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 ... (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) 9004115536, 9789004115538

Citation preview

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH EDITEDBY

F. GARCfA MARTfNEZ A.S. VANDER WOUDE

VOLUME XXXIII

in Ben Sira may help to explain two passages that are obscure, if not corrupt. The first concludes the eulogy of Phinehas, who has been praised for his triumph over the idolaters of Baal-peor and his subsequent reception of the priestly covenant. The Hebrew, as preserved in MS B, reads: ,,, Cl' ,n'iJ 0;' il"il' m!lO' '~' p 'l'iT ,:>, 1iil~ n'm

"'J:> 'J~' ~~ n,m

'And also his covenant with David, son of Jesse of the tribe of Judah, an inheritance of fire before his glory, the inheritance of Aaron for all his seed' (45.25). The Greek translation of the third hemistich suggests that the Hebrew has been corrupted, since it reads 1CATlPovoJ.lla ßaeHAEroc; uio1'> e~ uio1'> J.lOVOU ('the inheritance of a king [which is]from son to son alone'). Most commentators have, therefore, emended the text to ~'~ n'm. Some recent writers, however, have left the Hebrew intact, or at least have only substituted ~'~ for~~, and have understood it as a reference to the priestly covenant. 48 The priestly inheritance is that of the sacrificial 'fire', which the priests offer 'before his glory'. If 'his glory' is understood to be a reference to God, then the verse is intelligible as a description of the priest celebrating be fore the divine presence. This reading of the text is itself dependent on one's understanding of the role of the covenants in Ben Sira, and whether the royal covenant has been subordinated to the priestly one.49 Those writers that have opted for not emending the text have tended to devote more attention to the expression ~~ n'm than to "'J:> 'J~'. For our purposes here we may note that "'J:> 'J~' need not necessarily be seen as a corruption of the text, but can be understood in the light of

"J' 'JJ'

48 H. Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-Makkabäischen Sofer unter Beriicksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weislzeitslehretum (WUNT, 2/6; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1981), p. 153; L.C. Perdue, Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis 0/ the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literature of Israel and the Ancient Near East (SBLOS 30; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 93; J.o. Martin, 'Ben Sira's Hymn to the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective', ars 24 (1986), pp. 112-16; P.c. Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach: een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallelen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hlm functie in Sirach 45: 6-26 (Nieuwegein: Beentjes, 1981), pp. 186-92. 49 See Aitken, 'Studies in the Hebrew and Creek Text of Ben Sira', pp. 82-109.

19

AITKEN: THE SEMANTICS OF 'CLORY'

Ben Sira's use of ,,~~. In particular, the appearance of the same expression in 42.17 strengthens the case for preserving this reading at 45.25. Hayward has translated the hemistich as 'the inheritance of (one) man in respect of his glory',50 understanding ",~~ as the priest's glory, which would also be in accord with Ben Sira's presentation of ,,~;:) as an attribute of the priests. The problem, however, remains that the Creek translation impIies a different Vorlage, perhaps one that itself contained some corruption, and we cannot, therefore, be certain that we have a reliable Hebrew text. It is not impossible that ",~~ '~El' was written by a scribe who was aware of the use of the same expression at Sir. 42.17, or who was working at a time when ",~~ had become a standard expression in Rabbinic Hebrew. The possibility of scribal correction gains support from another passage in MS B. This second passage in the same chapter of Ben Sira presents syntactic as weil as interpretative difficuIties. In detailing the covenant enacted with Aaron in ch. 45, the extant Hebrew reads in vv. 6-7: C1',.v pn, 'iiO'tl)" "ii 1n'1 ",~~~ 'iinitl)" 'And he established hirn with an everlasting statute and bestowed upon hirn honour; while he (in turn) served hirn at the place of his glory' This would at first sight appear to confirm the interpretation of ",~;:) as denoting divine presence, if the understanding of the preposition -~ as denoting 'at the place' is correct. And yet the syntax of the text is awkward. The change of subject in the third colon, aIthough not impossible, is disruptive, especially as the following line reverts back to Cod as the subject. The Creek translation maintains the same subject throughout, reading for the third colon E~IX1(a.PlcrEv a:mov EV d)l(oo~i'l-, which is supported by the marginal reading of MS B, iiy,~~.51 The transmitted Hebrew text is, therefore, probably corrupt and should be emended accordingly. This implies that a scribe could well have mistakenly written ",~~ at 45.25 just as he had at 45.7. It seems possible that the scribe had a tendency to insert the word ,,~~, especially with its appearance elsewhere in the verse (45.3d [Creek], 20). Once again, it would not be out of keeping with Ben Sira's understanding of 'glory' to have written ",~~ in both 45.7 and 45.25, but the interpretative difficuIties found in both passages suggest that it would be unwise to include them as semantic evidence in their own right. They do

"'.v

50 Hayward,

Tize Jewish Temple, p. 65.

51 A verb such as li1.,tD~'l would also have to be understood in place of the extant textual version.

20

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

contribute, nonetheless, to the findings from our survey of the rest of the book.

5: Concluding remarks on ,,::1J In the proverbial portions of Ben Sira and in some instances in the 'Praise of the Fathers' ,,::1J has the meanings found also in Biblical Hebrew of 'honour' or 'reputation'. However, even in some of those cases in the 'Praise of the Fathers' ,,::1J appears to have an implied meaning in the context of other uses of ,,::1J in Ben Sira (e.g. 49.5). For, ,,::1J also comes to be a charateristic of the priests themselves, as Ben Sira extends the notion in Exod. from glorious instruments and dothes to glorious priests. This is connected in turn with the presence of God in glory in the temple. Sir. 36.14 relates the dwelling of God in the temple to the filling of the temple with 'glory' (,,::1J) and 'honour' ("i1), which is one step away from seeing 'glory' as denoting the presence of God hirnself, an implication that may be found in some verses in Ben Sira

III: Conclusions This survey has tried to present a broad spectrum of some lexemes from the semantic field of 'glory'. The difficulty with semantics is that it is intimately connected with the interpretation of the words in their contexts and that one is often reduced to describing shades of meaning rather than dear distinctions between lexemes. Some condusions may, nevertheless, be drawn. 1. The lexemes nl~::ln, its cognate verb 1~::lni1, and ,,::1J are the most popular in Ben Sira for deOlJting 'glory' and they are dosely associated with "i1 and T.V. They are all used in similar contexts, preventing any dear systematic distinction between them. 2. All the lexemes are used in Ben Sira in allusion to biblical texts. nl~Eln, for example, at 49.16 seems to contain a reference to Gen. 3.21, and both m~Eln and ,,::1J are drawn from Exod. 38, where they describe the priestly vestments. These allusions hinder the task of determining whether the semantics of the lexemes have changed, but the particular emphasis placed upon them as attributes of the priests seems to be an innovation of Ben Sira. 3. The use of ,,::1J to denote divine presence, although implied in some of the later books of the Hebrew Bible, seems to be a development in Late Biblical Hebrew that can be found in Rabbinic Hebrew. It is a development implied by some sources that are extant in other languages, but Ben Si ra is the earliest example of it in Hebrew. Ben

AITKEN: THE sEMANTICS OF 'GLORY'

21

sira's interest in the relationship between 'glory' and the temple and its priests may weil have faciliated this identification. Although his application of 'glory' is exegetically and theologically motivated, it has left its trace on his language. 4. The semantic evidence does allow us to place the Hebrew of Ben Si ra within a particular phase of Hebrew, despite the allusions to earlier biblical material. A tendency towards the use of ":::l~ as an expression of the divine title can already be found in some of the later biblical books, most notably in Ezekiel. Certain passages in Isa. (e.g. 4.5; 6.3) seem in partiClilar to use the lexeme as adenotation of divine presence, especially in connection with the dwelling of God in the temple, and all of these may be late additions to the book. 52 Nevertheless, Ben sira and some Qumran texts are the first likely cases in Hebrew of ":::l~ being used as a substitute for the divine name, although the use in Ben sira of ":::l~ in parallelism with other lexemes in the semantic field suggests that it has not become a terminus technicus in the manner of Rabbinic Hebrew. 5. We have not entirely resolved the question of the nature and content of the Hebrew Ben sira manuscripts themselves. The two textually uncertain appearances of ":::l~ (45.7, 25) suggest that a scribe could write, or replace another word with, "':::l~. In so doing the scribe may have been interpreting it according to the rabbinic understanding of divine presence. The motivation, however, for the scribe to do this may itself have been in the text of Ben Si ra where there are already early traces of this development towards the rabbinic understanding. In the process of the textual transmission of Ben sira interchange between particular grammatical constructions has al ready been noted,53 and the same could perhaps be inferred in this case for semantics.

52 I am grateful to Professor HG.M. WiIliamson for drawing my attention to these passages and suggesting that they are late additions.

53 E.g. W.Th. van Peursen, 'Periphrastic tenses in Ben Sira', in T. Muraoka and

J.F. Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew 0/ the Dead Sea Scrolls aud Ben Sira. Proceedings

0/ a Symposium held at Leiden U/liversity, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; Leiden: El BriIl, 1997), pp. 165-67.

22

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SACES

Bibliography Aberbach, M., and B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis together with an English Translation 0/ the Text (New York: Ktav, 1982). Aitken, J.K., 'Studies in the Hebrew and Greek text of Ben Sira with special reference to the future' (unpublished PhO dissertation; Cambridge, 1995). Barr, J., The Semantics 0/ Biblical Langllage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). Baumgarten, J.M., 'Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265 and Jubilees', in G.J. Brooke and F. Garcia Martinez (eds.), New Qwnran Texts and Studies: Proceedings 0/

the First Meeting 0/ tlle International Organization /or Qumran Studies, Paris 1992 (STDJ, 15; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 3-10. Beentjes, P.c., Jesus Sirach en Tenach: een onderzoek naar en een c1assificatie van parallelen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45: 6-26 (Nieuwegein: Beentjes, 1981). -The Book 0/ Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition 0/ All Extant Hebrew Manllscripts and a Synopsis 0/ All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts

(VTSup, 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). Chester, A., Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tübingen: J.c.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986). Clines, O.J.A. (ed.), The Dictionary 0/ Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1993-). Eberharter, A., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecc1esiasticus (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes übersetzt und erklärt in Verbindung mit Fachgelehrten, 6.5; Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1925). Hayward, C.T.R., 'The New Jerusalem in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira', SJOT 6 (1992), pp. 123-38. -'Pseudo-Philo and the Priestly Orade', J/S 46 (1995), pp. 43-54. -The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1996). -Review of Munoz Le6n, Gloria de la Shekina, JJS 30 (1979), pp. 99-102. -'Sacrifice and World Order: Some Observations on Ben Sira's Attitude to the Temple Service', in Stephen W. Sykes (ed.), Sacri/ice and Redemption: Durham Essays in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 22-34. -'The Figure of Adam in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities', JSJ 23 (1992), pp. 1-20. Jacob, E., 'L'histoire d'Israel vue par Ben Sira', in Melanges bibliques rediges en l'honneur de Andre Robert (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1957),

AITKEN: 1HE SEMANTICS OF 'GLORY'

23

pp. 288-94. Jervell, J., Imago Dei: Gen 1,26f im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 58; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960). Kadushin, M., The Rabbinic Mind (Third ed.; New York: Bloch, 1972). Kippenberg, H., Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Unter-

suchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramaischen Periode

(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971). Kister, M., 'A contribution to the interpretation of Ben Sira', Tarbiz. 59 (1990), pp. 303-78 [in Hebrew]. -'Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha, and other Jewish Writings', in J.C Reeves (ed.), Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Early Judaism and its Literature, 6; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994), pp. 1-34. Knibb, M.A., in consultation with E. Ullendorff, The Ethiopic Book of

Enoeh: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaie Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). Lauterbach, J.Z., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manllscripts and Early Editions wilh an English Translation, Introduction and Notes, Vol. 1 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publi-

cation Society, 1933). Levison, J.R., Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch aSPSup, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988). Mack, B.L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of the Fathers (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985). Marböck, J., 'Das Gebet um die Rettung Zions Sir 36, 1-22 (G: 33, 113a; 36, 16b-22) im Zusammenhang der Geschichtsschau Ben Siras', in J.B. Bauer and J. Marböck (eds.), Memoria Jerusalem: Freundesgabe Franz Z. Sauer zum 70. Geburtstag (Jerusalem/Graz: Akademische Oruck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1977), pp. 93-116 Marmorstein, A., The Old Rabbinie Doetrine of God, 1. The Names & Attributes of God (Jews' College Publications, no. 10; London: Oxford University Press, 1927). Martin, J.O., 'Ben Sira's Hymn to the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective', OTS 24 (1986), pp. 107-23. van der Merwe, CH.J., 'Hebrew Grammar, Exegesis and Commentaries', JNSL 11 (1983), pp. 143-56. Mufioz Le6n, 0., La Gloria de la Shekina en los Targumim dei Pentateuco (Madrid: CSIC, 1977).

24

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

Newsom, C, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Harvard Semitic Series 27; AtIanta: Scholars Press, 1985). Perdue, L.G., Wisdom and CuZt: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Litemtllre of Israel and the Ancient Near East (SBLDS 30; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977). van Peursen, W.Th., 'Periphrastic tenses in Ben Sira', in T. Muraoka & 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 (STDJ, 26; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997).

Raurell, F., 'The Religious Meaning of «Doxa» in the Book of Wisdorn', in M. Gilbert (ed.), La Sagesse de l'Ancien Testament (BETL, 51; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979), pp. 370-83. van Ruiten, J., 'The Garden of Eden and Jubilees 3:1-31', BTFT 57 (1996), pp. 305-17. Sawyer, J.F., Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Deftning Hebrew Words for Salvation (London: SCM Press, 1972). Schechter S. , & C Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book

Ecc1esiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899). Segal, M.Z., Cl?tDi1 ~n'O P 1E)O (Second ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958).

Sukenik, E.L. (ed.), The Dead Sea Serails of the Hebrew University Uerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1954-55). Stadelmann, H., Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: eine Untersuchung zum

Berufsbild des vor-Makkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses ZIl Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehretum (WUNT, 2/6; Tübingen: J.Ca. Mohr, 1981). Syren, R., The Blessings in the Targums: A Studyon the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 (Acta Academiae

Aboensis, Sero A., vol. 64,1; Abo: Abo Akademi, 1986). VanderKam, J.C, '/I/bilees' Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest', RQ 17 (1996), pp. 359-73 van der Woude, A.S., 'Some Remarks on Literary Critical Source Analysis of the Old Testament and Hebrew Semantics', in T. Muraoka (ed.), Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics (ANSup, 4; Leuven: Peeters Press, 1995), pp. 49-54. Vermes, G., The Comp/ete Dead Sea Serails in English (London: Penguin, 1997).

NOMINAL CLAUSES WITH LOCATIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICA TES IN QUMRAN HEBREW· Martin F.J. Baasten (Leiden) Of the various types of nominal elauses that exist in Hebrew, those that have a prepositional phrase as one of their eore elements form a distinet group that deserves separate attention. In this study, two different types of clauses will be analysed; first, those in whieh the prepositional phrase indicates a loeation (by means of the prepositions -:l, ?Y, CY, T~ ete.), e.g. p:l 1U~lti'l 'the man is in the garden' or p:l 1U~1t 'there is a man in the garden'; and, seeond, those in which the prepositional phrase eonveys the notion of possession or belonging (by means of the preposition -?), e.g. n~:l ~? 'I have a house' or n~:li'l ~? 'the house belongs to me'.l The classification, deseription, and analysis will be earried out aeeording to various parameters. On the one hand, formal eharaeteristies will serve as a point of departure. This means that main eategories are chosen aeeording to the relative order of the eore eonstituents-the prepositional phrase may either preeede the noun phrase (PP-NP, Seetions I-IV) or follow it (NP-PP, Seetions V-VIII). These two groups will further be classified aeeording to the definiteness or indefiniteness of the noun phrase. Additionally, attention will be paid to the syntaetie nature of the clause, that is to say, whether it • I should like to convey my gratitude to Professor Muraoka for inviting me to present a paper at the symposium the proceedings of which are contained in the present volume. I am also grateful to the participants of the symposium, in particular Drs W. Th. van Peursen (Leiden) and Dr I.F. Elwolde (Sheffield), for discussing various issues in this paper. Note the following abbreviations: Ne = nominal clause; NP = noun phrase; i = indefinite; d =definite; S =Subject; P = predicate; PP = prepositional phrase; PPr =personal pronoun; DPr = demonstrative pronoun; Ptc = participle; Th = theme; Rh = rheme. Braces {} are used, both in quotations and in their translations, to separate the context from the nominal clause at issue. 1 Thus clauses with -:I or '1/:):1 are excluded from this study, as are short relative clauses with prepositional phrases such as lQS 5.18 0:1' '1I1K ',:1. On the latter type, see Qimron, Hebrew, §400.16. Pure existential clauses with an overt element expressing the notion of existence, i.e., with forms of 111', l'K, or :1':1, will not be dealt with in this paper.

26

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

is a main clause or a subordinate one. Within those formal features, due attention will be paid to contextual aspects: the information structure of the clause. The main question is which of the two co re constituents conveys the contextually old information (the theme, Th) and which the contextually new information ühe rheme, Rh).2 In doing so, we shall see that aseparate category of clauses needs to be distinguished in wh ich both core constituents have a contrastive value. Finally, attention will be paid to the text type in which the clause appears, viz. prose or poetry, exegesis, and the like. In Sect. IX, some remarks will be made about clauses that at first sight seem to consist of two prepositional phrases, although we shall see that this is only apparently so. In Sect. X, attention will be paid 10 pairs of contrasting clauses, and in Sect. XI, some general concluding re marks will be made. 3

I: PP-NPd lA: Main clauses of the type PP-NPd

The first category to be described is the nominal clause in which the prepositional phrase precedes adefinite noun phrase. This fairly common pattern is attested in the order both of Th-Rh and Rh-Th. Theme-Rheme. In this case, the pp serves as the point of departure, while the NP conveys the new information: 4QMMT A 5.2-5 lr.lWl'1 'lnr.l ,:2 I:I~)W' 1:I~'W»:2 'on the twentysecond of it is the Festival of the (New) Oil';4 4QMMT A 2.6-8 [~])Wl'1 I:I[,~], n:2Wl'1 'MIt ,~,» 'after it (Le., the Sabbath) co me Sunday and Monday ...'.5 For the use of these terms, see Baasten, pp. 1-3. The corpus investigated for this purpose consists of the following texts (and editions; for full references, see bibliography): 1QpHab (Nitzan 1986); 1QH (Licht); 1QS, 4QS (Qimron and Charlesworth); 1QSa, 1QSb (Charlesworth and Stuckenbruck); 1QM (Duhaime); 3Q1S (Wolters, Milik); 4QTobit e [4Q200] (Fitzmyer); 4QPrayer of Enosh [4Q369] (Attridge and Strugnell); Shirot haShabbat a-h [4Q400-407] (Newsom); CD (Qimron); 4QMMT (Qimron and Strugnell); 11QT (Qimron). 4 Qimron and Strugnell translate consistently "the twenty-second of it is the ...". Formally speaking, however, the first constituent in these and other clauses in the calendrical part of 4QMMT is clearly a PP. Literally these clauses read: "on the twenty-second of it there/it is the/a ... 5 Qimron and Strugnell translate this as a Ptc clause, restoring ')0') after these 2 3

H.

BAASTEN: LOCATIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICATES

27

The same pattern Th-Rh obviously also serves as a circumstantial clause: lQM 7.14 ':2Wl nt'1!nll1 nY:2111 C":21 {C"" l'1Y:2I11} '{seven Levites,l and in their hand there are the seven ram's horns',6 Rheme-Theme. Within this same pattern PP-NPd, the reverse sequence, Rh-Th, also occurs, that is to say, sometimes it is the PP that conveys the new information: lQS 4.23 C,1t ,,:2:> ,,:> Cl'1" "and theirs shall be all the glory of Adam',? Especially in poetic texts, this pattern PP-NPd very often serves to emphasize the uniqueness and the power of God, a central theme in much of Qumran poetry,8 to highlight the frailty or wickedness of sinful people or the limitations of ordinary humankind contrasted with the omnipotence of God. In all these cases, the information structure is clearly Rh-Th: lQM 18.13 l'1/:l"'IJl'1 l'1:>,':2, l'1'1':2ll'1 l'1:>' 'Thine is the power and in Thy hand is the battle'; lQH 5.4 c,,:> U!)1I11J l'1:>,':2, "and in Thy hand is the judgment of them all';9 "and towards it is their only lQM 13.12 ,", l'1lJni"[lI1n] desire';lo lQM 15.9-10 [l'1lJn]i"lI1n Cl'1'II1YIJ ,,:> 1111'":2' "and in darkness are all their deeds, and unto it is their inclination';

",It, ",It,

words; but in the notes they add: "The restoration is tentative and alternative restorations are possible (e.g., '1tm;, '117';117;")." This implies that the word '1,m (or any other form of it) may be attributive to the days and not the P of the clause, in which case the translation should be "after it (there are) an additional Sunday ...". The parallel passage quoted by Qimron and Strugnell does have this pattern: 4QMish d 1.2-3 ,nlt ,:2 ;'117117'0-'1173/:2 0-"3/117;' ['3/'''] ,;3/, ;,'y,- ;3/ n:2117 ,:2 :tV7/lM, 0-'1173/:2 n:2117 "the twenty-fifth of it is a Sabbath in (the week of service) of Yeda'aya and next to it (comes) the festival of the barley on the twenty-sixth of it on Sunday". Note that in A 20 '10['l] is restored, but there, too, its syntactic function is unclear. 6 Although all translations render ;:2,-;' m'll'lI7 nl':2117 as NPi ("seven ram's horns"), grammatically the phrase is clearly determinate. Moreover, the reference may possibly be to Jos. 6.4 and the conquest of Jericho. Apparendy the idea is that the seven ram's horns will be used in the batde described in the War Seroll. Note Jos. 6.6 0';:2'- m'll'lI7 nl':2117 with a grammatically indefinite form. 7 Wernberg-Meller translates "Adam". The clause stands in parallel to 1QS 4.22 0''';'3/ n":2; ;lt ~ O:2lt':I. 8 See Nitzan 1996, pp. 136-64; Licht, §§21-26, 36, 40; Mansoor, pp. 54-55, 58-60; Merrill, pp. 37-39. 9 Cf. 1QH fr. 13.4 0;':1 "llll7" 1'-:2" 10 The singular suffix in ,-;lt refers to 11171M 'pm (Vermes: "towards them"; van der Ploeg: "vers elles"), or possibly to Belial.

28

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

lQM 13.13-14 i1~M"'::ll " O'l"::lK OY, 'and with the poor ones is Thy mighty hand';ll lQS 11.21 ';::ll~ .,!)y/:) i1K';" 'and he-from dust is his kneading' (with extraposition); lQS 11.2 'U!)W~ ;K; 'lK K'~ 'but as for me-with God is my judgment' (with extraposition).12 Less clear as regards context is 4QShirShabb d [4Q403] 1:1.32 i1::l [,m]~;~ ;,~ ."i1 OY Oi1';";K ;,~ mn::lWM "I rom it (comes) the praises of a11 the godlike ones together with the splendour of a11 His majesty",13 I B: Subordinate clauses 01 the type P P-N Pd

This pattern is almost exclusively attested in poetic texts, in every case with the conjunction (K)'l The information structure is without doubt Rh-Th, serving to emphasize the same themes as described in the previous seetion: lQH 2.33 "~Y~ 1MK~ ,~ {'Y[" K';]} '{they know not} that from Thee is my stand';14 lQS 3.2 ,w.,n~ YW., l'KO::l K'~ "for in the filth of wickedness is his plowing" (not specifica11y poetry);15 4Q403 1:1.32 ,m~;~ "::l~ mn::lWM ."i1::l ,~ "for in the splendour of praise is the glory of His majesty"; CD 13.6-7 U!)W~i1 0i1; ,~ "for to them ühe priests) is the judgment"16 (not specifically poetry);

11 Jongeling reads a relative clause: "Dieu d'Israel, dont la main puissante est avec les pauvres". 12 Further examples include: 1QS 11.5 '~!I'II1" ,njrlll 1QS 11.1 0-11 o,n ",,,, 1":1; lQS 11.2 :2:2; "'111' 0» ':2" om ,,':2,; lQS 11.4 ",) In; ;,:l '3!1"} 'I:l»!1'" n» »;0:2 «»T»,,'> (»,Tl/; 1QM 11.4 :1":21:1 :1:lnll'" :1I:ln;":1 :1:l;; 1QH 16.9 :1i"31:1 :1nll :1:l;; 1QH 10.4 m:2''II1n '!I»;'; 1QS 11.22 mi"'II1n '!I»;" 13 Newsom's italies indicate an uncertain translation. Newsom: "The word or prepositional phrase :1:2 presents a problem. Unless :1:2 is an uncorrected error (e.g., for nV1:2'111n ,,:1:2), the only conceivable antecedent for the pronominal suffix :1- is m':l'", in the preceding phrase. The nuance of the preposition is per ha ps best taken as causal, 'on account of, arising from' (Joüon § 133c)." This sentence and the previous one form a chiastic pair (see Newsom, pp. 215-16). 14 Compare lQH 2.23 ' II1!13 »''II1,n :1:l"On:2" 15 Cf. 4QSc 1:2.3-4 ''II1,n" [»]'111' 1110[:2 1I']:l; difficult (compare Isa. 9.4, which is equally problematic)-Licht: ":t»~ ''111»,,:2 :t»,i''II1 m:2'111n,,"; Lohse: "denn nach bösem Frevel (geht) sein Streben". Wernberg-Maller refers to Hos. 10.13, but with the meaning of 'to devise, to think' (cf. Provo 3.29). 16 As against the Levites (CD 13.3).

"i'''''';

BAASTEN: LOCATIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICATES

29

CD 8.17-18 m:ntM n,.,:2 I:IM' ':l "for to them belongs the covenant of the fathers" (not specifically poetry).J7 H: PP-NPi

HA: Main clauses o{ the type PP-NPi Theme-Rheme. In the type PP-NPi, the structure Th-Rh is amply attested. This is probably due to the fact that the noun phrase is indefinite, and as such it is particularly apt for conveying contextually new information: lQS 8.1-2 M'l)M ":l:2 1:I'~'~n MII"'1I1 1:I')m:l' 1I1'1t .,11137 1:1')111 ,n'M nl37:2 M"nM ":l~ 'in the Council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three priests, perfect in all that is revealed of the whole Law'; 4QMMT A 1.4-6 n:2111 ,:2 MII1"II1' 1:1'' 11137:2 'on the twenty-third (day) of it (i.e., the second month) is a Sabbath';18 llQT 17.10 [1I1,]'i' It.,i'~ MtM 1I1"n, .,11137 MII1~n:2' 'and on the fifteenth of this month there shall be a holy convocation'; 3Q 15 6.5-6 42 :l:l ,nnn "under it there are 42 talents"; 1:1,' I:1II1,nnM:2 1QS 10.4 1:1"37 ,',on nn!l~' mit' l:I'II1"i' 1I1"i" "when they are renewed it is a great day for the most holy and a sign of the opening of His everlasting mercies".19 As expected, we also find circumstantial clauses displaying the order Th-Rh, in prescriptions concerning or descriptions of architectural features, ornamentation, etc.: lQM 5.6-7 T":l' n~., 1:1,':2, 'and in their hand there shall be a spear and a sword'; lQM 5.7 ... l:I'nm!l~ I:I"'~I :'1111"111 .,lO:2' "and on the socket there

,m

17 The NP is indefinite in the parallel clause in MS B: CD 19.30-31 n":2 o:t'1 ':;' m:2lt. On this feature, see Sect. IX below, note 63. Further examples include: lQH 2.23 ''WlI'' :t:;,nlt" It'~ CD 12.4-5 0,1t:t "3:2 '111 ':;' ''''11.1'' "it shall fall to man to keep hirn in custody"; lQH 2.22 :t:;,nlt" It':;, ('li" 1t'1) '''11''; lQM 11.1 :t""'1,,:t :t:;,'1 Olt 1t'::J; lQH 11.17-18 i"lI:t :t:;,'1 [':;'] {:tIl'It'}; lQH 17.20 [O]?,I1'1 :t:;',:2:t ,,,11.1,, :ti',lIrr :tnlt :t:;,'1 [It':l]. 18 See the remark in note 4 above. Other examples: 4QMMT A 2.3-5 0"11.111[:2] n:211.1 ,:2 m"'1!n; 4QMMT A 2.4-5 n:211.1 ,:2 '11.111 m",1I.':l; 4QMMT A 3.6-8 ,:2 :t1l.l"m 0"11.111:2 n:211.1; 4QMMT A 3.9-11 [n]:2[1I.I] [']11.![,~ 0')11.1:2; 4QMMT A 4.3-4 n:211.1 ,:2 ,1I.I1t 11.111.1:2; 4QMMT A 4.5-7 n:211.1 ,:2 1t1l.l,'11I.I, 0'11.111:2.

19 The Charlesworth edition transcribes oi~, while others have Oll But all editions interpret the word as '1"1 0", after 4QSb 8:2.2-3 O'1I.I"i' ""'i''1 "'1 0" 01l.l,nnrr:l 0"11 ,',on n~'1 n'ltl and 4QSd 4:1.1.

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

30

shall be three rings, engraved ..."; llQT 36.12-13 1'1"'1C::I 1'I1C"" C"1I1' ''lfn, '~1111'1 "'lfi''''1'1 " "1111'1 nl!)"" "and fram the (outer) corner of the gate as far as the second (inner) corner of the court there shall be a hundred and twenty cu bits"; 3Q15 2.5-6 ,,::1 '::ln::l' "au milieu duquel se trouve une citerne".20 In poetic texts, just as we saw in the previous section, the pattern PPNPi most often displays the order Th-Rh, the pp introducing the clause, the NP conveying the new information: lQH 9.33-34 '::I l'1::lU!)l!1l'1::1 c'",[n,] l''''l'11} n,n',o ~" "''lf'" c" "and with my footsteps is abundant forgiveness and infinite mercy accompanies Thy disputing with me";21 4Q405 14-15 6 tI"n tI'l'11'1C '~'::I IC'!) m",i'" '111'''' "1'1 'n" 1,n[::I] "in the midst of the spirits of splendour is a work of wondrous colours, figures of the living divine beings ...";22 4Q405 19ABCD 7 ui'1I1 n",,,,, "i' 1C'!)1'I ["'::Ih' nnn", 'underneath the wondrous debirim there is the sound of quiet stillness'.23 Rheme-Theme. Clauses of the pattern PP-NPi also frequently display the information structure Rh-Th. Their function is the same as that of the pattern PP-NPd, often emphasizing the uniqueness and power of God as against the weaknesses and shortcomings of humankind. It is remarkable that many of the NPi's in these clauses might be semantically definite, even though they are clearly indefinite from a formal point of view: lQM 4.2-3 'U7 '111::1 ,,:l::l 717;)"'7;) l' ,Je nJe7;) "from God comes the

20 Further examples include: llQT 38.15+4Q365 'Im m7;)1t 117'' 117 'ltn" 'ltn:t }'::I, (4Q365 has 'Im nwlt 117'' 117 ,n" ,n }'::I); 39.13-14,15-16; 40.13-14; 41.5-6,6-7; 41.7-8,910,10-11; lQM 8.4-5 ",lt7;)1I77;)' }'7;)'7;) ::I:l, '1I7llt 0""" 21 These two clauses form a chiastic pair. 22 There is no reason for Newsom's parentheses around "is", which seem to indicate a clarifying addition to the translation, as if predication is absent in Hebrew. Similarly Garcia Martinez-Van der Woude. 23 This translation is to be preferred to Newsom's "trom underneath ... (comes)". There is no reason to assurne a directional meaning in the composite preposition MM: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. Mn, §III.2b. Since the clause preceding 4Q400 1: 1.17 -18 '0!)1I77;) OP 0'1I7,'i' ",:l m,,:t 0:t'!)7;)' [",::I:l] "and from their (i.e. the priests of the inner sanctum) mouths (corne) the teachings concerning a11 matters of holiness together with [His glorious] commandments" is incomplete, the information structure cannot be determined in this case. Further examples include: 4Q405 23:2.12 ny, 'l'1I7" nw"n '1I7Jt'l::l; 4Q405 23:2.7 ,,:t m"1 'mn!) l"1t '1I7P7;):l :t7;)j'" mm, 0:t'1t"!) '7;)P7;)::I; 4Q405 14-15:1.2-3 n'7;)'7;)' 0'''1t 0:t'1t"!) 0'7;)7;)''17;) '''7;)'' "i o-:t'''ltl.

"It"

"m,

"::1 v

SAASTEN: LOCA TIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICATES

31

might of war against all sinful flesh";24 lQS 3.15 ;'''l'm ;"';' 'm nur, '''CI:) "from the God of Knowledge comes all that is and shall be";2S lQS 3.16-17 ,,:2 '''!l1U1:) "':2 "in His hand are the judgments of all things".26 The two instances found in poetry fully comply with this description: lQH 15.22 'M ,,:2 1" 1nlCl:)' "from Thee is the way of every living being"; 1QH 4.31 ;'i',t '11.1'1:) ,,:2 'IC? "to the Most High belong an righteous deeds".

1""

II B: Subordinate clauses o{ the type PP-N Pi Theme-Rheme. The sequence Th-Rh is attested in a syndetic relative clause (with '1U1C, the PP containing the resumptive pronoun) and in an asyndetic object clause. All instances are in prose: 11 QT 48.17 pm 'IC mlU" n"t ,:2 '1U1C (",tm) "(and the leper) on whom there is a chronic leprosis or scab"; 4QMMT C 27-28 ;",n "1:)' ;'1:)" 11:)' ("'[1C]'1U) "(for we have seen) (that) you have wisdom and knowledge of the Torah"; 11QT 46.18+11QTb [;",,] ;"i'1:) m~;" '1U1C (c'lU)lCm) "(and the men) who have had a nocturnal emission". Rheme-Theme. Sy contrast, an instances of this pattern with the sequence Rh-Th have the conjunction ':2. The examples in question an happen to be attested in poetic texts. This type of clause has much in common with the one described in Sect. 1 (PP-NPd). It may be significant that from a semantic point of view the NP could be considered definite, aIthough formally it is indefinite. lQH 11.7-8 ;", ,,:2 ;,:m:2lUMI:):2' ;,p,t ;':2,':2, (;':2'!l nl:)lC ':2 'n,,' ')IC') 'land 1 know that Thy mouth is truth) and (that) in Thy hand is righteousness and (that) in Thy purpose is an knowledge' (with ':2 doing tri pie duty); 4QPrEnosh 3.2 [4Q369] ;,n;, ,,:2 ;,:l7.l7.l ':2 "for from you is an

24 This is the title written on the standard of the hundred. Although it is possible that it is not a c1ause ("From God, a hand of war ..." or [Yadin 1962] "hundred of God ..."), note that some titles on the banners do consist of a clause, e.g., 1QM 4.3-4 '"t n~l[:I] tI,,»vn '1/'.)>>1) 'nn. 2S On the reading :mrr or l1',rr, cf. Licht. See also 1QM 17.5; 11.10; CD 2.10; 1QH 12.9; 1QS 11.4-5, etc. Qimron, Hebrew, §107, mentions the word as "not attested either in BH or in MH" and interprets it as rr"rr, a participle of l1'l1. 26 The clause is parallel to 1QS 3.17 ... mnm ... tI"''''· mnm.

32

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

that is" (context unclear); 4Q4024 8 [n],,;)n[;]7.) '[;:l] O';IC 'm;lC; 1C':l "for to the God of the e/im belong the weapons of war".27

HC: Excursus-the Cop per Scroll A category of clauses that at first sight seem to belong to the pattern PP-NPi is constituted by those that appear frequently in the Cop per Scroll (3QI5)-and which in fact make up the bulk of the text. The initiallocal PP, which may be quite lengthy and elaborate, indicates a place where a valuable object is to be found, while the noun phrase that follows refers to the object itself, e.g.: 3Q 15 1.6-8 '1) 1C';n::l o,nc u'i"i' 1"::1 l';'UC'l:lil 'In::l1l1 ;"lil ,,::1::1 nlC7.) »lI1n l":l:l l";»iI nnl:lil "in the big cistern which is in the court of the peristyle, in a recess of its bottom which is plugged up with sediment, ac ross from the upper opening: nine hundred talents";28 3Q 15 1.5-6 100::lm n,nll1» '1I1;1I1i1 iI::I' 1::1 1I1l:l)::1 "in the sepulchre of Ben Rabbah the Third: 100 ingots of gold". This type of clause is very frequent indeed in 3Q15. At first, one might be inclined to take them as classic ex am pIes of locative clauses. Some trans la tors in fact do insert "(there is/are)" in parentheses, in order to bring out the sense of the clause: 3QI5 1.6-8 "in the big cistern... : (there are) nine hund red talents"; 3Q15 1.5-6 "in the sepulchre ... : (there are) 100 ingots of gold". In that case, the PP would constitute the theme of the clause, while the new information, the valuable object referred to, would be its rheme. Although this interpretation is attractive, there is one salient feature in the text that seems 10 run counter to it. Many of those local PPs are followed by another independent clause, wh ich apparently separates the theme from the rheme. These are of two types: the separating element may be an imperative clause of the type "Dig x cu-

27 Further examples incIude: lQS 10.16-17 'n ~,~ "!111m "':2 It.~ {1'I»,1t,} (cf. 4QSb 9.4 '" ~~ "!lW ,,[':2 .:p; note that the word order is reversed in 4QSf 2.3 ~,~ "!lW" h~ and the conjunction ':2 is absent); 1QH 15.13 m, ~,~ 'll' 1":2 '!) (l'I»'It,k lQS 10.18 '" ~'!) "!lW ~It nlt 1t':2 (I / '~'''l w'lt~ CW' 11~~ cf. also 4QSb 9.6; 4QSf 2.5-6 '" ~!) ["!lW,,] ~It nlt ['P}, lQH 4.30-31 C,1t 1:2~ It,~, 11i"llW'31t~ It,~ '!) {·n»,. '3~}

:rn.

", cm.

28 Milik reads

1t'~n:2 c,nll as "celle qui est bouchee par une pierre percee". WoIters' interpretation of It'~n as "sediment" is questionable; see Elwolde (forthcoming).

BAASTEN: LOCATIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICATES

33

bits",29 or a nominal clause that specifies the initial PP or part of it. 3Q15 6.11-13 27 !)!) l'1'CY l:I~nll1 mPJIC 'Dn ~:2'YPJl'1 '1:2 1C!)'PJl'1 l!)II1PJ:2 "in the Queen's Residence, on the west side, dig twelve cubUs: 27 talents"; 3Q15 9.17-10.2 ,n,~,~ n~'II1l'1 l'11C~'Y:2 1:1", [1:I~PJ]l'1 nPJIC:2 UPJ:2111 ':2'111:2 9 !)!) IC'YPJ'PJ "at the dovecot which is at Me~ad, at the water conduit, southward in the second upper room-the descent to it is from above: 9 talents". There even seems to be an instance of two consecutive interrupting clauses: 3Q15 9.1-3 l~nll1 1C'' "while some of it is on it"; lQS 8.19 ,",; I)omt ;,:l; 1'lt:'1 l)!)!Ur.>:l, 'and the same judgment Os the case) for all who join the Community'. In the first case, it is preferable to interpret -:l adverbially as "about, approximately".61 More or less the same appHes to the one instance of a subordinate existential clause apparently consisting of two prepositional phrases. In the second clause, the mem partitivum in the first constituent should be regarded as an indefinite nominal constituent.62 Such a straightforward explanation does not seem to apply to the third clause, however. On closer consideration, we are not dealing with a genuine clause consisting of two prepositional phrases. A comparison with similar clauses shows unequivocally that the third exampIe quoted above is a case of ellipsis, as is made clear in the following scheme: Rheme Theme Adverbial adjunct

CD 20.1-2

wkn

lQS 8.18-19

wkmsp~

CD 13.17

wkn

hmsp~

hzh "(hmspf) " (hmspf)

lkl b>y cdt >nsy tmym hqds lkl hnwsp

ly~d

lmgri

A complete version of this clause type can be seen in CD 20.12; it consists of a PP kn "thus" which is the rheme, whereas the theme is hmsp~, followed by an adverbial adjunct 'and such shall be the ruling for. ..'. Instead of this initial kn, however, we also have cases of wkms p~ hzh, after which arepetition of the theme hms p~ would clearly be cumbersome: 'and according to this judgment (shall be the judgment) for ...'. The reason for the ellipsis of the theme, therefore, is quite obvious. In CD 13.17, finally, we have the same sort of ellipsis with the PP kn: 'and thus (shall be the judgment) for the one who divorces his wife'.63 61 See Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. -;), §la (p. 453); Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §133g. 62 See Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. TIl. §3b (p. 580); Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §133e. 63 Further examples: CD 15.6-7 '0,,1:1 :2'11m ~~~ PVIM Ti' ~:2 "!)WI:IM p' (with an added temporal adjunct); CD 16.12 M':2K~ "!)WI:IM P'; CD 20.1-2 'W1K n,p 'K:2 ~~~ "!)WI:IM P' W'lj'M tl'l:In; CD 8.18-19 (cf. CD 19.32) ~K mlll:l:2 tlK'I:IM ~~~ MTM "!)WI:I~'; CD 20.8-9

44

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

X: Clauses with two contrastive constituents

In some cases, the context in which a nominal clause appears unambiguously shows that both its core constituents are contras ted to those in another clause. Whereas in speech this double contrastive assertion may be easily recognized by specific prosodie patterns, in written texts such clauses can be identified when they appear in pairs, the two clauses being juxtaposed. Obviously, this type of clause cannot be classified simply as Th-Rh or Rh-Th.64 This feature is attested in Biblical Hebrew as weIl, e.g., Deut. 29.28 "'3:1" '3' ri,mn '3'rI'K '" n,n03r1 "the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and our children". In our corpus, such contrastive clauses occur in prose as weIl as in poetry, in main as weIl as in subordinate clauses, with both indefinite and definite noun phrases. The prepositional phrase almost always precedes the noun phrase: lQS 3.19 nl;)KrI m",n "K pYI;):I "from a fountain of light spring those born of truth"; lQS 3.19 "Yri m",n 1""n "i'I;)I;)' "but from a weIl of darkness spring those born of injustice"; llQT 60.6-9 " ''''''i'rI '",K 'rlJ'm "",'nm P'rI ''''YI;) C"'''' .,'Y' "JrI TI;)' t:lrl TI;)' "",rI TI;) O:ll;)m n:ltrl 'n:ln nKI;) C:l",m m'",'K" c''''l;)nrl TI;) ,",c ",:I,rI TI;) ''''YI;)' m"rI '3:11;)' rlKl;)rI TI;) ,nK C'l'" rI'n" "and to the Levites is due the tithe of corn, the wine and the oil that they have sanctified to me first ... "; llQT 60.9-10 {... 'n,n:l rll;):I ':l} m"rI '3:1 TI;) rlKl;)rI TI;) ,nK C'3m:l"

c'''"VIIt:n C'"II1It,:2 DItrom ;:l; :mt O!lll11.):l'; lQS 7.9 ,:2, ;,:l 'V1!I); cpu; 1:2' (with ellipsis, introduced by wkn); lQS 7.10-11 mlll:l ~; ,II11t C':2,:t :2111~:2 'O!l):t ""It; pt The only two cases where mspf is remarkably indefinite are found in MS B, where the parallel clause in MS A has adefinite constituent; compare CD 19.1314 ,n":2 '1t:2 ;:2; O!lll11.) 1:2' (B) with CD 8.1 W,:2 '1t:2 ;:2 O!lll11.) 1:2' (A) and CD 19.28-29 Olm "'1.) "0 ;1t,II1' ':2111; O!lll11.) 1:2 (B) with CD 8.16 Olm "'1.) "0 ;It,,,,, ':2111; O!lll11.):t p, (A). (In CD 8.1 the phrase introduced by mspf is made definite by its nomen rectum kl b'y brytw, which in turn renders the adverbial introduced by 1superfluous.) The reason for this is probably to be found in the character of MS Bitself, in which the artic1e is lacking several times, apparently without reason. Compare also, e.g., CD 8.17-18 m:2lt:t n":1 O:t;':2 (A) and CD 19.30-31 m:21t n":2 O:t;':2 (B), quoted in §IB above. The absence of the article in 19.13,28 leads White (p. 549) to believe that the A-text is original, whereas in 19.30 (p. 550) the same fact leads her to the opposite conc1usion. 64 On the not ion of contrastiveness and multiple contrastive elements, see especially Chafe, pp. 33-38.

BAASTEN: LOCATIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICATES

45

"but to the priests is due one percent of the pigeons, {for them I have chosen... }"; lQS 3.20 i'u 'l:2 Im n'II".)tl C"'IC '117 ":2 "in the hand of the Prince of Lights is the dominion of all the Sons of Righteousness"; lQS 3.20-21 "P 'l:2 n'lI7tltl ,,:2 1117,n 1IC'tl ,':2, "but in the hand of the Angel of Darkness is aB the dominion of the Sons of Deceit"; lQH 11.8 P1l '13!lll7tl ,,:2 1"I:2!l1C:2 "in Thy wrath are aB chastisements"; lQH 11.9 mn',o :2" 1"I:2:2,13:2, "but in Thy goodness is much forgiveness";65 1QH 1.26-27 C'ICr1 'l:2" ntllCl"I "0' l"Ii"Jl"I 'II7Ptl ,,:2 mp,l"I 'IC l"InlC l"I:2' l"I'tl,l"I 'II7Ptl, l"Pl"I n":2p "Thine, 0 God of knowledge, are aB righteous deeds and the counsel of truth, but to the sons of men is the work of iniquity and deeds of deceit". 66 In Secl. VA above we have seen that a nominal clause of the type NPd-PP occurs exclusively in the sequence Th-Rh. In that regard it is remarkable to find it attested with two contrastive core constituents. A possible explanation for the second pair below is the chiastic structure in which it occurs (NPd-PP-PP-NPi). lQM 15.1-2 l"IPII7, 'u ,,:2, l"I':2' C'tl"p m'!l:2 'IC "m "and the lot of God shaB be in everlasting redemption, but destruction shaB there be for every nation of wickedness"; 1QS 4.6-8 P'I m'!l' C'tl' 1"1C:2 C"1I7 :2", 1C!l'tl' 1"I:2 ':2"l"I ,,:2 n"i'!l' "IC:2 "1"I n'tl CP ,,:2:2 ",:2, nJl "n:2 C'tl"p nntlll7' 'P m:2':2 ,,:2 CP C'D'U7 "and the visitation of aB those who walk in it will be healing, great peace in a long life .....; 1QS 4.9-11 r1U 'i'II7, PII7, i"J n":2p:2 C'" "!lIl7, l17!ll :2,n, l"I"P 'II7Ptl 1m nlCli" n,ne :2", C'IIIC "Ji' ')ln :l", "I:l1C l"I'D" I17n:2 :2:2, c", 1nIC ,,:2:2, C'l'P l"'P C'II"l 1'117" r1lCtl13 n":lp:l 1"I" ':2", nm m':l l"I:2p,n P" nD'p, 1117,n ':2" ,,:2:l n:2;; :2, ,,:2,:2, ,)"P 'lI7'i' "but to the spirit of iniquity belong greed, and slackness in the service of righteousness ......

m",

65 Less straighforward is 1QS 11.10 ;It; 1t':3 "»)1 1':3' It,; limit' ,:3" O,It; 1t':3 t)!)v,lt,m "for it is not man (who determines) his way ... for with God is justification". 66 There is strong contrast on the pp in the first clause, indicated by the additional use of the independent pronoun, immediately after the suffixed pronoun with the same referent: see Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §146d; Muraoka 1985, pp. 61-62.

46

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

Xl: General observations

The foregoing investigation enables us to make a number of general observations concerning the syntax of nominal clauses with locative and possessive prepositional phrases in Qumran Hebrew. 1. David Cohen 67 suggested that in many languages a general rule is operative in nominal clauses with prepositional phrases, according to which the pp precedes when the NP is indefinite, whereas it follows when the NP is definite. Thus there would be two complementary patterns: PP-NPi and NPd-PP. As far as Biblical Hebrew is concerned, it has been shown that this supposed rule is too much of a simplification to be an accurate description of the facts. 68 In view of the present study, we may safely conclude that the rule does not apply to Qumran Hebrew either; we have seen that every possible combination of PP and NP, definite or indefinite, is attested. We conclude, therefore, that in Qumran Hebrew the category of definiteness in itself does not determine the relative order of the constituents in the clause type investigated. Nor indeed does it determine the clause type. We have been able to observe exactly identical types of clauses PP-NP, both with definite and indefinite NPs (see Sections land 11). 2. In his monograph on the nominal clause in Biblical Hebrew, Andersen states that for clauses with a prepositional phrase "no clear rules can be formulated for the normal use of one or other of these sequences [Le., S-P or P_S]".69 Muraoka ca me to the conclusion that in Biblical Hebrew probably the pattern NP-PP is the normal sequence, wh ich is neutral in respect of the prominence to be given to either of the two principal constituents.70 For Late Biblical Hebrew, however, the situation seemed to be less clear. 71 The present study shows that the situation in Qumran Hebrew is Cohen, pp. 38-40. Muraoka 1991, pp. 144-46; Muraoka 1990, §1.5.5. Andersen, p. 50. 70 Muraoka 1991, p. 151; Joüon-Muraoka, Grammar, §154ff; Muraoka 1985, 14f. Hoftijzer treats prepositional clauses on pp. 505-509 (though only those in which the other core constituent is definite); he opposes the idea of a 'normal sequence' for such cases altogether, see pp. 505 and 487. 71 Muraoka (1991, p. 145) noted that "LBH and the Temple Scroll stand together in that the pattern in which the prepositional phrase precedes is markedly more frequent that in the rest of the corpus examined in this study". See also Muraoka 1990, §§1.5.2, 1.5.5. According to Azar, pp. 74-77, the normal sequence in Mishnaic Hebrew in nominal clauses with prepositional phrases is S-P (Le., NPPP), while the reverse order occurs in a limited number of cases. 67 68 69

BAASTEN: LOCATIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICATES

47

highly diverse. It has been demonstrated that neither pattern, PP-NP or NP-PP, can be said to be the normal, neutral, sequence in Qumran Hebrew. There is not one specific pattern that is intrinsically emphatic or neutral of itself. With the sole exception of NPd-PP (see Sect. V above), all other possible patterns are attested in both types: Th-Rh and Rh-Th. 3. Frequencies of specific patterns may vary greatly depending on register and text type, but to determine the alleged 'normality' of those patterns on the basis of frequency alone leads to misunderstanding. We have seen, for example, that poetic texts show a relatively high frequency of PP-NP, while the pattern NP-PP is often used for descriptions or prescriptions in architecture or ornamentation and in pesher-like formulations. From a stylistic point of view, this is highly interesting. Linguistically speaking, however, we should be very careful not to make firm statements on the basis of these facts. It may be true, for instance, that the pattern PP-NP is very common in poetry, but this does not imply that the pattern in question is 'normal', 'neutral', or even 'characteristic' of poetry. First of all, it so happens that exaltation of God's greatness is a favourite subject in Qumran poetry, and this idea is conveniently expressed by making use of this pattern. Secondly, the very same pattern is also attested in non-poetic contexts. Thirdly, although this pattern in poetry shows the sequence Rh-Th, the identical pattern is also attested with areverse sequence Th-Rh, thus making c1ear that there is not hing intrinsically 'emphatic', 'neutral', or 'poetic' in the pattern PP-NP. By the same token, notwithstanding the high frequency of the pattern NPd-PP in pesher-like texts, it is not 'naturally' linked to exegesis. Rather, it is a consequence of the fact that technical exegetical formulas (such as ... ;17 "II1D) necessarily occur often in exegetical literature. It does not imply that the 'language of exegesis' has a gramm ar any different from that of other text types. 4. In some subordinate c1auses, we have been able to observe that the conjunction ':;' attracts the sequence Rh-Th (which may be either PP-NP or NP-PP), whereas the preposition '1I11C usually has Th-Rh (which may be either PP-NP or NP-PP).72 5. Clauses that seemingly consist of two prepositional phrases have been demonstrated to be either elliptical or not genuine (Sect. IX). 6. Circumstantial c1auses invariably have the sequence Th-Rh,

72 See also Michel.

48

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

although they may be of the type both NP-PP and PP_NP.73 7. The complete absence of clauses with demonstrative pronouns, and the almost complete absence of clauses with personal pronouns is striking. Nevertheless, due to the limited size of the corpus, it is not clear to what ex te nt conclusions should be drawn from this fact. 8. As a matter of method, in the course of the investigation, a sharp distinction was maintained between locative and possessive prepositional clauses. As it turned out, however, they behave exactly alike; there does not appear to be a reason for treating them as separate classes. Bibliography

Andersen, Francis 1., The H ebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (JBLMS, 14; Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press, 1970). Attridge, H. and J. Strugnell, '4Q369 (4QPrayer of Enosh)', in Harold AUridge, Torleif Elgvin, Jozef Milik, Saul Olyan, John Strugnell, Emanuel Tov, James VanderKam and Sidnie White, in consultation with James VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4; VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD, 13; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 353-62. Azar, M., i1l1l17:)r! 1'111' '~:lnn (The Syntax of Mishnaic Hebrew) (Sources and Studies, 4; Jerusalem: Hebrew Language Academy, 1995). Baasten, Martin F. J., 'Nominal Clauses Containing a Personal Pronoun in Qumran Hebrew', in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew o{ the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ, 26; (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997), pp. 1-16. Bandstra, B. L., 'The Syntax of the Particle ky in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic' (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1982). Bendavid, Abba, C~7:):ln 1'111" lC'i'7:) 1'111' (Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew) (Second ed.; Tel Aviv: Devir, 1967-71). Brown, F., S.R. Driver, and Ch. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon o{ the Old Testament, etc. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907). Brownlee, William H., The Midrash Pesher o{ Habakkuk: Text, Translation, Exposition with an Introduction (SBLMS, 24; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979). Chafe, Wallace L., 'Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View', in Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic (New York/London: Academic Press, 1976), pp. 25-55.

73 Cf. also Muraoka 1991, pp. 148-49.

BAASTEN: LOCATIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICATES

49

Charlesworth, James H. (ed.), Rule of the Community and Related Documents (The Dead Sea SeroIls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 1; Tübingen/Louisville: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeek]/Westminster John Knox Press, 1994). -Damascus Document, War Scroli, and Related Documents (The Dead Sea SeroIls: Hebrew, Aramaie, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 2; Tübingen/Louisville: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeek]/Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). -and Loren T. Stuekenbruek, 'Rule of the Congregation (1QSa)', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Rule of the Community, pp. 10817. -and Loren T. Stuekenbruek, 'Blessings OQSb)', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Rule of the Community, pp. 119-31. Cohen, David, La phrase nominale et /'evolution du systeme verbal en semitique. Etudes de syntaxe historique (Colleetion Linguistique, 72; Leuven/Paris: Peeters, 1984). Davies, Philip R., The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the "Damascus Document" (JSOTSup, 25; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983). Duhaime, Jean, 'War SeroIl OQM; lQ33; 4Q491-496/4QMI-6; 4Q497)', in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Damascus Document, pp. 80203. Dupont-Sommer, A. and M. Philonenko, La Bible. Ecrits intertestamentaires (Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, 337; Paris: Gallimard, 1987). EIliger, Karl, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer (Tübingen: lC.B. Mohr, 1953). Elwolde, J.F., review of Waeholder-Abegg-Bowley, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, Fascicle Four: Coneordanee of Faseicles 1-3 (1996), DSD 4 (1997), pp. 22941. -'3QI5: Its Linguistie Affiliation, with Lexieographieal Comments', in George 1 Brooke and Philip R. Davies (eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Copper Scroll, Manchester, September 1996 (JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Aeademic Press, fortheoming). Fitzmyer, J., '4Q200 (4QTobit e )', in Magen Broshi, Esther Eshel, Joseph Fitzmyer, Erik Larson, Carol Newsom, Lawrenee Schiff man, Mark Smith, Michael Stone, John Strugnell and Ada Yardeni, in eonsultation with James VanderKam, Qumran Cave 4; XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD, 19; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 63-76.

50

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

Garcia Martinez, Florentino, Textos de Qumran (Second ed.; Madrid: Editorial Troua, 1993). -The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: the Qumran Texts in English (Trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1994). -and A. S. van der Woude, De Rollen van de Dode Zee. Ingeleid en in het Nederlands Vertaald (Kampen/Tielt: Kok/Lannoo 199495). Hoftijzer, 1., 'The Nominal Clause Reconsidered', VT 23 (1973), pp. 446-510. Holm-Nielsen, S., Hodayot: Psalms {rom Qumran (Acta Theologica Oanica, 2; Ärhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960). Horgan, Maurya P., Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations o{ Biblical Books (CBQMS, 8; Washington, OC: The CathoIic BibIical Association of America, 1979). Jongeling, Bastiaan, 'Le rouleau de la guerre des manuscrits de Qumran. Commentaire et traduction' (diss., Groningen; Assen 1962). Joosten, J., 'The syntax of hab"räkäh >a~at hl> l"kä >äbi (Gen. 27:38aa)', ISS 36 (1991), pp. 207-21. Joüon, Paul, A Grammar o{ Biblical Hebrew (Corrected rev. ed.; trans. and ed. by T. Muraoka; Subsidia Biblica, 14.1-2; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993). Kautzsch, E., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (Second English ed. by A.E. Cowley; Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1910). Licht, J., l'1,m' '::l'~ m?'l~~ m',ml'1 n?'l~ (The Thanksgiving Scroll. A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea) (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957). Lohse, E., Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und Deutsch (Fourth ed.; Oarmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986). Mansoor, Menahem, The Thanksgiving Hymns (STOJ, 3; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1961). Merrill, Eugene H., Qumran and Predestination: A Theological Study o{ the Thanksgiving Hymns (STOJ, 8; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1975). Michel, Diethelm, 'Probleme des Nominalsatzes im biblischen Hebräisch', ZAH 7 (1994), pp. 215-24. Milik, 1. T., 'Commentaire et texte', in M. Baillet, 1. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les "Petites Grottes" de Qumrän (OJO, 3; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), pp. 211-302 [on the Copper Sc roll (3QI5)]. Muraoka, T., Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes Press/EJ. Brill, 1985). _ln n n,nuc7.)l'I lC'iml'l '~7.)lIm PU)!)l'I ('The nominal clause in Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew'), in M. Bar-Asher

1""":2'

1u"":2

BAASTEN: LOCATIVE AND POSSESSIVE PREDICATES

51

(ed.), T"";:I c"i'n~ 4 (1990), pp. 219-52, xviii-xix. -The Biblical Hebrew nominal clause with a prepositional phrase', in K. Jongeling, H. L. Murre-van den Berg, and L. Van Rompay (eds.), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaie Syntax Presented to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (SSLL, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp. 143-51. Newsom, Carol, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSS, 27; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985). Nitzan, Bilhah, (lQpHab), iml'1' ':I'~ m;'l~~ i"i':ln '11111 n;'l~ (A Scroll of the Wilderness of Juda [IQpHab]) (Jerusalem: Mayer, 1986). -l'1n"1I1' llC'~'i' n;'lIn (Qumran Prayer and Poetry) (The Biblical Encyclopaedia Library, 14; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1996). van der Ploeg, 1., Le Rouleau de la Guerre traduit et annote avec une introduction (STDJ, 2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959). Qimron, E., The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986). -The text of CDC', in Magen Broshi (ed.), The Damascus Document Reconsidered (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society/The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992), pp. 9-49. -and John Strugnell, in consultation with Y. Sussman and with contributions by Y. Sussmann and A. Yardeni, Qumran Cave 4; V: Miq~at Ma, just as in the second bicolon of 32[35].16 (mon:>,). In 32[35].18a according to MS F, an adjective is apparently missing after tV'~. Again, it is the context, as weil as the Creek (,Iv ~ p ßouI..Ti~) and the Syriac (~~ r6::.J'L:l ) that support MS B. 6-7. Sir. 32[35].18c MS B 1ntV np' ~'? CI:>n tV'~ Bmg '?:>tV np' ~'? oon tV'~ MS E '?:>tV np' [...............] MS F '?:>tV np' ~'? oon tV'~ Sir. 32[35].18c poses serious problems. First of all, both MS B ('a wise man will not take abribe') and MSS E, Fand Bmg ('a violent man will not take advice') are meaningful, but the meanings expressed are clearly quite different. 7. From the point of view of idiom, an interesting observation can be made. The combination of 1ntV and np'? as it appears in MS B17 creates an expression that is rather familiar in Biblical Hebrew (Exod. 23.8; Deut. 10.17; 16.19; 27.25; 1 Sam. 8.3; Ezek. 22.12; Ps. 15.5 Provo 17.23; 2 Chron. 19.7) and in Qumran literature (llQT 51.12,17; 57.20), but is completely absent in the Book of Ben Sira, except for 32[35].18c. The combination of '?:>tV and np'?, on the other hand, is completely absent in Biblical Hebrew, but is documented for Hebrew Ben Sira two times in MS A (8,9c; 16,24a). As MS B has a way of frequently adapting Ben Sira's Hebrew to biblical phraseology,18 I would like to consider the reading '?:>tV np' (E, F, Bmg) as the more original one. But then new problems arise. As both the Creek (av~p ßoul..Ti~ ou ~~ 1tIlp{15n 15lllv6T]~Il. an&tplU~ Kilt U1tEP-rl n::JronO) at 1Q29 13.4. Licht's restoration (p. 116) at 1QH 6.22, ii.vroi n::Jrono ü[1T'?), which converts the verb of ::Jron mOt to a noun and vice-versa, is not accepted by Mansoor, HN, Vermes, GM, Lohse, or Abegg. If Qimron's comparison ('Biblical Philology', 313) of the co11oca-

90

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

tions in 1QS 1.6 (i1CtD~::l? m"'tD::l) and CO 2.16 (i1CtD~ ,~' n::ltDnO::l) is accepted, not only are i1::ltDnc and ,~, functionally synonymous but so too are m"'tD and i1::ltDnc on the one hand and ,~, and ::l? on the other. The evidence as a whole would seem to point to the tendency over time of the components of frequent construct chains (or other standard collocations) to coalesce in meaning (preceded, presurnably, by the idiomatization of a collocation, so that it is understood as referring, idiomatically or synthetically, to a single, composite, denotatum, rather than, literally or analytically, to a sequence of discrete denotata; on this understanding, the use of, for example, i1::ltDnc for ,~' or viceversa can also be seen as a kind of lexico-sernantic apocopation or ellipsis, with one constituent of a common sequence serving for all the constituents). 15. Or.:lT-1QH 4.26 and 9.20 maintain the usage found just once in the Bible, at Ps. 37.12, and repeated at 4Qppsa [4Ql71] 1:2.12, of ? OCT in the sense of 'plot against' (presumably a dativus incommodi [see Gibson, 150]). This rection is not continued in TL. At Ps. 37.12, the? is perhaps used in order to avoid the sequence?17 OCT ... ?17 r..,n. Muraoka's distinction (p. 116) between "?17 (enmity)" and "? pers" does not seem to capture the semantic facts here. But, strikingly, 1QH employs as well, at 4.10, a new construction, ?lJ Or.:lT, also found at 4QNonCanPsb [4Q381] 45.2-3, as already noted by Schuller, 174, where the construction 'n')Oi1? 'CT' '?lJ matches precisely that of Est. 9.24, Cl1::t~'7 O'l~i1~jT?.p ::l~Q. ?lJ OCT is also found at 4QBer f [4Q280] 1.6, ?~ n'..,:l ?17 O1i? (WA, III, 91), presumably under the influence, once again, of ::l~n, which regularly takes?.p (never ? in the required sense). It might be thought that there was a difference between ?lJ Or.:lT and ? OCT on syntactic grounds, given that?lJ OCT is always associated with a direct object or object clause (leaving aside 4QBer f 6) in OSS, just like ?17 ::ltDn (with the minor exception of 2 Sam. 14.13), and '70CT never takes one in the Bible or OSS, if we assurne (1) that at 1QH 4.26 and 9.20, Licht, 146, and Mansoor, 160, are correct in reconstructing an apodosis after '? omr~, not, like HN, 146, 162, an object (146: and when they devise [affliction and trouble (?)] against me) and (2) that the verb is in fact Qal, not Hof'al. Although ?17 oo,r (participle) occurs several times in tos. Bava Qamrna 7.22-23 and 8.1, the sense is not the same (but rather 'perjure oneself concerning'; I am grateful to Martin Baasten for his help with these Tosefta texts). The difference between oor and ::ltDn appears to be purely stylistic (see the preceding item). Indeed, at 1QH 4.10, the choice of both elements in ?17 oor is dicta ted largely by stylistic considerations, in order to provide a contrast with ? ::ltDn 'regard as' at 4.9, '::l'~ '?~? '~'::ltDn',

ELWOLDE: SOME LEXICAL STRUCTURES IN 1QH

91

'and they regarded me as a wasted vessel'. 'll :::ltDn in the same sense as 'll cor, with object, is found at 4QMidrEschat a 3.9 (= 4QFlor [4Q174] 1.9). To recapitulate, both the nouns :1:::ltDno and :1or and the verbs :::ltDn and cor are found in syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationship in a variety of constructions. The use of the verb cor in DSS seems to have assimilated to that of :::ltDn in earlier Hebrew sources. 16. ':1~-lQH 11.30-31, :1Jnp1~:::l 'J':1~', and 16.12, 1tD1'i' nn:::l 'n:1~" both evidence the use of 'il'~ with :::l of instrument, 'purify by (means of)', an innovation with respect to biblical usage, perhaps on the analogy of verbs from the same sernantic field, that is common in DSS but only rarely continued in the Mishnah because of the Mishnah's tendency to use :::l ':1'~ for introducing an object or in the sense, 'declare clean in respect of' (the distinction between these two meanings is often difficult to make), for exarnple Eduyyot 6.3,3; J:Iullin 4.4; 9.4; Kelim 3.8,8; 9.4; 21.2; Taharoth. 3.8; 5.2; 8.1; Miqwa'ot 4.1; 9.2; Makhshirin 3.1,2; 6.2; Zavim 3.2; 4.3; Uq!:,in 1.4; the DSS usage with :::l of instrument is found in the following Mishnah passages: 1l"~0:1 n~ il:::l ':1~' "'E)~ C'J:::l:1 'll c~ c,~ "~, ~, 'One may not take a mother with her young even if it is to purify aleper through her' (J:Iullin 12.5; sirnilar: Parah 11.8); rnJ' :1r "il ,IlJJ ,:::l :1~'J l"E)'~:::l ":1'~ ~'tD 111 c~ 'If a mark appears before they have purified (the house) with the birds, it is to be pulled down' (Nega'irn 13.1); 1',mr:::l1":1~O C'O':1 'J 'All seas purify through running waters' (Pa rah 8.8; similar: Miqwa'ot 1.7,8; 5,3,4). The Mishnah displays a sirnilar diversity of usage in respect of "il'~, which is found at least once introducing an object: 'J::JO lJ'O:::lln":::l1 n~ 'Jr:l~tD lJ'tDn' 'tDJ~:::l :1tDllO 'OJn 1il' ":1'~' l"i"O:1 'It happened that the people of Jerusalem hid their figs in water on account of the property confiscators [reading l'i"'i"O] and the sages declared them pure' (Makhshirin 1.6); contrast Eduyyot 1.14: ", l' :1m:1'~ "J:1 n~ :1m:1'~tDJ 'When you declared the vessel clean you declared it clean for yourself and for hirn'. 17. :::l~~-The collocation :1J:::l'~ '11J 'great one, Le. greatness, of your goodness' at 1QH 10.16 (ami in Licht's reading of 11.29; AHL, 239: :1Jn that we havenoted.

ELWOLDE: SOME LEXICAL STRUCTURES IN 1QH

101

31. ~O~-At 1QH 6.20-21, im:mr '?:J r'iEl' ~o~' '?ilJ', there is not sim-

ply, as Mansoor, 146, notes, an obvious allusion to Isa. 35.8, ~n:;l.p~-M'? ~~, but one that also combines a reference to il~~~~-'?~ n;'1J r'l~~ il~l~ at Isa. 35.9 (as noted by Wallenstein, 260) and to ,;lJ 1~-M:J: ~rO;'-M'? ':;l ~O~l '?l~ at Isa 52.1, as noted by HN, 117, Gaster, 245, and by Licht, 115, who sees an additional allusion to Nah. 2.1b (Qr):

nl~~ il·';:l~ ,?.p:7~ T~ri~*.'7 ,;lJ ~'O;' M'? ':;l. HN, 117, explains 1QH's application of rl~ to humans by reference to Dan. 11.14, ~~.p '~'l~ 'i~, but riEl is better attested in this sense (Jer. 7.11; Ezk 7.22; 18.10; Ps. 17.4) than it is in reference to animals (Isa. 35.9). In view of the adjectives that precede ('uncircumcised', 'impure'), riEl in 1QH 6.20 might refer not so much to one who is 'violent' but rather to one who is 'unbridled, licentious, impudent' (Jastrow, 1227b), (Daiman, 348: 'zügellos, entartet'; also 'gewalttätig'). The matter is not clarified by TL, where r'iEl occurs only in O':JJlJHJ'n't '~'iEl (m.1 tos. Uq~in 3.6; tos. Taharot 11.5), which Jastrow, 397a, indeed renders "the proud among the olives land grapes]" but Danby, 788, as "Olives and grapes that have turned hard", a gloss that Jastrow, 1227b, accepts at Numbers Rabbah 19.32; Dalman, 348, indicates that r'iEl in Mishnah and Tosefta should be rendered 'entartet'. In AL r'iEl is clearly attested, as a near synonym of, say, 0'11, along with M'~'iEl 'licentiousness' (see Jastrow, 1227b).

32. lO~-lQH fr. 3.8, illJiOi 'O~ mo~' nEl'? nm, combines the common collocation nEllO~ (Jer. 18.22; Ps. 140.6; 142.4; 1QH 2.29) with the word pair n~ 1I0'r;l~ at Job 18.9 (O'r;l~ only occurs elsewhere at Job 5.6). (There might also be a deliberate or unconscious play on the collocation il~~ il~ at 2 Kgs 10.21; 21.16, on both occasions employed in the context of mass murder, and, in the first passage, in the context of a trap.) Licht, 225, claims that illJiOi 'O~ refers to human agents in contrast to the impersonal reference in Job, but GMEs, 393 (redes), Abegg, 110; Vermes5, 294; HN, 263 (all three: snares), and Gaster, 212 (traps), do not concur. The word is not found in TL. Summary. (21) At 1QH 4.29, neither n~tJ it;;l::;l'O nor n~tJ i~9 'Q has a clear parallel in TL, although both interpretations can draw on biblical forms of expression. (22) At 1QH 7.12, i') + accusative, although it might have biblical antecedents, has no TL parallel. (23) At 1QH 4.3436, the formula ':J OlJ'~ iJt appears to be unique. (24) At 1QH 1.24, nin either represents a form previously first found in TL (with taw for tet) or a new passive participle as noun. (25) At 1QH 4.26 and 9.20, the possible use of ~ before a participle with verbal force (00;9) would only have limited paralleis with certain passive participial constructions in DSS (mnJ at 4QDu [4Q266] 11.16) and TL ("~iJ). (26) At 1QH

102

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SACES

11.5, 'O'T with ~ accusative is unique, aIthough ~ accusative is common in TL (with antecedents, of course, in the Bible). (27-28) See below. (29) At lQH 12.21, m~' i1J:n~'?, has limited structural and lexical antecedents in the Bible and Ben Sira. (30) At lQH 4.23, m~ with ~ of instrument/material is well-attested in TL, having apparently assimilated to the syntax and semantics of i10'J in the Bible. (31) At lQH 6.20, f"El might represent a transition to the meaning 'Iicentious' c1early attested in AL (but not TL). (32) At lQH fr. 3.8, the use of t:l'O~ is derived from the Bible, but the word is not found in TL. In (27), the occurrence of nm ''?m only once outside lQH 3.31 (and then in a similar context), its apparent derivation from a biblical text, and its absence from TL, even though nElT and '?m are common there, suggests that this structure might represent a conscious, Iiterary, manipulation of the biblical text. Similar comments apply to (28), aIthough here liitn'? :l1~ 1':J (lQH 14.12) might represent an unconscious merger of two similar collocations found in the Bible and DSS. Compare with the following seetion.

IV: Literary manipulation oj biblicallangllage in 1QH ([tems 33-40) 33. :JiJ!-The simile of lQH 5.16, to~ 'toliO:J :Ji1[TJ ~n~O:J 'i1~':Jm, is consistent with that of Mal. 3.3 and Job 23.10, especially the former, ~OJJ' :Ji1TJ t:ln~ ppn, as no ted by HN, 96, given that the lQH passage continues with a second simile employing ~OJ: "J:J pp'ro ~OJJ1. Licht, 102, and Mansoor, 134, fail to note this, although they do refer, respectively, to Provo 17.3 and 27.21, both of which read :Ji1T'? "J, ~OJ'? ~'~O, which may weil be one of the sources of lQH's text here (but Williarns, 341, does not mention Job 23.10). 34. "T-IQH 4.18-19, Di1''?,'?)[Jj i1Jm':J':J D~El1to'? Di1'? i1:Jlin '?~ i1m t:ln':Jtono:J 1toEln' 1liO'? Di1'.IXDEl :JnJ1 i1Jn":Jo 1,m ,to~, is, as HN, 83, says, a c1ear reworking of Ezek. 14.4b-5 (not just 14.5, as c1aimed by Licht, 94, HN, 83, and Mansoor, 126) and the use of the rare Nifal of '1T (also found at Isa. 1.4) is to be explained in that light. AHL, 7939, and Rabin, 34, find the same form at CD 8.8 (MS A) = 19.20 (MS B), ClliO nn ~'?" although nn might exemplify instead 'T:J 'set oneself apart', common in TL as a Qal, or, as Lohse, 82, 102, as Nifal (nm, found in TL and in DSS in the following three groups of texts: (1) 10'T:Ji1'? (4QRitPur [4Q512] 69.2);

ELWOLDE: SaME LEXICAL STRUCTURES IN 1QH (2)

(4Q1831:2.5),

103

n]110 '1T:l"

[illlW1 ':>]110 1T:lil? (4QDa [4Q266] 1.1 [Baumgarten, 31]); (3) ~O~il il.l)tD1il ~O~il pilO 1T:lil?' nntDil ':l~0 ?1~il? (CD 6.14-15), tDEl:l m~.I)n ?,:>O 1T:lil' ~:ltD 1tD~ ?,:>O ?1~il iln~, (4Q418 81.2 [WA, II, 101]). 35. il~~~i-An interesting aspect of literary creativity in the Hodayot is glimpsed in the use of a second subject of Tn~, additional to that found in the biblical source, both at 1QH 5.30, il1?" '1'~:> Cl'?~m ['mn~l mEl,,I)',T, for Ps. 119.53, '~t;liOt$ il~~~r, and at 1QH 4.33, ':l'Tn~ i1lJl' 1.1)1 ':l~', for Exod. 15.15, 1-PJ iom~'· In a related vein, Licht, 10 (§11) notes that at 1QH 10.33, the author associates il'?O~1J 'anguish' with the heart rather than with the loins, against the biblical precedents, and the loins with ill~l'turmoil' despite the lack of biblical precedent. Apart from 'mn~ n1El,,I)',T, none of the collocations of nouns or of nouns and verbs cited from 1QH that have mentioned are found elsewhere in DSS or TL. 36. 1!-In his note to 5QRegie 26.3, ,~~ D'1T, Schiffman, 'Rule', 143, compares Jer. 51.51, "n'~ 'tD1PO-?.I) D'1T '~:::J ':>, and there may be an allusion to the same passage in 1QH 6.27, 1T ~':::J'~? ':>, although neither Licht, 117, nor Mansoor, 146, recognizes it. 37. .l)l!-At 1QH 17.14, if we accept with Gaster, Vermes, GM, and Abegg, the reading of AHL, 243, Licht, 208, and HN, 245, D'O'il ?,:> T:lEl? D.I)1T m'?il?[?l, the biblical source for the resulting expression appears to be Jer. 31.36b, D'O~iT?? '~~7 'i~ ni'i;tO 1n:;Jtq: ?~ltq: .l)l! D~, perhaps with some influence from Ps. 102.29b (as HN, 245; Gaster, 253), 1i~: '9'~~~ D~ln, and Job 21.8a, DQ.l,7 DiJ'i~'? 1i:>1 D~li. Mansoor's reading (p. 188: m'[n?j) would fumish no biblical parallel to the phrase as a whole, despite his reference to Gen. 7.3 and 19.32. 38. .I):::J~-lQH 7.2, '?n p~ .I):::J~m, evidences a regularizing of the Horal, 1.1)~t;lV, in the biblical source, Jer. 38.22, to the Qal (as at Jer 38.6, where, however, LXX reads il'il for .I)~~). In the Bible, the Horal is also attested at Job 38.6 and Provo 8.25, but in both pi aces .I)~~1i1 means 'be established, be set' rather than 'be sunk', for which the Qal usually suffices. The Qal is also attested in DSS at 4QBarkd [4Q437] 2:1.10 (WA, III,318) and the Pi'el, for the first time, in Gnzps 1.24; both these

104

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

forms are well-attested in TL but no other binyan occurs. 39. :li~-:lit~t~'? 111 (Isa. 65.2; Ps. 36.5; Provo 16.29) is also found at lQH 15.18, wh ich, in view of the immediately following 'O~O" is perhaps derived specifically from Ps. 36.5, where o~o also folIows, rather than, as Mansoor, 184, and HN, 231, Isa. 65.2 (in view of the preceding l'?il, which, in fact, is also found at Provo 16.29). :I'~ could of course represent either noun or adjective here; compare "a path of no good" (JPS at Ps. 36.5); "the way that is not good" (JPS at Isa. 65.2). 40. C1!-At lQH 2.27, it is uncertain whether the reading is (1) C1i rEl:J (as Licht, 71, and, apparently, Mansoor, 109, and Vermes, 195), which would be an obvious development of C1!1 'cloudburst and downpour' at Isa. 30.30, although as it does not occur elsewhere we could not regard it as a set expression; or (2) C1n rm (as Kittel, 34, who defends the reading, and, apparently, Abegg, 93, and HN, 42; AHL, 229: C1T< ... > rEl:J), wh ich would represent a simple quotation of the biblical text. (GM, 330: hurricane storm; Burrows, 402, tempestuous cloudburst; Gaster, 150: floodburst; Knibb, 168: violent storm do not clearly reflect one particular reading over another.) Note that the destructive, weapon-like, nature of the C1i in Isa. 30.30 (also Isa. 28.2; Hab. 3.10), is made explicit in the lQH passage, C':l1 n'ntl1i1'? C1i(') rEl:J (see Kittel, 43, for the more general warlike context here) and also at 4QpIsa c [4QI63] 25.3: ilOil ilOn'?O ''?;) C1i[' rEl:J] (as Kister, 'Biblical Phrases', 28, points out, the words in both lQH and the pesher are applied to the weapons of Israel's enemies rather than, as in the Bible, to the weapons of God). C1i is used in a military context also at lQM 12.10 =19.2, ~EltvO mptvil'? C':I':l1 C1i;), aIthough this context does not appear to be present at 4Q424 1.4 (WA, II, 174=EW, 166): C1i ':JElO 1n:J['] "it will fall apart du ring a downpour" (Cook 393) (hardly: "[and] from it rain will fall" [GM, 393]). Neither rm nor C1i is found in TL.

nn

V: Developments in inflectional morphology ([tems 41-43) 41.1"i-DSS see the emergence of a Hitpalpel of the verb 1"i, which occurs just three times in the Bible, but perhaps gained in popularity through its more extensive employment in Aramaic (cf., e.g., Dan. 5.19; 6.27; tg. Isa. 6.4 [for MT 1',:J]; Wallenstein, 262, says that the Hitpalpel is common in talmudic literature). In DSS, it is found in reference to the destructive shaking of foundations (IQS 8.8), perhaps walls (IQH 7.9), and, probably, a rock (IQS 11.4). It is apparently used as a causative-intensive of the Qal, '(be made to) tremble'. The Qal is also found in the Scrolls and Ben Sira.

ELWOLDE: SO ME LEXICAL STRUCTURES IN lQH

105

The four different Hitpalpel forms of .Im found in DSS appear to reflect phonetic uncertainty (as Licht, 10 [§11]) regarding the rare construction of the tD stern of a verb beginning with the voiced sibilant: 'l)Tl)'T' (IQS 8.8), l)Tl)rnn (IQH 6.27), l)Tl)nn > l)Tl),rn (IQH 7.9), l)1W'T' (IQS 11.4; WM, 151, notes the possibility of understanding the verb "T here). In this respect, Licht, 10 (§11), and Qimron, Hebrew, 55, note as weil 'J(lmVn' (for ~J~~D~:) at lQH 8.9 (regarded by most as an otherwise unattested Hitpalpel of J,tD, but in the sense of ,mrv', from mtD 'be great'; Burrows, 411, apparently regards the form as Hitpolpel of JJ~ 'go astray' [which Mansoor, 154, curiously, interprets as 'flourish'], which in the Qal does occur three times in DSS and frequently in TL, along with m~, which is rare in TL bu t occurs twice in Ben Sira and seven times in DSS; Gaster, 176, renders 'JrvJrvn' as "they grow entangled", noting [po 247], Isa. 17.11, '~C9.~CQt;1: "Our poet ... took it, as did later Jewish commentators, to be a variant of the common word for 'entangle'" [i.e .. 1Q~O (Pi/pe! of ;/1='0); see Jastrow, 992b]). Contrast, however, l)rvl)nrv~ (IQH 9.13), l)rvl)nrvn (lQH 11.7) and similarly metathetic Hitpa'pe' forms of l)l)rv at lQH 9.8 and fr. 30.2. Kutscher, Isaiah, 346, suggested that the non-metathetic form, found also at lQlsaa 29.9 (1l)rv nl)rvm) and once in the Bible (Jer. 49.3), might represent a morphophonological tendency in the Qumran period. At the morphologicallevel, note that it is the same Hitpalpel of l)'T (or the Hitpa'e1!Nitpa'al of l)P;-'t), not the Hitpa'el (*.!ll1FJ) that is continued in TL, where it is well-represented, with the expected metathesis, in the perfeet and participle (see AHL 8036-37; Segal, Grammar, §182, who notes i1~\.vlP at b. Bava Qamma 82b), just as, conversely, it is the Hitpa'el of J1T, found at 3Q15 10.9, ~~nFJtq p~ (according to Milik, 295, AHL, 390, and Wolters, 50; Allegro, 51, 162: n'1nrv p~; in unpublished studies attributed to, respectively, J. Lefkovits and D. Wilmot: p~ ~'1,nrv), that is contimIed in TL (see AHL, 7910; Segal, Grammar, §134, who cites n1n\Q ~'iJl'they would pair up' at m. Sanhedrin 5.5), not the Hitpalpel (*i1~\n\iJ). In other words, from this admittedly very slim evidence we find that in respect of tD forms of hollow verbs, where TL prefers reduplication of a given verb, the same treatment of that verb is found in DSS and where TL prefers radicalization of the hollow consonant for a particular verb, DSS treat the verb in the same way too. The conclusion is supported by an exhaustive survey of quadriliteral and hollow verbs (but, unfortunately, not double ayin verbs) in the AHL concordance, where I found only the following evidence for morphological uncertainty at the time. (1) Sir. 43.3 in the Genizah Band Masada MSS is read by AHL thus: '?:;'?:;n' '0 i::lllJ '.m'? (B); '?'??1:;n?' '0 :llh 'J:l'?, (M).

106

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

(Yadin, 43, reads '?Pl'?:m' in M, but Beenljes, 118, and Strugnell, 117, support AHL). The Hitpalpel is found twice more in the same sense ('resist, end ure, withstand') at 4QShirb [4Q511] 1.8,

,'?~'?:m' ~,,? ii'?,1' 'J::l '?'~',

4QShirShabb f [4Q405] 20:2.21-22.2=l1QShirShabb [l1Q17] 3-4.3,

mv'? ''?[~l'?~n' p,n::l

(not noted by Rofe) and perhaps also at Sir. 12.15 (MS A):

'?~'?~n' ~'? t!l;O~ Cl~',

if we understand as 'but if he slips he cannot endure' (but SkehanDiLella, 245, Smend, 15, and Levi, 19, emend to t!lioI:\; thus Rofe, 316: "if you falter, he will not contain himself"; Rofe sees the basic sense of the tD form as 'contain oneself', with the precise meaning varying according to context. No tD form of ,?,~ is attested in the Bible, although the Pi/pe! (not PoleQ in the required sense of 'endure' is found at Provo 18.14 and Mal. 3.2. (2) A related example is provided by TL, where, at m. l:Iullin 12.3 editions vary between Pi/pel and Polei readings, nEl1'El1'o and n~~;1'9 (see Jastrow, lOSSb). The (HiOpolel is supported by 1QH fr. 9.5, '?~ ii::l ,ElEl,1'" (AHL; Licht, 238: 'Elm[), 1QH 8.31, Cl''i::lVO =-]'01il? n~::ln '?~ iln'?O?~ (S.5A) .l>l ?)ln ?~ l~'~?::l' o'n~ ?.I>::l ~lpn?~ (S.14A) M~'~ 'iln ?~ ::lil'~ nnm n'n~n '?~ il::llil' ~.I>O (S.lSA) l::l.l>nn ?~ ilP1~::l' il?Eln::ll~PM?~ (7.lOA) 1nlll n~ l'::l;,n [1~] l?n ?~ 'lt::l~ 0.1> (8.15A) 1l1::l '0.1> ::l;'ln ?~, n~o t'lln ?~ =-]~ ?ll::l Oll (8:16A) 11'0 mo;,? ?;",~, ';' 1"non ?~ ilm~ 0.1> (8:17 A) ,~o 1?' ilO .l>1n~? ';' tl il~.I>n '?~ lt ,~~? (8:18A) il::l'~il 1'?.I>O n'1n ?~, l::l??m ?~ l~::l ?::l? (8.19A) il'mp?::l 1::l?n 1~ 1"non ?~ il~'t 0.1> (9.3A) en'~'~::ll~l~' 1~ l'01n ?~ m')~o 0.1> (9.4A) il'~~'.I>::l ~p,n 1~ lmnn '?~ il,m::l::l (9.SA) l';'~ '0.1> ::lo[n ']~' o.l>~n ,~ il?.I>::l 0.1> (9.9A) il'~) 1l1::l1?iln '?~, .I>'l? .l>l o',~n ?~ .I>~~ ';:'[::l] (10.6A) 0" 'l'lO;' o'pn '?~, l~Elnn '?~ 0'1)::l =-]~'.I>O::l (ll.4B) =-]'tn ln~, 0'J::l? lp::l "']?on '?~ lpnn tll~ (11.7 A)

16 For c1auses containing a negative command and a vocative, see Sect. IV below. 17 For expected n'Eln. See Segal, tn'O p, pp. :3::>-)::>. 18 Segal, ~i'O p, p. ~::>, suggests that this is possibly an error for il111 (= iln) or nm (= rpi). Been~es reads il1)i.

FASSBERG: SYNTAX AND STYLE IN BEN SIRA

123

OP1pn ?~ 0'1r :l1:l1-m~n ?~ ilJ~ll r~J (11.9A) 01~ 'tD1~' 1n',n~J 'Pl 1[il'ltD~n ?~ 01~ 'pnn O1~J (11.27 A) T?~ ?'Jp' OJ ilD? 1? lnn ?~ on? '?:J (125A) 11pnn ?~ ll' 11Dm 'Jlln ?~ n~ np?ilJ1 (14.14A)19 ~J~J 1Dll 1n'1 ?~1 l' ~'tD1n ?~ ~'J' 01pD (34.14B = 31.14) l' ~tD1n ?~ ll' 'J~? nJtD' Cl'J' P O~ 0)1 (34.18B = 31.18) tD1,'n ?'tD:Jil O'J, ':J 'Jmn ?~ )"il?ll 0)1 (34.25B = 31.25) n'tD l~tDn ?~ )"il 01pDJ (35.4B = 32.4) 1'~? :nn ?~ 0"tD1 ompn ?~ O'Jpr p (35.9B = 32.9) )1~' 0?tD1 ln'J? ,~~ ,n~nn ?~ 1P~D nllJ (35.11B = 32.11) 'J1lJ??ll il?ll Cl~1 Cl"J1 ilJ,n ?~ )n?tD nllJ (35.12B = 32.11) ~~pnn ?~ TtDllD ,n~1 'J1 ?ll::ln ?~ il~ll ~?J (35.19B = 32.19) O'Dll~ t"])JJ ?pnn ?~1 l?n ?~ ntDp1D l'1J (35.20B = 32.20) ~~m O'J~ ~tDn ?~1 \t21Jn ?~ il?~?ll l~ (42.2M) 1'non ?~ Cl'tDJ n'J1 ,~n 1m ?~ ':Jr ?:J? (42.12Bmg). 3. A significant number of negative commands follow an initial prepositional phrase (e.g., 8.15,16,17,18,19; 35.4,9,11,19,20).There are fewer negative commands after an initial direct object (3.14,21 [2x]; 4.3; 12.5; 35.9). The negative command is attested in final position in the clause when preceded by a direct object (3.14,21 [2x]), though the direct object usually follows the negative command when there is an initial prepositional phrase (as is the ca se with the imperative), e.g., 5.14; 35.12,19; 42.12. In 10.6 one finds a Prepositional Phrase (Adverbial) + Negative Command + Direct Object + Indirect Object. 4. There are three examples of caSllS pendens followed by clauses with the word order of Verb + Object: i1::J 11)~n ?~ i1~'J\tn i1::JlJnn ?~ l? i1tD~ (7.26A)

OJ O~D' ?~ pD 'J)1 m~nn ~'~1D r'~D ?~ (38.4B). 5. In chapters 4,5,7,8 there are clusters of initial negative commands. Repetition of word order and vocabulary is also attested in other chapters, but to a more limited extent. Non-initial negative commands also cluster together, particularly in chapter 35 (= ch. 32). 6. Chiasmus. As in clauses containing imperatives, there are several examples of chiastic structures in clauses with negative commands of the pattern a:b::b':a', where the negative command in one of the halflines is inversely positioned with regard to another negative command in the same line (4.2,3; 7.10; 9.9; 11.8 [with vocative: see Section 19 On the problems in the Hebrew text with regard to the Septuagint and Peshitta, see Segal, tn'O p, p. t-l~.

124

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

IV below]; 35.20; 42.2). In 5.14; 8.19; 10.6 the chiastic structure is not perfect because one of the two half-lines ends with a negative command followed by an object. There is one example where a final negative command is inversely parallel to an initial imperative (35.11) and another example where an imperative following a vocative is inversely parallel to a final negative command (4.20 [see Section IV below]). One also finds the parallel pattern a:b::a':b', where the negative command in both half-lines is in final position: 3.21; 11.9; 14.14; in 35.9,19 and 42.12 one half-line has an initial negative command while the negative command in the other half-line occurs near the end of the half-line followed by a direct object. In 3.14 a final negative command paralleis a final imperfect and in 35.12 and 37.27 (see below, Sect. IV) a final Negative Command + Object paralleis a final Imperative + Object. 7. Comparison with the book of Proverbs. There are about 75 negative commands, of which 15 occur in non-initial position: l::l? l~' 'm~01 nJton ?~ 'nl1n 'J::l (3.1) pXDn ?~ 1nJ'::l '1~1 l::l? ?J::l 'i1 ?~ nt!l::l (3.5) 1nnJ1m rpn '1~1 o~on ?~ 'J::l 'i1l010 (3.11) 1::ltl7n ?~ 'nl1n ClJ? 'MJ ::l1t!l np?'J (4.2) Cl'l7l1l1::llto~n '1~1 ~::ln ?~ Cl'l7tol nl~::l (4.14) T?O 'IJto'I n::l' 'J l::l1n ?~ ?'OJ 'Jr~::l (23.9) ~::ln ?~ Cl'01n' '1to::l1 Cl?1l7 ?1::l' ,on ?~ (23.10) l::l??r?~ 1?toJ::l1 noton ?~ T::l'1~ ?::lJ::l (24.17) :nl7nn ?~ Cl'J1to Cll7 1'101 'J::l 'i1 n~ ~l' (24.21) 10l7n ?~ Cl'?1' Cl1P0::l1 l?O 'J::l? l1i1M ?~ (25.6) 'Im ?~ ln~ 1101 ll7l n~ ::l'll::l'l (25.9) 11'~ ü1'::l ~1::ln ?~ Tn~ n'::l1 ::ltl7n ?~ T::l~ i1l7l1 1l7l (27.10) 'pn Cln? 'J::l'lt!li1 ''I lnn ?~ ltol71 tv~l (30.8). There are no negative commands preceding a vocative. 2o A non-initial negative command is most frequent after a prepositional phrase (3.5; 4.14; 23.9,10; 24.17; 25.6). The negative command is attested at the end of a clause following a direct object (3.11 [with intervening vocative]; 4.2; 25.9; 27.10).

20 There are, however, negative commands folJowing a vocative:

!:lr1:J'rno 1"'" llJO C1n~ Tm l"n ,,~ 'J:J (1.15) ilOl01 il'fDn "~J Tl'110 1h' ,,~ 'l:J (3.21); see also 3.1,11 above. In ~ C1'~t!ln 11m' C1~ 'J:J (1.10), the negative command ~:Jn"~ occurs in the apodosis of a conditional dause, whose protasis is

preceded by a vocative.

FASSBERG: SYNTAX AND STYLE IN BEN SIRA

125

B. "t!lpn~,

1. In a few passages a negative command seems to be expressed by "t!lpn~,:21

l"P' mpo " lnn ~" tDElJ 11:J100 O'Dnn '~"1 m"~tD jJqn ~" (4.4A) :lTDn ~, 1'nltDO n~, 1tD'D :njJ~ 11'~0 ,:J:::l (7.30A) 1notDJ n[~l np' 1El OtD~n ~, n:::llp O~, (9.13A) Tn'I:::l0 l:JEljJ', 1:J11 r"j'O" .t7tD1' p::nn ~, (1l.33A) o~on 1El11;1; jJ'jJn ~" TJEl' OtDtD 1:::l1 tD'~:J ":J~' l'O:J 1D1tD D1 (34.16B = 31.16). Another possible example is jJnon ~':::l~ np1~ (3.14A;22 cf. n:JtDn'~:::l~ np1~ [3.14C]). 2. Chiasmus. None of the examples above demonstrate chiastic structure within the line. 3. Comparison with the book of Proverbs. There is an example of the negative command "t!lpn~, in Prov. 22.24: tmn ~, mon tD'~ n~, r"j~ 'D:::l n~ Dlnn ,~.

IV: Clauses containing a vocative 1. There are 28 examples of clauses containing a vocative. It is striking that in 18 of the examples the vocative occurs before the clause: 23 m:Jl:::l ,:J l';'tD' 1':::lD T:::l~ 1:::l:J jJtDDO:::l' 10~0:::l 'J:::l (3.8A) T'n '0',:J ,jJ:::lfDn ,~, T:::l~ 1':::l:J:::l prnnv ~ (3.12A) nm~ 1mj~ :Ji1t~m il11V:J l?ilni1 li(Dl':J 'j:J (3.17 A)

21 This interpretation is supported by the translation of the Septuagint (1111) in 4.4; 7.30; 9:13. Aeeording to GKC, §§1070, lOge, 'l1t!lpn~? in Biblical Hebrew is more emphatic as a negative eommand than ?lt!lpn ?~. Joüon-Muraoka note that ?lt!lpn~? is common in laws and more solemn than ?lt!lpn ?~, and is also used to express a specifie prohibition. See P. Joüon-T. Muraok.l, AGrammar 0/ Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Editrice Pontifieio Istituto Biblieo, 1991), §113m. 22 The Septuagint, however, translates a 3rd fern. sg. verb; the Peshitta translates a fern. sg. participle. 23 Segal, ~i'O ):J, pp. 17-18, notes the initial position of 'j:J in 21 examples as against three non-initial oeeurrenees of 'l:J. He also comments on the sing. use of 'l:J vs. the pI. use of D'l:J in Proverbs. See also A. Hurvitz, Wisdom Language in Biblical Psalmody Oerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), pp. 62-64 [Hebrew], for a diseussion of the use (but not syntax) of 'l:J and LI'l:J as voeatives in wisdom literature. He eomments on examples from Proverbs, Psalms, Qohelet, Ben Sira, and Abiqar.

126

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES ~~J im 'lU ~m :l'~nn ?~, 'Jll "n? Jll?n?~ ~ (4.1A)

~'Jn?~ l~m ?~, lliO 1n~, iO~ l'Oil nll ~ (4.20A) [~]~"~ Clll~il? 1m l~m 1J~ il'JllJ 'JJ (10.28B)

[ ]1J~"m 'Jp'l~"O '~~J ll'~iO 'JJ (1O.29B)24 iJ1n ?~ iln'~ 1,m 'llo~n Cli~ iJ1 J'~n ?~ ~ (11.8A) ilpJ'~? mJiil? r~' 1P~ll ilJin ilO? ~ (l1.1OA) ~~on~? ~pJn~?Cl~' ll'm ~?rnn~? Cl~~ (1l.10A) O~l'm 1m~?oJ 2s'lli[n]il 1P,nJ [10].1.'::rIQ (11.20A = 11.18) 1~lil11' ?~?, 1? J'~'il1?~' Cl~' l~m mi~ 1'~' Cl~ ~ (14.11A) 1JlJ "'llnn~n'~ ilm~' ?nJ [~'~l)n?~?.1.' Cl~ ~ (34.12B=31.12) il? 1m?~ il? lli ilO il~i' l~~J OJ l"nJ ~ (37.27B) ~~i' ~'il '~ ?~ ?~ ?'?~m iJllm ?~ '?,nJ 'JJ (38.9B) ilJ'p ililJ' iiom illl01 J'Til rlOil?.1.' 'JJ (38.16B) ?'?,nooo "l0~J J'~ 'nn?~ 1m"n 'JJ (40.28Bmg)26 ,~? '0 '.1.'n'~ iO~O pmil 'J ',l)'JJ (42.11Bmg).27 In eight of these examples one finds Vocative + Prepositional Phrase + Imperative (3.8,17; 4.20; 10.28; 37.27; 38.9,16; 42.11). Twice the vocative is foIIowed byan imperative (3.12; 11.20). The order Vocative + Negative Command occurs in two Iines (4.1; 11.8). The order Vocative + Cognate Accusative + Negative Command is attested in 40.28Bmg.

,J,

2. In six examples the vocative is not extraposed, but rather foIIows an initial verb: Cl"Jil ?~ ?lllln~ Cl'[iD'] ?Jil 'il?~ 'Jll'iD'il (33.1-2B = 36.1-2) 'iO~ J'~n n'in~J' '? n::m ?~, 'JJ llO~ (34.22B = 31.22) 'iJ1 ~~on n'in~J "?ll J'll?n ?~, 'imo np' 'JJ .1.'0~ (34.22B = 31.22) i'~ llJOn ?~, ?~iD llJ~il' 1? ~'il 'J ~?'?o (35.3B = 32.3) 1?~~' Cl~ ~'?iD' Cl'Oll~ pmJ iln~ Ti~ Cl~ J.!:1liJ1 (35.7B = 32.7) ,J ~~"~, ?J~ n'~, 1~00 OOil' ~ iOil (38.17B).28 3. In one example one finds Verb + Indirect Object + Vocative (at end of cIause): [1J'T~]il ?ilP '?i!)m:n Cl.1.' 'ii!) '?~ '.1.'0~ (30.27E = 33.19). 24 Cf.

1fDElJ ;'I"p ,:::l:l' '01 lJP"~"O lfDElJ ll'fDiO (10.29A). Note the extraposition in this line. 25 Beentjes reads llfD[];'I. 26 The text reads 'nn'~ lno"n 'JO. Both the Septuagint and the Peshitta read 'myson'. 27 ... nl[El]iOOO [i']ln n:::l'll ...... (42.11 M). 28 The preferred reading, however, is that found in the marginal reading in MS B, ,ElOO C;'I;'I1 ':I:::liO;'l, and in the Septuagint. See Kister, 'Contribution', p. 306, n. 8.

F ASSBERC: SYNTAX AND STYLE IN BEN SIRA

127

4. There is one example of Direct Object + Verb + Vocative: ~ lVOtD ntD:l i010 (41.14M). 5. There may possibly be an example of the vocative following the particle '1il: 'ni~m .l.l110 iO~' .l.l'i '1il (37.3Bmg).29 6. The vocative is not found following a negative command, only extraposed before it: tD~J im 'J.l.l tDm :l'~1n ?~1 'J.l.l "n? J.l.l?n?~ ~ (4.1A) i:l1n?~ iln'tD l1m1 .l.lotOn Cli~ i:l1 :l'tDn?~ 'J:l (11.8A) ~~i' ~1il 'J ?~ ?~ ??~ni1 1:l.l.lnn ?~ '?1n:l ~ (38.9B).

7. In three of the five examples of a conditional c1ause with vocative, the vocative occurs before the introductory particle of the protasis, DM (11.10; 14.11; 34.12); in the fourth example, the vocative is found after the conditional particle and verb and occupies either final position in the protasis or is extraposed before the apodosis: D1.l.ln l:l? D'tDn Cl~1 DJnnn 'J:l r1~nn D~ (6.32A). In the fifth example, 35.7, the vocative occurs between the verb of the apodosis and the conditional particle of the protasis (the apodosis precedes the protasis). 8. Comparison with the book of Proverbs.30 There are 22 examples of the vocative in the book of Proverbs: 1.8,10; 2.1; 3.1,11; 4.1,10; 4.20; 5.1,7; 6.3; 7.1,24; 8.5,32; 9.6; 19.27; 23.15,26; 24.13,21; 27.11. Unlike in Ben Sira, the vocative is placed initially in only seven passages (1.10; 2.1; 3.1; 4.10; 5.1; 7.1; 23.15). One finds "/1,VOtD D'J:l iln.v1 in three passages (5.7; 7.24; 8.32). The vocative precedes the conditional particle of the protasis in 1.10; 2.1; 6.1. Two passages in Ben Sira, 30.27 and 29 Been~es reads .I11.i in the margin; Segal reads .11:"1. The body of the text reads

which is either a defective spelling for 'friend' or else reflects .I1i 'evit' as attested in the Syriac and Creek translations. For a discussion of the relationship between the three versions, see Segal, ~i'O p, p. il'i, and Skehan-Di Lella, Ben Sira, p. 428. 30 For an extensive treatment on the word order of c1auses containing a vocative in Biblical Hebrew, see Rosenbaum, Word-Order Variation, pp. 116-32. Surprisingly, the standard grammars contain relatively little on the subject. See, e.g., E. König, Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache (Leipzig: Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1897), §344w; C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1956), §10; BK Waltke-M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §§4.7d; 8.3d; 40.2.4; Joüon-Muraoka, §137g.

.I1i,

rc.

128

sIRACH, sCROLLS, AND sAGES

34.22(2x), where one finds the vocative following the imperative llO~,3l should be compared with Proverbs: 10~ m1n tlit!ln-?~1 l'J~ "1010 'JJ llOtli (1.8) i1J'J nll'? 1J'tlii'il1 J~ "1010 Cl'JJ 1110tli (4.1) l"n mJtIi 1? 1J"1'1 '''10~ ni'1 'JJ llOtli (4.10).

There are significantly fewer examples in Proverbs of prepositional phrases (indirect object/ adverbial) immediately following the vocative (ilJ'tlii'il '''1::11? 'JJ [4.20]; ilJ'tlii'il 'nI:l:>n? 'JJ [5.1]) than there are in Ben sira (3.8;17; 10.28; 37.27; 38.9,16; 42.11). 9. Cf. also the non-initial position of the vocative in the Damascus Document: ?~ 'tlillOJ 1J'J1 i"~ ?:> 1DOtli ilnD1 (CD 1.1) '? 1DOtli Cl'JJ ilnD1 (CD 2.14) n'''1J '~J ?:> '?~ 1DOto ilnD1 (CD 2.2).

'D'"

10. It is interesting to compare the position of the vocative in Ben Si ra with the position of the vocative in other semitic wisdom corpora.32 In Babylonian wisdom literature33 one finds that the vocative consistently occurs in second position after an imperative or negative command, e.g. utaqqamma i/Jrzlimad si/Jqzya "pay attention, my friend, understand my ideas" (p. 86, 1. 254); lä teppus /Jelllä teppus "Do not sacrifice, sir, do not sacrifice" (p. 146,1. 59). In clauses with other verbs and in nominal clauses, the vocative is most frequently found in initial position, e.g. märi 1ft li/J/Jasüma Sa m/Je attä "My son, if it be the wish of the prince that you are his" (p. 102, 1. 81), though it can also occur non-initially, e.g. tasemme dSamas slIppll sllllfl u karä/Ji "You observe, Samas, prayer, supplication, and benediction" (p. 134,1. 130). Five examples of the vocative are attested in the Elephantine version of the Proverbs of Al:liqar. 34 There is one initial occurrence of the 31 M. Weinfeld, Dellteronomy alld tile Dellteronomic Selwol (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 304-305, notes the use of the imperative l.lO!D in wisdom literature in the sense of 'obey'. 32 I thank Professor A. Hurvitz for suggesting this comparison. 33 W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975). 34 The readings and line numbers follow ß. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaie Documents from Anciel/t Egypt, 3: Literature, Accollnts, Lists (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1993), pp. 24-53. There are three examples of the vocative in non-initial position in the narrative of Al~iqar:

il?;' il~'1 ill::J~ ip'n~ "n[n]

"May you survive, 0 Al).iqar, the father of the whole of Assyria" (4.55);

F ASSBERC: SYNTAX AND STYLE IN BEN SIRA

129

vocative, which is found before a negative command: il?['?] mnn 1,V ~01' ~[1]?n?~ ['1]::1

"My son, do not eurse the day until you see the night" (6.80). The vocative appears to oceur non-initially in two examples, both after imperatives, if the reeonstruction 35 is correct: il1'::1,V ?::J 1::1,V1 1';D ?::J 1~::Jil '1::1 il' m~ ['vOrD]

"[Hear1, 0 my son. Harvest any harvest and do any work" (9.127); 10,V TJ::1? lmm ,V::1ttJm ?::J~n 'T ~~Jm ~J)1 'lT '1::1 il' rn~ ['vOrD]

"[Hear1, 0 my son. Borrow the grain and the wheat that you may eat and be satisfied and give to your children with you" (9.129).

In another example the vocative occurs medially in the protasis: [ ] il1iln 'T '1::1 m~ il::1~ jil "If you desire, my son, that you be [.. .]" (10.149). In yet another example one may interpret the voeative as oceurring at the end of the protasis or between the protasis and apodosis: mon~? '1::11J~no~ lil

"If I strike you, my son, you will not die" (12.177). In the Syriac version of the Proverbs of AI:liqar the vocative '1::1 consistently oecurs initially in eaeh proverb. 36

~'::3, ))O001::3J )" ,o~

"Say to us, Nabusumisktm, young man" (4.58); 101l j"',"::3 ?~ 'JO'j':1

"Establish me, 0, EI, as a righteous (one) with you" (8.109). See T. Mumoka and B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptiall Aramaic (HdO, 32; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), §86a-d. One should note that the vocative in Ugaritic does not occur in initial position in the sentence. See c.H. Cord on, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar (AnOr, 38; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1965), §12.6; D. Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Lallguage (HdO, 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 6, 186-87. 35 For the reconstructed impemtives see J.M. Lindberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Al;tiqar (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983). 36 See F.c. Conybeare et al., The Story of Ahiqar from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armeniall, Ethiopic, Old TlIrkish, Greek al/ti Slavollic Vasiolls (Second 00.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913). In the narmtive the vocative ',::3 is attested following the verb: 'n'llllln" ~m)1J ',::3 'Jo)"1' 1l01ll

"Hear my teaching, my son Nadan, and come to my understanding" (Mus. Srit. Add. 72(0).

130

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SACES

V: Conclusion 1. An analysis of clauses containing imperatives, clauses containing negative commands, and clauses with a vocative in Ben Sira reveals a preference for certain word order patterns, though there is variation, as expected in a poetic work. The preferences in the case of clauses containing imperatives and negative commands are similar to those found in the book of Proverbs. Surprisingly, the word order in clauses with a vocative differs from that in Proverbs.

2. In clauses containing an imperative or a negative command, the verb is overwhelmingly positioned initially in the clause, as is the case in the book of Proverbs. Only about one-fifth of such clauses exhibits non-initial position of the verb, usually at the end of the clause, except when the verb takes a direct object, in which case the direct object occurs in final position in the c1ause and is preceded by the verb. The initial positioning of imperatives and negative commands stands in sharp contrast with the positioning of imperfects and perfects, which regularly are non-initial. The relatively few imperfect verbs that are initial in c1auses usually express modality.37 Deviations from the initial positioning of imperatives and negative commands involve chiasmus. One function of the chiasmus seems to be, as noted above in the introduction, to draw attention to a line that marks the boundaries of a unit; as such it does indeed serve as a means of punctuation. The following is a representative example of a line that is marked off from other lines, not only by meaning, but also by its inverted word order: in 4.22-27 A the lines begin with an initial negative command, e.g.

T",tvJO" "tvJn ,,~, ltvE:l:J ".v T:JE:l ~tvn ,,~ (4.22A),

and are then abruptly interrupted by

l" Cln":J 'il' Pl~il ".v il~.v'il mOill.v (4.28A).

The series of initial negative commands is resumed in the latter part of v. 28 with

"rm '?~ l:J'tv" ,,~, Cl'nt!) ".v::l ~1pn "~,3!!

which, however, is once again delimited by

p.v '?.v l'.v ~'O'il" n~::ln ,,~ iln'''O ,,~ (5.5A).

Similarly, in 7.3-16 there is aseries of Iines beginning with negative 37 There are exceptions, however. Cf. l':::!' 'i1' ,n~1lm" ?1l1100 i1'i1 (5.10A) and T':::!' i1'i1' ,n~1l':::!' ?1l11r.lO i1'i1 (5.10C, with non-modal form). Note the chiasmus of this line and the following [lX1!J :::!IDi1 nn 1'~:::!1 rl~i1? ,i1oo i1'i1 (5.11). 38 This line itself displays chiasmus.

FASSBERG: SYNTAX AND STYLE IN BEN SIRA

131

commands, which is broken off by a line with a non-initial imperative:

iiOi tD':J~ mpn'J ii'~' '?'5:ltDii ,~o ,~o (7.17A).

The inversion of word order as a way of marking the limits of Iiterary units stands out cIearly in chapters 8 and 9, where one finds in 8.1-14 a negative command repeatedly introducing the first cIause; the shift to a new literary unit is indicated by a word order change in lines 15-19, where the negative command is consistently non-initial; and yet another unit is marked as beginning the continuation (9.1-3) with initial negative commands. This in turn is followed by another unit of non-initial negative commands in 9.3-5, ete. In some Iines chiasmus appears to express contrast, e.g. i~.vm '?~ iiP'~~' ii'?5:lm i~pm '?~ (7.lOA),

though in other chiastic Iines no anti thesis is feit, e.g. ~i ~~Jii i'.v 1'~'?tD'?' ii'.v'? ltDm'? ~ii~ii (4.7 A). One can also find chiasmus occurring simultaneously within Iines and between Iines: ~':J li'~ '?pnn '?~, l'?n '?~ ntDp'O li'~ i'iiT ii'ii ln'in~~, ü' .vtDi li'~ innn '?~ (35.20-21F = 32.20-21). 3. With regard to the word order in cIauses with a vocative, the language of Ben Sira shows a definite preference for extraposition of the addressee before the cIause. This position of the vocative differs noticeably from that of the vocative in the book of Proverbs, where the addressee usually occurs after the verb. The initial position of the vocative in Ben Sira is similar to the placing of the vocative in Babylonian wisdom literature with cIauses that do not contain imperatives or negative commands, unlike the post-verbal position of the Akkadian vocative in cIauses containing imperatives and negative commands.

FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE LINGUISTIC PROFILE OF BEN SIRA: SYNTACTIC AFFINITIES WITH LATE BIBLICAL HEBREW Avi Hurvitz Gerusalem)

PartA Four major aspects may be observed within the main stream of scholarly research dealing with the book of Ben Sira: theological, literary, textual, and linguistic. Within this framework, much consideration is devoted to topics such as religious conceptions and ideas, rhetorical techniques and devices, or questions of Vorlage and relationships among the different versions of the book. The linguistic dimension of the Hebrew of Ben Sira-the originallanguage of the composition-is hardly given due attention in the various publications. This state of affairs is clearly expressed in arecent survey by D.J. Harrington on the scholarly study of Ben Sira, entitled 'Sirach Research since 1965: Progress and Questions'.l The author deals competently with a wide variety of issues; however, the linguistic aspect involved in the study of Ben Sira is not even mentioned. Now, evidently, this is not Harrington's fault. He explicitly states at the outset that his report "covers the major editions and monographs; it does not treat articles, parts of books, or contributions to handbooks" (p. 164). Yet, the basic fact remains, that-as far as general Ben Sira research is concemed-no adequate space is reserved in the 'major editions and monographs' for a

• Cf. A. Hurvitz, 'The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical

and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects', in T. Muraoka and J.F. EIwolde, The Hebrew 01 the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira: Proceedings 01 a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ, 26; Leiden: E.}. Brill, 1997), pp. 72-86. In preparing the final version of the present paper, I was able to take advantage of some comments and suggestions made by colleagues who took part in the 1997 session of the Leiden Symposium; I would like to mention the following names in particular: M. Baasten, S. Fassberg, I. Hoftijzer, T. Muraoka, and M. Smith. 1 In I.C. Reeves and J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor 01 Ben Zion Wacholder 011 the Occasiol1 01 his Seventieth Birthday aSOTSup, 184; Sheffield: ISOT Press, 1994), pp. 164-76.

HURVITZ: UNGUISTIC PROFILE OF BEN SIRA

133

discussion of the linguistic profile of the particular type of Hebrew used by Ben Sira and its status within the linguistic milieu of the Second Temple period. This may come as a surprise to participants in the present session of our symposium-many of whom also attended the previous session, held in 1995-the focus of both being specifically 'The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Serolls and Ben Sira'.2 However, we must bear in mind that our study group consists by and large of specialists within the general academic community that deals with the Scrolls and Ben Sira. Obviously, our group's publications-as weIl as extensive research conducted by other Hebraists and Aramaists specializing in Second Temple languages-quite often goes unnoticed by non-linguist colleagues. This deficiency is clearly manifested in the studies of a certain recent movement which seeks to deny the chronological-diachronic dimension of Biblical Hebrew (hereafter, BH), arguing that the entire Hebrew Bible was composed in the Persian- Hellenistic period. 3 It is to be hoped that the establishment of this forum and the publication of its (past and future) proceedings will contribute to the reduction of such anomalies. It is with this background in mi nd that I present my paper on a certain syntactic phenomenon in the Hebrew of Ben Sira: r~ + infinitive.

Part B r~

+ infinitive 4

The non-cJassical nature of this syntactic construction was recognized by Hebraists and Biblicists as a post-classical feature already in the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth. 5 Meaning,

See the introductory footnote. For detailed reviewartieles on two such studies, see M. Ehrensvärd, 'Once again: The Problem of Dating Biblieal Hebrew', S/OT 11 (1997), pp. 29-40; A. Hurvitz, 'The Historieal Quest for "Ancient Israel" and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations', VT 47 (1997), pp. 301-15. 4 An expanded and revised version of a discussion which appeared in Hebrew Studies 31 (1990), pp. 145-47. 5 Cf., for instance, H. Ewald, Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache (Seventh ed.; Göttingen: Verlag der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung, 1863), §321c (p. 789); S.R. Driver, A Treatise on tJze Use of the Tenses in Hebrew (Third ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892), §202.1 (p. 274); A.B. Davidson, Hebrew 2

3

134

SIRACH, SCROLLS, ANO SAGES

basically, 'it is not possible to ... ', 'there is no need to ... ';6 'it is not permitted ... , may not? this type of negation-attested some ten times in the Hebrew Bible-is indeed a distinctive hallmark of LBH (Esther, Ezra, Chronicles; Ecclesiastes). Classical BH employs different modes of expression in these contexts, particularly8 ~'? /'?~ + imperfeet; see, for instance, the followingexamples.

a. Est. 4.2 (RSV): no one might enter versus Deut. 24.10 (JPS): YOll must not enter Josh. 23.7 (RSV): YOll may not be mixed 1 Kgs 11.2 apS): None of you shall join and none of them shall join Hos. 4.15 (RSV): Enter not into Jer. 16.5-8 (RSV): Do not enter You shall not go into Provo 4.14 (RSV): Do not enter

(~'::l'? r~)

the king's gate 9

his house with these nations ('~::ln ~'?) them ... ('~::l' ~'?) you ('~::ln '?~') Gilgal (~'::ln '?~) the hOllse of mOllrning ... (~'::ln ~'?) the house of feasting (~::ln '?~) the path

(~::ln ~'?) (~'::l 'n'?::l,?)10

Syntax (Third ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901), §95b (p. 128); BOB (F. Brown, S.R. Oriver and c.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907)), p. 34b; E. Ben Iehuda, Thesaurus, I (Berlin 1908-1909), p. 191a; GKC (W. Gesenius, E. Kautzsch and A.E. Cowley, Hebrew Grammar [Second ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910)), §114l (p. 349); G. Bergsträsser, Hebräische Grammatik, II (Leipzig: Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1926), §l1h (p. 56). 6 BOB, ibid. 7 GKC, ibid. 8 Cf. n. 10. 9 IM (P. Ioüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar 0/ BibIicai Hebrew [corrected revised ed.; Subsidia Biblica 14.1-2; Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993)), §160j (p. 606): "it was not allowable to enter (one did not have the right, permission)". 10 It is widely recognized that in Classical/Standard BH the infinitive construct is negated as a rule by 'n?:l?, not by ~?-see, e.g., BOB, p. 518b; GKC, §114s (p. 352); Bergsträsser, Grammatik, II, p. 56; B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introductiol1 to BibIicai Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §36.2.1g (p. 603); IM, §§124e, 160\ (pp. 433, 607). This is why some cases of 'n?:l? are adduced in the following lists of examples. I am aware, however, that 'n?:l? + infinitive does not offer a perfect 'linguistic contrast' for our purposes, since 'n?:l? does not function as an independent negative statement, whereas 1'~/~? + infinitive does.

HURVITZ: UNCUISTIC PRaHLE OF BEN SIRA

Provo 23.10 apS): 00 not encroach upon

of the wicked the field oforphans.

(~::ln ?~)

b. 2 Chron. 20.6 OPS): power and strength are Yours; none can oppose (~~'m? ... r~)

versus

Deut. 7.24 apS): no man shall stand up

C.

Ezra 9.15 (RSV): we are before thee in our guilt, for none can stand

[versus 12 1 Sam. 6.20 (RSV): Who is able to stand

Ps. 76.8 apS): Who can withstand Nah. 1.6 apS): Who can stand Who can resist

135

(~~'n'~?)

You 11 toYou

(1,olh r~) before thee

(1'O.l>? ?~" '0)

before ... this holy God? (10.1>' '0') You when You are enraged? (1'0.1>' '0) before Hiswrath? (r::np' '01) His fury?]

d. Qoh. 3.14 (RSV): whatever God does end ures for ever; nothing can be added (=-j'O'il? r~) nor anything taken (.I>1~? r~)

to it,13 from it

Deut. 13.1 (12.32; RSV): Everything that I command ... be careful to do; you shall not add or take

to it from it.

versus

(=-jon ~?) (.I>1m~?)

e. 1 Chron. 23.26 (RSV): And so the Levites no longer need to carry

versus

Jer. 17.21,27 (RSV): Take heed ... do not bear 11

(Mi!l?r~)

the tabernacle

('~i!ln ?~')

a burden

Driver, Tellses, p. 274: "none can stand in conflict with thee".

12 Syntactically, the following verses are phrased as rhetorical questions ('0 + impf.), not negative statements (~., /"~ + impf.). Nevertheless, in linguistic

usage they represent a mode of expression that in classical BH fulfills a func-

tion very similar to that of the Iater r~ + inf.: 'who is able to stand?!' = 'none is able to stand!'. 13 ]M, §160j (p. 6(6): "impossible to add".

136

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

on the Sabbath day ... if you do not listen ... not to bear ... on the Sabbath day.

(~~ 'n'?:::l,?,)14

a burden

The closely related construction ~'? + infinitive, carrying the notion of 'cannot, must not'1S is much less common in BH; it is attested only four times in the entire OT.16 Still, in light of the decidedly late distribution pattern of its counterpart 1'~ + infinitive, it seemed highly significant that two out of the four occurrences of ~'? + infinitive are to be found in LBH as wel1. 17

f.

1 Chron. 5.1 (RSV): ... Reuben ... his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph ... , he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright (illJ~'? rvn'nil'? ~'?') 1 Chron. 15.2 (RSV): ... No one but the Levites may 19 carry the ark of God (Cl'il'?~ Pi~ n~ ~tD'? ~'?) 18

Furthermore, it has been noted 20 that exactly the same construction of ~'? + infinitive appears in Biblical Aramaic (hereafter, BA) which-like

Late Biblical Hebrew (hereafter, LBH)-is a product of the same historical age; i.e., the Persian period: g. Ezra 6.8 apS): ... the expenses are to be paid ... out of the resources

of the king, ... so that the work not be stopped 14 Cf. n. 10. 1S BOB, p. 518b. 16 Both options, I'~

(~7~:;l,? ~7 ")

+ info and ~'? + inf., indicate "very much similar nuances" GM, §160j [po 606)). However, ~'? seems to be somewhat stronger than J'~; cf. Driver, Tenses, p. 275 ("Where ~'? is found instead of J'~, it denies more absolutely, and categorically, I'~ implying that though the attempt to do the act would be folly, still it might be made, but ~'? implying that the conditions are such that it would be (or actually was) out of the question altogether"). 17 The other two appear in Judg. 1.19 and Amos 6.10. 18 n~tZl'? ~'? in this verse is virtually identical to n~tZl'? I'~ in 1 Chron. 23.26 (already quoted), both relating as they do to the 'carrying' of sacred objects performed by the Levites. 19 1 Chron. 5.1 and 15.2 are rendered by Driver (Tenses, p. 275), "and he could not be reckoned for the birthright" and "must not", respectively. In JM, p. 606, the translation of 1 Chron. 5.1 is "it was impossible to enrol". Most probably, 1 Chron. 21.17, im~l:l'? ~'? 11:l.\l::Jl '::J~ n'::J::Jl '::J 1" ~J 'im, is also related to the usage examined here (cf. A. Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, I [Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967], p. 71); however, i1~~1:l is not an infinitive. 20 Cf. Driver, Tellses, p. 275; BOB, S.V. ~'?, p. 518b.

137

HURVITZ: UNGUISTIC PROFILE OF BEN SIRA

Dan. 6.16 (15; RSV): ... it is a law ... that no interdict ... can be changed (iT~~~ij~ M7). It was on the basis of these data and considerations that the early scholars cited above 21 concluded that both J'M + infinitive and + infinitive may be regarded as features typical of LBH usage. Indeed, with the publication of the Dead Sea Serolls (hereafter, DSS), this conclusion has been fully confirmed. Qimron's grammar of Qumran Hebrew {hereafter, QH)-one of our best tools for a proper evaluation of the linguistic profile of this corpus-emphasizes the fact that the postclassical construction 1'~/~' + infinitive is quite common in the Serolls, where it occurs primarily with the meaning 'one must not'.22 See the following examples.

M'

h. lQS 1.13-15: 23 1l1ey must not walk away

they must neither rush nor flinch They must not turn aside His true ordinances by walking either

(1'.v~' ~"') from .. . God's words .. . (Cl1P' ~"') the times fixed for them, (1n~m, M"') from ... (1'0' ~"') from

21 Cf. n. 5. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS, 29; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), §400.12, pp. 78,79. Cf. also Qimron, 'The Language', in E. Qimron and]. Strugnell, Qlln!rall Cave 4; V: Miq!jQt Ma::1 i1'?pJ,

The word

i1;';"~

i1;';"~ "tV1>::1 *"J1>::1* ,::1;'J.

(10.31) in the sense of 'how much so' (equivalent to

i10;', i10;' nn~ '?1» seemed to be peculiar to the book of Ben Sira. Bencn? ?ll?'~K iloor.l

n[']i::11 il?K i~ilO (fD1::1),

where it oeeurs together with the neologism ?'~K ilt!lO 'one who recJines to dine' (cf. 9.9; see n. 15; ?'~K ilt!lO should not be understood as an infinitive, as suggested by most seholars, but rather as a participle). Most commentators on 41.19 follow C and render cn? as 'bread'. This ereates severe difficulties, and sometimes foreed translations and interpretations of ?'~K ilt!lO. Instead, on? should be interpreted as meaning 'war' (MT CO'? rather than CO'? 'bread'), a word from biblieal poetry Gudg. 5.8) used also, as noted, in 12.5. The meaning of the verse would be, then, 'be ashamed to fight someone with whom you dine'. Sinee 'oath ;md eovenant' were related to eating together (cf. 9.16 and Obad. 7) it is not diffieult to see why both exhortations would be incJuded in the same verse. 4 Cf. M. Kister, Ki'O-P iElO ?t!l1t!1n'~?, Tarbi~ 59 (1990), pp. 306-307, n. 10 (heneeforth, Kister, 'Contribution'). 5 E.g. 42.5: no?ilO ll?~llli 1::1ll1

il[Jiil i010 O'D?ll],

wh ich I would translate 'upon ehildren multiply eorrection, and upon an evil and "lame" slave (multiply) blows'; the reading no?ilO has been suggested by J. Strugnell, 'Notes and Queries on "The Ben Sira Seroll from Masada"', Eretz Israel 9 (1969), p. 114" but my translation differs from his.ll'?~ 'lame' is used in a metaphorical sense, 'bad, inefficient' (cf. 1001..0'; and derived verbs in Creek, and other languages). 6 M. Kister, 'A Common Heritage', p. 111, n. 36. 7 Z. Ben-f::Iayyim, il11il' i::110 'J1El~ JO C'fD1n C, C':xD', USo 42 (1978), p. 291. Cf. also Kister, 'Contribution', p. 334.

162

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SACES

l:Iayyim noted its semantic simiIarity to Arabic fakilyfa. 8 We may add the Aramaic 'J'il and the Hebrew 1~'J in this sense, according to so me textual witnesses to a passage of the Babylonian Talmud (R.N.N. Rabinovitz, Diqduqe Söfrim on b. Bava Batra 134b): 'J'il '?'1) :Jill'?'J::lrv 1~i'1 1n~m.

Parallel readings of 'J'il in this passage are ilOJ' ilOJ nn~ '?.v ,1~'J. This reminds us, however, of the biblical formula ... 1'~' ... ilJil, in which the interrogative nature of l'~' is still quite clear, e.g. llm~ 101'J 1'~' ,'JEJ'? '101' ~'? !:l'J'?Oil 'Jrv ilJil (2 Kgs 10.4); !:l'010il n~ il1nnn l'~' l1~'?'1 n~1 !:l''?)1 ~'J P1'i111~'J il(!Wn 1'~1 n~'::l il~ m'?rv r1~::l1 (Jer. 12.4-5).

The shift from such structures to the structure of Sir. 10.31 and the one in the Babylonian Talmud can be easily explained. The discovery of the Dead Sea serolls introduced us to previously unknown layers of the Hebrew language, and lexical comparison between the scrolls and Ben Sira may shed light on both, as rnay be seen from the following four examples. 1. Ben Sira (42.8) speaks of n1JT::l ilJl' '?rD1J ::lrv

'a tottering old person occupied with whoredom', whereas a Qumranic composition (IQSa 2.7) mentions

il1 l'ill1m i' Tnm 'n'?::l'? '?rv,J li' Trv'~

'a tottering old man who cannot maintain himself within the congregation' . It seems that '?rv1J (Jrv) li'T was a term indicating the feebleness of old age. 9 2. The expression [l:li1'n1::l1'1n '?::ljn 'the corruption of their abominations' is the probable reconstruction of Jub 23.21 on the basis of 4Q176 and the Ethiopic translation. IO One wonders, then, whether '?::lil mJ1'1n 'vain abominations' (Sir. 49.2) should not be emended to '?::ln m::l1'1n 'abominations of corruption'.l1 3. nmJ (Sir. 42.19; 48.25) is a term also found in the Dead Sea Z. Ben-Ijayyim, ~"1'O-P 'J"1l1, USo 37 (1973), pp. 215-16. Altematively, but less plausibly, it could be interpreted as a term for senility; cf. Sir. 25.2 (according to C): 'and an old man who is an adulterer lacking understanding'. For the meaning in 1QSa, cf. L.H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of tI,e Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of tI,e Rule of the Congregation (Atlanta, 1989), p. 49 (which should be reconsidered in the light of Sir. 42.8). 10 C.-W. Nebe, 'Ergänzende Bemerkung zu 4Q176', RQ 14 (1989), pp. 129-30. 11 The reversed construct state of On1:ll11n ?:ln and ?:ln n1:ll11n is a well-known feature of early Hebrew literature; see Y. Yahalom, -r"1~:1 t!l1'D:1?W "1'W:1 nDW Olip:1 '?~"1W' (Jerusalem, 1985), p. 99; M. Kister, 'Notes on Some New Texts from Qumran', JJS 44 (1993), p. 286; and especially Y. Avishur, n1JD1:10 m-1J'OO C1'P:1 t!l1'D:l1 J~"101P:l ,~"1P0:l, US. 57 (1993), pp. 278-86. 8

9

KISTER: THE LEXICOCRAPHY OF BEN SIRA

163

SeraIls. The meaning in Ben Si ra ('events of the future') may be helpful for the elucidation of this term in the SeroIls. 4. Ben Sira uses the root .v1:::l'rejoice': Cl:::l.v:::ln 'I~ '1:HJ~ I:m .i1'1,.v 'J:::l:::l no~n 'I~, (Sir. 16.1-2); cf. also 1r .v:::l.v:::ln' ,m't!l:::li (Sir. 14.4). The raot .v,:::l in this sense is current in Aramaic. A hymn in 1QM (12.12) reads: ... i11ii1' '1.v 'I:l m'lJi1' Cl''I~'1' mJ1:::l '.v'5),i1, 1~0 'no~ P'~ i1J1 'I'P:::l i1J.v:::li1 'o.v mJ:::l. In the light of the usage in Ben Sira, in other texts fram Qumran,12 and in the Praphets Targum,13 it seems plausible to me that ' .v'5),m 'appear' is a corrupt form of '.v':::li11 'rejoice', derived fram the raot .v1:::l, from wh ich i1J.v:::li1 is certainly derived. 14 Any study of Ben Sira's lexicography (and other Iinguistic studies of this book) must take into account the problematical state of the Hebrew text (H),15 as weIl as the many misunderstandings and peri12 See E. Qimron, Tiie Hellrew 0/ tiie Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta, 1988), p. 88; n';l~ 711:J 1J)':J' ~1';1;-r:J Cl'';,;-r 'itD~

(4Q525 3:2.2); Cl'O';lJ) mnotD:J 1J)':J,1 ( 4Q427 7.17). 13 E.g. Targum Isa. 54.1: '~111 ~n:JtDn 'J)1:J ... Cl';tDli' 'n:JtD; Targum Joel 2.3: 11m 1J)1:J J1'~ 'J:J1; and many other occurences. 14 Cf. Cl'i":J1~ (4Q427) instead of Cl'i'm~ (4Q491; E. Eshel, '4Q471B: A Self-Glorification Hymn', RQ 17 [1996], p. 192). 15 Cf. 9.9 according to the quotation in b. Sanhedrin lOOb: i)tD1j" ;-r0J) 1100'; ;-r';J):J ClJ) ';~~ W'I'?~ The text of MS A, ClJ)tm '?~ ;-r';J):J ClJ), is obviously corrupt, the single word Clwn replacing the expression (ClJ)) '?,~~ t!ln, and thus spoiling the literary beauty of this passage (9.9-10), which plays with expressions containing the root ;-rt!lJ. Cf. Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus, s.v. '?,~~, pp. 367-68. I. Ben-Oavid, ~~;-r 1/1'1 ,'?~~n.1, L'§. 59 (1996), pp. 71-73, cites MS Jerusalem of tractate Sanhedrin, in which "we find a variant of a citation from Ben Sira, as folIows: ;-r,?J):JClJ)~~,?~ i)tD1j" 10J) 11oo'? ('00 not draw near to her husband to drink wine with hirn')", and he concludes: "The phrase '?~t'lnn '?~ carries the meaning 'do not mingle, do not draw near"'. However, ';~~nn ';~ is a mere scribal corruption of '?~~t!ln'?~. (For the interchange of t!ln and nn, cf. 47.19, where G has ltllpllVtlCAlVlli1 '?:> ~,?,

~':l'? i1'~ n~:l '?:> ~'?

'Not every kind of shame is meet to retain,30 and not every kind of abashment is to be approved' (41.16 [MD In their many occurences in the Bible, the roots ~':l and C'?:> are al28 This is pnwen by a comparison of the text of MS B with the text of the Masada serolI. 29 For the lexical significance of the interpretation of biblical words, expressions and verses in the Dead Sea Scrolls see E. Qimron, 'Biblical Philology and the Dead Sea Scrolls', Tarbi~ 58 (1989), pp. 297-313. 30 80th in the Bible and in Ben Si ra (Sir. 10.13; 14.3), the formula il1~~" is always followed by -., + dativus comnwdi, e.g. '1Jl1n "'O::l" il1~J~" (Prov. 19.10), whereas in Mishnaic Hebrew il1~J/il~J may be followed by the infinitive (e.g. il1m '10"" il~J '00 [Sifre Deut. 14); ":lt~m" il~J ill"111 m::l::l" il~J ill"l1 [Semal).ot, 8)). This might be the case in our verse: t1.11::l" is usually interpreted as an infinitive, 'to be ashamed'. However, since tI.I1::l is used as a noun (42.1, according to MS B [but not according to MS M); 32(35).10 [cf. commentaries)), we should consider the possibility that this is the case in our verse as weil. The translation could then be 'not every shame is meet for a shamefaced one' ('shamefaced' would be, of course, a positive feature). G and the two Genizah manuscripts (MSS B and C) read 100" rather than tI.Il::l". This reading can obviously be understood only as an infinitive.

168

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

ways used in a negative sense: one is ashamed because of wrongdoing or ashamed of being humiliated. In contrast to this usage, in several passages of Ben Sira, as weIl as in several passages in Mishnaic Hebrew, tD,:::l is used in a positive sense: 31 shame before doing the wrong thing hinders one from doing it. Thus i1tD,:::l 'shame, bashfulness' is considered a central cultural (and religious) positive value: .1tD":::l ~'i1tD Cl1~:::l :::l't!llO'O .i1tD1:::l 'T ,Cl)'J:l?l' ,~" i1'i1n ,,:::ll':::l, ~t!ln n~,' '1'? i1~':::lO i1tD,:::li1tD 1'JO ,'~t!lnn 'n?:::l?

'" And that His fear may be ever with you [literally, 'on your face']" -this is bashfulness. 32 It is a good sign in a man if he is bashful. "That you sin not"-this says that bashfulness leads one to piety (literaIly, 'to fear sin')33; Cl'10n '?,m, l'JtD":::li1, Cl'JOn'i1 'T i10'~:::l tD' Cl'JO'O i1tD?tD

'There are three (good) signs in this people (Israel): they are compassionate and bashful and charitable');34 Pl' P? Cl'J:l ntD':::l' ClJ'i1'J? Cl'J:l Tl'

'The shameless are for Gehenna, and the shamefaced for the Garden of Eden'.35 C1early this semantic shift, which is absent in biblical literature, had already taken place before Ben Sira's time. He must have supposed the reader of chapters 41-42 to be weIl-aware of a convention of wisdom literature according to which 'shame' and 'being shamefaced, bashful' are right and recommendable. Ben Sira's statement that 'not every kind of shame is meet' is deliberately provocative: such a general statement turns upside down laudable qualities and good manners. The provocative statement is explained only in 42.lff. Formally, the vocabulary of 41.16, as weil as the parallel pair Cl?) / /tD,:::l, appears to continue C1assical Biblical Hebrew. Semantic considerations, however, reveal that these verses are more removed from Biblical Hebrew than would seem at first glance. 2. Cl'J:l ~tDJ ptDl'O n:::lT '?l' nt!l:::ln '?~, Cl'J:l ~,tDO 'Ol' l'~' l'OtD' P'~O 'mnm

np' ~'? ') 1ntDn ?~ ~'i1 t!l:ltDO 'i1'?~ ') '?1 '?~ Cl'):l ~tD' ~'?

31 Needless to say, the negative meaning of 'shame' continues to occur in the ~st-biblical

periods.

2 The words C1~'JEl?ll are rela ted to C1'J!:) n!D1:J.

33 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael to Exod. 20.17 (ed. H.S. Horovitz and I.A. Rabin [Frankfurt a.M., 1931], p. 237 [see variae lectiones); ed. J.Z. Lauterbach, Vol. 2 [Philadelphia, 1933), p. 272. 34 b. Yevamot 7901 and paralleIs. 35 m. Avot 5.20 (01 baraita O1dded to the Mishnah).

KISTER: THE LEXICOGRAPHY OF BEN SIRA

169

'Bribe not, for he will not receive; and put not your trust in a sacrifice of extortion. For he is a God of justice, and with hirn is no partiality. He will not show partiality against the poor man; and the supplications of the oppressed he will hear' (35[32].14-16[12-13])

BDB defines the biblical idiom !:l'J~ ~tvJ in the following way:36 "lift up one's face, countenance ... ; sign of good conscience ... , sign of favour ... ; esp. lift up face of another (orig. prob. of one prostrate in humility; opp. !:l'~;:J :)'~iJ repel), in various shades of mng.: =grant arequest ... ; = be gracious to ... ; ... !:l'~~ ~'iD~ graciollsly received, held in honollr ... ; = shew consideration for ... ; also in bad sense = be unduly influenced by ... and, specif., = shew partiality (towards)". . The verses cited above from Ben Sira use the biblical idiom in a somewhat different meaning. Sir. 35 (32).14-16 obviously alludes to Lev.19.15, and 2 Chron. 19.7:

'Im 'J:ll1iln ~'11 '11 'J:l ~tvn~? ~:ltvO:::l ?lV 1tvlln~?, !:l'J:l ~tvm 1ntv npm i1?11l 1J'i1?~"!:l1l 1'~ ';'.

It has been no ted by commentators that the only way to interpret the words ?1?~ !:l'J~ ~tv'~? in Ben Sira is 'he (God) will not show partiality against a poor man'. Lev. 19.15b is an exhortation not to show partiality to the poor. 37 However, from Sir. 35[32].16 we may infer that Ben Sira had an almost contradictory interpretation to that of Lev. 19.15b. For Ben Sira, Cl'J:l ~tvJ apparently meant showing partiality towards (35[32].15b) or against (35[32].16a) the people on trial. Theoretically such a semantic shift is possible. Although this is not the original sense of the biblical verse,38 it makes perfeet sense according to this interpretation. These verses attest to an otherwise unknown interpretation of the biblical verse and hence to an unknown usage of the biblical idiom.39

36 F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and c.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the ald Testament (Oxford, 19(7), p. 670, cols. a-b.

See Vulgate and rabbinic literature (Mekhilta to Exod. 23.3 red. Horovitz and Rabin, p. 323]; Sifra to Lev. 19.15 red. IH. Weiss (Wien, 1862), p. 89a]) and elsewhere. 38 Cf. Exod. 23.3: 1:::1''"1:::1 '"11;-rn~" "11 (a most aw kward verse, to be sure). 39 For the following reasons I do not think it likely that the sense of C'E ~tI)J in Biblical Hebrew was both to be partial towards or against (as it is indeed in Ben Sira), depending on the preposition used (as suggested by Professor Muraoka). 1. In the Bible C'JEl ~tIIJ is used only in the positive sense. In Deut. 28.50 -"C'E~tI)J means 'show consideration for'; in Lev. 6.26 ~ C'E~tI)J has the meaning 'show favour for'.1t is difficult, then, to assume that"~ C'E ~tI)J (used 37

170

SIl~CH,

SCROLLS, AND SACES

A very early copyist of the Hebrew text thought that tl'J::l ~rvJ could not mean both to favour and to disfavour, and therefore changed 35[32].15b to Cl'J::l *""i1* 'Oll r~' (in Greek: '!Cut oU'!C Eonv :n:up' uu'tet> öOl;u :n:POOWltou) on the basis of Lev. 19.15c.40 The idiom tl'J::l ~rvJ is accordingly used only in the meaning 'to disfavour', whereas 'to favour' is expressed by Cl'J::l ."i1. The allusions to 2 ehr. 19.7 in 35[32].14a,15b make it probable that the reading reflected in G is a secondary one (but very ancient!). It attests to the same interpretation of Lev. 19.15b, and thus to the unknown meaning of Cl'J::l ~rvJ as denoting 'show partiality against'. However, the same expression occurs elsewhere in Ben Sira in a totally different sense: l ' "tDJO' tD,:m ,~, TtD::lJ' Cl'J::l ~tDn,~ (4.22 [C]); ~t:lm Cl'J::l ~tDn ,~, tD'::ln,~ i1'~ 'lll~ (42.1 [B+M]). The two verses in Ben Sira were interpreted on the basis of the biblical usages. Box and Oesterly comment on 42.1 "some of the things enumerated also involve the application of a judicial and impartial mind. To the latter the injuction 'accept not persons (Le. exhibit not partiality) unto sin' (Le. so as to bring sin upon thyself) specially applies", while 4.22a they translate "Respect no man to thine own detriment".41 4.22a was trans la ted by Skehan (and Di Lella) as "Show no favoritism

by Ben Sira) had in Biblical Hebrew the meaning of 'show partiality against'. 2. The verse of Ben Sira is evident!y re!ated to Lev. 19.15. There is a clear exegetical motive for interpreting the words ." 'J!J ~fDn~" in this verse as an admonition to judges not to show partiality against the poor (and to interpret O'J!J ~fDJ and ,';'I in this verse as antonyms rather than as synonyms): judges are more likely to be partial towards the rich and against the poor; cf. Ps. 82.2-4, Deut. 10.17-19, and Sir. 35(32).17[14); but see n. 38. I tend, therefore, to regard the strange usage in Ben Sira as stemming from a peculiar interpretation of Lev. 19.15. For a discussion of O'J!J ~fDJ in Biblical Hebrew, see M.I. Cruber, 'The many faces of Hebrew O'J!J ~fDJ "Lift up the face"', ZA W 95 (1983), pp. 252-60. 40 Since the verb ";'In in the biblical verse is not rendered in the Septuagint by a Creek verb derived from li6~a (but see Hexapla ad loc. [ed. F. Field; Oxford, 1875], p. 198: ä.AÄo~ . Oll oo~aaE\~ ltpoaol7tov I1EyaÄou), it may be preferable to ass urne that C had a different text from H at this point, and the translator of Ben Sira had the reading O'J!J,";'I in his Hebrew Vorlage. At the symposium, Professor Muraoka made the suggestion that li6~a ltpoao:l1tou is a rendering of O'J!J ~fDO, li6~a being derived from oexol1al. However (1) such a derivation of the word oo~a is not attested either in the Septuagint or in Creek dictionaries; (2) oeXol1al does not appear to render the Hebrew root ~fDJ in the Septuagint; (3) on the other hand, a Creek rendering of ";'In in this verse by oo~aaEl~ derived from oo~a, is attested. 41 Box and Oesterly, pp. 330, 468.

KISTER: THE LEXICOGRAPHY OF BEN SIRA

171

to your own discredit" and 42.lf. as "lest you sin to save face",42 hut no explanation is offered as to how this injunction fits the context. These translations try, with rather Iimited success, to fit the idiom in Ben Sira to the biblical usage of lJ'JEl ~t!)J. The paraIlelism in Ben Sira as weIl as the similarity between 4.22 and 4.20b (t!)1::lr1?~ lt!)ElJ ?~1) c1early indicate that this idiom means in the two verses 'to be ashamed'. It should be further noted that in the treatise Derekh Ere? we read 'r1.!)0t!) ~? 101? lO~'!)? LJ'JEl ~t!)r1 ?~, for which a variant reading is 'r1,!)0t!)~? 101? t!)1::lr1 ?~,43 and another occurence of the Hebrew idiom seem to be indicated by important MSS of G to 20.22: canv UltOÄA:UOOV -rl]V IjfUXl]V amou Ol' aiaxuvllv Kat UltO Äi]ljfEOO~ ltpoawltou UltOÄCl ami]v. 44 A free translation of 42.lf. would be, then: 'Be not ashamed (in the following cases), for you will bear shame and (bear) sin'. (Ben Sira plays with the idioms 11.1' ~t!)J and lJ'JEl ~t!)J, equating the two by using the verb ~t!)J for both). It is evident also that 4.20b (t!)1::lr1 ?~ lt!)ElJ ?~1) cannot possibly be rendered 'be not ashamed to be yourself' (as transIated by Skehan land Di LeIlaD, and neither Sir. 4.20 nor 4.22 can be "an admonition against the blandishments of HeIlenism" of Jews who are "ashamed to be themselves", as suggested by Di LeIla. 45 Sir. 4.22 should be translated: '00 not be ashamed about yourself and let not shame cause you stumbling'.46 The semantic development of the id42 Skehan and Oi Lella, pp. 174,477. The Treatises Derek Erez (ed. M. Higger; New York, 1935), p. 74. This passage was cited by I. Levi, L'Ecc!esiastique, 2 (Paris, 1901), p. 20. Levi failed to notice the special sense of the expression in both sources. 44 J. Ziegler, Sapielltia IcSLI Filii Sirach (Cöttingen, 1965), p. 218. Other Creek MSS have: ücppOVOC; ltpoawltou; thus also MS C of the Hebrew: 43

;':W'.,1' Cl'j!:) n'?1tli::J1

(5: ';,mtli '01:110 45

=?).

OO1::J0 1tDElJ 1::JtliO tD'

Skehan and Oi Lella, pp. 175-76.

46 This general statement is explained in Sir. 4.25-26. The text of these verses is almost hopelessly corrupt, especially in H. The relation between 4.26a and 4.26b is particularly puzzling. I would venture to propose the following reading, which is not fOllnd in any textual witness, but makes perfect sense (for the textual details see commentaries): ro::JtD 'E? 110lln ?tli1 (26b) ?tli;, Cll :nOn?N (25a) lll:l';' in?1tli· ?tli1 (25b) J1ll0 ::J1tD? tD1::Jn?N (26a) '00 not disobey Cod / / and stand not against the stream. Be not ashamed to confess your sins/ / and be ashamed of your foolishness'. A similar phenomenon of stichs wrongly placed at an early date is attested,

172

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

iom I:]'~:l ~i!)~ jn the sense of being ashamed is not quite clear to me. The following statement in Genesis Rabbah might be relevant: ,,':me i!)"Jm ~1i1i!) '~:le m~" I:]'~:l " rM '~lll:]'Mi!llr.lTJ

'when one is poor, he has no face to see hirn (a friend), being ashamed of hirn' .47 Could Mi!)~ in the idiom I:]'~:l ~i!)j 'be ashamed' have the sense of 'to take away'48 one's own co untenan ce? Be that as it may, the special meaning which this idiom has in Ben Sira, is evident. To summarize: the idiom I:]'~:l ~i!)~ occurs in two distinct meanings in this book, one derived from an otherwise unattested interpretation of a biblical verse, another scarcely documented elsewhere and probably unrelated to the first. 3. I:]'j' II ilJ)

This is another Ben Sira idiom that does not suit Biblical Hebrew. It occurs in 23.4 in a rhymed mediaeval Hebrew paraphrase of Ben Sira, ')ee pniil in:l J'::11

'~~nn 'M I:]'~'ll ilJ),

and is confirmed by G and S. In the Bible I:]')'ll ilJ) means 'proud', but in rabbinic literature it means 'licentious, unchaste': "m'1il il)'~i!) ili!)~ ~i!))1 mil1J) "il ~J~'i!) ")'ll G. Gittin 1.2[43c]). Similar expressions are found in the Testament of Issachar 7.2 ('Except my wife I have not known any woman. I never committed fornication by the uplifting of my eyes [ev ~'tECJ)plaJ.lii> O '.tl, Jil::>il pm' p P.tloto '::>'il pm 1'O':n il1P::l~

nm : > '''~l T~il::> r'~il '?.tl ,~,~ ~.tlO ,JJ 1'?'~ I:l~ =,0"::> nto1l:lto, 'O.tl m~::lm m~ '?nJ n'Ji11p::l~ ""J 'to~ (49.14-50.1) '1P::l~ to1~~,

I suggest the following translation: 'Few like Enoch have been created on earth; he also was taken

23a: 1110 ',n'l n::l ','on). The word 1M, wh ich replaces the biblical word on", can hardly be correct. It is usually emended by commentators to 11T0 (Mishnaic Hebrew) on the basis of 5 (~JlI0). Altematively it can be emended to 1110, a word having the same sense in Samaritan Aramaic (Z. Ben-Hayyim, )1101fDn01Jn'0"1~n'"1:Jll, 3.2 (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 97). But G probably had in its Vorlage on" (äp'tOv), following the biblical verse without any change. 81 Elsewhere, I have compared this verse with Genesis Rabbah 79.1 ('Contribution', p. 334). The parallel proves that this verse is indeed an aetiology of tears, and of the eyes being wet in general (contrast commentaries). 82 For p"in 'create' see above, n. 7. 83 Thus G, 5 (followed by commentaries). Altematively the words"::l 'JOO can be rendered 'for any reason'. 84 LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta, Onkelos, Palestinian targumim, Ps.-Jonathan as weil as the Samaritan Pentateuch all share the reading of the iT- in iTn" as a masculine suffix.

180

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SACES

Up(?).85 Like Joseph was ever a man born? Even his body was visited (by death). Shem, Seth, and Enoch were visited (by death), and (above)86 every creature possessing human form, Great among his brethren and the glory of his people, Simeon the son of Jochanan the priest, In whose time the house was renovated and in whose days the temple was fortified'. The phrase i11PEl:J ln'1) ClJ1 (49.15b) has been unanimously interpreted as indicating that Joseph's body was transported from Egypt to the Holy Land. According to this view the words i11pm 1n'1) allude to Gen. 50.25, i1TO 'no~l7 n~ Cln?l7i11 ClJMCl'i1?~ 'PEl' 'pEl 'God will visit you, and you are to carry up my bones from here', as al ready interpreted by G (Kui 'ta. oa'tä uu'tou E1teaKE1t'llauv). This suggestion is less appealing than it seems, since in Gen. 50.25 the verb 1pEl does not refer to Joseph's body. Moreover, what would be the point of mentioning Joseph's burial in this context? The words i11PEl:J ln'1) as weil as 11pm should be interpreted as 'died', on the basis of Num. 16.29, Cli1'?l7 1pEl' Cl1~i1 ?J mpEl1 i1?~ pm' Cl1~i1 ?J mOJ ~ 'if these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the fate of of all men',87 and the word npEln~ is similarly interpreted by Syriac lexicographers (11:::l~, ln'O).88 For this reason I translated v. 15b as 'even his body was 85 Cf. below, n. 89. 86 Two readings of this verse are possible, and it seems that Ben Sira intended the reader to have both of them in mind: (1) 'Shem, Seth, and Enoch were visited (by death), and similarly every living creature possessing human form', the preposition '?11 related to 'pEl (see below). (2) 'and above every living creature possessing human form Simeon son of Jochanan the priest (was visited by death)', the preposition '?11 meaning 'above', connecting syntactieally the historieal survey (eh. 44-49) to the eulogy of Simeon the high priest. (The two units are linked by the words m~Eln and 'PElJ; see below, note 93. Far the significance of the connection between these two units for solving the riddle of the absence of Ezra in Ben Sira's survey see Kister, 'Contribution', p. 374). See also below, n. 89. 87 The word "PElJ was thus recently interpreted by Y. Yahalom, 'Angels Da Not Understand Aramaie', JJS 47 (1996), pp. 38-39. Yahalom thinks that the word ;"PElJ (49.15) has a different meaning from "PElJ (49.16). To my mind the verb has the same meaning ('visited by death') in both verses; see also n. 89. 88 Bar Bahlul, uxic(/Il SyriacllnI (ed. R. Duval; Paris, 1901), p. 1598.

KISTER: THE LEXICOCRAPHY OF BEN SIRA

181

visited by death'.89 The influence of Num. 16.29 also explains the preposition 'll used in 49.16b, and makes the reading of MS B ("pDJ) much more preferable to that of G (Eöo~aaer,aav).9° We can clearly hear in Sir. 49.16 the echoes of two biblical verses: (1) Num. 16.29 Clil"ll 'PD' I:l1~il mpD'; (2) Isa. 44.13 I:l1~ m~Dn:)tl"~ n'JJn) 'iltVll" ('he gives it [=the idol] a human form, the beauty of man'). It seems unIikely in this state of affairs that 49.16b refers to the special glory of Adam (known from other ancient sources, but clearly not referred to in Isa. 44.13), as interpreted by scholars. 91 Rather, the meaning of the phrase Cl'~ n1~::m would not be too far from tV'~ n'J:ln 'a human form', perhaps 'the beautiful form of man'.92 The meaning 'beautiful form' depends on the context of the verse in Isaiah. It has nothing to do, I contend, with the apparently similar term Cl'~ ,,:l) in the Dead Sea scrolls (IQS 3.20; 4.23). The word m~Eln was chosen here because of its use in Sir. 50.1 (where it is employed in a different sense).93 A similar case, of stylistic vocabulary preferences, may be discemed in Sir. 48.18c-d:

'J'~;:l '~~';"

1"~ 'll'" ~',

land he stretched forth his hand against Zion and blasphemed against God in his arrogance'. As has been observed, Sir. 48.18c alludes to Isa. 10.32: 11'~

ro 1il ", ~ElJ'

89 Yahalom shows that these verses in Ben Sira correspond to Aramaic eulogies, which "bring a kind of catalogue of the Jewish patriarchs in order to show that the Angel of Death could not be stayed .... If so great a man as Adam or NOilh hild died, who then could escilpe deilth?". According to my interpretation of these verses (which differs from Yahalom's), all three verses deal with the inevitability llf humiln deilth. This is most important for the interpretation of the reference to Enoch in 49.15. The possibility that C'JEJ np'?J refers to death rather than to elevation should be seriously considered. 90 It may be observed that whereas G has EOo~ucr61,crClv in stich a and EV "tfl K"ticrEl AOClI1 in stich b, S has l'''::Jn~ in verse a and c,~, ;,nm::JtDn in verse b. 91 Flusser and Safrili have even suggested the possibility that C'~ in Isa. 44.13 had been interpreted by an ancient midrash as referring to Adam; see D. Flusser and S. Safrai, ln'J::Jn mr:l1 c'?~::J [Festschrift I.L. Seeligmann; Jerusalem, 1983], p. 458, n. 18). 92 In Hebrew, these words mean both 'the (beautiful) form of man' and 'the (beautiful) form of Adam', whose name is most appropriate at the conclusion of 'the Praise of the Fathers' and of verse 16. My argument is that this verse does not refer to the glory of Adam as a biblical hero, but rather to the human form in general. 93 Another key word used deliberately in two different senses in this passage is 'PEJ meaning both 'visited (by death)' (49.15-16) and 'be renovated' (50.1c).

182

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

'he will wave his hand against the mountain of the daughter of Zion'. Ben Sira chose the verb ~" instead of :')J" because he had used the root '~J in the previous verse (48.17b): Cl'O il:>1n ,,~ m~il::J. 8·11~'

Sometimes, as we have just seen, the words of a biblical verse are changed because of stylistic preferences. I have shown elsewhere94 the reworking of Isa. 55.11 in Sir. 43.26: the root 'rv.v in Isaiah is also replaced by the poetic root ".v:JYs In the same verse, f:Jn ('will') in Isaiah is replaced by its Late Biblical Hebrew synonym, 11~" Characteristically, elsewhere Ben Sira uses the word p~' in its older meaning, 'favour, acceptance' (32[35].11; 36.22). Often a biblical phrase is an indication of Ben Sira's interpretation of it, or even of a midrash.'J6 This is apparently the rule but it is not without its exceptions; for example, 'n ,,:> Cl~ (Sir. 40.1) does not refer to Eve (Gen. 3.20). The following example is a midrash of verses in Proverbs by Ben Sira (or rather known to hirn) based on the meaning 'will' that the word 1'~' had acquired in Late Biblical Hebrew: "~n'l" i1JJ~' ~",

Cl'il"~ ~Jrv il::J.v,n["l il.v'l

,,~ J1~' mrv.v" ilJ'O~' il'~O ,orvn f:Jnn Cl~ (15.13-15 [B]) A 'J'~' mrv.v" ilJ'::Jm, whereas G probably read in its 1'~' mrv.v" i1J'O~1. I prefer this reading, interpreting it 'one's

15.15b reads in MS

Vorlage

own will' rather than 'God's will'. Such a reading and interpretation would yield a perfect parallelism between the two stichs of verse 15, and would fit the context of 15.11-20, which discusses the problem of free will. Both readings, 'J'~' and ,,~ l1~', can be easily explained as derived from the reading 1'~', misinterpreted as referring to God's will. 97 I would translate the passage as folIows: 'Evil and abomination the Lord hates, and he does not cause it to those who fear hirn.... If this is your will, you can keep the commandment; (for) being faithful (to God) is (achieved by) accomplishing one's own will'. Sir. 15.13-15 is based on two biblical verses. The first is Exod. 21.13: M. Kister, 'Ben Sira Manuscripts in the Genizah', in Fragments Found and Fathomed (tentative title; ed. S.c. Reif; Cambridge [forthcoming)). 95 For the use of ?J.l!) see above, towards the end of the introductory section. 96 M. Kister, 'Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha and Other Jewish Writings', in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality o! Jcwisll Psclldcpigraplza (Atlanta, 1994), p. 2. 97 Cf. 16.3 in Sand H (MSS A and B!). 94

KISTER: THE LEXICOCRAPHY OF BEN SIRA

183

,,'? m~ Cl'i1?~m i1'~ ~? ,tv~'

'but if he did not do it (cornmit homicide) by design, but God caused it to come about by his (the killer's) hand'. This was probabIy the prooftext of those who said 'from God is my transgression' (15.11), with whom Ben Sira is taking issue here. The second bibIicai source text is Provo 12.21-22:

.v, '~?D Cl' .vtv" ,~,~, i1~'D~

'(9..v,

1'~ ?) P"~? i1~~ ~?

'ptv 'nEltv " n:l.ll1n

The plain meaning of Provo 12.21 is 'no harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked are filied with misfortune'. However, in the light of Exod. 21.13 a possible midrashic rendering would be: 'he does not cause sin (or: 'sin is not caused [by God]') to be brought about by the righteous, and the wicked are filled with evil!'. Such an interpretation is attested by Sir. 15.13. The word 1'~' in Provo 12.22 certainly means 'delight'-'Iying Iips are an abomination to the Lord, and those who act (or: 'whoever acts')98 faithfully are his (God's) delight'-whereas the same word in Sir. 15.15 apparently means 'will'. Clearly the verses in Proverbs do not deal with free will, but the combination of the two biblical verses could be formulated as a midrash: one verse (Exod. 21.13) says that God causes (im~) a man to kill (unintentionally), but another (Prov. 12.21) states that no transgression will be caused (m~') to the righteous; we learn, then, that Exod. 21.13 does not refer to a righteous person. But being righteous is a personal decision, as written in Provo 12.22, to which a new twist is given:

m~,---.'~'D~ [i1tq:Vl=?] 'tP.:Vl

'he who acts faithfully does so according to his own will', which is the source of Sir. 15.15b, according to the translation suggested above. 9. l'~D ?J:::l ... l:l:::l? ?):::l "nEl

[ ... n)tvn ?~ ln??1nD Cl~' tv'Pi1 "~i1) n~, :l't.vn~? "n1tvD n~, i1m,~ ,tv~) cp?n 1m

T:l~ ,:l) l:l:l? ?):l] ?~ ,nEll:l? ?):l

ltv,.v :l1i1~ l"w.l ?):l )i1) "m ?~ ,:l)

'[With all your heart honour your father, and forget not your mother who bore you .... ] With all your heart fear God, and revere His priests. With all your strength love the one who made you, and forsake not his ministers. 98 For such an orthography see E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 20.

184

SIl{ACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

Honour God and the priests, and give (them) their portion as you have been commanded' (7.27-31).99 These verses clearly reflect the pattern of Deut. 6.5: l1~0 'IJ:n liDElJ 'IJ~1 1~~'1 'IJ~ Ti1'1~ " ~ n~i1~1 'you are to love the Lord your God with a11 your heart and with a11 your soul and with a11 your might'.100 Sir. 7.29-31 seems to allude also to Deut. 10.12: ink i1~i1~'11 1'Ji1 'IJ~ m'l'l Ti1'1~ " ~ i1~i''I ~ 'J liDEl:l 'IJ~1 1~~'1 'IJ~ Ti1'1~ " ~ 1~lh1, where love and fear of God are combined with worship of hirn 'with a11 your heart and soul' by keeping his commandments (see below). The problem that poses itself is whether the pattern of Deut. 6.5 used in this passage of Ben Sira is to be considered a mere stylistic borrowing from the Bible (without paying much attention to the original context)101 or an aHusion to the biblical verses and their specific content. The former alternative can be weH illustrated by the acrostic poem designated 'Apostrophe to Zion',102 in which two verses read: TnJi1~ 'J~ '110 'I1J~ J1'~ i1Ji~'Ili'Ji~ ['~'~]103 Omitted by scribal error in H, and reconstructed by G and S. The reading of G in 7.29 should be noted in this context: Instead of 1::1" ":::l::1 of Hand S, G reads EV öÄTJ "'\lxft aO\l, which may weIl be a rendering of 1!VElJ ":::l::l (notwithstanding J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach [Analecta Biblica, 30; Rome, 1967), p. 296). It seems that Ben Sira interpreted 1~0 as 'vigour, effort, strength' rather than 'property' (contrast M. Weinfeld, ' ... 1no~"C1'::l1J;' ":::l11QS 1.12', Te'lIdal! 2 (1992), pp. 37-41). For this meaning see the so-ca lIed Apostrophe to Zion (below, n. 102), 4Q274 (J. Milgrom, '4QTohora a : An Unpublished Qumran Text on Purities', in Time to Prepare the Way in tlre Wildemess red. D. Dimant and G. Brooke; Leiden, 1995), p. 59-60): ::1i.llnn ["~l ;'110 "1:::l::11 'she should (strive) with all her might [not) to intermingle (with pure persons)'. This is apparently the meaning of the word 1~0 in CD 12.10; Sir. 6.26 (not preserved in H), rather than the meaning 'wealth, property'. The semantic development suggested by Weinfeld to explain the meaning 'wealth' is greatly to be preferred over the etymology suggested by M. Mishor, 1J100 ":::l::1-11~0 ":::l::1, USllne,1U La'am 38 (1987), pp. 375-79. Although the meaning 'wealth' is attested in CD 9.11, it is not elear whether this semantic development had al ready taken place at the time of Ben Sira. 101 R. Sander, Furcht und Liebe im palästinischen Judentum (Stuttgart, 1935), p. 28: "Sirach mit geprägten kanonischen Formel arbeitet, ohne ihren ursprünglichen Inhalt zu übernehmen". See also H. Stadelmann, Ben Si ra als Schriftgelehrter (Tübingen, 1980), p. 59 n. 2; J. Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, pp. 296, 302. 102 llQPsa 22 O.A. Sanders, DJD, 4 (1965), pp. 43, 86-88). 103 For the pronunciation of '11~0 as '1m, cf. E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 25. This pronunciation explains the midrash at m. Berakhot 9.5: 1~0 1~0::11" ;'110 '1;' ":::l::l1" 1"0 ~1;'!V ;'101 ;"0 ":::l::1 ,1'~0 '?:l::1, 99

100

KISTER: THE LEXICOGRAPHY OF BEN SIRA 1~'~~ ,~~'? ,?,~~

185

ii~'~'? 1"~~ m~, I:l'O.v~ ['~]

'I remember you for blessing, 0 Zion, with all my rnight 1 love you .... Many times do I remember you for blessing, with all my heart I bless you'. This poetic work clearly does not allude to Deut. 6.5, but rather makes use of biblical expressions from the verse regardless of their original context. However, in the case of Sir. 7.27-31 1 tend to opt for the second alternative, namely that Ben Sira alludes to Deut. 6.5 and even implicitly interprets this verse. God's honour, the focus of this passage,104 is related (1) to honouring one's parents, because both they and God are responsible for one's entry into the world (cf. Sir. 3.6-7, 16 and God's attribute of 1to11) at 7.30), and (2) to honouring the priests as God's servants and representatives (cf., e.g., Lev. 21.8). Moreover, God's worship (,~.v'?) in Deut. 10.12 could very easily be interpreted as referring to the temple cult. 105 It should be borne in mind that ,,~'~ 'honouring' was defined, in part, as the granting of money or possessions, so that honouring parents included satisfying their material needs and honouring God was expressed, inter alia, by paying one's dues to the priesthood and by setting aside the 'pauper's tithe' (cf. j. Pe'ah 1.1 [15d], which is a striking parallel to our passage).106 The passage in Ben Sira throws new light on the well-known saying of R. Akiba and its background (b. Pesal:tim 22b; but cf. j. Berakhot 9 [14b)): I:l'o~n ','o'?n m~,'? ,~,'n l'ii'?~ " ~

"'You are to fear the LORD your God" (Deut. 6.13)-the word n~ is there to include (fear of) Torah scholars (in the fear of God)'. This saying can be understood as areaction to priestly concepts and possibly to a priestly midrash similar to the one preserved in Ben Sira. The teachers of halakhah, rather than the priests, are God's representa-

where 11'0 is derived from the flXJt 110. This is also the explanation of the reading of 1QIsaa in Isa. 38.17: jl11~O ~,';'O instead of MT ,0 '';,0. An alternative reading to the MT was probably ,'0 '';,0 (cf. 1QIsaa to 38.15: ,'0, where MT reads ,0; see E.Y. Kutscher, The Lallguage alld Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (lQlsct') [Leiden, 1974), p. 378). The word ,'0 was misread 1'0 and understood as equivalent to 1~0. A copyist changed its spelling to i11'~0 (contrast Kutscher, ibid., p. 251). 104 As emphasized by Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, p. 307. 105 Cf. i11':J.Il as 'sacrificial cu!t' in Mishnaic Hebrew. Cf. also Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, p. 307. Cf. also n. 101. 106 See also M. Kister, 'Ben Sira Manuscripts', at the end of the introduction (on Sir. 3.11).

186

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

tives and the objects of religious reverence. 107 The use of 1nEl in 7.29 should also be noted. If, as suggested above, this verse is based on Deut. 10.12, then clearly the root Mi' was replaced by 1nEl (wh ich does not take a direct object in the Bible).l08 It has been suggested that since the expression " nMi' became equivalent to 'piety' (the component Mi' thus losing its original meaning),109 Ben Sira feIt he needed another, fresh, word to express the feeling of awe and reverence towards God. 110 However, 1nEl in this sense seems to occur in a fragment of a pesher to Hosea: ClJn1.VJ Cli10 nnEl' Cl''?M:n Cl11J::l'1 1.vOtv Cli1'.vno'?1

They listened to those that misled them, and honoured them, and in their blindness feared them like gods. 111 In this study we came ac ross idioms in Ben Sira that significantly deviate from the biblical usage (Cl'JEl ~tvJ, Cl'J'.v i1:1), expressions that illuminate the biblical text (Cl'?.vJ, Cl1'?tv '?~tv + Ji1~), words formally marked simply as Classical Biblical Hebrew that have undergone a semantic change (tv1J), ellipsis based on a biblical verse (pntv), and many usages derived from biblical verses. In Ben Sira, as in almost any other composition of the late Second Temple period, we are faced with the dilemma of whether the lIse of a biblical expression is a deliberate allusion to the biblical verse in wh ich it occurs, or is it jllst a stylistic Sir. 6.26 (not preserved in H) might weIl be a midrash on Deut. 6.5, since in Deuteronomy God's worship is related to the observance of the commandrnents (cf. also Deut. 26.16), and thus to wisdom, which is identified by Ben Sira with the Torah (cf. Sir. 6.37). 108 It may be especially instructive to compare Sir. 7.29, 107

tI11i'ill'Jil) n~l

with Isa. 8.13:

.,~

'"D

1:J" "):J,

lD~ill:l ~lilll!IJ"i'n lrn~ rn~:J~

"

~.

Note that Isa. 8.13 and 29.23 are the only biblical verses in which the Hifil of tI11i' has the meaning of 'to treat as sacred', both referring to God. The Pi'el is used in the same sense in Lev. 21.8, where the priests are referred to. The root in the sense of 'reverence (for God)' (rather than 'dread, fear') is quite rare in the Bible (Hos. 3.5; perhaps Gen. 31.42 [i'm~' '"D); the passage in Ben Sira aIludes to neither of these verses). 109 Interestingly, in verse 31 G has ljloßoü (probably ~i') where Hand S read ,:D. Cf. the interchange of these verbs in Exod. 20.12 and Lev. 19.3. Cf. also the wording of R. Akiba's saying cited above. 110 Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, pp. 305-307. 111 4QpHosa 2.5-6 (J.M. Allegro, DJD, 5 [1968], p. 31). For the content of these lines and its relation to R. Akiba's saying, cf. M. Kister, 'Studies in MMT' (in Hebrew; forthcoming).

'"D

KI5TER: THE LEXICOCRAPHY OF BEN SIRA

187

borrowing. ll2 Sometimes expressions employed in Ben Sira are derived from biblical verses interpreted according to their plain sense (e.g. 'i'ElJ); it is not rare, however, that Ben Sira's usage is based on a peculiar interpretation of the biblical text (im'? OJ, C'JEl ~J) or that he aIIudes to a midrashic understanding of biblical passages (i1J~ and p~' in 15.13-15; l'~O '?J:::l ... l:::l'? '?J:::l in 7.27-31). But even when Ben Sira aIIudes to a biblical verse he feels free to change it according to his stylistic preferences. 113 The relation of the book of Ben Sira to the Bible is one of the most crucial problems for the evaluation of the cultural position of the former. The relation of its language and style to Biblical Hebrew, several aspects of which have been elucidated in the present articIe, is similarly significant for determining the linguistic position of what seems to be a special post-biblical blend of old and new.

112 The former is more current than sometimes assumed; cf. M. Kister,

'Biblical Phrases and Hidden Biblical Interpretation and Pesharim', in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years ofResearcll (00. O. Oimant and U. Rappaport; 5TOJ, 10; Jerusalem/Leiden, 1992) pp. 27-39. 113 See above, n. 94.

THE P ARTICIPLE IN QUMRAN HEBREW WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ITS PERIPHRASTIC USEl Takamitsu Muraoka (Leiden)

I: Introduction Currently there are divergent views on the nature of Qumran Hebrew in relation to other types of Hebrew, whether earlier or later than Qumran Hebrew or contemporaneous with it. 2 A definitive assessment in this regard can only be attempted when one has results of investigation in all Iinguistic facets of the idiom comparable in depth and breadth to those which one already has at one's disposal regarding Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. Until such a time arrives one needs to study each of those facets more or less piecemeal with a view to obtaining a complete picture at the end. The recently accelerated speed with wh ich the necessary text editions are being made available makes it possible to undertake such a venture. It is generally agreed that one of the most important aspects of the structure of Hebrew in the period under consideration, namely the turn of the era, is the morphology, and more significantly, the morphosyntax and syntax of the verb. The fundamental changes, initial signs of which are evident in Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), emerge into full view in Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) as completed and integrated into a new restructured langage. This evolution is rightly highlighted by Cohen 1984 and Gordon 1982. As far as the tense-switching or sequence of tenses is concerned, this gap has now been significantly filled by M. Smith's study, The Origins and Development of the Waw-

consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (1991).

In this short presentation we would also like to focus on one facet The main outline of this paper was presented in July 1997 at the Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem, where an international gathering was held to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of the Oead Sea Scrolls. The author is grateful to its organisers for an invitation to take part in the conference and to Or G. Marquis of the Hebrew University for editorial comments on an early version of this paper. 2 By QH we are actually referring to the Hebrew as revealed in documents discovered in the eleven caves of Qumran and their environ. Qimron also now uses this term instead of HDSS, e.g., in Qimron 1994. 1

MURAOKA: 1HE PARTICIPLE IN QUMRAN HEBREW

189

of the verbal system in QH, to wit, the morphosyntax of the participle with special reference to its use in the so-called compound tense or periphrastic structure. 3 This we shall do by comparing data from QH with those typical of the preceding, biblical, period of the language and the following, mishnaic, period. It is an approach adopted by Kutscher. One of many strengths of his monumental study, ptv?il 'il'lXZ)' n?')O ?tZ,,:mV?il.vpi;" (1959)/The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (lQIsa Q ) (1974), was that, instead of viewing QH as represented by 1QIsaa in blissful isolation he firmly placed it in the historical, diachronie context of the Hebrew language on the one hand, and viewed it in its constant interaction with Aramaie on the other. 4 As sampies of QH texts we have focused on 1QS (Rule of the Community /1n'illiO), llQT (Temple Scroll/tD1POil n?)O), 4QMMT, and 1QHa (Thanksgiving Hymns/n1'1'il), cols. 1-10 (olim 9-18). The data on the periphrastic tense cover the entire QH corpus. In order to compare QH with BH, we have studied blocks of the Pentateuch (Exod. 10-14; 22-27; Deut. 6-19) and the entire book of Nehemiah. Finally, for the sake of comparison with MH, we have studied the first five chapters of the Mishnah tractate Shabbat, quantitatively comparable to 4QMMT, if the latter were preserved intact. Two main issues have engaged our attention. 1. Distribution of three main uses of the participle, namely predicative, attributive and nominal. 2. Periphrastic use with il';'. Periphrastically used participles are, by definition, counted also as cases of predicative usage. For the sake of cJarity we quote a few examples to illustrate each 3 The reader should refer to Professor Smith's contribution to this volume as weil. 4 In view of this one is somewhat puzzled by the fact that David Cohen, in his otherwise valuable diachronie and comparative-Semitie study of the nominal dause, allows his description of the evolution of the participle in Biblieal Hebrew to proceed from Late Biblical Hebrew directly to Mishnaie Hebrew with a sondage in the tractate Yoma. There is no mention of Qumran Hebrew anywhere in the monograph. Even Kutscher's above-mentioned study is conspieuously missing from a fairly extensive bibliography (Cohen 1984:593-609). One notes precisely the same omission in Amnon Gordon's study, 'The Development of the Participle in Biblieal, Mishnaie, and Modem Hebrew' (1982), which, as its title suggests, purports to be a diachronie study of the Hebrew participle. He also moves from his study of LBH with special reference to the book of Nehemiah direct1y to an enquiry into the use of the participle in MH with citations from the tractate Teharoth.

190

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

of the three syntactic uses. Predicative. Deut. 9.6: mTii il:1't!lil r'~' m '9~ 1(0 Til'~ " '9I;1P.l~~~'; 11QT 48.11: !::npo '):1 1:l'tu1lHJ"~il ,tD~). Attributive. Neh. 3.15: "" "l?o. ni'li"jJ ni'~OjJ '-P; lQS 2.1: ")" "):1 I:l'on I:l')"ilil ,~",~ 'tD~~ ,,) m.

Nominal. Exod. 12.19: ro.r:r ':;?k ,); 11QT 61.14: 1.VOtD' 1:l"~Jil; lQS 1.16: ,n'ill'O:1 1:l'~:1il ,,).

II: Statistical distriblltion oj the three syntactic uses A statistical comparison between these sources reveals several interesting things.5 1. First of all, the total number of participles in the Exodus block is vastly smaller than in any other source. Deuteronomy uses the participle twice as often. Among the Qumran documents lQS is comparable to Deuteronomy. At the other end of the scale stand Nehemiah, 11QT, and 4QMMT. The relatively high frequency of the participle in 4QMMT is most striking. The document consists of a mere 134 rather short lines, many of which have been preserved in quite a fragmentary state. In the first five chapters of the tractate Shabbat of the Mishnah, a halakhic document comparable to 4QMMT, we find 141 participles. 2. This set of statistics could be compared with another set showing the distribution of the three syntactic categories among the selected sources. In this respect lQS and lQH stand out, with an extremely sparing use of the participle as the predicate of a clause and the equally striking preponderance of its nominal use (substantivised participle).

There is a considerable difference in frequency of occurrences. Though not every source investigated is of precisely identical size, the 11 chapters each of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Nehemiah are of roughly equal size: 17 pages, 17 pages, and 20 pages respectively in the Adi edition of the Bible. 1QS and 1QH cols. 1-10 each takes up 20 pages in Lohse's edition. llQT is difficult to quantify because of its fragmentary state in the first several columns-the amount of data meaningful foe our investigation, namely those parts which do and could contain participles with sufficient context for syntactic analysis, does not appear to exceed very much that of 1QS, maybe 30% more. 4QMMT is of a very much smaller size. 5

MURAOKA: THE PARTICIPLE IN QUMRAN HEBREW Source

Predicative

Attributive

Nominal

Exodus

27 (45%) 63 (53%) 95 (57%) 11 (9%) 3 (4%) 87 (58%) 28 (85%) 128 (91%)

17 (28%) 23 (19%) 27 (16%) 42 (36%) 25 (30%) 27 (18%) 1 (3%) 2 (1%)

16 (27%)

Deut. Neh. lQS lQH 1-10 llQT 4QMMT m.Shabb. 1-5

33

(28%) 47 (27%) 63 (55%) 56 (66%) 37 (24%) 4 (12%) 11 (8%)

191 Total 60 119 167 116 84

151 33 141

3. The frequency of predicative use is considerable in every single source except 1QS and lQH. This is true of all the three biblical corpora, and cannot, in our view, be overemphasised. For almost every discussion in the past on the tenses of the Hebrew verb, particularly with reference to Biblical Hebrew, focused on the opposition between the prefix conjugation and the suffix conjugation, or imperfect and perfect, yiqtol or qatal, or whatever terminology you may care to use. The participle has been accorded only a marginal place, reduced to the status of a Cinderella. Waltke and O'Connor, in their Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, allocate it a mere twenty pages out of a total of nearly 180 pages devoted to the discussion of the Hebrew verb tenses. 6 Despite its distinct morphology and some aspects of its syntax, which set the participle apart from the imperfect and the perfect, the participle needs to be considered as an integral part of the Hebrew tense system? It is not true that this applies only from Mishnaic Heb6 They go even further by saying that the utterance such as '~~ ~li' in Biblical Hebrew has the sense 'I am one who knows' and only in Mishnaic Hebrew it came to mean simply 'I know' (Waltke-O'Connor 1990:624f.), a statement for which there is no basis and wh ich their own translation belies, e.g. n~~10 ~'iJ "as she was being brought forth"(Gen. 38.25). This is of course an old question discussed extensively by Sellin (1889) and briefly revisited lately by Dyk (1994:383). 7A point underlined by Kesterson (1984:205) in his summary of Joüon's position on the matter. I am indebted to Professor Smith for drawing my attention to Kesterson's study and sending me a photocopy of relevant pages from it.

192

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SACES

rew onwards. The position represented by Joüon-Muraoka (1991, §121a) needs to be taken more seriously: "the participle used predicatively has beeome ... a temporal form". Even this work, however, is not yet eompletely free from the eonventional and universally prevalent view, aeeording to which the participle "represents an action as a state, Le. as durative in aspect" (§121e).8 But there is really nothing durative about the standing formulas 1" 1(Ü l'i1"~" ,rv~ r'~i1 (Lev 23.10, etc.), i1nrv," i1rJrv~:J i1n~ ,rv~ r'~i1 (Deut. 7.1, ete.), ,rv~ i11~Oi1 ,,:> C"i11'~O ':>J~ (Deut. 11.8, ete.), or some of the examples cited by Waltke and O'Connor: nQ~o i1I;l~ iQQ (1Sam. 19.11),lt~;0 '9~:C~ Gudg. 6.36), C'ij"~ ~1; ':;l (Gen. 3.5).9 If this applies to Early Biblical Hebrew, all the more so to Late Biblical and Qumran Hebrew. This must be part of the explanation of the surprisingly high frequency of the predicative use of the participle in all the sources examined by us except 1QS and 1QH. Qumran Hebrew, judged by this admittedly small sampie, appears to be continuing the trend set pretty firmly already in Biblieal Hebrew. The author of llQT retained the participle found in his biblieal sources when quoting verbatim or paraphrasing. In one instruetive case he thought it right to eonvert the imperfeet in his souree with a modal nuance to the present tense of general, universal truth: '1.l.'~ 10flijJ ':;l (Deut. 16.19)/ / C'P'l:;,\ '1=;11 ~'?Q'1 C'O~r:) c'o:>n 'J'lJ "lJO, P1~i1 ":J1 ~"om ~::lrvo i1~0 1mrvi1':> (llQT 51.13). We do not of course deny that the action indicated by a participle is often durative or iterative in nature, e.g. tVr.:;IQ ':;>j~ 'r:rtr~ (Gen. 37.16), especially in cireumstancial clauses set in the past eontext, as at Gen. 37.15, i1-\,'t"l i1~iJl (lj'~ ~i1~; The second question, to which we wish to devote the rernaining time, concems the use of the participle in conjunction with the ubiquitous verb il'il in a syntagm which may be called periphrastic or compound tense. 13 This question has received considerable attention by D. Cohen 13 On the general, theoretical and comparative aspects of this structure, see Rosen 1991

MURAOKA: THE PARTICIPLE IN QUMRAN HEBREW

195

in his monograph mentioned earlier. Gordon also discusses it in relation to Biblical, Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew. Kesterson (1984:195200) also deals with the issue in his study of lQS and CD, as weIl as van Peursen (1997), a student of mine, who has investigated the periphrastic tense in the Hebrew of Ben Sira. Qimron (1986:70) notes succinctIy: "In the DSS, the periphrastic construction is attested about 50 times, chiefly in 1'5". It is often said that the periphrastic tense is rare in Biblical Hebrew. 14 Consulting the entry il'il (Qal) in The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Vol. 2 (1995) we learn that the structure is attested in the Hebrew Bible 124 times. 15 In relative terms, namely in comparison with tens of thousands of free-standing verb forms, these are but a drop in the ocean, but in absolute terms they cannot be brushed aside as rare. Let us turn to the distribution of these 124 cases among the biblical books. True, one finds 17 in Chronicles and 12 in Nehemiah. But in the book of Kings we find 27 (18 in 2 Kings), which is only two less than in Chronicles and Nehemiah put together. In the books of Samuel there occur 13 examples and in the Pentateuch 18. Thus it is hardly the case that the syntagm is characteristic of Late Biblical Hebrew,16 though one could always argue that the final redaction of the Bible is late. Nonetheless, when the structure is said to be typical of Late Biblical Hebrew,17 one is referring to books such as Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and Daniel.

14 So Qimron 1986:70: "only occasionally in the Bible, mostly in the later books". Qimron cites Joüon 1927:§121g where, however, one reads "Dans la langue posterieure on trouve la forme periphrastique "~I' ii;V au sens d'un pur parfait i/ tlla (sans nuance durative ou frequentative) ... ". This has now been revised to read: "On occasion the periphrastic construction appears superfluous, particularly in the later books, but a elose look suggests that the real force of the construction is akin to that of the inchoative imperfect of Creek or the graphie historie present" (Joüon-Muraoka 1991: §121g). 15 We do not know how Rendsburg (1990:26) has come to the figure of "about thirty". 16 Contrast Morag's (1988:160) more nuanced statement: " ... a development that started in the First Temple and greatly expanded in LBH". 17 See, for example, Driver 1892:170: " ... the more frequent use of the combination is characteristie of the later writers ... "; Cibson 1994:138: " ... more common in later books ... ".

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

196

Frequency ofil'il (Qal) + participle in Biblical Hebrer.v 18 Source il:V Genesis 2 Exodus 1 Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy 4 Joshua 1 Judges 1 Samuel 1 2Samuel 3 1 Kings 5 2 Kings 3 Isaiah Jeremiah 3 Ezekiel 6

XII Psalms 1 Job 1 Proverbs 1 Chronicles 1 2 Chronicles 3 Ezra Nehemiah 7 Esther Daniel 2 Lamentations 1 Koheleth Song Ruth 45 Total

'iJ~)

1 1

...

il'il'

il:vl

2 2

1

1

n;'i)'?

1

o

1

4 5

5

8 9 18

15

1

3 5

2 2

1 2

7 3 2 2

1 1

1

o

4 13 1 12

3 10

1 1

3

3

6

1

(Ben Sira lQS

5 5 6

1

4

56

Total

o

4

4

il:ij

2

1

2

'iJ~

3 1

8

o o o

7

4

1 119

3

4

124

1

4) 2

18 Passive

participles and participies of stative verbs have been excluded. of coordinate participles have been counted as one, as is the case with this sole example in 1QS where, beginning with 1.18, l:l'::>i::lOl:l'l'?illl:l'Jill::>ill'il', we have more participles following, even with a new subject in the immediate sequel: 19 Cases

l:l' l>'OOOl ... l:l'iOOt:ll:l'Jill::>ill JOIoli JOIoli l:lil'inloli l:l'iOllo1i n'i::l::ll:l'i::lll>il'?l::>l, ... l:l'iOOOl:l'l'?m ... ,

etc. See Muraoka 1996:578.

MURAOKA: 1HE PARTICIPLE IN QUMRAN HEBREW

llQT Source i1:iJ OtherDSS 7 m. Shabbat 122

'i1'1 i 2'ö

34

2

i1'i1'

i1:iJ1

li 2i

123

'0;

n;'i)7

3

197

i1~!J

3

36 Total 25 2

Again, largely based on the listing in the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew we find at least 25 more cases in other OSS, which make a total of 63. 24

The preponderance of this syntagm in llQT, as already noted by Qimron, is striking. 25 They are largely concentrated in the middle section of the document, columns 31-59.26 In Qumran Hebrew in general and in llQT in particular the most frequent syntagm is the combination with a free-standing i1'i1'. Qimron (1978:96) seems to have thought that the high frequency in llQT of the periphrastic stnlCture in general constitutes the most marked departure of its language from Biblical Hebrew. It is rather the frequency of this partiCltlar syntagm, , that seems to us to be the hall mark of the idiom of this Qumran document. Its preponderance in 11QT is largely due to its Iiterary genre: it is not a historical narrative. With the exception of Mur 42.6, ..,r.n~ 'i1n ~'?tv 'so that you will not say/think', all the examples are prescriptive statements

This rare example occurs at 4QApocJerC 2.4, P'PO il'Oi' 'il", 'and Jeremiah kept lamenting'. 21 At Mur 42.6 i'O~ 'iln ~':lt.O should be corrected to iO'~ ... , pace Milik (1961:158), who comments "participe passif qui exprime la nuance durativefrequentative d'un verb actif". This verb is not on the list of such verbs compiled by Segal (1927:161). 'i1n is no jussive in the sense of Biblical Hebrew grammar, but rather 'ilf;l. At 4Q225 2:2.10, :Jil~ il'il' ~", the form concerned could be a substantivised participle and a scribal error due to haplography for ':J.i~ 'my friend'. 22 5.4: il~~" iln'il ... lniEl 'his cow ... used to go out'. 23 2.4: rJOOJO ~ilrK!l"':JfV:J 'so that it will drip'. 24 References to these 25 cases are: 1QSb 4.25; 4QMMT B 12, 16, 26; Mur 24.2.15, 3.13; Mur 42.6; 1QM 2.1, 7.12 (missing in DCH), 8.1 (ditto); 2QJub b 46.2; 4Q Cat" 1.8 (2x); 1Q Jub a 27.20; 4QQuot 64.5; 4Q Flor 1.1.6; 4Q ApocJerC 2.4; 4Q477; 5/66evBA 45 fr. 2; 4Q200 2.3,4,6,; 6.2; 4Q221 5.6; 4Q225 2:2.10. In addition we find il'il with a passive participle at CD 4.12; 4QMMT C 24,26; llQT 35.13. 25 On account of this high incidence in 11QT Yadin (1977: I, 30) feit confident enough to overcome the uncertainty mooted by Goshen-Gottstein (1965:129), who had found the phenomenon too sparingly attested to be called a feature typical of Qumran Hebrew. 26 This is one of the arguments of Wilson and Wills (1982:286) for isolating part of this section as aseparate Iiterary unit. 20

198

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

of one sort or another and they are presented as prescriptions27 of permanent validity (so also 4QMMT B12, 16), a notion expressed by the author of 11QT in expressions such as Cl'",V mp,n (l1QT 18.8; 27.4). The notion that these prescriptions are valid permanently and are to be acted upon repeatedly is made explicit and reinforced by the addition of adverbial complements, as in 11QT 42.12: ... mrvl'J m;:"Oi1wn i1Jrv, i1Jrv ?,J:::l 'and the booths shall be made ... in every single year /; lQM 2.1: ,'om Cl'mrvo n1'il? 'to be serving always/; Mur 24:2.15; 3.13: i1Jrv, mrv ?[,J) ... ?P,rv ~i1~ '1 shall pay ... every single year /. The long series of directives in the first two colurnns of lQS concludes with lQS 2.19: ?.I)'?:::l n?rvoo '0" ?,J i1Jrv:::l mrv ,rvl" i1JJ 'thus they shall be doing year after year all the days of the reign of Belial /. In this connection we find it also interesting that the author of 11QT changes the syntagm of the biblical text he is obviously drawing upon: ... "l'i110 p,n, ?,J? i1~'J i1'i1n ~,?, i10J,n?~ i1~'~i1 i1'i1n ,rv~ 'into which excrement shall be dropping and it shall not be visible from a total distance from the city ... ' (l1QT 46.15), as against ':;11 nn-l? ~=t i1~.n~-~?1 (Deut. 23.15); ,m~ Cl'?J'~ ,'i1' i1J;:' (l1QT 43.5), as againsnn~ '?J~n i1JJ, (Exod. 12.11); and i10:::l Cl'OD1rv i10i1':::l"~ ,'m 'and your enemies shall be astonished 28 at them' (l1QT 59.4), as against Lev. 26.32: DJ':::l'~ i1'?l' ,OQt{il-29

m,,'

27 What Kesterson (1984:197) calls injunctive. 28 Not i100tll1~':J' (Yadin 1977: II, 187), "their enemies shallleave them razed" (Garda Martinez 1994:175), "their enemies shall devastate them" (Vermes 1995:175), "Leurs ennemis feront des ravages parmis eux" (Caquot 1987:122), nor "their enemies shall devastate them time and again" (Wise 1996:486). Such an interpretation requires a Hif'il of the root. The correct translation is " ... ihre Feinde sich über die entsetzen" (Maier 1978:60) and "hun vijanden zullen zieh over hen ontzetten" (Garda Martinez-van der Woude 1994-95: I, 173). The only difficulty is that the verb in question in the sense required here regularly takes ?l). The verb in a context like ours denotes more than a merely neutral astonishment, but an emotion tinged with disdain and contempt, as shown in the preceding sentence: i1:Jin?l i1Pitll?l i101t11? i10i1'il) l'i1'. Verbs indicating such an attitude, e.g. Jl)? Hifil, often take the preposition ::J; see Jenni 1992: 263. The preposition Beth is equally unusual for the sense indieated by the quoted translations. 29 This skilful use of the periphrastic syntagm by the author of llQT reminds one of an equally deliberate and skilful use of the related periphrastie syntagm i1'i1 + ptc. by a leading Israeli writer, Aharon Meged, in his novella 0011', the central theme of whieh is the perpetuation of the past acted out by its hero, 1J'pO'T ~:Jo, whose actions and those of the other dramatis personae are cast in this periphrastic structure throughout the story: i'~DO i1'i1 ~::Jo; -in~ ?~lt11 ~:JO i1'i1l:); i:J1 ~m~~:J i1'i1 "110:J?l; i111i1' n~ l)'tll1i1? n~?nJ i1'l)i i1n'i1, etc., etc.

MURAOKA: THE PARTICIPLE IN QUMRAN HEBREW

199

This unique feature of the syntagm in llQT becomes all the more striking when one notes with Mishor (1983:375) that the periphrastic syntagm with forms other than the perfect tense is in MH not as regular and firmly established (tD::mO, 1"0) as the other verb forms, such as impf., impv. and info Another thing to be noted about the periphrastic tense is that its use is optional. This is true not only in Qumran Hebrew, but already in Biblical Hebrew. An account of the industrious manufacturing of heathen idols begins with the periphrastic structure at 2 Kgs 17.29: "ij?~ ,;; ,;; Q'IDD ~'iTl 'and each people busied themselves with making their gods'. This is followed by aseries of ~ID~ clauses elaborating the labour of various ethnic groups (17.30): ... ?n~ ~ n~:l 'tD:l~' n;:l:;1 n;::JQ-n~ ~ID~ ?:;1;1. 'rq~~l· See also Isa. 30.20, 1;Jl ilWO~r;l ~n\~l ... n;~1 ~J'r.p. ~'iJl, and 59.2, Q~'iJ'?~ 1'~'? Q~r~ Q'7'1:;10 ~'iJ Q~'(QW Q~ .Il;O~Q Q~Q Q'~;J n'r;l9iJ Q~'IJ'~br:l1; Neh.1.4, Q~ 'il~' ·t: Q'O' il?Zl~n~, il:;':::l~' 'n:::lrD' -'I' and 5.18, '? ~ID,V:l ... iltD,V:l il'il 1rD~1. See also Isa. 14.2. For Qumran Hebrew we ~ot~-lQt..r2.1:"m;·~'S ,'on:::l Q'n1tDO / / 2.2: ,'on n1tD? Mishor also discusses cases in Mishnaic Hebrew where the distinction between the periphrastic tense and the simple tenses appears to be becoming neutralized.30 Whereas in Biblical Hebrew 31 and Ben Sira32 we find several examples of a participle used with an imperative or a jussive of il'il and the syntagm is fairly common in Mishnaic Hebrew33 , not a single such case is attested in our Qumran corpus. 34 Since most of the eases of the syntagm il'il' + pte. or its equivalent, i1'il' + ptc., in llQT are prescriptive, this is remarkable. A possible explanation may be that the language of the Mishnah is largely based on a vemaeular35, whereas that 'I

•

'I

•

'I

T:

-

I

... ,

...

I

... 'I

•

I

Mishor 1983:365f., 381-89. Likewise in Ben Sira (van Peursen 1997:173). E.g. Gen. 1.6: 0:ri7 0:0 )';:1"'1:J0 ';"1. E.g. 5.11: -':100 ;";'. 33 E.g. ":JPO '11:1; see also Bendavid 1971: 11, 540. 34 On this question in Aramaic with some comparative data from Mishnaic Hebrew, see Greenfield 1969. 35 This does not mean that Mishnaic Hebrew represented a form of spoken Hebrew in the tannaitic period. It is quite conceivable that, whereas the language had crystallized into a written idiom, certain features of it originated in a spoken form of the language. Cf. the notion of 'mixing of levels' developed by Morag (1996:211f.). 30

31 32

200

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

of llQT is a literary idiom. It is not, in our view, a coincidence that the Aramaic equivalent of this syntagm is one of the characteristic linguistic traits of the Hermopolis papyri, a collection of unmistakably informal and homely letters36 , although the syntagm in these late sixth- or early fifth-century letters is not durative, iterative, but rather serves to indicate a sense of urgency or a tone of insistence. The position of the participle in relation to the auxiliary il'il was one of the questions discussed by Greenfield (1969:204f.).37 In our Qumran corpus we have found no instance of a ptc. preceding a form of il'il, except a passive participle (we have excluded passive participIes from our study): ilOmmpO 1'il' Cl'?'lJ10 (llQT 35.13). By contrast, Biblical Hebrew knows several such examples: " Cl~ Cl!)':;;! Cl'lQO (Deut. 9.7,24; 31.27); "-ll~ Cll)':;;! Cl':;l~p'O (Deut. 9.22); 1~~:;;I 1':;l~~ ~l=t.p il:iJ il-?; (1 Sam. 17:34); 1l':iJ lo.l~ 1199iJI;1Q (Ezek. 16.22); ;'Q~iJ ;'~~~1 ;':19 (Ezek. 19.10); ~J''?n ~'iJ llilQlJ (Ps. 122.2).3/1 This is quite common in Mishnaic Hebrew: 1l'(!)~"J ;'(!).!lOJ '11";' ?:JllOO (t. Hagigah 2.5).39 No functional opposition can be established between the two sequences, as in Official Aramaie. Kaddari's attempt (Kaddari 1991:300-18) to show that the syntagm ;' 'JJi;1 ':> and 0I1N1 -lZl 0'>,'1' in the halakhie bloek The main purpose ofthis paper is the linguistic analysis ofthe following two formulas present in the halakhic part of 4QMMT Band which the

) On the nature of the Qumran documents as reelaborated and composite texts cf. F. Garcia Martinez and J. Trebolle Barrera, 1995, p. 86: "This assumption implies the recognition that a large part of the best preserved writings incorporate elements from different periods or stages, re-interpreted in line with historical development".

PEREZ: 4QMMT, REOACTIONAL FORMS

207

editors themselves acknowledge to be as 'additional statements' (DJD X, pp. 136-37): -, '1N' C'Ji11:Jil 'J:b':J (B 11- 12; B 16- 17; B 25-26; [B 48; B 82]) -'J) C'Y'1' C11N1 ([B 38; B46]; B 68; B 80; C 8). If the context of these formulas can be revealed, perhaps we might obtain a better understanding ofthe redaction ofthe document in which they appear.

A: -, '1N' C'Jil1:Jil 'J:J, ':J The singularity ofthis expression was noted by the editors (DJD X, p. 95): it is not an expression that is to be found previously in the Bible nor contemporaneously in the Qumran texts nor later in rabbinic literature. But the idiom is also absolutely atypical in the view ofE. Qimron (DJD X, p. 95): a) '1N' in 4QMMT is indeclinable and functions as an auxiliary of the infinitive; in the Bible (Est. 2.9) and in numerous other mishnaic and midrashic texts, the participle OfilN' (+ infinitive) is always inflected; b) -, '1N' + infinitive has an imperative value, which is not prevalent in mishnaic and other rabbinic texts (although a semantic dynamism ofthe 'decet > oportet > debet' type can be easily understood); c) '1N' could be suppressed in 4QMMT without chan ging the basic meaning, wh ich could also have been expressed by: 'illil' '1N' C'Jil1:Jil 'J:J, ':J as ,mil' C'Jil1:Jil 'J:J, ':.1. It is really surprising that neither the expression nor the linguistic structure it represents has any precedent or continuity in the literature of classical Judaism. Suspecting that the expression was a formula or Iiterary 'form' the context of which might be recoverable, I decided to reopen the investigation. The results obtained are fairly modest, but do provide further detail to previous conclusions. In the Bible, it is not this formula that is found, but a quite similar one; in 2 Chron. 26.18 we read 1'ON'1 l'Oil 1il'IY 'Y 1'OY'1 "~Pil' 1il'IY l' N' "~Pil' C''J)'POil 7"ilN 'J:J C'Jil:J' ':J

l'

208

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

And they withstood King Uzziah, and said to hirn: it is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. 4 The context of this text is surprising because of its resonance with 4QMMT: it is the accusation that the high priest Azariah and 80 of his priests level against King Uzziah's attempt to act as priest in the temple (2 Chron. 26.16-21). The Qumran experience seems to repeatthe biblical scene. N umerous researchers maintain that the letter is addressed to the Maccabaean king Jonathan, who was to usurp the high priesthood and to earn the name of 'impious priest' from the members ofthe community.5 I leave it to the experts in Qumran Studies to evaluate this similarity and to decide whether it is fortuitous or intentional, whether it is deliberately provoked by the author or the result of scholarly hypersensitivity. A redactional analysis could not sidestep this issue, but this is not our primary aim. Only after completing the linguistic analysis shall we return to the matter ofthe redaction. Returning to the linguistic structure, 4QMMT adds the particle '1Ni before the infinitive. Semantically (bearing in mind its use in later texts as weil) we believe that it defines the priesthood's 'own' [domain], what is 'destined' to them, 'appropriate' to them or within their 'competence'.6 Contrary to first appearances, this structure has not completely disappeared in the classical texts of Judaism, where, however, with a meaning very close to the imperative, the following exegetical formula appears: ... NI;!N ... i~11;! '1Ni l'N; in tannaitic literature I have only found it in only three texts: (':1:::> 'ö N;j?'1) CI:::>i:1'1 CI).'il I;!N 1'1' I1N liilN NlZl'1 Oil0~ Nij?~

i1T

... NI;!N iml;! 'lN; l'Nl

Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them (Lev. 9.22). This set ofverses is in improper order and it should be stated in the following sequence: 'and came down from

"öp,,"

The parallel between the two parts leads us to regard as the subject of a nominal clause in both cases ('to burn incense is not for you, but for the priests'). The introduction of O'tv'P~" in the second part may convert the second infinitive into its complement (' ... but for the priests who are consecrated (0 burn incense'). Syntactically, the expression is more complex but, in my view, retains a literary parallelism with the first i'ÖP"". 5 4QpPs' [4QI71]. This is also the view ofthe editors of 4QMMT: DJD X, pp. 118-21. 6 The editors translate: "Should take carelbeware"; Garcia Martinez (I 996c: 77-78): "ought to be/to observe". 4

PEREZ: 4QMMT, REOACTIONAL FORMS

209

offering of the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offering (v. 22b) and lifted up his hands .. .' (v. 22a) (J. Neusner; Sifra, Mek. Milluim to Lev. 9.22 [Weiss, p. 45b]); ('::1 'N' '::1'0::1) illZlO I;!N 0;li1 i'Yl'1 0l;!Y10 illZlO il'il ilO ';:)1 'il I;!N OYil i'Yl'1 NI;!N '011;! '1N' 7'N NI;!il1

And the people cried unto Moses (Num. 11.2). Could Moses have really helped them? Was it not suitable to say only that the people cried unto Yhwh? (Sifre Num. 86.1 [Horovitz, p. 85]); Cl 'TI;! l"l'lZlN'::1) illZlO ::1i'Y' 1"11,1;!11"1 ill;!N ... NI;!N ,ml;! '1N' 1J'N N11;!il1

These are the generations ofJacob. Joseph ... (Gen. 37.2). Surely Scripture should have said here: Reuben ... ? (ARNa 2.10 [Schechter, p. 12]). In these texts the indeclinable particle plus infinitive appears as an exegetical formula that in all three cases is used to correct what the Scriptures apparently say, with a formula that means something like 'the Scriptures would probably say', 'which really means' or 'what it should say is'. But in this rabbinic formula the logical subject introduced by preposition -I;!, which would give it the same linguistic structure as in 4QMMT7 , is missing. In the Mishnah we find two occurrences oftexts with the structure: indeclinable particle + logical subject introduced by -I;!:

l'

... 01;!1yI;! N::1 NI;! 11;!N;:) 11;! '1N' 0"::1' ilY::1'N::1 l;!;:)l"lOOill;!;:) 0'1Y' N::1 N'lZl

'1N' 1l1i' '1::1;:) 'Y on N'lZl ';:)1

Whoever puts his mind to these four matters it were better for hirn ifhe had not come into the world ... And whosoever has no regard for the honour of his Creator, it were better for him had he not co me into the world (Blackman; m. Hag. 2.1) But in these texts, the infinitive is missing as grammatical subject and the sense of '1N' is apparently very different from the subtIe modal value ofthe exegetical formulas that we have just examined. Blackman translates it: 'it were better for hirn'; and Danby: 'it would be better for hirn'. However, 'more appropriate' or 'more suitable' better reflects the tenor of the Hebrew text: 'it would have been more appropriate for anyone who speculates about what he should not speculate about never to have come into the world'. A parallel formula in the NT is symferei

l'

7

The Iinguistically equivalent fonnula would be "17.)1' I('i'0' 'lI(' )'1(.

210

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

+ dative, as in 'Who offends one ofthese little ones who believes in me, symferei autö hina kremasthe ..." (Matt. 18.6) or 1 Cor. 10.23. It is not until Tanh. (ed. Buber) Sofet. 8 that we find an exegetical formula that linguistically has the same structure as that of 4QMMT and the function ofwhich is also to correct the biblical text: (I 'I:!! C'~im) C'~~~:I c'~~i1mi1 C'~~i111IJi1 1i1IJ ,c'ntl:li1 'IJ1~ ~'j?IJ~ '1~'

'Who vaunt their idols' (Psalms 97.7). It would have been more appropriate for the Scripture to say 'those who trust'. What is therefore the sense of 'they who vaunt'? It also appears in Pesiqta Rabbati 20 (Friedmann, p. 96), to correct 'myrrh that flows' or 'myrrh that passes away' (':l1Y '1IJ, Cant. 5.13) to Y1:1j? 'IJ, 'myrrh that will be kept', in an interpretation of Cant. 1.13); other texts include Midrash Bereshit 81.13 and Hekhalot Rabbati 35.4. It is essential to be prudent when c1assifying and dating linguistic phenomena such as pre-rabbinic, tannaitic, amoraic. Here we have a phenomenon that we would not have hesitated in c1assifying as amoraic; in fact this is what Bacher does, recording the formula 'IJ1~ ~'j?IJ~ '1~' in his volume on the amoraic tradition. 8 And it is significant that Segal and even I myself, in my recent manual, mention the modal structures of "110h'11Y + infinitive, but we do not include the structure of '1K' + infinitive. If we restrict ourselves to written texts, we cannot discover how a language is kept alive. What seems to us to be linguistically and sem antically a later innovation turns out to be related to forms used five, six or seven centuries beforehand. Might I venture to suggest that if a linguistic structure rarely appears in literature, and then disappears for centuries, only finally to reappear in a cultured exegetical context, we may assume that it is in cultured circles that it has been cultivated, maintained and recovered. This is a modest conclusion, but It might contribute to defining the context of the Qumran document and would be useful in redactional study.

Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur. Zweiter Teil, Die Bibel- und traditionsexegestische Terminologie der Amoräer, p. 20 I. Leipzig 1899 (I. Teil) and 1905 (2. Teil). Repr. Hildesheim, 1965. 8

PEREZ: 4QMMT, REDACTIONAL FORMS

B:

-lZl C'>,'1' CI1Nl

211

(B 68; B 80)

Examination of the halakhot of 4QMMT indicates that this formula is not common in most ofthem. 9 By its tenor, it is a redactional element used only in some halakhot (at most in five, probably in three, and certainly in two). It is for Qumran experts to investigate whether such a redaction proceeds from the same author as that ofthe letter, and if so, why these complements with CI1N are used when the receiver is addressed as ilI1N. For my part, I prefer to offer some linguistic considerations. Curiously the formula is not attested in the Bible, Scrolls 1o or tannaitic literature. However, it is well-known how in the language of the Mishnah the participle encroaches upon the territory of other tenses. It may have its equivalent in CI1>,,' CI1Nl, evidenced in Exod. 23.9, precisely to justify one of the regulations of the code of the Covenant: 'You shall not oppress astranger, you know (CI1>,,' CI1Nl) the heart 0/ a stranger ... '. In any event, it must be noted that in what is known as the halakhic part, the only tense used in the main clause is the participle, a way of establishing the timelessness of the regulation. Exactly because of its halakhic context, this formula could be assimilated to the well-known mishnaic formulas Rabbi 'omer (as opposed to 'amar Rabbi in narrative sections). Is the dramatic effect of the text diminished because of the stability ofthe opinions thus expressed (by participles)? A striking component of this formula is the personal pronoun introduced by waw, which causes a hiatus in the speech with an emphasis on the new characters and on the contrast that they introduce. This is a very effective device in classical Hebrew representation of speech: CI1lZl"1 C'1:J>, CI1Nl 7'1'il I1N ,:J>, 'Jl'N ... '::>JN '::> 'For I must die in this land, I must not go over the Jordan; but you shall go over and take possession ofthat (good land) (Deut. 4.22)';

This formula can be clearly read in B 68, in the halakhah on the lepers, and in B 80 in the halakhah on mixed marriages. lt can be reconstructed with all probability in C 8 (, I:1I1Kl can clearly be read) and can only be conjectured in C 7, in what may belong either to the last halakhah on priestly marriages or to the transitional formulas between the halakhic part and the exhortative part ofthe document. It can be guessed at in a very extensive reconstruction ofB 38 (halakhah on pregnant women) and B 46 (halakhah on those excluded from the temple). IO 1:1'>'11' I:1I1Kl could be read in 1lQapPs· [IIQ11] 2.8, as reflected in Wise, Abegg and Cook 1996:454, although Puech (1989: 394) believes that I:I'Y'1' 1:1." is the safer reconstruction, with a clear sense of contrast and with reference to a knowledge of the power of God. 9

212

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

'They said: Arise, and let us go up against them; for we have seen the land, and behold, it is very fertile. Andwill you do nothing? (Judg. 18.9)'; 1mK c'''n~ Cl1K1 111K::ll i11i1' '~K C'll::l '~lZl '1'l ':l 'F or my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts, but you profane it ... (Mal. 1.11-12)'; 11::l!Zli1 l1K "n, 'Y 71,n C'~'01l Cl1K1 ... Ci1'm::lK 1!ZlY i1:l K'i1 'Did not your fathers act in this way ... ? Yet you bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath! (Neh. 13.18)'. The same linguistic structure to mark contrast is found in the language of the Mishnah and halakhic midrashim (but it is not very common): C1j:'~'lZl 1llnll::l C'K::l Cl1K1 C'1 'lZl::l'lZl1l1nll::l 7'K::l p l i 'They come in the strength of flesh and blood, but ye come in the might of the Almighty (m. Sotah 8.1)'; C'1 'lZl::l '1::l:l::l C'j:'10Y Cl1K1 C1j:'~ '1::l:l Cl1nli1 'You abandoned the honour of God and you are instead concerned with honouring jlesh and blood! (Sifre Deut. 38 [Finkelstein, p. 75])'; C'lZln~ Cl1K1 'K~ i1::l1~ i1li11 f'Ki1 l1K ll'K' ':l Ci1',Y i1'Yl1 i1~1j:' 1'~K'1

'K'lZl'

'l~~

7lZl' K'lll 1K'i1 c"'~j:'~ Cl1K1 7lZl' 111K"~ m'l1Ki11 lZl,n

mK"~

111l'l 1i1'lZl

'The granaries will be full ofnew grain, and the storage bins will be full of the old, so you will wonder how we shall take out the old on account ofthe new harvest (Sifra Be-huqqotay, Pereq 3.1 [Weiß, p. lIla])'. Cl1K1 also appears in so me Qumran texts (l QM 17.2,4,8; 4Q185 1.9; 2.7). This backgrounds of usage leads us to conclude that C'Y'1' Cl1K1 is a linguistic structure that is suitable for marking a contrast and adding emphasis. I do not see anything that could lead us to a more precise context. lZl,n

111: The formulas in their redactional context The formulas that are the subject of our study are to be found in the halakhic block of 4QMMT where, throughout the 16/17 12 halakhic

Also in Sifre Deut. 192 (Finkelstein, p. 233). I prefer to consider the editors' halakhot 13 and 14 as one, as there is nothing which separates them and they have the same syntactic structure and parallelism: the trees and the tithe are in both cases hu ' la-kohänim. 11

12

PEREZ: 4QMMT, REOACTIONAL FORMS

213

provisions, the editors distinguish with total cIarity a) the headings, b) the halakhic proposal and c) the additional statements. 13 A. The headings are perfectly defined in each and every one of the halakhot (marker?y ~N1J?Y1 + declaration of the subject).14 B. The halakhic proposal is formulated in a great variety of forms: first person plural, third person plural, modal infinitive with positive and negative value, jussives, noun cIauses; these formulations can also be found combined in quite complicated structures. In conclusion, I cannot be certain when I identifY any initial structure as original or discount a formula as secondary. What is evident is the dialectic character, which is decidedly polemical, of most of the formulations. Despite this, I would cautiously venture a proposition: if only halakhot 5 (red cow), 12 (the dogs) and 13 (the terumah ofthe priests) lack a polemical formulation (without any 'we' or 'they' or 'you' plural) and in these cases the halakhah is categorically formulated with the modal infinitive with imperative value (5: o',mö 111'i1?; 12: N':lil? l'N) and with a nominal clause with imperative value (13: 0'Jil1::l? Nm), possibly it is because this was the system of formulatingthese halakhot in the putative base document prior to manipulation for polemical purposes; the formulations with 'we' and 'they' would be secondary alterations for polemical reasons. lt should be noted that the categorical formulation with infinitive has continued to be maintained in cIearly polemical structures such as 6, 8, 9, 14, and 16. Similarly, the formulation in the shape of a noun cIause is maintained in the polemical structure of 7, 11, and 15. Consequently, it would theoretically be possible to isolate the polemical elements and earlier formulation of the halakhah without dialectic intention; this would possibly lead to acceptable results in some halakhot: O'l1ill1'7.) ?1::lN? l'N 0'l1il11' 117.)1'11 ?Y1 .1 Vli'7.)? ON':l? l'N 1N~il1 'i'Jil 111'1Y ?Y .6 ... N'il ilJil7.) 0'?lZl1"1 N1il 'Y17.) ?::l1N ):llZl7Jil ... J1I1::llZl ?Y1 .7 ... ,nN 01'J '?1il I1N1 ONil I1N n1Jr? l'N 111'JY ?Y1 .8 0::l'I1i1? l'N1 ... Oil'?Y N1:l? l'N ... 'JN17.)i11 'J17.)Yil ?Y1 .9 ... 'ilTi1? ... 0'7.)10il ?Y ~N1 . I 0 But in other cases, the reconstruction of a possible initial halakhah is pure guesswork, as in 2 and 3 where we only have the description of the non-halakhic practice, or in 16, which is enormously complex.

See Synopsis in DJD X, p. 137. Only halakhah 12, about the dogs (8 58-62), lacks a marker and title. It begins abruptly with the formulation of the rule. 13

14

214

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

C. However, the editors do not have any difficulty in isolating 'additional statements', such as the propositions introduced by our formulas C'li1l:l1;! 'lN' ':l, c'y,,, CI1Nl, and certain explanations and biblical j ustifications.

Let us now look at how our formulas function in context. I. The formula

ll'i1N 'lJ / l'li1l:li1 'lJ.

In halakhah 4 our formula can be reconstructed with reasonable certainty: I) [And concerning the cereal-offering] ofthe sacrifice ofwellbeing which they leave over from one day to the following one: 2) but [it is written]15 that the cereal-offer[ing is to be ea]ten after the suet and the flesh, on the day when they are sacri[ficed. 3) For the sons oß the priest[sl6 should take care concerningthis practice so as not to cause the people to bear punishmentl 7 (B 913). Clause 3) is syntactically independent of the previous clauses and is dependent on the state of mind of the writer, and can be understood as something Iike 'I am telling you this because ... '. Indeed, the particle ':l does not explain any previous proposition, simply the thoughts of the writer. In fact it is equivalent to the adversative NI;!N in that it represents an answer to a difficulty the writer has thought of; alternatively, it could

15 According to the reconstruction ofthe editors. Garcia Martinez (1996c:77) supposes another reading, 'we think'. Neither is Bernstein (1996b:39) satisfied by the reconstruction of J111J. 16 Garcia Martinez (I 996c:77): "the sons of Aaron". 17 The difficulties in the reconstruction do not affect the syntactic and stylistic analysis that we outline here: two-part construction (1-2), indicating the protasis with waw (2). Or line 2) mayaiso be understood as a continuation ofthe theme: 'and also on what is written ... '. The structure is elegant, although the expression of2) is particularly difficult due to the repetition of '1N at the beginning and perhaps due to its attempt to evoke biblical texts: Lev. 7.15; 8.26; 19.5; 22.29; consequently, the difficultuy of the expression might result from the complexity of the idea being expressed rather than literary heavy-handedness. Whichever reading of J111J is accepted, the opinion of the sender seems to be based on Lev. 7.15 and 27.29-30 (as opposed to m. Zebahim 6.1, which is based on Lev. 19.5) and coincides with 11 QT 20.12-13. For the exegetical device, see Sifra Saw Pereq 12.1 (to Lev. 7.15), which extends to on? the obligation to eat it the same day. Apart from this, it is clear that B 13 (I1Y oy;, 11N O'y'oo) is a conscious imitation of Lev. 22.16: O;"1I71i' 11N O?JNJ ;'OIl7N l1Y OIl1N 1N'II7'" (cf. Bernstein 1996b:36).

PEREZ: 4QMMT, REOACTIONAL FORMS

215

be regarded as an emphatic partic\e, as commonly found in c\assical BH. It should be noted that we have here an apparently leamed formula, perhaps derived from 2 Chron. 26.18; in any event, it is characteristic of priestly terminology, which we should not be surprised to find used here. It is definitely not an explanatory partic\e of the halakhah. It is more probably an explanation of the use that the writer is making of the halakhah. But in this way the writer reveals the real addressees of the document, the priests, whose strict task is that of ensuring compliance with this regulation. In halakhah 5, the priests' formula can be found again: 1) And conceming the purity-regulations of the cow of the purification-offering: 2) he who slaughters it and he who bums it and he who gathers its ashes and he who sprinkles the [water of] purification,18 3) it is at sun[se]e9 that all these become pure 20 4) so that the pure man may sprinkle upon the impure one. 5) For the sons 0/ Aaron should [ .. 21 (B l3-17). It is not a formally polemical text, but the polemic with the Pharisees is explicit in the Mishnah and Tosefta (Parah 3.7, etc.). As in unit B 9l3, here 5) is a c\ause that is syntactically independent ofwhat precedes it and dependent on the letter writer's state of mind, which can be understood as something like 'This I tell you because ... '. The same considerations we applied before are still valid. In halakhah 6 the same expression is found once more: 1) [And conceming] the hides of cattle [and sheep that they ... from] their hides vessels [ ...

18 According to Bernstein (1996b:34) this is a good example ofscriptural imitation: "The language ... derives from expressions employed in Num 19:8,10, 21". 19 Baumgarten (1996:513) reads tu7.lWol nK J',yn, as in 4QOd [4Q269] 9:2.5. 20 Or according to the reading ofBaumgarten (1996:513): "all these must wait for sunset to become pure". 21 The syntactical structure is also clear, practically the same as we have seen in B 9-13, although somewhat harsher: protasis, which is an introduction to the subject, and apodosis, which is not signalIed by any syntactic marker. The apodosis (2-4) consists of a subject in anacoluthon or pendens (2), a modal infinitive clause (3) and a consecutive dependent clause (4). In spite ofits syntactical coarseness, the essential elements ofthe halakhah are perfectly indicated with reference to the biblical source: sacrifice (cf. Num. 19.3), burn (Num. 19.4), gather ashes (Num. 19.9) and sprinkle the water ofpurification (Num. 19.4).

216

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

2) not to bringf2 them to the sanctuary [... ] 3) [ ... ] And conceming the hi[des and the bones ofthe unclean animals: 4) it is forbidden to make] handles of [vessels from their bones] and hides. 5) [And conceming] the hide ofthe carcass ofa clean [animaI]: 6) he who carries such a carcass shall not have access to the sacred food 23 ... 7) [ ... ] And conceming the [ ... ] that they [use to ... f4 8) .. . 9) [For the sonsJ ofthe priests should [take care] conceming all these practices, 10) [so as notto] cause the people to bear punishment (8 17-27) There are four halakhot that begin with ?Y ~N1; however, we can assume that the four make up one halakhic unit, both in content (conceming hides, bones and skeletons) and in the final conclusion which involves all ofthem ("As for the sons ofthe priests ... "). Our earlier considerations apply equally. In halakhah 9 the expression may only very speculatively be assumed (at B 48 not a single letter ofthe formula is conserved); it is also risky to reconstruct 'N'WO 'J::l when in the cases in which the formula is patent 71'ilN 'J::l or C'Jil1:lil 'J::l is read. I shall therefore leave this reconstruction out of consideration for the purposes ofthis study. The same applies to the reconstruction in halakhah 16 (B 82), where the formula may appear more opportune, but is equally unverifiable. The author ofthese redactional or additional considerations assumes the priests to be the addressees ofthe halakhot and is very probably the same person who introduces the priests directly into the polemic by the

is a reconstruction ofthe editors. Garcia Martinez reconstructs: "we think that ... " (1996c:77) 23 Garcia Martinez (1996c:77): "shall not approach the holy purity". 24 Of the four halakhot, only the fourth is impossible to reconstruct. In the first two, the style is the same: protasis (introduction of the subject), apodosis (imperative modal infinitive with l'N). In the third halakhah, the protasis includes the subject and the verb in the personal form (the first time that it appears here). Morag (1996:217) compares the elegant style ofthe parallel theme in m. Yadayim 4.6 with the vulgar style of 4QMMT, which moreover uses a generic c',:J m,', whereas in Yadayim 4.6 an unusual plural, m"'I1, is used. The biblical source is Lev. 11. 24,25,27,28,39 ... , where the prohibition to touch animal carcasses is discussed. But no express reference is made to the biblical text. m. Hullin 9.1-2 shows that the rabbis understood that meat could be contaminated, not only bones and skin. 22 N'Jil' 1'N

PEREZ: 4QMMT, REOACTIONAL FORMS

217

sporadic addition ofo'>",' 0I1N'. My question is this: is the author ofthese the same as the person who wrote the letter? I consider this to be unlikely, as the author ofthe letter addresses it to a singular 'you' and, in particular, uses a terrninology and syntax that is totally absent from the halakhic block 25 • It seems to me more plausible that there were two stages of redaction through wh ich the document passed: (I) a dramatizati on carried out for the purpose of making the priests assurne their duty to comply with the halakhah; (2) a letter directed to a political or religious leader (but in any event someone with authority over the priests) in order that he ensures compliance with the halakhah. The fact that for no apparent reason this forrnula relating to the priests is found in only some of the halakhot indicates that the work represents a redrafting that was not definitive or, at least, had not been completed as a literary composition. New light is shed on this point by contextual study of the second forrnula.

2. The formula 0'>,'"

011N1.

The reconstructions made by the editors of the formula in halakhot 8 and 9 (B 38 and B 46) are possible but are difficult to verify. However, ifthe reconstruction of halakhah 8 is correcf6 0'>,'" 011N' is an appeal to the interlocutor's knowledge of the halakhah and of Scripture: 'and you know that it is so and that it is written'. This is a feature common to the other uses of the forrnula. Let us now turn to various readings of halakhot 14 (on lepers) and 16 (on mixed marriages). Halakhah 14 (On the impurity ofthe lepers) 1) And concerning lepers 2) we are [of the opinion that they may not] enter (any place) containing sacred food 27 and should be isolated [outside any house].

See details in M. Perez Fernandez 1997b. Baumgarten (1996:514) questions this. 27 Garcia Martinez (1996c:78): "We say that they should not enter the holy purity"; Bernstein (1996b:41): "we s[ay that they shall not e]nter with sacred pure (food)". 25 26

218

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

3) And it is written 28 that after he shaves and washes he should dweil outside [his tent seven] days.29 4) But now while their impurity is with them the le[pers enter] into a house containing sacred food. 30 5) And you know 6) [that if someone violates a prohibitive commandment unintentionally], and the fact escapes him,3\ he should bring a purification offering; 7) [and conceming hirn who purposely transgresses the precepts 32 8) it is writ]ten 33 that he 'despises and blasphemes'. 9) [Moreover, since they have the] impurity of leprosy, one should not let them eat of the sacred food until sunset of the eighth day. (B 64-71). The halakhah is formulated in the first part (1-4): the subject is introduced (1) and the opinion ofthe community (2) and the testimony of the Scriptures (3) are added, against all of which is contrasted the actual situation (4). The second part (5-9) is a cultured reflection made to the addressees with reference to the consequences of violating the halakhah based on the Bible itself. One must observe (a) the contrasting value ofthe formula; (b) the knowledge ofthe Scriptures the interlocutors are assumed to possess; and (c) the same knowledge is undoubtedly also shared by the writer ofthis additional commentary. The author of the commentary is an expert addressing a group of experts: o'y,,' in this commentary refers to knowing how to interpret the Scriptures. Halakhah 16 (On mixed marriages [of priests with Israelites]) 1) And conceming the practice of illegal marriage that exists among the people:

The formula introduces a biblical paraphrase based on Lev. 23.46 and Lev. 14.8. Bernstein (1996b: 43-44) proposes the following reconstruction ofB 65-67: 1'öl' 11:l 0'1:(' nY:l1!l 1m,] f1n1:l :l1Zl('] 0:l:l1 n'1'1!I nY1:l1!l :l1n:l'lN [1 TI2 f1n1:l]. The bib1ical text is interpreted as ifthe leper must keep out ofthe cities (interpretation ofthe biblica] ölln1:l) and, during the 7 days of purification, outside his house as weil (interpretation ofthe biblical 1'ölN). 30 Garcia Martinez 1996c:78: "[lepers approach] the ho1y purity, the house"; Bernstein 1996b:41-42: "those suf[fering skin-desease enter wi]th sacred pure (food) into the house". 31 Reminiscent ofNum. 15.27 and Lev. 5.2. 32 The reconstruction is made following the phraseo10gy ofNum. ]5.30. 33 The formu1a introduces a very abbreviated reference to Num. 15.30-31. 28 29

PEREZ: 4QMMT, REDACTIONAL FORMS

219

2) despite their being so[ns] ofholy [seed], as it is written 34 'Israel is holy'. 3) And conceming his [clean ani]mal it is written 35 that one must not let it mate with another species; 4) and conceming his clothes [it is written 36 that they should not] be of mixed stuff; and he must not sow his field and vine[yard with mixed species]. 5) Because they are holy, and the sons of Aaron are [most holy]. 6) But you know that some of the priests and [the laity mingle with each other] ras weil as] ... 7) [And they] unite with each other and pollute the [holy] seed 8) ras weil as] their own seed with women whom they are forbidden to marry.37 9) Since [the sons of Aaron should ... ] (B 75-82). The text is obviously incomplete and therefore is not very conducive to discussion for our purposes. It seems acceptable to assume that lines 2-5 are very condensed explanatory and clarifying comments that employ biblical references to the seriousness of the sin of certain marriages by priests. Within this commentary is included a call to the experience of 'you' (with its emphasis and contrast), that 'you know' how some priests indeed mix and pollute the holy seed and their own high degree of holiness. I simply indicate how, by using 011N, the author shows himself to be a leamed person who can speak to the priests directly and invoke their halakhic and exegetical science to them. 38

34 The fonnula intro duces a quotation from Jer. 2.3. Bernstein (1996b:45) writes: "When a quotation is inexact, we may surely characterize it as a paraphrase, but there is no reason to claim that J1n:l cannot introduce a verbatim citation in MMT, even though that is not its primary function". 35 The fonnula introduces a clear reference to Lev. 19.19 and Lev. 22.29; "They are allusions, not citations, although they are introduced by :nn:l" (Bernstein 1996b:46). 36 The reconstruction ofthe fonnula J1m is superfluous for Bernstein (I996b:39). 37 Garcia Martinez 1996c:78: "fornications". 38 Probably this halakhah still continues into lines C 1-8, as the vocabulary on marriages that are considered impure reappears: "And concerning the warnen. .. and the treachery" (C 4), "for in these [... because of malice] and the fornication [sorne] places were destroyed. [And it is] written [in the book ofMoses]" (the fonnula introduces a quotation or paraphrase ofDeut. 7.26, exegetically merged with Deut. 12.31. Thus is the view of Bernstein [1996b:47], who considers the whole paragraph to be the conclusion of the halakhic part: "This citation could be a fitting conclusion to the halakhic section, with the epilogue beginning with [c]Yo"l :l1"VJ 1l!V"1!l[W C'>,'1' CnK1]") that you should [no]t bring any abomination [into your horne, since] abomination is a hateftJ! thing detestable. [And you know that] we have separated aurselvesJrarn the rnultitude aJthe peaple land from all

220

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

IV: Conclusions 1. The structure and terminology of -I;? -I;? 'lN' and the content of both formulas reveals a learned group with respect to their knowledge ofthe Scriptures. 2. The same group appears in both formulas discussed: CI1N = C'Ji1l::>. 3. This group does not appear in part C (where neither 'you' nor 'the priests' are mentioned), nor in at least nine of the 16/17 halakhot in part B: 1,2,3,7,10,11,12,13,15. 4. At a literary level, therefore, one perhaps should distinguish between at least two redactional stages in B. Summarizing, from a literary and linguistic point of view, it is evident that a base document has been used by someone as material for a letter. It is also evident that this base document is made up of original and additional elements. 5. The question of whether these stages correspond to various redactions or drafts by the same author or, rather, to successive transformations through different authors is something to which my analysis does not extend, but it is a matter to which Qumran specialists should turn their attention on the basis of these limited and modest analyses. 6. In this study I do not deal with the other personalities in the document, 'we' and 'they', as really their presence is perfectly integrated in the halakhot in which they participate. But it is of note that of the four kinds in B (we, they, you, and the priests), in C only 'we' remains. Perhaps 'we' is a redactional element of the last person involved in writing the letter? Or the writer ofthe letter identified himselfwith the others who already figured in the legal document? Is the whole of document B, right from its first draft, a polemical text?

their impurity] and from being involved with these matters and fromparticipating with them in these things" (C 5-8). Perhaps until C 8-9 it belongs to the Halakhah on the mixed marriages of priests, as 0')1'" C11N' is used to introduce arefleetion on an already formulated halakhah and there is another mention of 'betrayal' (':>)11:1), already found, in eonneetion with women, in C4. The biblieal base would be a restrietive interpretation of Lev. 21.14. Sifra to Lev. 19.29 questions whether the marriage ofa priest's daughter to a Levite or to an ordinary Israelite eould be equivalent to prostitution (which, in theory, is what 4QMMT says) and excludes it as being evident. Might we eonsider it a restrietive interpretation ofthe Qumranic community? Might there not have been interpretations, such as that of of 4QMMT, that could have led to the exegesis of Sifra? However, Baumgarten (1996:515) believes that here we are not dealing with the marriages between priests and Israelites but between Israelites and heathens.

PEREZ: 4QMMT, REDACTIONAL FORMS

221

Bibliography Baumgarten, 1.M., 1996: 'The "Halakha" in Miqsat Ma 'ale ha-Torah (MMI')', JAOS 116, pp. 512-16. Bernstein, M.l., 1996a: Review of Qimron and Strugnell, JJS 36, pp. 67*-74* -1996b: 'The employment and Interpretation ofSeripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Obervations', in Kampen and Bernstein, pp. 29-51. Brin, G., 1995: Review of Qimron and Strugnell, JSS 40, pp. 334-42. Garcfa Martinez, F., 1996a: 'Textos de Qumnin', in G. Aranda Perez, F. Gareia Martinez, and M. Perez Fermindez, Literatura judia intertestamentaria (Estella: Verbo Divino), pp. 15-241. -1996b: '4QMMT in a Qumran Context', in Kampen and Bernstein, pp. 15-27. -1996e: The Dead Sea Serolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English. (trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson; seeond ed.; Leiden, E.l. BrilI). -and 1. Trebolle, 1995: The People 01 the Dead Sea Serolls (trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson; Leiden: E.l. Brill). 10üon, Paul and T. Muraoka, 1993: A Grammar 01 Biblical Hebrew (eorreeted rev. seeond ed.; Subsidia Bibliea, 14. Rome: Pontifieio Istituto Biblieo). Kampen, 1.,1996: '4QMMT and New Testament Studies', in Kampen and Bernstein, pp. 129-44. -and M. 1. Bernstein (eds.), 1996: Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (SBL Symposium series, 2; Atlanta, GA: Scholar Press). Morag, S., 1996, 'Language and Style in Miqsat Maa~e ha-Torah: Did Moreh ha-Sedeq Write this Doeument?', Tarbi? 65 (1996), pp. 209-233. In Hebrew. Perez Fernandez, M., 1997a: An Introductory Grammar 01 Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. 1.F. Elwolde; Leiden: E.l. Brill) -1997b: '4QMMT: Redaetional Study', RQ 18, pp. 191-205 Pueeh, E., 1989: ' 11 QPsApa: un rituel d' exoreismes. Essai de reeonstruetion' RQ 14, pp. 376-408. Qimron, E., 1992: 'Halakhic Terms in the Dead Sea Serolls and their Contribution to the History ofEarly Halakha', in M. Broshi et al. (eds.), The Serolls 01the Judean Desert: F orty Years 01Research (Jerusalem), pp. 128-138. In Hebrew.

222

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

-and John Strugnell, 1994: Qumran Cave 4; V: Miqsat Maaseh haTorah (DJD, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press). Stegemann, Hartrnut, 1996: The Library 0/ Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Wise, M.O., M. Abegg, and E. Cook, 1996, The Dead Sea Serolls: A New Translation (London: HarperCollins).

NEGATION IN THE HEBREW OF BEN SIRA W. Th. van Peursen (Leiden)

I: Introduction 1 ClassicaI Hebrew 2 employs severaI negative partieIes, such as ~'?, '?~, '?:l, )E) and amt Their use and distribution are determined by grammaticaI context (e.g. ~'? negating the indicative, '?~ the jussive), genre (e.g. '?:l as a poetic synonym of ~'?) and date (e.g. '?t!lp'? r~ as a LBH and QH equivalent of '?t!lpn ~,?).3 The use of these negative partieIes in Ben Si ra shows some interesting features. In this artieIe we will not present a full analysis of negation in Ben Sira. We will discuss some selected issues (Seetions lI-VI) and then focus on those phenomena that are poetic or rare in the Bible and those that are confined to LBH and/or PBH (Seetions VII-VIII). r~,

II: The negation of nominal c1allses In BH the main partieIe negating a statement expressed by a nominal eIause is 1'~. In Ben Sira we find two examples. The first is 30.19 (Bmg), m~o ilJilJ 1'~1 i(D1D 1'? (D'(D '0 P

'thus is he who possesses weaIth, but cannot enjoy4 it'.

1 The author wishes to express his gratitude to Professor T. Muraoka for commenting on earlier versions of this article and to Drs. M.F-I. Baasten for same useful suggestions. The investigations were supported by the Foundation for Research in the Field of Philosophy and Theology (SFT), wh ich is subsidized by the Netherlands Organisation for Seientific Research (NWO). 2 By 'Classical Hebrew' we understand the Hebrew attested in the four premishnaic corpora: The Bible, Ben Sira, the Dead Sea Serolls and Hebrew inscriptions, see Elwolde (1997), especially pp. 18 and 49. 3 Abbreviations: BH = Biblical Hebrew; SBH = Standard Biblical Hebrew; LBH = Late Biblical Hebrew; PBH = post-Biblical Hebrew; QH = Qumran Hebrew; MH = Mishnaic Hebrew; Btxt = main text of MS B; Bmg = marginal reading of MS B; G = Greek translation of Ben Sira; S = Syriac translation; L = Latin translation; see also the abbreviations in the bibliography. 4 For the verb jjJjj nL, see Moreshet (1980), p. 141.

224

SIRACH, SCROLLS, ANO SAGES

This construction, in which the subject is not expressed, occurs once in the Bible, in LBH: r1~J l'm 1'~' r1~ii ?J 'JEl ?l' J1l'Oii 11;) ~J Cl'Wii1'El~ iiJi11 'and a he-goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth without touching the earth' (Dan. 8.5).5 Also in MH the subject is sometimes omitted, e.g. m. Avot 3.17: '01POO ,m~ mT'TO 1'~ ,J mJiDm m~J Cl?'l'JiD mnnii ?J '?'El~iD

'so that even if all the winds in the world come and blow against it, they cannot stir it from its place'.6 The other example of a nominal clause negated by r~ is 50.25 (B): Cll' 'JJ'~ n'iD'?iDii' 'iDElJ ii~P Cl"; 'JiDJ

'two nations my soul abhors, and the third is not even a nation'. This verse may be regarded as a peshcr on Deut. 32.21, where we find Cll'~? 'a non-people'.7 The use of 1'~ in a nominal clause in which the predicate is a substantive does not occur in BH, where we find ~? instead, e.g. Num. 23.19 ?~ tD'~~? 'God is not a man'tl and see Sir. 3.10 cited below.~? 'one should not bring every man into one's house', is different, since ~? reIates tO?:> and not to the infinitive. 40 Ed. Parisot (1894-1907), 11, p. 124, line 6; Nöldeke (1898), §286 41 Ed. Honwitz-Rabin (1960), p. 112; Sharvit (1983), p. 420; Yifrach (1997), p. 279, n. 12. 42 Compare a simiIar usage with verbal noun: i1~l~i i1? l'~':> 'for there is no healing for it' (3.28 [A]); C1'l~ ~ltD1:l1r:lJ) J'~1 'and with Hirn there is no partiality' (35.15 [B]).

PEURSEN: NEGATION IN THE HEBREW OF BEN SIRA

229

consists of apreposition + suffix pronoun, while in Sir. 14.6 the preposition governs a noun. There are no biblical occurrences of l'M + preposition + noun + 'It!lp'l, but with tD' we find Gen. 23.8: tD' ClM 'nr.l ~ 1:JP'l ClJtD~J nM 'if you are willing to let me bury my dead'. 'It!lp'l X l'M, in contrast to 'It!lp'l l'M, occurs a number of times in MH, e.g. m. GiWn 5.6, np''I ]1':J l'MtD F~T:J 'when they have not the means to buy it' and the common phrase 111'11101'1 l''Illl'M 'you should not say/argue'.43 In QH, however, the separation of l'M from the subject is rare. 44 With a suffixed nOlln between l'M and 'It!lp'l we find 40.29 (B[ +M)),

Cl"n mJo'l ,"n l'M 'his life is not to (cannot) be considered a life'. The construction with a determinate noun between l'M and the infinitive is exceptional. In ßH the only example is Jer. 49.12, ,ntD' ,ntD O'Jil mntD'I Clt!l~tDO rM 1tDM 'those whose judgment was not to drink of the cup shall certainly drink it', but here the syntactic structure is different from that of Sir. 40.29. In Sir. 40.29 ,"n, the grammatical object of the infinitive,45 is the subject (theme) and Cl"n n1m'l ... l'M the predicate (rheme); in Jer. 49.12 O1Jil mntD'I is the sllbject (theme) and Clt!l~tDOrM the predicate (rheme).46 In 39.34 ßtxt has 10M'I 'IM. The use of 'IM before an infinitive is striking and most commentators regard it as corrupt, a mixing of 10M'IrM and 1oMn'lM.47 However, -'I 'IM + infinitive also occurs in 4Q393 2.3-4, where we find 111il ,:J'I lnj"1tD:J tD'M m'l'l 'IM' and 11l1il] ,:J'I m'1tD:J tD'M m'l'l 'IM' 'do not (allow) man to walk in the stubbornness of his evil heart'48 and in BH 'IM precedes an infinitive construction in Provo 31.4: 43 Sharvit (1983), pp. 420-23; Perez Femnndez (1997), p. 148. 44 Carmignac (1974), pp. 411-12; most of the exceptions to this rule concern constructions with preposition + suffix. 45 Preceding the infinitive, see above, note 16, on the word order object-infinitive. 46 Kieviet (1997), p. 96. We use the terms 'theme' and 'rheme' to indicate the psychological subject and predicate; see Baasten (1997), pp. 1-2, on the distinctions among grammatical, logical and psychological subject and predicate. 47 Kaddari (1985), p. 202; cf. Yifrach (1997), p. 276, n. 12. 48 Falk (1994), pp. 192, 194. I thank Professor Qimron for this reference.

230

SIl~CH,

SCROLLS, AND SAGES

1" ,nrv 1:J'::l'O' ,~

'kings should not drink wine'.4~ Furtherrnore, in LBH and QH the other negative that is cornrnonly used before finite verbs, narnely ~" occurs be fore as weil, e.g. 1 Chron. 15.2 LJ'i1'~i11n~ n~ n~rv'~' 'nobody rnay carry the ark of God'. (See also above on QH.)50

't!lP'

V:1E:l In BH lE:l is used after verba timel1tfi and in negative final clauses, rnainly after a volitive. 51 Similarly we find lE:l in Ben Sira (a) after expressions of fear, worries, and the like: five times in the passage on a father's worries about his daughter in 42.9-10;52 and (b) in negative final cJauses: more than twenty times, of wh ich two come after an imperative and eighteen after a prohibitive. In BH there are so me rather rare cases where lE:l, right at the beginning of a sentence, indicates a negative wish (in place of ,~), e.g. Isa. 36.18 'i1'pm LJ::ln~ n'Q' lE:l 'do not let Hezekiah mislead you'; sirnilarly Job 32.13 and 36.18, where lE:l stands in parallelism with '~.53 In Ben Sira this independent use of lE:l occurs once, in 15.12 (A[ +B]) 'J"Pni1 ~'i1 10M lE:l 'say not, It was He who led me astray', parallel to 10~n '~.54 In the aforementioned passage on a father's worries about his daughter there is in Sir. 42.lOb one puzzling ca se of~' instead of lE:l. The text runs as folIows: Btxt [... ]'[ ... ]'[ ... ] n'~~ Bmg i1rvJn " '.v~ n'~[.] 'in her husband's hOllse lest she be forgotten' Professor Joosten (oral communication); see Kaddari (1985), pp. 201, 202 and Qimron (1983), p. 474. 50 Note also 1QS 1.6, ;"IQtD~::J'? nn'itD::J 11,1) n:h'? ~1'?1, which is almost identical with the text of 4Q393 just cited. The use of '?~ in 4Q393 may be due to the different context: nJ'?'? '?~ is part of a petition to God, not the expression of a negative command. 51 Fassberg (1990), pp. 107-12; Azar (1981), pp. 19-27. For the relation between particIes following ver/Ja timclldi and those introducing negative final cIauses, see also Bravmann (1970), pp. 191-98. 52 In 42.9c (B+M), 9d (B+M), 10 'not') is attested for ilO'?, e.g. Exod. 32.11l0'!)::ll~~ il1n' il1il' ilD'? 'why, Lord, is Your anger buming against Your people?' > 'do not let Your anger .. .'. In Ben Sira ilO'? is nearly the equivalent of '?~ in 11.10 (A[ +B]): lPiOlJ il::l1n ilO'? 'J::l 'my son, why should you multiply your business?' > 'do not multiply .. .'. the sense of 'why?', see Bravmann (1970), p. 203. Btxt has t-I'?, compare the parallel 22b, ;'0;'00' t-I??t-I m 'God indeed will not tarry'. 64 30.19 (Bmg), C1'1J;' '?[ ... ]lJ' ;'0, prob'1bly also belongs here, though the reading of the verse and the restoration of the lacuna is problematic, see the commentaries. 65 In MS A ;'0 has been added between the lines. 66 Here MS E has two cola, only the second of which is original (= G); MS F has l00nn'lD?t-limtot-l?:l1 with ?t-I, as in v. 4a (B+F). G has 11-" and S rC.; see Di LeHa (1988), p. 223. 63

PEURSEN: NEGATION IN THE HEBREW OF BEN SIRA

233

Six times in Ben Sira im' is employed as the equivalent of )El, introducing a negative final-consecutive clause after a volitive, e.g. 12.5 "J 'do not give hirn a weapon so (A) l"~ ":::li" Cl:::l ilO'" lnn,~ that he may not aUack you with it'. Also this use of ilO' occurs primarily in direct speech, sapiential instruction and the like. The insistent tone of this usage becomes clear in a case like 1 Sam. 19.17, ln'o~ ilO' ':ln,~ 'let me leave, in order that I may not kill you',67 The negative final-consecutive value of this particle is often made explicit in the ancient versions. Thus G translates ilO' with l11,lton: in Sir. 8.1; 11.33; 12.12d; 30.12, with '{va 111, in 12.5, and with 111, in 12.12b. S translates ilO' with 'n.

2.3: Parallelism One could use this verse as a model of synonymous parallelism. The position of the corresponding substantives (first words), the corresponding specifications of time (second words), and the verbs (third words) displays the pattern: a:b:c=a':b':c'. The contrast in the meaning of the verbs-'cut' (M) or 'shake' (B) in colon a as against 'be firm' in colon b-allows the negation of the first elause and a movement from negative statement to positive.

2.4: OT paralle/s 2.4.1. 10n (colon a) ami i1P1~ (colon b) There are few instances of 10n and i1P1~ in parallel, whether as parallel words in a single colon (Prov. 21.21;5 ]er. 9.236 ) or within a wider context (Ps. 103.17;7 40.11;!! Hos. 10.12;9 Ps. 33.5;10 36.1;111 Kgs 3.612 ). A precise equivalent to the parallelism in Ben Sira cannot be found. 2.4.2. 10n and P1~ Sometimes i1P1~ and P1~ have the same meaning, so the word pair 10n and P1~ should also be checked. In elose proximity we find both

Cf. Skehan, Patrick William and Alexander Anthony Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB, 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), p. 466. 4 Cf. O'U'-'l1 '11' J1jn~ 01" ';"Im (Isa. 30.8).

3

5 '1:::01 ;"IP'~ o"n ~~o' ,om ;"IP'~ ~'j. 6 rj~:J ;"IP'~1 t!lOOO ,on ;"Iiv11" 'J~ ',. 7 O'D 'D' 1nP'~11'~j'-?11 0'111-'111 0'1110" ,om. 8 :Jj ';"Ip' lrn~11,on 'mny~, 'mo~ ln1111lim lru10~ ':J, l1n:J 'n'Oy~, lnp'~. 9 0" P'~ ;"Ij'1 ~1:J'-'11 "-n~ t!i1j" ... 'On-'!), 1j~P ;"IP'~' 0" 111jl. 10 rj~;"I ;"I~'O" ,on t!lOOm ;"IP'~ :J,'~. 11 :J'-'jfD" lnp'~1 1'11'" 1,on lllio. 12 TE' 1';"1 j~"m ,on ':J~ ,,, l':JlJ-011 n'iv11 ;"In~ ;"Io,lli jO~'1 ;"Im ,m;"l ,on;"l-n~ 1'-jollim 1011 :J:J, mfD':J1 ;"IP'~:J1 rn~:J.

REITERER: BEN SIRA'S USE OF m~

259

nouns in Isa. 16.513 (acompaniments to the re-establishment of the Davidic monarchy), as a parallel word-pair in Ps. 85.11 (results of God's activity) and 89.15 14 (they stand in God's presence); Hos. 2.21 15 (God's brideprice for Israel). Each reference occurs in a theological context. None of these passages served as a model for Ben Sira. 2.4.3. '1' and '1' (M) or 0'111' and '1' (B) '1' and '1' are found nowhere else in parallel. The word pair Cl?'1' and '1' is suggestive of the 57 occurrences of Cl?'1' '1'.16 Cl?1'? is attested 0'1,1' nine times. 1B just twice 17 and

'1"

'1"

2.4.4. m~ and 1'~ (M) or t!:l10 and l1J (B) In the OT the verbs rTl~ and lD are never found in parallel or in the same verse. This is not true, though, of t!:l10 and 11~. The firrnness of the earth's foundation is the reason why it does not rock (1 Chron. 16.30; Ps. 93.1; 96.10;1\1 cf. Ps. 104.5). One has to fix a graven image so that it does not move (Isa. 40.202°). According to Provo 12.3 human beings cannot achieve stability, because of their evil ways; in contrast, it is said that stability can be achieved through honesty: t!:l10'-?:l O'P"~ iOliO, l'i!il:l Cl'~ P~'-~?

It is unusual to find the roots 11~ and P'~ together.

2.5: Examination of stereotyped pflrases 2.5.1. ,on m~' ~?

In most references ,on has the sense of a 'fulfilled deed of love', mostly construed wi th il Co 1'; six times one finds the phrase 10iO ,onm rl'l:lil. 21 The union of ,on and rl'l:l is noteworthy. We might consider the possibility that Ben Sira looked for a verb that could govem both nouns (,on and n'i:J) as direct objects. This could be the reason why he chose nlJ in reference to the breaking or cutting off of a 13 P'~ iil/:)1 t!lE)t!N:l fDi'11 t!l~fD'" ?il~::J no~::J 1'?J) ::JtIi'1 ~o) ,on::J 1'1il1. 141'JEl1/:)'P' n/:)~1 ,on l~O))1)O t!lE)OO1 p'~. 15 cmni:l1 ,on::J1 t!lOOr.l::J1 P'~::J'? l'niDi~1 C1?1J)?'? l'niDi~1. 16 Gen. 13.15; Exod. 12.24; 14.13; Deut. 12.28; 23.4; 28.46; 29.28; Josh. 4.7; 14.9; 1 Sam. 1.22; 2.30; 3.13f; 13.13; 20.15,23,42; 2 Sam. 3.28; 7.13,16,24ff.; 12.10; 22.51; 1 Kgs 2.33,45; 9.3; 1 Chron. 15.2; 17.12,22ff.; 22.10; 23.13; 28.8; 2 Chron. 7.16; Ezra 9.12; Neh. 13.1; Ps. 18.51; 48.9; 89.5; 90.2; 106.31; Isa. 30.8; 32.14,17; Jer. 17.4; 35.6; 49.33; Ezek. 27.36; 28.19; 37.25; Zeph. 2.9; Mal. 1.4. 17 Exod. 15.18; Ps. 45.18. 18 Ps. 10.16; 21.5; 45.7; 48.15; 52.10; 89.38; 104.5; Jer. 7.7; 25.5. 19 t:l1on-?::J ?::Jn 11)n-"1~. 20 t:l1/:)' ~? ?oE) 1')il? 21 Deut. 7.9; 1 Kgs 8.23; 2 iOW 00001 ,on.

Chron. 6.14; Neh. 1.5; 9.32; Dan. 9.4; cf. Hos. 12.7:

260

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

loving relationship. There are a few references where we read about the end of such a relationship. In Provo 3.3 it is vowed that l::lTll'-'?~ no~"on. In Jer. 16.5 lamentation for the dead has to cease because God has withdrawn 10n from Jeremiah: Cl'on1irn~, 10ni,-n~

... 'n::.lO~-'~.

One encounters 10n n1~' ~'? in connection with Oavid and Jonathan, who loves Oavid like himself/his own life ('::li1~ '~::.lJ n::li1~-'~ [1 Sam. 20.17)). God's love (" 10n [v. 14)) might be the measure of the (expected) care of Oavid for the house of (the deceased) Jonathan: '00 not eilt off (m~n-~'?,) your loyalty in connection with God-God is similar to a human partner. Such a use of n1:> cannot be found elsewhere.

4.6: Comparison of Band Bmg

Bmg has as a variant m:>, Qal, in place of Nifal. This form is possible and reasonable. In many respects, it appears to be a correction. A. The reviser's use of n1:> in the active voice follows the general tendency of the OT. B. It makes better sense to ass urne that a longer form (n1:>J) was changed to a shorter (n1:»; the change from n1:> to n1:>J brings only difficulties. C. The reflexive form poses a theological problem, because it portrays God in the same terms as those used of a human partner in an alliance. Therefore, n1J should be rejected, as it is an easier, secondary, reading.

28 Peters, Norbert, Das Bllcll JeslIs Sirach oder EcclesiasticlIs (EH, 25; Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913), p. 380, sees the problem. He thinks that the Vorlage of LXX reads weIl, but the absolute use of ni::> "bleibt auch immerhin hart", and he tries to demonstrate the passive voice using a quite unusual formulation in German: "Ein ewiger Bund ward mit ihm geschlossen" (p. 377). Sauer, Georg, JeslIs Sirach (Ben Sira) (JSHRZ, 3.5; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1981) p. 616, uses the correct passive voice and adds-without an additional note-'covenant': "Mit einem ewigen Zeichen wurde ein Bund mit ihm geschlossen". Di Lella switches the relationship by turning the sentence from passive to active: "A lasting sign sealed the assurance to him" (p. 5(3). He argues that "Heb. blrftO (lit., 'covenant with him') ... is God's commitment to Noah that he would never aga in destroy bodily creatures ... " (p. 50S), without mentioning that this word does not exist in v. 18. Marböck, Johannes, 'Die "Geschichte Israels" als "Bundesgeschichte" nach dem Sirachbuch', in (A) E. Zenger (ed.), Der neue Bund im Alten (Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente [QD, 146); Freiburg, 1993), pp. 177-97/(B) I. Fischer (ed.), Gottes Weisheit unter uns: zur Theologie des Bllclles Siracll (Herders Biblische Studien, 6; Freiburg, 1995), pp. 103-23 (110), maintains that the Hebrew of MS B is inferior and Greek, Syriac, and Latin are to be preferred and therefore one has to read n'i:::l.

267

REITERER: BEN SIRA'S USE OF n1:)

4.7: Ancient versions

.< i i..:%..:J ~ (.tqatala (so also ].c. de Moor, also cited in Pardee). Yet one would probably expect >tqr'at for the the >tqatala form (as in the performative perfect, qr'a, in 1.161.4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 parallel to the performative perfect, qr'itm, with syllable closing 'aleph, in 1.161. 2, 9; and possibly qr'an in 1.5 I 23 if it is not an imperative). 128 See ur 9.23; Sivan, A Grammar of tlle Ugaritic Language, 175. Under this view the participle is regarded as passive. The debated meaning of the verb, as it applies to the status of El's penis, is irrelevant to the grammatical issue at hand. For discussions, see the fllllowing authors. 129 So F.M. Cross, Cal/aal/ite Mytll al/ti Heurew Epic: Essays in tlle History of tlle Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1978), p. 23; Sivan, Grammar, p. 175. 130 So]. C. L. Gibson, Callaal/ite Mytlls al/ti Legellds (Second ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), p. 125; W. G. E. Watson, 'Aspects of Style in KTU 1.23', SEL 11 (1994), p. 5. 126

127

SMITH: GRAMMA TICALLY SPEAKING

321

1. rDp::l* 'to seek' We may return to, and expand upon, the parade example of rDp::l* in Gen. 37.15-16, cited at the outset of this essay. The older usage with *yiqtöl form occurs in the question rDp::ln ilO in Gen. 37.15. In contrast, the answer in 37.16, rDP:lO ')J~, shows the newer usage with the predicative participle. The older usage can continue in post-exilic BH as in Qoh.3.15: ~"J n~ rDp::l' Cl'il'l~il'

'And God seeks the pursued'. Post-exilic BH also uses the predicative participle, as in the reworking of Qoh. 3.15 in Ben Sira 5.3 A: Cl'~"J

rDp::lO ilW ')

'For the Lord seeks the pursued ones' (cf. also Ben Sira 20.4 [B]: 11'0 rDpJO ilW'

'and the Lord seeks from his hand').

2. iltD1'* 'to do, to make' Pre-exilic BH direct discourse shows the predicative participle of this root in independent usage: 'I'n iltD l' 'I~,tD"

'but Israel shnll do valiantly' (Num. 24.18; cf. NAB); and il1" 'm iltD1' iln~,

a

'but you do me wrong ... ' udg. 11.27) (see also Judg. 18.3,18; 1 Sam. 3.11; 2 Kgs 7.2,19). Quite common is the use of this mot as a predicative participle in dependent clauses (Gen. 21.22; 31.12; 39.3 == 23 and 22; 41.25, 28; Exod. 18.14, 17; 34.10; Num. 11.15; Deut. 31.21; Judg. 15.3; 1 Sam. 12.16; 2 Sam. 3.25). Gen. 18.17, cited also above, is illustrative of dependent usage: iltD1' 'J~ 'rD~ Cli1"'J~O 'J~ ilOJOil

"Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do ... ?" (NJPS). Post-exilic BH texts likewise attest to the usage (Neh. 2.16,4.11,6.3). Ben Sira 38.8 (B) provides a further example: nnp'o ilrD11' np" p'

'so a pharmacist prepares pharrnaceuticals'. DSS usage of the predicative participle with iltD1'* appears in both independent clauses (4Q402 4.13 == MasShirShabb 1.3) and dependent clauses (l1QT 48.11 and 51.19).131 131 These llQT passages echo Ezek. 8.13 and perhaps Deut. 12.8, respectively, according to Y. Yadin, The Temple Scr(ll/ (Three vols.; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society /The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem/The Shrine of the Book, 1983),11, pp. 209, 230.

322

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

3. iOM" 'to say' Ugaritic uses the "yiqtöl form of "rgm in direct discourse to express, 'I say to you' ('argmk in CAT 1.3 III 21, IV 13, 1.4 I 20). In contrast, BH direct discourse often uses the participle of iOM". For example, iOM j1nM, 'you say' occurs in pre-exilic direct discourse (Exod. 2.14, 33.12; 1 Kgs 18.11, 14; Amos 7.16; cf. plural in Exod. 5.17). Similarly, the third-person predicative participIe of this root occurs in the problematic Ps. 29.9c, Obad 3, Micah 6.1 and Ben Sira 37.1 (D), 7 (D); cf. third-person plural examples in Hos 13.2 and Ps. 3.3, 4.7. Notable also is the first-person form in Ps. 45.2, ':J~ iO~. This form may be taken as present or incipient future. 132 Post-exilic contexts include BH post-exHie direct discourse (Neh. 5.12,6.8; 2 Chron 13.8,28.10,13), DSS direct discourse (4QMMT B55, B64-65, B73) and DSS prescriptive contexts (lQS 1.20, 2.10). 4. "~tD" 'to ask' Pre-exilic BH direct discourse uses both "yiqtöl (Gen. 32.30) and the participle (2 Sam. 3.13; 1 Kgs 2.16, 20, 22) to express the concurrent time-frame (see also Deut. 10.12). (There are no unambiguously postexilic examples of the predicative participle of this root in the BH corpus.) It may be noted that comparable distributions of the predieative participle in pre- and post- exilic I3H can be found in other common verbs, such as j1)J" 'to weep' (pre-exilic: Num. 25.6; 2 Sam. 15.23; exilic: Lam 1.16; post-exilic: Ezra 3.12; Neh. 8.9; cf. Job 30.31); 1m'" (preexilic: Josh. 11.6; 1 Sam. 23.4, 5; post-exilic: Neh. 2.12, 12.47, 13.5; cf. Exod. 16.29; Num. 25.12; Deut. 11.26); and lJOtD" 'to hear' (pre-exilic: Exod. 32.18; Judg. 11.10; 1 Sam. 3.10; 2 Kgs 20.1; post-exHie: Deut. 4.12; cf. Ps. 59.8, 69.34). In these roots and many others discussed by Joosten and Dyk, the BH predicate participle serves as a verb in lieu of the earlier and contemporary *yiqtiil. BH manifests a further type of replacement of "yiqtöl by the predicative participle. In Ugaritic and I3H, the predicative participle may be used following particles of existence. BH also shows the eventual loss of the same particles with the predicative participle. To begin, the Ugaritic participle may serve as a predicate of either 'it or 'in.133 The 132 See J. Hoftijzer, 'Some Remarks on Psalm 45.2', in Gil1e Ear to My Words. Psalms and otller Poetry ill alld arolll/d t//e He/lrew Bi/lle: Essays in Honour of Professor N. A. l1an Ud/elcll (~d. J. Dyk; Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1996), pp. 52-54. My thanks go to Professor Hoftijzer for providing me with a copy of his articIe. 133 All the examples given in Sivan, Grammar, p. 206, involve nouns except for

SMITH: GRAMMATICALLY SPEAKING

323

corresponding BH usage, noted at the outset of this essay, involves the syntactically analogous particles, rD' and 1'~.134 Clearly then this usage predates biblical Hebrew. Ugaritic literature, for example, attests: 'in b'ilm 'nyh, contextually 'no one among the gods answers him'.l35 The participle in this instance is governed by the particle 'in. BH continues this usage, as demonstrated by 1 Sam. 14.39:

!:l'!)i1 ?JO 1m.!) 1'~1,

contextually 'but no one from any of the people would answer him' (cf. i1J.!) 1'~1'" 'and there is not an answerer', or idiomatically 'with no one to answer' in Judg. 19.28, 1 Kgs 18.26,29; Isa. 50.2, 66.4; Job 32.12). Unlike Ugaritic,136 BH develops the participle as predicate without such particles. For a fine example of this development, an example discussed at the outset of this essay may serve as an illustration, namely the C-stem of n?~'" 'to succeed'. In Gen. 24.42 the participle is used with a particle of existence. In contrast, the case of Gen. 39.3 = 23 shows the extension of the use of the participie without a particle of existence. Additionally, the post-exilic verse, Ps. 1.3, reflects the traditional use of *yiqtiil with n?~'" (C-stem). Gen. 24.42

i1'?.l) l?i1 'JJ~ 1tD~ 'J11 n'?~o ~J ltD' Cl~ 'if you would please mllse to sllcceed my way on wh ich I am going ... ' (NJPS: "if You would indeed grant success to the errand on which I am engaged!")

the participle, 'lIyll, discussed below. A perusal of the entrees for 'in and 'i[ in Whitaker's Concordallce confirms this point. However, given the fact that the predicative participle's terminations may involve both genders, it may be more accurate to speak of a 'substantized' predicate (cf. the use of the participIe as a substantive in both genders in Ugaritic; for examples, see Sivan, Grammar, p. 121). 134 Ugaritic 'ill and BH r~ are etymologically related (Ur 19.149). According to J. Blau Ugaritic 'i[ and BH tD' do not correspond etymologically; instead, Ugaritic 'i[ corresponds etymologically to Aramaic 'yt (cf. the negative lyt), while BH tD' corresponds to the Arabic negative laysa, and Akkadian isu, 'to have' (see CAD, I/I, p. 289) and lasslI, 'not to be' (see CAD, L, p. 108-10). See J. Blau, 'Marginalia Semitica 11', lOS 2 (1972), pp. 58-62; also ur 19.418. However, F. Renfroe, 'Methodological Considerations Regarding the Use of Arabic in Ugaritic Philology', UF 18 (1986), pp. 33-74 (36-37 [no 17]), argues that laisa is probably not directly cognate with tD' or iiil1 but entered Arabic (as a loan) from Akkadian (lasslI). For an important semantic discussion, see Muraoka, Emphatic Words, pp. 77-82. 135 CAT 1.16 V 12-13, 16, 19 (all partially reconstructed) and 22 (with emendation of hn to 'il1 as gene rally accepted). 136 The verbal form in the expression, wllllk 'IIY, in CAT 1.2 I 28 is generally taken as an infinitive absolute.

324

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SACES

Gen. 39.3 = 23

"':J n'?~O i11il' iltDlJ ~'il 1tD~ 'I:"

' ... and everything that he [Joseph] would do, Yahweh would cause Sllccess by his hand'

Cf. Ps. 1.3:

n'?~' iltD lJ' 1tD~ 'I"

'And everything that he does (or: that he might do) He causes to succeed (or: He would cause to succeed)'. Cf. Ben Sira 41.1 (B and M): ?,:J n''I;;i01

'(the man who is at ease) and sllcceeds in all'. Finally, it is to be noted that the predicative participle may replace the *yiqtöl form in at least one dependent usage. Ugaritic uses a nominal sentence with a particle governing *yiqtöl in order to express identification of a person with an action: CAT 1.4 VII 49-50

'abdy dymlk 'I 'ihn

'I alone am the one who reigns over gods'. To express the same sort of identification, Biblical Hebrew uses the predicative participle following -il after the subject. 137 Gen. 2.13 (JM, §154fc, n. 1) tD" r1~ 'I, n~ :J:J'Oil ~'il

'It is the one tImt encircles all the land of Cush' Exod.6.27

illJ1E) 'I~ C'1:J'Oil Ci1

'They are the ones who spoke to Pharaoh ...

I

Replacement of*qätal by the predicative participle

Replacement by the predicative participle applies as weIl to *qätal. One instance involves a prime verb of mental activity, lJ,'* 'to know'.138

137 For a listing of many passages with examples, see the various sections above. 138 For an aspectual approach to the interpretation of this verb in the *qatal form, see Isaksson, StIldies, p. 29, 112-17. The same view is held by Or. M. Eskhult (personal commlmication).

SMITH: GRAMMATICALLY SPEAKINC

Third person

Second person

Ugari tic 139

CAT 2.39.14 140

325

First person 1.13.10

yd'm lyd't

'ank yd't

'you do not know'

'I know .. .'

Pre-exilic BH (older usage) Gen. 39.8

Jer 17.16

ll1' ~'? 'J1~

rll.l1' i1rl~

'my master does not know'141'you, you know .. .'

1 Sam. 17.55 'rlll1' Cl~

' ... if 1 know'.

Pre-exilic BH (newer usage) Gen. 3.5 (cf. Ps. 37.18) Cl'i1'?~ ll1' ':J

'For God knows ... ' Gen. 33.13 ll1' 'J1~

'My lord knows .. .' 1 Sam. 23.17

p ll1' 'J~ ,?,~(!) Cl)'

"and even my father Saul knows this is so" (NJPS) 2 Sam. 12.22

ll1" '0

' ... who knows .. .'

Post-exilic BH Qoh.6.12

ll'" 'O'~ 'For who knows ... ?'

Jonah 1.12 'J~

ll'" ':J

'For 1 know .. .'

Esther4.11 Cl'll1" l'?Oil n1J'10 Clll' l'?Oil '1Jll '?:J

'All the king's servants and the people of the king's provinces know

,

Esther4.14 139 Cf. CAT 1.3 III 26-27: dl td' smm//ltd' 115m 'that the heavens do not know / / men do not know'. The ease of CAT 1.10 I 3 is morphologically ambiguous; yd' in this instanee eould be either a suffix or aprefix indicative form. 140 For another seeond person "qatala form of this verb, see CAT 1.16 I 33. For CAT 2.39, see D. Pardee, 'A Further Note on PRU V, No. 60', UF 13 (1981), pp. 151-56. 141 'Knows' in the sense of 'gives thought to' (so NJPS). For another third person example, see 1 Kgs 1.11.

326

SU{ACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

,v,,' '01 ' ... and who knows ... ' Ben Sira 16.21 (A) .v1,"O 1no '?:l:J :Jr:l~ D~'~

'Or, if (I am) deceptive in every secret, who will know (or, is to know)?'

Dead Sea Scrolls CD 14.20

,V", ~'i11142

'and he knows' 1QS 6.25 143

4QMMT ß38 (?), 046 (?), ß68, ß80; C7 (?), C8 (?); llQPsA p a 2.7 D''v'" Dn~ 'you know'

4Q200 [4QTob e] 4.3

,V", 'J~

'I know'

,V,,' ii~'ii'

'and he knows' By comparing forrns of ,v,'* 'to know', it is evident that the predicative participle replaced *qätal as a present tense in pre-exilic Hebrew (hut not Ugaritic) down through DSS.

Another verb dem)ting verbal activity that shows a comparable pattern of distribution frorn *qätal to *qiitel for the present is :JtVn* 'to plan, devise, think'. BH *qätal (older usage) JOb l44 35.2: ~EltVO'? n:JtVn n~rii, 'Do you think it just ... ?' Pre-exilic BH *qiitel (newer usage) Micah 2.3 ii,V1 ~rii iinEltVOii ,?,V :JtVn 'JJii

"I am planning such a rnisfortune against this clan" (NJPS) For the reading, see E. Qimron in M. Broshi (ed.), Tlte Damascus Document Reconsidered Oerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society /The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992), pp. 36, 37. For a number of the forms in this section, see further J.A. Naude, 'Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew Syntax' (D.Litt. diss., University of the Free State, South Africa, 1996), p. 61 (reference courtesy of Professor G.A. Rendsburg). 143 See also 4Q261 [4QSg) 3.3. 144 I am not daiming a pre-exilic date for Job, only that the example here would represent a continuation of pre-exilic usage. The date of Job is notoriously difficult to pin down, although commentators seem to favor generally a post-exilic date. 142

327

SMITH: GRAMMATICALLY SPEAKINC

Jer 18.11 145 i1:lrvno c::>".v :lrvn1 i1.v, c::>".v '~1' '::>:J~ i1:Ji1 "I am devising disaster for you and laying plans against you" (NJPS) Post-exilic BH usage Neh.6.6 "'0' C':lrvn C'"i1'i11 i1n~ 'you and the Jews are planning to rebel ... ' (cf. 6.2: i1.v, " mtD.v'? C':lrvn i10i11 'and they thought to do evil to me') Dead Sea Scrolls 4QMMT B2 (?), B8 (?), ß29, ß36 (?), ß37, B42 (? with reversed wordorder) C':lrv,n ':Jm~ 'we think' The BH distribution of *qätal of this root provides no absolutely dear pre-exilic instance of *qätal for the present; this older usage appears only in the poetic direct discourse of Job 35.2. Either the extant texts simply lack attestations to dear pre-exilic examples of *qätal of :lrvn* in the present, or the rate of change was different for this root. In either ca se, however, both .v,'* and JtOn* demonstrate the shift from *qätal to the predicative participle to express the concurrent time-frame. Of further interest in the case of Jer 18.11 is a third verb of mental activity, '~'*, that uses the predicative participle for a concurrent time-frame. Two verbs involving emotional activity 146 are

~:Jto*

'to hate' and

:li1~

145 For a similar idiom and lIsage in adependent clallse, see Jer 26.3 (cf. 36.3, 39.11): n1tD,I)" :lfDn ':lJIoI.,fDloI ;',1)";' "101 'IT.m1 'and I will renollnce the evil that I am plmmil/g to do to them ... '. 146 Emotional and mental activity might be viewed in similar terms insofar as both involve internal personal activity. See the comment made by the American psychologist, C. W. Alport, T"e I/lLfividual and his Religion: A Psychological Interpretation (New York: Macmillan/ London: Collier, 1961), p. 125: "One might say that the grammatical part of speech most typical of mentallife is the active participle, for at every moment of time the individual is occupied in comprehending, comparing, judging, approving, disapproving, loving, hating, fearing, rejecting, yielding, adoring. The possible modes of intending are numerous, probably more numerous than the available store of present participles in our language." To be sure, hate is regarded as much an emotional activity as amental one; Alport seems to be including actions 'internal' to in-

0.,"

328

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

'to love'. Like the verbs, 1'1'* and :J~n*, these two also show a shift from *qätal (though with *i-theme, or $ere, vowel especially found with stative verbs 147 ) to the predicative participle in expressing the concurrent time-frame.

·SN'

*'HB

Ugaritic *qatala CAT 1.4 III 17 dm tn dbbm sn'a148 b'l 'For two feasts Baal hates'

BH *qätal Amos 5.21

Gen. 27.9

c::J'~n 'no~o 'n~JCV

J;'~ 1~~::J T:J~' C'01'~O cn~ ;'CV1'~'

'I hate, I spurn your festivals' Mal. 2.16 n,~ ~JCV'::J

"For 1 detest divorce" (N]PS)

BH *qötel Deut. 19.4,6149 (cf. 4.42) " '" ~JCV ~, (~,;,,) 'and he does not hate hirn .. .'

, And I will make them tasty for your father just as he likes: Exod.21.5 'JJ n~, 'n~~ M 'J1~ M 'n:J;'~ 'I love my master, my wife and my children' 2 Sam. 13.4 :J;'~ 'J~ 'n~ C'~:J~ mn~ 10n M

'Tamar, the sister of Absalom my brother, 1 love'

Ben Sira *qiitel dividuals under his definition of 'mental Iife.' 147 To be sure, the >ta-theme vowel is more prevalent with the >tqätal of ::liltt>t. Yet, this is expected, given the gutturals. The use of the participle for verbs such as these is not restricted tu the present. It may be used for the past in narrative as weIl (see the form in 1 Sam. 18.16). 148 The 'alefin this word reflects the following vowel, hence >tqatila and not the participle (>tqatilll), which wuuld be sn '11 (cf. the construct plural form, sn'u hd, 'enemies of Haddu', in CAT 1.4 VII 36). 149 As Professor J. Joosten (personal communication) reminds me, it is perhaps wiser to regard the participles in these verses as nominal ('and he was not an enemy to hirn .. .'). The point is well-taken, but many translations render the participles predicatively and under the norm proposed by Dyk (see below), these instances would be predicative. Furthermore, if these participles were nominal, it would be interesting to see a nominal participle goveming a prepositional phrase and an adverbial.

SMITH: GRAMMATICALLY SPEAKING 12.6 (A)

0'.Ii1 ~'tD ,,~ m 'J

'For also God hates the wieked'

329

34.2 (B) tD::lJJ :::Ji1'~ "0 1'nom

'and whoever hides

counselloves only himself'

34.13 (B)

r

,,~ ~,tD lJ lJ1

'God hates an eviI eye' Like Ugaritic, BH attests the older usage. Yet BH also shows the innovation of the predieative partieipie to express the time-frame contemporary with the moment of speech. The replacements evidenced in these many examples show different rates of change with different verbal roots. The replacement begins to appear in pre-exilic BH, but it is incomplete until Mishnaic Hebrew, since with some roots the older *yiqtiil usage may last into the post-exiIie period. 150 Indeed, the prevalence of the Iiterary usage of *yiqtöl in both biblical poetry and DSS Iiterary texts as opposed to BH direct discourse and 4QMMT may be the reason why the predicative participle has been underestimated in many treatments of the BH verb. It has been noted that the predicative participle is well-documented in examples of pre-exilic BH direct discourse. Accordingly, it may be proposed that direct discourse and not Iiterary usage was the locus of this innovation. An early first millennium date for the beginning of the replacement might be argued on the basis of the predicative participles in monarchie period poems, specifically Num. 24.18, Ps. 18.51 and 45.2 (all mentioned above). Such a date might be inferred from the predieative partieipIes in pre-exilic BH personal names. 151 In general, this development might be characterized grammatically as an instance of "reanalysis", as Gordon and Dyk call it. 152 Dyk's definition of the "participle reanalysis corollary" applies to the predieative participle as discussed above: "For the participle to be able to undergo reanalysis and fllnction as the main verb, there must be an absence of elements which wOllld force a nominal analysis of So J. Kllrylowicz, cited in Isaksson, StIldies, p. 22: "The ollsting of an old form by a new one is not a momentary event but a process extending over time and space." lsaksson comments further: "lt is therefore to be expected that older oppositions will be in force side by side with new ones in the same state of language, although in different contexts." 151 M. Tsevat lists a nllmber of ca ses in his article, 'Ishbosheth and Congeners: The Names and Their Study', HUCA 34 (1975), p. 82. 152 Gordon, 'Development of the Participle', p. 5; Dyk, Participles in Context, p. 150

136.

330

SIl{ACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

the participle." 153 Clearly, in the many examples presented by Driver, Joosten, and Dyk as weil as this study, so many examples of the verbal use of the predicative participle manifest "an absence of elements which would force a nominal analysis of the participle." And indeed, Dyk notes this "reanalysis" in the ca se of the predicative participle: "The participie analyzed as occurring in the predicate position of a structure having no contra-indications for reanalysis may be taken as reanalysable as the main verb of the dause." 154 It is evident that this "reanalysis" is evident in pre-exilic direct discourse. As a result, the predicative participle, wh ich originally expressed the present no more than a noun, adjective or prepositional phrase in a nominal sentence,155 came to function as a verb in ways hardly different from verb forms. Like the attributive participle, which may convey a present situation (or what W. R. Garr calls "situational immediacy"156) or characterization, so too the predicative participle shows 'immediacy' especially in present and future in direct discourse as weIl as concurrent descriptions in narrative, but also present characterization ('gnomic present'), for example in wisdom texts. The further issue is the reason fur the 'reanalysis', or stated differently, how the rise of the participle for the present time-frame is to be explained, if the "yiqtiil form served this function adequately in early Hebrew. This is a complex question, involving other features of the verbal system. For now, the suggestion of of R. Steiner may be noted. 157 According to Steiner, the loss of final short vowels on early Hebrew "yiqWl indicative and volitive verbal forms required a new verbal opposition in order to distinguish volitive (present by definition) from indicative present. For Steiner, the "yiqtöl continued to represent the volitive while the participle served to express the indicative present: 'When the need arose, the indicative-volitive distinction could be made dear through the use of the Participle or the new peri153 Dyk, Participles in COlltext, p. 138. 154 Dyk, Participles ill COlltext, p. 162. 155 For examples, see the nominal sentences cited above in Sect. ll, under the issue of omission of subject. A. Niccacci, Thc Syntax 01 the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (trans. W.G.E. Watson; JSOTSup, 86; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), p. 54, discusses the predicative participie in the larger category of nominal sentences. As Dr. Niccacci (personal communication) reminds me, divorcing nominal clauses from consideration in this issue is a methodological issue untreated in Joosten's study, 'The Predicative Participle in Biblical Hebrew', pp. 128-59, especially p. 128, n. 2. 156 W.R. Garr (personal communication). It is therefore unsurprising to find the predicative participie with either i1j" (see note 39 above) or demonstrative ~ronouns. Cf. also Alport's comment cited in n. 144. 57 Steiner, 'Ancient Hebrew Modal System', pp, 257-58.

SMITH: GRAMMATICALLY SPEAKING

331

phrastic construction."l58 Even if a bit sweeping, the theory is attractive. 159 In short, the development of the BH predicative participle to express the present time-frame may be traced to features internal and external to the participle (within the larger verbal system), specifically the verbal character of the participie in nominal clauses ('reanalysed') and the apparent need for a new form in the indicative verbal system to mark a concurrent time-frame. Based on the discussion up to this point, the his tory of the BH predicative participle may be sketched in the following manner. The participle derived originally frorn the adjectival/nominal system. l60 The older attributive use of the participle reflects an adjectival usage while the participie used as a substantive matches the form and function of nouns. 161 The participie is also rnarked with the gender and number of adjectives and nouns. The adjectival character of the participle included verbal semantics and syntax. Perhaps as a result of 'reanalysis' as noted above, the participle became predicative, merging into the verbal system, and assuming some mies previously expressed by the *yiqtöl and *qätal forrns. For *yiqtöl these roles were the present in preSteiner, 'Ancient Hebrew Modal System', p, 258. A related issue raised by Profl!ssor Huehnergard (personal communieation) involves the development of thl! predicative participle in Aramaic. Aramaie influence on Hebrew would likely be confined only to the further development of the predieative participle in post-exilie Hebrew. As Sect. II indicates, Aramaie is hardly the source for the predicative participle in pre-exilic Hebrew. Instead, Hebrew and Aramaic sl!em to evidence a parallel development, and it is to be notl!d, as Profl!ssor Hui!lmergard observes, that only these twü languages both lose final short vowels and distinguish the im perfect and jussive by "yaqtllill and "yaqtlll, ll!nding support to Steiner's suggestion. 160 See E.]. ReveII, "li/let! (Dl!ut. 26:5) and the Function of the Participle in MT', Sefarad 48 (1988), pp. 197-205. 161 Für the discussion of the participie in Ugaritie, see above. For early BH attributive participles, see Gl!n. 49.14, 21, Judg. 5.9; for participial forms substantized as nouns, see Gen. 49.10, 15, 24, Judg. 5.3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 23; for the passive participle used adjectivally, see Judg. 5.27 (cf. i1i~ 'cursed' in Gen. 49.7). I am of the view that the bulk of Judges 5 and the sayings in Genesis 49 are pre-monarchie (this position does not prec\ude the possibility of such dates for other compositions, only that other compositions are not so c\early indicative of such a date). Based on their grammatical features, the rest of 'ancient Yahwistie poetry' seems to predate the prophetic poetie corpus, but such a criterion would imply a date prior only to the eighth century. For this view as it applies to the dating of the poem in Exodus 15, see M.5. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern ill EXllt!IlS (with contributions by E.M. Bloch-Smith; JSOTSup, 239; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 222-26. 158 159

332

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

exilic and post-exilic direct discourse, as weIl as the past durative in post-exilic narrative. The basic role previously held by the *qätal subsequently expressed by the predicative participle was the present time-frame of some verbs denoting mental and emotional activity. In post-exilic BH, the usage of the predicative participIe perhaps became more widespread in narrative as weIl as direct discourse. The predicative participle functioned in a present time-frame in pre-exilic spoken Hebrew, and was extended in post-exilic Hebrew in written style. Instead of continuing the ancient tense-switching forms known from the Bible and often continued or imitated in post-exilic literary works including many DSS, Mishnaic Hebrew developed the forms weIl in use in the post-exilic vernacular. In c1osing, it is perhaps wise to sound a cautionary note. It is important not to imply an overly simplistic scheme, as the rate of change and replacement was hardly monolithic; only a general framework and rate of drift has been suggested. Moreover, additional issues are raised by this description of the predicative participie in pre-Mishnaic Hebrew. 162

162 For example, Professor]. Huehnergard (personal communication) rightly raises the issue of the semantie/ aspectual relationship between the use of the participle and the use of *yi'ltlll or *'ltltal when the participle seems to (begin to) replace the latter two. In other words, what factors govern the choiee of a partieipIe rather than another indieative verbal form? It may be that when the grammar presents such options, the selection then becomes governed by other considerations such as Iiterary style. For this question, see R.]. Ratner, 'Morphologieal Variation in ßiblieal Hebrew Rhetoric', Maarav 8 (1992) (= Let Your Colleagues Praise YOll: Studics ill Memory 0/ Stallley Gevirtz. Part II; ed. R.]. Ratner et al.; Rolling Hills Estates, CA: Western Academic Press, 1992), pp. 143-59 (reference courtesy of Professor G.A. Rendsburg).

QUMRAN AND MISHNAH: A COMPARISON OF PRESCRIPTIVE TEXT lYPES N.A. van Uchelen (Amsterdam) As a type of early orientation the following quotation may provide an appropriate guide: "Literary and poetic texts could be seen in opposition to text types intended to increase and distribute knowledge about the currently accepted 'real world 1 Within this as yet general framework, the text types of the Mishnah and of Qumran, in the last case restricted to some documents, definitively differ from literary and poetic as weil as from historical and scientific texts. Both text types, of the Mishnah and of the documents under consideration, do not reach beyond storing and spreading more or less current knowledge circulating within their respective societies. 'Respective' in this context is taken as particular and separate. Both text types attempt to darify and if necessary to extend their society's knowledge-store regarding the "currently accepted 'real world'". This real world is made up of the most important subjects of Jewish life. In one way and another the text types under consideration, not being literary and poetic nor historical and scientific, are intended to distribute and to increase the specific knowledge current in their respective societies. Comparing Mishnah with Qumran, the r".Jtllo are at stake on the one hand, and the Cl'~~tllO, Cl'p,n, and m~o, on the other. Accordingly, in respect of Qumran only the Admonitions of the Damascus Document, the Rules of the Temple Scroll and the Directives of the Ma'aseh Miq~at Hatorah are involved. The text type by means of which our 'corpora', Qumran and Mishnah, handle their real world or intend to further knowledge about the important subjects of their world, is particularly in the form and formulation of guiding rules or precepts. A text chiefly consisting of precepts can be dassified as a prescriptive text type. A text type is understood to be a dass of texts that is identifiable by certain traits for certain purposes. The purpose of the text types l1l

•

Rohert de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler, Introduetion to Text Linguisties (Third ed.; Longman Linguistic Library, 26; New York: Longman 1986), p.

1

186.

334

SU{ACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

under consideration generally is, as has been remarked, to formulate and to advance current knowledge regarding a particular world. The aim of this contribution is to try to identify certain traits of the text type common to Qumran and to the Mishnah; or to colleet and to compare some characteristics of their respeetive language use. A preliminary remark has to be that the texts of Qumran as far as seleeted and the text of the Mishnah to a certain extent share a regular and consistent linguistk choke. This choke pertains to the representation of what may be called their common 'real world'. They therefore clearly share a register of technical terms concerning the important subjects of Jewish life. Terms such as 'pure' and 'impure', 'holiness' and 'unholiness' as weil as 'temple', 'offerings' and 'seasonal festivals' belong to the conceptual repertoire of the texts. These terms present, so to speak, an outline of the ideational structure of the texts or their purpose is to design their ideological point of view. However, what the two 'corpora' do not share is their modality; that is to say, their phrasing through which addressers intend to bind addressees to their purpose. Their purpose, of course, appears to be the performing of prescribed acts. The more or less authoritative binding between addressers and addressees apparently is not the same. To begin with, the addressing-system, the bringing to the fore of addressers and addressees, of Qumran is, in any case, quite different from that in the Mishnah. For the Qumranites present themselves or are presented by means of pseudonyms, for example 'the teacher of righteousness', 'the guardian', 'the master' or from the point of view of a group, as 'the sons of Zadok'. In addition they refer to themselves with general paraphrases such as 'it is our opinion', 'we state' or 'we think'. They anyhow keep themselves carefully behind the scenes. They intentionally seem to act as anonymous addressers. This way of presenting themselves sharply contrasts with what is known from the Mishnah. For in the mishnaic text the addressers as a rule present themselves as well-known rabbis, all of them mentioned by name. More than often they appear to be assigned to reeognized 'schools', sometimes they figure in the text as fixed 'pairs' and some of them are mentioned by name hundreds of times. Furthermore, the audience in the Qumran texts on the one side is particularly addressed by pronominal forms and by verb forms in the second person singular, whereas in the Mishnah on the other side the addressees are explicitly and implicitly spoken to as 'Israel, the Priests and the Levites' or as 'women, slaves and young men'. The third person singular or plural is exclusively applied here. Therefore, the socio-religious binding in the Qumran texts seems to

VAN UCHELEN: QUMRAN ANOMISHNAH

335

have a different power from, and a range other than, that of the Mishnah. Next, this dissimilarity in addressing-system becomes even more noticeable in the usage of verb forms in the respective texts. In the Qumran documents qatal forms (perfect) and yiqtol forms (imperfect) in the first and second person singular and plural appear to refer to anonymous addressees. In the Mishnah, however, we nearly always find qote1 and meqatte1 forms (participles), denoting unnamed addressees among the public. As remarked above, the mishnaic addressees generally belong to common categories, that is to say 'Israelites, Priests and Levites' or 'women, slaves and young men'. When the names of the rabbis, as addressers, are involved, the accompanying participial forms are, without exception, in the third person singular or plural. Whenever forms of the first and second person singular and plural denoting rabbis occur, they appear, for example, in narrative passages (ma'asim) or in conventionally formulated disputepatterns (mabaloqot). It should be remarked here of course that the Qumran documents certainly do contain participial forms, just as the Mishnah has a lot of yiqtol forms, in both cases referring to acts that have to be performed by addressees. 2 These cases, however, evidently are the exceptions to the rule. Another, seemingly important, aspect of modality concerns a more particular form of the text types under consideration. The form in which the precepts of Qumran have been moulded does not correspond with the prescriptive forms in the Mishnah. For, as may be weil known, the Qumranic precepts are almost never further developed through the statement of appropriate circumstances, significant conditions or influential causes. They rarely receive a discursive embedding.3 In their categorical form the QlImranic Cl'~EltDO, Cl'p1n, and mm are completely dissimilar to the m'JtDo of the i1:l '.Il::ltD i111n. The precepts of the Mishnah in their turn have an expressly casuistic character and consequently are discursively embedded, because, time and again, arguments for and against are given, other 2 For participial forms in the Temple Scroll (ed. Y. Yadin; Voillme Three: Plates and Texts; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society IThe Institute of Archeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem/The Shrine of the Book, 1977), see e.g. 34.6,7,8,9,10; 35.10,11; 42.11; in the Miq~at (Qumran Cave 4; V: Miq!?at Ma'aseh Ha-Torah, ed. Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell in consultation with Y. Sussmann and A.Yardeni; OJO, 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), e.g. 4Q394 3-7:1.17; 4Q395 3-7:2.18. 3 There are exceptions, such as, e.g., Oamascus Oocument (The Damascus Document Reconsidercd, ed. M. Broshi; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society IThe Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1992) 1.16ff.; 12.2ff.,15ff.; 13.2ff.; Temple Scro1l54.8ff.,19ff.; 50.5ff.

336

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

cases and conditions put forward, objections and approvals added, examples and alternatives advanced. In this manner, the mishnaic discourse progresses step by step; the procedure of decision can be pursued in principle and in practice always leads to conclusive halakhic statements. More often than not this conspicuous textual method finds its concrete expression in what generally is called the np,no, the particular rabbinic expression of conflict (e.g. m. Avot 5.17; m. Pesal:lim 4.1). This contrasting of opinions appears to be an approved textual pattern, whether leading to a conclusive statement or functioning as a device to keep traditional learning alive or at hand. This type of diversified discursive text-form, the np,no, either functioning as a means of halakhic decision-making or as a didactic exercise in tradition is not readily found in the Qumranic documents. Finally, in the framework of discursive embedding, the mishnaic text contains another distinctive feature. Without doubt the Mishnah is the only original and integrated halakhic corpus of rabbinic literature. From this point of view the mishnaic corpus is the iI~ '.v::ltD il1m, par excellence, consisting of 4178 mishnayot, which in most cases function as decisive statements or as obligatory rulings. However, notwithstanding this dominating regulatory character and its tendency to make socio-religious law, the Mishnah brims over with questions mostly introduced by interrogative pronouns. 4 The first mishnah of the first seder (m. Berakhot 1.1) starts with the interrogative 'no~o and the last but one mishnah of the last seder (m. Uql?in 3.12) has the same interrogative. As a rule the interrogatives in the Mishnah aim at set times, destinations, and persons. Theyappear to be typical 'wh-questions', concerning times when, places where and persons who. They, therefore, do not allow short-cut answers, either 'yes' or 'no'. On the contrary, they ask for further information, always in connection with or geared towards the procedure of halakhic decision. Weil then, such information-seeking questions are completely foreign to the Qumran documents. Some concluding remarks may suffice here.5 80th texts that so far have been compared with each other, the Qumran documents under consideration and the Mishnah, do contain prescriptive text types. However, the forms in which the respective texts are formulated differ to a considerable extent. In contrast to the categorical Qumranic See the writer's 'Questioning and Deixis in Mishnah Chagigah', in Proceedings olthe Tenth World Congress ofJewish Studies, Division D; Vol.l: The Hebrew umguage. Jewish Languages (ed. David Assaf; Jerusalem: WorId Union of Jewish Studies 1990), p. 25-29. 5 For more details, see my 'Halakhah at Qumran?', RQ 18 (1997), pp. 243-53. 4

VAN UCHELEN: QUMRAN AND MISHNAH

337

precepts stands the general discursive embedding in the Mishnah. The particular devices of this mishnaic embedding make a regular and distinctive contribution to what can be called halakhic procedure. The mishnaic halakhic procedure is in the form of argumentation, to which questioning and answering, disputing and consenting, altemating and referring make a distinct rhetorical contribution. This is not the case in the Qumran documents with their predominant unconditional rulings. In terms of textual resemblance or conformity they seem to be more comparable with prescriptive text types whether or not found in other corpora.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREW BIBLE CONTRASTED WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE BEN SIRA MANUSCRIPTS AND OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

Jan-Wim Wesselius (Amsterdam) Recently, there have been some heated discussions among specialists in the field of the Hebrew Bible about the date of composition of many of the books of which it is constituted, with-I hope to be per-

mitted this simplification-conservative or not-so-conservative scholars entertaining the traditional notion that much of it was written, sometimes in a completely different form, when Solomon's temple was still standing, with a process of addition and redaction of the texts during and shortly after the Babylonian Captivity completing most of the series of books as we now have them in the Hebrew canon. 1 Against this, a number of critical scholars have stated in some form that the entire Hebrew Bible was written at most within a 'relatively short period of time',2 to provide Judaism of Persian or Hellenistic times with a literary, historical and religious heritage. 3 Though the statements of the latter group are sometimes extreme, they have the undiminished merit of focusing our attention on the uncertainties surrounding the origin of much of the Hebrew Bible and consequently also the development of the Hebrew language in this period. Linguists have on some occasions dealt rather harshly with the

1 Thus, for example, also the well-known surveys of the history of the Hebrew language, E.Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language Oerusalem /Leiden, 1982); A. Säenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (Cambridge, 1993). 2 FH. Cryer 'The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew and the Hebrew of Daniel', in: K. Jeppesen et al. (eds.), In the Last Days. On Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and its Period [Festschrift B. Otzen) (Aarhus, 1994), pp. 185-98 (192). 3 Some important publications: P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (Sheffield, 1992); N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land. The Tradition of the Canaanites (Sheffield, 1991); 'The Old Testament; a Hellenistic book?', SJOT 7 (1993), pp. 163-93. Note also I. Provan, '1deologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel', JBL 114 (1995), pp. 585606; T.L. Thompson, 'A Neo-Albrightean School in History and Biblical Scholarship?', ibid., pp. 683-98; PR Davies, 'Method and Madness: Some Remarks on Doing History with the Bible', ibid., pp. 699-705.

WESSELIUS: THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

339

the publications of these scholars,4 and while their criticism is on the whole not incorrect, there seems to be some room for attempting to do justice to the critical approach while avoiding the linguistic pitfalls. We will discuss this problem against the background of the thesis, which I have set forth elsewhere, that there was a more or less unitary Jewish literary tradition in the Second Temple period, which remained fairly constant in spite of changes in literary and religious taste in this period, part and parcel of which was that books were composed as a whole, based on the structure recognized in works that the author for some reason deemed to be worthy examples for his own work. It would seem that at least part of the books of the Hebrew Bible, especially works with pronounced historical aspects such as Primary History (the series of historical books Genesis until and including 2 Kings), Ezra and Daniel, originated in this tradition; for others this is likely, though it has not yet been demonstrated.5 The most sensational of these derivations, very important for the study of history and language of the Hebrew Bible, is provided by the realization that the treatment of the theme of Exodus and Conquest as found in Primary History appears to be derived from the Histories of the Greek historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus,6 suddenly providing us with a clear terminus post qllem for the writing of Primary History (the publication of Herodotus' work ca. 445 BCE or a little later) and with a likely terminus ante qllem (the enjoinment to the Jews of Elephantine to 4 See, for example, A. Hurvitz's reaction to Davies's Ancient Israel, 'The Historical Quest for "Ancient Israel" and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations', VT 47(1997), pp. 301-315, as weH as the retort of M. Ehrensvärd, 'Once Again: the Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew', S/OT 11 (1997), pp. 29-40, to the artic\e by F.H. Cryer, 'The Problem of Dating Biblical Hebrew'. Cf. also A.].e. Verheij, 'Early? Late?: a Reply to F.H. Cryer', S/OT 11 (1997), pp. 41-43. 5 See, for the time being, my artic\e 'Analysis, imitation and emulation of classical texts in the Hebrew Bible', Dlltcl1 Stlldies-NELL 3(1996), pp. 43-68. 6 There is much more to this dependence, to be discussed in my monograph, TI1e Origin of tile History of Israel: Herodotlls' Histories as Bllleprint for tl1e First Books of tl1e Bible, which I hope to see in print soon, but here it must suffice that it is, in fact, remarkable that the parallel has apparently never drawn attention, as it can only be said to be very striking: in one work a campaign by an army of millions setting out from Lydia to conquer Greece across King Xerxes' bridges of boats over the HeHespont, the waterway between Asia and Europe, in the other work a nation of millions leaving Egypt to conquer the Promised Land through the Red Sea near the border of Africa and Asia, a story told in the last three books of nine in Herodotus' work and in numbers two through six of the originally also nine books of Primary History, with later Israelite history relegated to the last three books. See also my 'Analysis, imitation and emulation'.

340

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

celebrate Passover in 419 BCE),7 but the literary pattern is far more general than that. It would seem that the book of Ezra was structured after Nehemiah, and that Daniel derived various structural features hom the history of Joseph in Genesis 37-50 and from the book of Ezra. It should be noted, of course, that we are dealing with Iiterary dependence here: no verdict whatsoever about the historical reliability of the works with derived structure is implied. Irregularity of form and certain apparent inconsistencies in these works can often be explained by exposing the common overall structure that they share with other works within or outside of the same tradition. One of the consequences is that the formation of the canon of the Hebrew Bible becomes a much more transparent process than it used to be. The most likely scenario would seem to be that in the course of almost three centuries, from the writing or final redaction of Primary History between ca. 445 and 425 BCE until the beginning of the Hasmonaean era around 165 BCE, at times new works were being added to the collection of books that finally came to be the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. After being incorporated, the work's form was henceforth to a considerable degree safeguarded against change.8 The final result is a collection of books, which modern scholarship, though it often recognizes it as well-formed and expressing dear theological ideas, usually regards as having surprisingly arisen through a process of redaction from ancient texts and fragments of texts that were written in a completely different era for completely different purposes.9 Instead, it may weil be that we have to take the canonical form of the Hebrew Scriptures far more seriously than has been the almost general scholarly habit for a long time, that most of the individual books were written as a whole at one time instead of being the result of a gradual development, and that we can determine at least with some degree of likeliness in which order many books were written, so that we can make reasonable conjectures about which part of the biblical literature was al ready available to the author of a certain book. It is dear that Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH), as we will call the language of Primary History here, more or less in agreement with The la test survey of this episode is P. Schäfer, Judeophobia. Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA/London, 1997), pp. 124-28.

7

See my artic1e 'Irregularity, Congruence and the Making of the Hebrew Bible' (to appear). 9 Contrast, for example, in his artic1e 'Canon' in the Anchor Bible Dictionary(6 vols.; New York, 1992), J.A. Sanders's conviction that the canon constitutes a tangible whole with his statement: 'Modern critical study has shown that the stories of the patriarchs and matriarchs in Genesis stern from various ancient sources .. .' (Vol. 1, 844, §l). 8

WESSELIUS: THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

341

many others,lO is dosely related to the type of Hebrew that we find in inscriptions of various kinds from the kingdom of Judah. There are some differences of vocabulary and especially of spelling, but on the whole SBH must be the continuation of the southern linguistic tradition. This observation, strangely enough, leads some to think that large parts of this literature were written in the time when SBH was the officiallanguage of the kingdom of Judah, and others to state as their opinion that SBH is an antiquarian imitation of the language of the southem kingdom,l1 whether or not it is considered as the spoken language of the time. I would say that it may be better to pronounce a non liquet about this problem straightaway. Even without the considerations about the date of Primary History as presented above, the mere fact that we cannot rnake a linguistic distinction between the supposedly pre-exilic parts of Primary History and its post-exilic parts or the signs of redactional activity of the post-exilic period means that we simply cannot assign Prirnary History a precise time in the development of the Hebrew language on purely linguistic grounds (apart from the fact that it must be earlier than works that reflect its linguistie forms), because from this simple fact it appears that this type of Hebrew was still written very weIl after the period when political circumstances caused its rise and flourishing, so weIl indeed that no one has yet been able to formulate criteria that distinguish it from preexilie SBH.12 It is dear that the Hebrew of Primary History largely eontinues the literary Hebrew of the time of the monarchies, but we simply lack the linguistic tools to date the work, or parts of it, to 700 BCE, 550 BCE or 400 BCE, not to mention even more extreme dating by some scholars. We must rely on non-linguistic criteria here, and they rnake it very probable that a large part of the work was written in the fifth century, while not excluding the possibility that parts of it may go back to much older texts. The relationship of this type of Hebrew with the spaken Hebrew of, let us say, Jerusalem before or after the Captivity will probably never become entirely dear. It seems very likely that the process of relatively regular growth of the canonical Scriptures as outlined above has also exerted eonsid10 For example in the books by Kutscher and Saenz-Badillos mentioned in note 1. 11 See, for example, E.A. Knauf, 'War "Biblisch-Hebräisch" eine Sprache? Empirische Geschichtspunkte zur linguistischen Annäherungan die Sprache der althebräische Literatur', ZAH 3 (1990), pp. 11-23. 12 Even R. Polzin's penetrating study Late Biblical Hebrew. Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Missoula, 1976), in spite of its many useful observations, does not give a simple list of criteria that would enable one to determine whether, in the terms of the book, a given chapter or passage is 'P' or 'non-P'.

342

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

erable influence on the linguistic options of the authors who composed new books. A field in which this is especially discemible is the spelling of the Hebrew Bible, which exhibits some variety and development, but is on the whole remarkably consistent in its regular and irregular features.13 This consistency was apparently one of the factors that led eryer to formulate his rather extreme thesis, with which we started this article, that the entire Hebrew Bible was written more or less as a whole. Unfortunately, the discussion about this provocative idea has hitherto focused on polemic rather than on trying to understand each other's dilemmas. Briefly said, the two observations that must be reconciled are, first, that the 'look and feel' of Biblical Hebrew is indeed remarkably constant throughout the books of the Hebrew Bible and, second, that there are substantiallinguistic differences between various books, especially in lexicon and syntax. All this is complicated by the literary observation that together the books form a rather tightly knitted whole, presenting a reasonably consistent view of pre-exilic Israel and an adequate blueprint for later Jewish culture. The basic problem in the linguistic fjeld is, I wouId say, that in the tremendous linguistic variation in the manuscript tradition of Ben Sira and in the biblical and especially the non-biblical manuscripts from Qumran we see what happens when every writer 'does what is right in their eyes' in the absence of a Iiterary standard language other than that of the books of Scripture. The question, then, must be why this did not happen in the later books of the Hebrew Bible, and why they remained relatively elose to the language of Primary History. There must indeed have been some special limitation on authorial freedom there, for some of the Dead Sea ScroIls apparently only postdate by a few decades or perhaps even antedate some of the latest biblical books such as Daniel and (perhaps) Ezra and Esther, and Ben Sira is almost certainly earlier than Daniel. What criterion governed the use of words and forms that belong more to the later stages of the Hebrew language than to the language of Primary History? Of course one of the determining factors must have been the tension between spoken Hebrew and SBH, which was partly resolved by mixing the two. Still, in books of the Hebrew Bible this was apparently not the arbitrary process that we see in the manuscript tradition of Ben Si ra and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is really something to setting so-ca lied Late Biblical Hebrew apart, because the books that exhibit innovations often agree among themselves in the deviations from SBH that are found in them. 14 A popular explanation for this is to assume only a 13

See especially

J. Barr, The Variable Spellings in

the Hebrew Bible (Oxford,

1989). 14

Against S. 6lafsson, 'La te Biblical Hebrew. Fact or Fiction?', in Z.J. Kapera

WESSELIUS: THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREW BIßLE

343

common linguistic development here, but this solution encounters certain practical problems and there may be a better one, which keeps the influence of linguistic development while eliminating the problems. Unlike the authors of post-biblical writings, who were only moving in the field of tension between Biblical Hebrew and their own spoken dialect, the would-be writers of biblical books probably also took into account the language of the books that had already been accepted as canonical. They probably wrote their books with the intention, the hope or the certainty that they were to be incorporated in this canon, and for this reason they tried to remain within the boundaries of its tradition to a reasonable degree, and there is no reason why they would have made an exception for language. This is not to say that they merely imitated the language that we have come to accept as more or less standard Biblical Hebrew, namely of the Primary History, which stretches from Genesis until the end of 2 Kings, for it is unlikely that they deliberately discerned its language from that of other biblical books, but they were undoubtedly influenced by the language of everything that was already accepted as Scripture. Thus there was indeed a linguistic standard that authors tried to conform to, as supposed by many scholars, but this standard did not remain constant: at first the language of Primary History may have served as such, but later the standard was continually modified by the addition of new works. This process of change must indeed have been very important. We are used to thinking in terms of a large part of the Hebrew Bible being in SBH, which is entirely true in quantitative terms, but hardly in numbers of works: apart from Primary History only scattered pieces of text in SBH are to be found (mainly in Isaiah and Jeremiah), and no other book is written entirely in SBH prose. All this means that a book such as Nehemiah, once it had been accepted into the canon, would provide potential authors with a precedent for using certain words from the spaken language, while such a precedent would be lacking for certain other words. The influence of this shifting standard would naturally be greater for books that derive their structure or material from books that had already been accepted in the canon, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel or Esther, than for those that did not have this kind of precedent, such as Kohelet or Song of Songs. A good example may be the use of the verb 10lJ for 'to rise' (for which SBH would normally use C'P), recently discussed in some de-

344

SIRACH, SCROLLS, AND SAGES

tail by A. Hurvitz. 15 Of course it is possible that the authors of books such as Nehemiah, Ezra, Chronides, Daniel and Ben Sira all let their spoken language, where 101' was probably indeed used both for 'to stand' and for 'to rise', influence what they wrote, though the distinction of the two verbs in SBH is quite straightforward, so that we would hardly expect such a universal shift if it depended on the individual choice of the authors. Therefore it seems somewhat more likely that one of these books (in view of what is stated below, most likely Nehemiah) provided the precedent of using 101' for 'to rise', with the result that the others feit that it would be legitimate to write what was anyway sounding more natural to them. Such processes may playa far greater role than would appear at first sight, with the result that no proof for the absence of a certain feature in the spoken language can be derived from negative evidence. Thus the distinction between r1' 'wood' and 1?'~ 'tree', wh ich is found in Rabbinic Hebrew, as against the use in the Hebrew Bible of r1' for both, may weil have been in effeet already at the time the late biblical books were composed, but failed to be expressed in writing due to the absence of a preeedent. Still, this does not explain how the influx of elements of the spoken language in SBH started, for one can hardly imagine highly capable authors like those of the later books of the Hebrew Bible not being able to keep to the linguistic forms of Primary History, had they decided to do so. With some hesitation I would like to present the possibility that the tension between SBH, wh ich after all was at least three centuries old by the time of writing of Primary History, and the spoken dialects of Hebrew was already effective in the late fifth and early fourth century BCE, and that one or more books with linguistic influence from spoken Hebrew were added to the canon at a very early date, perhaps with the intention of contrasting them with Primary History, so that a difference of language would be fully functional. I would say that the book of Nehemiah, which after all is the only one of the entire Hebrew Bible to tell us when (the first part of) Primary History was first recited and generally accepted (in chs. 8-9), is a very good candidate for this position. Such a book, whether it is Nehemiah or some other work, would henceforth legitimize the use of non-SBH (ed.), Intertestamental Essays in Honour of J6zeJTadeusz Milik(Krak6w, 1992), pp. 135-47. 15 A. Hurvitz, 'The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a Link between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects', in T. Muraoka and J,F. Elwolde (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Leiden Ul1il1ersity 11-14 December 1995 (Leiden, 1997), pp. 72-86 (78-83). Note that, because Hurvitz studied only part of the semantic range of this verb, the one clear occurrence of 1011 'to rise' in Nehemiah (8.5) is not mentioned.

WESSELIUS: TIIE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

345

forms, a margin of opportunity that then naturally widened with book after book, leading to a great distance from SBH especially when the book dealt with subjects not encountered elsewhere in the canonical books. In a way, our conclusions are disappointing in view of the advances made in determining the origin and nature of many books of the Hebrew Bible. We really do not know the status of SBH in the early Second Temple Period, nor whether texts from the period of the First Temple have been incorporated in, for example, Primary History, and we also had to note that the reallinguistic state of spoken Hebrew in this period is largely obscured through the literary nature of the texts. Sometimes, however, the realization of the limits of our knowledge is more useful than polemic, which mainly serves to re fine one's power of argumentation. What we did note is that most of the books of the Hebrew Bible were indeed written within a few centuries and move both linguistically and in content in the field of tension between the realities of Second Temple Judaism of the fifth to second centuries BCE and the Golden Age of Ancient Israel as perceived at this time.

INDEX OF TEXTS Bible

Genesis 1.6 199 2.13 324 3.1 138 3.20 182 3.20f. 7,20 3.5 192,325 4.2ff. 291 4.13 14 6.5 89 6.18 268 7.3 103 8.21 89 9.4 138 9.11 267, 271 9.12ff. 267 11.6 177 13.7 294 14.10 69 14.12 294 14.13 68f., 294 15.2 227 15.12 295 15.18ff. 291 17.7 268 17.9ff. 272 17.11 267 17.13 271 17.14 265 17.19 268f. 17.23ff. 272 18.1 294 18.8 294 18.9 303 18.16 295 18.17 299, 321 19.32 103 20.17 14 22.1ff. 272 23.8 229 24.13 297

24.15 94 24.15f. 297 24.27 41 24.30 297, 302 24.42 323 24.43 297 24.45 297 24.62 292, 294 26.28 265 27.9 329 27.15 8 28.10ff. 292 29.2 201, 288 29.9 80 31.29 155 31.42 186 31.47 291 32.7 298 33.13 325 37.2 209 37.7 281 37.15 192, 283,292, 302,304 37.15f. 285, 297,321 37.16 192, 283 37.17 303 38.13 288 38.24f. 291 38.25 192 39.3 285, 296,323 39.4f. 10 39.7 172 39.8 328 39.22 304 39.23 285, 296,323f. 40.19 70 41.1 302, 304 41.2 301

41.18 301 41.44 140 42.9 288 42.14 288 42.16 288 42.34 288 45.12 288 47.15f. 236 48.2 288 48.16 263 48.22 8 49.7 287 49.26 9 49.29 300 50.25 180 Exodus 2.6 288 2.13 288 3.14 263 4.25 265, 273 5.16 3Olf. 5.22 15 6.27 324 8.25 299 9.17 166 11.4 299 12.4 263 12.9 138 12.11 198 12.19 190, 272 12.43 138 14.14 174 14.15 232 15.6 164 15.15 103 19.18f. 294 20.1ff. 294 20.12 186 20.13 139 20.18 294 21.5 328 21.13 182f. 22.27 144

23.3 169 23.9 211 24.5 8 26.24 251 26.30 290 27.8 290 28.2 6 28.28 7 28.37 7 28.40 6 29.33f. 138 32.4 97 32.11 232 32.16 97 32.28 153 33.11 149 33.22 79 34.3 236 37.19 290 38 8,20 39.21 7 39.31 7 40.23 89 Leviticus 5.2 218 6.26 169 7.15 214 8.26 214 9.22 208 11.24ff. 216 12.3 272 14.4 89 14.6 89 14.8 218 14.49 89 14.51f. 89 16.19 85 16.30 16,85 19.3 186 19.5 214 19.14 144 19.15 169f. 19.19 219 19.29 220 19.31 144

348 21.8 185f. 21.14 220 22.16 214 22.29 214, 219 23.10 192 23.46 218 26.32 198 27.29f. 214 Numbers 1.50 10 5.10 264 6.24ff. 11 9.6 263 11.1 15 11.2 209 11.12 149 14.19 92 15.27 218 15.30f. 218 15.31 265 15.38 7 16.29 180f. 19.3f. 215 19.6 89 19.8ff. 215 19.21 215 20.13 16 23.19 224 24.18 321, 329 27.8 226 Deuteronomy 1.31 149 4.12 87 4.22 211 5.2 265 5.29 138 6.5 184f. 7.1 192 7.3 139 7.21 42 7.24 135 7.26 138, 219 9.4 143 9.5 314 9.6 190

INDICES 9.7 200 9.22 200 9.24 200 10.12 184ff. 10.16 272 11.8 192 11.21 275 12.23f. 138 12.31 219 13.1 135 13.15 152 15.2f. 153f. 16.19 192 17.4 152 17.11 138 19.4 328 19.5 272 19.6 328 20.5 316 21.17 154f. 21.22 70 23.2ff. 85 23.7 144 23.15 42, 198 23.19 139 24.10 134 26.16 186 28.29 149 28.50 169 29.17 95 29.28 44 30.12 34 31.3 299 31.7 164 31.27 200 32.21 224 33.16 9 34.7 179 Joshua 5.14 283 6.4 27 6.6 27 7.9 262 7.10 283 8.29 68ff. 10.13 80 23.6 138 23.7 134

Judges 1.19 136 2.2 275 3.1 81 3.25f. 291 3.26 79 5.8 161 6.30 265 6.36 192 7.5 149 8.4 301 9.8 17 11.27 321 14.6 225 17.5 153 18.9 174, 212 20.46 264 22.17 85 1 Samuel 2.11 296 2.18 296 2.21 296 2.26 296 3.7 94 3.1lf. 290 6.3 303 6.20 135 9.14 295 10.3 284 10.5 299 10.8 299 10.11 304 11.2 271 12.3 175f. 12.14 140 14.8 299 14.18 291 14.19 80 14.39 323 16.1 284 17.23 294 17.25 302 17.34 200 17.55 325 18.16 328 19.2 297 19.11 192, 299 19.17 233

20.8 269 20.14 260 20.15 260, 265 20.17 260 23.1 297 23.17 325 23.20 155 24.22 262 26.19 287 30.3 290 30.16 290, 304 31.1 293 2 Samuel 1.18 293 7.15 257 8.10 174 11.25 264 12.22 325 12.23 300 13.4 328 14.13 90 14.19 155 15.13 68,70 15.28 299 16.3 302 16.11 297 17.12 149 18.12 300 18.22 300 18.24 293 19.2 298 20.1 231 23.4 226 24.3 300 1 Kings 2.2 283 2.20 280 3.6 258 5.22 164 8.9 265 8.13 12 8.21 265 8.39 12 8.43 12 9.11 155 11.2 134, 139

349

INDICES 11.41 305 12.16 231 14.14 251 17.14 89 17.20 107 18.5 272 18.21 283 20.36 73 22.3 174 2 Kings 2.9 154f. 4.13 155 7.8 109 9.22 BO 10.4 161 10.21 101 17.29f. 199 21.16 101

Isaiah 1.4 102 1.782 1.16 108 3.4 248 4.5 13,21 5.8 236 5.9 93 5.29 235 6.3 15,21 8.1 92,97 8.13 186 9.1 92 9.4 28 9.6 260 10.12 4 10.32 181 11.9 149 12.6 92 13.8 7 13.11 82 13.19 4 14.2 199 14.22 262 14.23 111 16.4 236 16.5 259f. 17.11 105 19.6 82 20.5 4 26.10 235

27.1 93 27.6 94f. 27.13 92 28.2 104 28.15 265 28.21 82 29.6 92 29.20 236 29.23 186 30.6 150 30.8 258 30.12 86,93 30.20 199 30.30 104 34.6 92 34.9 99 35.8 101 35.9 101 36.4 92 36.13 92 36.18 230 38.3 92 40.20 259 40.29 227 41.12 81 41.24 151 42.22 235 44.13 5,8, 181,251 44.18 86 48.19 262, 265 50.10 86 52.1 101 54.793 54.10 257 54.12 11 54.14 260 54.15 97 55.3 260 55.10 150 55.11 182 56.2 263 56.4f. 262f. 56.12 92 57.1 235 59.2 199 59.5 85, 150f. 59.17 244, 250 60.21 11 61.3 11

62.3 7 63.7 91 63.14 16 65.2 104

Jeremiah 2.3 219 2.34 95 7.11 101 7.19 86 9.23 258 11.8 269 12.4f. 162 15.5 174f. 16.5 260 16.5ff. 134 17.4 154 17.16 325 17.21 135 17.27 135 18.11 327 18.22 101 20.13 95 23.19 106 23.20 88 23.28 152 23.38 143 25.6 144 25.31 40 26.3 327 29.7 175 30.2488 31.36 103 32.19 92 33.8 85 33.21 265 34.10 269 34.18 271 38.6 103 38.19 230 38.22 103 46.6 236 49.3 105 49.12 229 50.30 81 51.12 177 51.51 103

Ezekiel 7.22 101 13.1 Off. 100

14.4-5 102 16.8 269 16.22 200 16.29 267 18.10 101 19.10 200 20.37 269 22.6 155 23.12 251 24.13 85 27.10 81 27.24 251 27.27 81 31.12 82 36.25 85 36.33 85

Hosea 2.16 299 2.25 303 3.5 186 4.1 40 4.4 139 4.15 134 5.13 85 6.4 149 7.4 291 7.6 284 9.7 291 9.15 291 10.12 BO, 258 10.13 28 12.1 291 12.2 265 13.15 251

Amos 5.5 144 5.21 328 6.10 136 7.8283 8.2 283

Obadiah 9 265

INDICES

350 Jonah

Malachi

1.12 325 1.1583 4.2 79 4.883

l.llf. 212 1.7 310 2.12 265 2.16 328 3.16 97 3.18 99f. 3.2 106 3.3 102

Micah 1.4 109,149 1.12 100 2.3 326 4.9 265 Nahum 1.3 1.6 2.1 3.3

92 135 101 84

Habakkuk 1.4 161 2.6 225 3.10 104 Zephaniah 1.4 262 2.2 93 3.5 161 Haggai 2.4 272 Zechariah 1.6 177 2.7 308 5.7308 9.6 85 9.9 306 9.12 310 9.16 304 10.1 288 10.5 288 13.2 262 13.5 288 13.8 154

Psalms 1.3 285, 323f. 2.4 178 7.3 95 8 10 8.5 96 10.2 88 12.7 108 15.2 9 15.5 107 17.4 101 18.5 106 18.51 329 19.2 317 21.12 88 32.9 227 33.5 258 33.22 257 35.25 143 36.1 258 36.5 104 36.8 257 37.10 111 37.12 90 40.3 111 40.1lf. 257f. 44.16 86 45.2 322, 329 49.7ff. 176f. 51.4 85 54.5 82 68.36 251 69.886 72.13 95 72.19 16 76.8 135 77.9 236 77.20 111 80.10 95

82.3 95 83.17 86 85.11 259 86.14 82 88.12 257 89.3 257 89.14 164 89.15 257, 259 89.30 275 90.2 94 92.12ff. 11 93.1 259 95.10 80 96.10 259 97.7 210 102.29 103 103.17 258 104.5 259 105.2 98 109.21 262 117.2 257 118 119 118.6 231 Ps 119 160 119.41 257 119.53 87, 103 119.76 257 122.2 200 122.6 175 132 17 138.1 262 140.3 97 140.6 101 141.10 80 142.4 101 144.3 96 145.7 91 145.8 92 147.5 226 148.3ff. 140 Job 1.1880 5.3 95 5.6 101 7.17 96 7.19 79 12.24 226 15.11 251 15.14 96

15.17 78 15.20 106 15.32 234 18.9 101 20.16 150 21.2 251 21.8 103 23.10 102 28.14 226 30.26 100 31.1 232 32.13 230 35.2 326 36.18 230 37.9 85 37.12 251 38.6 103 38.32 85 39.22 177f. 40.28 265 Proverbs 1.5 251 1.8 127f. 1.10 127 2.1 127 2.12 251 3.1 127 3.3 257,260 3.5 86,93 3.11 127, 139 3.25 236 3.28 143 4.1 127f. 4.9 7 4.10 127f. 4.14 134 4.20 127 5.1 127f. 5.7 127 5.23 234 6.1 127 6.3 127 7.1 127 7.24 127 8.5 127 8.25 94,103 8.32 127 9.6 127 10.31 248 11.14 251

351

INDICES 12.3 259 12.5 251 12.9 178 12.21f. 183 16.12 260 16.29 104 16.31 7 17.3 102 18.14 106 19.10 167 19.19 92 19.27 127 20.9 85 20.18 251 20.28 257 21.7 110 21.21 258 22.24 125, 139 23.7 235 23.10 135 23.15 127 23.26 127 24.6 251 24.13 127 24.14 272 24.21 127, 139 24.23 235 26.18 84 26.20 235 27.11 127 27.21 102 31.4 229 31.17 164 31.25 178 Song of Songs 1.6 284 1.7 233,284 1.13 210 2.8f. 284 5.2 284 5.5 284 5.12 284 5.13 210 7.8 284 8.4 232 8.13 284

Ecclesiastes 1.4ff. 310 1.10 78 3.14 135, 227 3.15 321 6.10 262 6.12 325 7.17 234 7.27 78 7.29 78 8.9 78 9.5 287 Lamentations 2.782 2.16 177 3.17 82 3.21 82 Esther 1.7 306 1.9 98 2.9 207 2.11 307 2.19f. 307f. 2.23 70 3.2 307 3.3 309 3.8 309 3.14 308 4.2 134,227 4.3 305 4.11 309, 325 4.14 309, 325 4.16 234 5.1 306 5.14 70 6.470 6.5 309 7.8 306 7.9 309 7.10 70 8.770 8.16 8 8.17 305, 307

9.3 307 9.13 70 9.19 281, 308 9.20ff. 148 9.24 90 9.25 70 9.28 310 10.2 305 10.3 281 Daniel 1.10 233 2.9 107 2.10 15 2.34 234 5.19 104 6.16 137, 228 6.27 104 8.5 224 8.27 224 9.786 9.13 264 11.4 157f. 11.14 101 12.13 165 Ezra 3.3f. 287 3.12 307 4.2 308 6.8 136f. 7.23 233 9.15 135 10.6 310 Nehemiah 1.4 199 2.4 280 3.15 190 5.18 199 5.19 156 6.6 327 6.14 156 7.3 79f. 8.5 334 8.10 227 9.5 16 9.7 272

9.8 265,272 10.1272 10.32 153f. 10.34 89 12.31 251 13.14 156 13.18 212 13.22 156 13.29 156 13.30 85 13.31 156 1 Chronicles 2.30 226 2.32 226 3.5 147 5.1 136 9.32 89 15.2 136f., 230 le 16.9 98 16.30 259 20.8 147 21.17 136 22.4 237 23.26 135f. 23.29 89 28.9 82,89 29.5 153 29.13 16 29.18 89 2 Chronicles 2.15 164 5.10 265 6.2 12 6.30 12 6.32 12 6.39 12 11.14 82 13.9 153 13.11 89 14.10 227f. 19.7 169f. 20.6 135, 228 20.25 237 23.3 265 25.24 251 26.16ff. 208 26.18 207,

352 215 29.19 82 32.21 86 34.3 85 35.21 81

Ben 5ira 1.10 124 1.15 124 3.1 124 3.5 124 3.6 121 3.6f. 185 3.8 125f., 128 3.10 12,122, 224f. 3.11 12,124, 185 3.12 12, 125f. 3.14 122ff., 236 3.16 185 3.17 125f., 128 3.18 119 3.21 122ff. 3.22 119, 226 3.23 122 3.25 235 3.26 166 3.27 106 3.28 228 4.1 95,126f. 4.2f. 122ff. 4.4 125,144, 238 4.7 119,121, 131 4.9 119 4.13 12 4.14 124 4.20 121, 124,126, 171 4.21 12 4.22 130, 170,171 4.23f. 121 4.25f. 171

INDICES

4.27 122 4.28 119f., 130 5.1 93,155 5.2 56 5.3 321 5.4 231 5.5 59,122, 130 5.7 56 5.8 59 5.10 130 5.11 119, 121,130, 199 5.12 225 5.14f. 122ff. 6.5f. 173ff. 6.8 236 6.13 62,119, 121 6.15 227 6.21 56 6.22 225 6.26 184, 186 6.28 53 6.29 7 6.30 7,11 6.31 17 6.32 127 6.35 119, 121 6.37 120, 186 7.1 236 7.3ff. 130 7.10 122f., 131 7.17 120, 131 7.21 53 7.24 62 7.26 123 7.27ff. 184ff. 7.29 120f., 186 7.30 120, 125 7.31ff. 119f. 8.1 233 8.1ff. 131 8.3 122

8.8 120 8.9 57 8.15 122f. 8.15ff. 131 8.16 122f., 235 8.17ff. 122ff. 9.1ff. 131, 144 9.3 122 9.3ff. 131 9.4f.122 9.8 225 9.9 122f. 9.13 125, 236 9.14 120f. 9.16 9 10.1 312 10.6 122ff. 10.9 232 10.13 167 10.16 111 10.22 9,95 10.23 144, 227,238 1O.24f. 53 10.27 178 10.28 126, 128 10.29 126 10.31 161f., 312 11.4 10,122 11.5 235 11.6 120 11.7 122 11.8 123, 126f. 11.9 82, 107, 123f., 235, 238 11.10 126f., 232 11.12 100, 178 11.20 126 11.27 123 11.29 225, 228 11.30 312 11.33 125, 233

11.34 60, 120 12.1 60 12.2 119, 250 12.5 123, 154,I60f., 233 12.6 329 12.12 233 12.15 106 13.2 232 13.6 312 13.8 62 13.9 120 13.11 59 13.12 313 13.13 6Of. 13.17 232 13.22 225 14.3 166f. 14.4 163 14.6 229, 250 14.10 166 14.11 126f., 155 14.12 226 14.13 120f. 14.14 123f. 14.16 144, 228 14.18 149 15.12 230 15.13ff. 182f., 187 15.14 60,88 15.16 120 15.20 225 16.1f. 163 16.3 59,122 16.13 236 16.16 161 16.21 326 16.24 57, 120f. 18.32 154 18.33 225 19.1 107 20.4 149, 321 20.6 227 20.16 121

353

INDICES

20.18 121 20.22 171 23.4 172f. 23.9f. 124 24 3,7,11 24.17 124 24.21 124 24.23 9 25.6 124 25.9 121, 124 25.18 234 27.10 124 27.13 121 30.8 124 30.12 233 30.19 223, 232 30.20 149 30.23 120 30.24 234 30.27 126f. 30.31 [33.23] 120 31(34).2 329 31(34).7 9 31(34).10 9f. 31(34).12 126f. 31(34).13 161,179, 329 31[34].14 123 31[34).15 120f. 31(34).16 125 31(34).18 123 31(34).22 SO,120, 126,128 31(34).2432(35).7 54 31(34).25 123 31(34).27 161 32(35).1ff. 263 32(35).3 126

32[35].4 123,232, 234f. 32[35].7 126f. 32[35].9 107,123f. 32(35).10 161,167 32(35).11 120f., 123f., 182 32(35).12 59,123f. 32.12-13 [35.14ff.] 169f. 32(35).13 120,250 32(35).15 228 32(35).16 164 32(35).1633(36).2 53ff. 32(35).19 234,238 32(35).19f. 123f. 32(35).20f. 131 32(35).21 120 32[35).22 120,232 33(36).1ff. 12f., 126 33(36).2ff. 62 33(36).3 61 33(36).4 120 33(36).6f. 164 33(36).10 165 33.1011[36.1022) 165 33(36).14 13,17,20 33(36).17 236

33(36).18 165 33[36].21 119 33[36].22 182 33(36).24ff. 53 33[36].25 235 33(36).26 226f., 238 37.3 127 37.6 122 37.8 62, 120f. 37.10 120 37.19 53 37.22 53 37.24 53 37.27 124, 126, 128 37.28 225 37.31 62, 234 38.1 161 38.4 123, 236 38.6 10 38.8 321 38.9 126ff. 38.10 120f. 38.12 236 38.16f. 126ff. 38.21 232 38.25 10, 232 39.19f. 226 39.21 143, 226f. 39.25 161 39.34 143, 145,227, 229,239 39.35 120f. 40.1 182 40.12ff. 257ff. 40.17 257, 261,277 40.26 143, 227

40.27 13 40.28 89, 126,166 40.29 229 41.1 324 41.1ff. 261ff. 41.2 227, 236,238 41.4 232 41.10 236 41.11 237, 261, 277 41.14 121, 127 41.15 109 41.16 53, 167f., 225 41.19 160f. 41.21 173f. 41.22 107 42.1 167, 170f. 42.1ff. 168 42.2 123f. 42.5 161 42.8 60,61, 162 42.9f. 230 42.10 230f., 239 42.11 126, 128 42.12 123f. 42.16 15 42.17 14,19 42.19 162 43.3 105 43.5 161 43.9 84 43.12 12 43.13 82,84, 161 43.17 64 43.25 164 43.26 182 44.1 2 44.2 13,92 44.76 44.8 86 44.12 267 44.13 13 44.17f. 264ff.

INDICES

354 44.19 13, 268 44.20 63, 273 44.20f. 268ff. 44.21 236 44.23 5,12 45 11 45.3 19 45.4 5 45.6f. 19ff. 45.8 6f., 10, 13,18 45.10 7 45.11 11 45.12 7,13, 16,18 45.16 5,10 45.17 267 45.20 13,19 45.25 14, 18f.,21 46.19 175 47.2 149 47.4 4 47.8 13,17, 312f. 47.20 13 48.4 10 48.8 250 48.9 64 48.12 154f., 164 48.14 164 48.17f. 181f. 48.25 162 49.2 162 49.5 13,20 49.6 11 49.12 13 49.14 4 49.14ff. 179ff. 49.15 4,6,9 49.16 4ff., 8ff.,20 50.1 6,9 50.4 60 5O.5ff. 8 50.7 7,11, 149 50.10 149

50.11 6f.,13, 17 50.12 11 50.13ff. 14f. 50.20 1Of. 50.22 120 50.23 277 50.24 3, 153, 269, 274ff. 50.25 224 51.4 237 51.7 225 51.8 99 51.12 119, 244 51.13 94 51.18 177 51.25 234 51.26 120 51.30 120f. Tobit 3.6 39 11.11 36 13.1 35 Jubilees (5) 3.278 23.21 162 36.10 83 Ethiopie Enoeh 14.20 17 25.3 17 36.4 17 102.3 17 Dead Sea Serolls lQIsaa 9.892 10.12 92 16.14 165 29.5 82 29.9 105 38.17 185 54.15 97

1QpHab 3.4f. 37,80 3.12 83 10.9 36 11.12 36 lQApGen 22.1 69 22.33 227 lQHa (15, 77ff.) 1.2 92 1.6 107 1.7 94 1.10f. 93 1.1184 1.1283 1.19f. 93 1.24 97f., 101 1.26f. 45 1.28 93 1.32 92f. 2:1.9 92 2.5 194 2.10 193 2.22 29 2.23 28f., 96 2.27 85,104 2.28 150 2.29 101 2.32 95 2.33 28 2.34 95 3.3 96 3.4 109 3.8 lOH. 3.12 40,150 3.13 193 3.15 109f. 3.17 106, 150 3.18 150 3.21 85 3.24 79 3.25 95,110 3.27 106 3.31 40,99, 102

3.32 193 4.880 4.990 4.10 88,90, 108 4.13 86,93 4.13f. 88 4.14 39,95 4.18f. 102 4(12).20f. 226 4.22 37 4.23 79,86, 100,102 4.24 194 4.26 90,98, 101 4.29 95f., 101 4.29f. 41 4.3Of. 3H. 4.33 103 4.34 109 4.34ff. 97, 101 4.36f. 86 5.427 5.6 88 5.10 96 5.13f. 95 5.16 102, 108 5.18 95 5.21f. 110f. 5.26 88 5.30 87,103 5.35 86 5(13).37 237 6.3 84f. 6.8 85,108 6.8f. 38 6.20f. lOH. 6.21 107 6.22 89 6.23 83 6.25 194 6.27 103, 105 6(14).28 237 6.29 81 6.35 8Of. 7:2.10 96 7.2 103,111

INDICES 7.4 83 7.781 7.9 104f. 7[15].11 226 7.12 96, 100f., 110 7.17 96 7.25 42 7.30 92 7.32 87 7.32f. 92 8.6f. 94 8.9 105 8.30 108 8.31 96,106 8.32 109 8.33 96 8.34 140 8.35 84 8.37 84 9.1 96 9.3 107 9.4 37 9.5 106 9.782 9.8 105 9.996 9.11 82,84f. 9.13 105 9.16 96 9.18 193 9.20 86,90, 98, 101 9.22 86 9.30f. 37 9.32 152 9.33f. 30 10.4 28 10.5 89 10.9 87 1O[18].10f. 14 10.16 91ff. 10.17 86 10.23 % 10.32 37 10.33 103 11.5 98,102 11.7 92,105 11.7f. 31 11.8 45 11.9 37,45 11.10 85

11.11 109 l1.17f. 29 11.23 99 11.29ff. 91ff. 12.5 92 12.9 31 12.10 87 12.21 100, 102 12[20].30 228 12.30f. 139 12.35 107 13.11 94 13.16 96 13.17 92 14.2 100 14.9 100 14.12 99, 102 14.14 100 14.16 100 14.17 92 14.18 100 14.23 92f. 15.7 92 15.12 96 15.13 32, 194 15.14 94 15.17 96 15.18 104 15.19 92 15.20f. 92 15.21 96 15.22 31 16.9 28 16.12 91ff. 17.14 103 17.20 29 17.25 96 18.14 95 18.18 78 18.21 96 18.23 96 18.26 78ff. 19.2f. 96 30.2 105 lQM 1.8 92 1.10 81

355 1.11 316 1.12 81 2.1 198f. 2.2 199 2.9 35 2.10 35,81 3.11 81 4.2ff. 30f. 4.8 92 4.12 81 5.3f. 38 5.6f. 29 5.8 36 5.1 Off. 38 6.2f. 84 6.10f. 38 7.4 41 7.6 40 7.11 38 7.14 27 7.14f. 38 8.4f. 30 9.1 194 9.5 81 9.14 38 10.1 42 10.3 81 10.4 316 11.1 29 11.4 28 11.10 31 12.1 40 12.2 36 12.3 97 12.7 42 12.8f. 37, 39 12.10 104 12.12 163 12.12f. 39 13.5f. 37 13.7 42 13.10 39 13.12 27 13.13f. 28 14.17 92 15.1 81 15.1f. 45 15.9f. 27 15.12 81 16.9 81,314 16.14 81 17.2 212 17.4 212

17.5 31 17.7 40 17.8 212 17.15 81 18.13 27 19.2 104 lQS 1.6 90,230 1.7 193f. 1.8 109,193 1.12 184 1.13 228 1.13ff. 137 1.16 190 1.18 1% 1.20 316 1.22 99 2.1 190 2.7 237 2.10 316 2.19 198 2.25 193f. 3.228 3.2f. 40 3.4 108 3.15 31,94 3.16 228 3.16f. 31 3.19 44 3.20 4,45, 181 3.22f. 35f. 4.486 4.6ff. 45 4.11ff. 36 4.17ff. 39 4.22 27 4.23 4,27, 181 5.6 194 5.9 193 5.11 193 5.14 39f. 5.17 234 5.18 25,93 5.19f. 36 5.20 38 6.13 193f. 6.14 80 6.25 326 7.9 44,194

356 7.10f. 44 7.15 194 8.1 193 8.tf. 29 8.8104f. 8.15 193 8.18 108 8.18f. 43 9.10 109 9.13 193 9.16 139 9.19 193 9.24 87,193 9.25f. 99f. 10.4 29 10.8 39 10.9 37,99 10.16 93 10.16f. 32 10.18 32 10.22 39 10.24 193 11.2 28 11.4 28, 104f.,193 11.4f. 31 11.5 28,39, 193 11.9 42 11.10 45 11.10f. 28 11.11f. 42 11.12 37 11.14 92 11.18 87 11.21 28 1QSa 1.9 109 2.7 162 1Q29 89 1Q34bis 140 1QHb [lQ35] 92

INDICES 2.7f. 34 2.1H. 36 3.9f. 36 4.6ff. 33 6.5f. 29 6.1 Hf. 33 8.4ff. 33 9.1ff. 33 9.14ff. 34 9.17ff. 33 10.H. 36 10.9 105 1l.9f. 34 12.1 36 12.10 36 12.11 38

4Q179 155 4Q18O 94 4Q18236 4Q183 103 4Q18483, 172 4Q185 212 4QTobe [4Q200)

4QPs f [4Q88) 157

1:1.4 39 4.3 326 52 36 65 35

4QpIsa b [4Q162) 36

4QEnochc [4Q204) 244

4QpIsa c [4Q163) 36, 104

4Q215a 93

4QpIsa d [4Q164) 313 4QpHosa [4Q166] 186 4QpNah [4Q169) 1.8 70 3:2.8 250 4Qppsa [4Q171) 90,208

3Q15 (32)

4QFlor [4Q174] 91

1.5ff. 32 2.5f. 30

4Q176 93, 162

4QJubh [4Q22324) 83 4Q225 197

4QDa [4Q266) 1.1 103 11.16 98, 101 6:1.15 89 4QDd [4Q269) 215 4QDe [4Q270) 1:1.1 88 6:4.19 80 4QDg [4Q272) 89 4Q274 108, 184 4QBerf [4Q28O) 90 4QBe~

[4Q286]

4Q253a 100

1.5 92 7:2.788

4QSb [4Q256] 29

4QMystb [4Q300] 94

4QSc [4Q257) 28,40

4Q30698

4QSd [4Q258) 4:1.1 29 4:1.8 37

4Q325 27 4Q369 31 4Q370 88 4Q372 93 4Q375 42 4Q376 36

357

INDICES 4Q379 93 4Q380 313 4QNonCan Psb [4Q381) 14.3 140 45.2-3 90 46.6 82 47.3 313 4QpsEzeka [4Q385) 111 4QApocJerc [4Q385b) 197 4Q393 229f. 4QMMT (26,335) A 1.4ff. 29 A 2.3ff. 29 A2.6ff. 26 A 3.6ff. 29 A 4.3ff. 29 A 5.2ff. 26 89ff. 215 811f. 207 B 12 98,198 813 214 813ff. 215 816 198 816f. 207 81798 817ff. 216 825f. 207 826 98 829 327 831 317 837 327 838 207, 211,217 83985 846 207, 211,217 848 207, 216

B58138 B 58ff. 213 B5936 B 64ff. 218 B68 207, 211,326 871 138 875ff. 219 880 207, 211,326 882 207, 216 C Hf. 219 C 4 219f. C 5ff. 220 C 7211 C8207 C 8f. 220 C 27f. 31 4QShir Shabba [4Q400) 1:1.17-18 30 2.1 316 2.2 316 4Q401 316 4Q402 32 4QShir Shabbd [4Q403) 1:1.3 245 1:1.8 92 1:1.31 245 1:1.32 28

4Q416 1.1380 2:3.8 87 4Q41789 4Q418 2.5 80 81.2 103 81.19 92 103:2.7,8 98

10:2.12 81 11:1.13 87 11:1.14 37 11:1.18 37 11:2.8 81 11:2.18 37 11:2.19 81 4Q44485 4Q446 93 4Q460 82

4Q424

4Q501 87

1.4 104 3.4 98

4Q504 87

4QHa [4Q427) 3:1.8 92 3:2.2 163 7:1.13 93 7:1.21 92 7:2.14 96

4QShirb [4Q511) 1.8 106 2:2.4 86 35.1 83 52:3.2 92 4Q512 102

4QHb [4Q428)

4QBeat [4Q525)

3.7 99 11.7 109

7.17 163 11.4 89 14:2.15 250

4QHc [4Q429) 1:2.3 108 1:3.8 88 1:4.3 88

4QShir Shabb f [4Q405) 30,39, 106,317

4Q43483

4Q437 103

4Q415-418 313

4QMa [4Q491)

4Q43683

1-3.10 40 1.14 81 10:2.10 81

4Q542 244 5QRegle [5Q13) 4.2 108 26.3 103 11 QPsa [11Q5) (177,184) 19.1 99 19.3 99 19.14 59 19.22 59 21.1194 22.5 99

358

INDICES

llQT [l1Q1920]

11QShir Shabb [llQ17]

17.10 29 18.8 198 20.12f. 214 20.15f. 74 27.4 198 33.10f. 39 34.6ff. 335 34.12 36 34.13 36,43 35.13 200 36.12f. 30 38.15 30 39.13ff. 30 4O.11f. 39 4O.13f. 30 41.5ff. 30 42.11 335 42.12 198 43.5 198 46.15 198 46.18 31,41 48.11 190 48.17 31,41 49.12 250 5O.5ff. 335 51.12 57 51.13 192 51.17 57 54.8ff. 335 55.5 152 55.20 152 57.11ff. 38 57.20 57 59.4 198 6O.6ff. 44 61.14 190 64.8ff. 70

3-4.3 106 8:1.5 6

11 QPsb [l1Q6] 59 11QAppsa [l1Q11] 2.7326 2.8 211

Murabba'at 3.13 198 24:2.15 198 42.6 197 42.6 197 CO 1.1 128 1.2 40 1.15 226 1.16ff. 335 2.1 36 2.2 128 2.4f. 39 2.794 2.10 31 2.14 128 2.16 90 3.1 149,315 3.13 35 3.18 35 3.20 4,36 4.6 107 4.11 139 5.6f. 315 5.7 317 5.10 287 5.13 315 6.10 87 6.10f. 80 6.14f. 103 8.1 44 8.8 102 8.14 314 8.16 44 8.17f. 29,44 8.18f. 43 9.2ff. 315 9.11 184 9.20 315 10.10 80 12.2ff. 335 12.4f. 29 12.10 184

12.15ff. 335 13.2ff. 335 13.3 28 13.6f. 28 13.17 43 14.20 326 15.6f. 43 15.13 287 16.12 43 18.1 149 19.13f. 44 19.20 102 19.27 314 19.28f. 44 19.30f. 29, 44 20.1f. 43 20.8f. 43 20.12 43, 107 20.13ff. 42 20.14 80 20.20 100 Genizah Psalms 1.24 103 2.13 78 3.23 99

Inseriptions, ete. Yavneh Yam inser. 200 Sefire inser. 3.6 201 Proverbs of Ahiqar 128f. Hermopolis papyri 5.8 73 A6.1:3 200 07.6:10 200

Rabbinie Literature Mishnah Avot 3.17 224 Avot 5.17 336 Avot 5.20 86, 168 Avot6.2 97 Bava Me~ia' 1.4 74 Bava Me~ia' 1.19 100 Bava Me~ia' 4.6 250 Bava Me~ia' 6.1 250 Berakhot 1.1 336 Berakhot 9.2 83f. Berakhot 9.5 184 Eduyyot 1.14 91 Eduyyot6.3 91 Gi\tin 5.6 229 I:Iagigah 2.1 209 I:Iullin 4.4 91 I:I ullin 9.1 f. 216 I:I ullin 9.4 91 I:Iullin 12.3 106 I:Iullin12.5 91 Kelim 3.8 91

359

INDICES Kelim 9.4 91 Kelim 10.3 106 Kelim 21.2 91

Rosh Hashanah 2.9 234

Kilaim 4.9 72

Sanhedrin 5.5 105

Makhshirin 1.6 91 Makhshirin 3.lf. 91 Makhshirin 3.6 106 Makhshirin 6.2 91

Shabbat 1-5 189ff. Shabbat 24.5 72

Miqwa'ot 1.7f.91 Miqwa'ot 4.1 91 Miqwa'ot 4.3 106 Miqwa'ot 5.3f. 91 Miqwa'ot 9.2 91 Mo'ed Qatan 1.5 lO7 Nazir9.2 85 Nega'im 7.4f. 85 Nega'im 13.1 91 Niddah 9.10 85 Oholot 18.6 83 Pa rah 3.7 215 Pa rah 11.8 91 Pe'ah 5.5 74

Pesa~im

336

4.1

Sotah 8.1 212 Sukkah 2.5 72 Sukkah 5.4 250 Ta'anit 3.8 83, 194 Taharot 3.8 91 Taharot 5.2 91 Taharot 8.1 91 Terumot 1.1 224 Terumot 2.7 100 Uq~in

91

1.4

Uq~in

3.6

Uq~in

3.12

101

336

Yadaim 4.5 250 Yadaim 4.6 216 Yevamot 16.6 73

Yoma 189 Yoma4.216 Zavim 2.2 100 Zavim 3.2 91 Zwirn 4.3 91 Zeba~im

85

7.6

Tosefta Avodah Zarah 2.3 100 Avodah Zarah 6.5 81 Bava Me~ia' 6.18 107 Bava Me~ia' 7.3 88 Bava Qamma 6.14 250 Bava Qamma 7.8 250 Bava Qamma 7.22f. 90 Bava Qamma 8.1 90 Berakhot 1.11 81 Kippurim 4.4 lOO Parah3.7 215 Sotah 14.8 100 T aharot 11.5

101 Terumot3.1 100 Terumot 7.9 100 Uq!?in 3.6 lOl Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 134b 162 Bava Me!?ia' 104a 249 Bava Qamma 82b 105 Berakhot 58b 84 Berakhot 59a 83 Eruvin 54a 97,226 Makkot 23a 179f. Megillah 3a 249 Pesa~im

113b 173 22b 185

Pesa~im

Qiddushin 66a 166 Sanhedrin lOOb 163, 231 Sotah 42b 4 Yevamot 63b 163

INDICES

360 Palestinian Talmud Berakhot9 (14b) 185 Bikkurim 33 (65x) 174 GiHin 1.2 (43c) 172 GiHin 50.3 194 Shevi'it 9.5 (39a) 174 Avot of Rabbi Nathan 2.10 209 Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael Bal)odesh 3.121 84 Bal)odesh 5.10 81 Bal)odesh 9.88 168 Bal)odesh 11.110 (100) Beshallal)

1.44-46 81 Pisl)a 11.2426 16 Pisl)a 16.56 100 Shirata 4.56 83 Wayyassa' 1.88 250 Wayyassa' 6.6 81

Sifre Numbers

Hekhalot Rabbati

76.2 81 86.1 209 92.4 96

35.4 210

Sifre Deuteronomy

Shofetim8 210 Genesis Rabbah 91.5 172

20.17 86

32 100 38 212 42 83 76 96 192 212 199 81 321 81

Sifra

Sifre ZuHa

21.8 174

Bel.\Uqqotay 3.1 212 Mek. Millu'im to Lev.9.22 209 $aw 12.1 214 23.3 (I:Iovah 9.1) 100 92.3 (Al)are Mot 8.3) 100 98.1 (Emor 6.1) 100

18.29 (299) 100 30.14 (328) 100

Numbers Rabbah 19.32 101

Seder 'Olam Rabbah

Midrash Bereshit

11.8 81 17.7 81 20.5107 25.5 81 30.11 81

81.13 210

Mekhilta of Simeon b. Yol.lai

Pesiqta Rabbati 20 210

Tanl.\Uma

Leviticus Rabbah

Midrash Tehillim Ps. 18.5 106

INDEX OF HEBREW AND ARAMAIC WORDS AND PHRASES 148 173ff., 327ff. c'iI.Il m~ 267 il:l:l'~ 161f. J"~ 344 J'~ 133ff., 223ff., 287, 323 il~'~ 289 ,~ 134ff., 223ff.

127, 289ff., 314 164f. iO~ 297,322 no~ 152 O~~ 223ff. il,l)~~ 85, 150ff. i1i~ 331 ifD~ 47,227,234,274, 289ff., 305,

m~

[l~

:::J.'~

ro~

361

INDICES 311,313 99, 264f. ..q) 0'1111' cn~1 206, 211ff. 1'10 235, 238f. i~J 313 ~1J 297 111J 163 fUlJ 167f. nt!)J 59,86 il::lJ 322 1JJ? ?::lJ 183ff. 11~0 ?::lJ 183ff. ?J 223ff. ~'?:J 234, 238 )1iil~'D 214ff. O'Jill::lil 'D 214ff. ~J 297,321 11iJ 287 n'iJ 256ff. piJ 84 itZ/J 95f., 271f. O'JE) ntZIJ 86 C'!'l1 ilJ) 172f. '?ö) 92f. i1) 96f. iJ1 297 1i159,104 ,1 68ff., 284, 288ff., 305, 316f., 324 11il 10,13, 17 '1il 127 il'il 195ff. '::l'il 162 ~?il 313 l?il 297 ilJil (1) 288ff. i~~m 3ff. ~I 78f., 95f. 11 SOff. )111 96f., 109f. ::1.'1 102 iil! 60 i'il! 60, 120 ~

mll

87

1111 104ff.

'11 102f. pl/P'I 83f. i::ll 97 il~l1'?1 87f., 103 ilOI 88ff. cr.lI 90f.,98 iOI 98f. nJl 82f. '1111 83 nm 99 ?fUl::llpl 162 '1 103 ilil 84f. 11"1 164 1'1 164f. Cil 104 l1il 103,274 p?n 161 ion 257ff. 'l~n 166 pn 62,198, 268ff., 333, 335 ilin 59 t!)in 97f. JfI)fj 90f., 326ff. 'lnn 60 ~t!)~t!) 110f. l1Jt!) 103f. iilt!) 85,91, 108f. :nt!) 86, 91ff., 99f. n1t!) 86,100 ~oo 101 lot!) 101,109 Cit!)(J) 93ff. 'l't!) 95 111' 297, 324ff. ~~, 297 ,~, 327 tZ/, 287,323 Jtu' 292, 297 -::l 64 itZ/~::l 149,311,313 '1:J::l 3ff. C1~ 11J::l 4, 181 J::ll::l 84

INDICES

362 259f. 28f., 4Of., 47, 289ff., 296f., 304f., 311,313ff. ~,~ 314 ~,~ 162 'n?~ 5, 7, 10 167f. p 313 i5l~ 10,176 m~ 256ff. .,i~:l 305 ~? 134ff., 167, 223ff. )'~? 237, 239 li' ?~? 155 i~~? 289,313 J? 166 'n?:::l? 134ff. -? "~i O'J;"~;' 'JJ? 206ff. J1~ ,~

rm

~?7

on? 160f. ~"" 237ff. m~? 231ff. ill? 260 np? 57 i~O 184 'no~o

336

i'Xl 68ff. 'iO 314 ;,0231ff. t!l10 259 '710 272 115110 164 np,,"o 336 ;'J~no 89f. "'~~ ;'t!l0 16Of. '0 313 i' ~'7o 153 ;,on'7o BOf. JO 60,64,311 'nmoo 166f. ;'1~0 62,269,333,335 i' ?:l ~~ 153f. m'~ 333,335 O'OO~ 333, 335

nmJ 163f. iTJ 102f. ;,n? OJ 178f. '10J 63 )'10J 63 O?llJ 175ff. ~5lJ 62 J~ 297 n~ 161 i~J 62 -J J~J 86,93 O'J5l ~~J 168ff. Jm 322 iOO 148 ill 78ff., 258f., 311, 313 ;'ill 62 i'll 287 O?'ll 2f., 176, 258ff., 264 Tll 18 )'ll 89 ;'?ll 297 iOll 297, 343f. rII 68ff., 344 ;'fDll 321 in5l 183ff. O'~ '5l 154f. t!l'?5l 68ff. J5l 223ff. ?ll5l 165 ip5l 4,10, 179ff. i'P5l 62 nl15l 142 ;'Pi~ 257ff. Oip 15 ?'p 284, 288f. o'p 343 ;'~j 297 l~i 288f. 'l~i 207ff., 220 ~ii 297 oni 165, 175 J1~i 182f. pnfD 177f. ?~ 57f.

INDICES noo 165 327ff. -lD 305,311,313, 315, 317 -tW] 315 ~ID 322 Cl':llo '?ltllD 173ff. n:::lID 244 :::llID 63 inID 57 1t'7!D 234 1100 322

363 ,00

62

Cilt n'J:::ln 181

100

lr.mm 248 il,m 62 ilEl '?l1:::lID il,m 335f. ilen 164 niltOO 4ff. Cilt niltEln 5,179ff. '?pn 58f. il'?pn 58 nm:::lfDn 244ff.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS addressing system 334f. anteriority (see 'verb tenses') Aramaic influence 147,165, 200f., 228 Aramaisms 161,244, 250 assimilation 88, 107f., 246f. Ben Sira manuscripts 21,53ff., 117, 163ff., 253f., 342 Biblical allusions 2,10, 20f., 148ff. Biblical expressions 2,148ff., 256ff. Biblical imitation 57, 77f., 160ff., 318 Biblical quotations 61,148 binyanim 104ff. casus pendens 123

chiasmus 118, 121, 123f., 130 circumstantial clause 27ff., 235, 307 elause type 26ff., 278ff. collective noun 69 concurrence (see 'verb tenses') contrastive consituents 26ff., 212 contrary-to-fact condition 300 dating of texts 132ff., 210, 338ff. definite artiele 44,68ff. definiteness 25ff., 68ff. diachrony (see 'linguistic development') dialects 147 direct discourse (see 'text type') dissimilation 246f., 249 emphatic structures 21lf. exegeticallanguage 47, 206ff.

existential elause 25,33f. extraposition 35, 4H., 127, 131 final elause 230f. generic noun 73ff. genre (see 'text type') Herodotus 339f. idiomatic expressions 16Off., 254ff. imperative 32f., 118ff., 156f., 199 imperfect 130, 157f., 201, 281ff. independent elause (see 'elause type') infinitive 94, 133ff., 207, 213, 227ff. information structure 26ff., 229 inscriptions 14Off. jussive 199,213,223 Late Biblical Hebrew 77ff., 132ff., 146ff., 192, 195, 200, 237, 239, 342 lexicography Hf., 77ff., 160ff., 253ff. linguistic development Hf., 77ff., 133ff., 146ff., 168, 189, 253ff., 278ff. li terary influence 77ff., 102ff., 148, 186f., 339f. locative elause 25ff. main elause (see 'clause type') metathesis 60, 107f. metre 257,261,264,269,274 modality 300f., 310 narrative (see 'text type') negation 223ff.

INDICES

364

negative command 118, 122ff., 238 nomen agentis 248 nominal dause 25ff., 35, 189, 223ff., 303, 324 non-existence 225ff. non-presence 225ff. omission of subject 224, 237, 301ff. orthography 63, 92f., 107, 245, 342 parallelism 117f. participle 188ff., 211, 278ff., 335 participle, complementary 194 participle, periphrastic 188ff. participle, position of 200 poetry (see 'text type') possessive predicate 25ff., 155 precepts, Mishnaic 335 prepositional phrase 25ff., 120ff., 228

prescriptive statements 29f., 38, 197ff. prescriptive texts (see 'text type')

prose (see 'text type') pseudo-dassicisms 146ff. redaction 205ff., 338 relative dause 31, 226f. resumptive phrase 34 resumptive pronoun 31 semantics Hf., 77ff., 253ff. spoken Hebrew 279ff., 34lf. subordinate dause (see 'dause type') texttype 26ff., 117, 197, 223, 278ff., 333ff. Ugaritic 174,289, 319ff. verbal adjunct 281 verbal aspect 192, 200f., 310 verbal complement 194,281 verb tenses 148ff., 188ff., 211, 278ff.,335 vocative 118ff. volitive 23Of., 330 wisdom vocabulary 7 word order 25ff., 117ff., 225ff., 282,288

STUDIES ON THE TEXTS OF THE DESERT OF JUDAH I. Wernberg Meiler, P. The Manual rif Discipline. Translated and Annotated, with an Introduction. 1957. ISBN 90 04 02195 7 2. Ploeg,]. van der. Le rouleau de la guerre. Traduit et annote, avec une introduction. 1959. ISBN 90 04 02196 5 3. Mansoor, M. The TIulnksgiving Hymns. Translated and Annotated with an Introduction. 1961. ISBN 90 04 02197 3 5. Koffmahn, E. Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wuste Juda. Recht und Praxis der jüdischen Papyri des I. und 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. samt Übertragung der Texte und Deutscher Übersetzung. 1968. ISBN 90 04 03148 0 6. Kutscher, E.Y. The Language and linguistic Background 01 the Isaiah Scroti (1 Qfs~). Trans!. from the first (1959) Hebrew ed. With an obituary by H.B. Rosen. 1974. ISBN 90 04 04019 6 6a. Kutscher, E. Y. The Language and Linguistic Background 01 the Isaiah Scroti (1 Qfsaa). Indices and Corrections by E. Qjmron. Introduction by S. Morag. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05974 I 7. Jongeling, B. A Classijied Bibliography rif the Finds in the Desert rif Judah, 1958-1969. 1971. ISBN 90 04 02200 7 8. Merrill, E.H. Q.umran and Predestination. A Theological Study of the Thanksgiving Hymns. 1975. ISBN 90 04 042652 9. Garcia Martinez, F. QJLmran and Apoca!Jptic. Studies on the Aramaie Texts from Qumran. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09586 I 10. Dimant, D. & U. Rappaport (eds.). The Dead Sea Serolls. Forty Years of Research. 1992. ISBN 90 04 096795 11. Trebolle Barrera, ]. & L. Vegas Montaner (eds.). The Madrid QJLmran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Serolls, Madrid 1821 March 1991. 2 vols. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09771 6 set 12. Nitzan, B. QJLmran Prayer and R.eligious Poetry 1994. ISBN 90 04 09658 2 13. Steudel, A. Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der QJLmrangemeinde (4Q.MidrEschat a.b). Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 ("Florilegium") und 4QI77 ("Catena A") repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden. 1994. ISBN 90 04 09763 5 14. Swanson, D.D. The Temple Scroll and the Bible. The Methodology of IIQT. 1995. ISBN 90 04 09849 6 15. Brooke, G.]. (ed.). New QJLmran Texts and Studies. Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. With F. Garcia Martinez. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10093 8 16. Dimant, D. & L.H. Schiffman. Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness. Papers on the Qumran Serolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University,Jerusalem, 1989-1990. 1995. ISBN 9004 102256 17. Flint, P.W. The Dead Sea Psalms Serolls and the Book rif Psalms. 1997. ISBN 9004 10341 4 18. Lange, A. Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. 1995. ISBN 9004 10432 I 19. Garcia Martinez, F. & D.W. Parry. A Bibliography rif the Finds in the Desert rif Judah 1970-95. Arranged by Author with Citation and Subject Indexes. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10588 3

20. Parry, D. W. & S. D. Ricks (eds.). Current Research and Teehnologieal Developments on ehe Dead Sea Serolls. Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10662 6 2 J. Metso, S. The Textual Development qf the Qymran Communiry Rule. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10683 9 22. Herbert, E.D. Reeonstructing Biblieal Dead Sea Serolls. A New Method applied to the Reconstruction of 4QSam a. 1997. ISBN 90 04 106847 23. Bernstein, M., F. Garcia Martinez & J. Kampen (eds.). Legal texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995. Published in honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10829 7 24. Lefkovits, J.K. The Copper Seroll - 3QJ 5: AReevaluation. A new Reading, Translation, and Commentary. ISBN 90 04 10685 5 (In preparationJ 25. Gleßmer, U. Die Ideale Kultordnung: 24 Priesterardnungen in den Chranikbüchern, kalendarischen Qumrantexten und in synagogalen Inschriften. ISBN 90 04 10837 8 (In preparationJ 26. Muraoka, T. & J.F. Elwolde (eds.). The Hebrew qf ehe Dead Sea Serolls & Ben Sira. Praceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10820 3 27. Falk, D.K. Dairy, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Serolls. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10817 3 28. Stone, M.E. & E.G. Chazon (eds.). Biblieal Perspectives: Earry Use and Interpretation qf the Bible in Light qf the Dead Sea Serolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scralls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May, 1996. 1998. ISBN 90 04 109390 29. Hempel, C. The Laws qf ehe Damascus Document. Sources, Tradition and Redaction. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11150 6 30. Parry, D.W. & E. Ulrich (eds.) The Provo International Coriference on the Dead Sea Serolls. Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11155 7 3 J. Chazon, E.G. & M. Stone (eds.) Pseudepigraphie Perspectives. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Serolls. Proeeedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Serails and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997. 1998. ISBN 90 04111646 32. Parry, D.W. & E. Qjmron (eds.) The Great Isaiah Seroll (lQ]saaJ. A New Edition. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11277 4 33. Muraoka, T. & Elwolde, J.F. (eds.) Sirach, Serolls, and Sages. Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Serails, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15-17 Deeember 1997.1999. ISBN 90 04 11553 6