Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) 9004120025, 9789004120020

Citation preview

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH EDITED BY

F. GARCiA MARTiNEZ A. S. VAN DER WOUDE ASSOCIATE EDITOR

PW FLINT

VOLUME XXXVI

DIGGERS AT THE WELL Proceedings if a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew if the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira EDITED BY

T. MURAOKA &J.F. ELWOLDE

BRILL LEIDEN . BOSTON· KOLN 2000

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnalune Diggers at the well: proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira ; [held in October 1999 at Ben-Gurion-University of the Negev] / ed. by T. Muraoka and]. F. Elwolde. - Leiden ; Boston; Kaln : Brill, 2000 (Studies on thl' texts oftlw d('scrt ofJudah ; Vol. 36) ISBN ()()-04-1 :100:1-5

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of CongTess Cataloging-in-Publication Data is also available

ISSN 0169-9962 ISBN 90 04 12002 5 © Copyright 2000 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part qf this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval ~stem, or transmitted in a'!)' form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fies are paid directlY to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations M.F.J. Baasten, Existential Clauses in Qumran Hebrew M. Bar-Asher, A few remarks on Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic in Qumran Hebrew J. Blau, A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls A. Borg, Some Observations on the 'tDtDii 01' Syndrome in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls C. Cohen, A Philological Reevaluation of some Significant DSS Variants of the MT in Isa 1-5 H. Dihi, Non-biblical Verbal Usages in the Book of Ben Sira J.P. Elwolde, rwqmh in the Damascus Document and Ps 139:15 M. Eskhult, Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew S.E. Fassberg, The Syntax of the Biblical Documents from the Judean Desert as Reflected in a Comparison of Multiple Copies of Biblical Texts A. Hurvitz, Was QH a "Spoken" Language? On some Recent Views and Positions: Comments J. Joosten, The Know ledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Qumran and the Septuagint

VB

ix

1 12 20

26 40 56 65 84

94 110 115

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

131 137 166 178 193 215 232 245 256

INDICES

Index of Texts Index of Subjects Index of Semitic Words and Phrases Index of Greek and Latin Words WORKS CITED

269 271 273 274 276

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

VlIl

PREFACE

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

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

HAL HALOT IA impf. impv. info KB

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

x

LBH MH MT NEB NJPSV pf. pte. PTSDSSP

QH RH SBH

ABBREVIATIONS

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

EXISTENTIAL CLAUSES IN QUMRAN HEBREW· Martin F.J. Baasten (Leiden) Existential clauses are a specific type of clauses, which either indicate the mere fact that the subject exists, or, in combination with a locative or a possessive predicate, the fact that the subject finds itself in a certain place or belongs to something. They deserve to be studied as a separate class of clauses. Obviously, it is possible in Classical Hebrew to form an existential clause merely by juxtaposing a subject and a prepositional phrase,' or by using a form of the verb iT'iT 'to be'. The object of the present study, however, is the clause type in which an explicit existential element is present, i.e., the existential marker rD' or its negative counterpart T'N. 2 An attempt will be made to classify and describe the various patterns attested in the corpus3 and subsequently provide some general observations.4

I: Nominal clauses withrD' In the entire corpus of Qumran, the use of rD' is relatively rare (tota117 cases, as against 106 times l'N). This situation, which is comparable with Biblical Hebrew, is most probably due to the fact that the existence of the subject can also be expressed merely by means of a locative or possessive prepositional phrase (as is • I should like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Qimron, Prof. Sivan, and Prof. Muraoka for inviting me to deliver a paper at the Beer Sheva conference. I also thank the participants of the conference for many valuable comments on this paper. Note the following abbreviations: NP 'noun phrase', PP 'prepositional phrase', i 'indefinite', II separates an extraposed element from the rest of the sentence, I separates a group of words from the clause at issue. I For a study of such clauses in Qumran Hebrew, see Baasten (1999). 2 Excluded from this study are clauses in which rzr or l'K appears in combination with a participle or an infinitive. 3 The corpus investigated for this study consists of all non-biblical Hebrew texts from Qumran. 4 For a classification and interpretation of patterns with rzr and l'K in Biblical Hebrew, see Muraoka (1985:77-82, 99-111 [Excursus 1 and 2]). On the use Ofl'K in Ben Sira, see Van Peursen (1999). A complete classification of patterns in Mishnaic Hebrew can be found in Azar (1995:84-91, § 3.2).

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

2

often the case in Qumran Hebrew), whereas an existential clause cannot be negated without pt. Moreover, r~ is used, alongside ~~, to negate nominal clauses.5 l)yes NPi

The fIrst pattern attested with tv' consists of this existential particle followed by a simple indefinite noun. The pattern happens to be attested only in interrogative sentences: lQ27 (IQMyst) 1 i 10 iTJ npmo ptv~, iTEltv tv'iT 'is there a language or a tongue that upholds it?';6 3Q381 76-77:13 "o~n i'TJ'J tv'iT 'is there understanding (that) you may learn ... ?o 2)yes NPi PP

In the second pattern attested in the Qumran corpus, the indefinite noun phrase is followed by an adverbial phrase. The examples are mostly found in poetry and often of the same type. They are clearly stereotypical expressions; all are introduced by the conjunction 'J, whereas the adverbial phrase indicates possession: 1Q H 3: 20-21 !:l~l!] "o~ 1El.!JO iTn1~' 1tv~~ mpo tv, ~'J I iT.!J'~' 'And I know I that there is hope for him whom Thou didst fashion from the dust unto an eternal foundation'.8 Because the text is reconstructed, it is not certain whether lQSa 2:9 rv"PiT n~!1 '?~ 1J''? ;-r,?~[O 'n~'? 1]J' tv' t:l~, 'but if one of these has a matter to say to the council of holiness ... ' belongs in this section.9 A double duty of both 'J and tv' is perhaps attested in 1QH 9:14 iTJn1J J'1J iT'?n1m iTJ"O[n]J mpo tv' P]J iT!1'~' 'and I know that there is hope in Thy grace and (that there is) expectation in Thy great power'. There is a single case in which tv' is used in combination with a formally definite noun phrase, although the pattern is the same as the one described in this section: 4Q266 6 i 7-8 Jtv.!JJ'J Van Peursen (1999:223-225); Swiggers (1991). Compare 4Q299 1:2-3 [il::l npmr.l] ltv'?, ilEltv tv'il, which was restored after lQ27 (IQMyst) 1 i 10. 7 This pattern is identical with nr. 3 described by Muraoka (1985:100). 8 Compare 1Chr 29: 15 il'PO )'IC'. Other examples of i11pO tv': 1QH 6:6, 9:14. For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:101, nr. 25. 9 This is preferable to Charlesworth's translation (Charlesworth & Stuckenbruck 1994:117) 'but if there is [one of] these [(who) has a mat]ter to say to the Council', in which tv, appears to be taken to refer to il'?ICO 1nIC instead of to i::l1. 5 6

BAASTEN: EXISTENTIAL CLAUSES IN QUMRAN HEBREW

3

,nnn tDniil tD['] itDN I N'il 'for it is like grass I that has a/the worm under it'. 3) yes PPNPi In the third pattern, we see that the adverbial element precedes the noun phrase. The adverbial element is either a locative PP or nN with possessive value (see below, HId): 1QS 6: 13 O':Ji? i:J1? i:J1 'nN tD' 'I have something to say to the Many'; I QS 6: 120':Ji? i:J1? i:J1 ,nN tD' itDN I tD'N ?,J 'any man I who has something to say to the Many'; 11 QT 52: 16-17 0'0 il:J tD' itDN I ili'ilt!lil ilOil:Jil ?,J, 'and any pure beast I in which there is a blemish';\O There does not seem to be a functional opposition between pattern (2) yes NPi PP and (3) yes PP NPi (compare a similar remark with regard to 1'N below, [3]).11 4) yes PP

In one case, the construction consists only of the existential element tD' and a possessive prepositional phrase. This is due to the fact that the subject of the existence is coreferential with the antecedent of the relative clause: 11QT 58:3-4 tv' itDN I ?,JO ?NitD'? 'everything I which Israel owns'. Several times we find relative clauses containing tD' in combination with a locative prepositional phrase, where BH would probably omit it: 11 QT 52: 16-17 0'0 il:J tv' itDN ili'ilt!lil ilOil:Jil ?,J, 'in which there is a blemish';

4Q266 6 i 7-8 ,nnn tvniil tDP] itvN I N'il :JtDlJJ 'J 'for it is like grass I that has the worm under it'; IlgT 58:3-4 ?Nitv'? tD' itvN I ?,JO 'everything I which Israel owns'.1 The addition of tD' in such cases is due to Aramaic influence, as has been pOinted out by QimronP This phenomenon seems to be indicative of Late Biblical Hebrew, see, e.g. Jonah 4: 11 il,j'j 01N ':Ji ilitDlJ o'ntvo il:Jiil il:J tv, itDN il?"Jil i'lJil. 14 Compare also 10

111 tl1C II 12

",:> ,:1 il'il' 1~N r il~' 1'~; 11 QT 52:9-10 eN, ",:> 'N 1'11 'N nOEl tl1C ,:1 il'il'.

(10) Cf. 11 QT 52:4 111 r:mJ

For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka (1985:101, nrs. 22-23). Compare a similar haya clause like CD 14: 11 il'il' 1~N 1:1'

":>,,

1:1'" C'Nil.

Qimron (1995). Cf. also Talshir's (1996) remarks on this study. 14 I am grateful to Prof. A. Hurvitz for pointing this out to me. 13

":>,,,

4

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

lQS 6:13 o':n" i:n" i::n 'me tD' 'I have something to say to the Many' with ~H clauses such as Judg 3:191"Oil T"lC ,,, ino i::l1.

II. Nominal clauses with l'lC As noted in the previous section, existential clauses with the negative element rlC are far more frequent than those containing tD'. Consequently, many more different patterns are attested, which need to be distinguished. It will be shown below that all patterns can be neatly classified in relation to each other by having recourse to only two linguistic concepts: extraposition and ellipsis. 1) (w)'en NPi A typical and relatively frequent (22x) clause type with l'lC(1) followed by an indefinite NP occurs at the end of a long sentence or a whole paragraph, indicating the circumstance under which the events described take place or the end result of these events. lQpHab 3:12 illl::ltD l'lC' ' ... the Kittim, who trample the earth with their horses and beasts. They come from afar, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the peoples like an eagle, I and there is no satiety'; CD 20: 14-15 n'::m~ 1['lC]' t!l:l,tD l'lC' I itD l'lC' 1"0 l'lC iOlC itDlC;::' p1~::l 'as He has said: "There will be no king and no ruler" (Hos 3:4) I and no judge and none to reprove in righteousness'; 1QM 14:5 n'ilCtD l'lC I il";::''' =')OlC t:I",) "ilP' 'He has gathered an assembly of nations for destruction I without any remnant' .15 2) (w)'en NPi PP The same construction may also be followed by a possessive or a locative PP (using various prepositions), an infinitive or another adverbial element. 1QM 1:6,,, inll l'lC' 'and there shall be no-one to help him';16 4Q~ 13:7 ilOil'J'::l mi l'lC' 'and there will be no interval between them'; 4QJubd 2:24 onlC nolC l'lC' 'and there is no truth with them' (= Jub 21:21); lQH 12:19 il;::)oll P'1~ rlC' 'there is none righteous with Thee'; 4Q379 22 i 5 ,n",r il'''lC 1['lC] 'there is no God apart from

15 Note 4QM" 8-10 i 3 n["NW 11'N', with preceding waw. For this pattern in BH. cf. Muraoka 1985:103, nr. 3. 16 The participle is nominalized ('there will be no helper for him'), since the meaning is not 'he will not help him' (Duhaime [1995:97]: 'there will be no rescue for it'). Compare also Dan 11 :45" ,nll 1'N', Deut 22:27 i1' ll'W'O 1'N', Dan 8:7 "'0 "N' "~O i1'i1 N", lQM 14:11 "~O 1'N Ci1',,:lj

,,::>,.

BAASTEN: EXISTENTIAL CLAUSES IN QUMRAN HEBREW

5

him'P 2a) (w)'en 0 PP The NP may be elided, Le. w'en 0 PP, as is clear in the following examples: lQH 7:32 i1::>n"'l r~' 'there is none besides Thee'; 18 4QpIsaa 5-6:12 i1'O::> r~' 'and there is none like it'.19 3) (w)'en PP NPi

Another main type of clauses is the one in which the adverbial element--be it possessive, locative, or other-precedes the noun phrase: 4Q374 2 ii 4 i1t!l'''E)' n,.,~tD [0::>]" r~' 'and [you] will have no surviving remnant'; 4Q251 11:5 "~'J r~ .,tD~ 'who has no-one to ransom (him)'; CD 9: 14-15 O'''l':! i1" r~' I n~~Oj i1':!~ ,,::> p' 'and likewise, every lost thing that is found I but has no owner(s)'~o 4Q405 23 i 10-11 pm '''.1' 0i1:! r~' 'and there is none among them who omits a law'.21 It is difficult to detect a functional distinction between this clause type and the one in which the PP follows the NP. Compare, for instance, 4QpapJubh 2 i 53-54 ill''' 'n~ r[~ '::>] '[for there is n]o evil with him' (= Jub 35: 12) with 4QJubd 2:24 on~ no~ r~' 'and there is no truth with them' (= Jub 21:21). This complies exactly with an earlier conclusion drawn pertaining to the function of nominal clauses of the patterns NP-PP and pp_NP.22 It is possible to add another adverbial element to this pattern: 4Q410 1:5 !:l[1]?rtJ ilOrtJ il~? rN1 'and there is no peace for you there';

,,,

J""

For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:102-103, nrs. 4, 10,25. Compare 4Q504 (4QDibHama ) 2 v 8-9 i1:m"'T )'N' I i1::l1:l" 'n "N i1nN N'::l 'for you alone are a living God I and there is none other than you'. Olson translates: 'For you (are) a living God, you yourself, and there is none other than you'. Wise, Abegg, and Cook (1996:412): 'Surely, you alone are the living God; beside you is none other'. Vermes (1997:365): 'For Thou alone art a living God and there is none beside Thee'. 19 Allegro reads ,mr.l::l, but see Horgan (1979:82) ad loco Compare also 4Q381 76-77:14 ,i1r.l::l )'N' 'and there is none like him'. 20 Compare with CD 9: 13 O'''l':l )'1( 1rDI(, see below, section (3a). 21 For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:104, nrs. 10,25. 22 See Baasten 1999:46, conclusion 2. 17

18

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

6

1QM~st 1 i 7 n"'N [1].17" CtD l'N' 'and folly shall never more

be there'.

3

3a)'en 0NP In the pattern discussed in section (3), the adverbial or possessive PP may also be elided, as is demonstrated by CD 9: 13 CtDN ,,:;, c'''.P::l l'N 1tDN I ::ltD'O 'anything that is returned, that has no owner'. In this particular case the ellipsis is clear in view of the abovementioned CD 9:14-15 c'''.P::l m l'N', in which the possessive element is overtly expressed. In general, however, it is impossible to decide whether the pattern is an elliptic form of (2) w'en NP PP, or of (3) w'en PP NP.24 4) 'en

0 PP

In one case it is the NP itself that is elided, whereas the possessive PP is overtly expressed: 4Q159 1 ii 4,,, l'N 1tDN 'who has nothing (to eat)'. A comparable case of ellipsis of the NP is clearly attested, with a form oftD', in, e.g., Sir 14:11 (A) 1" tD' CN.

5)w-'en 0 0 In the Qumran corpus there are two cases attested in which we find a construction with l'N whereas both the NP and the PP are elided, leaving only the existential element used absolutely. 4QM' 11 i 161'N' I N'::l ;'01;' .171 "[ ] N'01 'and who [ ] ... distress as compared with me? I There is none!'; 4Q511 (4QShir'j 18 ii 5 l'N' I '1::l1::l[ m"::lJ CN] 'Is there any foolishness in my words? I There is none.'25 6) Preceding PPs Another pattern that is attested with the negative existential l'N is the one in which the prepositional phrase precedes the rest of the clause. On the basis of a study of the context of these clauses, we may safely conclude that the PP is in extraposition. Thus we are able to consider this particular pattern as derived from (2) 'en NP PP or from (3) 'en PP NP,26 in which the PP is placed in 23

Compare 4Q299 1:08. Cf. Muraoka 1985:102, nr. 4. 2S For the reconstruction of the first clause, compare lQS 10:21-22 m'?:u '~:J 1)Ot/]' Ie,'?, ':J:J,:J "OfDle Ie" '1)":J1 (I am grateful to Prof. Qimron for drawing my attention to this passage.) For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:102, nr. 1. 26 It is obViously impossibly to determine whether the underlying structure is (2) or (3). 24

BAASTEN: EXISTENTIAL CLAUSES IN QUMRAN HEBREW

7

extraposition: PP II 'en NP 0 or PP II 'en 0 NP. lQM 14:11 ",~o l'N Ci1',,::l) ",;:,,, 'for all their mighty men there is no deliverer'; lQM 14:11 O,JO l'N CiT'''p'' 'and for their swift ones there is no refuge r27 1QH 9: 17 ino l'N i1;:,no;:,n"m 'to Thy wisdom there is no measure'. In 1QM 14: 11-12 the extraposition is made clear through the juxtaposition of a series of initial PPs: ",~o 1'N Ci1',,::l) ",;:,,, T1::l" ::l'tDn Ci1'1::l;:'j" O,JO l'N Ci1'''P''" which may be rendered periphrastically as 'as regards all their mighty men ... , and as regards their swift ones ... , and as regards their nobles .. .'. The same applies to, e.g., 1QH 9: 17 i110 l'N i1;:,no;:,n"n ,'no] 1'N i1;:'1'::l;:'''' [i11)J;:' l'N i1;:'n]ON"1. It is to be noted that the prepositional phrase need not necessarily be possessive. Other adverbial elements may precede as well: lQH 10:18 "'tD;:,oJ'N i1;:,n,.v) [N'''::l'] '[without] Thy rebuke, there is no stumbling'. It should be borne in mind, however, that this initial PP does not replace the possessive PP. Theoretically, it is possible to have both elements in a single sentence (e.g., 1" l'N i1;:,n,.v) N''':l1 ",tD;:,o*), although no such examples are actually attested. 7) Preceding NPs The final pattern to be discussed here displays a construction in which the NP precedes the rest of the clause. Just like the examples from section (6), these clauses, too, may be derived from the patterns (2) 'en NP PP or (3) 'en PP NP, whereas this time it is the NP that is placed in extraposition: NP II 'en 0 PP or NP II 'en PP 0. 29 In this case, however, the context does not allow a definitive conclusion; the function of extraposition cannot be determined with certainty in the four instances quoted below, owing to a fragmented context. 30 1QH 7: 17'" 1'N ,tD::l 'ono, 'and I have no human refuge'; 4Q1791 i 6'::l l'N mn':n 'and in it there is no pleasing (odour)'; 27 The Princeton edition has a printing error ~mo here. but in note 203 it is mentioned that 4QMa 8-10 i 9 has O,JO p: ilon"'p'" 'and for their swiftness there is no refuge'. 2d For this pattern in BH. cf. Muraoka 1985:104, nrs. 1O,25g-i. 29 The pattern NP PP' en is not attested in the Qumran corpus. 30 Note Isa 1:30 il" rN c'o, which is rendered in IQlsaa 2:4 il" C'O rN, referred to by Carrnignac (1974:408).

8

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

4Q179 1 ii 10':J 1'N fEln1 'and there is no delight in him';31 4Q267 6:3 il:J 1'N illJ,r 'rD[N] 'a (field) which does not yield its seed'. Another type that might be classified under this section is an example of a preceding NP, which is resumed by means of a suffixed pronoun after which the adverbial element "lJ is added: 1QMyst 1 i 5 "lJ ilOJ'N N"El 'T1 '~'r1 ",J, 'and all those who rely on the mysteries of wonder will no longer exist'.32 A general conclusion drawn by Carmignac as regards the use of 1'N in Qumran Hebrew was that this language phase illustrates a clear tendency to put the noun as closely to 1'N as possible.33 He counted only eight examples in which 1'N is separated from the noun phrase it pertains to. Apart from the fact that we found more instances of such constructions in the Qumran corpus (16 in total), if we consider the NPs in the clauses described in the present section to stand in extraposition, these cannot be considered as clauses in which the extraposed NP stands close to the element 1'N. In this regard it is worth noting that there are also cases in Qumran Hebrew where the element rD' is separated from the noun it refers to, e.g. 1QS 6: 13 t:l':J," ,:J," ,:J, 'r1N rD'. 34

IlL' Miscellaneous observations IlIa. Parallel constructions with 1'K' and 1'K? In view of the frequently-used pattern w'en NP, which very often comes at the end of a long sentence or paragraph, indicating how the events decribed will take place (see above, [1] and [2]), it is striking to see how often a synonymous construction occurs, namely the pattern i'en NP. Although syntactically of a totally different character-it is an adverbial phrase, not an existential clause-it serves exactly the same semantic function as its clausal counterpart. Compare 4Q374 2 ii 4 il~'''El' r1"NtD [t:lJ]" 1'N' quoted il~'''El' r1',tD 1'N" above with the following examples: I QS 4: 14 'without remnant or survivor of them 135 ; CD 2:6-7 r1"NrD 1'N"

'0"

31 The structure of 4Q179 1 i 6 and 1 ii 10. which are mentioned by Carmignac (1974:407-408), are not quite certain in view of the unclear context; it is not clear whether these passages indeed begin and end here. 32 Compare 4Q299 1:7 and 4Q300 3:6. 33 Carmignac (1974:411-412): 'Dans l'hebreu de Qumran 'yn tend it se placer Ie plus pres possible du terme qu'il affecte.' 34 Cf. also lQS 6:12, 4Q381 76-77:9, llQT 48:4-5,49:15, 52:16-17. For this pattern in BH, cf. Muraoka 1985:102-108, ms. 2, 4,10, 25e-f. 35 But Qimron and Charlesworth (1994:17) translate: '(There will be) no

BAASTEN: EXISTENTIAL CLAUSES IN QUMRAN HEBREW

9

'O? il~'?El1. Note, however, the difference in word order with 4Q374 2 ii 4, which remains difficult to explain?6 The same feature is attested in Biblical Hebrew. Compare, e.g. Ps 104:25 iElOO r~', Ps 147:5 iElOO r~, and 1 Chr 22:4iElOO r~?· In 1QS 2: 14-15 iln'?O r~? il,nil Cl,V il~O~il m'i ilnElo.:n the addition to Deut 29: 18 ill$~~iTn~ ilrliJ niEl9 WO~ reflects the popularity of fen + NP in QH and in Late Biblical Hebrew, as was noted before in Qimron's grammars. 37 llIb. Poetic alternation r~/~? Several times in Qumran Hebrew, we find the negative~? as the formal indication of non-existence, instead of r~. It is significant that all these cases reflect a special stylistic feature occurring in poetry, in which there is a deliberate alternation between r~ and ~?, both negators occurring in a fixed pattern: )en NP whY NP, meaning 'there is no X nor any Y'. We can therefore conclude that ~? is not used, in and by itself, as the indication of nonexistence, but merely in order to vary the style within a single utterance, when two similar expressions follow each other directly: 1QH 7: 11 ilOiD~ '.:J[:1] ?D? l'iD? il.:J,VO ~?' m1i1 nn? ilEl r~' 'but the spirit of disaster has no mouth and all sons of guilt have no answer of the tongue'; 1QH 4:20-21 il:J:1? nmO[:1] il'Oi ~?' TiD,VO ?,:J:1 ??1i1 r~ ':J 'for there is no falsehood in all Thy works and there is no guile in the design of Thy heart'; lQH 8:34 '?Ji ?'P? ,,V~O ~?' Cl,VEl m?iD? r~' 'and there is no taking a step and (there is) no step to the sound of my feet';38 11Q14 1 ii 11-12 ;"1?mo ~'?' l:l~~iK:l il?~iDrJ r~' 'and none will miscarry in your land, and none be sick'.39 An apparent exception to the rule formulated above would be 1QH 11 :22 m?nil? ,VJ.:J rK' ;"1[lJiDi r~]' il?',V m?:J ,,v, but the reading of the first of the two clauses is fairly uncertain. Even so, it is possible to find a repetition of'en: CD 20:14-15 iiD~:J p,~:1 n'~10 H'K]' ~El'iD r~' I iiD rK' 1?0 rK iOK 'as He has said: "There will be no king and no ruler" (Hos 3:4) I and no judge

remnant nor rescue for them'. 36 On this latter point, see section II, (3). 37 Qimron (1976:289, 1986:77, § 400.09). Qimron also refers to Hurvitz (1972:39) and BDB 35a. 38 A different case is 1QH 6:27-28 n:ml)' X1'?'? T1l) 'n'1J1 X1JO )'X'? I po 'n'?, 'protecting doors with no entry'. On this phenomenon, see Muraoka 1995:55-73. 39 Cf. the parallel in 4Q285 1.

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

10

. ng . hteousness.,40 and none to reprove m It is significant to note that the use of~' to indicate nonexistence as an alternation is also attested in Biblical Hebrew, e.g. 2 Sam 20: 1 'rD' lJJ i7,m ~" ",J p,n ,J'? 1'~ (solemn speech),41 and Mishnaic Hebrew. The alternation is clearly illustrated in the Mishnah, e.g., ~" 'o~o 'n~ 'o~o ~" t!)) 'n~ t!)) 1'~ i7~'n 'n~ i7~"n ~" il"l1J 'n~ il"l1J (m. Yeb. 5.1).42 In the Mishnah, however, the construction is obviously not confined to poetry or solemn speech.43 Although in Ben Sira ~, is sometimes used to indicate non-existence,44 the feature of deliberate stylistic alternation between 1'~ and ~, seems to be unattested in that book.

,J,

lIIe. Adnominal uses Another feature of negative existential clauses to be noted is their use as a modifier of a noun, as in lQH 5:34 il'~ r~ n1l10, 'tears without end', in which the existential clause functions as an adnominal modifier. An alternative explanation might be to analyse such cases as asyndetic relative clauses, in which also a PP is elided. The above-quoted example might then be read as til' il'~ 1'~ ,W}( n1l10,*. Compare also lQH 6:31 fP r~ Jn10 'endless space'.45 The pattern is already attested in BH, e.g., Jer. 2:32 ,ElOO

r~

0'0'.

The same construction is attested with 1'~' instead of 1'~: 1QH 5:36-37 pm 1'~' O'n1J,V:J 'rnO~J '~ and 1QH 8: 17 r~' 0'0' ['p]n 'seas without end'; lQH 6:27-28 ~'JO 1'~' po 'n".

IIId. Alternatives for possessive' In several cases, the possessive PP is not expressed by means of the preposition', but by means of n~. 4QpapJubh 2 i 53-54 [:J,t!) ::::J~ '~] ill1' 1n~ n~ '~] ,[for there is n]o evil with him' (= Jub 35: 12).46 4QJubd 2:24 on~ no~ 1'~' 'and there is no truth with Compare Hos 3:4c'El1n, "ElN j'N' il::J~O j'N' n::JT j'N' 1rv j'N' 1'0 j'N. Compare also lob 28:14 "OD )'N 10N C" N'il '::J N' 10N t:Jli1n. Cf. lotionMuraoka 1993, § 160c. 42 Azar 1995:173. 43 Closely related to the alternation Ofj'N,/j'N' and the poetic alternation N,/j'N is the stylistic phenomenon of 'negative parallelism', see Cohen (1988). 44 See the discussion in Van Peursen (1999:226). 45 Sometimes the PP is overtly expressed: lQH 8:27" TlDO )'N pr::JN] 'a poor man who has no refuge' (thus Licht; most translations, however, read 'I have no refuge' (= "). For these cases, see lotion-Muraoka 1993, § 1690, oa. 46 The reconstruction seems fairly certain in view of the Ethiopic )~ma 40

41

BAASTEN: EXISTENTIAL CLAUSES IN QUMRAN HEBREW

II

them' (= Jub 21:21); lQS 6:13 t:l':n'? i:n'? i:J1 m~ tV' 'I have something to say to the Many'; lQS 6:12 m~ tV' itV~ tV'~ ,?,;:" t:l':Ji'? i:J1'? i:J1 'any man who has something to say to the Many"P. illustrative of the possessive semantic value of n~ is the parallel clause, in the same context, CD 14: 11 ,?;:,,? ii' ii' itV~ i:Ji '?;:,'?1 i:J1'? t:li~ii. Some cases of locative PPs with :J come very close to posses-sive '? semantically, but there is no compelling reason not to interpret them as purely locative PPs, e.g., 4Q88 10:9-10 '?sr'?:J l:JiP:J r~ ';:' 'for no longer is Belial in your midst'; CD 5: 17 iiJ':J t:lii:J r~ itV~O 'because there is no understanding in them'; 4Q267 6:3 ii::J r~ ii.l)iT itV[~] 'a (field) which does not yield its seed'; 4Q381 76-77:91J::J'tVii'? n;:, t:J:):J tV' t:l~ 'do you have strength to answer him?'

IIIe. Various aspects The 10cative:J seems to be omitted in 4Q416 2 ii 16 r~ itV~'? ii1~D ii:Jin ii::Jn~im '?tV::Jn 1~ .l):ln '?~ I ii;:,m::J 'do not reach for I what is beyond the range of your power, I lest you stumble, and your disgrace becomes exceedingly great', where one might have expected ii;:,m::J:J instead of ii;:,m;:,. On the other hand, we do find the preposition :J in 1QH 9: 16-17 m::J:J r~ ii::J'nn1::JD1 'yet there is no power to compare with Thy might' and 1QH 10: 10 m;:'::J lDlJ r~', A predicative use of a construction with r~'? is attested in lQH 5:20-21 ii1D r~'? ii::Ji1::J;:'1 [i~OD r~'?] ii::Jm1::J:I '::J ' ... and Thy glory is without measure' The use of '?~ in the sense of 'let there not be', is possibly found in 4Q416 2 ii 9 ?[~, ii:JiD~j:::l mjr.l ?~ ]ii:J'? -np~' mi':JlJ t:l~ [1'm~D] ii;:,mtVlJ ilJ ii::J'J'lJ'? iiD1Jn 'if he imposes his service on you, let there be no rest in your soul, and no sleep for you eyes, until you have performed his commandments'.48 Such a use of '?~ is already attested in the Bible, e.g. 2 Sam 1:21 '?~1 '?~ '?~ t:l::J''?lJ i~D.

'albo '::kaya I za'~nbala birut; and the Latin quia non est cum illo malignitas (note the cum illo). 47 Cf 4QSb 6.3 [... 1n~ ltv' .,tv~ tv'~ ['1:;'1]. 48 The reconstruction is after 4Q418 8:9-10. The reading that is followed here is that of Garcfa Martinez-Tigchelaar (1998), not that ofWacholder-Abegg (1992). Vermes' (1997) translation coincides with this, whereas Wise-AbeggCook (1996) translate differently.

A FEW REMARKS ON MISHNAIC HEBREW AND ARAMAIC IN QUMRAN HEBREW Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem) In my remarks here it is my intent to make several short observations on the affinity of Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic to Qumran Hebrew. (A) More than I wish to learn about Qumran Hebrew from Aramaic and Hebrew, I wish to accomplish the opposite and learn from Qumran Hebrew about grammatical phenomena in Mishnaic Hebrew. (B) As for Aramaic, it is not my intention here to analyse any phenomenon in Aramaic, but rather to present a hypothesis regarding the source of several of the Aramaic elements which we find in the Hebrew texts from Qumran.

A. Mishnaic Hebrew and Qumran Hebrew To my mind a major contribution of Qumran Hebrew to the study of Mishnaic Hebrew inheres in the light QH sheds on linguistic phenomena found in MH that are sometimes suspected as late or even as mediaeval scribal innovations. Evidence from Qumran Hebrew enables us to identify these linguistic phenomena as authentic representatives of a living Hebrew in use at Qumran. I would like to cite two different examples. The first one deals with a linguistic detail that exemplifies a more widespread phenomenon and the second with an entire grammatical noun pattern. The existence of these linguistic details in Mishnaic Hebrew is beyond doubt and the Qumran material simply adds historical depth to it. Example 1 In Biblical Hebrew the verbal root q-r-( (...J lnp) is attested only in pacal and niral, both in the consonantal and vocalized text, e.g. iI~'?tD 1'~ iI)'?~~iI nN: -P'").l' 'JJiI (I Kgs 11:31), l:::J'1JJ '.!)np (Isa 36:22), 1JJiI 1~ m'N: l'li?l (Lev 13:56); 1tD1i1 lEltD" l'lpJ nJT~iI' (I Kgs 13:5), -P'").j?' N:'? (Exod 28:32; 39:23). No cases of this root are attested in piccel, puccal or hifpaccel in spite of the suggestion in the editions of KB to correct a verse in Proverbs and to discover a hi{pa ccel form in it as a result of this correction. I refer to Prov 27:9: iii.!)'"). Pl)9i J~ nQIq~ nlbpi 19t?7 td~~ n~~q. The 1953 edition of KB (p. 857) suggests reading the

BAR-AsHER: MISHNAIC HEBREW AND ARAMAIC IN QUMRAN HEBREW

13

second part of the verse as: rzi~~ n~¥..p i1.vli?I;lQ~ and in the latest edition from 1983 (p. 1070Y this suggestion is repeated with a slight change rzi~~ n~¥..pp i1.vli?I;lQ~. The second possibility is more ingenious than the first, but still all in all introduces into the biblical text a reading and grammatical form that is completely foreign to it. On the other hand, in Mishnaic Hebrew, besides numerous examples of the usual forms in pliCal and niral, we also find examples of piecel, puecal (participlef or ni!paecal, e.g. nN .v"po ,mOJ (t. Ter. 1:3), ,'i1rv 'N O'~:JJN 'm, O'O:JJO 'nrv, rmmJ 'nrv rvJ? r.v."po (t. Men. 1:8), ~Ji1 .v"pm (t. Gi,.7:6). This is a well-known development in Mishnaic as against Biblical Hebrew, as Z. Ben-I:Iayyim clearly demonstrated many years ago: many verbs, both transitive and intransitive that were used in Biblical Hebrew in pliCal and niral pass into piecel, puecal (participle) and ni!paecal in Mishnaic Hebrew. 3 As is well known this contrast also occurs in differences between the Tiberian and Samaritan tradition of the Pentateuch, as pointed out by Ben-I:Iayyim4 and treated as well in an article by T. Zurawe1. 5 The same is the case with the root q_r_ eV.v.,P). The five occurrences of the pliCal of this root in the Tiberian tradition appear in pa c,,;}l6 in the Samaritan Pentateuch. For example the form qiiJg Cll (~.vli? Num 14:6) is pronounced qarraCu by the Samaritans in the pac,,;}l verbal stem and the nifal form iqqiirt! (.pl.j?' Exod 28:32; 39:23) is pronounced yiqqarra by the Samaritans, which can only be interpreted as a ni!paccal form (> nippa ccal).7 A text which was lately discovered and is about to be published in an upcoming volume of DJD provides us with evidence that anticipates that which we find in tannaitic literature and the Samaritan Pentateuch for the existence of q-r- in ni!paccal / hi!pa ccel: ?.v, i1.,mi1 ?.v ,i1.v.,J CO'N on?i1? N'i1i1 .,'iJ ?NICO' .vlpn', C

C

C

I In this entry there is a cross-reference to the entry III il; 0 shift did not apply. II The spelling without waw after gimmel demonstrates that the form follows the pa'lan pattern and not the po 'Ian pattern, as in Qumran olu short or long vowels are usually written with a waw. Even though the word m:ll"n is written here without a waw, an ancient literary text was apparently of influence here, possibly the spelling of the Massoretic text of the Bible. There we find n'::Jll,n often (for example in Gen 47:32) but also m::Jlln rarely (5x; for example in Ezra 9:1).

BAR-AsHER: MISHNAIC HEBREW AND ARAMAIC IN QUMRAN HEBREW

15

2. 4Q389 8 [oHm 1] II 7-9: Cl1 'n'~ 'iDK n"Jil nK "Eli11 iliD[l1'] lEl'J C',J'? 1'?0 C'P[' ilOilil C'O'J JPl1'] Cl1, pn~[' C]l1' [C]il'JK n1l1, These witnesses of the gadIan form precede by centuries the examples from the Jerusalem Talmud cited by Gross in his book: C'E"Jil ,l'E"Jil ,l'E'Jil etc. 12 What is significant for our discussion is the occurrence of the noun gadfiin 'blasphemer', derived from giddef, which follows the pattern of pa 'Jan like sarviin / gazJiin / darsan13 etc. This example of gadfiin argues for the early origin of the Mishnaic Hebrew pa 'Jan form, hitherto believed to be late. This new evidence from Qumran indicates that the antecedents of this noun pattern lie in the Second Temple period, centuries before the redaction of the Mishna. The Qumran witness obviates the need to seek the origins of this phenomenon in Babylonian influence. The example of lEl'J [gadfan] (2x) found in Qumran also strengthens the reliability of the biblical vocalization n;"~9Q1 (Lam 4: 10), as n'~91J1 is the feminine form of 19Q1 (in the pa 'Jan noun pattern).14 More remains to be said regarding this noun pattern and its usage. B. Aramaic at Qumran

Having given examples of how Qumran Hebrew can elucidate the origins of Mishnaic Hebrew forms, I now come to some observations on Aramaic at Qumran. With the early discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls came the discovery of Aramaic works; including such important Aramaic texts as the Genesis Apocryphon and the Targum to Job. Moreover, eminent scholars have shown that even Hebrew works composed or transmitted at Qumran display varying degrees of affinity to Aramaic. 15 Nonetheless, I would like to suggest that a distinction be drawn between the elements shared by Qumran Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew on the one hand, and the Aramaic elements found in Qumran Hebrew on the other. The Hebrew elements 12 Cf. Gross 1993:82. The Ben Yehuda dictionary presents only thel~l~ form without waw after the gimmel. 13 Like other scholars, I see no reason to make a distinction between forms pertaining to the pa' al verbal-stem and different forms pertaining to other verbal-stems, in contrast to what was maintained by B. Z. Gross (see note 8 above). 14 Cf. Gross 1993:97-98,258. 15 Cf. Kutscher 1974:187-215.

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

16

from MH now attested at Qumran certainly belonged to a living dialect or perhaps dialects of Hebrew. We must inquire, however, if this also holds for the origins of the Aramaic elements at Qumran. Were they, like Mishnaic Hebrew elements, part of a living spoken dialect, or should we perhaps explore the possibility that Qumran Hebrew possesses affinities to written Aramaic literature? It is my intention to present here a tentative hypothesis. I would like to suggest that we consider the' second possibility, namely, that the Hebrew authors at Qumran, and perhaps their predecessors in Jerusalem, drew Aramaic elements from written sources, taking literary inspiration from Aramaic biblical targumim or from related works, such as the Genesis Apocryphon. By targumim I mean Aramaic targumic works dated earlier than what is usually referred to as the "targum literature", whose classic representatives are the second century C. E. works, Onqelos to the Pentateuch and Jonathan to Prophets, as well as later targumim such as the Targum Neofiti, and the Fragmentary Targum, which themselves contain earlier material. What I am arguing here is that an earlier targum literature, which was used by the Qumran community, preceded these classic works. While the extant Aramaic targumim corpus from Qumran is extremely limited, consisting solely of the Targum to Job and some fragments from the Targum to Leviticus, I believe that their very presence suffices to allow us to conjecture that the entire biblical corpus or a large part of it was extant in Aramaic at Qumran. Certainly I know of no evidence to the contrary. As texts that were read and studied alongside the Hebrew original, these targumim could well have been the source for Aramaic linguistic variants, variants readily understood by the Qumran authors. I see no reason why the Qumranites should not have utilized words or phrases from this presumed Aramaic corpus. I would now like to cite two examples, which I believe substantiate this hypothesis, both taken from texts already published. Example I A text published by Devorah Dimant in the Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume16 contains a citation from Nah 3:8-10. The relevant lines of the text, 4Q385-6 II 11. 6-7, read as follows (vv. 9-10): 'in i1'i1~J ~'i11 11,VOJ J1'i [1' ]n'1J'i rp r~ [i1D~'v I:l' ]1~D tv1J. 17 16 17

Dimant 1994. Dimant 1994:32.

BAR-AsHER: MISHNAIC HEBREW AND ARAMAIC IN QUMRAN HEBREW

17

The similarities to MT are readily apparent: l'K1 0'i~01 i1rt~~ tti~:;, '::lrD::l i1:J?i1 i1?J? K'i1 OJ lOiTlJ::l 1'i1 0'::l1?1 t!l'~ i1~p "Ethiopia and Egypt were your strength, and it was infinite; Put and Lubim were your helpers. Yet she was carried away, she went into captivity.,,18 The most striking difference, and the one relevant to my thesis, is the Qumran text's use Ofl1lJO::l for MT's lniTlJ::l. On what basis can we surmise that this Qumran author, who cited Nahum, substituted an Aramaic word for a Hebrew one? It seems improbable that it was his intent here to replace an incomprehensible Hebrew word with a more accessible Aramaic one. Rather, I would like to explain differently what may have happened. It seems to me more likely that the writer of the Hebrew text at Qumran, who I propose was eVidently conversant with an Aramaic targum to Nahum, inserted the Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew ln1TlJ::l under its subliminal influence. Like the second-century witness to Nah 3:9 from Targum Jonathan: T1lJO::l 11i1 'K::l1?1, I conjecture that the Qumran author, who cited this verse, was familiar with a similar reading found in some early targum to Nahum. To my mind, this conjectural assumption of the existence of a corresponding Aramaic targum perhaps better explains the interpolation of an Aramaic word in the Hebrew text than the surmise that it was a loanword from spoken Aramaic. 19 Example 2 This brings us to our second example: In the Pseudo-Ezekiel text published by Devora Dimant just a few months ago, we find the fol1owin~ clause: l1tvii1 C11'?rlm i1'i1 ,.,o~' itv~:J (4Q386 II, 7). In her article, Dimant first publishes the text in its entirety, noting in the linguistic discussion that follows that this is the sole known occurrence of the noun TMiJ in a Qumran text. Following a comment on this word's Aramaic origins, Dimant cites non-Qumran witnesses, including a piyyut by Yannai in which l1tv is paired with t!lptv: O'?'::lK? t!lprD C1'?'OlJ? l1tv, noting in 18 The English translation is taken from the old translation of the Jewish Publication Society. 19 Prof. M. Kister directed my attention to a fragmentary text from Qumran published in DJD XIX (1995), pp. 198, in which the expression ::1'::milCl.ll (4Q462) appeared. Kister correctly pointed out that in the Targum Onqelos (and likewise in the Targum Neofiti, the Fragmentary Targum and Targum Psuedo-Jonathan), the expression il'm C1.!'7 (Deut 7:7; 14:2; 26:18) is translated ::1':10 CloP,? Is it possible that the usage of this expression in Qumran derives from an ancient Aramaic translation of the Book of Deuteronomy? 2°Dimant 1998:512,517-518.

18

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

addition that the Aramaic targumim, Jonathan in particular, use Aramaic --.Jl'rzJ to translate the Hebrew root ~przJ. For example, Jonathan translates ~ptaii n,'?ta, (Ezek 16:49) as ~:~i'rq1 ~"'?rzJ' (variant: ~!;>1"rzJl) and r"~ii ~przJm (Judg 3:11,3:30,5:31,8:28) is consistently translated into Aramaic as ~.o.,~ nJ"rzJ'. Dimant also notes the occurrence of the phrase ii~'?rV1 iiJ"rzJ in an AramaicPalestinian piyyut published by M. Sokoloff and J. Yahalom. 21 In addition, Dimant notes that the expression l'rzJii1 t:n'?taii found in Pseudo-Ezekiel has a Hebrew parallel at Qumran: ~przJm cn'?rzJ (4Q 418, 55 7) which is similar to the biblical ~przJ' cn"rzJ (l Chr 22:9). Essentially, both the Hebrew ~ptanJbprD and the Aramaic l'rD appear in the Qumran lexicon. It appears that whereas the former derive from the biblical corpus, the latter perhaps comes from the Aramaic targumic corpus. We should note, however, that in the course of its absorption the Aramaic word assumed a Hebrew form marked by the Hebrew definite article: not ~J"rD but l'rDii. N or do we find any evidence at Qumran for the Hebrew verbs pnrD, pnnrDJ, or the iip'nrv, known from LBH (e.g., Jon 1:11) and Mishnaic Hebrew. To sum up my venture into the realm of conjecture: it has been long recognized that the Qumran sectarians mainly derived their words and idioms from Biblical Hebrew, using these elements to express their historical and ideological interpretation, and even more so to meet the needs of current linguistic usage. The biblical corpus undeniably served as the Qumranites' main literary pool. What I have suggested here is that alongside this Hebrew corpus there existed a literary Aramaic corpus, which was more randomly utilized, perhaps only involuntarily. Naturally, we must also recall that the Qumranites authored independent works, that their corpus of independent literary creations witnesses linguistic innovations that gave written expression to their language and concepts, but this is not our topic. I would like to take the conjecture I have presented a step further. If it could somehow be better substantiated, this hypothesis would then document an early stage, as early as the Second Temple period, during which Hebrew writers drew upon Aramaic targumim, centuries before the crystallization and redaction of tannaitic literature. Regarding the affinity of tannaitic literature 21 Cf. Sokoloff-Yahalom 1999:280 (poem 50). Dimant mentions also the phrase il:mzn ilO?tV (with the two nouns transposed) from poem 49, but there is no such phrase in this poem in the above-mentioned edition. The index of the book referes us only to poem 50.

BAR-AsHER: MISHNAIC HEBREW AND ARAMAIC IN QUMRAN HEBREW

19

to the Aramaic targumim, there is no dispute, as M. I. Kahana's recent work on the mekhiItot has definitively shown. He notes, for example, the substitution of the Aramaic ilJ'Ji~ for the Hebrew place name22 l'Ji~. Of special relevance to our discussion is Kahana's observation regarding the interpolation of the expression li,:m from the Aramaic targum into the text of the mekhilta: 23 "Given the affinity between the derashot in the mekhilta and the Aramaic targumim, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Geniza fragments here contain an expression penned by the redactors of the mekhilta."24 Menachem Kahana cites a fine example pertaining to a midrash on the verse iTiVO O'i' iiV2'\J iT'iT, P?OlJ i:m '" n'J' iiV2'\J' ?2'\itV' iJ" '" (Exod 17: 11) in the Parasha (portion) "Amaleq". He demonstrates the close connection between this midrash and the biblical targumim of the verse?5 I argue here that, if my hypothesis be correct, a similar process occurred during the Second Temple Period, in Qumran literature, long before the crystalization of tannaitic literature. I would like to comment on the potentially strong influence of a coexisting source and translation, which creates a strong link in the user's mind, and leaves its impression on both written and spoken expression. This, in my opinion, underlies the appearance of locutions of the 'pm' 2'\i'JJ' =pzr tVN:J type in the speech of Arabic-speaking Jews. Any individual making constant use of a Hebrew original and its translation may draw equally upon either or both, as in the case of this expression, which derives from Lev 7:17 =-jlt?' rz;~9 and its Aramaic targum (Onqelos 'j?in' 2'\l1J~).26 Perhaps the embryonic form of this phenomenon in the history of Hebrew literature should be sought at Qumran.

rm

Summary The two examples pertaining to Mishnaic Hebrew are derived from solid facts and the explanations we offer here have strong and substantial supporting evidence. The two examples pertaining to Aramaic are likewise solid but the explanations we offer remain hypothetical and only further data can confirm our thesis. Future findings could substantiate the hypothesis I have presented here. Cf. Kahana 1999:86. Idem 75-76. 24 Idem 76. 25 Idem 255-257 26 See Bar-Asher 1999a:153-154. 22 23

A CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Joshua Blau (Jerusalem) According to the prevailing view, the main current of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (except for the Copper Scroll and Miq$at Ma Case Hatt6rii) reflects basically the latest stage of biblical (literary) language, exposed to the influence of the spoken vernaculars, viz. Aramaic and some sort of Middle Hebrew, which later crystallized as Mishnaic Hebrew. It is this view that I want to defend against claims to the contrary. Recently, it has been claimed that some features of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls that deviate from biblical Hebrew are best interpreted as reflecting the grammatical structure of a living tongue. l I shall deal first with the general framework of this claim, to analyse later some of the more conspicuous items adduced as proofs for the reflection of a living language in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In our view one has to take into consideration, when analysing the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scolls, its very complex history, exhibiting various traditions, genres, fashions, scribal schools, and personal inclinations. Therefore, even conspicuous differences in orthography and morphology can not automatically be ascribed to changes in the spoken language. One must not forget that even dead languages, only used in literature, change. Accordingly, I would not jump to conclusions because of exceptional features occurring in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and attribute them to the impact of unknown Hebrew dialects. Pending further material, I would rather consider it prudent to regard them as being due to scribal schools, fashions, personal inclinations, genres, etc. In order to overcome the difficulties of properly assessing the linguistic status of the Dead Sea Scrolls, stemming from a "dark" period of which we know comparatively little, it seems 1 See especially the late S. Morag's stimulating paper, Morag 1988, in which he adduces eleven (I-lOb) features which he believes to attest to the spoken language of the authors of the scrolls. In his contribution to the present volume, E. Qimron, one of the foremost scholars dealing with Qumran Hebrew, has followed suit.

BLAu: CoNSERVATIVE VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

21

appropriate to compare languages that are better known than Qumran Hebrew and therefore faciliate a more accurate analysis of the linguistic facts, without being obliged to depend every so often on sheer guesswork. If this comparison is carried out with due prudence, it may indeed protect us against errors. It seems expedient to analyse Qumran Hebrew in the light of the language of various mediaeval Middle Arabic texts. Since, as a rule, the historical and linguistic background of these texts is quite well known, they may be used as an important corrective of our attitude towards the Dead Sea Scrolls. Middle Arabic texts are not composed in (post-)classical Arabic proper, but contain many deviations from the classical language and represent ever-changing varieties of rather free alternation of (post-) classical, vulgar (Neo-Arabic) and pseudo-correct elements. Accordingly, Middle Arabic constitutes a whole range of styles with indefinitely varied mixtures, starting from (post-)classical Arabic with only slight Neo-Arabic admixture, through semiclassical Neo-Arabic, till some kind of classicized Neo-Arabic. Yet even in texts written in (post-)classical Arabic with NeoArabic admixture, in which, of course, the non-classical features are much more limited, these deviations do not come short of the number of non-biblical forms attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Neo-Arabic elements attested in the Middle Arabic texts reflect, to be sure, a living language, yet many deviations from classical Arabic proper exhibit changes that affected a language no longer spoken, yet still used as a literary device, and depend on various traditions, genres, fashions, scribal schools, and personal inclinations. Thus, e.g., Saadia Gaon (882-942), in his classic JudaeoArabic Middle Arabic translation of the Pentateuch, uses in the function of an indeterminate direct object the pattern fa :J '~~O(J)Ci'1ElO.4 With respect to each of the three variant readings discussed, the report states 'n~ ''?~':J' l:l'JiD ,Q"P' "they adopted the two and discarded the one" or ,o"P' 'n~ii n~ ''?~':J l:l'JiDi1 n~ "they discarded the one and adopted the two". In other words, in such cases "the majority rules". Now it must be emphasized that in modem textual research this rule does not apply. Just as Talmon (at the end of his aforementioned article) labels the rabbinic majority of two vs. one "a fortuitous majority" 4 See Talmon 1962a: 14-27 for complete discussion of all four rabbinic sources.

44

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

(Le. giving expedient legal sanction to an existing situation), so modem scholars must deal with each textual variant separately, relating to such majorities of two vs. one as merely the result of accidental discovery and basing their decision as to the preferred reading on purely philological grounds. It is noteworthy that, were this principle of majority rule to be enforced by modem scholars, the philologically based decisions regarding two of the most significant textual variants in lQIsa8 would have to be overturned. In Isa 11 :6, the famous superior 1QIsa8 reading "0' « '~'O'*) meaning "they will graze, feed" (as opposed to MT ~'''1;l~ "and a fatling"-cf. e.g. Greenberg 1956:164, n. 51; Talmon 1962b:69-70; Brownlee 1964:217-218; Hoegenhaven 1984:23), clearly the lectio difficilior and the better text stylistically according to the two parallel clauses, would have to be "discarded" because of the reading of this verse in 4QIsac (cf. Skehan and Ulrich 1997:52), which agrees with the MT. In Isa 51:9, the lQIs~ inferior reading n~n1Ojj "who smites" (as opposed to MT n~~n~iJ "who strikes "-cf. esp. Kutscher 1959:25-26, 192-193; Kutscher 1965:87; and for the Ug. parallelism tmt.fJ~ II t.fJ~b "she smites II she strikes," cf. e.g. KTU 1.3:11:5-7 and Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 1996:201), clearly the less preferred reading in the light of the aforementioned Ug. parallelism (the MT reading is surely the lectio difficiliOI), would have to be "adopted" because of the readingn~[n10jj] in this verse in 4QIsac (cf. Skehan and Ulrich 1997:67) in agreement with lQIsaa.5 Finally, it should be emphasized that not only must each textual variant be evaluated separately, but scholars must also not allow themselves to be influenced unduly by any preconceived notions with regard to the nature of their textual sources (e.g. the attitude of H. M. Orlinsky towards lQIsa8 as aptly summarized by Hoegenhaven 1984:18-19). As correctly stated by S. Talmon (1962b:118) with respect to lQIsa8 : "Even should the scroll ultimately be judged to be inferior to the MT, this does not rule out the possibility that in many individual instances it has preserved readings superior in sense to those of MT, and textually more original than their parallels in MT." Thus whereas J. Trebolle Barrera (1998:288) has recently listed a mere dozen verses in 5 Note that BHS, p. 756, n. 9a, emends the MT to n~rybiJ, citing 1Qlsaa and Job 26: 12 where rno is parallel with '?'?n in the same context as in Isa 51:9. This, however, does not take into consideration the aforementioned Ugaritic parallelism, which demonstrates also in the same context thatrno is parallel with ::J~n. Therefore, both rno and ::J~n fit this context, but n~~r;Tr,l (derived from ...J::J~ri) is the preferred reading because of the principle of lectio difficilior melior, a point already emphasied by Greenfield (1958:227, n. 16).

COHEN: SIGNIFICANT

Dss VARIANTS

IN isAIAH

1-5 (MT)

45

the 66 chapters of Isaiah where the lQlsaa variants "may be preferable to the MT", I will attempt to demonstrate that fifteen such cases exist in Isa 1-5 alone (see the next section). II

FIFfEEN SIGNIFICANT DSS VARIANTS IN Isa 1-5 WHICH ARE PREFERABLE TO THE MT Out of a total of 194 distinct significant differences (Le. all differences except those due to the general tendency towards more plene spellings in DSS orthography) which I found when comparing the MT of Isa 1-5 with those chapters in 1Qlsaa, 4Qlsaa ,b,e,fJ, Murlsa and pap4QIsaP , there were 31 distinct significant variants (Le. DSS variants which provide evidence for a reading significantly different from the MT). Such significant variants do not include such differences as orthographical and phonological distinctions, different morphological verbal and non-verbal forms (including Aramaic forms) which are semantically equivalent, addition or deletion of prefixed J, iT, " :l, '?, 1:1 (unless the meaning was changed significantly), pausal forms, different word order without change in meaning and clear scribal errors. Of the 31 significant variants in comparison with the MT, 15 may be considered superior readings (see below), 11 may be considered inferior readings (1QIsaa 1:18 [':lrD:l]; 3:11 [~,,? J,rv']; 3:22 [om. mnElt!l1:liT1] {4QIsab almost identical with MT}; 3:25 [1"'J~' (prima manus)]; 4:2 ~"'iT" '?~,rv']; 4:4 [,lJO n1iJ']; 5:2 [,iT'?,pO',]; 5: 13 [',,:J:l,]; 5: 17 [LJ'rv1:J:l]; 5:24 [n:JiT1'? rv~1 (two variants)], 4 may be considered equally likely or unlikely (1Qlsaa 3:24 [om. iT'iT']; 5:29 [LJiT:l' LJ'i'El:l:l' J~rD' ~':J'?:l (three variants)]), and in one case MT and 1Qlsaa have a common superior reading to that of 4Qlsaf (1: 18 [nlJ'?'n~]). The table below provides a synopsis of the 15 superior DSS variants in Isa 1-5. A separate discussion for each superior variant then follows the table, detailing all major BH textual evidence leading to this evaluation in each case. The basic bibliography used for this research included Parry and Qimron 1999 (the latest edition of lQIsaa); Skehan and Ulrich 1997 (official editions of 4QIsaa ,b,e,f,j and pap4QIsap); Milik 1961 (official edition of MurIsa); Kutscher 1959 (the most important research on the language of 1QIsaa and the comparison with BH); Goshen-Gottstein 1995 (the HUB edition of the Book of Isaiah); BHS. The evidence from the biblical versions (LXX, Targum etc.) was considered only secondarily (Le. in support of one of the Hebrew readings).

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

46

The Fifteen Superior DSS Variants in Isa 1-5 (all from 1QIsd) MT

IQI~a

1. 1:7 i19Q~~ 2 1: 15 ~N'?O tJ'O~ tJ~'i'

i1''?.v 100tD1 1N'?0 tJ'Oi i10~'i' l1N.vJ tJ~'m.vJ~N 3.-4. 1:31 i'?~El~ .. 1bQD tJ~'?.v::)1 .. tJ~Dni1 5.2:9-10 :tJi1'? Ntzm-'?N1 not included in 1~.y~ l1~~iJl 1~~~ Ni:l text iJk~ 110~~ 'i1 ilJ~ 'J.~~ •

r' T

•

',' 'T

T

...

T'

6. 2: 11 '?;l~ 7. 2:18 ~'?tr 8. 2:20 i'? ~tv.y 1~~ 9. 2:20 ni1~ 1en,? 10.3:16 tJD'?n;n" 11. 3:24 '~; nlJlT'J 12. 5:6 101'~? i1D~ 13. 5:8 tJ(l=;ltP~i11 14. 5: 10 nQ~ n;l 15. 5:28 1~~

..:

-

:

i1J'?e:ltDn 1m'?n'

OtherMSS i100tD1 (MurIsa) 1N'?0 tJ'01 tJ~'1' (4QIsi) [1 Jon [i1] (4QIsa f ) in[e:l][ ] N'?1 1J1NJ 11i101 i11[i1]' (4QIsab ) [ ]N~[n] N'?1 [ ] N1J (4QIsaa )

1'm.vJ[~N 1'? 1tD.v] 1tDN tJ'1e:l1e:ln'? i1Ji1''?J1J1 ntDJ 'e:l' nnn '~ 10T' ~1'?1 i1nJ tJnrD'1 1n~ nJ 1'~:J

no. 1. Isa 1:7 ::Tnk tJ''?:Jk tJ'1T tJ:J1JJ'? tJ~n01N ibN nie:l1tv tJ~'1.v i100ib tJ:J~1N tJ19n~~~6"~ (~~S; '~OrD' :IQIsaa j ~~9~~ [For the emendation to tJ10, ct. BHS and esp. Wildberger 1991: 19, n.7c-c.] T

""

TO"'

,-

The 1QIsaa reading is lectio difficilior. Given the previous occurrence ofi199tq in this verse, it is easy to see how the scribe's eye might have skipped some letters: i1{''?.v 1}00tD1. The lQIsa a text is better stylistically because it reflects word-play based on the two reciprocal meanings of the root tJOrD, "to be desolate" and "to be appalled".6 For similar word-play, cf. Lev 26:32-33; Jer 18:16; 50:13; and especially 49:17-18. Contrast Kutscher 1959:245-246. Resultant translation: "Your land is a waste, your cities burnt 6 For this semantic development in BH, as already seen by Rashi in his comment on Gen 24:21, see Cohen and Qimron 1992:74-76.

COHEN: SIGNIFICANT

Dss VARIANTS

IN l, which occurs four times in this verse, would be changed just in this last case to . On the other hand, the 1QIsaB reading nfD::l ':l' nnn '::J "for instead of beauty - shame" is semantically appropriate in this context for the following reasons (cf. e.g. NOtscher 1951:300; Wildberger 1991:146, 150-151). A. Not only is the regular order

-.::

The only other evidence for the gender of the liquid measure n~ is Ezek 45:14 where the phrase '~n t:J'r:1~iJ nltq~ "ten 'baths' make a homer" (cf. verse 11) occurs twice. Now whereas the entire context of Ezek 45:13-14 is not completely clear, the twice attested t:J'r:1~iJ nltq~ in masculine fonn is beyond any textual doubt (there are no textual variants in this verse from Qumran or from anywhere else). Therefore it is best to consider this evidence as decisively demonstrating that n~ is in fact masculine. The superior variant in 1QIsaa 'n~ n::J provides the textual evidence for correcting the MT of Isa 5: 10 in accordance with the decisive evidence from Ezek 45:14. Among modem BH dictionaries, only GeslS , 186 labels n~ unequivocally as "M." (= masculine) and the lQIsaa variant 'n~ n::J to Isa 5:10 as "richtigei'. Cf. also Kutscher 1959:498. Finally, it should be emphasized that in this case, the 1QIsaa variant 'n~ n::J is surely the lectio difficilior (because of the potential confusion with the feminine n~ "daughter"). Resultant translation: "For ten acres of vineyard shall yield just one bath; and a field sown with a homer of seed shall yield a mere epha". no. 15. Isa 5:28

niyrl "Qin~j?-?~l Ln~jrq "~n 'rp~ i1~~O~ "~~7~1 ~::J~m ("~:l ,~~ "9~o nio'le whereas one can not be certain that the 1QIsaa variant in this case "~:l reflects the better reading (,~~ "like flint" - see below), it is still superior to the MT because it might reflect that reading, while the MT vocalization ,~~ "like the enemy" is surely incorrect. Cf. e.g. Kutscher 1959:209 (no. 174), who also cited Rashi and Radaq, both of whom understood here "~:l (as did other mediaevals as well). It should first of all be noted that the parallel second simile in this verse i1~~O~ "~~7~1 "and his (the enemy's) chariot wheels are like the whirlwind" is referring specifically to the speed of the enemy's chariots as a symbol of military strength.

54

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

This is clear both from the wider context (verse 26 "and behold he (the enemy) is coming with lightning speed") and from such similar verses as Jer 4: 13 "Behold, he ascends like clouds; and like a whirlwind ~,~~o~) are his chariots, swifter than eagles are his horses. Woe to us for we are ruined!" Just as the speed of the horses parallels the speed of the chariots in Jer 4: 13, one might well expect the first simile dealing with the horses' hooves in Isa 5:28 also to have to do with the notion of speed and military fortitude. From the two military contexts where 1'l':;l~ /1'9~0 n;ol~ "his horses' / stallions' hooves" occurs, however (Jer 47:3; Ezek 26: 11), it is clear that the horses' hooves symbolize not merely speed, but their powerful stamping and pounding in order to crush the enemy. The key parallel military usage to the first simile of Isa 5:28 is in fact the following metaphor regarding God's military strengthening of Fair Zion like a bull (cf. Ps 69:32) in Micah 4:13 "Up and thresh, Fair Zion! For I will give you horns of iron and provide you with hooves of bronze ~'tqm~ C'iD~ TOiOl;l~), and you will crush many nations". Thus the i1~~ / i~~ "010 mOiE) figure in Isa 5:28 is replaced in Micah 4:13 by "and I will provide you with hooves of bronze". Now whereas the most common parallel to iT~~n~ "bronze" is indeed '?n:;l "iron" (as in Micah 4: 13 above; cf. Lev 26: 19; Isa 45:2; 48A; Job 20:24; 28:2; 40:18; 41:19), there is one other image where iT~~n~ "bronze" and i~ "flint" partially interchange. In Isa 48:4, Israel's stubbornness is symbolized by the image "and your forehead is bronze ~'~~n~)"; whereas in Ezek 3:9, God makes the prophet stubborn to match the people's stubbornness as follows: "I have made your forehead like adamant, tougher than flint (i~~)". On the other hand, i~~ "rock" is never used in such images (although similar terms such as p~ "stone" and .lJ79 "rock" are occasionally so used - cf. e.g. Job 6: 12; Jer 5:3; Ezek 36:26). On the basis of this evidence, it may be concluded that ,~~ "like flint" is the best reading in Isa 5:28, whereas i~~~ "like a rock" is less acceptable, but not excluded. Totally unacceptable, however, is the MT vocalization i~~ "like the enemy" in Isa 5:28. This erroneous vocalization was apparently unduly influenced by the similar phraseology in Lam 2:4a "He bent his bow like an enemy, he poised his right hand like a foe ('~~)". It should finally be noted that there is absolutely no justification for the common assumption among modem scholars (even among those who suggest reading in Isa 5:28 i~~ "like flint") that the 1Qlsaa variant i'~~ must be understood as meaning "like a rock" in accordance with the LXX (for which see Tov 1997a:115-116). Contrast e.g. Watts 1985:64, n. 28a; Wildberger 1991:223, n.

COHEN: SIGNIFICANT Dss VARIANTS IN isAIAH

1-5 (MT)

55

28a. i'~' could certainly just as well be understood as i;~::P "like flint" as e.g. lQIsa3 :::l", is understood as :::l;'1 "and the bear" in Isa 11:7 (see in general Qimron 1986:17). Resultant translation: "Whose arrows are sharpened, and whose bows are all drawn. His horses' hooves are like flint, and the wheels of his chariots like the whirlwind". III CONCLUSION The time has come for a complete philological reevaluation of all the significant DSS variants of the MT. Of the 31 significant DSS variants in Isa 1-5 listed in section II above, only 14 were even mentioned in BHS (and the situation with regard to most modern commentaries on Isaiah is approximately the same because of their blind dependence on BHS for this material). Perhaps even more crucial is the fact that whereas 9 of the 15 superior variants were listed in BHS, only three (nos. 7, 9 and 15 in section II above) were considered preferred variants. The time has come for a change in the philological evaluation of the significant DSS variants of the MT.

NON-BIBLICAL VERBAL USAGES IN THE BOOK OF BEN SIRA* Haim Dihi (Beer-Sheva) This article, which is based on my M.A. thesis "Non-Biblical Verbal Usages in the Extant Hebrew portions of the Book of Ben Sira: Verbs and Infinitives", Jerusalem 1998 (written under the guidance of Prof. Avi Hurvitz), will focus on biblical roots that have a different verbal inflection in Ben Sira. For the most part, evidence for this inflection can be found in later sourcesMishnaic Hebrew (MH), Qumran Hebrew (QH) and Aramaic, whereas in some cases the inflection is unique to Ben Sira. Part A I would like to begin with the statistical data and the concomitant conclusions, and then proceed with examples. In Ben Sira there is a total of 646 verbs, of which 606 are common to both Biblical Hebrew (BH) and Ben Sira (93%), and 40 (6.1%) of which are not found at all in BH. Of the 40 not found in BH, 30 are common to Ben Sira and other post-biblical sources such as MH, QH and Aramaic (e.g. ~1on, n'tV1'il, tVOtV'), and 10 are unique to Ben Sira, e.g. n'1~', =,~;)il, i"non, '!l'!l: some of these are the result of linguistic creativity and some others are the result of scribal error. Of the 606 that have roots in common, 69 have a verbal inflection in Ben Sira that is not attested in BH. The distribution is as follows: 23 verbs have an inflection found only in Ben Sira (e.g~ !:l'!li', nptVm, tVt!l1nil, ili'PtV) and 46 verbs have an inflection common to Ben Sira and other post-biblical sources including post-biblical Hebrew and/or Aramaic ones (e.g ~il~il, ~'~in, n1il'i, ~'ii1, il~i'il). It is interesting to note that only 18 of the 606 common roots are found in Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Another detail that arises from this research is that of all the post-biblical sources, Ben Sira's language retains the strongest relation to MH. From these figures, it is possible to conclude that, as regards verbal inflection, there are in fact linguistic innovations in Ben '1 would like to thank Prof. Haim Cohen, who helped me in preparing the English version of the lecture, and to Mr. Avi Gold, who assisted me in preparing the English version of this paper.

OIHI: NON-BIBLICAL VERBAL USAGES IN BEN SIRA

57

Sira's book vis-a.-vis classical BH. Most of the innovations have a continued existence in post-BH (MH, QH) and in Aramaic. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that, despite these unique inflections, the relationship of Ben Sira to the Bible and particularly classical BH remains strong. From these figures it is also possible to support the conclusion that was reached by various scholars (Rabin 1972:357,366;1 Bendavid 1967:91-92; Hurvitz 1972:52-55; 1983:221-222; 1999:145; Kister 1990:304307, 310-311) as regards the character and dialectal status of the language of Ben Sira, namely that Ben Sira, on the one hand, did in fact use classical BH as the basic language of his book (the 606 common roots in Ben Sira and BH clearly testify to this); on the other hand, the book also reflects (to a certain extent) the language of his period. In my opinion, the claim of the scholars mentioned above is correct, namely that Ben Sira's use of BH and his contemporary language is, in each case, conscious, intended, and skilful, displaying a high level of linguistic ability. From the double proverbs found in Ben Sira, it is possible to see the artistic combination of the two linguistic forms, i.e. classical BH and the language of the period. In the double proverbs one part is couched in literary language (classical BH), whereas the other part reliably reflects the language of the period, its style being more colloquiaf. An example of a double proverb is 35:5-6 [B] 1"ii iintDO '?,SJ !:::J'El' !:::J,.,::li !:::J'~:J 1J "'El01 1m '::l1 ::liiT i'::l.,J tD,,,'n !:::J,SJ1:J '?,SJ .,10TO ,?'p np.,::l !:::Jmn1 TEl m~''?o

"As a gold chain adorned with nopek' and sapphire, so are fair words pleasant 'at a banquet" "In a gold mounting, an emerald seal, is string music with delicious wine" PartB Having presented the statistical figures and the concomitant conclusions, I would like to present four examples. In the first two examples, we find verbal usage common to both Ben Sira and other post-biblical sources, but not attested at all in BH. In lThis is a Hebrew translation of an English article published in: Aspects

of the Dead Sea ScrolIs (ScrHier 4; Jerusalem, 1958).

For the double proverbs, see Segal 1936b: 110-112. There is agreement among scholars that the meaning of nopef is unclear. Therefore it has been left untranslated here. 4 The translation of the second proverb is Oi LelIa's in Skehan - Oi LelIa 1987. The first proverb does not appear in Oi LelIa's text. 2

3

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

58

the last two examples, we find verbal usage that is unique to Ben Sira: 1.~'

Sir 38:16 [B]

i1:T'p *i1m, "oni1 i1l'O':l'm ncm(O) '?l' ':I:J 'm, '01Oni1

"My son, shed tears for one who is dead with wailing and bitter lament"S In 38:16-23 Ben Sira deals with the topic of proper respect that should be paid to the dead. In the first two stiches of verse 16, the wise man instructs the listener to shed tears for the dead man and to recite a lamentation over him6• The Hebrew verb that is translated here as "shed" is :JTi1 from the root :J",r in the Hifll conjugation7• In BH the root :J ",r is extant only in the Qal conjugation, and this is also the case for MH8. It should be noted that the verbal root :J",r is not found in the context of shedding tears in BH. Instead we find the verbal root ,",'. as in the expression 9• In QH this root occurs in both the Qal and Hifll i1l'O,

""m

5 The English translation of the following verses of Ben Sira is given according to Di Leila's commentary, 1987. For MT, the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh (Philadelphia, 1944). 6 Already in the Bible we find the dirge and bitter weeping as external symbols of mourning, for example, Jer 9: 16-17 'KiP' m'::lnil n'K::l~ mil' iOK il::> 0'0 ,?r' U'5l.P5l.P, il.PO' '~'~'.P m'im '~'?.P mrDm ... m'K'::Jn' nm,po? (= "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Consider ye, and call for the mourning women, that they may come ... And let them make haste, and take up a wailing for us, that our eyes may run down with tears, and our eyelids gush out with waters"). See also Oi LelIa 1987:441. A similar idea exists in rabbinic literature, for example, b. Shabo 105b ilrD.PrD ,,::l::> ?'JrD::l ,'nm.P ?::> ,? l'?mo irD::> O'K 0,.1' il::>'::lil ?::>rD (= "... For whoever weeps for a worthy man is forgiven all his iniquities on account of the honour which he showed him". [The English translation is given according to Freedman 1938]). On this idea in rabbinic sources see Segal 1953:248. 1 On the conjugation of the root ::l",r in Hifil in Ben Sira (:nil) with the biblical meaning i'lil? ,?'lil? = "to shed tears", see Smend 1906b:342; Segal 1953:248; Oi LelIa 1987:349. 8 On the conjugation of the root J",r in BH see BOB 1907:264; HAL 1994:255. For MH see Jastrow 1903:382-383; Kasowski 1954 vol 12:155; Kosovsky 1970 vol. 3:390. 9 For the usage of the root '''i' in BH in the context of tears see BOB 1907 :433-434.

DIm: NON-BIBLICAL VERBAL USAGES IN BEN SIRA

59

conjugations JO • An example of HifIl usage may be found in lQIsaa 48:21 0'0 ':::l'T" .,,~ .oP:::l" 'O? :::l'Ti1 "'~o 0'0. The Masoretic text reads 0'0 ':::IT'' .,,~ .oP:::l" 'O? ?'Ti1 "'~o 0'0 ... (=" ... He caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them; he cleaved the rock also, and the waters gushed out"). According to Kutscher, the Qumran scribe was influenced by the verb ':::l'T' which appears in the second stich in the Masoretic text, As a result, the verb was changed from ?'Til to :::l'Ti1. Thus the root changed, but the conjugation did not". In Aramaic, the verbal root parallel to :::l"'T is :::l"". This root occurs in Aramaic in the Peal and Pael conjugations (Peal conjugation is found in Tg. Onq., Tg. Ket. and the Babylonian Talmud. The Pael conjugation is found in the Tg. Neof.)12. In Qumran Aramaic (QA) the root :::l'fJT occurs in the Hafel conjugation, for example llQtgJob 35:3: ':l~ O[~l') :::l'T' il:m:::lJ (= ... Who will make his muzzle bleed with claw)' = MT 40:24 ':l~ :::lpJ' O'rDP'O:::l (= ... Or pierce through his nose with a fish-hook,,).'4 Thus whereas the root :::l"'T may be considered as common to BH, QH, MH, Aramaic and Ben Sira, the Hifil of this root is extant only in QH and Ben Sira. 2. :J."UC Sir 4:7 [A] rD~" =,~Jil C.,' .0) ".0 l't!l?rD?' il'.o? lrDm? :J.11CiI "Endear yourself to the assembly before the city's'5 ruler bow your head" In 4: 1-10, Ben Sira deals with the behaviour of man in For QH see Fitzmyer 1988 vol. 1:676-689. liOn the method of the scribe in using the same root in one verse (harmonization), when in the Masoretic text two different roots occur, see Kutscher 1959: 176, 239-240. For a similar technique in LXX see Kutscher 1959:56. 12 For the conjugation of this Aramaic root see J astrow 1903 :282; Sokoloff 1990:140. 13 The English translation of 11QtgJob is given according to Garcia Martinez. 14 For QA see Beyer 1984:296. Beyer notes that the root :J"1I in the Aramaic of Qumran occurs as in Hebrew; and this is due to the fact that the original root contained the consonant g, which usually became d in Aramaic, whereas in Hebrew it became z. IS Various scholars emended the word 1,.1l to 1'.1), this due to the Syriac translation. On this emendation see Smend 1906b:37; Segal 1953:22; Di LelIa 1987:163. 10

60

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

society. In verse 7 the man is told to endear himself to the authorities, and to obey them. The verb meaning "to endear oneself to" is :JilKil. We see here that the verbal root :J"ilK is extant in the Hifil conjugation with a reflexive meanini 6• The preposition? before ltD~J? has the function of accusative marker, and this is equivalent to the particle nK!7. In BH the verbal root :J"ilK occurs in the Qal, Nifal and Piel conjugations!8. In MH this root is extant in Qal, Nifal, Hitpael and Hifil!9. An example of Hifil usage may be found in Midr. Cant. "TjOfD n'1?": il'ilfD .. p1pO' l:::l'ilNO' ,n':::l? 10'j~O ,j':JN Cil1:::lN. In QH this root is found only in Qa1.20 Thus whereas the root :J"ilK may be as common to BH, QH, MH and Ben Sira, the Hifil of this root is extant only in MH and Ben Sira.

3.cm Sir 43:16-17 [B/M] [B] [tl'1il C"ln" 1n'~:J'] *'~'K ?1n' '0.0['] ?'P '~'K ?'n' '0.0' ?'P [M] tl"il ~P' 1n~:J' '~'K ?'n' '0.0' ?'P 17a "The thunder of his voice makes the earth writhe 16a "by his power he shakes the mountains" First it is important to note that the original order of the stichs of 43:16-17 according to the Ben Sira scroll from Masada is: 17a; 16a; 16b; 17b. In manuscript B, the stichs 16a-16b are found only in the margin.21 16 For the conjugation of the root :J"i1N in HifH (:Ji1Ni1) with reflexive meaning "endear oneself' see Smend 1906b:37; Segal 1953:22; Di Lelia 1987:163. 17 Already in BH we find this usage, for example Lev 19: 181'0:::> lll'? rI:Ji1N, (= ..... But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'). Gesenius (GKC 366, §1l7 n) and Muraoka (1993:447-448, §125 k) note that the usage of the preposition? with the meaning of rlN is typical of LBH and Aramaic. This fact lends credibility to the tradition in Ben Sira. This opinion is contrary to Segal 1953:22, who claims that the? of 1fDm? is result of dittography from the word i1'll? Against Segal's view, it should be mentioned that dittography generally occurs between two adjacent consonants, the former at the end of the word and the latter beginning the follOWing word, rather than between two consonants found at the beginning of two words. 18 On:J"i1N in BH see BDB 1907:12-13; HAL 1994:17. 19 On:J"i1N in MH see Jastrow 1903:19; Ben Yehuda 1908 vol. 1:80. 20 For QH see Fitzmyer 1988 vol. 1:33-34. . 21 On the original order of the stichs see Smend 1906b:406; Segal 1953:289; Yadin 1965:32: Di LelIa 1987:486,490.

Dun:

NON-BIBUCAL VERBAL USAGES IN BEN

SIRA

61

Chapter 42:15 to 43:33 speak of the magnificence of God and His wonders in nature. In these verses, the wise man describes the awesome power of God, a power which is expressed in the ability of God to control the forces of nature by His voice alone. In the first stich, according to the margin of manuscript Band the Masada scroll, the wise man states that God shakes the earth = ,'n', whereas in the parallel stich, according to the scroll, God moves the mountains = ~'!'. According to the text of the parallel stich in the margin of manuscript B, God O"ilil nK O'DT' by His power. Most scholars assume that this latter version is the result of a scribal error, since there is no connection between the root O"SJT meaning "to be angry" and the moving of mountains. These same scholars suggest emending the verb O'DT' to either O'l1T or D'T' from the root D'~T, meaning "to move", Le. God moves the mountains by His power. This correction is based on the Greek version. 22 In my opinion, no emendation is necessary for this verse. The verb O'DT' should be analysed as derived from the root O"DT in the Him conjugation with the meaning of "to cause to shake". According to this analysis, the meaning of this stich would be that God causes the mountains to shake/tremble, following the idea expressed in stich A23. This proposal, that the meaning of "shaking" can be attributed to the root ODT in addition to the basic meaning of "anger", can be demonstrated on the basis of the precedent of the root Tj" in which the same semantic development occurred. In bringing this precedent- for semantic development in the verbs mn and Tn, I have relied methodologically on principle seven of the Held method for comparative Semitic philology. According to this principle, it is possible to compare words that are semantically equivalent even though they are not etymologically related, as long as the same semantic development has occurred in both words. This is done in order to analyse and explain a difficult worcf4 • As for the verb Tj" this verb also carries the basic meaning of "to be angry", whereas another meaning exists in the Him 22 For suggested emendations for the verb O',Ur see Smend 1906b:406; Segal 1953:297. According to Smend the verb C',UT' is an amalgam of the two verbs C',UT and 'u'T'. 23 For the conjugation of the root C"'uT in Him with the meaning of "cause to move, shake" see Ben Yehuda 1908 vol. 3:1375; Ben-J:layyim 1973:134; HAL 1:256; Di lelia 1987:490. 24 For a detailed deSCription of this method, see Cohen 1989:9-23. On principle seven see Cohen 1989: 17.

62

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

conjugation, that is "to cause to shake". As in Ben Sira, the verb u., can be found in BH with the nouns "Heaven" and "Earth" with the meaning of "causing the forces of nature to shake". For example Isa 13: 13 ... i10,POO r.,N:i1 tDlJ.,nH,).,N: l:I'OtD P?lJ (= "Therefore I will make the heavens to tremble, And the earth shall shake out of her place ... ". In this verse, the verb T,).,N: is parallel to tDl1.,m); Job 9:6 ... i10,POO r.,N: T,).,Oi1 (= "Who shaketh the earth out of her place... "J s• In BH the verbal root l:I"lJT is extant in the Qal and Nifal conjugations, whereas in Ben Sira, it occurs in Qal and Hifif6. In MH and QH the verbal root l:I"lJT is found only in the Qaf7 , whereas this root is not found at all in Aramaic. In Aramaic, the root semantically parallel to mn is ~l1T, but only in the basic meaning "to be angry,,?8 Thus, the Hifil usage of l:I'lJTi1 referring to God's causing the mountains to shake occurs only once in Ben Sira, but has a clear semantic precedent in the BH usage of the verb T,).,i1 and, therefore, should certainly not be emended.

4.p'VT Sir 40: 19 [B]

rpDnJ i1tDN: l:Ii1'mm I:ItD m,.,:l' l1~:n .,)tD "Cattle and orchards make a person flourish but better than either, a devoted wife"

In 40: 18-27 the wise man lists in ten proverbs excellent things and more excellent things. The structure of the stichs in this section is: In the first stich the wise man names two good things and then in the second stich names a third thing which is better than the other tw029 • In verse 19, in the first stich, the wise 25 On the verb T"ji in BH with the meaning of "cause to shake" in addition to the basic meaning "anger" see BDB 1907:919. 26 For D"llT in BH see BDB 1907:276; HAL 1:256. For the same verb in Ben Sira see Ben I:Iayyim 1973:134. 27 For MH see Jastrow 1903:408; Ben Yehuda 1908 vol. 3:1375. For QH see Fitzmyer 1988 vol. 1:686-687. 28 For =]"llT in Aramaic see Jastrow 1903:408. 29 A discussion of the structure of the stichs in this section can be found in Segal 1953:272; Di LeIla 1987:471. Di LeIla adds that the proverbs in this section are not written in the normal pattern of "X is better then Y". Instead, we find in the first stich a nominal or verbal sentence with multiple subject, whereas the second stich contains an ellipsis with the word Dil':JtDO, as well as a noun describing something better than the two things described in the first stich. On the pattern "X is better then Y" in wisdom literature in general see

DUll: NON-BIBLICAL VERBAL USAGES IN BEN SIRA

63

man states that wealth of cattle iJrv and wealth of orchards = l'~~ will immortalize the name of their ownero. In the second stich he states that a woman whom everyone desires and loves = nprvm due to her good qualities is better than both. She causes her husband's name to be praised more than cattle and orchard~1 . There are two interpretations for the word nprvm: 1. The basic meaning is "desired" with an emphasis on the sexual connotation. 2. The preferred meaning in the context of this verse is "devoted", "loyal,,!2 In BH the verbal root p"rvn occurs in Qal, Piel, and Pual. There are two meaning for this root in BH: 1. In Qal the meaning is "to desire". 2. In Piel and Pual the verb is denominative from the noun p'tz.1J (="fillet" , "ring"), this meaning is technical and is used only in the context of building the tabernacle. Some of the dictionaries consider prvn to be two homonymous roots. BDB defines p"rvn in Qal as "be attached to, love", and p"rvn in Piel and Pual is defined as "furnish with fillets or ring". Other dictionaries such as HALOT consider p"rvn to be a polysemic roof3. In MH this root is extant only in Qal with two meaning: 1. "desire", "want"; 2. "to bring two things togehter", for example: Hurvitz 1991:81-84. 30 In Ben Sira this idea recurs, along the lines of :::nl::l 10tDO !:ltD :::l11::l (Qoh 7:1 "A good name is better than precious oil"), for example 41:11-12 [B] ilO:ln nn~mt 'El'XO 11" X1il ':l !:ltD 'll inEl m:l' x, ion !:ltD 1x 1n'1':::l !:IiX ':::lil

(

=

"The human body is a fleeting thing, but a virtuous name will never be annihilated. Have respect for your name, for it will stand by you more than thousands of precious treasures"). For this idea in Ben Sira see Segal 1936:24 note 3. 31 The idea of the benefit and gain that result from a good woman recurs several times in Ben Sira, e.g. 26: 1-3 [C] 1'0' ,El001 il'll:::l ',tDl( il:::l11::l iltDl( ... j1'll:::l' ltDin ,'n ntDl( !:I',El:l (= "Happy is the husband of a good wife, twice lenghened are his days; A worthy wife brings joy to her husband"). For this idea in Ben Sira see Segal 1953:272; Oi Lelia 1987:471. In Proverbs as well, we find in chapter 31, the hymn known as "Woman of valour". The hymnist praises the good woman, and in verse 23 he describes the honor that her husband is given due to her merit: r,l( ':Jpr!:lll 1n:::ltD:::l il'll:::l!:l',lltD:::llli1:J (= Her husband is known in the gates, When he sitteth among the elders of the land"). 32 On p"tDn in Hif'i1 with the meaning "desired" see Segal 1953:272. For the meaning "devoted" see Smend 1906b:377; Oi Lelia 1987:463,472. 33 In support of BOB, 365-366, see Ben YehudaI908:4.1808-181O. In support of HAL 1:348, see Loewenstamm 1968:3.274-275. For a discussion of p"tDn as parallel to :::l"j1l( in biblical wisdom literature and Ben Sira see Hurvitz 1991:105.

64

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

l:I'nelrv p,rvn" = "to purse the lipS,,34. In QH this root is found only in Qal, with the meaning "to want"35. In Aramaic of Targum Jonathan this root occurs only in Peal, with the meaning "to bandage","to saddle"36. Thus whereas the root p"rvn may be common to BH, QH, MH, Aramaic and Ben Sira, the Hifil of this root is unique to Ben Sira. Note that the conjugations Piel and Pual, which appear in BH in the context of technical building terms, are not found at all in the post-biblical sources.

34 For p"lzm in MH see Jastrow 1903:511; Ben Yehuda 1908:4.1809. Note that Jastrow, contrary to Ben Yehuda, did not divide p"lzm into two homonyms. 35 Forp"wn in QH see Fitzmyer 1988 vol. 1:750. 36 For the conjugation of the root p "wn in Aramaic see J astrow 1903 :511. The meaning in Aramaic is identical with the meaning in Hebrew "to saddle" (= W1:ln??,. For example 2 Sam 19:27 ...i10n'? i1W:lmt ... (= " .. .1 will saddle me an ass ... ).

RWQMHIN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT AND PS 139:15 John Elwolde (Oxford) The form JWqmh at 4QDe [4Q270] 7 i 14 has so far evaded explanation. Lines 13-14 run as follows: m':::ltl:i1 '?lJ 1[''?' 1rvtl:' vacat rvJlJJ, n,Qtl:i1 '?lJ [Otl:,) :::l,rv' tI:'?, i11lJi1 1Q [n'?rv') fl1n:::l i1QP'1 n[,jQtI:'? 1'tI: ':> O'Q' [n)1rvlJ vacat [i11lJi1). I

In this paper I attempt an explanation of the form. For previous interpretations and discussions, see Appendix I. At Ps 139: 15, the hapax 'nQP1 is found, pointed by the Masoretes as a Puca], 'r-19i?l, of a verb otherwise only attested in the Qal particirle (OJ?'1) in an apparently quite unrelated sense, 'embroiderer.' In the preceding colon, the Masoretes have vocalized 1 The reading is that of Baumgarten 1996:163. Wacholder & Abegg (1991:46) treat DJD's column 7 as column 11 and read as follows: ,h1:::!~il "11 [vacat

tDJl1[J1J n11~~il

"11

[0~1 i1l1J J1tD' ~"1 ilil1il )0 [~~'1J 11m:::! ilOP1' n[1]o~" 1'~ ';' 0'0' [n]itDl1 vacat [il"~' ilil1ilJ.

I am grateful to Charlotte Hempel for drawing my attention to rwqmh and to the German translation by Maier and for supplying me with a pre-print of her paper (Hempel 1997:347 n. 54) in which she briefly surveys the renderings of rwqmh. I am also indebted to the following participants at the Beer-Sheva meeting who commented on aspects of the paper, some at length, and whose remarks I have tried to incorporate in this slightly expanded version: Takamitsu Muraoka, Elisha Qimron, Jim Kugel, Jan Joosten, Moshe Bar-Asher, Bill Schniedewind, Avigdor HUfOvitz, Avi Gold. My thanks also to Rosemarie Kossov of Sheffield for helping me with various aspects of research for this paper. 2 The tenth-century lexicographer, Mena\lem ben Saruq (Saenz-Badillos 1986:356*), who divides the lemma op, into 'embroidery' and 'emptiness' meanings (cf. Smith's analysis of 4QNarrC, in the preceding note), does explicitly link oj?'" il~~1;l with both 'l'lQ~1 and il1;lP'iJ ;.,-,~~ (at Ezek 17:3; see below). It is not clear that Menabem understood 'nop' as a verb at Ps 139:15, but this interpretation is explicit in a thirteenth-century lexicographical work (Saenz-BadilJos 1987:194*). The form at Ps 139:15 has long troubled exegetes and lexicographers. Thus, (AbU IbrahIm Isbaq) ibn BarOn, in his late eleventhcentury work The Book of Comparison between the Hebrew and the Arabic

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

66

the form 'n'rDll as, again, a Pu cal and a hapax, 't:l'~.P,. 3 Thus, the MT reads as follows: '~9.~ 't:l'~.P,-'ip~ 190 'O~~ 'lJ=?r~" :n~

ni'i1/!I:9

'I:19~"1.

RSV renders this: "my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." However, the Greek here has a rather different reading: OUK EKpU~ll TO 60TOUV jl.ou (mo OOU, 0 ElTO( llaas EV KPUiJ, Kat. 11 im6aTaalS jl.OU EV Tills KaTWTClTW TT1S yTlS, which Brenton4 rendered: "My bones which thou madest in secret were not hidden from thee, nor my substance,5 in the lowest parts of the earth." The Greek here seems to have read, for the second Masoretic verb, (il)D't41~ or perhaps "4n't41.p, (with suffix resumptive of l:l~ll). Then, for what appears in MT as a third verb, 'no~'")., parallel with the second, 't:l'~.P" LXX, instead, and equally plausibly from the perspective of style and syntax, interprets as a second subject, parallel to 'o~~, of the first verb in the verse, 'IJ:;>~. The closing adverbials 'in secret' and 'in the depths of the earth' are, of course, parallel in both Greek and Hebrew readings. The Greek noun that stands in place of the MT verb 'i19~"1, namely im6aTamS" is analysed by Arndt and Gingrich,6 who do not cite our text, as "1. substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality (oft. in contrast to what merely seems to be ... ) ... 2. confidence, conviction, assurance, steadfastness." Now, the Languages, has: ''opi. 0P"'1 (Ex 26.36) = [raqim], 'one who streaks (clothes);'

't;lQi?1 (Ps 139.15) is used metaphorically" (Wechter 1964: 122; cf. ibid., 232 n. 847: "So Saadia; Risaiah, 83 [on Ez 16.13]; and DbA, ii. 628.38 ff. 'nop"'!, however, Saadia rendered by [~uwwirtu], 'I was fashioned,' undoubtedly following the Targum [n'i't!l~~], and so DbA, ii. 628.40-42, and Saadia Ibn Danan [U$ul, 802.32]; cf. also U$ui, 689.6 [Rg 2], and Richter, 14.9"). Contrast the 1988 Arabic Bible (053) of the United Bible Societies, which has waruqimtu. 3 The form was employed in morphological analogy by mediaeval grammarians, e.g. the late tenth-century (970-990) lehudi ben Sheshet (Varela Moreno 1981:24*): :l1n~;, 10 mV1110 ,mVllO 10 iO~' ~,?;, i01~ 'J~1 ;,~o llUJ 'n'J111 '~ ''? :l1t!l '?prvo::J ,inO::J 'n'tZ"ll itD~ :n'tVl11 10 iO~J P ~~1110 ;'::JpJ'?1 .;'Jl110l o';,,?~

. ;,t91110 mZnllO

Brenton 1851:781-82. Cf. Vulgate: et substantia mea, a literal eqUivalent of the Greek. 6 Bauer 1957:854b. 4

5

ELWOLDE: RWQMH IN THE DAMASCUS DocuMENT

67

semantic range represented by the first series of senses cited here is neatly parallel, antithetically, to I:J~~ as that which is both visible and tangible; thus, God's creation of both the outer form and the inner character of a human being are expressed. It has sometimes been suggested, among others by H. Bardtke inBHS, that the Greek here rests not on 'nop', but on 't:l9Pl (or 't:!9ipl)· Now if iT9iP could be understood, figuratively, as 'status' rather than 'height,' then it would indeed be a plausible retroversion from the Greek. However, with the possible exception of Ezek 13:18, iT9ip-'?f rzi~'-'?.!:', where iT9ip could conceivably signify 'estate (of person)' (LXX: E1TL TTCIO'av K€cI>a~:rlv miO'T)S T}ALKLas, 'upon every head of every age'), 7 iT9iP is only found in the Bible in the sense of the 'height' of a person or thing and is nowhere (else) rendered by LXX as iJ1T60'TaO'Ls. 8 Now, if LXX did not read 'no,p' here it seems best to stick with the evidence of the Hebrew text and to assume that the LXX translators did have in front of them the grapheme 'nop1, which they interpreted, not unnaturally, as a feminine noun with Ics possessive suffix, i.e. 't:l9Pll't:l9Pl, not as a Ics perfect verb. 9 For practical purposes, this form was probably only distinguishable phonologically from the Masoretic 'r:J9P-l by the reversal of a and zero after the first consonant-vowel sequence, and would have represented a reasonably common noun, iT9RlIO (Judg 5:30; Cf. Vulgate: (et faciunt cervicalia) sub capite universae aetatis. LSJ, 1895a, list imOOTaO"LS in our text along with two others, one of them the beginning of Contra Apionem, as meaning "coming into existence, origin" (contrast Bauer 1957:854b and W. Whiston's translation). Briggs & Briggs (1907:2.497) seem to have had this sense in mind when they comment on the LXX reading that it "involves either the conception of the creation of the human body in Sheol, the abode of the dead, beneath the earth, with the suggestion of preexistence, a thought elsewhere unknown to the OT and improbable in itself; or else the conception that the womb is the underworld, which has no usage to justify it, even if we regard the conception as virtually a metaphor." Such an understanding seems to be defended by (Keil &) Delitzsch (1980:349), when he compares Quran, Surah 39:5: yaQIuqukum fi butiini >ummahatikum l]alqan min Madi 1.JaJqin fi ~Jumatin lalalirr, see also Dahood 1970,295; Jacquet 1979:3.622. The association elsewhere of the rll$ ni'f:1Dt:l with death has given rise to the emendation il'J:;ljl'l ... in'U)~ 'you made it ... you let it rot' (reported in Allen 1983:252). Weiser (1962:806): "The poet apparently uses here the ancient mythological idea of the earth, the mother of all living things" (cf. Buttenwieser 1938:540-41; Jacquet 1979:3.622). 9 The presence ofrl 'and' in LXX is problematic; perhaps there was a mistaken transposition Ofp~i > P":!l or perhaps the conjunction was inserted for purely stylistic reasons. 10 With the initiallJireq in the Tiberian tradition. But see Appendix 2. 7

8

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

68

Ezek 16:10, 13; 17:3; 27:7, 16, 24; 1 Chron 29:2), found, as here, in suffixed forms: ln9P"'! (Ezek 16: 18) and c~P"'! (Ezek 26:16); note also the dual c~lJ9P"'! (Judg 5:30) and plural ni0p."'1 (Ps 45:15). For the same text, Ps 139:15, the Psalms Scroll from Qumran, llQPs8 (llQ5) 20:6-7 has: ,nO::l (7) 'n'tD,U 'tDK il'OO '::l~'u 1n'J K''? n1'nnn::l 'nop'" II The most striking feature of this text, as it concerns us, is that whereas the form corresponding to the second MT verb, 'l}'~.p, is spelt without a vowel-letter in the first syllable, the form corresponding to the third MT verb, 'i:1~P-1, is so spelt, with a waw.1t seems unlikely that both these forms were apprehended as in MT, i.e. as Pucal, for then we might have expected consistency in orthography in parallel structures.12 The parallelism suggests, then, that the form 'n'tD,U in line 6 is not a Pucal, but a Qal, 'l}'fQ.y, a reading that would agree with LXX in voice but not in person, which led Sanders (1965:41) to suggest the reading in'fQ.p, 'rq~ 'which you made,' as LXX, although this particular form is not attested anywhere in the Bible. In fact, as I shall suggest below (Appendix 2) the form with final yod gives good sense. Now, once a Pucal interpretation has been abandoned in respect of 'n'w'u it is less tenable, again on grounds of parallelism, in respect of the following 'rnp", in which case it makes sense to understand the form here, as in LXX, as a noun,13 'n1;lPl or 'n1;lPl

r'K

Sanders 1965:41. More generally, the evidence of the orthography in this column of llQPsa is somewhat equivocal. Indeed, of the three exceptions to the PttaJ with waw and the three exceptions to Tiberian qiime$ biituP with waw noted by Sanders (1965:10), four (two from each category) occur in column 20. In line 3, the writer uses a vowel-letter for MT qibbu$ in '~:;?91;1 (verse 13) and c7~ (verse 16; line 8). Even though in lines 7, 8, 14, and 15 (MT verses 16, 23, 24), MT 'O,?~, ~,~: (PlJaJ), 'nplJ (QaJ imperative), and ~ll are all spelt without a waw (for Tiberian qibbu$ and qiime$ biitiip), the layout of the text suggests that the second of these four forms was understood as i'~f 'his creation' and in the fourth it is probable that the common form ~-t' 'idol', in the sense of 'bad thought' (see below, note 23) was understood. In the case of 'nap'} it might also not be unfair to raise the possibility that Sanders's assumption that the preceding'M'tDll is a PlJaJ, and, more generally, that the text corresponds, semantically, with MT, has influenced his reading of the second letter as a waw rather than a yod (but see Appendix 2). 13 Interpretation of'nap' at Ps 139:15 as a noun is also apparently seen '9\,1 ,.,~ (Ben Yehuda in a poem of Ibn Gabirol, 'nr;lp"! c~l 'O,?~ '0; 1959:6735b [my vocalization]) 'one great of loyalty, who established my embryo and my foetus too,' where the parallelism with c,~ makes a derivation II

12

'tt'' '

ELWOLDE: RWQMH IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT

69

(as against Tiberian *'~i).14 I can trace no philological evidence for Tiberian ii9Pi developing the sort of meaning represented by inr6crTacrlS. However, I believe this meaning, which seems to have been shared by the Septuagint translators and the Qumran writers, may have arisen from scrutiny of other biblical texts with nonsingular-absolute forms of the noun ii9Pi. Morphologically closest to the *'t:1QPi of our Psalms text are the 1lJ9Pi '1P of Ezek 16: 18 and the ot;l9Pi '1P of Ezek 26: 16. Both these sequences occur in contexts in which the absolute form ii9Pi is well-attested apparently in the well-known sense of "variegated stuff (woven or embroidered)" (BDB, 955b), i.e. 'embroidery' or 'brocade' (see Ezek 16:10, 13; 27:7, 16, 24). However, in the second text in particular, Ezek 26:16, which describes the lamentation of the kings of the sea for Tyre, the preceding 'came down from their thrones' and 'removed their robes' could lead one to surmise that the ii9Pi in the l:ll)9Pi '1P that the kings are then said to strip off does not describe so much the make of their clothes, 'their garments of embroidery,' as their symbolism, 'the garments of their status,'15 which would describe the preceding l:l'~'.l)~ in a chiastic structure: ~t!lt9~' l:ll)9Pi '1p-n~1l:liJ''7.'.v~-n~ ~"O;::q. Such a sense could also fit at Ezek 16: 18, which describes from Ps 139 likely. Contrast the verbal usage derived from the same biblical ni'n,!lJ~ ~0p.'1 nim.p, r::r'O~iJ?~ (Even-Shoshan passage by Judah Halevi: 1980:2568b). The use of niJ~'.!l 'flower beds' here marks a development in the semantics of;'lr,lp' that is also apparently represented by the title of Jonah ibn Janiib's Kitiib al-Lum;f, 'Book of the flower beds,' as translated by Judah ibn Tibbon under the title of Sefer ha-Riqmah, although Ibn JanaMbn Tibbon says that the usage represents a borrowing from the clothing context (see Saenz-Badillos 1991:116; Saenz-Badillos & Targarona Borras n.d.:135). The title was perhaps chosen to complement the lexical sequel, Kitiib al-U~bl, or Sefer ha-Shorashim, 'roots' and 'flowers' being an integrated whole, just as these two works were integrated into Ibn Janiib's Kitiib al-Tancpi) (Sefer ha-Diqducj). Lane (1877:3013b-c) gives the meaning of the verb lamcta as "It (lightning, &c) shone; shone brighdy; gleamed; glistened' and the noun lunia as "A shining, glistening, or glossy, appearance, [or hue,] of the body ... any colour different from another colour [in which it is]". 14 See Appendix 2. 15 There is an intriguing echo of the usage in Ezekiel in a poem of Samuel Hanagid (c. 993-1056), Tehi11ah1l1 h t;f as beJfol siiniih pee iihm (1039), in which line 50a runs ;'lr,lPl' m"o fli~::l7 [:I~~:!70~, which Saenz-Badillos & Targarona Borras (1988:22) render "vestfan regiamente, con bordados" ('they dressed regally, with embroiderings'). On my interpretation, the meaning would be: 'and their clothing was the clothing of royalty and leadership.'

nl$

70

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

Jerusalem's adulterous/idolatrous attentions to other deities, although here the use of il1rl?' in verses 10 and 13 within a series of expensive dress materials makes a 'status/authority' sense less plausible. Ps 45:15, where the plural, n;0p.l, occurs, is especially interesting for the development of the meaning of il1rl?' that I am proposing. Verses 14 to 16 read as follows: :j:J~~:::I7 :::Iv! n;~~~~o ill;1'~~ 179-n:;l ill~~-":f v't.l;'v'1 v'lO~ n;"~n~ 1~? ":;l~n n;0p.l7

:179 "~'iJ~

:1~ n;~~~o

ilt~jt;1 "'~1 nhl;1~:;l il~7:;l~n

If we respect MT here, I suggest the following rendering: 'all glory, 0 daughter of a king, is inside; plaited with gold is her garment; by acts of authority she will be brought to the king, with virgins, her companions, following her, being brought to you; they will be led with displays of joy and (with) rejoicing, they will come into the palace of (the) king.' Of course, it is possible thatn;0p.l7 'belongs' to the clothing description that ends verse 14, with the otherwise unattested n;0p.l parallel to n;~~~o and 7, of possession, parallel to partitive 10 (n;0p.l7 might even be, then, an explanatory gloss on n;~~~~). But as the text stands,'6 the position of n;0p.l7 at the beginning of verse 15 suggests parallelism with the clearly abstract terms, il'~:::1~ (which LXX interprets as j:Jl;:::I~ [f] 86l;a avTfJs]) and ilr:rl?~. The fact that both ilf?p'"'1 and ilr:rl?~ are found in the plural, indicating 'realizations, or instances, of' a particular quality (cf. !:l"90, n;o:;>r:r),11 is significant, because it seems to draw ill;1P' into the morphological pattern of abstract nouns, whereas there is no clear rationale for ill;1p," to be pluralized if it simply has its normal meaning of 'embroidery.' The parallelism also supports a close connection between ";nn n;0p.l7 and nhl;1~:;l il~7:;l~n 'by acts of authority she will be led ... they will be led with displays of joy'; replace 'authority' with 'embroidered pieces' and you lose semantic motivation for such parallelism. Thus far, though, we are still struggling to find a clear reason why Tiberian 'i:1~iPl should have been rendered by LXX as 'Ii iJ1TOaTaalS !-lou, as we have found no versional evidence for such a change in any of the other passages presented. However, 16 That the text has been corrupted during transmission is suggested, inter alia, by the presence in LXX of the words lTl:Pl~€~ATJ~EVTJ 1T€1TOlKl~EVTJ, both at the end of v. 10, where they have no MT equivalent, and at the boundary ofvv. 14-15, where they correspond to MT's nicp.l" : i'J~'07. 17 See especially Jotion (Muraoka) 1993: § 136 g, i (n. 1); also GKC §

124 d-f.

71

ELWOLDE: RWQMH IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT

there is one last biblical text with ;'9P', which does yield some clear versional evidence. Ezek 17:3 describes Nebuchadrezzar under the figure of an eagle: ;'~;~iJ

tII?9 '~~v ll~ t:l'~PiJ '?;''P '?;'~iJ '!p'~iJ l;J~,?iJ-'?~ tII~ ;'9Piv ;'?-'!p.~

Here, almost uniquely (with the exception of 1 Chron 29:2)/8 unless feathers are regarded as garments, there is no context of clothing for ;'9Pi, which looks odd, in any case, because of the attached article, a morphological signal, like the plural already noted at Ps 45:15, of an abstract noun. Modern commentators and translators try to make a connection with the clothing use (e.g. NEB: 'in full plumage, richly patterned'), but this is forced. LXX, however, rendered ;'9Piv ;'?-'!p.~ as Cs E;xEl TO fn'rl.i.a 'who has leadership. ,)9 18 The context of usage in 1 Chron 29:2 is reflected in modern Hebrew, according to Sivan & Levenston 1975:647a: "ilT;lpi embroidery; mosaic (of stones); tissue (of cells, plant or animals)." The third sense provided here reflects Mishnaic usage. Cf. (Keil and) Delitzsch 1980:349: '1:lj::l1, 'to be worked in different colours, or also embroidered,' of the system of veins ramifying the body, and of the variegated colouring of its individual members, more particularly of the inward parts; perhaps, however, more generally with a retrospective conception of the colours of the outline following the undeveloped beginning, and of the forming of the members and of the organism in general"; ibid., n. *: "In the Talmud the egg of a bird or of a reptile is called rY;lP19, when the outlines of the developed embryo are visible in it; and likewise the mole (mola) when traces of human organization can be discerned in it." (The Chambers Dictionary, 1038a, defines 'mole' as "an abnormal mass of tissue formed in the uterus ... [L. mola millstone].") If'l'1r:lj?l has such a sense at Ps 139: 15 this usage might be associated with that of in the sense of 'knitting' limbs together at v. 13 (cf. Job 10.11); Symmachus appears to have read the same verb at v. 11, albeit in its regular sense of 'cover, screen' (fmuKETTCI(ElV; cf. Lam 3:43,44; see H. Bardtke in BHS, Briggs & Briggs [1907:2.500]). See note 13, above, for a further semantic development. 19 LSJ, 763b, separate a first usage, "that which guides," listed in only one source, from a second, represented solely by our passage, which they render as "thought, purpose" (LSJ relate this sense to ';'YEO~Ul III, "believe, hold" [ibid.]; cf. Brenton 1851:998, "which had the design of entering into Libanus" fOs EXEl TO ilYTl~a €iUEA8E'iv €is TOV Atf3avov D. One wonders if LXX's choice of the hapax ilYTl~a has been influenced by its phonetic Similarity tOilT;lPl;:T (cf. Tur-Sinai on Ps 68:28, in note 22, below). The Vulgate assumes a development from the regular sense of ilT;lPl (plena plumis et varietate). On the Hebrew text, note HOlscher 1924:97, "In 173 betrachte ich ilr:lpiil ,., itD~ als Glosse, die das seltene il~'J unrichtig erklart und vielleicht von ~J (r'J) ufunkeln', ,bltihen' ableitete," and Zimmerli 1969:373, "~ miBdeutet ilYTl~a, 1(c ducatum." Zimmerli cites Driver 1954:152: " ~., itD~ ilr:lpiil 'which had no markings' rather than 'divers colours' (R.V.); for the

'h,o

72

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

For this usage, earlier commentatorSW compared the LXX's translation ofCOO~"') at Ps 68:28. That text reads a.s follows in the Hebrew: :,'?~~ '"1~ p"~~ '"1~

ooon iil~ii~ '"1~ 0"

".!l~ l~~P ~.

LXX (but not 'the Three') translates the relevant portion as apxovTfS' Iou8a T)YEIJ.6vES abTwv, which BHS suggests derives from Hebrew c;::nt,. But such a change to the underlying text is unnecessary in view of the evidence we have accumulated, for it now becomes clear, as we previously suggested in the absence of versional evidence, that the noun iiltP"') (which one MS actually reads at Ps 68:28), perhaps in part due to confusion with iiq~' (because of voice/voiceless neutralization), had developed a sense of 'authority, leadership, status,' expressed in Greek by T)'Y'llJ.a at Ezek 17:3 and by lJ1T6aTams at Ps 139:15. The semantic processes underlying this development are probably to do with metonymy of expensive clothing/covering and the power represented by if I as well as, perhaps, with a sense of the meaning of the root '...JcJ, as 'speak: (with authority)', a meaning previously considered as lost to the Hebrew of the Bible, although wellattested, indirectly, in Aramaic m~l(1 and, of course, very clearly in Ugaritic (and Akkadian); perhaps compare also biblical (Qal and Nif'al) 'complain.>22 It is my opinion, then, that the Scrolls writers were aware of both senses of iiltP' (or for them iiltP"1). The clothing sense, 'embrOidery,' seems to be well-attested throughout the writings. The other sense, 'authority, leadership, status,' known by the Greek translators of the Bible and with which this paper has concerned itself, is, I believe, indicated by the divergence from the Mf ofPs 139:15 in llQPsa 20:5-6,23 and is used independently,

-vp,

plumage of the itziJ is an uniform brown ... i11:lpi refers to the patterning, not the colour, of the bird's plumage." Driver also comments (ibid., 152, n.4): "The article is odd; ought i19PliJ to be read?," i.e. the Hof'al perfect 3fs. Tur-Sinai (Ben Yehuda 1959:6736a) understands both Ps 45:15 and Ezek 17:3 (along with Judg 5:30) as representing instances of i19Pi in the sense of 'booty' or 'prisoners'; thus, apparently, 'you will be led to the king like captives of war (are led)' and 'who had (great) booty.' 20 E.g. Cornill 1886:272; Cooke 1936:186. 21 Compare perhaps pph1:l 'staff' > 'ruler' (if this is a true reflection of the semantic facts); similarly, ~::;l~ 'staff' > 'sceptre' > (perhaps via merger with ~~) 'ruler' (Gen 49: 10; cf. LXX). 22 See Appendix 3. 23 I suggest that at 11 Q Ps' 20: 5, inO:l 'n'tllll itD~ i1:::l1:l1:l ':l~ll ,n:::lJ ~,,, be interpreted as 'my thoughts, which I enacted in secret, were not hidden from you', (1) retaining the final i)ireq on 'n'tDll rather than interpreting the form as

ELWOLDE: RWQMH IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT

73

in sectarian composition at 4QI1 [4Q270] 7 i 14?4 I would venture further that the expression i10P'" n[1]O~'? r~ 'J 11nJ unconsciously echoes not only the collocational patterning found at Ps 139:15, n;'i'1nlJ~ 'i'19Rl., but also the usage at Ezek 17:3, i11tP'iJ ;'?-,~~. Nebuchadrezzar had i11tPi, the ladies of Qumran did not. Even if the Scrolls do not describe a celibate community, women members in some sense 'didn't count.' A murmurer against the mothers is fined for (just) ten days, for mothers have no 'essential being,' 'authority,' or 'status' in the midst of the community, that is to say, they' count for nothing' or 'have no (intrinsic) right to be' there. 25 second person with suffix, for it makes sense that what is hidden from you is something that I have done, not something that you yourself have done, and (2) interpreting ':::l~l) not as the hapax :::l~,t) 'vessel, shape', but as the common :::l~.v (':;l~,t) 'idol,' used here, I would argue, in the sense of .,~';>" at 1QH 4:15,19; lQS 2:11, etc., namely 'bad thought, false conception.' Probably this is the same sense :::l~l) had for the 11 QPs' writer at v. 24 (LXX civOIlI.U; see Allen 1983:253, on MT :::l~ll, and Tournay 1966:261, cited by Allen), where the 'two ways' of earlier cultic practice (see Wiirthwein 1957:173- 74) now reflect Qumran dualism. The singular verb is unproblematic as it precedes the subject; otherwise. the noun would need to be pointed as an elsewhere unattested singular: "":::l~,t). In any case, I would suggest that the following nl'nnn fil(:::l 'nop"" be interpreted as '(when) my essential being/nature was in the depths of the earth' (perhaps reflecting the common Scrolls, especially Hodayot, motif of humankind as mere dust), with 'n/tP~i or 'n/tpii being understood as equivalent tOim6UTUULS', or, better, that the Septuagint and the DSS writers shared an interpretation of this Hebrew sequence. (Abegg, Flint, & Ulrich (1999:574-75) translate ':::l~ll in verse 15 as "my pain", and :::l~ll 1i., in verse 24 as "offensive way," the latter meaning presumably derived, as in BDB, 780b, from the former, and render both 'mVl) and 'nop1i in verse 15 as passives (cf. note 12, above: "My pain is not hidden from you, by whom I was made in secret, intricately woven together in the depths of the earth.") 24 Why writers not far distant in time from the sectarians apparently understood the form at Ps 139: 15 quite differently, in connection with foetal development (as evidenced by the mishnaic and later tannaitic use of--Jopi, in Picel, Plfal, and Hili/; cf. note 18, above) we shall not attempt to answer here. 25 It has been claimed that the 'fathers' and 'mothers' in our text represent honorific titles, although the evidence from 4QRitMar [4Q502] that Schuller (1994:122-23) adduces for parallel male-female honorifics is weak (with the possible exception of[n]1Jpt [o]'Jpt .,10:::l at 4QRitMar [4Q502] 24:4). Even if 'mothers' does constitute a term of respect, it does not imply full membership. Were it to do so, which is the route that Schuller attempts to pursue, there would seem to be a contradiction between membership and lack of rwqmh. Davies & Taylor (1996:229) make the point, contra Schuller, that "[t]he presence of women ... in the congregation of 1QSa does not necessarily

74

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

Appendix 1. Other approaches to rwqrnh This appendix presents earlier translations and discussions of the fonn 1Wqmh in this text and in two other Scrolls texts published in the 1990s, before signalling some alternatives to my proposals, made at the Beer-Sheva meeting. Translations of 1Wqmh and the immediately preceding text include the following: "for the mothers have no such esteem within [the congregation" (Cook 1996:73); "denn den Mfitt[er]n geziemt keine Einordnung (1Wqmh)" (Maier 1995:229); "Wohl von rqm abgeleiteter tenninus technicus filr eine feste Anordnung" (ibid., n. 345); "For the Mothers have no distinction (1Wqmh?) within [the congregation" (Vermes 1995:116); "because for mothers there is no mingling (?) in the midst of the [the congregation" (Garcia Martinez 1994:66) (However, this translation of the Spanish original [Garcia Martinez 1993:114] is at least misleading: mezcJa is a straightforward noun, not a gerundive, etc., meaning 'mixture,' presumably in reference to 'mixed cloth' or 'embroidery,' Le. to biblical iT9P". Also, the Spanish original has the article before 'mothers' ["las madres"], which should have been retained in translation). The official edition has "authoritative status (?)" (Baumgarten 1996:164). "The translation ofiTr~p'" is suggested by the context. In 4QShirShabb and 11 QShirShabb the word is used for embroiimply 'full' membership." Davies & Taylor also stress (ibid., 225) that the status of women in the yabad is not necessarily the same as the status they have (or do not have) in the cedah. It is this latter organization that is represented both in lQSa and, overwhelmingly in CD and 4QD: yahad in the sense required is only found at 4QDe [4Q270] 3 iii 19 + 4QDf [4Q271] 2:7, in'ii 't!)oooo (Baumgarten 1996:151, 173), although the presence of yabad in a text (4QD e ) in which cedah is clearly attested at least three times tends to go against the division between the two entities that Davies & Taylor emphasize. In MS B of CD itself, at CD 20:1,14,32, i'n'ii is usually understood not as i'n:iJ 'the unique one' but as ilJ~iJ 'the community.' Davies (1982: 179), defends this interpretation primarily because of the usage at 20:32, where "i'n'ii 'tZ}j~ seems to mean 'men of the community'" (thus even Schwartz [1995:37], who interprets as "unique" in the other two passages; i'n'ii is explicitly altered to ilJ~iJ on each occasion by Qimron [1992] 47-49; Rabin [1958:36-43] gives both possibilities throughout). However, as Davies argues (ibid., 175), the use of the term in' in CD 20 is but one of the features indicating that "the community behind all the material in this section is a different one from that which produced the rest of the Admonition" and "is to be attributed to the Qumran community" (ibid., 173), which, therefore, represents "a splinter-group" (ibid., 176; cf. 175). See as well Davies 1995:140.

ELWOLDE: RWQMH IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT

75

dered figures, and in 4Q405 the phrase ,,:J;:' nop" occurs, but there is no apparent etymological connection with the sense required here" (ibid., 166). "That women had some form of corporate status within the community may be inferred from the mention of an order of 'Sisters', m'n~, in 4Q502. If the Sisters had some relationship with the Mothers we do not know, but the latter were ostensibly expected to be treated with deference. Failure to do so was a punishable offence, although not with the severe penalty of expulsion which was applied in the case of the Fathers. The differentiation is explained as due to the Mothers not having i1opn, a term which elsewhere means 'embroidery', but here apparently signifies authoritative status within the community. It thus appears that the penal code, which in the Community Rule seems to reflect the discipline of an all male order, was capable of being also applied to a SOCiety in which both men and women took part in communal life" (ibid., 8).

In the concordance to Baumgarten's edition, the form is listed under the lemma i1~Pl (ibid., 232), analogous to i1~~1J 'wisdom' (cf. Appendix 2, below). Wacholder, Abegg, & Bowley (1996: 330b) list our word under the lemma "mixing, embroidered cloth (1). n. i10P"," along with the same form, i10P", at 4QNarrC [4Q462] 1:5 (Wacholder & Abegg 1995:350/Smith 1995:198, both of which read: jnp" ';:' ,.J;:,'i1 i10P" o,O[). Smith (1995: 199) notes i10P" as another possible reading and renders (ibid., 200): "With embroidered robe we went for taking." Contrast Garcia Martinez 1994:226: "we were emptyhanded; for, to seize" (where "were" represents a misunderstanding of the Spanish original, 1993:279, "fuimos," which, in view of the underlying Hebrew, clearly means 'went,' fuimos being the past of both somos 'we are' and vamos 'we go'); Cook 1996:401: "to Rekem we went, for [... ] was taken"). Smith 1995:201-202 has an extended note onlWqmh, rich in ideas and bibliography (the latter omitted here)-"One interpretation of i10P" is to identify it with i10P" in 1QM V 6, 9, 14; VII 10; 4Q179 1 ii 12, where the word refers to embroidery ... In the description of Jerusalem as the bride of YHWH in Ezekiel 16, Jerusalem wears a robe called i19P" [vowels supplied] (vv 10, 13 and 18). 4QpIsaa 7-10 iii 24 connects the "', no~ with 'a throne of glory, a crown of holiness and embroidered garments ([nl'op'" '1J:J), ... Themes appropriate to Jerusalem and the restoration of Israel appear later in this fragment, and it would be possible to view i10P'" in this light."

76

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

"If ilCP" were the correct reading. a possible allusion to or play on Exod. 3:21 might be involved. The biblical verse contains *!:Jp' and *,':m: Cj?'l ~::>,?lJ K? P::>?'lJ ':;l iI:Ol [vowels and paragogic nun supplied]. Accordingly one might translate 'J:>?iI ilOP" in line 5: 'empty-handed we went'. The form ilop" consists of three elements: (1) the adjectival base. *req (spelled riqwithout sufformatives , Cl'nJ Cl'n,no nJiOi1 'they shall have doors, receptacles for the vessels of the altar' at 11QT 33:13; [Cli1'mo]iDJ m:> 'iD~ 'who were called by their names' at 4QN etinim [4Q340] 1:2; pm "0"0 'trained in statutes' at lQM 19:10; nm:>' at lQS 3:6 and 'E)':> at llQT 17:2 and 63:7 ('E)':>'); ",i1' (for -'7i.T~) at lQH 11:25; PP'iO at lQH 5:16 and 'PP'iO at lQH 14:3; Cl'~J'nO at lQH 8:6; ppmo (for PRtT9) at 4Q417 2 i 15 and 'pp,no at 4QShirShabbf [4Q405]

ELWOLDE: RWQMH IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT

79

19:5; f,mo at lQM 5:9; r:n,o at lQM 5:11; "~'r at CD 12:16, and perhaps m,n'iio at 4QpUnid [4Q172] 10 and en,n at lQH 8:11 and fro 11:3. Instances of plene Pu'al in Ben Sira are ,tzrl~, at 11:27, ,.0,:1' at 36:30, 1""0 at 16:15, r~n[iilo at 13:22, ':1,n' at 13:16, 17, tD~"O at 47:23, iiO'~' at 12:8, iiO'~O' at 3:21 (MS A), 1".o,~o at 11:2 (MS A) and 13:22. There are also numerous instances of a Pu'al being spelt without vowel-letter in Ben Sira and the non-biblical scrolls (e.g. np, at lQH 12:27, ,:1)0 at lQH 3:24, ,:1, at Sir 36:20), although the morphological categorization of such forms is often uncertain. The use of Pu'al forms of verbs previously not found in this binyan, at 11QT 33:13 and lQM 5:9, 11 (and Sir 11:2,13:16,17,22; 36:30; 47:23) indicates the productivity of the Pu'al at least in the participle. Appendix 3. Rigmah (Ps 68:28) and gimel/kaf/qof interchange

BDB's interpretation (920b) of iir~n as 'heap (of stones, then) crowd (of people)' is derived from the verb t:ln (Arabic rajama) 'stone'. However, Hitzig (1863:1.86-87) derives "ihren Haufen" from Arabic rakama 'heap up', citing other instances of the interchange of Arabic kaf/jim and Hebrew gimel/kaf ('o,:?/jal}.ada; n'l~~/kibrit). Grill (1883:166) adds ...J?"tJ,~, to the list (cf. BDB, 940a) and provides a long list of scholars who have made proposals similar to that of Hitzig, declaring this solution, or emendation to t:ll)~~l, to be the best. Grill (ibid., 166-67) rejects earlier interpretation of t:ll)Q~' as 'their stone, rock' and thence 'their prince' or 'their strength', without mentioning that both of these metonymous senses are more akin to the LXX and Syriac (wcsallitanhiin) than 'heap, crowd'. For the meaning 'crowd', Delitzsch (1980:267) also adds the evidence of Akkadian ragmu in this sense and Arabic rajamun 'associate' (comparing 1'79 t:ln at Zech 7:2). In a most striking proposal that harks back to the Targum and Rashi, Graetz (1883:2.419) suggests reading ~l' '(Benjamin) pursuing them' (for preceding t:l1') and t:liJ9r1 '(the princes of Judah) stoned them,' 'them' being the enemy. Kekler (1899:146) despairs of finding a solution: ''t:ll)Q~' ,ihr Steinhaufe' is unverstandlich. Der Text ist verderbt, die Emendationen bis jetzt nicht gegltickt." Compare Wellhausen 1895:88: ''t:l" and t:lnOJ' of .:ffl are unintelligible and probably corrupt." Baethgen (1904:210) claims that "Das Wort kann ... nicht eine Menschenschar bedeuten, sondern nur einen Steinhaufen. Augenscheinlich ist mit Hupfeld zu lesen t:lI;1t?i~l ... 0 und tD konnten in der alten Schrift sehr leicht verwechselt werden." Kirkpatrick

80

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

(1904:393) has the seemingly adventurous "The princes of Judah and their council," but the note on the last three words "Or, company" suggests that he is simply taking the heap > throng idea one stage further. Chajes (1908:73) defends MT on the basis of Akkadian cognates: "And after Benjamin are the nobles of Judah in their multitude [bah~nam], which it appears is the sense of rgmtm, which I connect with rgm in Assyrian, meaning 'to call out,' and from this, ragmu, a noun, 'noisy multitude' [hamn siPn], for Judah was the most numerous [tribe]. If so, there is no need to emend to Cl;1~~l ... ; iIi Jerome in purpura sua emends to Cl;19Pl~, that is to say, 'in their precious garments'" (my translation). Buttenwieser (1938:30-31) has the eccentric "The chieftains of Judah in ecstasies", commenting that "for rigmathiun ... the original reading ... has been preserved by the Greek". However, I can find no justification for such a statement in any Greek text and can only assume that Buttenwieser's interpretation is based on a slip of the eye, which has transposed LXX EV EKO'TaoH from the preceding clause, describing Benjamin (MT r:::n', which Buttenwieser actually translates: "That treads down the enemy") to the next one, describing Judah. The rendering of Dahood (1968:149) is equally curious in that it does not take into account the common U garitic verb rgm here but instead, as at least one targum, relates t:JlJ~n to l~n~ 'purple': "in double file. A doubtful version of much contested rgmtm, which I parse as a feminine dual like Ugar. thmtm Juxta Hebraeos translates it in purpura sua, 'in their purple robes,' a version that merits consideration in view of the Northwest Semitic evidence for nouns appearing with or without prothetic aleph ... Thus in addition to 'argaman Ugar. agrmn, there may have been a feminine doublet *rgmf' (cf. Grill [1883:165], who gives a list of earlier scholars who linkct;19~! and 19r11:\). In view of Dahood's comments, Anderson (1972:496) may be wrong to equate Jerome's in purpura sua with the Hebrew MS reading t:JIj~P'l, although here Anderson follows in the steps of, inter alios, Delitzsch and Chajes (see above); Tur-Sinai (in Ben Yehuda 1959:6430b), thinks Jerome had either t:Jlj~P'l or t:J~~n~ in mind. It is perhaps of note that in Exodus l~n~ is five times defined, along with other materials, as t:JR' i1tP..P,~ (Exod 26:36; 27:16; 36:37; 38:18; 39:29; see also Exod 35:35; 38:23; Ezek 27:7, and especially Ezek 27:16: i1~P'll l~n~ (see below, on Tur-Sinai). Anderson also says that our word "is possibly

ELWOLDE: RWQMH IN THE DAMASCUS DOCUMENT

81

associated with the Ugaritic rgm ('to speak')" and mentions A. Johnson's emendation to r::JI;1 r::Jt" "honest-spoken". Like Dahood, Seybold (1996:262), who bases his note to verse 28 on HALAT, fails to mention the Ugaritic evidence: "[:Jnr::l~' unsichere Bedeutung: entweder von r::J~' ,Steinhaufen' ("Haufe") oder von akk. rigmu ,Ruf', ,Geschrei' (',Menge") abzuleiten." Tur-Sinai (in Ben Yehuda 1959:6430b) suggests that lil'EIl6vES alJTWV (and its semantic parallels in other versions) was arrived at by interpreting r::Jrn~' as a contracted representation of the Greek words. He also reports (ibid.) Abraham ibn Ezra's understanding of the word as 'their princes,' on the basis of the name 179 r::J~l at Zech 7:2. In the way of identification with Akkadian rigmu, Tur-Sinai introduces an obstacle of phonetic correspondence (the Akkadian word would be matched by Hebrew r::J-Pl 'thunder') before suggesting yet another emendation, this time to r::JI;1l~~, meaning 'all of them.' Segal (1927: § 59) claims that "~ interchanges with p = f', but gives little supporting evidence. The nearest parallel I have noticed to the case I have discussed is :JP':l and :J~':l in, respectively, the Band Masada MSS of Sir 43:20 (the sense intended seems to be closer to :J~l=? 'like a clot' than to :Ji?l=? 'like rottenness'). Less striking is ~1n (Sir 43: 12 [M]) for p1n 'circle' in MS B; cf. ~1n ip1n:;l 'when he described a circle,' at Prov 8:27 (as against iP1n~ 'when he gathered [the earth's foundations]' at v. 29). Other examples of the interchange that I have encountered include nElp (m. Bek 7:6) for n:J~ 'bald' and ~1~~ (targums) for 'Pt9 'almond.' Early travellers attempted to explain the name Qumran as biblical Gomorrah. With regard to the latter form, note Segert 1995 :73-74: "Die Postvelar /gJ wurde in der Septuaginta mit g- am Wortanfang ... und mit k anderswo angedeutet," citing ~aAciK (Gen 36:32111 Chron 1:43) and~aAEK (1 Chron 5:8) for MT l.'7~ as examples. Within Romance vocabulary, compare duke and doge, bark and barge, etc., and between Semitic and Romance, misjad and mezquita 'mosque', jamaJ and camel, etc. Instances of kaf-gime1 interchange may include the hapax ,:lO in the Pi ce1 at Isa 19:4 for ,~o Hiril 'hand over' elsewhere, and in the NiraJ at Gen 8:2 and Ps 63: 12 for ,~o Nif'aJ 'be closed' elsewhere, lo~ 'weave' for Arabic nasaja, ,~~ and '~J in Gen 6: 14 (cf. Hitzig, at the beginning of this note), etc. Qof-kaf interchange is found in, e.g., l.':J1P1 at Ezek 23:24 for l.':J1:l1 at 27: 10 and 38:5. Assimilation of voiceless qof to voiced mem could explain why the LXX translators and Scrolls scribes heard a gime1 rather than a qof (compare Sir 43:20), although, on the other hand, the presence of a back vowel u in

82

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

Qumran phonology should have tended to favour retention of uvular qofrather than velar gimel. From the Scrolls, Mansoor (1958:51-52) notes the lQIsaa reading "T)t~ for MT ',!~~ 'cruel,' at Isa 13:9 (although the form with kat is found twice in the Scrolls and four times in Ben Sira), n:l%1 at lQSb 5:27 for biblical n~ 'you will gore,' and O'J:l" a t lQS 11:1 for O'~~;, 'murmurers' at Isa 29:24 (a particularly interesting parallel to il~)/il~~,), as well as Samaritan '''11''':l 'an exile,' and 'lJ) for Hebrew 'lD 'wing.' Walleilstein (1957:210), referred to by Mansoor, also argues that at 1QH 8:23-24 the form ")"El in fact represents ":l~ "its surrounding portion of ground," claiming that "[t]he interchange of gimel and kaph is not ... uncommon .,. in Palestinian Aramaic," citing Dalman 1927:99. In fact, Dalman notes not only ,)El/,:lEl 'pull down,' 'l')/'l':l 'riverbank, shore,' ::rT)/:rT:l 'Chezib' (these two pairs also in Mansoor 1958:51-52) but also l'r"')/~J""'p 'Gordianus,' )OEl/POO 'divide' (as well as "11,,.0 'Gerar', r.o:l'::>/r.o:l'p 'helmets' and o'~/o'pt!) 'put in order', and, strikingly, 1m/11M 'laugh,' with which one might compare the Palestinian pronunciation of aJ-Quds as aJ- Uds, with glottal for uvular plosive). Tur-Sinai (in Ben Yehuda 1959:6734a) suggested that the verb oRl and noun (formally participial) op., are derived from the Hittite loanword l~n~; in Torczyner 1941:19-23, he not only argued for this etymological link but also claimed that the words represent a semantic shift from 'richly-coloured material' to 'tribute (originally consisting of such material).' However, the argument depends on the derivation of the Hebrew terms from Hittite arkamma(n) 'tribute,' which Rabin (1963: 116-18) contended is less likely than a Mediterranean origin (in which any feature corresponding to 'tribute' is missing; conversely, the meaning 'purple' is not attested in Hittite); it has also been argued that one of the pieces of evidence in Tur-Sinai's thesis, namely Ugaritic argmn, has nothing to do with 'tribute' or 'purple' but rather means 'demand for payment, account,' on the basis of Akkadian parallels of..Jc), (see Wagner 1966:28-29). Tur-Sinai (in Ben Yehuda 1959:6430b), also, despite the phonetic difficulty (see above), suggests a connection of"p' 'complain' with 0)' in Ugaritic, 'speak' (in Akkadian 'complain,' Arabic 'curse,' etc.), and Rabin (1963: 135 n. 8) mentions ilqrJ at Ps 68:28 as a possible reflex of...Jo), 'speak (against)' in his discussion (ibid., 134-36) of the relationship of the various Semitic realizations of the root to Hittite tarkummai 'announce, explain, translate.' One might also relate to the meaning we propose the royal name oPl at Num 31:8 (and elsewhere), apparently contra Brenner (1982:150), I

ELWOLDE: RWQMH IN TIlE DAMASCUS DocUMENT

83

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

VERBAL SYNTAX IN LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW Mats Eskhult (Uppsala) The problem posed for this article is: does verbal syntax in the later biblical writings differ from classical usage? The corpus under investigation is taken from the historical narrative prose, viz. Chronicles' non-parallel parts, Nehemiah's memoirs (Neh 1:1-7:5; 12:27-13:31) and the Book of Esther. Linguistic features of verbal syntax, peculiar to the corpus, will be pointed out and supported with examples. These characteristics will be compared with the usage encountered in Samuel - Kings.1 Whenever possible the relative lateness of a feature will be corroborated by putting the expression in Chronicles in contrast to that in the Vorlage. In order not to focus on mere idiosyncrasies, features that are shared by-if possible-all samples will be looked for. Though the corpus is rather small for this kind of analysis, there are,at least three writers involved, which will ensure that the findings are to some degree typical.

The finite verb (a) Narration

The decline of wayyiqtol in our corpus is significant, but it is still the normal narrative form, and there is no indication that it declines in usage in favour of wqata1. 2 In contrast, wqatal is used in comparatively few instances in narration, e.g. Neh 13: I: ~~9~1 tl~iJ 'J.1~:;J iltQO 1;lO:;J ~li?~ ~1iliJ tli~;t iJ :l1n~ "On that day the book of Moses was read in the people's earshot and there was found written in it,,3_a remarkable • I wish to thank Prof. Muraoka for providing me with additional references since the paper was read. Regrettably, Dr Van Peursen's dissertation (1999) reached me too late to be taken into account. 1 This means that Samuel - Kings, though mutually not very homogenous, represent "classical" usage. When necessary, references to other books will be given, and then, especially concerning later usage, to Ezra and Nehemiah's non-memoir portions. 2 Per thousand words, the figures are in Esther, 32.52; in Nehemiah, 29.55; and in 2 Chronicles, 46.13, to be considered against the proportions in Samuel-Kings: 1 Sam 63.01; 2 Sam 61.24; 1 Kgs 51.34; 2 Kgs 64.36. Also, wayyiqto} is remarkably frequent in 2 Chr 14: 2-14; 20:1-30; 29:20-24. 3 The other instances are: Neh 12:39; 13:30; Esth 8:15; 9:23,24,25,

EsKHULT: VERBAL SYNTAX IN LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW

85

observation in view of the frequency of narrative v/qataJ in 2 Kgs 23, and the fact that it takes over the function of wayyiqto1 in Rabbinic Hebrew.4 The yiqto1 form is avoided for the past, which entails that the construction 'az yiqto1-e.g. 1 Kgs 3: 16 ntlT l:l't(i~ l:l'l:Ik? i1~~:::ll!l ~ -is retained solely in two parallel passages. 5 There are no occurrences of 'az plus verb in the Nehemiah memoirs and Esther. In circumstantial clauses yiqto1 is sparsely used in the Bible in general, and the instances in our corpus are rare: 1 Chr 11:8 ".t1ij '~k?-n~ i1:.r:r~ :::l~;'l (he fortified all around) "while Joab repaired the rest of the city", and Esth 4:3 l:l':;n? 11?:,\: '~~1 ptp (there was a great mourning) "many put on sackcloth and ashes", as well as the three circumstantial wel6' yiqtol, Esth 1:19 = 9:27; 3:2.6 Past habitual yiqtol is not out of fashion, as can be gathered from 1 Chr 12:23; 23:14; 2 Chr 25:14 (bis); and especially interesting are the examples of an obligative-habitual character, viz., 1 Chr 9:24 l:l'l~~iJ 1'iT nim, l1:;;ll~~ "The gatekeepers were to be on the four sides", and 1 Chr 9:27, 28 (bis); 2 Chr 4:67; 31: 18. This usage is also found in Esther: 2: 12 P'~ FJ'pn9 '~~ 1~~9' "for the days of their beautification were to be completed as follows", see also 2: 13, 14. 27; 1 Chr 22:18 ("oral narrative"); 23:1; 2 Chr 3:7; 15:6 ("oral narrative"); 31:21; 33:14, 19 (plus Ezra 3:10; 6:22; 8:30,36; 9:2). 4 Cf. 2 Kgs 23:4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15. Verheij (1990:97) writes on wCqatal in narration: "W-qatal is almost lacking in Chronicles, especially in the non-synoptic texts. There is no sign of an increase, so the figures provide no indication for the W-qatal taking over from Wa-yiqtol, as supposed by Driver and Kropat." A single counter-example would be 2 Kgs 23:6Pl:1 vs. 2 Chr 34:4 P1i1l -':;l~. 52 Chr 5:2 [1 Kgs 8:1]; 2 Chr 21:10 [2 Kgs 8:22]. Otherwise 'iiz qatal is used, both in the parallels-l Chr 20:4 [2 Sam 21: 18]; 2 Chr 6: 1 [1 Kgs 8:12]; 2 Chr 8:12 [1 Kgs 9:24]; 2 Chr 8:17 [1 Kgs 9:26], and in the non-parallels: 1 Chr 15:2; 16:7; 2 Chr 24:17. For 'iiz yiqtol in Samuel - Kings, cf. 1 Kgs 8:1; 9:11; 11:7; 16:21; 2 Kgs 8:22; 12:18; 15:16; 16:5. 6 Cf. 1 Sam 1:5,7; 27:9; 2 Sam 15:37; 1 Kgs 1:1. In the affirmative, yiqtol is met with twice in the parallells, 2 Chr 4:2 [1 Kgs 7:22]; 9:15 [1 Kgs 10:16]. Perhaps influenced by an underlying source is 2 Chr 24:11 (quater) cf. 2 Kgs 12:11, which lacks the yiqtolforms. Compare also in the non-memoir portion of Nehemiah, 9:27,28, which may be influenced by Judg 2:16 (3:9, 15). 7 In defining parallel parts, guidance has been taken from VannutelIi (1931-34), under comparison with Polzin (1976:27-28), which is based on Bendavid's Parallels in the Bible, Jerusalem 1972). Deviations from Polzin are printed in italics.

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

86

Also, there is a tendency towards indirect speech, which generally means that the finite verb in corresponding direct speech is replaced by an infinitival construction (see below). At times, however, the clause in indirect speech is introduced by a particle, followed by modal yiqtol. Thus, Esth 2:10: "~n-~'? ,~ • -

•• -.

i1''?11 T

•• T

i11~ T'

,::>.,'0 ':;' -

Y'

'T

•

8

"for Mordecai had instrUcted her that she should not tell". The other instances are to be found in Nehemiah,9 except 1 . Chr 21:18, where we have a significant substitution, and uniquely ki instead of ,ascer. (Gad was told)

r:r~~~ t:l'PiJ7

"11 i17.~t '~ "117 'b~'

"to tell David that David should go up and erect an altar", where 2 Sam 24:18 has r:r~\~ i11i1'7 t:lj?iJ i1'.P, ,,? '9~'1 "and (Gad) said to him: 'Go up, erect an altar to the Lord",.l0 Sometimes, the falling away of the clause in direct speech causes the original inquit-verb to be followed by wayyiqtol. For this phenomenon, we may compare the two expressions: 2 Sam 18:23 n:1 ,,? '9~'1 "he said 'run!', and he ran",lI as against 1 Chr 14:12 iD~9 1:l1i?'1 "1'J '9~'1 "David ordered and they were burned with fire". See also 1 Chr 21: 17; 2 Chr 24:8, Neh 13:9, 19.

rn

(b) Discourse.

In discourse, the corpus under review shows only few cases where qatal is not used for the past: possible instances of prediction (2 Chr 12:5, 2 Chr 20:37) are probably to be analysed as ordinary perfects; and as to qatal in performative function, the three natatti (l Chr 21:23; 29:3; 2 Chr 2:9) seem formulaic, when compared with clear performatives in Samuel - Kings (l Sam 2:16; 3:14; 15:11; 2 Sam 13:28; 16:4; 17:11; 19:8,30; 24:33). Rather, it is '17 'DIJ~ m.iJ "Lo, I give you a wise to be noticed that t:l:t1J heart", 1 Kgs 3: 12, becomes 1'7 l1n~ 111~iJl i19~lJiJ "wisdom and knowledge have been given to you," 2 Chr 1.12. In several positions the perfect consecutive (weqatalu) is by

:1,

8 Without particle, Esth 6:5 ~;::I: 17.1.'1iJ '~~'1 "The king said that he should come in". There are two probable instances of "ster plus yiqtol for commands: Neh 2:5; 2 Chr 2:13, cf. Qimron 1986:77. 9 Within the memoirs: 2:7, 8; 4:6; 7:3; 13:19, 22; in the non-memoir portion: 7:65; 8:14, 15. 10 See further, Verheij 1990:68, note 1, and the references adduced there. Another example is Ps 96:10 vs. 1 Chr 16:3l. 11 For other instances, see 1 Kgs 18:34; 20:37; 2 Kgs 2:17; 4:15; 9:21, 33; 10:14; 13:18.

EsKHULT: VERBAL SYNTAX IN LATE BmLICAL HEBREW

87

no means uncommon in Esther and the Nehemiah memoirs--there are eight and twelve instances respectively, some even in quick succession, or in the apodosis after a condition, but none after an imperative, as in t;110~11'i. (2 Sam 7:5).12 In the non-parallel parts of Chronicles, however, wqataltfis pretty rareP Ill. some prayers, prophetic oracles, and other speeches, the use of weqatalti may even be due to earlier sources; 14 also, some occurrences that lack exact parallel in Samuel - Kings are probably variants (perhaps existing already in the Chronicler's time), or they may depend on underlying sources. 15 In contrast, wqataltf is substituted in some parallel passages, e.g,. 'r:J.l?T.1 Cl~vn~ 1'P~1 "register the people that I may know", 2 Sam 24:2, becomes ;-r~1~1 ... ?~1~'-n~ 1'~O, I Chr21:2. 16 The decrease of wqatalti in the non-parallels is particularly significant in the apodosis after a yiqtol or an imperative. 17 In conditions classical usage has weqatalti in the apodosis after an 'im-clause; thus, I Sam 3:9 runs t;110~1 ";r?~ ~lP'-Cl~ "if he calls 12 The occurrences of we qataltf in Esther and the Nehemiah memoirs are: Esth 1:20; 2:14; 4:11 i1:r;q ... i?-~'t1ji' i~O ,~~; 6:9 (ues); 8:6 the unique double 'n'~ll ?:;m~ i1~~'~; Neh 1:8b-9 (quater, but cf. Deut 30:1-2); 2:18, 20; 3:35 r~1 ?-t'1t!:i i1,:?~'-c~; 4:5 (bis); 4: 16; 5:8; 6:3, 11, 13. l3 Verheij, 1990:98, calculates the percentage of qatal with preposed we in discourse at 4.5 in the non-synoptic portions of Chronicles, as against 9.1 in Samuel and 10.8 in Kings. 14 Cf. 1 Chr 4:10 (ues); 15:12; 22:9, 10, 11; 2 Chr 12:7; 13:9; 19:3, 10 (bis); 20:16. It is likely that the Chronicler used the same method when editing material from sources that have not survived, as when editing material from sources that have survived and can be checked in our Samuel - Kings, cf. Japhet, S., "Chronicles" in Encyclopedia Judaica. 15 See further 1 Chr 17:11 (wchaya) [2 Sam 7:12]; 1 Chr 17:17 [2 Sam 7:19]; 2 Chr 1:8 [1 Kgs 3:7]; 2 Chr 7:20 [1 Kgs 9:7]; 2 Chr 12:11 [1 Kgs 14:28]; 2 Chr 18:33 [1 Kgs 22:34]. 16 Thus wCqatal is rendered by weyiqtolin 2 Chr 7:20 [vs. 1 Kgs 9:7], in 2 Chr 18:14 [vs. 1 Kgs 22:15], but in 1 Chr 17:11 [vs. 2 Sam 7:12] it is rendered by f + inf cst 17 The few examples are lChr 4:10 (ues, after yiqtol); 14:10 (after impv), 15:12 (after impv); 22:9f. (after yiqtol), II(bis, after jussive); 28:7f. (after yiqtol); 2 ehr 7: 19 (after yiqtol); 12:7 (after yiqtol); 19: 10 (after isolated topiC]; 32:4 (after yiqtol). -Compare, by contrast, Samuel - Kings, and more precisely we qataltf in immediate continuation after an imperative: 1 Sam 15:3; 18; 16:5; 22:5,23:2; 2 Sam 14:30; 19:II; and after ayiqtol: 1 Sam 6:3; 8:II, 14, 15, 16, 16:3; 17:32; 19:3; 23:2; 26:10; 29:8; 2 Sam 13:5; 15:4; 1 Kgs 6:12; 8:46; 9:8; 11:37; 18:12; 20:39; 22:22; 2 Kgs 20:18.

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

88

you, you shall say,,;IS but this is seldom the case in the non-parallel parts ofChronicles. 19 Accordingly, 2 Chr 15:2Ll~7 N~~' ~iltl.:illITLl~l "if you seek him, he will let himself be found by you", with yimma$c instead of nim$a' (cf. Jer 29: 13_14!).20 As far as the finite verb forms are concerned, there is a preference for object suffixes to 'etwith suffix. Considering the possibility of correct grammatical choice, the Nehemiah memoirs have eight cases of 'et with suffix, and 24 of verbal suffix. Esther has four instances of 'etwith suffix, and eight of verbal suffix. There are 14 instances of 'etwith suffix in the non-parallel parts of Chronicles, but ten times as many cases of verbal suffix.21 The Participle In contrast to classical usage, the corpus yields evidence of a decided increase in the use of the participle as predicate; it may be descriptive or modal, replacing yiqtol; or narrative, replacing qataJ or wayyiqtol. In a number of cases, thus, it is likely that classical style would have used a finite form: note especially Neh 13: 17: nJrBii Lli'-n~ Ll''?~no~ Ll'tD:I1 OO~ itD~ il1iI .!)iil i:l'~TiI-iiO "what is this doing, by" profaning the sabbathTday?", ev'il thing y·ou as compared with Gen 31:26: '::;l:;t~-n~ ::l~~r:n I)'ip.p iI~. "What have you done by deceiving me?" Other striking instances are 2 Chr 9:14; 17:11; Neh 3:34; 4: 10, 17; 6: 17; 13:24; Esth 2:20; 8: 17b; 9:3. This tendency may possibly lie behind the fact that 1 Kgs 22:8 ::lit!) ''t.p ~~~t;1'-~"'? ':p (I hate him) "for he does not prophesy good to me" is rendered iI:;tit!)~ ''t.p ~~~t;10 ~~t~-':P in 2 Chr 18:7?2

are

18 Cf. 1 Sam 1:11; 2:25; 12:14f.; 14:10; 17:9; 20:6, 10; 2 Sam 10:11; 11:20; 15:8,25; 1 Kgs 1:52; 6:12; 11:38; 20:39; 2 Kgs 7:4. The only exception found is 1 Sam 12:25, which has an emphasized preposed subject. 19 To the best of my knowledge, the only examples of weqatal in the apodosis after an 'im-clause in the non-parallels are 1 Chr 4: 10; 2 Chr 7:19-20; 1 Chr 28:7 ('im clause after main clause). 20 See further 1 Chr 22:13 ('im clause after main clause); 28:9; 2 Chr 15:2; 20:9; 28:9; 30:9 ('im clause after main clause); Esth 4:14; Neh 1:9; 13:21; cf. also the phrase::Jit!l1?9iJ ';l.p Ol:tl plusyiqtol, Esth 1:19; 3:9; 5:4, 8; 7:3; 8:5; 9:13; Neh 2:5,7. 21 Instances of 'et with suffix in the non-parallels: 1 Chr 6:50; 8:8; 2 Chr 3:UJ, 8:2; 12:5; 13:11; 19:10; 20:16, 24:25; 27:9, 28:23; 32:11 (bis) 14. Polzin, 1976:28-31, counts 141 cases in the non-parallels. In comparison, Samuel - Kings have some 685 instances of 'et with suffix and some 725 of verbal suffixes. 22 Similarly, 2 Sam 7:29, 07i1'7 .. llj~, is rendered 07i1'7 llj~ in 1 Chr

89

EsKHULT: VERBAL SYNTAX IN LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW

Moreover, the participle, when construed with haya, turns into a periphrastic form, expressing cursivity, e.g. 2 Chr 20:25 ~~iT~l ':p ?~iJ-n~ o'n~ ;,~i'?iq 0'0: ~';:r~1 "three days long they were taking spoils, because there was so much". See also the following significant examples 1 Chr 6:17; 2 Chr 24:14; 30:10 (tres); 36:16 (tres); Neh 1:4 (bis); 2:13; 3:26; 6:14,19 (bis); 13:5, 22; Esth 1:22 (bis); 2:7, 15; 6:1; 9:21; 27-although the cursive character is sometimes neutralized?3 Now, this usage exists in Samuel - Kings, too, e.g. 1 Sam 2: 11 ;'1;,~-n~ m.~9 ;':iJ .,.p~iJ1 "and the boy was serving the Lord".24 But in several of these passages, what seems to be wayhi in a periphrastic construction is actually an introductory wayhi, e.g. 1 Sam 7:10 ~tD~~ 0'r:Jt?7~1 ;'~i.oiJ ;,~.p,O ?~1~t? 'iJ~1 "[it came about that] when S. was offering the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near" .25 Often the construction is passive or stative, the haya having more the function of a copula, e.g. 2 Sam 7:16 1iJ~ ;'~.;:r' 1~9:P "your throne shall be established".26 The inclination for the active periphrastic form may be observed in 2 Chr 24: 12: O'::;l~h O'l~ 1';:r~1 "they hired masons", where the Vorlage has 't;7lr;r~ ~;'~'~;"1 "and they paid it out to the carpenters", 2 Kgs 12:12. Also, there is once a switch from passive to active, so that ;,:t~l9~7 1~~~ ;':iJ 1~9iJl, 1 Kgs 22:35, is recast as 1'0.p,O ;':iJ, 2 Chr 18:34.

nm

17:27. Though not strictly parallel, compare alson'Q\ 2 Kgs 18:32 vs. n'Qr,l, 2 Chr 32: 11. -As for narration, 2 Sam 6: 12 Ll'ii?~;;r iii~rn~ ?,p'} i17 17:.} "D. went and brought up the ark of God" corresponds to 'jpn i"i 'i1~} m?lJi1? Ll':;l?;'ij .. ?l(itD' 1 Chr 15:25 "D. and the elders of Israel went to bring", cf. BHK ad loc. In addition, the two narrative ltD"')'} and

.lJ~l'1J

1 Kgs

6:27 are rendered as descriptiveLl'w19 and n,p~r,l in 2 Chr 3:13.11. 23 E.g. Neh 2: 15 i::itD 'i1l:t1 ... i1?il 'i1l:t1 "I went up ... and inspected". See Eskhult 1990: 113-114. 24 Cf. 2 Sam 7:6; 1 Kgs 5:1; 2 Kgs 9:14. It is common in 2 Kgs 17 (17:25,28,29,32,33,41). 25 Cf. 1 Sam 11:11; 23:26; 1 Kgs 13:20; 20:39; 2 Kgs 2:11; 6:5, 26; 8:5; 13:21 and perhaps also 1 Kgs 5:24; 20:40 (for a discussion, see Konig 1899:267). 26 For hyh with niikon, cf. 2 Sam 7:26; 1 Kgs 2:45. Other cases of a not fully active periphrastic construction are 2 Sam 10:5 (Ll'1;l7:;>~ .. 1';;r); 18:8 (n~El1 .. WI}); 19:10 (jii1 .. 'i1~}); 1 Kgs 10:3 (Ll7~~ .. i1:;;r); 18:3 (1(1: .. i1:;;r); 2 Kgs 4: 1 (1(1: .. i1:;;r); 5: 1 (.lJl~9 i1:;;r); 6:8 (t:lI;t,?~ .. i1:;;r); 7:3 (Ll'.I)l~9 1';;r). 27 By addition of haya, the clause Ll'E;lP Ll'tq19 cr:;l1i~i:t 1 Kgs 8:7, was enlarged into [j'E;lp t:l'~19 t:l':;l1i~i:t 1'~'} 2 Chr 5:8. -Observe that in Exod 37:9 07-\,07 t:l:E;lp '~!9 t:l':;l"1~ij 1'~~} we have a construct relationship, cf. Exod

25:20 and Gen 3:5; 4:2, 17; 21:20. For Qumran Hebrew, cf. Qimron 1986:70.

90

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

lnfmitives The inImitive absolute for command is totally avoided. Thus, r;J"~'1 ·~P"'iJ, 2 Sam 24: 12, is changed to r;J"~'11'?, 1 Chr 21: 10. 28 Also, striking in the non-parallels is the sparse use of the inf. abs. in paronomasia of the type: inf. abs. immediately followed by finite verb: there are five case~1 Chr 4:10; 21:17; 2 Chr 28:19; Esth 4:14; 6:13, as against 152 in Samuel - Kings. Avoidance of inf. abs. in this function, too, may be observed in sUDstitutions that are obviously meant to preserve the rhythm of the Vorlage: 2 Chr 6:2 'n'~~ '~~, [vs. 1 Kgs 8:13 'n'~~ i1J~] and 2 Chr 25: 1917~iJ i1~iJ [vs. 2 Kgs 14: 10 17~iJ i1~V]. 29 A counter-example would be 1 Chr 21:17 vs. 2 Sam 24:17 (but cf. 4QSama). Remarkably, the corpus shows a slight advance in the use of the inf. abs. replacing a finite verb, e.g. Esth 3: 13 0'''~9 1J1"'~~1 "letters were sent"?O To be noticed is the fequency of the infinitive construct as object infinitive after 'amar, often taking the place of the finite verb in corresponding direct speech in classical usage, as is the case in 1 Chr 13:4 p mfl1~'? "iJwV-":t ~i1;l~"l "all the assembly said to do SO"?I The usage is frequent in Esther, but, in fact, avoided by Nehemiah who, as stated above, uses 'listEr plus modal yiqtol instead. Significant for the Chronicler is the replacement of direct speech by infinitival constructions, e.g. 2 Sam 24: 1 i11~i1~-n~1 "~l~'-n~ i1~1;l l'? ibM'? [Ji)~ 'lTn~ r19.~1 "he incited David against them saying: 'Go, number Israel''', vs. "~l~r-n~ n;~1;l7 "lTn~ r19.~1 1 Chr 21 : 1 .32 28 Similarily, 2 Kgs 11:15no.v becomes no~' in 2 Chr 23:14. Despite the scanty presence in Samuel - Kings (2 Sam 24:12, 2 Kgs 3:16; 4:43; 5:10; 11:15), in£. abs. for command is not that uncommon in the Bible; Goddard (1943:60-61) counts some forty instances in all. 29 Without this preservation of rhythm: 2 Chr 7: 19 ot1:;mn ot1~ 1~:J~fZiI;l-c~1 "but if you turn away and forsake my statutes", [vs. 1 Kgs 9:6 ~'1?tqn M?1 · ..P:JtpI;l :JlD-C~] and 1 Chr 14:1OC'l'llJf1 il'?~ ... I:ll;llJ~~ [vs. 2 Sam 5:191n.t' 1hr'~ il'?H...~1}. Actually, there are a few instances of in£. abs. in a paronomastic construction in the parallel parts: 1 Chr 21:24; 2 Chr 18:27; 32:13. 30 See also: 1 Chr 5:20; 15:22; 16:36, 2 Chr 28:19; 31:10; Neh 7:3; Esth 2:3; 6:9; 8:8; 9:1,6,12,16 (tres), 17 (bis), 18 (bis); and in addition, Neh 8:8; 9:8, 13. As can be seen, however, Esther ch. 9 is clearly overreported. 31 See also: 1 Chr 15:2, 16; 21:17; 22:2; 27:23; 2 Chr 1:18; 13:8; 14:3; 28:10, 13; 29:21; 31:4; 11; plus Neh 8:1; 9:15, 23. Occurences in Esther are: 1:11,17; 4:5, 7,13,15; 6:1,4; 9:14. For QH, cf. Qimron 1986:79. 32 See also 2 Sam 7:27 vs. 1 Chr 17:25; 1 Kgs 8:29 vs. 2 Chr 6:20; and 2 Kgs 16:7 vs. 1 Chr 21:18 (with both modal yiqtol and in£. cst.). A counter

EsKHULT: VERBAL SYNTAX IN LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW

91

The final infinitive has a tendency to combine some other meaning with that of purpose, thus occasionally substituting for a finite form: Esth 7:8 ilJ'?~il-n~ ~i!l:l'? OJil "will he even assault the Queen?"; 1 Chr 10:13 '~i~~ s;~~'?-c~, ~'also, he asked counsel of a medium".33 In fact, there are several cases in the parallel parts of Chronicles, where a final inf. cst. corresponds to a finite (non inquit-)verb in the Vorlage, e.g. 2 Sam 7:12 1'Qjt:rn~ 1;9~~' 1'~: ~~'?~' '~ "When your days are complete and you lie with your fathers", as a§ainst 1 Chr 17:11 1'Qjt:ro~

n;;?! 1'~: ~~,?rr~ il:O'·

An infinitive with r often stands as predicate in an impersonal expression (often with yes, 'en or 1,,35 conveying the idea of general (im)possibility or obligation, e.f the well-known Ni:J,? r~ "it was forbiden to enter", Esth 4:2. 3 In Samuel - Kings, the similar construction is not modal, e.g. 1 Sam 9:7 ~':;lO'?T~ ill~~I:l1 "and there is no gift to bring"??

Introductory wayhi In contrast to the ubiquitous introductory wayhi in Samuel Kings, e.g. 1 Sam 1:4 n;l\"1 0;";:1 'iJ~1 (there are 30 such instances in 1 Samuee s), the non-parallel parts of Chronicles show comparaexample is 2 Sam 24:21 vs. 1 Chr 21:22. 33 Cf. Esth 1:17; Neh 12:27; 2 Chr 36:19. For QH, cf. Qimron 1986:69-72. 34 See further 2 Sam 5: 11 (sent messengers) 1J~~J and compare with 1 Chr 14:1 (sent messengers) niJ:;J'7. 2 Sam 6:6 (put out, scil. his hand) rr:r~'1, and compare with 1 Chr 13:9 (put out his hand) Ih!it"; 2 Sam 6:12 (David went) '?~'1, and compare with 1 Chr 15:25 ni'?~IJ'?; 2 Sam 7:291l:t1 '?~ii1, and compare with 1 Chr 17:271l:t7 t;\'?l5ii1; 2 Kgs 12:6 (the priest shall take it, sciL the money) 1P~IT, and compare with 2 Chr 24:5 (collect money) pm'?; 1 Kgs 22:49 made, i1~.v [Qr] ships, and compare with 2 Chr 20:36 Goined him) nirv~'?-changes that are are clearly grammatically / stylistically motivated. In some cases the relationship is reversed, but only once when the switch is grammatical, viz., 2 Chr 6:40 [vs. 1 Kgs 8:52]. See Kieviet 1997:45-73. 35 Cf. Qimron,1986:71 note 9, against Brockelmann 1956, § 15g. On 'en+ infin LBH, see Hurvitz 1999. 36 Cf. 1 Chr 5:1[11; 9:25; 15:2 [1'] (replaces direct speech); 22:5; 23:4, 26 ['en]; 2 Chr 8:13; 12:12 [11; 14:10 ['en]; 20:6 ['en]; 22:9; 25:8 [yeS]; 35:15 ['en]; Esth 3:8 ['en]; 4:2 ['en]; 8:8 ['en]; plus three instances of mah la"sot Esth 1:15; 6:6; 2 Chr 25:9 3? Cf. 1 Sam 14:6; 2 Kgs 4:13; 19:3, or, if modal, not impersonal, 2 Sam 21:4. 38 1 Sam 1:20; 3:2-4; 4:5,18; 5:9; 7:2,10; 8:1; 9:26; 10:11; 11:11; 14:1, 19; 16:6; 18:1,6, 10, 30; 20:24, 27, 35; 24:2,6, 17; 25:37, 38; 28:1; 30:1,

92

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

tively few instances---about a dozen in all. 39 Also, wayhi is replaced in several passages where Kings preserves it, e.g. "'l?et;1i)7 ilb"'~ m~~=i' 'i)~1 "when Solmon had finished jraying", 1 Kgs 8:54, becomes "'l?et;1i)7 ilb"'~ n'~~~~, 2 Chr7:1. In Esther and the Nehemiah memoirs introductory wayhi is somewhat more common: it occurs 17 timet! and is followed by wayyiqtol,42 whereas the instances in non-parallel parts of Chronicles have either a temporal infinitive or an adverb in the protasis followed by wayyiqtol or qatal in the apodosis.43 Consequently, the low rate of introductory wayhi in our corpus means that it is dropped in a number of possible cases. In fact, there are a score of cases of the ubeqod pattern in the nonparallels, for instance, 2 Chr 12:12 illil~-~~ ~~Q :l~ ;.u~~i)~~ "when he humbled himself, the anger of the Lord turned away".44 Esther proffers seven such cases,45 by contrast, Samuel - Kings only three, viz., 1 Sam 17:55, 57; 2 Sam 14:26.46 Summary

This study has shown some significant and chronologically conditioned differences between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew. In the corpus under review, it may be concluded that there is a decrease of wayyiqtol, but no corresponding increase of w"qatal in comparison with the occurrence in classical usage. 25; 31:8; only 13:10; 18:19; 23:6 deviate from the wayhi -wayyiqto] pattern. 39 2 Chr 5:11,13; 12:1; 13:15; 20:1; 21:19; 22:8; 24:4.23; 25:14.16. 40 See also 2 Chr 7:11 [1 Kgs 9:1]; 2 Chr 34:8 [2 Kgs 22:3]. 41 Esth 1:1; 2:8; 3:4; 5:1; 5:2; Neh 1:1,4; 2:1; 3:33; 4:1, 6, 9, 10; 6:1, 16; 7:1; 13:3,9 (never in the non-memoir portions) 42 Except Neh 1:4; 4: 10; Esth 5:2. Noteworthy is the use of ka '"Sa>r and 'ad ,oslEr as temporal particles in the Neh. memoirs: 3:33; 4:1, 6, 9; 5:6; 6:1, 3, 16; 7:1; 13:19; and 2:7; 4:5, respectively. 43 Chr 13:15 has wC-subj-qataJ in the connective clause. and 2 Chr 5:11. 13 are ellipses. 44 See further: 1 Chr 5:1; 21:15; 2 Chr 5:13; 7:1; 12:7. 12; 15:8; 16:8; 20:20,23; 22:7; 24:14,22,25; 26:19; 29:29; 31:1.5; 33:12; 34:14. all but three (2 Chr 5:13; 7:1; 24:11) with an asyndetic qataJ in the apodosis. For Qumran Hebrew, cf. Qimron 1986:72-73. 45 1:5; 2:8, 12. 15, 19; 5:9; 9:25; of these, two are elliptical, one embedded. 46 To be sure, be/l{ + inf cst without waw is common in both our corpus and Samuel - Kings. The difference is thus not in the use of be or k e plus infinitive. but rather the proclitic waw.

EsKHULT: VERBAL SYNTAX IN LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW

93

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

THE SYNTAX OF THE BffiLICAL DOCUMENTS FROM THE JUDEAN DESERT AS REFLECTED IN A COMPARISON OF MULTIPLE COPIES OF BIBLICAL TEXTS S.E. Fassberg (Jerusalem)

A Salient features of the morphosyntax and syntax in the Hebrew documents from Qumran have attracted the attention of scholars since the publication of the first scrolls (IQIsa3 , IQS, lQM) in the 1950's. The first general treatment of syntactic phenomena in the scrolls, albeit concise, which included both biblical and non-bibical manuscripts, was that of M. Goshen-Gottstein in his 1958 survey in Scripta Hieroso]ymitana. 1 Goshen-Gottstein referred to all scrolls published to that date and he touched on the use of tenses, the waw consecutive, the "pseudo-cohortative", infinitives, the use of 1tDK, and the tendency to add the nota accusativi r1K as opposed to the Masoretic text (which he termed a "syntactic smoothing tendency"). The publication in 1959 of E.Y. Kutscher's The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll marked a turning point in the history of the study of Qumran Hebrew. Although Kutscher did not concentrate on morpho syntax and syntax, he did, nonetheless, deal with them to a limited extent. In addition, Kutscher contributed a few remarks on syntax in his survey of the language of the scrolls in the Encyclopaedia Judaici and in his posthumous A History of the Hebrew Language. 3 A more recent analysis of syntactic topics can be found in E. Qimron's chapter on syntax in his English grammar of the Dead Sea Scrolls from 1986,4 where he discusses periphrastic tenses, the temporal syntagms '?~PJ and ?'~P l:lll, pronominal direct objects, doubly marked plurals of attributive constructs, word order where an object precedes an infinitive, collective nouns, and the syntax of numbers. The most recent summary of outstanding syntactic points in the Dead Sea Scrolls can be found in the sketch presented by A. Saenz-Badillos Goshen-Gottstein 1958:124-125, 128-130. Kutscher 1972,16:1587-1588. 3 Kutscher 1982:99-100. 4 Qimron 1986:70-86. I

2

FASSBERG: SYNTAX OF MULTIPLE DSS BmLICAL MANUSCRIPTS

95

in his A History of the Hebrew Language. 5 T. Muraoka's contribution to this volume concentrates on the syntax of biblical texts and it is the first study to do so since Kutscher's detailed analysis of lQlsaa • Kutscher analyzed the deviations from the Masoretic text, highlighting linguistic phenomena that were paralleled in Late Biblical Hebrew, Tannaitic Hebrew, Samaritan Hebrew, and also Palestinian Aramaic dialects; Muraoka has done the same with the subsequently published biblical texts, supplementing the picture Kutscher drew of lQlsaa, in many cases corroborating Kutscher's analyses, in some cases demonstrating that 1Qlsaa differs in some points from other biblical manuscripts, e.g., in the case of the nun paragogicum. The phenomena Muraoka discusses have been noted in some of the non-biblical documents. By and large, the biblical documents published since Kutscher's description of lQlsaa have not drawn much attention for two reasons: 1) many of the biblical fragments, particularly those from Cave Four at Qumran, have only recently been published; 2) the biblical documents, on the whole, parallel the Masoretic text. 6 Because of the similarity to the Masoretic text, it was felt by grammarians that, because the scribes were following an earlier text, the manuscripts were less likely to contain authentic Qumran features. Thus it happened that the sectarian, non-biblical documents have until now been better investigated; see, e.g., the studies on the syntax of lQS by E.J. Revell, T. Leahy, and Y. Thorion? In following Professor Muraoka's lead in investigating the syntax of biblical manuscripts, I propose to focus on biblical texts of which multiple copies exist at Qumran in order to see if, in addition to the obvious orthographic differences that exist between the manuscripts, there are also syntactic ones, and if so, what kind. Such an examination is of interest not only in and of itself, but also in the light of the advances made during the last fifty years in biblical textual criticism. The discoveries in the Judean Desert have revolutionized the manuscrfpt evidence for the textual development of the Hebrew Bible. Gone are the Saenz-Badillos 1994:144-146. ApproXimately 60% according to Tov 1993:115. 7 Leahy 1960; Revell 1962, 1964; Thorion 1981. 8 For the most recent assessment, see Ulrich 1998. 5

6

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

96

days when the Masoretic text was the sole pre-mediaeval Hebrew text. Today, in the light of the multiple copies of most of the books found at Qumran, it is apparent that different text types of the pre-mediaeval Hebrew Bible circulated in Palestine: some manuscripts reveal a striking textual simi1ari~ to the Samaritan Pentateuch (e.g., 4QpaleoExoc:F and 4QNuml), others appear to be close to the underlying Hebrew text of the Septuagint (4QDeut'l, 4QSam3 , 4QJerb.~, some are similar to the Masoretic text (e.g., IQlsab, 4QJe~'c, 4QEzra), and yet others show features of more than one of the above (4QDeuf'c,h, 4Qlsa c, 4QDan3 ).9 Moreover, some manuscripts are set apart from others by scribal marks and orthographic practices that are known only from Qumran ("Qumran practice" according to Tov, e.g., IQlscf, 4QSam c, 4Qlsa ).1O The plurality and fluidity of texts bear on the discussion of the language, for the underlying assumption of Kutscher and others in comparing and contrasting the Masoretic text with 1Qlsa3 and other biblical manuscripts has been that the Qumran biblical texts are essentially Masoretic-like consonantal texts that have been linguistically modernized. And so, in addition to investigating the nature of the syntactic differences between the manuscripts, it is only natural to ask if the biblical manuscripts (some of which were undoubtedly copied elsewhere and brought to Qumran) reflect different Hebrew dialects. Recently, E. Ulrich has argued that the differences in text between the manuscripts reflect different stages in the recension of the textll ; this textual view is similar to Kutscher's linguistic view that the differences between the copies are to be ascribed to chronology. C

A word of caution is required: in most cases the multiple copies of books do not overlap, or only slightly, and the evidence is piecemeal. I have also included examples in which an erasure or correction in one manuscript would seem to testify to two different traditions.

B. I present the evidence in order of frequency of overlap~ing passages containing syntactiC differences according to book: 2 9 Tov 1992:114-177; but see also Ulrich 1998:84, who prefers a different system of classifying the texts. l occur both with and without the definite article in Biblical Hebrew. See Brown-Driver-Briggs 1907:481b. 73 The editor of this fragment suggests this is an infinitive absolute, but an imperative is also possible. 74 The difference in text between 4QExod-Levf (see above) and the MT leads to different syntactical features, but not necessarily "early" syntax vs.

FASSBERG: SYNTAX OF MULTIPLE DSS BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS

107

(Le., "proto-Masoretic," "proto-Samaritan," "aligned with the Septuagint," "unaligned"). The evidence does not suggest in any way that the different text types reflect different dialects of Hebrew. A comparison of multiple copies of a biblical book, e.g., the copies of Isaiah, reveals that late features can be found in all of the manuscripts (not necessarily the same feature in each manuscript), yet all manuscripts also show some classical features, and so no one manuscript can be labelled syntactically early or syntactically late; rather each manuscript is syntactically mixed. For example, in 1QIsab, which is described by text critics as proto-Masoretic, we find, when comparing it with other Isaiah manuscripts and the Masoretic text, the following late features: a collective noun takes a plural verb, an active verb occurs in place of a passive verb, a finite verb occurs instead of an infinitive absolute, he locale indicates place; however, we also find classical features in the manuscript. Two explanations for this mixing of features come to mind: 1) the text was composed at a late date with deliberate classicisms added-a position that cannot be taken seriously with regard to most biblical texts; and 2) an earlier text has been reworked linguistically by scribes, who, consciously or unconsciously, were inconsistent in adapting the older literary language to the Hebrew of the period in which they lived. The paleographic dating of the hand of the scribe, of course, is not an indication of the linguistic age of the Hebrew in the manuscript.75 In many respects the random mixing of different syntactic features parallels the situation in mediaeval biblical manuscripts as reflected in the collections of variants by Kennicote 6 and de Rossi/7 where it is

clear that some secondary readings were created according to the Sprachgefuhl of the mediaeval copyise 8-if the copyist felt that the language of the text required a certain form based on his understanding of biblical grammar, or based on similar passages "late" syntax. From the little that is preserved of the "proto-Samaritan" manuscripts 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNum b one does not see features that are unattested in other text types. 75 For examrle, Cross 1961:138 dates the script of lQIsaa to 125-100 BCE and lQlsa to 50-25 BCE. Yet, 4QIsac , which is dated to the middle third of the lSI century CE (DJD 15:46), has older-looking features and agrees with the MT against 1QIsaa and 1QIsa b in several of the variants. 76 Kennicott 1776-1789. 77 de Rossi 1784-1788. 78 See, e.g., the remarks of Goshen-Gottstein 1967:52 ("secondary scribal changes, parallelisms, normalizations, harmonizations or free associations"); Tov 1992:35-39.

108

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

in the Bible, he emended the text. This is just as true for the scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is particularly noticeable in the case of additions or omissions in poetry of the waw conjunctive, the definite article, or the nota accusativi. In poetic passages in the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, one cannot be certain which is the older, more classical syntagm - that with the waw conjunctive, the definite article,79 and the nota accusativi, or that without. Here one must disagree with those scholars, who, because of the relative infrequency of these particles in early biblical poetry (and their absence in U~aritic), view all occurrences of the particles as late additions. One should also be wary of trying to determine which of two alternating verb forms (perfect or imperfect) in multiple copies of texts is Original and which is late, since verbal tenses fluctuate considerably already in archaic poetry (and in Ugaritic).81 In closing, the "syntactic smoothing tendencies," to use GoshenGottstein's term, of the scribes who copied the biblical manuscripts manifest themselves in the modernization of syntactic features: 79 The vowel of the definite article may have been realized but the intervocalic he elided. There are examples of the he elided after the taw of the nota accusativi ' t in the Bar Kosiba letters, reflecting a pronunciation something like [eta] (possibly with progressive assimilation of the he - [etta], or even without the initial vowel - [ta)): o"::J:m [= O',::J:li1 nl(] Mur 43:5; n::J~n [= n::J~i1 nl(] Mur 44:6; o'pon [= O'POi1 nl(] Mur 44:7; )'t!ll1n [= )'t!lI1i1 nl(] Mur 44:9. Kutscher 1962:18-19; Naveh 1992:109-110. 80 This is particularly true of W. F. Albright and his school. See, e.g., Cross-Freedman 1974:28-29; Freedman 1980: 1-22, especially 2-4; Andersen - Forbes 1983; McCarter 1986:56-57 (who, under "Prosaizing," lists the insertion of copulatives. 't, and the article). These scholars are unduly influenced by the usual absence of the conjunction in Ugaritic epics (though there are examples of w- before verbs [wyn, wfn]) and the fact that there is neither a direct object marker 't nor a definite article in Ugaritic (which reflects an early stage of Northwest Semitic). See also Goshen-Gottstein 1958: 129 n. 200: "waws are omitted and added in our versions and witnesses to such a degree that almost anything can be proved or disproved ... The problem is even more complicated owing to the use of waw in Mishnaic Hebrew." 81 See Held 1962. There are clear examples of yqtJ (preterite) fluctuating not only with qtJ (perfect), but also yqtJ (imperfect) in Ugaritic. See Sivan 1997:107-108 and also Cross 1973:115 n. 13: "The vocalization of prefixal verb forms in the perfect sense, or better, for historical narration, is here puzzling. Apparently yaqtul and yaqtulu can be placed in "impressionistic" parallelism, quite as qatal andyaqtul are placed in parallel. We should expect yaqtul, not yaqtulu/a."

FASSBERG: SYNTAX OF MULTIPLE DSS BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS

109

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

WAS QH A "SPOKEN" LANGUAGE? ON SOME RECENT VIEWS AND POSITIONS: COMMENTS Avi Hurvitz (Jerusalem) A

One of E. Qimron' s remarkable contributions to on-gOing DSS research is the steadily growing recognition that the linguistic profile of QH cannot be defined merely in terms of a literarywrittefr-Ianguage. Obviously, some of its unique features may well be regarded as survivals from an extinct living-spokendialect, circulating during the days of the scribes who produced the DSS. One of the best examples that have been adduced in this regard is the peculiar Qumran independent pronoun jj~'jj (= *hiFah), which is unknown in any other existing tradition of Hebrew and which, in the light of comparative data from other Semitic languages, seems to go back to remote antiquity.' However, the crucial problem for the present discussion is not whether this or another linguistic form may be labeled "spoken" rather than "literary." Granted that QH does present traits indicative of a Hebrew vernacular which was current at the beginning of the common era, the issue at stake is whether Qimron's overall perception of QH is sufficiently firm to sustain his view that "it is the Scrolls that best represents the spoken Hebrew of that time and place"? It would appear that this thesis, as Qimron formulates it, leaves us with some questions which require further consideration. I would like to raise some of these here before him and the other participants in this session. B

On more than one occasion Qimron (2000:232, 233, 235, 237) emphasizes that the arguments supporting the thesis according to which QH is to be seen as a spoken language derive their validity from grammatical considerations. At the Cf. Morag 1954. So in his oral presentation at the symposium in Beersheva and in the printed Abstracts circulated at the time. I am pleased to see that, in the final version of his lecture, as published in the present volume (pp. 232-44), he has replaced the word "represent" by "reflect." This subtle modification in wording narrows, of course, the gap between our positions. I

2

HURVITZ: WAS QUMRAN HEBREW A "SPOKEN" LANGUAGE?

111

same time, however, he admits (2000:232, 233) that nongrammatical (particularly lexical) features of QH may well reflect literary influences. How, then, are we to reconcile these conflicting linguistic testimonies, stemming from the two different perspectives of grammar and lexicon, if we wish to define the linguistic profile of QH as a whole-in its three divisions of Grammar, Lexicon, and Syntax? In principle, one of the following alternatives is possible: (1) The "literary" option, rejecting the "non-literary" one; (2) The "non-literary" option, rejecting the "literary" one; (3) Acknowledging that both "literary" and "non-literary" components are present in QH and, consequently, that it is a blend of both. Since its beginnings, the prevailing concept of linguistic research on the Scrolls has viewed QH basically in terms of "the written/literary option" (Kutscher; Bendavid; Rabin; Ginsberg; Greenfield); Qimron, for his part, favours specifically "the spoken Inon-literary option." It is only to be expected, therefore, that neither of these approaches, if stretched to extremes, is likely to provide us with a balanced verdict, accounting for the entire linguistic spectrum manifested in QH. Inevitably, maximizing the virtues of one aspect of the evidence often results in minimizing the merits of the others. The following comments are meant to point out briefly some of the difficulties inherent in Qimron's hypothesis.

c (1) Since the term "(ad)mixture" (Qimron 2000:232, 238) is often associated with notions like "artificiality," "imitation," or "mannerism," all of which may evoke decidedly negative connotations, one may propose that we drop it altogether from our discussion. Nonetheless, even if we prefer to talk in terms of a "blend,,,3 or an"amalgam,'t4 etc., this does not change the basic fact that QH is not a monolithic linguistic entity-neither "spoken" nor "literary"-but, rather, a composite language. Among its distinguishable components, already noted in the linguistic literature, we may mention Aramaic vs. Hebrew, Classical (or Standard) BH vs. Late BH, BH vs. MH (or "Proto-MH"); and, of course, "literary" vs. "spoken" modes of expression.5 In other Morag 1996:152. Kister, in this volume. 5 Cf. Qimron's own wording (2000:232) in this regard: "I am not denying that DSS Hebrew could have been influenced by an unknown early 3

4

112

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

words, regardless of one's attitude towards the merits of "mixture," which is only a formal classifying label, QH is a multifaceted, multilayered, not one-dimensional language, embracing literary and non-literary components alike. This means, of course, that there is no justification for categorically rejecting the position which seeks to define QH at large in its various manifestations, in terms of a linguistic "mixture"; be it "a mixture of BH, MH, and Aramaic" or "a mixture of the spoken and written languages of the Jews" (Qimron 2000:232). (2) In the light of the multilingual environment prevailing in Palestine at the beginning of the common era,6 there is no need to indulge in speculations over whether or not it was specifically (Proto-)MH or any other particular Hebrew dialect which served as the spoken vernacular of the time. Obviously, there must have been more than one vernacular that could have fulfilled this function in Jerusalem (and its vicinity) as well. Since the linguistiC sources at our disposal do not allow us safely to identify and accurately to delineate the chronological and geographical boundaries of such dialects, it is preferable to avoid stretching the available data beyond their capabilities. In any event, even if we endorse Qimron' s theory that MH must be denied the status widely assigned to it as the common spoken medium of Second Temple Jewry, it by no means follows that QH is the most appropriate candidate to occupy this position. The nature and function of QH must be determined on its own premises, regardless ofMH. (3) Finally, due attention must be given to a recent article by Prof. J. Blau, which adds a whole new dimension to the problem here examined. In this article7 as well as in his contribution to the present volume Blau introduces comparable material from literary Arabic texts, which may offer an external, independent phenomenological caution. Blau points out that we may observe in these texts "literary developments and stylistiC tendencies manifested within schools of scribes, indicating that changes in language are not necessarily indicative of changes in the spoken language; they may well reflect literary fashions and traditions type of MH. Of course, it was influenced by Aramaic and by biblical literature. Such influence is typical of most languages (especially as regards literary works)." 6 Cf. Fitzmyer 1979:29-56; Rabin 1976. 7 Blau 1997.

HURVITZ: WAS QUMRAN HEBREW A "SPOKEN" LANGUAGE?

113

of scribal schools."g Since these "literary developments" are to be found in the realm of morphology-the "stronghold" of Qimron's line of argumentation-it would seem that the validity of "the spoken/non-literary option," advocated for QH, is less compelling than may appear on first sight.

D

There is no question that QH preserves imprints of a spoken language which deviates-or departs9-in some major respects from the accepted tradition of BH. The existence of such spoken elements, however, by no means implies that QH-as a whole -should be defined in terms of a spoken language.1O Indeed, in various regards it does represent, even according to Qimron (cf. above, n. 4), linguistic perspectives which are clearly literary in nature. This means, as already indicated, that we are dealing here with a composite language, whose "filters" secured for future generations all kinds of linguistic ingredients--biblical and extra-biblical, Jerusalemite and peripheral, written (standard) as well as spoken (non-standard). It is not always possible to draw clear lines between these distinct components; yet, they are all present, in one way or another, in the language of the Scrolls. The full implications of this linguistic diversity underlying QH do not find clear expression in Qimron' s presentation. On the one hand, the heading of § 4 speaks of the possibility "that DSS Grammar Reflects a Spoken Dialect" (Qimron 2000:237); on the other, in the actual discussion which follows, we read "that DSS Hebrew reflects the spoken language of the scrolls' scribes" (p. 237 [italics added in both quotes]). Now, this equation between "DSS Hebrew" and "DSS grammar" suggests to the reader that the two terms are either interchangeable synonyms or, if not, that they represent two distinct pieces of linguistic evidence (grammatical and non-grammatical), which-separately and equally-substantiate Qimron's thesis that QH was "a naturally spoken Hebrew." It goes without saying that both of 8 Pp. 24-25 (and Similarly also pp. 26, 30, 32). Note that a similar concept may already be found-in regard to MH-in Sarfatti 1983 ("the evolving tradition of MH from one written transmission to another is indicative of a certain vitality"; "there are ... modifications which reflect a natural development, similar to that of a living/spoken language" [po 457 (italics added)). 9 Cf. Hurvitz 1997:85-86. 10 Qirnron refers to "DSS Hebrew" expliCitly in terms of "a naturally spoken Hebrew" (2000:233).

114

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

these options are incompatible with Qimron's own ground-rule, requiring that the evidence gained from grammatical and nongrammatical materials be strictly distinguished, since it is exclusively (Qimron 2000:233) "the morphology" (Le., grammar) of QH-not its "words and phrases" (Le., lexicon)-which has a say in the present debate. Qimron's non-discriminating equation between the two terms noted above seeks, evidently, to extend the validity of his supposition, initially restricted to the specific realm of "DSS grammar," to the entire spectrum of "DSS Hebrew." It is, therefore, difficult to sustain, since it is inconsistent with the philological principles set out by Qimron himself elsewhere in his presentation (cf. above, p. 112). E

Any attempt to classify QH specifically as "spoken" is incompatible with the overall linguistic nature of the Hebrew Scrolls, in much the same way that this label is not applicable to the Aramaic Scrolls-whose linguistic profile similarly manifests a mixture of both "written" and "spoken" components.11 This state of affairs was adequately summed up by Prof. S. Morag, who was extremely sensitive to the "spoken" vibrations echoing in the Scrolls. I would, therefore, like to conclude this presentation with a quotation from the work of Morag, whose participation in our conference was sadly prevented by his untimely death: "It is not the spoken language of Qumran which emerges in the literature of the Scrolls. Features of this language may be recognized in the texts; the texts themselves, as we have seen, are literary. It is through the diversified literary expression that the substructure of a sgoken language of the members of the sect is discernible."

11 Cf. most recently Morgenstern 1999. Having indicated the existence in Qumran Aramaic (as well as in Nabataean) of elements which belong to "the vernacular," he writes: "That is not to say that the Aramaic of the Qumran scrolls or of the Nabataean inscriptions is to be regarded as reflecting the spoken language of the time; rather, that ... elements of the later dialects penetrated the written language" (p. 140*). Note that attempts to distinguish between"literary" and "spoken" Aramaic during the period of the DSS are severely criticized in Fitzmyer 1979:72-74. Fitzmyer describes some of these attempts as "speculative assumptions" (p. 73) and emphasizes that, in prinCiple, we do not possess sufficient means to pass judgment on this issue. 12 Morag 1995b: 114-15 (italics added).

THE KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF HEBREW IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD QUMRAN AND THE SEPTUAGINT Jan Joosten (Strasbourg) To anyone studying the history of the Hebrew language, the Dead Sea Scrolls are a godsend. Here are extensive Hebrew writings, in manuscripts not much later than the texts themselves, dating from the exact period-between the Bible and the Mishnah -for which attestation of Hebrew had almost entirely been lacking. The significance of this find for the entire early history of the language cannot be exaggerated. And yet, precisely because Qumran Hebrew comes from a hitherto largely uncharted period there is a problem. However close the links with earlier and later phases of the language might be, within its own epoch Qumran Hebrew is rather isolated. Is Qumran Hebrew-the language of the main sectarian writings- representative of the Hebrew of its time, or is it a freak, the very peculiar idiom of a very peculiar group of people? An answer to this and many other questions involving the "linguistic background" of QH cannot be given solely from a comparison with earlier and later stages of the language. Nor can it be arrived at from QH itself, even though the linguistic diversity of the texts does provide a certain perspective. Fortunately, the isolation of QH is not complete.\ Late Biblical Hebrew affords comparative material, as does the Hebrew of Ben Sira insofar as we can be certain of its authenticity; Hebrew inscriptions from the Hellenistic period, too, are important, in spite of their extreme scarcity.z Another potential source of linguistic information is the Septuagint. The Greek version is more or less contemporary with the Qumran writings? And although the version was for the greater part made in Egypt, the knowledge of Hebrew underlying it came from the land of Israel, as is suggested both by legend and by common sense. When it comes to studying the Cf. Kutscher1974: in particular 15-16; Rabin 1958:144-61. 2 For a survey of the epigraphic material cf. Naveh 1992. 3 For the dating of the Septuagint, cf. the review of the evidence in Dorival 1988:39-111. t

116

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

linguistic background of QH, the relevance of the Septuagint cannot be gainsaid, as has been well recognized since the beginning of research into the language of the Scrolls.4 The actual use of the Septuagint in this perspective has nevertheless been sporadic at best. Whereas textual and exegetical agreements between the Scrolls and the Septuagint have been studied extensively, linguistic agreements remain the stuff of footnotes. No systematic study of the relation between QH and the Hebrew of the Greek translators seems to have been undertaken. The present paper will not presume to fill this gap, but merely ask a few preliminary questions and indicate some promising avenues for future research. For reasons of space, the discussion will be limited to the lexical domain.5

1. Recovering the translators' knowledge of Hebrew To the non-initiated, the idea of using a Greek text in linguistic research on Hebrew may sound far-fetched. And even to the specialist, the proposition is daunting. The fact that the Septuagint is a translation of a known Hebrew text means that it does hold much information on the translators' knowledge of Hebrew. But recovering that knowledge is possible only in certain cases. 1.1. The problem of using a version In his 'analysis of the work of scholars such as D. Winton Thomas and G.R. Driver, who had shown much confidence in the Septuagint as a source of linguistic information on Biblical Hebrew, James Barr pointed out a number of caveats to be observed in trying to prise philological information from the versions:6 a) we do not always know the Hebrew text from which the 4 Kutscher, in his study of the language of the Isaiah Scroll (Kutscher 1974:74-77), refers to the Septuagint as a 'linguistically parallel text'. 5 With regard to grammar, too, the Septuagint sometimes gives evidence of Late Hebrew influence. For instance, the translators seem to have ignored the precise value of the locative he, and they often mechanically translate the yiqt01 tense as a future: two phenomena that go hand in hand with what can be observed in post-classical Hebrew including QH. There are even some phonological phenomena-e.g. the weakening of the laryngeals, the confusion of final mem and nun-that transpire more or less clearly from the Greek text. Such grammatical items have been noted in passing by several scholars, but no systematic research has been done on them from a linguistic point of view. Although they merit closer study, we will leave them aside for the time being. 6 Barr 1968:238-272.

JOOSTEN: QUMRAN HEBREW AND HEBREW KNOWLEDGE IN SEPTUAGINT

117

version was made; b) the original text of the version, in our case the Greek text of the Septuagint, cannot always be reconstructed with certainty; c) the methods of translation of the ancients were at times imprecise: the translators let themselves be guided by the context, or by parallel texts; they had certain favourite words, and tended to etymologize or rewrite a passage more or less freely. In the light of these considerations, Barr criticized a number of lexical identifications based on a Septuagint rendering. For instance, the translation of i1~.v' in Ps 84:7 as Swan "he shall give" could have been arrived at from the context: Ps 84:7 i11'0 rn!ll7' n1J1J m "The early rain also covers it with pools. ,,7 Ps 83:7 Kat yap EUAoYlas &:xrEL 6 V0I-l08ETWV "For there the law-giver will grant blessings."s The rendering does not show that the translator knew a Hebrew verb i1~.v or i1~.vi1, "to give", cognate with Arabic 'aCtio Consequently, Barr tended to be more pessimistic as to the translators' knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. On the whole, the probability of retracing forgotten meanings of Hebrew words by means of the Septuagint is rather low. Later research in this domain has in the main supported this view: many archaic or rare words appear to have been totally unknown to the Greek translators.9 The Septuagint is a rather unlikely source for authentic linguistiC information on archaic Hebrew. The case is somewhat different, however, when one looks to the Septuagint not for early but for late Hebrew elements. 1.2. Post-biblical Hebrew in the Septuagint The debate between Barr and some earlier scholars bore on how much Hebrew the translators could have known. A different problem, hardly addressed in that debate, is what kind of Hebrew they knew.IO Already in 1841 Z. Frankel had pointed out that the Septuagint translators sometimes base their understanding of the biblical text on post-biblical Hebrew. 1I His observation was 7 English translations of the MT follow the RSV except where it has been changed in view of the point at issue. 8 English translations of the Septuagint loosely follow Brenton's rendering (Brenton 1851). 9 Cf., e.g., Tov 1984:53-70 10 But cf Barr 1968:259-61. 11 Cf. Frankel 1841:201-203.

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

118

confirmed by other Septuagint scholars such as A. Kaminka,12 J. Fischer,13 J. Ziegler/ I. L. Seeligmann,15 and E. TOV,16 and Semitists such as J. Blau and J. Margain. 17 This claim is of obvious relevance to our topic and merits to be pursued further. First, a word of caution is in order. Many of the examples proposed by the aforementioned scholars are questionable. Very often the claim involves an adjustment of the consonants of the MT in order to arrive at the late Hebrew element postulated. Thus in Gen 47: 12, the translation of C')~iJ '~~ "according to the (number of) children" with KaTCt O'wj.l.a "according to (the number of) persons", is said to result from a misreading of the word C')t!li1 as Mishnaic C')~~ "body". 18 Such text-critical speculations clearly do not provide a secure foundation for linguistic research. With other proposals, the presumed late Hebrew etymon turns out not to be attested with the precise meaning reflected in the Greek/ 9 or involves too subtle a divergence from biblical usage to be considered convincing. In response to such problems of method, I have, in an earlier publication, proposed a few common-sense criteria allowing one to argue that a late Hebrew element is at the back of a given Greek equivalent:20 a) the late Hebrew element invoked should correspond exactly to what is written in the Massoretic Text (at least with regard to the consonants);21 b) the meaning of that late Hebrew element should correspond exactly to the meaning of the Greek equivalent in question; c) the latter meaning should be quite distinct from the meaning of the Biblical Hebrew element occurring in the MT. Cf. Kaminka 1928:38-42. 13 Cf. Fischer 1930:9-10. 14 Cf. Ziegler 1934:99, 195. 15 Cf. Seeligmann 1948:49-50; idem, 1990:169-232, in particular 203-209. 16 Cf. Tov 1997a:172, n. 24; idem, 1988:161-188 (170). 17 Cf. Blau 1956:98-100; Margain 1996:191-197. 18 See Margain 1996:192-93. 19 Thus Frankel (1841:203) takes KUPTOS in 3 Kgds 20:11 to reflect Mishnaic 1~n (for the MT's 1J1n "the one who girds"); but whereas the Greek word means "humpback" the Mishnaic one means "lame": the meanings are close but not identical. 20 J. Joosten, 'On the LXX Translators' Knowledge of Hebrew' forthcoming in the acts of the Oslo conference of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (to be edited by B. Taylor). 21 Or, if it is available, to a non-Massoretic Hebrew text. 12

JOOSTEN: QUMRAN HEBREW AND HEBREW KNOWLEDGE IN SEPTUAGINT

119

Let us consider an example: Hos 12: 12 ',rv 'oL;ln L;ll) ~:c crnn:no C~ " ... their altars also shall be like stone heaps on the furrows of the fields" Kat TCL 8vcrlacrnlPla aUTWV WS XEAWVaL €1Tt XEPcrov a'YPoi) "and their altars are like tortoises on the barren land of the field." Instead of BH L;l~, "heap of stones", the translator appears to have identified the word as L;l~ "tortoise", attested in rabbinic literature.22 Now it is certainly possible to call this claim into question. One cannot be certain that the Vorlage of the Septuagint was identical with the MT. Nor can one take the Septuagint text at face value: perhaps the Greek text is the result of a later corruption?3 Alternatively, the rendering may be due to the technique of the translator: the remarkable equivalent may be meant figuratively and thus correspond to the Hebrew.24 Nevertheless, the fact that (a) a post-biblical Hebrew word L;l~ is attested with (b) exactly the meaning reflected by the Greek, which (c) is quite different from the meaning of biblical L;l~ makes the claim of late Hebrew influence on the translator a very strong one. In comparison to those searching for authentic linguistic information, scholars investigating late Hebrew influence on the Greek translators find themselves in a more favourable situation, for at least two reasons. A translation based on late Hebrew will often, as in the example of Hos 12:12, sit somewhat oddly in the context. Where contextual exegesis can be ruled out, the hypothesis of linguistic interference becomes much stronger. Secondly, unlike postulated "forgotten meanings", late Hebrew elements are actually found in Hebrew texts. 1.2.1 Cases involving rabbinic Hebrew Usually, the case for post-Biblical Hebrew influence in the LXX has been based on rabbinic Hebrew. Thus Frankel explains the rendering of ,o~o "net" as liJl.lE80v "half-boiled" in Isa 51 :20 from rabbinic ,o~ "to heat fruit by underground storage or 22 The word is known also from Syriac, and is actually the one used in the Syrohexaplar version of Hos 12: 12. 23 Ziegler, in the Gottingen edition of the Septuagint of Hosea, signals, but does not adopt, the conjectural emendation KOAWVUl "hills, mounds"; XEAWVaL, however, is supported by the entire manuscript tradition. 24 Following Jerome, this is the opinion of many Septuagint scholars today. Some recent dictionaries of the Septuagint do not even indicate the primary lexical meaning ofXEAWVT), cf. Muraoka 1993:249, "arched protrusion over the ground"; Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie 1996:515, "hillock, mound".

120

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

exposure to the sun" (Jastrow). Isa 51 :20 "'1C:)D ~'n:::l m~n ?:::l tDN'~ '~:::lW ,El?1' TJ~ "Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of every street like an antelope in a net." ot ui.ol crou ot dTTOp01J~€VOL ot Ka8€uBoVT€S ETT' CiKPOU miO'T)S Ee6Bou ws cr€UTALOV f)J.f£cI&v "your sons who are at a loss, who lie down at the head of every street like a half-boned beet." Cases involving RH, where the source influencing the Greek equivalent is not attested in BH at all, are indeed the easiest to identify. Another example may be noted in passing. In Ezek 13:18, 20n,no:::l, probably meaning "bands" or the like, is translated TTpOOK€cpaAma "pillows", after RH no:::l. With renderings like these, the evidence of the Septuagint suggests that the lexemes in question, although attested only much later in Hebrew sources, were already in circulation when the version was made. 'O:::l "to heat", nO:::l "pillow", and ?) "tortoise", are not attested in pre-Mishnaic texts, and yet they were known to the Septuagint translators. Now it may be that these words were always part of mainstream Hebrew and that their lack of attestation in earlier sources is due to accident. Perhaps, however, we may instead suspect that at least some of these words belon~ed to a spoken dialect considered unfit for literary purposes. 5 If Mishnaic Hebrew is an avatar of a spoken variety of Hebrew (an early non-lerusalemite dialect?), the "Mishnaisms" of the Septuagint may be reflexes of this spoken Hebrew of the Hellenistic period?6 A suggestive example in this connection is the rendering of n'fD'ElJ in Ezek 34:12 as BLaK€XWpLcr~Evwv "separated, set apart": Ezek 34: 12 p ~ ,~~ l'n~ ,m'ii l:l"~ "'1' ii1" n'p~:::l 'JK~ nK 'p~K "As a shepherd seeks out his flock when some of his sheep have been scattered abroad (?) .. ."27 wcrTT€P (llT€l 6 TTOL~r,V TO TTO(~VLOV aUTOU EV TJ~EP~ ' "to purify" is not, and probably never was, a Hebrew word, the translator obviously thought that it could be one. Or perhaps he knew it was a foreign word but estimated that it might be used in a Hebrew text. At least one Qumran author manifests a similar attitude towards this Aramaic root, as is shown by the occurrence of':>" "purity" in lQS 3:9; cf. Muraoka 1998:55-56. A full analysis of cases like these will have to take account of the very fine distinctions, made in the literature on "languages in contact", between loanwords, cultural loans, foreign words, etc.38 But whatever the precise processes lying behind each usage, 38

Cf. Deroy 1956.

JOOSTEN: QUMRAN HEBREW AND HEBREW KNOWLEDGE IN SEP11JAGINT

125

they appear to have affected the Qumran writers and the Septuagint translators in more or less the same way. Several other cases may be noted. The word C'1:l1 "price" seems to underlie the Greek rendering ofC'1:l1 "blood" in Isa 9:4: Isa 9:4 C'C"D il'?':m1:l il'?1:liD' "... and a garment rolled in blood "

Kal lllciTloV IlETa KaT~'Yfls alTOTE(aOVOW "and they shall pay for a garment with a profit .. " The word occurs in QH just once, in a fragmentary text, t Q27 1 II 8, and a form that is problematic ('1:l1). If we accept the attestation, another question arises: is this, like '~'1, an Aramaic word used in a Hebrew text, or is it the first attestation of a genuine loanword? The distinction is probably impossible to make. Note, finally, the term 'In "lame" underlying the rendering of"Jn' (?) in Ps 18:46: 39 Ps 18:46 Clil'nnJ01:l1:l ,lirT" ,'?J' '~J 'JJ "Foreigners lost heart, and came trembling out of their fastnesses." Ps 17:46 VlOl aA>..OTPLOl ElTaAau{)OT]aav Kal lxcIWJ.vav alTO TWV Tp(f3wv aUTwv "The strange children waxed old, and fell away from their paths through lameness". The root'Jn "to be lame", occurs in 4QDa 17 i 8.

2.2.2. Semantic developments In other instances, the interference is not due to a later homonym but to a new meaning that came to be attached to a word attested in BH. The divergence between classical and post-classical Hebrew reflected in the Greek version and in the Scrolls is due to semantic development. A good example is provided by the verb ~iDJ. Whereas in classical Hebrew this verb means basically "to lift up, to carry", in post-classical Hebrew it takes over-perhaps under Aramaic influenc~ertain functions of the verb np'? "to take".40 The development set in with the late books of the Bible and can be observed in QH, toO.41 This semantic development underlies Septuagint renderings of ~iDJ such as Aallf3civw "to take" and 39 The MT of Ps 18:46 reads the verb J,n, but the parallel in 2 Sam The Septuagint rendering in Psalms appears to correspond 22:46 reads to the latter form. 40 The shift can clearly be observed in the correspondence of Late Biblical and post-Biblical iTtDK KtDJ to Classical iTtDK np', cf. Driver 1897:455. 41 Cf. Qimron 1986:93.

''In',.

126

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

8€X O l-laL "to receive".42 An illustrative example is the following: Hos 4:8 ,rv£)~ ,." r:::m.11 ?N' '?:IN' '0.11 nNr!ln "They feed on the sin of my people; they are greedy for their iniquity (RSV)." al-lapTlas Aaol) I-l0U cf>ayoVTaL Kat €V TatS d.8lKlaLS aimJ)v XTJulsoVTaL • IIroxas airrwv "They will eat the sins of my people and in their injustice they will take their souls". Instead of the BH expression ?N ,wm NtD~, "to desire", the translator made out the post-biblical expression '£) w~~ NtD~ "to kill someone". The latter expression is not attested in the Bible,43 where '~ w~2. np~ is found instead, but it does occur in the Temple Scroll: 11 Q 19 lix 19 i1nNrv? ,rvm 'rvP:lO "0' "N~'rv "0 'i1'n.11rv,m "And I shall free him from the hand of those who hate him and from the hand of those who seek his life in order to destroy it." The semantic development of the verb ~tD~ affects the author of the Temple Scroll and the translator of Hosea in similar ways. Both in the Temple Scroll and in the Septuagint, the attribution of the meaning "to take" to the verb ~tD~ seems to be accidental. The author of the Scroll did not mean to use post-biblical Hebrew, and the translator of Hosea was merely trying to make sense of a difficult text. Post-biblical and biblical usage were confused inadvertently. And this happened in the same manner in QH and in the Hebrew of the translators. Other cases of diachronic development affecting both QH and the translators' Hebrew are i1r'~ "which" instead of classical "where";44 'r,l~ "to rise" instead 70f classical "to stand";45 1;~l "will, desire" instead of classical "goodwill, favour";46 and rp "period, time" instead of classical "end" .47 A special case is the term '~., The meaning of this word changed owing to a development in Jewish culture or religion. In the Bible, the word ,~ always means "resident alien" or the like.48 This biblical use stems from a period when religious conversion was unheard of. After the exile, however, with 42 Both of these eqUivalents are surprisingly frequent, as a glance at the concordance will tell. 43 Except perhaps in the difficult verse 2 Sam 14: 14. 44 E.g. in the LXX, 1 Kgs 13:12 (3 Kgds 13:12); in QH 4QDc [4Q268] I 2. 45 E.g. in the LXX, Prov 29:4; for QH, cf. Qimron 1986:94. 46 E.g. in the LXX, Ps 30:5; for QH, cf. Qimron 1986:95. 47 E.g. in the LXX, Gen 6:13; for QH, cf. Qimron 1986:95. 48 This view is to be upheld in the face of much scholarly contestation, cf. Joosten 1996:54-73.

JOOSTEN: QUMRAN HEBREW AND HEBREW KNOWLEOOE IN SEPTIJAGINT

127

religious identity gaining in importance, conversion to Judaism came to be envisaged. By a complicated process only partially retraceable in the texts, the word , j now took on the meaning of "convert to the Jewish faith, proselyte". This meaning is unattested in LBH, but it surfaces both in the Septuagint49 and in QH. 50 2.2.3. Pseudo-classicism

In certain cases, the meaning of a word or expression changed not because of natural development of the language but through re-use of an archaic expression. In the Hellenistic period, when most of the Bible was already regarded as a sacred text, some expressions were no longer correctly understood. They would still be used, however, in a sense arrived at through learned interpretation.51 Sometimes this sense turns up both in QH and in the Septuagint. A good example is the word ril'1;l. In BH, this word usually means "refuge", being derived from the root nl' "to take refuge". The meaning "refuge" still seems to obtain in some of the occurrences of the word in QH, e.g.: lQH 18:23 (Suk. 10:23) TU)O ,'? ;,noiV lot'? 'iV:J '~'1 "nor have you placed a creature of flesh as my refuge" In other passages, however, the word clearly means "strength", e.g.: lQH 16:23-24 (Suk. 8:23-24) r11'O '1~1" D1rT nl':J1 "and in the time of heat it retains its vitality." Here r1l'O is simply a synonym of lJi), and ril'1;l ,~~ means the same as lJi) ,~~ in lQH 18:11 (Suk. 10 11). Perhaps we might say that to the author of the Hodayoth tWO derives not from r11' "to take refuge", but from ttl' "to be strong". Possibly, he saw the meaning "refuge" as an extension of the basic meaning "strength" . Now this interpretation is not peculiar to the Hodayoth. In the Septuagint, the word r1l'O is rendered several times as 8vvaj.l.LS "might", laxUs "strength".52 E.g.: Ezek 24:25 Ct.vc nlot Dim 'nnp D1':J "when I take from them

their stronghold ... " EV TlJ llj.!Epq.

(hav Aaj.!~ i1'?Jn ~'? TJ~ mn~' lO~ mn~ nnl" "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's own flesh." ... TJ1V yap OlK€L~Ta CLlTEKclAUtPEV "for he has uncovered his near kin" . One could say that the translator decoded a figure of speech. The reason for this is not his lack of sensitivity to Hebrew style, but the fact that the word i~rzi has acquired a new meaning. A similar example is BH W;i'I:1 "grape,,56 taken in the sense of "wine" as reflected both in the Greek renderingolvos "wine", and in QH usage.57 2.3. Differences between QH and the Hebrew of the translators The enumeration of these agreements should not let us lose sight Cf. Wernberg-M0lIer 1957b:81. Cf. also Num 27:11. 55 The same meaning seems to attach to the term in Sir 41 :21 (M), where the Greek version renders as in Leviticus and Numbers. 56 Cf. Naeh and Weitzman 1994:115-20. 57 See also the remarks on the expression ~'JiZi 'El in Joosten 1999 154-55: 155, n. 38. 53

54

JOOSTEN: QUMRAN HEBREW AND HEBREW KNOWLEDGE IN SEPTUAGINT

129

of the fact that many differences exist between the Hebrew of Qumran and the Hebrew of the Greek translators. Numerous Hebrew expressions peculiar to the Scrolls find no echo in the Septuagint, and vice versa. Also, there are many differences in detail, such as the interpretation of given verses and the explanation of single words. Moreover, the agreements that do occur, such as the ones singled out above, often extend to single books of the Septuagint only, or to single Qumran writings only. The Hebrew of the translators is no more homogeneous than that of the Qumran authors. Of particular significance is the fact that the sectarian vocabulary of the the Qumran texts seems to be unknown to the Greek translators. Thus the typically Qumranic conception of ?l"?:l as a demonic being has left no trace in the Septuagint. The Hebrew word ,n' is never rendered by words meaning "community" or the like, even in texts where such a rendering would be possible. The expression i1P'~'? i1i'Oi1 in loe12:23 is translated Tel ~pw~aTa EiS 8LKaLO(JUVTlV "food for justice".58 Such differences, which could be multiplied, tend to show that there is no direct connection between Qumran and the Septuagint translators.59 This indicates that the agreements that do exist, such as the ones discussed above, reflect linguistic phenomena that were widespread at the time. Qumran and the Septuagint are independent witnesses to the knowledge and use of Hebrew during the Hellenistic period.

3. Conclusions The present investigation, the first of its kind, is necessarily tentative and exploratory. Nevertheless, the similarities illustrated above are striking enough, in regard to both quantity and quality, to be thought significant. What the evidence suggests is that the Qumran writers and the Septuagint translators tap into the same "reservoir" of linguistic knowledge. The contents of this reservoir are rather heterogeneous: BH elements transmitted by an authentic tradition, elements that have undergone a semantic development, BH words or expressions that were re-interpreted, features of LBH, items due to Aramaic influence, elements of spoken Hebrew dialects, etc. Languages evolve in unpredictable ways. What is important is that we can Cf. Harl et al. 1999:67. In a recent study, Philonenko (1999:145-55) has suggested some sort of connection between the Qumran Essenes and the Septuagint. 58 59

l30

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

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

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

iO~' ,m'J 'l1'~O i1'i1tD t:l,~ ~J .i1'~'o'? i1~'~'i11 t:l'p,'?n i1l1JtD i1tD'J'?i1 i1'E)' n~ 'j~'i1 ,,?

"He dressed her with gowns and put her out to be sold. A man I Indeed these remarks have been inspired by M. Kister's lecture. We will therefore follow the order chosen by him in commenting on some points he has dealt with. 2 Our approach of actancy and valency (in other words, the relationship between the verb and its complements) is that of L. Tesniere (1959) and the bulk of work done in the field since that seminal date.

132

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

came who was very ugly and told him: show me her beauty" (b. Git 58a) and on the other hand ";:'" 1"1";:,0 iTO;:', "tD1'O 1''?p'?,po iTO;:' 'K'

"See how crooked are his deeds and how ugly his ways" (b. Yoma86a) In MH, both iTKJ and iTE)' are used to denote moral qualities or deeds,asin 'T iTO'K '?tD liT'tD1'O C'KJ iTO;:' 'OK' iT"iT' '::1, nnE)

'Rabbi Yehuda started and said: 'How beautiful are this nation's deeds" (b. Shabo 33b) and their antonym is nm'?, which again displays not only the moral sense it has in Contemporary Hebrew but first of all the physical one, as in 1'E)'::1 iToniT nK 1'JJO ,'iTtD C',1n::1 ,'?K'tD'::1 ,1iT::1 ,'iT

"There were lads, among the people of Israel, whose beauty made the sun seem ugly" (b. Sanh. 92b) The very definition by Ben Yehuda of the verb nm'? is iTE)' K'? ,iTKJ K'? ,:J'~ K'? iTTtD 'OK "To say that it is not good, not nice, not beautiful... " The metaphor is so powerful that even in the definition of a verb that is declarative by essence and refers to moral quality the epithets used are primarily physical: iTKJ, iT!!' (nice, beautiful). M. Kister is right to mention in this respect lat. foedus, and one could recall the TO KaA6v EUTl TO a:ya86v of the Greek, in which moral quality is compared to physical beauty. That holds true for many languages since it seems to be what we should call a Metaphorical Universal. That is why we are not sure that even when studying ancient written documents as the DSS we should content ourselves with a philological analysis, even one that includes such closely related languages as MH and Aramaic. For those documents are linguistic corpora and as such reflect linguistiC processes and properties. What we mean is, and we will see it through other examples as well, that when dealing with what we call Cognitive Metaphorisation, philological and even linguistic diachronic analyses can call upon a complement of analysis from other viewpoints. If the metaphorical sense of a lex erne is attested alongside the non-metaphorical one in the same corpus or in corpora of the same period, it is positive evidence of such use, but if it is not attested, that is no evidence that such a use did not exist. What may change is the grammatical category in which the root is attested, and there, indeed, nothing but philology can furnish diachronic linguistics with the elements necessary in order to discern at which moment a given root

KIRTCHUK: CooNITIVE,

TYPOLOGICAL REMARKS ON THE HEBREW OF 4QMMT 133

yields a verb, for example, or a noun of action, and the like. In this respect one should recall the use, in sub-standard CH, of the verb ?111?:J?", namely 'to spread dirt upon' in a sense which is very close to that ofilC.:J in Pesher Nahum. Here, too, physical dirt becomes moral fault, just as in Pesher Nahum physical ugliness becomes moral guilt. Syntax, more specifically the prepoSition, is slightly different as compared with the standard use of the verb in its non-metaphorical sense, and yet it is the very same verb. And note that if a literary corpus of CH texts were to be analyzed some centuries from now, that verb with its specific syntax and metaphorical meaning would not be attested.

E'ppUI si muove.

t:I'?tDiT in Hebrew and in Aramaic Here one must bear in mind the semantic shift attested in Latin which affects the root pac- in such a way that it yields both the verb pac-are (hence Fr. payer, Eng. pay) and the noun pac-s (pax). It is therefore not certain that one should suppose a diachronic process from the sense of t:I'?tDiT to deliver to that of to pay. It is quite plausible that, in this case, too, the currency of exchange may well be either a person, in which case the verb means to deliver, or money, in which case it means to pay. In both cases the goal of the delivery is to appease or to make peace, two terms derived from the very same root pac-, whose senses correspond narrowly to those of the root /SImi in Semitic from which is derivedt:l'?tDiT. Therefore a diachronic or diatopic, namely dialectal analysis, seems unnecessary in this context. i'11 in 4Q215 Testament of NaphtaJi This is not a semantic shift but rather a quantitative one. Here again we must not content ourselves with a statement that at the period considered a certain ambiguity reigned concerning the intension of the terms denoting geographic units. An explanation of the facts is required and, in our opinion, the shift under analysis would result from the 'politically correct' usage of the time, by which, within the same semantic field, a small unity is named by a term which was originally meant to denote a more prestigious one.

The DSS language as a contribution to the interpretation of BH 11"0 , iTi1:J) Here also two commentaries of typological semantics have to be made which agree with the explanation proposed by M.

134

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

Kister. Concerning 1'?0, it is clear that by way of metonymy the rock upon which is founded a citadel comes to denote the citadel itself. This also is a very general cognitive process (pars pro toto). Thus, the Dictionnaire de l'Ancienne Langue Franfaise by Frederic Godefroy gives under roche: "chateau fort bati sur une roche". In Indo-European in general we have a similar kind of metonymy for berg//borg - bourg/burg/pur, etc., and in Arabic qala ca means both 'stone' and 'citadel'. Once again, it is not sure that diachrony is of any use here, since this kind of semantic process is inherent to the cognitive nature of language. In other words, even if the metonymic meaning is not attested in BH, we cannot infer that it was not in use. As far as i1i'JJ is concerned, let us reinforce M. Kister's analysis by recalling the semantic process by which Latin vir 'man', vis 'manly force, masculinity' eventually yield virtus which becomes the term denoting 'moral/spiritual power' par excellence. As a matter of fact, many of its Indo-European cognates, for example English grow, mean something like vital force (that is what we find, e.g., in Latin prima-vera). Now in the languages derived from Latin or those which borrowed the term from them, viz. Eng. virtue, it is the exact counterpart, in the moral or mental domain, of physical strength3• It is therefore quite understandable that one and the same root iJJ should denote physical power and its mental corollary wisdom. In CH, the greeting Cl1iJ1 pm litt. strong and blessed) does not extol the addressee's physical strength but his intellectual aptitude: perhaps the best example of a merger of both sub-senses, physical and mental, is to be found in the rabbinic dictum 1i~' n~ tDJ1:Ji1 ?i1JJ 1i1T'~ 'Who is mighty? He who conquers his instinct". In modern French it is quite common to say of an expert outstandingly competent in his field 'iI est tres fort'. Fort denotes here a mental quality, not a physical one. 'praise' nJtD The apparent problem posed by the translation of Isa 45:23 11tD? ?:J 1'JtDn liJ ?:J 1'i:Jn '? ':J by the Septuagint as E:~0j.10A.oy~3 Those familiar with the Nostratic hypothesis, which we do not ourselves reject, will see what we mean if we dare say that at that level of genetic relationship both Semitic /g.b.r./ and Indo-European /lre-/ may very well represent one and the same root. Yet, here again, one should take care not to attribute diachronic or diatopic explanations of a narrow order to semantic processes that are rather of a cognitive nature.

KIRTCHUK: CooNITIVE. TYPOLOGICAL REMARKS ON TIlE HEBREW oF4QMMT

135

corroborated by 4Q215a, 7-8, is solved by Lowenstamm (apud Kister) by a supposed weakening of the laryngeals and as an effect of exegetical considerations. However, in our opinion this is a false problem all together, both on phonological and on semantic grounds. Phonologically speaking, l1:::ltv is akin to n:::ltv 'praise', the only difference residing in the position of the vocal cords during the articulation of the pharyngal. As a matter of fact, those are variants of one and the same root, and the slight difference may be due either to a relatively late semantic differentiation or to dialectal factors. Our analYSis is confirmed by typological semantic considerations: Eng. 'swear', Fr. 'jurer' and the like mean both 'to take an oath' and 'to curse'. Both senses are closely related, since they contain an irrational component which may be expressed by magic or ritual formulae. Now as we have seen before concerning beauty and ugliness, 'curse' and 'praise' constitute the two poles of one and the same continuum meaning 'to formulate a subjective appreciation of somebody, either in a laudatory or in a deprecatory way'. Therefore we can say that in Hebrew one and the same basic root means 'to take an oath' (when it adopts the form l1:::ltv) and 'to formulate a subjective appreciation of somebody in a laudatory way' (when it adopts the form n:::ltv). Therefore M. Kister's contention that God's praise found in Joshua's apocryphon 4Q175 is derived from l1:::ltv', in Josh 6:26 seems even more accurate than he thought.

O'ETaL,

1':::l /l1Otv

Both Biblical and U garitic literature display this parallelism. It is our contention, on cognitive grounds, that the primary meaning of 1':::l is 'to see', hence its use alongside with l10tv, another verb denoting a sensory activity. Indeed, this is an implication of the "concrete> abstract" cline we mentioned beforehand: when a verb has a concrete, sensual, physical meaning and also an abstract, intellectual, mental one, the latter is always metaphOrical and secondary as compared with the first even if it is attested more abundantly. As a matter of fact, the reflexive form of the verb preserves its primary meaning. This explains also the use of 1':::l as a synonym of '?)tv, which also means primarily "to observe, look, see, contemplate, perceive" as in '?')tviT'? yl1iT 10m, CJ"J'l1'? ~'iT iT'~n ')' '?)~O'? yl1iT :::l,t!l ') iTtv~iT ~'m

"And the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and that it was desirable for the eyes and that it was a pleasure to look at" (Gen 3:6) and in

136

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

"If they were wise they would see it, they would perceive their

end" (Deut 32:29) The Aramaic form "::JO is also there to prove it. Here, if the DSS can be of some value to the understanding of the primary visual meaning of 1':1 'to see', typological and cognitive considerations of general linguistics demonstrate it altogether.

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

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Menahem Kister (Jerusalem) In Memory of my teacher, Prof. J.e. Greenfield A small Qumran fragment published recently includes additional visions of Ezekiel (4Q386 fro 1 col. 2).1 Naturally this text has some biblical flavour, but it also includes (within 9 lines) the non-CBH expressions 11:l;1, i1~~J, !'tn, 1,rv1 t:l1'?rv, 1':::l. The word 1r:li1 has been identified by M. Bar-Asher as the preposition attested in MH with pronoun suffixes (e.g., 1Jr:l'i1 etc.).2 The plant name i1~~J is found in MH and in Syriac; the word l'rv (and also the combination 1,rv1 C1'?rv) is attested in Aramaic, and seems to be borrowed from this language; the word !'tn is otherwise unknown (tentatively explained as denoting a wasp),3 and 1':::l is attested in LBH and in Aramaic.4 In a fragment of another work we find the expression [:::l11P.li' :::l':::lni1 C.li (4Q462 fro 1, 11).5 The Hebrew i1'?1JO C.li is rendered by Targum Onkelos :::l':::ln C.li (Deut 7:6, 14:2, 26: 18), and it seems that this fragment used the same expression, although it is not easy to explain the syntax of the expression :::l':::lni1 C.li. 6 In a halakhic text (4Q265 fro 6, 7) we read m~ 1'? n'?rv1 1'J:::l. 7 Since the verb n'?rv means in Aramaic "to undress, take off, 1 Dimant 1998:511-28. Most of the words mentioned below have been thoroughly discussed by the editor. 2 Bar-Asher 1990:75. 3 See Dimant's note and Bar-Asher 1998:265. 4 For another striking Aramaism (ipll:l) in the same work see Qimron 1991b:649-650. 5 Smith 1995:198. 6 A possible explanation is that :l':lnil ell = :l':mil ellil, the he omitted in writing because of the weakening of the gutturals. The word :l':lnil would be perceived as a modifier, as in the Aramaic expression :l':ln ell. lowe this explanation to Prof. Qimron. However, the people of Israel are rarely called in this layer of Hebrew :lPll', and therefore it is not impossible that the author of this work, aware of the Aramaic term, changed the status of :l':ln to genitive (1010), an epithet of Jacob rather than of the people. 7 Baumgarten 1999:69. Baumgarten reads n'ltV' and translates "let him cast his garment to him". Elsewhere Baumgarten cited this passage, reading

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

138

strip off clothes",8 a plausible translation would be: "let him (the rescuer) take off his garment for him (Le., for the rescued)". The word 'j~ (''we'?, known so well from MH, occurs several times in the scrolls. The first occurrence of the well-attested MH word 'tD~,lJ, in itself probably a calque of Aramaic, \0 is in a Qumran fragment (4Q225 fro 2, 2:7).11 The word iTO'tD, the cognate of Aramaic ~no'o ("treasure"),12 is used not only in Ben Sira (41:14 M and Bmg; 40:18 Bmg), but also in Hebrew Tobit G1:::l1t!! iTO'tD 4Q200 fro 2, 9 [= 4:9]).13 Below I am going to show that the words iZ"'O (4Q439 fro 1 1:2) and ",lJ (4Q433 ff. 1, 3), rare or undocumented in Hebrew, are to be explained according to Aramaic usage. Some expressions employed in rabbinic literature are now known to us from the Qumran fragments; for instance, tDi'PiT 11tD' (4Q464 fro 3 1:8)14 and O':::lt!! O'ion (4Q185 ff. 1-2 2:1).15 The expression "':::li"~Oinl\',lJi',lJ;b ("to transgress any of His words"; lQS 3:11, cf. 1:13Y6 is cognate with MH ni ,,lJ n,lJO~ in the same sense (Gen. Rab. 98:4 red. Albeck, p. 1253]) and to Syriac l\np'~ ,,lJ ,lJO~, 17 ,lJO~ being the root that often replaces BH i,lJ~ in MH.IS Should we assume that the expression in Qumran is a "biblicized" form of the expression in MH, or rather that both roots received the same semantic colouring in QH and MH?19 We also find in the Scrolls the n'?tZ11 and translating it "let him extend his garment to him" (1996: 162). The reading n'?ID1 is syntactically preferable. 8 Jastrow 1903:1580; Sokoloff 1990:552. 9 See Qimron 1988:58 (§ 321.14). The word is first attested in the ketiv of Jer42:6. 10 Ben-J:layyim 1953:95; Yalon 1971:144. II VanderKam 1994:149. 12 Jastrow 1903:980; Sokoloff 1990:375; Payne Smith 1901 :2563-2564. 13 Fitzmyer 1995:65. Fitzmyer's translation, "a good deposit", should be corrected accordingly. 14 Stone and Eshel 1992:248,253. IS Allegro 1968:85. Discussion of the expression Cl'J1~ Cl'10n in Jewish prayer see Yalon 1971:337-341; Goldin 1991:659-661. The occurrence at Qumran excludes the interpretation suggested by Goldziher (1934: 117 -119), followed by L. Ginzberg (1961:181). Does the wordl:l'Jt!l in 4Q185 represent defective orthography (Strugnell 1970:269) or Aramaic influence? 16 See also 4Q185 2:4 (Allegro 1968:85). 17 Aphrahat, Demonstrationes(ed. W. Wright; London, 1869), p. *448. 18 Bendavid 1967:360. Cf. also the Targum to 2 Sam 22:37 and to Jer 10:23, where 1l)~ is rendered by ~nl)O:l. 19

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

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STILE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

unique expression ?,:JO '0

fP

139

'1' i1JiD C'irv.v, i1KO Ci1'O' ,:>nn', (4Q

252 1:2 instead of i1JiD C'irv.v, i1KO "0' ,'i11 [Gen 6:3]),20 meaning

"and their days were rationed to a hundred and twenty years until the period of the flood".21 The word lnn, equivalent in this case to MH :J~p ,22 is documented in this sense in Paytanic Hebrew: 'n ?:>? c"n lmni1,23 (cf. in a mediaeval text [tenth century?]: ':> :J~p:J i1JiD C'irv.v, i1KO "0' ,'i11 i1jO, ?,:J0i1 i"? fP lnn Ki':Ji1 i11~p,).24

These random examples from recent publications are a good illustration of the Hebrew vocabulary of the fragments preserved at Qumran, consisting of words known from various layers of Hebrew and from Aramaic. In this article I shall try to consider some general issues, such as the problem of the relationship of the vocabulary of the Dead Sea Scrolls to words attested in CBH, LBH or MH, to deal with the problem of Hebrew words and their relation to their Aramaic cognates, and to scrutinize the significance of words borrowed from the Bible and of biblical paraphrases. Finally, I shall try to illustrate the effect of style and literary evolution on the changing meaning of words or on the creation of expressions of multiple meanings. mentioned above. See also Yalon 1967:77. 23 Brooke 1996:193. 21 Brooke compares Dan 9:24 (1996:197) and translates: "and their days were determined at one hundred and twenty years until the time/end of (the) waters of (the) flood". My understanding of the verb is somewhat different. 22 Cf. (in relation to Gen 6:3): 'ilJ~ 0'i~.ll1 ill(O 1'0' 1'ill' 1'0' 1? n:::l~p i:::l:J1 (Midrash ha-Gadol on Deut 34:7; ed. S. Fisch, Jerusalem 1975, p. 787). See also Gen. Rab. 26:6, ed. Theodor - Albeck, p. 251 and variae lectiones). 23 In the Palestinian piyyut to the Day of Atonement, ~~~o m'o ,':::l Tn11(il (see Goldschmidt 1970:225). Similarly in the poetic piece Nethanne Toqef. Tm'i:::l ?:J? il:::l~p 11nnm (Goldschmidt 1970: 170). 24 Rosenthal 1948:*40 and commentary, *57. For the background of this work see Fleischer 1967: Hebrew Section, *1-*23; Fleischer 1980:183-190. The expression Oil'O' 1:Jnn' in 4Q252 is not identical with the seemingly identical expression [O]'J~il nl(1 O'O'il nl( "1J ['JJil] (4Q385 fro 3,4-5) which means "to cut short the days" (Kister and Qimron 1992:601). Compare in Paytanic Hebrew: fpil1nm ]1:::l~n J?'1 (Phinehas, Mishmaroth, 1:8 [Zulay 1939:138]); iln'J.ll '1:::l.ll~ fP 11nn (Shim'on bar Megas 14:1:8 [Yahalom 1984:150]); compare, in the same piyyut, 1~.ll1 o'nl(o? fP l[nn ---:::l] ilJ~ ill(O .ll:::l11(? 0'11(1 fl( il:m). Both Phinehas and Shim'on allude to the midrash recorded in Cant. Rab. 1:8. I am grateful to the staff of the Historical Dictionary by the Academy of the Hebrew Language for helping me in using the concordance of pre-l 000 Hebrew sources, from which I drew the references quoted in this note.

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

140

L

The relation of the Hebrew vocabulary of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the vocabulary of other layers of the Hebrew language, and especially of MH, has been a central issue in Qumran scholarship since the publication of the fIrst scrolls. The classifIcation of Qumran vocabulary into words attested in CBH, LBH or MH or words otherwise unattested in Hebrew is rather groblematic for many reasons (as recently noted by Qimron), as can be demonstrated by the following two illustrations. 1. The root iM~ is well-attested in MH (in the forms ito, 'll~) and it occurs twice in the Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira from the Genizab (rill'~, ill'~O; 11 :2, 13:22). Qimron lists 'M~ 'to be ugly' among "words mainly attested in the DSS and in the Tannaitic and Amoraic literature".26 Recently, David Flusser maintained that the root iM~ "ugly" occurs twice in the Bible: in Ps 22:17 and in Nah 3:6. 27 Ps 22:17 reads, according to MT: ''?Jil '" 'iK:J 'Jl:J'Pil C'lliO n'll C'J'?:J 'J1JJO ':J. Some Hebrew manuscripts read "M~ instead of 'iM~, and a midrash is based on this reading. 28 Flusser argued that the original reading is liM~ in the sense of "mar with wounds", and pointed out a similar semantic shift in the Latin foedo. While Flusser's argument from Nab 3:6 (preferring the reading of Pesher Nahum and the Targum Tnorvl ililK:J to 'Ki:J Tnorm of MT and the Septuagint) is questionable,29

Qimron 1994: 106-107. Qimron 1986:98. 100. 27 Flusser 1993:403-404. 28 Other mediaeval Hebrew manuscripts read ,,:l, a reading reflected also in the Septuagint. A manuscript from either Nal}.all:lever or Wadi Seial reads "M:l (P. Flint 1997:88): I thank Mr M. Morgenstern for drawing my attention to this detail. The following midrash is based on the readings "M:l and ,,:l: " ... tll"'tzm~ '~£l? m"~:l "?n, "', 'tllll'tll C'£ltll:l '? 'tllll :'o~ il"il' " tll"'tlln~ 'E? '?J" '1' ":l'il :1I:l~ il'OilJ (Midrash Psalms ad loc., ed. S. Buber, p.194). Basically, the forms ,,:l, "M:l are textual variants that emerged due to graphic or phonetic Similarity, but I cannot exclude the possibility that the preference for the reading "M:l in MT has to do with the Christian argument that this verse is a strong prooftext for the crucifiction of Jesus (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho. 97). 29 Lieberman 1968:98. 30 Both the Targum and Pesher Nahum apparently reflect both readings (il"10 and 'M':l). In the Targum the Hebrew words '~':l l'now, are rendered 1m ?:l '~'ll? ~'ll:lO 1r'tll~'; the words 1m ?:l probably reflect the reading 'M':l 25 26

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

141

his textual and semantic interpretation of Ps 22: 17 seems more probable than all other suggestions. The biblical text of Nah 3:6-7 is explained in Pesher Nahum with the following words: '?,::>'? CI'lJ.,il Clil'rvlJO ,,?~' fpil n,.,nK~ .,rvK mp'?nil 'rv.", '?lJ ,.,rv:l ,,~::> m'?~il~' ClnorvK l"r '?lJ CI,.,K:>' CI1KlD' m"lJ~ ':l'~' CI'~'" '?K.,tv' .'?K.,rv' '?lJ ,,'?:l, Clil'lJnO nK '~rlJ' CI'?ilp 1'00 CI''':lK 'Kn:l "", 3«7T"il' It should be noted that the word ,~::> in the phrase '?lJ ClnK:>' ClnorvK 11,r fits the prevalent meaning of the verb ,~::> in Syriac "to reproach, put to shame, despise" better than the meaning of this root attested in MH, and should perhaps be translated: "Many will understand their iniquity and put them to shame for their malicious guilt". The semantic shift is understandable (cf. also Latin foedus). What looked like a clear case of a word attested in Mishnaic Hebrew, then, is more complicated: the root is attested already in the Bible (perha~s CBH) and its exact meaning may be closer to that in Aramaic?1 2. Another illustration for a similar dilemma is provided by the word CI''?rvil "to deliver, to hand over".32 The word is found in the Temple Scroll: ,::>:l ,,~'? 'OlJ nK CI''?rvO' 'OlJ~ '?'::>, tD'K il'il' '::> 'OlJ~ illJ' ilrv'lJ' (11 QT 64:7). The meaning "deliver" is known from Aramaic and MH, and occurs in the classical piyyutim. 33 This word may well be attested in the Bible. According to MT, the king of Aram asks: '?K'rv' l'?o-'?K ,:l'?rvo '0 (2 Kgs 6: 11), whereas the Septuagint reads: T(S lTpocS(cSwcr(v jJ.E ~acrtAEl I crpaT]A. It is very plausible, as has been already suggested, that the Septuagint reflects a superior reading: '?K'tD' l'?o-'?K ':lo'?tDO '0 "who delivers me to the king of Israel?,,34 However, the word should not necessarily be classified as CBH, since it could well be a deliberate Aramaism put into the mouth of the king of (thus Weiss 1981:214). The words i1'ii1' 'i:::l~ m'?'i1:::l in the peshermay also to be based on the reading '~i~: the verb i1~i is often rendered '?J~ in the Targums (albeit with reference to God). 31 It should be emphasized that the root i.!1~ / i~~ is rather common in MH. The lack of evidence for the meaning attested in Pesher Nahum is therefore remarkable. 32 Cf. Qirnron 1980:258; 1986:104. 33 Yadin 1971:390; Urbach 1971:392. As noted by Qimron (1980:258), the word occurs in amoraic sources more than in tannaitic ones. 34 This is certainly the best suggestion, for which see N.H. Tur-Sinai, apud E. Ben Yehuda, Thesaurus totius Hebraitatis. s.v. C?rJ) (Jerusalem, 1959), p. 7182 n. 2. The reading of the Septuagint explains the use of the preposition ?~, which is awkward according to MT.

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

142

Aram in the biblical passage.35 Finally, a semantic consideration should be mentioned: the piel of the root c~, current in biblical Hebrew in the sense of "to pay", is clearly derived from the basic meaning "to deliver". However, this observation concerning the semantic development of the Semitic root does not indicate when, if ever, the root had such a meaning in Hebrew. Is "deliver" an old meaning of the Hebrew root c'?rv attested in the Bible, in the Temple Scroll and in MH, or is it rather an Aramaism in one or more of these layers, and, consequently, does the occurrence of this word imply continuity between the different layers of the Hebrew language? One of the most important texts found in Qumran is 4QMMT?6 The style and language of this text are unique, but comparison with 4Q386 noted above (p. 121) is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of many post-biblical and Aramaic words even in a "biblicized" text. The style of 4QMMT is influenced by its literary genre: unlike 4Q386 it is a letter (sent to a person outside the sect) rather than a prophecy or a literary work. MMT's vocabulary was closely scrutinized by Qimron. He classifies the Hebrew words of MMT into the following categories: "Classical Biblical Hebrew elements", "post-exilic elements", "usages not found before MH", "new words or expressions". Qimron noted throughout his discussion several words and usages that have their affinities with Aramaic (rv ??JJ [B:79]; lJ10 [C:28]; n~po [B:1]; '1~1 [B:17: Aramaic 'rn]; rv nlJO [B:66]; C?rv [A:20]; '?Jp [B:57]; ii'ii + participle [C:24, 26]; nm iirvlJ [B:75], to which one may add: rv rvPJ (C:28); 10 (B:31; Aramaic 10 1J'?); and perhaps others. 3? The most obvious Aramaism in MMT is rv '?rvJ (B:12, 16, C:30; Aramaic 1 ?'1J; totally absent from MH). Also remarkable is the usage ~?rv (B:53), J1n,rv, / J1n,rvo rather than ~'?rv '0 and J1n,rv iiOO, (Jm,rv iiO') Jm" in MH, with a clear affinity with the usage of Aramaic 1. Most of the affinities with MH are attested in Aramaic or may be interpreted as Aramaic calque;S (e.g., ~1J'?0 [C:8];:"j~ [B:13]; 1m;] [B:50]; 10 rv1:l [C:7]; ii010 [B:49]; C'~J Ciirv [B:39]). It seems that a vast majority of the words classified by Qimron as "attested in CBH" occurs in

rm

Thus Tur-Sinai, ibid. See Hurvitz 1996:87. Qimron and Strugnell:1994. The following paragraph is a summary of the analysis of the language of MMT suggested by me elsewhere (Kister 1999b:355-359. 37 Kister 1999b:357, nn. 186-188. 38 For calques of Aramaic in Hebrew see Kutscher 1977:394*-406*, especially 401 *-404* (Hebrew section). 35

36

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

143

paraphrastic quotations of biblical verses (n'inM [C:14]; i!DM [B:32]; ,,::l [B:65]; !DC!Dil ~'::l [B:72]; in::l [B:61]; l'~ ~'!Dil [B:13, 27]; ,~ [il'il1 =] ~'il1 [C:13]; r~ [B:62]; ~'i~ [B:64, 68]; n'!DMi [B:63]; il::l~'n [C:6-7]; and also ilP'~ ::l!DMJ [Ps 106:31], n,'JO'p [C: 12] and perhaps t!l5l!DO' pm [B:52]). Other words assigned by Qimron to this cate~ory are theol~ical terms (n~ [C:30]; ili,n [C:24]; '?~''?::l [C:22]; P'::lnil [C:23]) or attested also in Aramaic41 (including words like 'JMJM [C:20; Aramaic texts from Qumran: MJMJM]; !DO!D [B:15]; ilOil1 [C:28]; np'? [= to marry, B:40]; P'::lnil [C:23]).42 Elimination of these words from Qimron's list leaves us with very few words representing CBH: il'?M (B:l, 15; C 5, 8, 14, 28), '~ (B:16), 'i!D~ 'n!Dl1 (A:iii:2-in the calendar!).43 Few words and expressions, mostly halakhic terms, are found only in MH ('?~i!D' ri~ [B:57-58]; !D"Pil niilt!l [B:23]; n'p~'o [B:55]; ni5l ~t!lnil [B:13]; n::l'il1n [B:48, 50]; iln'? [B:57-58]44). I do not contend that all the words that have affInities with Aramaic are Aramaisms, but it may be worthwhile to note that the vocabulary of MMT is, on the whole, very close to Aramaic. The use of 'JMJM (BH) rather than 'JM (MH) or of !DO!D rather than ilon is not necessarily a preference for Biblical Hebrew; it can be explained by the cognate words in Aramaic.45 A Hebrew letter from the end of the Second Temple period (written in a "non-biblicized" style) uses 'JMJM,46 and the Aramaic influence on its opening formula is evident from a parallel letter in Aramaic.47 Such a heavy influence of Aramaic and affInity with Aramaic is by no means surprising, but it implies that classification of Hebrew words at Qumran according to the layers of Hebrew in which they occur may blur Kister 1999b:352-354. 40 The word refers to religious meditation; cf. also Kister 1999b:357 n. 183 (c). 41 ,!)' n:uzmo (C:29) is a theological term that has an Aramaic equivalent in the Prayer of Levi ( pnnc, C'i'in(l) 'J:l'i'ElJO '?N' .C'(I)in mn'iEl:::1 'il':::Dll'. 75 Schirmann 1970:48. The readingtDCtV ?J?J in Qimron's article (Qimron 1995a:304) is a lapse. 76 A late addition to Pesiqta de-Ray Kahana (ed. B. Mandelbaum, p. 455). The name Ncn 1:::1 1il:::>il onE, the tradent of our aggada, is used only in the Tanhuma- Yelammedenu literature and in Midrash Tehillim, and the wording seems rather late, but the antiquity of the aggada (if not necessarily of the midrashic source!) is proven by the piyyutwhich made use of a similar source. 77 See Lieberman's emendation (1962:476) in Mandelbaum's edition of Pesiqta de-Ray Kahana; his interpretation of the word C'OEl,El is not conclusive. 78 Qimron (1995:304) quotes the two latter sources as reflecting the interpretation "rays" for the word 'i'in in Job 41 :22. 79 Similarly also the Targum ad loc., and see also Tanbuma, Ni~avim 4.

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

149

0'"

something shining, which was naturally combined with "sun" (Qalir, late midrash). As has been demonstrated by Qimron, the understanding of '"," as "rays" (tZ,," '"," meaning the sun's rays) is known from Rashi's interpretation of Job 41:22 in the name of his teacher: "The plain sense of the text tZ,," '"," ,'n"n is, according to my master,80 'in his place there are rays of sun"'),81 an interpretation further developed semantically in Pseudo-Rashi (perhaps Rashbam)82 on Job 41:22. 83 In contrast to Qimron, it must be stressed that, as far as I know, such an understanding of""" is not found in earlier interpretations of, or allusions to, Job 41:22. 84 It is difficult to decide whether the mediaeval commentators drew upon an unknown ancient tradition, or if the Similarity to the interpretation of 1Q 19 is a result of independent interpretation of the biblical verse. 2. The biblical verse il?'? il'PO "ilt!l il'il' ~? ,tv~ tv'~ 1:1 il'il' 'J (Deut 23:11) is paraphrased in the Temple Scroll by il'il"J tv'~' il?'? iliPO'? (11QT 45:7). It has been shown by Qimron85 that "in the Temple Scroll [... ] the expression il?'? il'PO occurs with the mem as the preformative of the miqtal pattern" in the sense of "nocturnal emission". Qimron notes that this understanding of the word il'PO is not in line with the analysis reflected by the Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Targums. the Tiberian and the Samaritan vocalization, according to which the word is composed of the preposition min followed by the noun qare. 86 On the other 80 The reading'i17.:l l1tD'?, found in seven manuscripts of Rashi, seems to be original. 81 Rashi's commentary on b. lful. 76b: 1'nnn = 17.:l1P7.:l::J (cf. Exod 16:29), 'i1in = 'i1i;"TT, tDin =tD7.:ltD . 82 Shoshana 1999:64-66. 83 "In his resting place (1mn cnp7.:l::J) there are rays of sun (tD7.:ltD 'i1im), for the fins of his belly beneath him (1jt!l::J::J 1'nnn itD~ t:l'i':ljO) shine like the sun. 'i1in like ;"Tin ::Jin (a sharp sword) that is keen and bright and gleaming, hence the rays are called 'i1in. tDin means sun ... " (Shoshana 1999:271; see Qimron 1995a:303. On the whole, Qimron follows the semantic explanation provided by Pseudo-Rashi). Note the combination of Rashi's interpretation (1'nnn "in his place", "1,n "rays") with another one ("1,n "fins", 1'nnn "beneath him"). See also the commentary of Rashi' s diSCiple (Shoshana 1999:271). 84 Note, however, Qimron's interesting references to Massekhet HekhaJo~ ch. 5 (Jellinek 1855:43; Qimron 1995a:306). However, it is still questionable whether the original reading in this text was really "1in. 85 Qimron 1995a:298-300. 86 For the data see Qimron 1995a:298. We may conclude from the evidence of these ancient translations that the Tiberian vocalization ;"T1PO

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

150

hand, the understanding of the Temple Scroll matches Saul's words concerning David "ilt!) K'? ':l K'il "ilt!) 'n'?~ K'il il'PO (1 Sam 20:26). Qimron suggests that the biblical word miqre in Samuel and Deuteronomy is a verbal noun, meaning "nocturnal emission".87 However, it is awkward to interpret il'PO as a verbal noun both in Deuteronomy (where such an abstract expression cannot be attached to ,1ilt!) il'il' K'? ,rvK) and in Samuel (where K'il il'PO seems to be parallel to K'il "ilt!) 'n'?~, in which the word to1:'il clearly refers to David). In the biblical verses it seems much more preferable to take il'PO as referring to the person who emitted semen (perhaps to be vocalized as a [passive?] participle).88 The verse in Deuteronomy would then be translated: "If there is among you any man who is not clean, having emitted semen by night", and the verse in Samuel: "He (Le., David) emitted semen and he is unclean and not yet cleansed". The earliest interpretations of the biblical verses regarded this word either as identical with the well-known miqre (MT and all the versions for Samuel, llQT for Deuteronomy) or as composed from min and qere, the latter word taken as a noun, equivalent to MH "P (MT and all the versions for Deuteronomy). It should be noted that the syntactical structure of MT was changed in a similar manner both in the Temple Scroll and in the Targum to Samuel: 1? il'iT'

'1 (1)'1(1 11 QT 45:7

il"'? ilipO .9 il,., mil ""1i'",, : Targum

il?'? ilipO ... tD'K

1:J

il'il' ':l

:Deut 23: 11

1(1il ilipO : 1Sam

20:26

If the preceding analysis is correct, the reading in the Temple Scroll is no more than an ancient witness to the interpretation of a biblical word, and does not help us in determining the original meaning in the Bible, as maintained by Qimron.90 On the other hand, it is illuminating to observe the continuity of exegetical tradition, which is in this case also the tradition of pronunciation (where the reading of llQT is the exception).91 3. As has been shown, the word t'Jrv, in the Bible has mythical with a dagesh in the Qof is not for phonetic reasons, but due to the interpretation given to this word. 87 Qimron 1995a:299-300. 88 Cf. MH iliPJ, ilip1il, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic 'iP'~ (probably denominative verbs of 'ip). 89 According to Sperber 1959: II 26. 90 Cf. also Morag 1996:153. 91 The reading of 11 QT in Deuteronomy could have emerged by analogy with Samuel.

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

151

connotations;92 the Phoenician god t'jw, is a dangerous deity, shooting arrows of consuming fire and plague. Resheph brings destruction by plague according to Deut 32:24 and Hab 3:5, and is parallel to dever also in Ps 78:4893 and it personifies the consuming and potentially destructive heat of love (together with mo and "to1:W; Cant 8:6). In the expression nwp '00' (Ps 76:4), the arrows of the enemy are compared with Resheph's arrows. 94 The Septuagint seems to indicate that the meaning of t'jw, was not known in a very early time:95 the word t'jw, is rendered in it by various words, each of them chosen to fit the context of the 'om' in Deut biblical verse translated. The rendering of 32:24 as ~pwaEl OPVEWV seems to be a guess 6 on the basis of the context and perhaps also on the basis of Job 5:7, whence one could learn that t'jw, 'j:l fly.97 Targum Onkelos similarly renders t'jw, in Deut 32:24 by to1:~'.!), and this understanding is consistent in Symmachus and Aquila (as far as they are known to us) and found in midrashic literature.98 This rendering occurs in the Peshitta to Hab 3:5 (~~) and to Job 5:7 (r 11' (Gen 49: tOc-d) does not refer to Judah's descendants but rather to the cessation of their authority.126 Another example is the word o'~::>':ln. The word is used at Qumran in the sense of "wicked people", especially applied to context there, however, is too fragmentary to draw any definite conclusions. 122 This version is mentioned by R. Isaac Abrabanel: o'''pm~ nm:::l p [Jj n N'OO.l) ]1fVDn' ii'''' ~n'fVO 'n~' '.1)' (emend to o"nfV) o,nnfV (ad Gen 49:8). This version is not recorded in Sperber's edition. 123 Tal 1980:212 (variae lectiones); see Levi 1907:173; Schorsch 1997:7880. 124 According to Greenfield and Stone (1979) "the royal blessing of Judah is ... transferred to Kohath, the founder of the High Priestly line" because in the Aramaic T. Levi "Judah plays no role" and "royal terminology is consistently applied to Levi" (pp. 224, 219). See also Stone 1999:134-135. This illuminating study of the tendency of this work does not solve the exegetical problem of how Gen 49:10 was interpreted by its author and why he chose to allude to it at this place. 125 The key words for this interpretation are, of course, ':::l '.1) (interpreted as applying to the cessation of Judah's dynasty and its replacement by priest[sD. The words ~n::li ~n1:lii:::l ii1iin ii" " may be an allusion to ii"'fV ~::l' ':::l '.1), namely ii1iin ii" " = ;''''fV, the last word interpreted in the sense of;~ 'of his'; cf. for a very similar understanding and translation technique in Onkelos and Neofiti: ~m:::l"o ~'ii ii'''''' ~n'fVO 'n", '.1); the antiquity of these targumim is proven by 4Q252 5:4, most recently published by Brooke (1996:205): iijn:J '.I)iT'" ,., ':::l 0"'.1) min '.1) '0.1) m:::l"o n'i::l. 126 Does this refer to the eschatological period, or rather to a historical period (note the prohibition on anOinting priests as kings, which is derived, according to y. Sot. 8.3 [22c], from Gen 49: lOa)? For priests as kings in the Aramaic T. Levi see above, n. 124. The Aramaic T. Levi and this midrash reflect conflicting attitudes, both based on the same biblical verse. The midrash may well reflect a negative attitude towards the Hasmonean dynasty.

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

157

mp?ni1 'tv"", the Pharisees (4Q501 :4-5).127 It is evident from 1QH 3:26 (in which Ps lO:9-lO and Isa 19:8 are combined) that the word !:l'~:>?n is borrowed from Ps lO:9-lO: i1'''~:> .,noo:J :J"~' (9) ntv' (Q: i1:>,') i1:>" (lO) :1ntv.,:J ,:>WO:J ':l.t1 '1~n' ':l.t1 '1'~n? :J"~' i1:lO:J (Q: O'~:> ?'n) o'~:>?n "0,~.t1:J ?Em. Semantic or etymological solutions to the riddle of this peculiar Qumran usage128 are apt to be wrong, and the clue must be in the realm of the interpretation (or text) of the biblical verse. One may hypothesize, for example, that Ps lO:lO (or Ps lO:9c-lO) was interpreted as saying that the wicked will eventually fall into the snares of the righteous poor129 (see especially lQH 5:7_8!).130 Some Qumran texts allude to biblical verses by paraphrase. Such paraphrases yield information concerning the ancient interpretation of these verses. 1. 0':l'0~ .,'Otv? 1'00 ?,:JJ (1 QS 10:25). The word ?,:JJ is not gevuL "border, boundary".131 It is rather the word gibbuJ, derived from the verb gibbeJ ("to knead, form [clay]," and hence "to create [human beings]), and 1'00 ?,:JJ is a clear synonym of the biblically derived expression 1'00 "~', which comes from Isa 26 : 2 - 3 ( O,?tv .,~n 1'00 .,~' :O':lO~ 10tv P"~ ',J ~:J" O'I.t1tv mnEl m~:J ]:J ':> m?tv).132 In Syriac, the Hebrew root 1~' is rendered by ?:JJ,133 and the two roots occur in parallelism in the Qumran scrolls (0'0i1 ?:JJ01 10ni1 1~' [IQH 1:21]; cf. also: ,?:JJO IEl.t10 i1~'i1' [IQS 11:21]). A non-biblical word (?,:JJ) replaced a biblical one (1~') in an evident biblical allusion to Isa 26:3. 2. Moshe Weinfeld has suggested that the latter part of the sentence ?~ ,n':J m,m om:>, on.t1' ?,:> '~':J' 'no~? 0':J,:li1 ?:>, (1 QS 127 BailIet 1982:79. Elsewhere, I have commented on the content of this fragment (Kister 1999b:331). 128 Licht 1957:85; Yalon 1967:37 (the relevance of Midrash Tehillim is questionable, and the piyyuttakes t:l'~''?n as a positive attribute); Wallenstein 1954:2l3-214. 129 The word 'Jll in verse 9c would be interpreted as the subject (rather than as an object), and the words nt!)' ;,'" would be related to it (interpreted as applying to the humility of the poor). 130 The word ;,,'?n (Ps 10:8, 14) was not interpreted as the Singular of t:l'~''?n, but this is not unique to Qumran (see, e.g., Saadia's interpretation of verse 14 [Saadia Gaon, ed. Kafih 1966:68; Arabic and Hebrew]). 131 Vermes 1998:114; Charlesworth (ed.) 1994:47. The renderings "wall" (Wernberg-M~lIer 1957b:38), "fence" (Garcfa Martinez 1994: 17), "ferme" (Dupont-Sommer 1987:42) are very free. 132 The expression 1'00 ,~' is current in the Hodayot and in 1QS (1 QH 1:35,2:9,2:36 and especially lQH 18: l3; lQS 4:5, 8:3). 133 Greenfield 1960:155-162.

158

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

1:11-12; cf. also CD 13:11) is based on 1tvEl:l '~::1' 1::1::1' '~::1 11KO '~::1' (Deut 6:5): nJ.)1 paraphrasing the biblical ::1,134; m~ and l'il paraphrasing the biblical 1~0. Weinfeld has demonstrated that there was an ancient exegetical tradition inte~reting these words, and especially Deut 6:5, along these lines. 35 It should also be noted that a late midrash reads136: 1m~ '~::1 '11KO '~::1" 1 j'il '~::11. Menahem Kahana has suggested that this passage might be derived from the newly-discovered tannaitic midrash Sifre Zuta to Deuteronomy, and has noted the usage of the biblical word l'il. 137 This text, especially if it is tannaitic, supports Weinfeld's suggestion, whereas the Qumran parallel might explain the wording of the midrash. 3. In a wisdom text from Qumran we read "ilJ.)Otv 1'::10 ilnJ.)' [':J ,.,0 ]K' il~::1' l:I'tv, (4Q525 fro 14 ii 18).138 The wording is clearly modelled on the biblical formula " 'J.)Otv l:I'j::1 ilnJ.)' (Prov. 5:7; 7:24; 8:32). The word l:I'j:::l of the biblical formula was replaced in the wisdom text from Qumran by 1':::lO, probably because the author of this work perceived the wordl:l'j:::l in the biblical formula not as "sons", but as "wise ones", that is, the qaJ participle form (cf. Jer 49:7, esp. LXX and Peshitta), which he changed to a hif'ilform: l:I'j':::lO (cf. Jer 49:7I:1no~n ilnim l:I'j:::lO il~J.) il1:::lK "Has counsel vanished from the prudent? Has their wisdom gone stale?"). 4. In Isa 45:23 we read: ptv' ,~ J.):::ltvn 1.,:::l ,~ J.).,~n ., '::J. The verb J.):::ltDn is rendered in the Septuagint by E-~Oj.l.oA.O'Y'lcrETaL ("shall praise"). This rendering owes much to the context and to the similarity in pronunciation between the roots J.):::ltv and n:::ltD. Loewenstamm concludes: "The combined effect of exegetical considerations and the weakening of the laryngeals ... has been to create a new meaning of the verb nishba ':'praise",.139 Further 134 Or mightnll' replace tz1~J' ~?, a well-attested collocation in the Qumran writings? 135 Weinfeld 1982:37-41. 136 Mann and Sonne 1966:*111. 137 The fragments of this tannaitic midrash will be published by Prof. Kahana, its discoverer. I am grateful to him for letting me read through the manuscript of his book. 138 Puech 1998:146. 139 Loewenstamm 1992:220-221 ("Excursus IV: The Verb pasah"). Seeligmann pointed out several passages in which the Septuagint's rendering can be explained by the weakening of the gutturals, especially 'ayin and bet (Seeligmann 1961 :201, n. 2). In the enlarged Hebrew version of his article he quoted also Isa 45:23; see Seeligmann 1992:320, n. 2. For a totally different approach see Goshen-Gottstein 1963:156-158. Loewenstamm's suggestion

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

159

evidence for the tradition of the Septuagint may be found in a fragment from Qumran: ttll( ,?", 'j"~n l£']ttl'? ,?" ,SJ 'o'?,SJ '[SJ] ,,? 1mnttl' (4Q215a, 7_8).140 In my opinion this sentence is based on our biblical verse, and 'j"~ is the equivalent of biblical SJ~ttln, quite similarly to the Septuagint. If indeed the meaning "praise" was attributed to the root SJ~ttl in Isa 45:23, this may enable us to understand another passage. Josh 6:26 reads: SJ~ttl" nKii1 "SJiI nK i!j~' cnp' 'ttlK 'ii 'E'? ttl'Kii "'K 'OK'? K'iIiI nSJ~ SJttl'iI' iI'n'?, ~'~' "'SJ~~' ilno" ",~~ m',' nK. Joshua's words were interpreted as a prophecy rather than a curse in the Bible (1 K~s 16:34), followed by an apocryphon of Joshua (4QI75, 21-30), ~1 whose author interpreted it as related to his own time: 'ttlK nSJ~ '''K i!jK ... ttl'iI '''K 'OK" 142'iI'm'?iln~ m"iI'?, '?'?iI'? SJ,ttl' iI'?, 'O,SJ '?SJ''?:J 143 llil.ll'l'* > .llilll '1'). 148

An interlinear addition in 1QS.

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

161

A preliminary note should be made. The words 'j"K i1J11K at lQH 7:6 (end ofB, no. 1) is a formulaic sign in the Hodayotfor the beginning of a new hymn. However, the very close similarity between A and B argues for a connection between the apparently separate units 7:1-5 and 7:6-25. The difficulty in the translation ofo"17u, nn is a good example for the problems posed by a work like the Hodayot The expression comes from Isa 19: 14 ( '?J:J O"~O nK 117ni11 0' 17117 m, i1:J'P:J 100 'i1 1K'P:J '1JZ1 m17ni1J 1i1iD170).149 This verse is combined in both passages of the Hodayot (A and B) with Ps 107:18,25-29 (differently in A and in B): ... 1''?~ 001,m i1,170 nn 1017' ... mo "17iD 117 117'~'1 i1001'? i1,170 0P' ... 17'?:Jnn onOJn '?J1 '1JiDJ 1171j'1 mn'. The combination is not artificial: it is motivated by the Similarity of expressions in the two biblical passages. Note that the words 'j17'?:Jn O"17117 m'1 (B) are inspired by 17'?:Jnn onOJn '?J1 (Ps 107:27). The word m, in Isa 19:14 can hardly be explained as "wind", whereas this sense is clear in Ps 107:25. Merging the two verses created an expression in which O"17117 m, has both the meaning of "misleading spirit",150 and "wind". The expression in the Hodayot combines (thanks to the ambiguity of the word m, in Hebrew) the physical metaphor and the theological content. Thus the same expression can be employed in A as referring to the sea and in B as referring to the poet's troubled heart. The translation "whirlwind," employed by many translators in both passages, is an oversimplified solution. Any attempt to deduce the meaninR of this expression merely through etymological considerations1 (rather than exegetical and literary tools) is inadequate. In both A and B there is a shift from ship imagery (based mainly on Ps 107) to wall imagery, based on Isa 28: 16 ( 10' 'jji1 iD'n' K'? rOKOi1 1010 1010 n,p' mEl In:J pK pK 11'~:J). As has been noted, this biblical passage influenced all the Qumran texts recorded in this table (and other texts from Qumran).152 The verb 17T171m is recorded four times in these passages/ 53 but all the passages are related to one another literarily and stylistically. Moreover, the verb happens to occur, as has been noted, in the Targum to the verse mentioned above, Isa 28: 16, in which MT Thus lQlsaa (Parry and Qimron 1999:31). Or, perhaps, rather: "spirit of misleading (evil) forces", if l.Ilni11 in Isa 19:14 refers to 0"ll1ll (rather than to the princes of Egypt mentioned in Isa 19: 13). Such a reading would fit Qumran theology well. 151 See Wallenstein 1957:212. 152 lQS 5:5-6,9:3-4. 153 To be sure, the roots llilli , ll1i occur in BH. 149

150

162

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

is rendered l'.11T.11,r. The verb .11T.11'T' substitutes for a biblical word that may have sounded too vague or too archaic to be used. This is another example of an allusion to a biblical verse by paraphrase (see pp. 157_59).154 Similarly, "0 ("foundation") is used in these passages instead of the biblical word '0'0 (which is employed in lQS 5:5), perhaps because of the same reason. 155 Another stylistic feature may be labelled "telescoping": it is a contraction of two distinct elements into one unit (the construct state is often employed for this literary device). The vague expression that is the result of this device is often hardly decipherable without acquaintance with the elements of which it is composed. This stylistic feature is quite common in the Scrolls. For instance, the word t!lElWO in the sentence t!lElIDO" !:l'nElID no"m P'~ mM'):> (1 QS 9:4-5), almost unintelligible in its present context, must be understood as telescoping a passage like lQS 8:6, where the phrase t!lEl!DO" nOK ',.11 occurs in the midst of a passage dealing with the sect's power of atonement. 156 In the passages compared above one may note the follwoing. (1) The expression 1M:Jil nom (B and D) may well be the product of telescoping the wall metaphor (cf. A and B) and the expression 1M:J l:JK (lsa 28: 16, A). (2) The wall imagery in A and B follows the wording of Prov 18: 10-11 ('T.11 n',p "ID.11 l1il ::J~!D)' P"~ ,:J 'il !:lID T.11 ",~o 'n':>!DO~ il:J~ID) ilom:>,). The t!!ird word of verse 10 was probably read sam rather than MT sem, hence 11.11 ",~o:> ')O'IDm in B (cf. also IQSb 5:23!). What is a clear allusion in B to Prov 18:10-11 is deliberately changed in A, where the emphasis is on the strength and stability of the community rather than on those of any individual. Thus il:J~ID) ilom:J 11.11 ",~o (B) became il:J~ID) ilO'M:J T'.11) (A). The word T'.11) is a neologism, which was created by the combination of the biblical formula of B and the passive sense required in the context of A. It seems likely that 11.11 .11"0 in C is a combination of the .11"0 mentioned in A and Band Tl.11 of B (+A)

ID'M'

r'"

IS4 In D the word w'n' is also used, after it has been explained by 1llTll'T'. For the significance of the interpretation in the targumim and in the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical lexicography, see Qirnron 1995a:326-328. ISS It seems plaUSible (although perhaps less evident) that the phrase ,n'i1 '10'0 m1' .Il1Tr1 ,fDN tzr'Ni11 (lQS 7:18), in which both the verb ll1T and the noun '10' occur (as in Isa 28:16 and in D), may also allude to this biblical verse. For other suggestions see Alexander and Vermes 1998:186; Wemberg~lIer 1957b:119 n. 38. Note also Cll '1fl)' (4Q266 fro 5, 2:9). The phrase is derived from Cll '10 (Ezek 13:9; see also CD 19:35), interpreted here as "foundation" (compare Baumgarten 1996:50; idem 1992:507-509). 156 The same is probably true for the word~~1J in the phrase at lQS 8:9:

mn'J rr, :J"P'1 ~OO1J n":J' c?1:;' nll':J.

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

163

(6:2). (3) In the sentence 0'0 ':J5:) '?lJ i1':J'~;:' "'p ,tz),~ ,lJ,.," (lQH 3: 12-13) the puzzling expression "'p ,tz),~ ("the wall foundations") is a product of telescoping passages like ... 'r1':J:::l0 "n ,?,;:, ,17Ii"1 ln1::l r1o,n'? 'm."p ,?,;:" ,,'o'? o'?,lJ ,tz),~, in B, and shares with A and B the juxtaposition of ship and wall imagery. It should be borne in mind that this imagery has quite different significance in lQH 3:13 (cosmic foundations) from that in B (the human body).157 It might perhaps be suggested that these passages elaborate on earlier material. The meaning of passages so similar in wording as A and B is remarkably different. B definitely describes the difficulties and forbearance of the individual, whereas A seems to attach more importance to the community.158 In C and D I59 the temple imagery is added to the wall imagery of A and B.I60 In C the metaphor of the rock as a solid place on which the foundation is built (A) is converted to a quite distinct metaphor: the rock as a stable standing place for a human being ('OlJ5:) 1'" r'lJ lJ'?0:::l).161 Clearly, the words 'r1':J::lO 'tz),~ ,?;:, ,lJ,.," at the beginning of B are related to'"o'? o'?,lJ 'tz),~, 'r1':J:::l0 lJ'?o '?lJ pm. However, the expression 'r1':J:::l0 'iV'~ refers to the individual (perhaps to the body), and not to the sect as a building (as does the ostensibly similar expression tz)"p r1':J::lO "0 in C). The least we can say is that in B there is an interplay between two different usages of r1':J::lO and "0 "body, essence".162 A more daring view would be that the the wording of B is derived from another context (more similar to A), and that it underwent a substantial change of content in B, 157 Licht notes: "Since no wall (i'p) is mentioned, it is to be suggested that the expression i'p '(I)il( ••• was transferred from a literary source no longer preserved" (Licht 1957:81). The striking stylistic parallel to B renders such a hypothesis superfluous, but Licht's remark demonstrates how awkward it is to interpret the wording of 1QH 3: 13 in its context. 158 See above (on Till:J ! Ti 'iJO). Note also the difference in the use of illl(l)i nion?o: in A this expression signifies the eschatological war, whereas in B it signifies the daily struggle of the individual with the wicked. 159 And also in lQS 5:5-6,9:3-4. 160 It should be emphasized that in A the only metaphor is ii~O i'll (probably an allusion to Ps 31 :22 ii~O i'll:l " iion 1("Elil 'J 'il1ii:l). There is no hint that this city is Jerusalem, and no allusion to temple or atonement. The conclusion that in the Serekh passages two distinct metaphors were combined seems almost inevitable. 161 With 'n':J:lO ll'O 'll pni compare Ps 40:3 'i(l)1( ]:liJ "Ji ll?o 'll CP'i. The wording of B might bridge A and C. Cf. also lQH 3:37 - 4:3 " iin"il 'J

"Ji ll'O 'll [---] ... nll nom,. 162

Cf. ilNt!lnil m:lO' ... iliillil i'O (lQH 1:22; cf. also lQH 13:15).

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

164

where it refers specifically to the individual, or to his body (perhaps in a metaphorical sense, as in Ps 40:3).163 The word"o occurs in lQS 11:6-9 [= C] in the sense of "essence" (irD:J "0), "assembly, community" (0"0 i:Jn). The word "0 in the phrase O"l' nl't!lo, w"p n'J:Jo "0' (directly following the words 0"0 i:Jn) can be interpreted either as meaning "foundation" or "community". Such ambiguity in the word "0 is indicated by another source. It has been suggested that Jesus' statement to Peter €TTt TavTlJ TlJ TTETPq. OlK080IJ:DO'W ~ou TT)V EKKAT)O'(av Kat TTVNll q,80u ou KaTlO'XVcrouO'tV auTils (Matt 16:18) should be reconstructed ini1 l"0i1 'l' "'0 i1J:JK (or, more freely: 'l' "'0 i1J:JK l"0) , 164 the word "0 being the equivalent of EKKAT)0'(a. 165 The close similarity between Jesus' saying and A strongly supports this reconstruction, according to which the word "0 in a text similar to A acquired at a relatively early time the meaning "community". This hypothetical process is in complete harmony with the stylistic use in C. The juxtaposition of the expression TTvAat q,80u (mo 'il'rD) to the building imagery in Jesus' saying should be emphasized. This expression clearly belongs in A (lQH 6:24) to the ship imagery (based on Ps 107:18). In Jesus' saying the expression is quite awkward;l66 most plausibly it is the result of telescoping a passage similar to A.167 The shift of the rock metaphor from God in the Scrolls (see A and even more explicitly C) to Peter has an interesting parallel in the Scrolls. While in the four passages cited above the wall refers to the sect, in lQH 3:37 it refers to God and in B and in lQSb 5:23-24 the tower in this wall is the leader. This shows how easily the imagery can change its significance and function in the same sect and even in the same literary work. Evidently, the basic meaning of "0 in all these passages is 163

See a bove, n. 161.

164

Cf. 4QIf (4Q429 fro 4 2:7; Schuller 1999:192), which reads i1nK ';:']

"'0 [c'tZln instead of lQH "0 C'tDn i1nK ';:'. See Schuller's comment on p. 193.

Betz, 1957:49-77. See Davies and Allison 1991 :630-634. 167 Compare also 4Q437 with lQH 6:24-26: lQH 6:24-26 4Q437 fro 21:11-13 ... mc '111tD 'll [.ll')n 'tD£l]j, ... c"n 'tD£lj n'?lli1 ?'KtDC' 'tDn i1nK ';:' '?K i1;:,nCK [~ i1nc ]tDK, ••• 'tD£lj nK] nnCtD [1!)£l]tDc 'p ?ll' .•. ?ptDC' I!)£ltDC 'p ? II O'£l;:" ll?O ? II "0 'm1 nK n"n i1P'~ [?PtDC~' [ne]K Both texts are based on Isa 28: 17, and both of them share also the motifs of deliverance from death and the joy (in being a member of the sect). 165

166

KISTER: VOCABULARY AND STYLE IN DEAD SEA SCROLLS

165

(foundation), since all these passages are based on '0'0 '0'0 of Isa 28: 16, but expressions and formulae have their own history. While the preceding analysis certainly illustrates the stylistic and literary factors of the Qumran use of words and idioms, it might also raise the possibility that the Hodayot (and related works) made use of phrases and formulae derived from some older material and reshaped them to fit divergent contexts. The scrutiny of such a possibility is far beyond the scope of this article.

"0'

BffiLICAL APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA AND THE HEBREW OF THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD James Kugel (Boston) One potential source of information about the Hebrew language as it existed during the Second Temple period is particularly frustrating: I mean the corpus of writings known as the biblical apocrypha and pseudepigrapha These texts, written in large measure in Hebrew between the third century BCE and the end of the first century CE, would indeed provide a vast store of information concerning the nature and development of the Hebrew language during that period, save for one thing: the Hebrew originals have largely disappeared. Most of these texts survived thanks to having been translated in ancient times into other languages. Many of them were rendered first into Greek, and often from Greek into Latin, Ethiopic (that is, Ge(ez), CoptiC, Old Church Slavonic, and other languages, in which form they have reached us. Trying to reconstruct the original Hebrew behind such translations or translations-of-translations is notoriously difficult. Nonetheless, sometimes something new can be glimpsed of the underlying original language of such texts----often with the aid of the Dead Sea Scrolls----and our understanding of a particular lexical item or grammatical usage can be enhanced. I In the follOWing I wish to examine two small instances of the potential interaction of the biblical apocrypha and pseudepigrapha with our knowledge of Hebrew in the Second Temple period.

1. iI"lm The word iI"l.'n apparently had several different meanings in Second Temple times, including not only "testimony" (as in BH) but also, as seen in various Qumran texts, "appointed time" or "festival," "assembly," and perhaps others (Dobrowski 1971; Qirnron 1986:115). In addition to these, however, the word may lOne scholar who understood this at an early stage was Gedalyah Allon, who wrote an excellent article about the evidence for MH expressions underlying the Greek of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Allon 1941).

KUGEL: APOCRYPHA/PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, HEBREW IN THE 2ND TEMPLE PERIOD

167

be seen to have played an important role-in yet another meaning -in the Book of Jubilees, a text composed, in my opinion, somewhere around the year 200 BeE and attested in various fragments of some fifteen different manuscripts at Qumran.

Jubilees had, of course, been known in translation long before the discoveries at Qumran: some passages of it had been cited in patristic writings, and the complete text of the Ethiopic version of Jubilees was brought to Europe in the nineteenth century. (Shortly afterwards, a large portion of the book was found in a Latin palimpsest as well.) Nevertheless, the discovery at Qumran of a few highly fragmentary passages of the book in their original Hebrew has clarified a number of lexical items, including, prominently, the title of the book itself. For "Jubilees" is just one of the names by which this work was known in late antiquity. It was also called "The Little Genesis" and apparently "The Apocalypse [and/or "The Testament"] of Moses" as well. Since the publication of the Damascus Document (16:2-4) we have known that it was referred to in Hebrew by the name mp'?no i:lO D'mm, The Book of the Divions of the Times. Now, this was not a total surprise, since ancient authors customarily use the first words of a work as its title, and Jubilees begins (as was clear from the surviving Ethiopic translation of the text) with the words "This is the account of the divisions of the times2 according to the law and the testimony etc. ... " (VanderKam and Milik 1991:249). So it now became clear that that was indeed the book's original title. But the matter did not quite end there; the last words cited from this Ethiopic title, "The book of the divisions of the times according to the law and the testimony," still required clarification. That was not possible until publication a few years ago of some scattered fragments of the first chapter of Jubilees, found in Cave 4 of Qumran. In these fragments, the phrase from the title "according to the law and the testimony" appears in its original Hebrew. (It was missing from the brief title mentioned in the Damascus Document.)3 Of course, "law" in this phrase turned out, predictably, to be the word i1im, but "testimony" was not, as might have been supposed, nn!1 (this is how the phrase was retroverted into Hebrew in, for example, the popular The Ethiopic text here reads "division of the days." 3 Unfortunately, the first line of the book is still missing in Hebrew, and the part where inum should reappear in Jub. 1:4 is also missing; however, the same phrase appears again in Jub. 1:26, and this verse is indeed preserved in col. 4 of 4Q216; there can be little doubt that its wording in Hebrew here represents the same words as were used in the Hebrew of Jub 1: 1. 2

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

168

Hebrew collection of pseudepigrapha edited by Abraham Kahana), butil,um. What is the difference between nnl1 and il"l1n? To begin with, the words il"n and il"l1n are found paired together twice in the book of Isaiah (lsa 8: 16 and 8:20). The pairing of these two words in Isaiah was hardly an incidental matter to the author of Jubilees; indeed, their appearance there must have struck him as a potential goldmine. For while the word il"n in his day was a common designation of a specific literary work, the Pentateuch or "Torah of Moses,'>4 there was no literary work referred to as the il"l1n. Yet if Isaiah referred to the il,m and the il"l1n in one breath, this seemed to open the door to the claim that, in addition to the Torah, that is, the Pentateuch, there was another authoritative source of divine revelation, some book or document called by Isaiah the il"l1n.5 Since Isaiah had said (lsa 8: 16) that this il"l1n was to be "bound up" and sealed away, and since no one had ever read or quoted from such a document subsequently, the author of Jubilees now felt emboldened to write it, or at least to cite from it, himself. So that is what his book is really claiming to be in its opening sentence, a book that spells out the chronology and other details of events as related in the Torah, the Pentateuch itself, and in an otherwise unknown document, the Tecudah mentioned by Isaiah-that is, il"l1n'?, il,m'? !:l'nl1il mp'?no ,ElO. Indeed, the author of Jubilees sometimes refers to his own work itself as, we now know, il".vnil: Thus, at one point the angelic speaker of the book says that the people of Israel "will eat and be satisfied, and they will tum after other gods who will not save them from their troubles. And this il".vn will testify as a witness against them that they have forgotten all My commandments which I commanded you ..." (Jub. 1:8-9)6 Similarly, it seems altogether likely that the author of Jubilees used the word il".vn when he had the angel tell Moses, in 6: 12, ''This testimony [i.e., il"l1n] has been written regarding you to See, for example, Sir 24:23. 5 On Jubilees' reckoning with the question of authority-including this allusion to Isa 8: 16-see Najman 1998. 6 Here, clearly, the author of Jubilees is presenting his own text in terms reminiscent of of the song of Moses in Deut 32, which will "testify as a witness" against the Israelites after they sin (Deut 31: 19, 21). What he means is that the people will never be able to claim that they did not know that they were transgressing when they abandoned the solar calendar and other things enjoined by the book of Jubilees, since, according to the book's words, all these things had been made known to Moses on Mt. Sinai and transmitted by him to the people of Israel. 4

KUGEL: APOCRYPHA!PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. HEBREW IN THE 2ND TEMPLE PERIOD

169

keep it for all times, so that you may not at any time eat any blood of animals or birds throughout all the days of the earth." In giving his book this title, the author of Jubilees was thus able to make that verse in Isaiah sound as if the eighth-century prophet was in fact alluding to the Book of Jubilees, which presents itself as having been written down way back in the time of Moses. That Isaiah further specifies that the ii"l.'n was to be bound up and sealed away was also of great value to the author of Jubilees, since that would explain why a text written back in the days of Moses should only have resurfaced in the second century BeE. But there is more than even this to the author's choice of a title. For, in addition to the other senses that the word ii"l.'n apparently had in BH and the Hebrew of Qumran, it apparently had yet another nuance, one connected in particular to the biblical use of the verb "l.'ii, which means not only "testify" but also "warn" or "admonish." For the author of Jubilees, it seems, the word ii"l.'n could thus be understood as meaning a solemn warning or admonition. Now, in a common notion well attested in Jubilees itself and in various Qumran texts and other writings of the Second Temple period, it was impossible for anyone, even God, to impose punishment for some violation unless and until the violator had been properly warned about the infraction, "Suchand-such a thing is forbidden and is punishable in such-and-such a fashion." Without this kind of warning, no actual sentence for wrongdoing could be passed (Kugel 1990:223-231). So, for example, the author of Jubilees states in regard to Reuben's sin with Bilhah: "Let no one say that Reuben was allowed to live and [had] forgiveness after he lay with his father's concubine [and was not killed in accordance with the Torah's own laws]. For the statute, the punishment and the law had not been completely revealed to everyone. But in your time [Moses,] it is like the law of appointed times and days, and an etemallaw for everlasting generations." (Jub. 33:15-16) Precisely because such warning was a necessary precursor to enforcement and punishment, the author of Jubilees often goes to the trouble of inserting this or that act of admonition into the narrative even though the Pentateuch itself does not mention it. For example, Noah at one point admonishes his sons against certain sins: And he warned7 his sons to act justly and cover the shame of 7

That is, "l);"I; the word is usually mistranslated here as "bore witness

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

170

their flesh and bless the One who created them and honour father and mother and each one love his neighbour and keep themselves from fornication and impurity and from all injustice. (Jub7:20)

It is in this sense of a solemn warning that the author of Jubilees refers to his own work as the i1"l1I1, and it is in this same sense that he refers frequently in the book to "the i1"l1I1 of the heavenly tablets' oS-not the "witness" or "testimony" of the heavenly tablets, as the phrase is usually rendered, but the solemn warning contained in the tablets, the same warning that is being transmitted by the book of Jubilees itself. So here, a single word from the Qumran scrolls has revealed a great deal about the whole stance of the book of Jubilees. It turns out to be the i1"l1I1'?, i1,1I1'? Cl'I1l1i1 mp'?no ,:lO in the precise sense of being a recounting of the actual history of ancient times as it was communicated to Moses in the Pentateuch and in the solemn warning, the i1"l1I1, that was given to Moses on Mt Sinai, namely, the contents of the book of Jubilees itself. That warning spells out all the things that, for one reason or another, had been omitted from the Pentateuch: the nature of the proper calendar to be used by Israel and the catastrophes that will befall it if it fails to adhere to this calendar; the prohibition of inter-marriage and other forms of "fornication" omitted from the Pentateuch's own words; the detailed list of the various forms of work forbidden on the sabbath; the expansive notion of impurity, i1~O'~, found in Jubilees, and the evils that will follow if such impurity becomes entrenched in Israel; and so forth. Having received his solemn warning about these matters from an angel on Mount Sinai, Moses then wrote them down, along with the sacred history that framed them, in a separate book, one still known (the author would have us think) in the days of the prophet Isaiah but then "sealed up" for a time, until it could reemerge in the second century BeE.

2. i1,'tl) ,o~ Another lexical item that might be worthy of investigation is a somewhat puzzling phrase known from early rabbinic sources, i1,'tl) ,o~. This phrase looks like it might mean, literally, to "say a song;' but in context it always seems to mean something like to." 8 Jub 6:23, 38; 16:28,23:32 and cf. 4:19, etc. This usage is in keeping with ,'11i1 in the sense of ''warn'' in 4:22, 6:38, etc. To be sure, the ''i!''l1n of the heavenly tablets" is not always a warning; see 30: 19, 31 :32, etc.

KUGEL: APOCRYPHA/PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, HEBREW IN THE 2ND TEMPLE PERIOD

171

"sing praises [to God]." Thus, for example, in the prayer ?~

l'J'

!:l'O?'l1ii attributed to R. Y ohanan (in the latter half of the third century CE), ii."tz1 TJEl? .,o,? ':JnJK !:l'J"m ... 1? m"ii? !:l'J"n ':JnJK l~'eJ? . .. ,~.,?n J'~ iiO ':J"tz1K ,,'on m' ?~J

We must thus exalt You ... and we must offer praise to You every day, "Happy are we, how sweet is our lot ... " Similarly: .,l1'ii '~11 ,:J:J.,' TK [10K:JtD] ii"tz1 "OK' !:lii'eJ m:J?'Kii ?~ mneJ "0

Whereupon all the trees opened their mouths and sang a song of praise [as it is said] "Then the trees of the forest exulted" [1 Chr 16:33] (y. Sanh. ch. 10 [29a]) .ii"tz1 'O,? ,tz1pJ ,!:l'ii 10 ?K'tz1' ,?l1tD iil1tz1J ,K:J'Pl1 " tz1" ii"tz1 "OK' tz1"Pii m., I:lii'? 11 n.,tz1

R. Aqiba expounded: When Israel had crossed the [Red] Sea, they wished to offer a song of praise. The holy spirit came upon them and they uttered a song. (t. Sot. 6.2) ... iil1tD ?~J ii"tD !:l"O'K ?K'tz1'

Israel offers praise [to God] at every moment ... (b.lful. 91b) ii"tz1 n"O'K n'tz1ii '~K?O ?tD mn'~ tD,?tD :J, 'OK ?K:J:Jn " 'OK 'ii tz1"p n'O'K nnK' ,tD"p n'O'K nnK' ,tD"p mO'K nnK .m' ?~J .mKJ~

R. Hananel said that Rab had said: Three groups of attending angels praise [God] every day. One group says "Holy," the second says "Holy," and the third says "Holy is the Lord of Hosts." (b. Hut. 91b) !ii"tz1 !:l',mK !:lnK' !:l'J !:l'l1J'~ 'I' 'tz1110

[God said to the angels:] "My creatures [the Egyptians] are drowning in the sea and you are singing?,,9 (b. Tam. 32b) I have varied my translations of the expression ii"tD 'OK to fit the different contexts, but it should be apparent that in all these cases the phrase refers to offering praise to God. Although the praise is apparently sung, I would hesitate to say that in each case a particular song is intended: as the fourth and fifth examples above suggest, any sort of singing-even singing a single word! -fits the definition of ii"tz1 'OK. Now, what is interesting is that this phrase itself does not appear anywhere in biblical Hebrew. Usually, when the word ii"tl) or "tl) appears there, the verb accompanying it is the cognate ,'tD: nK '?K'tD' ';)J, iitDO "tD' TK 9

See on this Heinemann 1974: 175-80.

172

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

... nNm i1i'tl)i1 (Exod 15: 1) or ... tl),n i'tl) 'i1? ",tl) (Ps 96: 1); and so forth. The expression i1i'tl) iON or i'tl) iON never occurs. Nor, for that matter, does i1i'tl) iON appear at Qumran or in any other surviving Hebrew text written before the second century CEo Where did it come from? Let us begin by considering its component parts. It should be noted that iO~, especially in MH, has a lexical range somewhat wider than "say" in English: it can often mean something more like "utter" or "proclaim" or even "recite"; in some contexts it even means "compose" (t:l'?i1n ielO 'iONtl) t:nN 'J:! i1itl)lJ i1?N [Mid. Ps 1:6]). So its use in the expression i1i'tl) iON, although unprecedented in BH, is really not all that odd in MH. However, the use of i1i'tl) in this same expression does seem to demand explanation. In BH (and in MH as well, apart from our expression) i1i'tl) is a relatively rare word, far less common than i'tl). It apparently designated a particular type of song in BH, though the difference between a i'rD and a i1i'tl) is far from c1ear.to In any event, there is little need to point out that the more general meaning of i1i'tl) in modern Hebrew as "poetry" is altogether foreign to biblical Hebrew. Nor is i1i'tl) used in BH as a collective noun, as if it stood in the same relationship to i'rD as, for example, m, usually stands to J,. Indeed, in its discussion of collective nouns in BH, one Hebrew grammar asserts just the opposite, that i'rD is "frequently collective" whereas i1i'tl) always refers to "a single song" (Cowley-Kautzsch-Gesenius 1910:394), and a glance at the biblical evidence will confirm this judgment. The same usage is followed at Qumran in the famous inventory of David's compositions in l1QP~: i1tl)tl) i::3' itl)N i'rDi1 ?,::l 'i1', n1NO lJ::3iN' t:l'lJ::3iN', "the total of the songs [i'rD in the singular, as a collective] that he composed was four hundred and forty-six." So it is still i'tl), and not i1i'rD, that is the more common and general term. Why then do rabbinic texts say i1i'tl) iON? The reason is certainly not that BH i1i'rD refers specifically to a cultic or holy song. True, the songs of praise of the Israelites at the Red Sea is called a i1i'tl), as well as David's, etc.; but there is also the m,m ni'rD in Isa 23: 15, and "" ni'rD (probably: t:l',,, ni'tl) in Isa 5: 1. So i1i'tl) seems to include a range of different kinds of 10 A well-known rabbinic midrash asks why certain past victory songs are called il"rD and not "rD and gives a homiletical answer (each past victory gave birth, like a female, to further events, that is, it was not a final victory, which can only be marked by a ,'rD in the masculine form). But the very fact that the question is asked, and that such an answer is offered, suggests that no clear distinction between the word "rD and il"rD existed in the mind of the author of this midrash. See Kugel 1982.

KUGEL: APOCRYPHA/PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. HEBREW IN THE 2ND TEMPLE PERIOD

173

songs or individual compositions. The matter might be clarified somewhat by a long-standing observation about a biblical manuscript from Qumran. l1 Some years ago, E.Y. Kutscher noted in his study of the Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 (lQIsa8 ) that the latter part of Isa 43:21 in the Masoretic text, nElO' 'n"iln ," 'n1~' 1t Cll' ("The people I created for Myself, so that they recount my praise") appears in 1QIsa8 as 110~1' 'n"iln (" ... so that they say my praise"). As Kutscher observed, this change seems to tell us something about the Hebrew of that day: 10tl; apparently struck someone at the time as a more appropriate verb than 1ElO to accompany the noun il"iln (Kutscher 1959: 166). Kutscher further noted there that il"i1n is regularly translated into Aramaic as iln:::ltV1n, where "it is usually joined to the verb 10tl;" (Kutscher 1959:166). In a later discussion, Avi Hurvitz stated that although il"iln 10~ is not found in the canonical books of the Jewish Bible, the expression does occur in a verse from the Hebrew text of Ben Sira: il"iln 10~n Cl:m ilEl:::l "Let praise be said in the mouth of a sage" (Sir 15: 10 [A]) (Hurvitz 1972:53). Here, then, are two rather similar expressions, il1'tV 10~ in various rabbinic texts and il"iln 10~ in Ben Sira and lQIsa8 • To these might be added a third, the hybrid l1JO'il 10~ found in a few rabbinic texts: 12 pJO'il ,1"0 "iD 1n:::liD 1m' niDp:::lO iln'iliD r10T "iD il11:::ln" "iDO ... PJO'il 10'" 1"'~1' ... r~~T Cl~"'~ :l"Oil en, 10~ 13. 1 "0"

This is comparable to a group of singers that sought to sing the praises of the king, a hymn to the king. The king said to them: You are all worthy ... and fitto sing a hymn ... (Mid. Ps 1: 1)

tJ'10'~ Cln~ .,~ :Clil' 10~ .1'0" l'JO'il 10'" m'10il 'J:::l '~"il ?l'JO'il

Some of the townspeople went to sing a hymn to the king. He said to them: Do you wish to sing a hymn to me? (Mid. Ps 2 [end])

It may be that behind the existence of all these rather unbiblical phrases (il1'tV 10~, il"iln, and pJO'il) stands a single explanation, the one hinted by Kutscher: they appear to be modeled on, or influenced by, the Aramaic iln::JiD1n 10~, to "utter praise." Since, as Kutscher pointed out, 10tl; is indeed the verb regularly conjoined with iln:::ltV1n in Aramaic, the use of its cognate in an equivalent I am grateful to Prof. Avi Hurvitz for bringing this to my attention. My thanks to Prof. Menahem Kister for pointing out this expression. For further examples see Kohut 1882:3.216. 13 It is certainly noteworthy that this passage contains the internal gloss of )1:lO'il 10K as 1n::JrD 101". 11

12

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

174

Hebrew expression is hardly to be wondered at. Moreover, il'?iln and il"iV might both reasonably translate iln::liV1n the word-as indeed the opposite was true. (In addition to Kutscher's observation about the equation of il'?iln and i1n::liV,n-See, e.g., Targum Onqelos to Deut 26: 19-it should be noted that nearly every instance ofil"iV in BH is rendered as iln::liV1n in Targum Onqelos, Targum Neophyti, and elsewhere.) As for l'JO'il, it may have been perceived for a time as an elegant synonym for il"iV or iln::liV1n, one that (as in the examples cited) might be particularly suitable when speaking of a foreign king or royal court. In short, it seems that ancient Hebrew writers, influenced by the Aramaic iln::liV1n 'O~, created the Hebrew equivalents, il'?iln 'O~, l1JO'il 'O~, and il"iV 'O~, this last coming to predominate in rabbinic usage. To all this should be added one more thing: traces of these expressions may be found as well in the biblical apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (apart from the single use in Sir 15: 10 [A] already noted by Hurvitz). For, although we have seen that the verb 'o~ in Hebrew has a fairly broad lexical range, it is nevertheless the case that most ancient translators consistently rendered it as AE'YElV, dicere, and other words for "say" in European languages. Thus, when we find someone "saying a song" in the Greek, Latin, or other ancient translation of an originally Hebrew text from the apocrypha or pseudepigrapha, we may well be in the presence Ofil"iV 'O~ or one of the other expressions seen above. One likely piece of evidence, it seems to me, is the repeated occurrence of the expression hymnum dicere in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo. This Latin text, generally thought to be one of the most "proto-rabbinic" works to be found among the biblical pseudepigrapha, is believed to go back, via an intermediate Greek translation, to a Hebrew original of the first century CEo In introducing its version of the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), this text reads: Tunc Debbora et Barach [f) filius Abino et omnis populus unanimiter hymnum dixerunt Domino in ilia die dicentes ... Then did Debbora and Barach the son of Abino and all the people together say a hymn to the Lord on that day, saying ... lAB 32:1

This sentence stands in Ps.-Philo's retelling as the equivalent of Judg 5: 1, except that, instead of translating the MT 'iVm in the expected way (et cantavit or-an equivalent term sometimes used by Ps.-Philo--hymnizavit), it reads hymnum dixerunt .. 14 (This 14 On the strangeness of this expression in Latin (or its Greek equivalent) see VanderKam 1989:21On and Harrington 1985:372n.

KUGEL: APOCRYPHA/PsEUDEPIGRAPHA, HEBREW IN TIlE 2ND TEMPLE PERIOD

175

formulation may be particularly significant since the song itself is universally known in rabbinic texts as ,,::1, n"rD.} Precisely the same phrase, hymnum dicere, appears in two other places in two other places in Ps.-Philo. After reporting Moses' death, Ps.Philo asserts: Et in ilIa die non est dictus hymnus militum pro recessu Moysi nec fuit talis dies ex eo quo fecit Dominus hominem super terram, nec erit talis adhuc in sempiternum, ut humilietur pro hominibus hymnus angelorum. And on that day the song of the heavenly hosts was not spoken because of the death of Moses, nor was there any day like it, from the one in which God made men on earth, nor will there be like it henceforth forever, when the song of the angels was put aside because of men. (LAB 19:16)

Here again a song (hymn us} is "said"-or, rather not said (non est dictus). Indeed, the whole passage concerns what is called here hymnus angeJorum, that is, the lexical item n"rD !:l':m'?Oil, attested in rabbinic midrash: in fact, the idea of the angels ceasing their il"!D because of something bad happening on earth is the same as that underlying the midrash of '1' 'rDl10 il"rD !:l"O'~ tJn~, !:l'::1 !:l'l1::1,t!l cited earlier. A final example in Ps.-Philo is David's song (2 Sam 22), which begins: A finibus terr{a)e incipiam glorificate, et in dies saeculi dicam hymnum From the ends of the earth I will begin to praise. and I will speak my song forever. (LAB 59:4)

Once again, dicere hymnum may represent one of the Hebrew expressions studied above. A few further traces of this phrase may exist in the biblical pseudepigrapha. One occurs in the Greek Testament of Job 43:2, "And the spirit fell upon Eliphaz and he said a song and the other companions repeated after him, they and the men next to the altar. And Eliphaz said, etc." The location of this verse is important: it comes just after Eliphaz has been informed that his sacrifice has been accepted and God has forgiven him for his intemperate words. At that pOint, in Greek, the spirit falls upon Eliphaz Kat e-l1TEV VIiVOV, that is, he offered words of thanks to God for his forgiveness. The Apocalypse of Abraham may also contain the same expression, appearing in Old Church Slavonic as glagoJati pesnu,

176

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

which probably represents Greek A€'YElV ~8ilv (or: uj.1vov). This expression appears in ApAbr 17:4 and 18:1. (Because of the absence of articles in Old Church Slavonic, it is impossible to determine here whether the text means pesnu in the sense of "say the [particular] song of praise," namely, the one in ApAbr 17:8-25, or simply "recite a song of praise," as il1'rz) 10K means elsewhere.) The last passage comes from the book of Jubilees. There, after having paid his tithes and offered sacrifices, Jacob and his sons celebrate: "And he ate there along with his sons and the men in celebration for seven days, and he blessed and said a song to God who had freed him from all his troubles and had let him fulfill his vow" (in Latin: ... Et benedicebat et hymnum dicebat deo qui liberavit eum de omnibus tribulationibus eius et quoniam redidit votum suum [Jub 32:7]). It only remains to add a word about il1'rz) in the expression il1'rz) 10K, which, as noted, seems to predominate in later texts. It may be that even before the rabbinic period, the word il1'rz) had begun to be perceived less as a particular type of song and more as "song" in general, if not as the gerund, "singing." As possible evidence one might adduce Ben Sira's praise of King Solomon: How wise you grow in your youth, and brimmed with wisdom like the Nile, You covered the earth with your soul['s breadth] and gave honour with the height of song ~''''tD ClnO::l O?pm)(Sir 47: 15 [MS B])15

On the other hand, elsewhere it is 1'tv that Ben Sira uses in the general sense (Sir 35:3, 5; 40:21; 47:9, 17). Particularly instructive is the following: Like a seal in a setting of gold, so is the praise of God (?~ .,'tD) at a wine-gathering (Sir 35:5 [MS B]). This Hebrew phrase is glossed in a marginal note in the manuscript as '?K n1'rz) (as if 1'rz) were-whenever this gloss was introduced -no longer the proper, general term). Perhaps one final factor came into play. At an early stage of Israelite society, there was apparently no set convention of offering songs of thanks to God after one's prayer had been answered or 15 This phrase may be an allusion to the Song of Songs, attributed by tradition to Solomon; indeed the phrase il.,'tD O,.,O::J may be a gloss of the name O,.,'tDil .,'tD, that is, the greatest or loftiest of songs.

KUGEL: APOCRYPHA/PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. HEBREW IN THE 2ND TEMPLE PERIOD

177

after someone had been saved from danger. Thus, the Pentateuchal narrative does not present Abraham as offering thanks to God after the angelic intervention that saved his son Isaac, for example, or after Lot's safe return from captivity. Nor does Jacob offer a song of thanksgiving after his encounter with Esau in Genesis 33, nor does Joseph after his release from prison. Even the song sung by the Israelites at the Red Sea appears, on close inspection, less a song of thanksgiving than a victory song, similar to other victory songs known to us from the Ancient Near East. But at a certain point, songs of thanksgiving did become conventional. It is doubtless in respect to such a convention that an editor inserted the Song of Hannah in I Samuel 2 as well as David's song in 2 Samuel 22; the biblical apocrypha and pseudepigraph a likewise abound with songs of thanksgiving, such as the song of the three young men in Daniel 3 (in the Septuagint version) or Judith's song of thanksgiving (Jdt 16), or Tobit's (Tob 13). Somewhat later, the matter became stated policy: God's merciful acts of salvation cannot go unthanked. Thus, iT1'tV 0'10'~ "iTn ,0'0:1 OJ'? iTtV111 iT"JPiTtVJ ("When God performs miracles for you, offer praise," y. Pes. ch. 10 [37:4]). If the phrase iT1'tV 10~ came to be used in precisely such circumstances, perhaps it came in part on the strength of biblical models. For while there was no convention of offering songs of thanksgiving in earlier times, the Bible nonetheless contains a number of songs specifically deSignated iT1'rD in this rarer, feminine, form, and most of these came to be construed as "songs of thanksgiving" (see in particular Weitzman 1997). Perhaps for that reason as well, rabbinic writers chose to designate this act of thanksgiving by the phrase iT1'tl] 10~.

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

* Professor Morag passed away suddenly on 4 September, 1999. His paper was read by his wife, Shoshana, who wishes to thank Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon, Prof. Moshe Bar-Asher and Dr Steven Fassberg for their assistance with the final version of this paper. I Matore 1951; the French terms are 'mots-clef and 'mots-temoin'. 2 See, e.g. Williams 1976.

MORAG: SOME CONCEPTS IN THE WORLD OF QUMRAN

179

category. They are more specific in their function, being lexical components that denote a linguistic use typical of a defined group of speakers. They are not attested in the speech or writings of other groups, or they express meanings differing from their accepted connotations. As 'key words' they bear witness to a certain significant line of thought or a pertinent feature in the life of the group's members. The significant aspect of an 'evidence word' is the explicit or implicit innovation in its use.3 ,n', P'~' n'i:l, ltD1n, i'N are key words in Qumran Hebrew. They carry great significance in the outlook of the community. However, in comparison with their use in BH no substantial changes are attested in their use in QH. On the other hand, as we shall see, ,n', ?i'J, C':liiT, liD are 'evidence words'. They definitely characterize the vocabulary used by the community, distinguish-ing it from that of other Jewish groups of the period.

Let us start with ,n'. Is this tenn in the meaning of 'community' completely new in the history of Hebrew? Is this an evidence word sharing a new way of conceiving the meaning of 'community', group or sect? Our answer is definitely positive. It is clearly a specific term of the Qumran community. The nonnal use of in' in BH is, as is well known, as an adverb. It has, however, been proposed that the word also appears as a substantive in BH. Professor Shemaryahu Talmon suggested interpreting in' in a few biblical passages as a noun with the meaning of 'gathering', 'constitutional body'.4 He bases his interpretation primarily on Deut 33:5: CD 'rDNi ~DNniT::ll?O pitv'::l 'iT', ?Nitv' '~:lrD in'. Talmon takes the phrases ?Nitv' '~::lrD and CD 'tDNi as referring to the 'leaders of the Israelite community'; in the collocation ?NitD' '~:lto in" in' indicates 'the constitutional body formed by these elders'.5 Accordingly we should analyse the verse as implying the structure in' (~DNniT:l) CD 'rDNi ~DNniT::l ?NirD' '~:lrD.

This interpretation remains within the limit of possibility, but is not completely convincing although it provides a parallel structure of the half-verse in question: in' C.17 'toNi II ?Nitv' '~:lto. 3 For a discussion of these concepts in the language of Jeremiah see Morag 1975. 4 Talmon 1953. 5 The JPS translation of the verse is 'Then He became King in Jerusalem, when the heads of the people assembled, the tribes of Israel together'.

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

180

To my mind, another occurrence mentioned by Talmon is of more relevance. In 1 Chr 12: 18 David addresses the men of Benjamin and Judah who come to his stronghold (1~~), asking frankly what their intentions are: i1'i1' ':J1TlJ'? ''?K ClnK:l m'?rv'? ClK ,rn':lK 'i1'?K K1' 'El~:l oon K'?:l '1~'? ':lm01'? ClK' ,1n''? :l:l'? Cl~''?lJ ,'? n~"1. What does the phrase 1n''? :l:l'? Cl~''?lJ ,'? i1'i1' mean?

Talmon's translation, 'my heart will be upon you for a covenant', is acceptable. The context definitely shows that the phrase, possibly idiomatic at the time, carries the notion of 'unity', or possibly of 'agreement'. We may suppose that the underlying structure of the phrase had originally been :l:l'? CllJ 1n' :l:l'? m'i1'? 'one heart with another'. Although the concept of a covenant is prominent at Qumran, we cannot deduce from this verse that BH uses 1n' to denote a group of people sharing common ideas. It is quite clear that the term 1n' as the main appellation for the Qumran community was not drawn from the biblical lexicon. The founders of the sect had evidently created this term regarding it to be most appropriate, since it echoed the sociologically most significant semantic features that they aspired to achieve in their communal life, namely: (a) togetherness; (b) separation from other groups; (c) singularity and uniqueness; (d) having a special quality, excellence. The last meaning inheres in 10.:9 in Mishnaic Hebrew: nmo mmO:ltD n1n'0 K'i1tD n'?oi1, that is, 'the best of the meal offerings' (m. Men. 13,1).

In the Damascus Covenant the word 1'n' occurs three times. Most scholars assume that 1n' should be read in all three instances: 6 CD 20: 1 '?K1tD'0' 11i1KO n'tDo 1'0.!1 1.!1 1'n'i1 i11'0 l:')OKi1 (m'o) CD 20: 14 i10i1'?0i1 'tD:JK '?~ Cln 1.!1 1'n'i1 i11" l:')OKi1 Cl"O' CD 20:32 1'n'i1 'tD:JK Cl:l ,t!lEltD:J 1tDK Cl':J'tDK1i1 Cl't!lEltDO:l '10'nm p1~ i11'0 '?'p'? ':J'TKi1'

The founder of the community was probably referred to as 1'n'i1; hence 1'n'i1 'tD:JK denotes his group of followers. 7 In the first stages of the history of the sect, when it had been finally decided to assume a regular name, the closeness in form and meaning between 1'n' and 1n' may have played a role. From the noun 1n' the verb 1n'i1'? was derived: (1) lQS 1:7 '?K n~.!1:l 1n'i1'? .. '?K 'p1n mtD.!1'? Cl':l1:Ji1 '?~ nK ':li1'?, (2) lQS 5:20 1n'i1'? i1'?Ki1 Cl'p1ni1 ,?,~~ mtDlJ'? n'1:l:l K':l' K'~' Thus Qimron in Broshi 1992. 7 F. Garcia Martinez translates ,'n'i! in CD 20:1 and 20:14 'the unique teacher' and the 'unique one' in 20:30. See Garcia Martinez 1994. 6

MORAG: SOME CONCEPTS IN THE WORLD OF QUMRAN

181

tD"p n,l'? (3) 1QS 9:5-.6,n'il? l1'ilK? tD"p n':J ,n'il 'tD~ ,?',:J' ilK'ilil nl':J (4) lQH 8 11:11 ,n'il? ?l'0 nOtDK' il'J n1:Jl',n ?,:JO il'? tD'pnil? lnoK 'J:J [!:ll'] The meaning of ,n'il?8 is clear-'to be fully, spiritually and materially integrated into the community's way of life and united with it', In the phrase !:l'tD"p tD"p ,n'il?, !:l'tD"p tD"p is to be taken adverbially, namely 'to be united in the highest degree of holiness' ,9 The use of the picel stem of ,n' possibly occurs in lQS 3:7: ,n'? m'J"l' ?,'O 'ilt!)' mOK:J ,n'? iltDnp m':J' !:l"nil "K:J t!)':Jil?, may be interpreted here either as a noun or as a verb, The first possibility would yield for ,nm,l' ... iltD"p m':J' the translation 'in a spirit of holiness of community,1O in His (= God's) truth, he will be cleansed from all his sins',lI Reading here the verb ,n'?, I would translate the phrase thus: 'and with a spirit of holiness he would follow the regulations and obligations of the community truthfully and thus become clean, all his sins being atoned', 12 In the passages quoted before we have encountered one of the numerous epithets of the sect: ?K n~l', for which we may quote 1QS 1: IO?K n~l':J '?.,,~, tD'K "K ' J:J ?" :J'ilK?1. In 1QS 3: 6-7 we read m'J1'l' ?, ?K nOK n~l' m':J K", ?K nOK n~l' clearly means 'those guided by the true instruction of God',13 Among the epithets for the community we also find: ?K ,n' (lQS 1:12; 2:22); tD"p ,n' (lQS 9:2); !:l'0?,l' ,n' (lQS 3:12); !:l?'l' n":J ,n' (lQS 5:5) and similar structures, It may be assumed that the term ,n' originally emerged as an abbreviation, with the omission of the second element in epithets like?K ,n'.

',:l,,' .

8 The form may be regarded as a hitpa'al with the assimilation t> y, or as a special nifaJform. Abegg 1998:343-344 reads in lQS 1:8 f.l)1i1' and mentions f.l)1i1' (CD 3:5). The photographs show that the forms are spelled ,rT'i1' and f .I)'i1' . 9 Cf. 1QS 8:6111i1X' t:l'rD,'P rD'1P ,'0' 'XirD" rD,'P n'J. 10 The lamed is a particle of possession; cf. I.1)J' i1,rDi1 np'l1 (Ruth 2:3). II I consider this translation preferable to that of Garda Martfnez. 12 Both possibilities regarding ,11" either as a noun or as an adjunct are given by Licht, 1965:79. My translations are, however, somewhat different from his interpretation. 13 Cf. 'Jmn 1m:.I)J Ps. 73 :24-1 QS 8: 1 t:l'Ji11;:)1 rD'X irD.I) t:l'JrD ,11'i1 n~.I)J i1P'~1 nox n1rD.I)' i1i,ni1 ":;'0 i1"Ji1 '1;:)J o'o'on i1rD1'rD. Some scholars deduced from this passage that twelve members and three priests constituted the 'council of the community', but that the tasks that this 'council' is to perform are the ones the community as a whole is obliged to follow. Cf. also lQS 8:6

0'1.1) n.l)~o' noXJ ,11'i1 n~.I) i1J,;:)J 'XirD':l i1'X m'i1:l n.l)i1 p:;,n:l1.

182

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

Of some interest are the epithets iT:li 1n" i1nOrD 1n'. lQM 14:3-4 reads: i1nOrD 1n':::l 'OrD 'OO'i' ?KirD' ?K nK 0?1:;:' 00 '~i:::l'; similarly 1QH 3 :23 i1[J]i 1n':::l i1nOrD ??i1?; I QH 11: 13 011 rD1nni1? iT:li 1n':::l 0'111' om i1'iT:l ?'~. How are we to analyse these phrases? Is 1n':::l an adverb or do we have here other epithets of the community, namely i1nOrD 1n' and iT:li 1n'? The first pOSSibility creates a syntactical difficulty, because this understanding of the phrases would require iT:li:::l (unless we regard iT:li as being adverbial). Therefore, I would tend to regard the second possibility as more plausible: i1nOrD 1n' 'a community of joy', iT:li 1n' 'a community of singing' (or of praying) are epithets of the Sect.14 These phrases from IQM and lQH remind us of Isa 52:8-9 m~El ... 'JJi' nn' ?'P 'KrDJ TEl~ ?'P O?tv'i' m:::lin nn' 'JJi. IS The use of1n' to denote 'community' in general, not necessarily exclusively the Sect, is attested in i1l1tvi 1n'? (4Q 181, frg. 1, col. 2, line 2) 'to a community of wickedness.' Needless to say, i1~~i 1n' stands in utmost opposition to 1n' in its regular adverbial sense. The word 1n' underwent an extension of its meaning. It serves in QH to denote also a group of people in general. This is rare, occurring only once, as far as I could ascertain: i1l1tvi 1n' in the sense of 'a group of evil people'. The expression is contained in a fragment of the 'Ages of Creation': 4QI811:1-2Cl'~EltvO?' Cl1K 'J:::l nK~n:::l ??[, ]Jni1? [1 , ]Ol1 ['i]O Ol1 1n':::l i10tvK? OOK(1J) [,]t!l 'El? Ol1rDi rJml1?' ?K nn':::lJ 'El? itv:::l:::l O'l1i o'?no, o'?nJ i1l1tvi 1n'? fiK' [O'Otv] 'J:::l i'OO.16 i1l1rDi 1n'? .. i'OO possibly refers to the leader of the adversaries who 'turns the sons of [heaven] and earth into a community of wickedness'. 1n' underwent a certain extension of meaning, referring to the adversaries, when followed by the appropriate adjunct, such as i1l1rDi. ",,~ A typical case of QH 'key-words' polysemy is evident in the use of ?i'J. The word has been carefully analysed and interpreted by 14 1QH 11 :5-6 :1Ji p'OJ 'n£ltD ';1'01 :1';1[':1nj 'J,tD';IJ, n",:1 '£lJ 1nm. mi 1')0 'place of singing' may be compared with mi in'. The fact that in the phrase in' mJiN 1nll'tD'J' (1 QS 10: 17) there is an adverbial use of in' does not contradict our viewing mi in mi in' as an epithet. IS And other biblical passages. 16 Charlesworth (ed.) 1995:212; cf. I.M. Allegro in DJD V:79.

MORAG: SOME CONCEPTS IN TIlE WORLD OF QUMRAN

183

the late Jacob Licht in his superb commentary on the Serakhim,11 and in a special study:8 We shall therefore mention only some connotations of the word which are of relevance for tracing its semantic developments. (a) 'decision, decree' The semantic link between the meanings 'lot, share' and 'decision, decree' is of course metonymical. It recalls the widespread custom of reaching a decision by lot-casting to determine what falls to a person or to a groUp.19 As Licht observed, at least with respect to the use of term 1n'il 1.,0 in 1QS, QH distinguishes between the use of ,?.,1J with the verb ~"~" on the one hand, and with the verb '?"El:l, on the other, whereas BH does not make this distinction. The former use denotes 'a decision taken by a public body'.20 Thus, e.g., 1QS 6: 16 1~ ::l.,P' tJ'::l.,il n~.v '?.v ,?.,1Jil ~~, .,rv~J1 pm' (also 16:22,29). The novice is examined by tJ'::l.,il, who then decide on his acceptance (the preceding phrase is: 1~1::l::l .,n~1 1,.,::l1 '?.v '?1Jil 1'?~tD:l1 tJ'::l.,il ':lEl'? 110.v'?). Contrast the use of ,?.,1J with ,?IIEl:l when the semantic subject is God and the meaning is that of 'lot': 1QH 3 :28 '?.v ilon ln01 tJ'::lT.v:l '?.v ~~ ,?.,1J1 ~Elrvo '?.v 1p '?1El:l::l '?.v''?::l '?1J'? l,.,n-yp' tJ'o'?.v:l. (b) ,?.,1J connoting 'a group of people' (in the broadest sense of the word) The development of this meaning goes well with the Sect's doctrines of predestination and dualism. The 1n' members regard their world as being broken up by predestination into two divisions, as if by divine lot-casting, a positive division and a negative one. By this divine lot-casting the members of each division are being bound together. '?~ ,?.,1J is one of the epithets of the Sect. '?~ ,?.,1J 'tD:I~ (lQS 2:2) equals '?~ 1n' (lQS 1:12; 2,22). It stands in absolute opposition to lrv1n ':I::l ,?.,1J and '?.v''?::l ,?.,1J 'the community of (the) worthless' or 'wicked', as e.g. in lQM 1:1-5 il.v1rv' n.v ... '?.v''?::l '?'n::l lrv1n ':I::l '?."J::l '?nil'? "1~ ':I::l l' m'?tDo n'tD~" '?.v''?::l '?"1) '?,J'? tJ'0'?1.v n'?J1 ,'?."J 'rv:l~ '?1J'? '?tDOO rp' '?~ tJ.v'? (' a complete, everlasting destruction'). The use of ,?.,1J for 'community' is a 'keyword' in the vocabulary of Qumran. I would consider it an innovation, although one possible occurrence of this meaning in BH was pointed out See n. 12. 18 Licht 1956; for studies of ?i" see also Amir 1957 and Rengstorf 1956. 19 For lot-casting in the Bible, see e.g.: Lindblom 1962. 20 Licht 1956:91. 17

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

184

by Jacob Lichf l in Ps 125:3 l:l'P"~il ,?,,~ '?l1 l1tv'il t!l:::ltv n1:1' K'? 'J. According to Licht l:l'P"~il ,?,,~ defmes 'the group of the righteous'. Syntactically this interpretation goes well. However, in Biblical Hebrew this sense of'?"J is rare, whereas in the Qumran lexicon it is quite common, and is in accord with the doctrines of the Sect, as we have seen above. (c) Of special interest is a third meaning of'?"~, which possibly occurs in the War Scroll (lQM 1:12-15): ':I:::l 'pm' m'?"J iltv,,?tv ,ilon'?O:::l "tvn[:I'? 'K]~' l:l"nJ:::l l:lnoil'?o l:l1':::l' "il' l:l':I:::lil ''?[n], ,?,u :::l,tvo'? '?l1''?:::l '?'n nTKn' iltv,,?tv, ill1tv, ~m'? "K il'?"Jil '?K " 'l1':::ltvil '?"J:::l, [1'K ':I:::l :::l:::l]'? n~OKO '?K n":::lJ' :::l:::l'? OOil'? ,n'?tvoo 'JK'?O '?nJ' '?l1''?:::l] nl1:1JO I accept Yadin's interpretation of m'?"J as 'battles'.22 It is perfectly fitting in the text which tells us about three battles or attacks thrown by the "K ':I:::l and three initiated by the ltv1n ':I:::l in order to reverse the situation of the battle and to cause the retreat of"K ':I:::l (:::l,tvo'? ,?,,~).23 The decisive battle is the seventh.24 The meaning of 'battle' has apparently developed metonymically from the basic meaning of 'casting a lot'-in this case, for deciding whether or not to start a battle or an attack. For ,?,,~ in the context of 'a battle' may be compared: Judg 1:3 l'?"J:::l 1nK 'jK m 'nJ'?il1 'jl1jJ:::l ilon'?j, ''?''~:::l 'nK il'?l1. To sum up the discussion of'?,,~: there is some partial similarity between the semantic processes underlying the various connotations of the word in BH and in QH. The biblical usages of the term, which emerged metonymically and directly from the basic meaning are 'share', 'fate', 'territory', 'size of an area'. '?"J parallels in BH p'?n: ,j'TT:::l'? '?,m 'YO'iD p'?n ilT (Isa 17:14); 'mJ' 'p'?n mo 'il ''?"J Tom ilnK (Ps 16:5) as well as '?:::In (,nK '?:::ln1 ,nK '?"J Josh 17:14) oril'?m (Job 20:29; 27:12) and ,n'?m '?:::In (Deut 32:9). '?"J and '?:::In also occur in textual metonymy as in T'?iDO 1'? il'il' K'? '?"J:::l '?:::In (Mic 2:5). The use of '?:::In for 'part' is a secondary Licht 1956. 22 See Yadin 1955:262. For the comparison of to Greek Ilo'ipa 'which also denotes secondary units of Army', see ibid., 9.174, n. 55. 23 For the use ofJ"lW7.:l in the War Scroll see Yadin 1955:87-88. 21

",j

24 Garda Martinez 1994 translates n""j i1tv"tv as 'three lots'. Thus, i1.1ltv, 9m, ,ic ':JJ 'pm' n""j i1tv"tv i1on,oJ is translated 'in the war the sons of light will be strongest during three lots in order to strike down wickedness'. I wonder whether the use of 'lot' for "" is appropriate here. Rengstorf (1956: 115) deals at some length with this passage and emphasizes the role of God in the war. But I have not found in his interpretation any definition of the meaning of"" in this text.

MORAG: SOME CONCEPTS IN TIlE WORLD OF QUMRAN

185

metonymy from the basic meaning of 'measuring cord'. As an equivalent of biblical p"n, QH uses ",,~ and iT"m.2S In the various meanings of""~ in QH we observe extensions of the connotations of biblical ",,~, which are closely related to the usage of BH. We may assume that these developments also derive from the significance of the term in the conceptual world of the Sect for which ",,~ was definitely an 'evidence word'. I would add in passing that the biblical use of":m for 'group' (see abOve----D'~':::lj '':::In), replaced by ",,~ of QH, carries the notion of 'binding together'. A propros of ",,~ in the meaning of 'group' and the biblical connection of ",,~ and '':::In, we may mention a similar semantic development of iT"l)n. Once again, we encounter here polysemy. One meaning of the word which occurs rarely is 'assembly'.26 Thus, in a passage in the Rule of the Congregation ~"l)iT 1'0; 1Q 28a [lQSa], 1:25-26): ,~ t!l:liD~" "iTpiT iT'iTn iT"l)n Cl~' C'~' nrz""iD" Cl1iD'P1 iT~n"~ n'1l)n" 1~ ,n' n~l)".27 For the semantic origin ofiT"l)n as 'assembly', we must refer to a biblical form of the root ,"1l) in the pi'el stem. 'n1l) Cl'l)iD' ''':::In (Ps 119:61). 'n1l) = 'bound me'.28 This under-standing of the verb is corroborated by the Septuagint's lTE plElTMcrKTJmiv 110l (118 :61) 'entangled me'. Needless to say, "'1~ 'group' and iT"l)n 'assembly' are conceptually associated with the prevailing sense of 'unity' of ,n'. We may mention in passing that the semantic field of 'togetherness', 'assembling', 'binding' contains the aspect of 'force', 'strength'. This comes to light when we compare derivatives

",J"

fTOm the Arabic TOot qwywith some derivatives fTOm the Hebrew

root "'1p. In Arabic this aspect is prominent. In Hebrew, 'hope' and 'assembling' are the main connotations. However, Hebrew also furnishes a few instances in which the meanings 'binding' 25

Licht, 1956:93-94.

26 Qimron,1986:115, gives the following meanings for

i1ilDn: (1) 'fixed time'; (2) 'assembly'; (3) 'destination'(?). He relates meaning (2) to iD10, milllni1, i1iD. i1illln, connoting 'assembly', derived from the root i"lll (see the following discussion), unlike illlO and miDlm. 27 i10i1'?0 mlDn may be understood as 'a group of people gathered in order to be ready for fighting'. Garcia Martinez 1994:127, translates mlDn i10n'?0 'convocation of war'. 28 See Yalon 1967:26, 86. Derivatives of the root in the meaning of 'binding' are attested in post-biblical, non-Qumran Hebrew. 29 Read: fEln'? 30 i11i11t!)'?1 -with a supralinear i1. 31 Read: i1'i1'1.

186

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

and 'strength' appear, e.g. mpn 'cord', as in 'mi1 ~m mpn (Josh 2: 18), or'mi1 n1pn (ibid., verse 21). In Job 14:7 we read: tv";' ~''?n' 111'1 n,;,' O}t mpn f1''? mp~ is ~ost probably e~ployed here in the meaning of 'strength'. MIshnaIc Hebrew provIdes one such case, lntv~ '?tv r~1~ (m. Neg. 11:8) 'bindings of flax'. The relation to 'strength' is clear. With this use ofp~ in the Mishnah we may compare Arabic quwwat'n meaning the strings that are twisted together to make a rope.

C":l,iT This term is another 'key-word' in Qumran texts. Two wellknown consecutive passages in the Manual of Discipline are crucial for understanding its signification: the first pertains to the order of seating in the gathering of the community; the second states the conditions for obtaining full membership in the Sect: (a) lQS 6:8-13 n'~tv:1 o'~pTm j1j1tZ"'? 1:1tv' 0'~i11;'i1 . 1~1;,n:1 tv'~ 0':1,i1 :1tV1~'? l'Oi1 i1T1 ,tv~ ':11' i1~.v '?1;''?, ~~tV~'? 1'?~tll' p' .m;,n:1 tv'~ 1:1tll' 0.vi1 '?1;' '~tll1 ":11 ;'1n:1 tll'~ ':11' '?~ .1n'i1 n~.v'? 1.v1~ n~ tV'~ :1'tlli1'? 0':1,'? i1'i1' .1'j~,? :11n;'i1 m;,n 'E'? ':11' '?~ m1 . ':11'? 'i1'n~ i1'?;,' O,~ ,i1.v, ~1'? 'tll~ ':11 ,?,;, tll'~ ':11' '?~ 0':1,i1 :1tll'0:11 ."n:1 ':11' '?~tllji1 tll'~i1 ~,,? 'tll~ ,0':1,'? ':11'? ':11 1n~ tll' 'tll~ tV'~ '?';'1 ... 0':1,i1 29~~i1'? 'n~ tll' 'O~, 'm'?~, '?.v tll'~i1 10.v1 ,1n'i1 n~.v n~ '?~'tlli1 tll'~i1 1~.v~:1 .':11' ,,? "0" D~ .D':1''? ':11'? ':11 (b) lQS 6:13-23 1'p~i1 tll'~i1 1i1tll'11'-1n'i1 n~.v '?.v ~'01i1'? '?~'tV'~ :11jn~ i1'?,;" no~'? :1,tll'? n":1:1 1i1~':1' '010 ~'tll' Cl~' .,'tll.vo'?, ,,?;,tll'? Cl':1'i1 tll~":1 'j~,? 110.v'? '~':1:1 'n~' .1n'i1 '~~tll~ '?,;':1 ,m':1" .'?,.v ,?,;,o ,'O'?, ,~ :1,P' 0':1,i1 n~.v '?.v '?"~i1 ~~' 'tll~;'1 ."':11 '?.v '?,;'i1 ,'?~tllj' 0':1,i1 'i1tll,,1' 'tll~ 1.v 0':1,i1 n'i1~:1 .v~' ~,,?---1n'i1 n~.v'? ,:1"P:1, .pm' .0':1,i1 l'i1:1 :1,.vn' '?~ i1~1i1 o~, ,i1o'~n j1jtll 1'? n~'?,~ 1.v 'tV.v~, mn'? "tll.v~, ,,?;,tV ,~'? "':11 '?.v 0':1,i1 ''?~tll'-1n'i1 1,n:1 j1jtV ,,? n~'?'~:1' 'tVj~ :1n, O'ji1,;'i1 '~ '?.v 1n'i1 110'? :1np'? '?"Ji1 ,,? ~~' o~, .i1,1n:1 n;,~'?~ '?.v . 'p:1~i1 tll'~i1 l' '?~ 1n;'~'?~ n~1 mi1 n~ O~ 1:1'p'-on":1 i1PtV~:1 .vJ' '?~ . 'j~'~1' ~1'? 0':1,i1 '?.v1 11':1 p:1tVn:1 ':1n;" 0':1,i1 n'JDiT i1JDiT Y, nac7v.D, .1n'i1 'tll~ 11n:1 n'jtll j1jtV 1'? n~'?,o 1.v 0':1,i1 l"1O~ 'iC'Iro'-1n''' '~'p" "1Uii ,., ~ ClC'I .C'~'ii 'El 'iiilp!l' 'IrW1 31,;;" ,:nii nat ~-ur;, ~i11!l'" ~." "nN ;,m ,:n;,n

ii"m

.,»

•'It!lElU7C,

1m

Who were 0':1,i1? Numerous translations of Qumran texts use as equivalents 'the Many',32 'Congregation'33 or 'Community'.34 32 Wemberg-Moller 1957:30; Charlesworth 1994; Garcia Martinez1994. 33 Vermes 1979:81.

MORAG: SOME CONCEPTS IN THE WORLD OF QUMRAN

187

These translations are not satisfactory. Passage (b) proves that novices are not accorded full membership in the 1n' until they have gone through a period of two years of probation and examinations. Before that they are not full-fledged members, and even then a decision must be taken whether or not to accept them as full members (see above, at the end of [b]). The fact that the General Assembly is called O'::l'iI ::ltD10 in no way implies that O'::l'iI refers to all members of the community , full ones as well as candidates. This is indicated by the order of seating which comprises O':lPTiI and O,ViI ", 'KtD, the latter phrase apparently referring to the candidates. I do not pretend to have exhausted the bibliography on the Qumran texts, and I am not certain I have seen all studies devoted to the meaning ofo'::l'iI. However, I would especially mention the contributions of three papers to the discussion. The great master of Talmudic studies, Saul Lieberman, devoted a paper to this term.35 He compared the Qumran term O'::l, with the Pharisaic term iI'1::ln,36 which is found in Palestinian rabbinic sources (ibid., p. 199). The member of the iI"::ln assumed the obligation of strictly observing the laws of ritual cleanliness (ibid.) in the presence of the iI"::ln: iI"::ln ':l~::l or O'::l'(iI) ':l~::l 'according to the Rabbis' (ibid., p. 203). There is evidently some similarity between the procedure to which the Pharisaic applicant was subjected, and the admission procedures which were incumbent on the candidate for full membership in the 1n' , and of which we know much more. Lieberman thus shed light on admission procedures practised at the time among various Jewish groups, which partially resemble practices at Qumran, but did not analyse linguistically the meaning ofo':nil in the Qumran texts. I agree with Lieberman that the feature of having the status of learning is common to the iI'1::ln and to O'::l'iI. To this we shall give attention later. Ralph Marcus3? concluded that O'::l'iI is identical with 1n', but does not offer a clarification of the term. An important study of the problem under review was presented by Jean Carmignac.38 Its first part is a protest against the prevailing translation of O'::l'iI by 'les nombreux', 'the Many'. As far as I Qimron 1986:104. 35 Lieberman 1952. 36 Which he translates 'societas'. 3? Marcus 1956. Charlesworth's translation of '?i'~i1 in '?i'~i1 ,,? N~' CN' as 'lot' cannot be accepted. It obviously must be translated 'decision~'and if the (positive) decision was taken for him'. 38 Carmignac 1971. 34

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

188

know, this protest has not been heeded in Qumran research in the twenty-nine years that have passed since Carmignac's article was published. The tradition of translating C'J,i1 by 'Many' starts with S. Schechter's edition of the Damascus Covenant,39 followed by R. H. Charles.4O Carmignac records no less than fifteen translations of the word by 'the Many; die Vielen' etc, and mentions other translations as well, among them-H.E. del Medico's 'les rabbins' .41 Carmignac follows the view that takes C'J' as the plural of 'J,. He also deals with the use of the title 'J, in the New Testament (NT) where it occurs several times. For example, in Matt 23:7-10 Jesus says that the Pharisees love to have people use this title, but rejects this usage. In Matt 26:25 and 26:49 Judas addresses Jesus as rabbi. 42 Solomon Zeitlin fought vehemently against the authenticity of the employment of the term in the NT, considering it to be anachronistic, since the title had not been in use before the destruction of the Second Temple. To this point I shall refer again in a moment. But let me first present Carmignac's conclusion that C'J' is the plural form ofJ' or 'J,. He offers the translations 'notables', coming quite close to the correct interpretation of the term: "[une personnel qui occupe une situation sociale importante ou bien une personne a laquelle sa situation conrere une certaine autorite dans les affaires publiques' or 'dignitaires'. To my mind, c':ni1 means 'the learned ones'. I referred before to the two major categories of membership in the in' communityone of full members, viz. of those who had passed the two years' period of probation and examinations; the other, of candidates who were in the stage of learning and had yet to be examined. Full members were regarded as 'the learned ones'. C'J,i1 is not identical with the plural of J, or 'J, in Rabbinic Hebrew. In this stratum of Hebrew, J, never has the plural form C'J,. The plural is n'J', when followed by a suffixed pronoun ('J'mJ', 'mJ'), and C'JJ' in midrashic Hebrew.43 Needless to say the plural C'J' is common in mediaeval Hebrew. Schechter 1910. 40 Charles 1913. 41 Del Medico 1957:278-326,534-589. 42 See also Mark 9:5; 10:51; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38,49; 3:2; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8; 20:10. 43 The earliest evidence given in Ben Yehuda's Dictionary is from Genesis Rabbah. 39

MORAG: SOME CONCEPTS IN THE WORLD OF QUMRAN

189

Let me explain my interpretation of C'::J'ii. The features inherent in derivatives from the roots ::J"::J,fjj"::J' include not only 'greatness' but also 'growth', 'increase in knowledge', the latter particularly in late BH. Thus, in Dan 12:4 C"::J1ii cno ?N'J1 iinN' m)1ii ii::J,m C'::J, 'e!le!ltv' rp n.1' 1.1' '5l0ii Clnm; possibly also in Dan 12:31.1" Cl?'.1'? Cl'::J~'~~ Cl'::J'ii 'P'1~0' .1"P'ii 'm~ "m' Cl'?)1VOii1. 44 At this juncture we may mention Oen 21:20 nN Cl'ii?N 'ii" ntvp ii::J' 'ii" '::J10::J ::Jtv', ?1:1" '.1'Jii. Does ntvp ii::J' 'ii" mean that

Ishmael 'became a bowman?,45 There is another way of understanding ntvp ii:n, namely 'a young man (originally, 'a child who has grown up'), who excelled as a bowman'. Onqelos: Nntvp N'::J' and Vulgate: juvenis sagittarius, understand ii::J' in this sense. There is also evidence for the use of ii::J' meaning 'young man' in the Mishnah. Saadia translates the phrase N'ON,/ClN,.46 In the Samaritan tradition of the reading of the Torah ii::J' is pronounced rabi 47 This form may be regarded as a participle of the root '''::J" being the counterpart of Tiberian ii"::J'. The Samaritan tradition of Aramaic evidences the form rAbbi. 48 Also the meaning of this form is 'a young man', based on the notion of learning contained in the root. Furthermore, Samaritan Aramaic frequently combines ii'::J' and ii'?e!l, in the meaning of 1'0?n, '.1'1 49 We thus have sufficient evidence for concluding that in Rabbinic as well as in Samaritan Hebrew the semantic features of growing and maturity, attaining experience, are evident in the twin roots ii"::J,/::J":n. Syriac also lends support to this meaning. 50 May we assume that the form '::;n or also ':;ll existed in Qumran Hebrew, which possesses several features identical or similar to Samaritan HebrewT-iI It was not employed as a title of a scholar, like ':;ll/':;l"'} meaning 'my teacher', in Rabbinic Hebrew, but in the different meaning of 'a learned person (in the laws and

44 For the feature of growth of::J"::J', il::J::J' Ezek. 16:7 is to be considered: "'Jm '::J,m Tnm il'rDil no~~ il::J::J'. I would take il::J::J' to mean 'a grown-up girl'. This meaning fits quite well with the contents of the prophecy: the adopted infant became a mature young woman. The continuation of the verse speaks for itself: no~ l'.llrD1 ll~::J O',rD O",.ll ',.ll::J '~::Jn1. 45 Thus the JPS translation. 46 See the detailed discussion in Ben-I:J:ayyim 1993:97-110. 47 Ben-I:J:ayyim, 1993:98. 48 Ben-I:J:ayyim 1993:99; for other readings in Samaritan Aramaic see Ben-I:J:ayyim 1993: 100. 49 Ben-I:J:ayyim 1993:99. 50 Ben-I:J:ayyim 1993:100. 51 Ben-I:J:ayyim 1958.

190

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

regulations of the Sect)' denoting, as said above, a member who had passed the two years of learning and training. In sum, the term C1':;ljv (perhaps pronounced C1':;llil) is another independent item of the Qumran vocabulary which clearly defines 'the learned ones,' viz. those members who successfully completed their probationary period. The term C1':::liil evidently was created in QH as an answer to the need to make a clear-cut distinction between various categories of membership. The assumption that the word 'many' occurs in some passages of the NT (e.g. in Mark 14:24: imEp lTOAAWV 'for many'), as the designation of 'a group of believers (in general)" is untenable. This assumption derives from the conjectural interpretation of 'the many' in the NT. It rests upon rather slender foundations. However, even if we accept the above interpretation of 'the many' in the NT, at Qumran C1':::liil are not just 'a group of believers'.52 Let us now come back to the term :::li and ':::li in rabbinic literature. An excellent paper including a discussion of the history of the use of the epithets was published two years ago by Dr. Y ochanan BreuerY He agrees with the prevalent view that the use of the epithets began only after the destruction of the Second Temple. He then discusses the reason for the use of ':::li by Palestinian sages, and Of:::li by Babylonian sages, concluding that Babylonian:::li originally was linguistically identical with Palestinian ':::li. 54 Breuer also deals with the occurrence of':::li in the NT, and with Zeitlin's argument that in the NT the epithet is anachronistic. He emphasizes the fact that in the NT the epithet is employed as

52 See VanderKam 1994. On p. 164 the author presents translations from Matt 26:27-28; Mark 14:23-24 and Luke 22:10 in which the word 'many' appears: "it is possible, though hardly certain, that Jesus referred to his diSCiples as 'many'." In all these passages the Greek text uses an eqUivalent of Hebrew !:l'Ji in its usual meaning. However, we can learn nothing from the quoted NT passages regarding Qumran !:l'Jii1. VanderKam also says that stronger evidence is prOVided in Paul's second letter to the Corinthians 5:5-6 where we read imo TWV lTMl6vwv, 'by the most of you'. But this passage is also not of any value for the case. Also Acts 15:30 Kat uuvayay6vTES TO lTAiWOS, 'and he gathered the multitude') and the other NT passages that VanderKam quotes, shed absolutely no light on Qumran !:l'Jii1. Even if we should accept his unproven statement that "the expression 'the many/majority' (is) a general term that became a special designation for entire groups of believers", in several New Testament passages the theory lacks foundation. 53 Breuer 1996. 54 The reason is phonetic. Final iwas dropped in Babylonian Aramaic.

MORAG: SOME CONCEPTS IN TIlE WORLD OF QUMRAN

191

a form of address, not as a title.55 A final note on Cl':J1i1. In several passages of the Manual of Discipline the word :J'1 appears in a meaning identical with that ofCl':J1i1: 56 lQS 5:2-3 'tvl( :J'1 '5) ?.11, n'1::1i1 '10'tv Cl')i11::li1 p"~ '):J ,n'iT, lQS 6:19 :In, Cl')i1'::li1 '5) ?.11 ,n'i1 ,'O? :Jnp? ?1'Ji1 ,? ~~, Cl~' 00'1::1 'tvl(. This is, of course, a simple use of the collective noun :J'1 for the plural from Cl':J1 (cf. e.g. pn, in the collective meaning of Cl'pn).

1"'10 We shall deal briefly with 110, which is both a 'keyword' and an 'evidence word', unknown from other sources in the majority of the meanings it possesses in QH. Some preliminary remarks, mostly etymological, are necessary for introducing the semantic discussion. In BH, derivatives of the root 11tv are rare. They occur twice, disclosing two meanings, the second having emerged metaphorically from the first. The first one belongs to the semantic field of 'binding', 'holding together', attested by ?.11) l'1tv (Gen 14:23; 1'?.11) l"iD-Isa 5:27). The basic meaning of the root contains the semantic features of 'gluing, attaching or binding one thing to another', 'adherence'.57 The semantic stages of developments underlying the phrase i1'::l1' n::l1tvo are clear: from the meaning of '(tying) a thong to bind foot wear' to that of 'twisting', and from this to the sense of 'perversion', 'distortion', 'deformation' (English 'twist' also includes these meanings). In post-biblical non-Qumran Hebrew, 110 is attested in the sense of 'attachment', 'following', 'imitation'. However, its use in this stratum of Hebrew is not very common. In QH we find a significant extension of the basic meaning of 'attachment'. The fundamental sense of the root may be defined as 'being/existing in a certain order'.58 The relation of this connotation to that of 'attachment' may have developed figuratively from an arrangement, or outline, of a set of elements 55 Breuer 1996:43 n. 20. 56 Thus Licht 1965: 111. 57 QimronI986:112: 11 0-'to set in order'. As a noun-'order, array'

(ibid.). There are certain differences between Qumran texts in the use of 110. For a detailed analysis ofTJ9 and 119 see Kaddari 1968:31, 128-131. 58 For associative semantic fields in Hebrew and Arabic see Morag 1995.

192

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

attached to one another, disclosing a regular and equal spacing between them. Of the numerous meanings of the word we shall mention only the following: a. a set of rules, statutes, relating to the Sect; b. a military unit; c. a list, a text. The root is also found in verb forms, e.g. tJ':m:li1 'tvK1 nK1 ~1il1ilJ 1nK 1J110' (IQM 2:1); 1JnO' '(they) shall arrange (or place) [the head priests] in a certain order'. It is of interest to note that the Targum conSistently translates l:l'1~tv as rJ10 (Deut 1: 15 etc.). The connection to the notion of order is obvious. My purpose is not to present an exhaustive list of the meanings ofll9, but only to touch upon another special trait of the Qumran lexicon, which also shows how the relation between associative fields works in semantics. Let me add that 'attachment' is closely associated with 'binding'. The latter is close to 'together-ness' as evidenced by the notion of 'group', attested by "O~', as well as by one of the meanings of '11J and of il'1l1n. I might add that, as stated earlier, in BH the notions of 'binding' and 'force/strength' co-exist in derivates of the root il"1P and in Mishnaic 11N: 'binding', e.g. 1ntv~ ,tv rJ1N: (m. Neg. 11 :8: 'bindings of flax') for which compare liN: 'strength'.59 Thus we observed some underlying ties among the Qumran concepts of 'group', with several words expressing this notion, and their semantic components, which indicate how the Sect regarded the intrinsic qualities of the term. Of course, we cannot say whether this association had been latent in QH. In conclusion: the lexemes of 110 as well as of the other terms of the Qumran lexicon that we have reviewed, and the meanings of which disclose specific semantic developments, definitely evidence a living language. They show that QH is an entity in itself, not an interim stage between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. QH plausibly goes back to the dialectal spread of the language in the period of the First Temple, or to an early stage of the emergence of the Hebrew dialects in the post-biblical period.60

59 Cf. Morag 1998, especially pp. 10-11. 60 See E. Qimron's conclusion regarding the place of Qumran Hebrew in the history of the Hebrew language in Qimron1998:41, n. 31.

AN APPROACH TO THE MORPHOSYNTAX AND SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW Takamitsu Muraoka (Leiden) The basic point of departure of my presentation is that one should be able to learn about the nature of Qumran Hebrew (henceforth: QH) by analysing cases where Qumran biblical texts l differ and deviate from the standard biblical text, namely the MT. Our focus will be on a bundle of select morphosyntactic and syntactic features which have been identified as significant to varying degrees from our perspective. Although not every single departure from the MT is necessarily a reflection of the speech of the copyist in question or the etat de langue of his time and linguistic milieu, we may have gained some significant insight into the nature of QH if we could identify some clear drift by analysing such deviations. Results of such an analysis, it is hoped, might be able to complement a picture obtained by studying non-biblical DSS texts as found, for instrance, in Qimron 1986 and Smith1991. This is then following in the footsteps of the late E.Y. Kutscher, whose The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll[lQ Isa1, 1974 [1959] represents a very careful and meticulous analysis and comparison of the two text-forms of the biblical book in question from a linguistic perspective. A similar approach was taken in Bendavid 1967-71, in which two major phases of Classical Hebrew were compared by setting linguistic forms in early rabbinic literature against their biblical sources and so doing succeeded in highlighting features of Rabbinic Hebrew which differed from Biblical Hebrew. Whereas Kutscher's book is bound to remain a very significant milestone for decades to come and a solid foundation on which one can build further, it is a fact that the past decade or so has witnessed an unparalleled pace of publication of Dead Sea Scrolls. One naturally wonders then whether the vast amount of Qumran biblical texts now newly made accessible modifies to any significant degree the picture of the linguistic situation as painted by Kutscher. Not only have we access to new biblical texts, but also Qimron, in conjunction with Parry, has recently published a 1 We have studied the biblical fragments, the first forty chapters oflQlsaa , commentaries on biblical books, so-called parabiblical texts, and IIQI9.

194

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

new transcription accompanied by a photograph of lQIsa8 : Qimron - Parry 1999. Tens of readings about which Kutscher was not certain are now read with greater confidence as a result of new and more advanced technology and advances in Hebrew and Aramaic palaeography: his "ph." ['~] may now be reevaluated in such cases: e.g., '~".vn 40:18 (330); 54:4 "'Elnn (ib.); 57:9 ''''ElfDn (ib.); 17:11 'w)umln (not 'w')w)wn) (331); 33:151(,)"'il (348, namely the second Waw has been erased by the scribe himself). Let us begin by looking at the morphosyntax and syntax of the verb. [1] Infinitive construct Whereas the info cst. is still very much alive in QH, its morpho syntax is undergoing subtle changes. The BH Qal info cst., for instance, was often used in its bare form? But in MH it is invariably joined to a proclitic Lamed, as was already justly pointed out by Kutscher (1974:41) and Qimron (1986:47). 4Q252 i 18"11 :t,w" ilElO' [l('" = Gen 8: 12 .. :t,w ilElO' 11 Q 19 lxvi 11 iln"w" ":,,, l('" = Deut 22:29 iln"tD ,,~,,3 1QIsaa 28: 12 l1'OW" ,:tl( ~ = MT .piorq l(~:t~ l(,,4 lQDeuf 12.2 ,nw" "~nn = MT Deut i4.24 ml(W "~m5 This cohesion between the proclitic and the infinitive is observable also when another proclitic precedes. It has been further noted by Kutscher (1974:41,346) that the BH use of the bare6 info cst. and one with a preposition other than Lamed became obsolete in MH. What has not so far been sufficiently noticed is the use of prepositions other than Lamed together with a Lamed info cst. 7: 4Q 160 frg 1:4 l(WOil nl( ")il"[O = 1 Sam 3: 15 nl( ")ilO l(,!.: ill('Oil 4Q166 2.9 ilnnl1 ]nl( mo~"o = MT Hos 2:11 n;(l);>~8 2 For a recent attempt to establish functional difference between the two syntagmas, see Jenni 1998. 3 Dr Elwolde points out that some biblical manuscripts have the preposition here. 4 Cf. also lQIsa8 30:9. S Drawn to my attention by a student of mine, Mr Michael Malessa, who had noticed a mention of the example in Jenni 1998:61. 6 '""I!l"ll in the Hebrew original has been inadvertently dropped. 7 This syntagm has already been dealt with by Qimron (personal communication, 16.12.1999) in connection with 4QMMT C 8"'::1'0: Qimron 1994:76. 8 An example to which Dr van Peursen has drawn my attention.

MURAOKA: ApPROACH TO MORPHOSYNTAX / SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW

195

4Q176 frg 8-11:111:1 1U)~?O' "lI T?lI ~'~po 'nll:ltl.lJ = Isa 54:9 1Y1.v~l;)9

4Q67:4 ~O?O = Is 58:13 ~i~7;ll;). This morphological cohension of the info cst. with the proclitic Lamed is, as is well known, also a feature of Aramaic. For the sake of completeness, let us also note lQIsaa 5:5 1l1:1 il'il" = MT 1l1:1? il'ill We also meet Twith an interesting verbal noun syntactically functioning as info cst. with a proclitic Lamed: 4Q57 frg 6:6 il1il' ,,:I::J n~ illl'? r1~il il~?O = Isa 11:9 (MT [om. ,,:I::J], lQIsaa illl', without the proclitic). As a matter of fact the Hebrew of the MT already provides a forerunner of this development: Is 30:28 ~,t::i nEl.:J:l c'i~ ilElJil? 'to sift nations with a sieve of ..', for which lQIsaa' reads il~jS-with a weakened guttural h.1O [2] Infinitive absolute There is general consensus that the use of the info abs. was on rapid decline already in LBH, in particular its use as categorical imperative and in conjunction with a finite verb of the same lex erne such as mon mo. II That it had not completely died out yet in QH is proven in a place where a finite verb in the biblical text is replaced by an info abs. 4Q56 frg 22:3 ?'::J~[' C'O]1::J l.I)[~J' = MT Isa 37:30 ~?~~l .. lI)t:l~12 In the following case a verbal noun is replaced by an info abs.4Q57 frg 13:9 ~'o~ ~o~, =MT Isa 24:22 il~9~ ~El9~1. The following example is disputed. 1QIsaa 19: 22 1Enn £']J.:J C'1;)/'J n~ i11iT' ~J.:J1 = MT ~~~l ~iElll ~j~ .• i11il' Kutscher (1974: 172,358) takes 'El1J as pf. (191J, not i91J a misprint on p. 172) on the ground that a word-final 0 would be spelled ~'-, but see 1QIsaa 49:21 'El'~ = MT ilEl'~ 'where?'. According to Kutscher (1974:358) the scribe took ~~J as Nifal. But would a genuine passive Nifal be followed by the nota objecti? We would rather read ~91~ ~~~, and note the following cases where an info abs. in the MT has been replaced by a finite verb-The reading iU'~"rJ is that of Strugnell (1970:232). So also Kutscher 1974:506. The noun is in origin an Aramaic Hafel infinitive: Jotion - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: § 80 n. 11 See Kropat 1909:23-24. On the use of the info abs. in place of a finite verb in LBH, see Jotion - Muraoka 1991 [1993]: § 123 t-w. 12 The impv. of the second verb, supported by lQIsaa ad loco 1i1~P1 111if 1"1:;'N1 0'01:;' 111t!lJ1, is Q, whereas K agrees with the 4Q text. 9

10

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

196

. 4Q58 XI frfi 13 i 24 ~~PK' 1nOK' 'i1:lK' = MT Isa 57: 17 ~~i?~l 1lJ9iJ 'i1:lKl lQIsaa 37:19 'In', = MT ln~l lQIsaa 37:30''?':l~ bis= MT '?':l~ (Q ''?:l~ ., '?;:l~). [3] The cohortative and the long imperative The cohortative, and its affiliated impv. with a morpheme /-3./, are also thought to be on the way to extinction. This is particularly true of the prolonged impv. As regards the impv., we find it significant that there are four short imperatives where the MT has a lengthened impv.: 4Q76 v 18 ,Ji1 = MT Jon 1:8 i1,'Ji1; 4Q158 frg 1-2:6 ,['Ji1 = MT Gen 32:30 i1,'Ji1; 6Q4 xv 6 1ElO = MT 2 Kgs 8:4 i1'OO; l1Q5 D xxv 4 ~~'i1 =MT Ps 142:8 i1~'~'i1. Unless one postulates a defective spelling, ,Ji1 and ~~'i1 are particularly noteworthy, for their stem vowel also differs from the long form. As against these examples (as well as countless examples where the long impv. appears in both MT and Qumran texts) we need to, in addition to those countless, bear in mind those cases where Qumran texts have a long impv. as against a short one in the MT, e.g., llQ5 D viii 13 i11':li = MT Ps 119:49 1~t; 4Q 137 i 56 i1"~'[l' = MT Deut 5:28 (31) 'b~; i1l'~ili = MT Deut 20:3 l'Qili: there are six more examples of the same. Note also 4Q22 xvii 10 i1Jn = MT Exod 17:2 1JD. 14 Kutscher (1974:328) was inclined to regard i1l'~ili at lQIsaa 37:17 not as a genuine long impv., but as a clumsy spelling arising from the weakening of gutturals, but he would not of course be able to explain away a case such as i1~rvEl 1QIsaa 32: 11 (= MT i1~ili~). In the light of the above-mentioned first group of deviations one would rather regard all seven cases of i1l'~rv as genuine long imperatives. One may conclude then that the long impv. in QH was not ~et quite extinct, though it had begun to move in that direction. I On the cohortative, Qimron has expressed the view that in QH the long form of the first person is automatically chosen when it is attached to the conjunction Waw, whether inversive

1Qlsa' ilEn~p~' inOil~' 'il:l~'. 14 Some biblical manuscripts and the Samaritan Pentateuch also have ilJn (Elwolde). 13

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

MURAOKA: ApPROACH TO MORPHOSYNTAX / SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW

197

or conjunctive. 16 In the non-biblical texts he has found only one exception: l1Q19 lix 7 i'nOM' (a Waw conjunctive). Among biblical texts 11 Q5 D xx 2 i1iO'M' = MT Ps 139: 11 iOM1; 4Q364 frg 26b i:17 i1fV[ElnM' =MT Deut 9:17 iDel;'l~l; llQ19lxv 8 i1:npN' i1'''N = MT Deut 22: 14 i1'''N :liPNl support his view. Let us note that these are all cases ofWaw inversive. However, we also find a few cases of the short impf. with a Waw against the MT with a cohortative: 4Q60 frg 3.2n:;,[m = MT Isa 1:18 i1lJ=?P1 (lQIsa a); 4Q60 frg 5.11 ~'tziNl .. i'o[Nl = MT Isa 1:25f. i1~'tziNl .. i1i'ONl (lQIsaa i1~'fVN' ., i'ON,»)7; lQIsa a 5: 19 .lJ,:l, = MT i1.lJ,:ll- These happen to be all cases of conjunctive Waw. Qimron is of the opinion that the system of "conversive forms" of QH is almost identical with that of the BH cohortative-jussive forms. One might be inclined slightly to nuance this formulation in two respects. 1) The use of the cohortative with the Waw inversive within BH in the Tiberian tradition must have been a secondary development. The use of the jussive form in the same morphosyntactic environment goes back, as universally agreed, to the earlier preterital use of the short impf., and has nothing to do with its genuine jussive, namely volitive, use, whereas the cohortative was originally a volitive form and remained such for a long time in the period of Classical Hebrew. Its use with the Waw inversive can be only understood as an analogical extension of the apocopate form in the second and third persons masculine singular with the Waw inversive. Unlike in QH the use of the standard apocopate form in the first person alongside the cohortative form is far more securely anchored in BH. Thus 'i}~: occurs 13x as against i1:;:r~1 9x. Furthermore, "In the Pentateuch and very often in the Prophets, cases of this kind [Le. the first person impf. with the Waw inversive with milra accent-T.M.] are written without mater lectionis, e.g. t:lP~1- t:lP~J. The preponderance of full spelling in these forms in late books suggests that in early BH the 1st person was no different from the other persons in this respect.,,18 2) Given these multiple functions of the cohortative one is not always certain whether QH still maintained some functional difference in the case of self-standing forms, namely without the proc1itic conjunction Waw. Where the MT and its corresponding Qimron 1986:44. 17 The second verb, ::J'tVii1, is best interpreted as an orthographic/phonetic variant of::J'tVII:1. So also Kutscher 1974:353,505. 16

18

Cf. Talshir 1988: 172-75.

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

198

QH text do not agree in the choice of the form, is it semantically significant? Or is it that QH authors or copyists selected the short form because the long form was becoming obsolete and that they selected the long form because it was somehow felt to belong to the right literary register? Both latter suppositions appear to find support in cases like the following. In 11 Q5 xvi 14 n'fD~ corresponds to i1n'rv~ of MT Ps 145:5, which is preceded by several long impfs. that are reproduced in the same Qumran fragment. At lQ5 xviii 4 we have n':::lfD~ for the MT Deut 32:26 iTl7~rq~.19 On the other hand, at llQ5 xxv 12 we have i1n'rv~ for MT Ps 143:5 nmrv~ where there is no other 1st pers. impf. form in the vicinity. Similarly, at 4Q44 IT frg 5 ii 2 i1["~fD~ corresponds to MT Deut 32:42010 '~n "~rq~ where any functional difference is unlikely as the corresponding verb in the second half of the preceding verb is not long, either in the MT or this Qumran text: o'?~~ '~~~~,? That both these factors played a role seems to be illustrated by a remarkable mixture of the two competing forms in the following case, and this time even with third person cohortatives: 4Q56 frg 3:5 ] l(:::lm ;':::l1pm .. i1tv'n['], = MT Isa 5: 19 i1.g1~1 .. ;'~;:::lQ1 :::llPD1 .. i1tq'n:. 1QIsa3 went a step further with its i1:::l1pn" but has tv'n'. Having said that, one cannot totally preclude the possibility that Qumran Hebraists did retain some feel for the Original volitive function of the cohortative. Note 4Q177 ii 8 i1n'tvl( i1~ 1.11 for MT Ps 13:3 n'~~; 4Q137 i 29 ;,n,[o.J] ;,o'? for MT Deut 5:22 (25) withn,0.J 20; 4Q22 38:31E)]~ 1n'[ ;,]o'? "why, 0 Lord, should you be angry?" = MT Exod 32: 11 ;'1n'. 21 All three are questions which in BH are known to prefer the prefix conjugation: e.g., Gen 37:15 ilip:::ln-;,o, answered by ilip:::lO '~.J~ 'n~ n~. 2 Another sort of long imperfect is one with the so-called Nun paragogicum attached: p'?tpp' instead of ~'?tpp'. This is another form which would disappear in MH. According to Qimron (1986:45), in the non-biblical texts the morpheme is always linked to biblical texts. By contrast, as far as the biblical texts are concerned, "in most cases they prefer the form ,- (even where MT has 11-), as do the late biblical books and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Yet occaSionally they have 1'- instead of MT '-." In lQIs~, according to Kutscher (1974:193), it shortens the long Some biblical manuscripts and the Samaritan Pentateuch also have (Elwolde). 29 Cf. LXX ~Tj d.1Toe 0)':11'?N: = MT Ps 129:8 n).,J nON: N:'? O)''?l> :11:1' 4Q 130 i 8 ':J.11:J):1 r.,N::1 '?l> :11:1' IN:J' = MT Exod 13: 11 '?~ 1QIsaa 2:2 ':11'?l> 1.,m = MT 1''?~ 4Q72 xxii 90['0 ' ]'?m '?l> 0)''?[1N: =MT Jer 31:8 '?~ 4Q72 xxii 14 :11:1' J'~ '?l> 1.,m1 = MT Jer 31: 11 '?~ (II '?l» 1QIsaa 22: 11 :1'rl)1l> '?l> :10n~J:1 N:1'? =MT v'lpl1 '?N: 4Q70 xiv 21 ,:1l>., '?l> tv [']N: nON:' = MT Jer 22:8 '?~ 49 The translation here, "has a tendency to omit", should be corrected: the Hebrew original reads ~'QtDil" "tDll. Incidentally, even with the valuable service rendered by E. Qimron with his Indices and Corrections (Qimron 1979), Kutscher's monograph of fundamental importance is still in need of a thorough correction of its English translation. Another example is: "n~ is extremely rare in the poetic portions of the Pentateuch and in the book of Samuel" (p. 412), where the second "in" must be deleted. It appears that in 13 cases the Chronicler deletes the particle from his sources, but adds it in six cases. To the passages mentioned by Kutscher (loc. cit.), the following, most of which have been supplied by a Ph.D. student of mine, Michael Malessa, ought to be added: 1 Chr 10:7 = 1 Sam 31:7, 2 Chr 3:17 = 1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 15:16 = 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Chr 23:6 = 2 Kgs 11:7; 2 Chr 31:1bis = 2 Kgs 18:4bis; 2 Chr 33:8 = 2 Kgs 21:8; 2 Chr 33:9 = 2 Kgs 21:9; 2 Chr 34:27 = 2 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 34:29 = 2 Kgs 23:1; 2 Chr 34:31 = 2 Kgs 23:3. 50 In Kasovsky's Mishnah concordance the particle, not including those with pronominal suffixes, takes up as many as 66 columns, which is quite substantial by any standard. 51 This is one of the conclusions reached also by Michael Malessa. 52 See Bendavid 1967-71: II 116,369-70.

MURAOKA: ApPROACH TO MORPHOSYNTAX / SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW

205

lQIsaa 18:2 ',J? .. ,,? = MT?~ lQIsaa 37:7 ,~,~? :Jrv = MT .. ?~ .. 11Q5 A,B,C i 2'? l(':Jn MX Ps 101:2 '?~ 4Q130 ill,? n'Ol(' = MT Exod 13:14 "?~ 4Q158 frg 1-2:5,? '0l('1 = MT Gen 32:28 "?l( ,~" 2Q16 iii 6 '? 'Ol( = MT Ru. 2:21 '?l( 'Ol( 4Q364 frg 5b ii 12: ii~rv iiO '? [l(J ii1'Jii = MT Gen 32:30 10rv l(J ii1'Jii //4Q158 frg 1-2:6 ii]O'? l(J 1['Jii 4Q22 vii 32 iirvO? = MT Exod1O:24 iirvO ?l( iilnEl l(iP" 11 Q 19 Iiv 10-11 cn?nii t:I?m? 'l( l('iiii l(':JJii ':J1 ?l( .vorvn l('? iil('iiii =MT Deut 13:4l('iiii cn?nii t:I?m ?l( 'l( l(1iiii l(':JJii ":J1 ?l( .. l1Q19 lxi 14 iiOn?O? iio':Jnp' = MT Deut 20:2 t:I:;J.:;J:!i?~ iir.m?Oii-?l( 2Q14 ii 2 t:I,pO ?],?, = MT Ps 104:8 .. t:I,p~ ?l( .. "" 4Q54 frg 6:8 n':Jii ":J1? ,opo ?l( = MT lKgs 8:6 ?l( .. 'l(:;!" n':Jii ":J1 ?l( ,o'po The only counter examples are: 4Q135 i 5 ii"?l( 'J'ii?l( ii'ii' '0" = MT Deut 5:24-(27) where T?~ is missing 53 4Q22 xix 5 cn?rv:J l(,:J' ,o]'po ?l( =MT 18:23?.v 4Q48 frg 5:7 .vrv['ii]' ?l( :'jo[,']'J:J 1':J1" = MT Josh 17:14n~ 1QIsaa 22: 15 l(J:JiD ?l( .. l(,:J 1? = MT?.v (pc. mss. ?~) 11 Q 19 62.3 ,n':J ?l( :J'iD' =MT Deut 20: 8 ,n':J? :J1iD' 4Q59 frg 21:4 ?:J:J 1?0 ?l( = MT Isa 14:4 ?.v iiiii ?rvOii nl(iDJ' ?:J:J 1?0 4Q57 frg 3-5:6n1'.v ?l( l([:J = MT Isa 10:28 ?.v. Cf. 1QpHab 4.6 t:Iii'?.v 1pniD' ~.v?:J1 = pesher on MT Hab 1: 10 pniD' i~:JO ?'? Furthermore, there are seven verbs which take a direct object in the MT, but an indirect object in our corpuslQIsaa 12:5 "ii'? "m = MT mii' 1i01 lQIsaa 13:18 'Oni' l('? It!l:J 'iEl ?.v ='MT ... ',El,54 4Q365 frg 10:3 ?l(?~:J? l:IiD:J 'nl('p = MT Exod 31:2 'nl(ip ?l(?~:J l:IiD:J55 4Q31 II 17iiJOElii rvl(i ?.v ii?[.v =MT Deut 3:27 iiJOElii rvl(' ii?~ 4Q72 XIII 61'J:J?:J '?.v =MT Jer 22: 10 pJ:J?ii ''?.v . 4Q42 frg 6-7:2t:1ii]?[ 1:J.vn =MT Deut 5:9t:11:J.vn

=

Similarly at 4Q 137 i 36. On the complementation of this Piel verb in the sense of "to have pity on," see Hurvitz 1972:107-9. 55 The use of a direct object in this syntagm is attested as late as 1 ehr 6:50 (1/ Josh 21 :9). 53

54

206

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

'1'

lQ6 v-vi 4,,,t']iT c',~ =MT Judg 9:31 with nMS6 Cf. also 4Q76 IV 2 1iT1" [rzrK iTliT' 'K" ,,:::l,J = MT Mal 3:16 withnM.

'1'

[9] The Reb locale If we focus on the adverb of place c~, the picture emerging from lQIsa8 is instructive. According to Kutscher (1974:413), the following statistics emergeslQIsa8 MT crzi crzi 13 iTorzi crzi 9 iTOOO crzio 2 iTOrzi iTOrzi 757 Three things are to be noted. 1) 1QIsa8 clearly favours the marked, long form. 2) When lQIsa8 deviates from the MT, it is never from the long to the short form, but the other way round. 3) Including the two cases of crz;OIiTOrzio, of course, the long form has mostly lost its directional force, and the ending is that of locative adverbial, cf. the ubiquitous and typical Qumranic iT"Mo/iT'M'O for the MT 'MO. With other nouns or place-names, lQIsaa, where it departs from the MT, prefers the unmarked form, e.g. lQIsaa 8:23 '?nm r'KiT' l'?':::lT r'K = MT '?n5lJ iT~'K' l'?:::lT iT~'K 1QIsaa 28:6 'l'tv iTon?o ':::l'tvO = MT i11l'tv .. lQIs~ 36:2c'?tv'" = MTiTo?tv",58 As regards the remainder of our corpus, the figures relating to those cases where a Qumran text shows iTOtv as against the MTctv or vice versa are as follows:

S6 One of the only two instances ofn~ ,~ "to besiege (a city)", the other example being in 1 Chr 20:1 (1/2 Sam 11:1 "ll). S7 Add xxii 18 bis. S8 Cf. lQl saa 43:14 ":J:J:J 'nn"rv =MT iT7~; 'l'lr;r~.

MURAOKA: ApPROACH TO MORPHOSYNTAX / SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW

QH

MT

iiOtD 00

!:ltD iiOtD

207

959 660 Whereas the majority of deviations from the MT are in favour of the marked form, unlike in 1QIsaa there are also six deviations in the opposite direction. That the semantic consideration is not the decisive one is clear from examples such as 4Qll frg 33:7 !:ltD m~J[ii' = MT Exod 26:33 iiOtD n~Jjj1 and llQ19 Ix 14 iiOtD !:l'101.vii = MT Deut 18:7 with 00. The preference of the unmarked form with ordinary substantives and place-names applies as in the case of lQIsaa : e.g., 4Q364 14:3 1iiii [,,?~ ii]'?.v = MT Exod 24:12 iiliJiJ '7t( ii?P, (similarly at 4Q364 frg 26b,e ii 4 = Deut 10: 1); 4Q56 frg 31 i 3 '?JJ 'nn'?tD = MT Isa 43: 14 ii'?JJ 'nn'?ili; 4Q22 V 8 !:l'OtDii = Exod 9:8 iiO'OtDii. See also 4Q364 frg ii 8 = MT Gen 28:6; 4Q364 19a-b 12 = Num 33:46; 4Q72 VII II = Jer 20:4; 4Q76 V 6 and 4Q82 frg 78:7 = Jon. 1:3; 4Q82 frg 38:2 = Joel 4:4; llQ19 lvi 16 =Deut 17:16; 4Q138 i 8 = Deut 10:22. Cf. 4Q31 II 17f. iin1r01 iiJO'n ii.:lEl~' C' = MT Deut 3:27 iiO' iin1ro, jjJo'm

ii.:lEl~t

The counter-examples are: 4Q364 17:5 1.!1'?~ '?.v lnn In'?tDii n~' ii.:nEl~ = MT Ex 26:35 pEl~; 4Q11 frg 35:5 iiJ~J = Exod 27:9 J~J; 4Q56 frg 25:10 ii'?[JJ = MT Isa 39:6, 1QIsa a '?JJ. See also 4Q70 VIII i:5 iin1ElJ =Jer 13:5 n1ElJ. For the purpose of diachronic evaluation of these data it is important to remember that the locative or directional morpheme has become almost obsolete in MH except in fossilised lexemes such as ii~r,l,? and ii7P,r,l7. ii1P~ and ii~ij have been replaced by t:J~'? and 1~~7 respectively. In QH iiorzi is still attested some 25 times,61 whereas jjJii occurs five times, but only in two fixed idioms: jjJjj1 jjJii and jjJii 1.!1, but never in a straightforward collocation as in Gen 15:16 ii~iJ 1J1ili:. The same holds for r1n7 as against ii~m 59 E.g., 4Q35 frg 4.29 ilOfD lmn = MT Deut 1:37 !:XV. Similarly 4Q57 frg 9 ii 17 = Isa 23:12 [= lQIsaj; 4Q365 frg 6a ii and 6c 11 = Exod 15:25; 4Q365 frg 32:11 = Num 13:22; l1Q19 Ix 13 = Deut 18:6; l1Q19 Ix 14 = Deut 18:7; llQ19 Ixiii 2 = Deut 21 :4. See also 4Q137 i 22 ilOfD[O = Deut 5:14 t:JfDO; 4Q138 i 26 = Deut 11:10. Note also 4Q158 frg 1-2:3 ilOtD 1':J[' :J1]pll[' in]'1 where the local adverb is wanting in the MT Gen 32:25. 60 E.g., 4Q364 17: 1 t:JtD iln[~':Jil = MT Exod 26:33 with iloo. See also 4Q60 frg 17:7 bis= Isa 22:18 [= lQIsaj; 4Q40 frg 3:7 = Deut 3:21; 4Ql1 fr 33:7 =Exod 26:33; 4Q22 xxiii 8 =Exod 22: 13. 61 According to Charlesworth 1991. Examples are 1Q22 i 9 t:J'i:J111 iloo ]1i['il] nl(; 4Q174 frg 1:3 iloo 1(1:J' 1(1'; 4Q159 v 5 ilOfD 11(~'; 4Q41O frg 1:5 t:J[1]?fD ilOfD l' 1'1(1.

208

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

or iT~~niJ.62 Note 4Q37 X 1 f,n, = MT Exod 12:46 iT~~n. In BH the marked form occurs quite frequently from Gen onwards, whereas f~n,? is confined to Ezek 41:17,42:2 and Ps 41:7. One may conclude then that, as far as the locative morpheme is concerned, QH was fast approaching the situation which would prevail in MH, though the morpheme was still an integral part of the langue of authors and copyists of the DSS. [10] Tenses The deviations in lQIsaa vis-a.-vis MT with respect to tenses have been closely studied by Kutscher (1974:328-30,350-58). 1) Kutscher's data on Lamed-Heh verbs show that, when he deviates from the MT, the scribe of 1QIsaa has a marked tendency to use the long pc. (prefix conjugation) forms instead of the corresponding short ones in the MT, 13 exameles,63 as against only the one deviation in the other direction. This is more significant than the fact pointed out by Kutscher that, in contrast to Lamed-Heh verbs other than iT'iT and iT'n, these latter two verbs show in 1QIsaa "a relatively large number of instances of the lengthened form" (Kutscher 1974:329). For quite a few cases of MT long = lQIsaa long of these two verbs, which Kutscher does not even bother to cite exhaustively, are less significant than cases of deviation for our purpose of studying the general drift shown by the scribe of I QIsaa. The only relevant example in our corpus excluding I QIsaa that has come to our notice is 11Q5 14.2iTJ.lJIi = MT Ps 119:172 WlJ. 65 2) The other important conclusion drawn by Kutscher (1974:351-52) is that the scribe of lQIsaa preferred the conjunctive Waw to the inversive Waw and tended to use the sc. (suffix conjugation) as a preterital tense and the pc. as a future tense. The preference for the Waw conjunctive is indeed evident in a large number of examples in our corpus outside of lQIsaa.66 In 62 i1~m occurs in MH in combination with a following preposition as in -, i1~m. Interestingly this composite syntagm is attested already in LBH: 2 Chr 33: 15 ".1)7 i1~m l~~~]; Ezek 40:40 i1?117 i1~mr,l; Ezek 40:44 'r,l'~~iJ '.I)~~ i1~mr,l. Note also 4Q394 frg 3-7 ii: 17 [= 4QMMT B 30] mno, [i1~ ]1m, and see Qirnron's note at Qimron 1994: § 3.5.2.8. 63 E.g., 1QIsaa 5:2 i1fVl)'1 •• j(:J::l'1 = MT fDl)'1 •• F1. 64 lQIsaa 37:36 T1 [= II 2Kgs 19:35] = MT i1?~]. 65 This example shows that the point made by Kutscher, however, is important and provides an eloquent account of the variation at l1Q5 14.2-5 'nn .. 'i1n .. ml)n = MT Ps 119: 172-75 '1}l'1 •• 'i1t;1 .. ].I)lJ. 66 For many examples in lQIsaa of the deviation pattern (a), see Kutscher

MURAOKA: APPROACH TO MORPHOSYNTAX I SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW

209

llQ19 Smith (1991:59) has found as many as 43 unconverted imperfects as against 136 (read:8467 ) converted perfects. a) QH Waw + pc. = MT Waw inv. + sc.4Q365 frg 7 i 3 'J,"p'O', ~.110 ".11 = MT Exod 17:4 'i?i?O~ ... 4Q78 frg 18:9 ,rv.11,', = MT Joel 4:16 1t1: t:)7~~"~~ fltcl c:O~ ~rD~ll i"ip f['El 'Oil = MT Isa 5:5 il:Ol .. 68 4Q162 I: 100'0" 'il" 4Q72 xxii 7 C~Ji'~' = MT Jer 31:8 c'r:J~~P.l .. K'JO 'JJil69 4Q 175 3 {il }Cil-" ill CJJ" iT'iT'1 TnT'o = MT Deut 5:26 (29) .. il'j71 Tn' '070 l1Q191xiv 6 n10'1 = MT Deut 21:21 rol b) QH Waw + sc. = MT Waw inv. + pc.4Q365 frg 32:10'''.111 = MT Num 13:22 ~"~~1 4Q37 III 6'n1 = MT Deut 5:23 (26) 'r:r~1 ... !)O~.

",J

The following cases, where a Waw inversive is absent in QH when the corresponding MT has one and the pc. is used as a future, are indicative of a measure of uneasiness over such a Waw on the part of DSS authors or scribes?) c) QH ~ pc. = MT Waw inv. + sc.4Q30 frg 45 ii 2 l1El'" = MT Deut 28:22 ":'J~Elll~ .. iT~:p~ 4Q76 II 5 '0:;)' = MT Ma12:16 il9~1 llQ191vi lOro1' = MT Deut 17:12n~~ 4Q56 frg 10-11:14 1rv1J' [= lQIsa 3 ad loc.] = MT Isa 19:9 ~fZij~

d) QH ~ sc. = MT Waw inv. + pc.-no example.72 That the sc. and pc. are functioning as a pure preterital and 1974:357. 67 See n. 72 below. The statistics provided by Abegg (1998:337-78) of various tense categories are difficult to assess on account of his failure to distinguish between the two kinds of Waw preceding a sc. form. 68 Cf. 1QIsaa ad loc.: oo10'=' iT'iT', •• iT'iT', .• 1'01(. 69 See further 4Q76 IV 4 = MT Mal 3:17; 4Q161 frg 2-4:8 = MT Isa 10:26; 4Q44 II frg 5 ii 8-11 = MT Deut 32:43. Kutscher (1974:357) lists at least 16 certain examples from lQIsaa. 70 Note that it is only here and 2 Sam 15:4 that this idiomatic phrase has ln' followed by the conjunction Waw and a sc. in the MT, whereas in Job 19:23 and 23:3 we have, as in our Qumran text, a pc. form following the Waw. 71 For quite a few examples of the deviation pattern (c) in lQIsa", see Kutscher 1974:357f. 72 Kutscher (1974:354) knows only one such example: lQIsaa 12:2 KiT'iT i1lll!Z,,'=' ,'=' =MT iT11'fll''=' ,'=' 'iT" .• 't11.

210

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

future form respectively is abundantly clear in the following cases where the conjunction must be conjunctive. e) QH Waw + sc. = MT!2I sc.4Q57 frg 52:38 '~rzm = MT Isa 24:12 ,~~~ [= lQIsa8 ad loc.] t) QH Waw + pc. = MT!2I pc.4Q58 frg 5:21, 4Q47 frg 29:2"01'" [= lQIsa8 ad loc.] = MT Isa 48: 13 "01" 3) Nevertheless, that the inversive Waw was far from defunct is in no doubt, as has also clearly been demonstrated by Smith (1991:59).73 This is evident in examples of the pc. with Waw and with preterital force, or those of the sc. with Waw and with non-preterital force, where the corresponding MT text has either a free-standing sc. or pc. form-llQ5 D 22:16'T~n" = MT Ps 93:1 'T~niT74 llQ5 D 25:lOoomw', .. ~t!l1'nm =MfPs 143:4oo,nrD' .. ~t!l1'nnl 4Q57 frg 52:39 ''?iT~' .. 1l'l" {iT}o'?,p [']l(W' = MT Isa 24:14 [IQIsa8 = MT ad loc.] ~'?O~ .. ~~..,: .. O,?ip ~l(tq~ 4Q57 frg 32:6 [= lQIsa8 ad loc.] OJ], = MT Isa 51:11 ~Of5 4Q58 VIII frg 11 ii 19 T'~i!1 = MT Isa 53:10 T'~' [IQIsa8 ad loco 1'~"] 4Q58 VIII frg. 11 ii 201'Jw, .. iTl(" = MT 53: Il1'Jw' iTl(" [= 1QIsa8 1'JrD'] 1QIsa8 30:23 iT1'" .. lW' iT'i!1 = MT iT~T .. lrP.l iT:iJl One should also note the following cases where a conjunctive Waw in the MT corresponds to an inversive one in QH: 4Q365 frg 2:6 iTnJ~'ni!1 'p'JJ O:JWiT = MT Exod 8: 16 J~:I;1iJl .. O~~7iJ, Le. two coordinate imperatives 4Q 171 frg 1-2 ii 15 onwp ,:J"," O'1'W' 1nn~ J,n = MT Ps 37:14':J'" .. 4Q57 frg 30:2 n',?~]l(' ,iT'[n1l('JiT = MT Isa 48:15 r:r''?~iJl ,'nl('JiT [1 QIsa8 iTn''?~iT'] . . That authors and scribes of the DSS had begun to show a certain ambivalence towards the inversive Waw and that were not always absolutely certain about intricacies and subtleties of BH syntax in these matters is further shown where they initially follow the classical pattern with an inversive Waw and sub73 "Converted forms are prevalent in literary QL [= Qumran literature]." His figure of 136 converted perfects is somewhat inflated because it includes 52 cases of verbatim or near verbatim quotation from the biblical text. 74 Cf. LXX Kat TTepte,WuaTO. 75 Many manuscripts have Waw.

MURAOKA: ApPROACH TO MORPHOSYNTAX I SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW 211

sequently switch to a conjunctive Waw, and occasionally back again to a Waw inversive-4Q 175 5 i:n', 1i1'::l:1 'i:1' 'nnJ' .. c'p~ ':1J = MT Deut 18: 18 ,:1" .. 'nnJ' .. "' "'1 QIscf 20:4f. ,tv,:1', mm .. JilJ' = MT ~rzi~J ~rllJl .. JilJ' lQIscf 27:6 ,~'?o, ni::l" r'~" .. tv',tv' = MT r'~: .. iD!"rq~ ~~'?O!) .. ni::l!) 11 Q 1~>' lxi 15 iO~' .. i::J'" P':;'il toJJ, = MT Deut 20:2-3 iD~~l iO~l .. '~"'!l P:;'il That even one of the most accomplished of authors and scribes of the DSS tripped here is illustrated by a hyper-correction at 11 Q 19 lxii 4 i:1''? C't!l::l,tvil n,'?:;,:;, 'il" = MT Deut 20:9 il'i11 ,:1,'? C"t!ltvil n,?:;,:;,.76 To make the matter worse, he failed to notice that the next verb is "pm = MT, resulting in an impossible Hebrew. Up to this pOint the author or the scribe of the Temple Scroll adhered to the biblical text, with a single exception (the last example cited above): 11Q19 lxi 15 iO~' .. ,:1," 1i11:;'il tvJJ, = MT Deut 20:2-3 iO~l .. '~'lP:;'il iD~~l; ib. lxii 2f. ,,11 ,::lO" no~, Cl1il '?~ 'i:1" [c't!l ]::l,tvil. Note also cases of awkward short pc. at 11 Q 19 xxiii 16-17 '?':;'il ,t!lp" .. ilJ"O' = MT Lev 3: 15f. cT~i?iJl il~TO~77; 11Q19 lvi 8 tvl1', 110tv' ~,,? 'rzi~ = MT Deut 17.12 l}biD 'r:J'?:1'? .. illDl" 'iD~; llQ19 lix 16 tvl1', ,'Otv'; 11Q19 lix 21 C':11 C"O'l'~" (no doubt a conjunctive Waw).78 Qimron would probably account for these last-mentioned striking forms with reference to his view that QH had its own distinct tense system, according to which the conjunction Waw, whether inversive or conjunctive, triggered the use of the cohortative form in the first person and the apocopate form in the second and third persons. I find it difficult, however, how to reconcile such a system with the system of standard BH, which latter, as shown earlier, authors or copyists of the DSS were reasonably familiar with. In other words, did the system of QH as perceived by Qimron know any functional opposition between'il" (lIQ19lxii 4) and the classical il'i11, what is found in the MT there and what the scribe or author could have retained? ,

T

76 It would be far-fetched to suggest that our author is sharing an isogloss attested to by a unique'iT" at 1 Kgs 14:5: on this highly problematic case, see Driver 1892:148f. 77 Supposing that a Hifil form is intended. Not i'~P" (pace Smith 1991a:48). 78 no" is most likely a defective spelling for a long pc. n10'1 with a conjunctive Waw in the light of the preceding iion''?m "and you shall hang." Note mo', at lines 6 and 11 in a similar syntactic context. For that matter, both i~P' and li~' could be defective spellings.

212

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

Summing up our survey of cases of discrepancy between the MT and direct quotations or allusions to it with respect to the inversive Waw and the two major tense forms, we would say that authors and scribes of the DSS were well acquainted with the rules of BH syntax and so were their reading public. However, there are indications that they themselves felt at times that by adhering to the BH rules they were going against the grain and they were most at ease with the rules that obtained in MH. Cases of mingling of converted and unconverted forms in close proximity could be best accounted for against this background rather than by supposing that QH represented, as far as the syntax of tenses is concerned, yet another dialect beside Classical BH and MH, following a set of well-established rules. From a wider diachronic perspective, I am not certain whether I can fully concur with the idea canvassed by Smith, who writes: " .. two usages of tenses co-existed from the period of the monarchy down to Qumran: one was more formal and literary, and the other approximated more closely to the spoken language. The use of tenses in speech eventually may have superseded the formal usage of converted forms." The use of unconverted forms, namely the sc. as a preterital tense and the pc. as a non-preterital tense, was an integral part of the system even in standard Classical BH, where these verb forms were used either as self-standing forms or as coordinated forms preceded by a conjunctive Waw or asyndetically. This happened not only in speech, but also in a refined literary or formal register. What does characterise the use of these unconverted forms in LBH or QH is a gradual disappearance of their highly specialised uses such as the pc. as either punctiliar preterite or frequentative-iterative-habitual preterite, the virtually total disappearance of the morphologically distinct jussive and cohortative, the so-called prophetic perfect, its performative or optative use and others. [12] The conditional .~79 One of the multifaceted uses of the ubiquitous particle'~ is that of introducing a conditional clause. so It is probably in the interest of the maximum efficiency of communication that QH replaces occasionally such a '~ with a particle designated for the 79 The question of tenses in conditional clauses is going to be treated by a former student of mine, Dr van Peursen. 80 The line between temporal and conditional is sometimes vague. We would apply the former term only when the particle introduces an event that actually took place as in the standard narrative') 'i1'" e.g., Gen 6: 1 ') 'i1', ::3'7 t:l1l(i1 ?1Ji.1 "now when mankind began to multiply."

MURAOKA: ApPROACH

TO

MORPHOSYNTAX / SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW

213

purpose, namely !:ltot. 4Q158 frg 1O-12:4J'JJ' !:ltot = MT Exod 21:37 JJJ' " l1Q19lxiv 8 Cl1P' LJtot = MT Deut 13:2 LJ'P' ,,81 That the author could tolerate the archaic use is clear from the sequel to the first example mentioned above: later at line 6 ;'U'J' ,~, = MT Exod 22:4 i,VJ' '~, line 8 ln' tot" = MT Exod 22:6 ln' ,~. 82 Furthermore, outside of our corpus, in non-biblical Qumran documents we find a fair number of such a conditional or conditional-temporal ,,:83 1QS 6.4 .. "'i,V' tot" i1'i11 11 Q 19 lviii 31'0i1 ,VOtv' " i1'i11 lQS 5.21 .. n'iJJ tot,J' tot'" 1QS 10.2 .. nml' tot', 4Q251 3 i 2 !:l'tv ]Jtot l'J'i' '~ [, 4Q375 I 5 .. ~Jtv/i1 !:l'P' tot'" 11 Q 19 xlv 7 i1," :-ripO " i1'i1' " [tv' ]tot1 l1Q19 xlix 5 mo' " C1tot' 11 Q 19 I 10 i1tot,O i1'i1n " i1tvtot1 11 Q 19 lxiv 6-7 'O,VJ "'i tv'tot i1'i1' ',. Note two cases where a conditional " appears side by side with!:lK: 4Q376 frg 1 iii 1 "" " 1tot .. i1'i1' ., !:ltot, 4Q159 frg 2-4:8 .. imtot' .. !:ltot .. '~" ',.

81 Likewise l1Q19 Iiv 19 = MT Deut 13:7; ib. Iv 2 = MT Deut 13:13; ib. Iv 13 = MT Deut 13:19; ib. Iv 15 = MT Deut 17:2; ib. Ixi 7 = MT Deut 19:16, but ib. Ixi 2 iO~ln '~, = MT Deut 18:21 io~n '~', Similarly ib. Ivi 12 = MT Deut 17:14; ib. Ix 16 = MT Deut 20:10; ib. Ixi 12 = MT Deut 20:1; ib. lxii 5 = MT Deut 20:10; ib. Ixiii 10 = MT Deut 21:10; ib. 64:2 = MT Deut 21:12 and a few others in llQ19. 82 At 4Q129 i r 13 Milik (1977:52 in DJD VI) wants to restore the text as !:I'E)'o,]o '~ in the light of MT Deut 5:22 (25) c'£l9\ C~. The restoration, however, is objectionable, not only on account of the unlikely replacement of C~ with '~, but since there is no sufficient room to insert Deut 5:22 (25)b and 5:22 (25)a between restored word and the beginning of the following line. It is probably a case of parablepsis, and one should restore, on the basis of 5:22 (25)b, [.. ifD~ ifD:J 1m ']0 '~.

83

The examples have been culled from a listing in DCH 4:386b-387a.

214

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

[13] Conclusions It is hoped that this survey, limited in scope as it is, has shown that the method advocated here of studying discrepancies between the MT and the direct quotations from it, paraphrases of it or allusions to it is capable of throwing some valuable light on the nature of the Hebrew of the DSS, its relationship to other phases or dialects of the language, such as BH in general and LBH in particular, Mishnaic Hebrew and the Hebrew of Ben Sira. Our study has also indicated that the description of QH by Kutscher with reference to 1QIs~ on the one hand and by Qimron with reference to non-biblical DSS on the other is at places in need of revision or supplementation. This study of twelve morphosyntactic or syntactic isoglosses seems to indicate that QH, in grosso modo, represents a phase of Hebrew between LBH and MH, though one cannot say that it is a direct linear development from LBH and would further develop into MH at every point and detail of the language. Though not a feature of morphosyntax or syntax, there is no way one can account for, to quote only one example, the pronuns iT~'iT and iT~'iT according to such a simple model of historical development. One must obviously allow for dialectal variations, idiolects, sociolects, variations to do with different registers and styles, as one does for any living, natural language. Scholars have already singled out some features unique to 4QMMT, the Copper Scroll, the Temple Scroll and so on. We have yet to discover whether one can identify signs of diachronic development within QH. This transition could only have been gradual, not abrupt. For the moment, it seems to me fair to state that the majority of authors and scribes of the DSS had acquired an admirable command of the grammar, vocabulary, style and idiomatics of the language of the Bible in all its phases and genres, they were quite often acquainted with forms, words, phrases and meanings which had not been preserved in the canonical Bible and the Massoretic form of it, and they often felt comfortable and competent enough to depart from the form of the traditional canonical scriptures. In some of these departures they betrayed unwittingly how their literary language had been moulded and forged, and in which directions it was heading. Amongst some features studied here we have observed that one of the forms was known to both BH and QH in non-biblical documents as well, but would not be used again in MH or replaced by a different form, for example, the info cst. with Lamed, or the locative adverbial iT~rD replaced by tlrD'.

CONDITIONAL SENTENCES WITH C~ IN THE PROTAS IS IN QUMRAN HEBREW Wido T. van Peursen (Leiden)* I: The use of qatal in the protasis of conditional clauses In BH, conditional clauses with introductory O~ expressing a condition that is regarded as possible or real in the future usually take yiqto] in the protasis, occasionally qatal. 1 In MH qatal in the protasis of a conditional sentence is more frequent. 2 Professor Qimron, in his The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, noticed that in QH, too, the use of qatal in the protasis of conditional sentences increases. 3 The preference for qatal is especially manifest in such pairs as4 CD 9:6-7 1::11::1 /I 1::1 1::11 1::1 1~~ p1n::11 01''? OW~ 1'? tv'1ni1 O~ 1::1 il:Il' mo 'if he keeps silent about him from day to day and thereafter speaks to him in the heat of his anger [delete first 1::1], he testifies against himself concerning a capital matter' ,5 but Num 30: 15 '?~ n~ 0'Pil1 I 01' '?~ 01'0 iltv'~ il'? tv'1n' tv'1ni1 0~1 il'11j 'but if her husband keeps silent to her from day to day, he shall establish all her vows' .6 • I am very grateful to Professor Qimron, Professor Sivan, and Professor Muraoka for inviting me to present a paper at the workshop, the proceedings of which are contained in the present volume. I am also grateful to Professor Muraoka for commenting on an earlier version of this article. My other contribution to the workshop, a response to Professor Muraoka's lecture, is appendixed to the present article. 1 Driver 1892:178; lotion-Muraoka 1993:§ 167h, n. 1; Qimron 1986:84; Segal 1932:198. 2 Perez Fernandez 1997:126,215; Mishor 1983:57-58. 3 Qimron 1986:84-85. Note also the relatively high frequency of qatal in Ben Sira: In the extant Hebrew text we find 14 cases of'im qatal as against 28 cases of 'im yiqtol. 4 See also Qimron's examples from llQT 66:4-5 (cf. Deut. 22:25) and 4Q158 7: 10 (cf. Exod. 21 :3). In many instances we follow the translation in Garda Martfnez-Tigchelaar 1997-98. 5 Similarly 4Q270 (4QDe ) 6.3:19 [010 18, 158]. For our translation compare Vermes 1997:168; differently Garda Martfnez-Tigchelaar 199798:1.565, who consider mo 1:J1:J as part of the protasis. The double vertical stroke marks the border between the protasis and the apodosis. 6 On the dependence of CD 9:6-7 on Num 30:15 see Thorion-Vardi

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

216

4Q161 2-4.2-3 [DJD 5, 12] [i1pn~ ~t!l'W'

f'[ln

I 0'i1 '?m;:, '?K,W' i1JOll i1]'i1 OK 1"'?;:' ,:1 :I1W' ,KW 'even if [your people,]

Israel, wer[e like the sand of the sea, only a remnant will return; extermination is decr]eed, but just[ice] will overflow', but Isa 10:22 1,''?;:'':1 :1,W' ,KW II 0'i1 '?m;:, '?K,W' lOll i1'i1' OK ';:' i1P1~ ~t!l'W

f"n;

4Q266 6.2:2-3 [DJD 18, 55]

r11l:1],'? i1K'm 1[111] i1r1K, OK' W1'P '?;:'1n '?K i1K'm II 0'0' r1ll:1iD [i1n1:J 'and if she ag[ain] sees (blood), and it is not [,,? ~''?] [at the time of her menstruation]

=

of seven days, she shall not eat anything hallowed', but Lev 15:25 '" i1r11:J r11l K'?:1 0':1, 0'0' i101 :1'T :1'T' ';:' i1WK' 'and if a woman has an issue of her blood many days not at the time of her menstruation .. .' .7 4Q266 6.2:12 [DJD 18,55] [i1W '1 i1n' i1:J'{W}i1K''? LlK[1] 'and if he cannot afford [a lamb]' , but Lev 12:8 i1W '1 i11' K~Or1 K'? OK1At first sight there is a counter-example in 11 QT 53: 19-20 i1',1:J ,?,;:, II ,1l0'W Ll":1 i1mK i1':1K i1:JK' K:Ji1 OK' 'O,P' K''? i1wm '?1l i1,OK ,WK i1',OK' 'but if her father forbids [~':J'?] her on the day when he hears her, all her vows and all her pledges with which she bound herself formally will not remain in force' , which is based on Num 30:6 i1',1:J ,?;:, II ,1l0W Ll":1 i1r1K i1':1K K':Ji1 LlK' Ll'p' K'? i1WElJ '?1l i1,OK ,iDK i1',OK', but here the use of yiqtol in the protasis in the Temple Scroll passage may be related to a textcritical issue, because in the Samaritan Pentateuch the protasis has an imperfect. Accordingly, it is possible that the scribe of the Temple Scroll took the imperfect from his biblical source, rather than that he replaced a perfect in his source by an imperfect.8 Since the use of the perfect in the protasis of conditional sentences is well attested in Aramaic,9 some scholars consider the increase of this use in post-biblical Hebrew as a result of Aramaic influence. It should be noted, however, that the distribution over the Aramaic dialects is uneven. Dr Folmer has demonstrated that the use of the perfect in the protasis is frequent 1985:86. 7 On the relation between the passage in 4Q266 and the Leviticus passage, see DJD 18, 56. For the apodosis in the Qumran passage see below, Section IV. 8 It should also be noted that the verbal form as it is found in 11 QT is likely to be emended anyway, and that instead of an emendation ofi1J~' to ~'J' an emendation to ~'JiT (changing only the order of the letters) is easily possible; cf. Yadin 1977:2.170. 9 Muraoka-Porten 1998:324-326; Folmer 1991,1995:394-415.

VAN PEURSEN: CONDITIONAL SENTENCES WITH Ot

IN

QUMRAN HEBREW

217

in documents from the Achaemenid period, while in Old Aramaic, as well as in the Middle Aramaic dialects (Nabatean, Palmyrene, Qumran Aramaic) the imperfect prevails. \0 The use of the perfect is also found in Syriac and Babylonian Aramaic. lI II: The infinitive in the protasis The protasis contains an infinitive in CD 16: 12 il~'J' " ~'il n"J "Jl.''? o~ 'if it is to breach a covenant, he is to annul it'. 12 4Q266 6.1:11-12 [DJD 18, 52] '?l.' [m']nillo ~O,,'? ,,? o~' l.'JJil [~El'J] II ,J n" {, }" il'?,l.' O""nil n[,]1, 0[1] ~'?OJ ,'Ji11 n,n'Oil 'but if liv[ing] (hairs) have not [,,? = ~''?] been added to the

dead ones and the artery is full of blood, and the spirit of life goes up and down through it, the disease [is healed],. and possibly also in the poorly preserved text in 4Q499 7:3 [DJD 7, 75] [il]:l,?'pJ l.'['o]v'? O~ 'if he listens to your voice' . In an article on non-biblical usages of O~, Dr Elwolde says that this use is peculiar and compares Job 9:27-28 'n'v iln:ltv~ "o~ O~ 'If I say, Let me forget my complaint'.I3 The first eX,ample, that from CD 16: 12, uses indeed 'the same construction' (but with -,?) as Job 9:27 (Elwolde) if we interpret it as 'if it (the oath) violates the covenant', which would mean that "Jl.''? O~ in CD 16: 12 can be rephrased with il'Jl.' O~ or "Jl.'n O~, just as Job 9:27 ·,o~ O~ can be rewritten with 'mo~ O~ or ,ok O~. However, we prefer to interpret "Jl.''? O~ in CD 16: 12 as a predicative infinitive expressing direction or destination: 'if the oath is to breach the covenant'. This use of predicative '?t!)p'? is typical of LBH and QH. 14 In this interpretation the constructions in both passages, although both containing an infinitive, are not the same. The second example, that from 4Q266, is difficult in its text and interpretation. The interpretation of the infinitive as expressing direction or destination is possible to 11

Folmer 1991, 1995:394-415. Noldeke 1898:§ 258; Schlesinger 1928:275.

12 The feminine personal pronoun refers to the preceding m"::ltD. Broshi' s edition has ~,;, in place oh';, with a footnote that both readings are equally possible. When reading ~,;,. we can consider it as part of the apodosis. 4Q271 (4Qd) 4.2:12 has ~';' in this passage [DJD 18, 178]. 13 Elwolde 1992:222; cf. DCH 1.303. 14 Kropat 1909:24-25; Schoors 1992:183; Eskhult 1990:108; Qimron 1986:70-72; Qirnron-Strugnelll994:80; Leahy 1960:142; Kesterson 1984:233249; Thorion-Vardi 1985:80-81.

218

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

as well,15 though in our view less likely. The third example, that from 4Q499, is too fragmentary to allow firm conclusions.

III: Verb forms used in the apodosis In SBH the apodosis takes wqatalti 'if there are no pressing circumstances that push the verb from the beginning of the sentence'.16 Thus we find 'n~'il' I 'O~ '~'n OK Judg 4:8

l'K K' II 'O~ '~'n K' OK'

'if you go with me, I will go, but if you don't go, I won't go', with wqatalti in the first apodosis and yiqtol in the second, because the negative ~, pushes the verb to the second position. Yiqtol in the first slot of the apodosis is not unattested, but it is less frequent. In the book of Exodus we find eighteen conditional sentences with weqatalti in the apodosis as against four cases with yiqtol in the first slot of the apodosis. In Deuteronomy initial yiqtol occurs only once (Deut 32:41), while wqatalti is attested thirteen times.17 In LBH the use of yiqtol in the initial slot of the apodosis increases considerably, e.g. 1 ehr 28:9 ,~, 1n'~t' II '~Jt~n OK' l ' K~I::l' II '~rz1"n OK 'if you seek Him, He will be found b~ you, but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off for ever'. 8 In the book of Chronicles weqataltfin the apodosis occurs only when it is found in the author's sources.19 In Ezra and Nehemiah we find X yiqtol in the apodosis five times, yiqtol in initial position six times, and weqatalti only once, in the Nehemiah Memoirs. In the book of Esther there are seven cases of yiqtol in the intial slot of the apodosis and two of yiqtol in non-initial position, while examples with weqataltf are absent. The book of Ben Sira, too, attests to a high number of yiqtols in initial position Cf. DCH 1.303 'if it is to be increased (i.e. it has begun to increase) .. .'. Thorion-Vardi 1985:87; lotion-Muraoka 1993:§ 176d; Muraoka 1997b:244. Similarly in the Hebrew epigraphic material (Arad 2:7). 17 On the conditionial clauses in Exodus and Deuteronomy see further below, Section IV. 18 . Kropat 1909:69-70; Rooker 1990:120-121. Unfortunately neither Kropat nor Rooker distinguish between cases of initial yiqtol and of non-initial yiqtoJ, which leads to the erroneous statement that a case like Esth 6: 13 marks a departure from SBH usage (Rooker, ibid.; see below, Section IV). 19 Kropat 1909:69. Initial yiqtoJ is attested four times, in 1 Chr 12: 18, 1 Chr 13:2, and two times in 1 Chr 28:9, quoted. 15

16

VAN PEURSEN: CONDITIONAL SENTENCES WITH ~ IN QUMRAN HEBREW

219

of the apodosis, whereas the construction with weqataltf is very rare: yiqtol in initial position is attested fourteen times and in non-intial P2sition it occurs ten times, whereas weqataltfis attested only twice. 20 The tendency to use yiqtol in place of weqatalti in the first slot of the apodosis may be due to Aramaic influence.21 In QH wqataltiis abundantly attested,22 e.g. 11 QT 47: 15-17 'i.!npo? 1iTe!)1 II 1iT1n:nn 'tznp0::J OK iTO;)'111? 1iTe!)1 II 1iT1mln iTO;)'..,::Jl1::J OK1 'if you sacrifice it in My temple, it will be pure for My temple; if you sacrifice it in your cities, it will be pure for your cities' ?3 The pattern with X yiqtol occurs as well. The element preceding yiqtol may be 1. The negatives ~? and ?~: CD 11 :8-9 moo K~1' ?K II iT'iT' iT;)10::J OK1 'and if he is in a hut, he shall remove nothing from it' . 2. A personal pronoun (subject): CD 13:6 1j..,';O' K1iT II K1iT 'nEl OK1 'even if he is a simpleton, he shall intern him' . 3. A noun phrase (subject): 4Q491 1-3: 12 [DID 7, 13] 1.O1?1.O II n;)1110? 10'1.0' ::J11K OK1 P1[n10 1]'iT' O'::J11K n1;)1110 'if they lay an ambush for one line, three lines will be lying in ambush [at a dis]tance'. 4. A prepositional phrase: 1QS 11: 13 '1.OElj y?n' nn1.001 II 'm~ nnEl' C1K1 'if my grief commences, He will free my soul from the pit' .24 In the cases of?~ or~? preceding the verb it is clear that there are 'compelling reasons' to place the verb in non-initial postion, but in other cases this is doubtful. Thus the function of the personal pronoun sometimes remains unclear. Would, for example, in CD 13:6 SBH not prefer1j1';OiT1 II K1iT 'nEl OK?

See Van Peursen 1999a:316, 318. Rook er 1990:121; Kropat 1909:70. 22 Qimron 1978:171; Rooker 1990:122; Thorion-Vardi 1985:87; Kesterson 1984:152-153.159-161. 23 In this passage from llQT Yadin's edition (1977:2.144) has 'ii~' in place of the first 'ii~'! See Qimron 1978:171 and our comment below. The construction with weqataltfis also attested in the Bar Kokhba documents. e.g. Mur 44:6 [DJD 2, 162]. 24 On the waw before the prepositional phrase see below, Section IV. 20 21

220

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

There is, however, also quite a number of cases where the imperfect occurs in initial position. 1. With qatal in the protasis: 4Q274 1.1:5 [WA 3. 79] il~n1' il")::J o::J:;)n I mm OK' 'and if she does touch, she shall wash her clothes and bathe'. 4Q299 6.2:18 [DID 20, 47J [... J? ~'O" I rz" tJ~, 'and if he threshed, he shall add to[ ...]' 5 4Q525 14.2:14 [DID 25, 146] [... l,'?m' I 'l' mmJO'? iln'ElO~ OK' 'and when you are snatched away to eternal rest, they will inherit[... ]' . 2. With yiqto] in the protasis: tJ~ 'if they tell him to, he should 1QS 6: 13 ,::J,' II''? speak', lQS 6:14-15 n"::J::J 'il~'::J' I )'rD' tJ~' 'if he suits the discipline, he shall introduce him into the covenant' , lQSa 2:11-12 [DID 1, 110] I tJn~ n'rDOil [n]~ ['?~1 'r'?l" tJ~ '?~'rD' n,l' ,?,:;) rD~" £1il':;)il1 ~'::J' 'if [God] begets the Messiah with them, [the] chief [priest] of all the congregation of Israel shall enter' .26 lQH 8:24 [il::J'l'::J 'l'1"l':;) il'il' II " ::J'rD~ tJ~, 'but if I remove my hand, it will be like the aca[cia in the desert]', 4Q525 10:6 [DID 25, 139] il:;)'? ::J,t!), H ::J't!)n tJ[~l '[i]f you do good, He will do good to you' . 3. With a verb form in the protasis that is either a perfect or an imperfect: lQS 6:18-19 ,::J{'},p' I (... ) ,n'il ,'o'? ::J"P'? '?")il''? ~~' tJ~, mil n~ tJ) 'and if the lot results in him joining the Council of the Community (... ), they shall bring also his wealth', lQS 6:21-22 1i1::J1n:;)' I ,n''? ,::J,P'? '?")il ,,? K~' tJK' 'and if the lot results in him joining the Community, they shall inscribe him'. 4. With a nominal clause in the protasis: 1QSa 2:9 [DID 1, 11 0] n~l' '?K ,::J,'? il'?~[O 'n~'? '1::J' rD' tJK 'il'ElO[ 'i111rD'''['1 II rD"Pil 'and if [one of] these has [a wo]rd to speak to the Holy Council, they shall investigate it in private,?7

"0"

'0'0

'll'

25 Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar 1997-98:2.660 read instead of ro, ('and when his wickedness proceeds to [ ...J'). 26 But here the l:l~-clause may also be connected to the preceding line, cf. Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar 1997-98: 1.103. 27 DID 1 has on p. 110 [,;nw"i,) but on p. 117 ('iI'W"'('); the former reading is also found in Garcia Martinez-Tigchelaar 1997-98:1.102. However, the reading with initial yod is more likely because of the waw after the first root consonant.

VAN PEURSEN: CONDITIONAL SENTENCES WITH ~ IN QUMRAN HEBREW

221

4Q159 2-4:8 [DID 5, 8] i11'p~1 'OK" I iln1K mnp [... ]~ I:lK 'if his taking her was by [... ], let him say so and they shall examine her'.28 4Q265 7.1:7-8 [WA 3.75] '?K '?'Eln ,tvK K'il I:l'K tvElJ I:lK' ,~ 1n1'?,tm'? "J~ nK ,,? n'?tv' I n~tvil[ 1:l1'~] l:l'Oil 'but if it is a man who falls into the water [on] the Sabbath [day], he may pass to him his garment to lift him out therewith' . 5. With an infinitive in the protasis: CD 16: 12 ilK'J' II K'il n"~ ,,~.v'? I:lK 'if it is to breach a covenant, he is to annul it' ?9 In 1978 Professor Qimron wrote an article 'New Readings in the Temple Scroll', in which he noticed the high frequency of the classical construction with weqataltf in QH as against that with yiqtol in the initial position of the apodosis. In the non-biblical Qumran scrolls he counted 32 v/qataltf's as against two or three initial yiqtols. In the corpus we have investigated, including a number of texts that were published after the appearance of Qimron's article, the total number of yiqtols in initial position has risen form twelve to fourteen. Moreover, there is a palaeographical issue, namely it is qUite often difficult to distinguish between waw and yod. In the Temple Scroll there are some cases where Yadin's edition had an initial yiqtol, but where Qimron preferred to read a perfect consecutive, like 'n~'/'il~' in llQT 47:16, quoted above. According to Qimron any form at the beginning of the apodosis of a conditional sentence which may be read either '?~p' or '?~p' should be read '?~p', because of the consistency with which the classical construction is employed in QH. 30 Now that we have discovered some eleven more and assured examples of yiqtol in the initial slot of the apodosis, it can be questioned whether we should still apply this rule to all uncertain readings of waw and yod in the Temple Scroll and in other manuscripts. If not, the number of possible cases of yiqtol in the initial slot of the apodosis becomes even higher. It should be noted, however, even then, that in QH, unlike in LBH, weqataltf in the first slot of the apodosis conSiderably outnumbers initial yiqtol. In addition to those cases where the apodosis has v/qataltf, X yiqtol, or initial yiqtol, there are some cases where the apodosis opens with v/yiqtol. 28 Thus DJD 5, p. 8; differently Garda Martfnez-Tigchelaar 1997-98 1.311: 'ifhe says it at the [moment] of taking her, they shall examine her'. 29 Unless the personal pronoun belongs to the protasis, see above, footnote 13. 30 Qimron 1978:171.

222

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

1. Withyiqtol in the protasis: 1QS 6 : 2 4 - 2 5 n 11'" il~'il' pilJ "prv' .,rv~ rv'~ ~J ~~O' ~ nn~ illZ1 ~'J" n.,ilt!l 11n0 'il""J" 'if there is found among them one who has lied knowingly concerning goods, he shall be excluded from the pure food of the Many for a year' .31 CD 19:2-4 "11 '~"iln" n ~'JJ (... ) ~'rvJ mp'" (... ) ,Jrv' mJilO ~~, il.,inil 'El 'and if they reside in the camps (... ) and take wives (... ), and beget children, they shall walk in accordance with the law'.32 2. With a nominal clause in the protasis: CD 9: 17 -18 "J'11" 'il11"" U ~1i1 mo .,J' ~~ 'if it is a capital matter, he shall report it in his presence' . Compare also those cases where the verb can be analysed either as weqataltf or as weyiqtol: 11 QT 58: 15 -16 '011 ~~" II "J"~ "11 ilon"o" ~~' ~{~} (11)' ~11il n'rv'on 'and if he sallies out to war against his enemies, a fifth part of the people shall sally out with him', CD 13:3-4 II il"~J pnJ ~""ilO tD'~' il"~ "~J pnJ ~'il r~ ~~, ".,'Jil ~~', 'and if there is not an expert in all these things, and one of the Levites is an expert in them, the lot falls... ' . The use of vlyiqtol in the apodosis of a conditional sentence is against (S)BH practice. It is attested once in LBH, in 2 Chr 20:9110tDm II 'In.,~o T"~ p11TJ' [... ) il11., 'J'''11 ~'Jn ~~ 'if evil comes upon us (... ) and we cry to you in our distress, You will hear'. 33 We agree with Kesterson that the examples with vlyiqtol in QH 'indicate that there was a certain instability' in the use of weqataltf in conditional sentences introduced by ~~. However, these deviations from SBH practice can be described not only in terms of 'weyiqtol replacing vi qatalti' , but also as a use of the waw apodoseos in an environment where (S)BH does not take it (weyiqtol in place of yiqtol), which brings us to our discussion of the waw apodoseos.

V: Use and non-use of the waw apodoseos According to Rooker, one of the differences between the conditional clauses in SBH and those in LBH is that in LBH the The weyiqtolin the apodosis is continued by weqataltf. 32 Note the we qataltf's in the protasis as against the weyiqtolopening the apodosis. Contrast CD 7:7 I D'j::l n"1;n (... ) D'Wj lnp'1 (... ) 1::lW' nljno D~1 1)'iin;n! For an extensive discussion of both passages in the Damascus Document, see Elwolde 2000: 111-117. 33 Note also the use of the waw apodoseos before the cohortative in Gen 13:8 (2x) and 2 Sam 12:8 (cf. BOB 254a). 31

VAN PEURSEN: CONDITIONAL SENTENCES WITH ~ IN QUMRAN HEBREW

223

apodosis tends to be asyndetic in contrast with the syndetic apodosis in SBH.34 However, this observation requires considerable modification, since in SBH syndesis is only the rule when the apodosis has a consecutive verb form. When a noun or negative opens the apodosis, the apodosis is asyndetic?5 Compare once again the example from Judg 4:8 (quoted above, Section III), with wqatalti in the first apodosis and X yiqtol (without waw) in the second one. When we look at the material in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy we find 60 conditional clauses, 31 of which have w qataltf. In the remaining 29 cases the first slot of the apodosis is occupied by another verb form eight times (an imperfect five times, an imperative twice, and a passive participle once) and by another element (noun or negative) 21 times. Of these 29 cases, there is only one example with waw apodoseos, namely in Exod 40:37 1.110' ~'?1 II p.vi1 i1'?.v' ~'? D~1 'and if the cloud was not lifted up, they would not set out' . In the light of this material it is wrong to consider an example like Esth 6:13 1'? '?J1n ~'? II (•.• ) 'J'10 D"1i1'i1 .v1TO D~ 'if Mordecai is of the seed of the Jews (... ) you will not prevail against him' as a deviation from SBH because of the absence of the waw apodoseos. 36 The Chronicler uses the waw apodoseos several times before the subject (pronoun), e.g. 2 Chr 6:22-23 .votDn i1n~1 II (•.. ) ~~n' D~ 'if a man sins ( ... ), You will listen ',37 Kropat rightly observes that this is a deviation from SBH usage,38 but in some cases the waw apodoseos is already found in the Chronicler's sources.39 In QH there are many examples of w qatalti in the apodosis. Rooker 1990: 120. 35 lotion-Muraoka 1993:§ 176d; Muraoka 1997b:244. 34

36 Rooker 1990:120. The use of yiqtolin the apodosis is not against SBH usage either, cf. above, footnote 19. 37 Further in 2 Chr 6:24-25 and (with )i1) in 2 Chr. 7:13-14.

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

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

224

When another element precedes the verb, the apodosis has most often not a waw, as appears form the examples quoted above, but the waw apodoseos is found in the following cases: 1. With an imperfect in the first slot of the apodosis: At least three examples given above, in Section Ill. 2. With an imperative in the apodosis: 4Q418 81: 15 [WA 2.103] [... ] 1'i' II il:>'?'!DOil O'i' no:>n:::l OK 'if He has given you authority over manual craft, know [... ]'.

3. With a prepositional phrase in the fIrst slot of the apodosis: 1QS 11 : 13 'WE):J r':m' nnwo, II 'n'~ nnE)' OK' 'if my grief commences, He will free my soul from the pit'. 4. With the negative ~" in the first slot of the apodosis: 4Q266 10~2:1-2 [DJD 18, 74] ]'" u "~:J' mo ,:::l,:::l OK' [1'1'] :::l'W[' 'and if he bears resentment in a capital matter, he [shall] not return [any more]'. 5. With a personal pronoun in the fIrst slot of the apodosis (compare the examples from Chronicles): CD 5:10-11 'KW K'il111 il':::lK 'nK m,1' nK nKil n:::l il'Jn OK' 'and if a daughter of a brother uncovers the nakedness of the brother of her father, she is a blood relation' ,40 4Q266 6.2:2 [DJD 18, 55] n1':::l]" ilK'il1 i[11'] iln~n OK' Wi'P ,:>,n 'K ilK'il1 II 0'0' n1':::lW [iln':J 'and if she ag[ain] sees (blood), and it is not [at the time of her menstruation] of seven days, she shall not eat anything hallowed' .41

Conclusion The conditional clause with O~ in the protasis in QH differs from that in SBH in the following respects: 1. There is a relatively high number of conditional sentences with qatal in the protasis. The preference for qataJ is especially manifest where it replaces yiqtol in a quotation from or allusion to a biblical passage. 2. Constructions with yiqtol or weyiqtol in the fIrst slot of the apodosis occur a number of times. However, in QH, unlike in LBH, the cases of weqataltf still outnumber those of initial yiqtol 40 But perhaps we should consider 'Ntzl N'il1 as a circumstantial clause, which would mean that the apodosis is missing or implied in the preceding O'tzlJi1 0i1" :nn, N'i1 o",t, n"'lli1 !!l£ltzlr.n 'and the law of the forbidden intercourses is written for males but (applies) equally to females'. 41 Cf. DID 18, p. 56: 'iTM'il1, despite the waw, is to be taken as the apodosis'.

VAN l'EURSEN: CONDITIONAL SENTENCES WITH ~ IN QUMRAN HEBREW

225

or w"yiqtol. 3. Although the use and non-use of the waw apodoseos in general follows the rules of SBH, there is a small but not negligible number of cases with waw apodoseos where we would not expect it in SBH. APPENDIX: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND BEN SIRA IN RELATION TO PROFESSOR MURAOKA'S LECTURE In his contribution to the present volume Professor Muraoka compares biblical Qumran scrolls and the Masoretic Text of the Bible, which results in some most interesting and valuable observations in the field of morpho syntax and syntax. In my reaction to this presentation the main focus will be on a comparison between the corpus investigated by Professor Muraoka and the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, the corpus I studied during my PhD research. 42 [1] Infinitive construct with -?

In his discussion of the proc1itic lamed Professor Muraoka has mentioned the construction of the type "Jil?~ instead of "Jil~. In Ben Sira this construction is unattested. In other syntactical functions (subject, object) the infinitive occurs both with and without lamed. 43 [2] Infinitive absolute In Ben Sira the infinitive absolute with the force of an imperative occurs only once, in 3: 17 (C) l'?il i1l:JDJ Tn:;,~?~ ?:;, n~ ':JJ 'my son, in all your affairs go humbly'. In this passage, where MS C has an infinitive absolute, MS A has l?ilnil, which can be read as an imperative. It should be noted, however, that a number of times we find forms that can be analysed either as an imperative or as an infinitive such as that with three root consonants and a vowel letter waw between the second and the third consonants ('?'~p ).44 42 My PhD research, entitled 'The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira', was carried out in the period 1995-1999 under the supervision of Professor Muraoka, and resulted in a successful thesis defence on 2 November 1999. 43 Van Peursen 1999a:219-220 (§ 14.5.0. 44 Van Peursen 1999a:249-250 (§ 15.5).

226

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

The construction with the infinitive absolute of the internal object, the type mon mo, is attested six times in Ben Sira, with a non-volitive imperfect four times, with an injunctive imperfect once, and with an imperative once.45 [3a] The qotla imperative In Ben Sira the long imperative is found once, in a passage that is textually doubtful, namely in 31[34]:15 (Btxt) lrvElj~ ll" ill'1 'recognise that your neighbour is like you' .46 Whereas the main text of MS B has ill'1, the margin has ill" 'make friends'. The reading in the main text is the lectio facilior and is probably an adaptation to l'o~ ll"rv l'1 'know that your neighbour is like you' in the following verse.47

[3b] Nun paragogicum Professor Muraoka discusses the complex distribution of P'?~P' forms. In Ben Sira the nun paragogicum occurs only three times, twice in a passage that is clearly dependent on a verse from the Bible, namely in 30: 19 (Bmg) in a gloss that has been added under the influence of Deut 4:28, and in 45:20[21] (B), an obvious parallel to Deut 18:1, and once in 51:24 (B), in the textually doubtful version of the concluding acrostic poem in chapter 51 in MS B. Accordingly, the situation in Ben Sira conforms with that in non-biblical Qumran Scrolls like the Temple Scroll in that the instances of l''?~P' are rare and (except for the last, textually doubtful example) linked to biblical verses. 48

[8] Verb complementation Professor Muraoka has demonstrated that there is a marked tendency to replace '?~ by -'? or occasionally by '?l'.49 In Ben Sira this tendency is reflected in 14:10 (A) !:In'? '?l' ~'l'n l'l' l" l'l' 'an envious eye [delete second l'l'] darts greedily to food'; where we find~'l' + '?l' instead of'?~ as in 45 Non-volitive imperfect: 14:17 (A), 14:19 (A), 16:19 (A), 35[32]:23 (B); injunctive imperfect: 5:11 (C); imperative: 31:22 [34:21] (Bmg). See Professor Smith's article in the present volume and Van Peursen 1999a:247-248 (§ 15.3). 46 For this translation cf. Muraoka 1978. 47 Van Peursen 1999a:162-164 (§ 12.4). 48 Van Peursen 1999a:87-88 (§ 6.9).

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

VAN PEURSEN: CONDITIONAL SENTENCES WITH ~ IN QUMRAN HEBREW

227

1 Sam 14:32 (Q) "tVir 'N l:l,Vir ~,V', 'and the people darted greedily to the spoil' .50 A second example of , ,V replacing'~ is Sir 48:6 (B) nntV ,,V l:l','0 ,','Oir '(Elijah) who brought down kings to the pit' , where we find ", (hifil) + nntV ',Vas against BH '" + nntV 'N as in Ps 30: 10 nntV 'N 'n"J 'when I go down to the pit'. 51 ", + ,,V occurs in the Bible as well, but with a different meaning ('down upon' instead of 'down into'), e.g.52 Exod 19:20 ';]'0 ,ir ,,V ir1ir' "', 'and the Lord descended on Mount Sinai' .53 A third example of ,,V instead of'~ is possibly 37:4 ([Bmg+]D) nntV ,,V ~'JO Jir1N ,V'o 'a friend who looks upon the pit is an evildoer'. In the Bible there are many instances of~'Jir + ,~ (or _,),54 as against only one example of ~'::Jir + ,,v, namely Hab 2: 15 1,V0, l:lir'",VO ,,v ~'::Jir 'to look on their nakedness'. More complicated is the government of the verbs ,vow and 'v):l. In Ben Sira the verb ,VOiD takes the preposition -::J two times (both in the expression ')' "P::J ,VOtV), -, twice, ,~ twice, and a direct object six times.55 All these constructions are found in the Bible, but -, is found mostly in late literature. 56 Consequently, it seems safe to consider -, ,VOtV as a LBH equivalent of 'N 'vOiD, in which case also the two examples from Ben Sira of -, ,VOtV attest 50 Dr Elwolde suggested to me that the rectional difference may correspond to a semantic one: in Sir 14:10 the movement is primarily vertical (a bird swooping down 'upon'), whereas in the biblical passages its is primarily horizontal (people rushing 'to'). 51 Compare also Job 33:24 nmv nllO 1il.viEl 'spare him from going down to the pit' without preposition. 52 Cf. DCH 4.289a. 53 In this sense ii' + '?.v occurs in Sir 16:18 (A) Oil''?.v 1nii:::l 'when He descends upon them', although this reading, which is not supported by the ancient versions, is suspect, for we never read in the Bible that God descends upon (or to) the heavens. The phrase quoted may have entered the text under the influence ofIsa 63:19. 54 Even when the direction in which one looks is downwards; see, e.g., Isa 51:6 and further those cases where God looks down to the earth or its people in Isa 22:8,66:2; Hab 1:13; Ps 102:20. 55 -:::I in 4:6 (A) and 48:20 (B); -'? in 4:15 (A) and 12:11 (A); ,,~ in 16:24 (A) and 33:19 [30:27] (E); and a direct object in 16:5 (A+B), 35[32]:16 (B), 36:17[22] (B), 41:15 (B+M), 51:11 (B), 51:28 (B). 56 BDB 1034a.

228

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

to the tendency to replace ,~ by -,. With the verb 1m we find 51:6 (B) '~5l:J mo, 11Jm 'I was close to death'. In the Bible11J:J governs the prepositions -::l, 111, and ,~, hence we could regard Ben Sira's -'1m as an equivalent of biblical ,~ 11J:J. 57 In Ben Sira there are also two counter-examples, where we find '11 in idioms that take ,~ in the Bible. The first is Sir 37:8 (B+D) ,,5l' "'~ i1T i10, 'why should it fall to his advantage' , with ,5l:J + ,~ instead of BH ,5l:J +'11 as in Qoh 9:12 Cl~n5l Cli1"11 "5lniDJ 'when it [an evil time] falls suddenly upon them'. The second counter-example is 5: 14 (A) 'Jin ,~ l:J'iD' ,~, 'do not slander with your tongue'. 58 Compare in a similar context in the Bible Ps 15:3 ':JiD' '1) 'Ji ~, '(who) does not slander with his tongue' .59 In addition to those cases where we find in Ben Sira '11 or-, instead of biblical ,~ and vice versa, there are other differences between BH and the Hebrew of Ben Sira in the use of ,~, '1) and -,. Thus we find with the verb p::l1 'cling, cleave' 11 :34[33] (A) 1)~i' p::l1n ~, 'you shall not cling to a godless man', whereas in BH p::l1 takes the prepositions -, and ,~ only when it has its literal meaning (e.g. a tongue cleaving to the roof of the

mouth; Job 29:10); when it has a figurative meaning (e.g. people clinging to their king; 2 Sam 20:2) it governs _::l.60 The verb iD'::l 'to be ashamed' governs in BH 10 before a noun indicating the reason of the shame.61 In Ben Sira it, takes '1), ,~, and -, in this position. Thus we find '1) and sometimes ,~ in the two enumerations of things of which one should and one should not be ashamed in 41:14-42:8 (B+M), the so-called Instruction Concerning Shame;62 iD'::l + ,~ occurs also in 4:20 57 llm1 can also be interpreted as an intransitive hifil, and the hifil, unlike the qal, does take -? in the Bible. But since -? ll'~i1 is found especially in late texts, we can sill consider it as a late feature. 58 In MS A this clause comes after 4:28b, but it is a variant to 5:14, which in MS A reads lli ?~in ?N Tl1tv?:l1 'and do not slander a friend with your tongue'. 59 ?~i pi. + ?~ 0CCurs in the Bible as well (2 Sam 19:28), but with a different meaning. 60 For more details see BDB 179b, DCH2.386a; cf. Muraoka 1997a:99. 61 We find -J once, in Ps 69:7. 62?~ occurs in 41 :17a, 17b (B) and 42:1,2 (Bmg).

V AN PEURSEN: CONOmONAL SENTENCES WITH I:M

229

IN QUMRAN HEBREW

(A) and fD'::1 + -, in 4:22 (C). With the idiom "i11n~ 'to give splendour' we find -, in 45:7 (Bmg)"m" Gn',) '(and He gave) him His splendour', as againstBH'.u "i11n~ (Ps 8:2, Dan 11:21,1 Chr 29:25). -, " i1 1nJ is found once in the Bible, with a different meaning, namely in Prov 5:91"i1 c"rn(, 1nn 15) 'lest you give your vigour to others'. The following table may serve as a summary of our observations thus far. 63 4:11 (A)

,'.ui1

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

.uOfD

-, -,

-, (mostly late), -::1, (also -::1, 'M,f1j 'M, f1j)

5:14 (A)

'J'piel

11 :34[33] (A) P::1, t!)'.ui1 14:10 (A) 37:4 (Bmg+D) t!)'::1i1 37:8 (B) '5)~ 41:14-42:8 fD'::1 45:7 (Bmg)

" i1 1nJ

48:6 (B)

,'"i1

51:6 (B)

.uJ~

-::1

'1'

(Ps 15:3; 'M with differrent sense in 2 Sam 19:28) -::1 (-,hM only with different meaning) 'M (1 Sam 14:32) 'M (or -'; in Hab 2:15) (cf. Qoh 9:12) 'M 'M, -, 10 (-::1 in Ps 69:7) (B+M) eta]. with different meaning in Prov 5:9) ('M only in different sense) -::1, 'M (but hifil takes 'M

-,

'1' '1' '1' '1' '1', -, '1' (-, '1' '1' -, '1', -')

When there is more than one Hebrew textual witness available, we see considerable fluctuation between 'M, -', and other prepositions. lllustrative are the following examples, some of

'1'

63 The first column gives the reference from Ben Sira, the second the verb or expression concerned, the third the prepositions found in the Hebrew manuscripts, and the fourth the prepositions used in the Bible. Note also -, i10, in Sir 13:14[15] (A), 32[35]:8 (B) as in SBH, as against LBH 1)0'. We do not include 13:11 (A) '01) tDim, nt!l:Jn'1e (cf. BH nt!l:l + -:l, 'M, '1), because we prefer to read tV!:)" as a construct infinitive ('do not venture to be [too] free with him') rather than a noun.

,Ie

DIGGERS AT THE WELL

230

them already mentioned above. 64 5:5

rn!l::1

5:14

?)ipiel

7:24 16:1 30:17

t:l'E i'Nil n00 ii'

37:2

l")il

37:4

~'::1il

41:19 45:7

i' il~il i'il1 m

A+C+Saadia ?~, -::1, ?l', ?~ Nissim -::1 65 Al -::1, A 2 (after ?l' (?~ different meaning) 4:28b) ?~ A ?~, C ? ?~, ?, ?l', et al. A -::1, B?l' -::1 (often), -?, ?l' ~, but also _? 66 Btxt ~; Bmg _?67 Btxt+mg ?l', ?~, il' et al. Dil' Btxt?~ ?~ (?l' in Hab 2:15) Bmg+D =?l' B ?~, M?l' ?~,?l', il', -::1 et al. Btxt?l', Bmg -? ?l' (once-? with different meaning)

[10] Tenses In Professor Muraoka's article we read: 'That authors and scribes of the DSS had begun to show a certain ambivalence towards the inversive Waw and were not always absolutely certain about intricacies and subtleties of BH syntax in these matters is further shown where they initially follow the classical pattern with an inversive Waw and subsequently switch to a conjunctive Waw, and occasionally back again to a Waw inversive'. To the patterns mentioned by Muraoka we can ad