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

Citation preview

T. Muraoka

A Syntax of Qumran Hebrew

A SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW

T. MURAOKA

A SYNTAX OF QUMRAN HEBREW

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2020

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

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

Peeters, Warotstraat 50, B-3020 Herent

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

3

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

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

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

15

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII

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

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

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

41

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

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

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

133

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

XII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XIII

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

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

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

181

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

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

XIV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

233

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

XVI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

eb)

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

XVIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

331

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

331 363 381 382 383

FOREWORD

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

XX

FOREWORD

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

XXII

INTRODUCTION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

XXIII

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

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

XXIV

INTRODUCTION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

XXV

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

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

XXVI

INTRODUCTION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

XXVII

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

XXVIII

INTRODUCTION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

XXIX

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

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

XXX

INTRODUCTION

4) Is ‫כה כול בניכה‬ ‫ ונחלֺֹכה‬4Q525 14ii14, as reconstructed by Qimron (II 120), supposed to mean ‘and all your children will become your heirs’? However, unlike ‫ירשׁ‬, ‫ נחל‬Qal is unlikely to take a personal object in the sense of ‘to become so and so’s heir.’ (1) ̇ ‫ הואה חזון‬4Q417 1i16. The Qimron (II 148) reads ‫ וינחילה‬at ‫וינחילה לאנוש‬ ֯ ‫ההגי ווספר זכרון‬ editors of the document (DJD 34.163) read ֯‫וינחילו֯ נ֯ ו‬, translating it “And He /‫ )?(שוֿ ת‬gave it as an inheritance to Man / Enosh.” However, the -‫לו‬- indicates a plural form. ‫וינחילנו‬ is not innocuous, either, for a wayyiqtol form would better be spelled ‫וַ יַּ נְ ִח ֵילהוּ = וינחילהו‬. Qimron’s ‫ וינחילה‬is more likely, but an epigraphist need produce a couple of indisputable examples of a 3ms conjunctive pronoun spelled just with ה‬, and not with הו‬. Besides, however one might reconstruct this form, the use of the wayyiqtol form is problematic, seeing that it is not preceded by a preterite qatal. The context indicates a past action, but the syntax is rather loose. 5) Qimron (I 214 ad 1QS 2.6) objects to our reading ‫( ויפקיד‬2) and prefers to read ‫ויפקוד‬ on the ground that Hif. Impf. with the conjunction waw is spelled in QH without yod, see also Qimron 2018.163, C 2.1.3.3. (3) Our 1QS passage has ‫‘ כלה‬annihilation’ as a penalty: ‫יד אחריכה כלה‬/‫ויפקו‬. In BH ‫ פקד‬Qal is rather common with a connotation of God’s unwelcome visit, and governs a zero object of person to be punished, also with ‫ ב־‬or ‫ על‬+ pers. once each, or a zero object of sin or ‫ על‬+ sin, but not a single instance is found of a penalty specified. (4) However, in the only H instance with this connotation we do find penalties mentioned: ‫ת־ה ַקּ ַדּ ַחת‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ַשּׁ ֶח ֶפת וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫יכם ֶבּ ָה ָלה ֶא‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִה ְפ ַק ְד ִתּי ֲע ֵל‬ Lv 26.16. Thus we have a case of interface between orthography, morphosyntax, and syntagmatics. We are inclined to believe that Qimron’s morphosyntactic rule is to be applied less rigidly. (5) Another instance of interaction between syntagmatics and lexicography is found at ‫ אחר אמת לא ירצה‬4Q424 1.9. Tanzer (DJD 36.340) postulates ‫ רצה‬as a homonym of ‫‘ רוץ‬to run’ on the ground that the syntagm רצה אחר‬to take pleasure in’ is unknown. is attested in BH a number of times, but in its literal sense, and never occurs with ‫ אחרי‬nor with ‫אחר‬. On the other hand ‫ דרשׁ אחר‬in an affiliated sense does occur once: ‫‘ ַא ַחר ָכּל־יָ רוֹק יִ ְדרוֹשׁ‬it seeks after every green fodder’ 1 In ‫ נוחליה‬4Q184 1.11 the suffix refers to the seductress featured in the document. However, just as wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs as an antithesis of a seducing harlot, here, too, “she” is a personification of the world-view diametrically opposed to that represented by the Qumran community; note ‫דרכי̇ עול‬ ̇ ‫‘ ֯הי̇ אה ראשית ̇כול‬she is at the forefront of all the paths of deviation’ line 8. 2 Muraoka 1996a.64. 3 In spite of our severely limited expertise in epigraphy the letter concerned looks to us more like yod than waw. Besides, Qimron (2018.166) admits three exceptions spelled with yod: ‫ואסתיר‬, ‫ואשליך‬, ‫ואגיד‬. True, all are in the first person, but is his theory of morphosyntactic, complementary distribution meant to govern also orthography? 4 Wernberg-Møller (1957.52) mentions CD 8.2, but there it is not a zero-object: ‫‘ לפוקדם לכלה‬to condemn them to annihilation.’ 5 For our earlier discussion on this particular example, including an enquiry into the variation between ‫ על‬+ pers. and ‫ אחרי‬+ pers., see Muraoka 1996.64f.

INTRODUCTION

XXXI

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

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

XXXII

INTRODUCTION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

XXXIII

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

1

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

ABBREVIATIONS JOURNALS, SERIES,

AND

COLLECTIONS

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

XXXVI

ABBREVIATIONS

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

TECHNICAL TERMS AND OTHERS adj. adv. Arb. Arm. b

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

ABBREVIATIONS

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

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

XXXVII

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS

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

OTHER SYMBOLS + √ > < // ‫וגו׳‬

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

LITERATURE

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

XL

LITERATURE

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

LITERATURE

XLI

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

XLII

LITERATURE

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

LITERATURE

XLIII

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

XLIV

LITERATURE

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

LITERATURE

XLV

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

XLVI

LITERATURE

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

LITERATURE

XLVII

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

XLVIII

LITERATURE

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

LITERATURE

XLIX

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

L

LITERATURE

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

LITERATURE

LI

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

LII

LITERATURE

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

LITERATURE

LIII

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

LIV

LITERATURE

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

LITERATURE

LV

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

LVI

LITERATURE

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

LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED TECHNICAL TERMS

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

LVIII

FREQUENTLY USED TECHNICAL TERMS

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

FREQUENTLY USED TECHNICAL TERMS

LIX

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

PART I

MORPHOSYNTAX

SECTION A

THE PRONOUN

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

4

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE PRONOUN — § 1 ac-c(iii)

5

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

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

6

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE PRONOUN — § 1 c(iii)-db

7

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

8

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE PRONOUN — § 1 e – 3 c

9

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

10

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE PRONOUN — § 3 c – 4 a

11

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

12

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

Cf. Qimron in DJD 10.68f. (§ 3.1.4.4), 10.95f. (§ 3.5.2.30), and Bar Asher 2012.267f. On the general assessment of this particle in our corpus, see Muraoka 2000a.344a. 3 Milik (DJD 3.228, § 6b) postulates ‫ ְשׁ‬as the basic form, which, according to him, shifts to ‫ ֶשׁ‬in a closed syllable, and this is only rarely—the above-mentioned two instances—graphically differentiated. However, the particle -‫ שׁ‬takes a full vowel in BH and MH alike, the only exceptions being ‫ ְשׁהוּא‬Ec 2.22 and ‫ ְשׁ ֵהם‬Ec 3.18. Moreover, the consonant immediately following is geminated. Hence ‫ שׁבצפון‬is to be transliterated šebbiṣphon, and not šebṣephon. 4 On the position of -‫ ֶשׁ‬in BH in relation to ‫א ֶשׁר‬, ֲ see JM § 38. 5 See Segal 1958 § 422, e.g. ‫הוֹציאוּהוּ גוֹיִם‬ ִ ‫‘ ִמי ֶשׁ‬one whom gentiles took out’ mErub 4.1, ‫ָמה ֶשּׁ ָע ָשׂה ָעשׂוּי‬ ‘what he has done is done’ mBB 8.5. 6 This is distinct from a BH example such as ‫ֹלהיו ִעמּוֹ וְ יָ ַעל‬ ָ ‫ל־עמּוֹ יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ‫י־ב ֶכם ִמ ָכּ‬ ָ ‫ ִמ‬2Ch 36.23, where ‫מי‬ is an antecedentless relative clause, and see more examples mentioned in JM § 144 fa. 2

THE PRONOUN — § 4 a – 5a ab

13

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

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

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

14

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

SECTION B

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE

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

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

16

MORPHOSYNTAX

‫ לּוֹ ְצ ָד ָקה‬Gn 15.6 (1). Note the substitution of ‫ רע‬in ‫ת־א ִבי‬ ָ ‫ֶפּן ֶא ְר ֶאה ָב ָרע ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְמ ָצא ֶא‬ 2 Gn 44.34 with ‫ רעה‬in 4Q364 10.6 ( ). On the use of ‫ זֶ ה‬and masc. adjectives with neuter value, see § 3e, 9b. A gender-neutral pronoun can be impersonally used: ‫‘ ֗את אלה לוא י֯ ֗ע ֗ש ֗ה ֯א ֯ד ֯ם‬no man could perform these (things)’ 4Q511 30.6. A word of abstract reference such as ‫כל‬, when used on its own, can lead to ambiguity: ‘everybody’ or ‘everything.’ In ‫ בידו משפטי כול‬1QS 3.16 the reference is probably personal, since the suffix -‫ ם‬of ‫ יכלכלם‬in the following sentence, ‫והואה יכלכלם בכול‬ ‫חפציהם‬, is likely resuming ‫כול‬: ‘decisions concerning everybody are in His hand and He will sustain them with all their needs.’ (3) Note feminine participles such as ‫‘ לדעת הנסתרות‬to understand the matters that become concealed’ 1QS 5.11, sim. 4Q268 1.7; ‫‘ הנגלות‬the matters which become revealed’ 1QS 1.8, 5.12 (4); ‫‘ כול נהיות‬all that will happen’ 4Q268 1.8; ‫‘ הנפתלות‬devious things’ // ‫‘ נדות‬impurities’ 1QS 10.24; ‫‘ נפלאות‬marvels’ 1QHa 18.6, sim. 4Q434 1.1; ‫‘ נוראות‬awesome things’ 4Q504 8.3; ‫‘ תועות‬fallacies’ 4Q184 1.1; ‫כול הבאות על עמו‬ ‘all those things that are going to befall His people’ 1QpHab 2.10. However, Lamed-Yod verbs are morphologically ambiguous: ‫‘ כול הנגלה ממנה‬all that becomes revealed from it’ 1QS 5.9, sim. 1QS 8.1, for the participle can be either masc. or fem.; in ‫כול הויה ונהיה‬ 1QM 17.5 the immediately following ‫ כול נהיי עולמים‬implies that the former two participles can be masculine. See also ‫‘ כול הנמצא‬all that is found’ 1QS 9.20; ‫כול הנעשה בו‬ ‘all that is done to him’ 1QS 9.24. d) Ambiguous feminine adjectives Some feminine adjectives are used on their own and it is not always easy to say what their latent noun is. Thus ‫ בשלישית‬.. ‫‘ ברשונה‬firstly .. thirdly’ 1QS 2.20; ‫בריאשונה‬ ֗ ֗ ‫‘ השמו‬they devastated in the past’ 4Q174 1-2i5; ‫הכוהנים‬ 11Q19 15.18 (5); ‫בראישונה‬ ‫‘ ישבו לרשונה והזקנים בשנית‬the priests shall sit up front and then the elders’ 1QS 6.8; Cf. LXX .. καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. This is disambiguated by Paul as ἐλογίσθη τῷ Αβρααμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην Ro 4.9; ἡ πίστις is his own addition, for in vs. 3 he quotes the text as adduced above, and there he prefaces the quote with τί γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει;, whereas in vs. 9 he prefaces with λέγομεν γάρ ‘for our position, view is.’ Cf. καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην Ps 105.31, translating ‫ וַ ֵתּ ָח ֶשׁב לוֹ ִל ְצ ָד ָקה‬with Phinehas’s intervention as the subject. On the technical use of the verb ‫אמר‬ in halachic pronouncements, cf. also DJD 10.97, § 3.5.3.2, and Muraoka 2018. 2 Cf. the use of the fem. in a similar context at ‫אמר ֵא ָליו ֵמת ַהיֶּ ֶלד וְ ָע ָשׂה ָר ָעה‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ֵאיְך נ‬2Sm 12.18 with David’s servants apprehensive of their master possibly committing harakiri. See also ‫‘ לוא יקח איש את אחותו בת אביהו או בת אמו תועבה היא‬a man is not to take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter; it is an abomination’ 11Q15 66.14, where the selection of ‫ היא‬is not due to the natural gender of the victim, for seven lines earlier the same notion is expressed with ‫הדבר הזה‬ ‘this case’ (line 7); the selection of ‫ היא‬is probably due to the gender of ‫תועבה‬. Cf. our discussion at § 32 bd. 3 Cf. Martone 1995.143, n. 64. 4 In ‫‘ כול הויֿ ה ונהייה‬all that is in existence and that comes into existence’ 1QS 3.15 we would identify fem. forms, see Muraoka 1999.60. 5 Cf. BH examples such as ‫ל־ה ָעם ָבּ ַא ֲחר ֹנָ ה‬ ָ ‫‘ יָ ְדָך ִתּ ְהיֶ ה־בּוֹ ָב ִראשׁוֹנָ ה ַל ֲה ִמיתוֹ וְ יַ ד ָכּ‬your hand shall be first against him to put him to death and the hand of the people thereafter’ Dt 13.10. 1

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 6 c – 7 a

17

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

18

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 7 a-c

19

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

20

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 7 c-f

21

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

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

22

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 7 f

23

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

1

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

24

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

See JM § 145 d-f. An example is ‫ֹלהינוּ ַה ֵה ִרימוּ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך וְ י ֲֹע ָציו‬ ֵ ‫ית־א‬ ֱ ‫רוּמת ֵבּ‬ ַ ‫ ְתּ‬Ezr 8.25. For more examples, see JM § 145 d-e. 3 An example that escaped Eskhult (2013.54), but mentioned by Qimron II 65, where he appears to be retracting his earlier analysis of ‫‘ הנשבע לאברהם‬who swore to Abraham’ 4Q378 11.3 (DJD 10.95 [§ 3.5.2.30]), parsing now the form concerned as a ptc., though still leaving his earlier analysis as a possibility (likewise id. 2018.427). In both BH and QH an articulated ptc. can refer to an action that took place prior to the moment of speech, see below at § 17 h. 4 See JM § 137 g (b). 5 More examples are cited below at § 43 a. 6 For more BH examples, see BDB s.v. ‫ ֶא ָחד‬3. Of the two QH instances mentioned in DCH 1.181a, 1c, ‫ אחד‬has been erased by the scribe at 4QTestim [= 4Q175] 1.23 and the numeral in ‫֗הנם עד שלוש פעמים על‬ ‫ מושב אחד‬retains its full force, ‘one who falls asleep three times at one session’ 1QS 7.11. 2

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 7 g – 8 a

25

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

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

26

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

2

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 8 a-cb

27

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

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

28

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 8 cb-f

29

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

30

MORPHOSYNTAX

by ‫ קורי עכביש‬as in MT, cf. ‫ מאורות צפעונים‬Is 11.8 1QIsaa // MT ‫אוּרת ִצ ְפעוֹנִ י‬ ַ ‫ממלכות ; ְמ‬ a ‫ האלילים‬1QIsa // MT ‫ ַמ ְמ ְלכֹת ָה ֱא ִליל‬10.10; ‫‘ אבני משכיות‬figured stones’ 11Q19 51.21; ‫ ימי השבתות‬11Q19 43.2 // ‫ימי הבכורים‬, in which latter ‫ בכורים‬is a genuine plural or plurale tantum, likewise ‫‘ ימי המועדים‬the days of the festivals’ 11Q19 43.15, where the text is not about one particular festival. Possibly ‫‘ ארורו עולמים‬eternally cursed ones’ 1QS 2.17, though ‫ עולם‬is very often used in the pl., e.g. ‫‘ שלום עולמים‬eternal peace’ 1QS 2.4, ‫‘ כלת עולמים‬eternal destruction’ 1QS 2.15. The standing BH phrase is inherited in ‫‘ שני לוחות ֗האבנים‬the two stone tablets’ 4Q135 1.1 < ‫ ְשׁנֵ י ֻלחֹת ֲא ָבנִ ים‬Dt 5.22 (19), but note also ‫ ֻלחֹת ָה ֶא ֶבן‬Ex 24.12. (1) fa) Plurality of construct phrase marked by nomen regens We encounter a striking mode of expression in ‫‘ וימול עורלות לבם‬and He cut the foreskins of their heart’ 4Q434 1.4, where each person, of course, had only one ‫ לב‬and one ‫עורלת לב‬, ַ but the plurality of people involved is marked by ‫עורלות‬. (2) fb) Plural of majesty QH continues the BH usage in that ‫אלהים‬, when referring to the God of Israel, concords in the singular, e.g. ‫‘ אלוהיכם הולך עמכם‬your God walks with you’ 1QM 10.4; ‫לדברים‬ ‫‘ אשר צוהו אלהים‬matters which God commanded him’ 4Q385a 18ia-b8; ‫האיר אלהים דעת‬ ֯ ‫‘ בינה‬God enlightened the knowledge of understanding’ 4Q511 18ii7. Hence it is not impossible to see a slight extension of this usage in ‫‘ לקול עשיהם מצות יוריהם‬the voice of their maker and the commandments of their teacher’ CD 3.8, taking ‫ עשיהם‬and ‫ מוריהם‬as plural in form, but given an instance such as ‫ נוהם‬in ‫‘ יִ ְהיֶ ה נְ וֵ ֶהם‬their pasture will be’ Ezk 34.14, where the noun is singular, the two CD forms in question may represent loose spelling of the sg. participles. (3) But such an analysis is impossible in ‫‘ עושוהי‬his Maker’ Is 17.7 1QIsaa with an Aramaising form for MT ‫ע ֵֹשׂהוּ‬, (4) likewise in ‫ ויוצריכה‬.. ‫ יהוה בוראיכה‬Is 43.1 (the ‫ י‬before ‫ כה‬written above the line) for MT ‫ וְ י ֶֹצ ְרָך‬.. ‫בּ ַֹר ֲאָך‬. This feature is extended even to a pagan god, not gods, at ‫ֹלהיו‬ ָ ‫נִ ְסר ְֹך ֱא‬ a 5 ‘Nisroch his god’ Is 37.38, so also in 1QIsa . ( ) ‫‘ בעליו‬its owner’ CD 9.11 is a BH legacy, e.g. ‫יוּמת‬ ָ ‫‘ ְבּ ָע ָליו‬its owner shall be put to death’ Ex 21.29, but ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫‘ ַלאד ֹנ‬her master’ Ex 21.4 6 has become ֗‫אדו֗ נ֗ ו‬ ֗ ‫ ֗לא‬4Q158 7-9.11 ( ). The pl. is mysterious at ‫אם ֗ב ֗ג ֗פיו בא בגפיו יצא‬ ‘if he came single, he shall leave single’ 4Q158 7-9.10; the source text reads ‫ְבּגַ פּוֹ‬ Ex 21.3. (7) The use of the pl. ‫ אלים‬in collocations such as ‫‘ עדת אלים‬the congregation Cf. JM § 136 m-o and a common MH expression such as ‫‘ ָבּ ֵתּי ְכּנֵ ִסיּו ֺת‬synagogues.’ Pace Fassberg (2019 § 116) there is no real difficulty in seeing two genuine plurals in ‫‘ עמי הארצות‬the peoples of the lands’ 1QM 10.9. 2 See the underlying biblical text: ִ‫רוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫הוּדה וְ י ְֹשׁ ֵבי י‬ ָ ְ‫ ִהמֹּלוּ ַליהוָֹ ה וְ ָה ִסרוּ ָע ְרלוֹת ְל ַב ְב ֶכם ִאישׁ י‬Je 4.4. DJD 29.275 refers to Jubilees 1.23f., where the Ethiopic version reads the sg., qwelfata lebbomu. 3 So thinks Qimron (2018.286, § D 2.6.6), too. 4 Cf. a discussion by Qimron 2018.277f., § D 2.3.6.1-2. 5 The Peshitta is discriminate with /’alāhēh/, likewise Targum ‫עוּתיהּ‬ ֵ ‫ט‬. ָ 6 But the MT is not consistent with ‫אד ֹנִ י‬, ֲ though the reference is to a different master. 7 Qimron’s (2018.269f., § D 2.3.2) explanation is that the earlier morphophonemic opposition of ‫סוּסוֹ‬ ‘his horse’ ‫סוּסיו‬ ָ ‘his horses’ had been given up, both now pronounced /sūsō/. For our reservation over this 1

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 8 f-g

31

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

32

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 8 g – 9 d

33

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

34

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 9 d – 10 a

35

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

Adduced by Qimron 2018.366. Pace DJD 10.75 (§ 3.3.2.1). 3 Pace DJD 10.75 (§ 3.3.2.1). 4 1QIsaa appears to be fond of ‫ ;שמה‬in 11 cases where it differs from MT, it is always in favour of ‫שמה‬, no instance being attested of MT ‫ > שמה‬1QIsaa ‫שם‬. For the references, see Kutscher 1974.413 and Muraoka 2000.206. 5 In ‫ ֗פלא מביתה ליק‬4Q405 15ii-16.6 the text is too fragmentary to analyse ‫ ביתה‬with certainty. See also Qimron 2018.366f., § 2.4. Qimron’s (2018.403) statement is in need of some modification, for it is not true to say “In DSS Hebrew, there is no indication of the a of direction.” 6 See a discussion by Bar-Asher (2002.7-15), who underlines the morphological duplication of this new lexeme unknown to BH. Note, however, ‫מצרים‬, and not ‫ ;מצרימה‬likewise in a phylactery, 4Q128 1.26 for ‫יְמה‬ ָ ‫ יָ ְרדוּ ֲאב ֶֹתיָך ִמ ְצ ָר‬Dt 10.22 MT. 7 Cf. Muraoka 2000.206-08, § [9]. Qimron (2018.368) mentions ‫ ליש‬1QIsaa 10.30 (// MT ‫)ליְ ָשׁה‬, ַ ֫ where the final vowel of the MT form cannot be an adverbial morpheme, for we have here a vocative; it might be either a scribal error or an unknown place name, cf. Kutscher 1971.107f. See also a discussion by Qimron (2018.366, 368). 8 Bar-Asher (2003a.74f.) holds that the morpheme /-a/ makes its adverbial nature transparent. 2

36

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 10 a-c

37

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

38

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE NOUN AND THE ADJECTIVE — § 10 c – 11 d

39

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

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

40

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

SECTION C

THE VERB

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

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

42

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 12 b-d3

43

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

44

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 12 d3-d4

45

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

46

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 12 d4-e7

47

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

48

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 12 e7-f2

49

biblical proof text, ‫שׁלו ֺם יִ ְהיֶ ה ִלי‬, ָ Dt 29.18, because the speaker is expressing his wishful thinking rather than conviction // plain passive in ‫שמכ‬ ֿ ‫‘ י֗ ֗תברך‬May Your name be blessed’ 4Q448 2.9; ‫‘ עם ישרים לוא יתחשב‬he shall not consider himself to be in the company of the upright’ 1QS 3.1 (1); ‫‘ בגוים לוא נתחשב‬we will not consider ourselves as part of the local peoples’ 4Q504 6.9 (2), sim. 1QS 3.4; ‫‘ תתעלף‬she enwraps herself’ 4Q184 1.12, cf. ‫ וַ ִתּ ְת ַע ָלּף‬Gn 38.14. ‫‘ להתנפל‬to prostrate oneself’ 1QHa 20.7 may be understood as reflexive of H ‫הפיל‬. At ‫כול הנפש אשר לוא תתענה‬ ‘every soul that would not mortify itself’ 11Q19 25.11 the author appears to be presenting his own view distinct from his biblical text, which reads ‫ ְת ֻענֶּ ה‬Lv 23.29, patently passive (3); vis-à-vis factitive D—‫‘ בהתקדשכה לו‬by consecrating yourself to Him’ 4Q418 81.4. 2) Passive (4): ‫בש ֯קים‬ ֯ ‫מתכסים ב‬ ֯ 4Q51 // om. 2Sm 24.16 MT, add. ‫ ְמ ֻכ ִסּים‬1Ch 21.16; ‫בגדים‬ ‫‘ ושקים ועורות יתכבסו‬garments and sacks and skins shall be washed’ 11Q19 49.16 // D ‫ יכבסו‬line 13. We find passive tD substituting Pual in ‫‘ היככה ישתלמו חסדם‬How are they going to be rewarded for their kindliness?’ 4Q385 2.3 (5); ‫‘ ישתלח‬he shall be sent down’ 4Q266 11.8, likewise ‫ המשתלח‬ib. 14. 1 Cf. Muraoka 1999.48f. Probably belongs here ‫‘ החשבו‬they numbered themselves’ 1QS 5.11, cf. Qimron 2018.184, n. 84. Hofal is not totally impossible, cf. ‫ אל תחשיבך‬μὴ προσλογίζου σεαυτόν Si 7.16. For ‫יחשיבוני‬ 1QHa 11.7 Qimron (I 72) proposes ‫יחשובוני‬. 2 Dependent on ‫יִת ַח ָשּׁב‬ ְ ‫וּבגּוֹיִ ם לֹא‬ ַ ‫ן־עם ְל ָב ָדד יִ ְשׁכֹּן‬ ָ ‫ ֶה‬Nu 23.9, where the people’s determination to keep to themselves is manifest. The N form clearly has passive value in ‫‘ לא יחשבו בסוד עם‬they shall not be considered as members of the people’s gathering’ CD 19.35; ‫נחשבו לפני֗ ֗כה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ככתהוו ו֯ ככאפס‬they were counted as non-existent and nothing before You’ 4Q504 1-2iii3. 3 Cf. Trg O: ‫יִת ַענֵּ ה‬ ְ and Pesh. tetmakkak. ‫ יתענו‬11Q19 37.7 is also dependent on Lv 23.29. The MT form is difficult; Ibn Ezra analyses it as impersonal, but the grammatical subject is explicitly mentioned. 4 On ‫ התקבלת‬Bet Amar 7 and 8, see Fassberg 2017.17f. The context renders ‘I received’ plausible; the active value of this tD verb is known to MH, attested interestingly enough in a text affiliated to our papyrus in terms of its subject matter: ‫‘ ִה ְת ַק ֵבּל גֵּ ט זֶ ה ְל ִא ְשׁ ִתּי‬Do accept this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife’ mGit 6.1, a tractate dealing with bills of divorce, ‫גִּ ִטּין‬. Note that ‫ התקבל‬here is parallel to ‫נָ ַטל < טֹל‬ ‘Take’—‫‘ טֹל ִלי גִ ִטּי‬Take my bill of divorce for me.’ In our papyrus text the verb, preceded by ‫= תיכול‬ ‫ את הכול‬as a direct object, cannot be analysed as passive; besides, the suffix ‫ת‬- also speaks against such an analysis. ‫‘ הם ניתפשים‬they get caught’ CD 4.20 most likely represents a rare plena spelling of the short /i/ vowel: ‘extremely rare’ (Qimron 2018.64, n. 27). No Semitic language has tN, see Kienast 2001.216, § 189.4. 5 In BH we find two examples of Pu. ‫ שׁלם‬with a personal subject, but no object: ‫וִ ֵירא ִמ ְצוָ ה הוּא יְ ֻשׁ ָלּם‬ Pr 13.13, see also Pr 11.31, and an impersonal ‫ יְ ֻשׁ ַלּם‬in ‫ת־טוֹבה ָר ָעה‬ ָ ‫ ַהיְ ֻשׁ ַלּם ַתּ ַח‬Je 18.20. Dimant (DJD 30.25) suggests an influence of Palestinian Aramaic, though we may be dealing with an inner-Hebrew development. However, in neither of the two examples mentioned by Dimant do we find a deed as the object: in one case the subject is personal (‫‘ רשיעיא עתידין לאשתלמא‬the wicked are destined to be penalised’ Is 42.19 TJ) and in the other a deed is the subject (‫‘ פירי עובדיהון ישתלמון‬the fruits of their deeds shall be punished’ Is 3.10). In Piel a person to be requited is, in BH, marked with either -‫ ל‬or ‫אל‬, but once we have a zero-object: ‫ְמ ַשׁ ֵלּם‬ ‫ל־יֶתר ע ֵֹשׂה גַ ֲאוָ ה‬ ֶ ‫‘ ַע‬He abundantly requites one who acts arrogantly’ Ps 31.24. According to Morgenstern (2007.189f.) the use of tD ‫ השתלם‬is typical of post-biblical Hebrew. Qimron (DJD 10.84, § 3.5.1.8) speaks of the passive use of Hitpael as a late feature, for which he mentions ‫ ויתחשב לו צדקה‬4Q225 2i8, referring to the mention of the form by Milik (DJD 3.225), but the text there is now, including by Qimron himself (II 217), read ‫ות ֗ח ֗שב‬, ֗ thus N.

50

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 12 f3-g4

51

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

52

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 12 g5 – 13 a

53

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

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

54

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 13 a – 14 b

55

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

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

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

56

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 14 b-e

57

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

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

58

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 14 e – 15 ba

59

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

60

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 15 ba-bb

61

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

62

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 15 bb-da

63

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

64

MORPHOSYNTAX

following, positively worded clause, ‫וחושך יביט לדרכי אור‬, cannot be an encouragement so to act, but a generic statement: ‘he is actually gazing at darkness when he is looking for ways of light.’ In a regulation on punishment we must be dealing with an injunctive form: ‫‘ לוא ישוב עוד‬he shall not return’ 1QS 7.2. Since a pure injunctive is contextually implausible in ‫ ביד מלאך חושך כול ממשלת בני עול ובדרכי חושך יתהלכו‬1QS 3.20 the nuance is slightly varied: ‘in the hand of the angel of darkness resides the dominion of the sons of iniquity and in the ways of darkness they are condemned to walk,’ although in the parallel clause ‫ ביד שר אורים ממשלת כול בני צדק בדרכי אור יתהלכו‬the same verb must carry an injunctive value, ‘in the hand of the prince of lights resides the reign of all the children of righteousness; they shall walk along the paths of light,’ for otherwise no sense could be made of the following clause: ‫במלאך חושך תעות כול בני צדק וכול‬ ‫‘ חטאתם ועוונותם‬with the angel of darkness lies the error of all the children of righteousness and all their sins and iniquities.’ daa) Jussive Also in unvocalised documents verbs of some inflectional classes and / or in some inflectional categories may use jussive forms explicitly marked as volitive. (1) These jussive forms stand out in Lamed-Yod verbs negatived with the prohibitive ‫אל‬, as they appear in certain inflectional categories as apocopated (2): ‫אל יעש איש ביום‬ ‫ השישי מלאכה‬CD 10.14, obviously dependent on ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ל־מ ָל‬ ְ ‫א־ת ֲע ֶשׂה ָכ‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ל‬Ex 20.10 // ‫לא‬ ‫ יעשה‬1QS 11.11; ‫‘ אל יעש‬he shall not do’ CD 13.15; ‫סוד‬ ֗ ‫‘ אל תעש‬you shall not keep company’ 4Q418 140.3; ‫‘ אל יגל איש‬Let no man expose [= ‫ ’]יְ גַ ל‬4Q251 17.6; ‫אל תהי‬ ‫‘ בביתו‬you shall not be in his house’ 4Q418 101ii3; ‫יעל אי֗ ש ֗בהמה‬ ֗ ‫‘ אל‬nobody shall pick up an animal’ 4Q265 6.5; ‫‘ אל יעל איש‬none shall offer’ CD 11.17 (3); ‫‘ אל תרף‬you shall not let go of ..’ 4Q416 2ii8; ‫‘ אל יז‬he shall not sprinkle’ 4Q274 2i2, 4Q277 1ii7; ‫‘ אל תשת יין‬you shall not drink wine’ 4Q417 2ii+23.24; ‫‘ אל תתאו‬you shall not covet’ 4Q418 9+9a-c.7 // ‫ לוא יתאוה‬1QS 9.25. Positively worded examples are ‫‘ שלום יהי לי‬May there be peace for me’ 1QS 2.13; ‫‘ בצדקותו ימח פשעי‬with His acts of justice may He erase my iniquities!’ 1QS 11.3; ‫שלום‬ ‫‘ שידע יהי לך‬Greetings! It should be known to you’ M42 2; ‫‘ ויאר‬and may He enlighten!’ 1QS 2.3 (4); ‫‘ יקם על נפשו‬he shall pledge on his life’ 1QS 5.8 // ‫ על נפשו‬.. ‫ אשר יקים‬1QS 5.10 (5). 1 For details of this morphological aspect, see JM § 54 a, 79 i, 80 b, g, 81 b, c, e for BH, and Qimron 2018.162f. (5) for QH. 2 Here we present a complete list of the prohibitive ‫ אל‬with a verb form explicitly marked as PCS. We have deliberately excluded cases such as ‫ אל יאמן‬CD 10.2, ‫ אל ירם‬CD 11.6, since such could be analysed as ‫ ]יַ ֲא ִמין =[ יאמין‬and ‫]יָ ִרים =[ ירים‬, i.e. defectively spelled PCLs, and not ‫ יַ ֲא ֵמן‬and ‫ יָ ֶרם‬respectively. ‫‘ אל יבא‬he shall not bring’ 4QSd 2.5 suggests that in ‫ אל יביא‬1QS 6.1 we possibly have a plena spelling, ‫יָביא‬, ֵ and not ‫יָביא‬. ִ Do we have mere spelling variants in ‫‘ אל יוצא‬he shall not take out’ CD 11.8 vs. ‫אל יוציא‬ CD 11.7? More examples of negatived, shortened, i.e. not apocopated, forms are cited by Qimron (2018.162). 3 The preceding ‫ אל יעלה‬means ‘he shall not lift (him).’ 4 Qimron (2018.163, C 2.1.3.3) notes that, where prefixed with the conjunction ‫ו־‬, every Hifil verb and a hollow root Qal Ayin-Yod verb are spelled without a middle vowel letter. 5 One doubts whether we can, as Qimron (1987.150, n. 4) does, dismiss a case such as these as “fossilised,” namely not part of the langue of QH.

THE VERB — § 15 da-dac

65

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

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

66

MORPHOSYNTAX

Very rare instances of the extension to 2 and 3 pers. are .. ‫בוֹאה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִת ְק ַרב וְ ָת‬.. ‫ישׁה‬ ָ ‫יָ ִח‬ a ‫ וְ נֵ ְד ָעה‬Is 5.19 > ‫ ונדע‬.. ‫ ותקרבה ותבואה‬.. ‫ יחישׁ‬1QIsa , ‫ ותקרבה ותבוא‬.. ‫יחישה‬ ֗ ‫ ו֯ י‬4Q56 3ii5 (1), where the inconsistency is probably indicative of the uncertainty on the part of the author and scribes. dad) Cohortative in form only Already in BH the cohortative is sometimes found, in LBH in particular (2), devoid of its original value, but as equivalent to wa-’eqtol, e.g. ‫צוּמה וַ נְּ ַב ְק ָשׁה‬ ָ ָ‫‘ וַ נּ‬and we fasted and supplicated’ Ezr 8.23. This feature is continued in QH and very much in evidence. (3) Thus ‫ וָ א ַֹמר‬Is 6.8 > ‫ ואמרה‬1QIsaa, sim. vs. 11; ‫ וָ ַאגִּ יד‬Is 48.5 // ‫ ואגידה‬1QIsaa, sim. 49.5; ‫ וַ נָּ ֶבל‬Is 64.5 // ‫ ונבולה‬1QIsaa; ‫ וָ א ַֹמר‬Ex 3.17 // ‫ ואומרה‬4Q13 3ii+5-6i8; ‫ וַ נָּ בוֹא‬1Sm 10.14 // ‫ ונבואה‬4Q51; ‫ וָ ֶא ְק ַרב‬Dt 22.14 // ‫ ואקרבה‬11Q19 65.8. However, this is the case not only in biblical manuscripts, but also elsewhere. Thus ‫‘ ואדעה‬and I have realised’ 1QHa 7.36 is parallel to ‫ אני ידעתי‬in a line earlier and two lines later. Again at ‫העליתני לרום עולם‬ ‫ ואתהלכה במישור לאין חקר ואדעה כיא יש מקוה לאשר יצרתה מעפר‬1QHa 11.21 we would see a confession of the poet’s past experience—‘You lifted me to the eternal height and I freely walked about in a boundless plain and learned that there is hope for him whom You fashioned from dust.’ (4) However, resistance to this tendency is also present in ‫ וַ נַּ ַח ְל ָמה‬Gn 41.11 // ‫ ונחלם‬4Q3 1ii18, found surprising by Davila, a DJDS XII editor; ‫ וָ א ְֹמ ָרה‬Dn 10.19 // ‫ ואמר‬4Q112 15.17. In one instance this extended wa-’eqtla is further stretched by continuing a ptc. having the value of historic present, when the wa-’eqtla form indicates an action posterior to that denoted by the ptc.: ‫קול אומר קרא ואומרה‬ Is 40.6 1QIsaa for MT ‫קוֹל א ֵֹמר ְק ָרא וְ ָא ַמר ָמה ֶא ְק ָרא‬, which is obviously amiss. (5) 1 ‫ תקרבה‬becomes a fourth example in addition to the three earlier known ones, the other two being ‫ישׁה‬ ָ ‫ יָ ִח‬Is 5.19 and ‫ ָתּ ֻע ָפה‬Jb 11.7, cf. JM § 45 a with the f.n. there. 2 Qimron (2018.168 ad finem) writes we “should no longer consider the form ‫ וָ אקטלה‬as a late Biblical feature.” The situation in BH is for everybody to see in Bergsträsser’s (1929 § 5 f) long list of references, and he adds “u. ö.” [= “und öfters,” without bothering to provide an exhaustive list]; he is absolutely right in concluding “fast ausschließlich und z. T. überwiegend in jüngeren Stücken des AT”. One might consider a BH form such as ‫ וָ ָא ִשׂים‬Gn 24.47 and many others as spelled defectiva for *‫ימה‬ ָ ‫וָ ָא ִשׂ‬. We would rather wait for such a form so spelled and vocalised to turn up in a Hebrew manuscript of respectable antiquity. 3 On BH, see JM, § 47 d-e, and on QH, Qimron 2018.161-63, 165f., § C 2.1.3.1-3 and Muraoka 2000.196-98. The cardinal point in Qimron’s thesis is that the proclitic conjunction w- automatically leads in QH to the selection of the PCā, i.e. Cohortative, irrespective of whether the waw was /w-/ (conjunctive) or /wa-/ (consecutive or inversive). The sole exception to the rule in Qimron (1986.44) has now been joined by thirteen more (2018.166). He does not seem to include exceptions in 1QIsaa, e.g. ‫ ואכרות‬Is 55.3, ‫ ואהסתר‬57.17, ‫ ואשתומם‬.. ‫ ואביט‬63.5. 4 There is no convincing reason for making ‫ ואתהלכה‬introduce a new utterance with a conjunctive waw. DJD 40.155 apparently analyses the verb as volitive introducing a final clause—“so that I walk about on a limitless plain. I know that ..” and deletes the conjunction prefixed to ‫ואדעה‬, leaving the selection of the cohortative form unaccounted for. Lohse 123 is rather bewildering: “Ich will auf ebener Bahn wandeln .., und erkannte, daß ..,” (emphasis TM) and he vocalises ‫ וָ ֵא ְד ָעה‬.. ‫וָ ֶא ְת ַה ְל ָכה‬. Cf. DSP 243 “.. et je me suis promené .. Et j’ai su qu’il y avait ..”. 5 Pace Driver (1892.162, n. 1) this can hardly be a case of frequentative syntagm.

THE VERB — § 15 dac-dad

67

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

24

1 9.24

not clause-initial

18

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

1 2 3 4

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

68

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 15 dad-dae

69

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

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

70

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 15 daf

71

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

72

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

Mentioned in Qimron 1982.32. However, ‫כי‬, a near-synonym of ‫אשׁר‬, is not so used. Hence in ‫ כיא יבוא בברית‬1QS 5.20 the conjunction is being used as in BH, introducing a conditional clause: ‘when he joins the community,’ cf. ‫ן־לּי‬ ִ ‫ה־תּ ֶתּ‬ ִ ‫ַמ‬ ‫‘ ִכּי ָתבוֹא ֵא ָלי‬what are you going to give me if you want to come in to me?’ Gn 38.16. 3 Fassberg (1994.120, § 333) wavers. See also JM § 116 b n. 2. 4 Medina (2013.273, n. 7) grudgingly admits the possibility that clauses such as this can be an independent, not dependent clause of purpose. 5 Adduced by Fassberg (1994.121, § 335; read TS lxii for lvii) and cf. LXX ἵνα μὴ δειλιάνῃ, Vulg. ne pavere faciat, and Pesh. dalmā nettvar but TO ‫יִתּ ַבר‬ ְ ‫וְ ָלא‬. 6 Cf. Qimron 2018.157f., § C 2.1.2.1, where more examples are mentioned. ‫ שיהיון‬mentioned by Nebe (1997.154) is not attested in his corpus (5/6Ḥev 44-46) nor anywhere in QH. 2

THE VERB — § 15 daf-dai

73

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

//

‫ַאל ִתּ ְק ְט ֵלהוּ‬

‫ִתּ ְק ְט ֶלנּוּ‬

//

‫וַ ִתּ ְק ְט ֵלהוּ‬.

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

Thus pace Qimron (2018.157, § C 2.1.2.1), according to whom in non-biblical texts the morpheme is always linked to biblical texts. 2 See Muraoka 2000.198f. and also id. 2018a.162f. in respect of the inconsistency in Qumran scribes of Ps 104. On this Nun in BH, cf. Garr 2006. 3 JM § 61 f. Unvocalised QH texts do not, of course, enable us to decide whether ‫ יברככה‬1QS 2.2 is = ‫ ָיְב ֶר ְכ ָכה‬or = ‫יְב ְר ֶכ ָכּה‬. ָ But ‫וישמורכה‬, given its context, appears to represent ‫מוֹר ָכה‬ ְ ‫‘ וְ יִ ְשׁ‬and may He watch over you’ 1QS 2.3, namely volitive. BH, however, is not absolutely consistent in this regard as can be seen in ָ‫יחנֶּ ךּ‬ ֻ ִ‫‘ יָ ֵאר יְ הוָ ה ָפּנָ יו ֵא ֶליָך ו‬May the Lord shine His face towards you and be gracious to you’ Nu 6.25, beginning with a form clearly marked as volitive and quoted in 1QS 2.3. Zewi 1999 treats the /n/ as part of the object marking and the so-called paragogic /n/ as optionally added to certain Impf. forms (§ dah) as having the same origin and value, an analysis that hardly convinces. 4 Cf. Smith 1991.35-63. 5 Qimron’s description (1986.60f.) is not clear enough. His statement that “the feminine suffix always takes nun” is a puzzler; in his summarising table we see “‫ ותקטלה‬2×.” In Qimron 1976.240 he mentions ‫ותקימה‬, ‫ותפלגה‬, and ‫ויורישנה‬. We also fail to see why he does not distinguish between the inversive waw and the conjunctive one: among the three cases with a waw mentioned by him (1976.240) only one has an inversive waw, ‫ ותקימה‬1QM 13.7, 4Q491 7.1, whilst the other two have a conjunctive waw—‫ותפלגה‬ 1QHa 9.20 and ‫ ויורשנה‬4Q185 1-2ii15 // ‫ ירשנה‬line 14 and preceded by ‫ לא יחזיקנה‬.. ‫לא יבקשנה‬. See now also Qimron 2018.273-76 (§ D 2.3.5), 280 (§ D 2.4.3). 6 Pace Qimron (I 39) ‫ יניאה‬can be retained as volitive.

74

MORPHOSYNTAX

‫א־מ ְר ֶאה וְ נֶ ְח ְמ ֵדהוּ‬ ַ ֹ ‫ לֹא ָה ָדר וְ נִ ְר ֵאהוּ וְ ל‬Is 53.2 the selection in 1QIsaa of ‫ ונחמדנו‬.. ‫ ונראנו‬may have been motivated by the thought that it is more standard with the non-inversive waw. (1) There is most likely a scribal error in ‫‘ י֗בקשו֗ ֗הו֗ ולא ימצאהו‬they might look for him, but not find him’ 4Q185 1-2i12, where ‫ ימצאוהו‬is expected. One cannot criticise (2) ‫ יחזיק‬.. ‫ירשנה‬ ֗ ‘he will inherit the same author about ‫ויורישנה‬ ֗ (= ‫ישׁנָּ ה‬ ֶ ‫יוֹר‬ ִ ְ‫ )ו‬in ‫ויורישנה‬ ֗ .. ‫חזיקנ֯ ֯ה‬ it, he will hold on to it, and he will bequeath it’ 4Q185 1-2i14. The use of a cohortative with an energic Nun is very common in BH (3) as in ‫ֵא ְל ָכה‬ ‫‘ וְ ֶא ְר ֶאנּוּ‬I would like to go and see him’ Gn 45.28 (in lieu of ‫)וְ ֶא ְר ֵאהוּ‬. Thus ‫ ואוהבנו‬in ֯‫‘ ֯ב ֯מו֯ ֗ס ֗ר ֗ך חשק נפשי ואוהבנ֗ ו‬the pleasure of my soul is in Your instruction and I would love it’ 4Q438 3+5.2, i.e. = ‫וְ א ֲֹה ָבה אֹתוֹ‬, not necessarily due to the extension of the cohortative in QH. (4) We may conclude that QH basically accords with BH in respect of this complementary distribution. (5) Hence ‫‘ ישיתה‬he will set it’ 4Q525 2ii-3.7, as generally reconstructed, may be better restored as ‫ ישיתנה‬in line with ‫ לוא יעוזבנה ולוא‬.. ‫לוא יטושנה‬ ‫‘ ישכחנה‬he will not abandon it .. he will not leave it nor will he forget it’ (line 5). One ought to, however, allow for occasional fluctuation as in ‫ ותכשילהו‬.. ‫‘ ותשיגהו‬and she gets hold of him .. and causes him to trip’ 4Q184 1.14. daj) Long imperative Affiliated to the cohortative is the imperative extended with a vowel /-ā/, confined, however, to the masc. sg. The added vowel appears to make for a more forceful plea. (6) In original QH compositions they are not infrequent; some examples (7) are ‫קומה גבור‬ For Qimron (2018.273), who treats 1st person ‫אקטול‬/‫ נקטול‬and 2nd/3rd person ‫יקטול‬/‫ תקטול‬separately, the two energic forms in 1QIsaa mentioned above are due to the exclusive use of energic forms in QH. However, in loc. cit., n. 54 he cites six instances, all from 1QIsaa and prefixed with the conjunction waw, which Qimron faults Massoretes for wrongly vocalising as a conjunctive waw. The nonattestation in QH of forms such as ‫ אקטלהו‬can be an accident of incomplete attestation, cf. ‫ֶא ְתּנֵ הוּ‬ Ps 89.28. See also Lambert 1946.306, n. 1. According to Lambert (op. cit., p. 181), with the first person singular, the paragogic nun appears more often than not, though he counted both inversive and conjunctive forms together. 2 Pace Qimron II 111: “in lieu of ‫ויורישה‬.” Does he want to read ‫ישׁהּ‬ ָ ‫‘ וַ יּו ִֺר‬and he bequeathed it’? 3 See JM § 61 f. 4 Hence, pace Qimron (II 43, n. ad loc.), “by analogy of the cohortative form.” Incidentally, he correctly parses ‫ חשק‬as ‫ח ֶשׁק‬, ֵ not ‫ ָח ַשׁק‬as implied in DJD 29.32 “my soul lusted,” for which one would anticipate ‫ חשקה‬Pf. 3fs. 5 The translation “[And] he made him” (DJD 19.102) would make us anticipate ‫ ]ו[יתנהו‬at 4Q374 2ii6 rather than ‫ ]ו[יתננו‬as restored by Newsom; Qimron (III 139) reads ֿ‫יתננו‬. 6 On some of its possible values as applicable to BH, cf. JM § 48 d. Fassberg (1994) opines that the long imperative marks an action directed to the speaker himself or a more general relation to, or interest of, the speaker. Of course, the Impv. is, by definition, an expression of the speaker’s interest. Joosten (1999a.156f.) quotes ‫‘ שמחה שמחתכה וגילה גילך‬Be glad with your gladness and rejoice with your joy!’ 4Q88 10.8 as being contrary to Fassberg’s thesis, since this is not addressed to God. But Fassberg did not say that every long Impv. is addressed to God. In QH we do not find a case such as ‫תּנָ ה ִלי‬, ְ indicating an action directed to the speaker himself. Cf. also Joosten 1999. 7 The following is a nearly complete listing; reconstructed forms have been excluded. Cf. also Qimron 2018.170f., § C 2.1.5.1. One would note the absence of examples in Hodayot (1QHa). 1

THE VERB — § 15 da – 16 a

75

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

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

76

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 16 a-b

77

֗ ‫אתה לאבותינ֗ ו‬ ֯ ‫נש‬ ֗‫נ‬ Analogously a way-yiqtol may carry on an inf. cst., (1) e.g. ‫בהמרותם‬ ‫‘ ֯את פי֗ ֗כה ותתאנפ בם‬You forgave our forefathers when they rebelled against You and You became incensed at them’ 4Q504 2ii7; ‫בעזבם את ברית אל ויבחרו ברצונם ויתורו אחרי‬ ‫‘ שרירות לבם‬when they forsook the covenant of God and chose their own will and strayed after the stubbornness of their heart(s)’ CD 3.11; ‫במוס לבי כמים ותחזק נפשי‬ ‫‘ בבריתך‬when my heart melted like water, my soul held fast to Your covenant’ 1QHa 10.30. See also CD 7.20. Though not an inf. cst., but a verbal noun, we may include here ‫ישראל ויטמאו את המקדש‬ ֗ ‫‘ וישענו על אל בקץ מעל‬and they relied on God at a time when Israel trespassed and desecrated the sanctuary’ CD 20.23. An articular ptc. referring to a past event (see below at § 17 h) may also be continued with a way-yiqtol as in ‫חופריה הם שבי ישראל היוצאים מארץ יהודה ויגורו בארץ דמשק‬ ‘its diggers are the penitents among Israel, who departed from the land of Judah and lived in the alien land of Damascus’ CD 6.4. b) w-qataltí (2) This typical CBH use is also well attested in our corpus. Examples are .. ‫והיה בשומעו‬ ‫‘ יתברך בלבנו‬when he hears . . he will congratulate himself’ 1QS 2.12; ‫והיה כיא יערוכו‬ ‫ הכוהן ישלח ידו‬.. ‫‘ השולחן‬and when they set the table for a meal .. the priest shall put his hand out’ 1QS 6.4, sim. with a typically BH syntagm in conjunction with a temporal adjunct and with reference to a future event at ‫‘ והיא )= והיה( כי יבוא ֗עליך‬now when it occurs to you’ MMT C 13 (3); ‫‘ שי֯ ֯ת ֯קן֯ את עצתך והרחיק ממך מחשבת רעה‬so that He may fortify your will and keep any design of wickedness away from you’ MMT C 28; ‫מעת‬ ‫‘ ֗שיגלח וכבס ישב מחו֗ ֗ץ לאוהלו‬after shaving he shall wash, he shall sit outside of his tent’ MMT B 66, where the general procedure concerned follows Lv 14.2ff., but the syntax here is markedly different from that in the source text in MT with ‫תּוֹרת ַה ְמּצ ָֹרע‬ ַ ‫זֹאת ִתּ ְהיֶ ה‬ followed by a long series of actions, all indicated with w-qataltí—‫ וְ גִ ַלּח‬.. ‫ וְ ִכ ֶבּס‬.. ‫הוּבא‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬, and the remarkable combination with the typically MH compound conjunction ‫;מעת ש־‬ ‫ וה]יה כ[ול איש‬4Q51 2Sm 15.2 // ‫ל־ה ִאישׁ‬ ָ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ָכּ‬MT, which is odd (4); ‫בסדר מערכות‬ ‫ שבעה כוהנים‬.. ‫ ויצאו‬.. ‫ המלחמה‬1QM 7.9, where we would rather read a D inf. cst., (5) ‫וּב ַס ֵדּר‬, ְ ‘as they array the battle lines .., then there shall march out .. seven priests.’ The Israelites of their past, concrete experiences. All the same, Baillet’s (DJD 7.159) translation is not totally impossible: “Sou]viens-Toi, s’il Te plaît, que nous tous (sommes) Ton peuple. Tu nous as portés .. et Tu nous as amenés vers Toi.” 1 See JM § 118 l and Driver 1892.139 (§ 118). 2 The ultima accent is of course hypothetical for unvocalised QH texts. The same applies to the following subparagraphs. See above § 13 a. 3 Cf. a discussion by Qimron, DJD 10.78f., § 3.4.1.2. 4 The Proto-Lucianic version with καὶ ἦν seems to accord with 4Q51. 4Q51 continues with .. ‫וקרא‬ ‫ואמר‬, which is consistent, whereas MT’s ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬.. ‫ וַ יִּ ְק ָרא‬is consistent in its own way, though not natural in the context describing Absalom’s daily practice. See also the Imperfect ἐκάλει .. ἔλεγεν in the ProtoLucianic version. 5 Pace ‫וּב ֵס ֶדר‬ ְ Habermann (1959.100) and Lohse (196).

78

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 16 b-bbc

79

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

80

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 16 bbc-c

81

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

86

MORPHOSYNTAX

‫‘ צוקה לוא יעוזבנה ולוא ישכחנה מפני ֗פחד ובענות נפשו לוא י֗ ֗ג ֗ע ֗לנה‬and in its blows he will be happy ..’) unless one assigns all of them the value of poetic preterite (§ 15 b, ba, and bb). (1) way-yiqtol > w-qatálti: ‫ל־שׁ ְכמוֹ וַ יִּ ְק ָרא ְשׁמוֹ‬ ִ ‫ וַ ְתּ ִהי ַה ִמּ ְשׂ ָרה ַע‬Is 9.5 > ‫ וקרא‬1QIsaª; short of postulating a scribal error for ‫ויקרא‬, ‫ וְ ָק ָרא‬must be impersonal or passive ‫וְ ק ָֹרא‬. (2) Note also Ps 33.9 4Q98 1.7 ‫( והיה‬MT ‫)וַ יְ ִהי‬, presumably following MT ‫א ַמר‬. ָ ( 3) w-qataltí > w-yiqtol (4): ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬.. ‫ ָפּר ֹץ‬.. ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬.. ‫ ָה ֵסר‬Is 5.5 (5) > ‫ ויהיה‬.. ‫ פרץ‬.. ‫ ויהיה‬.. ‫אסיר‬ 1QIsaa; ‫ ורחץ‬.. ‫ ויכבס‬.. ‫ וספר‬.. ‫‘ יטהר‬he becomes clean .. and he shall count .. and he shall wash .. and he shall bathe’ 11Q19 45.15 (‫ וְ ִכ ֶבּס‬Lv 15.13). The standard sequence is broken in ‫ ואסתיר‬.. ‫ וזעקו‬.. ‫ וקראו‬.. ‫ והיו‬.. ‫יהיו‬, but back to the normal pattern with ‫והיו‬ ‫‘ לאוכלה‬and they will become food’ 11Q19 59.4-7, where ‫ וְ ַא ְס ִתּיר‬in lieu of ‫ וְ ִה ְס ַתּ ְר ִ֫תּי‬is probably under the influence of the preceding ‫ ולוא אענה‬.. ‫ ויארך ;ולוא אשמע‬.. ‫ונתתיה‬ ‫‘ ימים רבים‬and I shall put him .. and he will have many days’ 11Q19 59.20 (6); ‫והיה‬ ‫‘ כקרובכמה למלחמה ונגש הכוהן וידבר אל העם ואמר אליהמה‬and when you advance to the war, the priest will come over and speak to the people and say to them’ 11Q19 61.14, where no rationale can be found for shifting from w-qataltí (‫ )וְ נִ גַּ שׁ‬to w-yiqtol (‫)וִ ַיד ֵבּר‬ and then back again to w-qataltí (‫)וְ ָא ַמר‬, cf. ‫ וְ ִד ֶבּר‬Dt 20.2, similarly .. ‫ ורגמוהו‬.. ‫כי יהיה‬ ‫ ובערתה הרע‬.. ‫‘ וימות‬if there happens to be .. then they should stone him .. and he shall die .. and you should eradicate the evil’ 11Q19 64.2-6, cf. MT ‫ וָ ֵמת‬Dt 21.21; ‫ וידבר‬.. ‫ ונתתי‬.. ‫ נבי אקים‬4Q175 5 < ‫יהם ָכּמוָֹך וְ נָ ַת ִתּי ְד ָב ַרי ְבּ ִפיו וְ ִד ֶבּר‬ ֶ ‫נָ ִביא ָא ִקים ָל ֶהם ִמ ֶקּ ֶרב ֲא ֵח‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ֵל‬Dt 18.18. Even a standing formula ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬that introduces a possible future scenario shifts to ‫ ויהיה‬in a phylactery: ‫ ויהיה כי ישאלך בנך מחר‬XḤev/Ṣe 5.5 < ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ִכּי־יִ ְשׁ ָא ְלָך ִבנְ ָך‬ ‫ ָמ ָחר‬Ex 13.14, though the author or scribe does mostly follow his source, thus line 2 (Ex 13.5), line 4 (Ex 13.11), line 10 (Ex 11.13). We have a case of lapsus calami in ‫‘ אם בחוקותי ילך ואת מצוותי ישמור ויעש הישר והטוב לפני‬if he walks according to My rules and keeps My commandments and practices what is right and good before Me’ 11Q19 59.16. When w-qataltí is preceded by a nominal clause, we find a shift to w-yiqtol: ‫יום כפורים‬ ‫‘ הוא ותענו בו את נפשותיכמה‬it is a day of atonement and (therefore) you shall mortify your souls’ 11Q19 25.11, where, in the underlying biblical text, ‫יתם‬ ֶ ִ‫ וְ ִענּ‬is preceded by yiqtol, ‫ ִמ ְק ָרא־ק ֶֹדשׁ יִ ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם‬Lv 23.27. 1 Puech (DJD 25.123) translates ‫ השיג‬with “a atteint,” but the rest with the present tense, “marche .. applique ..”. 2 Cf. LXX καὶ καλεῖται and Vulg. vocabitur. 3 See Muraoka 2018a.163. 4 See also Kutscher (1974.357) and Qimron, DJD 10.78, § 3.4.1.1. 5 ‫ ָה ֵסר‬is probably meant as an inf. abs. in view of the parallel ‫פּר ֹץ‬, ָ which was probably taken by the scribe as ‫פּר ֹץ‬, ְ impv. 6 Pace Qimron (I 198 n. on line 16) ‫ ויעש‬line 16 and ‫ ויארך‬present two distinct syntactic phenomena, for in the former the waw is conjunctive, but in the latter inversive, and we anticipate ‫ ויעשה‬and ‫והאריך‬ respectively.

THE VERB — § 16 f

87

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

88

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 16 f

89

virtually non-existent. (1) This is not to speak of the well-known, occasional irregularities encountered in BH itself. This disintegration is not only a diachronic feature to be accounted for in terms of the relatively late period from which our corpus dates, but also most presumably a question of genre or register. (2) The overwhelming majority of documents which constitute our corpus are literal, whether prose or poetry, in which one could justly expect more or less close linkage with BH. One would not be surprised, therefore, to find no instance of inversive forms in texts from the Bar-Kochba period. (3) The position maintained by Qimron, who, over the years, has enormously enriched our discussion on this particular subject, (4) is that the selection of an Impf. form marked modally as either PCS or PCā is, to a very significant degree, regulated by morphosyntactic considerations, more specifically 1) whether the proclitic conjunction waw is attached or not, and 2) whether a PC form is clause-initial or not. (5) Under 1) the nature of the waw, whether consecutive or conjunctive, is said to be irrelevant. (6) From the prominence accorded to the parameter of morphosyntax, said to operate in both BH and QH (2018.373), we may safely infer that, according to Qimron, the semantic factor, namely that of volitive, is not decisive here. Hence ‫שׁוּבה ָמ ָחר‬ ָ ָ‫ וְ נ‬may mean the same thing as ‫וְ נָ שׁוּב ָמ ָחר‬. Likewise ‫יהי ָט ֵמא‬ ִ ִ‫ ו‬may not differ in meaning from ‫וְ יִ ְהיֶ ה ָט ֵמא‬. As intimated by reservations voiced above at various junctures we cannot be as confident as Qimron is in this respect. His statement that QH “makes no (emphasis ours) distinction between conversive and conjunctive imperfect” (2018.167) sounds to us slightly exaggerated. We have dealt with signs of an incipient collapse of the classical system, which we would say is still holding its own most of the time. (7) Qimron (2018.165f.) 1 ‫ וַ יַּ ְרא‬mTaan 2.1 occurs in a discussion on the form in BH Jon 3.10. ‫ ַאל ַתּ ַעשׂ‬mAb 1.8, 2.13 is a true rarity. For a few more residues of the PCS, see Sharvit 1980.122-24. 2 The mere statistics provided by Abegg (1998.338) do not justify his conclusion “the waw consecutive seems to have lost ground to the simple perfect as a means of expressing completed action.” 3 Mor (2015.280, § 5.8) mentions three exceptions. However, they are all from a rare hymn, XḤev/ Ṣe 6, and in one of them, line 18, the reading is not certain, and in all of them the context barely suffices for us to analyse the verb forms with certainty; see DJD 38.197-99. 4 In addition to his latest exposition in Qimron 2018, esp. pp. 160-69 (§ C 2.1.3.1-5), 371-73 (§ H 1.2), one thinks of Qimron 1986, 1987, 1997, 1998. 5 Qimron’s (2018.371 [§ H 1.2]) actual formulation reads, in part: “In DSS Hebrew .. they [= PCS and PCā] are in most cases variants of the regular imperfect forms. The use of each of the variants is regulated by morphosyntactical factors .. The peculiar forms [= PCS and PCā] are exclusively employed when the imperfect is preceded by a waw .. even elsewhere, when the verb comes at the beginning of the sentence, only the peculiar forms are used.” 6 In the case of QH, no text of which is vocalised, it could be difficult anyway to reach assured decision on this matter. 7 We would like to be a little more kindly than Eskhult (2018.21f.) to the author of 4Q372; instead of condemning him for a chaotic mishmash we would say that our author is familiar with a wide range of morphosyntactic options available in BH and is exploiting them as best he could. Even ‫( וכבדו‬4Q372 1.3) could be rescued as a well-known Pf. with imperfective aspect—‘they would, used to honour’—if only we had enough context. Cf. a cautious conclusion based on a limited number of sectarian documents studied by Smith (1991a.14): “the verbal forms in QL [= Smith’s corpus] demonstrate strong evidence for

90

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 16 f – 17 a

91

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

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

92

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 17 a-e

93

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

94

MORPHOSYNTAX

last generation’ CD 1.12; ‫‘ קריאי השם העמדים באחרית הימים‬those who are called by the name (and) who are bound to arise at the end of the days’ CD 4.4; ֗‫ער ֯רי‬ ֯ ‫‘ הנני ֗ב ֗א‬behold, I’m going to die childless’ 4Q225 2i3 (1); ‫‘ אני נתן תכבלים ברגלכם‬I am going to put chains on your leg(s)’ M43 5 (in a sworn statement); ‫אלוהיכם הולך עמכם להלחם לכם עם‬ ‫ אויביכם‬1QM 10.4. (2) At ‫‘ לא בצדקתך ובישר לבבך אתה בא לרשת את הגוים האלה‬not by virtue of your righteousness and the integrity of your heart you are going to enter (this land) to dispossess these peoples’ CD 8.14, the author, citing Dt 9.5, knew that his remote forefathers had yet to cross the Jordan. f) Periphrastic tense (3) Whilst the periphrastic tense, , is rather frequent in MH (4), it is not true that, in BH, this is typical of late books. (5) In QH a total of 67 (6) examples occur, of which as many as 36 are accounted for by 11Q19, the Temple Scroll, the Hebrew of which is heavily biblicised. In BH we find 124 cases in all. (7) promised land when Moses was told ‫ֹלהיָך נ ֵֹתן ָלְך‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ַמ ַען יַ ֲא ִרכוּן יָ ֶמיָך ַעל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬Ex 20.12. Likewise when his successor heard ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר ָאנ ִֹכי נ ֵֹתן ָל ֶהם‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָעם ַהזֶּ ה ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־היַּ ְר ֵדּן ַהזֶּ ה ַא ָתּה וְ ָכ‬ ַ ‫וְ ַע ָתּה קוּם ֲעבֹר ֶא‬ ‫ ִל ְבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬Josh 1.2. Tens of similar instances can be cited. These BH examples show that, pace Gzella (2007a.94f.), this usage does not indicate an Aramaic interference. 1 In view of the underlying Hebrew text, ‫הוֹלְך ֲא ִר ִירי‬ ֵ ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי‬Gn 15.2, the use of ‫ בא‬here is striking. The meaning must be ‘to go away, depart, i.e. die,’ as noted by Qimron II 217 ad loc., an interpretation as old as LXX ἀπολύομαι ἄτεκνος. So in the Targumic tradition, e.g. ‫ אנא אזל מן עלמא‬Trg Neofiti. Interesting is that God responds with ‫ל־אב ֶֹתיָך ְבּ ָשׁלוֹם‬ ֲ ‫ ַא ָתּה ָתּבוֹא ֶא‬Gn 15.15, where the Greek translator is aware of the earlier verse—σὺ δὲ ἀπελεύσῃ πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας σου μετ᾽ εἰρήνης. ‫ בא‬Gn 15.15 is mentioned by Ben Yehuda 1909-58 s.v. 481b as an instance of the sense ‘to die.’ 2 Though the difference is subtle, this is not, pace Gzella (2007a.94f.), a case of plain future, let alone immediate future; his immediately in “I will immediately put fetters on your feet” (p. 93) does not necessarily constitute part of the value of the ptc. here as an inflectional category. Of course the speaker here may so act immediately, but may not. Mor (2015.300) adduces also ‫ שוקלים‬.. ‫ שוקלים‬5/6Ḥev 44.19, 22, but the tense value of the participle is manifest in the earlier ‫ שוקלים‬.. ‫‘ יהיוו‬they shall be weighing out (as payment)’ ib. 16, as he himself writes; ‫ יהיוו‬is implicit in the following two clauses, and the future reference is not indicated by the ptc. per se. 3 Cf. Muraoka 1999a and Qimron 2018.374-78, § H 1.3. For a classified list of actual references, see Bartelmus 1982.207f. and now also Qimron 2018.375f. 4 Cf. Sharvit 1980.117-19. 5 Pace Leahy (1960.147), Morag (1988.150), Waltke - O’Connor (1990 § 37.7.1c), and Qimron, DJD 10.79 (§ 3.4.1.3), where Joüon 1923.340-41 is mentioned. Joüon’s description here has been significantly updated in JM § 121 f-g with n. 1 on p. 382 in the light of Muraoka 1999a.195-97. Thus in 1-2Ch we find 17 instances and in Neh 12, but 27 in 1-2Kg. On the question of possible Aramaic interference here, see Muraoka 1999a.200f. Gzella’s position (2007a.97) that the periphrasis is an infiltration from Aramaic is argued on the mistaken presupposition that, in BH, it is typical of LBH. 6 As against the figure of 63 given in Muraoka 1999a.196f. four examples occurring in documents originating in locations outside of the Qumran caves have been added. 7 These figures do not include passive participles and stative verbs such as ‫ להיות יראים‬MMT B 49 and ‫ היא ירא‬MMT C 24. Qimron, loc. cit. (see n. 3 above), admits here participles. Among the BH examples

THE VERB — § 17 e-fa

95

The imperfective aspect of the syntagm, an expression of habitual, repeated or customary actions, is manifest in adverbial, temporal adjuncts added as in ‫מצ ֗רות‬ ֗ ‫֗הי֗ ֗א נצל‬ ‫רבות‬ ֗ ‘he was delivered from many hardships’ MMT C 26; ‫בכל השנים האלה יהיה בליעל‬ ‫‘ משולח בישראל‬in all these years Belial is going to be sent against Israel’ CD 4.12; ‫והיו‬ ‫‘ הסוכות נעשות עליהמה בכול שנה ושנה‬and the booths shall be made on them every single year’ 11Q19 42.12; ‫ יהיו אוכלים את הדגן עד השנה השנית‬.. ‫‘ ֗מחג הבכורים‬from the festival of the first-fruits .. they shall be eating the grain till the second year’ 11Q19 43.6; ‫להיות‬ ‫ כו‬.. ‫‘ אהא שוקל‬I shall be ‫‘ משרתים בתמיד‬to be serving always’ 1QM 2.1; ‫כול שנה בשנה‬ weighing .. every year’ M24 B 15. The long series of directives in the first two columns of 1QS concludes with ‫‘ ככה יעשו שנה בשנה כול יומי ממשלת בליעל‬thus they shall be doing year after year all the days of the reign of Belial’ 1QS 2.19. In spite of the absence of an adverbial adjunct expressing repetition or continuation, in ‫כאשר היתה‬ ‫רחל לוא ילדה בנים ֗ק ֗צה בחייה‬ ֗ ‘when Rachel did not bear children a long time, she became fed up with her life’ 4Q215 1.9 Rachel’s being reduced to watching her elder sister bearing one child after another over the years must have irritated her. (1) One of the examples adduced above, ‫ להיות משרתים בתמיד‬1QM 2.1, is immediately followed by ‫ לשרת תמיד‬ib. 2.2, indicating that the use of the periphrastic syntagm is optional, serving to highlight its imperfective aspect and explicitly to mark it. Likewise ‫‘ ולוא תהיה נראה לכול‬it shall not be visible for all to see’ 11Q19 46.15 // ‫לֹא־יִ ְר ֶאה‬ ‫ ְבָך ֶע ְרוַ ת ָדּ ָבר‬Dt 23.15, but not necessarily at ‫וככה יהיו אוכלים אותו ֗מחג הבכורים לדגן‬ ‫‘ החטים‬and thus they shall be eating the grain of wheat from the festival of first-fruits’ ְ ֹ ‫ וְ ָכ ָכה תּ‬Ex 12.11. (2) 11Q19 43.5 in spite of // ‫אכלוּ אֹתוֹ‬ fa) E.g. ‫‘ היה מצוֿ ֗ל מצרו֗ ת‬he would be (often) rescued out of troubles’ MMT C 24 (3); ‫֗הי֗ ֗א‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗ל ֗בדו היה‬he was journeying alone’ 1Q17 1.6; ‫והואה‬ ‫רבות‬ ֗ ‫מצ ֗רות‬ ֗ ‫ נצל‬MMT C 26; ‫הולך‬ mentioned by Qimron we find ‫ ַע ְב ְדָּך ָהיָ ה יָ ֵרא ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬2Kg 4.1, where the use of the particle ‫ ֵאת‬indicates ‫ יָ ֵרא‬as a verb rather than an adjective. Similarly 1Kg 18.3, 12, 2Kg 17.32, 33, 41, with which cp. ‫מוֹרה‬ ֶ ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬ ‫ א ָֹתם ֵאיְך יִ ְיראוּ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬2Kg 17.28. Pace Driver (1913.36) ‫ גָּ ֵדל‬and ‫ טוֹב‬are hardly adjectives at ‫מוּאל‬ ֵ ‫ַהנַּ ַער ְשׁ‬ ‫ ה ֵֹלְך וְ גָ ֵדל וָ טוֹב‬1Sm 2.26, an analysis which cannot be supported by ‫וּבית ָשׁאוּל ה ְֹל ִכים וְ ַד ִלּים‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָדוִ ד ה ֵֹלְך וְ ָחזֵ ק‬ 2Sm 3.1 adduced by Driver. How would ‫ גָּ ֵדל‬and ‫ ָחזֵ ק‬differ from ‫ גָּ דוֹל‬and ‫ ָחזָ ק‬respectively? Since one cannot be certain about vocalisation on QH forms, a more careful analysis of BH data is called for. In any event, pace Mor (2015.301, § 5.13.5), we can hardly parse ‫ יפות‬as a substantivised ptc. at ‫֗חנ֗ טין יפות ונקיות‬ ‘beautiful and clean wheat’ M24 D 15. 1 Pace Stone (DJD 22.82) ‫ לא‬is not a negative prefix as in unproductive nor ‫ ילדה‬is a substantive. König (1897 § 352 p) mentions not a few instances which would discredit BDB s.v. ‫ לא‬1 b (c), on which Stone relies. E.g. ‫ וְ הוּא לֹא־אוֹיֵב לוֹ וְ לֹא ְמ ַב ֵקּשׁ ָר ָעתוֹ‬Nu 35.23. 2 See further Muraoka 1999a.199f. We doubt, however, that this optionality is “often” evident in QH as Geiger (2012.514) puts it. Gordon (1982.23f.) holds that the process of the ptc. becoming a third tense-form was already underway late in the biblical period, citing, for instance, ‫ר־הגַּ יא ַליְ ָלה‬ ַ ‫וָ ֵא ְצ ָאה ְב ַשׁ ַע‬ ִ‫רוּשׁ ַלם‬ ָ ְ‫ל־שׁ ַער ָה ַא ְשׁפֹּת וָ ֱא ִהי שׂ ֵֹבר ְבּחוֹמֹת י‬ ַ ‫ל־פּנֵ י ֵעין ַה ַתּנִּ ין וְ ֶא‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬Neh 2.13, where the periphrastic structure has no “general/habitual” value, but see JM § 121 g. 3 Qimron, DJD 10.77 (§ 3.3.3.4), identifies here a maqtūl passive form, but all the examples quoted by him are of Qal, whereas a Hofal form is anticipated here. The only QH example, ‫‘ משובים‬conducting themselves’ 1QS 5.2, is also active; on the meaning of the verb, see Yalon 1967.107—‫מתהלכים‬, ‫מתנהגים‬.

96

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 17 fa-fba

97

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

98

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 17 fba-fd

99

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

100

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 17 fd-g

101

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

102

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 17 g-j

103

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

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

104

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 17 j – 18 a

105

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

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

106

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 18 aa-b

107

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

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

108

MORPHOSYNTAX

c) Absolute command or deontic modality (1) An infinitive often carries injunctive value equivalent to the Impf. with the same value. E.g. ‫יסו[ד היחד ֗ל ֗ש ֯לח‬ ֯ ‫‘ האיש אשר ילון על יסו‬a man who grumbles against the authority of the community: to be excommunicated’ 4Q261 6a-e3 // ‫ ישלחהו‬1QS 7.17 ‫לדרוש איש‬ ‫ ולא ישקץ‬.. ‫ להבדל‬.. ‫ ולא לנטור‬.. ‫ להוכיח איש את אחיהו‬.. ‫ להזיר‬.. ‫את שלום אחיהו ולא ימעל‬ ‘one is to seek the welfare of his brother and not to be unfaithful .. to refrain .. to remonstrate one another .. and not to remain resentful .. to part with .. and one shall not defile’ CD 6.21; ‫‘ על אחד להבדיל הטהרה‬according to one (witness) the separation from the purity is to be established’ CD 9.23, followed by ‫‘ אל יקובל עוד‬no more (witness) is to be invited’; probably ‫‘ מכור לנוכרי‬to sell to a foreigner’ 11Q19 48.6, introduced with ‫כי‬, which would be odd with an impv., and preceded by ‫לוא תואכלו‬. Of the above-quoted instances, 1QM 2.1-4 is of particular interest; whilst, in CD 6.21, ‫ איש‬is functioning as the subject of the infinitive and the parallel PC forms are 3ms, in the former the subjects exceptionally (§ m) precede the infinitive and the parallel PC forms—‫ ישרתו‬and ‫—יתיצבו‬duly agree with the subjects in gender and number. We meet with an example of a negated inf. in ‫באלה ֗ל ֗ב ֗לתי החזיק מעמד בתוכ העדה‬ ֗ ‫כול איש מנוגע‬ ‘anyone infected with these is not to hold office within the congregation’ 1QSa 2.4, preceded by ‫טמאות האדם אל יבוא בקהל אלה‬ ֗ ‫באחת מכול‬ ֗ ‫‘ כול איש מנוגע‬anyone infected with one of all kinds of impurity of a man shall not enter the congregation of these (people).’ Note also ‫‘ כול אשר לוא נחשבו בבריתו להבדיל אותם ואת כול אשר להם‬all those who were not included among His covenant, one should exclude them and all that belongs to them’ 1QS 5.18. This use of the infinitive is prominent in negative prescriptions (2): ‫לוא לסור ימין‬ ‫‘ ושמאול ואין לצעוד על אחד מכול דבריו‬one is not to deviate right or left nor walk against any of His words’ 1QS 3.10 (3), sim. ib. 1.13, 14bis, 15, 9.16; ‫אין להתקדם ולהתאחר‬ ‫‘ ממועדיהם‬there is no option to advance or postpone their appointed times’ 4Q266 2i2; ‫‘ אין לעבור חוקיהם‬one ought not to transgress their laws’ 1Q34 3ii2; ‫אין עוד להשתפח‬ ‫‘ לבית יהודה‬there shall be no uniting with the house of Judah any more’ CD 4.11; ‫אין‬ 1 Cf. Kropat 1909.24f., Leahy 1960.142, DJD 10.80 (§ 3.4.2.1), Qimron 2018.387 § H 1.6.3, and JM § 124 l. 2 A syntagm generally agreed to be characteristic of LBH. Cf. BDB s.v. ‫ ַאיִ ן‬5 and Carmignac (1974.409f.), and a study by Hurvitz 1999, where, however, no mention is made of one seeming exception cited earlier by Hurvitz himself (1990.147), to wit, ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ין־ל ָה ִביא ְל ִאישׁ ָה ֱא‬ ְ ‫שׁוּרה ֵא‬ ָ ‫וּת‬ ְ 1Sm 9.7, where Driver (1913.71) had suggested two emendations, ‫ וְ ֵאין תשורה להביא‬and ‫ותשורה ַאיִ ן להביא‬, the latter of which has been plausibly restored in a 4Q51 (DJD 17.59) as ‫להביא‬ ‫ותשורה אין לנו לה‬ ‫ ;ותשורה‬the inf. then would be complementing ‫תשורה‬, see below at § i. 3 The first infinitive clause can be construed backwards with final value: .. ‫ויהכין פעמיו להלכת תמים‬ .. ‫‘ ולוא לסור‬and he is to prepare his steps so as to walk with integrity .. and not deviate ..’ or with epexegetic value, ‘to walk .. by not deviating ..,’ though the latter clause cannot be so analysed on account of the negator ‫אין‬, not ‫לוא‬. Similar uncertainty attaches to the other examples mentioned, all long series of infinitive clauses. If, however, our clause .. ‫ לוא לסור‬is to be construed forwards, that would imply that the syntagms and are of equal value, allosyntagms.

THE VERB — § 18 c

109

‫‘ להאכילם מהקודדשים‬it is not permissible to feed them out of sacred food’ MMT B 71; ‫‘ אין ֗ל ֗ה ֗בי֗ למחני ֗ה ֯ק ֯ודש כלבים‬one shall not bring dogs into the holy camp’ MMT B 58; with a BH ‫‘ לבלתי בוא אל המקדש—לבלתי‬they are not to enter the sanctuary’ CD 6.12 (1). Likewise ‫ ולא לנטור‬in CD 6.21 adduced in the preceding paragraph. See also below at § 40 i. We probably have to do here with changes taking place in the syntactic structure of Hebrew. Albeit not often, the inf. cst. was used with modal value in CBH, e.g. ‫ֶמה‬ ‫ל־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ר־לְך ֶא‬ ָ ‫‘ ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ָלְך ֲהיֵ שׁ ְל ַד ֶבּ‬what could be done for you? Is there anything we could raise with the king on your behalf?’ 2Kg 4.13 (2). The above-mentioned is an extension of negatively worded. The gradual demise of the inf. abs. in general in LBH and post-biblical Hebrew appears to have led to the increased use of the inf. cst. with modal value, deontic in particular. (3) Note also ‫הטהורה כתוב שלוא לרבעה כלאים‬ ֗ ‫בהמתו הטהו‬ ̇ ‫‘ על‬about his clean animal it is ֗ ‫על‬ written: one may not mate it with a different species’ MMT B 76 and ‫לבושו כתוב שלוא‬ ‫כלאים‬ ‫מו כלאי‬ ‫לזרוע שדו ֯וכרמו‬ ֗ ‫‘ יהיה שעטנז ושלוא‬about his garment it is written: it shall not be of mixed stuff and one may not sow his field and vineyard with mixed species’ MMT B 78. We also find a variant ‫ אשר‬in ‫‘ ואשר לוא להוכיח ולהתרובב עם אנשי השחת‬and he should not reproach and quarrel with the men of the pit’ 1QS 9.16, on which see above at § 15 daf. A similar phenomenon is attested in MH. (4) Qimron (5) refers to mHag 2.2, where an interesting detail is revealed: :‫מוְֹך יוסי בן יוחנן אומר‬ ‫ ֶשׁלֹּא ִל ְס ׅ‬:‫יוסי בן יועזר אומר‬ ‫ל ְסמוְֹך‬.ִ Two rabbis reach diametrically opposed views, which are both introduced with ‫אוֹמר‬ ֵ just like ‫ כתוב‬in the above-cited MMT B, but only the negative decision is prefixed with -‫ ֶשׁ‬. In this Mishnah passage another four mutually contradictory decisions are introduced exactly in the same fashion. The above-quoted instance at 1QS 9.16 is preceded by six positive rules to be observed by the instructor (‫)המשכיל‬, all expressed with an infinitive prefixed with -‫ ל‬and, after ‫ואשר לוא להוכיח‬, followed by another four positive rules, all prefixed with -‫ל‬. Thus -‫ ש‬in MMT B is unlikely introducing a content clause following ‫ כתוב‬any more than -‫ ש‬following ‫ אומר‬in the Mishnah. (6) 1 According to Qimron (HDDS 78), ‫לבלתי‬, the normal BH negator of an inf., still occurs in QH “if the infinitive occurs without lamed and does not express a command.” Would this be then a rare exception? Rendsburg (2010.223), following Qimron (loc. cit.), mentions the retention in QH of the BH , which, however, differs from the prohibitive , what we and he are discussing here. 2 Also retained in LBH, e.g. ‫ֹלהים יֵ שׁ ַליהוָ ה ָל ֶתת‬ ִ ‫אמר ִאישׁ ָה ֱא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ה־לּ ֲעשׂוֹת ִל ְמ ַאת ַה ִכּ ָכּר ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַת ִתּי ִלגְ דוּד יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יּ‬ ַ ‫וּמ‬ ַ ‫ ְלָך ַה ְר ֵבּה ִמזֶּ ה‬2Ch 25.9. Note that, as in 2Kg 4.13 cited above, ‫ יֵ שׁ‬is absent in the parallel infinitival clause. 3 Cf. Muraoka 2015.82. 4 So Licht (1965.37, § 31), though not citing any example. Actually, having studied a series of infinitival clauses (ib., § 30), all of deontic value, he looks at a similar series of the formula in 1QS 5. It is to be noted that the first of four consecutive clauses of this format is positive: ‫ואשר יקים בברית‬ ‘he shall swear allegiance to the covenant’ 1QS 5.10. This may suggest that the phenomenon here is affiliated with of volitive or deontic value dealt with above (§ 15 daf), and is an extension or derivative of this clausal syntagm. 5 Qimron 1982.35, HDDS, p. 79, and DJD 10.80 (§ 3.4.2.1). 6 Why this feature is confined to negative injunctions is mysterious. The ὅτι recitativum is not subject to such a restriction.

110

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 18 c-d

111

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

is clear from the positively worded, parallel clause in ‫י־א ֲהר ֹן ַה ְמ ֻק ָדּ ִשׁים ְל ַה ְק ִטיר‬ ַ ֵ‫ ִכּי ַלכּ ֲֹהנִ ים ְבּנ‬2Ch 26.18, preceded by ‫א־לָך ֻעזִּ יָּ הוּ ְל ַה ְק ִטיר ַליהוָ ה‬ ְ ֹ ‫ל‬. ‫ לא‬is negating only the following constituent, as Kieviet himself says, so that the syntagm is distinct from . Besides, two cases of ‫הלוא‬, Mi 3.1 and 2Ch 13.5 are distinct, for ‫ הלוא‬should not be broken down into -‫ ה‬and ‫לוא‬, but it serves to introduce a rhetorical question anticipating a positive reply. Cf. Mor 2017.28-32. 1 The state of preservation of the text is such that one cannot determine the precise, semantic value of the syntagm. One can be more confident on two BH examples: ‫ל־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ר־לְך ֶא‬ ָ ‫‘ ֲהיֵ שׁ ְל ַד ֶבּ‬Could (or: should) we put in a word for you with the king?’ 2Kg 4.13; ‫‘ יֵ שׁ ַליהוָ ה ָל ֶתת ְלָך ַה ְר ֵבּה ִמזֶּ ה‬Yahweh is capable of giving you more than that’ 2Ch 25.9. 2 Qimron (DJD 10.81, § 3.4.2.3; ib. 10.95, § 3.5.2.29a) thinks ‫ )ראוי =( ראו‬is redundant. The sense of ‫ ָראוּי‬lies in a range of ‘proper, appropriate, permissible.’ An example outside of MMT is ‫היא רויה לו מן‬ ‫‘ החוק‬she is permitted to him by the law’ 11Q19 66.9. Also cf. ‫‘ ֶשׁ ַבע ַהנְּ ָערוֹת ָה ְר ֻאיוֹת‬the seven proper maidens’ Est 2.9 and ‫‘ כל הראוי ָלדוּן דיני נפשות ראוי ָלדוּן דיני ממונות‬everyone who is fit to judge capital cases is fit to judge financial cases’ mNid 6.4. Syntactically, however, the syntagm in MMT is distinct in that ‫ ראוי‬is indeclinable, serving as the predicate of the infinitival clause. Pérez Fernández (1999.207) speaks of “a semantic dynamism of the ‘decet > opportet > debet’ type,” citing ‫א־לָך ֻעזִּ יָּ הוּ ְל ַה ְק ִטיר ַליהוָ ה ִכּי ַלכּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ְ ֹ‫ל‬ ‫י־א ֲהר ֹן ַה ְמ ֻק ָדּ ִשׁים ְל ַה ְק ִטיר‬ ַ ֵ‫ ְבּנ‬2Ch 26.18. On the inf. cst. with ‫אין‬, ‫יש‬, and ‫ לא‬in BH, see Kieviet 1999. If we take the infinitive clause here as grammatical subject, there is, pace Qimron (DJD 10.47), nothing peculiar about the syntagm , and ‫ ראוי‬is inflected. On the deontic modality here, see also Qimron DJD 10.95 [§ 3.5.2.29a]. 3 Cf. the translation “if someone violates .., and the fact escapes him, he should bring ..” DJD 10.55. In any event, the preposition ‫ על‬as reconstructed differs from that in the following clause—‫ועל העושה ביד‬ ֗ ‫רמה כתו֗ ב‬, where it indicates a topic, ‘concerning.’ On the syntagm in BH, see JM, § 124 l. According to DJD 10.54 the infinitival clause is said to be the predicate, but what is its subject then?

112

MORPHOSYNTAX

e) Final (1) The notion of purpose is clearly recognisable in ‫‘ בבואו לעמוד‬when he enters in order to stand’ 1QS 6.15; ‫‘ ללכת למדבר לפנות שם את דרכ הואהא‬to go to the desert in order to prepare there the way of YHWH’ 1QS 8.13 (2); ‫ לבנות את המקדש‬.. ‫‘ העולים‬those who return .. so as to rebuild the temple’ 4Q390 1.5; ‫‘ שלח נביאו למושחני‬He sent His prophet to anoint me’ 11Q5 28.8. An inf. cst. with final value also occurs where it is not expanding another verb as in ‫‘ כול רוחי גורלו להכשיל בני אור‬all the spirits of his camp are out to trip up sons of light’ 1QS 3.24, cf. ‫יענִ י‬ ֵ ‫ יהוה ְלהו ִֺשׁ‬Is 38.20 adduced by Licht (1965.93). Likewise ‫יד אל‬ ‫‘ הגדולה עמהמה לעוז֗ רם מכול רוחי֯ בליעל‬the great hand of God (is) with them in order to help them out of all the spirits of Belial’ 4Q177 12-13i9, where the inf. clause is hardly expanding ‫יד‬, which is too far removed. Similarly ‫אדונ֯ י֗ אלהי֗ ם ֯ב ֗ש ֗מי֗ ֗ם ממעל ולחקר דרכי‬ ‫אדו‬ ‫‘ בני האדם‬the Lord God is up in heaven and is there to investigate the ways of human beings’ 4Q392 1.3 (3). At ‫‘ ואחריהם ראשי הלויים לשרת תמיד שנים עשר‬and behind them (there shall be stationed) the chiefs of the Levites in order to serve in perpetuity, twelve of them’ 1QM 2.2 the inf. is of final value, though loosely connected. (4) An inf. clause can be subordinate to a substantive which implies an action: ‫בעצה כול מחשבתם להרע‬ ‘through consultation they are all out to do evil’ 1QpHab 3.5. (5) Similarly ‫ראשית משלוח‬ ‫‘ יד בני אור להחל בגורל בני חושך‬the initial action to be launched by the sons of light is intended to start hitting the lot of the sons of darkness’ 1QM 1.1. Lexicalised: ‫‘ למען הדבק בהם את אלות בריתו‬in order to bind them to the curses of His covenant’ CD 1.16; ‫‘ בעבור הכבדכה‬in order for Your honour to be acknowledged’ 1QHa 10.26. See also below at § 18 k. f) Resultative (6) We are not dealing here with an intended result, which is practically equivalent to an aim or a purpose. E.g. ‫‘ ויבוא בעצמי להכשיל רוח ולכלות כוח‬it penetrated my bones, On this usage in 1QS, cf. Leahy 1960.138f., where ‫ צדקו‬.. ‫ לברר דעתם‬1QS 1.12 is cited as a clear example, whilst we are inclined to see here a series of epexegetic infinitives; Qimron (I 213) inserts a full stop before ‫לברר‬. 2 On the interpretation of ‫הואהא‬, see Licht 1965.181 and Charlesworth 1994.37, n. 210. 3 Kister (2005.126) holds that the inf. here is substituting for a ptc., whilst we doubt that QH had reached a stage as illustrated by ‫‘ צריכין הדיינין מכירין את הנידונין‬the judges need be familiar with the accused’ jGit 50.3, cf. Mishor 1983 § 4.14.12. Falk (DJD 29.30) concludes that the subject of ‫ חקר‬is human. 4 Thus, pace Zewi (2008.282, § 3.1.1.7), we do not have here an inf. substituting a finite verb. The same holds for ‫‘ וראשי השבטים ואבות העדה אחריהם להתיצב תמיד בשערי המקדש‬and the heads of the tribes and the fathers of the congregation shall (be stationed) behind them always to take their positions in the gates of the sanctuary’ 1QM 2.3. Our reservation applies also to her analysis of the above-quoted 1QM 1.1, on which see Zewi op. cit., p. 284, § 3.1.2.3. 5 Cf. Elliger’s (1953.174) translation: “mit Bedacht ist all ihr Sinnen darauf gerichtet, Unheil anzurichten.” 6 Cf. Leahy 1960.139, where ‫ אשר ישחק בסכלות להשמיע קולו‬1QS 7.14 is cited as a clear example, though we would identify here an epexegetic inf.—‘whoever is foolish to laugh loud enough to be heard.’ 1

THE VERB — § 18 e-g

113

(my) spirit collapsing, and (my) strength becoming exhausted’ 1QHa 13.37. In the majority of cases a resultative inf. does not indicate what actually resulted, but a potential or theoretical result or eventuality, e.g. ‫‘ כהה עינים לבלתי ראות‬dim of eyes so that he cannot see’ CD 15.16; “Let no man offer on the altar a burnt-offering .. through anybody affected with one of the types of uncleanness so that one ends up allowing him to transmit uncleanness to the altar (‫ ”)להרשותו לטמא את המזבח‬CD 11.18; ‫אם לעבור‬ ‫‘ ברית היא‬should (keeping to the oath, ‫בוּעה‬ ָ ‫)שׁ‬ ְ end up in going against the covenant’ 1 CD 16.12 ( ). Sim. “Let no man lie with a woman in the city of the sanctuary, thereby desecrating the city of the sanctuary (‫ ”)לטמא את עיר המקדש‬CD 12.1; “by the evening they will be clean enough .. to touch anything pure belonging to them (‫ לגעת‬.. ‫”)יטהרו‬ 11Q19 49.20; ‫‘ לוא תגורו ממנו להמיתו‬you shall not be too scared of him to put him to ‫במע‬ ֗ ‫‘ להרותם‬to teach them deceitful deeds death’ 11Q19 51.17; ‫עשי שקר להיות עמלם לריק‬ with the result that their toil turns out to be meaningless’ 1QpHab 10.11; ‫ותתאנף בם‬ ‫להשמיד ֗ם‬ ֯ ‘and You became infuriated (almost to the extent of) destroying them’ 4Q504 2.8. Also 1QM 9.8. A loosely resultative inf. may be identified in ‫רזי אל להפל‬ ‘the mysteries of God have an effect of producing astonishment’ 1QpHab 7.8. The line between resultative and final can be thin. E.g. at ‫ויחר אף אל בעדתם להשם‬ ‫‘ את כל המונם‬and the wrath of God was kindled against their congregation so as to devastate their whole multitude’ CD 1.21. g) Epexegetic (2) An infinitive clause is often added in order to elaborate or explicate what is denoted by the principal verb, to which it is subordinate. E.g. ‫‘ לוא יסלח לכפר עווניך‬He will not forgive by covering your iniquities’ 1QS 2.8 (3). (4) Likewise ‫לוא ילך איש בשרירות לבו‬ ‫‘ לתעות אחר לבבו‬none shall walk with the stubbornness of his heart, straying (and following) his desire’ 1QS 5.4; ‫‘ יקם על נפשו בשבועת אסר לשוב אל תורת מושה‬he shall swear on his life with a binding oath to return to the law of Moses’ 1QS 5.8; ‫שבה רוחו‬ ‫‘ לבגוד ביחד‬his spirit backslides, betraying the community’ 1QS 7.23; ‫ממרים ֗לשוב מעונם‬ ‘are rebellious by refusing to turn away from their iniquity’ 4Q171 1-2ii3; ‫לא ידעוך‬ ‫עשות דברך‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֗ל‬they failed to understand You well enough to practise Your word’ 1Q34 3ii3; ‫‘ ישמרו לעשות כפרוש התורה‬they take care to practise as elaborated by the law’ CD 6.14 (5); Pace Zewi (2008.282, § 3.1.1.7), the inf. clause cannot be the predicate of ‫ ;היא‬one would not take a vow deliberately to go against the divine will. The same holds for the two other co-ordinate inf. clauses there. 2 Leahy (1960.137f.) calls this ‘explicative.’ Isaksson (2008.87) prefers ‘circumstantial.’ 3 See Muraoka 1996a.66. 4 Cf. Muraoka 2009.123f. 5 Thorion-Vardi 1988.80 is puzzled as to why such a common verb as ‫ שמר‬needs to be commented on at ‫ מוצא שפתיך תשמור להקים‬CD 16.6; her difficulty arises from her misunderstanding of the meaning of ‫“—שמר‬That which is gone out of thy lips thou shall observe—to carry out.” The correct translation is ‘what you say you (by way of an oath) shall duly value by implementing it.’ Note the underlying biblical text: ‫ית ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ַד ְר ָתּ ַליהוָ ה‬ ָ ‫מוֹצא ְשׂ ָפ ֶתיָך ִתּ ְשׁמֹר וְ ָע ִשׂ‬ ָ Dt 23.24. On the combination of ‫ ָשׁ ַמר‬and ‫ע ָשׂה‬, ָ cf. Muraoka and Malessa 2002. 1

114

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 18 g-i

115

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

116

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 18 i-j

117

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

118

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

1

Segal 1936 § 242; Kutscher 1974.41; Qimron 2018.180f., § C 2.1.7.3; Muraoka 2000.194f. On Ben Sira, see van Peursen 2004.248-51. Hornkohl (2018.74) holds that the factor of genre also need be taken into consideration. In BH the bare infinitive is relatively frequent in poetic texts. However, this is also part of the diachronic development. Even in a psalm composed relatively late the poet may choose to use an archaic form, a so-called archaising feature. 2 Carmignac (1986.255) sees here a G inf. abs. continuing ‫לעשות‬, an inf. cst., a feature attested occasionally in BH, see JM § 123 x. 3 Pace Carmignac (1986.256f.) to analyse this as inf. abs. is highly implausible in a document written in an idiom rather close to MH, from which such had vanished. Whilst Carmignac is right in pointing to the rarity of personal discourse in the Copper Scroll, Milik (DJD 3.235) identifies ‫‘ משח‬Measure!’ 7.6, 9.1 and ‫‘ שני‬Repeat!’ 1.11. Lefkovits (2000.135) analyses the form as ‫חפוּר‬, ָ translating it “buried.” Does the verb ever mean ‘to bury’? He does not address himself to the number discord here with 22 ‫‘ ככרין‬22 talents.’ 4 Cf. a discussion in Qimron, DJD 10.76, § 3.3.3.1.3. On the situation in Aramaic, see Sokoloff 1974.124, Muraoka - Porten 2003, § 24 p, and Muraoka 2011.104. Note also ‫ימ ָרְך ִמ ְלּ ִמ ְחזֵ י ְבּ ָע ְב ֵדי ִבּישׁ‬ ְ ‫ָבּ ִריר ֵמ‬ TJ for ‫ ְטהוֹר ֵעינַ יִ ם ֵמ ְראוֹת ָרע‬Hb 1.13. 5 See a discussion by Qimron 1995.323-25 and Morag 1996.154f. Cf. LXX: τοῦ μὴ καλύπτειν. 6 Cf. DCH s.v. ‫ מאס‬p. 121b top.

THE VERB — § 18 j-k

119

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

Though an argumentum e silentio, QH is, pace Mor (2010.225), distinct from the language of the Judaean documents, where no instance of this feature is found; QH is affiliated to MH in this regard. Though not an inf. proper, we find, in the Copper Scroll, a verbal noun in ‫‘ בביאתכך אמות ארבעיןין‬when you move 40 cubits’ 3Q15 4.4, but also a standard inf. in ‫‘ בבואך לסמול‬when you move leftwards’ 3Q15 10.5, on which latter see Mishor 1980.8. See also Mishor 1983.331, 333f. Lefkovits (2000.157) reads ‫בּבו ָֺא ְתָך‬. ְ Such a Hebrew word is unknown to us. 2 Cf. Qimron in DJD 10.76 (§ 3.3.3.1.1), id. 2018.395-97, and for comparable data in Ben Sira, Fassberg 1997.65f. Mishor (1983.333) cites as the only possible RH example ‫‘ הוא חייב בשמרו‬he is liable for guarding it’ Mech. Nez 11, but this does not belong here, since the preposition is governed by ‫חייב‬, and is not part of an adverbial adjunct. 3 Is Olson (apud Charlesworth 1997.127) identifying here a fpl noun with his “in their rebellions”? Most implausible. Leahy (1960.139), following Koehler, speaks of “temporal-circumstantial” infinitive. However, we find no difficulty in seeing here a punctiliar aspect of the action, though the rebellion may have lasted a while. The same applies to the following case: Jacob did not continue his journey as he was hearing the angel blessing him, but rather on hearing the blessing there, he set out on his journey home. HALOT s.v. 21 is more nuanced, admitting that the syntagm is at times equivalent to . BDB s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬V 1 ad finem mentions two instances of this punctiliar value, e.g. ‫את־ה ֲא ָבנִ ים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ְבּ ָע ְב ְר ֶכם את־הירדן ָתּ ִקימוּ‬Dt 27.4, where Israelites could not possibly set up memorial stones on the western shore of the river, whilst they were still in the water. 4 “là où elles sont” (van der Ploeg 1951a.125), with which Wernberg-Møller (1957.145) concurs, admitting, though, that such a local nuance of the syntagm is unknown to BH. Cf. Guilebert 1961.70: “dans leur durée.” 5 Pace Fassberg (2019.92, § 207) the inf. here is unlikely to be modal (injunctive), for one cannot oblige the sun to set. 6 Rabin (1958.49), accepting Honeyman’s (1951.64) analysis of ‫ ִהזַּ כּוּ‬Is 1.16 as derived from √‫זכך‬, must be parsing the form here as G inf. cst., ‫זֻ כּוֹ‬. 7 This instance and especially the other two cited above, MMT C 30 and MMT B 67, are important to our evaluation of the nature of the language represented by this document, see below at pp. 175f.

120

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

2

THE VERB — § 18 k-l

121

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

122

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

THE VERB — § 18 l-o

123

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

124

MORPHOSYNTAX

(MT ‫)רנֵּ ן יְ ַרנֵּ נוּ‬. ַ Faced by a contrast such as ‫‘ לבלתי החזק מעמד‬so that he cannot hold his position’ 1QHa 13.31 // ‫ לבלתי החזיק מעמד‬1QSa 2.4 we find it reasonable to see ַ (1) The admonition on humility in here an orthographic variation, namely ‫ה ֲחזִ ק = החזק‬. Mi 6.8 is quoted quite a number of times in our corpus: six times it is spelled ‫הצנע לכת‬ as in the MT — 1QS 4.5, 5.4, 8.2, 4Q256 9.4, 4Q258 1.3, 4Q408 15.1. These authors and scribes presumably knew this “memory verse” by heart, and if they had pronounced the form in question with an i vowel, they would most likely have spelled it as ‫הצניע‬. ֯ 4Q438 4ii4 the Thus instructive is ‫ הצניע לכת‬4Q298 3-4ii5 (2), and in ‫להצניע ֗ל ֗ל ֗כ ֗ת‬ modernisation process (3) is complete with the proclitic ‫ ל־‬added. (4) At ‫אשר לא בהוכח‬ ‫‘ על פי עדים‬without reproving supported by witnesses’ CD 9.3 the underlying biblical text is most likely ‫יתָך‬ ֶ ‫ת־ע ִמ‬ ֲ ‫תּוֹכ ַיח ֶא‬ ִ ‫הוֹכ ַח‬ ֵ Lv 19.17. Thus the inf. abs. in the source text is prefixed with a preposition in CD 9.3, which is extremely rare in BH. (5) Fifteen lines further on the author of CD spells the form ‫ בהוכיח‬CD 9.18. However, we would note that, already in BH, the lines between the two types of the inf. are beginning to fade away as in ‫ל־אל ֶא ְח ָפּץ‬ ֵ ‫הוֹכ ַח ֶא‬, ֵ where ‫הוֹכ ַיח‬ ִ would be normal: ‘I would like to argue with God’ Jb 13.3, cf. also ‫הוֹכ ַח לוֹ‬ ֵ ‫‘ לֹא יֶ ֱא ַהב ֵלץ‬a scoffer does not like (others) to reprove him’ Pr 15.12. (6) 1 Likewise the remaining instances adduced by Qimron (2018.176f. [§ C 2.1.7.1]): ‫ה ִבן = הבן‬, ָ ‫ה ְמ ִטר = המטר‬, ַ ‫הוֹפ ַע = הופע‬, ִ ‫ה ִסר = הסר‬, ָ ‫ה ִשׁב = השב‬, ָ ‫ה ֲח ִרם = החרם‬, ַ and ‫ה ִבּט = הבט‬, ַ ‫הנִ ף = הנף ָה ִטל = הטל‬, ָ ‫ ַה ְק ִרב = הקרב‬, excepting ‫ בהפלא‬1QS 10.16 = ‫בּ ַה ְפ ֵלא‬, ְ on which see below, ‫ השכל‬on which see below, and ‫‘ רוח הסתר‬the secretive spirit [possibly = ‫]רוּח ַה ֵסּ ֶתר‬ ַ ’ 1QS 9.22. Note ‫ הבט‬1QpHab 5.2 < MT ‫ ַה ִבּיט‬Hb 1.13 and // ‫ראוֹת‬,ְ exactly the same at ‫ מהשכל‬.. ‫ מראות‬Is 44.(not 43)18 1QIsaa = MT ‫ ֵמ ַה ְשׂ ִכּיל‬.. ‫מ ְראוֹת‬, ֵ both adduced by Qimron loc. cit. On the other hand, Qimron (loc. cit.) apparently wants to see in ‫שקי֗ ֗ט‬ ֗ ‫ ֗ה‬4Q405 20ii-22.13 a plena spelling for ‫ה ְשׁ ֵקט‬. ַ DJD 11.347 “The sound of glad rejoicing falls silent” (‫שקי֗ ֗ט‬ ֗ ‫קול גי֗ לות רנה ֗ה‬ ‫)ודממת ֯ב ֯ר ֯ך ֯א ֗לו֗ הים‬, ֯ an intransitively used H Pf., ‫ה ְשׁ ִקיט‬, ִ but joyous praise can be low-key, cf. ‫ַא ַחר ָה ֵאשׁ‬ ‫ קוֹל ְדּ ָמ ָמה ַד ָקּה‬1Kg 19.12, thus ‫ ≠ דממה‬absolute silence. 2 In this particular instance the phrase appears to have become a frozen form, for along with four verbs in parallelism (‫שמעו‬, ‫הוסיפו‬, ‫ אהבו‬and ‫ הוסיפו‬apart from four other partly reconstructed forms—‫האזינוו‬, ‫הוסיפו‬, ֗ ‫רד ֯פו‬ ֗ and ‫הו֯ דיעו‬, all m.pl. impv.) it should have been ‫ה ְצנִ יעוּ = הצניעו‬, ַ as also noted by Qimron II 108 f.n. 3 Perhaps more than modernisation, for the inf. abs. coordinate with ‫ ֲעשׂוֹת ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט וְ ַא ֲה ַבת ֶח ֶסד‬is morphologically incongruous, where ‫ ַא ֲה ַבת‬can be analysed as an alternative inf. cst. 4 ‫‘ חבא לאמת‬to conceal truth’ 1QS 4.6 is plausibly an inf. abs. under the influence of the preceding ‫ ;הצנע לכת‬both could have been written as ‫ לחבא‬.. ‫ להצניע לכת‬continuing .. ‫ לפחד‬.. ‫ לישר‬.. ‫להאיר‬ ‘to enlighten .. to straighten .. to infuse fear..,’ but in between a good number of virtues, all expressed as substantives, have been inserted, and the author has decided to add an inf. abs. taken straight from Mi 6.8. This syntactic flexibility displayed by the author is also evidenced in ‫‘ מתעב‬to detest’ (line 5), most probably an Aramaising G inf.; he did not bother to match the binyan and use a D inf., since in Hebrew this verb is used in D, when active and transitive. ‫ הצנע לכת‬at 1QS 5.4, 8.2 is, pace Kesterson (1984.210), hardly a direct object of the preceding ‫‘ לעשות‬to practise’ ib. 5.3, 8.2; one doubts that the author of 1QS would have written something like ‫‘ חפצתי ָבנוֹה לי בית‬I desired to build a house for myself,’ i.e. on his own bat, independently of any biblical source text, but note Jb 13.3 and Pr 15.12 cited at the end of the current subparagraph. 5 See König § 225 b-c and JM, § 123 b-c. 6 These biblical authors may be using the inf. abs. as a stylistic decorum, imagining that it is typical of Hebrew of a higher register, even at the cost of the rules of its syntax.

THE VERB — § 18 o-oa

125

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

126

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 18 oa-oc

127

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

128

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

THE VERB — § 18 oc-of

129

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

130

MORPHOSYNTAX

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

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

PART II

SYNTAX

SECTION A

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED

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

§ 21 BY NOUNS IN

THE STATUS CONSTRUCTUS

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

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

134

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21-biii)

135

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

136

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 biii)-bviii)

137

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

On this key theological term, see Licht 1965.85, § 64, and Muraoka 1999.59. On the meaning of ‫עצה‬, see Brownlee 1979.92f. and Nitzan 1986.166 3 The selection of the 3f verb ‫ ֶתּ ֱהוֵ ה‬in ‫וּמנַּ הּ ֶתּ ֱהוֵ ה ְת ִב ָירה‬ ִ ‫יפה‬ ָ ‫כוּתא ֶתּ ֱהוֵ ה ַת ִקּ‬ ָ ‫ן־ק ָצת ַמ ְל‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬Dn 2.42 cited by Qimron (DJD 10.93, § 3.5.2.23) reminds one of ‫אכה‬ ָ ‫אשׁי ָה ָאבוֹת נָ ְתנוּ ַל ְמּ ָל‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ְק ָצת ָר‬Neh 7.69. 2

138

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 bviii)-bxiv)

139

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

140

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 bxiv)-bxviii)

141

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

142

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 bxviii)-bxxi)

143

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

144

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 bxxi)-c

145

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

146

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 c-e

147

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

148

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 e-f

149

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

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

150

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 fa-h

151

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

152

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 h-j

153

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

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

154

SYNTAX

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

1

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 k-l

155

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

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

156

SYNTAX

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

§ 22 BY

RELATIVE CLAUSES (3)

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

1 2 3 4

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 21 l – § 24 b

157

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

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

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

158

SYNTAX

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

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 24 c – § 25 c

159

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

160

SYNTAX

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

§ 26 BY

NUMERALS

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

161

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 25 c – § 26 a

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

43

0

8

1

4

30

3

1

2

5

10

2

0

0

6

18

0

7

0

7

86

0

7

0

8

1

2

2

0

9

3

0

2

0

191

8

27

3

Total

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

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

162

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 26 a-e

163

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

164

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 26 e-fd

165

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

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

166

SYNTAX

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

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

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 26 fd-h

167

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

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

168

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 26 h-k

169

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

170

SYNTAX

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

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 27 a-d

171

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

1

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

172

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 28 a-c

173

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

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

174

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 28 c-f

175

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

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

176

SYNTAX

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

§ 29 BY

NOUNS IN APPOSITION (3)

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 28 f – § 29 c

177

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

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

178

SYNTAX

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

NOUN PHRASE EXPANDED — § 29 d – § 30

179

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

1 2

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

SECTION B

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

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

182

SYNTAX

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

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 a-c

183

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

184

SYNTAX

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

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 c-d

185

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

186

SYNTAX

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 d-da

187

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

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

188

SYNTAX

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 da-eaa

189

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

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

190

SYNTAX

expected to find loopholes’ CD 1.18; ‫‘ ֗ל ֗משפט אל יצפה תמיד‬he shall anticipate God’s judgement’ 1QS 9.25 (1); ‫‘ קוו לישועתך‬they waited for your salvation’ 11Q5 22.8; ‫‘ לכה קויתי‬I waited for You’ ib. 19.16; ‫‘ חכה לו‬Wait for it’ 1QpHab 7.9 < Hb 2.3. BH uses G ‫ עזר‬occasionally with a zero-object, e.g. ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ ֲעזַ ְר ֶתּם‬Josh 1.14, ‫עֹזֵ ר אֹתוֹ‬ 1Kg 20.16. Likewise in ‫ עזרתה נפשי‬1QHa 15.26. ‫‘ סלח ל־‬to forgive’ embodies two distinct syntagms: a) , e.g. ‫הסולח לשבי‬ ‫‘ פשע‬One who forgives those who turn away from offence’ 1QHa 6.35 and b) , e.g. ‫‘ סלח נא לעוונןו‬Forgive, please, our iniquity’ 4Q504 4.7; ‫‘ סלחה יהוה לחטאתי‬Forgive, the Lord, my sin’ 11Q5 19.13, just as in BH. However, no instance of this verb is found with double objects. (2) The syntagmatics of ‫ נשׂא‬Qal, when used in the sense ֯ ‫נש‬ ֗ ‫‘ נ‬You forgave our forefathers’ of ‘to forgive’ differs as exemplified in ‫אתה לאבותינ֗ ו‬ 4Q504 2.7; ‫‘ נושא פשע‬forgiving offence’ 1QHa 8.34. (3) This verb does not govern double objects, either. (4) ‫ נג‬4Q51 61i-62.11 for MT ‫ ָה ְרגוּ לאבנר‬2Sm 3.30 is The editors’ restoration ‫נגעו לאבנר‬ questionable. Their contention that ‫ נגע‬governs ‫( ל־‬DJD 17.115) is unfounded. Given the Greek (both KG and L) διεπαρετηροῦντο ‘they kept watching out for a chance to get at A.’ ‫ ָשׁעוּ‬may be suggested. (5) eb) ‫ב־‬ What has been said above on ‫ ל־‬applies to this preposition, too. E.g. ‫‘ ויבחרו במהתלות‬and they chose delusions’ CD 1.18; ‫בכל הולכי תמים תעבה נפשם‬ ‘their soul loathed all who walk upright’ CD 1.20; ‫‘ מחזיקים במצות אל‬those who are holding fast to God’s commandments’ CD 3.12; ‫‘ לתמך צעדם בדרך אל‬so that their step will stand firmly on God’s way’ CD 20.18; ‫‘ חסו בשם קדשו‬they took refuge in His holy name’ CD 20.34; ‫‘ ידרוש באוב‬he consults ghosts’ 4Q270 2i10; ‫בהבינכם‬ ‫‘ במעשי דור ודור‬as you comprehend (or: contemplate) the deeds of every generation’ ֗ ‫‘ להבין‬to comprehend His laws’ 4Q372 3.3, ‫‘ לא יבינ֗ ו אלה‬they 4Q270 2ii21 (6), but ‫חקיו‬ will not understand these (matters)’ 1QHa 9.39; ‫‘ להתבונן במעשי פלאך‬to contemplate Your wondrous works’ 1QHa 15.35; ‫‘ תשוחח נפשי בנפלאותיכה‬my soul will ponder on Your marvels’ 1QHa 17.7; ‫‘ להורות עמו בישוד עם‬to instruct his people on the ֯ ‫‘ השכלתני באמתכה וברזי‬You have foundation of the nation’ 4Q266 5ii9; ‫פלא ֗כ ֗ה הודעתני‬ 1 The alternative rection in ‫‘ צפא את הכוכבים‬Look at the stars’ 4Q225 2i5 is probably due to the different meaning borne by the verb here. 2 Note a Hebrew rendition by Franz Delitzsch of ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν Mt 6.12: ‫ְס ַלח ָלנוּ‬ ‫את־חֹבו ֵֺתינוּ‬. ֶ Ben Yehuda (1909-58) does not record anything like this under ‫ס ַלח‬. ָ 3 The picture in BH is slightly more complex: see ‫אתם‬ ָ ‫ ָשׂא נָ א ֶפּ ַשׁע ַא ֶחיָך וְ ַח ָטּ‬Gn 50.17 // ‫ָשׂא נָ א ְל ֶפ ַשׁע‬ ‫ֹלהי ָא ִביָך‬ ֵ ‫ ַע ְב ֵדי ֱא‬on one hand, and ‫אתה ָל ָעם ַהזֶּ ה‬ ָ ‫ נָ ָשׂ‬Nu 14.19. Incidentally, to mention 1QHa 4.12 [24 in our system] under ‫ נשׂא‬Qal 4 forgive “«PREP» ‫ ְל‬of benefit” as DCH V 767a does, is puzzling, for in the Hodayot passage mentioned no occurs, but only ‫לשאת עו֗ ו֗ ן֯ וחטאה‬ ֯ ‫לשא‬. 4 Cf. ‫ ָשׂא נָ א ֶפּ ַשׁע ַא ֶחיָך‬Gn 50.17, followed by ‫ֹלהי ָא ִביָך‬ ֵ ‫שׂא נָ א ְל ֶפ ַשׁע ַע ְב ֵדי ֱא‬. ָ 5 The Gk verb is not attested prior to the LXX; its simpler compound παρατηρέω is well established in Classical Greek with an affiliated sense, διά adding the feature of continuation. 6 On the syntagm בין ב‬, cf. also Qimron, DJD 10.89, § 3.5.2.3 and Hurvitz 1972.136.

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 eaa-eb

191

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

192

SYNTAX

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 eb-ed

193

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

194

SYNTAX

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31ed

195

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

196

SYNTAX

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 ed-f

197

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

198

SYNTAX

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 f-fa

199

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

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

200

SYNTAX

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 fa

201

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

202

6)

7) 9)

10)

SYNTAX

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

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 fa-gaa

203

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

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

204

SYNTAX

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

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 gab-gba

205

‫אל‬ The prep. -‫ ל‬of dat. (in)commodi may be identified in ‫תזכור לנו עוונות רשונים‬ ֗ ‘Do not remember (our) forefathers’ iniquities against us’ 4Q504 4.6, hence not an IO-marker. Likewise ‫‘ ויקם להם מורה צדק‬and He appointed for them ‫ ’מורה צדק‬CD 1.11. See also ‫‘ אף אנחנו כתבנו ׄאליׄ ך מקצת מעשי התורה‬we are hereby passing on to you in writing some of the precepts of the law’ (1) MMT C 26. gba) Causative transform of mono-transitive verbs ‫ ויעבירו ברית‬CD 1.20 is rendered in Charlesworth (1995.13): “(they) caused the covenant to be broken.” Qimron (I 6) proposes emending the text to ‫ויעבורו‬, which is reasonable. In a causative transform one could leave out the object of an underlying active sentence as in ‫‘ ִבּ ְטנְ ָך ַת ֲא ֵכל‬Feed your stomach’ Ezk 3.3, but hardly its grammatical subject when the object is mentioned as in CD 1.20 adduced above. (2) See also ‫אל‬ ‫‘ יודיעהו איש‬nobody shall let him know’ CD 15.10. Two examples are found in which a double object syntagm ensues: ‫ים את העם עוון‬ ֗ ‫מסיא‬ ֗ ‫‘ בשל שלוא י֗ היו‬in order that they would not be imposing punishment on the people’ MMT B 12 and ‫פן ישיאנו עוון אשמה‬ ‘in case he imposes on him a punishment for guilt’ 1QS 5.14, cf. ‫אוֹתם ֲעוֹן ַא ְשׁ ָמה‬ ָ ‫וְ ִה ִשּׂיאוּ‬ Lv 22.16. In the case of the above-quoted 1QS 5.14 we would be justified in identifying a zero-object as marked through ‫נו‬- of ‫ ישיאנו‬in view of ‫ את העם‬at MMT B 12, also quoted there. However, in a not negligible number of cases of attested in QH the suf. pronoun invariably refers to a person, a recipient of information, as in ‫‘ ֗הודעתני סוד אמת‬You made the secret counsel of truth known to me’ 1QHa 19.19; on two exceptions, see below. (3) The syntagm with double zero-objects as represented in BH in cases such as ‫ת־כּל־זֹאת‬ ָ ‫אוֹתָך ֶא‬ ְ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫הוֹד ַיע ֱא‬ ִ ‫ ַא ֲח ֵרי‬Gn 41.39 and ‫יעה ְד ָב ַרי‬ ָ ‫אוֹד‬ ִ 4 ‫ ֶא ְת ֶכם‬Pr 1.23 is unknown to QH ( ), whereas the alternative BH syntagm as in ‫ת־ה ֶדּ ֶרְך‬ ַ ‫הוֹד ְע ָתּ ָל ֶהם ֶא‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬Ex 18.20 and ‫יוֹד ַיע ְדּ ָר ָכיו ְלמ ֶֹשׁה‬ ִ Ps 103.7 does occur: ‫‘ להודיע עוזו ותפארתו לכול פותאים‬to make His might and splendour known to all simple folk’ 11Q5 18.2; ‫ להודיע לפותאים עוזו‬ib. 18.4; ‫‘ אודיעה לכם ֗מ ֯חשבות אל‬I would let you know God’s thoughts’ 4Q266 1a+b5; ‫אחרונים את אשר עשה‬ ֗ ‫ויודע לדורות‬ ‘He made known to last generations what He had done’ CD 1.11; ‫להודיע לדורות‬ ‫האחרונים‬ ֗ ‘to inform the latter generations’ 4Q254a 3.4 (5); ‫‘ להודיע לנ֗ ו֯ ]ח‬to inform Noah’ 4Q253 1.4, and the above-mentioned exceptions—‫דיעהו לכוהן‬ ֗ ֿ‫‘ י‬he shall inform Qimron (DJD 10.85, § 3.5.1.3) states that ‫ כתב אל‬in BH can mean “to write for the benefit of.” ‫וַ יִּ ְכתֹּב‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫ת־שׂ ֵרי ֻסכּוֹת וְ ֶאת־זְ ֵקנ‬ ָ ‫ ֵא ָליו ֶא‬Jdg 8.14 may be mentioned. 2 An example such as ‫ ִמ ָשּׁ ַמיִם ִה ְשׁ ַמ ְע ָתּ ִדּין‬Ps 76.9 does not contradict our analysis; the sense of the verb as used here is more than a causative of Qal ‫שׁ ַמע‬. ָ Then, pace Rabin (1958.5), we need not analyse the following ‫ יפירו‬as causative: “caused others .. to break the ordinance.” All the same, a possible exception may be present in ‫‘ אני מירא אל‬I instil the fear of God’ 4Q511 35.6. 3 In MH also the object suffix of ‫ הודיע‬mostly refers to a person, e.g. ‫הוֹדיעוֹ‬ ִ ‘he notified him’ mBM 4.11. A rare exception is ‫יענּוּ‬ ֶ ‫יּוֹד‬ ִ ‫‘ ִבּ ְל ַבד ֶשׁ‬provided that he makes it [= the matter] known’ mDem 3.3. Incidentally, ‫הוֹדע את ירושלם‬ ַ mMeg 4.10 is a quote from ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ת־תּוֹעב ֶֹת‬ ֲ ‫רוּשׁ ַלםִ ֶא‬ ָ ְ‫הוֹדע ֶאת־י‬ ַ Ezk 16.2. 4 See Muraoka 1997.93f. 5 There follows a long lacuna which may have contained the message conveyed by the raven. 1

206

SYNTAX

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

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 gba-h

207

e.g. ‫ֹלהים גַּ ם ֶאת־זַ ְר ֶעָך‬ ִ ‫ ֶה ְר ָאה א ִֹתי ֱא‬Gn 48.11; ‫אוֹתָך‬ ְ ‫ ְכּכֹל ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י ַמ ְר ֶאה‬Ex 25.9. However, not a single instance of another preposition such as ‫ ל־‬or ‫ אל‬prefixed to an IO is attested. (1) h) Aramaism The contemporary Aramaic is known to use the preposition ‫ ל־‬to mark a zero-object. (2) An analogous feature in QH would not be surprising as in ‫אתה ידעתה למועדנו‬ ֗ ‘You knew our time’ 1QM 18.10; ‫צדק מנצור ֯מצוה‬ ֗ ‫‘ לבחירי‬the righteous elect from the observance of commandment(s)’ 4Q184 1.14, preceded by ‫‘ ישרים להטות דרך‬the upright to turn (from the right) path’; ‫‘ ללמד לפשעים חקיך ולכל עזביך תו֯ ֯רתך‬to teach sinners Your statutes and those who abandon You Your law’ 4Q372 1.27, also with ‫ ל־‬rei in ‫המל ֗מ ֯ד‬ ֯ ‫המ‬ ‫‘ ידו למלחמה‬one who teaches my hand the art of war’ 4Q372 2.4 (3); ‫לבשר ענוֿ ים לרוב‬ ‫‘ רחמיכה‬to bring to the humble the good tidings of Your mercies’ 1QHª 23.15, and ֗ ‫ולהש‬ possibly also what follows—‫נכ ֗אי רוח ואבלים לשמחת עולם‬ ֗ ‫ולהשמי֗ ֗ע ממקור ֯דעתכה לכול נ‬ ‘to announce from the fountain of Your knowledge the eternal joy for all mentally stricken and in mourning’ ib. 23.16 (4). There are more verbs which show the non-standard ‫ ל־‬rection: ‫‘ הודיע למבקר‬to inform the overseer’ CD 9.19, 13.15; ‫להודיע לכול החיים גבורותיכה‬ ‘to make all Your mighty works known to all who are live’ 1QHa 12.29; ‫להודיע עוזו‬ ‫‘ ותפארתו לכול פותאים‬to make His power and His glory known to all the simple-minded’ ֗ ‫‘ להודיע לדורות‬to notify the last generations’ 4Q254a 3.4, 11Q5 18.2, sim. 4; ‫האחרונים‬ see also 4Q266 1i-ii5, 4Q270 7i16. In BH the verb ‫ הודיע‬abundantly attests to three syntagms: , < + ‫ את‬rei>, and . (5) Hence it is noteworthy that QH proffers no instance of , and a person as a recipient of information is always marked through ‫ ל־‬and through a conjunctive pronoun more cases. Since, however, in BH the syntagm occurs in CBH as well, e.g. Ex 18.20, Dt 4.19, If we could assume that ‫ אחרי ֯הראותו אל הכוהן‬4Q365 18.3 is meant to be identical with MT ֺ ‫ֵה ָראֹתו‬ Lv 13.7, thus N and not H ֺ ‫ה ְראֹתו‬, ַ then the preposition would have a different function: ‘after his having appeared in the priest’s presence,’ and this becomes close to ‫הוראתי אל אברהם‬ ֗ touched upon in the preceding f.n. This use of ‫ נִ ְר ָאה ֶאל‬occurs in the description of the dramatic reunion of Joseph with his elderly father: ‫ וַ יֵּ ָרא ֵא ָליו‬Gn 46.29. 2 For details, cf. Muraoka 2011 § 74 d. However, Qumran Aramaic evidences an unusually extensive use of ‫ית‬, an equivalent of Hebrew ‫ ;את‬see Muraoka 2011 § 74 db. The picture appears to be that of twoway interaction. 3 Alternatively ‘to instruct me in preparation for battle.’ 4 If the Lamed of ‫ לכול‬is correctly restored, it would be also Aramaising. On the rection of H ‫ה ְשׁ ִמ ַיע‬, ִ see above at § gba, p. 206. Pace Gzella (2007.101) ‫ להן‬in ‫ תתקן להן מקום‬M44.4 is of course an IO. See also Muraoka 1997.100. At ‫ זמרו שמו‬11Q5 14.10 (‫ זַ ְמּרוּ ִל ְשׁמוֹ‬Ps 135.3 MT) and ‫ את סיחון‬4Q92 1.3 (‫וְ ָה ַרג‬ ‫ ְל ִסיחוֹן ֶמ ֶלְך ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי‬:‫צוּמים‬ ִ ‫ ְמ ָל ִכים ֲע‬Ps 135.11 MT) a purist scribe may be at work, “correcting” an Aramaism, cf. Muraoka 2018a.165. 5 E.g. ‫ת־כּל־זֹאת‬ ָ ‫אוֹתָך ֶא‬ ְ ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫הוֹד ַיע ֱא‬ ִ ‫ ַא ֲח ֵרי‬Gn 41.39, ‫יעה ֶא ְת ֶכם ָדּ ָבר‬ ָ ‫נוֹד‬ ִ 1Sm 14.12, and ‫הוֹד ְע ָתּ ָל ֶהם‬ ַ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ת־ה ֶדּ ֶרְך יֵ ְלכוּ ָבהּ‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬Ex 18.20. 1

208

SYNTAX

1Sm 10.8, we hesitate the situation in QH as Aramaising. On the syntactic ambiguity of such a pronoun, see above at § gba, p. 205. Whereas in BH the D verb ‫‘ כפר‬to atone’ governs twice a zero-object of sin, the rection never occurs, but only : ‫ ְפּ ָשׁ ֵעינוּ ַא ָתּה ְת ַכ ְפּ ֵרם‬Ps 65.4, ‫ יְ ַכ ֵפּר ָעוֹן‬Ps 78.38 vs. ‫ ַכּ ֵפּר ְל ַע ְמָּך‬Dt 21.8 and ‫ל־א ֶשׁר ָע ִשׂית‬ ֲ ‫י־לְך ְל ָכ‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ ַכ ְפּ ִר‬Ezk 16.63. In QH we find a good number of cases of , e.g. ‫ לכפר עווניך‬1QS 2.8 and ‫לכפר‬ ‫‘ אשמה‬to cover up guilt’ 1QHa 23.33 // ‫‘ לכפר על אשמת פשע‬in order to atone for the guilt of iniquity’ 4Q258 7.4. See also 4Q256 3.2. (1) In the light of this, at ‫לכפר לכול פשעיהם‬ 4Q159 1ii2 we could postulate an Aramaism, i.e. ‫את כול פשעיהם = לכול פשעיהם‬. (2) Besides, in both BH and QH we often meet with , e.g. ‫לכפר בעד שבי‬ ‫‘ פשע‬to atone for those who turn away from sin’ CD 2.5 and ‫‘ כפר בעד עונם‬He atoned for their iniquity’ CD 3.18. The example cited above, Ezk 16.63 combines the classical syntagm with this Aramaising trend. Undoubtedly we have a DO in ‫‘ המתאוים ליום ישעך‬those yearning after the day of ִ ֵ‫ יוֹם ָאנוּשׁ לֹא ִה ְת ַאוּ‬Je 17.16. Also in D: ‫להון חמס לוא‬ your salvation’ 11Q5 22.4 (3) // ‫יתי‬ ‫‘ תאוה נפשי‬my soul will not yearn after wealth to be obtained by violence’ 1QS 10.19. Occasionally ‫ בין‬H governs < -‫ ל‬rei>, e.g ‫‘ לעצת מה יבין‬could he understand any counsel?’ 4Q264 10 // 1QS 11.22, with which cp. ‫ לא ֵה ִבינוּ ֲע ָצתוֹ‬Mi 4.12, but ‫להביננו‬ ‫‘ לתעודות‬to help us comprehend the testimonies’ 4Q504 1-2ii17 and ‫ת־ה ָעם‬ ָ ‫ַה ְלוִ יִּם ְמ ִבינִ ים ֶא‬ ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ ‫ ַל‬Neh 8.7; ‫מחש ֗בתיך מי יבין להמא‬ ֗ ‫‘ מח‬Your thoughts, who could comprehend them?’ 4Q381 31.5. From its context of priestly blessing ‫ ישא פני חסדיו לכה לשלום עולמים‬1QS 2.4 is undoubtedly dependent on ‫ יִ ָשּׂא יְ הוָ ה ָפּנָ יו ֵא ֶליָך וְ יָ ֵשׂם ְלָך ָשׁלוֹם‬Nu 6.26. That the preposition ‫ אל‬here is to be understood in the sense of ‘in the direction of’ is manifest in ‫וַ יִּ ָשּׂא ָפנָ יו‬ ‫ל־ה ַחלּוֹן‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬2Kg 9.32. However, its substitution with ‫ ל־‬suggests a different nuance, namely dat. commodi vel incommodi, which clearly emerges a few lines further down out of a priestly curse in ‫‘ ישא פני אפו לנקמתכה‬May He lift His countenance of anger to avenge Himself on you’ 1QS 2.9. (4)

Hence ‫ יכפר‬in ‫ יכפר עונם‬CD 14.19 can be, but does not have to be, parsed as Dpassive. Cf. ‫דרכי איש‬ ‫‘ יכופרו כול עוונותו‬a man’s ways shall be atoned for, all his iniquities’ 1QS 3.6 and ‫‘ תכופר חטתו‬his sin shall be atoned for’ 1QS 3.8. 2 The above-mentioned ‫ לכל אשר עשית‬Ezk 16.63 could be the sole BH exception attesting to . In MH we find a few instances of the same syntagm, e.g. ‫ַכּ ֶפּר נָ א ָל ֲעוֹנוֹת וְ ַל ְפּ ָשׁ ִעים וְ ַל ֲח ָט ִאים‬ mYom 3.8. We are tempted to suggest that the Vorlage of ἱλάσεται ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτῶν Ps 77.38 read ‫ יכפר לעון‬for MT ‫יְ ַכ ֶפּר ָעוֹן‬. The Greek syntagm is unknown to the LXX. 3 Morgenstern (2007.185) mentions this case as reflecting a feature of Hebrew of the Second Temple period, but note ‫יתי‬ ִ ֵ‫ יוֹם ָאנוּשׁ לֹא ִה ְת ַאוּ‬Je 17.16, ‫ ַה ִמּ ְת ַאוִּ ים ֶאת־יוֹם יְ הוָ ה‬Am 5.18, ‫ר־יִת ַאוֶּ ה‬ ְ ‫ֵאינֶ נּוּ ָח ֵסר ְלנַ ְפשׁוֹ ִמכֹּל ֲא ֶשׁ‬ Ec 5.2 // ‫מּוֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ל־תּ ְת ָאו ְל ַמ ְט ַע‬ ִ ‫ ַא‬Pr 23.3, 6. 4 Pace Thorion (1981.421) this has little to with Aramaic interference. Note Pesh nrim māryā ’appāw(hy) ‘layk [and not: lāk]. An example of ‫ נשׂא פנים ל־‬in bYoma 87a mentioned by Thorion loc. cit. is yet another collocation, for the face is not that of the the personal subject of the verb, as can be seen from ‫ ְשׂ ֵאת ְפּנֵ י ָר ָשׁע לוֹא טוֹב‬in the Talmudic passage concerned; it is about προσωπολημψία. 1

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 h-i

209

It is difficult to be certain at ‫‘ יפקוד לאבות ובנים‬He will visit both fathers and sons’ 4Q423 5.4, seeing that in BH the verb can show a zero rection as well as govern ‫ ֶאל‬+ pers. as in ‫ל־מ ֶלְך ַאשּׁוּר‬ ֶ ‫ל־א ְרצוֹ ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר ָפּ ַק ְד ִתּי ֶא‬ ַ ‫ל־מ ֶלְך ָבּ ֶבל וְ ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ ִהנְ נִ י פ ֵֹקד ֶא‬Je 50.18 and our ‫ לאבות‬can substitute for ‫אל אבות‬. In ‫‘ לכול הקודשים י֗ ֗כבס ו֯ רחץ במים‬he shall wash all the sacred things and wash with water’ 4Q274 2i9 the preposition looks like Aramaising. ֯ (1) or ‫וילמד‬ ֗ (2) 4Q377 2ii4 the preposition of its following Whether one restores ‫ויעשה‬ ‫מצוות יה‬ ֯ ‫לכול‬, must be viewed as Aramaising. object, ‫יהו֯ ֯ה‬ Is it a case of purism in a biblical manuscript in Ps 135.11 4Q92 1.3 ‫את סיחון‬ ִ ‫)ה ַרג ְמ ָל ִכים ֲע‬, ָ probably governed by ‫( ָה ַרג‬vs. 10) (3)? (MT ‫צוּמים ְל ִסיחו ֺן‬ That this use of -‫ ל‬is not confined to LBH is shown by ‫ ְל ִשׁ ְמָך ֲאזַ ֵמּר‬2Sm 22.50 // ‫ ֲאזַ ְמּ ָרה ֵשׁם־יְ הוָ ה‬Ps 7.18, ‫ ֲאזַ ְמּ ָרה ִשׁ ְמָך‬ib. 9.3; it might belong to the early Aramaic stratum. (4) Note ‫לשה‬ ֯ ‫‘ להרים‬to offer a lamb’ 4Q271 2.3. Is ‫ אל‬in ‫‘ ויבן אל אל מעשיהם‬and God contemplated their deeds’ CD 1.10 a variation of ‫( ?ל־‬5) Cf. ‫‘ ולהביננו לתעודות‬and help us understand the testimonies of’ 4Q504 1-2Rii17 (6). i) Verbs of physical movement (7) As in BH, these verbs in QH can combine either i) directly with a place name or a substantive denoting a location or ii) mediated with a preposition. (8) In the case of direct combination we have seen above (§ 10 a) the extremely rare (9) attachment of the sufformative ָ-‫ה‬, e.g. ‫א ְר ָצה‬. ַ֫ Examples are: 1

So DJD 28.213. An alternative reading suggested by Qimron (III 143), whose PCS ‫ויעש‬, ֗ however, is untenable. If one is to follow Qimron’s (III 154) restoration at ‫איש ֯ל ֯א ֯להים‬ ֗ ‫עבו֗ ד‬ ‫‘ י֯ עב‬he shall serve God’ 4Q392 1.2, one would be having with another instance of Aramaism, this time substituting for a very well-known collocation, עבד את‬. The alternative restoration suggested in DJD 29.27 ‫“ ֯ל ֯ה ֯חי֗ ד ֯ל ֯א ֯להים‬to be in communion with God” is unconvincing, for the preposition ‫ עם‬is expected as in, e.g. ‫ להחיד עם בני שמים‬1QHa 23.30. 3 The editors of the fragment (DJD 16.124) restore ‫ ולעוג‬as the second DO in the following line, when it would be more sensible to restore ‫ואת עוג‬. 4 Cf. a nuanced description of the situation in Malessa 2006.64f. -‫ זמר לשׁם‬also occurs at Ps 18.50, 92.2, and 135.3, at which last passage a Qumran fragment has no ‫ל־‬: ‫ זמרו שמו‬11Q5 14.10; if the scribe’s Vorlage read like MT, he may have seen there an Aramaism and “corrected it.” For Ps 18.50 and 92.2 no Qumran manuscript exists; these two cases need be added at Muraoka 2018a.165. 5 Rabin (1958) refers to ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ל־מ ֲע ֵשׂ‬ ַ ‫ל־כּ‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֵמּ ִבין ֶא‬Ps 33.15. 6 Qimron (II 56) mentions ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָעם ַל‬ ָ ‫וְ ַה ְלוִ יִּ ם ְמ ִבינִ ים ֶא‬. 7 See also above at § ed, p. 194, and cf. also Qimron 2018.403-06. 8 Qimron (2018.403) writes: “In classical Biblical Hebrew, verbs of motion are generally attached to their adverbial of place without any preposition.” Looking at just one such high-frequency verb, ‫בּא‬, ָ we note that the dictionary by Clines (DCH II 115b-116b) does present a long list of the verb showing direct rection, but the lists of ל‬ib. 109a-b) and of אל‬ ֶ are not exactly short. The prepositional rection is attested in CBH as well. 9 Modestly attested to be sure, but, pace Qimron (2018.403), there is no absolute absence and he himself adduces (ib. 405) a good number of Qumran biblical manuscripts containing this sufformative as against its absence in the MT! See above § 10 a, where several examples from non-biblical Qumran texts are included. 2

210

SYNTAX

Direct combination—‫‘ הולך רוח‬one who goes after the wind’ CD 19.25 < Mi 2.11; ‫כת חרן‬ ֗ ‫לל‬ ֯ ‫‘ ל‬to go to Haran’ 1Q17 1.2; ‫‘ ירדו שחת‬they will descend to the pit’ 4Q184 1.11; ‫‘ מעגלותיה משגות עול‬her paths lead to iniquity’ 4Q184 1.9; ‫‘ אז תצא לנצח אמת תבל‬then truth will go out into the world for ever’ 1QS 4.19; ‫‘ ויביאם בבל‬and He brought them to Babylon’ 4Q385a 18i6 // ‫ ויבוֿ א אל ̇בבל‬4Q386 1iii1; ‫‘ לבוא המערכה‬to come to the battle line’ 1QM 3.10 (1); ‫‘ לבוא המחנה‬to enter the camp’ 1QM 14.2; ‫לבוא השערים‬ ‘to enter the gates’ 4QMc 9, cf. ‫ בֹּאוּ ְשׁ ָע ָריו‬Ps 100.4 (2); ‫ובאו ציון בסמחה וירושלים ברנה‬ ‘and they will enter Zion with joy and Jerusalem with jubilation’ 4Q177 12+13i10; ‫לרדת מצרים‬ ֗ 4Q226 1-2.3, but ‫ ַהיּ ְֹר ִדים ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬Is 31.1 > ‫ למצרים‬1QIsaª (3); ‫ושלחו לעזזאל‬ ‫‘ המדבר‬and he shall send it off to Azazel, to the desert’ 11Q19 26.12 // ‫ ַה ִמּ ְד ָבּ ָרה‬.. ‫וְ ִשׁ ַלּח‬ Lv 16.21. (4) Indirect rection — ‫ ָע ְברוּ ַמ ְע ָבּ ָרה‬Is 10.29 // ‫ עברו במעברה‬1QIsaª 10.29; ‫לוא יבואו לה‬ ‘they shall not enter it [= ‫ ’]עיר‬11Q19 45.13, sim. ib. 47.8 // ‫אל עיר מקדשי לוא יבוֿ או‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֗ל ֗ה ֗בי֗ למחני ֗ה ֯ק‬to bring dogs to the sacred camp’ MMT B 58; ‫לבוא‬ ib. 9; ‫ודש כלבים‬ ‫למקדש‬ ֗ ‘to come to the sanctuary’ MMT B 5. Note a juxtaposition of two modes of rection in ‫‘ לבוא אל העדה ירושלים‬to come to the congregation to Jerusalem’ 1QM 3.11. Rare examples of a conj. pron. added directly to G ‫ בוא‬are found in ‫בל תבואכה חרפת‬ ‫‘ שונא‬an insult by an enemy will not reach you’ 4Q525 14ii8, ‫‘ ֗ב ֗ל יבואכה פחד‬fear will not come on you’ 4Q525 14ii12, cf. ‫ יְ בֹאוּנִ י ַר ֲח ֶמיָך‬Ps 119.77; ‫‘ באיה‬those who enter it [= ‫‘ בניה‬edifice’]’ 11QHa 14.30. In some of the instances adduced above there are those where the place-name is determinate, but ‫ את‬is never prefixed to it. Hence ‫ גרים‬in ‫[ר גרי֗ ֗ם את חדיתא ואת עו֗ של‬ ֗ 4Q522 9i+10.7 is probably a place-name currently unidentified just as a few other names in this text, not the common verb ‫גור‬, and ‫את‬, as many of its instances in the text, is to be construed with ‫‘ וויכו‬and they smote’ (line 4); the resh preceding ‫ גרים‬could be part of a place-name compounded with more than one word. As questionable is the restoration ]‫הול[כים את שבילי ֯ה‬ ֗ ‫ ההול‬4Q275 1.1 (DJD 26.211) as against Qimron’s (III 50) ]‫מת[ע ֗בים ֗א ֗ת שבילי ֗ה‬ ֯ ‫מת‬. (5) The use of ‫ ַעל‬in ‫ שב על המכהו‬1QIsaª // ‫ד־ה ַמּ ֵכּהוּ‬ ַ ‫ ָשׁב ַע‬Is 9.12 is a possible Aramaism. (6) Also ‫‘ לוא ישוב עוד על עצת היחד‬he shall never again return to the council of the community’ 1QS 7.2. Qimron notes a similar case of ‫ מערכה‬in BH: ‫ וַ יָּ ָרץ ַה ַמּ ֲע ָר ָכה‬1Sm 17.22, 48. Cp. ‫‘ ואותה נפשכה כי תבו֗ א בפתחיה‬and your soul might wish to enter its gates’ 4Q418 127.2. 3 The verb is missing in a fragmentary biblical text, MasGen, which reads ‫ מצרים‬twice for ‫מצרימה‬ Gn 46.7f. MT. 4 As far as the rection of the verb ‫ בא‬is concerned, the picture appears to be a little more complex than the one painted by Qimron, DJD 10.88, § 3.5.2.2. 5 In this respect Geiger’s (2012.239 n. 137) ‫דורכים‬ ֗ ‫ דדור‬is acceptable, cf. ‫עוֹלם ִתּ ְשׁמֹר ֲא ֶשׁר ָדּ ְרכוּ‬ ָ ‫ַהא ַֹרח‬ ‫י־אוֶ ן‬ ָ ‫ ְמ ֵת‬Jb 22.15. 6 On in BA, see Vogt 1971 s.v. 2 a). Though the destination is not personal, note ‫בהאספו‬ ‫‘ על מעון חוקו‬when it retires to its determined dwelling’ 1QS 10.1 // ‫‘ עם האספם למעון כבוד‬when they retire to a glorious dwelling’ ib. 10.3. Possibly a scribal error for ‫אל‬. 1 2

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 i-j

211

j) Object complement We often find a verb complemented not only by an object, whether DO or IO, but also by another constituent, and the two constituents can be viewed as forming a nominal clause. (1) For instance, out of ‫‘ יצר בשר לא שמתה לי מעוז‬You have not made a human creature my refuge’ 1QHa 18.23 we can construct ‫יצר בשׂר ֵאינֶ נּוּ מעוז לי‬. Such an additional constituent, ‫ מעוז‬in this case, may be called object complement. (2) Analogously ‫‘ בנים ֗שמתנו לךה‬You made us sons for You’ 4Q504 3.4; ‫ישם קרניכה ברזל‬ ‫‘ ופרסותיכה נחושה‬may He make your horns iron and your hooves bronze’ 1QSb 5.26; ‫‘ וישימני רועה לצונו‬and he made me shepherd of his flock’ 11Q5 28.3; ‫הב ֗קר‬ ֗ ‫ברתה ֯א ֗ת‬ ‫‘ אות ֗ל ֗ה ֗פי֗ ע ממשלת אור‬You created the morning as a signal for the reign of light to emerge’‘ 4Q408 3+1.8, sim. ib. 10; at ‫אוּלים‬ ִ ְ‫ ַה ָשּׂ ָמה ַמ ֲע ַמ ֵקּי־יָ ם ֶדּ ֶרְך ַל ֲעבֹר גּ‬Is 51.10 the addition in 1QIsaª of the preposition -‫ ב‬in ‫ במעמקי‬has not only brought about a syntagmatic change, but also a lexical change, since the verb ‫ ָשׂם‬now means ‘to place, position,’ and not ‘to transform (A to B).’ In this syntagm what would equal a predicate of an underlying NC mostly occupies a second slot. Hence ‫ ונתתי מצרים כופרך‬Is 43.3 1QIsaª merits preference over MT ‫נָ ַת ִתּי ָכ ְפ ְרָך ִמ ְצ ַריִם‬. (3) Note also ‫זכר ונ֗ ֯קבה עשה אתם‬ ‘and He created them male and female’ 4Q216 7.2; ‫‘ באמת נכון סמכתני‬in truth You supported me, putting me on a firm footing’ 1QHa 17.32, where the masc. ‫ נכון‬cannot ֗ ‫העלה‬ ֗ ‫את כל ֯בשר‬ be an attributive complement of ‫( אמת‬4), likewise in ‫תקטייר על המז֗ ֗בח‬ ‫שמן‬ ֯ ‫‘ ̇עמ סולת מנחתו בלולה בש‬all the meat of the burnt-offering you shall offer on the altar with the fine flour of its offering mixed with oil’ 4Q220 1.4; probably ‫אשר יתלה אנשים‬ ‫‘ חיים‬who will hang people alive’ 4Q169 3-4i7, rather than ‘living people’ in the light of ‫‘ לתלוי חי ֗ע ֗ל ֯ה ֯ע ֯ץ‬to someone hanged alive on the tree’ one line below. (5) Another kind of transformation is found in DO2 = material: ‫‘ את כול כליו יעשו זהב טהור‬they shall make all its utensils from pure gold’ 11Q19 3.9 we have a verbal clause transformed from a nominal clause which might read ‫כול כליו זהב טהור‬, with which cp. 1QM 5.11 and Ezk 41.22 cited below (§ k). In one case we see a Qumran manuscript transforming this syntagm in the MT: ‫יחם ֲע ֵצי ִשׁ ִטּים‬ ִ ‫ית ְב ִר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָע ִשׂ‬Ex 26.26 —> ‫ בריחי‬4Q22 29.22, 1

Discussed by Malessa (2006.20f.) under the label of “Prädikativergänzung.” Malessa (ib. 25f.) introduces a separate category, “prädikative Angabe.” The distinction between the two can be somewhat opaque, see also ib. 134 (§ 4.2.2.3). Where the object is a conj. pron. as in ‫ בנים ֗שמתנו לךה‬4Q504 3.4 quoted below, the pronoun need be converted to its disjunctive equivalent—‫—בנים אנחנו לכה‬in order for a nominal clause to emerge. Likewise in ‫יתי ַצ ִדּיק‬ ִ ‫ א ְֹתָך ָר ִא‬Gn 7.1 > ‫צ ִדּיק ַא ָתּה‬. ַ 2 Called by some ‘secondary predicate,’ which, however, is applied also to what we call below (p. 224, § t) ‘subject complement.’ Our attention was drawn to this label by Mr J.E.J. Boulet of the University of Toronto at the 9th international symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira held in Toronto, in April 2019. Cf. Bowers 2001. 3 Cf. Pesh. /yehbet l-meṣrēn ḥlāfayik/. 4 Pace, e.g. DJD 40.233: “sure truth.” Joosten (1999a.152) sees here a cst. phrase, which we fail to understand. Licht (1957.148) correctly traces our passage to ‫ ִהנֵּ ה ֱא ֶמת נָ כוֹן ַה ָדּ ָבר‬Dt 13.15, where ‫ נָ כוֹן‬is to be construed with the following ‫ה ָדּ ָבר‬. ַ 5 Doudna (2001.390-94), in arguing for “whom he ..,” does not take this into account.

212

SYNTAX

namely, as as cst. chain. (1) A reverse transformation is presented by ‫֗מנ֯ ֗קיותיו יהיו זהב‬ ‫‘ טהור‬its sprinkling bowls shall be of pure gold’ 11Q19 3.12, which is to be compared with ‫ ְמנַ ִקּיּ ָֹתיו ֲא ֶשׁר יֻ ַסְּך ָבּ ֵהן זָ ָהב ָטהוֹר ַתּ ֲע ֶשׂה א ָֹתם‬Ex 25.29. In ‫מיום הביאכמה את המנחה‬ ‫‘ חדשה ליהו֗ ה‬from the day when you brought to the Lord the cereal-offering (as) new’ 11Q19 19.11 one could alternatively postulate an inadvertent scribal error for ‫המנחה‬ ‫החדשה‬. See also ‫‘ ועשיתה ֗רו֗ חב ֗קי֗ ֗רו֗ ארבע אמות‬and you shall make the width of its wall four cubits’ 11Q19 30.7; ‫‘ בית המסבה הזואת צפו זהב‬Overlay the staircase with gold’ 11Q19 31.8; ‫‘ איש עול אל תחשוב עזר‬a man of iniquity don’t count as a helper’ 4Q417 2i7 (2); ‫עטרת תפארת תעטרנה‬ ֯ ‫‘ עט‬you will be enwrapping yourself with her as a gorgeous coat’ 2Q18 2.12. An underlying nominal clause behind ‫ועשיתה רובד סביב לחוץ‬ ‫‘ מחצר החיצונה רחב ארבע עשרה באמה‬and you shall make a platform round the outer courtyard with breadth of fourteen cubits’ 11Q19 46.5 is found in ‫המ ֯ה כולמה יהיו‬ ֗ ֯‫פרו֗ ֯רי‬ ‫רוחב עשר אמות‬ ‫‘ רו‬all their porches shall be ten cubit wide’ 11Q19 42.4 and ‫רוחב הקיר‬ ‫‘ שתים אמות‬the width of the wall shall be two cubits’ 4Q365a 2ii10. Here also belongs ֗‫מקצת ֗דברינו ֗כן‬ ֯ ‫‘ במצאך‬when you find some of our words right’ MMT C 30, though ‫כן‬ is mostly indeclinable (3). An object complement may be mediated through -‫ ל‬as in ‫קודשים‬ ֗ ‫‘ שמכה לקדוש‬He has made you the holy of holies’ 4Q418 81.4, followed by ‫‘ וישימכה לו בכור‬and He made you His firstborn child’ ib. 5; ‫‘ וישימוני֗ לבוז וחרפה‬and they made me a target of mockery and disgrace’ 1QHa 10.33. (4) This analysis most likely applies to ‫וישם זה כוחו לאלוהו‬ ‘and this (nation) made its (military) might its god’ 1QpHab 4.9, commenting on ‫וְ ָא ֵשׁם‬ ‫ זוּ כֹחוֹ ֵלאֹלהוֹ‬Hb 1.11. (5) This syntagm may be viewed as a causative—transitive transformation of an intransitive syntagm as in ‫ק־עוֹלם‬ ָ ‫יְתה ָל ֶהם ָח‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה‬Ex 30.21 and ‫וְ ָהיָ ה יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫אֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ִלי ֵל‬Gn 28.21. In ‫לישראל בני בךורי‬ ‫‘ קרתה לי‬You called Israel My first-born son’ 4Q504 3.5 the same preposition is marking the object itself, not a complement of it. 1 Likewise ‫ית ְמנ ַֹרת זָ ָהב ָטהוֹר‬ ָ ‫‘ וְ ָע ִשׂ‬and you shall make a lampstand of pure gold’ Ex 25.31. More BH examples are mentioned in JM § 125 v. 2 In BH an object complement of this verb is normally mediated with -‫ל‬, e.g. ‫‘ יַ ְחשׁ ֹב ְל ֶת ֶבן ַבּ ְרזֶ ל‬he reckons iron as straw’ Jb 41.19; the only exception is ‫גוּע‬ ַ ָ‫‘ ֲח ַשׁ ְבנֻ הוּ נ‬we thought him stricken’ Is 53.4. In RH we find both zero-mediation and -‫ כ‬mediation: ‫‘ לא היתה מדינה בעולם חשובה לפניהם כלום‬any city in the world was not considered worth anything’ rLam 1.242 and ‫‘ ארבעה חשובים כמתים‬four people are considered dead’ rGn 71.6. Probably belongs here ‫ולעמך‬ ֗ ‫ואף אנחנו כתבנו ֗אלי֗ ך מקצת מעשי התורה שחשבנו לטוב לך‬ ‘we also mentioned to you in writing some of the precepts of the law, as we thought it beneficial to you and your people’ MMT C 26 (sim. Vermes 228). The preposition -‫ ל‬is hardly equivalent to a dative of advantage, as implied in the translation in DJD 10.63, “.. sent you some of the precepts .. according to our decision, for your welfare ..,” for which the governing verb, ‫כתבנו‬, is too far removed, and it is distinct from a case such as ‫ֹלהים ֲח ָשׁ ָבהּ ְלט ָֹבה‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַא ֶתּם ֲח ַשׁ ְב ֶתּם ָע ַלי ָר ָעה ֱא‬Gn 50.20. In DJD 10.84 (§ 3.5.1.9) ‫וַ יְ ַצוֵּ נוּ יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ל־היָּ ִמים‬ ַ ‫ֹלהינוּ ְלטוֹב ָלנוּ ָכּ‬ ֵ ‫ל־ה ֻח ִקּים ָה ֵא ֶלּה ְליִ ְר ָאה ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ַ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ֶא‬is mentioned, where, of course, there is no question of an object complement. 3 A rare exception is ‫ ֵכּנִ ים ֲאנַ ְחנוּ‬Gn 42.11 in characterisation of Joseph’s brothers, likewise vss. 19, 31, 33, 34. Note ‫א־כן‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ְדּ ָב ִרים ֲא ֶשׁר ל‬2Kg 17.9 rendered λόγους ἀδίκους in the Proto-Lucianic version. 4 BH examples are ‫ד־היּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬ ַ ‫יוֹסף ְלחֹק ַע‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יָּ ֶשׂם א ָֹתהּ‬Gn 47.26, ‫וּל ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ‫ וַ יְ ִשׂ ֶמ ָה ְלחֹק‬1Sm 30.25. 5 Pace Nitzan 1986.163 and Qimron 2018.100, § B 1.1.1.1. Though our commentator goes on and mentions ‫תם‬ ‫אשמתם‬, ‫ ָא ֵשׁם … לאלהו‬is syntagmatically implausible.

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 j-l

213

Here belongs a syntagm in which a participial clause constitutes a nominal clause with an object of the main verb as its subject as in ‫‘ ראה את בנו מחז֗ יקים בו‬he saw his sons prevailing on him’ 4Q221 5.2; ‫ראי֯ ֗תי פלשתי מחרף‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗אנ֗ י‬I spied a Philistine disparaging’ 11Q5 28.13. Although a participle is an object, we have a syntactically distinct ֗ ‫שומע ֯מ‬ ֯ ‫שר ֗אני שו‬ ֯ ‫האלה אש‬ ֗ ‫ כדברים האל‬4Q51 3a-e.15 // ‫ַכּ ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה ֲא ֶשׁר ָאנ ִֹכי שׁ ֵֹמ ַע‬ case in ‫דברים‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ת־דּ ְב ֵר‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬1Sm 2.23. In ‫ תרומת שפתים הברכנו‬1QS 10.6 one encounters a syntactically complicated case. The object suffix /-énnu/ cannot form a nominal clause with ‫תרומת שפתים‬, which cst. phrase embodies the act of ‫( אברכנו‬1), ‘I shall praise him by way of an offering through (my) lips.’ Likewise ‫‘ אברכנו תרומת מוצא שפתי‬.. what issues forth from my lips’ 1QS 10.14. These are close to cognate objects, on which see below at § o. k) Passivisation (2) A transitive verb with an object complement may be passivised. Then its object becomes the subject, though complemented in the same way as in its active voice equivalent, leaving the object complement unchanged. E.g. ‫‘ מצופות זהב‬overlaid with gold’ 11Q19 32.10, sim. 11Q19 36.11; ‫‘ דלתותיהמה מצופות זהב טהור‬their doors are overlaid with pure gold’ 11Q19 41.16. (3) Likewise ‫אבנט בד שש משוזר תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני וצורת רוקמה‬ ‘a white, fine byssus girdle intertwined in violet, purple, and crimson in a multicoloured pattern’ 1QM 7.10; ‫אלהים‬ ֗ ‫‘ נמצא אברהם נאמן לא‬Abraham was found to be loyal to God’ 4Q226 7.1; ‫כחש ואם לא ימצא נאמן‬ ֗ ‫‘ ימצא‬he would be found deceitful, but if not, he would be found loyal’ 4Q225 2ii8; ‫‘ ויחתכו ימיהם מאה ועשרים ֗שנ֗ ה‬and their days shall be determined at 120 years’ 4Q252 1.2 (4); ‫‘ ויכתבו אוהבים לאל‬and they were recorded as friends of God’ CD 3.3. For an affiliated nominal clause, see ‫הכידנים ברזל ברור‬ ‘the swords shall be (of) purified iron’ 1QM 5.11, and cf. ‫ ַה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַח ֵעץ‬Ezk 41.22. In terms of the surface structure these complements of passivised verbs are subject complements. Cp. the two examples of ‫ מצא‬N adduced here with ֗‫מקצת ֗דברינו ֗כן‬ ֯ ‫‘ במצאך‬when you find some of our words right’ MMT C 30. l) Clause of explanation An object may be followed by a content clause introduced with ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬explicating what is inherent in the former. E.g. ‫יצר עשו אשר הוא ררע ֗מן֗ נעוריו‬ ֗ ‫ודע אתה את‬ ֗ ֗‫‘ י‬you know 1 So in two 4Q variants: 4Q256 19.4 and 4Q258 9.3. On this occasional interchange between ‫ א‬and ‫ ה‬in QH, cf. also Qimron 2018.101, § B 1.1.2. 2 See also below at § 46. 3 To these cases and their underlying active formulation as in ‫‘ בית המסבה הזואת צפו זהב‬Overlay the staircase with gold’ 11Q19 31.8 Geiger (2012.235) applies the notion of tamyiz known from Classical Arabic, a debatable application of this technical term; cf. Brockelmann 1960 § 111 for Arabic examples. In JM § 126 g ‫את־רגְ ָליו‬ ַ ‫ ָח ָלה‬1Kg 15.23 is cited as illustrating an accusative of limitation. 4 This is syntactically distinct from the sole BH instance of this verb at ‫ל־ע ְמָּך‬ ַ ‫ָשׁ ֻב ִעים ִשׁ ְב ִעים נֶ ְח ַתְּך ַע‬ ‘seventy weeks have been determined for your people’ Dn 9.24, where the verb, also passive N as in our Qumran text, is being impersonally used, hence sg.

214

SYNTAX

Esau’s character, namely he has been evil from his youth’ 4Q223-224 (1), where the ‫אשׁר‬-clause elaborates on ‫ יצר עשו‬in the manner of ‫ת־האוֹר ִכּי־טוֹב‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫ וַ יַּ ְרא ֱא‬Gn 1.4, ̇ ‫אל ינא איש שבועה אשר‬ ‫ת־ה ָעם ִכּי ָפ ֻר ַע הוּא‬ ָ ‫ וַ יַּ ְרא מ ֶֹשׁה ֶא‬Ex 32.25. Likewise ‫ענה ֗הם‬ ֗ ‫יד‬ ֗ ‫לא י‬ ‫‘ להקי֗ ֗ם היא ואם להניא‬nobody shall annul an oath on which he does not know if it is (an oath) to be implemented or to be annulled’ CD 16.11 (2). (3) m) Clausal object An object often takes the form of a content clause. Introduced with ‫‘ וידעו כי אשמים המה—כי‬they came to know that they were guilty men’ ֯ ‫‘ הבינותי כי את אשר‬I saw that (for) one whom You chose CD 1.8; ‫בחר ֯ת ֯ה ֯הכינותה דרכו‬ You arranged his way’ 1QHa 4.33; ‫‘ ואותה נפשכה כי תבו֗ א בפתחיה‬and your soul might wish to enter its gates’ 4Q418 127.2 (4). ֯ ‫‘ אני יודע‬I know that my father does not Introduced with ‫אשר אבי איננו מאמין—אשר‬ 5 ֿ ‘my mother does not believe, believe’ 4Q200 4.3 ( ); ‫אף אמי איננה מאמנת אשר תראנ֗ י עוד‬ either, that she will see me again’ 4Q200 4.4; ֗‫ אשר תשלחני‬.. ‫ממכה‬ ֯ ‫‘ מבקש אני ממ‬I beg you .. to send me’ ib.; ‫‘ מי גוי חפץ אשר יעושקנו חזק ממנו‬Which people want someone stronger than them to oppress them?’ 1Q27 1.10 // with ‫ כי‬in ‫מי חפץ כי יגזל ברשע הונו‬ ‘Who wants to have his property unjustly looted?’ ib. (6) Introduced with ‫טהרה—ש־‬ ‫אומרים ֗שהם שאין בהם ט‬ ֗ ֯‫‘ אנחנ֯ ו‬we would say that there is no purity in them’ MMT B 55 (7); ‫‘ כתוב שמעת ֗שיגלח‬it is written that, from the moment he shaves’ MMT B 66; ‫‘ בקש מלפנו שי֯ ֯ת ֯קן את עצתך‬Beg Him to fortify your will’ MMT C 28 (8); ‫‘ מודא אני לך היום שהחכרתי לך‬I acknowledge to you today that I have leased to you’ 5/6Ḥev 45.6, sim. 5/6Ḥev 46.3; ‫עמי‬ ֗ ‫ידעין֗ שדברכן‬ ֗ ‫‘ הוא‬Keep reminding yourselves that your matter is receiving my attention’ 5/6Ḥev 49.6; ‫פקדתי תמי֗ שיתן לך‬ ‫‘ ֗תחטין שלהאחר השבת יטלון‬I have instructed one who is going to give you the wheat that they should transport (it) after the sabbath’ M44 8 (9).

1 Qimron (II 235) is to be preferred over DJD 13.102, which has bracketed the text that precedes the Ayin of ‫ רע‬as preserved in 1Q18, where ‫ אשר הוא‬is clear. 2 On our analysis of similar inf. clauses, see above at § 18 i, p. 117. 3 On this issue known in Greek philology under the label of Σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος, see Muraoka 2016 § 66 c. 4 In BH the verb ‫ אוה‬takes either a substantive or an inf. as its complement, but not a clause. 5 Cf. LXX γινώσκω γὰρ ἐγὼ ὅτι ὁ πατήρ μου .. To 10.7GII. 6 Neither syntagm of ‫ חפץ‬is known to BH. The sole BH instance of ‫ בקשׁ אשׁר‬significantly occurs in LBH: ‫יִתגָּ ָאל‬ ְ ‫יסים ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא‬ ִ ‫ וַ ַיְב ֵקּשׁ ִמ ַשּׂר ַה ָסּ ִר‬Dn 1.8. 7 Pace Qimron, DJD 10.95 (§ 3.5.2.30) the second ‫ ש־‬is most likely a case of lapsus calami. The repeated d- in Syriac mentioned by Qimron is not to be put into the same category; examples adduced by Nöldeke (1966 § 369) occur “in langen Perioden,” the first d- introducing a complete clause, not just a single word as in our MMT instance. 8 Cf. Qimron, DJD 10.89 (§ 3.5.2.4), 10.95 (§ 3.5.2.30). See also below on 4Q223-224 2i48. 9 Pardee et al. (1982.132) ignore the second ‫ ש־‬and start a completely new clause with “They may take ..,” which is questionable.

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 l-o

215

n) Interrogative clause Examples of an interrogative clause forming an object are ‫ומה מתוק‬ ֗ ‫אז תדע מה מר לאיש‬ ‫‘ לגבר‬then you will find out what is bitter for a human and what is sweet for a man’ 4Q416 2iii15; ‫‘ כבר ֗ס ֗פ ֗רתי לך אי֯ ֗כ ֗כ ֗ה ֗עז֯ ֯בתים‬I told you already how I had left them’ ֗ ֗‫איככה נ‬ ֗ ‫‘ תומהים‬marvelling at how an angel had appeared 4Q200 4.5; ‫ראה להמה מלאך‬ to them’ 4Q200 6.3. o) Cognate object An object of a verb may be semantically cognate, affiliated with the latter. (1) E.g. ‫לעבוד‬ ‫העדה‬ ֯ ‫‘ את עבודת‬to perform the service in the congregation’ 1QSa 1.13; ‫לריב ריב‬ ‘to engage in an argument’ ib.; ‫‘ חרב נקמת נקם בריתו‬a sword that inflicts a vengeance ֗ ‫נק ֗ם‬ ֗ ‫‘ יקו֗ ם‬he will execute a vengeance based of His covenant’ CD 1.17 (2); ‫משפ ֗טי אל‬ on God’s judgements’ 11Q13 2.13; ‫‘ נוקמי נקם‬avengers’ 4Q280 2.3; ‫עדינה עדי כבוד‬ ‘Deck yourselves with glorious garments’ 1QM 12.15 = 19.7; ‫ישכב עם אשתו שכבת זרע‬ ‘he lies with his wife and has an ejaculation’ 11Q19 45.11; ‫‘ יאשמו כול אשמה‬they become guilty of every kind of guilt’ 11Q19 59.9; ‫֗מ ֗שכב ֗יגו֗ ן ישכב ו֯ ֗מו֗ ֗שב אנחה ישב‬ ׄ ‘he shall lie in sorrow and he shall sit, sighing’ 4Q274 1i1; ‫שמחה שמחתכה וגילה גילך‬ ‫‘ חג חגיך‬Rejoice with your joy and be glad with your gladness, celebrate your feasts’ 4Q88 10.8; ‫גדולה‬ ֗ ‫כה גדול‬ ‫‘ יככה יהוה מכה‬the Lord will deal out a great blow to you’ 11Q11 4.4. We see in most of the cases adduced here that, though not obligatory, a cognate object is further expanded in a cst. phrase, with an adjective or with a conj. pron., which latter syntagm appears to be rather rare. It also shares its root with the verb concerned. In cases like ‫‘ יתקעו להם הכוהנים תרועה שנית קול נוח‬the priests shall blow for them a second alarm, a soft sound’ 1QM 8.7 and ‫‘ יריעו קול אחד תרועת מלחמה גדולה‬they will sound a single sound as a major war-cry’ 1QM 8.9 we would not analyse the verbs as doubly transitive, but as used analogously as in the examples adduced above. A simpler syntagm with the same collocation is found in ‫‘ ותקעו הכוהנים בחצוצרות קול מרודד‬and the priests shall blow on the trumpets a monotonous sound’ 1QM 8.5 and ‫הכוהנים יריעו‬ ‫‘ בשש חצוצרות החללים קול חד טרוד‬.. on the six trumpets of the slain a shrill, staccato sound’ 1QM 8.8. See also in ‫מק ֗דשי‬ ֗ ‫אשר אברא אני את‬ ֗ ‫‘ עד יום הבריה‬till the day of creation when I am going to create my sanctuary’ 11Q19 29.9 ‫ הבריה‬is an antecedent by name only.

A feature well-known in BH, also called internal object, e.g. ‫דוֹלה‬ ָ ְ‫כּוֹתם ַמ ָכּה ג‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַה‬Josh 10.20; ‫נְ ִקיִּ ם ֲאנַ ְחנוּ‬ ‫ ִמ ְשּׁ ֻב ָע ֵתְך ַהזֶּ ה ֲא ֶשׁר ִה ְשׁ ַבּ ְע ָתּנוּ‬Josh 2.17. See JM § 125 q. 2 This can count as an example of “ein Partizip .., das solch ein inneres Objekt verbal regiert,” which Geiger (2012.241) could not find. His consistent distinction between “nominale Funktion” and “verbale Funktion” notwithstanding, we fail to see why ‫ נקמת‬cannot be viewed as “ein Partizip .., das solch ein inneres Objekt verbal regiert”; as far as the syntax of a cognate object expanding a ptc. goes, there is no essential difference between this formulation and ‫חרבו נקמת נקם בריתו‬. Likewise ‫ ביד כול נוקמי נקם‬1QS 2.6, which Geiger himself (loc. cit.) adduces. 1

216

SYNTAX

A syntagmatic affinity between a cognate object and an inf. abs. in figura etymologica is shown in ‫‘ הפלתה עמנו הפלא ופלא‬you have acted with us wondrously and marvellously’ 1QM 18.10, where inf. abs. ‫ ַה ְפ ֵלא‬and cogn. obj. ‫ ֶפ ֶלא‬are juxtaposed. On this use of the inf. abs., see above at § 18 od. Striking is ‫ימכר ֗מ ֗מכרת ֗עבד‬ ֗ ‫‘ ויצו עליהיהם לבלתי‬and He commanded about them (?) (1) not to be sold as a slave’ 4Q159 2-4+8.3, where a cognate object is used with a passive verb. Given the pl. ‫ עליהיהם‬we might analyse ‫ ימכר‬as being impersonally used. Cf. ‫ֲע ָב ַדי‬ ‫יִמּ ְכרוּ ִמ ְמ ֶכּ ֶרת ָע ֶבד‬ ָ ‫אתי א ָֹתם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִם לֹא‬ ִ ‫ר־הוֹצ‬ ֵ ‫ ֵהם ֲא ֶשׁ‬Lv 25.42. p) Prolepsis of object (2) In BH an object may be marked in advance and attached as a conjunctive pronoun to a verb. (3) As a rare instance (4) we mention ‫‘ אם בשדה מצאה האיש את האשה‬if the man ran into the woman outside of town’ 11Q19 66.4 < ‫ת־הנַּ ַע ָרה‬ ַ ‫ם־בּ ָשּׂ ֶדה יִ ְמ ָצא ָה ִאישׁ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ִא‬ 5 Dt 22.25 MT. ( ) This is an interesting case since the proleptic pronoun is absent in the MT. A reverse case is ‫ ותראה את הילד‬4Q13 3i-4.5 // ‫ וַ ִתּ ְפ ַתּח וַ ִתּ ְר ֵאהוּ את ַהיֶּ ֶלד‬Ex 2.6. Given the extreme popularity of this feature in MH and contemporary Aramaic dialects, its scarcity in QH is striking. q) Infinitive and its object marking (6) Because of its verbal character, the infinitive can be expanded like any other verb. However, not being a finite form, it displays some peculiar features. The following patterns raise no special difficulty:

1 Qimron (III 25) plausibly proposes emending the puzzling form to ‫‘ על אחיהם‬about (or: to) their fellowmen.’ 2 ‫דיעהו לכוהן‬ ֗ ֿ‫בדבר יבוא וֿ י‬ ֯ ‫‘ כל איש אשר שגג בדב‬anyone who erred in a certain matter shall come and inform the priest about it’ 4Q270 7i16 as reconstructed by Qimron (I 56) supplies a referent (‫ )דבר‬for the object suffix ‫הו‬-, whereas DJD 18.163 ‫יתיסר‬ ֯ ‫ אשר‬would lack such, unless we take the suffix as proleptic for ‫לכוהן‬. 3 Common in MH and Aramaic. See JM § 146 e 2), where it is noted that a noun anticipated in this way is normally determinate, see also Khan 1984.469. 4 At ‫‘ כאשר צוהו֯ יהוה את מושה‬as YHWH had commanded Moses’ 4Q365 12iii2 (so DJD 13.280) Qimron (III 118) reads ‫ צוה‬for ֯‫צוהו‬. 5 Cf. Baasten 2004.62. On this feature in noun phrases, see above at § 21 f, k. Cf. also Muraoka 2000.199f. ‫ן‬- of ‫ ינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב ורע‬1QS 4.26 may be cataphoric, referring to ‫( רוחות‬the two spirits) rather than to ‫בני איש‬, so Wernberg-Møller 1957.88. Prolepsis is unlikely in ‫ וינתם לכם ברוחו נביאים‬4Q381 69.4; in BH such a delayed object is mostly determinate, e.g. ‫רוּמת יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫יא ָה ֵאת ְתּ‬ ֶ ‫יְב‬ ִ Ex 35.5. See JM § 146 e, 2). A rare exception is ‫ִהזְ ַה ְרתּוֹ ַצ ִדּיק‬ Ezk 3.21. According to Qimron (II 341 and id. 2018.113) this is a case of word-final fluctuation between ‫ מ‬and ‫נ‬. Hence we would translate: ‘and He gave to you, with His spirit, prophets,’ thus pace Schuller (DJD 11.150f.)—“and he gave them to you by his spirit, prophets.” 6 Cf. Dion (1977.208-10) on the situation in parts of CD studied by him.

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 o-q

217

֯‫‘ להורגו‬to kill him’ 4Q223-224 2iv13+. Qimron (DJD 10.81, § 3.4.4) notes that in MMT the pronominal object of an infinitive is always synthetically expressed, and never by means of ‫את‬, though the amount of relevant data in this text is modest. Examples are ‫‘ להתי֯ ֗כם ֗ול ֗עשותם‬to let them be joined (with an Israelite) and make them’ MMT B 44, ‫‘ להאכילם‬to feed them’ ib. 71, and ‫לרבעה‬ ‘to let it copulate’ ib. 77. : ‫‘ יראת אותי‬fear of me’ Is 23.13 for ‫ יִ ְר ָא ָתם א ִֹתי‬MT. : ‫‘ בכלו אתו מלך אשור‬when the king of Assyria imprisoned him’ 4Q381 33+35.8. ֗ ‫הש‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗ל‬to inculcate them about all the : ‫כילמה בכול קצי ֗ה ֗עולם‬ eras of the world’ 11Q13 2.20. When an infinitive has a nominal subject and another complement, the subject is often positioned directly after the infinitive. E.g. ‫‘ כיסר איש את ֯בנו‬as a man disciplines his son’ 4Q504 3.6; ‫‘ כבעול בחור בתולה‬as a lad marries a virgin’ ֗ ‫‘ ב‬when God uncovers the pupil of his eye’ Is 62.5 1QIsaa (1); ‫בגלו֗ ת אל את ֗אישון עינו‬ 4Q274 3i1. Counter-examples do occur as in ‫‘ ֶכּ ֱאכֹל ַקשׁ ְלשׁוֹן ֵאשׁ‬as the tongue of fire devours stubble’ Is 5.24 MT and 1QIsaa; ‫‘ עד מולאת לו שנה תמימה‬until one full year is over for him’ 1QS 6.17. : ‫‘ להשב לרשעים גמולם‬to repay the wicked their reward’ 1QS 8.6; ‫לתת לו יקר‬ ֗ ‫‘ ל‬to grant him honour’ 4Q332 2.1. : ‫‘ להביא איש אל העדה‬to bring someone to the congregation’ CD 13.13; ‫‘ להשמיע שלום לכול אנשי ברית‬to announce peace to all people of the covenant’ 4Q511 63iii4. Just as in the case of any finite verb or participle, the object of an infinitive may be left out where it can be easily recovered from the context as in ‫הדחתם שמה להשיב ֗אל לבבם‬ ‘You exiled them there in order to bring (them) back to their senses’ 4Q504 5.12. See also below at § 34 h. When the subject of an infinitive is explicitly marked and it is pronominal, such can be marked only by means of a conj. pron. attached to the infinitive. This does not occur in MH. (2) The following two patterns are peculiar to the infinitive: : ‫‘ בזכרו ברית ראישונים‬when He remembered the covenant with forefathers’ CD 1.4; ‫‘ מאהבתו את אבותך ומשמרו את השבועה‬because He loved your forefathers and kept to the oath’ CD 8.15. : ‫‘ לתיתו אותם‬from the time when He had handed them over’ CD 1.6; ‫‘ בשמעם אתם‬when they hear them’ CD 20.33; ‫‘ בלוקחו אותה‬when he takes her’ 4Q271 3.15; ‫‘ בדרשה אותו‬when he examines him’ CD 15.11; ‫‘ כרחקך אותו‬as You keep him away’ 1QHa 6.32; ‫‘ באהבתךה אותם‬because You loved them’ 4Q504 2.9. 1 2

MT: ‫תוּלה‬ ָ ‫י־יִב ַעל ָבּחוּר ְבּ‬ ְ ‫כּ‬. ִ See Segal 1958 § 345.

218

SYNTAX

r) Participle and its object marking (1) The participle, being both verbal and nominal, shares certain aspects of verbal rection with other verbal forms, Pf. and Impf. in particular. Thus 1) The object of a participle can be zero-marked whether mediated with ‫ את‬or not: Not mediated with ‫את‬, e.g. ֗‫פלא ֗תו‬ ֗ ֗‫‘ ראים נ‬they see His marvels’ 4Q379 4.2 Mediated with ‫—את‬e.g. ‫‘ הרואה את דם זובה‬who sees the blood of her flux’ CD 5.7; ‫את אפרה‬ ֗ ‫והאוסף‬ ֗ ‫השוח ֯ט אותה והסורף אותה‬ ֗ ‘he who slaughters it and he who burns it and he who gathers its ashes’ MMT B 14; ‫מניחים אותה‬ ֯ ‘they leave it’ MMT B 10; ‫בני‬ ‫‘ בליעל ֗המכשילים אותמה‬the sons of Belial who brought them to a fall’ 4Q174 1-2i8; ‫‘ ככה יהיו אוכלים אותו‬thus they shall be eating it’ 11Q19 43.5. (2) 2) The object can also be mediated with a preposition: E.g. ‫‘ מבינים ברז‬those who understand the mystery’ 4Q418 123ii4; ‫אנשי היחד המחזקים‬ ‫‘ בברית‬the members of the community who are adhering to the covenant’ 1QS 5.2; ‫‘ הסולח לשבי פשע‬who forgives those who part with transgression(s)’ 1QHa 6.35. We have a special case in ‫‘ אוחזי אבות‬intercessors’ 1QS 2.9; this cannot be equated with ‫אוחזי באבות‬, if this is a loan-translation of Akkadian, ṣābitu abbūta, ‘to take up fatherhood (on behalf of someone else, hence to intercede).’ (3) 3) A participle can be very often expanded by an adverbial adjunct. E.g. ‫זה י̇ ו̇ צא ליום‬ ‫‘ השמיני‬this goes out on the eighth day’ 11Q19 45.5; ‫‘ עומד לפניכה‬he stands in Your presence’ 1QHa 23.11; ‫ההלכים אחריהם‬ ̇ ‫‘ כל‬all those who follow them’ CD 19.31; ‫‘ מחוקקי סביב‬engraved all round’ 4Q405 19.5. 4) The nominal character of the participle surfaces when it is substantivised bearing the value of ‘one who does so and so’ or ‘that which does so and so.’ This is at the clearest when a masculine plural participle is explicitly marked as being in the cst. st. E.g. ‫‘ מסיגי גבול‬those who move a boundary’ 4Q266 1a-b4; ‫‘ דורשי מצוותיו‬those who seek His commandments’ 4Q268 1.6; ‫התורה‬ ֗ ‫‘ מבקשי ה‬those who seek the law’ 4Q216 2.13; ‫‘ יודעי צדק‬those who know justice’ CD 1.1; ‫‘ כול נוקמי נקם‬all those who execute revenge’ 1QS 2.6 and ‫‘ כול משלמי גמולים‬all those who requite’ 1QS 2.6. 1

See also Muraoka 1997.101-06 and id. 2020(?) § 4. In our analysis on the following pages we often ask ourselves how a given verb is expanded in its finite form. In one case our analysis could be illuminated the other way round. ‫‘ מחנות ישבו‬they lived in camps’ CD 7.6 is possibly an analogical extension of ‫ ;יושבי מחנות‬the G verb ‫ ישׁב‬in the sense of ‘to dwell,’ when used as a finite verb, never governs a zero-object. By contrast, a phrase such as ‫ יושבי הארץ‬CD 10.9 is such a commonplace in all the phases of Hebrew. ‫ וַ יֵּ ֶשׁב ֲארוֹן יְהוָ ה ֵבּית ע ֵֹבד ֱאד ֹם‬2Sm 6.11 and two other similar examples in BH are special in being followed by a word beginning with Bet; see further Driver 1913.37, n. 2. 2 Some more examples are cited in Geiger (2012.181-83). Geiger (ib. 182) also mentions ‫המעטר אתכם‬ Si 45.25, but also ‫ נותן נפשו מוצא אתה‬Si 51.26. 3 We endorse this proposal first made by Wernberg-Møller 1953.53f. An analogous Syriac collocation, /ʼeḥad ’avūtā/, is mentioned in Sokoloff 2009.3a; it is difficult, with unpointed attestations alone, to decide whether the word entered (Aramaic and) Syriac is to be pronounced /’avūtā/ or /’abbūtā/.

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 r

219

The selection of the cst. form is optional, as is exemplified by ‫‘ מגששים דרך‬those who grope for a way’ CD 1.9 // ‫‘ עורים‬blind people.’ (1) In QH we do not find data which could enable us to decide with certainty whether the selection of the cst. form also applied to sg. m., f. and pl. f. participles. For instance, ‫‘ חרב נקמת נקם ברית‬a sword executing the vengeance of the covenant’ CD 1.17 (< Lv 26.25) is equivocal; ‫( נ ֶֹק ֶמת‬so in MT) can be parsed as either cst. or abs. However, in BH we find some unambiguous cases which suggest that a participle can be viewed as being in the st. cst., when it is not prefixed with the definite article nor complemented by an ‫את‬-object, whether ‫ את‬prefixed to a NP or suffixed with a conj. pron. (2) See ‫‘ ַמ ֲע ַלת גֵּ ָרה ִהוא‬it chews the cud’ Lv 11.6, ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵלה גֵּ ָרה הוּא‬ib. 11.4, 5; ‫ַמ ֲע ֵלה‬ ֵ cf. ‫ ִמ ַמּ ֲע ֵלי ַהגֵּ ָרה‬ib. and co-ordinate ‫ גֵ ָרה ֵה ָמּה‬Dt 14.7, possibly mpl (3) in view of ‫ה ָמּה‬, ַ with ‫יסי ַה ַפּ ְר ָסה‬ ֵ ‫( ִמ ַמּ ְפ ִר‬mpl); also ‫ימת‬ ַ ‫יבת נָ ֶפשׁ ֵעדוּת יְ הוָ ה נֶ ֱא ָמנָ ה ַמ ְח ִכּ‬ ַ ‫ימה ְמ ִשׁ‬ ָ ‫תּוֹרת יְ הוָ ה ְתּ ִמ‬ 4 ‫י־לב ִמ ְצוַ ת יְ הוָ ה ָבּ ָרה ְמ ִא ַירת ֵעינָ יִ ם‬ ֵ ‫קּוּדי יְ הוָ ה יְ ָשׁ ִרים ְמ ַשׂ ְמּ ֵח‬ ֵ ‫ ִפּ‬:‫ ֶפּ ִתי‬Ps 19.8f. ( ) Neither in BH nor in QH does the verb ‫קוה‬, whether G or D, appear with an unambiguously marked zero-object, and if its object is marked at all, it is by means of -‫ל‬. Hence cases such as ‫‘ קוי֗ דעות‬those who hope for lessons of truth’ 4Q427 7i20 and ‫קואי יהוה‬ 4Q171 1-2ii4 (< Ps 37.9) are to be compared with ‫‘ כמה קוו לישועתך‬how much they hoped for Your salvation!’ 11Q5 22.8 on one hand, and ‫‘ קויך‬those who wait for You’ 4Q381 44.3 with ‫‘ לכה קויתי‬I waited for You’ 11Q5 19.16 on the other. Hence, though synonymous, D ‫ ִח ָכּה‬is syntactically distinct: ֺ ‫‘ ִל ְמ ַח ֵכּה לו‬for him who looks forward to Him’ Is 64.3. This is a type of direct rection with the object zero-marked; the use of ‫ את‬with a ptc. in the cst. st. is unknown. 5) A participle having a prepositional object complement, i.e. indirect rection, may also appear in the st. cst. E.g. ‫‘ אשרי תומכי חוקיה‬those who support its laws’ 4Q425 2ii-3.1, followed immediately by ‫‘ ולוא יתמוכו בדרכי עולה‬and would not support perverse paths,’ where it could have been written ‫‘ כול באי הברית ;התומכים בחוקיה‬all those who join the covenant’ 1QS 2.18+ and ‫‘ באי התבה‬those who entered the ark’ CD 5.1, followed by ֗ ‫בבר‬ ֯ ‫ ֯כול ֯באים‬4Q226 3iii24 a biblical proof text—‫ שנים שנים באו אל התבה‬Gn 7.9 // ֗‫]י[תו‬ and ‫‘ הבא בברית הזות‬one who joins this covenant’ 1QS 2.12, sim. CD 15.10. The N verb ‫ נצמד‬occurs twice only in our corpus in ‫‘ נצמדי סודי‬those who attach themselves to my ‫ בידעים נגלי פלא‬Mas1k 1.4, as restored in DJD 11.240, and translated “among those who have knowledge who can discern [His wondrous] revelations,” but in an edition of the same text published one year later (Charlesworth 1997.132) we see no word restored, but only a blank space. Qimron (II 365) restores in a 4Q copy of the text (4Q402 4.16) ‫‘ סוד‬mystery’ instead, admitting a difficulty in syntax and formulation; the subject of ‫ אין‬cannot be ‫נגלי סוד‬. 2 Hence the editors’ restoration at ‫‘ עוברי את‬those who transgress’ 4Q270 2ii17 (DJD 18.145) is questionable no less than a phrase such as ‫שומרי את מצוות אל‬. ‫ ְמ ָשׁ ְר ֵתי א ִֹתי‬Je 33.22 is the sole example in BH. 3 So Driver 1902.161. 4 Sharvit (1993.599), who includes among f.sg. participles with the allomorph ‫ת‬- in BH ‫יתהּ‬ ָ ‫ִמגָּ ַרת ֵבּ‬ Ex 3.22, where the ptc. cannot be anything other than a st. cst. form, would not be interested in ‫מ ִשׁ ַיבת‬, ְ ‫ימת‬ ַ ‫מ ְח ִכּ‬, ַ and ‫ ְמ ִא ַירת‬and their morphosyntax in the above-quoted Ps passage. 1

220

SYNTAX

council’ 1QHa 13.26 and ‫‘ נצמדי תעודתי‬those who attach themselves to my witness’ 1QHa 14.22, and these must belong here in view of ‫ ַהנִּ ְצ ָמ ִדים ְל ַב ַעל ְפּעוֹר‬Nu 25.5. 6) Likewise participles complemented by adverbial adjuncts. (1) E.g. ‫‘ הולכי ישר‬those who walk a straight (path)’ 4Q184 1.15 (2), sim. ‫‘ הולכי פתי‬those who walk with ignorance’ 4Q300 8.4 and ‫ ֯הו֯ לכי פותי‬4Q301 1.3; ‫‘ מזוקקי שבעתים‬those purified seven times over’ 4Q511 35.2; ‫‘ כושלי ארצ‬those who stumble (and fall to) the ground’ 1QHa 26.29 [= 4Q427 7ii10], cf. ‫יהם נ ֵֹפל ַא ְר ָצה ֵמת‬ ֶ ֵ‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה ֲאד ֹנ‬Jdg 3.25. See also ‫עתודי המלחמה‬ ‘those ready for the war’ 1QM 10.5, with which cp. ‫‘ עתודים ליום נקם‬ready for a day of vengeance’ 1QM 7.5. We have an interesting case in ‫‘ יורדי שאול‬those who go down to Sheol’ 1QHa 16.29. Whilst this particular combination does not occur elsewhere in QH or BH, we find a good number of examples in BH of a synonymous phrase in identical syntagm, i.e. a cst. ptc. with a noun denoting a place: ‫יוֹר ֵדי בוֹר‬ ְ Is 38.18+, ‫ יורדי ַהיָּ ם‬Is 42.10, Ps 107.23, ‫ יורדי ָע ָפר‬Ps 22.30 // ‫ל־א ְבנֵ י־בוֹר‬ ַ ‫ יורדי ֶא‬Is 14.19. In BH, combined with ‫ירד‬, whether G or H, ‫ שאול‬is consistently zero-marked: e.g. ‫ יָ ְרדוּ שׁאול‬Ezk 32.27, ‫מוֹריד שׁאול‬ ִ 1Sm 2.6. It also occurs with a Heh locale, e.g. ‫ ַחיִּ ים ְשׁא ָֹלה‬.. ‫ וַ יֵּ ְרדוּ‬Nu 16.33, ‫הוֹר ִדי אֹתוֹ שׁאולה‬ ִ ‫ְבּ‬ a Ezk 31.16. Hence ‫ יורדי שאול‬1QH 16.29 cannot be rewritten as ‫ ;יורדים לשאול‬we have a zero-marked object. An adverbial adjunct which expands a participle clearly marked as being in the st. cst. can be a prepositional phrase. Thus, as against ‫‘ ההולכים בדרך לבכה‬those who walk ֗ ‫יוש‬ in the way of Your heart’ 1QHa 12.25 we find ‫ הולכי בדרך לבכה‬ib. line 22; ‫יושבי בה‬ 3 4Q78 4-7.2 // ‫יוֹשׁב ָבּהּ‬ ֵ Ho 4.3. ( ) However, that the use of a preposition marking a complement as adverbial is optional is shown by ‫‘ שבי פשע‬those who turn away from impiety’ CD 2.5, 1QS 10.20 < Is 59.20, an expression occurring quite a few times in QH, though ‫ שבים מפשע‬never occurs. Note ‫‘ שבי פשע ועוזבי חטאה‬those who part with iniquity and those who leave sins’ 1QHa 14.9, where an underlying zero-object (‫ )עוזבים חטאה‬is parallel with an underlying prepositional object (‫)שבים מפשע‬. We have a unique collocation in ‫‘ כורעי עפר‬those who bend to the dust’ 1QM 11.13, unattested in Hebrew elsewhere, but affiliated with the above-cited ‫ יורדי עפר‬or ‫יושבי‬ ‫ עפר‬1QHa 11.14, ‫ זוחלי עפר‬1QHa 13.29 and ‫ ֗שו֗ ֗כבי עפר‬1QHa 14.37. Comparable is ‫כושלי‬ ‫‘ ארצ‬those who stumble (and fall to) the ground’ 1QHa 26.29 cited above. 1 By the same token a passive ptc. can also be in the cst. st. with an adverbial adjunct: ‫עריהם ֗שרופות‬ ‫‘ אשׁ‬their cities are burnt with fire’ 4Q458 1.5, cf. ‫‘ אי אתה ענוש סקילה‬you would not be punishable with stoning’ bYeb 47a; ‫‘ כול מרוחקים ממלך = ֗כו֗ ל מרוחקי מלך‬all who are kept at a distance from a king’ 4Q476 2.4; ‫‘ הם מאוסים לאלהים = הם מאוסי אלהים‬they are personae non gratae to God’ ib. 5. 2 Possibly ‫ ֶדּ ֶרְך‬is understood, cf. ‫מוֹשׁב‬ ָ ‫ל־עיר‬ ִ ‫יכם ְבּ ֶד ֶרְך יְ ָשׁ ָרה ָל ֶל ֶכת ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יַּ ְד ִר‬Ps 107.7 and later in our document ‫יושר‬ ֗ ‫‘ בל י֯ ֗דרוכו במעגלי‬so that they will not walk along tracks of uprightness’ line 16. Cf. ‫ְבּ ָשׁלוֹם‬ ‫וּב ִמישׁוֹר ָה ַלְך ִא ִתּי‬ ְ Ma 2.6. 3 Just as in the case of ‫‘ ללכת ימין ושמאול‬to deviate right and left’ 1QS 1.15 (see above at § 10 c), we would identify adverbial adjuncts in ‫התו֗ רה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֯הנוטה ימין ושמאל מן ה‬one who turns away right and left from the law’ 4Q266 11.17 and ‫‘ ֯לוא נ֗ ֗סור ימין ושמאל‬we shall not turn right nor left’ 4Q364 23a+bi2 (< ‫יָמין‬ ִ ‫לֹא נִ ֶטּה‬ ‫וּשׂמֹאול‬ ְ Nu 20.17).

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 r

221

When a preposition is construed with a conj. pron., there is no option but to retain the former as in ‫‘ יושבי֗ בה‬those living in it [= ‫ ’]הארץ‬4Q286 5.1; ‫‘ כול הולכי בה‬all those who walk in it [= ‫ ’]אמת‬1QS 4.6, 12 // ‫ הולכי דרך‬4Q525 20-22.2; ‫‘ כוול תומכי בי‬all who support me’ 4Q525 11-12.2, 4Q184 1.9. Note also passive participles such as the above-cited ‫‘ מזוקקי שבעתים‬those purified seven times over’ 4Q511 35.2. Likewise ‫‘ בתוך ארורי עולמים‬in the midst of those cursed for perpetuity’ 1QS 2.17 for ‫בתוך ארורים לעולמים‬, cf. ‫‘ ברוך לעולמים זכרך‬Blessed is your memory for ages’ 11Q5 22.2, where ‫ ברוך‬is the predicate of a nominal clause, not a substantivised ptc.; ‫‘ קיראי )< קריאי( מועד‬invitees for an appointed time’ 1QSa 2.2 for ‫ למועד‬.. (1); ‫‘ קריאי שם‬those called by name (‫ ’)בשם‬CD 2.11, 4.4; ‫משיחי רוח קדשו‬ ‘those anointed with His holy spirit’ CD 2.12. (2) 7) The selection of a participle in the st. cst. is not confined to any syntactic function (3): Predicative — ‫ל־מקוֹם ָה ָארוֹן‬ ְ ‫רוּבים פּ ְֹר ִשׂים ְכּנָ ַפיִם ֶא‬ ִ ‫ ַה ְכּ‬1Kg 8.7 // ‫ פרשי כנפים‬4Q54 6.9; ָ ‫תּוֹרת יְ הוָ ה ְתּ ִמ‬ ַ ‫י־לב‬ ֵ ‫קּוּדי יְ הוָ ה יְ ָשׁ ִרים ְמ ַשׂ ְמּ ֵח‬ ֵ ‫ימת ֶפּ ִתי׃ ִפּ‬ ַ ‫ימה ְמ ִשׁ ַיבת נָ ֶפשׁ ֵעדוּת יְ הוָ ה נֶ ֱא ָמנָ ה ַמ ְח ִכּ‬ ‫מ ְצוַ ת יְ הוָ ה ָבּ ָרה ְמ ִא ַירת ֵעינָ יִ ם‬, ִ quoted above § (4). So in BH, e.g. ‫ַמ ֲע ַלת גֵּ ָרה ִהוא‬ ‘it chews the cud’ Lv 11.6, hardly ‘it is a cud-chewing (species)’; ‫‘ ִמ ְשׁ ָתּ ֵאה ָלהּ‬he is gazing at her’ Gn 24.21; ‫‘ מחוקקי סביב‬engraved all round’ 4Q405 19.5. Substantivised — ‫ ִמ ַמּ ֲע ֵלי ַהגֵּ ָרה‬in ‫אכלוּ ִמ ַמּ ֲע ֵלי ַהגֵּ ָרה‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ֶאת־זֶ ה לֹא ת‬Dt 14.7 is indisputably substantivised in view of the preposition ‫מן‬, ‘that which belongs to those which chew the cud you shall not eat.’ (4) Similarly ‫‘ ִל ְמ ַח ֵכּה לוֹ‬to those who look forward to Him’ Is 64.3, and the passive participles cited above, § (6). (5) Attributive — ‫חרב נקמת נקם ברית‬, quoted above § (4); ‫אריות שוברי עצם אדירים ושותי ֗ד ֯ם‬ ‫‘ גבורים‬lions which crush bones of the mighty and drink the blood of the powerful’ 1QHa 13.9. 8) There are verbs which display either direct or indirect rection with no or little semantic difference. Then it could be difficult to see which underlies when a participle of such a verb is in the st. cst. One can compare ‫‘ עוברי דברו‬those who transgress His word’ 1QS 5.14 with ‫‘ יעבר דבר מתורת מושה‬he transgresses some of the Mosaic law’ 1QS 8.22 (6), but the same sense is also expressed through an ‫על‬-object, e.g. ‫לעבור על‬ According to Qimron (I 237 f.n. ad loc.) an alternative spelling for ‫קריאי‬, i.e. an Aramaising G passive ptc. m.pl.cst. See now also Qimron 2018.111, § B 3.2. 2 This insight might help us untie a notorious knot in ‫ כל הוי עולמים ונהיית עד‬CD 2.9, where ‫ נהיית‬can be parsed as N fs ptc. cst., ‫נִ ְהיַ ת‬, ‘everything that exists throughout the ages and comes into existence incessantly’; Lohse (1971.68) reads pl. ‫נִ ְהיו ֺת‬. 3 See JM § 129 m-n. In QH, however, we do not find a very remarkable case such as ‫‘ ְמ ָשׁ ְר ֵתי א ִֹתי‬those who serve me’ Je 33.22. 4 ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵלי‬here is plural as is evident from what immediately follows—‫סוּעה‬ ָ ‫יסי ַה ַפּ ְר ָסה ַה ְשּׁ‬ ֵ ‫וּמ ַמּ ְפ ִר‬ ִ ‘nor belongs to those which have the hoof cloven.’ 5 From the context the ptc. is more likely plural, cf. LXX τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν ἔλεον. 6 This text as well as ‫‘ עובר דבר מן המצוה ביד רמה‬one who transgressed anything of the commandment’ CD 10.3 suggest that one is probably to read Hif. ‫ יסיר‬at ‫‘ אשר יסור מכול המצוה דבר ביד רמה‬who cancels high-handedly anything out of the commandment’ 1QS 8.17, for ‫ דבר‬here on its own can hardly mean “en un point quelconque” (DSP 33), cf. ‫ את ְדּ ָב ָריו לא ֵה ִסיר‬Is 31.2. 1

222

SYNTAX

‫‘ דברכה‬to transgress Your word’ 1QHa 20.24. Then one could argue that the abovementioned ‫ עוברי דברו‬could be rewritten as ‫( העוברים על דברו‬1). Likewise ‫להרשיע כול‬ ‫‘ עוברי חוק‬to indict all those who contravene the law’ 1QS 5.7. (2) Under § (4) above we dealt with the verb ‫‘ קוה‬to hope for, look eagerly towards (someone for help).’ Among its frequent attestations in BH we find, by contrast, ‫אוֹתָך‬ ְ ‫ל־היּוֹם‬ ַ ‫יתי ָכּ‬ ִ ִ‫ ִקוּ‬Ps 25.5 as well as ‫ ְלָך ִקוִּ ינוּ‬Is 33.2. This suggests that ‫‘ קויך‬those who wait for you’ 4Q381 44.3 can be rewritten ‫ הקוים לך‬as well as ‫הקוים אותך‬. Likewise G ‫‘ בזה‬to despise’: direct rection, e.g. ‫‘ בזה ישראל את דבריהם‬Israel despised their words’ CD 7.18 as against indirect rection as in ‫‘ ובזו על נכבדים‬and they will despite respectable people’ 1QpHab 4.2. How then to analyse ‫‘ בוזי‬those who despise me’ 1QHa 12.23? Since ‫ תעב‬D ‘to loathe’ mostly governs a zero-object, but once -‫ ב‬in ‫‘ בכל הולכי תמים תעבה נפשם‬their soul loathed all those who walk uprightly’ CD 1.20, it is difficult to analyse ‫ מתעבי חק‬CD 2.6. 9) A complement of a participle may be attached as a conjunctive pronoun. (3) Syntagmatically it can be of two types. a) Zero-object, e.g. ‫‘ מנאציו‬those who scoff at Him’ CD 1.2; ‫ ידעיו‬.. ‫‘ משרתיו‬those who serve Him .. know Him’ 1QM 13.3; ‫‘ יודעיך‬those who know You’ 1QHa 6.26; ‫יראיכה‬ ‘those who fear You’ ib. 20.6; ‫‘ דבר עושו‬the word of One who made him’ 4Q299 3ii8; ‫עושיהם‬ ֗ ‫‘ קול‬the voice of their maker’ CD 3.8; ‫‘ מתעיהם‬those who misled them’ 4Q166 2.5. These are all substantivised participles. Non-substantivised, purely predicative participles taking an object con. pron. appear to be rare. A few such examples are ‫֗הו֗ א מכבדנו‬ ‘he is honouring us’ 4Q223-224 2ii4; ‫מצו֗ ך‬ ֯ ‫‘ אנכי‬I command you’ 4Q390 1.3, but ‫אנוכי‬ ‫ מצוכה‬changed to ‫ אנוכי מצוה אותכה‬11Q19 54.6 (< ‫ ְמ ַצוֶּ ה ֶא ְת ֶכם‬Dt 13.1 MT), yet back to ‫ אנוכי מצוכה‬ib. 55.13 (= Dt 13.19 MT); ‫‘ אנוכי מורישם‬I expel them’ 11Q19 60.20 (< ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫מוֹרישׁ‬ ִ Dt 18.12 MT). Examples of analytic zero-object are ‫‘ מנשה אנוכי אתכמה‬I am testing you’ 11Q19 54.12 (4) < ‫יכם ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ ְמנַ ֶסּה יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬Dt 13.4 MT; ‫ ומנתחים‬.. ֗‫אותו‬ ֗ ‫ ו֗ ז֗ ורקים‬.. ‫בחי֗ ם אותמה‬ ֗ ֗‫יהיו ֗טו‬ ‫ ומקטירים אותמה‬.. ‫אותמה‬. ‘they shall be slaughtering them .. and pouring it .. and In analysing ‫‘ את עובריהם ארותה‬You cursed those who cross them’ 4Q266 11.12 we need let a semantic aspect play a role. The verb is being used here in its literal sense, for the pronoun represents ‫‘ גבולותם‬their borders,’ cf. ‫ת־הנָּ ָהר‬ ַ ‫ וַ יַּ ֲעבֹר ֶא‬Gn 31.21. 2 The same uncertainty applies also to ‫ כול עוברי פיכה‬1QH 12.28, for ‫ פיכה‬signifies ‘what You say.’ G ‫ עבר‬occurs in this sense as often as 19 times in BH, but never with ‫על‬. Once with ‫מן‬: ‫וֹתיָך‬ ֶ ‫א־ע ַב ְר ִתּי ִמ ִמּ ְצ‬ ָ ֹ‫ל‬ Dt 26.13, not mentioned in BDB s.v. Qal 1 i and Clines s.v. Qal 2 o, p. 235a. MH attests to עבר על‬, e.g. ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ ‫‘ ַל ֲעבוֹר ַעל ַא ַחת ִמ ָכּל ִמ ְצוֹת ָה ֲאמוּרוֹת ַבּ‬to act in contravention of any one of the commandments mentioned in the law’ mHor 1.1. We possibly have here a diachronic change going on. 3 For a comprehensive collection of data, see Geiger 2012.170-79; examples such as ‫נפלאותכה‬ 1QHa 18.17 do not concern us, since the conj. pron. is not an object. Likewise passive participles such as ‫ בחירו‬11Q5 Eiii13 (= ‫ ְבּ ִח ָיריו‬Ps 105.6). 4 This case and ‫ אנוכי מצוה אותכה‬are contrary to the rule formulated by Geiger (2012.509): “The nota accusativi with suffix is used only if the participle has an article, or if the participle is in masculine plural and functions as the predicate of the clause.” That the above-cited 11Q19 54.12 is not necessarily a rare exception to his rule nor that QH differs from BH in this syntactic detail is shown by ‫אתכ[ם‬ ֗ ‫אנכי ]מצוה‬ 1

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 r-s

223

chopping them .. and burning them’ 11Q19 34.7; ‫‘ ככה יהיו אוכלים אותו‬thus they shall be eating it’ 11Q19 43.5; ‫‘ יהיו שומרים אותו‬they shall be guarding it’ 11Q19 57.10; ‫הם‬ ‫אותה‬ ֯ ‫שלי֗ ֯ם אות‬ ֗ ‫מב‬ ֗ ‘they cook it’ MMT B 6; ‫שמניחים אותה‬ ֯ ‘which they leave’ MMT B 10. (1) b) For a 1s conj. pron., even when the pronoun is an object complement, a nominal form, ‫י‬-, and not a verbal one, ‫ני‬-, can be optionally used: ‫ בוזי‬.. ‫‘ מנאצי‬those who spurn me .. those who despise me’ 1QHa 12.23, cf. ‫ ע ָֹשׂי‬Jb 35.10 // ‫ ע ֵֹשׂנִ י‬ib. 31.15 and 32.22. ‫ו֗ אליעזר‬ Hence Qimron’s (II 217) reconstruction would become the sole exception: ‫עזר בן‬ ‫‘ ביתי הואה יוֿ רשני‬Eliezer, a male child of my household, he is going to inherit me’ 4Q225 2i4. (2) c) Prepositional object, e.g. ‫‘ באיה‬those who enter it [= ‫‘ בניה‬edifice’ (3)]’ 1QHa 14.30, cf. ‫‘ באי התבה‬those who entered the ark’ CD 5.1, followed by a biblical proof text— ‫ שנים שנים באו אל התבה‬Gn 7.9. The analytic syntagm is exemplified by ‫קריה וכול יושבי‬ ‫‘ בה‬a town and all those who dwell in it’ 1QpHab 9.8; ‫‘ כול הולכי בה‬all those who walk in it’ 1QS 4.12. 10) A rare nexus of a pl. cst. participle with an inf. in BH is rejected: ‫א ֲֹה ֵבי ָלנוּם‬ Is 56.10 // ‫ אוהבים לנואם‬1QIsaa. s) Expanded by an inf. cst. A verb is often expanded by an inf. cst. functioning as an object. E.g. ‫כול המואס לבוא‬ ‘everyone who refuses to enter’ 1QS 2.25. More examples are noted above at § 18 h. 8Q4 1.25 < ‫ אנכי מצוך‬Dt 11.8, for which Geiger has to resort to an ad hoc rule: “Die 2. mpl neigt zur nota accusativi” (Geiger 2012.182, n. 719). 1 Adduced by Geiger (2012.181, 221). Pace Geiger (2012.181) we fail to see why the morphological category of m. pl. of participles should be syntactically significant and conducive to the selection of . 2 Qimron rejects as syntactically incorrect the restoration offered in DJD 13.145: ‫עזר בן ביתי הואה‬ ‫ו֯ אליעזר‬ ‫וירשני‬, translated “and Eli[ezer] is [the son of my household,] and he will be my heir” (ib. 13.147). Do the editors mean ‫[ וִ ְיר ַשׁנִ י‬w-qataltí] or ‫[ וִ ְיר ֶשׁנִּ י‬w-yiqtol]? He does not elaborate, but if Qimron finds a nominal clause continued by an inversive waw problematic, we can point to ‫להם כול כבוד אדם ואין עולה והיה לבושת‬ ‫‘ כול מעשי רמיה‬all the glory of Adam is theirs and there is no iniquity and every work of deceit shall become a shame’ 1QS 4.23. BH also proffers several assured examples such as ‫יָמים עוֹד ִשׁ ְב ָעה ָאנ ִֹכי ַמ ְמ ִטיר‬ ִ ‫ְל‬ ‫ל־היְ קוּם‬ ַ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫יתי ֶא‬ ִ ‫וּמ ִח‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ַא ְר ָבּ ִעים יוֹם וְ ַא ְר ָבּ ִעים ָליְ ָלה‬ ָ ‫ ַע‬Gn 7.4; more examples may be found in JM § 119 n. Since the waw in Qimron’s ‫ יוֿ רשני‬can be read as Yod, ‫ יירשני‬Juss. is perfectly acceptable, indicating ‫ אליעזר‬as the extraposed subject followed by the emphasising ‫הואה‬, ‘it is Eliezer that is to be my heir.’ This syntactical analysis of ‫ הואה‬..‫ אליעזר‬is equally valid for the clause as reconstructed by Qimron, who rejects ‫ יירשני‬proposed by Ariel and Yuditsky (Qimron II 217). The Ethiopic version, as noted in DJD 13.148, lacks the conjunction wa-. BH, however, knows of instances such as ‫ ָה ֵאל ַה ְמ ַאזְּ ֵרנִ י ָחיִ ל‬Ps 18.33, which is reflected in its parallel, 2Sm 22.33 as translated in L with ὁ θεὸς ὁ περιτιθείς μοι δύναμιν, whereas the Qumran version of 2Sm proffers a predicatively used ptc.—‫יל‬ ‫האל מאזרני חיל‬ ֯ ‫ ה‬4Q51 155-58.11, but // ‫רוֹמ ֵמנִ י‬ ְ ‫וּמ ָקּ ַמי ְתּ‬ ִ ‫יאי ֵמא ָֹיְבי‬ ִ ‫מוֹצ‬ ִ 2Sm 22.49, not ‫יאנִ י‬ ֵ ‫מו ִֺצ‬, an example noteworthy, since Geiger (2012.220, n. 69) states: “Im QH [= nonbiblical manuscripts] ist das Suffix ‫ ני‬am Partizip nicht belegt.” 3 Qimron (I 78) reads ‫לפנ֗ יֿ ֯ת‬, ֗ whatever that might mean. See further DJD 10.193 and DJD 29.193.

224

SYNTAX

t) Subject complement (1) Just as a verb can have an object with a complement, between the two of which there obtains a relation comparable to a nominal clause, so can the subject of a verb. Various patterns can be identified: i) With an active ptc.—‫ שבעה כוהנים מבני אהרון לובשים בגדי שש לבן‬.. ‫‘ ויצאו‬there will march out seven priests .., wearing garments of white byssus’ 1QM 7.9; ‫בא יעקוב אבי‬ ‫‘ אל לבן בורח מלפני עישי֗ ו‬my father Jacob came to Laban, running away from Esau’ 4Q215 1.7, also with a ptc. as the principal verb in ‫קודש עומדימ בוכים‬ ֗ ‫‘ מלאכי‬the ‫‘ ויעל או‬and he was reckoned to holy angels were standing in tears’ 4Q225 2ii5; ‫אוהב‬ be a friend (of God)’ CD 3.2 (2); ‫‘ ויכתבו אוהבים לאל‬and they were recorded as friends of God’ CD 3.3. Possibly ‫‘ בטב אתן יושביין אכלין ושתין‬in comfort you are, seated, eating, and drinking’ 5/6Ḥev 49.2, and not ‘in comfort you are seated, eating, and drinking.’ ii) With a passive ptc.—‫‘ מחזה שדי יחזה נופל וגלו עין‬a vision of the Shaddai he will see, fallen and (his) eye(s) open’ 4Q175 11. iii) With an adjective—‫שמח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו֗ יצא מאתוה‬and he left his presence happy’ 4Q219 2.34; “Let nobody who enters a place for worship enter unclean (‫ ”)אל יבוא טמא‬CD 11.21; ‫‘ נקרעו חיים‬they were split alive’ CD 12.13; ‫‘ ילך רכיל ברעהו‬he goes around, slandering his colleague’ 1QS 7.15; ‫‘ אשר יהלך לפני רעהו ערום‬one who walks about in front of his colleague naked’ 1QS 7.12; ‫ קרוב למקדשי‬.. ‫‘ לוא תזבח‬you may not sacrifice .. near My sanctuary’ 11Q19 52.13, sim. ‫‘ תואכלנה רחוק ממקדשי‬you shall eat it away from My sanctuary’ 11Q19 52.17; ‫‘ ישב רחוק‬he shall sit at a distance’ 4Q274 1i2; ‫יצאו אחי‬ ‫‘ לקראתו יפי התור‬my brothers went out towards him, handsome’ 11Q5 28.9; ‫מי זה אבד‬ ‫‘ צדק‬Who on earth perished, though being righteous?’ 11Q5 22.9 (3). Unless we come across a case like ‫‘ עולים ישר‬rising straight’ we would regard ‫ ישר‬as a subject complement ‫מהפרור הז‬ ֗ ‫‘ עולה ישר‬rising straight from this porch’ 11Q19 30.8, where the subject in ‫הזה‬ of ‫ עולה‬is ‫ קיר‬m.sg. ‘wall.’ iv) With a substantive—‫‘ אהבכה נדבה‬I shall love You as an act of voluntariness, i.e. voluntarily’ 1QHa 6.37 // ‫ אהבכה בנדבה‬1QHa 7.23, cf. ‫ א ֲֹה ֵבם נְ ָד ָבה‬Ho 14.5; ‫ויתגרשו‬ ‫‘ מימיו רפש וטיט‬and its waters were tossed out as mire and dirt’ Is 57.20 1QIsaª for MT 1

Cf. Muraoka 2020(?) § 3. On the alternative label, ‘secondary predicate,’ see above at § j, p. 211,

n. 2. On this meaning of ‫עלה‬, cf. ‫עוֹלה זָ דוֹן‬ ָ ‫‘ ִשׁגְ גַ ת ַתּ ְלמוּד‬an unwitting error in study is accounted wanton transgression’ mAb 4.13. 3 Morgenstern (2007.188) accepts Eshel and Strugnell’s (2000.452) translation: “Whom has righteousness made to perish or who has ever been delivered because of/in (?) his deceit?,” though they offer no philological argument for this understanding. In his right mind, no biblical poet is likely to pose such questions, even rhetorical. Moreover, Morgenstern refuses to see a subject complement in ‫ִמי הוּא נָ ִקי ָא ָבד‬ Jb 4.7, identifying an asyndetic relative clause in ‫א ָבד‬, ָ but cf. LXX τίς καθαρὸς ὢν ἀπώλετο;, which makes just as good sense. 2

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 t-v

225

‫‘ בעומדם שלושה סדרים ;וַ יִּ גְ ְרשׁוּ‬when they stand in three formations’ 1QM 8.6. Probably belongs here ‫‘ חריתי נפשי בה‬I became thoroughly impassioned at her’ 11Q5 21.15. Also followed immediately by ‫‘ טרתי נפשי בה‬I was wholly occupied with her’ ib. 16. v) Though ּfound in a nominal clause, ‫ מרובע‬in ‫‘ ועמוד בתוך באמצעו מרובע‬and there shall be inside (it), in its middle a column, square in shape’ 11Q19 30.9 is scarcely a straight attribute of ‫ עמוד‬in view of the distance between ‫ עמוד‬and ‫מרובע‬, cp. a verbal clause version in ‫‘ ו֗ עשיתה בית לכיור נגב מזרח מרובע‬and you shall make a building for the laver to the south east, square in shape’ 11Q19 31.10; ‫ביב לכי֗ ו֗ ר אצל‬ ֗ ‫תע ֗ל ֯ה ֗ס‬ ֗ ‫ו֗ ֗עשיתה‬ ‫תחת הכיור‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗מ ֯כו֯ נ֯ ֯ ֯תו֯ הולכת ֗לת‬and you shall make a channel round the laver beside its stand to run under the laver’ 11Q19 32.12, where, by virtue of parallelism, what immediately follows lends itself to a similar analysis—‫‘ ו֗ מחלה יורדת ֯ל ֯מ ֗טה אל תוך הארץ‬and a shaft to go down into the ground.’ See also 11Q19 35.10, 38.12. u) Paratactically through another verb A structure well known to BH, e.g. ‫שׁוּבה ֶא ְר ֶעה צֹאנְ ָך‬ ָ ‫‘ ָא‬I will look after your sheep again’ Gn 30.31, is also attested in QH, though not very frequently. E.g. ‫֗ש ֗ב ֗ה וכסתה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו‬and they will also repeat the ‘she covered again’ 4Q273 5.2; ‫וישובו ו֯ י֗ עשו גם הם ֗ה ֯ר ֯ע‬ evil (as their forefathers did)’ 4Q390 1.11 (1); ‫ אם ישוב וניתפש‬.‫‘ ושב והודיע למבקר‬and he will report again to the overseer. Should he be caught again’ CD 9.19; ‫ושבו ובנו֗ ֗את‬ ‫‘ העיר‬and they will build the city again’ 4Q379 22ii11. In all the QH examples the two verbs are joined with the conjunction ‫ו־‬, which occurs in BH as well, e.g. ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יִּ ְִשׁ ַלח‬ ‘and he sent again’ 2Kg 1.11. On ‫ וניתפס‬CD 9.19, not ‫יִתּ ֵפס =( ויתפס‬ ָ ְ‫)ו‬, see above at § 16 c, p. 81. v) Expansion by adverbials 1) Bare adverbials ‫אחר יקחנה‬ ֯ ‘thereafter he may take her’ 4Q271 3.15; ‫‘ אחר יבוא‬he shall come later’ CD 12.5; ‫‘ מליץ בנים‬one who comes in between’ 1QHa 14.16; ‫‘ סביב נכרתו צריך‬your enemies have been cut down round about’ 11Q5 22.10; ‫‘ וברכו שם‬and there they will bless’ 1QM 14.3; ‫‘ מחוקקי סביב‬engraved all round’ 4Q405 19.5. These must be kept apart from sentence adverbials which expand whole verbal clauses, not verbs alone, as in ‫המקדש‬ ֯ ‫‘ ררק לוא יבוא אל‬the only (caveat is that) he shall not enter the sanctuary’ 11Q20 12.11; ‫‘ רק הדם לוא תואכל‬only the blood you may not eat’ 11Q19 52.11; ‫‘ גם רחמיך רבים‬it is also true that Your mercies are abundant’ 4Q372 1.19; ‫‘ גם הואה אל יתערב‬nor shall he get involved’ 1QS 6.17; ‫גם מטמאים‬ ‫‘ הם את המקדש‬they also defiled the temple’ CD 5.6.

1

Not DJD 30.238 “and [they] will return to do ..”; they are not coming back from somewhere.

226

SYNTAX

2) Prepositional phrases No example need be cited. Let us only note that such a preposition is attached to a nominal, substantive, proper noun, substantivised adjective, substantivised participle, infinitive construct, and a conjunctive pronoun. One wonders if it is too daring to postulate a scribal error in ‫ ביומי עשה שמים וארץ‬4Q381 1.3 for ‫ביומר‬, i.e. ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫בּי‬, ְ which would form a good parallelism with the immediately following ‫ובדבר פיו ברא תהומות‬ ‫ואפי֗ קים‬. ֗ ( 1) 3) Bare nominals This is especially common in indications of length of time (2), e.g. ‫איש דורש בתורה יומם‬ ‫‘ ולילה‬a man who studies the Torah day and night’ 1QS 6.6, where ‫ לילה‬is parallel to ‫יומם‬, which is formally marked as adverbial, cp. ‫יוֹם־צ ַע ְק ִתּי ַב ַלּיְ ָלה נֶ גְ ֶדָּך‬ ָ Ps 88.2; ‫לחיותם‬ ‫‘ אלף דור‬for them to live a thousand generations’ CD 7.6 // ‫ לחיותם לאלפי דורות‬CD 19.1, where the underlying biblical text reads ‫ לאלף דור‬Dt 6.9; ‫‘ שלושה גורלות יחזקו בני אור‬for three periods of the battle the sons of light will gain the upper hand’ 1QM 1.13 (3); ‫ימים‬ ֯ ‫‘ שבעת‬seven days long’ 11Q19 17.11; ‫‘ עשרים שנה ומעלה‬twenty years and over’ 11Q19 17.8; ‫‘ מזוקקי שבעתים‬those purified seven times over’ 4Q511 35.2; spatial ֗ ‫‘ עולה מעלות ֗א ֗ר‬rising to the tune of four cubits’ 11Q19 30.10; extension—‫אמות‬ ֗ ‫בע א‬ ‫‘ ישפוכו סביב‬they shall pour all round’ 11Q19 16.03. Let us note cases of static locative ֯ ‫‘ וע‬and you shall make a spiral staircase to the north of in ‫להיכל‬ ֗ ‫בית מסבה צפון‬ ֗ ‫ועשי֯ ֗תה בי‬ the temple’ 11Q19 30.5; ‫מזר ֗ח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו֗ ֗עשיתה בית לכיור נגב‬and you shall make a building for the laver to the south-east’ 11Q19 31.10. A fairly long temporal adjunct: ‫כול הימים‬ ‫‘ אשר הוא בתוכה מת‬all the days when it [= a foetus] is dead within her’ 11Q19 50.10; ‫‘ כול יומי מואסו במשפטי אל‬as long as he detests God’s laws’ 1QS 3.5. Noteworthy are ‫‘ יהו בו אצלך תשבת הזו‬there are to be there with you over this sabbath’ M44 5 (4) and ‫‘ ישקודו ביחד את שלישית כול לילות השנה לקרוא בספר‬they shall keep vigil together a third of every night throughout the year to read the book’ 1QS 6.7 (5), which remind one of a temporal adjunct prefixed in BH with ‫ את‬as in ‫‘ ַמצּוֹת יֵ ָא ֵכל ֵאת ִשׁ ְב ַעת ַהיָּ ִמים‬unleavened bread shall be eaten for the seven days’ Ex 13.7 (6). Also with modal value: ‫בלכתנו קרי‬ ‫הברי֯ ת‬ ֗ ‫‘ בחקי‬as we walked contrary to the ordinances of the covenant’ CD 20.29 is to be compared with ‫ הלכתם עמי ְבּ ֶק ִרי‬Lv 26.27 as against ‫ אם תלכו עמי ֶק ִרי‬vs. 21; ‫דוּמם‬ ָ ‫ְשׁ ִבי‬ 1 The editor in DJD 11.95 postulates an Aramaising word meaning ‘oath,’ which, however, does not accord with the creation story. Qimron (II 333) thinks of an error for ‫בּא ֶֹמר = באמר‬. ְ 2 A scribal error is likely at ‫יובדו֯ בו רבים רום רשעה‬ ֯ ‫‘ יוב‬many will perish on that (day) at the height of wickedness’ 4Q169 1-2.6. Qimron (II 282) refers to 1QHa 25.9, where we read ‫ברום רשעה‬. 3 On this sense of ‫גורל‬, see Yadin 1957.262. 4 Reading ‫ הזו‬with Yardeni (2000 I 159) pace Milik (DJD 2.162), who reads ‫חזו‬, G impv. mp ‘See.’ Pardee (1982.133) regards ‫ את‬here as emphatic, though it is not apparent what the emphasis is all about. 5 An example mentioned by Mor (2015.315). 6 For more examples, see JM § 126 i and Waltke - O’Connor (1990.181). Pace Pardee (1982.133) this ‫ את‬has nothing to do with accusative of respect. In view of the examples adduced above one wonders whether Milik’s reconstruction with an indeterminate NP is acceptable in ‫‘ את ֯ח ֗מ ֯ש שנים‬for five years’ M24B 10 (DJD 2.124). Yardeni (2000 I 107) reads ‫העפר‬ ֗ ‫את‬.

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 v2)-v3)

227

Is 47.5 // ‫ שבי דממה‬1QIsaª; ‫‘ במתור שרירות לבו‬because he walks with a stubborn heart’ 1QS 3.3 (1). See also above at § q 6. In some cases a bare nominal in QH corresponds to a nominal prefixed with a preposition: ‫ יְ הוָ ה יִ ְמֹלְך ְלע ָֹלם וָ ֶעד‬Ex 15.18 // ‫ עולם ועד‬4Q14 6.41 and 4Q174 1-2ii3, a collocation attested 8 times in BH and always beginning with ‫לעולם‬, and where Qumran biblical fragments are preserved, e.g. Ps 145.1f., the preposition is there, except ‫ ֗עולם ועד‬4Q365 6i40 // ‫ ְלע ָֹלם וָ ֶעד‬Dt 15.17. Also just ‫ עולם‬in ‫‘ הוא ֗חי֗ עולם‬He lives for ever’ 4Q419 1.10. A likely scribal error is found in ‫ ישיב את העם מצרים‬11Q19 56.16 (< ‫ ִמ ְצ ַריְ ָמה‬Dt 17.16). The phrase ‫ יום אחד‬at ‫ וַ יַּ ְכ ֵרת יְ הוָ ה ִמיִּ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל רֹאשׁ וְ זָ נָ ב ִכּ ָפּה וְ ַאגְ מוֹן יוֹם ֶא ָחד‬Is 9.13 appears as ‫ ביום אחד‬in 1QIsaª. This expanded phrase is attested throughout the Hebrew Bible, three more times in Is (10.17, 47.9, 66.8) as well (2). This Hebrew phrase, whether bare or expanded with -‫ב‬, does not mean ‘on a certain day, one day’ as in English, but ‘in a single day, on one and the same day’ as opposed to two or more days. Cp. ‫ָל ָמה ֶא ְשׁ ַכּל‬ ‫יכם יוֹם ֶא ָחד‬ ֶ ֵ‫ם־שׁנ‬ ְ ַ‫ גּ‬Gn 27.45 with ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ְבּיוֹם ֶא ָחד יָמוּתוּ ְשׁנ‬1Sm 2.34. Even in ‫ְוּד ָפקוּם יוֹם ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ל־הצֹּאן‬ ַ ‫ וָ ֵמתוּ ָכּ‬Gn 33.13 the idea must be that pushing them too hard just one day would lead to a disaster. These two Gn examples are the sole attestations of the phrase in BH. Note ‫ ַהיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה ָר ִאינוּ‬Dt 5.20 (3) // ‫ ביום הזה ראינו‬4Q41 5.6. The expanded reading at Is 9.13 1QIsaª is probably an attempt towards harmonisation with the general trend in BH. In ‫‘ אל יתהלך איש בשדה לעשות את עבודת חפצו השבת‬none should walk around in the field on the sabbath to do the work he wants to do’ CD 10.20 ‫ השבת‬on its own can not be used as a temporal adjunct; some preposition must have inadvertently dropped out. (4) We often encounter a NP indicating a penalty as in ‫‘ ונענש שנה אחת‬and he will be fined one year’ 1QS 7.2. This is distinct from a nominal of temporal value as illustrated in the preceding paragraph. These NPs indicate a verdict handed down on defendants and syntagmatically are not distinct from ‫‘ נענש שני מנים‬.. two minas’ 4Q159 2-4.9, ‫‘ וענשו אותו מאה כסף‬.. 100 pieces of silver’ 11Q19 65.14 < Dt 22.19 (5). The verdict specifies what sort of loss the guilty defendant is to suffer: an amount of money to disappear as a fine, part of his meal entitlement as in ‫ את מחצית לחמו‬.. ‫ נענש‬4Q265 4i10 and ‫‘ ונענשו את רביעית לחמו‬and he [reading ‫ ]ונענש‬shall be penalised with (the loss of) a quarter of his food’ 1QS 6.25, and part of the time of fellowship with community Qimron (2018.326 [§ E 2.2.1]) postulates a verbal noun with m-, ‫?מתוֹר‬ ָ An example such as ‫הוֹלְך‬ ֵ ‫ ִע ְקּשׁוּת ֶפּה‬Pr 6.12 suggests that ‫ מתור‬can be analysed as an Aramaising G inf., see above § 18 b, p. 107, n. 1. Note also ‫ ה ֵֹלְך ְצ ָדקוֹת‬Is 33.15. 2 See also Lv 22.28, 1Kg 20.29, Zc 3.9, Est 3.13, 8.12, 2Ch 28.6. 3 This BH example shows that ‫ הימה הזה‬Bet Amar 5, though ‫ הימה‬is obviously Aramaising, is not necessarily a calque of Arm. ‫יומא דנה‬, pace Eshel, Eshel, and Yardeni 2011.11. 4 Qimron (I 45) suggests ‫ ממוחרת‬or ‫אחר‬. 5 Mentioned by Licht (1965.159). Here the penalty is marked as a zero-object. Note also ‫ֲענוּשׁ ְס ִק ָילה‬ ‘to be punished with stoning’ bYeb 47a. ‫ נענשו‬1QS 6.25, however, is difficult; neither the pl. nor the 3ms object suffix makes sense. Possibly a scribal error for ‫נענש‬. Cf. Licht 1965.41f., § 35 and Qimron 2018.156, § C 2.1.1.3. 1

228

SYNTAX

members as in the above-quoted first and many other examples. Special note need be taken of ‫ את‬in the just cited examples. We conclude that the verb ‫ ענשׁ‬is being used here as a doubly transitive verb governing two direct objects. (1) As an example of an adverbially used quantifying substantive we may mention here ‫‘ על דרוך מעט‬when one has treaded (the bow) a little’ 1QM 9.11. The absence of the preposition -‫ ב‬in a case such as ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחוֶ ה ֵבּית נִ ְסר ְֹך‬Is 37.38 is well ‫ע‬ known to BH, but note ‫ בבית נסרך‬1QIsaa. Note also ‫ ֲע ֵלה רֹאשׁ ַה ִפּ ְסגָּ ה‬Dt 3.27 // ‫עלה על‬ ‫ ראש הפסגה‬4Q31 2.17; ‫יכם ָדּ ִמים ָמ ֵלאוּ‬ ֶ ‫ יְ ֵד‬Is 1.15 // expanded with ‫אצבעותיכם ֗בעאון‬ 1QIsaª. What is known as accusative of limitation may be brought here (2): ‫ְמ ַחץ ָמ ְתנַ יִם ָק ָמיו‬ ‫ מחץ מת‬4Q35 11-15.4, but ‫מחצ‬ ‘Strike his enemies at their hips!’ Dt 33.11 // ‫תני קמיו‬ ‫ ֗מתנים קמו‬4Q175 19; ‫‘ וַ יַּ ֵכּהוּ ָשׁם ַהח ֶֹמשׁ‬there he smote him in the belly’ 2Sm 3.27 (3) // ‫ עד החמש‬4Q51. An adverbial ‫( חזוק‬4) is unlikely at ‫‘ ֯חזוק ז֯ ֯רועי֯ ֯רו֯ תקו בזקי מכשול‬my arms were bound fast with debilitating fetters’ 1QHa 16.36; one would read with Puech (5) ‫בחוזק‬ [= ‫]בּחֹזֶ ק‬. ְ 3a) He locale On the morpheme /-ā/ as in ‫‘ ירושלימה‬to Jerusalem’ indicating direction, see above at § 10 a. 3b) Fem. adj.: ‫‘ ותגור נפש אביון עם מהומות רבה‬and the soul of the poor one dwelt with tumults very much’ 1QHa 11.26. (6) In one instance the more archaic ‫ ַר ַבּת‬has been replaced with ‫ ַרבּוֹת‬: Ps 129.2 ‫‘ ַר ַבּת ְצ ָררוּנִ י‬they brought much distress on me’ // ‫ רבות‬11Q5 5.4. Note also Ps 69.18 4Q83 19.35 ‫מהרה‬ ֯ ‫( מה‬MT ‫)מ ֵהר‬. ַ The long form, ‫מ ֵה ָרה‬, ְ is usually regarded to be a feminine noun stressed on the ultima. It is, however, mostly used as an adverb meaning ‘speedily.’ (7) 4) Subordinate clauses (8) Clauses introduced with diverse subordinating conjunctions expand the verb adverbially. 4a) Causal, ground: ‫‘ בעבור אשר דרשו‬because they interpreted’ CD 1.18, see also 1QpHab 9.11; bare ‫‘ בעבור יבואו למשפטי אש—בעבור‬because they are going to face Cf. LXX at Dt 22.19 adduced above: καὶ ζημιώσουσιν αὐτὸν ἑκατὸν σίκλους, both objects in the accusative. 2 Cf. JM § 126 g. 3 Segal 1968 ad loc. mentions also Gn 37.21, Dt 22.26, and Ps 3.8. 4 So Qimron I 81. 5 Puech 1993.342, n. 47. 6 Mansoor (1961.118) mentions ‫‘ וַ יַּ ְשׁ ְק ִכּ ְתהֹמוֹת ַר ָבּה‬He gave them drink abundantly as (from) the deep’ Ps 78.15. 7 Cf. Muraoka 2018a.168, where an alternative analysis of ‫ מהרה‬is suggested, though all other instances of unstressed word-final /-a/ is semantically conditioned, hence its conventional label Heh locale. 8 For a tentative classification of adverbial conjunctions, see Thorion-Vardi 1984. 1

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 v3)-v4b)

229

punishments with fire’ 1QpHab 10.12 (1); ‫‘ ֗בגלל שהמה קדושים‬because they are holy’ MMT B 79 (2); ‫ועל שא כתוב‬ ֯ ‫‘ וע‬because it is written’ MMT B 27 (3), cf. ‫ת־ה ָעם‬ ָ ‫וַ יִּ גֹּף יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ ‫ת־ה ֵעגֶ ל‬ ָ ‫ ַעל ֲא ֶשׁר ָעשׂוּ ֶא‬Ex 32.35 (4); bare ‫‘ אשר גדפו—אשר‬because they reviled’ 1QpHab 10.13; ‫‘ יומת אשר עשה ביד רמה‬he shall be executed, because he acted high-handedly’ 4Q159 2-4.6; bare -‫שראי֯ נ֯ ו֯ —ש‬ ֗ ‘because we have noticed’ MMT C 27; ‫והבשר עליהם‬ ֯ ‫המקדש ו‬ ‫֗ק‬ ‫ודש כלבים שהם או֯ כלים ֗מקצת ֯ע ֯צ ֗מות‬ ֯ ‫‘ אין ֗ל ֗ה ֗בי֗ למחני ֗ה ֯ק‬one shall not bring dogs into the holy camp, for they are wont to eat some of the bones of the sanctuary when some flesh is still on them’ MMT B 58 (5); ‫במעשיהמ ֯ה שמי מהם שהיא‬ ֯ ‫התבנן‬ ‫התורה היה מצוֿ ֗ל מצרוות‬ ֗ ‫ירא ממשפטי התו‬ ֗ ‘Consider their deeds, for whoever among them who feared the judgements of the law would be rescued out of distresses’ MMT C 23 (6); ‫( כי‬7)—‫הק ֗דש‬ ֗ ‫היאה מחנה‬ ֯ ‫ירושלים‬ ֗ ‫‘ כי‬for Jerusalem is the holy encampment’ MMT B 59, see also ib. B 53, 57; ‫‘ לוא יומת כיא ̇צ ̇דיק הואה‬he shall not be put to death, because he is righteous’ 4Q375 1i6. 4b) Modal, comparative: ‫‘ ויהיו כלא היו‬and they became as if they had not been’ CD 2.20, where -‫ כ‬is equivalent to ‫כאשׁר‬, and this clause is modelled on ‫וְ ָהיוּ ְכּלוֹא ָהיוּ‬ ֗ ‫‘ כמה‬as I did’ M43 6 (8). Another Ob 16, with which cp. ‫וּכ ֶא ֶפס‬ ְ ‫ יִ ְהיוּ ְכ ַאיִ ן‬Is 41.12; ‫שעסתי‬ instance of a pseudo-modal clause is ‫‘ וחמל עליכה כאיש על יחידו‬and he will take pity on you as a man does to his only child’ 4Q416 2ii13, where the modal part could be rewritten as ‫ כאשר יחמול איש על יחידו‬or ‫כאיש אשר חומל על יחידו‬, cf. ‫כאל לאיש כן אביהו‬ ‫‘ וכאדנים לגבר כן אמו‬as God is to a man, so is his father, and as the Lord is to a man, so is his mother’ 4Q 416 2iii16 (9). Probably belongs here ‫וכול צבאם יבול כנובל עלה מגופן‬ ‫ וכנובלת מן תאנה‬Is 34.4 for MT ‫וּכנ ֶֹב ֶלת ִמ ְתּ ֵאנָ ה‬ ְ ‫ל־צ ָב ָאם יִבּוֹל ִכּנְ בֹל ָע ֶלה ִמגֶּ ֶפן‬ ְ ‫וְ ָכ‬, where the inf. cst. has been turned into a ptc., a process perhaps influenced by ‫ נ ֶֹב ֶלת‬in parallelism. 1

Hardly “so that” (Brownlee 1979.167; Horgan 2002.179; GMT 18), “afin que” (DSP 350), and “that they might be” (Vermes 483). In BH ‫ ַבּ ֲעבוּר‬as a conjunction is found only with a final value, but, as a preposition, ‫ בעבור ֲא ֶשׁר‬is used with not only final, but also causal value. The absence in BH of the bare ‫ בעבור‬with causal value is probably accidental. In any case the final value is contextually implausible at 1QpHab 10.12, if the preceding ‫ להיות עמלם לריק‬is resultative, and not final, in value. Or was the final annihilation the hidden agenda of the false teacher? 2 Cf. Qimron in DJD 10.99 (§ 3.5.4.1). 3 Qimron (DJD 10.95 [§ 3.5.2.30]) sees here an equivalent of ‫ועל הכתוב‬, translated in an obscure fashion, “And concerning that it is written” (ib. 10.49). If that is meant as a demonstrative pronoun, where does one find such in the Hebrew text? Similarly Charlesworth 2006.237: “And concerning this it is written.” Qimron, loc. cit., also mentions an instance in a Hebrew document from the Bar-Kokhba period, but ‫ ש‬there is an ordinary relative pronoun which has an NP as its antecedent: ‫[תחדר שפתוח‬ ֗ (= ‫‘ את החדר שפתוח‬the room which is open’) in Broshi and Qimron 1986.206; this document has now been published in DJD 27.28. 4 Quite a number of additional instances in BH are mentioned in BDB, s.v. ‫ ַעל‬III a. 5 Pace DJD 10.74 n. 34 the pronoun ‫ הם‬does not favour taking the particle as a relative pronoun. 6 We fail to follow the argument in DJD 10.74 n. 34 that ‫ מהם‬indicates ‫ ש‬as a relative pronoun, for what would be its antecedents? 7 Morag (1996.222, n. 57) justly emphasises that in MMT we also find this particle alongside -‫ש‬. 8 Kutscher (1961a.62) cites a MH example of -‫כמה שׁ‬: ‫‘ ְכּ ָמה ֶשׁנֶּ ֱא ַמר‬as it has been said’ mSot 8.1. 9 Qimron (II 156) reads ‫כאב‬, though he does mention ‫ כאל‬as a preferable variant reading.

230

SYNTAX

In ‫כנפי֯ ו ויקח וישאהו על אברתו נצרתנו‬ ֗ ‫ ךנשר יעיר קנו֗ ועל גוזליו י֯ ֗רחפ יפרוש‬4Q504 6.7 one can identify a modal conjunction in the manner of “as the earth brings forth its shoots (‫תּוֹציא ִצ ְמ ָחהּ‬ ִ ‫)כ ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ .. so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring 1 forth” Is 61.11, ( ) though we may have here an asyndetic relative clause—‘as an eagle that guards its nest and hovers over its chicks, spreads its wings, picks (one) up and carries it on its pinions You have protected us.’ 4c) Final (2): ‫‘ בעבור אשר לא יגדפו‬in order that they may not blaspheme’ CD 12.7; bare ‫( בעבור‬3)—‫‘ בעבור יבואו‬in order for them to enter’ 1QpHab 10.12; ‫‘ בעבור יספרו‬in order ‫‘ בעבור ידעו בין טוב‬so that they can tell good that they may recount’ 1QHa 5.27; ‫וב ובין רע‬ from bad’ 4Q300 3.2; ‫תבינו‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗ב ֯עבור‬in order that you may understand’ 4Q298 3-4ii9; ‫‘ בעבור תקבל‬in order that it will receive’ 4Q462 1.15; ֗‫נא ֗מי֗ ן‬ ֗ ‫עבור‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗ב‬in order that we may believe’ 4Q504 3ii12; ‫‘ למען אשר לוא ילמדוכה‬so that they do not teach you’ 11Q19 62.15; bare ‫‘ למען יתפשו—למען‬in order that they will be caught’ 1QHa 12.20 (4), also ‫למען ידעו‬ ‘so that they may know’ ib. 33, ‫‘ למען ייטב לכה‬so that it may be beneficial to you’ 11Q19 53.6, sim. 4Q175 4; ‫‘ למען לוא ישוגו‬so that they would not err’ 11Q19 35.13; ‫ אשר לוא ילך איש בשרירות לבו לתעות אחר לבבו‬.. ‫‘ לעשות אמת יחד‬to practise truth of the community .. so that nobody should walk in the stubbornness of his heart, wandering away after his desire’ 1QS 5.3 (5), ‫‘ אשר לוא יבוא גדוד‬in order that no horde will enter’ 11Q19 58.9, ‫‘ אשר יהיו שומרים אותו‬in order to protect him constantly’ 11Q19 57.10, ‫‘ אשר יהיו יושבים עמו‬in order to sit with him regularly’ 11Q19 57.13 (6) (7); ‫‘ ֗ש ֗אז֗ רע‬in order that I may sow’ 5/6Ḥev 46.5 (8); ‫‘ פן ישיאנו‬lest he burden him’ 1QS 5.14; ‫אל תגע‬ ‫‘ פן תכשל‬Don’t touch in case you trip’ 4Q416 2ii16; ‫תכוה‬ ̇ ‫‘ אל תשלח ידכה בו פן‬Don’t put your hand out for it in case it gets burned’ 4Q416 2iii4; ‫‘ פן ישגו‬lest they may err’ 1QSa 1.5; ‫‘ פן יטרפו נפש)י( עני‬so that they may not rip up a poor person’s soul’ 1QHa 13.16; ‫‘ מטוט ֗הצלתני פן אטבע בו‬You have rescued me out of the mire so that I ֗ ‫לבבכה‬ ֗ ‫ירו֗ ם לב‬ ֗ ‫‘ למה‬in case your heart would not drown in it’ 4Q437 2i10 (9); ‫ושכחתה‬ 1

For more BH examples, see JM § 174 d. Cf. Fassberg 1994.119-22. 3 In BH we find ‫ ַבּ ֲעבוּר ֲא ֶשׁר‬only once; otherwise (9×) without ‫א ֶשׁר‬. ֲ 4 In BH, too, ‫ למען‬can be used without ‫א ֶשׁר‬, ֲ e.g. ‫יטב ִלי‬ ַ ִ‫ ְל ַמ ַען י‬Gn 12.13. 5 The grammatical subject of the preceding series of infinitives can be only inferred from the context. 6 Pace Eskhult (2018.19) the notion of purpose is expressed through ‫א ֶשׁר‬, ֲ not through the use of the participles in this periphrastic structure in the two instances in 11Q19 57. The imperfective aspect of this periphrasis is evident in the first case with ‫יומם ולילה‬, which precedes. 7 On this rather rare use of ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬with final value, see JM § 168 f and BDB s.v. 8 b. 8 On a similar usage of -‫ שׁ‬in MH, see Azar 1995.128, § 2 (‫)א‬. 9 We fail to see, pace Qimron (2018.424), why the ‫פן‬-clause should indicate a result that actually emerged. The same objection holds for another two cases mentioned by him, 1QHa 8.23, 13.16. The use of the Pf. in the main clause is irrelevant here. When Isaac said ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ן־אמוּת ָע ֶל‬ ָ ‫א ַמ ְר ִתּי ֶפּ‬, ָ nothing untoward had happened to Rebecca. At ‫תכרות‬ ̇ ‫ השמר פן‬11Q19 2.12 the author possibly sought harmonisation with ‫ן־תּ ְכר ֹת ְבּ ִרית‬ ִ ‫ִה ָשּׁ ֶמר ְלָך ֶפּ‬ Ex 34.12 rendered as ‫השמר ׄלכה פן תכרות‬ ‫ הש‬ib. line 4; his source text, Ex 34.15, lacks ‫השמר‬. In BH the particle ‫ ֶפּן‬does not have to be subordinate to another clause; for several examples, see BDB s.v. 1 b. On this particle, see also Fassberg 1994.113-17, 121. 2

VERB PHRASE EXPANDED — § 31 v4b)-v4e)

231

becomes puffed up and you forget’ 1Q22 2.4 < ‫ן־תּ ְשׁ ַכּח‬ ִ ‫ ֶפּ‬Dt 6.12 (1). See also 1Q26 1.5 // 4Q423 4.1. A new compound conjunction, -‫בשל ש‬, with final value occurs in MMT at ‫ים את העם עוון‬ ֗ ‫מסיא‬ ֗ ‫‘ בשל שלוא י֗ היו‬in order that they would not be imposing punishment on the people’ MMT B 12, sim. MMT B 16, C 30. (2) ‫עד אשר יש‬ 4d) Temporal: ‫‘ עד הם חיים‬when they are (still) alive’ CD 12.15; ‫ישלים‬ ֗ ‫‘ עד אשר לא‬before she was brought’ ‘until he has completed’ 11Q19 45.8 (3); ‫הוב ֗אה‬ 4Q265 7.13; ‫את ֗ד ֗ע ֗ת ֗ם ֗ע ֯ד ֯א ֗ש ֯ר לא ישלימו ימי֗ הם‬ ֗ ‫‘ לסור‬to remove [= ‫ ]להסיר‬their mind before they have completed their days’ 4Q270 6iv19 (4); ‫‘ בטרם בראתם‬before You created them’ 1QHa 7.27; ‫‘ ֗ב ֗ט ֗רם תקח‬before you take’ 4Q418 81.11; ‫‘ מעת ֗שיגלח‬after he has shaved’ MMT B 66 (5); ‫‘ ֗ב ֯עת ֯אשר ראה‬the moment he saw’ 4Q221 5.2; ‫אחר‬ ‫‘ אשר למדנוהו‬after we taught him’ 4Q227 2.1; possibly without ‫ אשר‬in ‫‘ אחר נעלה‬after it vanished’ 4Q376 1i2 (6); ‫‘ וכאשר משל בישראל רם לבו‬and when he gained rulership over Israel, his heart became elated’ 1QpHab 8.9; ‫‘ משמשחו‬after he had anointed him’ 11Q5 28.13; ‫ שנה ו֗ ֗שנה‬30 ֗‫‘ משמנ֗ י֗ תי‬after I have counted 31 years’ M30 26. 4e) Conditional: ‫אמ שבו מרעתם‬ ֿ ‫‘ כי‬unless they turned away from their wickedness’ 1QS 5.14; ‫‘ כיא יקום השבט‬should the tribe arise’ 4Q375 1i6; ‫ אם‬and ‫ כי‬in parallelism— ‫ או כי ילכו לעיר‬.. ‫אם במחנה יהיה הנשיא‬ ֗ ‘should there be in the camp the prince .. or should they go to a city’ 4Q376 1iii1; ‫‘ אללי שהגיים קרבים אלנו‬if only the gentiles were not near us’ M42 5. (7) For a fuller description on conditional clauses, see below at § 41. 1 Cf. TO there with ‫דּ ְל ָמא‬.ִ For BH examples of ‫ ָל ָמּה‬with this value, see JM § 161 h, e.g. ‫סוּר ְלָך ֵמ ַא ֲח ָרי‬ ‫ ָל ָמּה ַא ֶכּ ָכּה ַא ְר ָצה‬2Sm 2.22, with which cp. LXX Ἀπόστηθι ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα μὴ πατάξω σε εἰς τὴν γῆν. But at ‫ למה תשה עון‬4Q417 2i23 the normal interrogative value is just as good: ‘Why should you be burdened with guilt?’. At ‫‘ אל תבטח למה ֗ת ֯שנ֯ ֯א‬Don’t trust (him)! Why should you be hated?’ 4Q416 2ii14 ‘.. in case you become hated’ is equally possible. So also at ‫רמיה‬ ֗ ‫‘ השמר לכה למה תערב‬Be on guard in case ..’ 4Q418 88ii3, cf. ‫והן‬ ֗ ‫תשי֗ ֗ם ֗ל ֗לו֗ י֗ ֗כ‬ ֗ ‫‘ השמר ֗לכה ֗פן‬Be on your guard in case you appoint a Levite as priest’ 4Q423 5.1a and ‫יתפתה‬ ֗ ‫‘ למה‬so that he may not be misled’ CD 15.11. A number of examples of with negative value, ‘lest,’ are mentioned in Fassberg 1997.69. Rey (2008.168) includes here a few more examples such as ‫ למה יהיה כלאים‬.. ‫‘ אל תערוב‬you shall not mix .. in case there emerges something of mixed kinds’ 4Q418 103ii6. 2 For a discussion on -‫ בשל ש‬see Qimron in DJD 10.89f. [§ 3.5.2.5]. ‫ ְבּ ֶשׁל ֲא ֶשׁר‬Ec 8.17 and -‫ בשל ש‬in a Bar-Kokhba letter mentioned by Qimron do not mean ‘in order that.’ Nor ‫‘ בדיל די‬because’ 11Q10 29.7 [= tgJob ad Jb 37.17], though the same Aramaic combination can mean ‘in order that,’ e.g. Gn 18.19, Dt 27.2 TgO. On Aramaic, see also Muraoka 2011.94 and Fassberg 2015.15. 3 At the partly restored ‫עשרה ֗הדורות‬ ֗ ‫ועד הוליד ישחק את‬ ‫ וע‬4Q180 1.5 Chanan, Yuditsky and Qimron (2015.12) parse ‫ הוליד‬as N inf. on the ground that ‫ עד‬is not followed by Pf. Whilst we have no such case in QH, there is no dearth of such instances in BH; see BDB s.v. II 1 b. 4 This compound conjunction, ‫עד אשׁר לא‬, which is typical of LBH and RH, cf. Ec 12.1, 2, 6, and now Cook 2020(?). 5 On this post-classical compound conjunction, see Qimron in DJD 10.94 (§ 3.5.2.27). 6 The immediately following lacuna makes it difficult to decide whether or not ‫ אחר‬can be an adverb, ‘thereafter.’ Otherwise this would be the sole instance in QH of ‫ אחר‬as a conjunction, though such is known in BH, e.g. ‫ת־ה ֲא ָבנִ ים‬ ָ ‫‘ ַא ַחר ִח ֵלּץ ֶא‬after he has taken out the stones’ Lv 14.43, see also Je 41.16 and Jb 42.7. 7 Mor (2015.355) mentions two instances in which -‫ ש‬is said to introduce a protasis. In both cases, however, the reading of the text is uncertain.

232

SYNTAX

5) Infinitive construct, on which see above at § 18 e and f. 6) The introductory ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬or ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬followed by a temporal expression of diverse kinds such as -‫ ְבּ‬+ inf. cst. and ‫ ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר‬well-known in CBH had begun to decline in LBH finally to disappear from QH, which does without this introductory narrative marker. (1) Thus in BH one could have written ‫ וישאר‬.. ‫ ויהי בזכרו‬or ‫ וישאר‬.. ‫ ויהי כאשר זכר‬instead of ‫ השאיר‬.. ‫ ובזכרו‬CD 1.4; ‫ והיה עם צאת הקול יחלו‬.. or ‫ וְ ֵה ֵחלּוּ‬.. ‫ והיה‬.. instead of ‫ועם צאת‬ ‫‘ הקול יחלו ידם‬and when the voice goes out they shall set their hand’ 1QM 16.8. (2)

1

So noted already in Milik 1951.133 as regards 1QS. Cf. Eskhult 2003.154f. E.g. ‫יוֹתם ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה וַ יָּ ָקם ַקיִ ן‬ ָ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ִבּ ְה‬Gn 4.8; ‫ ִתּ ְמ ֶחה ֶאת־זֵ ֶכר ֲע ָמ ֵלק‬.. ‫ֹלהיָך ְלָך‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ְבּ ָהנִ ַיח יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬Dt 25.19; ‫וְ ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ ִכּי־יִ ְראוּ א ָֹתְך ַה ִמּ ְצ ִרים וְ ָא ְמרוּ‬Gn 12.12. Eskhult (2003.155) mentions more QH examples lacking these introductory markers. 2

SECTION C

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES

§ 32 CONCORD AND DISCORD a) Preliminary remarks The pronoun, the substantive, the adjective, the verb, and the numeral are inflected in respect of number (singular, dual, and plural) and gender (masculine and feminine), whether wholly or in part. This feature helps to determine which is outer—wall or court?—in ‫הח ֗צר החיצון‬ ֗ ‫ קיר‬11Q19 37.9: ‘the outer wall of the court,’ for ‫ קיר‬is masculine, but ‫ חצר‬feminine. For the most part, concord is observed between subject and predicate on one hand and between a core and a constituent expanding it. Hence ‫הלך‬ ‫‘ איש אחד‬one man went’ vs. ‫‘ הלכו שלושה האנשים האלה‬these three men went’ and ‫הלכה‬ ‫‘ האשה הזאת‬this woman went.’ However, cases of discord are by no means infrequent. There are diverse factors causing discord. Not every case of discord is a plain error. We shall attempt below to see what factor or factors may lead to what, at first sight, appears to be discord. b) Discord in gender ‫‘ והיתה לו לברית יחד עולמים‬and it will become for him a covenant with the everlasting community’ 1QS 3.11 appears to be unduly influenced by its underlying biblical text, i.e. ‫עוֹלם‬ ָ ‫וּלזַ ְרעוֹ ַא ֲח ָריו ְבּ ִרית ְכּ ֻהנַּ ת‬ ְ ‫יְתה לּוֹ‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה‬Nu 25.13, where the S [= subject] of ‫ היתה‬is ִ ‫ ְבּ ִר‬in vs. 12 (1); ‫‘ שלושת מצודות‬three snares’ CD 4.15 as against the standard ‫שלושת‬ ‫יתי‬ ‫ ימים‬1QSa 1.26, and the noun is resumed at CD 4.16 with ‫בהם‬. (2) One line after we find ‫הראשונה השנית השלישית‬, all referring back to ‫‘ שלושת מיני הצדק‬the three kinds of justice’; was the selection of ‫ הראשונה‬unduly influenced by the P [= predicate], ‫הזנות‬ ‘whoredom’? Even conceding that ‫ ומשפטו‬1QS 6.23 is an afterthought, the gender discord is striking, with the subject and the verb next to each other, in ‫ויהי עצתו ליחד‬ ‫‘ ומשפטו‬and his opinion and judgement shall belong to the community’ 1QS 6.22. ֗‫‘ יסודותי֗ הי‬its foundations’ 1QS 8.8 is problematic, and Qimron (I 224, n. ad loc.) thinks that, in ‫יסודותוהי‬, an Aramaising 3ms conj. pron. is meant, but it is preceded by ‫היאה‬ 1 Cf. Muraoka 1999.57. This case and another mentioned below, 1QS 6.22, can hardly be accounted for by an analysis proposed by Blau (1960.145-47) for examples of ‫ היה ל‬in BH. See above at § 21 b (xviii), p. 142, n. 5. Note ‫להאזרח וולהגר‬ ֯ ‫תורה אחת תהיה‬ ֗ ‫ תו‬4Q140 1.5 for ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה‬Ex 12.49, and cf. König 1897 § 345d. 2 In BH there is [‫]מצו ֺד‬ ָ meaning ‘hunting implement, net,’ occurring a mere three times, once pl. ‫מצו ִֺדים‬, ְ whilst its gender cannot be determined.

234

SYNTAX

‫‘ חומת הבחן פנת יקר בל יזדעזעו‬it shall be the tried wall, precious corner; its foundations will not sway.’ Two solutions suggest themselves in order to deal with this gender discord: a) the author may be thinking of ‫בית קודש לישראל וסוד קודש קודשים לאהרון‬ ‘a holy house for Israel and the foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron’ (line 5) as the referent of the pronoun or b) a scribal error for ‫( יסודותיה‬1). (2) Later in the column Qimron (I 224) is hesitant: ‫‘ היֿ אה מדרש התורה‬this concerns the study of the law’ 1QS 8.15, where the P is a masc. noun, which indicates ‫ הואה‬as preferable. In ‫‘ לוא ישמע בפי נבלות‬folly will not be heard from my mouth’ 1QS 10.21 the verb is most likely Nifal with passive value and used impersonally. (3) A fronted verb is liable to discord with its following subject, here ‫נבלות‬, f.sg. (4) In a case such as ‫ בם‬1QS 5.12 for the standard ‫בן‬, refers to ‫‘ הנסתרות‬the hidden matters’ the question is basically morphological in nature. This is but one out of many an example of the originally masculine morpheme doubling for the feminine. (5) Likewise, dealing with ‫‘ ערמה ודעת הם ישרתוהו‬prudence and knowledge will serve Him’ CD 2.3, one need bear in mind that ‫ המה‬predominates in QH, ‫ הנה‬occurring once only (6), e.g. ‫‘ שהם שנים שלמות‬which are full years’ M24 5.9. Another case of the masc. pronoun for the expected fem. one is ‫ נכשלו בם‬.. ‫‘ תעו בם‬they erred through them .. stumbled through them’ CD 2.17, where the referents are ‫‘ מחשבות‬thoughts’; ‫תעו בם‬ CD 3.4, where the suffix most probably refers to ‫‘ נסתרות = בם ;מצות אל‬hidden matters’ CD 3.13—these CD cases at least represent perhaps a morphological issue rather than syntactic. (7) Likewise ‫‘ טמאתם‬their impurity’ 11Q19 48.17, following ‫נשים בהיותמה‬ ‫‘ בנדת טמאתמה‬women when they are in their menstrual impurity.’ ba) Masculine as genus potius: ‫‘ בהמה ועוף טהורים‬clean beast(s) and bird(s)’ CD 12.8, both sg. nouns being used collectively; ‫ א ָֹתם‬Ex 39.7 (= ‫)א ְבנֵ י ַהשּׁ ַֹהם‬ ַ // ‫ אותנה‬4Q17 2i7. (8) The frequent use of the originally 3mp pronouns, whether disjunctive or conjunctive, in lieu of the 3fp forms may be mentioned here: ‫ שתים המה‬Is 51.19 1QIsaª (MT ‫)הנָּ ה‬ ֵ and ‫ )אחרי עשר השנים =( אחריהם‬1QM 2.13; ‫ )על אותותם =( עליהם‬1QM 4.13. (9) See also above at § b end. 1

Another intriguing scribal error appears to have occurred in one of the 4Q fragments of this document: in 4Q259 2.16 there is no S for ‫יחישו‬, the parallel ‫ יזדעזעו‬reasonably restored. The editors (DJD 26.141) believe that the subjects are the twelve laymen and three priests as the council members mentioned earlier in the column. More revealing is one of our verbs used in another sectarian document with some part or other of a building as S: ‫לפנ֗ יֿ ֯ת עוז ללוא תתזעזע‬ ֗ ‘into a mighty corner that would not sway’ 1QHa 14.29—on palaeographical questions see DJD 40.193—and ‫לחומת ללוא תזדעזע‬ ֗ ‘a tested wall that would not sway’ 1QHa 15.12. 2 As argued by Wernberg-Møller 1957.126. 3 Cf. ‫ת־בּ ָשׂרוֹ‬ ְ ‫‘ לֹא יֵ ָא ֵכל ֶא‬one shall not eat its meat’ Ex 21.28, and see JM § 128 b. 4 The immediately following ‫‘ וכחש‬and deceit’ is probably not coordinate, but introduces a series of fronted, coordinate subjects. 5 See Qimron 2018.284f. (§ D 2.6.3). 6 Qimron 2018.263f. (§ D 1.6). 7 CD is not included in Qimron’s (2018) corpus. 8 On the use of the 3m suffix as a default morpheme, see JM § 149 b. Cf. 1QIsa ‫ רגליהנה‬for MT ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ַרגְ ֵל‬ Is 3.16, on which cf. Kutscher 1974.445. Besides, at Ex 39.7 cited above the referent is inanimate! 9 Cf. Qimron 2018.263f. (§ D 1.6), 281f. (§1 D 2.6.1), 284f. (§ D 2.6.3).

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 32 b-bd

235

The masculine wins out in multiple subjects of mixed genders: ‫ נס יגון ואנחה‬Is 35.10 1QIsaa // ‫ נָ סוּ‬MT. bb) Fluctuation in gender Some substantives appear to be unstable as regards their gender. Thus ‫‘ ַבּת ֶא ָחת‬one bath’ Is 5.10 // ‫ אחד‬1QIsaa; the fluctuation is already found in BH, for in the only other occurrence of the word where one can determine its gender we find the masc. concord —‫ ֲע ֶשׂ ֶרת ַה ַבּ ִתּים‬Ezk 45.14; even within a single verse—‫ ֵה ִקים‬.. ‫עוֹרר‬ ֵ .. ‫ ָרגְ זָ ה‬.. ‫ְשׁאוֹל‬ Is 14.9, where 1QIsaª is consistent with ‫ הקימה‬.. ‫ עורררה‬.. ‫( רגזה‬1); ‫הבגד אשר תהיה עליו‬ ‘a garment that might be on him’ 4Q247 2i5 // ‫‘ הבגד אשר לוא נגעה בו‬the garment which it [= a layer of semen] did not come into contact with’ ib. 7, cp. the sole instance in BH of this noun as fem. in ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֶבּגֶ ד ֲא ֶשׁר יִ זֶּ ה ָע ֶל‬Lv 6.20. bc) Constructio ad sensum A substantive, though grammatically feminine in gender, may refer to a male or males, then ensues masculine concord conditioned by the sense of the substantive. Thus in ‫שתי‬ ‫‘ הידות יהיו שומרים‬the two divisions shall be guarding’ 11Q19 58.8, the feminine noun in question, ‫יד‬, refers to soldiers (2), hence ‫שומרים‬. In ‫יתקרבו לנחשיר גדול עדת אלים וקהלת‬ ‫‘ אנשים‬a congregation of divine beings and an assembly of people will draw near for a great clash’ 1QM 1.10 the construction ad sensum combined with the virtual extinction of the distinct Fut. 3fp form, (3) *‫כול הבא בעצת הקודש ההולכים בתמים דרך ;תתקרבנה‬ ‘every one who enters the holy council (of those who) are walking in perfect behaviour’ 1QS 8.21, discord in gender and number alike. (4) In ‫חטאת הקהל הוא‬ ֗ ‘it is a sin-offering for the congregation’ 11Q19 26.9 we have only a seeming discord, for the pronoun refers to ‫‘ הפר‬the bull’ (line 7) or its blood (‫ דם הפר‬line 6), both masc. substantives. bd) The predicate of NC [= nominal clause] determining the gender of the subject (5): ‫‘ הוא משפט בריאתם‬that is an injunction arising from their nature’ CD 12.15 or should one say that a m.s. anaphoric pronoun can refer to a preceding state of affairs, how locusts should be consumed? In ‫מל היאה‬ ֯ ‫‘ מלאכת ֗עמ‬it is an act of labour’ 4Q421 11.4 there is in the context no fem. substantive to which the pronoun can be referring. At ‫ היֿ אה מדרש התורה‬1QS 8.15 Qimron (I 224) is uncertain about the shape of the pronoun; if the author is focusing on the biblical proof text, ‫קוֹרא ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר ַפּנּוּ ֶדּ ֶרְך‬ ֵ ‫קוֹל‬ ‫אֹלהינוּ‬ ֵ ‫ יְ הוָ ה יַ ְשּׁרוּ ָבּ ֲע ָר ָבה ְמ ִס ָלּה ֵל‬Is 40.3, ‫ היאה‬would be more plausible as referring to ‫ מסלה‬.. ‫דרך‬. (6) Ehrlich (1912 ad loc.) mentions Jb 26.6 where ‫ ְשׁאוֹל‬is construed as masc., and mentions Gn 32.9, where the same word (‫)מ ֲחנֶ ה‬ ַ is construed in both genders. 2 Unlike in the present-day US Army members of the tender sex were spared military service or frowned upon. 3 See Qimron 2018. 159f. (§ C 2.1.2.2). 4 Alternatively, ‫ ההולכים‬can be construed with the preceding ‫כול הבא‬, another case of ad sensum construction, see below § cma. So Lohse (1986.31): “jeder, der .. eintritt, derer, die in der .. wandeln.” 5 Cf. our earlier discussion (§ 6 c, p. 16, n. 2) on ‫ היא‬at 11Q15 66.14. 6 Cf. DJD 26.146, and see also above at § b. 1

236

SYNTAX

be) Impersonal passive In ‫‘ ֗ש ֗רי֯ ֗ת ֯לו֯ ימצא ֯ל ֯ה‬no remnant will be found for her’ 4Q381 33+35.1 and ‫כנבואה אשר‬ ‫‘ נתן לו מלפני העליון‬in accordance with the (spirit of) prophecy he was given by Most High’ 11Q5 27.11 the two passive verbs are impersonally used, so that ‫ שרית‬and ‫נבואה‬ are their respective O, not S. On this matter, see below at § 37 b. c) Discord in number If the use of the plural in a translation such as ‘all good works’ for ‫ כול מעשי טוב‬1QS 1.5 (Charlesworth 1994.7) is based on the parsing of ‫ מעשי‬as pl., such cannot be sustained in view of ‫טוב‬. Nor is it necessary to postulate an anomalous discord in ‫להתהלך לפניו‬ ‫‘ תמים‬to walk before Him with integrity’ 1QS 1.8. (1) Very anomalous is ‫‘ יהיה שם עשרה אנשים‬there happen to be there ten people’ 1QS 6.3. We doubt that the fronting of the verb can account for the anomaly. (2) Further on we are back to the normal syntax in ‫ יהיו שם העשרה‬ib. 6, clearly referring back to the earlier occurrence of the phrase. Should ‫נדכא עני האריכו אפים‬ ֯ ‫‘ כול נד‬o all who are crushed with poverty, be patient’ a 1QH 9.36 be regarded as correctly restored (3), ‫ נדכא‬must be a careless spelling for ‫נדכי‬, cf. ‫נכאי רוח‬ ֯ ib. 23.16, for ‫ נדכא‬would normally be singular. ca) Dual Hebrew has no dual except for a limited number of substantives. Nor have pronouns, nouns, and verbs the dual. Hence, as far as the concord is concerned, dual nouns are treated as plurals. Thus pronoun—‫‘ אם שנים הם‬if they are two’ CD 9.20; verb— ‫‘ שעו עיני‬my eyes are shut’ 1QHa 15.5; ‫תחזקנה ידיך‬ ‫‘ ת‬your hands will grow strong’ 4Q378 3ii+4.11; adjective—‫‘ רגלי תמימות‬my feet are perfect’ 4Q445 4.3; ‫כוול אוזניהם‬ ‫‘ חרשות‬all their ears are deaf’ 4Q474 1.10. cb) Attributively used cardinal numerals In BH, numerals for higher than “ten” optionally and often expand a sg. noun, e.g. ‫וַ יִּ ְהיוּ‬ ‫ ַחיֵּ י ָשׂ ָרה ֵמ ָאה ָשׁנָ ה וְ ֶע ְשׂ ִרים ָשׁנָ ה וְ ֶשׁ ַבע ָשׁנִ ים‬Gn 23.1. The same is observed in QH. Thus ‫‘ שנים עשר איש‬twelve men’ 1QS 8.1; ‫‘ אלף דור‬a thousand generations’ CD 7.6 vs. ‫אלפי‬ ‫‘ דורות‬thousands of ..’ CD 19.1; ‫‘ אלפים אמה‬2,000 cubits’ 4Q491 1-3.7; ‫שלושת אלפים‬ 1 Though in BH the adjective ‫ ָתּם‬can be applied to a person’s moral character as in ‫ ִאישׁ ָתּם וְ יָ ָשׁר‬Jb 1.8, in collocation with the G verb ‫ הלך‬it is ‫ תמים‬that is preferred: Ps 15.2 and Pr 28.18. Note also ‫ימי ָד ֶרְך‬ ֵ ‫ְתּ ִמ‬ Ps 119.1 and Pr 11.20 // ‫ הו ֵֺלְך ַבּתֹּם‬Pr 10.9 and ‫תֹּם ֶדּ ֶרְך‬, but ‫תמם√ < תֹּם‬. Hence ‫ ַתּ ִמּים‬here is implausible. This analysis of ours suggests that the two coordinated infinitive clauses ‫ ולהתהלך‬.. ‫ להיחד‬are not subordinate to the preceding ‫נדבים‬, but independent of it. In other words, the subject of ‫ להתהלך‬is not ‫נדבים‬. Cf. Muraoka 1996.575f. All the same we find ‫ ההולכים תמים‬1QS 2.2, which perhaps suggests that ‫ָתּ ִמים‬ became an indeclinable, fossilised form with adverbial value of ‘with integrity’ in this collocation with ‫הלך‬, so that one could have said even ‫אשׁה הולכת תמים‬. 2 Cf. Mor’s analysis of the fronted sg. ֗‫רשי‬ ֗ ‫‘ ר‬allowed’ M30 22. 3 So Qimron I 69.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 31 be-cd

237

‫‘ אמה‬3,000 ..’ 11Q19 46.16; ‫‘ שנים עשר אלף איש מלחמה‬12,000 soldiers’ ib. 57.6; ‫עשרים‬ ‫‘ ווחמשה שקל‬25 shekels’ 4Q159 1ii9 (1). Of course there is nothing against the proper concord, e.g. ‫ֺשים‬ ̇ ‫ ̊אנ‬4Q259 2.9, a variant reading for ‫ איש‬in the above-quoted 1QS 8.1. In documents outside of Qumran words such as ‫‘ דינר‬denarius’ and ‫‘ סלע‬sela’ are regularly used in the pl., even with a numeral lower than ‘ten.’ E.g. ‫דינרין ששה עשר‬ 5/6Ḥev 44.20, ‫ סלעים ארבע‬5/6Ḥev 44.21 vs. ‫‘ תסלע הזוא‬this sela’ 5/6Ḥev 49.7. cc) Numbering numerals When a cardinal numeral is used to number something or someone, the substantive concerned appears in the singular, even with a numeral for ‘two’ or higher. These are no cases of discord. In ‫החדש‬ ֯ ‫ ביום שנים ֯בשנים עשר‬4Q320 2.14 ‫ שנים‬has the value of ‘second,’ hence ‘on day two’ just as the following numeral ‘in the month 12.’ ‫ יום‬could be in the st. cst. in view of ‫‘ בשנת שתים‬in year two’ KhQ1 1, cf. ‫כוֹרשׁ‬ ֶ ‫‘ ִבּ ְשׁנַ ת ָשׁלוֹשׁ ְל‬in 2 year 3 of Cyrus’ Dn 10.1. ( ) Analogously ‫‘ יו ֺם ֶא ָחד‬Day one’ Gn 1.5, not ‘one day.’ Note the concord in gender of the numeral and the substantive. For more examples, see above at § 26 ha. cd) Multiple coordinate terms Two or more terms constituting one notional unit can show singular concord: ‫נס יגון‬ ‫ ואנחה‬Is 35.10, 51.3 (om. MT), 11 1QIsaa // ‫ נָ סוּ‬MT. In ‫ערל וטמא ופריץ בל יעוברנה‬ 1QHa 14.23 not all the three kinds of people are meant to undertake the action, but ‘the uncircumcised, the unclean, and the violent—any of them shall not pass along it [= the way for the holy],’ sim. ‫‘ כול אשר בבית וכול הבא אל הבית יטמא שבעת ימים‬anyone that is in the house or anyone that enters the house shall be unclean seven days’ 11Q19 49.6. Note also ‫וזכרכ ֗ה ֗מכו֗ ל הארץ‬ ֗ ‫‘ ואבד שמכה‬and your name and memory will be lost from all the earth’ 4Q219 2.27; ‫וא ֗פ ֯ר‬ ֗ ‫‘ מה ישיב עפר‬what could dust and ashes say in reply?’ a 1QH 20.30, where ‘a creature who is but dust and ashes’ is meant, cf. ‫אני עפר ואפר‬ ‘I am dust and ashes’ 1QHa 18.7; see the sequel—‫‘ מה יתיצב לפני מוכיח בו‬how could he stand up, facing the One who reprimands him?’; ‫ישוב נא אפכה וחמתכה מעמכה‬ ‘May Your anger and fury turn away from Your people!’ 4Q504 2.11, sim. ib. 6.11, where we have two synonyms; ‫‘ ובא אליכה האות והמופת‬and the sign and (= or) omen came true on you’ 11Q19 54.9. We have here a kind of hendiadys, though not all the examples mentioned render themselves to such an analysis. In my name and your name there is scarcely a single notional unit. Hence the restoration proposed by the DJD 13 ֗ ‫‘ לו‬He will not efface my name and editors is attractive: ‫מתחת השמים‬ ֗ ‫יש ֗בי֗ ֗ת שמי ושמכה מתח‬ your name from under the sky’ 4Q219 2.30 (3), but there is no rule but has an exception or two. ‫ ֶשׁ ֶקל‬often displays number discord in BH, e.g. ‫ ֶע ְשׂ ִרים ֶשׁ ֶקל‬Ezk 4.10 // ‫ עשׂרים ְשׁ ָק ִלים‬ib. 45.12. Pace the editors of KhQ1 (DJD 36.500) it is not necessary to suppose that this fragmentary text is giving a full date with month and day. 3 Qimron II 231 reads ‫יש ֗בו֗ ֗ת‬ ֗ without any comment. The Ethiopic version does read ’iyetrammam semya wesemka (ed. Charles) ‘my name and your name will not be silenced,’ but note the two substantives are in the nominative. 1 2

238

SYNTAX

In ‫ורעה‬ ֗ ‫ימצא בידנו מעל ושקר‬ ֗ ‫‘ לוא י‬no treachery or deceit or wrongdoing can be found in our hand’ MMT C 8 the three substantives can scarcely be said to constitute a single notional unit; we prefer to identify here an imperfectly transformed passive clause and an impersonally used 3ms verb, thus the three substantives virtually functioning as direct objects. (1) The same analysis can be applied to ‫‘ שקוצים לוא ימצא בה‬profanities will not be found on it’ 1QS 10.23. We may mention here a single adjective expanding multiple nominals as in ‫לוא תזבח‬ ‫‘ שור ושה ועז טהורים‬you shall not sacrifice an ox or sheep or he-goat (when they are) pure’ 11Q19 52.13, where the selection of the pl. form of the adjective signals that the quality expressed by it applies to all the three sacrificial animals. This contrasts with multiple adjectives elliptically attached to a single nominal in ‫הארץות ֗הקרובות והרחוקות‬ ֗ ‘the lands near and far’ 4Q504 6.13 = ‫הארצות הקרובות והארצות הרחוקות‬. Affiliated is ‫‘ לוא תראה את שור אחיכה או את שיו או את חמורו נדחים‬you should not see a bullock of your brother or a lamb of his or a donkey of his going astray’ 11Q19 64.13 (2). ce) Collectively used singular nouns (3) This is a phenomenon which becomes frequent in LBH (4), and we find some examples as in ‫‘ כי נפלו כל בשר‬for all flesh fell’ CD 2.19 (5); ‫‘ כול הרכב היוצאים‬all the mounts ‫ משער‬4Q53; ֺ ‫ וִ ִיליד ֵבּיתו‬Lv 22.11 // that go out’ 1QM 6.11; ‫ ִמ ַשּׂ ֲע ַרת ְבּנֵ ְך‬2Sm 14.11 // ‫משערות‬ ‫וילידי ביתו‬ ‫ וי‬4Q24 9i+10-17.19, where the selection of the pl. is probably also influenced by the immediately following ‫( הם יאכלו‬6); ‫ יושיבו‬.. ‫ זרעך גואים יירשו‬Is 54.3 1QIsaa (7). Perhaps belong here also ‫‘ וֿ תמו כול יצר רמיה‬and every deceitful creature is going to be exterminated’ 1QHa 21.29 and ‫‘ יאמרו האדם‬people will say’ 4Q385 4.2 (8). In ‫להכניע‬ ‫ לשלם גמול רעתם‬.. ‫‘ מערכת אויב‬in order to subdue the enemy line .. to have them pay the penalty for their evil’ 1QM 6.5 the suffix pronoun of ‫ רעתם‬refers to ‫אויב‬, not ‫מערכת‬, hence no discord in gender and number alike.

1 See below at § 37 b and Blau 1960.143-47. Pace Qimron (DJD 10.85, § 3.5.1.15) this phenomenon need not be confined to ‫ מצא‬N. 2 Largely dependent on Dt 22.1, so much so that the next clause reproduces the return to the sg. concord as in ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ִע ְמָּך‬.. ‫‘ וַ ֲא ַס ְפתּוֹ‬and you shall put it up .. and let it be with you’ Dt 22.2. 3 Cf. above at § 8 a. 4 See JM § 150 e and cf. Revell 2002 and Qimron 2018.443f. (§ H 6.1, 6.1.1). 5 Qimron (I 7) proposes emending the preceding ‫ כי‬to ‫ בו‬and letting the clause conclude with ‫נפלו‬, but there is no m.sg. noun in the context to which ‫ בו‬could refer nor is the preceding clause, ‫כהרים גויותיהם‬, about corpses falling left and right, but about mountain-high heaps of them, as seen from the parallel clause, ‫‘ כרום ארזים גבהם‬their height was as tall as cedar trees.’ In this passage there is evidence of more confusion: ‫ כל בשר‬is continued with ‫ גוע ויהיו‬.. ‫אשר היה‬. 6 This phrase, ‫יליד בית‬, is collectively used also in ‫ת־כּ ֶסף ֵמ ֵאת ֶבּן־נֵ ָכר נִ מֹּלוּ‬ ֶ ַ‫וּמ ְקנ‬ ִ ‫ל־אנְ ֵשׁי ֵביתוֹ יְ ִליד ָבּיִת‬ ַ ‫וְ ָכ‬ ‫ ִאתּוֹ‬Gn 17.27. 7 MT ‫יוֹשׁיבוּ‬ ִ .. ‫ יִ ַירשׁ‬is inconsistent. 8 Dimant (DJD 30.39) says the collective use of ‫ אדם‬is common in BH, but it is doubtful that it shows plural concord, cf. ‫ֹלהים ָע ָשׂה אֹתוֹ‬ ִ ‫ֹלהים ָא ָדם ִבּ ְדמוּת ֱא‬ ִ ‫ ְבּיוֹם ְבּרֹא ֱא‬Gn 5.1 // ‫וּבנוֹת‬ ָ ‫ל־פּנֵ י ָה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ְ ‫ֵה ֵחל ָה ָא ָדם ָלר ֹב ַע‬ ‫ יֻ ְלּדוּ ָל ֶהם‬Gn 6.1, where the pl. ‫ להם‬has been selected, because the context implies an increase in the number of parents.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 32 cd-cf

239

cf) Distributive or reciprocal construction The selection of the pl. verb in distributive syntagm as in ‫‘ לוקחים איש את בת אחיהו‬they each marry a daughter of his brother’ CD 5.7 conforms to the BH model, (1) e.g. ‫ִחגְ רוּ‬ ‫ת־ח ְרבּוֹ‬ ַ ‫‘ ִאישׁ ֶא‬Everybody, gird each his sword!’ 1Sm 25.13: ‫‘ איש כתכונו ישבו לפניו‬they shall each sit according to his rank before him’ 1QS 6.4, sim. 1QSa 2.16; ‫יכבדו איש‬ ‫‘ מרעהו‬they would be honoured more or less, compared with one another’ 1QHa 18.29, 1QSa 1.18; ‫‘ בני לוי יעמודו איש במעמדו‬the Levites shall stand each at his post’ 1QSa 1.22, sim. 1QM 2.3, with the plural subject specified. At ‫ידם ֯אי֯ ש בכלי מלחמתו‬ ֗ ‫ירימו‬ ‫‘ ירי‬they will each raise their hand with their weapons’ 4Q491 11ii21 the scribe (: redactor, author?) appears to be confused; in its 1QM version (16.6) we see the standard ‫ידו‬. (2) The pl. ‫ אהליו‬at ‫‘ וישובו העם איש לאהליו‬and the people returned, each to his tent’ 4Q158 7-9.5 appears to be influenced by ‫ֱאמֹר ָל ֶהם‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ שׁוּבוּ ָל ֶכם ְל ָאהֳ ֵל‬Dt 5.26. (3) An object suffix pronoun may be distributively construed: ‫‘ ויורישם איש נחלתו‬and may they be granted legacy, each his own inheritance’ 4Q418 81.3. We may identify an extension of this distributive expression in ‫ישמעו הקטן לגדול‬ ‘they are to be obedient, the lesser in rank to the greater’ 1QS 6.2. Analogous is the syntagm for the expression of reciprocity with the BH model as in ֯ ‫יעשו֗ קו‬ ‫ל־ר ֵעהוּ‬ ֵ ‫אמרוּ ִאישׁ ֶא‬ ְ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬Jdg 6.29 (4) and ‫ וַ יִּ ָפּ ְרדוּ ִאישׁ ֵמ ַעל ָא ִחיו‬Gn 13.11: ‫איש את רעהו‬ ‘they will oppress one another’ 4Q390 2i9; ‫‘ שנוא איש את רעהו‬they hated one another’ ֯ ‫‘ י֗ ֯כ ֯ת ֗בו֯ בשמו̇ ̇תיהם‬they shall be registered by name one after CD 8.6 (5); ‫איש אחר אחיהו‬ another’ CD 14.4. If ‫ יביא‬is not an error for ‫יביאו‬, we would be having with categorical negation (6) in ‫‘ אל יביא איש לרעהו דבר לפני הרבים‬none should accuse a colleague before the Many’ 1QS 6.1. Also known from BH is the syntagm for expressing reciprocity by repeating a demonstrative pronoun as in ‫א־ק ַרב זֶ ה ֶאל־זֶ ה‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ל‬Ex 14.20 and ‫ָק ָרא זֶ ה ֶאל־זֶ ה‬ a Is 6.3 // ‫ קראים זה אל זה‬1QIsa . However, this BH syntagm is fundamentally distinct from its apparent analogue in QH: ‫‘ זה עם זה נעשו יחד‬they were each made together’ 1 A rare example of the use of a sg. verb is ‫ל־חמֹרוֹ‬ ֲ ‫ וַ יַּ ֲעמֹס ִאישׁ ַע‬Gn 44.13, preceded and followed by pl. verbs, ‫ וַ יָּ ֻשׁבוּ ָה ִע ָירה‬.. ‫ֹלתם‬ ָ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ְרעוּ ִשׂ ְמ‬. 2 If ‫ איש‬had directly followed ‫ירימו‬, there may have emerged ‫ידו‬, and the pl. /-ām/ is unduly influenced by the preceding pl. ‫ירימו‬. 3 Regarding ‫ ויאכל‬Is 9.19 1QIsaa for ‫אכלוּ‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ִאישׁ ְבּ ַשׂר־זְ ר ֹעוֹ י‬MT Kutscher (1974.43) holds that the scribe concerned was not familiar with the distributive use of ‫אישׁ‬, ִ what is somewhat unlikely, given its widespread use in BH. Besides, the text of the Qumran manuscript here is amiss with its impossible conjunction waw (not, pace Kutscher, ‫)יאוכל‬, possibly an inadvertent dittography due to the immediately preceding ‫ זרועו‬and also influenced by the preceding, parallel ‫ויאכל‬. 4 Cf. JM § 147 c and Bar-Asher Siegal 2012, which latter, however, does not touch on QH, but only on BH and MH. 5 Most likely ‫ שנא איש את רעהו‬CD 8.6 belongs here, where ‫ שנא‬is meant to be a defectiva spelling for ‫שנוא‬, i.e. ‫שׂנוֹא‬, ָ inf. abs., parallel to the preceding ‫‘ ונקום ונטור איש לאחיהו‬they took revenge and kept bitterness against one another’ and continuing ‫ ויתגללו‬.. ‫‘ לא סרו‬they did not forsake .. and defiled themselves’ and continued with ‫‘ ויתעלמו איש בשאר בשרו‬they ignored each his own blood relation.’ On the inf. abs. continuing a finite verb, see above at § 18 oc. 6 See below at § 40 g.

240

SYNTAX

4Q216 7.16; ‫ זה אחר זה‬.. ‫‘ הכוהנים יעבורו‬the priests shall pass .. one after another’ 1QS 2.19 and ‫‘ שלושה מקומות למזרח העיר מובדלים זה מזה‬three places to the east of the city separated from one another’ 11Q19 46.17. (1) In QH the verb is in the plural. (2) The pronoun ‫ זֶ ה‬in this QH syntagm, therefore, cannot be the grammatical subject. Does Ps 145:4 11Q5 16.12 ‫( דור לדור ישבחו‬MT ‫ )דור לדור יְ ַשׁ ַבּח‬belong here? (3) Or possibly an attempt to harmonise with its sequel, ‫ דור ?וּגְ בוּר ֶֹתיָך יַ גִּ ידוּ‬was probably understood as a collective noun: ‘people belonging to one generation to those of a subsequent one.’ That this syntagm has gained an independent status is manifest when the entire phrase is governed by a preposition as in ‫ בין איש לרעהו‬.. ‫‘ ודרשו‬and they shall examine .. between one another’ 1QS 5.21. The same phenomenon is also noticed in a nominal clause ‫זה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ושנים שערים לו֗ מצפונו ומדרומו זה נוכח‬and (you shall build) two gates to it, to the north of it and to the south of it, facing each other’ 11Q19 33.10 and in a noun phrase with a verbal noun—‫‘ מחשבת צדק אי֯ ֯ש לרעהו‬upright design towards one another’ ֗ ֗‫עהו‬ ֗ ‫לרע‬ ֯ ‫אש ֯ר‬ ֗ ‫איש‬ ֯ ‫‘ אי‬they will rob one another’s possession’ 1QS 2.24 (4). Note also ‫יגזולו‬ 4Q390 2i9. Since there is nothing irregular or anomalous in the use of the pl. verb at ‫כול קיצי אל‬ ‫‘ יבואו‬all the times of God are going to arrive’ 1QpHab 7.13, ‫כול עושי התורה בבית יהודה‬ ‫‘ אשר יצילם אל‬all those who practise the Torah .. whom God will rescue’ 1QpHab 7.13 and countless other instances there is no need to postulate that ‫ כול‬is a genuine st. cst. ‫כול רשי אבות העדה אשר יצא הגורל להתיצב‬ with the value of ‘each one of,’ and in ‫צב ֯ב ֯עבודתו‬ ‘all the heads of the clans of the congregation, for whom the lot came out, to take up a position in his service’ 1QSa 1.16 the author is focusing on the service to be performed by each one chosen.

More examples are cited in Qimron 2018.429f. He also plausibly finds two instances of ‫ֶא ָחד ֶאל ֶא ָחד‬ in 4Q22 27.30 (< Ex 25.20) and 11Q19 7.2. The repetition of ‫ אחד‬in a single phrase, however, is an innovation, for in BH the numeral is repeated in two adjoining, but separate phrases or clauses in the sense of ‘the one .. the other,’ e.g. ‫וּמזֶּ ה ֶא ָחד‬ ִ ‫ ִמזֶּ ה ֶא ָחד‬Ex 17.12. More references are to be found in BDB s.v. ‫ ֶא ָחד‬6. 2 Cf. Muraoka 1996a.71 on the above-noted variation at Is 6.3 between MT (sg.) and 1QIsaa (pl.), and ‫א־ק ַרב זֶ ה ֶאל־זֶ ה‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ל‬Ex 14.20. Bryn (1978.26) stresses that ‫ זה מזה‬is unknown to BH, but only MH. Given the two attestations in BH of ‫זה אל זה‬, we probably have to do with a case of incomplete documentation of BH. Qimron (2018.429, n. 182) analyses these two biblical examples with the singular concord as reflecting each other, not one another. However, do we know that Isaiah saw only two seraphs? ‫כלם שונים זה מזה‬ ‘they differ from one another’ Si 42.24 is said to be the first occurrence of the reciprocal use of this syntagm. LXX, however, reads πάντα δισσά [= ‫]שׁנַ יִ ם‬, ְ ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός, implying that, late in the second century BCE, the interpretation ‘each other’ was still current and the scribe of 1QIsaa, in spite of his ‫ קראים‬may have meant ‘each other’ after all. 3 No Qumran manuscript has preserved ‫ה־דּ ַעת‬ ָ ֶ‫ יוֹם ְליוֹם ִיַבּ ַיע א ֶֹמר וְ ַליְ ָלה ְלּ ַליְ ָלה יְ ַחוּ‬Ps 19.3. In any event, these cases are not reciprocal in value, but ‘one day to the following day,’ and so on. 4 We prefer to construe this reciprocal phrase with the immediately preceding noun phrase alone as does Wernberg-Møller (1957.24) with his “of right-minded intention towards one another,” i.e. pace GMT (73), who insert a comma—“upright purpose, towards each other,” implying that the phrase is to be construed with other preceding phrases as well. 1

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 32 cf-cg

241

cg) Constructio ad sensum (1) A substantive which is sg. in form may refer to multiple members of its referent, e.g. ‫ ָק ָהל‬and ‫עם‬. ַ Then it may show plural concord. Thus ‫ כל ישראל‬.. ‫‘ תעו‬all Israel went astray’ CD 3.14; ̇‫כול אנש ישתחוו֗ ̇לו‬ ֗ ‘all humans shall be bowing down to Him’ 4Q215a 1ii8; ‫‘ בית יחד לישראל ההולכים בתמים‬a house of community of Israel walking in uprightness’ 1QS 9.6, where the pl. ptc. may be referring to either ‫ בית יחד‬or ‫ישראל‬, probably the latter in view of the definite article; ‫‘ כול העם נצבים‬all the people are standing’ 4Q365 7ii3 // ‫ נִ ָצּב‬Ex 18.14 MT; ‫‘ והנה מצרים נסעים‬and behold the Egyptians were marching’ 4Q365 5.1 // ‫ נ ֵֹס ַע‬Ex 14.10 MT, but ֗‫לראו֯ ֗תו‬ ‫ לרא‬4Q365 6i3 // ‫ ִל ְרא ָֹתם‬Ex 14.13 (same referent, ‫‘ והיה כול העם הנמצאים בה יהיו לכם למס ;)מצרים‬and all the people found in it shall be your forced labourers’ 11Q19 62.7, where the pl. ‫נמצאים‬ (< ‫ נִ ְמ ָצא‬Dt 20.11) is ad sensum and continued accordingly with ‫יהיו‬, but the clause opens with the sg. ‫‘ אלה מקצת דברינו ;היה‬these are part of our words’ MMT B 1, where we parse ‫ מקצת‬as st. cst., see at § 21 (viii), sim. ‫הברכות והקללו֯ ת‬ ֗ ‫מקצת‬ ֗ ‫‘ באוו‬some of the blessings and curses became a reality’ MMT C 20; ‫‘ רוב פגרי אשמה יפולו‬plenty of guilty corpses will fall’ 4Q169 3+4ii5. 1QIsaª is not consistent at ‫ יחפצו‬.. ‫ יחשוב‬Is 13.17 with ‫ ַָמ ַדי‬as the subject // ‫ יחפצו‬.. ‫ יחשׁבו‬MT; ‫ ַה ְשּׁ ֵא ִרית ַהנִּ ְמ ָצ ָאה‬Is 37.4 // ‫ הנמצאים‬1QIsaª; ‫‘ יתאזרו חיל בליעל‬the army of Belial will gain strength’ 1QM 1.13; ‫יעורכוה כול העדה‬ ‘the whole congregation shall prepare it’ 1QM 2.9; ‫ זַ ְר ֵעְך גּוֹיִ ם יִ ָירשׁ‬Is 54.3 // ‫יירשו‬ 1QIsaª; pl. in MT but sg. in QH—‫ וְ גוֹי לֹא־יְ ָדעוָּך ֵא ֶליָך יָ רוּצוּ‬Is 55.5 // ‫ ירוץ‬.. ‫ ידעכה‬1QIsaª, ‫רוּכי יְ הוָ ה ֵה ָמּה‬ ֵ ‫ זֶ ַרע ְבּ‬Is 65.23 // ‫ זרע ברך יהוה המה‬1QIsaª (2), ‫ וַ יִּ ֹּלנוּ ָה ָעם‬Dt 15.24 // ‫וילון֯ העם‬ 4Q365 6ii10. At ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ ִ ‫ וְ ָע ְבדוּ ֱא‬Dt 7.4 the verb has ‫ ִבּנְ ָך‬as its subject, but what is meant is one of your sons, whereas ‫ ועבד‬4Q43 2.3 represents a more formal approach. In ‫‘ תועבה המה לפני כול עושה אלה‬all those who do such things are abominable to me’ 11Q19 60.19 ‫ תועבה‬is characterising the miscreants, not each act indicative of such a character, hence ‘abominable,’ and not ‫‘ תועבות‬abominations,’ (3) cp. ‫לוא תלמד לעשות‬ ‫‘ כתועבות הגויים ההמה‬you should not learn to imitate the abominations of those peoples’ ib. line 16 and ‫‘ בגלל התועבות האלה‬on account of these abominable practices’ line 20, and see also below at § ch. Here are some more examples of ad sensum concord noticed in biblical manuscripts vis-à-vis MT: MT sg. // QH pl.—‫יִפר ֹץ‬ ְ ‫ יְ ַענּוּ אֹתוֹ ֵכּן יִ ְר ֶבּה וְ ֵכן‬Ex 1.12 with ‫ ַעם ְבּנֵ י ישׂראל‬as the referent // ‫ ייענו אותם כן יררבו וכן ישרצו‬2Q2 1.2; ‫ ָא ַמר כל ָה ָעם‬Dt 27.28 // ‫ אמרו‬4Q30 43-45.4; ‫וְ ָקם‬ ‫יתי ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ִ ‫ת־בּ ִר‬ ְ ‫א־שׁ ָמּה ְבּ ִק ְרבּוֹ וַ ֲעזָ ַבנִ י וְ ֵה ֵפר ֶא‬ ָ ‫ר־ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר הוּא ָב‬ ָ ‫ֹלהי נֵ ַכ‬ ֵ ‫ָה ָעם ַהזֶּ ה וְ זָ נָ ה ַא ֲח ֵרי ֱא‬ ‫יּוֹם־ההוּא וַ ֲעזַ ְב ִתּים וְ ִה ְס ַתּ ְר ִתּי ָפנַ י ֵמ ֶהם‬ ַ ‫ וְ ָח ָרה ַא ִפּי בוֹ ַב‬:‫ ָכּ ַר ִתּי ִאתּוֹ‬Dt 31.16f. // 4Q30 54-55i2 begins in the middle with ‫ ועזבתיך‬.. ‫ ועזבוני והפרו‬and continues into vs. 18 with ‫פני ממנ֯ ו‬ ‫ פנ‬for MT ‫;ה ְס ַתּ ְר ִתּי ָפנַ י ֵמ ֶהם‬ ִ ‫ וַ יִּ ָירא כל העם‬1Sm 12.18 // ‫וייראו‬ ‫ ויי‬4Q51; ‫שׁ ֵֹסהוּ‬ [= ‫)]ע ָמ ֵלק‬ ֲ 1Sm 14.48 // ‫שסיו‬ ‫ ש‬4Q51. 1 2 3

See also above at § bc. ‫ ְבּ ֻרְך = ברך‬rather than ‫ ֵבּ ַרְך‬as suggested by Geiger (2012.324) as a possibility. Cp. ‫תוֹע ַבת יְ הוָ ה ָכּל־ע ֵֹשׂה ֵא ֶלּה‬ ֲ Dt 18.12.

242

SYNTAX

MT pl. // QH sg.—‫ נָ ְסעוּ ָה ָעם‬Nu 11.35 // ‫ נסע העם‬4Q27 1-4.5; ‫ֹלהים ַחיִּ ים ְמ ַד ֵבּר‬ ִ ‫ָשׁ ַמע קוֹל ֱא‬ Dt 5.22 // .. ‫ אלהים חי מדבר‬4Q41 5.9; ‫ ָעלוּ ָה ָעם‬Josh 6.5 // ‫ עלה העם‬4Q47 3-8.1; ‫ם־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ ֻא ְמ ָללוּ ְמרוֹם ַע‬Is 24.4 // ‫ אמלל‬4Q57 52.31; ‫ בית שׁאול ה ְֹל ִכים וְ ַד ִלּים‬2Sm 3.1 // ‫ הולך‬4Q51. An example of a substantive referring to an impersonal entity is ‫כול דבר הנסתר מישראל‬ ‫‘ ונמצאו לאיש הדורש אל יסתרהו מאלה‬any matter that has been concealed to Israel, but has been discovered by a student should not be hidden from them’ 1QS 8.11 (shifting back to the sg., ‫הו‬-), where ‫ כול‬must have played a role, on which see below at § ch. ch) ‫כול‬ By virtue of its meaning, often, but optionally, ‫ כול‬displays plural concord. (1) The plural conj. pron. in ‫ היותם‬must be due to ‫ כול‬attached to its referent in ‫כול הויה‬ ‫‘ ונהייה ולפני היותם‬everything that exists and comes into existence and before they are there’ 1QS 3.15. (2) The pl. ‫ נמצאו‬in ‫‘ כול דבר הנסתר מישראל ונמצאו‬every matter that is concealed from Is. and has been found out’ 1QS 8.11 (3) is most likely influenced by ‫ננמצ‬. Likewise .. ‫כול הבא‬ the preceding ‫כול‬, and in 4Q259 [= 4QSe] 3.2 we read ‫נמצא‬ ‫ ההולכים‬1QS 8.21; ֯‫ונכר ֗תו‬ ֗ ‫עש ֯ה ֗בו֗ מלאכה‬ ֗ ‫כול ֯ה‬ ֗ ‫‘ כו‬everyone that does work on that (day), they shall be exterminated’ 4Q218 1.3; ‫‘ תועבה המה לפני כול עושה אלה‬everyone that does these things are an abomination to Me’ 11Q19 60.19 (4); ‫יתערערו כל רוח בשר‬ ‘every human spirit will be shaken’ 4Q416 1.12. Cf. ‫לוא יהיה נוגעים בהמה כול אדם‬ ‘nobody whosoever shall touch it’ 11Q19 32.14, a striking mixture of sg. ‫ יהיה‬with pl. ‫נוגעים‬. At ‫ יוכלו וישבעו כל אשר עשה רצוני‬the plural verbs must be due to ‫כל‬, which, however, is followed by the sg. ‫עשה‬, ‘all those who do My will will eat and be sated’ 4Q370 1i1. At ‫ בשבועת הברית יקימו עליהם‬.. ‫ את בניהם‬.. ‫ הבא בברית לכל ישראל‬CD15.5 ‫ הבא‬is virtually equivalent to ‫‘ כל הבא‬everyone that joins the covenant .. they shall let their sons take an oath of the covenant.’ 1

Cf. also Qimron 2018.444f., § H 6.2. The use of ‫ם‬- in lieu of ‫ן‬- is a morphological matter. One of the instances mentioned by Qimron (2018.285 [§ D 2.6.3]), ‫ובשוכן‬, said to derive from ‫וכּם‬ ָ ‫וּב ֻשׁ‬ ְ (Qimron 1986.27) and glossed as ‘and when they descend’ 4Q405 20.12, is a puzzler. One wonders what the root of the verb is. Cf. Newsom in DJD 11.354. As strange is the mixture of gender in Lohse’s (1971.10) ‫הו ֺוֶ ה וְ נִ ְהיָ יה‬, though one need compare the related passage: ‫ כל הוי עולמים ונהיית עד‬CD 2.9. The author of the 1QS is consistent in his selection of ‫ם‬- in the following clauses: ‫ פעולתם‬.. ‫מחשבתם ובהיותם לתעודותם‬. For the affinity of thought expressed here Licht (1965.90) mentions ‫‘ תעודתם בטרם היותם‬their destiny before they existed’ 1QHa 9.21 and ‫‘ בטרם נוסדו ידע את מעשיהם‬before they were established, He knew their actions’ CD 2.7, but in neither text are there feminine nouns in the vicinity. Note also ‫ בם‬1QS 3.18, the suffix referring to ‫‘ שתי רוחות‬two spirits.’ 3 Kister orally suggested identifying here an inf. abs., a suggestion accepted by Qimron (2018.85, § A 4.6.5), where he discusses word-final ‫או‬- = /o/. In BH we find only two instances of such an inf. abs. continuing a participle. But both are plain predicative participles, not as here, ‫הנסתר‬. 4 Given the prevalence in QH of this feature, Baasten’s (2006.210) suggestion of a possible desire to avoid the use of the tetragrammaton sounds slightly ad hoc. On an inf. abs. continuing a finite verb, see above at § 18 n. 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 32 cg-d

243

ci) Hierarchy among coordinate terms There are found quite a number of cases in which coordinate terms are not all on equal standing, and if the referents are humans, one of them could be identified as dramatis persona, who determines the shape of concord. (1) Thus ‫אל ישראל ומלאך אמתו עזר לכול‬ ‫‘ בני אור‬God of Is., assisted by the angel of His truth, helped all the sons of light’ 1QS 3.24; ֗‫ר‬ ‫‘ מלפנים עמד משה ואהרון‬in olden times ..’ CD 5.17; ‫ לעשות בו כל שתחפץ‬.. ‫רשי֗ הלוקח וירשו‬ ‘the buyer and his heirs .. are entitled to do with it whatever you please’ M30 22 (2); ‫ב־שׁ ֵקה‬ ָ ‫ל־ר‬ ַ ‫יוֹאח ֶא‬ ָ ְ‫אמר ֶא ְליָ ִקים וְ ֶשׁ ְבנָ א ו‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬Is 36.11, where Elyaqim is the principal spokesman for the king and one could imagine his colleagues holding their tongue, but ‫ויואמרו‬ 1QIsaa, which is inconsistent with ‫ ויאמר‬vs. 3 [= MT] with the same subjects in an identical sequence as in vs. 11. cj) Attraction to a nomen rectum (3) The anomalous syntax in ‫מּוּס ִרים‬ ָ ‫ לחם ַה ָפּנִ ים ַה‬1Sm 21.7 has been normalised in ‫המוסר‬ 4Q52 and also in ‫ ֶק ֶשׁת גּבּ ִֹרים ַח ִתּים‬1Sm 2.4 // ‫ חתה‬4Q51. d) Discord in determinateness ‫‘ באר מיים החיים‬the fountain of the living water’ CD 19.34; ‫‘ גבורת מלאך האדיר‬the strength of a mighty angel’ 1QM 17.6, where the angel is subsequently specified as Michael. These go beyond ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ יוֹם ַה ְשּׁ ִב‬in BH. Rather striking is ‫אלה אנישי השם קיראי‬ ‫לעצ ֗ת ֗הי֗ ֗חד‬ ֗ ‫ מועד הנועדים‬1QSa 2.1, where ‫ קיראי מועד‬may be intended as a parenthetical description of the people concerned—‘these are the reputable people, invitees to an assembly, gathered for the community council.’ In ‫דורות חסידים תפארתך המתאוים ליום‬ ‫‘ ישעך‬generations of devout people are Your splendour, those yearning after the day of salvation by You’ 11Q5 22.3 the first three words appear to be constituting a selfcontained nominal clause, and a parenthetical description is smoothly bridged with it by means of the participial clause introduced with the definite article. Note the following cases of divergence from the biblical text in MT: ‫ ַה ָדּם ַהנָּ ִקי‬Dt 21.9 // ‫דם הננקי‬ 4Q33 17-19.7; ‫יעי‬ ִ ‫ ַהח ֶֹדשׁ ַה ְשּׁ ִב‬1Kg 8.2 // ]‫רוֹעים ;חדש הש‬ ִ ‫אוֹמי ְצ ִביָּ ה ָה‬ ֵ ‫ְשׁנֵ י ָשׁ ַדיִ ְך ִכּ ְשׁנֵ י עֳ ָפ ִרים ְתּ‬ ‫שּׁוֹשׁנִּ ים‬ ַ ‫ ַבּ‬Ct 4.5 // ‫ רעים‬4Q106 2i+3-5.13. In MH the syntactic rule here appears to be a little less stringent than in BH. (4) Though it is not, strictly speaking, a case of grammatical discord, the pl. ‫ ְלכוּ ִע ְבדוּ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬Ex 10.24 MT is odd in view of the immediately preceding ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ָרא ַפ ְרעֹה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה וַ יּ‬. We are not, however, certain that some theological tendency to accord greater role to Aaron was at work in the variant reading as found in ‫ ויקרא פרעה למשה ולאהרון‬4Q22 7.31, LXX καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Φαραῶ Μωυσῆν καὶ Ἀαρών, and Sam. Pent. ‫ויקרא פרעה למשה ולאהרון‬. 2 Cf. also a discussion by Mor 2015.334, § 5.36. Pace Mor (2015.336f., § 5.36.3) we would not see here a discord in grammatical person, but a shift from formal to informal. 3 Though it is a possible case of gender discord, DJD 10.46 wonders whether the fem. concord in ‫ועל‬ ‫בכלי נחושת ומים בה‬ ֗ ‫אותה‬ ֯ ‫שלי֗ ֯ם אות‬ ֗ ‫מב‬ ֗ ‫‘ ז֯ ֯בח החטאת שהם‬concerning the transgression offering which they cook in as bronze vessel with water in it’ MMT B 5 is a case of the nomen rectum, ‫החטאת‬, responsible for the fem. concord. However, the word in question has been reconstructed. 4 Cf. Segal 1958, § 376. 1

244

SYNTAX

The fairly common BH pattern יו ֺם ַה ִשּׁ ִשּׁי‬was said to be a construct phrase (1), which may be supported by an instance such as ‫בשנת ארבע מאות ושמונים לחיי נוח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ב‬in the 480th year of Noah’s life’ 4Q252 1.1, where ‫שנת‬, unlike ‫יוֹם‬, is explicitly marked as cst. Likewise in BH ‫ ְשׁנַ ת ַה ְשּׁ ִב ִעית ַל ֶמּ ֶלְך‬Ezr 7.8. The author of 4Q252 follows this biblical model, even when he adds what is not in his source text, e.g. ‫יום ̇ה ̇רביעי ויום החמישי ויום‬ ‫ הששי‬4Q252 1.9, but inconsistently ‫‘ יום רביעי לשבת‬fourth day of the week’ ib. 11. e) Errors There are cases where it appears best to assume errors. ea) Gender discord (2): ‫‘ אם יפתח צרתי‬if my distress starts’ 1QS 11.13; ‫ בכה‬2Sm 14.10 ָ ‫( ִל ְשׁ‬the pron. referring 4Q53 (for fem.) // ‫ ָבְּך‬MT; ‫ לשתותו‬Is 51.22 1QIsaa // MT ‫תּוֹתהּ‬ to either ‫ כּוֹס‬or ‫ק ַבּ ַעת‬,ֻ both fem.), likewise ‫ ושמתיהו‬vs. 23 // MT ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ַה ִשּׁיר ַהזֶּ ה ;וְ ַשׂ ְמ ִתּ‬ Is 26.1 // ‫ השיר הזואת‬1QIsaa (3); ‫‘ הושיע ידו לו‬he took the law into his own hands’ CD 9.10 (for ‫)הושיעה‬, sim. ‫ נַ ְפשׁוֹ יָ ְר ָעה לּוֹ‬Is 15.4 // ‫ ירע‬1QIsaa (4); ‫ חרב‬.. ‫‘ לא ימוש‬a sword will not depart’ 4Q169 3-4ii5 might be unduly influenced by ‫ ימוש‬two lines earlier, where it is in order. A case of inconsistency is ‫ ותפחד‬.. ‫ ותשכחי‬Is 51.13, where MT ִ is also inconsistent with ‫ וַ ִתּ ְפ ַחד‬.. ‫ וַ ִתּ ְשׁ ַכּח‬.. ‫מי ַא ְתּ וַ ִתּ ְר ִאי‬. ָ ‫נוֹד ָעה ַה ַח ָטּאת ֲא ֶשׁר ָח ְטאוּ ָע ֶל‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ In ‫ן־בּ ָקר ְל ַח ָטּאת וְ ֵה ִביאוּ אֹתוֹ ִל ְפנֵ י א ֶֹהל‬ ָ ‫יה וְ ִה ְק ִריבוּ ַה ָקּ ָהל ַפּר ֶבּ‬ ‫מוֹעד‬ ֵ Lv 4.14 ‫ ַח ָטּאת‬20 is used in the sense of ‘sin offering,’ whilst it was assigned the sense ‘sin’ as in ‫ ַח ָטּאת‬10. This could account for ‫ אתה‬4Q25 3.5 in lieu of MT’s ֺ ‫אֹתו‬. In ‫ הזואת‬at ‫ בית המסבה הזואת‬11Q19 31.8 the meandering flight (‫ )מסבה‬was the main component of the staircase, hence no error (5). The discord in ‫ובחיות היה נשמה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ובחיו‬and in the animals there was a spirit’ 4Q385 6.8 may be due to the author thinking of ‫רוּח‬ ַ ‫ה־שׁ ָמּה ָה‬ ָ ֶ‫ יִ ְהי‬Ezk 1.12, for ‫רוּח‬ ַ is gender-neutral. A little more complicated is ‫הפקודה‬ ֯ ‫ ֗ח ֗רו֗ ת החוק ו֗ חקוק כול‬4Q417 1i14; ‫ חקוק‬was probably meant to be a second predicate of ‫ החוק‬together with ‫חרות‬, and ‫ כול הפקודה‬was parenthetically added as a further, synonymous elaboration of ‫חוק‬, and interestingly there immediately follows ‫לילות בני שו֗ ת‬ ֗ ‫(‘ כי חרות מחוקק לאל ֗על כול ֗עלילו‬the law is engraved and ordained, all the requital) because it is engraved, ordained for God about all the deeds of the children of ..’ (6). Note ‫ יום השביעי‬Dt 5.13 // ‫ ביום השביעי‬4Q41 3.11, which latter is also read in the Nash papyrus. One cannot of course say which is meant: ‫ ַבּיּוֹם‬or ‫בּיוֹם‬, ְ but cf. JM § 138 b. Burkitt (1903.395) reconstructs ‫ את יום השביעי‬at line 15 of the Nash papyrus, but in its photostat (id. 393) a comparison with the end of line 16 leaves ample space for the articular ‫היום‬ ‫היום‬. 2 The text as read by Qimron (II 3) is difficult: ‫תבל ֗חדשים ֯ע ֯ם ישנים‬ ֗ ‫כול תנופות‬ ֗ 4Q286 5.7. His reference to ‫ ֲח ָד ִשׁים גַּ ם־יְ ָשׁנִ ים‬is infelicitous, since the adjectives refer to a masc. noun, ‫מגָ ִדים‬. ְ 3 An inadvertent haplography for ‫?השירה הזואת‬ 4 Kutscher (1974.393) wonders whether in his pronunciation the scribe did not differentiate between ‫ירע‬ and ‫ירעה‬. The same could apply, Kutscher thinks, to ‫ת־ע ָב ָדיו‬ ֲ ‫נוֹד ָעה יַ ד־יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬Is 66.14 (not: 66.4) // ‫ נודע‬1QIsaª. 5 Pace GMT 1251: “this building of the stairway.” 6 Some see here a nominal clause: e.g. DJD 34.155 “For engraved is that which is ordained,” for which, however, we might expect ‫המחוקק‬. 1

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 32 d-eb

245

See also ‫ אביהן‬4Q17 2ii9 for MT ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ִב‬Ex 40.15; ‫ פניהם‬4Q385 6.8, where it is most likely about the faces of four animals (‫ ארבע חיות‬line 6). Here, however, we need bear in mind that in QH the /-m/ morpheme is often used for 3fp as well. (1) These latter cases then are not to be condemned as errors. All the same ‫ לבית = לה‬11Q19 31.12 is difficult. (2) eb) Number discord: ‫‘ מואסיהם לא יחיה‬those who reject them (= ‫ )מים חיים‬would not live’ CD 3.17; ‫ גזעם‬.. ‫‘ בל שרשו‬scarcely has their stem taken root’ Is 40.24 1QIsaa, inadvertently distracted by the preceding ‫ זרעו‬.. ‫ נטעו‬// MT ‫( שׁ ֵֹרשׁ‬3); ‫עיני יהוה על טובים‬ ‫‘ תחמל‬the eyes of the Lord will be compassionate on the good ones’ 11Q5 18.14 (4); ‫ יבדלו קודש‬1QS 8.11, where we would anticipate ‫קדושים‬, if ‘they shall be set apart as holy’ be meant, cp. a variant reading ‫ יבדלו ֯לקדש‬4Q259 3.1, ‘they shall be set apart for ְ ‫ ַח ָטּ‬Is 6.7 MT; ‫ אנשי לצון‬.. ‫שמע‬ the sake of sanctity’; ‫ חטאותיך תכפר‬1QIsaa // ‫אתָך ְתּ ֻכ ָפּר‬ 1QIsaª // ‫ ִשׁ ְמעוּ‬MT; ‫ מודעות זואת‬Is 12.5 1QIsaª // ‫מוּד ַעת זאת‬ ַ MT Q; ‫היה בצען שריו‬ Is 30.4 1QIsaa // ‫ ָהיוּ‬MT; ‫‘ לא ידע מוצאיה‬those who found it did not know’ CD 9.15, where we may have a phenomenon such as ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫‘ ַמ ְר ֵא‬their appearance’ Gn 14.21, cf. ֶ .. ‫( יִ ָכּנֵ ף‬5); ‫ ותשענו‬.. ‫ ותעלוז‬.. ‫ותבטחו‬ ‫ לוא יכנפו עוד מוראיך‬Is 30.20 1QIsaa for MT ‫מוֹריָך‬ Is 30.12 1QIsaa, an incomplete improvement on MT ‫‘ עורך הצידה כולם ;)?(וְ נָ לוֹז‬cook(s), all of them’ 1QM 7.3 (6); ‫‘ מקוללי אלוהים ואנשים תלוי על העץ‬those who are hanged on the tree are people cursed by God and men’ 11Q19 64.12 (7). Cases such as ‫ידיו נטויה‬ 1

See above § b, p. 234. Qimron (I 170) notes that the 3ms suffix is found spelled with [‫ ]ה‬alone in several Qumran documents, which he does not specify. In Qimron 1976.237 ‫ כבודה‬1QpHab 10.11 is mentioned, but he himself admits the uncertainty of its analysis; for the suffix may refer to ‫ עיר‬or ‫עדה‬, not only to ‫נביא‬. 3 So Kutscher 1974.394. 4 Reference has been made by Sanders (DJD 4.17) to the apocryphal Syriac version here, /‘aynēh d-māryā/, in order to emend the text to ‫עין‬, though in Syriac ‘his eye’ and ‘her eyes’ are phonetically identical, the only difference being in a yod before the pronoun. For the fluctuation between the sg. and the pl., cp. ‫ ֵעין יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־יְ ֵר ָאיו‬Ps 33.18 and ‫יקים‬ ִ ‫ל־צ ִדּ‬ ַ ‫ ֵעינֵ י יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬Ps 34.16. 5 Cf. GK, § 93 ss and JM, § 96C e. This case should be viewed differently from ‫ דורשיה‬in ‫אשרי‬ ‫לב מרמה‬ ֯ ‫בבור כפים ולוא ישחרנה בל‬ ֗ ‫‘ דורשיה‬Blessed are those who seek it with pure hands and would not yearn after it with a deceitful heart’ 4Q525 2ii-3.2; ‫ מוצאיה‬involves a pseudo-Lamed-He root, for which ‫יה‬ ָ ‫מוֹצ ֶא‬ ְ is not anomalous. Puech (DJD 25.124) parses it as a plena spelled, pausal form, but ‫בּנָ הּ‬, ְ for instance, has no pausal form phonetically distinct from its contextual form. Qimron (II 114, n. ad loc.): “= ‫הדורש אותה‬.” Hence ‫ ישחרנה‬is an error for ‫ישחרוה‬. The two preceding beatitudes use a pl. verb: ‫יתמוכו‬, ‫יביעו‬. The author was probably thinking ahead, for the immediately following beatitude opens with ‫אשרי אדם השי֗ ֗ג חוכמה‬. Qimron (1992.83-85) mentions a few more possible QH instances of ‫יה‬- or ‫הה‬/‫הא‬- for ‘her’ with a sg. noun. Are these cases of a loose analogical extension of a form such as ‫ַמ ְר ֶ֫א ָה‬ ‘her appearance’? 6 A collectively used sg. (so van der Ploeg 1959.112; Jongeling 1962.193) is unlikely, following ‫‘ מפשיטי החללים ושוללי השלל ומטהרי הארץ ושומרי הכלים‬those who strip the slain and seize the plunder and purify the ground and guard the weapons.’ 7 There are more cases of confusion in this passage, e.g. ‫ימות ולוא תלין נבלתמה על העץ כי קבור‬ ‫‘ תקוברמ)ה‬he shall die and their corpse shall not spend the night on the tree, but you shall bury them’ line 11. For an alternative, and probably better, explanation of this particular case, see above at § 21 f. 2

246

SYNTAX

1QIsaa = ‫ ידו נטויה‬MT Is 5.25 are particularly common in 1QIsaa (1). This spelling of ‫יו‬- instead of the standard ‫ו‬- was explained by Yalon (2) and Ben-Ḥayyim (3) as a dialectal feature of the scribe of 1QIsaa showing affinity with Samaritan Hebrew. Then these are not cases of genuine number discord. Another case of interface between orthography and morphology is ‫ל־מ ֲע ֵשׂה יְ הוָ ה ַהגָּ ד ֹל‬ ַ ‫ ָכּ‬Dt 11.7 // ‫כול מעשה יהוה הגדולים‬ 4Q38 2.3, cf. ‫ מעשי ייהוה הגדולים‬4Q37 8.3 (= Dt 11.7). The selection of ‫ ה‬in lieu of the normative ‫ י‬representing a tsere in MH is not unusual, (4) a phenomenon particularly common with Lamed-Yod roots. At ‫‘ ֯היה בתוך גחלים חיות כגחלי אש‬in the midst of coals there were animals like fiery coals’ 4Q385 6.12 the formulation is confusing, which one might perhaps expect in a description of an apocalyptic vision. In ‫‘ ונענשו‬and they shall be penalised’ 1QS 6.25 we probably have a scribal error for ‫ונענש‬, see above at § 31 v (3). We probably have an example of only apparent double discord, not ad sensum, in MT sg. ‫ וַ יְ ִהי יָ ָדיו ֱאמוּנָ ה‬Ex 17.12 // ‫ ויהיו‬4Q14 8.20, which is an attempt to correct the error at least in respect of number, though ‫ ויהי‬probably has the whole situation as its subject, ‘there emerged a situation in which ..’ (5). See also ‫ הוא ברית החדשה‬CD 20.12, where ‫ היא‬is expected, not because of the fem. substantive, ‫ברית‬, but because the pronoun refers back to ‫‘ אמנה‬pact’ in the preceding clause, and one also expects ‫הברית‬ ‫החדשה‬, so at CD 6.19, 19.33. Do we have an attempt to correct MT in ‫תוּבה‬ ָ ‫ ֻחקּ ָֹתיו ַה ְכּ‬Dt 30.10 // ‫חוקותיו הכתובים‬ ֯ 4Q29 1+2i+3.14? However, for MT the noun derives from a fem. noun, ‫ח ָקּה‬, ֻ but then one would anticipate ‫הכתובות‬. By contrast, for 4Q29 the masculine noun ‫ חוק‬has two pl. forms, ‫ ֻח ִקּים‬and ‫חקּוֹת‬. ֻ We hesitate to fault 1QIsaa at ‫ירגיעו ליליות ומצאו להמה מנוח‬ Is 34.14 for MT ‫נוֹח‬ ַ ‫וּמ ְצ ָאה ָלהּ ָמ‬ ָ ‫יעה ִלּ ִילית‬ ָ ִ‫;ה ְרגּ‬ ִ the selection of the plural harmonises with the preceding ‫ת־איִּ ים‬ ִ ‫וּפגְ שׁוּ ִציִּ ים ֶא‬. ָ f) Aramaisms in 1QIsaa In several places 1QIsaa a Pf. 3fs form ending with ‫ה‬- is used with a fpl subject: ‫וְ ֶה ֱחזִ יקוּ‬ ‫ ֶשׁ ַבע נָ ִשׁים ְבּ ִאישׁ ֶא ָחד‬Is 4.1 // ‫ החזיקה‬1QIsaa; ‫ יָ ְצאוּ‬.. ‫ ָה ִראשׁ ֹנוֹת‬Is 48.3 // ‫ יצאה‬1QIsaa; ‫ ַשׁ ְדמוֹת ֶח ְשׁבּוֹן ֻא ְמ ָלל‬Is 16.8 // ‫( אמללה‬6). BH inherited /-ā/ from Old Semitic as a Pf. 3fp suffix, still occasionally preserved as in ‫ ָבּנוֹת ָצ ֲע ָדה‬Gn 49.22 (7). What we find in 1QIsaa is most likely under the influence of contemporary Aramaic dialects which have the 1 The spelling ‫ ידיו‬for ‫ ידו‬occurs also in Is 9.11, 16, 20, 10.4, 14.27+, which last case is most remarkable with ‫ = היד הנטויה‬MT preceding. Kutscher (1974.443) collected more examples with a discussion (ib. 447). More examples are mentioned by Qimron (2018.73f., [§ A 3.3]). 2 Yalon 1967.62 [originally in his 1951 article]. 3 Ben-Ḥayyim 1953.94-99. Cf. also a discussion by Qimron (2018.72 [§ A 3.3]). 4 Pace Duncan (DJD 14.97) this has nothing to do with “the phonetic identity of ‫מעשה‬/‫מעשי‬.” Qimron (1986 § 100.34), mentioned by Duncan, does not speak of such a phonetic identity, either. 5 Cassuto (1965.142) refers to ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ָשׂ ָפה ֶא ָחת ְוּד ָב ִרים ֲא ָח ִדים‬ ָ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ָכ‬. 6 Cf. ‫א־ע ָשׂה א ֶֹכל‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ְשׁ ֵדמוֹת ל‬Hb 3.17, where Mur88 19.20 also reads ‫עשה‬. 7 Cf. JM, § 42 f, p. 122.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 32 eb – § 33 a

247

same Pf. ending. (1) Note ‫ ִה ְצ ִל ַיח ַדּ ְרכּוֹ‬Is 48.15 // ‫ הצליחה דרכוהי‬1QIsaa, where we also have a blatant Aramaism in ‫ דרכוהי‬for ‫דּ ָר ָכיו‬.ְ In ‫ נִ ְפ ַתּח ֵאזוֹר ֲח ָל ָציו‬Is 5.27 // ‫ נפתחה‬1QIsaa ‫חלציו‬, a fem. noun, may have led to the use of the fem. form of the verb. A possible example in another document is ]‫ שמעה‬1Q10 2.1 // ‫ ִתּ ְשׁ ַמ ְענָ ה ָאזְ נָ י‬Ps 92.12. g) Indeclinable In BH ‫ ֵכּן‬is sometimes used as indeclinable, e.g. ‫א־כן‬ ֵ ֹ ‫‘ ְדּ ָב ִרים ֲא ֶשׁר ל‬things that were ִ ‫נוּה ֶכּ‬ ָ ‫‘ ִהנֵּ ה־זֹאת ֲח ַק ְר‬behold, we have enquired into it. It is not right’ 2Kg 17.9 (2); ‫ן־היא‬ so’ Jb 5.27. This could apply to ֗‫מקצת ֗דברינו ֗כן‬ ֯ ‫‘ במצאך‬when you find some of our words proven right’ MMT C 30; note that, in the same document, ‫מקצת‬, also preceding pl. substantives, has its verb in the pl.—‫הברכות והקללו֯ ֯ת‬ ֗ ‫מקצת‬ ֗ ‫‘ באוו‬some of the 3 blessings and curses materialised’ MMT C 20. ( )

§ 33 WORD ORDER: NOMINAL CLAUSE (4) a) Preliminary remarks In spite of the notorious, occasional difficulty of determining which is Subject [= S] and which is Predicate [= P], we do not think it sensible and meaningful to leave this feature totally out of discussion. We provisionally define S as given, known (5) and P as new, analogously to the information structure with theme and rheme (i.e. comment). The logical relationship between S and P is not always a simple equation, ‘A is B.’ Thus ‫רוח ֗ב‬ ֗ ‫ הקיר שתים אמות‬4Q365a 2ii10, lit. ‘the wall two cubits width’ // ‫רוחב הקיר‬ ‫ שתים אמות‬ib. 2ii9 and ‫‘ רוחב החדר עשר באמה‬the width of the room ten in cubit’ ib. 2ii8. An idiomatic rendition of the clause is ‘the wall is two cubits wide.’ 1 As persuasively argued by Kutscher 1974.191f. See also Muraoka 2011.99, § 24 g for Qumran Aramaic. 2 Note λόγους ἀδίκους in the Antiochene version. 3 Cf. ‫ ֵכּן ְבּנוֹת ְצ ָל ְפ ָחד דּ ְֹבר ֹת‬Nu 27.7 > LXX Ὀρθῶς θυγατέρες Σαλπααδ λελαλήκασιν. Bendavid (196971.350) mentions a midrashic rewriting of this verse: ‫( יפה תבעו בנות צלפחד‬Sifre Nu 134). 4 As can be seen below, our nomenclature is traditional, for we include clauses whose predicates are not noun phrases, but prepositional, for instance. Some scholars prefer ‘non-verbal clause,’ cf. Baasten 2006.14f. Two important, recent studies deserve a mention: Zewi 2008, which is an English rendition of Zewi 2007, and Baasten 2006. Zewi’s corpus is confined to 1QpHab, 1QS, CD, 1QM, and 11Q19, as a consequence of which there are some important gaps or imperfections. To name only one issue, Zewi (2008.290) writes that no predicative adjective follows its subject. For counter examples, see below at § ca (1). Baasten (2006.8), on the other hand, understands ‘Qumran’ in the narrow sense, excluding contemporary documents originating outside of the eleven Qumran caves. Cf. Mor and Zewi (2011), a study devoted to the documents originating outside of Qumran. A well-written recent survey of modern studies on the Hebrew nominal clause up to Qumran Hebrew is found in Baasten 2006.63-120. Baasten (ib. 88f.) evaluates Revel’s (1989) study on the nominal clause in BH, but no mention is made of the latter’s studies on QH (1962, 1964). 5 An approach adopted by Baasten 2006.

248

SYNTAX

We believe that the feature of definiteness or determinateness of a noun phrase [= NP] as a constituent of a nominal clause [= NC] is of fundamental importance. (1) We treat a NP as determinate when it can be assumed that its referent is known to participants in a speech situation, whether oral or in writing. The definiteness can be formally marked through the addition of the definite article or a conjunctive pronoun. However, in ‫‘ הראשונה היא הזנות השנית ההון השלישית טמא המקדש‬the first is whoredom, the second is wealth, the third is defilement of the sanctuary’ CD 2.17, where one cannot translate with ‘the whoredom .. the wealth .. the defilement,’ since it is not about any particular instance of these wicked acts, but the article is generic. (2) Likewise, when Jacob says ‫א ְשׁ ִתּי‬, ִ one need determine whether he means Leah or Rachel. Thus the speech context need be taken into account. The feature of determinateness is applicable only to nominal phrases. This is another argument against treating participial clauses as nominal clauses. (3) We have not detected any feature of clause, whether nominal or verbal, which is unique to poetic texts in QH and not shared with prose texts. (4) aa) Fronting for focus That the fronted ‫ את אל‬is focused in an identificatory NC in ‫את אל משפט כול חי‬ 1QS 10.18 is evident from the immediately following, equally fronted dis. pron. in ‫‘—והואה ישלם לאיש גמולו‬it is with God that the judgement of every living person rests and He shall repay anyone what he deserves.’ At many a place below we shall observe the syntactic significance of fronting. ab) Attraction in parallelism The rhetorical feature of parallelism is found determinative for the positioning of a clause constituent. E.g. ‫‘ ועד שיבה באשמת מעל‬and until old age (he remains) in treacherous guilt’ 1QHa 12.31, following ‫‘ הוא בעוון מרחם‬he is in sin since (his time) in womb,’ where the fixed collocation ‫ עד‬.. -‫ מ‬may have played a role as well. See also ‫הבל כול‬ ‫‘ אשר לוא ידעו את בריתו‬all those who did not come to know His covenant are worthless’ 1QS 5.19, preceded by ‫‘ לוא ישען איש הקודש על כול מעשי הבל‬a man of the holiness shall not rely on any worthless work’ ib. 18. 1 In his study of non-verbal clauses in QH Baasten (2006) classifies every NP as their constituent other than disjunctive pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, prepositional phrases, interrogative words, ‫ישׁ‬, and ‫אין‬ as ‘d’ [= definite] or ‘i’ [= indefinite]. 2 See above at § 7 c, and JM § 137 i, where ‫ת־היֹּנֵ ק‬ ַ ‫‘ ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ָשּׂא ָהא ֵֹמן ֶא‬as a nursing father carries a sucking child of his’ Nu 11.12 is cited. 3 In elaborating Michel’s analysis of the structure of the nominal clause in BH, Lehmann (2014.145f.) underlines the feature of definiteness as of cardinal importance. In Michel’s classification of nominal clauses in BH into three types, the determinateness of constituent NPs is the fundamental yardstick. In its application, however, a participle used as a verbal predicate as in ‫ שׁ ֵֹמ ַע ָאנ ִֹכי‬2Sm 20.17 and ‫ ָאנ ִֹכי שׁ ֵֹמ ַע‬1Sm 15.14 is viewed as indefinite (Lehmann 2014.149). On our assessment of Michel’s position, see Muraoka 2006, a review article of Michel 2004, and on the question of the participle, see Muraoka ib. 451. 4 Baasten (2006.47) takes the same view as regards the NC in his corpus.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 a-ac

249

ac) Chiasmus In addition to parallelism dealt with above, another rhetorical feature is often said to be relevant to grammatical analysis, namely chiasmus. This technical term derives from the letter χ of the Greek alphabet with its two strokes crossing each other. A phrase, clause, or sentence composed of two terms may be followed by another also composed of two terms. They may be symbolised with [A] and [B] and [a] and [b], and there is a semantic, notional or grammatical affinity between [A] and [a] on one hand, and [B] and [b] on the other, and the two sequences may appear as and , and such a mode of arrangement is called chiastic. In ‫ובמלאך חושך תעות כול בני צדק וכול חטאתם ועוונותם ואשמתם ופשעי מעשיהם בממשלתו‬ ‘with the angel of darkness resides the fault of all the sons of justice, and all their sins and iniquities and guilt and their rebellious deeds are under his control’ 1QS 3.21 the sequence of the first clause, , is reversed in the second. We are not inclined to believe, however, that the author is making deliberate use of the chiastic structure as a rhetorical device; it is rather that the notion of moral failure (‫)תעות‬ induced him to begin the second, parallel clause with four lexemes which lie on the same lexical, notional field. It is then a question of physical and notional proximity. The same principle may be seen at work in ‫הואה ברא רוחות אור וחושך ועליהון יסד כול‬ ‫‘ מעשה‬He created the spirits of light and darkness and on them He founded every creature’ 1QS 3.25. Likewise ‫‘ לוא אקנא ברוח רשעה ולהון חמס לוא תאוה נפשי‬I shall not envy a spirit of wickedness and my soul shall not desire assets of violence’ 1QS 10.18; ‫‘ לוא ישמע בפי נבלות‬lewdness shall not be heard in my mouth’ followed by ‫וכחש עוון‬ ‫‘ ומרמות וכזבים לוא ימצאו בשפתי‬iniquitous deceit and deceptions and lies shall not be found on my lips’ 1QS 10.21, with the fronted subjects; ‫אל תתן לזרים נחלתנו ויגיענו‬ ‫‘ לבני נכר‬Do not give our inheritance to aliens and the fruits of our toil to strangers’ 4Q501 1.1. We thus do not believe that ancient writers and speakers of Hebrew consciously and deliberately cultivated chiasmus as a grammatical feature. (1) Hence, in ‫גורל אל‬ ‫‘ בפדות עולמים וכלה לכול גוי רשעה‬the lot of God is in eternal redemption but annihilation for a people of wickedness’ 1QM 15.1 the syntactic parallelism (2) would have meant little to the author of the document, for him the selection of the same syntagm for the second clause was motivated by the notion denoted by ‫ פדות‬and that denoted by ‫ כלה‬lay in the same lexical, semantic field, albeit antithetically. Similarly what really matters in ‫ ולרוח עולה רחוב‬.. ‫פקודת כול הולכי בה למרפא ורוב שלום‬ .. ‫‘ נפש ושפול ידים בעבודת צדק רשע ושקר‬the loan for all those who walk in it (results) in healing and abundant peace .. but to the spirit of iniquity belong greed and idleness in deeds of righteousness, wickedness and deception ..’ 1QS 4.6 is not so much the syntactic chiasmus (3) as the fact that ‫ הולכי בה‬and ‫רוח עולה‬ 1 2 3

Thus pace Schökel 1988.79. id = indeterminatum, indeterminate. Thus pace Baasten 1999.45.

250

SYNTAX

represent two different sorts of people who are going to be rewarded in certain ways on one hand and are characterised by certain behaviours on the other. Not surprisingly, however, we also find cases of parallelism, especially in poetry: ‫‘ בהודות אפתח פי וצדקות אל תספר לשוני תמיד‬with praises I shall open my mouth and victories of God my tongue shall narrate always’ 1QS 10.23, followed by ‫רקים אשבית‬ ‫‘ משפתי‬vain things I shall remove from my lips’; ‫ממקור דעתו פתח אורי ובנפלאותיו הביטה‬ ‫‘ עיני‬from the source of His knowledge He opened up my light and at His wonders my eye(s) gazed’ 1QS 11.3; ‫‘ לך אתה הצדקה ולשמך הברכה לעולם‬to You belongs the right֗ ‫לה‬ eousness and to Your name the blessing’ 1QHa 4.32; ‫להתהלך בכול אשר אהבתה ולמאוס‬ ‫שנאתה‬ ֗ ‫‘ בכול אשר‬to walk in accordance with all that You like and to reject all that You dislike’ ib. line 36. ad) One-member clause There occur complete, self-standing clauses with one principal constituent only. They may be nominal or verbal clauses. Introduced with ‫ הנה‬as in ‫‘ ֗מה ֯אעשה ֗אנוש הנני‬what could I a human do? Here I am’ 4Q381 31.6, where the use of here in the English translation is a question of elegant style, seeing that ‫‘ ַעד ֵהנָּ ה‬up to here’ cannot be rewritten as ‫עד ִהנֵּ ה‬, ַ for instance; ‫הנה‬ ‫‘ פרוש שמותיהם לתולדותם‬here is a precise statement of their names according to their genealogies’ CD 4.4; ‫‘ הנה מכה על מכה‬behold, blow upon blow’ 4Q481c 7; ‫והנה חרבה‬ ‘and behold, it is desolate’ 4Q386 1ii2, where the subject understood is what is explicitly mentioned in the preceding clause, ‫‘ ויאמר אלי התבונן בן אדם באדמת ישראל‬and He said to me, “Son of man, observe the land of Israel”.’ (1) ada) Existential clauses We hesitate to analyse an indeterminate NP of an existential clause, whether accompanied by ‫ ישׁ‬or not, as its grammatical subject or theme; it is not “given.” E.g. ‫רוב פשעים‬ ‫‘ בכנפיה‬there are many offences in her wings’ 4Q184 1.4; ‫‘ היש אתכם בינה‬Is there understanding with you?’ 4Q300 8.6; ‫‘ לחכמתכה אין מדה‬there is no measure to Your wisdom’ 1QHa 17.17. For more examples, see below at § fa. These may also be classified as one-member nominal clauses. (2) b) Bipartite nominal clause

ba) (3) ‫‘ אמת כול מעשיו‬all His deeds are truth’ 1QS 10.17; ‫‘ אמת משפטיך בנו‬Your judgements on us are true’ CD 20.30. 1 Alternatively ‫ חרבה‬is a verb, = ‫ח ֵר ָבה‬, ֲ then the subject is built into the verb. Baasten (2000.6) mentions two examples of ‫ אין‬alone in an elliptical reply, but the reading is uncertain in both instances, see Qimron I 103 and II 322. Such a use of ‫ אין‬is known to BH, e.g. ‫וּב ְקשׁוּ ָשׁלוֹם וָ ָאיִ ן‬ ִ Ezk 7.25. See Muraoka 1985.102. 2 So Muraoka 1990.248, § 4.4. 3 n = nomen, noun; d = determinatum, determinate.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 ac-bd

251

Examples in which the P is also determinate are ‫‘ כיא עמךה כולנו‬that we are all Your people’ 4Q504 6.6; ‫‘ גבורתו משענת ימיני‬His might is the support of my hand’ 1QS 11.5, where ‫ משענת ימיני‬is an already known entity with ‫ משען ימיני‬in line 4, also referring to God. bb) ‫‘ קדוש אדוני‬the Lord is holy’ 1QM 12.8; ‫אל ישראל‬ ֯ ‫צדיק א‬ ֯ ‘righteous is the God of Israel’ 1QS 1.26; ‫‘ גדולה תקותך‬great is your hope’ 11Q5 22.2; ‫‘ רבים רחמיך‬plenteous are Your mercies’ 4Q481c 6; ‫ לעשות בו כל‬.. ‫רשי֗ הלוקח‬ ֗ ‫‘ ר‬the buyer .. is entitled to do with it anything’ M30 22. This pattern is regular with a passive G ptc. as P: e.g. ‫ברוך אל ישראל‬ ‘blessed is the God of Israel’ 1QM 13.2; ‫ ארורים כול רוחי גורלו‬.. ‫ארו֗ ֗ר בליעל‬ ֗ ‘accursed is Belial .. accursed are all the spirits of his lot’ 1QM 13.4; ‫הפקודה‬ ֯ ‫֗ח ֗רו֗ ת החוק וחקוק כול‬ ‘engraved is the law and determined is all the penalty’ 4Q417 1i14. bc) (1) ‫‘ תועבת אמת עלילות עולה ותועבת עולה כול דרכי אמת‬deeds of iniquity are an abhorrence to truth and all ways of truth are an abhorrence to iniquity’ 1QS 4.17; ‫מקוללי אלוהים‬ ‫‘ ואנשים תלוי על העץ‬those who are hanged on the tree are people cursed by God and men’ 11Q19 64.12 (2). This pattern is not very common. (3) bd) (4) ‫‘ במעין אור תולדות האמת וממקור חושך תולדות העול‬in a fountain of light is found the nature of truth and from a spring of darkness comes the nature of iniquity’ 1QS 3.19; ‫‘ לאל המשפט ומידו תום הדרך ובדעתו נהיה כול‬to God belongs the judgement and from His hand comes the perfect way and with His knowledge everything emerges’ 1QS 11.10; ‫‘ כהמון מים רבים שאון קולם‬the din of their voice is like a roar of abundant waters’ 1QHa 10.29; ‫‘ עם אביונים יד גבורתכה‬with the poor is Your mighty hand’ 1QM 13.13; ‫לשוני‬ ֗ ֗‫‘ יהוה פתח פי ומאתו דדברי‬the Lord opened my mouth and from Him are the words of my tongue’ 4Q372 3.7. In ‫‘ לכה המלחמה‬the war is Yours’ 1QM 11.1, 2 contrast is only implied but clearly seen later in ‫ומאתכ ֗ה הגבורה ולוא לנו‬ ֯ ‫לכה המלחמה‬ ‘.. and it is from you that the strength needed comes, hence it [= the war] is not ours’ 1QM 11.4. In ‫ ביד שר אורים ממשלת כול בני צדק‬1QS 3.30 the S is to be viewed as 1

ni = nomen indeterminatum, indeterminate noun. The ‫ ה־‬of ‫ העץ‬shows that the statement is about a specific form of penalty dealt with in the passage, not about a mere accident that happened to Absalom, for instance (2Sm 18.9). 3 Additional possible examples are mentioned in Baasten 2006.138-41, including quite a few indicating measurements such as ‫(‘ רחב מאה באמה‬its) width is 100 cubits’ 11Q19 46.9. In all these cases the nouns for measurement are anarthrous. They all look like an architect’s short-hand notes, not full-fledged clauses. Cp. the normal formulation as in ‫‘ אורך המגן אמתים וחצי ורוחבו אמה וחצי‬the length of the shield (shall be) two and a half cubits and its width one and a half cubit’ 1QM 5.6 and very often. Given the frequency of the use of the st. cst. or the addition of a conj. pr., the use of ‫ רחב‬as in the above-quoted 11Q19 is not, pace Qimron (2018.440f.), merely indicative of the lateness of the language. We need take into account its “Sitz im Leben.” 4 prep = prepositional phrase; nd = nomen determinatum, determinate noun. 2

252

SYNTAX

determined contextually as well as by dint of ‫כול‬: ‘the dominion of all the sons of righteousness is in the hands of the prince of lights.’ (1) A special variety of this syntagm merits a mention here, a variety in which the preposition is -‫ב‬, sometimes called Bet essentiae; it is basically a clause of equation, a descriptive nominal clause and the same sense could be indicated without -‫ב‬. E.g., ‫בעזרו‬ ‫אלי הצדק‬ ֗ ‫‘ כול‬all the gods of justice are among his help(ers)’ 11Q13 2.14. (2) bda) (3) E.g. ‫‘ בעצת היחד שנים עשר איש‬in the council of the community there are twelve people’ 1QS 8.1. bdb) (4) ‫ לנו היא‬CD 3.18 (5); ‫‘ מעולם הוא‬it is eternal’ 4Q299 8.8 (6); ‫‘ ֗ה ֗כ ֗אנוש הם‬are they like humans?’ 4Q418 55.11; ‫יש ֯ה ֗ר ֗חש תחתו‬ ֯ ‫‘ כעשב הוא אשר י‬it is like grass under which there is a worm’ 4Q266 6i7, where it is unlikely that ‫ הוא‬should be a third constituent of a tripartite NC with ‫ אשר‬introducing an antecedentless relative clause, but the pronoun resumes ‫‘ נגע‬disease’ as restored or its symptom in the immediately preceding clause. be) (7) ‫‘ הוא אשר אמר‬that is what He (meant) by saying’ CD 10.16, 4Q274 1i3, 1QpHab 3.2, where the subject of ‫ אמר‬appears to be assumed to be the scripture or its ultimate author, God. bf) ‫‘ אלה דרכיהן בתבל‬the following are their ways in the earth’ 1QS 4.2; ‫זה המקום שנפל‬ ‫‘ לתחנה‬this is the site that fell to Tehinnah’ 5/6Ḥev 44.13; ‫קומו֗ ֗ת שנפלו בחלקו‬ ֗ ‫אלה ֗ה ֗מקו‬ ֗ ‘these are the sites that fell to his portion’ ib. 10; ‫‘ ז̇ ה פרוש המשפטים‬this is the exact statement of the rulings’ CD 14.18. (9) 1 Many of the examples here and elsewhere, e.g. § bd, bdb, speak unambiguously against the thesis advanced by Cohen (1984.38-40) about a putative complementary distribution, i.e. vs. ; see Muraoka 1990.241, id. 1991.145, and Baasten 1999.46, id. 2006, § 3.3.1, 3.3.7. 2 A BH example is ‫ֹלהי ָא ִבי ְבּ ֶעזְ ִרי‬ ֵ ‫‘ ֱא‬the God of my father is my help’ Ex 18.4. For more BH examples, see JM § 130 c. 3 For more examples, see below § fa, pp. 263ff. 4 dp = disjunctive pronoun, independent personal pronoun. 5 Rabin (1958.12) mentions ‫ ָלנוּ ִהיא נִ ְתּנָ ה ָה ָא ֶרץ ְלמו ָֺר ָשׁה‬Ezk 11.15, which, however, is a verbal clause and the pronoun is an anticipatory S. Rabin also suggests that this short statement in CD may be the Hebrew original of πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν 1Cor 6.12, but we are not sure that the author of CD meant “we may act as we please.” In any event the fem. gender of the pronoun here is enigmatic. 6 Alternatively, ‫ הוא‬could be the subject of the following ‫שנה‬ ֗ ֗‫‘ לוא י‬it will not change (for ever),’ though the need to accord prominence to the preceding, indeterminate ‫‘ שכל‬intelligence’ is not immediately apparent. 7 rel. cl. = relative clause. 8 dem = demonstrative pronoun. 9 More examples may be found in Baasten 2006, § 3.2.5, 3.2.9 and Zewi 2008.281f., § 3.1.1.5. This pattern alone occurs in our corpus tens of times. Hence “Non-verbal clauses containing two definite noun

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 bd-bha

253

bg) ‫‘ ואנו עם פדותכה וצון מרעיתךה‬we are the people ransomed by You and the sheep of Your pasture’ 4Q266 11.13 (1); ‫‘ הוא האיש הנתך בתוך כור‬he is the man that is melted in the midst of a furnace’ CD 20.3; ‫הק ̇דש ו̇ ̇היא המקו̇ ֯ם ֗שבחר בו מכל‬ ̇ ‫היאה מחנה‬ ֯ ‫ירושלים‬ ̇ ‫‘ שבטי י֗ שראל כי י̇ רו֗ שלים היא ראש ֗מ ֯חנ֗ ו֗ ת ישראל‬J. is the holy encampment and that is the place which He chose from among all the tribes of Is., for J. is the chief of the encampments of Is.’ MMT B 60, where this bipartite pattern occurs side by side with a tripartite one with the same value of exclusive identification; ‫‘ המה יתר העמים‬they are the rest of the nations’ 1QpHab 9.7, where one should note that the biblical text of the commentator probably read an anarthrous form, ‫עמים‬, as in MT and as quoted earlier at ib. 8.15, and he is thus specifying and identifying those ‫יתר עמים‬, for the reader could be wondering who they are beside ‫ גוים רבים‬also mentioned there (2); in ‫שר צוה ביד מושה‬ ֯ ‫‘ היֿ אה מדרש התורה ֗א‬it signifies the learning of the law which He commanded through Moses’ 1QS 8.15 the author is answering a question that may have arisen with his readership “What do you mean with preparing a path? In this wilderness where we are now?,” for he had said ‫‘ לפנות שם את דרכ הואהא‬to prepare there the way of YHWH’ and quoted ‫ במדבר פנ֗ ו֗ דרך יייי ישרו בערבה מסלה לאלוהינו‬Is 40.3, and now he says what he had in mind when he mentioned ‫ דרך‬and ‫מסלה‬, both fem. nouns, hence ‫היאה‬, whereas in ‫‘ היאה חומת הבחן‬that is [= the philosophy outlined above] the tested wall’ 1QS 8.7, the selection of the fem. is due to the gender of the following S, sim. ‫‘ היאה עת פנות הדרכֿ למדבר‬that is the time for preparing the way to the wilderness’ 1QS 9.19. (3) bh)

bha) ‫֯ק ֗דוש הוא מ‬ ‫‘ נקיאים הם ממנו‬they would not to be blamed on his account’ CD 15.13; ‫מכל‬ ‫‘ הימים‬it is the holiest of all the days’ 4Q218 1.2; ‫‘ כי אשמים המה‬that they were guilty’ CD 1.9; ‫ רש אני‬.. ‫‘ אביון֗ אתה‬you are poor .. I am indigent’ 4Q416 2iii12; ‫‘ ודל אנ֗ וכי‬and phrases are relatively rare in the corpus” (Baasten 2006.123) is misleading; in his analysis demonstrative pronouns do not count as definite noun phrases, see at § a, p. 248, n. 1. Pace Baasten 2006.147 we also believe that the pronoun is not always emphatic, as shown in ‫ֵא ֶלּה ְבּנֵ י‬ ‫עוּאל‬ ֵ ‫ ְר‬Gn. 36.17 (mentioned in JM § 154 fb) as against ‫ לֹא ֵכן ִכי זֶ ה ַה ְבּכֹר‬Gn 48.18. We share the reservation expressed by Baasten regarding the pattern . In ‫אלה מקצת דברינו‬ MMT B 1 the preposition -‫מ‬, despite our translation ‘these are some of ..,’ might be introducing a genuine prepositional adjunct. One of the two BH examples mentioned by Baasten (2006.149) is irrelevant: ‫זֶ ה ֶע ְשׂ ִרים‬ ‫שׁנָ ה ָאנ ִֹכי ִע ָמְּך‬, ָ where ‫ זֶ ה‬is part of an adverbial adjunct. 1 That ‫ אנו‬is the predicate, not the subject, pace Zewi 2008.283, emerges from the context. Cf. ‫יתָך‬ ֶ ‫ ֲאנַ ְחנוּ ַע ְמָּך וְ צֹאן ַמ ְר ִע‬Ps 79.13; the congregation are pictured as endeavouring to impress their unique relationship to their shepherd, and note Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός John 10.11, not ποιμὴν καλός εἰμι. 2 Cf. Nitzan 1986.182f., ‫זיהוי‬. ‫ המה‬here, pace Baasten (2006.150), does not indicate the theme, but rheme. 3 More examples may be found in Baasten 2006 § 3.2.9 and Zewi 2008.281f., § 3.1.1.4.

254

SYNTAX

I am weak’ 11Q6 4-5.2 (1). Though a cardinal numeral is not exactly an adjective, we may mention here ‫‘ אם שנים הם‬if they are two (with nobody else present)’ CD 9.20. bhb) ‫‘ אדמה הוא‬he is earth’ 1QHa 18.5; ‫עם קדוש אתה ליהוה אלוהיכה בנים אתמה ליהוה אלוהיכמה‬ ‘you are a holy people .. you are sons ..’ 11Q19 48.7; ‫‘ כי בשר פגול הוא‬because it is unfit flesh’ 11Q19 52.18; ‫‘ תועבה היא‬it is an abomination’ 11Q19 66.14; ‫תועבה המה‬ ‫ לי‬11Q19 52.5; ‫‘ ֗חושך ֗א ֗ ֗ת ֗ה ולוא ֗אור‬you are darkness, not light’ 11Q11 5.7. (2) As under § bda and bha above, any adverbial constituent expanding P does not intervene between ֶ ‫תוֹע ַבת יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֲ P and S. (3) Note ‫ תועבה המה לי‬11Q19 52.5 as reformulated from ‫ֹלהיָך הוּא‬ Dt 17.1, and note that a non-pronominal S allows intervention of an adverbial adjunct between P and S: ‫ טוֹב ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ַהנָּ ֶפל‬Ec 6.3 // ‫‘ טוב הנפל ממנו‬the still-born baby is luckier than he’ 4Q109 1ii+3-6i1; ‫‘ קים עלי כול שאש ֗ע ֗ל השטר הזא‬all that is in this deed is binding on me’ XḤev/Ṣe 49.11, sim. 5/6Ḥev 44.26. bi) .. ‫ אשר יעשה‬.. ‫‘ מיא כמוכה אל ישראל‬who is like You the God of Israel, who could do ..?’ 1QM 10.8 (4); ‫‘ מיא כעמכה ישראל אשר בחרתה‬who is like your people Israel, whom You chose?’ 1QM 10.9; ‫‘ מיא מלאך‬who is an angel ..?’ 1QM 13.14; ‫‘ מה ֗החידה לכמה‬what is the riddle for you?’ 4Q301 2b1; ‫‘ ֗מ ֗ה אשר יפצה מידו‬what is there that can rescue from His hand?’ 4Q200 6.7 (5). 1

The last two references are mentioned by Baasten 2006 § 3.2.12. Baasten (2006.161f., § 3.2.11) has a pattern , said to be “extremely rare,” under which he mentions two instances: ‫‘ שאר אמך היא‬she is your mother’s kin’ CD 5.9 and ‫ חטאת הקהל הוא‬11Q19 26.9. Formally speaking, the first constituents are determinate. But logically speaking they are not; in the first instance the phrase can be translated ‘a kin of your mother’s,’ just as ‫ ְבּנִ י‬can be translated ‘a son of mine’ unlike ‫א ִבי‬, ָ which can be rendered only with ‘my father.’ Likewise we can render the second instance as ‘a sin-offering for the congregation.’ On these subtleties equally applicable to BH, see JM § 139 b-c, 140. Post-biblical Hebrew introduced a means which can obviate this ambiguity, namely ‫שׁל‬, ֶ thus ‫‘ הוּא ֵבּן ֶשׁ ִלּי‬he is a son of mine’ vs. ‫‘ הוא ַה ֵבּן ֶשׁ ִלּי‬he is my son.’ At ‫ ֶע ֶבד ַא ְב ָר ָהם ָאנ ִֹכי‬Gn 24.34 the hosts could have assumed that their kinsman in Canaan had more than one servant. Baasten ib. rightly mentions a contrasting case in ‫ חטאת קהל הוא‬11Q19 16.18, where it is about two bulls, one for the ministering priest and the other for the congregation, whereas in the other case the text goes only about the offering for the congregation. The third instance mentioned by Baasten as awkward—‫—בעשרה בחודש הזה יום כיפורים הוא‬does not belong here, since the first constituent is indeterminate; it is not about ‫ יום כיפורים‬of any particular year. 3 This observation is true of many additional examples of these two patterns adduced in Baasten (2006.162-66, § 3.2.12, ib. 175-77, § 3.3.5). At ‫יש ֯ה ֗ר ֗חש תחתו‬ ֯ ‫‘ כעשב הוא אשר י‬it is like grass under which there is a worm’ 4Q266 6i7 to position the relative clause immediately after its antecedent ‫ עשב‬may have been felt to be a little too cumbersome. This close cohesion between a preceding predicate and its immediately following pronominal subject reminds us of the evolution of the suffix conjugation such as Arb. qatalta from an earlier Akkadian stative, e.g. parsāta. Cf. Kienast 2001 § 182. 4 ‫ כמוכה‬signifies ‘someone comparable to You.’ Likewise ‫ כעמכה‬in the following example and ‫מי‬ ‫‘ כאמתכה‬who is one who is compatible with Your truth?’ 1QHa 15.31. 5 The last two examples have been adduced by Baasten 2006.192. More examples may be found in Baasten ib. 192-95, § 3.4.2 - 3.4.5. Zewi (2008.282, § 3.1.1.6) adduces ‫ מה היא‬4Q269 7.1 = 4Q 272 1i1, but the reading is uncertain; Qimron (I 27) reads ‫שומה היא‬ ֗ ‫שו‬. 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 bha-ca

255

bj) Rare examples of this pattern (1) include ‫‘ הויֿ א עולם משען ימיני‬One who exists for ever is the support of my right hand’ 1QS 11.4; ‫‘ גבורתו משענת ימיני‬His strength is the support of my right hand’ 1QS 11.5; ‫‘ חסדי אל ישועתי לעד‬God’s kindnesses are my rescue for ever’ 1QS 11.12; ‫אלוהים שופטי‬ ֗ ‘God is my judge’ 4Q511 18ii10; ‫עמךה כולנו‬ ‘all of us are Your people’ 4Q504 6.6. (2) That these are exclusive, identificatory nominal clauses is underscored by a tripartite nominal clause with a third-person disjunctive pronoun in the middle in a clause in this 1QS passage: ‫אמת אל היאה סלע‬ ‫‘ פעמי‬God’s truth [and nothing else] is the rock of my steps’ 1QS 11.4. c) Bipartite nominal clause ca) 1) Padj: ‫‘ גם רחמיך רבים‬Your mercies are also abundant’ 4Q372 1.19; ‫שוקיו ארוכות‬ ‫‘ ודקות ואצבעות רגליו דקות וארוכות‬his thighs are long and thin, and his toes are thin and long’ 4Q186 1ii5 (3); ‫קוב גדול‬ ‫שומר י֯ ֯עקו‬ ֯ ‘the guardian of Jacob is great’ 4Q223224 2ii11. 2) Pni: ‫באמ ֗ה‬ ֗ ‫עים‬ ֗ ‫ארב‬ ֯ ‫וגוב ֗הה‬ ֗ ‫‘ וגו‬and its height (shall be) 40 cubits’ 11Q19 5.6. (4) 3) Pprep (5): ‫‘ כול מעשיהם לנדה לפניו‬all their deeds (degenerate) into impurity in His sight’ 1QS 5.19; ‫‘ המחזיקים בו לחיי נצח‬those who hold fast to them are for an eternal life’ CD 3.20; ‫‘ פשרו על הכתיאים‬its reference is to the Kittim’ 1QpHab 2.12+; ‫פשר‬ ‫‘ הדבר על מטיף הכזב‬the matter is concerned with the deceitful preacher’ 1QpHab 10.9; ‫כהם לחה אחת‬ ֗ ‫וה ֗מ ֗קבל ֗מהמה‬ ֯ ‫המוצקות‬ ֗ ‫‘ לחת‬the liquid of streams and (that of) the receptacle for them is the same as the latter, one and the same liquid’ MMT B 57; ‫עמי‬ ֗ ‫דברכן‬ ֗ ‘your issue is with me’ 5/6Ḥev 49.6. 4) Snd - A - P: ‫‘ וחסדיך לי צנה סביב‬Your mercies are to me a buckler round about’ 4Q437 2i5, where ‫ לי‬is unlikely to be attributive, ‘Your mercies which are to me.’ On an adverbial adjunct in between, see above at § bhb. 1 A few BH examples are discussed by Lehmann (2014.155f.): ‫ֹלהי‬ ָ ‫אֹלהיִ ְך ֱא‬ ַ ֵ‫ ַע ֵמְּך ַע ִמּי ו‬Ru 1.16; ‫ֹלהים ְלכוּ ַא ֲח ָריו‬ ִ ‫ ִאם־יְ הוָ ה ָה ֱא‬1Kg 18.21, where Elijah’s message would be triumphantly reinforced by means of ‫ הוא‬in a twice repeated, tripartite nominal clause—‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ֹלהים יְ הוָ ה הוּא ָה ֱא‬ ִ ‫אמרוּ יְ הוָ ה הוּא ָה ֱא‬ ְ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬1Kg 18.39, cf. JM § 154 j. 2 Examples mentioned by Baasten 2006.125-27, though he does not always address the question whether these examples represent the pattern or , i.e.

or . ‫‘ אשר מעשיך הכול‬whose works encompass everything’ 1QHa 8.26 [not 16, and Baasten’s translation], where ‫ אשר‬is causal, giving one of the reasons why one should praise God with ‫ברוך אתה‬, so ‘for everything is Your work.’ 3 More similar examples describing the person’s limbs in this document are mentioned by Baasten 2006.132f. In ‫‘ כול הנוגע בו טמא‬everyone who touches it is unclean’ 11Q19 50.12 cited by Baasten (2006.130) the subject is only formally determinate, but not notionally, see § 28 c. 4 More examples of this type indicating a measurement are cited by Baasten 2006.127f. 5 More examples may be found in Baasten 1999.35-37; id. 2006.177-80, § 3.3.6; Zewi 2008.283.

256

SYNTAX

cb) 1) Padj.: ‫‘ ֗בגלל שהמה קדושים‬because they are holy’ MMT B 79; ‫המה קלים‬ ֯ ‫‘ המ‬they are swift’ 1QpHab 2.12. 2) Pnid: ‫‘ הואה יום יעוד לו‬this is a day determined in His planning’ 1QM 1.10, sim. ‫‘ היאה עת צרה‬this is a day of distress’ 1QM 1.11; ‫‘ הם סלעים ארבע‬they are (equivalent to) 4 selas’ 5/6Ḥev 44.20; ‫‘ אתה אל חי לבדךה‬You are a living god, You alone’ 4Q504 5.8; ‫‘ הם סרי דרך‬they are deviants from the way’ CD 1.13, where the pron. is not in focus, except a possible tone of denunciation with an accusing finger pointed at them, sim. ‫‘ הם גוי אבד עצות‬they are a nation who have lost counsel’ CD 5.17. But contrast in ‫המה‬ ‫‘ גורל חושך וגורל אל לאור עולמ‬they are a lot of darkness, but the lot of God is for an ‫עולמי֗ ם‬ eternal light’ 1QM 13.5. A measure of focus on S is not out of place at ֗‫‘ ואני ֗ק ֗ב ֗לן‬and I am (the) recipient’ M30 22 (1), cf. ‫‘ תסלע הזו אנמקבל המך‬this sela I receive from you’ XḤev/Ṣe 49.7. Striking is the repetition of Sdp in ‫‘ ווהו֗ א אין ֗הו֗ א כוהן‬and he is not priest’ 11Q19 35.4; the person in question is probably mentioned in the preceding lacuna. 3) Pprep.: ‫‘ אתה בקרבנו‬You are in our midst’ 4Q504 6.10; ‫‘ אני לאדם רשעה‬I belong to Adam of wickedness’ 1QS 11.9, cf. ‫דּוֹדי ִלי וַ ֲאנִ י לוֹ‬ ִ Ct 2.16. (2) 4) Pnd (3) When both constituents are determinate, the first is mostly P, as illustrated above at § ba, bf, bg, and bj. This pattern occurs in exegetical context. E.g. ‫ הנה‬.. ‫וישם לו שתי רוחות להתהלך בם‬ ‫‘ רוחות האמת והעול‬He provided for them two spirits to walk with .. they are the spirit of truth and of iniquity’ 1QS 3.18 (4); ‫‘ היא העת אשר היה כתוב עליה‬this is the time about which it was written’ CD 1.13. The same discourse function is discharged also through tripartite nominal clauses with a disjunctive pronoun as their second constituent, see below at § ec. Exceptionally, however, a clause-initial, determinate constituent is unlikely to be P in ‫‘ פשרו הוא בית המשפט אשר יתן אל את משפטו בתוך עמים רבים‬as to its interpretation: it is the court of justice, where God will His judgement among many nations’ 1QpHab 10.3 cc) ֯ ‫ אלה‬4Q365 27.3 // ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ֵהם ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת ַה ְקּ ָה ִתי‬Nu 3.27. The sole instance is ‫משפחות הקהתי‬ 1

Cf. Milik’s rendering: “Et moi j’ai reçu (cet argent)” (DJD 3.146). Baasten (2006.191) finds striking “the almost complete absence of clauses with personal pronouns.” The above examples are not cited by him, whilst all the examples cited by him, with the sole exception of ‫‘ ויאמרו כי לנו היא‬and they said, “it is ours”’ CD 3.18, have -‫ כ‬as in ‫‘ כמוכה הואה‬he is like you’ 4Q417 2i5. Such a phrase, however, can be analysed as elliptic for ‘someone like you,’ see also at § 11 e, 33 fa. 3 For more examples, see Baasten 2006.150-55, § 3.2.9. 4 By contrast the same two referents are not specific that explicitly in ‫עד הנה יריבו רוחי אמת ועול בלבב‬ ‫‘ גבר‬up till now spirits of truth and iniquity vie with each other in man’s heart’ 1QS 4.23. 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 cb-db

257

cd) A content clause introduced by ‫ אשׁר‬serves as as predicate in a standing formula in the pesher literature. (1) E.g. ‫‘ פשרו אשר ילעיגו על רבים‬what it means is that they will mock powerful people’ 1QpHab 4.1; ‫פשר הדבר אשר לוא יכלה אל את עםו ביד‬ ‫‘ הגוים‬what the text means is that God will not annihilate His people at the hands of the gentiles’ 1QpHab 5.3; ‫‘ פשרו אשר המה זבחים לאותותם‬.. that they are offering sacrifices to their symbols’ 1QpHab 6.3; ‫‘ פשרו אשר הכם ברעב‬.. that He smote them with famine’ 4Q166 2.12. Likewise 1QpHab 5.7, 6.6, 7.7, 15, 4Q162 1.2, 4Q177 1-4.6, 4Q252 4.5. It stands to reason that these ‫אשׁר‬-clauses cannot be analysed as determinate NPs. (2) d) Subject omitted Under certain circumstances the subject may be found missing. da) In elliptical answers. E.g. ‫‘ אמרו לחזון דעת לא נכון ולדרך לבכה לא היאה‬to the vision grounded in knowledge they said, “Not right,” and to the way of Your heart, “Not that”’ 1QHa 12.19, where the respective subject is easily recoverable. Similarly in BH: ‫אמר יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ה־שּׁ ֶמָך וַ יּ‬ ְ ‫אמר ֵא ָליו ַמ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬Gn 32.28; ‫אמר ָשׁלוֹם‬ ֶ ֹ ‫בּוֹאָך וַ יּ‬ ֶ ‫אמר ָשֹׁלם‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬1Sm 16.4f., so also Josh 24.22, Jdg 13.11, 2Sm 12.19, 1Kg 2.13, Je 37.17. db) In a relative clause As in BH, this takes place in diverse syntactic environments: i) P = ptc: ‫ישראל במחנ֗ ה שיושב בהרודיס‬ ֗ ‫‘ נסי֗ א י‬the prince of Israel in the camp, who resides in Hrdys’ M24 E 2; ‫‘ יעקוב בן יהודה שיושב אבית משכו‬Jacob, son of Judah, who resides in Beit Mškw’ M42.4. (3)

1

See Zewi 2008.284f., § 3.1.2.4 and id. 2013.294. Baasten (2006.123) admits that, in QH, the pattern consisting of two determinate noun phrases is “relatively rare.” Among his rare cases are included the above-mentioned instances from the Qumran pesher literature. We fail to see how one could identify a determinate noun phrase equivalent in the ‫אשׁר‬-clause of this type. Likewise ‫‘ יסוד הבריאה זכר ונקבה ברא אותם‬the fundamental of the creation is “He created them male and female”’ CD 4.21, where the biblical text being quoted (Gn 1.27) does not necessarily make it a determinate noun phrase. Nor do we analyse ‫ ִשׁ ְפ ָרה‬as determinate at ‫ֵשׁם ָה ַא ַחת ִשׁ ְפ ָרה‬ ‘the name of one (of them) was Shiphra’ Ex 1.15, cited by Baasten (2006.127); BH is full of examples such as this. ‫ דוד‬in ‫דוד שמי‬, a reply to the question ‫‘ מה שמך‬What’s your name?’ is not determinate. This is distinct from ‫ת־שׁ ַבע‬ ֶ ‫ ַבּ‬in ‫אוּריָּ ה ַה ִח ִתּי‬ ִ ‫יעם ֵא ֶשׁת‬ ָ ‫ת־א ִל‬ ֱ ‫ת־שׁ ַבע ַבּ‬ ֶ ‫ ֲהלוֹא־זֹאת ַבּ‬2Sm 11.3, for David presumably knew her by name, though he had not yet met her. Baasten mentions textually uncertain cases. One such (op. cit. 124) is ‫ וחנוך בנו‬4Q369 1i10, translated ‘and Enoch] was his son.’ Qimron (II 45) reads ֗‫חנוך ֗בנ֗ ו‬ ‫חנוך‬. Besides there is no absolute certainty that we have here a nominal clause, and not a noun phrase with ‫ בנו‬in apposition. A related passage in Jubilees 4.16 in the Ethiopic version is worded quite differently. ‫ ועורכיה כול העדה יחד‬1QM 2.9 as quoted by Baasten (op. cit. 124) reads in Qimron (I 112) ‫יעורכוה כול העדה יחד‬. 3 A few more examples may be found in Mor 2015.271f. 2

258

SYNTAX

ii) P = prepositional adjunct: ‫‘ האות הגדולה אשר בראש כול העם‬the great standard which is at the head of the whole people’ 1QM 3.13; ‫‘ העפר הלבן שבהם ותכל אילן שבהם‬the cropland which is situated in them and every tree that is in them’ 5/6Ḥev 44.12, 15. (1) However, when a clause introduced by ‫ אשר‬or -‫ ש‬is equivalent to a non-restrictive relative clause (2), forming a self-standing clause, its subject pronoun cannot be deleted. Thus ‫‘ זוזין מאה וששי֗ ֗ם שהם סלעים ארבעין‬160 zuzin, which are worth 40 selas’ 5/6Ḥev 46.8; ‫‘ דינרין ֗ע ֗שרה שהם סלעים שתים ושקל חד‬10 denarii, which are worth 2 selas and 1 shekel’ 5/6Ḥev 46.11 (3); ‫‘ מן היום עד סוף ערב השמטה שהם שנים שלמות ֗חמש‬from today till the end of the eve of the shemitta, which come to five full years’ M24 E 8. (4) e) Tripartite nominal clause As in BH, we come across in QH also many instances of NC composed of three principal constituents; beside S and P the third constituent is a dp [= disjunctive pronoun] of the third person. (5) Such clauses come in a number of patterns. ea) ‫המה‬ ֗ ‫מל ֗א ֗כי֯ ֗ם‬ ֗ ‫אברם באלונ֗ י֗ ממרה‬ ‫‘ שלושת האנ֗ שי֗ ם ֯הנ֯ ֗ר ֯אים אל אבר‬the three men who appeared to Abram in .. are angels’ 4Q180 2-4ii3; ‫‘ התועבה שנואה ֗הי֗ ֗א ֗ה‬the abomination is hateful’ MMT C 7. (6) We are inclined to believe that these third person disjunctive 1 More examples may be found above at § 27 b. At ‫‘ אלה הם אנשי הלצון אשר בירושלים‬these refer to the men of mockery in Jerusalem’ 4Q162 2.6 Strugnell (1970.88) ponders the possibility of ‫ הם‬following ‫ בירושלים‬as the subject of the ‫ אשר‬clause, which would make the only such example in QH. A parallel clause a few lines later is unfortunately broken at the end: ‫‘ היא עדת אנשי הלצון אשר בירושלים‬it is an assembly of ..’ 4Q162 2.10. 2 A non-restrctive relative clause is exemplified in I shouted at my son playing in the garden, who, however, kept ignoring me as against I shouted at a child who was busy playing with a baby doll. 3 More analogous examples of conversion are mentioned in Mor 2015.272f., § 5.6.1. 4 See also Mor 2015.272f. QH uses ‫הם‬, ‫ המה‬as a gender-neutral, third person plural form; see Qimron HDDS § 321.16. 5 The label ‘tripartite’ is to be understood in terms of surface structure; in terms of syntactic logic, a nominal clause can have two parts only, Subject and Predicate. Cf. ‫משפחות הקהתי‬ ֯ ‫‘ אלה‬these are families of the Kohathites’ 4Q365 27.3 // ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ֵהם ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחֹת ַה ְקּ ָה ִתי‬Nu 3.27. Zewi (2000) denies the existence of tripartite nominal clause in BH. Instead she (Zewi 2008.285-89) speaks of “extended nominal clauses.” A systematic investigation of the tripartite NC in BH has been attempted in Muraoka 1999b. Cf. also Khan 2006. Zewi’s (2008 loc. cit.) basic position is that in any tripartite NC pattern the disjunctive pronoun serves as a subject to constitute a predicate clause. A self-standing clause, whether nominal or verbal cannot become a predicate; only a content clause can. Thus in the first example cited below from 4Q180, for instance, ‘they are angels’ cannot be a predicate of ‘the three men ..’; all one could confidently say is that ‘the three men ..’ is extraposed up front, serving as a theme, for which the following ‘they are angels’ constitutes a rheme. 6 Cf. BH examples such as ‫ ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ָה ֵא ֶלּה ְשׁ ֵל ִמים ֵהם ִא ָתּנוּ‬Gn 34.21 and ‫ה־היא‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ַדּת יָ ַמי ַמ‬Ps 39.5. For further examples, see JM § 154 i. And yet we do find cases such as ‫ת־א ֶשׁת ָא ִחיו נִ ָדּה ִהוא‬ ֵ ‫ִאישׁ ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ַקּח ֶא‬ Lv 20.21 and ‫ ֻחקּוֹת ָה ַע ִמּים ֶה ֶבל הוּא‬Je 10.3; the pronoun shows grammatical concord with the preceding NP.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 db-eb

259

pronouns accord a measure of prominence to the immediately preceding clause constituent, so that they are no mere copula (1). (2) ‫כל א‬, ֗ referring to ‫א־תקֹּם וְ לֹא ִתטֹּר‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ל‬of the In ‫ונוטר‬ ֗ ‫ נוקם ֗הו֯ ֗א ונו‬.. ‫איש מבאי ֗ה ֗ברית אשר ייביא‬ underlying biblical text (Lv 19.18) the two G participles are probably verbal, (3) with the first constituent being extraposed and resumed with ‫הוא‬: ‘every person from among those who having joined the covenant, brings .. is avenging and bearing a grudge’ 4Q270 6iii17 = CD 9.2. eaa) ‫‘ כל כבוד אדם להם הוא‬all glory of man is theirs’ CD 3.20; ‫‘ כול כבוד אתכה הוא‬every ַ ‫ וְ כֹל ֲא ֶשׁ‬Gn 31.43. glory is with You’ 1QHa 19.11. Cf. ‫ר־א ָתּה ר ֶֹאה ִלי־הוּא‬ At ‫לכוהני֗ ֯ם הוא‬ ֯ ‫וה ֗צון‬ ֗ ‫ הנטע ֗ב ֯ארצ ישראל כראשית הוֿ א לכוהנים ומעשר הבקר‬MMT B 62 the first ‫ הוא‬is best analysed as concluding the clause with ‫ לכוהנים‬as an explanatory elaboration and ‫ כראשית‬as P, not an adverbial adjunct, hence ‘the produce in the land of Israel is as the first-fruits, (i.e. hence belong) to the priests, and the tenth of the cattle and the flocks belong to the priests.’ Given the fem. gender of ‫ עצם‬one could ֗ ‫‘ כול עצם שהיא חסרה ו֗ שלמה‬every bone, restore ‫( היא‬4) at ‫כמשפט המת או החלל הו֯ ֯א‬ whether deficient or complete, is to be judged as equivalent to a dead or slain person’ MMT B 73. eb)

(5) ‫‘ תועבה המה לפני כול עושה אלה‬all those who do such things are abominable to me’ 11Q19 60.19 (6); ‫‘ אמת אל היאה סלע פעמי‬God’s truth, that is the rock of my steps’ 1QS 11.4, where ‫ סלע פעמי‬is an entity already known in part and also referring to 1 Pace DJD 10.58. See also DJD 10.82f. (§ 3.4.8), where Kutscher is invoked; for Kutscher, a third person pronoun, irrespective of its position in a tripartite nominal clause, is nothing but a copula. In Hebrew of all ages ‫ רות יפה‬can mean ‘Ruth is pretty,’ which can never be expressed in English with Ruth pretty. Until some time in future, when the addition of ‫ היא‬somewhere — ‫רות היא יפה‬, ‫ יפה היא רות‬or ‫רות‬ ‫ — יפה היא‬has become obligatory for expressing this thought, we had better ban the use of this technical term from any grammatical discourse relating to Hebrew. The prominence accorded by these pronouns appears to apply even when they do not concord with the preceding NP as in ‫‘ תועבה המה לפני כול עושה אלה‬all those who do such things are abominable to Me’ 11Q19 60.19 < ‫תוֹע ַבת יְ הוָ ה ָכּל־ע ֵֹשׂה ֵא ֶלּה‬ ֲ Dt 18.12 MT, where the sg. subject, however, is later resumed with ‫;אוֹתם‬ ָ possibly ‫ עשה‬was understood as a variant spelling for ‫ עשי‬pl. cst. 2 See also Muraoka 1999b.194-96 (§ 2.2.2 - 2.2.3), esp. 206-08 (§ 3.6). We fail to see how Baasten (2006.203f., § 3.6.2 b, 3.6.3 b) can analyse these clauses as representing the information structure . 3 That is probably what Rabin (1958.44) meant to say with his “ .. is one who ..”; such a person is acting contrary to the biblical principle. 4 Not only epigraphically as mentioned as an alternative reading in DJD 10.55, n. 74, but also syntactically. 5 At ‫‘ כיא ֯תועבה היא‬for it is an abomination’ 4Q159 2-4+8.7 Qimron (III 25) does not indicate so, though from the plate concerned it is likely that some words followed ‫היא‬, probably as S referring to what precedes. 6 ‫עושה‬, in view of the preceding ‫המה‬, is to be analysed as pl. cst. Such an irregular spelling does occasionally turn up. Qimron (2018.88, § A 5.1.1) adduces a few instances, e.g. ‫ עושה התורה‬said to be referring to ‫‘ פתאי יהודה‬the simple folk of Judah’ 1QpHab 12.4.

260

SYNTAX

God in ‫ בסלע עוז דרך פעמי‬earlier in the same line (1); ‫‘ מה אפהו אדם‬what is man then?’ 1QHa 18.5; ‫‘ מה אפהו שב אל עפרו‬what is then one who returns to his dust?’ 1QHa 20.34; ‫‘ מה הוא איש תהו‬what is a man of naught?’ 1HQa 15.35; ‫‘ לכול העולמים היאה מלכותו‬His reign is for all ages’ 4Q200 6.5; ‫‘ ספרי התורה הם סוכת המלך‬the scrolls of the law are meant by the tabernacle of the king’ CD 7.15; ‫‘ כלי מלחמותם המה מוראם‬their weapons are their object of reverence’ 1QpHab 6.4, where the fronting of ‫ כלי מלחמותם‬is due to the attraction to the immediately preceding ‫‘ אותותם‬their standards,’ and ‫מוראם‬ ‘the object of their awe’ alludes to ‫ יקטר‬in ‫ יְ זַ ֵבּ ַח ְל ֶח ְרמוֹ וִ ַיק ֵטּר ְל ִמ ְכ ַמ ְרתּוֹ‬Hb 1.16. As regards ‫הק ֗דש‬ ֗ ‫היאה מחנה‬ ֯ ‫ושלים‬ ֗ ‫ויר‬ ֗ ‫‘ וי‬and Jerusalem is the holy camp’ MMT B 60, preceded by a mention of ‫ודש‬ ֯ ‫ מחני ֗ה ֯ק‬line 58, we need bear in mind that at the back of the author’s mind lies ‫אוֹ־עז ַבּ ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה אוֹ ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְשׁ ַחט ִמחוּץ‬ ֵ ‫אוֹ־כ ֶשׂב‬ ֶ ‫ִאישׁ ִאישׁ ִמ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֲא ֶשׁר יִ ְשׁ ַחט שׁוֹר‬ ̇ ‫היאה מחנה‬ ֯ ‫ירושלים‬ ̇ ‫ ַל ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה‬Lv 17.3, and note that in ‫הק ̇דש ו̇ ̇היא המקו̇ ֯ם ֗שבחר בו מכל שבטי‬ ‫‘ י֗ שראל כי י̇ רו֗ שלים היא ראש ֗מ ֯חנ֗ ו֗ ת ישראל‬J. is the holy encampment and that is the place which He chose from among all the tribes of Is., for J. is the chief of the encampments of Is.’ MMT B 60 a bipartite pattern is sandwiched between two clauses of a tripartite one with the same value. We also have an identifying NC in ‫‘ עליון הואה אדון יעקוב‬it is the Most High that is Jacob’s lord’ 11Q5 18.6; we need remember that ‫ עליון‬is one of those substantives that, even when anarthrous, may refer to a unique entity, see above at § 7f, p. 21. (2) ec) This pattern is often found in clauses presenting an interpretation of symbolism or exegesis of a source text (3): ‫‘ הלבנון הוא עצת היחד והבהמות המה פתאי יהודה‬Lebanon is the council of the community and the animals are the simple folk of Judah’ 1QpHab 12.3; ‫‘ הבאר היא התורה וחופריה המה שבי ישראל‬the well symbolises the law and its diggers the penitents of Israel’ CD 6.4; ‫‘ המחוקק הוא דורש התורה‬the staff symbolises the student of the law’ CD 6.7 (4); ‫‘ נדיבי העם הם הבאים לכרות את הבאר‬the nobles of the people Conventionally and erroneously ‫ היאה‬here is called by Leahy (1960.155) a copula. Geiger (2012.347, n. 596) disputes our analysis of the first constituent as P (JM § 154 j), whilst none of our examples touched on there has an indeterminate ptc. as S, the third constituent. Even with an indeterminate, predicative ptc. as the third constituent we could almost view the first constituent as P with prominence accorded by a disjunctive pronoun as in ‫(‘ העם המכעיסים אותי על פני תמיד המה זובחים בגנות‬of all the peoples) the people who always provoke Me frontally are offering sacrifices in the gardens’ 1QIsaa 65.3, where MT lacks ‫המה‬, but see LXX αὐτοί; the pronoun underlines the unashamed cheek on the part of the deviant people. At ‫ ַחנָּ ה ִהיא ְמ ַד ֶבּ ֶרת‬1Sm 1.13 the pronoun is not pleonastic: ‘it was indeed Hannah that was speaking, (though she was but thinking aloud so that Ellie failed to perceive her message)’ and at ‫יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַע הוּא ע ֵֹבר ְל ָפנֶ יָך ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה‬ ֻ ְ‫ת־הגּוֹיִם ָה ֵא ֶלּה ִמ ְלּ ָפנֶ יָך וִ ִיר ְשׁ ָתּם י‬ ַ ‫ֹלהיָך הוּא ע ֵֹבר ְל ָפנֶ יָך הוּא־יַ ְשׁ ִמיד ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ ֱא‬Dt 31.3 the pronoun ‫ הוא‬carries a vital communicative value of identical import—it is the Lord your God that is going to take the lead and make sure that you annihilate those nations and Joshua is going to perform the same function as deputised by Him, sim. vs. 8. 3 It is intriguing that the well-known, first example of this intellectual exercise displays a different pattern: Joseph says ‫ֹלשׁת יָ ִמים ֵהם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלשׁת ַה ָשּׂ ִרגִ ים ְשׁ‬ ֶ ‫ ְשׁ‬Gn 40.12, i.e. , likewise at ib. 40.18, 41.26 (2×), 27, and his statements are introduced with ‫זֶ ה ִפּ ְתר ֹנוֹ‬, BH ‫ = ִפּ ְתרוֹנוֹ‬QH ‫!פּ ְשׁרוֹ‬ ִ In another example, this time in BA(!), we find ‫אשׁה ִדּי ַד ֲה ָבא‬ ָ ‫ה־]אנְ ְתּ[־הוּא ֵר‬ ַ ‫ ַאנְ ָתּ‬Dn 2.8. 4 Here the underlying scripture is ‫רוּה נְ ִד ֵיבי ָה ָעם ִבּ ְמח ֵֹקק ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ֲענ ָֹתם‬ ָ ‫רוּה ָשׂ ִרים ָכּ‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ ֵאר ֲח ָפ‬Nu 21.18. The same substantive, ‫מח ֵֹקק‬, ְ appearing in another biblical text, Gn 49.10, is commented on as ‫המחוקק היא ברית‬ 1 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 eb-ed

261

refer to those who come to dig the well’ CD 6.8; ‫אה ֗ח ֗גורו‬ ֗ ֯‫הפתיל ֯הו‬ ֗ ‘‫( הפתיל‬Gn 38.25) 1 refers to his belt’ 4Q254 3+8.7 ( ). See also ‫‘ אלה הם אנשי הלצון אשר בירושלים‬these refer to the men of mockery in Jerusalem’ 4Q162 2.6; ‫‘ פשרו הקריה היא ירושלים‬its interpre֗ tation—‘the city is a reference to Jerusalem’ 1QpHab 12.7 (2); ‫הכ ֗הנים הם שבי ישראל‬ ‘the priests, that refers to penitents of Israel’ CD 4.2; sim. ‫בני צדוק הם בחירי ישראל‬ ֗ ‘the blood is CD 4.3; ‫‘ הצו הוא מטיף‬the Tsav is a preacher’ CD 4.19 (3); ‫הדם הוא הנפש‬ life’ 11Q19 53.6 (< Dt 12.23) (4); CD 8.10f. That the use of this syntagm is not obligatory for this register is illustrated by ‫היֿ אה‬ ‫‘ מדרש התורה‬it refers to the seeking of the law’ 1QS 8.15, which is meant to expound Is 40.3 cited immediately before, where the selection of the fem. ‫ היאה‬is due to the gender of ‫ ֶדּ ֶרְך‬and ‫ ְמ ִס ָלּה‬in Is 40.3. Nor is its use confined to this genre. Thus ‫‘ הראשונה היא הזנות‬the first is whoredom’ CD 4.17, which is an explication of an earlier statement—‫‘ שלושת מצודות בליעל‬three traps of Belial’ line 15. Affiliated is a syntagm in an explanatory gloss, e.g. ‫אל‬ ֗ ‫אשר בהר היא בית‬ ֗ ‫‘ לוז א‬Luz, which is in the mountain, i.e. Bethel’ 1Q17 1.3; ‫בעשתי עשר‬ ֯ ‫יום אחד בשבת הוא יום עשרה‬ ‫‘ החודש‬day one in the week, i.e. day ten in the eleventh month’ 4Q252 1.13. Likewise in BH, e.g. ‫ ֶמ ֶלְך ֶבּ ַלע ִהוא־צ ַֹער‬Gn 14.8. ̇ ‫ותלד לו את עמלק הוא אשר‬ A gloss can have a relative clause as P as in ‫הכהו שאול‬ ‘and she bore him Amalek, one whom Saul would smite’ 4Q252 4.1. Let us note that the S can be indeterminate: ‫‘ דינרין ששה עשר שהם סלעים ארבע‬sixteen denarii, which are (equivalent to) four selas’ 5/6Ḥev 44.20, 23, sim. 46.9, 11. Though no gloss or interpretation of symbolism, probably belongs here ‫אחרית‬ ̇ ‫זה הו̇ א‬ ‫‘ הימים‬this is the end of days’ MMT C 21. ed) Second constituent = dem. pron. ̇ This syntagm well-known to BH appears in QH once only in ‫לכי̇ ֗ה ז֗ ֗ה אחד‬ ̇ ‫במ‬ ֗ ‫יום ̇ר ֗בי֗ עי ב‬ ‫בחו֯ ֯דש העשירי‬ ֗ ‘day four of Malachiah is the first of the tenth month’ 4Q324a 1ii3, cp. the above-cited 4Q252 1.13. (5) ‫‘ המלכות‬the staff is the covenant of royalty’ 4Q252 5.2. In both QH texts this lemma is positioned up front. We fail to see why Baasten (2006.197, 200) regards the disjunctive pronoun in the CD example as theme or topic and that in the 4Q document as rheme or comment. Because of the variation in gender of the pronoun? The difficulty with his analysis derives from his postulation of the first constituent as in extraposition. To us it seems rather that what is external to any tripartite nominal clause is its disjunctive pronoun and the core of the clause is constituted by two NPs. 1 As read by Yuditsky and Haber 2017.74. 2 ‫ הקריה‬is the lemma in Hb 2.17, without the article: “the town meant in the text with ‫ קריה‬is Jerusalem.” So are ‫ הלבנון‬line 3 and ‫ הבהמות‬line 4 anarthrous in Hb 2.17. 3 Qimron (I 10) proposes adding ‫ הכזב‬in order to make ‫ מטיף‬determinate. 4 Cf. Pesh. dmā nawšāw, and not dmāw nawšā, the Hebrew sequence here. 5 An example mentioned by Baasten (2006.199), who strangely writes: “This never occurs in Biblical Hebrew.” To mention only one instance, ‫ ַה ַא ָתּה זֶ ה ְבּנִ י ֵע ָשׂו ִאם־לֹא‬Gn 27.21; see further Muraoka 1999b.209f. (§ 3.8). ‫ בננו זה סורר‬11Q19 64.4 (< Dt 21.20) does not belong here, for ‫ זה‬is attributively used—‘this son of ours is rebellious,’ and, pace Geiger (2012.349, n. 604), the anarthrous demonstrative is well-established in BH when the substantive has a conj. pron. attached, § JM § 138 g.

262

SYNTAX

ee) Functional opposition? Is the position of a disjunctive pronoun in tripartite nominal clauses significant in terms of functional opposition? Qimron (1) mentions two pairs of textual variation at i) MMT B 29 between ‫וירושלים‬ ‫היא מחנה‬ ֯ ‫‘ הי‬and Jerusalem is a camp’ 4Q397 3.4 vs. ‫ושלים מחנה היא‬ ֗ ‫ויר‬ ֗ ‫ וי‬4Q394 3-7ii16, ֗ ‫רושלימ‬ ֗ ֗‫ י‬4Q394 8iv11, sim. 4Q396 1-2iii1 vs. and ii) MMT B 61 ‫היא ֗ראש ֗םחנות ישראל‬ ‫רושלים ראש מחנות ישראל ֗היאה‬ ‫ ירושלים‬4Q397 6-13.4. Kutscher (1962.156) held that in both Hebrew and Aramaic a “copula” always comes after a predicate and normally at the end of a clause except in cases of identification (2) as in ‫יוֹסף הוּא ַה ַשּׁ ִלּיט‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬Gn 42.6. Kutscher’s analysis obviously would not work with these two pairs of contrasting formulations. The fact that we have here to do with variant readings of basically the same document does not necessarily signify that these variations are merely stylistic, even when the position of the pronoun differs within the same fragment, for the different scribes might be wishing to convey each his own nuance. Over the past half a century the syntax of Semitic nominal clauses, especially those in Hebrew and Aramaic, including Classical Syriac, has been a major research focus, (3) and much progress has been made. Identificatory function is evident in ‫‘ י֗ רו֗ שלים היא ראש ֗מ ֯חנ֗ ו֗ ת ישראל‬Jerusalem is the chief of the camps of Israel’ MMT B 61 in view of the immediately preceding clause, ‫ ֗היא המקו֗ ֯ם ֗שבחר בו מכל שבטי י֗ שראל‬ib. 60, whereas the variant formulation accords prominence to the eminent position enjoyed by Jerusalem, and not which city can claim such a position. Cp. a pair in BH such as ‫ר־א ָתּה ר ֶֹאה ִלי־הוּא‬ ַ ‫ וְ כֹל ֲא ֶשׁ‬Gn 31.43 on one hand and ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ יְ הוָ ה הוּא ָה ֱא‬1Kg 18.39. In the former case the immediately preceding ַ indicate that the addition of ‫ הוא‬is optional (4), clauses, ‫ה ָבּנוֹת ְבּנ ַֹתי וְ ַה ָבּנִ ים ָבּנַ י וְ ַהצֹּאן צֹאנִ י‬, and in the latter the presence of ‫ הוא‬is most appropriate as a declaration of the choice made in response to the challenge presented by Elijah, ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ִאם־יְ הוָ ה ָה ֱא‬vs. 21. (5) We conclude that the two sequences are not free variants. ef) Grammatical concord of disjunctive pronouns Does the disjunctive pronoun as the third constituent concord with S or P? The question is somewhat demanding. In QH we observe both patterns. 1

DJD 10 § 3.4.8, which is wrongly given as § 6.8 in Qimron 2018.44. Kutscher’s (1962.156 = 1977.234) Hebrew expression is ‫משפטי זיהוי‬, which Qimron (DJD 10.82) renders “defining nominal sentence.” Judging from the only example Kutscher quotes, ‫יוֹסף הוּא ַה ַשּׁ ִלּיט‬ ֵ Gn 42.6, he meant to say that the referents of ‫ יוסף‬and ‫ השׁליט‬are identical. Qimron’s representation of Kutscher’s position is inaccurate: the latter says that the “copula” comes after the predicate, mostly at the end of a clause, excepting in ‫משפטי זיהוי‬, and Kutscher does not introduce the notion of ‘descriptive nominal sentence,’ which is part of Qimron’s system. 3 See studies by, for instance, Andersen 1970, Hoftijzer 1965, Baasten 2006, Goldenberg 1983, and Muraoka 1969.4-15, 1975, 1985.6-28, 1999b; van Peursen 2006; Zewi 1994, 2000, 2007, 2008. 4 His uncle’s children and sheep must be also visible to Jacob, so that the added pronoun reinforces Laban’s position that all that belongs to him, and to nobody else, and that renders the position only implied in the three preceding statements explicit. 5 For further examples and a discussion, see JM § 154 i-j. 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 ee-fa

263

With S which precedes—‫הדם הוא הנפש‬ ֗ ‘the blood is its life’ 11Q19 53.6; ‫יינם הוא‬ ‫‘ דרכיהם‬their wine, that refers to their ways’ CD 8.10. With P which precedes—‫‘ אמת אל היאה סלע פעמי‬God’s truth, that is the rock of my steps’ 1QS 11.4, on which see above at § eb; ‫‘ ספרי התורה הם סוכת המלך‬the scrolls of the law are meant by the tabernacle of the king’ CD 7.15; ‫כלי מלחמותם המה מוראם‬ ‘their weapons are their object of reverence’ 1QpHab 6.4, on which see above at § eb; ‫הק ֗דש‬ ֗ ‫היאה מחנה‬ ֯ ‫ושלים‬ ֗ ‫ויר‬ ֗ ‫‘ וי‬and Jerusalem is the holy camp’ MMT B 60, on which see above at § eb; ‫‘ ואם נפש אדם היא אשר תפול אל המים‬but if it is a human being that falls into the water’ 4Q265 6.6, where the gender of the subject noun is not apparent, and the gender of the verb is conditioned by that of ‫נפש‬. With S which follows—‫‘ לכול העולמים היאה מלכותו‬His reign is for all ages’ 4Q200 6.5 (1); ‫‘ תועבה המה לפני כול עושה אלה‬all those who do such things are abominable to Me’ 11Q19 60.19. With P which follows—‫ חמס ארץ המה ערי יהודה‬1QpHab 12.9, where ‫ המס ארץ‬cannot be regarded as S, but only part of it, i.e. ‫ארץ‬, for the author means to say: ‘as regards the lemma ‫ס־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫( ֲח ָמ‬Hb 2.17) ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬refers to the cities of Judah’; ‫המחקק היא ברית‬ ‫‘ המלכות‬the staff is the covenant of royalty’ 4Q252 5.2; ‫הכתיים‬ ֯ ‫“‘ הים הם כל‬the sea” refers to all the Kittim’ 4Q169 1-2.3; ‫( רובכה‘ רובכה הם גדודי חילו‬2) refers to his army units’ 4Q169 3-4i10. The question of concord apart, the important function of these pronouns appears to lie in according a measure of prominence to a constituent that precedes. f) Existential, possessive or locative nominal clauses fa) Existential That someone or something exists at the moment of speech may be optionally marked with ‫ישׁ‬. (3) The existential particle ‫ יש‬always occupies the initial position (4) and followed by an NPid, e.g. ‫‘ יש שפה ו֗ ֗לשון מחזקת בה‬is there a lip or tongue holding on to it?’ 1Q27 1i10; ‫‘ יש אתי דבר לדבר‬I have something to speak about’ 1QS 6.13; ‫‘ יש מקוה לשבי פשע‬there is hope for those who turn away from offence’ 1QHa 14.9; ‫‘ היש אתכם בינה‬Is there any understanding with you?’ 4Q300 8.6. (5)

1 The Greek version indicates a text-critical problem: eternity is an attribute of God—GI Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ ζῶν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (GII εἰσ τὸν αἰῶνα) καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ To 13.1. 2 In MT (Na 2.14) we read ‫‘ ִר ְכ ָבּהּ‬her chariots.’ Cf. LXX: πλῆθός σου. 3 Cf. Muraoka 1985.77-82, 99-111 and Baasten 2000, where (p. 1) a total of 17 occurrences of ‫ יש‬in his corpus were identified; more texts have become available since, hence now some 31. 4 A point not noted by Van Hecke (2008.66). 5 More examples may be found in Baasten 2006.212-14.

264

SYNTAX

We find not a few examples with no ‫ ישׁ‬added. (1) Thus ‫בעצת היחד שנים עשר איש‬ ‘in the council of the community there are twelve people’ 1QS 8.1 (2); ‫בו ספר אחד‬ 24 ‫‘ תחתו ככ‬in it (there is) a book and under it (there are) 24 talents’ 3Q15 6.5, immediately preceded by ‫‘ שם קלל‬there (there is) an urn,’ a clause of ; ‫ובידם‬ ‫‘ רמח וכידן‬and them carrying a spear and a javelin’ 1QM 5.6, a circumstantial clause; ‫ כשנים ארבעים‬.. ‫‘ ומיום האסף יורה היחד עד תם כל אנשי המלחמה‬and from the day when the teacher of the community had departed till the annihilation of all the warriors .. (there was a space of) about 40 years’ CD 20.13 (3). A clause with ‫‘ איפה‬Where?’ belongs here: ‫‘ ֗אי ֹפה ֗ע ֯ם אשר לוא ֗גז֗ ל‬where is a people who have not looted?’ 1Q27 1i11, just like the above-mentioned example with ‫שם‬. The Copper Scroll (3Q15) is replete with what, at first sight, looks like existential clauses, which typically open with a locational prepositional phrase followed by an indeterminate NP denoting a valuable piece or pieces of object to be found there. E.g. ‫( למזרח אמות }ארוה{ ארבעין שדת כסף‬4) ‫בחרוֿ בה שבעמק עכור תחת המעלות הבואת‬ ‫‘ וכליה‬in the ruin in the valley of Acor, under the steps leading to the east forty cubits, a chest of silver and its vessels’ 3Q15 1.1. These are not, however, true existential nominal clauses (5), but form as a whole a compact database, which, in our days, might be compiled as a table with two columns and on the top row, WHERE | WHAT. Examples of the pattern (6) are ‫יצאו עמהמה שבעה לויים ובידם שבעת‬ ‫‘ שופרות היובל‬seven Levites marched out with them as they had (each) the seven ram’s horns in their hand’ 1QM 7.14; ‫‘ להם כול כבוד אדם‬they (shall) have every glory of Adam’ 1QS 4.23 (7); ‫‘ בידו משפט כול חי‬in His hand is the judgement of everything living’ 1QS 10.16. In QH (8) we find no example of a ‫ישׁ‬-clause with a determinate S. In ‫כעשב הוא אשר‬ ‫יש ֯ה ֗ר ֗ח ֗ש תחתו‬ ֯ ‫‘ י‬it is like a plant under which there is a worm’ 4Q266 6i7 the article is generic in value (9), rendering the NP notionally indeterminate. (10) 1

Cf. Baasten 2006 § 3.3.2. Syntactic analysis is ambiguous in ‫‘ בכול היותי חוק חרות בלשוני‬throughout my life there is a law engraved in my tongue’ 1QS 10.8: is the S ‫ חוק‬or ‫?חוק חרות‬ 3 Baasten (2006.186 [§ 3.3.10]) analyses this instance as representing a non-verbal clause consisting of two prepositional phrases, which is true only on the surface. 4 Meaning ‫הבאות‬, so Milik (DJD 3.285). 5 See Baasten 2006 § 3.3.3, which is a special excursus on the Copper Scroll. 6 Cf. Baasten 2006 § 3.3.1. 7 Some translate ‫ אדם‬as ‘man’; cf. Wernberg-Møller 1957.87. 8 In BH we find cases such as ‫ ָא ֵכן יֵ שׁ יְ הוָ ה ַבּ ָמּקוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬Gn 28.16; ‫ם־איִ ן‬ ָ ‫ ֲהיֵ שׁ יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ִק ְר ֵבּנוּ ִא‬Ex 17.7. 9 In describing ‫ הרחש‬here Baasten (2000.2) justly qualifies with ‘formally’: “a formally definite noun phrase,” a point missed by Van Hecke (2008.75), who assigns the value of “higher topicality and referentiality” to the definite article here, but ‫ רחש‬has not been mentioned before in the context. Note, on the other hand, the above-cited BH examples of ‫ יֵ שׁ‬or ‫ ֵאין‬clauses with a notionally determinate NP; their word order different from the one in 4Q226 is not an issue here. 10 Cases of ‫ יֵ שׁ‬+ a conjunctive pronoun are utterly rare in BH, see Muraoka 1985.100f. The sole QH example is a quote from BH: ‫‘ הישכם אוהבים את יהוה‬if you really love the Lord’ 11Q19 54.12 < Dt 13.4, cf. JM § 154 k. In Dt 13.4 and a few other BH examples with ‫ יש‬+ a conj. pron. it is not about existence 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 fa

265

Non-existence or absence is indicated by ‫אין‬, and its use is obligatory. Its position within a clause is more flexible than that of ‫( ישׁ‬1): ‫לכול גבוריהם אין מציל ולקליהם אין מנוס‬ ‘none of their heroes has a rescuer and their swift ones have no escape’ 1M 14.11, sim. 1QHa 14.36; ‫‘ לחכמתכה אין מדה‬there is no measure to Your wisdom’ 1QHa 17.17; ‫‘ לתהלתך אין חקר‬to Your praise there is no end’ 11Q5 19.9; even a subject NP preposed—‫‘ מחסי בשר אין לי‬I have no shelter in flesh’ 1QHa 15.20, ‫‘ ניחוח אין בו‬there is no pleasing odour in it’ 4Q179 1i6, ‫‘ באי מועד אין בם‬there are no visitors for a festival in them’ 4Q179 1i11, and ‫‘ חפץ אין בו‬there is no delight in him’ 4Q179 1ii10, but the initial position is commoner as in ‫‘ אין מעוז לי‬I have no fortress’ 1QHa 16.28; ‫אין אמת‬ ‫‘ אתם‬there is no truth with them’ 4Q219 2.24; ‫‘ אין בידך כל חמס‬there is no violence in your hand’ 4Q372 1.18, see also 4Q379 22i3, 4Q381 76-77.11, 4Q385a 17a-eii6, 4Q389 8ii3, 4Q410 1.5, 4Q491 13.7, 11Q14 1ii11. (2) Rare examples of ‫ אין‬used with existential value but with no indication of location are ‫פלא אינמה עוד‬ ֗ ‫‘ כול תומכי רזי‬all those who treasure marvellous mysteries do not exist ‫‘ כתום עשן ואיננ‬when smoke vanishes and is no longer any longer’ 1Q27 1.7 and ‫יננו֗ עוד‬ 3 there’ 1Q27 1.6. ( ) ‫ כמוה‬at ‫‘ אין כמוה‬there is nothing like it’ 4Q161 1-6.28 is no standard prepositional adjunct, but an elliptical NP in lieu of ‫דבר כמוה‬. Analogously can one analyse ‫ואין זולתך‬ in an elaborate credo of the uniqueness of God in ‫מבלעדיכה לא יעשה כול ולא יודע בלוא‬ ‫‘ רצונכה ואין זולתך ואין עמכה בכוח ואין לנגד כבודכה ו֯ לגבורתכה אין מחיר‬.. there is none capable of vying with You ..’ 1QHa 18.11, cf. ‫‘ אין אחר זולתכה‬there is none apart from You’ 1QS 11.18. This negator does not always denote non-existence or absence, but merely negates a statement, e.g. ‫‘ אין כתוב‬it is not written’ CD 9.5; .. ‫‘ אין נחלתה בתוך‬her inheritance is not in ..’ 4Q184 1.7; ‫צרי֗ ך לכל גוי‬ ֗ ‫‘ אין אתה‬You have no need of any nation’ 4Q372 1.17. See below at § 40 c. or presence, but a confirmation of a state of affairs, as shown by the fact that those clauses are all introduced with either ‫ ִאם‬or ‫ ֲה־‬and the sole exception is ‫ם־א ָחד ְמ ֻפזָּ ר‬ ֶ ‫ יֶ ְשׁנוֹ ַע‬Est 3.8, where the ‫ ־נוֹ‬is proleptic, see Muraoka 1985.100f. This is a feature widespread in Modern Hebrew. 1 More examples may be found in Baasten 2006.215-18 (§ 3.11.2-3). Baasten (2000.8) objects to Carmignac (1974.411), where the latter writes: “Dans l’hébreu de Qumrân ’yn tend à se placer le plus près possible du terme qu’il affecte.” Whereas in all BH examples Carmignac quotes the negator always precedes, we encounter a case such as ‫ ִאישׁ ֵאין ָבּ ָא ֶרץ‬Gn 19.31; more examples are mentioned in BDB, s.v. ‫ ַאיִ ן‬2 c (p. 34b top). 2 More examples may be found in Baasten 2000.4-8. Baasten (2006.219 [§ 3.11.6]) analyses a case such as the above-quoted ‫ מחסי בשר אין לי‬and quite a few others as cases of extraposition, which would leave ‫ אין לי‬as non-clause. 3 A couple of BH examples are ‫ ֵאין ַהנַּ ַער וָ ֵמת‬Gn 44.31, following ‫ ַהנַּ ַער ֵאינֶ נּוּ ִא ָתּנוּ‬vs. 30; ‫ִהנֵּ ה ֵאין יוֹנָ ָתן‬ ‫ וְ נ ֵֹשׂא ֵכ ָליו‬1Sm 14.17. One should note a subtle, notional difference here: with an indeterminate NP it is about existence or non-existence, but with a determinate NP it is about presence or absence. At Gn 44.31 and 1Sm 14.17, it has to do with the absence at a particular location respectively of Joseph and Jonathan and his armour-bearer, though neither location is named, but understood from the context. However, at ‫ַהיֶּ ֶלד‬ ‫ ֵאינֶ נּוּ‬Gn 37.30, Reuben is bemoaning Joseph’s disappearance, and absolute non-existence. At ‫ֲהיֵ שׁ יְ הוָ ה ְבּ ִק ְר ֵבּנוּ‬ ‫ם־איִ ן‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬Ex 17.7 the preceding ‫ ְבּ ִק ְר ֵבּנוּ‬is to be noted. For more BH examples, see Muraoka 1985.103, 5; 104, 9, 11; 105, 16; 107, 22.

266

SYNTAX

The reverse sequence, , is also attested. The subject NP is usually indeterminate and the clause is existential. E.g. ‫‘ אור בלבבי מרזי פלאו‬there is a light in my ‫‘ כיא מלאכי קודש בעד‬for mind, coming from His wondrous mysteries’ 1QS 11.5 (1); ‫בעדתם‬ holy angels are in the midst of their congregation’ 1QSa 2.8; ‫‘ ארך אפים עמו‬He has patience’ CD 2.4; ‫‘ רוב פשעים בכנפיה‬there are many offences in her wings’ 4Q184 1.4; ‫(‘ קרב ונחשיר חזק לפני אל ישראל‬there will be) a battle and savage bloodshed before the God of Isr.’ 1QM 1.9; ‫‘ המון מקנה בחלקותיכה‬a multitude of cattle is in your fields’ 1QM 12.12; ‫‘ שמחה לכה אם תנקה ממנו‬you will have joy if you are exempted from it’ 4Q416 2iii5. In one case the subject NP is determinate, but the clause is not existential: ‫‘ עיני כעש בכבשן ודמעתי כנחלי מים‬my eyes are like a block of metal in a kiln and my tears are like streams of water’ 1QHa 17.5 (2). See above at § ca (3). Rare examples of a determinate subject NP in a NC with locational value are ‫מלך‬ ‫‘ הכבוד אתנו עם קדושים‬the king of glory is with us with saints’ 1QM 12.8; ‫עמי‬ ֗ ‫דברכן‬ ֗ ‘your issue is with me’ 5/6Ḥev 49.6. Both syntagms are present one next to the other in ‫לחמה בעדתנו וצבא רוחיו עם צעדינו‬ ֗ ‫המ‬ ֗ ‫‘ גבו֗ רי ֗צבא מלאכים בפקודינו וגבור‬warriors of a host of angels are among our numbered men and the mighty one of the war is in our congregation and the host of His spirits is with our foot-soldiers’ 1QM 12.8. Note two examples of a disjunctive pronoun as S: ‫‘ אתה בקרבנו‬You are in our midst’ 4Q504 6.10; ‫‘ אני לאדם רשעה‬I belong to Adam of wickedness’ 1QS 11.9. fb) Locative clause This is a NC which purports to state where a known referent, hence NPdt, is present or situated, or originates from. (3) E.g. ‫‘ בידו תום דרכי‬my integrity is in His hand’ 1QS 11.2; ‫‘ בסלע עוז דרך פעמי‬the way of my steps is on a mighty rock’ 1QS 11.4; ‫ממקור צדקתו‬ ‫‘ משפטי‬my justice comes from His righteousness as source’ 1QS 11.5; ‫שניהם מן עין‬ ‫‘ גדי‬they two are from Ein Gedi’ 5/6Ḥev 44.4; following an extraposed constituent —‫החרו֗ בים‬ ֗ ֗‫‘ המכר הזה בתחומי֗ ו‬this sale—within its boundaries are located the carob(trees)’ M22 k-l 2; ‫‘ והואה מעפר מגבלו‬and he is kneaded from dust’ 1QS 11.21. Location at a point in time is a variant on this. E.g. ‫‘ בעשרים ושנים בו מועד השמן‬on the 22nd of it falls the festival of the (new) oil’ MMT A 5.2, an example which shows that ‫‘ בעשרים ושלושה בו שבת‬on the 23rd in it [= the month] falls a Sabbath’ MMT A 1.4 ֗ ‫‘ באישווני ליל מ‬her domains are in night watches’ is not an existential clause (4); ‫ממשלותיה‬ 4Q184 1.6. 1 Qimron (I 230) justly adds a full stop before ‫אור‬, marking the preceding two locative clauses off, for here begins, without the conjunction waw, a description of what the poet personally perceives; note the clause following—‫‘ בהויֿ א עולם הביטה עיני‬at the One who exists eternally my eye gazed.’ 2 On the interpretation of ‫עש‬, see Kister 2004a.55-57. 3 Baasten (1999.26-28) divides examples of this syntagm into two in terms of information structure, Theme - Rheme vs. Rheme - Theme. The parameter of information structure does not appear to be determinative of the selection of this syntagm, seeing that both structures are represented in this case by one and the same syntagm. 4 A syntagm known to BH in similar context, e.g. ‫ַבּח ֶֹדשׁ ָה ִראשׁוֹן ְבּ ַא ְר ָבּ ָעה ָע ָשׂר ַלח ֶֹדשׁ ֵבּין ָה ַע ְר ָבּיִ ם ֶפּ ַסח‬ ‫וּב ֲח ִמ ָשּׁה ָע ָשׂר יוֹם ַלח ֶֹדשׁ ַהזֶּ ה ַחג ַה ַמּצּוֹת ַליהוָ ה‬ ַ :‫ ַליהוָ ה‬Lv 23.5f.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 fa-ff

267

fc) Possession With fronted NPid a NC can indicate that A is possessed by B, e.g. ‫ריב לו עם כל בשר‬ ‘He has a dispute with every human being’ CD 1.2; ‫‘ שמחה לכה‬you would have joy’ 4Q416 2iii4. Cases such as ‫בשמים‬ ֗ ֯‫קודש ֗לו‬ ֗ ‫‘ מלאכי‬He has holy angels in heaven’ 4Q418 55.8 and ‫‘ רוב קדושים ֯ל ֗ ֯כה בשמים‬You have many saints in heaven’ 1QM 12.1 border on existential clauses. fd) ‫היה‬: Bridge between NC and VC There are syntactic environments in which the use of a morphosyntactically approָ ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה‬ priate form of ‫ היה‬is obligatory. Thus ‫ ָח ָכם האיש‬as against ‫היָ ה האיש חכם‬, ‫האיש חכם‬, and ‫יְ ִהי חכם האיש‬, or ‫ ֱהיֵ ה חכם‬as against ‫חכם ַא ָתּה‬. This applies also to the inf. cst. as in ‫‘ בהיות טמאתם ֗עמהם‬when their impurity is (still) with them’ MMT B 67. fe) Many of the examples adduced above demonstrate that, just as in BH, there is no correlation between the definiteness of an NP and its relative position in the NC. (1) ff) Morphosyntactic complementary opposition? Van Hecke (2008) argues for an interesting morphosyntactic opposition in existential clauses, positively worded through ‫ יש‬and negatively through ‫אין‬, and containing a prepositional phrase (PP) with locative value: , e.g. ‫‘ אין הולל בכול מעשיך‬there is no folly in any of your deeds’ 1QHa 12.21, but , e.g. ‫‘ יש אתו דבר לדבר לרבים‬he has something (he wants to speak about) with the Many’ 1QS 6.12. Van Hecke (2008.70-76) further submits that a relatively small number of exceptions to this pattern of distribution can be accounted for in terms of factors such as the length or complexity of of PP with NP, the semantic properties of both of the existential construction and of some prepositions, the degree of referentiality of the constituents, and the pragmatic functions of the constituents. As stated above at § fd, consideration of tense, aspect and / or mood could necessitate the use or the substitution of ‫ יש‬with a form of ‫ היה‬and of ‫ אין‬with a form of ‫לא היה‬. Given the vast frequency of ‫היה‬, we have looked at the distribution of Qal Pf. 3fs ‫ ָהיְ ָתה‬alone in BH in order to see whether or not the morphosyntactic opposition assumed by Van Hecke analogously applies. The comparative statistics of the data for QH and BH as studied by Van Hecke and those for BH studied by us look as below: (2)

1 2

Also confirmed by Baasten 2006.189, § 3.3.12. Cases of ‫יש‬, ‫ אין‬or ‫ היה‬preceded by an NP are not included in the statistics here.

268

SYNTAX

QH A

BH: TM

PP with NP

Aa (‫ יש אשה בבית )אין‬19 Ab (‫יש בבית אשה )אין‬ B

Van Hecke: BH

5(21%)

28 8(22%)

(‫ היתה אשה בבית )לא היתה‬20 (‫היתה בבית אשה )לא היתה‬

1(5%)

PP with pronoun

Ba (‫יש בו אשה )אין‬

30

Bb (‫יש אשה בו )אין‬

12(29%)

Total

66

43 6(12%)

(‫היתה בו אשה )לא היתה‬ (‫היתה אשה בו )לא היתה‬

85

8 5(38%) 34

A couple of observations may be made on the basis of these figures: a) In terms of percentages the syntagm with a form of ‫ היה‬in BH appears to be distinct from one with ‫ יש‬or ‫אין‬. The rate of exceptions to the rule laid down by Van Hecke shows a reverse relationship: for (A) 22% / 5%, but for (B) 12% / 38%. b) In the data studied by Van Hecke for BH it is Ab 22% / Bb 12%, whereas for BH: TM it is Ab 5% / Bb 38%. c) These two sets of figures suggest that the morphosyntax of clauses with ‫ יש‬or ‫אין‬ is distinct from that of clauses with a form of ‫היה‬. The latter represents more than the addition of the TAM features. d) One can see a reverse relationship in the figures for QH compared with those for BH with ‫ יש‬or ‫אין‬. How could one account for this difference? A diachronic or dialectal explanation does not seem very plausible. Here follow a couple of examples for each of the four syntagms for BH investigated by us. Aa) ‫יְתה ַה ֶקּ ֶשׁת ֶבּ ָענָ ן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה‬Gn 9.16, ‫יְתה ַבּ ַמּ ַעל ַהזֶּ ה‬ ָ ‫ וְ יַ ד ַה ָשּׂ ִרים וְ ַה ְסּגָ נִ ים ָה‬Ezr 9.2 Ab) ‫לוּכה‬ ָ ‫יְתה ַליהוָ ה ַה ְמּ‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה‬Ob 21, the sole example Ba) ‫עוֹלם‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה ָיְתה ָל ֶהם ְכּ ֻהנָּ ה ְל ֻח ַקּת‬Ex 29.9, ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫רוּח ֱא‬ ַ ‫ן־עוֹדד ָה ָיְתה ָע ָליו‬ ֵ ‫ וַ ֲעזַ ְריָהוּ ֶבּ‬2Ch 15.1 Bb) ‫רוּח ַא ֶח ֶרת ִעמּוֹ‬ ַ ‫יְתה‬ ָ ‫ ָה‬Nu 14,24, ‫יְתה יָ ְדָך ִע ִמּי‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה‬1Ch 4.10. (1) The two exceptions adduced above under Bb) may be accounted for in terms of special prominence one could assign to a NP preceding a PP [= prepositional phrase] with a conj. pron. Perhaps also ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫י־היָ ה ַפ ַחד־יְ הוָ ה ֲע ֵל‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָע ִרים ְס ִביבוֹת גְּ ָרר ִכּ‬ ֶ ‫וַ יַּ כּוּ ֵאת ָכּ‬ 2Ch 14.13. However, for the remaining two no easy explanation is forthcoming: ‫וְ ָהיְ ָתה‬ ַ ֵ‫י־היְ ָתה ְפנ‬ ָ ‫יוֹאב ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ וַ יַּ ְרא‬1Ch 19.10. ‫ ָה ִעיר )בתוכה( ְבּתוֹכוֹ‬Ezk 48.15, ‫י־ה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה ֵא ָליו ָפּנִ ים וְ ָאחוֹר‬ Furthermore, the variation between ‫לוּכה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה ָיְתה ַליהוָ ה ַה ְמּ‬Ob 21 and ‫לוּכה‬ ָ ‫ ִלי ָה ָיְתה ַה ְמּ‬1Kg 2.15 1 The remaining references are: Aa) Ex 11.6, 16.13, Jdg 21.3, 1Sm 12.15, 14.20, 2Sm 17.9, 1Kg 11.11, 12.15, 20.39, 42, 2Kg 9.37, Ezk 13.9, 30.4, 9, Ezr 9.8, 2Ch 1.11, 10.15, 13.2; Ba) Gn 18.12, 38.21, 22 (‫)בזֶ ה‬, ָ 2Sm 10.9, Ezk 37.1, 40.1; Bb) Ezk 48.15, 1Ch 19.10, 2Ch 14.13.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 33 ff – § 34 a

269

is difficult to explain. In one instance we have PP + conj. pron., subsequently followed by a PP + NP: ‫רוּח יְ הוָ ה ְבּתוְֹך ַה ָקּ ָהל‬ ַ ‫ן־בּנֵ י ָא ָסף ָהיְ ָתה ָע ָליו‬ ְ ‫ ַה ֵלּוִ י ִמ‬.. ‫יאל‬ ֵ ִ‫ וְ יַ ֲחז‬2Ch 20.14, with ‫ יַ ֲחזִ יאל‬extraposed.

§ 34 WORD ORDER:

VERBAL CLAUSE

a) Preliminary remarks There are factors which tend to position a clause constituent ahead of the verb when in unmarked syntagms such a constituent follows the verb. (1) 1) Preposed for the sake of contrast: ‫‘ בענות נפשו לכול חוקי אל יטהר בשרו‬it is through the humility of his soul towards all the laws of God that his flesh can be purified’ 1QS 3.8 vs. ‫‘ לוא יטהר בכול מי רחץ‬he cannot be purified with any amount of water for washing’ 1QS 3.5. (2) 2) Attraction to or echoing the immediately preceding: ‫כול מנאצי דברו ישמיד מתבל‬ ‘all those who belittle His word He will annihilate from the world’ 1QS 5.19, preceded by ‫‘ כול אשר לוא ידעו את בריתו‬all those who did not know His covenant’; ‫ועל פיהם יצא‬ ‫‘ והגורל‬and in accordance with their opinion the lot shall also be cast’ 1QS 9.7 with reference to the preceding ‫‘ רק בני אהרון ימשלו במשפט‬the sons of Aaron alone shall rule over judgement’; ‫‘ ובסוד פלאכה הגברתה עמדי‬and in Your marvellous council You have been powerful with me’ 1QHa 12.29, preceded by ‫‘ הודעתני ברזי פלאכה‬You have inculcated me in Your marvellous mysteries’; ‫‘ הפרו בריתי ואת תורתי געלה נפשמה‬they broke My covenant and My law their soul detested’ 11Q19 59.8, where ‫את‬, which is absent from the immediately preceding and notionally affiliated object, underlines that a new direct object is being introduced. See also 1QS 9.25b, 1QHa 15.37, 38; ‫וסרה ממשלת‬ ‫לכול בני חושך‬ ֯ ‫ניע רשעה לאין שארית ופלטה לוא תהיה‬ ֗ ‫להכ‬ ֗ ‫‘ כתיים‬the reign of Kittim is going to cease, wickedness has been overcome, leaving no remnant and no escape will be possible for all the sons of darkness’ 1QM 1.6. In a long passage the author of CD 1

In his discussion of the fronted object, whether direct or indirect, and adverbial adjunct Qimron (2018.433-36) hardly takes these factors into consideration, viewing the fronting as Aramaism. We are of course aware that these factors and those of emphasis or prominence could at times be subjective, but it is not right to ignore them altogether. For details, see below at § b - d. What he writes (ib. 436 top) about the affinity of QH to LBH must remain, for the moment, an assertion made with too few evidences and with insufficient consideration of past studies by his predecessors. When dealing with poetic texts, one need allow for ample scope for “poetic licence,” unless one is dealing with a commentary on a biblical text or a composition closely following such. Qimron mentions a few such examples, in which a Qumran text puts a complement before a verb against a presumed MT, which is supposedly being reworked or alluded to. But the reverse also happens. To quote just a couple of examples: ‫ אתה תשבח גליו‬4Q381 15.4 // ‫ ְבּשׂוֹא גַ ָלּיו ַא ָתּה ְת ַשׁ ְבּ ֵחם‬Ps 89.10; ‫וכבודו‬ ‫ נראה על ירושלם‬4Q380 1i6 // ‫וּכבוֹדוֹ ָע ַליִ ְך יֵ ָר ֶאה‬ ְ Is 60.2. 2 Cf. Muraoka 1999.52.

270

SYNTAX

traces a sorrowful history of recurrent human failures and disasters visited on mankind. The root cause is said to be ‫שרירות לב‬, obstinacy and perversity in wishing to follow one’s own will instead of his Maker’s. This is first mentioned in ‫בלכתם בשרירות לבם‬ ̇ ‫‘ נפלו עירי השמים‬when they walked with the stubbornness of their heart(s) the watchers of the heavens fell’ CD 2.17. This is immediately followed by ‫בה נאחזו אשר לא שמרו‬ ‫‘ מצות אל‬it was with it that those who did not observe God’s commandments were captured.’ ‫ בה‬is positioned before the verb, a pattern which is repeated twice hereafter: ‫ בה הם נכרתים‬.. ‫‘ בה תעו בנ̇ י̇ נח‬the children of Noah strayed in it .. they were being cut down because of it’ (CD 3.1). Then follows a brief, but bright chapter on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. With the next chapter, however, a sad history is resumed with ‫בני יעקב‬ ‫‘ תעו בם ויענשו‬the children of Jacob erred over them and were punished’ (CD 3.4). (1) Here, at the first mention of the cause of their disaster, ‫ בם‬follows the verb. But subsequently we read ‫‘ ובניהם בו אבדו ומלכיהם בו נכרתו וגיבוריהם בו אבדו וארצם בו שממה‬and their children perished because of it and their kings were cut down because of it and their warriors perished because of it, and their land became desolate because of it’ (CD 3.9), each time with ‫ בו‬preceding the verb. (2) Similarly at ‫גם ביד מלכינו הושעתנו‬ ‫‘ פעמים רבות‬also You rescued us many times through our kings as well’ 1QM 11.3 the particle ‫ גם‬echoes back to the thought expressed earlier that ultimately God is the commander-in-chief, to whom we owe whatever victories we achieve: ‫כיא אם לכה‬ ‫‘ המלחמה ובכוח ידכה רוטשו פגריהם‬but up to You is the war and with the might of Your hand their corpses were smashed’ 1QM 11.1. Unlike in ‫( כיא לכה המלחמה‬line 2), the presence of ‫ אם‬indicates ‫ כיא אם‬is not causal, but adversative, contradicting a contrary view on human military prowess which probably was in the immediately preceding clause, which is no longer preserved in our 1QM manuscript. All the same God entrusts His competent, trustworthy human agents to perform in battle-fields. Hence the fronting of ‫ ביד מלכינו‬is not an arbitrary, stylistic variant. (3) All the remaining cases of fronting richly scattered in the long passage of 1QM 11.3-12.3 mentioned by Qimron (2018.436) can be accounted for out of this perspective. One need look beyond a clause or phrase in which there occurs a particular phenomenon in which one is interested. This is an important aspect resulting in the fronting of various constituents, see below at § c and d. b) Verb in clause-final position This sequence is especially striking when a verbal clause consists of more than two constituents as in ‫לה ֗רשיע ירדו‬ ֯ ‫רגליה‬ ֗ ‘her feet descended to act wickedly’ 4Q 184.3; The suffix of ‫ בם‬probably refers back to ‫‘ מצות עושיהם‬the commandments of their Maker’ (CD 2.21). 2 What the ms suffix refers to is not apparent. ‫ שרירות לבם‬cannot be that. Because of the extreme length of the exposition the author himself may have lost the thread of his thought. 3 Qimron (2018.436) holds that this is a phenomenon typical of “some genres in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” though without saying which genres he is thinking of nor explaining why the fronting is selected in those genres. 1

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 34 a-ba

271

‫לראות א‬ ֗ ‫ועפעפיה בפחז תרים‬ ֗ ‫והנה ישכילו‬ ֗ ‫‘ עיניה ֗הנה‬her eyes scan this way and ‫אי֯ ֯ש צדיק‬ that, and she shamelessly raises her eyebrows to spot a righteous man’ 4Q184 1.13. This is a well-known Akkadianism incorporated in Imperial Aramaic and abundantly attested in Qumran Aramaic. (1) Then Aramaic influence could be suspected here, though the extent of such should not be exaggerated. (2) ba) Here are full-fledged verbal clauses not only with V in clause-final position, but O preceding the verb. ‫‘ עיני יהוה על טובים תחמל‬the eyes of the Lord will be compassionate on the good ones’ 11Q5 18.14; ‫‘ ועוונותי לשאול מכרוני‬my iniquities sold me to Sheol’ 11Q5 19.10, where the fronting of ‫ עוונותי‬may be due to the preceding ‫ חטאי‬in ‫( למות הייתי בחטאי‬3), but even so the author could have written ‫‘ ידידיך אליך נלוו ;ועוונותי מכרוני לשאול‬your friends joined you’ 11Q5 22.7; ‫‘ כי אדני חסידים יבקר וצדיקים בשם יקרא‬for the Lord visits pious ones, and righteous ones He calls by name’ 4Q521 2.5, but followed by ‫‘ ועל ענוים רוחו תרחף ואמונים יחליף בכחו‬and His spirit hovers over poor ones and faithful ones He reinvigorates with His strength.’ Note also ‫‘ גם אני את שמכה אהבתי‬I in turn loved Your name’ 11Q5 19.11. This may be part of the idiolect of this poet. Further examples, though with no explicit S, are ‫‘ צדקתכה תשכילם‬You will teach them Your justice’ 11Q5 19.3, ‫‘ בצלכה חסיתי‬I sought refuge in Your shade’ ib. 12; ‫זיז כבודך יינקו‬ ‫‘ וברחובות תפארתך יעכסו‬they will suck in the wealth of your glory and along your glorious streets they will tinkle with their feet’ ib. 22.4, where the fronting of ‫זיז כבודך‬ may have been induced by the synonymous ‫ רוב כבודך‬in the preceding clause ‫ישישו‬ ‫‘ ברוב כבודך‬they will rejoice in the abundance of your glory,’ but we should note the delaying of ‫יעכסו‬. Immediately followed by ‫חסדי נביאיך תזכורי ובמעשי חסידיך תתפארי‬ ‘the works of piety of your prophets you will remember and you will glory in the deeds of your pious ones’ ib. 5. See also ‫פעמים רבות אזכורך לברכה בכול לבבי אברכך צדק עולמים‬ ‫‘ תשיגי וברכות נכבדים תקבלי‬Many a time I shall remember you for a blessing, with my whole heart I shall bless you, eternal righteousness you shall obtain and blessings of the honourable you shall receive’ 11Q5 22.12. It is to be noted that all the examples are in poetic texts, nine out of ten in a single text, 11Q5, and that all in non-Massoretic texts.

1

See Muraoka 2011 § 78 a, esp. 4). Pace Eskhult 1990.118, for instance. In contemporary Aramaic, i.e. Qumran Aramaic, the verb-first sequence is dominant; see Muraoka 2011 § 78 a. For a somewhat nuanced analysis of the situation in Official or Egyptian Aramaic in this respect, see Muraoka - Porten § 78 c - ck. MacDonald (1975.166) holds that the verb tends to be delayed in Spoken Biblical Hebrew. QH has not preserved many examples of verbal clauses in direct speech. In the Qumran book of Jubilees we find examples of the sequence V-S, e.g. ‫קרנ֯ י֗ ם‬ ‫שו קר‬ ‫ ויעלו בראושו‬.. ‫החז֗ י֗ ר את ֗עורו‬ ֗ ‫‘ אם י֯ ו֯ ֯פ ֗כ‬if a pig changes its skin .. and horns grow up on its head’ 4Q223-224 2iv7; ‫אחותו‬ ֗ ‫‘ ויקח קין את‬and Cain took his sister’ 11Q12 1.7; ‫‘ ֯ה ֗שנה אשר מת בה אברהם‬the year in which Abraham died’ 4Q219 2.36. 3 See above at § a, 2nd paragraph. 2

272

SYNTAX

In spite of an added disjunctive pronoun we may include here ‫על חסדיכה אני‬ ‫‘ נסמכתי‬I relied on Your kindnesses’ 11Q5 19.13; ‫‘ הכול הוא שמע‬He heard all’ ib. 28.8; ‫‘ בכול מודי אני אהבתיך‬with all my strength I loved you’ ib. 2.1, sim. ib. 22.5 (3×), 6. baa) Subject in clause-initial position (1) Contrast: ‫ אברהם לא הלך בה‬CD 3.2, unlike some of his forefathers. Likewise ‫בני יעקב‬ ‫‘ תעו בם‬Jacob’s sons erred’ CD 3.4, unlike their exemplary father (line 3). (2) Attraction: ‫‘ וחוזי תעות לא ימצאו עוד‬and false visionaries will not be found any longer’ ‫במשפ‬ ֯ ‫תכרת‬ 1QHa 12.21, immediately preceded by a synonymous NP in ‫שפט כול אנשי‬ ‫‘ מרמה‬You will cut down all deceptive people by judgement’; ‫‘ ערשי בקינה תשא‬my bed will lift up (voice) in lamentation’ 1QHa 17.3, immediately following ‫‘ יצועי‬my couch,’ which concludes the preceding clause. c) Object in clause-initial position On account of contrast (3): ‫יניהמה בנסתרות ואו֯ ז֗ נ֗ מה פתח‬ ֯ ‫‘ ויגל עיניה‬and He uncovered their eyes over hidden matters and their ear(s) He opened’ 4Q268 1.7; ‫באלות הברית ואת‬ ‫(‘ תורת משה אל יזכור‬one ought to swear) by the curses of the covenant, but should not mention the covenant of Moses’ CD 15.2; ‫‘ בם בחרתה מכול‬You chose them out of all’ 1QHa 7.36, and their unique position is underlined with a disjunctive pronoun ‫֗לב‬ in the following clause—‫‘ הם ישרתוך‬they shall serve You.’ Prominence: ‫יבחן‬ ֗ ‫בב עמו‬ ‫במ ֗צ ֗ר ֯ף‬ ֗ ‘He will test the heart(s) of His people within a crucible’ 1QM 16.15, where soldiers are encouraged to be brave; ‫הסגרתה ביד דויד‬ ֯ ‫את גולית הגתי איש גבור חיל‬ ‫(‘ עבדכה‬even) Goliath .. You have handed over into the hand of David Your servant’ 1QM 11.1. On rare occasions an inf. may be preceded by its object, e.g. ‫‘ דמו לשפוך‬by pouring his blood’ 1QHa 10.34; ‫‘ כוחם לתכן‬to allocate their energy’ 1QS 1.12. See further below at § f. In ‫‘ אלה שחר תמיד‬Seek these always in earnest!’ 4Q417 1i12 the fronted pronoun refers back to what has just been said. 1 See also above at § a 1) and 2). Screnock (2011) is an important and interesting contribution to the issue of word order in QH. His main conclusion is that, in 1QM, the verbal clause is basically built on the sequence except when the S is preceded by another constituent and/or the verb is intransitive. He himself is aware that this conclusion is tentative and preliminary (p. 44), relating only to 1QM. His study does not cover subordinate, negative, and interrogative clauses. We fail to see a reason for this restriction, for which he offers no argument. 2 We share the caution indicated by Fassberg (2013.58), who wants to argue for a shift from in CH to in the Hebrew of the Second Temple period, but writes: “.. one cannot be totally certain that focusing or contrasting is not intended.” Focusing or prominence is a most plausible explanation at ‫‘ רבים תעו בם וגבורי חיל נכשלו בם‬many erred in them and mighty ones stumbled in them’ CD 2.16. 3 See also above at § a 1).

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 34 ba-d

273

d) Adverb in clause-initial position (1) Resuming or echoing what precedes (§ a 2 above): ‫‘ ככה יעשו שנה בשנה‬so they shall do year after year’ 1QS 2.19; ‫ על פיהם‬1QS 5.3 < ‫ על פי רוב אנשי היחד‬.. ‫על פי בני צדוק‬ ib. 2; ‫‘ פדיתה נפשי משחת ומשאול אבדון העליתני לרום עולם‬You redeemed my soul from perdition and from Sheol-Abaddon you lifted me to the eternal height’ 1QHa 11.20; with a correlative—‫‘ כפרה סורירה כן סרר ישראל‬like a stubborn heifer so is Israel stubborn’ CD 1.13 < Ho 4.16, where ‫ כן‬is missing; ‫֯ל ֯ט ֯ה ֯רם מפשעיהם ברוב טובכה ובהמון‬ ‫רחמיכה ההעמידם לפניכה לעולמי עד‬ ֯ ‘to cleanse them from their transgressions with the abundance of Your kindness and with the plenitude of Your mercies to cause them to stand before You for ages’ 1QHa 15.33; ‫‘ כשנים ארבעים ]] [[ ובקץ ההוא‬about forty years .. and in that period’ CD 20.15; ‫‘ בה נאחזו‬they were trapped by it’ CD 2.18, preceded by ‫בלכתם בשרירות לבם נפלו עירי השמים‬ ֗ ‘because they walked in the stubbornness of their heart the watchers of heaven fell’ ib. 17. The same author, however, exercises a measure of flexibility: at ‫‘ ובניהם בו אבדו‬and their members perished through it’ CD 3.9 he could have written ‫ובו אבדו בניהם‬, the suf. pron. in ‫ בו‬being a reference to ‫ אף אל‬in the immediately preceding ‫‘ ויחר אף אל בעדתם‬and the anger of God flared up against their congregation.’ Focus: ‫‘ לוא יחד יתהלכו‬they would not live as Yachad members’ 1QS 4.18 (2) || ‫ בדרכיהן יתהלכו‬ib. 15; ‫‘ יחד יואכלו ויחד יברכו ויחד יועצו‬they shall eat together, and say benedictions together, and consult together’ 1QS 6.2, where the adverb fronted three times underlines the communal nature of their life; ‫נכסי‬ ֗ ‫בטב אתן יושביןין אכלין ושתין מן‬ ‫‘ בית ישראל ולא דאגין לאחיכן לכול דבר‬in comfort you are living, eating and drinking out of the property of .., and not caring for your brethren at all’ 5/6Ḥev 49.2; ‫מן בשרון לא‬ ‫‘ עלתי אצלך‬it was out of neglect that I did not come up to you’ M42 6. There are cases, however, no pragmatic, functional value can be recognised in the fronted adverbial: ‫‘ מלפנים עמד משה ואהרון‬in olden times ..’ CD 5.17; ‫בקץ חרבן הארץ‬ ‫‘ עמדו מסיגי הגבול‬at the time of the desolation of the land there emerged those who move the boundary’ CD 5.20; ‫‘ ויום הששי נחה התבה על הרי הוררט‬and on the sixth day the ark came to rest on the mountains of Hurarat’ 4Q252 1.9, sim. 4Q252 2.1, 2; ‫ובנפול‬ ‫הכוהנ‬ ֯ ‫‘ החללים יהיו‬when casualties fall, the priests shall keep blowing ‫הני֗ ם מריעים מרחוק‬ 1 In Qumran Aramaic and Egyptian Aramaic the fronting of adverbial adjuncts is not uncommon, but is not always arbitrary or haphazard. See Muraoka 2011.250f., § 78 d and Muraoka - Porten 2003.310-13, § 78 co - cr. As in the case of Qimron’s list of direct objects preceding the infinitive (see below at § f), here, too, some examples adduced by him are problematic. E.g. ‫‘ ואיש כבור כפיו לקרבו ולפי שכלו להגישו‬to welcome a person in accordance with the purity of his hands and to promote him in accordance with his level of understanding’ 1QS 9.15, where the first inf. has an object suffix referring back to ‫איש‬, which is thus in casus pendens, and the second inf. is basically of the same pattern, as ‫ איש‬is understood in parallelism, and both infinitival clauses are parallel to the preceding ‫‘ איש כרוחו כן לעשות משפטו‬to judge a person in accordance with his spirit’, with the only difference that the anaphoric pronoun is attached to the direct object of the infinitive, ‫משפטו‬. This is only one of quite a few examples about which Qimron (2018.435, 2.) himself is uncertain as indicated with his “perhaps.” We are as uncertain. 2 Cf. Muraoka 2010.305.

274

SYNTAX

from afar’ 1QM 9.7 // ‫‘ והכוהנים יהיו מריעים בחצוצרות החללים‬.. blowing the trumpets ..’ ib. 1; —.. ‫ אמר לאליעזר‬.. ‫ אלעזר‬.. ‫‘ בשנים לכסלו‬on the second of Kislev .. Elazar .. said to Eliezer ..’ 5/6Ḥev 45.1 (1) and ‫‘ לפניו הדר ילך‬splendour goes before him’ 11Q5 26.9; .. ‫ ואליעזר‬.. ‫ אלעזר‬.. ‫וחלקו‬ ֗ ‫רצו‬ ֗ .. ‫‘ בעשרים ושמנה‬on the 28th .. Elazar and Eliezer have divided by agreement’ 5/6Ḥev 44.1. (2) e) Pronoun enclisis or Pronominalregel As in BH (3), a conjunctive pronoun attached to a preposition tends to be positioned immediately after the verb ahead of its subject and / or object. Examples are ‫ותלד לו בן‬ ‘and she bore him a son’ 11Q12 1.5; ‫לח ֗מי֗ לריב‬ ֗ ‫‘ ויהפך לי‬and my bread turned for me into strife’ 1QHa 13.37; ‫‘ תגלה להם הדעת‬the knowledge will be revealed to them’ 1QpHab 11.1; ‫‘ ותךרות אתנו ברית‬and You made a covenant with us’ 4Q504 3.13; ‫אשר‬ ‫‘ פעל בה הכוהן הרשע מעשי תועבות‬in which the wicked priest perpetrated abominable deeds’ 1QpHab 12.8, where to delay ‫ בה‬till the end would make a rather unbalanced clause because of too many words intervening; ‫אשר יגע בו הזב‬ ̇ ‫‘ כול כלי א‬any vessel which a man who has a flux touches’ 4Q274 1i4, but continued with ‫וֿ ֗שכב עליו או אשר ישב‬ ‫‘ עליו‬and lies on or which he sits on’; ‫‘ אל ̇יג ̇ע בו את לחמו‬Do not allow his food come ‫‘ לעשות‬to execute judgement against them’ into contact with it’ 4Q274 2i7; ‫ות ֯ב ֗ה ֗ם משפט‬ 4Q169 1-2.4 ; ‫‘ וימסור אותם אלהים‬and God handed them over’ 4Q225 1.5. Let it be noted that this rule applies to the infinitive as well, for its subject, when it is explicitly marked, tends directly to follow the former (§ 18 m). Examples are ‫ביום‬ ‫‘ נפול בו כתיים‬on the day when Kittim fall’ 1QM 1.9; ‫יכם א ִֹתי‬ ֶ ‫‘ ְבּ ַה ְק ִציף ֲאב ֵֹת‬when your forefathers angered Me’ Zc 8.14; ‫‘ בהמשך עליהם הקץ האחרון‬when the last time is delayed to them’ 1QpHab 7.12 (4); ‫‘ להביא אליך חיל גואים‬to bring to you an army of gentiles’ 1QM 12.14. Some of the examples adduced above show that the rule also applies when a pronoun in question is not a zero-object. (5) The rule is not obligatory as can be seen in the variations of MT // ‫ ויען אתם ראובן‬4Q9 5.9; ‫ָע ָשׂה יהוה ִלי‬ QH : ‫ וַ יַּ ַען ראובן א ָֹתם‬Gn 42.22 // ‫ובן‬ 1

Quite a few more examples out of his corpus are mentioned by Mor (2009.248, 33). Two more examples mentioned by Mor (2009.246f.) out of his corpus also belong here, though he does not take into account an adverbial adjunct preceding V. 3 See JM § 154 fg, 155 t. 4 The prep. ‫ על‬here expresses disadvantage or painful effect as in ‫‘ ֵמ ָתה ָע ַלי ָר ֵחל‬Rachel died on me’ Gn 48.7; for more BH examples, see JM § 133f. It is not, pace Brownlee 1979.120, an expression of subjectivity: “to them the last time seems to be delayed.” 5 Though our rule is by no means obligatory, the delayed ‫ לו‬at ‫והאו֗ ר לו‬ ‫חשך והא‬ ֗ ‫ ֗הוא ֗ברא‬4Q392 1.4 makes one wonder whether Qimron’s reconstruction (III 154) is right. The attachment of the article with one object alone is also something of a problem. DJD 29.27 offers ‫ואו֗ ר לו‬ ‫חשך וא‬. ֗ The sequence of the two with ‫ ח ֶֹשְׁך‬put first seems to be referring to the creation of the universe, which was enshrouded in darkness, which was dealt with by God shouting ‫יְ ִהי או ֺר‬. Perhaps one might suggest ‫ וַ יָּ ֶאר לוֹ = ויאר לו‬H ‘and He made light for it,’ cf. ‫ ֵאל יהוה וַ יָּ ֶאר ָלנוּ‬Ps 118.27, ‫ וַ יָּ ָאר = ויאור לו‬G ‘and it became light for it,’ or N (= ‫וַ יֵּ אוֹר לו‬, cf. ‫ וַ יֵּ אֹר ָל ֶהם ְבּ ֶח ְברוֹן‬2Sm 2.32. 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 34 d-f

275

Ex 13.8 // ‫ עשה לי יהוה‬4Q140 1.16. So also in non-biblical texts, e.g. ‫יצקתה את רוח‬ ‫‘ קודשךה עלינו לה‬You poured Your holy spirit on us to bring Your ‫להביא ברכֿותיכה לנו‬ blessings to us’ 4Q504 1-2Rv15. In ‫בליעל בהם‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו֯ תהי ממשלת‬and let there come Belial’s domination over them’ 4Q390 2i3, however, the rection < -‫ >משׁל ב‬may account for the position of ‫בהם‬, which then would not mean ‘in their midst, amongst them.’ In ‫חרה‬ ֗ ‫‘ וחרה אף אלוהים‬and God will ‫‘ אפו בם‬He became angry at them’ CD 2.21 and ‫בכמה‬ become angry at them’ 1Q22 2.9 the standing idiom ‫ חרה אף‬was possibly felt to be too closely knit together to be broken up, so in BH—‫ ָח ָרה ַא ִפּי ָבּם‬Ho 8.5, ‫ָח ָרה ַא ִפּי ְבָך‬ Jb 42.7 et passim, whilst in ‫ההלכים אחריהם‬ ֗ ‫)אב( אפו בם ובכל‬ ̇ ‫‘ וחרה‬and His anger will burn against them and all those who follow them’ CD19.31 the common destiny is better expressed when ‫ בם‬is immediately preceded by ‫ובכל‬. f) (1) There are found several instances of the striking fronting of the object of an infinitive: ‫‘ כוחם לתכן‬to allocate their power’ 1QS 1.12; ‫‘ וחכמת בני שמים להשכיל תמימי דרך‬and to instruct well-behaved people in the knowledge of the sons of heaven’ 1QS 4.22 (2); ‫‘ יערוכו השולחן לאכול או התירוש לשתות‬they set the table for a meal or to drink new wine’ 1QS 6.4 (3); ‫‘ בבחירי העת להחזיק‬to hold on to the chosen ones of the period’ 1QS 9.14 (4); ‫‘ יחלו ידם להפיל בחללים‬they will begin to make their hands come down on the fallen’ 1QM 9.1, sim. 1QM 16.8; ‫‘ נדיבי לב להחזיק בגבורת אל‬to fortify those mentally ready with God’s strength’ 1QM 10.5 (5); ‫ידים רפות ללמד מלחמה‬ ‫‘ ידי‬to teach slack hands a battle’ 1QM 14.6; ‫‘ דמו לשפוך‬to spill his blood’ 1QHa 10.34. There are thus a mere five assured 1

Listed in Carmignac 1966.516f. Wernberg-Møller (1957.48), with his brief comment ad 1QS 1.12, “for syntax, cf. e.g. ix 14”, must have had this phenomenon of fronted object in mind. Among the instances mentioned by Qimron (2018.434f.) there are some which are disputable. Thus ‫כול‬ ‫ אשר לוא נחשבו בבריתו להבדיל אותם‬1QS 5.17, where the resumptive ‫ אותם‬indicates what precedes the inf. to be in extraposition, thus no genuine direct object; ‫לשמועו֯ ֯ת פלאכה גליתה אוזני ולבי להבין ֯ב ֯א ֯מ ֯ת ֯ך‬ ֗ ‘You opened my ear(s) to reports on Your marvel and my mind (for it) to comprehend Your truth’ 4Q428 10.5, and not “You made my heart understand Your truth” (Qimron 2018.383), see our discussion above on this example, § 18 n; ‫ ואת חוק העת להבדיל‬1QS 9.13, where ‫ את חוק העת‬is better construed as a co-ordinate object of the preceding ‫‘ למוד‬to learn,’ not from √‫( מדד‬Qimron, ib. 214), and ‫ להבדיל‬to be construed with the following ‫ בני הצדוֿ ק‬as a direct object; ‫וק‬ ֗ ‫ סמוכי י֯ צצר להביל בפחז והולכי ישר להשנות ֗חו‬.. ‫ישרים להטות דרך‬ 4Q184 1.14, where, apart from some considerable, interpretive difficulties, neither H ‫ ִה ָטּה‬nor H ‫ ִה ְשׁנָ ה‬is known to be doubly transitive, making its respective, preceding NP unlikely to be a direct object. There are also cases where the reading is not certain. 2 Alternatively ‫ חכמת בני שמים‬may be construed backwards as a coordinate O in the preceding ‫להבין‬ ‫‘ ישרים בדעת עליון‬to help upright people understand the knowledge of the Most High’; on the optional deletion of a preposition with coordinate NPs, see below at § 38 e, p. 294. 3 Alternatively the infinitive may be modifying the noun: ‘new wine for drinking’; on such a use of the infinitive, see above at § 18 i. However, the collocation of ‫ אכל‬and ‫ שׁתה‬suggests otherwise. 4 Carmignac (1966.516) is uncertain on account of the prepositional object marker. Any preposition, not just ‫את‬, can mark a direct object; see at § 31 a, e - ec. 5 Alternatively ‫ נדיבי לב‬may be in apposition to the immediately preceding ‫‘ לכול עתודי המלחמה‬to all those who are ready for the battle,’ then ‘our officers shall speak to .., (exhorting them) to hold fast to God’s strength’; an appositional NP does not have to repeat a preposition, in this case -‫ל‬, see below at § 38 i.

276

SYNTAX

examples of a delayed infinitive. Carmignac (1966.517-20) postulates an Aramaic influence, and that of Eastern Aramaic (1). However, the local, contemporary Aramaic, i.e. Qumran Aramaic, knows of only one instance, ‫‘ חכמתא למאלף‬to learn wisdom’ ALD-G 13.7. (2) In Biblical Hebrew it is not confined to LBH, but also attested not infrequently in EBH, e.g. ‫אתם ִל ְראוֹת‬ ֶ ‫‘ ֶע ְרוַ ת ָה ָא ֶרץ ָבּ‬you have come to see the weak spots of the land’ Gn 42.12. The phenomenon looks thus pan-Semitic, though unattested in Classical Arabic. (3) g) Subject omitted Genuinely passive verb forms mostly lack the indication of the agens, e.g. ‫כאשר כתוב‬ ‘as is written’ 1QS 8.14; one is not told who the writer is. On the claim that the preposition ‫ ל־‬sometimes serves in that function, see below at § 46 b. On the frequent absence of S of an inf., see above at § 18 l. h) Object omitted With constant use of a collocation the object substantive can be ֯ ‘to reply’ 1QHa 14.13, sometimes left out (4), which can perhaps be identified in ‫להשיב‬ 20.33 for ל ָה ִשׁיב ָדּ ָבר‬ ְ as in ‫ וַ ֲה ִשׁב ִֹתי ֶא ְת ֶכם ָדּ ָבר‬Nu 22.8 and ‫ם־הזֶּ ה ָדּ ָבר‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ָע‬ ָ ‫ְל ָה ִשׁיב ֶא‬ ֗ ‫ מה ישיב עפר‬1QHa 20.30 ‫ מה‬is not 1Kg 12.6 (5). Likewise ‫ ישיבו‬1QHa 14.14. At ‫וא ֗פ ֯ר‬ replacing ‫דבר‬, but what is meant is most likely ‘what could one who is mere dust and ashes say in reply?’. Si vera lectio, we would supply ‫ עיניך‬at ‫‘ ֗שא צפא את הכוכבים‬Lift (your eyes), gaze at the stars’ 4Q225 2i5. (6) A missing object can be easily identified nearby: ‫לוא יבואו בנדת טמאתמה אל מקדשי‬ ‫‘ וטמאו‬they shall not enter My sanctuary with their impure uncleanness and defile it (‫ ’)וטמאו אותו‬11Q19 45.10; ‫ וישאו במוט‬4Q365 32.13 // ‫ וַ יִּ ָשּׂ ֻאהו ַבמּוֹט‬Nu 13.23. In ‫‘ אגלה עיניכם לראות ולהבין במעשי אל‬I shall open your eyes (for you) to see and understand God’s actions’ CD 2.14 ‫ במעשי אל‬is shared by ‫ לראות‬and ‫ להבין‬as their object, or possibly ‫ לראות‬is intransitive in the sense of ‘to regain (spiritual) sight, no longer blind.’

1 A position seemingly accepted by Fassberg (2019 § 211). For Egyptian Aramaic a mere four examples are mentioned in Muraoka - Porten 2003.308, § 78 cl. 2 See Muraoka 2011 § 78 c, where ‫‘ יבעון למקטלני ולכי למשבק‬they would want to kill me, but to spare you’ 1Q20 19.19 is irrelevant, for the fronted ‫ לכי‬is clearly for the sake of contrast. 3 So Brockelmann 1913 II § 270. 4 On this phenomenon in BH, see JM, § 125 be. 5 These and quite a few additional examples in BH invalidate Holm-Nielsen’s (1960.115) objection to Wallenstein (1955-56.259), who had taken recourse to this BH idiom ad 1QHa 14.14; the former states that the collocation “is usually formed by ‫ על‬and not by ‫ב‬,” without mentioning a single example, whilst among a total of 27 examples in BH we find not a single (!) one in which ‫ על‬is used. 6 Cf. ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ְשׂאוּ ַל ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם ֵעינ‬Is 51.6. On ‫ נָ ָשׂא‬with ‫ קוֹל‬omitted, see ‫ לֹא יִ ְצ ַעק וְ לֹא יִ ָשּׂא‬Is 42.2.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 34 f – § 35 a

277

In the following pseudo non-restrictive relative clause, the resumptive pronoun in ‫ הו‬would be indispensable, hence justly restored (1): ‫הכהו‬ ‫הכהו‬ ̇ ‫ותלד לו את עמלק הוא אשר‬ ‫‘ שאול‬and she bore him Amalek, one whom Saul would smite’ 4Q252 4.1. i) Verb omitted A verb may be omitted in various circumstances when it can be easily recovered from the context. E.g. in parallelism—‫‘ בנפלאותיו הביטה עיני ואורת לבבי ברז נהיה‬my eyes beheld His wonders and the light of my heart a mystery emerging’ 1QS 11.3, where ‫ הביטה‬governs another object phrase introduced by the same preposition, -‫תושיה אשר ;ב‬ ‫ מסוד בשר‬.. ‫‘ נסתרה מאנוש דעה ומזמת ערמה מבני אדם‬wisdom that was hidden from mankind, knowledge and wise design (that were hidden) from humans .. from the assembly of flesh’ 1QS 11.6; ‫לאומים כבודכה‬ ֯ ‫‘ ידעו כול גוים אמתכה וכול‬all peoples will know Your truth and all nations Your glory’ 1QHa 14.15; ‫מלא ארצכה כבוד ונחלתכה‬ ‫‘ ברכה‬Fill your land with glory and your inheritance with blessing’ 1QM 12.12; ‫ויפקח‬ ‫יהם ֗לשמוע למודו‬ ֯ ‫‘ עיניהם לראות את דרכיו ואז֗ נ֯ י‬and He opened their eyes to see His ways and their ears to hear His teaching’ 4Q434 1.3; ‫כבוד אביכה ברישכה ואמכה במצעריכה‬ ‘Honour your father in your indigence and your mother in your scarcity!’ 4Q416 2iii15; ‫‘ ידי עשו עוגב ואצבעותי כנור‬my hands made a (musical) instrument and my fingers a lyre’ 11Q5 28.4; ‫ואתה להם‬ ֗ ‫‘ למען יהיו לכה‬so that they will be Yours and You (will be) theirs’ 4Q382 104ii2. In ‫‘ שעו עיני מראות רע ו֯ ֗או֗ ז֗ נ֗ י֯ משמוע דמים‬my eyes gazed away from looking at the evil and my ears from hearing of bloodshed’ 1QHa 15.5 the verb of seeing does not fit the second parallel clause. If ‫ אפתח‬has been correctly restored, as it appears to have been, at ‫לתמימים אפתח פי‬ ‫ ולפתאים ויבינו ולאין לב ידעון‬4Q381 1.1 ‫ ויבינו‬is not to be analysed as final, an interpretation that cannot be reconciled with the parallel ‫ידעון‬, so ‘to the upright I will open my mouth and to the simple-minded (I will open my mouth) and they will understand and also to those who have no intelligence (and) they will gain knowledge’ 4Q381 1.1. (2)

§ 35 PARTICIPIAL CLAUSE a) Preliminary remarks In view of the twofold nature, i.e. verbal and nominal, of the participle we assign to a third, separate clause-type those clauses in which an active participle functions as the So Qimron II 253 against DJD 22.203 with [‫הכ]ה‬. ֗ One sometimes speaks of ‘indirect volitive’ as applicable to BH. As an illustration an instance such as ‫יאה ִלּי וְ א ֵֹכ ָלה‬ ָ ‫‘ ָה ִב‬Bring (it) to me so that I may eat (it)’ Gn 27.4 is adduced. Some translations of our text offer “to the simple that they may understand; and to those without understanding, (that) they may know” (DJD 11.94). It is to be stressed here, however, that this BH feature requires the use of a form marked as volitive following the waw, e.g. a cohortative as in the example cited above, a jussive or an imperative, which does not apply to our examples, esp. the bare ‫ידעון‬. Furthermore, we have voiced our reservations on this alleged final or resultative value of the syntagm in BH; see JM § 115 b, n. 2. 1 2

278

SYNTAX

predicate of a complete clause analogously to a Perfect, Imperfect, or Imperative. (1) A substantivised participle may be used as the subject or object of a nominal constituent of a nominal clause or of a verbal clause. A statistical analysis made by Andersen (2) shows that, in the Pentateuch, what he calls verbless clause occurs in the sequence 984 times against 466 in

, whilst in clauses with a participle as P, the frequencies are 304 and

28. Since the dominant sequence in verbal clauses is

, we see that, in respect of the word order, the participial clause can claim a domain of its own. b) All the same, some of the features treated above with reference to the verbal clause proper also apply to the participle. ba) Object fronted for prominence’s sake: ‫ תועבה הם מדברים‬CD 5.12; ‫תסלע הזוא‬ ‫‘ אנמקבל המך‬this sela I receive from you’ XḤev/Ṣe 49.7. bb) Pronoun enclisis or Pronominalregel ֯‫ונכר ֗תו‬ ֗ ‫עש ֯ה ֗בו֗ מלאכה‬ ֗ ‫כול ֯ה‬ ֗ ‫‘ כו‬everyone that does work on that (day), they shall be exterminated’ 4Q218 1.3, but a reverse case is ‫ הנ֗ ני נותן רוח בוא‬1QIsa vs. ‫נוֹתן בּוֹ‬ ֵ ‫ִהנְ נִ י‬ ‫רוּח‬ ַ Is 37.7 MT (3). c) Though every participle is, semantically speaking, verbal, it is syntactically distinct in some respects from its finite verb equivalent. ca) A personal pronoun of a participle as its S is necessarily indicated explicitly and does not, of itself, carry any pragmatic value such as focus or prominence. For instance, when ‫ ָר ֲא ָתה‬in ‫‘ ָר ֲא ָתה ַשׁ ַער‬she saw a gate’ is converted to a participle, one can only say either ‫ ִהיא ר ָֹאה שׁער‬or ‫ר ָֹאה ִהיא שׁער‬, but never ‫ר ָֹאה שׁער‬. Two basic patterns can be identified. Is the selection of either pattern syntactically conditioned? Or is there a functional opposition between them? 1

Herein we follow Groß (1996.16f.), also followed by Geiger (2012.249). We thus depart from the position taken regarding BH, in which an active participle can be a predicate of a nominal clause; see JM § 154 a, d. See also Baasten 2006.22f. The double character of the participle, i.e. verbal and nominal, has been mentioned above at § 17 a. Pace Andersen (1970.34) the predominant sequence as against the dominant

of clauses of classification does not justify his inference that the participle is therefore verbal, for with a finite verb the dominant pattern is . The sequence is as dominant in LBH, MH, and QH (exemplified by 11Q19), Muraoka 1990.222f. But the dominance of the sequence is, syntactically considered, striking. In an earlier study on the non-substantivised participle in the relative clause in the prose of Gn - 2Kg Gross (1975.25) writes: “Auf der Ebene der Verbfunktionen fungieren die Partizipialsätze als Verbalsätze.” One argument why Buth (1999.87) considers participial clauses to be “only a subset of the nominal clause” is presumably his assumption that “the morphology of participles follows that of adjectives and nouns, not verbs” (loc. cit., and p. 88, n. 21), but they are inflected in respect of binyan and voice, features which are nothing but verbal. 2 Andersen 1970.110, Table 4, see also ib. 34. 3 An example mentioned by Geiger 2012.217, n. 56.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 35 a-caa

279

According to Bendavid (1) the opposition is formal and syntactic: if the complex consisting of a ptc. and pronoun is preceded by some other clause constituent, the sequence is , otherwise . E.g. ‫ָדּ ָבר ֶא ָחד ָאנ ִֹכי שׁ ֵֹאל ֵמ ִא ְתָּך‬ 2Sm 3.13 vs. ‫ שׁ ֵֹאל ֲאנִ י א ְֹתָך ָדּ ָבר‬Je 38.14. This rule is said to apply not only to BH, but also to MH, though Bendavid’s corpus does not include QH. caa) This is far more frequent than the other sequence (§ cab). (2) ֯ ‫גם אנוכי‬ Bendavid’s rule can take care of the following cases: ‫יודע בכול לבו ֗הו֗ א‬ ‫ועתה אנ֗ י֗ ֯או֯ ֯ה ֗ב ֗א ֗ת יעקוב‬ ֗ .. ‫‘ מכבדנו‬I also know; he honours us wholeheartedly .. now I love Jacob’ 4Q223-224 2ii3, the last two clauses in particular; ‫לוא תעשו כאשר הגויים‬ ‫‘ עושים בכול מקום המה קוברים את מתיהמה וגם בתוך בתיהמה המה קוברים‬you shall not do as gentiles do. They bury their dead everywhere, even in their houses they bury’ 11Q19 48.11 (3); ‫‘ בטב אתן יושביין אכלין ושתין‬in comfort you’re seated, eating and drinking’ 5/6Ḥev 49.2; ‫‘ בה הם נכרתים‬through it they are exterminated’ CD 3.1; ‫תועבה‬ ‫כסף ז֗ וז֯ ין טובי‬ ‫‘ הם מדברים‬they are speaking abomination’ CD 5.12; ‫מקבל‬ ֗ ‫משה אני‬ ֗ ‫טובין ֯עשריין ו֯ ֯ח‬ ֗ ‘I hereby receive 25 valid zuzin of silver’ M174 5 (4); ‫על טמאת עצמות האדם אנחנו אומרים‬ ‫‘ שכול עצם‬on the impurity of human bones we opine that every bone ..’ MMT B 72; ‫אנחנו נותנים‬ ‫‘ על אלה א‬concerning these matters we give’ MMT C 9. One may include here relative clauses whose antecedent is other than the grammatical subject of the participle; what precedes a subject pronoun can be regarded as equivalent to an object or adverbial adjunct to go with the participle. (5) E.g. ‫אתמה נדחים‬ ֗ ‫הגוים אשר‬ ‫‘ בהמה‬the peoples among whom you are scattered’ 4Q200 6.8; ‫העיר אשר אני שוכן בתוכה‬ ‫‘ הדב‬the words ‘the city within which I reside’ 11Q19 45.13; ‫הדברים אשר אנכי מגיד לך‬ which I am announcing to you’ 4Q216 1.12; ‫ היום‬.. ‫‘ והברית אשר אנכי כורת‬the covenant which I am making .. today’ 4Q216 1.14. However we are unable to explain why a subject pronoun precedes in .. ‫אשר‬ ֯ ‫אני יודע‬ ֯ ‫‘ וא‬and you know that some of ..’ ‘I know that ..’ 4Q200 4.3 (6); .. ‫ואת ֗ם יודעים שמקצת‬ MMT B 80; ‫ואנ֯ ֯חנו חושבים‬ ֗ ‘and we think’ MMT B 29. (7) 1

Bendavid 1969-71.817-21. Geiger (2012.260-63, § 264-67) lists 64 examples as against 61, which latter figure we drastically reduce, see below at § cab, p. 281, n. 3. 3 Pace Geiger (2012.261, n. 218), ‫ בכול מקום‬is essential to what follows and cannot be construed backwards, not any less than the same phrase in very similar context at 11Q19 51.19. 4 Pace the reservation intimated by Geiger (2012.262, n. 224), what precedes ‫ אני‬cannot be anything other than a direct object of ‫מקבל‬. 5 Bendavid (1969-71.819), without explicitly stating this syntactic conditioning, cites ‫ַה ְמ ַכ ֶסּה ֲאנִ י‬ ‫ ֵמ ַא ְב ָר ָהם ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י ע ֶֹשׂה‬Gn 18.17; he (ib. 817) also cites, with no reference given, ‫אשׁר אנכי שׁומע‬, most probably referring to ‫לוֹא־טוֹבה ַה ְשּׁ ֻמ ָעה ֲא ֶשׁר ָאנ ִֹכי שׁ ֵֹמ ַע‬ ָ 1Sm 2.24 and ‫ קוֹל ַה ָבּ ָקר ֲא ֶשׁר ָאנ ִֹכי שׁ ֵֹמ ַע‬1Sm 15.14. 6 Directly preceded by ‫שלחני כבר‬. It is not easy to decide whether ‫ כבר‬is to be construed forwards ‘Send me right now’ or backwards ‘I already know.’ Neither LXX nor Pesh. at To 10.3 has a word that would correspond do it. 7 Bendavid added an exception clause to his rule (1969-71.821): the second person pronouns are not subject to the rule, hence, e.g. ‫ ומקובלני‬.. ‫‘ אתם יודעים שהמדינה משובשת‬you know that the country is in 2

280

SYNTAX

The following are circumstantial clauses (1): ‫‘ ישקר בהון והואה יודע‬he lies over the assets, and that knowingly’ 1QS 6.24; ‫‘ ואם שנים הם והם מעידים על דבר אחד‬but if they are two and they are testifying on one (2) matter’ CD 9.20; ‫‘ המה זובחים בגנות‬they offer sacrifices in gardens’ 1QIsaa 51.29 (3); ‫‘ והמה בארצות אויביהמה מתאנחים‬and they will be groaning in the lands of their enemies’ 11Q19 59.5. Among the considerable number of examples cited by Bendavid one does not find but a few which introduce a participial clause with ‫ כי‬as a causal conjunction, or a substantival clause as in ‫‘ כי אני יהוה שוכן בתוך בני ישראל‬for I the Lord reside ..’ 11Q19 45.14; ‫ שאני נתן תכבלים ברגלכם‬.. ‫‘ מעיד אני‬I am swearing .. that I’m going to ‫כת‬ put fetters on your feet’ M43 3. An example with ‫ ש־‬as equivalent to ‫ כי‬is ‫כתו֗ ב שהואה‬ ‫‘ בוזה‬it is written that he is belittling’ MMT B 70. Besides, we find a counter-example in ‫יצר עשו‬ ֗ ‫ודע אתה את‬ ֗ ‫‘ כי י֗ וד‬because you know Esau’s character’ 4Q223-224 2i49. (4) Cf. JM § 154 fa end, fe. Summing up, one sees that Bendavid’s rule applies to many examples, but cannot claim absolute validity. cab) The second part of Bendavid’s rule is exemplified in ‫גם מטמאים הם את המקדש‬ ‘they also defile the temple’ CD 5.6; ‫‘ מודא אני לך היום‬I acknowledge to you today’ 5/6Ḥev 45.6, sim. 46.3 (5); ‫‘ מעיד אני עלי תשמים‬I swear, invoking heaven’ M43 3, followed by ‫‘ שאני נתן תכבלים ברגלכם‬that I put the chains on your feet’; ‫יצר‬ ֗ ‫ודע אתה את‬ ֗ ‫כי י֗ וד‬ ‫‘ עשו‬because you know Esau’s character’ 4Q223-224 2i49; ‫‘ מה מתבהלת היאה בתי‬why is my daughter in a hurry?’ 4Q215 1.5, which is no exception to the rule under § caa, because the most natural position for the interrogative is at the head of the clause. Note ‫ פותה אתה את ידכה‬11Q5 17.7 // ‫פּוֹת ַח ֶאת־יָ ֶדָך‬ ֵ Ps 145.17, where the addition of the pronoun is due to the extremely expansive version of the Qumran text; in the MT it is easy to see that ‫ פותח‬continues ‫ ַא ָתּה נ ֵֹתן‬in the closing hemistich of the preceding verse. confusion .. but I have received a tradition ..’ mYeb 16.7. This sub-rule would take care of the second example mentioned above, but what about ‫יצר עשו‬ ֗ ‫ודע אתה את‬ ֗ ‫ כי י֗ וד‬4Q223-224 2i49? Bendavid himself does not quite understand why the second person should be different from the first or third. 1 By saying “Relative and circumstantial clauses indicate a situation obtaining at reference time” Joosten (2012.232) indicates a rationale for the selection of this pattern, though he does not mention any illustrative relative clause. BDB s.v. ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬2 cites a number of negatived nominal clauses with a pronoun delayed, though not preceded by a predicative participle, such as :‫ַה ְבּ ֵה ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר לֹא ְטה ָֹרה ִהוא ְשׁנַ יִם ִאישׁ וְ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ‬ Gn 7.2. 2 Emended from ‫ אחר‬in the manuscript. 3 The scribe may have been struck by the absence of the article in MT (65.3)’s ‫וּמ ַק ְטּ ִרים‬ ְ .. ‫ ז ְֹב ִחים‬but its presence in the following, parallel ‫היּ ְֹשׁ ִבים‬. ַ Cf. LXX: αὐτοὶ θυσιάζουσιν .. καὶ θυμιῶσιν. 4 Bendavid himself does not say anything about the relevance to his rule of ‫ כי‬or any other subordinating conjunction. Two examples quoted contradict each other as regards his rule: ‫י־קר ִֹבים ֵהם‬ ְ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְמעוּ ִכּ‬ ‫וּב ִק ְרבּוֹ ֵהם י ְֹשׁ ִבים‬ ְ ‫ ֵא ָליו‬Josh 9.16 (a case of § caa) [quoted on p. 818, without a reference] but ‫י־הם‬ ֵ ‫יָ ַד ְע ָתּ ִכּ‬ ‫ זִ ְקנֵ י ָה ָעם‬Nu 11.16 (a case of § cab) [quoted on p. 821]. 5 These two are indisputably actual presents, not Joosten’s (1989) “factual” presents; note ‫ היום‬added at the end.

281

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 35 caa-cb

֗ Qimron (1) contrasts ‫‘ אף חושבים אנחנו‬we also think’ MMT B 42 with ‫ואנ֯ ֯חנו חושבים‬ 2 ‫האוכל אנח‬ ֗ ‫ ועל‬ib. 37, ( ) ‫ומרים‬ ‫ואף על הצרועים ֯אנ֯ ֗חנו אומרים‬ ib. 29, but what about ‫אנחנ֯ ו חושבים‬ ‘and also concerning lepers we say’ ib. 64, ib. 72, and MMT C 9 adduced in the preceding subparagraph? In our corpus we cannot find any further examples of this pattern. (3) cb) Functional, aspectual opposition As against the formal, syntactic opposition presented by Bendavid as discussed above, a different kind of opposition has been proposed by Joosten (4). In the sequence the participle serves as the present tense with linear, cursive aspect, indicating what is going on at the moment of speech. In the sequence , by contrast, the present tense participle expresses a punctual, constative aspect, indicating the action as a fact. (5) Whilst conceding that this “semantic distinction .. is subtle,” Joosten (2012.231) avers that “in most examples the semantic difference .. is clear.” We cannot be that confident. To mention just a few BH examples, was Eli hearing what people were saying in the next room or shouting outside at the gate of his residence, when he said to his son: ‫ל־ה ָעם ֵא ֶלּה‬ ָ ‫יכם ָר ִעים ֵמ ֵאת ָכּ‬ ֶ ‫ת־דּ ְב ֵר‬ ִ ‫ָל ָמּה ַת ֲעשׂוּן ַכּ ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה ֲא ֶשׁר ָאנ ִֹכי שׁ ֵֹמ ַע ֶא‬ 1Sm 2.23, with which cp. ‫יוֹסף‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵהם לֹא יָ ְדעוּ ִכּי שׁ ֵֹמ ַע‬Gn 42.23. When an ancient philosopher wrote ‫זוֹר ַח‬ ֵ ‫שׁוֹאף‬ ֵ ‫ל־מקוֹמוֹ‬ ְ ‫וּבא ַה ָשּׁ ֶמשׁ וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ וְ זָ ַרח ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ‬:‫עוֹלם ע ָֹמ ֶדת‬ ָ ‫דּוֹר ה ֵֹלְך וְ דוֹר ָבּא וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ ְל‬ ‫ל־הנְּ ָח ִלים‬ ַ ‫ ָכּ‬:‫רוּח‬ ַ ‫ל־ס ִביב ָֹתיו ָשׁב ָה‬ ְ ‫רוּח וְ ַע‬ ַ ‫הוֹלְך ָה‬ ֵ ‫סוֹבב ס ֵֹבב‬ ֵ ‫ל־צפוֹן‬ ָ ‫סוֹבב ֶא‬ ֵ ְ‫ל־דּרוֹם ו‬ ָ ‫הוֹלְך ֶא‬ ֵ :‫הוּא ָשׁם‬ ‫ל־מקוֹם ֶשׁ ַהנְּ ָח ִלים ה ְֹל ִכים ָשׁם ֵהם ָשׁ ִבים ָל ָל ֶכת‬ ְ ‫ל־היָּ ם וְ ַהיָּ ם ֵאינֶ נּוּ ָמ ֵלא ֶא‬ ַ ‫( ה ְֹל ִכים ֶא‬Ec 1.4-7), he 1 DJD 10.51: “When preceded by an adverb the pronoun follows the participle,” a rule also known to BH, cf. JM § 154 fe, but contrary to Bendavid’s rule. Besides, in MH we come across cases in which ‫ אף‬is directly followed by a subject pronoun, e.g. ‫ אף אתה אומר‬mSheq 4.1, ‫ אף הן ַמ ְר ִבּין‬mMakk 1.10, ‫ אף הוא מדבר‬mMakk 2.5. 2 Is the addition of a colon justified in DJD 10.51, “And concerning] eating (a fetus): we are of the opinion that ..”? 3 Geiger’s list (2012.276-80, § 285-92) is much longer with a total of 61 examples, the great majority of which contain ‫ברוך‬, ‫ ארור‬and ‫זעום‬. He also incorporates verbal adjectives such as ‫נורא‬, ‫נהדר‬, ‫טמא‬, ‫אשם‬, even ‫ רחמון‬and ‫)חנּוּן =( חנון‬. ַ In BH, according to Joosten (2012.231), the other pattern, , is about eight times more frequent than this one; cases of non-participial subjects are included. Our frequency counts as given in Muraoka 1985.20 look as below:

Gn 25-50 Jud 1Sm 1-24 Legal Total

4

Ptc - Snom

4

4

5

0

13

Ptc - Spron

3

Subtotal

7

7

7

0

18

11

12

0

31

Snom - Ptc 27

21

53

Spron - Ptc

4

107

8

17

24

6

57

Subtotal

35

38

77

10

164

Total

42

49

89

10

195

Joosten 1989 and id. 2012, both focused on BH. As a matter of fact, in neither study does Joosten mention Bendavid. Nor does Buth 2009. 5 See Joosten 1989.159 and id. 2012.230f., for instance.

282

SYNTAX

hardly jotted this down in his manuscript as he was observing these daily phenomena. Just as unlikely is that on that particular day the sun and the wind showed an anomalous movement. ‫יִמשׁוֹל וְ ֶע ֶבד לוֶֹ ה ְל ִאישׁ ַמ ְלוֶ ה‬ ְ ‫ ָע ִשׁיר ְבּ ָר ִשׁים‬Pr 22.7 is not likely a description of a poor slave or servant signing an IOU. (1) Let us now look at the QH data as presented above under § caa and cab. Joosten’s system can be said to work reasonably well. An important and revealing exception is ‫ שאני נתן תכבלים ברגלכם‬.. ‫‘ מעיד אני‬I am swearing .. that I’m going to put fetters on your feet’ M43 3. Joosten would have expected ‫אני מעיד‬, and ‫ נתן‬in ‫אני נתן‬ here is a participle indicating what is assuredly going to happen in the future (§ 17 e), for Bar Kochba cannot possibly be putting chains round his correspondents’ feet, as he pens the missive. Likewise ‫ אלוהיכם הולך עמכם להלחם לכם עם אויביכם‬1QM 10.4 (2). Besides, even conceding that the first example in § caa, 4Q223-224 2ii3, fits Joosten’s position, one is puzzled, all the same, over the reverse sequence shown in ‫ודע אתה‬ ֗ ‫כי י֗ וד‬ ‫יצר עשו‬ ֗ ‫‘ את‬because you know Esau’s character’ 4Q223-224 2i49 (§ cab), both come from the same text (3). Furthermore, pace Joosten, the participles in ‫מודא אני לך היום‬ ‘I acknowledge to you today’ 5/6Ḥev 45.6, sim. 46.3 (4) and ‫‘ מעיד אני עלי תשמים‬I swear, invoking the heaven’ M43 3 (quoted above at § cab) are decidedly not ‘factual’ in aspect, but ‘actual.’ Examples with a non-pronominal subject are .. ‫בארבעה עשר לאלול‬ .. ‫‘ בי֗ ֗רשלים חותמים יהונתן‬on the 14th of Elul .. in Jerusalem Jehonathan .. are signing’ M29 9 and ‫‘ יעקוב בן יהוסף מעיד‬Jacob, son of Joseph, testifying’ M42 13; ‫תסלע הזוא‬ ‫‘ אנמקבל המך‬this sela I hereby receive from you’ XḤev/Ṣe 49.7. We have analysed these above (§ 17 b) as ‘performative’ in value, (5) a variant on actual present. One could envisage the people concerned putting their signature on the documents as they were being written. cba) As is evident in some of the examples cited above under § caa and cab there is no evidence to suggest that a fronted participle carries precative value. Andersen (1970.49) formulated such a rule as applicable especially when the participle is passive. In 1QS 2.4-11 we have a series of curses to be pronounced by Levites, e.g. ‫ארור אתה‬ ‫‘ בכול מעשי֗ רשע אשמתכה‬Cursed you are for all your wicked, blameworthy deeds’ line 5, but followed by ‫‘ לוא יהיה לכה שלום‬you shall have no peace’ line 8, and not ‫אל‬ 1

To be fair to Joosten, it must be said that his 2012 monograph focuses on the BH classical prose. Quoting ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹיְב‬ ֵ ‫יכם ַהה ֵֹלְך ִע ָמּ ֶכם ְל ִה ָלּ ֵחם ָל ֶכם ִעם־א‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬Dt 20.4, which is syntactically distinct: ‘JHWH your God is the one who is going ..’. 3 Cf. the Ethiopic version: /’anta ta:’ammer/ = ‫( אתה יודע‬Jub. 35.9) vs. /’anahi ’a:’ammer/ = ‫גם אני‬ ‫( יודע‬ib. 35.13). 4 Note ‫ היום‬added at the end. 5 Geiger (2012.282 [§ 296], 512) admits this value for the sequence . The last two of the examples adduced above are of the reverse sequence, and we also believe that the same value can be carried also by the Pf., § 14 b. Furthermore, Geiger (loc. cit.) writes that this structure, , is especially frequent with the passive ‫ ברוך‬and ‫ארור‬, which, however, has nothing to do with the “performative” value of the participle; only the active voice wording such as ‫ מברך אני‬and ‫ אורר אני‬can be said to be performative. 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 35 cb-da

283

‫יהי לכה שלום‬. (1) There is no compelling reason for supposing that Levites are merely expressing their wishful thought and not confidently pronouncing their condemnation. The same could be said of many a clause beginning with ‫ ;ברוך‬to quote just one example, from the same document, ‫‘ ברוכ אתה אלי‬Blessed are You, my God!’ 1QS 11.15. (2) cbb) Summing up, we would say that both Bendavid’s position and that of Joosten are capable of accounting for the two patterns, Ptc. first or second, we are left with not a negligible number of cases on which we would not force either view. Since Bendavid’s approach is formal, syntactic as against Joosten’s semantic approach, the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. (3) The fact that we have adduced only a limited number of QH examples which cannot be satisfactorily explained under either approach does not necessarily imply that BH was consistent à la Joosten, and BH and MH à la Bendavid. Under § cb above we have adduced a few out of many BH examples which would not fit Joosten’s system. cc) In our examination of the predicative participle in BH we concluded that emphasis does not account for the selection of either of the two patterns, and . (4) This conclusion appears to be applicable to QH as well. Cp. some of the examples cited above: .. ‫אשר‬ ֯ ‫ אני יודע‬4Q200 4.3 vs. ‫יצר עשו‬ ֗ ‫ודע אתה את‬ ֗ ‫ כי י֗ וד‬4Q223-224 2i49 on one hand, and ‫ אף חושבים אנחנו‬MMT B 42 vs. ‫ואנ֯ ֯חנו חושבים‬ ֗ ib. 29 on the other. d) We shall briefly touch on participial clauses with a non-pronominal subject. da) We often find this pattern in circumstantial clauses introduced with ‫ו־‬, e.g. ‫וכולם מחזיקים‬ ֯ ‫‘ מגני נחושת‬with all of them holding bronze shields’ 1QM 5.4; ‫ורווח החיים עולה ויורדת‬ ‫‘ בו‬and the spirit of life going up and down in it’ 4Q266 6i12; ‫והשערים באים פנימה‬ ‘and the gates opening inwards’ 11Q19 36.14. (5) Also in non-circumstantial clauses: 1 Noteworthy is the underlying biblical text: ‫ יָ ֵשׂם לך שׁלום‬Nu 6.24 with ‫ יָ ֵשׂם‬explicitly vocalised as volitive. A cheeky member, however, mutters a wishful thought: ‫‘ יתברך בלבבו לאמור שלום יהי לי‬he might quietly pronounce a blessing on himself, saying “Let me have peace!”’ line 13. See also Muraoka 1996a.59f. 2 ‫ ברוך‬can have an optative value as in ‫ֹלהי ֵשׁם‬ ֵ ‫ ָבּרוְּך יְ הוָֹ ה ֱא‬Gn 9.25, which is followed by ‫יהי ְכנַ ַען ֶע ֶבד‬ ִ ִ‫ו‬ ‫יהי ְכנַ ַען ֶע ֶבד ָלמוֹ‬ ִ ִ‫י־שׁם ו‬ ֵ ‫ֹלהים ְליֶ ֶפת וְ יִ ְשׁכֹּן ְבּ ָאהֳ ֵל‬ ִ ‫ יַ ְפ ְתּ ֱא‬:‫למוֹ‬,ָ thus parallel to three verbs clearly marked as jussive. 3 According to Joosten (1989.135f.), for instance, the sequence cannot be a pattern for the present aspect of the participle. The second half of Bendavid’s rule can handle this. Joosten’s attempt to account for the alleged affinity between circumstantial clauses is forced; many a Pf. verb in a relative clause is equivalent to the pluperfect, not expressing contemporaneity with the principal verb. Whilst ‫ת־הגּוֹי ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲעבֹדוּ ָדּן ָאנ ִֹכי‬ ַ ‫ וְ גַ ם ֶא‬Gn 15.14, a case deviating from Bendavid’s rule and not noticed by him, is plausibly explicated by Buth (2009.92) applying his generative-functional approach, this approach would not work with very many BH cases adduced by Bendavid, e.g. ‫ שׁ ֵֹאל ֲאנִ י א ְֹתָך ָדּ ָבר‬Je 38.14. 4 Muraoka 1985.22f., 26. At the time we examined Gn 25-50, Jdg, 1Sm 1-14 and the legal corpus in Ex, Lv, and Dt, distinguishing between narrative and direct speech. 5 More examples may be found in Geiger 2012.255f., 259. Geiger’s definition of ‘circumstantial clause’ is a shade too broad when applied to a case such as ‫‘ מעגלותיה משגות עול‬her paths lead to iniquity’ 4Q184 1.9, where the following clause, ‫תיה אשמות פשע‬ ֯ ‫‘ ונתיבו֗ תי‬and her courses to the guilt of transgression’ is not the principal clause to which the former is subordinate.

284

SYNTAX

‫‘ ולבו חושב און‬and his heart was planning wickedness’ 1QIsaa 32.6 (‫ה־אוֶ ן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִלבּוֹ יַ ֲע ֶשׂ‬MT); a ‫‘ והצדיק אובד‬and the righteous goes astray’ 1QIsa 57.1 (‫ והצדיק ָא ַבד‬MT); ‫וכול העוברים‬ ‫ והלויים מספרים את עוונות בני‬.. ‫ והכוהנים מספרים את צדקות אל‬.. ‫בברית אומרים אחריהם‬ ‫‘ ישראל‬all those who join the covenant say after them .. and the priests narrate God’s triumphs .. and the Levites narrate the iniquities of the children of Israel’ 1QS 1.20-22; ‫‘ שניהם שוקלים תחצי הכסף הלו֗ ז‬they two weigh out the half of this silver’ 5/6Ḥev 44.19. We may mention here ‫‘ וזה י֗ ו֗ צא‬and this one exits’ 11Q19 45.5. db) E.g. ‫‘ עם אויב יושב עליה‬a hostile people is settled in it’ 4Q372 1.20; ‫בני אור וגורל חושך‬ ֗ ‫מי נו֗ חל כבוד‬ ‫‘ נלחמים‬sons of light and lot of darkness battle together’ 1QM 1.11 (1); ‫ועל‬ ‘who inherits honour and height?’ 4Q417 2i11. dc) ‫‘ מפתחי צדיקים נשמע קולה‬from the gates of the righteous her voice is heard’ 11Q5 18.10 (2); ‫‘ בבריתם עמד זרעם‬their posterity stays with their covenant’ MasSir 7.19 (3); ‫בדעתו נהיה‬ ‫‘ כול‬with His knowledge everything comes into being’ 1QS 11.11; ‫ויוצאים השערים מקיר‬ ‫‘ החצר‬and the gateways protrude from the wall of the courtyard’ 11Q19 41.12; ‫ושונא‬ ‫‘ ומתעב אל את בוני החיץ‬and God hates and dislikes the builders of the wall’ CD 19.31. dd) This is a very rare pattern. E.g. ‫אבות על בנים‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗באים‬fathers are coming half-way to meet sons’ 4Q521 2iii2 (4); ‫‘ נבחן אדם כדרכו‬one is examined in the light of his way(s)’ 11Q5 22.10 (5). Note a partitive preposition ‫ מן‬as in ‫‘ מדם ֗העולה מתערב במה‬some of the blood of the burnt offering is mixed in it [= water]’ 11Q19 32.15.

§ 36 EXTRAPOSITION 1) A constituent of a clause, whether verbal or nominal, is often positioned up front, ‘outside of’ the clause, hence ‘extraposed,’ and what follows constitutes a complete clause. (6) The extraposed constituent is often resumed by means of conjunctive pronoun 1 It is debatable whether the subjects here are indeterminate only in form, but there is no absolute reason for assuming that the author is referring to a group of specific individuals or the entirety of the two mutually hostile armies. For more possible examples, see Geiger 2012.264-66. 2 The apocryphal Syriac psalm concerned takes ‫ נשמע‬as a participle: /meštma‘/. 3 Cf. LXX Si 44.12 ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις ἔστη σπέρματα αὐτῶν. 4 Contra Geiger (2012.280) “nur in Zitaten aus biblischer Poesie” this is undoubtedly close to ‫וְ ֵה ִשׁיב‬ ‫ל־בּנִ ים‬ ָ ‫ב־אבוֹת ַע‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬Ml 3.24, but hardly a quote, and more importantly the two text forms are syntactically far apart from each other. 5 Are we sure that these apocryphal psalms in 11Q5 are a copy, not the original? The analysis of ‫נבחן‬ as a participle is assured by its parallel, ‫‘ ישתלם‬he shall be requited.’ 6 In olden days one used to speak of casus pendens, ‘pending case,’ case up in the air with no firm foothold. However, Hebrew lost the case system a long while ago, hence this antiquated term can be thrown away.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 35 da – § 36

285

attached to one of the constituents of the following clause. E.g. ‫כול המתנדב מישראל‬ ‫‘ להוסיף על עצת היחד ידורשהו האיש הפקוד ברואש הרבים‬everyone who is committed out of Israel to be added to the community council, the person appointed as the leader of the Many shall investigate him’ 1QS 6.13; ‫‘ האיש אשר ילון על יסוד היחד ישלחהו‬a man who grumbles over the authority of the community, one should excommunicate him’ 1QS 7.17; ‫ אל יסתרהו‬.. ‫ ונמצאו‬.. ‫‘ כול דבר הנסתר‬every matter that was concealed .., but (now) has been discovered, one shall not hide it’ 1QS 8.11; ‫כול אשר לוא נחשבו בבריתו‬ ‫‘ להבדיל אותם ואת כול אשר להם‬all those who were not included among His covenant one should exclude them and all that belongs to them’ 1QS 5.18; ‫הגבהים בקומתם והיפים‬ ‫‘ בשערם לוא בחר יהוה אלוהים בם‬the tall in height and handsome by their hair, YHWH the God did not choose them’ 11Q5 28.9. Likewise ‫ ישלחהו‬.. ‫‘ כול איש‬any one .. one should expel him’ 1QS 8.21; ‫שג[ה בה‬ ֯ ‫אשר נגלה מן התורה לרו֗ ב המחנה והו]א‬ ֯ ‫(‘ כל‬in) any matter which was revealed from the Law to the general assembly of the camp he erred’ CD 15.13; ‫‘ כל הנוסף לעדתו יפקדהו‬everyone who joins to his congregation—he shall examine him’ CD 13.11; ‫ כול אלה לוא ילכו‬.. ‫‘ כול פסח או עור‬no lame or blind .. (none of) all these shall go’ 1QM 7.4; ‫‘ שור ושה אותו ואת בנו לוא תזבח ביום אחד‬a cow or a ewe, you shall not sacrifice it with its young on the same day’ 11Q19 52.6; ‫הכשר עבור לו‬ ‘the respectable one, forgive him’ 4Q417 2i2. See also ‫ אל‬.. ‫איש שופט בטרם ידרוש‬ ‫‘ תמשילהו‬a man who passes judgement before having investigated, .. you shall not put him in a position of authority’ 4Q424 3.1, but // ‫‘ איש שוע עינים אל תשלח‬a man with besmeared eyes, you shall not send (him)’ line 3 and ‫‘ איש שמן לב אל תשלח‬a man of dull mind ..’ line 6. 2) Extraposition is exploited for rhetorical effect of focus or prominence. Thus ‫ואני ֗ר ֗ע ֗ד‬ ‫‘ ו֗ ֗ר ֗תת אחזוני‬and I was gripped by trembling and shaking’ 1QHa 12.34, the extraposed pronoun being indicative of the poet’s profound sense of guilt, see also 1QHa 19.22; ‫לכה‬ ֗ ‫שכל ֯פתח‬ ֗ ‫‘ אתה‬for you He has opened up insight’ 4Q418 81.9 (a special favour granted); ‫‘ המה לתהו ולבהו תשוקתם‬they—their desire is (bound to end up) in void and nothingness’ 1QM 17.4, where ‫ המה‬is contrasted with ‫ אתם‬in one of the preceding clauses, ‫‘ אתם התחזקו ואל תיראום‬you be men and do not be scared of them.’ 3) We see that in most of the examples cited above the extraposed constituent serves as an object, direct or indirect, of the nucleus verb. The only exception is ‫ אני‬in ‫אני במוס‬ ‫‘ לבי‬I, when my heart melted’ 1QHa 10.30. (1) Too great a distance—14 words— between an extraposed constituent and a pronoun resuming it appears to have necessitated the repetition of -‫ ש‬in ‫ שהי שלו‬.. ‫‘ שידע יהי לך שהפרה‬it should be known to you that the cow .., it is his’ M42 2. Pace Levinson 2016.24f. there is no need to analyse ‫ מאומה‬in Qimron’s (I 141) reconstruction as in casus pendens; it is odd to see it resumed in ‫ממנו‬. ‫‘ וכול מאומה לוא תקח ממנו‬you shall not take any bit from it [= ‫]כסף וזהב‬,’ not “as for anything” (so Levinson). 1 At ‫ו לך‬/‫‘ הלז אחכרתי‬this I have leased to you’ 5/6Ḥev 45.13, should we opt for ‫= ַא ְח ַכּ ְר ִתּו = אחכרתו‬ ‫אחכרתי אותו‬, this would be an additional example.

286

SYNTAX

An extremely rare instance of an extraposed constituent prefixed with ‫ את‬is possibly to be identified in ֗‫‘ ותשפינת שפקרון֗ \שפקרין‬the boats which they have inspected’ 5/6Ḥev 49.5 (1). 4) The principal clause may be a nominal clause: ֯‫‘ והקיר שתים אמות רוחבו‬the wall, its width two cubits’ 4Q365a 2ii10 (2) // ‫ רחב הקיר שתי אמות‬ib.; ‫‘ אני לאל משפטי‬as for me, my justice belongs to God’ 1QS 11.2; ‫‘ המה לתהו ולבהו תשוקתם‬they—their desire is (bound to end up) in void and nothingness’ 1QM 17.4. 5) In the examples adduced above we only rarely note the absence of a resumptive element. This ought perhaps to be borne in mind in restoring fragmentary texts. E.g. ‫תא ֯מן לדבר משפטך‬ ֗ ‫תא ֯מ ן לקחת הון למחסורך איש לוז שפתים אל‬ ֗ ‫‘ איש תלונ֗ ֗ה אל‬a grumbler, don’t trust (him) and take money when you are in dire straits. A man with devious lips, don’t trust (him) to discuss your legal case’ 4Q424 1.7; in both cases there is a lacuna after ‫תאמן‬, a lacuna spacious enough to accommodate ‫( עליו‬3), for instance (4). At ‫‘ והאדם כול אשר היה בבית וכול אשר בא אל הבית ירחץ במים‬a human, anybody who was in the house and anybody who entered the house shall bathe in water’ 11Q19 49.16 the cleansing of humans is now introduced as against household utensils and garments mentioned in the preceding clauses, and ‫ האדם כול‬differs from ‫כול‬ ‫ אדם‬as in ‫‘ לוא יהיה נוגעים בהמה כול אדם‬nobody whosoever shall touch it’ 11Q19 32.14. In ‫ כול הבכור אשר יולד בבקריכה ובצואנכה הזכרים תקדיש לי‬11Q19 52.7 not only is there no resumptive pronoun, but also the constituent in the main clause related to the extraposed constituent is in need of reformulation, ‫הזכרים אשר בהם > הזכרים‬: ‘every animal born as first-born among your cattle and sheep—males among them you shall consecrate to me.’ 6) An extraposed NP may be subsequently repeated as in ‫והון אנשי הקודש ההולכים‬ ‫‘ בתמים אל יתערב הונם עם הון אנשי הרמיה‬and the assets of the men of holiness .. their assets shall not be mixed with the assets of the men of deceit’ 1QS 9.8. (5) See also ‫אים במה רוחב השער ארבע עש‬ ֗ ‫והיוצ‬ ֗ ‫ערי֯ ֗ם הבאי֗ ם ֗ב ֗מה‬ ֯ ‫‘ השע‬the gates through which ‫עשרה באמה‬ one enters and through which one exits—the width of (each) gate shall be fourteen cubits’ 11Q19 36.7. 7) A disjunctive pronoun may be extraposed: ‫ ואני צוו לי אחי‬1Sm 20.29 4Q52 // ‫וחוא‬ ‫ ִצוָּ ה לי ָא ִחי‬MT; ‫‘ אני במוס לבי‬I, when my heart melted’ 1QHa 10.30, cf. ‫ֲאנִ י יָ ַדי נָ טוּ ָשׁ ַמיִם‬ Should ֗‫ פקרון‬be adopted, the final /n/ can be resuming ‫שפינות‬. On this kind of ‫את‬, known also to BH as in ‫א־ה ְלכוּ ָב ֶהם‬ ָ ֹ ‫קּוֹתי ל‬ ַ ‫ת־ח‬ ֻ ‫ ֶא‬Ezk 20.16, see JM § 125 j 4), and cf. Jenni 2007.167. 2 Qimron (I 181) reads ] ֯‫רוחב ו‬. 3 See, e.g. ‫‘ אל יאמן איש על רעהו‬people are not to trust one another’ CD 10.2. 4 In the first lacuna Tanzer (DJD 36.336) restores ‫תאמר ממנו‬ ֯ and in the second just ‫תאמין‬ ֯ with a generous vacat after it. 5 We prefer not to construe ‫ בתמים‬.. ‫ והון‬with the preceding ‫לכול תכון אנשי היחד‬, for one would anticipate .. ‫ולהון‬. 1

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 36 – § 37

287

Is 45.12; ‫‘ הואה מעפר מגבלו‬he, his kneading is from dust’ 1QS 11.21, where the insignificance of mankind is highlighted, so in ‫‘ מה אפ הואה בן האדם במעשי פלאכה‬what is he indeed, the human among Your marvellous creatures?’ 1QS 11.20. In spite of the absence of the dis. pron. the fronted constituent carries the same pragmatic value in ‫ילוד‬ ‫‘ אשה מה ישב לפניכה‬one born of a woman, how could he take a seat in front of You?’ 1QS 11.21. 8) An extraposed subject followed by a conditional particle, ‫ ִאם‬or ‫כּי‬, ִ is a legacy from BH, e.g. ‫‘ ָר ָעב ִכּי־יִ ְהיֶ ה ָב ָא ֶרץ‬should there occur a famine in the land’ 1Kg 8.37. (1) Examples are ‫‘ השומע אם יודע הוא‬one who hears it, if he knows (it)’ CD 9.12; ‫אדם כי‬ ‫‘ ימות בעריכמה‬should anyone die in your cities’ 11Q19 49.5 (< Nu 19.14); ‫יש כי יהיה‬ ‫איש‬ ‫‘ לו מקרה לילה‬should any man ejaculate at night’ 11Q19 45.7; ‫אשה כי תהיה מלאה‬ ‘should a woman happen to be pregnant’ 11Q19 50.10. 9) An extraposed constituent can be of considerable length as in ‫שלקח יהוסף בן‬ ֗ ‫הפרה‬ ‫ארצטון מן יעקב בן יהודה שיושב אבית משכו שהי שלו‬ ֗ ‘the cow which Joseph, son of Ariston, took from Jacob, son of Judah, who lives in Bet Mashko is his’ M42 3, where the topic, ‫הפרה‬, expanded extensively is resumed with ‫ הי‬marking the start of the comment part, and because of this delay the writer may have been induced to signal with ‫ הי‬that the thread is now being taken up again. (2) 10) A very special kind of extraposition is exemplified in ‫‘ פשרו הקריה היא ירושלם‬its interpretation: ‫( הקריה‬here) is a reference to Jerusalem’ 1QpHab 12.7. Quite a few similar examples occur in the Qumran pesher literature. (3) The insertion of the conjunction waw is unusual in ‫‘ כל האובד ולא נודע מי גנבו‬anything that goes missing and it is not known who stole it’ CD 9.10. Extraposition is not necessarily typical of a high literary register: attested in a ‫‘ הרה השורה הזות ב‬Look, this row—it has krwṭyn’ Mas storage clerk’s note—‫בה כרוטין‬ Ins 449.

§ 37 IMPERSONAL CONSTRUCTIONS (4) Verbs are often found without any referent, personal or impersonal, explicitly or specifically given as the performer(s) [agens] of the act in question. This takes two grammatical forms:

For more examples, see BDB s.v. ‫ ִכּי‬2b (p. 473a bottom). Pace Qimron (1981.37) what follows the pronoun is not exactly a predicate. 3 See Muraoka 2020a(?). One could envisage a modern bible commentary; under every verse commented, one might find section headings such as: Scripture—Commentary—Homiletics. 4 Cf. also Muraoka 2000.200f. and Qimron 2018.398f. 1 2

288

SYNTAX

a) Third person masculine singular or plural (1) E.g. ‫ל־כּן ָק ָרא ְשׁ ָמהּ ָבּ ֶבל‬ ֵ ‫‘ ַע‬hence one called its name Babel’ Gn 11.9. (2) Such may be identified in ‫‘ אל יבוא במים‬one may not enter water’ 1QS 5.13, which opens a new paragraph and is followed by forms in the pl.—‫ שבו מרעתם‬.. ‫‘ לוא יטהרו‬they could not become pure .. they parted with their evil.’ (3) There follows a series of generic rules: ‫ אשר לוא יוכל‬.. ‫‘ אשר לוא ייחד עמו‬one shall not associate with him .. one shall not eat’ 1QS 5.14, where in between a generic subject is specified—‫לוא ישיב איש מאנשי היחד‬ ‘none of the community members shall respond’ 1QS 5.15. (4) See also ‫‘ ויטמון‬and one hid (it)’ CD 5.4. In ‫ לֹא יָ כֹל ְל ִה ָלּ ֵחם‬Is 7.1 ‫ יכלו‬of 1QIsaa and other witnesses is probably an attempt to personalise the form and make it concord with the preceding twin subjects. See also ‫ וְ ָק ָראת ְשׁמוֹ ִע ָמּנוּ ֵאל‬Is 7.14 // ‫ וקרא‬1QIsaa (5); ‫ ישיר השיר הזואת‬Is 26.1 1QIsaa (6) // MT ‫יוּשׁר‬. ַ At ‫ מה יענו מלכי גוי‬Is 14.32 1QIsaa ‫ מלכי גוי‬is unlikely to be the subject— MT has ‫;מה־יַּ ֲענֶ ה ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי־גוֹי‬ ַ ‫ ִשׁ ַבּר‬Is 21.9 // ‫ שברו‬1QIsaa, cp. ‫ נָ ָדדוּ‬Is 21.15 // ‫ נדד‬1QIsaa, which is probably harmonising with the preceding sg. ‫נ ֵֹדד‬. At ‫ ונתנו הספר‬Is 29.12 1QIsaa for ‫ וְ נִ ַתּּן ַה ֵסּ ֶפר‬the verb was impersonally construed (‫ )וְ נָ ַתן‬and ‫ את‬was mentally supplied and the more frequent impersonal syntagm was used instead. Likewise the variation at ‫ת־ר ָשׁ ִעים ִק ְברוֹ‬ ְ ‫ וַ יִּ ֵתּן ֶא‬Is 53.9 and ‫ ויתנו‬1QIsaa (7). In any event here is hardly a case of number discord. Likewise in ‫ כשבר נבל יוצרים כתות לוא יחמולו‬Is 30.14 1QIsaa for MT The non-attestation in QH of an impersonally used pl. ptc. must be accidental, given ‫‘ א ְֹמ ִרים‬one says’ Ex 5.16, which has probably been retained in 4Q1 27.3, though only the initial ‫ א‬is visible; for more examples, see JM § 155 f. As for ‫שמניחים אותה‬ ֯ ‫השלמים‬ ֗ ‫‘ מנחת זבח‬the cereal-offering of the sacrifice of well-being that they leave over’ MMT B 9 cited by Geiger (2012.368) DJD 10.47 says it is equivalent to ‫הם מניחים‬, but the omission of the pronoun would be odd. In the two other instances ‫ומו֗ ציאים‬ ֗ MMT B 31 and ‫שורפים‬ ֯ MMT B 32, also cited by Geiger ib., the text is too fragmentary for meaningful analysis. As a matter of fact there are another three preceding: ‫ ז֗ ורקים‬.. ‫ אוסרים‬.. ‫סו֯ ֯גרים‬. ֯ This passage is dependent on Lv 1.2-13 concerning the slaughtering of sacrificial animals. The underlying biblical text starts off with ‫ ָא ָדם‬as the subject and the verbs in the matching 3ms, but subsequently the priests (‫)הכּ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ַ appear on the scene and perform some cultic functions. Importantly they are also mentioned in line 13. It is thus not impossible that the mpl participles in this column of 11Q19 have the priests as their subjects. 2 For more examples, see JM § 155c. If one is to follow Qimron (II 130) and read ‫בפי‬, and not ‫מפי‬, ‫ שמע‬is more likely to be ‫שׁ ַמע‬, ֵ a substantive, ‘report, talk,’ rather than ‫שׁ ַמע‬, ָ a G verb: ‫הלוא ֗בפי כול לאומים‬ ‫‘ שמע האמת‬Don’t all nations talk about truth?’ 1Q27 1.9. 3 The author is not quite consistent, as he immediately shifts back to the sg., ‫טמא‬, which could be a substantivised adjective and impersonal, ‘something impure,’ see above at § 9 b, and note Wernberg-Møller (1957.29) ‘impurity,’ with his f.n. there. 4 On ‫ אשר‬introducing rules, see above at § 15 daf, pp. 71f. On the impersonal use in 1QS of the third person sg., see also Licht 1965.41f. (§ 35). Pace Qimron (I 218): ‫ישוב‬. 5 According to Kutscher (1974.394) God is meant as the subject. Cf. LXX καλέσεις, but quoted as καλέσουσιν Mt 1.23. 6 On the gender discord here, see above at § 32 ea, and cf. LXX ᾄσονται. 7 Note a variant in QH: ‫‘ ינתן‬it shall be given’ 4Q266 10i6, which was probably read as G by the scribe of 4Q226 and replaced by ‫‘ נתנו‬they shall give’ in CD 14.13. For ‫ ינתן‬as G, see Qimron 2018.116, § B 5.3.1. 1

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 37 a

289

‫ יַ ְחמֹל‬unless it is a case of adjustment to ‫יוצרים‬. But see ‫ ישא‬Is 30.6 1QIsaa for ‫ יִ ְשׂאוּ‬MT. In ‫‘ אכלים את כחו‬they are exhausting his strength’ 4Q372 1.15 the virtual subject of the ptc. is to be identified in the immediately preceding ‫‘ ביד בני נאכר‬in the hands of aliens.’ At ‫‘ וכן המשפט לכל באי עדת אנשי תמים הקדש ויקוץ מעשות פקודי ישרים‬and this is the rule applicable to all who join the assembly of perfect holiness and someone of them might become loth to carry out the commands of upright men’ CD 20.2 the syntax is rather loose. The unspecified subject is impersonal in ‫‘ בצר למו‬when it is hard on them’ 1QpHab 5.6. In quoting the scripture: ‫‘ היא העת אשר היה כתוב עליה‬this is the time about which it was written ..’ CD 1.13; ‫‘ לא יקום‬one should not punish (him)’ 4Q364 13.8 (< ‫לֹא יֻ ַקּם‬ ‘he should not be punished’ Ex 21.21). The impersonal use of 3ms in BH, which is not infrequent (1), is in decline, but had not yet breathed its last, as shown by the evidences presented above. (2) This is evident in the following quotations of the biblical text: QH 3ms // MT 3mp—‫וימררו את חייהם‬ Ex 1.14 // ‫ וימרר את חייהם‬4Q1 17-18.10 (following ‫ = יענו אתו‬MT ֺ ‫ויכו ;)יְ ַענּוּ אֹתו‬ 1Sm 12.31 // ‫ ויך‬4Q51; ‫ ָל ְקחוּ‬2Sm 4.12 // ‫ לקח‬4Q51; ‫ וַ יַּ גִּ דוּ‬2Sm 11.10 // ‫ וויגדּ‬4Q51 [pace the editors (DJD 17.140) no absolute need to see here a Ho. form]; ‫לֹא־יָ ִשׂימוּ ֵא ֵלינוּ ֵלב‬ ֯ 4Q51; ‫ ישא‬Is 30.6 1QIsaa // MT ‫יִ ְשׂאוּ‬. 2Sm 18.3 // ‫ישיים‬ There are, however, alternations in the reverse direction: MT 3ms // QH 3mp— ‫ וי‬4Q39 10.3; ‫עוֹלל ִלי‬ ַ ‫ ְכּ ַמ ְכא ִֹבי ֲא ֶשׁר‬La 1.12 // ‫ עוללו לי‬4Q111 ֺ ‫ וַ יִּ ְקבֹּר אֹתו‬Dt 34.6 // ‫ויקברו‬ ‫ אשר מל‬4Q23 32.6 (3); 3.3; ‫ר־מ ֵלּא יָ ָדם ְל ַכ ֵהן‬ ִ ‫ ְבּנֵ י ַא ֲהר ֹן ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים ַה ְמּ ֻשׁ ִחים ֲא ֶשׁ‬Nu 3.3 // ‫מלאו‬ ‫ ַל ָמּקוֹם ַההוּא ָק ָרא נַ ַחל ֶא ְשׁכּוֹל‬Nu 13.24 // ‫ קראו‬4Q27 3ii+5.16, 4Q365 32.14; ‫ָשׁ ַחט‬ Nu 19.3 // ‫ שחטו‬4Q27 12.14. In the elaborate and extensive description of the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 36-39) the chief artisan, Bezalel, must be meant as the subject of the 3ms verb forms. However, the author / scribe of 4Q365 almost systematically replaces them with the pl. forms, e.g. ‫ויעשו את מזבח ההולה‬ ֗ 4Q365 12ii2 // ‫וַ יַּ ַעשׂ‬ ‫ת־מזְ ַבּח ָהע ָֹלה‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬Ex 38.1. The selection of the pl. forms may be designed to imply that the construction was a team work under the baton of Bezalel. Some examples from non-biblical QH texts are ‫האיש אשר ילון על יסוד היחד ישלחהו‬ ‘a man who grumbles over the authority of the community, one should excommunicate him’ 1QS 7.17; ‫ אל יסתרהו‬.. ‫ ונמצאו‬.. ‫‘ כול דבר הנסתר‬every matter that was concealed .., but (now) has been discovered, one shall not hide it’ 1QS 8.11.

1

Rabin (1962.62-67) mentions as many as 125 examples, not counting passive forms. Scarcely “very rare” (so Qimron 2018.398). On fluctuations of expressions of the impersonal in the penalty laws in 1QS 6-7, see Licht 1965.41f., § 35. 3 Cf. LXX οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ ἠλειμμένοι, οὓς ἐτελείωσαν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν ἱεραρεύειν. Dorival’s (1994.84f.) attempt to account for the pl. verb here as a reference to Moses and God does not convince, for one would expect them explicitly mentioned by name. See also Wevers 1998.33, n. 6. 2

290

SYNTAX

b) With a passive verb (1) The 3ms verb form may serve as equivalent to the above-discussed 3mp form. (2) E.g. ‫‘ כופר עליהמה‬atonement has been performed for their sake’ 11Q19 17.2, ‫ֻכּ ַפּר ָבּ ֶהם‬ ‘atonement was made by means of them’ Ex 29.33 (3); ‫‘ ונסלוח לו‬and he was forgiven’ MMT C 26, cf. ‫‘ וְ נִ ְס ַלח ָל ֶהם‬and they shall be forgiven’ Lv 4.20; ‫ָה ֲעב ָֹדה ַה ָקּ ָשׁה ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫ד־בְּך‬ ָ ‫ ֻע ַבּ‬Is 14.3 > ‫ עבדו‬1QIsaa and 4Q59 20-22.3 (4); ‫ לֹא־יְ ֻרנָּ ן לֹא יְ ר ָֹעע‬Is 16.10 MT // 1QIsaa ‫ וְ ֻהגַּ ד ְלָך ;לוא ירננו ולוא ירועע‬Dt 17.4 > ‫ והגידו לכה‬11Q19 55.18; ‫לוא ישמע בפי‬ ‫‘ נבלות‬lewdness shall not be heard in my mouth’ 1QS 10.21, where the apparent gender discord is to be noted, on which see above at § 32 be. A case of number discord is ‫‘ שיקוצים לוא ימצא בה‬abominations shall not be found in it’ 1QS 10.22, where the fronted subject renders a number discord unlikely. Here the pl. is unlikely to be impersonally used. In these instances an object in the active voice formulation remains untransformed and the verb is converted to a 3ms passive. This reminds us of an example in BH such as ‫ת־דּ ְב ֵרי ֵע ָשׂו‬ ִ ‫ וַ יֻּ גַּ ד ְל ִר ְב ָקה ֶא‬Gn 27.42. (5) See also ‫יאכל את הולד‬ ‘the child may be eaten’ MMT B 37. The retention of the nota obiecti underscores the impersonal nature of the syntagm. (6) Hence no impersonal syntagm is to be identified in ‫ לא יכתבו‬.. ‫‘ לא יחשבו‬they shall not be numbered .. they shall not be inscribed’ CD 19.35. It is not certain if 1QIsaa read N as in MT (7) at ‫ יֵ ָא ֵמר‬.. ‫ יִ ָקּ ֵרא‬Is 32.5 and decided to abandon this syntagm, writing ‫יקראו‬, but it is inconsistent by continuing with ‫יואמר‬. Sim. ‫ יִ ָקּ ֵרא‬Is 1.26, 35.8, 62.4, 12 // ‫ יקראו‬1QIsaa; ‫ ק ָֹרא‬Is 48.8 // ‫ יקראו‬1QIsaa, sim. Is 58.12, 61.3, 62.2 (8); ‫ יֻ ַקּח‬Is 49.24 // ‫ יקחו‬1QIsaa, where it probably read ‫יִ ַקּח‬, for 1

See Muraoka 1999.200f. Fassberg (2019 § 325 ‫)א‬, citing a case such as ‫ וַ יֵּ ָע ֶתר לוֹ יְ הוָ ה‬Gn 25.21, is slightly extending the notion of impersonal passive. The grammatical subject is explicitly mentioned, albeit the referent of ֺ ‫ לו‬is Isaac as mentioned in the preceding clause with the same verb in a different binyan: ‫ ;וַ יֶּ ְע ַתּר יִ ְצ ָחק ַליהוָ ה‬we would rather see here a case of Nifal with tolerative value (§ 12 e [5]) and the ‫ ל־‬of ֺ ‫ לו‬as marking dativus commodi. By the same token, ‫ אחד‬in ‫ אם ישוב וניתפש לפני אחד‬CD 9.19 does not indicate the agens, an agent of the religious police, but an eye-witness; the person was not caught by him red-handed: ‘should he once again become arrested in the presence of one (witness).’ Likewise ‫‘ ונזכרתמה לפני אלוהיכם‬and you will be remembered before Your God’ 1QM 10.7 < Nu 10.9; Fassberg does concede that ‫ לפני‬can be locative in value. 2 In English, when, for some reason or other, you do not wish to disclose the identity of the donor, you could say I was given this splendid diamond ear-ring, implying that you could not possibly afford the price yourself, but you cannot say They gave me .. or One gave me .. 3 LXX personalises: ἡγιάσθησαν ἐν αὐτοῖς ‘they were purified with them.’ 4 One sees traces of a challenge presented by this Hebrew syntagm in LXX τῆς δουλείας σου τῆς σκληρᾶς, ἧς ἐδούλευσας αὐτοῖς, Vulg. a servitute dura, qua ante servisti and Pesh. /men šu‘bādā qašyā d-ešta‘badt/. Cf. ‫א־ע ַבּד ָבּהּ‬ ֻ ֹ ‫ ֶעגְ ַלת ָבּ ָקר ֲא ֶשׁר ל‬Dt 21.3. 5 Cf. JM § 128 b. All the same, the immediately preceding, parallel clause is noteworthy: ‫מרמות וכזבים‬ ‫‘ לוא ימצאו בשפתי‬lies and deceits shall not be found on my lips.’ 6 ‫ נענשו‬at ‫‘ ונענשו את רביעית לחמו‬and he shall be penalised with a quarter of his ration reduced’ 1QS 6.25 may indicate a loose mixture of ‫ ונענש את‬and ‫ וְ ָענְ שׁוּ =( וענשו את‬or ‫)וַ ֲענָ שׁוֹ‬. Or a scribal error for ‫?ונענש‬ 7 Cf. Milik (1950.212) and Kutscher (1974.402). 8 Kutscher (1974.402) mentions ‫ יִ ָקּ ֵרא ָע ָליו‬Is 31.4 // ‫ יקרא עליו‬1QIsaa as an exception, but the verb here does not mean ‘to call (someone so and so),’ but ‘to shout at,’ hence it can be parsed as G with ‫ְמלֹא ר ִֹעים‬ as its subject.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 37 b – § 38 a

291

in the parallel clause it reads N—‫ילקח‬, failing to identify an internal G passive in ‫;יקח‬ ‫יתָך‬ ֶ ‫ל־א ֶשׁר ְבּ ֵב‬ ֲ ‫ וְ נִ ָשּׂא ָכּ‬Is 39.6 // ‫ ונשאו‬1QIsaa, which, however, can be N, ‫( וְ נִ ְשׂאוּ‬the pl. on account of ‫‘ ונסלח להמה ;)כל‬and they will be forgiven’ 11Q19 26.10, 27.2, quoting from Lv 4.20. Also ‫יִמּ ֵצא‬ ָ may have been read as ‫יִמ ָצא‬ ְ in ‫יִמּ ֵצא‬ ָ ‫ ָשׂשׂוֹן וְ ִשׂ ְמ ָחה‬Is 51.3 and ִ ‫ ֵמע ֶֹצר‬Is 53.8 the selection have been converted to G 3pl in ‫ ימצאו‬1QIsaa. At ‫וּמ ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט ֻל ָקּח‬ in 1QIsab of ‫ לקחו‬obscures the violence and injustice borne by the servant of the Lord. ‫ לוא יאכל בימי המעשה‬11Q19 43.17 is parallel to ‫( לוא יואכלו ממנו בימי המעשה‬active 3pl), hence ‫ יאכל‬is most likely a normal passive, ‫‘—יֵ ָא ֵכל‬it shall not be eaten on working days.’ At ‫ים יטמא‬ ֗ ‫‘ כול אוכל אשר יוצק עליו מי‬every food on which water is poured shall be unclean’ 11Q19 49.7 the author is probably attempting to deal with the syntactic difficulty in his underlying text, ‫ל־הא ֶֹכל ֲא ֶשׁר יֵ ָא ֵכל ֲא ֶשׁר יָבוֹא ָע ָליו ַמיִ ם יִ ְט ָמא‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ָכּ‬Lv 11.34; the sg. ‫ יָבוֹא‬is in discord with its pl. subject, but the use of the passive, ‫יוּצק‬, ַ can be 1 impersonal. ( ) An example of the inf. abs. of an impersonally used Nifal is ‫נסלוח לו‬ ‘he was forgiven’ MMT C 26, cf. ‫ל־ע ַדת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ֲ ‫ נִ ְס ַלח ְל ָכ‬Nu 15.26. Note ‫הגידו לכה‬ 11Q19 55.18 // ‫ ֻהגַּ ד ְלָך‬Dt 17.4. In many of the above-quoted cases of the passive voice one can identify its subject in the context. By contrast, in some cases the passive voice is used to underline an action on its own, hence genuinely impersonal. A BH (2) example is ‫ֶעגְ ַלת ָבּ ָקר ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫א־ע ַבּד ָבּהּ‬ ֻ ֹ ‫‘ ל‬a heifer with which no work was done’ Dt 21.3. This syntactic feature was apparently obsolete in LBH, which can also be demonstrated by the fact that the fluctuation between Qumran documents and their biblical sources as evidenced above is consistently in the direction of BH sg. > QH pl. The only other example of ‫ עבד‬Dpassive has been adduced above ‫ד־בְּך‬ ָ ‫‘ ָה ֲעב ָֹדה ַה ָקּ ָשׁה ֲא ֶשׁר ֻע ַבּ‬the hard labour that was imposed on you’ Is 14.3 // ‫ עבדו בכה‬1QIsaa. Note that in both cases a feminine noun cannot be the subject of the verb. These examples highlight the impersonal nature of the syntagm, for the verb is intransitive.

§ 38 COORDINATION a) Asyndetic or syndetic concatenation (3) Two or more coordinate terms may form a single, syntactic unit. Their coherence may be marked by inserting the proclitic conjunction ‫ ו־‬or ‫או‬. These linking particles may be repeated with the second and every subsequent term. But the repetition is not obligatory. Cp. ‫וּמ ָר ִרי‬ ְ ‫וּק ָהת‬ ְ ‫ גֵּ ְרשׁוֹן‬Ex 6.16 (fully syndetic) with ‫וּמ ָר ִרי‬ ְ ‫ גֵּ ְרשׁוֹן ְק ָהת‬1Ch 5.27 (partially syndetic). 1 Both Trg O and Pesh. render the verb with a pl. form, ‫יעלוּן‬ ֲ ֵ‫ י‬and nāflin respectively. In his commentary ad loc. Rashi quietly gets out of the corner by substituting ‫ באו‬for ‫יבוא‬. 2 For more details, see JM § 152 fa. 3 Cf. Mor 2015.340f., § 5.38. Park (2003.160-79) investigates coordinate nouns, but does not deal with asyndetic juxtaposition of verbs.

292

SYNTAX

QH examples are ‫טין‬ ‫‘ שתשלח תבו֗ חמשת כו֗ רי֗ ן ֗חטי‬you are to send (someone to fetch) five kors of wheat (and) come (here with them)’ M44 2 (asyndetic); ‫ מן רצונם‬.. ‫וחלקו‬ ֗ ‫רצו‬ ֗ ‘they agreed and divided .. of their own will’ 5/6Ḥev 44.2 (syndetic). (1) b) Asyndesis of two Impvs. (2) MT asyndetic // QH syndetic—‫ ְלכוּ ְקחוּ ָל ֶכם‬Ex 5.11 // ‫ [וקחו לכם‬4Q13 6ii10, but ‫[ קחו‬ 4Q14 1b3; ‫ ֵלְך ֱאמֹר‬Dt 5.30(27) // ‫ לך ו֯ אמו֯ ר‬4Q135 1.7; ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ ‫עוּדה ֲחתוֹם‬ ָ ‫ צוֹר ְתּ‬Is 8.16 // ‫ וחתום‬1QIsaa; ‫ ֵלְך ָה ֵשׁב‬2Sm 14.21// ‫ לך והשב‬4Q53; ‫קוּמי ְ ְשּׁ ְִבי‬ ִ ‫ ִה ְתנַ ֲע ִרי ֵמ ָע ָפר‬Is 52.2 // ‫ התנערי מעפר וקומי ושבי‬1QIsaª (3). Possibly ‫‘ ֗מהר ֗שלם‬Pay back quickly!’ 4Q416 2ii4, ‫‘ מהר תן‬Give quickly!’ 4Q416 2ii5, ‫‘ ספר מהר‬Tell quickly!’ 4Q417 2i4, cf. ‫ ַמ ֲהרוּ ֲעשׂוּ ָכמוֹנִ י‬Jdg 9.48, ‫ קוּם ֵרד ַמ ֵהר‬Ps 9.12; ‫‘ שוב אנבא‬Prophesy again’ 4Q385 2.7, cf. ‫‘ ָלשׁוּב ְל ַק ְח ָתּהּ‬to take her again’ Dt 24.4, but ‫‘ ושבו ובנו‬and they will rebuild’ 4Q175 25. Note that both verbs are in the same grammatical categories and their grammatical subjects are identical. We are assuming that ‫ מהר‬is not an adverbially used inf. abs., which, however, may be the case in ‫תוכחתו‬ ‫‘ ספר מהר‬Recount his reproach quickly’ 4Q417 2i4; note the position of ‫ מהר‬after ‫ספר‬. c) Repetition of -‫ ו‬or ‫( או‬4) Repeated in pairs of parallelism: ‫ ולדבוק‬.. ‫ לרחוק‬.. ‫ ולשנוא‬.. ‫‘ לאהוב‬to love .. and to hate, to keep away .. and keep to’ 1QS 1.3, where ‫ לרחוק‬is more elegant than ‫ולרחוק‬. ‫‘ פסח או עור או חרש או אלם‬lame or blind or deaf or dumb’ 1QSa 2.5. Added to the last term only of three or more: ‫ ולהדשן‬.. ‫ לכפר‬.. ‫‘ לערוך‬in order to arrange .. to atone .. and to become fat’ 1QM 2.5; ‫ֶא ֶרץ ַה ְכּנַ ֲענִ י וְ ַה ִח ִתּי וְ ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי וְ ַה ְפּ ִרזִּ י וְ ַה ִחוִּ י‬ ‫יְבוּסי‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַה‬Ex 3.17 // ‫ הפרזי החוי והיבוסי‬4Q13 3ii+5-6i9. d) Nota obiecti ‫( את‬5) Repeated: ‫את יום השבת כפרושה ואת המועדות ואת יום התענית‬ ֗ ‫‘ לשמור‬to keep the Sabbath day .. and the appointed days and the fast-day’ CD 6.18 (6); .. ‫עבדו את האבן ואת העץ‬ 1

On these two examples, see Mor 2015.308f. On the situation in BH, see JM § 177 e. 3 The text continues with another impv., ‫ה ְת ַפּ ְתּ ִחו‬, ִ where ‫ התפתחו‬in 1QIsaa is probably meant as Pf. with the following ‫ מוסרי צוארך‬as its subject. 4 Park’s (2003.178) study shows no meaningful difference between BH and QH. In both the coordinating conjunctions are absent in about 40% of cases. 5 According to Mor (2015.313, § 5.22) the language of his corpus is consistent in its addition; the only probable exception he has identified is ‫‘ ֗ה ֗כול חכרתי המך‬I have leased everything from you’ M24 B 13, though the lacuna at the end of the preceding line may have had ‫את‬, similarly in his second example. Given this uncertainty in reading we would not go as far as Mor (ib. 314), who sees here an influence of similar Aramaic documents which also lack an object marker, ‫ ית‬or -‫ל‬. Cf. our discussion on a case of the repeated ‫ ית‬in Qumran Aramaic, NḤ 7.22: Muraoka 2011.215. 6 Cf. Dion 1977.202. 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 38 a-e

293

‫‘ יכלה אל את כול עובדי העצבים ואת הרשעים‬they served stone and wood .. God will destroy all those who served idols and the wicked’ 1QpHab 13.2; ‫א[ת האם ואת הוֿ לד‬ ‘(both) the mother and the child’ MMT B 36; ‫תללו חכרתי מכם תדקלים ותשאר ֗ה ֗אילן‬ ‫‘ שבהם ותעפר הלבן ותדקל ֗ה ֗טו֗ ֗ב ותחצר שבכפר ֗תכל שהחזיק חנניה‬all these I have leased from you (including) the date palms and the remainder of the tree(s) which are in them and the white soil and the good quality date palm and the courtyard (?) which is in the village, all that Hananiah held’ 5/6Ḥev 46.4f. (‫ את = ת־‬seven times repeated, and the absence of -‫ ו‬in the last constituent probably suggests that the latter is in apposition to all that precedes it, and the particle is missing from ‫ תדקלים‬because here begins a detailed specification of what ‫ תללו‬comprises); ‫‘ מרחצים את הקרבים ואת הכרעים‬they ְ ‫ ִק ְרבּוֹ‬Lv 1.9; ‫ן־ר ַמ ְליָ הוּ‬ ְ ‫וּב‬ ֶ ‫ת־ר ִצין‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬ wash the innards and paws’ 11Q19 34.10 // ‫וּכ ָר ָעיו יִ ְר ַחץ‬ ‫החזקה ואת ֯אזרו‬ ‫ה‬ Is 8.6 MT, 1QIsae, 1QIsaf // ‫ את רצין ואת בן ]רומ[ל]י[הו‬1QIsaª; ‫זרועו ֯הנטויה‬ in a tefillin, 4Q128 1.29 for ‫ ֶאת־יָ דוֹ ַה ֲחזָ ָקה וּזְ ר ֹעוֹ ַהנְּ טוּיָ ה‬Dt 11.2 MT. Not repeated: ‫‘ את רוחם ומעשיהם‬their spirits and deeds’ 1QS 5.24, where the use of the conj. pron. with identical referents is to be noted. See also Ps 136.7 11Q5 15.10 ‫את‬ ‫( השמש וירח‬MT ‫ת־היָּ ֵר ַח‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬.. ‫השּׁ ֶמשׁ‬ ֶ ‫)את‬. (1) No rationale can be found for the omission of ‫ את‬with the last five terms nor for the absence of -‫ ו‬only with one of them (‫ )החוי‬in ‫ תחרים את החתי ואת האמורי והכנעני החוי והיבוסי והגרגשי והפרזי‬11Q19 62.14. Also anomalous is the omission of ‫ את‬with the third term as well as the definite article with ֯ ‫חוקים ו֯ ֗מ‬ ֯ ‫וה את כול‬ ֗ ‫המצו‬ ֯ ‫ את כול המ‬4Q135 1.7 < ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְצוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ֵאת ָכּ‬ the last two terms: ‫שפטים‬ 2 3 ‫ וְ ַה ֻח ִקּים וְ ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים‬Dt 5.27 MT ( ). ( ) e) Prepositions (4) Repeated: ‫‘ ביד מושה וביד כול עבדיו הנביאים‬through Moses and through all His servants the prophets’ 1QS 1.3; ‫‘ ליחד ולריב ולמשפט‬for fellowship and for dispute(s) and for judgement(s)’ 1QS 5.6; ‫‘ במדרש ובעצה‬in the study and in the council’ 1QS 8.26; ‫מישראל‬ ‫‘ וממקדשו‬from Is. and His sanctuary’ CD 1.3; ‫ ל־‬of inf. cst.—‫ ולהדשן‬.. ‫ לכפר‬.. ‫לערוך‬ ‘in order to arrange .. to atone .. and to become fat’ 1QM 2.5. In ‫לימין המערכה ולשמאולה‬ the repetition of the preposition better suits the notion of both .. and: ‘both to the right of the line and to its left’ 1QM 6.8, sim. 1QM 8.5. Cf. also Muraoka 2016a.169. The two heavenly bodies with reference to ‫אוֹרים גְּ ד ִֹלים‬ ִ vs. 7 were probably perceived as a semantically coherent whole. The same applies to ‫כוֹכ ִבים‬ ָ ְ‫ת־היָּ ֵר ַח ו‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬vs. 9 MT, and note that the definite article is not repeated in either combination. See ‫ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר ִצוָּ ה יְ הוָ ה ֶאת־מ ֶֹשׁה וְ ַא ֲהר ֹן‬ Ex 12.28, cited by Park (2003.109), where the two formed a team. Though Park (ib. 19f., xi) mentions a counter-example such as ‫ אל משה ואל אהרן‬Ex 7.8, the non-repetition of the article, not noticed by her, carries more weight. 2 The complexity of the matter can be seen in quite a degree of fluctuation in multiple quotations of this same verse: ‫קים‬ ֯ ֗‫חו‬ ‫המצוה הח‬ ‫ ֗את כול המ‬4Q37 4.4, ‫ [והמשפטים‬4Q41 6.6, ‫ ואת המשפטים‬4Q158 7-8.4, ‫את ֗כו֯ ֯ל‬ ‫ ֯המצוה החוקים והמשפטים‬4Q129 1 recto 17. Only XQ2 1.13 is exactly identical with MT. 3 According to Park (2003.112) the nota obiecti is more often repeated before a second object noun than not: only in 6% of the cases she has found it missing. See also Park ib. 158. 4 Cf. Park 2003.16-105 and Qimron 2018.408f., § H 3.2. 1

294

SYNTAX

In BH ‫ תֹּהוּ וָ בֹהוּ‬Ge 1.2 and Je 4.23 the vocalisation - ָ‫ ו‬signals a close-knit notional unit. By contrast at ‫‘ לתהו ולבהו תשוקתם‬their desire (is destined to end up) in chaos and emptiness’ 1QM 17.4 the repetition of the preposition suggests that the two substantives are perceived as two distinct entities. Not repeated: ‫‘ לאלפים ומאות וחמשים ועשרות‬in their thousands, hundreds, fifties and ֯ ‫‘ באדם‬whether over a human or an animal’ 4Q271 3.7; tens’ 1QS 2.21 (1); ‫ובהמה‬ synonymous NPs (2)—‫‘ על אשמת פשע ומעל חטאת‬over iniquitous guilt and sinful unfaithfulness’ 1QS 9.4, ‫‘ לתעות אחר לבבו ועיניהו ומחשבת יצרו‬wandering away after his desire ‫עם מבו‬ and his eyes and the design of his inclination’ 1QS 5.4, ‫בוא יומם ולילה ומוצאי ערב‬ ‫‘ ובוקר‬with the start of day and night and the finish of evening and morning’ 1QM 14.13, ֗ ‫וחט‬ ֗ ‫‘ על פשע‬on account of trans‫‘ לשמחה וששון‬for pleasure and joy’ 1QHa 17.24, ‫אה‬ gression and sin’ 1QHa 22.33, ‫‘ לישועת עולם ושלום עד‬for eternal salvation and perpetual peace’ 1QHa 7.29, ‫(‘ בחסדיכה ו֯ המון רחמיכה‬I relied) on Your compassion and abundant mercy’ 1QHa 12.38, ‫‘ במלכים ושרים‬at kings and princes’ 1QpHab 4.2; ‫בהמון רחמים ורוב‬ ‫‘ סליחה‬with plenty of mercy and abundant forgiveness’ 1QHa 14.12; ‫‘ לבוז וחרפה‬for scorn and reproach’ 1QHa 10.35; ‫‘ בברית ) ( ואמנה אשר קימו בארץ דמשק‬in the covenant .. and the compact which they established in ..’ CD 20.12, where, however, the text is not secure with something missing after ‫ בברית‬and the lack of the article with ‫ אמנה‬is striking; ‫‘ באמת ולב שלם‬in truth and whole-heartedly’ 1QHa 8.25; ‫‘ על הון ובצע‬for the sake of property and profit’ CD 10.18, 11.15, ‫‘ בעבור הון ובצע‬for the sake of riches and gain’ CD 12.7, cp. the same combination in ‫ יתגברו להון ולבצע‬CD 8.7, 19.19; also cp. ‫וּמ ָצּא‬ ַ ‫ ְל ִריב‬Is 58.4 // ‫ לריב ולמצא‬1QIsaª; same referent— ֗‫ביד משיחי רוח קדשו וחוז֗ י‬ ‫‘ אמת‬through those anointed by His holy spirit and beholders of truth’ CD 2.12. See also ‫‘ בסולם וחבל וכלי‬with a ladder or a rope or a tool’ CD 11.17; ‫למעשיו ו֗ שוכלו וכוחו‬ ֗ ‫‘ וגבורתו והונו‬as regards his deeds and his intelligence and his strength and his might and his property’ CD 13.11. As in this last example the coordinate terms are not synonymous in ‫‘ לשלום וברכה כבוד ושמחה ואורך ימים‬for peace and blessing, respect and joy and longevity’ 1QM 1.9, but they would all be welcome to their recipients; ‫‘ יפקוד לאבות ובנים‬He will visit both fathers and children’ 4Q423 5.4; ‫מהמערב והדרום‬ ‘to the west and the south’ M30 15. A considerable discontinuation is noteworthy in ֗ ֗‫נאסר ֗תי‬ ֗ ‘I was bound fast with cords incapable of ‫בעבותי֗ ם ֗ל ֯אי֗ ן֗ נתק וזקים ללוא ישוברו‬ being sundered and with unbreakable chains’ 1QHa 13.38. Analogously in ‫נ֗ תתני במקור‬ ‫ציה‬ ֗ ‫‘ נוזלים ביבשה ומבוע מים בארץ‬You set me by a fountain of flowing water in the dry land and a spring of water in a parched land’ 1QHa 16.5; in both 1QHa passages a scribal error is not to be precluded, especially in the latter for ‫במבוע‬. However, it is perhaps preferable to take this as the start of the following, general sketch of the lush landscape.

As against ‫ולעושררו֯ ת‬ ֗ ‫ ֯ל ֗א ֗לפים ולמאיות ולחמשים‬4Q491 1-3.10 cited by Qimron (2018.408). Hence ‫מאוֹר‬, ָ not ‫ ֵמאוֹר‬in ‫‘ מאור מחושך האירותה‬You have caused a luminary to shine out of darkness’ 1QHa 17.26. 1 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 38 e-g

295

The striking absence of -‫ ל‬in ‫‘ להתנפל והתחנן‬to prostrate oneself and supplicate’ is distinct from the bare inf. constructs discussed above (§ 18 j). (1) In a pair consisting of two infinitives that form a notionally coherent unit the ‫ ל־‬may be used only with the first as in ‫‘ לשבת וקום‬to sit and stand’ 1QS 10.14, but ‫‘ לצאת ולבוא‬to go out and come in’ CD 11.10, 11. Here are some data arising from biblical manuscripts in comparison with MT. ‫ לימים ולשנים‬4Q10 2.3; ‫ִמי ָשׂ ְמָך ְל ִאישׁ ַשׂר‬ Repeated in QH: MT ‫יָמים וְ ָשׁנִ ים‬ ִ ‫ ְל‬Gn 1.14 // ‫נים‬ ‫ וְ שׁ ֵֹפט ָע ֵלינוּ‬Ex 2.14 // ‫ ולשופט‬4Q13 3i-4.15; ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֶשׁר־נִ ְק ָרא‬ ִ ‫ְל ַה ֲעלוֹת ִמ ָשּׁם ֵאת ֲארוֹן ָה ֱא‬ ‫ ֵשׁם ֵשׁם יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת‬2Sm 6.2 // ‫ את אשר נ]קרא‬4Q51; Ps 135.6 11Q5 14.14 ‫בימים ובכול‬ ‫ תהומות‬// MT ‫ל־תּהו ֺמו ֺת‬ ְ ‫בּיַּ ִמּים וְ ָכ‬. ַ Not repeated in QH: ‫ על ישׂראל ועל יהודה‬2Sm 3.10 // ‫ ו֯ יהודה‬4Q51. In BH the non-repetition of the nota obiecti and prepositions is conspicuously more frequent in LBH than in CBH. (2) The picture in QH appears to accord with that in LBH. (3) f) Repetition of -‫ ו‬and prepositions alike ‫‘ כול דבר לתורה ולהון ולמשפט‬every matter regarding teaching, assets, and judgement’ 1QS 5.3; ‫הכרך‬ ֗ ‫‘ משמעון בן כוסבה לישע בן ֗גלגלה ולאנשי‬from Shimeon son of Kwsbh to Yeshua son of Glglh and to the people of the Krk’ M43 1; ‫מן הפרנסין של בית משכו מן‬ ‫‘ ישוע ומן אלעזר‬from the administrators of Beit Mškw, from Yeshua and from Elazar’ M42.1, where the absence of -‫ ו‬from the second term suggests that the last two terms are in apposition to the first. g) Logical hierarchy between concatenated terms When two or more terms are concatenated, one could sometimes observe some logical hierarchy in the use or non-use of the conjunction waw and, if used, its position. E.g. ‫‘ נשים נאמנות וידעות ברורות ממאמר המבקר‬reliable and knowledgeable women, appointed by the supervisor’ 4Q271 3.14, where the first two attributives constitute a logical unit, not governed by ‫ ממאמר המבקר‬as ‫ ברורות‬is; ‫גשמי ברכה טל ומטר יורה ומלקוש‬ In spite of a blank before it ‫‘ והבדל‬to dissociate themselves’ 1QS 9.20 is better viewed as elaborating the immediately preceding infinitival clause, hence -‫ ל‬not repeated: ‫להשכילם כול הנמצא לעשות בעת הזואת‬ ‫‘ והבדל מכול איש אשר לא הסיר דרכיו מכול עול‬to teach them all that was discovered as required to be done at this time and to dissociate themselves from every person who has not cleared his ways of every iniquity’ [the second half rectified on the basis of a 4Q fragment, 4Q258]. Hence the subject of ‫ הבדל‬is not, pace Wernberg-Møller (1957.36) and DJD 26.119, the Master, but members of the community in his charge. So already Licht 1965.197. 2 See the frequency tables in Park 2003.33f., 54f., 88f., 101f., 112f., 123f., 148f., 156f. 3 Park’s study, though her corpus for QH is of modest scope—1QS, 1QM, 1QpHab, 1QHa, 11Q19—, appears to confirm this position, see the data presented in the tables mentioned in the preceding footnote. All the same, the data presented above from an examination of Qumran biblical manuscripts, though of limited scope, point in the reverse direction. 1

296

SYNTAX

‘rains of blessing, dew and rain, early rain and late rain’ 11Q14 1ii9; ‫לאנשי עינגדי‬ ‫‘ למשבלא ו֗ ליהו֗ נתן‬to the people at Ein Gedi, to Masabala and to Jehonathan’ 5/6Ḥev 47.1, where the absence of -‫ ו‬before ‫ ומשבלא‬may be meant to draw the matter to special attention of the two local deputies of Bar Kochba, ‘to M. and J. in particular.’ As against ‫וּבנֵ י ֲא ָרם עוּץ וְ חוּל וְ גֶ ֶתר וָ ַמשׁ‬ ְ Gn 10.23 the author of 1QM has deleted the second waw: ‫ עוץ וחול תוגר ומשא‬1QM 2.11; did his knowledge of the geography of Ancient Mesopotamia lead him to grouping the first two as separate from the last two? (1) See also ‫‘ עץ ואבן כסף וזהב‬tree and stone, silver and gold’ 11Q19 59.3; ‫לפני ולפני הכוהנים והלויים‬ ‫‘ ולפני השופטים‬before Me and before the priests and Levites and before the judges’ 11Q19 61.8, where the underlying biblical text reads ‫ ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ִל ְפנֵ י ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים וְ ַהשּׁ ְֹפ ִטים‬and the absence of ‫ לפני‬before the term added shows that priests and Levites were grouped together as a coherent unit; ‫‘ נערים אשישים וזקנים נשים וטף‬the young, the strong and the old, women and children’ 1QpHab 6.11; ‫אתה ובנכה ובתכה עבדכה ואמתכה שורכה וחמורכה‬ ‫בשערריכה‬ ̇ ‫אשר ב‬ ֯ ‫בהמתכה וגריכה‬ ‫וכול בהמתכ‬ ֯ 4Q137 1.20, sim. 4Q149 1.4 [(1) family members, (2) servants, (3) animals, and (4) foreigners] < ‫שׁוֹרָך וַ ֲחמ ְֹרָך‬ ְ ְ‫ָך־וּב ֶתָּך וְ ַע ְב ְדָּך־וַ ֲא ָמ ֶתָך ו‬ ִ ְ‫וּבנ‬ ִ ‫ַא ָתּה‬ ‫ל־בּ ֶה ְמ ֶתָּך וְ גֵ ְרָך‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָכ‬Dt 5.14, Ex 20.10 MT. In ‫אל גדול קדוש גבור ואדיר נורא ונפלא אתה‬ 4Q372 1.29 ‘(You are) a great, holy, powerful and strong, awesome and marvellous god’ it is easy to see a rationale for the paring of the last four terms, but one fails to see why the first two stand loose in the whole complex. h) Disjunctive: “neither .. nor” E.g. ‫באלף ולמד וגם באלף ודלת‬ ֗ ‫‘ וגם‬neither by Aleph and Lamed nor by Alef and Dalet’ CD 15.1. One wonders whether this usage can also be identified, the absence of ‫גם‬ notwithstanding, in ‫בש ֗דה ואל יאכל ואל ישתה‬ ֗ ‫‘ ומן האובד‬from what is lying about in the field, unclaimed, one shall neither eat nor drink’ CD 10.23. The use of -‫ ו‬to indicate alternatives is well established, e.g. ‫יוּמת‬ ָ ‫וּמ ָכרוֹ וְ נִ ְמ ָצא ְביָ דוֹ מוֹת‬ ְ ‫‘ גֹנֵ ב ִאישׁ‬one who steals a person, whether he has already sold him or is still found in his possession, shall be put to death’ Ex 21.16. Note ‫כיא לוא שאול תודכה ולוא מות יהללכה ולוא ישברו יורדי בור‬ ְ ‫תּוֹדךָּ ָמוֶ ת יְ ַה ְל ֶלךָּ ל ֹא־יְ ַשׂ ְבּרוּ‬ ֶ ‫ִכּי לֹא ְשׁאוֹל‬ ‫ אל אמתכה‬Is 38.18 1QIsaa for MT ‫יוֹר ֵדי־בוֹר‬ ‫ל־א ִמ ֶתָּך‬ ֲ ‫א‬, ֶ where 1QIsaa adds the conjunction before the second and third clauses and its formulation of the second clause makes better sense. ha) Disjunctive: “either .. or” ‫ או‬may be added to the first term as well to express the notion of “either .. or” as in ‫‘ אם קלל או להבעת מצרה או לכול דבר‬if he cursed either because of being terror-stricken or for any other reason’ 1QS 7.1. Cf. ‫ל־דּ ָבר ָט ֵמא אוֹ ְבנִ ְב ַלת ַחיָּ ה ְט ֵמ ָאה אוֹ‬ ָ ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ ֲא ֶשׁר ִתּגַּ ע ְבּ ָכ‬ ‫ ְבּנִ ְב ַלת ְבּ ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה אוֹ ְבּנִ ְב ַלת ֶשׁ ֶרץ ָט ֵמא‬Lv 5.2. This is distinct from ‫לוא תראה את שור‬ ‫‘ אחיכה או את שיו או את חמורו נדחים‬you should not see a bullock of your brother or a lamb of his or a donkey of his going astray’ 11Q19 64.13 (< Dt 22.1). 1

Cf. Van der Ploeg 1959.74.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 38 g-i

297

The addition of an extra ‫ או‬at ‫ ונדעה או אחרונות או הבאות השמיעונו‬.. Is 41.22 1QIsaa represents a sentence segmentation different than that presupposed in MT ‫יַ גִּ ישׁוּ וְ יַ גִּ ידוּ ָלנוּ‬ ‫יענוּ‬ ֻ ‫יתן אוֹ ַה ָבּאוֹת ַה ְשׁ ִמ‬ ָ ‫ימה ִל ֵבּנוּ וְ נֵ ְד ָעה ַא ֲח ִר‬ ָ ‫;את ֲא ֶשׁר ִתּ ְק ֶרינָ ה ָה ִראשׁ ֹנוֹת ָמה ֵהנָּ ה ַהגִּ ידוּ וְ נָ ִשׂ‬ ֵ in a MT the first half ends with ‫אחריתן‬, whereas in 1QIsa it ends with ‫נדעה‬. i) Apposition Not repeated before a NP in apposition: ‫‘ מעמךה ישראל‬from Your people, Israel’ 4Q504 2.11; ‫ ְל ַמ ַען ַע ְב ִדּי יַ ֲעקֹב וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְבּ ִח ִירי‬Is 45.3 // ‫ למען עבדי יעקוב ישראל בחירי‬1QIsaª (the waw is not repeated, either); ‫לכבד את עמכה ואת ציון עיר קודשכה ובית תפארתכה‬ ‘to honour Your people and Zion Your holy city and your splendid residence’ 4Q504 4.11, where ‫ בית תפארתכה‬is in apposition to ‫ציון‬, just as ‫עיר קודשכה‬. Repeated: ‫‘ מן הפרדסין של בית משכו מן ישוע ומן אלעזר‬from the administrators of Bet Mashiko, from Yeshua and from Elazar’ M42 1 (1); ‫תללו חכרתי מכם תדקלים ותשאר ֗ה ֗אילן‬ ‫‘ שבהם ותעפר הלבן ותדקל ֗ה ֗טו֗ ֗ב ותחצר שבכפר ֗תכל שהחזיק חנניה‬all these I have leased from you (including) the date palms and the remainder of the tree(s) which are in them and the white soil and the good quality date palm and the courtyard (?) which is in the village, all that Hananiah held’ 5/6Ḥev 46.4f. (‫את = ת־‬, seven times repeated, and the absence of ‫ ו־‬in the last constituent suggests that the latter is in apposition to all that precedes it). See also 5/6Ḥev 44.6-9, 5/6Ḥev 45.7f. (2) In the following two cases the repetition is only apparent, for it appears to be based on a distinct hierarchical structuring: ‫וּכ ָר ִמים‬ ְ ‫ל־א ֶרץ ְכּ ַא ְר ְצ ֶכם ֶא ֶרץ ָדּגָ ן וְ ִתירוֹשׁ ֶא ֶרץ ֶל ֶחם‬ ֶ ‫ֶא‬ a Is 36.17 but ‫ ארצ‬.. ‫ אל ארץ‬.. ‫ אל ארצ‬1QIsa , where the added preposition suggests the part ‫ כרמים‬.. ‫ ארץ דגן‬is in apposition to ‫ ארץ‬in the initial ‫ל־א ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫א‬, ֶ and not ‫ ארץ‬in ‫א ְר ְצ ֶכם‬, ַ hence it is not necessary to add the preposition to ‫בגורל בני חושך בחיל בליעל ;ארצ לחם‬ ֗ ‫‘ בגדוד אדום ומואב ובני עמון‬against the lot of the sons ‫וה ֯עמלקי ועם פלשת ובגדודי כתיי אשור‬ of darkness, against the army of Belial, against the troop of Edom and Moab and the Amalekites and the people of Philistine and against the troops of the Kitiim of Asshur’ 1QM 1.1, in which the twice repeated ‫ ב־‬in ‫ ובגדודי כתיי אשור‬.. ‫ בגדוד אדום‬specifies which ethnic backgrounds the army of Belial come from, ‫‘ חיל‬army’ being more generic and ‫‘ גדוד‬a host of troops’ more specific, and the addition of the conjunction waw in ‫ ובגדודי‬is logical. There does not appear to be any stringent rule of selection in respect of repetition or non-repetition. (3) 1

Murray (1999.45-49) regards the syntagm with a proper noun delayed and a preposition repeated as rhetorically marked for greater salience. How would he account for the textual fluctuation at Is 36.17 between MT and 1QIsaa cited below? 2 Adduced by Mor (2015.327, § 5.30) out of his corpus. 3 Thus pace Mor (2015.327, § 5.30), who thinks that a preposition is not repeated when the two terms form a semantically coherent unit, esp. when a proper noun precedes as in ‫לשמעון בן כוסבא נשיא ישראל‬ ‘to Simon .. the prince of Israel’ 5/6Ḥev 44.1 and ‫‘ ֗באברהם אבינו‬with Abraham our father’ XḤev/Ṣe 6.11. Without having undertaken any systematic investigation, ‫ המלך דוד‬with a name following must be,

298

SYNTAX

j) Nomen rectum repeated MT ‫ אלהי אברהם יצחק ויעקב‬Ex 3.16 // ‫ואלוהי יעקוב‬ ‫חק ואלוה‬ ‫ אלוהי אברהם ואלוהי ישחק‬4Q13 3 ii+56 i7; ‫ בני לוי ובני יהודה ובני בנימין‬1QM 1.2. In ‫קץ ממשל לכול אנשי גורלו וכלת עולמים לכול‬ ‫‘ גורל בליעל‬an era of the dominion for all the people of His lot but of extermination for all the lot of Belial’ 1QM 1.5 the non-repetition of ‫ קץ‬highlights a totally different outcome awaiting the second camp. k) Definite article Not repeated: Ps 136.8 11Q5 15.10 ‫( את השמש וירח‬MT ‫השּׁ ֶמשׁ‬ ֶ ‫)את‬, where the two 1 substantives form a closely knit unit, hendiadys of sorts. ( ) In ‫המפלי גאות ומודיע עוז ידו‬ ‘the One who wondrously manifests His majesty and makes the strength of His hand known’ 1QHa 26.14 [= 4Q427 7i18] a single grammatical subject is common to both participles. See also ‫‘ כול הכלים ובגדים ועורות וכול מעשה עזים‬all the utensils and (the) clothes and (the) skins and all (the) products of goatskin’ 11Q19 50.16. At .. ‫דבר י֗ הוה‬ ‫וערפל קול גדול‬ ֯ ‫הא ֯ש ֯חו֯ ֗שך וענן֯ ו‬ ֯ ‫ מתוך‬4Q129 1.10 vs. ‫ל־ק ַה ְל ֶכם ָבּ ָהר ִמתּוְֹך ָה ֵאשׁ‬ ְ ‫ל־כּ‬ ָ ‫ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ ‫ ֶה ָענָ ן וְ ָה ֲע ָר ֶפל קוֹל גָּ דוֹל‬Dt 5.22 MT we have to do with two different syntactic hierarchies —in MT three adjoining substantives are all governed by ‫מתוך‬, whereas in the Qumran text the preposition governs only ‫ האש‬and the following four, including ‫קול גדול‬, constitute a loose description of the scene (2). l) Composite numerals, on which see above at§ 26 ea. m) Coordination with or without waw in bible manuscripts (3) Here we present some data in Qumran bible manuscripts in comparison with MT. 1) MT synd. // QH asynd.: Gn 35.23-26 ‫יהוּדה‬ ָ ִ‫אוּבן וְ ִשׁ ְמעוֹן וְ ֵלוִ י ו‬ ֵ ‫ְבּנֵ י ֵל ָאה ְבּכוֹר יַ ֲעקֹב ְר‬ ‫וּבנֵ י זִ ְל ָפּה‬ ְ :‫וּבנֵ י ִב ְל ָהה ִשׁ ְפ ַחת ָר ֵחל ָדּן וְ נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬ ְ :‫וּבנְ יָ ִמן‬ ִ ‫יוֹסף‬ ֵ ‫ ְבּנֵ י ָר ֵחל‬:‫בוּלן‬ ֻ ְ‫שכר וּז‬ ָ ‫ וְ יִ ָשּׂ‬// ‫ראובן‬ however, as semantically coherent, though we find in MT ‫ את המלך דוד‬2Sm 6.16, ‫ למלך דוד‬2Sm 17.17, 21, 2Kg 11.10, and ‫ אל המלך דוד‬1Kg 1.13. Peretz (1968.133a) presents a good number of BH examples of a preposition as the second term being repeated, noting that the repetition is for the sake of emphasis. Apart from a measure of subjectivity in invoking emphasis, it is not absolutely clear which term is being emphasised, most likely the second. According to Park (2003.94-105, 150-59), cases of non-repetition account for about 75% for the nota obiecti and prepositions alike. Cf. also JM, § 132 g. In spite of a couple of striking examples mentioned by Park (ib. xiii)—‫ ַעל ַע ִמּי על ישׂראל‬2Sm 7.8, ‫ ְלעמי לישׂראל‬vs. 10 // ‫ על עמי ישׂראל‬vs. 11 and ‫את עמי את‬ ‫ על עמי ישׂראל‬.. ‫ ישראל‬1Ch 11.2, the variation may not be dismissed as purely arbitrary. 1 Though no Qumran biblical manuscript has been preserved, we find ‫ ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ וְ ַהיָּ ֵר ַח‬Gn 37.9; ‫ַהיָּ ֵר ַח‬ ‫כוֹכ ִבים‬ ָ ְ‫ ו‬Ps 136.9 // ‫כּוֹכ ִבים‬ ָ ‫ ַה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ וְ ָהאוֹר וְ ַהיָּ ֵר ַח וְ ַה‬Ec 12.2. 2 Hence in the LXX the last four are all in the nominative case: ἐλάλησεν .. ἐκ μέσου τοῦ πυρὸς, σκότος, γνόφος, θύελλα, φωνὴ μεγάλη. 3 Cf. Kutscher 1974.414-29.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 38 j-m

299

֗ 4Q1 5.6f.; ‫ֶא ֶרץ ַה ְכּנַ ֲענִ י וְ ַה ִח ִתּי‬ ‫לפ ֯ה‬ ֯ ‫ ו֯ בנימין בני בלהה שפחת רחל דן ונפתלי בני ז֯ ל‬... ֗‫ושמעוון‬ ‫יְבוּסי‬ ִ ‫ וְ ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי וְ ַה ִחוִּ י וְ ַה‬Ex 13.5 // ‫נעני החתי החוי האמרי היבוסי‬ ‫ ארץ הכנעני‬4Q16 1.5; ‫ֶל ֶחם וְ ָק ִלי‬ ‫ וְ ַכ ְר ֶמל‬Lv 23.14 // ‫ לחם קלי וכרמל‬4Q24 9ii+11ii+18-20i12; ‫יתָך יִ נְ צֹרוּ‬ ְ ‫וּב ִר‬ ְ ‫ָשׁ ְמרוּ ִא ְמ ָר ֶתָך‬ ‫ שמר אמרתך בריתך ינצר‬4Q35 11-15.3; ‫ וְ ע ֶֹשׂה ֶח ֶסד‬.. ‫ פ ֵֹקד ֲעו ֺן ָאבו ֺת‬Dt 5.8 // Dt 33.9 // ‫צר‬ ‫ עושה חסד‬.. 4Q41 3.6. An exegetical ambiguity is inherent in ‫ל־בּנִ ים‬ ָ ‫פּ ֵֹקד ֲעוֹן ָאבוֹת ַע‬ ‫ל־ר ֵבּ ִעים‬ ִ ‫ל־שׁ ֵלּ ִשׁים וְ ַע‬ ִ ‫וְ ַע‬, where ‫ בנים‬can be understood as equivalent ‘a second generation, whereas in ‫ על בנים על שלשים ועל רבעים‬4Q41 3.5 the same word is most naturally taken as meaning offspring in general, and what is possibly meant by the following phrase is indicated by the LXX rendition of the parallel passage, Ex 20.4 MT = 4Q41 3.5 > ἐπὶ τέκνα ἕωσ τρίτησ καὶ τετάρτησ γενεᾶς. Conversely, the QH text is less problematic: ‫ לֹא־יַ ְשׁ ִאירוּ ִמ ְחיָ ה ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ֶשׂה וָ שׁוֹר וַ ֲחמוֹר‬Jdg 6.4, which is rather difficult // ‫ מחיה‬.. ‫ בישראל שה שור וח]מו[ר‬4Q49 1.3. MT asynd. // QH synd.: ‫ אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב‬Ex 3.15 // ‫אלהי אברהם‬ ‫ ואלהי יצחק‬4Q1 19ii11; ‫י־שׁם‬ ֵ ‫מוֹעד ַאנְ ֵשׁ‬ ֵ ‫יאי ֵע ָדה ְק ִר ֵאי‬ ֵ ‫ נְ ִשׂ‬Nu 16.2 // ‫ ואנשי שם‬.. 4Q27 6-10.14; also Nu 31.50 // 4Q27 60-64.6; ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ֲחצוּ ִהזַּ כּוּ ָה ִסירוּ ר ַֹע ַמ ַע ְל ֵל‬Is 1.16 ָ ‫ וְ ָר ִא‬Dt 20.1 // ‫ועם רב‬ and 4QIsaf // ‫ רחצו והזכו והסירו‬1QIsaa; ‫ית סוּס וָ ֶר ֶכב ַעם ַרב ִמ ְמָּך‬ 1 ִ ‫ ְמב ֶֹר ֶכת יְ הוָֹ ה ַא ְר ֑צוֹ ִמ ֶמּגֶ ד ָשׁ ַמיִ ם ִמ ָטּל‬Dt 33.13 // 4Q33 13-16.6 ( ); ‫וּמ ְתּהוֹם ר ֶֹב ֶצת ָתּ ַחת‬ ‫ מ][ל ומתהום‬.. ‫ וממגד‬4Q35 11-15.6, where, as shown by the athnach with ‫ארצו‬, the MT probably wishes to take what follows as an explication of the opening clause; ‫ילם וְ ַל ְכּ ָב ִשׂים‬ ִ ‫ ַל ָפּ ִרים ָל ֵא‬Nu 29.18 // ‫ לפרים ולאי֗ לים ולכבשים‬4Q366 3.4, sim. ib. 7 // Nu 29.21. 2) Verbs, MT asynd. // QH synd.: ‫ נֵ ְל ָכה נִ זְ ְבּ ָחה‬Ex 5.8 // ‫ נלכה ונזבחה‬4Q1 22ii+ 26.9; ‫א־ת ְח ַסר כֹּל ָבּהּ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ל־בּהּ ֶל ֶחם ל‬ ָ ‫אכ‬ ַ ֹ ‫ לֹא ְב ִמ ְס ֵכּנֻ ת תּ‬Dt 8.9 // ‫ ולא תחסר‬4Q33 4-6.10, 4Q41 1.6. MT synd. // QH asynd.: ‫ ְשׂאוּ־נֵ ס ָה ִרימוּ קוֹל ָל ֶהם ָהנִ יפוּ יָ ד וְ יָ בֹאוּ ִפּ ְת ֵחי נְ ִד ִיבים‬Is 13.2 // ‫ יבאו‬.. 4Q55 8.4. 3) Classified into groups: ‫ יָ ָמּה וְ ָצפוֹנָ ה וָ נֶ גְ ָבּה‬Dn 8.4 // ‫ יימה ומזרחה צפונה ונגבה‬4Q112 14.16; ‫וּמזְ ָר ָחה‬ ִ ‫ימנָ ה‬ ָ ‫יָמּה וְ ָצפֹנָ ה וְ ֵת‬ ָ Dt 3.27 // ‫ ים וצפנה תימנה ומזרחה‬4Q31 2.17. Note an ֗ ‫ובחמה‬ example in a text which is not a bible manuscript: ‫ובחרן אף וזעף אפים ידברו‬ ֗ ‫וכעס וב‬ 1QpHab 3.12. 4) In poetic parallelism MT asynd. // QH synd.: ‫אכל ָבּ ָשׂר ִמ ַדּם ָח ָלל וְ ִשׁ ְביָ ה ֵמרֹאשׁ ַפּ ְרעוֹת אוֹיֵב‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ַח ְר ִבּי תּ‬Dt 33.42 // ‫ ומראש פרעות אויב‬.. 4Q44 5ii.5. MT synd. // QH asynd.: ‫ימינִ י ִט ְפּ ָחה ָשׁ ָמיִ ם‬ ִ ִ‫ ַאף־יָ ִדי יָ ְס ָדה ֶא ֶרץ ו‬Is 48.13 // ‫ימיני‬ 4Q58 3.21.

‫ עם רב ממך‬is possibly not to be construed with ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ר ִא‬,ָ but extraposed and to be construed with the immediately following ‫לֹא ִת ָירא ֵמ ֶהם‬. Alternatively ‫ עם רב‬MT is an explicative apposition to the preceding ‫סוס ורכב‬. Cf. LXX καὶ λαὸν πλείονά σου. 1

300

SYNTAX

§ 39 CIRCUMSTANTIAL CLAUSE (1) As in BH, so in QH the flow of a discourse may be temporally interrupted, and an off-line utterance describing an attendant circumstance is inserted. Such a clause is commonly known as circumstantial. With a NC: ‫‘ ופשעי לנגד עיני‬when my iniquities are in my sight’ 1QS 10.11; ‫ופרי‬ ‫‘ קודש בלשוני‬whilst fruits of holiness are in my tongue’ 1QS 10.22; ‫לוא תזבח לי שור‬ ‫‘ ושה ועז והמה מלאות‬you shall not offer Me a sacrifice of a cow or a ewe or she-goat when they are pregnant’ 11Q19 52.5; ‫והבשר עליהם‬ ֯ ‫‘ הם או֯ כלים ֗מקצת ֯ע ֯צ ֗מות המקדש‬they eat some of the bones of the sanctuary when flesh is (still) on them’ MMT B 58; ‫הזונות‬ ‫‘ הנעסה בתוך העם והמה בני‬the intermarriage being practised among the people, ‫ני זרע קדש‬ whilst they are sons of holy seed’ MMT B 75. The subject is often fronted, but it is delayed in ‫‘ יצאו עמהמה שבעה לויים ובידם שבעת שופרות היובל‬seven Levites shall march out with them as they have (each) the seven ram’s horns in their hand’ 1QM 7.14. A circumstantial clause is usually introduced with the conjunction waw, but asyndetically in ‫‘ כל הריהם שממים‬all their mountains are desolate’ 4Q372 1.11. The unique nature of a circumstantial clause stands out when its temporal situation differs from that of the verb in the preceding main-line clause. E.g. ‫ונפל אשור ואין עוזר לו‬ ‘and Assyria will fall, but there will be none to come to his aid’ 1QM 1.6 (2); ‫יצאו עמהמה‬ ‫‘ שבעה לויים ובידם שבעת שופרות היובל‬seven Levites shall go out with them, carrying seven ram’s horns in their hand’ 1QM 7.14. This is manifest when a predicatively used participle (3) appears in a circumstantial clause, e.g. ‫‘ ישקר בהון והואה יודע‬he lies ֯ ‫ והגיד נמלא ֯דם‬.. ‫אם‬ over the assets, and that knowingly’ 1QS 6.24 (4); ‫ורוח החיים עולה‬ ‫‘ ויורדת בו‬if .. and the artery filled up with blood, with the spirit of life going up and ‫לבב בני‬ ֯ ‫מאמצ ֗ת‬ ׄ ‫‘ יהיו להמס לבב וגבורת אל‬their heart(s) will down in it’ 4Q266 6i11; ‫אור‬ ֯ ‫ני או‬ faint, with God’s might, however, fortifying the heart(s) of the sons of light’ 1QM 1.14; asyndetically, not introduced with the conjunction waw—‫יתקרבו לנחשיר גדול עדת אלים‬ 1 Polak 2014 attempts to show that some circumstantial clauses in BH do not provide mere background information, but bridge what precedes and what follows, serving as an important trigger for what is going to happen and emerge subsequently. 2 The use of will in the translation of the circumstantial clause is dictated by the English grammar. We would not say that ‫ ולוא יהיה עוזר לו‬is un-Hebraic here, but what matters is the formulation without the use of the future ‫ יהיה‬is totally idiomatic. Likewise ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫יהם ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה וְ ֵאין ַמ ִצּיל ֵבּינ‬ ֶ ֵ‫‘ וַ יִּ נָּ צוּ ְשׁנ‬they two fought (each other) in the field and there was none who could part them’ 2Sm 14.6, where ‫ ולא היה מציל‬would be tolerable. 3 More examples may be found in Geiger 2012.254-58. His definition of circumstantial clause appears a shade too broad. E.g. we fail to see what is the main clause of ‫‘ הכול חקוק לפניכה‬everything is engraved before You’ 1QHa 9.26 (mentioned on p. 256) or ‫‘ יעקוב בן֗ יהוסף מעיד‬Jacob, son of Joseph, witnessing’ M42 13 (ib.). 4 Though the ptc. refers to a potential occurrence, it does not, pace Kesterson (1984.193), carry the value of future perfect. The same reservation applies to Kesterson’s (ib. 194) analysis of ‫‘ קורה‬reading’ and ‫‘ מברך‬blessing’ 1QS 7.1, ‫‘ מעידים‬testifying’ CD 9.20, and ‫‘ שופים‬rubbed’ CD 11.4. Cf. ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς, συνειδυίης καὶ τῆς γυναικός ‘he kept back part of the proceeds (of the sale) with his wife’s knowledge’ Acts 5.2, where also the use of a circumstantial ptc. is to be noted, as rightly recognised by F. Delitzsch in his Hebrew rendition, ‫ם־היא‬ ִ ַ‫וְ ִא ְשׁתּוֹ י ַֹד ַעת גּ‬.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 39 – § 40 a

301

‫‘ וקהלת אנשים בני אור וגורל חושך נלחמים יחד‬they will face each other for a fierce battle, with the assembly of the gods and the congregation of the sons of light (on the one hand) and the lot of darkness (on the other) battling together’ 1QM 1.10; ‫אחריהם יצאו‬ ‫ הדגל הראישון מחזיק חנית ומגן‬.. ‫‘ שני דגלי בינים‬after them there shall march out two infantry battalions, with the first battalion holding a spear and a shield’ 1QM 6.4. See also an extensively reconstructed case in ‫דברי יהוה ׁוׁושמואל שו֯ ֗כ ֗ב ֗לפני עלי‬ ֗ ‫את‬ ֗ ‫שמואל א‬ ֗ ‫וישמע‬ ‫וי‬ ‘and Samuel heard the words of YHWH and Samuel was lying before Eli’ 4Q160 1.3. The use of the Pf. in ‫‘ אשר יהלך לפני רעהו ערום ולוא היה אנוש‬he who walks about naked before his colleague, not coerced’ 1QS 7.12 is an extremely rare instance. (1)

§ 40 NEGATION (2) a) ‫ לא‬and ‫( אל‬3) A series of injunctions opens with ‫‘ אל יבוא—אל‬none shall enter’ 1QS 5.13, then is followed with ‫לא‬, but each in an ‫אשר‬-clause (4): .. ‫ אשר לוא ישוב‬.. ‫אשר לוא ייחד עמו‬ ‫‘ אשר לוא יוכל‬one shall not associate with him .. one shall not respond .. one shall not eat’ 1QS 5.14. Unlike in .. ‫ אל ימכר איש בהמה‬.. ‫אל ישא מהונם כל בעבור אשר לא יגדפו‬ ‫‘ בעבור אשר לא יזבחום‬Let him not carry off any of their property so that one would not blaspheme .. Let nobody sell an animal .. in order that one may not sacrifice them’ CD 12.7, the ‫אשר‬-clauses in 1QS 5 are not subordinate to any other, so that the presence of the ‫ אשר‬most likely constrained the use of ‫אל‬. (5) However, this vacillation occurs also in independent clauses, e.g. ‫‘ לוא יגע‬he shall not touch’ 1QS 6.16 // ‫ אל יגע‬ib. 20; ‫‘ אל יבואו‬they shall not enter’ 1QSa 2.8 // ‫לוא יבוא‬ ‫ואו‬ ‫ לו‬ib. 10. Note further fluctuations between the two negators: ‫ל־תּ ָשּׂא ָל ֶהם‬ ִ ‫ ַא‬Is 2.9 // ‫לא] [שא‬ 4QIsaa [= 4Q55] 2-3.2, likewise 4QIsab [= 4Q56] 2.7. (6) Also the other way round: ‫ל־א ָשּׁה וְ לֹא־יִ ְל ַבּשׁ גֶּ ֶבר ִשׂ ְמ ַלת ִא ָשּׁה‬ ִ ‫‘ לֹא־יִ ְהיֶ ה ְכ ִלי־גֶ ֶבר ַע‬a man’s garment shall not be on a woman’ Dt 22.5 // ‫ ואל ילבש כתונ֗ ֯ת אשה‬.. ‫ אל יהיו ֗כלי גבר על אשה‬4Q159 2-4+8.6. (7) It appears that this has escaped Geiger (2012.254). BH examples are: ‫ וְ ֵעינָ יו ֵה ֵחלּוּ ֵכהוֹת‬1Sm 3.2; ‫ל־תּ ַא ֲחרוּ א ִֹתי וַ יהוָ ה ִה ְצ ִל ַיח ַדּ ְר ִכּי‬ ְ ‫ ַא‬Gn 24.56. The second example shows that such a Pf. is not always equivalent to the Past Perfect or Pluperfect in English and some other languages; the temporal situation of ‫ִה ְצ ִל ַיח‬ is anterior to that of ‫תּ ַא ֲחרוּ‬. ְ See above at § 14 d. 2 Cf. Muraoka 1996a.69f. and id. 2010.297-301. 3 Cf. Qimron 1983 and Kaddari 1991.61. ‫ אל‬does not occur at all in documents originating outside of the Qumran caves, Mor 2015.288, n. 98. 4 Thus the two, pace Qimron 2018.415, are not freely interchangeable. 5 This syntagm reminds us of another deontic one, , on which see above at § 15 daf. 6 Williamson (2006.196) thinks that ‫ לא‬is softer in tone than “a blunt, negative command” by means of ‫אל‬. Could one say the same on the negative commands in the Decalogue, the best example of biblical apodictic laws? Cf. JM § 113 m, 123 u-v, and Qimron 1983.475f., with n. 8. See also our observation above at § 15 da, p. 63, n. 2. 7 Qimron (2018.414) speaks of ‫ אל‬encroaching in QH on the domain of ‫לא‬, “accompanied by the collapse of the verbal moods,” see also Qimron 1983.479. Whilst the decline of the classical modal 1

302

SYNTAX

A rare instance of ‫ אל‬negating a cohortative is ‫‘ אל אתקלה‬I would not like to stumble’ 11Q5 19.14 [= 11Q6 4-5.15], cf. ‫בוֹשׁה‬ ָ ‫ל־א‬ ֵ ‫ ַא‬Ps 25.2. b) ‫ לא‬as a negator of the ptc., which is not common, is exemplified in ‫כאשר היתה‬ ‫רחל לוא ילדה בנים ֗ק ֗צה בחייה‬ ֗ ‘when Rachel did not bear children a long time, she became fed up with her life’ 4Q215 1.9 (1), on which see above at § 17 fe, fn. 9 ad loc.; ‫החוץ‬ ֿ ‫‘ לוא נראים האופנים אל‬the wheels are not visible outside’ 4Q365a 5i4; ‫לא‬ ‫‘ נודע מי גנבו‬it is unknown who stole it’ CD 9.11 (2); ‫ לוא שותה מים‬1QIsaa 44.12 (MT: ‫)שׁ ָתה‬ ָ (3). Note also ‫בש ֗ל ֗א עוסה‬ ֗ ‘which he does not work on’ M24 B 11; ‫ ולא‬.. ‫אתן‬ ‫‘ דאגין לאחיכן‬you are not taking care of your brothers’ 5/6Ḥev 49.3 (4). See also below at § p. (5) c) ‫אין‬ A) Action or state negated with a determinate noun ֗ ‫‘ אין אתה‬You do not need any nation’ i) (6): ‫צרי֗ ך לכל גוי‬ 4Q372 1.17; ‫ אין הם מבדיל‬CD 5.6, for ‫‘ אין הוא בחון ;מבדילים‬he is not experienced’ CD 13.3. Cf. below at v).

opposition is evident, as shown above § 16 f, neither Qimron nor anybody else has demonstrated that LBH often uses ‫ אל‬where ‫ לא‬would be classical. Qimron (2018.414, n. 138) seeks support in Bergsträsser (1929, § 10 l). In Bergsträsser we find only three passages mentioned, but in all of them we find no problem with the conventional analysis—‫ ַאל־יֶ ֱח ַרשׁ‬Ps 50.3, ‫ ַאל־יִ ֵתּן ַלמּוֹט‬Ps 121.3, and ‫ַאל־יֵ ֶרא‬ Jb 20.17. 1 Note the position of ‫לא‬, not ‫ ;לא היתה‬equivalent to ‘infertile’? Likewise in an elliptic utterance consisting only of ‫ לא נכון‬1QHa 12.19, mentioned by Geiger (2012.299), ‫ לא‬may not be negating the entire statement. The ptc. in ‫נושבת‬ ֗ ‫‘ בארץ לוא‬in an uninhabited land’ 4Q383a 1.3, also quoted by Geiger (loc. cit.), we have an attributively used ptc. Despite its anomalous spelling with a waw, ‫ מוחלה‬in ‫שדפון‬ ֗ ‫מוחלה‬ ֗ ‫ולוא‬ ‫ וירקון‬11Q14 1ii12, pace DJD 23.249, must be a substantive, ‫( ַמ ֲח ָלה‬Ex 23.25), in view of the following two substantives, and not a Hpass ptc. In ‫ לא נאסף‬MasSir 5.11 we probably have a Pf. ‫נֶ ֱא ַסף‬, cf. LXX προσετέθη. 2 Not entirely impossible that ‫ = נודע‬Pf. ‫נוֹדע‬ ַ ‘it has not been found out.’ 3 Mentioned by Geiger (2012.300). 4 Milik (DJD 2.127) refers to Segal 1958 § 339f., where Segal attaches emphatic force to ‫ לא‬negating a participle. Segal, however, specifies syntactic environments where such applies, and the incomplete context of the Murabbaat document does not allow us to be certain in this regard. 5 Fassberg (2019.124, § 287) holds that an active ptc. negated with ‫ לא‬is emphatic, a point notoriously difficult to demonstrate convincingly. 6 This syntagm, namely ‫ ֵאין ֲאנִ י‬instead of ‫אינֶ נִּ י‬, ֵ is unknown in BH (JM § 160 b). Pace Geiger (2012.305, n. 381), ‫ין־אנַ ְחנוּ פ ְֹשׁ ִטים ְבּגָ ֵדינוּ‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ֵאין ֲאנִ י וְ ַא ַחי וּנְ ָע ַרי וְ ַאנְ ֵשׁי ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָמר ֲא ֶשׁר ַא ֲח ַרי ֵא‬Neh 4.17 is not contradictory, see Gesenius’s analysis (GKC § 152 n): “In Neh 417 ‫ ֵאין ֲאנִ י‬for ‫ ֵא ֶ֫יננִּ י‬is due to its being coordinate with three other (substantival) subjects; these are again expressly summed up in ‫ין־אנַ ְחנוּ‬ ֲ ‫א‬.” ֵ We share the reservation expressed by Carmignac (1974.411) about a second possible BH example: ‫ם־הם ֵאין ִא ִתּי‬ ֵ ַ‫‘ גּ‬they are not with us, either’ Ps 38.11, for the notion of either cannot be expressed otherwise. See also above at § 1 c iv). MH proffers instances such as ‫יוֹד ִעין‬ ְ ‫בוּעה ֶשׁ ֵאין ָאנוּ‬ ָ ‫‘ ְשׁ‬an oath that we do not know’ mSheb 4.3; ‫ִאם ֵאין ֲאנִ י‬ ‫ ִמי ִלי‬,‫‘ ִלי‬if I am not for myself, who is for me?’ mAb 1.14, both examples mentioned by Azar (1995 § 5.1.1), though in the second case there is an element of contrast between I and Who.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 40 a-c

303

ii) : ‫אף אמי איננה מאמנת‬ ֿ ‘my mother does not believe, either’ 4Q200 4.4. iii) : ‫נקשר‬ ̇ ‫‘ את אשר איננו‬him who (or: that which) is not tied’ ‫‘ כול איש א‬everyone who does not touch the drink of CD 13; ‫אשר איננו נ֗ וגע במשקי הרבים‬ ֗ ‘the blind who the Many’ 4Q284a 1.2; ‫אשם אינם רואים‬ ֗ ‫ ותערובת א‬.. ‫הסומיים ֗שאינם רואים‬ do not see .. and a mixture that incurs (reparation-)offering do not see’ MTT B 49; ‫‘ המוצקות אינם מבדילות‬the streams do not separate’ MMT B 56; ‫לאזן אשר איננה‬ ‫‘ שומעת‬to an ear which would not hear’ 4Q424 3.5; ‫סורר ומורר ואננו שומע בקולנו‬ ֗ ‫בננו זה‬ 11Q19 64.4 < Dt 21.20 MT, almost identical at ‫ומורה ֯אנ֗ נ֗ ו֗ ֗שו֗ ֗מ ֗ע‬ ֯ ‫כי יהיה לאי֗ ֗ש ֯בן֯ ֯סו֯ ֯רר‬ ֗‫ בקול אביהו‬ib. 64.2 < Dt 21.18 MT, where the suffix of ‫ אננו‬refers to ‫בן‬, an indeterminate noun, but once he has been introduced in a complete clause, he is now contextually determinate, and that is explicitly marked in ‫בננו זה‬. iv) : ‫‘ איני֗ צריך‬I do not need’ M46 2; ‫‘ אינן כשיריןין‬they are not suitable’ Mas Ins 449. v) : ‫‘ אין האנשים האלה רשאים לרדף‬these people are not authorised to pursue’ 5/6Ḥev 44.24 (1). vi) : ‫‘ ווהו֗ א אין ֗הו֗ א כוהן‬and he is not priest’ 11Q19 35.4, where ‫ אינו‬would be normal; is the use of the separate pronoun comparable to an accusing finger pointed at him? Beside, the pronoun is repeated; the person in question is probably mentioned in the preceding lacuna. We apparently have no scribal error here, seeing that the same feature is repeated a mere two lines below— ‫בגדי הקודש‬ ֯ ‫בוש‬ ֗ ‫‘ והוא אין ֗הו֗ ֗א ֗ל‬and he is not clothed with the priestly uniform’ line 6. (2) Cf. above at i). Aa) ‫ אין‬indicating absence It is logical that this should happen with a determinate noun. i) : ‫שע אינמה עוד‬ ֗ ‫(‘ כול תומכי רזי ֗פש‬none of) all those who support iniquitous mysteries is there any longer’ 1Q27 1i7. (3) ii) : ‫בקרבך ֗בליעל‬ ֗ ‫‘ אין‬there is no Belial in your midst’ 4Q88 10.9 (4). Cf. ‫ ֵאין־יו ֵֺסף ַבּבֹר‬Gn 37.29, on which see above at § 33 fa, p. 265, n. 3. In BH the subject may precede ‫אין‬, e.g. ‫ן־העוֹר‬ ָ ‫ ַמ ְר ֵאה ַהנֶּ ֶתק ֵאין ָעמֹק ִמ‬Lv 13.32, cf. ‫ין־מ ְר ֶא ָה‬ ַ ‫ָעמֹק ֵא‬ ‫ן־העוֹר‬ ָ ‫ ִמ‬vs. 4. See Muraoka 1985.106. 2 This is how Qimron (1996) previously read, but now (I 174) ‫בבגדי‬. ֯ The only case in BH and QH, where this high-frequency verb takes -‫ ב‬and a garment is ‫יָביאוּ ְלבוּשׁ ַמ ְלכוּת ֲא ֶשׁר ָל ַבשׁ־בּוֹ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ִ Est 6.8. For ‫תלבש איש בבגדים‬ ֯ ‫ אל י֯ תלב‬4Q265 6.3 (DJD 35.68) Qimron (III 47) reads ‫תכס‬ ֗ ‫אל י֯ תכ‬. 3 “none of” is not in the Hebrew text, but from the context the meaning is not partial negation, ‘some will be there, though not all.’ 4 Carmignac (1974.411) notes that in QH, compared with BH, a substantive is separated from ‫ אין‬far less frequently; he found only eight such cases out of 142. With new documents taken into account the ratio comes to 22/245, in percentage terms 6% vs. 9%, a 50% increase. All the same the fact remains that ‫ אין‬and the subject NP tend to stay together. 1

304

SYNTAX

B) Existence negated with an indeterminate noun (1) i) < ‫ אין‬- ni>: ‫‘ אין מלך‬there is no king’ CD 20.16. ii) When a prepositional phrase is added, the relative sequence of the three constituents varies. Thus : ‫ אין מים לה‬1QIsaa // ‫ ַמיִ ם ֵאין ָלהּ‬Is 1.30 MT; ‫אין מעוז‬ ‫‘ לי‬I have no strength’ 1QHa 16.28; ‫‘ אין להם חלק בבית התורה‬they have no part in the house of the Law’ CD 20.10; ‫דולג עלי חוק‬ ֗ ‫‘ אין ֗במה‬there is none among them who transgresses a law’ 4Q405 23i28; ‫לכול גבוריהם אין מציל ולקליהם‬ ‫‘ אין מנוס‬none of the mighty warriors among them has a rescuer, and those swift among them have no chance of escape’ 1QM 14.11; (2) ‫‘ ומחסי בשר אין לי‬and I have no human refuge’ 1QHa 15.20; ‫‘ וניחוח אין בו‬and there is no pleasing odour in it’ 4Q179 1i6; ‫‘ וחפץ אין בו‬and there is no delight in him’ 4Q179 2.10, all introduced with the conjunction -‫ו‬. (3) iii) ‫ ושכלה אינה בהם‬4Q106 2i-5.10 // ‫ וְ ַשׁ ֻכּ ָלה ֵאין ָבּ ֶהם‬Ct 4.2 MT, a rather striking and rarely attested pattern. (4) A substantivised, anarthrous participle often fills the slot for an , e.g. ‫ואין עוזר‬ ‫‘ לו‬and he has no rescuer’ 1QM 1.6. (5) 1 Van Peursen (1999.226) introduces a new syntagm for expressing absence by means of ‫לא‬. ‫זכר כי לא‬ ‫‘ בשאול תענוג‬Remember that there is no pleasure in Hades’ Si 14.12 follows the advice to enjoy yourself to the maximum while you are still alive. Hence ‫ לא‬is likely negating ‫ בשאול‬alone: ‘it’s not in Sheol that you can expect fun.’ In the second example at Si 39.20 the reading is rather uncertain; Beentjes (1997.67) leaves a lacuna there. In two QH instances mentioned by van Peursen can be comfortably analysed as indicating categorical negation (§ g below), hence total absence: ‫רמיה‬ ֗ ‫אין הולל בכול מעשיך ולא‬ ‫‘ ֯במזמת לבכה‬there is no delusion in all Your works and no deception whatsoever in the intentions of Your mind’ 1QHa 12.21; ‫לכול ֯בני אשמה‬ ֗ ‫הוות ולא מענה לשון‬ ֗ ‫‘ ו֗ אין ֗פה לרוח‬and the spirit of of destruction has no way of speaking and none of the sons of guilt has any answer whatsoever ready’ 1QHa 15.14. These two last examples fit a MH rule mentioned by Azar (1995.173), to whom van Peursen refers, namely a negatively worded existential clause uses ‫לא‬, e.g. ‫‘ ֵאין גֵּ ט ַא ַחר גֵּ ט וְ לֹא ַמ ֲא ָמר ַא ַחר ַמ ֲא ָמר‬no bill of divorce (has validity) after another bill of divorce nor has any statement (of betrothal) validity after another statement’ mYeb 5.1. 2 A rare pattern with postposed ‫אין‬, as noted by Carmignac 1974.407. In BH the negator in אין‬is vocalised as ‫איִ ן‬, ַ e.g. ‫ וְ גֶ ֶשׁם ָאיִ ן‬Pr 25.14, but when followed by a p.p. of locative value, the vocalisation changes to ‫אין‬, ֵ e.g. ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶל ֶחם ֵאין ְבּ ָכ‬Gn 47.13. An inf. cst. following does not lead to this change, hence ‫ת־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָא ָדם ַאיִ ן ַל ֲעבֹד ֶא‬Gn 2.5, likewise a verbal noun as in ‫וְ כ ַֹח ַאיִ ן‬ ‫ ְל ֵל ָדה‬2Kg 19.3. Cf. Muraoka 1985.102 (3), 104 (10). Hence in the above-cited QH cases we could follow this distinction, e.g. ֺ ‫וְ נִ חו ַֺח ֵאין בּו‬. Krotzé (2016.32f.), who argues that at ‫זוּל ִתי‬ ָ ‫וּמוֹשׁ ַיע ַאיִ ן‬ ִ ‫ל־צ ִדּיק‬ ַ ‫ֹלהים ִמ ַבּ ְל ָע ַדי ֵא‬ ִ ‫ֲהלוֹא ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה וְ ֵאין־עוֹד ֱא‬ Is 45.21 the second negating clause begins with ‫איִ ן‬, ַ does not take into account this distinction in its vocalisation and the resultant absence of an expected indeterminate noun before it. 3 ‫ •• דברים אין לי‬M30 6 (DJD 2.145) is read by Yardeni (I 51) as ‫בי֗ ֗ת ֗א ֗דו֗ נ֗ י֗ אין לי‬, ֗ translated “in the house of my lord I do not have (any claims)” (II 28). 4 In BH we find ‫ר־אינֶ נּוּ נָ קֹד וְ ָטלוּא ָבּ ִעזִּ ים‬ ֵ ‫ כֹּל ֲא ֶשׁ‬Gn 30.33; ‫ א ֶֹהל ְר ָשׁ ִעים ֵאינֶ נּוּ‬Job 8.22, where ‫ ְר ָשׁ ִעים‬is parallel to ‫ ְר ָשׁ ִעים עוֹד ֵאינָ ם ;שׂ ֹנְ ֶאיָך‬Ps 104.35, so that the NP may be meant to be determinate; ‫ְשׂ ַכר ַה ְבּ ֵה ָמה‬ ‫ ֵאינֶ נָּ ה‬Zc 8.10, also gender discord. 5 Quite a few analogous examples are mentioned in Geiger 2012.303. ‫אין כתוב כי אם נוקם הוא לצריו‬ CD 9.5 cited there is distinct; ‫ כתוב‬is impersonal—‘what is written concerns a case in which he avenges his adversaries.’

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 40 c-d

305

Ba) (1) In BH poetry ‫ ֶא ֶפס‬is used as a synonym of ‫ ַאיִ ן‬denoting non-existence, a usage appropriately preserved in Hodayot: ‫‘ ואפס כמוה‬and there is nothing like it’ 1QHa 12.37; ‫‘ עד אפס כול שוֿ תיהם‬until there are none of those who drink of them’ 1QHa 11.31. d) ‫ לא‬or ‫ אל‬+ sg. abs. noun for categorical negation (2) ‫לנפשכ ֗ה‬ ֗ ‫(‘ אל מנוח‬Let there be) no peace of mind at all for you’ 4Q417 2i22, sim. 4Q416 2ii9. (3) In ‫‘ ויתעם בתוהו ולא דרך‬and he misled them into a wilderness, and not a way at all’ CD 1.15 (4) we have a standard use of the negator. ‫אל‬, not ‫לא‬, is selected when the utterance is volitive in nature, so also in BH, e.g. ‫ל־תּ ֱח ַרשׁ‬ ֶ ‫י־לְך ַא‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ַאל־דֳּ ִמ‬ ִ ‫ֱא‬ ‫ל־תּ ְשׁקֹט ֵאל‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַא‬Ps 83.2, where is in parallelism. When preceded in poetic parallelism by a negating utterance, the negator with a sg. NP is not for categorical negation, but corresponds to Engl. nor. E.g. ‫ואין משכלה בארצכם‬ ‫שדפון וירקון לוא יראה בתבואתיה‬ ̇ ‫‘ ולוא מוחלה‬and there will be no miscarriage in your land nor disease. Drought and blight will not be spotted in your crops’ 11Q14 1ii11, where the last clause, also negating, reverts to fuller formulation. Analogously ‫אין הולל‬ ‫רמיה ֯במזמת לבכה‬ ֗ ‫‘ בכול מעשיך ולא‬there is no folly in any of your deeds nor deception ֗ ‫הוות ולא מענה לשון‬ ֗ ‫‘ אין ֗פה לרוח‬the in your heart’s thought’ 1QHa 12.21; ‫לכול ֯בני אשמה‬ spirit of destruction has no mouth (to defend itself with) nor any guilty person has a tongue to answer with’ 1QHa 15.14; ‫‘ אין לשלוח פעם ו֯ לא מצעד לקול רגלי‬it is not possible to step forward nor the (usual) agility of my feet (allows me) to walk along’ 1QHa 16.35. (5) See also ‫‘ לחכמתכה אין מדה‬Your wisdom is totally immeasurable’ 1QHa 17.17. Examples in prose are ‫‘ אל יודיעהו איש‬nobody shall let him know’ CD 15.10; ‫איש‬ ָ fronted—‫‘ איש לא י֗ טכה‬Let no man distract you’ 4Q416 2ii7 (6); in view of ‫וּבנִ ים לא ָהיוּ‬ ֺ ‫ לו‬Nu 27.3 we could perhaps reconstruct ‫ ובן ללוא היה לו‬at 4Q27 42-47.7 (7); ‫צריך לו֗ ֗אחת‬ ‫‘ אלה שלו‬he does not need anything whatsoever other than his own’ M46 6. e) ‫( בלתי‬8) An infinitive may be negated with ‫ בלתי‬as in ‫‘ לבלתי התיסר‬not to be inculcated’ 1QS 3.6; ‫‘ הקימותי על נפשי לבלתי חטוא לך‬I vowed on my life not to sin against You’ ‫ אפס כי‬is a distinct, compound conjunction with concessive value in ‫כיא לא י֯ ֗דעו‬ ֯ ‫‘ אפס‬though they do not know’ 1QHa 10.35. On ‫ אפס‬as a substantive meaning ‘end, extremity,’ see ‫‘ לאין אפס‬endlessly’ 1QHa 14.20; ‫‘ אין אפס‬there is no end’ 1QHa 20.13; parallel to a synonymous ‫ אין‬at ‫‘ ֗לאין ואפס‬to nonexistence and absence’ 1QHa 21.30. 2 On the addition of ‫כל‬, see below at § h. 3 Rey (2015.170f., § 2.3) postulates the jussive ‫ תתן ;יהי‬would do just as well as in ‫ם־א ֵתּן ְשׁנַ ת ְל ֵעינָ י‬ ֶ ‫ִא‬ ‫נוּמה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַע ְפ ַע ַפּי ְתּ‬Ps 132.4 cited by Rey. Baasten (2000.11) mentions a similar BH case: ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ל־מ ָטר ֲע ֵל‬ ָ ‫ל־טל וְ ַא‬ ַ ‫ ַא‬2Sm 1.21. Cf. also Rey 2008.162. 4 The conjunction waw is read in 4Q266 2i19, which agrees with LXX (ἐν ἀβάτῳ καὶ οὐχ ὁδῷ ‘in an impassable place, and not a way’) against MT ‫ ויתעם בתהו לא דרך‬Ps 107.40. 5 These examples have been noted by Baasten (2000.9f.) in his enquiry into existential clauses. See also Baasten 2006.220f. [§ 3.12.2]. 6 On the word order here, cf. Qimron II 155 ad loc. 7 Pace Ulrich’s (DJD 12.243) ‫בנים‬. The selection of the sg. is the norm in categorical negation, e.g. ‫ אדם אין לעבד את האדמה‬Gn 2.5; ‫ שׁתי בנות אשׁר לא ידעו אישׁ‬Gn 19.8. 8 See also below at § i. 1

306

SYNTAX

1QHa 6.28 (1); ‫באלה ֗ל ֗ב ֗לתי החזיק מעמד בתוכ העדה‬ ֗ ‫‘ כול איש מנוגע‬anyone infected with these is not to hold office within the congregation’ 1QSa 2.4. As in BH, this negator used with an infinitive invariably takes the form ‫לבלתי‬. The prefixed -‫ ל‬is best analysed as attached to the infinitive. (2) The common ‫ לא‬is also met with, e.g. ‫‘ ולוא ללכת‬not to go’ 1QS 1.6, ‫‘ ולוא לצעוד‬not to step’ 1QS 1.13, ‫ ולוא להתאחר‬.. ‫‘ ולוא לקדם‬not to be too early .. and not to be too late’ 1QS 1.14; ‫‘ ולוא לסור‬not to deviate’ 1QS 1.15, 3.10, ‫‘ ולוא לשוב‬not to turn back’ 1QS 1.17 (3). See also below § i 2. Predicatively used infinitives may also be negated with either ‫ לא‬or ‫( אין‬4), and both may be used with injunctive value. However, an inf. combined with the antonym of ‫אין‬, viz. ‫ישׁ‬, may denote possibility (§ 18 d, pp. 110f.), but does not denote an impossibility, practical, not ethical or moral, which is close to prohibitive. Let it be noted that is not used except with some injunctive value, so that ‫הקימותי על‬ ‫ נפשי לאין חטוא לך‬is unHebrew. On the other hand, ‫ שלוא‬followed by an infinitive in MMT is not another independent ‫מתו הטהור‬ ‫על בהמתו‬ negator. Thus in ‫הטהורה כתוב שלוא לרבעה כלאים ועל לבושו כתוב שלוא יהיה‬ ‫ שאטנז ושלוא לזרוע שדו וכ]רמו‬MMT B 76-78 the particle -‫ ש‬in ‫ שלוא לרבעה‬intro‫רמו כלאים‬ duces a content clause, ‘on its clean animal it is written that one should not mate it,’ just as in .. ‫‘ כתוב שמעת שיגלח וכבס‬it is written that from the moment he shaves and washes ..’ ib. B 66. The same analysis can also apply to the above-quoted ‫שלוא‬ ‫( לזרוע‬78), where it is therefore, pace Qimron (5), not to be assumed that the particle is redundant and introduces a clause which is independent of what precedes: ‘that it [= Israel] should not sow its field.’ ea) ‫ לבלתי‬+ Impf. ‫ימכר ֗מ ֗מכרת ֗עבד‬ ֗ ‫‘ ויצו עליהיהם לבלתי‬and He commanded them (?) (6) ּfor none to be sold as a slave’ 4Q159 2-4+8.3. This is unquestionably dependent on ‫יִמּ ְכרוּ ִמ ְמ ֶכּ ֶרת ָע ֶבד‬ ָ ‫לֹא‬ Lv 25.42. In the source text we have an independent verbal clause, which has been 1 Cf. Qimron 2018.387, § H 1.6.4, where it is said that is adverbial in function, but cites the above-quoted example as illustrating the syntagm indicating a direct object. See also CD 6.12 and 1QSa 2.4. Note a positively worded case such as ‫‘ יקים האיש על נפשו֯ לשוב אל תורת ֯מו֗ שה‬the person shall vow upon his life to return to the law of Moses’ CD 16.1. 2 Pace Mor 2015a.453. In BH we encounter one odd case with -‫ ל‬repeated: ‫ת־בּנוֹ‬ ְ ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ְל ַה ֲע ִביר ִאישׁ ֶא‬ 2Kg 23.10. 3 Pace van Peursen (1999.228) this series of infinitives negated with ‫ לא‬are not equivalent to ‫ אין‬+ inf. with modal values, but coordinate with the preceding ‫ לתכן‬.. ‫‘ לברר‬to purify their knowledge .. to allocate.’ The first instance, ‫ולוא ללכת‬, is coordinate with the preceding ‫לעשות אמת וצדקה ומשפט בארץ‬. 4 Pace Qimron 2018.413, § H 4.0; the use is known to LBH, see BDB s.v. ‫ ַאיִ ן‬5 for references (9×). See above at § 18 c. Once with ‫ לבלתי‬at CD 6.12, see above at § 18 c. 5 DJD X, 80, § 3.4.2.1 with n. 74 there. One of Qimron’s arguments is that ‫ שדה‬and ‫ כרם‬are mentioned in two separate places in the Bible, which is no argument that the injunction here in 4QMMT, combining both nouns in a single injunction, is not biblically informed. However, ‫‘ אשר לוא להוכיח‬he shall not reprove’ 1QS 9.16 is in favour of Qimron’s analysis, since ‫ אשר‬here does not introduce a content clause. See above at § 15 daf on /‫ שׁ‬+ PC/ and also Qimron 2018.389. 6 Qimron (III 25) plausibly proposes emending the puzzling form to ‫‘ על אחיהם‬about their fellowman (or: fellowmen).’ On the analysis of ‫על‬, see above (§ 31 ed, p. 193, n. 3).

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 40 d-h

307

transformed to a subordinate one equivalent to an inf. clause, ‫לבלתי המכר ממכרת עבד‬ (N inf., ‫)ה ָמּ ַכר‬ ִ or ‫( לבלתי מכרו ממכרת עבד‬G inf., ‫)מ ְכרוֹ‬ ָ . Cf. above at § 18 c. f) ‫בל‬ : ‫‘ בל יזדעזעו יםודותיֿ היֿ ובל יחישו ממקומם‬its foundations will not be shaken nor will they be scared of their place’ 1QS 8.7. So also 1QHa 11.40 et passim. These verbs appear to be PCL: ‫‘ בל יחיה‬he will not live’ 4Q413 1+2.3, see also ‫ בל יבין‬4Q418 189.2 and ‫‘ בל יעוברנה‬he will not pass along it’ 1QHa 14.24, not ‫( יעוברה‬1). With a final-consecutive nuance: ‫‘ בל ידרוכו במעגלי יושר‬they will not walk in the paths of justice’ 4Q184 1.16 (2); ‫‘ כליותי שננתה בל ישכחו חוקיכה‬You have sharpened my kidneys so that they shall not forget Your laws’ 4Q436 1i5; ‫‘ בל יקומו‬so that they will not be able to arise’ 4Q175 20 (3). In BH this poetic equivalent of ‫ לא‬is syntagmatically far more varied: though mostly negativing Impf. as in ‫ בל יָ ֻקמוּ‬Is 14.21, but also Pf., e.g. ‫ בל ָל ַמד‬Is 26.10, ‫בל ָר ָאה‬ Ps 10.11, prepositional adjunct, e.g. ‫ בל ָע ֶליָך‬Ps 16.2, ‫ בל ִע ָמְּך‬Pr 23.7, inf. ‫ בל ְקר ֹב‬Ps 32.9, even adjective as in ‫ ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט בל טו ֺב‬Pr 24.23. In QH the negator is confined to . g) Categorical negation (4) With : ‫‘ לוא ישען איש הקודש על כול מעשי הבל‬a man of the holiness shall not rely on any vain work’ 1QS 5.18, where we parse ‫ מעשי‬as sg. cst., a variant spelling for ‫ מעשה‬as in ‫ בכול מעשה טוב‬1QS 1.5. With ‫ כול‬alone: personal—‫‘ לפני ֯אפו לוא יעמוד כול‬nobody can face His wrath’ 4Q417 2i15; ‫במ ֯ש ֯פטכה‬ ֯ ‫‘ לא יצדק כול‬none could come out innocent under Your judgement’ 1QHa 17.14; ‫‘ לא יביט כול‬nobody could gaze’ 1QHa 18.5; impersonal—‫לא יעשה‬ ‫‘ כול‬nothing could be done’ 1QHa 18.11; ‫‘ אל ישה ברעהו כל‬he shall not lend anything to his neighbour’ CD 10.18. The selection of the pl. form is exceptional at ‫֗כל לא ידעוך‬ ‘none of them knew You’ 4Q374 2ii9. h) Partial negation No instance of partial negation has come to our attention. It is unlikely that we have a case of partial negation in ‫ לוא ארחם על כול סוררי דרך‬1QS 10.20, which must mean ‘I shall not show pity on any apostate from the way,’ thus = ‫כול סורר‬. Likewise ‫כול‬ 1

On this morphological differentiation, see above at § 15 dai. Pace Abegg et al. Concordance, s.v. 146a: ‫ערוכי]ם‬. 3 The underlying biblical passage, Dt 33.11 is, on account of ‫ ִמן‬in ‫ ְמ ַשׂנְ ָאיו ִמן־יְ קוּמוּן‬MT, is a notorious crux interpretum. Ibn Ezra proposes supplying the relative ‫ אשׁר‬after ‫מן‬, ִ referring to ‫ ַכּ ַמּיִם ַליָּ ם ְמ ַכ ִסּים‬Is 9.11, where, however, the relative supplied has an antecedent preceding. ‫ בל‬is easier to understand, and the same negator can be restored in a 4Q manuscript: ‫ון‬ ‫בל יקומון‬ ‫ ב‬4Q35 11-15.4, cf. LXX καὶ οἱ μισοῦντες αὐτὸν μὴ ἀναστήτωσαν. 4 See also above at § d. 2

308

SYNTAX

‫‘ קרוביך לא ימרו פיך וכול יודעיך לא ישנו דבריך‬none of those who are close to You will rebel against You nor will any of those who know You disobey Your words’ 1QHa 6.25; ‫‘ לכול מערכות הבנים לוא יגושו‬they shall not approach any of lines of the skirmishers’ 4QMc 6. So also 1QHa 12.21, 14.33, 36, 4Q511 1.8. For partial negation one would expect a negator added before ‫כול‬. (1) i) Negating of Inf. cst. There are attested several ways of negating the inf. cst. 1) לא‬: ‫‘ לא לתור‬not to deviate’ CD 2.16 (final: so that you may not deviate); ‫‘ לוא לסור ימין ושמאול ואין לצעוד על אחד מכול דבריו‬one is not to deviate right or left nor walk against any of His words’ 1QS 3.10 // אין‬. 2) לבלתי‬as in ‫נפשי לבלתי חטוא לך‬ ֯ ‫‘ הקימותי על‬I pledged upon my life not to sin a 2 against You’ 1QH 6.28 ( ); ‫‘ איש זקן כושל לבלתי התחזק‬an old man stumbling unable to stand erect’ 1QSa 2.7; ‫‘ לבלתי שוב‬so that I shall not turn back’ 1QS 10.11; ‫לבלתי‬ ‫‘ אכול הדם‬not to eat the blood’ 11Q19 53.5. See also above, § f. 3) אין‬Several times we find ‫ אין‬substituting for ‫בלתי‬: ‫ציצו תשא רו֗ ח עד אינ֗ קום‬ ‘a wind carries off its blooms till it can not stand (any more)’ 4Q185 1-2i11; ‫ונפלו בני יפת‬ ‫‘ לאין קום‬and children of Jepheth will fall, not being able to stand (any more)’ 1QM 18.2. In both cases denote (in)capability. A moral, ethical impossibility, i.e. nonpermissibility may also be indicated as in ‫ים אחד‬ ֗ ‫‘ אין לו לחיות‬he has no right to live (even) one day’ 4Q221 4.7; for more examples, see at § 18 d. In the first, ‫ עד‬is a conjunction, thus = ‫עד ֲא ֶשׁר‬. ַ For more examples see below at § m (i). 4) אל‬Exceptional is the use of ‫ אל‬in ‫לתך ו֗ אל ללכת איש בשרירות‬ ̇ ‫תעזוב עמך וונ֗ ֗ח‬ ̇ ‫אל‬ ‫‘ לבו הר‬Do not abandon Your people and Your inheritance and do not allow for ‫הרע‬ anyone to walk in the stubbornness of his evil heart’ 4Q393 3.3, 4. (3) j) Two rare uses of ‫לא‬: i) negating a NC in ‫‘ לא עם בינות הוא‬it is not a people of understanding’ CD 5.16, instead of a more standard formulation such as ‫אינו עם‬ ‫בינות‬, ii) negating an adj. as in ‫ בדרך לא טוב‬1QHa 7.31 (so BH, e.g. ‫ַעם נָ ָבל וְ לֹא ָח ָכם‬ As in ‫‘ לא הכל לכל טוב‬not everything is beneficial to everyone’ Si 37.28B and ‫לא כל איש להביא אל‬ ‫‘ בית‬one is not to bring everybody to one’s home’ Si 11.29A. 2 Another syntagm, , also occurs, pledging not to do something, e.g. ‫נשבעתי ֯מ ̇קצוף עליך‬ ‘I swore not become angry at you’ 4Q176 8-11.11. 3 The only possible BH example is ‫‘ ַאל ַל ְמ ָל ִכים ְשׁתוֹ־יָ יִ ן‬it is not advisable for kings to drink wine’ Pr 31.4. There is, however, an important syntactic difference, for in the example cited above the subject of the inf. is not prefixed with -‫ל‬. One could have said ‫אל להם ללכת‬. This BH example is a negatively formulated version of a clause such as ‫‘ למשכיל להבין‬the master is charged with helping to understand’ 1QS 3.13, see above at § 18 d, p. 110. The preceding, standard syntagm in ‫ אל תעזוב‬suggests that here also we have a plea to God not to allow something to happen rather than an apodictic prohibition. In DJD 29.56 Falk is right in seeing here an analogical extension of with modal value. See also van Peursen 1999.227f. and Rey 2015.169. 1

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 40 h-l

309

Dt 32.6) (1), and, somewhat affiliated to this last pattern, iii) negating a nomen rectum as in ‫‘ עם לא בינות‬a people devoid of understanding’ 1QHa 10.2. k) ‫‘ מה אדבר בלא נודע ואשמיעה בלא סופר‬how could I speak when it has not yet become known and (how) could I announce when it has not yet been talked about?’ 1QHa 9.25 (2); ‫‘ בלוא נחשב ובלוא נודע‬without it being taken note of and without it becoming known’ 1QHa 16.11 (3); ‫‘ בלוא צוה‬without Him commanding’ 4Q417 1ii14 (4); ‫‘ בלוא הוכח‬when he was not reproached’ 4Q417 2i2; ‫יד ֗ע ולוא שמע‬ ֗ ‫‘ בלוא‬without having come to know and heard of’ 4Q299 8.5; ‫‘ בלוא חפצתה‬without You desiring (it)’ 1QHa 18.7. ֯ ‘without Your ka) ‘not having, not being equipped with’ (5): ‫בלוא ֗ר ֗צו֗ נכה‬ will’ 1QHa 9.10, 18.4 // ‫ באין רצונכה‬18.8 (6), preceded by ‫ בלוא חפצתה‬18.7 (); ‫‘ וילבטו בלא בינה‬they perished, lacking intelligence’ 1QHa 12.8; ‫‘ בלוא סליחה‬without ‫‘ אל תקל בלוֿ ח‬Do not become degraded, depriving forgiveness’ 1QHa 15.21; ‫חו֗ קכה‬ yourself of your due portion’ 4Q416 2ii21 (7). (8) l) This is a usage unique to QH and attested in 1QHa. All the instances that have come to our notice are: ‫בעבותי֗ ם ֗ל ֯אי֗ ן֗ נתק וזקים ללוא ישוברו‬ ֗ ֗‫נאסר ֗תי‬ ֗ ‘I was fastened with 1

König (1897 § 385 d) analyses this as an asyndetic relative clause. In another example mentioned, ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים לֹא יִ ְחיוּ ָבּ ֶהם‬ ִ ‫טוֹבים‬ ִ ‫ם־אנִ י נָ ַת ִתּי ָל ֶהם ֻח ִקּים לֹא‬ ֲ ַ‫ וְ ג‬Ezk 20.25 nobody would query about the second half, but we have doubts about the first half. 2 Some translators take ‫ מה‬as the direct object of ‫אדבר‬, e.g. Vermes 254 “what can I say that is not foreknown, and what can I utter that is not foretold?” which, however, leaves ‫ ב־‬of ‫ בלוא‬unaccounted for. Note a similar sentiment expressed in ‫‘ ומה אדבר דבר כיא אם פתחתה פי ואיכה אבין כיא אם השכלתני‬how could I speak anything unless You opened my mouth and how could I understand (anything) unless you granted me intelligence?’ 1QHa 20.35, where ‫ מה‬is parallel to ‫איכה‬. Similarly to Muraoka 2010.298, Lohse 113 starts off with “Wie soll ich reden, ohne daß es schon erkannt wäre?,” but adopts a different syntactic analysis with “Und wie sollte ich vernehmen lassen, das noch nicht erzählt worden wäre?,” apparently taking ‫ ב־‬as indicating a topic and the following verbal clause as an antecedentless relative clause, thus ‫באשר לא סופר‬. The difficulty is that D ‫ דבר ב־‬is attested, but not H ‫ השמיע ב־‬with the indication of a topic of discourse. 3 Pace Habermann 123 and Lohse 142 with their ‫נוֹדע‬ ָ .. ‫( נֶ ְח ָשׁב‬ptc.) and albeit preceded by .. ‫ַמ ְפ ִר ַיח‬ ‫סוֹתר‬ ֵ and followed by ‫חוֹתם‬, ֵ it is possible to parse ‫ נחשב‬and ‫ נודע‬as Pf. 4 Qimron’s (II 149) restoration, ‫‘ אל תעש דבר בלוא צוה‬you shall not do anything without Him commanding (it)’ is sensible pace DJD 34.170 “without the understandings of the flesh. Let not there lead th[ee] astr[ay,” in which one misses the grammatical subject of the following ‫נבונות‬ ‫ ;בשר אל תשגכה‬it should mean ‘human pig-headedness shall not mislead you.’ 5 On the usage in BH, see BDB, s.v. ‫ב־‬, 4 a and on that in Ben Sira, van Peursen 1999.234. For more QH examples, see Muraoka 2010.297-99. 6 Comparable to what van Peursen (1999.238) adduces—‫ בלא עצה‬Si 35.19B and ‫‘ באין עצה‬without counsel’ Si 11.9B. 7 On the reading and interpretation of this intriguing text, see Kister 2003. ‫ חוקכה‬reminds one of ‫ֶל ֶחם‬ ‫ ֻח ֶקָּך‬in Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation of τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον Mt 6.11. 8 Qimron (2018.416, § H 4.2.3) compares ‫‘ אשר לוא במחיר‬without paying (its) price’ 1QS 5.17 with ‫‘ ונמכר בלוא מחיר‬and it will be sold without payment’ 1Q27 1ii7, perhaps meaning that a piece of property will be taken to the market place without a price-tag, just to be given away. In this latter example, however, the preposition bet carries a distinct value, the so-called bet pretii, ‘with payment of.’

310

SYNTAX

unbreakable cords and with chains which cannot be smashed’ 1QHa 13.38; ‫֗ד ֗לתי מגן‬ ‫‘ לאין֗ מבוא ובריחי עוז ללוא ישוברו‬impenetrable protective gates and unbreakable, tough bolts’ 1QHa 14.30; ‫נת עוז ללוא תתזעזע‬ ֗ ‫‘ ֗פנ‬unshakable, strong corner’ 1QHa 14.29 (1); ‫כול‬ ‫לחומת בחן ללוא תזדזעזע‬ ֗ ‫‘ קירותי‬all My walls are meant to be a tested, unshakeable wall’ 1QHa 15.12. In all the instances the verbal clauses are equivalent to asyndetic relative clauses (2), hence expanding a preceding NP, and the PC carries the potential modality. This syntagm is probably affiliated to the inf. cst. expanding a substantive and carrying the modality of potentiality as in ‫‘ אין אחר זולתכה להשיב על עצתכה‬there is nobody other than You (capable of) contradicting Your counsel’ 1QS 11.18; ‫‘ זרם להשחית רבים‬a current (strong enough) to destroy many’ 1QHa 10.29. Thus we could say that the preposition ‫ ל־‬of ‫ ללוא‬is akin to that of the inf. cst. Let us also note that, in the first two examples, our syntagm is immediately preceded by coordinate phrases: ‫בעבותי֗ ם ֗ל ֯אי֗ ן֗ נתק וזקים ללוא ישוברו‬ ֗ ֗‫נאסר ֗תי‬ ֗ and ‫֗ד ֗לתי מגן לאין֗ מבוא‬ ‫ובריחי עוז ללוא ישוברו‬. Both of the phrases expand their respective, preceding substantive, and the notional nature of the expansion is akin to that of our syntagm, namely that of potentiality. Both phrases are introduced with ‫ללוא‬, but not followed by an Impf. However, ‫ מבוא‬is a verbal noun and virtually equivalent to ‫בוא‬. On , see the following subparagraph, § m. m) (3) i) (4)—‫ לאין קום‬.. ‫‘ ונפלו‬and they will fall .. unable to rise’ 1QM 18.2; ‫ציצו תשא‬ ‫‘ רו֗ ח עד אינ֗ קום‬a wind will carry its blossom away so that it will not stand’ 4Q185 1-2i11 (5); Following 4QHc in lieu of Qimron (I 78) ‫לפנ֗ יֿ ֯ת‬. ֗ Cf. also DJD 40.193. This syntactic conditioning does not apply to the sole example in Sir, mentioned by van Peursen (1999.237): ‫‘ שם חסד ללא יכרת‬a good name would not be obliterated’ Si 41.11, for we have here a selfstanding, negated verbal clause. Pace Yadin (1965.19) the scribe of the Massada manuscript discovered by him may be at fault, and one should restore the honour of his ancient counterpart with ‫לא יכרת‬. On the same syntactic ground the following examples do not belong here, either; we have an asyndetic and antecedentless relative clause—‫היה‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֗תבנית זכר ללוא‬the image of a male for what was not there’ 4Q301 2ii5, where DJD 20.301 plausibly sees an allusion to Dt 4.16, a description of the Mount Sinai epiphany and ‫מה‬ ‫נוסד‬ ֗ ‫‘ השקט ללוא היה ומה משפט ללוא‬what is tranquility for that which has not come into being and what is justice for that which has not been founded?’ 4Q418 69ii5. Qimron (2018.419, n. 155) finds one example of in ‫אתי ְללֹא ִב ְק ֻשׁנִ י‬ ִ ‫נִ ְד ַר ְשׁ ִתּי ְללוֹא ָשׁ ָאלוּ נִ ְמ ֵצ‬ Is 65.1. Already LXX, however, saw here an asyndetic, antecedentless relative clause, i.e. ‫ל ֲא ֶשׁר לוֹא‬: ַ Ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, εὑρέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν. The preposition ‫ ל־‬of ‫ללוא‬ governs an indirect object of ‫ נדרשׁ‬and ‫ נמצא‬respectively. So also BDB, s.v. ‫ לֹא‬2 d and JM § 158 d. Hence, Pace DJD 34.172, where this Isaianic verse is quoted as if ‫ ללוא‬were synonymous to ‫ בלוא‬discussed above (§ l), ‫ ב־‬and ‫ל־‬, though both prefixed to ‫לוא‬, have two different functions. Nifal here is tolerative (JM § 51 c); note the same tolerative -‫ נפעל ל‬in ‫ ִא ָדּ ֵרשׁ ָל ֶכם‬Ezk 20.3, mentioned by Luzzatto (1970.401) ad Is 65.1. ‫‘ מה השקט ללוא היה ומה משפט ללוא נוסד‬what is tranquility for one who has not come into being (yet) and what is justice for one who has not been established (yet)?’ 4Q418 69ii5 exemplifies the same structure as in Is 65.1. 3 Qimron’s (2018.417) label “‫ לאין‬+ verbal noun describing capability” is a shade too narrow, as can be clearly seen in the examples presented here. 4 For other modes of negating the inf. cst. see above at § j (i, ii, iv). 5 On the reading ‫אין‬, and not ‫איי‬, see Strugnell 1970.270. 1 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 40 l-m

311

‫בעבותי֗ ם ֗ל ֯אי֗ ן֗ נתק‬ ֗ ֗‫נאסר ֗תי‬ ֗ ‘I was bound fast with cords incapable of being sundered’ a 1QH 13.38, where we would read ‫נַ ֵתּק‬, a D inf. cst. or ‫נִ ֻתּק‬, a D verbal noun (1); ‫לאין‬ ‫‘ השב ויפרו‬without being capable of being turned back and they are going to multiply’ 1QHa 11.28 (2); ‫‘ ויפרו חצים לאין מרפא‬and arrows multiplied without a let-up’ 1QHa 10.28 (3); ‫ישו֯ חחו לאין השבת‬ ‫‘ בגבורותי֯ כה יש‬they will meditate on Your mighty works ceaselessly’ a 1QH 14.14 (‫)ה ָשּׁ ֵבת‬ ִ (4), also ‫ לאין השבת‬at 1QHa 19.26 and 1QHa 23.3; ‫מעין אור למקור עולם‬ ‫‘ לאין הסר‬a fountain of light for an eternal source not to be moved away’ 1QHa 14.20 (5); ‫‘ כאוב אנוש לאין עצור ֗כו֯ ֯ח‬an incurable pain with uncontrollable strength’ 1QHa 16.29; ‫‘ לאין פלט‬with no escape’ 1QHa 11.29 (6). Let it be noted that the majority of the examples are from 1QHa. In all of the examples in which ‫ לאין‬appears to be followed by an infinitive, the latter is bare, without ‫ל‬. (7) Given the extreme infrequency in our corpus of the bare inf. cst. (§ 18 j) we suggest that we have here the inf. abs., hence ‫ קוֹם‬and ‫עצוֹר‬. ָ (8) Such an analysis better accounts for the defectiva spelling of ‫ השב‬and ‫הסר‬. ii) A) Expanding a noun—‫‘ מישור לאין חקר‬a boundless plain’ 1QHa 11.21; ‫פתנים לאין חבר‬ ‘cobras against which no charm exists’ 1QHa 13.29; ‫‘ הווה לאין חקר‬an incalculable calamity’ 1QHa 14.6; ‫‘ ֗ד ֗לתי מגן לאין֗ מבוא‬impenetrable protective gates’ 1QHa 14.30. Has ‫ ל־‬inadvertently dropped out in ‫‘ שקוי בדמעות אין כלה‬my drinks (consisted) in endless tears’ 1QHa 13.36, ‫‘ למרחב אין קץ‬into an endless space’ 1QHa 14.34, and ‫כלה אין שארית‬ ‘annihilation with no survivor’ 1QM 14.5 (9)? (10) B) Expanding a verb—‫‘ לאין אפס‬endlessly’ 1QHa 14.20; ‫‘ לאין מרפא‬without a let-up’ 1QHa 10.28; ‫ויפרו לאין תקוה‬ ֗ ‘and they will multiply hopelessly’ 1QHa 11.28; ‫לאין‬ 1 Pace Habermann 121 ‫ נֵ ֶתק‬and Lohse 132 ‫נֶ ֶתק‬, words not known as verbal nouns elsewhere, though ‫ נִ ֻתּק‬is so far not attested prior to Rashi, who may have seen it in a near-contemporary Hebrew translation of works by Hippocrates. 2 Pace DJD 20.151 ‫ יפרו‬in 1QHa 10.28 cannot be H ‫ יָ ֵפרוּ‬from √‫ פרר‬and mean ‘to destroy,’ for this H verb never denotes physical violence and destruction. We would therefore derive the form from √‫פרה‬. 3 Deriving ‫ מרפא‬from √‫רפה‬, and not from √‫‘ רפא‬to cure,’ pace DJD 40.143 “for which there is no cure.” 4 Pace Habermann 121 ‫ ָה ְשׁ ָבּת‬and Lohse 134 ‫ה ְשׁ ֵבּת‬. ַ For Nifal of this verb, see, e.g. ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫לּוּל‬ ֵ ִ‫וְ נִ ְשׁ ְבּתוּ גּ‬ Ezk 6.6. 5 Cf. a partly reconstructed ‫ שלום לאין הסר‬1QHa 15.18. 6 Or possibly ‘escapee’ [= ‫]פּ ֵלט‬. ָ 7 As noted by Qimron, HDSS, § 400.10. Hence, albeit parallel to a partly reconstructed ‫שלום לאין הסר‬, ‫ השבת‬in ‫ ולוא להשבת לנצח‬1QHa 15.18 must be an inf. cst., ‫ ְל ִה ָשּׁ ֵבת‬or ‫( ְל ַה ְשׁ ִבּת‬Lohse 138), but not Habermann 122 ‫ל ַה ְשׁ ֵבּת‬.ְ 8 So already Carmignac 1986.258. Pace Habermann 107 and Lohse 220 ‫ קוּם‬and Habermann 124 and Lohse 144 ‫עצוֹר‬. ֲ 9 Cp. ‫‘ עד כלותם לאין שרית ופליטה למו‬until they perish with no remnant or survivor out of them’ 1QS 4.13. In ‫‘ ֗ד ֗לתי מגן לאין֗ מבוא‬impenetrable protective gates’ 1QHa 14.30 the text of is continued with ‫‘ ובריחי עוז ללוא ישוברו‬and unbreakable, tough bolts,’ remarkably with a finite verb. Likewise in ֗‫נאסר ֗תי‬ ֗ ‫בעבותי֗ ם ֗ל ֯אי֗ ן֗ נתק וזקים ללוא ישוברו‬ ֗ ‘I was fastened with unbreakable cords and with chains which cannot be smashed’ 1QHa 13.38 This also, pace Qimron (2018.418), shows what follows ‫ לאין‬is not necessarily a nominal phrase. 10 ‫יָמים ֵאין ִמ ְס ָפּר‬ ִ Je 2.32, mentioned by Baasten (2000.10), may authenticate the reading.

312

SYNTAX

‫‘ פלט‬with no escape’ 1QHa 11.29, cf. ‫‘ לאין פלי֗ ֗טה‬with no escape’ 4Q280 2.5 with a substantive; ‫‘ עד לאין מספר‬innumerable’ 1QHa 12.28, cf. ‫ד־אין ֵח ֶקר וְ נִ ְפ ָלאוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ע ֶֹשׂה גְ ד ֹלוֹת ַע‬ ‫ד־אין ִמ ְס ָפּר‬ ֵ ‫ ַע‬Jb 9.10; ‫‘ לאין מנוס‬with no escape possible’ 1QHa 13.31; ‫ארור אתה לאין‬ ‫‘ רחמים‬accursed are you mercilessly’ 1QS 2.7, sim. 1QS 2.14, 1QHa 17.3; ‫לאין מעמד‬ ‘so that they would not be able to hold the post’ 1QM 18.13, sim. ‫עמד‬ ֯ ‫יגופנו לאין ֗מ‬ ‘He will strike him down ..’ 4Q491 11ii17; ‫‘ שבת נגע לאין מחלה‬affliction ceased with no disease any more’ 4Q431 2.5; ‫ניע רשעה לאין שארית‬ ֗ ‫להכ‬ ֗ ‘to subjugate evilness with ֗ ‫להסיר‬ no trace left’ 1QM 1.6, sim. 1QS 4.14, 5.1. Very elliptic in ‫שלת ֗אויב לאין עוד‬ ֯ ‫ממש‬ ‘to do away with the enemy’s dominion so that it would not be there any more’ 1QM 18.11. With a substantivised ptc.—‫‘ לאין קובר‬with none to bury (them)’ 1QM 11.1; ֯ 1QM 19.11. ‫קבר‬ ֯ ‫לאי֯ ן ֯מקב‬ iii) Predicate of NC: ‫‘ כבודכה לאין מדה‬your glory is immeasurable’ 1QHa 13.22. iv) It is hardly by chance that ‫לאין‬, which occurs in BH a total of 9 times, is confined to LBH (1): Ezr 1×, Neh 1×, Ch 6×, with the only exception in ‫ְל ֵאין אוֹנִ ים ָע ְצ ָמה יַ ְר ֶבּה‬ Is 40.29, which actually is no real exception, for we have here an asyndetic relative clause—‘He increases strength to one who is powerless.’ (2) In our corpus, including a number of reconstructed cases, it is used as often as 86 times. n) This is a syntagm attested once only in QH (3): ‫‘ באין רצונכה‬without your consent’ 1QHa 18.8 // ‫ בלוא רצונכה‬ib. 4. o) Scope The scope of a negator, even when placed immediately before a verb or a predicatively used participle, extends to the entire clause, not just the verb or participle. Thus ‫ולא‬ ‫‘ נתנם לכלה‬and He did not give them over to extinction’ CD 1.5; ‫אל יאמן איש על רעהו‬ ‘none shall be trusted (as a reliable witness against his fellowman’ CD 10.2; ‫בטב אתן‬ ‫נכסי בית ישראל ולא דאגין לאחיכן לכול דבר‬ ֗ ‫‘ יושביןין אכלין ושתין מן‬in comfort you are living, eating and drinking out of the property of .., and not caring for your brethren at all’ 5/6Ḥev 49.2. We find a rare instance in which a negator extends its scope to two or more coordinated verb phrases in toto: ‫‘ ולא ישא ֯ח ֗ט ֗א ֯ה ]וי[מות‬he would not bear a sin and die (for it)’ CD 15.4. The scope of a negator, however, may extend only to the immediately following constituent, which happens to be something other than a verb. E.g. ‫תר ֗חב‬ ֗ ‫אל לכה לבדכה‬ 1

Also so noted by Hurvitz 1972.39 and Qimron 2018.418. Cf. König, § 380 f. 3 Not recognised by Qimron, though mentioned en passant (2018.419, n. 156), but discussed by van Peursen (1999.235) and said to occur a number of times in Ben Sira. 2

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 40 m-q

313

‘Don’t widen for you only’ 4Q417 2i9 (1); ‫‘ לוא כוחנו ועצום ידינו עשה חיל‬it is not our power nor the strength of our hands that did mighty deed(s)’ 1QM 11.5. p) Negation of predicatively used ptc. i) With ‫ לוא שותה מים—לא‬Is 44.12 1QIsaª // MT ‫;שׁ ָתה‬ ָ ‫ לוא יודע‬Is 29.12 1QIsaª // MT ‫לֹא יָ ַדע‬, where the scroll is influenced by ‫יוֹד ַע‬ ֵ ‫ ֶאל‬vs. 11, though there ‫ לא יָ ַדע‬is impossible (2). See also above at § b. ii) With ‫נקשר – אין‬ ̇ ‫‘ את אשר איננו‬him who (or: that which) is not tied’ CD 13.19; ‫‘ אין כתוב‬it is not written’ CD 9.5; ‫‘ אמי איננה מאמנת‬my mother does not believe’ 4Q200 4.4; ‫‘ אף המוצקות ֗אינ֗ ם מבדילות‬liquid streams do not separate, either’ MMT B 56; ‫‘ שאינם רואים‬who do not see’ MMT B 50; ‫‘ לאזן אשר איננה שומעת‬to an ear that does not hear’ 4Q424 3.5. See above at § c A i-iii for a complete listing. q) Negation of a prepositional, adverbial adjunct When a prepositional phrase expands a verb, it is prefixed with ‫אשר לא‬. E.g., ‫לוא יקח‬ ‫‘ מידם כול מאומה אשר לוא במחיר‬he shall not take off them anything whatsoever for no payment’ 1QS 5.17; ‫‘ אמ על רעהו ילון אשר לוא במשפט‬if he unfairly complains against his colleague’ 1QS 7.17; ‫יקרב לזנות לאשתו אשר לא כמשפט‬ ֯ ‫‘ ֗אשר‬one who would unlawfully approach his wife for fornication’ 4Q270 7i12; with ‫ ש־‬instead of ֯ ‫‘ אש‬he who would avenge his fellowman against ‫אשר יקום את רעהו שלו בעצה – אשר‬ advice’ 4Q266 10ii2. (3) Otherwise ‫ אשר‬is not added. Thus ‫‘ לא לאדם דרכו‬it is not up to man to determine his path’ 1QS 11.10 (4); ‫‘ לוא לאנוש צדקה‬it is not to mankind that righteousness belongs’ 1QHa 12.31. 1 Rey (2015.166f., §1.4-1.4.3) believes that ‫ אל‬and ‫ לא‬are to be analysed separately, which does not convince. He further holds that these negators relate not only to the immediately following clause constituent, but to the clause as a whole. But ‫ל־בּ ַא ְפָּך‬ ְ ‫ְך־בּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ַא‬ ְ ‫ יַ ְסּ ֵרנִ י יְ הוָ ה ַא‬Je 10.24, quoted by himself (ib. 168) alongside ‫ל־בּ ֲח ָמ ְתָך ְתיַ ְסּ ֵרנִ י‬ ַ ‫יחנִ י וְ ַא‬ ֵ ‫תוֹכ‬ ִ ‫ל־בּ ַא ְפָּך‬ ְ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ַא‬Ps 6.2, clearly shows that the feature of contrast is involved here. 2 As argued by Juzik 1939.204-06, ‫ לא‬is used only rarely in BH to negative a ptc., for which ‫ אין‬is mostly used. Cf. JM, § 160 c. Pace Juzik, however, there is no particular reason for excluding the use of ‫ לא‬to negate a passive ptc., for instance, ‫א־א ֻסרוֹת‬ ֲ ֹ ‫ יָ ֶדָך ל‬2Sm 3.34, ‫ נַ ְפ ִשׁי לֹא ְמ ֻט ָמּ ָאה‬Ezk 4.14. 3 The last two instances are mentioned in Qimron (2018.416). In DCH I 421a, s.v. ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬c four more QH examples are mentioned—1QS 6.1, 12, 7.8, 11; the seventh, ‫ אשר לא בהוכח‬CD 9.3, does not belong here, since ‫ הוכח‬is an anomalous inf. abs., on which see above at § 18 o. As regards the obscure origin of this usage, it could be an extension to adverbial adjuncts of the syntagm , where the adjective is attributively used as in ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ַע ְל ֵל‬ ַ ‫יכם ָה ָר ִעים‬ ֶ ‫ת־דּ ְר ֵכ‬ ַ ‫וּזְ ַכ ְר ֶתּם ֶא‬ ‫א־טוֹבים‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ל‬Ezk 36.31; the author may have hesitated writing ‫מעלליכם הלא טובים‬. But without the article we find ‫טוֹבים‬ ִ ‫ ֻח ִקּים לֹא‬Ezk 20.25, ‫ ַעל ֶדּ ֶרְך לֹא טוֹב‬Ps 36.5, ‫ ַעם לֹא ָעז‬Pr 30.25, ‫ ַעם לֹא ָעצוּם‬Pr 30.26, ‫גּוֹי לֹא‬ ‫ ָח ִסיד‬Ps 43.1. See above at § j, p. 309, n. 1. 4 Correcting an inadvertent haplography, ‫לאדם דרכו‬.

314

SYNTAX

r) ‫מא‬ A special case is ‫ מא‬used in a rhetorical question that approaches negation. Thus ‫֗מ ֗ה‬ ‫‘ אשר יפצה מידו‬what is there that one could snatch away from His hand?’ > ‘there is ָ ‫ ַמ‬1Kg 12.16, followed by nothing that one could ..’ 4Q200 6.7 (1). Cf. ‫ה־לּנוּ ֵח ֶלק ְבּ ָדוִ ד‬ ‫לֹא נַ ֲח ָלה ְבּ ֶבן־יִ ַשׁי‬. (2) s) As we can judge from the sheer number of citations above from 1QHa, its author is in truly amazing command of the great variety of particles and constructions Hebrew had at its disposal for negation.

§ 41 CONDITIONAL UTTERANCES a) Basic structure A conditional utterance is composed of two clauses: 1) a protasis [= Prot.], which presents a premise, whether factually, objectively true or valid, or merely hypothetical, and 2) an apodosis [= Apod.], which presents a consequence, whether logical or a state of affairs that would or could ensue, should what is stated in the protasis is or was true, or becomes or became true. b) Tenses in protasis and apodosis (3) We present below a general picture of tense configurations in Prot. and Apod. Prot. SC - Apod. PC: ‫דבר אמת‬ ֗ ‫אונס ֗א ֗ם לא‬ ֗ ‫ ושלם ֗ה‬.. ‫‘ יוסר‬and he is chastised .. and the violator shall pay if he did not speak truth’ CD 16.20; ‫‘ אם ֗ב ֗ג ֗פיו בא בגפיו יצא‬if he came single, he shall leave single’ 4Q158 7-9.10 // ‫ם־בּגַ פּוֹ יָבֹא ְבּגַ פּוֹ יֵ ֵצא‬ ְ ‫ ִא‬Ex 21.3. In these two instances, their respective protasis presents a hypothetical, but not necessarily unreal, but in ‫ואיכה‬ ֗ ‫מה אדבר כיא אם פתחתה פי ואיכה אבין כיא אם השכלתני ומה אדע בלוא גליתה לבי‬ ‫מצ ֯עדי‬ ֗ ‫‘ אישר דרך כיא אם הכי֗ נ֗ ו֗ ֗תה מ‬what could I speak unless You opened my mouth and how could I comprehend unless You granted me intelligence and what could I know unless You illumined my mind and how could I walk straight unless You prepared my steps?’ 1QHa 20.35, the poet is most probably describing his actual experiences. Prot. SC - Apod. SC: possibly ‫ נרפא הנגע‬.. ‫ והגיד נמלא ֯דם‬.. ‫‘ אם‬if .. and the artery filled up with blood .. the disease has healed’ 4Q266 6i11. Prot. SC - Apod. Impv.: ‫למו֗ ת הפקידהו‬ ֗ ‫ אם שמו בראו ֗ש ֗כה‬4Q416 2iii6, where the interpretation is rather obscure, though ‫ שמו‬is most likely = ‫ ָשׂמוּ‬or ‫ ָשׂמוֹ‬and ‫= הפקידהו‬ ‫( ַה ְפ ִק ֵידהוּ‬4). 1 Our translation postulates an impersonally used 3ms verb (§ 37 a). Another possibility is to parse ‫ יפצה‬as passive Nifal, though no instance of such is known, but not impossible per se. Beyer (1994.134) thinks that this is an Aramaism, ‫ פצי‬D ‘to rescue.’ 2 Cf. JM § 144 h. An analogous usage in the Hebrew of Ben Sira is discussed in Peursen (1999.232). 3 Cf. Friedrich 1884.7-14, 28-35, Thorion-Vardi 1985.85-88, and van Peursen 2000. 4 See a discussion ad loc. in DJD 34.115.

OTHER SYNTACTIC ISSUES — § 40 r – § 41 c

315

Prot. PC - Apod. PC: ‫‘ יהו בו אצלך תשבת הזו אם יחפצו לבו‬they should be in it with you this Sabbath if they would come’ M44 5; ‫‘ אם יומרו לו ידבר‬if they tell him to, he may speak’ 1QS 6.13; ‫לוא י֯ עמיד‬ ֗ ‫(‘ אם ישבע‬even) if he swears, he is not likely to act accordingly’ 4Q223-224 2ii9; ‫ לוא תשמע אל דבר הנביא ההוא‬.. ‫ נביא‬.. ‫‘ אם יקום‬if a prophet emerges .., you should not give ear to that prophet’ 11Q19 54.8. Prot. PC - Apod. NC: ‫‘ נקיאים הם ֗מ ֗מנו אם ימעל‬should he sin, they would not to be blamed on his account’ CD 15.13; ‫ וניתפש שלם משפטו‬.. ‫‘ אם ישוב‬if he gets caught again .., his case is complete’ CD 9.19; ‫‘ אני אם אמוט חסדי אל ישועתי לעד‬should I stumble, God’s mercies are my salvation for ever’ 1QS 11.11; ‫‘ שמחה לכה אם תנקה ממנו‬you will have joy if you are exempted from it’ 4Q416 2iii5. (1) Prot. Ptc. - Apod. SC: ‫‘ אללי שהגיים קרבים אלנו אזי עלתי‬if the gentiles were not approaching us, then I would have come up’ M42 5, where the form in question can be ‫( ְקר ִֹבים‬adj.), not ‫ק ֵר ִבים‬. ְ A transformation of the underlying biblical text is striking in ‫‘ השומע אם יודע הוא ולא יגיד‬if one who heard it knows about it, still does not tell about it’ CD 9.12 < ‫ וְ ָשׁ ְמ ָעה קוֹל ָא ָלה וְ הוּא ֵעד אוֹ ָר ָאה אוֹ יָ ָדע ִאם־לוֹא יַ גִּ יד‬Lv 5.1. ‫‘ אם סוררת הי֯ א ֗אל‬if it is refractory, one shall not bring Prot. Ptc. - Apod. PC: ‫יוציאה‬ ֗ it out’ CD 11.6. Prot. PC - Apod. Impv.: cf. ‫ והבדילהו‬1QS 6.24 discussed below at § c. Prot. NC: ‫‘ אם דבר מות הוא‬if it is a capital case’ CD 9.17; ‫אם שנים הם והם מעידים‬ ‫‘ על דבר אחד‬if they are two and they are testifying about one matter’ CD 9.20; ‫(‘ אם פתי הוא הוא יסגירנו‬even) if he be an imbecile, he shall lock him up’ CD 13.6; ‫‘ אם מלך ורכב וסוס ועם רב‬if it is a king with chariots and horses and many troops’ 11Q19 58.7. c) Apodosis introduced with ‫( ו־‬waw apodoseos) (2) Such a waw joined to an SC form is normally and presumably inversive as in BH, hence w-qataltí. (3) A couple of BH examples are: ‫ִאם־לֹא ֲה ִביא ִֹתיו ֵא ֶליָך וְ ִה ַצּגְ ִתּיו ְל ָפנֶ יָך‬ ‫ל־היָּ ִמים‬ ַ ‫אתי ְלָך ָכּ‬ ִ ‫‘ וְ ָח ָט‬if I didn’t bring him (back) to you and present him before you, then I shall have sinned to you all my life’ Gn 43.9 and ‫‘ ִאם־יָ ַשׁ ְבנוּ פֹה וָ ָמ ְתנוּ‬if we sit here, we die’ followed by ‫יתנוּ וָ ָמ ְתנוּ‬ ֻ ‫‘ ִאם־יְ ַחיֻּ נוּ נִ ְחיֶ ה וְ ִאם־יְ ִמ‬if they spare us, we shall survive, but if they kill us, we are going to be dead’ 2Kg 7.4. (4)

1 If we are to follow Qimron (I 28) and emend ‫ אם לו ליוספ‬4Q266 6i11 to ‫אם לא נוסף‬, we should read ‫ אם נוסף‬for ‫ אם י֗ ו֗ ספ‬ib. 6i10. Then we have another example of the syntagm in question: ‫אם נוסף מן החי‬ ‫טמא הואה‬ ֗ .. ‫‘ ֗אל המת‬if nothing of the live was added to the dead .., he is unclean.’ 2 Cf. Mor 2008.181f. This syntagm is not, pace what Qimron (2018.371 top) appears to be implying, the norm in CBH. See examples adduced by Driver (1892.175 [β]), though he slightly exaggerates by saying the syntagm