמְּך‬ ֶ ‫ וַ יהוָ ה ֱא‬2Sm 14.17; ‫וְ יָ ֵדנוּ‬ ‫ל־תּ ִהי־בוֹ‬ ְ ‫ ַא‬Gn 37.27; ‫וּבנֶ יָך ִא ָתְּך‬ ָ ‫ל־תּ ְשׁ ְתּ ַא ָתּה‬ ֵ ‫ יַ יִ ן וְ ֵשׁ ָכר ַא‬Lv 10.9; ‫ם־א ָחיו‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַהנַּ ַער יַ ַעל ִע‬Gn 44.33; ‫ל־תּ ַעשׂ ִע ָמּ ִדי‬ ַ ‫ְך־שׁ ַתּיִ ם ַא‬ ְ ‫ ַא‬Jb 13.20. (3) See below (§ dad, pp. 67f.) on our reservation on the allegedly clause-initial (w-)eqtla. a) Future This is one of the commonest uses of the self-standing PC. E.g. ‫אז תצא לנצח אמת תבל‬ ‘then truth will go out into the world for ever’ 1QS 4.19; ‫‘ אז יברר אל‬then God will purify’ 1QS 4.20 (4). b) Preterite In CBH the free-standing PC is not infrequently found with the preterite value. (5) Whereas in CBH this is found in plain prose as well, e.g. ‫ וְ ֵכן יַ ֲע ֶשׂה ָשׁנָ ה ְב ָשׁנָ ה‬1Sm 1.7, it is, in QH, mostly confined to poetic texts. ba) Past, perfective aspect In Biblical poetry the bare, free-standing yiqtol is sometimes used to denote a past action, not only with imperfective aspect of habitual, repetitive, durative and the like, but also to denote a one-off past action of punctiliar value. (6) It is not surprising to find 1 Licht (1965.70) mentions a few passages in Enoch (5.4, 12.5, 94.6), where a similar pronouncement is made. The Ethiopic version uses the indicative /yekawwen/ at 5.4 and 12.5, not jussive /yekun/, and at 94.6 a nominal clause, /’albomu salām/. 2 See Niccacci 1987.9, § 1.3.1. This particular example meets neither of the conditions laid down by Niccacci for a non-clause-initial PC to be jussive. 3 More examples may be found at Ezk 16.5, 45.10, Ps 69.26, Jb 3.4, 3.7, Pr 3.8. 4 On the meaning of the verb ‫ ברר‬here, cf. Muraoka 2010.307f. 5 See JM § 113 e-h. 6 See JM § 113 h.



the same in a poetic Qumran composition such as Hodayot. E.g. ‫קדרות לבשתי ולשוני‬ ‫‘ לחכי תדבק‬I clothed myself with darkness and my tongue stuck to the roof of my mouth’ 1QHa 13.33 (1), where qatal and yiqtol appear in poetic parallelism (2) exactly as in ‫מוֹ־א ֶבן‬ ָ ‫ ְתּהֹמֹת יְ ַכ ְסיֻמוּ יָ ְרדוּ ִב ְמצוֹֹלת ְכּ‬Ex 15.5—likewise ‫הם רשת פרשו לי תלכוד רגלם‬ ‫‘ ופחים טמנו לנפשי נפלו בם‬they spread a snare for me, but it would catch their feet, and they concealed traps for my life, but they fell into them’ 1QHa 10.31, ‫אתה אלי תשיב‬ ‫‘ )נפשי( סערה לדממה ונפש אביון פלטתה‬You as my god have turned (the state of) my soul from a storm to calmness and You rescued the soul of the poor one’ 1QHa 13.20, ‫הוות‬ ‫[בליעל פתחו לשון שקר‬ ֗ ‫יחשובו֗ ו֯ ֯ד ֯ב]רי‬ ֗ ‫‘ לבם‬they plotted destructive actions in their mind(s) and the words of Belial opened a lying tongue’ 1QHa 13.28, where it is possible to postulate that they thought fast and instantly put their decision into action. See also ‫ות אשתעשע‬ ֗ ‫בצוקותי נחמתני ובסלי֗ ֗ח‬ ֗ ‘in my distressful times You comforted me and I was delighted with forgivenesses (granted)’ 1QHa 17.13; ‫באמת נכון סמכתני ו֗ ֗ב ֗רוח ֗קו֗ דשכה‬ ‫‘ תשעשענ֗ י‬in truth You supported me, putting me on a firm footing, and with Your holy spirit You delighted me’ 1QHa 17.32; ‫ יסובבוני‬.. ‫‘ עששו‬they became dim .. they would encircle me’ 1QHa 13.36; ‫‘ וכול גרמי ירועו‬and all my bones broke to pieces’ 1QHa 12.34 (3), preceded by ‫(‘ אחזוני‬quivering and shivering) gripped me’; ‫לחתוף מבלגית‬ ֗ ‫כזוחלי עפר יורו‬ ‫ ותהי לכאוב אנוש‬.. ‫‘ פתנים‬like those which crawl in the dust they shot, in order to seize, a cobras’ powerful bite (4) .. and it became a debilitating pain’ 1QHa 13.29, where this preterite yiqtol is parallel to way-yiqtol as in ‫יִתּן קֹלוֹ‬ ֵ ‫‘ וַ יַּ ְר ֵעם ַבּ ָשּׁ ַמיִם יְ הוָ ה וְ ֶע ְליוֹן‬and the Lord thundered in the sky and the Most High uttered His voice’ Ps 18.14; ‫ורמי קומה‬ ‫‘ תגדע‬those standing tall You cut down’ 1QM 14.11, immediately preceded by ‫אתה‬ ‫‘ הקימותה נופלים בעוזכה‬You raised with Your might those falling’ (5). (6) bb) Past, imperfective aspect In BH the self-standing PC may be used with imperfective aspect with reference to a past action as in ‫‘ יַ ֲע ֶשׂה‬he used to do’ Jb 1.5; ‫‘ יַ ֲע ֶשׂה ָשׁנָ ה ְב ָשׁנָ ה‬he would do year in year out’ 1Sm 1.7; ‫ן־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫‘ וְ ֵאד יַ ֲע ֶלה ִמ‬a stream was (constantly) rising out of the ground’ Gn 2.6. (7) Pace Qimron I 77 there is no need to prefer ‫ לחך‬as corrected by the scribe. This standing collocation regularly appears with a conj. pron.; see DJD 40.177, where Jb 29.10 and Ps 137.6 are adduced, whereas Mansoor 1961.139 mentions also Ezk 3.26 and Lam 4.4. 2 Followed by a w-qatálti form: ‫‘ וסבבוני‬and they surrounded me.’ 3 Stegemann and Schuller (DJD 40.163) would prefer ‫‘ יריעו‬they groaned.’ However, we would note the presence of ‫‘ גרם‬bone’ as against ‫ע ֶצם‬. ֶ The former is more at home in Aramaic, which links with √‫רעע‬, an Aramaising root in lieu of √‫רצץ‬, a genuinely Hebrew root. Besides, can H ‫ ֵה ִר ַיע‬mean ‘to groan’? Whether the immediately following ‫ וילכו ברכי‬.. ‫‘ וימס לבבי‬and my heart melted .. and my knees gave way’ is a preterite ‫ וְ יֵ ְלכוּ‬.. ‫יִמּס‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬or an inversive ‫ וַ יֵּ ְלכוּ‬.. ‫ וַ יִּ ַמּס‬is hard to say. 4 On the meaning of the lexeme ‫מבלגית‬, see Kister 2001.37-40. De Vries (1965.404-06) translates with “They on their part conceiv[ed] ( ֗‫)יחשובו‬ ֗ .. and opened (‫ )פתחו‬.. hurled (‫ )יורו‬their hissing.. And this became (‫ )ותהי‬..,” and then comments “The imperfect YWRW expresses the continuing circumstance resulting from the opening of their mouth.” 5 Though 1QM is not exactly a poetic text, one knows that its Hebrew is often at a superb literary level. 6 For more BH examples, see JM, § 113 h and Driver 1892, § 27. 7 See JM § 113 e-f. 1

THE VERB — § 15 ba-bb


This is exemplified in ‫‘ כול היום ידכאו נפשי‬they would crush my soul all day long’ ‫ ואבש‬2Sm 15.2 4Q51 (1) // MT ‫וְ ִה ְשׁ ִכּים ַא ְב ָשׁלוֹם‬ 1QHa 13.19; ‫ואבשלום י֯ שכים ויעמוד על יד הדרך‬ ‫ואבשלום יעשה‬ ‫וְ ָע ַמד ַעל־יַ ד ֶדּ ֶרְך‬, but note an enlightening variant in .. ‫ והשכים אבשלום‬.. ‫שה‬ 2 ‫ אימזה עיר אתה וענה האיש ואמר‬4Q53 ( ), which, with ‫והשכים‬, presents an alternative imperfective syntagm. In a description of an apocalyptic vision: ‫על שתים תלך החיה‬ ‫‘ האחת‬one animal was walking on two legs’ 4Q385 6.7, cf. ‫ל־ע ֶבר‬ ֵ ‫לֹא־יִ ַסּבּוּ ְב ֶל ְכ ָתּן ִאישׁ ֶא‬ ‫ ָפּנָ יו יֵ ֵלכוּ‬Ezk 1.9 (3). As an example of QH attempting to modernise our archaic BH syntactic feature we ‫ עו‬4Q51 // ‫ יַ ֲעשׂוּן‬1Sm 2.22 MT. (4) may cite ‫עושים‬ One is probably right in concluding that, in QH, the preterite value of the self-standing PC, whether with perfective or imperfective aspect, had almost breathed its last. Hence ‫ אז תטהר‬4Q381 69.6 is not comparable with ‫‘ ָאז יָ ִשׁיר־מ ֶֹשׁה‬then Moses sang’ Ex 15.1. (5) Nor does another common BH syntagm ְ with preterite value occur in QH (6), instead we find at ‫‘ בטרם נוסדו‬before they were established’ CD 2.7, ‫‘ בטרם בראתם‬before You created them’ 1QHa 5.25, a syntagm that is known to BH, but extremely rare, e.g. ‫ ְבּ ֶט ֶרם ָה ִרים יֻ ָלּדוּ‬Ps 90.2, see also ‫וַ יְ ִהי־הוּא ֶט ֶרם ִכּ ָלּה ְל ַד ֵבּר‬ Gn 24.15 // ‫ ֲאנִ י ֶט ֶרם ֲא ַכ ֶלּה ְל ַד ֵבּר‬vs. 45, where Abraham’s servant is narrating what he experienced. In ‫ אל תמשילהו‬.. ‫‘ איש שופט בטרם ידרוש‬a man who passes judgement before having investigated, .. you shall not put in a position of authority’ 4Q424 3.1 we have something totally different; it is not about a particular incident in the past, but a generic injunction. The occasional conversion of the self-standing, preterite yiqtol in the underlying biblical text to way-yiqtol or qatal in Qumran biblical texts may be viewed 1 DJD 17.154 restores the text as ‫ואבשלום ֯השכם ועמד ֗על יד הדרך‬ ‫ואבש‬. The restoration is somewhat questionable: 1) the use of the inf. abs. in lieu of a finite form as the preceding verb commonly with perfective aspect, which is typical of LBH, is mostly prefixed with the conjunction waw in both BH (JM § 123 x) and QH (below at § 18 oc); 2) the two verbs carry on ‫ויעשׂ‬, surely a one-off action, but the translator of the proto-Lucianic version thinks it is followed by a series of repeated actions: καὶ ὤρθριζεν Ἀβεσσαλώμ (= MT ‫)וְ ִה ְשׁ ִכּים אבשׁלום‬, καὶ ἐφίστατο .. ἦν .. ἐγίνετο .. ἤρχετο .. ἐκάλει .. ἔλεγεν .., all Imperfects with the exception of ἀπεκρίνατο for ἀπεκρίνετο; 3) the two verbs in question are followed by several of the pattern ‫—וקטל‬all to be analysed as inf. abs.?; 4) our editors admit an alternative reading ‫ ישכם‬and assign the verb “modal sense,” which they must mean what we call imperfective aspect. Cf. καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ὄρθριος πρὸς τὰ βασίλεια παρεγίνετο ‘early every morning he would arrive at the palace’ Josephus, Antiq. 7.195. See also Callaham 2010.198-204. 2 The editors’ (DJD 17.154) restoration of 4Q51 may have been influenced by the reading in 4Q53 at this point, but this significantly differs from 4Q51, which reads ‫שה‬ ‫ואבשלום יעשה‬, presumably implying that every morning Absalom would put together such a team, albeit rather unlikely. Then ‫ יעשה‬with an imperfective aspect can be in CBH idiomatically continued with w-qataltí indicating a repeated action in the past, so ‫וְ ִה ְשׁ ִכּים‬, not ‫וְ ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם‬. 3 Cf. LXX: οὐκ ἐπεστρέφοντο ἐν τῷ βαδίζειν αὐτά, ἕκαστον κατέναντι τοῦ προσώπου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύοντο, Impf. twice. 4 Cf. LXX L: ἤκουσεν .. ἐποίουν .. συνεκοιμῶντο. 5 See JM § 113 i. Schuller in Charlesworth 1997.33 allows for both alternatives: “it will be purified” and “it was purified,” parsing ‫ שבו‬in ‫ שבו על הארץ אז תטהר‬as = ‫ ָ֫שׁבוּ‬and translating “they returned to the land; then it was purified,” makes little sense, for they were not returning home. 6 See JM § 113 j, and Kesterson 1984.7f., 85. In JM § 113 j n. 2 we indicated that PC in conjunction with ‫ )ב(טרם‬might not be a preterite form.



in this light. E.g. ‫ ִתּ ְשׁ ַמ ְענָ ה ָאזְ נָ י‬Ps 92.12 // ]‫ שמעה‬1Q10 2.1 (1); ‫יִמּ ֵלא ָע ָשׁן‬ ָ ‫ ַה ַבּיִת‬Is 6.4 // a 2 ‫ הבית נמלא עשן‬1QIsa . ( ) See also Ps 18.17 11Q7 9.3 ‫ויק ֯חני‬ ֯ (MT ‫)יִ ָקּ ֵחנִ י‬, following ‫( יִ ְשׁ ַלח‬3), where the context clearly indicates preterite interpretation (4); Ps 104.22 11Q5 E ii2 ‫ויאספון‬, 4Q86 4.10 ‫( ויאספו‬MT ‫( ִתּזְ ַרח ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ יֵ ָא ֵספוּן‬5) ). The above-quoted ‫קדרות לבשתי‬ ‫ ולשוני לחך)י( תדבק‬is reworded in a related text as ‫ ֯ל ֯שו֯ נ֯ י֗ לחכי דבקה‬4Q429 3.4. (6) We would also stress that the overwhelming majority of QH instances attesting to the preterite use of the PC, whether perfective or imperfective in aspect, occur in a single poetic document, Hodayot. c) Present As in BH (7), the self-standing PC can indicate an action or a state, but not specifically in the past nor in the future. It is thus not possessed of the value of actual present indicating what is going on or a state that prevails at the moment of speaking. This value is borne by the participle or the nominal clause. The PC may be used in this manner in generic statements. E.g. ‫בלשונ֯ ה תוציא הבל‬ ‫בלשו‬ ‫ תועות תשחר תמי֗ ֯ד‬.. ‘with her tongue she brings vanity out .. she always yearns after fallacies’ 4Q184 1.1; more examples in this sapiential document — ‫והנה‬ ̇ ‫עיניה הנה‬ ‫ועפעפיה בפחז תרים‬ ֯ ‫‘ ישכילו‬her eyes glance hither and thither and she raises her eyelids impudently’ ib. 1.13. Likewise ‫אה‬ ֗ ‫וחט‬ ֗ ‫‘ לבבי כדונג ימס על פשע‬my heart melts like wax on account of iniquity and sin’ 1QHa 22.33; ‫זובחים בגנות וינקו ידים על האבנים‬ Is 65.3 1QIsaª, where the parallelism to a participle is unusual (8). Also in a description of actions typical of God—‘for the Lord visits (‫ )יבקר‬pious ones and righteous ones He calls (‫ )יקרא‬by name and His spirit moves (‫ )תרחף‬over poor ones and faithful ones He reinvigorates (‫ )יחליף‬with His strength, for He honours (‫)יכבד‬ pious ones by (seating them) on the throne of eternal reign,’ then followed by four asyndetic participles—‘He releases (‫ )מתיר‬captives, opens (‫ )פוקח‬the eyes of the blind, lets the bent down stand erect (‫)זוקף‬,’ but shifting back to the Impf.—‘He does not tarry (‫ )יתאחר‬.. He performs (‫ )יעשה‬.. He heals (‫ )ירפא‬the sick, He resuscitates (‫)יחיה‬ the dead .. He conveys good tidings (‫ )יבשר‬.. He leads (‫ )ינהל‬the abandoned and He enriches (‫ )יעשר‬the hungry’ 4Q521 2ii5. (9) On ‫ שמעה‬as possibly a 3fp form, see § 32 f. See also Kutscher 1974.352. 3 Cf. LXX ἐξαπέστειλεν .. καὶ ἔλαβέν με. 4 Another fragment (4Q85 5.3) reads ‫ ֯ינשמי‬, though the immediately preceding ‫ ינחקי‬has not been preserved. 5 Cf. LXX ἀνέτειλεν ὁ ἥλιος καὶ συνήχθησαν. See Muraoka 2018a.163. 6 Qimron (I 77 ad 1QHa 13.33) notes that ‫ דבקה‬here is perhaps = ‫דּ ֵב ָקה‬,ָ i.e. Ptc. Qimron does not admit a preterite value of the self-standing PC. 7 See JM § 113 c-d. 8 The second half of the text is quite different in MT: ‫ל־ה ְלּ ֵבנִ ים‬ ַ ‫וּמ ַק ְטּ ִרים ַע‬. ְ 9 Parallel to Impf. verbs, both preceding and following, these participles are to be analysed as pseudofinite verb forms with their pronominal subject ‫ הוא‬loosely missing. The poet’s dependence on Ps 147.7b-8 1 2

THE VERB — § 15 bb-da


This use of the PC does not appear to belong to plain prose. Though often translated with the plain present tense, ‫ ינחלו‬and ‫ יתהלכו‬in 1QS may carry some injunctive value: ‘they are destined to inherit .. to walk’ 1QS 4.15. ca) Atemporal The PCL may be found in subordinate clauses with diverse values: final, e.g. ‫לוא תואכל‬ ‫‘ את הנפש עם הבשר למען ייטב לכה‬You shall not eat the life with the meat so that it may fare well for you’ 11Q19 53.6; temporal—‫‘ עד זמן שישלם זמן הגנות‬until such time when the season of gardens is over’ 5/6Ḥev 45.19; conditional—‫‘ אם יומרו לו ידבר‬if they tell him to, he may speak’ 1QS 6.13. More examples are adduced below in § 31 v 4-4e. With complementary value: ‫‘ מי חפץ כי יגזל ברשע הונו‬Who wants to have his property unjustly looted?’ 1Q27 1.10. d) Modal The self-standing PC can express diverse modalities other than indicative, namely an indication of an objective fact with no past reference, but an expression of the volition or perspective of a speaker / writer or speakers / writers. It is not about the volition or perspective of an agens / agentes (‘actor’ / ‘actors’) as the grammatical subject(s) of the verb in question. (1) da) Volitive This is the commonest modality expressed by the PC: a speaker / speakers or a writer / writers wills or will that a state / states of affairs be so and so or a person / persons addressed act this way or that. E.g. ‫‘ כול הנדבים לאמתו יביאו כול ּ דעתם‬all those committing themselves to His truth shall bring all their knowledge’ 1QS 1.11; ‫כול הבאים בסרכ‬ ‫‘ היחד יעבורו בברית‬all who enter .. shall move into a (relationship with) the covenant’ 1QS 1.16; ‫‘ ככה יעשו שנה בשנה‬so they shall do year after year’ 1QS 2.19. Just as in the Decalogue the volitive can also be negatived (2): ‫עם ישרים לוא יתחשב‬ ‫ לוא יצדק‬.. ‫‘ ודעתו וכוחו והונו לוא יבואו בעצת יחד‬with the upright ones he is not be numbered, and his knowledge, strength and property are not to come into the council of the community .. he is not to be accepted as righteous’ 1QS 3.1. The immediately is in no doubt. In this psalm, unlike in our 4Q521 passage, the message on ‫ יהוה‬as the reliable fountain of every blessing is worded with nominal clauses: ‫ֹלהיו‬ ָ ‫א ְשׁ ֵרי ֶשׁ ֵאל יַ ֲעקֹב ְבּ ֶעזְ רוֹ ִשׂ ְברוֹ ַעל־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬. ַ Then follow four participles, all with God as their latent subject, and they do not appear to be substantivised and in apposition, as shown by the presence of ‫ את‬and the non-use of cst. forms, e.g. ‫ר־בּם‬ ָ ‫ל־א ֶשׁ‬ ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ת־היָּ ם וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ע ֶֹשׂה ָשׁ ַמיִם וָ ָא ֶרץ ֶא‬ (vs. 6). All the more striking is the fact that, where the unmistakable verbal affinity with our 4Q521 commences, ‫ יהוה‬is explicitly introduced as the subject: ‫פוּפים‬ ִ ‫סוּרים יהוָ ה פּ ֵֹק ַח ִעוְ ִרים יְ הוָ ה ז ֵֹקף ְכּ‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ַמ ִתּיר ֲא‬. 1 When ‫ יְ ִהי אוֹר‬Gn 1.3 was uttered, light was yet to emerge nor had it its own will. 2 In spite of our traditional understanding of the negatively formulated pronouncements, the archaic Hebrew title is ‫ ֲע ֶשׂ ֶרת ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים‬Dt 10.4, not ‫ע ֶשׂר ַה ִמּ ְצוֹת‬, ֶ cf. LXX τοὺς δέκα λόγους = our Decalogue, though a straightforward Impv. is parallel to the Fut. of injunctive force, e.g. φύλαξαι .. οὐ μοιχεύσεις Dt 5.16f. All the same, it is to be noted that the opposition in the Hebrew text is between the inf. abs. and the PCL ‫ לֹא ִתנְ ָאף‬.. ‫שׁמוֹר‬, ָ not ‫אל ִתּנְ ָאף‬. ַ Interesting is ‫ אל יעש איש ביום השישי מלאכה‬CD 10.14 as against ‫א־ת ֲע ֶשׂה‬ ַ ֹ‫ל‬ ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ל־מ ָל‬ ְ ‫ ָכ‬Ex 20.10.



following, positively worded clause, ‫וחושך יביט לדרכי אור‬, cannot be an encouragement so to act, but a generic statement: ‘he is actually gazing at darkness when he is looking for ways of light.’ In a regulation on punishment we must be dealing with an injunctive form: ‫‘ לוא ישוב עוד‬he shall not return’ 1QS 7.2. Since a pure injunctive is contextually implausible in ‫ ביד מלאך חושך כול ממשלת בני עול ובדרכי חושך יתהלכו‬1QS 3.20 the nuance is slightly varied: ‘in the hand of the angel of darkness resides the dominion of the sons of iniquity and in the ways of darkness they are condemned to walk,’ although in the parallel clause ‫ ביד שר אורים ממשלת כול בני צדק בדרכי אור יתהלכו‬the same verb must carry an injunctive value, ‘in the hand of the prince of lights resides the reign of all the children of righteousness; they shall walk along the paths of light,’ for otherwise no sense could be made of the following clause: ‫במלאך חושך תעות כול בני צדק וכול‬ ‫‘ חטאתם ועוונותם‬with the angel of darkness lies the error of all the children of righteousness and all their sins and iniquities.’ daa) Jussive Also in unvocalised documents verbs of some inflectional classes and / or in some inflectional categories may use jussive forms explicitly marked as volitive. (1) These jussive forms stand out in Lamed-Yod verbs negatived with the prohibitive ‫אל‬, as they appear in certain inflectional categories as apocopated (2): ‫אל יעש איש ביום‬ ‫ השישי מלאכה‬CD 10.14, obviously dependent on ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ל־מ ָל‬ ְ ‫א־ת ֲע ֶשׂה ָכ‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ל‬Ex 20.10 // ‫לא‬ ‫ יעשה‬1QS 11.11; ‫‘ אל יעש‬he shall not do’ CD 13.15; ‫סוד‬ ֗ ‫‘ אל תעש‬you shall not keep company’ 4Q418 140.3; ‫‘ אל יגל איש‬Let no man expose [= ‫ ’]יְ גַ ל‬4Q251 17.6; ‫אל תהי‬ ‫‘ בביתו‬you shall not be in his house’ 4Q418 101ii3; ‫יעל אי֗ ש ֗בהמה‬ ֗ ‫‘ אל‬nobody shall pick up an animal’ 4Q265 6.5; ‫‘ אל יעל איש‬none shall offer’ CD 11.17 (3); ‫‘ אל תרף‬you shall not let go of ..’ 4Q416 2ii8; ‫‘ אל יז‬he shall not sprinkle’ 4Q274 2i2, 4Q277 1ii7; ‫‘ אל תשת יין‬you shall not drink wine’ 4Q417 2ii+23.24; ‫‘ אל תתאו‬you shall not covet’ 4Q418 9+9a-c.7 // ‫ לוא יתאוה‬1QS 9.25. Positively worded examples are ‫‘ שלום יהי לי‬May there be peace for me’ 1QS 2.13; ‫‘ בצדקותו ימח פשעי‬with His acts of justice may He erase my iniquities!’ 1QS 11.3; ‫שלום‬ ‫‘ שידע יהי לך‬Greetings! It should be known to you’ M42 2; ‫‘ ויאר‬and may He enlighten!’ 1QS 2.3 (4); ‫‘ יקם על נפשו‬he shall pledge on his life’ 1QS 5.8 // ‫ על נפשו‬.. ‫ אשר יקים‬1QS 5.10 (5). 1 For details of this morphological aspect, see JM § 54 a, 79 i, 80 b, g, 81 b, c, e for BH, and Qimron 2018.162f. (5) for QH. 2 Here we present a complete list of the prohibitive ‫ אל‬with a verb form explicitly marked as PCS. We have deliberately excluded cases such as ‫ אל יאמן‬CD 10.2, ‫ אל ירם‬CD 11.6, since such could be analysed as ‫ ]יַ ֲא ִמין =[ יאמין‬and ‫]יָ ִרים =[ ירים‬, i.e. defectively spelled PCLs, and not ‫ יַ ֲא ֵמן‬and ‫ יָ ֶרם‬respectively. ‫‘ אל יבא‬he shall not bring’ 4QSd 2.5 suggests that in ‫ אל יביא‬1QS 6.1 we possibly have a plena spelling, ‫יָביא‬, ֵ and not ‫יָביא‬. ִ Do we have mere spelling variants in ‫‘ אל יוצא‬he shall not take out’ CD 11.8 vs. ‫אל יוציא‬ CD 11.7? More examples of negatived, shortened, i.e. not apocopated, forms are cited by Qimron (2018.162). 3 The preceding ‫ אל יעלה‬means ‘he shall not lift (him).’ 4 Qimron (2018.163, C notes that, where prefixed with the conjunction ‫ו־‬, every Hifil verb and a hollow root Qal Ayin-Yod verb are spelled without a middle vowel letter. 5 One doubts whether we can, as Qimron (1987.150, n. 4) does, dismiss a case such as these as “fossilised,” namely not part of the langue of QH.

THE VERB — § 15 da-dac


One also finds cases prefixed with a conjunctive waw as in ‫בליעל בהם‬ ֗ ‫ו֯ תהי ממשלת‬ 1 ‘and let there come Belial’s domination over them’ 4Q390 2i3 ( ); ‫ותעש להמה כפרעוה‬ ‘and may You do to them as (You did to) Pharaoh’ 1QM 11.9 (2); ‫ישמורכה מכול רע ויאר‬ ‫‘ לבכה‬May He protect you from every evil and enlighten your mind’ 1QS 2.3. In Pseudo-Ezekiel ‫ ותהי‬most likely expresses more than prediction, but an announcement ֗ ‫חלחלה בפוט‬ ֯ ‫‘ ותהי‬and there shall be anguish in Put and of God’s will ‫ותהי חרב ֗ב ֗מצרים‬ there shall be a sword against Egypt’ 4Q385b 1.3, preceded by ‫אב ֗דן גוים‬ ֗ ‫הנה בא יום‬ ‘behold there is coming a day of perdition of nations,’ where the participle can be seen as expressing an assured future event (§ 17 e). Though not morphologically distinct from the indicative PC, forms are to be viewed as volitive in function in cases like ‫‘ אל יאמן איש‬none shall be trusted [= ‫ ’]יֵ ָא ֵמן‬CD 10.2; ‫‘ אל ישלח‬he shall not send’ CD 11.2; ‫( תסירו‬MT ‫ סוּרוּ‬and 4QIsac ‫ )סורו‬followed by ‫ השביתו‬.. ‫ הטו‬Is 30.11 1QIsaa, both Impvs.; ‫הכהנים אל יקחו‬ ‫‘ הכ‬the priests should not take’ CD 16.14. dab) Permissive ‫אחר יקחנה‬ ֯ ‘thereafter he may take her’ 4Q271 3.15; ‫‘ אם יומרו לו ידבר‬if they tell him to, he may speak’ 1QS 6.13. The permissive value of the Impf. may be inferred from the substitution of ‫תוּכל ָל ֵתת‬ ַ ‫ לֹא‬in the underlying biblical text (Dt 17.15) with ‫לוא תתן‬ 11Q19 56.15. dac) Cohortative This conventional, quaint label is applied to PCā, i.e. penultimately accented PC with /-ā/ added. The cohortative is used when a speaker(s) express(es) his, her or their own volition. It makes sense to find a concentration of cohortatives in a poetic passage expressing the author’s will and determination: ‫‘ אזמרה‬I would sing’ 1QS 10.9; ‫‘ אבואה‬I would enter’ ib. 10; ‫ הבחרה‬for ‫‘ אבחרה‬I would choose’ ib. 12; ‫‘ ארננה‬I would sing’ ib. 14, ib. 17; ‫‘ אדעה‬I would know’ ib. 16; ‫‘ אחלקה‬I would share out’ ib. 25; ‫‘ אמצאה‬I would like to discover’ 1QHa 8.24; ‫‘ אתעודדה ואקומה‬I will take courage and stand up’ 1QHa 12.23, cp. ‫‘ התעודדתי ואקומה‬I took courage and stood up’ 1QHa 12.37; .. ‫ ונשישה‬.. ‫נשמחה‬ ‫‘ ונגילה‬we would rejoice .. exult .. revel’ 1QM 13.12. Also in a legal text: .. ‫ואודיעה‬ ‫‘ ואספירה‬and I will make known .. and recount’ 4Q266 1a-b5. Note also ‫שמכה נברכה‬ ‘we would bless Your name’ 1QM 13.7. The vitality of the cohortative is evidenced by ‫‘ אחסיה‬I would seek refuge’ 1QHa 17.29, when in BH the cohortative of Lamed-Heh verbs is utterly rare, the only comparable instance being ‫ ֶא ֱה ָמיָ ה‬Ps 77.4 (3). 1

Rather than “and[ there ]will be ..” (DJD 30.246); God is cursing them, not a mere prediction. Cf. a discussion by Holst (2012.111). 3 Note two anomalous instances of √‫שׁעה‬: ‫ ֶא ְשׁ ָעה‬Ps 119.117 and ‫ נִ ְשׁ ָתּ ָעה‬Is 41.23. See further Bergsträsser, II § 5 f. We hesitate to apply this short list of three examples in BH to more than ten examples in QH like ‫אהיה‬, which Qimron (2018.166, n. 29) says can represent either ’ehye or ’ehya. 2



Very rare instances of the extension to 2 and 3 pers. are .. ‫בוֹאה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִת ְק ַרב וְ ָת‬.. ‫ישׁה‬ ָ ‫יָ ִח‬ a ‫ וְ נֵ ְד ָעה‬Is 5.19 > ‫ ונדע‬.. ‫ ותקרבה ותבואה‬.. ‫ יחישׁ‬1QIsa , ‫ ותקרבה ותבוא‬.. ‫יחישה‬ ֗ ‫ ו֯ י‬4Q56 3ii5 (1), where the inconsistency is probably indicative of the uncertainty on the part of the author and scribes. dad) Cohortative in form only Already in BH the cohortative is sometimes found, in LBH in particular (2), devoid of its original value, but as equivalent to wa-’eqtol, e.g. ‫צוּמה וַ נְּ ַב ְק ָשׁה‬ ָ ָ‫‘ וַ נּ‬and we fasted and supplicated’ Ezr 8.23. This feature is continued in QH and very much in evidence. (3) Thus ‫ וָ א ַֹמר‬Is 6.8 > ‫ ואמרה‬1QIsaa, sim. vs. 11; ‫ וָ ַאגִּ יד‬Is 48.5 // ‫ ואגידה‬1QIsaa, sim. 49.5; ‫ וַ נָּ ֶבל‬Is 64.5 // ‫ ונבולה‬1QIsaa; ‫ וָ א ַֹמר‬Ex 3.17 // ‫ ואומרה‬4Q13 3ii+5-6i8; ‫ וַ נָּ בוֹא‬1Sm 10.14 // ‫ ונבואה‬4Q51; ‫ וָ ֶא ְק ַרב‬Dt 22.14 // ‫ ואקרבה‬11Q19 65.8. However, this is the case not only in biblical manuscripts, but also elsewhere. Thus ‫‘ ואדעה‬and I have realised’ 1QHa 7.36 is parallel to ‫ אני ידעתי‬in a line earlier and two lines later. Again at ‫העליתני לרום עולם‬ ‫ ואתהלכה במישור לאין חקר ואדעה כיא יש מקוה לאשר יצרתה מעפר‬1QHa 11.21 we would see a confession of the poet’s past experience—‘You lifted me to the eternal height and I freely walked about in a boundless plain and learned that there is hope for him whom You fashioned from dust.’ (4) However, resistance to this tendency is also present in ‫ וַ נַּ ַח ְל ָמה‬Gn 41.11 // ‫ ונחלם‬4Q3 1ii18, found surprising by Davila, a DJDS XII editor; ‫ וָ א ְֹמ ָרה‬Dn 10.19 // ‫ ואמר‬4Q112 15.17. In one instance this extended wa-’eqtla is further stretched by continuing a ptc. having the value of historic present, when the wa-’eqtla form indicates an action posterior to that denoted by the ptc.: ‫קול אומר קרא ואומרה‬ Is 40.6 1QIsaa for MT ‫קוֹל א ֵֹמר ְק ָרא וְ ָא ַמר ָמה ֶא ְק ָרא‬, which is obviously amiss. (5) 1 ‫ תקרבה‬becomes a fourth example in addition to the three earlier known ones, the other two being ‫ישׁה‬ ָ ‫ יָ ִח‬Is 5.19 and ‫ ָתּ ֻע ָפה‬Jb 11.7, cf. JM § 45 a with the f.n. there. 2 Qimron (2018.168 ad finem) writes we “should no longer consider the form ‫ וָ אקטלה‬as a late Biblical feature.” The situation in BH is for everybody to see in Bergsträsser’s (1929 § 5 f) long list of references, and he adds “u. ö.” [= “und öfters,” without bothering to provide an exhaustive list]; he is absolutely right in concluding “fast ausschließlich und z. T. überwiegend in jüngeren Stücken des AT”. One might consider a BH form such as ‫ וָ ָא ִשׂים‬Gn 24.47 and many others as spelled defectiva for *‫ימה‬ ָ ‫וָ ָא ִשׂ‬. We would rather wait for such a form so spelled and vocalised to turn up in a Hebrew manuscript of respectable antiquity. 3 On BH, see JM, § 47 d-e, and on QH, Qimron 2018.161-63, 165f., § C and Muraoka 2000.196-98. The cardinal point in Qimron’s thesis is that the proclitic conjunction w- automatically leads in QH to the selection of the PCā, i.e. Cohortative, irrespective of whether the waw was /w-/ (conjunctive) or /wa-/ (consecutive or inversive). The sole exception to the rule in Qimron (1986.44) has now been joined by thirteen more (2018.166). He does not seem to include exceptions in 1QIsaa, e.g. ‫ ואכרות‬Is 55.3, ‫ ואהסתר‬57.17, ‫ ואשתומם‬.. ‫ ואביט‬63.5. 4 There is no convincing reason for making ‫ ואתהלכה‬introduce a new utterance with a conjunctive waw. DJD 40.155 apparently analyses the verb as volitive introducing a final clause—“so that I walk about on a limitless plain. I know that ..” and deletes the conjunction prefixed to ‫ואדעה‬, leaving the selection of the cohortative form unaccounted for. Lohse 123 is rather bewildering: “Ich will auf ebener Bahn wandeln .., und erkannte, daß ..,” (emphasis TM) and he vocalises ‫ וָ ֵא ְד ָעה‬.. ‫וָ ֶא ְת ַה ְל ָכה‬. Cf. DSP 243 “.. et je me suis promené .. Et j’ai su qu’il y avait ..”. 5 Pace Driver (1892.162, n. 1) this can hardly be a case of frequentative syntagm.

THE VERB — § 15 dac-dad


Some biblical manuscripts use eqtla with the conjunction -‫ ו‬attached, which is most likely meant as inversive, -‫ וָ א‬or -‫וַ נּ‬, though MT vocalises it as - ְ‫ו‬. E.g. ‫ וְ ַא ְחזֵ ק‬.. ‫אתיָך‬ ִ ‫ְק ָר‬ Is 42.6 // ‫ ואחזיקה‬.. ‫ קראתיך‬1QIsaa, sim. Is 43.27f., 50.7; at Is 42.6 MT’s ‫ וְ ַא ְחזֵ ק‬is anomalous. Note further examples in Qumran Isaiah manuscripts: w-’eqtol // w-’eqtla: ‫ וְ ָאבוֹא‬.. ‫ וְ ֶא ְכר ֹת‬Is 37.24, following ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ ָע ִל‬// ‫ ואבוא‬.. ‫ ואכרותה‬1QIsaa, where it is not certain whether 1QIsaa meant ‫וָ אכרותה‬, for ‫ וְ אכרותה‬makes just as good sense. Similarly ַ ֹ ‫ וְ נ‬Is 41.26, preceded by .. ‫ִהגִּ יד‬ ‫ וְ ַא ְח ִרב‬Is 37.25, following ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ ָשׁ ִת‬// ‫ ואחריבה‬1QIsaa; ‫אמר‬ ְ ַ‫ ו‬.. ‫ וַ נֵּ ְד ָעה‬may be intended; ‫ וְ ֶא ְקצֹף‬Is 57.17 // ‫ וְ נֵ ְד ָעה‬// ‫ ונאומרה‬.. ‫ ונדעה‬1QIsaa, where ‫נּאוֹמ ָרה‬ ‫ ואקצופה‬1QIsaa, though preceded by ‫ואהסתר‬, probably an inversive waw being meant, so wa-’eqtla; ‫אוֹריד‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬.. ‫ וְ ָאבוּס‬Is 63.6, preceded by ‫ ְס ָמ ָכ ְתנִ י‬// ‫ ואורידה‬.. ‫ ואבוסה‬1QIsaa, 1QIsab (‫)וארידה‬. A reverse example is ‫ וְ ֶא ְכ ְר ָתה‬Is 55.3 // ‫ ואכרות‬1QIsaa. Elsewhere in the Bible: ‫ואתפושה‬ ֗ ‫ ואתפו‬4Q364 26i21 // ‫ וָ ֶא ְתפֹּשׂ‬Dt 9.17. Also without the conjunction we note eqtla corresponding to MT’s eqtol: e.g. ‫ַא ְשׁ ִכּיר‬ Dt 32.42 // ‫אשכירה‬ ‫ אשכיר‬4Q44 5ii.2; ‫ ָא ִשׂים‬.. ‫ ֶא ְפ ַתּח‬Is 41.18 // ‫ אשימה‬.. ‫ אפתחה‬1QIsaa, ָ ‫ ָא‬Ct 3.2 // sim. vs. 19bis, 42.14bis, 15, 16, 43.13, 46.4. A reverse example is ‫קוּמה נָּ א‬ ‫ אקום נא‬4Q107 1i15. Likewise with a conjunctive waw: ‫תּוֹמם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא ְשׁ‬.. ‫ וְ ַא ִבּיט‬Is 63.5 // ‫ ואשתוממה‬.. ‫ואביטה‬ b 1QIsa , but left as ‫ ואשתומם‬.. ‫ ואביט‬in 1QIsaa. In ‫‘ מה אדבר בלא נודע ואשמיעה בלא סופר‬what could I speak about anything that has not yet become known and what could I tell about anything that has not yet been talked about?’ 1QHa 9.25 the parallelism with ‫ אדבר‬indicates that ‫ אשמיעה‬is an unrestrained extension of the feature mentioned above. Likewise ‫גליתה עיני ואשמעה‬ ֗ ‫איכה אביט בלוא‬ ֗ ‫איכ‬ ‘how could I gaze unless you uncovered my eyes or hear ..?’ 1QHa 21.5. Qimron has proposed a scheme of complementary distribution of eqtol and eqtla: (1) if clause-initial, eqtla with or without the conjunction w-, whether inversive wa- or conjunctive w-, and if not clause-initial (2), eqtol, though with a caveat that eqtla is used “also non-initially, though this is very rare” (3). The two examples adduced in the preceding paragraph fit this scheme, Qimron would say. Out of pure curiosity we have read 1QHa through as a document of fair length in which one could expect to find plenty of relevant forms. (4) The outcome looks as below: ‫אקטלה ואקטל אקטל ואקטלה‬ clause-initial


1 9.24

not clause-initial


8 4.29; 10.32; 12.23; 18.22; 19.8, 9; 22.14, 36

1 2 3 4

A position acceded to by Fassberg 2019.78, § 172. See Qimron 1997.176-81. Op. cit. 178. We have excluded 1pl forms, which do not occur often anyway.



Whilst a series such as ‫ות אשתעשע‬ ֗ ‫ בסלי֗ ֗ח‬.. ‫ ואבחרה‬.. ‫ ומשפטכה אצדיק‬.. ‫ וארשיעה‬.. ‫ואשיבה‬ ‫עה‬ ֗ ‫ואד‬ ֗ ‫‘ ואנחמה על פשע ראשון‬I would reply .. and I would declare wrong .. and I would consider Your judgement right .. and I would choose .. I would rejoice over acts of forgiveness and I would feel comforted and would like to know’ 1QHa 17.8-14 (1) speak eloquently in support of Qimron, among a total of nine (2) naughty boys we find cases such as ‫‘ ואזמרה בחסדיכה ובגבורתכה אשוחחה כול היום‬and I would sing about Your mercies and contemplate over Your might all day’ 1QHa 19.8f., where we have a jewel of classical parallelism of biblical poetry. The selection of the not clause-initial eqtla, ‫אשוחחה‬, is unlikely to be due to the operation of some formal, mechanical formula, but a genuine, volitive form congruent with the preceding ‫אזמרה‬. The same applies to the sequel: ‫‘ תמיד אברכה שמכה ואספרה כבודכה‬I would always bless Your name and speak of Your glory.’ In order to illustrate his point Qimron invites us to look at a short passage from 1QS 10.9-26. There, too, we find a mixed picture: ‫עם מבוא יום ולילה‬ ‫‘ אבואה בברית אל ועם מוצא ערב ובוקר אמר חוקיו‬with the entry of day and night I would enter God’s covenant and with the exit of evening and morning I would mention His laws’ 10 with ‫ אבואה‬alongside ‫אמר‬, another case of poetic parallelism, and neither is clause-initial. Likewise ‫בר)(שית משלח ידי ורגלי אברך שמו בראשית צאת ובוא לשבת וקום‬ ‫‘ ועם משכב יצועי ארננה לו‬when I start to stretch out my hands and feet I would bless His name and at the entry and exit of the Sabbath and when I get up and go into bed I would raise a shout of joy to Him’ 13f. with ‫ אברך‬// ‫ארננה‬, neither clause-initial. Over against a good number of examples in support of Qimron’s paradigm, we find additional exceptions: ‫‘ אחלקה חוק‬I would assign a law’ 25 and ‫‘ בישועתו ארננה‬I would raise a shout of joy over His salvation’ 17, which latter is parallel to the preceding, non-clauseinitial ‫אהללנו‬, which could be converted to ‫‘ אהללה אתו‬I would extol Him.’ (3) A poet, being a poet, should be permitted to exercise a measure of poetic licence. Even in parallel clauses, now he may wish to underline a volitive nuance, but next moment he may decide to do without it. Thus we had better be open to eqtla forms, clause-initial or not, retaining some modal function and to the need to enquire whether ‫ ואקטלה‬is meant to be ‫ וָ אקטלה‬or not. Nine exceptions in 1QHa out of a total of fifty-one is a shade more than “very rare.” (4)

1 Cited by Qimron (2018.372) as illustrating his position, according to which the proclitic conjunction waw inevitably selects either PCS or PCā and a PCL is the rule for a not clause-initial verb. 2 Qimron mentions nine more exceptions found in 4Q fragments of Hodayot and other QH documents. He notes that many of these exceptional cohortatives occur after a temporal adjunct. It is not immediately apparent, however, why temporal adjuncts should entail the selection of a cohortative. Though not noted by him, he would no doubt adduce ‫‘ תמיד אברכה שמכה‬I will extol Your name always’ 1QHa 19.9, which, however, is worded differently in ‫ שמכה אברכה תמיד‬ib. 22.36. 3 On this detail pertaining to BH, see JM, § 61 f. 4 So Qimron 1997.178. On one hand, he writes: “DSSH knows only the form ‫( ”ואקטלה‬1997.177), but adds, on the other, a footnote: “Exceptions are found in the biblical and apocryphal books.” Is 1QHa an apocryphal book? See also Muraoka 2000.196-98.

THE VERB — § 15 dad-dae


dae) Theoretical possibility A potential modality of the Impf., an expression of theoretical possibility, may be recognised in cases such as ‫‘ הואה יכלכלם‬he could support them’ 1QS 3.17; ‫אנוש‬ ‫‘ לוא יכין צעדו‬a man could not establish his step’ 1QS 11.10; ‫יצדק לפניכה‬ ֗ ‫‘ מי‬who could come out innocent before You?’ 1QHa 15.31; ‫‘ לוא ֗תלקח בזהב ֗אופיר‬it could not be bought (even) with gold of Ophir’ 4Q525 2iii2; ‫‘ כל שיש לי ושאקנה‬all that I possess (now) and that which I might acquire (in future)’ M30 23. About an applicant for membership we read ‫‘ אם ישיג מוסר‬if he appears capable of living up to the moral standard (of the community)’ 1QS 6.14; he would then be accepted for a probationary period. Here it is about theoretical potentiality or possibility, not physical, financial or intellectual capability. Hence the Impf. of the very ‫ יכל‬can express a theoretical possibility as in ‫ איכה יוכל כול להשנות‬.. ‫לא יוכל אנוש להכין צעדו‬ ‫‘ את דבריכה‬a human being could not possibly establish his step(s) .. how on earth could anyone alter Your pronouncements?’ 1QHa 7.26f., sim. 1QHa 7.34, with which cp. the above-cited 1QS 11.10; a series of rhetorical questions starting with ‫הימדו‬ ֗ ‫בשועל ֗אנשי֗ ם מי רבה‬ ֗ ‘could the waters of the deep sea be measured in the hollow of a man’s hand?’ 4Q511 30.4 ends with ‫֗את אלה לוא י֯ ֗ע ֗ש ֗ה ֯א ֯ד ֯ם ואיכה י֯ ו֗ כל איש לתכן את‬ ‫‘ רוֿ ֗ח אלוהים‬man could not do these things, then how could a human measure the spirit of God?’. A variation on this value of theoretical possibility may be identified in a case ֗ ‫ופרח כציץ חסדו‬ ֗ ‫מארצו‬ ֗ ‫כחציר יצמח‬ ֗ ‫‘ הנ֗ ה‬Look, (suppose) he such as ‫נשב]ה בו [רוחו‬ sprouts like grass from his earth and he attractively flowers like a bloom, but His wind blew at him’ 4Q185 1-2i9. Akin to this is the use of the Impf. in a metaphorical, figurative expression such as ‫ידבר איש‬ ֯ ‫ו֯ י֗ ֯ד ֗ב ֗ר ֯עם ֗קהל ישראל פנים עם אל פנים כאשר‬ ‫‘ עם רעהו‬and He spoke with the assembly of Israel face to face, as a man might speak with his neighbour’ 4Q377 2ii6. The Impf. in generic relative clauses also belongs here, e.g. ‫אשר ישיב את רעהו‬ ‘whoever answers his colleague’ 1QS 6.25; ‫‘ איש אשר ישקר‬any man who cheats’ 1QS 6.24; ‫‘ אשר ימשול בה‬whoever would rule over her’ 4Q416 2iv6; ‫כול איש אשר לוא‬ ‫‘ יהיה טהור ממקורו‬any man who might not be clean in his fount’ 1QM 7.5; ‫לעשות בו‬ ‫‘ כל שתחפץ‬to do with it whatever you might please’ M30 23. See also ‫וכן המשפט לכל‬ ‫‘ באי עדת אנשי תמים הקדש ויקוץ מעשות פקודי ישרים‬and this is the rule applicable to all who join the assembly of perfect holiness and someone of them might become loth to carry out the commands of upright men’ CD 20.2 (1).

1 Rubinstein (1957.358) is right in his position that the text here is about a contingency, hence not a way-yiqtol spelled plena, but when he says that what is expected is ‫וְ ָקץ‬, which he must mean to be an inversive Perfect, such cannot continue the plural ptc. ‫באי‬, and the preceding clause is a self-standing nominal clause. See also below at § 37 a, p. 289.



daf) This is an innovative syntagm expressing a wish or will on the part of a speaker or speakers. (1) E.g. ‫‘ שלום שידע יהי לך‬Greetings! It should be known to you’ M42 2 (2); given the orthographic instability and fluctuation in our corpus we cannot say with absolute certainty whether ‫ יהי‬here is to be analysed as an apocopated, jussive ‫ יְ ִהי‬as in BH, e.g. ‫‘ יְ ִהי ביתך בית וועד לחכמים‬May your home be a meeting-place for sages!’ mAb 1.4 or ‫יְ ֵהי‬, ubiquitous in MH, which lacks BH ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה‬and optionally carries the volitive value of BH ‫ יְ ִהי‬as in ‫‘ ְתּ ֵהא מיתתי כפרה על כל עונותי‬Let my death be an atonement for all my iniquities!’ mSanh 6.2. (3) The example at M42 2 is to be compared with ‫שלם‬ ‫ ידוע יהיה לך‬XḤev/Ṣe 30.3, both at the start of a letter, though this last case differs from the preceding one, which introduces a verbal clause with -‫ש‬. (4) By analogy we would ‫‘ שתשלח תבו֗ חמשת כו֗ רי֗ ן ֗חטי‬you are to send (someone to fetch) five kors so analyse ‫טין‬ 1

Pace Yadin et al. (2002.17) the jussive force they assign to the periphrastic syntagm, , derives from . ֲ 2 Milik (DJD 2.158) sees here -‫ שׁ‬introducing direct speech, referring to Segal 1958 § 424, where, however, all the examples follow a verb of saying with the exception of ‫בוּעה‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬, ְ which, however, belongs to the same lexical field of verbal communication. Milik’s translation is interesting: “Qu’il soit connu de toi.” Fassberg of Jerusalem refers me to an article on “redundant Shin” in Avineri 1964.533a, where one is told that this optative -‫ שׁ‬is known in mediaeval Hebrew and Avineri suspects some foreign influence. However, in RH Qimron (1981.31) has identified several relevant examples, e.g. ‫ר׳ שמואל בר נחמן בשם ר׳‬ ‫ שלא יהא לשון סורסי קל בעיניך‬.‫‘ יוחנן‬R. Samuel, son of Nachman, in the name of R. Yochanan: (the use of) Aramaic shall not be a trivial matter to you’ jSota 7.2. These latter examples imply that Rashi was not necessarily under direct influence of contemporary French. Bendavid (1969-71.92) suggests an interference of Hellenistic Greek, on which see Muraoka 2009 s.v. ἵνα 5 and ὅπως 3 b. One wonders whether the use originates in an ellipsis of -‫יְ ִהי ָרצוֹן ֶשׁ‬, an idiom well-established in MH, e.g. ‫‘ יהי רצון ֶשׁ ֵתּ ֵלד ִא ְשׁ ִתּי זָ ָכר‬I wish that my wife would bear a male child’ mBer 9.3, see also Qimron (1981.38). Qimron (1981.29) restores -‫ש‬, rubbed out by the scribe of the manuscript concerned at ‫ כשם שעקרתה‬.. ‫)ש(יהא רצון מלפניך ה׳ אלהינו‬ ‫ כן תעקור אותה‬.. ‫ אותה‬jBer 9.1, but the conjunction should be found closer to the main verb, ‫תעקור‬. He (ib.) also notes that another Mishnaic example, ‫ ָא ֵמן‬.‫ ֶשׁ ָיִּבּנֶ ה ִבּ ְמ ֵה ָרה ְב ֵיָמיינוּ‬,‫ זֶ ה ִבּנְיַן ֵבּית ַה ִמּ ְק ָדּשׁ‬mTaan 4.8, on which some 9th cent. Italian inscriptions such as ‫ שיבנה בימינו אמן‬appear to be based, is read in the highly evaluated Mishnah manuscripts with ‫ יהי רצון‬added before ‫שיבנה‬. Kutscher (1961a.16) follows Milik, mentioning an Aramaic parallel in another contemporary document of the same provenance: ‫‘ ֗ד ֗כ ֗ל ֗דאלישע אמר לך עבד לה‬whatever Elisha says to you, do (it) for him’ 5/6Ḥev 53.2, but here we have a distinct syntagm in that the principal verb is imperative. Examples adduced in his discussion of this Aramaic document (Kutscher 1961.122) are of little relevance, because there is a verbum dicendi before the conjunction. The editors of Naḥal Ḥever letters (2002.382) conclude that the presence of ‫‘ אגרתה‬letter’ proves that the Aramaic conjunction ‫ די‬in 5/6Ḥev 53 and 5/6Ḥev 55 introduces direct speech, but in 5/6Ḥev 63.5 ‫ שלחת לכון ית ֗א ֗גרתה‬is not followed by ‫די‬, the message beginning with ‫לא תעבדו‬. We agree with Pardee (1982.126f.), who holds that these particles mark the beginning of the main body of letters. Cf. also Mor 2015.343-49, § 5.43. For a description of this syntagm in Qumran Aramaic, see Muraoka 2011.263, C. 3 Possibly an amalgamation of ‫ יְ ִהי‬and Impv. ‫היֵ ה‬, ֱ both volitive forms. ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה‬and the like of BH are no longer in use in MH; Segal 1958.95, § 212. On the use of ‫ יהי‬/ ‫ יהא‬in MH, see also Azar 1995.10, 14f., 22. Mor (2015.59, 207f.) sees in ‫ יהי‬an Aramaising form (“‫)”תצורה על דרך הארמית‬, referring to a very small number of examples in Palmyrene. If one is prepared to tolerate ‫ הוא‬at ‫ הוא ידעין‬5/6Ḥev 49.6 in lieu of the standard Impv. pl. ‫( הוו‬Aramaic), one might just as well admit a scribal error for ‫( היוא‬Hebrew). 4 Though ‫ שלום‬is, in a similar context, followed by ‫( שתתן לו‬M46 3), it is preceded by ‫ ;בן אליעזר‬-‫ש‬ may be an ordinary relative pronoun with ‫ לו‬as referring back to ‫בן אליעזר‬.

THE VERB — § 15 daf


֗ ‫על‬ of wheat and come (here with them)’ M44 2 (1); ‫הפרת שאצלכן שתז֗ הרו בהן ושתעמרו‬ ‫‘ במהרא‬as regards the fruits which are with you, you should handle them carefully and make bales (of them) fast’ 5/6Ḥev 49.6; ‫‘ שהתשלחו‬you are to send’ 5/6Ḥev 51.2 (2); ‫‘ שתהיה זורע‬you are to keep sowing’ 5/6Ḥev 45.16; ‫‘ שלא תהי אמור‬you should not keep saying’ M42 6 (3). We note that this innovative usage occurs in letters emanating from Bar Kochba’s circle. (4) Important to note is that 1QS attests to this usage by means of ‫אשׁר‬, a lexeme belonging to a higher literary register than -‫שׁ‬. (5) E.g. ‫ואשר יקים בברית על נפשו להבדל‬ ‫‘ מכול אנשי העול‬and he shall swear by a covenant on his life to dissociate himself from all men of depravity’ 1QS 5.10, which follows ‫יבוא בברית אל לעיני כול המתנדבים ויקם‬ ‫‘ על נפשו בשבועת אסר לשוב אל תורת מושה‬he shall join the covenant of God in the presence of all the volunteers and undertake on his life with a binding oath to revert to the law of Moses’ line 8. (6) Five further examples (7), all negated, may be noted: ‫אשר‬ ‫‘ לוא ילך איש בשרירות לבו‬nobody shall walk with a stubborn heart’ 1QS 5.4; ‫אשר לוא‬ ‫ ואשר לוא יוכל‬. . ‫ ואשר לוא ישוב‬.. ‫‘ ייחד‬he shall not associate .. nor shall he go astray .. nor shall he eat’ 1QS 5.14, preceded by ‫( אל יבוא‬8), on which see below at § 40 a; ‫אשר‬ ‫‘ לוא ישפוט‬he shall not take part in jurisprudence’ 1QS 8.25. The use of this ‫אשר לא‬ with an infinitive is an easily understandable extension of the volitive, injunctive syntagm here under discussion to the equally injunctive use of the infinitive, on which To read ‫( תבי‬Hif.) with, e.g. Pardee (1982.132f.), instead of Milik’s (DJD 2.161) ‫( תבו‬Qal), seems less complicated, though the letter does look too long for Yod on the plate. Yardeni (2000.159) is undecided. 2 Although the text is very fragmentary, our analysis is virtually assured; there precedes immediately a greeting formula—‫שלם‬, as in the above-quoted instance, ‫ שלום שתשלח‬M44 2. 3 Pace Milik (DJD 2.158) “la nuance durative-fréquentative” is expressed not so much by the passive voice of the ptc. as by the periphrasis (see below at § 17 fb). This is hardly comparable with a BH example such as ‫דוּע ח ִֹלי‬ ַ ְ‫ י‬Is 53.3, see JM § 121 o. In ‫ אמור‬Tal (1998.363f.) convincingly argues for identifying a use of ‫קטוֹל‬,ָ originally a nomen agentis, as a ptc. in MH. On ‫תהי‬, not ‫תהיה‬, see above on ‫ יהי‬M42 3; though the negator is ‫לא‬, not ‫אל‬, the syntagm under discussion here is volitive in value. On this morphological opposition, see also above at § daa. 4 On the contemporary Aramaic equivalent introduced with ‫די‬, also occurring in documents from Bar Kochba’s group, see Muraoka 2011.263, C. 5 See Licht 1965.36f., § 31. Also noted by Qimron 1982.28f. 6 We are of the view that ‫ יקים‬and ‫ יקם‬are not mere orthographic variants, but phonetically distinct: ‫ יָ ִקים‬vs. ‫יָ ֵקם‬, see above at § daa. Whilst obviously both carry a volitive value, the author probably felt uncomfortable with using in the ‫א ֶשׁר‬-clause ֲ a form explicitly marked as volitive. Note the use of the negator ‫לא‬, not ‫אל‬, as exemplified below. Kesterson (1987.573) blames the scribe for a lapsus calami, for otherwise Kesterson’s syntactic rule would fall apart, namely a negative injunction with but a positive one with an inf. cst. 7 Mentioned by Qimron 1982.30f. Qimron (p. 31) includes here ‫וַ ֲא ֶשׁר ל ֹא־נִ ֵתּן ְבּנ ֵֹתינוּ ְל ַע ֵמּי ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫יהם לֹא נִ ַקּח ְל ָבנֵ ינוּ‬ ֶ ‫ת־בּנ ֵֹת‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬Neh 10.31, though aware himself that the verbs are exceptionally in the first person, and he admits to being unable to assign any functional value to the ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬here. These two clauses follow a series of infinitives explaining what a curse (‫)א ָלה‬ ָ and an oath (‫בוּעה‬ ָ ‫)שׁ‬ ְ the people are pronouncing (vs. 30) entail; the ‫א ֶשׁר‬-clause ֲ is syntactically identical in value with the epexegetic infinitive, cf. LXX καὶ τοῦ μὴ δοῦναι θυγατέρας ἡμῶν τοῖς λαοῖς τῆς γῆς. 8 Note the variants in 4QSb and 4QSd read here ‫ ואל יואכל‬.. ‫ואל יוכל‬, for details see Qimron I 219. 1



see below at § 18 c. For an example (1), note ‫ואשר לוא להוכיח ולהתרובב עם אנשי השחת‬ ‘and he shall not rebuke nor argue with the men of the pit’ 1QS 9.16, following a series of positively worded infinitives, all with injunctive value. The syntagm with deontic or desiderative value testifies to the affinity between MH and the vernacular Hebrew of the early 2nd century CE. We would also note the occurrence in these latter documents of a passive ptc. preceding ‫היה‬, also at home in MH. On the other hand, the attestation of with the same modal value in 1QS suggests that, on a certain bright day, people capable of speaking Hebrew in BarKokhba’s circle began to say ‫ ֶשׁ ֵתּ ְדעוּ זֹאת‬all of a sudden; they were conscious of a literary predecessor of such a usage. Seeing that our current copy of 1QS is palaeographically dated to a period 100-50 BCE, its composition must be earlier. ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬in BH, even in LBH, is not used in this particular manner, which implies that the usage must have become established by the end of the second century BCE, initially in the vernacular perhaps. (2) dag) Putative modal value of It is sometimes said that this syntagm indirectly bears modal value of purpose or result. We consider it rather unlikely when Hebrew, even in BH, which is rich in paratactic constructions, is possessed of diverse ways of explicitly marking such values, e.g. ‫למען‬, ‫ בעבור‬with an inf. cst. or with a PC form, whether directly attached or mediated through ‫אשׁר‬, see below at § 18 k and § 31 v 4c. Thus ‫ועתה שמעו אלי כל באי ברית ואגלה אזנכם‬ ‘and now listen to me .. and let me uncover your ear(s)’ CD 2.2. (3) Likewise at ‫כול איש‬ ‫‘ עור לוא יבואו לה כול ימיהמה ולוא יטמאו את העיר‬no blind person shall enter it .. and one shall not make the city unclean’ 11Q19 45.12, where ‘.. so that they may not ..’ might read slightly more elegantly, an issue of translation expediency, which has little to do with syntactic analysis of Hebrew. (4) Note ‫̇מי האיש הירא ורך הלבב ילך וישוב אל ביתו פן‬ ‫ ימס את לבב אחיו כלבבו‬11Q19 62.3, which is a quote from Dt 20.8 with its paratactic ‫יִמּס‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬converted to a hypotactic syntagm with ‫פן‬. (5) dah) With paragogic Nun (6) The PC morpheme for 2pl and 3pl extended with a final /-n/ is extremely rare in QH. Examples are ‫אמרוּן‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ת‬Is 8.12, also 1QIsae // ‫ תאמרו‬1QIsaª; .. ‫ תיראו‬.. ‫ תעבודון‬.. ‫תלכון‬ ‫ תדבקון‬.. ‫ תשמעון‬11Q19 54.14 < ‫וֹתיו ִתּ ְשׁמֹרוּ‬ ָ ‫ת־מ ְצ‬ ִ ‫יכם ֵתּ ֵלכוּ וְ אֹתוֹ ִת ָיראוּ וְ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ַא ֲח ֵרי יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ְ Dt 13.5, where two Qumran fragments have preserved ‫וּבקֹלוֹ ִת ְשׁ ָמעוּ וְ אֹתוֹ ַת ֲעבֹדוּ וּבוֹ ִת ְד ָבּקוּן‬ 1

Mentioned in Qimron 1982.32. However, ‫כי‬, a near-synonym of ‫אשׁר‬, is not so used. Hence in ‫ כיא יבוא בברית‬1QS 5.20 the conjunction is being used as in BH, introducing a conditional clause: ‘when he joins the community,’ cf. ‫ן־לּי‬ ִ ‫ה־תּ ֶתּ‬ ִ ‫ַמ‬ ‫‘ ִכּי ָתבוֹא ֵא ָלי‬what are you going to give me if you want to come in to me?’ Gn 38.16. 3 Fassberg (1994.120, § 333) wavers. See also JM § 116 b n. 2. 4 Medina (2013.273, n. 7) grudgingly admits the possibility that clauses such as this can be an independent, not dependent clause of purpose. 5 Adduced by Fassberg (1994.121, § 335; read TS lxii for lvii) and cf. LXX ἵνα μὴ δειλιάνῃ, Vulg. ne pavere faciat, and Pesh. dalmā nettvar but TO ‫יִתּ ַבר‬ ְ ‫וְ ָלא‬. 6 Cf. Qimron 2018.157f., § C, where more examples are mentioned. ‫ שיהיון‬mentioned by Nebe (1997.154) is not attested in his corpus (5/6Ḥev 44-46) nor anywhere in QH. 2

THE VERB — § 15 daf-dai


one of the five verbs, ‫תלכון‬, agreeing with our 11Q19 text—1Q4 9.2 and 4Q30 21.1; ‫ ישובון‬4Q184 1.11; ‫ ידעון‬4Q381 1.2, preceded by ‫יבינו‬. Neither of these two last cases can be related with certainty to a biblical text (1), and the paragogic Nun in 11Q19 54.14 is all the more striking, given its clear dependence on the biblical text. Archaising, though not systematic, appears to be a more plausible explanation. (2) Just as its BH counterpart, this extra /-n/ does not appear to carry any semantic load. dai) Energic Nun in object pronoun suffixes In BH there obtains, in general (3), a pattern of complementary distribution between ‫לֹא ִת ְק ְט ֶלנּוּ‬


‫ַאל ִתּ ְק ְט ֵלהוּ‬

‫ִתּ ְק ְט ֶלנּוּ‬


‫וַ ִתּ ְק ְט ֵלהוּ‬.

and Though there is no doubt that QH retains the inverted tenses to a certain extent (4), it is not clear to what extent it also retains this affiliated, complementary distribution. (5) But see ‫‘ אל ישנאהו‬he shall not hate him’ 1QS 5.26, followed by ‫ יוכיחנו‬.. ‫‘ כיא‬for he (= He?) will admonish him’; ‫‘ אל יסתרהו‬he is not to conceal it’ 1QS 8.12; ‫‘ אל יקחה איש‬nobody shall take her’ 4Q271 3.13, followed by ‫אחר יקחנה‬ ֯ ‘thereafter he may take her’ 4Q271 3.15. Note also ‫‘ יביאהו‬one shall bring him in’ 1QS 6.14, followed by ‫הבינהו‬, most likely impv., ‘instruct him.’ See also ‫‘ אל יודיעהו איש‬nobody shall let him know’ CD 15.10. Examples which go against this complementary scheme are: ‫ יקימנה‬at ‫יניאה ואל יקימנה‬ ֗ 6 ‘he should annul it and not implement it’ CD 16.12 ( ); ‫‘ עד אשר ידרושהו‬until one has investigated him’ 1QS 6.17 and ‫‘ אם יקרבהו‬if one is going to welcome him (back)’ 1QS 7.21 but in ‫‘ יפקודהו‬he shall examine him’ 1QS 6.21 volitive value can be identified, likewise ‫‘ יכתובהו‬one shall register him’ 1QS 6.22. Following a conjunctive waw: ‫‘ כיא יפתח אוצרו וישתהו‬when He opens its treasure and sets it’ 1QS 10.2. By contrast, at 1

Thus pace Qimron (2018.157, § C, according to whom in non-biblical texts the morpheme is always linked to biblical texts. 2 See Muraoka 2000.198f. and also id. 2018a.162f. in respect of the inconsistency in Qumran scribes of Ps 104. On this Nun in BH, cf. Garr 2006. 3 JM § 61 f. Unvocalised QH texts do not, of course, enable us to decide whether ‫ יברככה‬1QS 2.2 is = ‫ ָיְב ֶר ְכ ָכה‬or = ‫יְב ְר ֶכ ָכּה‬. ָ But ‫וישמורכה‬, given its context, appears to represent ‫מוֹר ָכה‬ ְ ‫‘ וְ יִ ְשׁ‬and may He watch over you’ 1QS 2.3, namely volitive. BH, however, is not absolutely consistent in this regard as can be seen in ָ‫יחנֶּ ךּ‬ ֻ ִ‫‘ יָ ֵאר יְ הוָ ה ָפּנָ יו ֵא ֶליָך ו‬May the Lord shine His face towards you and be gracious to you’ Nu 6.25, beginning with a form clearly marked as volitive and quoted in 1QS 2.3. Zewi 1999 treats the /n/ as part of the object marking and the so-called paragogic /n/ as optionally added to certain Impf. forms (§ dah) as having the same origin and value, an analysis that hardly convinces. 4 Cf. Smith 1991.35-63. 5 Qimron’s description (1986.60f.) is not clear enough. His statement that “the feminine suffix always takes nun” is a puzzler; in his summarising table we see “‫ ותקטלה‬2×.” In Qimron 1976.240 he mentions ‫ותקימה‬, ‫ותפלגה‬, and ‫ויורישנה‬. We also fail to see why he does not distinguish between the inversive waw and the conjunctive one: among the three cases with a waw mentioned by him (1976.240) only one has an inversive waw, ‫ ותקימה‬1QM 13.7, 4Q491 7.1, whilst the other two have a conjunctive waw—‫ותפלגה‬ 1QHa 9.20 and ‫ ויורשנה‬4Q185 1-2ii15 // ‫ ירשנה‬line 14 and preceded by ‫ לא יחזיקנה‬.. ‫לא יבקשנה‬. See now also Qimron 2018.273-76 (§ D 2.3.5), 280 (§ D 2.4.3). 6 Pace Qimron (I 39) ‫ יניאה‬can be retained as volitive.



‫א־מ ְר ֶאה וְ נֶ ְח ְמ ֵדהוּ‬ ַ ֹ ‫ לֹא ָה ָדר וְ נִ ְר ֵאהוּ וְ ל‬Is 53.2 the selection in 1QIsaa of ‫ ונחמדנו‬.. ‫ ונראנו‬may have been motivated by the thought that it is more standard with the non-inversive waw. (1) There is most likely a scribal error in ‫‘ י֗בקשו֗ ֗הו֗ ולא ימצאהו‬they might look for him, but not find him’ 4Q185 1-2i12, where ‫ ימצאוהו‬is expected. One cannot criticise (2) ‫ יחזיק‬.. ‫ירשנה‬ ֗ ‘he will inherit the same author about ‫ויורישנה‬ ֗ (= ‫ישׁנָּ ה‬ ֶ ‫יוֹר‬ ִ ְ‫ )ו‬in ‫ויורישנה‬ ֗ .. ‫חזיקנ֯ ֯ה‬ it, he will hold on to it, and he will bequeath it’ 4Q185 1-2i14. The use of a cohortative with an energic Nun is very common in BH (3) as in ‫ֵא ְל ָכה‬ ‫‘ וְ ֶא ְר ֶאנּוּ‬I would like to go and see him’ Gn 45.28 (in lieu of ‫)וְ ֶא ְר ֵאהוּ‬. Thus ‫ ואוהבנו‬in ֯‫‘ ֯ב ֯מו֯ ֗ס ֗ר ֗ך חשק נפשי ואוהבנ֗ ו‬the pleasure of my soul is in Your instruction and I would love it’ 4Q438 3+5.2, i.e. = ‫וְ א ֲֹה ָבה אֹתוֹ‬, not necessarily due to the extension of the cohortative in QH. (4) We may conclude that QH basically accords with BH in respect of this complementary distribution. (5) Hence ‫‘ ישיתה‬he will set it’ 4Q525 2ii-3.7, as generally reconstructed, may be better restored as ‫ ישיתנה‬in line with ‫ לוא יעוזבנה ולוא‬.. ‫לוא יטושנה‬ ‫‘ ישכחנה‬he will not abandon it .. he will not leave it nor will he forget it’ (line 5). One ought to, however, allow for occasional fluctuation as in ‫ ותכשילהו‬.. ‫‘ ותשיגהו‬and she gets hold of him .. and causes him to trip’ 4Q184 1.14. daj) Long imperative Affiliated to the cohortative is the imperative extended with a vowel /-ā/, confined, however, to the masc. sg. The added vowel appears to make for a more forceful plea. (6) In original QH compositions they are not infrequent; some examples (7) are ‫קומה גבור‬ For Qimron (2018.273), who treats 1st person ‫אקטול‬/‫ נקטול‬and 2nd/3rd person ‫יקטול‬/‫ תקטול‬separately, the two energic forms in 1QIsaa mentioned above are due to the exclusive use of energic forms in QH. However, in loc. cit., n. 54 he cites six instances, all from 1QIsaa and prefixed with the conjunction waw, which Qimron faults Massoretes for wrongly vocalising as a conjunctive waw. The nonattestation in QH of forms such as ‫ אקטלהו‬can be an accident of incomplete attestation, cf. ‫ֶא ְתּנֵ הוּ‬ Ps 89.28. See also Lambert 1946.306, n. 1. According to Lambert (op. cit., p. 181), with the first person singular, the paragogic nun appears more often than not, though he counted both inversive and conjunctive forms together. 2 Pace Qimron II 111: “in lieu of ‫ויורישה‬.” Does he want to read ‫ישׁהּ‬ ָ ‫‘ וַ יּו ִֺר‬and he bequeathed it’? 3 See JM § 61 f. 4 Hence, pace Qimron (II 43, n. ad loc.), “by analogy of the cohortative form.” Incidentally, he correctly parses ‫ חשק‬as ‫ח ֶשׁק‬, ֵ not ‫ ָח ַשׁק‬as implied in DJD 29.32 “my soul lusted,” for which one would anticipate ‫ חשקה‬Pf. 3fs. 5 The translation “[And] he made him” (DJD 19.102) would make us anticipate ‫ ]ו[יתנהו‬at 4Q374 2ii6 rather than ‫ ]ו[יתננו‬as restored by Newsom; Qimron (III 139) reads ֿ‫יתננו‬. 6 On some of its possible values as applicable to BH, cf. JM § 48 d. Fassberg (1994) opines that the long imperative marks an action directed to the speaker himself or a more general relation to, or interest of, the speaker. Of course, the Impv. is, by definition, an expression of the speaker’s interest. Joosten (1999a.156f.) quotes ‫‘ שמחה שמחתכה וגילה גילך‬Be glad with your gladness and rejoice with your joy!’ 4Q88 10.8 as being contrary to Fassberg’s thesis, since this is not addressed to God. But Fassberg did not say that every long Impv. is addressed to God. In QH we do not find a case such as ‫תּנָ ה ִלי‬, ְ indicating an action directed to the speaker himself. Cf. also Joosten 1999. 7 The following is a nearly complete listing; reconstructed forms have been excluded. Cf. also Qimron 2018.170f., § C One would note the absence of examples in Hodayot (1QHa). 1

THE VERB — § 15 da – 16 a


֗ ‫שמחה יהודה שמחתכה‬ ‘Arise, hero!’ 1QM 12.10 (1); ‫‘ שמחה‬Rejoice’ 4Q416 4.3; ‫שמחה‬ ‫‘ שמחתכה וגילה גילך‬Be happy, Judah, with your happiness .. Rejoice ..’ 4Q88 10.7; ‫ריבה‬ ‫‘ עם ממלכות‬Contend with kingdoms’ 4Q176 1-2i2; ‫‘ האזינה‬Hearken’ 4Q418 177.4; ‫‘ הביטה‬Take a look’ 4Q501 1.5; ‫‘ הצילה‬Rescue’ 4Q504 1-2vi12; ‫‘ מולה‬Circumcise’ 4Q504 4.11, 4Q509 287.1; ‫‘ זכורה‬Remember’ 4Q509 131-132ii5; ‫הושי֯ ֗עה‬ ֗ ‘Save’ 4Q511 10.9; ‫‘ הקשיבה‬Listen’ 11Q5 24.3; ‫‘ סלחה‬Forgive’ 11Q6 4-5.13; ‫רומה רומה אל‬ ‫‘ אלים‬Rise, rise, o God of gods!’ 1QM 14.16. (2) The length of the imperative in MT is replaced with ‫ נא‬at ‫ נקוב נא‬4Q364 b-eii5 (< ‫ נָ ְק ָבה‬Gn 30.28). Qumran biblical manuscripts attest to many long imperatives in conformity with what ָ and, more importantly, we also is found in the MT, e.g. ‫ שובה‬Is 44.22 1QIsaa = MT ‫שׁוּבה‬, find long imperatives against MT, e.g Ps 119.49 11Q5 8.13 ‫)זְ כֹר( זכורה‬, also with a stem vowel; 11Q5 25.6 ‫( שמעה‬Ps 143.1 ‫)שׁ ַמע‬, ְ 4Q137 1.3 (< Dt 5.1), Is 37.17 1QIsaa; ‫֗ש ֗מ ֗עה‬ ‫ ישראל‬1QM 10.3 < ‫ ְשׁ ַמע‬Dt 20.3; ‫ תנה‬4Q22 17.10 < ‫ ְתּנוּ‬Ex 17.2 MT. Hence the long imperative was not quite dead yet in QH. In QH, however, the long imperative is on the way to extinction as shown in cases like ‫ ספר‬6Q4 15.6 (// ‫ ַס ְפּ ָרה‬2Kg 8.4); ‫ הגד‬4Q76 5.18 ‫ הג‬4Q158 1-2.6 (‫ ַהגִּ ָידה‬Gn 32.30); ‫ הוצא‬11Q5 25.4 (‫יאה‬ ָ ‫ הו ִֺצ‬Ps 142.8). (3) (‫ ַהגִּ ָידה‬Jn 1.8); ‫הגד‬ Rare, apocopated Imperatives affiliated to the apocopated PC are found in ‫֗חך‬ ‘Remain!’ 4Q200 4.7 and ‫‘ צו‬Command!’ 4Q221 4.3. In Ben Sira we find similar cases: ‫‘ כל‬Finish!’ Si 35.8 and ‫‘ פת‬Persuade!’ Si 30.23, ‫‘ נס‬Test!’ Si 37.27 (4). A reverse ַ (5) process is observable in ‫ צוי‬Is 38.1 1QIsaa // MT ‫צו‬.

§ 16 VESTIGES OF THE INVERTED TENSES On the following pages we shall see how QH interacts with BH with special reference to the verbal system. One of its most prominent features is the system of inverted tenses, namely way-yiqtol and w-qataltí. a) way-yiqtol (6) QH still attests abundantly to this syntagm. E.g. ‫ וישם לו שתי רוחות‬.. ‫‘ ברא אנוש‬He created mankind .. and put at their disposal two spirits’ 1QS 3.17; ‫ ויתן‬.. ‫אל שמן‬ ‫‘ ויגל עיניה‬and he uncovered their eyes’ ‘God set them .. and He put’ 1QS 4.16; ‫יניהמה‬ 1 In Ps this particular form is often directed to God as ‫קוּמה יהוה‬ ָ (Yadin 1957.331), which does not apply here, but ‫ רומה רומה אל אלים‬1QM 14.16, cf. Ps 21.14. 2 In Ben Sira, despite the over abundance of imperatives, only one long impv. is found: ‫ דעה‬34.15, // ‫התבונן‬. Cf. van Peursen 2004.183-85. 3 In three out of the last four cases the long imperative in MT is followed by ‫( נָ א‬except Ps 142.8); did the scribes think that the imperative is forceful enough because of ‫ ?נָ א‬Another fragment does read as in the MT (‫ ַהגִּ ָידה נָ א‬Gn 32.30) ‫ הגידה נ֯ ֯א‬Mur1 1ii1. Cf. also Muraoka 2000.196. 4 As noted by Segal 1958.189, 203, 244. 5 See Kutscher 1974.328. 6 As utterly rare residues in RH Kutscher (1974.42) mentions bQid 66a: ‫ ויאמר‬.. ‫ ויבדלו‬.. ‫‘ ויבוקש‬and (the matter) was investigated .. and they departed .. and he said.’



4Q268 1.7, following ‫‘ הכין‬he prepared’ and continued by (‫ואוזנם — )פתח‬ ‫‘ פתח וישמעו ויבינו‬and opened their ear(s) and they listened and understood’; .. ‫הסתיר‬ ‫‘ ויתנם‬He hid .. and delivered them’ CD 1.3. So also .. ‫ ויהיו‬.. ‫ וידעו‬.. ‫ ויבינו‬.. ‫פקדם ויצמח‬ ‫ ויודע‬.. ‫ ויקם‬.. ‫‘ ויבן‬He visited them and caused to sprout .. and they considered .. and realised .. and became .. and He made to understand .. and raised .. and He made known’ CD 1.7-11; ‫ ותכרע‬.. ‫ ותאזרני‬2Sm 22.40 4Q51 // ‫ ַתּ ְכ ִריע‬.. ‫ וַ ַתּזְ ֵרנִ י‬MT; ‫ֲה ִביא ִֹתיו‬ ‫ וְ ִה ְצ ִל ַיח ַדּ ְרכּוֹ‬Is 48.15 // ‫צלח‬ ‫הביאותיהו ואצלח‬ ‫ הביאות‬4Q57 30.2, where probably ‫ וָ ַא ְצ ַלח‬is meant. The classical rule is to be applied to ‫ ותוצא‬.. ‫ ותשם‬.. ‫ ותכן‬.. ‫ ותדע‬.. ‫‘ אתה בראתה‬You created .. and You have discovered .. and You have prepared .. and You have placed .. and You have brought out’ 1QHa 9.29. (1) The difficult ‫ וידבקו‬at ‫֗בן אדם הנבה ֗על העצמות‬ ‫‘ ואמרת וי֗ ֗ד ֯ב ֯קו֯ ֗עצם אל עצםו‬O son of man, prophesy on the bones and say and they stuck, a bone to another bone’ 4Q385 2.5 is due to the author’s telescoping style, for one need be told what the prophet said. The inverted PC is not necessarily punctiliar in value: ‫ שנים עשרים‬.. ‫‘ ויהיו כעורים‬and they remained like blind people .. for twenty years’ CD 1.9. At ‫ויהי במחשך מעשיהם‬ ‫ ויואמרו‬Is 29.15 1QIsaa the scribe was possibly uncomfortable with a rare BH syntagm ְ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬.. ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬.. ‫הוֹי ַה ַמּ ֲע ַמ ִקּים‬. (2) of MT ‫אמרוּ‬ ‫‘ ואהיה‬and I became’ 1QHa 10.10, 12, 16, 17, 11.8, 14.27 (3) in lieu of ‫ ואהי‬is noteworthy, whereas the use of non-apocopated forms of Lamed-He verbs is also pretty common in BH, e.g. ‫ וָ ֶא ְהיֶ ה‬10× as against ‫ וָ ֶא ִהי‬13× and ‫ וָ ֶא ְר ֶאה‬20× as against ‫ וָ ֵא ֶרא‬14×. (4) Likewise ‫‘ ויכא אותם‬and He smote them’ 4Q225 1.3 (instead of ‫)ויך אותם‬. Though not frequently, a way-yiqtol may continue a nominal clause in BH (5), e.g. ‫י־פיָך‬ ִ ‫יתי ֲע ֵל‬ ִ ‫ה־לָּך ְל ַס ֵפּר ֻח ָקּי וַ ִתּ ָשּׂא ְב ִר‬ ְ ‫ ַמ‬Ps 50.16 and ‫א־עז וַ יָּ ִכינוּ ַב ַקּיִ ץ ַל ְח ָמם‬ ָ ֹ ‫ַהנְּ ָמ ִלים ַעם ל‬ Pr 30.25. In neither example, however, does the way-yiqtolּ form indicate a past action, but a logical consequence. This poetic extension is probably to be identified in ‫זכו֗ ר נא‬ ֯‫ז‬ ‫ כיא עמךה כולנו ותשאנו ֗כ ֯ע ֯ל ֗כנפי נ֗ ֗שרים ותביאנו אליךה‬4Q504 6.6, if we are to postulate ‫יאנוּ‬ ֵ ‫ וַ ְתּ ִב‬.. ‫‘—וַ ִתּ ָשּׂ ֵאנוּ‬Do remember that we are all Your people and You carry us as on eagles’ wings and bring us to You.’ (6) 1

Cf. DSP (236) “C’est toi qui as créé .. et tu as connu .. et déterminé .. Et tu as disposé .. et tu as fait sortir” as against Newsom (DJD 40.131) “You yourself created .. You know .., and you determine .. You set .. And you bring forth.” 2 See JM § 119 r and Driver 1892 § 117. 3 At ‫ ואהיה כבא בעיר מצור‬1QHa 14.24 the waw is most likely conjunctive, expressing the poet’s determination or a newly found hope, ‘but I am going to be one entering a fortified city,’ immediately following an expression of his despair by means of a Qatal form, ‫‘ ונ֗ ֯ג ֯ע ֯ה נפשי ֗עד שערי מות‬and my life reached the gates of death.’ 4 Thus, their distribution is not as neat as Talshir (1987.586) makes it out: ‫ וָ ֶא ִהי‬5× in Neh and ‫ וָ ֵא ֶרא‬1× in Neh and Da each on the one hand, and ‫ וָ ֶא ְהיֶ ה‬3× in 2Sm and ‫ וָ ֶא ְר ֶאה‬1× in Jdg. Talshir investigated the Pentateuch in comparison with Ezr, Neh, Ch, Dn, Est; he could, and perhaps, should have cast his net farther out and looked into the Hexateuch plus Sm and Kg on one hand and Ezk on the other. I doubt that the instances mentioned here can be dismissed as ‫‘ חריגים מעטים‬few exceptions.’ 5 See JM § 118 r, where “50.16” should read “Ps 50.16.” 6 We do find almost the same thought as here in ‫ל־כּנְ ֵפי נְ ָשׁ ִרים וָ ָא ִבא ֶא ְת ֶכם ֵא ָלי‬ ַ ‫ וָ ֶא ָשּׂא ֶא ְת ֶכם ַע‬Ex 19.4, but there it is preceded by ‫יתי ְל ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ִ ‫יתם ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂ‬ ֶ ‫א ֶתּם ְר ִא‬, ַ which makes it clear that God is reminding the

THE VERB — § 16 a-b


֗ ‫אתה לאבותינ֗ ו‬ ֯ ‫נש‬ ֗‫נ‬ Analogously a way-yiqtol may carry on an inf. cst., (1) e.g. ‫בהמרותם‬ ‫‘ ֯את פי֗ ֗כה ותתאנפ בם‬You forgave our forefathers when they rebelled against You and You became incensed at them’ 4Q504 2ii7; ‫בעזבם את ברית אל ויבחרו ברצונם ויתורו אחרי‬ ‫‘ שרירות לבם‬when they forsook the covenant of God and chose their own will and strayed after the stubbornness of their heart(s)’ CD 3.11; ‫במוס לבי כמים ותחזק נפשי‬ ‫‘ בבריתך‬when my heart melted like water, my soul held fast to Your covenant’ 1QHa 10.30. See also CD 7.20. Though not an inf. cst., but a verbal noun, we may include here ‫ישראל ויטמאו את המקדש‬ ֗ ‫‘ וישענו על אל בקץ מעל‬and they relied on God at a time when Israel trespassed and desecrated the sanctuary’ CD 20.23. An articular ptc. referring to a past event (see below at § 17 h) may also be continued with a way-yiqtol as in ‫חופריה הם שבי ישראל היוצאים מארץ יהודה ויגורו בארץ דמשק‬ ‘its diggers are the penitents among Israel, who departed from the land of Judah and lived in the alien land of Damascus’ CD 6.4. b) w-qataltí (2) This typical CBH use is also well attested in our corpus. Examples are .. ‫והיה בשומעו‬ ‫‘ יתברך בלבנו‬when he hears . . he will congratulate himself’ 1QS 2.12; ‫והיה כיא יערוכו‬ ‫ הכוהן ישלח ידו‬.. ‫‘ השולחן‬and when they set the table for a meal .. the priest shall put his hand out’ 1QS 6.4, sim. with a typically BH syntagm in conjunction with a temporal adjunct and with reference to a future event at ‫‘ והיא )= והיה( כי יבוא ֗עליך‬now when it occurs to you’ MMT C 13 (3); ‫‘ שי֯ ֯ת ֯קן֯ את עצתך והרחיק ממך מחשבת רעה‬so that He may fortify your will and keep any design of wickedness away from you’ MMT C 28; ‫מעת‬ ‫‘ ֗שיגלח וכבס ישב מחו֗ ֗ץ לאוהלו‬after shaving he shall wash, he shall sit outside of his tent’ MMT B 66, where the general procedure concerned follows Lv 14.2ff., but the syntax here is markedly different from that in the source text in MT with ‫תּוֹרת ַה ְמּצ ָֹרע‬ ַ ‫זֹאת ִתּ ְהיֶ ה‬ followed by a long series of actions, all indicated with w-qataltí—‫ וְ גִ ַלּח‬.. ‫ וְ ִכ ֶבּס‬.. ‫הוּבא‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬, and the remarkable combination with the typically MH compound conjunction ‫;מעת ש־‬ ‫ וה]יה כ[ול איש‬4Q51 2Sm 15.2 // ‫ל־ה ִאישׁ‬ ָ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ָכּ‬MT, which is odd (4); ‫בסדר מערכות‬ ‫ שבעה כוהנים‬.. ‫ ויצאו‬.. ‫ המלחמה‬1QM 7.9, where we would rather read a D inf. cst., (5) ‫וּב ַס ֵדּר‬, ְ ‘as they array the battle lines .., then there shall march out .. seven priests.’ The Israelites of their past, concrete experiences. All the same, Baillet’s (DJD 7.159) translation is not totally impossible: “Sou]viens-Toi, s’il Te plaît, que nous tous (sommes) Ton peuple. Tu nous as portés .. et Tu nous as amenés vers Toi.” 1 See JM § 118 l and Driver 1892.139 (§ 118). 2 The ultima accent is of course hypothetical for unvocalised QH texts. The same applies to the following subparagraphs. See above § 13 a. 3 Cf. a discussion by Qimron, DJD 10.78f., § 4 The Proto-Lucianic version with καὶ ἦν seems to accord with 4Q51. 4Q51 continues with .. ‫וקרא‬ ‫ואמר‬, which is consistent, whereas MT’s ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬.. ‫ וַ יִּ ְק ָרא‬is consistent in its own way, though not natural in the context describing Absalom’s daily practice. See also the Imperfect ἐκάλει .. ἔλεγεν in the ProtoLucianic version. 5 Pace ‫וּב ֵס ֶדר‬ ְ Habermann (1959.100) and Lohse (196).



formula ‫ יברכו וענו ואמרו ברוך אל ישראל‬recurrent in 4Q503, the Qumran community’s Book of Common Prayer, is illustrative of this classic syntax: the priests lead with their benediction (‫)יברכו‬, followed by the congregation responding with ‘Blessed be the God of Israel etc.’: 4Q503 1-3.1, 6; 29-32.12, 22; 33a-34.18; 48-50.7. (1) The importance of the instances cited above from MMT cannot be overemphasised in our assessment of the nature of Hebrew represented by this unique document. ba) yiqtol—w-qataltí ‫ והיתה לו‬.. ‫‘ אז ירצה‬then he will become acceptable .. and it will become for him’ 1QS 3.11; ‫ וזקק‬.. ‫‘ יברר‬He will purify .. and cleanse’ 1QS 4.20 (2); ‫ ודרשו‬.. ‫וכיא יבוא‬ ‘and when he joins .. then they shall investigate’ 1QS 5.20, where to start with ‫והיה כיא‬ would have been more classical, see above § b and cp. ‫והיה כקרובכמה למלחמה ונגש‬ ‫‘ הכוהן וידבר אל העם ואמר אליהמה‬and when you advance to the war, the priest will come over and speak to the people and say to them’ 11Q19 61.14 with ‫בקרבכם למלחמה ועמד‬ ‫ הכוהן ודבר אל העם‬1QM 10.2, both obviously dependent on ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ַ ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ְכּ ָק ָר ְב ֶכם ֶא‬ ‫וכול עתודי‬ ‫ל־ה ָעם‬ ָ ‫ וְ נִ גַּ שׁ ַהכּ ֵֹהן וְ ִד ֶבּר ֶא‬Dt 20.2; ‫ ועמד כוהן‬.. ‫תודי המלחמה ילכו וחנו נגד מלך הכתיים‬ ‫‘ הראש‬and all those who are (ready) .. shall march out and encamp, facing the king of the Kittim .. and then the chief priest shall take a position’ 1QM 15.2-4 (3); .. ‫יקהילו‬ ‫‘ וקראו‬they shall assemble .. and read’ 1QSa 1.4; ‫ וֿ ברכוכה‬.. ‫‘ יהולל שמכה‬Your name shall be praised .. and they shall bless You’ 1QHa 19.27; in a conditional sentence— ‫ורחץ‬ ֯ ‫‘ אמ במחנה יהיה איש אשר לוא השיׄ גה ידו‬should there be someone in the camp who cannot afford (to bear its expenditure), he shall bathe’ 4Q274 2i6, see more examples below at § 41 c. At ‫ יעשה את הרע והלך ועבד והשתחוה‬11Q19 55.16 the author revised or edited the underlying biblical text in line with this normative BH syntax—‫ת־ה ַרע ְבּ ֵעינֵ י‬ ָ ‫יַ ֲע ֶשׂה ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ה־א‬ ֱ ָ‫ יְ הו‬Dt 17.2 (4). ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַתּחוּ ָל ֶהם‬ ִ ‫ֹלהיָך ַל ֲעבֹר ְבּ ִריתוֹ וַ יֵּ ֶלְך וַ יַּ ֲעבֹד ֱא‬ ֶ ‫א־ת ְחמֹד ֶכּ ֶסף וְ זָ ָהב ֲע ֵל‬ ַ ֹ‫ל‬ Note also ‫ לוא תקח ממנו‬.. ‫ ללו֯ א תחמודו כסף וזהב‬11Q19 2.8 < ‫יהם‬ ‫ וְ ָל ַק ְח ָתּ ָלְך‬Dt 7.25. Against this background w-qataltí is rather unlikely in a letter: ‫הוא‬ ‫‘ שלום ופקדתי‬Keep well! I have (already) issued an instruction’ M44 8 (5). bb) Inf. cst.—w-qataltí ‫ ונשאלו‬.. ‫‘ בבואו‬when he enters .. they shall be asked’ 1QS 6.15; ‫עד הנגף האויב והסבו‬ ‫‘ עורפם‬until the enemies are hit and retreat’ 1QM 9.2; ‫ וישבתם עליה‬.. ‫הארץ‬ ֿ ‫בבואכמה אל‬ 1

In part of the references the text is reconstructed, but with virtual certainty. But followed by ‫‘ ויז‬and he will sprinkle’ line 21. Is it better then to read ‫ ?יזקק‬Cf. a f.n. by Qimron at I 216. 3 Pace Holst (2012.84) the string of w-qatals starting with ‫ ועמד‬does not constitute “the ‘backbone’ or main-line of instructional discourse”; the instruction commenced with a yiqtol, ‫ילכו‬, for the main players are warriors, not chaplains. Likewise ‫ וענה ואמר‬1QM 16.15, which takes up ‫ ונגש כוהן הרואש‬.. ‫יתקעו‬ .. ‫ וחזק‬.. ‫‘ ועמד‬they shall blow .. and the chief priest shall approach and stand .. and strengthen ..’ 1QM 16.13-15. There is no need to invoke here the notion of main-line vs. off-line of discourse linguistics; the time-honoured consecutive syntagm works quite well. If one is to call upon the discourse linguistics, one need look farther back. See, however, Holst op. cit. 86f. 4 MT is inconsistent here, as it goes on with ‫ד־לָך‬ ְ ַ‫וְ ֻהגּ‬, which 11Q19 naturally follows. 5 Pace Yardeni (2000.B 64): “and I shall order.” 2

THE VERB — § 16 b-bbc


‫‘ לבטח תקריבו עצים‬when you enter the land .. and you dwell in it securely, you shall offer wood’ 4Q365 23.4. (1) bba) Impv.—w-qataltí (2): ‫ הכו את אמנון ומתתם‬2Sm 13.28 4Q51 (‫ וַ ֲה ִמ ֶתּם‬MT) does not belong here, for ‫ ומתתם‬is coordinate with the preceding ‫וְ ָא ַמ ְר ִ֫תּי‬, not with ‫הכּוּ‬. ַ (3) BH /Impv.—w-impv./ > QH /Impv.—w-qataltí/: ‫ַה ְשׁ ֵכּם ַבּבּ ֶֹקר וְ ִה ְתיַ ֵצּב ִל ְפנֵ י ַפ ְרעֹה‬ Ex 8.16 // ‫ והתיצבתה‬.. ‫ השכם‬4Q365 2.6, an indication of the vitality of w-qataltí in QH. bbb) Jussive—w-qataltí Whilst a few possible examples are found in BH (JM § 119 k), no analogous case is known to QH. ‫‘ ונספתה רוחו‬and his spirit will be destroyed’ 1QS 2.14 cannot be part of the damned member’s wishful self-benediction starting with ‫ שלום יהי לי‬but continues ‫ יתברכֿ בלבבו‬line 13, where the verb may be assigned a value of theoretical possibility, ‘he might,’ but certainly not a wish on the part of the community leadership. (4) On the other hand, if ‫ יבדילהו‬as against ‫ יבדילנו‬is volitive (see above at § 15 dai), we could identify a plausible instance in ‫‘ ויבדילהו אל לרעה ונכרת מתוך כול בני אור‬and may God set him apart for misery and may he be cut off from the midst of all the sons of light’ 1QS 2.16, though we need remember that ‫ יבדילהו‬could be a free variant of ‫יבדילנו‬, see above § 15 dai. ‫ ואמרו‬in ‫ יענו ואמרו‬1QS 2.18 is probably a mechanical application of the BH rule. (5) bbc) NC—w-qataltí This is a syntagm unknown to BH, hence a creative extension of the BH syntax: e.g. ‫‘ להם כול כבוד אדם ואין עולה והיה לבושת כול מעשי רמיה‬all the glory of Adam is theirs and there is no iniquity and every work of deceit shall become a shame’ 1QS 4.23 (6); ֗ ‫‘ ואם נפש אדם היא אשר תפול אל‬if it is a ‫להעלותו בו‬ ֗ ‫המים ביום ֗ה ֗ש ֗בת וֿ ֗ש ֗לח לו את בגדו‬ living human that falls into the water on a Sabbath, then one should throw his garment ‫‘ והיתה מהומה גדולה‬and there will towards him to lift him up with it’ 4Q265 6.6 (7). At ‫דולה‬ ensue a great chaos’ 1QM 1.5 the preceding NC—‫‘ ו֯ ֯הי֯ אה עת ישועה לעם אל‬and this is actually a time of salvation for God’s people’—is probably an explanatory, parenthetical gloss by the author, and ‫ והיתה‬carries on what precedes—‫‘ יצא בחמה גדולה‬he will march out in great wrath’ (ib. 4). (8) 1 Cf. ‫אתָך וְ ָע ַב ְר ָתּ‬ ְ ‫‘ ְבּיוֹם ֵצ‬when you go out and then cross’ 1Kg 2.37; more examples are mentioned in JM § 119 o. 2 See JM § 119 l. 3 See Muraoka 2015a.171. 4 Thus pace Wernberg-Møller 1957.54. 5 In BH one finds tens of instances of the two verbs combined in this sequence in the sense of ‘to say in response,’ and their tense is always identical, e.g. ‫ ָענָ ה דו ִֺדי וְ ָא ַמר ִלי‬Ct 2.10, not ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫אמרוּ ;וַ יּ‬ ְ ֹ ‫ֻכּ ָלּם יַ ֲענוּ וְ י‬ Is 14.10, not ‫אמר ;וְ ָא ְמרוּ‬ ַ ֹ ‫ וַ יַּ ַען ַא ְב ָר ָהם וַ יּ‬Gn 18.27. 6 Even with our limited competence as an epigrapher ‫ יהיה‬cannot be totally precluded. 7 Qimron (III 47) justly reads ‫ושלח‬, pace DJD 35.68, where ‫ ישלח‬is given. 8 Holst (2012.85) is right in stating that the string of w-qatal’s starting with ‫ והיתה‬does not necessarily imply that the events took place in the sequence of the verbs. This is also true of BH, e.g. ‫ָענוּ וְ ָא ְמרוּ‬ Dt 21.7. So also of a string of way-yiqtol’s, e.g. the ubiquitous ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יַּ ַען וַ יּ‬, and also ‫אכל וַ יֵּ ְשׁ ְתּ‬ ַ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬Gn 25.34, where Jacob must have known how best to enjoy the meal. The sequence we are having to do with here



Though the introducing constituent is not an ordinary NC, we may include here ‫וּס ָק ֻלנִ י‬ ְ ‫ עוֹד ְמ ַעט‬Ex 17.4 > ‫ עוד מעט ויסוקלוני‬4Q365 7i3. ֗ ‫עש ֯ה ֗בו֗ מלאכה‬ ֗ ‫כול ֯ה‬ ֗ ‫‘ כו‬everyone bbd) Ptc.—w-qataltí, a syntagm known to BH (1): ֯‫ונכר ֗תו‬ that does work on that (day), they shall be exterminated’ 4Q218 1.3. However, in ‫והנ֯ ה‬ ֯ ‫ ו֯ עמד‬.. ‫‘ איש ארור בליעל עומד‬and behold a cursed man, Belial, is standing .. and he will arise’ 4Q379 22ii9 the ptc. seems to indicate an ongoing action as shown by the preceding presentative, ‫הנה‬, and ‫ ועמד‬is unlikely to be a scribal error for, or meant to be, ‫וְ ע ֵֹמד‬, since it is continued with ֗‫‘ ושבו ובנו‬and they will rebuild.’ (2) ‫ וענו ואמרו‬.. ‫ הלויים מקללים‬1QS 2.4, but immediately after ‫ ואומרים‬.. ‫ מברכים‬1QS 2.1; ‫ ואמרו‬.. ‫ והוסיפו‬.. ‫ אומרים‬1QS 2.10—these probably do not belong here, but the w-qataltí’s here continue the periphrastic structure introduced in this very long, but carefully formulated series of directives with ‫ובעוברם בברית יהיו הכוהנים והלויים‬ ‫‘ מברכים את אל ישועות‬on their entry into the covenant the priests and Levites shall be praising the God of victories’ 1QS 1.18. In theory the author could have continued with ‫ והיו עונים ואומרים‬and ‫ ואומרים‬.. ‫ והיו מוסיפים‬respectively, but did not, presumably because the preceding participles also stand elliptically without ‫יהיו‬, and ‫ וענו ואמרו‬does not indicate two distinct actions taking place one after the other, but translatable as ‘by saying in response to the priestly benediction.’ (3) c) Interaction with the BH system (4) The presence of a participle in an apodosis, on the first sight, looks like a striking deviation from the BH norm in ‫ מן טהרת רבים‬.. ‫ ונענש שנה אחת ומובדל‬.. ‫ דבר‬.. ‫‘ אם‬if he spoke .. then he will be fined one year and secluded .. from the pure food of the many’ 1QS 7.2. However, the last clause introduced with ‫ מובדל‬is syntactically subordinate to the immediately preceding one, specifying and elaborating the penalty, not to ‫דבר‬ [= ‫]דּ ֶבּר‬. ִ Hence this is syntactically distinct from ‫אם בשגגה יעשה והובדל מן הטהרה‬ is not that of a string of events, but that of grammatical forms of the verbs. Thus ‫אכלוּ אֹתוֹ‬ ְ ֹ ‫וְ ָכ ָכה תּ‬ ‫וּמ ֶקּ ְל ֶכם ְבּיֶ ְד ֶכם וַ ֲא ַכ ְל ֶתּם אֹתוֹ ְבּ ִח ָפּזוֹן‬ ַ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫יכם ְבּ ַרגְ ֵל‬ ֶ ‫יכם ֲחגֻ ִרים נַ ֲע ֵל‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ָמ ְתנ‬Ex 12.11. In ‫ץ־מ ְצ ַריִ ם ַבּ ַלּיְ ָלה‬ ִ ‫וְ ָע ַב ְר ִתּי ְב ֶא ֶר‬ ‫ל־בּכוֹר ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ְ ‫יתי ָכ‬ ִ ‫ ַהזֶּ ה וְ ִה ֵכּ‬Ex 12.12 the Lord was going to smite every first-born, as he moved around in Egypt, not start smiting after having moved throughout the land. When a subsequent verb is, for some reason or other, delayed and is not directly joined with -‫ו‬, the tense changes, e.g. ‫א־תוֹתירוּ‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬ ‫ ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ַעד־בּ ֶֹקר וְ ַהנּ ָֹתר ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ַעד־בּ ֶֹקר ָבּ ֵאשׁ ִתּ ְשׂר ֹפוּ‬Ex 12.10, where the object of the second verb is fronted, attracted to the preceding clause, hence not . . ‫ת־הנּ ָֹתר‬ ַ ‫וּשׂ ַר ְפ ֶתּם ֶא‬. ְ Likewise in ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ַהיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה ָל ֶכם ְלזִ ָכּרוֹן‬ ‫עוֹלם ְתּ ָחגֻּ הוּ‬ ָ ‫יכם ֻח ַקּת‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַחגּ ֶֹתם אֹתוֹ ַחג ַליהוָ ה ְלדֹר ֵֹת‬Ex 12.14, where the second clause, starting with ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫לדֹר ֵֹת‬,ְ implies that the celebration is meant to be an annual event in the future, not a one-off festivity. Pace Holst (2012.88, n. 110) following Murtonen (1965.87f.), this clustering of yiqtol’s or qatal’s is not unique to QH. 1 See JM § 119 n, r. 2 The two qatal verbs, however, might be continuing the immediately preceding inf., ‫להיות שניהם כלי‬ ‫‘ חמס‬for them two to become instruments of violence.’ But the tenses vacillate, as we see ‫ בנו‬continued with ‫ושפכו דם‬ ֯ ֗‫ועשו‬ ֗ ‫ויצי֗בו וע‬. ֗ 3 Cf. JM § 129 n, r, Muraoka 1996a.55f., and above at § bbb, p. 79, n. 5. 4 Cf. Talshir 1987 and Muraoka 2000.208-12.

THE VERB — § 16 bbc-c


‘if he did it inadvertently, then he shall be excluded ..’ 1QS 8.24 and .. ‫אם שנים הם‬ ‫‘ והובדל האיש‬if they are two .., let the man be set apart’ CD 9.20. See also ‫האיש אשר‬ ‫ ונענש שנה אחת ומובדל‬.. ‫‘ יצחה‬the man who scoffs ..’ 1QS 7.4. (1) In any event ‫ נענש‬here is unlikely to be ‫( נֶ ֱענָ שׁ‬Ptc.), but ‫( נֶ ֱענַ שׁ‬Pf.). The waw in ‫ ויבחר בם לברית עולם‬1QSb 1.2 is best analysed as conjunctive, ‘and He will choose them for an eternal covenant.’ The author is highly unlikely so radically to depart from BH syntax, using a way-yiqtol following a series of participles all expressing the present way of life of their subjects: .. ‫ירא]י אל עושי[ רצונו שומרי מצוותיו ומחזקי‬ ֯ ‫‘ יברככה‬May the Lord ‫והולכים תמים‬, and note the start of the next benediction — ‫אדוני‬ bless you’ or ‘The Lord will bless you’ and ‫‘ יפתח לכה‬May He open [= ‫ ]יִ ְפ ַתּח‬for you’ or ‘it [= ‫עולם‬ ֯ ‫‘ מקור‬an eternal spring’] will open up [= ‫ ]יִ ָפּ ַתח‬for you.’ (2) In two instances we see an author attempting to extend the classical BH system: ‫‘ אם ישוב וניתפש‬if he gets caught again’ CD 9.19 and ‫ ושבו ויבגדו ויסורו מבאר‬.. ‫באו בברית‬ ‫‘ מים החיים‬they had joined the covenant .. but again betrayed and turned away from the fount of the living water’ CD 19.33. In the idiomatic use of G ‫ שׁוב‬in the sense of ‘to do something once again’ it is mostly followed in BH by another verb in the same tense and / or mood, e.g. ‫‘ וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יִּ ְִשׁ ַלח‬and he sent again’ 2Kg 1.11 and ‫‘ שׁוּב ְשׁ ַכב‬Go to sleep again’ 1Sm 3.5. (3) One would hence anticipate here ‫וישבו ויבגדו‬. It is instructive that the same syntagm as in CD should occur in LBH—‫‘ ָתּשׁוּב וְ נִ ְבנְ ָתה‬it [= Jerusalem] will be rebuilt’ Dn 9.25, where we note another innovation in ‫‘ ְל ָה ִשׁיב וְ ִל ְבנוֹת‬to rebuild (it)’; this is the only instance of H ‫ שׁוב‬used in this fashion. (4) A similar case of innovative extension can be identified in ‫‘ לוא תוסיפי וקראו לך רכה‬you will not be called tender ָ ‫יפי יִ ְק ְר‬ ִ ‫תוֹס‬ ִ ‫לֹא‬, similarly in Is 47.5. In Is 52.1 again’ Is 47.1 1QIsaa for MT ‫אוּ־לְך ַר ָכּה‬ ִ ‫לֹא‬. 1QIsaa prefers a different kind of syndetic structure: ‫ לוא יוסיף ויבוא‬// MT ‫יוֹסיף יָבֹא‬ There are two more cases of Impf. H ‫ יוסיף‬asyndetically complemented by an Impf. of another verb: Ho 1.6, Pr 23.35. In none of these cases, though admittedly not numerous, the classic syntagm is applied to this idiomatic use of ‫הוסיף‬. Nor is there a single case attested such as ‫לא הוסיפו וַ יָּ בֹאוּ‬, but only ‫ וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַא ְב ָר ָהם וַ יִּ ַקּח ִא ָשּׁה‬Gn 25.1 and suchlike. (5) In a series of conjunctive qatal’s the selection of a way-yiqtol, ‫ וְ ָקם w-yiqtol (3): ‫ וַ יַּ ַעשׂ‬.. ‫ וַ יְ ַקו‬.. ‫ וַ ֶיִּבן‬Is 5.2 > ‫ ויעשה‬.. ‫ ויקו‬.. ‫ ויבנא‬1QIsaa; ‫וַ ְתּ ִהי‬ Is 5.25 > ‫ ותהיה‬1QIsaa; ְ‫ וַ ְיֵּבךּ‬Is 38.3 > ‫ ויבכא‬1QIsaa; ‫ וַ נַּ ַעל‬Dt 3.1 // ‫ ונעלה‬4Q364 24.15. One does not know whether or not the conjunction was pronounced wa, coupled with the gemination of the consonantal prefix of yiqtol. In any event we should note the use of non-apocopated forms. way-yiqtol > yiqtol: ‫ וַ יִּ ַשּׁח‬Is 5.15 > ‫ ישח‬1QIsaa, perhaps attracted by the following ‫ תשפלנה‬with no waw prefixed, but then the immediately following ‫ וַ יִּ ְ ְשׁ ַפּל‬would have been taken as a w-yiqtol form. Though not a case of conversion between the MT and a Qumran MS of it, we may note here ‫אשרי אדם השי֗ ֗ג חוכמה ויתהלך בתורת עליון ויכן‬ ‫‘ לדרכיה לבו ויתאפק ביסוריה‬Blessed is a person who obtained wisdom and walked (or: can / will walk) etc.’ 4Q525 2ii-3.3, where one might be inclined to identify a series of way-yiqtol’s continuing a qatal, not least by virtue of ‫ויכן‬, but the following, self-standing yiqtols make one pause (‫ובנגועיה ירצה ֗ת ֗מיד ולוא יטושנה בעוני מצרף ובעת‬ 1 The MT here itself presents a difficulty with ‫ל־מ ְב ָצר יִ ְשׂ ָחק וַ יִּ ְצבֹּר ָע ָפר וַ יִּ ְל ְכּ ָדהּ‬ ִ ‫ הוּא ְל ָכ‬Hb 1.10; Driver (1892 § 80, 82 Obs.) does not convince. 2 Geiger’s (2012.518, see also 492f.) position is in need of slight nuancing: “.. the biblical Hebrew tense system as a whole is unchanged in QH,” for this conclusion of his is based on his study of the participle, though conducted with admirable care. 3 Cf. Kutscher 1974.328.



‫‘ צוקה לוא יעוזבנה ולוא ישכחנה מפני ֗פחד ובענות נפשו לוא י֗ ֗ג ֗ע ֗לנה‬and in its blows he will be happy ..’) unless one assigns all of them the value of poetic preterite (§ 15 b, ba, and bb). (1) way-yiqtol > w-qatálti: ‫ל־שׁ ְכמוֹ וַ יִּ ְק ָרא ְשׁמוֹ‬ ִ ‫ וַ ְתּ ִהי ַה ִמּ ְשׂ ָרה ַע‬Is 9.5 > ‫ וקרא‬1QIsaª; short of postulating a scribal error for ‫ויקרא‬, ‫ וְ ָק ָרא‬must be impersonal or passive ‫וְ ק ָֹרא‬. (2) Note also Ps 33.9 4Q98 1.7 ‫( והיה‬MT ‫)וַ יְ ִהי‬, presumably following MT ‫א ַמר‬. ָ ( 3) w-qataltí > w-yiqtol (4): ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬.. ‫ ָפּר ֹץ‬.. ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬.. ‫ ָה ֵסר‬Is 5.5 (5) > ‫ ויהיה‬.. ‫ פרץ‬.. ‫ ויהיה‬.. ‫אסיר‬ 1QIsaa; ‫ ורחץ‬.. ‫ ויכבס‬.. ‫ וספר‬.. ‫‘ יטהר‬he becomes clean .. and he shall count .. and he shall wash .. and he shall bathe’ 11Q19 45.15 (‫ וְ ִכ ֶבּס‬Lv 15.13). The standard sequence is broken in ‫ ואסתיר‬.. ‫ וזעקו‬.. ‫ וקראו‬.. ‫ והיו‬.. ‫יהיו‬, but back to the normal pattern with ‫והיו‬ ‫‘ לאוכלה‬and they will become food’ 11Q19 59.4-7, where ‫ וְ ַא ְס ִתּיר‬in lieu of ‫ וְ ִה ְס ַתּ ְר ִ֫תּי‬is probably under the influence of the preceding ‫ ולוא אענה‬.. ‫ ויארך ;ולוא אשמע‬.. ‫ונתתיה‬ ‫‘ ימים רבים‬and I shall put him .. and he will have many days’ 11Q19 59.20 (6); ‫והיה‬ ‫‘ כקרובכמה למלחמה ונגש הכוהן וידבר אל העם ואמר אליהמה‬and when you advance to the war, the priest will come over and speak to the people and say to them’ 11Q19 61.14, where no rationale can be found for shifting from w-qataltí (‫ )וְ נִ גַּ שׁ‬to w-yiqtol (‫)וִ ַיד ֵבּר‬ and then back again to w-qataltí (‫)וְ ָא ַמר‬, cf. ‫ וְ ִד ֶבּר‬Dt 20.2, similarly .. ‫ ורגמוהו‬.. ‫כי יהיה‬ ‫ ובערתה הרע‬.. ‫‘ וימות‬if there happens to be .. then they should stone him .. and he shall die .. and you should eradicate the evil’ 11Q19 64.2-6, cf. MT ‫ וָ ֵמת‬Dt 21.21; ‫ וידבר‬.. ‫ ונתתי‬.. ‫ נבי אקים‬4Q175 5 < ‫יהם ָכּמוָֹך וְ נָ ַת ִתּי ְד ָב ַרי ְבּ ִפיו וְ ִד ֶבּר‬ ֶ ‫נָ ִביא ָא ִקים ָל ֶהם ִמ ֶקּ ֶרב ֲא ֵח‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ֵל‬Dt 18.18. Even a standing formula ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬that introduces a possible future scenario shifts to ‫ ויהיה‬in a phylactery: ‫ ויהיה כי ישאלך בנך מחר‬XḤev/Ṣe 5.5 < ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ִכּי־יִ ְשׁ ָא ְלָך ִבנְ ָך‬ ‫ ָמ ָחר‬Ex 13.14, though the author or scribe does mostly follow his source, thus line 2 (Ex 13.5), line 4 (Ex 13.11), line 10 (Ex 11.13). We have a case of lapsus calami in ‫‘ אם בחוקותי ילך ואת מצוותי ישמור ויעש הישר והטוב לפני‬if he walks according to My rules and keeps My commandments and practices what is right and good before Me’ 11Q19 59.16. When w-qataltí is preceded by a nominal clause, we find a shift to w-yiqtol: ‫יום כפורים‬ ‫‘ הוא ותענו בו את נפשותיכמה‬it is a day of atonement and (therefore) you shall mortify your souls’ 11Q19 25.11, where, in the underlying biblical text, ‫יתם‬ ֶ ִ‫ וְ ִענּ‬is preceded by yiqtol, ‫ ִמ ְק ָרא־ק ֶֹדשׁ יִ ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם‬Lv 23.27. 1 Puech (DJD 25.123) translates ‫ השיג‬with “a atteint,” but the rest with the present tense, “marche .. applique ..”. 2 Cf. LXX καὶ καλεῖται and Vulg. vocabitur. 3 See Muraoka 2018a.163. 4 See also Kutscher (1974.357) and Qimron, DJD 10.78, § 5 ‫ ָה ֵסר‬is probably meant as an inf. abs. in view of the parallel ‫פּר ֹץ‬, ָ which was probably taken by the scribe as ‫פּר ֹץ‬, ְ impv. 6 Pace Qimron (I 198 n. on line 16) ‫ ויעש‬line 16 and ‫ ויארך‬present two distinct syntactic phenomena, for in the former the waw is conjunctive, but in the latter inversive, and we anticipate ‫ ויעשה‬and ‫והאריך‬ respectively.

THE VERB — § 16 f


w-qataltí > way-yiqtol, a remarkable departure from the classical norm: ‫ויהי ככלות‬ ‫ השופטים לדבר אל העם ופקדו שרי צב)ו(אות‬11Q19 62.4, where the context precludes ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬ —‘when the judges finish speaking to the people, then they shall appoint ..’ (1). w-qataltí > yiqtol: in ‫ יתברך‬.. ‫‘ והיה בשומעו‬and when he hears .. he will congratulate himself’ 1QS 2.12 our author starts off with a typically BH syntagm, ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬followed by a temporal adjunct, but subsequently abandons the classical structure, changing Dt 29.18 MT ‫ וְ ִה ְת ָבּ ֵרְך‬to ‫יתברך‬, but the apodosis is correctly worded with a waw apodoseos and w-qataltí—‫‘ ונספתה רוחו‬but his spirit will be obliterated’ (line 13). (2) MT w-qataltí of imperfective aspect with reference to a past event appears to be getting obsolete. (3) We find in QH, except in biblical manuscripts, no instance of this syntagm, but more important is the occasional transformation of this classic BH syntagm as in 2Sm 15.2 discussed above (§ b). See further ‫ וְ ָשׁ ַמע‬1Sm 2.22 // ‫וישמע‬ 4Q51; ‫וּבא וְ ָלן וְ ָשׁ ַכב‬ ָ 2Sm 12.16 // ‫ויב]ו[א וישכב‬ ֯ 4Q51; ‫וּב ָרא‬ ָ Is 4.5 // ‫ ויברא‬1QIsaa; ‫וְ ָהיָ ה‬ a a Is 8.14 // ‫ ויהיא‬1QIsa ; ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ִכי‬Is 16.12 // ‫ יהיה כי‬1QIsa . But probably not in ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ִכי־יִ ְר ַעב‬ ‫וּפנָ ה ְל ָמ ְע ָלה‬ ָ ‫אֹלהיו‬ ָ ‫וּב‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִה ְת ַק ַצּף וְ ִק ֵלּל ְבּ ַמ ְלכּוֹ‬Is 8.21 // ‫ ופנה‬.. ‫ ירעב יתקצף וקלל‬1QIsaa, where the clause structure is distinct [a (b + c+ d)] > [a (b {c + d})]. At ‫ ויואמר‬Is 65.8 1QIsaa for MT ‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬the verb was wrongly construed with ‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר‬instead of ‫יִמּ ֵצא‬. ָ That this classic ‫וה‬ BH syntagm had not yet become completely obsolete in QH is shown by ‫הקשר‬ ֗ ‫והי֗ ֯ה הק‬ ‫‘ אמץ‬the conspiratorial spirit remained intense’ 2Sm 15.12 4Q53 vs. MT ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַה ֶקּ ֶשר ַא ִמּץ‬ ‫מץ‬ ‘.. turned intense.’ (4) Against this background w-qataltí is rather unlikely in a letter: ‫‘ הוא שלום ופקדתי‬Keep well! I have (already) issued an instruction [= ‫’]וּפ ַ ֫ק ְד ִתּי‬ ָ M44 8 (5). We appear to be dealing with a deceptively new syntagm, w-qotel, in ‫כי יהיה איש‬ ‫‘ רכיל בעמיֿ ומשלים את עמיֿ לגוי נכר ועושה רעה בעמיֿ ותליתמה אותו על העץ וימת‬should there be a man telling tales about My people and betraying My people to a pagan people and doing evil against My people, then you shall hang him on the tree and he should die’ 11Q19 64.6, where the use of the participles is probably due to ‫רכיל‬, which is semantically close to a verb and we should also note the non-standard ‫ימת‬. This instability is observable not only on the morphosyntactic, but also on the morphological level. The syntagm way-yiqtol in BH calls for, where available, forms of the PCS or apocopated forms. Hence ‫וַ ֶיִּבן‬, not ‫וַ ְיִּבנֶ ה‬, or ‫וַ ָתּ ָקם‬, not ‫וַ ָתּקוּם‬, for instance. The underlying biblical text reads ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬Dt 20.9. Cf. ‫ וְ ִה ְשׁ ַל ְכתּוֹ‬.. ‫ ִתּ ְקשׁ ֹר‬.. ‫ֹּלתָך ִל ְקרֹא‬ ְ ‫‘ וְ ָהיָ ה ְכּ ַכ‬when you finish reading .., bind .. and cast it’ Je 51.63. 2 Also noted by Fassberg 2019 § 384. 3 On this syntagm in BH, cf. Driver 1892 § 120, JM § 119 v. On the situation in 1QIsaa, see Kutscher 1974.357f. See also Joosten 2006.145f. Siegismund (2017.214) lists ten QH cases of w-qataltí, where the imperfective aspect can be assigned, but we are not convinced. For instance, in ‫ ודבקה ֗בכנפיהן‬.. ‫והיתה יד אדם ֗מ ֯חברת‬ ֯ ‘and the man’s hand was joined .. and attached to their wings’ 4Q385 6.9 the imperfective aspect derives from the syntagm, )דּ ֵב ָקה‬ ְ and in ‫‘ בטרם תעיתי ובקשתיה באה לי‬before I had mistakenly sought after her, she came along to me’ 11Q5 21.11, note LXX Si 51.13 ἐζήτησα, not ἐζήτουν. 4 The Impf. καὶ ἦν of LXX L corresponds with the reading of 4Q53 as against καὶ ἐγένετο in the later, Kaige revision. 5 Pace Yardeni (2000.B 64): “and I shall order.” 1



QH conforms to this rule very often, (1) but there are a not insignificant number of exceptions. For instance, in the seven instances of ‫ואהיה‬, for which we have enough context, it means ‘and I was’ or ‘and I became,’ hence the waw is inversive, and ‫ואהי‬ is not attested in our corpus. Signs of gradual decline (2) are manifest even in biblical manuscripts: ‫ִמ ְלאוּ את‬ ‫ המים וְ ָהעו ֺף יִ ֶרב‬Gn 1.22 // ‫ ירבה‬4Q7 2.14; ‫ וַ יַּ ַעל‬Is 37.14 // ‫ ויעלה‬1QIsaª (= ‫וַ נְּ ִהי ;)?וַ יַּ ֲע ֶלה‬ Is 64.5f. // ‫ ונהיה‬1QIsaª, where MT is anomalous with ‫ וְ נִ וָּ ֵשׁ ַע וַ נְּ ִהי‬.. ‫;ק ַצ ְפ ָתּ וַ נֶּ ֱח ָטא‬ ָ ‫וַ ְתּ ִהי‬ Is 29.11, 13 // ‫ ותהיה‬1QIsaª; ‫ ִתּגָּ ל‬Is 47.3 // ‫ תגלה‬1QIsaª, but followed by ‫תּ ָר ֶאה‬, ֵ so also ‫ויעש‬ 1QIsaª (3); ‫ וַ יַּ ְך‬2Sm 23.10 // ‫ ויכה‬1Q7 4.2; ditto vs. 12 // 1Q7 4.5; ‫ ויעש‬1Q7 4.10 // ‫שה‬ 1Q7 4.3; ‫ וַ יֵּ ט‬Ex 10.13 // ‫ ויטה‬4Q14 3.15. It is only rarely that a Qumran biblical manuscript shows a more orthodox form as in ‫ ויך‬1QIsaª Is 37.36 // MT ‫וַ יַּ ֶכּה‬. (4) The same tendency is manifest in the failure to select the apocopated form with the prohibitive ‫ אל‬as in .. ‫‘ אל יהיה זרעמה‬Let their posterity not be ..’ 4Q501 1.7; ‫אל יעלה‬ ‫‘ איש‬nobody shall pull (him) up’ CD 11.11, followed by ‫‘ אל ישה ;אל יעל‬he shall not lend’ instead of ‫ אל יש‬CD 10.18 and ‫ אל ישתה‬in lieu of ‫ אל ישת‬CD 10.23 (5), but properly ‫‘ אל תשת‬Don’t drink!’ 4Q416 2ii19. (6) The situation as sketched above, one of decline of the earlier system and neutralisation of forms and constructions that were distinct in it could lead to occasional uncertainty of analysis. Though from the context ‫ ותעש‬1QM 11.9 can only be volitive in value, ‘May You act,’ and not ‫וַ ַתּ ַעשׂ‬, what is the value of in ‫ ותופע‬1QHa 12.24 and ‫ ותוצא‬1QHa 12.26? (7) In summing up one could say that, whereas authors and copyists of QH documents are aware of morphological opposition in BH between PCL and PCS and their morphosyntactic application and manifestation, there are clear signs that the scheme is beginning to be neutralised. (8) It is common knowledge that, in MH, explicitly marked PCS forms such as ‫ יַ ַעל‬or ‫ יַ ַען‬on one hand and PCā such as ‫ ֵא ְל ָכה‬and ‫ נָ שׁוּ֫ ָבה‬on the other are 1 Examples of Lamed-Yod verbs are the most obvious. Qimron (2018.164f.) provides a lengthy list, and two lists, not much shorter (p. 165, second paragraph, and p. 166), mention exceptions. 2 Abegg (1998.336) exaggerates by saying “the short form of the imperfect has lost the sense of command in QH.” See a more balanced view of Muraoka 2000a.343b and Siegismund 2017.206f. 3 On the situation in 1QIsaa, see Kutscher 1974.328-30, 350-58. 4 For the book of Isaiah this is the only such instance among Lamed-Yod verbs as identified by Kutscher (1974.328f.). 5 These four are to be added to Qimron’s list of exceptions (2018.372, n. 8). 6 Some of these non-standard, non-apocopated forms are not mentioned by Qimron (1976 § 318.01-03), where his main focus is on way-yiqtol forms; the anomalous, long pattern is said to occur only very rarely. 7 Habermann (1959.119) vocalises ‫ וַ תּ ַֹפע‬and ‫תּוֹצא‬ ֵ ַ‫ו‬. So does Lohse (1986.126), though his translation “[bis] daß du dich stark an mir erzeigst .. und du bringst” is odd. None of the current translations we have consulted uses the past tense, the only exception being Mansoor (1961.127), whose analysis is mixed: “Thou didst appear .. Thou bringest forth.” 8 Whilst Kesterson (1984.291) is right in highlighting the fact that, in his limited corpus, “long forms alone appear with l’ in Serakhim and CD,” that does not render “support for the argument that QH retained the traditional opposition between the short form (= volitive) and the long form (= indicative).”

THE VERB — § 16 f


virtually non-existent. (1) This is not to speak of the well-known, occasional irregularities encountered in BH itself. This disintegration is not only a diachronic feature to be accounted for in terms of the relatively late period from which our corpus dates, but also most presumably a question of genre or register. (2) The overwhelming majority of documents which constitute our corpus are literal, whether prose or poetry, in which one could justly expect more or less close linkage with BH. One would not be surprised, therefore, to find no instance of inversive forms in texts from the Bar-Kochba period. (3) The position maintained by Qimron, who, over the years, has enormously enriched our discussion on this particular subject, (4) is that the selection of an Impf. form marked modally as either PCS or PCā is, to a very significant degree, regulated by morphosyntactic considerations, more specifically 1) whether the proclitic conjunction waw is attached or not, and 2) whether a PC form is clause-initial or not. (5) Under 1) the nature of the waw, whether consecutive or conjunctive, is said to be irrelevant. (6) From the prominence accorded to the parameter of morphosyntax, said to operate in both BH and QH (2018.373), we may safely infer that, according to Qimron, the semantic factor, namely that of volitive, is not decisive here. Hence ‫שׁוּבה ָמ ָחר‬ ָ ָ‫ וְ נ‬may mean the same thing as ‫וְ נָ שׁוּב ָמ ָחר‬. Likewise ‫יהי ָט ֵמא‬ ִ ִ‫ ו‬may not differ in meaning from ‫וְ יִ ְהיֶ ה ָט ֵמא‬. As intimated by reservations voiced above at various junctures we cannot be as confident as Qimron is in this respect. His statement that QH “makes no (emphasis ours) distinction between conversive and conjunctive imperfect” (2018.167) sounds to us slightly exaggerated. We have dealt with signs of an incipient collapse of the classical system, which we would say is still holding its own most of the time. (7) Qimron (2018.165f.) 1 ‫ וַ יַּ ְרא‬mTaan 2.1 occurs in a discussion on the form in BH Jon 3.10. ‫ ַאל ַתּ ַעשׂ‬mAb 1.8, 2.13 is a true rarity. For a few more residues of the PCS, see Sharvit 1980.122-24. 2 The mere statistics provided by Abegg (1998.338) do not justify his conclusion “the waw consecutive seems to have lost ground to the simple perfect as a means of expressing completed action.” 3 Mor (2015.280, § 5.8) mentions three exceptions. However, they are all from a rare hymn, XḤev/ Ṣe 6, and in one of them, line 18, the reading is not certain, and in all of them the context barely suffices for us to analyse the verb forms with certainty; see DJD 38.197-99. 4 In addition to his latest exposition in Qimron 2018, esp. pp. 160-69 (§ C, 371-73 (§ H 1.2), one thinks of Qimron 1986, 1987, 1997, 1998. 5 Qimron’s (2018.371 [§ H 1.2]) actual formulation reads, in part: “In DSS Hebrew .. they [= PCS and PCā] are in most cases variants of the regular imperfect forms. The use of each of the variants is regulated by morphosyntactical factors .. The peculiar forms [= PCS and PCā] are exclusively employed when the imperfect is preceded by a waw .. even elsewhere, when the verb comes at the beginning of the sentence, only the peculiar forms are used.” 6 In the case of QH, no text of which is vocalised, it could be difficult anyway to reach assured decision on this matter. 7 We would like to be a little more kindly than Eskhult (2018.21f.) to the author of 4Q372; instead of condemning him for a chaotic mishmash we would say that our author is familiar with a wide range of morphosyntactic options available in BH and is exploiting them as best he could. Even ‫( וכבדו‬4Q372 1.3) could be rescued as a well-known Pf. with imperfective aspect—‘they would, used to honour’—if only we had enough context. Cf. a cautious conclusion based on a limited number of sectarian documents studied by Smith (1991a.14): “the verbal forms in QL [= Smith’s corpus] demonstrate strong evidence for



presents, on the one hand, two fairly long lists of cohortatives in QH prefixed with waw. We would like to be shown that in some of them the volitive interpretation is absolutely impossible. (1) The same can be said of his list (ib. pp. 163-65, [1 and 2]) of jussives in the 2nd and 3rd persons. In which of them, when the prefixed waw is unlikely to be consecutive, is its analysis as a genuine jussive absolutely precluded? In ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ ‫יהי ַמ ְב ִדּיל ֵבּין ַמיִם ָל ָמיִם‬ ִ ִ‫ֹלהים יְ ִהי ָר ִק ַיע ְבּתוְֹך ַה ָמּיִם ו‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬Gn 1.6 ‫יהי‬ ִ ִ‫ ו‬is highly unlikely to be a free variant of ‫וְ יִ ְהיֶ ה‬. A case such as ‫גליתה עיני ואשמעה‬ ֗ ‫איכה אביט בלוא‬ ֗ ‫‘ איכ‬how could I gaze a without You having opened my eyes and hear?’ 1QH 21.5 renders support to Qimron’s thesis. The scale of exceptions admitted by himself (2), however, is unsettling and could scarcely be dismissed as used “sporadically” (his own wording, 2018.372, 373).

§ 17 PARTICIPLE (3) a) Preliminary observations The participle as well as the infinitive are usually viewed as being part of the verb system. However, in certain respects they, the participle in particular, share features common to the noun. (4) This affinity is manifest in the morphology of the participle, which is declined not only for gender and number, but also for state, whereas semantically it is verbal and also shares with the verb the features of binyan and government the continuation of converted forms without a standard distribution of converted and unconverted forms.” In ‫‘ ותעש‬and You made’ 1QpHab 5.12 the standard, apocopated form substitutes ‫ וַ ַתּ ֲַע ֶשׂה‬Hb 1.14 MT. If our Qumran author’s source read as in MT, he was competent enough to improve on it. Cf. Segert 1954.106. 1 Qimron (1986.44, § 310.122) writes: “It is a well-known feature of DSS Hebrew that cohortative forms ‫אקטלה‬/‫ נ‬denote the indicative alongside the forms ‫אקטל‬/‫נ‬,” referring to Kutscher 1974.326f., where we read: “The same chapters [= Neh 1-6] also contain instances of ‫ אקטלה‬and ‫ וְ אקטלה‬which are not necessarily cohortative,” no example being cited. Among the seven cohortatives occurring there with a waw prefixed (5.2bis, 5.3, 10, 6.2, 7, 10) we do not find a single case in which the cohortative, volitive value is absolutely precluded, even at ‫ וְ נִ ְסגְּ ָרה‬.. ‫ נִ וָּ ֵעד‬6.10, where the parallel ‫ נִ וָּ ֵעד‬is no real hindrance, ‘we should meet .. I am going to propose that we close,’ cf. LXX Συναχθῶμεν .. καὶ κλείσωμεν. 2 See p. 164, n. 27, n. 28; p. 165, 2nd para.; p. 166, 1st para.; p. 371, n. 7; p. 372, n. 8 in need of expansion, see above at § f, p. 88, n. 5; p. 373, 3rd para. Qimron does not appear to be dealing with exceptions for another of his two rules, namely the “peculiar” forms occur clause-initially. To mention just two examples: ‫‘ שלום יהי לי‬May it go well with me!’ 1QS 2.12 and ‫‘ פלגיו יעל קוץ ודרדר‬May its furrow cause thorn and thistle to shoot up!’ 1QHa 16.25 (Qimron I 83 parses ‫ פלגיו‬as equivalent to ‫ )פלגו‬or ‘In its furrows may thorn and thistle shoot up!’ (reading ‫ פלגיו‬as an error for ‫ בפלגיו‬and admitting a number discord, two subjects for the sg. verb). If we are to take into account non-clause-initial PC forms that appear to be volitive, there would be very many more “exceptions.” To mention just three: ‫‘ כול הנדבים לאמתו יביאו כול ּדעתם‬all those committing themselves to His truth shall bring all their knowledge’ 1QS 1.11; ‫‘ כול הבאים בסרכ היחד יעבורו בברית‬all who enter .. shall move into a (relationship with) the covenant’ 1QS 1.16; ‫‘ ככה יעשו שנה בשנה‬so they shall do year after year’ 1QS 2.19; these three cases show that a PCS which is not clause-initial can be injunctive in force. 3 On the syntax of the participle in 1QS, cf. Leahy 1960.144-48. 4 On the nominal character of the infinitive, see below at § 18 a. Note the title of a study by Sellin 1889: “Die verbal-nominale Doppelnatur der hebräischen Participien und Infinitive.”

THE VERB — § 16 f – 17 a


by means of the nota obiecti ‫את‬. (1) In its morphosyntax and syntax it is thus basically verbal (2), the only significant exceptions being its capability of being prefixed with the definite article and its negation by means of ‫אין‬, ֵ and not ‫( לֹא‬3). Thus ‫אני ֵמ ִביא אתכם אל‬ ‫ ארץ כנען‬is syntactically parallel to ‫ ָא ִביא אתכם אל ארץ כנען‬on one hand and to ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫ֵה ֵב‬ ‫ אתכם אל ארץ כנען‬on the other, see an actual BH example in ‫ת־א ַחי ָאנ ִֹכי ְמ ַב ֵקּשׁ‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬Gn 37.16 replying to ‫ה־תּ ַב ֵקּשׁ‬ ְ ‫ ַמ‬vs. 15. (4) The attributive and substantivised participle we shall describe below is basically verbal, because it can be rewritten as a relative clause containing a ptc. functioning as a verb and also because no noun can be expanded with a direct object mediated through ‫ ֵאת‬, e.g. ‫הלויים מברכים את אל ישועות ואת כול מעשי אמתו‬ ‘the Levites bless the God of salvation and all His deeds of truth’ 1QS 1.19, more examples below at § 31 r (1). E.g. attributive—‫ איש דורש בתורה יומם ולילה‬1QS 6.6 > ‫‘ איש אשר דורש בתורה יומם ולילה‬a man who studies the Torah day and night’ and conversely ‫ הדבר אשר כתוב ביד זכריה‬CD 19.7 > ‫‘ הדבר הכתוב ביד זכריה‬the word which is written by the hand of Zechariah’; substantivised—‫ נוקם לנפשו‬1QS 7.9 > ‫איש אשר‬ ‫‘ נוקם לנפשו‬a person who avenges himself’ and conversely ‫ר־שׁ ַכב ִע ָמּהּ‬ ָ ‫‘ ָה ִאישׁ ֲא ֶשׁ‬the man who lay with her’ Dt 22.25 > ‫ האיש השוכב עמה‬11Q19 66.5. It is not true that the participle is imperfective by nature in terms of aspect. (5) In this respect it is neutral and unmarked. Unlike the Greek participle, its Hebrew namesake is not morphologically capable of distinguishing tense or aspect except through the 1

In spite of this mixed, verbal-nominal morphology the Hebrew participle need be recognised as an integral part of the Hebrew verb system in any period of the history of the language. Cf. Muraoka 1999a.19092. 2 The significant place occupied even in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew by the predicative use of the participle as a third tense is demonstrated and underlined in Smith 1999, in which QH data are dealt with at pp. 313-18. Smith further stresses the prominence of this usage in direct discourse (ib. 329), though he is duly aware that it also occurs outside of direct discourse, in “narrative, (concurrence in past)” (ib. 291-96, for instance), so-called circumstantial clauses, e.g. ‫ֹלהים ע ִֹלים‬ ִ ‫יְמה וְ ִהנֵּ ה ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ֱא‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ ֲחֹלם וְ ִהנֵּ ה ֻס ָלּם ֻמ ָצּב ַא ְר ָצה וְ רֹאשׁוֹ ַמגִּ ַיע ַה ָשּׁ ָמ‬ ‫ וְ י ְֹר ִדים בּוֹ‬Gn 28.12. See also Gross 1975.47. 3 This second point is mentioned by Sellin 1889.26. There are some exceptions of the participle negated with ‫לא‬, see below at § 40 c. 4 An example that speaks against the fairly widespread misconception that, in BH, the participle is not a tense form on a par with the SC and PC. A simple look at this D verb in BH reveals that it occurs as a ptc. a total of 62 times, of which as often as 27 times it is used as a predicate of a participial clause with an explicit subject, and 17 times in direct speech and 10 times in prose or poetry. E.g. ‫ִהנֵּ ה ָדוִ ד ְמ ַב ֵקּשׁ‬ ‫ ָר ָע ֶתָך‬1Sm 24.10, ‫ל־מה־זֶּ ה ַא ָתּה ְמ ַב ֵקּשׁ‬ ַ ‫ ַע‬Neh 2.4, ‫ת־פּנֵ י ְשֹׁלמֹה‬ ְ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ְמ ַב ְק ִשׁים ֶא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָכ‬1Kg 10.24, ‫צוֹפה ָר ָשׁע ַל ַצּ ִדּיק‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ַב ֵקּשׁ ַל ֲה ִמיתוֹ‬ ְ Ps 37.32. Pace Smith (1991.32) this predicative use in pre-exilic Hebrew is not confined to direct discourse. Other counter examples may be found in Nu 35.23, Jdg 14.4, 18.1, Is 41.17. See also Muraoka 1999a.191f. 5 Cf. a classic statement by Sellin (1889.38): “das Part. sagt das einfache Beharren und Fortdauern einer Handlung in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft aus,” what is congruent with his basic position that the Hebrew participle is basically nominal. Geiger (2012.455): “relative Zeit ausdrücken.” Also Waltke - O’Connor 1990.624; there is no question of durativity in God’s pledges such as ‫ָה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר ָאנ ִֹכי‬ ‫ נ ֵֹתן ָל ֶהם‬Josh 1.2 and many others. See also ‫ֹלהים ע ֶֹשׂה ִהגִּ יד ְל ַפ ְרעֹה‬ ִ ‫ ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר ָה ֱא‬Gn 41.25. To mention just a couple of examples in QH which would refute this current misconception, ‫ראש מלכי יון הבא לעשות בהם‬ ‫‘ נקמה‬the chief of Hellenic kings who came to wreak vengeance against them’ CD 8.11 and ‫האיש השוכב‬ ‫‘ עמה‬the man who lay with her’ 11Q19 66.5, where it is about a particular incident.



periphrasis with ‫היה‬, see below at § f. Hence a participle, whether used predicatively, attributively or substantivised, stands by itself outside of the TAM system: tense, aspect, mood. E.g. ‫יּוֹרד‬ ֵ ‫ה ִאישׁ ַה‬, ָ without general context or accompanying temporal adjuncts, can mean ‘the man who descends (in general),’ ‘the man descending (at this moment),’ ‘the man who habitually descends,’ ‘the man who is going to descend (at some time in future),’ ‘the man who descended (one day),’ ‘the man who was in the course of descending,’ or ‘the man who customarily descended.’ (1) There are also instances of a ptc. which corresponds to a Pf. form in the underlying biblical text, e.g. ‫מנחם יהוה עמו‬ 1Q Isaa 49.13 // MT ‫( נִ ַחם‬2). Apart from its attributive use and substantivisation, the participle also functions as a third tense form beside the Pf. and Impf., what is true to a significant degree already in BH. (3) Its use in periphrastic constructions (§ f) is an obvious example of predicative function of the participle. There are other predicative uses, too. E.g., actual present (§ b), general truth (§ d), assured future occurrence (§ e). b) Actual present A participle may express an action taking place at the moment of speech. E.g. ‫והנ֯ ה איש ארור בליעל עומד‬ ֯ ‘and behold a cursed man, Belial, is standing’ 4Q379 22ii9; ‫קודש עומדימ בוכים‬ ֗ ‫‘ מלאכי‬the holy angels were standing in tears’ 4Q225 2ii5; ‫‘ במחנ֗ ה שיושב בהרודיס‬in the camp that resides in Hrdys’ M24 E 3. Contemporaneous with the reference point: ‫כול דבר הנסתר מישראל ונמצאו לאיש הדורש אל יסתרהו מאלה‬ ‘any matter that has been concealed to Israel, but has been discovered by a student should not be hidden from them’ 1QS 8.11 (4); ‫‘ אללי שהגיים קרבים אלנו‬if the gentiles were not approaching us’ M42 5 (5). A variant on this which may be termed ‘performative’ (6) is exemplified in ‫‘ מעיד אני עלי תשמים‬I invoke heaven against me’ M43 3, 1 For examples of an articular participle referring to what happened prior to the moment of speech, see below at § h. See also Geiger 2012.483f. 2 One of quite a few examples noticed by Kutscher (1974.349). 3 To mention just two instances, ‫טּוֹבה ַהזֹּאת‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָא ֶרץ ַה‬ ָ ‫ֹלהיָך נ ֵֹתן ְלָך ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ לֹא ְב ִצ ְד ָק ְתָך יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬Dt 9.6 and ‫ֲאנִ י נ ֵֹתן‬ ‫ת־פּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּים ְבּיָ ֶדָך‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬1Sm 23.4; the LXX has no qualms with writing δίδωσιν and παραδίωμι respectively. 4 Mentioned by Zewi - Reshef (2009.321) as an example of ‫“ הווה כללי‬General present,” but one should note the two participles are coordinate with Pf. ‫ נמצאו‬and Impf. ‫יסתרהו‬. Geiger (2012.464) cites ‫ העוברים בברית אומרים אחריהם אמן אמן‬1QS 1.20, claiming that the action indicated with ‫ אומרים‬is subsequent to that of ‫עוברים‬, which latter, however, denotes ‘candidates for admission.’ Likewise another two instances of identical import mentioned by Geiger: 1QS 1.24, 2.10. Mor (2015.298, § 5.13.1) cites ‫ אתן יושביין אכלין ושתין‬5/6Ḥev 49.3, where the entire text is an undisciplined mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. Another example quoted there, ‫המקדמים‬, is found in too fragmentary a context for one to make anything out of it; Morgenstern (DJD 38.198) is not certain about its semantic analysis, either. 5 Mentioned by Mor (2015.298, § 5.13.1), though ‫ קרבים‬can be ‫קר ִֹבים‬. ְ 6 On the notion of ‘performative,’ see JM § 112 f, Wagner 1997, and Rogland 2003.115-30. In BH the Pf. is used with this value. Cf. also Gzella 2007a.93f. More examples are adduced by Mor 2015.299, § 5.13.3. Pace Geiger (2012.512) we would not include here pronouncements introduced with ‫ ארור‬or ‫ ;ברוך‬the

THE VERB — § 17 a-e


.. ‫ בי֗ ֗רשלים חותמים יהונתן‬.. ‫‘ בארבעה עשר לאלול‬on the 14th of Elul .. in Jerusalem Jehonathan .. are signing’ M29 9, sim. M42 13 (1); ‫‘ תסלע הזוא אנמקבל המך‬this sela I hereby receive from you’ XḤev/Ṣe 49.7; ‫‘ מודא אני לך היום‬I acknowledge to you today’ 5/6Ḥev 45.6, sim. 46.3 (2). Another variant is a participle used as a subject or object complement as in ‫בא יעקוב‬ ‫‘ אבי אל לבן בורח מלפני עישי֗ ו‬my father Jacob came to Laban, running away from Esau’ 4Q215 1.7. See below at § 31 j and t. c) Historic present In ‫ בה תעו בנ̇ י̇ נח ומשפחותי̇ הם בה הם נכרתים‬CD 3.1 ‫ נכרתים‬describes what happened in the event. Its selection instead of ‫ נכרתו‬is probably meant to be, or can be understood as, a graphic description of what was going on, ‘through it the sons of Noah and their families erred; there they were, being cut down through it’ (3); ‫וגם מטמאים הם את המקדש‬ ‘and they were also defiling the temple’ CD 5.6, followed by another three participles, all depicting unlawful deeds. d) General truth, prevalent situation ‫לוא תעשו כאשר הגויים עושים בכול מקום המה קוברים את מתיהמה וגם בתוך בתיהמה המה‬ ‫‘ קוברים‬you shall not do as gentiles do; they bury their dead anywhere, even inside their houses ..’ 11Q19 48.11, sim. 11Q19 51.19; ‫‘ אם סוררת היא‬if it (= an animal) is of refractory disposition, i.e. not just on a particular day’ CD 11.6. Application could be to a situation that prevailed in the past, e.g. ‫ואהב את הבאים‬ ‫)אב( אפו בם‬ ̇ ‫ ושונא ומתעב אל את בוני החיץ וחרה‬.. ‫‘ אחריהם‬and He loved those who followed them .. and God hated and disapproved of the builders of the wall and His anger was kindled against them’ CD 19.30, where we should note ‫ ושונא ומתעב‬is preceded and followed by SC forms. e) Assured future The participle may indicate an event or condition presented as certain to occur or prevail in future. (4) E.g. ‫‘ את אשר עשה בדור אחרון‬that which He is bound to do in the verb form ‫בּרוְּך‬, ָ and not ‫ ְמב ָֹרְך‬in a different binyan, suggests that ‫ ָבּרוְּך ַא ָתּה‬is different from ‫מ ָב ֵרְך ֲאנִ י א ְֹתָך‬, ְ which latter could be serving as a performative form. 1 See also Mor (2015.298, § 5.13.2). 2 Geiger (2012.462) has collected a good number of examples with ‫ היום‬as a temporal adjunct added. 3 Cf. Kesterson 1984.191. 4 Though Smith (1999) often underlines the “present-time framework” of the predicative participle in his corpus, he does refer to what he calls “subsequent usage,” one example of which is truly remarkable (p. 299): ‫מוּמת‬ ָ ‫‘ ָמ ָחר ַא ָתּה‬tomorrow you are going to be put to death’ 1Sm 19.11. Pace Joosten (1989.144, § 2.1.3) there is no way of analysing this last instance as indicative of an action already going on. The same reservation applies to the other examples adduced by Joosten. Israelites were still on the way to the



last generation’ CD 1.12; ‫‘ קריאי השם העמדים באחרית הימים‬those who are called by the name (and) who are bound to arise at the end of the days’ CD 4.4; ֗‫ער ֯רי‬ ֯ ‫‘ הנני ֗ב ֗א‬behold, I’m going to die childless’ 4Q225 2i3 (1); ‫‘ אני נתן תכבלים ברגלכם‬I am going to put chains on your leg(s)’ M43 5 (in a sworn statement); ‫אלוהיכם הולך עמכם להלחם לכם עם‬ ‫ אויביכם‬1QM 10.4. (2) At ‫‘ לא בצדקתך ובישר לבבך אתה בא לרשת את הגוים האלה‬not by virtue of your righteousness and the integrity of your heart you are going to enter (this land) to dispossess these peoples’ CD 8.14, the author, citing Dt 9.5, knew that his remote forefathers had yet to cross the Jordan. f) Periphrastic tense (3) Whilst the periphrastic tense, , is rather frequent in MH (4), it is not true that, in BH, this is typical of late books. (5) In QH a total of 67 (6) examples occur, of which as many as 36 are accounted for by 11Q19, the Temple Scroll, the Hebrew of which is heavily biblicised. In BH we find 124 cases in all. (7) promised land when Moses was told ‫ֹלהיָך נ ֵֹתן ָלְך‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ַמ ַען יַ ֲא ִרכוּן יָ ֶמיָך ַעל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬Ex 20.12. Likewise when his successor heard ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר ָאנ ִֹכי נ ֵֹתן ָל ֶהם‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָעם ַהזֶּ ה ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־היַּ ְר ֵדּן ַהזֶּ ה ַא ָתּה וְ ָכ‬ ַ ‫וְ ַע ָתּה קוּם ֲעבֹר ֶא‬ ‫ ִל ְבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬Josh 1.2. Tens of similar instances can be cited. These BH examples show that, pace Gzella (2007a.94f.), this usage does not indicate an Aramaic interference. 1 In view of the underlying Hebrew text, ‫הוֹלְך ֲא ִר ִירי‬ ֵ ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי‬Gn 15.2, the use of ‫ בא‬here is striking. The meaning must be ‘to go away, depart, i.e. die,’ as noted by Qimron II 217 ad loc., an interpretation as old as LXX ἀπολύομαι ἄτεκνος. So in the Targumic tradition, e.g. ‫ אנא אזל מן עלמא‬Trg Neofiti. Interesting is that God responds with ‫ל־אב ֶֹתיָך ְבּ ָשׁלוֹם‬ ֲ ‫ ַא ָתּה ָתּבוֹא ֶא‬Gn 15.15, where the Greek translator is aware of the earlier verse—σὺ δὲ ἀπελεύσῃ πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας σου μετ᾽ εἰρήνης. ‫ בא‬Gn 15.15 is mentioned by Ben Yehuda 1909-58 s.v. 481b as an instance of the sense ‘to die.’ 2 Though the difference is subtle, this is not, pace Gzella (2007a.94f.), a case of plain future, let alone immediate future; his immediately in “I will immediately put fetters on your feet” (p. 93) does not necessarily constitute part of the value of the ptc. here as an inflectional category. Of course the speaker here may so act immediately, but may not. Mor (2015.300) adduces also ‫ שוקלים‬.. ‫ שוקלים‬5/6Ḥev 44.19, 22, but the tense value of the participle is manifest in the earlier ‫ שוקלים‬.. ‫‘ יהיוו‬they shall be weighing out (as payment)’ ib. 16, as he himself writes; ‫ יהיוו‬is implicit in the following two clauses, and the future reference is not indicated by the ptc. per se. 3 Cf. Muraoka 1999a and Qimron 2018.374-78, § H 1.3. For a classified list of actual references, see Bartelmus 1982.207f. and now also Qimron 2018.375f. 4 Cf. Sharvit 1980.117-19. 5 Pace Leahy (1960.147), Morag (1988.150), Waltke - O’Connor (1990 § 37.7.1c), and Qimron, DJD 10.79 (§, where Joüon 1923.340-41 is mentioned. Joüon’s description here has been significantly updated in JM § 121 f-g with n. 1 on p. 382 in the light of Muraoka 1999a.195-97. Thus in 1-2Ch we find 17 instances and in Neh 12, but 27 in 1-2Kg. On the question of possible Aramaic interference here, see Muraoka 1999a.200f. Gzella’s position (2007a.97) that the periphrasis is an infiltration from Aramaic is argued on the mistaken presupposition that, in BH, it is typical of LBH. 6 As against the figure of 63 given in Muraoka 1999a.196f. four examples occurring in documents originating in locations outside of the Qumran caves have been added. 7 These figures do not include passive participles and stative verbs such as ‫ להיות יראים‬MMT B 49 and ‫ היא ירא‬MMT C 24. Qimron, loc. cit. (see n. 3 above), admits here participles. Among the BH examples

THE VERB — § 17 e-fa


The imperfective aspect of the syntagm, an expression of habitual, repeated or customary actions, is manifest in adverbial, temporal adjuncts added as in ‫מצ ֗רות‬ ֗ ‫֗הי֗ ֗א נצל‬ ‫רבות‬ ֗ ‘he was delivered from many hardships’ MMT C 26; ‫בכל השנים האלה יהיה בליעל‬ ‫‘ משולח בישראל‬in all these years Belial is going to be sent against Israel’ CD 4.12; ‫והיו‬ ‫‘ הסוכות נעשות עליהמה בכול שנה ושנה‬and the booths shall be made on them every single year’ 11Q19 42.12; ‫ יהיו אוכלים את הדגן עד השנה השנית‬.. ‫‘ ֗מחג הבכורים‬from the festival of the first-fruits .. they shall be eating the grain till the second year’ 11Q19 43.6; ‫להיות‬ ‫ כו‬.. ‫‘ אהא שוקל‬I shall be ‫‘ משרתים בתמיד‬to be serving always’ 1QM 2.1; ‫כול שנה בשנה‬ weighing .. every year’ M24 B 15. The long series of directives in the first two columns of 1QS concludes with ‫‘ ככה יעשו שנה בשנה כול יומי ממשלת בליעל‬thus they shall be doing year after year all the days of the reign of Belial’ 1QS 2.19. In spite of the absence of an adverbial adjunct expressing repetition or continuation, in ‫כאשר היתה‬ ‫רחל לוא ילדה בנים ֗ק ֗צה בחייה‬ ֗ ‘when Rachel did not bear children a long time, she became fed up with her life’ 4Q215 1.9 Rachel’s being reduced to watching her elder sister bearing one child after another over the years must have irritated her. (1) One of the examples adduced above, ‫ להיות משרתים בתמיד‬1QM 2.1, is immediately followed by ‫ לשרת תמיד‬ib. 2.2, indicating that the use of the periphrastic syntagm is optional, serving to highlight its imperfective aspect and explicitly to mark it. Likewise ‫‘ ולוא תהיה נראה לכול‬it shall not be visible for all to see’ 11Q19 46.15 // ‫לֹא־יִ ְר ֶאה‬ ‫ ְבָך ֶע ְרוַ ת ָדּ ָבר‬Dt 23.15, but not necessarily at ‫וככה יהיו אוכלים אותו ֗מחג הבכורים לדגן‬ ‫‘ החטים‬and thus they shall be eating the grain of wheat from the festival of first-fruits’ ְ ֹ ‫ וְ ָכ ָכה תּ‬Ex 12.11. (2) 11Q19 43.5 in spite of // ‫אכלוּ אֹתוֹ‬ fa) E.g. ‫‘ היה מצוֿ ֗ל מצרו֗ ת‬he would be (often) rescued out of troubles’ MMT C 24 (3); ‫֗הי֗ ֗א‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗ל ֗בדו היה‬he was journeying alone’ 1Q17 1.6; ‫והואה‬ ‫רבות‬ ֗ ‫מצ ֗רות‬ ֗ ‫ נצל‬MMT C 26; ‫הולך‬ mentioned by Qimron we find ‫ ַע ְב ְדָּך ָהיָ ה יָ ֵרא ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬2Kg 4.1, where the use of the particle ‫ ֵאת‬indicates ‫ יָ ֵרא‬as a verb rather than an adjective. Similarly 1Kg 18.3, 12, 2Kg 17.32, 33, 41, with which cp. ‫מוֹרה‬ ֶ ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬ ‫ א ָֹתם ֵאיְך יִ ְיראוּ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬2Kg 17.28. Pace Driver (1913.36) ‫ גָּ ֵדל‬and ‫ טוֹב‬are hardly adjectives at ‫מוּאל‬ ֵ ‫ַהנַּ ַער ְשׁ‬ ‫ ה ֵֹלְך וְ גָ ֵדל וָ טוֹב‬1Sm 2.26, an analysis which cannot be supported by ‫וּבית ָשׁאוּל ה ְֹל ִכים וְ ַד ִלּים‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָדוִ ד ה ֵֹלְך וְ ָחזֵ ק‬ 2Sm 3.1 adduced by Driver. How would ‫ גָּ ֵדל‬and ‫ ָחזֵ ק‬differ from ‫ גָּ דוֹל‬and ‫ ָחזָ ק‬respectively? Since one cannot be certain about vocalisation on QH forms, a more careful analysis of BH data is called for. In any event, pace Mor (2015.301, § 5.13.5), we can hardly parse ‫ יפות‬as a substantivised ptc. at ‫֗חנ֗ טין יפות ונקיות‬ ‘beautiful and clean wheat’ M24 D 15. 1 Pace Stone (DJD 22.82) ‫ לא‬is not a negative prefix as in unproductive nor ‫ ילדה‬is a substantive. König (1897 § 352 p) mentions not a few instances which would discredit BDB s.v. ‫ לא‬1 b (c), on which Stone relies. E.g. ‫ וְ הוּא לֹא־אוֹיֵב לוֹ וְ לֹא ְמ ַב ֵקּשׁ ָר ָעתוֹ‬Nu 35.23. 2 See further Muraoka 1999a.199f. We doubt, however, that this optionality is “often” evident in QH as Geiger (2012.514) puts it. Gordon (1982.23f.) holds that the process of the ptc. becoming a third tense-form was already underway late in the biblical period, citing, for instance, ‫ר־הגַּ יא ַליְ ָלה‬ ַ ‫וָ ֵא ְצ ָאה ְב ַשׁ ַע‬ ִ‫רוּשׁ ַלם‬ ָ ְ‫ל־שׁ ַער ָה ַא ְשׁפֹּת וָ ֱא ִהי שׂ ֵֹבר ְבּחוֹמֹת י‬ ַ ‫ל־פּנֵ י ֵעין ַה ַתּנִּ ין וְ ֶא‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬Neh 2.13, where the periphrastic structure has no “general/habitual” value, but see JM § 121 g. 3 Qimron, DJD 10.77 (§, identifies here a maqtūl passive form, but all the examples quoted by him are of Qal, whereas a Hofal form is anticipated here. The only QH example, ‫‘ משובים‬conducting themselves’ 1QS 5.2, is also active; on the meaning of the verb, see Yalon 1967.107—‫מתהלכים‬, ‫מתנהגים‬.



‫‘ היה מתאבל על אשתו‬and he was mourning his wife’ 4Q221 5.5; ‫‘ והיו המה מברכים‬and they were blessing’ 4Q200 6.2. These are rare instances of the syntagm that bears an imperfective aspect of past actions. This, however, accounts for the overwhelming number of BH examples of the periphrastic construction: 101 out of 124. To mention just a couple of examples: ‫ת־א ָחיו ַבּצֹּאן‬ ֶ ‫ ָהיָ ה ר ֶֹעה ֶא‬Gn 37.2; ‫ַה ָבּ ָקר ָהיוּ ח ְֹרשׁוֹת וְ ָה ֲאתֹנוֹת‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ר ֹעוֹת ַעל־יְ ֵד‬Jb 1.14. Here also belongs a case with the inversive waw such as ‫‘ ויהי ירמיה מקונן‬and Jeremiah was there, lamenting’ 4Q385a 18ii4. Cf. also ‫ וַ יְ ִהי בֹּנֶ ה ִעיר‬Gn 4.17 as distinct from ‫וַ ֶיִּבן‬. (1) fb) (2) Imperfective aspect: ‫‘ הכוהן האחד יהיה מהלך על פני כול אנשי המערכה‬the leading priest shall be going over to all the men deployed’ 1QM 7.12, where the notion of iterativity is underlined with ‫ כול‬and the D verb ‫‘ יהיו מפרים ;מהלך‬they will repeatedly transgress’ 4Q390 2i4; ‫ים את העם עוון‬ ֗ ‫מסיא‬ ֗ ‫‘ בשל שלוא י֗ היו‬in order that they would not be imposing punishment on the people’ MMT B 12 (3); ‫‘ בשל שא יהיה הטהר מזה על הטמה‬so that the pure may sprinkle on the impure’ MMT B 16; ‫יהיו הכוהנים והלויים מברכים את אל ישועות‬ 1QS 1.18, where repetition might be suggested, though we may have to do with a graphic description, ‘there will be there the priests .. blessing ..,’ which latter analysis may be supported by the sequel—‫וכול העוברים בברית אומרים אחריהם אמן אמן‬, where the new candidates could be let off by responding with ‫ אמן‬twice, and not repeating ‫ אמן אמן‬many times over. (4) Note also the ritual goes on with ‫ והלויים‬.. ‫והכוהנים מספרים‬ .. ‫ וכול העוברים בברית מודים אחריהם לאמור נעוינו‬.. ‫ מספרים‬1QS 1.21. See also ‫יהיה מבדיל‬ 11Q19 46.9, cf. ‫יהי ַמ ְב ִדּיל‬ ִ ִ‫ ו‬Gn 1.6; ‫ארבעת האנשים הלו֗ ו֗ שוקלים תחכו֗ ר‬ ֗ ‫‘ יהיוו‬these four ‫‘ ממותים‬slain’ quoted as Ktiv from 2Ch 22.11 is a ghost form for ‫מּוּמ ִתים‬ ָ ‫ה‬, ַ which is both Ktiv and Qre there. A scribal error for ‫ מוצל‬suggests itself. See also Muraoka 2018b.291. 1 Cf. LXX: καὶ ἦν οἰκοδομῶν πόλιν. More BH examples are mentioned in JM § 121 g. In QH we find no instance of this syntagm comparable to its use in MH in an unreal conditional clause referring to a hypothetical, past situation as in ‫‘ אילו היו מניחים אותי הייתי מביא‬if they had allowed me, I would have brought’ mNed 6.3. This reminds one of the Greek Impf. used in an analogous syntactic context, e.g. εἰ ἐβούλετο κύριος θανατῶσαι ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἂν ἐδέξατο ‘if the Lord had wanted to kill us, he would not have accepted’ Jdg 13.23, cf. Muraoka 2016.762-64 and Pesh. here ʼellū ṣāvē (h)wā ʼalāhā danmitan lā mqabbel (h)wā. On the Greek syntax here, cf. Wackernagel 2009.288f. and Muraoka 2016 § 89 b-bb. Whilst Azar (1995.6) is right in saying that this particular syntagm has nothing to do with the imperfective aspect, one remains mystified by this particular syntagm expressing an unreal condition. Mishor (1983.394) points out that an unreal condition can be expressed with Pf. or Ptc. alone, and the issue is about the value of the tenses of the verb, but he does not tell us what functional, semantic differences are expressed with these diverse structures. See also Segal 1936.236, § 453. 2 Pace Nebe (1997.154) there is no reason for postulating that this syntagm is a mere substitute of the future Impf. 3 It is not meant that occasional imposition of punishment is allowed, but it is about perpetual ban. Likewise ‫יהיו֯ מתערבים אלה באלה‬ ‫‘ ֗לוא יהי‬one should never mingle them with each other’ 11Q19 45.4. 4 Seeing that the whole passage is a set of official rules relating to the ritual of admission into the community, the PC may be assigned injunctive modality. However, such injunctive modality is not, pace Kesterson (1984.198), due to the long series of participles beginning with ‫( אומרים‬line 20) and ending with ‫( אומרים‬ib. 2.10); the initial ‫ יהיו‬in ‫ מברכים‬.. ‫ יהיו‬is understood each time.

THE VERB — § 17 fa-fba


persons will keep paying the lease price’ 5/6Ḥev 44.16 (1); ‫‘ שתהיה זורע‬which you may keep sowing’ 5/6Ḥev 45.16; 1QM 8.1, 9.1, 9.7. When combined with an internal passive ptc., the syntagm does not appear to be ֯ ‫ברורים‬ ֗ ‫‘ יהיו‬they will imperfective in aspect, expressing iteration or duration (2): ‫להרע‬ be chosen in order to harm’ 3Q5 2 (3); ‫‘ שידע יהי לך‬May it be known to you’ M42 2 (4); ‫ ידוע יהיה לך‬XḤev/Ṣe 30.3. In the case of ‫‘ בכל השנים האלה יהיה בליעל משולח בישראל‬in all these years Belial will be there, let loose among Israel’ CD 4.12 what is meant is probably not that Belial will be let loose year after year, but, once let loose, it will stay there. In spite of their surface structure the following examples belong here, since the waw is inversive (5): ‫‘ והיו אויביהמה שוממים במה‬and their enemies will be appalled over them’ 11Q19 59.4 (6); ‫‘ והיו הסוכות נעשות עליהמה בכול שנה ושנה‬and the booths shall be made on them every single year’ 11Q19 42.12. fba) What is customary may gain the status of a common law. This is an application of the imperfective aspect of the syntagm to the sphere of future. That all the instances of the periphrastic syntagm in 11Q19 are of are due to the literary genre of the document, namely a series of prescriptive statements appropriately called ‫חוקות‬ ‫‘ עולם‬eternal precepts’ 11Q19 18.8, 27.4. E.g. ‫‘ יהיו מקריבים ליהוה‬they ought to offer’ 11Q19 15.5; ‫‘ היו המים נשפכים‬the water should pour out’ 32.14. The author of 11Q19 substitutes this syntagm for a different one in his source text, e.g. ‫ככה יהיו אוכלים אותו‬ 1 By the strength of this example Mor (2015.296) lays down a syntactic rule that a ptc. is to be separated from היה‬when the subject is explicitly marked. But see the above cited 1QM 7.12. See also ‫ החצוצרות תהיינה מריעות‬1QM 8.1, ‫ הכוהנים יהיו מריעים‬1QM 9.1, ‫ לוא יהיה נוגעים בהמה כול אדם‬11Q19 32.14. Note also below at § fe. 2 See the n. 4 on Dn 3.18 etc. below. Van Peursen also excludes a case such as ‫‘ יהי שם ייי מבורך‬May the name of YHWH be blessed!’ Si 51.30 < Ps 113.2. 3 The impersonally expressed referents are most likely Israel’s hostile adversaries. DJD 3.97 renders the ptc. “aiguisés,” invoking ‫ ֵחץ ָבּרוּר‬Is 49.2, which could mean ‘arrow cleansed of all dirt,’ cf. LXX βέλος ἐκλεκτόν ‘choice arrow.’ 4 Cf. BA ‫ יְ ִד ַיע ֶל ֱהוֵ א ָלְך‬Dn 3.18, sim. Ezr 4.12, 13, 5.8 as an honorific or polite substitute of ‫תּנְ ַדּע‬, ִ cf. an analogous officialese Aramaic formula in a contemporary document: ‫ ידיע יהוא לכן‬5/6Ḥev55 6, and cf. Muraoka 2011 § 54 c and Muraoka - Porten 2003.207. 5 Pace Geiger (2012.356) ‫‘ והיה אויב ירשה‬and the enemy shall be its gain’ 1QM 11.7 certainly does not belong here; otherwise what would the subject of ‫ היה‬be? Nor does ‫‘ והיו המה )תומהים( ֗מברכים‬and they were there, praising’ 4Q200 6.2 belong here, for ‫ והיו‬is a w-qatálti form, cf. καὶ ἐξωμολογοῦντο To 12.22GI. At ‫ והייית בו֗ יש‬MasSir 4.5 the reading of the key word is uncertain; ‫בייש‬, ‫בּיָּ שׁ‬, ַ is read in the Hebrew Language Academy ed. (1973). 6 Our text has a perspective different from that of the source text: ‫יכם ַהיּ ְֹשׁ ִבים ָבּהּ‬ ֶ ‫ֹיְב‬ ֵ ‫יה א‬ ָ ‫וְ ָשׁ ְממוּ ָע ֶל‬ Lv 26.32. Pace Eskhult (2018.18) there is nothing striking with the use of the ptc. in the immediately following, parallel clause, either: ‫‘ והמה בארצות אויביהמה מתאנחים ומזעיקים מפני עול כבד‬and they themselves, in the lands of their enemies, will be groaning and shrieking over a heavy yoke.’ Nor is there any problem with underlining the continuative aspect of an attendant activity in ‫‘ ושתי הידות יהיו שומרים את עריהמה‬and the two detachments shall be guarding their cities’ 11Q19 59.4, following ‫ושלחו עמו שלישית אנשי המלחמה‬ ‘and they shall dispatch a third of the warriors to go with him,’ discussed by Eskhult (ib. 19). Likewise at ‫ יהיו אוכלים‬.. ‫ יהיו אוכלים‬11Q19 43.5f. (Eskhult loc. cit.), where it is about daily meals all the year round.



‘thus they shall eat’ 11Q19 43.5 < ‫אכלוּ אֹתוֹ‬ ְ ֹ ‫ וְ ָכ ָכה תּ‬Ex 12.11 MT. See also 11Q19 46.15 < Dt 23.15. Further instances in 11Q19 may be found at 11Q19 31.7, 32.10, 32.11, 32.14, 33.7, 34.7bis, 35.12, 37.11, 37.14, 38.3, 38.10, 43.6, 45.3, 45.4, 46.10, 46.13, 46.15, 46.17, 47.12, 48.13. Note elsewhere ‫ בחרים‬.. ‫‘ יהיו‬they ought to elect’ 1QM 2.7, parallel to bare Fut. of deontic value—‫ יחלוצו‬.. ‫‘ יסרוכו‬they shall arrange .. they shall equip.’ This usage characteristic of 11Q19 is continued in halachic injunctions in MH, e.g. ‫אוֹמ ִרים‬ ְ ‫‘ ִה ְת ִקינוּ ֶשׁיִּ ְהיוּ‬they ordained that (from now one) one should say’ mBer 9.5, following ‫אוֹמ ִרים‬ ְ ‫(‘ ָהיוּ‬before that) one used to say.’ (1) The well-established jussive, imperatival use of yiqtol and the syntagm may have combined in MH to lead to the occasional use of the active participle alone with this deontic value as in ‫‘ אוֹר ְל ַא ְר ָבּ ָעה ָע ָשׂר בּ ְֹד ִקים ֶאת ֶה ָח ֵמץ‬on the night of the fourteenth the leaven must be searched’ mPes 1.1. (2) Joosten (2018.101-3) maintains that, in QH, the participle, not in the periphrastic syntagm, is used as a modal verb form as in MH. None of the examples adduced as evidencing this, however, is straightforward, and they could be analysed differently. Thus ‫‘ להיות ליחד בתורה ובהון ומשובים על פי בני צדוק‬they are to form a unity in study and property and conduct themselves in accordance with the opinion of the sons of Zadok’ 1QS 5.2—the ptc. forms a periphrastic syntagm with the preceding ‫( להיות‬3); ‫ דבר בחמה ונענש שנה אחת ומובדל על נפשו‬.. ‫‘ אם‬if he spoke .. angrily, then he shall be fined one year, isolated to himself’ 1QS 7.2—the length of the penalty ֗ ‘and the towers and the mode of its execution are specified; ‫והמגדדלות יוצאים מן המערכה‬ going out from the line’ 1QM 9.12—though following .. ‫‘ יהיו ארוכים‬they shall be .. in length,’ the participial clause is, in spite of the conjunction waw, almost circumstantial just as the immediately following ‫‘ מאה מגן ומאה פני המגדל‬with one hundred shields on each side of the tower’; ‫מצ ̇ופ ̇ה זהב טהור‬ ̇ ‫‘ ומקורה כיור ארז‬and roofed with a panelling of cedar wood overlaid with pure gold’ 11Q19 36.10 — though immediately preceded by ‫המקר ֗ה ֗מן המשקוף ארבע עשרה באמה‬ ֗ ‫‘ וגובה‬and the height of the rafters from the lintel, fourteen cubits,’ ‫ גובה‬cannot be the subject of ‫מקורה‬, the entire passage being a long list of architectural instructions to builders, in which one would not expect to find normal, full-fledged clauses, likewise ‫ מקורים‬11Q19 41.15; ‫בא וזה י̇ ו̇ צא ליום השמיני‬ ֯ ‫‘ וחנו ז̇ ה ב‬and they shall stay (there), one arriving and the other leaving on the eighth day’ 11Q19 45.5, where the secondary and circumstantial character vis à vis ‫ חנו‬is apparent in the absence of the conjunction waw and the shift from the pl. verb form to the idiomatic sg. with ‫ זה‬.. ‫זה‬. 1

An instance adduced in Segal 1927 § 330, where it is said “The transition from this (TM: permissive) usage (TM: of the participle in general) to a real jussive or imperative is easy.” We doubt, however, that a rabbi, at the close of a day’s lesson, could have said to his pupil ‫הוֹלְך ַה ַבּיְ ָתה‬ ֵ ‫ ְתּ ֵהי‬or ‫ַא ָתּה‬ ‫ הולך הביתה‬instead of ‫לְך הביתה‬.ֵ We (Muraoka 2016.294) have said that Πορεύου Pres. Impv. for ‫ֵלְך‬ Ex 4.12 could be done into colloquial English with ‘Get going!’ as against Πορεύθητι Aor. Impv. ‘Go!’ for ‫ ֵלְך‬Ex 4.27. 2 For more examples, see Segal loc. cit. and Azar 1995.20f. § 1.7.1, 1. 3 Cf. Muraoka 2018b.291.

THE VERB — § 17 fba-fd


fbb) When the subject is delayed, it sometimes severs the periphrastic complex as in 1QS 1.18 cited at § fb above. So also ‫‘ היו הסוכות נעשות עליהמה‬and the booths shall be built on top of them’ 11Q19 42.12; ‫‘ תהיה הצואה יורדת אל תוכמה‬the excrement shall drop into them’ 11Q19 46.15; ‫‘ יהיו המים נשפכים‬the water shall flow’ 11Q19 32.14, but followed by ‫‘ לוא יהיה נוגעים בהמה כול אדם‬nobody whosoever shall touch it.’ fc) (1) The almost total absence of this syntagm in QH is noteworthy in view of the considerable frequency of and , both of deontic modality (§ fb, fba above). (2) Three possible examples are ‫‘ אמת הי֗ ֯ה עושה כו֯ ֗ל ימי ֯חייכה‬Keep practising truth throughout your life’ 4Q200 2.4 (3); ‫‘ היה עושה צדקות‬Keep practising charities’ 4Q200 2.6 (4); ֗‫‘ הוא ֗ידעין‬Keep reminding yourselves’ 5/6Ḥev 49.6 (5). (6) Because of the special character of the passive ptc. we would not list here ‫זכו֯ ר‬ ֯ ‫כול ימיכה בני לאלהים הי֗ ה‬ ‘throughout your life, my son, always remember God’ 4Q200 2.3, see below § g. (7) fd) ‫ שנה בשנה‬.. ‫‘ להיות פוקדם‬to inspect .. year after year’ 1QS 5.23; ‫להיות משרתים בתמיד‬ ‘to be ministering always’ 1QM 2.2; ‫ משובים על פי בני צדוק‬.. ‫‘ להיות‬to conduct oneself 1 On three BH instances mentioned by Geiger (2012.358, n. 648), see Muraoka 1999a.199. Greenfield (1969.209) adduces ‫ ֱהיֵה־עֹזֵ ר ִלי‬Ps 30.11, where Pesh. /hwi li ‘ādōrā/ ‘Be a helper for me,’ Saadia’s /kun lī ‘aunan/ ‘Be help for me,’ and LXX κύριος ἐγενήθη βοηθός μου ‘the Lord became my helper’ are to be noted. 2 Cf. Muraoka 1999a.199f. Pace Machiela (2018.118) we doubt that this infrequency can rend meaningful support to the hypothesis that 4Q200 is a translation from Aramaic, not to speak of the fact that the reading of the cases in the document is not that secure. The syntagm is an integral part of MH, see Segal 1936.130, § 231, id. § 1958 § 326, and Bendavid 1967-71.540f. At 4Q219 2.21 ‫ והייה משמרוה ֯היטב‬Qimron (II 231 and 2018.375) parses ‫ הייה‬as Impv. m.s. and ‫משמרוה‬ as Ptc., ‫מ ַשׁ ְמּרוֹה‬, ְ thus ‘and keep observing it [= the regulation] well,’ an implausible analysis: 1) there is no m.s. substantive in the context as a referent of the conj. pron., 2) the immediately preceding verb as reconstructed by him and also in DJD 13.47 is an inverted Pf., ‫ונרצית‬, and 3) the Ethiopic translation reads wayekawwen ‘aqqābihu lašannāy (ed. Dillmann) ‘and He will be the guardian of the good.’ DJD 13 restores the end as ‫משמרוה ֯על הטוב‬, translating it “His protection will be ov[er the good.” Qimron (2018.230, n. 226) writes that ‫ ִשׁ ֵמּר‬is common in MH, but can it take ‫ אלהים‬as its direct object? The waw of ‫ והייה‬is then likely to be inversive; the spelling of the verb with a double Yod sometimes occurs when the Yod is consonantal and followed by a vowel. From this root, see, e.g. ‫ יהייה‬4Q252 2.6, ‫ נהייה‬1QS 3.15, and Impv. ‫ הייה‬4Q219 2.13. We prefer the restoration proposed in DJD 13. 3 Cf. δικαιοσύνην ποίει πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου To 4.5GI, where the Pres. Impv. is to be noted. 4 Cf. ποίει ἐλεημοσύνην To 4.7GI. 5 Pace Mor (2015.296, § 5.12.2) this particular combination with ‫ ידע‬as the principal verb does not attest to direct BA influence, for in BA we have a passive ptc.: ‫ יְ ִד ַיע ֶל ֱהוֵ א ְל ַמ ְל ָכּא‬Ezr 4.12 etc. The spelling ‫ הוא‬is problematic. This common verb is spelled with yod in all its remaining six instances in these Bar Kochba documents, what makes the selection here of the corresponding Aramaic root implausible. Hence we probably have here a scribal error for ‫היוּא = היוא‬. ֱ Cf. Yadin et al. (eds) 2002.16, ii. 6 Note that the tone of urgency characterises some examples of the analogous syntagm in Egyptian Aramaic, cf. Muraoka - Porten 2003 § 55. See also Muraoka 2011 § 55 fc. On possible Aramaic influence in this matter, see Muraoka 1999a.200f. 7 Cf. τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν μνημόνευε To 4.5GI. Qimron (II 244) mentions ‫ ֲהוִ י ְד ִכיר‬Ex 20.8 TO (MT ‫)זָ כֹר‬ ‘Retain in your memory.’



in keeping with the authority of the sons of Zadok,’ 1QS 5.2 (1), but unlikely (2) in ‫֗היות‬ ‫‘ לו מתחזק בבריתכה ועומד לפניכה‬so that there may be for them (3) one who holds fast to Your covenant and stand in Your presence’ 1QHa 23.10, thus two substantivised ֗ participles. As unlikely in ‫להיות ֗מז֯ ֗רעו נגיד על עמךה יושב ֗ע ֗ל כֿסא ישראל לפניך כול הימים‬ ‘one who ascends .. the throne of Israel before You all the days’ 4Q504 4.6 in spite of ‫כול הימים‬, for this phrase indicates the unbroken succession of leadership, and not a particular leader occupying the throne all his life. In ‫‘ להיות יראים מהמקדש‬to be revering the sanctuary’ MMT B 49 ‫ יראים‬is from an adjectival, stative verb. (4) fe) No instance of an active participle preceding a form of ‫ היה‬is attested. (5) BH has several instances, e.g. ‫יתם ִעם־יְ הוָ ה‬ ֶ ִ‫ד־ה ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה ַמ ְמ ִרים ֱהי‬ ַ ‫ ַע‬Dt 9.7. (6) This is quite common in MH, e.g. ‫‘ מסתכל הייתי במעשה בראשית‬I was watching the creation of the universe’ tHag 2.5. (7) By contrast, a participle can be separated from היה‬by the subject (8) as in ‫יהיו אנשי‬ ‫ בחרים‬.. ‫‘ השם‬the men of renown .. should be selecting’ 1QM 2.6; ‫‘ והיו המה מברכים‬and they were eulogising’ 4Q200 6.2; ‫רחל לוא ילדה בנים‬ ֗ ‫‘ כאשר היתה‬when Rachel did not bear children a long time’ 4Q215 1.9, where ‫ ילדה‬must be a variant spelling for ‫יולדה‬. (9) g) Passive participle A passive participle indicates a state that has arisen out of an action taken and is still in force at the point of reference: (10) G passive: ‫‘ יצר סמוך‬a trustful creature’ 1QS 4.5 (11), cf. ‫ ָסמוְּך ִלבּוֹ לֹא יִ ָירא‬Ps 112.8; ‫‘ כאשר כתוב‬as is written’ 1QS 8.14; ‫‘ אנוסה היתי‬I was forced’ 4Q270 4.3, hardly = ‫נאנסתי‬, and note the fronting; D passive—‫בכל השנים האלה יהיה בליעל משולח בישראל‬ CD 4.1, where Belial will be let loose once and then keep roaming about; ‫מים מוגרים‬ On the meaning of ‫משובים‬, see above at § fa, p. 95, n. 3. Pace Geiger (2012.363), for otherwise we would be missing the subject of the infinitive. 3 Following DSP 297, where “ton peuple” is restored in the lacuna. 4 But not necessarily a substitute for ‫ לירא‬as in ‫ לירא אותי‬4Q175 3, as hinted at by Qimron, DJD 10.52. See also Eskhult 2008.37. 5 If ‫ עלה היתה לי‬11Q5 21.14 means ‘she was a nurse for me,’ ‫ עלה‬is probably a noun rather than a G ptc.f.sg.; no genuine verb form is known of this root in any Hebrew text, ancient or modern. 6 More examples are mentioned in Muraoka 1999a.200. 7 For more examples, see Segal 1958 § 342 and Bendavid 1967-71.524f. According to Van Hecke (2013.85) 30 out of a total of 738 cases, i.e. 8%, in MH front the participle. 8 So noted by Van Hecke 2013.84. 9 Cf. also above at § fb, p. 97, n. 1. 10 ‫ נושאים‬.. ‫ עומסים‬Is 46.3 1QIsaa for MT ‫י־ר ַחם‬ ָ ִ‫י־ב ֶטן ַהנְּ ֻשׂ ִאים ִמנּ‬ ֶ ִ‫ ַה ֲע ֻמ ִסים ִמנּ‬is puzzling. The passive participles are genuinely passive. Pace Kutscher 1974.350 they are distinct from ‫ ֲא ֻחזֵ י ֶח ֶרב‬Ct 3.8 and ‫זָ כוּר‬ and the like in MH. Cf. König 1897 § 235 d, JM § 121 o and n. 3 there, and Mor 2015.301f., § 5.14.2. 11 On this interpretation of the phrase, see Muraoka 2003.339f. Both Strugnell (1970.265) and Qimron (II 127) restore ‫צר‬ ֯ ‫ סמוכי י֯ צ‬at 4Q184 1.15. How would one translate it? In QH the sequence as a noun phrase is ‫יצר סמוך‬, never the other way round. 1 2

THE VERB — § 17 fd-g


֗ ‫‘ החר‬the ‘waters poured out [not = being poured out]’ 1QHa 12.35; ‫החרטמים מלמדי פשע‬ (1) magicians instructed in ungodliness’ 4Q300 1aii-b1 ; H passive—‫בגדים צואים או מובאים‬ ‫‘ בגז‬filthy garments or those which have been put into storage’ CD 11.2, hence not ‘those which ought to be put into storage,’ they are already in there. Very occasionally we find active participles used with the same value: ‫ שבעה כוהנים מבני אהרון‬.. ‫ויצאו‬ ‫‘ לובשים בגדי שש לבן וחוגרים באבנט בד‬there will march out seven priests .., wearing garments of white byssus .. and girt with a linen girdle (in lieu of ‘(‫ וחגורים‬.. ‫לבושים‬ 1QM 7.9, cf. ‫בוש בג]די הקודש‬ ֗ ‫ אין ֗הו֗ ֗א ֗ל‬11Q19 35.6 (2) and ‫‘ ָחגוּר ֵאפוֹד ָבּד‬girt with a linen ephod’ 1Sm 2.18. In a long series of imprecations pronounced by Levites at every annual convocation they are not addressing members of their community who are already damned: ‫ארור‬ ‫‘ אתה בכול מעשי רשע אשמתכה‬Accursed are you for every blamable act of your wickedness’ 1QS 2.5, followed by ‫ ארור אתה‬.. ‫זעום אתה‬ ֿ .. ‫ארור אתה‬, and interspersed with Yiqtol’s (‫ יפקוד‬.. ‫)יתנכה‬. Just as the preceding set of benedictions pronounced by priests, expressed all with Yiqtol’s, one possibly PCS (‫ וְ יָ ֵאר = ויאר‬line 3), these curses are meant as an exhortation and warning. G passive with active meaning like BH ‫ידוּע ח ִֹלי‬ ַ ִ‫ ו‬Is 53.3 (3) // ‫ יודע חולי‬1QIsaa: ‫‘ בעול בכול סוד אנשים‬having mastered every secret of humans’ CD 14.9; ‫וָ ֵא ֶרא וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬ ‫וּמ ְתנָ יו ֲחגֻ ִרים‬ ָ ‫ישׁ־א ָחד ָלבוּשׁ ַבּ ִדּים‬ ֶ ‫ ִא‬Dn 10.5 // ‫ חגור‬4Q114 1.1; ‫כול ימיכה בני לאלהים הי֗ ה‬ ‫זכו֯ ר‬ ֯ ‘throughout your life, my son, always remember God’ 4Q200 2.3, cf. ‫ִכּי־הוּא יָ ַדע‬ ‫י־ע ָפר ֲאנָ ְחנוּ‬ ָ ‫ יִ ְצ ֵרנוּ זָ כוּר ִכּ‬Ps 103.14; ‫לבטוחים בך‬ ֗ ‫ מציל‬4Q381 44.3 // ‫( קויך‬active ptc.), cf. ‫ נָ כוֹן ִלבּוֹ ָבּ ֻט ַח ַבּיהוָ ה‬Ps 112.7. A non-G passive (4): ‫‘ מובדלים יהיו מקומותמה זה מזה‬their locations shall remain separated from one another’ 11Q19 35.13; we do not have here a periphrastic tense which has to do with actions, not with conditions. On the periphrastic tense, see above § fb. Cf. ‫‘ היו הסוכות נעשות עליהמה בכול שנה ושנה‬and the booths shall be built on top of them every year’ 11Q19 42.12, where the N ptc. indicates an action as against G ptc. pass. ‫עשוּיוֹת‬, ֲ sim. ‫‘ המקום שנקרה הסלם‬the site that is called the Sullam’ 5/6Ḥev 44.11+, where the meaning is probably that when people referred to the site, they used that name, and not that the name given to it some time ago was still in use. (5) 1 To analyse the ptc. as active, ‫מ ַל ְמּ ֵדי‬, ְ is not impossible, but note ‫ ְמ ֻל ְמּ ֵדי ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬Ct 3.8 and ‫י־שׁיר‬ ִ ‫ְמ ֻל ְמּ ֵד‬ 1Ch 25.7. 2 Qimron (I 174) reads ‫בב]גדי‬ ֯ ‫ לבוש‬as against his earlier (1996) ‫בג]די‬ ֯ ‫ ;לבוש‬in BH ‫ ָלבוּשׁ‬or ‫( ְלבוּשׁ‬cst.) never governs the preposition -‫ב‬. However, the parallel verb, ‫חגר‬, can govern -‫ ב‬as in our 1QM passage and ‫וּב ַא ְבנֵ ט ַבּד יַ ְחגֹּר‬ ְ ‘and he shall gird himself with a linen girdle’ Lv 16.4. 3 Cf. LXX εἰδὼς φέρειν μαλακίαν, Pf. ptc., ‘knowledgeable, experienced.’ 4 It seems to us sensible, pace Mor (2015.301, § 5.14.1), to take ‫( מעשרת‬also spelled ‫ מעסרת‬in the document) in ‫‘ שמונה סאין מעשרת‬tithes, 8 seahs’ M24 B 17 as ‫מ ֲע ָשׂרוֹת‬, ַ pl. of ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵשׂר‬rather than as ‫מ ֻע ָשּׂרוֹת‬, ְ Pu. ptc. fp. Milik (DJD 2.126) takes it as Pu. ptc. fs with ‫ כורין‬as its subject. Faced with this blatant discord—fs vs. mp—he seeks refuge in Epstein (1931.293), who attempted to resolve the difficulty in a contemporary Aramaic text which reads ‫‘ לכה התית טמי עוזיהו‬the bones of Uzziah were brought here.’ 5 These passive participles do not, pace Mor (2015.301, § 5.14.1), indicate a state nor a continuous, imperfective aspect, but actions indicated passively. Related Aramaic and Nabataean documents from the



h) As in BH the tense value of a participle can be preterite when the article is attached or otherwise determinate (e.g. ‫ וַ יַּ ֲע ֶשׂ ָה ָל ִאישׁ ַה ָבּא ֵא ָליו‬2Sm 12.4 (1)): ‫‘ באי התבה‬those who ֗ ‫כל‬ entered the ark’ CD 5.1; ‫‘ הבורא ארץ‬One who created the earth’ 1QM 10.12; ‫הנבר ֗א‬ ‘all that was created’ 4Q217 2.3; ‫‘ היוצאים מארץ יהודה‬those who departed from the land of Judah’ CD 6.5, continued with a way-yiqtol, ‫‘ ויגורו בארץ דמשק‬and lived in the land of Damascus.’ We would apply this analysis also to a prayer to be said after a victory won in ‫ ברוך אל ישראל השומר חסד לבריתו‬1QM 14.4, for otherwise the inversive ‫ ויקרא‬in ‫גבורות ֗פלא‬ ֯ ‫‘ ויקרא כושלים ֗ל‬and He called on those staggering (to perform) wondrously mighty actions’ line 5 would present a puzzle; the sons of light personally experienced and witnessed their God’s ‫חסד‬, of which they must have heard umpteen times (2). That ‫ ויקרא‬is meant to be ‫ וַ יִּ ְק ָרא‬is manifest from ‫ָא ַסף = אסף‬ in the immediately following clause, ‫‘ וקהל גויים אסף לכלה‬and He gathered a crowd of gentile nations for annihilation.’ However, in QH this use of the ptc. is rather rare, and was probably on the way out; note ‫יהוה אלוהיכה אשר הוציאכה מארץ מצרים‬ ‫ ופדיתיכה מבית עבדים‬11Q19 54.16 < ‫מּוֹציא ֶא ְת ֶכם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם וְ ַהפּ ְֹדָך ִמ ֵבּית‬ ִ ‫יכם ַה‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ ֲע ָב ִדים‬Dt 13.6. (3) i) Attributive A participle is often added to expand a noun phrase in the manner of an adjective or a relative clause. Indeterminate: ‫‘ איש דורש בתורה יומם ולילה‬a man who studies the Torah day and night’ 1QS 6.6; ‫‘ רוח נשברה‬a broken spirit’ 1QS 8.3, 1QS 11.1; ‫‘ רוח נסוגה‬a withdrawn spirit’ 1QS 8.12; ‫‘ רז נהיה‬an emergent mystery’ 4Q417 1i8 (4); ‫חרב נקמת נקם בריתו‬ ‘a sword that inflicts a vengeance of His covenant’ CD 1.17; ‫היש שפה ו֗ ֗לשון מחזקת בה‬ ‘Is there a lip or tongue which adheres to it?’ 1Q27 1i10 (5). same corpus use a tG ptc. ‫מתקרא‬, and not a Gpass ‫קרי‬, as in ‫תקרא כרבא‬ ֗ ‫‘ אתרא די ֗מ‬the site that is called Krb’’ 5/6Ḥev 7.7. Cf. Engl. “These days all our official documents are written in English” = “we write .. in English” as against “Look, this letter I got yesterday is written in English” = “this letter .. is in English.” By contrast, ‫כתוב‬, a Gpass, does indicate a state in ‫‘ כל שמלמעלה כתוב‬all that is written above’ 5/6Ḥev 44.26. 1 Cf. the Proto-Lucianic version: καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὴν τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ ἥκοντι (Pf. ptc.) πρὸς αὐτόν ‘he had it cooked for the man who had come to him.’ 2 Cf. what one finds only four lines later: ‫ברוך שמכה אל החסדים השומר ברית לאבותינו‬ ‫ בר‬1QM 14.8. 3 A few more examples are mentioned by Geiger (2012.180). Cf. also JM § 145 f. 4 Alternatively ‘a mystery concerning what is going to emerge’ with ‫ רז‬in st. cst., for which, however, ‫ רז נהיות‬might be expected, cf. ‫‘ לוא ידעו רז נהיה ובקדמוניות לוא התבוננו‬they did not know .. and past events they did not comprehend’ 1Q27 1i3. Moreover, ‫ רז‬often occurs in the pl. cst. as in ‫רזי פלא‬, but never with ‫נהיה‬. Thus ‫ רז‬in ‫ רז נהיה‬is more likely to be in the st. abs. 5 This and another example, ‫‘ יש אל עושה‬there is a god who does’ 4Q176a 21.4, both dealt with quite extensively by Geiger (2012.367f.), merely attest to an attributive use of the participle, and quite distinct from the BH syntagm as ‫ ֲהיִ ְשׁ ֶכם א ֲֹה ִבים את יהוה‬Dt 13.4, a syntagm designed “to ascertain or confirm a fact about which one is only half sure” (JM § 154 l), where the subject of the ptc. is marked by the conj. pron.

THE VERB — § 17 g-j


Determinate: ‫‘ אנשי היחד המתדנדבים‬the members of the community who are committing themselves’ 1QS 5.1; ‫‘ האיש הנשאל‬the man who has been asked’ 1QS 6.11; ‫‘ האיש השואל את עצת היחד‬the man who is asking the community council’ 1QS 6.12; ‫‘ הזונות הנעסה בתוך העם‬the whoredom being practised among the people’ MMT B 75. The addition of the article removes a syntactic ambiguity in ‫ֲהזֶ ה ָה ִאישׁ ַמ ְרגִּ יז ָה ָא ֶרץ ַמ ְר ִעישׁ‬ ‫ ַמ ְמ ָלכוֹת‬Is 14.16 MT // ‫ המרעיש‬.. ‫ הזה האיש המרגיז‬1QIsaª, which can only mean ‘Is this the man who ..’. When attributive and articular, a ptc. can have preterite value as in BH (1): ‫ראש‬ ‫‘ מלכי יון הבא לעשות בהם נקמה‬the chief of Hellenic kings who came to wreak vengeance against them’ CD 8.11 (2); ‫ האיש השוכב עמה‬11Q19 66.5, which is remarkable, since it is not dependent verbatim on ‫ר־שׁ ַכב ִע ָמּהּ‬ ָ ‫ ָה ִאישׁ ֲא ֶשׁ‬Dt 22.25 // ‫האיש השוכב עמה‬ 11Q19 66.10 (= Dt 22.29); reverse variation—‫מּוֹציא ֶא ְת ֶכם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ‬ ִ ‫יכם ַה‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ַעל־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם וְ ַהפּ ְֹדָך ִמ ֵבּית ֲע ָב ִדים‬Dt 13.6 // ‫על יהוה אלוהיכה אשר הוציאכה מארץ מצרים ופדיתיכה‬ ‫ מבית עבדים‬11Q19 54.16 (3). From the general context the participle ‫ הגואל‬appears to be referring to a particular event in the past in ‫הגוא ֗ל עמי לתת להם ֗הברית‬ ֗ ‫כי אני יהוה‬ ‘for I am the Lord who rescued My people to give them the covenant’ 4Q385 2.1 (4). This preterite value also applies when a participle cannot take the article for some syntactic reason, e.g. ‫‘ בו הבו באי הברית הראשנים‬through it those who joined the covenant at the beginning sinned’ CD 3.10 (5); ‫‘ חופריה‬its diggers’ CD 6.5, which refers back to ‫בא ֗ר ֗ח ֯פרוה‬ ֗ ‫אמר מושה‬ ֗ ‫ ֯אשר‬ib. 4; ‫‘ דבר עושו‬the word of One who made him’ 4Q299 3ii8; ‫‘ מתעיהם‬those who misled them’ 4Q166 2.5. This is thus distinct from ‫‘ ובקץ חרבן הארץ עמדו מסיגי גבול ויתעו את ישראל‬and at the time of the desolation of the land there emerged removers of landmark and deceived Israel’ CD 5.20, where it is a generic reference to a group of people, though they were in action at a point of time in the past. The reverse is not necessarily true: a determinate ptc. may refer to a present or future event, e.g. ‫‘ קריאי השם העמדים באחרית הימים‬those who are called by the name (and) who are bound to arise at the end of the days’ CD 4.4. In ‫אים במה‬ ֗ ‫והיוצ‬ ֗ ‫ערי֯ ̇ם הבאי̇ ם ̇ב ̇מה‬ ֯ ‫ השע‬11Q19 36.7 the two participles are attributive in a way different from ‫‘ האנשים הבאים‬the people entering,’ for example: ‘the gates through which people enter and exit.’

1 A BH example preserved in a Qumran manuscript is ‫אלהי֯ ך המוציאך ֗מארץ‬ ‫ אלה‬4Q33 4-6.16 = Dt 8.14. Some more examples are mentioned by Geiger (2012.180). See also above at § h. 2 To translate this with ‘who comes’ would take the date of composition of CD to a time prior to the emergence of Alexander the Great. 3 An example mentioned by Geiger (2012.321). He also cites ‫ הנשבע לאברהם לתת‬4Q378 11.3 // ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫ נִ ְשׁ ַבּע‬Dt 1.8. In JM § 145 d, e mentioned by Geiger (op. cit., n. 464) the use of the article with Pf. forms is being discussed. 4 Pace Dimant (DJD 30.24): ‘who redeems my people.’ The phrase ‫ גואל ישראל‬Is 49.7 and Si 51.12, with no article in either case, is an expression of God’s general character. 5 Read ‫ חבו‬for ‫הבו‬.



j) Substantivised (1) A participle is often used as an equivalent of a substantive, either on its own or expanded. This resembles substantivised adjectives, on which see above at § 9 a. E.g. ‫נוקם לנפשו‬ ‘he who avenges himself’ 1QS 7.9; ‫ משלמי גמולים‬.. ‫‘ נוקמי נקם‬revengers .. those who requite’ 1QS 2.6; ‫‘ עושי משפט‬those who practise justice’ 1QS 8.3; ‫‘ שואל אוב‬one who consults a spirit’ 11Q19 60.18 followed by a normal substantive, ‫‘ וידעונים‬and soothsayers’; ‫‘ מגששים דרך‬those who grope for a way’ CD 1.9 // ‫‘ עורים‬blind people’; ‫‘ עושיהם‬their Maker’ CD 2.21; ‫‘ מוכיח בו‬One who reprimands him’ 1QHa 20.31; ‫‘ שב אל עפרו‬one who returns to his dust’ 1QHa 20.34; ‫נותן לנמוגי ברכים חזוק מעמד ואמוץ‬ ‫‘ מתנים לשכם מכים‬He gives strength to stand erect to those with knocking knees and fortitude of the loins to the shoulder(s) of those smitten’ 1QM 14.6; ‫‘ לאין קובר‬with nobody around to bury (them)’ 1QM 11.1; in negated existential clauses (2)—‫אין מציל‬ ‘there is no rescuer’ 1QM 14.11; ‫‘ ואין עוזר לו‬and he has no helper’ 1QM 1.6; possibly, despite the broken context, ‫‘ גואלנו‬our saviour’ XḤev/Ṣe 6.5; impersonal—‫נסתרות‬ ‘hidden matters’ CD 3.14; ‫‘ נהיות עולם‬events of eternity’ CD 13.8; ‫כול הבאות על עמו‬ ‘all those things that are going to befall His people’ 1QpHab 2.10; ‫כל הוי עולמים ונהיות‬ ‘all that exist for eternity and what is to emerge’ CD 2.9, where we see that the impersonal use is not confined to the feminine gender, see also ‫ היוצא מפיך‬cited below. Determinate: ‫‘ הנם‬one who falls asleep’ 1QS 7.11; ‫‘ השוגג‬one who errs inadvertently’ 1QS 9.1; ‫‘ היוצא מפיך‬that which issues out of your mouth’ 4Q51 2a-d.5 // ‫ְדּ ָברוֹ‬ 1Sm 1.23. Short of emendation the fem. form ‫ נחרצה‬at ‫ מועד משפט נחרצה‬1QS 4.20 and ‫קץ‬ ‫ משפט נחרצה‬4Q369 1i6 cannot be an attributively used ptc., ‘a pronounced sentence,’ (3) though a combination ‫ חרץ משפט‬is attested in ‫‘ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ֶטָך ָח ַר ְצ ָתּ‬you decided your judgement’ 1Kg 20.40. Something like ‘the time when the court sits to pronounce a verdict’ must be intended. The use of ‫ נחרצה‬in an analogous context is already biblical: ‫ָכ ָלה‬ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ וְ נֶ ֱח ָר ָצה ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת ע ֶֹשׂה ְבּ ֶק ֶרב ָכּ‬Is 10.23; see the same two substantives juxtaposed also at Is 28.22, Dn 9.27, Dn 11.36 (4). That ‫ נחרצה‬is substantivised is manifest in ‫ עד קץ נחרצה‬1QS 4.25. The authors of 1QS and 4Q369 may have been thinking of these biblical texts and might be mentally supplying ‫כּ ָלה‬, ָ thus ‫כלה נחרצה‬. It is to be noted that Is 28.22 is preceded by ‫( ִכּ ָלּיוֹן ָחרוּץ‬vs. 21). (5) Qimron (III 154) suggests that, at ‫ אין סתר ֗מ ֗ל ֗פנו‬4Q392 1.4, ‫ סתר‬is a ptc. of the pattern ‫ ָפּ ֵעל‬in the sense of ‫נִ ְס ָתּר‬. However, a well-established substantive meaning ‘a way of hiding, refuge’ makes good sense: ‘there is no escape from Him.’ 2 ‫ ְל ֵאין ַמ ְר ֵפּא‬2Ch 21.18, 36.16 mentioned by Holst (2012.118) does not belong here; ‫ ַמ ְר ֵפּא‬is no participle, bur a plain substantive meaning ‘a cure.’ 3 “the ordained time of judgement” (DJD 13.355 ad 4Q369) is unlikely in view of the masculine gender of ‫קץ‬. 4 Noted by Wernberg-Møller 1957.85 and Licht 1965.103. 5 The same biblical collocation in ‫ עד כלה ונחרצה לעד‬1QHa 11.37 hardly means “until full consummation. It is determined for ever” (DJD 40.156), for which one would expect ‫ ונחרצה היא לעד‬or suchlike, unless one parses ‫ נחרצה‬as Pf. 3fs. 1

THE VERB — § 17 j – 18 a


In ‫ מורה הצדקה מפיא אל‬1QpHab 2.2 the prepositional phrase is expanding not so much an NP as a verb in the manner of ‫‘ כוהן עומד אצל מזבח‬a priest standing beside an altar.’ Hence ‘one who teaches justice from the mouth of God, as instructed by God,’ which suggests that in this particular case ‫ מורה‬is not yet completely substantivised, but retains some of the verbal character of the participle. Analogously, whilst formally ‫ תומכי‬is substantivised in ‫ אשרי תומכי חוקיה‬4Q425 2ii-3.1, what immediately follows suggests that it still retains its verbal character: ‫ולוא יתמוכו בדרכי עולה‬, thus ‘Blessed are those who support its laws and would not support perverse paths.’ Likewise ‫אין מלך‬ ‫‘ ואין שר ואין שופט ואי‬there will be no king and no ruler and no judge and ‫מוכיח בצדק‬ ֗ ‫אין‬ nobody to reprove in righteousness’ CD 20.16, where ‫ שופט‬is a normal substantive, parallel to ‫ מלך‬and ‫שר‬, whereas ‫ מוכיח‬is still verbal, expanded with a prepositional ֗ adjunct, thus a substantivised participle, and so is ‫ שופט‬in ‫הסד‬ ֯ ‫הושי֯ ֗עה ֗אלו֗ ֗הים שומר הס‬ ‫בצ ֯דק‬ ֗ ‫ ושופט‬.. ‫‘ ֗באמת‬Rescue (me), o God, One who keeps favour in truth .. and judges with righteousness’ 4Q511 10.9 is a substantivised participle. This is thus quite distinct from √ ‫כהן‬, which in G is never used except as a participle.

§ 18 INFINITIVE a) Nominalised verb (1) The nominal character of the infinitive is manifest in the following cases: in ‫מכול‬ ‫ תועבות שקר והתגולל ברוח נדה‬1QS 4.21 ‫התגולל‬, an infinitive, is parallel to a pure verbal noun ‫‘ תועבה‬from all abhorrence of deceit and defilement with an unclean spirit’ (2); ‫‘ הודות אל‬praise for God’ 1QM 4.14 // ‫שמחת אל‬, ‫תהלת אל שלום אל‬, and a few other ‫ ה‬// ‫‘ תפלה‬prayer’ 1QHa 20.7. In ‫‘ בכול היותי‬throughout my lifetime’ noun phrases; ‫דות‬ ֗ ֗‫הו‬ 1QS 10.8 not only a subject conj. pron. is attached, but the infinitive is prefixed with ‫כול‬, sim. ‫‘ אוחיל בכול היותי‬I shall look towards (Your mercy) all my life’ 1QHa 22.36 (3); ‫‘ על הטהר במים‬on the purification with water’ CD 10.10, as a title of a section of the document (4). The absence of -‫ ל‬in all these cases signals their departure from the verb paradigm. (5) See also below at § g and on epexegetic inf. (1QS 8). In ‫מספר‬ 1 On the partially nominal character of the participle, see above at § 17 a. For a syntactic classification of the ways in which an infinitival clause functions as a substantive, see Muraoka 2015.86f. We find Sellin (1889.67) exaggerating, when he says “dass jeder Infinitiv zunächst ein vollständiges Nomen ist.” No substantive is declined per binyan nor takes conjunctive pronoun ‫נִ י‬-. 2 Or parallel to ‫שקר‬. 3 DJD (40.275): “with all my being,” which could not apply to the 1QS example nor concords well with ‫ תמיד‬in the parallel clause. 4 An example mentioned by Thorion-Vardi (1988.78). Qimron’s (I 44) proposal to read ‫ה ָטּ ֵהר‬, ַ G ptc. does not convince in the context. 5 Cf. Qimron 1976.294. This may speak against identifying, as Thorion-Vardi (1988.81) does, an infinitival clause as standing in apposition at ‫ בזנות לקחת שתי נשים בחייהם‬CD 4.20. Though the difference is slight in terms of what the text means, we could take the infinitival clause as epexegetic, see below at § g. It is hence not substantivised as being appositional to ‫זנות‬, an action noun.



‫‘ צרותיהם ושני התגוררם‬the number of their distresses and the years of their sojourn (in exile)’ CD 4.5 and ‫‘ בית השתחוות אל‬a place for worshipping God’ CD 11.22 each of the infinitival clauses is virtually equivalent to a nomen rectum, on which see below at § b. aa) Conversely a verbal noun may function as a pseudo-inf. cst. See ‫ָמ ְל ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ ֵדּ ָעה‬ ‫ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬Is 11.9 // .. ‫ לדעה את כבוד יהוה‬4Q57 6.6, where ‫;ל ַד ַעת = לדעה‬ ָ this is remarkable, seeing that, in QH as in RH, the proclitic ‫ ל־‬had become an integral part of the inf. cst., see below at § j. (1) In ‫‘ בתכון נאמנה מפי אל‬when they are reliably arranged in accordance with God’s instruction’ 1QHa 20.12 ‫נאמנה‬, a f.s. ptc., is being adverbially used (2), whereas in ‫‘ בתכונם באותותם‬in arranging them by their signs’ 1QHa 20.11 ‫באותותם‬ is an adverbial adjunct of a pseudo-inf. cst., ‫ ;תכון‬no substantive is expanded by an adverbial. Note ‫‘ תשובה לעפר = תשובת עפר‬return to dust’ 1QHa 20.29; ‫בעשיֿ ת האמת‬ ‘when (you) act truthfully’ 4Q200 2.5 (3); ‫‘ להלכת תמים בכול דרכי אל‬to walk straight in all the ways of God’ 1QS 3.9 (// ‫ להלכ‬4QSa 2.5) and coordinate with ‫ולוא לסור ימין‬ ‫‘ ושמאול‬and not turn right or left’; ‫בהנ֯ שא יד אל הגדולה על בליעל‬ ֗ ‘when the great hand of God is raised against Belial’ 1QM 18.1 followed by ‫תהיה משאת יד אל ישראל על כול‬ ֗ ‫תהי‬ ‫‘ המון בליעל‬there is going to take place the raising of the hand of the God of Israel against the entire horde of Belial’ line 3. See also ‫‘ אהבתו עם שנאתו‬his love together with his hatred’ 1QS 9.16, preceded and followed by a series of codes of conduct, all expressed by means of ‫ל‬-infinitives. Note ‫ ועם מוצא ערב ובוקר‬.. ‫‘ עם מבוא יום ולילה‬with the onset of day or night .. and with the departure of evening or morning’ 1QS 10.10 as synonymous with ‫ ִעם‬.. ‫ִעם בּוֹא‬ ‫צאת‬, ֵ with which cp. ‫ עם צאת הקול‬1QM 16.8, ‫חרפת עד עם כלמת כלה באש מחשכים‬ ‘perpetual disgrace (suffered) when they are humiliated through annihilation in a dark fire’ 1QS 4.12 (4) and a couple of additional examples mentioned below (§ k). (5) The verbal noun doubling for the inf. cst. has one advantage in that the former can be pluralised, e.g. Hence ‫‘ געלה נפשו ביסורי דעת‬his soul detested instructions of knowledge’ 1QS 2.26, where the pl. ‫ יסורי‬neatly expresses the diversity or high frequency of instruction. (6) Affiliated to this is a long list of actions to be undertaken: e.g. ‫ואלה דרכיהן בתבל‬ ‫‘ להאיר בלבב איש ולישר לפניו כול דרכי צדק אמת ולפחד לבבו במשפטי אל‬and the following are their paths in the world, (i.e.), to illumine man’s heart and to straighten all his ways of true righteousness ahead of him and fill his heart with awe through the precepts of God’ 1QS 4.2, continued with several abstract nouns indicative of one’s attitude—‫ורוח‬ Cf. ‫‘ עם משכב יצועי‬when I lie in my bed’ 1QS 10.14 adduced below at § k. Cf. ‫‘ נאמנה שמעתי‬I have dutifully listened’ 1QHa 20.15. 3 DJD 19.67 reads ‫בעשות‬, cf. Qimron 1999.144 and ποιοῦντός σου τὴν ἀλήθειαν To 4.6GI. 4 On this last example, see Muraoka 2010.294 and id. 2020(?) § 2. 5 Cf. ִ‫ירוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ‫גּוֹלה ִמ ָבּ ֶבל ִל‬ ָ ‫ ִעם ֵה ָעלוֹת ַה‬Ezr 1.11 and ‫ עם שאתו כפים יגילו‬Si 40.14Bmg, both mentioned in BDB, s.v. ‫ ִעם‬1 g, to which Fassberg (1997.65) adds ‫ והנחם עם צאת נפשו‬Si 38.23. 6 For a meaning of this Piel verbal noun, see Muraoka 1999.47. 1 2

THE VERB — § 18 aa-b


.. ‫‘ ענוה ואורכ אפים ורוב רחמים‬and humble spirit and long-suffering and abundant mercy ..,’ cf. 1QS 9.22-24. This feature is further affiliated to the modal use of the infinitive with injunctive value, see below at § c. b) Complementing a verb An inf. cst. can serve to complement another verb. Many thought that ‫ חזק‬is equivalent to ‫ יכל‬in ‫ לוא חזק למשוב חיו‬1QS 3.1, though such a usage is not attested elsewhere. (1) However, an interpretation such as ‘he was not firm enough to alter his life style’ finds support in ‫חזק לבלתי אכול הדם‬ ̇ ‫‘ רק‬only be firm not to eat blood’ 11Q19 53.5 (= Dt 12.23), cf. ‫וֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ִאם־יֶ ֱחזַ ק ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ִמ ְצ‬1Ch 28.7. Also ‫ להקים את בריתו‬.. ‫המתנדבים‬ ‘those who commit themselves to establish His covenant’ 1QS 5.21 (2); ‫כול המתנדב‬ ‫‘ מישראל להוסיף על עצת היחד‬everyone who is committed out of Israel to be added to the community council’ 1QS 6.13; ‫‘ עד יום ישוב לעמד‬until the day when he once again stands’ CD 20.5; ‫‘ ממהר להבין‬is quick to grasp’ 4Q267 5iii3 (3); ‫‘ מתבהלת לינוק‬being in a hurry to suck’ 4Q215 1.5; ‫‘ אל תתעצלו להודיע עוזו‬Do not be sluggish in declaring His might’ 11Q5 18.2; ‫‘ ֗ה ֯ר ֗ב ֗ה ֗ל ֗חי֗ ו֗ ֗ת‬he lived long’ 4Q221 3.5 (4). Though no example of is attested in BH, we may mention here ‫‘ אם לוא תשיג ידו לשלמו‬if he cannot afford to make up for it’ 1QS 7.8. See also ‫‘ לוא תאחר לשלמו‬you should not delay repaying it’ 11Q19 53.11, cf. ‫א־א ַחר ַהנַּ ַער ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ַה ָדּ ָבר‬ ֵ ֹ ‫‘ ל‬the lad lost no time ֗ in doing it’ Gn 34.19. Perhaps belong here ‫הסומיים ֗שאינם רואים להזהר מכל תערו֯ בות‬ ‘the blind who are not visually fit enough to be careful about all kinds of mixture’ ֗ ‫‘ כה עיני֗ ם‬one with eyes too weak to see’ 4Q266 8i7 (6). MMT B 49 (5) and ‫לבלתי ראות‬ Note also ‫‘ אין האנשים האלה רשאים לרדף‬these people are not authorised to pursue’ 5/6Ḥev 44.24; ‫ לעשות בו כל שתחפץ‬.. ‫רשי֗ הלוקח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ר‬the buyer .. is entitled to do with it whatever you please’ M30 22; ‫כל שיש לי ושאקנה אחראים וערבים למרק לפנך את המכר‬ ‫‘ הזה‬all that I possess and that which I might acquire shall constitute a legally binding guarantee for settling this sale by paying to you’ M30 23.

The phrase in the LXX does not correspond to this Hebrew verb, e.g. ἔτι ἰσχύοντι ἐπιδέξασθαι τρυφήν = ‫ כח( לקבל תענוג‬/) ‫ עוד בו חיל‬Si 41.1. So also 1E 9.11 (Ezr 10.13). On this Greek usage, see Muraoka 2009 s.v. ἰσχύω 1. Incidentally, ‫ למשוב‬said to be an Aramaism is not a pure Aramaism, but an Aramaising form; for Aramaic we would expect ‫ל ְמ ָתב‬.ִ The same holds for ‫‘ במתור‬for walking’ 1QS 3.3. See also Muraoka 1999.48. Even so ‫ למשוב חיו‬is difficult, if it has to do with a radical change of course, for then a personal subject would be expected for the infinitive. Perhaps a case of inadvertent haplography here for ‫למשוב בחיו‬. For our justification for not bringing ‫ יכל‬here, see below at § h, p. 115, n. 2. 2 On the rection of ‫ התנדב‬in QH as compared with its use in BH, see Rogland 1999. 3 In ‫‘ ֗מהר ֗שלם‬Pay quickly!’ 4Q417 2ii+23.6 ‫ מהר‬might be a D inf. abs. used adverbially or the two verbs might be asyndetically juxtaposed imperatives, on which see below § 38 b. 4 On the decipherment of this difficult phrase, see VanderKam 1977.70-72. 5 We fail to see how the infinitive can be a predicate and translatable as “(they) should beware,” DJD 10.160. 6 Following Qimron’s (I 38 n. ad loc.) suggestion: ‫כּ ֵהה = כה‬. ְ 1



c) Absolute command or deontic modality (1) An infinitive often carries injunctive value equivalent to the Impf. with the same value. E.g. ‫יסו[ד היחד ֗ל ֗ש ֯לח‬ ֯ ‫‘ האיש אשר ילון על יסו‬a man who grumbles against the authority of the community: to be excommunicated’ 4Q261 6a-e3 // ‫ ישלחהו‬1QS 7.17 ‫לדרוש איש‬ ‫ ולא ישקץ‬.. ‫ להבדל‬.. ‫ ולא לנטור‬.. ‫ להוכיח איש את אחיהו‬.. ‫ להזיר‬.. ‫את שלום אחיהו ולא ימעל‬ ‘one is to seek the welfare of his brother and not to be unfaithful .. to refrain .. to remonstrate one another .. and not to remain resentful .. to part with .. and one shall not defile’ CD 6.21; ‫‘ על אחד להבדיל הטהרה‬according to one (witness) the separation from the purity is to be established’ CD 9.23, followed by ‫‘ אל יקובל עוד‬no more (witness) is to be invited’; probably ‫‘ מכור לנוכרי‬to sell to a foreigner’ 11Q19 48.6, introduced with ‫כי‬, which would be odd with an impv., and preceded by ‫לוא תואכלו‬. Of the above-quoted instances, 1QM 2.1-4 is of particular interest; whilst, in CD 6.21, ‫ איש‬is functioning as the subject of the infinitive and the parallel PC forms are 3ms, in the former the subjects exceptionally (§ m) precede the infinitive and the parallel PC forms—‫ ישרתו‬and ‫—יתיצבו‬duly agree with the subjects in gender and number. We meet with an example of a negated inf. in ‫באלה ֗ל ֗ב ֗לתי החזיק מעמד בתוכ העדה‬ ֗ ‫כול איש מנוגע‬ ‘anyone infected with these is not to hold office within the congregation’ 1QSa 2.4, preceded by ‫טמאות האדם אל יבוא בקהל אלה‬ ֗ ‫באחת מכול‬ ֗ ‫‘ כול איש מנוגע‬anyone infected with one of all kinds of impurity of a man shall not enter the congregation of these (people).’ Note also ‫‘ כול אשר לוא נחשבו בבריתו להבדיל אותם ואת כול אשר להם‬all those who were not included among His covenant, one should exclude them and all that belongs to them’ 1QS 5.18. This use of the infinitive is prominent in negative prescriptions (2): ‫לוא לסור ימין‬ ‫‘ ושמאול ואין לצעוד על אחד מכול דבריו‬one is not to deviate right or left nor walk against any of His words’ 1QS 3.10 (3), sim. ib. 1.13, 14bis, 15, 9.16; ‫אין להתקדם ולהתאחר‬ ‫‘ ממועדיהם‬there is no option to advance or postpone their appointed times’ 4Q266 2i2; ‫‘ אין לעבור חוקיהם‬one ought not to transgress their laws’ 1Q34 3ii2; ‫אין עוד להשתפח‬ ‫‘ לבית יהודה‬there shall be no uniting with the house of Judah any more’ CD 4.11; ‫אין‬ 1 Cf. Kropat 1909.24f., Leahy 1960.142, DJD 10.80 (§, Qimron 2018.387 § H 1.6.3, and JM § 124 l. 2 A syntagm generally agreed to be characteristic of LBH. Cf. BDB s.v. ‫ ַאיִ ן‬5 and Carmignac (1974.409f.), and a study by Hurvitz 1999, where, however, no mention is made of one seeming exception cited earlier by Hurvitz himself (1990.147), to wit, ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ין־ל ָה ִביא ְל ִאישׁ ָה ֱא‬ ְ ‫שׁוּרה ֵא‬ ָ ‫וּת‬ ְ 1Sm 9.7, where Driver (1913.71) had suggested two emendations, ‫ וְ ֵאין תשורה להביא‬and ‫ותשורה ַאיִ ן להביא‬, the latter of which has been plausibly restored in a 4Q51 (DJD 17.59) as ‫להביא‬ ‫ותשורה אין לנו לה‬ ‫ ;ותשורה‬the inf. then would be complementing ‫תשורה‬, see below at § i. 3 The first infinitive clause can be construed backwards with final value: .. ‫ויהכין פעמיו להלכת תמים‬ .. ‫‘ ולוא לסור‬and he is to prepare his steps so as to walk with integrity .. and not deviate ..’ or with epexegetic value, ‘to walk .. by not deviating ..,’ though the latter clause cannot be so analysed on account of the negator ‫אין‬, not ‫לוא‬. Similar uncertainty attaches to the other examples mentioned, all long series of infinitive clauses. If, however, our clause .. ‫ לוא לסור‬is to be construed forwards, that would imply that the syntagms and are of equal value, allosyntagms.

THE VERB — § 18 c


‫‘ להאכילם מהקודדשים‬it is not permissible to feed them out of sacred food’ MMT B 71; ‫‘ אין ֗ל ֗ה ֗בי֗ למחני ֗ה ֯ק ֯ודש כלבים‬one shall not bring dogs into the holy camp’ MMT B 58; with a BH ‫‘ לבלתי בוא אל המקדש—לבלתי‬they are not to enter the sanctuary’ CD 6.12 (1). Likewise ‫ ולא לנטור‬in CD 6.21 adduced in the preceding paragraph. See also below at § 40 i. We probably have to do here with changes taking place in the syntactic structure of Hebrew. Albeit not often, the inf. cst. was used with modal value in CBH, e.g. ‫ֶמה‬ ‫ל־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ר־לְך ֶא‬ ָ ‫‘ ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ָלְך ֲהיֵ שׁ ְל ַד ֶבּ‬what could be done for you? Is there anything we could raise with the king on your behalf?’ 2Kg 4.13 (2). The above-mentioned is an extension of negatively worded. The gradual demise of the inf. abs. in general in LBH and post-biblical Hebrew appears to have led to the increased use of the inf. cst. with modal value, deontic in particular. (3) Note also ‫הטהורה כתוב שלוא לרבעה כלאים‬ ֗ ‫בהמתו הטהו‬ ̇ ‫‘ על‬about his clean animal it is ֗ ‫על‬ written: one may not mate it with a different species’ MMT B 76 and ‫לבושו כתוב שלוא‬ ‫כלאים‬ ‫מו כלאי‬ ‫לזרוע שדו ֯וכרמו‬ ֗ ‫‘ יהיה שעטנז ושלוא‬about his garment it is written: it shall not be of mixed stuff and one may not sow his field and vineyard with mixed species’ MMT B 78. We also find a variant ‫ אשר‬in ‫‘ ואשר לוא להוכיח ולהתרובב עם אנשי השחת‬and he should not reproach and quarrel with the men of the pit’ 1QS 9.16, on which see above at § 15 daf. A similar phenomenon is attested in MH. (4) Qimron (5) refers to mHag 2.2, where an interesting detail is revealed: :‫מוְֹך יוסי בן יוחנן אומר‬ ‫ ֶשׁלֹּא ִל ְס ׅ‬:‫יוסי בן יועזר אומר‬ ‫ל ְסמוְֹך‬.ִ Two rabbis reach diametrically opposed views, which are both introduced with ‫אוֹמר‬ ֵ just like ‫ כתוב‬in the above-cited MMT B, but only the negative decision is prefixed with -‫ ֶשׁ‬. In this Mishnah passage another four mutually contradictory decisions are introduced exactly in the same fashion. The above-quoted instance at 1QS 9.16 is preceded by six positive rules to be observed by the instructor (‫)המשכיל‬, all expressed with an infinitive prefixed with -‫ ל‬and, after ‫ואשר לוא להוכיח‬, followed by another four positive rules, all prefixed with -‫ל‬. Thus -‫ ש‬in MMT B is unlikely introducing a content clause following ‫ כתוב‬any more than -‫ ש‬following ‫ אומר‬in the Mishnah. (6) 1 According to Qimron (HDDS 78), ‫לבלתי‬, the normal BH negator of an inf., still occurs in QH “if the infinitive occurs without lamed and does not express a command.” Would this be then a rare exception? Rendsburg (2010.223), following Qimron (loc. cit.), mentions the retention in QH of the BH , which, however, differs from the prohibitive , what we and he are discussing here. 2 Also retained in LBH, e.g. ‫ֹלהים יֵ שׁ ַליהוָ ה ָל ֶתת‬ ִ ‫אמר ִאישׁ ָה ֱא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ה־לּ ֲעשׂוֹת ִל ְמ ַאת ַה ִכּ ָכּר ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַת ִתּי ִלגְ דוּד יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יּ‬ ַ ‫וּמ‬ ַ ‫ ְלָך ַה ְר ֵבּה ִמזֶּ ה‬2Ch 25.9. Note that, as in 2Kg 4.13 cited above, ‫ יֵ שׁ‬is absent in the parallel infinitival clause. 3 Cf. Muraoka 2015.82. 4 So Licht (1965.37, § 31), though not citing any example. Actually, having studied a series of infinitival clauses (ib., § 30), all of deontic value, he looks at a similar series of the formula in 1QS 5. It is to be noted that the first of four consecutive clauses of this format is positive: ‫ואשר יקים בברית‬ ‘he shall swear allegiance to the covenant’ 1QS 5.10. This may suggest that the phenomenon here is affiliated with of volitive or deontic value dealt with above (§ 15 daf), and is an extension or derivative of this clausal syntagm. 5 Qimron 1982.35, HDDS, p. 79, and DJD 10.80 (§ 6 Why this feature is confined to negative injunctions is mysterious. The ὅτι recitativum is not subject to such a restriction.



Let it be noted that in none of the cases adduced above the agens or actor who performs the action denoted by the infinitive is indicated. Thus we are dealing with an infinitive clause the message of which is meant to apply to all concerned. d) Subject of a nominal clause An infinitive clause often constitutes the grammatical subject of a nominal clause. E.g. ‫‘ למשכיל להבין‬the master is charged with helping to understand’ 1QS 3.13, sim. ‫למשכיל‬ ‫‘ לברך את נשיא העדה‬.. to bless the prince of the congregation’ 1QSb 5.20, sim. 1QSb 1.1, where the preceding phrase, ‫‘ דברי ברכה‬benedictions,’ also introducing the text itself, is not so much complemented by the infinitive in the following ‫יראי אל‬ ֽ ‫למשכיל לברך את‬ in the sense of ‘benedictions to be pronounced by the Master’ as the title of the document, ‘Benedictions. The Master is to bless those who fear God’ (1); ‫אין להשנות‬ ‘there is no way of altering (it)’ 1QS 3.16; ‫‘ אין להשיבה‬it is impossible to return it’ 4Q270 2ii10, sim. 1QHa 15.31, 16.34, 35, 36; ‫עמכה אחוה‬ ֗ ‫‘ אין ֗ל ֯עשות‬there is no way of living as brothers with you’ 4Q223-224 2iv6; ‫‘ אין ̇עמו להבדיל ֗בי֗ ן האור ֗לחשך‬with Him there is no question of distinguishing between the light and the darkness’ 4Q392 1.5 (2); ‫‘ אין לעבור על חוקיהם‬there is no way of transgressing instructions touching on them’ 1Q34 3ii2; ‫‘ אין עוד להשתפח לבית יהודה‬there is no possibility any longer to get united with the house of Judah’ CD 4.11; with tense transformation through ‫הדבר—יהיה‬ ֗ ‫כל‬ ‫דבר ֗לעדה‬ ֗ ‫האדם ֯ל‬ ֯ ‫לכל‬ ֗ ‫‘ אשר י֗ היה‬every matter over which anyone need speak to the congregation’ CD 14.11 (3); ‫‘ פשר הדבר על הכוהן הרשע לשלם לו את גמולו‬the scripture concerns the wicked priest: it is up to him to pay his recompense’ 1QpHab 12.2 (4). Here we basically have nominal clauses of existence or possession. (5) Their positive It is tempting to adduce here ‫ ָהס ִכּי לֹא ְל ַהזְ ִכּיר ְבּ ֵשׁם יְ הוָ ה‬Am 6.10 with ‫ ִכּי‬as equivalent to -‫ שׁ‬or ‫אשׁר‬, but not introducing a content clause or a causal clause. Pace Qimron (2018.390) ‫ ִדּי ָלא‬in Ezr 6.8, however, does not belong here, for ‫ ִדּי ָלא ְל ַב ָטּ ָלא‬is no independent clause, but an adverbial adjunct, ‘without holding up (the work of reconstruction,’ cf. LXX τὸ μὴ καραργηθῆναι. Cf. Licht 1965.65f., § 30. 1 So Milik (DJD 1.120) and Vermes 1997.374, and pace Wise et al. (1996.148) “Words of benediction belonging to the Instructor, by which to bless”. This syntagm expressing a task or assignment is distinct from what one finds in ‫להי֗ ות טהורים‬ ֯ ‫בות השמש‬ ֗ ‫ לכול אלה להעריבו‬MMT B 15, on which see below at § m. On the preposition Lamed here, see Muraoka 1999.57. 2 God is, unlike humans, vigilant and active round the clock. Pace Falk (DJD 29.29) ‫ עם‬does not mean ‘apart from,’ for which Hebrew has ‫בּ ְל ָע ֵדי‬. ִ Even at ‫ין־ע ְמָּך ַל ְעזוֹר ֵבּין ַרב ְל ֵאין כּ ַֹח‬ ִ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ֵא‬2Ch 14.10 invoked by Falk the same holds: what was meant by Asa in his prayer was, “as far as You are concerned, Lord, it is not a question of helping the mighty or powerless, but You help whom You will.” See further Kister 2005.128f. 3 The last two instances are adduced by Thorion-Vardi 1988.79. 4 The virtual subject of the infinitive is not anyone else other than the wicked priest nor is he the patiens. Thus pace Lohse (1986.243), for instance: “.. daß man ihm vergelten wird.” Nitzan (1986.194) makes God the virtual subject of ‫שלם‬. 5 Kieviet (1999.17f., § 4.2) focuses on the modal syntagm ; in all the five cases the prep. constituent is , and although Kieviet appears to be thinking in terms of deontic modality, what we have here is basically an existential clause with the infinitival clause as its subject, as

THE VERB — § 18 c-d


formulation can be explicitly marked by means of ‫יֵ שׁ‬, though attested but once in QH: ‫להצניע‬ ֯ ‫‘ אם יש‬if possible (or: obligatory) to act modestly’ 4Q418 8.10 (1). So also ‫אין‬ ‫ים אחד‬ ֗ ‫‘ לו לחיות‬he has no right to live (even) one day’ 4Q221 4.7, which agrees with the Ethiopic Jub. 33.14. The syntax is somewhat strained in ‫אין בידעים נגלי פלא להבין‬ ‫ לפני עשותו‬Mas1k 1.4, if what is meant is ‘there is none among those who know marvels becoming manifest capable of comprehending prior to His performing (them).’ Though formally a verbal clause, here belongs ‫ותהיה יראת אותי כמצות אנשים מלמדה‬ ‘and (their) fear of Me became like a commandment followed as taught by people’ Is 29.13 1QIsaa (MT ‫)וַ ְתּ ִהי יִ ְר ָא ָתם א ִֹתי ִמ ְצוַ ת ֲאנָ ִשׁים ְמ ֻל ָמּ ָדה‬. The deontic modality of the syntagm is lexicalised by means of ‫( ָראוּי‬2) at ‫להזהיר בדבר הזה‬ ֗ ‫‘ לבני הכוהנ֗ ים ֗ר ֗או‬the sons of the priests should beware ֗ ‫הנים ראואי֯ להש‬ ‫הכו֯ הנ‬ ֗ ‫ לבני‬ib. 25. Sim. ‫לבני אהרן ראואי‬ of this matter’ MMT B 11; ‫להשמר‬ ‫‘ להיות‬the sons of Aaron are obliged to be ..’ MMT B 16. By means of the preposition ‫ ַעל‬in ‫‘ עלי לשפות לפניך מן כל חרר ותגר‬it is incumbent on me to silence before you all grievance or questioning’ 5/6Ḥev 45.26; ‫ לקרב לי‬.. ‫‘ עליך‬it is incumbent on you to deliver to me’ 5/6Ḥev 46.10; ‫‘ על אחד להבדיל הטהרה‬it is up to one to exclude (the culprit from) the sacramental meal’ CD 9.23; ‫על השוגג שלוא יעשה את המצוה‬ ‫‘ ונעלה ממנו להביא ֯חטאת‬he who unintentionally fails to observe the commandment, which escapes him (‫ נעלה‬mistakenly for ‫)נעלם‬, is obligated to bring a purification offering’ MMT B 69 (3).

is clear from the positively worded, parallel clause in ‫י־א ֲהר ֹן ַה ְמ ֻק ָדּ ִשׁים ְל ַה ְק ִטיר‬ ַ ֵ‫ ִכּי ַלכּ ֲֹהנִ ים ְבּנ‬2Ch 26.18, preceded by ‫א־לָך ֻעזִּ יָּ הוּ ְל ַה ְק ִטיר ַליהוָ ה‬ ְ ֹ ‫ל‬. ‫ לא‬is negating only the following constituent, as Kieviet himself says, so that the syntagm is distinct from . Besides, two cases of ‫הלוא‬, Mi 3.1 and 2Ch 13.5 are distinct, for ‫ הלוא‬should not be broken down into -‫ ה‬and ‫לוא‬, but it serves to introduce a rhetorical question anticipating a positive reply. Cf. Mor 2017.28-32. 1 The state of preservation of the text is such that one cannot determine the precise, semantic value of the syntagm. One can be more confident on two BH examples: ‫ל־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ר־לְך ֶא‬ ָ ‫‘ ֲהיֵ שׁ ְל ַד ֶבּ‬Could (or: should) we put in a word for you with the king?’ 2Kg 4.13; ‫‘ יֵ שׁ ַליהוָ ה ָל ֶתת ְלָך ַה ְר ֵבּה ִמזֶּ ה‬Yahweh is capable of giving you more than that’ 2Ch 25.9. 2 Qimron (DJD 10.81, §; ib. 10.95, § thinks ‫ )ראוי =( ראו‬is redundant. The sense of ‫ ָראוּי‬lies in a range of ‘proper, appropriate, permissible.’ An example outside of MMT is ‫היא רויה לו מן‬ ‫‘ החוק‬she is permitted to him by the law’ 11Q19 66.9. Also cf. ‫‘ ֶשׁ ַבע ַהנְּ ָערוֹת ָה ְר ֻאיוֹת‬the seven proper maidens’ Est 2.9 and ‫‘ כל הראוי ָלדוּן דיני נפשות ראוי ָלדוּן דיני ממונות‬everyone who is fit to judge capital cases is fit to judge financial cases’ mNid 6.4. Syntactically, however, the syntagm in MMT is distinct in that ‫ ראוי‬is indeclinable, serving as the predicate of the infinitival clause. Pérez Fernández (1999.207) speaks of “a semantic dynamism of the ‘decet > opportet > debet’ type,” citing ‫א־לָך ֻעזִּ יָּ הוּ ְל ַה ְק ִטיר ַליהוָ ה ִכּי ַלכּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ְ ֹ‫ל‬ ‫י־א ֲהר ֹן ַה ְמ ֻק ָדּ ִשׁים ְל ַה ְק ִטיר‬ ַ ֵ‫ ְבּנ‬2Ch 26.18. On the inf. cst. with ‫אין‬, ‫יש‬, and ‫ לא‬in BH, see Kieviet 1999. If we take the infinitive clause here as grammatical subject, there is, pace Qimron (DJD 10.47), nothing peculiar about the syntagm , and ‫ ראוי‬is inflected. On the deontic modality here, see also Qimron DJD 10.95 [§]. 3 Cf. the translation “if someone violates .., and the fact escapes him, he should bring ..” DJD 10.55. In any event, the preposition ‫ על‬as reconstructed differs from that in the following clause—‫ועל העושה ביד‬ ֗ ‫רמה כתו֗ ב‬, where it indicates a topic, ‘concerning.’ On the syntagm in BH, see JM, § 124 l. According to DJD 10.54 the infinitival clause is said to be the predicate, but what is its subject then?



e) Final (1) The notion of purpose is clearly recognisable in ‫‘ בבואו לעמוד‬when he enters in order to stand’ 1QS 6.15; ‫‘ ללכת למדבר לפנות שם את דרכ הואהא‬to go to the desert in order to prepare there the way of YHWH’ 1QS 8.13 (2); ‫ לבנות את המקדש‬.. ‫‘ העולים‬those who return .. so as to rebuild the temple’ 4Q390 1.5; ‫‘ שלח נביאו למושחני‬He sent His prophet to anoint me’ 11Q5 28.8. An inf. cst. with final value also occurs where it is not expanding another verb as in ‫‘ כול רוחי גורלו להכשיל בני אור‬all the spirits of his camp are out to trip up sons of light’ 1QS 3.24, cf. ‫יענִ י‬ ֵ ‫ יהוה ְלהו ִֺשׁ‬Is 38.20 adduced by Licht (1965.93). Likewise ‫יד אל‬ ‫‘ הגדולה עמהמה לעוז֗ רם מכול רוחי֯ בליעל‬the great hand of God (is) with them in order to help them out of all the spirits of Belial’ 4Q177 12-13i9, where the inf. clause is hardly expanding ‫יד‬, which is too far removed. Similarly ‫אדונ֯ י֗ אלהי֗ ם ֯ב ֗ש ֗מי֗ ֗ם ממעל ולחקר דרכי‬ ‫אדו‬ ‫‘ בני האדם‬the Lord God is up in heaven and is there to investigate the ways of human beings’ 4Q392 1.3 (3). At ‫‘ ואחריהם ראשי הלויים לשרת תמיד שנים עשר‬and behind them (there shall be stationed) the chiefs of the Levites in order to serve in perpetuity, twelve of them’ 1QM 2.2 the inf. is of final value, though loosely connected. (4) An inf. clause can be subordinate to a substantive which implies an action: ‫בעצה כול מחשבתם להרע‬ ‘through consultation they are all out to do evil’ 1QpHab 3.5. (5) Similarly ‫ראשית משלוח‬ ‫‘ יד בני אור להחל בגורל בני חושך‬the initial action to be launched by the sons of light is intended to start hitting the lot of the sons of darkness’ 1QM 1.1. Lexicalised: ‫‘ למען הדבק בהם את אלות בריתו‬in order to bind them to the curses of His covenant’ CD 1.16; ‫‘ בעבור הכבדכה‬in order for Your honour to be acknowledged’ 1QHa 10.26. See also below at § 18 k. f) Resultative (6) We are not dealing here with an intended result, which is practically equivalent to an aim or a purpose. E.g. ‫‘ ויבוא בעצמי להכשיל רוח ולכלות כוח‬it penetrated my bones, On this usage in 1QS, cf. Leahy 1960.138f., where ‫ צדקו‬.. ‫ לברר דעתם‬1QS 1.12 is cited as a clear example, whilst we are inclined to see here a series of epexegetic infinitives; Qimron (I 213) inserts a full stop before ‫לברר‬. 2 On the interpretation of ‫הואהא‬, see Licht 1965.181 and Charlesworth 1994.37, n. 210. 3 Kister (2005.126) holds that the inf. here is substituting for a ptc., whilst we doubt that QH had reached a stage as illustrated by ‫‘ צריכין הדיינין מכירין את הנידונין‬the judges need be familiar with the accused’ jGit 50.3, cf. Mishor 1983 § 4.14.12. Falk (DJD 29.30) concludes that the subject of ‫ חקר‬is human. 4 Thus, pace Zewi (2008.282, §, we do not have here an inf. substituting a finite verb. The same holds for ‫‘ וראשי השבטים ואבות העדה אחריהם להתיצב תמיד בשערי המקדש‬and the heads of the tribes and the fathers of the congregation shall (be stationed) behind them always to take their positions in the gates of the sanctuary’ 1QM 2.3. Our reservation applies also to her analysis of the above-quoted 1QM 1.1, on which see Zewi op. cit., p. 284, § 5 Cf. Elliger’s (1953.174) translation: “mit Bedacht ist all ihr Sinnen darauf gerichtet, Unheil anzurichten.” 6 Cf. Leahy 1960.139, where ‫ אשר ישחק בסכלות להשמיע קולו‬1QS 7.14 is cited as a clear example, though we would identify here an epexegetic inf.—‘whoever is foolish to laugh loud enough to be heard.’ 1

THE VERB — § 18 e-g


(my) spirit collapsing, and (my) strength becoming exhausted’ 1QHa 13.37. In the majority of cases a resultative inf. does not indicate what actually resulted, but a potential or theoretical result or eventuality, e.g. ‫‘ כהה עינים לבלתי ראות‬dim of eyes so that he cannot see’ CD 15.16; “Let no man offer on the altar a burnt-offering .. through anybody affected with one of the types of uncleanness so that one ends up allowing him to transmit uncleanness to the altar (‫ ”)להרשותו לטמא את המזבח‬CD 11.18; ‫אם לעבור‬ ‫‘ ברית היא‬should (keeping to the oath, ‫בוּעה‬ ָ ‫)שׁ‬ ְ end up in going against the covenant’ 1 CD 16.12 ( ). Sim. “Let no man lie with a woman in the city of the sanctuary, thereby desecrating the city of the sanctuary (‫ ”)לטמא את עיר המקדש‬CD 12.1; “by the evening they will be clean enough .. to touch anything pure belonging to them (‫ לגעת‬.. ‫”)יטהרו‬ 11Q19 49.20; ‫‘ לוא תגורו ממנו להמיתו‬you shall not be too scared of him to put him to ‫במע‬ ֗ ‫‘ להרותם‬to teach them deceitful deeds death’ 11Q19 51.17; ‫עשי שקר להיות עמלם לריק‬ with the result that their toil turns out to be meaningless’ 1QpHab 10.11; ‫ותתאנף בם‬ ‫להשמיד ֗ם‬ ֯ ‘and You became infuriated (almost to the extent of) destroying them’ 4Q504 2.8. Also 1QM 9.8. A loosely resultative inf. may be identified in ‫רזי אל להפל‬ ‘the mysteries of God have an effect of producing astonishment’ 1QpHab 7.8. The line between resultative and final can be thin. E.g. at ‫ויחר אף אל בעדתם להשם‬ ‫‘ את כל המונם‬and the wrath of God was kindled against their congregation so as to devastate their whole multitude’ CD 1.21. g) Epexegetic (2) An infinitive clause is often added in order to elaborate or explicate what is denoted by the principal verb, to which it is subordinate. E.g. ‫‘ לוא יסלח לכפר עווניך‬He will not forgive by covering your iniquities’ 1QS 2.8 (3). (4) Likewise ‫לוא ילך איש בשרירות לבו‬ ‫‘ לתעות אחר לבבו‬none shall walk with the stubbornness of his heart, straying (and following) his desire’ 1QS 5.4; ‫‘ יקם על נפשו בשבועת אסר לשוב אל תורת מושה‬he shall swear on his life with a binding oath to return to the law of Moses’ 1QS 5.8; ‫שבה רוחו‬ ‫‘ לבגוד ביחד‬his spirit backslides, betraying the community’ 1QS 7.23; ‫ממרים ֗לשוב מעונם‬ ‘are rebellious by refusing to turn away from their iniquity’ 4Q171 1-2ii3; ‫לא ידעוך‬ ‫עשות דברך‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֗ל‬they failed to understand You well enough to practise Your word’ 1Q34 3ii3; ‫‘ ישמרו לעשות כפרוש התורה‬they take care to practise as elaborated by the law’ CD 6.14 (5); Pace Zewi (2008.282, §, the inf. clause cannot be the predicate of ‫ ;היא‬one would not take a vow deliberately to go against the divine will. The same holds for the two other co-ordinate inf. clauses there. 2 Leahy (1960.137f.) calls this ‘explicative.’ Isaksson (2008.87) prefers ‘circumstantial.’ 3 See Muraoka 1996a.66. 4 Cf. Muraoka 2009.123f. 5 Thorion-Vardi 1988.80 is puzzled as to why such a common verb as ‫ שמר‬needs to be commented on at ‫ מוצא שפתיך תשמור להקים‬CD 16.6; her difficulty arises from her misunderstanding of the meaning of ‫“—שמר‬That which is gone out of thy lips thou shall observe—to carry out.” The correct translation is ‘what you say you (by way of an oath) shall duly value by implementing it.’ Note the underlying biblical text: ‫ית ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַד ְר ָתּ ַליהוָ ה‬ ָ ‫מוֹצא ְשׂ ָפ ֶתיָך ִתּ ְשׁמֹר וְ ָע ִשׂ‬ ָ Dt 23.24. On the combination of ‫ ָשׁ ַמר‬and ‫ע ָשׂה‬, ָ cf. Muraoka and Malessa 2002. 1



‫‘ יקים עלו לשו֗ ב אל תורת משה‬he makes him vow to return to the Mosaic law’ CD 15.12; ‫‘ יתעה לחלל את השבת‬he goes astray by defiling the Sabbath’ CD 12.3 (1); ̇‫כן משפט כל באי‬ ‫ לפוקדם לכלה‬.. ‫‘ בריתו‬so is the judgement against all those who join His covenant .. by way of visiting them with annihilation’ CD 8.1; ‫פדיתה נ֗ ֗פש אביון אשר חשבו להתם דמו לשפוך‬ ֯ ‘You rescued the soul of a poor man which they planned to annihilate by pouring his blood’ 1QHa 10.34 (2); ‫‘ לא החתותני לעזוב עבודתכה‬You did not allow me to be dismayed and abandon Your service’ 1QHa 10.37; ‫‘ חז֗ ק לבלתי אכול הדם‬Put your foot down not to eat the blood’ 11Q19 53.5 (< Dt 12.23); ‫לג ֯דף על אהל ציון‬ ֯ ‫בדברי פיהם‬ ֗ ‫‘ וישעירו‬and they acted horribly with the words of their mouth, scoffing at the tent of Zion’ 4Q372 1.13. See also CD 1.15 (‫ ולהסיע‬.. [‫ ולסור ]= ולסיר‬.. ‫ ;)להשח‬CD 2.4 (‫ ;)לכפר‬CD 3.5 (‫;)להועץ = להיעץ‬ CD 3.11 (‫ ;)לעשות‬CD 12.11 (‫ ;)לאכל‬CD 20.27 (‫)לצאת ולבוא‬. ֗ In ‫בריתכה הקימותה לדויד‬ ‫להיות ֗מז֯ ֗רעו נגיד על עמךה יושב ֗ע ֗ל כֿסא ישראל לפניך כול הימים‬ ֗ 4Q504 1-2iv6 the infinitive clause may indicate a purpose of God establishing a covenant, but it might be indicating what the covenant provides and entails: ‘You established Your covenant for David for a prince out of his descendants to arise over Your people, to ascend the throne of Israel before You all the days.’ It is not for nothing that the co-ordinating conjunction waw is missing before ‫ לרחוק‬in ‫לאהוב כול אשר בחר ולשנוא את כול אשר מאס לרחוק מכול רע ולדבוק‬ ‫‘ בכול מעשי טוב‬to love all that He chose and to hate all that He rejected, keeping away from everything evil and adhering to every good deed’ 1QS 1.3. (3) The first four lines of 1QS col. 8 enunciate the basic codes of conduct for members of the community with a series of infinitives, (4) which elaborate what is revealed by the Torah in this respect rather than the purpose of such a revelation—‫כול הנגלה מכול‬ ‫ התורה‬1QS 8.1. In one rare case an epexegetic infinitive follows and elaborates a noun phrase: ‫‘ כובוד לב ללכת בכול דרכי חושכ‬hardness of heart by way of walking along all paths of darkness’ 1QS 4.11. (5) This biblical imagery is to be compared with ‫וַ יִּ ְכ ַבּד לב פרעה ולא‬ ‫ שלח את העם‬Ex 9.7; ‫ ָכּ ֵבד ֵלב ַפּ ְרעֹה ֵמ ֵאן ְל ַשׁ ַלּח ָה ָעם‬Ex 7.14. In ‫ תירא את יהוה אלוהיכה ולשמור ֗את כול חוקו‬4Q140 1.25 the transformation of ‫ִל ְשׁמֹר‬ Dt 6.2 to parataxis (= ‫ )ותשמור‬has failed. 1

Thorion-Vardi (1988.82) sees here an apposition, which, however, indicates too broad or loose an application of the term. 2 Pace Holm-Nielsen (1960.48) ‫ דמו‬cannot be the object of ‫התם‬, for then the relative clause would be deprived of its antecedent, which ‫ נפש אביון‬must be. To make ‫ דמו‬serve as the object of ‫ להתם‬and ‫ לשפוך‬and to assign a separate sense in each case, ‘life’ and ‘blood,’ as Mansoor (1961.110f.) does, seems a little too ingenious. 3 It is thus misleading to use a semicolon, as GMT do (p. 71), before “in order to keep oneself …” as if this is a new injunction parallel to the preceding “in order to love everything …” Equally misleading is Vermes 1995.98: “; that they may abstain …,”. On the other hand, GMT’s use of a participle, “performing,” to follow on “not to walk” at line 6 is felicitous. As felicitous is DSP’s “en commettant toute sorte de mal.” See also Muraoka 1996.575f. 4 The first three infinitives or their equivalents are a nearly verbatim citation of Mi 6.8 and can be viewed as constituting a single whole—‫לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת איש אמ רעהו‬. Let us note that as against MT ‫ ֲעשׂו ֺת‬our text adds -‫ ל‬in line with the following three—‫ להתהלך‬.. ‫ לרצת‬.. ‫לשמור‬. For a general discussion of the passage, cf. Licht 1965.167f. (§ 100), 176-78 (§ 109). On ‫ ַא ֲה ָבה‬as an alternative G inf. cst., see JM § 49 ca-d. 5 See further Muraoka 2009.122f.

THE VERB — § 18 g-i


h) Object of a verb An infinitive clause often constitutes an object of its principal verb. E.g. ‫‘ לוא תלמד לעשות כתועבות הגויים ההמה‬Do not learn to do like the abominations of those peoples!’ 11Q19 60.16; ‫‘ כול המואס לבוא‬everyone who refuses to enter’ 1QS 2.25, sim. 4Q280 2.7 (1); ‫‘ בקש לבוא ירושלים‬he sought to enter Jerusalem’ 4Q169 3-4i2; ‫טרם‬ ‫‘ יכלה אחיהו לדבר‬before his brother has finished speaking’ 1QS 6.10; ‫‘ יוכל לספר‬he can narrate’ 1QHa 19.24 (2); ‫ לתיסר‬.. ‫‘ החלו‬they began to be instructed’ 1QS 9.10; ‫יחל להפיל‬ ‘he begins to lay down’ 4Q274 1i1; ‫‘ אמר לסיר את דעתם‬He commanded (them) to abandon their knowledge’ CD 10.9 (3); ‫‘ אמור להרויח‬Command (for me) to be spared’ 4Q200 1i4 (4); ‫ אמר‬G in the sense of ‘to decide’—‫‘ ויואמר לבנות לוא מקדש אדם‬and He decided to have a sanctuary built by humans’ 4Q174 1-2i6, where it is not necessary to postulate ‫ ִל ָבּנוֹת‬N and a sanctuary different from what He had built with His own hands (line 3, citing Ex 15.18) is envisaged (5); ‫‘ חשבו להתם‬they planned to annihilate’ 1QHa 10.34; ‫(‘ נשבע רעואל לעשות‬the wedding party that) Raguel had sworn to hold’ 4Q200 4.2; ‫‘ לוא געלה נפשנו להפר את בריתךה‬our soul did not detest breaking Your covenant’ 4Q504 6.7; ‫ות רעה‬ ֯ ‫‘ תחפצו לעשו‬you delight in doing evil’ 4Q380 1ii6; ‫‘ מי יכלכל לעמוד לפני מלאכיו‬Who could afford to stand facing His angels?’ 4Q185 1-2i8; ‫‘ שקדנו לרדוף דעת‬we were diligent in pursuit of knowledge’ 4Q418 69ii11, where a substantival object is mediated through ‫ על‬at ‫דעה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗שו֗ ֗ק ֗דים על כול‬they keep vigil over every knowledge’ line 10. Possibly belongs here ‫כדב ֯רי֯ ֗כה אשר כתב מושה ועבדיךה הנביאים‬ ֯ ‫כד‬ ‫של ֗ח ֗ת ֗ה ֗לקרו‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗א ֗שר ש‬as Your words which Moses and Your servants, ‫באחרי֗ ֗ת הימים‬ ֗ ‫קרותנו הרעה‬ the prophets, wrote, whom You sent (to say that) the disaster was going to strike us at the end of the days’ 4Q504 3.12, cf. ‫ת־אוּריָּ ה‬ ִ ‫ל־יוֹאב ְשׁ ַלח ֵא ַלי ֶא‬ ָ ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַלח ָדּוִ ד ֶא‬2Sm 11.6, where the message is given in direct speech, and it could have been worded as ‫וישׁלח‬ ‫‘ לוא ימאנו לשוב מרעתם ;דוד אל יואב לשׁלוח אליו את אוריה‬they will not refuse to turn away from their wickedness’ 4Q174 1-2ii3. i) Complementing a substantive An infinitive clause often serves to expand a substantive. E.g. ‫‘ יש אתי דבר לדבר‬I have something to raise (for a discussion)’ 1QS 6.13; ‫העבודה‬ ‫‘ לעשות‬the work to do’ CD 10.19; ‫‘ ב)י֯ (חירי רצון לכפר בעד הארץ‬those chosen to (God’s) pleasure to atone for the earth’ 1QS 8.6, where the verbal notion inherent in ‫ בחר‬is This verb does not take an inf. in BH. A case such as ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ א ִֹתי ָמ ֲאסוּ ִמ ְמֹּלְך ֲע ֵל‬1Sm 8.7 is distinct. An example of ‫ יכל‬taking a direct object is ‫תּוּכל‬ ַ ‫‘ כֹּל‬You can do anything’ Jb 42.2. 3 Following Qimron (I 44) and emending ‫ לסור‬to ‫)להסיר =( לסיר‬. ‫ את‬here can be only a nota obiecti, hence pace Charlesworth (1995.45): “he has decreed that their knowledge should depart.” 4 = ἐπίταξον .. ὅπως ἀπολυθῶ To 3.6GII. The use of ‫ אמר‬Qal in the sense of ‘to command’ is said to be typical of LBH, BDB s.v. 4. Note the preceding example. 5 BH attests to , where the inf. clause is equivalent to a content clause, e.g. ‫ִהנְ נִ י א ֵֹמר ִל ְבנוֹת‬ ‫ ַבּיִת ְל ֵשׁם יְ הוָ ה‬1Kg 5.19 (LXX: ἐγὼ λέγω οἰκοδομῆσαι οἶκον τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου) and ‫ָא ְמרוּ ָה ָעם ְל ָס ְקלוֹ‬ ‘the people said that they were going to stone him’ 1Sm 30.6 (LXX: εἶπεν ὁ λαὸς λιθοβολῆσαι αὐτόν). For more examples, see BDB s.v. 2. 1 2



partly accountable for the use of the infinitive; ‫‘ החוקים למשכיל להתהלך בם‬the rules for the master to walk by’ CD 12.21 (1); ‫‘ אין כח לעמוד לפניה‬there is not strength enough to stand up against it’ 4Q185 1-2i7; ‫‘ יש בכם כח להשיבני דבר‬you have strength enough to answer Me’ 4Q381 76+77.9 (2); ‫‘ אין אחר זולתכה להשיב על עצתכה‬there is nobody other than You (capable of) contradicting Your counsel’ 1QS 11.18; ‫רוב‬ ‫‘ סליחות לכפר בעד שבי פשע‬willingness generously to forgive in order to atone for those who turn away from impiety’ CD 2.4; ‫‘ זרם להשחית רבים‬a current (strong enough) to destroy many’ 1QHa 10.29; ‫‘ תוחלת ישועתך לבוא‬the hope of your salvation to come’ 11Q5 22.3 (3). In ‫‘ מעוני עומדם‬the quarters where they regularly stand’ 4Q400 2.13 ‫ עומדם‬is probably a normal substantive, ‫ע ֶֹמד‬, as in ‫‘ וַ יָּבֹא ֵא ֶצל ָע ְמ ִדי‬and he came near my place’ Dn 8.17, but we have a normal inf. in ‫‘ בית השתחוות‬a place for worshipping’ CD 11.22. This usage is extremely common with a word denoting a point in time or a period of time. E.g. ‫‘ קץ נחרצה ועשות חדשה‬a time (for the execution) of a verdict felled and for doing something new’ 1QS 4.25; ‫‘ מיום האסף‬from the day when he was gathered ‫‘ מיום הפר האלה‬from the day when they break the vow’ in’ CD 19.35, sim. CD 20.13; ‫אלה‬ 4 4Q390 2i6 ( ); ‫‘ ביום ראות האיש‬when the man sees (it)’ CD 5.22, sim. 1QM 1.9; ‫כול יומי‬ ‫‘ מואסו במשפטי אל‬as long as he detests God’s laws’ 1QS 3.5; ‫‘ שני התגוררם‬the years of their sojourn (in exile)’ CD 4.5 (5); ‫‘ מועדו להכניע ולהשפיל שר ממשלת רשעה‬the time appointed by Him to humiliate and bring down the ruling prince of evil’ 1QM 17.5; ‫‘ בתחלת עומדו‬at the beginning when he took up his position’ 1QpHab 8.9; ‫קץ הגלו֯ ֯ת‬ ‫‘ ישעכה לי‬the time when Your salvation is going to be revealed to me’ 1QHa 13.13; ‫קצ‬ ‫‘ האספו אל מעונתו‬the time of its retiring to its dwelling’ 1QHa 20.9; ‫‘ בעת מוטך‬when you totter’ 4Q525 14ii7; ‫‘ עת ֗שו֗ ב אפך‬a time when Your anger is withdrawn’ 1Q34 1-2.6 (= 4Q508 2.2); ‫‘ עת פנות הדרך למדבר‬a time for preparing the way to the desert’ 1QS 9.19, ‫הגדתה לנו קצי‬ immediately followed by ‫‘ ולהשכילם‬and to teach them’ (6); ‫צי מלחמות ידיכה‬ ‫‘ להכבד באויבינו להפיל גדודי בליעל‬You told us the times for wars at Your hands whereby You were going to gain glory through our enemies and to bring down the troops of Belial’ 1QM 11.8. We see that in the majority of cases the inf. is bare not prefixed with ‫ל־‬. Rare exceptions include ‫‘ בראשית צאת ובוא לשבת וקום‬when (I) begin to exit and enter and sit and arise’ 1QS 10.13, where ‫ לשבת‬hardly means ‘in order to sit’; ‫עת פנות הדרך‬ ‫‘ למדבר‬a time for preparing the way to the desert’ 1QS 9.19, immediately followed by 1

On a near replica of this at 1QS 9.12, see our forthcoming (2021?) study. Qimron (II 342) justly rejects ‫‘ להשיבנו‬to answer him’ of DJD 11.155, for the energic Nun is not added to an inf. 3 For an alternative analysis of the inf. with a predicative function, see Morgenstern 2007.184. 4 Pace Qimron (2018.177) there is no need to postulate here an inf. abs. Likewise ‫‘ ביום הנף העומר‬on the day when one waves the sheaf of ears’ 11Q19 11.10 and ‫‘ יום הקרב שמן חדש‬the day when one offers new oil’ 11Q19 43.10. 5 An example adduced by Thorion-Vardi 1988.78. 6 Fassberg (1997.66) mentions two examples in Ben Sira of not preceded by any preposition of temporal signification, e.g. ‫‘ עת נוחו על משכבו‬the time for him to sleep in his bed’ Si 46.19. 2

THE VERB — § 18 i-j


‫‘ ולהשכילם‬and to teach them’; ‫ההרים‬ ֯ ‫להראות ראשי‬ ֗ ‫‘ ויהי ֗מ ֗קץ ארבעים יום‬and now forty days after the summits of the mountains had become visible’ 4Q252 1.12 (1). At ‫ענה ֗הם להקי֗ ֗ם היא ואם להניא‬ ֗ ‫יד‬ ֗ ‫לא י‬ ׄ ‫ אל ינא איש שבועה אשר‬CD 16.11 (2) the best analysis of the inf. clause ‫ להקים היא‬and its elliptical counterpart ‫ אם להניא‬in lieu of ‫ אם להניא היא‬is probably to see the infinitives as complementing ‫ שבועה‬which can be supplied: ‘nobody shall annul an oath on which he does not know if it is (an oath) to be implemented or to be annulled.’ ‫ היא‬would then be the subject of the nominal clause ‫שבועה להקים היא‬. (3) Perhaps similar analysis may hold for ‫אם לעבור ברית הֺֹא‬ ‫‘ יניאה‬if it [= ‫ ]שבועה‬is to lead to transgression of the covenant, he shall annul it’ CD 16.12; ‫‘ כל אדם אשר יחרים אדם מאדם בחוקי הגוים להמית הוא‬every person that .. is to be put to death’ CD 9.1, where the intent of the clause as a whole is rather obscure. j) Prefixing of -‫ ל‬or not (4) Further to the question discussed at the end of the immediately preceding paragraph we note occasional fluctuation as to whether or not the preposition ‫ ל־‬is to be prefixed to the inf. cst. Thus ‫ ְרמֹס‬Is 1.12 // ‫ לרמוס‬1QIsaª; ‫ ָה ִביא‬Is 1.13 // ‫ להביא‬1QIsaa; ‫ְבּ ֶט ֶרם‬ ‫ יֵ ַדע ַהנַּ ַער ְקרֹא ָא ִבי וְ ִא ִמּי‬Is 8.4 // ‫ לקראו‬1QIsaª; ‫מוֹע‬ ַ ‫ לֹא ָאבוּא ְשׁ‬Is 28.12, 30.9 // ‫לשמוע‬ 1QIsaª, sim. Is 42.24, 47.11; ‫ֹּלתם‬ ָ ‫תוּכל ַכּ‬ ַ ‫ לֹא‬Dt 7.22 (5)// ‫לכלותמה‬ ֯ ‫תו֗ ֗כל‬ ‫ לוא ת‬4Q40 5.6; ‫ תוכ‬1Q4 12.2; ‫ל־שׁ ְלּ ָחהּ‬ ַ ‫יוּכ‬ ַ ‫ לוא‬Dt 22.29 // ‫לשלחה‬ Dt 14.24 ‫תוּכל ְשׂ ֵאתוֹ‬ ַ ‫ לֹא‬// ‫תוכל לשתו‬ 11Q19 65.11 (6); ‫ וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַשׁ ַלּח‬Gn 8.10 // ‫‘ ויוסף לשלחה‬and he sent it out again’ 4Q252 1.16; ֯ ‫ לוא‬ib. 20 < ‫ לא יָ ְס ָפה שׁוּב‬Gn 8.12; ‫נְ ָתנַ נִ י‬ ‫ לוא יספה לשוב‬4Q252 1.18 and ‫יס ֯פה לשוב‬ ‫א־אוּכל קוּם‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י ִבּ ֵידי ל‬La 1.14 // ‫ ביד לוא אוכל לקו֗ ֗ם‬4Q111 3.6. This tendency to add On this particular use of ‫ל־‬, see ‫ץ־מ ְצ ַריִם‬ ִ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ִב ְשׁמוֹנִ ים ָשׁנָ ה וְ ַא ְר ַבּע ֵמאוֹת ָשׁנָ ה ְל ֵצאת ְבּנֵ י־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֵמ ֶא ֶר‬1Kg 6.1. Incidentally this ‫ ויהי‬in 4Q252 is the sole example in the entire QH corpus of the well-known, opening phrase in the biblical narrative literature, and that clearly dependent on its biblical source, ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִמ ֵקּץ ַא ְר ָבּ ִעים יוֹם‬ Gn 8.6. Thus pace DJD 22.196: “And it was at the end of forty days when the tops of the mountain[s] were visible [that] Noah [op]ened the window of the ark”; the underlying biblical text makes it clear that Noah waited forty days after the mountain tops had become visible — ‫וְ ַה ַמּיִ ם ָהיוּ ָהלוְֹך וְ ָחסוֹר ַעד ַהח ֶֹדשׁ‬ :‫ת־חלּוֹן ַה ֵתּ ָבה ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ָשׂה‬ ַ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ִמ ֵקּץ ַא ְר ָבּ ִעים יוֹם וַ יִּ ְפ ַתּח נ ַֹח ֶא‬:‫אשׁי ֶה ָה ִרים‬ ֵ ‫ ָה ֲע ִשׂ ִירי ָבּ ֲע ִשׂ ִירי ְבּ ֶא ָחד ַלח ֶֹדשׁ נִ ְראוּ ָר‬Gn 8.5f. On this usage of ‫ ל־‬in BH, cf. Geiger 2014.98-101. 2 Qimron (I 39) proposes emending ‫ הם‬to ‫אם‬. 3 Pace Thorion-Vardi 1988.80 the bare infinitive clause as it is can hardly constitute the predicate. 4 A balanced assessment of BH data is presented in Malessa (2006.150-66); pace Jenni 1998 no semantic opposition is apparent. See now also Hornkohl 2018.72-79. In any case Jenni’s thesis concerning an alleged semantic opposition between the inf. cst. with or without the preposition ‫ ל־‬as qualifying another verb is irrelevant for our purpose, since no bare inf. cst. appears in QH in that function. 5 Hornkohl (2018.77) does not mention three manuscripts which do agree with the MT here: 4Q32 2ii+ 3i+4.10, 4Q45 7-10.2, 5Q1 1.6. 6 On implications of a semantic aspect here, i.e. ‫ = יכל‬capability or permission, see Brin 1978.27f. Of 27 cases in BH (BDB s.v. ‫ יָ כֹל‬1 b) attesting a Qumran biblical manuscript or manuscripts agrees or agree with the MT in six—Ex 18.23, Dt 7.22, Is 46.2, 47.11, 12, Ps 18.39—and add ‫ ל־‬against MT in the two above-cited cases. 1



-‫ ל‬to the inf. cst. against the MT text accords with RH, in which no bare inf. cst. appears. (1) It is extended even to a verbal noun functioning as a pseudo inf. cst.: ‫ מלאה הארץ לדעה את כבוד יהוה‬4Q57 6.6 (// ‫ ָמ ְל ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ ֵדּ ָעה ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬Is 11.9). ‫למוד‬ 1QS 9.13 is most likely an error for ‫‘ ללמוד‬to study,’ preceded by ‫ לעשות‬and followed by ‫להבדיל‬. (2) Given this clear tendency, it makes sense to analyse ‫חפור‬ 3Q15 2.14 (and another 18 times in this document) and defectively spelled ‫חפר‬ three times as Impv. ms rather than Inf. cst. used with modal, injunctive value (see above § c). (3) Where an inf. clause complements a substantive denoting a point in time or a duration of time, the bare infinitive is the norm; see above at § i, pp. 116f., where some exceptions are mentioned. -‫ ל‬is also found added where an infinitive requires another preposition: e.g. ‫מלכסות‬ 4Q166 2.9 (// ‫ ְל ַכסּוֹת‬Ho 2.11, cf. LXX τοῦ μὴ καλύπτειν); ‫מל ֗געור בך‬ ֗ 4Q176 8-10.11 (// ‫ר־בְּך‬ ָ ‫ ִמגְּ ָע‬Is 54.9); ]‫ מלמצ‬4Q67 4 (// ‫ ִמ ְמּצוֹא‬Is 58.13). However, counter examples do occur: ‫‘ משמוע‬from hearing’ 1QHa 15.6, and not ‫מלשמוע‬, and ‫ מלכת‬11Q13 2.24, but ֗ ‫האלה‬ ֗ ‫֗מהתערב בדברים‬ note the juxtaposition of the two constructions in ‫ומלבוא ֗עמהם‬ ‫אלה‬ ֗ ‫לגב‬ ֗ ‘from becoming involved in these things and from taking part in them together ֗ ‫‘ והצלתי צמרי ופישתי מלכסות‬and I shall withwith them’ MMT C 8 (4). At ‫את ערותה‬ drawing my wool and flax in order not to cover her nakedness’ 4Q166 2.9, a quote from Ho 2.11, where MT reads ‫( ְל ַכסּוֹת‬5), the added preposition ‫ מ־‬underlines the ablative, privative value as in ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ א ִֹתי ָמ ֲאסוּ ִמ ְמֹּלְך ֲע ֵל‬1 Sm 8.7 (6). See also above at § a and below at § 38 e, pp. 293, 295. In a frequently occurring expression ‫הצנע לכת‬, e.g. 1QS 4.5 we have a straight quotation from Mi 6.8, see above at § g, p. 114, fn. 4.


Segal 1936 § 242; Kutscher 1974.41; Qimron 2018.180f., § C; Muraoka 2000.194f. On Ben Sira, see van Peursen 2004.248-51. Hornkohl (2018.74) holds that the factor of genre also need be taken into consideration. In BH the bare infinitive is relatively frequent in poetic texts. However, this is also part of the diachronic development. Even in a psalm composed relatively late the poet may choose to use an archaic form, a so-called archaising feature. 2 Carmignac (1986.255) sees here a G inf. abs. continuing ‫לעשות‬, an inf. cst., a feature attested occasionally in BH, see JM § 123 x. 3 Pace Carmignac (1986.256f.) to analyse this as inf. abs. is highly implausible in a document written in an idiom rather close to MH, from which such had vanished. Whilst Carmignac is right in pointing to the rarity of personal discourse in the Copper Scroll, Milik (DJD 3.235) identifies ‫‘ משח‬Measure!’ 7.6, 9.1 and ‫‘ שני‬Repeat!’ 1.11. Lefkovits (2000.135) analyses the form as ‫חפוּר‬, ָ translating it “buried.” Does the verb ever mean ‘to bury’? He does not address himself to the number discord here with 22 ‫‘ ככרין‬22 talents.’ 4 Cf. a discussion in Qimron, DJD 10.76, § On the situation in Aramaic, see Sokoloff 1974.124, Muraoka - Porten 2003, § 24 p, and Muraoka 2011.104. Note also ‫ימ ָרְך ִמ ְלּ ִמ ְחזֵ י ְבּ ָע ְב ֵדי ִבּישׁ‬ ְ ‫ָבּ ִריר ֵמ‬ TJ for ‫ ְטהוֹר ֵעינַ יִ ם ֵמ ְראוֹת ָרע‬Hb 1.13. 5 See a discussion by Qimron 1995.323-25 and Morag 1996.154f. Cf. LXX: τοῦ μὴ καλύπτειν. 6 Cf. DCH s.v. ‫ מאס‬p. 121b top.

THE VERB — § 18 j-k


k) Following a preposition other than ‫( ל־‬1) With temporal value (2)—‫‘ בלכתם‬when they walked’ CD 2.17; ‫בהמרותם ֯את פי֗ ֗כה‬ ֗ ‘when they rebelled against You’ 4Q504 2.8 (3); ‫‘ וילך לדרכו בברכו אותו שם‬and he [= Jacob] resumed his journey after he [= the angel] had blessed him there’ 4Q158 1+2.10; ‫‘ בעוברם‬as they pass’ 1QS 1.18; ‫‘ בקוראכה‬when you call’ 1QS 2.8; ‫‘ בבואו‬when he enters’ 1QS 6.15; ‫‘ בקורבו‬when he is allowed access’ 1QS 6.16; ‫‘ בהיות אלה‬when these become’ 1QS 8.12; ‫‘ בהיותם‬when they emerge’ 1QS 10.10 (4); ‫‘ במצאך‬when you find’ MMT C 30; ‫‘ בהיות טמאתם ֗עמהם‬while their impurity is (still) with them’ MMT B 67; ‫‘ בטרם הבראם‬before they were created’ 4Q215a 1ii9; ‫לפי מולואת לו‬ ‫רים שנה‬ ֯ ‫‘ עשרי‬until he is fully 20 years old’ 1QSa 1.10; ‫‘ כזומם למו‬as they plot against them’ 1QHa 12.27; ‫בות השמש‬ ֗ ‫‘ להעריבו‬when the sun sets’ MMT B 15 (5); ‫‘ עד זכו‬until he is clean’ CD 10.3 (6); ‫‘ עד מולאת לו שנה תמימה‬until one full year is over for him’ 1QS 6.17, cf. ‫ד־מלֹאת יְ ֵמי ָטהֳ ָרהּ‬ ְ ‫‘ ַע‬until the days of her purification are over’ Lv 12.4; ‫‘ עד בוא נביא‬until the arrival of a prophet’ 1QS 9.11; ‫‘ עד עמד יורה הצדק‬until the emergence of the teacher of righteousness’ CD 6.10 (‫ עמד‬hardly Pf.); ‫עד בוא השמש‬ ‘until the sun sets’ MMT B 72 (7); ‫‘ על מלואת עשר שנים‬on completion of ten years’ 1

Though an argumentum e silentio, QH is, pace Mor (2010.225), distinct from the language of the Judaean documents, where no instance of this feature is found; QH is affiliated to MH in this regard. Though not an inf. proper, we find, in the Copper Scroll, a verbal noun in ‫‘ בביאתכך אמות ארבעיןין‬when you move 40 cubits’ 3Q15 4.4, but also a standard inf. in ‫‘ בבואך לסמול‬when you move leftwards’ 3Q15 10.5, on which latter see Mishor 1980.8. See also Mishor 1983.331, 333f. Lefkovits (2000.157) reads ‫בּבו ָֺא ְתָך‬. ְ Such a Hebrew word is unknown to us. 2 Cf. Qimron in DJD 10.76 (§, id. 2018.395-97, and for comparable data in Ben Sira, Fassberg 1997.65f. Mishor (1983.333) cites as the only possible RH example ‫‘ הוא חייב בשמרו‬he is liable for guarding it’ Mech. Nez 11, but this does not belong here, since the preposition is governed by ‫חייב‬, and is not part of an adverbial adjunct. 3 Is Olson (apud Charlesworth 1997.127) identifying here a fpl noun with his “in their rebellions”? Most implausible. Leahy (1960.139), following Koehler, speaks of “temporal-circumstantial” infinitive. However, we find no difficulty in seeing here a punctiliar aspect of the action, though the rebellion may have lasted a while. The same applies to the following case: Jacob did not continue his journey as he was hearing the angel blessing him, but rather on hearing the blessing there, he set out on his journey home. HALOT s.v. 21 is more nuanced, admitting that the syntagm is at times equivalent to . BDB s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬V 1 ad finem mentions two instances of this punctiliar value, e.g. ‫את־ה ֲא ָבנִ ים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ְבּ ָע ְב ְר ֶכם את־הירדן ָתּ ִקימוּ‬Dt 27.4, where Israelites could not possibly set up memorial stones on the western shore of the river, whilst they were still in the water. 4 “là où elles sont” (van der Ploeg 1951a.125), with which Wernberg-Møller (1957.145) concurs, admitting, though, that such a local nuance of the syntagm is unknown to BH. Cf. Guilebert 1961.70: “dans leur durée.” 5 Pace Fassberg (2019.92, § 207) the inf. here is unlikely to be modal (injunctive), for one cannot oblige the sun to set. 6 Rabin (1958.49), accepting Honeyman’s (1951.64) analysis of ‫ ִהזַּ כּוּ‬Is 1.16 as derived from √‫זכך‬, must be parsing the form here as G inf. cst., ‫זֻ כּוֹ‬. 7 This instance and especially the other two cited above, MMT C 30 and MMT B 67, are important to our evaluation of the nature of the language represented by this document, see below at pp. 175f.



1QS 7.22; ‫‘ על דרוך מעט‬when one has treaded (the bow) a little’ 1QM 9.11 (1); ‫על‬ ‫‘ אוכלםה בשבע נאמרה‬as they ate their full it was mentioned’ 11Q5 18.11; ‫עם תום כול‬ ‫‘ ֗ח ֗צי֯ מלחמות‬when all arrows of wars finished’ 1QHa 14.31; ‫‘ עם הופע יצר הוותם‬when their destructive instinct appears’ 1QHa 15.6; ‫‘ עם צאת הקול‬when the sound rings out’ 1QM 16.8; ‫‘ עם האספו מפני אור‬when it retires before the light’ 1QS 10.2 (2); ‫עם האספם‬ ‫‘ למעון כבוד‬when they retire to their glorious dwelling’ 1QS 10.3; with a verbal noun —‫‘ עם משכב יצועי‬when I lie in my bed’ 1QS 10.14 (3); ‫‘ בטרם היותם למלאכי ֗קודש‬before they became holy angles’ 1QHa 9.12, a syntagm rather rare in BH (4), but also occurring in ib. 21, 30, 4Q215a 1ii9, and ‫‘ בטרם תעוֿ תי‬before I strayed’ 11Q5 21.11 (5);ּ final (6)— ‫‘ בעבור הכבדכה‬in order for Your honour to be acknowledged’ 1QHa 10.26 (7); ‫למען‬ ‫‘ ספות הצמאה‬in order to slake the thirst’ 1QpHab 11.14; ‫למען הדבק בהם את אלות‬ ‫‘ בריתו‬in order to attach to them the curses of His covenant’ CD 1.16 (8); ‫למען התיר‬ ‘in order to leave’ CD 2.11; ‫‘ למע>ן< הבט‬in order to look’ 1QHª 12.12; ‫למען הגבירכה‬ ‘in order to magnify You’ 1QHª 13.17; modal—‫‘ כיסר איש את ֯בנו‬as a man disciplines his son’ 4Q504 3.6; ‫‘ כבעול בחור בתולה‬as a lad marries a virgin’ Is 62.5 1QIsaa // MT ‫יִב ַעל‬ ְ ‫ וכתום עשן ; ִכּי‬.. ‫חו֯ ֗שך מפני אור‬ ‫‘ כגלות ח‬as darkness vanishes before light .. and smoke comes to an end’ 1Q27 1.5; ‫‘ כרחקך אותו‬as You keep him at a distance’ 1QHa 6.32; causal—‫‘ באהבתךה אותם‬because You loved them’ 4Q504 2.9; ‫מאהבתו‬ ‫‘ את אבותך ומשמרו את השבועה‬because He loved your forefathers and He is holding fast to the oath’ CD 8.15, followed by ‫‘ באהבת אל את הראשנים‬because God loved the earlier generation’ line 16; instrumental—‫‘ בהתקדשכה לו‬by consecrating yourself to Him’ 4Q418 81.4; ablative ‫( ִמן‬9)—‫ם־תּ ִשׁיב ִמ ַשּׁ ָבּת ַרגְ ֶלָך ֲעשׂוֹת ֲח ָפ ֶציָך ְבּיוֹם ָק ְד ִשׁי‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬Is 58.13, b 10 where 1QIsaª and 1QIsa rightly read ‫‘ שעו עיני מראות רע ;) ( מעשות‬my eyes turned If it is about a bow, ‫ק ֶשׁת‬,ֶ a fem. noun, ‫ דרוך‬cannot, pace Lohse (200), be vocalised as a pass. ptc., ‫דּרוְּך‬.ָ Adduced in Qimron 1986 § 400.04 and id. 2018.397. On the temporal value of BA ‫עם‬, ִ see Muraoka 2017a. 3 See below at § 21 b (v). 4 The only instance is ‫‘ ְבּ ֶט ֶרם ֶל ֶדת‬before it gives birth’ Zp 2.1. 5 This is ambiguous, for we may have here a substantive, ‫‘ תעות‬error, straying,’ which occurs frequently in QH. BH examples are ‫‘ בטרם בּ ֶֹקר‬before morning’ Is 17.14, ‫‘ בטרם ַקיִ ץ‬before summer’ Is 28.4. Should one prefer to read ‫ = תעיתי‬Pf., this syntagm is unknown to BH, but in QH we find ‫‘ בטרם נוסדו‬before they were established’ CD 2.7, ‫‘ בטרם בראתם‬before You created them’ 1QHa 5.25, for instance. The form ‫ בשלת‬looks like Aramaic in ‫הבשר‬ ‫ כבשלת ה‬4Q51 // ‫ ְכּ ַב ֵשּׁל ַה ָבּ ָשׂר‬1Sm 2.13, in other words, ‫כּ ַב ָשּׁ ַלת = כבשלת‬. ְ For an example in BA, see ‫וּכ ִמ ְק ְר ֵבהּ ְלגֻ ָבּא‬ ְ ‘and as he approached the den’ Dn 6.21. 6 Cf. Fassberg 1994.119f. 7 Cf. ‫‘ בעבור להודיע‬in order to inform’ Si 38.5 with ‫ל־‬. 8 In view of the immediately following ‫‘ להסגירם‬in order to hand them over’ a defective spelling in lieu of ‫ להדביק‬is more likely than the assumption of incomplete passivisation (N ‫)ל ִה ָדּ ֵבק‬. ְ On the preference in 1QpHab for ‫ בעבור‬over ‫למען‬, see Rendsburg 2015.155 (§ 8.5). 9 It is noteworthy that MH, which attests only a combination of an inf. with ‫מן‬, also uses this syntagm with verbs of preventing, restraining, etc. as in ‫רוֹע‬ ַ ְ‫סוּרין ִמ ִלּז‬ ִ ‫‘ ֲא‬they are forbidden to be sown’ mKil 8.1. For further examples, see Segal 1958 § 346. 10 The same preposition in ‫ ִמ ַשּׁ ָבּת‬is something of a problem. Luzzatto (1970.380) writes “‫מפני כבוד השבת‬,” which he is probably applying to the clause as a whole, not just to the preposition. According to D. Qimhi the preposition is doing double duty, for ‫ עשות‬as well. ‫ בשבת מעשות‬has also been proposed, e.g. BHS. 1


THE VERB — § 18 k-l


away from looking at the evil’ 1QHa 15.5; ‫‘ מנצור מצוה‬from the observance of commandment(s)’ 4Q184 1.15; ‫‘ ויקוץ מעשות פקודי ישרים‬and he is loth to carry out the commands of upright men’ CD 20.2, cf. ‫‘ טהור עינים מראות ברע‬pure of the eyes too gaze at wickedness’ 1QpHab 5.1 < Hb 1.12. ‫ כול הויתו אויל ]ומ[שוגע אל יבו‬CD 15.15 is rather puzzling, and we would suggest a slight emendation by adding -‫ב‬, thus ‫בהיותו‬ ‘when anyone is a fool or madman, he shall not enter.’ In ‫‘ ויהי בשנה הראשונה ֗לצאת בנ֗ י ישראל מן מצרים‬and it came to pass that in the first year following the exist of the children ..’ 4Q216 1.4 the preposition ‫ ל־‬does have temporal value. However, ‫ לצאת‬is not only syntactically distinct from ‫אל ישא האומן את‬ ‫‘ היונק לצאת ולבוא בשבת‬the pedagogue shall not carry the baby to go out and come in on the Sabbath’ CD 11.11, but also phonetically in accordance with the BH model, i.e. ‫ ְל ֵצאת‬for the former with an indispensable ‫ ל־‬and ‫ ָל ֵצאת‬for the latter with an ַ ‫ לֹא‬Gn 24.50. Seeing that optional ‫ל־‬, cp. ‫ לֹא יָ ְכלוּ ִל ְשׁתֹּת ַמיִם‬Ex 15.23 with ‫נוּכל ַדּ ֵבּר ֵא ֶליָך‬ in Tannaitic Hebrew the only preposition that can be prefixed to an inf. cst. is ‫ל־‬, (1) QH appears to have retained greater syntactic variety as in BH. l) Implicit subject (2) The subject of an infinitive may not be explicitly indicated, but can be easily inferred from the context, e.g. ‫]ש[ר צוה ביד מושה לעשות‬ ֯ ‫‘ מדרש התורה ֯א‬an exposition of the Torah which He commanded through Moses (for people) to practise’ 1QS 8.15; ‫ויואמר‬ ‫תורה‬ ֿ ‫‘ לבנות לוא מקדש אדם להיות מקטירים בוא לוא לפניו ֗מ ֗ע ֗שי‬and He decided to have a sanctuary built by humans for them to offer in it to Him before Him an incense (in the form of) deeds of Torah’ 4Q174 1-2i6 (3); ‫ויצמח מישראל ומאהרן שורש מטעת לירוש‬ ‫‘ את ארצו‬and He caused a root of cultivation to grow from Is. and Aaron (for them) to inherit His land’ CD 1.7; ‫‘ אגלה עיניכם לראות ולהבין במעשי אל‬I shall open your eyes (for you) to see and understand God’s actions’ CD 2.14; ‫‘ כשה לטבוח יובל‬he will be ָ ‫ַכּ ֶשּׂה ַל ֶטּ ַבח‬ taken as a lamb (for them) to slaughter’ Is 53.7 1QIsaa, 1QIsab for MT ‫יוּבל‬ ‘as a lamb he will be taken to the slaughter’; ‫רוח נעוה טהרתה מפשע רב להתיצב במעמד‬ ‫‘ עם צבא קדושים‬You purified a perverted spirit from much iniquity so that it can stand in the company of a host of saints’ 1QHa 11.22; ‫‘ ותזקקם להטהר מאשמה‬and You will Cf. Mishor 1983 § 6.02 - 6.02.01. In MH we often encounter a conglomerate form such as ‫סוֹפוֹ‬ ‫‘ ְל ִה ָשּׁ ֵמ ַע‬it will eventually be understood’ mAb 2.4 alongside ‫‘ סוֹפוֹ ִל ֶתּן‬he will eventually give’ mMakk 1.1, so that one is not certain if in ‫סוֹפנוּ ִל ְבדּוֹק‬ ֵ ‘we shall eventually examine’ mSan 4.5 ‫ ל־ = ִל ְבדּוֹק‬+ ‫ ְבּדוֹק‬or = ‫ ל־‬+ ‫יִבדּוֹק‬. ְ 2 The waw at ‫‘ בטרם ידע הנער לקראו אבי ואמי‬before the child knows how to call, Papa and Mama’ Is 8.4 1QIsaa cannot be marking the subject of the inf., since it is uncalled for, but rather an orthographic irregularity with ‫ ִל ְקרוֹא‬intended. So Qimron 2018 A 4.6.5. Pace Pérez Fernández (1999.209) a personal referent following ‫ ל־‬in the formula ‫ ראוי ל־‬followed by an inf. as in ‫להזהיר בדבר הזה‬ ֗ ‫‘ לבני הכוהנ֗ ים ֗ר ֗או‬the sons of the priests should beware of this matter’ MMT B 11 marks the subject of the infinitive only from the perspective of our translation into some European languages. 3 On the first inf., ‫לבנות‬, see above at § h. 1



cleanse them (for them) to be purified from guilt’ 1QHa 14.11. Note ‫ִדּ ְרשׁוּ יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ִה ָמּ ְצאוֹ‬ ‫ בהמ‬4Q57 47.18. Striking is ‫להכניע‬ ‘Seek YHWH while He can be found’ Is 55.6 // ‫בהמצא‬ ‫ לשלם גמול רעתם‬.. ‫ מערכת אויב‬11Q19 6.5; whilst the subject of the infinitive of final value, ‫לשלם‬, is obviously ‫אויב‬, to construe it with the preceding infinitive of the subject of its own is not easy, and one way to get out of this conundrum is a translation such as ‘to bring the enemy camp to submission .. in order to have them pay the penalty for their evil.’ (1) The subject of an inf. can be fronted: ‫לבלתי החזיק מעמד בתוך‬ ֯ ‫באלה‬ ֯ ‫כול איש מנוגע‬ ‫ העדה‬1QSa 2.4, which is equivalent to ‫ לוא יחזיק‬.. ‫ כול איש‬.. or ‫אל יחזק‬, ‘no man affected by these (afflictions) shall take up a position in the midst of the community.’ This example shows that, though the notional subject of an infinitive can immediately follow the latter or synthetically attached to it, notwithstanding the traditional nomenclature—infinitive construct—the infinitive cannot be said to be in the cst. st. See also another case of separation between the two constituents in ‫‘ ביום נפול בו כתיים‬on the day when the Kittim are defeated’ 1QM 1.9. m) Subject NP immediately following A noun phrase as the grammatical subject of an infinitive is usually positioned directly after the latter. E.g. ‫‘ להיות אלמנ֯ ]ו[ת שללם‬for widows to become their prey’ CD 6.16; ‫‘ לאהוב איש את אחיהו‬for people to love one another’ CD 6.20; ‫‘ להוכיח איש את אחיהו‬to remonstrate with one another’ CD 7.2; ‫בפקד אל את הארץ‬ ‘when God visits the earth’ CD 7.9. ‫צבי רוח‬, whatever it might mean, ‫ רוח‬is unlikely to be the subject of the inf. in ‫ אין להשיב על תוכחתכה כול צבי ֗רוח‬1QHa 15.32 (2). Since -‫ ל‬prefixed to the subject of an inf. cst. is unheard of, ‫להי֗ ות‬ ֯ ‫בות השמש‬ ֗ ‫לכול אלה להעריבו‬ ‫ טהורים‬MMT B 15 the clause is not well formed; its general sense must be—‘all these (people) must be clean at the sunset.’ Exceptions are .. ‫ראשים שנים עשר להיות משרתים‬ ‫ להתיצב‬.. ‫‘ ואחריהם ראשי הלויים לשרת‬twelve heads are to be ministering .. and after them the heads of the Levites are to minister .. they are to take up their station’ 1QM 2.1-3, see also 1QSa 2.4 and 1QM 1.9 cited above at the end of § l. n) Inf. cst. substituting a finite verb? Qimron (2018.382-86) presents a considerable number of instances in which he believes infinitives are functioning as equivalent to, depending on their grammatical context, predicative Participles, Perfects or Imperfects. We are, however, unconvinced by his analysis. To quote just a few examples, ‫לשמועו֯ ֯ת פלאכה גליתה אוזני ולבי להבין ֯ב ֯א ֯מ ֯ת ֯ך‬ ֗ ‘You opened my ear(s) to reports on Your marvel and my mind (for it) to comprehend 1

Translations such as “to humiliate .., to pay the reward ..” (GMT 123) and “ils feront fléchir la ligne .. pour payer la rétribution ..” (DSP 203) are misleading. Is ‫ שלם‬possibly a defectiva spelling for ‫?שׁלּוּם = שלום‬ ִ 2 Thus pace Mansoor 1961.151f.: “no Spirit < will? can answer Thy chastisement,” but the last two words probably constitute a brief nominal clause, cf. DSP 263: “Toute majesté n’est que vent.”

THE VERB — § 18 l-o


Your truth’ 4Q428 10.5, and not “You made my heart understand Your truth” (Qimron 2018.383) (1). In ‫בעצת היחד שנים עשר איש וכוהנים שלושה תמימים בכול הנגלה מכול התורה‬ ‫‘ לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט‬in the community council (there are to be) twelve persons and three priests perfect in all that is revealed from the entire law (for people) to practise truth, righteousness, and justice’ 1QS 8.1; Qimron (ib. 384) presumably sees ‫ לעשות‬as equivalent to ‫עושים‬, but it is much simpler to analyse it as indicating a purpose of the revelation. The same analysis can apply to ‫ והיו להפריח נצר למטעת עולם‬1QHa 16.7 by taking the verb ‫ היה‬as meaning ‘to emerge,’ hence ‘they will emerge to sprout into an eternal planting,’ and not “and they were sprouting ..” (Qimron ib. 386). In ‫על השלט‬ ‫‘ השני יכתובו זיקי דם להפיל חללים‬on the second dart they are to write “Arrows of blood to fell the dead”’ 1QM 6.2. Qimron (ib. 383, n. 46) cites ‫על הזרק השלישי יכתובו שלהובת‬ ‫ חרב אוכלת חללי און‬in 1QM 6.3 as supporting his analysis that ‫ אוכלת‬is a predicate, thus ‘.. a flame of a sword is going to devour the wicked dead,’ but the first inscription on the point of the javelin is to read ‫‘ ברקת חנית לגבורת אל‬a sheen of a spear symbolic of God’s might’ 1QM 6.2, where there is no infinitive, which suggests that ‫ אוכלת‬here is used attributively, ‘a flame of a sword devouring the wicked dead.’ On the inf. cst. complementing and expanding a substantive, see above at § i. At ‫כתוב לשוב אל אל בבכי‬ ‫‘ ובצום‬it is written: “To return to God in tears and fasting”’ 4Q266 11.5, a reference to ‫וּב ִמ ְס ֵפּד‬ ְ ‫וּב ְב ִכי‬ ְ ‫וּבצוֹם‬ ְ ‫ל־ל ַב ְב ֶכם‬ ְ ‫ ֻשׁבוּ ָע ַדי ְבּ ָכ‬Jl 2.12, but the fact that the inf., ‫לשוב‬, corresponds to a finite verb, ‫שׁבוּ‬, ֻ does not prove, pace Qimron (ib. 385), that the inf. is being predicatively used. It is an inf. with deontic value, well established in Hebrew, see above at § c. The same applies to ‫‘ אמר לאישה להניא את ֗שבועתה‬he said: “It is up to her husband to annul her oath”’ CD 16.10, which is dependent on ‫ל־שׁ ֻב ַעת ִא ָסּר‬ ְ ‫ָכּל־נֵ ֶדר וְ ָכ‬ ‫ישׁהּ יְ ֵפ ֶרנּוּ‬ ָ ‫ימנּוּ וְ ִא‬ ֶ ‫ישׁהּ יְ ִק‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַענֹּת נָ ֶפשׁ ִא‬Nu 30.14, cf. ‫א־לָך ֻעזִּ יָּ הוּ ְל ַה ְק ִטיר ַליהוָ ה‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ל‬2Ch 26.18; on the deontic modality of the syntagm , see above at § d. o) Infinitive absolute The general decline of the inf. abs. in LBH and virtual extinction in RH is well known. However, we shall have occasions to see below that, in QH, it is still alive and kicking, not as vigorously as in BH for sure. (2) The following examples are probably symptomatic of this gradual decline: Ps 35.16 4Q83 6.3 ‫( חרקו‬MT ‫)חר ֹק‬ ָ (3); Ps 132.16 11Q5 6.8 ‫ירננו‬ ‫ הבין‬with ‫ לב‬as object is attested in ‫‘ הוא יבין לבך‬He [= God] will make your mind understand’ Si 6.37, though ‫ לב‬can be the object of ‫ גלה‬as in ‫ גליתה לבי‬1QHa 20.37 and ‫ ותגל)ה( לב בשר‬1QHa 21.10 as well as the subject of ‫ הבין‬as in ‫‘ לב חכם יבין משלי חכמים‬a wise mind can understand sages’ proverbs’ Si 3.29. The full stop inserted by Qimron (I 81) after ‫ אזני‬is better removed. 2 That it had not yet breathed its last is evident where a Qumran fragment uses an inf. abs. in lieu of a verbal noun in the MT—‫ ואסף אסוף‬4Q57 13.9 for ‫ וְ ֻא ְסּפוּ ֲא ֵס ָפה‬Is 24.22. See further Muraoka 2000.195. When Qimron (2018.176) says “an authentic infinitive absolute is extremely rare (in QH),” one would like to know what types of inf. abs. he considers authentic. He also finds its use in QH in lieu of a finite verb form “unexpected,” but LBH amply attests to it, see below at § oc. It must have become an “authentic” feature in LBH, an inner-Hebrew development with no Aramaic counterpart. 3 The scribe may be correcting what he thought to be an incongruent pf. 3ms. 1



(MT ‫)רנֵּ ן יְ ַרנֵּ נוּ‬. ַ Faced by a contrast such as ‫‘ לבלתי החזק מעמד‬so that he cannot hold his position’ 1QHa 13.31 // ‫ לבלתי החזיק מעמד‬1QSa 2.4 we find it reasonable to see ַ (1) The admonition on humility in here an orthographic variation, namely ‫ה ֲחזִ ק = החזק‬. Mi 6.8 is quoted quite a number of times in our corpus: six times it is spelled ‫הצנע לכת‬ as in the MT — 1QS 4.5, 5.4, 8.2, 4Q256 9.4, 4Q258 1.3, 4Q408 15.1. These authors and scribes presumably knew this “memory verse” by heart, and if they had pronounced the form in question with an i vowel, they would most likely have spelled it as ‫הצניע‬. ֯ 4Q438 4ii4 the Thus instructive is ‫ הצניע לכת‬4Q298 3-4ii5 (2), and in ‫להצניע ֗ל ֗ל ֗כ ֗ת‬ modernisation process (3) is complete with the proclitic ‫ ל־‬added. (4) At ‫אשר לא בהוכח‬ ‫‘ על פי עדים‬without reproving supported by witnesses’ CD 9.3 the underlying biblical text is most likely ‫יתָך‬ ֶ ‫ת־ע ִמ‬ ֲ ‫תּוֹכ ַיח ֶא‬ ִ ‫הוֹכ ַח‬ ֵ Lv 19.17. Thus the inf. abs. in the source text is prefixed with a preposition in CD 9.3, which is extremely rare in BH. (5) Fifteen lines further on the author of CD spells the form ‫ בהוכיח‬CD 9.18. However, we would note that, already in BH, the lines between the two types of the inf. are beginning to fade away as in ‫ל־אל ֶא ְח ָפּץ‬ ֵ ‫הוֹכ ַח ֶא‬, ֵ where ‫הוֹכ ַיח‬ ִ would be normal: ‘I would like to argue with God’ Jb 13.3, cf. also ‫הוֹכ ַח לוֹ‬ ֵ ‫‘ לֹא יֶ ֱא ַהב ֵלץ‬a scoffer does not like (others) to reprove him’ Pr 15.12. (6) 1 Likewise the remaining instances adduced by Qimron (2018.176f. [§ C]): ‫ה ִבן = הבן‬, ָ ‫ה ְמ ִטר = המטר‬, ַ ‫הוֹפ ַע = הופע‬, ִ ‫ה ִסר = הסר‬, ָ ‫ה ִשׁב = השב‬, ָ ‫ה ֲח ִרם = החרם‬, ַ and ‫ה ִבּט = הבט‬, ַ ‫הנִ ף = הנף ָה ִטל = הטל‬, ָ ‫ ַה ְק ִרב = הקרב‬, excepting ‫ בהפלא‬1QS 10.16 = ‫בּ ַה ְפ ֵלא‬, ְ on which see below, ‫ השכל‬on which see below, and ‫‘ רוח הסתר‬the secretive spirit [possibly = ‫]רוּח ַה ֵסּ ֶתר‬ ַ ’ 1QS 9.22. Note ‫ הבט‬1QpHab 5.2 < MT ‫ ַה ִבּיט‬Hb 1.13 and // ‫ראוֹת‬,ְ exactly the same at ‫ מהשכל‬.. ‫ מראות‬Is 44.(not 43)18 1QIsaa = MT ‫ ֵמ ַה ְשׂ ִכּיל‬.. ‫מ ְראוֹת‬, ֵ both adduced by Qimron loc. cit. On the other hand, Qimron (loc. cit.) apparently wants to see in ‫שקי֗ ֗ט‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ה‬4Q405 20ii-22.13 a plena spelling for ‫ה ְשׁ ֵקט‬. ַ DJD 11.347 “The sound of glad rejoicing falls silent” (‫שקי֗ ֗ט‬ ֗ ‫קול גי֗ לות רנה ֗ה‬ ‫)ודממת ֯ב ֯ר ֯ך ֯א ֗לו֗ הים‬, ֯ an intransitively used H Pf., ‫ה ְשׁ ִקיט‬, ִ but joyous praise can be low-key, cf. ‫ַא ַחר ָה ֵאשׁ‬ ‫ קוֹל ְדּ ָמ ָמה ַד ָקּה‬1Kg 19.12, thus ‫ ≠ דממה‬absolute silence. 2 In this particular instance the phrase appears to have become a frozen form, for along with four verbs in parallelism (‫שמעו‬, ‫הוסיפו‬, ‫ אהבו‬and ‫ הוסיפו‬apart from four other partly reconstructed forms—‫האזינוו‬, ‫הוסיפו‬, ֗ ‫רד ֯פו‬ ֗ and ‫הו֯ דיעו‬, all m.pl. impv.) it should have been ‫ה ְצנִ יעוּ = הצניעו‬, ַ as also noted by Qimron II 108 f.n. 3 Perhaps more than modernisation, for the inf. abs. coordinate with ‫ ֲעשׂוֹת ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט וְ ַא ֲה ַבת ֶח ֶסד‬is morphologically incongruous, where ‫ ַא ֲה ַבת‬can be analysed as an alternative inf. cst. 4 ‫‘ חבא לאמת‬to conceal truth’ 1QS 4.6 is plausibly an inf. abs. under the influence of the preceding ‫ ;הצנע לכת‬both could have been written as ‫ לחבא‬.. ‫ להצניע לכת‬continuing .. ‫ לפחד‬.. ‫ לישר‬.. ‫להאיר‬ ‘to enlighten .. to straighten .. to infuse fear..,’ but in between a good number of virtues, all expressed as substantives, have been inserted, and the author has decided to add an inf. abs. taken straight from Mi 6.8. This syntactic flexibility displayed by the author is also evidenced in ‫‘ מתעב‬to detest’ (line 5), most probably an Aramaising G inf.; he did not bother to match the binyan and use a D inf., since in Hebrew this verb is used in D, when active and transitive. ‫ הצנע לכת‬at 1QS 5.4, 8.2 is, pace Kesterson (1984.210), hardly a direct object of the preceding ‫‘ לעשות‬to practise’ ib. 5.3, 8.2; one doubts that the author of 1QS would have written something like ‫‘ חפצתי ָבנוֹה לי בית‬I desired to build a house for myself,’ i.e. on his own bat, independently of any biblical source text, but note Jb 13.3 and Pr 15.12 cited at the end of the current subparagraph. 5 See König § 225 b-c and JM, § 123 b-c. 6 These biblical authors may be using the inf. abs. as a stylistic decorum, imagining that it is typical of Hebrew of a higher register, even at the cost of the rules of its syntax.

THE VERB — § 18 o-oa


oa) Substantivisation There are a few infinitive absolutes which are syntactically and semantically rather close to substantives, though a verbal notion arising from their roots is implicit. ‫ השקט‬occurring twice in one and the same document appears to be nothing other than a fossilised relic originating in BH: ‫‘ מה השקט ללוא היה‬what is tranquility to that which has not yet come into existence?’ 4Q418 69ii5, where parallelism with ‫מה‬ ‫נוסד‬ ֗ ‫ משפט ללוא‬speaks against analysing ‫ השקט‬as ; ‫הלוא שלום והשקט‬ 4Q418 55.7, which echoes ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ַמ ֲע ֵשׂה ַה ְצּ ָד ָקה ָשׁלוֹם וַ ֲעב ַֹדת ַה ְצּ ָד ָקה ַה ְשׁ ֵקט וָ ֶב ַטח‬Is 32.17, where the juxtaposition with an ordinary substantive, ‫ ֶבּ ַטח‬is to be noted. Though not a full-fledged substantive as in ‫ ַשׁ ְלוַ ת ַה ְשׁ ֵקט‬Ezk 16.49 (‫ ַה ְשׁ ֵקט‬as a nomen rectum) and ‫וּב ִב ְט ָחה‬ ְ ‫ ְבּ ַה ְשׁ ֵקט‬Is 30.15, where ‫ ַה ְשׁ ֵקט‬prefixed with a preposition, which is highly atypical of BH if it were a genuine inf. abs., is parallel to a normal substantive, ‫בּ ְט ָחה‬, ִ our ‫ השקט‬in 4Q418 is an action noun. At ‫ השכל ערמה ותושיה נבחנו‬4Q215a 1ii11 ‫השכל‬ appears to be coordinate with the following two anarthrous substantives, ‘insight, prudence, and sound wisdom have been tested.’ (1) We seem to have the same in ‫הפלא‬ ‫‘ ֗כבודו‬His glory is a marvel’ 4Q181 1ii3 (2); ‫‘ הפלא סליחות‬a marvel of acts of forgiveness’ 4Q427 7ii16, coordinate with ‫‘ המון רחמים‬abundance of mercies.’ Cf. ‫אברכנו בהפלא מודה‬ ‘I shall praise him with great amazement’ 1QS 10.16, which unlikely means “I shall bless him for (his) great marvels” (3). The substantival character of an inf. abs. in the figura etymologica can be seen in ‫‘ הפלתה עמנו הפלא ופלא‬You have dealt with us ַ is coordinate with marvellously and wonderfully’ 1QM 18.10 (4), where ‫)ה ְפ ֵלא =( הפלה‬ ‫פּ ֶלא‬, ֶ a plain substantive. However, slightly different is ‫ אהבת חסד והצנע לכת‬in ‫לעשות‬ ‫‘ אמת וצדקה ומשפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת‬to practise truth and righteousness and justice and loving kindness and walking in humility’ 1QS 8.2, which is a quote straight from 1 Hence Qimron (III 37) appears to be right in adding a full stop before ‫השכל‬, for otherwise to parse ‫ גבה‬in the immediately preceding ‫ מודה גבה‬as ‘height’ (st. cst.) would leave ‫ מודה‬hanging in the air. 2 Chanan, Yuditsky, and Qimron (2015.18f.) see here a case of reverse cst. phrase equivalent to ‫כבודו‬ ‫הגדול‬. We would like to see a few assured examples of such a syntactic phenomenon. They refer to 2Ch 2.8 adduced above, but ‫ הפלא‬is vocalised there as inf. abs. 3 So GMT I 95. With this verb and affiliated ones such as ‫הוֹדה‬ ָ and ‫ ִשׁ ַבּח‬the preposition ‫ ב־‬is not used to indicate an occasion for praise or blessing. A more appropriate comparison can be made with a case such as ‫אוֹתָך ִב ְמאֹד ְמאֹד‬ ְ ‫‘ ַא ְר ֶבּה‬I shall increase you very much’ Gn 17.2, the preposition indicating a quantity. Carmignac’s (1986.259) “je le bénirai dans (le) faire merveilleusement très” is difficult; what or who does “(le)” refer to? Relying on Jastrow’s dictionary (1903.1181), Wernberg-Møller (1957.37, 146) offers “I will bless Him by giving thanks distinctly,” but distinctly in Jastrow’s translation is part of a whole concept, ‫“ ִה ְפ ִליא‬to speak distinctly”! The reading of a 4Q fragment of our text is disputed: rejecting DJD 26.162’s ‫ ֯בהפלא מאדה‬4Q260 4.2 Qimron (I 228) prefers ‫ו֗ הפלא‬, which is rendered “[I will bless him] and (his) exceedingly wondrous activity” (Charlesworth 1.93), but ‫ ברך‬can scarcely mean ‘to speak in admiration of’ with an obj. rei. In yet another 4Q fragment the reading of the initial particle is in no doubt: ‫בהפלא מודה‬ ֯ 4Q256 20.4. Cf. DJD 26.163f., though the translation offered, albeit hesitantly, “When He does marvels, I will give thanks(?)” is not wholly satisfactory on account of the absence of the subject of the postulated ptc. as well as of the inf., and the abrupt shift from a PC to a ptc. For a balanced analysis of the 1QS reading, see Licht (1965.218), to whom the 4Q fragments were not available. 4 Undoubtedly harking back to ‫ם־הזֶּ ה ַה ְפ ֵלא וָ ֶפ ֶלא‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ָע‬ ָ ‫יוֹסף ְל ַה ְפ ִליא ֶא‬ ִ ‫ ִהנְ נִ י‬Is 29.14.



Mi 6.8, and as such ‫ הצנע לכת‬is coordinate with ‫לעשות וגו׳‬, and not with ‫ ומשפט‬.. ‫אמת‬ as a direct object of ‫לעשות‬. (1) ‫ רוח הסתר‬1QS 9.22 could be = ‫רוּח ַה ְס ֵתּר‬, ַ a construct phrase. However, this could be compared with ‫‘ ְלשׁוֹן ָס ֶתר‬a secretive, slanderous tongue’ Pr 25.23 (a cst. phrase of quality). (2) At ‫‘ עם הטל הראשון‬with the first throw’ 1QM 8.15, however, we have a conglomeration of and , for which we of course would expect ‫ההטל הראשון‬. (3) On the other hand, in ‫ובעומדם ליד מערכת כתיים כדי הטל‬ ‫‘ ירימו איש ידו בכלי מלחמתו‬as they stand next to the Kittim line far enough for a throw (of weapons) each should take up in his hand his weapon’ 1QM 16.6, sim. 17.12 one’s mind goes back to ‫ וַ ֵתּ ֶשׁב ָלהּ ִמנֶּ גֶ ד ַה ְר ֵחק ִכּ ְמ ַט ֲחוֵ י ֶק ֶשׁת‬Gn 21.16. ob) ‫ַרב = ַה ְר ֵבּה‬ Already in BH another primitive inf. abs., ‫ה ְר ֵבּה‬, ַ had begun to be used as synonymous ָ ‫‘ ַה ְמּ ָל‬the with the adj. ‫רב‬.ַ In QH we find no instance comparable to ‫אכה ַה ְר ֵבּה ְוּר ָח ָבה‬ labour is much and extensive’ Neh 4.13, where ‫ ַה ְר ֵבּה‬is equivalent to ‫ר ָבּה‬.ַ The same process can be observed with another Hifil inf. abs., ‫ה ְפ ֵלא‬. ַ In ‫ר־אנִ י בוֹנֶ ה גָּ דוֹל‬ ֲ ‫ַה ַבּיִת ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫‘ וְ ַה ְפ ֵלא‬the house I am going to build is huge and astonishing’ 2Ch 2.8 ‫ הפלא‬is coordinate with ‫ גדול‬as a predicative adjective (4). In ‫הר ֗בה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֯ב ֗ש ֗ר‬much meat’ 2Q23 1.3 it looks as if ‫ הרבה‬is being attributively used as in ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר ַרב‬as in ‫ נְ ח ֶֹשׁת ַה ְר ֵבּה מאֹד‬2Sm 8.8 (5), but the word order displayed in ‫הרבה‬ ‫‘ מצאתי לקח‬I found instruction in abundance’ 11Q5 21.14 (6) makes us pause. Likewise ‫ ִל ִבּי ָר ָאה ַה ְר ֵבּה ָח ְכ ָמה‬Ec 1.16 (7). In QH we do not find an example comparable to ‫‘ זְ ַר ְע ֶתּם הרבה וְ ָה ֵבא ְמ ָעט‬you sowed much, but harvested little’ Hg 1.6 and ‫‘ יֵ שׁ ליהוה ָל ֵתת ְלָך הרבה ִמזֶּ ה‬the Lord has more than this to give you’ 2Ch 25.9 where one could identify substantivised ‫הרבה‬. In the extensively restored text the same form is to be analysed differently: ‫בראשונה אהבתי‬ ‫הרבה מיעקוב‬ ֗ ֗‫‘ את ֯עי֯ ֗ש ֗או‬formerly I loved Esau more than Jacob’ 4Q223-224 2ii4 the word is being used adverbially, ‘to a greater degree.’ (8) 1 Thus pace Leahy (1960.144): “a mere substantival phrase.” ‫ אהבת‬here appears to be verbal, a pseudo-infinitive coordinate with ‫לעשות‬, for ‫ לעשות אהבה‬does not sound right. See also Muraoka 2015.80f. 2 Note reservations expressed by Kesterson 1988.515. The uncertainty in this respect also applies to BH, see JM § 122 c. By contrast, König (1897, § 224) has no hesitation. See also Segal 1958 § 251. 3 Cf. van der Ploeg 1959.126. 4 A detail unnoticed by Leahy (1960.144), who translates 1QS 10.16 quoted above (§ oa) as “I will bless Him, wonderfully thanking”; he failed to take note of the prep. -‫ב‬, and ‫ מודה‬is likely to be a variant spelling of ‫‘ מאודה‬very.’ 5 The parallel text ‫ נחשׁת ַר ָבּה‬2Ch 8.8 shows that this development is not confined to LBH. See also ‫ ְשׂ ָלמוֹת ַה ְר ֵבּה ְמאֹד‬// ‫ב־מאֹד‬ ְ ‫ ִמ ְקנֶ ה ַר‬Josh 22.8. 6 Cf. Si 51.16 πολλὴν εὗρον ἐμαυτῷ παιδείαν. 7 Some quantifiers can precede, e.g. ‫שׁנֵ י ְמ ָל ִכים‬. ְ Note ‫ ְוּד ָב ִרים ַה ְר ֵבּה‬.. ‫ ְבּר ֹב ֲחֹלמוֹת‬Ec 5.6. For “in the greatness of his mercy he hid them among the gentiles” (DJD 29.272) one would expect ‫ובהרבה‬ ֗ at ‫החביאם בגוים‬ ֗ ‫והרבה רחמו֯ ה‬ ֗ 4Q434 1i7. Maybe ‫וְ ִה ְר ָבּה = והרבה‬, i.e. w-qatálti, though ‫וַ יֶּ ֶרב = וירב‬, i.e. way-yiqtol. However, following ‫‘ שפטם ברוב רחמו‬He judged them with His abundant mercies,’ we do not have here a case of real consecution. 8 On the use of substantives as adverbials, see below at § 31 v (3).

THE VERB — § 18 oa-oc


oc) Substituting a finite verb The use of the inf. abs. as a substitute for a finite form, when the latter immediately ‫‘ ה‬he precedes, is known to LBH (1), but such is rather implausible at ‫הוא חקוק קצי חרון‬ determined times for wrath’ 4Q266 2i3, for which Qimron (I 6, f.n. ad loc.) justly prefers ‫חקק‬, a variant reading in 4Q268 1.5. Note the following variations between the MT and its corresponding Qumran ָ ‫טוֹח ַעל־תֹּהוּ וְ ַד ֶבּ‬ ַ ‫ָבּ‬ manuscripts: ‫ וְ נָ תֹן‬.. ‫ ֶה ֱח ִריבוּ‬Is 37.18f. // ‫ ויתנו‬.. ‫ החריבו‬1QIsaa; ‫ר־שׁוְ א ָהרוֹ‬ a ‫הוֹליד ָאוֶ ן‬ ֵ ְ‫ ָע ָמל ו‬Is 59.4 // ‫ והולידו‬.. ‫ הרוה‬.. ‫ ודבר‬.. ‫ בטחו‬1QIsa , where one notes a measure ַ ‫ ָפּ‬.. ‫ ָראֹת‬Is 42.20 (K: ‫ )ראית‬// of inconsistency in ‫ דבר‬for the expected ‫( דברו‬2); ‫קוֹח‬ a ‫ פתחו‬.. ‫ ראיתה‬1QIsa ; ‫ הֹרוֹ וְ הֹגוֹ‬.. ‫ ַדּ ֶבּר‬.. ‫ וְ נָ סוֹג‬.. ‫ ָפּשׁ ַֹע וְ ַכ ֵחשׁ‬Is 59.13 // .. ‫ ונסוג‬.. ‫פשועו וכחש‬ ‫ והגוא‬.. ‫ ודברו‬1QIsaa (3); ‫ ַא ֵכּהוּ ַה ְס ֵתּר‬Is 57.17 // ‫ אכהו ואהסתר‬1QIsaa (‫ ואסתר‬1QIsad); ‫ נִ ְטעוּ ְכ ָר ִמים וְ ָאכוֹל ִפּ ְריָ ם‬Is 37.30K (4) // ‫כרמים וואכול‬ ֗ ‫ונטעו‬ ‫ ונט‬4Q56 22-23.3 [= Isab], but a a 5 ‫ ואכולו‬.. ‫ ונטוע‬1QIsa ; ‫ וְ נָ תוֹן‬Is 37.19 // ‫ ויתנו‬1QIsa ( ). Though not many, there are also found cases of an inf. abs. replacing a finite form in MT: Ps 35.16 4Q83 6.3 ‫( חרקו‬MT ‫)חר ֹק‬ ָ (6); ‫ וקדש‬4Q17 2ii6 // MT ‫וְ ִק ַדּ ְשׁ ָ֙תּ‬ 7 Ex 40.10 ( ); ‫ וכפר‬.. ‫רב‬ ‫ ונקרב‬4Q27 60-64.6 // ‫ ְל ַכ ֵפּר‬.. ‫ וַ נַּ ְק ֵרב‬Nu 31.50; Ps 136.14 11Q5 15.5 ‫( והעבר‬MT ‫)וְ ֶה ֱע ִביר‬, where a defectiva spelling is of course possible; possibly in ‫ֵתּ ָע ֶשׂה‬ ‫את‬ ֣ ָ ‫ וְ ֵה ֵב‬Lv 2.7f. // ‫ תעשה והביא‬4Q24 1-7.29, where ‫ הביא‬is either impv. or inf. abs. spelled plena. Several more examples would be ‫ הגבר‬in ‫בי האירותה פני רבים והגבר עד לאין מספר‬ ‘through me You have brightened the faces of many and strengthened innumerably’ 1 See JM § 123 x. Eskhult speaks of “a slight advance” in his corpus of LBH, though he gives 23 references, no negligible number. For the statistics of distribution among biblical books, see Fassberg 2008.50. See also Qimron 2018.392-94 (§ H 1.7). Kutscher (1974.346) includes ‫ אסירה‬Is 5.5 1QIsaa for MT ‫ ָה ֵסר‬as a case of MT’s Lamed-less infinitive changed to the corresponding PC form. So ‫ ַה ְס ֵתּר‬Is 57.17 appearing as ‫ אהסתר‬in 1QIsaa. He must have meant an inf. abs. here; the Engl. version with “the infinitive construct” need be corrected to “the bare inf. cst.,” for the Hebrew original reads ‫המקור הנסמך הערטילאי‬. At Is 5.5 the Vorlage of the LXX with ἀφελῶ must have looked similar to 1QIsaa. Another case of avoiding this kind of inf. abs. is ‫ וְ נָ תֹן‬.. ‫ ֶה ֱח ִריבוּ‬Is 37.18 changed to ‫ ויתנו‬.. ‫החריבו‬. Fassberg 2008 plausibly argues that this feature is a trait of what he calls “Standard Literary Hebrew” of the Second Temple period, analogous to “Standard Literary Aramaic,” a notion introduced by Greenfield (1974) to refer to a form of Aramaic used after the Persian period, e.g. in Qumran Aramaic documents, a form of the language that transcends its contemporary dialectal diversity. See also Qimron 2018.392-94, § H 1.7. 2 ‫ הרוה‬here is hardly a plena spelling for ‫הרוֹ‬, ָ so Kutscher (1974.182) and Qimron 2018.90 (§ A 5.3.1). 1QIsab is fully consistent: ‫ והולידו‬.. ‫ הרו‬.. ‫ דברו‬.. ‫בטחו‬. 3 The text is rather messy, testifying to the scribe’s uncomfortableness with this syntactic feature. The middle waw of ‫ פשועו‬is interlinear, but the context indicates ‘we’ as the subject in this verse, and if ‫פשעו‬, i.e. ‫ ָפּ ְשׁעוּ‬be meant, it cannot be followed by ‫ ונסוג‬.. ‫וכחש‬, two abs. infinitives with ‫ו־‬, whereas ‫ הגוא‬is probably = ‫הגוֹא‬. ָ 4 Q = ‫א ְכלוּ‬. ִ 5 Undoubtedly defectiva at ‫ הבט אל עמל לוא תוכל‬1QpHab 5.2 < ‫תוּכל‬ ָ ‫ל־ע ָמל לֹא‬ ָ ‫ ַה ִבּיט ֶא‬Hb 1.13 MT, ‫ ְל ַמ ַען ַה ִבּיט < למען הבט‬Hb 2.15 MT. Thus pace Segert 1953.232. On ‫ וקול‬1QpHab 3.6 Segert (1953.233) could be right, though a scribal error for ‫ וקלו‬as in Hb 1.8 is quite acceptable. 6 The scribe may be correcting what he thought to be an incongruent pf. 3ms. 7 Pace Cross (DJD 12.141) the 4Q form here is more likely to be a scribal error for ‫ וקדשת‬in view of a long series of the inverted Perfects in the vicinity, so also in the 4Q fragment.



1QHa 12.28 (1); ‫‘ הגברתה עמדי והפלא‬You acted powerfully with me and displayed marvels’ 1QHa 12.29 (2); ‫רבות ונסלוח לו‬ ֗ ‫מצ ֗רות‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗הי֗ ֗א נצל‬he was often rescued out of many troubles and was forgiven’ MMT C 26 (3); ‫‘ בכן דבר טובי וכתוב תהלה‬Thus spoke Tobi and wrote a psalm’ 4Q200 6.4; ‫בי֯ ה ואמור לו‬ ‫‘ בא אליו טו֯ ב‬Tobiah came to him and said to him’ 4Q200 4.2; ‫‘ הודעתי והשכיל‬You informed me and I comprehended’ 4Q381 15.8 (assuming a scribal error for ‫( )הודעתני‬4); ‫ויתגוללו בדרכי זנות ובהון רשעה‬ ‫‘ ונקום ונטור איש לאחיו ושנוא איש את רעהו‬and they wallowed in ways of whoredom and in the ill-gotten wealth and mutual revenge and rancour and mutual hatred’ CD 8.5 (5), then shifting back to way-yiqtol—‫‘ ויתעלמו איש בשאר בשרו‬and they looked away, each from his blood relation’ (6). Probably also in ‫במעי֗ ה‬ ֗ ‫‘ וסבול אותכה‬and she carried you in her womb’ 4Q200 2.2, ‫ והדוק‬.. ‫‘ ונפוצ‬and he scattered .. and smeared’ 4Q200 5.2, and ‫ נקבצו ו֯ ֯ב ֗רך את אדון העולמים‬4Q200 7i2 (LXX To 13.13GII ὅτι πάντες ἐπισυναχθήσονται καὶ εὐλογήσουσιν τὸν κύριον) (7) and ‫‘ ונתון‬and she gave’ 4Q215 1.10, where some finite verb must have stood in the preceding lacuna. (8) In ‫‘ השם לבבי‬my ִ cf. mind was stunned’ 1QHa 15.6, 21.6 we may be dealing with a N inf. abs., ‫ה ֵשּׁם‬, 9 ָ Hpass Pf. is not to be precluded ( ) or intransitively ‫ ִה ֵמּס יִ ָמּס‬2Sm 17.10, though ‫ה ַשּׁם‬, used H Pf. ‫( ֵה ֵשׁם‬10). ‫‘ לירוש‬to inherit’ CD 1.7 (11) is hopelessly corrupted. As with the analogous BH usage this kind of abs. inf., as shown in the examples above, is prefixed with the conjunction waw. od) Paronomastic inf. abs. The use of an inf. abs. as a cognate object as in ‫ מוֹת ָתּמוּת‬Gn 2.17, also known as figura etymologica, is common in BH. It turns up in QH, too: e.g. ‫בכו֗ ֗תבכה‬ ֗ ‘she shall weep bitterly’ 4Q179 2.9; ‫‘ בלע יבלעם‬he will surely swallow them up’ 4Q424 1.13; ‫הטף‬ ‫‘ יטיפון‬they shall surely preach’ CD 4.20, even against Mi 2.6, which appears to be a source text but lacks an inf. abs. But the biblical text puts a statement in the negative —‫ל־תּ ִטּפוּ יַ ִטּיפוּן לֹא־יַ ִטּפוּ ָל ֵא ֶלּה‬ ַ ‫—א‬the ַ author of the CD wishes to put forward a counter position, for which the insertion of the inf. abs. is most appropriate, cf. ‫ָאסֹר נֶ ֱא ָס ְרָך‬ Following Qimron I 74 instead of ‫תגבר‬. Lohse 126 vocalises ‫ה ְפ ִלא‬, ַ but a final inf. cst. without -‫ל‬, “wunderbar zu handeln” is rather implausible. 3 A most striking example occurring in a document the affinity of whose language with MH is well known. 4 For an alternative analysis of ‫והשכיל‬, see below at § od. 5 We adopt a variant reading, ‫ )וְ נָ טוֹר =( ונטור‬CDb (= 4Q267 1.18) for the difficult ‫ וניטור‬in CDa. Carmignac (1986.257f.) holds that the spelling ‫ ניטור‬proves the validity of his position that we have here an N inf. abs. But this verb, in the sense required here from the underlying Lv 19.18 ‫ת־בּנֵ י‬ ְ ‫א־תטֹּר ֶא‬ ִ ֹ ‫א־תקֹּם וְ ל‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬ ‫ע ֶמָּך וְ ָא ַה ְב ָתּ ְל ֵר ֲעָך ָכּמוָֹך ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה‬, ַ is not attested in N throughout the history of Hebrew. In a parallel passage we read ‫ונקום ונטור איש לאחיהו‬. Qimron (I 18, n.) seems to identify here an inf. abs. 6 On this last passage and its parallel in CD 19.17, see also Kesterson 1984.213-15. 7 This is a fifth example in this document, whose author appears to be fond of this usage. 8 For the references from 4Q200 and 4Q215, see Qimron in DJD 10.81, n. 79 and Fitzmyer 2003.168. 9 So vocalised by Lohse 138. 10 So Qimron I 81; one may compare ‫ ַמ ְשׁ ִמים‬Ezk 3.15. 11 So already in a Qumran fragment, 4Q266 2i12. Rabin (1958.3), invoking Segal (1958.75), considers it Mishnaic, for which one would expect ‫ל ַירשׁ = לירש‬.ִ 1 2

THE VERB — § 18 oc-of


‫יתָך‬ ֶ ‫ וּנְ ַתנּוָּך ְביָ ָדם וְ ָה ֵמת לֹא נְ ִמ‬Jdg 15.13. Note also ‫‘ אם הנא יאנה אביה אותה‬if her father did restrain her’ 11Q19 53.19 < ‫יה א ָֹתהּ‬ ָ ‫ם־הנִ יא ָא ִב‬ ֵ ‫ ִא‬Nu 30.6 (1). Though at ‫קבור תקוברמה‬ ‘you shall bury them’ 11Q19 64.11 < Dt 21.23, the use of this syntagm is dependent on the biblical source, the author shows himself, as that of CD (see the above-cited example), comfortable with this typically BH feature and capable of allowing a measure of freedom from the source text, which reads ‫‘ ִתּ ְק ְבּ ֶרנּוּ‬.. him,’ not ‘.. them.’ (2) At ‫האמור‬ ‫‘ יאמרו‬Could they really say?’ 4Q418 69ii13 the author is expressing his scepticism. Note an instance with ‫ כי‬reinforcing: ‫‘ השכיל כי השכלתני‬You indeed conferred on me intelligence’ 4Q381 15.8. (3) In all its seven attestations, we see, the sequence is , with not a single instance of the reverse sequence. (4) oe) Absolute command The use of the inf. abs. for absolute command is as unstable in MT as in 1QIsaª as shown in ‫ זִ ְרעוּ וְ ִק ְצרוּ וְ נִ ְטעוּ ְכ ָר ִמים וְ ָאכוֹל ִפ ְריָם‬.. ‫ ָאכוֹל‬Is 37.30 (Q: ‫ )וְ ִא ְכלוּ פרים‬vs. .. ‫אכולו‬ ‫ נט‬1QIsab (5). Should the fifth of ‫ ואכולו‬.. ‫ זרעו וקצורו ונטוע‬1QIsaª, but ‫ אכול‬1QIsab and ‫נטעו‬ the Decalogue lie behind ‫‘ כבוד אביכה ברישכה ואמכה במצעריכה‬Honour your father in your indigence and your mother in your scarcity!’ 4Q416 2iii15, ‫ כבוד‬is possibly an ַ alternative D inf. abs., ‫( ַכּבּוֹד‬6), but not only the MT of Ex 20.12 and Dt 5.16 reads ‫כּ ֵבּד‬, but also all the Qumran fragments spell the form ‫כבד‬. (7) of) Some rare uses BH knows a somewhat rare use of the inf. abs. forming an adverbial adjunct of a verb as in ‫‘ וַ ֵתּ ֶשׁב ָלהּ ִמנֶּ גֶ ד ַה ְר ֵחק ִכּ ְמ ַט ֲחוֵ י ֶק ֶשׁת‬.. distancing herself ..’ Gn 21.16 and ‫וְ ָשׁ ַח ְק ָתּ ִמ ֶמּנָּ ה‬ ‫‘ ָה ֵדק‬and you shall beat some of it very small’ Ex 30.36. (8) 1QIsaa stumbled over this 1 The Vorlage of LXX ἐὰν δὲ ἀνανεύων ἀνανεύσῃ probably read the same as the Temple Scroll. The inf. abs. here is indicative of a contrast between the ‫ איש כי‬clause and the ‫ אשה כי‬clause. 2 Kesterson (1984.209f.) is certainly right in drawing to our attention the rarity of the phenomenon in his corpus, CD and Serakhim. 3 See Muraoka 1985.89. Eskhult (2003.163) is surprised at the high frequency of the construction in the legal corpus in the Pentateuch. We (loc. cit., n. 22) referred to Bloch, who had shown that direct speech and legal discourse share an interesting syntactic feature: these two genres stand between prose, in which the predominant word order of the verbal clause is predominantly VSO and poetry in which the word order is rather free. Gzella (2010.495) avers that, in QH, our syntagm is confined to biblical quotations and allusions. However, among the seven instances adduced above, only one, 11Q19 64.11, fits such a description. 4 In BH the two sequences carry the same values; JM § 123 e. See also Muraoka 1985.83-92. Kim 2009 purports to demonstrate that the syntagm in CBH is an expression of assertion, not “emphasis.” In JM § 123 e-l, ‘affirmation’ is mentioned as one of the principal values of the syntagm. Kim appears to be unaware of this discussion, despite it being a Johns Hopkins dissertation. 5 For an explanation of the anomalous spelling ‫ נטוע‬for ‫נטעו‬, see Kutscher 1974.347. 6 At 4Q418 9.17 our text does read ‫כבד‬. 7 To identify a substantive here (‫)כּבוֹד אביכה‬ ְ would necessitate postulating an elliptical utterance, Impv. ‫ זְ כור‬missing, for instance. 8 More possible examples are mentioned by König (1897 § 402 b-e), though some do not belong here, e.g. ‫ל־ה ֵע ָדה‬ ָ ‫ ָרגוֹם אֹתוֹ ָב ֲא ָבנִ ים ָכּ‬Nu 15.35, where ‫ ָרגוֹם‬clearly carries injunctive value, continuing ‫מוֹת‬



rare usage, converting ‫ הסתר‬in ‫ ַבּ ֲעוֹן ִבּ ְצעוֹ ָק ַצ ְפ ִתּי וְ ַא ֵכּהוּ ַה ְס ֵתּר וְ ֶא ְקצֹף‬Is 57.17 to ‫ואהסתר‬, not only substituting the Aramaising causative PC for the inf. abs., but also adding ‫ו־‬. (1) ‫מ ֵהר‬, ַ common in BH, is also attested in QH, e.g. ‫‘ ויתבהלו ֗הי֗ מים מהר‬and may the days hasten quickly!’ 4Q385 4.2; ‫‘ מהר ימלו‬they will vanish quickly’ 1QM 15.11 (2). The syntagm to indicate an action continued and repeated as in ‫‘ יאירו לכול קצוות תבל הלוך ואור‬they will continue to shine to all the ends of the earth’ 1QM 1.8 has a BH model, e.g. ‫‘ וַ יָּ ֻשׁבוּ ַה ַמּיִ ם ֵמ ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ ָהלוְֹך וָ שׁוֹב‬and the water receded from the surface of the earth continually’ Gn 8.3. (3) On the use of the inf. abs. following ‫לאין‬, see below at § 40 m. As in BH no inf. abs. takes a proclitic -‫ל‬. (4)

‫יוּמת ָה ִאישׁ‬, ַ and it cannot be expanding ‫יוּמת‬, ַ for we have here two self-standing clauses, each with its own subject. 1 LXX καὶ ἀπέστρεψα τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ is close to 1QIsaa here, freely expanding the single word in his Vorlage, an exegesis present in many mediaeval Jewish commentaries. Cf. also ‫ואסתר‬ in 4QIsad here. 2 One of the underlying biblical texts, as Yadin (1957.348) noted, reads ‫—מ ֵה ָרה‬ ְ ‫ ְמ ֵה ָרה יִ ָמּלוּ‬Ps 37.2. On the adverbial use of the inf. abs. in BH, see JM § 102 e, 123 r. 3 Cf. JM, § 123 s, a pretty common use in BH; for references, see BDB s.v. ‫ הלך‬Qal 4 c, p. 233a-b. ‫הוֹלְך וָ אוֹר ַעד־נְ כוֹן ַהיּוֹם‬ ֵ ‫יקים ְכּאוֹר נֹגַ הּ‬ ִ ‫‘ וְ א ַֹרח ַצ ִדּ‬the path of the righteous is like the light of the dawn, shining brighter and brighter until full day’ Pr 4.18 adduced by Yadin (1957.259) is akin in terms of the general message, but not syntax. See also Muraoka 2015.80. 4 Whilst the reading ‫‘ לבלה‬to exhaust’ (pace Horgan 2002.176: ‫ )לכלה‬is correct, this cannot be an inf. abs., pace Brownlee 1979.156. On the anomalous ‫ ְבּ ַה ְשׁ ֵקט‬Is 30.15, see above at § oa.





§ 19 BY CONJUNCTIVE PRONOUNS This is such a commonplace as requires no extensive documentation. In ‫בשנת ארבע‬ ֗‫ב‬ ‫‘ מאות ושמונים לחיי נוח בא קצם לנוח‬in the 480th year of Noah’s life its end came to Noah’ 4Q252 1.1 the conj. pron. in ‫ קצם‬refers to the plurale tantum ‫חיי‬. An adjective can be further added, e.g. ‫‘ כמעשיכה הגדולים וכגבורתכה החזקה‬like Your great deeds and Your strong power’ 1QM 10.8. A demonstrative pronoun may also be added, e.g. ‫‘ הלבב הזה‬this mind’ 4Q158 6.5. See further below at § 24 c. Other constituents such as a participle and a relative clause may also be added, which hardly calls for demonstration. The article is, however, rarely added to nouns expanded by a conj. pron. (1) Such a rare example is ‫ ַה ַמּ ֵכּהוּ‬Is 9.12 with the initial He added in 1QIsaª above the line. § 20 BY INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS A rare example of an attributively used interrogative pronoun is ‫‘ מה כוח לי‬what sort of [or: how much] strength do I have?’ 1QHa 11.25; ‫מי גוי חפץ אשר יעושקנו חזק ממנו‬ ‘What nation wants to be oppressed by someone stronger?’ 1Q27 1.10. (2) The same ֗ ‫‘ מי גוי אשר לוא עשק‬What nation is those who did not analysis may apply to ‫רעהו‬ oppress their neighbour(s)?’ 1Q27 1.11, though ‫ מי‬may retain the standard value: ‘who is a nation who did not ..?’. The mutual proximity of the two clauses speaks for the ֗ ‫עם אשר לוא ֗גז֗ ל ֗הו֯ ן זו‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֗איפה‬Where is a nation who first alternative. But then follows ‫זולתו‬ did not pillage property of others?’ 1Q27 1.11.



Preliminary remarks A noun in the status constructus (3), called nomen regens, can be expanded by diverse constituents which syntactically differ from one another. Thus not only by a substantive 1

Cf. JM, § 121 k. For BH examples, see JM, § 144 d. 3 We assume that, in QH also, ‫בן‬, though spelled the same in ‫‘ נולד לה ֵבּן‬a son was born to her’ and ‫‘ ֶבּן יצחק באהל‬the son of Isaac is in the tent,’ was pronounced differently just as ‫ אחי‬in ‫‘ ָא ִחי יצחק‬my brother Isaac’ and in ‫‘ ֲא ִחי יצחק‬the brother of Isaac.’ 2



as in ‫‘ ְשׂ ַפת ְכּנַ ַען‬the language of Canaan’ and ‫‘ ר ְֹכ ֵבי ֲאתֹנוֹת‬those who ride on donkeys’ Jdg 5.10, but also by a prepositional adjunct (§ f), e.g. ‫‘ ה ְֹל ֵכי ַעל ֶדּ ֶרְך‬those who walk by the way’ ib., by a relative clause, e.g. ‫‘ חזון דובר עליך‬a vision spoken about you’ 11Q5 22.13 (below at § d), also by a syndetic relative clause (below § d), or by an inf. cst. as in ‫השמש‬ ֗ ‫‘ עד בוא‬until the sun sets’ MMT B 72, with which cp. ‫‘ ֶא ֶרץ ְמבוֹא ַה ָשּׁ ֶמשׁ‬the land where the sun sets’ Zc 8.7. (1) a) Ambiguity in syntactic hierarchy When two or more nomina recta follow each other, their syntactic hierarchy can become ambiguous: is the relationship or ? Thus ‫שרירות לב אשמה‬ 1QS 1.6; supposing ‫ אשמה‬is not an adjective, ‫א ֵשׁ ָמה‬, ֲ but a substantive, ‫א ְשׁ ָמה‬, ַ is it a nomen rectum to be construed with ‫ לב‬or with ‫שרירות לב‬, which latter by itself is a construct phrase? The context indicates . (2) Cf. also ‫ברית יחד עולמים‬ 1QS 3.12, where we follow the overwhelming majority of scholars, ‘the covenant of the eternal community.’ (3) A conjunctive pronoun or an adjective as a component of a construct chain can be only the final constituent when preceded by two or more nouns. When both are to be added, the adjective is positioned at the very end. So A) ‫‘ ַשׁ ַער ֵבּית ַע ְב ִדּי‬the gate of the house of my servant,’ B) ‫שׁער ַבּיִת ָר ָחב‬, C) ‫שׁער בית עבדי ָה ָר ָחב‬. However, the syntactic analysis of B) and C) is ambiguous: what is wide or broad, house or gate? Though there does not obtain such am ambiguity in D) ‫‘ ְכּ ֵלי ִמ ְל ַח ְמתּוֹ‬his weapons’ = (a+b) + c, but periphrasis by means of ‫ אשׁר ל־‬is available only when the c is written as a noun: ‫‘ כלי ִמ ְל ָח ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר ְל ֶמ ֶלְך‬the king’s weapons,’ and ‫‘ כלי ִמ ְל ֶח ֶמת מלך‬weapons of a king’s war’ = a + (b+c). b) Logico-semantic relationships The great majority of construct chains are clear as to what they mean, but they represent very diverse notional, semantic relationships. Here follows a classification and description of them. Examples are also included in which the last constituent is a conjunctive pronoun. QH does not appear to have an interrogative pronoun ‫ ִמי‬expanding a preceding substantive as in ‫ר־מי‬ ִ ‫‘ ְדּ ַב‬Whose word?’ Je 44.28. For more examples, see DCH s.v. ‫מי‬, ִ p. 249a, k. 2 See Wernberg-Møller 1957.45. 3 An important exception is Licht (1965.80), who construes ‫ עולמים‬with the preceding cst. phrase, ‘an eternal covenant of the community,’ cf. his paraphrasing: “‫”בריתם של אנשי היחד שתתקיים לעולם‬ ‘the covenant of the people of the community which [= ‫ ]בריתם‬will exist for ever.’ A similar, questionable analysis is observable at ‫עוֹלם‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ ִרית ְכּ ֻהנַּ ת‬Nu 25.13, for which LXX has διαθήκη ἱερατείας αἰωνία and Vulg. pactum sacerdotii sempiternum. Exceptional in this regard is ‫רגלי ֗כ ֗בו֗ דכה‬ ֗ ‫‘ הדומי‬Your glorious footstools’ 4Q286 1ii1. This is exceptional in two other respects: 1) the use of the pl., ‫ הדומי‬and 2) the addition of a third term. In BH we see only ‫ ֲהד ֹם ַרגְ ַליִ ם‬as in ‫ ֲהד ֹם ַרגְ ָליו‬Ps 99.5 and four other instances. 1



i) Possessive N1 is owned or possessed by N2: (1) ‫‘ מבצרי העמים‬the fortifications of peoples’ 1QpHab 4.6; ‫‘ נחלתכה‬your inheritance’ 4Q418 81.3 // ‫‘ נחלתו‬the inheritance granted by Him’ ib. [(iv) origin]. ii) Relational Nx is N1 in relation to N2: (2) ‫(‘ אל ישראל‬JHWH) the God of Israel’ 1QS 3.24; ‫‘ עד עובר דבר‬a witness against one who transgresses something’ CD 10.3. Very often we find a conjunctive pronoun as N2, e.g ‫‘ עבדיו‬His servants’ 1QS 1.3. In ‫ אוהבים לאל‬CD 3.3 we have a substitute for ‫אוהבי אל‬, and the preposition is indicative of this relational notion; the phrase here is to be compared with ‫א ֲֹה ִבי‬, a title given by God to Abraham as ‫ ַא ְב ָר ָהם א ֲֹה ִבי‬Is 41.8 (3), cp. ‫ֹלהים ִמ ְשׂגַּ ִבּי‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬Ps 59.10 with ‫ית‬ ָ ִ‫ָהי‬ ‫ ִמ ְשׂגָּ ב ִלי‬vs. 17. Likewise ‫‘ נסי ישראל‬the prince of Isr.’ XḤev/Ṣe 30.1 // ‫הנסי על ישראל‬ 5/6Ḥev 54.1. Nx can be made explicit. Then ensues a nominal clause of descriptive value: e.g. ‫תועבת‬ ‫‘ אמת עלילות עולה ותועבת עולה כול דרכי אמת‬deeds of wickedness are what is detested by truth and ways of truth are what is detested by wickedness’ 1QS 4.17. As the above-quoted Ps 59.10 shows as compared with its reformulation two verses later, the attachment of a conjunctive pronoun or the expansion through a contextually determinate nomen rectum, e.g. ‫מ ְשׂגַּ ב ָדּוִ ד‬, ִ does not necessarily imply that there is no other referent which can be so expressed. One can speak of a female as ‫ ִבּ ִתּי‬when he or she has two or more daughters. Thus ‫ֹלהיָך הוּא‬ ֶ ‫תוֹע ַבת יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֲ Dt 17.1 would most certainly not imply that ‫ שׁוֹר וָ ֶשׂה ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְהיֶ ה בוֹ מוּם כֹּל ָדּ ָבר ָרע‬are the only kinds of animal offerings detested by God, an understanding that is confirmed by a reformulation of this injunction in ‫ תועבה המה לי‬11Q19 52.4. (4) iii) Appositive N1 is known under the name of, or symbol of, or expressible as N2: ‫‘ ארץ דמשק‬the land of Damascus’ CD 6.19; ‫‘ בית יהודה‬the House of Judah’ 1QpHab 8.1; ‫‘ גוית בשרו‬his fleshly body’ 1QpHab 9.2; ‫‘ נשי מררי‬the prince Merari’ 1QM 4.1 (5); ‫‘ אבדוני שאול‬the place of perdition (known as) Sheol’ 1QM 14.18 (6). The use of numbering 1 N1 = first noun; N2 = second noun. Construct phrases consisting of three or more terms are dealt with below at § c and ca. 2 Nx = a noun not actually mentioned in the construct phrase, but present in the context or can be inferred therefrom. 3 ≠ ‘one whom I [= God] loved,’ so LXX ὃν ἠγάπησα, but = ‘one who is friendly, not hostile to Me.’ 4 Cf. ‫ ִצפּ ָֹרה ִבתּוֹ‬Ex 2.21 with reference to one of Reuel’s seven daughters. See JM § 140 a. 5 Hence cst. ‫נְ ִשׂי‬, not ‫)נָ ִשׂיא =( נָ ִשׂי‬. Thus in Hebrew you can use ‫ ַמ ְל ַכּת‬for Queen Elizabeth, but one does not say the Queen of Elizabeth. 6 On the pl. ‫אבדוני‬, see above at § 8 f, p. 29, n. 7. Cf. Jb 26.6 and Pr 15.11, where ‫ אבדון‬and ‫ שאול‬are parallel to each other.



cardinals as in ‫‘ בשנת שתים‬in year 2’ KhQ1 1, ‫ שנת שתים‬M29 1, 9; ‫ שנת ארבע‬M30 8; ‫בשנת ארבע מאות ושמונים לחיי נוח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ב‬in the 480th year of Noah’s life’ 4Q252 1.1 may be mentioned here. (1) iv) Origin, authorship (2) N1 originates with or from N2: ‫‘ חוקי אל‬God’s laws’ 1QS 1.7; ‫‘ תורת מושה‬the Mosaic law’ 1QS 5.8; ‫אמרי פיהו‬ ‘words coming out of His mouth’ 1QS 9.25; ‫‘ מוצא שפתי‬.. what issues forth from my lips’ 1QS 10.14, 4Q511 18ii5; ‫‘ תנובת תבל‬the produce of the earth’ 1QS 10.15; ‫רוח‬ ‫‘ שפתיכה‬a breath of your lips’ 1QSb 5.24; ‫‘ משיחי | רוח הקדש‬those anointed by the holy ghost’ 4Q270 2ii25 (3); ‫‘ זמות יצרי‬plans derived from my inclination’ 1QHa 13.8; ‫‘ קול | המון מים רבים‬the noisy sound of vast waters’ 1QHa 10.18; ‫‘ אנשי הכרך‬the men of hkrk’ M43 2. v) Locational N1 is localised in N2: ‫‘ יד שמאולו‬his left hand’ 1QS 7.15; ‫‘ טיט חוצות‬mud of streets’ 1QSb 5.27; ‫עצי מים‬ ‘trees by the water’ 1QHa 16.7; ‫‘ ערי הארץ‬the cities of the land’ 1QpHab 3.1; ‫מערת‬ ‫מכ ֗פ ֗ל ֗ה‬ ֗ ‘the cave of Macpelah’ 3Q5 3; ‫‘ אנשי עינגדי‬people at Ein Gedi’ 5/6Ḥev 49.1; ‫‘ שורש מטעת‬a root in a plantation’ CD 1.7. Note the parallelism between ‫‘ גלולי לבו‬idols in his heart’ 1QS 2.11 and ‫שמו גלולים‬ ‫‘ על לבם‬they placed ..’ CD 20.9, cf. ‫ל־ל ָבּם‬ ִ ‫יהם ַע‬ ֶ ‫לּוּל‬ ֵ ִ‫ ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ָה ֵא ֶלּה ֶה ֱעלוּ ג‬Ezk 14.3 (4); cp. ‫‘ אלה סודי רוח לבני אמת תבל‬the above are the spiritual foundations for the sons of truth in the world’ 1QS 4.6 with ‫ אלה דרכיהן בתבל‬1QS 4.2. Note the variation in Ps 137.1 11Q5 20.17 ‫( נהרות בבבל‬MT ‫)נַ ֲהרו ֺת ָבּ ֶבל‬. Though ‫ משכב‬in ‫‘ עם משכב יצועי‬when I lie in my bed’ 1QS 10.14 is a nomen regens, it is virtually a pseudo inf. cst., though one could not say ‫עם ְשׁ ַכב יצועי‬, but only ‫עם ְשׁ ַכב‬ ‫יצוּעי‬ ִ ‫בּ‬. ִ vα) Locational N2 is localised in N1: ‫‘ מקור צדקה ומקוה גבורה‬source of justice and fountain of strength’ 1QS 11.6; ‫מעין‬ ‫‘ כבוד‬well of glory’ 1QS 11.7; ‫‘ מקום מים‬a place where there is water’ CD 11.16; ‫עיר‬ 1 However, ‫מאות שנה לחיי נוח‬ ׄ ‫‘ באחת ושש‬in the year 601 in Noah’s life’ 4Q252 2.1 and ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ִבּ ְשׁנַ ת ַה ְתּ ִשׁ‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַע‬ ֵ ‫ ְל‬2Kg 17.6 vs. ‫ ִבּ ְשׁנַ ת ְשׁ ַתּיִ ם ְל ָא ָסא‬1Kg 15.25 point to a measure of notional affinity between the two structures; the basic function is that of numbering. 2 It is awkward to bring here ‫ קצו‬1QS 3.23, an analysis that appears to be implicit in “jusqu’au terme fixé par Lui” DSP 17. The notion of purpose, (xv), is more plausible: ‘his time of reckoning, his moment of truth.’ 3 A vertical stroke is added to indicate where a higher layer in syntactic hierarchy falls, when three or more constituents follow one after another in a single construct chain. So in this case the structure is [a + (b + c)]. 4 See our discussion in Muraoka 2003.342f.

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 biii)-bviii)


‫‘ המקדש‬a city of the sanctuary’ CD 12.1; ‫‘ נחלי מים‬streams of water’ 1QHa 17.5; ‫ארץ‬ ‫‘ שבים‬the land of their captivity’ 4Q390 1.5. vβ) Temporal N1 is localised in time with N2: ‫‘ בחירי העת‬the elect ones at that point in time’ 1QS 9.14; ‫מנוחת | יום הכפורים‬ ‘the rest on the day of atonement’ 1QpHab 11.6. vi) Condition N1 is a condition in which N2 is found: ‫‘ בור כפיו‬the cleanness of his hands’ 1QS 9.15; ‫‘ ישור לבבי‬the uprightness of my heart’ 1QS 11.2; ‫כוח ֗כ ֗ה‬ ֗ ‫‘ גדול‬the magnitude of Your might’ 4Q504 2.7; ‫אפלת | אש עולמים‬ ‘the gloomy prospect of eternal fire’ 1QS 2.8. viα) Experience N1 is what N2 experiences: ‫‘ מריֿ רי נפש‬acute injuries afflicted on the soul’ 1QpHab 9.11; ‫‘ נגועיהם‬the blows suffered by them’ 1QS 3.14; ‫‘ גבר קלונו מכבודו‬the infamy he suffered exceeded the honour conferred on him’ 1QpHab 11.12; ‫‘ תולדות | כול בני איש‬what happened to all men’ 1QS 3.13 (1). vii) Membership N1 consists of N2’s ‫‘ חיל הכתיאים‬the army of Kittim’ 1QpHab 9.7; ‫‘ קהלת רשעים‬an assembly of wicked people’ 1QHa 10.14; ‫‘ סוד בשר‬assembly of human beings’ 1QS 11.7; ‫עדת בוגדים‬ ‘assembly of traitors’ CD 1.12; ‫‘ עדת קדושיכה‬assembly of Your saints’ 1QHa 25.5. viiα) Affiliation N2 is affiliated with N1, N2 is a member of N1: ‫‘ אנשי עצתם‬members of their group’ 1QpHab 5.10 (2); ‫‘ גורלו‬his lot’ 1QS 2.17; ‫‘ משפחתו‬his family’ 1QSa 1.21; ‫‘ עמך‬your people’ CD 9.2. viii) Partitive N1 is part of N2: ‫‘ ראשית | פרי בטנכה‬the first of the fruits of your womb’ 4Q423 3.4; ‫אחרית הימים‬ ‘the end of the days’ 1QpHab 2.5; ‫‘ באחרית העת‬at the end of the time’ MMT C 30; ‫( באחרית הקץ‬same meaning) 4Q169 3-4iii3; ‫‘ רשעי עמו‬the wicked among His people’ 1QpHab 5.5; ‫‘ מקצת | מעשי התורה‬some of the practices of the law’ MMT C 27 (3); 1

On this key theological term, see Licht 1965.85, § 64, and Muraoka 1999.59. On the meaning of ‫עצה‬, see Brownlee 1979.92f. and Nitzan 1986.166 3 The selection of the 3f verb ‫ ֶתּ ֱהוֵ ה‬in ‫וּמנַּ הּ ֶתּ ֱהוֵ ה ְת ִב ָירה‬ ִ ‫יפה‬ ָ ‫כוּתא ֶתּ ֱהוֵ ה ַת ִקּ‬ ָ ‫ן־ק ָצת ַמ ְל‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬Dn 2.42 cited by Qimron (DJD 10.93, § reminds one of ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫אשׁי ָה ָאבוֹת נָ ְתנוּ ַל ְמּ ָל‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ְק ָצת ָר‬Neh 7.69. 2



‫‘ שאר | כול העם‬the rest of all the people’ 1QS 6.8; ‫‘ פני תבל‬the surface of the earth’ CD 2.12; ‫‘ עניי עמו‬the poor among His people’ CD 6.16; ‫מתי עמו‬ ֗ ‘the dead among His people’ 4Q521 5+7ii6; ‫לבי֗ כל‬ ֗ ‫‘ לאכל ֯ח‬to eat the choicest (parts) of everything’ 4Q381 1.9 (1); with a conj. pron.—‫‘ כושלים ונופליהמה‬those who stumble and those among them who fall’ 1QHa 26.19 [= 4Q427 7i19]; ‫‘ מתיהמה‬the dead among them’ 11Q19 48.12. This cst. syntagm can be lexicalised with the use of the preposition ‫מן‬: e.g. ‫אחת‬ ֗ ‫‘ אחת‬one of his handmaids’ ‫‘ מן הטמאות‬one of the impurities’ CD 11.19; ‫מאמהותיו‬ 4Q215 1-3.2; ‫‘ כול אחד מכול דברי אל‬every one of all the words of God’ 1QS 1.13, sim. 1QS 3.11; ‫‘ אחד מן הכוהנים‬one of the priests’ 1QS 7.2; ‫ ַא ַחת ֶה ָע ִרים ָה ֵאל‬Dt 19.11 // ‫ [מן הערים האלה‬4Q38a 1.6. With the numeral for ‘one,’ QH appears to prefer lexicalising the value of partitive by means of ‫מן‬: ‫‘ אחד מכוהני השם‬one of the renowned priests’ 4Q161 8-10.25; ‫‘ אחת מאמהותי֗ ו‬one of his maidservants’ 4Q215 1-3.2. Note cases dependent on biblical sources: ‫‘ אחד ההרים‬one of the mountains’ 4Q225 2i12 (< Gn 22.2), ‫אחד‬ ‫‘ שבטיך‬one of your tribes’ 4Q375 1i8 (< Dt 12.14); ‫‘ אחד שעריכה‬one of your gates’ 11Q19 55.15 (< Dt 17.2), 11Q19 60.12 (< Dt 18.2); ‫ ַא ַחד ַע ְב ֵדי ֲאד ֹנִ י‬Is 36.9 // ‫מעבדי‬ 1QIsaa. Compound phrases indicating the cardinal points such as ‫‘ מזרח צפון‬north-east’ 11Q19 39.14 probably belong here; ‫‘ מערב צפון‬north-west’ 4Q274 1i2. That the combination is a construct phrase is manifest in a case such as ‫ צפון המערב‬11Q19 46.14 with the articular second constituent (2). Note also ‫‘ מערב צפונו‬its north-west’ 11Q19 30.7. Expressions of the superlative degree may be assigned here: ‫ארץ חמדות כל הארצות‬ ‘the most desirable of lands’ 4Q374 2ii5; ‫מלך מלכים‬ ֗ .. ‫‘ קדוש קדושים‬the holiest one .. the supreme king’ 4Q381 76+77.7; ‫‘ אל אלים‬the supreme God’ 4Q403 1ii9, 4Q510 1.2. (3) ix) Material N1 is made of or from N2: ‫‘ מבנה עפר‬that which was built from dust’ 1QHa 5.32; ‫‘ יצר חמר‬a product of clay’ ֗ ‘flashes of fire’ 4Q376 1ii1; 1QHa 12.30; ‫‘ בריחי ברזל‬iron bolts’ 1QHa 13.39; ‫לשנות אש‬ ‫‘ אש גופרית‬fire of brimstone’ 1QpHab 10.5. x) Time-span N1 is a period of time when N2 is active or in force: ‫‘ יומי | ממשלת בליעל‬the days when Belial is in power’ 1QS 2.19; ‫‘ יום נקם‬a day of (divine) vengeance’ 1QS 9.23; ‫‘ ברשית | ממשלת אור‬at the beginning when light was reigning’ 1QS 10.1; ‫‘ ושני התגוררם‬the years of their sojourn (in exile)’ CD 4.5; Pace Qimron (2018.433) not ‘all fats.’ On the use of ‫ כל‬as a nomen rectum, see BDB s.v. 2 a, and for the collocation here, cf. ‫ת־ח ֶלב ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ֵ ‫ ִא ְכלוּ ֶא‬Gn 45.18. 2 Likewise in Aramaic: ‫ דרום מערבה‬4Q210 1ii8. 3 Cf. ‫ ֶע ֶבד ֲע ָב ִדים‬Gn 9.25 and ‫ ֶמ ֶלְך ַמ ְל ַכיָּ א‬Dn 2.37, Ezr 7.12. 1

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 bviii)-bxiv)


‫‘ קץ הרשע‬the epoch of the wicked (or: wickedness)’ CD 6.14 (1); ‫ דוריהם‬.. ‫‘ קציהם‬their eras .. their generations’ 1QHa 9.18; ‫‘ ימי שלומוה‬the time of Solomon’ MMT C 18. xi) Inalienable part N1 is an inalienable, inseparable part of N2: ‫‘ לבב איש‬a man’s heart’ 1QS 4.2; ‫‘ לבבו ועינוהי ומחשבת יצרו‬his heart and his eyes and a design of his inclination’ 1QS 5.4; ‫‘ ידי אדם‬man’s hands’ 11Q19 59.3; ‫‘ שפתי‬my lips’ 1QS 10.8; ‫‘ נפשי‬my soul’ 1QS 10.19; ‫‘ פי אל‬God’s mouth’ 4Q270 2ii15; ‫יהם‬ ֗ ֗‫אוזנ‬ ‘their ears’ 4Q474 1.10. xii) Topical N1 is about, concerned with N2: ‫‘ משפטי כול‬decisions concerning everything’ 1QS 3.16; ‫‘ משפט האוב‬the injunction pertaining to ghosts’ CD 12.3; ‫‘ חוקיהם‬instructions given about them’ 1Q34 3ii2; ‫דברי‬ ‫‘ הודות‬words of thanksgiving’ 4Q510 1.1. xiii) Subjective N1 is effected or brought about by N2 ‫‘ נקמת אל‬God’s vengeance’ 1QS 1.11; ‫‘ עוונות | בני ישראל‬iniquities committed by ..’ 1QS 1.23; ‫‘ יראת רוח נסוגה‬fear arising in a withdrawn, self-restraining spirit’ 1QS 8.12; ‫‘ ממשלו‬that which he controls’ 1QS 9.24; ‫‘ ריב עם‬quarrel among the people’ CD 1.21; ‫‘ מעשי | ידי אדם‬man’s handicrafts’ 11Q19 59.3. Cp. ‫‘ ישועתו‬His salvation’ 1QS 10.17 with ‫‘ ישועתי‬my salvation’ 1QS 11.12. Possibly ‫‘ מחשבות | יצר אשמה‬thoughts of sinful inclination’ CD 2.16; ‫‘ מחשבת יצרו‬a design of his inclination’ 1QS 5.5. This category is affiliated to § ii) above. xiv) Objective N2 is affected by the action denoted by N1, or N1 is directed to or aimed at N2: ‫‘ מחשבת מעשה‬deliberation as to how to act’ 1QS 4.4; ‫‘ מחשבת רעה‬planning of wickedness’ MMT C 29; ‫‘ עדי אמת‬witnesses of truth’ 1QS 8.6; ‫‘ אהבת חסד‬love of mercy’ 1QS 5.4, preceded by ‫‘ חזוק מותנים ואמוץ כוח ;לעשות אמת‬strengthening of loins and fortifying of power’ 1QHa 10.9 (2), sim. ‫ חזוק מעמד ואמוץ מתנים‬1QM 14.6; ‫משפט‬ ‫‘ רשעה‬a sentence condemning evil’ 1QS 8.10 (3); ‫‘ משלח כפים‬what he puts his hands on, i.e. his undertaking’ 1QS 9.23; ‫‘ משפט תבל‬a judgement on the world’ 1QHa 6.17, cf. ‫‘ משפטיכה‬judgements executed (or: pronounced) by You’ 1QHa 6.15 as against Cf. ‫ קץ הרשיע‬CD 6.10. I.e. ‫ וְ ִאמּוּץ‬.. ‫חזּוּק‬, ִ D verbal nouns, rather than ‫ וַ ֲאמוֹץ‬.. ‫חזוֹק‬, ֲ qutl nouns. Note ‫ ַחזֵּ ק ָמ ְתנַ יִם ַא ֵמּץ כּ ַֹח‬Na 2.2. For qittul as a very common MH noun formation, see Segal 1958 § 241. 3 The mention of ‫ נקמות‬resorted to by his victims suggests that ‫ משפטי רשעה‬1QpHab 9.1 indicates vengeful verdicts in a kangaroo court (gen. of quality) rather than verdicts handed down in a proper court of justice (objective) against his unlawful acts. No less ambiguous is ֿ‫ נגוֿ עו‬ib.: wounds inflicted by him or on him? 1 2



‫‘ במשפטם‬when they are judged’ 1QpHab 7.16; ‫‘ מלחמת כתיאי֯ ֗ם‬the battle against the Kittim’ 4Q161 7-10.11, or possibly ‘the battle launched by the Kittim’ [subjective]. B term as a conj. pron.: ‫‘ עבודתכא‬the service for You’ 1QHa 10.35, 38; ‫פחדם ואמתם‬ ‘fearing them and dreading them’ 1QpHab 3.4; ‫‘ מגעו יטמא ֗הנוגע‬touching him will make unclean one who touches’ 4Q274 1i8 (1); ‫‘ ֗קללותם‬curses (directed) at them’ 4Q216 1.16. We may list here ‫‘ תשובת עפר‬return to dust’ 1QHa 20.29, where the B term constitutes an adverbial adjunct = ‫תשובה לעפר‬, with which cp. ‫ לעפר תשובתו‬1QHa 18.6; ‫‘ גילות אל‬jubilations over God’ 1QM 3.11 (2); ‫‘ מלחמת האויב‬the battle against the enemy’ 1QM 3.11; ‫‘ ֗עוו֗ ן֗ | מורה הצדק‬wrong done against the teacher of righteousness’ 1QpHab 9.9; ‫‘ עריצי הברית‬those who do violence to the covenant’ 4Q171 1-2ii13; ‫‘ גבורת כול‬might directed against everything (or: everybody)’ 1QS 10.12; ‫עורמת כול‬ ‘prudence exercised in everything’ 1QS 4.6; ‫‘ חסור כול‬lack of everything’ 11Q19 59.3. We could also mention here a substantivised participle, a personal agent as N1, and a deed performed by him as N2, e.g. ‫ משלמי גמולים‬.. ‫‘ נוקמי נקם‬those who execute deeds of revenge .. those who requite recompenses’ 1QS 2.6. A variant on this class is represented by ‫‘ אל ישועות‬the god who performs rescues’ 1QS 1.19, where the N2 is effected by the N1, which is the opposite of what we find in ‫‘ צדקות אל‬the just deeds of God’ 1QS 1.21. The former cannot be brought under xviii) [qualitative] as in ‫‘ אל אמת‬the god of truth’ 1QHa 7.38, where the N is mostly an abstract noun. xv) Contents N1 consists of N2: ‫‘ תרומת | מוצא שפתי‬an offering by way of the utterance from my lips’ 1QS 10.14; ‫‘ רזי | דברי עבדיו‬the mysteries of the words of His servants’ 1QpHab 7.5; ‫פקודת נגועיהם‬ ‘a visitation consisting of their punishments’ 1QS 3.14. xvi) Purpose, benefit N1 is there for the purpose of N2, or for the benefit of N2, or meant for N2: ‫‘ שכל חיים‬understanding conducive to wellbeing’ 1QS 2.3; ‫דרכי חיים ונתיבות‬ ‫‘ שחת‬ways for life and paths for ruin’ 4Q270 2ii20; ‫‘ כלי מלחמותם‬their weapons’ 1QpHab 6.4; ‫‘ מי רחץ‬water for washing’ 1QS 3.5; ‫‘ מעשי אל‬action(s) taken for God’s sake’ 1QS 4.4; ‫‘ קנאת | משפטי צדק‬zeal for righteous precepts’ 1QS 4.4; ‫פקודת | כול‬ ‫‘ הולכי בה‬the reward meant for all who walk in it’ 1QS 4.6; ‫ חלבי זבח‬.. ‫בשר עולות‬ ‘meat for burnt offerings .. fats for sacrifices’ 1QS 9.4; ‫חטאת הקהל‬ ֗ ‘a sin-offering for the congregation’ 11Q19 26.9; ‫‘ קצי חרון‬times (set for bringing on) wrath’ 4Q166 1.12; 1 Kazen 2010.59f. reconstructs ‫מגעו וטמא הוא‬, which, however, cannot be translated “his touch is unclean.” 2 Cf. van der Ploeg 1959.81: “des cris de jubilation dont Dieu est l’objet, parce qu’il a sauvé les siens.”

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 bxiv)-bxviii)


‫‘ יום ֗השלום‬the day for requital’ 11Q13 2.15 (1); ‫‘ יום הכפורים‬the day of atonement’ 1QpHab 11.7; ‫‘ מלאכי חבל‬angels of destruction’ CD 2.6; ‫‘ בית המשפט‬the court of justice’ 1QpHab 8.2; ‫‘ דלתי מגן‬protective doors’ 1QHa 14.30; ‫‘ חצוצרות מקראם‬trumpets sounded to call them up’ 1QM 3.1; ‫‘ חצוצרות החללים‬the trumpets (to be blown when casualties are) slain’ 1QM 9.1; ‫ומדכה‬ ֗ ‫מרומי֗ ֗ע‬ ֯ ‫‘ מ‬the heights for Your standing’ 4Q286 1i1; ‫‘ פי | יציאת המים‬the mouth for letting the water flow out’ 3Q15 7.14; ‫‘ מכשול עוונו‬a trap for his iniquity’ 1QS 2.12. Lexicalised: ‫‘ שבט למושלים‬a staff for rulers’ 1QSb 5.27; ‫‘ מרעה לעדרים‬a pasture for herds’ Is 32.14 1QIsaa // ‫ ִמ ְר ֵעה ֲע ָד ִרים‬MT; ‫‘ הפר השני אשר לעם‬the second steer for the people’ 11Q19 16.14. xvii) Species N2 is a species of N1 or N1 is a manifestation of N2: ‫‘ עץ ארז‬cedar wood’ 4Q365a 2ii9, 11Q19 41.16; ‫‘ ֗ע ֗צי המאכל‬the trees for edible (fruit)’ MMT B 62; ‫‘ נגע הצרעת‬the plague of leprosy’ 11Q19 49.4; ‫‘ זדון אשמתם‬their guilty insolence’ 4Q169 3+4iii4; ‫‘ מעשי רשע | אשמתכה‬wicked deeds of your sinful nature’ CD 2.16. xviii) Qualitative N1 is characterised by a quality or property denoted by N2: ‫‘ איש הכזב‬the deceitful man’ 4Q171 1-2i26; ‫‘ רוח אמת‬a spirit of truth’ 1QS 4.21; ‫‘ רוח נדה‬a spirit of impurity’ 1QS 4.22; ‫‘ שם האמת‬the name showing the true character of its bearer’ 1QpHab 8.9; ‫‘ רוחי אמת ועול‬spirits of truth and injustice’ 1QS 4.23; ‫‘ תועבות שקר‬abhorrences of deceit’ 1QpHab 8.9; ‫‘ כוהני השם‬the renowned priests’ 4Q161 7+10.29; ‫‘ מימי כזב‬deceptive waters’ CD 1.14; ‫‘ מי לחץ‬water in severely limited supply’ Is 30.20 1QIsaa // ‫ ַמיִם ַל ַחץ‬MT (2); ‫‘ דעת | חכמה ותושייה‬knowledge characterised Should we follow Qimron’s (II 279) extensive restoration—‫באו‬ ‫אלי הצדק ֗הו֗ אה ֗אשר אמר באו‬ ֗ ‫בעזרו כול‬ ‫קודה הזואת היֿ אה יום ֗השלום‬ ‫לכו֗ ל בני ֗א ֗ל והפקודה‬ ֗ ‫ימי הפקודה ל‬ ‫—ימי‬one should note that the assumed quote from Ho 9.7 is paired with ‫‘ ָבּאוּ יְ ֵמי ַה ִשּׁלּוּם‬the days of requital have come.’ Cf. Muraoka 2017.120, where a proposal is made to emend ‫לוֹמנוּ ָע ָליו‬ ֵ ‫מוּסר ְשׁ‬ ַ Is 53.5 to ‫לּוּמנוּ ָע ָליו‬ ֵ ‫מוּסר ִשׁ‬ ָ ‘our recompense is shifted on to him.’ The proposal to read here ‫לּוּמנוּ‬ ֵ ‫ ִשׁ‬was made by Luzzatto 1896-97 ad loc. Here it is about a day of God’s judgement in the future. One and the same action by God can be a sweet melody for some people (‫ָשׁלוֹם‬ echoing Is 52.7), but also a bitterly sorrowful one for others. ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫יע‬ ֵ ִ‫קוּדּת נְ ג‬ ַ ‫“ ְפּ‬der Heimsuchung ihrer Plagen” (Lohse 10f.) cannot be made to accord with ‫לוֹמם‬ ָ ‫“ ִעם ִק ֵצּי ְשׁ‬mit den Zeiten ihres Friedens” (Lohse loc. cit.). 2 The construction in the MT text here is analysed as a case of apposition by König (1897 § 333p), Brockelmann (1908.216), and Kutscher (1974.429), though it is apposition in the sense of juxtaposition, for there is no relation of equation between the two terms, and one cannot write a nominal clause such as ‫המים לחץ‬. Cf. LXX ὕδωρ στενόν ‘scanty water.’ ‫ ֵח ָמה ַאפּוֹ‬in ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁפְֹּך ָע ָליו ֵח ָמה ַאפּוֹ‬Is 42.25 appears as ‫ חמת אפו‬in 1QIsaa. This may be a case of apposition, cf. Luzzatto (1970.317), who holds that ‫ חמה‬is intense fire expressive of God’s rage. Kutscher, loc. cit., refers to the same MT phrase at Is 66.15, where 1QIsaa reads the same. Here, however, ‫ְל ָה ִשׁיב ְבּ ֵח ָמה ַאפּוֹ‬ ‫י־אשׁ‬ ֵ ‫וְ גַ ֲע ָרתוֹ ְבּ ַל ֲה ֵב‬, where ‫אפּוֹ‬, ַ parallel to ‫גַ ֲע ָרתוֹ‬, appears to be a direct object of ‫ל ָה ִשׁיב‬.ְ The author could have said ‫להשׁיב אפו בחמה‬. 1



by wisdom and prudence’ CD 2.3 (1); ‫בשרם‬ ‫לב ב‬ ֯ ‘their fleshly heart’ 4Q177 9.8; ‫עיני זנות‬ ‘wanton eyes’ 1QS 1.6; ‫‘ ברית חסד‬covenant characterised by ‫ ’חסד‬1QS 1.8; ‫בחירי רצון‬ ‘ones chosen and pleasing (to God)’ 1QS 8.6; ‫ בני חושך‬.. ‫‘ בני אור‬sons of light .. sons of darkness’ 1QS 1.9; ‫‘ נתיבות צדק‬pathways of righteousness’ CD 1.16. The qualitative nature of this syntagm is manifest in ‫ לבב קושי‬1QM 14.7, where one could have written ‫‘ לבב ָק ֶשׁה‬a stubborn heart’ with a straightforward adjective, (2) sim. ‫רוח קדושה‬ 1QS 3.7, hence ‫דוּשּׁה‬ ָ ‫ ְק‬rather than adj. ‫( ְקדו ָֺשׁה‬3); ‫‘ גויי רשעה‬wicked peoples’ 1QM 14.7 = ‫עצי֗ ֗רו֗ ם ;גויים ְר ָשׁ ִעים‬ ֗ ‘tall trees’ 4Q286 5.5 = ‫;ע ִצים ָר ִמים‬ ֵ ‫‘ כפיר החרון‬the angry, young lion’ 4Q167 2.2, 4Q169 3-4i.5. The parallel ‫ מצודתי‬in ֯‫סלע עו֯ ז֯ י ומצודתי‬ ֯ ‘my rock of strength and my fortress’ 1QHa 17.28 shows that the suf. pron. ‘my’ in ‫ סלע עוזי‬is to be construed with the cst. phrase as a whole, and not just ‫עוז‬. Sim. ‫‘ ימין עוזכה‬Your mighty right hand’ 1QHa 23.8; ‫חוקי אמתו‬ 1QS 1.15 ‘His laws of truth’, cf. ‫‘ אמת חוקי אל‬the truth represented (or: contained in) the laws of God’ 1QS 1.12; ‫‘ שם קודשכה‬Your holy name’ 4Q286 2.4; ‫כול מעשי אמתו‬ ‘all His truthful deed(s)’ 1QS 1.19; ‫‘ מעשי גבורתום‬His mighty actions’ 1QS 1.21 (4); ‫ועדוות אמתו‬ ֗ ‫‘ חקי ֗קדשו ומשפטי צדקו‬His holy ordinances and His fair judgements and His truthful testimonies’ CD 20.30; ‫ממ ֗ש ֗לת משפט‬ ֗ ‘rule of justice’ 11Q13 2.9; ‫֗מושב‬ ‫ומדו֗ ]ר [ קודשכה ומרכבות כבודכה‬ ֗ .. ‫רגלי | ֗כ ֗בו֗ דכה‬ ֗ ‫‘ יקרכה והדומי‬Your honourable seat and Your glorious footstools .. and Your holy dwelling and Your glorious chariots’ 4Q286 1ii1. But probably not ‫‘ חכמת כבודו‬wisdom worthy of His glory’ 1QS 4.18. Note also ‫‘ דעת עולמים‬eternal knowledge’ 1QS 2.3; ‫‘ שלום עולמים‬eternal peace’ 1QS 2.4; ‫רחמי עולמים‬ ֗ ‘eternal mercies’ 4Q286 1ii8; ‫‘ ברית | יחד עולמים‬the covenant of an everlasting community’ 1QS 3.11 (5). QH is full of ‫ עולמים‬used adjectivally like this, which is rather rare in BH, cf. ‫ ֶצ ֶדק ע ָֹל ִמים‬Dn 9.24. Our syntactic analysis of ‫ מורה )ה(צדק‬CD 1.11+ depends on what sense one assigns to ‫צדק‬. If ‘righteousness,’ it would be objective, a teacher who teaches righteousness, rather than qualitative, a righteous teacher. Another possible sense of ‫ צדק‬is ‘truth’ (6), which, of course, could also indicate the subject matter of instruction, then again objective. But the phrase could also mean ‘legitimate, true, not false, teacher, no fake,’ which last is probably meant by ‫ מרי שקר‬1QpHab 12.11. (7) Qimron (I 7) adds a full stop after ‫תושייה‬. Many read ‫ ערמה ותושייה‬as the fronted direct objects of the following ‫הציב לפניו‬. This is, however, continued with ‫ ערמה ודעת הם ישרתוהו‬and no reason is apparent for the addition of ‫ הם‬in this verbal clause. 2 Cf. ‫ת־לב ַפּ ְרעֹה‬ ֵ ‫ ֲאנִ י ַא ְק ֶשׁה ֶא‬Ex 7.3. 3 So Lohse 10. Cf. Muraoka 1999.52f. and id. 2004.91. 4 On the unusual final mem of ‫גבורתום‬, see Muraoka 1996.578f. and now Qimron 2018.114, § B 5.2.1. 5 Wernberg-Møller (1957.65) mentions an analogous phrase ‫ ותהי לו ברית עולם‬Si 45.15, where, too, as here at 1QS 3.11, the 3fs verb is slightly problematic in terms of grammatical concord, but becomes acceptable, when we regard Nu 25.13 as lying behind it; at Nu 25.13 the verb has ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ ְבּ ִר‬in vs. 12 as its subject. See also below at § 32 b. On another syntactic aspect of this 1QS example, see above at § a. 6 For the references for this sense of the lexeme, see DCH s.v. 10. 7 However, cf. Brownlee 1979.46-49 and Nitzan 1986.196. 1

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 bxviii)-bxxi)


xix) Pertinence N1 pertains to N2: ‫‘ מי נדה‬water pertaining to impurity’ (1) 1QS 4.21; ‫‘ חוקיהם‬laws pertaining to them [= powerful spirits]’ 1QHa 9.12; ‫‘ משפטי נגועי‬judgements relating to my afflictions’ 1QHa 9.35, where the verbatim translation such as ‘the judgements of my afflictions’ is obscure. xx) Property N1 is a property or trait of N2: ‫‘ אורך אפים ורוב רחמים‬long-suffering and abundance of mercies’ 1QS 4.3; ‫רוב שלום‬ ‫‘ באורך ימים‬much peace (or: generous renumeration) (2) in longevity’ 1QS 4.7; ‫רחוב‬ ‫ רוב חנף קצור אפים ורוב אולת‬.. ‫ ורום לבב‬.. ‫‘ נפש ושפול ידים‬greediness and lethargy .. and haughtiness .. exceeding impiety, short temper and much folly’ 1QS 4.9; ‫עורון עינים‬ ‫‘ וכבוד אוזן קושי עורף וכובוד לב‬blindness and inattention, stubbornness and obstinacy’ 1QS 4.11; ‫‘ קנאת ריב‬fierce contention’ 1QS 4.17; ‫‘ שרירות לבי‬the stubbornness of my heart’ 1QS 2.14; ‫‘ תם דרכיו‬the integrity of his ways’ 1QS 1.13; ‫חושך מעשיכה‬ ‘the darkness of your deeds’ 1QS 2.7; ‫‘ חכמת דעתכה‬the wisdom of Your knowledge’ 1QHa 9.21; ‫‘ גדול חסדיכה‬the magnitude of Your kindnesses’ 1QHa 9.34; ‫ערול שפה‬ ‘uncircumcised state of lip(s)’ 1QHa 10.20. xxi) Means, method, instrument N1 is made by means of N2: ‫‘ תרומת שפתים‬offering made with lips’ 1QS 9.4: ‫‘ ומגבל מים‬that which was kneaded with water’ 1QHa 5.32, cf. a lexicalised alternative in ‫ מגבל במים‬1QHa 11.25; ‫מזוקקי‬ ‫‘ עוני ברורי מצרף‬purified through poverty and refined by the crucible’ 1QHa 6.14; ‫שרפת‬ ‫‘ אש‬going up in fire’ 4Q179 1i5; ‫‘ משפטי אש‬punishments with fire’ 1QpHab 10.13; ‫‘ תכון הגורל‬the decision by lot’ 1QS 5.3. xxii) Quantity N2 is quantifiable as N1: ‫‘ המון רחמים ורוב סליחה‬plenty of mercy and abundant forgiveness’ 1QHa 14.12 (3); ‫‘ רוב קדושים‬many saints’ 1QM 12.1; ‫‘ רוב רחמים‬abundance of mercies’ 1QS 4.3. 1 This striking sense of the construct phrase as a whole is also reflected in the rection of the verb used here: ‫‘ יז עליו רוח אמת כמי נדה מכול תועבות שקר‬he will sprinkle on him a spirit of truth like water to cleanse him from impurity from all abhorrences of deceit.’ In the biblical cultic terminology ‫ ִהזָּ ה ִמן‬had a distinct use, ‘to sprinkle some of,’ as in ‫ל־קיר ַה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַח‬ ִ ‫‘ וְ ִהזָּ ה ִמ ַדּם ַה ַח ָטּאת ַע‬and he shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin-offering on to the wall of the altar’ Lv 5.9. From here it was one step further to perform such an act in order to cleanse someone from (‫ )מן‬an effect of a sinful act. 2 Cf. Muraoka 2003.346. ‫ רוב שלום‬could come under (xxi). 3 Parallel to ‫רוב‬, ‫ המון‬cannot, pace Holm-Nielsen 1960.101, carry a meaning so specific as ‘riches,’ cf. DSP 255 “une immense miséricorde et un abondant pardon.”



Probably belongs here ‫‘ שנ֗ י֗ ֗הם‬the two of them (= they two)’ 4Q379 22ii11, not ‘two of them’ (partitive) (1). Note an analytic syntagm in ‫‘ הכל של הדמע‬the total of the tithes’ 3Q15 1.10. xxiii) Action N1 is a time when N2 takes place: ‫‘ יום | הניפת העומר‬the day of the sheaf-waving’ 11Q19 18.10; ‫‘ יום המשפט‬the day of judgement’ 1QpHab 12.14; ‫תענית‬ ֗ ‫‘ מועד‬a period for (self-)mortification’ 1Q34 1-2.7 (= 4Q508 2.3); ‫‘ מועד | מנוחת יום הכפורים‬the time appointed for the rest on the day of atonement’ 1QpHab 11.6; ‫‘ בתחילת עומדו‬when he started functioning (as the high priest)’ 1QpHab 8.9. xxiv) Engagement N1 occupies oneself or itself with N2: ‫ ומלאכי הקו֗ לו֗ ת‬.. ‫ ֗מ ֗לאכי רוחות ֯העננים‬.. ‫הקו֯ דש‬ ֗ ‫ומלאכי‬ ֯ ‫‘ מלאכי ֯הפנים‬the angels charged with the presence, .. with the sacred things .. with winds in clouds .. with voices’ 4Q216 5.6; ‫‘ מלאכי חבל‬ravaging angels’ 4Q510 1.5. xxv) Cause N1 is caused by N2: ‫‘ דם חללי | אשמתם‬the blood of those fallen because of their guilt’ 1QM 6.17; ‫פגרי‬ ‫‘ האשמה‬the corpses fallen because of guilt’ 1QM 14.3; ‫‘ עדני | תנובת תבל‬delights of the produce of the world’ 1QS 10.15. xxvi) Hard to classify cases There are a few cases which we do not how to classify. They are ‫‘ אנישי בריתם‬men of their covenant’ 1QSa 1.2, likewise ‫‘ אנישי עצתו‬men of His counsel’ 1QSa 1.3. ‫‘ מערת העמוד של שני ה‬the pillar cave with its two entrances’ Analytic syntagm: ‫הפתחין‬ 3Q15 6.1. The origin and rationale for the use of cst. forms in certain numerals are obscure: ‫שׁנֵ י ְמ ָל ִכים‬, ְ ‫שׁ ַבע ֵמאו ֺת‬, ְ ‫ ִשׁ ְב ַעת ֲא ָל ִפים‬etc. As difficult are cases such as ‫‘ עשרת ימים‬ten days’ 1QS 7.10; ‫רך שני י֗ ֗מי֗ ם‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֯ד‬a two-day journey’ 4Q180 5+6.3, cf. ‫יָמים‬ ִ ‫ֹלשׁת‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ֲה ַלְך ְשׁ‬ Jn 3.3. c) Immediate constituent hierarchy of complex construct phrases As briefly intimated above (§ a), syntactic analysis of a construct chain can become complicated when it is composed of three or more terms. The reference is to two sons of a man being cursed by Joshua. At ֗‫ שניהם שוקלים תחצי הכסף הלוז‬it is not absolutely necessary to stress the notion of both—‘they two are to weigh out half of this silver’ 5/6Ḥev 44.19; they are possibly leasing a plot of land jointly and going to work on it together. Sim. ib. 4, 5. Cf. Muraoka 1992.50f. For more examples, see below at § 26 ff. 1



In such a multi-term construct chain each term usually depends on the following entire construct chain. Hence the last term can not by itself be dependent on the first. For instance, in ‫‘ ֵשׁם ֵא ֶשׁת ֶבּן ֶע ֶבד מ ֶֹשׁה‬the name of the wife of the son of the servant of Moses’ ‫ שׁם‬governs ‫אשׁת בן עבד משׁה‬, ‫ אשׁת‬governs ‫בן עבד משׁה‬, and so on. Thus at ‫‘ תעודות תעניות בני אור‬periods of tribulations for the sons of light’ 4Q510 1.7. Likewise in the immediately following chain: ‫נגועי עו֗ ונות‬ ֗ ‫‘ אשמת קצי‬the guilt (typical of) the periods for those affected by iniquities.’ In ‫ חצוצרות תרועות החללים‬1QM 3.1 ‫ תרועה‬is often rendered with ‘alarm,’ but the noun means ‘shouting loud,’ though an alarm would normally be loud. So ‘trumpets to be sounded at hearing loud groans of the slain,’ , and not . (1) Likewise ‫‘ תקופות מספר שני עולם‬cycles numbered by everlasting years’ 1QHa 9.26, that is {[(‫אחיות ;}תקופות ]מספר )שני עולם‬ ‫‘ אבי בלהה‬sisters of the father of Bilha’ 4Q215 1.1; ‫‘ טהרת אנשי הקודש‬the purity of the men of holiness’ 1QS 8.17; ‫‘ רוח עצת אמת אל‬the spirit of counsel of the truth of God’ 1QS 3.6. (2) This syntactic rule should also apply to ‫‘ ברית יחד עולמים‬the covenant for an eternal community’ 1QS 3.12. (3) There are cases, however, in which not one preceding term, but a construct chain consisting of multiple terms governs what follows. E.g. in ‫ אף עברת אל נקמה‬1QS 4.12 we would analyse it as [(‫ )אל נקמה‬- (‫])אף עברת‬, an analysis suggested by ‫אף עברה‬ ‘furious anger’ 4Q418 147.3. (4) Thus ‘furious anger of the revengeful God.’ See also Ps 38.20 4Q83 9ii4 ‫‘ שנאי שקרי‬those who hate me on false grounds’ (MT ‫( )שׂ ֹנְ ַאי ָשׁ ֶקר‬5), which has to be analysed as . In this case both formulations are striking: ‫שׁ ֶקר‬, ֶ originally a substantive meaning ‘falsehood,’ must have become an adverbial lexeme in the sense of ‘on false grounds,’ (6) similarly to ‫ ִחנָּ ם‬in an analogous collocation ‫‘ שׂ ְֹנ ַאי ִחנָּ ם‬those who hate me for no good reason’ Ps 35.19 with the difference that ‫חנָּ ם‬, ִ being a genuine adverb, cannot take a conjunctive pronoun. The editors ֯ ֗‫ ֗רז֗ י‬4Q 417 1.2: ‘the awesome (DJD 34.156) are in two minds over ‫פלאי֗ אל הנוראים‬ mysteries of God’s wonders’ or ‘the mysteries of the God of the awesome ones’? Unambiguous is ‫‘ ראשית משלוח יד בני אור‬the start of the attack by the sons of light’ 1M 1.1, where the hierarchy is (a + [{b + c} + {d + e}]). All the same absolute certainty escapes us. In ‫ פשעי אשמתם‬1QS 1.23 we possibly have a case of , thus ‘their acts of guilt,’ but can we dismiss something like ‘impious acts indicative of their sinful disposition’? Likewise ‫‘ מעשי אמתו‬His At Mi 4.9 ‫ ֵה ִר ַיע‬refers to a groan of distress. Yadin (1957.89) writes that the collocation means ‘start of a battle by throwing weapons,’ a definition which leaves ‫ החללים‬out of account. Van der Ploeg (1959.78) takes ‫ חלל‬in the sense of ‘tuerie,’ but this common noun is used elsewhere in the sense of ‘slain (in a battle field).’ 2 More examples from 1QS may be found in Kesterson 1988.516f. 3 So Wernberg-Møller (1957.65f.). See also above at § a, p. 134, n. 3. 4 This combination is unknown to BH; ‫ ֶע ְברו ֺת ַא ֶפָּך‬Jb 40.11 mentioned in DJD 34.373 is slightly different, for it means ‘outbursts of Your anger.’ It looks like an intensifying concatenation of two synonyms. Cf. ‫ ֶע ְב ָרה וַ ֲחרו ֺן ָאף‬Is 13.9. 5 Cf. LXX οἱ μισοῦντές ἀδίκως. 6 Cf. ‫ ֶשׁ ֶקר ְר ָדפוּנִ י‬Ps 119.86. For a discussion, see Muraoka 2018a.171f. 1



truthful deeds’ 1QS 1.19, ‫‘ רוח קודשו‬His holy spirit’ 1QS 8.16. In ‫אפלת אש עולמים‬ 1QS 2.8; what is never-ending? Darkness or fire? Not every collocation of the pattern represents , e.g. ‫א ִבי ִשׁ ְפ ָח ִתי‬, ֲ probably because in a case like ‫הר ָק ְדשׁוֹ‬, ַ although ‫ ַהר‬and ‫ ק ֶֹדשׁ‬are two separate lexemes, ‫ הר קדשׁ‬as a construct phrase constitutes one notionally cohesive unit, cp. ‫‘ ֶבּן ְבּנוֹ‬his grandson.’ Admittedly, what constitutes a cohesive unit may involve subjective judgement. ‫ֵא ֶשׁת‬ ‫ ֶבּן ֶתּ ַרח‬can be reworded as ‫כּ ַלּת ֶתּ ַרח‬, ַ which does not have to mean that the former represents , for the analysis makes just as good sense. Nor does the fact that English, for instance, has a distinct single lexeme cousin mean that its Hebrew equivalent in, e.g. ‫צחק‬ ָ ִ‫‘ ֶבּן ֲא ִבי י‬Isaac’s cousin,’ necessarily represents a single syntactic unit. Is ‫‘ כלי מלחמותם‬their weapons’ 1QHa 10.28 freely interchangeable with ‫ ?נִ ְשׁ ָקם‬Can it never mean ‘weapons used in their war’? In view of the grammatical concord in ‫‘ באי הברית הראשונים‬the first participants in the covenant’ CD 3.10 there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Here, too, not all is plain sailing. Thus the editors (DJD 34.156) are in two minds over ‫פלאי֗ אל הנוראים‬ ֯ ֗‫֗רז֗ י‬ 4Q 417 1.2: ‘the awesome mysteries of God’s wonders’ or ‘the mysteries of the God of the awesome ones’? Even a third alternative suggests itself: ‘the mysteries of God’s awesome wonders’! ca) Concatenation of cst. noun phrases of diverse logico-semantic values In complex construct chains discussed in the preceding paragraph logico-semantic relationships expressed by multiple construct chains may not be homogeneous. Thus ‫רש ֯עי֯ ם‬ ֯ ‫‘ פחד הוית‬fear of calamities (planned by) wicked people’ 1QHa 10.38 (objective dependent on subjective cst. phrase); ‫‘ ראשית פרי בטנכה‬the first of the fruits of your womb’ 4Q423 3.4 [‫ = ראשית‬partitive; ‫ = פרי‬origin; ‫ = בטנכה‬inalienable]; ‫חוקי‬ ‫‘ הודות כבודכה‬the laws concerning the praise of Your glory’ 4Q511 63+64ii3 [topic, then objective]; ‫‘ תרומת מז֗ ל שפתי צדק‬an offering of an utterance by lips of justice’ 4Q511 64+64ii4 [contents, origin, qualitative]; ‫‘ משרתי פני מלך קודש קודשים‬those who serve the face of the king of the holy of the holy ones’ 4Q400 1i8 [objective, inalienable possession, locational, membership]; ‫‘ קנאת משפטי֗ אמתכה‬zeal for the laws of ֗ ‫‘ ֗מ‬wars for the laws of God’ Your truth’ 4Q449 1.4 [objective, topic]; ‫לחמו֯ ֗ת חוקי אל‬ 4Q511 48-51.4 [purpose, origin] (1). d) Relative clause as B-term In a case such as ‫‘ עד זמן שישלם זמן הגנות‬until the time when the time of gardens comes to an end’ 5/6Ḥev 45.19 it must be possible to analyse ‫ זמן‬as being in the st. cst. (2) Cf. ‫‘ ִמ ְל ֲחמוֹת תּ ִֹעי‬wars against Toi’ 2Sm 8.10. In BH such an analysis is assured on the basis of cases such as ‫ה־שּּׁם ֲאד ֹנִ י ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ָ ֶ‫ִבּ ְמקוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְהי‬ 2Sm 15.21 and ‫ל־יְמי ֲא ֶשׁר ַהנֶּ גַ ע בּוֹ‬ ֵ ‫ ָכּ‬Lv 13.46; in both cases the antecedent is in cst. st. More examples may be found in JM § 129 q b. 2Sm 15.21 is among BH examples mentioned by Kesterson (1988.516) as supporting his application of the same analysis to ‫‘ בכול מקום אשר יהיה שם עשרה אנשים‬in every place 1 2



This analysis can be applied to asyndetic relative clauses as well such as ‫עד יום ישוב‬ ‫‘ לעמד‬until the day when he once again stands’ CD 20.5; ‫‘ ארצות לא י֯ דע‬lands which he did not know’ 4Q372 1.10; ‫‘ עד עת ֗קץ לו‬until he had enough of it’ 4Q372 1.15; ‫‘ משפטי בצדקת אל תעמוד לנצחים‬my justice lies with God’s righteousness which will stand for perpetuity’ 1QS 11.12 (1); ‫‘ עם לא ידעהו‬a people who did not recognise ֗ ‫פל‬ ֗ ֗‫‘ זכרו נ‬Remember the wonders He did in Egypt’ Him’ 4Q266 2i3; ‫אות עשה במצרים‬ 4Q185 1-2i14; ‫‘ אשרי אדם נתנה לו‬Blessed is the man to whom it has been given’ 4Q185 1-2ii8; ‫‘ אשרי אדם יעשנה‬Blessed is the man who practises it [= wisdom]’ 4Q185 1-2ii13, also in a beatitude at 4Q525 2ii-3.3; ‫‘ חזון דובר עליך‬a vision spoken about you’ 11Q5 22.13; ‫‘ ברז חבתה בי‬with the secret You concealed in me’ 1QHa 13.27; ‫‘ תשכילו לחכמה מפי ֗ת ֗צא‬you shall give thought to wisdom that will issue out of my mouth’ 4Q381 76+77.8, where ‫ חכמת‬is expected (2). e) Adjective in st. cst. As in BH we often find an adjective in the cst. st., governing the immediately following substantive. E.g. ‫‘ תמימי דרך‬those who are perfect of the way’ 1QS 4.22; ‫‘ עם קשה ערף‬a stiffnecked nation’ 4Q364 26ai3 (< Dt 9.6) // ‫ עורף קשה‬1QS 5.5, 4Q435 2i3; ‫רמי רוח‬ ‘people with a haughty spirit’ 1QS 11.1; ‫‘ ערל אוזן‬a person of uncircumcised ear’ 1QHa 21.6 // ‫ ֲע ֵר ָלה ָאזְ נָ ם‬Je 6.10; ‫(‘ אמיצי כוח‬people) of firm power’ 4Q266 5i8; ‫כהה‬ ‫‘ עינים‬dim of eyes’ CD 15.16; ‫‘ ארוך אפים‬long-suffering’ 4Q511 52-59.1 (3); ‫אפים‬ ֗ ‫֗קצר‬ ‘short-tempered’ 4Q477 2ii4; ‫סוסים זכרים קלי רגל ורכי פה וארוכי רוח ומלאים בתכון ימיהם‬ ‘male horses swift of foot, soft of mouth, long of breathing, in the fulness of their days’ 1QM 7.5. (4) The collocation ‫ תמים דרך‬appears to carry the sense of ‘integrity,’ a sense alien to BH, in which the referent of this adjectival phrase is human as in ‫י־ד ֶרְך ַהה ְֹל־‬ ָ ‫ימ‬ ֵ ‫ַא ְשׁ ֵרי ְת ִמ‬ ‫תוֹרת יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ִכים ְבּ‬Ps 119.1. Particularly striking is the collocation ‫ הלך בתמים דרך‬as in ‫ להלכ בתמים דרכ‬1QS 8.18. ‫ הולכי תמים‬4Q525 5.11 is a further extension of this collocation. In BH we encounter ‫ ה ֵֹלך ְבּ ֶד ֶרְך ָתּ ִמים‬Ps 101.6. ‫ תום דרך‬is what is meant in where there might be ten people’ 1QS 6.3 and ‫‘ במקום אשר יהיו שם העשרה‬at the place where those ten might be’ 1QS 6.6; in the second instance, however, the article of ‫ העשרה‬as against the anarthrous form in line 3 suggests that in ‫ במקום‬also the anaphoric article is implicit, thus ‫בּ ָמּקוֹם‬. ַ 1 It is not impossible to identify here two self-standing clauses, but in the preceding, parallel clause ‫‘ לעד‬for ever’ modifies the entire nominal clause, not just ‫חסדי אל‬: ‫‘ חסדי אל ישועתי לעד‬God’s mercies are my salvation for ever.’ 2 ‫ ֶהגֶ ה ִמ ִפּיו יֵ ֵצא‬Jb 37.2 cited by Qimron (II 342) is ambiguous, since ‫ ֶהגֶ ה‬may be in the st. abs. In MT we see an athnachta with the immediately preceding word, ֺ ‫ק ֹ֑לו‬, with which the first half of the verse ends. 3 At ‫ארו֯ ך אפים‬ ֯ 1QHa 8.34 the reading is not secure, whereas at 1QHa 4.29 we have a substantive and a at 1QH 9.8 its part of speech is uncertain. This is a well-known BH divine attribute occurring as many as nine times, but always as ‫א ֶרְך ַא ַפּיִ ם‬. ֶ Hence the spelling ‫ ארוך‬is puzzling; likewise ‫רוח ארו֗ ך אפים‬ ‘a patient spirit’ 4Q436 1ii3. When the phrase is quoted from Nu 14.18, one finds ‫ ארך אפים‬at 4Q364 18.3. We know of no tradition of Hebrew that pronounces ‫ ארך‬as an adjective in this idiom with /o/ or /u/. The Babylonian tradition is basically identical with the Tiberian one, see Yeivin 1985.952. 4 On this syntagm, see Muraoka 1977 and JM § 129 i-ia.



these QH examples, and that does occur a few times, e.g. 1QS 11.11, 1QHa 12.31. That ‫ תמים‬has further become a substantive meaning ‘the highest degree, perfection’ can be seen in ‫‘ אנשי תמים הקדש‬the people of perfect holiness’ CD 20.2, 7, for otherwise we should expect ‫האנשים תמימי הקדש‬, similarly ‫ אנשי תמים קדש‬CD 20.5, and note also ‫ בית תמים ואמת‬1QS 8.9, where ‫ תמים‬must be a nomen rectum in relation to ‫בית‬ ֵ just as ‫אמת‬. (= ‫)בּית‬ When the noun head followed by an adjective in the cst. state is determinate, it is natural that the noun following the adjective takes the article as in ‫ַה ָפּרוֹת ָרעוֹת ַה ַמּ ְר ֶאה‬ ‘the cows ugly in appearance’ Gn 41.4. Hence the substantivised adjective characterising God in ‫הר ֗ב כח‬ ֗ 4Q408 3+1.6 as reconstructed by Qimron (II 315) is debatable. (1) Though not an adjective, we may bring here ‫ תועי רוח‬1QS 11.1, which can be rewritten as ‫‘ אנשים אשר רוחם תועה‬people with a stray spirit,’ cp. ‫ ַעם תּ ֵֹעי ֵל ָבב ֵהם‬Ps 95.10 with ‫ ָתּ ָעה ְל ָב ִבי‬Is 21.4, and our phrase at 1QS 11.1 is followed by ‫‘ רמי רוח‬those with an arrogant spirit.’ Similarly ‫‘ כול מוטטי רגל‬all whose feet totter’ 11Q5 19.2 (2); ‫נמוגי‬ ‫‘ ברכים‬those with shaking knees’ 1QM 14.6. That an abstract noun from the same root is used as a nomen regens shows that the adjective in the st. cst. in this syntagm can be perceived as a predicate of the nomen rectum. Thus ‫‘ ארך אפים עמו‬He has patience’ CD 2.4 is affiliated with ‫ארוך אפים‬ ‘(He is) patient’ 4Q511 52-59.1. (3) Hence what is long is not a person, but his or her ‫אפים‬. Cf. ‫ ַא ֲא ִריְך ַא ִפּי‬Is 48.9, and cp. ‫ם־ק ֵשׁה־ ע ֶֹרף‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬Ex 32.9 with ‫ָע ְר ְפּ ֶכם לֹא ַת ְקשׁוּ עוֹד‬ Dt 10.16. In ‫איכה אישר דרך‬ ֗ 1QHa 20.37 we could identify a nominal clause ‫יְ ַשׁר ֶדּ ֶרְך‬ ‫( ֲאנִ י‬4) transformed to a verbal clause, ‘How could I be upright in my walk?’ (5). In ‫ודבש‬ ֗ ‫‘ ארץ זבת חלב‬a land flowing with milk and honey’ 4Q378 11.6 ‫זבת חלב ודבש‬ appear to be direct objects of the participle. (6) Maybe an inadvertent haplography for ‫‘ הרב בכח‬the rich in strength’; in all the parallel characterisations the adjective or substantivally used participle is prefixed with the definite article and followed by a prepositional phrase: ‫שכ ֗ל הנעו֯ ז‬ ֗ ‫מבי֗ ן ֗ב ֗כל ש‬ ֗ ‫בכל דבריך ֗ה‬ ֯ ‫משפטיך הנאמן‬ ‫הר ֗ב כח ֗בכל מש‬ ֗ ‫דרכיך‬ ֗ ‫הצדיק בכל‬ ‫אתה ֗אדני ה‬ ֗ ‫בכל ֗ג ֗בורה‬ ֯ ‫ב‬. Perhaps we should follow in part the reconstruction in DJD 36.305, ‫במשפטיך‬ ‫החסיד במש‬ ֯ ‫גב ֯ר ֯בכח‬ ֯ ‫הג‬, what would reinforce the parallelism mentioned above. 2 Si vera lectio, the form is anomalous on more than one count. For a G ptc. we would expect ‫ ָמ ֵטי = מטי‬. If a Polel form is meant, it usually has a transitive value, which does not apply here, and its ptc. has a prefix -‫מ‬. Given occasional contamination between ‫ ע״ו‬and ‫ ע״ע‬roots (JM § 80 o), our form here may be an anomalous G ptc., i.e. ‫מוֹט ֵטי‬. ְ Cf. Geiger 2012.130, n. 527. Qimron (II 351) mentions ‫שׁוֹבב‬ ָ and ‫עוֹלל‬ ָ as pseudo-adjectives analogously derived from their respective hollow root, but ‫ מוטטי‬cannot be an error for the sg. *‫מוֹטט‬ ָ in view of ‫ להם‬and ‫תשכילם‬. 3 In BH the st. cst. of this adjective is ‫א ֶרְך‬, ֶ the st. abs. of which in this particular collocation is unknown. 4 Cf. ‫‘ לישרי דרך‬to those whose path is upright’ 1QHa 10.12. 5 Rather than parsing ‫ אישׁר‬as D impf., for which one would expect ‫‘ דרכי‬my way(s)’; cf. ‫לישר פעמי‬ ‘to straighten my steps’ 1QHa 15.17, ‫ל־דּ ָר ָכיו ֲאיַ ֵשּׁר‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָכ‬Is 45.13, ‫חוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ ַה ְמיַ ְשּׁ ִרים א ְֹר‬Pr 9.15, and ‫הוּא יְ יַ ֵשּׁר א ְֹרח ֶֹתיָך‬ Pr 3.6. However, ‫לישר דרך על פני מים‬ ֯ ‘to maintain a straight course (= ‫)?ליַ ֵשּׁר‬ ְ on the surface of the water’ 1QHa 14.27 does occur, though not in a figurative, ethical sense; the inf. can be G ‫לישׁ ֹר‬,ִ cf. ‫ ִלישׁוֹן‬Ec 5.11, ‫ ִבּיבֹשׁ‬Is 27.11, ‫ יְ רֹא‬Josh 22.25, and ‫ ֵלרֹא‬1Sm 18.29. 6 On our earlier analysis of this standing BH expression, see JM § 129 ia, where it is maintained that the grammatical subject of this verb is a liquid, not a space. For our current understanding, see Muraoka 2019.312. 1



ea) In one standing combination we see its B-term left out: ‫‘ לקליהם אין מנוס‬those who are quick-footed (‫)ק ֵלּי ֶרגֶ ל‬ ַ among them cannot flee’ 1QM 14.11. eb) Passive ptc. in the cst. st. In ‫נשואי֗ עונ֯ ות‬ ֯ ‫‘ נשו‬those whose iniquities are forgiven’ MMT C 25, where, just as in ‫ָה ָעם‬ ‫ ַהיּ ֵֹשׁב ָבּהּ נְ ֻשׂא ָעוֹן‬Is 33.24 and ‫שׂוּי־פּ ַשׁע ְכּסוּי ֲח ָט ָאה‬ ֶ ְ‫ ַא ְשׁ ֵרי נ‬Ps 32.1 the real object of ‫נשׂא‬ is not a person, but his sin and iniquity. See above at § e on adjectives in the cst. state. As in ‫ ִהיא ָמ ַרת נָ ֶפשׁ‬1Sm 1.10 the logical subject of ‫מ ַרת‬, ָ in spite of its formal concord with ‫היא‬, ִ is ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, the logical subject of ‫‘ נשואי‬forgiven’ in the above-cited MMT C 25 is ‫‘ עונות‬iniquities.’ (1) One should not be misled by the syntax of English, in which one could say ‘I was forgiven my sins’ as well as ‘My sins were forgiven’ or ‘Sins were forgiven me.’ Likewise ‫‘ מגולי אוזן‬those whose ears are open’ 1QM 10.11 (2), where the active formulation in ‫‘ אגלה אזנכם‬I would like to open your ear(s)’ CD 2.2, ‫כאשר גלה‬ ‫‘ אוזנכה‬as He opened your ear(s)’ 1Q26 1.4 et passim is to be noted. The notional subject here is ‘ear(s),’ not a person. Cp. G pass. in ‫ גְּ לוּי ֵעינַ יִם‬Nu 24.4, 16. ec) Though traditionally classified as adjectives, some lie close to verbs. Stative verbs fall under this category. In such cases their B term is not the notional subject of the A term. Rather is what is meant by the construct phrase in question; B is not modified by A, but the other way round. Hence it differs from the syntagm with an adjective in the st. cst. described above at § e, whose structure is : ‫ ִאישׁ ְק ֵשׁה ע ֶֹרף‬is a succinct expression for ֺ ‫אישׁ ֲא ֶשׁר ָק ֶשׁה ָע ְרפּו‬. ִ Examples are ‫‘ קרובי דעת‬those who are close to knowledge’ 4Q400 1i6; ‫יראי אלוהים‬ ‘those who stand in awe of God’ 11Q19 57.8, followed by ‫‘ שונאי בצע‬those who hate unjust gains’; ‫‘ נדיבי לב‬willing-hearted’ 1QM 10.5. The B term can be a conjunctive pronoun as in ‫‘ יראיכה‬those who fear You’ 1QHa 20.6. f) Prepositional phrase as B-term That a prepositional phrase as B term has the value of nomen rectum is manifest when its A term is morphologically marked, even in unpointed texts, as pl. cst.: e.g. ‫כול הולכי‬ ‫‘ בה‬all those who walk in it’ 1QS 4.6, 12; ‫‘ הולכי בדרך לבכה‬those who walk along the way of Your mind’ 1QHa 12.22. (3) At ‫ מקוללי אלוהים ואנשים תלוי על העץ‬11Q19 64.12 we should probably parse ‫ תלוי‬as mp cst., not ms, which would also take care of the number discord which would otherwise ensue, see below at § 32 eb: ‘those who are hanged on the tree are cursed by God and men.’

Cp. the standing expression ‫‘ ְק ֵשׁה ע ֶֹרף‬stiff-necked,’ e.g. Dt 9.13 with ‫ ָע ְר ְפָּך ַה ָקּ ֶשׁה‬Dt 31.27. Likewise in ‫ר־רוּח‬ ַ ‫וּק ַצ‬ ְ ‫ב־תּבוּנָ ה‬ ְ ‫ ֶא ֶרְך ַא ַפּיִם ַר‬Pr 14.29 what is long, plentiful, and short is not a person being characterised here, but his mental disposition, wisdom, and temper. 2 This is a convincing instance adduced by Fassberg (2001.245) to argue for a shift of CBH Qal to Piel. I would, however, speak of a sporadic, not “general” (loc. cit. 254), shift. Whether Fassberg’s analysis is to be applied to many other QH instances of this collocation, ‫גלה אזן‬, is difficult to say. 3 For examples in BH, see JM § 129 m-o, and more examples of m.pl. ptc. as the A term may be found in Geiger 2012.225f. 1



fa) (1) This is a syntagm substituting for the construct phrase. (2) A classic BH example, ‫ ֵבּן ְליִ ַשׁי‬1Sm 16.18, illustrates the ambiguity inherent in the synthetic construct syntagm and this analytic substitute. In the context of 1Sm 16.18, the first mention of David, the analytic structure underlines that Term A is logically indeterminate, for Saul and his servants knew that Jesse had seven sons, hence the king knew that they were speaking of one of the seven sons, ‘a son of Jesse’s,’ but Saul did not know which son of Jesse’s they were talking about. Later, however, we read of Saul asking Jonathan: ‫ל־ה ָלּ ֶחם‬ ַ ‫ם־היּוֹם ֶא‬ ַ ַ‫ם־תּמוֹל גּ‬ ְ ַ‫א־בא ֶבן־יִ ַשׁי גּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫דּוּע ל‬ ַ ‫ ַמ‬1Sm 20.27, where the construct phrase is virtually a nickname for ‫ דוד‬and its logical value is that of relation, A is B in relation to X, § b ii). In ‫‘ בימים ההמה יקום מלך לגוים‬in those days a king of nations is going to appear’ 4Q389 8ii9, where no specific king is in view. See also ‫אל ֗תאכל כל דדם לחיה‬ ‫‘ ולבהמה ולכל עוף‬you shall not eat any blood of an animal, cattle or any bird’ 4Q220 1.2. The structure in ‫‘ תמנע היתה פילגש לאליפז‬and Timna became a concubine of Eliphaz’ 4Q252 4.1 is slightly different in view of such clauses as ‫ וָ ֶא ַקּח א ָֹתהּ ִלי ְל ִא ָשּׁה‬Gn 12.19, ‫י־לי ְל ִא ָשּׁה‬ ִ ‫ וַ ְתּ ִה‬Gn 20.12, and ‫אֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ וְ ָהיוּ ִלי ְל ָעם וַ ֲאנִ י ֶא ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶהם ֵל‬Je 32.38. Interesting in ‫ תפארת גבור‬4Q510 1.2; here starts a hymn this respect is ‫בורו֗ ת אל אלים אדון לכול קדושים‬ of adoration addressed to ‫אלוהי דעות‬, where the pl. ‫ אלוהי‬cannot refer but to the God of Israel and the use of the indeterminate ‫ אלים‬and ‫ אדון‬implies that He alone deserves the designation ‫ אל‬and there is a relation of subjugation between Him and saints. We suggest translating this clause as ‘Splendour of mighty works by one who alone is god transcending (all other so-called) gods, a master over all saints’; we deliberately ‫ולוא‬ avoid capitalisation, God and Lord. Note the striking variation between ‫לוא י ֗יכ ֗רת יושב‬ ‫כסא לדויד‬ ̇ 4Q252 5.1 and its source text—‫ל־כּ ֵסּא ֵבית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ִ ‫לֹא־יִ ָכּ ֵרת ְל ָדוִ ד ִאישׁ י ֵֹשׁב ַע‬ Je 33.17. In ‫‘ כול קציהם לדורותם‬all their times throughout their generations’ 1QS 4.12 the pronoun of ‫ קציהם‬is hardly proleptic, anticipating the following ‫דורותם‬. (3) fb) (4) Here we have a second analytic syntagm substituting for the construct phrase syntagm, an expansion of the first, i.e. (discussed above, § fa). The similarity 1 More examples are mentioned in Qimron 2018.421f. One of them, ‫לה‬ ‫בכול יום ויום לשבעת הימים האלה‬ 11Q19 17.12 is debatable, for a synthetic rewording as ‫לה‬ ‫ בכול יום ויום שבעת הימים האלה‬does not sound right. The preposition here more likely has a temporal value: ‘on each day during these seven days.’ For such a usage of ‫ל־‬, cf. ‫וּליוֹם ַחג־יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ‫מוֹעד‬ ֵ ‫ה־תּ ֲעשׂוּ ְליוֹם‬ ַ ‫ ַמ‬Ho 9.5 (LXX: τί ποιήσετε ἐν ἡμέρᾳ πανηγύρεως καὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἑορτῆς τοῦ κυρίου;). For more BH examples, see BDB s.v. ‫ ְל‬6 a. 2 Cf. JM § 130, where plenty of examples are found as attested, not only in LBH, but also in CBH, e.g. ‫ ֵבּן ְליִ ַשׁי‬1Sm 16.18; ‫ לֹא־יִ ָשּׂא ָפנִ ים ְלזָ ֵקן‬Dt 28.50 vs. ‫י־דל‬ ָ ֵ‫א־ת ָשּׂא ְפנ‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ל‬Lv 19.15. 3 Thus pace Wernberg-Møller 1957.81, n. 50. Cf. Dupont-Sommer in DSP 19: “tous leurs temps, d’âge en âge.” 4 Lambert (1946.107, n. 1) justly notes that this syntagm is a precursor of the ubiquitous MH ‫שׁ ְלּ־‬, ֶ but it is not typical of LBH, see e.g. ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ַהצֹּאן אשׁר ְל ָא ִב‬Gn 29.9, ‫ ַה ִפּ ְר ָדּה אשׁר לי‬1Kg 1.33, and many examples cited in JM § 130 c, e. We could also note that a basically same notion is worded in the two analytic constructions in three versions of the same text: ‫‘ המבקר אשר ֗ל ֗כ ֗ל ֗ה ֗מ ֗חנות‬the inspector over all the camps’ CD 14.8 // ‫כול ֯מ ̇חנות‬ ‫ ֯המבקר אשר לכו‬4Q267 9v13 // ‫מבקר שלכול ֗ה ֯מ ֗חנות‬ ֗ ‫ ֯ה‬4Q266 10i1.



between the two is manifest in ‫‘ ראשי המחנות אשר לשלושת השבטים‬the heads of the encampments of the three tribes’ 1QM 3.14, when compared with ‫ראשי בתי האבות לבני‬ ‫‘ ישראל‬the heads of the patriarchal families of the children of Israel’ 11Q19 42.16. We find a highly complex structure in ‫ עולת המועד אשר לחג הסוכות‬11Q19 42.16, found in a five-line passage on the celebration of the feast of tabernacles; the author could have said ‫‘ עולת מועד חג הסוכות‬the burnt-offering for the festive occasion of the feast of tabernacles’ by making ‫ מועד | חג הסוכות‬a cst. phrase of appositive value. He may have wished to highlight ‫חג הסוכות‬. The periphrasis removes a potential ambiguity in ‫‘ הפר השני אשר לעם‬the second steer for the people’ 11Q19 16.14, for ‫ פר העם השני‬could mean ‘the steer of the second people.’ (1) g) Multiple B-terms A B-term can consist of two or more coordinate nominals. In ‫ רוחות האמת והעול‬1QS 3.18 we have a compact formulation in lieu of ‫‘ רוח האמת ורוח העול‬the spirit of truth and the spirit of iniquity.’ Likewise ‫ רוחי אמת ועול‬1QS 4.23; ‫‘ כול כלי עץ ברזל ונחושת‬all the utensils of wood, iron, and bronze’ 11Q19 49.15, where it could be referring to utensils using all the three materials, which obviously does not apply to ‫‘ בשר שור ושה ועז‬meat of cattle or lamb or goat’ 11Q19 52.19. Joined by a disjunctive ‫או‬: ‫נכאה ֗ר ֯ג ֗לי֯ ֗ם או ידים‬ ‘anybody physically afflicted, crippled in his feet or hands’ 1QSa 2.5. However, ‫רשית‬ ‫‘ פחד ואימה‬the beginning of fear and terror’ 1QS 10.15 is distinct, for ‫ פחד ואימה‬constitutes a single notional complex. Likewise with a pl. A-term as in ‫מקוללי אלהים ואנשים‬ ‘cursed by God and people alike’ 11Q19 64.12. However, in ‫חצוצרות המקרא וחצוצרות‬ ‫‘ הזכרון וחצוצרות התרועה וחצוצרות המרדף וחצוצרות המאסף‬the trumpets of muster, the memorial trumpets, the alarm trumpets, the pursuit trumpets, and the trumpets of reassembly’ 1QM 7.13 five separate collections of trumpets, each for its specific purpose, are catalogued. h) Pluralisation of cst. phrases Either term of a construct chain may be put in the plural. The first of the three configurations mentioned below is only logical, but not necessarily the other two. 1) Nomen regens: ‫‘ אנשי המלחמה‬the warriors’ CD 20.14; ‫‘ אנשי האמת‬the men of truth’ 1QpHab 7.1; ‫‘ אל יהיו ֗כלי גבר על אשה‬clothes of a male may not be worn by a female’ 4Q159 2-4.6 (2). In ‫‘ מי מבול‬flood water’ 4Q252 1-2i3 and ‫‘ שמי מלכותו‬the sky under His rule’ 4Q400 2.4 there is no other option. Qimron (2018.422) rightly compares ‫הנשיא ֗א֯ ֗שר לכול העדה‬ ֗ ‘the president of the entire congregation’ 4Q376 1iii1 with ‫ נשיא כול העדה‬1QM 5.1. 1 On this periphrasis in BH, JM § 130. 2 The analysis of ‫ כלי‬as pl. (‫)כּ ֵלי‬ ְ is certain in view of the immediately preceding ‫יהיו‬.



2) Nomen rectum: ‫‘ רוח קדשיהם‬their holy spirit’ CD 5.11 (1) — in MH this unusual pattern occurs only with ‫ בית‬as regens, e.g. ‫‘ בית האצבעות‬gloves’ mKel 26.3 (2). 3) Both nomen regens and nomen rectum: ‫‘ כלי מלחמותם‬their weapons’ 1QpHab 6.4 (3); ‫‘ שני השמטים‬the years of release’ 1QM 2.8; ‫ ממלכות האלילים‬Is 10.10 1QIsaa // ַ (4) MT ‫מ ְמ ְלכֹת ָה ֱא ִליל‬. i) This analytic syntagm is affiliated with dealt with above, § fb. ‫שׁ־‬, ֶ being mono-consonantal, has become a proclitic particle. This syntagm, already attested sporadically in LBH, would become one of the prominent syntactic features characteristic of MH, and has now turned up in our corpus. Its distribution is telling: principally in documents originating outside of Qumran, but also among Qumran documents proper, notably the Copper Scroll (3Q15) and a sprinkling of instances in other Qumran documents. This feature managed to penetrate the “respectable” language of a document ‫‘ מכו‬a base of copper’ 11Q20 12.14. (5) as sacred as ‫מכונ֗ ה שלנחושת—מגילת המקדשׁ‬ Examples are ‫‘ במערא של הפנ֗ א של הרגם‬in the cave at the base of the rock’ 3Q15 6.7; ‫שלחז֯ קי֗ ֗א‬ ֗ ‫‘ אתמקום‬this place of Hizqa’ M22 2 (6); ‫‘ הפרנסין של בית משכו‬the administrators of Bet Mashiko’ M42 1; ‫‘ הגנות של עין גדי‬the gardens of Ein Gedi’ 5/6Ḥev 45.20; ‫‘ הגנות של הירק‬the vegetable gardens’ 5/6Ḥev 45.21; ‫זמן הפירות של עין גדי של הירק ושל‬ ‫‘ האילן‬the fruit season of Ein Gedi, both of vegetables and trees’ 5/6Ḥev 46.7. At ‫ואחד‬ ‫ ;אחד‬with this clumsily worded ‫ של אדם‬4Q385 6.9, following ‫שר ואחד עגל‬ ֗ ֗‫אחד נ‬ ֗ ‫אחד ארי אח‬ ‫דמות הפנים‬ ‫)דמות‬ expression the author must have meant to say ‘the appearance of the face (‫נים‬ of another (was) that of a human.’ (7) The particle -‫ ֶשׁל‬is a commonplace in RH (8), e.g. ‫‘ ֻקפּוֹת ֶשׁ ַלּיָּ ָרק‬hampers of vegetables’ mDem 2.5. The Copper Scroll, which abundantly (23×) attests to this syntagm, usually leaves a space after ‫של‬, e.g. ‫‘ במערא של הפנ֗ א של הרגם‬in the cave at the base of the 1 Some, e.g. Rabin (1958.18), translate this with the pl., ‘holy spirits.’ But more than one holy spirit in the Qumran belief? Is this a kind of the plural of majesty (§ 8 fb)? But then why not ‫?רוחות קדשם‬ 2 For more examples in MH, see Segal 1958.187. 3 The analysis of ‫ כלי‬as pl. (‫)כּ ֵלי‬ ְ is certain in view of the immediately following ‫המה‬. Note ‫ כל‬in ‫‘ כל כלי מלחמותם‬all their weapons’ 1QHa 10.25. 4 Qimron (2018.407) presents a fairly long list of examples. The list, however, appears to be a mixed bag. Both he and we are interested in a case such as ‫ ַאנְ ֵשׁי ֵשׁמוֹת‬1Ch 5.24 as against ‫ ַאנְ ֵשׁי ֵשׁם‬Nu 16.2, meaning the same, likewise ‫‘ לוּחוֹת ָה ֲא ָבנִ ים‬the stone tablets’ Dt 9.9 vs. ‫ לוחות ָה ֶא ֶבן‬Ex 24.12, of course referring to the same tablets. Cases in which the plural form of a nomen rectum is a real plural do not belong here, e.g. ‫‘ פשעי מעשיהם‬cases of transgression of their deeds’ 1QS 3.22, ‫‘ ימי המועדים‬the days of the festivals’ 11Q19 43.15, ‫‘ כול עמי ארצותיכה‬all the peoples of your lands’ 4Q160 3-4ii5. 5 As noted by Qimron 1978a.98. 6 On ‫את‬, see above at § 3 g. 7 “and one of a human,” a translation offered in DJD 30.44 is misleading; ‫ אחד‬is not an equivalent of a nomen regens. This is the sole example of this analytic syntax said by Milik to occur “en plusieurs manuscrits de 4Q” (DJD 2.157). 8 Cf. Segal 1958 § 79, 386 and Azar 1995 § 6.3.



rock’ 3Q15 6.7. However, even when no space is there, cases such as ‫בשלף שלהשוא‬ ‘in the ploughed land of Ha-sho’ 3Q15 8.10 indicate that ‫ של‬constitutes a distinct morphological unit. ia) Rare instances of this analytic syntagm can be identified at ֗‫‘ הבית שלי‬my house’ KJe 11.2; ‫רשלך‬/‫‘ ֗ה ֗ח ֗צי‬your half (: courtyard)’ KJe 10.4, where the spelling instead of ‫ החציר שלך‬is telling, indicative of the classic coherence shown in ‫‘ ֗תחטין שלה ;חצרך‬his wheat’ M44 9; ‫‘ לימומית שלו‬into its small basin’ 3Q15 11.13; ‫‘ תגנה שלנו‬our garden’ 5/6Ḥev 45.7. Though all the examples adduced above originate outside of Qumran caves, the syntagm, albeit with ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬instead of ‫שׁ־‬, is already attested in BH: e.g. ‫ר־לָך‬ ְ ‫ָהר ִֹעים ֲא ֶשׁ‬ 1 1Sm 25.7, ‫ ַה ִפּ ְר ָדּה אשׁר לי‬1Kg 1.33. ( ) A derivative of this syntagm without a nomen regens may be employed as the ֗ ‫הוא ֗א‬ ֯ ‫‘ שלכה הו‬Yours is he and yours predicate of a nominal clause as in ‫ושלכה יהיה זרעו‬ 2 ֗ ‫‘ ֗ש ֗ה‬which is mine’ M24 E 6; ‫שהי שלו‬ shall be his posterity’ 4Q222 1.6 ( ); ‫וא שלי‬ ‘that it [= the cow] is his’ M42 4; ‫הגואין‬ ֗ ‫‘ שהיוו של‬which belonged to the gentiles’ 5/6Ḥev 51.6. (3) j) This syntagm is affiliated with the one described above (§ i), but distinct from it with an anticipatory, proleptic conj. pron. added to the NP1 as found in LBH at ‫‘ ַכּ ְר ִמי ֶשׁ ִלּי‬my own vineyard’ Ct 1.6, 8.12 and ‫‘ ִמ ָטּתוֹ ֶשׁ ִלּ ְשֹׁלמֹה‬the couch of none other than Solomon’ Ct 3.7. (4) This also occurs in our corpus—‫‘ שלום אשתו שלדוסתס זה‬Salome, wife of this Dostes’ M30 25. It is probably a combination of two syntagms (A) as in ‫‘ כול אשר להם‬all that belongs to them’ 1QS 5.18, ‫֯ד ֗ם הפר‬ ‫‘ אשר לו‬the blood of the bull which is for him’ 11Q19 26.6, cf. ‫‘ ַה ִפּ ְר ָדּה ֲא ֶשׁר ִלי‬my own mule’ 1Kg 1.33, and (B) as in ‫‘ ֵבּן ְליִ ַשׁי‬a son of Jesse’s’ 1Sm 16.18. (5) Other examples are ‫‘ פרנסו של שמעון‬the manager of Simon’ 5/6Ḥev 44.6, 45.12; ‫חלקו‬ ‫ ושל ֗אליע‬.. ‫‘ של אלעזר‬the portion of Elazar .. and of Eliezer’ 5/6Ḥev 44.10 (6). This ‫ליעז֗ ֗ר‬ syntagm is widespread in MH.

More examples are mentioned in BDB s.v. ‫ ַא ֶשׁר‬7 b. Cf. the Ethiopic version of Jub. 25.12—/zi’aka we’etu walaka yekun zar’u/ ‘he is yours and his posterity shall be yours’ (with Jussive yekun). 3 The last three examples are mentioned in Mor 2015.320, § 5.27. Pace Lefkovits “all are of the dedicated (material)” (2000.72), certainly not ‫‘ הכול של הדמע‬the total of the tithes’ 3Q15 1.10. 4 Cf. JM § 146 f. 5 Cf. JM § 130 b, e. 6 The editors’ restoration, ‫חלקו‬, is illogical; it should be ‫חלקם‬, for a second lessee is mentioned—‫ושל‬ ‫ליעז֗ ֗ר בן שמואל‬ ‫אליע‬. ֗ 1 2



k) Logico-semantic relationships and analytic structures Many logico-semantic relationships are expressible through these three periphrastic structures as well: 1) , 2) , 3) . To classify the categories applied to the normal construct phrases as described above (§ b), we can identify the following: ii) relational: 1) ‫‘ ראשי בתי האבות לבני ישראל‬the heads of the patriarchal families of the children of Israel’ 11Q19 42.16; ‫‘ מלך לגוים‬a king of nations’ 4Q389 8ii9; 2) ‫‘ ראשי המחנות אשר לשלושת השבטים‬the heads of the camps of the three tribes’ 1QM 3.14; 3) ‫‘ פרנסו של שמעון‬the administrator of Simon’ 5/6Ḥev 44.6 (1), sim. 5/6Ḥev 45.12, with a proleptic pronoun. iii) appositional: 3) ‫‘ החריץ של שלומו‬Canal Solomon’ 3Q15 5.8. v) locational: 3) ‫‘ בתל של כחלת‬in the hill of Kohlit’ 3Q15 1.9; ‫המעבא של מנס‬ ֗ ‫בשו֯ א‬ ‘in the plastered cistern of Manos’ 3Q15 1.13; ‫‘ ביגר של גי הסככא‬in the burialmound at the ravine of Sekaka’ 3Q15 4.13; ‫‘ פי יציאת המים של הכוזבא‬the exit of the water of Koziba’ 3Q15 7.14; ‫קדרוה‬ ֯ ‫‘ יגר של פי צוק‬the cairn at the mouth of the gorge of Qidron’ 3Q15 8.8; ‫הכנא‬ ֗ ‫‘ במערא של‬in the cave at the base’ 3Q15 6.7; ‫‘ בשלף של השוא‬in the ploughed land of Shoh’ 3Q15 8.10; ‫‘ ברו֗ י֗ של השוא‬in the irrigated land of Shoh’ 3Q15 8.14; ‫‘ הצוק של בית תמר‬the gorge of Bet Tamar’ 3Q15 9.14; ‫‘ בים של גי איך‬in the pool of the valley of ?’ 3Q15 10.8 (2); ‫המבוע‬ ‫‘ של בית שם‬the spring of Bet Sham’ 3Q15 12.6; ‫הברך‬ ֯ ‫‘ בביבא הגדולא של‬in the large conduit at Habaruk’ 3Q15 12.8; ‫‘ הגנות של עין גדי‬the gardens of Ein Gedi’ 5/6Ḥev 45.20; ‫‘ הפרנסין של בית משכו‬the administrators of Bet Mashiko’ M42 1. viii) partitive: 1) ‫‘ המקצוע השני לחצר‬the second corner of the courtyard’ 11Q19 36.12; 3) ‫‘ המעלהא של השית העליונא‬the staircase of the upper tunnel’ 3Q15 12.4. ‫‘ מכו‬a base ix) material: 3) ‫‘ בדין של כסף‬silver bars’ 3Q15 2.11, 7.10; ‫מכונ֗ ה שלנחושת‬ of bronze’ 11Q19 46.01. xi) inalienable: 1) ‫‘ מושבי כבוד למרכו֗ ת‬glorious seats attached to the chariots’ 4Q405 20ii-22.4; ‫הגו̇ י̇ ם‬ ̇ ‫לשפוך ֗ד ֗ם לאיש מן‬ ֗ ‘to shed the blood of some gentile’ CD 12.6; 2) ‫אשר לימין‬ ֯ ‫‘ שוק התרומה‬a right thigh for the offering’ 11Q19 15.11; 3) ‫‘ אחד של אדם‬one, of humankind’ 4Q385 6.9. xvi) purpose, benefit: 1) ‫‘ שבט למושלים‬a staff for rulers’ 1QSb 5.27; ‫מרעה לעדרים‬ ‘a pasture for herds’ Is 32.14 1QIsaa // ‫ ִמ ְר ֵעה ֲע ָד ִרים‬MT; 2) ‫הפר השני אשר לעם‬ ‘the second steer for the people’ 11Q19 16.14; ‫‘ הכבשי֯ ֯ם אשר לעולה‬the lambs for the holocaust’ 4Q365a 1.6; 3) ‫‘ כלי כסף וזהב של דמע‬silver and golden tithevessels’ 3Q15 3.2, sim. ‫ כאלין של דמע‬3Q15 5.6, 12.6.


We fail to see why Yadin et al. (2002.48) think it syntactically better to see here an appositional value, i.e. Simon = administrator, since the phrase cannot be otherwise than in apposition to the preceding ‫יהונתן בן מחנים‬, and how could one account for the proleptic pronoun of ‫?פרנסו‬ 2 The decipherment of the place name (?) is uncertain, cf. Milik in DJD 3.300f.



xvii) species: 1) ‫‘ חג הבכורים לדגן החטים‬the festival of the first-fruits of the grain of wheat’ 11Q19 43.6. xviii) qualitative: 1) ‫‘ כול דבר לכול טמאה‬anything of any kind of impurity’ 11Q19 47.5. xix) pertinence: 1) ‫‘ מכס תרומתמה לעוף ולחיה ולדגים‬their levy of tribute on fouls and animals and fish’ 11Q19 60.4. l) Advantages and new potential of the analytic structures Whereas no functional opposition can be established between ‫‘ כלי דמע‬tithe-vessels’ 3Q15 1.9, 3.9, 8.3, 11.1 and ‫ כאלין של דמע‬3Q15 5.6 (1), nor between ‫נשיא כול העדה‬ 1QM 5.1 and ‫ נשיא העדה‬1QSb 5.20 on one hand and ‫הנשיא ֗א֯ ֗שר לכול העדה‬ ֗ ‘the president of the entire congregation’ 4Q376 1iii1 on the other, there appear to be at times some pragmatic implications for the selection of the analytic or periphrastic structure. ‫‘ כלי כסף וזהב של דמע‬silver and golden tithing vessels’ 3Q15 3.2 conveniently underscores what the vessels are made of. The analytical structure in ‫מערת העמוד של שני‬ ‫הפתחין‬ ‫‘ ה‬the pillar cave with its two entrances’ 3Q15 6.1 gives prominence to each of the two components, and the use of the definite article twice possibly suggests that its column and its two entrances were the hallmark of this unique cave, which could not be elegantly expressed in a lengthy synthetic phrase. The same can be said of rare examples of multiple ‫’של‬s: ‫הכנא של הרגם‬ ֗ ‫‘ במערא של‬in the cave at the base of the small rock’ 3Q15 6.7; triple—‫‘ זמן הפירות של עין גדי של הירק ושל האילן‬the season for the crops of Ein Gedi, of vegetables and of trees’ 5/6Ḥev 46.7, where two different kinds of attribution are concatenated, i.e. of place and origin, . In ‫‘ פי יציאת המים של הכוזבא‬the mouth of the water outlet of Koziba’ 3Q15 7.14 ‫ של‬helps us see that it is not about the water of Koziba, but the mouth of the water outlet there. This advantage is as evident in the other analytic syntagm, i.e. . E.g. in ‫‘ מושבי כבוד למרכו֗ ת‬glorious seats attached to the chariots’ 4Q405 20ii-22.4 one can easily see that ‫ כבוד‬is an attribute of seats, whereas in ‫‘ מרכבות כבודו‬His glorious chariots’ one line earlier it is that of His chariots. The long concatenation of four NPs in the st. cst. is replaced through a logically neater, more transparent, analytic syntagm in ‫‘ ראשי בתי האבות לבני ישראל‬the heads of the patriarchal families of the children of Israel’ 11Q19 42.16. At ‫לחצר‬ ̇ ‫‘ המקצוע השני‬the second corner of the courtyard’ 11Q19 36.12 the author is spared the bother of selecting the right gender of the numeral; for ‘the second courtyard’ he would have to select ‫שנית‬. In ‫חג הבכורים‬ ‫‘ לדגן החטים‬the festival of the first-fruits of the grain of wheat’ 11Q19 43.6 a specific produce is singled out for an occasion of celebration of its first-fruits.

1 From the context ‫ כלי‬in ‫ כלי דמע‬appears to be plural. For an attempt to find rules of selection between the two structures, see Mor 2015.328f.



There are expressions which, with the synthetic syntagm, could be expressed only in a clumsy fashion or could not be expressed at all. E.g. ‫אשר לימין‬ ֯ ‫שוק התרומה‬ ‘a right thigh for the offering’ 11Q19 15.11; we doubt that ‫ שוק תרומת הימין‬is natural, acceptable Hebrew, whereas the underlying biblical text reads ‫ שׁוֹק ַהיָּ ִמין‬Ex 29.22. If we wish to retain ‫האלה‬, it would be impossible to use the synthetic structure for ‫הפנ̇ י̇ מית‬ ̇ ‫‘ מדת כול השערים האלה אשר לחצר‬the size of all these gates of the inner courtyard’ 11Q19 36.13. The analytic syntagm dissipates every uncertainty as to which of the two NPs is being expanded by an attributive adjective. ‫ פר העם השני‬could be, out of context, ambiguous, but not ‫‘ הפר השני אשר לעם‬the second steer for the people’ 11Q19 16.14. A less than accomplished writer could have lost his face by writing ‫‘ שם השערים אשר לחצר הזה‬this name of the gates of the courtyard’ instead of ‫לחצר הזואת‬ ֯ ‫השע ֗רים אשר‬ ֗ ‫‘ שם‬the name(s) of the gates of this courtyard’ 11Q19 39.11. m) Identity in the grammatical state between the two terms In stark opposition to the rule that, in a construct phrase, only the nomen rectum, if at all, can take the article, we find several cases in which both terms are articular, e.g. ‫‘ הארון העדו֗ ו֗ ת‬the ark of the testimony’ 4Q364 17.3 // ‫ ֲארוֹן ָה ֵע ֻדת‬Ex 26.34; ‫התולעת‬ ‫‘ השני‬the scarlet stuff’ // ‫תּוֹל ַעת ַה ָשּׁנִ י‬ ַ Ex 39.3. Though the NP2 lacks the article, here ַ What is noteworthy is belongs also ‫ הארצ נפתלי‬Is 8.23 1QIsaa (1) // MT ‫א ְר ָצה נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬. that, in these and in three additional cases (2), the underlying biblical text shows the standard syntax.

§ 22 BY


A noun phrase is often expanded by a relative clause, whether introduced by ‫ אשׁר‬or ‫שׁ־‬, which is so common that no elaborate illustration is needed. Just a few examples will suffice: ‫‘ בבוא הדבר אשר כתוב בדברי ישעיה‬when the word which is written in the words of Isaiah comes true’ CD 7.10; ‫‘ כל האנשים אשר באו בברית החדשה‬all the people who joined the new covenant’ CD 8.21; ‫‘ החרשים שלוא שמעו חוק‬the deaf who have never heard any statute’ MMT B 52. Unlike in the examples adduced above, one is not absolutely certain whether the antecedent is in the st. cst. or not, when it is not explicitly marked otherwise. E.g. ‫אל ימש‬ ‫‘ במקום אשר יהיו שם העשרה איש דורש בתורה‬there shall not be missing a student of the law in a (: the) place where the ten are present’ 1QS 6.6. (4)

1 2 3 4

Immediately following ‫ = ארצ זבולון‬MT. See the data in Muraoka 2000.202. See also below at § 44. On relative clauses with an antecedent in the st. cst., see above at § 21 d.

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 l – § 24 b


An asyndetic relative clause (1) is unlikely in ‫‘ מצות יוריהם‬the commandment(s) of their teacher’ CD 3.8 // ‫‘ קול עשיהם‬the voice of their maker.’ Some translate ‘the commandment(s) he taught them,’ which is debatable since the PC in QH is not used as equivalent to SC, so as equivalent to ‫הורה אתם‬.

§ 23 BY NON-RELATIVE CLAUSES INTRODUCED WITH ‫ אשׁר‬OR -‫שׁ‬ We are having to do with a clause of epexegetic nature. The only example that has come to our notice is ‫ארבעת האנשים הלו֗ ו֗ שוקלים תחכור המקומות‬ ֗ ‫‘ אסרי שיהיוו‬my binding agreement to the effect that these four people will be paying the lease price of the places’ 5/6Ḥev 44.16.

§ 24 BY DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS a) Before or after NP? (2) An attributively used demonstrative noun mostly follows its noun head, (3) e.g. ‫היום‬ ‫‘ הזה‬this day’ 1QM 15.12; ‫‘ ככול המשפט הזה‬in accordance with all this injunction’ 4Q376 1iii1; ‫‘ הכסף הלז‬that silver’ 5/6Ḥev 44.22; ‫‘ הברית הזות‬this covenant’ 1QS 2.16; ‫‘ העיר הזות‬this city’ 4Q175 22; ‫‘ השורה הזות‬this row’ Mas Ins 449; ‫ההיאה‬ ֗ ‫‘ בעת‬at that hour’ 1QS 9.5; ‫‘ כל השנים האלה‬all these years’ CD 4.12; ‫‘ בימים ההמה‬in those days’ 4Q387 2ii7. Rare examples of a preceding dem. pron. are ‫‘ באלה הימים‬in these days’ 11Q19 43.4; ‫‘ באלה החקים‬in these ordinances’ CD 19.14. One cannot be certain which is meant: ‫ ְבּ ֵא ֶלּה‬or ‫בּ ֵא ֶלּה‬. ָ The NP is also anomalously anarthrous in ‫המ ֗ה פירות‬ ֗ ‫‘ כל‬all those fruits’ 5/6Ḥev 46.6. (4) b) Determinate noun We see from the examples adduced above (§ a) that the demonstrative pronoun, as in BH, takes the article when the preceding substantive is articular. ‫הימים המה‬ ‘those days’ 1QpHab 2.6 is anomalous, probably a scribal error for ‫ההמה‬, and possibly likewise ‫המ ֗ה פירות‬ ֗ ‫‘ כל‬all those fruits’ 5/6Ḥev 46.6 for ‫( הפירות‬haplography?). I.e. not introduced with ‫ אשׁר‬or ‫שׁ־‬, on which see below at § 44 d. Cf. Mor 2015.267, § 5.3. 3 So in Qumran Aramaic; see Muraoka 2011 § 65 a. 4 The restoration ‫‘ רוב קדושים ֯ל ֯כה בשמים‬there are many saints for You in heavens,’ 1QM 12.1, so already Yadin (1955.326) and now also Qimron (I 123), is more plausible than ‫‘ אלה‬these.’ 1 2



c) Further expanded by an adjective ‫‘ זקני העיר ההיא הקרובה אל החלל‬the elders of the city nearest to the slain’ 11Q19 63.4, where the unusual position of the adjective is probably because it is construed with the immediately following prepositional phrase (1). d) NP with a conjunctive pronoun The well-known BH syntax is continued in ‫‘ מי ינתן ויהיה לבבם זה להם‬O would that they had this attitude’ 4Q175 3 (2), where ‫זה‬, and not ‫הזה‬, occurs as in ‫‘ ְדּ ָב ֵרנוּ זֶ ה‬this word of ours’ Josh 2.20. (3) However, note ‫ והיה הלבב הזה להמה‬4Q158 6.5, the source text is ‫י־יִתּן וְ ָהיָ ה ְל ָב ָבם זֶ ה ָל ֶהם‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ‬Dt 5.25 MT. e) Added to a construct phrase E.g. ‫ ֵס ֶפר התורה ַהזֶּ ה‬Dt 31.26 // ‫ ספר התורה הזאת‬4Q29 5-8.2; ‫מספר השנים האלה‬ ‘the number of these years’ CD 4.10. In ‫ קול דברי העם הזה‬4Q175 1.1 one could hesitate between ‘the sound of the words of this people’ and ‘this sound of ..’; likewise ‫אל דבר‬ ‫‘ הנביא ההוא או לחולם החלום ההואה‬to the word of that prophet or to the dreamer of that dream’ or ‘to that word .. to that dreamer ..’ 11Q19 54.11, where MT is in part unambiguous with ‫ ִדּ ְב ֵרי‬Dt 13.4. f) Added to a proper noun E.g. ‫‘ דוסתס זה‬this Dosthes’ M30 26, with no article prefixed to the demonstrative pronoun as in BH, (4) in which, however, the pronoun precedes as in ‫ זֶ ה מ ֶֹשׁה‬Ex 32.1, 23 and ‫ זֶ ה ִסינַ י‬Jdg 5.5. (5)

Cf. the underlying biblical text, which reads ‫ ַה ְקּר ִֹבים‬Dt 21.6. ‫יִתּן = ינתן‬ ֵ (so Dt 5.25), pace MGT (357): “If (only) it were given.” For the non-standard spelling here, see Qimron 2018.116, § B 5.3.1, where another four instances are mentioned, all from 4QExod-Lev, though one of them is a v.l., ‫ = וינתן‬MT ‫ וַ יִּ ְפר ֹשׂ‬Ex 40.19. 3 For more examples, see JM § 138 g. 4 Mor (2015.264) attaches special significance to the date of this inscription, 134 CE, apparently having in mind the anarthrous pattern such as ‫‘ שׁור זֶ ה‬this ox’ mMen 13.9 or ‫קּוֹרה זוֹ‬ ָ ‫‘ ַה‬this beam’ mKil 6.4, which latter pattern is said to be rare (Azar 1995.211, § 6.6.3). 5 See JM § 143 e, i, where an Aramaic example is also mentioned: ‫ ָדּנִ יֵּ אל ְדּנָ ה‬Dn 6.4, 6, 29. Joosten (1991) appears to have missed this last example, but adds as an additional possible example, ִ‫רוּשׁ ַלם‬ ָ ְ‫זֹאת י‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ְבּתוְֹך ַהגּוֹיִ ם ַשׂ ְמ ִתּ‬Ezk 5.5; he assigns a distancing function of disparaging, condemnatory value to this syntagm, which could hardly apply to our example cited above, ‫דוסתס זה‬, though we are not informed about the couple’s marriage life. Pace Joosten such a value can be admitted even in ִ‫רוּשׁ ַלם‬ ָ ְ‫ זֹאת י‬as a self-standing nominal clause, and of course such a negative, pragmatic value would not suit the above-mentioned ‫זֶ ה ִסינַ י‬. We would suggest that this non-standard sequence highlights special prominence, whether positive or negative, accorded to the substantive in question. The demonstrative kono in Japanese can be added even to a personal pronoun, e.g. kono watashi ga iku ‘I am willing to go’ as well as kono Muraoka ga iku, the implication being “though in normal circumstances I would send a subordinate of mine, but in this 1 2

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 24 c – § 25 c


§ 25 BY ADJECTIVES a) Position of an attributive adjective The cardinal principle is that an attributive adjective follows its noun head. In ‫יתעו רבים‬ ‫מלכים שרים כוהנים ועם‬ ֗ 4Q169 3-4ii8 there is no departure from the normal sequence; what follows ‫ רבים‬is an explanatory addition, ‘they will mislead many—kings, princes, priests, and (common) folk.’ aa) Expanding a cst. phrase E.g. ‫‘ הון הרשעה הטמא‬the unclean, ill-gotten mammon’ CD 6.15 and ‫ימי ממלכתו‬ ‫‘ הרישונים‬the early days of his reign’ 4Q390 1.5, which are of course distinct from ‫באי‬ ‫‘ הברית החדשה‬those who join the new covenant’ CD 6.19; ‫‘ מעשי פלאך ֯ה ֯גדולים‬Your great works of wonder’ 1QHa 15.35. In ‫‘ להט אש מתהפכת‬a flame of revolving fire’ 1QHa 16.13 we have an innovative extension based on ‫ ַל ַהט ַה ֶח ֶרב ַה ִמּ ְת ַה ֶפּ ֶכת‬Gn 3.24, where that which revolves is generally considered to be the sword. (1) Though the grammatical gender of ‫ ַל ַהט‬is not absolutely certain, it is more likely masculine. (2) b) Added to a noun with a conjunctive pronoun ‫‘ שמכה הגדול‬Your great name’ 1QM 11.2; ‫הרעים‬ ֗ ‫‘ מעשיהם‬their evil deeds’ 4Q169 3-4iii3; ‫‘ מעשׂיכה הגדולים‬Your great deeds’ 1QM 10.8; ‫‘ צדו֗ השמאלי‬his left side’ 4Q376 1i1. c) Concord with an anarthrous noun head In ‫‘ יום ֗ה ֗רביעי ויום החמישי ויום הששי‬the fourth day ..’ 4Q252 1.9 we are reminded of ‫ יוֹם ַה ִשּׁ ִשּׁי‬Gn 2.3 and the like. (3) ‫ יום הרביעי‬here is opposed to ‫ יום רביעי‬line 11, just as case I make an exception.” ‫ דוסתס זה‬mentioned above may be viewed similarly; as one signs a legal document affecting oneself, his or her adrenalin level could shoot up. 1 One could envisage a revolving fire. 2 Thus pace the editors of DJD 40: “the whirling flame of fire.” ‫ ַל ַהט‬is a hapax in BH, occurring in the above-cited passage, and the only other relevant attestation in QH is in ‫ בער]ה [להט‬4Q371 6.4, so restored by the editors of DJD 28, though the word-spacing of this fragment appears to be rather generous. 3 On this intriguing feature in BH, cf. JM, § 138 b-c. This syntagm may be extended to cardinals above ‘eleven’ used as ordinals, e.g. ‫ יוֹם ָה ֶא ָחד וְ ֶע ְשׂ ִרים‬Ex 12.18. Bar-Asher (1998.16) holds that a לילה הראשון‬, which is more prevalent in MH than in BH, is diachronically anterior to b הלילה הראשון‬, without offering any evidence. Borg (2000) does present data showing that the first syntagm is known to early phases of not only Hebrew, but also Arabic, without, however, demonstrating the chronological priority of either syntagm. Ben-Ḥayyim (1987.99-102), while not recognising any functional difference between the two syntagms in MH, argued that the definite article of the attributive adjective is introducing a relative clause, an analysis already proposed by Segal (1958 § 376). Rabin (1958.158) even postulates: “in spoken MH one really did omit the article before the noun consistently.” Whereas an attributive adjective and a relative clause share one important syntactic function, namely expanding a preceding NP, the analysis is questionable on a number of grounds. 1) A relative clause mostly consists of two or more constituents, whereas BH examples have very little in addition to



‫‘ ֶשׁ ַבע ָפּר ֹת ַהטֹּבֹת‬those seven good cows’ Gn 41.26 with the article of anaphoric value as against ‫‘ ֶשׁ ַבע ָפּרוֹת ְבּ ִריאוֹת ָבּ ָשׂר‬seven fat cows’ Gn 41.18. By virtue of examples of the first term explicitly marked as st. cst. as in ‫ ְשׁנַ ת ַה ְשּׁ ִב ִעית ַל ֶמּ ֶלְך‬Ezr 7.8, ‫ַדּם ָהנָּ ִקי‬ Dt 19.13, 2Kg 24.4 (// ‫ ָ)דּם נָ ִקי‬we would see here construct phrases. (1) This analysis ‫‘ עם החביב יעקוב‬the beloved people, Jacob’ 4Q462 1.11. (2) can hold for ‫וב‬ The absence of the article in the noun head in ‫ אות הראישונה‬1QM 4.9 suggests the need mentally to insert ‫מסורה‬, so that this case differs from those adduced above: ‘the standard of the first division’ (3). Likewise ‫ אות השנית‬ib. On the same ground one would insert ‫מסורה‬, and not just ‫ אות‬in the subsequent f.s. cardinals: ‫ השלישית‬ib., ‫ השמינית‬.. ‫ השביעית‬.. ‫ הששית‬.. ‫ החמישית‬.. ‫ הרביעית‬1QM 4.9-11. The anarthrous ‫ אל‬in ‫‘ יד אל הגדוֹלה‬the great hand of God’ 4Q177 12-13i9 is due to the fact that the lexeme, occurring in QH hundreds of times, is consistently anarthrous when it refers to the god of Israel, see above § 7 f. The unusual article in ‫‘ באר מים החיים‬the fountain of living water’ CD 19.34 does not relate so much to ‫ מים‬as to God who is figuratively represented here, most likely on the basis of ‫ ְמקוֹר ַמיִם ַחיִּ ים‬Je 2.13, 17.13. d) Deletion of a noun phrase A noun phrase as the core may be left out when it is easily recoverable from the context. E.g. ‫‘ ברשונה‬in the first (year)’ 1QS 7.19, following ‫‘ שתי שנים‬two years,’ likewise ‫‘ בשנית‬in the second (year)’ 1QS 7.20.

§ 26 BY


a) Cardinal numerals preceding or following? Delayed numerals are not uncommon, e.g. ‫‘ שנים שלוש מאות ותשעים‬390 years’ CD 1.5; ‫‘ שנים עשרים‬20 years’ CD 1.10; ‫‘ מגנים שלוש מאות ושערים שנים למגדל אחד‬three hundred shields and two gates for one tower’ 1QM 11.14. ordinal numerals or adjectives (for examples, see JM §138 b-c), though a ptc., being a verb, can have an object and other constituents added as in ‫‘ ֲע ָב ִדים ַה ִמּ ְת ָפּ ְר ִצים ִאישׁ ִמ ְפּנֵ י ֲאד ֹנָ יו‬servants who run away, each one from his master’ 1Sm 25.10. Besides, it is puzzling that LBH knows quite a few examples with the article attached to a finite verb (JM § 145 d-e), whilst not a single example of the kind is found in MH or QH. 2) When both syntagms are notionally and syntactically affiliated to each other, it is questionable to assign -‫ ה‬of ‫ הלילה‬a different value. 3) One would hardly identify a relative pronoun in -‫ ה‬added to a demonstrative pronoun as in ‫הלילה הזה‬, which represents another homogeneous syntagm. 1 Borg (2000) terms these “pseudo-constructs.” He further argues that, as distinct from standard cst. phrases, these tend to develop into compound nouns, which scarcely applies to most of the examples mentioned by him, e.g. ‫ח ֵצר ָה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬, ָ ‫יֵ ין ַהטּוֹב‬. 2 So also Kister 2000.137, n. 6. Bar-Asher (2002.17-19 = 2003a.84-86) proposes an alternative solution, weakening of gutturals, but that leaves ‫ החביב‬unaccounted for. 3 Yadin 1957.282 (Engl. tr. by Ch. and B. Rabin [1962.276] ‘the first banner’ with no comment).


NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 25 c – § 26 a

This sequence is commonly found in a listing, almost like in a log-book of a shopkeeper. (1) Thus in regulations indicating how many sacrificial animals are to be offered, ‫‘ וביום השלישי פ‬and on e.g. ‫כבשים ֗א ֗רבעה עשר ושעיר עזים אחד‬ ֗ ‫פרים ֯עשתי עשר אלים שנים‬ the third day—bullocks 11, rams 2, lambs 14, and he-goat 1’ 11Q19 28.6, so in the underlying biblical text, Nu 29.17-32. (2) Of the two possible sequences, and , QH definitely prefers the former as can be seen in the frequency statistics below (3): Relative position of attributively used, select, cardinal numerals Numeral Mor’s corpus Mor’s corpus 3








































Thus the sequence accounts for 87%, including the cases occurring in Mor’s corpus. (4) The noun ‫‘ אמה‬cubit’ occurring about 30 times in 3Q15, the Copper Scroll, consistently precedes a numeral, e.g. ‫ אמות שש‬3Q15 1.12 (5), whereas in any other QH document the reverse sequence is the rule, e.g. ‫ שבע אמות‬1QM 5.7. Cp. ‫ָח ֵמשׁ ַאמּוֹת‬ 1Kg 6.24 // ‫ ַאמּוֹת ָח ֵמשׁ‬2Ch 3.11. We also encounter, however, a mixture of the two sequences: ‫קוֹמתוֹ‬ ָ ‫ ָח ֵמשׁ ַאמּוֹת ָא ְרכּוֹ וְ ָח ֵמשׁ ַאמּוֹת ָר ְחבּוֹ וְ ַאמּוֹת ָשׁלוֹשׁ‬2Ch 6.13. Beside many examples to be adduced below, note also the following. 1

Noted also by Weitzman 1996.178, following GKC § 134 c. Qimron (2018.441) mentions 2Sm 24.24 as the sole instance of this sequence in EBH; in JM § 142 d, n. 1 we have mentioned Gn 32.15 and Nu 7.17 as well. 3 We have not counted the following cases: hundreds and thousands on their own, unless they are added to a noun as in ‫‘ חמש מאות אבנים‬500 stones’ or ‫‘ שלושת אלפים עבדים‬3,000 slaves’; combinations such as ‫ מאות חמש‬or ‫ אלפים שלושה‬do not occur. Only cases whose reading is reasonably secure have been counted. Compound numerals such as ‫ שלושים וחמש‬or ‫ שלושים וחמשה‬have been included under ‘5.’ Fronted unit numerals in the st. cst. as in ‫ שלושת ימים‬have been counted, but not ‫ שלושת אלפים‬and the like. Numerals for ‘one’ and ‘two’ are treated separately, see below § b and c. 4 Mor (2015.331, § 5.35) appears to be attaching greater significance to the second sequence—‫רווח‬ ‫—בעברית וארמית של קומראן‬and only reluctantly concedes (op. cit., p. 332)—‫אף על פי כן יש תיעוד גם לסדר‬ ‫ההפוך‬. Qimron (2018.441f.) thinks that the second sequence is characteristic of LBH and Aramaic. Under Aramaic we would note that this is the norm in Qumran Aramaic, see Muraoka 2011 § 67 a. 5 Note “a log-book style” mentioned above. 2



Teens: ‫‘ שלושים שנה‬30 years’ 1QSa 1.13, 1QM 6.14; ‫ חמשים שנה‬1QM 2.4; ‫שלושים‬ ‫ יום‬4Q266 10ii6; ‫‘ ארבעים יום‬40 days’ 2Q19 1.2; ‫ ֲח ִמ ִשּׁים ֻל ָלאֹת‬Ex 26.10 (2×) MT // ‫ ללאו֯ ת חמשים‬and followed by ‫משים ללאות‬ ‫ =( חמשים‬MT) 4Q22 29.3; ‫‘ שלושים שיר‬30 songs’ 11Q5 27.8. Delayed—‫‘ סלעים ארבעין‬forty selas’ 5/6Ḥev 46.9. Hundreds: ‫ מאה יום‬4Q266 10ii1; ‫‘ מאתים פרשים‬two hundred horsemen’ 1QM 6.9; ‫‘ שבע מאות פרשים‬seven hundred ..’ 1QM 6.8. Thousands: ‫‘ אלף איש‬a thousand men’ 1QM 5.3; ‫‘ אלפ דור‬.. generations’ 4Q171 3-5iii1; ‫‘ אלף פעמים‬.. times’ 4Q292 2.3; ‫‘ אלפים אמה‬two thousand cubits’ 4Q265 7.5; ‫שמונה‬ ‫‘ ועשרים אלף‬28,000’ 1QM 9.4. b) Numeral for “one” The numeral for “one,” when used attributively, normally follows its noun head, e.g. ‫‘ שנה אחת‬one year’ 1QS 7.4; ‫‘ כבש אחד‬one lamb’ 11Q19 21.1. The determinative article is added when the notion of the one .. and the other is to be expressed: ‫‘ שבע מאות פרשים לעבר האחד ושבע מאות לעבר השני‬seven hundred horsemen on the one side .. and .. on the other side’ 1QM 6.8, cf. ‫ ָה ַאיִ ל ַה ֵשּׁנִ י‬.. ‫ָה ַאיִ ל ָה ֶא ָחד‬ Ex 29.15, 19, regarding the two rams mentioned earlier (vs. 1). In cases like ‫‘ אחד לשבט‬one per tribe’ 1QM 2.2 and ‫‘ חמש מאות לשבט‬five hundred per tribe’ 1QM 6.11 ‫ אחד‬is understood, i.e. ‫לשבט אחד = לשבט‬. Emphasis on oneness is not formally marked, but can only be inferred from the ֗ ‫‘ לזבוח א‬to slaughter a mother and its foetus context (1), e.g. ‫את האם ואת הו֗ לד ביום אחד‬ on the same day’ MMT B 36; ‫‘ ויתן להם לב אחד ללכת‬and He gave them one mind to walk ..’ 4Q183 1ii3, either unity among the people or undivided devotion to God meant. But in ‫בשנה‬ ֯ ‫אחת פעם בשנ‬ ֗ 11Q19 18.9 the non-standard, reverse sequence is emphatic, ‘only once (a year)’ // ‫ פעם אחת בשנה‬11Q19 22.16. c) Numeral for “two” mostly preceding St. abs.: ‫‘ שנים כרובים‬two cherubs’ 11Q19 7.10; ‫‘ שנים שערים‬two gates’ 11Q19 33.10; ‫‘ שתים אמות‬two cubits’ 4Q365a 2ii9, 10. In ‫על פי שנים עדים או על פי שלושה עדים‬ ‘on the strength of two witnesses or ..’ 11Q19 61.6, sim. 11Q19 64.8 the BH model as at Dt 17.6 is followed for the latter, but not for the former—‫ על פי שני עדים‬Dt 19.15. ‫‘ שׁנתים ימים‬two years’ 1QS 8.10, 26 may be mentioned here. Delayed: e.g. ‫‘ שערים שנים‬two gates’ 1QM 9.14; ‫‘ פרים שנים‬two young bulls’ ‫פ‬ 11Q19 17.13; ‫‘ סלעים שתים‬two selas’ 5/6Ḥev 46.11 (2); ‫פרים ֯עשתי עשר אלים שנים‬ 1 Unlike in Syriac: e.g. nehwon trayhon ḥad bsar ‘they two shall become one flesh’ Gn 2.14P (MT: ‫)ל ָב ָשׂר ֶא ָחד‬ ְ as against gavrā ḥad Mt 12.10P (ἄνθρωπος). On this feature in Syriac, see Muraoka 1972.192. 2 The noun is consistently feminine in these Naḥal Ḥever papyri, see Yadin et al. 2002.18. Their classification of it as m. at 2002.396 must be a typo, but their contention (p. 18) that in MH the substantive



‫‘ כבשים ֗ ֗ארבעה עשר‬twelve young bulls, two rams, fourteen lambs’ 11Q19 28.7; ‫כוהנים‬ ‫‘ שנים‬two priests’ 4Q159 2-4.4. St. cst.: ‫‘ שני י֗ ֗מי֗ ם‬two days’ 4Q180 5-6.3; ‫‘ שתי רוחות‬two spirits’ 1QS 3.18; ‫שתי‬ ‫‘ נשים‬two women’ CD 4.21. d) Cardinals “three” to “ten” Preceding: ‫‘ חמשה טפחים‬five palms’ 1QM 5.14; ‫‘ תשע אמות‬nine cubits’ 1QM 4.16; ‫‘ ששה חודשים‬six months’ 1QS 7.3; ‫‘ שבע שנים‬seven years’ CD 12.5; ‫‘ עשר שנים‬ten years’ 1QSa 1.8. cst. ‫‘ עשרת ימים‬ten days’ 1QS 7.10, 11, 15, 4Q266 10ii6, also in ‫משת ימים‬ ֗ ‫ונענ֗ ֯ש ֗ח‬ 4Q266 10ii13. One fails, however, to see any difference in meaning from ‫ו֯ נענש עשרה‬ ‫ ימים‬4Q266 10ii8. See also ‫ שלושת ימים‬1QSa 1.26; ‫ שבעת נחלים‬Is 11.15 1QIsaa // MT ‫ ; ִשׁ ְב ָעה נְ ָח ִלים‬Ex 2.2 ‫ֹלשׁה יְ ָר ִחים‬ ָ ‫ ְשׁ‬// ‫ שלשת ירחים‬4Q1 19i6; ‫‘ שבעת גוי הבל‬seven nations of vanity’ 1QM 11.8. Delayed: ‫‘ כוהנים שלושה‬three priests’ 1QS 8.1; ‫‘ אמות שלוש‬three cubits’ 3Q15 4.7; ‫עש ֗רה‬ ֗ ‫‘ פרים‬ten young bulls’ 11Q19 28.10; ‫‘ ימים ששה‬six days’ CD 14.21; ‫סלעים ארבע‬ ‘four selas’ 5/6Ḥev 44.21; ‫ סלעים שלוש‬5/6Ḥev 45.24. This sequence is common in LBH. (1) da) “Eleven” to “nineteen” Preceding: ‫‘ שנים עשר איש‬twelve men’ 1QS 8.1 (2); ‫‘ שתים עשרה אמה‬twelve cubits’ 1QM 4.16; ‫‘ שתים עשרה מעלה‬twelve steps’ 11Q19 46.6; ‫‘ ארבע עשרה אמה‬fourteen cubits’ 1QM 4.15. Delayed: ‫‘ ראשים שנים עשר‬12 chiefs’ 1QM 2.1; ‫‘ דינרין ששה עשר‬sixteen denarii’ 5/6Ḥev 44.20, followed by ‫‘ סלעים ארבע‬four selas,’ sim. 5/6Ḥev 44.23; ‫זוזין שנים עשר‬ ‘twelve zuz’ 5/6Ḥev 45.23. (3) e) Structure of composite numerals above “twenty-one” Ascending order: ‫‘ אחת ועשרים אמה‬21 cubits’ 11Q19 4.12; ‫ועשרים שנה‬ ֯ ‫‘ חמש‬25 years’ 1QSa 1.12, 1QM 7.3; ‫ שנים וחמשים‬1QM 2.1; ‫ ששה ועשרים‬1QM 2.2; ‫ארבע וחמשים‬ is of common gender is disputable; ‫ עשרה סלעים‬mBM 5.2 quoted there is read as ‫ עשר סלעים‬in Yalon’s edition (1958). 1 Cf. JM § 142 d with n. 1 there. 2 Even if ‫ תרין עשר‬Bet Amar 1 be meant as genuine Aramaic, and not Hebraising, the form is acceptable in Jewish Aramaic alongside ‫ ;תרי עשר‬see Dalman 1905.126. Thus pace Eshel, Eshel, and Yardeni 2011.7 no error. 3 Mor (2015.330, § 5.33) states that there is a complementary distribution for cardinal numerals above ten— vs. , e.g. ‫( זוזין שנים עשר‬cited above) vs. ‫ש]מו[נים ושמונה זוז‬ ‘88 zuz’ M30 21. But outside of Mor’s corpus there does not appear to be such a rule at work in QH. A spot check of ‫ ָע ָשׂר‬and ‫ ֲע ָשׂ ָרה‬produces these frequency statistics: 7×, 18×, 13×. The third syntagm goes against Mor’s rule. A few examples are ‫אנשים‬ ֗ ‫נים עשר‬ ֗ ‫֯ש‬ 4Q252 3.2, ‫שבטי֗ ישראל‬ ֗ ‫עשר‬ ֗ ‫ שנים‬4Q158 4.3, ‫ שנים עשר אילים‬11Q19 19.16, ‫ ֯שנ֯ ים עשר בני יעקוב‬11Q19 23.7, the last two of which are not dependent on the source text. Mor’s statistics including all numerals above 10 in his corpus are 6×, 21×.



11Q19 44.8; ‫ שש מאות וארבעת אלפים‬1QM 6.10, but immediately followed by ‫אלף‬ ‫ וארבע מאות‬and ‫ ששת אלפים חמש מאות‬1QM 6.11; ‫ ארבעה וששים ושלוש מאות‬11Q5 27.6; ‫ ששה ואבעים וארבע מאות‬11Q5 27.9 (1) // ‫ ארבעת אלפים וחמשים‬11Q5 27.10; ‫תהלים‬ ‫‘ שלושת אלפים ושש מאות‬3,600 psalms’ 11Q5 27.4 // ‫‘ שנים וחמשים שיר‬52 songs’ ib. 7. Descending order: ‫ ששין ושנין‬3Q15 10.7; ‫ עשרין וארבע‬3Q15 8; ‫זוזין מאה וששי֗ ֗ם‬ ‘hundred and sixty zuz’ 5/6Ḥev 46.8. That there is no rigid rule as to whether the sequence is in descending or ascending order is manifest in fluctuations between ‫ שלוש מאות וששים‬11Q19 40.13, 41.6, 8, 10, 11 and ‫ ששים ושלוש מאות‬11Q19 40.14, 41.5, 9. ea) Syndetic or asyndetic? When a numeral is composed of three or more constituents, the conjunction w- may be prefixed to its second and every subsequent constituent, but there is no rigid rule here. ‫ששה ע‬ ‫ע־מאוֹת וַ ֲח ִמ ִשּׁים ָשׁ ֶקל‬ ֵ ‫ ִשׁ ָשּׁה ָע ָשׂר ֶא ֶלף ְשׁ ַב‬Nu 31.52 // ‫עשר אלף ושבע מאות וחמשים‬ ‫ שקל‬4Q27 60-64.8; ‫ שלוש מאות ששים וארבעה‬4Q252 2.3 // ‫שלוש מאת ו֗ ֯ששים וארבעה‬ ֗ MMT A 20. f) Numerals in st. abs. or st. cst.? fa) The use of st. cst. forms of cardinal numerals for “three” up to “ten,” including numerals such as “thirteen,” or “ten” is obligatory in certain environments. (2) Thus i) The first component of fem. numerals for thirteen up to nineteen, e.g. ‫אמות שבע‬ ‫‘ עשרא‬17 cubits’ 3Q15 8.6. ii) The first component of numerals for three to nine hundred, e.g. ‫ שבע מאות‬1QM 6.8. iii) The digit component of numerals for three to ten thousands, e.g. ‫ארבעת אלפים‬ 1QM 6.10; ‫ ששת אלפים‬1QM 6.11. fb) As regards the numeral for “two,” both states appear to be indiscriminately used. Thus abs. (3)—‫‘ שנים כרובים‬two cherubs’ 11Q19 7.10, ‫‘ שנים שערים‬two gates’ 11Q19 33.10, ‫‘ שנים עדים‬two witnesses’ 11Q19 61.6; ‫‘ שתים אמות‬two cubits’ 4Q365 2ii9, 10; cst.—‫‘ שני עדים נאמנים‬two trustworthy witnesses’ CD 9.22; ‫‘ שני י֗ ֗מי֗ ם‬two days’ 4Q180 5-6.3; ‫‘ שני אחיו‬his two brothers’ 4Q372 1.10; ‫‘ שני בתי ישראל‬the two houses of Is.’ CD 7.12; ‫‘ שתי נשים‬two women’ CD 4.21; ‫‘ שתי רוחות‬two spirits’ 1QS 3.18; ‫שתי‬ ‫‘ שנים‬two years’ 1QS 7.19; ‫‘ שתי המערכות‬the two camps’ 1QM 6.4; ‫‘ שתי כפות הירך‬the two joints of the thigh’ 4Q158 1-2.13; ‫בנותיה‬ ֯ ‫‘ שתי‬her two daughters’ 4Q215 1.8. Let us note that, when the NP is determinate, the cst. form is selected, but the reverse is not always true. ‫אבעים‬, an error for ‫ארבעים‬. In cases of ambiguity arising from our unvocalised texts, we assume that the rules known to BH and MH are applicable. Thus cst. in ‫ ַא ַחד ַה ָבּ ִתּים = אחד הבתים‬and ‫שׁלוֹשׁ ֵמאוֹת = שלוש מאות‬. ְ 3 We assume that in QM, as in BH, a numeral for ‘three’ up to ‘nine,’ when used with a following f.pl. noun, took an abs. st. form, thus ‫ שלוש אמות‬1QM 9.12 = ‫ ָשׁלוֹשׁ ַאמּוֹת‬as in ‫ ָשֹׁלשׁ ַאמּוֹת‬Ex 27.1, ≠ ‫שׁלוֹשׁ אמות‬. ְ 1 2



fc) The numerals for “three” up to “ten” usually appear in the st. cst. when the NP expanded by them is determinate. (1) E.g. ‫‘ שלושת השבטים‬the three tribes’ 1QM 3.14; “the three nets of Belial (‫)שלושת מצודות בליעל‬, about which Levi spoke” CD 4.15; ‫‘ שלושת מיני הצדק‬the three kinds of righteousness’ CD 4.16; ‫‘ שלושת הדגלים‬the three battalions’ 1QM 8.14; ‫‘ ארבעת מוסדי רקיע ֗הפלא‬the four foundations of the wonderful vault’ 11Q17 8.5; ‫‘ ארבעת מקצועות החצר‬the four corners of the courtyard’ 11Q19 37.13; ֗‫ארבעת האנשים הלו֗ ו‬ ֗ ‘these four persons’ 5/6Ḥev 44.17; ‫‘ ֗ח ֗מ ֗שת מלכי מדין‬the five (wellknown) kings of Midian’ 4Q372 3.12; ‫‘ בשבעת הו֗ דדו֯ ת פלאיה‬with its seven marvellous thanksgivings’ 4Q403 1i4, but ‫דב ֗רי֗ גבורות פלאו‬ ֯ ‫ ֗ב ֗שבעה‬4Q403 1i21, 4Q405 13.5; ‫‘ תשעת אנשי תעודתו‬the nine men under his command’ 1QM 4.5; ‫‘ עשרת המנים‬the ten ֗ ‘the fourteen days of the wedding party’ minas’ 4Q159 1ii10; ‫ארבעת עשר ימי המשתה‬ 4Q200 4.1 (2), cf. ‫ ִשׁ ְב ַעת יְ ֵמי ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ֶתּה‬Jdg 14.12, ‫ ֲח ֵמ ֶשׁת ָע ָשׂר ָבּנָ יו‬2Sm 19.18; ‫שני עשר‬ ‫‘ העמודים‬the twelve columns’ 11Q19 34.15. Otherwise the st. abs. is the general rule as in ‫‘ שלושה חודשים‬three months’ 1QS 7.6. However, the st. cst. does occur for no apparent reason. E.g. ‫‘ שלושת ימים‬three days’ 1QSa 1.26, 11Q19 43.12, 45.8, 52.14, where we see that in the three last examples no biblical text is an influencing factor; ‫‘ שלושת עולמי חושך‬three ages of darkness’ 4Q440 1.3; ‫‘ עוד שבעת ימים‬another seven days’ 4Q252 1.15 (< Gn 8.12), sim. ‫‘ מקץ שבעת ימים ֗א ֯ח ֯רים‬at the end of yet another seven days’ 4Q252 1.18, where it is not about the earlier seven days; ‫פל ֗א‬ ֗ ‫שבעת גבולי‬ ‘seven marvellous territories’ 4Q403 1ii21; ‫‘ שבעת סודי קודש‬seven holy councils’ 4Q403 1ii22; ‫‘ ששת כורין‬six kors’ M24 D 16. At ‫ ששת ימים‬4Q216 7.7 the referent, the six days of the creation, is contextually determinate. Perhaps likewise ‫שבעת גוי הבל‬ ‘seven nations of vanity’ 1QM 11.8 in apposition to ‫‘ גדודי בליעל‬Belial’s detachments’; ‫‘ שבעת ימים‬seven (consecutive) days’ 4Q265 7.15 (< Lv 12.2), 4Q266 6ii3, 4Q365 23.1 (< Lv 23.42), 11Q19 45.15 (< Lv 15.13), 11Q19 49.6, 7, 50.12, 13 (< Nu 19.14), 11Q19 17.11 (< Lv 23.6), cf. ‫לה‬ ‫ שבעת הימים האלה‬11Q19 17.12 with the anaphoric article, and ‫ שבעת הימים‬4Q266 6i11, 4Q272 1ii9, 4Q274 1i4, 4Q368 2.9, ‫‘ שבעת ימיה‬her sevenday (menstrual) period’ 4Q274 1i5; ‫ עשרת ימים‬1QS 7.10, 11, 15, where we should note that for longer periods of penalty mentioned in this column the st. abs. is used as in ‫ שלושה חודשים‬line 6 and ‫ ששה חודשים‬line 3 et passim, sim. ‫ נ֯ ענש עשרת ימים‬4Q266 10ii6; ‫משת ימים‬ ֗ ‫ נענ֗ ֯ש ֗ח‬ib. line 13, ‫ נענש מאה יום‬ib. line 1. Probably a careless slip in ‫שלושת‬ ‫‘ מצודות בליעל‬three traps of Belial’ CD 4.15. fd) Optionally before a noun indicating a measure: e.g. ‫‘ ששת כורין‬six kors’ M24 D 16; ‫ חמשת כורין‬M44 3. (3) In QH we find no counter examples of the type ‫ששה כורין‬, but 1

For BH, cf. JM, § 142 d. The restoration of ‫ ת‬follows DJD 19.67; Qimron (II 244) reads ‫ארבעה עשר‬. ֗ The determinate form makes better sense here, for the length of the upcoming wedding celebration had been already arranged (To 8.20), and what follows the phrase here confirms: ‫‘ ֯אשר נׄ שבע רעואל לעשות לשרה בתו‬which Rauel had pledged to hold for Sara his daughter.’ There is a Latin manuscript that adds here illi. We prefer, however, Qimron’s (I 55) ‫משת ימים‬ ֗ ‫ נענ֗ ֯ש ֗ח‬4Q269 11ii+15.2 over the editor’s ‫]ע[ש ֯ר ]ימי[ם‬ ֯ ‫( חמשת‬DJD 36.206), where reference is made to ‫ עשרת‬1QS 7.15, but there it is about ‘ten,’ not a teen. 3 See Mor 2015.330f., § 5.34. 2



‫‘ ארבעה טפחים‬four handspans’ 1QM 5.13, ‫ חמשה טפחים‬ib. 14; ‫‘ ארבעה הינים‬four hins’ 11Q19 19.14. Likewise in BH, e.g. ‫ֹלשׁת ְשׁ ָק ִלים ָכּ ֶסף‬ ֶ ‫ ְשׁ‬.. ‫ ֲח ִמ ָשּׁה ְשׁ ָק ִלים ָכּ ֶסף‬Lv 27.6; ‫ֲע ָשׂ ָרה‬ ‫ ְשׁ ָק ִלים‬ib. 7; ‫ ִשׁ ְב ָעה ְשׁ ָק ִלים‬Je 32.9. ‫אמה‬ ֗ ‫‘ אלפים‬2,000 cubits’ 4Q265 7.5 and ‫שתים אמות‬ 4Q365a 2ii9, and not ‫שתי אמות‬, suggest that a numeral preceding a pl. form of ‫ אמה‬is in the st. abs., hence ‫ שבע אמות‬ib. 2ii5 = ‫שׁ ַבע ַאמּוֹת‬, ֶ not ‫שׁ ַבע אמות‬. ְ On the pattern as in ‫אמות שש‬, see above at § a. fe) ‫ֵמ ָאה‬ BH uses the cst. form, ‫מ ַאת‬, ְ as equivalent to ‫מ ָאה‬. ֵ Thus ‫ן־מ ַאת ָשׁנָ ה‬ ְ ‫‘ ֶבּ‬at the age of hundred years’ Gn 11.10 // ‫ה־שׁנָ ה יִ וָּ ֵלד‬ ָ ‫‘ ַה ְלּ ֶבן ֵמ ָא‬could a child be born to someone hundred years old?’ Gn 17.17. In QH, by contrast, all the instances, four in all, of the cst. form appear to be under conscious influence of BH: ‫הארץ חמשים ומאת יום‬ ֗ ‫ ויגברו המים על‬4Q252 1.7 ֯ ‫ויהיו י‬ (< Gn 7.24); ‫ ובסוף חמשים ומאת יום חסרו המים‬4Q252 1.9 (< Gn 8.3); ‫ימי֯ ישחק מאת‬ ‫ שנה‬4Q364 8i2 (< Gn 35.28); ‫מאת ככר‬ ֯ 4Q159 1ii8 (< Ex 38.25, 27). ff) Determinate NP If a preceding cardinal numeral from ‘two’ to ‘ten’ can be analysed (1) as being in the st. cst. and is followed by an NP which is formally or contextually determinate, the selection of the st. cst. phrase is syntagmatically conditioned, and its value is not partitive, thus ‫ ְשׂלו ֶֺשׁת ֶא ָחיו‬does not mean ‘three of his brothers,’ but ‘his three brothers.’ (2) Four examples of cst. ‫ ַא ַחד‬as against abs. ‫ ֶא ָחד‬have been mentioned above (§ 21 b viii]), which can only mean ‘one of ..,’ as in ‫‘ אחד ההרים‬one of the mountains’ 4Q225 2i12. One should note, however, that they all reflect an underlying biblical text, and elsewhere in QH we find instead ‫אחד מן‬, thus the partitive notion is lexicalised. See ‫ַא ַחת ֶה ָע ִרים ָה ֵאל‬ Dt 19.11 // ‫ [מן הערים האלה‬4Q38a 1.6; ‫ אחד מעבדי אדוני‬IQIsaa 36.9 // ‫ ַא ַחד ַע ְב ֵדי ֲאד ֹנִ י‬MT, but ‫ ֯כאחד השרים‬Ps 82.7 Mas1e 2.11 // ‫ ְכּ ַא ַחד ַה ָשּׂ ִרים‬MT. (3) E.g. ‫ שני אחיו‬4Q372 1.10 ‘his two brothers’ (4); ‫‘ לשני עבריו‬on both sides of ֯ ‫‘ שתי‬her two daughters’ it’ (5) 1QM 5.12; ‫‘ שני צדיה‬its two sides’ 11Q19 9.3; ‫בנותיה‬ 6 4Q215 1.8 ( ); ‫‘ שתי סוכותיהמה‬their two huts’ 11Q19 44.6; ‫‘ שתי הידות‬the two divisions’ 11Q19 58.8; ‫‘ שתי המערכות‬the two lines’ 1QM 6.4; ‫‘ שני הבינין‬the two tamarisks’ ‫‘ שבעת הימים האלה‬those seven days’ 3Q15 4.6; ‫‘ שני האנשים‬the two men’ 11Q19 61.8; ‫לה‬ 11Q19 17.12, referring back to ‫ימים‬ ֯ ‫ שבעת‬line 11. 1 2

Unvocalised, ‫ שלוש הבנות‬is ambivalent: ‫ ְשׁלוֹשׁ ַה ָבּנוֹת‬or ‫?שׁלוֹשׁ ַה ָבּנוֹת‬ ָ Even where the person concerned has more than three brothers, certain three specific ones are in

view. 3 As a matter of fact, this lexicalising ‫ ִמן‬is not uncommon in BH, e.g. ‫ ֶא ָחד ִמ ְבּנֵ י ִשׁ ְב ֵטי ְבנֵ י־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬Nu 36.3, even in conjunction with cst. ‫ ַא ַחד ִמ ָבּנָ יו‬Jdg 17.11. 4 “his” here = Joseph’s. Schuller (1990.367f. and DJD 10.170-72) argues that ‘Joseph’ here stands for the northern tribes of Israel, not Jacob’s darling in the Genesis story. Hence his two brothers = Judah and Benjamin. But see Knibb 1992.164-77 and id. 2000.426f., where Knibb does not say who “his two brothers” or “two of his brothers” are. On ‫‘ שניהם‬they two,’ not ‘they both,’ see above at § 21 b (xxii), p. 144, n. 1. 5 The use of both is an expediency of translation, for a sword can have only two sides. 6 If Bilhah and Zilpah are meant.



g) We often come across a combination of three (1) constituents: 1) substance to be quantified, 2) monetary unit or unit of weight, and 3) the number of units. Three different sequences are attested in our corpus. (2) i) E.g. ‫‘ זהב ככרין שתים‬two talents of gold’ 3Q15 7.16; 70 ‫‘ כסף ככ‬70 talents of silver’ 3Q15 8.16; ‫‘ כסף ככרין ששין ושנין‬sixty-two ..’ 3Q15 10.6; ‫‘ כסף זוזין שנים עשר‬twelve zuz of silver’ 5/6Ḥev 45.23, cf. ‫‘ זָ ָהב ַדּ ְר ְכּמוֹנִ ים ְשׁ ֵתּי ִרבּוֹא וְ ֶכ ֶסף ָמנִ ים ַא ְל ָפּיִ ם‬gold, 20,000 darics and silver, 2,000 minas’ Neh 7.72. Does the use of ‫ של‬as in ‫‘ בדין של כסף שש‬six silver bars’ 3Q15 2.11 and 7.10 suggest that the nominals in the examples quoted above are in the st. cst.? The above-quoted Neh 7.72 with ‫ זָ ָהב‬probably suggests otherwise. ii) E.g. ‫‘ חטים חמש סאים‬wheat, 5 seahs’ M30 14; ֗‫ ז֗ ו֗ ז‬40 ‫‘ כסף‬silver, 40 zuz’ M22 4 (3). This is a fairly common syntagm in LBH, e.g. ‫ה־א ֶלף וְ ֶכ ֶסף ֶא ֶלף ֲא ָל ִפים‬ ֶ ‫זָ ָהב ִכּ ָכּ ִרים ֵמ ָא‬ ‫‘ ִכּ ָכּ ִרים‬gold, 100,000 talents and silver, 1,000,000 talents’ 1Ch 22.14, but also in CBH, e.g. ‫ע־מאוֹת וְ ֶע ְשׂ ִרים ִכּ ָכּר‬ ֵ ‫‘ זָ ָהב ַא ְר ַבּ‬gold, 420 talents’ 1Kg 9.28. (4) iii) E.g. ‫(‘ שני עשרונים סולת‬two) tenths (of ephah) of finest flour’ 11Q19 18.15 (5), a fairly common syntagm in BH, e.g. ‫‘ ְשׁלשׁ ְס ִאים ֶק ַמח ס ֶֹלת‬three seahs of fine meal’ Gn 18.6, ‫ָח ֵמשׁ‬ ‫‘ ְס ִאים ָק ִלי‬.. of parched corn’ 1Sm 25.18, ‫‘ ְשׁ ̇ל ֶשׁת ָמנִ ים זָ ָהב‬3 minas of gold’ 1Kg 10.17. h) Substantivised cardinal numerals When a referent who or which is being quantified can be inferred from the context, the substantive in question can be left out. E.g. ‫‘ על שתים תלך‬on two (legs) it walked’ ֗ ‫ שרי מאות שרי חמ‬.. ‫‘ אלפי ישראל‬the thousands of Is. .. the 4Q385 6.7; ‫משים ושרי עשרות‬ chiefs of the hundreds ..’ 1QSa 1.14. 1

Kropat (1909.47), Polzin (1976.61-63), and Mor (2015.331f.) deal with only two constituents, NP and unit. A more refined classification is preferable. We would, pace Polzin (1976.62), rather identify two distinct syntagms in, e.g. ‫ זָ ָהב ֵמ ָאה ִכ ָכּר‬.. ‫שׁ־מאוֹת וַ ֲח ִמ ִשּׁים‬ ֵ ‫ ֶכּ ֶסף ִכּ ָכּ ִרים ֵשׁ‬Ezr 8.26. 2 In the fronting of NP Polzin (1976.64) and Mor (2015.332) see Aramaism, but in Qumran Aramaic we find also and attested, see Muraoka 2011 § 67 e. Both GK (§ 131 d) and Polzin (1976.61) identify here apposition, which, however, sounds to us a shade too broad use of the term. There is no relation of equation between the two terms in, say, ‫‘ ִכּ ְכּ ַריִ ם ֶכּ ֶסף‬two talents of silver,’ which is different from ‫‘ כסף זוזין שנים עשר סלעים שלוש‬silver, 12 zuz, which are equivalent to 3 selas’ 5/6Ḥev 45.23. 3 More examples may be found in Mor 2015.332. 4 The frequency in the corpus of Mor and the Copper Scroll (3M15) of the two patterns with fronted NP may suggest their affinity with a cleric’s or accountant’s language; in a table you may set up several columns such as commodity followed by unit, quantity, price, date, etc. Cf. the parameter of “Sitz im Leben,” see above at § 26 a (p. 161). 5 The restoration of ‫ שני‬is certain in view of Lv 23.17.



Where appropriate, such a numeral can take the definite article, e.g. ‫‘ הששה‬the (other) six (priests)’ 1QM 7.12; ‫‘ שם שר העשרה‬the name of the commander of the ten’ 1QM 4.5; ‫‘ שר האלף‬the commander of the thousand’ 1QM 4.2; ‫‘ שנים העשר האלה‬these ֵ ‫ל־פּ‬ ְ ‫ָכּ‬ twelve (men)’ 4Q159 2-4+8.4. Should ‫ות האלף‬ ֗ ‫ שש ֗מ ֗או‬4Q159 1ii8 be related to ‫קוּדי‬ ‫לשׁת ֲא ָל ִפים וַ ֲח ֵמשׁ ֵמאוֹת וַ ֲח ִמ ִשּׁים‬ ֶ ‫וּשׁ‬ ְ ‫שׁ־מאוֹת ֶא ֶלף‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ַמּ ֲחנֹת ְל ִצ ְבא ָֹתם ֵשׁ‬Nu 2.32, the addition of the article is hard to account for. ha) Numbering cardinal numerals A self-standing cardinal numeral can be used not to count, but to number. E.g. ‫באחד‬ ‫‘ בחודש הראישון‬on (day) one in the first month’ 4Q252 1.22; ‫ בשבעה עשר‬.. ‫באחד בשבת‬ ‫‘ בו‬on (day) one of the week .. on (day) seventeen of it [= the month]’ ib. 4, cf. ‫יום חמשה‬ ‫ בשבת‬ib. 7 and ‫‘ יום רביעי לשבת‬the fourth day of the week’ ib. 11; ‫ בשנים‬4Q321a 1.5 in lieu of ‫‘ ביום שנים‬on day two,’ sim. ‫‘ בשמונה עשר בו שבת‬on (day) eighteen in it Sabbath’ 4Q325 1.1; ‫‘ בשנת שתים‬in year 2’ KhQ1 1; ‫ למרחשון שנת ארבע לגאלת ישראל‬14‫ב‬ ‘on 14 of Marheshvan in year four of the liberation of Israel’ M22 1; ‫שנת שלוש לשמעון‬ ‘year three of Simeon’ 5/6Ḥev 45.1, 46.1; ‫בשנת שש מאות שנה לחיי נוח‬ ֗ ‘in year 600 in the life of Noah’ 4Q252 1.3 < Gn 7.11; ‫‘ בשלושה בשבת‬on (day) three of the week’ 4Q252 1.8. From ‫ שנת‬in some of the examples adduced here it follows that ‫ יום‬must be in the st. cst. (1) From the examples cited above one can see that the gender of the numeral in question agrees with that of the Hebrew word for the numbered entity. Hence ‫ יום חמשה‬vs. ‫שנת‬ ‫שתים‬. A numbering, cardinal numeral is mostly postposed, e.g. ‫֯ביום שנים ֯ב ֗שנ֗ ים ֗עשר ֗ה ֗ח ֗ד ֗ש‬ ‘on day two in month twelve’ 4Q320 2.14, but ‫בח ֗משה עשר יום לחודש הזה‬ ֗ ‘on day fifteen of this month’ 11Q19 27.10 (< Lv 23.34). i) Adjective added ‫‘ כוהנים שלושה תמימים בכול הנגלה‬three priests, perfect in everything that is revealed’ 1QS 8.1; ‫שבעה תמימים‬ ֗ ‫‘ כבשים בני שנה‬seven one-year old, flawless lambs’ 11Q19 17.13. j) Miscellaneous details In two instances a cardinal numeral expanding a nominal is articular: ‫את ארבע העשרה‬ ‫‘ שנה‬the fourteen years’ 4Q364 4ii3 (2); ‫ישרראל‬ ‫נה‬ ֗ ‫ שנים העשר בני‬4Q365 12iii13 // ‫ְשׁנֵ ים‬ ‫ ָע ָשׂר ָשׁ ֶבט‬Ex 39.14. 1 The use of ‫ ְשׁנַ ת‬in giving of calendrical information is already biblical, e.g. ‫ִבּ ְשׁנַ ת ְשׁ ַתּיִ ם ְל ָא ָסא‬ 1Kg 15.25. 2 Given the fem. gender of ‫שׁנָ ה‬, ָ ‫נה‬ ‫ארבעה עשרה שנה‬ ‫ ארבע‬of DJD 13.209 is impossible. The addition of the article makes sense, since Jacob is reminding Laban of the number of years he had slaved under him (Gn 30.26, where the MT lacks this detail). As a BH example of the articulate numeral



In ‫‘ אלף מערכת אנשי הבינים‬one thousand skirmishers forming a line’ 1QM 6.9 the sequence of the constituents is unusual, for ‫ אלף‬undoubtedly must be construed with ‫אנשי בינים‬. Its precedence is probably meant to underline the number of other participating units mentioned: ‫שבע מאות פרשים לעבר האחד ושבע מאות לעבר השני מאתים‬ ‫‘ פרשים יצאו עם אלף מערכת אנשי הבינים‬seven hundred horsemen on one flank and seven hundred horsemen on the other flank. Two hundred horsemen shall advance with ..’. k) Ordinal numerals The articular ‫ האחד‬appears to be equivalent to ‫ הראשון‬in ‫ הכוהן האחד‬1QM 7.12, synonymous with ‫‘ כוהן הראש‬the chief priest’ 1QM 2.1, 15.4, (1) cf. ‫ יוֹם ֶא ָחד‬Gn 1.5, followed by ‫ יוֹם ֵשׁנִ י‬etc. See also ‫‘ השער האחד‬the first gate’ 1QM 7.16; ‫‘ הטור האחד‬the ֯ ‫הטור‬ first row’ 4Q365 12biii10 (< Ex 39.10), followed by ‫ והטור‬.. ‫ הטור השלישי‬.. ‫השני‬ ‫הרביעי‬. However, we do find ‫‘ יום אחד בשבת‬the first day of the week’ 4Q252 1.13 alongside ‫‘ יום ֗ה ֗רביעי ויום החמישי ויום הששי‬the fourth day ..’ ib. 9. Yet, in ‫שבע מאות‬ ‫ פרשים לעבר האחד ושבע מאות לעבר השני‬1QM 6.8, the sense is ‘700 cavalry on one side and 700 on the other,’ since it is about the left and right sides. ‫ החיה האחת‬4Q385 6.7 can hardly mean ‘each animal’ (2); see also ‫החלה האחת‬ 11Q19 18.15, where it must be referring to one of ‫‘ שתים חלות לחם‬two cakes of bread’ (line 14) to be prepared (3). There is no argument against understanding ‫למערכה האחת‬ as meaning ‘the first line (among the seven)’ 1QM 5.4 (4). Likewise ‫ האחת‬4Q270 f3ii20. It is an extension of the use of numbering cardinal numerals (§ ha above). The use of cardinals in lieu of ordinals may be extended to numerals other than ‫אחד‬ or ‫אחת‬. Thus ‫‘ יום רביעי לשבת‬fourth day of the week’ 4Q252 1.11 alongside not only ‫ יום אחד בשבת‬ib. 13, but also ‫ יום חמשה בשבת‬ib. 7, ‫ בשלושה בשבת‬ib. 8. See above at § ha. Ordinals used attributively follow their NP nucleus like any other adjective, e.g. ‫‘ יום ֗ה ֗רביעי ויום החמישי ויום הששי‬the fourth day ..’ 4Q252 1.9; ‫‘ בחודש השביעי‬in the seventh month’ 4Q252 1.10. Cardinal numerals above eleven, however, when doubling for ordinals, may precede, e.g. ‫‘ עשתי עשר החודש‬the eleventh month’ 4Q252 1.17, 4Q321 1.4; ‫ בשנים עשר החודש‬ib. 5, ib. 2.8; ‫ בעשתי ֯ע ֯שר החודש‬ib. 3.6, sim. ib. 5.3. Qimron (III 100) mentions ‫ ְשׁנֵ ים ֶה ָע ָשׂר ִאישׁ‬Josh 4.4, whilst the other, ‫ ְשׁנֵ ים ֶה ָע ָשׂר‬2Kg 19.19, is distinct, as it means ‘the twelfth (yoke).’ ‫אתיִ ם ִאישׁ‬ ַ ‫וּמ‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֲח ִמ ִשּׁים‬Nu 16.35 could also be added, though the article is placed up front, an example mentioned in König 1897 § 313 i (wrongly given as Nu 16.25). The reason for the use of the article in the above-cited second instance is obvious. 1 Pace Yadin (1957.303): “one of the seven priests” mentioned 1QM 7.9. 2 So DJD 30.44. The reference is probably to one of ‫( ארבע חיות‬line 6). 3 Rightly Steudel (37) “der eine Kuchen.” 4 Pace DSF (201): “Pour chaque ligne,” the same at 1QM 6.11 (partly reconstructed), where ‘for each line’ is against elementary arithmetics, for 1,400 ÷ 50 = 28, but there are supposed to be seven lines (1QM 5.16).



§ 27 BY PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES a) Attributively used (1) Thus ‫‘ להפר בריתךה אתם‬to tear up Your covenant with them’ 4Q405 5.8; ‫אמנתם במורה‬ ‫‘ הצדק‬their trust in the teacher of righteousness’ 1QpHab 8.2; ‫‘ טובכה בנו‬Your goodness towards us’ 1QM 18.8; ‫‘ מעשיו בתורה‬his deeds in the light of the Torah’ 1QS 6.18; ‫‘ בית קודש לישראל‬a sanctuary for ..’ 1QS 8.5; ‫‘ מצות אל ביד משה‬commandments of God (given) through ..’ CD 5.21; ‫‘ הון הרשעה הטמא בנדר‬the unclean, ill-gotten mammon acquired by vowing’ CD 6.15; ‫‘ לאהוב איש את אחיהו כמוהו‬for one to love his brother, who is like him’ CD 6.20 (2); ‫‘ משיח מאהרן‬a Messiah descended from Aaron’ CD 20.1; ‫‘ שו֗ תופתי עמך‬my partnership with you’ 5/6Ḥev 45.9; ‫‘ בארבעה עשר לאלול‬on the 14th of Elul’ M29 9 (3). In ‫‘ חסדי רחמים על ישראל‬merciful acts of grace shown towards Isr.’ 1QS 1.22 and ‫‘ רחמיו על כול בני רצונו‬His mercies conferred on all people of His pleasure’ 1QHa 12.33, where the preposition ‫ על‬is due to the verbal rection ‫‘ רחם על‬to show mercy to,’ and at 1QS 1.22 it is not to be construed with the preceding ‫משמיעים‬. Likewise ‫משפטו בנו‬ ‘His judgement meted out to us’ 1QS 1.26, ‫‘ משפטיך בנו‬Your judgements on us’ CD 20.30, cf. ‫ט־בּם‬ ָ ‫‘ ֲהלֹא ִת ְשׁ ָפּ‬are You not going to judge them?’ 2Ch 20.12 and ‫ָמ ַתי ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂה ְבר ְֹד ַפי‬ ‫‘ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬when are You going to execute judgement against my persecutors?’ Ps 119.84. These instances show that the rection of a verb and that of a derivationally and notionally affiliated verbal noun enlighten each other. (4) b) ‫ אשׁר‬or ‫ ֶשׁ־‬+ locative phrase (5) Introduced by ‫אשׁר‬: ‫המחנה‬ ‫המב ֗ק ֯ר ֗אשר על כול אנשי המחנ‬ ֗ ‘the inspector who is in charge of the entire camp’ 4Q271 3.14; ‫אשר למחנה‬ ֗ ‫ המבקר‬CD 13.13, sim. 15.8; ‫למבקר אשר במחנה‬ CD 13.16; ‫‘ האות הגדולה אשר בראש כול העם‬the great standard which is at the head of the whole people’ 1QM 3.13; ‫אשר לימין‬ ֯ ‫‘ שוק התרומה‬the wave-offering of the leg which is to the right’ 11Q19 15.11; ‫‘ האש אשר על המזבח‬the fire which is on the altar’ 11Q19 34.12; ‫אשׁר עליהמה‬ ֗ ‫‘ כסף וזהב‬silver and gold which is on them’ 11Q19 2.8 (6) < Dt 7.25, where ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬is absent; ‫אשר ֗ע ֗ל שפת הים‬ ֗ ‫‘ החול‬the sand which is on the beach’ 4Q225 2i6 (7). 1

Cf. Kesterson 1988.521f. On the syntactic analysis of ‫ כמוהו‬found in the underlying biblical text, Lv 19.18, see Muraoka 1978. Our analysis presented there finds support in ‫ ֵר ֲעָך ֲא ֶשׁר ְכּנַ ְפ ְשָׁך‬Dt 13.7, quoted in 11Q19 54.20. 3 More similar examples of dating may be found in Mor 2015.321f., § 5.29. 4 See below at § 31 ba. 5 The addition of ‫ אשׁר‬or ‫ שׁ־‬can remove potential ambiguity, see JM § 130 fa. 6 Levinson (2016.14) follows Yadin, restoring ‫;אשר תוקש בו כי תועבה הוא לי‬ ֗ by so doing they are dislocating the clause beginning with ‫תוקש‬, which, in the MT, follows ‫וְ ָל ַק ְח ָתּ ָלְך‬, and with “lest” for ‫אשׁר‬ Levinson, probably unwittingly, is translating MT ‫ ֶפּן‬in ‫ ֶפּן ִתּוָּ ֵקשׁ‬Dt 7.25. One could, of course, translate ‘with which you could be ensnared’ (Impf. of theoretical possibility). 7 Dependent on Gn 22.17, though the text here goes back to Gn 15.5, where there is no reference to sand. 2



Introduced by -‫ש‬: ‫‘ בשית שיבצפון פי הצוק‬in the cistern which is in the north of the mouth of the gorge’ 3Q15 9.14; ‫‘ העפר הלבן שבהם ותכל אילן שבהם‬the cropland which is situated in them and every tree that is in them’ 5/6Ḥev 44.12, 15; ‫שאר ֗ה ֗אילן שבהם‬ ‘the rest of the trees that are in them’ 5/6Ḥev 46.4; ‫‘ הגללאים שאצלכם‬the Galileans who are with you’ M43.4; ֗‫עגלתי֗ ן‬ ֗ ֗‫‘ הלוחית ֗ש ֗ב ֗מ ֗חו֗ ז‬the Luhit that is in Mahoz Eglatayin’ 5/6Ḥev 44.5; ‫הפרת שאצלכן‬ ֗ ‘the ּfruits, which are with you’ 5/6Ḥev 49.6 // ‫שפינה שאש‬ ‫‘ אצלכן‬the boat, which is with you’ ib. 8 with an existential value explicitly marked with ‫יֵ שׁ = אש‬. (1) Non-locative: ‫‘ אותות ראשי המחנות אשר לשלושת השבטים‬the standards of the heads of the camps of the three tribes’ 1QM 3.14; ‫‘ השערים האלה אשר לחצר הפנ֗ י֗ מית‬these gates of the inner court’ 11Q19 36.13 // ‫‘ המקצוע השני לחצר‬the second corner of the court’ line 12. Sim. 11Q19 39.11. ba) ‫של‬ A synonym of ‫ אשׁר ל־‬occurs in ‫מבקר שלכול המחנות‬ ֗ ‫ ֯ה‬CD 14.8 (with ‫ אשר‬in 4Q266). Substituting for the standard cst. phrase this is common in 3Q15, § 21 i. ‫ אשר לו‬in ‫ הפר אשר לו‬11Q19 26.7 (< Lv 16.11) is not a mere substitute of a suffix pronoun, ‘his bull,’ but ‘the bull that was meant for himself.’ c) Expanding a substantivised participle A prepositional phrase may serve as a B term expanding a substantivised ptc. as in ‫‘ פקודת כול הולכי בה‬the visitation of all who walk in it’ 1QS 4.6, 11; ‫הולכי בדרך לבכה‬ ‘those who walk along the way of Your mind’ 1QHa 12.22 // ‫ הולכי דרך‬4Q525 20-22.2; ‫‘ יושבי֗ בה‬those living in it’ 4Q286 5.1; ‫‘ כוול תומכי בי‬all who support me’ 4Q525 11-12.2, 4Q184 1.9. Here every A term is unmistakably marked as cst. (2) Is the ptc. in a case such as ‫‘ כול תומך בי‬everyone who supports me’ in cst. st.? (3) d) Substantivisation A rare example of a substantivised prepositional phrase meets us in ‫את סביב למזבח‬ ‘the (area) round the altar’ 11Q19 35.8.


More analogous instances in his corpus are mentioned by Mor (2015.354, § 5.44). More examples are adduced by Geiger 2012.225f. An example from Ben Sira is mentioned in Van Peursen 2004.205: ‫‘ המציל את חוסי בו‬He who rescues those who trust Him’ Si 51.8, where we parse ‫חוסי‬ as pl. cst. in the light of ‫ יגאלם‬in the following clause. In our corpus no instance is found of a substantive as A-term explicitly marked as cst. and expanded by a prepositional adjunct as in ‫ ִשׂ ְמ ַחת ַבּ ָקּ ִציר‬Is 9.2, cf. JM § 129 n, where a good number of examples from prose texts are mentioned, which could necessitate rephrasing of Geiger’s (ib. 227, n. 86) wording: “.. sind die meisten [emphasis TM] Beispiele in poetischen Texten.” 3 On the situation in BH, see JM § 129 m 1). 2



§ 28 BY ‫( כל‬1) a) Bare ‫( כל‬2) Personal referent—‫‘ כל אשר פרצו‬all those who have broken through’ CD 20.25; ‫מכוח‬ ‫פזרו כול‬ ֗ ‫וית‬ ֗ ‫תו יבהלו‬ ‫גבורת‬ ֯ ‘by His power all will be frightened and scattered’ 4Q510 1.3; ‫‘ איכה יוכל כול להשנות את דבריכה‬how could anyone go against Your words?’ 1QHa 7.27; impersonal referent—‫‘ בדעתו נהיה כול‬with His knowledge everything comes into being’ 1QS 11.11; ‫‘ לאהוב כול אשר בחר ולשנוא את כול אשר מאס‬to love all that He chose and hate all that He rejected’ 1QS 1.3. (3) Articular: personal—‫‘ הכול יהיו ביחד אמת‬all (members) shall be in the community of truth’ 1QS 2.24; ‫‘ ונשאלו הכול על דבריו‬they all shall be questioned about his words’ 1QS 6.15; ‫להשמע הכול איש לרעה‬ ׄ ‘for all to be attentive to one another’ 4Q258 2.3; ‫‘ הכול שש מאות וארבעת אלפים‬in all, four thousand and six hundred’ 1QM 6.10; impersonal—‫‘ ֗מ ֯פיך הכול‬everything is from Your mouth’ 4Q266 11.9; ‫‘ מעשיך הכול‬all things are Your works’ 1QHa 8.26; ‫‘ הכול חקוק לפניכה‬everything is engraved before You’ 1QHa 9.25; ‫‘ הכול כתוב בלוחות‬everything is written on the tablets’ 4Q177 1-4.12. (4) b) Far more frequently we find ‫ כל‬in conjunction with a noun phrase in diverse patterns: + sg. abs. noun—‫‘ כול אחד‬every single one’ 1QS 1.14; ‫‘ כול מעשי טוב‬every good deed’ 1QS 4.20; ‫‘ כול דבר‬any matter whatsoever’ 1QS 7.9; ‘entire, whole’—‫בכול לב ובכול נפש‬ ‘with all heart and with all soul’ 1QS 5.8; + pl. abs. noun—‫‘ כול דרכי צדק אמת‬all ways of righteousness of truth’; + sg. det. noun—‫‘ כול העם‬the entire people’ 1QS 2.21; Yuditsky (2013) focuses on the absolute use of the lexeme as in ‫‘ הוא עשה כול‬He made all’ 4Q418 81-81a.2 and ‫‘ הכול חכרתי המך‬all I leased from you’ M24 2.13. On BH in this respect, see BDB s.v. (pp. 482b - 483a) 2. 2 For this well-established and common usage in BH, see BDB s.v. 2. 3 It is often said that ‫ כל‬in the syntagm is a nomen regens, e.g. JM § 150 o and BDB, s.v. ‫ כֹּל‬1 “with foll. gen. (as usually) the whole of.” The principal argument for this assumption is most probably the syntax of its Classical Arabic analogue as in /kullu baytin/ ‘every house.’ Confronted with a case such as ‫ל־הנָּ ִשׁים‬ ַ ‫ וַ ֵתּ ֶצאן ָ ָכ‬Ex 15.20 one wonders what the grammatical gender of ‫ כל‬is, and this is no exception, see JM loc. cit. Likewise in Arabic, e.g. /min hāwulāʼi tašaʻʻabat kullu lʼarḍi/ < ‫ֵמ ֵא ֶלּה נָ ְפ ָצה‬ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ ָכ‬Gn 9.19. There are also NPs which can not be inflected for case, e.g. /wara’ā l-lāhu kulla mā ʻamilahu/ < ‫ל־א ֶשׁר ָע ָשׂה‬ ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫ וַ יַּ ְרא ֱא‬Gn 1.31; /laysa r-rabbu faʻala kulla hādihi/ < ‫לֹא יְ הוָ ה ָפּ ַעל ָכּל־זֹאת‬ Dt 32.27. In ‫‘ כל הארץ‬the whole of the land’ one can still maintain this conventional analysis, but certainly not in ‫‘ כל ארץ‬every land,’ though ‫ בכל לב‬could mean not only ‘in every heart,’ but also ‘wholeheartedly.’ Hence we are inclined to group these quantifying lexemes as a special category of attributive lexemes, though cardinal numerals do occasionally appear in the st. cst., see above at § 26 f. 4 At ‫ מי יספר את מעשי אדון הכול ראה אלוה הכול הוא שמע‬11Q5 28.7 we prefer to follow DJD 4.56f. rather than Qimron (2018.433), who takes ‫ אדון‬and ‫ אלוה‬as in the st. cst., and translate: ‘who could recount the deeds of the Lord? God saw everything. He heard everything.’ For this uncommon, anarthrous ‫ אדון‬as referring to God, see ‫לוֹהּ יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ַ ‫חוּלי ָא ֶרץ ִמ ִלּ ְפנֵ י ֱא‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ִלּ ְפנֵ י ָאדוֹן‬Ps 114.7, where ‫ ָאדוֹן‬is parallel to ‫לוֹהּ‬ ַ ‫א‬. ֱ 1



‫‘ כול התורה‬the entire Torah’ 1QS 8.1; + sg. noun. with a conj. pron.—‫‘ כול הונם‬all their property’ 1QS 1.13; ‫‘ כול ממשלו‬all that he controls’ 1QS 9.24; + pl. det. noun— ‫‘ כול החוקים האלה‬all these rules’ 1QS 5.7; ‫‘ כול אנשי המערכה‬all the men of the battle line’ 1QM 7.12; + pl. noun. with a conj. pron.—‫‘ כול דרכיה‬all its ways’ 1QS 4.1; ‫‘ כול גבוריהם‬all their warriors’ 1QM 14.8; ‫עמוד בתו֗ ך באמצעו מרובע רוחבוׄ ארבע ׄ֗א ֗מו֯ ֗ת‬ ‫‘ ֗לכו֗ ֗ל רוחותיו‬a square column in its middle, 4 cubits wide, in all its directions’ 11Q19 30.9 (1). For Naudé - Miller-Naudé (2015.97, 100) there is no difference between and : ‫ כל‬is a distributive quantifier and its semantic nuance is said to be non-specific and implicitly inclusive. We doubt, however, that ‫כל‬ in ‫ כל בני אור‬1QS 1.9 is distributive in value; it signifies that a statement containing it applies to the totality of the referents, whereas ‫ כל בן אדם‬underlines that the statement is true of every single referent concerned. (2) In some cases a sg. id. NP following ‫ כל‬refers to a constituent member or part of the referent (3): ‫‘ כל עם‬every member of the people’ 4Q185 1-2ii8, not ‘every people’; ‫‘ בכל הון אל תמר רוח קודשכה‬you shall not swap your holy spirit for any amount of possessions (offered)’ 4Q 416 2ii6; also with ‫ הון‬and negatively worded in 11Q19 57.21. c) ‫כל = כל ה־‬ The article notwithstanding, the sense can be ‘every, each,’ not ‘the whole,’ a syntagm which occurs with a ptc. sg., e.g. ‫‘ כול הנמצא‬whoever is found’ 1QS 6.2 (4); ‫כול דבר‬ ‫‘ הנסתר‬every thing that is concealed’ 1QS 8.11, where the article has been added above the line; ‫‘ כול הנוסף ליחד‬everyone that joins the community’ 1QS 8.19; ‫כול הבא בעצת‬ ‫‘ הקודש‬everyone that enters the council of holiness’ 1QS 8.21, with which cp. ‫יקהילו‬ ‫‘ את כול הבאים‬they shall assemble all those who enter’ 1QSa 1.4; ‫‘ ֗כול ההולך‬everything that walks’ 4Q365 17.42 // ‫הוֹלְך‬ ֵ ‫ כֹּל‬Lv 11.42. Also with an ordinary substantive: ‫כול‬ ‫‘ ֗האב‬every green shoot’ 4Q265 7.14; ‫‘ כול הנפש‬every soul’ 11Q19 25.11 (< Lv 23.29); ‫‘ כול האזרח בישראל‬every native of Is.,’ 1QSa 1.6, cf. ‫ל־ה ֶאזְ ָרח ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל יֵ ְשׁבוּ ַבּ ֻסּכֹּת‬ ָ ‫ָכּ‬ Lv 23.42, where the pl. ‫ יֵ ְשׁבוּ‬is to be noted, but in 1QSa the text is probably continued 1

Naudé - Miller-Naudé (2015.96f.) hold that this example represents a syntagm unique to this document. They propose “on each of its sides,” but ‘on all of its sides’ does not necessarily mean that the total length of the four sides is four cubits. What is meant by the text is that the length or width of the column was to be 4 cubits in all the four directions. The same analysis holds true for the other cases in this document mentioned id. 97, n. 18. 2 Cf. Engl. All men are created equal or All members were present as against Every member was present. 3 So Naudé - Miller-Naudé 2015.99. ‫ל־פּה דּ ֵֹבר נְ ָב ָלה‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָכ‬Is 9.16 mentioned there does not belong here. 4 Is it possible to see here an inadvertent haplography for ‫‘ ככול הנמצא‬in accordance with all the (truth) that is discovered’? Such an analysis is not applicable to ‫‘ כול המתנדב‬everyone who is committed’ 1QS 6.13. The presence of the article remains problematic.



in the sg. — ‫ילמדהו‬ ֗ ‫‘ מן נעו֯ ריו יל‬one shall teach him from youth.’ But note ‫כל אזרחים‬ 4Q423 5.4. In ‫ תואכלנה‬.. ‫ כול הבהמה הטהורה‬11Q19 52.16 the meaning is not ‘the clean animal in its entirety ..,’ but ‘you shall eat every clean animal ..,’ as is clear from the context. Note also ‫‘ כול האדם‬anyone’ CD 14.11, 11Q19 50.8. We have an interesting example in ‫ כול האיש אשר יעשה בו מלאכה‬11Q19 27.6, where the following, parallel clause reads ‫‘ אשר לוא יתענו בו‬who do not fast on it [= that day].’ We are inclined to see ‫ אשר‬as still having ‫ כול האיש‬as its antecedent (1). Though ‫ יעשה‬does agree in number with ‫כול האיש‬, the author saw this as equivalent to ‫כול אנשים‬, hence the pl. ‫יתענו‬. may also concord ad sensum with a pl. verb: ‫לוא יהיה‬ ‫‘ נוגעים בהמה כול אדם‬nobody whosoever shall touch it’ 11Q19 32.14, but ‫ יהיה‬sg.!; ‫‘ כול איש עור לוא יבואו‬no blind person shall enter’ 11Q19 45.12, ‫ לוא יבואו‬.. ‫כול טמא‬ ‘anyone impure .. shall not enter’ 11Q19 45.17, followed by ‫‘ עד אשר יטהר‬until he comes clean’ // ‫ עד אשר יטהרו‬.. ‫ לוא יבואו‬.. ‫‘ כול צרוע‬no leper ..’. See also ‫‘ כול השיר‬all the poems [which come up to 446!]’ 11Q5 27.9. Analogously : ‫תועבה המה‬ ‫‘ לפני כול עושה אלה‬all those who do such things are abominable to Me’ 11Q19 60.19 (2). The above-quoted examples of discourage us from seeing the definite article in a case such as ‫כול הנוסף ליחד‬, also quoted above, as a substitute of ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬as known to LBH (JM § 145 d). ‫‘ ויורש משם את כל האמורי‬and he will expel from there all the Amorites’ 4Q522 9ii4 is an extension of the syntagm shown by the examples dealt with above, for ‫אמורי‬, like many gentilics with -‫ י‬as a suffix, is frequently used collectively in the singular and with the article. ca) can mean ‘the whole’: ‫‘ בכול לב ובכול נפש‬with (his) whole ְ ‫ֹלהיָך ְבּ ָכ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָא ַה ְב ָתּ ֵאת יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ heart and with (his) whole soul’ CD 15.12, 1QS 5.8, cf. ‫ל־ל ָב ְבָך‬ ‫ל־מא ֶֹדָך‬ ְ ‫וּב ָכ‬ ְ ‫וּב ָכל־נַ ְפ ְשָׁך‬ ְ Dt 6.5. d) Categorical negation ‫ כל‬with a sg. indeterminate NP is often used to express total, categorical negation as in ‫‘ אל ידבר איש כול דבר‬none shall speak about anything whatsoever’ 1QS 6.11; ‫לוא‬ ‫‘ יקח מידם כול מאומה‬one shall not accept from them anything whatsoever’ 1QS 5.16, more emphatic than ‫ מאום‬alone as in ‫‘ לוא ידבק בידכה מאום מן החרם‬nothing placed under the ban shall attach to your hand’ 11Q19 55.10. See also ‫לוא לצעוד בכול אחד מכול‬ ‫‘ דברי אל‬not to go against any one of the words of God’ 1QS 1.13. A pl. NP is also found occasionally: e.g. ‫‘ לוא ארחם על כול סוררי דרכ‬I shall not pity any of deviants’ 1QS 10.20; ‫לכול בני חושך‬ ֯ ‫‘ פלטא לוא תהיה‬there shall be no rescue whatsoever for the sons of darkness’ 1QM 1.6; ‫‘ כול אלה לוא ילכו‬all these shall not go’ Note that in the underlying biblical text, Lv 23.29f., both relative clauses have ‫ כל הנפש‬as their respective antecedent. 2 ‫עוֹשׂה = עושה‬ ֵ as pl. cst. of ‫עוֹשׂים‬ ִ is unlikely. 1



1QM 7.5; ‫רמיה ֯במזמת לבכה‬ ֗ ‫‘ אין הולל בכול מעשיך ולא‬there is no delusion in any of Your works and no deception whatsoever in the intentions of Your mind’ 1QHa 12.21; ‫‘ בכל אלה לא הבינו‬they did not understand any of these things’ CD 8.12. Likewise bare ‫כל‬: personal—e.g. ‫‘ לא יוכל כול להתיצב לפנ֗ י ח)כ(מתךה‬nobody could hold his position in face of Your wisdom’ 1QHa 15.32; even with the pl. concord— ‫‘ ֗כ ֗ל לא ידעוך‬none knew You’ 4Q374 2ii9; impersonal—‫‘ לא רצו בכול אשר צויתה‬they did not like anything that You commanded’ 1QHa 7.31; ‫‘ בליֿ רצונכה לוא יעשה כול‬without Your will nothing could be done’ 1QS 11.17. e) Resumptively used Sometimes ‫ כל‬is found with a conj. pron., which refers to a preceding noun phrase: ַ ‫ָכּ‬ e.g. ‫‘ השערים כולמה‬all the gates’ 11Q19 46.6, a usage known in BH (1), e.g. ‫ל־מ ְל ֵכי‬ ‫ גוֹיִם ֻכּ ָלּם ָשׁ ְכבוּ‬Is 14.18, and ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ֻכ ָלּם ָע ָליו ָמ ָשׁל יִ ָשּׂאוּ‬Hb 2.6. However, in ‫כול מפשיטי‬ ‫ ועורך הצידה כולם‬.. ‫‘ החללים‬all those who strip the fallen .. and cook(s), all of them’ 1QM 7.2 and ‫‘ כול הבית הזה כולו‬all of this building in its entirety’ 11Q19 33.11 we see ‫ כול‬also at the beginning, which suggests that we may be having to do with a syntagm different from that found in 11Q19 46.6. The second can be adverbal, not adnominal in function. f) Other quantifying words A lexeme affiliated as a quantifier to ‫כל‬, in its some 15 attestations in QH, ‫ מעט‬occurs only once as a possibly attributive expander: ‫‘ דברים מעט‬a few words’ CD 20.24. However, the reading is uncertain: Rabin (1958.41) and Charles (1913.822) restore ‫דברים מעטים‬. In BH the lexeme occurs 101 times. When attributively used, it is always indeclinable, whether it precedes a substantive or follows it (2), e.g. ‫ ְמ ַעט ַמיִ ם‬Gn 18.4, ‫‘ ִס ְכלוּת ְמ ָעט‬a little folly’ Ec 10.1, ‫‘ ֲאנָ ִשׁים ְמ ַעט‬a few people’ Neh 2.12, ‫‘ גּוֹיִם לֹא ְמ ָעט‬not a few nations’ Is 10.7. Only twice it occurs in the plural, but predicatively: ‫יָמיו‬ ָ ‫יִ ְהיוּ‬ 3 ‫ ְמ ַע ִטּים‬Ps 109.8 and ‫ יִ ְהיוּ ְד ָב ֶריָך ְמ ַע ִטּים‬Ec 5.1. ( ) Thus our CD example is striking, however one might restore the word. Here also belongs ‫מקצת‬, a lexeme attested only in MMT. It always precedes a determinate pl. NP, e.g. ‫‘ מקצת דברינו‬some of our words’ MMT B 1, ‫‘ מקצת הברכות‬some of the blessings’ MMT C 20. Likewise MMT B 59, 80, C 27, 30. This feature in BH 1

Cf. Naudé - Miller-Naudé 2015.109-11, § 3.2.3. In another three potential cases (11Q19 7.8, 9.11, 12.10) the fragmentary context makes for uncertain analysis, and Qimron (I 46) encloses ‫ כולה‬in ‫את העבודה‬ ‫‘ כולה‬the entire service’ with square brackets, indicating that its reading is uncertain. 2 Hence to analyse the fronted ‫ מעט‬as being in the st. cst. would run into a difficulty in the face of the delayed, non-declined ‫מעט‬. 3 It appears that, in BH, even when predicatively used, the lexeme was basically indeclinable: ‫יְמי ְשׁנֵ י‬ ֵ ‫וּמ ַאת ָשׁנָ ה ְמ ַעט וְ ָר ִעים ָהיוּ‬ ְ ‫ֹלשׁים‬ ִ ‫גוּרי ְשׁ‬ ַ ‫ ְמ‬Gn 47.9, where the contrast with ‫ ָר ִעים‬should be noticed. Note also ‫‘ מעט רעה כרעת אשה‬any evil is slight when compared with a woman’s evil’ Si 25.19.



is also confined to LBH: ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ית־ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ְק ָצת ְכּ ֵלי ֵב‬Dn 1.2, ‫אשׁי ָה ָאבוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ְק ָצת ָר‬Neh 7.69. Here we have then a clear index pointing to the affinity of the Hebrew of this document with that of LBH. (1) It would not be wrong to analyse ‫ מקצת‬here as being in the st. cst., which can hardly be made to apply to ‫ כל‬in the syntagm , even where ‫כל‬ means ‘all,’ not ‘every single, each,’ on which see above, p. 172, n. 3. Another quantifying lexeme may be mentioned here, namely ‫‘ רוב‬abundance,’ as in ‫‘ אורך אפים ורוב רחמים‬long-suffering and abundance of mercies’ 1QS 4.3; ‫֯רו֯ ב‬ ‫וצרו֯ ת‬ ‫‘ י֗ ֗מו֗ עמל ואון וצר‬many of his days are toil and trouble and distresses’ 4Q221 3.5, cf. Ps 90.10. (2) In ‫הר ֗בה אכלתמה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֯ב ֗ש ֗ר‬you ate much meat’ 2Q23 1.3 we could identify an equivalent of a normal, attributive adjective, thus = ‫בשר רב‬, but the disjunction between ‫ הרבה‬and its nominal head in ‫‘ הרבה מצאתי לקח‬I found much instruction’ 11Q5 21.14 suggests that it might be adverbal in function, ‘in large quantity,’ a residue of the classic inf. abs. H ‫ה ְר ֵבּה‬, ַ see above at § 18 ob.

§ 29 BY


When two or more noun phrases follow one another, constituting a notionally coherent whole of equation, but not as a construct chain, they are in apposition to one another. E.g. ‫‘ כול עבדיו הנביאים‬all His servants the prophets’ 1QS 1.3; ‫‘ בני אהרון הכוהנים‬the sons of Aaron, the priests’ 1QSa 1.15. a) Proper noun as one component (4) NP1 = name: ‫ נבוכדנאצר מלך בבל‬CD 1.6; ‫‘ שלום אשתו שלדוסתס זה‬Shalom, the wife of this Dwsts’ M30 25; ‫‘ שרה בתו‬Sarah his daughter’ 4Q200 4.2; ‫שמעון בן כוסבא נשיא‬ ‫‘ ישראל‬Simon, son of Kosiba, Prince of Israel’ 5/6Ḥev 44.1; ‫֗משבלה בן שמעון עד‬ ‘Mesabalah, son of Simon, witness’ 5/6Ḥev 45.32; ‫‘ יו֯ נתן המלכ‬Jonathan the king’ ַ As in BH, ‫ הנביא‬consist4Q448 2ii2; ‫ חוזקיה המלך‬Is 37.1 1QIsaa // MT ‫ה ֶמּ ֶלְך ִחזְ ִקיָּ הוּ‬. 5 ently shows this sequence, e.g. ‫ זכריה הנביא‬CD 19.7. ( ) NP2 = name: ‫‘ ֯אחי֗ עשו‬my brother, Esau’ 4Q222 1.2; ‫‘ מעמךה ישראל‬from Your ‫החביב יעקוב‬ people, Israel’ 4Q504 2.11; ‫‘ אהביך יעקב‬your beloved Jacob’ 4Q372 1.21; ‫וב‬ ‘the beloved one, Jacob’ 4Q462 1.11; ‫‘ ישוע משרת ֗עבדך משה‬Joshua, a minister of Your However, its syntax in MH appears to differ: ‫וּמ ְק ָצ ָתהּ למחר‬ ִ ‫‘ מקצת מלאכה עשׂה מהיום‬he did part of the work for the day, but the rest (he left) for the following day’ mKer 4.2. 2 More examples above at § 21 b xxii. 3 Cf. Mor 2015.323-26, § 5.30. We fail to see on what ground Holmstedt (2018.57) identifies an appositional syntagm in such as ‫‘ שלושה גורלות‬three lots’ 1QM 1.13. Would ‫ רבים‬in ‫ גורלות רבים‬be in apposition? 4 Cf. JM § 131 k. In Qumran Aramaic a proper noun tends to precede, see Muraoka 2011 § 70 a. 5 Cf. JM § 131 j-k, Fassberg 2013.61-3, and Qimron 2018.439, § H 5.3.1. 1

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 28 f – § 29 c


servant, Moses’ 4Q378 22i2, where the two patterns are used side by side; ‫מן הפרדסין‬ ‫‘ של בית משכו מן ישוע ומן אלעזר‬from the administrators of Bet Mashiko, from Yeshua and from Elazar’ M42 1 (1). b) NP2 = a disjunctive pronoun E.g. ‫‘ עליך אתה אלעזר‬it is incumbent on you, Elazar’ 5/6Ḥev 46.10; ‫ כסף‬.. ‫עמי אני יהוסף‬ .. ‫‘ זוזין ארבעה‬with me, I Joseph, silver zuzin ..’ XḤev/Ṣe 49.5; ‫קיה‬ ֗ ֗‫בי חז‬/‫הבית שלי֗ ֗אנ‬ ‘my house, of me (: of my father) Hizkiyah’ KJe 11.2. (2) In all the three cases the NP1 is a conjunctive pronoun, which latter is named. See ‫‘ לך אתה הצדקה‬righteousness belongs to You alone’ 1QHa 8.27 where ‫ אתה‬also lends prominence to ‫לך‬. One could rewrite the clause as ‫לך היא הצדקה‬, and note what immediately follows—‫כי אתה עשיתה‬ ‫את כול ֯א ֯ל ֯ה‬. Basically the same statement, also occurring in ib. 4.32, is further expanded in ‫‘ לכה אתה אל הדעות כול מעשי הצדקה‬to You, the god of knowledge, belong all the deeds of righteousness’ 1QHa 9.28. Though in ‫ גם אל ידבר לפני תכונו הכתוב לפניו‬1QS 6.10 the NP2 is not a pronoun, Bardtke (1953.96), with his translation “Ebenfalls darf er nicht vor seinem Stand sprechen (d. h. vor dem), der vor ihm eingeschrieben ist,” apparently identified an appositional construction (3), which differs from what we see in the examples adduced above, in all of which the second constituent is a disjunctive pronoun. We may have a rare case of reverse sequence in ‫‘ מה מתבהלת היאה בתי‬why is she, my daughter, in a hurry?’ 4Q215 1.5. c) N1 = a noun of generic reference ‫ איש כוהן‬1QS 6.3, CD 13.2. In BH ‫ ָא ָדם‬is not used in this way; in ‫ אדם תבע‬5/6Ḥev 45.28 ‫ תבע‬is most likely an attributively used participle, ‘someone putting in a claim.’ 1

Mor (2015.324, n. 273) opines that the official character of the document has led to the reversal of the sequence, the function of the two persons carrying greater importance than their names. Would this apply to the first example? Cf. ‫ני‬ ‫ ייעקוב בני‬4Q222-223 2ii13 and ‫ קח את בנכה את ישחק‬4Q225 2i11 < Gn 22.1. Out of a discourse analysis perspective Murray (1999) attempts to demonstrate that the syntagm with a proper noun following is a rhetorical device for making the preceding substantive salient. However, he has not taken into account two other factors, namely LBH and the contemporary Aramaic preferring the fronting of proper nouns. See JM § 131 k with n. 5 and Muraoka 2011 § 70 a. Peretz (1968.131a) notes a movement in BH in the direction of ‫דוד המלך‬, which would dominate in MH. Peretz also holds that “in some cases” the first term is the more important. One wishes that more than a couple of examples could be quoted; Peretz quotes 1Kg 1.11-21, where ‫( בנך שלמה‬vs. 12) and ‫( בני שלמה‬vs. 21) occur alongside ‫( שלמה בנך‬vss. 13, 17). Peretz presents a historical evolution from BH to ModH, but QH was left out. 2 For these three references we are indebted to Mor 2015.269. 3 Followed by Wernberg-Møller 1957.105 and Kesterson 1988.522. As analogous BH examples the former mentions Ezk 10.3, 42.14, Ezr 8.1 and Neh 7.64, though at Ezr 8.1 the Tiberian accent on ‫ִה ְתיַ ְח ָ ֑שׂם‬ suggests that the following ‫ ָהע ִֹלים‬is in apposition to the preceding ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫אשׁי ֲאב ֵֹת‬ ֵ ‫ר‬,ָ and a similar analysis is possible at Neh 7.64. See further König 1897 § 284a and JM § 146 e 3).



d) Multiple appositional terms The absence of the conjunction waw marks a boundary between the head NP and its multiple appositional terms, all substantivised participles joined with a waw to one another, in ‫‘ אנשי מטה שולחי אצבע ומדברי און ומקני הון‬devious (?) people, those who point the finger and those who speak evil and those who keenly pursue riches’ 1QS 11.1. The appositional terms here are explanatory, specifying the kinds of people indicated by the first term. Likewise with ‫ או‬in ‫כול מנוגע בבשרו נכאה ֯ר ֯ג ֗לי֯ ם או ידים‬ ‫‘ פסח או עור או חרש או אלם‬anybody physically afflicted, crippled in his feet or hands, lame or blind or deaf or dumb’ 1QSa 2.5. See also ‫מן הפרדסין של בית משכו מן ישוע‬ ‫‘ ומן אלעזר‬from the administrators of Bet Mashiko, from Yeshua and from Elazar’ M42 1; ‫תללו חכרתי מכם תדקלים ותשאר ֗ה ֗אילן שבהם ותעפר הלבן ותדקל ֗ה ֗טו֗ ֗ב ותחצר‬ ‫‘ שבכפר ֗תכל שהחזיק חנניה‬all these I have leased from you (including) the date palms and the remainder of the tree(s) which are in them and the white soil and the good quality date palm and the courtyard (?) which is in the village, all that Hananiah held’ 5/6Ḥev 46.4f. e) Doubtful cases Apposition is highly unlikely in ‫‘ כול היום המוחרת‬all the following day’ 4Q27 1-4.2, si vera lectio for MT ‫ כל יום ַה ָמּחֳ ָרת‬Nu 11.32. At ‫‘ ותקעו להם הכוהנים תרועה סדר‬and the priests shall blow for them a loud sound for formation’ 1QM 16.4 ‫ תרועה‬in 1QM must be corrected to 4QMa’s ‫תרועות‬. (1) As unlikely is there a case of apposition in ‫‘ הכוהן המשנה‬the deputy priest’ 11Q19 31.4, perhaps a scribal error; for BH see ‫כּ ֵֹהן‬ ‫ ַה ִמּ ְשׁנֶ ה‬Je 52.24 and ‫ כּ ֲֹהנֵ י המשנה‬2Kg 23.4, and also cp. ‫‘ כוהן הראש‬the chief priest’ 1QM 2.1, 15.4. Likewise a scribal error in ‫ הארון העדו֗ ו֗ ת‬4Q364 17.3 (< ‫ֲארוֹן ָה ֵע ֻדת‬ Ex 26.34); ‫ הארון ֯ה ֯עדות‬4Q17 2ii18 for MT ‫ ֲארו ֺן ָה ֵעדוּת‬Ex 40.21. (2) Possibly also ‫‘ התולעת השני‬the scarlet stuff’ 4Q365 12iii4 // ‫תּוֹל ַעת ַה ָשּׁנִ י‬ ַ Ex 39.3. ‫‘ שנחים ימים‬two years’ 1QS 7.21+ is well-known in BH, e.g. Gn 41.1. For ‫ שני הלחות האבנים‬4Q54 6.11 // ‫ ְשׁנֵ י ֻלחוֹת ָה ֲא ָבנִ ים‬1Kg 8.9 we have examples in BH. (3) In ]‫ ֗ע ֗בתת‬4Q17 2i20 we appear to have a construct chain for an appositional phrase in its biblical source—MT ‫ ָה ֲעבֹתֹת ַהזָּ ָהב‬Ex 39.17. Yadin (1957.351) mentions 1QM 8.5 ‫ותקעו הכוהנים בחצוצרות קול מרודד ידי סדר מלחמה‬, where ‫ידי‬ ‘signal for’ makes a substantive difference, rendering ‫ ידי סדר מלחמה‬genuinely appositional to the preceding ‫קול מרודד‬. 2 Note another scribal error in the same line: ‫בק ֗ד ֗ה ֗קדשים‬ ֗ for ‫בקדש הקדשים‬. The same seems to be occurring at ‫ הארון העדוות‬4Q365 8.1 // ‫ ֲארוֹן ָה ֵע ֻדת‬Ex 26.34. 3 See JM § 131 d, where ‫ ַה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַח ַהנְּ ח ֶֹשׁת‬2Kg 16.14 is also mentioned. Thus pace Cross (DJD 12.139) the 4Q reading is not necessarily superior. The note by Trebolle Barrera (DJD 14.177) that we also find ‫ הלחות‬at 2Ch 5.10 is misleading, since there the word is not followed by ‫האבנים‬. 1

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 29 d – § 30


§ 30 BY INFINITIVE OR PARTICIPLE (1) An inf. cst. phrase sometimes expands a substantive, e.g. ‫כול יומי מואסו במשפטי אל‬ ‘all the days when he rejects God’s decrees’ 1QS 3.5, as in BH, e.g. ‫ימי ְשׁפֹט ַהשּׁ ְֹפ ִטים‬ ֵ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ִבּ‬ 2 Ru 1.1, which, however, is prefixed with a preposition of temporal value. ( ) So do participles, e.g. ‫‘ רוח נשברה‬a broken spirit’ 1QS 8.3; ‫אנשי היחד המתנדבים‬ ‘the members of the community who are committing themselves’ 1QS 5.1; ‫האיש הנשאל‬ ‘the man who has been asked’ 1QS 6.11. We occasionally come across cases of a conflate syntagm combining and שׁ‬: ‫‘ המקום שנקרה הסלם‬the site that is called Hasullam’ 5/6Ḥev 44.11b, sim. ib. 8, 9, 11a, 14, 46.3bis; ‫‘ הדרך שעלה לנגד‬the way that ascends en face’ 5/6Ḥev 45.14 = ‫הדרך העלה לנגד‬.

1 2

For a more detailed description, see above at § 17 i, 18 i. Cf. Muraoka 1999.52 ad loc.


VERB PHRASE EXPANDED § 31 VERBAL RECTION (1) a) Preliminary remarks Apart from its grammatical subject, diverse constituents can expand a verb. An expanding constituent may be said to be governed by the verb. There are basically two modes of rection or government: direct, whereby no preposition is required, hence also called zero-object, as against indirect, whereby the rection is obligatorily mediated through a preposition. The so-called nota obiecti, ‫ את‬I as in ‫אתי ֵאת ַהיֶּ ֶלד‬ ִ ‫הוֹצ‬ ֵ as against ‫ את‬II as in ‫אתי ֵאת ַהיֶּ ֶלד‬ ִ ‫יָ ָצ‬, does not count here as a preposition. In spite of the presence of ‫את‬ in the first example we assume that we have here a zero-object, for the use of such an ‫ את‬is conditioned by the determinate nature of ‫ ַהיֶּ ֶלד‬and without the article you would ִ ‫יָ ָצ‬ say ‫הוצאתי ילד‬, whereas ‫ את‬II is an obligatory component. We call ‫ את ילד‬in ‫אתי את‬ ‫‘ ילד‬I went out with a boy’ an adverbial adjunct, an optional component, for one can go out alone, unaccompanied, whereas ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫הוֹצ‬ ֵ necessarily requires an object, for one brings out or takes out someone or something. A preposition that introduces an indirect object [= IO] (2) may be illustrated in ‫שׁמעתי‬ ‫‘ בקול המלך‬I hearkened to, complied with what the king said.’ The same preposition combined with the same verb introduces an adverbial adjunct in ‫שׁמעתי קול רם בשׂדה‬ ‘I heard a loud voice in the field.’ An object, whether direct or indirect, is obligatory, though it could be missing, (3) but could be understood or supplied from the context. E.g. ‫‘ האכלת דבר‬Did you eat something?’ could be answered with ‫‘ אכלתי‬Yes,’ whilst the interlocutor could continue with ‫‘ מה אכלת‬What did you eat?’. (4) Below we shall see that the configuration of verbal rection may vary according to whether the verb in question is a finite verb, a participle or an infinitive, and this inflectional category also brings along some constraints. There are also semantic implications; the verb ‫ ָשׁ ַמע‬means two different things in ‫ שמעתי את קול ָא ִבי‬and ‫לקול אבי‬/‫;שמעתי ב־‬ the latter can be used when I did as had been instructed in my father’s letter to me. A pronominal object can be optionally attached directly to a verb. ‫‘ נתתיך מים‬I gave you water’ can be rewritten as ‫נתתי לך מים‬, but never as ‫נתתי א ְֹתָך מים‬. But the G verb 1

For a general, methodological discussion on the verbal rection in Hebrew, see Muraoka 1997.92-107, id. 2000.202-06, id. 2020(?), and Malessa 2006. 2 Malessa (2006.18-20) discusses such under the label “Präpositionalergänzung.” 3 See below at § 34 h. 4 Listing of diverse syntagmatic patterns of individual verbs is not meant here to be systematic and exhaustive, but selective; a systematic listing is a lexicographer’s job.



‫‘ בחר‬to choose’ can take either a zero-object as in ‫תבחר‬ ֗ ‫‘ זמה‬you will choose wickedness’ 4Q525 21.4 or a ‫ ב־‬object as often is the case, e.g. ‫‘ בם בחר אל‬God chose them’ ֯ ‫‘ ב‬I chose you’ 4Q176 1-2i9 represent ‫ בחרתי בך‬or ‫בחרתי‬ 1QS 4.22. Then does ‫בח ֯ר ֯תייכה‬ ‫ ?אתך‬As ambiguous is ‫רצונו‬ ֗ ‫בוחרי‬ ֗ ‘those who choose His will’ 4Q291 1.4. Is it equivalent to ‫בוחרים ברצונו‬, ‫ בוחרי ברצונו‬or ‫?בוחרים את רצונו‬ The great diversity of modes of rection is illustrated by the D verb ‫‘ כפר‬to atone’: (i) —‫‘ לכפר עווניך‬to atone for your iniquities’ 1QS 2.8; (ii) — ‫‘ לכפר בעד שבי פשע‬to atone for those who turn away from sin’ CD 2.5; (iii) —‫‘ כפר בעד עונם‬He atoned for their iniquity’ CD 3.18; (iv) —‫לכפר‬ ‫‘ לכול המתנדבים‬.. for the sake of all those who freely volunteer’ 1QS 5.6 and ‫לכפר לנו‬ ‫‘ לכפר לכול פשעיהם‬.. for all their sins’ 4Q159 1ii2; 4Q414 1ii-2i3; (v) —‫ם‬ ‫ לכ‬4Q221 4.4; (vii) —‫לכפר על אשמת‬ (vii) —‫לכפר על ֗האיש‬ ‫‘ פשע‬.. for the guilt of sin’ 1QS 9.4. b) Synthetic vs. analytic rection When an object is pronominal, it can be optionally attached to its verb, forming a single phonetic entity with the latter. Thus ‫‘ ראיתי אתה‬I saw her’ can be alternatively expressed as ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ר ִא‬,ְ and also with an IO as in ‫‘ יתנכה מקור דעת‬May He give you a fountain of knowledge’ 1QSb 3.26 and ‫‘ ֶא ֶרץ ַהנֶּ גֶ ב נְ ַת ָתּנִ י וְ נָ ַת ָתּה ִלי גֻּ ֹּלת ָמיִם‬you have given me the land of the Negeb. Give me also springs of water’ Josh 15.19; ‫חוּשׁה‬ ָ ‫אתיָך‬ ִ ‫יְ הוָ ה ְק ָר‬ ‫י־לְך‬ ָ ‫קוֹלי ְבּ ָק ְר ִא‬ ִ ‫‘ ִלּי ַה ֲאזִ ינָ ה‬O Lord, I have called You. Hurry to me, listen to my voice, when I call You’ Ps 141.1, where the inf. can express its IO only analytically, because it already has its subject synthetically marked; a Hebrew verb cannot take two pronominal constituents directly attached to it, thus unlike LXX παρὰ τὸ ἀγαπᾶν αὐτὸν αὐτήν for ‫‘ ְבּ ַא ַה ָבתוֹ א ָֹתהּ‬because he was in love with her’ Gn 29.20. The preference of the synthetic over analytic syntagm is generally known to be typical of LBH and MH. For a fuller description of this matter, see below at § fa. ba) Rection of action nouns The rection of a given verb can also influence the way its substantivised form, an action noun or a verbal noun, is expanded. E.g. ‫‘ שיחתם בתורת עליון‬their meditation is on the law of the Most High’ 11Q5 18.12, which is to be compared with ‫אשיח‬ ‫בנפלאתיך‬ ֗ ‘I shall meditate on Your marvels’ 4Q381 31.2; ‫ממשלת ישראל בכול בשר‬ ‘the dominion of Israel over all flesh’ 1QM 17.7 // ‫‘ למשל ביום ובלילה‬to rule the day and the night’ 4Q216 14-17.6; ‫‘ רוב חסדים על כול בני אמת‬abundant mercies towards all the children of truth’ 1QS 4.5, cf. ‫ל־ע ְב ֶדָּך‬ ַ ‫ית ֶח ֶסד ַע‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָע ִשׂ‬1Sm 20.8; ‫‘ וירחם עליהם‬and he shall ֗ ‫‘ רחמיו על‬His mercies towards Isr.’ 2Q22 1.2; ‫רוח‬ take pity on them’ CD 13.9 // ‫ישראל‬ ‫‘ דעת בכול מחשבת מעשה‬a spirit capable of detecting every design of action’ 1QS 4.4 (1), with which cp. ‫‘ אל ידע בכול עצתם‬he shall not gain information over their decision’ 1

Cf. Muraoka 2003.338f. and id. 2020(?) § 2.



1QS 8.18. The striking ‫ עם‬in ‫‘ שנאת עולם עם אנשי שחת‬perpetual enmity with men of perdition’ 1QS 9.21 may be due to the rection of a synonymous lexeme such as ‫ָרב‬ ‘to contend’ as in ‫ וַ יָּ ִריבוּ ר ֵֹעי גְ ָרר ִעם־ר ֵֹעי יִ ְצ ָחק‬Gn 26.20. (1) c) Semantic and interpretive implications (2) Some verbs govern a direct object [= DO] or joined to their IO by means of alternative prepositions, which could result in different meanings of the combination. (3) E.g. the verb √‫ בין‬can take either ‫את‬, -‫ב‬, -‫ ל‬or ‫ אל‬to mark what one comprehends. (4) Thus on ‫‘ או‬the foolish of heart will not understand these one hand we find ‫אוילי לב לא יבינו אלה‬ matters’ 1QHa 9.39, but with -‫ ל‬on the other as in ‫‘ לעצת מה יבין‬could he understand any counsel?’ (5) 4Q264 10 // 1QS 11.22, whereas the verb is very often joined with -‫( ב‬6) as in, e.g. ‫‘ בינו במעשי אל‬Comprehend God’s deeds’ CD 1.1; ‫‘ ויבינו בכול נהיות‬and they considered all that would happen’ 4Q268 1.8. See also instances of causative transformation: ‫‘ הודעתם בסוד אמתכה וברזי פלאכה השכלתם‬You made them know .. and You helped them understand Your marvellous mysteries’ 1QHa 19.12 // ‫֗הודעתני סוד אמת‬ So Thorion (1981.427), whilst his alternative supposition that ‫ )אֹתוֹ =( שׂנא אתו‬was misinterpreted as equivalent to ‫ ִאתּוֹ‬might come over as offensive to the author of 1QS. 2 See also Muraoka 1997.98-100 and id. 2020(?), § 1.4. 3 See also Muraoka 1997.98-100. In Jenni 1999 it is maintained that the opposition in BH between and is a linguistic reflection of social stratification and code of etiquettes; in the former someone speaks to a subordinate or inferior, whilst in the latter someone addresses a superior or to an equal, and the former is formal as against the latter, which is casual and typical of spoken language. One wonders whether the following out of many examples can be pushed aside as attesting to “gelegentliches Schwanken” (p. 25): ‫—אל‬God to Abraham [Gn 22.1, 2] // Abraham to his servants [vs. 5], Isaac to Abraham [vs. 7], within such a single, running narrative. Note also Abraham to his servant [Gn 24.40] // the servant to Abraham [vs. 39], and Rebecca to a visitor [vs. 44] // the visitor to Rebecca [vs. 45]. Likewise ‫אל‬: a snake to Eve [Gn 3.1, 4], Eve to the snake [vs. 2], God to the snake [ vs. 14], to Eve [vs. 16], but God to (‫ )ל־‬Adam [vs. 9], God to (‫ )ל־‬Eve [vs. 13], God to (‫ )ל־‬Adam [vs. 17]. Note that vss. 16 and 17 represent an opposition, the prepositional phrase fronted in both cases. Two examples of a sensitive and sensible analysis of multiple modes of rection are found in Malessa 2003 and 2004. 4 Rey (2013) holds that verbs of intellectual perception with a -‫ ב‬object imply more intensive involvement. Garr 1991 is an attempt to see, with reference to verbs of physical movement and intransitive verbs, what different values can be assigned to DOs marked with ‫ את‬and oblique objects marked with prepositions. 5 DJD 26.204 translates: “what manner of counsel can [that which is moulded by ha]nd impart?,” citing BDB, s.v. ‫ ָמה‬1 a (e), where ‫ ָח ְכ ַמת ֶמה ָל ֶהם‬Je 8.9 is mentioned. However, as the other rare example of ‫ מה‬following a substantive in the cst. st. BDB op. cit. also mentions ‫‘ ְדּ ַבר ַמה־יַ ְר ֵ֫אנִ י‬He might show me something’ Nu 23.3, where ‫ מה‬cannot be an interrogative pronoun. In LXX σοφία τίς ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς; an indefinite pronoun can be identified, hence ‘is there any wisdom in them?’ This use of ‫ מה‬is well established in Modern Hebrew, as noted by Even-Shoshan (s.v. ‫ ַמה‬7) in his dictionary, which mentions, alongside the Je passage, ‫ת־מה ָצ ַדק ָה ִאישׁ‬ ָ ‫‘ ְבּ ִמ ַדּ‬the man was right to a certain extent,’ for instance. We would prefer our analysis at the expense of the parallel question: ‫מה ישיב חמר יוצר יד‬. Another analogous example of ‫ מה‬divested of its interrogative value is ‫יתי ָמה‬ ִ ‫‘ וְ ָר ִ֫א‬should I spot something’ 1Sm 19.3, cf. JM § 144 f. 6 Common in LBH, e.g. ‫ וָ ָא ִבינָ ה ָב ָר ָעה ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ָשׂה ֶא ְליָ ִשׁיב‬Neh 13.7 and ‫ל־חזוֹן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָדנִ יֵּ אל ֵה ִבין ְבּ ָכ‬Dn 1.7. See also below at § ed. 1



ib. 19.19. We are discussing here a DO indicating a subject matter, not a person to be taught. Hence in a case such as ‫ להבין ישרים בדעת עליון‬1QS 4.22 our understanding of it would depend on whether we analyse ‫ בדעת‬as instrumental, ‘through, aided by the knowledge provided by the Most High,’ or as something to be comprehended, in which latter case we would translate ‘to help upright people understand what it means to know the Most High (or: what is taught by the Most High).’ The latter analysis holds for ‫‘ יבינם בגבורות פלאו‬he shall help them comprehend His marvellously mighty works’ CD 13.8. An example with ‫ אל‬is ‫‘ ויבן אל אל מעשיהם‬and God gained an insight into their deeds’ CD 1.10, a rare rection found in BH once only at ‫ל־פּ ֻעֹּלת יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ‫לֹא ִיָבינוּ ֶא‬ ‘they will not comprehend God’s actions’ Ps 28.5. This use of -‫ ב‬in the context of intellectual pursuit throws some light on ‫ דרשו בחלקות‬CD 1.18, which can scarcely mean ‘they sought smooth things.’ One could retain the sense ‘to seek’ if the preposition is locatively interpreted: ‘they looked for truth among smooth things.’ Otherwise ‘they studied, occupied themselves with smooth things’ is quite plausible. (1) Note also ‫‘ אגלה אזנכם בדרכי רשעים‬I shall introduce you into ways of the wicked’ CD 2.2. A rare example of ידע‬is ‫‘ תדע בכבוד ֗עוזו‬you will come to know of the glory of His might’ 4Q417 1i13. Selection of a preposition different from one in the underlying biblical text indicates a new perspective in ‫‘ והיו אויביהמה שוממים במה‬and their enemies will be looking down on them’ 11Q19 59.4, which is dependent on ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫יה א ֵֹיְב‬ ָ ‫וְ ָשׁ ְממוּ ָע ֶל‬ ‫ ַהיּ ְֹשׁ ִבים ָבּהּ‬Lv 26.32, where the use of ‫ על‬accords with the norm in BH. The clause in 11Q19 is, however, preceded by ‫‘ יהיו עריהמה לשומה ולשרקה ולחורבה‬their cities shall become a waste and a mockery and a ruin,’ which shows that the attitude shown by the enemies is more than a merely neutral astonishment, but an emotion tinged with disdain and contempt, and verbs indicating such an attitude, e.g. ‫ לעג‬Hif., often govern -‫ב‬. (2) The striking ‫ ב־‬in ‫ לוא אנחם בנכאים‬1QS 10.21 is probably locative, ‘I am not going to do any comforting among the stricken’ just as the same preposition with ‫ ִה ָכּה‬as in ‫יתי ַבּ ְפּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬ ִ ‫‘ ַה ֵא ֵלְך וְ ִה ִכּ‬Shall I go and launch an attacking operation among these Philistines?’ 1Sm 23.2. Likewise ‫‘ וינחילם בגורל קדושים‬and He granted them a possession among the domain destined for the holy ones’ 1QS 11.7. Another example is a high-frequency verb ‫‘ בחר‬to choose,’ which can govern a zero-object as well as a ‫ ב־‬object. When it means ‘to select one, rejecting another or other candidates,’ both syntagms are attested as shown by ‫‘ אותנו בחרתה‬You chose us’ 4Q504 1-2iii9 and ‫בחר‬ ‫ בנו‬4Q503 24-25.4, but it is doubtful that ‫‘ ותבחר לך עם‬and You chose a people for Yourself’ 1Q34 3ii5 can be substituted by ‫ ותבחר לך ְבעם‬and the same could be said as regards ‫‘ כול ראשי אבות העדה בחרים להם אנשי מלחמה‬all the heads of family of the congregation choose for themselves warriors’ 1QM 2.7.

1 DCH II s.v. ‫ דרשׁ‬476a takes -‫ ב‬in the sense of ‘concerning.’ In any event דרש ב‬at CD 1.18 is distinct from what we find in ‫‘ ידרוש באוב‬he inquires of ghosts’ 4Q270 2i10. Malessa (2006.103f.) is right in seeing here an analogical extension of שאל ב‬, but the question is what the function of the preposition is in this latter collocation. DCH 2.475b appears to us right in identifying here instrumental ‫ב‬, namely to seek guidance by means of, by consulting something or someone. 2 See Jenni 1992.263.



In ‫ כפיר החרון אשר יכה בגדוליו‬4Q169 3-4i5 translators are divided whether the preposition is an object marker or instrumental, which latter is more plausible in view of the coordinate ‫‘ ואנשי עצתו‬his fellow council members.’ (1) In BH the G verb ‫שׁכב‬, when used of a man and a woman getting into bed, can govern either I ‫ את‬or ‫עם‬: e.g. ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַכּב א ָֹתהּ‬Gn 34.2, 2Sm 13.14, sim. Lv 15.18, 24+ vs. ‫ נִ ְשׁ ְכּ ָבה ִעמּוֹ‬Gn 19.32, 2Sm 11.11+. Either preposition can be used with reference to illicit intercourse. (2) In QH the verb is attested ten times with , always with a male as the subject. (3) ‫ את‬is never used in this syntagm. Such an act may be proper or neutral, e.g. ‫‘ אל ישכב איש עם אשה בעיר המקדש‬a man shall not lie with a woman in the city of the sanctuary’ CD 12.1, or illicit as in ‫שכב עם בלהה ֗פי֗ לגשו‬ ‘he lay with Bilha his concubine’ 4Q252 4.6. This picture in QH has probably to do with the relative infrequency in it of II ‫ את‬as against ‫עם‬. (4); their respective distribution of suffixed and unsuffixed occurrences has been taken into account. This compares with BH: II ‫ ֵאת‬876× vs. ‫ ִעם‬1091×. d) ‫ את‬as direct object marker As in BH the use of ‫ את‬with a determinate object is the norm in QH as well. (5) There are, however, cases of departure (6) for which we can, at the moment, do nothing but Doudna (2001.365-68) decidedly prefers the first option. There is no instance of , but he himself admits that is attested with another transitive verb as in ‫וּבנָ ִביא ֶה ֱע ָלה יְ הוָ ה ֶאת־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִמ ִמּ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ְ Ho 12.14. There is then no real difficulty of admitting a similar case for ‫ יכה ב־‬here. Doudna (ib. 369-75) extensively addresses the question of the identity of the referent of the conj. pron. in ‫גדוליו‬. 2 Driver (1913.298 ad 2Sm 13.14) argues that MT ‫ א ָֹתהּ‬is an artificial distinction applied to cases of illicit intercourse; two Jewish commentators, Rashi and Ramban, think the girl was consenting. In ‫ָבּא ֵא ַלי‬ ‫ ִל ְשׁ ַכּב ִע ִמּי‬Gn 39.14 it is meant to be about an illicit relationship. Likewise in the story about Lot’s two daughters, where we would identify II ‫ את‬in ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ת־א ִב‬ ֲ ‫ ֶא‬rather than I ‫ את‬as a stylistic variant of ‫ ִעם־אביהן‬as in the parallel ‫ נִ ְשׁ ְכּ ָבה ִעמּוֹ‬Gn 19.32. Though ‫ יִ ְשׁ ָכּ ֶבנָּ ה‬Dt 28.30Q mentioned by Ehrlich (1908.172f.) is ambiguous, being capable of being rewritten as ‫ יִ ְשׁ ַכּב א ָֹתהּ‬or ‫יִ ְשׁ ַכּב ִא ָתּהּ‬, the two N instances adduced by him, ‫ ִתּ ָשּׁ ַכ ְבנָ ה‬Is 13.16 (not 13.6) and Zc 14.2, both with ‫ נָ ִשׁים‬as the subject, are important. 3 Once metaphorically: ‫‘ תשכב עם האמת‬you shall lie with truth’ 4Q416 2iii7. 4 In the concordance by Abegg et al. 2003 ‫ עם‬occupies 9 columns in comparison with II ‫ את‬with one column and a few cases. 5 Malessa (2006.33), after a fairly extensive research, reckons that, in about 99% of definite objects in BH, ‫ את‬is found. In his corpus Mor (2015.313) finds only two exceptions: ‫‘ ֗ה ֗כול חכרתי המך‬I have leased all (this) from you’ M24 B 13, where, however, a large lacuna at the end of the preceding line may have contained ‫את‬. The reading of the second instance is secure: ‫ו לך‬/‫‘ הלז אחכרתי‬this I have leased to you’ 5/6Ḥev 45.13. Given the limited size of Mor’s corpus and a measure of flexibility in BH and QH elsewhere in the use or non-use of ‫את‬, there is no need, pace Mor (2015.314, § 5.22), to invoke Aramaic influence in order to account for the sole exception or exceptions in his corpus. As unlikely is Mor’s putative Aramaism in the absence of ‫ את‬in ‫שאירהב רשתי לידך‬ ֗ Bet Amar 9; he seeks support in Folmer, who, however, discussing the question of object marking and animacy, i.e. liveliness, does quote a good number of instances in which an object referring to a determinate, inanimate entity is explicitly marked. See also Muraoka 1992a.101f. and id. 2011.215f. 6 According to Malessa (2006.33), proper nouns as DOs are prefixed with ‫ את‬in some 97% of the cases concerned, whereas with other common nouns the figure comes down to ca. 73%. 1



invoke one of the panaceas dear to philologists, namely ‘stylistic variation.’ We thus admit to our inability to account for the variation between ‫לשנוא את כול אשר מאס‬ ‘to hate all that He detests’ 1QS 1.4 and ‫‘ לאהוב כול אשר בחר‬to love all that He prefers’ ib. 1.3, the two clauses following each other; ‫‘ לשקול בני הצדוֿ ק‬to weigh the sons of Zadok’ 1QS 9.14 vs. a 4Q fragment with ‫לשקול ֗את בני ֗ה ֗צדק‬ ֯ ‫ ול‬4Q259 c 1 [= 4QS ] 3.10 ( ); ‫‘ לסתר את עצת התורה‬to hide the counsel of the law’ 1QS 9.17 vs. ‫ לסתר עצתו‬4Q258 [= 4QSd] 8.2; ‫‘ לפקוד את כול חוקיו‬to respect all His laws’ 1QS 5.22 // ‫‘ ֗פקדו כול חוקיו‬they respected all His laws’ 1QSb 3.24. (2) In a QH corpus of somewhat limited range it has transpired that out of a total of 48 cases of ‫ את‬none precedes the verb and as many as 25 (57%) mark the object of an infinitive. (3) With a nom. ind. (4)! In ‫‘ באהבת אל את איש הרבה לו נחלה‬when God loved a man He increased his legacy’ 4Q413 1+2.2, whatever verb might be restored, the nota obiecti is a puzzler (5). In ‫‘ את יתומים ירצחו‬they might murder orphans’ CD 6.17 the particle serves to leave no doubt for the syntactic status of ‫יתומים‬, and the clause unquestionably echoes ‫ יתומים ירצחו‬Ps 94.6, and follows ‫‘ להיות אלמנ֯ ות שללם‬for widows to become their prey.’ At ‫‘ את ענו לא בזא‬the humble He has not despised’ 4Q434 1.1 Dion (1977.201f.) also stresses the optional character of the use of ‫ את‬in CD. 1 So read in DJD 26.145. 2 Leahy (1960.153) has a list of omissions of the anticipated ‫ את‬in 1QS. Besides, in the examples cited above of discrepancy we are dealing with cases in close proximity of the one and same document or its fragments found in another Qumran cave, 4Q. These cannot be taken care of by invoking some exception clauses formulated by Kropat (1909.33f.) such as the generic article, the reflexive force of a suf. pron. attached to the object or no word intervening between a verb and its object. Nor can the parameter of “Inhärenz,” which, according to Malessa (2006.33f.), works reasonably well on BH, be resorted to; this is a parameter that works in the descending order of [human > animate > concrete > abstract] of the referent in question. By chance there is no instance of ‫ מי‬serving as object, for which one would expect ‫את מי‬. Our corpus provides, on the contrary, counter examples such as ‫הודי֗ עני את כול זואת‬ ֯ ‫‘ הו‬Tell me all this’ 4Q442 // ‫‘ ראיתי זות‬I have seen this (matter)’ 1QHa 21.4; ‫ תואכלו‬.. ‫‘ אלה‬you shall eat these (insects)’ 11Q19 48.4 (// ‫ את אלה‬Lv 11.22), ‫שה ֯א ֯דם‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗את אלה לוא י֯ ֗ע‬man could not do these things’ 4Q511 30.6 // ‫‘ כול אלה דבר בנבואה‬all these things he spoke of in a prophecy’ 11Q5 27.11 and ‫‘ כול עושה אלה‬everyone who does such things’ 11Q19 60.19. Let it be further noted that, as far as the examples cited here are concerned, the position of the object, whether before or after its verb, is of no relevance, whereas in BH, as investigated by Malessa (2006.36-47), this is a highly relevant matter. In all of our examples the object is post-positioned. Overall in 73%—1073 out of 1467—of definite objects examined by Malessa in EBH the nota obiecti is used. In LBH examined by him (2006.57) he has found only two instances without ‫את‬ out of ca. 860 determinate objects. Similar contrasting pairs in BH where the use or non-use of ‫ את‬appears to be motivated by stylistic variation are mentioned in Muraoka 1985.151, where Gn 20.15 is an error for Gn 20.14. Lerner’s (1988) proposal to relate the use or non-use of ‫ את‬to binyans has been convincingly rebutted by Malessa (2006.56, n. 80). 3 Muraoka 1997.107. The corpus comprised 1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb, and 1QHa. 4 On this matter in BH, see JM § 125 h. Gzella (2007.103) wants to see here an analogical influence of ‫ ל־‬in the contemporary Aramaic, in which, however, the preposition is prefixed to a determinate object, with only two possible exceptions; see Muraoka 2011.213. 5 As already noted by Qimron (DJD 20.170). We doubt that Khan’s (1984.469-72) attempt to refine the notion of ‘definiteness’ can take care of this surprising case and a few others about to be mentioned below at § da.



the poet may be identifying himself with ‫ענו‬, and the addition of the particle removes every syntactic ambiguity, whereas its use is uncalled for in the parallel clauses—‫הציל‬ ‫‘ נפש אביון‬He rescued the life of a poor man’ and ‫‘ ולא שכח צרת דלים‬nor forgot He the distress of the oppressed.’ This is related to another feature in that a determinate object fronted for whatever reason is hardly prefixed with ‫את‬. (1) In ‫פקדתי תמי֗ שיתן לך ֗תחטין‬ ‘I have instructed someone to provide you with the wheat’ M44 8, where the instruction was already out and the identity of the person instructed is known to the writer of the letter (2). See also below in the following subparagraph. da) As in BH (3) the use of ‫ את‬is obligatory with a determinate NP following a suffixed ‫ואת זרעך מ‬ ֗ ‫יתכ ֯ה מן הארץ‬ ֗ ‫וה ֗כ ֗ר‬ ֗ ‘and He might exterpronominal object, e.g. ‫מתחת השמים‬ minate you from the earth and your posterity from under the sky’ 4Q219 2.26. The use of the nota obiecti with an indeterminate NP, as in CD 6.17 adduced above, is somewhat surprising in ‫‘ תכל אילן שבהם‬every tree which is in them’ 5/6Ḥev 44.12, sim. 15 (4). This is to be viewed as distinct from ‫ ת־‬for ‫את ה־‬, a phonological feature occurring across word-boundary, namely assimilation of /-t h-/ > /tt/ (5), a phenomenon prevalent in these Naḥal Ḥever and Murabba’at Hebrew documents, e.g. ‫‘ תמקום‬the place’ 5/6Ḥev 46.3bis; ‫( )את הללו =( תללו‬6) 45.24+; ‫‘ תעפר הלבן ותדקל ֗ה ֗טו֗ ֗ב‬the cropland and the good-quality date palm(s)’ 46.4 (7) +. Another case with an indeterminate NP is ‫‘ תעניאין‬the poor’ M46 5, but the text is broken and the context uncertain. It need be stressed that, in the language of these documents, ‫ ת‬or ‫ ת־‬occurs even where the definite article cannot be syntactically used, thus ֗‫‘ תמי‬one who’ M44 8; 1

See Muraoka 1997.107. Kutscher (1961a.12) adduces ‫א־לי ֶא ְמ ֶחנּוּ ִמ ִסּ ְפ ִרי‬ ִ ‫ ִמי ֲא ֶשׁר ָח ָט‬Ex 32.33; in order to strike out their names God surely knew who were guilty. On this striking M44 example, see also Gzella 2007.98f. 3 See JM § 125 f, e.g. ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ת־בּ ֵתּ‬ ָ ‫ וַ ִתּ ְב ָל ֵעם וְ ֶא‬Dt 11.6. 4 The use of ‫ את‬here is anomalous also because of the absence of a requisite verb in the context. Pace Mor (2015.315) the assumption of the influence of the preceding clause, ‫ תמקומות‬.. ‫‘ ֗חלקו‬they divided .. the sites’ lines 2-6 is most plausible, where ‫ תמקומות‬is separated from ‫ חלקו‬with quite a few intervening words. 5 Thus distinct from a BH phenomenon such as ‫שׁ ְמ ָרה אֹתוֹ = ְשׁ ָמ ַר ְתהוּ < ֽשׁ ָמ ַר ְתּוּ‬. ָ Nebe (1997.152f.) correctly recognises here the analogy with *‫ ַל ֶמּ ֶלְך > ְל ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬etc., but the syncope of the initial /’e-/ of ‫את‬ is a separate phenomenon; one would like to know what happened to another preposition ‫אל‬, which regrettably is not used in these documents except once, and that with a suf. pron., ‫‘ אלנו‬to us’ M42 5. It is tempting to think that the virtual absence of ‫ אל‬here and in MH may not be due to its absence in contemporary Aramaic (so Bendavid 1967-71.453 ‫)נג‬, but this syncope had already taken place and had fallen together with that of -‫ל‬, both phonetically and graphically. In the whole of the Mishnah ‫ אל‬is prefixed to an articular noun a mere seven times. 6 ‫ ללו‬is non-existent. This must represent an analysis of ‫ ַה ָלּלוּ‬starting from the sg. equivalent ‫ ַהזֶּ ה‬as . 7 Yadin et al. (2002.69) break down ‫ תדקל ֗ה ֗טו֗ ֗ב‬into ‫ את דקל הטוב‬without any comment, but they do seem to offer a correct analysis at p. 18. An example such as ‫ שמן הטוב‬2Kg 20.13 mentioned by them can be analysed as appositional (JM § 138 b) or even as a construct phrase, which is the case in ‫כיין הטוב‬ Ct 7.10, also cited by Yadin et al. in an unvocalised form, which the MT reads ‫!כּיֵ ין ַהטּוֹב‬ ְ In the Aramaic example quoted by them, ‫ ֗שפירא‬.. ‫ ֗גננת תמריא‬5/6Ḥev 47.5 ‫ שפירא‬appears to be a parenthetical addition, not an attributively used adjective: ‘the palm-grove, of good quality.’ 2



‫‘ תחכו֗ ר המקומות הלו֗ ו‬the lease price of these places’ 5/6Ḥev 44.17; ‫‘ תשאר ֗ה ֗אילן‬the rest of the tree(s)’ 5/6Ḥev 46.4; ‫‘ תחצי הכסף הלו֗ ו‬half of that silver’ 5/6Ḥev 44.19, sim. line 22; ‫‘ תכול רשותו‬all of its jurisdictional limits’ 5/6Ḥev 44.9bis; ‫‘ תכול אילן‬all the tree(s)’ 5/6Ḥev 44.11. As regards the orthographic instability of this particle in Murabba’at documents, note especially ‫‘ את ֯העפר‬the tract of land’ M24 E 5 // ‫‘ ת עפר הלז‬this tract of land’ line 8, where the particle is remarkably spelled on its own. The standard spelling in these Murabba’at and Naḥal Ḥever Hebrew documents is proclitic: e.g. ‫ תשמים‬M43 3, ‫‘ תכבלים‬the fetters’ line 5; ‫‘ תמקום‬the place’ M44 7; ‫‘ פקדתי תמי֗ שיתן לך‬I have instructed one who is going to give you’ M44 8. (1) db) Situation in biblical manuscripts (2) What does the situation in Qumran biblical manuscripts look like in this regard? Kutscher (1974.412f.) takes into account a diachronic dimension in that in later biblical books the particle ‫ את‬tends to become prominent, though in the Hebrew of Chronicles (3) and RH (4) the trend is reverse. The use of ‫ את‬with a determinate, nominal object is much preferred in QH, as we see where an underlying source text with no ‫ את‬is quoted or alluded to: MT ø: ‫ה־לּי ַה ָדּ ָבר ַהזֶּ ה‬ ִ ‫ ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂ‬Gn 30.31 // ‫הדבר הזה‬ ֯ ‫ את ה‬4Q364 4ii10; ‫ ַשׁ ַלּח ַע ִמּי‬Ex 10.3 // ‫ ֯את עמי‬4Q11 7 i+8.11; ‫ קח את ַמ ְטָּך וּנְ ֵטה יָ ְדָך‬Ex 7.19 // ] ‫את‬ ֗ ‫ ֗קח את מטך ונטה‬4Q1 3435.6; ‫ וַ ָתּ ֶשׂם ַבּסּוּף‬Ex 2.3 // ‫ותשים אותו בסוף‬ ‫ ות‬4Q13 3i-4.2 (the same object marked with the preceding verb); ‫ ָל ָמּה ַת ֶכּה ֵר ֶעָך‬Ex 2.13 // ‫את רעך‬ ‫ א‬4Q13 3i-4.15; ‫יהן‬ ֽ ֶ ‫ְל ַה ְשׁ ֖קוֹת ֥צ ֹאן ֲא ִב‬ Ex 2.16 // ‫ ותמלאנה את הרהטים להשקות את צאן אביהן‬4Q13 3i-4.19; ‫ ֻכּתֳּנֹת‬Ex 40.14 // ‫כתנ֯ ות‬ ֯ ‫את ֗ה‬ ֗ 4Q17 2ii8; ‫הוּקם ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָכּן‬ ַ Ex 40.17 // ‫הוקם את המשכן‬ ֯ 4Q17 2ii13, impersonal passive (JM § 128 b); ‫ת־ה ָדּם‬ ַ ‫ וְ נָ ַת ִתּי ָפנַ י ַבּנֶּ ֶפשׁ ָהא ֶֹכ ֶלת ֶא‬Lv 17.10 // ‫ את פני‬4Q26 4.15 (5); ‫ וַ יְ ַד ְבּרוּ ֵא ָליו ִדּ ְב ֵרי ָב ָלק‬Nu 22.7 // ‫ את דברי בלק‬4Q27 20-22.1; ‫ נְ קֹם נִ ְק ַמת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬Nu 30.2 // ‫ את נקמת‬4Q27 55i-56.12; ‫ ָל ַקח ַהכּ ֵֹהן ַה ֶטּנֶ א‬Dt 26.4 // ‫טנא‬ ‫ את הטנא‬4Q38a 5.7; ‫אכ ֶתָּך‬ ְ ‫ל־מ ַל‬ ְ ‫וְ ָע ִשׂ ָית ָכּ‬ Ex 20.9, Dt 5.12 // .. ‫ את כול מלאכתך‬4Q41 3.10, 4Q149 1.3; ‫ או ֶֺדה ִשׁ ְמָך‬Is 25.1 = 1QIsaa // ‫ את שמכה‬4Q57 13.12; ‫ וְ ִהגַּ ְד ָתּ ָל ֶהם ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬1Sm 8.9 // ‫את משפט המלך‬ ֯ 4Q51; ‫וְ ִכ ְתּתוּ‬ 1 Geiger (2012.217, n. 52) mentions ‫‘ יכבד את חסידים‬he will respect the pious’ 4Q521 2ii.7 as exceptional. Qimron (III 231) suggests a phonetic variant of ‫את החסידים‬. 2 See Muraoka 2000.202-04. 3 On the situation in Ch, see Kutscher 1974.413. Though not having access to the results obtained by Oron, a student of his, I wonder if she consulted the fundamental work by Kropat (1909.33-35), who specifies the syntactic and syntagmatic circumstances in which ‫את‬, as against the Chronicler’s sources, is left out, e.g. with the generic article and a suffix pronoun of reflexive force, but retained when the object is a proper noun or distant from the verb. The data supplied by Kropat need be supplemented further, see Muraoka 2000.204, n. 49. Malessa (2006.60f.) presents a more nuanced analysis, speaking of “uneinheitliches Bild.” 4 ‫( לשון חז״ל‬Kutscher 1959.491). According to Azar (1995.60-62), however, a formally determinate object takes ‫ את‬in MH, and he classifies exceptions. 5 The same Hebrew collocation attests to either pattern elsewhere: ‫ את פני‬Lv 20.6, Ezk 15.7 // ‫פני‬ Ezk 14.8.



ָ ‫וְ נָ ָשׂ‬ ‫בוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ ַח ְר‬Is 2.4 // + ‫ את‬1QIsaa, but followed by ‫ = וחניתותיהם‬MT; ‫את ַה ָמּ ָשׁל ַהזֶּ ה‬ e a a Is 14.4 = 4QIsa // ‫ את המשל‬1QIsa ; ‫ וְ ֻכ ַפּר בריתכם‬Is 28.18 // ‫ את בריתכמה‬1QIsa , which ֻ ֹ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ל‬ probably read Piel; ‫ ָא ְכלוּ ִפּ ְריָ ם‬Is 65.21 // ‫ את פריאם‬1QIsaa; ‫א־ס ַפּר ָל ֶהם ָראוּ וַ ֲא ֶשׁר‬ a ‫א־שׁ ְמעוּ ִה ְתבּוֹנָ נוּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ל‬Is 52.15 // ‫ את אשר‬.. ‫ את אשר‬1QIsa , where the syntax is clearer; ‫ א‬4Q27 12.3, an ‫ן־ה ַמּ ֲע ֵשׂר‬ ַ ‫רוּמת יְ הוָ ה ַמ ֲע ֵשׂר ִמ‬ ַ ‫ ְתּ‬Nu 18.26 // ‫את תרומת מעשר מן המעשר‬ inadvertent error? The restored text at 4Q23 49.21 ‫ למעל את מעל ביהוה‬// MT: ‫ִל ְמעֹל‬ ‫ ַמ ַעל ביהוה‬Nu 5.6 is very difficult. More examples of similar kind (1): Is 48.20, 52.9, 66.4 MT and 1QIsab // + ‫את‬ 1QIsaa; Dt 14.26 // + ‫ את‬4Q365 32.4; Ex 8.16 // + ‫ את‬4Q365 2.7; Dt 5.12 // + ‫את‬ 4Q129 1.6. Counter examples of QH ø ‫ את‬as against MT + ‫ את‬are far and few between (2): ‫ יְ ַד ְע ֶתּם ֶאת־נֶ ֶפשׁ ַהגֵּ ר‬Ex 23.9 // ‫ ידעתם נפש הגר‬4Q11 23.8; ‫ ִתּ ְפ ַתּח ֶאת־יָ ְדָך‬Dt 15.8 // ‫תפתח‬ ‫ ידך‬4Q45 21ii1; ‫ל־א ֶשׁר ְלָך ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה‬ ֲ ‫ת־מ ְקנְ ָך וְ ֵאת ָכּ‬ ִ ‫ ְשׁ ַלח ָה ֵעז ֶא‬Ex 9.19 // ‫ וכל אשר‬4Q14 2.27; ‫ אפר‬4Q14 2.38, but 2 verses later ‫ ויפרש כפיו‬both MT ‫ ֶא ְפר ֹשׂ את ַכּ ַפּי‬Ex 9.29 // ‫פרש כפי‬ and QH; ‫יתם את ִפּי‬ ֶ ‫ ְמ ִר‬Nu 20.24 // ‫ מריתם פי‬4Q27 13 ii+15-17i.23, but ø MT Nu 27.14, 1Kg 13.21, but + ‫ את‬ib. 13.26; ‫ וישׂא המלך את קולו‬2Sm 3.32 // ‫ קולו‬4Q51; ‫ת־דּגָ נֵ ְך‬ ְ ‫ֶא ֵתּן ֶא‬ Is 62.8 // ‫ דגנך‬1QIsaa. e) Prepositional object Diverse prepositions are found prefixed to a DO, whether pronominal or nominal. ea) ‫ל־‬ This is a syntagm extremely common with verbs of communication, giving, sending, and the like. To give just a few examples: ‫‘ לתהום ישמיעו קולם‬they make their sound heard to the deep’ 1QHa 11.18; ‫‘ הטיף לישראל מימי כזב‬he let waters of falsehood drip down to Israel’ CD 1.14 (3); ‫‘ לגלות להם נסתרות‬to reveal to them hidden matters’ CD 3.13; ‫‘ נותן לנמוגי ברכים חזוק מעמד‬He gives strength to stand erect to those with knocking knees’ 1QM 14.6; ‫‘ והביאותמה מנחה חדשה ליהוה‬and you shall bring a new cereal-offering to the Lord’ 11Q19 18.13; ‫‘ ושלחו לו מחצית העם‬and they shall send him half of the host’ 11Q19 58.10. A DO can be expressed as a conj. pron. attached directly to the verb concerned as in ‫‘ להסגירם לחרב‬to deliver them to a sword’ CD 1.17. This is also extremely common, see below at § q. eaa) There are other verbs which lie in a semantic field other than those indicated above under § ea), but almost always prefix ‫ ל־‬to their DO: e.g. ‫‘ ויצפו לפרצות‬and they 1

See also Muraoka 2000.203. See also Muraoka 2000.203. 3 One cannot preach water; we have here a figurative use of the collocation, as in ‫מטיף כזב הטיף להם‬ CD 8.13, where two related, but distinct rection patterns are incorporated into a single sentence and the verb clearly means ‘to preach.’ 2



expected to find loopholes’ CD 1.18; ‫‘ ֗ל ֗משפט אל יצפה תמיד‬he shall anticipate God’s judgement’ 1QS 9.25 (1); ‫‘ קוו לישועתך‬they waited for your salvation’ 11Q5 22.8; ‫‘ לכה קויתי‬I waited for You’ ib. 19.16; ‫‘ חכה לו‬Wait for it’ 1QpHab 7.9 < Hb 2.3. BH uses G ‫ עזר‬occasionally with a zero-object, e.g. ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ ֲעזַ ְר ֶתּם‬Josh 1.14, ‫עֹזֵ ר אֹתוֹ‬ 1Kg 20.16. Likewise in ‫ עזרתה נפשי‬1QHa 15.26. ‫‘ סלח ל־‬to forgive’ embodies two distinct syntagms: a) , e.g. ‫הסולח לשבי‬ ‫‘ פשע‬One who forgives those who turn away from offence’ 1QHa 6.35 and b) , e.g. ‫‘ סלח נא לעוונןו‬Forgive, please, our iniquity’ 4Q504 4.7; ‫‘ סלחה יהוה לחטאתי‬Forgive, the Lord, my sin’ 11Q5 19.13, just as in BH. However, no instance of this verb is found with double objects. (2) The syntagmatics of ‫ נשׂא‬Qal, when used in the sense ֯ ‫נש‬ ֗ ‫‘ נ‬You forgave our forefathers’ of ‘to forgive’ differs as exemplified in ‫אתה לאבותינ֗ ו‬ 4Q504 2.7; ‫‘ נושא פשע‬forgiving offence’ 1QHa 8.34. (3) This verb does not govern double objects, either. (4) ‫ נג‬4Q51 61i-62.11 for MT ‫ ָה ְרגוּ לאבנר‬2Sm 3.30 is The editors’ restoration ‫נגעו לאבנר‬ questionable. Their contention that ‫ נגע‬governs ‫( ל־‬DJD 17.115) is unfounded. Given the Greek (both KG and L) διεπαρετηροῦντο ‘they kept watching out for a chance to get at A.’ ‫ ָשׁעוּ‬may be suggested. (5) eb) ‫ב־‬ What has been said above on ‫ ל־‬applies to this preposition, too. E.g. ‫‘ ויבחרו במהתלות‬and they chose delusions’ CD 1.18; ‫בכל הולכי תמים תעבה נפשם‬ ‘their soul loathed all who walk upright’ CD 1.20; ‫‘ מחזיקים במצות אל‬those who are holding fast to God’s commandments’ CD 3.12; ‫‘ לתמך צעדם בדרך אל‬so that their step will stand firmly on God’s way’ CD 20.18; ‫‘ חסו בשם קדשו‬they took refuge in His holy name’ CD 20.34; ‫‘ ידרוש באוב‬he consults ghosts’ 4Q270 2i10; ‫בהבינכם‬ ‫‘ במעשי דור ודור‬as you comprehend (or: contemplate) the deeds of every generation’ ֗ ‫‘ להבין‬to comprehend His laws’ 4Q372 3.3, ‫‘ לא יבינ֗ ו אלה‬they 4Q270 2ii21 (6), but ‫חקיו‬ will not understand these (matters)’ 1QHa 9.39; ‫‘ להתבונן במעשי פלאך‬to contemplate Your wondrous works’ 1QHa 15.35; ‫‘ תשוחח נפשי בנפלאותיכה‬my soul will ponder on Your marvels’ 1QHa 17.7; ‫‘ להורות עמו בישוד עם‬to instruct his people on the ֯ ‫‘ השכלתני באמתכה וברזי‬You have foundation of the nation’ 4Q266 5ii9; ‫פלא ֗כ ֗ה הודעתני‬ 1 The alternative rection in ‫‘ צפא את הכוכבים‬Look at the stars’ 4Q225 2i5 is probably due to the different meaning borne by the verb here. 2 Note a Hebrew rendition by Franz Delitzsch of ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν Mt 6.12: ‫ְס ַלח ָלנוּ‬ ‫את־חֹבו ֵֺתינוּ‬. ֶ Ben Yehuda (1909-58) does not record anything like this under ‫ס ַלח‬. ָ 3 The picture in BH is slightly more complex: see ‫אתם‬ ָ ‫ ָשׂא נָ א ֶפּ ַשׁע ַא ֶחיָך וְ ַח ָטּ‬Gn 50.17 // ‫ָשׂא נָ א ְל ֶפ ַשׁע‬ ‫ֹלהי ָא ִביָך‬ ֵ ‫ ַע ְב ֵדי ֱא‬on one hand, and ‫אתה ָל ָעם ַהזֶּ ה‬ ָ ‫ נָ ָשׂ‬Nu 14.19. Incidentally, to mention 1QHa 4.12 [24 in our system] under ‫ נשׂא‬Qal 4 forgive “«PREP» ‫ ְל‬of benefit” as DCH V 767a does, is puzzling, for in the Hodayot passage mentioned no occurs, but only ‫לשאת עו֗ ו֗ ן֯ וחטאה‬ ֯ ‫לשא‬. 4 Cf. ‫ ָשׂא נָ א ֶפּ ַשׁע ַא ֶחיָך‬Gn 50.17, followed by ‫ֹלהי ָא ִביָך‬ ֵ ‫שׂא נָ א ְל ֶפ ַשׁע ַע ְב ֵדי ֱא‬. ָ 5 The Gk verb is not attested prior to the LXX; its simpler compound παρατηρέω is well established in Classical Greek with an affiliated sense, διά adding the feature of continuation. 6 On the syntagm בין ב‬, cf. also Qimron, DJD 10.89, § and Hurvitz 1972.136.



helped me comprehend Your truth and inculcated me in the mysteries of Your wonder’ 1QHa 15.29 (1), sim. ib. 18.6f. // zero-object as in ‫חכמת בני שמים להשכיל תמימי דרך‬ ‘to help those walking straight grasp the wisdom of the sons of heaven’ 1QS 4.22, parallel to ‫‘ להבין ישרים בדעת עליון‬to help the upright ones comprehend what knowledge of the Most High means,’ and ‫‘ להשכילם בכול הנמצא לעשות‬to instruct them what is discovered to be done’ 1QS 9.20 and ‫ להשכילם בכול הנמצא‬4Q256 [= 4QSb] 18.4, 4Q258 [= 4QSd] 8.4; ‫‘ ימשולו בו רוחות‬spirits have him under control’ CD 12.2; ‫ותמאס‬ ‫‘ בם‬and You loathed them [= pers.]’ 1Q34 3ii4; ‫‘ לוא מאסתה בזרע יעקוב‬You did not loathe the seed of Jacob’ 4Q504 5.6; ‫‘ כל המואס במצות אל‬all those who loathe the ‫‘ האיש אשר ימאס א‬the person who commandment(s) of God’ CD 8.19 // ‫את משפט הרבים‬ loathes the law of the Many’ 4Q270 7i11, ‫‘ אשר מאס את התורה‬who loathed the law’ 1QpHab 5.11 (2); ‫‘ לא ישוה כול הון באמתך‬no wealth can match Your truth in value’ ִ ‫ ָט ֵמא ַא‬Is 52.11 1QHa 7.36 (3); ‫‘ נוגעים בהמה‬touch it [= water])’ 11Q19 32.15, ‫ל־תּגָּ עוּ‬ MT // ‫ בטמה‬1QIsaª; ‫‘ לדבוק באמת בריתך‬to hold fast to the truth of Your covenant’ 1QHa 8.25; ‫‘ מוכיח בו‬One who reprimands him’ 1QHa 20.31, ‫‘ הוכחתה בי‬You have reproved me’ ib. 17.23 // ‫‘ להוכיח איש את אחיהו‬to reprove one another’ CD 7.2; ‫בטח‬ ‫‘ בשמכה הגדול‬he trusted Your great name’ 1QM 11.2 (4). ֯ ‘to raise a scaring voice’ 4Q511 63iii5 is typical In BH the ‫ ב־‬as in ‫להררי֗ ם בקול פחד‬ 5 of poetic language. ( ) The ‫ ב־‬rection may be selected to refer to an action undertaken with dedication, perseverance or attentiveness: ‫ קרא‬G ‘to read’ (6): ‫ישקודו ביחד את שלישית כול לילות‬ ‫‘ השנה לקרוא בספר‬they shall keep vigil together a third of every night throughout ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫תּוֹרת יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ְראוּ ְבּ ֵס ֶפר‬ the year to read the book’ 1QS 6.7, cf. ‫יהם ְר ִב ִעית ַהיּוֹם‬ Neh 9.3; ‫‘ דויד לא קרא בספר התורה החתום‬David had not read the sealed book of the law’ 1 Qimron (I 81) adds a full stop after this clause, which would leave the following ‫ובחסדיכה לאיש פשע‬ ‫ ו֯ ברוב רחמיכה לנעוי לב‬an orphan, for it is followed by a causal clause introduced with ‫כי‬. Alternatively ‫ לב‬.. ‫ ובחסדיכה‬can be construed with the immediately preceding verb in ‫פלא ֗כ ֗ה הודעתני‬ ֯ ‫ברזי‬, but taking ‫ לאיש פשע‬and ‫ לנעוי לב‬as elaborating ‫ני‬-: ‘(You have inculcated me,) a man of iniquity in Your mercies and a contrary mind Your abundant compassion’ or ‫ בחסדיכה‬and ‫ ברוב רחמיכה‬may be adverbial adjuncts. Yet another analysis is represented in DJD 40.214: “(made known) both your kindness toward a [sinful] person and your abundant compassion for the one whose heart is perverted.” Anyway, ‫ הודיע‬can take either a zero-object of person as in ‫ת־כּל־זֹאת‬ ָ ‫אוֹתָך ֶא‬ ְ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫הוֹד ַיע ֱא‬ ִ ‫ ַא ֲח ֵרי‬Gn 41.39 or a ‫ל‬-object as in ‫הוֹד ְע ָתּ ָל ֶהם‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ת־ה ֶדּ ֶרְך‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬Ex 18.20 and ‫החיים גבורותיכה‬ ֯ ‫‘ להודיע לכול‬to let all the living Your mighty works’ 1QHa 12.29. Cf. Mansoor 1961.151: “Thy lovingkindness (Thou hast made known) to a [wicked] man, [and] Thy abundant mercies to him of distorted understanding.” 2 Given this fluctuation, Qimron’s (I 7) proposal to emend ‫ למאוס כאשר שנא‬to ‫למאוס באשר שנא‬ ‘to loathe what He hates’ CD 2.15 on the basis of ‫שנאתה‬ ֗ ‫ למאוס בכול אשר‬1QHa 4.36 is not indisputable. Note also ‫ מאס את התורה‬1QpHab 5.11. 3 On the rection of the verb ‫שוה‬, cf. ‫ווּ־בהּ‬ ָ ‫ל־ח ָפ ֶציָך לֹא יִ ְשׁ‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ָכ‬Pr 3.15 (‫)ב ָח ְכ ָמה = ָבהּ‬. ְ 4 Pace the editors (DJD 34.93) their alternative rendering is unlikely: ‫“ אל תבטח למה ֗ת ֯שנ֯ ֯א‬do not trust in what thou hatest,” but ‘Don’t trust (him)! Why should you be hated?’. 5 JM § 125 m, where ‫ ְל ָה ִרים ְבּקוֹל‬1Ch 15.16 is mentioned as the only prose example. Jenni (1992.99) speaks of Beth gesticulationis. 6 Cf. Malessa 2006.80-83.



CD 5.2 (1) as against ‫הדברים האלה‬ ֗ ֗‫ראו‬ ֯ ‫‘ ̇ק‬they read these words’ 4Q389 1.6 (2), cf. ‫וְ ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ת־ה ֵסּ ֶפר ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ ‫ֹּלתָך ִל ְקרֹא ֶא‬ ְ ‫ ְכּ ַכ‬Je 51.63. ‫ קרא ב‬also at 1QS 7.1, 4Q251 1-2.5, 4Q273 2.1. (3) This analysis is applicable to the passive ‫ נִ ְק ָרא‬as in ‫ ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא נִ ְק ָרא ְבּ ֵס ֶפר מ ֶֹשׁה‬Neh 13.1; ‫‘ איש דורש בתורה יומם ולילה‬a man who studies the law day and night’ 1QS 6.6 // ‫דורש‬ ‫ התורה‬CD 6.7, 7.18 (4). The well-known collocation ‫ שׁמע בקול־‬most probably belongs here, e.g. ‫‘ איננו שומע בקול אביהו‬he does not listen to what his father says’ 4Q524 14.5 < ‫ ֵאינֶ נּוּ שׁ ֵֹמ ַע ְבּק ֵֹלנוּ‬Dt 21.20, sim. ‫ אם תשמע בקולי‬11Q19 55.13. Another lexical field with which the preposition Bet is affiliated is that of verbal communication. Thus ‫בגבורת אל‬ ֯ ‫‘ לרנן‬to raise a cry of joy over God’s might’ 1QM 14.6 (5); ‫‘ יהגו בפעולות אדם‬they mumble about man’s actions’ 4Q436 1a+bi8. Note also the feature of intentionality and / or durativity in ‫‘ וראו בישועתו‬and they will look at His salvation’ CD 20.34, as distinct from ‘they will see, i.e. visually witness ..’ (6); see also ‫‘ טהור עינים מראות ברע‬too pure of the eyes to gaze at wickedness’ 1QpHab 5.1 < Hb 1.12 MT ‫( ֵמ ְראוֹת ָרע‬7), with which cp. ‫‘ שעו עיני מראות רע‬my eyes turned away from looking at the evil’ 1QHa 15.5. A secure example of ה ָכּה ב‬ ִ ‘to strike, smite’ occurs only in ‫ישלח ידו להכות ֗באפרים‬ ‘he is going to stretch his hand to smite Ephraim’ 4Q167 2.3. (8) 1 Because of the insufficient context we cannot be absolutely certain whether any substantive difference from ‫ קרא ספר‬is meant or not. However, there is nothing that would contradict the application of our analysis here to this instance. 2 Qimron (II 100) reads ֯‫ראו‬ ֯ ‫נק‬ ֗ ‫נ‬, a passive transform. 3 The collocation ע ַבד ַבּ ֲעב ָֹדה‬, ָ to which Malessa (2006.83-86) assigns durative Aktionsart, is not attested in QH. 4 Lohse (1971.284, n. 42) refers to a description by Josephus of the Essenes: σπουδάζουσι δ᾽ ἐκτόπως περὶ τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν συντάγματα ‘they take extraordinary pains in studying the instructions given by the ancients’ (Bellum 2.136). 5 Jenni (1992.106) would bring this under the ‘Bet causae,’ but in BH this verb also takes a zero object as in ‫ ְתּ ַרנֵּ ן ְלשׁוֹנִ י ִצ ְד ָק ֶתָך‬Ps 51.16, see also ib. 59.17; ‘accusativus causae’ is rather implausible. 6 Cf. Lohse (107) “sie werden sein Heil schauen” as against Rabin (1958.42) “they will witness” and DSP (167) “ils verront Son salut.” Cf. Malessa 2006.106-27. 7 Cf. Trg J ‫בּ ָע ְב ֵדי ִבישׁ‬. ְ 8 The preposition ‫ ב‬in ‫ יכה בגדוליו‬4Q169 3-4i5 is instrumental in value: ‘he will strike by employing his generals.’ On the basis of the above-mentioned sole attestation we cannot say with confidence whether this is amenable to an analysis by Malessa (2006.86-94), who maintains that, in BH, where the syntagm is abundantly attested, it indicates that the patiens is affected by the action in question in a lesser degree. Thus ‫ הכה את אפרים‬would mean total annihilation, but ‫ הכה באפרים‬a partial one, whilst in ‫ת־ה ֶסּ ַלע‬ ַ ‫וַ יַּ ְך ֶא‬ ‫ ְבּ ַמ ֵטּהוּ ַפּ ֲע ָמיִם‬Nu 20.11 Moses was rather rough, though he had been directed to hit the rock gently in ‫ית‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִכּ‬ ‫ ַבצּוּר‬Ex 17.6. This analysis, however, would be assigning a reverse value to that which is assigned to קרא ב‬. We would stay open to an alternative analysis in which the preposition may be basically locational. Hence with ‫ הכה באפרים‬we might be talking about where the killing field is. When Saul said, with a spear in his hand, ‫וּב ִקּיר‬ ַ ‫ ַא ֶכּה ְב ָדוִ ד‬1Sm 18.11, he must have been serious, not “I’m going to teach him a lesson,” where we would note Trg ‫‘ אמחינה בדוד ואברזנה בכתלא‬I shall thrust it into (the chest of) David and transfix it into the wall,’ where we prefer this reading instead of Sperber’s ‫ אמחיניה‬with a strange, 3ms suffix. Cf. Driver (1913.152): “I will smite them together, I will pin David to the wall,” so already Rashi ad loc. This basically locative value is affiliated, we believe, with that of partitive, e.g. ‫ואוכלה‬ ‫אנחה‬ ֗ ‫לחם‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֗ב‬and I ate of bread of groaning’ 1QHa 13.35, sim. ‫ יאכלו בלחמו‬4Q251 16.2; ‫לאכול באלים ובאנשים‬



ec) + ‫על‬ E.g. ‫‘ ויגודו על נפש צדיק‬and they attacked the soul of a righteous person’ CD 1.20; ‫ישענו‬ ‫‘ על אל‬they will trust God’ CD 20.23, ‫‘ על חסדיו אשען‬I will rely on His mercies’ 1QS 10.16 // ‫‘ נשענת ברוב חסדו‬relying on His mercy’ ib. 4.4; ‫‘ יתגברו על כל בני תבל‬they will overcome all men of the world’ CD 20.33; ‫‘ לעבור על דברכה‬to transgress Your word’ 1QHa 20.27; ‫‘ ותחס עליהמה‬and You took pity on them’ 4Q504 2.8, ‫לוא תחוס‬ ‫‘ עינכה עליו‬your eye shall not take pity on him’ 11Q19 61.12 < Dt 19.21, where, however, ‫ עליו‬is missing. Note, however, ‫‘ בתומכי בבריתכה‬when I relied on Your covenant’ 1QHa 10.23. ed) Vacillation (1) Some verbs are found showing more than one mode of rection with little difference in meaning: zero-object and prepositional object, in which latter case more than one preposition. To a certain extent this is a question of diachronic lexicography rather than syntactic. (2) This happens within our corpus or vis-à-vis BH as preserved in the MT. (3) Thus the variation in ‫ על פרי בטן לוא ירחמו‬Is 13.18 1QIsaª // MT ‫י־ב ֶטן לֹא יְ ַר ֵחמוּ‬ ֶ ‫וּפ ִר‬ ְ ( 4) illustrates this point: D ‫ ִר ַחם‬in BH often takes a zero-object, only once with ‫ ַעל‬at ‫ְכּ ַר ֵחם‬ ‫ל־בּנִ ים ִר ַחם יְ הוָ ה ַעל־יְ ֵר ָאיו‬ ָ ‫ ָאב ַע‬Ps 103.13, and in QH and RH it occurs only with ‫( ַעל‬5); ‫‘ ינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב ורע‬He will cause humans to inherit them to know good and evil’ 1QS 4.26, ‫וינחילה לאנוש‬ ֯ ‘and He gave it as an inheritance to Enosh’ 4Q417 1i16, ֗ ‫‘ להנחי֗ ֗ל‬to give His people an inheritance of ..’ 4Q377 1i4, where possibly ‫נח ֗ל ֗ת‬ ֯ ‫לע ֯מו֯ נ‬ “pour dévorer parmi les dieux ..” 4Q491 10ii15 (DJD 7.26); ֗‫‘ אש ֯או֗ ֗כלת במוסדי עפרו‬a fire consuming his foundations of dust’ 4Q511 16.3. Malessa (2006.97) speaks of “in geringerem Maße betroffen” and “geringere Transitivität” (ib. 98). Pace Garr (1991.126f.) we do not believe that ‫ ִה ָכּה את‬is perfective in aspect and ‫ ִה ָכּה ב־‬imperfective. At ‫ל־ה ֶח ֶרב‬ ַ ‫ וַ יַּ ְך ַבּ ְפּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּים ַעד ִכּי־יָ גְ ָעה יָ דוֹ וַ ִתּ ְד ַבּק יָ דוֹ ֶא‬2Sm 23.10, even the following ‫ עד כי‬clause does not justify Garr’s translation, “He kept striking down the Philistines.” Nor do we believe that in the pair ‫אחז בּוֹ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ֹלהים וַ יּ‬ ִ ‫ל־ארוֹן ָה ֱא‬ ֲ ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַלח ֻעזָּ א ֶא‬2Sm 6.6 and ‫ת־ה ָארוֹן‬ ָ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַלח ֻעזָּ א ֶאת־יָ דוֹ ֶל ֱאחֹז ֶא‬ 1Ch 13.9 the Chronicler has a perspective different from the author of 2Sm. 1 For a detailed analysis of 1QIsaª data in this matter, see Kutscher 1974.403-10. See also Muraoka 2020(?) § 1.1. 2 Note a cautious conclusion drawn by Malessa (2006.106): “.. daß die Hypothese einer historischen Entwicklung nicht belegt, aber auch nicht widerlegt ist.” Rey (2013) shows that, in the case of verbs of intellectual perception, the complementation with a -‫ב‬ object is typical of LBH and QH. 3 In addition to what is noted in this part of our study, note also the following: MT ‫ִצוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה‬ Ex 16.34 // QH ‫ את‬4Q22 17.4; MT ‫ל־מקֹמוֹ יָבֹא‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬Ex 18.23 // QH ‫ אל‬4Q22 19.5; MT ‫לֹא־יָ ִשׂימוּ ֵא ֵלינוּ ֵלב‬ 2Sm 18.3 // ‫ לנו‬4Q51; MT ‫ ואמרתי ָל ֶהם‬Ex 3.13 // ‫אליהם‬ ‫ א‬4Q13 3ii+5-6i1; ֺ ‫ ויאמר יהוה לו‬Ex 4.6 // ‫יהוה אליו‬ ‫יה‬ 4Q13 3ii5-6i21, sim. Nu 22.16 // 4Q27 20-22.9; ‫הוֹשׁ ַע‬ ֻ ְ‫יוֹסף ֶאת־י‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יְ ַד ְבּרוּ ְבּנֵ י‬Josh 17.14 // ‫הושע‬ ‫ אל יה‬4Q48 5.7; MT ‫ ִהזָּ ה ֶאל‬Lv 14.51 // ‫ הזה על‬4Q23 5.2; MT ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ת־ה ֱא‬ ָ ‫ וַ ַיְב ֵקּשׁ ָדּוִ ד ֶא‬2Sm 12.16 // ‫ מן האלהים‬4Q51, on which cf. Muraoka 2012.104. 4 At Is 9.16 and 14.1 1QIsaª agrees with MT with zero-rection. See also Kutscher 1974.44, where the transition from BH רחם את‬to MH רחם על‬is mentioned. 5 As noted by Kutscher 1974.410. E.g. ‫‘ לוא ארחם על כול סוררי דרך‬I shall not take pity on any of the deviants’ 1QS 10.20. DCH 7.468b is misleading: in 4QAdmon = 4Q370 2.6 an object complement of ‫ ירחם‬has not been preserved and in 4QDibHamc = 4Q506 131-132.11 ‫ רחמנו‬can be either = ‫ רחם א ָֹתנוּ‬or = ‫רחם ָע ֵלינוּ‬.



we should note this H verb in BH normally takes a person as a zero-object as in ‫וְ הוּא‬ ‫ת־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫אוֹתם ֶא‬ ָ ‫ יַ נְ ִחיל‬Dt 3.28, but in LBH we find -‫ ל‬as in ‫טּוֹבה וְ ִהנְ ַח ְל ֶתּם‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָא ֶרץ ַה‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫יכם ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ִל ְבנ‬1Ch 28.8 (1). Note another common G verb ‫בחר‬: ‫‘ ויבחרו במהתלות‬and they chose delusions’ CD 1.18, but ‫‘ ותבחר לך עם‬and You chose a people for Yourself’ 1Q34 3ii5; ‫‘ לבחור את אשר רצה‬to choose what He was pleased with’ CD 2.15; ‫את אשר‬ ‫בחר ֗ת ֗ה‬ ֗ ‘that which You chose’ 1QHa 4.33; ‫‘ אותנו בחרתה‬You chose us’ 4Q504 1-2iii9 // ‫ בחר בנו‬4Q503 24-25.4; ‫וֹתי‬ ָ ‫ ִה ְק ַשׁ ְב ָתּ ְל ִמ ְצ‬Is 48.18 // ‫ אל‬1QIsaª; ‫שמעתי לסוד פלאכה‬ ‘I heeded your marvellous foundation’ 1QHa 20.15; ‫‘ תרתי געלה נפשם‬their soul(s) loathed My law’ 4Q387 2ii12 // ‫‘ געלה נפשו ביסורי דעת‬his soul loathed chastisements of knowledge’ 1QS 2.26 (2). The vacillation between ‫ אל‬to ‫ על‬may be indicative of a diachronic change. In ‫ושלח‬ ‫‘ על שרי האלפים ועל שרי המיאות‬and he shall send a message to the chiefs of thousands and to the chiefs of hundreds’ 11Q19 58.4 we are not inclined to assume an identical scribal error twice over, i.e. ‫ על‬in lieu of ‫אל‬, see also ‫‘ לוא ישוב עוד על עצת היחד‬he shall not return to the community council again’ 1QS 7.2. In some Aramaic dialects verbs of physical movement normally govern ‫ על‬with a personal destination, e.g. ‫ְרעוּת ַמ ְל ָכּא‬ ‫ל־דּנָ ה יִ ְשׁ ַלח ֲע ֶלינָ א‬ ְ ‫‘ ַע‬May the king send us his pleasure on this matter’ Ezr 5.17. (3) The rection of √‫ בין‬is interesting. E.g. ‫‘ להבין בנפלאותיכה‬to understand Your wonderful works’ 1QHa 19.31; ‫‘ להתבונן בכול נפלאותיכה‬to fathom all ..’ 1QS 11.19. As against the zero-rection, which is normal in BH, the syntagm occurs five times, all in LBH—Neh 8.8, 12, Dn 1.17, 9.23, 10.11. ‫ הבין‬occurs once also with -‫ל‬: ‫‘ לעצת מה יבין‬what advice will he understand?’ 1QS 11.22, a syntagm which is confined to LBH, possibly under Aramaic influence—Dn 8.16, 11.33, 2Ch 35.3, Job 6.24. (4) Not every vacillation is likely to reflect a diachronic change, since one such can occur in one and the same document, cp., e.g. ‫‘ ללספר ברוב חסדיכה‬to tell about the abundance of Your mercies’ 1QHa 19.31, the only instance of this rection of this high-frequency verb, which otherwise takes a zero-object as in ‫ לספר צדקותיך‬1QHa 4.17; ‫‘ שב אל עפרו‬one who returns to his dust’ 1QHa 20.34 // ‫ שב לעפרו‬ib. 18.14; ‫שמעו אלי‬ ‘Listen to me’ CD 2.2 // ‫ שמעו לי‬CD 2.14; ‫‘ מאשו בתורת אל‬they rejected God’s law’ 1QpHab 1.11 with ‫ מאס את התורה‬1QpHab 5.11; ‫‘ על חסדיו אשען‬I will rely on His mercies’ 1QS 10.16 // ‫‘ נשענת ברוב חסדו‬relying on His abundant mercy’ ib. 4.4; ‫לוא‬ ‫‘ יסלח לכפר עווניך‬He will not forgive, wiping out your iniquities’ 1QS 2.8 as against ‫ לכפר על אשמת פשע‬1QS 9.4 and ‫ יכפר בעד כול עוונותי‬1QS 11.14; ‫הכוהנים מספרים את‬ 1 Note an example in MH: ‫עוֹלמוֹת‬ ָ ‫ל־צ ִדּיק וְ ַצ ִדּיק ְשֹׁלשׁ ֵמאוֹת וַ ֲע ָשׂ ָרה‬ ַ ‫ָע ִתיד ַה ָקּדוֹשׁ ָבּרוְּך הוּא ְל ַהנְ ִחיל ְל ָכ‬ mUktz 3.12. 2 Also vacillating in BH: ‫ ְבּ ִציּוֹן גָּ ֲע ָלה נַ ְפ ֶשָׁך‬Je 14.19 // ‫א־תגְ ַעל נַ ְפ ִשׁי ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ל‬Lv 26.11. 3 For further examples, see Vogt 1971.167. Interestingly enough we find a few examples of שׁלח על‬ in LBH, e.g. ‫ל־מ ְל ֵכי ַאשּׁוּר ַל ְעזֹר לוֹ‬ ַ ‫ ָשׁ ַלח ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ָא ָחז ַע‬2Ch 28.16, cf. DCH 6.378a ad finem. The same syntagm may be identified in ‫ארם אהפך‬ ‫‘ על ֗שא‬I shall return to their remnant’ 4Q386 1ii6; Dimant (DJD 30.65) offers no explanation for the preposition here, and her translation “their remnant I shall return” is debatable. A slight departure from this usage can be observed in ‫‘ בהאספו על מעון חוקו‬when it retired to a habitation assigned to it’ 1QS 10.1. 4 For further details, see Muraoka 1997.94-97.



‫‘ צדקות אל במעשי גבורתום‬the priests recount the victories (won by) God, the deeds of His might’ 1QS 1.21, where ‫ את‬and -‫ ב‬occur next to each other (1); ‫הודעתם בסוד‬ ‫אמתכה‬ ֗ ‘You let them know the mystery of Your truth’ 1QHa 19.12 // ‫֗הודעתני סוד אמת‬ 1QHa 19.19. (2) Likewise ‫ אל‬shifting to -‫ל‬: ‫ לכול הנגלה ממנה‬.. ‫לשוב אל תורת מושה‬ ‘to revert to the law of Moses .. to all that is revealed of it’ 1QS 5.8. This last example suggests stylistic variation as a possible explanation for the vacillation. Note ‫ָח ֵרד‬ ‫ל־דּ ָב ִרי‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬Is 66.2 MT // ‫ חורד לדברי‬1QIsaa and ‫ חרד אל ֗ד ֯ב ֗רי‬1QIsab, cf. ‫ְלזֹאת יֶ ֱֵח ַרד ִל ִבּי‬ Jb 37.1. (3) There are, however, probable cases of this shift of ‫ אל‬to -‫ ל‬or sometimes to ‫ על‬reflecting a diachronic change, and they are clearly attested in Qumran biblical manuscripts and texts quoting or alluding to biblical texts. E.g. ‫ שׁב לארצו‬Is 37.7 1QIsaa // MT ‫;אל‬ ֶ ‫ כקרובכמה למלחמה‬11Q19 61.14 // ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ַ ‫ ְכּ ָק ָר ְב ֶכם ֶא‬Dt 20.2; ‫לוא הבטתמה‬ a ‫ על עושיה‬1QIsa 22.11 // MT ‫יה‬ ָ ‫;אל ע ֶֹשׂ‬ ֶ ‫ בא על הארץ‬6Q4 15.2 // ‫ ֶאל‬2Kg 8.1 MT; ‫ַה ִבּיטוּ‬ ‫ל־מ ֶקּ ֶבת‬ ַ ‫ וְ ֶא‬.. ‫ ֶאל־צוּר‬Is 51.1 MT and 1QIsaª // ‫ וועל‬.. ‫ על‬1QIsab. (4) This accords with what one finds in LBH as against EBH (5). Aramaic, to which ‫ אל‬is virtually unknown, must have played a role here. Between these fluctuating syntagms hardly any opposition, whether semantic or syntactic, can be established. (6) Malessa holds that, in BH, a syntactic factor is involved here: when a verb of saying is followed by an addressee, but separated from the former with at least one clause constituent, there is a marked tendency to prefer ‫ אל‬over ‫ל־‬. (7) Our enquiry on G ‫ אמר‬in QH does not suggest any syntactic conditioning: among a total of 33 examples אל‬occurs 16 times, and אל‬17 times. Among the former we find, e.g. ‫ויאמר יהוה אל מושה‬ 4Q158 7-8.3, a quote from Dt 5.26. Seven more cases also quoting a biblical text are found at 4Q225 2ii2, 4Q364 14.3, 26bii-e3, 4Q365 2.4, 6ai1, 23.3, 4. The remaining six cases which are not directly influenced by any biblical text include cases such as ‫ אמר ישחק אל אביו‬.. ‫אל ישחק‬ ֗ ‫ ויאמר אברהם‬4Q225 2ii2-3, which, however, follows ‫ו֯ י֯ ֯א ֯מ ֯ר‬ ֗ ‫ישחק אל אברהם‬ ֗ < Gn 22.7 MT and 22.8 MT lacks ‫ אמר ישחק אל אביו‬.. ‫אל ישחק‬. In QH as well as in BH the synonymous D ‫ דבר‬governs ‫ אל‬far oftener than -‫;ל‬ in QH the ratio is 26 - 9. אל‬occurs 7 times, whereas ל־‬never occurs. Besides, ‫ דבר‬governs a greater variety of prepositions: ‫אל‬, ‫ל־‬, ‫ב־‬, ‫את‬, ‫עם‬. This greater choice makes it likely that their selection is semantically conditioned. (8) On ‫ גבורתום‬with a pleonastic final Mem, see Muraoka 1996.578f. and Qimron 2018.114, § B 5.2.1. Some BH examples are: ‫ העיר אשׁר בחרת‬1Kg 8.48 // ‫ העיר אשׁר בחרת ָבּהּ‬vs. 44; ‫ ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָמ ָאסוּ‬Ezk 5.6 // ‫ את משׁפטי מאסו‬ib. 20.13. 3 Several more analogous examples have been noted by Geiger 2012.222, n. 77. 4 More examples and a few counter examples are mentioned in Muraoka 2000.204f. 5 As convincingly demonstrated by Malessa 2006.188-91, 195 in respect of G ‫אמר‬, D ‫ דבר‬in BH. 6 As regards BH in this matter, Jenni’s (1999) thesis that the social status of a person spoken to vis-à-vis a speaker plays an important role has been seriously questioned by Malessa (2006.169-88). 7 Malessa 2006.182-88; he conducted an exhaustive enquiry into G ‫ אמר‬in Gn, 1-2Sm, and 1-2Kg. Whether the addressee is expressed with a noun or pronoun, the proportion is אל‬ca. 80% and ל־‬ ca. 20%, when the verb is separated. 8 Malessa (2006.191-205, esp. 196-203) attempts such an enquiry. However, as in his earlier study (2003), he also notices some syntactic differentiations between these diverse prepositions used with D ‫דבר‬. 1 2



Whilst the use of ‫ אל‬in ‫‘ י֗ צוה אלוהיכה אליכה‬your God might command you’ 4Q375 1i1 on one hand and the vacillation on the other shown in ‫‘ צוה לבני צדק‬He commanded children of justice’ 4Q502 14.4 as against ‫‘ צו את בני ישראל‬Command ..’ 4Q365 23.4 are to be noted; already BH attests to the same vacillation—‫ ִצוָּ ה יהוה מ ֶֹשׁה‬Ex 12.28 // ‫ל־עמּוֹ‬ ַ ‫ וַ יְ ַצו ַפּ ְרעֹה ְל ָכ‬Ex 1.22 and ‫ל־כּנַ ַען‬ ְ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ִצוָּ ה ֶא‬Is 23.11. (1) Verbs meaning ‘to understand’ or ‘to inculcate’ often show the syntagm as in ‫‘ לחבין ֗בכו֗ ל אלה‬to understand all these matters’ 1QHa 5.30, a syntagm which occurs five times in LBH. So does ‫ה ִבּיט‬, ִ but ‫‘ חושך יביט‬he shall gaze at darkness’ 1QS 3.3 is unlikely typical of a late phenomenon as it occurs in EBH, e.g. ‫א־ה ִבּיט ָאוֶ ן ְבּיַ ֲעקֹב‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ל‬Nu 23.21 // ‫א־ר ָאה ָע ָמל ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל יְ הוָ ה‬ ָ ֹ ‫( ל‬2). See also above at § db. ‫‘ הושע לבן אמתך‬Rescue the son of your handmaid’ 4Q381 15.2 // ‫‘ תושיע נפשי‬You save my life’ 1QHa 10.25 and ‫ להושיע את ישראל‬4Q174 1-2i13, and cp. ‫יעה ָלּנוּ‬ ָ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ִ Josh 10.6 with ‫תּוֹשׁיעוּן אוֹתוֹ‬ ִ Jdg 6.31. ‫‘ הנלוים עליהם‬those who join them’ 1QS 5.6, ‫ישראל‬ ֯ ‫‘ נלוו על ֯כו ֯ול י‬they joined all Israel’ 4Q169 3+4iii5, ‫מנשה‬ ֗ ‫ הנלוים על‬ib. 3+4iv1 // ‫‘ אליך נלוו‬they joined you’ 11Q5 22.7 // ‫‘ הנלויים עמהם‬those who join them’ CD 4.3, ‫‘ נלוו עמי‬they joined me’ 4Q372 1.20 // ‫‘ נלויתי לו‬I joined him’ 4Q160 7.2. (3) Note ‫‘ בזה ישראל את ֗דבריהם‬Israel despised their words’ CD 7.18; ‫‘ לוא בזיתה רש‬You did not despise the poor’ 1QHa 13.22; ‫‘ את ענוֿ לא בזא‬He did not despise the needy’ 4Q434 1i2 // ‫‘ יבזו על מבצרי העמים‬they despise the fortifications of the peoples’ 1QpHab 4.5 and ‫‘ בזו לדברי ֗פי֗ ֗כ ֗ה‬they despised the words of Your mouth’ 4Q481e 1 (4). This vacillation makes it difficult to determine with confidence what is the underlying rection when an object takes the form of a personal suffix as in ‫‘ כול בוזי‬all who despise Me’ 1QHa 12.23 and ‫‘ ֯ל ֗ה ֗בזותו‬to cause (them) to despise him’ CD 9.4, a difficulty not confined to this verb. ‫‘ להלחם במלכי הצפון‬to battle against the kings of the north’ 1QM 1.4; ‫להלחם לכם עם‬ ‫‘ אויביכם‬to battle for you against your enemies’ 1QM 10.4; ‫‘ לחם את הכרכי֗ ֗ם‬Battle against the towns’ 4Q468g 1.5 (5). Cp. ‫‘ לגעת בטהרת‬to harm the purity of’ 1QS 5.13 with ‫ לטהרת‬4QSd. At ‫ימכר ממכרת עבד‬ ֯ ‫ ויצו עליהיהם לבלתי‬4Q159 2-4+8.3 Qimron (III 25) proposes emending ‫עליהיהם‬ to ‫‘ על אחיהם‬concerning (?) (or: to) their brethren.’ The actual reading of the document (DJD 5.8) can be taken as meaning ‘and he commanded them for none to be sold as a slave’; ‫ על‬instead of ‫ את‬is selected when a prohibition is issued, see Ibn Ezra ad Gn 2.16. Qimron (mail on 27.8.2017) modifies his reading ‫( ויצו֗ על הרוח‬II 156, line 68) to ‫‘ ויוצר הכל‬the maker of all [= God],’ referring to Zc 12.1; ‘to forbid the spirit’ sounds odd. 2 For a discussion on this particular verb, see Muraoka 1997.125; the reference given there as Nu 12.18 is an error for 12.8. 3 Cf. the picture in BH as complex: ‫ יִ ָלּווּ ָע ֶליָך‬Nu 18.2 // ‫ן־הנֵּ ָכר ַהנִּ ְלוָ ה ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ֶבּ‬Is 56.3 // ‫ַאשּׁוּר נִ ְלוָ ה ִע ָמּם‬ Ps 83.9. 4 The editors in DJD 22.321 fill the following lacuna with ‫ לא שמעו‬and translate “to the words of Your mouth they did not listen.” BH attests to the use of -‫בזה ל‬, though the referent is personal: ‫וַ ִתּ ֶבז לוֹ ְבּ ִל ָבּהּ‬ 2Sm 6.16. 5 ‫ את‬here is not necessarily a preposition synonymous with ‫ עם‬in view of ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ ַא ֶתּם נִ ְל ָח ִמים‬Josh 10.25 and ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ נִ ָלּ ֲח ָמה‬1Kg 20.25. 1



f) Syntactic ambiguity of object suffixes (1) We present here a detailed illustration of the syntactic ambiguity that could arise due to the possibility of directly attaching a pronominal object to a verb instead of through the use of ‫ את‬or a preposition. One such verb is H ‫הו ִֺד ַיע‬. E.g. ‫‘ אל יו֗ דיעהו איש את המשפטים‬Let nobody inform him over ..’ CD 15.10; ‫‘ את גמר הקץ לוא הודעו‬He did not let him know the end of the time’ 1QpHab 7.2, sim. ib. 7.4; ‫‘ הודעתני ברזי פלאכה‬You helped me know your marvellous mysteries’ 1QHa 12.28; ‫‘ יודיעהו המבקר אותו‬the overseer shall let him know about it’ 4Q266 8i5, where one is not absolutely sure whether ‫הו‬- = it and ‫ = אותו‬him, or the other way round, whereas in ‫‘ יודיעה למבקר‬he shall notify the overseer of it’ CD 9.22, where we have an ambiguous instance of . On this verb, see also below at § gba. Other verbs which may lead to similar ambiguity include: √‫ לא ָת ָע ְב ֵדם—עבד‬Dt 5.8 // ‫ לא תעבד להם‬4Q42 6-7.2, where the rection with Lamed is highly unusual with this ‫הם‬ verb, when used in the sense of ‘to serve, minister’ (2); √‫—בוא‬Ps 118:19 4QPsb 35.32 ‫אבואם‬, rather unlikely with instrumental force, so most probably a scribal error for ‫אבוא‬ ‫ =( בם‬MT ‫;)אבֹא ָבם‬ ָ √‫‘ עזר לכול בני אור—עזר‬He helped all children of light’ 1QS 3.24 vs. ‫‘ עזרתה נפש עני‬You have helped the soul of the needy’ 1QHa 10.34, hence ambiguous in ‫‘ עזרוהו‬they helped him’ 1QpHab 5.11 and ‫‘ לעזרם‬to help them’ 4Q470 3.4. In BH ‫‘ יָ ֵרא‬to fear, be scared of’ can govern either a zero or ‫ מן‬object: e.g. ‫ל־תּ ְיראוּ‬ ִ ‫ַא‬ ‫ת־עם ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬Nu 14.9 and ‫ל־תּ ְיראוּ ֵמ ַע ְב ֵדי ַה ַכּ ְשׂ ִדּים‬ ִ ‫ ַא‬2Kg 25.24; ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫יָ ְראוּ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ Dt 31.12 and ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫את ֵמּ ֱא‬ ָ ‫ וְ יָ ֵר‬Lv 19.14. In QH we find ‫‘ לירא אותי‬to fear Me’ 4Q175 1.3, ‫ לֹא ִת ָירא ֵמ ֶהם‬Dt 20.1 quoted as ‫ לוא תירא מהמה‬11Q19 61.13, but also ‫אותו תיראו‬ 11Q19 54.14 < Dt 13.5, but also ‫‘ ירא מאיזבל ומאחאב‬he was scared of Jezebel and Ahab’ 4Q382 1.3. How are we then to analyse ‫ אל תיראום‬1QM 17.4? ‫‘ כלכל‬to provide sbd with sth’: + suf. pers.—‫‘ עד שיבה אתה תכלכלני‬until old age You will provide for me’ 1QHa 17.34 and + -‫‘ הואה יכלכלם בכול חפציהם—ב‬He will provide them with all their desires’ 1QS 3.17; + -‫ ל‬pers.—‫‘ תכלכל לכול מעשי֯ כה‬You will provide ֗ ‫‘ ֯ל‬to support for all Your creatures’ 1QHa 17.36; possibly zero pers.—‫כלכל ֗קדושים‬ saints’ 4Q405 18.2. In BH is unknown but only the DO as in ‫לכּ ְל ִתּי א ְֹתָך‬ ַ ‫וְ ִכ‬ Gn 45.11. is also unknown, hence ‫ל־בּית‬ ֵ ‫ת־א ָחיו וְ ֵאת ָכּ‬ ֶ ‫ת־א ִביו וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫יוֹסף ֶא‬ ֵ ‫וַ יְ ַכ ְל ֵכּל‬ ‫ ָא ִביו ֶל ֶחם‬Gn 47.12. (3) The G verb ‫‘ ענה‬to answer’ occurs once only with : ‫ תענה להם‬1QHa 12.19. The fact that the verb takes otherwise a zero-object, e.g. ‫ת־א ְב ָר ָהם‬ ַ ‫י־חת ֶא‬ ֵ ֵ‫וַ יַּ ֲענוּ ְבנ‬ ‫ ֵלאמֹר לוֹ‬Gn 23.5 (4) or a conjunctive pronoun as in ‫ ויענני יהוה ויומר‬1QpHab 6.14 suggests that we do not have here a syntagmatic innovation or a free variant of ‫אותם‬. 1 See JM, § 125 ba; ‫ נְ ַת ִתּיו‬can be rewritten analytically as ‫ נָ ַת ִתּי אֹתוֹ‬or ‫נָ ַת ִתּי לוֹ‬. See also Muraoka 2020(?) § 1.3. 2 The text is extremely fragmentary, on which see Crawford (DJD 14.131f.). 3 Hence it is virtually certain that ‫ וְ ִכ ְל ְכּ ָלם ֶל ֶחם וָ ָמיִ ם‬1Kg 18.4 can be rewritten as ‫וְ ִכ ְל ֵכּל א ָֹתם וגו׳‬. 4 This syntagm is not attested in QH.



The selection of -‫ ל‬is due to the meaning of the verb here: it is not ‘to answer, respond verbally’ (1), but to respond in action—‘You will, o God, respond to them by judging them with Your might (‫בגבורתכ ֗ה‬ ֗ ‫)לשופטם‬,’ the preposition being almost equivalent to 2 a dativus incommodi. ( ) And yet Hebrew does use ‫ ענה‬with a zero-object pers. in a sense close to what we have assigned above to . E.g. ‫ָאז יִ זְ ֲעקוּ ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה וְ לֹא‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ יַ ֲענֶ ה‬Mi 3.4, with a value of dativus commodi, but it is still a response to oral communication. A very similar example is found in ‫וקראו ולוא אשמע וזעקו ולוא אענה‬ ‫‘ אותמה‬and they will cry out, but I will not hearken nor will I respond to them’ 11Q19 59.6, and we come across a strikingly similar usage in MH: ‫מּוֹריָּ ה‬ ִ ‫ִמי ֶשׁ ָענָ ה ֶאת ַא ְב ָר ָהם ְבּ ַהר ַה‬ ‫‘ הוּא יַ ֲענֶ ה ֶא ְת ֶכם וְ יִ ְשׁ ַמע ְבּקוֹל ַצ ֲע ַק ְת ֶכם ַהיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬He who took note of Abraham on the Mount Moriyah will take note of you and hearken to the voice of your cry this day’ mTaan 2.4, and this same formula is repeated another six times by mentioning biblical personages whose distressful predicament was taken note of by God. (3) We should also note that in none of these seven blessings the verb ‫ ענה‬is used with God as its subject in the biblical source text lying behind them. In the light of this we are probably ִ ‫ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ַבּ ָצּ ָר ָתה ִלּי ָק ָר‬ justified in identifying a zero-object in a case such as ‫אתי וַ יַּ ֲענֵ נִ י‬ 4 Ps 120.1 ( ) and rewrite ‫ וַ יַּ ֲענֵ נִ י‬as ‫וַ יַּ ַען א ִֹתי‬. Many similar instances can be mentioned; to cite just two, ‫מוּאל ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ַעד יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יַּ ֲענֵ הוּ יְ הוָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יִּ זְ ַעק ְשׁ‬1Sm 7.9, where the Lord did not reply to Samuel verbally, but thundered at the attacking Philistines (5) and ‫ָה ֲענִ יִּ ים‬ ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לֹא ֶא ֶעזְ ֵבם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָה ֶא ְביוֹנִ ים ְמ ַב ְק ִשׁים ַמיִם וָ ַאיִ ן ְלשׁוֹנָ ם ַבּ ָצּ ָמא נָ ָשׁ ָתּה ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֶא ֱענֵ ם ֱא‬Is 41.17, where nobody is recorded to have uttered a word, but God had an ear for their unspeakable pain. ‫‘ אודכה‬I would praise You’ occurs often in 1QHa, e.g. 10.22 and is to be compared with ‫‘ הודו לו‬Praise Him’ 4Q200 6.7, ‫ יודו לכה‬.. ‫ יודה לכה‬11Q5 19.2 // ‫יודכה לכה יודו‬ 11Q6 4-5.4, and ‫הנכבד‬ ֯ ‫ י֯ ו֯ דה לאל‬4Q403 1i4. By contrast we do find a case of acc. rei in ‫‘ להודות ברנה חסדיכה‬to praise Your mercies with shouts’ 11Q5 19.8 as well as ל‬as in ‫ נודה לשמך‬1Q34bis 3i6. This same verb, which occurs more frequently in BH, displays greater diversity in its rection: alongside ‫אוֹדָך יהוה‬ ְ Is 12.1, ‫הֹדוֹת‬ Even in the case of a verbal or oral response, it is not a reply to a question put. Thus ‫מוּאל ָר ָאה‬ ֵ ‫ְשׁ‬ ‫ת־שׁאוּל וַ יהוָ ה ָענָ הוּ ִהנֵּ ה ָה ִאישׁ ֲא ֶשׁר ָא ַמ ְר ִתּי ֵא ֶליָך‬ ָ ‫ ֶא‬1Sm 9.17, on which see Driver (1913 ad loc.). Note an analogous use of ‫ ֲענָ ה‬in BA as at ‫ ָענֵ ה ַמ ְל ָכּא ְל ָדנִ יֵּ אל וְ ָא ַמר‬Dn 2.47, where Daniel had not put a question to the king, hence fittingly rendered by Vogt (1971 s.v. ‫)ענָ ה‬ ֲ as “locutus est rex ad Danielem et dixit,” not “respondit rex ..” The verb ‫ענה‬, whether BH or BA, in a discourse situation like this, signifies ‘to take action, whether verbal or otherwise, by having taken note of the current situation.’ Cf. Muraoka 2009a.76b s.v. ἀποκρίνομαι 1 c. 2 In BH and the post-biblical Hebrew ‫ ענה לי‬does not appear to be attested. In the Mishnah, for instance, chock-full of exchanges between rabbis, their records can apparently do without using ‫ענה‬, but simply with ‫אמר‬: Rabbi X said (by way of question) .. Rabbi Y said (by way of reply) and so on. As in BH, QH is full of ‫ענה ואמר‬, ‫ ענו ואמרו‬and the like. In Modern Hebrew, by contrast, one would hardly ever say ‫ ענה אותי‬in the sense of ‘he replied to me,’ perhaps an analogical development influenced by other verbs of saying such as ‫ אמר‬as well as by some European languages. 3 ‫ ענה את‬occurs nowhere else in the Mishnah. 4 A text which opens this pericope in mTaan 2.4. 5 Cf. Qimhi: “when the thunder was heard, then he realised that God had responded to him (‫)ענהו‬.” 1



‫אֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֵל‬Neh 12.46, ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫הוֹדינוּ ְלָּך ֱא‬ ִ Ps 75.2, ‫ ְלהֹדוֹת ְל ֵשׁם ָק ְד ֶשָׁך‬ib. 106.47 one also meets with ‫אוֹדה יְ הוָ ה‬ ֶ ib. 109.30+, ‫ הוֹדוּ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬Je 33.11, albeit never + ‫אֹתוֹ‬, and ‫יוֹדוּ ַליהוָ ה‬ ‫ ַח ְסדּוֹ‬Ps 107.8. We do not know then whether we have here to do with incomplete documentation in QH. fa) Synthetic vs. analytic diachronically viewed It has been known for some time that, when a zero-object is pronominal, LBH and MH prefer its synthetic marking, hence ‫ ְשׁ ָלחוּנִ י‬rather than ‫שׁ ְלחוּ א ִֹתי‬. ָ (1) QH goes along with this contemporary trend, as is evident in the Temple Scroll often with biblical sources at the back of the author’s mind, e.g. ‫ והוציאוהו‬11Q19 64.3 < ‫ והוציאו אותו‬MT Dt 21.19 and ‫‘ לוא ילמדוכה לעשות ככול התועבות‬they shall not teach you to practise as all the abominations’ 11Q19 62.16 < ‫תּוֹעב ָֹתם‬ ֲ ‫ לֹא־יְ ַל ְמּדוּ ֶא ְת ֶכם ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ְכּכֹל‬Dt 20.18 (2). (3) ‫להבדיל‬ ‫‘ אותם‬to segregate them’ 1QS 5.18 is the sole instance in this document of the analytic syntagm as against a total of 71 cases of the synthetic structure: Impf. 54×, Inf. 10×, Pf. 7×. As we see below, even this isolated case is syntactically conditioned. In our corpus we find some 63 instances of the analytic syntagm. (4) In his corpus Mor finds not a single instance of the analytic syntagm, ‫ אתו‬etc., as against 7 of the synthetic syntagm. (5) Taking the statistics for 1QS as a guide there would be thousands of examples of the synthetic syntagm in our corpus. (6) The choice between the two syntagms does not appear to be totally arbitrary and haphazard. (7) This holds true for BH to some extent as well. The contrast intended between me and you could not be adequately conveyed in ‫‘ וְ ָה ְרגוּ א ִֹתי וְ א ָֹתְך יְ ַחיּוּ‬and they 1

On the picture in LBH, see especially Kropat 1909.36, Anm. and Polzin 1976.28-31. On the situation in MH in this respect, see Cohen 1983, and cf. also Mor 2015 § 5.7.2 and Qimron 2018.400-02. 2 Five more examples are mentioned in Muraoka 2000.203. 3 Our task would have been facilitated very much if Cohen (1983.209, n. 4) were right in saying “In the Dead Sea Scrolls only the synthetic structure is used,” though he quotes Qimron (1978a.97), where the latter refers to a few exceptions in 11Q19. 4 Reconstructed forms or cases in fragmentary texts where no verb can be identified for the object have not been counted. If ‫ הם‬can be analysed as a subject pronoun of the reconstructed nominal clause ֯‫עי֯ ן‬ ‫סלע‬ ֯ ‫֯ה ֯ם זוז וששה ס‬ ‘they are equivalent to one zuz and six selas’ M147 6, there is no absolute need to invoke, as Eshel, Eshel and Geiger (2008.319) propose, an Aramaism in what precedes—‫‘ אני מקבל ֯ה ֯ם‬I hereby receive them (for payment)’—all the more so since Hebrew of the period is known to prefer the synthetic structure. 5 Mor 2015.276f.: two are of SC and the rest are of PC. ‫‘ )החכרתם אותם =( אחכרתום‬you (pl.) leased them’ 5/6 Ḥev 46.8 is noteworthy, since in BH we find only three instances of a 2mp + suf., JM § 62a, n. 2, and see also Qimron 1987a. For ‫טהו‬ ‫ות ֯עט‬ ֗ XḤev/Ṣe 6.18 Mor apparently follows Qimron’s (2006.198) restoration, which is not very plausible on the plate; both Yardeni (2000.186) and Morgenstern (DJD 38.199) leave an open space between ‫ ת‬and ‫הו‬. Mor (2015.277) justly corrects Gzella’s remark (2007.101, n. 38). 6 This may be cited as an additional proof that in the period concerned Hebrew was still being spoken. Modern Hebrew has reversed this trend, most probably because the majority of early immigrants opted for the easy alternative; writing ‫ שלחוני‬unvocalised is no big deal, but correctly to pronounce these forms is a different story. 7 Cf. Muraoka 2020(?) § 5, where more examples are cited.



might kill me, but you they might let stay alive’ Gn 12.12 if one started off with ‫וַ ֲה ָרגוּנִ י‬, even if ‫ א ָֹתְך‬is fronted. A number of reasons for the selection of either syntagm can be recognised: 1) Morphological constraint. No Hebrew verb can have two suffix pronouns attached to it. Hence there is no alternative in ‫יום קחתו אותה‬ ‫‘ ביום‬on the day when he took her’ 4Q159 2-4+8.8, likewise ‫‘ כרחקך אותו‬as you keep him at a distance’ 1QHa 6.32, ‫‘ בברכו אותו‬as he blessed him’ 4Q158 1+2.10, ‫‘ לתתו אותם‬after He handed them over’ 4Q266 2i10; see also CD 15.11 = 4Q266 8i2, 4Q271 3.15, 4Q504 2.9; ‫‘ יו֗ דיעהו המבקר אותו‬the overseer shall let him know about it’ CD 15.14. 2) Coordinate with a non-pronominal ‫ את‬object or objects following (1): ‫להבדיל אותם‬ ‫‘ ואת כול אשר להם‬to separate them and all that belongs to them’ 1QS 5.18, where the following, coordinate ‫ את‬object necessitates the selection of ‫ אותם‬in lieu of ‫ואת ֯מקני‬ ֯ ‫בנ֗ י֗ נ֗ ו֗ וא‬ ‫את ב‬ ֗ ֗‫‘ להמית ֗או֗ ֗תנ֗ ו֗ ו‬to kill us and our children and our cattle’ ‫קנינ֗ ו֗ ;להבדילם‬ 4Q365 7i2 (2). Somewhat analogously ‫‘ להשכיל וללמד אתכם‬to instruct and teach you’ 4Q381 69.4, where ‫ אתכם‬is to be construed with the first verb as well, whereas in ‫‘ להשכיל אתכם ולהשיב ממעשי‬to instruct you and to draw you away from deeds of’ ib. 69.4a ‫ אתכם‬is to be construed with the second verb as well; at ̇ ‫את אפרה והמזה‬ ̇ ‫והאוסף‬ ̇ ‫השוח ֯ט אותה והסורף אותה‬ ̇ ‘one who slaughters ‫את מי החטאת‬ it and one who burns it and one who collects its ashes and one who sprinkles the water of purification’ MMT B 14 the independent marking by means of ‫אותה‬ makes the parallelism with the coordinate non-pronominal objects stand out. 3) Emphasis or prominence, though the judgement here may be somewhat subjective (3): ‫בישראל‬ ֗ ‫‘ הוא ֗המשיל אתכם בי‬He made you rule Israel’ 4Q299 13a-b2, imme֗ ‫‘ ואתכם הקדיש לו להדריכ‬and He consecrated you to Him for diately followed by ‫להדריכם‬ ֯ ‫‘ הלוא אתו‬would he not let it grow you to guide them’; ‫יאמץ ואתו י֯ ֯ע ֯ב ֗ד ואתו ישמר‬ strong and nurture it and preserve it?’ 4Q302 2ii6 with ‫ אתו‬fronted thrice, so also ‫‘ אותכה המשיל בה‬He made you rule over her’ 4Q416 2iv2 (4), ‫אותך אדוני זכרתי‬ ‘o Lord, I remembered You’ 4Q437 2i14; ‫‘ אותנו בחרתה לכה מכול גויי הארץ‬You chose us for Yourself out of all the peoples of the earth’ 4Q504 3.9; ‫בם בחר אל‬ ‘God chose them’ 1QS 4.22; ‫‘ אותו תעבודון ואותו תיראו ובקולו תשמעון ובו תדבקון‬you shall serve Him and you shall fear Him and you shall hearken to His voice and you shall adhere to Him’ 11Q19 54.14f., preceded by ‫אחרי יהוה אלהיכמה תלכון‬. 1 Here belong MH examples mentioned by Cohen (1983.210) such as ‫אינו יכול להשביע ולא אותה ולא‬ ‫יוֹר ֶשׁ ָה‬ ְ ‫ את‬mKet 9.5; ‫ וקבלו הכהנים אֹתוֹ ואת בנו‬mRH 1.7. 2 This last instance derived from ‫ת־מ ְקנַ י ַבּ ָצּ ָמא‬ ִ ‫ת־בּנַ י וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫יתנוּ ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַריִ ם ְל ָה ִמית א ִֹתי וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ ָל ָמּה זֶּ ה ֶה ֱע ִל‬Ex 17.3 illustrates that this syntactic conditioning applies to BH as well; see JM § 125e (6). 3 Cohen (1983.209) holds that, in MH, the analytic syntagm is selected, when the object does not follow the verb immediately and then emphasis lies on the object. The same can hold for another example cited by him (1983.210): ‫‘ אם טהרה שחיטת טרפה אותה‬if the slaughtering of terefah renders it clean’ mHull 4.4, where the distinction between a woman in travail and the hand of a foetus stuck out before its delivery is being discussed. 4 Cf. DJD 34.123-27, which restores ‫אביה לא המשיל בה‬ ‫אביה‬. The editors do not argue for the restoration on any grammatical ground.



Noteworthy is the shift to the analytic syntagm in the priestly benediction in ‫יברך‬ ‫‘ אתכם אל עליון‬May God the Most High bless you’ 11Q14 1ii7, seeing that in the source text every zero-object is synthetically expressed ‫ָיְב ֶר ְכָך יְ הוָ ה וְ יִ ְשׁ ְמ ֶרָך יָ ֵאר יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫יחנֶּ ךָּ יִ ָשּׂא יְ הוָ ה ָפּנָ יו ֵא ֶליָך וְ יָ ֵשׂם ְלָך ָשׁלוֹם‬ ֻ ִ‫ ָפּנָ יו ֵא ֶליָך ו‬Nu 6.24-26, whereas the Qumran version continues with ‫‘ ויאר פניו אליכם ויפתח לכם את אוצרו הטוב אשר בשמים‬and may He shine His face towards you and open for you His generous treasure in the sky,’ thus highlighting you (pl.), which would be less conspicuous when synthetically expressed. 4) Ptc. tending to prefer the analytic syntagm: ‫‘ בני בליעל ̇המכשילים אותמה‬children of Belial who cause them to stumble’ 4Q174 1-2i8; ‫‘ מיד המחזיקים אתה‬out of the power of those who are holding it’ 4Q387 2ii5; .. ֗‫אותו‬ ֗ ‫ ז֗ ורקים‬.. ‫יהיו ֗טו֗ בחי֗ ם אותמה‬ ‫ מקטירים אותמה‬.. ‫‘ מנתחים אותמה‬they shall be slaughtering them .. casting it .. dissecting them .. burning them’ 11Q19 34.7-11 (1); ‫‘ הנושא אותו‬one who bears it’ 4Q274 2i4; ‫‘ הצר הצורר אתכמה‬the enemy who oppresses you’ 1QM 10.7. (2) However, counter-examples do occur: ‫‘ אנוכי מורישם‬I expel them’ 11Q19 60.20, even against ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫מוֹרישׁ‬ ִ ‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬Dt 18.12 (3) and ‫‘ אנכי מצוכה‬I command you’ 11Q19 54.6, on which see below 5). 5) Quotes or influence of the underlying source text (4): ‫ להושיע אתכמה‬1QM 10.4 < Dt 2.4; 1QM 10.7, 4Q158 7-8.8, 4Q365 26.7, 11Q19 53.20, 54.6 (5), 12, 14bis, 55.7, 59.6 (see above, < Mi 3.4), 64.3, 8, 9, 10, 65.14bis. (6) The influence of the biblical text emerges to be especially strong in 11Q19. The heavy dependence of the document on the Hebrew Bible partly accounts for its biblicising style. Hence it is all the more remarkable that in ‫ ונתתי אותמה בידכה‬11Q19 63.10 (‫ֹלהיָך‬ ֶ ‫וּנְ ָתנוֹ יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ‫ ְבּיָ ֶדָך‬Dt 21.10[ (7)]) its author alters the anomalous sg. suffix of the MT to the more logical pl. form, editing in the process away from the synthetic syntagm of his source text, whereas at 11Q19 54.6 he corrects his original ‫ אנכי מצוכה‬to ‫אנכי מצוה‬ ‫אותכה‬ ֗ in basic conformity with ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי ְמ ַצוֶּ ה ֶא ְת ֶכם‬Dt 13.1. Note also ‫אשר הוציאכה‬ 11Q19 54.16 // ‫מּוֹציא ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ִ ‫ ַה‬Dt 13.6; ‫‘ ילמדוכה‬they teach you’ 1Q19 62.16 // ‫יְ ַל ְמּדוּ‬ ‫ ֶא ְת ֶכם‬Dt 20.18; ‫‘ והוציאוהו‬and they shall bring him out’ 1QS19 64.3 // ‫הוֹציאוּ אֹתוֹ‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬ Dt 21.19; ‫‘ וסקלום‬and they shall stone them’ 11Q19 66.2 // ‫וּס ַק ְל ֶתּם א ָֹתם‬ ְ Dt 22.24. (8) 1 According to Cohen (1983.209), in MH a pl. ptc. selects the analytic syntagm. In this particular segment of 11Q19 the recurrent may have been of some influence. 2 According to Cohen (1983.209f.), in MH the analytic syntagm is selected when an object is separated from its verb or precedes the latter. 3 As far as QH is concerned, this source text speaks against Cohen’s (1983.209) contention that a ptc. with a suffix directly attached is substantivised. Taking this common Hebrew verb alone, ‫ְמ ַצוֶּ ָך‬ cannot be but a predicatively used verb in, e.g. ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְצוָ ה ַהזֹּאת ֲא ֶשׁר ָאנ ִֹכי ְמ ַצוְּ ָך ַהיּוֹם‬ ַ ‫ ָכּ‬Dt 15.5 and many others. 4 Cohen (1983.209) mentions this as leading in MH to the selection of the analytic syntagm. 5 On the reading, see Qimron 1978.167. 6 Note ‫ וירגלו אותה‬4Q365 32.12, where Nu 13.23 MT lacks the clause, but note LXX καὶ κατεσκέψαντο αὐτήν. 7 ‫ו‬- of ‫ נתנו‬refers to ‫א ֶֹיְביָך‬. 8 Examples mentioned in Qimron 1978a.97.



7) 9)



The author of 11Q19, one might say, could not totally stay aloof from the contemporary trend. Pf. 2pl. (1): ‫‘ ותליתמה אותו על העץ‬and you shall hang him on the tree’ 11Q19 64.8, which probably influenced the parallel statement in ‫ותליתמה גם אותו על העץ‬ 11Q19 64.10 and ‫ יתלו אותו‬ib. line 9, where one could have written ‫( יתלוהו‬2); ‫‘ וקדשתמה אותו‬and you shall consecrate it’ 11Q19 27.9. Preceded by ‫גם‬: ‫‘ תליתמה גם אותו‬they hanged him as well’ 11Q19 64.10, where ‫ גם‬relates to the pronoun. There do remain, however, a number of cases where at the moment we are unable to see what motivated the author or scribe concerned to select the analytic syntagm, though on occasions our consideration is hampered by the insufficient context due to the state of preservation of the text. Thus Ps 118:26 4Q84 35.17 ‫בר ֯כנו אתכם‬ ֯ ‫( ב‬MT ‫נוּכם‬ ֶ ‫;)בּ ַר ְכ‬ ֵ ‫‘ ויכא אותם‬and He smote them’ 4Q225 1.3 in lieu of ‫ויכם‬, sim. ‫‘ וימסור אותם‬and He handed them over’ ib. 5. Likewise CD 15.12, 4Q200 2.2, 1QHa 7.22, 4Q228 1i11, 4Q266 6i2, 4Q273 4ii6, 4Q299 13a-b2, 4Q365 12a+bii9, 4Q372 1.6, 4Q381 33+35.8, 4Q521 2iii1, 5, 11Q14 1ii7, 11Q19 17.8, 27.9, 34.7, 8, 10, 11, 57.10, 59.7. Not all of these 26 cases (out of the total of 63) can be regarded as indicative of the biblicising style, seeing that, in BH, especially in SBH, the synthetic syntagm is also commonly found. The predominance of the synthetic syntagm appears to be an internal development, not attributable to some external force such as Aramaic. (3)

g) Double objects (4) Some verbs take two objects: both as DOs or one as direct and the other as IO. ga) Verbs taking two direct objects ‫‘ מלא ארצכה כבוד ונחלתכה ברכה‬Fill Your land with glory and Your inheritance with blessing’ 1QM 12.12 = 19.4; ‫‘ מעטר חסידיו חסד ורחמים‬One who crowns His pious ones with mercy and compassion’ 11Q5 19.7, dependent on ‫ ַה ְמ ַע ְטּ ֵר ִכי ֶח ֶסד וְ ַר ֲח ִמים‬Ps 103.4, sim. ‫‘ מעטר הרים תנובות‬One who crowns mountains with fruits’ 11Q5 26.13 (5) and 1 Which prefers in BH the analytic syntagm, see JM § 62 a, n. 2; a rare counter-example is ‫ַצ ְמ ֻתּנִ י‬ Zc 7.5. 2 Though ‫ל־עץ‬ ֵ ‫ית אֹתוֹ ַע‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָת ִל‬Dt 21.22 may have influenced, the guilt for hanging there differs from what our text is concerned with. 3 Pat-El (2012.252-54) argues for Aramaic interference here on the ground that ‫ ית‬or ‫אית‬, the Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew ‫את‬, had, according to her, become virtually obsolete already in Official Aramaic of the Persian period. She is apparently aware of the situation in Christian Palestinian Aramaic, but makes no mention of Qumran Aramaic, in which ‫ ית‬is very much alive, even extending its classical rules. See Muraoka 2011.215-17, § 74da. 4 Cf. Muraoka 2020(?) § 1.2. 5 Cf. ‫ ֲע ָט ָרה ֶשׁ ִע ְטּ ָרה־לוֹ ִאמּוֹ‬Ct 3.11. The other BH example is also ambiguous in this respect: ‫וְ ָכבוֹד וְ ָה ָדר‬ ‫ ְתּ ַע ְטּ ֵרהוּ‬Ps 8.6. Cf. also a semantically affiliated, double-zero-object verb ‫ ִה ְל ִבּישׁ‬as in ‫ת־ה ְמּ ִעיל‬ ַ ‫וַ יַּ ְל ֵבּשׁ אֹתוֹ ֶא‬ Lv 8.7. In the two examples adduced above from 11Q5 there is no syntactic ambiguity: two zero-objects.



‫עטר הרים ובה‬ ‫תנובה‬ ֗ ֗‫ ווי‬4Q370 1i1; ‫‘ פרי טוב השביע כלנפש‬He sated every living being with good fruit’ ib.; a content clause introduced with ‫ אשר‬as the second object—‫֗ה ֯שבע‬ ‫עישאו אשר לו֗ א י֯ רע את יעקו֯ ֯ב‬ ֗ ‫‘ את‬Make Esau swear that he will not harm Jacob’ 4Q223-224 2i48, cf. a BH example in ‫א־ת ַקּח ִא ָשּׁה ִל ְבנִ י ִמ ְבּנוֹת‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ל‬.. ‫יעָך ַבּיהוָ ה‬ ֲ ‫ַא ְשׁ ִבּ‬ ‫ ַה ְכּנַ ֲענִ י‬Gn 24.3. (1) Only one noun phrase as DO is marked with ‫ את‬in ‫העם עוון‬ ֗ ‫‘ משיאי֗ ם את‬cause the ֗ in both cases the absence people to bear punishment’ MMT B 27, also ib. 13 (‫ים‬ ֗ ‫;)מסיאי‬ of ‫ את‬is due to the indeterminate DO. In QH we have not found examples of both DOs marked with ‫את‬. (2) gaa) One of them as a directly attached conj. pron. ֯‫ה‬ E.g. ‫‘ ישקום חומץ‬they would give them vinegar to drink’ 1QHa 12.12; ‫הבי֯ נ֗ ו֗ תני בסוד‬ ‫‘ אמתכה‬You have helped me comprehend the foundation of Your truth’ 1QHa 19.7; ‫‘ הודעתם בסוד אמתכה וברזי פלאכה השכלתם‬You made them know .. and You helped them understand Your marvellous mysteries’ ib. 19.12 // ‫ ֗הודעתני סוד אמת‬ib. 19.19; ‫‘ את גמר הקץ לוא הודעו‬He did not let him know the end of the time’ 1QpHab 7.2, sim. line 4; ‫‘ חוכמה אלמדכמה‬I will teach you wisdom’ 4Q413 1+2.1; ‫את המשפטים‬ ‫‘ אשר תלמדם‬the statutes, which you shall teach them’ 4Q158 7+8.4, with which cp. ‫‘ הבינני יהוה בתורתכה ואת משפטיכה למדני‬Let me understand, o YHWH, Your law ֗ ‘You and ..’ 11Q5 24.8, where we find parallelism with a ‫ ב־‬object; ‫חנוא ֗תנו ֯רוח ֗קודש‬ have graciously granted us a holy spirit’ 4Q504 4.5; ‫‘ פן ישיאנו עוון אשמה‬in case he imposes on him a punishment for guilt’ 1QS 5.14; ‫‘ כל אשר הנחלתו‬all that you caused them (= ‫ )זרע האדם‬to inherit’ 1Q34 3ii3; ‫‘ רוח ישועות הלבשתני‬You clothed me with a spirit of salvation’ 4Q438 4ii5; ‫‘ אברכנו תרומת מוצא שפתי‬I shall bless Him with an offering of what comes out of my lips’ 1QS 10.14, sim. ‫ תרומת שפתים הברכנו‬ib. 6 (‫ הברכנו‬for ‫( )אברכנו‬3); possibly ‫‘ להשכילם כול הנמצא‬to inculcate them in all that is discovered’ 1QS 9.20, unless ‘for them to understand ..’. Note also ‫האכילתהו לחם שכל‬ ‘it [= wisdom]) fed him with bread of intelligence’ Si 15.3. Rather unusual is ‫זְ ָב ֶחיָך לֹא‬ ‫‘ ִכ ַבּ ְד ָתּנִ י‬you did not offer me your sacrifices’ Is 43.23 // ‫ בזבחיך‬1QIsaª (4), cf. ‫יכלכלם‬ ‫‘ בכול חפציהם‬He will supply them with all that they desire’ 1QS 3.17 (5).

1 BH examples of both objects introduced with ‫ את‬are ‫ת־א ֲהר ֹן ֵאת ִבּגְ ֵדי ַהקּ ֶֹדשׁ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִה ְל ַבּ ְשׁ ָתּ ֶא‬Ex 40.13; ‫ֶה ְר ָאה‬ ‫ֹלהים גַּ ם ֶאת־זַ ְר ֶעָך‬ ִ ‫ א ִֹתי ֱא‬Gn 48.11. 2 This is a causative transform of ‫נושׂא העם עון‬, and, pace Geiger (2012.240, n. 145), ‫ את העם‬is no locative adjunct, “(übertragene) Ortsangabe.” 3 Thorion’s (1981.407) instrumental accusative is implausible. As implausible is his (loc. cit.) accusative of manner at ‫ להשיב ענוה‬1QS 11.1, where one is advised against the application of lex talionis, to respond humbly to arrogant people. 4 Cf. LXX ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις σου. Qimhi also supplies ‫ב־‬, saying that this is a common phenomenon, but, to our best knowledge, not with this particular verb. Kutscher (1974.410) refers to a synonymous verb ‫‘ כלכל‬to sustain’ as it occurs in ‫ל־בּית ָא ִביו ֶל ֶחם‬ ֵ ‫ת־א ָחיו וְ ֵאת ָכּ‬ ֶ ‫ת־א ִביו וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫יוֹסף ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יְ ַכ ְל ֵכּל‬Gn 47.12 with two zero-objects, cf. also ‫ וְ ִכ ְל ְכּ ָלם ֶל ֶחם וָ ָמיִ ם‬1Kg 18.4 mentioned by Thorion (1981.416). ‫ כבד‬D, however, is not attested elsewhere in this syntagm. 5 Cf. ‫‘ שכלכלם בלחם בשני רעבון‬who provided them with food in the years of famine’ NuR 13.18.



gab) Inf. cst. E.g. ‫‘ אתה אל צוֺיֺתֺם להועיל מדרכיהם‬You, o God, commanded them to seek benefit outside of their ways’ 1QHa 14.23. gb) Direct object and indirect object This is a rather common syntagm. E.g. ‫‘ ויתן להם לב אחד‬and He gave them one heart’ 4Q183 1ii4; ‫‘ ויודע לדורות אחרונים את אשר עשה בדור אחרון‬and He made known to the last generations that which He would do in the last generation’ CD 1.11; ‫להודיע לכול‬ ‫החיים גבורותיכה‬ ֯ ‘to let all living beings know Your powerful works’ 1QHa 12.29; ‫יודיעה‬ ‫‘ למבקר‬he shall make it known to the overseer’ CD 9.22; ‫‘ בהודיעכה חסדכה להמה‬when You let them know Your mercy’ 11Q5 19.2 (1). We are observing here causative transformation leading to a change in rection; ‫ ידע‬Qal is mono-transitive and now we have here its subject altered to an IO and the original DO retained. Likewise ‫להשמיע שלום‬ ‫‘ לכול אנשי ברית‬to announce peace to all men of (the) covenant’ 4Q511 63iii4. The H verb ‫‘ השכיל‬to instruct’ shows a vacillation in this regard: ‫‘ להשכיל רוכנים בלקח‬to teach understanding to grumblers’ 1QS 11.1 and ‫‘ ישכיל את הרבים במעשי אל‬to instruct the many in God’s deeds’ CD 13.7 // ‫‘ להשכיל לחסרי לבב גדולתו‬to teach the senseless His greatness’ 11Q5 18.5. BH attests to a few times, e.g. ‫ת־בּית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַהגֵּ ד ֶא‬Ezk 43.10, but the use of ‫ ל־‬is the norm. A suf. pers. can also be attached: ‫ ְשׁ ַאל ָא ִביָך וְ יַ גֵּ ְדָך‬Dt 32.7. In QH we find only ‫ל־‬: ‫‘ הגיד לנו‬he told us’ 1QM 10.1; ‫‘ ֗לא ֯הגיד את המשא לעלי‬and he did not tell Eli the oracle’ 4Q160 1.4, but the verb never occurs with a zero-object pers. nor with an obj. suf. attached. In QH, when H ‫ שׁקה‬occurs with two potential zero-objects, we find only ‫ישקום חומץ‬ ‘they would give them to drink vinegar’ 1QHa 12.12 and ‫להשקות משפט לכול צאצאיה‬ ‘to let all its descendants drink justice’ 1QM 12.10, 19.2. However, a zero-object in ‫‘ משקה רעיהו‬he who gives drink to his neighbour’ 1QpHab 11.2, a verbatim quote from Hb 2.15 and BH examples such as ‫ת־א ִבינוּ יַ יִ ן‬ ָ ‫ נַ ְשׁ ֶקה ֶא‬Gn 19.32 and ‫אוֹתם כּוֹס‬ ָ ‫לֹא־יַ ְשׁקוּ‬ ‫חוּמים‬ ִ ְ‫ ַתּנ‬Je 16.7 suggest that the preposition Lamed in ‫ לכול צאצאיה‬is either an Aramaising DO marker or an exponent of dativus commodi, though the latter does not occur in BH with this fairly common verb. ‫ הודעתני סוד אמת‬1QHa 19.19 // ‫ הודעתם בסוד אמתכה‬ib. 19.12; ‫יו֗ דיעהו המבקר אותו‬ ‘the overseer shall draw it to his attention’ CD 15.14, where it is not absolutely certain whether ‫ אותו‬means ‘him’ or ‘it,’ but the immediately following ‫‘ ויצוהו עלו‬and he shall give orders concerning it’ perhaps renders the latter more likely. (2)

1 What follows, ‫צדקתכה תשכילם‬, pace DJD 4.78, cannot mean ‘by thy righteousness thou doest enlighten them.’ ‫ צדקתכה‬is rather a DO parallel to ‫חסדכה‬. ‫ תשכילם‬that follows can then be a complete clause: ‘You could instruct them (, a crowd of ignoramuses).’ 2 A translation such as “the Overseer should teach him and give orders concerning him” (GMT 592) reflects only one of the two objects. In any case the above examples of the H verb ‫ ידע‬reveal that a suffix object can be either a DO or IO.



‫אל‬ The prep. -‫ ל‬of dat. (in)commodi may be identified in ‫תזכור לנו עוונות רשונים‬ ֗ ‘Do not remember (our) forefathers’ iniquities against us’ 4Q504 4.6, hence not an IO-marker. Likewise ‫‘ ויקם להם מורה צדק‬and He appointed for them ‫ ’מורה צדק‬CD 1.11. See also ‫‘ אף אנחנו כתבנו ׄאליׄ ך מקצת מעשי התורה‬we are hereby passing on to you in writing some of the precepts of the law’ (1) MMT C 26. gba) Causative transform of mono-transitive verbs ‫ ויעבירו ברית‬CD 1.20 is rendered in Charlesworth (1995.13): “(they) caused the covenant to be broken.” Qimron (I 6) proposes emending the text to ‫ויעבורו‬, which is reasonable. In a causative transform one could leave out the object of an underlying active sentence as in ‫‘ ִבּ ְטנְ ָך ַת ֲא ֵכל‬Feed your stomach’ Ezk 3.3, but hardly its grammatical subject when the object is mentioned as in CD 1.20 adduced above. (2) See also ‫אל‬ ‫‘ יודיעהו איש‬nobody shall let him know’ CD 15.10. Two examples are found in which a double object syntagm ensues: ‫ים את העם עוון‬ ֗ ‫מסיא‬ ֗ ‫‘ בשל שלוא י֗ היו‬in order that they would not be imposing punishment on the people’ MMT B 12 and ‫פן ישיאנו עוון אשמה‬ ‘in case he imposes on him a punishment for guilt’ 1QS 5.14, cf. ‫אוֹתם ֲעוֹן ַא ְשׁ ָמה‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִשּׂיאוּ‬ Lv 22.16. In the case of the above-quoted 1QS 5.14 we would be justified in identifying a zero-object as marked through ‫נו‬- of ‫ ישיאנו‬in view of ‫ את העם‬at MMT B 12, also quoted there. However, in a not negligible number of cases of attested in QH the suf. pronoun invariably refers to a person, a recipient of information, as in ‫‘ ֗הודעתני סוד אמת‬You made the secret counsel of truth known to me’ 1QHa 19.19; on two exceptions, see below. (3) The syntagm with double zero-objects as represented in BH in cases such as ‫ת־כּל־זֹאת‬ ָ ‫אוֹתָך ֶא‬ ְ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫הוֹד ַיע ֱא‬ ִ ‫ ַא ֲח ֵרי‬Gn 41.39 and ‫יעה ְד ָב ַרי‬ ָ ‫אוֹד‬ ִ 4 ‫ ֶא ְת ֶכם‬Pr 1.23 is unknown to QH ( ), whereas the alternative BH syntagm as in ‫ת־ה ֶדּ ֶרְך‬ ַ ‫הוֹד ְע ָתּ ָל ֶהם ֶא‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬Ex 18.20 and ‫יוֹד ַיע ְדּ ָר ָכיו ְלמ ֶֹשׁה‬ ִ Ps 103.7 does occur: ‫‘ להודיע עוזו ותפארתו לכול פותאים‬to make His might and splendour known to all simple folk’ 11Q5 18.2; ‫ להודיע לפותאים עוזו‬ib. 18.4; ‫‘ אודיעה לכם ֗מ ֯חשבות אל‬I would let you know God’s thoughts’ 4Q266 1a+b5; ‫אחרונים את אשר עשה‬ ֗ ‫ויודע לדורות‬ ‘He made known to last generations what He had done’ CD 1.11; ‫להודיע לדורות‬ ‫האחרונים‬ ֗ ‘to inform the latter generations’ 4Q254a 3.4 (5); ‫‘ להודיע לנ֗ ו֯ ]ח‬to inform Noah’ 4Q253 1.4, and the above-mentioned exceptions—‫דיעהו לכוהן‬ ֗ ֿ‫‘ י‬he shall inform Qimron (DJD 10.85, § states that ‫ כתב אל‬in BH can mean “to write for the benefit of.” ‫וַ יִּ ְכתֹּב‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ת־שׂ ֵרי ֻסכּוֹת וְ ֶאת־זְ ֵקנ‬ ָ ‫ ֵא ָליו ֶא‬Jdg 8.14 may be mentioned. 2 An example such as ‫ ִמ ָשּׁ ַמיִם ִה ְשׁ ַמ ְע ָתּ ִדּין‬Ps 76.9 does not contradict our analysis; the sense of the verb as used here is more than a causative of Qal ‫שׁ ַמע‬. ָ Then, pace Rabin (1958.5), we need not analyse the following ‫ יפירו‬as causative: “caused others .. to break the ordinance.” All the same, a possible exception may be present in ‫‘ אני מירא אל‬I instil the fear of God’ 4Q511 35.6. 3 In MH also the object suffix of ‫ הודיע‬mostly refers to a person, e.g. ‫הוֹדיעוֹ‬ ִ ‘he notified him’ mBM 4.11. A rare exception is ‫יענּוּ‬ ֶ ‫יּוֹד‬ ִ ‫‘ ִבּ ְל ַבד ֶשׁ‬provided that he makes it [= the matter] known’ mDem 3.3. Incidentally, ‫הוֹדע את ירושלם‬ ַ mMeg 4.10 is a quote from ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ת־תּוֹעב ֶֹת‬ ֲ ‫רוּשׁ ַלםִ ֶא‬ ָ ְ‫הוֹדע ֶאת־י‬ ַ Ezk 16.2. 4 See Muraoka 1997.93f. 5 There follows a long lacuna which may have contained the message conveyed by the raven. 1



the priest about it’ 4Q270 7i16; ‫‘ יודיעה למבקר‬he shall inform the inspector about it’ CD 9.22. Hence in ‫ יודיעהו המבקר אותו‬4Q266 8i5 ‫הו‬- is likely to be ‘him’ and ‫אותו‬ ‘it.’ (1) H ‫השמיע‬: mostly the zero-object of Qal ‫ שמע‬is retained, e.g. ‫‘ להשמיע קולו‬to make his voice heard’ 1QS 7.14; ‫(‘ משמיע הוד תפארתו‬I) declare the splendour of His radiance’ 4Q 510 1.4; also 1QS 1.22, 1QHa 9.25, 4Q405 23i9. The subject of Qal ‫שמע‬ consistently becomes an IO marked with ‫ל־‬: ‫‘ לתהום ישמיעו קולם‬they will let the deep hear their voice’ 1QHa 11.18; ‫‘ להשמיע שלום לכול אנשי ברית‬to announce peace to ‫לה‬ all men of (the) covenant’ 4Q511 63iii4 (2); with an IO alone— ֿ‫להשמיע ליצר מביֿ נתו‬ a 3 ‘to proclaim to a creature out of his understanding’ 1QH 23.12. ( ) In BH the ‫ ל־‬rection ָ ְ‫ת־כּל־י‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ָא ָסא ִה ְשׁ ִמ ַיע ֶא‬1Kg 15.22; is unknown, (4) but only a zero-object, e.g. ‫הוּדה‬ ‫ת־מ ֲחנֵ ה ֲא ָרם קוֹל ֶר ֶכב‬ ַ ‫ וַ אד ֹנָ י ִה ְשׁ ִמ ַיע ֶא‬2Kg 7.6; ‫ת־ע ִמּי‬ ַ ‫ יַ ְשׁ ִמעוּ ְד ָב ַרי ֶא‬Je 23.22; with an obj. pers. only—‫ ְבּ ֶט ֶרם ִתּ ְצ ַמ ְחנָ ה ַא ְשׁ ִמיע ֶא ְת ֶכם‬Is 42.9. Far more often we find an obj. pers. synthetically attached to a verb, e.g. ‫‘ ִה ְשׁ ַמ ְע ִתּיָך ֲח ָדשׁוֹת‬I announced new things to you’ Is 48.6; ‫יעָך ֶאת־קֹלוֹ‬ ֲ ‫ן־ה ָשּׁ ַמיִם ִה ְשׁ ִמ‬ ַ ‫ ִמ‬Dt 4.36; ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ת־דּ ַבר ֱא‬ ְ ‫יעָך ֶא‬ ֲ ‫ ַא ְשׁ ִמ‬1Sm 9.27; ‫ְבּ ֶט ֶרם ָתּבוֹא‬ ‫ ִה ְשׁ ַמ ְע ִתּיָך‬Is 48.5, with which cp. the above-quoted Is 42.9; there are fifteen more examples. What comes close to the -‫ ל‬rection in QH occurs with ‫ אל‬in late books: ‫א־א ְשׁ ִמ ַיע ֵא ַליִ ְך עוֹד ְכּ ִל ַמּת ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ל‬Ezk 36.15 and ‫רוּעת ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ ַ ‫י־עמּוֹן ְתּ‬ ַ ֵ‫ל־ר ַבּת ְבּנ‬ ַ ‫וְ ִה ְשׁ ַמ ְע ִתּי ֶא‬ 5 Je 49.2. ( ) An analogous causative transformation of the subject becoming an IO is present in ‫‘ החכתי לך תגנה שלנו‬I have leased our garden to you’ 5/6Ḥev 45.7; ‫‘ אחכרתום לי‬you have leased them to me’ 5/6Ḥev 46.8. H ‫( הראה‬6): an assured instance of is ‫‘ הראם את אשר לוא ידעו‬He showed them what they did not know about’ 11Q5 26.12. In BH a person shown something or someone is mostly (45 times) marked with a synthetically attached pron. as in ‫ַבּ ֲעבוּר‬ ‫ ַה ְרא ְֹתָך ֶאת־כּ ִֹחי‬Ex 9.16; ‫ת־ה ִאישׁ‬ ָ ‫ ַא ְר ֶאךָּ ֶא‬Jdg 4.22; ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫יתנִ י ַמ ַע ְל ֵל‬ ַ ‫ ִה ְר ִא‬Je 11.18. Otherwise we find , e.g. ‫ת־ע ְב ְדָּך ֶאת־גָּ ְד ְלָך‬ ַ ‫ ְל ַה ְראוֹת ֶא‬Dt 3.24 or , 1 Thus pace Rabin (1958.75), who had only the fragmentary text ‫י] [ המבקר אותו‬, which he translated “let the overseer […] him” CD 15.14. 2 In ‫‘ משמיעי שמחה לאבל ֗יגוני‬those who announce joy for my grievous mourning’ 1QHa 10.7 the preposition indicates an occasion for joy, a case of Schadenfreude. 3 ‫ וישמיעם‬CD 6.3 is a rare example of a suf. object directly attached, and its referent may not be the subject of the underlying Qal form, but its object, thus ‘He caused them to be heard’ [them = prophets appointed by Him]. 4 In MH we see ‫‘ לֹא ִה ְשׁ ִמ ַיע ְל ָאזְ נוֹ‬he did not recite (it) loud enough him for himself to be able to hear’ mBer 2.3. Cf. also ‫‘ לא ישמיע דבריו לדיין‬he should not let his case heard by the judge’ Mech 23.1. 5 In ‫ל־ק ֵצה ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ְ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ִה ְשׁ ִמ ַיע ֶא‬Is 62.11 we have to do not so much with audience as with extent, cf. LXX κύριος ἐποίησεν ἀκουστὸν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς. Note also two cases with ‫על‬: ַ ִ‫רוּשׁ ַלם‬ ָ ְ‫ ַה ְשׁ ִמיעוּ ַעל־י‬Je 4.16, preceded by ‫ ַהזְ ִכּירוּ ַלגּוֹיִם‬and ‫ל־א ְר ְמנוֹת ְבּ ַא ְשׁדּוֹד‬ ַ ‫ ַה ְשׁ ִמיעוּ ַע‬Am 3.9. 6 ‫הוראתי אל אברהם‬ ֗ ‘I appeared to Abraham’ 4Q158 4ii6 is distinct; if this text is related to ‫וָ ֵא ָרא‬ ‫ל־א ְב ָר ָהם‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬Ex 6.3, N ‫ נראה‬with reference to theophany normally governs -‫ל‬, to which ‫ ֶאל‬is affiliated. On the reading of this text, see Qimron III 17. Qimron (2018.184, n. 85) mentions the passive rendition in Samaritan Hebrew, e.g. ‫ ֶה ְר ָאה‬Gn 41.28, where, however, it is followed by ‫ת־פּ ְרעֹה‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬and the DO is now the subject.



e.g. ‫ֹלהים גַּ ם ֶאת־זַ ְר ֶעָך‬ ִ ‫ ֶה ְר ָאה א ִֹתי ֱא‬Gn 48.11; ‫אוֹתָך‬ ְ ‫ ְכּכֹל ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י ַמ ְר ֶאה‬Ex 25.9. However, not a single instance of another preposition such as ‫ ל־‬or ‫ אל‬prefixed to an IO is attested. (1) h) Aramaism The contemporary Aramaic is known to use the preposition ‫ ל־‬to mark a zero-object. (2) An analogous feature in QH would not be surprising as in ‫אתה ידעתה למועדנו‬ ֗ ‘You knew our time’ 1QM 18.10; ‫צדק מנצור ֯מצוה‬ ֗ ‫‘ לבחירי‬the righteous elect from the observance of commandment(s)’ 4Q184 1.14, preceded by ‫‘ ישרים להטות דרך‬the upright to turn (from the right) path’; ‫‘ ללמד לפשעים חקיך ולכל עזביך תו֯ ֯רתך‬to teach sinners Your statutes and those who abandon You Your law’ 4Q372 1.27, also with ‫ ל־‬rei in ‫המל ֗מ ֯ד‬ ֯ ‫המ‬ ‫‘ ידו למלחמה‬one who teaches my hand the art of war’ 4Q372 2.4 (3); ‫לבשר ענוֿ ים לרוב‬ ‫‘ רחמיכה‬to bring to the humble the good tidings of Your mercies’ 1QHª 23.15, and ֗ ‫ולהש‬ possibly also what follows—‫נכ ֗אי רוח ואבלים לשמחת עולם‬ ֗ ‫ולהשמי֗ ֗ע ממקור ֯דעתכה לכול נ‬ ‘to announce from the fountain of Your knowledge the eternal joy for all mentally stricken and in mourning’ ib. 23.16 (4). There are more verbs which show the non-standard ‫ ל־‬rection: ‫‘ הודיע למבקר‬to inform the overseer’ CD 9.19, 13.15; ‫להודיע לכול החיים גבורותיכה‬ ‘to make all Your mighty works known to all who are live’ 1QHa 12.29; ‫להודיע עוזו‬ ‫‘ ותפארתו לכול פותאים‬to make His power and His glory known to all the simple-minded’ ֗ ‫‘ להודיע לדורות‬to notify the last generations’ 4Q254a 3.4, 11Q5 18.2, sim. 4; ‫האחרונים‬ see also 4Q266 1i-ii5, 4Q270 7i16. In BH the verb ‫ הודיע‬abundantly attests to three syntagms: , < + ‫ את‬rei>, and . (5) Hence it is noteworthy that Q